The Project Gutenberg eBook of History for ready reference, Volumes 1 to 5, by J. N. Larned

"Students of history are doomed to watch it repeat."
—Dozens of similar observations.

"History For Ready Reference" consists of 7 physical volumes, 3 kg. each. The last two volumes are supplements relating to events after 1890.

The first five volumes form a single logical volume of 3935 pages, printed as 5 physical volumes. To make searches and cross references more convenient, this file combines these five volumes.

The beginning of each volume is at these page numbers:
   Volume 1 - {1}
   Volume 2 - {769}
   Volume 3 - {1565}
   Volume 4 - {2359}
   Volume 5 - {3129}
   SUPPLEMENT - {3669}

This production does not include an html version. The individual html files integrate the maps and other images, but provide no other useful service. Furthermore, my internet browsers do not reliably handle the size of this file.

A list of all words used in this work is found at the end of this file as an aid for finding words with unusual spellings that are archaic, contain non-Latin letters, or are spelled differently by various authors. Search for:

I use these free search tools:
Notepad++ — https://notepad-plus-plus.org
Agent Ransack or FileLocator Pro — https://www.mythicsoft.com

The following modifications are intended to provide continuity of the text for ease of searching and reading.

1. To avoid breaks in the narrative, page numbers (shown in curly brackets "{1234}") are usually placed between paragraphs. In this case the page number is preceded and followed by an empty line.

To remove page numbers use the Regular Expression: "^{[0-9]+}" to "" (empty string)

2. If a paragraph is exceptionally long, the page number is placed at the nearest sentence break on its own line, but without surrounding empty lines.

5. Use of em dashes and other means of space saving are replaced with spaces and newlines. Many abbreviations are expanded to full words to simplify searches.

————————————————-
MAIN SUBJECT TITLE IN UPPER CASE
Subheading one.
Subheading two.

      John Smith,
      External Citation Title,
      Chapter 3, page 89.
————————————————-

   Main titles are at the left margin, in all upper case
   (as in the original) and are preceded by an empty line.
   Some main titles include several synonyms or alternate spellings.

Subtitles (if any) are indented three spaces and
immediately follow the main title.

   Text of the article (if any) follows the list of subtitles (if
   any) and is preceded with an empty line and indented three
   spaces.

   References to other articles in this work are in all upper
   case (as in the original) and indented six spaces. They
   usually begin with "See", "Also" or "Also in".

Citations of works outside this book are indented six spaces and in italics (as in the original). Italics are indicated by underscores:

   —————Subject: Start————
   —————Subject: End—————
   indicates the start/end of a group of subheadings or other
   large block.

7. The bibliography in Volume 1, APPENDIX F on page xxi provides
   additional details, including URLs of available internet
   versions. Search for:
     {xxi}

8. Minor formatting irregularities have corrected:
      Citations in the earlier volumes have been changed to:
         Author
         Title
         Location in work.

To search for words separated by an unknown number of other characters, use this Regular Expression to find the words "first" and "second" separated by between 1 and 100 characters:

   To search for titles,
      USE ALL UPPER CASE;
      Set "Match Case";
      Begin the search text with a circumflex to indicate
      the beginning of the line:

^MAGNESIA

—————————————————————————————-

For All Uses, Extending To All Countries And Subjects,
And Representing For Both Readers And Students The Better
And Newer Literature Of History In The English Language

With Numerous Historical Maps From Original Studies
And Drawings By Alan C. Reiley

Volume I—A To Elba

The Riverside Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. United States Of America Printed by H. O. Houghton & Company.

This work has two aims: to represent and exhibit the better Literature of History in the English language, and to give it an organized body—a system—adapted to the greatest convenience in any use, whether for reference, or for reading, for teacher, student, or casual inquirer.

The entire contents of the work, with slight exceptions readily distinguished, have been carefully culled from some thousands of books,—embracing the whole range (in the English language) of standard historical writing, both general and special: the biography, the institutional and constitutional studies, the social investigations, the archeological researches, the ecclesiastical and religious discussions, and all other important tributaries to the great and swelling main stream of historical knowledge. It has been culled as one might pick choice fruits, careful to choose the perfect and the ripe, where such are found, and careful to keep their flavor unimpaired. The flavor of the Literature of History, in its best examples, and the ripe quality of its latest and best thought, are faithfully preserved in what aims to be the garner of a fair selection from its fruits.

History as written by those, on one hand, who have depicted its scenes most vividly, and by those, on the other hand, who have searched its facts, weighed its evidences, and pondered its meanings most critically and deeply, is given in their own words. If commoner narratives are sometimes quoted, their use enters but slightly into the construction of the work. The whole matter is presented under an arrangement which imparts distinctness to its topics, while showing them in their sequence and in all their large relations, both national and international.

For every subject, a history more complete, I think, in the broad meaning of "History," is supplied by this mode than could possibly be produced on the plan of dry synopsis which is common to encyclopedic works. It holds the charm and interest of many styles of excellence in writing, and it is read in a clear light which shines directly from the pens that have made History luminous by their interpretations.

Behind the Literature of History, which can be called so in the finer sense, lies a great body of the Documents of History, which are unattractive to the casual reader, but which even he must sometimes have an urgent wish to consult. Full and carefully chosen texts of a large number of the most famous and important of such documents—charters, edicts, proclamations, petitions, covenants, legislative acts and ordinances, and the constitutions of many countries—have been accordingly introduced and are easily to be found.

The arrangement of matter in the work is primarily alphabetical, and secondarily chronological. The whole is thoroughly indexed, and the index is incorporated with the body of the text, in the same alphabetical and chronological order.

Events which touch several countries or places are treated fully but once, in the connection which shows their antecedents and consequences best, and the reader is guided to that ampler discussion by references from each caption under which it may be sought. Economies of this character bring into the compass of five volumes a body of History that would need twice the number, at least, for equal fulness on the monographic plan of encyclopedic works.

Of my own, the only original writing introduced is in a general sketch of the history of Europe, and in what I have called the "Logical Outlines" of a number of national histories, which are printed in colors to distinguish the influences that have been dominant in them. But the extensive borrowing which the work represents has not been done in an unlicensed way. I have felt warranted, by common custom, in using moderate extracts without permit. But for everything beyond these, in my selections from books now in print and on sale, whether under copyright or deprived of copyright, I have sought the consent of those, authors or publishers, or both, to whom the right of consent or denial appears to belong. In nearly all cases I have received the most generous and friendly responses to my request, and count among my valued possessions the great volume of kindly letters of permission which have come to me from authors and publishers in Great Britain and America. A more specific acknowledgment of these favors will be appended to this preface.

The authors of books have other rights beyond their rights of property, to which respect has been paid. No liberties have been taken with the text of their writings, except to abridge by omissions, which are indicated by the customary signs. Occasional interpolations are marked by enclosure in brackets. Abridgment by paraphrasing has only been resorted to when unavoidable, and is shown by the interruption of quotation marks. In the matter of different spellings, it has been more difficult to preserve for each writer his own. As a rule this is done, in names, and in the divergences between English and American orthography; but, since much of the matter quoted has been taken from American editions of English books, and since both copyists and printers have worked under the habit of American spellings, the rule may not have governed with strict consistency throughout.

J. N. L.

In my preface I have acknowledged in general terms the courtesy and liberality of authors and publishers, by whose permission I have used much of the matter quoted in this work. I think it now proper to make the acknowledgment more specific by naming those persons and publishing houses to whom I am in debt for such kind permissions. They are as follows:

Professor Evelyn Abbott;
President Charles Kendall Adams;
Professor Herbert B. Adams;
Professor Joseph H. Allen;
Sir William Anson, Bart.;
Reverend Henry M. Baird;
Mr. Hubert Howe Bancroft;
Honorable S. G. W. Benjamin;
Mr. Walter Besant;
Professor Albert S. Bolles;
John G. Bourinot, F. S. S.;
Mr. Henry Bradley;
Reverend James Franck Bright;
Daniel G. Brinton, M. D.;
Professor William Hand Browne;
Professor George Bryce;
Right Honorable James Bryce, M. P.;
J. B. Bury, M. A.;
Mr. Lucien Carr;
General Henry B. Carrington;
Mr. John D. Champlin, Jr.;
Mr. Charles Carleton Coffin;
Honorable Thomas M. Cooley;
Professor Henry Coppée;
Reverend Sir George W. Cox, Bart.;
General Jacob Dolson Cox;
Mrs. Cox (for "'Three Decades of Federal Legislation," by the
late Honorable Samuel S. Cox);
Professor Thomas F. Crane;
Right Reverend Mandell Creighton, Bishop of Peterborough;
Honorable J. L. M. Curry;
Honorable George Ticknor Curtis;
Professor Robert K. Douglas;
J. A. Doyle, M. A.;
Mr. Samuel Adams Drake;
Sir Mountstuart E. Grant-Duff;
Honorable Sir Charles Gaven Duffy;
Mr. Charles Henry Eden;
Mr. Henry Sutherland Edwards;
Orrin Leslie Elliott, Ph. D.;
Mr. Loyall Farragut;
The Ven. Frederic William Farrar, Archdeacon of Westminster;
Professor George Park Fisher;
Professor John Fiske;
Mr. William. E. Foster;
Professor William Warde Fowler;
Professor Edward A. Freeman;
Professor James Anthony Froude;
Mr. James Gairdner;
Arthur Gilman, M. A.;
Mr. Parke Godwin;
Mrs. M. E. Gordon (for the "History of the Campaigns of the
Army of Virginia under General Pope," by the late
General George H. Gordon);
Reverend Sabine Baring-Gould;
Mr. Ulysses S. Grant, Jr. (for the "Personal Memoirs" of the
late General Grant);
Mrs. John Richard Green (for her own writings and for those
of the late John Richard Green);
William Greswell, M. B.;
Major Arthur Griffiths;
Frederic Harrison, M. A.;
Professor Albert Bushnell Hart;
Mr. William Heaton;
Colonel Thomas Wentworth Higginson;
Professor B. A. Hinsdale;
Miss Margaret L. Hooper (for the writings of the late
Mr. George Hooper);
Reverend Robert F. Horton;
Professor James K. Hosmer;
Colonel Henry M. Hozier;
Reverend William Hunt;
Sir William Wilson Hunter;
Professor Edmund James;
Mr. Rossiter Johnson;
Mr. John Foster Kirk;
The Very Reverend George William Kitchin, Dean of Winchester;
Colonel Thomas W. Knox;
Mr. J. S. Landon;
Honorable Emily Lawless;
William E. H. Lecky, LL. D., D. C. L.;
Mrs. Margaret Levi (for the "History of British Commerce,"
by the late Dr. Leone Levi);
Professor Charlton T. Lewis;
The Very Reverend Henry George Liddell, Dean of Christ Church, Oxford;
Honorable Henry Cabot Lodge;
Richard Lodge, M. A.;
Reverend W. J. Loftie;
Mrs. Mary S. Long (for the "Life of General Robert E. Lee," by
the late General A. L. Long);
Mrs. Helen Lossing (for the writings of the late Benson J. Lossing);
Charles Lowe, M. A.;
Charles P. Lucas, B. A.;
Justin McCarthy, M. P.;
Professor John Bach McMaster;
Honorable Edward McPherson,
Professor John P. Mahaffy;
Capt. Alfred T. Mahan, U. S. N.;
Colonel George B. Malleson;
Clements R. Markham, C. B., F. R. S.;
Professor David Masson;
The Very Reverend Charles Merivale, Dean of Ely;
Professor John Henry Middleton;
Mr. J. G. Cotton Minchin;
William R. Morfill, M. A.;
Right Honorable John Morley, M. P.;
Mr. John T. Morse, Jr.;
Sir William Muir;
Mr. Harold Murdock;
Reverend Arthur Howard Noll;
Miss Kate Norgate;
C. W. C. Oman, M. A.;
Mr. John C. Palfrey (for "History of New England," by the late
John Gorham Palfrey);
Francis Parkman, LL. D.;
Edward James Payne, M. A.;
Charles Henry Pearson, M. A.;
Mr. James Breck Perkins;
Mrs. Mary E. Phelan (for the "History of Tennessee," by the
late James Phelan);
Colonel George E. Pond;
Reginald L. Poole, Ph. D.;
Mr. Stanley Lane-Poole;
William F. Poole, LL. D.;
Major John W. Powell;
Mr. John W. Probyn;
Professor John Clark Ridpath;
Honorable Ellis H. Roberts;
Honorable Theodore Roosevelt;
Mr. John Codman Ropes;
J. H. Rose, M. A.;
Professor Josiah Royce;
Reverend Philip Schaff;
James Schouler, LL. D.;
Honorable Carl Schurz;
Mr. Eben Greenough Scott;
Professor J. R. Seeley;
Professor Nathaniel Southgate Shaler;
Mr. Edward Morse Shepard;
Colonel M. V. Sheridan (for the "Personal Memoirs" of the
late General Sheridan);
Mr. P. T. Sherman (for the "Memoirs" of the late General Sherman);
Samuel Smiles, LL. D.;
Professor Goldwin Smith;
Professor James Russell Soley;
Mr. Edward Stanwood;
Leslie Stephen, M. A.;
H. Morse Stephens, M. A.;
Mr. Simon Sterne;
Charles J. Stillé, LL. D.;
Sir John Strachey;
Right Reverend William Stubbs, Bishop of Peterborough;
Professor William Graham Sumner;
Professor Frank William Taussig;
Mr. William Roscoe Thayer;
Professor Robert H. Thurston;
Mr. Telemachus T. Timayenis;
Henry D. Traill, D. C. L.;
General R. de Trobriand;
Mr. Bayard Tuckerman;
Samuel Epes Turner, Ph. D.;
Professor Herbert Tuttle;
Professor Arminius Vambéry;
Mr. Henri Van Laun;
General Francis A. Walker;
Sir D. Mackenzie Wallace;
Spencer Walpole, LL. D.;
Alexander Stewart Webb, LL. D.;
Mr. J. Talboys Wheeler;
Mr. Arthur Silva White;
Sir Monier Monier-Williams;
Justin Winsor, LL. D.;
Reverend Frederick C. Woodhouse;
John Yeats, LL: D.;
Miss Charlotte M. Yonge.

Messrs.
W. H. Allen & Company;
Asher & Company;
George Bell & Sons;
Richard Bentley & Son;
Bickers & Sons;
A. & C. Black;
Cassell & Company;
Chapman & Hall;
Chatto & Windus:
Thomas De La Rue & Company;
H. Grevel & Company;
Griffith, Farran & Company;
William Heinemann:
Hodder & Stoughton;
Macmillan & Company;
Methuen & Company;
John Murray;
John C. Nimmo;
Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner & Company;
George Philip & Son;
The Religious Tract Society;
George Routledge & Sons;
Seeley & Company;
Smith, Elder & Company;
Society for the Promotion of Christian Knowledge;
Edward Stanford;
Stevens & Haynes;
Henry Stevens & Son;
Elliot Stock;
Swan Sonnenschein & Company;
The Times;
T. Fisher Unwin;
Ward, Lock, Bowden & Company;
Frederick Warne & Company;
Williams & Norgate.

Messrs.
D. Appleton & Company;
Armstrong & Company;
A. S. Barnes & Company;
The Century Company;
T. Y. Crowell & Company;
Derby & Miller:
Dick & Fitzgerald;
Dodd, Mead & Company;
Harper & Brothers;
Henry Holt & Company;
Townsend MacCoun;
G. P. Putnam's Sons;
Anson D. F. Randolph & Company;
D. J. Sadler & Company;
Charles Scribner's Sons;
Charles L. Webster & Company;

Messrs.
William Blackwood & Sons;
W. & R. Chambers;
David Douglas;
Thomas Nelson & Sons;
W. P. Nimmo;
Hay & Mitchell;
The Scottish Reformation Society.

Messrs.
L. H. Everts & Company;
J. B. Lippincott Company;
Oldach & Company;
Porter & Coates.

Messrs.
Estes & Lauriat;
Houghton, Mifflin & Company;
Little, Brown & Company;
D. Lothrop Company;
Roberts Brothers.

A list of books quoted from will be given in the final volume. I am greatly indebted to the remarkable kindness of a number of eminent historical scholars, who have critically examined the proof sheets of important articles and improved them by their suggestions. My debt to Miss Ellen M. Chandler, for assistance given me in many ways, is more than I can describe.

In my publishing arrangements I have been most fortunate, and I owe the good fortune very largely to a number of friends, among whom it is just that I should name Mr. Henry A. Richmond, Mr. George E. Matthews, and Mr. John G. Milburn. There is no feature of these arrangements so satisfactory to me as that which places the publication of my book in the hands of the Company of which Mr. Charles A. Nichols, of Springfield, Massachusetts, is the head.

I think myself fortunate, too, in the association of my work with that of Mr. Alan C. Reiley, from whose original studies and drawings the greater part of the historical maps in these volumes have been produced.

'Ethnographic map of Modern Europe,'
  Preceding the title-page.
Map of American Discovery and Settlement,
   To follow page 46
Plan of Athens, and Harbors of Athens,
   On page 145 Plan of Athenian house,
On page 162 Four development maps of Austria,
   To follow page 196
Ethnographic map of Austria-Hungary,
   On page 197
Four development maps of Asia Minor and the Balkan Peninsula,
   To follow page 242
Map of the Balkan and Danubian States, showing changes during
the present century,
   On page 244
Map of Burgundy under Charles the Bold,
   To follow page 332
Development map showing the diffusion of Christianity,
   To follow page 432

The Seventeenth Century:
   First half and second half, To follow page 208.
   To the Peloponnesian War, and Fourth and Third Centuries, B. C.,
   To follow page 166.

B. Notes to four maps of Asia Minor and the Balkan Peninsula;
by Mr. A. C. Reiley.

C. Notes to map of the Balkan Peninsula in the present century;
by Mr. A. C. Reiley.

   E. Notes on the American Aborigines;
      by Major J. W. Powell and
      Mr. J. Owen Dorsey, of the United States Bureau of Ethnology.

   F. Bibliography of America
      (Discovery, Exploration, Settlement, Archæology,
      and Ethnology), and of Austria.

A. C. Ante Christum;
used sometimes instead of the more familiar abbreviation,
B. C.—Before Christ.

A. E. I. O. U.

"The famous device of Austria, A. E. I. O. U., was first used by Frederic III. [1440-1493], who adopted it on his plate, books, and buildings. These initials stand for 'Austriae Est Imperare Orbi Universo'; or, in German, 'Alles Erdreich Ist Osterreich Unterthan': a bold assumption for a man who was not safe in an inch of his dominions."

A. M.

"Anno Mundi;" the Year of the World, or the year from the beginning of the world, according to the formerly accepted chronological reckoning of Archbishop Usher and others.

A. U. C., OR U. C.

"Ab urbe condita," from the founding of the city; or "Anno urbis Conditæ," the year from the founding of the city; the Year of Rome.

AACHEN.

ABBAS II., A. D. 1641-1666.

ABBAS III., A. D. 1732-1736.

See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST, &c.: A. D. 715-750; 763; and 815-945;
also BAGDAD: A. D. 1258.

ABBEY. ABBOT. ABBESS.

ABDUL-HAMID II., 1876-.

ABERCROMBIE'S CAMPAIGN IN AMERICA.

ABJURATION OF HENRY IV.

ABORIGINES, AMERICAN.

That part of the high plateau of Quebec on which the memorable victory of Wolfe was won, September 13, 1759. The plain was so called "from Abraham Martin, a pilot known as Maitre Abraham, who had owned a piece of land here in the early times of the colony."

ABSENTEEISM IN IRELAND.

In Ireland, "the owners of about one-half the land do not live on or near their estates, while the owners of about one fourth do not live in the country. … Absenteeism is an old evil, and in very early times received attention from the government. … Some of the disadvantages to the community arising from the absence of the more wealthy and intelligent classes are apparent to everyone. Unless the landlord is utterly poverty-stricken or very unenterprising, 'there is a great deal more going on' when he is in the country. … I am convinced that absenteeism is a great disadvantage to the country and the people. … It is too much to attribute to it all the evils that have been set down to its charge. It is, however, an important consideration that the people regard it as a grievance; and think the twenty-five or thirty millions of dollars paid every year to these landlords, who are rarely or never in Ireland, is a tax grievous to be borne."

ABUNA OF ABYSSINIA.

"Since the days of Frumentius [who introduced Christianity into Abyssinia in the 4th century] every orthodox Primate of Abyssinia has been consecrated by the Coptic Patriarch of the church of Alexandria, and has borne the title of Abuna"—or Abuna Salama, "Father of Peace."

ABURY, OR AVEBURY. STONEHENGE. CARNAC.

"The numerous circles of stone or of earth in Britain and Ireland, varying in diameter from 30 or 40 feet up to 1,200, are to be viewed as temples standing in the closest possible relation to the burial-places of the dead. The most imposing group of remains of this kind in this country [England] is that of Avebury [Abury], near Devizes, in Wiltshire, referred by Sir John Lubbock to a late stage in the Neolithic or to the beginning of the bronze period. It consists of a large circle of unworked upright stones 1,200 feet in diameter, surrounded by a fosse, which in turn is also surrounded by a rampart of earth. Inside are the remains of two concentric circles of stone, and from the two entrances in the rampart proceeded long avenues flanked by stones, one leading to Beckhampton, and the other to West Kennett, where it formerly ended in another double circle. Between them rises Silbury Hill, the largest artificial mound in Great Britain, no less than 130 feet in height. This group of remains was at one time second to none, 'but unfortunately for us [says Sir John Lubbock] the pretty little village of Avebury [Abury], like some beautiful parasite, has grown up at the expense and in the midst of the ancient temple, and out of 650 great stones, not above twenty are still standing. In spite of this it is still to be classed among the finest ruins in Europe. The famous temple of Stonehenge on Salisbury Plain is probably of a later date than Avebury, since not only are some of the stones used in its construction worked, but the surrounding barrows are more elaborate than those in the neighbourhood of the latter. It consisted of a circle 100 feet in diameter, of large upright blocks of sarsen stone, 12 feet 7 inches high, bearing imposts dovetailed into each other, so as to form a continuous architrave. Nine feet within this was a circle of small foreign stones … and within this five great trilithons of sarsen stone, forming a horse-shoe; then a horse-shoe of foreign stones, eight feet high, and in the centre a slab of micaceous sandstone called the altar-stone. … At a distance of 100 feet from the outer line a small ramp, with a ditch outside, formed the outer circle, 300 feet in diameter, which cuts a low barrow and includes another, and therefore is evidently of later date than some of the barrows of the district."

"Stonehenge … may, I think, be regarded as a monument of the Bronze Age, though apparently it was not all erected at one time, the inner circle of small, unwrought, blue stones being probably older than the rest; as regards Abury, since the stones are all in their natural condition, while those of Stonehenge are roughly hewn, it seems reasonable to conclude that Abury is the older of the two, and belongs either to the close of the Stone Age, or to the commencement of that of Bronze. Both Abury and Stonehenge were, I believe, used as temples. Many of the stone circles, however, have been proved to be burial places. In fact, a complete burial place may be described as a dolmen, covered by a tumulus, and surrounded by a stone circle. Often, however, we have only the tumulus, sometimes only the dolmen, and sometimes again only the stone circle. The celebrated monument of Carnac, in Brittany, consists of eleven rows of unhewn stones, which differ greatly both in size and height, the largest being 22 feet above ground, while some are quite small. It appears that the avenues originally extended for several miles, but at present they are very imperfect, the stones having been cleared away in places for agricultural improvements. At present, therefore, there are several detached portions, which, however, have the same general direction, and appear to have been connected together. … Most of the great tumuli in Brittany probably belong to the Stone Age, and I am therefore disposed to regard Carnac as having been erected during the same period."

ABYDOS.

An ancient city on the Asiatic side of the Hellespont, mentioned in the Iliad as one of the towns that were in alliance with the Trojans. Originally Thracian, as is supposed, it became a colony of Miletus, and passed at different times under Persian, Athenian, Lacedæmonian and Macedonian rule. Its site was at the narrowest point of the Hellespont—the scene of the ancient romantic story of Hero and Leander—nearly opposite to the town of Sestus. It was in the near neighborhood of Abydos that Xerxes built his bridge of boats; at Abydos, Alcibiades and the Athenians won an important victory over the Peloponnesians.

One of the most valuable records of Egyptian history, found in the ruins of Abydos and now preserved in the British Museum. It gives a list of kings whom Ramses II. selected from among his ancestors to pay homage to. The tablet was much mutilated when found, but another copy more perfect has been unearthed by M. Mariette, which supplies nearly all the names lacking on the first.

"Whatever may have been the effect produced in his native country by the conversion of Queen Candace's treasurer, recorded in the Acts of the Apostles [chapter VIII.], it would appear to have been transitory; and the Ethiopian or Abyssinian church owes its origin to an expedition made early in the fourth century by Meropius, a philosopher of Tyre, for the purpose of scientific inquiry. On his voyage homewards, he and his companions were attacked at a place where they had landed in search of water, and all were massacred except two youths, Ædesius and Frumentius, the relatives and pupils of Meropius. These were carried to the king of the country, who advanced Ædesius to be his cup-bearer, and Frumentius to be his secretary and treasurer. On the death of the king, who left a boy as his heir, the two strangers, at the request of the widowed queen, acted as regents of the kingdom until the prince came of age. Ædesius then returned to Tyre, where he became a presbyter. Frumentius, who, with the help of such Christian traders as visited the country, had already introduced the Christian doctrine and worship into Abyssinia, repaired to Alexandria, related his story to Athanasius, and … Athanasius … consecrated him to the bishoprick of Axum [the capital of the Abyssinain kingdom]. The church thus founded continues to this day subject to the see of Alexandria."

ABYSSINIA: 6th to 16th Centuries.
   Wars in Arabia.
   Struggle with the Mahometans.
   Isolation from the Christian world.

"The fate of the Christian church among the Homerites in Arabia Felix afforded an opportunity for the Abyssinians, under the reigns of the Emperors Justin and Justinian, to show their zeal in behalf of the cause of the Christians. The prince of that Arabian population, Dunaan, or Dsunovas, was a zealous adherent of Judaism; and, under pretext of avenging the oppressions which his fellow-believers were obliged to suffer in the Roman empire, he caused the Christian merchants who came from that quarter and visited Arabia for the purposes of trade, or passed through the country to Abyssinia, to be murdered. Elesbaan, the Christian king of Abyssinia, made this a cause for declaring war on the Arabian prince. He conquered Dsunovas, deprived him of the government, and set up a Christian, by the name of Abraham, as king in his stead. But at the death of the latter, which happened soon after, Dsunovas again made himself master of the throne; and it was a natural consequence of what he had suffered, that he now became a fiercer and more cruel persecutor than he was before. … Upon this, Elesbaan interfered once more, under the reign of the emperor Justinian, who stimulated him to the undertaking. He made a second expedition to Arabia Felix, and was again victorious. Dsunovas lost his life in the war; the Abyssinian prince put an end to the ancient, independent empire of the Homerites, and established a new government favourable to the Christians."

A. Neander, General History of the Christian Religion and Church, second period, section 1.

"In the year 592, as nearly as can be calculated from the dates given by the native writers, the Persians, whose power seems to have kept pace with the decline of the Roman empire, sent a great force against the Abyssinians, possessed themselves once more of Arabia, acquired a naval superiority in the gulf, and secured the principal ports on either side of it."

"It is uncertain how long these conquerors retained their acquisition; but, in all probability their ascendancy gave way to the rising greatness of the Mahometan power; which soon afterwards overwhelmed all the nations contiguous to Arabia, spread to the remotest parts of the East, and even penetrated the African deserts from Egypt to the Congo. Meanwhile Abyssinia, though within two hundred miles of the walls of Mecca, remained unconquered and true to the Christian faith; presenting a mortifying and galling object to the more zealous followers of the Prophet. On this account, implacable and incessant wars ravaged her territories. … She lost her commerce, saw her consequence annihilated, her capital threatened, and the richest of her provinces laid waste. … There is reason to apprehend that she must shortly have sunk under the pressure of repeated invasions, had not the Portuguese arrived [in the 16th century] at a seasonable moment to aid her endeavours against the Moslem chiefs."

"When Nubia, which intervenes between Egypt and Abyssinia, ceased to be a Christian country, owing to the destruction of its church by the Mahometans, the Abyssinian church was cut off from communication with the rest of Christendom. … They [the Abyssinians] remain an almost unique specimen of a semi-barbarous Christian people. Their worship is strangely mixed with Jewish customs."

ABYSSINIA: Fifteenth-Nineteenth Centuries.
   European Attempts at Intercourse.
   Intrusion of the Gallas.
   Intestine conflicts.

   "About the middle of the 15th century, Abyssinia came in
   contact with Western Europe. An Abyssinian convent was endowed
   at Rome, and legates were sent from the Abyssinian convent at
   Jerusalem to the council of Florence. These adhered to the
   Greek schism. But from that time the Church of Rome made an
   impress upon Ethiopia. … Prince Henry of Portugal … next
   opened up communication with Europe. He hoped to open up a
   route from the West to the East coast of Africa [see PORTUGAL:
   A. D. 1415-1460], by which the East Indies might be reached
   without touching Mahometan territory. During his efforts to
   discover such a passage to India, and to destroy the revenues
   derived by the Moors from the spice trade, he sent an
   ambassador named Covillan to the Court of Shoa. Covillan was
   not suffered to return by Alexander, the then Negoos [or
   Negus, or Nagash—the title of the Abyssinian sovereign]. He
   married nobly, and acquired rich possessions in the country.
   He kept up correspondence with Portugal, and urged Prince
   Henry to diligently continue his efforts to discover the
   Southern passage to the East. In 1498 the Portuguese effected
   the circuit of Africa. The Turks shortly afterwards extended
   their conquests towards India, where they were baulked by the
   Portuguese, but they established a post and a toll at Zeyla,
   on the African coast. From here they hampered and threatened
   to destroy the trade of Abyssinia," and soon, in alliance with
   the Mahometan tribes of the coast, invaded the country. "They
   were defeated by the Negoos David, and at the same time the
   Turkish town of Zeyla was stormed and burned by a Portuguese
   fleet." Considerable intimacy of friendly relations was
   maintained for some time between the against the Turks.
{4}
   Abyssinians and the Portuguese, who assisted in defending them
   "In the middle of the 16th century … a
   migration of Gallas came from the South and swept up to and
   over the confines of Abyssinia. Men of lighter complexion and
   fairer skin than most Africans, they were Pagan in religion
   and savages in customs. Notwithstanding frequent efforts to
   dislodge them, they have firmly established themselves. A
   large colony has planted itself on the banks of the Upper
   Takkazie, the Jidda and the Bashilo. Since their establishment
   here they have for the most part embraced the creed of
   Mahomet. The province of Shoa is but an outlier of Christian
   Abyssinia, separated completely from co-religionist districts
   by these Galla bands. About the same time the Turks took a
   firm hold of Massowah and of the lowland by the coast, which
   had hitherto been ruled by the Abyssinian Bahar Nagash.
   Islamism and heathenism surrounded Abyssinia, where the lamp
   of Christianity faintly glimmered amidst dark superstition in
   the deep recesses of rugged valleys." In 1558 a Jesuit mission
   arrived in the country and established itself at Fremona. "For
   nearly a century Fremona existed, and its superiors were the
   trusted advisors of the Ethiopian throne. … But the same
   fate which fell upon the company of Jesus in more civilized
   lands, pursued it in the wilds of Africa. The Jesuit
   missionaries were universally popular with the Negoos, but the
   prejudice of the people refused to recognise the benefits
   which flowed from Fremona." Persecution befell the fathers,
   and two of them won the crown of martyrdom. The Negoos,
   Facilidas, "sent for a Coptic Abuna [ecclesiastical primate]
   from Alexandria, and concluded a treaty with the Turkish
   governors of Massowah and Souakin to prevent the passage of
   Europeans into his dominions. Some Capuchin preachers, who
   attempted to evade this treaty and enter Abyssinia, met with
   cruel deaths. Facilidas thus completed the work of the Turks
   and the Gallas, and shut Abyssinia out from European influence
   and civilization. … After the expulsion of the Jesuits,
   Abyssinia was torn by internal feuds and constantly harassed
   by the encroachments of and wars with the Gallas. Anarchy and
   confusion ruled supreme. Towns and villages were burnt down,
   and the inhabitants sold into slavery. … Towards the middle
   of the 18th century the Gallas appear to have increased
   considerably in power. In the intestine quarrels of Abyssinia
   their alliance was courted by each side, and in their country
   political refugees obtained a secure asylum." During the early
   years of the present century, the campaigns in Egypt attracted
   English attention to the Red Sea. "In 1804 Lord Valentia, the
   Viceroy of India, sent his Secretary, Mr. Salt, into
   Abyssinia;" but Mr. Salt was unable to penetrate beyond Tigre.
   In 1810 he attempted a second mission and again failed. It was
   not until 1848 that English attempts to open diplomatic and
   commercial relations with Abyssinia became successful. Mr.
   Plowden was appointed consular agent, and negotiated a treaty
   of commerce with Ras Ali, the ruling Galla chief."

      H. M. Hozier,
      The British Expedition to Abyssinia,
      Introduction.

ABYSSINIA: A. D. 1854-1889.
Advent of King Theodore.
His English captives and the Expedition which released them.

"Consul Plowden had been residing six years at Massowah when he heard that the Prince to whom he had been accredited, Ras Ali, had been defeated and dethroned by an adventurer, whose name, a few years before, had been unknown outside the boundaries of his native province. This was Lij Kâsa, better known by his adopted name of Theodore. He was born of an old family, in the mountainous region of Kwara, where the land begins to slope downwards towards the Blue Nile, and educated in a convent, where he learned to read, and acquired a considerable knowledge of the Scriptures. Kâsa's convent life was suddenly put an end to, when one of those marauding Galla bands, whose ravages are the curse of Abyssinia, attacked and plundered the monastery. From that time he himself took to the life of a freebooter. … Adventurers flocked to his standard; his power continually increased; and in 1854 he defeated Ras Ali in a pitched battle, and made himself master of central Abyssinia." In 1855 he overthrew the ruler of Tigre. "He now resolved to assume a title commensurate with the wide extent of his dominion. In the church of Derezgye he had himself crowned by the Abuna as King of the Kings of Ethiopia, taking the name of Theodore, because an ancient tradition declared that a great monarch would some day arise in Abyssinia." Mr. Plowden now visited the new monarch, was impressed with admiration of his talents and character, and became his counsellor and friend. But in 1860 the English consul lost his life, while on a journey, and Theodore, embittered by several misfortunes, began to give rein to a savage temper. "The British Government, on hearing of the death of Plowden, immediately replaced him at Massowah by the appointment of Captain Cameron." The new Consul was well received, and was entrusted by the Abyssinian King with a letter addressed to the Queen of England, soliciting her friendship. The letter, duly despatched to its destination, was pigeon-holed in the Foreign Office at London, and no reply to it was ever made. Insulted and enraged by this treatment, and by other evidences of the indifference of the British Government to his overtures, King Theodore, in January, 1864, seized and imprisoned Consul Cameron with all his suite. About the same time he was still further offended by certain passages in a book on Abyssinia that had been published by a missionary named Stern. Stern and a fellow missionary, Rosenthal with the latter's wife, were lodged in prison, and subjected to flogging and torture. The first step taken by the British Government, when news of Consul Cameron's imprisonment reached England, was to send out a regular mission to Abyssinia, bearing a letter signed by the Queen, demanding the release of the captives. The mission, headed by a Syrian named Rassam, made its way to the King's presence in January, 1866. Theodore seemed to be placated by the Queen's epistle and promised freedom to his prisoners. But soon his moody mind became filled with suspicions as to the genuineness of Rassam's credentials from the Queen, and as to the designs and intentions of all the foreigners who were in his power. He was drinking heavily at the time, and the result of his "drunken cogitations was a determination to detain the mission—at any rate until by their means he should have obtained a supply of skilled artisans and machinery from England." {5} Mr. Rassam and his companions were accordingly put into confinement, as Captain Cameron had been. But they were allowed to send a messenger to England, making their situation known, and conveying the demand of King Theodore that a man be sent to him "who can make cannons and muskets." The demand was actually complied with. Six skilled artisans and a civil engineer were sent out, together with a quantity of machinery and other presents, in the hope that they would procure the release of the unfortunate captives at Magdala. Almost a year was wasted in these futile proceedings, and it was not until September, 1867, that an expedition consisting of 4,000 British and 8,000 native troops, under General Sir Robert Napier, was sent from India to bring the insensate barbarian to terms. It landed in Annesley Bay, and, overcoming enormous difficulties with regard to water, food-supplies and transportation, was ready, about the middle of January, 1868, to start upon its march to the fortress of Magdala, where Theodore's prisoners were confined. The distance was 400 miles, and several high ranges of mountains had to be passed to reach the interior table-land. The invading army met with no resistance until it reached the Valley of the Beshilo, when it was attacked (April 10) on the plain of Aroge or Arogi, by the whole force which Theodore was able to muster, numbering a few thousands, only, of poorly armed men. The battle was simply a rapid slaughtering of the barbaric assailants, and when they fled, leaving 700 or 800 dead and 1,500 wounded on the field, the Abyssinian King had no power of resistance left. He offered at once to make peace, surrendering all the captives in his hands; but Sir Robert Napier required an unconditional submission, with a view to displacing him from the throne, in accordance with the wish and expectation which he had found to be general in the country. Theodore refused these terms, and when (April 13) Magdala was bombarded and stormed by the British troops—slight resistance being made—he shot himself at the moment of their entrance to the place. The sovereignty he had successfully concentrated in himself for a time was again divided. Between April and June the English army was entirely withdrawn, and "Abyssinia was sealed up again from intercourse with the outer world."

"The task of permanently uniting Abyssinia, in which Theodore failed, proved equally impracticable to John, who came to the front, in the first instance, as an ally of the British, and afterwards succeeded to the sovereignty. By his fall (10th March, 1889) in the unhappy war against the Dervishes or Moslem zealots of the Soudan, the path was cleared for Menilek of Shoa, who enjoyed the support of Italy. The establishment of the Italians on the Red Sea littoral … promises a new era for Abyssinia."

"The Academia, a public garden in the neighbourhood of Athens, was the favourite resort of Plato, and gave its name to the school which he founded. This garden was planted with lofty plane-trees, and adorned with temples and statues; a gentle stream rolled through it."

The masters of the great schools of philosophy at Athens "chose for their lectures and discussions the public buildings which were called gymnasia, of which there were several in different quarters of the city. They could only use them by the sufferance of the State, which had built them chiefly for bodily exercises and athletic feats. … Before long several of the schools drew themselves apart in special buildings, and even took their most familiar names, such as the Lyceum and the Academy, from the gymnasia in which they made themselves at home. Gradually we find the traces of some material provisions, which helped to define and to perpetuate the different sects. Plato had a little garden, close by the sacred Eleusinian Way, in the shady groves of the Academy, which he bought, says Plutarch, for some 3,000 drachmæ. There lived also his successors, Xenocrates and Polemon. … Aristotle, as we know, in later life had taught in the Lyceum, in the rich grounds near the Ilissus, and there he probably possessed the house and garden which after his death came into the hands of his successor, Theophrastus."

ACADIA.

ACARNANIANS.

ACCAD. ACCADIANS.

ACCOLADE.

"The concluding sign of being dubbed or adopted into the order of knighthood was a slight blow given by the lord to the cavalier, and called the accolade, from the part of the body, the neck, whereon it was struck. … Many writers have imagined that the accolade was the last blow which the soldier might receive with impunity: but this interpretation is not correct, for the squire was as jealous of his honour as the knight. The origin of the accolade it is impossible to trace, but it was clearly considered symbolical of the religious and moral duties of knighthood, and was the only ceremony used when knights were made in places (the field of battle, for instance), where time and circumstances did not allow of many ceremonies."

This, which is not to be confounded with the "Achaian League" of Peloponnesus, was an early League of the Greek settlements in southern Italy, or Magna Græca. It was "composed of the towns of Siris, Pandosia, Metabus or Metapontum, Sybaris with its offsets Posidonia and Laus, Croton, Caulonia, Temesa, Terina and Pyxus. … The language of Polybius regarding the Achæan symmachy in the Peloponnesus may be applied also to these Italian Achæans; 'not only did they live in federal and friendly communion, but they made use of the same laws, and the same weights, measures and coins, as well as of the same magistrates, councillors and judges.'"

ACHÆAN LEAGUE.

The family or dynastic name (in its Greek form) of the kings of the Persian Empire founded by Cyrus, derived from an ancestor, Achæmenes, who was probably a chief of the Persian tribe of the Pasargadæ. "In the inscription of Behistun, King Darius says: 'From old time we were kings; eight of my family have been kings, I am the ninth; from very ancient times we have been kings.' He enumerates his ancestors: 'My father was Vistaçpa, the father of Vistaçpa was Arsama; the father of Arsama was Ariyaramna, the father of Ariyaramna was Khaispis, the father of Khaispis was Hakhamanis; hence we are called Hakhamanisiya (Achæmenids).' In these words Darius gives the tree of his own family up to Khaispis; this was the younger branch of the Achæmenids. Teispes, the son of Achaemenes, had two sons; the elder was Cambyses (Kambujiya) the younger Ariamnes; the son of Cambyses was Cyrus (Kurus), the son of Cyrus was Cambyses II. Hence Darius could indeed maintain that eight princes of his family had preceded him; but it was not correct to maintain that they had been kings before him and that he was the ninth king."

      M. Duncker,
      History of Antiquity,
      volume 5, book 8, chapter 3.

      ALSO IN
      G. Rawlinson, Family of the Achæmenidæ, appendix to
      book 7 of Herodotus.

ACHAIA:

"Crossing the river Larissus, and pursuing the northern coast of Peloponnesus south of the Corinthian Gulf, the traveller would pass into Achaia—a name which designated the narrow strip of level land, and the projecting spurs and declivities between that gulf and the northernmost mountains of the peninsula. … Achaean cities—twelve in number at least, if not more—divided this long strip of land amongst them, from the mouth of the Larissus and the northwestern Cape Araxus on one side, to the western boundary of the Sikyon territory on the other. According to the accounts of the ancient legends and the belief of Herodotus, this territory had been once occupied by Ionian inhabitants, whom the Achaeans had expelled."

   After the Roman conquest and the suppression of the Achaian
   League, the name Achaia was given to the Roman province then
   organized, which embraced all Greece south of Macedonia and
   Epirus.

"In the Homeric poems, where … the 'Hellenes' only appear in one district of Southern Thessaly, the name Achæans is employed by preference as a general appelation for the whole race. But the Achæans we may term, without hesitation, a Pelasgian people, in so far, that is, as we use this name merely as the opposite of the term 'Hellenes,' which prevailed at a later time, although it is true that the Hellenes themselves were nothing more than a particular branch of the Pelasgian stock. … [The name of the] Achæans, after it had dropped its earlier and more universal application, was preserved as the special name of a population dwelling in the north of the Peloponnese and the south of Thessaly."

"The ancients regarded them [the Achæans] as a branch of the Æolians, with whom they afterwards reunited into one national body, i.e., not as an originally distinct nationality or independent branch of the Greek people. Accordingly, we hear neither of an Achæan language nor of Achæan art. A manifest and decided influence of the maritime Greeks, wherever the Achæans appear, is common to the latter with the Æolians. Achæans are everywhere settled on the coast, and are always regarded as particularly near relations of the Ionians. … The Achæans appear scattered about in localities on the coast of the Ægean so remote from one another, that it is impossible to consider all bearing this name as fragments of a people originally united in one social community; nor do they in fact anywhere appear, properly speaking, as a popular body, as the main stock of the population, but rather as eminent families, from which spring heroes; hence the use of the expression 'Sons of the Achæans' to indicate noble descent."

      ALSO IN
      M. Duncker,
      History of Greece,
      book 1, chapter 2, and book 2, chapter 2.

Among the conquests of the French and Lombard Crusaders in Greece, after the taking of Constantinople, was that of a major part of the Peloponnesus—then beginning to be called the Morea—by William de Champlitte, a French knight, assisted by Geffrey de Villehardouin, the younger—nephew and namesake of the Marshal of Champagne, who was chronicler of the conquest of the Empire of the East. William de Champlitte was invested with this Principality of Achaia, or of the Morea, as it is variously styled. Geffrey Villehardouin represented him in the government, as his "bailly," for a time, and finally succeeded in supplanting him. Half a century later the Greeks, who had recovered Constantinople, reduced the territory of the Principality of Achaia to about half the peninsula, and a destructive war was waged between the two races. Subsequently the Principality became a fief of the crown of Naples and Sicily, and underwent many changes of possession until the title was in confusion and dispute between the houses of Anjou, Aragon and Savoy. Before it was engulfed finally in the Empire of the Turks, it was ruined by their piracies and ravages.

      G. Finlay,
      History of Greece from its Conquest by the Crusaders,
      chapter 8.

ACHMET II., 1691-1695.

ACHMET III., 1703-1730.

ACHRADINA.

A part of the ancient city of Syracuse, Sicily, known as the "outer city," occupying the peninsula north of Ortygia, the island, which was the "inner city."

After the death of John Zimisces who had reunited Bulgaria to the Byzantine Empire, the Bulgarians were roused to a struggle for the recovery of their independence, under the lead of four brothers of a noble family, all of whom soon perished save one, named Samuel. Samuel proved to be so vigorous and able a soldier and had so much success that he assumed presently the title of king. His authority was established over the greater part of Bulgaria, and extended into Macedonia, Epirus and Illyria. He established his capital at Achrida (modern Ochrida, in Albania), which gave its name to his kingdom. The suppression of this new Bulgarian monarchy occupied the Byzantine Emperor, Basil II., in wars from 981 until 1018, when its last strongholds, including the city of Achrida, were surrendered to him.

      G. Finlay,
      History of the Byzantine Empire from 716 to 1057,
      book 2, chapter 2, section 2.

After the death of Mahomet, his successor, Abu Bekr, had to deal with several serious revolts, the most threatening of which was raised by one Moseilama, who had pretended, even in the life-time of the Prophet, to a rival mission of religion. The decisive battle between the followers of Moseilama and those of Mahomet was fought at Acraba, near Yemama. The pretender was slain and few of his army escaped.

A sanguinary defeat of the Idumeans or Edomites by the Jews under Judas Maccabæus, B. C. 164.

ACRAGAS.

ACRE (St. Jean d'Acre, or Ptolemais): A. D. 1104.
Conquest, Pillage and Massacre by the Crusaders and Genoese.

"Acre, or St. Jean d'Acre, celebrated under this name in the history of the Crusades, and in antiquity known by the name of Ptolemais, had, by the middle of the 18th century, been almost entirely forsaken, when Sheik Daher, the Arab rebel, restored its commerce and navigation. This able prince, whose sway comprehended the whole of ancient Galilee, was succeeded by the infamous tyrant, Djezzar-Pasha, who fortified Acre, and adorned it with a mosque, enriched with columns of antique marble, collected from all the neighbouring cities."

ACRE: A. D. 1831-1840.
Siege and Capture by Mehemed Ali.
Recovery for the Sultan by the Western Powers.

ACROCERAUNIAN PROMONTORY.

"A road which, by running zigzag up the slope was rendered practicable for chariots, led from the lower city to the Acropolis, on the edge of the platform of which stood the Propylæa, erected by the architect Mnesicles in five years, during the administration of Pericles. … On entering through the gates of the Propylæa a scene of unparalleled grandeur and beauty burst upon the eye. No trace of human dwellings anywhere appeared, but on all sides temples of more or less elevation, of Pentelic marble, beautiful in design and exquisitely delicate in execution, sparkled like piles of alabaster in the sun. On the left stood the Erectheion, or fane of Athena Polias; to the right, that matchless edifice known as the Hecatompedon of old, but to later ages as the Parthenon. Other buildings, all holy to the eyes of an Athenian, lay grouped around these master structures, and, in the open spaces between, in whatever direction the spectator might look, appeared statues, some remarkable for their dimensions, others for their beauty, and all for the legendary sanctity which surrounded them. No city of the ancient or modern world ever rivalled Athens in the riches of art. Our best filled museums, though teeming with her spoils, are poor collections of fragments compared with that assemblage of gods and heroes which peopled the Acropolis, the genuine Olympos of the arts."

"Nothing in ancient Greece or Italy could be compared with the Acropolis of Athens, in its combination of beauty and grandeur, surrounded as it was by temples and theatres among its rocks, and encircled by a city abounding with monuments, some of which rivalled those of the Acropolis. Its platform formed one great sanctuary, partitioned only by the boundaries of the … sacred portions. We cannot, therefore, admit the suggestion of Chandler, that, in addition to the temples and other monuments on the summit, there were houses divided into regular streets. This would not have been consonant either with the customs or the good taste of the Athenians. When the people of Attica crowded into Athens at the beginning of the Peloponnesian war, and religious prejudices gave way, in every possible case, to the necessities of the occasion, even then the Acropolis remained uninhabited. … The western end of the Acropolis, which furnished the only access to the summit of the hill, was one hundred and sixty eight feet in breadth, an opening so narrow that it appeared practicable to the artists of Pericles to fill up the space with a single building which should serve the purpose of a gateway to the citadel, as well as of a suitable entrance to that glorious display of architecture and sculpture which was within the inclosure. This work [the Propylæa], the greatest production of civil architecture in Athens, which rivalled the Parthenon in felicity of execution, surpassed it in boldness and originality of design. … It may be defined as a wall pierced with five doors, before which on both sides were Doric hexastyle porticoes."

ACT OF ABJURATION, The.

ACT OF MEDIATION, The.

ACT OF SECURITY.

ACT OF SETTLEMENT (English).

ACT OF SETTLEMENT (Irish).

ACT RESCISSORY.

   A defeat inflicted upon the Corinthians by the Corcyrians, in
   the contest over Epidamnus which was the prelude to the
   Peloponnesian War.

ACTS OF SUPREMACY.

ACTS OF UNIFORMITY.

      See
      UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1774 (MAY-JUNE);
      1774 (SEPTEMBER); 1775 (MAY-AUGUST);
      1776 (JANUARY-JUNE), 1776 (JULY).

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1772-1773; 1774 (SEPTEMBER); 1775(MAY); 1787-1789.

ADEL. ADALING. ATHEL.

"The homestead of the original settler, his house, farm-buildings and enclosure, 'the toft and croft,' with the share of arable and appurtenant common rights, bore among the northern nations [early Teutonic] the name of Odal, or Edhel; the primitive mother village was an Athelby, or Athelham; the owner was an Athelbonde: the same word Adel or Athel signified also nobility of descent, and an Adaling was a nobleman. Primitive nobility and primitive landownership thus bore the same name."

ADELANTADOS. ADELANTAMIENTOS.

"Adelantamientos was an early term for gubernatorial districts [in Spanish America, the governors bearing the title of Adelantados], generally of undefined limits, to be extended by further conquests."

H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States, volume 6 (Mexico, volume 3), page 520.

ADIABENE.

A name which came to be applied anciently to the tract of country east of the middle Tigris, embracing what was originally the proper territory of Assyria, together with Arbelitis. Under the Parthian monarchy it formed a tributary kingdom, much disputed between Parthia and Armenia. It was seized several times by the Romans, but never permanently held.

"The Cushites, the first inhabitants of Arabia, are known in the national traditions by the name of Adites, from their progenitor, who is called Ad, the grandson of Ham."

ADJUTATORS.

ADOPTIONISM.

A doctrine, condemned as heretical in the eighth century, which taught that "Christ, as to his human nature, was not truly the Son of God, but only His son by adoption." The dogma is also known as the Felician heresy, from a Spanish bishop, Felix, who was prominent among its supporters. Charlemagne took active measures to suppress the heresy.

ADRIANOPLE. HADRIANOPLE.

A city in Thrace founded by the Emperor Hadrian and designated by his name. It was the scene of Constantine's victory over Licinius in A. D. 323 (see ROME: 'A. D. 305-323), and of the defeat and death of Valens in battle with the Goths (see GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 378). In 1361 it became for some years the capital of the Turks in Europe (see TURKS: A. D. 1360-1389). It was occupied by the Russians in 1829, and again in 1878 (see TURKS: A. D. 1826-1829, and A. D. 1877-1878), and gave its name to the Treaty negotiated in 1829 between Russia and the Porte (see GREECE: A. D. 1821-1829).

ADRUMETUM.

When David had been cast out by the Philistines, among whom he sought refuge from the enmity of Saul, "his first retreat was the Cave of Adullam, probably the large cavern not far from Bethlehem, now called Khureitun. From its vicinity to Bethlehem, he was joined there by his whole family, now feeling themselves insecure from Saul's fury. … Besides these were outlaws from every part, including doubtless some of the original Canaanites—of whom the name of one at least has been preserved, Ahimelech the Hittite. In the vast columnar halls and arched chambers of this subterranean palace, all who had any grudge against the existing system gathered round the hero of the coming age."

   This was a battle fought near Bradford, June 29, 1643, in the
   great English Civil War. The Parliamentary forces, under Lord
   Fairfax, were routed by the Royalists, under Newcastle.

The supposed descendants of the demi-god Æakus, whose grandson was Achilles. (See MYRMIDONS.) Miltiades, the hero of Marathon, and Pyrrhus, the warrior King of Epirus, were among those claiming to belong to the royal race of Eakids.

ÆDHILING.

ÆDUI. ARVERNI. ALLOBROGES.

"The two most powerful nations in Gallia were the Ædui [or Hædui] and the Arverni. The Ædui occupied that part which lies between the upper valley of the Loire and the Saone, which river was part of the boundary between them and the Sequani. The Loire separated the Ædui from the Bituriges, whose chief town was Avaricum on the site of Bourges. At this time [B. C.121] the Arverni, the rivals of the Ædui, were seeking the supremacy in Gallia. The Arverni occupied the mountainous country of Auvergne in the centre of France and the fertile valley of the Elaver (Allier) nearly as far as the junction of the Allier and the Loire. … They were on friendly terms with the Allobroges, a powerful nation east of the Rhone, who occupied the country between the Rhone and the Isara (Isère). … In order to break the formidable combination of the Arverni and the Allobroges, the Romans made use of the Ædui, who were the enemies both of the Allobroges and the Arverni. … A treaty was made either at this time or somewhat earlier between the Ædui and the Roman senate, who conferred on their new Gallic friends the honourable title of brothers and kinsmen. This fraternizing was a piece of political cant which the Romans practiced when it was useful."

      E. A. Freeman,
      Historical Geography of Europe,
      page 413, and foot-note.

ÆGIALEA. ÆGIALEANS.

ÆGIKOREIS.

ÆGINA.

A small rocky island in the Saronic gulf, between Attica and Argolis. First colonized by Achæans it was afterwards occupied by Dorians (see GREECE: THE MIGRATIONS) and was unfriendly to Athens. During the sixth century B. C. it rose to great power and commercial importance, and became for a time the most brilliant center of Greek art. At the period of the Persian war, Ægina was "the first maritime power in Greece." But the Æginetans were at that time engaged in war with Athens, as the allies of Thebes, and rather than forego their enmity, they offered submission to the Persian king. The Athenians thereupon appealed to Sparta, as the head of Greece, to interfere, and the Æginetans were compelled to give hostages to Athens for their fidelity to the Hellenic cause. (See GREECE: B. C. 492-491.) They purged themselves to a great extent of their intended treason by the extraordinary valor with which they fought at Salamis. But the sudden pre-eminence to which Athens rose cast a blighting shadow upon Ægina, and in 429 B. C. it lost its independence, the Athenians taking possession of their discomfited rival.

ÆGINA: B. C. 458-456.
Alliance with Corinth in war with Athens and Megara.
Defeat and subjugation.

ÆGINA: B. C. 431.
Expulsion of the Æginetans from their island by the Athenians.
Their settlement at Thyrea.

The first appearance of the Romans in Greece, when they entered the country as the allies of the Ætolians, was signalized by the barbarous destruction of Ægina. The city having been taken, B. C. 210, its entire population was reduced to slavery by the Romans and the land and buildings of the city were sold to Attalus, king of Pergamus.

ÆGINETAN TALENT.

A reverse experienced by the Athenian General, Demosthenes, in his invasion of Ætolia, during the Peloponnesian War.

ÆLFRED.

"The Ælian and Fufian laws (leges Ælia and Fufia) the age of which, unfortunately we cannot accurately determine. … enacted that a popular assembly [at Rome] might be dissolved, or, in other words, the acceptance of any proposed law prevented, if a magistrate announced to the president of the assembly that it was his intention to choose the same time for watching the heavens. Such an announcement (obnuntiatio) was held to be a sufficient cause for interrupting an assembly."

"M. Æmilius Lepidus, Consul for the year 180 B. C. … constructed the great road which bore his name. The Æmilian Way led from Ariminum through the new colony of Bononia to Placentia, being a continuation of the Flaminian Way, or great north road, made by C. Flaminius in 220 B. C. from Rome to Ariminum. At the same epoch, Flaminius the son, being the colleague of Lepidus, made a branch road from Bononia across the Appenines to Arretium."

"The collective stock of Greek nationalities falls, according to the view of those ancient writers who laboured most to obtain an exact knowledge of ethnographic relationships, into three main divisions, Æolians, Dorians and Ionians. … All the other inhabitants of Greece [not Dorians and Ionians] and of the islands included in it, are comprised under the common name of Æolians—a name unknown as yet to Homer, and which was incontestably applied to a great diversity of peoples, among which it is certain that no such homogeneity of race is to be assumed as existed among the lonians and Dorians. Among the two former races, though even these were scarcely in any quarter completely unmixed, there was incontestably to be found a single original stock, to which others had merely been attached, and as it were engrafted, whereas, among the peoples assigned to the Æolians, no such original stock is recognizable, but on the contrary, as great a difference is found between the several members of this race as between Dorians and lonians, and of the so-called Æolians, some stood nearer to the former, others to the latter. … A thorough and careful investigation might well lead to the conclusion that the Greek people was divided not into three, but into two main races, one of which we may call Ionian, the other Dorian, while of the so-called Æolians some, and probably the greater number, belonged to the former, the rest to the latter."

In Greek myth, Æolus, the fancied progenitor of the Æolians, appears as one of the three sons of Hellen. "Æolus is represented as having reigned in Thessaly: his seven sons were Kretheus, Sisyphus, Athamas, Salmoneus, Deion, Magnes and Perieres: his five daughters, Canace, Alcyone, Peisidike, Calyce and Permede. The fables of this race seem to be distinguished by a constant introduction of the God Poseidon, as well as by an unusual prevalence of haughty and presumptuous attributes among the Æolid heroes, leading them to affront the gods by pretences of equality, and sometimes even by defiance."

ÆRARIANS.

ÆSOPUS INDIANS.

"At this point [beyond the Suiones] the Suevic Sea [the Baltic], on its eastern shore, washes the tribes of the Æstii, whose rites and fashions and styles of dress are those of the Suevi, while their language is more like the British. They worship the mother of the gods and wear as a religious symbol the device of a wild boar. … They often use clubs, iron weapons but seldom. They are more patient in cultivating corn and other produce than might be expected from the general indolence of the Germans. But they also search the deep and are the only people who gather amber, which they call glesum."—"The Æstii occupied that part of Prussia which is to the north-east of the Vistula. … The name still survives in the form Estonia."

Among the Greeks, an expedient "which seems to have been tried not unfrequently in early times, tor preserving or restoring tranquility, was to invest an individual with absolute power, under a peculiar title, which soon became obsolete: that of æsymnetæ. At Cuma, indeed, and in other cities, this was the title of an ordinary magistracy, probably of that which succeeded the hereditary monarchy; but when applied to an extraordinary office, it was equivalent to the title of protector or dictator."

ÆTHEL. ÆTHELING.

ÆTHELBERT, ÆTHELFRITH, ETC.

ÆTOLIA. ÆTOLIANS.

"Ætolia, the country of Diomed, though famous in the early times, fell back during the migratory period almost into a savage condition, probably through the influx into it of an Illyrian population which became only partially Hellenized. The nation was divided into numerous tribes, among which the most important were the Apodoti, the Ophioneis, the Eurytanes and the Agræans. There were scarcely any cities, village life being preferred universally. … It was not till the wars which arose among Alexander's successors that the Ætolians formed a real political union, and became an important power in Greece."

"The Achaian and the Ætolian Leagues, had their constitutions been written down in the shape of a formal document, would have presented but few varieties of importance. The same general form of government prevailed in both; each was federal, each was democratic; each had its popular assembly, its smaller Senate, its general with large powers at the head of all. The differences between the two are merely those differences of detail which will always arise between any two political systems of which neither is slavishly copied from the other. … If therefore federal states or democratic states, or aristocratic states, were necessarily weak or strong, peaceful or aggressive, honest or dishonest, we should see Achaia and Ætolia both exhibiting the same moral characteristics. But history tells another tale. The political conduct of the Achaian League, with some mistakes and some faults, is, on the whole, highly honourable. The political conduct of the Ætolian League is, throughout the century in which we know it best [last half of third and first half of second century B. C.] almost always simply infamous. … The counsels of the Ætolian League were throughout directed to mere plunder, or, at most, to selfish political aggrandisement."

The plundering aggressions of the Ætolians involved them in continual war with their Greek kindred and neighbours, and they did not scruple to seek foreign aid. It was through their agency that the Romans were first brought into Greece, and it was by their instrumentality that Antiochus fought his battle with Rome on the sacredest of all Hellenic soil. In the end, B. C. 189, the League was stripped by the Romans of even its nominal independence and sank into a contemptible servitude.

AFGHANISTAN: B. C. 330.
Conquest by Alexander the Great.
Founding of Herat and Candahar.

AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1747-1761.
The Empire of the Dooranie, Ahmed Abdallee.
His Conquests in India.

AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1803-1838.
Shah Soojah and Dost Mahomed.
English interference.

"Shah Soojah-ool Moolk, a grandson of the illustrious Ahmed Shah, reigned in Afghanistan from 1803 till 1809. His youth had been full of trouble and vicissitude. He had been a wanderer, on the verge of starvation, a pedlar, and a bandit, who raised money by plundering caravans. His courage was lightly reputed, and it was as a mere creature of circumstance that he reached the throne. His reign was perturbed, and in 1809 he was a fugitive and an exile. Runjeet Singh, the Sikh ruler of the Punjaub, defrauded him of the famous Koh-i-noor, which is now the most precious of the crown jewels of England, and plundered and imprisoned the fallen man. Shah Soojah at length escaped from Lahore. After further misfortunes he at length reached the British frontier station of Loodianah, and in 1816 became a pensioner of the East India Company. After the downfall of Shah Soojah, Afghanistan for many years was a prey to anarchy. At length in 1826, Dost Mahomed succeeded in making himself supreme at Cabul, and this masterful man thenceforward held sway until his death in 1863, uninterruptedly save during the three years of the British occupation. Dost Mahomed was neither kith nor kin to the legitimate dynasty which he displaced. His father Poyndah Khan was an able statesman and gallant soldier. He left twenty-one sons, of whom Futteh Khan was the eldest, and Dost Mahomed one of the youngest. … Throughout his long reign Dost Mahomed was a strong and wise ruler. His youth had been neglected and dissolute. His education was defective, and he had been addicted to wine. Once seated on the throne, the reformation of our Henry V. was not more thorough than was that of Dost Mahomed. He taught himself to read and write, studied the Koran, became scrupulously abstemious, assiduous in affairs, no longer truculent, but courteous. … There was a fine rugged honesty in his nature, and a streak of genuine chivalry; notwithstanding the despite he suffered at our hands, he had a real regard for the English, and his loyalty to us was broken only by his armed support of the Sikhs in the second Punjaub war. The fallen Shah Soojah, from his asylum in Loodianah, was continually intriguing for his restoration. His schemes were long inoperative, and it was not until 1832 that certain arrangements were entered into between him and the Maharaja Runjeet Singh. To an application on Shah Soojah's part for countenance and pecuniary aid, the Anglo-Indian Government replied that to afford him assistance would be inconsistent with the policy of neutrality which the Government had imposed on itself; but it unwisely contributed financially toward his undertaking by granting him four months' pension in advance. Sixteen thousand rupees formed a scant war fund with which to attempt the recovery of a throne, but the Shah started on his errand in February, 1833. After a successful contest with the Ameers of Scinde, he marched on Candahar, and besieged that fortress. Candahar was in extremity when Dost Mahomed, hurrying from Cabul, relieved it, and joining forces with its defenders, he defeated and routed Shah Soojah, who fled precipitately, leaving behind him his artillery and camp equipage. During the Dost's absence in the south, Runjeet Singh's troops crossed the Attock, occupied the Afghan province of Peshawur, and drove the Afghans into the Khyber Pass. No subsequent efforts on Dost Mahomed's part availed to expel the Sikhs from Peshawur, and suspicious of British connivance with Runjeet Singh's successful aggression, he took into consideration the policy of fortifying himself by a counter alliance with Persia. As for Shah Soojah, he had crept back to his refuge at Loodianah. Lord Auckland succeeded Lord William Bentinck as Governor-General of India in March, 1836. In reply to Dost Mahomed's letter of congratulation, his lordship wrote: 'You are aware that it is not the practice of the British Government to interfere with the affairs of other independent States;' an abstention which Lord Auckland was soon to violate. He had brought from England the feeling of disquietude in regard to the designs of Persia and Russia which the communications of our envoy in Persia had fostered in the Home Government, but it would appear that he was wholly undecided what line of action to pursue. 'Swayed,' says Durand, 'by the vague apprehensions of a remote danger entertained by others rather than himself, he despatched to Afghanistan Captain Burnes on a nominally commercial mission, which, in fact, was one of political discovery, but without definite instructions. Burnes, an able but rash and ambitious man, reached Cabul in September, 1837, two months before the Persian army began the siege of Herat. … The Dost made no concealment to Burnes of his approaches to Persia and Russia, in despair of British good offices, and being hungry for assistance from any source to meet the encroachments of the Sikhs, he professed himself ready to abandon his negotiations with the western powers if he were given reason to expect countenance and assistance at the hands of the Anglo-Indian Government. … The situation of Burnes in relation to the Dost was presently complicated by the arrival at Cabul of a Russian officer claiming to be an envoy from the Czar, whose credentials, however, were regarded as dubious, and who, if that circumstance has the least weight, was on his return to Russia utterly repudiated by Count Nesselrode. The Dost took small account of this emissary, continuing to assure Burnes that he cared for no connection except with the English, and Burnes professed to his Government his fullest confidence in the sincerity of those declarations. {12} But the tone of Lord Auckland's reply, addressed to the Dost, was so dictatorial and supercilious as to indicate the writer's intention that it should give offence. It had that effect, and Burnes' mission at once became hopeless. … The Russian envoy, who was profuse in his promises of everything which the Dost was most anxious to obtain, was received into favour and treated with distinction, and on his return journey he effected a treaty with the Candahar chiefs which was presently ratified by the Russian minister at the Persian Court. Burnes, fallen into discredit at Cabul, quitted that place in August 1838. He had not been discreet, but it was not his indiscretion that brought about the failure of his mission. A nefarious transaction, which Kaye denounces with the passion of a just indignation, connects itself with Burnes' negotiations with the Dost; his official correspondence was unscrupulously mutilated and garbled in the published Blue Book with deliberate purpose to deceive the British public. Burnes had failed because, since he had quitted India for Cabul, Lord Auckland's policy had gradually altered. Lord Auckland had landed in India in the character of a man of peace. That, so late as April 1837, he had no design of obstructing the existing situation in Afghanistan is proved by his written statement of that date, that 'the British Government had resolved decidedly to discourage the prosecution by the ex-king Shah Soojah-ool-Moolk, so long as he may remain under our protection, of further schemes of hostility against the chiefs now in power in Cabul and Candahar.' Yet, in the following June, he concluded a treaty which sent Shah Soojah to Cabul, escorted by British bayonets. Of this inconsistency no explanation presents itself. It was a far cry from our frontier on the Sutlej to Herat in the confines of Central Asia—a distance of more than 1,200 miles, over some of the most arduous marching ground in the known world. … Lord William Bentinck, Lord Auckland's predecessor, denounced the project as an act of incredible folly. Marquis Wellesley regarded 'this wild expedition into a distant region of rocks and deserts, of sands and ice and snow,' as an act of infatuation. The Duke of Wellington pronounced with prophetic sagacity, that the consequence of once crossing the Indus to settle a government in Afghanistan would be a perennial march into that country."

AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1838-1842.
   English invasion, and restoration of Soojah Dowlah.
   The revolt at Cabul.
   Horrors of the British retreat.
   Destruction of the entire army, save one man, only.
   Sale's defence of Jellalabad.

"To approach Afghanistan it was necessary to secure the friendship of the Sikhs, who were, indeed, ready enough to join against their old enemies; and a threefold treaty was contracted between Runjeet Singh, the English, and Shah Soojah for the restoration of the banished house. The expedition—which according to the original intention was to have been carried out chiefly by means of troops in the pay of Shah Soojah and the Sikhs—rapidly grew into an English invasion of Afghanistan. A considerable force was gathered on the Sikh frontier from Bengal; a second army, under General Keane, was to come up from Kurrachee through Sindh. Both of these armies, and the troops of Shah Soojah, were to enter the highlands of Afghanistan by the Bolan Pass. As the Sikhs would not willingly allow the free passage of our troops through their country, an additional burden was laid upon the armies,- the independent Ameers of Sindh had to be coerced. At length, with much trouble from the difficulties of the country and the loss of the commissariat animals, the forces were all collected under the command of Keane beyond the passes. The want of food permitted of no delay; the army pushed on to Candahar. Shah Soojah was declared Monarch of the southern Principality. Thence the troops moved rapidly onwards towards the more important and difficult conquest of Cabul. Ghuznee, a fortress of great strength, lay in the way. In their hasty movements the English had left their battering train behind, but the gates of the fortress were blown in with gunpowder, and by a brilliant feat of arms the fortress was stormed. Nor did the English army encounter any important resistance subsequently. Dost Mohamed found his followers deserting him, and withdrew northwards into the mountains of the Hindoo Koosh. With all the splendour that could be collected, Shah Soojah was brought back to his throne in the Bala Hissar, the fortress Palace of Cabul. … For the moment the policy seemed thoroughly successful. The English Ministry could feel that a fresh check had been placed upon its Russian rival, and no one dreamt of the terrible retribution that was in store for the unjust violence done to the feelings of a people. … Dost Mohamed thought it prudent to surrender himself to the English envoy, Sir William Macnaghten, and to withdraw with his family to the English provinces of Hindostan [November, 1840]. He was there well received and treated with liberality; for, as both the Governor General and his chief adviser Macnaghten felt, he had not in fact in any way offended us, but had fallen a victim to our policy. It was in the full belief that their policy in India had been crowned with permanent success that the Whig Ministers withdrew from office, leaving their successors to encounter the terrible results to which it led. For while the English officials were blindly congratulating themselves upon the happy completion of their enterprise, to an observant eye signs of approaching difficulty were on all sides visible. … The removal of the strong rule of the Barrukzyes opened a door for undefined hopes to many of the other families and tribes. The whole country was full of intrigues and of diplomatic bargaining, carried on by the English political agents with the various chiefs and leaders. But they soon found that the hopes excited by these negotiations were illusory. The allowances for which they had bargained were reduced, for the English envoy began to be disquieted at the vast expenses of the Government. They did not find that they derived any advantages from the establishment of the new puppet King, Soojah Dowlah; and every Mahomedan, even the very king himself, felt disgraced at the predominance of the English infidels. {13} But as no actual insurrection broke out, Macnaghten, a man of sanguine temperament and anxious to believe what he wished, in spite of unmistakable warnings as to the real feeling of the people, clung with almost angry vehemence to the persuasion that all was going well, and that the new King had a real hold upon the people's affection. So completely had he deceived himself on this point, that he had decided to send back a portion of the English army, under General Sale, into Hindostan. He even intended to accompany it himself to enjoy the peaceful post of Governor of Bombay, with which his successful policy had been rewarded. His place was to be taken by Sir Alexander Burnes, whose view of the troubled condition of the country underlying the comparative calm of the surface was much truer than that of Macnaghten, but who, perhaps from that very fact, was far less popular among the chiefs. The army which was to remain at Candahar was under the command of General Nott, an able and decided if somewhat irascible man. But General Elphinstone, the commander of the troops at Cabul, was of quite a different stamp. He was much respected and liked for his honourable character and social qualities, but was advanced in years, a confirmed invalid, and wholly wanting in the vigour and decision which his critical position was likely to require. The fool's paradise with which the English Envoy had surrounded himself was rudely destroyed. He had persuaded himself that the frequently recurring disturbances, and especially the insurrection of the Ghilzyes between Cabul and Jellalabad, were mere local outbreaks. But In fact a great conspiracy was on foot in which the chiefs of nearly every important tribe in the country were implicated. On the evening of the 1st of November [1841] a meeting of the chiefs was held, and It was decided that an immediate attack should be made on the house of Sir Alexander Burnes. The following morning an angry crowd of assailants stormed the houses of Sir Alexander Burnes and Captain Johnson, murdering the inmates, and rifling the treasure-chests belonging to Soojah Dowlah's army. Soon the whole city was in wild insurrection. The evidence is nearly irresistible that a little decision and rapidity of action on the part of the military would have at once crushed the outbreak. But although the attack on Burnes's house was known, no troops were sent to his assistance. Indeed, that unbroken course of folly and mismanagement which marked the conduct of our military affairs throughout this crisis had already begun. Instead of occupying the fortress of the Bala Hissar, where the army would have been in comparative security, Elphlnstone had placed his troops in cantonments far too extensive to be properly defended, surrounded by an entrenchment of the most insignificant character, commanded on almost all sides by higher ground. To complete the unfitness of the position, the commissariat supplies were not stored within the cantonments, but were placed in an isolated fort at some little distance. An ill-sustained and futile assault was made upon the town on the 3d of November, but from that time onwards the British troops lay with incomprehensible supineness awaiting their fate in their defenceless position. The commissariat fort soon fell into the hands of the enemy and rendered their situation still more deplorable. Some flashes of bravery now and then lighted up the sombre scene of helpless misfortune, and served to show that destruction might even yet have been averted by a little firmness. … But the commander had already begun to despair, and before many days had passed he was thinking of making terms with the enemy. Macnaghten had no course open to him under such circumstances but to adopt the suggestion of the general, and attempt as well as he could by bribes, cajolery, and intrigue, to divide the chiefs and secure a safe retreat for the English. Akbar Khan, the son of Dost Mohamed, though not present at the beginning of the insurrection, had arrived from the northern mountains, and at once asserted a predominant influence in the insurgent councils. With him and with the other insurgent chiefs Macnaghten entered into an arrangement by which he promised to withdraw the English entirely from the country if a safe passage were secured for the army through the passes. … While ostensibly treating with the Barrukzye chiefs, he intrigued on all sides with the rival tribes. His double dealing was taken advantage of by Akbar Khan. He sent messengers to Macnaghten proposing that the English should make a separate treaty with himself and support him with their troops in an assault upon some of his rivals. The proposition was a mere trap, and the envoy fell into it. Ordering troops to be got ready, he hurried to a meeting with Akbar to complete the arrangement. There he found himself in the presence of the brother and relatives of the very men against whom he was plotting, and was seized and murdered by Akbar's own hand [December 23]. Still the General thought of nothing but surrender. The negotiations were entrusted to Major Pottinger. The terms of the chiefs gradually rose, and at length with much confusion the wretched army marched out of the cantonments [January 6, 1842], leaving behind nearly all the cannon and superfluous military stores. An Afghan escort to secure the safety of the troops on their perilous journey had been promised, but the promise was not kept. The horrors of the retreat form one of the darkest passages in English military history. In bitter cold and snow, which took all life out of the wretched Sepoys, without proper clothing or shelter, and hampered by a disorderly mass of thousands of camp-followers, the army entered the terrible defiles which lie between Cabul and Jellalabad. Whether Akbar Khan could, had he wished it, have restrained his fanatical followers is uncertain. As a fact the retiring crowd—it can scarcely be called an army—was a mere unresisting prey to the assaults of the mountaineers. Constant communication was kept up with Akbar; on the third day all the ladies and children with the married men were placed in his hands, and finally even the two generals gave themselves up as hostages, always in the hope that the remnant of the army might be allowed to escape."

"Then the march of the army, without a general, went on again. Soon it became the story of a general without an army; before very long there was neither general nor army. It is idle to lengthen a tale of mere horrors. The straggling remnant of an army entered the Jugdulluk Pass—a dark, steep, narrow, ascending path between crags. The miserable toilers found that the fanatical, implacable tribes had barricaded the pass. All was over. The army of Cabul was finally extinguished in that barricaded pass. It was a trap; the British were taken in it. A few mere fugitives escaped from the scene of actual slaughter, and were on the road to Jellalabad, where Sale and his little army were holding their own. When they were within sixteen miles of Jellalabad the number was reduced to six. Of these six five were killed by straggling marauders on the way. One man alone reached Jellalabad to tell the tale. Literally one man, Dr. Brydon, came to Jellalabad [January 13] out of a moving host which had numbered in all some 16,000 when it set out on its march. The curious eye will search through history or fiction in vain for any picture more thrilling with the suggestions of an awful catastrophe than that of this solitary survivor, faint and reeling on his jaded horse, as he appeared under the walls of Jellalabad, to bear the tidings of our Thermopylae of pain and shame. This is the crisis of the story. With this at least the worst of the pain and shame were destined to end. The rest is all, so far as we are concerned, reaction and recovery. Our successes are common enough; we may tell their tale briefly in this instance. The garrison at Jellalabad had received before Dr. Brydon's arrival an intimation that they were to go out and march toward India in accordance with the terms of the treaty extorted from Elphinstone at Cabul. They very properly declined to be bound by a treaty which, as General Sale rightly conjectured, had been 'forced from our envoy and military commander with the knives at their throats.' General Sale's determination was clear and simple. 'I propose to hold this place on the part of Government until I receive its order to the contrary.' This resolve of Sale's was really the turning point of the history. Sale held Jellalabad; Nott was at Candahar. Akbar Khan besieged Jellalabad. Nature seemed to have declared herself emphatically on his side, for a succession of earthquake shocks shattered the walls of the place, and produced more terrible destruction than the most formidable guns of modern warfare could have done. But the garrison held out fearlessly; they restored the parapets, re-established every battery, retrenched the whole of the gates and built up all the breaches. They resisted every attempt of Akbar Khan to advance upon their works, and at length, when it became certain that General Pollock was forcing the Khyber Pass to come to their relief, they determined to attack Akbar Khan's army; they issued boldly out of their forts, forced a battle on the Afghan chief, and completely defeated him. Before Pollock, having gallantly fought his way through the Khyber Pass, had reached Jellalabad [April 16] the beleaguering army had been entirely defeated and dispersed. … Meanwhile the unfortunate Shah Soojah, whom we had restored with so much pomp of announcement to the throne of his ancestors, was dead. He was assassinated in Cabul, soon after the departure of the British, … and his body, stripped of its royal robes and its many jewels, was flung into a ditch."

AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1842-1869.
The British return to Cabul.
Restoration of Dost Mahomed.

It was not till September that General Pollock "could obtain permission from the Governor-General, Lord Ellenborough, to advance against Cabul, though both he and Nott were burning to do so. When Pollock did advance, he found the enemy posted at Jugdulluck, the scene of the massacre. 'Here,' says one writer, 'the skeletons lay so thick that they had to be cleared away to allow the guns to pass. The savage grandeur of the scene rendered it a fitting place for the deed of blood which had been enacted under its horrid shade, never yet pierced in some places by sunlight. The road was strewn for two miles with mouldering skeletons like a charnel house.' Now the enemy found they had to deal with other men, under other leaders, for, putting their whole energy into the work, the British troops scaled the heights and steep ascents, and defeated the enemy in their strongholds on all sides. After one more severe fight with Akbar Khan, and all the force he could collect, the enemy were beaten, and driven from their mountains, and the force marched quietly into Cabul. Nott, on his side, started from Candahar on the 7th of August, and, after fighting several small battles with the enemy, he captured Ghuzni, where Palmer and his garrison had been destroyed. From Ghuzni General Nott brought away, by command of Lord Ellenborough, the gates of Somnauth [said to have been taken from the Hindu temple of Somnauth by Mahmoud of Ghazni, the first Mohammedan invader of India, in 1024], which formed the subject of the celebrated 'Proclamation of the Gates,' as it was called. This proclamation, issued by Lord Ellenborough, brought upon him endless ridicule, and it was indeed at first considered to be a satire of his enemies, in imitation of Napoleon's address from the Pyramids; the Duke of Wellington called it 'The Song of Triumph.' … This proclamation, put forth with so much flourishing of trumpets and ado, was really an insult to those whom it professed to praise, it was an insult to the Mohammedans under our rule, for their power was gone, it was also an insult to the Hindoos, for their temple of Somnauth was in ruins. These celebrated gates, which are believed to be imitations of the original gates, are now lying neglected and worm-eaten, in the back part of a small museum at Agra. But to return, General Nott, having captured Ghuzni and defeated Sultan Jan, pushed on to Cabul, where he arrived on the 17th of September, and met Pollock. The English prisoners (amongst whom were Brigadier Shelton and Lady Sale), who had been captured at the time of the massacre, were brought, or found their own way, to General Pollock's camp. General Elphinstone had died during his captivity. It was not now considered necessary to take any further steps; the bazaar in Cabul was destroyed, and on the 12th of October Pollock and Nott turned their faces southwards, and began their march into India by the Khyber route. The Afghans in captivity were sent back, and the Governor-General received the troops at Ferozepoor. {15} Thus ended the Afghan war 01 1838-42. … The war being over, we withdrew our forces into India, leaving the son of Shah Soojah, Fathi Jung, who had escaped from Cabul when his father was murdered, as king of the country, a position that he was unable to maintain long, being very shortly afterward, assassinated. In 1842 Dost Mahomed, the ruler whom we had deposed, and who had been living at our expense in India, returned to Cabul and resumed his former position as king of the country, still bearing ill-will towards us, which he showed on several occasions, notably during the Sikh war, when he sent a body of his horsemen to fight for the Sikhs, and he himself marched an army through the Khyber to Peshawur to assist our enemies. However, the occupation of the Punjab forced upon Dost Mahomed the necessity of being on friendly terms with his powerful neighbour; he therefore concluded a friendly treaty with us in 1854, hoping thereby that our power would be used to prevent the intrigues of Persia against his kingdom. This hope was shortly after realized, for in 1856 we declared war against Persia, an event which was greatly to the advantage of Dost Mahomed, as it prevented Persian encroachments upon his territory. This war lasted but a short time, for early in 1857 an agreement was signed between England and Persia, by which the latter renounced all claims over Herat and Afghanistan. Herat, however, still remained independent of Afghanistan, until 1863, when Dost Mahomed attacked and took the town, thus uniting the whole kingdom, including Candahar and Afghan Turkestan, under his rule. This was almost the last act of the Ameer's life, for a few days after taking Herat he died. By his will he directed that Shere Ali, one of his sons, should succeed him as Ameer of Afghanistan. The new Ameer immediately wrote to the Governor-General of India, Lord Elgin, in a friendly tone, asking that his succession might be acknowledged. Lord Elgin, however, as the commencement of the Liberal policy of 'masterly inactivity' neglected to answer the letter, a neglect which cannot but be deeply regretted, as Shere Ali was at all events the de facto ruler of the country, and even had he been beaten by any other rival for the throne, it would have been time enough to acknowledge that rival as soon as he was really ruler of the country. When six months later a cold acknowledgement of the letter was given by Sir William Denison, and when a request that the Ameer made for 6,000 muskets had been refused by Lord Lawrence, the Ameer concluded that the disposition of England towards him was not that of a friend; particularly as, when later on, two of his brothers revolted against him, each of them was told by the Government that he would be acknowledged for that part of the country which he brought under his power. However, after various changes in fortune, in 1869 Shere Ali finally defeated his two brothers Afzool and Azim, together with Afzool's son, Abdurrahman."

The period of disturbance in Afghanistan, during the struggle of Shere Ali with his brothers, coincided with the vice royalty of Lord Lawrence in India. The policy of Lord Lawrence, "sometimes slightingly spoken of as masterly inactivity, consisted in holding entirely aloof from the dynastic quarrels of the Afghans … and in attempting to cultivate the friendship of the Ameer by gifts of money and arms, while carefully avoiding topics of offence. … Lord Lawrence was himself unable to meet the Ameer, but his successor, Lord Mayo, had an interview with him at Umballah in 1869. … Lord Mayo adhered to the policy of his predecessor. He refused to enter into any close alliance, he refused to pledge himself to support any dynasty. But on the other hand he promised that he would not press for the admission of any English officers as Residents in Afghanistan. The return expected by England for this attitude of friendly non-interference was that every other foreign state, and especially Russia, should be forbidden to mix either directly or indirectly with the affairs of the country in which our interests were so closely involved. … But a different view was held by another school of Indian politicians, and was supported by men of such eminence as Sir Bartle Frere and Sir Henry Rawlinson. Their view was known as the Sindh Policy as contrasted with that of the Punjab. It appeared to them desirable that English agents should be established at Quetta, Candahar, and Herat, if not at Cabul itself, to keep the Indian Government completely informed of the affairs of Afghanistan, and to maintain English influence in the country. In 1874, upon the accession of the Conservative Ministry, Sir Bartle Frere produced a memorandum in which this policy was ably maintained. … A Viceroy whose views were more in accordance with those of the Government, and who was likely to be a more ready instrument in [its] hands, was found in Lord Lytton, who went to India intrusted with the duty of giving effect to the new policy. He was instructed. … to continue payments of money, to recognise the permanence of the existing dynasty, and to give a pledge of material support in case of unprovoked foreign aggression, but to insist on the acceptance of an English Resident at certain places in Afghanistan in exchange for these advantages. … Lord Lawrence and those who thought with him in England prophesied from the first the disastrous results which would arise from the alienation of the Afghans. … The suggestion of Lord Lytton that an English Commission should go to Cabul to discuss matters of common interest to the two Governments, was calculated … to excite feelings already somewhat unfriendly to England. He [Shere Ali] rejected the mission, and formulated his grievances. … Lord Lytton waived for a time the despatch of the mission, and consented to a meeting between the Minister of the Ameer and Sir Lewis Pelly at Peshawur. … The English Commissioner was instructed to declare that the one indispensable condition of the Treaty was the admission of an English representative within the limits of Afghanistan. The almost piteous request on the part of the Afghans for the relaxation of this demand proved unavailing, and the sudden death of the Ameer's envoy formed a good excuse for breaking off the negotiation. {16} Lord Lytton treated the Ameer as incorrigible, gave him to understand that the English would proceed to secure their frontier without further reference to him, and withdrew his native agent from Cabul. While the relations between the two countries were in this uncomfortable condition, information reached India that a Russian mission had been received at Cabul. It was just at this time that the action of the Home Government seemed to be tending rapidly towards a war with Russia. … As the despatch of a mission from Russia was contrary to the engagements of that country, and its reception under existing circumstances wore an unfriendly aspect, Lord Lytton saw his way with some plausible justification to demand the reception at Cabul of an English embassy. He notified his intention to the Ameer, but without waiting for an answer selected Sir Neville Chamberlain as his envoy, and sent him forward with an escort of more than 1,000 men, too large, as it was observed, for peace, too small for war. As a matter of course the mission was not admitted. … An outcry was raised both in England and in India. … Troops were hastily collected upon the Indian frontier; and a curious light was thrown on what had been done by the assertion of the Premier at the Guildhall banquet that the object in view was the formation of a 'scientific frontier;' in other words, throwing aside all former pretences, he declared that the policy of England was to make use of the opportunity offered for direct territorial aggression. … As had been foreseen by all parties from the first, the English armies were entirely successful in their first advance [November, 1878]. … By the close of December Jellalabad was in the hands of Browne, the Shutargardan Pass had been surmounted by Roberts, and in January Stewart established himself in Candahar. When the resistance of his army proved ineffectual, Shere Ali had taken to flight, only to die. His refractory son Yakoob Khan was drawn from his prison and assumed the reins of government as regent. … Yakoob readily granted the English demands, consenting to place his foreign relations under British control, and to accept British agencies. With considerably more reluctance, he allowed what was required for the rectification of the frontier to pass into English hands. He received in exchange a promise of support by the British Government, and an annual subsidy of £60,000. On the conclusion of the treaty the troops in the Jellalabad Valley withdrew within the new frontier, and Yakoob Khan was left to establish his authority as best he could at Cabul, whither in July Cavagnari with an escort of twenty-six troopers and eighty infantry betook himself. Then was enacted again the sad story which preluded the first Afghan war. All the parts and scenes in the drama repeated themselves with curious uniformity—the English Resident with his little garrison trusting blindly to his capacity for influencing the Afghan mind, the puppet king, without the power to make himself respected, irritated by the constant presence of the Resident, the chiefs mutually distrustful and at one in nothing save their hatred of English interference, the people seething with anger against the infidel foreigner, a wild outbreak which the Ameer, even had he wished it, could not control, an attack upon the Residency and the complete destruction [Sept., 1879] after a gallant but futile resistance of the Resident and his entire escort. Fortunately the extreme disaster of the previous war was avoided. The English troops which were withdrawn from the country were still within reach. … About the 24th of September, three weeks after the outbreak, the Cabul field force under General Roberts was able to move. On the 5th of October it forced its way into the Logar Valley at Charassiab, and on the 12th General Roberts was able to make his formal entry into the city of Cabul. … The Ameer was deposed, martial law was established, the disarmament of the people required under pain of death, and the country scoured to bring in for punishment those chiefly implicated in the late outbreak. While thus engaged in carrying out his work of retribution, the wave of insurrection closed behind the English general, communication through the Kuram Valley was cut off, and he was left to pass the winter with an army of some 8,000 men connected with India only by the Kybur Pass. … A new and formidable personage … now made his appearance on the scene. This was Abdurahman, the nephew and rival of the late Shere Ali, who upon the defeat of his pretensions had sought refuge in Turkestan, and was supposed to be supported by the friendship of Russia. The expected attack did not take place, constant reinforcements had raised the Cabul army to 20,000, and rendered it too strong to be assailed. … It was thought desirable to break up Afghanistan into a northern and southern province. … The policy thus declared was carried out. A certain Shere Ali, a cousin of the late Ameer of the same name, was appointed Wali or Governor of Candahar. In the north signs were visible that the only possible successor to the throne of Cabul would be Abdurahman. … The Bengal army under General Stewart was to march northwards, and, suppressing on the way the Ghuznee insurgents, was to join the Cabul army in a sort of triumphant return to Peshawur. The first part of the programme was carried out. … The second part of the plan was fated to be interrupted by a serious disaster which rendered it for a while uncertain whether the withdrawal of the troops from Afghanistan was possible. … Ayoob had always expressed his disapproval of his brother's friendship for the English, and had constantly refused to accept their overtures. Though little was known about him, rumours were afloat that he intended to advance upon Ghuznee, and join the insurgents there. At length about the middle of June [1880] his army started. … But before the end of June Farah had been reached and it seemed plain that Candahar would be assaulted. … General Burrows found it necessary to fall back to a ridge some forty-five miles from Candahar called Kush-y-Nakhud. There is a pass called Maiwand to the north of the high-road to Candahar, by which an army avoiding the position on the ridge might advance upon the city. On the 27th of July the Afghan troops were seen moving in the direction of this pass. In his attempt to stop them with his small force, numbering about 2,500 men, General Burrows was disastrously defeated. With difficulty and with the loss of seven guns, about half the English troops returned to Candahar. {17} General Primrose, who was in command, had no choice but to strengthen the place, submit to an investment, and wait till he should be rescued. … The troops at Cabul were on the point of withdrawing when the news of the disaster reached them. It was at once decided that the pick of the army under General Roberts should push forward to the beleaguered city, while General Stewart with the remainder should carry out the intended withdrawal. … With about 10,000 fighting men and 8,000 camp followers General Roberts brought to a successful issue his remarkable enterprise, … falling upon the army of the Ameer and entirely dispersing it a short distance outside the city. All those at all inclined to the forward policy clamoured for the maintenance of a British force in Candahar. But the Government firmly and decisively refused to consent to anything approaching to a permanent occupation. … The struggle between Abdurahman and Ayoob continued for a while, and until it was over the English troops remained at Quetta. But when Abdurahman had been several times victorious over his rival and in October [1881] occupied Herat, it was thought safe to complete the evacuation, leaving Abdurahman for the time at least generally accepted as Ameer."

"Territorial sovereignty over the whole of North Africa had doubtless already been claimed on the part of the Roman Republic, perhaps as a portion of the Carthaginian inheritance, perhaps because 'our sea' early became one of the fundamental ideas of the Roman commonwealth; and, in so far, all its coasts were regarded by the Romans even of the developed republic as their true property. Nor had this claim of Rome ever been properly contested by the larger states of North Africa after the destruction of Carthage. … The arrangements which the emperors made were carried out quite after the same way in the territory of the dependent princes as in the immediate territory of Rome; it was the Roman government that regulated the boundaries in all North Africa, and constituted Roman communities at its discretion, in the kingdom of Mauretania no less than in the province of Numidia. We cannot therefore speak, in the strict sense, of a Roman subjugation of North Africa. The Romans did not conquer it like the Phœnicians or the French; but they ruled over Numidia as over Mauretania, first as suzerains, then as successors of the native governments. … As for the previous rulers, so also doubtless for Roman civilization there was to be found a limit to the south, but hardly so for the Roman territorial supremacy. There is never mention of any formal extension or taking back of the frontier in Africa. … The former territory of Carthage and the larger part of the earlier kingdom of Numidia, united with it by the dictator Cæsar, or, as they also called it, the old and new Africa, formed until the end of the reign of Tiberius the province of that name [Africa], which extended from the boundary of Cyrene to the river Ampsaga, embracing the modern state of Tripoli, as well as Tunis and the French province of Constantine. … Mauretania was not a heritage like Africa and Numidia. … The Romans can scarcely have taken over the Empire of the Mauretanian kings in quite the same extent as these possessed it; but … probably the whole south as far as the great desert passed as imperial land."

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST, &c.: A. D. 640-646; 647-709,
      and 908-1171;
      also BARBARY STATES; EGYPT: A. D. 1250-1517, and after;
      and SUDAN.

"The partition of Africa may be said to date from the Berlin Conference of 1884-1885 [see CONGO FREE STATE]. Prior to that Conference the question of inland boundaries was scarcely considered. … The founding of the Congo Independent State was probably the most important result of the Conference. … Two months after the Conference had concluded its labours, Great Britain and Germany had a serious dispute in regard to their respective spheres of influence on the Gulf of Guinea. … The compromise … arrived at placed the Mission Station of Victoria within the German sphere of influence." The frontier between the two spheres of influence on the Bight of Biafra was subsequently defined by a line drawn, in 1886, from the coast to Yola, on the Benué. The Royal Niger Company, constituted by a royal charter, … "was given administrative powers over territories covered by its treaties. The regions thereby placed under British protection … apart from the Oil Rivers District, which is directly administered by the Crown, embrace the coastal lands between Lagos and the northern frontier of Camarons, the Lower Niger (including territories of Sokoto, Gandu and Borgo), and the Benué from Yola to its confluence." By a Protocol signed December 24, 1885, Germany and France "defined their respective spheres of influence and action on the Bight of Biafra, and also on the Slave Coast and in Senegambia." This "fixed the inland extension of the German sphere of influence (Camarons) at 15° East longitude, Greenwich. … At present it allows the French Congo territories to expand along the western bank of the M'bangi … provided no other tributary of the M'bangi-Congo is found to the west, in which case, according to the Berlin Treaty of 1884-85, the conventional basin of the Congo would gain an extension." On the 12th of May, 1886, France and Portugal signed a convention by which France "secured the exclusive control of both banks of the Casamanza (in Senegambia), and the Portuguese frontier in the south was advanced approximately to the southern limit of the basin of the Casini. {18} On the Congo, Portugal retained the Massabi district, to which France had laid claim, but both banks of the Loango were left to France." In 1884 three representatives of the Society for German Colonization—Dr. Peters, Dr. Jühlke, and Count Pfeil—quietly concluded treaties with the chiefs of Useguha, Ukami, Nguru, and Usagara, by which those territories were conveyed to the Society in question. "Dr. Peters … armed with his treaties, returned to Berlin in February, 1885. On the 27th February, the day following the signature of the General Act of the Berlin Conference, an Imperial Schutzbrief, or Charter of Protection, secured to the Society for German Colonization the territories … acquired for them through Dr. Peters' treaties: in other words, a German Protectorate was proclaimed. When it became known that Germany had seized upon the Zanzibar mainland, the indignation in colonial circles knew no bounds. … Prior to 1884, the continental lands facing Zanzibar were almost exclusively under British influence. The principal traders were British subjects, and the Sultan's Government was administered under the advice of the British Resident. The entire region between the Coast and the Lakes was regarded as being under the nominal suzerainty of the Sultan. … Still, Great Britain had no territorial claims on the dominions of the Sultan." The Sultan formally protested and Great Britain championed his cause; but to no effect. In the end the Sultan of Zanzibar yielded the German Protectorate over the four inland provinces and over Vitu, and the British and German Governments arranged questions between them, provisionally, by the Anglo-German Convention of 1886, which was afterwards superseded by the more definite Convention of July 1890, which will be spoken of below. In April 1887, the rights of the Society for German Colonization were transferred to the German East Africa Association, with Dr. Peters at its head. The British East Africa Company took over concessions that had been granted by the Sultan of Zanzibar to Sir William Mackinnon, and received a royal charter in September, 1888. In South-west Africa, "an enterprising Bremen merchant, Herr Lüderitz, and subsequently the German Consul-General, Dr. Nachtigal, concluded a series of political and commercial treaties with native chiefs, whereby a claim was instituted over Angra Pequeña, and over vast districts in the Interior between the Orange River and Cape Frio. … It was useless for the Cape colonists to protest. On the 13th October 1884 Germany formally notified to the Powers her Protectorate over South-West Africa. … On 3rd August 1885 the German Colonial Company for South-West Africa was founded, and …. received the Imperial sanction for its incorporation. But in August 1886 a new Association was formed—the German West-Africa Company—and the administration of its territories was placed under an Imperial Commissioner. … The intrusion of Germany into South-West Africa acted as a check upon, no less than a spur to, the extension of British influence northwards to the Zambezi. Another obstacle to this extension arose from the Boer insurrection." The Transvaal, with increased independence had adopted the title of South African Republic. "Zulu-land, having lost its independence, was partitioned: a third of its territories, over which a republic had been proclaimed, was absorbed (October 1887) by the Transvaal; the remainder was added (14th May 1887) to the British possessions. Amatonga-land was in 1888 also taken under British protection. By a convention with the South African Republic, Britain acquired in 1884 the Crown colony of Bechuana-land; and in the early part of 1885 a British Protectorate was proclaimed over the remaining portion of Bechuana-land." Furthermore, "a British Protectorate was instituted [1885] over the country bounded by the Zambezi in the north, the British possessions in the south, 'the Portuguese province of Sofala' in the east, and the 20th degree of east longitude in the west. It was at this juncture that Mr. Cecil Rhodes came forward, and, having obtained certain concessions from Lobengula, founded the British South Africa Company, … On the 29th October 1889, the British South Africa Company was granted a royal charter. It was declared in this charter that the principal field of the operations of the British South African Company shall be the region of South Africa lying immediately to the north of British Bechuanaland, and to the north and west of the South African Republic, and to the west of the Portuguese dominions.'" No northern limit was given, and the other boundaries were vaguely defined. The position of Swazi-land was definitely settled in 1890 by an arrangement between Great Britain and the South African Republic, which provides for the continued independence of Swazi-land and a joint control over the white settlers. A British Protectorate was proclaimed over Nyassa-Viand and the Shiré Highlands in 1889-90. To return now to the proceedings of other Powers in Africa: "Italy took formal possession, in July 1882, of the bay and territory of Assab. The Italian coast-line on the Red Sea was extended from Ras Kasar (18° 2' North Latitude) to the southern boundary of Raheita, towards Obok. During 1889, shortly after the death of King Johannes, Keren and Asmara were occupied by Italian troops. Menelik of Shoa, who succeeded to the throne of Abyssinia after subjugating all the Abyssinian provinces, except Tigré, dispatched an embassy to King Humbert, the result of which was that the new Negus acknowledged (29th September, 1889) the Protectorate of Italy over Abyssinia, and its sovereignty over the territories of Massawa, Keren and Asmara." By the Protocols of 24th March and 15th April, 1891, Italy and Great Britain define their respective Spheres of Influence in East Africa. "But since then Italy has practically withdrawn from her position. She has absolutely no hold over Abyssinia. … Italy has also succeeded in establishing herself on the Somál Coast." By treaties concluded in 1889, "the coastal lands between Cape Warsheikh (about 2° 30' North latitude), and Cape Bedwin (8° 3' North latitude)—a distance of 450 miles—were placed under Italian protection. Italy subsequently extended (1890) her Protectorate over the Somál Coast to the Jub river. … The British Protectorate on the Somál Coast facing Aden, now extends from the Italian frontier at Ras Hafún to Ras Jibute (43° 15' East longitude). … The activity of France in her Senegambian province, … during the last hundred years … has finally resulted in a considerable expansion of her territory. … The French have established a claim over the country intervening between our Gold Coast Colony and Liberia. {19} A more precise delimitation of the frontier between Sierra Leone and Liberia resulted from the treaties signed at Monrovia on the 11th of November, 1887. In 1888 Portugal withdrew all rights over Dehomé. … Recently, a French sphere of influence has been instituted over the whole of the Saharan regions between Algeria and Senegambia. … Declarations were exchanged (5th August 1890) between [France and Great Britain] with the following results: France became a consenting party to the Anglo-German Convention of 1st July 1890. (2.) Great Britain recognised a French sphere of influence over Madagascar. … And (3) Great Britain recognised the sphere of influence of France to the south of her Mediterranean possessions, up to a line from Say on the Niger to Barrua on Lake Tsad, drawn in such a manner as to comprise in the sphere of action of the British Niger Company all that fairly belongs to the kingdom of Sokoto." The Anglo-German Convention of July, 1890, already referred to, established by its main provisions the following definitions of territory: "The Anglo-German frontier in East Africa, which, by the Convention of 1886, ended at a point on the eastern shore of the Victoria Nyanza was continued on the same latitude across the lake to the confines of the Congo Independent State; but, on the western side of the lake, this frontier was, if necessary, to be deflected to the south, in order to include Mount M'fumbiro within the British sphere. … Treaties in that district were made on behalf of the British East Africa Company by Mr. Stanley, on his return (May 1889) from the relief of Emin Pasha. … (2.) The southern boundary of the German sphere of influence in East Africa was recognised as that originally drawn to a point on the eastern shore of Lake Nyassa, whence it was continued by the eastern, northern, and western shores of the lake to the northern bank of the mouth of the River Songwé. From this point the Anglo-German frontier was continued to Lake Tanganika, in such a manner as to leave the Stevenson Road within the British sphere. (3.) The Northern frontier of British East Africa was defined by the Jub River and the conterminous boundary of the Italian sphere of influence in Galla-land and Abyssinia up to the confines of Egypt; in the west, by the Congo State and the Congo-Nile watershed. (4.) Germany withdrew, in favor of Britain, her Protectorate over Vitu and her claims to all territories on the mainland to the north of the River Tana, as also over the islands of Patta and Manda. (5.) In South-West Africa, the Anglo-German frontier, originally fixed up to 22 south latitude, was confirmed; but from this point the boundary-line was drawn in such a manner eastward and northward as to give Germany free access to the Zambezi by the Chobe River. (6.) The Anglo-German frontier between Togo and Gold Coast Colony was fixed, and that between the Camarons and the British Niger Territories was provisionally adjusted. (7.) The Free-trade zone, defined by the Act of Berlin (1885) was recognised as applicable to the present arrangement between Britain and Germany. (8.) A British Protectorate was recognised over the dominions of the Sultan of Zanzibar within the British coastal zone and over the islands of Zanzibar and Pemba. Britain, however, undertook to use her influence to secure (what have since been acquired) corresponding advantages for Germany within the German coastal zone and over the island of Mafia. Finally (9), the island of Heligoland, in the North Sea, was ceded by Britain to Germany." By a treaty concluded in June, 1891, between Great Britain and Portugal, "Great Britain acquired a broad central sphere of influence for the expansion of her possessions in South Africa northward to and beyond the Zambezi, along a path which provides for the uninterrupted passage of British goods and British enterprise, up to the confines of the Congo Independent State and German East Africa. … Portugal, on the East Coast secured the Lower Zambezi from Zumbo, and the Lower Shiré from the Ruo Confluence, the entire Hinterland of Mosambique up to Lake Nyassa and the Hinterland of Sofala to the confines of the South African Republic and the Matabele kingdom. On the West Coast, Portugal received the entire Hinterland behind her provinces in Lower Guinea, up to the confines of the Congo Independent State, and the upper course of the Zambezi. … On May 25th 1891 a Convention was signed at Lisbon, which has put an end to the dispute between Portugal and the Congo Independent State as to the possession of Lunda. Roughly speaking, the country was equally divided between the disputants. … Lord Salisbury, in his negotiations with Germany and Portugal, very wisely upheld the principle of free-trade which was laid down by the Act of Berlin, 1885, in regard to the free transit of goods through territories in which two or more powers are indirectly interested."

The indigenous races of Africa are considered to be four in number, namely: the Negroes proper, who occupy a central zone, stretching from the Atlantic to the Egyptian Sudan, and who comprise an enormous number of diverse tribes; the Fulahs (with whom the Nubians are associated) settled mainly between Lake Chad and the Niger; the Bantus, who occupy the whole South, except its extremity, and the Hottentots who are in that extreme southern region. Some anthropologists include with the Hottentots the Bosjesmans or Bushmen. The Kafirs and Bechuanas are Bantu tribes. The North and Northeast are occupied by Semitic and Hamitic races, the latter including Abyssinians and Gallas.

AGAS.

AGELA. AGELATAS.

The youths and young men of ancient Crete were publicly trained and disciplined in divisions or companies, each of which was called an Agela, and its leader or director the Agelatas.

AGENDICUM OR AGEDINCUM.

AGER PUBLICUS.

"Rome was always making fresh acquisitions of territory in her early history. … Large tracts of country became Roman land, the property of the Roman state, or public domain (ager publicus), as the Romans called it. The condition of this land, the use to which it was applied, and the disputes which it caused between the two orders at Rome, are among the most curious and perplexing questions in Roman history. … That part of newly acquired territory which was neither sold nor given remained public property, and it was occupied, according to the Roman term, by private persons, in whose hands it was a Possessio. Hyginus and Siculus Flaccus represent this occupation as being made without any order. Every Roman took what he could, and more than he could use profitably. … We should be more inclined to believe that this public land was occupied under some regulations, in order to prevent disputes; but if such regulations existed we know nothing about them. There was no survey made of the public land which was from time to time acquired, but there were certainly general boundaries fixed for the purpose of determining what had become public property. The lands which were sold and given were of necessity surveyed and fixed by boundaries. … There is no direct evidence that any payments to the state were originally made by the Possessors. It is certain, however, that at some early time such payments were made, or, at least, were due to the state."

AGGER.

AGHLABITE DYNASTY.

AGNATI. AGNATIC.

The public discipline enforced in ancient Sparta; the ordinances attributed to Lycurgus, for the training of the young and for the regulating of the lives of citizens.

The market-place of an ancient Greek city was, also, the centre of its political life. "Like the gymnasium, and even earlier than this, it grew into architectural splendour with the increasing culture of the Greeks. In maritime cities it generally lay near the sea; in inland places at the foot of the hill which carried the old feudal castle. Being the oldest part of the city, it naturally became the focus not only of commercial, but also of religious and political life. Here even in Homer's time the citizens assembled in consultation, for which purpose it was supplied with seats; here were the oldest sanctuaries; here were celebrated the first festive games; here centred the roads on which the intercommunication, both religious and commercial, with neighbouring cities and states was carried on; from here started the processions which continually passed between holy places of kindred origin, though locally separated. Although originally all public transactions were carried on in these market-places, special local arrangements for contracting public business soon became necessary in large cities. At Athens, for instance, the gently rising ground of the Philopappos hill, called Pnyx, touching the Agora, was used for political consultations, while most likely, about the time of the Pisistratides, the market of Kerameikos, the oldest seat of Attic industry (lying between the foot of the Akropolis, the Areopagos and the hill of Theseus), became the agora proper, i. e., the centre of Athenian commerce. … The description by Vitruvius of an agora evidently refers to the splendid structures of post-Alexandrine times. According to him it was quadrangular in size [? shape] and surrounded by wide double colonades. The numerous columns carried architraves of common stone or of marble, and on the roofs of the porticoes were galleries for walking purposes. This, of course, does not apply to all marketplaces, even of later date; but, upon the whole, the remaining specimens agree with the description of Vitruvius."

E. Guhl and W. Koner, Life of the Greeks and Romans, translated by Hueffer, part 1, section 26.

"Great mistakes formerly prevailed on the nature of the Roman laws familiarly termed Agrarian. It was supposed that by these laws all land was declared common property, and that at certain intervals of time the state resumed possession and made a fresh distribution to all citizens, rich and poor. It is needless to make any remarks on the nature and consequences of such a law; sufficient it will be to say, what is now known to all, that at Rome such laws never existed, never were thought of. The lands which were to be distributed by Agrarian laws were not private property, but the property of the state. They were, originally, those public lands which had been the domain of the kings, and which were increased whenever any City or people was conquered by the Romans; because it was an Italian practice to confiscate the lands of the conquered, in whole or in part."

"Between the Rhine and the Upper Danube there intervenes a triangular tract of land, the apex of which touches the confines of Switzerland at Basel; thus separating, as with an enormous wedge, the provinces of Gaul and Vindelicia, and presenting at its base no natural line of defence from one river to the other. This tract was, however, occupied, for the most part, by forests, and if it broke the line of the Roman defences, it might at least be considered impenetrable to an enemy. Abandoned by the warlike and predatory tribes of Germany, it was seized by wandering immigrants from Gaul, many of them Roman adventurers, before whom the original inhabitants, the Marcomanni, or men of the frontier, seem to have retreated eastward beyond the Hercynian forest. The intruders claimed or solicited Roman protection, and offered in return a tribute from the produce of the soil, whence the district itself came to be known by the title of the Agri Decumates, or Tithed Land. It was not, however, officially connected with any province of the Empire, nor was any attempt made to provide for its permanent security, till a period much later than that on which we are now engaged [the period of Augustus]."

"Wurtemburg, Baden and Hohenzollern coincide with the Agri
Decumates of the Roman writers."

AGRICOLA'S CAMPAIGNS IN BRITAIN.

AGRIGENTUM.

Acragas, or Agrigentum, one of the youngest of the Greek colonies in Sicily, founded about B. C. 582 by the older colony of Gela, became one of the largest and most splendid cities of the age, in the fifth century B. C., as is testified by its ruins to this day. It was the scene of the notorious tyranny of Phalaris, as well as that of Theron. Agrigentum was destroyed by the Carthagenians, B. C. 405, and rebuilt by Timoleon, but never recovered its former importance and grandeur.

Rebuilt by Timoleon, it was the scene of a great defeat of the
Carthagenians by the Romans, in 262 B. C.

AGRIPPINA AND HER SON NERO.

AIGINA.

A notable siege in the "Hundred Years' War," A. D. 1346. An English garrison under the famous knight, Sir Walter Manny, held the great fortress of Aiguillon, near the confluence of the Garonne and the Lot, against a formidable French army.

The favorite residence and one of the two capitals of Charlemagne was the city which the Germans call Aachen and the French have named Aix-la-Chapelle. "He ravished the ruins of the ancient world to restore the monumental arts. A new Rome arose in the depths of the forests of Austrasia—palaces, gates, bridges, baths, galleries, theatres, churches,—for the erection of which the mosaics and marbles of Italy were laid under tribute, and workmen summoned from all parts of Europe. It was there that an extensive library was gathered, there that the school of the palace was made permanent, there that foreign envoys were pompously welcomed, there that the monarch perfected his plans for the introduction of Roman letters and the improvement of music."

AIX-LA-CHAPELLE,
The Congress and Treaty which ended the War of the Austrian
Succession (1748).

   The War of the Austrian Succession, which raged in Europe, and
   on the ocean, and in India and America, from 1740 to 1748 (see
   AUSTRIA: A. D. 1718-1738, 1740-1741, and after), was brought
   to an end in the latter year by a Congress of all the
   belligerents which met at Aix-la-Chapelle, in April, and which
   concluded its labors on the 18th of October following. "The
   influence of England and Holland … forced the peace upon
   Austria and Sardinia, though both were bitterly aggrieved by
   its conditions. France agreed to restore every conquest she
   had made during the war, to abandon the cause of the Stuarts,
   and expel the Pretender from her soil; to demolish, in
   accordance with earlier treaties, the fortifications of
   Dunkirk on the side of the sea, while retaining those on the
   side of the land, and to retire from the conquest without
   acquiring any fresh territory or any pecuniary compensation.
   England in like manner restored the few conquests she had
   made, and submitted to the somewhat humiliating condition of
   sending hostages to Paris as a security for the restoration of
   Cape Breton. … The disputed boundary between Canada and Nova
   Scotia, which had been a source of constant difficulty with
   France, was left altogether undefined. The Assiento treaty for
   trade with the Spanish colonies was confirmed for the four
   years it had still to run; but no real compensation was
   obtained for a war expenditure which is said to have exceeded
   sixty-four millions, and which had raised the funded and
   unfunded debt to more than seventy-eight millions. Of the
   other Powers, Holland, Genoa, and the little state of Modena
   retained their territory as before the war, and Genoa remained
   mistress of the Duchy of Finale, which had been ceded to the king
   of Sardinia by the Treaty of Worms, and which it had been a
   main object of his later policy to secure. Austria obtained a
   recognition of the election of the Emperor, a general
   guarantee of the Pragmatic Sanction, and the restoration of
   everything she had lost in the Netherlands, but she gained no
   additional territory. She was compelled to confirm the cession
   of Silesia and Glatz to Prussia, to abandon her Italian
   conquests, and even to cede a considerable part of her former
   Italian dominions. To the bitter indignation of Maria Theresa,
   the Duchies of Parma, Placentia and Guastella passed to Don
   Philip of Spain, to revert, however, to their former
   possessors if Don Philip mounted the Spanish throne, or died
   without male issue. The King of Sardinia also obtained from
   Austria the territorial cessions enumerated In the Treaty of
   Worms [see ITALY: A. D. 1743], with the important exceptions
   of Placentia, which passed to Don Philip, and of Finale, which
   remained with the Genoese.
{22}
   For the loss of these he obtained no compensation. Frederick
   [the Great, of Prussia] obtained a general guarantee for the
   possession of his newly acquired territory, and a long list of
   old treaties was formally confirmed. Thus small were the
   changes effected in Europe by so much bloodshed and treachery,
   by nearly nine years of wasteful and desolating war. The
   design of the dismemberment of Austria had failed, but no
   vexed questions had been set at rest. … Of all the ambitious
   projects that had been conceived during the war, that of
   Frederick alone was substantially realized."

"Thus ended the War of the Austrian succession. In its origin and its motives one of the most wicked of all the many conflicts which ambition and perfidy have provoked in Europe, it excites a peculiarly mournful interest by the gross inequality in the rewards and penalties which fortune assigned to the leading actors. Prussia, Spain and Sardinia were all endowed out of the estates of the house of Hapsburg. But the electoral house of Bavaria, the most sincere and the most deserving of all the claimants to that vast inheritance, not only received no increase of territory, but even nearly lost its own patrimonial possessions. … The most trying problem is still that offered by the misfortunes of the Queen of Hungary [Maria Theresa]. … The verdict of history, as expressed by the public opinion, and by the vast majority of writers, in every country except Prussia, upholds the justice of the queen's cause and condemns the coalition that was formed against her."

"Of the Akarnanian League, formed by one of the least important, but at the same time one of the most estimable peoples in Greece … our knowledge is only fragmentary. The boundaries of Akarnania fluctuated, but we always find the people spoken of as a political whole. … Thucydides speaks, by implication at least, of the Akarnanian League as an institution of old standing in his time. The Akarnanians had, in early times, occupied the hill of Olpai as a place for judicial proceedings common to the whole nation. Thus the supreme court of the Akarnanian Union held its sittings, not in a town, but in a mountain fortress. But in Thucydides' own time Stratos had attained its position as the greatest city of Akarnania, and probably the federal assemblies were already held there. … Of the constitution of the League we know but little. Ambassadors were sent by the federal body, and probably, just as in the Achaian League, it would have been held to be a breach of the federal tie if any single city had entered on diplomatic intercourse with other powers. As in Achaia, too, there stood at the head of the League a General with high authority. … The existence of coins bearing the name of the whole Akarnanian nation shows that there was unity enough to admit of a federal coinage, though coins of particular cities also occur."

The Akarnanians formed "a link of transition" between the ancient Greeks and their barbarous or non-Hellenic neighbours in the Epirus and beyond. "They occupied the territory between the river Acheloûs, the Ionian sea and the Ambrakian gulf: they were Greeks and admitted as such to contend at the Pan-Hellenic games, yet they were also closely connected with the Amphilochi and Agræi, who were not Greeks. In manners, sentiments and intelligence, they were half-Hellenic and half-Epirotic,—like the Ætolians and the Ozolian Lokrians. Even down to the time of Thucydides, these nations were subdivided into numerous petty communities, lived in unfortified villages, were frequently in the habit of plundering each other, and never permitted themselves to be unarmed. … Notwithstanding this state of disunion and insecurity, however, the Akarnanians maintained a loose political league among themselves. … The Akarnanians appear to have produced many prophets. They traced up their mythical ancestry, as well as that of their neighbours the Amphilochians, to the most renowned prophetic family among the Grecian heroes,—Amphiaraus, with his sons Alkmæôn and Ampilochus: Akarnan, the eponymous hero of the nation, and other eponymous heroes of the separate towns, were supposed to be the sons of Alkmæôn. They are spoken of, together with the Ætolians, as mere rude shepherds, by the lyric poet Alkman, and so they seem to have continued with little alteration until the beginning of the Peloponnesian war, when we hear of them, for the first time, as allies of Athens and as bitter enemies of the Corinthian colonies on their coast. The contact of those colonies, however, and the large spread of Akarnanian accessible coast, could not fail to produce some effect in socializing and improving the people. And it is probable that this effect would have been more sensibly felt, had not the Akarnanians been kept back by the fatal neighbourhood of the Ætolians, with whom they were in perpetual feud,—a people the most unprincipled and unimprovable of all who bore the Hellenic name, and whose habitual faithlessness stood in marked contrast with the rectitude and steadfastness of the Akarnanian character."

AKBAR (called The Great), Moghul Emperor or Padischah of India,
A. D. 1556-1605.

AKKAD. AKKADIANS.

AKKARON.

AKROKERAUNIAN PROMONTORY.

ALABAMA: A. D. 1663.
Embraced in the Carolina grant to Monk, Shaftesbury, and others.

ALABAMA: A. D. 1702-1711.
French occupation and first settlement.
The founding of Mobile.

ALABAMA: A. D. 1763.
Cession and delivery to Great Britain.
Partly embraced in West Florida.

      See SEVEN YEARS' WAR;
      and FLORIDA: A. D. 1763:
      and NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1763.

ALABAMA: A. D. 1783.
Mostly covered by the English cession to the United States.

ALABAMA: A. D. 1798-1804.
All but the West Florida District embraced in Mississippi Territory.

ALABAMA: A. D. 1813.
Possession of Mobile and West Florida taken from the Spaniards.

ALABAMA: A. D. 1817-1819.
Organized as a Territory.
Constituted a State, and admitted to the Union.

"By an act of Congress dated March 1, 1817, Mississippi Territory was divided. Another act, bearing the date March 3, thereafter, organized the western [? eastern] portion into a Territory, to be known as Alabama, and with the boundaries as they now exist. … By an act approved March 2, 1819, congress authorized the inhabitants of the Territory of Alabama to form a state constitution, 'and that said Territory, when formed into a State, shall be admitted into the Union upon the same footing as the original States.' … The joint resolution of congress admitting Alabama into the Union was approved by President Monroe, December 14, 1819."

ALABAMA: A. D. 1864 (August).
The Battle of Mobile Bay.
Capture of Confederate forts and fleet.

ALABAMA: A. D. 1865 (March-April).
   The Fall of Mobile.
   Wilson's Raid.
   End of the Rebellion.

ALABAMA CLAIMS, The: A. D. 1861-1862.
   In their Origin.
   The Earlier Confederate cruisers.
   Precursors of the Alabama.

The commissioning of privateers, and of more officially commanded cruisers, in the American civil war, by the government of the Southern Confederacy, was begun early in the progress of the movement of rebellion, pursuant to a proclamation issued by Jefferson Davis on the 17th of April, 1861. "Before the close of July, 1861, more than 20 of those depredators were afloat, and had captured millions of property belonging to American citizens. The most formidable and notorious of the sea-going ships of this character, were the Nashville, Captain R. B. Pegram, a Virginian, who had abandoned his flag, and the Sumter [a regularly commissioned war vessel], Captain Raphael Semmes. The former was a side-wheel steamer, carried a crew of eighty men, and was armed with two long 12-pounder rifled cannon. Her career was short, but quite successful. She was finally destroyed by the Montauk, Captain Worden, in the Ogeechee River. The career of the Sumter, which had been a New Orleans and Havana packet steamer named Marquis de Habana, was also short, but much more active and destructive. She had a crew of sixty-five men and twenty-five marines, and was heavily armed. She ran the blockade at the mouth of the Mississippi River on the 30th of June, and was pursued some distance by the Brooklyn. She ran among the West India islands and on the Spanish Main, and soon made prizes of many vessels bearing the American flag. She was everywhere received in British Colonial ports with great favor, and was afforded every facility for her piratical operations. She became the terror of the American merchant service, and everywhere eluded National vessels of war sent out in pursuit of her. At length she crossed the ocean, and at the close of 1861 was compelled to seek shelter under British guns at Gibraltar, where she was watched by the Tuscarora. Early in the year 1862 she was sold, and thus ended her piratical career. Encouraged by the practical friendship of the British evinced for these corsairs, and the substantial aid they were receiving from British subjects in various ways, especially through blockade-runners, the conspirators determined to procure from those friends some powerful piratical craft, and made arrangements for the purchase and construction of vessels for that purpose. Mr. Laird, a ship-builder at Liverpool and member of the British Parliament, was the largest contractor in the business, and, in defiance of every obstacle, succeeded in getting pirate ships to sea. The first of these ships that went to sea was the Oreto, ostensibly built for a house in Palermo, Sicily. Mr. Adams, the American minister in London, was so well satisfied from information received that she was designed for the Confederates, that he called the attention of the British government to the matter so early as the 18th of February, 1862. But nothing effective was done, and she was completed and allowed to depart from British waters. She went first to Nassau, and on the 4th of September suddenly appeared off Mobile harbor, flying the British flag and pennants. The blockading squadron there was in charge of Commander George H. Preble, who had been specially instructed not to give offense to foreign nations while enforcing the blockade. He believed the Oreto to be a British vessel, and while deliberating a few minutes as to what he should do, she passed out of range of his guns, and entered the harbor with a rich freight. For his seeming remissness Commander Preble was summarily dismissed from the service without a hearing—an act which subsequent events seemed to show was cruel injustice. Late in December the Oreto escaped from Mobile, fully armed for a piratical cruise, under the command of John Newland Maffit. … The name of the Oreto was changed to that of Florida."

      ALSO IN
      J. Davis,
      Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government,
      chapters 30-31 (volume 2).

"The Alabama [the second cruiser built in England for the Confederates] … is thus described by Semmes, her commander: 'She was of about 900 tons burden, 230 feet in length, 32 feet in breadth, 20 feet in depth, and drew, when provisioned and coaled for cruise, 15 feet of water. She was barkentine-rigged, with long lower masts, which enabled her to carry large fore and aft sails, as jibs and try-sails. … Her engine was of 300 horse-power, and she had attached an apparatus for condensing from the vapor of sea-water all the fresh water that her crew might require. … Her armament consisted of eight guns.' … The Alabama was built and, from the outset, was 'intended for a Confederate vessel of war.' The contract for her construction was signed by Captain Bullock on the one part and Messrs. Laird on the other.' … On the 15th of May [1862] she was launched under the name of the 290. Her officers were in England awaiting her completion, and were paid their salaries 'monthly, about the first of the month, at Fraser, Trenholm & Co.'s office in Liverpool.' The purpose for which this vessel was being constructed was notorious in Liverpool. Before she was launched she became an object of suspicion with the Consul of the United States at that port, and she was the subject of constant correspondence on his part with his Government and with Mr. Adams. … Early in the history of this cruiser the point was taken by the British authorities—a point maintained throughout the struggle—that they would originate nothing themselves for the maintenance and performance of their international duties, and that they would listen to no representations from the officials of the United States which did not furnish technical evidence for a criminal prosecution under the Foreign Enlistment Act. … At last Mr. Dudley [the Consul of the United States at Liverpool] succeeded in finding the desired proof. On the 21st day of July, he laid it in the form of affidavits before the Collector at Liverpool in compliance with the intimations which Mr. Adams had received from Earl Russell. These affidavits were on the same day transmitted by the Collector to the Board of Customs at London, with a request for instructions by telegraph, as the ship appeared to be ready for sea and might leave any hour. … It … appears that notwithstanding this official information from the Collector, the papers were not considered by the law advisers until the 28th, and that the case appeared to them to be so clear that they gave their advice upon it that evening. Under these circumstances, the delay of eight days after the 21st in the order for the detention of the vessel was, in the opinion of the United States, gross negligence on the part of Her Majesty's Government. On the 29th the Secretary of the Commission of the Customs received a telegram from Liverpool saying that the vessel 290 came out of dock last night, and left the port this morning.' … After leaving the dock she proceeded slowly down the Mersey.' Both the Lairds were on board, and also Bullock. … The 290 slowly steamed on to Moelfra Bay, on the coast of Anglesey, where she remained 'all that night, all the next day, and the next night.' No effort was made to seize her. … When the Alabama left Moelfra Bay her crew numbered about 90 men. She ran part way down the Irish Channel, then round the north coast of Ireland, only stopping near the Giant's Causeway. She then made for Terceira, one of the Azores, which she reached on the 10th of August. On 18th of August, while she was at Terceira, a sail was observed making for the anchorage. It proved to be the 'Agrippina of London, Captain McQueen, having on board six guns, with ammunition, coals, stores, &c., for the Alabama.' Preparations were immediately made to transfer this important cargo. On the afternoon of the 20th, while employed discharging the bark, the screw-steamer Bahama, Captain Tessier (the same that had taken the armament to the Florida, whose insurgent ownership and character were well known in Liverpool), arrived, 'having on board Commander Raphael Semmes and officers of the Confederate States steamer Sumter.' There were also taken from this steamer two 32-pounders and some stores, which occupied all the remainder of that day and a part of the next. The 22d and 23d of August were taken up in transferring coal from the Agrippina to the Alabama. It was not until Sunday (the 24th) that the insurgents' flag was hoisted. Bullock and those who were not going in the 290 went back to the Bahama, and the Alabama, now first known under that name, went off with '26 officers and 85 men.'"

      The Case of the United States before the Tribunal of
      Arbitration at Geneva (42d Congress, 2d Session,
      Senate Ex. Doc., No. 31, pages 146-151).

   The Alabama "arrived at Porto Praya on the 19th August.
   Shortly thereafter Capt. Raphael Semmes assumed command.
   Hoisting the Confederate flag, she cruised and captured
   several vessels in the vicinity of Flores. Cruising to the
   westward, and making several captures, she approached within
   200 miles of New York; thence going southward, arrived, on the
   18th November, at Port Royal, Martinique. On the night of the
   19th she escaped from the harbour and the Federal steamer San
   Jacinto, and on the 20th November was at Blanquilla. On the
   7th December she captured the steamer Ariel in the passage
   between Cuba and St. Domingo. On January 11th, 1863, she sunk
   the Federal gunboat Hatteras off Galveston, and on the 30th
   arrived at Jamaica. Cruising to the eastward, and making many
   captures, she arrived on the 10th April, at Fernando de
   Noronha, 'and on the 11th May at Bahia, where, on the 13th,
   she was joined by the Confederate steamer Georgia. Cruising
   near the line, thence southward towards the Cape of Good Hope,
   numerous captures were made. On the 29th July she anchored in
   Saldanha Bay, South Africa, and near there on the 5th August,
   was joined by the Confederate bark Tuscaloosa, Commander Low.
   In September, 1863, she was at St. Simon's Bay, and in October
   was in the Straits of Sunda, and up to January 20, 1864,
   cruised in the Bay of Bengal and vicinity, visiting
   Singapore, and making a number of very valuable captures,
   including the Highlander, Sonora, etc.
{25}
   From this point she cruised on her homeward track via Cape of
   Good Hope, capturing the bark Tycoon and ship Rockingham, and
   arrived at Cherbourg, France, in June, 1864, where she
   repaired. A Federal steamer, the Kearsarge, was lying off the
   harbour. Capt. Semmes might easily have evaded this enemy; the
   business of his vessel was that of a privateer; and her value
   to the Confederacy was out of all comparison with a single
   vessel of the enemy. … But Capt. Semmes had been twitted
   with the name of 'pirate;' and he was easily persuaded to
   attempt an éclat for the Southern Confederacy by a naval fight
   within sight of the French coast, which contest, it was
   calculated, would prove the Alabama a legitimate war vessel,
   and give such an exhibition of Confederate belligerency as
   possibly to revive the question of 'recognition' in Paris and
   London. These were the secret motives of the gratuitous fight
   with which Capt. Semmes obliged the enemy off the port of
   Cherbourg. The Alabama carried one 7-inch Blakely rifled gun,
   one 8-inch smooth-bore pivot gun, and six 32-pounders,
   smooth-bore, in broadside; the Kearsarge carried four
   broadside 32-pounders, two 11-inch and one 28-pound rifle. The
   two vessels were thus about equal in match and armament; and
   their tonnage was about the same."

Captain Winslow, commanding the United States Steamer Kearsarge, in a report to the Secretary of the Navy written on the afternoon of the day of his battle with the Alabama, June 19, 1864, said: "I have the honor to inform the department that the day subsequent to the arrival of the Kearsarge off this port, on the 24th [14th] instant, I received a note from Captain Semmes, begging that the Kearsarge would not depart, as he intended to fight her, and would delay her but a day or two. According to this notice, the Alabama left the port of Cherbourg this morning at about half past nine o'clock. At twenty minutes past ten A. M., we discovered her steering towards us. Fearing the question of jurisdiction might arise, we steamed to sea until a distance of six or seven miles was attained from the Cherbourg break-water, when we rounded to and commenced steaming for the Alabama. As we approached her, within about 1,200 yards, she opened fire, we receiving two or three broadsides before a shot was returned. The action continued, the respective steamers making a circle round and round at a distance of about 900 yards from each other. At the expiration of an hour the Alabama struck, going down in about twenty minutes afterward, carrying many persons with her." In a report two days later, Captain Winslow gave the following particulars: "Toward the close of the action between the Alabama and this vessel, all available sail was made on the former for the purpose of again reaching Cherbourg. When the object was apparent, the Kearsarge was steered across the bow of the Alabama for a raking fire; but before reaching this point the Alabama struck. Uncertain whether Captain Semmes was not using some ruse, the Kearsarge was stopped. It was seen, shortly afterward, that the Alabama was lowering her boats, and an officer came alongside in one of them to say that they had surrendered, and were fast sinking, and begging that boats would be despatched immediately for saving life. The two boats not disabled were at once lowered, and as it was apparent the Alabama was settling, this officer was permitted to leave in his boat to afford assistance. An English yacht, the Deerhound, had approached near the Kearsarge at this time, when I hailed and begged the commander to run down to the Alabama, as she was fast sinking, and we had but two boats, and assist in picking up the men. He answered affirmatively, and steamed toward the Alabama, but the latter sank almost immediately. The Deerhound, however, sent her boats and was actively engaged, aided by several others which had come from shore.' These boats were busy in bringing the wounded and others to the Kearsarge; whom we were trying to make as comfortable as possible, when it was reported to me that the Deerhound was moving off. I could not believe that the commander of that vessel could be guilty of so disgraceful an act as taking our prisoners off, and therefore took no means to prevent it, but continued to keep our boats at work rescuing the men in the water. I am sorry to say that I was mistaken. The Deerhound made off with Captain Semmes and others, and also the very officer who had come on board to surrender."—In a still later report Captain Winslow gave the following facts: "The fire of the Alabama, although it is stated she discharged 370 or more shell and shot, was not of serious damage to the Kearsarge. Some 13 or 14 of these had taken effect in and about the hull, and 16 or 17 about the masts and rigging. The casualties were small, only three persons having been wounded. … The fire of the Kearsarge, although only 173 projectiles had been discharged, according to the prisoners' accounts, was terrific. One shot alone had killed and wounded 18 men, and disabled a gun. Another had entered the coal-bunkers, exploding, and completely blocking up the engine room; and Captain Semmes states that shot and shell had taken effect in the sides of his vessel, tearing large holes by explosion, and his men were everywhere knocked down."

      ALSO IN
      J. R. Soley,
      The Blockade and the Cruisers (The Navy in the Civil War;
      volume 1, chapter 7.

      J. R. Soley, J. McI. Kell and J. M. Browne,
      The Confederate Cruisers (Battles and Leaders,
      volume 3.

      J. D. Bullock,
      Secret Service of the Confederate States in Europe,
      volume 1, chapter 5.

"A score of other Confederate cruisers roamed the seas, to prey upon United States commerce, but none of them became quite so famous as the Sumter and the Alabama. They included the Shenandoah, which made 38 captures, the Florida, which made 36, the Tallahassee, which made 27, the Tacony, which made 15, and the Georgia, which made 10. The Florida was captured in the harbor of Bahia, Brazil, in October, 1864, by a United States man-of·war [the Wachusett: commander Collins], in violation of the neutrality of the port. For this the United States Government apologized to Brazil and ordered the restoration of the Florida to the harbor where she was captured. But in Hampton Roads she met with an accident and sank. It was generally believed that the apparent accident was contrived with the connivance, if not by direct order, of the Government. Most of these cruisers were built in British shipyards."

The last of the destroyers of American commerce, the Shenandoah, was a British merchant ship—the Sea King—built for the Bombay trade, but purchased by the Confederate agent, Captain Bullock, armed with six guns, and commissioned (October, 1865) under her new name. In June, 1865, the Shenandoah, after a voyage to Australia, in the course of which she destroyed a dozen merchant ships, made her appearance in the Northern Sea, near Behring Strait, where she fell in with the New Bedford whaling fleet. "In the course of one week, from the 21st to the 28th, twenty-five whalers were captured, of which four were ransomed, and the remaining 21 were burned. The loss on these 21 whalers was estimated at upwards of $3,000,000, and considering that it occurred … two months after the Confederacy had virtually passed out of existence, it may be characterized as the most useless act of hostility that occurred during the whole war." The captain of the Shenandoah had news on the 23d of the fall of Richmond; yet after that time he destroyed 15 vessels. On his way southward he received information, August 2d, of the final collapse of the Confederacy. He then sailed for Liverpool, and surrendered his vessel to the British Government, which delivered her to the United States.

      J. R. Soley,
      The Confederate Cruisers
      (Battles and Leaders, volume 4).

ALABAMA CLAIMS, The: A. D. 1862-1869.
   Definition of the indemnity claims of the United States
   against Great Britain.
   First stages of the Negotiation.
   The rejected Johnson-Clarendon Treaty.

"A review of the history of the negotiations between the two Governments prior to the correspondence between Sir Edward Thornton and Mr. Fish, will show … what was intended by these words, 'generically known as the Alabama Claims,' used on each side in that correspondence. The correspondence between the two Governments was opened by Mr. Adams on the 20th of November, 1862 (less than four months after the escape of the Alabama), in a note to Earl Russell, written under instructions from the Government of the United States. In this note Mr. Adams submitted evidence of the acts of the Alabama, and stated: 'I have the honor to inform Your Lordship of the directions which I have received from my Government to solicit redress for the national and private injuries thus sustained.' … Lord Russell met this notice on the 19th of December, 1862, by a denial of any liability for any injuries growing out of the acts of the Alabama. … As new losses from time to time were suffered by individuals during the war, they were brought to the notice of Her Majesty's Government, and were lodged with the national and individual claims already preferred; but argumentative discussion on the issues involved was by common consent deferred. … The fact that the first claim preferred grew out of the acts of the Alabama explains how it was that all the claims growing out of the acts of all the vessels came to be 'generically known as the Alabama claims.' On the 7th of April, 1865, the war being virtually over, Mr. Adams renewed the discussion. He transmitted to Earl Russell an official report showing the number and tonnage of American vessels transferred to the British flag during the war. He said: 'The United States commerce is rapidly vanishing from the face of the ocean, and that of Great Britain is multiplying in nearly the same ratio.' 'This process is going on by reason of the action of British subjects in cooperation with emissaries of the insurgents, who have supplied from the ports of Her Majesty's Kingdom all the materials, such as vessels, armament, supplies, and men, indispensable to the effective prosecution of this result on the ocean.' … He stated that he 'was under the painful necessity of announcing that his Government cannot avoid entailing upon the Government of Great Britain the responsibility for this damage.' Lord Russell … said in reply, 'I can never admit that the duties of Great Britain toward the United States are to be measured by the losses which the trade and commerce of the United States have sustained. … Referring to the offer of arbitration, made on the 26th day of October, 1863, Lord Russell, in the same note, said: 'Her Majesty's Government must decline either to make reparation and compensation for the captures made by the Alabama, or to refer the question to any foreign State.' This terminated the first stage of the negotiations between the two Governments. … In the summer of 1866 a change of Ministry took place in England, and Lord Stanley became Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in the place of Lord Clarendon. He took an early opportunity to give an intimation in the House of Commons that, should the rejected claims be revived, the new Cabinet was not prepared to say what answer might be given them; in other words, that, should an opportunity be offered, Lord Russell's refusal might possibly be reconsidered. Mr. Seward met these overtures by instructing Mr. Adams, on the 27th of August, 1866, 'to call Lord Stanley's attention in a respectful but earnest manner,' to 'a summary of claims of citizens of the United States, for damages which were suffered by them during the period of the civil war,' and to say that the Government of the United States, while it thus insists upon these particular claims, is neither desirous nor willing to assume an attitude unkind and unconciliatory toward Great Britain. … Lord Stanley met this overture by a communication to Sir Frederick Bruce, in which he denied the liability of Great Britain, and assented to a reference, 'provided that a fitting Arbitrator can be found, and that an agreement can be come to as to the points to which the arbitration shall apply.' … As the first result of these negotiations, a convention known as the Stanley-Johnson convention was signed at London on the 10th of November, 1868. It proved to be unacceptable to the Government of the United States. Negotiations were at once resumed, and resulted on the 14th of January, 1869, in the Treaty known as the Johnson-Clarendon convention [having been negotiated by Mr. Reverdy Johnson, who had succeeded Mr. Adams as United States Minister to Great Britain]. This latter convention provided for the organization of a mixed commission with jurisdiction over 'all claims on the part of citizens of the United States upon the Government of Her Britannic Majesty, including the so-called Alabama claims, and all claims on the part of subjects of Her Britannic Majesty upon the Government of the United States which may have been presented to either government for its interposition with the other since the 26th July, 1853, and which yet remain unsettled.'" The Johnson-Clarendon treaty, when submitted to the Senate, was rejected by that body, in April, "because, although it made provision for the part of the Alabama claims which consisted of claims for individual losses, the provision for the more extensive national losses was not satisfactory to the Senate."

The Argument of the United States delivered to the Tribunal of Arbitration at Geneva, June 15, 1872, Division 13, section 2.

ALABAMA CLAIMS, The: A. D. 1869-1871.
Renewed Negotiations.
Appointment and meeting of the Joint High Commission.

The action of the Senate in rejecting the Johnson-Clarendon treaty was taken in April, 1869, a few weeks after President Grant entered upon his office. At this time "the condition of Europe was such as to induce the British Ministers to take into consideration the foreign relations of Great Britain; and, as Lord Granville, the British Minister of Foreign Affairs, has himself stated in the House of Lords, they saw cause to look with solicitude on the uneasy relations of the British Government with the United States, and the inconvenience thereof in case of possible complications in Europe. Thus impelled, the Government dispatched to Washington a gentleman who enjoyed the confidence of both Cabinets, Sir John Rose, to ascertain whether overtures for reopening negotiations would be received by the President in spirit and terms acceptable to Great Britain. … Sir John Rose found the United States disposed to meet with perfect correspondence of good-will the advances of the British Government. Accordingly, on the 26th of January, 1871, the British Government, through Sir Edward Thornton, finally proposed to the American Government the appointment of a joint High Commission to hold its sessions at Washington, and there devise means to settle the various pending questions between the two Governments affecting the British possessions in North America. To this overture Mr. Fish replied that the President would with pleasure appoint, as invited, Commissioners on the part of the United States, provided the deliberations of the Commissioners should be extended to other differences,—that is to say, to include the differences growing out of incidents of the late Civil War. … The British Government promptly accepted this proposal for enlarging the sphere of the negotiation." The joint High Commission was speedily constituted, as proposed, by appointment of the two governments, and the promptitude of proceeding was such that the British commissioners landed at New York in twenty-seven days after Sir Edward Thornton's suggestion of January 26th was made. They sailed without waiting for their commissions, which were forwarded to them by special messenger. The High Commission was made up as follows: "On the part of the United States were five persons,—Hamilton Fish, Robert C. Schenck, Samuel Nelson, Ebenezer Rockwood Hoar, and George H. Williams,—eminently fit representatives of the diplomacy, the bench, the bar, and the legislature of the United States: on the part of Great Britain, Earl De Grey and Ripon, President of the Queen's Council; Sir Stafford Northcote, Ex-Minister and actual Member of the House of Commons; Sir Edward Thornton, the universally respected British Minister at Washington; Sir John [A.] Macdonald, the able and eloquent Premier of the Canadian Dominion; and, in revival of the good old time, when learning was equal to any other title of public honor, the Universities in the person of Professor Montague Bernard. … In the face of many difficulties, the Commissioners, on the 8th of May, 1871, completed a treaty [known as the Treaty of Washington], which received the prompt approval of their respective Governments."

      ALSO IN
      A. Lang, Life, Letters, and Diaries of Sir Stafford
      Northcote, First Earl of Iddesleigh,
      chapter 12 (volume 2).

The treaty signed at Washington on the 8th day of May, 1871, and the ratifications of which were exchanged at London on the 17th day of the following June, set forth its principal agreement in the first two articles as follows: "Whereas differences have arisen between the Government of the United States and the Government of Her Brittanic Majesty, and still exist, growing out of the acts committed by the several vessels which have given rise to the claims generically known as the 'Alabama Claims;' and whereas Her Britannic Majesty has authorized Her High Commissioners and Plenipotentiaries to express in a friendly spirit, the regret felt by Her Majesty's Government for the escape, under whatever circumstances, of the Alabama and other vessels from British ports, and for the depredations committed by those vessels: Now, in order to remove and adjust all complaints and claims on the part of the United States and to provide for the speedy settlement of such claims which are not admitted by Her Britannic Majesty's Government, the high contracting parties agree that all the said claims, growing out of acts committed by the aforesaid vessels, and generically known as the 'Alabama Claims,' shall be referred to a tribunal of arbitration to be composed of five Arbitrators, to be appointed in the following manner, that is to say: One shall be named by the President of the United States; one shall be named by Her Britannic Majesty; His Majesty the King of Italy shall be requested to name one; the President of the Swiss Confederation shall be requested to name one; and His Majesty the Emperor of Brazil shall be requested to name one. … The Arbitrators shall meet at Geneva, in Switzerland, at the earliest convenient day after they shall have been named, and shall proceed impartially and carefully to examine and decide all questions that shall be laid before them on the part of the Governments of the United States and Her Britannic Majesty respectively. All questions considered by the tribunal, including the final award, shall be decided by a majority of all the Arbitrators. Each of the high contracting parties shall also name one person to attend the tribunal as its Agent to represent it generally in all matters connected with the arbitration." Articles 3, 4 and 5 of the treaty specify the mode in which each party shall submit its case. Article 6 declares that, "In deciding the matters submitted to the Arbitrators, they shall be governed by the following three rules, which are agreed upon by the high contracting parties as rules to be taken as applicable to the case, and by such principles of international law not inconsistent therewith as the Arbitrators shall determine to have been applicable to the case: {28} A neutral Government is bound—First, to use due diligence to prevent the fitting out, arming, or equipping, within its jurisdiction, of any vessel which it has reasonable ground to believe is intended to cruise or to carry on war against a Power with which it is at peace; and also to use like diligence to prevent the departure from its jurisdiction of any vessel intended to cruise or carry on war as above, such vessel having been specially adapted, in whole or in part, within such jurisdiction, to warlike use. Secondly, not to permit or suffer either belligerent to make use of its ports or waters as the base of naval operations against the other, or for the purpose of the renewal or augmentation of military supplies or arms, or the recruitment of men. Thirdly to exercise due diligence in its own ports and waters, and, as to all persons within its jurisdiction, to prevent any violation of the foregoing obligations and duties. Her Britannic Majesty has commanded her High Commissioners and Plenipotentiaries to declare that Her Majesty's Government cannot assent to the foregoing rules as a statement of principles of international law which were in force at the time when the claims mentioned in Article 1 arose, but that Her Majesty's Government, in order to evince its desire of strengthening the friendly relations between the two countries and of making satisfactory provision for the future, agrees that in deciding the questions between the two countries arising out of those claims, the Arbitrators should assume that Her Majesty's Government had undertaken to act upon the principles set forth in these rules. And the high contracting parties agree to observe these rules as between themselves in future, and to bring them to the knowledge of other maritime powers, and to invite them to accede to them." Articles 7 to 17, inclusive, relate to the procedure of the tribunal of arbitration, and provide for the determination of claims, by assessors and commissioners, in case the Arbitrators should find any liability on the part of Great Britain and should not award a sum in gross to be paid in settlement thereof. Articles 18 to 25 relate to the Fisheries. By Article 18 it is agreed that in addition to the liberty secured to American fishermen by the convention of 1818, "of taking, curing and drying fish on certain coasts of the British North American colonies therein defined, the inhabitants of the United States shall have, in common with the subjects of Her Britannic Majesty, the liberty for [a period of ten years, and two years further after notice given by either party of its wish to terminate the arrangement] … to take fish of every kind, except shell fish, on the sea-coasts and shores, and in the bays, harbours and creeks, of the provinces of Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, and the colony of Prince Edward's Island, and of the several islands thereunto adjacent, without being restricted to any distance from the shore, with permission to land upon the said coasts and shores and islands, and also upon the Magdalen Islands, for the purpose of drying their nets and curing their fish; provided that, in so doing, they do not interfere with the rights of private property, or with British fishermen, in the peaceable use of any part of the said coasts in their occupancy for the same purpose. It is understood that the above-mentioned liberty applies solely to the sea-fishery, and that the salmon and shad fisheries, and all other fisheries in rivers and the mouths of rivers, are hereby reserved exclusively for British fishermen." Article 19 secures to British subjects the corresponding rights of fishing, &c., on the eastern sea-coasts and shores of the United States north of the 39th parallel of north latitude. Article 20 reserves from these stipulations the places that were reserved from the common right of fishing under the first article of the treaty of June 5, 1854. Article 21 provides for the reciprocal admission of fish and fish oil into each country from the other, free of duty (excepting fish of the inland lakes and fish preserved in oil). Article 22 provides that, "Inasmuch as it is asserted by the Government of Her Britannic Majesty that the privileges accorded to the citizens of the United States under Article XVIII of this treaty are of greater value than those accorded by Articles XIX and XXI of this treaty to the subjects of Her Britannic Majesty, and this assertion is not admitted by the Government of the United States, it is further agreed that Commissioners shall be appointed to determine … the amount of any compensation which in their opinion, ought to be paid by the Government of the United States to the Government of Her Britannic Majesty." Article 23 provides for the appointment of such Commissioners, one by the President of the United States, one by Her Britannic Majesty, and the third by the President and Her Majesty conjointly; or, failing of agreement within three months, the third Commissioner to be named by the Austrian Minister at London. The Commissioners to meet at Halifax, and their procedure to be as prescribed and regulated by Articles 24 and 25. Articles 26 to 31 define certain reciprocal privileges accorded by each government to the subjects of the other, including the navigation of the St. Lawrence, Yukon, Porcupine and Stikine Rivers, Lake Michigan, and the WeIland, St. Lawrence and St. Clair Flats canals; and the transportation of goods in bond through the territory of one country into the other without payment of duties. Article 32 extends the provisions of Articles 18 to 25 of the treaty to Newfoundland if all parties concerned enact the necessary laws, but not otherwise. Article 33 limits the duration of Articles 18 to 25 and Article 30, to ten years from the date of their going into effect, and "further until the expiration of two years after either of the two high contracting parties shall have given notice to the other of its wish to terminate the same." The remaining articles of the treaty provide for submitting to the arbitration of the Emperor of Germany the Northwestern water-boundary question (in the channel between Vancouver's Island and the continent)—to complete the settlement of Northwestern boundary disputes.

Treaties and Conventions between the U. S. and other Powers (edition of 1889), pages 478-493.

ALABAMA CLAIMS, The: A. D. 1871-1872.
The Tribunal of Arbitration at Geneva, and its Award.

"The appointment of Arbitrators took place in due course, and with the ready good-will of the three neutral governments. The United States appointed Mr. Charles Francis Adams; Great Britain appointed Sir Alexander Cockburn; the King of Italy named Count Frederic Sclopis; the President of the Swiss Confederation, Mr. Jacob Stæmpfii; and the Emperor of Brazil, the Baron d'Itajubá. Mr. J. C. Bancroft Davis was appointed Agent of the United States, and Lord Tenterden of Great Britain. The Tribunal was organized for the reception of the case of each party, and held its first conference [at Geneva, Switzerland] on the 15th of December, 1871," Count Sclopis being chosen to preside. "The printed Case of the United States, with accompanying documents, was filed by Mr. Bancroft Davis, and the printed Case of Great Britain, with documents, by Lord Tenterden. The Tribunal made regulation for the filing of the respective Counter-Cases on or before the 15th day of April next ensuing, as required by the Treaty; and for the convening of a special meeting of the Tribunal, if occasion should require; and then, at a second meeting, on the next day, they adjourned until the 15th of June next ensuing, subject to a prior call by the Secretary, if there should be occasion." The sessions of the Tribunal were resumed on the 15th of June, 1872, according to the adjournment, and were continued until the 14th of September following, when the decision and award were announced, and were signed by all the Arbitrators except the British representative, Sir Alexander Cockburn, who dissented. It was found by the Tribunal that the British Government had "failed to use due diligence in the performance of its neutral obligations" with respect to the cruisers Alabama and Florida, and the several tenders of those vessels; and also with respect to the Shenandoah after her departure from Melbourne, February 18, 1865, but not before that date. With respect to the Georgia, the Sumter, the Nashville, the Tallahassee and the Chickamauga, it was the finding of the Tribunal that Great Britain had not failed to perform the duties of a neutral power. So far as relates to the vessels called the Sallie, the Jefferson Davis, the Music, the Boston, and the V. H. Joy, it was the decision of the Tribunal that they ought to be excluded from consideration for want of evidence. "So far as relates to the particulars of the indemnity claimed by the United States, the costs of pursuit of Confederate cruisers" are declared to be "not, in the judgment of the Tribunal, properly distinguishable from the general expenses of the war carried on by the United States," and "there is no ground for awarding to the United States any sum by way of indemnity under this head." A similar decision put aside the whole consideration of claims for "prospective earnings." Finally, the award was rendered in the following language: "Whereas, in order to arrive at an equitable compensation for the damages which have been sustained, it is necessary to set aside all double claims for the same losses, and all claims for 'gross freights' so far as they exceed 'net freights;' and whereas it is just and reasonable to allow interest at a reasonable rate; and whereas, in accordance with the spirit and letter of the Treaty of Washington, it is preferable to adopt the form of adjudication of a sum in gross, rather than to refer the subject of compensation for further discussion and deliberation to a Board of Assessors, as provided by Article X of the said Treaty: The Tribunal, making use of the authority conferred upon it by Article VII of the said Treaty, by a majority of four voices to one, awards to the United States the sum of fifteen millions five hundred thousand Dollars in gold as the indemnity to be paid by Great Britain to the United States for the satisfaction of all the claims referred to the consideration of the Tribunal, conformably to the provisions contained in Article VII of the aforesaid Treaty." It should be stated that the so-called "indirect claims" of the United States, for consequential losses and damages, growing out of the encouragement of the Southern Rebellion, the prolongation of the war, &c., were dropped from consideration at the outset of the session of the Tribunal, in June, the Arbitrators agreeing then in a statement of opinion to the effect that "these claims do not constitute, upon the principles of international law applicable to such cases, good foundation for an award of compensation or computation of damages between nations." This declaration was accepted by the United States as decisive of the question, and the hearing proceeded accordingly.

      ALSO IN
      F. Wharton,
      Digest of the International Law of the United States,
      chapter 21 (volume 3).

ALAMANNI.

The stronghold of the "Old Man of the Mountain," or Sheikh of the terrible order of the Assassins, in northern Persia. Its name signifies "the Eagle's nest," or "the Vulture's nest."

"The Alani are first mentioned by Dionysius the geographer (B. C. 30-10) who joins them with the Daci and the Tauri, and again places them between the latter and the Agathyrsi. A similar position (in the south of Russia in Europe, the modern Ukraine) is assigned to them by Pliny and Josephus. Seneca places them further west upon the Ister. Ptolemy has two bodies of Alani, one in the position above described, the other in Scythia within the Imaus, north and partly east of the Caspian. It must have been from these last, the successors, and, according to some, the descendants of the ancient Massagetæ, that the Alani came who attacked Pacorus and Tiridates [in Media and Armenia, A. D. 75]. … The result seems to have been that the invaders, after ravaging and harrying Media and Armenia at their pleasure, carried off a vast number of prisoners and an enormous booty into their own country."

"The first of this [the Tartar] race known to the Romans were the Alani. In the fourth century they pitched their tents in the country between the Volga and the Tanais, at an equal distance from the Black Sea and the Caspian."

ALARIC'S RAVAGES IN GREECE AND CONQUEST OF ROME.

ALARODIANS. IBERIANS. COLCHIANS.

"The Alarodians of Herodotus, joined with the Sapeires … are almost certainly the inhabitants of Armenia, whose Semitic name was Urarda, or Ararat. 'Alarud,' indeed, is a mere variant form of 'Ararud,' the l and r being undistinguishable in the old Persian, and 'Ararud' serves determinately to connect the Ararat of Scripture with the Urarda, or Urartha of the Inscriptions. … The name of Ararat is constantly used in Scripture, but always to denote a country rather than a particular mountain. … The connexion … of Urarda with the Babylonian tribe of Akkad is proved by the application in the inscriptions of the ethnic title of Burbur (?) to the Armenian king … ; but there is nothing to prove whether the Burbur or Akkad of Babylonia descended in a very remote age from the mountains to colonize the plains, or whether the Urardians were refugees of a later period driven northward by the growing power of the Semites. The former supposition, however, is most in conformity with Scripture, and incidentally with the tenor of the inscriptions."

"The broad and rich valley of the Kur, which corresponds closely with the modern Russian province of Georgia, was [anciently] in the possession of a people called by Herodotus Saspeires or Sapeires, whom we may identify with the Iberians of later writers. Adjoining upon them towards the south, probably in the country about Erivan, and so in the neighbourhood of Ararat, were the Alarodians, whose name must be connected with that of the great mountain. On the other side of the Sapeirian country, in the tracts now known as Mingrelia and Imeritia, regions of a wonderful beauty and fertility, were the Colchians,—dependents, but not exactly subjects, of Persia."

As early as 1859 there were unofficial communications between the Russian and American governments, on the subject of the sale of Alaska by the former to the latter. Russia was more than willing to part with a piece of territory which she found difficulty in defending, in war; and the interests connected with the fisheries and the fur-trade in the north-west were disposed to promote the transfer. In March, 1867, definite negotiations on the subject were opened by the Russian minister at Washington, and on the 23d of that month he received from Secretary Seward an offer, subject to the President's approval, of $7,200,000, on condition that the cession be "free and unencumbered by any reservations, privileges, franchises, grants, or possessions by any associated companies, whether corporate or incorporate, Russian, or any other." "Two days later an answer was returned, stating that the minister believed himself authorized to accept these terms. On the 29th final instructions were received by cable from St. Petersburg. On the same day a note was addressed by the minister to the secretary of state, informing him that the tsar consented to the cession of Russian America for the stipulated sum of $7,200,000 in gold. At four o'clock the next morning the treaty was signed by the two parties without further phrase or negotiation. In May the treaty was ratified, and on June 20, 1867, the usual proclamation was issued by the president of the United States." On the 18th of October, 1867, the formal transfer of the territory was made, at Sitka, General Rousseau taking possession in the name of the Government of the United States.

"Cantons … having their rendezvous in some stronghold, and including a certain number of clanships, form the primitive political unities with which Italian history begins. At what period, and to what extent, such cantons were formed in Latium, cannot be determined with precision; nor is it a matter of special historical interest. The isolated Alban range, that natural stronghold of Latium, which offered to settlers the most wholesome air, the freshest springs, and the most secure position, would doubtless be first occupied by the new comers. Here accordingly, along the narrow plateau above Palazzuola, between the Alban lake (Lago di Castello) and the Alban mount (Monte Cavo) extended the town of Alba, which was universally regarded as the primitive seat of the Latin stock, and the mother-city of Rome, as well as of all the other Old Latin communities. Here, too, on the slopes lay the very ancient Latin canton-centres of Lanuvium, Aricia, and Tusculum. … All these cantons were in primitive times politically sovereign, and each of them was governed by its prince with the co-operation of the council of elders and the assembly of warriors. Nevertheless the feeling of fellowship based on community of descent and of language not only pervaded the whole of them, but manifested itself in an important religious and political institution—the perpetual league of the collective Latin cantons. The presidency belonged originally, according to the universal Italian as well as Hellenic usage, to that canton within whose bounds lay the meeting-place of the league; in this case it was the canton of Alba. … The communities entitled to participate in the league were in the beginning thirty. … The rendezvous of this union was, like the Pambœotia and the Panionia among the similar confederacies of the Greeks, the 'Latin festival' (feriæ Latinæ) at which, on the Mount of Alba, upon a day annually appointed by the chief magistrate for the purpose, an ox was offered in sacrifice by the assembled Latin stock to the 'Latin god' (Jupiter Latiaris)."

"From the settlement of the Servian Sclavonians within the bounds of the empire [during the reign of Heraclius, first half of the seventh century], we may … venture to date the earliest encroachments of the Illyrian or Albanian race on the Hellenic population. The Albanians or Arnauts, who are now called by themselves Skiptars, are supposed to be remains of the great Thracian race which, under various names, and more particularly as Paionians, Epirots and Macedonians, take an important part in early Grecian history. No distinct trace of the period at which they began to be co-proprietors of Greece with the Hellenic race can be found in history. … It seems very difficult to trace back the history of the Greek nation without suspecting that the germs of their modern condition, like those of their neighbours, are to be sought in the singular events which occurred in the reign of Heraclius."

"John Castriot, Lord of Emalthia (the modern district of Moghlene) [in Epirus or Albania] had submitted, like the other petty despots of those regions, to Amurath early in his reign, and had placed his four sons in the Sultan's hands as hostages for his fidelity. Three of them died young. The fourth, whose name was George, pleased the Sultan by his beauty, strength and intelligence. Amurath caused him to be brought up in the Mahometan creed; and, when he was only eighteen, conferred on him the government of one of the Sanjaks of the empire. The young Albanian proved his courage and skill in many exploits under Amurath's eye, and received from him the name of Iskanderbeg, the lord Alexander. When John Castriot died, Amurath took possession of his principalities and kept the son constantly employed in distant wars. Scanderbeg brooded over this injury; and when the Turkish armies were routed by Hunyades in the campaign of 1443, Scanderbeg determined to escape from their side and assume forcible possession of his patrimony. He suddenly entered the tent of the Sultan's chief secretary, and forced that functionary, with the poniard at his throat, to write and seal a formal order to the Turkish commander of the strong city of Croia, in Albania, to deliver that place and the adjacent territory to Scanderbeg, as the Sultan's viceroy. He then stabbed the secretary and hastened to Croia, where his strategem gained him instant admittance and submission. He now publicly abjured the Mahometan faith, and declared his intention of defending the creed of his forefathers, and restoring the independence of his native land. The Christian population flocked readily to his banner and the Turks were massacred without mercy. For nearly twenty-five years Scanderbeg contended against all the power of the Ottomans, though directed by the skill of Amurath and his successor Mahomet, the conqueror of Constantinople."

"Scanderbeg died a fugitive at Lissus on the Venetian territory [A. D. 1467]. His sepulchre was soon violated by the Turkish conquerors; but the janizaries, who wore his bones enchased in a bracelet, declared by this superstitious amulet their involuntary reverence for his valour. … His infant son was saved from the national shipwreck; the Castriots were invested with a Neapolitan dukedom, and their blood continues to flow in the noblest families of the realm."

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 67. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

In 1614, the year after the first Dutch traders had established their operations on Manhattan Island, they built a trading house, which they called Fort Nassau, on Castle Island, in the Hudson River, a little below the site of the present city of Albany. Three years later this small fort was carried away by a flood and the island abandoned. In 1623 a more important fortification, named Fort Orange, was erected on the site afterwards covered by the business part of Albany. That year, "about eighteen families settled themselves at Fort Orange, under Adriaen Joris, who 'staid with them all winter,' after sending his ship home to Holland in charge of his son. As soon as the colonists had built themselves 'some huts of bark' around the fort, the Mahikanders or River Indians [Mohegans], the Mohawks, the Oneidas, the Onondagas, the Cayugas, and the Senecas, with the Mahawawa or Ottawawa Indians, 'came and made covenants of friendship … and desired that they might come and have a constant free trade with them, which was concluded upon.'"

ALBANY, NEW YORK: A. D. 1630.
Embraced in the land-purchase of Patroon Van Rensselaer.

ALBANY AND SCHENECTADY RAILROAD OPENING.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (APRIL-MAY: NORTH
CAROLINA), and (OCTOBER: N. CAROLINA).

ALBERT,
  King of Sweden, A. D. 1365-1388.
  Albert, Elector of Brandenburg, A. D. 1470-1486.
  Albert I., Duke of Austria and
    King of Germany, A. D. 1298-1308.
  Albert II., Duke of Austria, King of Hungary and
  Bohemia, A. D. 1437-1440;
  King of Germany, A. D. 1438-1440.

ALBERTINE LINE OF SAXONY.

A Gallic tribe which occupied the hills above Massilia (Marseilles) and who are described as a savage people even in the time of Cæsar, when they helped the Massiliots to defend their city against him.

"Nothing is more curious in Christian history than the vitality of the Manichean opinions. That wild, half poetic, half rationalistic theory of Christianity, … appears almost suddenly in the 12th century, in living, almost irresistible power, first in its intermediate settlement in Bulgaria, and on the borders of the Greek Empire, then in Italy, in France, in Germany, in the remoter West, at the foot of the Pyrenees. … The chief seat of these opinions was the south of France. Innocent III., on his accession, found not only these daring insurgents scattered in the cities of Italy, even, as it were, at his own gates (among his first acts was to subdue the Paterines of Viterbo), he found a whole province, a realm, in some respects the richest and noblest of his spiritual domain, absolutely dissevered from his Empire, in almost universal revolt from Latin Christianity. … In no [other] European country had the clergy so entirely, or it should seem so deservedly, forfeited its authority. In none had the Church more absolutely ceased to perform its proper functions."

"By mere chance, the sects scattered in South France received the common name of Albigenses, from one of the districts where the agents of the church who came to combat them found them mostly to abound,—the district around the town of Alba, or Alby; and by this common name they were well known from the commencement of the thirteenth century. Under this general denomination parties of different tenets were comprehended together, but the Catharists seem to have constituted a predominant element among the people thus designated."

      A. Neander,
      General History of the Christian Religion and Church,
      5th per., division 2, section 4, part 3.

"Of the sectaries who shared the errors of Gnosticism and Manichæism and opposed the Catholic Church and her hierarchy, the Albigenses were the most thorough and radical. Their errors were, indeed, partly Gnostic and partly Manichæan, but the latter was the more prominent and fully developed. They received their name from a district of Languedoc, inhabited by the Albigeois and surrounding the town of Albi. They are called Cathari and Patarini in the acts of the Council of Tours (A. D. 1163), and in those of the third Lateran, Publiciani (i. e., Pauliciani). Like the Cathari, they also held that the evil spirit created all visible things."

Johannes Baptist Alzog, Manual of Universal Church History, period 2, epoch 2, part 1, chapter 3, section 236. https://archive.org/details/manualofuniversa02alzo

"The imputations of irreligion, heresy, and shameless debauchery, which have been cast with so much bitterness on the Albigenses by their persecutors, and which have been so zealously denied by their apologists, are probably not ill founded, if the word Albigenses be employed as synonymous with the words Provençaux or Languedocians; for they were apparently a race among whom the hallowed charities of domestic life, and the reverence due to divine ordinances and the homage due to divine truth, were often impaired, and not seldom extinguished, by ribald jests, by infidel scoffings, and by heart-hardening impurities. Like other voluptuaries, the Provençaux (as their remaining literature attests) were accustomed to find matter for merriment in vices which would have moved wise men to tears. But if by the word Albigenses be meant the Vaudois, or those followers (or associates) of Peter Waldo who revived the doctrines against which the Church of Rome directed her censures, then the accusation of dissoluteness of manners may be safely rejected as altogether calumnious, and the charge of heresy may be considered, if not as entirely unfounded, yet as a cruel and injurious exaggeration."

   "Pope Innocent III., in organizing the persecution of the
   Catharins [or Catharists], the Patarins, and the Pauvres de
   Lyons, exercised a spirit, and displayed a genius similar to
   those which had already elevated him to almost universal
   dominion; which had enabled him to dictate at once to Italy
   and to Germany; to control the kings of France, of Spain, and
   of England; to overthrow the Greek Empire, and to substitute
   in its stead a Latin dynasty at Constantinople. In the zeal of
   the Cistercian Order, and of their Abbot, Arnaud Amalric; in
   the fiery and unwearied preaching of the first Inquisitor, the
   Spanish Missionary, Dominic; in the remorseless activity of
   Foulquet, Bishop of Toulouse; and above all, in the strong and
   unpitying arm of Simon de Montfort, Earl of Leicester,
   Innocent found ready instruments for his purpose. Thus aided;
   he excommunicated Raymond of Toulouse [A. D. 1207], as Chief
   of the Heretics, and he promised remission of sins, and all
   the privileges which had hitherto been exclusively conferred
   on adventurers in Palestine, to the champions who should
   enroll themselves as Crusaders in the far more easy enterprise
   of a Holy War against the Albigenses. In the first invasion of
   his territories [A. D. 1209], Raymond VI. gave way before the
   terrors excited by the 300,000 fanatics who precipitated
   themselves on Languedoc; and loudly declaring his personal
   freedom from heresy, he surrendered his chief castles,
   underwent a humiliating penance, and took the cross against
   his own subjects. The brave resistance of his nephew Raymond
   Roger, Viscount of Bezières, deserved but did not obtain
   success. When the crusaders surrounded his capital, which was
   occupied by a mixed population of the two Religions, a
   question was raised how, in the approaching sack, the
   Catholics should be distinguished from the Heretics. 'Kill
   them all,' was the ferocious reply of Amalric; 'the Lord will
   easily know His own.' In compliance with this advice, not one
   human being within the walls was permitted to survive;
{33}
  and the tale of slaughter has been variously estimated, by
  those who have perhaps exaggerated the numbers, at 60,000, but
  even in the extenuating despatch, which the Abbot himself
  addressed to the Pope, at not fewer than 15,000. Raymond Roger
  was not included in this fearful massacre, and he repulsed two
  attacks upon Carcassonne, before a treacherous breach of faith
  placed him at the disposal of de Montfort, by whom he was
  poisoned after a short imprisonment. The removal of that young
  and gallant Prince was indeed most important to the ulterior
  project of his captor, who aimed at permanent establishment in
  the South. The family of de Montfort had ranked among the
  nobles of France for more than two centuries; and it is traced
  by some writers through an illegitimate channel even to the
  throne: but the possessions of Simon himself were scanty;
  necessity had compelled him to sell the County of Evreux to
  Philippe Auguste; and the English Earldom of Leicester which he
  inherited maternally, and the Lordship of a Castle about ten
  leagues distant from Paris, formed the whole of his revenues."

      ALSO IN
      J. C. L. de Sismondi,
      History of the Crusades against the Albigenses,
      chapter 1.

      H. H. Milman,
      History of Latin Christianity,
      book 9, chapter 8.

      J. Alzog,
      Manual of Universal Church History,
      period 2, epoch 2, part 1, chapter 3
      https://archive.org/details/manualofuniversa02alzo.

"The conquest of the Viscounty of Beziers had rather inflamed than satiated the cupidity of De Montfort and the fanaticism of Amalric [legate of the Pope] and of the monks of Citeaux. Raymond, Count of Toulouse, still possessed the fairest part of Languedoc, and was still suspected or accused of affording shelter, if not countenance, to his heretical subjects. … The unhappy Raymond was … again excommunicated from the Christian Church, and his dominions offered as a reward to the champions who should execute her sentence against him. To earn that reward De Montfort, at the head of a new host of Crusaders, attracted by the promise of earthly spoils and of heavenly blessedness, once more marched through the devoted land [A. D. 1210], and with him advanced Amalric. At each successive conquest, slaughter, rapine, and woes such as may not be described tracked and polluted their steps. Heretics, or those suspected of heresy, wherever they were found, were compelled by the legate to ascend vast piles of burning faggots. … At length the Crusaders reached and laid siege to the city of Toulouse. … Throwing himself into the place, Raymond … succeeded in repulsing De Montfort and Amalric. It was, however, but a temporary respite, and the prelude to a fearful destruction. From beyond the Pyrenees, at the head of 1,000 knights, Pedro of Arragon had marched to the rescue of Raymond, his kinsman, and of the counts of Foix and of Comminges, and of the Viscount of Béarn, his vassals; and their united forces came into communication with each other at Muret, a little town which is about three leagues distant from Toulouse. There, also, on the 12th of September [A. D. 1213], at the head of the champions of the Cross, and attended by seven bishops, appeared Simon de Montfort in full military array. The battle which followed was fierce, short and decisive. … Don Pedro was numbered with the slain. His army, deprived of his command, broke and dispersed, and the whole of the infantry of Raymond and his allies were either put to the sword, or swept a way by the current of the Garonne. Toulouse immediately surrendered, and the whole of the dominions of Raymond submitted to the conquerors. At a council subsequently held at Montpellier, composed of five archbishops and twenty-eight bishops, De Montfort was unanimously acknowledged as prince of the fief and city of Toulouse, and of the other counties conquered by the Crusaders under his command."

      ALSO IN
      J. C. L. de Sismondi,
      History of Crusades against the Albigenses,
      chapter 2.

ALBIGENSES: A. D. 1217-1229.
   The Renewed Crusades.
   Dissolution of the County of Toulouse.
   Pacification of Languedoc.

   "The cruel spirit of De Montfort would not allow him to rest
   quiet in his new Empire. Violence and persecution marked his
   rule; he sought to destroy the Provençal population by the
   sword or the stake, nor could he bring himself to tolerate the
   liberties of the citizens of Toulouse. In 1217 the Toulousans
   again revolted, and war once more broke out betwixt Count
   Raymond and Simon de Montfort. The latter formed the siege of
   the capital, and was engaged in repelling a sally, when a
   stone from one of the walls struck him and put an end to his
   existence. … Amaury de Montfort, son of Simon, offered to
   cede to the king all his rights in Languedoc, which he was
   unable to defend against the old house of Toulouse. Philip
   [Augustus] hesitated to accept the important cession, and left
   the rival houses to the continuance of a struggle carried
   feebly on by either side." King Philip died in 1223 and was
   succeeded by a son, Louis VIII., who had none of his father's
   reluctance to join in the grasping persecution of the
   unfortunate people of the south. Amaury de Montfort had been
   fairly driven out of old Simon de Montfort's conquests, and he
   now sold them to King Louis for the office of constable of
   France. "A new crusade was preached against the Albigenses;
   and Louis marched towards Languedoc at the head of a
   formidable army in the spring of the year 1226. The town of
   Avignon had proferred to the crusaders the facilities of
   crossing the Rhone under her walls, but refused entry within
   them to such a host. Louis having arrived at Avignon, insisted
   on passing through the town: the Avignonais shut their gates,
   and defied the monarch, who instantly formed the siege. One of
   the rich municipalities of the south was almost a match for
   the king of France. He was kept three months under its walls;
   his army a prey to famine, to disease and to the assaults of a
   brave garrison. The crusaders lost 20,000 men. The people of
   Avignon at length submitted, but on no dishonourable terms.
   This was the only resistance that Louis experienced in
   Languedoc. … All submitted. Louis retired from his facile
   conquest; he himself, and the chiefs of his army stricken by
   an epidemy which had prevailed in the conquered regions. The
   monarch's feeble frame could not resist it; he expired at
   Montpensier, in Auvergne, in November, 1226." Louis VIII. was
   succeeded by his young son, Louis IX. (Saint Louis), then a
   boy, under the regency of his energetic and capable mother,
   Blanche of Castile.
{34}
   "The termination of the war with the Albigenses, and
   the pacification, or it might be called the acquisition, of
   Languedoc, was the chief act of Queen Blanche's regency. Louis
   VIII. had overrun the country without resistance in his last
   campaign; still, at his departure, Raymond VI. again appeared,
   collected soldiers and continued to struggle against the royal
   lieutenant. For upward of two years he maintained himself; the
   attention of Blanche being occupied by the league of the
   barons against her. The successes of Raymond VII., accompanied
   by cruelties, awakened the vindictive zeal of the pope.
   Languedoc was threatened with another crusade; Raymond was
   willing to treat, and make considerable cessions, in order to
   avoid such extremities. In April, 1229, a treaty was signed:
   in it the rights of De Montfort were passed over. About
   two-thirds of the domains of the count of Toulouse were ceded
   to the king of France; the remainder was to fall, after
   Raymond's death, to his daughter Jeanne, who by the same
   treaty was to marry one of the royal princes: heirs failing
   them, it was to revert to the crown [which it did in 1271]. On
   these terms, with the humiliating addition of a public
   penance, Raymond VII. once more was allowed peaceable
   possession of Toulouse, and of the part of his domains
   reserved to him. Alphonse, brother of Louis IX., married
   Jeanne of Toulouse soon after, and took the title of count of
   Poitiers; that province being ceded to him in apanage. Robert,
   another brother, was made count of Artois at the same time.
   Louis himself married Margaret, the eldest daughter of Raymond
   Berenger, count of Provence."

"The struggle ended in a vast increase of the power of the French crown, at the expense alike of the house of Toulouse and of the house of Aragon. The dominions of the count of Toulouse were divided. A number of fiefs, Beziers, Narbonne, Nimes, Albi, and some other districts were at once annexed to the crown. The capital itself and its county passed to the crown fifty years later. … The name of Toulouse, except as the name of the city itself, now passed away, and the new acquisitions of France came in the end to be known by the name of the tongue which was common to them with Aquitaine and Imperial Burgundy [Provence]. Under the name of Languedoc they became one of the greatest and most valuable provinces of the French kingdom."

"The Church of the Albigenses had been drowned in blood. These supposed heretics had been swept away from the soil of France. The rest of the Languedocian people had been overwhelmed with calamity, slaughter, and devastation. The estimates transmitted to us of the numbers of the invaders and of the slain are such as almost surpass belief. We can neither verify nor correct them; but we certainly know that, during a long succession of years, Languedoc had been invaded by armies more numerous than had ever before been brought together in European warfare since the fall of the Roman empire. We know that these hosts were composed of men inflamed by bigotry and unrestrained by discipline; that they had neither military pay nor magazines; that they provided for all their wants by the sword, living at the expense of the country, and seizing at their pleasure both the harvests of the peasants and the merchandise of the citizens. More than three-fourths of the landed proprietors had been despoiled of their fiefs and castles. In hundreds of villages, every inhabitant had been massacred. … Since the sack of Rome by the Vandals, the European world had never mourned over a national disaster so wide in its extent or so fearful in its character."

ALBION.

"The most ancient name known to have been given to this island [Britain] is that of Albion. … There is, however, another allusion to Britain which seems to carry us much further back, though it has usually been ill understood. It occurs in the story of the labours of Hercules, who, after securing the cows of Geryon, comes from Spain to Liguria, where he is attacked by two giants, whom he kills before making his way to Italy. Now, according to Pomponius Mela, the names of the giants were Albiona and Bergyon, which one may, without much hesitation, restore to the forms of Albion and Iberion, representing, undoubtedly, Britain and Ireland, the position of which in the sea is most appropriately symbolized by the story making them sons of Neptune or the sea-god. … Even in the time of Pliny, Albion, as the name of the island, had fallen out of use with Latin authors; but not so with the Greeks, or with the Celts themselves, at any rate those of the Goidelic branch; for they are probably right who suppose that we have but the same word in the Irish and Scotch Gælic Alba, genitive Alban, the kingdom of Alban or Scotland beyond the Forth. Albion would be a form of the name according to the Brythonic pronunciation of it. … It would thus appear that the name Albion is one that has retreated to a corner of the island, to the whole of which it once applied."

ALCALDE. ALGUAZIL. CORREGIDOR.

"The word alcalde is from the Arabic 'al cadi,' the judge or governor. … Alcalde mayor signifies a judge, learned in the law, who exercises [in Spain] ordinary jurisdiction, civil and criminal, in a town or district." In the Spanish colonies the Alcalde mayor was the chief judge. "Irving (Columbus, ii. 331) writes erroneously alguazil mayor, evidently confounding the two offices. … An alguacil mayor, was a chief constable or high sheriff." "Corregidor, a magistrate having civil and criminal jurisdiction in the first instance ('nisi prius') and gubernatorial inspection in the political and economical government in all the towns of the district assigned to him."

H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States, volume 1, pages 297 and 250, foot-notes.

"Towards the close of Alfonso's reign [Alfonso VIII. of Castile and Leon, who called himself 'the Emperor,' A. D. 1126-1157], may be assigned the origin of the military order of Alcantara. Two cavaliers of Salamanca, don Suero and don Gomez, left that city with the design of choosing and fortifying some strong natural frontier, whence they could not only arrest the continual incursions of the Moors, but make hostile irruptions themselves into the territories of the misbelievers. Proceeding along the banks of the Coales, they fell in with a hermit, Amando by name, who encouraged them in their patriotic design and recommended the neighbouring hermitage of St. Julian as an excellent site for a fortress. Having examined and approved the situation, they applied to the bishop of Salamanca for permission to occupy the place: that permission was readily granted: with his assistance, and that of the hermit Amando, the two cavaliers erected a castle around the hermitage. They were now joined by other nobles and by more adventurers, all eager to acquire fame and wealth in this life, glory in the next. Hence the foundation of an order which, under the name, first, of St. Julian, and subsequently of Alcantara, rendered good service alike to king and church."

S. A. Dunham, History of Spain and Portugal, book 3, section 2, chapter 1, division. 2.

ALCLYDE.

Rhydderch, a Cumbrian prince of the sixth century who was the victor in a civil conflict, "fixed his headquarters on a rock in the Clyde, called in the Welsh Alclud [previously a Roman town known as Theodosia], whence it was known to the English for a time as Alclyde; but the Goidels called it Dunbrettan, or the fortress of the Brythons, which has prevailed in the slightly modified form of Dumbarton. … Alclyde was more than once destroyed by the Northmen."

"Under Antoninus, the Son of Severus, a new and more severe war once more (A. D. 213) broke out in Raetia. This also was waged against the Chatti; but by their side a second people is named, which we here meet for the first time—the Alamanni. Whence they came, we known not. According to a Roman writing a little later, they were a conflux of mixed elements; the appellation also seems to point to a league of communities, as well as the fact that, afterwards, the different tribes comprehended under this name stand forth—more than is the case among the other great Germanic peoples—in their separate character, and the Juthungi, the Lentienses, and other Alamannic peoples not seldom act independently. But that it is not the Germans of this region who here emerge, allied under the new name and strengthened by the alliance, is shown as well by the naming of the Alamanni along side of the Chatti, as by the mention of the unwonted skilfulness of the Alamanni in equestrian combat. On the contrary, it was certainly, in the main, hordes coming on from the East that lent new strength to the almost extinguished German resistance on the Rhine; it is not improbable that the powerful Semnones, in earlier times dwelling on the middle Elbe, of whom there is no further mention after the end of the second century, furnished a strong contingent to the Alamanni."

"The standard quotation respecting the derivation of the name from 'al'='all' and m-n= man', so that the word (somewhat exceptionably) denotes 'men of all sorts,' is from Agathias, who quotes Asinius Quadratus. … Notwithstanding this, I think it is an open question, whether the name may not have been applied by the truer and more unequivocal Germans of Suabia and Franconia, to certain less definitely Germanic allies from Wurtemberg and Baden,—parts of the Decumates Agri—parts which may have supplied a Gallic, a Gallo-Roman, or even a Slavonic element to the confederacy; in which case, a name so German as to have given the present French and Italian name for Germany, may, originally, have applied to a population other than Germanic. I know the apparently paradoxical elements in this view; but I also know that, in the way of etymology, it is quite as safe to translate 'all' by 'alii' as by 'omnes': and I cannot help thinking that the 'al-' in Ale-manni is the 'al-' in 'alir-arto' (a foreigner or man of another sort), 'eli-benzo' (an alien), and 'ali-land' (captivity in foreign land).—Grimm, ii. 628.—Rechsalterth, page 359. And still more satisfied am I that the 'al-' in Al-emanni is the 'al-' in Alsatia='el-sass'='ali-satz'='foreign settlement.' In other words, the prefix in question is more probably the 'al-' in 'el-se', than the 'al-' in 'all.' Little, however, of importance turns on this. The locality of the Alemanni was the parts about the Limes Romanus, a boundary which, in the time of Alexander Severus, Niebuhr thinks they first broke through. Hence they were the Marchmen of the frontier, whoever those Marchmen were. Other such Marchmen were the Suevi; unless, indeed, we consider the two names as synonymous. Zeuss admits that, between the Suevi of Suabia, and the Alemanni, no tangible difference can be found."

The Alemanni, "hovering on the frontiers of the Empire … increased the general disorder that ensued after the death of Decius. They inflicted severe wounds on the rich provinces of Gaul; they were the first who removed the veil that covered the feeble majesty of Italy. A numerous body of the Alemanni penetrated across the Danube and through the Rhætian Alps into the plains of Lombardy, advanced as far as Ravenna and displayed the victorious banners of barbarians almost in sight of Rome [A. D. 259]. The insult and the danger rekindled in the senate some sparks of their ancient virtue. Both the Emperors were engaged in far distant wars—Valerian in the East and Galienus on the Rhine." The senators, however, succeeded in confronting the audacious invaders with a force which checked their advance, and they "retired into Germany laden with spoil."

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 10. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

Italy was invaded by the Alemanni, for the second time, in the reign of Anrelian, A. D. 270. They ravaged the provinces from the Danube to the Po, and were retreating, laden with spoils, when the vigorous Emperor intercepted them, on the banks of the former river. Half the host was permitted to cross the Danube; the other half was surprised and surrounded. But these last, unable to regain their own country, broke through the Roman lines at their rear and sped into Italy again, spreading havoc as they went. It was only after three great battles,—one near Placentia, in which the Romans were almost beaten, another on the Metaurus (where Hasdrubal was defeated), and a third near Pavia,—that the Germanic invaders were destroyed.

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 11. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

The Alemanni invaded Gaul in 365, committing widespread ravages and carrying away into the forests of Germany great spoil and many captives. The next winter they crossed the Rhine, again, in still greater numbers, defeated the Roman forces and captured the standards of the Herulian and Batavian auxiliaries. But Valentinian was now Emperor, and he adopted energetic measures. His lieutenant Jovinus overcame the invaders in a great battle fought near Chalons and drove them back to their own side of the river boundary. Two years later, the Emperor, himself, passed the Rhine and inflicted a memorable chastisement on the Alemanni. At the same time he strengthened the frontier defences, and, by diplomatic arts, fomented quarrels between the Alemanni and their neighbors, the Burgundians, which weakened both.

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 25. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

On learning that the young Emperor Gratian was preparing to lead the military force of Gaul and the West to the help of his uncle and colleague, Valens, against the Goths, the Alemanni swarmed across the Rhine into Gaul. Gratian instantly recalled the legions that were marching to Pannonia and encountered the German invaders in a great battle fought near Argentaria (modern Colmar) in the month of May, A. D. 378. The Alemanni were routed with such slaughter that no more than 5,000 out of 40,000 to 70,000, are said to have escaped. Gratian afterwards crossed the Rhine and humbled his troublesome neighbors in their own country.

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 26. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

"In the year 496 A. D. the Salians [Salian Franks] began that career of conquest which they followed up with scarcely any intermission until the death of their warrior king. The Alemanni, extending themselves from their original seats on the right bank of the Rhine, between the Main and the Danube, had pushed forward into Germanica Prima, where they came into collision with the Frankish subjects of King Sigebert of Cologne. Clovis flew to the assistance of his kinsman and defeated the Alemanni in a great battle in the neighbourhood of Zülpich [called, commonly, the battle of Tolbiac]. He then established a considerable number of his Franks in the territory of the Alemanni, the traces of whose residence are found in the names of Franconia and Frankfort."

"Clovis had been intending to cross the Rhine, but the hosts of the Alamanni came upon him, as it seems, unexpectedly and forced a battle on the left bank of the river. He seemed to be overmatched, and the horror of an impending defeat overshadowed the Frankish king. Then, in his despair, he bethought himself of the God of Clotilda [his queen, a Burgundian Christian princess, of the orthodox or Catholic faith]. Raising his eyes to heaven, he said: 'Oh Jesus Christ, whom Clotilda declares to be the Son of the living God, who art said to give help to those who are in trouble and who trust in Thee, I humbly beseech Thy succour! I have called on my gods and they are far from my help. If Thou wilt deliver me from mine enemies, I will believe in Thee, and be baptised in Thy name.' At this moment, a sudden change was seen in the fortunes of the Franks. The Alamanni began to waver, they turned, they fled. Their king, according to one account was slain; and the nation seems to have accepted Clovis as its over-lord." The following Christmas day Clovis was baptised at Reims and 3,000 of his warriors followed the royal example. "In the early years of the new century, probably about 503 or 504, Clovis was again at war with his old enemies, the Alamanni. … Clovis moved his army into their territories and won a victory much more decisive, though less famous than that of 496. This time the angry king would make no such easy terms as he had done before. From their pleasant dwellings by the Main and the Neckar, from all the valley of the Middle Rhine, the terrified Alamanni were forced to flee. Their place was taken by Frankish settlers, from whom all this district received in the Middle Ages the name of the Duchy of Francia, or, at a rather later date, that of the Circle of Franconia. The Alamanni, with their wives and children, a broken and dispirited host, moved southward to the shores of the Lake of Constance and entered the old Roman province of Rhætia. Here they were on what was held to be, in a sense, Italian ground; and the arm of Theodoric, as ruler of Italy, as successor to the Emperors of the West, was stretched forth to protect them. … Eastern Switzerland, Western Tyrol, Southern Baden and Würtemberg and Southwestern Bavaria probably formed this new Alamannis, which will figure in later history as the 'Ducatus Alamanniæ,' or the Circle of Swabia."

ALEPPO: A. D. 638-969. Taken by the Arab followers of Mahomet in 638, this city was recovered by the Byzantines in 969.

The Mongols, under Khulagu, or Houlagou, brother of Mangu Khan, having overrun Mesopotamia and extinguished the Caliphate at Bagdad, crossed the Euphrates in the spring of 1260 and advanced to Aleppo. The city was taken after a siege of seven days and given up for five days to pillage and slaughter. "When the carnage ceased, the streets were cumbered with corpses. … It is said that 100,000 women and children were sold as slaves. The walls of Aleppo were razed, its mosques destroyed, and its gardens ravaged." Damascus submitted and was spared. Khulagu was meditating, it is said, the conquest of Jerusalem, when news of the death of the Great Khan called him to the East.

"When Alexander reached the Egyptian military station at the little town or village of Rhakotis, he saw with the quick eye of a great commander how to turn this petty settlement into a great city, and to make its roadstead, out of which ships could be blown by a change of wind, into a double harbour roomy enough to shelter the navies of the world. All that was needed was to join the island by a mole to the continent. The site was admirably secure and convenient, a narrow strip of land between the Mediterranean and the great inland Lake Mareotis. The whole northern side faced the two harbours, which were bounded east and west by the mole, and beyond by the long, narrow rocky island of Pharos, stretching parallel with the coast. On the south was the inland port of Lake Mareotis. The length of the city was more than three miles, the breadth more than three-quarters of a mile; the mole was above three-quarters of a mile long and six hundred feet broad; its breadth is now doubled, owing to the silting up of the sand. Modern Alexandria until lately only occupied the mole, and was a great town in a corner of the space which Alexander, with large provision for the future, measured out. The form of the new city was ruled by that of the site, but the fancy of Alexander designed it in the shape of a Macedonian cloak or chlamys, such as a national hero wears on the coins of the kings of Macedon, his ancestors. The situation is excellent for commerce. Alexandria, with the best Egyptian harbour on the Mediterranean, and the inland port connected with the Nile streams and canals, was the natural emporium of the Indian trade. Port Said is superior now, because of its grand artificial port and the advantage for steamships of an unbroken sea route."

ALEXANDRIA: Reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus, B. C. 282-246.
   Greatness and splendor of the City.
   Its Commerce.
   Its Libraries.
   Its Museum.
   Its Schools.

Ptolemy Philadelphus, son of Ptolemy Soter, succeeded to the throne of Egypt in 282 B. C. when his father retired from it in his favor, and reigned until 246 B. C. "Alexandria, founded by the great conqueror, increased and beautified by Ptolemy Soter, was now far the greatest city of Alexander's Empire. It was the first of those new foundations which are a marked feature in Hellenism; there were many others of great size and importance—above all, Antioch, then Seleucia on the Tigris, then Nicomedia, Nicæa, Apamea, which lasted; besides such as Lysimacheia, Antigoneia, and others, which early disappeared. … Alexandria was the model for all the rest. The intersection of two great principal thoroughfares, adorned with colonnades for the footways, formed the centre point, the omphalos of the city. The other streets were at right angles with these thoroughfares, so that the whole place was quite regular. Counting its old part, Rhakotis, which was still the habitation of native Egyptians, Alexandria had five quarters, one at least devoted to Jews who had originally settled there in great numbers. The mixed population there of Macedonians, Greeks, Jews, and Egyptians gave a peculiarly complex and variable character to the population. Let us not forget the vast number of strangers from all parts of the world whom trade and politics brought there. It was the great mart where the wealth of Europe and of Asia changed hands. Alexander had opened the sea-way by exploring the coasts of Media and Persia. Caravans from the head of the Persian Gulf, and ships on the Red Sea, brought all the wonders of Ceylon and China, as well as of Further India, to Alexandria. There, too, the wealth of Spain and Gaul, the produce of Italy and Macedonia, the amber of the Baltic and the salt fish of Pontus, the silver of Spain and the copper of Cyprus, the timber of Macedonia and Crete, the pottery and oil of Greece—a thousand imports from all the Mediterranean—came to be exchanged for the spices of Arabia, the splendid birds and embroideries of India and Ceylon, the gold and ivory of Africa, the antelopes, the apes, the leopards, the elephants of tropical climes. Hence the enormous wealth of the Lagidæ, for in addition to the marvellous fertility and great population—it is said to have been seven millions—of Egypt, they made all the profits of this enormous carrying trade. {38} We gain a good idea of what the splendours of the capital were by the very full account preserved to us by Athenæus of the great feast which inaugurated the reign of Philadelphus. … All this seems idle pomp, and the doing of an idle sybarite. Philadelphus was anything but that. … It was he who opened up the Egyptian trade with Italy, and made Puteoli the great port for ships from Alexandria, which it remained for centuries. It was he who explored Ethiopia and the southern parts of Africa, and brought back not only the curious fauna to his zoological gardens, but the first knowledge of the Troglodytes for men of science. The cultivation of science and of letters too was so remarkably one of his pursuits that the progress of the Alexandria of his day forms an epoch in the world's history, and we must separate his University and its professors from this summary, and devote to them a separate section. … The history of the organization of the University and its staff is covered with almost impenetrable mist. For the Museum and Library were in the strictest sense what we should now call an University, and one, too, of the Oxford type, where learned men were invited to take Fellowships, and spend their learned leisure close to observatories in science, and a great library of books. Like the mediæval universities, this endowment of research naturally turned into an engine for teaching, as all who desired knowledge flocked to such a centre, and persuaded the Fellow to become a Tutor. The model came from Athens. There the schools, beginning with the Academy of Plato, had a fixed property—a home with its surrounding garden, and in order to make this foundation sure, it was made a shrine where the Muses were worshipped, and where the head of the school, or a priest appointed, performed stated sacrifices. This, then, being held in trust by the successors of the donor, who bequeathed it; to them, was a property which it would have been sacrilegious to invade, and so the title Museum arose for a school of learning. Demetrius the Phalerean, the friend and protector of Theophrastus, brought this idea with him to Alexandria, when his namesake drove him into exile [see GREECE: B. C. 307-197] and it was no doubt his advice to the first Ptolemy which originated the great foundation, though Philadelphus, who again exiled Demetrius, gets the credit of it. The pupil of Aristotle moreover impressed on the king the necessity of storing up in one central repository all that the world knew or could produce, in order to ascertain the laws of things from a proper analysis of detail. Hence was founded not only the great library, which in those days had a thousand times the value a great library has now, but also observatories, zoological gardens, collections of exotic plants, and of other new and strange things brought by exploring expeditions from the furthest regions of Arabia and Africa. This library and museum proved indeed a home for the Muses, and about it a most brilliant group of students in literature and science was formed. The successive librarians were Zenodotus, the grammarian or critic; Callimachus, to whose poems we shall presently return; Eratosthenes, the astronomer, who originated the process by which the size of the earth is determined to-day; Appollonius the Rhodian, disciple and enemy of Callimachus; Aristophanes of Byzantium, founder of a school of philological criticism; and Aristarchus of Samos, reputed to have been the greatest critic of ancient times. The study of the text of Homer was the chief labour of Zenodotus, Aristophanes, and Aristarchus, and it was Aristarchus who mainly fixed the form in which the Iliad and Odyssey remain to this day. … The vast collections of the library and museum actually determined the whole character of the literature of Alexandria. One word sums it all up—erudition, whether in philosophy, in criticism, in science, even in poetry. Strange to say, they neglected not only oratory, for which there was no scope, but history, and this we may attribute to the fact that history before Alexander had no charms for Hellenism. Mythical lore, on the other hand, strange uses and curious words, were departments of research dear to them. In science they did great things, so did they in geography. … But were they original in nothing? Did they add nothing of their own to the splendid record of Greek literature? In the next generation came the art of criticism, which Aristarchus developed into a real science, and of that we may speak in its place; but even in this generation we may claim for them the credit of three original, or nearly original, developments in literature—the pastoral idyll, as we have it in Theocritus; the elegy, as we have it in the Roman imitators of Philetas and Callimachus; and the romance, or love story, the parent of our modern novels. All these had early prototypes in the folk songs of Sicily, in the love songs of Mimnermus and of Antimachus, in the tales of Miletus, but still the revival was fairly to be called original. Of these the pastoral idyll was far the most remarkable, and laid hold upon the world for ever."

   "There were two Libraries of Alexandria under the Ptolemies,
   the larger one in the quarter called the Bruchium, and the
   smaller one, named 'the daughter,' in the Serapeum, which was
   situated in the quarter called Rhacotis. The former was
   totally destroyed in the conflagration of the Bruchium during
   Cæsar's Alexandrian War [see below: B. C. 48-47]; but the
   latter, which was of great value, remained uninjured (see
   Matter, Histoire de l'École d'Alexandrie, volume 1, page 133
   seg., 237 seq.) It is not stated by any ancient writer
   where the collection of Pergamus [see PERGAMUM] was placed,
   which Antony gave to Cleopatra (Plutarch, Anton., c. 58); but
   it is most probable that it was deposited in the Bruchium, as
   that quarter of the city was now without a library, and the
   queen was anxious to repair the ravages occasioned by the
   civil war. If this supposition is correct, two Alexandrian
   libraries continued to exist after the time of Cæsar, and this
   is rendered still more probable by the fact that during the
   first three centuries of the Christian era the Bruchium was
   still the literary quarter of Alexandria. But a great change
   took place in the time of Aurelian. This Emperor, in
   suppressing the revolt of Firmus in Egypt, A. D. 273 [see
   below: A. D. 273] is said to have destroyed the Bruchium; and
   though this statement is hardly to be taken literally, the
   Bruchium ceased from this time to be included within the walls
   of Alexandria, and was regarded only as a suburb of the city.
{39}
   Whether the great library in the Bruchium with the museum and
   its other literary establishments, perished at this time, we
   do not know; but the Serapeum for the next century takes its
   place as the literary quarter of Alexandria, and becomes the
   chief library in the city. Hence later writers erroneously
   speak of the Serapeum as if it had been from the beginning the
   great Alexandrian library. … Gibbon seems to think that the
   whole of the Serapeum was destroyed [A. D. 389, by order of
   the Emperor Theodosius—see below]; but this was not the case.
   It would appear that it was only the sanctuary of the god that
   was levelled with the ground, and that the library, the halls
   and other buildings in the consecrated ground remained
   standing long afterwards."

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 28. Notes by Dr. William Smith. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

ALEXANDRIA: B. C. 48-47.
   Cæsar and Cleopatra.
   The Rising against the Romans.
   The Siege.
   Destruction of the great Library.
   Roman victory.

From the battle field of Pharsalia (see ROME: B. C. 48) Pompeius fled to Alexandria in Egypt; and was treacherously murdered as he stepped on shore. Cæsar arrived a few days afterwards, in close pursuit, and shed tears, it is said, on being shown his rival's mangled head. He had brought scarcely more than 3,000 of his soldiers with him, and he found Egypt in a turbulent state of civil war. The throne was in dispute between children of the late king, Ptolemæus Auletes. Cleopatra, the elder daughter, and Ptolemæus, a son, were at war with one another, and Arsinoë, a younger daughter, was ready to put forward claims (see EGYPT: B. C. 80-48). Notwithstanding the insignificance of his force, Cæsar did not hesitate to assume to occupy Alexandria and to adjudicate the dispute. But the fascinations of Cleopatra (then twenty years of age) soon made him her partisan, and her scarcely disguised lover. This aggravated the irritation which was caused in Alexandria by the presence of Cæsar's troops, and a furious rising of the city was provoked. He fortified himself in the great palace, which he had taken possession of, and which commanded the causeway to the island, Pharos, thereby commanding the port. Destroying a large part of the city in that neighborhood, he made his position exceedingly strong. At the same time he seized and burned the royal fleet, and thus caused a conflagration in which the greater of the two priceless libraries of Alexandria—the library of the Museum—was, much of it, consumed. [See above: B. C. 282-246.] By such measures Cæsar withstood, for several months, a siege conducted on the part of the Alexandrians with great determination and animosity. It was not until March, B. C. 47, that he was relieved from his dangerous situation, by the arrival of a faithful ally, in the person of Mithridates, king of Pergamus, who led an army into Egypt, reduced Pelusium, and crossed the Nile at the head of the Delta. Ptolemæus advanced with his troops to meet this new invader and was followed and overtaken by Cæsar. In the battle which then occurred the Egyptian army was utterly routed and Ptolemæus perished in the Nile. Cleopatra was then married, after the Egyptian fashion, to a younger brother, and established on the throne, while Arsinoë was sent a prisoner to Rome.

"Caracalla was the common enemy of mankind. He left the capital (and he never returned to it) about a year after the murder of Geta [A. D. 213]. The rest of his reign [four years] was spent in the several provinces of the Empire, particularly those of the East, and every province was, by turns, the scene of his rapine and cruelty. … In the midst of peace, and upon the slightest provocation, he issued his commands at Alexandria, Egypt [A. D. 215], for a general massacre. From a secure post in the temple of Serapis, he viewed and directed the slaughter of many thousand citizens, as well as strangers, without distinguishing either the number or the crime of the sufferers."

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 6. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

"The people of Alexandria, a various mixture of nations, united the vanity and inconstancy of the Greeks with the superstition and obstinacy of the Egyptians. The most trifling occasion, a transient scarcity of flesh or lentils, the neglect of an accustomed salutation, a mistake of precedency in the public baths, or even a religious dispute, were at any time sufficient to kindle a sedition among that vast multitude, whose resentments were furious and implacable. After the captivity of Valerian [the Roman Emperor, made prisoner by Sapor, king of Persia, A. D. 260] and the insolence of his son had relaxed the authority of the laws, the Alexandrians abandoned themselves to the ungoverned rage of their passions, and their unhappy country was the theatre of a civil war, which continued (with a few short and suspicious truces) above twelve years. All intercourse was cut off between the several quarters of the afflicted city, every street was polluted with blood, every building of strength converted into a citadel; nor did the tumult subside till a considerable part of Alexandria was irretrievably ruined. The spacious and magnificent district of Bruchion, with its palaces and museum, the residence of the kings and philosophers of Egypt, is described, above a century afterwards, as already reduced to its present state of dreary solitude."

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 10. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

After subduing Palmyra and its Queen Zenobia, A. D. 272, the Emperor Aurelian was called into Egypt to put down a rebellion there, headed by one Firmus, a friend and ally of the Palmyrene queen. Firmus had great wealth, derived from trade, and from the paper-manufacture of Egypt, which was mostly in his hands. He was defeated and put to death. "To Aurelian's war against Firmus, or to that of Probus a little before in Egypt, may be referred the destruction of Bruchium, a great quarter of Alexandria, which according to Ammianus Marcellinus, was ruined under Aurelian and remained deserted everafter."

A general revolt of the African provinces of the Roman Empire occurred A. D. 296. The barbarous tribes of Ethiopia and the desert were brought into alliance with the provincials of Egypt, Cyrenaica, Carthage and Mauritania, and the flame of war was universal. Both the emperors of the time, Diocletian and Maximian, were called to the African field. "Diocletian, on his side, opened the campaign in Egypt by the siege of Alexandria, cut off the aqueducts which conveyed the waters of the Nile into every quarter of that immense city, and, rendering his camp impregnable to the sallies of the besieged multitude, he pushed his reiterated attacks with caution and vigor. After a siege of eight months, Alexandria, wasted by the sword and by fire, implored the clemency of the conqueror, but it experienced the full extent of his severity. Many thousands of the citizens perished in a promiscuous slaughter, and there were few obnoxious persons in Egypt who escaped a sentence either of death or at least of exile. The fate of Busiris and of Coptos was still more melancholy than that of Alexandria; those proud cities … were utterly destroyed."

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 13. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

"After the edicts of Theodosius had severely prohibited the sacrifices of the pagans, they were still tolerated in the city and temple of Serapis. … The archepiscopal throne of Alexandria was filled by Theophilus, the perpetual enemy of peace and virtue; a bold, bad man, whose hands were alternately polluted with gold and with blood. His pious indignation was excited by the honours of Serapis. … The votaries of Serapis, whose strength and numbers were much inferior to those of their antagonists, rose in arms [A. D. 389] at the instigation of the philosopher Olympius, who exhorted them to die in the defence of the altars of the gods. These pagan fanatics fortified themselves in the temple, or rather fortress, of Serapis; repelled the besiegers by daring sallies and a resolute defence; and, by the inhuman cruelties which they exercised on their Christian prisoners, obtained the last consolation of despair. The efforts of the prudent magistrate were usefully exerted for the establishment of a truce till the answer of Theodosius should determine the fate of Serapis." The judgment of the emperor condemned the great temple to destruction and it was reduced to a heap of ruins. "The valuable library of Alexandria was pillaged or destroyed; and, near twenty years afterwards, the appearance of the empty shelves excited the regret and indignation of every spectator whose mind was not totally darkened by religious prejudice."

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 28. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

Gibbon's statement as to the destruction of the great library in the Serapeum is called in question by his learned annotator, Dr. Smith.

"His voice [that of Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria, A. D. 412-444] inflamed or appeased the passions of the multitude: his commands were blindly obeyed by his numerous and fanatic parabolani, familiarized in their daily office with scenes of death; and the præfects of Egypt were awed or provoked by the temporal power of these Christian pontiffs. Ardent in the prosecution of heresy, Cyril auspiciously opened his reign by oppressing the Novatians, the most innocent and harmless of the sectaries. … The toleration, and even the privileges of the Jews, who had multiplied to the number of 40,000, were secured by the laws of the Cæsars and Ptolemies, and a long prescription of 700 years since the foundation of Alexandria. Without any legal sentence, without any royal mandate, the patriarch, at the dawn of day, led a seditious multitude to the attack of the synagogues. Unarmed and unprepared, the Jews were incapable of resistance; their houses of prayer were levelled with the ground, and the episcopal warrior, after rewarding his troops with the plunder of their goods, expelled from the city the remnant of the misbelieving nation. Perhaps he might plead the insolence of their prosperity, and their deadly hatred of the Christians, whose blood they had recently shed in a malicious or accidental tumult. Such crimes would have deserved the animadversions of the magistrate; but in this promiscuous outrage the innocent were confounded with the guilty."

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 47. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

"Before long the adherents of the archbishop were guilty of a more atrocious and unprovoked crime, of the guilt of which a deep suspicion attached to Cyril. All Alexandria respected, honoured, took pride in the celebrated Hypatia. She was a woman of extraordinary learning; in her was centred the lingering knowledge of that Alexandrian Platonism cultivated by Plotinus and his school. Her beauty was equal to her learning; her modesty commended both. … Hypatia lived in great intimacy with the præfect Orestes; the only charge whispered against her was that she encouraged him in his hostility to the patriarch. … Some of Cyril's ferocious partisans seized this woman, dragged her from her chariot, and with the most revolting indecency tore her clothes off and then rent her limb from limb."

The precise date of events in the Moslem conquest of Egypt, by Amru, lieutenant of the Caliph Omar, is uncertain. Sir William Muir fixes the first surrender of Alexandria to Amru in A. D. 641. After that it was reoccupied by the Byzantines either once or twice, on occasions of neglect by the Arabs, as they pursued their conquests elsewhere. The probability seems to be that this occurred only once, in 646. It seems also probable, as remarked by Sir W. Muir, that the two sieges on the taking and retaking of the city—641 and 646—have been much confused in the scanty accounts which have come down to us. On the first occasion Alexandria would appear to have been generously treated; while, on the second, it suffered pillage and its fortifications were destroyed. How far there is truth in the commonly accepted story of the deliberate burning of the great Alexandrian Library—or so much of it as had escaped destruction at the hands of Roman generals and Christian patriarchs—is a question still in dispute. Gibbon discredited the story, and Sir William Muir, the latest of students in Mahometan history, declines even the mention of it in his narrative of the conquest of Egypt. But other historians of repute maintain the probable accuracy of the tale told by Abulpharagus—that Caliph Omar ordered the destruction of the Library, on the ground that, if the books in it agreed with the Koran they were useless, if they disagreed with it they were pernicious.

ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 1801-1802.
Battle of French and English.
Restoration to the Turks.

ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 1807.
Surrendered to the English.
The brief occupation and humiliating capitulation.

ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 1882.
   Bombardment by the English fleet.
   Massacre of Europeans.
   Destruction.

ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA., A. D. 1861 (May).
Occupation by Union troops.
Murder of Colonel Ellsworth.

ALEXANDRIAN TALENT.

ALEXIUS I. (Comnenus),
Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or Greek), A. D. 1081-1118.

Alexius II. (Comnenus), Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or
Greek), A. D. 1181-1183.

Alexius III. (Angelus), Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or
Greek), A. D. 1195-1203

Alexius IV. (Angelus), Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or
Greek), A. D. 1203-1204

Alfonso V., King of Aragon and I. of Sicily, A. D. 1416-1458;
I. of Naples, A. D. 1443-1458.

ALGIERS AND ALGERIA.

"The term Algiers literally signifies 'the island,' and was derived from the original construction of its harbour, one side of which was separated from the land."

ALGUAZIL.

ALLEMAGNE.

The Allobroges (see ÆDUI; also GAULS) having sheltered the chiefs of the Salyes, when the latter succumbed to the Romans, and having refused to deliver them up, the proconsul Cn. Domitius marched his army toward their country, B. C. 121. The Allobroges advanced to meet him and were defeated at Vindalium, near the junction of the Sorgues with the Rhone, and not far from Avignon, having 20,000 men slain and 3,000 taken prisoners. The Arverni, who were the allies of the Allobroges, then took the field, crossing the Cevennes mountains and the river Rhone with a vast host, to attack the small Roman army of 30,000 men, which had passed under the command of Q. Fabius Maximus Æmilianus. On the 8th of August, B. C. 121, the Gaulish horde encountered the legions of Rome, at a point near the junction of the Isere and the Rhone, and were routed with such enormous slaughter that 150,000 are said to have been slain or drowned. This battle settled the fate of the Allobroges, who surrendered to Rome without further struggle; but the Arverni were not pursued. The final conquest of that people was reserved for Cæsar.

The empire of the Almoravides, in Morocco and Spain, which originated in a Moslem missionary movement, was overturned in the middle of the twelfth century by a movement of somewhat similar nature. The agitating cause of the revolution was a religious teacher named Mahomet ben Abdallah, who rose in the reign of Ali (successor to the great Almoravide prince, Joseph), who gained the odor of sanctity at Morocco and who took the title of Al Mehdi, or El Mahdi, the Leader, "giving himself out for the person whom many Mahometans expect under that title. As before, the sect grew into an army, and the army grew into an empire. The new dynasty were called Almohades from Al Mehdi, and by his appointment a certain Abdelmumen was elected Caliph and Commander of the Faithful. Under his vigorous guidance the new kingdom rapidly grew, till the Almohades obtained quite the upper hand in Africa, and in 1146 they too passed into Spain. Under Abdelmumen and his successors, Joseph and Jacob Almansor, the Almohades entirely supplanted the Almoravides, and became more formidable foes than they had been to the rising Christian powers. Jacob Almansor won in 1195 the terrible battle of Alarcos against Alfonso of Castile, and carried his conquests deep into that kingdom. His fame spread through the whole Moslem world. … With Jacob Almansor perished the glory of the Almohade. His successor, Mahomet, lost in 1211 [June 16] the great battle of Alacab or Tolosa against Alfonso, and that day may be said to have decided the fate of Mahometanism in Spain. The Almohade dynasty gradually declined. … The Almohades, like the Ommiads and the Almoravides, vanish from history amidst a scene of confusion the details of which it were hopeless to attempt to remember."

During the confusions of the 11th century in the Moslem world, a missionary from Kairwan—one Abdallah—preaching the faith of Islam to a wild tribe in Western North Africa, created a religious movement which "naturally led to a political one." "The tribe now called themselves Almoravides, or more properly Morabethah, which appears to mean followers of the Marabout or religious teacher. Abdallah does not appear to have himself claimed more than a religious authority, but their princes Zachariah and Abu Bekr were completely guided by his counsels. After his death Abu Bekr founded in 1070 the city of Morocco. There he left as his lieutenant his cousin Joseph, who grew so powerful that Abu Bekr, by a wonderful exercise of moderation, abdicated in his favour, to avoid a probable civil war. This Joseph, when he had become lord of most part of Western Africa, was requested, or caused himself to be requested, to assume the title of Emir al Momenin, Commander of the Faithful. As a loyal subject of the Caliph of Bagdad, he shrank from such sacrilegious usurpation, but he did not scruple to style himself Emir Al Muslemin, Commander of the Moslems. … The Almoravide Joseph passed over into Spain, like another Tarik; he vanquished Alfonso [the Christian prince of the rising kingdom of Castile] at Zalacca [Oct. 23, A. D. 1086] and then converted the greater portion of Mahometan Spain into an appendage to his own kingdom of Morocco. The chief portion to escape was the kingdom of Zaragossa, the great out-post of the Saracens in northeastern Spain. … The great cities of Andalusia were all brought under a degrading submission to the Almoravides. Their dynasty however was not of long duration, and it fell in turn [A. D. 1147] before one whose origin was strikingly similar to their own" [the Almohades].

ALSO IN H. Coppée, Conquest of Spain by the Arab-Moors, book 8, chapter 2 and 4.

ALOD. ALODIAL.

"It may be questioned whether any etymological connexion exists between the words odal and alod, but their signification applied to land is the same: the alod is the hereditary estate derived from primitive occupation; for which the owner owes no service except the personal obligation to appear in the host and in the council. … The land held in full ownership might be either an ethel, an inherited or otherwise acquired portion of original allotment; or an estate created by legal process out of public land. Both these are included in the more common term alod; but the former looks for its evidence in the pedigree of its owner or in the witness of the community, while the latter can produce the charter or· book by which it is created, and is called bocland. As the primitive allotments gradually lost their historical character, as the primitive modes of transfer became obsolete, and the use of written records took their place, the ethel is lost sight of in the bookland. All the land that is not so accounted for is folcland, or public land."

William Stubbs, Constitutional History of England, chapter 3, section 24, and chapter 5, section 36.

"Alodial lands are commonly opposed to beneficiary or feudal; the former being strictly proprietary, while the latter depended upon a superior. In this sense the word is of continual recurrence in ancient histories, laws and instruments. It sometimes, however, bears the sense of inheritance. … Hence, in the charters of the eleventh century, hereditary fiefs are frequently termed alodia."

ALPHONSO.

ALSACE: A. D. 1636-1639.
Invasion and conquest by Duke Bernhard of Weimar.
Richelieu's appropriation of the conquest for France.

ALSACE: A. D. 1679-1681.
   Complete Absorption in France.
   Assumption of entire Sovereignty by Louis XIV.
   Encroachments of the Chamber of Reannexation.
   Seizure of Strasburg.
   Overthrow of its independence as an Imperial City.

ALTMARCK.

ALVA IN THE NETHERLANDS.

"The Amalekites were usually regarded as a branch of the Edomites or 'Red-skins'. Amalek, like Kenaz, the father of the Kenizzites or 'Hunters,' was the grandson of Esau (Gen. 36: 12, 16). He thus belonged to the group of nations,—Edomites, Ammonites, and Moabites,—who stood in a relation of close kinship to Israel. But they had preceded the Israelites in dispossessing the older inhabitants of the land, and establishing themselves in their place. The Edomites had partly destroyed, partly amalgamated the Horites of Mount Seir (Deuteronomy 2: 12); the Moabites had done the same to the Emim, 'a people great and many, and tall as the Anakim' (Deuteronomy 2: 10), while the Ammonites had extirpated and succeeded to the Rephaim or 'Giants,' who in that part of the country were termed Zamzummim (Deuteronomy 2: 20; Gen. 14: 5). Edom however stood in a closer relation to Israel than its two more northerly neighbours. … Separate from the Edomites or Amalekites were the Kenites or wandering 'smiths.' They formed an important Guild in an age when the art of metallurgy was confined to a few. In the time of Saul we hear of them as camping among the Amalekites (1. Samuel 15: 6.) … The Kenites … did not constitute a race, or even a tribe. They were, at most, a caste. But they had originally come, like the Israelites or the Edomites, from those barren regions of Northern Arabia which were peopled by the Menti of the Egyptian inscriptions. Racially, therefore, we may regard them as allied to the descendants of Abraham. While the Kenites and Amalekites were thus Semitic in their origin, the Hivites or 'Villagers' are specially associated with Amorites."

AMALFI.

"It was the singular fate of this city to have filled up the interval between two periods of civilization, in neither of which she was destined to be distinguished. Scarcely known before the end of the sixth century, Amalfi ran a brilliant career, as a free and trading republic [see ROME: A. D. 554-800], which was checked by the arms of a conqueror in the middle of the twelfth. … There must be, I suspect, some exaggeration about the commerce and opulence of Amalfi, in the only age when she possessed any at all."

"Amalfi and Atrani lie close together in two … ravines, the mountains almost arching over them, and the sea washing their very house-walls. … It is not easy to imagine the time when Amalfi and Atrani were one town, with docks and arsenals and harbourage for their associated fleets, and when these little communities were second in importance to no naval power of Christian Europe. The Byzantine Empire lost its hold on Italy during the eighth century; and after this time the history of Calabria is mainly concerned with the republics of Naples and Amalfi, their conflict with the Lombard dukes of Benevento, their opposition to the Saracens, and their final subjugation by the Norman conquerors of Sicily. Between the year 839 A. D., when Amalfi freed itself from the control of Naples and the yoke of Benevento, and the year 1131, when Roger of Hauteville incorporated the republic in his kingdom of the Two Sicilies, this city was the foremost naval and commercial port of Italy. The burghers of Amalfi elected their own doge; founded the Hospital of Jerusalem, whence sprang the knightly order of S. John; gave their name to the richest quarter in Palermo; and owned trading establishments or factories in all the chief cities of the Levant. Their gold coinage of 'tari' formed the standard of currency before the Florentines had stamped the lily and S. John upon the Tuscan florin. Their shipping regulations supplied Europe with a code of maritime laws. Their scholars, in the darkest depths of the dark ages, prized and conned a famous copy of the Pandects of Justinian, and their seamen deserved the fame of having first used, if they did not actually invent, the compass. … The republic had grown and flourished on the decay of the Greek Empire. When the hard-handed race of Hauteville absorbed the heritage of Greeks and Lombards and Saracens in Southern Italy [see ITALY (Southern): A. D. 1000-1090], these adventurers succeeded in annexing Amalfi. But it was not their interest to extinguish the state. On the contrary, they relied for assistance upon the navies and the armies of the little commonwealth. New powers had meanwhile arisen in the North of Italy, who were jealous of rivalry upon the open seas; and when the Neapolitans resisted King Roger in 1135, they called Pisa to their aid, and sent her fleet to destroy Amalfi. The ships of Amalfi were on guard with Roger's navy in the Bay of Naples. The armed citizens were, under Roger's orders, at Aversa. Meanwhile the home of the republic lay defenceless on its mountain-girdled seaboard. The Pisans sailed into the harbour, sacked the city and carried off the famous Pandects of Justinian as a trophy. Two years later they returned, to complete the work of devastation. Amalfi never recovered from the injuries and the humiliation of these two attacks. It was ever thus that the Italians, like the children of the dragon's teeth which Cadmus sowed, consumed each other."

AMALINGS, OR AMALS.

The royal race of the ancient Ostragoths, as the Balthi or Balthings were of the Visigoths, both claiming a descent from the gods.

AMAZONS.

"The Amazons, daughters of Arês and Harmonia, are both early creations, and frequent reproductions, of the ancient epic. … A nation of courageous, hardy and indefatigable women, dwelling apart from men, permitting only a short temporary intercourse for the purpose of renovating their numbers, and burning out their right breast with a view of enabling themselves to draw the bow freely,—this was at once a general type stimulating to the fancy of the poet, and a theme eminently popular with his hearers. Nor was it at all repugnant to the faith of the latter—who had no recorded facts to guide them, and no other standard of credibility as to the past except such poetical narratives themselves—to conceive communities of Amazons as having actually existed in anterior time. Accordingly we find these warlike females constantly reappearing in the ancient poems, and universally accepted as past realities. In the Iliad, when Priam wishes to illustrate emphatically the most numerous host in which he ever found himself included, he tells us that it was assembled in Phrygia, on the banks of the Sangarius, for the purpose of resisting the formidable Amazons. When Bellerophon is to be employed on a deadly and perilous undertaking, by those who indirectly wish to procure his death, he is despatched against the Amazons. … The Argonautic heroes find the Amazons on the river Thermôdon in their expedition along the southern coast of the Euxine. To the same spot Hêrakles goes to attack them, in the performance of the ninth labour imposed upon him by Eurystheus, for the purpose of procuring the girdle of the Amazonian queen, Hippolyte; and we are told that they had not yet recovered from the losses sustained in this severe aggression when Theseus also assaulted and defeated them, carrying off their queen Antiopê. This injury they avenged by invading Attica … and penetrated even into Athens itself: where the final battle, hard-fought and at one time doubtful, by which Thêseus crushed them, was fought—in the very heart of the city. Attic antiquaries confidently pointed out the exact position of the two contending armies. … No portion of the ante-historical epic appears to have been more deeply worked into the national mind of Greece than this invasion and defeat of the Amazons. … Their proper territory was asserted to be the town and plain of Themiskyra, near the Grecian colony of Amisus, on the river Thermôdon [northern Asia Minor], a region called after their name by Roman historians and geographers. … Some authors placed them in Libya or Ethiopia."

   The mouth of the great river of South America was discovered
   in 1500 by Pinzon, or Pinçon (see AMERICA: A. D. 1499-1500),
   who called it 'Santa Maria de la Mar Dulce' (Saint Mary of the
   Fresh-Water Sea). "This was the first name given to the river,
   except that older and better one of the Indians, 'Parana,' the
   Sea; afterwards it was Marañon and Rio das Amazonas, from the
   female warriors that were supposed to live near its banks. …
   After Pinçon's time, there were others who saw the fresh-water
   sea, but no one was hardy enough to venture into it. The honor
   of its real discovery was reserved for Francisco de Orellana;
   and he explored it, not from the east, but from the west, in
   one of the most daring voyages that was ever recorded. It was
   accident rather than design that led him to it. After …
   Pizarro had conquered Peru, he sent his brother Gonzalo, with
   340 Spanish soldiers, and 4,000 Indians, to explore the great
   forest east of Quito, 'where there were cinnamon trees.' The
   expedition started late in 1539, and it was two years before
   the starved and ragged survivors returned to Quito. In the
   course of their wanderings they had struck the river Coco;
   building here a brigantine, they followed down the current, a
   part of them in the vessel, a part on shore.
{45}
   After a while they met some Indians, who told them of a rich
   country ten days' journey beyond—a country of gold, and with
   plenty of provisions. Gonzalo placed Orellana in command of
   the brigantine, and ordered him, with 50 soldiers, to go on to
   this gold-land, and return with a load of provisions. Orellana
   arrived at the mouth of the Coco in three days, but found no
   provisions; 'and he considered that if he should return with
   this news to Pizarro, he would not reach him in a year, on
   account of the strong current, and that if he remained where
   he was, he would be of no use to the one or to the other. Not
   knowing how long Gonzalo Pizarro would take to reach the
   place, without consulting anyone he set sail and prosecuted
   his voyage onward, intending to ignore Gonzalo, to reach
   Spain, and obtain that government for himself.' Down the Napo
   and the Amazons, for seven months, these Spaniards floated to
   the Atlantic. At times they suffered terribly from hunger:
   'There was nothing to eat but the skins which formed their
   girdles, and the leather of their shoes, boiled with a few
   herbs.' When they did get food they were often obliged to
   fight hard for it; and again they were attacked by thousands
   of naked Indians, who came in canoes against the Spanish
   vessel. At some Indian villages, however, they were kindly
   received and well fed, so they could rest while building a new
   and stronger vessel. … On the 26th of August, 1541, Orellana
   and his men sailed out to the blue water 'without either
   pilot, compass, or anything useful for navigation; nor did
   they know what direction they should take.' Following the
   coast, they passed inside of the island of Trinidad, and so at
   length reached Cubagua in September. From the king of Spain
   Orellana received a grant of the land he had discovered; but
   he died while returning to it, and his company was dispersed.
   It was not a very reliable account of the river that was given
   by Orellana and his chronicler, Padre Carbajal. So Herrera
   tells their story of the warrior females, and very properly
   adds: 'Every reader may believe as much as he likes.'"

In chapter 18 of this same work "The Amazon Myth" is discussed at length, with the reports and opinions of numerous travellers, both early and recent, concerning it.—Mr. Southey had so much respect for the memory of Orellana that he made an effort to restore that bold but unprincipled discoverer's name to the great river. "He discarded Maranon, as having too much resemblance to Maranham, and Amazon, as being founded upon fiction and at the same time inconvenient. Accordingly, in his map, and in all his references to the great river he denominates it Orellana. This decision of the poet-laureate of Great Britain has not proved authoritative in Brazil. O Amazonas is the universal appellation of the great river among those who float upon its waters and who live upon its banks. … Pará, the aboriginal name of this river, was more appropriate than any other. It signifies 'the father of waters.' … The origin of the name and mystery concerning the female warriors, I think, has been solved within the last few years by the intrepid Mr. Wallace. … Mr. Wallace, I think, shows conclusively that Friar Gaspar [Carbajal] and his companions saw Indian male warriors who were attired in habiliments such as Europeans would attribute to women. … I am strongly of the opinion that the story of the Amazons has arisen from these feminine-looking warriors encountered by the early voyagers."

AMBACTI.

"The Celtic aristocracy [of Gaul] … developed the system of retainers, that is, the privilege of the nobility to surround themselves with a number of hired mounted servants—the ambacti as they were called—and thereby to form a state within a state; and, resting on the support of these troops of their own, they defied the legal authorities and the common levy and practically broke up the commonwealth. … This remarkable word [ambacti] must have been in use as early as the sixth century of Rome among the Celts in the valley of the Po. … It is not merely Celtic, however, but also German, the root of our 'Amt,' as indeed the retainer-system itself is common to the Celts and the Germans. It would be of great historical importance to ascertain whether the word—and therefore the thing—came to the Celts from the Germans or to the Germans from the Celts. If, as is usually supposed, the word is originally German and primarily signified the servant standing in battle 'against the back' ('and '=against, 'bak'=back) of his master, this is not wholly irreconcilable with the singularly early occurrence of the word among the Celts. … It is … probable that the Celts, in Italy as in Gaul, employed Germans chiefly as those hired servants-at-arms. The 'Swiss guard' would therefore in that case be some thousands of years older than people suppose."

A small tribe in Gaul which occupied anciently a district between the Saone, the Rhone and the Ain.

AMBITUS.

Bribery at elections was termed ambitus among the Romans, and many unavailing laws were enacted to check it.

A tribe in ancient Gaul which occupied the left bank of the
Meuse, to the south of the marsh of Peel.

AMBROSIAN CHURCH. AMBROSIAN CHANT.

"Widely scattered throughout the United States, from sea to sea, artificial mounds are discovered, which may be enumerated by the thousands or hundreds of thousands. They vary greatly in size; some are so small that a half-dozen laborers with shovels might construct one of them in a day, while others cover acres and are scores of feet in height. These mounds were observed by the earliest explorers and pioneers of the country. They did not attract great attention, however, until the science of archæology demanded their investigation. Then they were assumed to furnish evidence of a race of people older than the Indian tribes. Pseud-archæologists descanted on the Mound-builders that once inhabited the land, and they told of swarming populations who had reached a high condition of culture, erecting temples, practicing arts in the metals, and using hieroglyphs. So the Mound-builders formed the theme of many an essay on the wonders of ancient civilization. The research of the past ten or fifteen years has put this subject in a proper light. First, the annals of the Columbian epoch have been carefully studied, and it is found that some of the mounds have been constructed in historical time, while early explorers and settlers found many actually used by tribes of North American Indians; so we know that many of them were builders of mounds. Again, hundreds and thousands of these mounds have been carefully examined, and the works of art found therein have been collected and assembled in museums. At the same time, the works of art of the Indian tribes, as they were produced before modification by European culture, have been assembled in the same museums, and the two classes of collections have been carefully compared. All this has been done with the greatest painstaking, and the Mound-builder's arts and the Indian's arts are found to be substantially identical. No fragment of evidence remains to support the figment of theory that there was an ancient race of Mound-builders superior in culture to the North American Indians. … That some of these mounds were built and used in modern times is proved in another way. They often contain articles manifestly made by white men, such as glass beads and copper ornaments. … So it chances that to-day unskilled archæologists are collecting many beautiful things in copper, stone, and shell which were made by white men and traded to the Indians. Now, some of these things are found in the mounds; and bird pipes, elephant pipes, banner stones, copper spear heads and knives, and machine-made wampum are collected in quantities and sold at high prices to wealthy amateurs. … The study of these mounds, historically and archæologically, proves that they were used for a variety of purposes. Some were for sepulture, and such are the most common and widely scattered. Others were used as artificial hills on which to build communal houses. … Some of the very large mounds were sites of large communal houses in which entire tribes dwelt. There is still a third class … constructed as places for public assembly. … But to explain the mounds and their uses would expand this article into a book. It is enough to say that the Mound-builders were the Indian tribes discovered by white men. It may well be that some of the mounds were erected by tribes extinct when Columbus first saw these shores, but they were kindred in culture to the peoples that still existed. In the southwestern portion of the United States, conditions of aridity prevail. Forests are few and are found only at great heights. … The tribes lived in the plains and valleys below, while the highlands were their hunting grounds. The arid lands below were often naked of vegetation; and the ledges and cliffs that stand athwart the lands, and the canyon walls that inclose the streams, were everywhere quarries of loose rock, lying in blocks ready to the builder's hand. Hence these people learned to build their dwellings of stone; and they had large communal houses, even larger than the structures of wood made by the tribes of the east and north. Many of these stone pueblos are still occupied, but the ruins are scattered wide over a region of country embracing a little of California and Nevada, much of Utah, most of Colorado, the whole of New Mexico and Arizona, and far southward toward the Isthmus. … No ruin has been discovered where evidences of a higher culture are found than exists in modern times at Zuni, Oraibi, or Laguna. The earliest may have been built thousands of years ago, but they were built by the ancestors of existing tribes and their congeners. A careful study of these ruins, made during the last twenty years, abundantly demonstrates that the pueblo culture began with rude structures of stone and brush, and gradually developed, until at the time of the exploration of the country by the Spaniards, beginning about 1540, it had reached its highest phase. Zuni [in New Mexico] has been built since, and it is among the largest and best villages ever established within the territory of the United States without the aid of ideas derived from civilized men." With regard to the ruins of dwellings found sheltered in the craters of extinct volcanoes, or on the shelves of cliffs, or otherwise contrived, the conclusion to which all recent archæological study tends is the same. "All the stone pueblo ruins, all the clay ruins, all the cliff dwellings, all the crater villages, all the cavate chambers, and all the tufa-block houses are fully accounted for without resort to hypothetical peoples inhabiting the country anterior to the Indian tribes. … Pre-Columbian culture was indigenous; it began at the lowest stage of savagery and developed to the highest, and was in many places passing into barbarism when the good queen sold her jewels."

Major J. W. Powell, Prehistoric Man in America; in "The Forum," January, 1890.

"The writer believes … that the majority of American archæologists now sees no sufficient reason for supposing that any mysterious superior race has ever lived in any portion of our continent. They find no archæological evidence proving that at the time of its discovery any tribe had reached a stage of culture that can properly be called civilization. Even if we accept the exaggerated statements of the Spanish conquerors, the most intelligent and advanced peoples found here were only semi-barbarians, in the stage of transition from the stone to the bronze age, possessing no written language, or what can properly be styled an alphabet, and not yet having even learned the use of beasts of burden."

H. W. Haynes, Prehistoric Archæology of North America (volume 1, chapter 6, of "Narrative and Critical History of America").

"It may be premised … that the Spanish adventurers who thronged to the New World after its discovery found the same race of Red Indians in the West India Islands, in Central and South America, in Florida and in Mexico. In their mode of life and means of subsistence, in their weapons, arts, usages and customs, in their institutions, and in their mental and physical characteristics, they were the same people in different stages of advancement. … There was neither a political society, nor a state, nor any civilization in America when it was discovered; and excluding the Eskimos, but one race of Indians, the Red Race."

      L. H. Morgan,
      Houses and House-life of the American Aborigines:
      (Contributions to North American Ethnology, volume 5.),
      chapter 10.

"We have in this country the conclusive evidence of the existence of man before the time of the glaciers, and from the primitive conditions of that time, he has lived here and developed, through stages which correspond in many particulars to the Homeric age of Greece."

      C. Thomas,
      Burial Mounds of the Northern Sections of the
      United States: Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology,
      1883-84.

See, also, MEXICO; PERU;
and AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALLEGHANS, CHEROKEES, and MAYAS.

The fact that the Northmen knew of the existence of the Western Continent prior to the age of Columbus, was prominently brought before the people of this country in the year 1837, when the Royal Society of Northern Antiquaries at Copenhagen published their work on the Antiquities of North America, under the editorial supervision of the great Icelandic scholar, Professor Rafn. But we are not to suppose that the first general account of these voyages was then given, for it has always been known that the history of certain early voyages to America by the Northmen were preserved in the libraries of Denmark and Iceland. … Yet, owing to the fact that the Icelandic language, though simple in construction and easy of acquisition, was a tongue not understood by scholars, the subject has until recent years been suffered to lie in the background, and permitted, through a want of interest, to share in a measure the treatment meted out to vague and uncertain reports. … It now remains to give the reader some general account of the contents of the narratives which relate more or less to the discovery of the western continent. … The first extracts given are very brief. They are taken from the 'Landanama Book,' and relate to the report in general circulation, which indicated one Gunniborn as the discoverer of Greenland, an event which has been fixed at the year 876. … The next narrative relates to the rediscovery of Greenland by the outlaw, Eric the Red, in 983, who there passed three years in exile, and afterwards returned to Iceland. About the year 986, he brought out to Greenland a considerable colony of settlers, who fixed their abode at Brattahlid, in Ericsfiord. Then follow two versions of the voyage of Biarne Heriulfson, who, in the same year, 986, when sailing for Greenland, was driven away during a storm, and saw a new land at the southward, which he did not visit. Next is given three accounts of the voyage of Leif, son of Eric the Red, who in the year 1000 sailed from Brattahlid to find the land which Biarne saw. Two of these accounts are hardly more than notices of the voyage, but the third is of considerable length, and details the successes of Leif, who found and explored this new land, where he spent the winter, returning to Greenland the following spring [having named different regions which he visited Helluland, Markland and Vinland, the latter name indicative of the finding of grapes]. After this follows the voyage of Thorvald Ericson, brother of Leif, who sailed to Vinland from Greenland, which was the point of departure in all these voyages. This expedition was begun in 1002, and it cost him his life, as an arrow from one of the natives pierced his side, causing death. Thorstein, his brother, went to seek Vinland, with the intention of bringing home his body, but failed in the attempt. The most distinguished explorer was Thorfinn Karlsefne, the Hopeful, an Icelander whose genealogy runs back in the old Northern annals, through Danish, Swedish, and even Scotch and Irish ancestors, some of whom were of royal blood. In the year 1006 he went to Greenland, where he met Gudrid, widow of Thorstein, whom he married. Accompanied by his wife, who urged him to the undertaking, he sailed to Vinland in the spring of 1007, with three vessels and 160 men, where he remained three years. Here his son Snorre was born. He afterwards became the founder of a great family in Iceland, which gave the island several of its first bishops. Thorfinn finally left Vinland because he found it difficult to sustain himself against the attacks of the natives. The next to undertake a voyage was a wicked woman named Freydis, a sister to Leif Ericson, who went to Vinland in 1011, where she lived for a time with her two ships, in the same places occupied by Leif and Thorfinn. Before she returned, she caused the crew of one ship to be cruelly murdered, assisting in the butchery with her own hands. After this we have what are called the Minor Narratives, which are not essential.

By those who accept fully the claims made for the Northmen, as discoverers of the American continent in the voyages believed to be authentically narrated in these sagas, the Helluland of Leif is commonly identified with Newfoundland, Markland with Nova Scotia, and Vinland with various parts of New England. Massachusetts Bay, Cape Cod, Nantucket Island, Martha's Vineyard, Buzzard's Bay, Narragansett Bay, Mount Hope Bay, Long Island Sound, and New York Bay are among the localities supposed to be recognized in the Norse narratives, or marked by some traces of the presence of the Viking explorers. Professor Gustav Storm, the most recent of the Scandinavian investigators of this subject, finds the Helluland of the sagas in Labrador or Northern Newfoundland, Markland in Newfoundland, and Vinland in Nova Scotia and Cape Breton Island.

"The only discredit which has been thrown upon the story of the Vinland voyages, in the eyes either of scholars or of the general public, has arisen from the eager credulity with which ingenious antiquarians have now and then tried to prove more than facts will warrant. … Archælogical remains of the Northmen abound in Greenland, all the way from Immartinek to near Cape Farewell; the existence of one such relic on the North American continent has never yet been proved. Not a single vestige of the Northmen's presence here, at all worthy of credence, has ever been found. … The most convincing proof that the Northmen never founded a colony in America, south of Davis Strait, is furnished by the total absence of horses, cattle and other domestic animals from the soil of North America until they were brought hither by the Spanish, French and English settlers."

"What Leif and Karlsefne knew they experienced," writes Professor Justin Winsor, "and what the sagas tell us they underwent, must have just the difference between a crisp narrative of personal adventure and the oft-repeated and embellished story of a fireside narrator, since the traditions of the Norse voyages were not put in the shape of records till about two centuries had elapsed, and we have no earlier manuscript of such a record than one made nearly two hundred years later still. … A blending of history and myth prompts Horn to say that 'some of the sagas were doubtless originally based on facts, but the telling and retelling have changed them into pure myths.' The unsympathetic stranger sees this in stories that the patriotic Scandinavians are over-anxious to make appear as genuine chronicles. … The weight of probability is in favor of a Northman descent upon the coast of the American mainland at some point, or at several, somewhere to the south of Greenland; but the evidence is hardly that which attaches to well established historical records. … There is not a single item of all the evidence thus advanced from time to time which can be said to connect by archæological traces the presence of the Northmen on the soil of North America south of Davis' Straits." Of other imagined pre-Columban discoveries of America, by the Welsh, by the Arabs, by the Basques, &c., the possibilities and probabilities are critically discussed by Professor Winsor in the same connection.

J. Winsor, Narrative and Critical History of America, volume 1, chapter 2, and Critical Notes to the same.

E. F. Slafter, Editor, Voyages of the Northmen to America (Prince Society, 1877).

E. F. Slafter, Editor, Discovery of America by the Northmen (N. H. History Society, 1888).

AMERICA: A. D. 1484-1492.
   The great project of Columbus, and the sources of its inspiration.
   His seven years' suit at the Spanish Court.
   His departure from Palos.

"All attempts to diminish the glory of Columbus' achievement by proving a previous discovery whose results were known to him have signally failed. … Columbus originated no new theory respecting the earth's form or size, though a popular idea has always prevailed, notwithstanding the statements of the best writers to the contrary, that he is entitled to the glory of the theory as well as to that of the execution of the project. He was not in advance of his age, entertained no new theories, believed no more than did Prince Henry, his predecessor, or Toscanelli, his contemporary; nor was he the first to conceive the possibility of reaching the east by sailing west. He was however the first to act in accordance with existing beliefs. The Northmen in their voyages had entertained no ideas of a New World, or of an Asia to the West. To knowledge of theoretical geography, Columbus added the skill of a practical navigator, and the iron will to overcome obstacles. He sailed west, reached Asia as he believed, and proved old theories correct. There seem to be two undecided points in that matter, neither of which can ever be settled. First, did his experience in the Portuguese voyages, the perusal of some old author, or a hint from one of the few men acquainted with old traditions, first suggest to Columbus his project? … Second, to what extent did his voyage to the north [made in 1477, probably with an English merchantman from Bristol, in which voyage he is believed to have visited Iceland] influence his plan? There is no evidence, but a strong probability, that he heard in that voyage of the existence of land in the west. … Still, his visit to the north was in 1477, several years after the first formation of his plan, and any information gained at the time could only have been confirmatory rather than suggestive."

H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States, volume 1, summary appendix to chapter 1.

   "Of the works of learned men, that which, according to
   Ferdinand Columbus, had most weight with his father, was the
   'Cosmographia' of Cardinal Aliaco. Columbus was also confirmed
   in his views of the existence of a western passage to the
   Indies by Paulo Toscanelli, the Florentine philosopher, to
   whom much credit is due for the encouragement he afforded to
   the enterprise. That the notices, however, of western lands
   were not such as to have much weight with other men, is
   sufficiently proved by the difficulty which Columbus had in
   contending with adverse geographers and men of science in
   general, of whom he says he never was able to convince any
   one. After a new world had been discovered, many scattered
   indications were then found to have foreshown it. One thing
   which cannot be denied to Columbus is that he worked out his
   own idea himself. … He first applied himself to his
   countrymen, the Genoese, who would have nothing to say to his
   scheme. He then tried the Portuguese, who listened to what he
   had to say, but with bad faith sought to anticipate him by
   sending out a caravel with instructions founded upon his plan.
   … Columbus, disgusted at the treatment he had received from
   the Portuguese Court, quitted Lisbon, and, after visiting
   Genoa, as it appears, went to see what favour he could meet
   with in Spain, arriving at Palos in the year 1485." The story
   of the long suit of Columbus at the Court of Ferdinand and
   Isabella; of his discouragement and departure, with intent to
   go to France; of his recall by command of Queen Isabella; of
   the tedious hearings and negotiations that now took place; of
   the lofty demands adhered to by the confident Genoese, who
   required "to be made an admiral at once, to be appointed
   viceroy of the countries he should discover, and to have an
   eighth of the profits of the expedition;" of his second
   rebuff, his second departure for France, and second recall by
   Isabella, who finally put her heart into the enterprise and
   persuaded her more skeptical consort to assent to it—the
   story of those seven years of the struggle of Columbus to
   obtain means for his voyage is familiar to all readers.
{49}
   "The agreement between Columbus and their Catholic highnesses
   was signed at Santa Fe on the 17th of April, 1492; and
   Columbus went to Palos to make preparation for his voyage,
   bearing with him an order that the two vessels which that city
   furnished annually to the crown for three months should be
   placed at his disposal. … The Pinzons, rich men and skilful
   mariners of Palos, joined in the undertaking, subscribing an
   eighth of the expenses; and thus, by these united exertions,
   three vessels were manned with 90 mariners, and provisioned
   for a year. At length all the preparations were complete, and
   on a Friday (not inauspicious in this case), the 3d of August,
   1492, after they had all confessed and received the sacrament,
   they set sail from the bar of Saltes, making for the Canary
   Islands."

AMERICA: A. D. 1492.
The First Voyage of Columbus.
Discovery of the Bahamas, Cuba and Hayti.

The three vessels of Columbus were called the Santa Maria, the Pinta and the Nina. "All had forecastles and high poops, but the 'Santa Maria' was the only one that was decked amidships, and she was called a 'nao' or ship. The other two were caravelas, a class of small vessels built for speed. The 'Santa Maria,' as I gather from scattered notices in the letters of Columbus, was of 120 to 130 tons, like a modern coasting schooner, and she carried 70 men, much crowded. Her sails were a foresail and a foretop-sail, a sprit-sail, a main-sail with two bonnets, and maintop sail, a mizzen, and a boat's sail were occasionally hoisted on the poop. The 'Pinta' and 'Nina' only had square sails on the foremast and lateen sails on the main and mizzen. The former was 50 tons, the latter 40 tons, with crews of 20 men each. On Friday, the 3d of August, the three little vessels left the haven of Palos, and this memorable voyage was commenced. … The expedition proceeded to the Canary Islands, where the rig of the 'Pinta' was altered. Her lateen sails were not adapted for running before the wind, and she was therefore fitted with square sails, like the 'Santa Maria.' Repairs were completed, the vessels were filled up with wood and water at Gomera, and the expedition took its final departure from the island of Gomera, one of the Canaries, on September 6th, 1492. … Columbus had chosen his route most happily, and with that fortunate prevision which often waits upon genius. From Gomera, by a course a little south of west, he would run down the trades to the Bahama Islands. From the parallel of about 30° N. nearly to the equator there is a zone of perpetual winds—namely, the north-east trade winds—always moving in the same direction, as steadily as the current of a river, except where they are turned aside by local causes, so that the ships of Columbus were steadily carried to their destination by a law of nature which, in due time, revealed itself to that close observer of her secrets. The constancy of the wind was one cause of alarm among the crews, for they began to murmur that the provisions would all be exhausted if they had to beat against these unceasing winds on the return voyage. The next event which excited alarm among the pilots was the discovery that the compasses had more than a point of easterly variation. … This was observed on the 17th of September, and about 300 miles westward of the meridian of the Azores, when the ships had been eleven days at sea. Soon afterwards the voyagers found themselves surrounded by masses of seaweed, in what is called the Sargasso Sea, and this again aroused their fears. They thought that the ships would get entangled in the beds of weed and become immovable, and that the beds marked the limit of navigation. The cause of this accumulation is well known now. If bits of cork are put into a basin of water, and a circular motion given to it, all the corks will be found crowding together towards the centre of the pool where there is the least motion. The Atlantic Ocean is just such a basin, the Gulf Stream is the whirl, and the Sargasso Sea is in the centre. There Columbus found it, and there it has remained to this day, moving up and down and changing its position according to seasons, storms and winds, but never altering its mean position. … As day after day passed, and there was no sign of land, the crews became turbulent and mutinous. Columbus encouraged them with hopes of reward, while he told them plainly that he had come to discover India, and that, with the help of God, he would persevere until he found it. At length, on the 11th of October, towards ten at night, Columbus was on the poop and saw a light. … At two next morning, land was distinctly seen. … The island, called by the natives Guanahani, and by Columbus San Salvador, has now been ascertained to be Watling Island, one of the Bahamas, 14 miles long by 6 broad, with a brackish lake in the centre, in 24° 10' 30'' north latitude. … The difference of latitude between Gomera and Watling Island is 235 miles. Course, West 5° South; distance 3,114 miles; average distance made good daily, 85'; voyage 35 days. … After discovering several smaller islands the fleet came in sight of Cuba on the 27th October, and explored part of the northern coast. Columbus believed it to be Cipango, the island placed on the chart of Toscanelli, between Europe and Asia. … Crossing the channel between Cuba and St. Domingo [or Hayti], they anchored in the harbour of St. Nicholas Mole on December 4th. The natives came with presents and the country was enchanting. Columbus … named the island 'Española' [or Hispaniola]. But with all this peaceful beauty around him he was on the eve of disaster." The Santa Maria was drifted by a strong current upon a sand bank and hopelessly wrecked. "It was now necessary to leave a small colony on the island. … A fort was built and named 'La Navidad,' 39 men remaining behind supplied with stores and provisions," and on Friday, January 4, 1493, Columbus began his homeward voyage. Weathering a dangerous gale, which lasted several days, his little vessels reached the Azores February 17, and arrived at Palos March 15, bearing their marvellous news.

The statement above that the island of the Bahamas on which Columbus first landed, and which he called San Salvador, "has now been ascertained to be Watling Island" seems hardly justified. The question between Watling Island, San Salvador or Cat Island, Samana, or Attwood's Cay, Mariguana, the Grand Turk, and others is still in dispute. Professor Justin Winsor says "the weight of modern testimony seems to favor Watling's Island;" but at the same time he thinks it "probable that men will never quite agree which of the Bahamas it was upon which these startled and exultant Europeans first stepped."

J. Winsor, Narrative and Critical History of America, volume 2, chapter 1, note B.

Professor John Fiske, says: "All that can be positively asserted of Guanahani is that it was one of the Bahamas; there has been endless discussion as to which one, and the question is not easy to settle. Perhaps the theory of Captain Gustavus Fox, of the United States Navy, is on the whole best supported. Captain Fox maintains that the true Guanahani was the little Island now known as Samana or Attwood's Cay."

      ALSO IN
      U. S. Coast and Geodetic Survey, Report, 1880,
      appendix 18.

"Spain was at this time connected with the Pope about a most momentous matter. The Genoese, Cristoforo Colombo, arrived at the Spanish court in March, 1493, with the astounding news of the discovery of a new continent. … Ferdinand and Isabella thought it wise to secure a title to all that might ensue from their new discovery. The Pope, as Vicar of Christ, was held to have authority to dispose of lands inhabited by the heathen; and by papal Bulls the discoveries of Portugal along the African coast had been secured. The Portuguese showed signs of urging claims to the New World, as being already conveyed to them by the papal grants previously issued in their favour. To remove all cause of dispute, the Spanish monarchs at once had recourse to Alexander VI., who issued two Bulls on May 4 and 5 [1493] to determine the respective rights of Spain and Portugal. In the first, the Pope granted to the Spanish monarchs and their heirs all lands discovered or hereafter to be discovered in the western ocean. In the second, he defined his grant to mean all lands that might be discovered west and south of an imaginary line, drawn from the North to the South Pole, at the distance of a hundred leagues westward of the Azores and Cape de Verd Islands. In the light of our present knowledge we are amazed at this simple means of disposing of a vast extent of the earth's surface." Under the Pope's stupendous patent, Spain was able to claim every part of the American Continent except the Brazilian coast.

M. Creighton, History of the Papacy during the Reformation, book 5, chapter 6 (volume 3).

      ALSO IN
      E. G. Bourne,
      The Demarcation Line of Pope Alexander VI.
      (Yale Review., May, 1892).

      J. Gordon,
      The Bulls distributing America
      (American Society of Ch. Dist., volume 4).

AMERICA: A. D. 1493-1496.
   The Second Voyage of Columbus.
   Discovery of Jamaica and the Caribbees.
   Subjugation of Hispaniola.

"The departure of Columbus on his second voyage of discovery presented a brilliant contrast to his gloomy embarkation at Palos. On the 25th of September [1493], at the dawn of day the bay of Cadiz was whitened by his fleet: There were three large ships of heavy burden and fourteen caravels. … Before sunrise the whole fleet was under way." Arrived at the Canaries on the 1st of October, Columbus purchased there calves, goats, sheep, hogs, and fowls, with which to stock the island of Hispaniola; also "seeds of oranges, lemons, bergamots, melons, and various orchard fruits, which were thus first introduced into the islands of the west from the Hesperides or Fortunate Islands of the Old World." It was not until the 13th of October that the fleet left the Canaries, and it arrived among the islands since called the Lesser Antilles or Caribbees, on the evening of November 2. Sailing through this archipelago, discovering the larger island of Porto Rico on the way, Columbus reached the eastern extremity of Hispaniola or Hayti on the 22d of November, and arrived on the 27th at La Navidad, where he had left a garrison ten months before. He found nothing but ruin, silence and the marks of death, and learned, after much inquiry, that his unfortunate men, losing all discipline after his departure, had provoked the natives by rapacity and licentiousness until the latter rose against them and destroyed them. Abandoning the scene of this disaster, Columbus found an excellent harbor ten leagues east of Monte Christi and there he began the founding of a city which he named Isabella. "Isabella at the present day is quite overgrown with forests, in the midst of which are still to be seen, partly standing, the pillars of the church, some remains of the king's storehouses, and part of the residence of Columbus, all built of hewn stone." While the foundations of the new city were being laid, Columbus sent back part of his ships to Spain, and undertook an exploration of the interior of the island—the mountains of Cibao—where abundance of gold was promised. Some gold washings were found—far too scanty to satisfy the expectations of the Spaniards; and, as want and sickness soon made their appearance at Isabella, discontent was rife and mutiny afoot before the year had ended. In April, 1494, Columbus set sail with three caravels to revisit the coast of Cuba, for a more extended exploration than he had attempted on the first discovery. "He supposed it to be a continent, and the extreme end of Asia, and if so, by following its shores in the proposed direction he must eventually arrive at Cathay and those other rich and commercial, though semi-barbarous countries, described by Mandeville and Marco Polo." Reports of gold led him southward from Cuba until he discovered the island which he called Santiago, but which has kept its native name, Jamaica, signifying the Island of Springs. Disappointed in the search for gold, he soon returned from Jamaica to Cuba and sailed along its southern coast to very near the western extremity, confirming himself and his followers in the belief that they skirted the shores of Asia and might follow them to the Red Sea, if their ships and stores were equal to so long a voyage. "Two or three days' further sail would have carried Columbus round the extremity of Cuba; would have dispelled his illusion, and might have given an entirely different course to his subsequent discoveries. In his present conviction he lived and died; believing to his last hour that Cuba was the extremity of the Asiatic continent." {51} Returning eastward, he visited Jamaica again and purposed some further exploration of the Caribbee Islands, when his toils and anxieties overcame him. "He fell into a deep lethargy, resembling death itself. His crew, alarmed at this profound torpor, feared that death was really at hand. They abandoned, therefore, all further prosecution of the voyage; and spreading their sails to the east wind so prevalent in those seas, bore Columbus back, in a state of complete insensibility, to the harbor of Isabella,"—September 4. Recovering consciousness, the admiral was rejoiced to find his brother Bartholomew, from whom he had been separated for years, and who had been sent out to him from Spain, in command of three ships. Otherwise there was little to give pleasure to Columbus when he returned to Isabella. His followers were again disorganized, again at war with the natives, whom they plundered and licentiously abused, and a mischief-making priest had gone back to Spain, along with certain intriguing officers, to make complaints and set enmities astir at the court. Involved in war, Columbus prosecuted it relentlessly, reduced the island to submission and the natives to servitude and misery by heavy exactions. In March 1496 he returned to Spain, to defend himself against the machinations of his enemies, transferring the government of Hispaniola to his brother Bartholomew.

AMERICA: A. D. 1494.
The Treaty of Tordesillas.
Amended Partition of the New World between Spain and Portugal.

"When speaking or writing of the conquest of America, it is generally believed that the only title upon which were based the conquests of Spain and Portugal was the famous Papal Bull of partition of the Ocean, of 1493. Few modern authors take into consideration that this Bull was amended, upon the petition of the King of Portugal, by the [Treaty of Tordesillas], signed by both powers in 1494, augmenting the portion assigned to the Portuguese in the partition made between them of the Continent of America. The arc of meridian fixed by this treaty as a dividing line, which gave rise, owing to the ignorance of the age, to so many diplomatic congresses and interminable controversies, may now be traced by any student of elementary mathematics. This line … runs along the meridian of 47° 32' 56" west of Greenwich. … The name Brazil, or 'tierra del Brazil,' at that time [the middle of the 16th century] referred only to the part of the continent producing the dye wood so-called. Nearly two centuries later the Portuguese advanced toward the South, and the name Brazil then covered the new possessions they were acquiring."

      L. L. Dominguez,
      Introduction to "The Conquest of the River Plate"
      (Hakluyt Society Publications. Number 81).

"The achievement of Columbus, revealing the wonderful truth of which the germ may have existed in the imagination of every thoughtful mariner, won [in England] the admiration which belonged to genius that seemed more divine than human; and 'there was great talk of it in all the court of Henry VII.' A feeling of disappointment remained, that a series of disasters had defeated the wish of the illustrious Genoese to make his voyage of essay under the flag of England. It was, therefore, not difficult for John Cabot, a denizen of Venice, residing at Bristol, to interest that politic king in plans for discovery. On the 5th of March, 1496, he obtained under the great seal a commission empowering himself and his three sons, or either of them, their heirs, or their deputies, to sail into the eastern, western, or northern sea with a fleet of five ships, at their own expense, in search of islands, provinces, or regions hitherto unseen by Christian people; to affix the banners of England on city, island, or continent; and, as vassals of the English crown, to possess and occupy the territories that might be found. It was further stipulated in this 'most ancient American State paper of England,' that the patentees should be strictly bound, on every return, to land at the port of Bristol, and to pay to the king one-fifth part of their gains; while the exclusive right of frequenting all the countries that might be found was reserved to them and to their assigns' without limit of time. Under this patent, which, at the first direction of English enterprise toward America, embodied the worst features of monopoly and commercial restriction, John Cabot, taking with him his son Sebastian, embarked in quest of new islands and a passage to Asia by the north-west. After sailing prosperously, as he reported, for 700 leagues, on the 24th day of June, early in the morning, almost fourteen months before Columbus on his third voyage came in sight of the main, and more than two years before Amerigo Vespucci sailed west of the Canaries, he discovered the western continent, probably in the latitude of about 56° degrees, among the dismal cliffs of Labrador. He ran along the coast for many leagues, it is said even for 300, and landed on what he considered to be the territory of the Grand Cham. But he encountered no human being, although there were marks that the region was inhabited. He planted on the land a large cross with the flag of England, and, from affection for the republic of Venice, he added the banner of St. Mark, which had never been borne so far before. On his homeward voyage he saw on his right hand two islands, which for want of provisions he could not stop to explore. After an absence of three months the great discoverer re-entered Bristol harbor, where due honors awaited him. The king gave him money, and encouraged him to continue his career, The people called him the great admiral; he dressed in silk; and the English, and even Venetians who chanced to be at Bristol, ran after him with such zeal that he could enlist for a new voyage as many as he pleased. … On the third day of the month of February next after his return, 'John Kaboto, Venecian,' accordingly obtained a power to take up ships for another voyage, at the rates fixed for those employed in the service of the king, and once more to set sail with as many companions as would go with him of their own will. With this license every trace of John Cabot disappears. He may have died before the summer; but no one knows certainly the time or the place of his end, and it has not even been ascertained in what country this finder of a continent first saw the light."

G. Bancroft, History of the United States of America. (Author's last Revision), part 1, chapter 1.

In the Critical Essay appended to a chapter on the voyages of the Cabots, in the Narrative and Critical History of America, there is published, for the first time, an English translation of a dispatch from Raimondo de Soncino, envoy of the Duke of Milan to Henry VII., written Aug. 24, 1497, and giving an account of the voyage from which 'Master John Caboto,' 'a Venetian fellow,' had just returned. This paper was brought to light in 1865, from the State Archives of Milan. Referring to the dispatch, and to a letter, also quoted, from the 'Venetian Calendars,' written Aug. 23, 1497, by Lorenzo Pasqualigo, a merchant in London, to his brothers in Venice, Mr. Charles Deane says: "These letters are sufficient to show that North America was discovered by John Cabot, the name of Sebastian being nowhere mentioned in them, and that the discovery was made in 1497. The place which he first sighted is given on the map of 1544 [a map of Sebastian Cabot, discovered in Germany in 1843] as the north part of Cape Breton Island, on which is inscribed 'prima tierra vista,' which was reached, according to the Legend, on the 24th of June. Pasqualigo, the only one who mentions it, says he coasted 300 leagues. Mr. Brevoort, who accepts the statement, thinks he made the periplus of the Gulf of St. Lawrence, passing out at the Straits of Belle Isle, and thence home. … The extensive sailing up and down the coast described by chroniclers from conversations with Sebastian Cabot many years afterwards, though apparently told as occurring on the voyage of discovery—as only one voyage is ever mentioned—must have taken place on a later voyage."

C. Deane, Narrative and Critical History of America, volume 3, chapter 1, Critical Essay.

AMERICA: A. D. 1497-1498.
   The first Voyage of Americus Vespucius.
   Misunderstandings and disputes concerning it.
   Vindication of the Florentine navigator.
   His exploration of 4,000 miles of continental coast.

"Our information concerning Americus Vespucius, from the early part of the year 1496 until after his return from the Portuguese to the Spanish service in the latter part of 1504, rests primarily upon his two famous letters; the one addressed to his old patron Lorenzo di Pier Francesco de' Medici (a cousin of Lorenzo the Magnificent) and written in March or April, 1503, giving an account of his third voyage; the other addressed to his old school-fellow Piero Soderini [then Gonfaloniere of Florence] and dated from Lisbon, September 4, 1504, giving a brief account of four voyages which he had made under various commanders in the capacity of astronomer or pilot. These letters … became speedily popular, and many editions were published, more especially in France, Germany, and Italy. … The letter to Soderini gives an account of four voyages in which the writer took part, the first two in the service of Spain, the other two in the service of Portugal. The first expedition sailed from Cadiz May 10, 1497, and returned October 15, 1498, after having explored a coast so long as to seem unquestionably that of a continent. This voyage, as we shall see, was concerned with parts of America not visited again until 1513 and 1517. It discovered nothing that was calculated to invest it with much importance in Spain, though it by no means passed without notice there, as has often been wrongly asserted. Outside of Spain it came to attract more attention, but in an unfortunate way, for a slight but very serious error in proof-reading or editing, in the most important of the Latin versions, caused it after a while to be practically identified with the second voyage, made two years later. This confusion eventually led to most outrageous imputations upon the good name of Americus, which it has been left for the present century to remove. The second voyage of Vespucius was that in which he accompanied Alonso de Ojeda and Juan de la Costa, from May 20, 1499, to June, 1500. They explored the northern coast of South America from some point on what we would now call the north coast of Brazil, as far as the Pearl Coast visited by Columbus in the preceding year; and they went beyond, as far as the Gulf of Maracaibo. Here the squadron seems to have become divided, Ojeda going over to Hispaniola in September, while Vespucius remained cruising till February. … It is certainly much to be regretted that in the narrative of his first expedition, Vespucius did not happen to mention the name of the chief commander. … However … he was writing not for us, but for his friend, and he told Soderini only what he thought would interest him. … Of the letter to Soderini the version which has played the most important part in history is the Latin one first published at the press of the little college at Saint-Dié in Lorraine, April 25 (vij Kl' Maij), 1507. … It was translated, not from an original text, but from an intermediate French version, which is lost. Of late years, however, we have detected, in an excessively rare Italian text, the original from which the famous Lorraine version was ultimately derived. … If now we compare this primitive text with the Latin of the Lorraine version of 1507, we observe that, in the latter, one proper name—the Indian name of a place visited by Americus on his first voyage—has been altered. In the original it is 'Lariab;' in the Latin it has become 'Parias.' This looks like an instance of injudicious editing on the part of the Latin translator, although, of course, it may be a case of careless proof-reading. Lariab is a queer-looking word. It is no wonder that a scholar in his study among the mountains of Lorraine could make nothing of it. If he had happened to be acquainted with the language of the Huastecas, who dwelt at that time about the river Panuco—fierce and dreaded enemies of their southern neighbours the Aztecs—he would have known that names of places in that region were apt to end in ab. … But as such facts were quite beyond our worthy translator's ken, we cannot much blame him if he felt that such a word as Lariab needed doctoring. Parias (Paria) was known to be the native name of a region on the western shores of the Atlantic, and so Lariab became Parias. As the distance from the one place to the other is more than two thousand miles, this little emendation shifted the scene of the first voyage beyond all recognition, and cast the whole subject into an outer darkness where there has been much groaning and gnashing of teeth. Another curious circumstance came in to confirm this error. On his first voyage, shortly before arriving at Lariab, Vespucius saw an Indian town built over the water, 'like Venice.' He counted 44 large wooden houses, 'like barracks,' supported on huge tree- trunks and communicating with each other by bridges that could be drawn up in case of danger. {53} This may well have been a village of communal houses of the Chontals on the coast of Tabasco; but such villages were afterwards seen on the Gulf of Maracaibo, and one of them was called Venezuela, or 'Little Venice,' a name since spread over a territory nearly twice as large as France. So the amphibious town described by Vespucius was incontinently moved to Maracaibo, as if there could be only one such place, as if that style of defensive building had not been common enough in many ages and in many parts of the earth, from ancient Switzerland to modern Siam. … Thus in spite of the latitudes and longitudes distinctly stated by Vespucius in his letter, did Lariab and the little wooden Venice get shifted from the Gulf of Mexico to the northern coast of South America. Now there is no question that Vespucius in his second voyage, with Ojeda for captain, did sail along that coast, visiting the gulfs of Paria and Maracaibo. This was in the summer of 1499, one year after a part of the same coast had been visited by Columbus. Hence in a later period, long after the actors in these scenes had been gathered unto their fathers, and when people had begun to wonder how the New World could ever have come to be called America instead of Columbia, it was suggested that the first voyage described by Vespucius must be merely a clumsy and fictitious duplicate of the second, and that he invented it and thrust it back from 1499 to 1497, in order that he might be accredited with 'the discovery of the continent' one year in advance of his friend Columbus. It was assumed that he must have written his letter to Soderini with the base intention of supplanting his friend, and that the shabby device was successful. This explanation seemed so simple and intelligible that it became quite generally adopted, and it held its ground until the subject began to be critically studied, and Alexander von Humboldt showed, about sixty years ago, that the first naming of America occurred in no such way as had been supposed. As soon as we refrain from projecting our modern knowledge of geography into the past, as soon as we pause to consider how these great events appeared to the actors themselves, the absurdity of this accusation against Americus becomes evident. We arc told that he falsely pretended to have visited Paria and Maracaibo in 1497, in order to claim priority over Columbus in the discovery of 'the continent.' What continent? When Vespucius wrote that letter to Soderini, neither he nor anybody else suspected that what we now call America had been discovered. The only continent of which there could be any question, so far as supplanting Columbus was concerned, was Asia. But in 1504 Columbus was generally supposed to have discovered the continent of Asia, by his new route, in 1492. … It was M. Varnhagen who first turned inquiry on this subject in the right direction. … Having taken a correct start by simply following the words of Vespucius himself, from a primitive text, without reference to any preconceived theories or traditions, M. Varnhagen finds" that Americus in his first voyage made land on the northern coast of Honduras; "that he sailed around Yucatan, and found his aquatic village of communal houses, his little wooden Venice, on the shore of Tabasco. Thence, after a fight with the natives in which a few tawny prisoners were captured and carried on board the caravels, Vespucius seems to have taken a straight course to the Huasteca country by Tampico, without touching at points in the region subject or tributary to the Aztec confederacy. This Tampico country was what Vespucius understood to be called Lariab. He again gives the latitude definitely and correctly as 23° N., and he mentions a few interesting circumstances. He saw the natives roasting a dreadfully ugly animal," of which he gives what seems to be "an excellent description of the iguana, the flesh of which is to this day an important article of food in tropical America. … After leaving this country of Lariab the ships kept still to the northwest for a short distance, and then followed the windings of the coast for 870 leagues. … After traversing the 870 leagues of crooked coast, the ships found themselves 'in the finest harbour in the world' [which M. Varnhagen supposed, at first, to have been in Chesapeake Bay, but afterwards reached conclusions pointing to the neighbourhood of Cape Cañaveral, on the Florida coast]. It was in June, 1498, thirteen months since they had started from Spain. … They spent seven-and-thirty days in this unrivalled harbour, preparing for the home voyage, and found the natives very hospitable. These red men courted the aid of the white strangers," in an attack which they wished to make upon a fierce race of cannibals, who inhabited certain islands some distance out to sea. The Spaniards agreed to the expedition, and sailed late in August, taking seven of the friendly Indians for guides. "After a week's voyage they fell in with the islands, some peopled, others uninhabited, evidently the Bermudas, 600 miles from Cape Hatteras as the crow flies. The Spaniards landed on an island called Iti, and had a brisk fight," resulting in the capture of more than 200 prisoners. Seven of these were given to the Indian guides, who paddled home with them. "'We also [wrote Vespucius] set sail for Spain, with 222 prisoners, slaves; and arrived in the port of Cadiz on the 15th day of October, 1498, where we were well received and sold our slaves.' … The obscurity in which this voyage has so long been enveloped is due chiefly to the fact that it was not followed up till many years had elapsed, and the reason for this neglect impresses upon us forcibly the impossibility of understanding the history of the Discovery of America unless we bear in mind all the attendant circumstances. One might at first suppose that a voyage which revealed some 4,000 miles of the coast of North America would have attracted much attention in Spain and have become altogether too famous to be soon forgotten. Such an argument, however, loses sight of the fact that these early voyagers were not trying to 'discover America.' There was nothing to astonish them in the existence of 4,000 miles of coast line on this side of the Atlantic. To their minds it was simply the coast of Asia, about which they knew nothing except from Marco Polo, and the natural effect of such a voyage as this would be simply to throw discredit upon that traveller."

      ALSO IN:
      C. E. Lester and A. Foster,
      Life and Voyages of Americus Vespucius,
      part 1, chapter 7.

AMERICA: A. D. 1498.
Voyage and Discoveries of Sebastian Cabot.
The ground of English claims in the New World.

"The son of John Cabot, Sebastian, is not mentioned in this patent [issued by Henry VII., February 3, 1498], as he had been in that of 1496. Yet he alone profited by it. For the father is not again mentioned in connection with the voyage. … Sebastian was now, if Humboldt's supposition is true that he was born in 1477, a young man of about 20 or 21 years of age. And as he had become proficient in astronomy and mathematics, and had gained naval experience in the voyage he had made in company with his father; and as he knew better than anyone else his father's views, and also the position of the newly discovered regions, he may now have well appeared to Henry as a fit person for the command of another expedition to the northwest. Two ships, manned with 300 mariners and volunteers, were ready for him early in the spring of 1498; and he sailed with them from Bristol, probably in the beginning of the month of May. We have no certain information regarding his route. But he appears to have directed his course again to the country which he had seen the year before on the voyage with his father, our present Labrador. He sailed along the coast of this country so far north that, even in the month of July, he encountered much ice. Observing at the same time, to his great displeasure, that the coast was trending to the east, he resolved to give up a further advance to the north, and returned in a southern direction. At Newfoundland, he probably came to anchor in some port, and refreshed his men, and refitted his vessels after their Arctic hardships. … He probably was the first fisherman on the banks or shores of Newfoundland, which through him became famous in Europe. Sailing from Newfoundland southwest, he kept the coast in view as much as possible, on his right side, 'always with the intent to find a passage and open water to India.' … After having rounded Cape Cod, he must have felt fresh hope. He saw a coast running to the west, and open water before him in that direction. It is therefore nearly certain that he entered somewhat that broad gulf, in the interior corner of which lies the harbor of New York. … From a statement contained in the work of Peter Martyr it appears … certain that Cabot landed on some places of the coast along which he sailed. This author, relating a conversation which he had with his friend Cabot, on the subject of his voyage of 1498, says that Cabot told him 'he had found on most of the places copper or brass among the aborigines.' … From another authority we learn that he captured some of these aborigines and brought them to England, where they lived and were seen a few years after his return by the English chronicler, Robert Fabyan. It is not stated at what place he captured those Indians; but it was not customary with the navigators of that time to take on board the Indians until near the time of their leaving the country. Cabot's Indians, therefore, were probably captured on some shore south of New York harbor. … The southern terminus of his voyage is pretty well ascertained. He himself informed his friend Peter Martyr, that he went as far south as about the latitude of the Strait of Gibraltar, that is to say, about 36° North latitude, which is near that of Cape Hatteras. … On their return from their first voyage of 1497, the Cabots believed that they had discovered portions of Asia and so proclaimed it. But the more extensive discoveries of the second voyage corrected the views of Sebastian, and revealed to him nothing but a wild and barbarous coast, stretching through 30 degrees of latitude, from 67½° to 36°. The discovery of this impassable barrier across his passage to Cathay, as he often complained, was a sore displeasure to him. Instead of the rich possessions of China, which he hoped to reach, he was arrested by a New found land, savage and uncultivated. A spirited German author, Dr. G. M. Asher, in his life of Henry Hudson, published in London in 1860, observes: 'The displeasure of Cabot involves the scientific discovery of a new world. He was the first to recognize that a new and unknown continent was lying, as one vast barrier, between Western Europe and Eastern Asia.' … When Cabot made proposals in the following year, 1499, for another expedition to the same regions, he was supported neither by the king nor the merchants. For several years the scheme for the discovery of a north-western route to Cathay was not much favored in England. Nevertheless, the voyage of this gifted and enterprising youth along the entire coast of the present United States, nay along the whole extent of that great continent, in which now the English race and language prevail and flourish, has always been considered as the true beginning, the foundation and cornerstone, of all the English claims and possessions in the northern half of America."

Discovery of Trinidad, the northern coast of S. America, the
shores of Central America and Panama.

When Columbus reached Spain in June, 1496, "Ferdinand and Isabella received him kindly, gave him new honors and promised him other outfits. Enthusiasm, however, had died out and delays took place. The reports of the returning ships did not correspond with the pictures of Marco Polo, and the new-found world was thought to be a very poor India after all. Most people were of this mind; though Columbus was not disheartened, and the public treasury was readily opened for a third voyage. Coronel sailed early in 1498 with two ships, and Columbus followed with six, embarking at San Lucas on the 30th of May. He now discovered Trinidad (July 31), which he named either from its three peaks, or from the Holy Trinity; struck the northern coast of South America, and skirted what was later known as the Pearl coast, going as far as the Island of Margarita. He wondered at the roaring fresh waters which the Oronoco pours into the Gulf of Pearls, as he called it, and he half believed that its exuberant tide came from the terrestrial paradise. He touched the southern coast of Hayti on the 30th of August. Here already his colonists had established a fortified post, and founded the town of Santo Domingo. His brother Bartholomew had ruled energetically during the Admiral's absence, but he had not prevented a revolt, which was headed by Roldan. Columbus on his arrival found the insurgents still defiant, but he was able after a while to reconcile them, and he even succeeded in attaching Roldan warmly to his interests. {55} Columbus' absence from Spain, however, left his good name without sponsors; and to satisfy detractors, a new commissioner was sent over with enlarged powers, even with authority to supersede Columbus in general command, if necessary. This emissary was Francisco de Bobadilla, who arrived at Santo Domingo with two caravels on the 23d of August, 1500, finding Diego in command, his brother, the Admiral, being absent. An issue was at once made. Diego refused to accede to the commissioner's orders till Columbus returned to judge the case himself; so Bobadilla assumed charge of the crown property violently, took possession of the Admiral's house, and when Columbus returned, he with his brother was arrested and put in irons. In this condition the prisoners were placed on shipboard, and sailed for Spain. The captain of the ship offered to remove the manacles: but Columbus would not permit it, being determined to land in Spain bound as he was; and so he did. The effect of his degradation was to his advantage; sovereigns and people were shocked at the sight; and Ferdinand and Isabella hastened to make amends by receiving him with renewed favor. It was soon apparent that everything reasonable would be granted him by the monarchs, and that he could have all he might wish short of receiving a new lease of power in the islands, which the sovereigns were determined to see pacified at least before Columbus should again assume government of them. The Admiral had not forgotten his vow to wrest the Holy Sepulchre from the Infidel; but the monarchs did not accede to his wish to undertake it. Disappointed in this, he proposed a new voyage; and getting the royal countenance for this scheme, he was supplied with four vessels of from fifty to seventy tons each. … He sailed from Cadiz, May 9, 1502, accompanied by his brother Bartholomew and his son Fernando. The vessels reached San Domingo June 29. Bobadilla, whose rule of a year and a half had been an unhappy one, had given place to Nicholas de Ovando; and the fleet which brought the new governor—with Maldonado, Las Casas and others—now lay in the harbor waiting to receive Bobadilla for the return voyage. Columbus had been instructed to avoid Hispaniola; but now that one of his vessels leaked, and he needed to make repairs, he sent a boat ashore, asking permission to enter the harbor. He was refused, though a storm was impending. He sheltered his vessels as best he could, and rode out the gale. The fleet which had on board Bobadilla and Roldan, with their ill-gotten gains, was wrecked, and these enemies of Columbus were drowned. The Admiral found a small harbor where he could make his repairs; and then, July 14, sailed westward to find, as he supposed, the richer portions of India. … A landing was made on the coast of Honduras, August 14. Three days later the explorers landed again fifteen leagues farther east, and took possession of the country for Spain. Still east they went; and, in gratitude for safety after a long storm, they named a cape which they rounded, Gracias à Dios—a name still preserved at the point where the coast of Honduras begins to trend southward. Columbus was now lying ill on his bed, placed on deck, and was half the time in revery. Still the vessels coasted south," along and beyond the shores of Costa Rica; then turned with the bend of the coast to the northeast, until they reached Porto Bello, as we call it, where they found houses and orchards, and passed on "to the farthest spot of Bastidas' exploring, who had, in 1501, sailed westward along the northern coast of South America." There turning back, Columbus attempted to found a colony at Veragua, on the Costa Rica coast, where signs of gold were tempting. But the gold proved scanty, the natives hostile, and, the Admiral, withdrawing his colony, sailed away. "He abandoned one worm-eaten caravel at Porto Bello, and, reaching Jamaica, beached two others. A year of disappointment, grief, and want followed. Columbus clung to his wrecked vessels. His crew alternately mutinied at his side, and roved about the island. Ovando, at Hispaniola, heard of his straits, but only tardily and scantily relieved him. The discontented were finally humbled; and some ships, despatched by the Admiral's agent in Santo Domingo, at last reached him and brought him and his companions to that place, where Ovando received him with ostentatious kindness, lodging him in his house till Columbus departed for Spain, Sept. 12, 1504." Arriving in Spain in November, disheartened, broken with disease, neglected, it was not until the following May that he had strength enough to go to the court at Segovia, and then only to be coldly received by King Ferdinand—Isabella being dead. "While still hope was deferred, the infirmities of age and a life of hardships brought Columbus to his end; and on Ascension Day, the 20th of May, 1506, he died, with his son Diego and a few devoted friends by his bedside."

ALSO IN: H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States, volume 1, chapter 2 and 4.

      W. Irving,
      Life and Voyages of Columbus,
      book 10-18 (volume 2).

AMERICA: A. D. 1499-1500.
The Voyages and Discoveries of Ojeda and Pinzon.
The Second Voyage of Amerigo Vespucci.

   One of the most daring and resolute of the adventurers who
   accompanied Columbus on his second voyage (in 1493) was Alonzo
   de Ojeda. Ojeda quarrelled with the Admiral and returned to
   Spain in 1498. Soon afterwards, "he was provided by the Bishop
   Fonseca, Columbus' enemy, with a fragment of the map which the
   Admiral had sent to Ferdinand and Isabella, showing the
   discoveries which he had made in his last voyage. With this
   assistance Ojeda set sail for South America, accompanied by
   the pilot, Juan de la Cosá, who had accompanied Columbus in
   his first great voyage in 1492, and of whom Columbus
   complained that, 'being a clever man, he went about saying
   that he knew more than he did,' and also by Amerigo Vespucci.
   They set sail on the 20th of May, 1499, with four vessels, and
   after a passage of 27 days came in sight of the continent, 200
   leagues east of the Oronoco. At the end of June, they landed
   on the shores of Surinam, in six degrees of north latitude,
   and proceeding west saw the mouths of the Essequibo and
   Oronoco. Passing the Boca del Drago of Trinidad, they coasted
   westward till they reached the Capo de la Vela in Granada. It
   was in this voyage that was discovered the Gulf to which Ojeda
   gave the name of Venezuela, or Little Venice, on account of
   the cabins built on piles over the water, a mode of life which
   brought to his mind the water-city of the Adriatic.
{56}
   From the American coast Ojeda went to the Caribbee Islands,
   and on the 5th of September reached Yaguimo, in Hispaniola,
   where he raised a revolt against the authority of Columbus.
   His plans, however, were frustrated by Roldan and Escobar, the
   delegates of Columbus, and he was compelled to withdraw from
   the island. On the 5th of February, 1500, he returned,
   carrying with him to Cadiz an extraordinary number of slaves,
   from which he realized an enormous sum of money. At the
   beginning of December, 1499, the same year in which Ojeda set
   sail on his last voyage, another companion of Columbus, in his
   first voyage, Vicente Yañez Pinzon, sailed from Palos, was the
   first to cross the line on the American side of the Atlantic.
   and on the 20th of January, 1500, discovered Cape St.
   Augustine, to which he gave the name of Cabo Santa Maria de la
   Consolacion, whence returning northward he followed the
   westerly trending coast, and so discovered the mouth of the
   Amazon, which he named Paricura. Within a month after his
   departure from Palos, he was followed from the same port and
   on the same route by Diego de Lepe, who was the first to
   discover, at the mouth of the Oronoco, by means of a closed
   vessel, which only opened when it reached the bottom of the
   water, that, at a depth of eight fathoms and a half, the two
   lowest fathoms were salt water, but all above was fresh. Lepe
   also made the observation that beyond Cape St. Augustine,
   which he doubled, as well as Pinzon, the coast of Brazil
   trended south-west."

AMERICA: A. D. 1500.
Voyages of the Cortereals to the far North, and of Bastidas to
the Isthmus of Darien.

"The Portuguese did not overlook the north while making their important discoveries to the south. Two vessels, probably in the spring of 1500, were sent out under Gaspar Cortereal. No journal or chart of the voyage is now in existence, hence little is known of its object or results. Still more dim is a previous voyage ascribed by Cordeiro to João Vaz Cortereal, father of Gaspar. … Touching at the Azores, Gaspar Cortereal, possibly following Cabot's charts, struck the coast of Newfoundland north of Cape Race, and sailing north discovered a land which he called Terra Verde, perhaps Greenland, but was stopped by ice at a river which he named Rio Nevado, whose location is unknown. Cortereal returned to Lisbon before the end of 1500. … In October of this same year Rodrigo de Bastidas sailed from Cadiz with two vessels. Touching the shores of South America near Isla Verde, which lies between Guadalupe and the main land, he followed the coast westward to El Retrete, or perhaps Nombre de Dios, on the Isthmus of Darien, in about 9° 30' North latitude. Returning he was wrecked on Española toward the end of 1501, and reached Cadiz in September, 1502. This being the first authentic voyage by Europeans to the territory herein defined as the Pacific States, such incidents as are known will be given hereafter."

"We have Las Casas's authority for saying that Bastidas was a humane man toward the Indians. Indeed, he afterwards lost his life by this humanity; for, when governor of Santa Martha, not consenting to harass the Indians, he so alienated his men that a conspiracy was formed against him, and he was murdered in his bed. The renowned Vasco Nuñez [de Balboa] was in this expedition, and the knowledge he gained there had the greatest influence on the fortunes of his varied and eventful life."

AMERICA: A. D. 1500-1514.
   Voyage of Cabral.
   The Third Voyage of Americus Vespucius.
   Exploration of the Brazilian coast for the King of Portugal.
   Curious evolution of the continental name "America."

"Affairs now became curiously complicated. King Emanuel of Portugal intrusted to Pedro Alvarez de Cabral the command of a fleet for Hindustan, to follow up the work of Gama and establish a Portuguese centre of trade on the Malabar coast. This fleet of 13 vessels, carrying about 1,200 men, sailed from Lisbon March 9, 1500. After passing the Cape Verde Islands, March 22, for some reason not clearly known, whether driven by stormy weather or seeking to avoid the calms that were apt to be troublesome on the Guinea coast, Cabral took a somewhat more westerly course than he realized, and on April 22, after a weary progress averaging less than 60 miles per day, he found himself on the coast of Brazil not far beyond the limit reached by Lepe. … Approaching it in such a way Cabral felt sure that this coast must fall to the east of the papal meridian. Accordingly on May day, at Porto Seguro in latitude 16° 30' South, he took formal possession of the country for Portugal, and sent Gaspar de Lemos in one of his ships back to Lisbon with the news. On May 22 Cabral weighed anchor and stood for the Cape of Good Hope. … Cabral called the land he had found Vera Cruz, a name which presently became Santa Cruz; but when Lemos arrived in Lisbon with the news he had with him some gorgeous paroquets, and among the earliest names on old maps of the Brazilian coast we find 'Land of Paroquets' and 'Land of the Holy Cross.' The land lay obviously so far to the east that Spain could not deny that at last there was something for Portugal out in the 'ocean sea.' Much interest was felt at Lisbon. King Emanuel began to prepare an expedition for exploring this new coast, and wished to secure the services of some eminent pilot and cosmographer familiar with the western waters. Overtures were made to Americus, a fact which proves that he had already won a high reputation. The overtures were accepted, for what reason we do not know, and soon after his return from the voyage with Ojeda, probably in the autumn of 1500, Americus passed from the service of Spain into that of Portugal. … On May 14, 1501, Vespucius, who was evidently principal pilot and guiding spirit in this voyage under unknown skies, set sail from Lisbon with three caravels. It is not quite clear who was chief captain, but M. Varnhagen has found reasons for believing that it was a certain Don Nuno Manuel. The first halt was made on the African coast at Cape Verde, the first week in June. … After 67 days of 'the vilest weather ever seen by man' they reached the coast of Brazil in latitude about 5° South, on the evening of the 16th of August, the festival-day of San Roque, whose name was accordingly given to the cape before which they dropped anchor. {57} From this point they slowly followed the coast to the southward, stopping now and then to examine the country. … It was not until All Saints day, the first of November, that they reached the bay in latitude 13° South, which is still known by the name which they gave it, Bahia de Todos Santos. On New Year's day, 1502, they arrived at the noble bay where 54 years later the chief city of Brazil was founded. They would seem to have mistaken it for the mouth of another huge river, like some that had already been seen in this strange world; for they called it Rio de Janeiro (River of January). Thence by February 15 they had passed Cape Santa Maria, when they left the coast and took a southeasterly course out into the ocean. Americus gives no satisfactory reason for this change of direction. … Perhaps he may have looked into the mouth of the river La Plata, which is a bay more than a hundred miles wide; and the sudden westward trend of the shore may have led him to suppose that he had reached the end of the continent. At any rate, he was now in longitude more than twenty degrees west of the meridian of Cape San Roque, and therefore unquestionably out of Portuguese waters. Clearly there was no use in going on and discovering lands which could belong only to Spain. This may account, I think, for the change of direction." The voyage southeastwardly was pursued until the little fleet had reached the icy and rocky coast of the island of South Georgia, in latitude 54° South. It was then decided to turn homeward. "Vespucius … headed straight North North East through the huge ocean, for Sierra Leone, and the distance of more than 4,000 miles was made—with wonderful accuracy, though Vespucius says nothing about that—in 33 days. … Thence, after some further delay, to Lisbon, where they arrived on the 7th of September, 1502. … Among all the voyages made during that eventful period there was none that as a feat of navigation surpassed this third of Vespucius, and there was none, except the first of Columbus, that outranked it in historical importance. For it was not only a voyage into the remotest stretches of the Sea of Darkness, but it was preeminently an incursion into the antipodal world of the Southern hemisphere. … A coast of continental extent, beginning so near the meridian of the Cape Verde islands and running southwesterly to latitude 35° South and perhaps beyond, did not fit into anybody's scheme of things. … It was land unknown to the ancients, and Vespucius was right in saying that he had beheld there things by the thousand which Pliny had never mentioned. It was not strange that he should call it a 'New World,' and in meeting with this phrase, on this first occasion in which it appears in any document with reference to any part of what we now call America, the reader must be careful not to clothe it with the meaning which it wears in our modern eyes. In using the expression 'New World' Vespucius was not thinking of the Florida coast which he had visited on a former voyage, nor of the 'islands of India' discovered by Columbus, nor even of the Pearl Coast which he had followed after the Admiral in exploring. The expression occurs in his letter to Lorenzo de' Medici, written from Lisbon in March or April, 1503, relating solely to this third voyage. The letter begins as follows: 'I have formerly written to you at sufficient length about my return from those new countries which in the ships and at the expense and command of the most gracious King of Portugal we have sought and found. It is proper to call them a new world.' Observe that it is only the new countries visited on this third voyage, the countries from Cape San Roque southward, that Vespucius thinks it proper to call a new world, and here is his reason for so calling them: 'Since among our ancestors there was no knowledge of them, and to all who hear of the affair it is most novel. For it transcends the ideas of the ancients, since most of them say that beyond the equator to the south there is no continent, but only the sea which they called the Atlantic, and if any of them asserted the existence of a continent there, they found many reasons for refusing to consider it a habitable country. But this last voyage of mine has proved that this opinion of theirs was erroneous and in every way contrary to the facts." … This expression 'Novus Mundus,' thus occurring in a private letter, had a remarkable career. Early in June, 1503, about the time when Americus was starting on his fourth voyage, Lorenzo died. By the beginning of 1504, a Latin version of the letter [translated by Giovanni Giocondo] was printed and published, with the title 'Mundus Novus.' … The little four-leaved tract, 'Mundus Novus,' turned out to be the great literary success of the day. M. Harisse has described at least eleven Latin editions probably published in the course of 1504, and by 1506 not less than eight editions of German versions had been issued. Intense curiosity was aroused by this announcement of the existence of a populous land beyond the equator and unknown (could such a thing be possible) to the ancients,—who did know something, at least, about the eastern parts of the Asiatic continent which Columbus was supposed to have reached. The "Novus Mundus," so named, began soon to be represented on maps and globes, generally as a great island or quasi-continent lying on and below the equator. "Europe, Asia and Africa were the three parts of the earth [previously known], and so this opposite region, hitherto unknown, but mentioned by Mela and indicated by Ptolemy, was the Fourth Part. We can now begin to understand the intense and wildly absorbing interest with which people read the brief story of the third voyage of Vespucius, and we can see that in the nature of that interest there was nothing calculated to bring it into comparison with the work of Columbus. The two navigators were not regarded as rivals in doing the same thing, but as men who had done two very different things; and to give credit to one was by no means equivalent to withholding credit from the other." In 1507, Martin Waldseemüller, professor of geography at Saint-Dié, published a small treatise entitled "Cosmographic Introductio," with that second of the two known letters of Vespucius—the one addressed to Soderini, of which an account is given above (A. D. 1497-1498)—appended to it. "In this rare book occurs the first suggestion of the name America. {58} After having treated of the division of the earth's inhabited surface into three parts—Europe, Asia, and Africa—Waldseemüller speaks of the discovery of a Fourth Part," and says: "'Wherefore I do not see what is rightly to hinder us from calling it Amerige or America, i. e., the land of Americus, after its discoverer Americus, a man of sagacious mind, since both Europe and Asia have got their names from women.' … Such were the winged words but for which, as M. Harisse reminds us, the western hemisphere might have come to be known as Atlantis, or Hesperides, or Santa Cruz, or New India, or perhaps Columbia. … In about a quarter of a century the first stage in the development of the naming of America had been completed. That stage consisted of five distinct steps: 1. Americus called the regions visited by him beyond the equator 'a new world' because they were unknown to the ancients; 2. Giocondo made this striking phrase 'Mundus Novus' into a title for his translation of the letter. … 3. the name Mundus Novus got placed upon several maps as an equivalent for Terra Sanctæ Crucis, or what we call Brazil; 4. the suggestion was made that Mundus Novus was the Fourth Part of the earth, and might properly be named America after its discoverer; 5. the name America thus got placed upon several maps [the first, so far as known, being a map ascribed to Leonardo da Vinci and published about 1514, and the second a globe made in 1515 by Johann Schöner, at Nuremberg] as an equivalent for what we call Brazil, and sometimes came to stand alone as an equivalent for what we call South America, but still signified only a part of the dry land beyond the Atlantic to which Columbus had led the way. … This wider meaning [of South America] became all the more firmly established as its narrower meaning was usurped by the name Brazil. Three centuries before the time of Columbus the red dye-wood called brazil-wood was an article of commerce, under that same name, in Italy and Spain. It was one of the valuable things brought from the East, and when the Portuguese found the same dye-wood abundant in those tropical forests that had seemed so beautiful to Vespucius, the name Brazil soon became fastened upon the country and helped to set free the name America from its local associations." When, in time, and by slow degrees, the great fact was learned, that all the lands found beyond the Atlantic by Columbus and his successors, formed part of one continental system, and were all to be embraced in the conception of a New World, the name which had become synonymous with New World was then naturally extended to the whole. The evolutionary process of the naming of the western hemisphere as a whole was thus made complete in 1541, by Mercator, who spread the name America in large letters upon a globe which he constructed that year, so that part of it appeared upon the northern and part upon the southern continent.

      J. Winsor,
      Narrative and Critical History of America,
      volume 2, ch, 2, notes.

      H. H. Bancroft,
      History of the Pacific States,
      volume 1, pages 99-112, and 123-125.

AMERICA: A. D. 1501-1504.
Portuguese, Norman and Breton fishermen on the Newfoundland
Banks.

The first voyage of Alonzo de Ojeda, from which he returned to Spain in June 1500, was profitable to nothing but his reputation as a bold and enterprising explorer. By way of reward, he was given "a grant of land in Hispaniola, and likewise the government of Coquibacoa, which place he had discovered [and which he had called Venezuela]. He was authorized to fit out a number of ships at his own expense and to prosecute discoveries on the coast of Terra Firma. … With four vessels, Ojeda set sail for the Canaries, in 1502, and thence proceeded to the Gulf of Paria, from which locality he found his way to Coquibacoa. Not liking this poor country, he sailed on to the Bay of Honda, where he determined to found his settlement, which was, however, destined to be of short duration. Provisions very soon became scarce; and one of his partners, who had been sent to procure supplies from Jamaica, failed to return until Ojeda's followers were almost in a state of mutiny. The result was that the whole colony set sail for Hispaniola, taking the governor with them in chains. All that Ojeda gained by his expedition was that he at length came off winner in a lawsuit, the costs of which, however, left him a ruined man."

      R G. Watson,
      Spanish and Portuguese South America,
      book 1, chapter 1.

AMERICA: A. D. 1503-1504.
The Fourth Voyage of Americus Vespucius.
First Settlement in Brazil.

In June, 1503, "Amerigo sailed again from Lisbon, with six ships. The object of this voyage was to discover a certain island called Melcha, which was supposed to lie west of Calicut, and to be as famous a mart in the commerce of the Indian world as Cadiz was in Europe. They made the Cape de Verds, and then, contrary to the judgment of Vespucci and of all the fleet, the Commander persisted in standing for Serra Leoa." The Commander's ship was lost, and Vespucci, with one vessel, only, reached the coast of the New World, finding a port which is thought to have been Bahia. Here "they waited above two months in vain expectation of being joined by the rest of the squadron. Having lost all hope of this they coasted on for 260 leagues to the Southward, and there took port again in 18° S. 35° West of the meridian of Lisbon. Here they remained five months, upon good terms with the natives, with whom some of the party penetrated forty leagues into the interior; and here they erected a fort, in which they left 24 men who had been saved from the Commander's ship. They gave them 12 guns, besides other arms, and provisions for six months; then loaded with brazil [wood], sailed homeward and returned in safety. … The honour, therefore, of having formed the first settlement in this country is due to Amerigo Vespucci. It does not appear that any further attention was as this time paid to it. … But the cargo of brazil which Vespucci had brought home tempted private adventurers, who were content with peaceful gains, to trade thither for that valuable wood; and this trade became so well known, that in consequence the coast and the whole country obtained the name of Brazil, notwithstanding the holier appellation [Santa Cruz] which Cabral had given it."

AMERICA: A. D. 1509-1511.
The Expeditions of Ojeda and Nicuesa to the Isthmus.
The Settlement at Darien.

"For several years after his ruinous, though successful lawsuit, we lose all traces of Alonzo de Ojeda, excepting that we are told he made another voyage to Coquibacoa [Venezuela], in 1505. No record remains of this expedition, which seems to have been equally unprofitable with the preceding, for we find him, in 1508, in the island of Hispaniola as poor in purse, though as proud in spirit, as ever. … About this time the cupidity of King Ferdinand was greatly excited by the accounts by Columbus of the gold mines of Veragua, in which the admiral fancied he had discovered the Aurea Chersonesus of the ancients, whence King Solomon procured the gold used in building the temple of Jerusalem. Subsequent voyagers had corroborated the opinion of Columbus as to the general riches of the coast of Terra Firma; King Ferdinand resolved, therefore, to found regular colonies along that coast, and to place the whole under some capable commander." Ojeda was recommended for this post, but found a competitor in one of the gentlemen of the Spanish court, Diego de Nicuesa. "King Ferdinand avoided the dilemma by favoring both; not indeed by furnishing them with ships and money, but by granting patents and dignities, which cost nothing, and might bring rich returns. He divided that part of the continent which lies along the Isthmus of Darien into two provinces, the boundary line running through the Gulf of Uraba. The eastern part, extending to Cape de la Vela, was called New Andalusia, and the government of it given to Ojeda. The other to the west [called Castilla del Oro], including Veragua, and reaching, to Cape Gracias à Dios, was assigned to Nicuesa. The island of Jamaica was given to the two governors in common, as a place whence to draw supplies of provisions." Slender means for the equipment of Ojeda's expedition were supplied by the veteran pilot, Juan de la Cosa, who accompanied him as his lieutenant. Nicuesa was more amply provided. The rival armaments arrived at San Domingo about the same time (in 1509), and much quarreling between the two commanders ensued. Ojeda found a notary in San Domingo, Martin Fernandez de Enciso, who had money which he consented to invest in the enterprise, and who promised to follow him with an additional ship-load of recruits and supplies. Under this arrangement Ojeda made ready to sail in advance of his competitor, embarking November 10, 1509. Among those who sailed with him was Francisco Pizarro, the future conqueror of Peru. Ojeda, by his energy, gained time enough to nearly ruin his expedition before Nicuesa reached the scene; for, having landed at Carthagena, he made war upon the natives, pursued them recklessly into the interior of the country, with 70 men, and was overwhelmed by the desperate savages, escaping with only one companion from their poisoned arrows. His faithful friend, the pilot, Juan de la Cosa, was among the slain, and Ojeda himself, hiding in the forest, was nearly dead of hunger and exposure when found and rescued by a searching party from his ships. At this juncture the fleet of Nicuesa made its appearance. Jealousies were forgotten in a common rage against the natives and the two expeditions were joined in an attack on the Indian villages which spared nothing. Nicuesa then proceeded to Veragua, while Ojeda founded a town, which he called San Sebastian, at the east end of the Gulf of Uraba. Incessantly harassed by the natives, terrified by the effects of the poison which these used in their warfare, and threatened with starvation by the rapid exhaustion of its supplies, the settlement lost courage and hope. Enciso and his promised ship were waited for in vain. At length there came a vessel which certain piratical adventurers at Hispaniola had stolen, and which brought some welcome provisions, eagerly bought at an exorbitant price. Ojeda, half recovered from a poisoned wound, which he had treated heroically with red-hot plates of iron, engaged the pirates to convey him to Hispaniola, for the procuring of supplies. The voyage was a disastrous one, resulting in shipwreck on the coast of Cuba and a month of desperate wandering in the morasses of the island. Ojeda survived all these perils and sufferings, made his way to Jamaica, and from Jamaica to San Domingo, found that his partner Enciso had sailed for the colony long before, with abundant supplies, but could learn nothing more. Nor could he obtain for himself any means of returning to San Sebastian, or of dispatching relief to the place. Sick, penniless and disheartened, he went into a convent and died. Meantime the despairing colonists at San Sebastian waited until death had made them few enough to be all taken on board of the two little brigantines which were left to them; then they sailed away, Pizarro in command. One of the brigantines soon went down in a squall; the other made its way to the harbor of Carthagena, where it found the tardy Enciso, searching for his colony. Enciso, under his commission, now took command, and insisted upon going to San Sebastian. There the old experiences were soon renewed, and even Enciso was ready to abandon the deadly place. The latter had brought with him a needy cavalier, Vasco Nuñez de Balboa—so needy that he smuggled himself on board Enciso's ship in a cask to escape his creditors. Vasco Nuñez, who had coasted this region with Bastidas, in 1500, now advised a removal of the colony to Darien, on the opposite coast of the Gulf of Uraba. His advice, which was followed, proved good, and the hopes of the settlers were raised; but Enciso's modes of government proved irksome to them. Then Balboa called attention to the fact that, when they crossed the Gulf of Uraba, they passed out of the territory covered by the patent to Ojeda, under which Enciso was commissioned, and into that granted to Nicuesa. On this suggestion Enciso was promptly deposed and two alcaldes were elected, Balboa being one. While events in one corner of Nicuesa's domain were thus establishing a colony for that ambitious governor, he himself, at the other extremity of it, was faring badly. He had suffered hardships, separation from most of his command and long abandonment on a dc solate coast; had rejoined his followers after great suffering, only to suffer yet more in their company, until less than one hundred remained of the 700 who sailed with him a few months before. The settlement at Veragua had been deserted, and another, named Nombre de Dios undertaken, with no improvement of circumstances. In this situation he was rejoiced, at last, by the arrival of one of his lieutenants, Rodrigo de Colmenares, who came with supplies. Colmenares brought tidings, moreover, of the prosperous colony at Darien, which he had discovered on his way, with an invitation to Nicuesa to come and assume the government of it. He accepted the invitation with delight; but, alas! the community at Darien had repented of it before he reached them, and they refused to receive him when he arrived. Permitted finally to land, he was seized by a treacherous party among the colonists—to whom Balboa is said to have opposed all the resistance in his power—was put on board of an old and crazy brigantine, with seventeen of his friends, and compelled to take an oath that he would sail straight to Spain. "The frail bark set sail on the first of March, 1511, and steered across the Caribbean Sea for the island of Hispaniola, but was never seen or heard of more."

      W. Irving,
      Life and Voyages of Columbus and his Companions,
      volume 3.

AMERICA: A. D. 1512.
The Voyage of Ponce de Leon in quest of the Fountain of Youth,
and his Discovery of Florida.

"Whatever may have been the Southernmost point reached by Cabot in coasting America on his return, it is certain that he did not land in Florida, and that the honour of first exploring that country is due to Juan Ponce de Leon. This cavalier, who was governor of Puerto Rico, induced by the vague traditions circulated by the natives of the West Indies, that there was a country in the north possessing a fountain whose waters restored the aged to youth, made it an object of his ambition to be the first to discover this marvellous region. With this view, he resigned the governorship, and set sail with three caravels on the 3d of March 1512. Steering N. ¼ N., he came upon a country covered with flowers and verdure; and as the day of his discovery happened to be Palm Sunday, called by the Spaniards' Pasqua Florida,' he gave it the name of Florida from this circumstance. He landed on the 2d of April, and took possession of the country in the name of the king of Castile. The warlike people of the coast of Cautio (a name given by the Indians to all the country lying between Cape Cañaveral and the southern point of Florida) soon, however, compelled him to retreat, and he pursued his exploration of the coast as far as 30° 8' North latitude, and on the 8th of May doubled Cape Cañaveral. Then retracing his course to Puerto Rico, in the hope of finding the island of Bimini, which he believed to be the Land of Youth, and described by the Indians as opposite to Florida, he discovered the Bahamas, and some other islands, previously unknown. Bad weather compelling him to put into the isle of Guanima to repair damages, he despatched one of his caravels, under the orders of Jaun Perez de Ortubia and of the pilot Anton de Alaminos, to gain information respecting the desired land, which he had as yet been totally unable to discover. He returned to Puerto Rico on the 21st of September; a few days afterwards, Ortubia arrived also with news of Bimini. He reported that he had explored the island,—which he described as large, well wooded, and watered by numerous streams,—but he had failed in discovering the fountain. Oviedo places Bimini at 40 leagues west of the island of Bahama. Thus all the advantages which Ponce de Leon promised himself from this voyage turned to the profit of geography: the title of 'Adelantado of Bimini and Florida,' which was conferred upon him, was purely honorary; but the route taken by him in order to return to Puerto Rico, showed the advantage of making the homeward voyage to Spain by the Bahama Channel."

      W. B. Rye,
      Introduction to "Discovery and Conquest of Terra Florida,
      by a gentleman of Elvas" (Hakluyt Society, 1851).

AMERICA: A. D. 1513-1517.
The discovery of the Pacific by Vasco Nuñez de Balboa.
Pedrarias Davila on the Isthmus.

With Enciso deposed from authority and Nicuesa sent adrift, Vasco Nuñez de Balboa seems to have easily held the lead in affairs at Darien, though not without much opposition; for faction and turbulence were rife. Enciso was permitted to carry his grievances and complaints to Spain, but Balboa's colleague, Zamudio, went with him, and another comrade proceeded to Hispaniola, both of them well-furnished with gold. For the quest of gold had succeeded at last. The Darien adventurers had found considerable quantities in the possession of the surrounding natives, and were gathering it with greedy hands. Balboa had the prudence to establish friendly relations with one of the most important of the neighboring caciques, whose comely daughter he wedded—according to the easy customs of the country—and whose ally he became in wars with the other caciques. By gift and tribute, therefore as well as by plunder, he harvested more gold than any before him had found since the ransacking of the New World began. But what they obtained seemed little compared with the treasures reported to them as existing beyond the near mountains and toward the south. One Indian youth, son of a friendly cacique, particularly excited their imaginations by the tale which he told of another great sea, not far to the west, on the southward-stretching shores of which were countries that teemed with every kind of wealth. He told them, however, that they would need a thousand men to fight their way to this Sea. Balboa gave such credence to the story that he sent envoys to Spain to solicit forces from the king for an adequate expedition across the mountains. They sailed in October, 1512, but did not arrive in Spain until the following May. They found Balboa in much disfavor at the court. Enciso and the friends of the unfortunate Nicuesa had unitedly ruined him by their complaints, and the king had caused criminal proceedings against him to be commenced. Meantime, some inkling of these hostilities had reached Balboa, himself, conveyed by a vessel which bore to him, at the same time, a commission as captain-general from the authorities in Hispaniola. He now resolved to become the discoverer of the ocean which his Indian friends described, and of the rich lands bordering it, before his enemies could interfere with him. "Accordingly, early in September, 1513, he set out on his renowned expedition for finding 'the other sea,' accompanied by 190 men well armed, and by dogs, which were of more avail than men, and by Indian slaves to carry the burdens. He went by sea to the territory of his father-in-law, King Careta, by whom he was well received, and accompanied by whose Indians he moved on into Poncha's territory." Quieting the fears of this cacique, he passed his country without fighting. The next chief encountered, named Quarequa, attempted resistance, but was routed, with a great slaughter of his people, and Balboa pushed on. "On the 25th of September, 1513, he came near to the top of a mountain from whence the South Sea was visible. {61} The distance from Poncha's chief town to this point was forty leagues, reckoned then six days' journey; but Vasco Nuñez and his men took twenty-five days to accomplish it, as they suffered much from the roughness of the ways and from the want of provisions. A little before Vasco Nuñez reached the height, Quarequa's Indians informed him of his near approach to the sea. It was a sight in beholding which, for the first time, any man would wish to be alone. Vasco Nuñez bade his men sit down while he ascended, and then, in solitude, looked down upon the vast Pacific—the first man of the Old World, so far as we know, who had done so. Falling on his knees, he gave thanks to God for the favour shown to him in his being permitted to discover the Sea of the South. Then with his hand be beckoned to his men to come up. When they had come, both he and they knelt down and poured forth their thanks to God. He then addressed them. … Having … addressed his men, Vasco Nuñez proceeded to take formal possession, on behalf of the kings of Castile, of the sea and of all that was in it; and in order to make memorials of the event, he cut down trees, formed crosses, and heaped up stones. He also inscribed the names of the monarchs of Castile upon great trees in the vicinity." Afterwards, when he had descended the western slope and found the shore, "he entered the sea up to his thighs, having his sword on, and with his shield in his hand; then he called the by-standers to witness how he touched with his person and took possession of this sea for the kings of Castile, and declared that he would defend the possession of it against all comers. After this, Vasco Nuñez made friends in the usual manner, first conquering and then negotiating with" the several chiefs or caciques whose territories came in his way. He explored the Gulf of San Miguel, finding much wealth of pearls in the region, and returned to Darien by a route which crossed the isthmus considerably farther to the north, reaching his colony on the 29th of January, 1514, having been absent nearly five months. "His men at Darien received him with exultation, and he lost no time in sending his news, 'such signal and new news,' … to the King of Spain, accompanying it with rich presents. His letter, which gave a detailed account of his journey, and which, for its length, was compared by Peter Martyr to the celebrated letter that came to the senate from Tiberius, contained in every page thanks to God that he had escaped from such great dangers and labours. Both the letter and the presents were intrusted to a man named Arbolanche, who departed from Darien about the beginning of March, 1514. … Vasco Nuñez's messenger, Arbolanche, reached the court of Spain too late for his master's interests." The latter had already been superseded in the Governorship, and his successor was on the way to take his authority from him. The new governor was one Pedrarias De Avila, or Davila, as the name is sometimes written;—an envious and malignant old man, under whose rule on the isthmus the destructive energy of Spanish conquest rose to its meanest and most heartless and brainless development. Conspicuously exposed as he was to the jealousy and hatred of Pedrarias, Vasco Nuñez was probably doomed to ruin, in some form, from the first. At one time, in 1516, there seemed to be a promise for him of alliance with his all-powerful enemy, by a marriage with one of the governor's daughters, and he received the command of an expedition which again crossed the isthmus, carrying ships, and began the exploration of the Pacific. But circumstances soon arose which gave Pedrarias all opportunity to accuse the explorer of treasonable designs and to accomplish his arrest—Francisco Pizarro being the officer fitly charged with the execution of the governor's warrant. Brought in chains to Acla, Vasco Nuñez was summarily tried, found guilty and led forth to swift death, laying his head upon the block (A. D. 1517). "Thus perished Vasco Nuñez de Balboa, in the forty-second year of his age, the man who, since the time of Columbus, had shown the most statesmanlike and warriorlike powers in that part of the world, but whose career only too much resembles that of Ojeda, Nicuesa, and the other unfortunate commanders who devastated those beautiful regions of the earth."

"If I have applied strong terms of denunciation to Pedrarias Dávila, it is because he unquestionably deserves it. He is by far the worst man who came officially to the New World during its early government. In this all authorities agree. And all agree that Vasco Nuñez was not deserving of death."

H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States, volume 1, chapter 8-12 (foot-note, page 458).

      ALSO IN
      W. Irving,
      Life and Voyages of Columbus and His Companions,
      volume 3.

   "An hidalgo of Cuba, named Hernandez de Cordova, sailed with
   three vessels on an expedition to one of the neighbouring
   Bahama Islands, in quest of Indian slaves (February 8, 1517). He
   encountered a succession of heavy gales which drove him far
   out of his course, and at the end of three weeks he found
   himself on a strange and unknown coast. On landing and asking
   the name of the country, he was answered by the natives
   'Tectelan,' meaning 'I do not understand you,' but which the
   Spaniards, misinterpreting into the name of the place, easily
   corrupted into Yucatan. Some writers give a different
   etymology. … Bernal Diaz says the word came from the
   vegetable 'yuca' and 'tale,' the name for a hillock in which
   it is planted. … M. Waldeck finds a much more plausible
   derivation in the Indian word 'Ouyouckatan,' 'listen to what
   they say.' … Cordova had landed on the north-eastern end of
   the peninsula, at Cape Catoche. He was astonished at the size
   and solid materials of the buildings constructed of stone and
   lime, so different from the frail tenements of reeds and
   rushes which formed the habitations of the islanders. He was
   struck, also, with the higher cultivation of the soil, and
   with the delicate texture of the cotton garments and gold
   ornaments of the natives. Everything indicated a civilization
   far superior to anything he had before witnessed in the New
   World. He saw the evidence of a different race, moreover, in
   the warlike spirit of the people. … Wherever they landed
   they were met with the most deadly hostility.
{62}
   Cordova himself, in one of his skirmishes with the Indians,
   received more than a dozen wounds, and one only of his party
   escaped unhurt. At length, when he had coasted the peninsula
   as far as Campeachy, he returned to Cuba, which he reached
   after an absence of several months. … The reports he had
   brought back of the country, and, still more, the specimens of
   curiously wrought gold, convinced Velasquez [governor of Cuba]
   of the importance of this discovery, and he prepared with all
   despatch to avail himself of it. He accordingly fitted out a
   little squadron of four vessels for the newly discovered
   lands, and placed it under the command of his nephew, Juan de
   Grijalva, a man on whose probity, prudence, and attachment to
   himself he knew he could rely. The fleet left the port of St.
   Jago de Cuba, May 1, 1518. … Grijalva soon passed over to
   the continent and coasted the peninsula, touching at the same
   places as his predecessor. Everywhere he was struck, like him,
   with the evidences of a higher civilization, especially in the
   architecture; as he well might be, since this was the region
   of those extraordinary remains which have become recently the
   subject of so much speculation. He was astonished, also, at
   the sight of large stone crosses, evidently objects of
   worship, which he met with in various places. Reminded by
   these circumstances of his own country, he gave the peninsula
   the name New Spain, a name since appropriated to a much wider
   extent of territory. Wherever Grijalva landed, he experienced
   the same unfriendly reception as Cordova, though he suffered
   less, being better prepared to meet it." He succeeded,
   however, at last, in opening a friendly conference and traffic
   with one of the chiefs, on the Rio de Tabasco, and "had the
   satisfaction of receiving, for a few worthless toys and
   trinkets, a rich treasure of jewels, gold ornaments and
   vessels, of the most fantastic forms and workmanship. Grijalva
   now thought that in this successful traffic—successful beyond
   his most sanguine expectations—he had accomplished the chief
   object of his mission." He therefore dispatched Alvarado, one
   of his captains, to Velasquez, with the treasure acquired, and
   continued his voyage along the coast, as far as the province
   of Panuco, returning to Cuba at the end of about six months
   from his departure. "On reaching the Island, he was surprised
   to learn that another and more formidable armament had been
   fitted out to follow up his own discoveries, and to find
   orders at the same time from the governor, couched in no very
   courteous language, to repair at once to St. Jago. He was
   received by that personage, not merely with coldness, but with
   reproaches, for having neglected so fair an opportunity of
   establishing a colony in the country he had visited."

AMERICA: A. D. 1519-1524.
   The Voyage of Magellan and Sebastian del Cano.
   The New World passed and the Earth circumnavigated.
   The Congress at Badajos.

Fernando Magellan, or Magalhaes, was "a disaffected Portuguese gentleman who had served his country for five years in the Indies under Albuquerque, and understood well the secrets of the Eastern trade. In 1517, conjointly with his geographical and astronomical friend, Ruy Falerio, another unrequited Portuguese, he offered his services to the Spanish court. At the same time these two friends proposed, not only to prove that the Moluccas were within the Spanish lines of demarkation, but to discover a passage thither different from that used by the Portuguese. Their schemes were listened to, adopted and carried out. The Straits of Magellan were discovered, the broad South Sea was crossed, the Ladrones and the Phillipines were inspected, the Moluccas were passed through, the Cape of Good Hope was doubled on the homeward voyage, and the globe was circumnavigated, all in less than three years, from 1519 to 1522. Magellan lost his life, and only one of his five ships returned [under Sebastian del Cano] to tell the marvelous story. The magnitude of the enterprise was equalled only by the magnitude of the results. The globe for the first time began to assume its true character and size in the minds of men, and the minds of men began soon to grasp and utilize the results of this circumnavigation for the enlargement of trade and commerce, and for the benefit of geography, astronomy, mathematics, and the other sciences. This wonderful story, is it not told in a thousand books? … The Portuguese in India and the Spiceries, as well as at home, now seeing the inevitable conflict approaching, were thoroughly aroused to the importance of maintaining their rights. They openly asserted them, and pronounced this trade with the Moluccas by the Spanish an encroachment on their prior discoveries and possession, as well as a violation of the Papal Compact of 1494, and prepared themselves energetically for defense and offense. On the other hand, the Spaniards as openly declared that Magellan's fleet carried the first Christians to the Moluccas and by friendly intercourse with the kings of those islands, reduced them to Christian subjection and brought back letters and tribute to Cæsar. Hence these kings and their people came under the protection of Charles V. Besides this, the Spaniards claimed that the Moluccas were within the Spanish half, and were therefore doubly theirs. … Matters thus waxing hot, King John of Portugal begged Charles V. to delay dispatching his new fleet until the disputed points could be discussed and settled. Charles, who boasted that he had rather be right than rich, consented, and the ships were staid. These two Christian princes, who owned all the newly discovered and to be discovered parts of the whole world between them by deed of gift of the Pope, agreed to meet in Congress at Badajos by their representatives, to discuss and settle all matters in dispute about the division of their patrimony, and to define and stake out their lands and waters, both parties agreeing to abide by the decision of the Congress. Accordingly, in the early spring of 1524, up went to this little border town four-and-twenty wise men, or thereabouts, chosen by each prince. They comprised the first judges, lawyers, mathematicians, astronomers, cosmographers, navigators and pilots of the land, among whose names were many honored now as then—such as Fernando Columbus, Sebastian Cabot, Estevan Gomez, Diego Ribero, etc. … The debates and proceedings of this Congress, as reported by Peter Martyr, Oviedo, and Gomara, are very amusing, but no regular joint decision could be reached, the Portuguese declining to subscribe to the verdict of the Spaniards, inasmuch as it deprived them of the Moluccas. So each party published and proclaimed its own decision after the Congress broke up in confusion on the last day of May, 1524. It was, however, tacitly understood that the Moluccas fell to Spain, while Brazil, to the extent of two hundred leagues from Cape St. Augustine, fell to the Portuguese. … However, much good resulted from this first geographical Congress. The extent and breadth of the Pacific were appreciated, and the influence of the Congress was soon after seen in the greatly improved maps, globes, and charts."

"For three months and twenty days he [Magellan] sailed on the Pacific and never saw inhabited land. He was compelled by famine to strip off the pieces of skin and leather wherewith his rigging was here and there bound, to soak them in the sea and then soften them with warm water, so as to make a wretched food; to eat the sweepings of the ship and other loathsome matter'; to drink water gone putrid by keeping; and yet he resolutely held on his course, though his men were dying daily. … In the whole history of human undertakings there is nothing that exceeds, if indeed there is anything that equals, this voyage of Magellan's. That of Columbus dwindles away in comparison. It is a display of superhuman courage, superhuman perseverance."

"The voyage [of Magellan] … was doubtless the greatest feat of navigation that has ever been performed, and nothing can be imagined that would surpass it except a journey to some other planet. It has not the unique historic position of the first voyage of Columbus, which brought together two streams of human life that had been disjoined since the Glacial Period. But as an achievement in ocean navigation that voyage of Columbus sinks into insignificance by the side of it, and when the earth was a second time encompassed by the greatest English sailor of his age, the advance in knowledge, as well as the different route chosen, had much reduced the difficulty of the performance. When we consider the frailness of the ships, the immeasurable extent of the unknown, the mutinies that were prevented or quelled, and the hardships that were endured, we can have no hesitation in speaking of Magellan as the prince of navigators."

      ALSO IN
      Lord Stanley of Alderley,
      The First Voyage Round the World (Hakluyt Society, 1874).

AMERICA: A. D. 1519-1525.
   The Voyages of Garay and Ayllon.
   Discovery of the mouth of the Mississippi.
   Exploration of the Carolina Coast.

In 1519, Francisco de Garay, governor of Jamaica, who had been one of the companions of Columbus on his second voyage, having heard of the richness and beauty of Yucatan, "at his own charge sent out four ships well equipped, and with good pilots, under the command of Alvarez Alonso de Pineda. His professed object was to search for some strait, west of Florida, which was not yet certainly known to form a part of the continent. The strait having been sought for in vain, his ships turned toward the west, attentively examining the ports, rivers, inhabitants, and everything else that seemed worthy of remark; and especially noticing the vast volume of water brought down by one very large stream. At last they came upon the track of Cortes near Vera Cruz. … The carefully drawn map of the pilots showed distinctly the Mississippi, which, in this earliest authentic trace of its outlet, bears the name of the Espiritu Santo. … But Garay thought not of the Mississippi and its valley: he coveted access to the wealth of Mexico; and, in 1523, lost fortune and life ingloriously in a dispute with Cortes for the government of the country on the river Panuco. A voyage for slaves brought the Spaniards in 1520 still farther to the north. A company of seven, of whom the most distinguished was Lucas Vasquez de Ayllon, fitted out two slave ships from St. Domingo, in quest of laborers for their plantations and mines. From the Bahama Islands they passed to the coast of South Carolina, which was called Chicora. The Combahee river received the name of Jordan; the name of St. Helena, whose day is the 18th of August, was given to a cape, but now belongs to the sound." Luring a large number of the confiding natives on board their ships the adventurers treacherously set sail with them; but one of the vessels foundered at sea, and most of the captives on the other sickened and died. Vasquez de Ayllon was rewarded for his treacherous exploit by being authorized and appointed to make the conquest of Chicora. "For this bolder enterprise the undertaker wasted his fortune in preparations; in 1525 his largest ship was stranded in the river Jordan; many of his men were killed by the natives; and he himself escaped only to suffer from the consciousness of having done nothing worthy of honor. Yet it may be that ships, sailing under his authority, made the discovery of the Chesapeake and named it the bay of St. Mary; and perhaps even entered the bay of Delaware, which, in Spanish geography, was called St. Christopher's."

ALSO IN H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States, volume 4, chapter 11, and volume 5, chapters 6-7.

AMERICA: A. D. 1523-1524.
The Voyages of Verrazano.
First undertakings of France in the New World.

"It is constantly admitted in our history that our kings paid no attention to America before the year 1523. Then Francis I., wishing to excite the emulation of his subjects in regard to navigation and commerce, as he had already so successfully in regard to the sciences and fine arts, ordered John Verazani, who was in his service, to go and explore the New Lands, which began to be much talked of in France. … Verazani was accordingly sent, in 1523, with four ships to discover North America; but our historians have not spoken of his first expedition, and we should be in ignorance of it now, had not Ramusio preserved in his great collection a letter of Verazani himself, addressed to Francis I. and dated Dieppe, July 8, 1524. In it he supposes the king already informed of the success and details of the voyage, so that he contents himself with stating that he sailed from Dieppe in four vessels, which he had safely brought back to that port. In January, 1524, he sailed with two ships, the Dauphine and the Normande, to cruise against the Spaniards. Towards the close of the same year, or early in the next, he again fitted out the Dauphine, on which, embarking with 50 men and provisions for eight months, he first sailed to the island of Madeira."

"On the 17th of January, 1524, he [Verrazano] parted from the 'Islas desiertas,' a well-known little group of islands near Madeira, and sailed at first westward, running in 25 days 500 leagues, with a light and pleasant easterly breeze, along the northern border of the trade winds, in about 30° North. His track was consequently nearly like that of Columbus on his first voyage. On the 14th of February he met 'with as violent a hurricane as any ship ever encountered.' But he weathered it, and pursued his voyage to the west, 'with a little deviation to the north;' when, after having sailed 24 days and 400 leagues, he descried a new country which, as he supposed, had never before been seen either by modern or ancient navigators. The country was very low. From the above description it is evident that Verrazano came in sight of the east coast of the United States about the 10th of March, 1524. He places his land-fall in 34° North, which is the latitude of Cape Fear." He first sailed southward, for about 50 leagues, he states, looking for a harbor and finding none. He then turned northward. "I infer that Verrazano saw little of the coast of South Carolina and nothing of that of Georgia, and that in these regions he can, at most, be called the discoverer only of the coast of North Carolina. … He rounded Cape Hatteras, and at a distance of about 50 leagues came to another shore, where he anchored and spent several days. … This was the second principal landing-place of Verrazano. If we reckon 50 leagues from Cape Hatteras, it would fall somewhere upon the east coast of Delaware, in latitude 38° North, where, by some authors, it is thought to have been. But if, as appears most likely, Verrazano reckoned his distance here, as he did in other cases, from his last anchoring, and not from Cape Hatteras, we must look for his second landing somewhere south of the entrance to Chesapeake Bay, and near the entrance to Albemarle Sound. And this better agrees with the 'sail of 100 leagues' which Verrazano says he made from his second to his third landing-place, in New York Bay. … He found at this third landing station an excellent berth, where he came to anchor, well-protected from the winds, … and from which he ascended the river in his boat into the interior. He found the shores very thickly settled, and as he passed up half a league further, he discovered a most beautiful lake … of three leagues in circumference. Here, more than 30 canoes came to him with a multitude of people, who seemed very friendly. … This description contains several accounts which make it still more clear that the Bay of New York was the scene of these occurrences."—Verrazano's anchorage having been at Gravesend Bay, the river which he entered being the Narrows, and the lake he found being the Inner Harbor. From New York Bay Verrazano sailed eastward, along the southern shore of Long Island, and following the New England coast, touching at or describing points which are identified with Narragansett Bay and Newport, Block Island or Martha's Vineyard, and Portsmouth. His coasting voyage was pursued as far as 50° North, from which point he sailed homeward. "He entered the port of Dieppe early in July, 1524. His whole exploring expedition, from Madeira and back, had accordingly lasted but five and a half months."

      J. G. Kohl,
      History of the Discovery of Maine
      (Maine Historical Society Collection, 2d Series, volume 1),
      chapter 8.

ALSO IN

G. Dexter, Cortereal, Verrazano, &c. (Narrative and Critical History of America, volume 4, chapter 1).

Relation of Verrazano (New York Historical Society Collection, volume 1, and N. S., volume 1).

"The South Sea having been discovered, and the inhabitants of Tierra Firme having been conquered and pacified, the Governor Pedrarias de Avila founded and settled the cities of Panama and of Nata, and the town of Nombre de Dios. At this time the Captain Francisco Pizarro, son of the Captain Gonzalo Pizarro, a knight of the city of Truxillo, was living in the city of Panama; possessing his house, his farm and his Indians, as one of the principal people of the land, which indeed he always was, having distinguished himself in the conquest and settling, and in the service of his Majesty. Being at rest and in repose, but full of zeal to continue his labours and to perform other more distinguished services for the royal crown, he sought permission from Pedrarias to discover that coast of the South Sea to the eastward. He spent a large part of his fortune on a good ship which he built, and on necessary supplies for the voyage, and he set out from the city of Panama on the 14th day of the month of November, in the year 1524. He had 112 Spaniards in his company, besides some Indian servants. He commenced a voyage in which they suffered many hardships, the season being winter and unpropitious." From this unsuccessful voyage, during which many of his men died of hunger and disease, and in the course of which he found no country that tempted his cupidity or his ambition, Pizarro returned after some months to "the land of Panama, landing at an Indian village near the island of Pearls, called Chuchama. Thence he sent the ship to Panama, for she had become unseaworthy by reason of the teredo; and all that had befallen was reported to Pedrarias, while the Captain remained behind to refresh himself and his companions. When the ship arrived at Panama it was found that, a few days before, the Captain Diego de Almagro had sailed in search of the Captain Pizarro, his companion, with another ship and 70 men." Almagro and his party followed the coast until they came to a great river, which they called San Juan [a few miles north of the port of Buenaventura, in New Granada]. … They there found signs of gold, but there being no traces of the Captain Pizarro, the Captain Almagro returned to Chuchama, where he found his comrade. They agreed that the Captain Almagro should go to Panama, repair the ships, collect more men to continue the enterprise, and defray the expenses, which amounted to more than 10,000 castellanos. At Panama much obstruction was caused by Pedrarias and others, who said that the voyage should not be persisted in, and that his Majesty would not be served by it. The Captain Almagro, with the authority given him by his comrade, was very constant in prosecuting the work he had commenced, and … Pedrarias was forced to allow him to engage men. {65} He set out from Panama with 110 men; and went to the place where Pizarro waited with another 50 of the first 110 who sailed with him, and of the 70 who accompanied Almagro when he went in search. The other 130 were dead. The two captains, in their two ships, sailed with 160 men, and coasted along the land. When they thought they saw signs of habitations, they went on shore in three canoes they had with them, rowed by 60 men, and so they sought for provisions. They continued to sail in this way for three years, suffering great hardships from hunger and cold. The greater part of the crews died of hunger, insomuch that there were not 50 surviving, and during all those three years they discovered no good land. All was swamp and inundated country, without inhabitants. The good country they discovered was as far as the river San Juan, where the Captain Pizarro remained with the few survivors, sending a captain with the smaller ship to discover some good land further along the coast. He sent the other ship, with the Captain Diego de Almagro to Panama to get more men. At the end of 70 days, the exploring ship came back with good reports, and with specimens of gold, silver and cloths, found in a country further south. "As soon as the Captain Almagro arrived from Panama with a ship laden with men and horses, the two ships, with their commanders and all their people, set out from the river San Juan, to go to that newly-discovered land. But the navigation was difficult; they were detained so long that the provisions were exhausted, and the people were obliged to go on shore in search of supplies. The ships reached the bay of San Mateo, and some villages to which the Spaniards gave the name of Santiago. Next they came to the villages of Tacamez [Atacames, on the coast of modern Ecuador], on the sea coast further on. These villages were seen by the Christians to be large and well peopled: and when 90 Spaniards had advanced a league beyond the villages of Tacamez, more than 10,000 Indian warriors encountered them; but seeing that the Christians intended no evil, and did not wish to take their goods, but rather to treat them peacefully, with much love, the Indians desisted from war. In this land there were abundant supplies, and the people led well-ordered lives, the villages having their streets and squares. One village had more than 3,000 houses, and others were smaller. It seemed to the captains and to the other Spaniards that nothing could be done in that land by reason of the smallness of their numbers, which rendered them unable to cope with the Indians. So they agreed to load the ships with the supplies to be found in the villages, and to return to an island called Gallo, where they would be safe until the ships arrived at Panama with the news of what had been discovered, and to apply to the Governor for more men, in order that the Captains might be able to continue their undertaking, and conquer the land. Captain Almagro went in the ships. Many persons had written to the Governor entreating him to order the crews to return to Panama, saying that it was impossible to endure more hardships than they had suffered during the last three years. The Governor ordered that all those who wished to go to Panama might do so, while those who desired to continue the discoveries were at liberty to remain. Sixteen men stayed with Pizarro, and all the rest went back in the ships to Panama. The Captain Pizarro was on that island for five months, when one of the ships returned, in which he continued the discoveries for a hundred leagues further down the coast. They found many villages and great riches; and they brought away more specimens of gold, silver, and cloths than had been found before, which were presented by the natives. The Captain returned because the time granted by the governor had expired, and the last day of the period had been reached when he entered the port of Panama. The two Captains were so ruined that they could no longer prosecute their undertaking. … The Captain Francisco Pizarro was only able to borrow a little more than 1,000 castellanos among his friends, with which sum he went to Castile, and gave an account to his Majesty of the great and signal services he had performed."

F. de Xeres (Sec. of Pizarro), Account of the Province of Cuzco; translated and edited by C. R. Markham (Hakluyt Society, 1872).

      ALSO IN:
      W. H. Prescott,
      History of the Conquest of Peru,
      book 2, chapters 2-4 (volume 1).

AMERICA: A. D. 1526-1531.
Voyage of Sebastian Cabot and attempted colonization of La Plata.

AMERICA: A. D. 1528-1542.
The Florida Expeditions of Narvaez and Hernando de Soto.
Discovery of the Mississippi.

AMERICA: A. D. 1534-1535.
Exploration of the St. Lawrence to Montreal by Jacques Cartier.

"At last, ten years after [the voyages of Verrazano], Philip Chabot, Admiral of France, induced the king [Francis I.] to resume the project of founding a French colony in the New World whence the Spaniards daily drew such great wealth; and he presented to him a Captain of St. Malo, by name Jacques Cartier, whose merit he knew, and whom that prince accepted. Cartier having received his instructions, left St. Malo the 2d of April, 1534, with two ships of 60 tons and 122 men. He steered west, inclining slightly north, and had such fair winds that, on the 10th of May, he made Cape Bonavista, in Newfoundland, at 46° north. Cartier found the land there still covered with snow, and the shore fringed with ice, so that he could not or dared not stop; He ran down six degrees south-southeast, and entered a port to which he gave the name of St. Catharine. Thence he turned back north. … After making almost the circuit of Newfoundland, though without being able to satisfy himself that it was an island, he took a southerly course, crossed the gulf, approached the continent, and entered a very deep bay, where he suffered greatly from heat, whence he called it Chaleurs Bay. He was charmed with the beauty of the country, and well pleased with the Indians that he met and with whom he exchanged some goods for furs. … On leaving this bay, Cartier visited a good part of the coasts around the gulf, and took possession of the country in the name of the most Christian king, as Verazani had done in all the places where he landed. {66} He set sail again on the 15th of August to return to France, and reached St. Malo safely on the 5th of September. … On the report which he made of his voyage, the court concluded that it would be useful to France to have a settlement in that part of America; but no one took this affair more to heart than the Vice-Admiral Charles de Mony, Sieur de la Mailleraye. This noble obtained a new commission for Cartier, more ample than the first, and gave him three ships well equipped. This fleet was ready about the middle of May, and Cartier … embarked on Wednesday the 19th." His three vessels were separated by violent storms, but found one another, near the close of July, in the gulf which was their appointed place of rendezvous. "On the 1st of August bad weather drove him to take refuge in the port of St. Nicholas, at the mouth of the river on the north. Here Cartier planted a cross, with the arms of France, and remained until the 7th. This port is almost the only spot in Canada that has kept the name given by Cartier. … On the 10th the three vessels re-entered the gulf, and in honor of the saint whose feast is celebrated on that day, Cartier gave the gulf the name of St. Lawrence; or rather he gave it to a bay lying between Anticosti Island and the north shore, whence it extended to the whole gulf of which this bay is part; and because the river, before that called River of Canada, empties into the same gulf, it insensibly acquired the name of St. Lawrence, which it still bears. … The three vessels … ascended the river, and on the 1st of September they entered the river Saguenay. Cartier merely reconnoitered the mouth of this river, and … hastened to seek a port where his vessels might winter in safety. Eight leagues above Isle aux Coudres he found another much larger and handsomer island, all covered with trees and vines. He called it Bacchus Island, but the name has been changed to Isle d'Orleans. The author of the relation to this voyage, printed under the name of Cartier, pretends that only here the country begins to be called Canada. But he is surely mistaken; for it is certain that from the earliest times the Indians gave this name to the whole country along the river on both sides, from its mouth to the Saguenay. From Bacchus Island, Cartier proceeded to a little river which is ten leagues off, and comes from the north; he called it Rivière de Ste Croix, because he entered it on the 14th of September (Feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross); but it is now commonly called Rivière de Jacques Cartier. The day after his arrival he received a visit from an Indian chief named Donnacona, whom the author of the relation of that voyage styles Lord of Canada. Cartier treated with this chief by means of two Indians whom he had taken to France the year before, and who knew a little French. They informed Donnacona that the strangers wished to go to Hochelaga, which seemed to trouble him. Hochelaga was a pretty large town, situated on an island now known under the name of Island of Montreal. Cartier had heard much of it, and was loth to return to France without seeing it. The reason why this voyage troubled Donnacona was that the people of Hochelaga were of a different nation from his, and that he wished to profit exclusively by the advantages which he hoped to derive from the stay of the French in his country." Proceeding with one vessel to Lake St. Pierre, and thence in two boats, Cartier reached Hochelaga Oct. 2. "The shape of the town was round, and three rows of palisades inclosed in it about 50 tunnel shaped cabins, each over 50 paces long and 14 or 15 wide. It was entered by a single gate, above which, as well as along the first palisade, ran a kind of gallery, reached by ladders, and well provided with pieces of rock and pebbles for the defence of the place. The inhabitants of the town spoke the Huron language. They received the French very well. … Cartier visited the mountain at the foot of which the town lay, and gave it the name of Mont Royal, which has become that of the whole Island [Montreal]. From it he discovered a great extent of country, the sight of which charmed him. … He left Hochelaga on the 5th of October, and on the 11th arrived at Sainte Croix." Wintering at this place, where his crews suffered terribly from the cold and from scurvy, he returned to France the following spring. "Some authors … pretend that Cartier, disgusted with Canada, dissuaded the king, his master, from further thoughts of it; and Champlain seems to have been of that opinion. But this does not agree with what Cartier himself says in his memoirs. … Cartier in vain extolled the country which he had discovered. His small returns, and the wretched condition to which his men had been reduced by cold and scurvy, persuaded most that it would never be of any use to France. Great stress was laid on the fact that he nowhere saw any appearance of mines; and then, even more than now, a strange land which produced neither gold nor silver was reckoned as nothing."

ALSO IN: R. Kerr, General Collection of Voyages, part 2, book 2, chapter 12 (volume 6).

AMERICA: A. D. 1541-1603.
Jacques Cartier's last Voyage.
Abortive attempts at French Colonization in Canada.

   "Jean François de la Roque, lord of Roberval, a gentleman of
   Picardy, was the most earnest and energetic of those who
   desired to colonize the lands discovered by Jacques Cartier.
   … The title and authority of lieutenant-general was
   conferred upon him; his rule to extend over Canada. Hochelaga,
   Saguenay, Newfoundland, Belle Isle, Carpon, Labrador, La Grand
   Baye, and Baccalaos, with the delegated rights and powers of
   the Crown. This patent was dated the 15th of January, 1540.
   Jacques Cartier was named second in command. … Jacques
   Cartier sailed on the 23d of May, 1541, having provisioned his
   fleet for two years." He remained on the St. Lawrence until
   the following June, seeking vainly for the fabled wealth of
   the land of Saguenay, finding the Indians strongly inclined to
   a treacherous hostility, and suffering severe hardships during
   the winter. Entirely discouraged and disgusted, he abandoned
   his undertaking early in the summer of 1542, and sailed for home.
{67}
   In the road of St. John's, Newfoundland, Cartier met his tardy
   chief, Roberval, just coming to join him; but no persuasion
   could induce the disappointed explorer to turn back. "To avoid
   the chance of an open rupture with Roberval, the lieutenant
   silently weighed anchor during the night, and made all sail
   for France. This inglorious withdrawal from the enterprise
   paralyzed Roberval's power, and deferred the permanent
   settlement of Canada for generations then unborn. Jacques
   Cartier died soon after his return to Europe." Roberval
   proceeded to Canada, built a fort at Ste Croix, four leagues
   west of Orleans, sent back two of his three ships to France,
   and remained through the winter with his colony, having a
   troubled time. There is no certain account of the ending of
   the enterprise, but it ended in failure. For half a century
   afterwards there was little attempt made by the French to
   colonize any part of New France, though the French fisheries
   on the Newfoundland Bank and in the Gulf of St. Lawrence were
   steadily growing in activity and importance. "When, after
   fifty years of civil strife, the strong and wise sway of Henry
   IV. restored rest to troubled France, the spirit of discovery
   again arose. The Marquis de In Roche, a Breton gentleman,
   obtained from the king, in 1598, a patent granting the same
   powers that Roberval had possessed." But La Roche's
   undertaking proved more disastrous than Roberval's had been.
   Yet, there had been enough of successful fur-trading opened to
   stimulate enterprise, despite these misfortunes. "Private
   adventurers, unprotected by any special privilege, began to
   barter for the rich peltries of the Canadian hunters. A
   wealthy merchant of St. Malo, named Pontgravé, was the boldest
   and most successful of these traders; he made several voyages
   to Tadoussac, at the mouth of the Saguenay, bringing back each
   time a rich cargo of rare and valuable furs." In 1600,
   Pontgravé effected a partnership with one Chauvin, a naval
   captain, who obtained a patent from the king giving him a
   monopoly of the trade; but Chauvin died in 1602 without having
   succeeded in establishing even a trading post at Tadoussac. De
   Chatte, or De Chastes, governor of Dieppe, succeeded to the
   privileges of Chauvin, and founded a company of merchants at
   Rouen [1603] to undertake the development of the resources of
   Canada. It was under the auspices of this company that Samuel
   Champlain, the founder of New France, came upon the scene.

      ALSO IN:
      F. Parkman,
      Pioneers of France in the New World: Champlain,
      chapter 1-2.

AMERICA: A. D. 1562-1567.
The slave trading Voyages of John Hawkins.
Beginnings of English Enterprise in the New World.

"The history of English America begins with the three slave-trading voyages of John Hawkins, made in the years 1562, 1564, and 1567. Nothing that Englishmen had done in connection with America, previously to those voyages, had any result worth recording. England had known the New World nearly seventy years, for John Cabot reached it shortly after its discovery by Columbus; and, as the tidings of the discovery spread, many English adventurers had crossed the Atlantic to the American coast. But as years passed, and the excitement of novelty subsided, the English voyages to America had become fewer and fewer, and at length ceased altogether. It is easy to account for this. There was no opening for conquest or plunder, for the Tudors were at peace with the Spanish sovereigns: and there could be no territorial occupation, for the Papal title of Spain and Portugal to the whole of the new continent could not be disputed by Catholic England. No trade worth having existed with the natives: and Spain and Portugal kept the trade with their own settlers in their own hands. … As the plantations in America grew and multiplied, the demand for negroes rapidly increased. The Spaniards had no African settlements, but the Portuguese had many, and, with the aid of French and English adventurers, they procured from these settlements slaves enough to supply both themselves and the Spaniards. But the Brazilian plantations grew so fast, about the middle of the century, that they absorbed the entire supply, and the Spanish colonists knew not where to look for negroes. This penury of slaves in the Spanish Indies became known to the English and French captains who frequented the Guinea coast; and John Hawkins, who had been engaged from boyhood in the trade with Spain and the Canaries, resolved in 1562 to take a cargo of negro slaves to Hispaniola. The little squadron with which he executed this project was the first English squadron which navigated the West Indian seas. This voyage opened those seas to the English. England had not yet broken with Spain, and the law excluding English vessels from trading with the Spanish colonists was not strictly enforced. The trade was profitable, and Hawkins found no difficulty in disposing of his cargo to great advantage. A meagre note … from the pen of Hakluyt contains all that is known of the first American voyage of Hawkins. In its details it must have closely resembled the second voyage. In the first voyage, however, Hawkins had no occasion to carry his wares further than three ports on the northern side of Hispaniola. These ports, far away from San Domingo, the capital, were already well known to the French smugglers. He did not venture into the Caribbean Sea; and having loaded his ships with their return cargo, he made the best of his way back. In his second voyage … he entered the Caribbean Sea, still keeping, however, at a safe distance from San Domingo, and sold his slaves on the mainland. This voyage was on a much larger scale. … Having sold his slaves in the continental ports [South American], and loaded his vessels with hides and other goods bought with the produce, Hawkins determined to strike out a new path and sail home with the Gulf-stream, which would carry him northwards past the shores of Florida. Sparke's narrative … proves that at every point in these expeditions the Englishman was following in the track of the French. He had French pilots and seamen on board, and there is little doubt that one at least of these had already been with Laudonnière in Florida. The French seamen guided him to Laudonnière's settlement, where his arrival was most opportune. They then pointed him the way by the coast of North America, then universally know in the mass as New France, to Newfoundland, and thence, with the prevailing westerly winds, to Europe. {68} This was the pioneer voyage made by Englishmen along coasts afterwards famous in history through English colonization. … The extremely interesting narrative … given … from the pen of John Sparke, one of Hawkins' gentlemen companions … contains the first information concerning America and its natives which was published in England by an English eye-witness." Hawkins planned a third voyage in 1566, but the remonstrances of the Spanish king caused him to be stopped by the English court. He sent out his ships, however, and they came home in due time richly freighted,—from what source is not known. "In another year's time the aspect of things had changed." England was venturing into war with Spain, "and Hawkins was now able to execute his plans without restraint, He founded a permanent fortified factory on the Guinea coast, where negroes might be collected all the year round. Thence he sailed for the West Indies a third time. Young Francis Drake sailed with him in command of the 'Judith,' a small vessel of fifty tons." The voyage had a prosperous beginning and a disastrous ending. After disposing of most of their slaves, they were driven by storms to take refuge in the Mexican port of Vera Cruz, and there they were attacked by a Spanish fleet. Drake in the "Judith" and Hawkins in another small vessel escaped. But the latter was overcrowded with men and obliged to put half of them ashore on the Mexican coast. The majority of those left on board, as well as a majority of Drake's crew, died on the voyage home, and it was a miserable remnant that landed in England, in January, 1569.

ALSO IN: The Hawkins Voyages; edited by C. R. Markham (Hakluyt Society, Number 57).

AMERICA: A. D. 1572-1580.
The Piratical Adventures of Drake and his Encompassing of the
World.

"Francis Drake, the first of the English Buccaneers, was one of the twelve children of Edward Drake of Tavistock, in Devonshire, a staunch Protestant, who had fled his native place to avoid persecution, and had then become a ship's chaplain. Drake, like Columbus, had been a seaman by profession from boyhood; and … had served as a young man, in command of the Judith, under Hawkins, … Hawkins had confined himself to smuggling: Drake advanced from this to piracy. This practice was authorized by law in the middle ages for the purpose of recovering debts or damages from the subjects of another nation. The English, especially those of the west country, were the most formidable pirates in the world; and the whole nation was by this time roused against Spain, in consequence of the ruthless war waged against Protestantism in the Netherlands by Philip II. Drake had accounts of his own to settle with the Spaniards. Though Elizabeth had not declared for the revolted States, and pursued a shifting policy, her interests and theirs were identical; and it was with a view of cutting off those supplies of gold and silver from America which enabled Philip to bribe politicians and pay soldiers, in pursuit of his policy of aggression, that the famous voyage was authorized by English statesmen. Drake had recently made more than one successful voyage of plunder to the American coast." In July, 1572, he surprised the Spanish town of Nombre de Dios, which was the shipping port on the northern side of the Isthmus for the treasures of Peru. His men made their way into the royal treasure-house, where they laid hands on a heap of bar-silver, 70 feet long, 10 wide, and 10 high; but Drake himself had received a wound which compelled the pirates to retreat with no very large part of the splendid booty. In the winter of 1573, with the help of the runaway slaves on the Isthmus, known as Cimarrones, he crossed the Isthmus, looked on the Pacific ocean, approached within sight of the city of Panama, and waylaid a transportation party conveying gold to Nombre de Dios; but was disappointed of his prey by the excited conduct of some of his men. When he saw, on this occasion, the great ocean beyond the Isthmus, "Drake then and there resolved to be the pioneer of England in the Pacific; and on this resolution he solemnly besought the blessing of God. Nearly four years elapsed before it was executed; for it was not until November, 1577, that Drake embarked on his famous voyage, in the course of which he proposed to plunder Peru itself. The Peruvian ports were unfortified. The Spaniards knew them to be by nature absolutely secured from attack on the north; and they never dreamed that the English pirates would be daring enough to pass the terrible straits of Magellan and attack them from the south. Such was the plan of Drake; and it was executed with complete success." He sailed from Plymouth, December 13, 1577, with a fleet of four vessels, and a pinnace, but lost one of the ships after he had entered the Pacific, in a storm which drove him southward, and which made him the discoverer of Cape Horn. Another of his ships, separated from the squadron, returned home, and a third, while attempting to do the same, was lost in the river Plate. Drake, in his own vessel, the Golden Hind, proceeded to the Peruvian coasts, where he cruised until he had taken and plundered a score of Spanish ships. "Laden with a rich booty of Peruvian treasure he deemed it unsafe to return by the way that he came. He therefore resolved to strike across the Pacific, and for this purpose made the latitude in which this voyage was usually performed by the Spanish government vessels which sailed annually from Acapulco to the Philippines. Drake thus reached the coast of California, where the Indians, delighted beyond measure by presents of clothing and trinkets, invited him to remain and rule over them. Drake took possession of the country in the name of the Queen, and refitted his vessel in preparation for the unknown perils of the Pacific. The place where He landed must have been either the great bay of San Francisco [per contra., see CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1846-1847] or the small bay of Bodega, which lies a few leagues further north. The great seaman had already coasted five degrees more to the northward before finding a suitable harbour. He believed himself to be the first European who had coasted these shores; but it is now well known that Spanish explorers had preceded him. Drake's circumnavigation of the globe was thus no deliberate feat of seamanship, but the necessary result of circumstances. The voyage made in more than one way a great epoch in English nautical history." Drake reached Plymouth on his return Sept. 26, 1580.

      ALSO IN
      F. Fletcher,
      The World Encompassed by Sir F. Drake
      (Hakluyt Society, 1854).

AMERICA: A. D. 1583.
The Expedition of Sir Humphrey Gilbert.
Formal possession taken of Newfoundland.

In 1578, Sir Humphrey Gilbert, an English gentleman, of Devonshire, whose younger half-brother was the more famous Sir Walter Raleigh, obtained from Queen Elizabeth a charter empowering him, for the next six years, to discover "such remote heathen and barbarous lands, not actually possessed by any Christian prince or people," as he might be shrewd or fortunate enough to find, and to occupy the same as their proprietor. Gilbert's first expedition was attempted the next year, with Sir Walter Raleigh associated in it; but misfortunes drove back the adventurers to port, and Spanish intrigue prevented their sailing again. "In June, 1583, Gilbert sailed from Cawsund Bay with five vessels, with the general intention of discovering and colonizing the northern parts of America. It was the first colonizing expedition which left the shores of Great Britain; and the narrative of the expedition by Hayes, who commanded one of Gilbert's vessels, forms the first page in the history of English colonization. Gilbert did no more than go through the empty form of taking possession of the island of Newfoundland, to which the English name formerly applied to the continent in general … was now restricted. … Gilbert dallied here too long. When he set sail to cross the Gulf of St. Lawrence and take possession of Cape Breton and Nova Scotia the season was too far advanced; one of his largest ships went down with all on board, including the Hungarian scholar Parmenius, who had come out as the historian of the expedition; the stores were exhausted and the crews dispirited; and Gilbert resolved on sailing home, intending to return and prosecute his discoveries the next spring. On the home voyage the little vessel in which he was sailing foundered; and the pioneer of English colonization found a watery grave. … Gilbert was a man of courage, piety, and learning. He was, however, an indifferent seaman, and quite incompetent for the task of colonization to which he had set his hand. The misfortunes of his expedition induced Amadas and Barlow, who followed in his steps, to abandon the northward voyage and sail to the shores intended to be occupied by the easier but more circuitous route of the Canaries and the West Indies."

"On Monday, the 9th of September, in the afternoon, the frigate [the' Squirrel'] was near cast away, oppressed by waves, yet at that time recovered; and giving forth signs of joy, the general, sitting abaft with a book in his hand, cried out to us in the 'Hind' (so oft as we did approach within hearing), 'We are as near to heaven by sea as by land,' reiterating the same speech, well beseeming a soldier resolute in Jesus Christ, as I can testify he was. On the same Monday night, about twelve o'clock, or not long after, the frigate being ahead of us in the 'Golden Hind,' suddenly her lights were out, whereof as it were in a moment we lost the sight, and withal our watch cried the General was cast away, which was too true; for in that moment the frigate was devoured and swallowed up by the sea. Yet still we looked out all that night and ever after, until we arrived upon the coast of England. … In great torment of weather and peril of drowning it pleased God to send safe home the 'Golden Hind,' which arrived in Falmouth on the 22d of September, being Sunday."

      E. Hayes,
      A Report of the Voyage by Sir Humphrey Gilbert
      (reprinted in Payne's Voyages).

      ALSO IN
      E. Edwards,
      Life of Raleigh,
      volume 1, chapter 5.

      R. Hakluyt,
      Principal Navigations;
      edited by E. Goldsmid,
      volume 12.

"The task in which Gilbert had failed was to be undertaken by one better qualified to carry it out. If any Englishman in that age seemed to be marked out as the founder of a colonial empire, it was Raleigh. Like Gilbert, he had studied books; like Drake he could rule men. … The associations of his youth, and the training of his early manhood, fitted him to sympathize with the aims of his half-brother Gilbert, and there is little reason to doubt that Raleigh had a share in his undertaking and his failure. In 1584 he obtained a patent precisely similar to Gilbert's. His first step showed the thoughtful and well-planned system on which he began his task. Two ships were sent out, not with any idea of settlement, but to examine and report upon the country. Their commanders were Arthur Barlow and Philip Amidas. To the former we owe the extant record of the voyage: the name of the latter would suggest that he was a foreigner. Whether by chance or design, they took a more southerly course than any of their predecessors. On the 2d of July the presence of shallow water, and a smell of sweet flowers, warned them that land was near. The promise thus given was amply fulfilled upon their approach. The sight before them was far different from that which had met the eyes of Hore and Gilbert. Instead of the bleak coast of Newfoundland, Barlow and Amidas looked upon a scene which might recall the softness of the Mediterranean. … Coasting along for about 120 miles, the voyagers reached an inlet and with some difficulty entered. They then solemnly took possession of the land in the Queen's name, and then delivered it over to Raleigh according to his patent. They soon discovered that the land upon which they had touched was an island about 20 miles long, and not above six broad, named, as they afterwards learnt, Roanoke. Beyond, separating them from the mainland, lay an enclosed sea, studded with more than a hundred fertile and well-wooded islets." The Indians proved friendly, and were described by Barlow as being "most gentle, loving and faithful, void of all guile and treason, and such as live after the manner of the golden age." "The report which the voyagers took home spoke as favourably of the land itself as of its inhabitants. … With them they brought two of the savages, named Wanchese and Manteo. A probable tradition tells us that the queen herself named the country Virginia, and that Raleigh's knighthood was the reward and acknowledgment of his success. {70} On the strength of this report Raleigh at once made preparations for a settlement. A fleet of seven ships was provided for the conveyance of 108 settlers. The fleet was under the command of Sir Richard Grenvillle, who was to establish the settlement and leave it under the charge of Ralph Lane. … On the 9th of April [1585] the emigrants set sail." For some reason not well explained, the fleet made a circuit to the West Indies, and loitered for five weeks at the island of St. John's and at Hispaniola, reaching Virginia in the last days of June. Quarrels between the two commanders, Grenville and Lane, had already begun, and both seemed equally ready to provoke the enmity of the natives. In August, after exploring some sixty miles of the coast, Grenville returned to England, promising to come back the next spring with new colonists and stores. The settlement, thus left to the care of Lane, was established "at the north-east corner of the island of Roanoke, whence the settlers could command the strait. There, even now, choked by vines and underwood, and here and there broken by the crumbling remains of an earthen bastion, may be traced the outlines of the ditch which enclosed the camp, some forty yards square, the home of the first English settlers in the New World. Of the doings of the settlers during the winter nothing is recorded, but by the next spring their prospects looked gloomy. The Indians were no longer friends. … The settlers, unable to make fishing weirs, and without seed corn, were entirely dependent on the Indians for their daily food. Under these circumstances, one would have supposed that Lane would have best employed himself in guarding the settlement and improving its condition. He, however, thought otherwise, and applied himself to the task of exploring the neighbouring territory." But a wide combination of hostile Indian tribes had been formed against the English, and their situation became from day to day more imperilled. At the beginning of June, 1586, Lane fought a bold battle with the savages and routed them; but no sign of Grenville appeared and the prospect looked hopeless. Just at this juncture, a great English fleet, sailing homewards from a piratical expedition to the Spanish Main, under the famous Captain Drake, came to anchor at Roanoke and offered succor to the disheartened colonists. With one voice they petitioned to be taken to England, and Drake received the whole party on board his ships. "The help of which the colonists had despaired was in reality close at hand. Scarcely had Drake's fleet left the coast when a ship well furnished by Raleigh with needful supplies, reached Virginia, and after searching for the departed settlers returned to England. About a fortnight later Grenville himself arrived with three ships. He spent some time in the country exploring, searching for the settlers, and at last, unwilling to lose possession of the country, landed fifteen men at Roanoke well supplied for two years, and then set sail for England, plundering the Azores, and doing much damage to the Spaniards."

"It seems to be generally admitted that, when Lane and his company went back to England, they carried with them tobacco as one of the products of the country, which they presented to Raleigh, as the planter of the colony, and by him it was brought into use in England, and gradually in other European countries. The authorities are not entirely agreed upon this point. Josselyn says: 'Tobacco first brought into England by Sir John Hawkins, but first brought into use by Sir Walter Rawleigh many years after.' Again he says: 'Now (say some) Tobacco was first brought into England by Mr. Ralph Lane, out of Virginia. Others will have Tobacco to be first brought into England from Peru, by Sir Francis Drake's Mariners.' Camden fixes its introduction into England by Ralph Lane and the men brought back with him in the ships of Drake. He says: 'And these men which were brought back were the first that I know of, which brought into England that Indian plant which they call Tobacco and Nicotia, and use it against crudities, being taught it by the Indians.' Certainly from that time it began to be in great request, and to be sold at a high rate. … Among the 108 men left in the colony with Ralph Lane in 1585 was Mr. Thomas Hariot, a man of a strongly mathematical and scientific turn, whose services in this connection were greatly valued. He remained there an entire year, and went back to England in 1586. He wrote out a full account of his observations in the New World."

      L. N. Tarbox,
      Sir Walter Raleigh and his Colony
      (Prince Society 1884).

      ALSO IN
      T. Hariot,
      Brief and true Report
      (Reprinted in above-named Prince Society Publication).

      F. L. Hawks,
      History of North Carolina, volume 1
      (containing reprints of Lane's Account, Hariot's Report, &c.)

      Original Documents edited by E. E. Hale
      (Archæologia Americana,
      volume 4).

AMERICA: A. D. 1587-1590.
The Lost Colony of Roanoke.
End of the Virginia Undertakings of Sir Walter Raleigh.

"Raleigh, undismayed by losses, determined to plant an agricultural state; to send emigrants with their wives and families, who should make their homes in the New World; and, that life and property might be secured, in January, 1587, he granted a charter for the settlement, and a municipal government for the city of 'Raleigh.' John White was appointed its governor; and to him, with eleven assistants, the administration of the colony was intrusted. Transport ships were prepared at the expense of the proprietary; 'Queen Elizabeth, the godmother of Virginia,' declined contributing 'to its education.' Embarking in April, in July they arrived on the coast of North Carolina; they were saved from the dangers of Cape Fear; and, passing Cape Hatteras, they hastened to the isle of Roanoke, to search for the handful of men whom Grenville had left there as a garrison. They found the tenements deserted and overgrown with weeds; human bones lay scattered on the field where wild deer were reposing. The fort was in ruins. No vestige of surviving life appeared. The instructions of Raleigh had designated the place for the new settlement on the bay of Chesapeake. But Fernando, the naval officer, eager to renew a profitable traffic in the West Indies, refused his assistance in exploring the coast, and White was compelled to remain on Roanoke. … It was there that in July the foundations of the city of Raleigh were laid. But the colony was doomed to disaster from the beginning, being quickly involved in warfare with the surrounding natives. "With the returning ship White embarked for England, under the excuse of interceding for re-enforcements and supplies. {71} Yet, on the 18th of August, nine days previous to his departure, his daughter Eleanor Dare, the wife of one of the assistants, gave birth to a female child, the first offspring of English parents on the soil of the United States. The infant was named from the place of its birth. The colony, now composed of 89 men, 17 women, and two children, whose names are all preserved, might reasonably hope for the speedy return of the governor, as he left with them his daughter and his grandchild, Virginia Dare. The farther history of this plantation is involved in gloomy uncertainty. The inhabitants of 'the city of Raleigh,' the emigrants from England and the first-born of America, awaited death in the land of their adoption. For, when White reached England, he found its attention absorbed by the threats of an invasion from Spain. … Yet Raleigh, whose patriotism did not diminish his generosity, found means, in April 1588, to despatch White with supplies in two vessels. But the company, desiring a gainful voyage rather than a safe one, ran in chase of prizes, till one of them fell in with men of war from Rochelle, and, after a bloody fight, was boarded and rifled. Both ships were compelled to return to England. The delay was fatal: the English kingdom and the Protestant reformation were in danger; nor could the poor colonists of Roanoke be again remembered till after the discomfiture of the Invincible Armada. Even then Sir Walter Raleigh, who had already incurred a fruitless expense of £40,000, found his impaired fortune insufficient for further attempts at colonizing Virginia. He therefore used the privilege of his patent to endow a company of merchants and adventurers with large concessions. Among the men who thus obtained an assignment of the proprietary's rights in Virginia is found the name of Richard Hakluyt; it connects the first efforts of England in North Carolina with the final colonization of Virginia. The colonists at Roanoke had emigrated with a charter; the instrument of March, 1589, was not an assignment of Raleigh's patent, but the extension of a grant, already held under its sanction by increasing the number to whom the rights of that charter belonged. More than another year elapsed before White could return to search for his colony and his daughter; and then the island of Roanoke was a desert. An inscription on the bark of a tree pointed to Croatan; but the season of the year and the dangers from storms were pleaded as an excuse for an immediate return. The conjecture has been hazarded that the deserted colony, neglected by their own countrymen, were hospitably adopted into the tribe [the Croatans] of Hatteras Indians. Raleigh long cherished the hope of discovering some vestiges of their existence, and sent at his own charge, and, it is said, at five several times, to search for his liege men. But imagination received no help in its attempts to trace the fate of the colony of Roanoke."

"The Croatans of to-day claim descent from the lost colony. Their habits, disposition and mental characteristics show traces both of savage and civilized ancestors. Their language is the English of 300 years ago, and their names are in many cases the same as those borne by the original colonists. No other theory of their origin has been advanced."

S. B. Weeks, The Lost Colony of Roanoke (American History Association Papers, volume 5, part 4).

"This last expedition [of White, searching for his lost colony] was not despatched by Raleigh, but by his successors in the American patent. And our history is now to take leave of that illustrious man, with whose schemes and enterprises it ceases to have any further connexion. The ardour of his mind was not exhausted, but diverted by a multiplicity of new and not less arduous undertakings. … Desirous, at the same time, that a project which he had carried so far should not be entirely abandoned, and hoping that the spirit of commerce would preserve an intercourse with Virginia that might terminate in a colonial establishment, he consented to assign his patent to Sir Thomas Smith, and a company of merchants in London, who undertook to establish and maintain a traffic between England and Virginia. … It appeared very soon that Raleigh had transferred his patent to bands very different from his own. … Satisfied with a paltry traffic carried on by a few small vessels, they made no attempt to take possession of the country: and at the period of Elizabeth's death, not a single Englishman was settled in America."

      J. Grahame,
      History of the Rise and Progress of the
      United States of North America till 1688,
      chapter 1.

AMERICA: A. D. 1602-1605.
The Voyages of Gosnold, Pring, and Weymouth.
The First Englishmen In New England.

   Bartholomew Gosnold was a West-of-England mariner who had
   served in the expeditions of Sir Walter Raleigh to the
   Virginia coast. Under his command, in the spring of 1602,
   "with the consent of Sir Walter Raleigh, and at the cost,
   among others, of Henry Wriothesley, Earl of Southampton, the
   accomplished patron of Shakespeare, a small vessel, called the
   Concord, was equipped for exploration in 'the north part of
   Virginia,' with a view to the establishment of a colony. At
   this time, in the last year of the Tudor dynasty, and nineteen
   years after the fatal termination of Gilbert's enterprise,
   there was no European Inhabitant of North America, except
   those of Spanish birth in Florida, and some twenty or thirty
   French, the miserable relics of two frustrated attempts to
   settle what they called New France. Gosnold sailed from
   Falmouth with a company of thirty-two persons, of whom eight
   were seamen, and twenty were to become planters. Taking a
   straight course across the Atlantic, instead of the indirect
   course by the Canaries and the West Indies which had been
   hitherto pursued in voyages to Virginia, at the end of seven
   weeks he saw land in Massachusetts Bay, probably near what is
   now Salem Harbor. Here a boat came off, of Basque build,
   manned by eight natives, of whom two or three were dressed in
   European clothes, indicating the presence of earlier foreign
   voyagers in these waters. Next he stood to the southward, and
   his crew took great quantities of codfish by a head land,
   called by him for that reason Cape Cod, the name which it
   retains. Gosnold, Brereton, and three others, went on shore,
   the first Englishmen who are known to have set foot upon the
   soil of Massachusetts. … Sounding his way cautiously along,
   first in a southerly, and then in a westerly direction, and
   probably passing to the south of Nantucket, Gosnold next
   landed on a small island, now called No Man's Land.
{72}
   To this he gave the name of Martha's Vineyard, since
   transferred to the larger island further north. … South of
   Buzzard's Bay, and separated on the south by the Vineyard
   Sound from Martha's Vineyard, is scattered the group denoted
   on modern maps as the Elizabeth Islands. The southwesternmost
   of these, now known by the Indian name of Cuttyhunk, was
   denominated by Gosnold Elizabeth Island. … Here Gosnold
   found a pond two miles in circumference, separated from the
   sea on one side by a beach thirty yards wide, and enclosing 'a
   rocky islet, containing near an acre of ground, full of wood and
   rubbish.' This islet was fixed upon for a settlement. In three
   weeks, while a part of the company were absent on a trading
   expedition to the mainland, the rest dug and stoned a cellar,
   prepared timber and built a house, which they fortified with
   palisades, and thatched with sedge. Proceeding to make an
   inventory of their provisions, they found that, after
   supplying the vessel, which was to take twelve men on the
   return voyage, there would be a sufficiency for only six weeks
   for the twenty men who would remain. A dispute arose upon the
   question whether the party to be left behind would receive a
   share in the proceeds of the cargo of cedar, sassafras, furs,
   and other commodities which had been collected. A small party,
   going out in quest of shell-fish, was attacked by some
   Indians. With men having already, it is likely, little stomach
   for such cheerless work, these circumstances easily led to the
   decision to abandon for the present the scheme of a
   settlement, and in the following month the adventurers sailed
   for England, and, after a voyage of five weeks, arrived at
   Exmouth. … The expedition of Gosnold was pregnant with
   consequences, though their development was slow. The accounts
   of the hitherto unknown country, which were circulated by his
   company on their return, excited an earnest interest." The
   next year (April, 1603), Martin Pring or Prynne was sent out,
   by several merchants of Bristol, with two small vessels.
   seeking cargoes of sassafras, which had acquired a high value
   on account of supposed medicinal virtues. Pring coasted from
   Maine to Martha's Vineyard, secured his desired cargoes, and
   gave a good account of the country. Two years later (March,
   1605), Lord Soathampton and Lord Wardour sent a vessel
   commanded by George Weymouth to reconnoitre the same coast
   with an eye to settlements. Weymouth ascended either the
   Kennebec or the Penobscot river some 50 or 60 miles and
   kidnapped five natives. "Except for this, and for some
   addition to the knowledge of the local geography, the voyage
   was fruitless."

      ALSO IN
      Massachusetts History Society Collection, 3d Series,
      volume 8 (1843).

      J. McKeen,
      On the Voyage of George Weymouth
      (Maine History Society Collection,
      volume 5).

AMERICA: A. D. 1607. The founding of the English Colony of Virginia, and the failure in Maine.

"The first recorded voyage made by Henry Hudson was undertaken … for the Muscovy or Russia Company [of England]. Departing from Gravesend the first of May, 1607, with the intention of sailing straight across the north pole, by the north of what is now called Greenland, Hudson found that this land stretched further to the eastward than he had anticipated, and that a wall of ice, along which he coasted, extended from Greenland to Spitzbergen. Forced to relinquish the hope of finding a passage in the latter vicinity, he once more attempted the entrance of Davis' Straits by the north of Greenland. This design was also frustrated and he apparently renewed the attempt in a lower latitude and nearer Greenland on his homeward voyage. In this cruise Hudson attained a higher degree of latitude than any previous navigator. … He reached England on his return on the 15th September of that year [1607]. … On the 22d of April, 1608, Henry Hudson commenced his second recorded voyage for the Muscovy or Russia Company, with the design of 'finding a passage to the East Indies· by the north-east. … On the 3d of June, 1608, Hudson had reached the most northern point of Norway, and on the 11th was in latitude 75° 24', between Spitzbergen and Nova Zembla." Failing to pass to the north-east beyond Nova Zembla, he returned to England in August.

      ALSO IN
      G. M. Asher,
      Henry Hudson, the Navigator,
      (Hakluyt Society, 1860).

AMERICA: A. D. 1608-1616.
Champlain's Explorations in the Valley of the St. Lawrence and
the Great Lakes.

   "The failure of two expeditions daunted the enterprise of
   Hudson's employers [the Muscovy Company, in England]; they
   could not daunt the courage of the great navigator, who was
   destined to become the rival of Smith and of Champlain. He
   longed to tempt once more the dangers of the northern sea;
   and, repairing to Holland, he offered, in the service of the
   Dutch East India Company, to explore the icy wastes in search
   of the coveted passage. The voyage of Smith to Virginia
   stimulated desire; the Zealanders, fearing the loss of
   treasure, objected; but, by the influence of Balthazar
   Moucheron, the directors for Amsterdam resolved on equipping a
   small vessel of discovery; and, on the 4th day of April, 1609,
   the 'Crescent' [or 'Half-Moon' as the name of the little ship
   is more commonly translated], commanded by Hudson, and manned
   by a mixed crew of Englishmen and Hollanders, his son being of
   the number, set sail for the north-western passage. Masses of
   ice impeded the navigation towards Nova Zembla; Hudson, who
   had examined the maps of John Smith of Virginia, turned to the
   west; and passing beyond Greenland and Newfoundland, and
   running down the coast of Acadia, he anchored, probably, in
   the mouth of the Penobscot. Then, following the track of
   Gosnold, he came upon the promontory of Cape Cod, and,
   believing himself its first discoverer, gave it the name of
   New Holland. Long afterwards, it was claimed as the
   north-eastern boundary of New Netherlands. From the sands of
   Cape Cod, he steered a southerly course till he was opposite
   the entrance into the bay of Virginia, where Hudson remembered
   that his countrymen were planted.
{73}
   Then, turning again to the north, he discovered the Delaware
   Bay, examined its currents and its soundings, and, without
   going on shore, took note of the aspect of the country. On the
   3d day of September, almost at the time when Champlain was
   invading New York from the north, less than five months after
   the truce with Spain, which gave the Netherlands a diplomatic
   existence as a state, the 'Crescent' anchored within Sandy
   Hook, and from the neighboring shores, that were crowned with
   'goodly oakes,' attracted frequent visits from the natives.
   After a week's delay, Hudson sailed through the Narrows, and
   at the mouth of the river anchored in a harbor which was
   pronounced to be very good for all winds. … Ten days were
   employed in exploring the river; the first of Europeans,
   Hudson went sounding his way above the Highlands, till at last
   the 'Crescent' had sailed some miles beyond the city of
   Hudson, and a boat had advanced a little beyond Albany.
   Frequent intercourse was held with the astonished natives [and
   two battles fought with them]. … Having completed his
   discovery, Hudson descended the stream to which time has given
   his name, and on the 4th day of October, about the season of
   the return of John Smith to England, he set sail for Europe.
   … A happy return voyage brought the 'Crescent' into
   Dartmouth. Hudson forwarded to his Dutch employers a brilliant
   account of his discoveries; but he never revisited the lands
   which he eulogized: and the Dutch East-India Company refused
   to search further for the north-western passage."

      G. Bancroft,
      History of the United States,
      chapter 15
      (or part 2, chapter 12 of "Author's Last Revision").

      ALSO IN
      H. R. Cleveland,
      Life of Henry Hudson
      (Library of American Biographies, volume 10),
      chapters 3-4.

      R. Juet,
      Journal of Hudson's Voyage
      (New York History Society Collection,
      Second Series, volume 1).

      J. V. N. Yates and J. W. Moulton,
      History of the State of New York,
      part 1.

AMERICA: A. D. 1610-1614.
The Dutch occupation of New Netherland, and Block's coasting
exploration.

AMERICA: A. D. 1614-1615.
The Voyages of Capt. John Smith to North Virginia.
The Naming of the country New England.

"From the time of Capt. Smith's departure from Virginia [see VIRGINIA: A. D. 1607-1610], till the year 1614, there is a chasm in his biography. … In 1614, probably by his advice and at his suggestion, an expedition was fitted out by some London merchants, in the expense of which he also shared, for the purposes of trade and discovery in New England, or, as it was then called, North Virginia. … In March, 1614, he set sail from London with two ships, one commanded by himself, and the other by Captain Thomas Hunt. They arrived, April 30th, at the island of Manhegin, on the coast of Maine, where they built seven boats. The purposes for which they were sent were to capture whales and to search for mines of gold or copper, which were said to be there, and, if these failed, to make up a cargo of fish and furs. Of mines, they found no indications, and they found whale-fishing a 'costly conclusion;' for, although they saw many, and chased them too, they succeeded in taking none. They thus lost the best part of the fishing season; but, after giving up their gigantic game, they diligently employed the months of July and August in taking and curing codfish, an humble, but more certain prey. While the crew were thus employed, Captain Smith, with eight men in a small boat, surveyed and examined the whole coast, from Penobscot to Cape Cod, trafficking with the Indians for furs, and twice fighting with them, and taking such observations of the prominent points as enabled him to construct a map of the country. He then sailed for England, where he arrived in August, within six months after his departure. He left Captain Hunt behind him, with orders to dispose of his cargo of fish in Spain. Unfortunately, Hunt was a sordid and unprincipled miscreant, who resolved to make his countrymen odious to the Indians, and thus prevent the establishment of a permanent colony, which would diminish the large gains he and a few others derived by monopolizing a lucrative traffic. For this purpose, having decoyed 24 of the natives on board his ship, he carried them off and sold them as slaves in the port of Malaga. … Captain Smith, upon his return, presented his map of the country between Penobscot and Cape Cod to Prince Charles (afterwards Charles I.), with a request that he would substitute others, instead of the 'barbarous names' which had been given to particular places. Smith himself gave to the country the name of New England, as he expressly states, and not Prince Charles, as is commonly supposed. … The first port into which Captain Smith put on his return to England was Plymouth. There he related his adventures to some of his friends, 'who,' he says, 'as I supposed, were interested in the dead patent of this unregarded country.' The Plymouth Company of adventurers to North Virginia, by flattering hopes and large promises, induced him to engage his services to them." Accordingly in March, 1615, he sailed from Plymouth, with two vessels under his command, bearing 16 settlers, besides their crew. A storm dismasted Smith's ship and drove her back to Plymouth. "His consort, commanded by Thomas Dermer, meanwhile proceeded on her voyage, and returned with a profitable cargo in August; but the object, which was to effect a permanent settlement, was frustrated. Captain Smith's vessel was probably found to be so much shattered as to render it inexpedient to repair her; for we find that he set sail a second time from Plymouth, on the 24th of June, in a small bark of 60 tons, manned by 30 men, and carrying with him the same 16 settlers he had taken before. But an evil destiny seemed to hang over this enterprise, and to make the voyage a succession of disasters and disappointments." It ended in Smith's capture by a piratical French fleet and his detention for some months, until he made a daring escape in a small boat. "While he had been detained on board the French pirate, in order, as he says, 'to keep my perplexed thoughts from too much meditation of my miserable estate,' he employed himself in writing a narrative of his two voyages to New England, and an account of the country. This was published in a quarto form in June, 1616. … Captain Smith's work on New England was the first to recommend that country as a place of settlement."

AMERICA: A. D. 1620.
The Planting of the Pilgrim Colony at Plymouth, and the
Chartering of the Council for New England.

See MASSACHUSETTS (PLYMOUTH COLONY): A. D. 1620;
and NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1620-1623.

AMERICA: A. D. 1621.
Conflicting claims of England and France on the North-eastern coast.
Naming and granting of Nova Scotia.

"Sir Robert Heath, attorney-general to Charles I., obtained a grant of the lands between the 38th [36th?] degree of north latitude to the river St. Matheo. His charter bears date of October 5, 1629. … The tenure is declared to be as ample as any bishop of Durham [Palatine], in the kingdom of England, ever held and enjoyed, or ought or could of right have held and enjoyed. Sir Robert, his heirs and assigns, are constituted the true and absolute lords and proprietors, and the country is erected into a province by the name of Carolina [or Carolana] and the islands are to be called the Carolina islands. Sir Robert conveyed his right some time after to the earl of Arundel. This nobleman, it is said, planted several parts of his acquisition, but his attempt to colonize was checked by the war with Scotland, and afterwards the civil war. Lord Maltravers, who soon after, on his father's death, became earl of Arundel and Sussex … made no attempt to avail himself of the grant. … Sir Robert Heath's grant of land, to the southward of Virginia, perhaps the most extensive possession ever owned by an individual, remained for a long time almost absolutely waste and uncultivated. This vast extent of territory occupied all the country between the 30th and 36th degrees of northern latitude, which embraces the present states of North and South Carolina, Georgia, [Alabama], Tennessee, Mississippi, and, with very little exceptions, the whole state of Louisiana, and the territory of East and West Florida, a considerable part of the state of Missouri, the Mexican provinces of Texas, Chiuhaha, &c. The grantee had taken possession of the country, soon after he had obtained his title, which he afterwards had conveyed to the earl of Arundel. Henry lord Maltravers appears to have obtained some aid from the province of Virginia in 1639, at the desire of Charles I., for the settlement of Carolana, and the country had since become the property of a Dr. Cox; yet, at this time, there were two points only in which incipient English settlements could be discerned; the one on the northern shore of Albemarle Sound and the streams that flow into it. The population of it was very thin, and the greatest portion of it was on the north-east bank of Chowan river. The settlers had come from that part of Virginia now known as the County of Nansemond. … They had been joined by a number of Quakers and other sectaries, whom the spirit of intolerance had driven from New England, and some emigrants from Bermudas. … The other settlement of the English was at the mouth of Cape Fear river; … those who composed it had come thither from New England in 1659. Their attention was confined to rearing cattle. It cannot now be ascertained whether the assignees of Carolina ever surrendered the charter under which it was held, nor whether it was considered as having become vacated or obsolete by non-user, or by any other means."

AMERICA: A. D. 1629.
The Royal Charter to the Governor and Company of Massachusetts Bay.

AMERICA: A. D. 1632.
The Charter to Lord Baltimore and the founding of Maryland.

AMERICA: A. D. 1639-1700.
The Buccaneers and their piratical warfare with Spain.

   "The 17th century gave birth to a class of rovers wholly
   distinct from any of their predecessors in the annals of the
   world, differing as widely in their plans, organization and
   exploits as in the principles that governed their actions. …
   After the native inhabitants of Haiti had been exterminated,
   and the Spaniards had sailed farther west, a few adventurous
   men from Normandy settled on the shores of the island, for the
   purpose of hunting the wild bulls and hogs which roamed at
   will through the forests. The small island of Tortugas was
   their market; thither they repaired with their salted and
   smoked meat, their hides, &c., and disposed of them in
   exchange for powder, lead, and other necessaries. The places
   where these semi-wild hunters prepared the slaughtered
   carcases were called 'boucans,' and they themselves became
   known as Buccaneers. Probably the world has never before or
   since witnessed such an extraordinary association as theirs.
   Unburdened by women-folk or children, these men lived in
   couples, reciprocally rendering each other services, and
   having entire community of property—a condition termed by
   them matelotage, from the word 'matelot,' by which they
   addressed one another. … A man on joining the fraternity
   completely merged his identity. Each member received a
   nickname, and no attempt was ever made to inquire into his
   antecedents. When one of their number married, he ceased to be
   a buccaneer, having forfeited his membership by so civilized a
   proceeding. He might continue to dwell on the coast, and to
   hunt cattle, but he was no longer a 'matelot'—as a Benedick
   he had degenerated to a 'colonist.' … Uncouth and lawless
   though the buccaneers were, the sinister signification now
   attaching to their name would never have been merited had it
   not been for the unreasoning jealousy of the Spaniards. The
   hunters were actually a source of profit to that nation, yet
   from an insane antipathy to strangers the dominant race
   resolved on exterminating the settlers. Attacked whilst
   dispersed in pursuance of their avocations, the latter fell
   easy victims; many of them were wantonly massacred, others
   dragged into slavery. … Breathing hatred and vengeance, 'the
   brethren of the coast' united their scattered forces, and a
   war of horrible reprisals commenced.
{75}
   Fresh troops arrived from Spain, whilst the ranks of the
   buccaneers were filled by adventurers of all nations, allured
   by love of plunder, and fired with indignation at the
   cruelties of the aggressors. … The Spaniards, utterly
   failing to oust their opponents, hit upon a new expedient, so
   short-sighted that it reflects but little credit on their
   statesmanship. This was the extermination of the horned
   cattle, by which the buccaneers derived their means of
   subsistence; a general slaughter took place, and the breed was
   almost extirpated. … The puffed up arrogance of the Spaniard
   was curbed by no prudential consideration; calling upon every
   saint in his calendar, and raining curses on the heretical
   buccaneers, he deprived them of their legitimate occupation,
   and created wilfully a set of desperate enemies, who harassed
   the colonial trade of an empire already betraying signs of
   feebleness with the pertinacity of wolves, and who only
   desisted when her commerce had been reduced to insignificance.
   … Devoured by an undying hatred of their assailants, the
   buccaneers developed into a new association—the freebooters."

"The monarchs both of England and France, but especially the former, connived at and even encouraged the freebooters [a name which the pronunciation of French sailors transformed into 'flibustiers,' while that corruption became Anglicized in its turn and produced the word filibusters], whose services could be obtained in time of war, and whose actions could be disavowed in time of peace. Thus buccaneer, filibuster, and sea-rover, were for the most part at leisure to hunt wild cattle, and to pillage and massacre the Spaniards wherever they found an opportunity. When not on some marauding expedition, they followed the chase." The piratical buccaneers were first organized under a leader in 1639, the islet of Tortuga being their favorite rendezvous. "So rapid was the growth of their settlements that in 1641 we find governors appointed, and at San Christobal a governor-general named De Poincy, in charge of the French filibusters in the Indies. During that year Tortuga was garrisoned by French troops, and the English were driven out, both from that islet and from Santo Domingo, securing harborage elsewhere in the islands. Nevertheless corsairs of both nations often made common cause. … In [1654] Tortuga was again recaptured by the Spaniards, but in 1660 fell once more into the hands of the French; and in their conquest of Jamaica in 1655 the British troops were reenforced by a large party of buccaneers." The first of the more famous buccaneers, and apparently the most ferocious among them all, was a Frenchman called François L'Olonnois, who harried the coast of Central America between 1660-1665 with six ships and 700 men. At the same time another buccaneer named Mansvelt, was rising in fame, and with him, as second in command, a Welshman, Henry Morgan, who became the most notorious of all. In 1668, Morgan attacked and captured the strong town of Portobello, on the Isthmus, committing indescribable atrocities. In 1671 he crossed the Isthmus, defeated the Spaniards in battle and gained possession of the great and wealthy city of Panama—the largest and richest in the New World, containing at the time 30,000 inhabitants. The city was pillaged, fired and totally destroyed. The exploits of this ruffian and the stolen riches which he carried home to England soon afterward, gained the honors of knighthood for him, from the worthy hands of Charles II. In 1680, the buccaneers under one Coxon again crossed the Isthmus, seized Panama, which had been considerably rebuilt, and captured there a Spanish fleet of four ships, in which they launched themselves upon the Pacific. From that time their plundering operations were chiefly directed against the Pacific coast. Towards the close of the 17th century, the war between England and France, and the Bourbon alliance of Spain with France, brought about the discouragement, the decline and finally the extinction of the buccaneer organization.

H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States: Central America, volume 2, chapter 26-30.

AMERICA: A. D. 1663.
The grant of the Carolinas to Monk, Clarendon, Shaftesbury,
and others.

AMERICA: A. D. 1673-1682.
   Discovery and exploration of the Mississippi, by Marquette and
   La Salle.
   Louisiana named and possessed by the French.

AMERICA: A. D. 1689-1697. The first Inter-Colonial War: King Williams's War (The war of the League of Augsburg).

See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1689-1690; 1692-1697;
also, NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1694-1697.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1690;
also, CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1689-1690.

AMERICA: A. D. 1698-1712.
The French colonization of Louisiana.
Broad claims of France to the whole Valley of the Mississippi.

AMERICA: A. D. 1700-1735. The Spread of French occupation in the Mississippi Valley and on the Lakes.

AMERICA: A. D. 1702-1713.
   The Second Inter-Colonial War: Queen Anne's War (The War of
   the Spanish Succession).
   Final acquisition of Nova Scotia by the English.

AMERICA: A. D. 1713.
Division of territory between England and France by the Treaty
of Utrecht.

AMERICA: A. D. 1744-1748. The Third Inter-Colonial War: King George's War (The War of the Austrian Succession).

The fourth and last inter-colonial war, called the French and
Indian War (The Seven Years War of Europe).

      See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1750-1753; 1760;
      NOVA SCOTIA: A. D.1749-1755; 1755;
      OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754; 1754; 1755;
      CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1758-1760.

AMERICA: A. D. 1750-1753:
Dissensions among the English Colonies on the eve of the great
French War.

   Canada, Cape Breton, Newfoundland, and Louisiana east of the
   Mississippi (except New Orleans) ceded by France to Great
   Britain.

AMERICA: A. D. 1763-1766.
   Growing discontent of the English Colonies.
   The question of taxation.
   The Stamp Act and its repeal.

AMERICA: A. D. 1766-1769. Spanish occupation of New Orleans and Western Louisiana, and the revolt against it.

AMERICA: A. D. 1810-1816.
Revolt, independence and Confederation of the Argentine
Provinces.

AMERICA: A. D. 1820-1821.
Independence Acquired by Mexico and the Central American
States.

In the Seventh Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology (for 1885-86, published in 1891), Major J. W. Powell, the Director of the Bureau, has given a classification of the languages of the North American aborigines based upon the most recent investigations. The following is a list of families of speech, or linguistic stocks, which are defined and named:

   "Adaizan [identified since the publication of this list as
     being but part of the Caddoan stock].
   Algonquian.
   Athapascan.
   Attacapan.
   Beothukan.
   Caddoan.
   Chimakuan.
   Chimarikan.
   Chimmesyan.
   Chinookan.
   Chitimachan.
   Chumashan.
   Coahuiltecan.
   Copehan.
   Costanoan.
   Eskimauan.
   Esselenian.
   Iroquoian.
   Kalapooian.
   Karankawan.
   Keresan.
   Kiowan.
   Kituanahan.
   Koluschan.
   Kulanapan.
   Kusan.
   Lutuamian.
   Mariposan.
   Moquelumnan.
   Muskhogean.
   Natchesan.
   Palaihnihan.
   Piman.
   Pujunan.
   Quoratean.
   Salinan.
   Salishan.
   Sastean.
   Shahaptian.
   Shoshonean.
   Siouan.
   Skittagetan.
   Takilman.
   Tañoan.
   Timuquanan.
   Tonikan.
   Tonkawan.
   Uchean.
   Waiilatpuan.
   Wakashan.
   Washoan.
   Weitspekan.
   Wishoskan.
   Yokonan.
   Yanan.
   Yukian.
   Yuman.
   Zufiian."

These families are severally defined in the summary of information given below, and the relations to them of all tribes having any historical importance are shown by cross-references and otherwise; but many other groupings and associations, and many tribal names not scientifically recognized, are likewise exhibited here, for the reason that they have a significance in history and are the subjects of frequent allusion in literature.

"The Abnakis were called Taranteens by the English, and Owenagungas by the New Yorkers. … We must admit that a large portion of the North American Indians were called Abnakis, if not by themselves, at least by others. This word Abnaki is found spelt Abenaques, Abenaki, Wapanachki, and Wabenakies by different writers of various nations, each adopting the manner of spelling according to the rules of pronunciation of their respective native languages. … The word generally received is spelled thus, Abnaki, but it should be 'Wanbanaghi,' from the Indian word 'wanbanban,' designating the people of the Aurora Borealis, or in general, of the place where the sky commences to appear white at the breaking of the day. … It has been difficult for different writers to determine the number of nations or tribes comprehended under this word Abnaki. It being a general word, by itself designates the people of the east or northeast. … We find that the word Abnaki was applied in general, more or less, to all the Indians of the East, by persons who were not much acquainted with the aborigines of the country. On the contrary, the early writers and others well acquainted with the natives of New France and Acadia, and the Indians themselves, by Abnakis always pointed out a particular nation existing north-west and south of the Kennebec river, and they never designated any other people of the Atlantic shore, from Cape Hatteras to Newfoundland. … The Abnakis had five great villages, two amongst the French colonies, which must be the village of St. Joseph or Sillery, and that of St. Francis de Sales, both in Canada, three on the head waters, or along three rivers, between Acadia and New England. These three rivers are the Kennebec, the Androscoggin, and the Saco. … The nation of the Abnakis bear evident marks of having been an original people in their name, manners, and language. They show a kind of civilization which must be the effect of antiquity, and of a past flourishing age."

      E. Vetromile,
      The Abnaki Indians
      (Maine Historical Society Collection, volume 6).

      See
      CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1689-1690, and 1692-1697;
      NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1675 (JULY-SEPT.); 1702-1710, 1711-1713;
      and NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1713-1730.

These Indians were a "tribe who, according to Dr. Sibley, lived about the year 1800 near the old Spanish fort or mission of Adaize, 'about 40 miles from Natchitoches, below the Yattassees, on a lake called Lac Macdon, which communicates with the division of Red River that passes by Bayou Pierre' [Lewis and Clarke]. A vocabulary of about 250 words is all that remains to us of their language, which according to the collector, Dr. Sibley, 'differs from all others, and is so difficult to speak or understand that no nation can speak ten words of it. … A recent comparison of this vocabulary by Mr. Gatschet, with several Caddoan dialects, has led to the discovery that a considerable percentage of the Adái words have a more or less remote affinity with Caddoan, and he regards it as a Caddoan dialect."

"This is a term bestowed by the Iroquois, in derision, on the tribes who appear, at an early day, to have descended the Utawas river, and occupied the left banks of the St. Lawrence, above the present site of Quebec, about the close of the 15th century. It is said to signify men who eat trees, in allusion to their using the bark of certain trees for food, when reduced to straits, in their war excursions. The French, who entered the St. Lawrence from the gulf, called the same people Algonquins—a generic appellation, which has been long employed and come into universal use, among historians and philologists. According to early accounts, the Adirondacks had preceded the Iroquois in arts and attainments."

AMERICAN ABORIGINES: Agniers.
Among several names which the Mohawks (see below: IROQUOIS)
bore in early colonial history was that of the Agniers.

      F. Parkman,
      The Conspiracy of Pontiac,
      volume 1, page 9, foot-note.

"About the period 1500-1600, those related tribes whom we now know by the name of Algonkins were at the height of their prosperity. They occupied the Atlantic coast from the Savannah river on the south to the strait of Belle Isle on the north. … The dialects of all these were related, and evidently at some distant day had been derived from the same primitive tongue. Which of them had preserved the ancient forms most closely, it may be premature to decide positively, but the tendency of modern studies has been to assign that place to the Cree—the northernmost of all. We cannot erect a genealogical tree of these dialects. … We may, however, group them in such a manner as roughly to indicate their relationship. This I do"—in the following list:

   "Cree.
   Old Algonkin.
   Montagnais.
   Chipeway, Ottawa, Pottawattomie, Miami, Peoria, Pea,
   Piankishaw, Kaskaskia, Menominee, Sac, Fox, Kikapoo.
   Sheshatapoosh, Secoffee, Micmac, Melisceet, Etchemin, Abnaki.
   Mohegan, Massachusetts, Shawnee, Minsi, Unami, Unalachtigo
   [the last three named forming, together, the nation of the
   Lenape or Delawares], Nanticoke, Powhatan, Pampticoke.
   Blackfoot, Gros Ventre, Sheyenne.
   … All the Algonkin nations who dwelt north of the Potomac,
   on the east shore of Chesapeake Bay, and in the basins of the
   Delaware and Hudson rivers, claimed near kinship and an
   identical origin, and were at times united into a loose,
   defensive confederacy. By the western and southern tribes they
   were collectively known as Wapanachkik—'those of the eastern
   region'—which in the form Abnaki is now confined to the
   remnant of a tribe in Maine. … The members of the
   confederacy were the Mohegans (Mahicanni) of the Hudson, who
   occupied the valley of that river to the falls above the site
   of Albany, the various New Jersey tribes, the Delawares proper
   on the Delaware river and its branches, including the Minsi or
   Monseys, among the mountains, the Nanticokes, between
   Chesapeake Bay and the Atlantic, and the small tribe called
   Canai, Kanawhas or Ganawese, whose towns were on tributaries
   of the Potomac and Patuxent. … Linguistically, the Mohegans
   were more closely allied to the tribes of New England than to
   those of the Delaware Valley. Evidently, most of the tribes of
   Massachusetts and Connecticut were comparatively recent
   offshoots of the parent stem on the Hudson, supposing the
   course of migration had been eastward. … The Nanticokes
   occupied the territory between Chesapeake Bay and the ocean,
   except its southern extremity, which appears to have been
   under the control of the Powhatan tribe of Virginia."

"Mohegans, Munsees, Manhattans, Metöacs, and other affiliated tribes and bands of Algonquin lineage, inhabited the banks of the Hudson and the islands, bay and seaboard of New York, including Long Island, during the early periods of the rise of the Iroquois Confederacy. … The Mohegans finally retired over the Highlands east of them into the valley of the Housatonic. The Munsees and Nanticokes retired to the Delaware river and reunited with their kindred, the Lenapees, or modern Delawares. The Manhattans, and numerous other bands and sub-tribes melted away under the influence of liquor and died in their tracks."

"On the basis of a difference in dialect, that portion of the Algonquin Indians which dwelt in New England has been classed in two divisions, one consisting of those who inhabited what is now the State of Maine, nearly up to its western border, the other consisting of the rest of the native population. The Maine Indians may have been some 15,000 in number, or somewhat less than a third of the native population of New England. That portion of them who dwelt furthest towards the east were known by the name of Etetchemins. The Abenaquis, including the Tarratines, hunted on both sides of the Penobscot, and westward as far as the Saco, if not quite to the Piscataqua. The tribes found in the rest of New England were designated by a greater variety of names. The home of the Penacook or Pawtucket Indians was in the southeast corner of what is now New Hampshire and the contiguous region of Massachusetts. Next dwelt the Massachusetts tribe, along the bay of that name. Then were found successively the Pokanokets, or Wampanoags, in the southeasterly region of Massachusetts, and by Buzzard's and Narragansett Bays; the Narragansetts, with a tributary race called Nyantics in what is now the western part of the State of Rhode Island; the Pequots, between the Narragansetts and the river formerly called the Pequot River, now the Thames; and the Mohegans, spreading themselves beyond the River Connecticut. In the central region of Massachusetts were the Nipmucks, or Nipnets; and along Cape Cod were the Nausets, who appeared to have owed some fealty to the Pokanokets. The New England Indians exhibited an inferior type of humanity. … Though fleet and agile when excited to some occasional effort, they were found to be incapable of continuous labor. Heavy and phlegmatic, they scarcely wept or smiled."

J. G. Palfrey, Compendious History of New England, book 1, chapter 3 (volume 1).

"The valley of the 'Cahohatatea,' or Mauritius River [i. e., the Hudson River, as now named] at the time Hudson first ascended its waters, was inhabited, chiefly, by two aboriginal races of Algonquin lineage, afterwards known among the English colonists by the generic names of Mohegans and Mincees. The Dutch generally called the Mohegans, Mahicans; and the Mincees, Sanhikans. These two tribes were subdivided into numerous minor bands, each of which had a distinctive name. The tribes on the east side of the river were generally Mohegans; those on the west side, Mincees. They were hereditary enemies. … Long Island, or 'Sewan-hacky,' was occupied by the savage tribe of Metowacks, which was subdivided into various clans. … Staten Island, on the opposite side of the bay, was inhabited by the Monatons. … Inland, to the west, lived the Raritans and the Hackinsacks; while the regions in the vicinity of the well-known 'Highlands,' south of Sandy Hook, were inhabited by a band or sub-tribe called the Nevesincks or Navisinks. … To the south and west, covering the centre of New Jersey, were the Aquamachukes and the Stankekans; while the valley of the Delaware, northward from the Schuylkill, was inhabited by various tribes of the Lenape race. … The island of the Manhattans" was occupied by the tribe which received that name (see MANHATTAN). On the shores of the river, above, dwelt the Tappans, the Weckquaesgeeks, the Sint Sings, "whose chief village was named Ossin-Sing, or 'the Place of Stones,'" the Pachami, the Waorinacks, the Wappingers, and the Waronawankongs. "Further north, and occupying the present counties of Ulster and Greene, were the Minqua clans of Minnesincks, Nanticokes, Mincees, and Delawares. These clans had pressed onward from the upper valley of the Delaware. … They were generally known among the Dutch as the Æsopus Indians."

"The area formerly occupied by the Algonquian family was more extensive than that of any other linguistic stock in North America, their territory reaching from Labrador to the Rocky Mountains, and from Churchill River of Hudson Bay as far south at least as Pamlico Sound of North Carolina. In the eastern part of this territory was an area occupied by Iroquoian tribes, surrounded on almost all sides by their Algonquian neighbors. On the south the Algonquian tribes were bordered by those of Iroquoian and Siouan (Catawba) stock, on the southwest and west by the Muskhogean and Siouan tribes, and on the northwest by the Kitunahan and the great Athapascan families, while along the coast of Labrador and the eastern shore of Hudson Bay they came in contact with the Eskimo, who were gradually retreating before them to the north. In Newfoundland they encountered the Beothukan family, consisting of but a single tribe. A portion of the Shawnee at some early period had separated from the main body of the tribe in central Tennessee and pushed their way down to the Savannah River in South Carolina, where, known as Savannahs, they carried on destructive wars with the surrounding tribes until about the beginning of the 18th century they were finally driven out and joined the Delaware in the north. Soon afterwards the rest of the tribe was expelled by the Cherokee and Chicasa, who thenceforward claimed all the country stretching north to the Ohio River. The Cheyenne and Arapaho, two allied tribes of this stock, had become separated from their kindred on the north and had forced their way through hostile tribes across the Missouri to the Black Hills country of South Dakota, and more recently into Wyoming and Colorado, thus forming the advance guard of the Algonquian stock in that direction, having the Siouan tribes behind them and those of the Shoshonean family in front. [The following are the] principal tribes: Abnaki, Algonquin, Arapaho, Cheyenne, Conoy, Cree, Delaware, Fox, Illinois, Kickapoo, Mahican, Massachuset, Menominee, Miami, Micmac, Mohegan, Montagnais, Montauk, Munsee, Nanticoke, Narraganset, Nauset, Nipmuc, Ojibwa, Ottawa, Pamlico, Pennacook, Pequot, Piankishaw, Pottawotomi, Powhatan, Sac, Shawnee, Siksika, Wampanoag, Wappinger. The present number of the Algonquian stock is about 95,600, of whom about 60,000 are in Canada and the remainder in the United States."

      ALSO IN
      J. W. De Forest,
      History of the Indians of Connecticut.

A. Gallatin, Synopsis of the Indian Tribes (Archæologia Americana, volume 2), intro., section 2.

      See, also, below:
      DELAWARES; HORIKANS; SHAWANESE; SUSQUEHANNAS; OJIBWAS;
      ILLINOIS.

      See NEW ENGLAND:
      A. D. 1637 (THE PEQUOT WAR);
      A. D. 1674-1675 to 1676-1678 (KING PHILIP'S WAR).

"The oldest tribe of the United States, of which there is a distinct tradition, were the Alleghans. The term is perpetuated in the principal chain of mountains traversing the country. This tribe, at an antique period, had the seat of their power in the Ohio Valley and its confluent streams, which were the sites of their numerous towns and villages. They appear originally to have borne the name of Alli, or Alleg, and hence the names of Talligewi and Allegewi. (Trans. Am. Phi. Society, volume 1.) By adding to the radical of this word the particle 'hany' or 'ghany,' meaning river, they described the principal scene of their residence—namely, the Alleghany, or River of the Alleghans, now called Ohio. The word Ohio is of Iroquois origin, and of a far later period; having been bestowed by them after their conquest of the country, in alliance with the Lenapees, or ancient Delawares. (Phi. Trans.) The term was applied to the entire river, from its confluence with the Mississippi, to its origin in the broad spurs of the Alleghanies, in New York and Pennsylvania. … There are evidences of antique labors in the alluvial plains and valleys of the Scioto, Miami, and Muskingum, the Wabash, Kaskaskia, Cahokia, and Illinois, denoting that the ancient Alleghans, and their allies and confederates, cultivated the soil, and were semi-agriculturists. These evidences have been traced, at late periods, to the fertile table-lands of Indiana and Michigan. The tribes lived in fixed towns, cultivating extensive fields of the zea-maize; and also, as denoted by recent discoveries, … of some species of beans, vines, and esculents. They were, in truth, the mound builders."

H. R. Schoolcraft, Information respecting the Indian Tribes, part 5, page 133.

This conclusion, to which Mr. Schoolcraft had arrived, that the ancient Alleghans or Tallegwi were the mound builders of the Ohio Valley is being sustained by later investigators, and seems to have become an accepted opinion among those of highest authority. The Alleghans, moreover, are being identified with the Cherokees of later times, in whom their race, once supposed to be extinct, has apparently survived; while the fact, long suspected, that the Cherokee language is of the Iroquois family is being proved by the latest studies. According to Indian tradition, the Alleghans were driven from their ancient seats, long ago, by a combination against them of the Lenape (Delawares) and the Mengwe (Iroquois). The route of their migrations is being traced by the character of the mounds which they built, and of the remains gathered from the mounds. "The general movement [of retreat before the Iroquois and Lenape] … must have been southward, … and the exit of the Ohio mound-builders was, in all probability, up the Kanawah Valley on the same line that the Cherokees appear to have followed in reaching their historical locality. … If the hypothesis here advanced be correct, it is apparent that the Cherokees entered the immediate valley of the Mississippi from the northwest, striking it in the region of Iowa."

      C. Thomas,
      The Problem of the Ohio Mounds
      (Bureau of Ethnology, 1889).

      ALSO IN
      C. Thomas,
      Burial Mounds of the Northern Sections of the United States
      (Fifth Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 1883-84).

      See, below:
      CHEROKEES, and IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY;
      also AMERICA, PREHISTORIC.

"The term Andesians or Antesians, is used with geographical rather than ethnological limits, and embraces a number of tribes. First of these are the Cofan in Equador, east of Chimborazo. They fought valiantly against the Spaniards, and in times past killed many of the missionaries sent among them. Now they are greatly reduced and have become more gentle. The Huamaboya are their near neighbors. The Jivara, west of the river Pastaca, are a warlike tribe, who, possibly through a mixture of Spanish blood, have a European cast of countenance and a beard. The half Christian Napo or Quijo and their peaceful neighbors, the Zaporo, live on the Rio Napo. The Yamco, living on the lower Chambiva and crossing the Marañon, wandering as far as Saryacu, have a clearer complexion. The Pacamora and the Yuguarzongo live on the Maranon, where it leaves its northerly course and bends toward the east. The Cochiquima live on the lower Yavari; the Mayoruna, or Barbudo, on the middle Ucayali beside the Campo and Cochibo, the most terrible of South American Indians; they dwell in the woods between the Tapiche and the Marañon, and like the Jivaro have a beard. The Pano, who formerly dwelt in the territory of Lalaguna, but who now live in villages on the upper Ucayali, are Christians. … Their language is the principal one on the river, and it is shared by seven other tribes called collectively by the missionaries Manioto or Mayno. … Within the woods on the right bank live the Amahuaca and Shacaya. On the north they join the Remo, a powerful tribe who are distinguished from all the others by the custom of tattooing. Outside this Pano linguistic group stand the Campa, Campo, or Antis on the east slope of the Peruvian Cordillera at the source of the Rio Beni and its tributaries. The Chontaquiros, or Piru, now occupy almost entirely the bank of the Ucayali below the Pachilia. The Mojos or Moxos live in the Bolivian province of Moxos with the small tribes of the Baure, Itonama, Pacaguara. A number of smaller tribes belonging to the Antesian group need not be enumerated. The late Professor James Orton described the Indian tribes of the territory between Quito and the river Amazon. The Napo approach the type of the Quichua. … Among all the Indians of the Provincia del Oriente, the tribe of Jivaro is one of the largest. These people are divided into a great number of sub-tribes. All of these speak the clear musical Jivaro language. They are muscular, active men. … The Morona are cannibals in the full sense of the word. … The Campo, still very little known, is perhaps the largest Indian tribe in Eastern Peru, and, according to some, is related to the Inca race, or at least with their successors. They are said to be cannibals, though James Orton does not think this possible. … The nearest neighbors of the Campo are the Chontakiro, or Chontaquiro, or Chonquiro, called also Piru, who, according to Paul Marcoy, are said to be of the same origin with the Campo; but the language is wholly different. … Among the Pano people are the wild Conibo; they are the most interesting, but are passing into extinction."

The Standard Natural History (J. S. Kingsley, editor), volume 6, pages 227-231.

Under the general name of the Apaches "I include all the savage tribes roaming through New Mexico, the north-western portion of Texas, a small part of northern Mexico, and Arizona. … Owing to their roving proclivities and incessant raids they are led first in one direction and then in another. In general terms they may be said to range about as follows: The Comanches, Jetans, or Nauni, consisting of three tribes, the Comanches proper, the Yamparacks, and Tenawas, inhabiting northern Texas, eastern Chihuahua, Nuevo Leon, Coahuila, Durango, and portions of south-western New Mexico, by language allied to the Shoshone family; the Apaches, who call themselves Shis Inday, or 'men of the woods,' and whose tribal divisions are the Chiricaguis, Coyoteros, Faraones, Gileños, Lipanes, Llaneros, Mescaleros, Mimbreños, Natages, Pelones, Pinaleños, Tejuas, Tontos, and Vaqueros, roaming over New Mexico, Arizona, North-western Texas, Chihuahua and Sonora, and who are allied by language to the great Tinneh family; the Navajos, or Tenuai, 'men,' as they designate themselves, having linguistic affinities with the Apache nation, with which they are sometimes classed, living in and around the Sierra de los Mimbres; the Mojaves, occupying both banks of the Colorado in Mojave Valley; the Hualapais, near the head-waters of Bill Williams Fork; the Yumas, on the east bank of the Colorado, near its junction with the Rio Gila; the Cosninos, who, like the Hualapais, are sometimes included in the Apache nation, ranging through the Mogollon Mountains; and the Yampais, between Bill Williams Fork and the Rio Hassayampa. … The Apache country is probably the most desert of all. … In both mountain and desert the fierce, rapacious Apache, inured from childhood to hunger and thirst, and heat and cold, finds safe retreat. … The Pueblos … are nothing but partially reclaimed Apaches or Comanches."

Dr. Brinton prefers the name Yuma for the whole of the Apache Group, confining the name Apache (that being the Yuma word for "fighting men") to the one tribe so called. "It has also been called the Katchan or Cuchan stock."

"Among the aboriginal tribes of the United States perhaps none is more enigmatical than the Apalaches. They are mentioned as an important nation by many of the early French and Spanish travellers and historians, their name is preserved by a bay and river on the shores of the Gulf of Mexico, and by the great eastern coast range of mountains, and has been applied by ethnologists to a family of cognate nations that found their hunting grounds from the Mississippi to the Atlantic and from the Ohio river to the Florida Keys; yet, strange to say, their own race and place have been but guessed at." The derivation of the name of the Apalaches "has been a 'questio vexata' among Indianologists." We must "consider it an indication of ancient connections with the southern continent, and in itself a pure Carib word. 'Apáliché' in the Tamanaca dialect of the Guaranay stem on the Orinoco signifies 'man,' and the earliest application of the name in the northern continent was as the title of the chief of a country, 'l'homme par excellence,' and hence, like very many other Indian tribes (Apaches, Lenni Lenape, Illinois), his subjects assumed by eminence the proud appellation of 'The Men.' … We have … found that though no general migration took place from the continent southward, nor from the islands northward, yet there was a considerable intercourse in both directions; that not only the natives of the greater and lesser Antilles and Yucatan, but also numbers of the Guaranay stem of the southern continent, the Caribs proper, crossed the Straits of Florida and founded colonies on the shores of the Gulf of Mexico; that their customs and language became to a certain extent grafted upon those of the early possessors of the soil; and to this foreign language the name Apalache belongs. As previously stated, it was used as a generic title, applied to a confederation of many nations at one time under the domination of one chief, whose power probably extended from the Alleghany mountains on the north to the shore of the Gulf; that it included tribes speaking a tongue closely akin to the Choktah is evident from the fragments we have remaining. … The location of the tribe in after years is very uncertain. Dumont placed them in the northern part of what is now Alabama and Georgia, near the mountains that bear their name. That a portion of them did live in this vicinity is corroborated by the historians of South Carolina, who say that Colonel Moore, in 1703, found them 'between the head-waters of the Savannah and Altamaha.' … According to all the Spanish authorities, on the other hand, they dwelt in the region of country between the Suwannee and Appalachicola rivers—yet must not be confounded with the Apalachicolos. … They certainly had a large and prosperous town in this vicinity, said to contain 1,000 warriors. … I am inclined to believe that these were different branches of the same confederacy. … In the beginning of the 18th century they suffered much from the devastations of the English, French and Creeks. … About the time Spain regained possession of the soil, they migrated to the West and settled on the Bayou Rapide of Red River. Here they had a village numbering about 50 souls."

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Athapascan Family.
   Chippewyans.
   Tinneh.
   Sarcees [Footnote: See Note, Appendix E.]

"This name [Athapascans or Athabascans] has been applied to a class of tribes who are situated north of the great Churchill river, and north of the source of the fork of the Saskatchawine, extending westward till within about 150 miles of the Pacific Ocean. … The name is derived, arbitrarily, from Lake Athabasca, which is now more generally called the Lake of the Hills. Surrounding this lake extends the tribe of the Chippewyans, a people so-called by the Kenistenos and Chippewas, because they were found to be clothed, in some primary encounter, in the scanty garb of the fisher's skin. … We are informed by Mackenzie that the territory occupied by the Chippewyans extends between the parallels of 60° and 65° North and longitudes from 100° to 110° West."

H. R. Schoolcraft, Information Respecting the Indian Tribes, part 5, page 172.

"The Tinneh may be divided into four great families of nations; namely, the Chippewyans, or Athabascas, living between Hudson Bay and the Rocky Mountains; the Tacullies, or Carriers, of New Caledonia or North-western British America; the Kutchins, occupying both banks of the Upper Yukon and its tributaries, from near its mouth to the Mackenzie River, and the Kenai, inhabiting the interior from the lower Yukon to Copper River."

"The Indian tribes of Alaska and the adjacent region may be divided into two groups. …

1. Tinneh—Chippewyans of authors. … Father Petitot discusses the terms Athabaskans, Chippewayans, Montagnais, and Tinneh as applied to this group of Indians. … This great family includes a large number of American tribes extending from near the mouth of the Mackenzie south to the borders of Mexico. The Apaches and Navajos belong to it, and the family seems to intersect the continent of North America in a northerly and southerly direction, principally along the flanks of the Rocky Mountains. … The designation [Tinneh] proposed by Messrs. Ross and Gibbs has been accepted by most modern ethnologists. …

W. H. Dall, Tribes of the Extreme Northwest (Contributions to North American Ethnology, volume 1).

"Wherever found, the members of this group present a certain family resemblance. In appearance they are tall and strong, the forehead low with prominent superciliary ridges, the eyes slightly oblique, the nose prominent but wide toward the base, the mouth large, the hands and feet small. Their strength and endurance are often phenomenal, but in the North, at least, their longevity is slight, few living beyond fifty. Intellectually they rank below most of their neighbors, and nowhere do they appear as fosterers of the germs of civilization. Where, as among the Navajos, we find them having some repute for the mechanical arts, it turns out that this is owing to having captured and adopted the members of more gifted tribes. … Agriculture was not practised either in the north or south, the only exception being the Navajos, and with them the inspiration came from other stocks. … The most cultured of their bands were the Navajos, whose name is said to signify 'large cornfields,' from their extensive agriculture. When the Spaniards first met them in 1541 they were tillers of the soil, erected large granaries for their crops, irrigated their fields by artificial water courses or acequias, and lived in substantial dwellings, partly underground; but they had not then learned the art of weaving the celebrated 'Navajo blankets,' that being a later acquisition of their artisans."

"Derivation: From a Choctaw word meaning 'man-eater.' Little is known of the tribe, the language of which forms the basis of the present family. The sole knowledge possessed by Gallatin was derived from a vocabulary and some scanty information furnished by Dr. John Sibley, who collected his material in the year 1805. Gallatin states that the tribe was reduced to 50 men. … Mr. Gatschet collected some 2,000 words and a considerable body of text. His vocabulary differs considerably from the one furnished by Dr. Sibley and published by Gallatin. … The above material seems to show that the Attacapa language is distinct from all others, except possibly the Chitimachan."

      See below: MAYAS;
      also MEXICO: A. D. 1325-1502;
      and AZTEC AND MAYA PICTURE WRITING.

The Beothuk were a tribe, now extinct, which is believed to have occupied the whole of Newfoundland at the time of its discovery. What is known of the language of the Beothuk indicates no relationship to any other American tongue.

"The tribe that wandered the furthest from the primitive home of the stock [the Algonquian] were the Blackfeet, or Sisika, which word has this signification. It is derived from their earlier habitat in the valley of the Red river of the north, where the soil was dark and blackened their moccasins. Their bands include the Blood or Kenai and the Piegan Indians. Half a century ago they were at the head of a confederacy which embraced these and also the Sarcee (Tinné) and the Atsina (Caddo) nations, and numbered about 30,000 souls. They have an interesting mythology and an unusual knowledge of the constellations."

"The warlike and unyielding character of these people, so different from that of the pusillanimous nations around them, and the wide scope of their enterprises and wanderings, like those of the nomad tribes of the Old World, entitle them to distinguished attention. … The traditional accounts of their origin, though of course extremely vague, are yet capable of being verified to a great degree by geographical facts, and open one of the rich veins of curious inquiry and speculation which abound in the New World. They are said to have migrated from the remote valleys embosomed in the Apalachian mountains. The earliest accounts we have of them represent them with weapons in their hands, continually engaged in wars, winning their way and shifting their abode, until, in the course of time, they found themselves at the extremity of Florida. Here, abandoning the northern continent, they passed over to the Lucayos [Bahamas], and thence gradually, in the process of years, from island to island of that vast verdant chain, which links, as it were, the end of Florida to the coast of Paria, on the southern continent. The archipelago extending from Porto Rico to Tobago was their stronghold, and the island of Guadaloupe in a manner their citadel. Hence they made their expeditions, and spread the terror of their name through all the surrounding countries. Swarms of them landed upon the southern continent, and overran some parts of terra firma. Traces of them have been discovered far in the interior of that vast country through which flows the Oroonoko. The Dutch found colonies of them on the banks of the Ikouteka, which empties into the Surinam; along the Esquibi, the Maroni, and other rivers of Guayana; and in the country watered by the windings of the Cayenne."

"To this account [substantially as given above] of the origin of the Insular Charaibes, the generality of historians have given their assent; but there are doubts attending it that are not easily solved. If they migrated from Florida, the imperfect state and natural course of their navigation induce a belief that traces of them would have been found on those islands which are near to the Florida shore; let the natives of the Bahamas, when discovered by Columbus, were evidently a similar people to those of Hispaniola. Besides, it is sufficiently known that there existed anciently many numerous and powerful tribes of Charaibes on the southern peninsula, extending from the river Oronoko to Essequebe, and throughout the whole province of Surinam, even to Brazil, some of which still maintain their independency. … I incline therefore to the opinion of Martyr, and conclude that the islanders were rather a colony from the Charaibes of South America, than from any nation of the North. Rochefort admits that their own traditions referred constantly to Guiana."

B. Edwards, History of British Colonies in the West Indies, book 1, chapter 2.

"The Carabisce, Carabeesi, Charaibes, Caribs, or Galibis, originally occupied [in Guiana] the principal rivers, but as the Dutch encroached upon their possessions they retired inland, and are now daily dwindling away. According to Mr. Hillhouse, they could formerly muster nearly 1,000 fighting men, but are now [1855] scarcely able to raise a tenth part of that number. … The smaller islands of the Caribbean Sea were formerly thickly populated by this tribe, but now not a trace of them remains."

"Recent researches have shown that the original home of the stock was south of the Amazon, and probably in the highlands at the head of the Tapajoz river. A tribe, the Bakairi, is still resident there, whose language is a pure and archaic form of the Carib tongue."

"Related to the Caribs stand a long list of small tribes … all inhabitants of the great primeval forest in and near Guiana. They may have characteristic differences, but none worthy of mention are known. In bodily appearance, according to all accounts, these relatives of the Caribs are beautiful. In Georgetown the Arauacas [or Arawaks] are celebrated for their beauty. They are slender and graceful, and their features handsome and regular, the face having a Grecian profile, and the skin being of a reddish cast. A little farther inland we find the Macushi [or Macusis], with a lighter complexion and a Roman nose. These two types are repeated in other tribes, except in the Tarumi, who are decidedly ugly. In mental characteristics great similarity prevails."

"The Arawaks occupied on the continent the area of the modern Guiana, between the Corentyn and the Pomeroon rivers, and at one time all the West Indian Islands. From some of them they were early driven by the Caribs, and within 40 years of the date of Columbus' first voyage the Spanish had exterminated nearly all on the islands. Their course of migration had been from the interior of Brazil northward; their distant relations are still to be found between the headwaters of the Paraguay and Schingu rivers."

"The Kapohn (Acawoios, Waikas, &c.) claim kindred with the Caribs. … The Acawoios, though resolute and determined, are less hasty and impetuous than the Caribs. … According to their tradition, one of their hordes removed [to the Upper Demerera] … from the Masaruni. The Parawianas, who originally dwelt on the Demerera, having been exterminated by the continual incursions of the Caribs, the Waika-Acawoios occupied their vacant territory. … The Macusis … are supposed by some to have formerly inhabited the banks of the Orinoco. … As they are industrious and unwarlike, they have been the prey of every savage tribe around them. The Wapisianas are supposed to have driven them northward and taken possession of their country. The Brazilians, as well as the Caribs, Acawoios, &c., have long been in the habit of enslaving them. … The Arecunas have been accustomed to descend from the higher lands and attack the Macusis. … This tribe is said to have formerly dwelt on the banks of the Uaupes or Ucayari, a tributary of the Rio Negro. … The Waraus appear to have been the most ancient inhabitants of the land. Very little, however, can be gleaned from them respecting their early history. … The Tivitivas, mentioned by Raleigh, were probably a branch of the Waraus, whom he calls Quarawetes."

"The Cherokee tribe has long been a puzzling factor to students of ethnology and North American languages. Whether to be considered an abnormal offshoot from one of the well-known Indian stocks or families of North America, or the remnant of some undetermined or almost extinct family which has merged into another, appear to be questions yet unsettled."

      C. Thomas,
      Burial Mounds of the Northern Sections of the United States
      (Fifth Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 1883-4).

Facts which tend to identify the Cherokees with the ancient "mound-builders" of the Ohio Valley—the Alleghans or Talligewi of Indian tradition—are set forth by Professor Thomas in a later paper, on the Problem of the Ohio Mounds, published by the Bureau of Ethnology in 1889 [see above: ALLEGHANS] and in a little book published in 1890, entitled "The Cherokees in Pre-Columbian Times." "The Cherokee nation has probably occupied a more prominent place in the affairs and history of what is now the United States of America, since the date of the early European settlements, than any other tribe, nation, or confederacy of Indians, unless it be possible to except the powerful and warlike league of the Iroquois or Six Nations of New York. It is almost certain that they were visited at a very early period [1540] following the discovery of the American continent by that daring and enthusiastic Spaniard, Fernando de Soto. … At the time of the English settlement of the Carolinas the Cherokees occupied a diversified and well-watered region of country of large extent upon the waters of the Catawba, Broad, Saluda, Keowee, Tugaloo, Savannah, and Coosa rivers on the east and south, and several tributaries of the Tennessee on the north and west. … In subsequent years, through frequent and long continued conflicts with the ever advancing white settlements, and the successive treaties whereby the Cherokees gradually yielded portions of their domain, the location and names of their towns were continually changing until the final removal of the nation [1836-1839] west of the Mississippi. … This removal turned the Cherokees back in the calendar of progress and civilization at least a quarter of a century. The hardships and exposures of the journey, coupled with the fevers and malaria of a radically different climate, cost the lives of perhaps 10 per cent. of their total population. The animosities and turbulence born of the treaty of 1835 not only occasioned the loss of many lives, but rendered property insecure, and in consequence diminished the zeal and industry of the entire community in its accumulation. A brief period of comparative quiet, however, was again characterized by an advance toward a higher civilization. Five years after their removal we find from the report of their agent that they are again on the increase in population. … With the exception of occasional drawbacks—the result of civil feuds—the progress of the nation in education, industry and civilization continued until the outbreak of the rebellion. At this period, from the best attainable information, the Cherokees numbered 21,000 souls. The events of the war brought to them more of desolation and ruin than perhaps to any other community. Raided and sacked alternately, not only by the Confederates and Union forces, but by the vindictive ferocity and hate of their own factional divisions, their country became a blackened and desolate waste. … The war over, and the work of reconstruction commenced, found them numbering 14,000 impoverished, heart-broken, and revengeful people. … To-day their country is more prosperous than ever. They number 22,000, a greater population than they have had at any previous period, except perhaps just prior to the date of the treaty of 1835, when those east added to those west of the Mississippi are stated to have aggregated nearly 25,000 people. To-day they have 2,300 scholars attending 75 schools, established and supported by themselves at an annual expense to the nation of nearly $100,000. To-day, 13,000 of their people can read and 18,000 can speak the English language. To-day, 5,000 brick, frame and log-houses are occupied by them, and they have 64 churches with a membership of several thousand. They cultivate 100,000 acres of land and have an additional 150,000 fenced. … They have a constitutional form of government predicated upon that of the United States. As a rule their laws are wise and beneficent and are enforced with strictness and justice. … The present Cherokee population is of a composite character. Remnants of other nations or tribes [Delawares, Shawnees, Creeks, Natchez] have from time to time been absorbed and admitted to full participation in the benefits of Cherokee citizenship."

C. C. Royce, The Cherokee Nation of Indians (Fifth Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 1883-84).

This elaborate paper by Mr. Royce is a narrative in detail of the official relations of the Cherokees with the colonial and federal governments, from their first treaty with South Carolina, in 1721, down to the treaty of April 27, 1868.—"As early as 1798 Barton compared the Cheroki language with that of the Iroquois and stated his belief that there was a connection between them. … Mr. Hale was the first to give formal expression to his belief in the affinity of the Cheroki to Iroquois. Recently extensive Cheroki vocabularies have come into possession of the Bureau of Ethnology, and a careful comparison of them with ample Iroquois material has been made by Mr Hewitt. The result is convincing proof of the relationship of the two languages."

ALSO IN S. G. Drake, The Aboriginal Races of North America, book 4, chapter 13-16.

      See, also, for an account of the Cherokee War of 1759-1761,
      SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1759-1761; and for "Lord Dunmore's
      War," OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1774.

The most northerly group of the tribes of the Andes "are the Cundinamarca of the table lands of Bogota. At the time of the conquest the watershed of the Magdalena was occupied by the Chibcha, or, as they were called by the Spaniards, Muyscas. At that time the Chibcha were the most powerful of all the autochthonous tribes, had a long history behind them, were well advanced toward civilization, to which numerous antiquities bear witness. The Chibcha of to-day no longer speak the well-developed and musical language of their forefathers. It became extinct about 1730, and it can now only be inferred from existing dialects of it; these are the languages of the Turiero, a tribe dwelling north of Bogota, and of the Itoco Indians who live in the neighborhood of the celebrated Emerald mines of Muzo."

"As potters and goldsmiths they [the Chibcha] ranked among the finest on the continent."

"The Chimakum are said to have been formerly one of the largest and most powerful tribes of Puget Sound. Their warlike habits early tended to diminish their numbers, and when visited by Gibbs in 1854 they counted only about 70 individuals. This small remnant occupied some 15 small lodges on Port Townsend Bay."

"According to Powers, this family was represented, so far as known, by two tribes in California, one the Chi-mál-a-kwe, living on New River, a branch of the Trinity, the other the Chimariko, residing upon the Trinity itself from Burnt Ranch up to the mouth of North Fork, California. The two tribes are said to have been as numerous formerly as the Hupa, by whom they were overcome and nearly exterminated. Upon the arrival of the Americans only 25 of the Chimalakwe were left."

"The banks of the Columbia, from the Grand Dalles to its mouth, belong to the two branches of the Tsinuk [or Chinook] nation, which meet in the neighborhood of the Kowlitz River, and of which an almost nominal remnant is left. … The position of the Tsinuk previous to their depopulation was, as at once appears, most important, occupying both sides of the great artery of Oregon for a distance of 200 miles, they possessed the principal thoroughfare between the interior and the ocean, boundless resources of provisions of various kinds, and facilities for trade almost unequalled on the Pacific."

      G. Gibbs,
      Tribes of West Washington and N. W. Oregon
      (Contributions to North American Ethnology, volume 1),
      page 164.

"According to the census of 1880 there were 31,000 Indians in Mexico belonging to the Familia Chontal. No such family exists. The word 'chontalli' in the Nahuatl language means simply 'stranger,' and was applied by the Nahuas to any people other than their own. According to the Mexican statistics, the Chontals are found in the states of Mexico, Puebla, Oaxaca, Guerrero, Tabasco, Guatemala and Nicaragua. A similar term is 'popoloca,' which in Nahuatl means a coarse fellow, one speaking badly, that is, broken Nahuatl. The Popolocas have also been erected into an ethnic entity by some ethnographers, with as little justice as the Chontallis. They are stated to have lived in the provinces of Puebla, Oaxaca, Vera Cruz, Mechoacan and Guatemala."

"Derivation: From Chumash, the name of the Santa Rosa Islanders. The several dialects of this family have long been known under the group or family name, 'Santa Barbara,' which seems first to have been used in a comprehensive sense by Latham in 1856, who included under it three languages, viz.: Santa Barbara, Santa Inez, and San Luis Obispo. The term has no special pertinence as a family designation, except from the fact that the Santa Barbara Mission, around which one of the dialects of the family was spoken, is perhaps more widely known than any of the others."

"Derivation: From the name of the Mexican State Coahuila. This family appears to have included numerous tribes in southwestern Texas and in Mexico. … A few Indians still survive who speak one of the dialects of this family, and in 1886 Mr. Gatschet collected vocabularies of two tribes, the Comecrudo and Cotoname, who live on the Rio Grande, at Las Prietas, State of Tamaulipas."

"An exceptional position is taken, in many respects, by the Coajiro, or Guajira, who live on the peninsula of the same name on the northwestern boundary of Venezuela. Bounded on all sides by so-called civilized peoples, this Indian tribe is known to have maintained its independence, and acquired the well-deserved reputation for cruelty, a tribe which, in many respects, can be classed with the Apaches and Comanches of New Mexico, the Araucanians of Chili, and the Guaycara and Guarani on the Parana. The Coajiro are mostly large, with chestnut-brown complexion and black, sleek hair. While all the other coast tribes have adopted the Spanish language, the Coajiro have preserved their own speech. They are the especial foes of the other peoples. No one is given entrance into their land, and they live with their neighbors, the Venezuelans, in constant hostilities. They have fine horses, which they know how to ride excellently. … They have numerous herds of cattle. … They follow agriculture a little."

      See below: SHOSHONEAN FAMILY,
      and KIOWAN FAMILY;
      and above: APACHE GROUP.

"The territory of the Copehan family is bounded on the north by Mount Shasta and the territory of the Sastean and Lutuamian families, on the east by the territory of the Palaihnihan, Yanan, and Punjunan families, and on the south by the bays of San Pablo and Suisun and the lower waters of the Sacramento."

"Derivation: From the Spanish costano, 'coast-men.' Under this group name Latham included five tribes … which were under the supervision of the Mission Dolores. … The territory of the Costanoan family extends from the Golden Gate to a point near the southern end of Monterey Bay. … The surviving Indians of the once populous tribes of this family are now scattered over several counties and probably do not number, all told, over 30 individuals, as was ascertained by Mr. Henshaw in 1888. Most of these are to be found near the towns of Santa Cruz and Monterey."

      See below: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY;
      also UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1813-1814 (AUGUST-APRIL);
      and FLORIDA: A. D. 1816-1818.

   "The proper name of the Delaware Indians was and is Lenapé (a
   as in father, é as a in mate). … The Lenape were divided
   into three sub-tribes:
      1. The Minsi, Monseys, Montheys, Munsees, or Minisinks.
      2. The Unami or Wonameys.
      3. The Unalachtigo.
   No explanation of these designations will be
   found in Heckewelder or the older writers. From
   investigations among living Delawares, carried out at my
   request by Mr. Horatio Hale, it is evident that they are
   wholly geographical, and refer to the location of these
   sub-tribes on the Delaware river. … The Minsi lived in the
   mountainous region at the head waters of the Delaware, above
   the Forks or junction of the Lehigh river. … The Unamis'
   territory on the right bank of the Delaware river extended
   from the Lehigh Valley southward. It was with them and their
   southern neighbors, the Unalachtigos, that Penn dealt for the
   land ceded to him in the Indian deed of 1682. The Minsis did
   not take part in the transaction, and it was not until 1737
   that the Colonial authorities treated directly with the latter
   for the cession of their territory. The Unalachtigo or Turkey
   totem had its principal seat on the affluents of the Delawares
   near where Wilmington now stands."

   "At the … time when
   William Penn landed in Pennsylvania, the Delawares had been
   subjugated and made women by the Five Nations. It is well
   known that, according to that Indian mode of expression, the
   Delawares were henceforth prohibited from making war, and
   placed under the sovereignty of the conquerors, who did not
   even allow sales of land, in the actual possession of the
   Delawares, to be valid without their approbation. William
   Penn, his descendants, and the State of Pennsylvania,
   accordingly, always purchased the right of possession from the
   Delawares, and that of Sovereignty from the Five Nations. …
   The use of arms, though from very different causes, was
   equally prohibited to the Delawares and to the Quakers. Thus
   the colonization of Pennsylvania and of West New Jersey by the
   British, commenced under the most favorable auspices. Peace
   and the utmost harmony prevailed for more than sixty years
   between the whites and the Indians; for these were for the
   first time treated, not only justly, but kindly, by the
   colonists. But, however gradually and peaceably their lands
   might have been purchased, the Delawares found themselves at
   last in the same situation as all the other Indians, without
   lands of their own, and therefore without means of
   subsistence. They were compelled to seek refuge on the waters
   of the Susquehanna, as tenants at will, on lands belonging to
   their hated conquerors, the Five Nations. Even there and on
   the Juniata they were encroached upon. … Under those
   circumstances, many of the Delawares determined to remove west
   of the Alleghany Mountains, and, about the year 1740-50,
   obtained from their ancient allies and uncles, the Wyandots,
   the grant of a derelict tract of land lying principally on the
   Muskingum. The great body of the nation was still attached to
   Pennsylvania. But the grounds of complaint increased. The
   Delawares were encouraged by the western tribes, and by the
   French, to shake off the yoke of the Six Nations, and to join
   in the war against their allies, the British. The frontier
   settlements of Pennsylvania were accordingly attacked both by
   the Delawares and the Shawnoes. And, although peace was made
   with them at Easton in in 1758, and the conquest of Canada put
   an end to the general war, both the Shawnoes and Delawares
   removed altogether in 1768 beyond the Alleghany Mountains. …
   The years 1765-1795 are the true period of the power and
   importance of the Delawares. United with the Shawnoes, who
   were settled on the Scioto, they sustained during the Seven
   Years' War the declining power of France, and arrested for
   some years the progress of the British and American arms.
   Although a portion of the nation adhered to the Americans
   during the War of Independence, the main body, together with
   all the western nations made common cause with the British.
   And, after the short truce which followed the treaty of 1783,
   they were again at the head of the western confederacy in
   their last struggle for independence. Placed by their
   geographical situation in the front of battle, they were,
   during those three wars, the aggressors, and, to the last
   moment, the most active and formidable enemies of America. The
   decisive victory of General Wayne (1794), dissolved the
   confederacy; and the Delawares were the greatest sufferers by
   the treaty of Greenville of 1795."
{86}
   After this, the greater part of the Delawares were settled on
   White River, Indiana, "till the year 1819, when they finally
   ceded their claim to the United States. Those residing there
   were then reduced to about 800 souls. A number … had
   previously removed to Canada; and it is difficult to ascertain
   the situation or numbers of the residue at this time [1836].
   Those who have lately removed west of the Mississippi are, in
   an estimate of the War Department, computed at 400 souls.
   Former emigrations to that quarter had however taken place,
   and several small dispersed bands are, it is believed, united
   with the Senecas and some other tribes."

A. Gallatin, Synopsis of the Indian Tribes (Archæologia Americana, volume 2), introduction, section 2.

See, above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY: below: SHAWANESE, and PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY. Also, PONTIAC'S WAR; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765-1768; and MORAVIAN BRETHREN; and, for an account of "Lord Dunmore's War," see Ohio (VALLEY): A. D. 1774.

"Save a slight inter-mixture of European settlers, the Eskimo are the only inhabitants of the shores of Arctic America, and of both sides of Davis Strait and Baffin Bay, including Greenland, as well as a tract of about 400 miles on the Behring Strait coast of Asia. Southward they extend as far as about 50° North latitude on the eastern side, 60° on the western side of America, and from 55° to 60° on the shores of Hudson Bay. Only on the west the Eskimo near their frontier are interrupted on two small spots of the coast by the Indians, named Kennayans and Ugalenzes, who have there advanced to the sea-shore for the sake of fishing. These coasts of Arctic America, of course, also comprise all the surrounding islands. Of these, the Aleutian Islands form an exceptional group; the inhabitants of these on the one hand distinctly differing from the coast people here mentioned, while on the other they show a closer relationship to the Eskimo than any other nation. The Aleutians, therefore, may be considered as only an abnormal branch of the Eskimo nation. … As regards their northern limits, the Eskimo people, or at least remains of their habitations, have been found nearly as far north as any Arctic explorers have hitherto advanced: and very possibly bands of them may live still farther to the north, as yet quite unknown to us. … On comparing the Eskimo with the neighbouring nations, their physical complexion certainly seems to point at an Asiatic origin; but, as far as we know, the latest investigations have also shown a transitional link to exist between the Eskimo and the other American nations, which would sufficiently indicate the possibility of a common origin from the same continent. As to their mode of life, the Eskimo decidedly resemble their American neighbours. … With regard to their language, the Eskimo also appear akin to the American nations in regard to its decidedly polysynthetic structure. Here, however, on the other hand, we meet with some very remarkable similarities between the Eskimo idiom and the language of Siberia, belonging to the Altaic or Finnish group. … According to the Sagas of the Icelanders, they were already met with on the east coast of Greenland about the year 1000, and almost at the same time on the east coast of the American continent. … Between the years 1000 and 1300 they do not seem to have occupied the land south of 65° North L. on the west coast of Greenland, where the Scandinavian colonies were then situated. But the colonists seem to have been aware of their existence in higher latitudes, and to have lived in fear of an attack by them, since, in the year 1266, an expedition was sent out for the purpose of exploring the abodes of the Skrælings, as they were called by the colonists. … About the year 1450, the last accounts were received from the colonies, and the way to Greenland was entirely forgotten in the mother country. … The features of the natives in the Southern part of Greenland indicate a mixed descent from the Scandinavians and Eskimo, the former, however, not having left the slightest sign of any influence on the nationality or culture of the present natives. In the year 1585, Greenland was discovered anew by John Davis, and found inhabited exclusively by Eskimo."

"In 1869, I proposed for the Aleuts and people of Innuit stock collectively the term Orarians, as indicative of their coastwise distribution, and as supplying the need of a general term to designate a very well-defined race. …The Orarians are divided into two well-marked groups, namely the Innuits, comprising all the so-called Eskimo and Tuskis, and the Aleuts."

      W. H. Dall,
      Tribes of the Extreme Northwest
      (Contributed to North American Ethnology, volume 1),
      part 1.

"The present family was included by Latham in the heterogeneous group called by him Salinas. … The term Salinan [is now] restricted to the San Antonio and San Miguel languages, leaving the present family … [to be] called Esselenian, from the name of the single tribe Esselen, of which it is composed. … The tribe or tribes composing this family occupied a narrow strip of the California coast from Monterey Bay south to the vicinity of the Santa Lucia Mountain, a distance of about 50 miles."

"The name Flathead was commonly given to the Choctaws, though, says Du Pratz, he saw no reason why they should be so distinguished, when the practice of flattening the head was so general. And in the enumeration just cited [Documentary Hist. of New York, volume 1, page 24] the next paragraph. … is: 'The Flatheads, Cherakis, Chicachas, and Totiris are included under the name of Flatheads by the Iroquois."

"The Salish … are distinctively known as Flatheads, though the custom of deforming the cranium is not confined to them."

"In … early times the hunters and trappers could not discover why the Blackfeet and Flatheads [of Montana] received their respective designations, for the feet of the former are no more inclined to sable than any other part of the body, while the heads of the latter possess their fair proportion of rotundity. Indeed it is only below the falls and rapids that real Flatheads appear, and at the mouth of the Columbia that they flourish most supernaturally. The tribes who practice the custom of flattening the head, and who lived at the mouth of the Columbia, differed little from each other in laws, manners or customs, and were composed of the Cathlamahs, Killmucks, Clatsops, Chinooks and Chilts. The abominable custom of flattening their heads prevails among them all."

      P. Ronan,
      Historical Sketch of the Flathead Indian Nation,
      page 17.

In Major Powell's linguistic classification, the "Salishan
Family" (Flathead) is given a distinct place.

      See Note, Appendix E.
      See below: HIDATSA;
      also, above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

An extensive linguistic group of tribes in Brazil, on and north of the Amazon, extending as far as the Orinoco, has been called the Guck, or Coco group. "There is no common name for the group, that here used meaning a father's brother, a very important personage in these tribes. The Guck group embraces a large number of tribes. … We need enumerate but few. The Cuyriri or Kiriri (also known as Sabaja, Pimenteiras, etc.), number about 3,000. Some of them are half civilized, some are wild, and, without restraint, wander about, especially in the mountains in the Province of Pernambuco. The Araicu live on the lower Amazon and the Tocantins. Next come the Manaos, who have a prospect of maintaining themselves longer than most tribes. With them is connected the legend of the golden lord who washed the gold dust from his limbs in a lake [see EL DORADO]. … The Uirina, Baré, and Cariay live on the Rio Negro, the Cunimaré on the Jurua, the Maranha on the Jutay. Whether the Chamicoco on the right bank of the Paraguay, belong to the Guck is uncertain. Among the tribes which, though very much mixed, are still to be enumerated with the Guck, are the Tecuna and the Passé. In language the Tecunas show many similarities to the Ges; they live on the western borders of Brazil, and extend in Equador to the Pastaça. Among them occur peculiar masques which strongly recall those found on the northwest coast of North America. … In the same district belong the Uaupe, who are noticeable from the fact that they live in barracks, indeed the only tribe in South America in which this custom appears. The communistic houses of the Uaupe are called 'malloca;' they are buildings of about 120 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 30 high, in which live a band of about 100 persons in 12 families, each of the latter, however, in its own room. … Finally, complex tribes of the most different nationality are comprehended under names which indicate only a common way of life, but are also incorrectly used as ethnographic names. These are Caripuna, Mura, and Miranha, all of whom live in the neighborhood of the Madeira River. Of the Caripuna or Jaûn-Avô (both terms signify 'watermen'), who are mixed with Quichua blood, it is related that they not only ate human flesh, but even cured it for preservation. … Formerly the Mura … were greatly feared; this once powerful and populous tribe, however, was almost entirely destroyed at the end of the last century by the Mundruco; the remnant is scattered. … The Mura are the gypsies among the Indians on the Amazon; and by all the other tribes they are regarded with a certain degree of contempt as pariahs. … Much to be feared, even among the Indians, are also the Miranha (i. e., rovers, vagabonds), a still populous tribe on the right bank of the Japura, who seem to know nothing but war, robbery, murder, and man-hunting."

The Standard Natural History (J. S. Kingsley, editor), volume 6, pages 245-248.

"The Hidatsa, Minnetaree, or Grosventre Indians, are one of the three tribes which at present inhabit the permanent village at Fort Berthold, Dakota Territory, and hunt on the waters of the Upper Missouri and Yellowstone Rivers, in Northwestern Dakota and Eastern Montana. The history of this tribe is … intimately connected with that of the politically allied tribes of the Aricarees and Mandans." The name, Grosventres, was given to the people of this tribe "by the early French and Canadian adventurers. The same name was applied also to a tribe, totally distinct from these in language and origin, which lives some hundreds of miles west of Fort Berthold; and the two nations are now distinguished from one another as Grosventres of the Missouri and Grosventres of the Prairie. … Edward Umfreville, who traded on the Saskatchewan River from 1784 to 1787, … remarks: … 'They [the Canadian French] call them Grosventres, or Big-Bellies; and without any reason, as they are as comely and as well made as any tribe whatever.' … In the works of many travellers they are called Minnetarees, a name which is spelled in various ways. … This, although a Hidatsa word, is the name applied to them, not by themselves, but by the Mandans; it signifies 'to cross the water,' or 'they crossed the water.' … Hidatsa was the name of the village on Knife River farthest from the Missouri, the village of those whom Lewis and Clarke considered the Minnetarees proper." It is the name "now generally used by this people to designate themselves."

W. Matthews, Ethnography and Philology of the Hidatsa Indians, parts 1-2 (United States Geological and Geographical Survey. F. V. Hayden, Mis. Pub., No. 7).

North of the Mohegans, who occupied the east bank of the Hudson River opposite Albany, and covering the present counties of Columbia and Rensselaer, dwelt the Algonkin tribe of Horikans, "whose hunting grounds appear to have extended from the waters of the Connecticut, across the Green Mountains, to the borders of that beautiful lake [named Lake George by the too loyal Sir William Johnson] which might now well bear their sonorous name."

"The peninsula between the Lakes Huron, Erie, and Ontario was occupied by two distinct peoples, speaking dialects of the Iroquois tongue. The Hurons or Wyandots, including the tribe called by the French the Dionondadies, or Tobacco Nation, dwelt among the forests which bordered the eastern shores of the fresh water sea to which they have left their name; while the Neutral Nation, so called from their neutrality in the war between the Hurons and the Five Nations, inhabited the northern shores of Lake Erie, and even extended their eastern flank across the strait of Niagara. The population of the Hurons has been variously stated at from 10,000 to 30,000 souls, but probably did not exceed the former estimate. The Franciscans and the Jesuits were early among them, and from their descriptions it is apparent that, in legends, and superstitions, manners and habits, religious observances and social customs, they were closely assimilated to their brethren of the Five Nations. … Like the Five Nations, the Wyandots were in some measure an agricultural people; they bartered the surplus products of their maize fields to surrounding tribes, usually receiving fish in exchange; and this traffic was so considerable that the Jesuits styled their country the Granary of the Algonquins. Their prosperity was rudely broken by the hostilities of the Five Nations; for though the conflicting parties were not ill matched in point of numbers, yet the united counsels and ferocious energies of the confederacy swept all before them. In the year 1649, in the depth of winter, their warriors invaded the country of the Wyandots, stormed their largest villages, and involved all within in indiscriminate slaughter. The survivors fled in panic terror, and the whole nation was broken and dispersed. Some found refuge among the French of Canada, where, at the village of Lorette, near Quebec, their descendants still remain; others were incorporated with their conquerors, while others again fled northward, beyond Lake Superior, and sought an asylum among the wastes which bordered on the north-eastern lands of the Dahcotah. Driven back by those fierce bison-hunters, they next established themselves about the outlet of Lake Superior, and the shores and islands in the northern parts of Lake Huron. Thence, about the year 1680, they descended to Detroit, where they formed a permanent settlement, and where, by their superior valor, capacity and address, they soon acquired an ascendancy over the surrounding Algonquins. The ruin of the Neutral Nation followed close on that of the Wyandots, to whom, according to Jesuit authority, they bore an exact resemblance in character and manners. The Senecas soon found means to pick a quarrel with them; they were assailed by all the strength of the insatiable confederacy, and within a few years their destruction as a nation was complete."

"The first in this locality [namely, the western extremity of the State of New York, on and around the site of the city of Buffalo], of whom history makes mention, were the Attiouandaronk, or Neutral Nation, called Kah-kwas by the Senecas. They had their council-fires along the Niagara, but principally on its western side. Their hunting grounds extended from the Genesee nearly to the eastern shores of Lake Huron, embracing a wide and important territory. … They are first mentioned by Champlain during his winter visit to the Hurons in 1615 … but he was unable to visit their territory. … The peace which this peculiar people had so long maintained with the Iroquois was destined to be broken. Some jealousies and collisions occurred in 1647, which culminated in open war in 1650. One of the villages of the Neutral Nation, nearest the Senecas and not far from the site of our city [Buffalo], was captured in the autumn of the latter year, and another the ensuing spring. So well-directed and energetic were the blows of the Iroquois, that the total destruction of the Neutral Nation was speedily accomplished. … The survivors were adopted by their conquerors. …. A long period intervened between the destruction of the Neutral Nation and the permanent occupation of their country by the Senecas,"—which latter event occurred after the expulsion of the Senecas from the Genesee Valley, by the expedition under General Sullivan, in 1779, during the Revolutionary War. "They never, as a nation, resumed their ancient seats along the Genesee, but sought and found a new home on the secluded banks and among the basswood forests of the Dó-syo-wa, or Buffalo Creek, whence they had driven the Neutral Nation 130 years before. … It has been assumed by many writers that the Kah-kwas and Eries were identical. This is not so. The latter, according to the most reliable authorities, lived south of the western extremity of Lake Erie until they were destroyed by the Iroquois in 1655. The Kah-kwas were exterminated by them as early as 1651. On Coronelli's map, published in 1688, one of the villages of the latter, called 'Kahouagoga, a destroyed nation,' is located at or near the site of Buffalo."

"Westward of the Neutrals, along the Southeastern shores of Lake Erie, and stretching as far east as the Genesee river, lay the country of the Eries, or, as they were denominated by the Jesuits, 'La Nation Chat,' or Cat Nation, who were also a member of the Huron-Iroquois family. The name of the beautiful lake on whose margin our city [Buffalo] was cradled is their most enduring monument, as Lake Huron is that of the generic stock. They were called the Cat Nation either because that interesting but mischievous animal, the raccoon, which the holy fathers erroneously classed in the feline gens, was the totem of their leading clan, or sept, or in consequence of the abundance of that mammal within their territory."

      W. C. Bryant,
      Interesting Archaeological Studies in and about Buffalo,
      page 12.

      H. R. Schoolcraft,
      Sketch of the History of the Ancient Eries
      (Information Respecting the Indian Tribes,
      part 4. page 197).

      ALSO IN
      J. G. Shea,
      Inquiries Respecting the lost Neutral Nation
      (same, part 4, page 204).-

      D. Wilson,
      The Huron-Iroquois of Canada
      (Transactions Royal Society of Canada, 1884).

   "Passing the country of the Lenape and the Shawanoes, and
   descending the Ohio, the traveller would have found its valley
   chiefly occupied by two nations, the Miamis or Twightwees, on
   the Wabash and its branches, and the Illinois, who dwelt in
   the neighborhood of the river to which they have given their
   name, while portions of them extended beyond the Mississippi.
   Though never subjugated, as were the Lenape, both the Miamis
   and the Illinois were reduced to the last extremity by the
   repeated attacks of the Five Nations; and the Illinois, in
   particular, suffered so much by these and other wars, that the
   population of ten or twelve thousand, ascribed to them by the
   early French writers, had dwindled, during the first quarter
   of the eighteenth century,
   to a few small villages."

      See, also, above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY;
      and below: SACS, &c.;
      also CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1669-1687.

"At the outset of the 16th Century, when the five tribes or nations of the Iroquois confederacy first became known to European explorers, they were found occupying the valleys and uplands of northern New York, in that picturesque and fruitful region which stretches westward from the head-waters of the Hudson to the Genesee. The Mohawks, or Caniengas—as they should properly be called—possessed the Mohawk River, and covered Lake George and Lake Champlain with their flotillas of large canoes, managed with the boldness and skill which, hereditary in their descendants, make them still the best boatmen of the North American rivers. West of the Caniengas the Oneidas held the small river and lake which bear their name. … West of the Oneidas, the imperious Onondagas, the central and, in some respects, the ruling nation of the League, possessed the two lakes of Onondaga and Skaneateles. together with the common outlet of this inland lake system, the Oswego River to its issue into Lake Ontario. Still proceeding westward, the lines of trail and river led to the long and winding stretch of Lake Cayuga, about which were clustered the towns of the people who gave their name to the lake; and beyond them, over the wide expanse of hills and dales surrounding Lakes Seneca and Canandaigua, were scattered the populous villages of the Senecas, more correctly called Sonontowanas, or Mountaineers. Such were the names and abodes of the allied nations, members of the far-famed Kanonsionni, or League of United Households, who were destined to become for a time the most notable and powerful community among the native tribes of North America. The region which has been described was not, however, the original seat of those nations. They belonged to that linguistic family which is known to ethnologists as the Huron-Iroquois stock. This stock comprised the Hurons or Wyandots, the Attiwandaronks or Neutral Nation, the Iroquois, the Eries, the Andastes or Conestogas, the Tuscaroras and some smaller bands. The tribes of this family occupied a long irregular area of inland territory, stretching from Canada to North Carolina. The northern nations were all clustered about the great lakes; the southern bands held the fertile valleys bordering the head-waters of the rivers which flowed from the Allegheny mountains. The languages of all these tribes showed a close affinity. … The evidence of language, so far as it has yet been examined, seems to show that the Huron clans were the older members of the group; and the clear and positive traditions of all the surviving tribes, Hurons, Iroquois, and Tuscarora, point to the lower St. Lawrence as the earliest known abode of their stock. Here the first explorer, Cartier, found Indians of this stock at Hochelaga and Stadaconé, now the sites of Montreal and Quebec. … As their numbers increased, dissensions arose. The hive swarmed, and band after band moved off to the west and south. As they spread they encountered people of other stocks, with whom they had frequent wars. Their most constant and most dreaded enemies were the tribes of the Algonkin family, a fierce and restless people, of northern origin, who everywhere surrounded them. At one period, however, if the concurrent traditions of both Iroquois and Algonkins can be believed, these contending races for a time stayed their strife, and united their forces in an alliance against a common and formidable foe. This foe was the nation, or perhaps the confederacy, of the Alligewi or Talligewi, the semi-civilized 'Mound-builders' of the Ohio Valley, who have left their name to the Allegheny river and mountains, and whose vast earthworks are still, after half-a-century of study, the perplexity of archæologists. A desperate warfare ensued, which lasted about a hundred years, and ended in the complete overthrow and destruction, or expulsion, of the Alligewi. The survivors of the conquered people fled southward. … The time which has elapsed since the overthrow of the Alligewi is variously estimated. The most probable conjecture places it at a period about a thousand years before the present day. It was apparently soon after their expulsion that the tribes of the Huron-Iroquois and the Algonkin stocks scattered themselves over the wide region south of the Great Lakes, thus left open to their occupancy."

After the coming of the Europeans into the New World, the French were the first to be involved in hostilities with the Iroquois, and their early wars with them produced a hatred which could never be extinguished. Hence the English were able to win the alliance of the Five Nations, when they struggled with France for the mastery of the North American continent, and they owed their victory to that alliance, probably, more than to any other single cause. England still retained the faithful friendship and alliance of the Iroquois when she came to a struggle with her own colonies, and all the tribes except the Oneidas were in arms against the Americans in the Revolutionary War. "With the restoration of peace, the political transaction of the League were substantially closed. This was, in effect, the termination of their political existence. The jurisdiction of the United States was extended over their ancient territories, and from that time forth they became dependent nations. During the progress of the Revolution, the Mohawks abandoned their country and removed to Canada, finally establishing themselves partly upon Grand River, in the Niagara peninsula, and partly near Kingston, where they now reside upon two reservations secured to them by the British government. … The policy of the State of New York [toward the Iroquois nations] was ever just and humane. Although their country, with the exception of that of the Oneidas, might have been considered as forfeited by the event of the Revolution, yet the government never enforced the rights of conquest, but extinguished the Indian title to the country by purchase, and treaty stipulations. A portion of the Oneida nation [who had sold their lands to the State, from time to time, excepting one small reservation] emigrated to a reservation on the river Thames in Canada, where about 400 of them now [1851] reside. Another and a larger band removed to Green Bay, in Wisconsin, where they still make their homes to the number of 700. But a small part of the nation have remained around the seat of their ancient council-fire … near Oneida Castle, in the county of Oneida." The Onondagas "still retain their beautiful and secluded valley of Onondaga, with sufficient territory for their comfortable maintenance. About 150 Onondagas now reside with the Senecas; another party are established on Grand River, in Canada, and a few have removed to the west. … In the brief space of twelve years after the first house of the white man was erected in Cayuga county (1789) the whole nation [of the Cayugas] was uprooted and gone. In 1795, they ceded, by treaty, all their lands to the State, with the exception of one reservation, which they finally abandoned about the year 1800. A portion of them removed to Green Bay, another to Grand River, and still another, and a much larger band, settled at Sandusky, in Ohio, from whence they were removed by government, a few years since, into the Indian territory, west of the Mississippi. About 120 still reside among the Senecas, in western New York. … The Tuscaroras, after removing from the Oneida territory, finally located near the Niagara river, in the vicinity of Lewiston, on a tract given to them by the Senecas. … The residue of the Senecas are now shut up within three small reservations, the Tonawanda, the Cattaraugus and the Allegany, which, united, would not cover the area of one of the lesser counties of the State."

"The Indians of the State of New York number about 5,000, and occupy lands to the estimated extent of 87,()77 acres. With few exceptions, these people are the direct descendants of the native Indians, who once possessed and controlled the soil of the entire State."

Report of Special Committee to Investigate the Indian
Problem of the State of New York 1889.

   In 1715 the Five Nations of the Iroquois Confederacy became
   Six Nations, by the admission of the Tuscaroras, from North
   Carolina.

"The origin and proper meaning of the word Iroquois are doubtful. All that can be said with certainty is that the explanation given by Charlevoix cannot possibly be correct. The name of Iroquois, he says, is purely French, and has been formed from the term 'hiro,' 'I have spoken,' a word by which these Indians close all their speeches, and 'kouê,' which, when long drawn out, is a cry of sorrow, and when briefly uttered is an exclamation of joy. … But … Champlain had learned the name from his Indian allies before he or any other Frenchman, so far as is known, had ever seen an Iroquois. It is probable that the origin of the word is to be sought in the Huron language; yet, as this is similar to the Iroquois tongue, an attempt may be made to find a solution in the latter. According to Bruyas, the word 'garokwa' meant a pipe, and also a piece of tobacco,—and, in its verbal form, to smoke. This word is found, somewhat disguised by aspirates, in the Book of Rites,—denighroghkwayen,—'let us two smoke together.' … In the indeterminate form the verb becomes 'ierokwa,' which is certainly very near to Iroquois. It might be rendered 'they who smoke,' or 'they who use tobacco,' or, briefly, 'the Tobacco People.' This name, the Tobacco Nation ('Nation du Petun') was given by the French, and probably also by the Algonkins, to one of the Huron tribes, the Tionontates, noted for the excellent tobacco which they raised and sold. The Iroquois were equally well known for their cultivation of this plant, of which they had a choice variety."

   "The project of a League [among the 'Five Nations' of the
   Iroquois] originated with the Onondagas, among whom it was
   first suggested, as a means to enable them more effectually to
   resist the pressure of contiguous nations. The epoch of its
   establishment cannot now be decisively ascertained; although
   the circumstances attending its formation are still preserved
   by tradition with great minuteness. These traditions all refer
   to the northern shore of the Onondaga lake, as the place where
   the Iroquois chiefs assembled in general congress, to agree
   upon the terms and principles of the compact. … After the
   formation of the League, the Iroquois rose rapidly in power
   and influence. … With the first consciousness of rising
   power, they turned their long-cherished resentment upon the
   Adirondacks, who had oppressed them in their infancy as a
   nation, and had expelled them from their country, in the first
   struggle for the ascendancy.
{91}
   … At the era of French discovery (1535), the latter nation
   [the Adirondacks] appear to have been dispossessed of their
   original country, and driven down the St. Lawrence as far as
   Quebec. … A new era commenced with the Iroquois upon the
   establishment of the Dutch trading-post at Orange, now Albany,
   in 1615. … Friendly relations were established between the
   Iroquois and the Dutch, which continued without interruption
   until the latter surrendered their possessions upon the Hudson
   to the English in 1664. During this period a trade sprang up
   between them in furs, which the Iroquois exchanged for
   European fabrics, but more especially for fire-arms, in the
   use of which they were afterwards destined to become so
   expert. The English, in turn, cultivated the same relations of
   friendship. … With the possession of fire-arms commenced not
   only the rapid elevation, but absolute supremacy of the
   Iroquois over other Indian nations. In 1643, they expelled the
   Neuter Nation from the Niagara peninsula and established a
   permanent settlement at the mouth of that river. They nearly
   exterminated, in 1653, the Eries, who occupied the south side
   of Lake Erie, and from thence east to the Genesee, and thus
   possessed themselves of the whole area of western New York,
   and the northern part of Ohio. About the year 1670, after they
   had finally completed the dispersion and subjugation of the
   Adirondacks and Hurons, they acquired possession of the whole
   country between lakes Huron, Erie and Ontario, and of the
   north bank of the St. Lawrence, to the mouth of the Ottawa
   river, near Montreal. … They also made constant inroads upon
   the New England Indians. … In 1680, the Senecas with 600
   warriors invaded the country of the Illinois, upon the borders
   of the Mississippi, while La Salle was among the latter. …
   At various times, both before and after this period, the
   Iroquois turned their warfare against the Cherokees upon the
   Tennessee, and the Catawbas in South Carolina. … For about a
   century, from the year 1600 to the year 1700, the Iroquois
   were involved in an almost uninterrupted warfare. At the close
   of this period, they had subdued and held in nominal
   subjection all the principal Indian nations occupying the
   territories which are now embraced in the states of New York,
   Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, the northern and
   western parts of Virginia, Ohio, Kentucky, Northern Tennessee,
   Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, a portion of the New England
   States, and the principal part of Upper Canada. Over these
   nations, the haughty and imperious Iroquois exercised a
   constant supervision. If any of them became involved in
   domestic difficulties, a delegation of chiefs went among them
   and restored tranquillity, prescribing at the same time their
   future conduct."

"Their [the Iroquois's] war-parties roamed over half America, and their name was a terror from the Atlantic to the Mississippi; but when we ask the numerical strength of the dreaded confederacy, when we discover that, in the days of their greatest triumphs, their united cantons could not have mustered 4,000 warriors, we stand amazed at the folly and dissension which left so vast a region the prey of a handful of bold marauders. Of the cities and villages now so thickly scattered over the lost domain of the Iroquois, a single one might boast a more numerous population than all the five united tribes."

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Iroquois Confederacy: A. D. 1608-1700.
Their wars with the French.

See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1608-1611; 1611-1616;
1634-1652; 1640-1700; 1696.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Iroquois Confederacy: A. D. 1648-1649.
Their destruction of the Hurons and the Jesuit Missions.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Iroquois Confederacy: A. D. 1684-1744.
Surrenders and conveyances to the English.

      See
      NEW YORK: A. D. 1684, and 1726;
      VIRGINIA: A. D. 1744;
      OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754;
      UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765-1768.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Iroquois Confederacy: A. D. 1778-1779.
Their part in the War of the American Revolution.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778 (JUNE-NOVEMBER)
and (JULY); and 1779 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

   "The southern Iroquois tribes occupied Chowan River and its
   tributary streams. They were bounded on the east by the most
   southerly Lenape tribes, who were in possession of the low
   country along the sea shores, and those of Albemarle and
   Pamlico Sounds. Towards the south and the west they extended
   beyond the river Neuse. They appear to have been known in
   Virginia, in early times, under the name of Monacans, as far
   north as James River. … Lawson, in his account of the North
   Carolina Indians, enumerates the Chowans, the Meherrins, and
   the Nottoways, as having together 95 warriors in the year
   1708. But the Meherrins or Tuteloes and the Nottoways
   inhabited respectively the two rivers of that name, and were
   principally seated in Virginia. We have but indistinct notices
   of the Tuteloes. … It appears by Beverly that the Nottoways
   had preserved their independence and their numbers later than
   the Powhatans, and that, at the end of the 17th century, they
   had still 130 warriors. They do not appear to have migrated
   from their original seats in a body. In the year 1820, they
   are said to have been reduced to 27 souls, and were still in
   possession of 7,000 acres in Southampton county, Virginia,
   which had been at an early date reserved for them. … The
   Tuscaroras were by far the most powerful nation in North
   Carolina, and occupied all the residue of the territory in
   that colony, which has been described as inhabited by Iroquois
   tribes. Their principal seats in 1708 were on the Neuse and
   the Taw or Tar rivers, and according to Lawson they had 1,200
   warriors in fifteen towns." In 1711 the Tuscaroras attacked
   the English colonists, massacring 130 in a single day, and a
   fierce war ensued. "In the autumn of 1712. all the inhabitants
   south and southwest of Chowan River were obliged to live in
   forts; and the Tuscaroras expected assistance from the Five
   Nations. This could not have been given without involving the
   confederacy in a war with Great Britain; and the Tuscaroras
   were left to their own resources. A force, consisting chiefly
   of southern Indians under the command of Colonel Moore, was
   again sent by the government of South Carolina to assist the
   northern Colonies. He besieged and took a fort of the
   Tuscaroras. … Of 800 prisoners 600 were given up to the
   Southern Indians, who carried them to South Carolina to sell
   them as slaves.
{92}
   The Eastern Tuscaroras, whose principal town was on
   the Taw, twenty miles above Washington, immediately made
   peace, and a portion was settled a few years after north of
   the Roanoke, near Windsor, where they continued till the year
   1803. But the great body of the nation removed in 1714-15 to
   the Five Nations, was received as the Sixth, and has since
   shared their fate."

      A. Gallatin,
      Synopsis of the Indian Tribes
      (Archæologia Americana, volume 2),
      introduction, section 2.

"Under this family name Scouler places two tribes, the Kalapooian, inhabiting 'the fertile Willamat plains' and the Yamkallie, who live 'more in the interior, towards the sources of the Willamat River.'… The tribes of the Kalapooian family inhabited the valley of Willamette River, Oregon, above the falls."

"The Karankawa formerly dwelt upon the Texan coast, according to Sibley, upon an island or peninsula in the Bay of St. Bernard (Matagorda Bay). … In 1884 Mr. Gatschet found a Tonkawe at Fort Griffin, Texas, who claimed to have formerly lived among the Karankawa. From him a vocabulary of twenty-five terms was obtained, which was all of the language he remembered. The vocabulary … such as it is, represents all of the language that is extant. Judged by this vocabulary the language seems to be distinct not only from the Attakapa but from all others."

"The … pueblos of Keresan stock … are situated in New Mexico on the upper Rio Grande, on several of its small western affluents, and on the Jemez and San Jose, which also are tributaries of the Rio Grande."

See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY,
and below: SACS, &c., and PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.

"Derivation: From the Kiowa word Kó-i, plural Kó-igu, meaning 'Káyowe man.' The Comanche term Káyowe means 'rat.' The author who first formally separated this family appears to have been Turner. … Turner, upon the strength of a vocabulary furnished by Lieutenant Whipple, dissents from the opinion expressed by Pike and others to the effect that the language is of the same stock as the Comanche, and, while admitting that its relationship to Comanche is greater than to any other family, thinks that the likeness is merely the result of long intercommunication. His opinion that it is entirely distinct from any other language has been indorsed by Buschmann and other authorities. The family is represented by the Kiowa tribe. So intimately associated with the Comanches have the Kiowa been since known to history that it is not easy to determine their pristine home. … Pope definitely locates the Kiowa in the valley of the Upper Arkansas, and of its tributary, the Purgatory (Las Animas) River. This is in substantial accord with the statements of other writers of about the same period. Schermerhorn (1812) places the Kiowa on the heads of the Arkansas and Platte. Earlier still they appear upon the headwaters of the Platte."-

   "This family was based upon a tribe variously termed Kitunaha,
   Kutenay, Cootenai, or Flatbow, living on the Kootenay River,
   a branch of the Columbia in Oregon."

"Derivation: From the Aleut word kolosh, or more properly, kaluga, meaning 'dish,' the allusion being to the dishshaped lip ornaments. This family was based by Gallatin upon the Koluschen tribe (the Tshinkitani of Marchand), 'who inhabit the islands and the [Pacific] coast from the 60th to the 55th degree of north latitude.'"

   "The main territory of the Kulanapan family is bounded on the
   west by the Pacific Ocean, on the east by the Yukian and
   Copohan territories, on the north by the watershed of the
   Russian River, and on the south by a line drawn from Bodega
   Head to the southwest corner of the Yukian territory, near
   Santa Rosa, Sonoma County, California."

      J. W. Powell,
      Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,
      page 88.

   "The 'Kaus or Kwokwoos' tribe is merely mentioned by Hale as
   living on a river of the same name between the Umqua and the
   Clamet."

      J. W. Powell,
      Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,
      page 89.

"Derivation: A Spanish word meaning 'butterfly,' applied to a county in California and subsequently taken for the family name. Latham mentions the remnants of three distinct bands of the Coconoon, each with its own language, in the north of Mariposa County. These are classed together under the above name. More recently the tribes speaking languages allied to the Coconun have been treated of under the family name Yokut. As, however, the stock was established by Latham on a sound basis, his name is here restored."

"In his second voyage, Columbus heard vague rumors of a mainland westward from Jamaica and Cuba, at a distance of ten days' journey in a canoe. … During his fourth voyage (1503-4), when he was exploring the Gulf southwest from Cuba, he picked up a canoe laden with cotton clothing variously dyed. The natives in it gave him to understand that they were merchants, and came from a land called Maia. This is the first mention in history of the territory now called Yucatan, and of the race of the Mayas; for although a province of similar name was found in the western extremity of the island of Cuba, the similarity was accidental, as the evidence is conclusive that no colony of the Mayas was found on the Antilles. … Maya was the patrial name of the natives of Yucatan. It was the proper name of the northern portion of the peninsula. No single province bore it at the date of the Conquest, and probably it had been handed down as a generic term from the period, about a century before, when this whole district was united under one government. … Whatever the primitive meaning and first application of the name Maya, it is now used to signify specifically the aborigines of Yucatan. In a more extended sense, in the expression 'the Maya family,' it is understood to embrace all tribes, wherever found, who speak related dialects presumably derived from the same ancient stock as the Maya proper. … The total number of Indians of pure blood speaking the Maya proper may be estimated as nearly or quite 200,000, most of them in the political limits of the department of Yucatan; to these should be added nearly 100,000 of mixed blood, or of European descent, who use the tongue in daily life. For it forms one of the rare examples of American languages possessing vitality enough not only to maintain its ground, but actually to force itself on European settlers and supplant their native speech. … The Mayas did not claim to be autochthones. Their legends referred to their arrival by the sea from the East, in remote times, under the leadership of Itzamna, their hero-god, and also to a less numerous immigration from the West, which was connected with the history of another hero-god, Kukul Càn. The first of these appears to be wholly mythical. … The second tradition deserves more attention from the historian. … It cannot be denied that the Mayas, the Kiches [or Quiches] and the Cakchiquels, in their most venerable traditions, claimed to have migrated from the north or west from some part of the present country of Mexico. These traditions receive additional importance from the presence on the shores of the Mexican Gulf, on the waters of the river Panuco, north of Vera Cruz, of a prominent branch of the Maya family, the Huastecs. The idea suggests itself that these were the rear-guard of a great migration of the Maya family from the north toward the south. Support is given to this by their dialect, which is most closely akin to that of the Tzendals of Tabasco, the nearest Maya race to the south of them, and also by very ancient traditions of the Aztecs. It is noteworthy that these two partially civilized races, the Mayas and the Aztecs, though differing radically in language, had legends which claimed a community of origin in some indefinitely remote past. We find these on the Maya side narrated in the sacred book of the Kiches, the Popol Vuh, in the Cakchiquel 'Records of Tecpan Atillan,' and in various pure Maya sources. … The annals of the Aztecs contain frequent allusions to the Huastecs."

"Closely enveloped in the dense forests of Chiapas, Gautemala, Yucatan, and Honduras, the ruins of several ancient cities have been discovered, which are far superior in extent and magnificence to any seen in Aztec territory, and of which a detailed description may be found in the fourth volume of this work. Most of these cities were abandoned and more or less unknown at the time of the [Spanish] Conquest. They bear hieroglyphic inscriptions apparently identical in character; in other respects they resemble each other more than they resemble the Aztec ruins—or even other and apparently later works in Guatemala and Honduras. All these remains bear evident marks of great antiquity. … I deem the grounds sufficient … for accepting this Central American civilization of the past as a fact, referring it not to an extinct ancient race, but to the direct ancestors of the peoples still occupying the country with the Spaniards, and applying to it the name Maya as that of the language which has claims as strong as any to be considered the mother tongue of the linguistic family mentioned. … There are no data by which to fix the period of the original Maya empire, or its downfall or breaking up into rival factions by civil and foreign wars. The cities of Yucatan, as is clearly shown by Mr. Stephens, were, many of them, occupied by the descendants of the builders down to the conquest, and contain some remnants of wood-work still in good preservation, although some of the structures appear to be built on the ruins of others of a somewhat different type. Palenque and Copan, on the contrary, have no traces of wood or other perishable material, and were uninhabited and probably unknown in the 16th century. The loss of the key to what must have been an advanced system of hieroglyphics, while the spoken language survived, is also an indication of great antiquity, confirmed by the fact that the Quiché structures of Guatemala differed materially from those of the more ancient epoch. It is not likely that the Maya empire in its integrity continued later than the 3d or 4th century, although its cities may have been inhabited much later, and I should fix the epoch of its highest power at a date preceding rather than following the Christian era."

H. H. Bancroft, Native Races of the Pacific States, volume 2, chapter 2; volume 4, chapters 3-6; volume 5, chapters 11-13.

J. L. Stephens, Incidents of Travel in Yucatan; and Travel in Central America, &c.

"The name of Mingo, or Mengwe, by which the Iroquois were known to the Delawares and the other southern Algonkins, is said to be a contraction of the Lenape word 'Mahongwi,' meaning the 'People of the Springs.' The Iroquois possessed the head-waters of the rivers which flowed through the country of the Delawares."

      See above: HIDATSA;
      and below: SIOUAN FAMILY.
      See Note, Appendix E. 9.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Modocs (Klamaths) and their California and Oregon neighbors.

"The principal tribes occupying this region [of Northern California from Rogue River on the north to the Eel River, south] are the Klamaths, who live on the head waters of the river and on the shores of the lake of that name; the Modocs, on Lower Klamath Lake and along Lost River; the Shastas, to the south-west of the Lakes; the Pitt River Indians; the Euroes, on the Klamath River between Weitspek and the coast; the Cahrocs, on the Klamath River from a short distance above the junction of the Trinity to the Klamath Mountains; the Hoopahs [or Hupas, a tribe of the Athapascan Family] in Hoopah Valley on the Trinity near its junction with the Klamath; numerous tribes on the coast from Eel River and Humboldt Bay north, such as the Weeyots, Wallies, Tolewahs, etc., and the Rogue River Indians, on and about the river of that name. The Northern Californians are in every way superior to the central and southern tribes."

"On the Klamath there live three distinct tribes, called the Yú-rok, Ká-rok, and Mó-dok, which names are said to mean, respectively, 'down the river,' 'up the river,' and 'head of the river.' … The Karok are probably the finest tribe in California. … Hoopa Valley, on the Lower Trinity, is the home of [the Hú-pá]. Next after the Ká-rok they are the finest race in all that region, and they even excel them in their statecraft, and in the singular influence, or perhaps brute force, which they exercise over the vicinal tribes. They are the Romans of Northern California in their valor and their wide-reaching dominions; they are the French in the extended diffusion of their language." The Modoks, "on the whole … are rather a cloddish, indolent, ordinarily good-natured race, but treacherous at bottom, sullen when angered, notorious for keeping Punic faith. But their bravery nobody can impeach or deny; their heroic and long defense of their stronghold against the appliances of modern civilized warfare, including that arm so awful to savages—the artillery—was almost the only feature that lent respectability to their wretched tragedy of the Lava Beds [1873]."

      S. Powers,
      Tribes of California
      (Contributions to North American Ethnology, volume 3),
      chapter 1, 7, and 27.

"The home of the Klamath tribe of southwestern Oregon lies upon the eastern slope of the southern extremity of the Cascade Range, and very nearly coincides with what we may call the head waters of the Klamath River, the main course of which lies in Northern California. … The main seat of the Modoc people was the valley of Lost River, the shores of Tule and of Little Klamath Lake. … The two main bodies forming the Klamath people are (1) the Klamath Lake Indians; (2) the Modoc Indians. The Klamath Lake Indians number more than twice as many as the Modoc Indians. They speak the northern dialect and form the northern chieftaincy. … The Klamath people possess no historic traditions going further back in time than a century, for the simple reason that there was a strict law prohibiting the mention of the person or acts of a deceased individual by using his name. … Our present knowledge does not allow us to connect the Klamath language genealogically with any of the other languages compared, but … it stands as a linguistic family for itself."

A. S. Gatschet, The Klamath Indians (Contributions to North American Ethnology, volume 2, part 1).

   In Major Powell's linguistic classification, the Klamath and
   Modoc dialects are embraced in a family called the Lutuamian
   Family, derived from a Pit River word signifying "lake;" the
   Yuroks in a family called the Weitspekan; and the Pit River
   Indian dialects are provisionally set apart in a distinct
   family named the Palaihnihan Family.

      J. W. Powell,
      Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,
      pages 89 and 97.

See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY; and below: STOCKBRIDGE INDIANS; also, NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1637.

"Derivation: From the river and hill of the same name in Calaveras County, California. … It was not until 1856 that the distinctness of the linguistic family was fully set forth by Latham. Under the head of Moquelumne, this author gathers several vocabularies representing different languages and dialects of the same stock. These are the Talatui of Hale, the Tuolumne from Schoolcraft, the Sonoma dialects as represented by the Tshokoyem vocabulary, the Chocuyem and Youkiousme paternosters, and the Olamentke of Kostromitonov in Bäer's Beiträge. … The Moquelumnan family occupies the territory bounded on the north by the Cosumne River, on the south by the Fresno River, on the east by the Sierra Nevada, and on the west by the San Joaquin River, with the exception of a strip on the east bank occupied by the Cholovone. A part of this family occupies also a territory bounded on the south by San Francisco Bay."

"Among the various nationalities of the Gulf territories the Maskoki family of tribes occupied a central and commanding position. Not only the large extent of territory held by them, but also their numbers, their prowess in war, and a certain degree of mental culture and self-esteem made of the Maskoki one of the most important groups in Indian history. From their ethnologic condition of later times, we infer that these tribes have extended for many centuries back in time from the Atlantic to the Mississippi and beyond that river, and from the Apalachian ridge to the Gulf of Mexico. With short intermissions they kept up warfare with all the circumjacent Indian communities, and also among each other. … The irresolute and egotistic policy of these tribes often caused serious difficulties to the government of the English and French colonies, and some of them constantly wavered in their adhesion between the French and the English cause. The American government overcame their opposition easily whenever a conflict presented itself (the Seminole War forms an exception), because, like all the Indians, they never knew how to unite against a common foe. The two main branches of the stock, the Creek and the Cha'hta [or Choctaw] Indians, were constantly at war, and the remembrance of their deadly conflicts has now passed to their descendants in the form of folk lore. … The only characteristic by which a subdivision of the family can be attempted, is that of language. Following their ancient topographic location from east to west, we obtain the following synopsis: First branch, or Maskoki proper: The Creek, Maskokálgi or Maskoki proper, settled on Coosa, Tallapoosa, Upper and Middle Chatahuchi rivers. From these branched off by segmentation the Creek portion of the Seminoles, of the Yámassi and of the little Yamacraw community. Second, or Apalachian branch: This southeastern division, which may be called also 'a parte potiori' the Hitchiti connection, anciently comprised the tribes on the Lower Chatahuchi river, and, east from there, the extinct Apalachi, the Mikasuki, and the Hitchiti portion of the Seminoles, Yámassi and Yamacraws. Third, or Alibamu branch, comprised the Alibamu villages on the river of that name; to them belonged the Koassáti and Witumka on Coosa river, its northern affluent. Fourth, Western or Cha'hta [Choctaw] branch: From the main people, the Cha'hta, settled in the middle portions of the State of Mississippi, the Chicasa, Pascagoula, Biloxi, Huma, and other tribes once became separated through segmentation. The strongest evidence for a community of origin of the Maskoki tribes is furnished by the fact that their dialects belong to one linguistic family. … Maskóki, Maskógi, isti Maskóki, designates a single person of the Creek tribe, and forms, as a collective plural, Maskokálgi, the Creek community, the Creek people, the Creek Indians. English authors write this name Muscogee, Muskhogee, and its plural Muscogulgee. The first syllable, as pronounced by the Creek Indians, contains a clear short a. … The accent is usually laid on the middle syllable: Maskóki, Maskógi. None of the tribes are able to explain the name from their own language. … Why did the English colonists call them Creek Indians? Because, when the English traders entered the Maskoki country from Charleston or Savannah, they had to cross a number of streams or creeks, especially between the Chatahuchi and Savannah rivers. Gallatin thought it probable that the inhabitants of the country adjacent to Savannah river were called Creeks from an early time. … In the southern part of the Cha'hta territory several tribes, represented to be of Cha'hta lineage, appear as distinct from the main body, and are always mentioned separately. The French colonists, in whose annals they figure extensively, call them Mobilians, Tohomes, Pascogoulas, Biloxis, Mougoulachas, Bayogoulas and Humas (Oumas). They have all disappeared in our epoch, with the exception of the Biloxi [Major Powell, in the Seventh Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, places the Biloxi in the Siouan Family], [See Note, Appendix E.] of whom scattered remnants live in the forests of Louisiana, south of the Red River."

"The Uchees and the Natches, who are both incorporated in the [Muskhogee or Creek] confederacy, speak two distinct languages altogether different from the Muskhogee. The Natches, a residue of the well-known nation of that name, came from the banks of the Mississippi, and joined the Creeks less than one hundred years ago. The original seats of the Uchees were east of the Coosa and probably of the Chatahoochee; and they consider themselves as the most ancient inhabitants of the country. They may have been the same nation which is called Apalaches in the accounts of De Soto's expedition. … The four great Southern nations, according to the estimates of the War Department … consist now [1836] of 67,000 souls, viz.: The Cherokees, 15,000; the Choctaws (18,500), the Chicasas (5,500), 24,000; the Muskhogees, Seminoles, and Hitchittees, 26,000; the Uchees, Alibamons, Coosadas, and Natches, 2,000. The territory west of the Mississippi, given or offered to them by the United States in exchange for their lands east of that river, contains 40,000,000 acres, exclusively of what may be allotted to the Chicasas."

A. Gallatin, Synopsis of the Indian Tribes (Archæologia Americana, volume 2), section 3.

"That portion of Honduras known as the Musquito Coast derived its name, not from the abundance of those troublesome insects, but from a native tribe who at the discovery occupied the shore near Blewfield Lagoon. They are an intelligent people, short in stature, unusually dark in color, with finely cut features, and small straight noses—not at all negroid, except where there has been an admixture of blood. They number about 6,000, many of whom have been partly civilized by the efforts of missionaries, who have reduced the language to writing and published in it a number of works. The Tunglas are one of the sub-tribes of the Musquitos."

      See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY;
      also RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1636;
      and NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1637; 1674-1675; 1675; and 1676-1678.

When the French first entered the lower Mississippi valley, they found the Natchez [Na'htchi] occupying a region of country that now surrounds the city which bears their name. "By the persevering curiosity of Gallatin, it is established that the Natchez were distinguished from the tribes around them less by their customs and the degree of their civilization than by their language, which, as far as comparisons have been instituted, has no etymological affinity with any other whatever. Here again the imagination too readily invents theories; and the tradition has been widely received that the dominion of the Natchez once extended even to the Wabash. History knows them only as a feeble and inconsiderable nation, who in the 18th century attached themselves to the confederacy of the Creeks."

G. Bancroft, History of the United States (Author's last revision), volume 2, page 97.

"Chateaubriand, in his charming romances, and some of the early French writers, who often drew upon their fancy for their facts, have thrown an interest around the Natchez, as a semi-civilized and noble race, that has passed into history. We find no traces of civilization in their architecture, or in their social life and customs. Their religion was brutal and bloody, indicating an Aztec origin. They were perfidious and cruel, and if they were at all superior to the neighboring tribes it was probably due to the district they occupied—the most beautiful, healthy and productive in the valley of the Mississippi—and the influence of its attractions in substituting permanent for temporary occupation. The residence of the grand chief was merely a spacious cabin, of one apartment, with a mat of basket work for his bed and a log for his pillow. … Their government was an absolute despotism. The supreme chief was master of their labor, their property, and their lives. … The Natchez consisted exclusively of two classes—the Blood Royal and its connexions, and the common people, the Mich-i-mioki-quipe, or Stinkards. The two classes understood each other, but spoke a different dialect. Their customs of war, their treatment of prisoners, their ceremonies of marriage, their feasts and fasts, their sorceries and witchcraft, differed very little from other savages. Father Charlevoix, who visited Natchez in 1721, saw no evidences of civilization. Their villages consisted of a few cabins, or rather ovens, without windows and roofed with matting. The house of the Sun was larger, plastered with mud, and a narrow bench for a seat and bed. No other furniture in the mansion of this grand dignitary, who has been described by imaginative writers as the peer of Montezuma!"

In 1729, the Natchez, maddened by insolent oppressions, planned and executed a general massacre of the French within their territory. As a consequence, the tribe was virtually exterminated within the following two years.

C. Gayarre, Louisiana, its Colonial History and Romance, 2d series, lecture 3 and 5.

"The Na'htchi, according to Gallatin, a residue of the well-known nation of that name, came from the banks of the Mississippi, and joined the Creek less than one hundred years ago. The seashore from Mobile to the Mississippi was then inhabited by several small tribes, of which the Na'htchi was the principal. Before 1730 the tribe lived in the vicinity of Natchez, Miss., along St. Catherine Creek. After their dispersion by the French in 1730 most of the remainder joined the Chicasa and afterwards the Upper Creek. They are now in Creek and Cherokee Nations, Indian Territory. The linguistic relations of the language spoken by the Taensa tribe have long been in doubt, and it is possible they will ever remain so."

"The Sahaptins or Nez Percés [the Shahaptian Family in Major Powell's classification], with their affiliated tribes, occupied the middle and upper valley of the Columbia and its affluents, and also the passes of the mountains. They were in contiguity with the Shoshones and the Algonkin Blackfeet, thus holding an important position, intermediate between the eastern and the Pacific tribes. Having the commercial instinct of the latter, they made good use of it."

      ALSO IN
      J. W. Powell,
      Seventh Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology,
      page 106.

      See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY;
      also, NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1674-1675; 1675; and 1676-1678
      (KING PHILIP'S WAR).

"The Ojibways, with their kindred, the Pottawattamies, and their friends the Ottawas,—the latter of whom were fugitives from the eastward, whence they had fled from the wrath of the Iroquois,—were banded into a sort of confederacy. They were closely allied in blood, language, manners and character. The Ojibways, by far the most numerous of the three, occupied the basin of Lake Superior, and extensive adjacent regions. In their boundaries, the career of Iroquois conquest found at length a check. The fugitive Wyandots sought refuge in the Ojibway hunting grounds; and tradition relates that, at the outlet of Lake Superior, an Iroquois war-party once encountered a disastrous repulse. In their mode of life, they were far more rude than the Iroquois, or even the southern Algonquin tribes."

"The name of the tribe appears to be recent. It is not met with in the older writers. The French, who were the earliest to meet them, in their tribal seat at the falls or Sault de Ste Marie, named them Saulteur, from this circumstance. M'Kenzie uses the term 'Jibway,' as the equivalent of this term, in his voyages. They are referred to, with little difference in the orthography, in General Washington's report, in 1754, of his trip to Le Bœuf, on Lake Erie; but are first recognized, among our treaty-tribes, in the general treaty of Greenville, of 1794, in which, with the Ottawas they ceded the island of Michilimackinac, and certain dependencies, conceded by them at former periods to the French. … The Chippewas are conceded, by writers on American philology … to speak one of the purest forms of the Algonquin."

H. R. Schoolcraft, Information respecting the History, Condition and Prospects of the Indian Tribes, part 5, page 142.

"According to Aztec tradition, the Otomis were the earliest owners of the soil of Central Mexico. Their language was at the conquest one of the most widely distributed of any in this portion of the continent. Its central regions were the States of Queretaro and Guanajuato. … The Otomis are below the average stature, of dark color, the skull markedly dolichocephalic, the nose short and flattened, the eyes slightly oblique."

"The chief tribe of the Pampas Indians was entitled Querandis by the Spaniards, although they called themselves Pehuelches [or Puelts—that is, the Eastern]. Various segments of these, under different names, occupied the immense tract of ground, between the river Parana and the republic of Chili. The Querandis … were the great opponents to settlement of the Spaniards in Buenos Ayres. … The Ancas or Aracaunos Indians [see CHILE] resided on the west of the Pampas near Chili, and from time to time assisted the Querandis in transporting stolen cattle across the Cordilleras. The southern part of the Pampas was occupied by the Balchitas, Uhilches, Telmelches, and others, all of whom were branches of the original Quelches horde. The Guarani Indians were the most famous of the South American races. … Of the Guayanas horde there were several tribes—independent of each other, and speaking different idioms, although having the same title of race. Their territory extended from the river Guarai, one of the affluents into the Uruguay, for many leagues northwards, and stretched over to the Parana opposite the city of Corpus Christi. They were some of the most vigorous opponents of the Spanish invaders. … The Nalicurgas Indians, who lived up to near 21° South latitude were reputed to dwell in caves, to be very limited in number, and to go entirely naked. The Gausarapos, or Guuchies dwelt in the marshy districts near where the river Gausarapo, or Guuchie, has its source. This stream enters from the east into the Paraguay at 19° 16' 30" South latitude. … The Cuatos lived inside of a lake to the west of the river Paraguay, and constituted a very small tribe. … The Orejones dwelt on the eastern brows of the mountains of Santa Lucia or San Fernando—close to the western side of Paraguay river. … Another tribe, the Niniquiquilas, had likewise the names of Potreros, Simanos, Barcenos, and Lathanos. They occupied a forest which began at about 19° South latitude, some leagues backward from the river Paraguay, and separated the Gran Chaco from the province of Los Chiquitos in Peru. … The Guanas Indians were divided into eight separate segments, for each of which there was a particular and different name. They lived between 20° and 22° of South latitude in the Gran Chaco to the west of Paraguay, and they were not known to the Spaniards till the latter crossed the last-named river in 1673. … The Albaias and Payaguas Indians … in former times, were the chief tribes of the Paraguay territory. … The Albaias were styled Machicuis and Enimgas by other authors. At the time of the Spaniards' arrival here, the Albaias occupied the Gran Chaco side of the river Paraguay from 20° to 22° South latitude. Here they entered into a treaty offensive and defensive with the Payaguas. … The joined forces of Albaias and Payaguas had managed to extend their territory in 1673 down to 24° 7' South on the eastern side of Paraguay river. … The Albaias were a very tall and muscular race of people. … The Payagua Indians, before and up to, as well as after, the period of the conquest, were sailors, and domineered over the river Paraguay. … The Guaicarus lived on the Chaco side of Paraguay river and subsisted entirely by hunting. From the barbarous custom which their women had of inducing abortion to avoid the pain or trouble of child-bearing, they became exterminated soon after the conquest. … The Tobas, who have also the titles of Natecœt and Yncanabaite, were among the best fighters of the Indians. They occupy the Gran Chaco, chiefly on the banks of the river Vermejo, and between that and the Pilcomayo. Of these there are some remains in the present day. … The Mocovis are likewise still to be found in the Chaco. … The Abipones, who were also styled Ecusgina and Quiabanabaite, lived in the Chaco, so low down as 28° South. This was the tribe with whom the Jesuits incorporated, when they erected the city of San Geronimo, in the Gran Chaco, and nearly opposite Goya, in 1748."

"The Abipones inhabit [in the 18th century] the province Chaco, the centre of all Paraguay; they have no fixed abodes, nor any boundaries, except what fear of their neighbours has established. They roam extensively in every direction, whenever the opportunity of attacking their enemies, or the necessity of avoiding them renders a journey advisable. The northern shore of the Rio Grande or Bermejo, which the Indians call Iñatè, was their native land in the last century [the 17th]. Thence they removed, to avoid the war carried on against Chaco by the Spaniards … and, migrating towards the south, took possession of a valley formerly held by the Calchaquis. … From what region their ancestors came there is no room for conjecture."

"The Abipones are in general above the middle stature, and of a robust constitution. In summer they go quite naked; but in winter cover themselves with skins. … They paint themselves all over with different colours."

      ALSO IN
      The Standard Natural History
      (J. S. Kingsley, editor),
      volume 6, pages 256-262.

"The Patagonians call themselves Chonek or Tzoueca, or Inaken (men, people), and by their Pampean neighbors are referred to as Tehuel-Che, southerners. They do not, however, belong to the Aucanian stock, nor do they resemble the Pampeans physically. They are celebrated for their stature, many of them reaching from six to six feet four inches in height, and built in proportion. In color they are a reddish brown, and have aquiline noses and good foreheads. They care little for a sedentary life, and roam the coast as far north as the Rio Negro. … On the inhospitable shores of Tierra del Fuego there dwell three nations of diverse stock, but on about the same plane of culture. One of these is the Yahgans, or Yapoos, on the Beagle Canal; the second is the Onas or Aonik, to the north and east of these; and the third the Aliculufs, to the north and west. … The opinion has been advanced by Dr. Deniker of Paris, that the Fuegians represent the oldest type or variety of the American race. He believes that at one time this type occupied the whole of South America south of the Amazon, and that the Tapuyas of Brazil and the Fuegians are its surviving members. This interesting theory demands still further evidence before it can be accepted."

"The Pawnee Family, though some of its branches have long been known, is perhaps in history and language one of the least understood of the important tribes of the West. In both respects it seems to constitute a distinct group. During recent years its extreme northern and southern branches have evinced a tendency to blend with surrounding stocks; but the central branch, constituting the Pawnee proper, maintains still in its advanced decadence a bold line of demarcation between itself and all adjacent tribes. The members of the family are: The Pawnees, the Arikaras, the Caddos, the Huecos or Wacos, the Keechies, the Tawaconies, and the Pawnee Picts or Wichitas. The last five may be designated as the Southern or Red River branches. At the date of the Louisiana purchase the Caddos were living about 40 miles northwest of where Shreveport now stands. Five years earlier their residence was upon Clear Lake, in what is now Caddo Parish. This spot they claimed was the place of their nativity, and their residence from time immemorial. … They have a tradition that they are the parent stock, from which all the southern branches have sprung, and to some extent this claim has been recognized. … The five [southern] bands are now all gathered upon a reserve secured for them in the Indian Territory by the Government. … In many respects, their method of building lodges, their equestrianism, and certain social and tribal usages, they quite closely resemble the Pawnees. Their connection, however, with the Pawnee family, not till recently if ever mentioned, is mainly a matter of vague conjecture. … The name Pawnee is most probably derived from 'párĭk-ĭ,' a horn; and seems to have been once used by the Pawnees themselves to designate their peculiar scalp-lock. From the fact that this was the most noticeable feature in their costume, the name came naturally to be the denominative term of the tribe. The word in this use once probably embraced the Wichitas (i. e., Pawnee Picts) and the Arikaras. … The true Pawnee territory till as late as 1833 may be described as extending from the Niobrara south to the Arkansas. They frequently hunted considerably beyond the Arkansas; tradition says as far as the Canadian. … On the east they claimed to the Missouri, though in eastern Nebraska, by a sort of tacit permit, the Otoes, Poncas, and Omahas along that stream occupied lands extending as far west as the Elkhorn. In Kansas, also, east of the Big Blue, they had ceased to exercise any direct control, as several remnants of tribes, the Wyandots, Delawares, Kickapoos, and Iowas, had been settled there and were living under the guardianship of the United States. … On the west their grounds were marked by no natural boundary, but may perhaps be described by a line drawn from the mouth of Snake River on the Niobrara southwest to the North Platte, thence south to the Arkansas. … It is not to be supposed, however, that they held altogether undisturbed possession of this territory. On the north they were incessantly harassed by various bands of the Dakotas, while upon the south the Osages, Comanches, Cheyennes, Arapahoes and Kiowas (the last three originally northern tribes) were equally relentless in their hostility. … In 1833 the Pawnees surrendered to the United States their claim upon all the above described territory lying south of the Platte. In 1858 all their remaining territory was ceded, except a reserve 30 miles long and 15 wide upon the Loup Fork of the Platte, its eastern limit beginning at Beaver Creek. In 1874 they sold this tract and removed to a reserve secured for them by the Government in the Indian Territory, between the Arkansas and Cimarron at their junction."

      J. B. Dunbar,
      The Pawnee Indians
      (Magazine of American History, April, 1880, volume 4).

      J. W. Powell,
      Seventh Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology,
      page 59.

      See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY;
      and below: SHAWANESE;
      also, NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1637.

"Only a small portion of the territory occupied by this family is included within the United States, the greater portion being in Mexico, where it extends to the Gulf of California. The family is represented in the United States by three tribes, Pima alta, Sobaipuri, and Papago. The former have lived for at least two centuries with the Maricopa on the Gila River about 160 miles from the mouth. The Sobaipuri occupied the Santa Cruz and San Pedro Rivers, tributaries of the Gila, but are no longer known. The Papago territory is much more extensive and extends to the south across the border."

      See above:
      ALGONQUIAN FAMILY;
      also, NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1674-1675; 1675; 1676-1678 (KING
      PHILIP'S WAR).

"At the time of the first settlement by the Europeans, it has been estimated that there were not more than 20,000 Indians within the limits of the State of Virginia. Within a circuit of 60 miles from Jamestown, Captain Smith says there were about 5,000 souls, and of these scarce 1,500 were warriors. The whole territory between the mountains and the sea was occupied by more than 40 tribes, 30 of whom were united in a confederacy under Powhatan, whose dominions, hereditary and acquired by conquest, comprised the whole country between the rivers James and Potomac, and extended into the interior as far as the falls of the principal rivers. Campbell, in his History of Virginia, states the number of Powhatan's subjects to have been 8,000. Powhatan was a remarkable man; a sort of savage Napoleon, who, by the force of his character and the superiority of his talents, had raised himself from the rank of a petty chieftain to something of imperial dignity and power. He had two places of abode, one called Powhatan, where Richmond now stands, and the other at Werowocomoco, on the north side of York River, within the present county of Gloucester. … Besides the large confederacy of which Powhatan was the chief, there were two others, with which that was often at war. One of these, called the Mannahoacs, consisted of eight tribes, and occupied the country between the Rappahannoc and York rivers; the other, consisting of five tribes, was called the Monacans, and was settled between York and James rivers above the Falls. There were also, in addition to these, many scattering and independent tribes."

G. S. Hillard, Life of Captain John Smith (Library of American Biographies), chapter 4.

"The English invested savage life with all the dignity of European courts. Powhatan was styled 'King,' or 'Emperor,' his principal warriors were lords of the kingdom, his wives were queens, his daughter was a 'princess,' and his cabins were his various seats of residence. … In his younger days Powhatan had been a great warrior. Hereditarily, he was the chief or werowance of eight tribes; through conquest his dominions had been extended. … The name of his nation and the Indian appellation of the James River was Powhatan. He himself possessed several names."

      ALSO IN
      Captain John Smith,
      Description of Virginia, and General Historie of Virginia.
      (Arber's reprint of Works, pages 65 and 360).

   "The non-nomadic semi-civilized town and agricultural peoples
   of New Mexico and Arizona … I call the Pueblos, or
   Townspeople, from pueblo, town, population, people, a name
   given by the Spaniards to such inhabitants of this region as
   were found, when first discovered, permanently located in
   comparatively well-built towns. Strictly speaking, the term
   Pueblos applies only to the villagers settled along the banks
   of the Rio Grande del Norte and its tributaries between
   latitudes 34° 45' and 36° 30', and although the name is
   employed as a general appellation for this division, it will
   be used, for the most part, only in its narrower and popular
   sense. In this division, besides the before mentioned Pueblos
   proper, are embraced the Moquis, or villagers of eastern
   Arizona, and the non-nomadic agricultural nations of the lower
   Gila river,—the Pimas, Maricopas, Papagos, and cognate
   tribes. The country of the Townspeople, if we may credit
   Lieutenant Simpson, is one of 'almost universal barrenness,'
   yet interspersed with fertile spots; that of the agricultural
   nations, though dry, is more generally productive. The fame of
   this so-called civilization reached Mexico at an early day …
   in exaggerated rumors of great cities to the north, which
   prompted the expeditions of Marco de Niza in 1539, of Coronado
   in 1540, and of Espejo in 1586 [1583]. These adventurers
   visited the north in quest of the fabulous kingdoms of
   Quivira, Tontonteac, Marata and others, in which great riches
   were said to exist. The name of Quivira was afterwards applied
   by them to one or more of the pueblo cities. The name Cibola,
   from 'Cibolo,' Mexican bull, 'bos bison,' or wild ox of New
   Mexico, where the Spaniards first encountered buffalo, was
   given to seven of the towns which were afterwards known as the
   Seven Cities of Cibola. But most of the villages known at the
   present day were mentioned in the reports of the early
   expeditions by their present names.
{100}
   … The towns of the Pueblos are essentially unique, and are
   the dominant feature of these aboriginals. Some of them are
   situated in valleys, others on mesas; sometimes they are
   planted on elevations almost inaccessible, reached only by
   artificial grades, or by steps cut in the solid rock. Some of
   the towns are of an elliptical shape, while others are square,
   a town being frequently but a block of buildings. Thus a
   Pueblo consists of one or more squares, each enclosed by three
   or four buildings of from 300 to 400 feet in length, and about
   150 feet in width at the base, and from two to seven stories
   of from eight to nine feet each in height. … The stories are
   built in a series of gradations or retreating surfaces,
   decreasing in size as they rise, thus forming a succession of
   terraces. In some of the towns these terraces are on both
   sides of the building; in others they face only towards the
   outside; while again in others they are on the inside. These
   terraces are about six feet wide, and extend around the three
   or four sides of the square, forming a walk for the occupants
   of the story resting upon it, and a roof for the story
   beneath; so with the stories above. As there is no inner
   communication with one another, the only means of mounting to
   them is by ladders which stand at convenient distances along
   the several rows of terraces, and they may be drawn up at
   pleasure, thus cutting off all unwelcome intrusion. The
   outside walls of one or more of the lower stories are entirely
   solid, having no openings of any kind, with the exception of,
   in some towns, a few loopholes. … To enter the rooms on the
   ground floor from the outside, one must mount the ladder to
   the first balcony or terrace, then descend through a trap door
   in the floor by another ladder on the inside. … The several
   stories of these huge structures are divided into
   multitudinous compartments of greater or less size, which are
   apportioned to the several families of the tribe."

"There can be no doubt that Cibola is to be looked for in New Mexico. … We cannot … refuse to adopt the views of General Simpson and of Mr. W. W. H. Davis, and to look at the pueblo of Zuni as occupying, if not the actual site, at least one of the sites within the tribal area of the Seven Cities of Cibola. Nor can we refuse to identify Tusayan with the Moqui district, and Acuco with Acoma."

      A. F. Bandelier,
      Historical Introduction to Studies among the Sedentary
      Indians of North Mexico
      (Papers of the Archœolog. Institute of America:
      American Series, volume 1).

      L. H. Morgan,
      Houses and House-life of the American Aborigines
      (Contributions to North American Ethnology, volume 4),
      chapter 6.

      F. H. Cushing,
      Fourth Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology (1882-83),
      pages 473-480.

      F. W. Blackmar,
      Spanish Institutions of the Southwest,
      chapter 10.

"The following tribes were placed in this group by Latham: Pujuni, Secumne, Tsamak of Hale, and the Cushna of Schoolcraft. The name adopted for the family is the name of a tribe given by Hale. This was one of the two races into which, upon the information of Captain Sutter as derived by Mr. Dana, all the Sacramento tribes were believed to be divided. 'These races resembled one another in every respect but language.' … The tribes of this family have been carefully studied by Powers, to whom we are indebted for most all we know of their distribution. They occupied the eastern bank of the Sacramento in California, beginning some 80 or 100 miles from its mouth, and extended northward to within a short distance of Pit River."

"Of the ancient races of America, those which approached the nearest to a civilized condition spoke related dialects of a tongue, which from its principal members has been called the Maya Quiche linguistic stock. Even to-day, it is estimated that half a million persons use these dialects. They are scattered over Yucatan, Guatemala, and the adjacent territory, and one branch formerly occupied the hot lowlands on the Gulf of Mexico, north of Vera Cruz. The so-called 'metropolitan' dialects are those spoken relatively near the city of Guatemala, and include the Cakchiquel, the Quiche, the Pokonchi and the Tzutuhill. They are quite closely allied, and are mutually intelligible, resembling each other about as much as did in ancient Greece the Attic, Ionic and Doric dialects. … The civilization of these people was such that they used various mnemonic signs, approaching our alphabet, to record and recall their mythology and history. Fragments, more or less complete, of these traditions have been preserved. The most notable of them is the national legend of the Quiches of Guatemala, the so-called Popol Vuh. It was written at an unknown date in the Quiche dialect, by a native who was familiar with the ancient records."

      H. H. Bancroft,
      Native Races of the Pacific States,
      chapter 11.

"The tribes occupy both banks of the lower Klamath from a range of hills a little above Happy Camp to the junction of the Trinity, and the Salmon River from its mouth to its sources. On the north, Quoratean tribes extended to the Athapascan territory near the Oregon line."

"The Sauks or Saukies (White Clay), and Foxes or Outagamies, so called by the Europeans and Algonkins, but whose true name is Musquakkiuk (Red Clay), are in fact but one nation. The French missionaries on coming first in contact with them, in the year 1665, at once found that they spoke the same language, and that it differed from the Algonkin, though belonging to the same stock; and also that this language was common to the Kickapoos, and to those Indians they called Maskontens. This last nation, if it ever had an existence as a distinct tribe, has entirely disappeared. But we are informed by Charlevoix, and Mr. Schoolcraft corroborates the fact, that the word 'Mascontenck' means a country without woods, a prairie. The name Mascontens was therefore used to designate 'prairie Indians.' And it appears that they consisted principally of Sauks and Kickapoos, with an occasional mixture of Potowotamies and Miamis, who probably came there to hunt the Buffalo. The country assigned to those Mascontens lay south of the Fox River of Lake Michigan and west of Illinois River. … When first discovered, the Sauks and Foxes had their seats toward the southern extremity of Green Bay, on Fox River, and generally farther east than the country which they lately occupied. … By the treaty of 1804, the Sauks and Foxes ceded to the United States all their lands east of … the Mississippi. … The Kickapoos by various treaties, 1809 to 1819, have also ceded all their lands to the United States. They claimed all the country between the Illinois River and the Wabash, north of the parallel of latitude passing by the mouth of the Illinois and south of the Kankakee River. … The territory claimed by the Miamis and Piankishaws may be generally stated as having been bounded eastwardly by the Maumee River of Lake Erie, and to have included all the country drained by the Wabash. The Piankishaws occupied the country bordering on the Ohio."

A. Gallatin, Synopsis of the Indian Tribes (Archæologia Americana, volume 2), introduction, section 2.

The Mascontens, or Mascoutins, "seldom appear alone, but almost always in connection with their kindred, the Ottagamies or Foxes and the Kickapoos, and like them bear a character for treachery and deceit. The three tribes may have in earlier days formed the Fire-Nation [of the early French writers], but, as Gallatin observes in the Archæologia Americana, it is very doubtful whether the Mascoutins were ever a distinct tribe. If this be so, and there is no reason to reject it, the disappearance of the name will not be strange."

      J. G. Shea,
      Brief Researches Respecting the Mascoutins
      (Schoolcraft's Information Respecting Indian Tribes,
      part 4, page 245).

   This name is given by Major Powell to the San Antonio and San
   Miguel dialects spoken by two tribes on the Salinas River,
   Monterey County, California.

      J. W. Powell,
      Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,
      page 101.

"The single tribe upon the language of which Hale based his name was located by him to the southwest of the Lutuami or Klamath tribes. … The former territory of the Sastean family is the region drained by the Klamath River and its tributaries from the western base of the Cascade range to the point where the Klamath flows through the ridge of hills east of Happy Camp, which forms the boundary between the Sastean and the Quoratean families. In addition to this region of the Klamath, the Shasta extended over the Siskiyou range northward as far as Ashland, Oregon:"

"The term 'semanóle,' or 'isti Simanóle,' signifies 'separatish' or 'runaway,' and as a tribal name points to the Indians who left the Creek, especially the Lower Creek settlements, for Florida, to live, hunt, and fish there in independence. The term does not mean 'wild,' 'savage,' as frequently stated; if applied now in this sense to animals, it is because of its original meaning, 'what has become a runaway.' … The Seminoles of modern times are a people compounded of the following elements: separatists from the Lower Creek and Hitchiti towns; remnants of tribes partly civilized by the Spaniards; Yamassi Indians, and some negroes. … The Seminoles were always regarded as a sort of outcasts by the Creek tribes from which they had seceded, and no doubt there were reasons for this. … These Indians showed, like the Creeks, hostile intentions towards the thirteen states during and after the Revolution, and conjointly with the Upper Creeks on Tallapoosa river concluded a treaty of friendship with the Spaniards at Pensacola in May, 1784. Although under Spanish control, the Seminoles entered into hostilities with the Americans in 1793 and 1812. In the latter year Payne míko ['King Payne'] was killed in a battle at Alachua, and his brother, the influential Bowlegs, died soon after. These unruly tribes surprised and massacred American settlers on the Satilla river, Georgia, in 1817, and another conflict began, which terminated in the destruction of the Mikasuki and Suwanee river towns of the Seminoles by General Jackson, in April, 1818. [See FLORIDA: A. D. 1816-1818.] After the cession of Florida, and its incorporation into the American Union (1819), the Seminoles gave up all their territory by the treaty of Fort Moultrie, Sept. 18th, 1823, receiving in exchange goods and annuities. When the government concluded to move these Indians west of the Mississippi river, a treaty of a conditional character was concluded with them at Payne's landing, in 1832. The larger portion were removed, but the more stubborn part dissented, and thus gave origin to one of the gravest conflicts which ever occurred between Indians and whites. The Seminole war began with the massacre of Major Dade's command near Wahoo swamp, December 28th, 1835, and continued with unabated fury for five years, entailing an immense expenditure of money and lives. [See FLORIDA: A. D. 1835-1843.] A number of Creek warriors joined the hostile Seminoles in 1836. A census of the Seminoles taken in 1822 gave a population of 3,899, with 800 negroes belonging to them. The population of the Seminoles in the Indian Territory amounted to 2,667 in 1881. … There are some Seminoles now in Mexico, who went there with their negro slaves."

A. S. Gatschet, A Migration Legend of the Creek Indians, volume 1, part 1, section 2.

"Ever since the first settlement of these Indians in Florida they have been engaged in a strife with the whites. … In the unanimous judgment of unprejudiced writers, the whites have ever been in the wrong."

"There were in Florida, October 1, 1880, of the Indians commonly known as Seminole, 208. They constituted 37 families, living in 22 camps, which were gathered into five widely separated groups or settlements. … This people our Government has never been able to conciliate or to conquer. … The Seminole have always lived within our borders as aliens. It is only of late years, and through natural necessities, that any friendly intercourse of white man and Indian has been secured. … The Indians have appropriated for their service some of the products of European civilization, such as weapons, implements, domestic utensils, fabrics for clothing, &c. Mentally, excepting a few religious ideas which they received long ago from the teaching of Spanish missionaries, and, in the southern settlements, excepting some few Spanish words, the Seminole have accepted and appropriated practically nothing from the white man."

      C. MacCauley,
      The Seminole Indians of Florida
      (Fifth Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 1883-84),
      introduction and chapter 4.

      S. G. Drake,
      The Aboriginal Races of North America.
      book 4, chapter 6-21.

"How this name originated is a 'vexata quæstio' among Indo-antiquarians and etymologists. The least plausible supposition is, that the name has any reference to the moralist Seneca. Some have supposed it to be a corruption of the Dutch term for vermillion, cinebar, or cinnabar, under the assumption that the Senecas, being the most warlike of the Five Nations, used that pigment more than the others, and thus gave origin to the name. This hypothesis is supported by no authority. … The name 'Sennecas' first appears on a Dutch map of 1616, and again on Jean de Laet's map of 1633. … It is claimed by some that the word may be derived from 'Sinnekox,' the Algonquin name of a tribe of Indians spoken of in Wassenaer's History of Europe, on the authority of Peter Barentz, who traded with them about the year 1626. … Without assuming to solve the mystery, the writer contents himself with giving some data which may possibly aid others in arriving at a reliable conclusion. [Here follows a discussion of the various forms of name by which the Senecas designated themselves and were known to the Hurons, from whom the Jesuits first heard of them.] By dropping the neuter prefix O, the national title became 'Nan-do-wah-gaah,' or 'The great hill people,' as now used by the Senecas. … If the name Seneca can legitimately be derived from the Seneca word 'Nan-do-wah-gaah' … it can only be done by prefixing 'Son,' as was the custom of the Jesuits, and dropping all unnecessary letters. It would then form the word 'Son-non-do-wa-ga,' the first two and last syllables of which, if the French sounds of the letters are given, are almost identical in pronunciation with Seneca. The chief difficulty, however, would be in the disposal of the two superfluous syllables. They may have been dropped in the process of contraction so common in the composition of Indian words—a result which would be quite likely to occur to a Seneca name, in its transmission through two other languages, the Mohawk and the Dutch. The foregoing queries and suggestions are thrown out for what they are worth, in the absence of any more reliable theory."

"Adjacent to the Lenape [or Delawares—see above], and associated with them in some of the most notable passages of their history, dwelt the Shawanoes, the Chaouanons of the French, a tribe of bold, roving, and adventurous spirit. Their eccentric wanderings, their sudden appearances and disappearances, perplex the antiquary, and defy research; but from various scattered notices, we may gather that at an early period they occupied the valley of the Ohio; that, becoming embroiled with the Five Nations, they shared the defeat of the Andastes, and about the year 1672 fled to escape destruction. Some found an asylum in the country of the Lenape, where they lived tenants at will of the Five Nations; others sought refuge in the Carolinas and Florida, where, true to their native instincts, they soon came to blows with the owners of the soil. Again, turning northwards, they formed new settlements in the valley of the Ohio, where they were now suffered to dwell in peace, and where, at a later period, they were joined by such of their brethren as had found refuge among the Lenape."

"The Shawnees were not found originally in Ohio, but migrated there after 1750. They were called Chaouanons by the French and Shawanoes by the English. The English name Shawano changed to Shawanee, and recently to Shawnee. Chaouanon and Shawano are obviously attempts to represent the same sound by the orthography of the two respective languages. … Much industry has been used by recent writers, especially by Dr. Brinton, to trace this nomadic tribe to its original home; but I think without success. … We first find the Shawano in actual history about the year 1660, and living along the Cumberland river, or the Cumberland and Tennessee. Among the conjectures as to their earlier history, the greatest probability lies for the present with the earliest account—the account given by Perrot, and apparently obtained by him from the Shawanoes themselves, about the year 1680—that they formerly lived by the lower lakes, and were driven thence by the Five Nations."

"Their [the Shawnee's] dialect is more akin to the Mohegan than to the Delaware, and when, in 1692, they first appeared in the area of the Eastern Algonkin Confederacy, they came as the friends and relatives of the former. They were divided into four bands"—Piqua, properly Pikoweu, Mequachake, Kiscapokoke, Chilicothe. "Of these, that which settled in Pennsylvania was the Pikoweu, who occupied and gave their name to the Pequa valley in Lancaster county. According to ancient Mohegan tradition, the New England Pequods were members of this band."

      D. G. Brinton,
      The Shawnees and their Migrations
      (History Magazine, volume 10, 1866).

"The Shawanese, whose villages were on the western bank [of the Susquehanna] came into the valley [of Wyoming] from their former localities, at the 'forks of the Delaware' (the junction of the Delaware and Lehigh, at Easton), to which point they had been induced at some remote period to emigrate from their earlier home, near the mouth of the river Wabash, in the 'Ohio region,' upon the invitation of the Delawares. This was Indian diplomacy, for the Delawares were desirous (not being upon the most friendly terms with the Mingos, or Six Nations) to accumulate a force against those powerful neighbors. But, as might be expected, they did not long live in peace with their new allies. … The Shawanese [about 1755, or soon after] were driven out of the valley by their more powerful neighbors, the Delawares, and the conflict which resulted in their leaving it grew out of, or was precipitated by, a very trifling incident. While the warriors of the Delawares were engaged upon the mountains in a hunting expedition, a number of squaws or female Indians from Maughwauwame were gathering wild fruits along the margin of the river below the town, where they found a number of Shawanese squaws and their children, who had crossed the river in their canoes upon the same business. A child belonging to the Shawanese having taken a large grasshopper, a quarrel arose among the children for the possession of it, in which their mothers soon took part. … The quarrel became general. … Upon the return of the warriors both tribes prepared for battle. … The Shawanese … were not able to sustain the conflict, and, after the loss of about half their tribe, the remainder were forced to flee to their own side of the river, shortly after which they abandoned their town and removed to the Ohio." This war between the Delawares and Shawanese has been called the Grasshopper War.

"This important family occupied a large part of the great interior basin of the United States. Upon the north Shoshonean tribes extended far into Oregon, meeting Shahaptian territory on about the 44th parallel or along the Blue Mountains. Upon the northeast the eastern limits of the pristine habitat of the Shoshonean tribes are unknown. The narrative of Lewis and Clarke contains the explicit statement that the Shoshoni bands encountered upon the Jefferson River, whose summer home was upon the head waters of the Columbia, formerly lived within their own recollection in the plains to the east of the Rocky Mountains, whence they were driven to their mountain retreats by the Minnetaree (Atsina), who had obtained firearms. … Later a division of the Bannock held the finest portion of Southwestern Montana, whence apparently they were being pushed westward across the mountains by Blackfeet. Upon the east the Tukuarika or Sheepeaters held the Yellowstone Park country, where they were bordered by the Siouan territory, while the Washaki occupied southwestern Wyoming. Nearly the entire mountainous part of Colorado was held by the several bands of the Ute, the eastern and southeastern parts of the State being held respectively by the Arapaho and Cheyenne (Algonquian), and the Kaiowe (Kiowan). To the southeast the Ute country included the northern drainage of the San Juan, extending farther east a short distance into New Mexico. The Comanche division of the family extended farther east than any other. … Bourgemont found a Comanche tribe on the upper Kansas River in 1724. According to Pike the Comanche territory bordered the Kaiowe on the north, the former occupying the head waters of the Upper Red River, Arkansas and Rio Grande. How far to the southward Shoshonean tribes extended at this early period is not known, though the evidence tends to show that they raided far down into Texas, to the territory they have occupied in more recent years, viz., the extensive plains from the Rocky Mountains eastward into Indian Territory and Texas to about 97°. Upon the south Shoshonean territory was limited generally by the Colorado River … while the Tusayan (Moki) had established their seven pueblos … to the east of the Colorado Chiquito. In the southwest Shoshonean tribes had pushed across California, occupying a wide band of country to the Pacific."

"The Pah Utes occupy the greater part of Nevada, and extend southward. … The Pi Utes or Piutes inhabit Western Utah, from Oregon to New Mexico. … The Gosh Utes [Gosuites] inhabit the country west of Great Salt Lake, and extend to the Pah Utes."

   "The nations which speak the Sioux language may be considered,
   in reference both to their respective dialects and to their
   geographical position, as consisting of four subdivisions,
   viz., the Winnebagoes; the Sioux proper and the Assiniboins;
   the Minetare group; and the Osages and other southern kindred
   tribes. The Winnebagoes, so called by the Algonkins, but
   called Puans and also Otchagras by the French, and Horoje
   ('fish-eaters') by the Omahaws and other southern tribes, call
   themselves Hochungorah, or the 'Trout' nation. The Green Bay
   of Lake Michigan derives its French name from theirs (Baye des
   Puans). … According to the War Department they amount [1836]
   to 4,600 souls, and appear to cultivate the soil to a
   considerable degree. Their principal seats are on the Fox
   River of Lake Michigan, and towards the heads of the Rock
   River of the Mississippi. … The Sioux proper, or
   Naudowessies, names given to them by the Algonkins and the
   French, call themselves Dahcotas, and sometimes 'Ochente
   Shakoans,' or the Seven Fires, and are divided into seven
   bands or tribes, closely connected together, but apparently
   independent of each other. They do not appear to have been
   known to the French before the year 1660.
{104}
   … The four most eastern tribes of the Dahcotas are known by
   the name of the Mendewahkantoan, or 'Gens du Lac,' Wahkpatoan
   and Wahkpakotoan, or 'People of the Leaves,' and Sisitoans.
   … The three westerly tribes, the Yanktons, the Yanktonans,
   and the Tetons, wander between the Mississippi and the
   Missouri. … The Assiniboins (Stone Indians), as they are
   called by the Algonkins, are a Dahcota tribe separated from
   the rest of the nation, and on that account called Hoha or
   'Rebels,' by the other Sioux. They are said to have made part
   originally of the Yanktons. … Another tribe, called
   Sheyennes or Cheyennes, were at no very remote period seated
   on the left bank of the Red River of Lake Winnipek. … Carver
   reckons them as one of the Sioux tribes; and Mackenzie informs
   us that they were driven away by the Sioux. They now [1836]
   live on the headwaters of the river Sheyenne, a southwestern
   tributary of the Missouri. … I have been, however, assured
   by a well-informed person who trades with them that they speak
   a distinct language, for which there is no European
   interpreter. … The Minetares (Minetaree and Minetaries)
   consist of three tribes, speaking three different languages,
   which belong to a common stock. Its affinities with the
   Dahcota are but remote, but have appeared sufficient to
   entitle them to be considered as of the same family. Two of
   those tribes, the Mandanes, whose number does not exceed
   1,500, and the stationary Minetares, amounting to 3,000 souls,
   including those called Annahawas, cultivate the soil, and live
   in villages situated on or near the Missouri, between 47° and
   48° north latitude. … The third Minetare tribe, is that
   known by the name of the Crow or Upsaroka [or Absaroka]
   nation, probably the Keeheetsas of Lewis and Clarke. They are
   an erratic tribe, who hunt south of the Missouri, between the
   Little Missouri and the southeastern branches of the
   Yellowstone River. … The southern Sioux consist of eight
   tribes, speaking four, or at most five, kindred dialects.
   Their territory originally extended along the Mississippi,
   from below the mouth of the Arkansas to the forty-first degree
   of north latitude. … Their hunting grounds extend as far
   west as the Stony Mountains; but they all cultivate the soil,
   and the most westerly village on the Missouri is in about 100°
   west longitude. The three most westerly tribes are the Quappas
   or Arkansas, at the mouth of the river of that name, and the
   Osages and Kansas, who inhabited the country south of the
   Missouri and of the river Kansas. … The Osages, properly
   Wausashe, were more numerous and powerful than any of the
   neighbouring tribes, and perpetually at war with all the other
   Indians, without excepting the Kansas, who speak the same
   dialect with themselves. They were originally divided into
   Great and Little Osages; but about forty years ago almost
   one-half of the nation, known by the name of Chaneers, or
   Clermont's Band, separated from the rest, and removed to the
   river Arkansa. The villages of those several subdivisions are
   now [1836] on the headwaters of the river Osage, and of the
   Verdigris, a northern tributary stream of the Arkansa. They
   amount to about 5,000 souls, and have ceded a portion of their
   lands to the United States, reserving to themselves a
   territory on the Arkansa, south of 38° North latitude,
   extending from 95° to 100° West longitude, on a breadth of 45
   to 50 miles. The territory allotted to the Cherokees, the
   Creeks and the Choctaws lies south of that of the Osage. …
   The Kansas, who have always lived on the river of that name,
   have been at peace with the Osage for the last thirty years,
   and intermarry with them. They amount to 1,500 souls, and
   occupy a tract of about 3,000,000 acres. … The five other
   tribes of this subdivision are the Ioways, or Pahoja (Grey
   Snow), the Missouris or Neojehe, the Ottoes, or Wahtootahtah,
   the Omahaws, or Mahas, and the Puncas. … All the nations
   speaking languages belonging to the Great Sioux Family may …
   be computed at more than 50,000 souls."

A. Gallatin, Synopsis of the Indian Tribes (Archœologia Americana, volume 2), section 4.

"Owing to the fact that 'Sioux' is a word of reproach and means snake or enemy, the term has been discarded by many later writers as a family designation, and 'Dakota,' which signifies friend or ally, has been employed in its stead. The two words are, however, by no means properly synonymous. The term 'Sioux' was used by Gallatin in a comprehensive or family sense and was applied to all the tribes collectively known to him to speak kindred dialects of a widespread language. It is in this sense only, as applied to the linguistic family, that the term is here employed. The term 'Dahcota' (Dakota) was correctly applied by Gallatin to the Dakota tribes proper as distinguished from the other members of the linguistic family who are not Dakotas in a tribal sense. The use of the term with this signification should be perpetuated. It is only recently that a definite decision has been reached respecting the relationship of the Catawba and Woccon, the latter an extinct tribe known to have been linguistically related to the Catawba. Gallatin thought that he was able to discern some affinities of the Catawban language with 'Muskhogee and even with Choctaw,' though these were not sufficient to induce him to class them together. Mr. Gatschet was the first to call attention to the presence in the Catawba language of a considerable number of words having a Siouan affinity. Recently Mr. Dorsey has made a critical examination of all the Catawba linguistic material available, which has been materially increased by the labors of Mr. Gatschet, and the result seems to justify its inclusion as one of the dialects of the widespread Siouan family." The principal tribes in the Siouan Family named by Major Powell are the Dakota (including Santee, Sisseton, Wahpeton, Yankton, Yanktonnais, Teton,—the latter embracing Brulé, Sans Arcs, Blackfeet, Minneconjou, Two Kettles, Ogalala, Uncpapa), Assinaboin, Omaha, Ponca, Kaw, Osage, Quapaw, Iowa, Otoe, Missouri, Winnebago, Mandan, Gros Ventres, Crow, Tutelo, Biloxi (see MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY), Catawba and Woccon.

      ALSO IN
      J. O. Dorsey,
      Migrations of Siouan Tribes
      (American Naturalist, volume 20, March).

      J. O. Dorsey,
      Biloxi Indians of Louisiana
      (V. P. address A. A. A. S., 1893).

"A family designation … retained for the tribes of the Queen Charlotte Archipelago which have usually been called Haida. From a comparison of the vocabularies of the Haida language with others of the neighboring Koluschan family, Dr. Franz Boas is inclined to consider that the two are genetically related. The two languages possess a considerable number of words in common, but a more thorough investigation is requisite for the settlement of the question."

"The Stockbridge Indians were originally a part of the Housatannuck Tribe [Mohegans], to whom the Legislature of Massachusetts granted or secured a township [afterward called Stockbridge] in the year 1736. Their number was increased by Wappingers and Mohikanders, and perhaps also by Indians belonging to several other tribes, both of New England and New York. Since their removal to New Stockbridge and Brotherton, in the western parts of New York, they have been joined by Mohegans and other Indians from East Connecticut, and even from Rhode Island and Long Island."

A. Gallatin, Synopsis of Indian Tribes (Archæologia Americana, volume 2), page 35.

"Dutch and Swedish writers speak of a tribe called Minquas; … the French in Canada … make frequent allusions to the Gandastogués (more briefly Andastés), a tribe friendly to their allies, the Hurons, and sturdy enemies of the Iroquois; later still Pennsylvania writers speak of the Conestogas, the tribe to which Logan belonged, and the tribe which perished at the hands of the Paxton boys. Although Gallatin in his map, followed by Bancroft, placed the Andastés near Lake Erie, my researches led me to correct this, and identify the Susquehannas, Minqua, Andastés or Gandastogués, and Conestogas as being an the same tribe, the first name being apparently an appellation given them by the Virginia tribes; the second that given them by the Algonquins on the Delaware; while Gandastogué as the French, or Conestoga as the English wrote it, was their own tribal name, meaning cabin-pole men, Natio Perticarum, from 'Andasta,' a cabin-pole. … Prior to 1600 the Susquehannas and the Mohawks … came into collision, and the Susquehannas nearly exterminated the Mohawks in a war which lasted ten years." In 1647 they offered their aid to the Hurons against the Iroquois, having 1,300 warriors trained to the use of fire-arms by three Swedish soldiers: but the proposed alliance failed. During the third quarter of the 17th century they seem to have been in almost continuous war with the Five Nations, until, in 1675, they were completely overthrown. A party of about 100 retreated into Maryland and became involved there in a war with the colonists and were destroyed. "The rest of the tribe, after making overtures to Lord Baltimore, submitted to the Five Nations, and were allowed to retain their ancient grounds. When Pennsylvania was settled, they became known as Conestogas, and were always friendly to the colonists of Penn, as they had been to the Dutch and Swedes. In 1701 Canoodagtoh, their king, made a treaty with Penn, and in the document they are styled Minquas, Conestogas, or Susquehannas. They appear as a tribe in a treaty in 1742, but were dwindling away. In 1763 the feeble remnant of the tribe became involved in the general suspicion entertained by the colonists against the red men, arising out of massacres on the borders. To escape danger the poor creatures took refuge in Lancaster jail, and here they were all butchered by the Paxton boys, who burst into the place. Parkman, in his Conspiracy of Pontiac, page 414, details the sad story. The last interest of this unfortunate tribe centres in Logan, the friend of the white man, whose speech is so familiar to all, that we must regret that it has not sustained the historical scrutiny of Brantz Mayer."

(Tahgahjute; or Logan and Capt. Michael Cresap, Maryland Historical Society, May, 1851: and 8vo. Albany, 1867).

J. G. Shea, Note 46 to George Alsop's Character of the Province of Maryland (Gowan's Bibliotheca Americana, 5).

   "This name was proposed by Mr. Gatschet for a distinct
   language spoken on the coast of Oregon about the lower Rogue
   River."

      J. W. Powell,
      Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,
      page 121.

   "The tribes of this family in the United States resided
   exclusively upon the Rio Grande and its tributary valleys from
   about 33° to about 36°."

      J. W. Powell,
      Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,
      page 122.

"The Tarascans, so called from Taras, the name of a tribal god, had the reputation of being the tallest and handsomest people of Mexico. They were the inhabitants of the present State of Michoacan, west of the valley of Mexico. According to their oldest traditions, or perhaps those of their neighbors, they had migrated from the north in company with, or about the same time as, the Aztecs. For some 300 years before the conquest they had been a sedentary, semi-civilized people, maintaining their independence, and progressing steadily in culture. When first encountered by the Spaniards they were quite equal and in some respects ahead of the Nahuas. … In their costume the Tarascos differed considerably from their neighbors. The feather garments which they manufactured surpassed all others in durability and beauty. Cotton was, however, the usual material."

"Beginning at the southeast, we first meet the historic Timucua family, the tribes of which are extinct at the present time. … In the 16th century the Timucua inhabited the northern and middle portion of the peninsula of Florida, and although their exact limits to the north are unknown, they held a portion of Florida bordering on Georgia, and some of the coast islands in the Atlantic ocean. … The people received its name from one of their villages called Timagoa. … The name means 'lord,' 'ruler,' 'master' ('atimuca,' waited upon, 'muca,' by servants, 'ati'), and the people's name is written Atimuca early in the 18th century. … The languages spoken by the Calusa and by the people next in order, the Tequesta, are unknown to us. … The Calusa held the southwestern extremity of Florida, and their tribal name is left recorded in Calusahatchi, a river south of Tampa bay. … Of the Tequesta people on the southeastern end of the peninsula we know still less than of the Calusa Indians. There was a tradition that they were the same people which held the Bahama or Lucayo Islands."

   "The Tonika are known to have occupied three localities:
   First, on the Lower Yazoo River (1700); second, east shore of
   Mississippi River (about 1704); third, in Avoyelles Parish,
   Louisiana (1817). Near Marksville, the county seat of that
   parish, about twenty-five are now living."

      J. W. Powell,
      Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,
      page 125.

"The Tónkawa were a migratory people and a colluvies gentium, whose earliest habitat is unknown. Their first mention occurs in 1719; at that time and ever since they roamed in the western and southern parts of what is now Texas."

"The first natives whom Cortes met on landing in Mexico were the Totonacos. They occupied the territory of Totonicapan, now included in the State of Vera Cruz. According to traditions of their own, they had resided there 800 years, most of which time they were independent, though a few generations before the arrival of the Spaniards they had been subjected by the arms of the Montezumas. … Sahagun describes them as almost white in color, their heads artificially deformed, but their features regular and handsome. Robes of cotton beautifully dyed served them for garments, and their feet were covered with sandals. … These people were highly civilized. Cempoalla, their capital city, was situated about five miles from the sea, at the junction of two streams. Its houses were of brick and mortar, and each was surrounded by a small garden, at the foot of which a stream of fresh water was conducted. … The affinities of the Totonacos are difficult to make out. … Their language has many words from Maya roots, but it has also many more from the Nahuatl."

"The first Indians with whom the Portuguese came in contact, on the discovery of Brazil, called themselves Tupinama, a term derived by Barnhagen from Tupi and Mba, something like warrior or nobleman; by Martius from Tupi and Anamba (relative) with the signification 'belonging to the Tupi tribe.' These Tupi dwell on the east coast of Brazil, and with their language the Portuguese were soon familiar. It was found especially serviceable as a means of communication with other tribes, and this led the Jesuits later to develop it as much as possible, and introduce it as a universal language of intercourse with the Savages. Thus the 'lingua geral Brasilica' arose, which must be regarded as a Tupi with a Portuguese pronunciation. The result was a surprising one, for it really succeeded in forming, for the tribes of Brazil, divided in language, a universal means of communication. Without doubt the wide extent of the Tupi was very favorable, especially since on this side of the Andes, as far as the Caribbean Sea, the continent of South America was overrun with Tupi hordes. … Von Martius has endeavored to trace their various migrations and abodes, by which they have acquired a sort of ubiquity in tropical South America. … This history … leads to the supposition that, had the discovery been delayed a few centuries, the Tupi might have become the lords of eastern South America, and have spread a higher culture over that region. The Tupi family may be divided, according to their fixed abodes, into the southern, northern, eastern, western, and central Tupi; all these are again divided into a number of smaller tribes. The southern Tupi are usually called Guarani (warriors), a name which the Jesuits first introduced. It cannot be determined from which direction they came. The greatest number are in Paraguay and the Argentine province of Corrientes. The Jesuits brought them to a very high degree of civilization. The eastern Tupi, the real Tupinamba, are scattered along the Atlantic coast from St. Catherina Island to the mouth of the Amazon. They are a very weak tribe. They say they came from the south and west. The northern Tupi are a weak and widely scattered remnant of a large tribe, and are now in the province of Para, on the island of Marajo, and along both banks of the Amazon. … It is somewhat doubtful if this peaceable tribe are really Tupi. … The central Tupi live in several free hordes between the Tocantins and Madeira. … Cutting off the heads of enemies is in vogue among them. … The Mundrucu are especially the head-hunting tribe. The western Tupi all live in Bolivia. They are the only ones who came in contact with the Inca empire, and their character and manners show the influence of this. Some are a picture of idyllic gayety and patriarchal mildness."

The Standard Natural History (J. S. Kingsley, editor) volume 6, pages 248-249.

"In frequent contiguity with the Tupis was another stock, also widely dispersed through Brazil, called the Tupuyas, of whom the Botocudos in eastern Brazil are the most prominent tribe. To them also belong the Ges nations, south of the lower Amazon, and others. They are on a low grade of culture, going quite naked, not cultivating the soil, ignorant of pottery, and with poorly made canoes. They are dolichocephalic, and must have inhabited the country a long time."

"The pristine homes of the Yuchi are not now traceable with any degree of certainty. The Yuchi are supposed to have been visited by De Soto during his memorable march, and the town of Cofitachiqui chronicled by him, is believed by many investigators to have stood at Silver Bluff, on the left bank of the Savannah, about 25 miles below Augusta. If, as is supposed by some authorities, Cofitachiqui was a Yuchi town, this would locate the Yuchi in a section which, when first known to the whites, was occupied by the Shawnee. Later the Yuchi appear to have lived somewhat farther down the Savannah."

"Hale established this family and placed under it the Cailloux or Cayuse or Willetpoos, and the Molele. Their headquarters as indicated by Hale are the upper part of the Walla Walla River and the country about Mounts Hood and Vancouver."

"The above family name was based upon a vocabulary of the Wakash Indians, who, according to Gallatin, 'inhabit the island on which Nootka Sound is situated.' … The term 'Wakash' for this group of languages has since been generally ignored, and in its place Nootka or Nootka-Columbian has been adopted. … Though by no means as appropriate a designation as could be found, it seems clear that for the so-called Wakash, Newittee, and other allied languages usually assembled under the Nootka family, the term Wakash of 1836 has priority and must be retained."

   "This family is represented by a single well known tribe,
   whose range extended from Reno, on the line of the Central
   Pacific Railroad, to the lower end of Carson Valley."

      J. W. Powell,
      Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,
      page 131.

"This is a small and obscure linguistic family and little is known concerning the dialects composing it or of the tribes which speak it. … The area occupied by the tribes speaking dialects of this language was the coast from a little below the mouth of Eel River to a little north of Mad River, including particularly the country about Humboldt Bay."

"The eastern boundary of the Yanan territory is formed by a range of mountains a little west of Lassen Butte and terminating near Pit River; the northern boundary by a line running from northeast to southwest, passing near the northern side of Round Mountain, three miles from Pit River. The western boundary from Redding southward is on an average 10 miles to the east of the Sacramento. North of Redding it averages double that distance or about 20 miles."

"Round Valley, California, subsequently made a reservation to receive the Yuki and other tribes, was formerly the chief seat of the tribes of the family, but they also extended across the mountains to the coast."

   "The center of distribution of the tribes of this family is
   generally considered to be the lower Colorado and Gila
   Valleys."

      J. W. Powell,
      Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,
      page 137.

   "The greater part of Gaxaca [Mexico] and the neighboring
   regions are still occupied by the Zapytees, who call
   themselves Didja-za. There are now about 265,000 of them,
   about 50,000 of whom speak nothing but their native tongue. In
   ancient times they constituted a powerful independent state,
   the citizens of which seem to have been quite as highly
   civilized as any member of the Aztec family. They were
   agricultural and sedentary, living in villages and
   constructing buildings of stone and mortar.
{108}
   The most remarkable, but by no means the only, specimens of
   these still remaining are the ruins of Mitla. … The Mixtecs
   adjoined the Zapotecs to the west, extending along the coast
   of the Pacific to about the present port of Acapulco. In
   culture they were equal to the Zapotecs. … The mountain
   regions of the isthmus of Tehuantepec and the adjacent
   portions of the states of Chiapas and Oaxaca are the habitats
   of the Zoques, Mixes, and allied tribes. The early historians
   draw a terrible picture of their valor, savagery and
   cannibalism, which reads more like tales to deter the
   Spaniards from approaching their domains than truthful
   accounts. However this may be, they have been for hundreds of
   years a peaceful, ignorant, timid part of the population,
   homely, lazy and drunken. … The faint traditions of these
   peoples pointed to the South for their origin. … The
   Chinantecs inhabited Chinantla, which is a part of the state
   of Oaxaca. … The Chinantecs had been reduced by the Aztecs
   and severely oppressed by them. Hence they welcomed the
   Spaniards as deliverers. … Other names by which they are
   mentioned are Tenez and Teutecas. … In speaking of the
   province of Chiapas the historian Herrera informs us that it
   derived its name from the pueblo so-called, 'whose inhabitants
   were the most remarkable in New Spain for their traits and
   inclinations.' They had early acquired the art of
   horsemanship, they were skillful in all kinds of music,
   excellent painters, carried on a variety of arts, and were
   withal very courteous to each other. One tradition was that
   they had reached Chiapas from Nicaragua. … But the more
   authentic legend of the Chapas or Chapanecs, as they were
   properly called from their totemic bird the Chapa, the red
   macaw, recited that the whole stock moved down from a northern
   latitude, following down the Pacific coast until they came to
   Soconusco, where they divided, one part entering the mountains
   of Chiapas, the other proceeding on to Nicaragua."

      ALSO IN
      A. Bandelier,
      Report of Archæological Tour in Mexico.

   "Derivation: From the Cochiti term Suinyi, said to mean 'the
   people of the long nails,' referring to the surgeons of Zuñi
   who always wear some of their nails very long (Cushing)."

AMERICAN CIVIL WAR.

AMHERST'S CAMPAIGNS IN AMERICA.

AMICITIÆ.

The ancient city of Amida, now Diarbekr, on the right bank of the Upper Tigris was thrice taken by the Persians from the Romans, in the course of the long wars between the two nations. In the first instance, A. D. 359, it fell after a terrible siege of seventy-three days, conducted by the Persian king Sapor in person, and was given up to pillage and slaughter, the Roman commanders crucified and the few surviving inhabitants dragged to Persia as slaves. The town was then abandoned by the Persians, repeopled by the Romans and recovered its prosperity and strength, only to pass through a similar experience again in 502 A. D., when it was besieged for eighty days by the Persian king Kobad, carried by storm, and most of its inhabitants slaughtered or enslaved. A century later, A. D. 605, Chosroes took Amida once more, but with less violence.

AMIENS, Treaty of (1527).
   Negotiated by Cardinal Wolsey, between Henry VIII. of England
   and Francis I. of France, establishing an alliance against the
   Emperor, Charles V. The treaty was sealed and sworn to in the
   cathedral church at Amiens, Aug. 18, 1527.

The siege of Amisus by Lucullus was one of the important operations of the Third Mithridatic war. The city was on the coast of the Black Sea, between the rivers Halys and Lycus; it is represented in site by the modern town of Samsoon. Amisus, which was besieged in 73 B. C. held out until the following year. Tyrannio the grammarian was among the prisoners taken and sent to Rome.

AMMANN.
This is the title of the Mayor or President of the Swiss Communal
Council or Gemeinderath.

The Ammonium or Oasis of Ammon, in the Libyan desert, which was visited by Alexander the Great, has been identified with the oasis now known as the Oasis of Siwah. "The Oasis of Siwah was first visited and described by Browne in 1792; and its identity with that of Ammon fully established by Major Rennell ('Geography of Herodotus,' pages 577-591). … The site of the celebrated temple and oracle of Ammon was first discovered by Mr. Hamilton in 1853." "Its famous oracle was frequently visited by Greeks from Cyrene, as well as from other parts of the Hellenic world, and it vied in reputation with those of Delphi and Dodona."

E. H. Bunbury, History of Ancient Geography, chapter 8, section 1, and chapter 12, section 1, and note E.

An expedition of 50,000 men sent by Cambyses to Ammon, B. C. 525, is said to have perished in the desert, to the last man.

According to the narrative in Genesis xix: 30-39, the Ammonites were descended from Ben-Ammi, son of Lot's second daughter, as the Moabites came from Moab, the eldest daughter's son. The two people are much associated in Biblical history. "It is hard to avoid the conclusion that, while Moab was the settled and civilized half of the nation of Lot, the Bene Ammon formed its predatory and Bedouin section."

AMNESTY PROCLAMATION.

The Byzantine Emperor, Theophilus, in war with the Saracens, took and destroyed, with peculiar animosity, the town of Zapetra or Sozopetra, in Syria, which happened to be the birthplace of the reigning caliph, Motassem, son of Haroun Alraschid. The caliph had condescended to intercede for the place, and his enemy's conduct was personally insulting to him, as well as atrociously inhumane. To avenge the outrage he invaded Asia Minor, A. D. 838, at the head of an enormous army, with the special purpose of destroying the birthplace of Theophilus. The unfortunate town which suffered that distinction was Amorinm in Phrygia,—whence the ensuing war was called the Amorian War. Attempting to defend Amorinm in the field, the Byzantines were hopelessly defeated, and the doomed city was left to its fate. It made an heroic resistance for fifty-five days, and the siege is said to have cost the caliph 70,000 men. But he entered the place at last with a merciless sword, and left a heap of ruins for the monument of his revenge.

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 52. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

"The Hittites and Amorites were … mingled together in the mountains of Palestine like the two races which ethnologists tell us go to form the modern Kelt. But the Egyptian monuments teach us that they were of very different origin and character. The Hittites were a people with yellow skins and 'Mongoloid' features, whose receding foreheads, oblique eyes, and protruding upper jaws, are represented as faithfully on their own monuments as they are on those of Egypt, so that we cannot accuse the Egyptian artists of caricaturing their enemies. If the Egyptians have made the Hittites ugly, it was because they were so in reality. The Amorites, on the contrary, were a tall and handsome people. They are depicted with white skins, blue eyes, and reddish hair, all the characteristics, in fact, of the white race. Mr. Petrie points out their resemblance to the Dardanians of Asia Minor, who form an intermediate link between the white-skinned tribes of the Greek seas and the fair-complexioned Libyans of Northern Africa. The latter are still found in large numbers in the mountainous regions which stretch eastward from Morocco, and are usually known among the French under the name of Kabyles. The traveller who first meets with them in Algeria cannot fail to be struck by their likeness to a certain part of the population in the British Isles. Their clear-white freckled skins, their blue eyes, their golden-red hair and tall stature, remind him of the fair Kelts of an Irish village; and when we find that their skulls, which are of the so-called dolichocephalic or 'long-headed' type, are the same as the skulls discovered in the prehistoric cromlechs of the country they still inhabit, we may conclude that they represent the modern descendants of the white-skinned Libyans of the Egyptian monuments. In Palestine also we still come across representatives of a fair-complexioned blue-eyed race in whom we may see the descendants of the ancient Amorites, just as we see in the Kabyles the descendants of the ancient Libyans. We know that the Amorite type continued to exist in Judah long after the Israelitish conquest of Canaan. The captives taken from the southern cities of Judah br Shishak in the time of Rehoboam, and depicted by him upon the walls of the great temple of Karnak, are people of Amorite origin. Their 'regular profile of sub-aquiline cast,' as Mr. Tomkins describes it, their high cheek-bones and martial expression, are the features of the Amorites, and not of the Jews. Tallness of stature has always been a distinguishing characteristic of the white race. Hence it was that the Anakim, the Amorite inhabitants of Hebron, seemed to the Hebrew spies to be as giants, while they themselves were but 'as grasshoppers' by, the side of them (Numbers xiii: 33). After the Israelitish invasion remnants of the Anakim were left in Gaza and Gath and Ashkelon (Joshua xi: 22). and in the time of David, Goliath of Gath and his gigantic family were objects of dread to their neighbors (2 Samuel xxi: 15-22). It is clear, then, that the Amorites of Canaan belonged to the same white race as the Libyans of Northern Africa, and like them preferred the mountains to the hot plains and valleys below. The Libyans themselves belonged to a race which can be traced through the peninsula of Spain and the western side of France into the British Isles. Now it is curious that wherever this particular branch of the white race has extended it has been accompanied by a particular form of cromlech, or sepulchral chamber built of large uncut stones. … It has been necessary to enter at this length into what has been discovered concerning the Amorites by recent research, in order to show how carefully they should be distinguished from the Hittites with whom they afterwards intermingled. They must have been in possession of Palestine long before the Hittites arrived there. They extended over a much wider area."

AMPHIKTYONIC COUNCIL.

   "An Amphiktyonic, or, more correctly, an Amphiktionic, body
   was an assembly of the tribes who dwelt around any famous
   temple, gathered together to manage the affairs of that
   temple. There were other Amphiktyonic Assemblies in Greece
   [besides that of Delphi], amongst which that of the isle of
   Kalaureia, off the coast of Argolis, was a body of some
   celebrity. The Amphiktyons of Delphi obtained greater
   importance than any other Amphiktyons only because of the
   greater importance of the Delphic sanctuary, and because it
   incidentally happened that the greater part of the Greek
   nation had some kind of representation among them.
{110}
   But that body could not be looked upon as a perfect
   representation of the Greek nation which, to postpone other
   objections to its constitution, found no place for so large a
   fraction of the Hellenic body as the Arkadians. Still the
   Amphiktyons of Delphi undoubtedly came nearer than any other
   existing body to the character of a general representation of
   all Greece. It is therefore easy to understand how the
   religious functions of such a body might incidentally assume a
   political character. … Once or twice then, in the course of
   Grecian history, we do find the Amphiktyonic body acting with
   real dignity in the name of united Greece. … Though the list
   of members of the Council is given with some slight variations
   by different authors, all agree in making the constituent
   members of the union tribes and not cities. The
   representatives of the Ionic and Doric races sat and voted as
   single members, side by side with the representatives of petty
   peoples like the Magnêsians and Phthiôtic Achaians. When the
   Council was first formed, Dorians and Ionians were doubtless
   mere tribes of northern Greece, and the prodigious development
   of the Doric and Ionic races in after times made no difference
   in its constitution. … The Amphiktyonic Council was not
   exactly a diplomatic congress, but it was much more like a
   diplomatic congress than it was like the governing assembly of
   any commonwealth, kingdom, or federation. The Pylagoroi and
   Hieromnêmones were not exactly Ambassadors, but they were much
   more like Ambassadors than they were like members of a British
   Parliament or even an American Congress. … The nearest
   approach to the Amphiktyonic Council in modern times would be
   if the College of Cardinals were to consist of members chosen
   by the several Roman Catholic nations of Europe and America."

AMPHIPOLIS.

This town in Macedonia, occupying an important situation on the eastern bank of the river Strymon, just below a small lake into which it widens near its mouth, was originally called "The Nine Ways," and was the scene of a horrible human sacrifice made by Xerxes on his march into Greece.

It was subsequently taken by the Athenians, B. C. 437, and made a capital city by them [see ATHENS: B. C. 440-437], dominating the surrounding district, its name being changed to Amphipolis. During the Peloponnesian War (B. C. 424), the able Lacedæmonian general, Brasidas, led a small army into Macedonia and succeeded in capturing Amphipolis, which caused great dismay and discouragement at Athens. Thucydides, the historian, was one of the generals held responsible for the disaster and he was driven as a consequence into the fortunate exile which produced the composition of his history. Two years later the Athenian demagogue-leader, Cleon, took command of an expedition sent to recover Amphipolis and other points in Macedonia and Thrace. It was disastrously beaten and Cleon was killed, but Brasidas fell likewise in the battle. Whether Athens suffered more from her defeat than Sparta from her victory is a question.

"There was hardly a town in the [Roman] empire which had not an amphitheatre large enough to contain vast multitudes of spectators. The savage excitement of gladiatorial combats seems to have been almost necessary to the Roman legionaries in their short intervals of inaction, and was the first recreation for which they provided in the places where they were stationed. … Gladiatorial combats were held from early times in the Forum, and wild beasts hunted in the Circus; but until Curio built his celebrated double theatre of wood, which could be made into an amphitheatre by turning the two semi-circular portions face to face, we have no record of any special building in the peculiar form afterwards adopted. It may have been, therefore, that Curio's mechanical contrivance first suggested the elliptical shape. … As specimens of architecture, the amphitheatres are more remarkable for the mechanical skill and admirable adaptation to their purpose displayed in them, than for any beauty of shape or decoration. The hugest of all, the Coliseum, was ill-proportioned and unpleasing in its lines when entire."

AMPHORA. MODIUS.

"The [Roman] unit of capacity was the Amphora or Quadrantal, which contained a cubic foot … equal to 5.687 imperial gallons, or 5 gallons, 2 quarts, 1 pint, 2 gills, nearly. The Amphora was the unit for both liquid and dry measures, but the latter was generally referred to the Modius, which contained one-third of an Amphora. … The Culeus was equal to 20 Amphoræ."

AMRITSAR.

"In 1205 a low and profitless marsh upon the coast of Holland, not far from the confines of Utrecht, had been partially drained by a dam raised upon the hitherto squandered stream of the Amstel. Near this dam a few huts were tenanted by poor men who earned a scanty livelihood by fishing in the Zuyder Sea; but so uninviting seemed that barren and desolate spot, that a century later Amstel-dam was still an obscure seafaring town, or rather hamlet. Its subsequent progress was more rapid. The spirit of the land was stirring within it, and every portion of it thrilled with new energy and life. Some of the fugitive artizans from Flanders saw in the thriving village safety and peace, and added what wealth they had, and, what was better, their manufacturing intelligence and skill, to the humble hamlet's store. Amsteldam was early admitted to the fellowship of the Hanse League; and, in 1342, having outgrown its primary limits, required to be enlarged. For this an expensive process, that of driving piles into the swampy plain, was necessary; and to this circumstance, no doubt, it is owing that the date of each successive enlargement has been so accurately recorded."

AMT. AMTER.

See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (DENMARK-ICELAND): A. D. 1849-1874;
and SCANDINAVIAN STATES (NORWAY): A. D. 1814-1815.

AMURATH I., Turkish Sultan, A. D. 1359-1389.
   Amurath II., A. D. 1421-1451.
   Amurath III., A. D. 1574-1595.
   Amurath IV., A. D. 1623-1640.

Amyclæ was the chief city of Laconia while that district of Peloponnesus was occupied by the Achæans, before the Doric invasion and before the rise of Sparta. It maintained its independence against the Doric Spartans for a long period, but succumbed at length under circumstances which gave rise to a proverbial saying among the Greeks concerning "the silence of Amyclæ." "The peace of Amyclæ, we are told, had been so often disturbed by false alarms of the enemy's approach, that at length a law was passed forbidding such reports, and the silent city was taken by surprise."

ANABAPTISTS OF MÜNSTER.

"Münster is a town in Westphalia, the seat of a bishop, walled round, with a noble cathedral and many churches; but there is one peculiarity about Münster that distinguishes it from all other old German towns; it has not one old church spire in it. Once it had a great many. How comes it that it now has none? In Münster lived a draper, Knipperdolling by name, who was much excited over the doctrines of Luther, and he gathered many people in his house, and spoke to them bitter words against the Pope, the bishops, and the clergy. The bishop at this time was Francis of Waldeck, a man much inclined himself to Lutheranism; indeed, later, he proposed to suppress Catholicism in the diocese, as he wanted to seize on it and appropriate it as a possession to his family. Moreover, in 1544, he joined the Protestant princes in a league against the Catholics; but he did not want things to move too fast, lest he should not be able to secure the wealthy See as personal property. Knipperdolling got a young priest, named Rottmann, to preach in one of the churches against the errors of Catholicism, and he was a man of such fiery eloquence that he stirred up a mob which rushed through the town, wrecking the churches. The mob became daily more daring and threatening. They drove the priests out of the town, and some of the wealthy citizens fled, not knowing what would follow. The bishop would have yielded to all the religious innovations if the rioters had not threatened his temporal position and revenue. In 1532 the pastor, Rottmann, began to preach against the baptism of infants. Luther wrote to him remonstrating, but in vain. The bishop was not in the town; he was at Minden, of which See he was bishop as well. Finding that the town was in the hands of Knipperdolling and Rottmann, who were confiscating the goods of the churches, and excluding those who would not agree with their opinions, the bishop advanced to the place at the head of some soldiers. Münster closed its gates against him. Negotiations were entered into; the Landgrave of Hesse was called in as pacificator, and articles of agreement were drawn up and signed. Some of the churches were given to the Lutherans, but the Cathedral was reserved for the Catholics, and the Lutherans were forbidden to molest the latter, and disturb their religious services. The news of the conversion of the city of Münster to the gospel spread, and strangers came to it from all parts. Among these was a tailor of Leyden, called John Bockelson. Rottmann now threw up his Lutheranism and proclaimed himself opposed to many of the doctrines which Luther still retained. Amongst other things he rejected was infant baptism. This created a split among the reformed in Münster, and the disorders broke out afresh. The mob now fell on the cathedral and drove the Catholics from it, and would not permit them to worship in it. They also invaded the Lutheran churches, and filled them with uproar. On the evening of January 28, 1534, the Anabaptists stretched chains across the streets, assembled in armed bands, closed the gates and placed sentinels in all directions. When day dawned there appeared suddenly two men dressed like Prophets, with long ragged beards and flowing mantles, staff in hand, who paced through the streets solemnly in the midst of the crowd, who bowed before them and saluted them as Enoch and Elias. These men were John Bockelson, the tailor, and one John Mattheson, head of the Anabaptists of Holland. Knipperdolling at once associated himself with them, and shortly the place was a scene of the wildest ecstacies. Men and women ran about the streets screaming and leaping, and crying out that they saw visions of angels with swords drawn urging them on to the extermination of Lutherans and Catholics alike. … A great number of citizens were driven out, on a bitter day, when the land was covered with snow. Those who lagged were beaten; those who were sick were carried to the market-place and re-baptized by Rottmann. … This was too much to be borne. The bishop raised an army and marched against the city. Thus began a siege which was to last sixteen months, during which a multitude of untrained fanatics, commanded by a Dutch tailor, held out against a numerous and well-armed force. Thenceforth the city was ruled by divine revelations, or rather, by the crazes of the diseased brains of the prophets. One day they declared that all the officers and magistrates were to be turned out of their offices, and men nominated by themselves were to take their places; another day Mattheson said it was revealed to him that every book in the town except the Bible was to be destroyed; accordingly all the archives and libraries were collected in the market-place and burnt. Then it was revealed to him that all the spires were to be pulled down; so the church towers were reduced to stumps, from which the enemy could be watched and whence cannon could play on them. One day he declared he had been ordered by Heaven to go forth, with promise of victory, against the besiegers. He dashed forth at the head of a large band, but was surrounded and he and his band slain. The death of Mattheson struck dismay into the hearts of the Anabaptists, but John Bockelson took advantage of the moment to establish himself as head. He declared that it was revealed to him that Mattheson had been killed because he had disobeyed the heavenly command, which was to go forth with few. Instead of that he had gone with many. {112} Bockelson said he had been ordered in vision to marry Mattheson's widow and assume his place. It was further revealed to him that Münster was to be the heavenly Zion, the capital of the earth, and he was to be king over it. … Then he had another revelation that every man was to have as many wives as he liked, and he gave himself sixteen wives. This was too outrageous for some to endure, and a plot was formed against him by a blacksmith and about 200 of the more respectable citizens, but it was frustrated and led to the seizure of the conspirators and the execution of a number of them. … At last, on midsummer eve, 1536, after a siege of sixteen months, the city was taken. Several of the citizens, unable longer to endure the tyranny, cruelty and abominations committed by the king, helped the soldiers of the prince-bishop to climb the walls, open the gates, and surprise the city. A desperate hand-to-hand fight ensued; the streets ran with blood. John Bockelson, instead of leading his people, hid himself, but was caught. So was Knipperdolling. When the place was in his hands the prince-bishop entered. John of Leyden and Knipperdolling were cruelly tortured, their flesh plucked off with red-hot pincers, and then a dagger was thrust into their hearts. Finally, their bodies were hung in iron cages to the tower of a church in Münster. Thus ended this hideous drama, which produced an indescribable effect throughout Germany. Münster, after this, in spite of the desire of the prince-bishop to establish Lutheranism, reverted to Catholicism, and remains Catholic to this day."

      ALSO IN
      S. Baring-Gould,
      Historic Oddities and Strange Events,
      2d Series.

L. von Ranke, History of the Reformation in Germany, book 6, chapter 9 (volume 3).

ANAHUAC.

"The word Anahuac signifies 'near the water.' It was, probably, first applied to the country around the lakes in the Mexican Valley, and gradually extended to the remoter regions occupied by the Aztecs, and the other semi-civilized races. Or, possibly, the name may have been intended, as Veytia suggests (Historical Antiquities, lib. 1, cap. 1), to denote the land between the waters of the Atlantic and Pacific."

ANAKTORIUM.

ANARCHISTS.

"The anarchists are … a small but determined band. … Although their programme may be found almost word for word in Proudhon, they profess to follow more closely Bakounine, the Russian nihilist, who separated himself from Marx and the Internationals, and formed secret societies in Spain, Switzerland, France, and elsewhere, and thus propagated nihilistic views; for anarchy and nihilism are pretty much one and the same thing when nihilism is understood in the older, stricter sense, which does not include, as it does in a larger and more modern sense, those who are simply political and constitutional reformers. Like prince Krapotkine, Bakounine came of an old and prominent Russian family; like him, he revolted against the cruelties and injustices he saw about him; like him, he despaired of peaceful reform, and concluded that no great improvement could be expected until all our present political, economic, and social institutions were so thoroughly demolished that of the old structure not one stone should be left on another. Out of the ruins a regenerated world might arise. We must be purged as by fire. Like all anarchists and true nihilists, he was a thorough pessimist, as far as our present manner of life was concerned. Reaction against conservatism carried him very far. He wished to abolish private property, state, and inheritance. Equality is to be carried so far that all must wear the same kind of clothing, no difference being made even for sex. Religion is an aberration of the brain, and should be abolished. Fire, dynamite, and assassination are approved of by at least a large number of the party. They are brave men, and fight for their faith with the devotion of martyrs. Imprisonment and death are counted but as rewards. … Forty-seven anarchists signed a declaration of principles, which was read by one of their number at their trial at Lyons. … 'We wish liberty [they declared] and we believe its existence incompatible with the existence of any power whatsoever, whatever its origin and form—whether it be selected or imposed, monarchical or republican—whether inspired by divine right or by popular right, by anointment or universal suffrage. … The best governments are the worst. The substitution, in a word, in human relations, of free contract perpetually revisable and dissoluble, is our ideal.'"

H. L. Osgood, Scientific Anarchism (Political Science Quarterly, March, 1889), pages 1-2.

ANASTASIUS II., A. D. 713-716.

ANATOLIA.

ANCHORITES. HERMITS.

"The fertile and peaceable lowlands of England … offered few spots sufficiently wild and lonely for the habitation of a hermit; those, therefore, who wished to retire from the world into a more strict and solitary life than that which the monastery afforded were in the habit of immuring themselves, as anchorites, or in old English 'Ankers,' in little cells of stone, built usually against the wall of a church. There is nothing new under the sun; and similar anchorites might have been seen in Egypt, 500 years before the time of St. Antony, immured in cells in the temples of Isis or Serapis. It is only recently that antiquaries have discovered how common this practice was in England, and how frequently the traces of these cells are to be found about our parish churches."

The term anchorites is applied, generally, to all religious ascetics who lived in solitary cells.

"The essential difference between an anker or anchorite and a hermit appears to have been that, whereas the former passed his whole life shut up in a cell, the latter, although leading indeed a solitary life, wandered about at liberty."

R. R. Sharpe, Introduction to "Calendar of Wills in the Court of Husting, London," volume 2, page xxi.

ANCIENT REGIME.

The political and social system in France that was destroyed by the Revolution of 1789 is commonly referred to as the "ancien régime." Some writers translate this in the literal English form—"the ancient regime;" others render it more appropriately, perhaps, the "old regime." Its special application is to the state of things described under FRANCE: A. D. 1789.

A success obtained by the Scots over an English force making an incursion into the border districts of their country A. D. 1544.

"The Vandals, … though they passed altogether out of Spain, have left their name to this day in its southern part, under the form of Andalusia, a name which, under the Saracen conquerors, spread itself over the whole peninsula."

Roughly speaking, Andalusia represents the country known to the ancients, first, as Tartessus, and, later, as Turdetania.

ANDECAVI.
The ancient name of the city of Angers, France, and of the
tribe which occupied that region.

ANDERIDA. ANDERIDA SYLVA. ANDREDSWALD.

A great forest which anciently stretched across Surrey, Sussex and into Kent (southeastern England) was called Anderida Sylva by the Romans and Andredswald by the Saxons. It coincided nearly with the tract of country called in modern times the Weald of Kent, to which it gave its name of the Wald or Weald. On the southern coast-border of the Anderida Sylva the Romans established the important fortress and port of Anderida, which has been identified with modern Pevensey. Here the Romano-Britons made an obstinate stand against the Saxons, in the fifth century, and Anderida was only taken by Ælle after a long siege. In the words of the Chronicle, the Saxons "slew all that were therein, nor was there henceforth one Briton left."

ANDERSONVILLE PRISON-PENS.

ANDREW I., King of Hungary, A. D. 1046-1060.
ANDREW II., King of Hungary, A. D. 1204-1235.
ANDREW III., King of Hungary, A. D. 1290-1301.

      See
      NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1686;
      MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1671-1686;
      and 1686-1689;
      NEW YORK: A. D. 1688;
      and CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1685-1687.

ANGEVIN KINGS AND ANGEVIN EMPIRE.

   The mention of the Angles by Tacitus is in the following,
   passage: "Next [to the Langobardi] come the Reudigni, the
   Aviones, the Anglii, the Varini, the Eudoses, the Suardones,
   and Nuithones, who are fenced in by rivers or forests. None of
   these tribes have any noteworthy feature, except their common
   worship of Ertha, or mother-Earth, and their belief that she
   interposes in human affairs, and visits the nations in her
   car. In an island of the ocean there is a sacred grove, and
   within it a consecrated chariot, covered over with a garment.
   Only one priest is permitted to touch it. He can perceive the
   presence of the goddess in this sacred recess, and walks by
   her side with the utmost reverence as she is drawn along by
   heifers. It is a season of rejoicing, and festivity reigns
   wherever she deigns to go and be received. They do not go to
   battle or wear arms; every weapon is under lock; peace and
   quiet are welcomed only at these times, till the goddess,
   weary of human intercourse, is at length restored by the same
   priest to her temple. Afterwards the car, the vestments, and,
   if you like to believe it, the divinity herself, are purified
   in a secret lake. Slaves perform the rite, who are instantly
   swallowed up by its waters. Hence arises a mysterious terror
   and a pious ignorance concerning the nature of that which is
   seen only by men doomed to die.
{114}
   This branch indeed of the Suevi stretches into the
   remoter regions of Germany."

"In close neighbourhood with the Saxons in the middle of the fourth century were the Angli, a tribe whose origin is more uncertain and the application of whose name is still more a matter of question. If the name belongs, in the pages of the several geographers, to the same nation, it was situated in the time of Tacitus east of the Elbe; in the time of Ptolemy it was found on the middle Elbe, between the Thuringians to the south and the Varini to the north; and at a later period it was forced, perhaps by the growth of the Thuringian power, into the neck of the Cimbric peninsula. It may, however, be reasonably doubted whether this hypothesis is sound, and it is by no means clear whether, if it be so, the Angli were not connected more closely with the Thuringians than with the Saxons. To the north of the Angli, after they had reached their Schleswig home, were the Jutes, of whose early history we know nothing, except their claims to be regarded as kinsmen of the Goths and the close similarity between their descendants and the neighbour Frisians."

"Important as are the Angles, it is not too much to say that they are only known through their relations to us of England, their descendants; indeed, without this paramount fact, they would be liable to be confused with the Frisians, with the Old Saxons, and with even Slavonians. This is chiefly because there is no satisfactory trace or fragment of the Angles of Germany within Germany; whilst the notices of the other writers of antiquity tell us as little as the one we find in Tacitus. And this notice is not only brief but complicated. … I still think that the Angli of Tacitus were—1: The Angles of England; 2: Occupants of the northern parts of Hanover; 3: At least in the time of Tacitus; 4: And that to the exclusion of any territory in Holstein, which was Frisian to the west, and Slavonic to the east. Still the question is one of great magnitude and numerous complications."

      R. G. Latham,
      The Germany of Tacitus;
      Epilegomena,
      section 49.

      ALSO IN
      J. M. Lappenberg,
      History of England under the Anglo-Saxon Kings,
      volume 1, pages 89-95.

The conquests and settlements of the Jutes and the Angles in Britain are described under ENGLAND: A. D. 449-473. and 547-633.

ANGLO-SAXON.

A term which may be considered as a compound of Angle and Saxon, the names of the two principal Teutonic tribes which took possession of Britain and formed the English nation by their ultimate union. As thus regarded and used to designate the race, the language and the institutions which resulted from that union, it is only objectionable, perhaps, as being superfluous, because English is the accepted name of the people of England and all pertaining to them. But the term Anglo-Saxon has also been more particularly employed to designate the Early English people and their language, before the Norman Conquest, as though they were Anglo-Saxon at that period and became English afterwards. Modern historians are protesting strongly against this use of the term. Mr. Freeman (Norman Conquest, volume 1, note A), says: "The name by which our forefathers really knew themselves and by which they were known to other nations was English and no other. 'Angli,' 'Engle,' 'Angel-cyn,' 'Englisc,' are the true names by which the Teutons of Britain knew themselves and their language. … As a chronological term, Anglo-Saxon is equally objectionable with Saxon. The 'Anglo-Saxon period,' as far as there ever was one, is going on still. I speak therefore of our forefathers, not as 'Saxons,' or even as 'Anglo-Saxons,' but as they spoke of themselves, as Englishmen—'Angli,' 'Engle,'-'Angel-cyn.'"

Fought in Armenia. A. D. 543, between the Romans and the
Persians, with disaster to the former.

The Angrivarii were one of the tribes of ancient Germany. Their settlements "were to the west of the Weser (Visurgis) in the neighbourhood of Minden and Herford, and thus coincide to some extent with Westphalia. Their territory was the scene of Varus' defeat. It has been thought that the name of this tribe is preserved in that of the town Engern."

"It was the policy of this unfairly depreciated sovereign [Charles the Bald, grandson of Charlemagne, who received in the dismemberment of the Carlovingian Empire the Neustrian part, out of which was developed the modern kingdom of France, and who reigned from 840 to 877], to recruit the failing ranks of the false and degenerate Frankish aristocracy, by calling up to his peerage the wise, the able, the honest and the bold of ignoble birth. … He sought to surround himself with new men, the men without ancestry; and the earliest historian of the House of Anjou both describes this system and affords the most splendid example of the theory adopted by the king. Pre-eminent amongst these parvenus was Torquatus or Tortulfus, an Armorican peasant, a very rustic, a backwoodsman, who lived by hunting and such like occupations, almost in solitude, cultivating his 'quillets,' his 'cueillettes,' of land, and driving his own oxen, harnessed to his plough. Torquatus entered or was invited into the service of Charles-le-Chauve, and rose high in his sovereign's confidence: a prudent, a bold, and a good man. Charles appointed him Forester of the forest called 'the Blackbird's Nest,' the 'nid du merle,' a pleasant name, not the less pleasant for its familiarity. This happened during the conflicts with the Northmen. Torquatus served Charles strenuously in the wars, and obtained great authority. Tertullus, son of Torquatus, inherited his father's energies, quick and acute, patient of fatigue, ambitious and aspiring; he became the liegeman of Charles; and his marriage with Petronilla the King's cousin, Count Hugh the Abbot's daughter, introduced him into the very circle of the royal family. Chateau Landon and other benefices in the Gastinois were acquired by him, possibly as the lady's dowry. Seneschal also was Tertullus of the same ample Gastinois territory. Ingelger, son of Tertullus and Petronilla, appears as the first hereditary Count of Anjou Outre-Maine,—Marquis, Consul or Count of Anjou,—for all these titles are assigned to him. Yet the ploughman Torquatus must be reckoned as the primary Plantagenet: the rustic Torquatus founded that brilliant family."

"Fulc Nerra, Fulc the Black [A. D. 987-1040] is the greatest of the Angevins, the first in whom we can trace that marked type of character which their house was to preserve with a fatal constancy through two hundred years. He was without natural affection. In his youth he burned a wife at the stake, and legend told how he led her to her doom decked out in his gayest attire. In his old age he waged his bitterest war against his son, and exacted from him when vanquished a humiliation which men reserved for the deadliest of their foes. 'You are conquered, you are conquered!' shouted the old man in fierce exultation, as Geoffry, bridled and saddled like a beast of burden, crawled for pardon to his father's feet. … But neither the wrath of Heaven nor the curses of men broke with a single mishap the fifty years of his success. At his accession Anjou was the least important of the greater provinces of France. At his death it stood, if not in extent, at least in real power, first among them all. … His overthrow of Brittany on the field of Conquereux was followed by the gradual absorption of Southern Touraine. … His great victory at Pontlevoi crushed the rival house of Blois; the seizure of Saumur completed his conquests in the South, while Northern Touraine was won bit by bit till only Tours resisted the Angevin. The treacherous seizure of its Count, Herbert Wake-dog, left Maine at his mercy ere the old man bequeathed his unfinished work to his son. As a warrior, Geoffry Martel was hardly inferior to his father. A decisive overthrow wrested Tours from the Count of Blois; a second left Poitou at his mercy; and the seizure of Le Mans brought him to the Norman border. Here … his advance was checked by the genius of William the Conqueror, and with his death the greatness of Anjou seemed for the time to have come to an end. Stripped of Maine by the Normans, and weakened by internal dissensions, the weak and profligate administration of Fulc Rechin left Anjou powerless against its rivals along the Seine. It woke to fresh energy with the accession of his son, Fulc of Jerusalem. … Fulc was the one enemy whom Henry the First really feared. It was to disarm his restless hostility that the King yielded to his son, Geoffry the Handsome, the hand of his daughter Matilda."

ANJOU: A. D. 1206-1442.
   English attempts to recover the county.
   The Third and Fourth Houses of Anjou.
   Creation of the Dukedom.

King John, of England, did not voluntarily submit to the sentence of the peers of France which pronounced his forfeiture of the fiefs of Anjou and Maine, "since he invaded and had possession of Angers again in 1206, when, Goth-like, he demolished its ancient walls. He lost it in the following year, and … made no further attempt upon it until 1213. In that year, having collected a powerful army, he landed at Rochelle, and actually occupied Angers, without striking a blow. But … the year 1214 beheld him once more in retreat from Anjou, never to reappear there, since he died on the 19th of October, 1216. In the person of King John ended what is called the 'Second House of Anjou.' In 1204, after the confiscations of John's French possessions, Philip Augustus established hereditary seneschals in that part of France, the first of whom was the tutor of the unfortunate Young Arthur [of Brittany], named William des Roches, who was in fact Count in all except the name, over Anjou, Maine, and Tourraine, owing allegiance only to the crown of France. The Seneschal, William des Roches, died in 1222. His son-in-law, Amaury de Craon, succeeded him," but was soon afterwards taken prisoner during a war in Brittany and incarcerated. Henry III. of England still claimed the title of Count of Anjou, and in 1230 he "disembarked a considerable army at St. Malo, in the view of re-conquering Anjou, and the other forfeited possessions of his crown. Louis IX., then only fifteen years old … advanced to the attack of the allies; but in the following year a peace was concluded, the province of Guienne having been ceded to the English crown. In 1241, Louis gave the counties of Poitou and Auvergne to his brother Alphonso; and, in the year 1246, he invested his brother Charles, Count of Provence, with the counties of Anjou and Maine, thereby annulling the rank and title of Seneschal, and instituting the Third House of Anjou. Charles I., the founder of the proud fortunes of this Third House, was ambitious in character, and events long favoured his ambition. Count of Provence, through the inheritance of his consort, had not long been invested with Anjou and Maine, ere he was invited to the conquest of Sicily [see ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1250-1268]." The Third House of Anjou ended in the person of John, who became King of France in 1350. In 1356 he invested his son Louis with Anjou and Maine, and in 1360 the latter was created the first Duke of Anjou. The Fourth House of Anjou, which began with this first Duke, came to an end two generations later with René, or Regnier,—the "good King René" of history and story, whose kingdom was for the most part a name, and who is best known to English readers, perhaps, as the father of Margaret of Anjou, the stout-hearted queen of Henry VI. On the death of his father, Louis, the second duke, René became by his father's will Count of Guise, his elder brother, Louis, inheriting the dukedom. In 1434 the brother died without issue and René succeeded him in Anjou, Maine and Provence. He had already become Duke of Bar, as the adopted heir of his great-uncle, the cardinal-duke, and Duke of Lorraine (1430), by designation of the late Duke, whose daughter he had married. In 1435 he received from Queen Joanna of Naples the doubtful legacy of that distracted kingdom, which she had previously bequeathed first, to Alphonso of Aragon, and afterwards-revoking that testament—to René's brother, Louis of Anjou. King René enjoyed the title during his life-time, and the actual kingdom for a brief period; but in 1442 he was expelled from Naples by his competitor Alphonso (see ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447).

M. A. Hookham, Life and Times of Margaret of Anjou, introduction and chapters 1-2.

ANJOU, The Neapolitan House of: A. D. 1266.
Conquest of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies.

ANJOU: A. D. 1381-1384.
Claims of Louis of Anjou.
His expedition to Italy and his death.

ANJOU: A. D. 1386-1399.-
Renewed contest for Naples.
Defeat of Louis II. by Ladislas.

ANJOU: A. D. 1423-1442.
Renewed contest for the crown of Naples.
Defeat by Alfonso of Aragon and Sicily.

ANKERS.

ANNATES, OR FIRST-FRUITS.

"A practice had existed for some hundreds of years, in all the churches of Europe, that bishops and archbishops, on presentation to their sees, should transmit to the pope, on receiving their bulls of investment, one year's income from their new preferments. It was called the payment of Annates, or first-fruits, and had originated in the time of the crusades, as a means of providing a fund for the holy wars. Once established it had settled into custom, and was one of the chief resources of the papal revenue."

"The claim [by the pope] to the first-fruits of bishoprics and other promotions was apparently first made in England by Alexander IV. in 1256, for five years; it was renewed by Clement V. in 1306, to last for two years; and it was in a measure successful. By John XXII. it was claimed throughout Christendom for three years, and met with universal resistance. … Stoutly contested as it was in the Council of Constance, and frequently made the subject of debate in parliament and council the demand must have been regularly complied with."

"In each cohort [of the Roman legion, in Cæsar's time] a certain number of the best men, probably about one-fourth of the whole detachment, was assigned as a guard to the standard, from whence they derived their name of Antesignani."

ANTI-CORN-LAW LEAGUE.

ANTI-FEDERALISTS.

ANTI-RENTERS. ANTI-RENT WAR.

ANTI-SLAVERY MOVEMENTS.

ANTIGONEA.

ANTILLES. ANTILIA.

"Familiar as is the name of the Antilles, few are aware of the antiquity of the word; while its precise significance sets etymology at defiance. Common consent identified the Antilia of legend with the Isle of the Seven Cities. In the year 734, says the story, the Arabs having conquered most of the Spanish peninsula, a number of Christian emigrants, under the direction of seven holy bishops, among them the archbishop of Oporto, sailed westward with all that they had, and reached an island where they founded seven towns. Arab geographers speak of an Atlantic island called in Arabic El-tennyn, or Al-tin (Isle of Serpents), a name which may possibly have become by corruption Antilia. … The seven bishops were believed in the 16th century to be still represented by their successors, and to preside over a numerous and wealthy people. Most geographers of the 15th century believed in the existence of Antilia. It was represented as lying west of the Azores. … As soon as it became known in Europe that Columbus had discovered a large island, Española was at once identified with Antilia, … and the name … has ever since been applied generally to the West Indian islands."

ANTINOMIAN CONTROVERSY IN PURITAN MASSACHUSETTS.

"Early in the year 115, according to the most exact chronology, … the splendid capital of Syria was visited by an earthquake, one of the most disastrous apparently of all the similar inflictions from which that luckless city has periodically suffered. … The calamity was enhanced by the presence of unusual crowds from all the cities of the east, assembled to pay homage to the Emperor [Trajan], or to take part in his expedition [of conquest in the east]. Among the victims were many Romans of distinction. … Trajan, himself, only escaped by creeping through a window."

During the reign of Justinian (A. D. 518-565) the cities of the Roman Empire "were overwhelmed by earthquakes more frequent than at any other period of history. Antioch, the metropolis of Asia, was entirely destroyed, on the 20th of May, 526, at the very time when the inhabitants of the adjacent country were assembled to celebrate the festival of the Ascension; and it is affirmed that 250,000 persons were crushed by the fall of its sumptuous edifices."

ALSO IN: E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 43. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

   After having remained 328 years in the possession of the
   Saracens, Antioch was retaken in the winter of A. D. 969 by
   the Byzantine Emperor, Nicephorus Phokas, and became again a
   Christian city. Three years later the Moslems made a great
   effort to recover the city, but were defeated. The Byzantine
   arms were at this time highly successful in the never ending
   Saracen war, and John Zimiskes, successor of Nicephorus
   Phokas, marched triumphantly to the Tigris and threatened even
   Bagdad. But most of the conquests thus made in Syria and
   Mesopotamia were not lasting.

      G. Finlay,
      History of the Byzantine Empire, A. D. 716-1007,
      book 2, chapter 2.

ANTIOCH: A. D. 1268.
Extinction of the Latin Principality.
Total destruction of the city.

Antioch fell, before the arms of Bibars, the Sultan of Egypt and Syria, and the Latin principality was bloodily extinguished, in 1268. "The first seat of the Christian name was dispeopled by the slaughter of seventeen, and the captivity of one hundred, thousand of her inhabitants." This fate befell Antioch only twenty-three years before the last vestige of the conquests of the crusaders was obliterated at Acre.

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 59. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

"The sultan halted for several weeks in the plain, and permitted his soldiers to hold a large market, or fair, for the sale of their booty. This market was attended by Jews and pedlars from all parts of the East. … 'It was,' says the Cadi Mohieddin, 'a fearful and heart-rending sight. Even the hard stones were softened with grief.' He tells us that the captives were so numerous that a fine hearty boy might be purchased for twelve pieces of silver, and a little girl for five. When the work of pillage had been completed, when all the ornaments and decorations had been carried away from the churches, and the lead torn from the roofs, Antioch was fired in different places, amid the loud thrilling shouts of 'Allah Acbar,' 'God is Victorious.' The great churches of St. Paul and St. Peter burnt with terrific fury for many days, and the vast and venerable city was left without a habitation and without an inhabitant."

ANTIOCHUS SOTER, AND ANTIOCHUS THE GREAT.

ANTIUM.

"Antium, once a flourishing city of the Volsci, and afterwards of the Romans, their conquerors, is at present reduced to a small number of inhabitants. Originally it was without a port; the harbour of the Antiates having been the neighbouring indentation in the coast of Ceno, now Nettuno, distant more than a mile to the eastward. … The piracies of the ancient Antiates all proceeded from Ceno, or Cerio, where they had 22 long ships. These Numicius took; … some were taken to Rome and their rostra suspended in triumph in the Forum. … It [Antium] was reckoned 260 stadia, or about 32 miles, from Ostia."

ANTIVESTÆUM.

ANTRUSTIONES.

   In the Salic law, of the Franks, there is no trace of any
   recognized order of nobility. "We meet, however, with
{118}
   several titles denoting temporary rank, derived from offices
   political and judicial, or from a position about the person of
   the king. Among these the Antrustiones, who were in constant
   attendance upon the king, played a conspicuous part. …
   Antrustiones and Convivæ Regis [Romans who held the same
   position] are the predecessors of the Vassi Dominici of later
   times, and like these were bound to the king by an especial
   oath of personal and perpetual service. They formed part, as
   it were, of the king's family, and were expected to reside in
   the palace, where they superintended the various departments
   of the royal household."

Its commercial greatness in the 16th century.—"The city was so ancient that its genealogists, with ridiculous gravity, ascended to a period two centuries before the Trojan war, and discovered a giant, rejoicing in the classic name of Antigonus, established on the Scheld. This patriarch exacted one half the merchandise of all navigators who passed his castle, and was accustomed to amputate and cast into the river the right hands of those who infringed this simple tariff. Thus 'Hand-werpen,' hand-throwing, became Antwerp, and hence, two hands, in the escutcheon of the city, were ever held 'up in heraldic attestation of the truth. The giant was, in his turn, thrown into the Scheld by a hero, named Brabo, from whose exploits Brabant derived its name. … But for these antiquarian researches, a simpler derivation of the name would seem 'an t' werf,' 'on the wharf.' It had now [in the first half of the 16th century] become the principal entrepôt and exchange of Europe. … the commercial capital of the world. … Venice, Nuremburg, Augsburg, Bruges, were sinking, but Antwerp, with its deep and convenient river, stretched its arm to the ocean and caught the golden prize, as it fell from its sister cities' grasp. … No city, except Paris, surpassed it in population, none approached it in commercial splendor."

ANTWERP: A. D. 1577.
Deliverance of the city from its Spanish garrison.
Demolition of the Citadel.

ANTWERP: A. D. 1584-1585.
Siege and reduction by Alexander Farnese, Duke of Parma.
The downfall of prosperity.

ANTWERP: A. D. 1648.
Sacrificed to Amsterdam in the Treaty of Münster.
Closing of the Scheldt.

ANTWERP: A. D. 1832.
Siege of the Citadel by the French.
Expulsion of the Dutch garrison.

APAMEA.

Apamea, a city founded by Seleucus Nicator on the Euphrates, the site of which is occupied by the modern town of Bir, had become, in Strabo's time (near the beginning of the Christian Era) one of the principal centers of Asiatic trade, second only to Ephesus. Thapsacus, the former customary crossing-place of the Euphrates, had ceased to be so, and the passage was made at Apamea. A place on the opposite bank of the river was called Zeugma, or "the bridge." Bir "is still the usual place at which travellers proceeding from Antioch or Aleppo towards Bagdad cross the Euphrates."

E. H. Bunbury, History of Ancient Geography, chapter 22, section 1 (volume 2, pages 298 and 317).

APANAGE.

An annual family festival of the Athenians, celebrated for three days in the early part of the month of October (Pyanepsion). "This was the characteristic festival of the Ionic race; handed down from a period anterior to the constitution of Kleisthenes, and to the ten new tribes each containing so many demes, and bringing together the citizens in their primitive unions of family, gens, phratry, etc., the aggregate of which had originally constituted the four Ionic tribes, now superannuated. At the Apaturia, the family ceremonies were gone through; marriages were enrolled, acts of adoption were promulgated and certified, the names of youthful citizens first entered on the gentile and phratric roll; sacrifices were jointly celebrated by these family assemblages to Zeus Phratrius, Athênê, and other deities, accompanied with much festivity and enjoyment."

"When Aristotle speaks of the officers of government to whom the public revenues were delivered, who kept them and distributed them to the several administrative departments, these are called, he adds, apodectæ and treasurers. In Athens the apodectæ were ten in number, in accordance with the number of the tribes. They were appointed by lot. … They had in their possession the lists of the debtors of the state, received the money which was paid in, registered an account of it and noted the amount in arrear, and in the council house in the presence of the council, erased the names of the debtors who had paid the demands against them from the list, and deposited this again in the archives. Finally, they, together with the council, apportioned the sums received."

APOSTASION.

APPANAGE.

"The term appanage denotes the provision made for the younger children of a king of France. This always consisted of lands and feudal superiorities held of the crown by the tenure of peerage. It is evident that this usage, as it produced a new class of powerful feudataries, was hostile to the interests and policy of the sovereign, and retarded the subjugation of the ancient aristocracy. But an usage coeval with the monarchy was not to be abrogated, and the scarcity of money rendered it impossible to provide for the younger branches of the royal family by any other means. It was restrained however as far as circumstances would permit."

"From the words 'ad' and 'panis,' meaning that it was to provide bread for the person who held it. A portion of appanage was now given to each of the king's younger sons, which descended to his direct heirs, but in default of them reverted to the crown."

Appius Claudius, called the Blind, who was censor at Rome from 312 to 308 B. C. [see ROME: B. C. 312], constructed during that time "the Appian road, the queen of roads, because the Latin road, passing by Tusculum, and through the country of the Hernicans, was so much endangered, and had not yet been quite recovered by the Romans: the Appian road, passing by Terracina, Fundi and Mola, to Capua, was intended to be a shorter and safer one. … The Appian road, even if Appius did carry it as far as Capua, was not executed by him with that splendour for which we still admire it in those parts which have not been destroyed intentionally: the closely joined polygons of basalt, which thousands of years have not been able to displace, are of a somewhat later origin. Appius commenced the road because there was actual need for it; in the year A. U. 457 [B. C. 297] peperino, and some years later basalt (silex) was first used for paving roads, and, at the beginning, only on the small distance from the Porta Capena to the temple of Mars, as we are distinctly told by Livy. Roads constructed according to artistic principles had previously existed."

APULEIAN LAW.

AQUÆ SEXTIÆ.

AQUÆ SOLIS.

The Roman name of the long famous watering-place known in modern England as the city of Bath. It was splendidly adorned in Roman times with temples and other edifices.

AQUILEIA.

Aquileia, at the time of the destruction of that city by the Huns, A. D. 452, was, "both as a fortress and a commercial emporium, second to none in Northern Italy. It was situated at the northernmost point of the gulf of Hadria, about twenty miles northwest of Trieste, and the place where it once stood is now in the Austrian dominions, just over the border which separates them from the kingdom of Italy. In the year 181 B. C. a Roman colony had been sent to this far corner of Italy to serve as an outpost against some intrusive tribes, called by the vague name of Gauls. … Possessing a good harbour, with which it was connected by a navigable river, Aquileia gradually became the chief entrepôt for the commerce between Italy and what are now the Illyrian provinces of Austria."

The Roman conquest of Aquitania was achieved, B. C. 56, by one of Cæsar's lieutenants, the Younger Crassus, who first brought the people called the Sotiates to submission and then defeated their combined neighbors in a murderous battle, where three-fourths of them are said to have been slain. The tribes which then submitted "were the Tarbelli, Bigerriones, Preciani, Vocates, Tarusates, Elusates, Garites, Ausci, Garumni, Sibuzates and Cocosates. The Tarbelli were in the lower basin of the Adour. Their chief place was on the site of the hot springs of Dax. The Bigerriones appear in the name Bigorre. The chief place of the Elusates was Elusa, Eause; and the town of Auch on the river Gers preserves the name of the Ausci. The names Garites, if the name is genuine, and Garumni contain the same element, Gar, as the river Garumna [Garonne] and the Gers. It is stated by Walckenaer that the inhabitants of the southern part of Les Landes are still called Cousiots. Cocosa, Caussèque, is twenty-four miles from Dax on the road from Dax to Bordeaux."

"Before the arrival of the brachycephalic Ligurian race, the Iberians ranged over the greater part of France. … If, as seems probable, we may identify them with the Aquitani, one of the three races which occupied Gaul in the time of Cæsar, they must have retreated to the neighbourhood of the Pyrenees before the beginning of the historic period."

"The old Roman Aquitania, in the first division of the spoils of the Empire, had fallen to the Visigoths, who conquered it without much trouble. In the struggle between them and the Merovingians, it of course passed to the victorious party. But the quarrels, so fiercely contested between the different members of the Frank monarchy, prevented them from retaining a distant possession within their grasp; and at this period [681-718, when the Mayors of the Palace, Pepin and Carl, were gathering the reins of government over the three kingdoms—Austrasia, Neustria and Burgundy—into their hands]. Eudo, the duke of Aquitaine, was really an independent prince. The population had never lost its Roman character; it was, in fact, by far the most Romanized in the whole of Gaul. But it had also received a new element in the Vascones or Gascons [see BASQUES], a tribe of Pyrenean mountaineers, who descending from their mountains, advanced towards the north until their progress was checked by the broad waters of the Garonne. At this time, however, they obeyed Eudo. "This duke of Aquitaine, Eudo, allied himself with the Neustrians against the ambitious Austrasian Mayor, Carl Martel, and shared with them the crushing defeat at Soissons, A. D. 718, which established the Hammerer's power. Eudo acknowledged allegiance and was allowed to retain his dukedom. But, half-a-century afterwards, Carl's son, Pepin, who had pushed the 'fainéant' Merovingians from the Frank throne and seated himself upon it, fought a nine years' war with the then duke of Aquitaine, to establish his sovereignty. "The war, which lasted nine years [760-768], was signalized by frightful ravages and destruction of life upon both sides, until, at last, the Franks became masters of Berri, Auvergne, and the Limousin, with their principal cities. The able and gallant Guaifer [or Waifer] was assassinated by his own subjects, and Pepin had the satisfaction of finally uniting the grand-duchy of Aquitaine to the monarchy of the Franks."

In the year 781 Charlemagne erected Italy and Aquitaine into separate kingdoms, placing his two infant sons, Pepin and Ludwig or Louis on their respective thrones. "The kingdom of Aquitaine embraced Vasconia [Gascony], Septimania, Aquitaine proper (that is, the country between the Garonne and the Loire) and the county, subsequently the duchy, of Toulouse. Nominally a kingdom, Aquitaine was in reality a province, entirely dependent on the central or personal government of Charles. … The nominal designations of king and kingdom might gratify the feelings of the Aquitanians, but it was a scheme contrived for holding them in a state of absolute dependence and subordination."

AQUITAINE: A. D. 884-1151.
The end of the nominal kingdom.
The disputed Ducal Title.

"Carloman [who died 884], son of Louis the Stammerer, was the last of the Carlovingians who bore the title of king of Aquitaine. This vast state ceased from this time to constitute a kingdom. It had for a lengthened period been divided between powerful families, the most illustrious of which are those of the Counts of Toulouse, founded in the ninth century by Fredelon, the Counts of Poitiers, the Counts of Auvergne, the Marquises of Septimania or Gothia, and the Dukes of Gascony. King Eudes had given William the Pius, Count of Auvergne, the Investiture of the duchy of Aquitaine. On the extinction of that family in 928, the Counts of Toulouse and those of Poitou disputed the prerogatives and their quarrel stained the south with blood for a long time. At length the Counts of Poitou acquired the title of Dukes of Aquitaine or Guyenne [or Guienne,—supposed to be a corruption of the name of Aquitaine, which came into use during the Middle Ages], which remained in their house up to the marriage of Eleanor of Aquitaine with Henry Plantagenet I. [Henry II.], King of England (1151)."

"The duchy Aquitaine, or Guyenne, as held by Eleanor's predecessors, consisted, roughly speaking, of the territory between the Loire and the Garonne. More exactly, it was bounded on the north by Anjou and Touraine, on the east by Berry and Auvergne, on the south-east by the Quercy or County of Cahors, and on the south-west by Gascony, which had been united with it for the last hundred years. The old Karolingian kingdom of Aquitania had been of far greater extent; it had, in fact, included the whole country between the Loire, the Pyrenees, the Rhone and the ocean. Over all this vast territory the Counts of Poitou asserted a theoretical claim of overlordship by virtue of their ducal title; they had, however, a formidable rival in the house of the Counts of Toulouse."

AQUITAINE: A. D. 1137-1152. Transferred by marriage from the crown of France to the crown of England.

In 1137, "the last of the old line of the dukes of Aquitaine—William IX., son of the gay crusader and troubadour whom the Red King had hoped to succeed—died on a pilgrimage at Compostella. His only son was already dead, and before setting out for his pilgrimage he did what a greater personage had done ten years before: with the consent of his barons, he left the whole of his dominions to his daughter. Moreover, he bequeathed the girl herself as wife to the young king Louis [VII.] of France. This marriage more than doubled the strength of the French crown. It gave to Louis absolute possession of all western Aquitaine, or Guyenne as it was now beginning to be called; that is the counties of Poitou and Gascony, with the immediate overlordship of the whole district lying between the Loire and the Pyrenees, the Rhone and the ocean:—a territory five or six times as large as his own royal domain and over which his predecessors had never been able to assert more than the merest shadow of a nominal superiority." In 1152 Louis obtained a divorce from Eleanor, surrendering all the great territory which she had added to his dominions, rather than maintain an unhappy union. The same year the gay duchess was wedded to Henry Plantagenet, then Duke of Normandy, afterwards Henry II. King of England. By this marriage Aquitaine became joined to the crown of England and remained so for three hundred years.

AQUITAINE: A. D. 1360-1453.
Full sovereignty possessed by the English Kings.
The final conquest and union with France.

"By the Peace of Bretigny [see FRANCE: A. D. 1337-1360] Edward III. resigned his claims on the crown of France; but he was recognized in return as independent Prince of Aquitaine, without any homage or superiority being reserved to the French monarch. When Aquitaine therefore was conquered by France, partly in the 14th, fully in the 15th century [see FRANCE: A. D. 1431-1453], it was not the 'reunion' of a forfeited fief, but the absorption of a distinct and sovereign state. The feelings of Aquitaine itself seem to have been divided. The nobles to a great extent, though far from universally, preferred the French connexion. It better fell in with their notions of chivalry, feudal dependency, and the like; the privileges too which French law conferred on noble birth would make their real interests lie that way. But the great cities and, we have reason to believe, the mass of the people, also, clave faithfully to their ancient Dukes; and they had good reason to do so. The English Kings, both by habit and by interest, naturally protected the municipal liberties of Bourdeaux and Bayonne, and exposed no part of their subjects to the horrors of French taxation and general oppression."

E. A. Freeman, The Franks and the Gauls (Historical Essays, 1st Series, No.7).

"There can be no doubt that the name of the Arabs was … given from their living at the westernmost part of Asia; and their own word 'Gharb,' the 'West,' is another form of the original Semitic name Arab."

"The population of Arabia, after long centuries, more especially after the propagation and triumph of Islamism, became uniform throughout the peninsula. … But it was not always thus. It was very slowly and gradually that the inhabitants of the various parts of Arabia were fused into one race. … Several distinct races successively immigrated into the peninsula and remained separate for many ages. Their distinctive characteristics, their manners and their civilisation prove that these nations were not all of one blood. Up to the time of Mahomet, several different languages were spoken in Arabia, and it was the introduction of Islamism alone that gave predominence to that one amongst them now called Arabic. The few Arabian historians deserving of the name, who have used any discernment in collecting the traditions of their country, Ibn Khaldoun, for example, distinguish three successive populations in the peninsula. They divide these primitive, secondary, and tertiary Arabs into three divisions, called Ariba, Motareba, and Mostareba. … The Ariba were the first and most ancient inhabitants of Arabia. They consisted principally of two great nations, the Adites, sprung from Ham, and the Amalika of the race of Aram, descendants of Shem, mixed with nations of secondary importance, the Thamudites of the race of Ham, and the people of the Tasm, and Jadis, of the family of Aram. The Motareba were tribes sprung from Joktan, son of Eber, always in Arabian tradition called Kahtan. The Mostareba of more modern origin were Ismaelitish tribes. … The Cushites, the first inhabitants of Arabia, are known in the national traditions by the name of Adites, from their progenitor, who is called Ad, the grandson of Ham. All the accounts given of them by Arab historians are but fanciful legends. … In the midst of all the fabulous traits with which these legends abound, we may perceive the remembrance of a powerful empire founded by the Cushites in very early ages, apparently including the whole of Arabia Felix, and not only Yemen proper. We also find traces of a wealthy nation, constructors of great buildings, with an advanced civilisation analogous to that of Chaldæa, professing a religion similar to the Babylonian; a nation, in short, with whom material progress was allied to great moral depravity and obscene rites. … It was about eighteen centuries before our era that the Joktanites entered Southern Arabia. … According to all appearances, the invasion, like all events of a similar nature, was accomplished only by force. … After this invasion, the Cushite element of the population, being still the most numerous, and possessing great superiority in knowledge and civilisation over the Joktanites, who were still almost in the nomadic state, soon recovered the moral and material supremacy, and political dominion. A new empire was formed in which the power still belonged to the Sabæans of the race of Cush. … Little by little the new nation of Ad was formed. The centre of its power was the country of Sheba proper, where, according to the tenth chapter of Genesis, there was no primitive Joktanite tribe, although in all the neighbouring provinces they were already settled. … It was during the first centuries of the second Adite empire that Yemen was temporarily subjected by the Egyptians, who called it the land of Pun. … Conquered during the minority of Thothmes III., and the regency of the Princess Hatasu, Yemen appears to have been lost by the Egyptians in the troublous times at the close of the eighteenth dynasty. Ramses II. recovered it almost immediately after he ascended the throne, and it was not till the time of the effeminate kings of the twentieth dynasty, that this splendid ornament of Egyptian power was finally lost. … The conquest of the land of Pun under Hatasu is related in the elegant bas-reliefs of the temple of Deir-el-Bahari, at Thebes, published by M. Duemichen. … The bas-reliefs of the temple of Deir-el-Bahari afford undoubted proofs of the existence of commerce between India and Yemen at the time of the Egyptian expedition under Hatasu. It was this commerce, much more than the fertility of its own soil and its natural productions, that made Southern Arabia one of the richest countries in the world. … For a long time it was carried on by land only, by means of caravans crossing Arabia; for the navigation of the Red Sea, much more difficult and dangerous than that of the Indian Ocean, was not attempted till some centuries later. … {122} The caravans of myrrh, incense, and balm crossing Arabia towards the land of Canaan are mentioned in the Bible, in the history of Joseph, which belongs to a period very near to the first establishment of the Canaanites in Syria. As soon as commercial towns arose in Phœnicia, we find, as the prophet Ezekiel said, 'The merchants of Sheba and Raamah, they were thy merchants: they occupied in thy fairs with chief of all spices, and with all precious stones and gold.' … A great number of Phœnician merchants, attracted by this trade, established themselves in Yemen, Hadramaut, Oman, and Bahrein. Phœnician factories were also established at several places on the Persian Gulf, amongst others in the islands of Tylos and Arvad, formerly occupied by their ancestors. … This commerce, extremely flourishing during the nineteenth dynasty, seems, together with the Egyptian dominion in Yemen, to have ceased under the feeble and inactive successors of Ramses III. … Nearly two centuries passed away, when Hiram and Solomon despatched vessels down the Red Sea. … The vessels of the two monarchs were not content with doing merely what had once before been done under the Egyptians of the nineteenth dynasty, namely, fetching from the ports of Yemen the merchandise collected there from India. They were much bolder, and their enterprise was rewarded with success. Profiting by the regularity of the monsoons, they fetched the products of India at first hand, from the very place of their shipment in the ports of the land of Ophir, or Abhira. These distant voyages were repeated with success as long as Solomon reigned. The vessels going to Ophir necessarily touched at the ports of Yemen to take in provisions and await favourable winds. Thus the renown of the two allied kings, particularly of the power of Solomon, was spread in the land of the Adites. This was the cause of the journey made by the queen of Sheba to Jerusalem to see Solomon. … The sea voyages to Ophir, and even to Yemen, ceased at the death of Solomon. The separation of the ten tribes, and the revolutions that simultaneously took place at Tyre, rendered any such expeditions impracticable. … The empire of the second Adites lasted ten centuries, during which the Joktanite tribes, multiplying in each generation, lived amongst the Cushite Sabæans. … The assimilation of the Joktanites to the Cushites was so complete that the revolution which gave political supremacy to the descendants of Joktan over those of Cush produced no sensible change in the civilisation of Yemen. But although using the same language, the two elements of the population of Southern Arabia were still quite distinct from each other, and antagonistic in their interests. … Both were called Sabæans, but the Bible always carefully distinguishes them by a different orthography. … The majority of the Sabæan Cushites, however, especially the superior castes, refused to submit to the Joktanite yoke. A separation, therefore, took place, giving rise to the Arab proverb, 'divided as the Sabæans,' and the mass of the Adites emigrated to another country. According to M. Caussin de Perceval, the passage of the Sabæans into Abyssinia is to be attributed to the consequences of the revolution that established Joktanite supremacy in Yemen. … The date of the passage of the Sabæans from Arabia into Abyssinia is much more difficult to prove than the fact of their having done so. … Yarub, the conqueror of the Adites, and founder of the new monarchy of Joktanite Arabs, was succeeded on the throne by his son, Yashdjob, a weak and feeble prince, of whom nothing is recorded, but that he allowed the chiefs of the various provinces of his states to make themselves independent. Abd Shems, surnamed Sheba, son of Yashdjob, recovered the power his predecessors had lost. … Abd Shems had several children, the most celebrated being Himyer and Kahlan, who left a numerous posterity. From these two personages were descended the greater part of the Yemenite tribes, who still existed at the time of the rise of Islamism. The Himyarites seem to have settled in the towns, whilst the Kahlanites inhabited the country and the deserts of Yemen. … This is the substance of all the information given by the Arab historians."

F. Lenormant and E. Chevalier, Manual of Ancient History of the East, book 7, chapters 1-2 (volume 2).

"For some time past it has been known that the Himyaritic inscriptions fall into two groups, distinguished from one another by phonological and grammatical differences. One of the dialects is philologically older than the other, containing fuller and more primitive grammatical forms. The inscriptions in this dialect belong to a kingdom the capital of which was at Ma'in, and which represents the country of the Minæans of the ancients. The inscriptions in the other dialect were engraved by the princes and people of Sabâ, the Sheba of the Old Testament, the Sabæans of classical geography. The Sabæan kingdom lasted to the time of Mohammed, when it was destroyed by the advancing forces of Islam. Its rulers for several generations had been converts to Judaism, and had been engaged in almost constant warfare with the Ethiopic kingdom of Axum, which was backed by the influence and subsidies of Rome and Byzantium. Dr. Glaser seeks to show that the founders of this Ethiopic kingdom were the Habâsa, or Abyssinians, who migrated from Himyar to Africa in the second or first century B. C.; when we first hear of them in the inscriptions they are still the inhabitants of Northern Yemen and Mahrah. More than once the Axumites made themselves masters of Southern Arabia. About A. D. 300, they occupied its ports and islands, and from 350 to 378 even the Sabæan kingdom was tributary to them. Their last successes were gained in 525, when, with Byzantine help, they conquered the whole of Yemen. But the Sabæan kingdom, in spite of its temporary subjection to Ethiopia, had long been a formidable State. Jewish colonies settled in it, and one of its princes became a convert to the Jewish faith. His successors gradually extended their dominion as far as Ormuz, and after the successful revolt from Axum in 378, brought not only the whole of the southern coast under their sway, but the western coast as well, as far north as Mekka. Jewish influence made itself felt in the future birthplace of Mohammed, and thus introduced those ideas and beliefs which subsequently had so profound an effect upon the birth of Islam. The Byzantines and Axumites endeavoured to counteract the influence of Judaism by means of Christian colonies and proselytism. The result was a conflict between Sabâ and its assailants, which took the form of a conflict between the members of the two religions. {123} A violent persecution was directed against the Christians of Yemen, avenged by the Ethiopian conquest of the country and the removal of its capital to San'a. The intervention of Persia in the struggle was soon followed by the appearance of Mohammedanism upon the scene, and Jew, Christian, and Parsi were alike overwhelmed by the flowing tide of the new creed. The epigraphic evidence makes it clear that the origin of the kingdom of Sabâ went back to a distant date. Dr. Glaser traces its history from the time when its princes were still but Makârib, or 'Priests,' like Jethro, the Priest of Midian, through the ages when they were 'kings of Sabâ,' and later still 'kings of Sabâ and Raidân,' to the days when they claimed imperial supremacy over all the principalities of Southern Arabia. It was in this later period that they dated their inscriptions by an era, which, as Halévy first discovered, corresponds to 115 B. C. One of the kings of Sabâ is mentioned in an inscription of the Assyrian king Sargon (B. C. 715), and Dr. Glaser believes that he has found his name in a 'Himyaritic' text. When the last priest, Samah'ali Darrahh, became king of Sabâ, we do not yet know, but the age must be sufficiently remote, if the kingdom of Sabâ already existed when the Queen of Sheba came from Ophir to visit Solomon. The visit need no longer cause astonishment, notwithstanding the long journey by land which lay between Palestine and the south of Arabia. … As we have seen, the inscriptions of Ma'in set before us a dialect of more primitive character than that of Sabâ. Hitherto it had been supposed, however, that the two dialects were spoken contemporaneously, and that the Minæan and Sabæan kingdoms existed side by side. But geography offered difficulties in the way of such a belief, since the seats of Minæan power were embedded in the midst of the Sabæan kingdom, much as the fragments of Cromarty are embedded in the midst of other counties. Dr. Glaser has now made it clear that the old supposition was incorrect, and that the Minæan kingdom preceded the rise of Sabâ. We can now understand why it is that neither in the Old Testament nor in the Assyrian inscriptions do we hear of any princes of Ma'in, and that though the classical writers are acquainted with the Minæan people they know nothing of a Minæan kingdom. The Minæan kingdom, in fact, with its culture and monuments, the relics of which still survive, must have flourished in the grey dawn of history, at an epoch at which, as we have hitherto imagined, Arabia was the home only of nomad barbarism. And yet in this remote age alphabetic writing was already known and practised, the alphabet being a modification of the Phœnician written vertically and not horizontally. To what an early date are we referred for the origin of the Phœnician alphabet itself! The Minæan Kingdom must have had a long existence. The names of thirty-three of its kings are already known to us. … A power which reached to the borders of Palestine must necessarily have come into contact with the great monarchies of the ancient world. The army of Ælius Gallus was doubtless not the first which had sought to gain possession of the cities and spice-gardens of the south. One such invasion is alluded to in an inscription which was copied by M. Halévy. … But the epigraphy of ancient Arabia is still in its infancy. The inscriptions already known to us represent but a small proportion of those that are yet to be discovered. … The dark past of the Arabian peninsula has been suddenly lighted up, and we find that long before the days of Mohammed it was a land of culture and literature, a seat of powerful kingdoms and wealthy commerce, which cannot fail to have exercised an influence upon the general history of the world."

      A. H. Sayce,
      Ancient Arabia
      (Contemporary Review, December, 1889).

A people who dwelt anciently in the Valley of the Arghandab, or Urgundab, in eastern Afghanistan. Herodotus gave them the tribal name of "Pactyes," and the modern Afghans, who call themselves "Pashtun" and "Pakhtun," signifying "mountaineers," are probably derived from them.

ARAGON: A. D. 1133.
Beginning of popular representation in the Cortes.
The Monarchical constitution.

ARAGON: A. D. 1218-1238.
   The first oath of allegiance to the king.
   Conquest of Balearic Islands.
   Subjugation of Valencia.

ARAGON: A. D. 1410-1475.
The Castilian dynasty.
Marriage of Ferdinand with Isabella of Castile.

ARAGON: A. D. 1516. The crown united with that of Castile by Joanna, mother of Charles V.

ARAM. ARAM NAHARAIM. ARAM. ZOBAH. ARAMÆANS.

ARAMBEC.

ARARAT. URARDA.

ARAUSIO.

A Roman colony was founded by Augustus at Arausio, which is represented in name and site by the modern town of Orange, in the department of Vaucluse, France, 18 miles north of Avignon.

"Whether … the Aravisci migrated into Pannonia from the Osi, a German race, or whether the Osi came from the Aravisci into Germany, as both nations still retain the same language, institutions and customs, is a doubtful matter."—"The locality of the Aravisci was the extreme north-eastern part of the province of Pannonia, and would thus stretch from Vienna (Vindobona), eastwards to Raab (Arrabo), taking in a portion of the south-west of Hungary. … The Osi seem to have dwelt near the sources of the Oder and the Vistula. They would thus have occupied a part of Gallicia."

This name seems to have been applied to a number of Asiatic streams in ancient times, but is connected most prominently with an Armenian river, now called the Aras, which flows into the Caspian.

One of the battles of the Romans with the Persians in which the former suffered defeat. Fought A. D. 581.

ARCADIA.

The central district of Peloponnesus, the great southern peninsula of Greece—a district surrounded by a singular mountain circle. "From the circle of mountains which has been pointed out, all the rivers of any note take their rise, and from it all the mountainous ranges diverge, which form the many headlands and points of Peloponnesus. The interior part of the country, however, has only one opening towards the western sea, through which all its waters flow united in the Alpheus. The peculiar character of this inland tract is also increased by the circumstance of its being intersected by some lower secondary chains of hills, which compel the waters of the valleys nearest to the great chains either to form lakes, or to seek a vent by subterraneous passages. Hence it is that in the mountainous district in the northeast of Peloponnesus many streams disappear and again emerge from the earth. This region is Arcadia; a country consisting of ridges of hills and elevated plains, and of deep and narrow valleys, with streams flowing through channels formed by precipitous rocks; a country so manifestly separated by nature from the rest of Peloponnesus that, although not politically united, it was always considered in the light of a single community. Its climate was extremely cold; the atmosphere dense, particularly in the mountains to the north; the effect which this had on the character and dispositions of the inhabitants has been described in a masterly manner by Polybius, himself a native of Arcadia."

"The later Roman poets were wont to speak of Arcadia as a smiling land, where grassy vales, watered by gentle and pellucid streams, were inhabited by a race of primitive and picturesque shepherds and shepherdesses, who divided their time between tending their flocks and making love to one another in the most tender and romantic fashion. This idyllic conception of the country and the people is not to be traced in the old Hellenic poets, who were better acquainted with the actual facts of the case. The Arcadians were sufficiently primitive, but there was very little that was graceful or picturesque about their land or their lives."

ARCADIA: B. C. 371-362.
   The union of Arcadian towns.
   Restoration of Mantineia.
   Building of Megalopolis.
   Alliance with Thebes.
   Wars with Sparta and Elis.
   Disunion.
   Battle of Mantineia.

ARCHON.

The largest forest in early Britain, which covered the greater part of modern Warwickshire and "of which Shakespeare's Arden became the dwindled representative."

"In Cæsar's time there were in [Gaul] very extensive forests, the largest of which was the Arduenna (Ardennes), which extended from the banks of the lower Rhine probably as far as the shores of the North Sea."

"Ardennes is the name of one of the northern French departments which contains a part of the forest Ardennes. Another part is in Luxemburg and Belgium. The old Celtic name exists in England in the Arden of Warwickshire."

AREIOS.

The territory covered by the old kingdom of Arles is sometimes
called the Arelate.

"Whoever [in ancient Athens] was suspected of having blood upon his hands had to abstain from approaching the common altars of the land. Accordingly, for the purpose of judgments concerning the guilt of blood, choice had been made of the barren, rocky height which lies opposite the ascent to the citadel. It was dedicated to Ares, who was said to have been the first who was ever judged here for the guilt of blood; and to the Erinyes, the dark powers of the guilt-stained conscience. Here, instead of a single judge, a college of twelve men of proved integrity conducted the trial. If the accused had an equal number of votes for and against him, he was acquitted. The court on the hill of Ares is one of the most ancient institutions of Athens, and none achieved for the city an earlier or more widely-spread recognition."

"The Areopagus, or, as it was interpreted by an ancient legend, Mars' Hill, was an eminence on the western side of the Acropolis, which from time immemorial had been the seat of a highly revered court of criminal justice. It took cognizance of charges of wilful murder, maiming, poisoning and arson. Its forms and modes of proceeding were peculiarly rigid and solemn. It was held in the open air, perhaps that the judges might not be polluted by sitting under the same roof with the criminals. … The venerable character of the court seems to have determined Solon to apply it to another purpose; and, without making any change in its original jurisdiction, to erect it into a supreme council, invested with a superintending and controlling authority, which extended over every part of the social system. He constituted it the guardian of the public morals and religion, to keep watch over the education and conduct of the citizens, and to protect the State from the disgrace or pollution of wantonness and profaneness. He armed it with extraordinary powers of interfering in pressing emergencies, to avert any sudden and imminent danger which threatened the public safety. The nature of its functions rendered it scarcely possible precisely to define their limits; and Solon probably thought it best to let them remain in that obscurity which magnifies whatever is indistinct. … It was filled with Archons who had discharged their office with approved fidelity, and they held their seats for life."

These enlarged functions of the Areopagus were withdrawn from it in the time of Pericles, through the agency of Ephialtes, but were restored about B. C. 400, after the overthrow of the Thirty.—"Some of the writers of antiquity ascribed the first establishment of the senate of Areopagus to Solon. … But there can be little doubt that this is a mistake, and that the senate of Areopagus is a primordial institution of immemorial antiquity, though its constitution as well as its functions underwent many changes. It stood at first alone as a permanent and collegiate authority, originally by the side of the kings and afterwards by the side of the archons: it would then of course be known by the title of The Boule,—the senate, or council; its distinctive title 'senate of Areopagus,' borrowed from the place where its sittings were held, would not be bestowed until the formation by Solon of the second senate, or council, from which there was need to discriminate it."

One of the tribes of the Celtiberians in ancient Spain. Their chief town. Numantia, was the stronghold of Celtiberian resistance to the Roman conquest.

ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1515-1557.
Discovery, exploration and early settlement on La Plata.
First founding of Buenos Ayres.

ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1580-1777.
   The final founding of the City of Buenos Ayres.
   Conflicts of Spain and Portugal on the Plata.
   Creation of the Viceroyalty of Buenos Ayres.

"In the year 1580 the foundations of a lasting city were laid at Buenos Ayres by De Garay on the same situation as had twice previously been chosen—namely, by Mendoza, and by Cabeza de Vaca, respectively. The same leader had before this founded the settlement of Sante Fe on the Paraná. The site selected for the future capital of the Pampas is probably one of the worst ever chosen for a city … has probably the worst harbour in the world for a large commercial town. … Notwithstanding the inconvenience of its harbour, Buenos Ayres soon became the chief commercial entrepôt of the Valley of the Plata. The settlement was not effected without some severe fighting between De Garay's force and the Querandies. The latter, however, were effectually quelled. … The Spaniards were now nominally masters of the Rio de La Plata, but they had still to apprehend hostilities on the part of the natives between their few and far-distant settlements [concerning which see PARAGUAY: A. D. 1515-1557]. Of this liability De Garay himself was to form a lamentable example. On his passage back to Asuncion, having incautiously landed to sleep near the ruins of the old fort of San Espiritu, he was surprised by a party of natives and murdered, with all his companions. The death of this brave Biscayan was mourned as a great loss by the entire colony. The importance of the cities founded by him was soon apparent; and in 1620 all the settlements south of the confluence of the rivers Parana and Paraguay were formed into a separate, independent government, under the name of Rio de La Plata, of which Buenos Ayres was declared the capital. This city likewise became the seat of a bishopric. … The merchants of Seville, who had obtained a monopoly of the supply of Mexico and Peru, regarded with much jealousy the prospect of a new opening for the South American trade by way of La Plata," and procured restrictions upon it which were relaxed in 1618 so far as to permit the sending of two vessels of 100 tons each every year to Spain, but subject to a duty of 50 per cent. "Under this miserable commercial legislation Buenos Ayres continued to languish for the first century of its existence. In 1715, after the treaty of Utrecht, the English … obtained the 'asiento' or contract for supplying Spanish colonies in America with African slaves, in virtue of which they had permission to form an establishment at Buenos Ayres, and to send thither annually four ships with 1,200 negroes, the value of which they might export in produce of the country. They were strictly forbidden to introduce other goods than those necessary for their own establishments; but under the temptation of gain on the one side and of demand on the other, the asiento ships naturally became the means of transacting a considerable contraband trade. … {126} The English were not the only smugglers in the river Plate. By the treaty of Utrecht, the Portuguese had obtained the important settlement of Colonia [the first settlement of the Banda Oriental—or 'Eastern Border'—afterwards called Uruguay] directly facing Buenos Ayres. … The Portuguese, … not contented with the possession of Colonia … commenced a more important settlement near Monte Video. From this place they were dislodged by Zavala [Governor of Buenos Ayres], who, by order of his government, proceeded to establish settlements at that place and at Maldonado. Under the above-detailed circumstances of contention … was founded the healthy and agreeable city of Monte Video. … The inevitable consequence of this state of things was fresh antagonism between the two countries, which it was sought to put an end to by a treaty between the two nations concluded in 1750. One of the articles stipulated that Portugal should cede to Spain all of her establishments on the eastern bank of the Plata; in return for which she was to receive the seven missionary towns [known as the 'Seven Reductions'] on the Uruguay. But … the inhabitants of the Missions naturally rebelled against the idea of being handed over to a people known to them only by their slave-dealing atrocities. … The result was that when 2,000 natives had been slaughtered [in the war known as the War of the Seven Reductions] and their settlements reduced to ruins, the Portuguese repudiated the compact, as they could no longer receive their equivalent, and they still therefore retained Colonia. When hostilities were renewed in 1762, the governor of Buenos Ayres succeeded in possessing himself of Colonia; but in the following year it was restored to the Portuguese, who continued in possession until 1777, when it was definitely ceded to Spain. The continual encroachments of the Portuguese in the Rio de La Plata, and the impunity with which the contraband trade was carried on, together with the questions to which it constantly gave rise with foreign governments, had long shown the necessity for a change in the government of that colony; for it was still under the superintendence of the Viceroy of Peru, residing at Lima, 3,000 miles distant. The Spanish authorities accordingly resolved to give fresh force to their representatives in the Rio de La Plata; and in 1776 they took the important resolution to sever the connection between the provinces of La Plata and the Viceroyalty of Peru. The former were now erected into a new Viceroyalty, the capital of which was Buenos Ayres. … To this Viceroyalty was appointed Don Pedro Cevallos, a former governor of Buenos Ayres. … The first act of Cevallos was to take possession of the island of St. Katherine, the most important Portuguese possession on the coast of Brazil. Proceeding thence to the Plate, he razed the fortifications of Colonia to the ground, and drove the Portuguese from the neighbourhood. In October of the following year, 1777, a treaty of peace was signed at St. Ildefonso, between Queen Maria of Portugal and Charles III. of Spain, by virtue of which St. Katherine's was restored to the latter country, whilst Portugal withdrew from the Banda Oriental or Uruguay, and relinquished all pretensions to the right of navigating the Rio de La Plata and its affluents beyond its own frontier line. … The Viceroyalty of Buenos Ayres was sub-divided into the provinces of—(1.) Buenos Ayres, the capital of which was the city of that name, and which comprised the Spanish possessions that now form the Republic of Uruguay, as well as the Argentine provinces of Buenos Ayres, Santa Fé, Entre Rios, and Corrientes; (2.) Paraguay, the capital of which was Asuncion, and which comprised what is now the Republic of Paraguay; (3.) Tucuman, the capital of which was St. Iago del Estero, and which included what are to-day the Argentine provinces of Cordova, Tucuman, St. Iago, Salta, Catamarca, Rioja, and Jujuy; (4.) Las Charcas or Potosi, the capital of which was La Plata, and which now forms the Republic of Bolivia; and (5.) Chiquito or Cuyo, the capital of which was Mendoza, and in which were comprehended the present Argentine provinces of St. Luiz, Mendoza, and St. Juan."

ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1806-1820.
   The English invasion.
   The Revolution.
   Independence achieved.
   Confederation of the Provinces of the Plate River and its
   dissolution.

"The trade of the Plate River had enormously increased since the substitution of register ships for the annual flotilla, and the erection of Buenos Ayres into a viceroyalty in 1778; but it was not until the war of 1797 that the English became aware of its real extent. The British cruisers had enough to do to maintain the blockade: and when the English learned that millions of hides were rotting in the warehouses of Monte Video and Buenos Ayres, they concluded that the people would soon see that their interests would be best served by submission to the great naval power. The peace put an end to these ideas; but Pitt's favourite project for destroying Spanish influence in South America by the English arms was revived and put in execution soon after the opening of the second European war in 1803. In 1806 … he sent a squadron to the Plate River, which offered the best point of attack to the British fleet, and the road to the most promising of the Spanish colonies. The English, under General Beresford, though few in number, soon took Buenos Ayres, for the Spaniards, terrified at the sight of British troops, surrendered without knowing how insignificant the invading force really was. When they found this out, they mustered courage to attack Beresford in the citadel; and the English commander was obliged to evacuate the place. The English soon afterwards took possession of Monte Video, on the other side of the river. Here they were joined by another squadron, who were under orders, after reducing Buenos Ayres, to sail round the Horn, to take Valparaiso, and establish posts across the continent connecting that city with Buenos Ayres, thus executing the long-cherished plan of Lord Anson. Buenos Ayres was therefore invested a second time. But the English land forces were too few for their task. The Spaniards spread all round the city strong breastworks of ox hides, and collected all their forces for its defence. Buenos Ayres was stormed by the English at two points on the 5th of July, 1807; but they were unable to hold their ground against the unceasing fire of the Spaniards, who were greatly superior in numbers, and the next day they capitulated, and agreed to evacuate the province within two months. {127} The English had imagined that the colonists would readily flock to their standard, and throw off the yoke of Spain. This was a great mistake; and it needed the events of 1808 to lead the Spanish colonists to their independence. … In 1810, when it came to be known that the French armies had crossed the Sierra Morena, and that Spain was a conquered country, the colonists would no longer submit to the shadowy authority of the colonial officers, and elected a junta of their own to carry on the Government. Most of the troops in the colony went over to the cause of independence, and easily overcame the feeble resistance that was made by those who remained faithful to the regency in the engagement of Las Piedras. The leaders of the revolution were the advocate Castelli and General Belgrano; and under their guidance scarcely any obstacle stopped its progress. They even sent their armies at once into Upper Peru and the Banda Oriental, and their privateers carried the Independent flag to the coasts of the Pacific; but these successes were accompanied by a total anarchy in the Argentine capital and provinces. The most intelligent and capable men had gone off to fight for liberty elsewhere; and even if they had remained it would have been no easy task to establish a new government over the scattered and half-civilized population of this vast country. … The first result of independence was the formation of a not very intelligent party of country proprietors, who knew nothing of the mysteries of politics, and were not ill-content with the existing order of things. The business of the old viceroyal government was delegated to a supreme Director; but this functionary was little more than titular. How limited the aspirations of the Argentines at first were may be gathered from the instructions with which Belgrano and Rivadavia were sent to Europe in 1814. They were to go to England, and ask for an English protectorate; if possible under an English prince. They were next to try the same plan in France, Austria, and Russia, and lastly in Spain itself: and if Spain still refused, were to offer to renew the subjection of the colony, on condition of certain specified concessions being made. This was indeed a strange contrast to the lofty aspirations of the Colombians. On arriving at Rio, the Argentine delegates were assured by the English minister, Lord Strangford, that, as things were, no European power would do anything for them: nor did they succeed better in Spain itself. Meanwhile the government of the Buenos Ayres junta was powerless outside the town, and the country was fast lapsing into the utmost disorder and confusion. At length, when Government could hardly be said to exist at all, a general congress of the provinces of the Plate River assembled at Tucuman in 1816. It was resolved that all the states should unite in a confederation to be called the United Provinces of the Plate River: and a constitution was elaborated, in imitation of the famous one of the United States, providing for two legislative chambers and a president. … The influence of the capital, of which all the other provinces were keenly jealous, predominated in the congress; and Puyrredon, an active Buenos Ayres politician, was made supreme Director of the Confederation. The people of Buenos Ayres thought their city destined to exercise over the rural provinces a similar influence to that which Athens, under similar circumstances, had exercised in Greece; and able Buenos Ayreans like Puyrredon, San Martin, and Rivadavia, now became the leaders of the unitary party. The powerful provincials, represented by such men as Lopez and Quiroga, soon found out that the Federal scheme meant the supremacy of Buenos Ayres, and a political change which would deprive them of most of their influence. The Federal system, therefore, could not be expected to last very long; and it did in fact collapse after four years. Artigas led the revolt in the Banda Oriental [now Uruguay], and the Riverene Provinces soon followed the example. For a long time the provinces were practically under the authority of their local chiefs, the only semblance of political life being confined to Buenos Ayres itself."

ALSO IN: M. G. Mulhall, The English in South America, chapters 10-13, and 16-18.

      T. J. Page,
      La Plata, the Argentine Confederation and Paraguay,
      chapter 31.

ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1819-1874.
Anarchy, civil war, despotism.
The long struggle for order and Confederation.

"A new Congress met in 1819 and made a Constitution for the country, which was never adopted by all the Provinces. Pueyrredon resigned, and on June 10th, 1819, José Rondeau was elected, who, however, was in no condition to pacify the civil war which had broken out during the government of his predecessors. At the commencement of 1830, the last 'Director General' was overthrown; the municipality of the city of Buenos-Aires seized the government; the Confederation was declared dissolved, and each of its Provinces received liberty to organize itself as it pleased. This was anarchy officially proclaimed. After the fall in the same year of some military chiefs who had seized the power, General Martin Rodriguez was named Governor of Buenos-Aires, and he succeeded in establishing some little order in this chaos. He chose M. J. Garcia and Bernardo Rivadavia—one of the most enlightened Argentines of his times—as his Ministers. This administration did a great deal of good by exchanging conventions of friendship and commerce, and entering into diplomatic relations with foreign nations. At the end of his term General Las Heras—9th May, 1824—took charge of the government, and called a Constituent Assembly of all the Provinces, which met at Buenos-Aires, December 16th, and elected Bernardo Rivadavia President of the newly Confederated Republic on the 7th February, 1825. This excellent Argentine, however, found no assistance in the Congress. No understanding could be come to on the form or the test of the Constitution, nor yet upon the place of residence for the national Government. Whilst Rivadavia desired a centralized Constitution—called here 'unintarian'—and that the city of Buenos-Aires should be declared capital of the Republic, the majority of Congress held a different opinion, and this divergence caused the resignation of the President on the 5th July, 1827. After this event, the attempt to establish a Confederation which would include all the Provinces was considered as defeated, and each Province went on its own way, whilst Buenos-Aires elected Manuel Dorrego, the chief of the federal party, for its Governor. {128} He was inaugurated on the 13th August, 1827, and at once undertook to organize a new Confederation of the Provinces, opening relations to this end with the Government of Cordoba, the most important Province of the interior. He succeeded in reëstablishing repose in the interior, and was instrumental in preserving a general peace, even beyond the limits of his young country. The Emperor of Brazil did not wish to acknowledge the rights of the United Provinces over the Cisplatine province, or Banda Oriental [now Uruguay]. He wished to annex it to his empire, and declared war to the Argentine Republic on the 10th of December, 1826. An army was soon organized by the latter, under the command of General Alvear, which on the 20th of February, 1827, gained a complete victory over the Brazilian forces—twice their number—at the plains of Ituzaingó, in the Brazilian province of Rio Grande do Sul. The navy of the Argentines also triumphed on several occasions, so that when England offered her intervention, Brazil renounced all claim to the territory of Uruguay by the convention of the 27th August, 1828, and the two parties agreed to recognize and to maintain the neutrality and independence of that country. Dorrego, however, had but few sympathies in the army, and a short time after his return from Brazil, the soldiers under Lavalle rebelled and forced him to fly to the country on the 1st December of the same year. There he found aid from the Commander General of the country districts, Juan Manuel Rosas, and formed a small battalion with the intention of marching on the city of Buenos-Aires. But Lavalle triumphed, took him prisoner, and shot him without trial on the 13th December. … Not only did the whole interior of the province of Buenos-Aires rise against Lavalle, under the direction of Rosas, but also a large part of other Provinces considered this event as a declaration of war, and the National Congress, then assembled at Santa-Fé, declared Lavalle's government illegal. The two parties fought with real fury, but in 1829, after an interview between Rosas and Lavalle, a temporary reconciliation was effected. … The legislature of Buenos-Aires, which had been convoked on account of the reconciliation between Lavalle and Rosas, elected the latter as Governor of the Province, on December 6th, 1829, and accorded to him extraordinary powers. … During this the first period of his government he did not appear in his true nature, and at its conclusion he refused a re-election and retired to the country. General Juan R. Balcarce was then—17th December, 1832—named Governor, but could only maintain himself some eleven months: Viamont succeeded him, also for a short time only. Now the moment had come for Rosas. He accepted the almost unlimited Dictatorship which was offered to him on the 7th March, 1835, and reigned in a horrible manner, like a madman, until his fall. Several times the attempt was made to deliver Buenos-Aires from his terrible yoke, and above all the devoted and valiant efforts of General Lavalle deserve to be mentioned; but all was in vain; Rosas remained unshaken. Finally, General Justo José De Urquiza, Governor of the province of Entre-Rios, in alliance with the province of Corrientes and the Empire of Brazil, rose against the Dictator. He first delivered the Republic of Uruguay, and the city of Monte Video—the asylum of the adversaries of Rosas—from the army which besieged it, and thereafter passing the great river Parana, with a relatively large army, he completely defeated Rosas at Monte-Caseros, near Buenos-Aires, on the 3rd February, 1852. During the same day, Rosas sought and received the protection of an English war-vessel which was in the road of Buenos-Aires, in which he went to England, where he still [1876] resides. Meantime Urquiza took charge of the Government of the United Provinces, under the title of 'Provisional Director,' and called a general meeting of the Governors at San Nicolás, a frontier village on the north of the province of Buenos-Aires. This assemblage confirmed him in his temporary power, and called a National Congress which met at Santa-Fé and made a National Constitution under date of 25th May, 1853. By virtue of this Constitution the Congress met again the following year at Parana, a city of Entre-Rios, which had been made the capital, and on the 5th May, elected General Urquiza the first President of the Argentine Confederation. … The important province of Buenos-Aires, however, had taken no part in the deliberations of the Congress. Previously, on the 11th September 1852, a revolution against Urquiza, or rather against the Provincial Government in alliance with him, had taken place and caused a temporary separation of the Province from the Republic. Several efforts to pacify the disputes utterly failed, and a battle took place at Cepeda in Santa-Fé, wherein Urquiza, who commanded the provincial troops, was victorious, although his success led to no definite result. A short time after, the two armies met again at Pavon—near the site of the former battle—and Buenos-Aires won the day. This secured the unity of the Republic of which the victorious General Bartolomé Mitre was elected President for six years from October, 1862. At the same time the National Government was transferred from Paraná to Buenos-Aires, and the latter was declared the temporary capital of the Nation. The Republic owes much to the Government of Mitre, and it is probable that he would have done more good, if war had not broken out with Paraguay, in 1865 [see PARAGUAY]. The Argentines took part in it as one of the three allied States against the Dictator of Paraguay, Francisco Solano Lopez. On the 12th October, 1868, Domingo Faustino Sarmiento succeeded General Mitre in the Presidency. … The 12th October, 1874, Dr. Nicolas Avellaneda succeeded him in the Government."

      ALSO IN:
      D. F. Sarmiento,
      Life in the Argentine Republic in the Days of the Tyrants.

ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1880-1891.
   The Constitution and its working.
   Governmental corruption.
   The Revolution of 1890, and the financial collapse.

"The Argentine constitutional system in its outward form corresponds closely to that of the United States. … But the inward grace of enlightened public opinion is lacking, and political practice falls below the level of a self-governing democracy. Congress enacts laws, but the President as commander-in-chief of the army, and as the head of a civil service dependent upon his will and caprice, possesses absolute authority in administration. The country is governed by executive decrees rather than by constitutional laws. Elections are carried by military pressure and manipulation of the civil service. … President Roca [who succeeded Avellaneda in 1880] virtually nominated, and elected his brother-in-law, Juarez Célman, as his successor. President Juarez set his heart upon controlling the succession in the interest of one of his relatives, a prominent official; but was forced to retire before he could carry out his purpose. … Nothing in the Argentine surprised me more than the boldness and freedom with which the press attacked the government of the day and exposed its corruption. … The government paid no heed to these attacks. Ministers did not trouble themselves to repel charges affecting their integrity. … This wholesome criticism from an independent press had one important effect. It gave direction to public opinion in the capital, and involved the organization of the Unión Cívica. If the country had not been on the verge of a financial revulsion, there might not have been the revolt against the Juarez administration in July, 1890; but with ruin and disaster confronting them, men turned against the President whose incompetence and venality would have been condoned if the times had been good. The Unión Cívica was founded when the government was charged with maladministration in sanctioning an illegal issue of $40,000,000 of paper money. … The government was suddenly confronted with an armed coalition of the best battalions of the army, the entire navy, and the Unión Cívica. The manifesto issued by the Revolutionary Junta was a terrible arraignment of the political crimes of the Juarez Government. … The revolution opened with every prospect of success. It failed from the incapacity of the leaders to co-operate harmoniously. On July 19, 1890, the defection of the army was discovered. On July 26 the revolt broke out. For four days there was bloodshed without definite plan or purpose. No determined attack was made upon the government palace. The fleet opened a fantastic bombardment upon the suburbs. There was inexplicable mismanagement of the insurgent forces, and on July 29 an ignominious surrender to the government with a proclamation of general amnesty. General Roca remained behind the scenes, apparently master of the situation, while President Juarez had fled to a place of refuge on the Rosario railway, and two factions of the army were playing at cross purposes, and the police and the volunteers of the Unión Cívica were shooting women and children in the streets. Another week of hopeless confusion passed, and General Roca announced the resignation of President Juarez and the succession of vice-President Pellegrini. Then the city was illuminated, and for three days there was a pandemonium of popular rejoicing over a victory which nobody except General Roca understood. … In June, 1891, the deplorable state of Argentine finance was revealed in a luminous statement made by President Pellegrini. … All business interests were stagnant. Immigration had been diverted to Brazil. … All industries were prostrated except politics, and the pernicious activity displayed by factions was an evil augury for the return of prosperity. … During thirty years the country has trebled its population, its increase being relatively much more rapid than that of the United States during the same period. The estimate of the present population [1892] is 4,000,000 in place of 1,160,000 in 1857. … Disastrous as the results of political government and financial disorder have been in the Argentine, its ultimate recovery by slow stages is probable. It has a magnificent railway system, an industrious working population recruited from Europe, and nearly all the material appliances for progress."

   Dr. Luis Saenz-Pena, former Chief Justice of the Supreme
   Court, and reputed to be a man of great integrity and ability,
   was chosen President, and inaugurated October 12, 1892.

"The ship Argo was the theme of many songs during the oldest periods of the Grecian Epic, even earlier than the Odyssey. The king Æêtês, from whom she is departing, the hero Jason, who commands her, and the goddess Hêrê, who watches over him, enabling the Argo to traverse distances and to escape dangers which no ship had ever before encountered, are all circumstances briefly glanced at by Odysseus in his narrative to Alkinous. … Jason, commanded by Pelias to depart in quest of the golden fleece belonging to the speaking ram which had carried away Phryxus and Hellé, was encouraged by the oracle to invite the noblest youth of Greece to his aid, and fifty of the most distinguished amongst them obeyed the call. Hêraklês, Thêseus, Telamôn and Pêleus, Kastor and Pollux, Idas and Lynkeus—Zêtês and Kalaïs, the winged sons of Boreas—Meleager, Amphiaraus, Kêpheus, Laertês, Autolykus, Menœtius, Aktor, Erginus, Euphêmus, Ankæus, Pœas, Periklymenus, Augeas, Eurytus, Admêtus, Akastus, Kæneus, Euryalus, Pêneleôs and Lêitus, Askalaphus and Ialmenus, were among them. … Since so many able men have treated it as an undisputed reality, and even made it the pivot of systematic chronological calculations, I may here repeat the opinion long ago expressed by Heyne, and even indicated by Burmann, that the process of dissecting the story, in search of a basis of fact, is one altogether fruitless."

"In the rich cluster of myths which surround the captain of the Argo and his fellows are preserved to us the whole life and doings of the Greek maritime tribes, which gradually united all the coasts with one another, and attracted Hellenes dwelling in the most different seats into the sphere of their activity. … The Argo was said to have weighed anchor from a variety of ports—from Iplcus in Thessaly, from Anthedon and Siphæ in Bœotia: the home of Jason himself was on Mount Pelion by the sea, and again on Lemnos and in Corinth; a clear proof of how homogeneous were the influences running on various coasts. However, the myths of the Argo were developed in the greatest completeness on the Pagasean gulf, in the seats of the Minyi; and they are the first with whom a perceptible movement of the Pelasgian tribes beyond the sea—in other words, a Greek history in Europe—begins."

ARGOS. ARGOLIS. ARGIVES.

"No district of Greece contains so dense a succession of powerful citadels in a narrow space as Argolis [the eastern peninsular projection of the Peloponnesus]. Lofty Larissa, apparently designed by nature as the centre of the district, is succeeded by Mycenæ, deep in the recess of the land; at the foot of the mountain lies Midea, at the brink of the sea-coast Tiryns; and lastly, at a farther distance of half an hour's march, Nauplia, with its harbour. This succession of ancient fastnesses, whose indestructible structure of stone we admire to this day [see Schliemann's 'Mycenæ' and 'Tiryns'] is clear evidence of mighty conflicts which agitated the earliest days of Argos; and proves that in this one plain of Inachus several principalities must have arisen by the side of one another, each putting its confidence in the walls of its citadel; some, according to their position, maintaining an intercourse with other lands by sea, others rather a connection with the inland country. The evidence preserved by these monuments is borne out by that of the myths, according to which the dominion of Danaus is divided among his successors. Exiled Prœtus is brought home to Argos by Lycian bands, with whose help he builds the coast-fortress of Tiryns, where he holds sway as the first and mightiest in the land. … The other line of the Danaidæ is also intimately connected with Lycia; for Perseus. … [who] on his return from the East founds Mycenæ, as the new regal seat of the united kingdom of Argos, is himself essentially a Lycian hero of light, belonging to the religion of Apollo. … Finally, Heracles himself is connected with the family of the Perseidæ, as a prince born on the Tirynthian fastness. … During these divisions in the house of Danaus, and the misfortunes befalling that of Prœtus, foreign families acquire influence and dominion in Argos: these are of the race of Æolus, and originally belong to the harbour-country of the western coast of Peloponnesus—the Amythaonidæ. … While the dominion of the Argive land was thus sub-divided, and the native warrior nobility subsequently exhausted itself in savage internal feuds, a new royal house succeeded in grasping the supreme power and giving an entirely new importance to the country. This house was that of the Tantalidæ [or PELOPIDS, which see], united with the forces of Achæan population. … The residue of fact is, that the ancient dynasty, connected by descent with Lycia, was overthrown by the house which derived its origin from Lydia. … The poetic myths, abhorring long rows of names, mention three princes as ruling here in succession, one leaving the sceptre of Pelops to the other, viz., Atreus, Thyestes and Agamemnon. Mycenæ is the chief seat of their rule, which is not restricted to the district of Argos."

After the Doric invasion of the Peloponnesus (see GREECE: THE MIGRATIONS; also, DORIANS AND IONIANS), Argos appears in Greek history as a Doric state, originally the foremost one in power and influence, but humiliated after long years of rivalry by her Spartan neighbours. "Argos never forgot that she had once been the chief power in the peninsula, and her feeling towards Sparta was that of a jealous but impotent competitor. By what steps the decline of her power had taken place, we are unable to make out, nor can we trace the succession of her kings subsequent to Pheidon [8th century B. C.]. … The title [of king] existed (though probably with very limited functions) at the time of the Persian War [B. C. 490-479]. … There is some ground for presuming that the king of Argos was even at that time a Herakleid—since the Spartans offered to him a third part of the command of the Hellenic force, conjointly with their own two kings. The conquest of Thyreates by the Spartans [about 547 B. C.] deprived the Argeians of a valuable portion of their Periœkis, or dependent territory. But Orneæ and the remaining portion of Kynuria still continued to belong to them: the plain round their city was very productive; and, except Sparta, there was no other power in Peloponnesus superior to them. Mykenæ and Tiryns, nevertheless, seem both to have been independent states at the time of the Persian War, since both sent contingents to the battle of Platæa, at a time when Argos held aloof and rather favoured the Persians."

ARGOS: B. C. 496-421.
   Calamitous War with Sparta.
   Non-action in the Persian War.
   Slow recovery of the crippled State.

"One of the heaviest blows which Argos ever sustained at the hand of her traditional foe befell her about 496 B. C., six years before the first Persian invasion of Greece. A war with Sparta having broken out, Cleomenes, the Lacedæmonian king, succeeded in landing a large army, in vessels he had extorted from the Æginetans, at Nauplia, and ravaged the Argive territory. The Argeians mustered all their forces to resist him, and the two armies encamp cd opposite each other near Tiryns. Cleomenes, however, contrived to attack the Argeians at a moment when they were unprepared, making use, if Herodotus is to be credited, of a stratagem which proves the extreme incapacity of the opposing generals, and completely routed them. The Argeians took refuge in a sacred grove, to which the remorseless Spartans set fire, and so destroyed almost the whole of them. No fewer than 6,000 of the citizens of Argos perished on this disastrous day. Cleomenes might have captured the city itself; but he was, or affected to be, hindered by unfavourable omens, and drew off his troops. The loss sustained by Argos was so severe as to reduce her for some years to a condition of great weakness; but this was at the time a fortunate circumstance for the Hellenic cause, inasmuch as it enabled the Lacedæmonians to devote their whole energies to the work of resistance to the Persian invasion without fear of enemies at home. In this great work Argos took no part, on the occasion of either the first or second attempt of the Persian kings to bring Hellas under their dominion. Indeed, the city was strongly suspected of 'medising' tendencies. In the period following the final overthrow of the Persians, while Athens was pursuing the splendid career of aggrandisement and conquest that made her the foremost state in Greece, and while the Lacedæmonians were paralyzed by the revolt of the Messenians, Argos regained strength and influence, which she at once employed and increased by the harsh policy … of depopulating Mycenæ and Tiryns, while she compelled several other semi-independent places in the Argolid to acknowledge her supremacy. During the first eleven years of the Peloponnesian war, down to the peace of Nicias (421 B. C.), Argos held aloof from all participation in the struggle, adding to her wealth and perfecting her military organization. As to her domestic conditions and political system, little is known; but it is certain that the government, unlike that of other Dorian states, was democratic in its character, though there was in the city a strong oligarchic and philo-Laconian party, which was destined to exercise a decisive influence at an important crisis."

ARGOS: B. C. 421-418.
   League formed against Sparta.
   Outbreak of War.
   Defeat at Mantinea.
   Revolution in the Oligarchical and Spartan interest.

ARGOS: B. C. 395-387.
   Confederacy against Sparta.
   The Corinthian War.
   Peace of Antalcidas.

"He [Alexander the Great] then marched into India, that he might have his empire bounded by the ocean, and the extreme parts of the East. That the equipments of his army might be suitable to the glory of the Expedition, he mounted the trappings of the horses and the arms of the soldiers with silver, and called a body of his men, from having silver shields, Argyraspides."

ARGYRE.

ARIA. AREIOS. AREIANS.

   The name by which the Herirud and its valley, the district of
   modern Herat, was known to the ancient Greeks. Its inhabitants
   were known as the Areians.

ARIANA.

"Strabo uses the name Ariana for the land of all the nations of Iran, except that of the Medes and Persians, i. e., for the whole eastern half of Iran."—Afghanistan and Beloochistan.

      M. Duncker,
      History of Antiquity,
      volume 5, book 7, chapter 1.

ARIANISM. ARIANS.

From the second century of its existence, the Christian church was divided by bitter controversies touching the mystery of the Trinity. "The word Trinity is found neither in the Holy Scriptures nor in the writings of the first Christians; but it had been employed from the beginning of the second century, when a more metaphysical turn had been given to the minds of men, and theologians had begun to attempt to explain the divine nature. … The Founder of the new religion, the Being who had brought upon earth a divine light, was he God, was he man, was he of an intermediate nature, and, though superior to all other created beings, yet himself created? This latter opinion was held by Arius, an Alexandrian priest, who maintained it in a series of learned controversial works between the years 318 and 325. As soon as the discussion had quitted the walls of the schools, and been taken up by the people, mutual accusations of the gravest kind took the place of metaphysical subtleties. The orthodox party reproached the Arians with blaspheming the deity himself, by refusing to acknowledge him in the person of Christ. The Arians accused the orthodox of violating the fundamental law of religion; by rendering to the creature the worship due only to the Creator. … It was difficult to decide which numbered the largest body of followers; but the ardent enthusiastic spirits, the populace in all the great cities (and especially at Alexandria) the women, and the newly-founded order of the monks of the desert … were almost without exception partisans of the faith which has since been declared orthodox. … Constantine thought this question of dogma might be decided by an assembly of the whole church. In the year 325, he convoked the council of Nice [see NICÆA, COUNCIL OF], at which 300 bishops pronounced in favour of the equality of the Son with the Father, or the doctrine generally regarded as orthodox, and condemned the Arians to exile and their books to the flames."

   "The victorious faction [at the Council of Nice] … anxiously
   sought for some irreconcilable mark of distinction, the
   rejection of which might involve the Arians in the guilt and
   consequences of heresy. A letter was publicly read and
   ignominiously torn, in which their patron, Eusebius of
   Nicomedia, ingeniously confessed that the admission of the
   homoousion, or consubstantial, a word already familiar to the
   Platonists, was incompatible with the principles of their
   theological system. The fortunate opportunity was eagerly
   embraced. … The consubstantiality of the Father and the Son
   was established by the Council of Nice, and has been
   unanimously received as a fundamental article of the Christian
   faith by the consent of the Greek, the Latin, the Oriental and
   the Protestant churches." Notwithstanding the decision of the
   Council of Nice against it, the heresy of Arius continued to
   gain ground in the East. Even the Emperor Constantine became
   friendly to it, and the sons of Constantine, with some of the
   later emperors who followed them on the eastern throne, were
   ardent Arians in belief. The Homoousians, or orthodox, were
   subjected to persecution, which was directed with special
   bitterness against their great leader, Athanasius, the famous
   bishop of Alexandria. But Arianism was weakened by
   hair-splitting distinctions, which resulted in many diverging
   creeds. "The sect which asserted the doctrine of a 'similar
   substance' was the most numerous, at least in the provinces of
   Asia. … The Greek word which was chosen to express this
   mysterious resemblance bears so close an affinity to the
   orthodox symbol, that the profane of every age have derided
   the furious contests which the difference of a single
   diphthong excited between the Homoousians and the
   Homoiousians."
{132}
   The Latin churches of the West, with Rome at their head,
   remained generally firm in the orthodoxy of the Homoousian
   creed. But the Goths, who had received their Christianity from
   the East, tinctured with Arianism, carried that heresy
   westward, and spread it among their barbarian neighbors—
   Vandals, Burgundians and Sueves—through the influence of the
   Gothic Bible of Ulfilas, which he and his missionary
   successors bore to the Teutonic peoples. "The Vandals and
   Ostrogoths persevered in the profession of Arianism till the
   final ruin [A. D. 533 and 553] of the kingdoms which they had
   founded in Africa and Italy. The barbarians of Gaul submitted
   [A. D. 507] to the orthodox dominion of the Franks: and Spain
   was restored to the Catholic Church by the voluntary
   conversion of the Visigoths [A. D. 589]."

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapters 21 and 37. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

Theodosius formally proclaimed his adhesion to Trinitarian orthodoxy by his celebrated edict of A. D. 380, and commanded its acceptance in the Eastern Empire.

A. Neander, General History of Christian Religion and Church, translated by Torry, volume 2, section 4.

      J. A. Dorner,
      History of the Development of the Doctrine
      of the Person of Christ,
      division 1 (volume 2).

      See, also,
      GOTHS: A. D. 341-381;
      FRANKS: A. D. 481-511;
      also, GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 507-509.

A victory won by the Romans over the Auruncians, B. C. 497, which summarily ended a war that the latter had declared against the former.

The sacred grove at Aricia (one of the towns of old Latium, near Alba Longa) was the center and meeting-place of an early league among the Latin peoples, about which little is known.

"On the northern shore of the lake [of Nemi] right under the precipitous cliffs on which the modern village of Nemi is perched, stood the sacred grove and sanctuary of Diana Nemorensis, or Diana of the Wood. … The site was excavated in 1885 by Sir John Saville Lumley, English ambassador at Rome. For a general description of the site and excavations, see the Athenæum, 10th October, 1885. For details of the finds see 'Bulletino dell' Instituto di Corrispondenza Archeologica,' 1885.—The lake and the grove were sometimes known as the lake and grove of Aricia. But the town of Aricia (the modern La Riccia) was situated about three miles off, at the foot of the Alban Mount. … According to one story, the worship of Diana at Nemi was instituted by Orestes, who, after killing Thoas, King of the Tauric Chersonese (the Crimea), fled with his sister to Italy, bringing with him the image of the Tauric Diana. … Within the sanctuary at Nemi grew a certain tree, of which no branch might be broken. Only a runaway slave was allowed to break off, if he could, one of its boughs. Success in the attempt entitled him to fight the priest in single combat, and if he slew him he reigned in his stead with the title of King of the Wood (Rex Nemorensis). Tradition averred that the fateful branch was that Golden Bough which, at the Sibyl's bidding, Æneas plucked before he essayed the perilous journey to the world of the dead. … This rule of succession by the sword was observed down to imperial times; for amongst his other freaks Caligula, thinking that the priest of Nemi had held office too long, hired a more stalwart ruffian to slay him."

ARICONIUM.
   A town of Roman Britain which appears to have been the
   principal mart of the iron manufacturing industry in the
   Forest of Dean.

ARIMINUM.

The Roman colony, planted in the third century B. C., which grew into the modern city of Rimini. See ROME: B. C. 295-191.—When Cæsar entered Italy as an invader, crossing the frontier of Cisalpine Gaul—the Rubicon—his first movement was to occupy Ariminum. He halted there for two or three weeks, making his preparations for the civil war which he had now entered upon and waiting for the two legions that he had ordered from Gaul.

ARISTOCRACY. OLIGARCHY.

"Aristocracy signifies the rule of the best men. If, however, this epithet is referred to an absolute ideal standard of excellence, it is manifest that an aristocratical government is a mere abstract notion, which has nothing in history, or in nature, to correspond to it. But if we content ourselves with taking the same terms in a relative sense, … aristocracy … will be that form of government in which the ruling few are distinguished from the multitude by illustrious birth, hereditary wealth, and personal merit. … Whenever such a change took place in the character or the relative position of the ruling body, that it no longer commanded the respect of its subjects, but found itself opposed to them, and compelled to direct its measures chiefly to the preservation of its power, it ceased to be, in the Greek sense an aristocracy; it became a faction, an oligarchy."

ARISTOMNEAN WAR.

"Arizona, probably Arizonac in its original form, was the native and probably Pima name of the place of a hill, valley, stream, or some other local feature—just south of the modern boundary, in the mountains still so called, on the head waters of the stream flowing past Saric, where the famous Planchas de Plata mine was discovered in the middle of the 18th century, the name being first known to Spaniards in that connection and being applied to the mining camp or real de minas. The aboriginal meaning of the term is not known, though from the common occurrence in this region of the prefix 'ari,' the root 'son,' and the termination 'ac,' the derivation ought not to escape the research of a competent student. Such guesses as are extant, founded on the native tongues, offer only the barest possibility of a partial and accidental accuracy; while similar derivations from the Spanish are extremely absurd. … The name should properly be written and pronounced Arisona, as our English sound of the z does not occur in Spanish."

ARIZONA: A. D. 1853.
Purchase by the United States of the southern part from Mexico.
The Gadsden Treaty.

"On December 30, 1853, James Gadsden, United States minister to Mexico, concluded a treaty by which the boundary line was moved southward so as to give the United States, for a monetary consideration of $10,000,000, all of modern Arizona south of the Gila, an effort so to fix the line as to include a port on the gulf being unsuccessful. … On the face of the matter this Gadsden treaty was a tolerably satisfactory settlement of a boundary dispute, and a purchase by the United States of a route for a southern railroad to California."

ARKANSAS: A. D. 1819-1836.
   Detached from Missouri.
   Organized as a Territory.
   Admitted as a State.

"Preparatory to the assumption of state government, the limits of the Missouri Territory were restricted on the south by the parallel of 36° 30' North. The restriction was made by an act of Congress, approved March 3, 1819, entitled an 'Act establishing a separate territorial government in the southern portion of the Missouri Territory.' The portion thus separated was subsequently organized into the second grade of territorial government, and Colonel James Miller, a meritorious and distinguished officer of the Northwestern army, was appointed first governor. This territory was known as the Arkansas Territory, and, at the period of its first organization, contained an aggregate of nearly 14,000 inhabitants. Its limits comprised all the territory on the west side of the Mississippi between the parallels 33° and 36° 30', or between the northern limit of Louisiana and the southern boundary of the State of Missouri. On the west it extended indefinitely to the Mexican territories, at least 550 miles. The Post of Arkansas was made the seat of the new government. The population of this extensive territory for several years was comprised chiefly in the settlements upon the tributaries of White River and the St. Francis; upon the Mississippi, between New Madrid and Point Chicot; and upon both sides of the Arkansas River, within 100 miles of its mouth, but especially in the vicinity of the Post of Arkansas. … So feeble was the attraction in this remote region for the active, industrious, and well-disposed portion of the western pioneers, that the Arkansas Territory, in 1830, ten years after its organization, had acquired an aggregate of only 30,388 souls, including 4,576 slaves. … The western half of the territory had been erected, in 1824, into a separate district, to be reserved for the future residence of the Indian tribes, and to be known as the Indian Territory. From this time the tide of emigration began to set more actively into Arkansas, as well as into other portions of the southwest. … The territory increased rapidly for several years, and the census of 1835 gave the whole number of inhabitants at 58,134 souls, including 9,630 slaves. Thus the Arkansas Territory in the last five years had doubled its population. … The people, through the General Assembly, made application to Congress for authority to establish a regular form of state government. The assent of Congress was not withheld, and a Convention was authorized to meet at Little Rock on the first day of January, 1836, for the purpose of forming and adopting a State Constitution. The same was approved by Congress, and on the 13th of June following the State of Arkansas was admitted into the Federal Union as an independent state, and was, in point of time and order, the twenty-fifth in the confederacy. … Like the Missouri Territory, Arkansas had been a slaveholding country from the earliest French colonies. Of course, the institution of negro slavery, with proper checks and limits, was sustained by the new Constitution."

      J. W. Monette,
      Discovery and Settlement of the Valley of the Mississippi,
      book 5, chapter 17 (volume 2).

ARKANSAS: A. D. 1861 (April). Governor Rector's reply to President Lincoln's call for troops.

ARKANSAS: A. D. 1862 (January-March).
Advance of National forces into the State.
Battle of Pea Ridge.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D.
1862 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER: MISSOURI-ARKANSAS).

ARKANSAS: A. D. 1863 (January).
The capture of Arkansas Post from the Confederates.

ARKANSAS: A. D. 1863 (August-October).
The breaking of Confederate authority.
Occupation of Little Rock by National forces.

ARKANSAS: A. D. 1864 (March-October).
Last important operations of the War.
Price's Raid.

After the overthrow of the Visigothic kingdom of Toulouse, A. D. 507, by the victory of Clovis, king of the Franks, at Voclad, near Poitiers, "the great city of Aries, once the Roman capital of Gaul, maintained a gallant defence against the united Franks and Burgundians, and saved for generations the Visigothic rule in Provence and southern Languedoc. Of the siege, which lasted apparently from 508 to 510, we have some graphic details in the life of St. Cæsarius, Bishop of Aries, written by his disciples." The city was relieved in 510 by an Ostrogothic army, sent by king Theodoric of Italy, after a great battle in which 30,000 Franks were reported to be slain. "The result of the battle of Aries was to put Theodoric in secure possession of all Provence and of so much of Languedoc as was needful to ensure his access to Spain"—where the Ostrogothic king, as guardian of his infant grandson, Amalaric, was taking care of the Visigothic kingdom.

ARLES: A. D. 1032-1378.
The breaking up of the kingdom and its gradual absorption in
France.

ARMAGEDDON.

ARMAGNACS.

ARMENIA:

"Almost immediately to the west of the Caspian there rises a high table-land diversified by mountains, which stretches eastward for more than eighteen degrees, between the 37th and 41st parallels. This highland may properly be regarded as a continuation of the great Iranean plateau, with which it is connected at its southeastern corner. It comprises a portion of the modern Persia, the whole of Armenia, and most of Asia Minor. Its principal mountain ranges are latitudinal, or from west to east, only the minor ones taking the opposite or longitudinal direction. … The heart of the mountain-region, the tract extending from the district of Erivan on the east to the upper course of the Kizil·Irmak river and the vicinity of Sivas upon the west, was, as it still is, Armenia. Amidst these natural fastnesses, in a country of lofty ridges, deep and narrow valleys, numerous and copious streams, and occasional broad plains—a country of rich pasture grounds, productive orchards, and abundant harvests—this interesting people has maintained itself almost unchanged from the time of the early Persian kings to the present day. Armenia was one of the most valuable portions of the Persian empire, furnishing, as it did, besides stone and timber, and several most important minerals, an annual supply of 20,000 excellent horses to the stud of the Persian king."

Before the Persians established their sovereignty over the country, "it seems certain that from one quarter or another Armenia had been Arianized; the old Turanian character had passed away from it; immigrants had flocked in and a new people had been formed—the real Armenians of later times, and indeed of the present day." Submitting to Alexander, on the overthrow of the Persian monarchy, Armenia fell afterwards under the yoke of the Seleucidæ, but gained independence about 190 B. C., or earlier. Under the influence of Parthia, a branch of the Parthian royal family, the Arsacids, was subsequently placed on the throne and a dynasty established which reigned for nearly six hundred years. The fourth of these kings, Tigranes, who occupied the throne in the earlier part of the last century B. C., placed Armenia in the front rank of Asiatic kingdoms and in powerful rivalry with Parthia. Its subsequent history is one of many wars and invasions and much buffeting between Romans, Parthians, Persians, and their successors in the conflicts of the eastern world. The part of Armenia west of the Euphrates was called by the Romans Armenia Minor. For a short period after the revolt from the Seleucid monarchy, it formed a distinct kingdom called Sophene.

ARMENIA: B. C. 69-68.
   War with the Romans.
   Great defeat at Tigranocerta
   Submission to Rome.

ARMENIA: A. D. 115-117.

   "The last decade of the 12th century saw the establishment of
   two small Christian kingdoms in the Levant, which long
   outlived all other relics of the Crusades except the military
   orders; and which, with very little help from the West,
   sustained a hazardous existence in complete contrast with
   almost everything around them. The kingdoms of Cyprus and
   Armenia have a history very closely intertwined, but their
   origin and most of their circumstances were very different. By
   Armenia as a kingdom is meant little more than the ancient
   Cilicia, the land between Taurus and the sea, from the
   frontier of the principality of Antioch, eastward, to
   Kelenderis or Palæopolis, a little beyond Seleucia; this
   territory, which was computed to contain 16 days' journey in
   length, measured from four miles of Antioch, by two in
   breadth, was separated from the Greater Armenia, which before
   the period on which we are now employed had fallen under the
   sway of the Seljuks, by the ridges of Taurus.
{135}
   The population was composed largely of the sweepings of Asia
   Minor, Christian tribes which had taken refuge in the
   mountains. Their religion was partly Greek, partly Armenian.
   … Their rulers were princes descended from the house of the
   Bagratidæ, who had governed the Greater Armenia as kings from
   the year 885 to the reign of Constantine of Monomachus, and
   had then merged their hazardous independence in the mass of
   the Greek Empire. After the seizure of Asia Minor by the
   Seljuks, the few of the Bagratidæ who had retained possession
   of the mountain fastnesses of Cilicia or the strongholds of
   Mesopotamia, acted as independent lords, showing little
   respect for Byzantium save where there was something to be
   gained. … Rupin of the Mountain was prince [of Cilicia] at
   the time of the capture of Jerusalem by Saladin; he died in
   1189, and his successor, Leo, or Livon, after having
   successfully courted the favour of pope and emperor, was
   recognised as king of Armenia by the emperor Henry VI., and
   was crowned by Conrad of Wittelsbach, Archbishop of Mainz, in
   1198." The dynasty ended with Leo IV., whose "whole reign was
   a continued struggle against the Moslems," and who was
   assassinated about 1342. "The five remaining kings of Armenia
   sprang from a branch of the Cypriot house of Lusignan [see
   CYPRUS: A. D. 1192-1489] and were little more than Latin
   exiles in the midst of several strange populations all alike
   hostile."

      William Stubbs,
      Lectures on the Study of Mediæval and Modern History,
      lecture 8.

The church of the Armenians is "the oldest of all national churches. They were converted by St. Gregory, called 'The Illuminator,' who was a relative of Dertad or Tiridates, their prince, and had been forced to leave the country at the same time with him, and settled at Cæsareia in Cappadocia, where he was initiated into the Christian faith. When they returned, both prince and people embraced the Gospel through the preaching of Gregory, A. D. 276, and thus presented the first instance of an entire nation becoming Christian. … By an accident they were unrepresented at [the Council of] Chalcedon [A. D. 451], and, owing to the poverty of their language in words serviceable for the purposes of theology, they had at that time but one word for Nature and Person, in consequence of which they misunderstood the decision of that council [that Christ possessed two natures, divine and human, in one Person] with sufficient clearness. … It was not until eighty-four years had elapsed that they finally adopted Eutychianism [the doctrine that the divinity is the sole nature in Christ], and an anathema was pronounced on the Chalcedonian decrees (536)."

"The religion of Armenia could not derive much glory from the learning or the power of its inhabitants. The royalty expired with the origin of their schism; and their Christian kings, who arose and fell in the 13th century on the confines of Cilicia, were the clients of the Latins and the vassals of the Turkish sultan of Iconium, The helpless nation has seldom been permitted to enjoy the tranquility of servitude. From the earliest period to the present hour, Armenia has been the theatre of perpetual war; the lands between Tauris and Erivan were dispeopled by the cruel policy of the Sophis; and myriads of Christian families were transplanted, to perish or to propagate in the distant provinces of Persia. Under the rod of oppression, the zeal of the Armenians is fervent and intrepid; they have often preferred the crown of martyrdom to the white turban of Mahomet; they devoutly hate the error and idolatry of the Greeks."

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 47. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

ARMINIANISM.

"As to armorial bearings, there is no doubt that emblems somewhat similar have been immemorially used both in war and peace. The shields of ancient warriors, and devices upon coins or seals, bear no distant resemblance to modern blazonry. But the general introduction of such bearings, as hereditary distinctions, has been sometimes attributed to tournaments, wherein the champions were distinguished by fanciful devices; sometimes to the crusades, where a multitude of all nations and languages stood in need of some visible token to denote the banners of their respective chiefs. In fact, the peculiar symbols of heraldry point to both these sources and have been borrowed in part from each. Hereditary arms were perhaps scarcely used by private families before the beginning of the thirteenth century. From that time, however, they became very general."

ARMORICA.

The peninsular projection of the coast of Gaul between the mouths of the Seine and the Loire, embracing modern Brittany, and a great part of Normandy, was known to the Romans as Armorica. The most important of the Armorican tribes in Cæsar's time was that of the Veneti. "In the fourth and fifth centuries, the northern coast from the Loire to the frontier of the Netherlands was called 'Tractus Aremoricus,' or Aremorica, which in Celtic signifies 'maritime country.' The commotions of the third century, which continued to increase during the fourth and fifth, repeatedly drove the Romans from that country. French antiquaries imagine that it was a regularly constituted Gallic republic, of which Chlovis had the protectorate, but this is wrong."

B. G. Niebuhr, Lectures on Ancient Ethnography and Geography, volume 2, page 318.

See CANADA: A. D. 1775-1776; and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (MAY); 1777 (JULY-OCTOBER); 1780 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER); 1780-1781; 1781 (JANUARY-MAY); 1781 (MAY-OCTOBER).

ARNULF,
King of the East Franks (Germany), A. D. 888-899;
King of Italy and Emperor, A. D. 894-899.

   Conducted by the Assyrian Conqueror Tiglath-Pileser, beginning
   B. C. 742 and lasting two years. The fall of the city brought
   with it the submission of all northern Syria.

ARRAPACHITIS.

ARROW HEADED WRITING.

The dynasty of Parthian kings were so called, from the founder of the line, Arsaces, who led the revolt of Parthia from the rule of the Syrian Seleucidæ and raised himself to the throne. According to some ancient writers Arsaces was a Bactrian; according to others a Scythian.

ARSEN.

In one of the earlier raids of the Seljukian Turks into Armenia, in the eleventh century the city of Arsen was destroyed. "It had long been the great city of Eastern Asia Minor, the centre of Asiatic trade, the depot for merchandise transmitted overland from Persia and India to the Eastern Empire and Europe generally. It was full of warehouses belonging to Armenians and Syrians and is said to have contained 800 churches and 300,000 people. Having failed to capture the city, Togrul's general succeeded in burning it. The destruction of so much wealth struck a fatal blow at Armenian commerce."

ARTAXATA.

   The ancient capital of Armenia, said to have been built under
   the superintendence of Hannibal, while a refugee in Armenia.
   At a later time it was called Neronia, in honor of the Roman
   Emperor Nero.

ARTAXERXES LONGIMANUS, King of Persia, B. C. 465-425.
ARTAXERXES MNEMON, King of Persia, B. C. 405-359.
ARTAXERXES OCHUS, King of Persia, B. C. 359-338.
ARTAXERXES, or ARDSHIR, Founder of the Sassanian monarchy.

ARTEMITA.

"On the difficult question, whether there was a historical Arthur or not, … a word or two must now be devoted; … and here one has to notice in the first place that Welsh literature never calls Arthur a gwledig or prince but emperor, and it may be inferred that his historical position, in case he had such a position, was that of one filling, after the departure of the Romans, the office which under them was that of the Comes Britanniæ or Count of Britain. The officer so called had a roving commission to defend the Province wherever his presence might be called for. The other military captains here were the Dux Britanniarum, who had charge of the forces in the north and especially on the Wall, and the Comes Littoris Saxonici [Count of the Saxon Shore], who was entrusted with the defence of the south-eastern coast of the island. The successors of both these captains seem to have been called in Welsh gwledigs or princes. So Arthur's suggested position as Comes Britanniæ would be in a sense superior to theirs, which harmonizes with his being called emperor and not gwledig. The Welsh have borrowed the Latin title of imperator, 'emperor,' and made it into 'amherawdyr,' later 'amherawdwr,' so it is not impossible, that when the Roman imperator ceased to have anything more to say to this country, the title was given to the highest officer in the island, namely the Comes Britanniæ, and that in the words 'Yr Amherawdyr Arthur,' 'the Emperor Arthur,' we have a remnant of our insular history. If this view be correct, it might be regarded as something more than an accident that Arthur's position relatively to that of the other Brythonic princes of his time is exactly given by Nennius, or whoever it was that wrote the Historia Brittonum ascribed to him: there Arthur is represented fighting in company with the kings of the Brythons in defence of their common country, he being their leader in war. If, as has sometimes been argued, the uncle of Maglocunus or Maelgwn, whom the latter is accused by Gilda of having slain and superseded, was no other than Arthur, it would supply one reason why that writer called Maelgwn 'insularis draco,' 'the dragon or war-captain of the island,' and why the latter and his successors after him were called by the Welsh not gwledigs but kings, though their great ancestor Cuneda was only a gwledig. {137} On the other hand the way in which Gildas alludes to the uncle of Maelgwn without even giving his name, would seem to suggest that in his estimation at least he was no more illustrious than his predecessors in the position which he held, whatever that may have been. How then did Arthur become famous above them, and how came he to be the subject of so much story and romance? The answer, in short, which one has to give to this hard question must be to the effect, that besides a historic Arthur there was a Brythonic divinity named Arthur, after whom the man may have been called, or with whose name his, in case it was of a different origin, may have become identical in sound owing to an accident of speech; for both explanations are possible, as we shall attempt to show later. Leaving aside for a while the man Arthur, and assuming the existence of a god of that name, let us see what could be made of him. Mythologically speaking he would probably have to be regarded as a Culture Hero; for, a model king and the institutor of the Knighthood of the Round Table, he is represented as the leader of expeditions to the isles of Hades, and as one who stood in somewhat the same kind of relation to Gwalchmei as Gwydion did to ILeu. It is needless here to dwell on the character usually given to Arthur as a ruler: he with his knights around him may be compared to Conehobar, in the midst of the Champions of Emain Macha, or Woden among the Anses at Valhalla, while Arthur's Knights are called those of the Round Table, around which they are described sitting; and it would be interesting to understand the signification of the term Round Table. On the whole it is the table, probably, and not its roundness that is the fact to which to call attention, as it possibly means that Arthur's court was the first early court where those present sat at a table at all in Britain. No such thing as a common table figures at Conchobar's court or any other described in the old legends of Ireland, and the same applies, we believe, to those of the old Norsemen. The attribution to Arthur of the first use of a common table would fit in well with the character of a Culture Hero which we have ventured to ascribe to him, and it derives countenance from the pretended history of the Round Table; for the Arthurian legend traces it back to Arthur's father, Uthr Bendragon, in whom we have under one of his many names the king of Hades, the realm whence all culture was fabled to have been derived. In a wider sense the Round Table possibly signified plenty or abundance, and might be compared with the table of the Ethiopians, at which Zeus and the other gods of Greek mythology used to feast from time to time."

ARTI OF FLORENCE.

ARTYNI.

The Canaanite inhabitants of the island of Aradus, or Arvad, and who also held territory on the main land.

One of the defeats sustained by the Romans in their wars with the Persians. Battle fought A. D. 603.

ARYANS. ARYAS.

"This family (which is sometimes called Japhetic, or descendants of Japhet) includes the Hindus and Persians among Asiatic nations, and almost all the peoples of Europe. It may seem strange that we English should be related not only to the Germans and Dutch and Scandinavians, but to the Russians, French, Spanish, Romans and Greeks as well; stranger still that we can claim kinship with such distant peoples as the Persians and Hindus. … What seems actually to have been the case is this: In distant ages, somewhere about the rivers Oxus and Jaxartes, and on the north of that mountainous range called the Hindoo-Koosh, dwelt the ancestors of all the nations we have enumerated, forming at this time a single and united people, simple and primitive in their way of life, but yet having enough of a common national life to preserve a common language. They called themselves Aryas or Aryans, a word which, in its very earliest sense, seems to have meant those who move upwards, or straight; and hence, probably, came to stand for the noble race as compared with other races on whom, of course, they would look down. … As their numbers increased, the space wherein they dwelt became too small for them who had out of one formed many different peoples. Then began a series of migrations, in which the collection of tribes who spoke one language and formed one people started off to seek their fortune in new lands. … First among them, in all probability, started the Kelts or Celts, who, travelling perhaps to the South of the Caspian and the North of the Black Sea, found their way to Europe and spread far on to the extreme West. … Another of the great families who left the Aryan home was the Pelasgic or the Græco-Italic. These, journeying along first Southwards and then to the West, passed through Asia Minor, on to the countries of Greece and Italy, and in time separated into those two great peoples, the Greeks (or Hellenes, as they came to call themselves), and the Romans. … Next we come to two other great families of nations who seem to have taken the same route at first, and perhaps began their travels together as the Greeks and Romans did. These are the Teutons and the Slaves. … The word Slave comes from Slowan, which in old Slavonian meant to speak, and was given by the Slavonians to themselves as the people who could speak in opposition to other nations whom, as they were not able to understand them, they were pleased to consider as dumb. The Greek word barbaroi (whence our barbarians) arose in obedience to a like prejudice, only from an imitation of babbling such as is made by saying 'bar-bar-bar.'"

The above passage sets forth the older theory of an Aryan family of nations as well as of languages in its unqualified form. Its later modifications are indicated in the following: "The discovery of Sanscrit and the further discovery to which it led, that the languages now variously known as Aryan, Aryanic, Indo-European, Indo-Germanic, Indo-Celtic and Japhetic are closely akin to one another, spread a spell over the world of thought which cannot be said to have yet wholly passed away. It was hastily argued from the kinship of their languages to the kinship of the nations that spoke them. … The question then arises as to the home of the 'holethnos,' or parent tribe, before its dispersion and during the proethnic period, at a time when as yet there was neither Greek nor Hindoo, neither Celt nor Teuton, but only an undifferentiated Aryan. Of course, the answer at first was—where could it have been but in the East. And at length the glottologist found it necessary to shift the cradle of the Aryan race to the neighbourhood of the Oxus and the Jaxartes, so as to place it somewhere between the Caspian Sea and the Himalayas. Then Doctor Latham boldly raised his voice against the Asiatic theory altogether, and stated that he regarded the attempt to deduce the Aryans from Asia as resembling an attempt to derive the reptiles of this country from those of Ireland. Afterwards Benfey argued, from the presence in the vocabulary common to the Aryan languages of words for bear and wolf, for birch and beech, and the absence of certain others, such as those for lion, tiger and palm, that the original home of the Aryans must have been within the temperate zone in Europe. … As might be expected in the case of such a difficult question, those who are inclined to believe in the European origin of the Aryans are by no means agreed among themselves as to the spot to be fixed upon. Latham placed it east, or south-east of Lithuania, in Podolia, or Volhynia; Benfey had in view a district above the Black Sea and not far from the Caspian; Peschel fixed on the slopes of the Caucasus; Cuno on the great plain of Central Europe; Fligier on the southern part of Russia; Pösche on the tract between the Niemen and the Dnieper; L. Geiger on central and western Germany; and Penka on Scandinavia."

"Aryan, in scientific language, is utterly inapplicable to race. It means language, and nothing but language; and, if we speak of Aryan race at all, we should know that it means no more than X + Aryan speech. … I have declared again and again that if I say Aryas, I mean neither blood nor bones, nor hair nor skull; I mean simply those who speak an Aryan language. The same applies to Hindus, Greeks, Romans, Germans, Celts and Slaves. … In that sense, and in that sense only, do I say that even the blackest Hindus represent an earlier stage of Aryan speech and thought than the fairest Scandinavians. … If an answer must be given as to the place where our Aryan ancestors dwelt before their separation, whether in large swarms of millions, or in a few scattered tents and huts, I should still say, as I said forty years ago, 'Somewhere in Asia,' and no more."

   The theories which dispute the Asiatic origin of the Aryans
   are strongly presented by Canon Taylor in The Origin of the
   Aryans, by G. H. Rendall, in The Cradle of the
   Aryans, and by Dr. O. Schrader in Prehistoric
   Antiquities of the Aryan Peoples.

See, also, INDIA: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS,
and THE IMMIGRATION AND CONQUESTS OF THE ARYAS.

AS. LIBRA. DENARIUS. SESTERTIUS.

"The term As [among the Romans] and the words which denote its divisions, were not confined to weight alone, but were applied to measures of length and capacity also, and in general to any object which could be regarded as consisting of twelve equal parts. Thus they were commonly used to denote shares into which an inheritance was divided." As a unit of weight the As, or Libra, "occupied the same position in the Roman system as the pound does in our own. According to the most accurate researches, the As was equal to about 11.8 oz. avoirdupois, or .7375 of an avoirdupois pound." It "was divided into 12 equal parts called unciæ, and the unciæ was divided into 24 equal parts called scrupula." "The As, regarded as a coin [of copper] originally weighed, as the name implies, one pound, and the smaller copper coins those fractions of the pound denoted by their names. By degrees; however, the weight of the As, regarded as a coin, was greatly diminished. We are told that, about the commencement of the first Punic war, it had fallen from 12 ounces to 2 ounces; in the early part of the second Punic war (B. C. 217), it was reduced to one ounce; and not long afterwards, by a Lex Papiria, it was fixed at half-an-ounce, which remained the standard ever after." The silver coins of Rome were the Denarius, equivalent (after 217 B. C.) to 16 Asses; the Quinarius and the Sestertius, which became, respectively, one half and one fourth of the Denarius in value. The Sestertius, at the close of the Republic, is. estimated to have been equivalent in value to two pence sterling of English money. The coinage was debased under the Empire. The principal gold coin of the Empire was the Denarius Aureus, which passed for 25 silver Denarii.

ASHDOD.

"There are grounds for believing Europe and Asia to have originally signified 'the west' and 'the east' respectively. Both are Semitic terms, and probably passed to the Greeks from the Phœnicians. … The Greeks first applied the title [Asia] to that portion of the eastern continent which lay nearest to them, and with which they became first acquainted—the coast of Asia Minor opposite the Cyclades; whence they extended it as their knowledge grew. Still it had always a special application to the country about Ephesus."

"As originally constituted, it corresponded to the dominions of the kings of Pergamus … left by the will of Attalus III. to the Roman people (B. C. 133). … It included the whole of Mysia and Lydia, with Æolis, Ionia and Caria, except a small part which was subject to Rhodes, and the greater part, if not the whole, of Phrygia. A portion of the last region, however, was detached from it."

ASIA MINOR:

"The name of Asia Minor, so familiar to the student of ancient geography, was not in use either among Greek or Roman writers until a very late period. Orosius, who wrote in the fifth century after the Christian era, is the first extant writer who employs the term in its modern sense."

The name Anatolia, which is of Greek origin, synonymous with "The Levant," signifying "The Sunrise," came into use among the Byzantines, about the 10th century, and was adopted by their successors, the Turks.

      See
      PHRYGIANS and MYSIANS.
      LYDIANS.
      CARIANS.
      LYCIANS.
      BITHYNIANS.
      PONTUS (CAPPADOCIA).
      PAPHLAGONIANS.
      TROJA.

"The tumult which had been caused by the irruption of the Thesprotians into Thessaly and the displacement of the population of Greece [see GREECE: THE MIGRATION, &c.] did not subside within the limits of the peninsula. From the north and the south those inhabitants who were unable to maintain their ground against the incursions of the Thessalians, Arnaeans, or Dorians, and preferred exile to submission, sought new homes in the islands of the Aegean and on the western coast of Asia Minor. The migrations continued for several generations. When at length they came to an end, and the Anatolian coast from Mount Ida to the Triopian headland, with the adjacent islands, was in the possession of the Greeks, three great divisions or tribes were distinguished in the new settlements: Dorians, Ionians, and Aeolians. In spite of the presence of some alien elements, the Dorians and Ionians of Asia Minor were the same tribes as the Dorians and Ionians of Greece. The Aeolians, on the other hand, were a composite tribe, as their name implies. … Of these three divisions the Aeolians lay farthest to the north. The precise limits of their territory were differently fixed by different authorities. … The Aeolic cities fell into two groups: a northern, of which Lesbos was the centre, and a southern, composed of the cities in the immediate neighbourhood of the Hermus, and founded from Cyme.—The northern group included the islands of Tenedos and Lesbos. In the latter there were originally six cities: Methymna, Mytilene, Pyrrha, Eresus, Arisba, and Antissa, but Arisba was subsequently conquered and enslaved by Mytilene. … The second great stream of migration proceeded from Athens [after the death of Codrus—see ATHENS: FROM THE DORIAN MIGRATION TO B. C. 683—according to Greek tradition, the younger sons of Codrus leading these Ionian colonists across the Aegean, first to the Carian city of Miletus—see MILETUS,—which they captured, and then to the conquest of Ephesus and the island of Samos]. … The colonies spread until a dodecapolis was established, similar to the union which the Ionians had founded in their old settlements on the northern shore of Peloponnesus. In some cities the Ionian population formed a minority. … The colonisation of Ionia was undoubtedly, in the main, an achievement of emigrants from Attica, but it was not accomplished by a single family, or in the space of one life-time. … The two most famous of the Ionian cities were Miletus and Ephesus. The first was a Carian city previously known as Anactoria. … Ephesus was originally in the hands of the Leleges and the Lydians, who were driven out by the Ionians under Androclus. The ancient sanctuary of the tutelary goddess of the place was transformed by the Greeks into a temple of Artemis, who was here worshipped as the goddess of birth and productivity in accordance with Oriental rather than Hellenic ideas." The remaining Ionic cities and islands were Myus (named from the mosquitoes which infested it, and which finally drove the colony to abandon it), Priene, Erythrae, Clazomenæ, Teos, Phocaea, Colophon, Lebedus, Samos and Chios. "Chios was first inhabited by Cretans … and subsequently by Carians. … Of the manner in which Chios became connected with the Ionians the Chians could give no clear account. … The southern part of the Anatolian coast, and the southern-most islands in the Aegean were colonised by the Dorians, who wrested them from the Phoenician or Carian occupants. Of the islands, Crete is the most important. … Crete was one of the oldest centres of civilisation in the Aegean [see CRETE]. … The Dorian colony in Rhodes, like that in Crete, was ascribed to the band which left Argos under the command of Althaemenes. … Other islands colonised by the Dorians were Thera, … Melos, … Carpathus, Calydnae, Nisyrus, and Cos. … From the islands, the Dorians spread to the mainland. The peninsula of Cnidus was perhaps the first settlement. … Halicarnassus was founded from Troezen, and the Ionian element must have been considerable. … Of the Dorian cities, six united in the common worship of Apollo on the headland of Triopium. These were Lindus, Ialysus, and Camirus in Rhodes, Cos, and, on the mainland, Halicarnassus and Cnidus. … The territory which the Aeolians acquired is described by Herodotus as more fertile than that occupied by the Ionians, but of a less excellent climate. It was inhabited by a number of tribes, among which the Troes or Teucri were the chief. … In Homer the inhabitants of the city of the Troad are Dardani or Troes, and the name Teucri does not occur. In historical times the Gergithes, who dwelt in the town of the same name … near Lampsacus, and also formed the subject population of Miletus, were the only remnants of this once famous nation. {140} But their former greatness was attested by the Homeric poems, and the occurrence of the name Gergithians at various places in the Troad [see TROJA]. To this tribe belonged the Troy of the Grecian epic, the site of which, so far as it represents any historical city, is fixed at Hissarlik. In the Iliad the Trojan empire extends from the Aesepus to the Caicus; it was divided—or, at least, later historians speak of it as divided—into principalities which recognised Priam as their chief. But the Homeric descriptions of the city and its eminence are not to be taken as historically true. Whatever the power and civilisation of the ancient stronghold exhumed by Dr. Schliemann may have been, it was necessary for the epic poet to represent Priam and his nation as a dangerous rival in wealth and arms to the great kings of Mycenae and Sparta. … The traditional dates fix these colonies [of the Greeks in Asia Minor] in the generations which followed the Trojan war. … We may suppose that the colonisation of the Aegean and of Asia Minor by the Greeks was coincident with the expulsion of the Phoenicians. The greatest extension of the Phoenician power in the Aegean seems to fall in the 15th century B. C. From the 13th it was gradually on the decline, and the Greeks were enabled to secure the trade for themselves. … By 1100 B. C. Asia Minor may have been in the hands of the Greeks, though the Phoenicians still maintained themselves in Rhodes and Cyprus. But all attempts at chronology are illusory."

J. A. Cramer, Geography and Historical Description of Asia Minor, section 6 (volume 1).

ASIA MINOR: B. C. 724-539.
   Prosperity of the Greek Colonies.
   Their Submission to Crœsus, King of Lydia, and their conquest
   and annexation to the Persian Empire.

"The Grecian colonies on the coast of Asia early rose to wealth by means of trade and manufactures. Though we have not the means of tracing their commerce, we know that it was considerable, with the mother country, with Italy, and at length Spain, with Phœnicia and the interior of Asia, whence the productions of India passed to Greece. The Milesians, who had fine woolen manufactures, extended their commerce to the Euxine, on all sides of which they founded factories, and exchanged their manufactures and other goods with the Scythians and the neighbouring peoples, for slaves, wool, raw hides, bees-wax, flax, hemp, pitch, etc. There is even reason to suppose that, by means of caravans, their traders bartered their wares not far from the confines of China [see MILETUS]. … But while they were advancing in wealth and prosperity, a powerful monarchy formed itself in Lydia, of which the capital was Sardes, a city at the foot of Mount Tmolus." Gyges, the first of the Mermnad dynasty of Lydian kings (see LYDIANS), whose reign is supposed to have begun about B. C. 724, "turned his arms against the Ionian cities on the coast. During a century and a half the efforts of the Lydian monarchs to reduce these states were unavailing. At length (Ol. 55) [B. C. 568] the celebrated Crœsus mounted the throne of Lydia, and he made all Asia this side of the River Halys (Lycia and Cilicia excepted) acknowledge his dominion. The Aeolian, Ionian and Dorian cities of the coast all paid him tribute; but, according to the usual rule of eastern conquerors, he meddled not with their political institutions, and they might deem themselves fortunate in being insured against war by the payment of an annual sum of money. Crœsus, moreover, cultivated the friendship of the European Greeks." But Crœsus was overthrown, B. C. 554, by the conquering Cyrus and his kingdom of Lydia was swallowed up in the great Persian empire then taking form [see PERSIA: B. C. 549-521]. Cyrus, during his war with Crœsus, had tried to entice the Ionians away from the latter and win them to an alliance with himself. But they incurred his resentment by refusing. "They and the Æolians now sent ambassadors, praying to be received to submission on the same terms as those on which they had obeyed the Lydian monarch; but the Milesians alone found favour: the rest had to prepare for war. They repaired the walls of their towns, and sent to Sparta for aid. Aid, however, was refused; but Cyrus, being called away by the war with Babylon, neglected them for the present. Three years afterwards (Ol. 59, 2), Harpagus, who had saved Cyrus in his infancy from his grandfather, Astyages, came as governor of Lydia. He instantly prepared to reduce the cities of the coast. Town after town submitted. The Teians abandoned theirs, and retired to Abdera in Thrace; the Phocæans, getting on shipboard, and vowing never to return, sailed for Corsica, and being there harassed by the Carthagenians and Tyrrhenians, they went to Rhegion in Italy, and at length founded Massalia (Marseilles) on the coast of Gaul. The Grecian colonies thus became a part of the Persian empire."

ALSO IN: Herodotus, History, translated and edited by G. Rawlinson, book 1, and appendix

ASIA MINOR: B. C. 413.
Tribute again demanded from the Greeks by the Persian King.
Conspiracy against Athens.

ASIA MINOR: B. C. 413-412.
Revolt of the Greek cities from Athens.
Intrigues of Alcibiades.

ASIA MINOR: B. C. 401-400.
Expedition of Cyrus the Younger, and Retreat of the Ten
Thousand.

ASIA MINOR: B. C. 399-387.
Spartan war with Persia in behalf of the Greek cities.
Their abandonment by the Peace of Antalcidas.

ASIA MINOR: B. C. 281-224.
Battle-ground of the warring monarchies of Syria and Egypt.
Changes of masters.

ASIA MINOR: B. C. 191.
   First Entrance of the Romans.
   Their defeat of Antiochus the Great.
   Their expansion of the kingdom of Pergamum and the Republic of
   Rhodes.

ASIA MINOR: B. C. 120-65.
   Mithridates and his kingdom.
   Massacre of Italians.
   Futile revolt from Rome.
   Complete Roman Conquest.

      See
      SLAVERY: A. D. 1698-1776;
      UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714;
      AIX-LA-CHAPELLE, THE CONGRESS OF; ENGLAND: A. D. 1739-1741;
      and GEORGIA: A. D. 1738-1743.

ASKELON.

ASKLEPIADS.

"Throughout all the historical ages [of Greece] the descendants of Asklêpius [or Esculapius] were numerous and widely diffused. The many families or gentes called Asklêpiads, who devoted themselves to the study and practice of medicine, and who principally dwelt near the temples of Asklêpius, whither sick and suffering men came to obtain relief—all recognized the god, not merely as the object of their common worship, but also as their actual progenitor."

ASOPIA.

ASOV.

ASPADAN.

The sixth and last battle, A. D. 1016, between Edmund Ironsides, the English King, and his Danish rival, Cnut, or Canute, for the Crown of England. The English were terribly defeated and the flower of their nobility perished on the field. The result was a division of the kingdom; but Edmund soon died, or was killed. Ashington, in Essex, was the battle-ground.

"I must here speak with the brevity which my limits prescribe of that wonderful brotherhood of the Assassins, which during the 12th and 13th centuries spread such terror through all Asia, Mussulman and Christian. Their deeds should be studied in Von Hammer's history of their order, of which however there is an excellent analysis in Taylor's History of Mohammedanism. The word Assassin, it must be remembered, in its ordinary signification, is derived from this order, and not the reverse. The Assassins were not so called because they were murderers, but murderers are called assassins because the Assassins were murderers. The origin of the word Assassin has been much disputed by oriental scholars; but its application is sufficiently written upon the Asiatic history of the 12th century. The Assassins were not, strictly speaking, a dynasty, but rather an order, like the Templars; only the office of Grand-Master, like the Caliphate, became hereditary. They were originally a branch of the Egyptian Ishmaelites [see MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 908-1171] and at first professed the principles of that sect. But there can be no doubt that their inner doctrine became at last a mere negation of all religion and all morality. 'To believe nothing and to dare everything' was the summary of their teaching. Their exoteric principle, addressed to the non-initiated members of the order, was simple blind obedience to the will of their superiors. If the Assassin was ordered to take off a Caliph or a Sultan by the dagger or the bowl, the deed was done; if he was ordered to throw himself from the ramparts, the deed was done likewise. … Their founder was Hassan Sabah, who, in 1090, shortly before the death of Malek Shah, seized the castle of Alamout—the Vulture's nest—in northern Persia, whence they extended their possessions over a whole chain of mountain fortresses in that country and in Syria. The Grand-Master was the Sheikh-al-Jebal, the famous Old Man of the Mountain, at whose name Europe and Asia shuddered."

"In the Fatimide Khalif of Egypt, they [the Assassins, or Ismailiens of Syria and Persia] beheld an incarnate deity. To kill his enemies, in whatever way they best could, was an action, the merit of which could not be disputed, and the reward for which was certain." Hasan Sabah, the founder of the Order, died at Alamout A. D. 1124. "From the day he entered Alamut until that of his death—a period of thirty-five years—he never emerged, but upon two occasions, from the seclusion of his house. Pitiless and inscrutable as Destiny, he watched the troubled world of Oriental politics, himself invisible, and whenever he perceived a formidable foe, caused a dagger to be driven into his heart." It was not until more than a century after the death of its founder that the fearful organization of the Assassins was extinguished (A. D. 1257) by the same flood of Mongol invasion which swept Bagdad and the Caliphate out of existence.

The Assassins were rooted out from all their strongholds in Kuhistan and the neighboring region, and were practically exterminated, in 1257, by the Mongols under Khulagu, or Houlagou, brother of Mongu Khan, the great sovereign of the Mongol Empire, then reigning. Alamut, the Vulture's Nest, was demolished.

H. H. Howorth, History of the Mongols, part 1, page 193; and part 3, pages 91-108.

ASSEMBLY OF THE NOTABLES IN FRANCE (1787).

ASSIGNATS.

ASSINIBOIA.

ASSIZE OF BREAD AND ALE.

The Assize of Bread and Ale was an English ordinance or enactment, dating back to the time of Henry III. in the 13th century, which fixed the price of those commodities by a scale regulated according to the market prices of wheat, barley and oats. "The Assize of bread was re-enacted so lately as the beginning of the last century and was only abolished in London and its neighbourhood about thirty years ago"—that is, early in the present century.

"No sooner had Godfrey of Bouillon [elected King of Jerusalem, after the taking of the Holy City by the Crusaders, A. D. 1099] accepted the office of supreme magistrate than he solicited the public and private advice of the Latin pilgrims who were the best skilled in the statutes and customs of Europe. From these materials, with the counsel and approbation of the Patriarch and barons, of the clergy and laity, Godfrey composed the Assise of Jerusalem, a precious monument of feudal jurisprudence. The new code, attested by the seals of the King, the Patriarch, and the Viscount of Jerusalem, was deposited in the holy sepulchre, enriched with the improvements of succeeding times, and respectfully consulted as often as any doubtful question arose in the tribunals of Palestine. With the kingdom and city all was lost; the fragments of the written law were preserved by jealous tradition and variable practice till the middle of the thirteenth century. The code was restored by the pen of John d'Ibelin, Count of Jaffa, one of the principal feudatories; and the final revision was accomplished in the year thirteen hundred and sixty-nine, for the use of the Latin kingdom of Cyprus."

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 58. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

ASSIZES.

"The formal edicts known under the name of Assizes, the Assizes of Clarendon and Northampton, the Assize of Arms, the Assize of the Forest, and the Assizes of Measures, are the only relics of the legislative work of the period [reign of Henry II. in England]. These edicts are chiefly composed of new regulations for the enforcement of royal justice, … In this respect they strongly resemble the capitularies of the Frank Kings, or, to go farther back, the edicts of the Roman prætors. … The term Assize, which comes into use in this meaning about the middle of the twelfth century, both on the continent and in England, appears to be the proper Norman name for such edicts. … In the 'Assize of Jerusalem' it simply means a law; and the same in Henry's legislation. Secondarily, it means a form of trial established by the particular law, as the Great Assize, the Assize of Mort d' Ancester; and thirdly the court held to hold such trials, in which sense it is commonly used at the present day."

ASSUR.

ASSYRIA.

   For matter relating to Assyrian history, the reader is
   referred to the caption SEMITES, under which it will be given.
   The subject is deferred to that part of this work which will
   go later into print, for the reason that every month is adding
   to the knowledge of the students of ancient oriental history
   and clearing away disputed questions. It is quite possible
   that the time between the publication of our first volume and
   our fourth or fifth may make important additions to the scanty
   literature of the subject in English. Modern excavation on the
   sites of the ancient cities in the East, bringing to light
   large library collections of inscribed clay tablets,—sacred
   and historical writings, official records, business contracts
   and many varieties of inscriptions,—have almost
   revolutionized the study of ancient history and the views of
   antiquity derived from it.
{143}
   "M. Botta, who was appointed French consul at Mosul in 1842,
   was the first to commence excavations on the sites of the
   buried cities of Assyria, and to him is due the honour of the
   first discovery of her long lost palaces. M. Botta commenced
   his labours at Kouyunjik, the large mound opposite Mosul, but
   he found here very little to compensate for his labours. New
   at the time to excavations, he does not appear to have worked
   in the best manner; M. Botta at Kouyunjik contented himself
   with sinking pits in the mound, and on these proving
   unproductive abandoning them. While M. Botta was excavating at
   Kouyunjik, his attention was called to the mounds of Khorsabad
   by a native of the village on that site; and he sent a party
   of workmen to the spot to commence excavation. In a few days
   his perseverance was rewarded by the discovery of some
   sculptures, after which, abandoning the work at Kouyunjik, he
   transferred his establishment to Khorsabad and thoroughly
   explored that site. … The palace which M. Botta had
   discovered … is one of the most perfect Assyrian buildings
   yet explored, and forms an excellent example of Assyrian
   architecture. Beside the palace on the mound of Khorsabad, M.
   Botta also opened the remains of a temple, and a grand porch
   decorated by six winged bulls. … The operations of M. Botta
   were brought to a close in 1845, and a splendid collection of
   sculptures and other antiquities, the fruits of his labours,
   arrived in Paris in 1846 and was deposited in the Louvre.
   Afterwards the French Government appointed M. Place consul at
   Mosul, and he continued some of the excavations of his
   predecessor. … Mr. Layard, whose attention was early turned
   in this direction, visited the country in 1840, and afterwards
   took a great interest in the excavations of M. Botta. At
   length, in 1845, Layard was enabled through the assistance of
   Sir Stratford Canning to commence excavations in Assyria
   himself. On the 8th of November he started from Mosul, and
   descended the Tigris to Nimroud. … Mr. Layard has described
   in his works with great minuteness his successive excavations,
   and the remarkable and interesting discoveries he made. …
   After making these discoveries in Assyria, Mr. Layard visited
   Babylonia, and opened trenches in several of the mounds there.
   On the return of Mr. Layard to England, excavations were
   continued in the Euphrates valley under the superintendence of
   Colonel (now Sir Henry) Rawlinson. Under his directions, Mr.
   Hormuzd Rassam, Mr. Loftus, and Mr. Taylor excavated various
   sites and made numerous discoveries, the British Museum
   receiving the best of the monuments. The materials collected
   in the national museums of France and England, and the
   numerous inscriptions published, attracted the attention of
   the learned, and very soon considerable light was thrown on
   the history, language, manners, and customs of ancient Assyria
   and Babylonia."

"One of the most important results of Sir A. H. Layard's explorations at Nineveh was the discovery of the ruined library of the ancient city, now buried under the mounds of Kouyunjik. The broken clay tablets belonging to this library not only furnished the student with an immense mass of literary matter, but also with direct aids towards a knowledge of the Assyrian syllabary and language. Among the literature represented in the library of Kouyunjik were lists of characters, with their various phonetic and ideographic meanings, tables of synonymes, and catalogues of the names of plants and animals. This, however, was not all. The inventors of the cuneiform system of writing had been a people who preceded the Semites in the occupation of Babylonia, and who spoke an agglutinative language utterly different from that of their Semitic successors. These Accadians, as they are usually termed, left behind them a considerable amount of literature, which was highly prized by the Semitic Babylonians and Assyrians. A large portion of the Ninevite tablets, accordingly, consists of interlinear or parallel translations from Accadian into Assyrian, as well as of reading books, dictionaries, and grammars, in which the Accadian original is placed by the side of its Assyrian equivalent. … The bilingual texts have not only enabled scholars to recover the long-forgotten Accadian language; they have also been of the greatest possible assistance to them in their reconstruction of the Assyrian dictionary itself. The three expeditions conducted by Mr. George Smith [1873-1876], as well as the later ones of Mr. Hormuzd Rassam, have added largely to the stock of tablets from Kouyunjik originally acquired for the British Museum by Sir A. H. Layard, and have also brought to light a few other tablets from the libraries of Babylonia."

"Just as there were archons at Athens and consuls at Rome who were elected annually, so among the Assyrians there was a custom of electing one man to be over the year, whom they called 'limu,' or 'eponym.' … Babylonian and Assyrian documents were more generally dated by the names of these eponyms than by that of the reigning King. … In 1862 Sir Henry Rawlinson discovered the fragment of the eponym canon of Assyria. It was one of the grandest and most important discoveries ever made, for it has decided definitely a great many points which otherwise could never have been cleared up. Fragments of seven copies of this canon were found, and from these the chronology of Assyria has been definitely settled from B. C. 1330 to about B. C. 620."

The ancient city of Athens proper, as distinguished from its connected harbors, was called the Asty, or Astu.

[Red ] Physical or material.
[Blue ] Ethnological.
[Green] Social and political.
[Brown] Intellectual, moral and religious.
[Black] Foreign.

The most capable people of early times, placed in the most favorable environment that the world in those times could offer them, worked out a civilization—perfect in all refinements except the moral—which has been the admiration and the marvel of later days.

Under modern conditions, the country of the Greeks gives no marked advantage to its inhabitants; but in the age of fiercer struggles, when war among men was tribal, universal, and hand to hand, and when the larger possibilities of pacific intercourse were bounded by one small sea, its intersecting mountains, its separated valleys and plains, its penetrating gulfs and bays, its clustered peninsulas in peninsulas, were helpful beyond measure to their social and political advance. In no other region of Europe could the independent city-states of ancient Hellas have grown up in shelter so safe, under skies so kindly, amid influences from the outer world so urgent and so strong.

It is reasonable to say that these happy conditions had much to do with the shaping of the character and career of the Greek people as a whole. But they differed very greatly from one another in their various political groups, and by differences that cannot be traced to varied surroundings of earth, or air, or sea, or human neighborhood. When every circumstance which distinguishes Athens in situation from Sparta, or from Corinth, or from Argos, has been weighed and reckoned, the Athenian is still parted from the Spartan, from the Corinthian and from the Argive, by a distinction which we name and do not explain by calling it family or race.

At some time in the unknown past, there had been a parting of kindred among the ancestors of the Greeks, and the current of descent ran, for many centuries, perhaps, in two clearly divided streams, which acquired (in what manner, who can guess?) very different characteristics and qualities in their course. Then, in time, the great migrations, which are at the beginning of the traditions of the Greeks, brought these two branches of the race (the Doric and the Ionic, as they are named), into contact again, and associated them in a common career. In the inherited nature of the Ionian Greeks there was something which made them more sensitive to the finer delights of the mind, and prepared them to be more easily moved by every impulse toward philosophy and art, from the civilizations that were older than their own. In the Dorians there was less of this. They shared in equal measure, perhaps, the keen, clear Greek intellect, but they narrowed it to commoner aims.

It is possible that all which the Athenians came to be, their elder kindred, the Achaians, might have been. Their peninsula of Argolis is the peninsula of Attica in duplicate,—washed by the same waves, and reaching out to the same eastern world. They were first to touch hands with Phœnicia and with Egypt, and first to borrow arts and ideas from Memphis and Tyre. But their civilization, which they had raised to the height which Homer portrays, was overwhelmed by the Doric conquest; and the fact that these invaders, succeeding to the same vantage ground, remained as poor in culture as the Argives and their final masters, the Spartans, appear to have been, gives evidence of the strange difference that was rooted in the constitution of the two branches of the race.

By force of this difference, the Spartans formed their state upon the grim lines of a military camp, and took leadership among the Greeks in practical affairs; the Athenians adorned a free city with great and beautiful works, made it hospitable to all genius and all the knowledge of the time, and created a capital for the civilization of the ancient world.

In all the Greek communities there was a primitive stage in which kings ruled over therm in a patriarchal way. In most of them the kingship surrendered to an oligarchy,—the oligarchy in time, was overthrown by some bold adventurer, who led a rising of the people and snatched power in the turmoil to make himself a "tyrant,"—and the tyrant in his turn fell after no long reign. In Athens that course of revolution was run; but it did not end as with the rest. The Athenian tyranny gave way to the purest democracy that has ever had trial in the world.

That this Athenian democracy was wise in itself may be open to doubt; but it produced wise men, and, for the century of its great career, it was wonderfully led. How far that came to it from superiority of race, and how far as the fruitage of free institutions, no man can say; but the succession of statesmen who raised Athens to her pitch of greatness, without shattering the government of the people by the people, has no parallel in the annals of so small a state.

Sparta, not Athens, was the military head of Greece; but when a great emergency came upon the whole Greek world, it was the larger intelligence and higher spirit of the Attic state which inspired and guided the defence of the land and drove the Persians back.

  B.C. 498-479. The Persian War.
  B.C. 477. Confederacy of Delos.
  B.C. 445-429. Age of Pericles.

Making prompt use of the ascendancy she had won in the Persian War, Athens rose rapidly in power and wealth. Under the guise of a federation of the Ionian cities of the islands and of Asia Minor, she created an empire subject to her rule. She commanded the sea with superior fleets, and became first in commerce, as she was first in knowledge, in politics and in arts. Her coffers overran with the riches poured into them by her tribute-gatherers and her men of trade, and she employed them with a noble prodigality upon her temples and the buildings of the state. Her abounding genius yielded fruits, in learning, letters, and art, which surpass the whole experience of the world, before and since, when measured against the smallness of the numbers from which they came.

But the power attained by the Athenian democracy was arrogantly and harshly used; its sovereignty was exercised without generosity or restraint. It provoked the hatred of its subjects, and the bitter jealousy of rival states. Hence war in due time was inevitable, and Athens, alone in the war, was thrown down from her high estate. The last of the great leaders of her golden age died when her need of him was greatest, and her citizens were given over to demagogues who beguiled them to the ruin of the republic.

Sparta regained the supremacy in Greece, and her rude domination, imposed upon all, was harder to bear than the superiority of Athens had been. Under the lead of Epaminondas of Thebes—the most high-souled statesman who ever swayed the Hellenic race—the Spartan yoke was broken.

But, in breaking it, all unity in Hellas was destroyed, and all hope of resistance to any common foe. The foe who first appeared was the half-Greek Macedonian, King Philip, who subdued the whole peninsula with ease, and found none to defend it so heroically as the orator Demosthenes.

But the subjugated Greeks were not yet at the end of their career. With Philip's great son they went forth to a new and higher destiny than the building of petty states. Unwittingly he made conquest of an empire for them, and not for himself. They Hellenized it from the Euxine to the Nile. In Egypt, in Syria, and in Asia Minor, they entered and took possession of every field of activity, an put their impress on every movement of thought. Their philosophy and their literature fed all the intellectual hunger of the age; their energy was its civilizing force.

Then the Romans came, to conquer and be conquered by the spirit of Athenian Greece, and to do for Europe, in the West, what the Macedonians had done in the East. They effaced Greece from history, in the political sense; but they kneeled to her teaching, and became the servants of her civilization, to carry it wherever the Roman eagles went.

A little later, when that civilization was changed by the transforming spirit of the Gospel of Christ, it did not cease to be essentially Greek; for Hellenism and Hebraism were fused in the theology of the rising Christian Church, and Greek thought ruled mankind again in an altered phase.

At last, when Roman imperialism was driven from the West, Greece drew it to herself, and reigned in the great name of Rome, and fought gloriously with barbarians and with infidels for a thousand added years, defending the Christian world till it grew strong and stood in peril no more.

ASTYNOMI.

Certain police officials in ancient Athens, ten in number. "They were charged with all that belongs to street supervision, e. g., the cleansing of the streets, for which purpose the coprologi, or street-sweepers, were under their orders; the securing of morality and decent behaviour in the streets."

ATABEGS, ATTABEGS, OR ATTABECKS.

"From the decline of the dynasty of Seljook to the conquest of Persia by Hulakoo Khan, the son of Chenghis, a period of more than a century, that country was distracted by the contests of petty princes, or governors, called Attabegs; who, taking advantage of the weakness of the last Seljookian monarchs, and of the distractions which followed their final extinction, established their authority over some of the finest provinces of the Empire. Many of these petty dynasties acquired such a local fame as, to this day, gives an importance to their memory with the inhabitants of the countries over which they ruled. … The word Attabeg is Turkish: it is a compound word of 'atta,' master, or tutor, and 'beg,' lord; and signifies a governor, or tutor, of a lord or prince."

"It is true that the Atabeks appear but a short space as actors on the stage of Eastern history; but these 'tutors of princes' occupy a position neither insignificant nor unimportant in the course of events which occurred in Syria and Persia at the time they flourished."-

ATELIERS NATIONAUX OF 1848, AT PARIS.

ATHALAYAS.

ATHEL. ATHELING. ATHELBONDE.

   The most desperate battle fought by the Irish in resisting the
   English conquest of Ireland. They were terribly slaughtered
   and the chivalry of Connaught was crushed. The battle occurred
   Aug. 10, A. D. 1316.

ATHENS:

"When we speak of Greece we think first of Athens. … To citizens and to strangers by means of epic recitations and dramatic spectacles, she presented an idealised image of life itself. She was the home of new ideas, the mother-city from which poetry, eloquence, and philosophy spread to distant lands. While the chief dialects of Greece survive, each not as a mere dialect but as the language of literature,—a thing unknown in the history of any other people,—the Attic idiom, in which the characteristic elements of other dialects met and were blended, has become to us, as it did to the ancients, the very type of Hellenic speech. Athens was not only the 'capital of Greece,' the 'school of Greece;' it deserves the name applied to it in an epitaph on Euripides: 'his country is Athens, Greece of Greece.' The rays of the Greek genius here found a centre and a focus."

"Our interest in ancient history, it may be said, lies not in details but in large masses. It matters little how early the Arcadians acquired a political unity or what Nabis did to Mycenæ; that which interests us is the constitution of Athens, the repulse of Persia, the brief bloom of Thebes. Life is not so long that we can spend our days over the unimportant fates of uninteresting tribes and towns."

"The entire circuit of the Asty [the lower city, or Athens proper], Long Walls and maritime city, taken as one inclosure, is equal to about 17 English miles, or 148 stades. This is very different from the 200 stades which Dion Chrysostom states to have been the circumference of the same walls, an estimate exceeding by more than 20 stades even the sum of the peripheries of the Asty and Peimic towns, according to the numbers of Thucydides. … Rome was circular, Syracuse triangular, and Athens consisted of two circular cities, joined by a street of four miles in length,—a figure, the superficies of which was not more than the fourth part of that of a city of an equal circumference, in a circular form. Hence, when to Rome within the walls were added suburbs of equal extent, its population was greater than that of all Attica. That of Athens, although the most populous city in Greece, was probably never greater than 200,000."

ATHENS:
The Beginning of the city-state.
How Attica was absorbed in its capital.

"In the days of Cecrops and the first kings [see ATTICA] down to the reign of Theseus, Attica was divided into communes, having their own town-halls and magistrates. Except in case of alarm the whole people did not assemble in council under the king, but administered their own affairs, and advised together in their several townships. Some of them at times even went to war with him, as the Eleusinians under Eumolpus with Erectheus. But when Theseus came to the throne, he, being a powerful as well as a wise ruler, among other improvements in the administration of the country, dissolved the councils and separate governments, and united all the inhabitants of Attica in the present city, establishing one council and town-hall. They continued to live on their own lands, but he compelled them to resort to Athens as their metropolis, and henceforward they were all inscribed in the roll of her citizens. A great city thus arose which was handed down by Theseus to his descendants, and from his day to this the Athenians have regularly celebrated the national festival of the Synoecia, or 'union of the communes' in honour of the goddess Athenè. Before his time, what is now the Acropolis and the ground lying under it to the south was the city. Many reasons may be urged in proof of this statement."

PLAN OF ATHENS.

From "Mythology and Monuments of Ancient Athens," by Jane E. Harrison and Margaret de G. Verrall.

HARBORS OF ATHENS.

ATHENS:
From the Dorian Migration to B. C. 683.
End of kingship and institution of the Archons.

At the epoch of the Boeotian and Dorian migrations (see GREECE: THE MIGRATIONS), Attica was flooded by fugitives, both from the north and from the Peloponnesus. "But the bulk of the refugees passed on to Asia, and built up the cities of Ionia. … When the swarms of emigrants cleared off, and Athens is again discernable, the crown has passed from the old royal house of the Cecropidæ to a family of exiles from Peloponnesus. … A generation later the Dorian invasion, which had overwhelmed Corinth and torn away Megara from the Attic dominion, swept up to the very gates of Athens. An oracle declared that the city would never fall if its ruler perished by the hand of the invaders; therefore King Codrus disguised himself as a peasant, set out for the Dorian camp, struck down the first man he met, and was himself slain by the second. The invasion failed, and the Athenians, to perpetuate the memory of their monarch's patriotism, would not allow the title of 'king' to be borne by the descendants who succeeded him on the throne, but changed the name to 'archon,' or 'ruler.' … These legends evidently cover some obscure changes in the internal history of Attica."

"After the death of Codrus the nobles, taking advantage, perhaps, of the opportunity afforded by the dispute between his sons, are said to have abolished the title of king, and to have substituted for it that of Archon. This change, however, seems to have been important, rather as it indicated the new, precarious tenure by which the royal power was held, than as it immediately affected the nature of the office. It was, indeed, still held for life; and Medon, the son of Codrus, transmitted it to his posterity. … After twelve reigns, ending with that of Alcmæon [B. C. 752], the duration of the office was limited to ten years; and through the guilt or calamity of Hippomenes, the fourth decennial archon, the house of Medon was deprived of its privilege, and the supreme magistracy was thrown open to the whole body of nobles. This change was speedily followed by one much more important. … The duration of the archonship was again reduced to a single year [B. C. 683]; and, at the same time, its branches were severed and distributed among nine new magistrates. Among these, the first in rank retained the distinguishing title of the Archon, and the year was marked by his name. He represented the majesty of the state, and exercised a peculiar jurisdiction—that which had belonged to the king as the common parent of his people, the protector of families, the guardian of orphans and heiresses, and of the general rights of inheritance. For the second archon the title of king [basileus], if it had been laid aside, was revived, as the functions assigned to him were those most associated with ancient recollections. He represented the king as the high-priest of his people; he regulated the celebration of the mysteries and the most solemn festivals; decided all causes which affected the interests of religion. … The third archon bore the title of Polemarch, and filled the place of the king as the leader of his people in war, and the guardian who watched over its security in time of peace. … The remaining six archons received the common title of thesmothetes, which literally signifies legislators, and was probably applied to them as the judges who determined the great variety of causes which did not fall under the cognizance of their colleagues; because, in the absence of a written code, those who declare and interpret the laws may be properly said to make them."

"We are in no condition to determine the civil classification and political constitution of Attica, even at the period of the Archonship of Kreon, 683 B. C., when authentic Athenian chronology first commences, much less can we pretend to any knowledge of the anterior centuries. … All the information which we possess respecting that old polity is derived from authors who lived after all or most of these great changes [by Solon, and later]—and who, finding no records, nor anything better than current legends, explained the foretime as well as they could by guesses more or less ingenious, generally attached to the dominant legendary names."

"Drako was the first thesmothet, who was called upon to set down his thesmoi [ordinances and decisions] in writing, and thus to invest them essentially with a character of more or less generality. In the later and better-known times of Athenian law, we find these archons deprived in great measure of their powers of judging and deciding, and restricted to the task of first hearing of parties and collecting the evidence, next, of introducing the matter for trial into the appropriate dikastery, over which they presided. Originally, there was no separation of powers; the archons both judged and administered…. All of these functionaries belonged to the Eupatrids, and all of them doubtless acted more or less in the narrow interest of their order; moreover, there was ample room for favouritism in the way of connivance as well as antipathy on the part of the archons. That such was decidedly the case, and that discontent began to be serious, we may infer from the duty imposed on the thesmothet Drako, B. C. 624, to put in writing the thesmoi or ordinances, so that they might be 'shown publicly' and known beforehand. He did not meddle with the political constitution, and in his ordinances Aristotle finds little worthy of remark except the extreme severity of the punishments awarded: petty thefts, or even proved idleness of life, being visited with death or disfranchisement. But we are not to construe this remark as demonstrating any special inhumanity in the character of Drako, who was not invested with the large power which Solon afterwards enjoyed, and cannot be imagined to have imposed upon the community severe laws of his own invention. … The general spirit of penal legislation had become so much milder, during the two centuries which followed, that these old ordinances appeared to Aristotle intolerably rigorous."

The first attempt at Athens to overturn the oligarchical government and establish a personal tyranny was made, B. C. 612, by Cylon (Kylon), a patrician, son-in-law of the tyrant of Megara, who was encouraged and helped in his undertaking by the latter. The conspiracy failed miserably. The partisans of Cylon, blockaded in the acropolis, were forced to surrender; but they placed themselves under the protection of the goddess Minerva and were promised their lives. More effectually to retain the protection of the goddess until their escape was effected, they attached a cord to her altar and held it in their hands as they passed out through the midst of their enemies. Unhappily the cord broke, and the archon Megacles at once declared that the safeguard of Minerva was withdrawn from them, whereupon they were massacred without mercy, even though they fled to the neighboring altars and clung to them. The treachery and bad faith of this cruel deed does not seem to have disturbed the Athenian people, but the sacrilege involved in it caused horror and fear when they had had time to reflect upon it. Megacles and his whole family—the Alcmæonids as they were called, from the name of one of their ancestors—were held accountable for the affront to the gods and were considered polluted and accursed. Every public calamity was ascribed to their sin, and at length, after a solemn trial, they were banished from the city (about 596 or 595 B. C.), while the dead of the family were disinterred and cast out. The agitations of this affair exercised an important influence on the course of events, which opened the way for Solon and his constitutional reforms.

ATHENS: B. C. 610-586.
Struggle with Megara for Salamis.
Cirrhæan or First Sacred War.

"The petty state of Megara, which, since the earlier ages, had, from the dependent of Athens, grown up to the dignity of her rival, taking advantage of the internal dissensions in the latter city, succeeded in wresting from the Athenian government the isle of Salamis. It was not, however, without bitter and repeated struggles that Athens at last submitted to the surrender of the isle. But, after signal losses and defeats, as nothing is ever more odious to the multitude than unsuccessful war, so the popular feeling was such as to induce the government to enact a decree by which it was forbidden, upon pain of death, to propose reasserting the Athenian claims. … Many of the younger portion of the community, pining at the dishonour of their country, and eager for enterprise, were secretly inclined to countenance any stratagem that might induce the reversal of the decree. At this time there went a report through the city that a man of distinguished birth … had incurred the consecrating misfortune of insanity. Suddenly this person appeared in the market place, wearing the peculiar badge [a cap] that distinguished the sick. … Ascending the stone from which the heralds made their proclamations, he began to recite aloud a poem upon the loss of Salamis, boldly reproving the cowardice of the people, and inciting them again to war. His supposed insanity protected him from the law—his rank, reputation, and the circumstance of his being himself a native of Salamis, conspired to give to his exhortation a powerful effect, and the friends he had secured to back his attempt loudly proclaimed their applauding sympathy with the spirit of the address. The name of the pretended madman was Solon, son of Execestides, the descendant of Codrus. … The stratagem and the eloquence of Solon produced its natural effect upon his spirited and excitable audience, and the public enthusiasm permitted the oligarchical government to propose and effect the repeal of the law. An expedition was decreed and planned, and Solon was invested with its command. It was but a brief struggle to recover the little island of Salamis. … But the brave and resolute Megarians were not men to be disheartened by a single reverse; they persisted in the contest—losses were sustained on either side, and at length both states agreed to refer their several claims on the sovereignty of the island to the decision of Spartan arbiters. And this appeal from arms to arbitration is a proof how much throughout Greece had extended that spirit of civilisation which is but an extension of the sense of justice. … The arbitration of the umpires in favour of Athens only suspended hostilities; and the Megarians did not cease to watch (and shortly afterwards they found) a fitting occasion to regain a settlement so tempting to their ambition. The credit acquired by Solon in this expedition was shortly afterwards greatly increased in the estimation of Greece. In the Bay of Corinth was situated a town called Cirrha, inhabited by a fierce and lawless race, who, after devastating the Sacred territories of Delphi, sacrilegiously besieged the city itself, in the desire to possess themselves of the treasures which the piety of Greece had accumulated in the Temple of Apollo. Solon appeared at the Amphictyonic council, represented the sacrilege of the Cirrhæans, and persuaded the Greeks to arm in defence of the altars of their tutelary god [B. C. 595]. Clisthenes, the tyrant of Sicyon, was sent as commander-in-chief against the Cirrhæans; and (according to Plutarch) the records of Delphi inform us that Alcmæon was the leader of the Athenians. The war [known as the First Sacred War] was not very successful at the onset; the oracle of Apollo was consulted, and the answer makes one of the most amusing anecdotes of priestcraft. The besiegers were informed by the god that the place would not be reduced until the waves of the Cirrhæan Sea washed the territories of Delphi. The reply perplexed the army; but the superior sagacity of Solon was not slow in discovering that the holy intention of the oracle was to appropriate the lands of the Cirrhæans to the profit of the temple. He therefore advised the besiegers to attack and to conquer Cirrha, and to dedicate its whole territory to the service of the god. The advice was adopted—Cirrha was taken [B. C. 586]; it became thenceforth the arsenal of Delphi, and the insulted deity had the satisfaction of seeing the sacred lands washed by the waves of the Cirrhæan Sea. … The Pythian games commenced, or were revived, in celebration of this victory of the Pythian god."

"Solon, Archon Ol. 46,1, was chosen mediator. Equity and moderation are described by the ancients as the characteristics of his mind; he determined to abolish the privileges of particular classes, and the arbitrary power of officers, and to render all the participators in civil and political freedom equal in the eye of the law, at the same time ensuring to everyone the integrity of those lights to which his real merits entitled him; on the other hand, he was far from contemplating a total subversion of existing regulations. … Whatever was excellent in prescription was incorporated with the new laws and thereby stamped afresh; but prescription as such, with the exception of some unwritten religious ordinances of the Eumolpids, was deprived of force. The law was destined to be the sole centre, whence every member of the political community was to derive a fixed rule of conduct."

"The factions, to allay the reviving animosities of which was Solon's immediate object, had, at that time, formed parties corresponding to the geographical division of the country, which we have already adverted to; the Pediæi, or inhabitants of the lowlands, insisted on a strict oligarchy; the Parali, on the coast, who, did we not find the Alcmaeonid Megacles at their head, might be considered the wealthier portion of the people, wished for a mixed constitution; but the Diacrii or Hyperacrii [of the mountainous district] formed the great majority, who, in their impoverished state, looked for relief only from a total revolution. Solon might, had he so chosen, have made himself tyrant by heading this populace: but he preferred acting as mediator, and with this view caused himself to be elected archon, B. C. 594, as being an Eupatrid of the house … of Codrus."

C. F. Hermann, Manual of the Political Antiquities of Greece, chapter 5, section 106.

"The chief power was vested in the collective people; but in order that it might be exercised with advantage it was necessary that they should be endowed with common rights of citizenship. Solon effected this by raising the lower class from its degradation, and by subjecting to legal control those who had till now formed the governing order, as well as by rendering the liberty of both dependent upon the law. … This change was brought about by two ordinances, which must not be regarded as mere remedies for the abuses of that period, but as the permanent basis of free and legal citizenship. The one was the Seisachtheia; this was enacted by Solon to afford relief to oppressed debtors, by reducing their debts in amount, and by raising the value of money in the payment of interest and principal; at the same time he abrogated the former rigorous law of debt by which the freeman might be reduced to servitude, and thus secured to him the unmolested possession of his legal rights. … A second ordinance enjoined, that their full and entire rights should be restored to all citizens who had incurred Atimia, except to absolute criminals. This was not only destined to heal the wounds which had been caused by the previous dissensions, but as till that time the law of debt had been able to reduce citizens to Atimia, and the majority of the Atimoi pointed out by Solon were slaves for debt, that declaration stood in close connection with the Seisachtheia, and had the effect of a proclamation from the state of its intention to guarantee the validity of the new citizenship. … The right of naturalization was granted by Solon to deserving aliens, when 6,000 citizens declared themselves in favour of the measure, but these new citizens were likewise deficient in a few of the privileges of citizenship. … The statement that Solon received a great many foreigners as citizens, and every artizan that presented himself, appears highly improbable, as Solon was the first legislator who systematically regulated the condition of the Metœci. The Metœci … probably took the place of the former Demiurgi; their position was one of sufferance, but the protection of the laws was guaranteed them. … The servile order, exclusively consisting of purchased aliens and their descendants, did not, as a body, stand in direct relation with the state; individual slaves became the property of individual citizens, but a certain number were employed by the state as clerks, etc., and were abandoned to the arbitrary pleasure of their oppressive taskmasters. … Those who were manumitted stood upon the footing of Metœci; the citizens who enfranchised them becoming their Prostatæ. … Upon attaining the age of puberty, the sons of citizens entered public life under the name of Ephebi. The state gave them two years for the full development of their youthful strength. … Upon the expiration of the second, and according to the most authentic accounts, in their eighteenth year, they received the shield and spear in the popular assembly, complete armour being given to the sons of those who had fallen in battle, and in the temple of Agraulos took the oath of young citizens, the chief obligations of which concerned the defence of their country, and then for the space of one or two years performed military service in the Attic border fortresses under the name of Peripoli. The ceremony of arming them was followed by enrolment in the book which contained the names of those who had attained majority; this empowered the young citizen to manage his own fortune, preside over a household, enter the popular assembly, and speak. When he asserted the last right, viz., the Isegoria, Parrhesia, he was denominated Rhetor, and this appellation denoted the difference between him and the silent member of the assembly, the Idiotes. … Upon attaining his 30th year, the citizen might assert his superior rights; he was qualified for a member of the sworn tribunal entitled Heliæa. … The word Heliast does not merely signify a judge; but the citizen who has fully attained maturity. … The judges of the courts of the Diætetæ and Ephetæ, which existed without the circle of the ordinary tribunals, were required to be still older men than the Heliasts, viz., 50 or 60 years of age. Solon appointed gradations in the rights of citizenship, according to the conditions of a census in reference to offices of state. … Upon the principle of a conditional equality of rights, which assigns to everyone as much as he deserves, and which is highly characteristic of Solon's policy in general, he instituted four classes according to a valuation; these were the Pentacosiomedimni [whose land yielded 500 measures of wheat or oil], the Hippeis [horsemen], the Zeugitæ [owners of a yoke of mules], and the Thetes [or laborers]. The valuation, however, only affected that portion of capital from which contributions to the state-burthens were required, consequently, according to Böckh, a taxable capital. … The Thetes, the last of these classes, were not regularly summoned to perform military service, but only exercised the civic right as members of the assembly and the law-courts; … the highest class exclusively supplied the superior offices, such as the archonship, and through this the council of the Areopagus. … In lieu of the former council of administration, of which no memorial has been preserved, Solon instituted a Council of four hundred citizens taken from the first three classes, 100 from every Phyle, of which no person under 30 years of age could be a member. The appointments were renewed annually; the candidates underwent an examination, and such as were deemed eligible drew lots."

ALSO IN: G. F. Schömann, Antiquity of Greece: The State, part 3, chapter 3, section 4.

Aristotle, On the Constitution of Athens (translated by E. Poste), chapters 5-13.

"The constitution which he [Solon] framed was found to be insufficient even in his own life-time. … The poor citizens were still poor, in spite of the Seisachtheia and the reform of the constitution. At the same time the admission of the lowest class in the scale of property to the rights of Athenian citizenship, and the authority given to the General Assembly, had thrown a power into the hands of the masses which filled the more conservative citizens with resentment and alarm. And so the old party quarrels, which had divided Attica before the reforms of Solon, reappeared after them with even greater violence. The men of the plain were led by Miltiades, a grandson of the tyrant of Corinth, and Lycurgus, the son of Aristolaidas; the men of the shore by Megacles, the Alcmæonid, who had recently strengthened the position of his family by his marriage with Agariste, the daughter of Clisthenes of Sicyon. At the head of the mountaineers stood Pisistratus, a descendant of the royal stock of Nestor, who … had greatly distinguished himself in the Salaminian war. As he possessed property in the neighborhood of Marathon, Pisistratus may have been intimately known to the inhabitants of the adjacent hills. … Solon watched the failure of his hopes with the deepest distress. He endeavoured to recall the leaders of the contending parties to a sense of their duty to the country, and to soothe the bitterness of their followers. With a true instinct he regarded Pisistratus as by far the most dangerous of the three. Pisistratus was an approved general, and the faction which he led was composed of poor men who had nothing to lose. … Pisistratus met the vehement expressions of Solon by driving wounded into the market-place. The people's friend had suffered in the people's cause; his life was in danger. The incident roused the Athenians to an unusual exercise of political power. Without any previous discussion in the Council, a decree was passed by the people allowing Pisistratus to surround himself with a body-guard of fifty men, and to arm them with clubs. Thus protected, he threw off all disguises, and established himself in the Acropolis as tyrant of Athens [B. C. 560]. … Herodotus tells us that Pisistratus was a just and moderate ruler. He did not alter the laws or remove the existing forms of government. The Council was still elected, the Assembly continued to meet, though it is improbable that either the one or the other was allowed to extend its functions beyond domestic affairs. The archons still continued to be the executive magistrates of the city, and cases of murder were tried, as of old, at the Areopagus. The tyrant contented himself with occupying the Acropolis with his troops and securing important posts in the administration for his family or his adherents." Twice, however, Pisistratus was driven from power by the combination of his opponents, and into exile, for four years in the first instance and for ten years in the last; but Athens was compelled to accept him for a ruler in the end. "Pisistratus remained in undisturbed possession of the throne till his death in 527 B. C. He was succeeded by his eldest son Hippias, with whom Hipparchus and Thessalus, his younger sons, were associated in the government." But these younger tyrants soon made themselves intolerably hateful, and a conspiracy formed against them by Harmodius and Aristogeiton was successful in taking the life of Hipparchus. Four years later, in 510 B. C., with the help of Delphi and Sparta, Hippias was driven from the city. Clisthenes, at the head of the exiled Alcmæonids, was the master-spirit of the revolution, and it was under his guidance that the Athenian democratic constitution was reorganized.

   "The expulsion of the Pisistratides left the democratical
   party, which had first raised them to power, without a leader.
   The Alcmæonids had always been considered as its adversaries,
   though they were no less opposed to the faction of the nobles,
   which seems at this time to have been headed by Isagoras. …
   Cleisthenes found himself, as his party had always been,
   unable to cope with it; he resolved, therefore, to shift his
   ground, and to attach himself to that popular cause which
   Pisistratus had used as the stepping stone of his ambition.
   His aims, however, were not confined to a temporary advantage
   over his rivals; he planned an important change in the
   constitution, which should forever break the power of his
   whole order, by dissolving some of the main links by which
   their sway was secured. For this purpose, having gained the
   confidence of the commonalty and obtained the sanction of the
   Delphic oracle, he abolished the four ancient tribes, and made
   a fresh geographical division of Attica into ten new tribes,
   each of which bore a name derived from some Attic hero. The
   ten tribes were subdivided into districts of various extent,
   called demes, each containing a town or village. …
   Cleisthenes appears to have preserved the ancient phratries;
   but as they were now left insulated by the abolition of the
   tribes to which they belonged, they lost all political
   importance. … Cleisthenes at the same time increased the
   strength of the commonalty by making a great many new
   citizens, and he is said to have enfranchised not only
   aliens—and these both residents and adventurers from
   abroad—but slaves. … The whole frame of the state was
   reorganized to correspond with the new division of the country.
{150}
   The Senate of the Four Hundred was increased to Five Hundred,
   that fifty might be drawn from each tribe, and the rotation of
   the presidency was adapted to this change, the fifty
   councillors of each tribe filling that office for thirty-five
   or thirty-six days in succession, and nine councillors being
   elected one from each of the other tribes to preside at the
   Council and the Assembly of the People, which was now called
   regularly four times in the month, certain business being
   assigned to each meeting. The Heliæa was also distributed into
   ten courts: and the same division henceforth prevailed in most
   of the public offices, though the number of the archons
   remained unchanged. To Cleisthenes also is ascribed the formal
   institution of the ostracism. … These changes, and the
   influence they acquired for their author, reduced the party of
   Isagoras to utter weakness, and they saw no prospect of
   maintaining themselves but by foreign aid." Isagoras,
   accordingly, applied for help to Cleomenes, one of the kings
   of Sparta, who had already interfered in Athenian affairs by
   assisting at the expulsion of the Pisistratidæ. Cleomenes
   responded by coming to Athens with a small force [B. C. 508],
   which sufficed to overawe the people, and, assuming
   dictatorial authority, he established Isagoras in power, with
   an attempted rearrangement of the government. "He began by
   banishing 700 families designated by Isagoras, and then
   proceeded to suppress the Council of the Five Hundred, and to
   lodge the government in the hands of Three Hundred of his
   friend's partisans. When, however, the councillors resisted
   this attempt, the people took heart, and, Cleomenes and
   Isagoras having occupied the citadel, rose in a body and
   besieged them there. As they were not prepared to sustain a
   siege, they capitulated on the third day: Cleomenes and
   Isagoras were permitted to depart with the Lacedæmonian
   troops, but they were compelled to abandon their adherents to
   the mercy of their enemies. All were put to death, and
   Cleisthenes and the 700 banished families returned
   triumphantly to Athens." Cleomenes soon afterwards raised a
   force with which to subdue Athens and restore Isagoras. The
   Athenians in their alarm sent an embassy to Sardis to solicit
   the protection of the Persians. Fortunately, nothing came of
   it, and Cleomenes was so much opposed in his project, by the
   Corinthians and other allies of Sparta, that he had to give it
   up.

Aristotle, On the Constitution of Athens (translated by E. Poste), chapter 20-22.

ATHENS: B. C. 509-506.
   Hostile undertakings of Kleomenes and Sparta.
   Help solicited from the Persian king.
   Subjection refused.
   Failure of Spartan schemes to restore tyranny.
   Protest of the Corinthians.
   Successful war with Thebes and Chalcis.

"With Sparta it was obvious that the Athenians now had a deadly quarrel, and on the other side they knew that Hippias was seeking to precipitate on them the power of the Persian king. It seemed therefore to be a matter of stern necessity to anticipate the intrigues of their banished tyrant; and the Athenians accordingly sent ambassadors to Sardeis to make an independent alliance with the Persian despot. The envoys, on being brought into the presence of Artaphernes, the Satrap of Lydia, were told that Dareios would admit them to an alliance if they would give him earth and water,—in other words, if they would acknowledge themselves his slaves. To this demand of absolute subjection the envoys gave an assent which was indignantly repudiated by the whole body of Athenian citizens. … Foiled for the time in his efforts, Kleomenes was not cast down. Regarding the Kleisthenian constitution as a personal insult to himself, he was resolved that Isagoras should be despot of Athens. Summoning the allies of Sparta [including the Bœotian League headed by Thebes, and the people of Chalcis in Eubœa], he led them as far as Eleusis, 12 miles only from Athens, without informing them of the purpose of the campaign. He had no sooner confessed it than the Corinthians, declaring that they had been brought away from home on an unrighteous errand, went back, followed by the other Spartan King, Demaratos, the son of Ariston; and this conflict of opinion broke up the rest of the army. This discomfiture of their enemy seemed to inspire fresh strength into the Athenians, who won a series of victories over the Boiotians and Euboians"—completely overthrowing the latter—the Chalcidians—taking possession of their city, and making it a peculiar colony and dependency of Athens.—See KLERUCHS. The anger of Kleomenes "on being discomfited at Eleusis by the defection of his own allies was heightened by indignation at the discovery that in driving out his friend Hippias he had been simply the tool of Kleisthenes and of the Delphian priestess whom Kleisthenes had bribed. It was now clear to him and to his countrymen that the Athenians would not acquiesce in the predominance of Sparta, and that if they retained their freedom, the power of Athens would soon be equal to their own. Their only safety lay, therefore, in providing the Athenians with a tyrant. An invitation was, therefore, sent to Hippias at Sigeion, to attend a congress of the allies at Sparta, who were summoned to meet on the arrival of the exiled despot." The appointed congress was held, and the Spartans besought their allies to aid them in humbling the Athenian Democracy, with the object of restoring Hippias to power. But again the Corinthians protested, bluntly suggesting that if the Spartans thought tyranny a good thing they might first try it for themselves. Hippias, speaking in his own behalf, attempted to convince them that the time was coming "in which they would find the Athenians a thorn in their side. For the present his exhortations were thrown away. The allies protested unanimously against all attempts to interfere with the internal administration of any Hellenic city; and the banished tyrant went back disappointed to Sigeion."

ATHENS: B. C. 501-490.
   Aid to Ionians against Persia.
   Provocation of King Darius.
   His wrath and attempted vengeance.
   The first Persian invasions.
   Battle of Marathon.

"It is undeniable that the extension of the Persian dominion over Asia Minor, Syria, and Egypt gave a violent check to the onward movement of Greek life. On the other hand, it seemed as if the great enterprise of Darius Hystaspis against the Scythians ought to have united the Greeks and Persians. It was of a piece with the general policy of Darius that, after defeating so many other adversaries, he undertook to prevent for all succeeding time a repetition of those inroads with which, some centuries before, the Scythians had visited Asia and the civilized world. He possessed authority enough to unite the different nations which obeyed his sceptre in a great campaign against the Scythians. … The Greeks were his best allies in his campaign; they built him the bridge by which he crossed the Bosporus, and also the bridge of boats over the Danube by which he made his invasion into the enemy's territory. The result was not one which could properly be called unfortunate; yet it was certainly of a very doubtful character. … A great region, in which they had already obtained very considerable influence, was closed to them once more. The Persian army brought the populations upon the Strymon, many in number and individually weak, under the dominion of Persia; and even Amyntas, the king of Makedonia, one of a race of rulers of Greek origin, was compelled to do homage to the Great King. Thus the movement which had thrust back the Greeks from Egypt and Asia Minor made advances even into the regions of Europe which bordered upon Northern Hellas. It was an almost inevitable consequence of this that the Greeks were menaced and straitened even in their proper home. A pretext and opportunity for an attack upon the Greek islands was presented to the Persians by the questions at issue between the populations of the cities and the tyrants. … The instrument by whom the crisis was brought about was not a person of any great importance. It is not always great natures, or natures strong in the consciousness of their own powers, that bring on such conflicts; this is sometimes the work of those flexible characters which, being at the point of contact between the opposing forces, pass from one side to the other. Such a character was Aristagoras of Miletus. … Morally contemptible, but gifted intellectually with a range of ideas of unlimited extent, Aristagoras made for himself an imperishable name by being the first to entertain the thought of a collective opposition to the Persians on the part of all the Greeks, even contemplating the possibility of waging a great and successful offensive war upon them. … He announced in Miletus his own resignation of power and the restoration to the people of their old laws. … A general overthrow of tyranny ensued [B. C. 501], involving a revolt from Persia, and Strategi were everywhere appointed. The supreme power in the cities was based upon a good understanding between the holders of power and the Persians; the fact that one of these rulers found the authority of the Persians intolerable was the signal for a universal revolt. Aristagoras himself voluntarily renounced the tyranny, the other tyrants were compelled to take the same course; and thus the cities, assuming at the same time a democratic organization, came into hostility with Persia. … The cities and islands which had so often been forced to submission could not hope to resist the Persians by their own unaided efforts. Even Aristagoras could not have expected so much. … He visited Lakedæmon, the strongest of the Greek powers, in person, and endeavored to carry her with him in his plans. … Rejected by Sparta, Aristagoras betook himself to Athens. … The Athenians granted Aristagoras twenty ships, to which the Eretrians, from friendship to Miletus, added five more. The courage of the Ionians was thus revived, and an attack upon the Persian dominion commenced, directed, not indeed against Susa, but against Sardis, in their immediate neighborhood, the capital of the satrapy which imposed on them their heaviest burdens. … By the burning of Sardis, in which a sanctuary of Kybele had been destroyed, the Syrian nations had been outraged in the person of their gods. We know that it was part of the system of the Persians to take the gods of a country under their protection. Nor would the great king who thought himself appointed to be master of the world fail to resent an invasion of his dominions as an insult calling for revenge. The hostile attempts of the Ionians made no great impression upon him, but he asked who were the Athenians, of whose share in the campaign he had been informed. They were foreigners, of whose power the king had scarcely heard. … The enterprise of Aristagoras had meanwhile caused general commotion. He had by far the larger part of Cyprus, together with the Carians, on his side. All the country near the Propontis and the Hellespont was in revolt. The Persians were compelled to make it their first concern to suppress this insurrection, a task which, if attempted by sea, did not promise to be an easy one. In their first encounter with the Phœnicians the Ionians had the advantage. When, however, the forces of the great empire were assembled, the insurrection was everywhere put down. … It must be reckoned among the consequences of the battle of Lade, by which the combination against the Persian empire had been annihilated, that King Darius, not content with having consolidated his dominion in Ionia, once more resumed the plan of pushing forward into Europe, of which his enterprise against the Scythians formed part. With the execution of this project he commissioned one of the principal persons of the empire and the court, … Mardonius by name, whom he united to his family by marrying him to his daughter. … This general crossed the Hellespont with a large army, his fleet always accompanying him along the shore whilst he pushed on by the mainland. He once more subdued Makedonia, probably the districts which had not yet, like the Makedonian king, been brought into subjection, and gave out that his aim was directed against Eretria and Athens, the enemies of the king. … In the stormy waters near Mount Athos, which have always made the navigation of the Ægean difficult, his fleet suffered ship-wreck. But without naval supports he could not hope to gain possession of an island and a maritime town situated on a promontory. Even by land he encountered resistance, so that he found it advisable to postpone the further execution of his undertakings to another time. … In order to subdue the recalcitrants, especially Athens and Eretria, another attempt was organized without delay. Under two generals, one of whom, Datis, was a Mede, the other, Artaphernes, the son of the satrap of Sardis of the same name, and brother of the Darius who was in alliance with Hippias, a maritime expedition was undertaken for the immediate subjugation of the islands and the maritime districts. {152} It was not designed for open hostility against the Greeks in general. … Their design was to utilize the internal dissensions of Greece in conquering the principal enemies upon whom the Great King had sworn vengeance, and presenting them as captives at his feet. The project succeeded in the case of Eretria. In spite of a brave resistance it fell by treachery into their hands, and they could avenge the sacrilege committed at Sardis by plundering and devastating Grecian sanctuaries. They expected now to be able to overpower Athens also without much trouble. … It was a circumstance of great value to the Athenians that there was a man amongst them who was familiar with the Persian tactics. This was Miltiades, the son of Kimon. … Although a Thracian prince, he had never ceased to be a citizen of Athens. Here he was impeached for having held a tyranny, but was acquitted and chosen strategus, for the democracy could not reject a man who was so admirably qualified to be at their head in the interchange of hostilities with Persia. Miltiades was conducting his own personal quarrel in undertaking the defence of Attica. The force of the Persians was indeed incomparably the larger, but the plains of Marathon, on which they were drawn up, prevented their proper deployment, and they saw with astonishment the Athenian hoplites displaying a front as extended as their own. These troops now rushed upon them with an impetus which grew swifter at every moment. The Persians easily succeeded in breaking through the centre of the Athenian army; but that was of no moment, for the strength of the onset lay in the two wings, where now began a hand-to-hand fight. The Persian sword, formidable elsewhere, was not adapted to do good service against the bronze armor and the spear of the Hellenes. On both flanks the Athenians obtained the advantage, and now attacked the Persian centre, which was not able to withstand the onslaught of men whose natural vigor was heightened by gymnastic training. The Persians, to their misfortune, had calculated upon desertion in the ranks of their opponents; foiled in this hope, they retreated to the shore and to their ships. Herodotus intimates that the Persians had secret intelligence with a party in Athens, and took their course round the promontory of Sunium toward the city, in the hope of surprising it. But when they came to anchor the Athenians had arrived also, and they saw themselves once more confronted by the victors of Marathon."

ATHENS: B. C. 489-480.
   Condemnation and death of Miltiades.
   The Æginetan war.
   Naval power created by Themistocles.

"The victory of Marathon was chiefly due to Miltiades; it was he who brought on the engagement, and he was chief in command on the day when the battle was fought. Such a brilliant success greatly improved his position in the city, and excited in his enemies a still deeper hatred. Ever on the watch for an opportunity to pull down their rival, it was not long before they found one. Soon after his victory, Miltiades came before the Athenians with a request that a squadron of 70 ships might be placed at his disposal. The purpose for which he required them he would not disclose, though pledging his word that the expedition would add largely to the wealth and prosperity of the city. The request being granted, he sailed with the ships to Paros, an island which at this time was subject to Persia. From the Parians he demanded 100 talents, and when they refused to pay he blockaded the city. So vigorous and successful was the resistance offered that, after a long delay, Miltiades, himself dangerously wounded, was compelled to return home. His enemies, with Xanthippus at their head, at once attacked him for misconduct in the enterprise. … Miltiades was unable to reply in person; he was carried into court, while his friends pleaded his cause. The sentence was given against him, but the penalty was reduced from death to a fine of 50 talents. So large a sum was more than even Miltiades could pay; he was thrown into prison as a public debtor, where he soon died from the mortification of his wound. … His condemnation was one in a long series of similar punishments. The Athenians never learnt to be just to those who served them, or to distinguish between treachery and errors of judgment. … We have very little information about the state of Athens immediately after the battle of Marathon. So far as we can tell, for the chronology is most uncertain, she was now engaged in a war with Ægina. … Meanwhile, a man was rising to power, who may be said to have created the history of Athens for the rest of the century,—Themistocles, the son of Neocles. … On the very day of Marathon, Themistocles had probably made up his mind that the Persians would visit Greece again. What was to keep them away, so long as they were masters of the Ægean? … With an insight almost incredible he perceived that the Athenians could become a maritime nation; that Athens possesses harbours large enough to receive an enormous fleet, and capable of being strongly fortified; that in possession of a fleet she could not only secure her own safety, but stand forth as a rival power to Sparta. But how could Themistocles induce the Athenians to abandon the line in which they had been so successful for a mode of warfare in which even Miltiades had failed? After the fall of the great general, the conduct of affairs was in the hands of Xanthippus … and Aristides. … They were by no means prepared for the change which Themistocles was meditating. This is more especially true of Aristides. He had been a friend of Clisthenes; he was known as an admirer of Spartan customs. … He had been second in command at Marathon, and was now the most eminent general at Athens. From him Themistocles could only expect the most resolute opposition. Xanthippus and Aristides could reckon on the support of old traditions and great connections. Themistocles had no support of the kind. He had to make his party … conscious of their own position, Aristides and Xanthippus looked with contempt upon the knot of men who began to gather round their unmannerly and uncultivated leader. And they might, perhaps, have maintained their position if it had not been for the Æginetan war. That unlucky struggle had begun, soon after the reforms of Clisthenes, with an unprovoked attack of the Æginetans on the coast of Attica (506 B. C.), [Ægina being allied with Thebes in the war mentioned above—B.C. 509-506]. {153} It was renewed when the Æginetans gave earth and water to the heralds of Darius in 491, and though suspended at the time of the Persian invasion, it broke out again with renewed ferocity soon afterwards. The Æginetans had the stronger fleet, and defeated the Athenian ships. "Such experiences naturally caused a change in the minds of the Athenians. … It was clear that the old arrangements for the navy were quite inadequate to the task which was now required of them. Yet the leaders of the state made no proposals." Themistocles now "came forward publicly with proposals of naval reform, and, as he expected, he drew upon himself the strenuous opposition of Aristides. … It was clear that nothing decisive could be done in the Æginetan war unless the proposals of Themistocles were carried; it was equally clear that they never would be carried while Aristides and Xanthippus were at hand to oppose them. Under these circumstances recourse was had to the safety-valve of the constitution. Ostracism was proposed and accepted; and in this manner, by 483 B. C., Themistocles had got rid of both of his rivals in the city. He was now master of the situation. The only obstacle to the realization of his plans was the expense involved in building ships. And this he was able to meet by a happy accident, which brought into the treasury at this time a large surplus from the silver mines from Laurium. … By the summer of 480, the Athenians … were able to launch 180 vessels, besides providing 20 for the use of the Chalcideans of Eubœa. … At the same time Themistocles set about the fortification of the Peiræus. … Could he have carried the Athenians with him, he would have made the Peiræus the capital of the country, in order that the ships and the city might be in close connection. But for this the people were not prepared."

ATHENS: B. C. 481-479.
Congress at Corinth.
Organized Hellenic Union, under the headship of Sparta.

ATHENS: B. C. 480-479.
   The second Persian invasion.
   Thermopylæ, Artemisium, Salamis, Platæa.
   Abandonment of the City.

"The last days of Darius were clouded by the disaster of Marathon; 'that battle formed the turning point of his good fortune,' and it would seem that the news of it led to several insurrections, particularly that of Egypt; but they were soon put down. Darius died (Olymp. 73, 3), and Xerxes, who succeeded him, was prevented from taking revenge on the Athenians by the revolt of Egypt, which engaged his attention during the first years of his reign. But he completely conquered the insurgents after they had maintained themselves about four or five years; and he then made preparations for that vengeance on Athens for which his barbarian pride was longing. The account of the three years' preparations of Xerxes, how he assembled his army in Asia Minor, how he made a bridge across the Hellespont, how he cut a canal through the isthmus of Mount Athos to prevent his fleet being destroyed by storms—all this is known to everyone who has read Herodotus. History is here so much interwoven with poetry, that they can no longer be separated. … The Greeks awaited the attack (Olymp. 75, 1), 'but they were not agreed among themselves. The Argives from hatred of Sparta joined the Persians, and the miserable Boeotians likewise supported them. The others kept together only from necessity; and without the noble spirit of the Athenians Greece would have been lost, and that from the most paltry circumstances. A dispute arose as to who was to be honoured with the supreme command; the Athenians gave way to all, for their only desire was to save Greece. Had the Persians moved on rapidly, they would have met with no resistance, but they proceeded slowly, and matters turned out differently.' A Greek army was encamped at Tempe, at the entrance of Thessaly, and at first determined on defending Thessaly. But they must have seen that they could be entirely surrounded from Upper Thessaly; and when they thus discovered the impossibility of stopping the Persians, they retreated. The narrative now contains one inconceivable circumstance after another. … It is inconceivable that, as the Greeks did make a stand at Thermopylae, no one else took his position there except King Leonidas and his Spartans, not including even the Lacedaemonians, for they remained at home! Only 1,000 Phocians occupied the heights, though that people might surely have furnished 10,000 men; 400 of the Boeotians were posted in the rear, as a sort of hostages, as Herodotus remarks, and 700 Thespians. Where were all the rest of the Greeks? … Countless hosts are invading Greece; the Greeks want to defend themselves, and are making active preparations at sea; but on land hundreds of thousands are met by a small band of Peloponnesians. 700 Thespians, 400 Thebans as hostages, and 1,000 Phocians, stationed on the heights! A pass is occupied, but only that one, and the others are left unguarded. … All this is quite unintelligible; it would almost appear as if there had been an intention to sacrifice Leonidas and his men; but we cannot suppose this. These circumstances alone suggest to us, that the numbers of the Persian army cannot have been as great as they are described; but even if we reduce them to an immense extent, it still remains inconceivable why they were not opposed by greater numbers of the Greeks, for as afterwards they ventured to attack the Persians in the open field, it was certainly much more natural to oppose them while marching across the hills. But however this may be, it is an undoubted fact, that Leonidas and his Spartans fell in the contest, of which we may form a conception from the description of Herodotus, when after a resistance of three days they were surrounded by the Persians. A few of the Spartans escaped on very excusable grounds, but they were so generally despised, that their life became unendurable, and they made away with themselves. This is certainly historical. … After the victory of Thermopylae all Hellas lay open before the Persians, and they now advanced towards Athens, a distance which they could march in a few days. Thebes opened her gates, and joyfully admitted them from hatred of Athens. Meantime a portion of the army appeared before Delphi. It is almost inconceivable that the Persians did not succeed in taking the temple. … The miracles by which the temple is said to have been saved, are repeated in the same manner during the attack of the Gauls. {154} But the temple of Delphi was certainly not plundered.' … The city of Athens had in the meantime been abandoned by all the people; the defenceless had taken refuge in the small island of Salamis, or of Troezen, 'and all the Athenians capable of bearing arms embarked in the fleet.' … The Persians thus took Athens without any resistance. … During the same days on which the battle of Thermopylae was fought, the Greek fleet was engaged in two indecisive but glorious battles near the promontory of Artemisium. 'In a third the Persians gained the upper hand, and when the Greeks at the same time heard of the defeat at Thermopylae, they withdrew, and doubling Cape Sunium sailed towards Salamis.' God sent them a storm whereby the Persians in their pursuit suffered shipwreck. … While the Greek fleet was stationed in the channel between the island of Salamis and Attica, towards Piraeeus, discord broke out among the Greeks. The Peloponnesians thought only of themselves; they had fortified the Isthmus; there they were assembled, and there they wanted to offer resistance to the Persians. In their folly they forgot, that if the enemy with his superior fleet, should turn against Peloponnesus, they might land wherever they liked. … But Themistocles now declared, that all the hopes of the Athenians were directed towards the recovery of their own city; that, if the Peloponnesians should sacrifice them, and, thinking of themselves only, should abandon Attica to the barbarians, the Athenians would not be so childish as to sacrifice themselves for them, but would take their women and children on board their ships, and sail far away from the Persians to the island of Sardinia, or some other place where Greek colonies were established; that there they would settle as a free people, and abandon Peloponnesus to its fate; and that then the peninsula would soon be in the hands of the enemy. This frightened the Peloponnesians, and they resolved to stand by Athens. It is evident that, throughout that time, Themistocles had to struggle with the most intolerable difficulties, which the allies placed in his way, as well as with their jealousy, meanness, and insolence. 'The rudeness of the Spartans and Corinthians is nowhere more strongly contrasted with the refinement of the Athenians, than on that occasion.' But after he had tried everything, and overcome by every possible means a hundred different difficulties, he yet saw, that he could not rely on the perseverance of the Peloponnesians, and that they would turn to the Isthmus as soon as Xerxes should proceed in that direction. He accordingly induced the Persian king, by a false message, to surround the Greek fleet, for the purpose of cutting off the retreat of the Peloponnesians. He declared himself ready to deliver the whole of the Greek fleet into his hands. This device was quite to the mind of the Persians; Xerxes believed him, and followed his advice. When Themistocles was thus sure of the Peloponnesians, the ever-memorable battle of Salamis commenced, which is as certainly historical as that of Cannae, or any modern battle, 'whatever the numbers may be.' The battle proceeded somewhat in the manner of the battle of Leipzig: when the issue was decided, a portion of those who ought to have joined their countrymen before, made common cause with the Greeks. … Their accession increased the victory of the Greeks. … Certain as the battle of Salamis is, all the accounts of what took place after it, are very doubtful. This much is certain, that Xerxes returned, 'leaving a portion of his army under Mardonius in Greece;' … Winter was now approaching, and Mardonius withdrew from ravaged Attica, taking up his winter-quarters partly in Thessaly and partly in Boeotia. … The probability is, that the Athenians remained the winter in Salamis in sheds, or under the open sky. Mardonius offered to restore to them Attica uninjured, so far as it had not already been devastated, if they would conclude peace with him. They might at that time have obtained any terms they pleased, if they had abandoned the common cause of the Greeks; and the Persians would have kept the peace; for when they concluded treaties they observed them: they were not faithless barbarians. But on this occasion again, we see the Athenian people in all its greatness and excellence; it scorned such a peace, and preferred the good of the Peloponnesians. … Mardonius now again advanced towards Athens; the Spartans, who ought to have proceeded towards Cithaeron, had not arrived, and thus he again took possession of Attica and ravaged it completely. At length, however (Olymp. 75, 2), the Athenians prevailed upon the Peloponnesians to leave the Isthmus, and they gradually advanced towards Boeotia. There the battle of Plataeae was fought. … In regard to the accounts of this battle, it is historically certain that it was completely won by the Greeks, and that the remnants of the Persian army retreated without being vigorously pursued. It must have reached Asia, but it then disappears. It is also historically certain, that Pausanias was the commander of the allied army of the Greeks. … After their victory, the Greeks advanced towards Thebes. In accordance with a vow which they had made before the war, Thebes ought to have been destroyed by the Greeks. But their opinions were divided. … On the same day on which the battle of Plataeae was fought, the allied Greeks gained as complete a victory at sea. … After this victory of Mycale, the Ionian cities revolted against the Persians."

ALSO IN: Herodotus, History; translated and edited by H. Rawlinson, book 7 (volume 4).

ATHENS: B. C. 479-478.
   Protection of Ionia assumed.
   Siege and capture of Sestus.
   Rebuilding and enlargement of the city and its walls.
   Interference of Sparta foiled by Themistocles.

"The advantages obtained by the Hellenes [in their war with Persia] came upon them so unexpectedly as to find them totally unprepared, and accordingly embarrassed by their own victories. What was to be done with Ionia? Was the whole country to be admitted into the Hellenic confederation? Too great a responsibility would, in the opinion of the Peloponnesians, be incurred by such a step. … It would be better to sacrifice the country, and establish the Ionians in settlements in other parts, at the expense of those who had favoured the Medes, i. e., of the Argives, Bœotians, Locrians, and Thessalians. … The Athenians, on the other hand, espoused the cause of the cities. … Ionia ought to be a bulwark against the Barbarians, and to belong to the Hellenes. {155} … The Athenians found a support in the feeling prevalent among the Ionians, who were naturally opposed to any forced settlement. Accordingly, in the first instance, Samos, Lesbos, Chios, and a number of other island-towns, were admitted into the confederation … and a new Hellas was formed, a Greek empire comprehending both sides of the sea. Considerations of caution made it necessary, above all, to secure the passage from Asia to Europe; for it was universally believed that the bridge over the Hellespont was either still in existence or had been restored. When it was found to have been destroyed, the Peloponnesians urged the termination of the campaign. … The Athenians, on the other hand, declared themselves resolved … not to leave unfinished what they had begun. Sestus, the strongest fortress on the Hellespont, ought not to be left in the hands of the enemy; an attack on it ought to be risked without delay, before the city had prepared for a siege. They allowed the Peloponnesians to take their departure, and under the command of Xanthippus united with the ships of the Ionians and Hellespontians for the purpose of new undertakings." The Persians in Sestus resisted obstinately, enduring a long siege, but were forced to surrender at last. "Meanwhile, the main point consisted in the Athenians having remained alone in the field, in their having fraternized with the Ionians as one naval power, and having after such successes attained to a confidence in victory, to which no enterprise any longer seemed either too distant or too difficult. Already they regarded their city as the centre of the coast-lands of Greece. But what was the condition of this city of Athens itself? A few fragments of the ancient city wall, a few scattered houses, which had served the Persian commanders as their quarters, were yet standing; the rest was ashes and ruins. After the battle of Platææ the inhabitants had returned from Salamis, Trœzene, and Ægina; not even the fleet and its crews were at hand to afford them assistance. They endeavoured to make shift as best they could, to pass through the trials of the winter. As soon as the spring arrived, the restoration of the city was commenced with all possible activity. … But even now it was not the comforts of domesticity which occupied their thoughts, but, above all, the city as a whole and its security. To Themistocles, the founder of the port-town, public confidence was in this matter properly accorded." It was not possible "to carry out a new and regular plan for the city; but it was resolved to extend its circumference beyond the circle of the ancient walls, … so as to be able, in case of a future siege, to offer a retreat to the country-population within the capital itself. … But the Athenians were not even to be permitted to build their walls undisturbed; for, as soon as their grand plan of operations became known, the envy and insidious jealousy of their neighbours broke out afresh. … The Peloponnesian states, above all Ægina and Corinth, hastened to direct the attention of Sparta to the situation of affairs. … As at Sparta city walls were objected to on principle, and as no doubts prevailed with regard to the fact that z well-fortified town was impregnable to the military art of the Peloponnesians, it was actually resolved at any price to prevent the building of the walls in Attica." But, for shame's sake, the interference undertaken by Sparta was put upon the ground that in the event of a future invasion of the country, only the peninsula could be successfully defended; that central Greece would necessarily be abandoned to the enemy; and that every fortified city in it would furnish him a dangerous base. "At such a crisis craft alone could be of avail. When the Spartans made their imperious demand at Athens, Themistocles ordered the immediate cessation of building operations, and with assumed submissiveness, promised to present himself at Sparta, in order to pursue further negotiations in person. On his arrival there, he allowed one day after the other to go by, pretending to be waiting for his fellow envoys." In the meantime, all Athens was toiling night and day at the walls, and time enough was gained by the audacious duplicity of Themistocles to build them to a safe height for defence. "The enemies of Athens saw that their design had been foiled, and were forced to put the best face upon their discomfiture. They now gave out that they had intended nothing beyond good advice."

      ALSO IN
      G. W. Cox,
      History of Greece,
      book 2, chapter 7-8 (volume 1-2).

ATHENS: B. C. 478-477.
   Alienation of the Asiatic Greeks from Sparta.
   Formation of the Confederacy of Delos.
   The founding of Athenian Empire.

ATHENS: B. C. 477-462.
   Constitutional gains for the democracy.
   Ascendency of Aristeides.
   Declining popularity and ostracism of Themistokles.
   The sustentation of the commons.
   The stripping of power from the Areopagus.

At the time when the Confederacy of Delos was formed, "the Persians still held not only the important posts of Eion on the Strymon and Doriskus in Thrace, but also several other posts in that country which are not specified to us. We may thus understand why the Greek cities on and near the Chalkidic peninsula … were not less anxious to seek protection in the bosom of the new confederacy than the Dorian islands of Rhodes and Cos, the Ionic islands of Samos and Chios, the Æolic Lesbos and Tenedos, or continental towns such as Miletus and Byzantium. … Some sort of union, organised and obligatory upon each city, was indispensable to the safety of all. Indeed, even with that aid, at the time when the Confederacy of Delos was first formed, it was by no means certain the Asiatic enemy would be effectually kept out, especially as the Persians were strong not merely from their own force, but also from the aid of internal parties in many of the Grecian states—traitors within, as well as exiles without. Among these traitors, the first in rank as well as the most formidable, was the Spartan Pausanias." Pausanias, whose treasonable intrigues with the Persian king began at Byzantium (See GREECE: B. C. 478-477) was convicted some nine or ten years later, and suffered a terrible fate, being shut within a temple to which he had fled, and starved. "His treasonable projects implicated and brought to disgrace a man far greater than himself—the Athenian Themistokles. … The charge [against Themistokles] of collusion with the Persians connects itself with the previous movement of political parties. … The rivalry of Themistokles and Aristeides had been greatly appeased by the invasion of Xerxes, which had imposed upon both the peremptory necessity of cooperation against a common enemy. {156} And apparently it was not resumed during the times which immediately succeeded the return of the Athenians to their country: at least we hear of both in effective service and in prominent posts. Themistokles stands forward as the contriver of the city walls and architect of Peiraeus: Aristeides is commander of the fleet and first organiser of the Confederacy of Delos. Moreover we seem to detect a change in the character of the latter. He had ceased to be the champion of Athenian old-fashioned landed interest, against Themistokles as the originator of the maritime innovations. Those innovations had now, since the battle of Salamis, become an established fact. … From henceforth the fleet is endeared to every man as the grand force, offensive and defensive, of the state, in which character all the political leaders agree in accepting it. … The triremes, and the men who manned them, taken collectively, were now the determining element in the state. Moreover, the men who manned them had just returned from Salamis, fresh from a scene of trial and danger, and from a harvest of victory, which had equalized for the moment all Athenians as sufferers, as combatants, and as patriots. … The political change arising from hence in Athens was not less important than the military. 'The maritime multitude, authors of the victory of Salamis,' and instruments of the new vocation at Athens as head of the Delian Confederacy, appear now ascendant in the political constitution also; not in any way as a separate or privileged class, but as leavening the whole mass, strengthening the democratical sentiment, and protesting against all recognised political inequalities. … Early after the return to Attica, the Kleisthenian constitution was enlarged as respects eligibility to the magistracy. According to that constitution, the fourth or last class on the Solonian census, including the considerable majority of freemen, were not admissible to offices of state, though they possessed votes in common with the rest; no person was eligible to be a magistrate unless he belonged to one of the three higher classes. This restriction was now annulled and eligibility extended to all the citizens; We may appreciate the strength of feeling with which such reform was demanded when we find that it was proposed by Aristeides. … The popularity thus ensured to him, probably heightened by some regret for his previous ostracism, was calculated to acquire permanence from his straightforward and incorruptible character, now brought into strong relief by his function as assessor to the new Delian Confederacy. On the other hand, the ascendency of Themistokles, though so often exalted by his unrivalled political genius and daring, as well as by the signal value of his public recommendations, was as often overthrown by his duplicity of means and unprincipled thirst for money. New political opponents sprung up against him, men sympathising with Aristeides. … Of these the chief were Kimon [Cimon], (son of Miltiades), and Alkmæon." In 471 B. C. Themistokles was sent into exile by a vote of ostracism, and retired to Argos. Five years later he was accused of complicity in the treasonable intrigues of Pausanias, and fled to the court of the Persian king, where he spent the remainder of his days. "Aristeides died about three or four years after the ostracism of Themistokles."

The constitutional effects of the Persian war, and the political situation of Athens immediately after the war, are represented somewhat differently from the account above, in the lately discovered work on the Constitution of Athens which is attributed to Aristotle. The following is quoted from one of the translations of the latter: "After the Median war the council of Areopagus [See AREOPAGUS] recovered strength and ruled the state, not that any law conferred the hegemony on them, but because the aristocratic party had the credit of the victory at Salamis. For when the generals had despaired of the country and proclaimed a sauve qui peut, the Areopagus raised funds, gave every man eight drachmas (6s. 6d.) and induced them to man the ships. In consequence of this public service the Ecclesia yielded the ascendency to the Areopagus, and public affairs were admirably administered during the following epoch. For they acquired the art of war, made their name honoured throughout the Hellenic world, and possessed themselves of the sovereignty of the sea with the consent of Lakedaimon. At this time the leaders of the commons were Aristeides, son of Lusimachos, and Themistokles, son of Neokles; the latter studious of the arts of war, the former reputed eminent in statesmanship and honest beyond his contemporaries; which characters made their countrymen employ the one as a general, the other as a councillor. The rebuilding of the walls of Athens was their joint work, though they were otherwise at feud. The detachment of the Ionians from Persia and the formation of an alliance with Sparta were due to the counsels of Aristeides, who seized the opportunity afforded by the discredit cast on the Lakonians by the conduct of Pausanias. He too originally apportioned, two years after the battle of Salamis, in the archonship of Timosthenes (478 B. C.), the contribution to be paid by the islanders. … Subsequently, when lofty thoughts filled every bosom and wealth was accumulating, Aristeides advised them to administer the hegemony with their own hands, to leave their country occupations and fix their domicile in the city. Sustentation, he promised, would be provided for all, either as soldiers or sailors in active service, or as troops in garrison or as public servants; and then they could increase the vigour of their imperial sway. They followed his advice, and, taking the rule into their own hands, reduced their allies to the position of vassals, except the Chians, Lesbians, and Samians, whom they kept as satellites of their power, and permitted to retain their own constitutions and to rule their own dependencies: and they provided for their own sustentation by the method which Aristeides indicated; for in the end the public revenues, the taxes and the tributes of the allies gave maintenance to more than 20,000. There were 6,000 dicasts or jurors, 1,600 archers, 1,200 cavalry, 500 senators, 500 soldiers of the dockyard garrison, 50 city guards, 700 home magistrates, 700 foreign magistrates, 2,500 heavy armed soldiers (this was their number at the beginning of the Peloponnesian war), 4,000 sailors manning 20 guardships, 2,000 sailors appointed by lot, manning 20 tribute-collecting ships, and in addition to these the Prutaneion, the orphans, the gaolers; and all these persons were maintained at the expense of the national treasury. The sustentation of the commons was thus secured. {157} The 17 years which followed the Median war were about the period during which the country continued under the ascendency of the Areopagus, though its aristocratic features were gradually on the wane. When the masses had grown more and more preponderant, Ephialtes, son of Sophonides, reputed incorruptible in his loyalty to democracy, became leader of the commons, and began to attack the Areopagus. First, he put to death many of its members, by impeaching them of offences committed in their administration. Afterwards in the archonship of Konon (462 B. C.) he despoiled the council itself of all its more recently acquired attributes, which were the keystone of the existing constitution, and distributed them among the Senate of 500, the Ecclesia, and the courts of law. In this work he had the co-operation of Themistokles, who was himself an Areopagite, but expecting to be impeached for treasonable correspondence with Persia. … Ephialtes and Themistokles kept accusing the Areopagus before the Senate of 500, and again before the commons, till finally they stripped it of all its principal functions. The assassination of Ephialtes by the instrumentality of Aristodikos of Tanagra followed not long after. Such were the circumstances of the overthrow of the Areopagus. After this the degradation of the constitution proceeded without intermission from the eagerness of politicians to win popular favour; and at the same time there happened to be no organizer of the aristocratic party, whose head, Kimon, the son of Miltiades, was too young for some years to enter political life; besides which their ranks were much devastated by war. Expeditionary forces were recruited by conscription; and as the generals had no military experience and owed their appointment to the reputation of their ancestors, each expedition entailed the sacrifice of 2,000 or 3,000 lives, chiefly of the noblest sons of Athens, whether belonging to the wealthy classes or to the commons."—Aristotle, On the Constitution of Athens (translated by E. Poste.) chapter 23-26.—On the above, Dr. Abbott comments as follows: "So much of this account as refers to Themistocles may be at once dismissed as unhistorical. … If the evidence of Thucydides is to count for anything, it is quite certain that Themistocles finally left Greece for Persia about 466 B. C. … Plutarch says not a word about Themistocles. But the remainder of the account [of the attack on the Areopagus] is supported by all our authorities—if indeed it is not merely repeated by them."

ATHENS: B. C. 470-466.
   Continued war against the Persians.
   Cimon's victories at the Eurymedon.
   Revolt and subjugation of Naxos.

"Under the guidance of Athens, the war against the Persians was continued. Cimon [Kimon] sailed with a fleet to the coast of Thrace, and laid siege to Eion on the Strymon [B. C. 470]. The Persian garrison made a gallant defence; and finally Boges, the governor, rather than surrender, cast all his gold and silver into the river; and, having raised a huge pile of wood, slew his wives, children and slaves, and laid their bodies on it; then setting fire to it, he flung himself into the flames: the garrison surrendered at discretion. Doriscus was attacked in vain, but all the other Persian garrisons in Europe were reduced. Cimon then, as executor of an Amphictyonic decree, turned his arms against the piratic Dolopians of the Isle of Scyros, whom he expelled, and filled the island with Athenian colonists. On this occasion he sought and found (as was supposed) the bones of the hero Theseus, who had died in this island 800 years before; and he brought them in his own trireme to Athens,—an act which gained him great favour with the people. By this time, some of the confederates were grown weary of war, and began to murmur at the toils and expense to which it put them. The people of Naxos were the first who positively refused to contribute any longer; but the Athenians, who had tasted of the sweets of command, would not now permit the exercise of free will to their allies. Cimon appeared (Ol. 78,3) [B. C. 466] with a large fleet before Naxos; the Naxians defended themselves with vigour, but were at length forced to submit; and the Athenians had the hardihood to reduce them to the condition of subjects to Athens—an example which they soon followed in other cases. … After the reduction of Naxos, Cimon sailed over to the coast of Asia, and learning that the Persian generals had assembled a large fleet and army in Pamphylia, he collected a fleet of 200 triremes at Cnidos, with which he proceeded to the coast of that country, and laid siege to the city of Phaselis, which, though Greek, obeyed the Persian monarch. Having reduced it to submission, he resolved to proceed and attack the Persian fleet and army, which he learned were lying at the river Eurymedon. On his arrival, the Persian fleet, of 350 triremes, fearing at first to fight till 80 Phoenician vessels, which they were expecting, should come up, kept in the river; but finding that the Greeks were preparing to attack, they put out to sea and engaged them. The action did not continue long: the Barbarians fled to the land; 200 ships fell into the hands of the victors, and several were destroyed. Without a moment's delay, Cimon disembarked his men, and led them against the land forces: the resistance of the Persians was obstinate for some time, but at last they turned and fled, leaving their camp a prey to the conquerors; and Cimon had thus the rare glory of having gained two important victories in the one day. Hearing then that the 80 Phoenician vessels were at Hydros, in the Isle of Cyprus, he immediately sailed thither and took or destroyed the whole of them. The victory on the Eurymedon may be regarded as the termination of the conflict between Greece and Persia. The year after it (Ol. 78,4) [B. C. 465], Xerxes was assassinated, and the usual confusion took place in the court of Susa."

ATHENS: B. C. 466-454.
   Leadership in the Delian confederacy changed to sovereignty.
   Revolt and subjugation of Thasos.
   Help to Sparta and its ungracious requital.
   Fall and exile of Cimon.
   Rise of Pericles and the democratic anti-Spartan policy.
   Removal of the federal treasury from Delos.
   Building the Long Walls.

"It was now evident to the whole body of the allies of Athens that by joining the league they had provided themselves with a mistress rather than a leader. … Two years after the reduction of Naxos another powerful island-state broke out into rebellion against the supremacy of Athens. The people of Thasos had from very early times possessed territory on the mainland of Thrace opposite to their island. By holding this coast-slip they engrossed the trade of the Valley of the Strymon, and held the rich gold mines of Mount Pangaeus. But the Athenians, after the capture of Eïon, set themselves to develop that port as the commercial centre of Thrace. … A spot called 'The Nine Ways,' … where that great river first begins to broaden out into its estuary, but can still be spanned by a bridge, was the chosen site of a fortress to secure the hold of Athens on the land. But the native Thracian tribes banded themselves together, and fell upon the invaders with such desperation that … the Athenian armies were defeated. … It was probably the discouragement which this defeat caused at Athens that emboldened Thasos to declare her secession from the Confederacy of Delos. She wished to save her Thracian trade, before Athens could make another attempt to divert it from her. The Thasians did not rely on their own resources alone; they enlisted the Thracians and Macedonians of the mainland, and sent to Sparta to endeavour to induce the ephors to declare war on Athens." The Spartans were well disposed to take up the cause of the Thasians; but at that moment they were overwhelmed by the calamity of the frightful Earthquake of 464, instantly followed by the rising of the Helots and the third Messenian war (See MESSENIAN WAR, THE THIRD). "The island-state was therefore left to its own resources; and these were so considerable that she held out against the force of the Athenian confederacy for two whole years. … She was obliged at last to surrender to Cimon [B. C. 463], whose army had long been lying before her walls. Like Naxos, she was punished for her defection by the loss of her war-fleet and her fortifications, and the imposition of a fine of many talents. Still more galling must have been the loss of her trade with Thrace, which now passed entirely into Athenian hands. … The Spartans were still engaged in a desperate struggle with their revolted subjects when the siege of Thasos came to an end. Cimon, who was now at the height of his reputation and power, saw with distress the troubles of the city he so much admired. He set himself to persuade the Athenians that they ought to forego old grudges, and save from destruction the state which had shared with them the glory of the Persian war. … His pleading was bitterly opposed by the anti-Spartan party at Athens, headed by two statesmen, Ephialtes and Pericles, who had already come into notice as antagonists of Cimon. But the more generous and unwise policy prevailed, and 4,000 hoplites were sent to the aid of Sparta [B. C. 462]. This army was pursued by misfortune; it was so unsuccessful in attacking Ithome that the Spartans attributed its failure to ill will rather than ill luck. They, therefore, began to treat their allies with marked discourtesy, and at last sent them home without a word of thanks, merely stating that their services could be of no further use [See MESSENIAN WAR, THE THIRD]. This rudeness and ingratitude fully justified the anti-Spartan party at Athens. … Cimon was now no longer able to deal with the policy of the state as he chose, and the conduct of affairs began to pass into the hands of men whose foreign and domestic policy were alike opposed to all his views. Ephialtes and Pericles proceeded to form alliances abroad with all the states which were ill disposed toward Sparta, and at home to commence a revision of the constitution. They were determined to carry out to its furthest logical development the democratic tendency which Cleisthenes had introduced into the Athenian polity. Of Ephialtes, the son of Sophonides, comparatively little is known. But Pericles … was the son of Xanthippus, the accuser of Miltiades in 489, B. C., and the victor of Mycale and Sestos; while, on his mother's side, he came of the blood of the Alcmaeonidae. Pericles was staid, self-contained, and haughty—a strange chief for the popular party. But his relationship to Cleisthenes, and the enmity which existed between his house and that of Cimon, urged him to espouse the cause of democracy. … While Cimon had Greece in his mind, Pericles could only think of Athens, and the temper of the times was favourable to the narrower policy. … The first aim which Pericles and Ephialtes set before themselves was the cutting down of the power of the Areopagus [See above: B. C. 477-462]. That body had since the Persian war become the stronghold of the Conservative and philo-Laconian party. … Ephialtes took the lead in the attack on the Areopagus. He chose a moment when Cimon was away at sea, bent on assisting a rebellion against the Great King which had broken out in Egypt. After a violent struggle, he succeeded in carrying a law which deprived the Areopagus of its ancient censorial power, and reduced it to a mere court to try homicides. … When Cimon came home from Egypt he was wildly enraged. … Recourse was had to the test of ostracism. It decided against Cimon, who therefore went into banishment [B. C. 459]. But this wrong against the greatest general of Athens was, not long after, avenged by an over-zealous and unscrupulous friend. Ephialtes was slain by assassins in his own house. … The immediate result of this murder was to leave Pericles in sole and undivided command of the democratic party. The foreign policy of Pericles soon began to involve Athens in troubles at home. He concluded alliances with Argos and Thessaly, both states at variance with Sparta, and thereby made a collision with the Lacedæmonian confederacy inevitable. He gave still more direct offence to Corinth, one of the most powerful members of that confederacy, by concluding a close alliance with Megara. … In Boeotia, too, he stirred up enmity, by giving an active support to the democratic party in that country. These provocations made a war inevitable. In 458 B. C. the storm burst. … At the moment of the outbreak of the first important naval war which she had to wage with a Greek enemy since the formation of her empire, Athens took two important steps. The first was destined to guard against the risk of misfortunes by sea; it consisted in the transference from Delos to Athens [dated by different authorities between 461 and 454 B. C.] of the central treasury of the confederacy. … {159} It was not long before the Athenians came to regard the treasury as their own, and to draw upon it for purely Attic needs, which had no connection with the welfare of the other confederates. … The second important event of the year 458 B. C. was the commencement of the famous 'Long Walls' of Athens [See LONG WALLS]. … When they were finished Athens, Peiræus, and Phalerum, formed the angles of a vast fortified triangle, while the space between them, a considerable expanse of open country, could be utilized as a place of refuge for the population of Attica, and even for their flocks and herds."

ATHENS: B. C. 460-449.
   Disastrous expedition to Egypt.
   Attacks on the Peloponnesian Coast.
   Recall of Cimon.
   His last enterprise against the Persians.
   The disputed Peace of Cimon or Callias.
   Five years truce with Sparta.

"Inarus, king of some of the Libyan tribes on the western border of Egypt, had excited an insurrection there against the Persians [about 460 B. C.], and his authority was acknowledged throughout the greater part of the country. Artaxerxes sent his brother Achæmenes with a great army to quell this rebellion. An Athenian armament of 200 galleys was lying at the time off Cyprus, and Inarus sent to obtain its assistance. The Athenian commanders, whether following their own discretion, or after orders received from home, quitted Cyprus, and having joined with the insurgents, enabled them to defeat Achæmenes, who fell in the battle by the hand of Inarus. They then sailed up the Nile to Memphis, where a body of Persians, and some Egyptians, who still adhered to their cause were in possession of one quarter of the city, called White Castle. The rest was subject to Inarus, and there the Athenians stationed themselves, and besieged the Persians. … Artaxerxes sent a Persian, named Megabazus, to Sparta, with a sum of money, to be employed in bribing the principal Spartans to use their influence, so as to engage their countrymen in an expedition against Attica. Megabazus did not find the leading Spartans unwilling to receive his money; but they seem to have been unable to render him the service for which it was offered. Ithome still held out: and Sparta had probably not yet sufficiently either recovered her strength or restored internal tranquility, to venture on the proposed invasion. Some rumours of this negotiation may have reached Athens, and have quickened the energy with which Pericles now urged the completion of the long walls. … But among his opponents there was a faction who viewed the progress of this great work in a different light from Cimon, and saw in it, not the means of securing the independence of Athens, but a bulwark of the hated commonalty. They too would have gladly seen an invading army in Attica, which might assist them in destroying the work and its authors." This party was accused of sympathy with the Spartan expedition which came to the help of Doris against the Phocians in 457 B. C., and which defeated the Athenians at Tanagra (See GREECE: B. C. 458-456). In 455, "the Spartans were reminded that they were also liable to be attacked at home. An Athenian armament of 50 galleys, and, if we may trust Diadorus, with 4,000 heavy armed troops on board, sailed round Peloponnesus under Tolmides, burnt the Spartan arsenal at Gythium, took a town named Chalcis belonging to the Corinthians, and defeated the Sicyonians, who attempted to oppose the landing of the troops. But the most important advantage gained in the expedition was the capture of Naupactus, which belonged to the Ozolian Locrians, and now fell into the hands of the Athenians at a very seasonable juncture. The third Messenian war had just come to a close. The brave defenders of Ithome had obtained honourable terms. … The besieged were permitted to quit Peloponnesus with their families, on condition of being detained in slavery if they ever returned. Tolmides now settled the homeless wanderers in Naupactus. … But these successes were counterbalanced by a reverse which befell the arms of Athens this same year in another quarter. After the defeat of Achæmens, Artaxerxes, disappointed in his hopes of assistance from Sparta, … raised a great army, which he placed under the command of an abler general, Megabyzus, son of Zopyrus. Megabyzus defeated the insurgents and their allies, and forced the Greeks to evacuate Memphis, and to take refuge in an island of the Nile, named Prosopitis, which contained a town called Byblus, where he besieged them for 18 months. At length he resorted to the contrivance of turning the stream. … The Greek galleys were all left aground, and were fired by the Athenians themselves, that they might not fall into the enemy's hands. The Persians then marched into the island over the dry bed of the river: the Egyptians in dismay abandoned their allies, who were overpowered by numbers and almost all destroyed. … Inarus himself was betrayed into the hands of the Persians and put to death. … Egypt … was again reduced under the Persian yoke, except a part of the Delta, where another pretender, named Amyrtæus, who assumed the title of king … maintained himself for several years against the power of the Persian monarchy. But the misfortune of the Athenians did not end with the destruction of the great fleet and army which had been first employed in the war. They had sent a squadron of 50 galleys to the relief of their countrymen, which, arriving before the news of the recent disaster had reached them, entered the Mendesian branch of the Nile. They were here surprised by a combined attack of the Persian land force and a Phoenician fleet, and but few escaped to bear the mournful tidings to Athens. Yet even after this calamity we find the Athenians, not suing for peace, but bent on extending their power, and annoying their enemies." Early in 454 they sent an expedition into Thessaly, to restore a ruler named Orestes, who had been driven out. "But the superiority of the Thessalians in cavalry checked all their operations in the field; they failed in an attempt upon Pharsalus, and were at length forced to retire without having accomplished any of their ends. It was perhaps to soothe the public disappointment that Pericles shortly afterwards embarked at Pegæ with 1,000 men, and, coasting the south side of the Corinthian gulf made a descent on the territory of Sicyon, and routed the Sicyon force sent to oppose his landing. {160} He then … laid siege to the town of Œniadæ. … This attempt, however, proved unsuccessful; and the general result of the campaign seems not to have been on the whole advantageous or encouraging. … It seems to have been not long after the events which have been just related that Cimon was recalled from his exile; and the decree for that purpose was moved by Pericles himself;—a fact which seems to intimate that some change had taken place in the relations or the temper of parties at Athens. … The three years next following Cimon's return, as we have fixed its date [B. C. 454 or 453], passed, happily for his contemporaries, without affording any matter for the historian; and this pause was followed by a five years' truce [with Sparta], in the course of which Cimon embarked in his last expedition, and died near the scene of his ancient glory. The pretender Amyrtæus had solicited succour from the Athenians. … Cimon was appointed to the command of a fleet of 200 galleys, with which he sailed to Cyprus, and sent a squadron of 60 to the assistance of Amyrtæus, while he himself with the rest laid siege to Citium. Here he was carried off by illness, or the consequences of a wound; and the armament was soon after compelled, by want of provisions, to raise the siege. But Cymon's spirit still animated his countrymen, who, when they had sailed away with his remains, fell in with a great fleet of Phoenician and Cilician galleys, near the Cyprian Salamis, and, having completely defeated them, followed up their naval victory with another which they gained on shore, either over the troops which had landed from the enemy's ships, or over a land force by which they were supported. After this they were joined by the squadron which had been sent to Egypt, and which returned, it would appear, without having achieved any material object, and all sailed home (B. C. 449). In after-times Cimon's military renown was enhanced by the report of a peace [sometimes called the Peace of Cimon, and sometimes the Peace of Callias], which his victories had compelled the Persian king to conclude on terms most humiliating to the monarchy. Within less than a century after his death it was, if not commonly believed, confidently asserted, that by this treaty, negotiated, as it was supposed, by Callias, son of Hipponicus, the Persians had agreed to abandon at least the military occupation of Asia Minor, to the distance of three days journey on foot, or one on horseback, from the coast, or, according to another account, the whole peninsula west of the Halys, and to abstain from passing the mouth of the Bosphorus and the Chelidonian islands, on the coast of Lycia, or the town of Phaselis, into the Western Sea. The mere silence of Thucydides on so important a transaction would be enough to render the whole account extremely suspicious."

Mr. Grote accepts the Peace of Cimon as an historical fact;
Professor Curtius rejects it.

ATHENS: B. C. 458-456.
   War for Megara with Corinth and Ægina.
   Victories of Myronides.
   Siege and conquest of Ægina.
   Collision with the Spartans in Bœotia.
   Defeat at Tanagra.
   Overthrow of the Thebans.
   Recovered Ascendency.

ATHENS: B. C. 449-445.
   Hostile revolution in Bœotia.
   Defeat at Coroneia.
   Revolt of Eubœa and Megara.
   The thirty years' truce.
   Territorial losses.
   Spartan recognition of the Delian Confederacy.

ATHENS: B. C. 445-431.
   Supremacy of Pericles and the popular arts by which he
   attained it.
   The splendor of Athens and grandeur of the Athenian Empire
   under his rule.

   "The conclusion of peace left the Athenians to their
   confederacy and their internal politics. … After the death
   of Cimon the oligarchical party at Athens had been led by
   Thucydides, the son of Melesias, a man of high character and a
   kinsman of Cimon. … Hitherto the members had sat here or
   there in the assembly as they pleased; now they were combined
   into a single body, and sat in a special place. Such a
   consolidation was doubtless needed if the party was to hold
   its own against Pericles, who was rapidly carrying all before
   him. For years past he had provided a subsistence for many of
   the poorer citizens by means of his numerous colonies—no
   fewer than 5,000 Athenians must have been sent out to the
   'cleruchies' in the interval between 453 B. C. and 444 B. C.
   The new system of juries [See DICASTERIA] had also been
   established on the fall of the Areopagus, and the jurymen were
   paid—a second source of income to the poor. Such measures
   were beyond anything that the private liberality of
   Cimon—splendid as it was—could achieve; and on Cimon's death
   no other aristocrat came forward to aid his party with his
   purse. Pericles did not stop here. Since the cessation of the
   war with Persia there had been fewer drafts on the public
   purse, and the contributions of the allies were accumulating
   in the public treasury. A scrupulous man would have regarded
   the surplus as the money of the allies. … Pericles took
   another view. He plainly told the Athenians that so long as
   the city fulfilled the contract made with the allied cities,
   and kept Persian vessels from their shores, the surplus was at
   the disposal of Athens. Acting on this principle, he devoted a
   part of it to the embellishment of the city. With the aid of
   Pheidias, the sculptor, and Ictinus, the architect, a new
   temple began to rise on the Acropolis in honour of Athena—the
   celebrated Parthenon or 'Virgin's Chamber' [See PARTHENON].
   … Other public buildings were also begun about this time.
   Athens was in fact a vast workshop, in which employment was
   found for a great number of citizens. Nor was this all. …
   For eight months of the year 60 ships were kept at sea with
   crews on board, in order that there might be an ample supply
   of practical seamen. … Thus by direct or indirect means
   Pericles made the state the paymaster of a vast number of
   citizens, and the state was practically himself, with these
   paid citizens at his back. At the same time the public
   festivals of the city were enlarged and adorned with new
   splendour. … That all might attend the theatre in which the
   plays were acted, Pericles provided that every citizen should
   receive from the state a sum sufficient to pay the charge
   demanded from the spectators by the lessee [See DIOBOLY]. We
   may look on these measures as the arts of a demagogue. … Or
   we may say that Pericles was able to gratify his passion for
   art at the expense of the Athenians and their allies.
{161}
   Neither of these views is altogether untenable; and both are
   far from including the whole truth. Pericles … was, if we
   please to say it, a demagogue and a connoisseur. But he was
   something more. Looking at the whole evidence before us with
   impartial eyes, we cannot refuse to acknowledge that he
   cherished aspirations worthy of a great statesman. He
   sincerely desired that every Athenian should owe to his city
   the blessing of an education in all that was beautiful, and
   the opportunity of a happy and useful life. … The oligarchs
   determined to pull down Pericles, if it were possible. …
   They proposed, in the winter of 445 B. C., that there should
   be an ostracism in the city. The people agreed, and the usual
   arrangements were made. But when the day came for decision, in
   the spring of 444 B. C., the sentence fell, not on Pericles,
   but on Thucydides. The sentence left no doubt about the
   feeling of the Athenian people, and it was accepted as final.
   Thucydides disappeared from Athens, and for the next fifteen
   years Pericles was master of the city. … While Athens was
   active, organizing her confederacy and securing her
   communication with the north, the Peloponnesians had allowed
   the years to pass in apathy and inattention. At length they
   awoke to a sense of the situation. It was clear that Athens
   had abandoned all idea of war with Persia, and that the
   confederacy of Delos was transformed into an Athenian empire,
   of whose forces the great city was absolutely mistress. And
   meanwhile in visible greatness Athens had become far the first
   city in Greece."

"A rapid glance will suffice to show the eminence which Athens had attained over the other states of Greece. She was the head of the Ionian League—the mistress of the Grecian seas; with Sparta, the sole rival that could cope with her armies and arrest her ambition, she had obtained a peace; Corinth was Humbled—Ægina ruined—Megara had shrunk into her dependency and garrison. The states of Bœotia had received their very constitution from the hands of an Athenian general—the democracies planted by Athens served to make liberty itself subservient to her will, and involved in her safety. She had remedied the sterility of her own soil by securing the rich pastures of the neighbouring Eubœa. She had added the gold of Thasos to the silver of Laurion, and established a footing in Thessaly which was at once a fortress against the Asiatic arms and a mart for Asiatic commerce. The fairest lands of the opposite coast—the most powerful islands of the Grecian seas—contributed to her treasury, or were almost legally subjected to her revenge. … In all Greece, Myronides was perhaps the ablest general—Pericles … was undoubtedly the most highly educated, cautious and commanding statesman. … In actual possession of the tribute of her allies, Athens acquired a new right to its collection and its management, and while she devoted some of the treasures to the maintenance of her strength, she began early to uphold the prerogative of appropriating a part to the enhancement of her splendour. … It was now [about B. C. 444] resolved to make Athens also the seat and centre of the judicial authority. The subject-allies were compelled, if not on minor, at least on all important cases, resort to Athenian courts of law for justice. And thus Athens became, as it were, the metropolis of the allies. … Before the Persian war, and even scarcely before the time of Cimon, Athens cannot be said to have eclipsed her neighbours in the arts and sciences. She became the centre and capital of the most polished communities of Greece, and she drew into a focus all the Grecian intellect; she obtained from her dependents the wealth to administer the arts, which universal traffic and intercourse taught her to appreciate; and thus the Odeon, and the Parthenon, and the Propylæa arose. During the same administration, the fortifications were completed, and a third wall, parallel and near to that uniting Piræus with Athens, consummated the works of Themistocles and Cimon, and preserved the communication between the two-fold city, even should the outer walls fall into the hands of an enemy."

E. G. Bulwer-Lytton, Athens: Its Rise and Fall, book 4, chapter 5, book 5, chapter 2.

"The Greeks … were industrious, commercial, sensitive to physical and moral beauty, eager for discussion and controversy; they were proud of their humanity, and happy in the possession of their poets, their historians, their orators and artists. It is singular, in the history of nations, to meet with a people distinguished at once by mercantile aptitude, and by an exquisite feeling and sympathy for works of art; to see the vanity of wealth compatible with a nice discernment for the true principles of taste; to behold a nation, inconstant in ideas; inconceivably fickle in prejudices, worshipping a man one day and proscribing him the next, yet at the same time progressing with unheard-of rapidity; within the space of a few years traversing all systems of philosophy, all forms of government, laying the foundations of all sciences, making war on all its neighbors, yet, in the midst of this chaos of ideas, systems, and passions, developing art steadily and with calm intelligence, giving to it novelty, originality, and beauty, while preserving it pure from the aberrations and caprices of what we now call fashion. At the time of the battle of Salamis, 480 B. C., Athens had been destroyed, its territory ravaged, and the Athenians had nothing left but their ships; yet so great was the activity of this commercial but artistic people, that, only twenty years afterwards, they had built the Parthenon."

   "For any one coming from Asia it seemed as if in entering
   Athens he was coming into an ant's nest. Possessing, at the
   epoch of its greatest power, the three ports of Munychia,
   Phalerum and the Piræus, it covered a district whose
   circumference measured two hundred stadia (twenty-four miles).
   But it was around the Acropolis that the houses were crowded
   together and the population always in activity. There wagons
   were passing to and fro, filled with merchandise from the
   ports or conveying it thither. The streets and public places
   in which people passed their lives presented a busy and noisy
   scene. Strangers, who came to buy or to sell, were continually
   entering or leaving the shops and places of manufacture, and
   slaves were carrying messages or burdens.
{162}
   Women as well as men were to be seen in the streets,
   going to the markets, the public games and the meetings of
   corporate bodies. From the earliest hours of the day large
   numbers of peasants might be seen bringing in vegetables,
   fruit and poultry, and crying their wares in the streets.
   Houses of the higher class occupied the second zone; they
   generally possessed a garden and sometimes outbuildings of
   considerable extent. Around them were to be seen clients and
   parasites, waiting for the hour when the master should make
   his appearance; and whiling away the time discussing the news
   of the day, repeating the rumours, true or false, that were
   current in the city; getting the slaves to talk, and laughing
   among themselves at the strangers that happened to be passing,
   or addressing them with a view to make fun of their accent,
   garb or dress. The house of Chremylus, recently built in that
   second zone, was a subject of remark for all the idlers.
   Chremylus, who had lately become wealthy by means of commerce,
   and of certain transactions of more or less creditable
   character in the colonies, was an object of envy and criticism
   to most people, and of admiration for some who did justice to
   his intelligence and energy. He enjoyed a certain degree of
   influence in the public assemblies—thanks to his liberality;
   while he took care to secure the good graces of the archons
   and to enrich the temples."

"We have [in the accompanying figure] the ground-plan of the residence of this Athenian citizen. The entrance x opens on the public road. The site is bounded on either side by narrow streets. This entrance x opens on the court O, which is surrounded by porticos. At A is the porter's lodge, and at B the rooms for the slaves, with kitchen at C and latrines at a. From this first court: in the centre of which is a small fountain with a basin which receives the rain water, the passage D leads into the inner court E; which is larger and is likewise surrounded by porticos. At G is the reception room, at H the strong room for valuables, and at S the private altar. At F is a large storeroom containing provisions and wine; and at I the small dining room (triclinium); the cooking-room for the family being at J with latrines at b. The large triclinium is at K. The passage m admits to the gynæceum, containing the bedrooms P along the portico M, a common room for the women, with its small enclosed garden, and closets at e. The quarters for visitors are entered by the passage t, and consist of bedrooms V, a portico T, a small garden and closets f. At d is an opening into the lane for the servants, when required. The gardens extend in the direction Z. This house is situated on the slopes of the hill which to the south-west looks towards the Acropolis; thus it is sheltered from the violent winds which sometimes blow from this quarter. From the large dining-hall and from the terrace L, which adjoins it, there is a charming prospect; for, above the trees of the garden is seen the city overlooked by the Acropolis, and towards the left the hill of the Areopagus. From this terrace L there is a descent to the garden by about twelve steps. The position was chosen with a view to protection against the sun's heat and the troublesome winds. From the portico of the gynæceum are seen the hills extending towards the north, covered with houses surrounded by olive-trees; and in the background Mount Pentelicus. … In the dwelling of Chremylus the various departments were arranged at the proprietor's discretion, and the architect only conformed to his instructions. Thus the front part of the house is assigned to the external relations of the owner. In this court O assemble the agents or factors who come to give an account of the commissions they have executed, or to receive orders. If the master wishes to speak to any of them, he takes him into his reception room; his bedchamber being at R, he can easily repair to that reception-room or to the gynæceum reserved for the women and younger children. If he entertains friends, they have their separate apartments, which are shut off, not being in communication with the first court except through the passage t. All that part of the habitation which is beyond the wide entrance-hall D is consecrated to domestic life; and only the intimate friends of the family are admitted into the second court; for example, if they are invited to a banquet,—which is held in the great hall K. The master usually takes his meals with his wife and one or two members of his family who live in the house, in the smaller room I, the couches of which will hold six persons; whereas fifteen guests can be accommodated on the couches of the great hall K. Chremylus has spared nothing to render his house one of the most sumptuous in the city. The columns of Pentelican marble support architraves of wood, surmounted by friezes and cornices overlaid with stucco and ornamented with delicate painting. Everywhere the walls are coated with fine smooth plaster, adorned with paintings; and the ceilings are of timber artistically wrought and coloured."

ATHENS: B. C. 445-429.
The Age of Pericles: Law and its Administration.
Contrast with the Romans.

"It is remarkable … that the 'equality' of laws on which the Greek democracies prided themselves—that equality which, in the beautiful drinking song of Callistratus, Harmodius and Aristogiton are said to have given to Athens—had little in common with the 'equity' of the Romans. The first was an equal administration of civil laws among the citizens, however limited the class of citizens might be; the last implied the applicability of a law, which was not civil law, to a class which did not necessarily consist of citizens. The first excluded a despot; the last included foreigners, and for some purposes slaves. … There are two special dangers to which law, and society which is held together by law, appear to be liable in their infancy. One of them is that law may be too rapidly developed. This occurred with the codes of the more progressive Greek communities, which disembarrassed themselves with astonishing facility from cumbrous forms of procedure and needless terms of art, and soon ceased to attach any superstitious value to rigid rules and prescriptions. It was not for the ultimate advantage of mankind that they did so, though the immediate benefit conferred on their citizens may have been considerable. One of the rarest qualities of national character is the capacity for applying and working out the law, as such, at the cost of constant miscarriages of abstract justice, without at the same time losing the hope or the wish that law may be conformed to a higher ideal. The Greek intellect, with all its nobility and elasticity, was quite unable to confine itself within the strait waistcoat of a legal formula; and, if we may judge them by the popular courts of Athens, of whose working we possess accurate knowledge, the Greek tribunals exhibited the strongest tendency to confound law and fact. The remains of the Orators and the forensic commonplaces preserved by Aristotle in his Treatise on Rhetoric, show that questions of pure law were constantly argued on every consideration which could possibly influence the mind of the judges. No durable system of jurisprudence could be produced in this way. A community which never hesitated to relax rules of written law whenever they stood in the way of an ideally perfect decision on the facts of particular cases, would only, if it bequeathed any body of judicial principles to posterity, bequeath one consisting of the ideas of right and wrong which happened to be prevalent at the time. Such jurisprudence would contain no framework to which the more advanced conceptions of subsequent ages could be fitted. It would amount at best to a philosophy, marked with the imperfections of the civilisation under which it grew up. … The other liability to which the infancy of society is exposed has prevented or arrested the progress of far the greater part of mankind. The rigidity of primitive law, arising chiefly from its earlier association and identification with religion, has chained down the mass of the human race to those views of life and conduct which they entertained at the time when their usages were first consolidated into a systematic form. There were one or two races exempted by a marvellous fate from this calamity, and grafts from these stocks have fertilised a few modern societies; but it is still true that, over the larger part of the world, the perfection of law has always been considered as consisting in adherence to the ground plan supposed to have been marked out by the original legislator. If intellect has in such cases been exercised on jurisprudence, it has uniformly prided itself on the subtle perversity of the conclusions it could build on ancient texts without discoverable departure from their literal tenour. I know no reason why the law of the Romans should be superior to the laws of the Hindoos, unless the theory of Natural Law had given it a type of excellence different from the usual one."

"But both the Greek and the English trial by jury were at one time the great political safeguard against state oppression and injustice; and, owing to this origin, free nations become so attached to it that they are blind to its defects. And just as Ireland would now benefit beyond conception by the abolition of the jury system, so the secured Athenian (or any other) democracy would have thriven better had its laws been administered by courts of skilled judges. For these large bodies of average citizens, who, by the way, were not like our jurymen, unwilling occupants of the jury-box, but who made it a paid business and an amusement, did not regard the letter of the law. They allowed actions barred by the reasonable limits of time; they allowed arguments totally beside the question, though this too was illegal, for there was no competent judge to draw the line; they allowed hearsay evidence, though that too was against the law; indeed the evidence produced in most of the speeches is of the loosest and poorest kind. Worse than all, there were no proper records kept of their decisions, and witnesses were called in to swear what had been the past decisions of a jury sitting in the same city, and under the same procedure. This is the more remarkable, as there were state archives, in which the decrees of the popular assembly were kept. … There is a most extraordinary speech of Lysias against a man called Nichomachus, who was appointed to transcribe the laws of Solon in four months, but who kept them in his possession for six years, and is accused of having so falsified them as to have substituted himself for Solon. Hence there can have been no recognized duplicate extant, or such a thing could not be attempted. So again, in the Trapeziticus of Isocrates, it is mentioned as a well known fact, that a certain Pythodorus was convicted of tampering with state documents, signed and sealed by the magistrates, and deposited in the Acropolis. All these things meet us in every turn in the court speeches of the Attic orators. We are amazed at seeing relationships proved in will cases by a man coming in and swearing that such a man's father had told him that his brother was married to such a woman, of such a house. We find the most libellous charges brought against opponents on matters totally beside the question at issue, and even formal evidence of general bad character admitted. We find some speakers in consequence treating the jury with a sort of mingled deference and contempt which is amusing. 'On the former trial of this case,' they say, 'my opponent managed to tell you many well devised lies; of course you were deceived, how could it be otherwise, and you made a false decision;' or else, 'You were so puzzled that you got at variance with one another, you voted at sixes and sevens, and by a small majority you came to an absurd decision.' {164} 'But I think you know well,' says Isocrates, 'that the city has often repented so bitterly ere this for decisions made in passion and without evidence, as to desire after no long interval to punish those who misled it, and to wish those who had been calumniated were more than restored to their former prosperity. Keeping these facts before you, you ought not to be hasty in believing the prosecutors, nor to hear the defendants with interruption and ill temper. For it is a shame to have the character of being the gentlest and most humane of the Greeks in other respects, and yet to act contrary to this reputation in the trials which take place here. It is a shame that in other cities, when a human life is at stake, a considerable majority of votes is required for conviction, but that among you those in danger do not even get an equal chance with their false accusers. You swear indeed once a year that you will attend to both plaintiff and defendant, but in the interval only keep your oath so far as to accept whatever the accusers say, but you sometimes will not let those who are trying to refute them utter even a single word. You think those cities uninhabitable, in which citizens are executed without trial, and forget that those who do not give both sides a fair hearing are doing the very same thing.'"

"The real life of Athens lasted at the most for 200 years: and yet there are moments in which all that we have won by the toils of so many generations seems as if it would be felt to be but a small thing beside a single hour of Periklês. The Democracy of Athens was in truth the noblest fruit of that self-developing power of the Greek mind which worked every possession of the common heritage into some new and more brilliant shape, but which learned nothing, nothing of all that formed its real life and its real glory, from the Barbarians of the outer world. Men tell us that Greece learned this or that mechanical invention from Phœnicia or Egypt or Assyria. Be it so; but stand in the Pnyx; listen to the contending orators; listen to the ambassadors of distant cities; listen to each side as it is fairly hearkened to, and see the matter in hand decided by the peaceful vote of thousands—here at least of a truth is something which Athens did not learn from any Assyrian despot or from any Egyptian priest. And we, children of the common stock, sharers in the common heritage, as we see man, Aryan man, in the full growth of his noblest type, we may feel a thrill as we think that Kleisthenês and Periklês were, after all, men of our own blood—as we think that the institutions which grew up under their hands and the institutions under which we ourselves are living are alike branches sprung from one stock, portions of one inheritance in which Athens and England have an equal right. In the Athenian Democracy we see a popular constitution taking the form which was natural for such a constitution to take when it was able to run its natural course in a common-wealth which consisted only of a single city. Wherever the Assembly really remains, in truth as well as in name, an Assembly of the whole people in their own persons, it must in its own nature be sovereign. It must, in the nature of things, delegate more or less of power to magistrates and generals; but such power will be simply delegated. Their authority will be a mere trust from the sovereign body, and to that sovereign body they will be responsible for its exercise. That is to say, one of the original elements of the State, the King or chief, now represented by the elective magistracy, will lose its independent powers, and will sink into a body who have only to carry out the will of the sovereign Assembly. So with another of the original elements, the Council. This body too loses its independent being; it has no ruling or checking power; it becomes a mere Committee of the Assembly, chosen or appointed by lot to put measures into shape for more easy discussion in the sovereign body. As society becomes more advanced and complicated, the judicial power can no longer be exercised by the Assembly itself, while it would be against every democratic instinct to leave it in the arbitrary power of individual magistrates. Other Committees of the Assembly, Juries on a gigantic scale, with a presiding magistrate as chairman rather than as Judge, are therefore set apart to decide causes and to sit in judgment on offenders. Such is pure Democracy, the government of the whole people and not of a part of it only, as carried out in its full perfection in a single city. It is a form of government which works up the faculties of man to a higher pitch than any other; it is the form of government which gives the freest scope to the inborn genius of the whole community and of every member of it. Its weak point is that it works up the faculties of man to a pitch so high that it can hardly be lasting, that its ordinary life needs an enthusiasm, a devotion too highly strung to be likely to live through many generations. Athens in the days of her glory, the Athens of Periklês, was truly 'the roof and crown of things;' her democracy raised a greater number of human beings to a higher level than any government before or since; it gave freer play than any government before or since to the personal gifts of the foremost of mankind. But against the few years of Athenian glory we must set the long ages of Athenian decline. Against the city where Periklês was General we must set the city where Hadrian was Archon. On the Assemblies of other Grecian cities it is hardly needful to dwell. Our knowledge of their practical working is slight. We have one picture of a debate in the popular Assembly of Sparta, an Assembly none the less popular in its internal constitution because it was the assembly of what, as regarded the excluded classes of the State, was a narrow oligarchy. We see that there, as might be looked for, the chiefs of the State, the Kings, and yet more the Ephors, spoke with a degree of official, as distinguished from personal, authority which fell to the lot of no man in the Assembly of Athens. Periklês reigned supreme, not because he was one of Ten Generals, but because he was Periklês. … In the Ekklêsia which listened to Periklês and Dêmosthenes we feel almost as much at home as in an institution of our own land and our own times. At least we ought to feel at home there; for we have the full materials for calling up the political life of Athens in all its fullness, and within our own times one of the greatest minds of our own or of any age has given its full strength to clear away the mists of error and calumny which so long shrouded the parent state of justice and freedom. {165} Among the contemporaries and countrymen of Mr. Grote it is shame indeed if men fail to see in the great Democracy the first state which taught mankind that the voice of persuasion could be stronger than a despot's will, the first which taught that disputes could be settled by a free debate and a free vote which in other lands could have been decided only by the banishment or massacre of the weaker side. … It must be constantly borne in mind that the true difference between an aristocratic and a democratic government, as those words were understood in the politics of old Greece, lies in this. In the Democracy all citizens, all who enjoy civil rights, enjoy also political rights. In the aristocracy political rights belong to only a part of those who enjoy civil rights. But, in either case, the highest authority of the State is the general Assembly of the whole ruling body, whether that ruling body be the whole people or only a part of it. … The slaves and strangers who were shut out at Athens were, according to Greek ideas, no Athenians; but every Athenian had his place in the sovereign assembly of Athens, while every Corinthian had not his place in the sovereign assembly of Corinth. But the aristocratic and the democratic commonwealth both agreed in placing the final authority of the State in the general Assembly of all who enjoy the highest franchise. … The people, of its own will, placed at its head men of the same class as those who in the earlier state of things had ruled it against its will. Periklês, Nikias, Alkibiadês, were men widely differing in character, widely differing in their relations to the popular government. But all alike were men of ancient birth, who, as men of ancient birth, found their way, almost as a matter of course, to those high places of the State to which Kleôn found his way only by a strange freak of fortune. At Rome we find quite another story. There, no less than at Athens, the moral influence of nobility survived its legal privileges; but, more than this, the legal privileges of the elder nobility were never wholly swept away, and the inherent feeling of respect for illustrious birth called into being a younger nobility by its side. At Athens one stage of reform placed a distinction of wealth instead of a distinction of birth: another stage swept away the distinction of wealth also. But the reform, at each of its stages, was general; it affected all offices alike, save those sacred offices which still remained the special heritage of certain sacred families. … In an aristocratic commonwealth there is no room for Periklês; there is no room for the people that hearkened to Periklês; but in men of the second order, skilful conservative administrators, men able to work the system which they find established, no form of government is so fertile. … But everywhere we learn the same lesson, the inconsistency of commonwealths which boast themselves of their own freedom and exalt themselves at the cost of the freedom of others."

"Dêmos was himself King, Minister, and Parliament. He had his smaller officials to carry out the necessary details of public business, but he was most undoubtedly his own First Lord of the Treasury, his own Foreign Secretary, his own Secretary for the Colonies. He himself kept up a personal correspondence both with foreign potentates and with his own officers on foreign service; the 'despatches' of Nikias and the 'notes' of Philip were alike addressed to no officer short of the sovereign himself; he gave personal audience to the ambassadors of other states, and clothed his own with just so great or so small a share as he deemed good of his own boundless authority. He had no need to entrust the care of his thousand dependencies to the mysterious working of a Foreign Office; he himself sat in judgment upon Mitylenaian rebels; he himself settled the allotment of lands at Chalkis or Amphipolis; he decreed by his own wisdom what duties should be levied at the Sound of Byzantion; he even ventured on a task of which two-and-twenty ages have not lessened the difficulty, and undertook, without the help of a Lord High Commissioner, to adjust the relations and compose the seditions even of Korkyra and Zakynthos. He was his own Lord High Chancellor, his own Lord Primate, his own Commander-in-Chief. He listened to the arguments of Kleôn on behalf of a measure, and to the arguments of Nikias against it, and he ended by bidding Nikias to go and carry out the proposal which he had denounced as extravagant or unjust. He listened with approval to his own 'explanations;' he passed votes of confidence in his own policy; he advised himself to give his own royal assent to the bills which he had himself passed, without the form of a second or third reading, or the vain ceremony of moving that the Prytaneis do leave their chairs. … We suspect that the average Athenian citizen was, in political intelligence, above the average English Member of Parliament. It was this concentration of all power in an aggregate of which every citizen formed a part, which is the distinguishing characteristic of true Greek democracy. Florence had nothing like it; there has been nothing like it in the modern world: the few pure democracies which have lingered on to our own day have never had such mighty questions laid before them, and have never had such statesmen and orators to lead them. The great Democracy has had no fellow; but the political lessons which it teaches are none the less lessons for all time and for every land and people."

"The individual freedom which was enjoyed at Athens and which is extolled by Pericles was plainly an exception to the common usage of Greece, and is so regarded in the Funeral Speech. The word 'freedom,' it should be remembered, bore an ambiguous meaning. It denoted on the one hand political independence,—the exercise of sovereign power by the State and of political rights by the citizens. In this sense every Greek citizen could claim it as his birthright. Even the Spartans could tell the Persian Hydarnes that he had not, like them, tasted of freedom, and did not know whether it was sweet or not. But the word also denoted personal and social liberty,—freedom from the excessive restraints of law, the absence of a tyrannous public opinion and of intolerance between man and man. Pericles claims for Athens 'freedom' in this double sense. But freedom so far as it implies the absence of legal interference in the private concerns of life was but little known except at Athens."

"To Athens … we look … for an answer to the question, What does history teach in regard to the virtue of a purely democratic government? And here we may safely say that, under favourable circumstances, there is no form of government which, while it lasts, has such a virtue to give scope to a vigorous growth and luxuriant fruitage of various manhood as a pure democracy. … But it does not follow that, though in this regard it has not been surpassed by any other form of government, it is therefore absolutely the best of all forms of government. … Neither, on the other hand, does it follow from the shortness of the bright reign of Athenian democracy—not more than 200 years from Clisthenes to the Macedonians—that all democracies are short-lived, and must pay, like dissipated young gentlemen, with premature decay for the feverish abuse of their vital force. Possible no doubt it is, that if the power of what we may call a sort of Athenian Second Chamber, the Areiopagus, instead of being weakened as it was by Aristides and Pericles, had been built up according to the idea of Æschylus and the intelligent aristocrats of his day, such a body, armed, like our House of Lords, with an effective negative on all outbursts of popular rashness, might have prevented the ambition of the Athenians from launching on that famous Syracusan expedition which exhausted their force and maimed their action for the future. But the lesson taught by the short-lived glory of Athens, and its subjugation under the rough foot of the astute Macedonian, is not that democracies, under the influence of faction, and, it may be, not free from venality, will sell their liberties to a strong neighbour—for aristocratic Poland did this in a much more blushless way than democratic Greece—but that any loose aggregate of independent States, given more to quarrel amongst themselves than to unite against a common enemy, whether democratic, or aristocratic, or monarchical in their form of government, cannot in the long run maintain their ground against the firm policy and the well-massed force of a strong monarchy. Athens was blotted out from the map of free peoples at Chæronea, not because the Athenian people had too much freedom, but because the Greek States had too little unity. They were used by Philip exactly in the same way that Napoleon used the German States at the commencement of the present century."

"In Herodotus you have the beginning of the age of discussion. … The discourses on democracy, aristocracy, and monarchy, which he puts into the mouth of the Persian conspirators when the monarchy was vacant, have justly been called absurd, as speeches supposed to have been spoken by those persons. No Asiatic ever thought of such things. You might as well imagine Saul or David speaking them as those to whom Herodotus attributes them. They are Greek speeches, full of free Greek discussions, and suggested by the experience, already considerable, of the Greeks in the results of discussion. The age of debate is beginning, and even Herodotus, the least of a wrangler of any man, and the most of a sweet and simple narrator, felt the effect. When we come to Thucydides, the results of discussion are as full as they have ever been; his light is pure, 'dry light,' free from the 'humours' of habit, and purged from consecrated usage. As Grote's history often reads like a report to Parliament, so half Thucydides reads like a speech, or materials for a speech, in the Athenian Assembly."

ATHENS: B. C. 440-437.
   New settlements of Klerouchoi.
   The founding of Amphipolis.
   Revolt and subjugation of Samos.

   "The great aim of Perikles was to strengthen the power of
   Athens over the whole area occupied by her confederacy. The
   establishment of settlers or Klerouchoi [see KLERUCHS]. who
   retained their rights as Athenian citizens, had answered so
   well in the Lelantian plain of Euboia that it was obviously
   good policy to extend the system. The territory of Hestiaia in
   the north of Euboia and the islands of Lemnos, Imbros, and
   Skyros, were thus occupied; and Perikles himself led a body of
   settlers to the Thrakian Chersonesos where he repaired the old
   wall at the neck of the peninsula, and even to Sinope which
   now became a member of the Athenian alliance. A generation had
   passed from the time when Athens lost 10,000 citizens in the
   attempt to found a colony at the mouth of the Strymon. The
   task was now undertaken successfully by Hagnon, and the city
   came into existence which was to be the cause of disaster to
   the historian Thucydides and to witness the death of Brasidas
   and of Kleon [see AMPHIPOLIS]. … Two years before the
   founding of Amphipolis, Samos revolted from Athens. … In
   this revolt of Samos the overt action comes from the oligarchs
   who had seized upon the Ionian town of Priene, and defeated
   the Milesians who opposed them. The latter appealed to the
   Athenians, and received not only their aid but that of the
   Samian demos. The latter now became the ruling body in the
   island, fifty men and fifty boys being taken from the
   oligarchic families and placed as hostages in Lemnos, which,
   as we have seen, was now wholly occupied by Athenian
   Klerouchoi. But the Samian exiles (for many had fled rather
   than live under a democracy) entered into covenant with
   Pissouthnes, the Sardian satrap, crossed over to Samos and
   seized the chief men of the demos, then falling on Lemnos
   succeeded in stealing away the hostages; and, having handed
   over to Pissouthnes the Athenian garrison at Samos, made ready
   for an expedition against Miletos. The tidings that Byzantion
   had joined in this last revolt left to the Athenians no room
   to doubt the gravity of the crisis. A fleet of sixty ships was
   dispatched to Samos under Perikles and nine other generals, of
   whom the poet Sophokles is said to have been one. Of these
   ships sixteen were sent, some to gather the allies, others to
   watch for the Phenician fleet which they believed to be off
   the Karian coast advancing to the aid of the Samian oligarchs.
   With the remainder Perikles did not hesitate to engage the
   Samian fleet of seventy ships which he encountered on its
   return from Miletos off the island of Tragia. The Athenians
   gained the day; and Samos was blockaded by land and sea. But
   no sooner had Perikles sailed with sixty ships to meet the
   Phenician fleet, than the Samians, making a vigorous sally,
   broke the lines of the besiegers and for fourteen days
   remained masters of the sea.
{167}
   The return of Perikles changed the face of things. Soon after
   the resumption of the siege the arrival of sixty fresh ships
   from Athens under five Strategoi in two detachments, with
   thirty from Chios and Lesbos, damped the energy of the Samian
   oligarchs; and an unsuccessful effort at sea was followed by
   their submission in the ninth month after the beginning of the
   revolt, the terms being that they should raze their walls,
   give hostages, surrender their ships, and pay the expenses of
   the war. Following their example, the Byzantines also made
   their peace with Athens. The Phenician fleet never came. …
   The Athenians escaped at the same time a far greater danger
   nearer home. The Samians, like the men of Thasos, had applied
   for aid to the Spartans, who, no longer pressed by the Helot
   war, summoned a congress of their allies to discuss the
   question. For the truce which had still five-and-twenty years
   to run Sparta cared nothing: but she encountered an opposition
   from the Corinthians which perhaps she now scarcely expected.
   … The Spartans were compelled to give way; and there can be
   no doubt that when some years later the Corinthians claimed
   the gratitude of the Athenians for this decision, they took
   credit for an act of good service singularly opportune. Had
   they voted as Sparta wished, Athens might by the extension of
   revolt amongst her allied cities have been reduced now to the
   condition to which, in consequence perhaps of this respite,
   she was not brought until the lifetime of a generation had
   been spent in desperate warfare."

"In B. C. 431 the war broke out between Athens and the Peloponnesian League, which, after twenty-seven years, ended in the ruin of the Athenian empire. It began through a quarrel between Corinth and Kerkyra, in which Athens assisted Kerkyra. A congress was held at Sparta; Corinth and other States complained of the conduct of Athens, and war was decided on. The real cause of the war was that Sparta and its allies were jealous of the great power that Athens had gained [see GREECE: B. C. 435-132 and 432-431]. A far greater number of Greek States were engaged in this war than had ever been engaged in a single undertaking before. States that had taken no part in the Persian war were now fighting on one side or the other. Sparta was an oligarchy, and the friend of the nobles everywhere; Athens was a democracy, and the friend of the common people; so that the war was to some extent a struggle between these classes all over Greece, and often within the same city walls the nobles and the people attacked one another, the nobles being for Sparta and the people for Athens. On the side of Sparta, when the war began, there was all Peloponnesus except Argos and Achæa, and also the oligarchical Bœotian League under Thebes besides Phokis, Lokris, and other States west of them. They were very strong by land, but the Corinthians alone had a good fleet. Later on we shall see the powerful State of Syracuse with its navy, acting with Sparta. On the side of Athens there were almost all the Ægæan islands, and a great number of the Ægæan coast towns as well as Kerkyra and certain States in the west of Greece. The Athenians had also made alliance with Sitalkes, the barbarian king of the interior of Thrace. Athens was far stronger by sea than Sparta, but had not such a strong land army. On the other hand it had a large treasure, and a system of taxes, while the Spartan League had little or no money."

The Ionian cities, called "allies" of Athens, were subjects in reality, and held in subjection by tyrannical measures which made the yoke odious, as is plainly explained by Xenophon, who says: "Some person might say, that it is a great support to the Athenians that their allies should be in a condition to contribute money to them. To the plebeians, however, it seems to be of much greater advantage that every individual of the Athenians should get some of the property of the allies, and that the allies themselves should have only so much as to enable them to live and to till the ground, so that they may not be in a condition to form conspiracies. The people of Athens seem also to have acted injudiciously in this respect, that they oblige their allies to make voyages to Athens for the decision of their lawsuits. But the Athenians consider only, on the other hand, what benefits to the state of Athens are attendant on this practice; in the first place they receive their dues throughout the year from the prytaneia; in the next place, they manage the government of the allied states while sitting at home, and without sending out ships; they also support suitors of the lower orders, and ruin those of an opposite character in their courts of law; but if each state had its own courts, they would, as being hostile to the Athenians, be the ruin of those who were most favourable to the people of Athens. In addition to these advantages, the Athenian people have the following profits from the courts of justice for the allies being at Athens; first of all the duty of the hundredth on what is landed at the Peiræeus affords a greater revenue to the city; next, whoever has a lodging-house makes more money by it, as well as whoever has cattle or slaves for hire; and the heralds, too, are benefited by the visits of the allies to the city. Besides, if the allies did not come to Athens for law, they would honour only such of the Athenians as were sent over the sea to them, as generals, and captains of vessels, and ambassadors; but now every individual of the allies is obliged to flatter the people of Athens, knowing that on going to Athens he must gain or lose his cause according to the decision, not of other judges, but of the people, as is the law of Athens; and he is compelled, too, to use supplication before the court, and, as anyone of the people enters, to take him by the hand. By these means the allies are in consequence rendered much more the slaves of the Athenian people."

      Xenophon,
      On the Athenian Government
      (Minor Works, translated by Reverend J. S. Watson),
      page 235.

The revolt of these coerced and hostile "allies," upon the outbreak of the Peloponnesian War, was inevitable.—The prominent events of the Peloponnesian war, in which most of the Greek States were involved, are properly narrated in their connection with Greek history at large (see GREECE: B. C. 431-429, and after). In this place it will only be necessary to take account of the consequences of the war as they affected the remarkable city and people whose superiority had occasioned it by challenging and somewhat offensively provoking the jealousy of their neighbors.

"While the Peloponnesians were gathering at the Isthmus, and were still on their way, but before they entered Attica, Pericles, the son of Xanthippus, who was one of the ten Athenian generals, … repeated [to the Athenians] his previous advice; they must prepare for war and bring their property from the country into the city; they must defend their walls but not go out to battle; they should also equip for service the fleet in which lay their strength. … The citizens were persuaded, and brought into the city their children and wives, their household goods, and even the wood-work of their houses, which they took down. Their flocks and beasts of burden they conveyed to Euboea and the adjacent islands. The removal of the inhabitants was painful; for the Athenians had always been accustomed to reside in the country. Such a life had been characteristic of them more than of any other Hellenic people, from very early times. … When they came to Athens, only a few of them had houses or could find homes among friends or kindred. The majority took up their abode in the vacant spaces of the city, and in the temples and shrines of heroes. … Many also established themselves in the turrets of the walls, or in any other place which they could find; for the city could not contain them when they first came in. But afterwards they divided among them the Long Walls and the greater part of the Piraeus. At the same time the Athenians applied themselves vigorously to the war, summoning their allies, and preparing an expedition of 100 ships against the Peloponnese. While they were thus engaged, the Peloponnesian army was advancing: it arrived first of all at Oenoe," where Archidamus, the Spartan king, wasted much time in a fruitless siege and assault. "At last they marched on, and about the eightieth day after the entry of the Thebans into Plataea, in the middle of the summer, when the corn was in full ear, invaded Attica: … They encamped and ravaged, first of all, Eleusis and the plain of Thria. … At Acharnae they encamped, and remained there a considerable time, ravaging the country." It was the expectation of Archidamus that the Athenians would be provoked to come out and meet him in the open field; and that, indeed, they were eager to do; but the prudence of their great leader held them back. "The people were furious with Pericles, and, forgetting all his previous warnings, they abused him for not leading them to battle." But he was vindicated by the result. "The Peloponnesians remained in Attica as long as their provisions lasted, and then, taking a new route, retired through Boeotia. … On their return to Peloponnesus the troops dispersed to their several cities." Meantime the Athenian and allied fleets were ravaging the Peloponnesian coast. "In the same summer [B. C. 431] the Athenians expelled the Aeginetans and their families from Aegina, alleging that they had been the main cause of the war. … The Lacedaemonians gave the Aeginetan exiles the town of Thyrea to occupy and the adjoining country to cultivate. … About the end of the summer the entire Athenian force, including the metics, invaded the territory of Megara. … After ravaging the greater part of the country they retired. They repeated the invasion, sometimes with cavalry, sometimes with the whole Athenian army, every year during the war until Nisaea was taken [B. C. 424]."

Thucydides, History; translated by B. Jowett, book 2; sections 13-31 (volume 1).

During the winter of the year B. C. 431-430, "in accordance with an old national custom, the funeral of those who first fell in this war was celebrated by the Athenians at the public charge. The ceremony is as follows: Three days before the celebration they erect a tent in which the bones of the dead are laid out, and everyone brings to his own dead any offering which he pleases. At the time of the funeral the bones are placed in chests of cypress wood, which are conveyed on hearses; there is one chest for each tribe. They also carry a single empty litter decked with a pall for all whose bodies are missing, and cannot be recovered after the battle. The procession is accompanied by anyone who chooses, whether citizen or stranger, and the female relatives of the deceased are present at the place of interment and make lamentation. The public sepulchre is situated in the most beautiful spot outside the walls; there they always bury those who fall in war; only after the battle of Marathon the dead, in recognition of their pre-eminent valour, were interred on the field. When the remains have been laid in the earth, some man of known ability and high reputation, chosen by the city, delivers a suitable oration over them; after which the people depart. Such is the manner of interment; and the ceremony was repeated from time to time throughout the war. Over those who were the first buried Pericles was chosen to speak. At the fitting moment he advanced from the sepulchre to a lofty stage, which had been erected in order that he might be heard as far as possible by the multitude, and spoke as follows:

'Most of those who have spoken here before me have commended the lawgiver who added this oration to our other funeral customs; it seemed to them a worthy thing that such an honour should be given at their burial to the dead who have fallen on the field of battle. But I should have preferred that, when men's deeds have been brave, they should be honoured in deed only, and with such an honour as this public funeral, which you are now witnessing. Then the reputation of many would not have been imperilled on the eloquence or want of eloquence of one, and their virtues believed or not as he spoke well or ill. For it is difficult to say neither too little nor too much; and even moderation is apt not to give the impression of truthfulness. The friend of the dead who knows the facts is likely to think that the words of the speaker fall short of his knowledge and of his wishes; another who is not so well informed, when he hears of anything which surpasses his own powers, will be envious and will suspect exaggeration. Mankind are tolerant of the praises of others so long as each hearer thinks that he can do as well or nearly as well himself, but, when the speaker rises above him, jealousy is aroused and he begins to be incredulous. However, since our ancestors have set the seal of their approval upon the practice, I must obey, and to the utmost of my power shall endeavour to satisfy the wishes and beliefs of all who hear me. I will speak first of our ancestors, for it is right and becoming that now, when we are lamenting the dead, a tribute should be paid to their memory. There has never been a time when they did not inhabit this land, which by their valour they have handed down from generation to generation, and we have received from them a free state. {169} But if they were worthy of praise, still more were our fathers who added to their inheritance, and after many a struggle transmitted to us their sons this great empire. And we ourselves assembled here to-day, who are still most of us in the vigour of life, have chiefly done the work of improvement, and have richly endowed our city with all things, so that she is sufficient for herself both in peace and war. Of the military exploits by which our various possessions were acquired, or of the energy with which we or our fathers drove back the tide of war, Hellenic or Barbarian, I will not speak; for the tale would be long and is familiar to you. But before I praise the dead, I should like to point out by what principles of action we rose to power, and under what institutions and through what manner of life our empire became great. For I conceive, that such thoughts are not unsuited to the occasion, and that this numerous assembly of citizens and strangers may profitably listen to them. Our form of government does not enter into rivalry with the institutions of others. We do not copy our neighbours, but are an example to them. It is true that we are called a democracy, for the administration is in the hands of the many and not of the few. But while the law secures equal justice to all alike in their private disputes, the claim of excellence is also recognised; and when a citizen is in any way distinguished, he is preferred to the public service, not as a matter of privilege, but as the reward of merit. Neither is poverty a bar, but a man may benefit his country whatever be the obscurity of his condition. There is no exclusiveness in our public life, and in our private intercourse we are not suspicious of one another, nor angry with our neighbour if he does what he likes; we do not put on sour looks at him which, though harmless, are not pleasant. While we are thus unconstrained in our private intercourse, a spirit of reverence pervades our public acts; we are prevented from doing wrong by respect for authority and for the laws, having an especial regard to those which are ordained for the protection of the injured as well as to those unwritten laws which bring upon the transgressor of them the reprobation of the general sentiment. And we have not forgotten to provide for our weary spirits many relaxations from toil; we have regular games and sacrifices throughout the year; at home the style of our life is refined; and the delight which we daily feel in all these things helps to banish melancholy. Because of the greatness of our city the fruits of the whole earth flow in upon us; so that we enjoy the goods of other countries as freely as of our own. Then, again, our military training is in many respects superior to that of our adversaries. Our city is thrown open to the world, and we never expel a foreigner or prevent him from seeing or learning anything of which the secret if revealed to an enemy might profit him. We rely not upon management or trickery, but upon our own hearts and hands. And in the matter of education, whereas they from early youth are always undergoing laborious exercises which are to make them brave, we live at ease, and yet are equally ready to face the Lacedaemonians come into Attica not by themselves, but with their whole confederacy following; we go alone into a neighbour's country; and although our opponents are fighting for their homes and we on a foreign soil we have seldom any difficulty in overcoming them. Our enemies have never yet felt our united strength; the care of a navy divides our attention, and on land we are obliged to send our own citizens everywhere. But they, if they meet and defeat a part of our army, are as proud as if they had routed us all, and when defeated they pretend to have been vanquished by us all. If then we prefer to meet danger with a light heart but without laborious training, and with a courage which is gained by habit and not enforced by law, are we not greatly the gainers? Since we do not anticipate the pain, although, when the hour comes, we can be as brave as those who never allow themselves to rest; and thus too our city is equally admirable in peace and in war. For we are lovers of the beautiful, yet simple in our tastes, and we cultivate the mind without loss of manliness. Wealth we employ, not for talk and ostentation, but when there is a real use for it. To avow poverty with us is no disgrace; the true disgrace is in doing nothing to avoid it. An Athenian citizen does not neglect the state because he takes care of his own household; and even those of us who are engaged in business have a very fair idea of politics. We alone regard a man who takes no interest in public affairs, not as a harmless, but as a useless character; and if few of us are originators, we are all sound judges of a policy. The great impediment to action is, in our opinion, not discussion, but the want of that knowledge which is gained by discussion preparatory to action. For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act and of acting too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection. And they are surely to be esteemed the bravest spirits who, having the clearest sense both of the pains and pleasures of life, do not on that account shrink from danger. In doing good, again, we are unlike others; we make our friends by conferring, not by receiving favours. Now he who confers a favour is the firmer friend, because he would fain by kindness keep alive the memory of an obligation; but the recipient is colder in his feelings, because he knows that in requiting another's generosity he will not be winning gratitude but only paying a debt. We alone do good to our neighbours not upon a calculation of interest, but in the confidence of freedom and in a frank and fearless spirit. To sum up; I say that Athens is the school of Hellas, and that the individual Athenian in his own person seems to have the power of adapting himself to the most varied forms of action with the utmost versatility and grace. This is no passing and idle word, but truth and fact; and the assertion is verified by the position to which these qualities have raised the state. For in the hour of trial Athens alone among her contemporaries is superior to the report of her. No enemy who comes against her is indignant at the reverses which he sustains at the hands of such a city; no subject complains that his masters are unworthy of him. And we shall assuredly not be without witnesses; there are mighty monuments of our power which will make us the wonder of this and of succeeding ages; we shall not need the praises of Homer or of any other panegyrist whose poetry may please for the moment, although his representation of the facts will not bear the light of day. {170} For we have compelled every land and every sea to open a path for our valour, and have everywhere planted eternal memorials of our friendship and of our enmity. Such is the city for whose sake these men nobly fought and died; they could not bear the thought that she might be taken from them; and everyone of us who survive should gladly toil on her behalf. I have dwelt upon the greatness of Athens because I want to show you that we are contending for a higher prize than those who enjoy none of these privileges, and to establish by manifest proof the merit of these men whom I am now commemorating. Their loftiest praise has been already spoken. For in magnifying the city I have magnified them, and men like them whose virtues made her glorious. And of how few Hellenes can it be said as of them, that their deeds when weighed in the balance have been found equal to their fame! Methinks that a death such as theirs has been gives the true measure of a man's worth; it may be the first revelation of his virtues, but is at any rate their final seal. For even those who come short in other ways may justly plead the valour with which they have fought for their country; they have blotted out the evil with the good, and have benefited the state more by their public services than they have injured her by their private actions. None of these men were enervated by wealth or hesitated to resign the pleasures of life; none of them put off the evil day in the hope, natural to poverty, that a man, though poor, may one day become rich. But, deeming that the punishment of their enemies was sweeter than any of these things, and that they could fall in no nobler cause, they determined at the hazard of their lives to be honourably avenged, and to leave the rest. They resigned to hope their unknown chance of happiness; but in the face of death they resolved to rely upon themselves alone. And when the moment came they were minded to resist and suffer, rather than to fly and save their lives; they ran away from the word of dishonour, but on the battle-field their feet stood fast, and in an instant, at the height of their fortune, they passed away from the scene, not of their fear, but of their glory. Such was the end of these men; they were worthy of Athens, and the living need not desire to have a more heroic spirit although they may pray for a less fatal issue. The value of such a spirit is not to be expressed in words. Anyone can discourse to you for ever about the advantages of a brave defence which you know already. But instead of listening to him I would have you day by day fix your eyes upon the greatness of Athens, until you become filled with the love of her; and when you are impressed by the spectacle of her glory reflect that this empire has been acquired by men who knew their duty and had the courage to do it; who in the hour of conflict had the fear of dishonour always present to them, and who, if ever they failed in an enterprize, would not allow their virtues to be lost to their country, but freely gave their lives to her as the fairest offering which they could present at her feast. The sacrifice which they collectively made was individually repaid to them; for they received again each one for himself a praise which grows not old, and the noblest of all sepulchres—I speak not of that in which their remains are laid, but of that in which their glory survives, and is proclaimed always and on every fitting occasion both in word and deed. For the whole earth is the sepulchre of famous men; not only are they commemorated by columns and inscriptions in their own country, but in foreign lands there dwells also an unwritten memorial of them, graven not on stone but in the hearts of men. Make them your examples, and esteeming courage to be freedom and freedom to be happiness, do not weigh too nicely the perils of war. The unfortunate who has no hope of a change for the better has less reason to throw away his life than the prosperous who, if he survive, is always liable to a change for the worse, and to whom any accidental fall makes the most serious difference. To a man of spirit, cowardice and disaster coming together are far more bitter than death striking him unperceived at a time when he is full of courage and animated by the general hope. Wherefore I do not now commiserate the parents of the dead who stand here; I would rather comfort them. You know that your life has been passed amid manifold vicissitudes; and that they may be deemed fortunate who have gained most honour, whether an honourable death like theirs, or an honourable sorrow like yours, and whose days have been so ordered that the term of their happiness is likewise the term of their life. I know how hard it is to make you feel this, when the good fortune of others will too often remind you of the gladness which once lightened your hearts. And sorrow is felt at the want of those blessings, not which a man never knew, but which were a part of his life before they were taken from him. Some of you are of an age at which they may hope to have other children, and they ought to bear their sorrow better; not only will the children who may hereafter be born make them forget their own lost ones, but the city will be doubly a gainer. She will not be left desolate, and she will be safer. For a man's counsel cannot have equal weight or worth, when he alone has no children to risk in the general danger. To those of you who have passed their prime I say: "Congratulate yourselves that you have been happy during the greater part of those days; remember that your life of sorrow will not last long, and be comforted by the glory of those who are gone. For the love of honour alone is ever young, and not riches, as some say, but honour is the delight of men when they are old and useless." To you who are the sons and brothers of the departed, I see that the struggle to emulate them will be an arduous one. For all men praise the dead, and, however pre-eminent your virtue may be, hardly will you be thought, I do not say to equal, but even to approach them. The living have their rivals and detractors, but when a man is out of the way, the honour and good-will which he receives is unalloyed. And, if I am to speak of womanly virtues to those of you who will henceforth be widows, let me sum them up in one short admonition: To a woman not to show more weakness than is natural to her sex is a great glory, and not to be talked about for good or for evil among men. I have paid the required tribute, in obedience to the law, making use of such fitting words as I had. The tribute of deeds has been paid in part; for the dead have been honourably interred, and it remains only that their children should be maintained at the public charge until they are grown up: this is the solid prize with which, as with a garland, Athens crowns her sons living and dead, after a struggle like theirs. For where the rewards of virtue are greatest, there the noblest citizens are enlisted in the service of the state. And now, when you have duly lamented, everyone his own dead, you may depart.'

Such was the order of the funeral celebrated in this winter, with the end of which ended the first year of the Peloponnesian War."

Thucydides, History, translated by B. Jowett, volume 1, book 2, sections 34-47.

ATHENS: B. C. 130-429.
   The Plague in the city.
   Death of Pericles.
   Capture of Potidæa.

"As soon as the summer returned [B. C. 430] the Peloponnesians … invaded Attica, where they established themselves and ravaged the country. They had not been there many days when the plague broke out at Athens for the first time. … The disease is said to have begun south of Egypt in Æthiopia; thence it descended into Egypt and Libya, and after spreading over the greater part of the Persian Empire, suddenly fell upon Athens. It first attacked the inhabitants of the Piæeus, and it was supposed that the Peloponnesians had poisoned the cisterns, no conduits having as yet been made there. It afterwards reached the upper city, and then the mortality became far greater. As to its probable origin or the causes which might or could have produced such a disturbance of nature, every man, whether a physician or not, will give his own opinion. But I shall describe its actual course, and the symptoms by which anyone who knows them beforehand may recognize the disorder should it ever reappear. For I was myself attacked, and witnessed the sufferings of others. The season was admitted to have been remarkably free from ordinary sickness; and if anybody was already ill of any other disease, it was absorbed in this. Many who were in perfect health, all in a moment, and without any apparent reason, were seized with violent heats in the head and with redness and inflammation of the eyes. Internally the throat and tongue were quickly suffused with blood and the breath became unnatural and fetid. There followed sneezing and hoarseness; in a short time the disorder, accompanied by a violent cough, reached the chest; then fastening lower down, it would move the stomach and bring on all the vomits of bile to which physicians have ever given names; and they were very distressing. … The body externally was not so very hot to the touch, nor yet pale; it was a livid colour inclining to red, and breaking out in pustules and ulcers. But the internal fever was intense. … The disorder which had originally settled in the head passed gradually through the whole body, and, if a person got over the worst, would often seize the extremities and leave its mark, attacking the privy parts and the fingers and toes; and some escaped with the loss of these, some with the loss of their eyes. … The crowding of the people out of the country into the city aggravated the misery; and the newly-arrived suffered most. … The mortality among them was dreadful and they perished in wild disorder. The dead lay as they had died, one upon another, while others hardly alive wallowed in the streets and crawled about every fountain craving for water. The temples in which they lodged were full of the corpses of those who died in them; for the violence of the calamity was such that men, not knowing where to turn, grew reckless of all law, human and divine. … The pleasure of the moment and any sort of thing which conduced to it took the place both of honour and of expediency. No fear of God or law of man deterred a criminal." Terrified by the plague, when they learned of it, the Peloponnesians retreated from Attica, after ravaging it for forty days; but, in the meantime, their own coasts had been ravaged, as before, by the Athenian fleet. And now, being once more relieved from the presence of the enemy, though still grievously afflicted by the plague, the Athenians turned upon Pericles with complaints and reproaches, and imposed a fine upon him. They also sent envoys to Sparta, with peace proposals which received no encouragement. But Pericles spoke calmly and wisely to the people, and they acknowledged their sense of dependence upon him by re-electing him general and committing again "all their affairs to his charge." But he was stricken next year with the plague, and, lingering for some weeks in broken health, he died in the summer of 429 B. C. By his death the republic was given over to striving demagogues and factions, at just the time when a capable brain and hand were needed in its government most. The war went on, acquiring more ferocity of temper with every campaign. It was especially embittered in the course of the second summer by the execution, at Athens, of several Lacedaemonian envoys who were captured while on their way to solicit help from the Persian king. One of these unfortunate envoys was Aristeus, who had organized the defence of Potidaea. That city was still holding out against the Athenians, who blockaded it obstinately, although their troops suffered frightfully from the plague. But in the winter of 430-429 B. C. they succumbed to starvation and surrendered their town, being permitted to depart in search of a new home. Potidaea was then peopled anew, with colonists.

      W. Wachsmuth,
      History Antiquities of the Greeks,
      sections 62-64 (volume 2).

"When Pericles rose to power it would have been possible to frame a Pan-Hellenic union, in which Sparta and Athens would have been the leading states; and such a dualism would have been the best guarantee for the rights of the smaller cities. When he died there was no policy left but war with Sparta, and conquest in the West. And not only so, but there was no politician who could adjust the relations of domestic war and foreign conquest. The Athenians passed from one to the other, as they were addressed by Cleon or Alcibiades. We cannot wonder that the men who lived in those days of trouble spoke bitterly of Pericles, holding him accountable for the miseries which fell upon Athens. Other statesmen had bequeathed good laws, as Solon and Clisthenes, or the memory of great achievements, as Themistocles or Cimon, but the only changes which Pericles had introduced were thought, not without reason, to be changes for the worse; and he left his country involved in a ruinous war.".

"The moral change which had … befallen the Attic community had, it is true, even during the lifetime of Pericles, manifested itself by means of sufficiently clear premonitory signs; but Pericles had, notwithstanding, up to the days of his last illness, remained the centre of the state; the people had again and again returned to him, and by subordinating themselves to the personal authority of Pericles had succeeded in recovering the demeanor which befitted them. But now the voice was hushed, which had been able to sway the unruly citizens, even against their will. No other authority was in existence—no aristocracy, no official class, no board of experienced statesmen—nothing, in fact, to which the citizens might have looked for guidance and control. The multitude had recovered absolute independence, and in proportion as, in the interval, readiness of speech and sophistic versatility had spread in Athens, the number had increased of those who now put themselves forward as popular speakers and leaders. But as, among all these, none was capable of leading the multitude after the fashion of Pericles, another method of leading the people, another kind of demagogy, sprung into existence. Pericles stood above the multitude. … His successors were obliged to adopt other means; in order to acquire influence, they took advantage not so much of the strong as of the weak points in the character of the citizens, and achieved popularity by flattering their inclinations, and endeavoring to satisfy the cravings of their baser nature. … Now for the first time, men belonging to the lower class of citizens thrust themselves forward to play a part in politics,—men of the trading and artisan class, the culture and wealth of which had so vigorously increased at Athens. … The office of general frequently became a post of martyrdom; and the bravest men felt that the prospect of being called to account as to their campaigns by cowardly demagogues, before a capricious multitude, disturbed the straightforward joyousness of their activity, and threw obstacles in the way of their successes. … On the orators' tribune the contrast was more striking. Here the first prominent successor of Pericles was a certain Eucrates, a rude and uneducated man, who was ridiculed on the comic stage as the 'boar' or 'bear of Melite' (the name of the district to which he belonged), a dealer in tow and mill-owner, who only for a short space of time took the lead in the popular assembly. His place was taken by Lysicles, who had acquired wealth by the cattle-trade. … It was not until after Lysicles, that the demagogues attained to power who had first made themselves a name by their opposition against Pericles, and, among them, Cleon was the first who was able to maintain his authority for a longer period of time; so that it is in his proceedings during the ensuing years of the war that the whole character of the new demagogy first thoroughly manifests itself."

"The characters of the military commander and the political leader were gradually separated. The first germs of this division we find in the days of Kimôn and Periklês. Kimôn was no mean politician; but his real genius clearly called him to warfare with the Barbarian. Periklês was an able and successful general; but in him the military character was quite subordinate to that of the political leader. It was a wise compromise which entrusted Kimôn with the defence of the state abroad and Periklês with its management at home. After Periklês the separation widened. We nowhere hear of Dêmosthenes and Phormiôn as political leaders; and even in Nikias the political is subordinate to the military character. Kleôn, on the other hand, was a politician but not a soldier. But the old notion of combining military and political position was not quite lost. It was still deemed that he who proposed a warlike expedition should himself, if it were needful, be able to conduct it. Kleôn in an evil hour was tempted to take on himself military functions; he was forced into command against Sphaktêria; by the able and loyal help of Dêmosthenês he acquitted himself with honour. But his head was turned by success; he aspired to independent command; he measured himself against the mighty Brasidas; and the fatal battle of Amphipolis was the result. It now became clear that the Demagogue and the General must commonly be two distinct persons. The versatile genius of Alkibiadês again united the two characters; but he left no successor. … A Demagogue then was simply an influential speaker of popular politics. Dêmosthenês is commonly distinguished as an orator, while Kleôn is branded as a Demagogue; but the position of the one was the same as the position of the other. The only question is as to the wisdom and honesty of the advice given either by Kleôn or by Dêmosthenês."

ATHENS: B. C. 429-427.
   Fate of Platæa.
   Phormio's Victories.
   Revolt of Lesbos.
   Siege of Mitylene.
   Cleon's bloody decree and its reversal.

ATHENS: B. C. 425.
   Seizure of Pylus by Demosthenes, the general.
   Spartans entrapped and captured at Sphacteria.
   Peace pleaded for and refused.

ATHENS: B. C. 424-406.
Socrates as soldier and citizen.
The trial of the Generals.

"Socrates was born very shortly before the year 469 B. C. His father, Sophroniscus, was a sculptor, his mother, Phænarete, a midwife. Nothing definite is known of his moral and intellectual development. There is no specific record of him at all until he served at the siege of Potidæa (432 B. C.-429 B. C.) when he was nearly forty years old. All that we can say is that his youth and manhood were passed in the most splendid period of Athenian or Greek history. … As a boy he received the usual Athenian liberal education, in music and gymnastic, an education, that is to say, mental and physical. He was fond of quoting from the existing Greek literature, and he seems to have been familiar with it, especially with Homer. He is represented by Xenophon as repeating Prodieus' fable of the choice of Heracles at length. He says that he was in the habit of studying with his friends 'the treasures which the wise men of old have left us in their books:' collections, that is, of the short and pithy sayings of the seven sages, such as 'know thyself'; a saying, it may be noticed, which lay at the root of his whole teaching. And he had some knowledge of mathematics, and of science, as it existed in those days. He understood something of astronomy and of advanced geometry; and he was acquainted with certain, at any rate, of the theories of his predecessors in philosophy, the Physical or Cosmical philosophers, such as Heraclitus and Parmenides, and, especially, with those of Anaxagoras. {173} But there is no trustworthy evidence which enables us to go beyond the bare fact that he had such knowledge. … All then that we can say of the first forty years of Socrates' life consists of general statements like these. During these years there is no specific record of him. Between 432 B. C. and 429 B. C. he served as a common soldier at the siege of Potidæa, an Athenian dependency which had revolted, and surpassed everyone in his powers of enduring hunger, thirst, and cold, and all the hardships of a severe Thracian winter. At this siege we hear of him for the first time in connection with Alcibiades, whose life he saved in a skirmish, and to whom he eagerly relinquished the prize of valour. In 431 B. C. the Peloponnesian War broke out, and in 424 B. C. the Athenians were disastrously defeated and routed by the Thebans at the battle of Delium. Socrates and Laches were among the few who did not yield to panic. They retreated together steadily, and the resolute bearing of Socrates was conspicuous to friend and foe alike. Had all the Athenians behaved as he did, says Laches, in the dialogue of that name, the defeat would have been a victory. Socrates fought bravely a third time at the battle of Amphipolis [422 B. C.] against the Peloponnesian forces, in which the commanders on both sides, Cleon and Brasidas, were killed: but there is no record of his specific services on that occasion. About the same time that Socrates was displaying conspicuous courage in the cause of Athens at Delium and Amphipolis, Aristophanes was holding him up to hatred, contempt, and ridicule in the comedy of the Clouds [13. C. 423]. … The Clouds is his protest against the immorality of free thought and the Sophists. He chose Socrates for his central figure, chiefly, no doubt, on account of Socrates' well-known and strange personal appearance. The grotesque ugliness, and flat nose, and prominent eyes, and Silenus-like face, and shabby dress, might be seen every day in the streets, and were familiar to every Athenian. Aristophanes cared little—probably he did not take the trouble to find out—that Socrates' whole life was spent in fighting against the Sophists. It was enough for him that Socrates did not accept the traditional beliefs, and was a good centre-piece for a comedy. … The Clouds, it is needless to say, is a gross and absurd libel from beginning to end: but Aristophanes hit the popular conception. The charges which he made in 423 B. C. stuck to Socrates to the end of his life. They are exactly the charges made by popular prejudice, against which Socrates defends himself in the first ten chapters of the Apology, and which he says have been so long 'in the air.' He formulates them as follows: 'Socrates is an evil doer who busies himself with investigating things beneath the earth and in the sky, and who makes the worse appear the better reason, and who teaches others these same things.' … For sixteen years after the battle of Amphipolis we hear nothing of Socrates. The next events in his life, of which there is a specific record, are those narrated by himself in the twentieth chapter of the Apology. They illustrate, as he meant them to illustrate, his invincible moral courage. … In 406 B. C. the Athenian fleet defeated the Lacedæmonians at the battle of Arginusæ, so called from some small islands off the south-east point of Lesbos. After the battle the Athenian commanders omitted to recover the bodies of their dead, and to save the living from off their disabled enemies. The Athenians at home, on hearing of this, were furious. The due performance of funeral rites was a very sacred duty with the Greeks; and many citizens mourned for friends and relatives who had been left to drown. The commanders were immediately recalled, and an assembly was held in which they were accused of neglect of duty. They defended themselves by saying that they had ordered certain inferior officers (amongst others, their accuser Theramenes) to perform the duty, but that a storm had come on which had rendered the performance impossible. The debate was adjourned, and it was resolved that the Senate should decide in what way the commanders should be tried. The Senate resolved that the Athenian people, having heard the accusation and the defence, should proceed to vote forthwith for the acquittal or condemnation of the eight commanders collectively. The resolution was grossly unjust, and it was illegal. It substituted a popular vote for a fair and formal trial. … Socrates was at that time a member of the Senate, the only office that he ever filled. The Senate was composed of five hundred citizens, elected by lot, fifty from each of the ten tribes, and holding office for one year. The members of each tribe held the Prytany, that is, were responsible for the conduct of business, for thirty-five days at a time, and ten out of the fifty were proedri or presidents every seven days in succession. Every bill or motion was examined by the proedri before it was submitted to the Assembly, to see if it were in accordance with law; if it was not, it was quashed: one of the proedri presided over the Senate and the Assembly each day, and for one day only: he was called the Epistates: it was his duty to put the question to the vote. In short he was the speaker. … On the day on which it was proposed to take a collective vote on the acquittal or condemnation of the eight commanders, Socrates was Epistates. The proposal was, as we have seen, illegal: but the people were furious against the accused, and it was a very popular one. Some of the proedri opposed it before it was submitted to the Assembly, on the ground of its illegality; but they were silenced by threats and subsided. Socrates alone refused to give way. He would not put a question which he knew to be illegal, to the vote. Threats of suspension and arrest, the clamour of an angry people, the fear of imprisonment or death, could not move him. … But his authority lasted only for a day; the proceedings were adjourned, a more pliant Epistates succeeded him, and the generals were condemned and executed."

ATHENS: B. C. 421.
End of the first period of the Peloponnesian War.
The Peace of Nicias.

"The first stage of the Peloponnesian war came to an end just ten years after the invasion of Attica by Archidamus in 431 B. C. Its results had been almost purely negative; a vast quantity of blood and treasure had been wasted on each side, but to no great purpose. The Athenian naval power was unimpaired, and the confederacy of Delos, though shaken by the successful revolt of Amphipolis and the Thraceward towns, was still left subsisting. On the other hand, the attempts of Athens to accomplish anything on land had entirely failed, and the defensive policy of Pericles had been so far justified. Well would it have been for Athens if her citizens had taken the lesson to heart, and contented themselves with having escaped so easily from the greatest war they had ever known."

"The treaty called since ancient times the Peace of Nicias … put an end to the war between the two Greek confederations of states, after it had lasted for rather more than ten years, viz., from the attack of the Bœotians upon Platææ, Ol. lxxxvii. 1 (beginning of April B. C. 431) to Ol. lxxxix. 3 (towards the middle of April B. C. 421). The war was for this reason known under the name of the Ten Years' War, while the Peloponnesians called it the Attic War. Its end constituted a triumph for Athens; for all the plans of the enemies who had attacked her had come to naught; Sparta had been unable to fulfil a single one of the promises with which she had entered upon the war, and was ultimately forced to acknowledge the dominion of Athens in its whole extent,—notwithstanding all the mistakes and misgivings, notwithstanding all the calamities attributable, or not, to the Athenians themselves: the resources of offence and defence which the city owed to Pericles had therefore proved their excellence, and all the fury of her opponents had wasted itself against her in vain. Sparta herself was satisfied with the advantages which the peace offered to her own city and citizens; but great was the discontent among her confederates, particularly among the secondary states, who had originally occasioned the war and obliged Sparta to take part in it. Even after the conclusion of the peace, it was impossible to induce Thebes and Corinth to accede to it. The result of the war to Sparta was therefore the dissolution of the confederation at whose head she had begun the war; she felt herself thereby placed in so dangerously isolated a position, that she was obliged to fall back upon Athens in self-defence against her own confederates. Accordingly the Peace of Nicias was in the course of the same year converted into a fifty years' alliance, under the terms of which Sparta and Athens contracted the obligation of mutual assistance against any hostile attack."

ATHENS: B. C. 421-418.
   New combinations.
   Conflicting alliances with Sparta and the Argive Confederacy.
   Rising influence of Alcibiades.
   War in Argos and Arcadia.
   Battle of Mantinea.

ATHENS: B. C. 415.
The expedition against Syracuse.
Mutilation of the Hermæ (Hermai).

A quarrel having broken out in Sicily, between the cities of Segesta and Selinous, "the latter obtained aid from Syracuse. Upon this, Segesta, having vainly sought help from Carthage, appealed to Athens, where the exiled Sicilians were numerous. Alkibiades had been one of the most urgent for the attack upon Melos, and he did not lose the present opportunity to incite the Athenians to an enterprise of much greater importance, and where he hoped to be in command. … All men's minds were filled with ambitious hopes. Everywhere, says Plutarch, were to be seen young men in the gymnasia, old men in workshops and public places of meeting, drawing the map of Sicily, talking about the sea that surrounds it, the goodness of its harbors, its position opposite Africa. Established there, it would be easy to cross over and subjugate Carthage, and extend their sway as far as the Pillars of Hercules. The rich did not approve of this rashness, but feared if they opposed it that the opposite faction would accuse them of wishing to avoid the service and costs of arming galleys. Nikias had more courage; even after the Athenians had appointed him general, with Alkibiades and Lamachos, he spoke publicly against the enterprise, showed the imprudence of going in search of new subjects when those they already had were at the moment in a state of revolt, as in Chalkidike, or only waited for a disaster to break the chain which bound them to Athens. He ended by reproaching Alkibiades for plunging the republic, to gratify his personal ambition, into a foreign war of the greatest danger. … One of the demagogues, however, replied that he would put an end to all this hesitation, and he proposed and secured the passage of a decree giving the generals full power to use all the resources of the city in preparing for the expedition (March 24, 415 B. C.) Nikias was completely in the right. The expedition to Sicily was impolitic and foolish. In the Ægæan Sea lay the empire of Athens, and there only it could lie, within reach, close at hand. Every acquisition westward of the Peloponnesos was a source of weakness. Syracuse, even if conquered, would not long remain subject. Whatever might be the result of the expedition, it was sure to be disastrous in the end. … An event which took place shortly before the departure of the fleet (8-9 June) threw terror into the city: one morning the hermai throughout the city were seen to have been mutilated. … 'These Hermæ, or half-statues of the god Hermês, were blocks of marble about the height of the human figure. The upper part was cut into a head, face, neck and bust; the lower part was left as a quadrangular pillar, broad at the base, without arms, body, or legs, but with the significant mark of the male sex in front. They were distributed in great numbers throughout Athens, and always in the most conspicuous situations; standing beside the outer doors of private houses as well as of temples, near the most frequented porticos, at the intersection of cross ways, in the public agora. … The religious feelings of the Greeks considered the god to be planted or domiciled where his statue stood, so that the companionship, sympathy, and guardianship of Hermês became associated with most of the manifestations of conjunct life at Athens,—political, social, commercial, or gymnastic.' … To all pious minds the city seemed menaced with great misfortunes unless the anger of Heaven should be appeased by a sufficient expiation. {175} While Alkibiades had many partisans, he had also violent enemies. Not long before this time Hyperbolos, a contemptible man, had almost succeeded in obtaining his banishment; and he had escaped this danger only by uniting his party with that of Nikias, and causing the demagogue himself to suffer ostracism. The affair of the hermai appeared to his adversaries a favourable occasion to repeat the attempt made by Hyperbolos, and we have good reason to believe in a political machination, seeing this same populace applaud, a few months later, the impious audacity of Aristophanes in his comedy of The Birds. An inquiry was set on foot, and certain metoikoi and slaves, without making any deposition as to the hermai, recalled to mind that before this time some of these statues had been broken by young men after a night of carousal and intoxication, thus indirectly attacking Alkibiades. Others in set terms accused him of having at a banquet parodied the Eleusinian Mysteries; and men took advantage of the superstitious terrors of the people to awake their political anxieties. It was repeated that the breakers of sacred statues, the profaners of mysteries, would respect the government even less than they had respected the gods, and it was whispered that not one of these crimes had been committed without the participation of Alkibiades; and in proof of this men spoke of the truly aristocratic license of his life. Was he indeed the author of this sacrilegious freak? To believe him capable of it would not be to calumniate him. Or, on the other hand, was it a scheme planned to do him injury? Although proofs are lacking, it is certain that among the rich, upon whom rested the heavy burden of the naval expenses, a plot had been formed to destroy the power of Alkibiades, and perhaps to prevent the sailing of the fleet. The demagogues, who had intoxicated the people with hope, were for the expedition; but the popularity of Alkibiades was obnoxious to them: a compromise was made between the two factions, as is often done in times when public morality is enfeebled, and Alkibiades found himself threatened on all sides. … Urging as a pretext the dangers of delay in sending off the expedition, they obtained a decree that Alkibiades should embark at once; and that the question of his guilt or innocence should be postponed until after his return. It was now the middle of summer. The day appointed for departure, the whole city, citizens and foreigners, went out to Peiraieus at daybreak. … At that moment the view was clearer as to the doubts and dangers, and also the distance of the expedition; but all eyes were drawn to the immense preparations that had been made, and confidence and pride consoled those who were about to part."

"Alkibiades was called back to Athens, to take his trial on a charge of impiety. … He did not go back to Athens for his trial, but escaped to Peloponnesos, where we shall hear from him again. Meanwhile the command of the Athenian force in Sicily was left practically in the hands of Nikias. Now Nikias could always act well when he did act; but it was very hard to make him act; above all on an errand which he hated. One might say that Syracuse was saved through the delays of Nikias. He now went off to petty expeditions in the west of Sicily, under cover of settling matters at Segesta. … The Syracusans by this time quite despised the invaders. Their horsemen rode up to the camp of the Athenians at Katanê, and asked them if they had come into Sicily merely to sit down there as colonists. … The winter (B. C. 415-414) was chiefly spent on both sides in sending embassies to and fro to gain allies. Nikias also sent home to Athens, asking for horsemen and money, and the people, without a word of rebuke, voted him all that he asked. … But the most important embassy of all was that which the Syracusans sent to Corinth and Sparta. Corinth zealously took up the cause of her colony and pleaded for Syracuse at Sparta. And at Sparta Corinth and Syracuse found a helper in the banished Athenian Alkibiadês, who was now doing all that he could against Athens. … He told the Spartans to occupy a fortress in Attica, which they soon afterwards did, and a great deal came of it. But he also told them to give vigorous help to Syracuse, and above all things to send a Spartan commander. The mere name of Sparta went for a great deal in those days; but no man could have been better chosen than the Spartan who was sent. He was Gylippos, the deliverer of Syracuse. He was more like an Athenian than a Spartan, quick and ready of resource, which few Spartans were. … And now at last, when the spring came (414) Nikias was driven to do something. … The Athenians … occupied all that part of the hill which lay outside the walls of Syracuse. They were joined by their horsemen, Greek and Sikel, and after nearly a year, the siege of Syracuse really began. The object of the Athenians now was to build a wall across the hill and to carry it down to the sea on both sides. Syracuse would thus be hemmed in. The object of the Syracusans was to build a cross-wall of their own, which should hinder the Athenian wall from reaching the two points it aimed at; This they tried more than once; but in vain. There were several fights on the hill, and at last there was a fight of more importance on the lower ground by the Great Harbour. … The Syracusans were defeated, as far as fighting went; but they gained far more than they lost. For Lamachos was killed, and with him all vigour passed away from the Athenian camp. At the same moment the Athenian fleet sailed into the Great Harbour, and a Syracusan attack on the Athenian works on the hill was defeated. Nikias remained in command of the invaders; but he was grievously sick, and for once in his life his head seems to have been turned by success. He finished the wall on the south side; but he neglected to finish it on the north side also, so that Syracuse was not really hemmed in. But the hearts of the Syracusans sank. … It was at this darkest moment of all that deliverance came. … A Corinthian ship, under its captain Gongylos, sailed into the Little Harbour. He brought the news that other ships were on their way from Peloponnesos to the help of Syracuse, and, yet more, that a Spartan general was actually in Sicily, getting together a land force for the same end. As soon as the good news was heard, there was no more talk of surrender. … And one day the Athenian camp was startled by the appearance of a Lacedæmonian herald, offering them a truce of five days, that they might get them out of Sicily with bag and baggage. {176} Gylippos was now on the hill. He of course did not expect that the Athenian army would really go away in five days. But it was a great thing to show both to the besiegers and to the Syracusans that the deliverer had come, and that deliverance was beginning. Nikias had kept such bad watch that Gylippos and his troops had come up the hill and the Syracusans had come out and met them, without his knowledge. The Spartan, as a matter of course, took the command of the whole force; he offered battle to the Athenians, which they refused; he then entered the city. The very next day he began to carry out his scheme. This was to build a group of forts near the western end of the hill, and to join them to the city by a wall running east and west, which would hinder the Athenians from ever finishing their wall to the north. Each side went on building, and some small actions took place. … Another winter (B. C. 414-413) now came on, and with it much sending of envoys. Gylippos went about Sicily collecting fresh troops. … Meanwhile Nikias wrote a letter to the Athenian people. … This letter came at a time when the Lacedæmonian alliance had determined to renew the war with Athens, and when they were making everything ready for an invasion of Attica. To send out a new force to Sicily was simple madness. We hear nothing of the debates in the Athenian assembly, whether anyone argued against going on with the Sicilian war, and whether any demagogue laid any blame on Nikias. But the assembly voted that a new force equal to the first should be sent out under Dêmosthenês, the best soldier in Athens, and Eurymedon. … Meanwhile the Syracusans were strengthened by help both in Sicily and from Peloponnesos. Their main object now was to strike a blow at the fleet of Nikias before the new force came. … It had been just when the Syracusans were most downcast that they were cheered by the coming of the Corinthians and of Gylippos. And just now that their spirits were highest, they were dashed again by the coming of Dêmosthenês and Eurymedon. A fleet as great as the first, seventy-five ships, carrying 5,000 heavy-armed and a crowd of light troops of every kind, sailed into the Great Harbour with all warlike pomp. The Peloponnesians were already in Attica; they had planted a Peloponnesian garrison there, which brought Athens to great straits; but the fleet was sent out to Syracuse all the same. Dêmosthenês knew what to do as well as Lamachos had known. He saw that there was nothing to be done but to try one great blow, and, if that failed, to take the fleet home again. … The attack was at first successful, and the Athenians took two of the Syracusan forts. But the Thespian allies of Syracuse stood their ground, and drove the assailants back. Utter confusion followed. … The last chance was now lost, and Dêmosthenês was eager to go home. But Nikias would stay on. … When sickness grew in the camp, when fresh help from Sicily and the great body of the allies from Peloponnesos came into Syracuse, he at last agreed to go. Just at that moment the moon was eclipsed. … Nikias consulted his soothsayers, and he gave out that they must stay twenty-nine days, another full revolution of the moon. This resolve was the destruction of the besieging army. … It was felt on both sides that all would turn on one more fight by sea, the Athenians striving to get out of the harbour, and the Syracusans striving to keep them in it. The Syracusans now blocked up the mouth of the harbour by mooring vessels across it. The Athenians left their position on the hill, a sign that the siege was over, and brought their whole force down to the shore. It was no time now for any skillful manoeuvres; the chief thing was to make the sea-fight as much as might be like a land-fight, a strange need for Athenians. … The last fight now began, 110 Athenian ships against 80 of the Syracusans and their allies. Never before did so many ships meet in so small a space. … The fight was long and confused; at last the Athenians gave way and fled to the shore. The battle and the invasion were over. Syracuse was not only saved; she had begun to take vengeance on her enemies. … The Athenians waited one day, and then set out, hoping to make their way to some safe place among the friendly Sikels in the inland country. The sick had to be left behind. … On the sixth day, after frightful toil, they determined to change their course. … They set out in two divisions, that of Nikias going first. Much better order was kept in the front division and by the time Nikias reached the river, Dêmosthenês was six miles behind. … In the morning a Syracusan force came up with the frightful news that the whole division of Dêmosthenês were prisoners. … The Athenians tried in vain to escape in the night. The next morning they set out, harassed as before, and driven wild by intolerable thirst. They at last reached the river Assinaros, which runs by the present town of Noto. There was the end. … The Athenians were so maddened by thirst that, though men were falling under darts and the water was getting muddy and bloody, they thought of nothing but drinking. … No further terms were made; most of the horsemen contrived to cut their way out; the rest were made prisoners. Most of them were embezzled by Syracusans as their private slaves; but about 7,000 men out of the two divisions were led prisoners into Syracuse. They were shut up in the stone-quarries, with no further heed than to give each man daily half a slave's allowance of food and drink. Many died; many were sold; some escaped, or were set free; the rest were after a while taken out of the quarries and set to work. The generals had made no terms for themselves. Hermokratês wished to keep them as hostages against future Athenian attempts against Sicily. Gylippos wished to take them in triumph to Sparta. The Corinthians were for putting them to death; and so it was done. … So ended the Athenian invasion of Sicily, the greatest attempt ever made by Greeks against Greeks, and that which came to the most utter failure."

ATHENS: B. C. 413-412.
   Consequences of the Sicilian Expedition.
   Spartan alliance with the Persians.
   Plotting of Alcibiades.
   The Decelian War.

"At Athens, where, even before this, everyone had been in the most anxious suspense, the news of the loss of the expedition produced a consternation, which was certainly greater than that at Rome after the battle of Cannae, or that in our own days, after the battle of Jena. … 'At least 40,000 citizens, allies and slaves, had perished; and among them there may easily have been 10,000 Athenian citizens, most of whom belonged to the wealthier and higher classes. The flower of the Athenian people was destroyed, as at the time of the plague. It is impossible to say what amount of public property may have been lost; the whole fleet was gone.' The consequences of the disaster soon shewed themselves. It was to be foreseen that Chios, which had long been wavering, and whose disposition could not be trusted, would avail itself of this moment to revolt; and the cities in Asia, from which Athens derived her large revenues, were expected to do the same. It was, in fact, to be foreseen, that the four islands of Lesbos, Chios, Samos, and Rhodes, would instantly revolt. The Spartans were established at Decelea, in Attica itself, and thence ravaged the country far and wide: so that it was impossible to venture to go to the coast without a strong escort. Although there were many districts in which no Spartan was seen from one year's end to the other, yet there was no safety anywhere, except in fortified places, 'and the Athenians were constantly obliged to guard the walls of their city; and this state of things had already been going on for the last twelve months.' In this fearful situation, the Athenian people showed the same firmness as the Romans after the battle of Cannae. Had they but had one great man among them, to whom the state could have been entrusted, even more might perhaps have been done; but it is astonishing that, although there was no such man, and although the leading men were only second or third-rate persons, yet so many useful arrangements were made to meet the necessities of the case. … The most unfortunate circumstance for the Athenians was, that Alcibiades, now an enemy of his country, was living among the Spartans; for he introduced into the undertakings of the Spartans the very element which before they had been altogether deficient in, namely energy and elasticity: he urged them on to undertakings, and induced them now to send a fleet to Ionia. … Erythrae, Teos, and Miletus, one after another, revolted to the Peloponnesians, who now concluded treaties with Tissaphernes in the name of the king of Persia—Darius was then king—and in his own name as satrap; and in this manner they sacrificed to him the Asiatic Greeks. … The Athenians were an object of antipathy and implacable hatred to the Persians; they had never doubted that the Athenians were their real opponents in Greece, and were afraid of them; but they did not fear the Spartans. They knew that the Athenians would take from them not only the islands, but the towns on the main land, and were in great fear of their maritime power. Hence they joined the Spartans; and the latter were not ashamed of negotiating a treaty of subsidies with the Persians, in which Tissaphernes, in the king's name, promised the assistance of the Phoenician fleet; and large subsidies, as pay for the army. … In return for this, they renounced, in the name of the Greeks, all claims to independence for the Greek cities in Asia."

ATHENS: B. C. 413-412.
Revolt of Chios, Miletus, Lesbos and Rhodes from Athens.
Revolution of Samos.

ATHENS: B. C. 413-411.-
   The Probuli.
   Intrigues of Alcibiades.
   Conspiracy against the Constitution.
   The Four Hundred and the Five Thousand.

Immediately after the dreadful calamity at Syracuse became known, "extraordinary measures were adopted by the people; a number of citizens of advanced age were formed into a deliberative and executive body under the name of Probuli, and empowered to fit out a fleet. Whether this laid the foundation for oligarchical machinations or not, those aged men were unable to bring back men's minds to their former course; the prosecution of the Hermocopidæ had been most mischievous in its results; various secret associations had sprung up and conspired to reap advantage to themselves from the distress and embarrassment of the state; the indignation caused by the infuriated excesses of the people during that trial, possibly here, as frequently happened in other Grecian states, determined the more respectable members of the community to guard against the recurrence of similar scenes in future, by the establishment of an aristocracy. Lastly, the watchful malice of Alcibiades, who was the implacable enemy of that populace, to whose blind fury he had been sacrificed, baffled all attempts to restore confidence and tranquillity, and there is no doubt that, whilst he kept up a correspondence with his partisans at home, he did everything in his power to increase the perplexity and distress of his native city from without, in order that he might be recalled to provide for its safety and defence. A favourable opportunity for the execution of his plans presented itself in the fifth year of his exile, Ol. 92. 1; 411. B. C.; as he had incurred the suspicion of the Spartans, and stood high in the favour of Tissaphernes, the Athenians thought that his intercession might enable them to obtain assistance from the Persian king. The people in Athens were headed by one of his most inveterate enemies, Androcles; and he well knew that all attempts to effect his return would be fruitless, until this man and the other demagogues were removed. Hence Alcibiades entered into negotiations with the commanders of the Athenian fleet at Samos, respecting the establishment of an oligarchical constitution, not from any attachment to that form of government in itself, but solely with the view of promoting his own ends. Phrynichus and Pisander were equally insincere in their co-operation with Alcibiades. … Their plan was that the latter should reconcile the people to the change in the constitution which he wished to effect, by promising to obtain them the assistance of the great king; but they alone resolved to reap the benefit of his exertions. Pisander took upon himself to manage the Athenian populace. It was in truth no slight undertaking to attempt to overthrow a democracy of a hundred and twenty years' standing, and of intense development; but most of the able bodied citizens were absent with the fleet, whilst such as were still in the city were confounded by the imminence of the danger from without; on the other hand, the prospect of succour from the Persian king doubtless had some weight with them, and they possibly felt some symptoms of returning affection for their former favourite Alcibiades. Nevertheless, Pisander and his accomplices employed craft and perfidy to accomplish their designs; the people were not persuaded or convinced, but entrapped into compliance with their measures. Pisander gained over to his purpose the above named clubs, and induced the people to send him with ten plenipotentiaries to the navy at Samos. In the mean time the rest of the conspirators prosecuted the work of remodelling the constitution."

The people, or an assembly cleverly made up and manipulated to represent the people, were induced to vote all the powers of government into the hands of a council of Four Hundred, of which council the citizens appointed only five members. Those five chose ninety-five more, to make one hundred, and each of that hundred then chose three colleagues. The conspirators thus easily made up the Four Hundred to their liking, from their own ranks. This council was to convene an assembly of Five Thousand citizens, whenever it saw fit to do so. But when news of this constitutional change reached the army at Samos, where the Athenian headquarters for the Ionian war were fixed, the citizen soldiers refused to submit to it—repudiated it altogether—and organized themselves as an independent state. The ruling spirit among them was Thrasybulus, and his influence brought about a reconciliation with Alcibiades, then an exile sheltered at the Persian court. Alcibiades was recalled by the army and placed at its head. Presently a reaction at Athens ensued, after the oligarchical party had given signs of treasonable communication with Sparta, and in June the people assembled in the Pnyx and reasserted their sovereignty. "The Council was deposed, and the supreme sovereignty of the state restored to the people—not, however, to the entire multitude; for the principle was retained of reserving full civic rights to a committee of men of a certain amount of property; and, as the lists of the Five Thousand had never been drawn up, it was decreed, in order that the desired end might be speedily reached, to follow the precedent of similar institutions in other states and to constitute all Athenians able to furnish themselves with a complete military equipment from their own resources, full citizens, with the rights of voting and participating in the government. Thus the name of the Five Thousand had now become a very inaccurate designation; but it was retained, because men had in the last few months become habituated to it. At the same time, the abolition of pay for civic offices and functions was decreed, not merely as a temporary measure, but as a fundamental principle of the new commonwealth, which the citizens were bound by a solemn oath to maintain. This reform was, upon the whole, a wise combination of aristocracy and democracy; and, according to the opinion of Thucydides, the best constitution which the Athenians had hitherto possessed. On the motion of Critias, the recall, of Alcibiades was decreed about the same time; and a deputation was despatched to Samos, to accomplish the union between army and city."

Most of the leaders of the Four Hundred fled to the Spartan camp at Decelia. Two were taken, tried and executed.

ATHENS: B. C. 411-407.
   Victories at Cynossema and Abydos.
   Exploits of Alcibiades.
   His triumphal return.
   His appointment to command.
   His second deposition and exile.

ATHENS: B. C. 406.
The Peloponnesian War: Battle and victory of Arginusae.
Condemnation and execution of the Generals.

After the battle of Ægospotami (August, B. C. 405), which destroyed their navy, and cut off nearly all supplies to the city by sea, as the Spartans at Decelea had long cut off supplies upon the land side, the Athenians had no hope. They waited in terror and despair for their enemies to close in upon them. The latter were in no haste, for they were sure of their prey. Lysander, the victor at Ægospotami, came leisurely from the Hellespont, receiving on his way the surrender of the cities subject or allied to Athens, and placing Spartan harmosts and garrisons in them, with the local oligarchs established uniformly in power. About November he reached the Saronic gulf and blockaded the Athenian harbor of Piræus, while an overwhelming Peloponnesian land force, under the Lacedæmonian king Pausanias, arrived simultaneously in Attica and encamped at the gates of the city. The Athenians had no longer any power except the power to endure, and that they exercised for more than three months, mainly resisting the demand that their Long Walls—the walls which protected the connection of the city with its harbors—should be thrown down. But when famine had thinned the ranks of the citizens and broken the spirit of the survivors, they gave up. "There was still a high-spirited minority who entered their protest and preferred death by famine to such insupportable disgrace. The large majority, however, accepted them [the terms] and the acceptance was made known to Lysander. It was on the 16th day of the Attic month Munychion,—about the middle or end of March,—that this victorious commander sailed into the Peiræus, twenty-seven years, almost exactly, after the surprise of Platæa by the Thebans, which opened the Peloponnesian War. Along with him came the Athenian exiles, several of whom appear to have been serving with his army and assisting him with their counsel."

The Long Walls and the fortifications of Piræus were demolished, and then followed the organization of an oligarchical government at Athens, resulting in the reign of terror under "The Thirty."

In the summer of B. C. 404, following the siege and surrender of Athens, and the humiliating close of the long Peloponnesian War, the returned leaders of the oligarchical party, who had been in exile, succeeded with the help of their Spartan friends, in overthrowing the democratic constitution of the city and establishing themselves in power. The revolution was accomplished at a public assembly of citizens, in the presence of Lysander, the victorious Lacedæmonian admiral, whose fleet in the Piraeus lay ready to support his demands. "In this assembly, Dracontidas, a scoundrel upon whom repeated sentences had been passed, brought forward a motion, proposing the transfer of the government into the hands of Thirty persons; and Theramenes supported this proposal which he declared to express the wishes of Sparta. Even now, these speeches produced a storm of indignation; after all the acts of violence which Athens had undergone, she yet contained men outspoken enough to venture to defend the constitution, and to appeal to the fact that the capitulation sanctioned by both parties contained no provision as to the internal affairs of Athens. But, hereupon, Lysander himself came forward and spoke to the citizens without reserve, like one who was their absolute master. … By such means the motion of Dracontidas was passed; but only a small number of unpatriotic and cowardly citizens raised their hands in token of assent. All better patriots contrived to avoid participation in this vote. Next, ten members of the government were chosen by Critias and his colleagues [the Critias of Plato's Dialogues, pupil of Socrates, and now the violent and blood-thirsty leader of the anti-democratic revolution], ten by Theramenes, the confidential friend of Lysander, and finally ten out of the assembled multitude, probably by a free vote; and this board of Thirty was hereupon established as the supreme government authority by a resolution of the assembly present. Most of the members of the new government had formerly been among the Four Hundred, and had therefore long pursued a common course of action." The Thirty Tyrants so placed in power were masters of Athens for eight months, and executed their will without conscience or mercy, having a garrison of Spartan soldiers in the Acropolis to support them. They were also sustained by a picked body of citizens, "the Three Thousand," who bore arms while other citizens were stripped of every weapon. Large numbers of the more patriotic and high-spirited Athenians had escaped from their unfortunate city and had taken refuge, chiefly at Thebes, the old enemy of Athens, but now sympathetic in her distress. At Thebes these exiles organized themselves under Thrasybulus and Anytus, and determined to expel the tyrants and to recover their homes. They first seized a strong post at Phyle, in Attica, where they gained in numbers rapidly, and from which point they were able in a few weeks to advance and occupy the Piræus. When the troops of The Thirty came out to attack them, they drew back to the adjacent height of Munychia and there fought a battle which delivered their city from the Tyrants. Critias, the master-spirit of the usurpation, was slain; the more violent of his colleagues took refuge at Eleusis, and Athens, for a time, remained under the government of a new oligarchical Board of Ten; while Thrasybulus and the democratic liberators maintained their headquarters at Munychia. All parties waited the action of Sparta. Lysander, the Spartan general, marched an army into Attica to restore the tyranny which was of his own creating; but one of the two Spartan kings, Pausanias, intervened, assumed the command in his own person, and applied his efforts to the arranging of peace between the Athenian parties. The result was a restoration of the democratic constitution of the Attic state, with some important reforms. Several of The Thirty were put to death,—treacherously, it was said,—but an amnesty was extended to all their partisans. The year in which they and The Ten controlled affairs was termed in the official annals of the city the Year of Anarchy, and its magistrates were not recognized.

ATHENS: B. C. 395-387.
   Confederacy against Sparta.
   Alliance with Persia.
   The Corinthian War.
   Conon's rebuilding of the Long Walls.
   Athenian independence restored.
   The Peace of Antalcidas.

Upon the Liberation of Thebes and the signs that began to appear of the decline of Spartan power—during the year of the archonship of Nausinicus, B. C. 378-7, which was made memorable at Athens by various movements of political regeneration,—the organization of a new Confederacy was undertaken, analogous to the Confederacy of Delos, formed a century before. Athens was to be, "not the ruling capital, but only the directing city in possession of the primacy, the seat of the federal council. … Callistratus was in a sense the Aristides of the new confederation and doubtless did much to bring about an agreement; it was likewise his work that, in place of the 'tributes' of odious memory, the payments necessary to the existence of the confederation were introduced under the gentler name of 'contributions.' … Amicable relations were resumed with the Cyclades, Rhodes and Perinthus; in other words, the ancient union of navies was at once renewed upon a large scale and in a wide extent. Even such states joined it as had hitherto never stood in confederate relations with Athens, above all Thebes."

This second confederacy renewed much of the prosperity and influence of Athens for a brief period of about twenty years. But in 357 B. C., four important members of the Confederacy, namely, Chios, Cos, Rhodes, and Byzantium leagued themselves in revolt, with the aid of Mausolus, prince of Caria, and an inglorious war ensued, known as the Social War, which lasted three years. Athens was forced at last to assent to the secession of the four revolted cities and to recognize their independence, which greatly impaired her prestige and power, just at the time when she was called upon to resist the encroachments of Philip of Macedonia.

ATHENS: B. C. 359-338.
The collision with Philip of Macedon.
The Policy of Demosthenes and Policy of Phocion.

"A new period opens with the growth of the Macedonian power under Philip (359-336 B. C.) We are here chiefly concerned to notice the effect on the City-State [of Athens], not only of the strength and policy of this new power, but also of the efforts of the Greeks themselves to counteract it. At the time of Philip's accession the so-called Theban supremacy had just practically ended with the death of Epaminondias. There was now a kind of balance of power between the three leading States, Sparta, Athens, and Thebes, no one of which was greatly stronger than the others; and such a balance could easily be worked upon by any great power from without. Thus when Macedon came into the range of Greek politics, under a man of great diplomatic as well as military capacity, who, like a Czar of to-day, wished to secure a firm footing on the sea-board of the Ægean [see GREECE: B. C. 359-358], she found her work comparatively easy. The strong imperial policy of Philip found no real antagonist except at Athens. Weak as she was, and straitened by the break-up of her new confederacy, Athens could still produce men of great talent and energy; but she was hampered by divided counsels. Two Athenians of this period seem to represent the currents of Greek political thought, now running in two different directions. Demosthenes represents the cause of the City-State in this age, of a union, that is, of perfectly free Hellenic cities against the common enemy. Phocion represents the feeling, which seems to have been long growing up among thinking men at Athens, that the City-State was no longer what it had been, and could no longer stand by itself; that what was needed was a general Hellenic peace, and possibly even an arbiter from without, an arbiter not wholly un-Hellenic like the Persian, yet one who might succeed in stilling the fatal jealousies of the leading States. … The efforts of Demosthenes to check Philip fall into two periods divided by the peace of Philocrates in 346 B. C. In the first of these he is acting chiefly with Athens alone; Philip is to him not so much the common enemy of Greece as the dangerous rival of Athens in the north. His whole mind was given to the internal reform of Athens so as to strengthen her against Philip. In her relation to other Greek States he perhaps hardly saw beyond a balance of power. … After 346 his Athenian feeling seems to become more distinctly Hellenic. But what could even such a man as Demosthenes do with the Hellas of that day? He could not force on the Greeks a real and permanent union; he could but urge new alliances. His strength was spent in embassies with this object, embassies too often futile. No alliance could save Greece from the Macedonian power, as subsequent events plainly showed. What was needed was a real federal union between the leading States, with a strong central controlling force; and Demosthenes' policy was hopeless just because Athens could never be the centre of such a union, nor could any other city. Demosthenes is thus the last, and in some respects the most heroic champion of the old Greek instinct for autonomy. He is the true child of the City-State, but the child of its old age and decrepitude. He still believes in Athens, and it is on Athens that all his hopes are based. He looks on Philip as one who must inevitably be the foe alike of Athens and of Greece. He seems to think that he can be beaten off as Xerxes was, and to forget that even Xerxes almost triumphed over the divisions of the Greek States, and that Philip is a nearer, a more prominent, and a far less barbarian foe. … Phocion was the somewhat odd exponent of the practical side of a school of thought which had been gaining strength in Greece for some time past. This school was now brought into prominence by the rise of Macedon, and came to have a marked influence on the history of the City-State. It began with the philosophers, and with the idea that the philosopher may belong to the world as well as to a particular city. … Athens was far more open to criticism now than in the days of Pericles; and a cynical dislike betrays itself in the Republic for the politicians of the day and their tricks, and a longing for a strong government of reason. … Aristotle took the facts of city life as they were and showed how they might be made the most of. … To him Macedon was assuredly not wholly barbarian; and war to the death with her kings could not have been to him as natural or desirable as it seemed to Demosthenes. And though he has nothing to tell us of Macedon, we can hardly avoid the conclusion that his desire was for peace and internal reform, even if it were under the guarantee of the northern power. … Of this philosophical view of Greek politics Phocion was in a manner the political exponent. But his policy was too much a negative one; it might almost be called one of indifferentism, like the feeling of Lessing and Goethe in Germany's most momentous period. So far as we know, Phocion never proposed an alliance of a durable kind, either Athenian or Hellenic, with Macedon; he was content to be a purely restraining influence. Athens had been constantly at war since 432; her own resources were of the weakest; there was little military skill to be found in her, no reserve force, much talk, but little solid courage. Athens was vulnerable at various points, and could not possibly defend more than one at a time, therefore Phocion despaired of war, and the event proved him right. The faithfulness of the Athenians towards him is a proof that they also instinctively felt that he was right. But he was wanting on the practical and creative side, and never really dominated either Athens, Greece, or Philip. … A policy of resistance found the City-State too weak to defend itself; a policy of inaction would land it in a Macedonian empire which would still further weaken its remaining vitality. The first policy, that of Demosthenes, did actually result in disaster and the presence of Macedonian garrisons in Greek cities. The second policy then took its place, and initiated a new era for Greece. After the fatal battle of Chæronea (338 B. C.) Philip assumed the position of leader of the Greek cities."

ATHENS: B. C. 336-322.
   End of the Struggle with the Macedonians.
   Fall of Democracy.
   Death of Demosthenes.
   Athenian decline.

"An unexpected incident changes the whole aspect of things. Philip falls the victim of assassination; and a youth, who as yet is but little known, is his successor. Immediately Demosthenes institutes a second alliance of the Greeks; but Alexander suddenly appears before Thebes; the terrible vengeance which he here takes, instantly destroys the league; Demosthenes, Lycurgus, and several of their supporters, are required to be delivered up: but Demades is at that time able to settle the difficulty and to appease the king. His strength was therefore enfeebled as Alexander departed for Asia; he begins to raise his head once more when Sparta attempts to throw off the yoke: but under Antipater he is overpowered. Yet it was about this very time that by the most celebrated of his discourses he gained the victory over the most eloquent of his adversaries; and Æschines was forced to depart from Athens. But this seems only to have the more embittered his enemies, the leaders of the Macedonian party; and they soon found an opportunity of preparing his downfall. When Harpalus, a fugitive from the army of Alexander, came with his treasures to Athens, and the question arose, whether he could be permitted to remain there, Demosthenes was accused of having been corrupted by his money, at least to be silent. This was sufficient to procure the imposition of a fine; and as this was not paid, he was thrown into prison. From thence he succeeded in escaping; but to the man who lived only for his country, exile was no less an evil than imprisonment. He resided for the most part in Ægina and at Trœzen, from whence he looked with moist eyes toward the neighbouring Attica. Suddenly and unexpectedly a new ray of light broke through the clouds. Tidings were brought, that Alexander was dead. The moment of deliverance seemed at hand; the excitement pervaded every Grecian state; the ambassadors of the Athenians passed through the cities; Demosthenes joined himself to the number and exerted all his eloquence and power to unite them against Macedonia. In requital for such services, the people decreed his return; and years of sufferings were at last followed by a day of exalted compensation. A galley was sent to Ægina to bring back the advocate of liberty. … It was a momentary glimpse of the sun, which still darker clouds were soon to conceal. Antipater and Craterus were victorious; and with them the Macedonian party in Athens: Demosthenes and his friends were numbered among the accused, and at the instigation of Demades were condemned to die. … Demosthenes had escaped to the island Calauria in the vicinity of Trœzen; and took refuge in the temple of Neptune. It was to no purpose that Archias, the satellite of Antipater, urged him to surrender himself under promise of pardon. He pretended he wished to write something; bit the quill, and swallowed the poison contained in it."

A. H. L. Heeren, Reflections on the Politics of Ancient Greece, translated by G. Bancroft, pages 278-280.

      See, also, on the "Lamian War," the suppression of
      Democracy at Athens, and the expulsion of poor citizens,
      GREECE: B. C. 323-322.

"With the decline of political independence, … the mental powers of the nation received a fatal blow. No longer knit together by a powerful esprit de corps, the Greeks lost the habit of working for the common weal; and, for the most part, gave themselves up to the petty interests of home life and their own personal troubles. Even the better disposed were too much occupied in opposing the low tone and corruption of the times, to be able to devote themselves, in their moments of relaxation, to a free and speculative consideration of things. What could be expected in such an age, but that philosophy would take a decidedly practical turn, if indeed it were studied at all? And yet such were the political antecedents of the Stoic and Epicurean systems of philosophy. … Stoic apathy, Epicurean self-satisfaction, and Sceptic imperturbability, were the doctrines which responded to the political helplessness of the age. They were the doctrines, too, which met with the most general acceptance. The same political helplessness produced the sinking of national distinctions in the feeling of a common humanity, and the separation of morals from politics which characterise the philosophy of the Alexandrian and Roman period. The barriers between nations, together with national independence, had been swept away. East and West, Greeks and barbarians, were united in large empires, being thus thrown together, and brought into close contact on every possible point. Philosophy might teach that all men were of one blood, that all were equally citizens of one empire, that morality rested on the relation of man to his fellow men, independently of nationalities and of social ranks; but in so doing she was only explicitly stating truths which had been already realised in part, and which were in part corollaries from the existing state of society."

"What we have said concerning the evidence of comedy about the age of the first Diadochi amounts to this: Menander and his successors—they lasted barely two generations—printed in a few stereotypes a small and very worthless society at Athens. There was no doubt a similar set of people at Corinth, at Thebes, possibly even in the city of Lycurgus. These people, idle, for the most part rich, and in good society, spent their earlier years in debauchery, and their later in sentimental reflections and regrets. They had no serious object in life, and regarded the complications of a love affair as more interesting than the rise and fall of kingdoms or the gain and loss of a nation's liberty. They were like the people of our day who spend all their time reading novels from the libraries, and who can tolerate these eternal variations in twaddle not only without disgust but with interest. They were surrounded with slaves, on the whole more intelligent and interesting, for in the first place slaves were bound to exercise their brains, and in the second they had a great object—liberty—to give them a keen pursuit in life. The relations of the sexes in this set or portion of society were bad, owing to the want of education in the women, and the want of earnestness in the men. As a natural consequence a class was found, apart from household slaves, who took advantage of these defects, and, bringing culture to fascinate unprincipled men, established those relations which brought estragements, if not ruin, into the home life of the day."

"The amount of Persian wealth poured into Greece by the accidents of the conquest, not by its own industries, must have produced a revolution in prices not since equalled except by the influx of the gold of the Aztecs and Incas into Spain. I have already pointed out how this change must have pressed upon poor people in Greece who did not share in the plunder. The price of even necessary and simple things must have often risen beyond their means. For the adventurers brought home large fortunes, and the traders and purveyors of the armies made them; and with these Eastern fortunes must have come in the taste for all the superior comforts and luxuries which they found among the Persian grandees. Not only the appointments of the table, in the way of plate and pottery, but the very tastes and flavours of Greek cookery must have profited by comparison with the knowledge of the East. So also the furniture, especially in carpets and hangings, must have copied Persian fashion, just as we still affect oriental stuffs and designs. It was not to be expected that the example of so many regal courts and so much royal ceremony should not affect those in contact with them. These influences were not only shown in the vulgar 'braggart captain,' who came to show off his sudden wealth in impudent extravagance among his old townspeople, but in the ordinary life of rich young men. So I imagine the personal appointments of Alcibiades, which were the talk of Greece in his day, would have appeared poor and mean beside those of Aratus, or of the generation which preceded him. Pictures and statues began to adorn private houses, and not temples and public buildings only—a change beginning to show itself in Demosthenes's day, but coming in like a torrent with the opening of Greece to the Eastern world. It was noticed that Phocion's house at Athens was modest in size and furniture, but even this was relieved from shabbiness by the quaint wall decoration of shining plates of bronze—a fashion dating from prehistoric times, but still admired for its very antiquity."

"The modern historians of Greece are much divided on the question where a history of Hellas ought to end. Curtius stops with the battle of Chaeroncia and the prostration of Athens before the advancing power of Macedon. Grote narrates the campaigns of Alexander, but stops short at the conclusion of the Lamian War, when Greece had in vain tried to shake off the supremacy of his generals. Thirlwall brings his narrative down to the time of Mummius, the melancholy sack of Corinth and the constitution of Achaia as a Roman province. Of these divergent views we regard that of the German historian as the most correct. … The historic sense of Grote did not exclude prejudices, and in this case he was probably led astray by political bias. At the close of his ninety-sixth chapter, after mentioning the embassies sent by the degenerate Athenians to King Ptolemy, King Lysimachus, and Antipater, he throws down his pen in disgust, 'and with sadness and humiliation brings his narrative to a close.' Athens was no longer free and no longer dignified, and so Mr. Grote will have done with Greece at the very moment when the new Comedy was at its height, when the Museum was founded at Alexandria, when the plays of Euripides were acted at Babylon and Cabul, and every Greek soldier of fortune carried a diadem in his baggage. Surely the historian of Greece ought either to have stopped when the iron hand of Philip of Macedon put an end to the liberties and the political wranglings of Hellas, or else persevered to the time when Rome and Parthia crushed Greek power between them, like a ship between two icebergs. No doubt his reply would be, that he declined to regard the triumph abroad of Macedonian arms as a continuation of the history of Hellas. … The truth is, that the history of Greece consists of two parts, in every respect contrasted one with the other. The first recounts the stories of the Persian and Peloponnesian wars, and ends with the destruction of Thebes and the subjugation of Athens and Sparta. The Hellas of which it speaks is a cluster of autonomous cities in the Peloponnesus, the Islands, and Northern Greece, together with their colonies scattered over the coasts of Italy, Sicily, Thrace, the Black Sea, Asia Minor, and Africa. These cities care only to be independent, or at most to lord it over one another. Their political institutions, their religious ceremonies, their customs, are civic and local. Language, commerce, a common Pantheon, and a common art and poetry are the ties that bind them together. In its second phase, Greek history begins with the expedition of Alexander. It reveals to us the Greek as everywhere lord of the barbarian, as foundling kingdoms and federal systems, as the instructor of all mankind in art and science, and the spreader of civil and civilized life over the known world. In the first period of her history Greece is forming herself, in her second she is educating the world. We will venture to borrow from the Germans a convenient expression, and call the history of independent Greece the history of Hellas, that of imperial Greece the history of Hellenism. … The Athens of Pericles was dictator among the cities which had joined her alliance. Corinth, Sparta, Thebes, were each the political head of a group of towns, but none of the three admitted these latter to an equal share in their councils, or adopted their political views. Even in the Olynthian League, the city of Olynthus occupied a position quite superior to that of the other cities. But the Greek cities had not tried the experiment of an alliance on equal terms. This was now attempted by some of the leading cities of the Peloponnese, and the result was the Achaean League, whose history sheds a lustre on the last days of independent Greece, and whose generals will bear comparison with the statesmen of any Greek Republic [sec GREECE: B. C. 280-146]. … On the field of Sellasia the glorious hopes of Cleomenes were wrecked, and the recently reformed Sparta was handed over to a succession of bloodthirsty tyrants, never again to emerge from obscurity. But to the Achaeans themselves the interference of Macedon was little less fatal. Henceforth a Macedonian garrison occupied Corinth, which had been one of the chief cities of the League; and King Antigonus Doson was the recognized arbiter in all disputes of the Peloponnesian Greeks. … In Northern Greece a strange contrast presented itself. The historic races of the Athenians and Boeotians languished in peace, obscurity, and luxury. With them every day saw something added to the enjoyments and elegancies of life, and every day politics drifted more and more into the background. On the other hand, the rude semi-Greeks of the West, Aetolians, Acarnanians, and Epirotes, to whose manhood the repulse of the Gauls was mainly due, came to the front and showed the bold spirit of Greeks divorced from the finer faculties of the race. The Acarnanians formed a league somewhat on the plan of the Achaean. {183} But they were overshadowed by their neighbors the Aetolians, whose union was of a different character. It was the first time that there had been formed in Hellas a state framed in order to prey upon its neighbours. … In the course of the Peloponnesian War Greek religion began to lose its hold on the Greeks. This was partly the work of the sophists and philosophers, who sought more lofty and moral views of Deity than were furnished by the tales of popular mythology. Still more it resulted from growing materialism among the people, who saw more and more of their immediate and physical needs, and less and less of the underlying spiritual elements in life. But though philosophy and materialism had made the religion of Hellas paler and feebler, they had not altered its nature or expanded it. It still remained essentially national, almost tribal. When, therefore, Greeks and Macedonians suddenly found themselves masters of the nations of the East, and in close contact with a hundred forms of religion, an extraordinary and rapid change took place in their religions ideas. In religion, as in other matters, Egypt set to the world the example of prompt fusion of the ideas of Greeks and natives. … Into Greece proper, in return for her population which flowed out, there flowed in a crowd of foreign deities. Isis was especially welcomed at Athens, where she found many votaries. In every cult the more mysterious elements were made more of, and the brighter and more materialistic side passed by. Old statues which had fallen somewhat into contempt in the days of Pheidias and Praxiteles were restored to their places and received extreme veneration, not as beautiful, but as old and strange. On the coins of the previous period the representations of deities had been always the best that the die-cutter could frame, taking as his models the finest contemporary sculpture; but henceforth we often find them strange, uncouth figures, remnants of a period of struggling early art, like the Apollo at Amyclae, or the Hera of Samos. … In the intellectual life of Athens there was still left vitality enough to formulate the two most complete expressions of the ethical ideas of the times, the doctrines of the Stoics and the Epicureans, towards one or the other of which all educated minds from that day to this have been drawn. No doubt our knowledge of these doctrines, being largely drawn from the Latin writers and their Greek contemporaries, is somewhat coloured and unjust. With the Romans a system of philosophy was considered mainly in its bearing upon conduct, whence the ethical elements in Stoicism and Epicureanism have been by their Roman adherents so thrust into the foreground, that we have almost lost sight of the intellectual elements, which can have had little less importance in the eyes of the Greeks. Notwithstanding, the rise of the two philosophies must be held to mark a new era in the history of thought, an era when the importance of conduct was for the first time recognized by the Greeks. It is often observed that the ancient Greeks were more modern than our own ancestors of the Middle Ages. But it is less generally recognized how far more modern than the Greeks of Pericles were the Greeks of Aratus. In very many respects the age of Hellenism and our own age present remarkable similarity. In both there appears a sudden increase in the power over material nature, arising alike from the greater accessibility of all parts of the world and from the rapid development of the sciences which act upon the physical forces of the world. In both this spread of science and power acts upon religion with a dissolving and, if we may so speak, centrifugal force, driving some men to take refuge in the most conservative forms of faith, some to fly to new creeds and superstitions, some to drift into unmeasured scepticism. In both the facility of moving from place to place, and finding a distant home, tends to dissolve the closeness of civic and family life, and to make the individual rather than the family or the city the unit of social life. And in the family relations, in the character of individuals, in the state of morality, in the condition of art, we find at both periods similar results from the similar causes we have mentioned."

ATHENS: B. C. 317-316.
   Siege by Polysperchon.
   Democracy restored.
   Execution of Phocion.
   Demetrius of Phaleron at the head of the government.

ATHENS: B. C. 288-263.
Twenty years of Independence.
Siege and subjugation by Antigonus Gonatas.

When Demetrius Poliorcetes lost the Macedonian throne, B. C. 288, his fickle Athenian subjects and late worshippers rose against his authority, drove his garrisons from the Museum and the Piræus and abolished the priesthood they had consecrated to him. Demetrius gathered an army from some quarter and laid siege to the city, but without success. The Athenians went so far as to invite Pyrrhus, the warrior king of Epirus, to assist them against him. Pyrrhus came and Demetrius retired. The dangerous ally contented himself with a visit to the Acropolis as a worshipper, and left Athens in possession, undisturbed, of her freshly gained freedom. It was enjoyed after a fashion for twenty years, at the end of which period, B. C. 268, Antigonus Gonatas, the son of Demetrius, having regained the Macedonian crown, reasserted his claim on Athens, and the city was once more besieged. The Lacedæmonians and Ptolemy of Egypt both gave some ineffectual aid to the Athenians, and the siege, interrupted on several occasions, was prolonged until B. C. 263, when Antigonus took possession of the Acropolis, the fortified Museum and the Piræus as a master (see MACEDONIA, &c.: B. C. 277-244). This was sometimes called the Chremonidean War, from the name of a patriotic Athenian who took the most prominent part in the long defence of his city.

In the year B. C. 200 the Macedonian king, Philip, made an attempt to surprise Athens and failed. "He then encamped in the outskirts, and proceeded to wreak his vengeance on the Athenians, as he had indulged it at Thermus and Pergamus. He destroyed or defaced all the monuments of religion and of art, all the sacred and pleasant places which adorned the suburbs. The Academy, the Lycenm, and Cynosarges, with their temples, schools, groves and gardens, were all wasted with fire. Not even the sepulchres were spared."

"Athens … affords the disheartening picture of a commonwealth pampered by the supreme power, and financially as well us morally ruined. By rights it ought to have found itself in a flourishing condition. … No city of antiquity elsewhere possessed a domain of its own, such as was Attica, of about 700 square miles. … But even beyond Attica they retained what they possessed, as well after the Mithridatic War, by favour of Sulla, as after the Pharsalian battle, in which they had taken the side of Pompeius, by the favour of Cæsar;—he asked them only how often they would still ruin themselves and trust to be saved by the renown of their ancestors. To the city there still belonged not merely the territory, formerly possessed by Haliartus, in Boeotia, but also on their own coast Salamis, the old starting-point of their dominion of the sea, and in the Thracian Sea the lucrative islands Scyros, Lemnos, and Imbros, as well as Delos in the Aegean. … Of the further grants, which they had the skill to draw by flattery from Antoninus, Augustus, against whom they had taken part, took from them certainly Aegina and Eretria in Euboea, but they were allowed to retain the smaller islands of the Thracian Sea. … Hadrian, moreover, gave to them the best part of the great island of Cephallenia in the Ionian Sea. It was only by the Emperor Severus, who bore them no good will, that a portion of these extraneous possessions was withdrawn from them. Hadrian further granted to the Athenians the delivery of a certain quantity of grain at the expense of the empire, and by the extension of this privilege, hitherto reserved for the capital, acknowledged Athens, as it were, as another metropolis. Not less was the blissful institute of alimentary endowments, which Italy had enjoyed since Trajan's time, extended by Hadrian to Athens, and the capital requisite for this purpose certainly presented to the Athenians from his purse. … Yet the community was in constant distress."

ATHENS: B. C. 87-86.
   Siege and capture by Sulla.
   Massacre of citizens.
   Pillage and depopulation.
   Lasting injuries.

The early successes of Mithridates of Pontus, in his savage war with the Romans, included a general rising in his favor among the Greeks [see MITHRIDATIC WARS], supported by the fleets of the Pontic king and by a strong invading army. Athens and the Piræus were the strongholds of the Greek revolt, and at Athens an adventurer named Aristion, bringing from Mithridates a body-guard of 2,000 soldiers, made himself tyrant of the city. A year passed before Rome, distracted by the beginnings of civil war, could effectively interfere. Then Sulla came (B. C. 87) and laid siege to the Piræus, where the principal Pontic force was lodged, while he shut up Athens by blockade. In the following March, Athens was starved to such weakness that the Romans entered almost unopposed and killed and plundered with no mercy; but the buildings of the city suffered little harm at their hands. The siege of the Piræus was carried on for some weeks longer, until Sulla had driven the Pontic forces from every part except Munychia, and that they evacuated in no long time.

"Athens was … taken by assault. … The majority of the citizens was slain; the carnage was so fearfully great as to become memorable even in that age of bloodshed; the private movable property was seized by the soldiery, and Sylla assumed some merit to himself for not committing the rifled houses to the flames. … The fate of the Piræus, which he utterly destroyed, was more severe than that of Athens. From Sylla's campaign in Greece the commencement of the ruin and depopulation of the country is to be dated. The destruction of property caused by his ravages in Attica was so great that Athens from that time lost its commercial as well as its political importance. The race of Athenian citizens was almost extirpated, and a new population, composed of a heterogeneous mass of settlers, received the right of citizenship."

"When the Jews of Thessalonica had knowledge that the word of God was proclaimed of Paul at Berea also, they came thither likewise, stirring up and troubling the multitude. And then immediately the brethren sent forth Paul to go as far as to the sea: and Silas and Timotheus abode there still. But they that conducted Paul brought him as far as Athens; and receiving a commandment unto Silas and Timotheus that they should come to him with all speed, they departed. Now while Paul waited for them at Athens, his spirit was provoked within him, as he beheld the city full of idols. So he reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews, and the devout persons, and in the market place every day with them that met with him. And certain also of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers encountered him. And some said, what would this babbler say? other some, He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods: because he preached Jesus and the resurrection. And they took hold of him, and brought him unto the Areopagus, saying, May we know what this new teaching is, which is spoken by thee? For thou bringest certain strange things to our ears: we would know therefore what these things mean. (Now all the Athenians and the strangers sojourning there spent their time in nothing else, but either to tell or to hear some new thing.) And Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus, and said, Ye men of Athens, in all things I perceive that ye are somewhat superstitious. For as I passed along and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription, 'To an Unknown God.' What therefore ye worship in ignorance, this set I forth unto you. … Now when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked; but others said, We will hear thee concerning this yet again. Thus Paul went out from among them. Howbeit certain men clave unto him, and believed: among whom also was Dionysius the Areopagite, and a woman named Damaris, and others with them."

"Consider the difficulties which must have beset the planting of the Church in Athens. If the burning zeal of the great Apostle ever permitted him to feel diffidence in addressing an assembly, he may well have felt it when he addressed on Mars' Hill for the first time an Athenian crowd. No doubt the Athens of his time was in her decay, inferior in opulence and grandeur to many younger cities. Yet even to a Jew, provided he had received some educational impressions beyond the fanatical shibboleths of Pharisaism, there was much in that wonderful centre of intelligence to shake his most inveterate prejudices and inspire him with unwilling respect. Shorn indeed of her political greatness, deprived even of her philosophical supremacy, she still shone with a brilliant afterglow of æsthetic and intellectual prestige. Her monuments flashed on the visitor memories recent enough to dazzle his imagination. Her schools claimed and obtained even from Emperors the homage due to her unique past. Recognising her as the true nurse of Hellenism and the chief missionary of human refinement, the best spirits of the age held her worthy of admiring love not unmixed with awe. As the seat of the most brilliant and popular university, young men of talent and position flocked to her from every quarter, studied for a time within her colonnades, and carried thence the recollection of a culture which was not always deep, not always erudite, but was always and genuinely Attic. To subject to the criticism of this people a doctrine professing to come direct from God, a religion and not a philosophy, depending not on argument but on revelation, was a task of which the difficulties might seem insuperable. When we consider what the Athenian character was, this language will not seem exaggerated. Keen, subtle, capricious, satirical, sated with ideas, eager for novelty, yet with the eagerness of amused frivolity, not of the truth-seeker: critical by instinct, exquisitely sensitive to the ridiculous or the absurd, disputatious, ready to listen, yet impatient of all that was not wit, satisfied with everything in life except its shortness, and therefore hiding all references to this unwelcome fact under a veil of complacent euphemism—where could a more uncongenial soil be found for the seed of the Gospel? … To an Athenian the Jew was not so much an object of hatred (as to the Roman), nor even of contempt (as to the rest of mankind), as of absolute indifference. He was simply ignored. To the eclectic philosophy which now dominated the schools of Athens, Judaism alone among all human opinions was as if non-existent. That Athenians should be convinced by the philosophy of a Jew would be a proposition expressible in words but wholly destitute of meaning. On the other hand, the Jew was not altogether uninfluenced by Greek thought. Wide apart as the two minds were, the Hebraic proved not insensible to the charm of the Hellenic; witness the Epistle to the Hebrews, witness Philo, witness the intrusion of Greek methods of interpretation even into the text-books of Rabbinism. And it was Athens, as the quintessence of Hellas, Athens as represented by Socrates, and still more by Plato, which had gained this subtle power. And just as Judæa alone among all the Jewish communities retained its exclusiveness wholly unimpaired by Hellenism, so Athens, more than any Pagan capital, was likely to ignore or repel a faith coming in the garb of Judaism. And yet within less than a century we find this faith so well established there as to yield to the Church the good fruits of martyrdom in the person of its bishop, and of able defences in the person of three of its teachers. The early and the later fortunes of the Athenian Church are buried in oblivion; it comes but for a brief period before the scene of history. But the undying interest of that one dramatic moment when Paul proclaimed a bodily resurrection to the authors of the conception of a spiritual immortality, will always cause us to linger with a strange sympathy over every relic of the Christianity of Athens."

C. T. Cruttwell, A Literary History of Early Christianity, volume 1, book 3, chapter 4.

      ALSO IN:
      W. J. Conybeare and J. S. Howson,
      Life and Letters of St. Paul,
      volume 1, chapter 10.

      See
      E. de Pressensé,
      The Early Years of Christianity: The Apostolic Era,
      book 2, chapter 1.

The Emperor Hadrian interested himself greatly in the venerable decaying capital of the Greeks, which he visited, or resided in, for considerable periods, several times, between A. D. 125 and 134. These visits were made important to the city by the great works of rebuilding which he undertook and supervised. Large parts of the city are thought to have been reconstructed by him, "in the open and luxurious style of Antioch and Ephesus." One quarter came to be called "Hadrianapolis," as though he had created it. Several new temples were erected at his command; but the greatest of the works of Hadrian at Athens was the completing of the vast national temple, the Olympieum, the beginning of which dated back to the age of Pisistratus, and which Augustus had put his hand to without finishing.

When the Goths under Alaric invaded and ravaged Greece, A. D. 395, Athens was surrendered to them, on terms which saved the city from being plundered. "The fact that the depredations of Alaric hardly exceeded the ordinary license of a rebellious general, is … perfectly established. The public buildings and monuments of ancient splendour suffered no wanton destruction from his visit; but there can be no doubt that Alaric and his troops levied heavy contributions on the city and its inhabitants."

ALSO IN: E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 30. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717.

   "The Attic schools of rhetoric and philosophy maintained their
   superior reputation from the Peloponnesian War to the reign of
   Justinian. Athens, though situate in a barren soil, possessed
   a pure air, a free navigation, and the monuments of ancient
   art. That sacred retirement was seldom disturbed by the
   business of trade or government; and the last of the Athenians
   were distinguished by their lively wit, the purity of their
   taste and language, their social manners, and some traces, at
   least in discourse, of the magnanimity of their fathers. In
   the suburbs of the city, the Academy of the Platonists, the
   Lycæum of the Peripatetics, the Portico of the Stoics and the
   Garden of the Epicureans were planted with trees and decorated
   with statues; and the philosophers, instead of being immured
   in a cloister, delivered their instructions in spacious and
   pleasant walks, which, at different hours, were consecrated to
   the exercises of the mind and body. The genius of the founders
   still lived in those venerable seats. …
{186}
   The schools of Athens were protected by the wisest and most
   virtuous of the Roman princes. … Some vestige of royal
   bounty may be found under the successors of Constantine. …
   The golden chain, as it was fondly styled, of the Platonic
   succession, continued … to the edict of Justinian [A. D.
   529] which imposed a perpetual silence on the schools of
   Athens, and excited the grief and indignation of the few
   remaining votaries of Greek science and superstition."

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 40. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

"The portion of Greece lying to the south of the kingdom of Saloniki was divided by the Crusaders [after their conquest of Constantinople, A. D. 1204—see BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1203-1204] among several great feudatories of the Empire of Romania. … The lords of Boudonitza, Salona, Negropont, and Athens are alone mentioned as existing to the north of the isthmus of Corinth, and the history of the petty sovereigns of Athens can alone be traced in any detail. … Otho de la Roche, a Burgundian nobleman, who had distinguished himself during the siege of Constantinople, marched southward with the army of Boniface the king-marquis, and gained possession of Athens in 1205. Thebes and Athens had probably fallen to his share in the partition of the Empire, but it is possible that the king of Saloniki may have found means to increase his portion, in order to induce him to do homage to the crown of Saloniki for this addition. At all events, it appears that Otho de la Roche did homage to Boniface, either as his immediate superior, or as viceroy for the Emperor of Romania. … Though the Byzantine aristocracy and dignified clergy were severe sufferers by the transference of the government into the hands of the Franks, the middle classes long enjoyed peace and security. … The social civilization of the inhabitants, and their ample command of the necessaries and many of the luxuries of life, were in those days as much superior to the condition of the citizens of Paris and London as they are now inferior. … The city was large and wealthy, the country thickly covered with villages, of which the ruins may still be traced in spots affording no indications of Hellenic sites. … The trade of Athens was considerable, and the luxury of the Athenian ducal court was celebrated in all the regions of the West where chivalry flourished."

      G. Finlay,
      History of Greece from its Conquest by the Crusaders,
      chapter 7.

      ALSO IN:
      C. C. Felton,
      Greece, Ancient and Modern: 4th Course.
      lecture 5.

Athens was not occupied by the Turks until three years after the conquest of Constantinople (see CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1453). In the meantime the reign of the Florentine dukes of the house of Acciaioli came to a tragical close. The last of the dukes, Maurice Acciaioli died, leaving a young son and a young widow, the latter renowned for her beauty and her talents. The duchess, whom the will of her husband had made regent, married a comely Venetian named Palmerio, who was said to have poisoned his wife in order to be free to accept her hand. Thereupon a nephew of the late duke, named Franco, stirred up insurrections at Athens and fled to Constantinople to complain to the sultan, Mahomet II. "The sultan, glad of all pretexts that coloured his armed intervention in the affairs of these principalities, ordered Omar, son of Tourakhan, chief of the permanent army of the Peloponnesus, to take possession of Athens, to dethrone the duchess and to confine her sons in his prisons of the citadel of Megara." This was done; but Palmerio, the duchess's husband, made his way to the sultan and interceded in her behalf. "Mahomet, by the advice of his viziers, feigned to listen equally to the complaints of Palmerio, and to march to reestablish the legitimate sovereignty. But already Franco, entering Megara under the auspices of the Ottomans, had strangled both the duchess and her son. Mahomet, advancing in turn to punish him for his vengeance, expelled Franco from Athens on entering it, and gave him, in compensation, the inferior and dependent principality of Thebes, in Boeotia. The sultan, as lettered as he was warlike, evinced no less pride and admiration than Sylla at the sight of the monuments of Athens. 'What gratitude,' exclaimed he before the Parthenon and the temple of Theseus, 'do not religion and the Empire owe to the son of Tourakhan, who has made them a present of these spoils of the genius of the Greeks.'"

ATHENS: A. D. 1687.
Siege, bombardment and capture by the Venetians.
Destructive explosion in the Parthenon.

ATHENS: A. D. 1821-1829.
The Greek revolution and war of independence.
Capture by the Turks.

ATHRAVAS.

ATIMIA.
The penalty of Atimia, under ancient Athenian law, was the
loss of civic rights.

      G. F. Schömann,
      Antiquity of Greece: The State,
      part 3, chapter 3.

ATLANTA: A. D. 1864 (May-September).
Sherman's advance to the city.
Its siege and capture.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1864 (MAY: GEORGIA); and (MAY-SEPTEMBER: GEORGIA).

ATLANTA: A. D. 1864 (September).
Exclusive military occupation of the city.
Removal of inhabitants.

The Atlantic Ocean is mentioned by that name in a single passage of Herodotus; "but it is clear, from the incidental way in which it [the name] is here introduced, that it was one well known in his day."

ATREBATES, The.
   This name was borne by a tribe in ancient Belgic Gaul, which
   occupied modern Artois and part of French Flanders, and, also,
   by a tribe or group of tribes in Britain, which dwelt in a
   region between the Thames and the Severn. The latter was
   probably a colony from the former.

ATROPATENE. MEDIA ATROPATENE.

"Atropatene, as a name for the Alpine land in the northwest of Iran (now Aderbeijan), came into use in the time of the Greek Empire [Alexander's]; at any rate we cannot trace it earlier. 'Athrapaiti' means 'lord of fire;' 'Athrapata,' 'one protected by fire;' in the remote mountains of this district the old fire worship was preserved with peculiar zeal under the Seleucids."

Atropatene "comprises the entire basin of Lake Urumiyeh, together with the country intervening between that basin and the high mountain chain which curves round the southwestern corner of the Caspian."

Atropatene was "named in honour of the satrap Atropates, who had declared himself king after Alexander's death."

ATSINAS.

ATTABEGS.

ATTIC SALT.

Thyme was a favorite condiment among the ancient Greeks, "which throve nowhere else so well as in Attica. Even salt was seasoned with thyme. Attic salt, however, is famed rather in the figurative than in the literal sense, and did not form an article of trade."

ATTIC TALENT.

ATTICA.

"It forms a rocky peninsula, separated from the mainland by trackless mountains, and jutting so far out into the Eastern Sea that it lay out of the path of the tribes moving from north to south. Hence the migratory passages which agitated the whole of Hellas left Attica untouched, and for this reason Attic history is not divided into such marked epochs as that of Peloponnesus; it possesses a superior unity, and presents an uninterrupted development of coalitions of life native in their origin to the land. … On the other hand Attica was perfectly adapted by nature for receiving immigrants from the sea. For the whole country, as its name indicates, consists of coast-land; and the coast abounds in harbours, and on account of the depth of water in the roads is everywhere accessible; while the best of its plains open towards the coast and invite the mariner to land. The first landings by which the monotonous conditions of the age of the Pelasgians were interrupted where those of the Phoenicians, who domesticated the worship of Aphrodite, as well as that of the Tyrian Melcar on the coasts. Afterwards the tribes of the shores of Asia Minor came across; in the first place the Carians, who introduced the worship of the Carian Zeus and Posidon, and were followed by Cretans, Lycians, Dardanians and Old Ionians. The population became mixed. … This first epoch of the national history the ancients connected with the name of Cecrops. It forms the transition from the life of rural districts and villages to that of a state. Attica has become a land with twelve citadels, in each of which dwells a chieftain or king, who has his domains, his suite, and his subjects. Every twelfth is a state by itself, with its separate public hall and common hearth. If under these circumstances a common national history was to be attained to, one of the twelve towns, distinguished by special advantages of situation, would have to become the capital. And to such a position undeniable advantages entitled the city whose seat was in the plain of the Cephisus. … Into the centre of the entire plain advances from the direction of Hymettus a group of rocky heights, among them an entirely separate and mighty block which, with the exception of a narrow access from the west, offers on all sides vertically precipitous walls, surmounted by a broad level sufficiently roomy to afford space for the sanctuaries of the national gods and the habitations of the national rulers. It seems as if nature had designedly placed this rock in this position as the ruling castle and the centre of the national history. This is the Acropolis of Athens, among the twelve castles of the land that which was preëminently named after the national king Cecrops. … So far from being sufficiently luxuriant to allow even the idle to find easy means of sustenance, the Attic soil was stony, devoid of a sufficient supply of water, and for the most part only adapted to the cultivation of barley; everywhere … labour and a regulated industry were needed. But this labour was not unremunerative. Whatever orchard and garden fruits prospered were peculiarly delicate and agreeable to the taste; the mountain-herbs were nowhere more odourous than on Hymettus; and the sea abounded with fish. The mountains, not only by the beauty of their form invest the whole scenery with a certain nobility, but in their depths lay an abundance of the most excellent building-stone and silver ore; in the lowlands was to be found the best kind of clay for purposes of manufacture. The materials existed for all arts and handicrafts; and finally Attica rejoiced in what the ancients were wise enough to recognize as a special favour of Heaven, a dry and transparent atmosphere, by its peculiar clearness productive of bodily freshness, health and elasticity, while it sharpened the senses, disposed the soul to cheerfulness and aroused and animated the powers of the mind. Such were the institutions of the land which was developing the germs of its peculiar history at the time when the [Dorian] migrations were agitating the whole mainland. Though Attica was not herself overrun by hostile multitudes, yet about the same time she admitted manifold accessions of foreign population in smaller groups. By this means she enjoyed all the advantages of an invigorating impulse without exposing herself to the evils of a violent revolution. … The immigrants who domesticated themselves in Attica were … chiefly families of superior eminence, so that Attica gained not only in numbers of population, but also in materials of culture of every description."

ATTILA'S CONQUESTS AND EMPIRE.

The first dynasty of the kings of Lydia, claimed to be sprung from Attys, son of the god Manes.

"A prerogative by which the Kings of France claimed the property of foreigners who died in their kingdom without being naturalized." It was suppressed by Colbert, in the reign of Louis XIV.

AUDENARDE.

AUDIENCIAS.

"For more than two centuries and a half the whole of South America, except Brazil, settled down under the colonial government of Spain, and during the greater part of that time this vast territory was under the rule of the Viceroys of Peru residing at Lima. The impossibility of conducting an efficient administration from such a centre … at once became apparent. Courts of justice called Audiencias were, therefore, established in the distant provinces, and their presidents, sometimes with the title of captains-general, had charge of the executive under the orders of the Viceroys. The Audiencia of Charcas (the modern Bolivia) was established in 1559. Chile was ruled by captains-general, and an Audiencia was established at Santiago in 1568. In New Grenada the president of the Audiencia, created in 1564, was also captain-general. The Audiencia of Quito, also with its president as captain-general, dated from 1542; and Venezuela was under a captain-general."

C. R. Markham, Colonial History of South America. (Narrative and Critical History of America, volume 8, page 295).

      See
      FRANCE: A. D. 1797 (SEPTEMBER);
      GERMANY: A. D. 1806 (OCTOBER);
      SPAIN: A. D. 1809 (FEBRUARY-JUNE);
      and RUSSIA: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-SEPTEMBER);
      1813 (AUGUST), (OCTOBER), (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).

AUGSBURG: A. D. 1530.
   Sitting of the Diet.
   Signing and reading of the Protestant Confession of Faith.
   The Imperial Decree condemning the Protestants.

AUGSBURG: A. D. 1801-1803.

AUGSBURG: A. D. 1806.
Loss of municipal freedom.
Absorption in the kingdom of Bavaria.

AUGURS. PONTIFICES. FETIALES.

"There was … enough of priesthood and of priests in Rome. Those, however, who had business with a god resorted to the god, and not to the priest. Every suppliant and inquirer addressed himself directly to the divinity; … no intervention of a priest was allowed to conceal or to obscure this original and simple relation. But it was no easy matter to hold converse with a god. The god had his own way of speaking, which was intelligible only to those acquainted with it; but one who did rightly understand it knew not only how to ascertain, but also how to manage, the will of the god, and even in case of need to overreach or to constrain him. It was natural, therefore, that the worshipper of the god should regularly consult such men of skill and listen to their advice; and thence arose the corporations or colleges of men specially skilled in religious lore, a thoroughly national Italian institution, which had a far more important influence on political development than the individual priests or priesthoods. These colleges have been often, but erroneously, confounded with the priesthoods. The priesthoods were charged with the worship of a specific divinity. … Under the Roman constitution and that of the Latin communities in general there were originally but two such colleges: that of the augurs and that of the pontifices. The six augurs were skilled in interpreting the language of the gods from the flight of birds; an art which was prosecuted with great earnestness and reduced to a quasi-scientific system. The five 'bridge builders' (pontifices) derived their name from their function, as sacred as it was politically important, of conducting the building and demolition of the bridge over the Tiber. They were the Roman engineers, who understood the mystery of measures and numbers; whence there devolved upon them also the duties of managing the calendar of the state, of proclaiming to the people the time of new and full moon and the days of festivals, and of seeing that every religious and every judicial act took place on the right day. … Thus they acquired (although not probably to the full extent till after the abolition of the monarchy) the general oversight of Roman worship and of whatever was connected with it. [The president of their college was called the Pontifex Maximus.] … They themselves described the sum of their knowledge as 'the science of things divine and human.' … By the side of these two oldest and most eminent corporations of men versed in spiritual lore may be to some extent ranked the college of the twenty state-heralds (fetiales, of uncertain derivation) destined as a living repository to preserve traditionally the remembrance of the treaties concluded with neighboring communities, to pronounce an authoritative opinion on alleged infractions of treaty rights, and in case of need to demand satisfaction and declare war."

AUGUSTA TREVIRORUM.

AUGUSTA VINDELICORUM.

"Augusta Vindelicorum is the modern Augsburg, founded, it may be supposed, about the year 740 [B. C. 14] after the conquest of Rhætia by Drusus. … The Itineraries represent it as the centre of the roads from Verona, Sirmium, and Treviri."

AUGUSTODUNUM.

The Emperor Augustus changed the name of Bibracte in Gaul to
Augustodunum, which time has corrupted, since to Autun.

AUGUSTONEMETUM.

"Octavius [see ROME: B. C. 31-14] had warily declined any of the recognized designations of sovereign rule. Antonius had abolished the dictatorship; his successor respected the acclamations with which the people had greeted this decree. The voices which had saluted Cæsar with the title of king were peremptorily commanded to be dumb. Yet Octavius was fully aware of the influence which attached to distinctive titles of honour. While he scrupulously renounced the names upon which the breath of human jealousy had blown, he conceived the subtler policy of creating another for himself, which borrowing its original splendour from his own character, should reflect upon him an untarnished lustre. … The epithet Augustus … had never been borne by any man before. … But the adjunct, though never given to a man, had been applied to things most noble, most venerable and most divine. The rites of the gods were called august, the temples were august; the word itself was derived from the holy auguries by which the divine will was revealed; it was connected with the favour and authority of Jove himself. … The illustrious title was bestowed upon the heir of the Cæsarian Empire in the middle of the month of January, 727 [B. C. 27], and thenceforth it is by the name of Augustus that he is recognized in Roman history."

"When Octavianus had firmly established his power and was now left without a rival, the Senate, being desirous of distinguishing him by some peculiar and emphatic title, decreed, in B. C. 27, that he should be styled Augustus, an epithet properly applicable to some object demanding respect and veneration beyond what is bestowed upon human things. … This being an honorary appellation … it would, as a matter of course, have been transmitted by inheritance to his immediate descendants. … Claudius, although he could not be regarded as a descendant of Octavianus, assumed on his accession the title of Augustus, and his example was followed by all succeeding rulers … who communicated the title of Augusta to their consorts."

   The Aulerci were an extensive nation in ancient Gaul which
   occupied the country from the lower course of the Seine to the
   Mayenne. It was subdivided into three great tribes—the
   Aulerci Cenomanni, Aulerci Diablintes and Aulerci Eburovices.

One of the great Roman roads of antiquity, which ran from Rome to Pisa and Luna.

A tribe of the ancient Volscians, who dwelt in the lower valley of the Liris, and who are said to have been exterminated by the Romans, B. C. 314.

"The Romans, in the earlier ages of their history, never entered upon any important business whatsoever, whether public or private, without endeavouring, by means of divination, to ascertain the will of the gods in reference to the undertaking. … This operation was termed 'sumere auspicia;' and if the omens proved unfavourable the business was abandoned or deferred. … No meeting of the Comitia Curiata nor of the Comitia Centuriata could be held unless the auspices had been previously taken. … As far as public proceedings were concerned, no private individual, even among the patricians, had the right of taking auspices. This duty devolved upon the supreme magistrate alone. … In an army this power belonged exclusively to the commander-in-chief; and hence all achievements were said to be performed under his auspices, even although he were not present. … The objects observed in taking these auspices were birds, the class of animals from which the word is derived ('Auspicium ab ave spicienda'). Of these, some were believed to give indications by their flight … others by their notes or cries … while a third class consisted of chickens ('pulli') kept in cages. When it was desired to obtain an omen from these last, food was placed before them, and the manner in which they comported themselves was closely watched. … The manner of taking the auspices previous to the Comitia was as follows:—The magistrate who was to preside at the assembly arose immediately after midnight on the day for which it had been summoned, and called upon an augur to assist him. … With his aid a region of the sky and a space of ground, within which the auspices were observed, were marked out by the divining staff ('lituus') of the augur. … This operation was performed with the greatest care. … In making the necessary observations, the president was guided entirely by the augur, who reported to him the result."

AUSTIN CANONS, OR CANONS OF ST. AUGUSTINE.

"About the middle of the 11th century an attempt had been made to redress the balance between the regular and secular clergy, and restore to the latter the influence and consideration in spiritual matters which they had, partly by their own fault, already to a great extent lost. Some earnest and thoughtful spirits, distressed at once by the abuse of monastic privileges and by the general decay of ecclesiastical order, sought to effect a reform by the establishment of a stricter and better organized discipline in those cathedral and other churches which were served by colleges of secular priests. … Towards the beginning of the twelfth century the attempts at canonical reform issued in the form of what was virtually a new religious order, that of the Angustinians, or Canons Regular of the order of S. Angustine. Like the monks and unlike the secular canons, from whom they were carefully distinguished, they had not only their table and dwelling but all things in common, and were bound by a vow to the observance of their rule, grounded upon a passage in one of the letters of that great father of the Latin Church from whom they took their name. Their scheme was a compromise between the old fashioned system of canons and that of the monastic confraternities; but a compromise leaning strongly towards the monastic side. … The Austin canons, as they were commonly called, made their way across the channel in Henry's reign."

AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1601-1800.
Discovery and early exploration.
The founding of the penal colonies at Sydney and Norfolk Island.

"Australia has had no Columbus. It is even doubtful if the first navigators who reached her shores set out with any idea of discovering a great south land. At all events, it would seem, their achievements were so little esteemed by themselves and their countrymen that no means were taken to preserve their names in connexion with their discoveries. Holland long had the credit of bringing to light the existence of that island-continent, which until recent years was best known by her name. In 1861, however, Mr. Major, to whom we are indebted for more recent research upon the subject, produced evidence which appeared to demonstrate that the Portuguese had reached the shores of Australia in 1601, five years before the Dutch yacht Duyphen, or Dove,—the earliest vessel whose name has been handed down,—sighted, about March, 1606, what is believed to have been the coast near Cape York, Mr. Major, in a learned paper read before the Society of Antiquaries in 1872, indicated the probability that the first discovery was made 'in or before the year 1531.' The dates of two of the six maps from which Mr. Major derives his information are 1531 and 1542. The latter clearly indicates Australia, which is called Jave la Grande. New Zealand is also marked."

In 1606, De Quiros, a Spanish navigator, sailing from Peru, across the Pacific, reached a shore which stretched so far that he took it to be a continent. "He called the place 'Tierra Australis de Espiritu Santo,' that is 'Southern Land of the Holy Spirit.' It is now known that this was not really a continent, but merely one of the New Hebrides Islands, and more than a thousand miles away from the mainland. … In after years, the name he had invented was divided into two parts; the island he had really discovered being called Espiritu Santo, while the continent he thought he had discovered was called Terra Australis. This last name was shortened by another discoverer—Flinders—to the present term Australia." After the visit to the Australian coast of the small Dutch ship, the "Dove," it was touched, during the next twenty years, by a number of vessels of the same nationality. "In 1622 a Dutch ship, the 'Leeuwin,' or 'Lioness,' sailed along the southern coast, and its name was given to the southwest cape of Australia. … In 1628 General Carpenter sailed completely round the large Gulf to the north, which has taken its name from this circumstance. Thus, by degrees, all the northern and western, together with part of the southern shores, came to be roughly explored, and the Dutch even had some idea of colonizing this continent. … During the next fourteen years we hear no more of voyages to Australia; but in 1642 Antony Van Diemen, the Governor of the Dutch possessions in the East Indies, sent out his friend Abel Jansen Tasman, with two ships, to make discoveries in the South Seas." Tasman discovered the island which he called Van Diemen's Land, but which has since been named in his own honor—Tasmania. "This he did not know to be an island; he drew it on his maps as if it were a peninsula belonging to the mainland of Australia." In 1699, the famous buccaneer, William Dampier, was given the command of a vessel sent out to the southern seas, and he explored about 900 miles of the northwestern coast of Australia; but the description which he gave of the country did not encourage the adventurous to seek fortune in it. "We hear of no further explorations in this part of the world until nearly a century after; and, even then, no one thought of sending out ships specially for the purpose. But in the year 1770 a series of important discoveries were indirectly brought about. The Royal Society of London, calculating that the planet Venus would cross the disc of the sun in 1769, persuaded the English Government to send out an expedition to the Pacific Ocean for the purpose of making observations on this event which would enable astronomers to calculate the distance of the earth from the sun. A small vessel, the 'Endeavour,' was chosen; astronomers with their instruments embarked, and the whole placed under the charge of" the renowned sailor, Captain James Cook. The astronomical purposes of the expedition were satisfactorily accomplished at Otaheite, and Captain Cook then proceeded to an exploration of the shores of New Zealand and Australia. {191} Having entered a fine bay on the south-eastern coast of Australia, "he examined the country for a few miles inland, and two of his scientific friends—Sir Joseph Banks and Dr. Solander—made splendid collections of botanical specimens. From this circumstance the place was called Botany Bay, and its two head-lands received the names of Cape Banks and Cape Solander. It was here that Captain Cook … took possession of the country on behalf of His Britannic Majesty, giving it the name 'New South Wales,' on account of the resemblance of its coasts to the southern shores of Wales. Shortly after they had set sail from Botany Bay they observed a small opening in the land, but Cook did not stay to examine it, merely marking it on his chart as Port Jackson, in honour of his friend Sir George Jackson. … The reports brought home by Captain Cook completely changed the beliefs current in those days with regard to Australia. … It so happened that, shortly after Cook's return, the English nation had to deal with a great difficulty in regard to its criminal population. In 1776 the United States declared their independence, and the English then found they could no longer send their convicts over to Virginia, as they had formerly done. In a short time the gaols of England were crowded with felons. It became necessary to select a new place of transportation; and, just as this difficulty arose, Captain Cook's voyages called attention to a land in every way suited for such a purpose, both by reason of its fertility and of its great distance. Viscount Sydney, therefore, determined to send out a party to Botany Bay, in order to found a convict settlement there; and in May, 1787, a fleet was ready to sail." After a voyage of eight months the fleet arrived at Botany Bay, in January, 1788. The waters of the Bay were found to be too shallow for a proper harbour, and Captain Phillip, the appointed Governor of the settlement, set out, with three boats, to search for something better. "As he passed along the coast he turned to examine the opening which Captain Cook had called Port Jackson, and soon found himself in a winding channel of water, with great cliffs frowning overhead. All at once a magnificent prospect opened on his eyes. A harbour, which is, perhaps, the most beautiful and perfect in the world, stretched before him far to the west, till it was lost on the distant horizon. It seemed a vast maze of winding waters, dotted here and there with lovely islets. … Captain Phillip selected, as the place most suitable to the settlement, a small inlet, which, in honour of the Minister of State, he called Sydney Cove. It was so deep as to allow vessels to approach within a yard or two of the shore." Great difficulties and sufferings attended the founding of the penal settlement, and many died of actual starvation as well as of disease; but in twelve years the population had risen to between 6,000 and 7,000 persons. Meantime a branch colony had been established on Norfolk Island. In 1702 Governor Phillip, broken in health, had resigned, and in 1795 he had been succeeded by Governor Hunter. "When Governor Hunter arrived, in 1795, he brought with him, on board his ship, the 'Reliance,' It young surgeon, George Bass, and a midshipman called Matthew Flinders. They were young men of the most admirable character. … Within a month after their arrival they purchased a small boat about eight feet in length, which they christened the 'Tom Thumb.' Its crew consisted of themselves and a boy to assist." In this small craft they began a survey of the coast, usefully charting many miles of it. Soon afterwards, George Bass, in an open whale-boat, pursued his explorations southwards, to the region now called Victoria, and through the straits which bear his name, thus discovering the fact that Van Diemen's Land, or Tasmania, is an island, not a peninsula. In 1798, Bass and Flinders, again associated and furnished with a small sloop, sailed round and surveyed the entire coast of Van Diemen's Land. Bass now went to South America and there disappeared. Flinders was commissioned by the British Government in 1800 to make an extensive survey of the Australian coasts, and did so. Returning to England with his maps, he was taken prisoner on the way by the French and held in captivity for six years, while the fruits of his labor were stolen. He died a few years after being released.

      ALSO IN:
      G. W. Rusden,
      History of Australia,
      chapter 1-3 (volume 1).

AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1800-1840.
   Beginning of the Prosperity of New South Wales.
   Introduction of sheep-farming.
   The founding of Victoria and South Australia.

"For twenty years and more no one at home gave a thought to New South Wales, or 'Botany Bay,' as it was still erroneously called, unless in vague horror and compassion for the poor creatures who lived there in exile and starvation. The only civilizing element in the place was the presence of a devoted clergyman named Johnson, who had voluntarily accompanied the first batch of convicts. … Colonel Lachlan Macquarie entered on the office of governor in 1810, and ruled the settlement for twelve years. His administration was the first turning point in its history. … Macquarie saw that the best and cheapest way of ruling the convicts was to make them freemen as soon as possible. Before his time, the governors had looked on the convicts as slaves, to be worked for the profit of the government and of the free settlers. Macquarie did all he could to elevate the class of emancipists, and to encourage the convicts to persevere in sober industry in the hope of one day acquiring a respectable position. He began to discontinue the government farms, and to employ the convicts in road-making so as to extend the colony in all directions. When he came to Sydney, the country more than a day's ride from the town was quite unknown. The growth of the settlement was stopped on the west by a range called the Blue Mountains, which before his time no one had succeeded in crossing. But in 1813, there came a drought upon the colony: the cattle, on which everything depended, were unable to find food. Macquarie surmised that there must be plenty of pasture on the plains above the Blue Mountains: he sent an exploring party, telling them that a pass must be discovered. In a few months, not only was this task accomplished, and the vast and fertile pastures of Bathurst reached, but a road 130 miles long was made, connecting them with Sydney. The Lachlan and Macquarie rivers were traced out to the west of the Blue Mountains. {192} Besides this, coal was found at the mouth of the Hunter river, and the settlement at Newcastle formed. … When it became known that the penal settlement was gradually becoming a free colony, and that Sydney and its population were rapidly changing their character, English and Scotch people soon bethought them of emigrating to the new country. Macquarie returned home in 1822, leaving New South Wales four times as populous, and twenty times as large as when he went out, and many years in advance of what it might have been under a less able and energetic governor. The discovery of the fine pastures beyond the Blue Mountains settled the destiny of the colony. The settlers came up thither with their flocks long before Macquarie's road was finished; and it turned out that the downs of Australia were the best sheep-walks in the world. The sheep thrives better there, and produces finer and more abundant wool, than anywhere else. John Macarthur, a lieutenant in the New South Wales corps, had spent several years in studying the effect of the Australian climate upon the sheep; and he rightly surmised that the staple of the colony would be its fine wool. In 1803, he went to England and procured some pure Spanish merino sheep from the flock of George III. … The Privy Council listened to his wool projects, and he received a large grant of land. Macarthur had found out the true way to Australian prosperity. When the great upland pastures were discovered, the merino breed was well established in the colony; and the sheep-owners, without waiting for grants, spread with their flocks over immense tracts of country. This was the beginning of what is called squatting. The squatters afterwards paid a quit-rent to the government and thus got their runs, as they called the great districts where they pastured their flocks, to a certain extent secured to them. … Hundreds upon hundreds of square miles of the great Australian downs were now explored and stocked with sheep for the English wool-market. … It was in the time of Macquarie's successor, Sir Thomas Brisbane, that the prospects of New South Wales became generally known in England. Free emigrants, each bringing more or less capital with him, now poured in; and the demand for labour became enormous. At first the penal settlements were renewed as depots for the supply of labour, and it was even proposed that the convicts should be sold by auction on their arrival; but in the end the influx of free labourers entirely altered the question. In Brisbane's time, and that of his successor, Sir Ralph Darling, wages fell and work became scarce in England; and English working men now turned their attention to Australia. Hitherto the people had been either convicts or free settlers of more or less wealth, and between these classes there was great bitterness of feeling, each, naturally enough, thinking that the colony existed for their own exclusive benefit. The free labourers who now poured in greatly contributed in course of time to fusing the population into one. In Brisbane's time, trial by jury and a free press were introduced. The finest pastures in Australia, the Darling Downs near Moreton Bay, were discovered and settled [1825]. The rivers which pour into Moreton Bay were explored: one of them was named the Brisbane, and a few miles from its mouth the town of the same name was founded. Brisbane is now the capital of the colony of Queensland: and other explorations in his time led to the foundation of a second independent colony. The Macquarie was traced beyond the marshes, in which it was supposed to lose itself, and named the Darling: and the Murray river was discovered [1829]. The tracing out of the Murray river by the adventurous traveller Sturt, led to a colony on the site which he named South Australia. In Darling's time, the Swan River Colony, now called Western Australia, was commenced. Darling … was the first to sell the land at a small fixed price, on the system adopted in America. … Darling returned to England in 1831; and the six-years administration of his successor, Sir Richard Bourke, marks a fresh turning-point in Australian history. In his time the colony threw off two great offshoots. Port Phillip, on which now stands the great city of Melbourne, had been discovered in 1802, and in the next year the government sent hither a convict colony. This did not prosper, and this fine site was neglected for thirty years. When the sudden rise of New South Wales began, the squatters began to settle to the west and north of Port Phillip; and the government at once sent an exploring party, who reported most favourably of the country around. In 1836, Governor Bourke founded a settlement in this new land, which had been called, from its rich promise, Australia Felix: and under his directions the site of a capital was laid out, to be called Melbourne, in honour of the English Prime Minister. This was in 1837, so that the beginning of the colony corresponds nearly with that of Queen Victoria's reign; a circumstance which afterwards led to its being named Victoria. Further west still, a second new colony arose about this time on the site discovered by Sturt in 1829. This was called South Australia, and the first governor arrived there at the end of the year 1836. The intended capital was named Adelaide, in honour of the Queen of William IV. Both the new colonies were commenced on a new system, called from its inventor the Wakefield system, but the founders of South Australia were able to carry it out most effectually, because they were quite independent of the experience and the prejudices of the Sydney government. Mr. Wakefield was an ingenious man and a clever writer. … His notion was that the new colonies ought to be made 'fairly to represent English society.' His plan was to arrest the strong democratic tendencies of the new community, and to reproduce in Australia the strong distinction of classes which was found in England. He wanted the land sold as dear as land-owners: and the produce of the land was to be applied in tempting labourers to emigrate with the prospect of better wages than they got at home. A Company was easily formed to carry out these ideas in South Australia. … Like the settlement of Carolina as framed by Locke and Somers, it was really a plan for getting the advantages of the colony into the hands of the non-labouring classes: and by the natural laws of political economy, it failed everywhere. Adelaide became the scene of an Australian 'bubble.' The land-jobbers and money-lenders made fortunes: but the people who emigrated, mostly belonging to the middle and upper classes, found the scheme to be a delusion. Land rapidly rose in value, and as rapidly sank; and lots for which the emigrants had paid high prices became almost worthless. The labourers emigrated elsewhere, and so did those of the capitalists who had anything left. … The depression of South Australia, however, was but temporary. It contains the best corn land in the whole island: and hence it of course soon became the chief source of the food supply of the neighbouring colonies, besides exporting large quantities of corn to England. It contains rich mines of copper, and produces large quantities of wool."

AUSTRALIA: A.D. 1839-1855.
   Progress of the Port Phillip District.
   Its Separation from New South Wales and erection into the
   colony of Victoria.
   Discovery of Gold.
   Constitutional organization of the colony.

"In 1839 the population of Port Phillip amounted to nearly 6,000, and was being rapidly augmented from without. The sheep in the district exceeded half a million, and of cattle and horses the numbers were in proportion equally large. The place was daily growing in importance. The Home Government therefore decided to send an officer, with the title of Superintendent, to take charge of the district, but to act under the Governor of New South Wales. Charles Joseph La Trobe, Esq., was appointed to this office. … He arrived at Melbourne on the 30th September, 1839. Soon after this all classes of the new community appear to have become affected by a mania for speculation. … As is always the case when speculation takes the place of steady industry, the necessaries of life became fabulously dear. Of money there was but little, in consideration of the amount of business done, and large transactions were effected by means of paper and credit. From highest to lowest, all lived extravagantly. … Such a state of things could not last forever. In 1842, by which time the population had increased to 24,000, the crash came. … From this depression the colony slowly recovered, and a sounder business system took the place of the speculative one. … All this time, however, the colony was a dependency of New South Wales, and a strong feeling had gained ground that it suffered in consequence. … A cry was raised for separation. The demand was, as a matter of course, resisted by New South Wales, but as the agitation was carried on with increased activity, it was at last yielded to by the Home authorities. The vessel bearing the intelligence arrived on the 11th November, 1850. The news soon spread, and great was the satisfaction of the colonists. Rejoicings were kept up in Melbourne for five consecutive days. … Before, however, the separation could be legally accomplished, it was necessary that an Act should be passed in New South Wales to settle details. … The requisite forms were at length given effect to, and, on the 1st July, 1851, a day which has ever since been scrupulously observed as a public holiday, it was proclaimed that the Port Phillip district of New South Wales had been erected into a separate colony to be called Victoria, after the name of Her Most Gracious Majesty. At the same time the Superintendent, Mr. C. J. La Trobe, was raised to the rank of Lieutenant-Governor. At the commencement of the year of separation the population of Port Phillip numbered 76,000, the sheep 6,000,000, the cattle 380,000. … In a little more than a month after the establishment of Victoria as an independent colony, it became generally known that rich deposits of gold existed within its borders. … The discovery of gold … in New South Wales, by Hargreaves, in February, 1851, caused numbers to emigrate to that colony. This being considered detrimental to the interests of Victoria, a public meeting was held in Melbourne on the 9th of June, at which a 'gold-discovery committee' was appointed, which was authorized to offer rewards to any that should discover gold in remunerative quantities within the colony. The colonists were already on the alert. At the time this meeting was held, several parties were out searching for, and some had already found gold. The precious metal was first discovered at Clunes, then in the Yarra ranges at Anderson's Creek, soon after at Buninyong and Ballarat, shortly afterwards at Mount Alexander, and eventually at Bendigo. The deposits were found to be richer and to extend over a wider area than any which had been discovered in New South Wales. Their fame soon spread to the adjacent colonies, and thousands hastened to the spot. … When the news reached home, crowds of emigrants from the United Kingdom hurried to our shores. Inhabitants of other European countries quickly joined in the rush. Americans from the Atlantic States were not long in following. Stalwart Californians left their own gold-yielding rocks and placers to try their fortunes at the Southern Eldorado. Last of all, swarms of Chinese arrived, eager to unite in the general scramble for wealth. … The important position which the Australian colonies had obtained in consequence of the discovery of gold, and the influx of population consequent thereon, was the occasion of the Imperial Government determining in the latter end of 1852 that each colony should be invited to frame such a Constitution for its government as its representatives might deem best suited to its own peculiar circumstances. The Constitution framed in Victoria, and afterwards approved by the British Parliament, was avowedly based upon that of the United Kingdom. It provided for the establishment of two Houses of Legislature, with power to make laws, subject to the assent of the Crown as represented generally by the Governor of the colony; the Legislative Council, or Upper House, to consist of 30, and the Legislative Assembly, or Lower House, to consist of 60 members. Members of both Houses to be elective and to possess property qualifications. Electors of both Houses to possess either property or professional qualifications [the property qualification of members and electors of the Lower House has since been abolished]. … The Upper House not to be dissolved, but five members to retire every two years, and to be eligible for re-election. The Lower House to be dissolved every five years [since reduced to three], or oftener, at the discretion of the Governor. Certain officers of the Government, four at least of whom should have seats in Parliament, to be deemed 'Responsible Ministers.' … This Constitution was proclaimed in Victoria on the 23d November, 1855."

AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1859.
Separation of the Moreton Bay District from New South Wales.
Its erection into the colony of Queensland.

"Until December, 1859, the north-west portion of the Fifth Continent was known as the Moreton Bay district, and belonged to the colony of New South Wales; but at that date it had grown so large that it was erected into a separate and independent colony, under the name of Queensland. It lies between latitude 10° 43' South and 29° South, and longitude 138° and 153° East, bounded on the north by Torres Straits; on the north-east by the Coral Sea; on the east by the South Pacific; on the south by New South Wales and South Australia; on the west by South Australia and the Northern Territory; and on the north-west by the Gulf of Carpentaria. It covers an area … twenty times as large as Ireland, twenty-three times as large as Scotland, and eleven times the extent of England. … Numerous good harbours are found, many of which form the outlets of navigable rivers. The principal of these [is] Moreton Bay, at the head of which stands Brisbane, the capital of the colony. … The mineral wealth of Queensland is very great, and every year sees it more fully developed. … Until the year 1867, when the Gympie field was discovered, gold mining as an industry was hardly known."

"It has been a common saying in Australia that our fellow countrymen in that part of the world did not recognise the term 'Australian;' each recognised only his own colony and the empire. But the advocates of combination for certain common purposes achieved a great step forward in the formation of a 'Federal Council' in 1885. It was to be only a 'Council,' its decisions having no force over any colony unless accepted afterwards by the colonial Legislature. Victoria, Queensland, Tasmania, and West Australia joined, New South Wales, South Australia, and New Zealand standing out, and, so constituted, it met twice. The results of the deliberations were not unsatisfactory, and the opinion that the move was in the right direction rapidly grew. In February of 1890 a Federation Conference, not private but representative of the different Governments, was called at Melbourne. It adopted an address to the Queen declaring the opinion of the conference to be that the best interests of the Australian colonies require the early formation of a union under the Crown into one Government, both legislative and executive. Events proceed quickly in Colonial History. In the course of 1890 the hesitation of New South Wales was finally overcome; powerful factors being the weakening of the Free Trade position at the election of 1890, the report of General Edwards on the Defences, and the difficulties about Chinese immigration. A Convention accordingly assembled at Sydney in March, 1891, which agreed upon a Constitution to be recommended to the several Colonies."

"On Monday, March 2nd, 1891, the National Australasian Convention met at the Parliament House, Sydney, New South Wales, and was attended by seven representatives from each Colony, except New Zealand, which only sent three. Sir Henry Parkes (New South Wales) was elected President of the Convention, and Sir Samuel Griffith (Queensland), Vice-President. A series of resolutions, moved by Sir Henry Parkes, occupied the attention of the Convention for several days. These resolutions set forth the principles upon which the Federal Government should be established, which were to the effect that the powers and privileges of existing Colonies should be kept intact, except in cases where surrender would be necessary in order to form a Federal Government; that intercolonial trade and intercourse should be free; that power to impose Customs duties should rest with the Federal Government and Parliament; and that the naval and military defence of Australia should be entrusted to the Federal Forces under one command. The resolutions then went on to approve of a Federal Constitution which should establish a Federal Parliament to consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives; that a Judiciary, to consist of a Federal Supreme Court, to be a High Court of Appeal for Australia, should be established; and that a Federal Executive, consisting of a Governor-General, with responsible advisers, should be constituted. These resolutions were discussed at great length, and eventually were adopted. The resolutions were then referred to three Committees chosen from the delegates, one to consider Constitutional Machinery and the distribution of powers and functions; one to deal with matters relating to Finance, Taxation, and Trade Regulations; and the other to consider the question of the establishment of a Federal Judiciary. A draft Bill, to constitute the 'Commonwealth of Australia,' was brought up by the first mentioned of these Committees, and after full consideration was adopted by the Convention, and it was agreed that the Bill should be presented to each of the Australian Parliaments for approval and adoption. On Thursday, April 9th. the Convention closed its proceedings. The Bill to provide for the Federation of the Australasian colonies entitled 'A Bill to constitute a Commonwealth of Australia,' which was drafted by the National Australasian Convention, has been introduced into the Parliaments of most of the colonies of the group, and is still (October, 1892), under consideration. In Victoria it has passed the Lower House with some amendments."

   "New South Wales bears to Victoria a certain statistical
   resemblance. The two colonies have [1890] about the same
   population, and, roughly speaking, about the same revenues,
   expenditure, debt and trade. In each, a great capital collects
   in one neighbourhood more than a third of the total
   population. … But … considerable differences lie behind
   and are likely to develop in the future. New South Wales, in
   the opinion of her enemies, is less enterprising than
   Victoria, and has less of the go-ahead spirit which
   distinguishes the Melbourne people. On the other hand she
   possesses a larger territory, abundant supplies of coal, and
   will have probably, in consequence, a greater future. Although
   New South Wales is three and a half times as large as
   Victoria, and has the area of the German Empire and Italy
   combined, she is of course much smaller than the three other
   but as yet less important colonies of the Australian continent
   [namely Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia].
{195}
   As the country was in a large degree settled by assisted
   emigrants, of whom something like half altogether have been
   Irish, while the English section was largely composed of
   Chartists, … the legislation of New South Wales has
   naturally shown signs of its origin. Manhood suffrage was
   carried in 1858; the abolition of primogeniture in 1862; safe
   and easy transfer of land through the machinery of the Torrens
   Act in the same year; and also the abolition of state aid to
   religion. A public system of education was introduced, with
   other measures of democratic legislation. … Public
   education, which in Victoria is free, is still paid for by
   fees in New South Wales, though children going to or returning
   from school are allowed to travel free by railway. In general
   it may be said that New South Wales legislation in recent
   times has not been so bold as the legislation of Victoria. …
   The land of New South Wales has to a large extent come into
   the hands of wealthy persons who are becoming a territorial
   aristocracy. This has been the effect firstly of grants and of
   squatting legislation, then of the perversion of the Act of
   1861 [for 'Free Selection before Survey'] to the use of those
   against whom it had been aimed, and finally of natural
   causes—soil, climate and the lack of water. … The traces of
   the convict element in New South Wales have become very slight
   in the national character. The prevailing cheerfulness,
   running into fickleness and frivolity, with a great deal more
   vivacity than exists in England, does not suggest in the least
   the intermixture of convict blood. It is a natural creation of
   the climate, and of the full and varied life led by colonists
   in a young country. … A population of an excellent type has
   swallowed up not only the convict element, but also the
   unstable and thriftless element shipped by friends in Britain
   to Sydney or to Melbourne. The ne'er-do-weels were either
   somewhat above the average in brains, as was often the case
   with those who recovered themselves and started life afresh,
   or people who drank themselves to death and disappeared and
   left no descendants. The convicts were also of various
   classes; some of them were men in whom crime was the outcome
   of restless energy, as, for instance, in many of those
   transported for treason and for manslaughter; while some were
   people of average morality ruined through companions, wives,
   or sudden temptation, and some persons of an essentially
   depraved and criminal life. The better classes of convicts, in
   a new country, away from their old companions and old
   temptations, turned over a new leaf, and their abilities and
   their strong vitality, which in some cases had wrought their
   ruin in the old world, found healthful scope in subduing to
   man a new one. Crime in their cases was an accident, and would
   not be transmitted to the children they left behind them. On
   the other hand, the genuine criminals, and also the drunken
   ne'er-do-weels, left no children. Drink and vice among the
   'assigned servants' class of convicts, and an absence of all
   facilities for marriage, worked them off the face of the
   earth, and those who had not been killed before the gold
   discovery generally drank themselves to death upon the
   diggings."

AUSTRASIA AND NEUSTRIA, OR NEUSTRASIA.

"It is conjectured by Luden, with great probability, that the Ripuarians were originally called the 'Eastern' people to distinguish them from the Salian Franks who lived to the West. But when the old home of the conquerors on the right bank of the Rhine was united with their new settlements in Gaul, the latter, as it would seem, were called Neustria or Neustrasia (New Lands); while the term Austrasia came to denote the original seats of the Franks, on what we now call the German bank of the Rhine. The most important difference between them (a difference so great as to lead to their permanent separation into the kingdoms of France and Germany by the treaty of Verdun) was this: that in Neustria the Frankish element was quickly absorbed by the mass of Gallo-Romanism by which it was surrounded; while in Austrasia, which included the ancient seats of the Frankish conquerors, the German element was wholly predominant. The import of the word Austrasia (Austria, Austrifrancia) is very fluctuating. In its widest sense it was used to denote all the countries incorporated into the Frankish Empire, or even held in subjection to it, in which the German language and population prevailed; in this acceptation it included therefore the territory of the Alemanni, Bavarians, Thuringians, and even that of the Saxons and Frises. In its more common and proper sense it meant that part of the territory of the Franks themselves which was not included in Neustria. It was subdivided into Upper Austrasia on the Moselle, and Lower Austrasia on the Rhine and Meuse. Neustria (or, in the fulness of the monkish Latinity, Neustrasia) was bounded on the north by the ocean, on the south by the Loire, and on the southwest [southeast?] towards Burgundy by a line which, beginning below Gien on the Loire, ran through the rivers Loing and Yonne, not far from their sources, and passing north of Auxerre and south of Troyes, joined the river Aube above Arcis."

"The northeastern part of Gaul, along the Rhine, together with a slice of ancient Germany, was already distinguished, as we have seen, by the name of the Eastern Kingdom, or Oster-rike, Latinized into Austrasia. It embraced the region first occupied by the Ripumarian Franks, and where they still lived the most compactly and in the greatest number. … This was, in the estimation of the Franks, the kingdom by eminence, while the rest of the north of Gaul was simply not it—'ne-oster-rike,' or Neustria. A line drawn from the mouth of the Scheldt to Cambrai, and thence across the Marne at Chateau-Thierry to the Aube of Bar-sur-Aube, would have separated the one from the other, Neustria comprising all the northwest of Gaul, between the Loire and the ocean, with the exception of Brittany. This had been the first possession of the Salian Franks in Gaul. … To such an extent had they been absorbed and influenced by the Roman elements of the population, that the Austrasians scarcely considered them Franks, while they, in their turn, regarded the Austrasians as the merest untutored barbarians."

"The name of Austria, Oesterreich—Ostrich as our forefathers wrote it—-is, naturally enough, a common name for the eastern part of any kingdom. The Frankish kingdom of the Merwings had its Austria; the Italian kingdom of the Lombards had its Austria also. We are half inclined to wonder that the name was never given in our own island either to Essex or to East-Anglia. But, while the other Austrias have passed away, the Oesterreich, the Austria, the Eastern mark, of the German kingdom, its defence against the Magyar invader, has lived on to our own times. It has not only lived on, but it has become one of the chief European powers. And it has become so by a process to which it would be hard to find a parallel."

E. A. Freeman, The Historical Geography of Europe, volume 1, chapter 8, page 305.

"On the disputed frontier, in the zone of perpetual conflict, were formed and developed the two states which, in turn, were to dominate over Germany, namely, Austria and Prussia. Both were born in the midst of the enemy. The cradle of Austria was the Eastern march, established by Charlemagne on the Danube, beyond Bavaria, at the very gate through which have passed so many invaders from the Orient. … The cradle of Prussia was the march of Brandenburg, between the Elbe and the Oder, in the region of the exterminated Slavs."

      E. Lavisse,
      General View of the Political History of Europe,
      chapter 3, section 13.

AUSTRIA:
The Singularity of Austrian history.
A power which is not a national power.

"It is by no means an easy task to tell the story of the various lands which have at different times come under the dominion of Austrian princes, the story of each land by itself, and the story of them all in relation to the common power. A continuous narrative is impossible. … Much mischief has been done by one small fashion of modern speech. It has within my memory become usual to personify nations and powers on the smallest occasions in a way which was formerly done only in language more or less solemn, rhetorical or poetical. We now talk every moment of England, France, Germany, Russia, Italy, as if they were persons. And as long as it is only England, France, Germany, Russia, or Italy of which we talk in this way, no practical harm is done; the thing is a mere question of style. For those are all national powers. … But when we go on to talk in this way of 'Austria,' of 'Turkey,' direct harm is done; thought is confused, and facts are misrepresented. … I have seen the words 'Austrian national honour;' I have come across people who believed that 'Austria' was one land inhabited by 'Austrians,' and that 'Austrians' spoke the 'Austrian' language. All such phrases are misapplied. It is to be presumed that in all of them 'Austria' means something more than the true Austria, the archduchy; what is commonly meant by them is the whole dominions of the sovereign of Austria. People fancy that the inhabitants of those dominions have a common being, a common interest, like that of the people of England, France, or Italy. … There is no Austrian language, no Austrian nation; therefore there can be no such thing as 'Austrian national honour.' Nor can there be an 'Austrian policy' in the same sense in which there is an English or a French policy, that is, a policy in which the English or French government carries out the will of the English or French nation. … Such phrases as 'Austrian interests,' 'Austrian policy,' and the like, do not mean the interests or the policy of any land or nation at all. They simply mean the interests and policy of a particular ruling family, which may often be the same as the interests and wishes of particular parts of their dominions, but which can never represent any common interest or common wish on the part of the whole. … We must ever remember that the dominions of the House of Austria are simply a collection of kingdoms, duchies, etc., brought together by various accidental causes, but which have nothing really in common, no common speech, no common feeling, no common interest. In one case only, that of the Magyars in Hungary, does the House of Austria rule over a whole nation; the other kingdoms, duchies, etc., are only parts of nations, having no tie to one another, but having the closest ties to other parts of their several nations which lie close to them, but which are under other governments. The only bond among them all is that a series of marriages, wars, treaties, and so forth, have given them a common sovereign. The same person is king of Hungary, Archduke of Austria, Count of Tyrol, Lord of Trieste, and a hundred other things. That is all. … The growth and the abiding dominion of the House of Austria is one of the most remarkable phænomena in European history. Powers of the same kind have arisen twice before; but in both cases they were very short-lived, while the power of the House of Austria has lasted for several centuries. The power of the House of Anjou in the twelfth century, the power of the House of Burgundy in the fifteenth century, were powers of exactly the same kind. They too were collections of scraps, with no natural connexion, brought together by the accidents of warfare, marriage, of diplomacy. Now why is it that both these powers broke in pieces almost at once, after the reigns of two princes in each case, while the power of the House of Austria has lasted so long? Two causes suggest themselves. One is the long connexion between the House of Austria and the Roman Empire and kingdom of Germany. So many Austrian princes were elected Emperors as to make the Austrian House seem something great and imperial in itself. I believe that this cause has done a good deal towards the result; but I believe that another cause has done yet more. This is that, though the Austrian power is not a national power, there is, as has been already noticed, a nation within it. While it contains only scraps of other nations, it contains the whole of the Magyar nation. It thus gets something of the strength of a national power. … The kingdom of Hungary is an ancient kingdom, with known boundaries which have changed singularly little for several centuries; and its connexion with the archduchy of Austria and the kingdom of Bohemia is now of long standing. Anything beyond this is modern and shifting. The so-called 'empire of Austria' dates only from the year 1804. This is one of the simplest matters in the world, but one which is constantly forgotten. … A smaller point on which confusion also prevails is this. {197} All the members of the House of Austria are commonly spoken of as archdukes and archduchesses. I feel sure that many people, if asked the meaning of the word archduke, would say that it was the title of the children of the 'Emperor of Austria,' as grand-duke is used in Russia, and prince in most countries. In truth, archduke is the title of the sovereign of Austria. He has not given it up; for he calls himself Archduke of Austria still, though he calls himself 'Emperor of Austria' as well. But by German custom, the children of a duke or count are all called dukes and counts for ever and ever. In this way the Prince of Wales is called 'Duke of Saxony,' and in the same way all the children of an Archduke of Austria are archdukes and archduchesses. Formally and historically then, the taking of an hereditary imperial title by the Archduke of Austria in 1804, and the keeping of it after the prince who took it had ceased in 1806 to be King of Germany and Roman Emperor-elect, was a sheer and shameless imposture. But it is an imposture which has thoroughly well served its ends."

"Medieval History is a history of rights and wrongs; modern History as contrasted with medieval divides itself into two portions; the first a history of powers, forces, and dynasties; the second, a history in which ideas take the place of both rights and forces. … Austria may be regarded as representing the more ancient form of right. … The middle ages proper, the centuries from the year 1000 to the year 1500, from the Emperor Henry II. to the Emperor Maximilian, were ages of legal growth, ages in which the idea of right, as embodied in law, was the leading idea of statesmen, and the idea of rights justified or justifiable by the letter of law, was a profound influence with politicians. … The house of Austria … lays thus the foundation of that empire which is to be one of the great forces of the next age; not by fraud, not by violence, but here by a politic marriage, here by a well advocated inheritance, here by a claim on an imperial fief forfeited or escheated: honestly where the letter of the law is in her favour, by chicanery it may be here and there, but that a chicanery that wears a specious garb of right. The imperial idea was but a small influence compared with the super-structure of right, inheritance, and suzerainty, that legal instincts and a general acquiescence in legal forms had raised upon it."

William Stubbs, Seventeen Lectures on the Study of Medieval and Modern History, pages 209-215.

ETHNOGRAPHICAL MAP OF AUSTRIA-HUNGARY

   "The ethnical elements of the population are as follows (1890
   for Austria and 1880 for Hungary) on the basis of language;
      Austria (1890):
      German 8,461,580;
      Bohemian, Moravian and Slovak 5,472,871;
      Polish 3,719,232;
      Ruthenian 3,105,221;
      Slovene 1,176,672;
      Servian and Croatian 644,926;
      Italian and Latin 675,305;
      Roumanian 209,110;
      Magyar 8,139.
      Hungary (1880):
      German 1,972,115;
      Bohemian, Moravian and Slovak 1,892,806;
      Ruthenian 360,051;
      Slovene 86,401;
      Servian and Croatian 2,359,708;
      Roumanian 2,423,387;
      Magyar 6,478,711;
      Gipsies 82,256;
      Others 83,940,"

[Red] Physical or material.
[Blue] Ethnological.
[Green] Social and political.
[Brown] Intellectual, moral and religious.
[Black] Foreign.

The history of Austria, so far as it has importance, is unique in being the history of a Family and not the history of a State,— the history of a Dynastic and not of a National Power. Territorially, the name was attached, until 1806, to an inconsiderable arch-duchy, on the Danube, in that corner of Teutonic Europe where the Germans of the Middle Ages fought back the Turanian races and the Slaves. Dynastically, it became connected, in the 13th century, with a House, then insignificant, in Alsace, and to the future remarkable fortunes of that House the territory so named contributed little more than a strong central position and a capital town.

Rodolph, Count of Hapsburg, with whom the importance of Austrian history begins, was elected Emperor in 1272, for the reason that his possessions were small and the resoluteness of his character was unknown. He disappointed the Electors by increasing the weight and reviving the power of the Imperial office, which they had not at all desired, and he used its power vigorously for the benefit of himself and his own. The King of Bohemia resisted him and was defeated and slain; and a part of the dominions which the Bohemian king had acquired, including Austria (then a duchy), Carniola and Styria, was appropriated by Rodolph, for his sons. The House of Hapsburg thus became the House of Austria, and its history is what bears the name of Austrian history from that time until 1806. The Hapsburg family has never produced men of the higher intellectual powers, or the higher qualities of any kind; but a remarkable vitality has been proved in it, and a politic self-seeking capability, which has never, perhaps, persisted through so many generations in any other line. It owes to these qualities the acquisition, again and again, of the elective Imperial crown, until that crown settled, at last, upon the heirs of the House, in practically hereditary succession, despite the wish of the princes of Germany to keep it shifting among the weaker members of their order, and despite the rivalry of greater houses with ambitions like its own. The prestige of the splendid Imperial title, and the influence derived from the theoretical functions of the Emperor—small as the actual powers that he held might be—were instruments of policy which the Austrian princes knew how to use with enormous effect. Austrian marriages and Austrian diplomacy, often alluded to as examples of luck and craft in political affairs, show, rather, it may be, the consistent calculation and sagacity with which the House of Austria has pursued its aims.

By marriages, by diplomacy, and by pressures brought to bear from the headship of the Empire, the family plucked, one by one, the coronets of Tyrol and Carinthia (1363), Franche-Comté and Flanders, with the Low Countries entire (1477), and the crowns of Spain, Naples, Sicily and Sardinia (1516), Bohemia (including Moravia), and Hungary (1526). Its many diadems were never moulded into one, but have been, from first to last, the carefully distinguished emblems of so many separate sovereignties, united in no way but by homage to a common prince.

The one most fortunate acquisition of the House, which has given most stability to the heterogeneous structure of it power, in the judgement of the ablest among modern historians is the Hungarian crown. Its Burgundian and Spanish marriages, which brought to it the rich Netherlands and the vast realm of Ferdinand and Isabella, brought also a division the Family, and the rooting of s second stem in Spain; and while its grandeur among the dynasties of Europe was augmented, the real gain of the House in its older seat was small. But the Kingdom on Hungary has been a mass of very concrete political power in its hands, and has supplied in some degree the weight of nationality that was otherwise wanting in the dominions of the House.

The mixture of races under the Austrian sovereigns is the most extraordinary in Europe. Their possessions exactly cover that part of the continent in which its earlier and later invaders fought longest and most; where the struggle between them was final, and where they mingled their settlements together. The Slavic peoples are predominant in numbers; the Germans are scarcely more than one-fourth of the whole; and yet, until recent years, the Austrian power figured chiefly as a German power in European politics, and took leadership in Germany itself. This position accrued to it through the persisting, potent influence of the Imperial title which the Archdukes of Austria bore, with mediæval fictions from Rome and from Germany woven together and clinging around it; and through the broken and divided condition of the German land, where petty courts and princelings disputed precedence with one another, and none could lead. When time raised up one strong and purely German kingdom, to rally and encourage a German sentiment of nationality, then Austria—expelled by it from the Teutonic circle—first found her true place in the politics of Europe.

For Germany the relationship was never a fortunate one. Alien interests came constantly between the Emperors and the Empire— the proper subject of their care,—and they were drawn to alien sympathies by their connection with Spain. They imbibed the hateful temper of the Spanish Church, and fought the large majority of their German lieges, on the questions of the Reformation, for a century and a half. Among the combatants of the frightful "Thirty Years War" they were chiefly responsible for the death and ruin spread over the face of Germanic Europe. At no time did Germany find leading or strength in her nominal Emperors, nor in the states making up the hereditary possessions of their House. In the dark days when the sword of Napoleon threatened every neighbor of France, they deserted their station of command. It was the time which the head of the House of Austria chose for abdicating the crown of the Holy Roman Empire—that lingering fiction of history,—and yet assuming to be an Emperor still—the Emperor of an Empire which rested on the small duchy of Austria for its name.

The renunciation was timely; for now, when Germany rose to break the yoke of Napoleon, she found leadership within her own family of states. Then began the transformation in Germanic Europe which extinguished, after half a century, the last remains of the false relations to it of the Austrian House. Prussia opened her eyes to the new conditions of the age; set the schoolmaster at work among her children; made herself an example and a stimulus to all her neighbors. The Family which called itself Austria did otherwise. It was blind, and it preferred blindness. It read lessons in nothing but the Holy Alliance and the Treaty of Vienna. It listened to no teacher but Metternich. It made itself the resurrectionist of a dead Past in all the graveyards of Feudal Europe, and was heard for half a century as the supporter and champion of every hateful thing in government. It had won Lombardy and Venice by its double traffic with Napoleon and with those who cast Napoleon down; and it enraged the whole civilized world by the cold brutality of its oppressions there.

Events in due time brought the two "systems" of domestic polity— the Prussian and the Austrian—to account, and weighed them together. As a consequence, it happens to-day that the House of Austria has neither place nor voice in the political organization of Germany; has no footing in Italy; has no dungeons of tyranny in its dominions; has no disciples of Metternich among its statesmen. Its face and its feet are now turned quite away from the paths of ambition and of policy which it trod so long. It has learned, and is learning, so fast that it may yet be a teacher in the school of liberal politics which it entered so late. It has set Hungary by the side of Austria, treading the one great nation of its subjects no longer under foot. It sees its interests and recognizes its duties in that quarter of Europe to which History and Geography have been pointing from Vienna and Buda-Pesth since the days of Charlemagne. Its mission in Europe is to command the precarious future of the southeastern states, so far as may be, and to guard them against the dangerous Muscovite, until they grow in civilization and strength and are united as one Power. In this mission it is the ally and the colleague of both Germany and Italy, and the three Powers are united by stronger bonds than were possible before each stood free.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 805-1246.
   The Rise of the Margraviate, and the creation of the Duchy,
   under the Babenbergs.
   Changing relations to Bavaria.
   End of the Babenberg Dynasty.

"Austria, as is well known, is but the Latin form of the German Oesterreich, the kingdom of the east [see above: AUSTRASIA]. This celebrated historical name appears for the first time in 996. in a document signed by the emperor Otto III. ('in regione vulgari nomine Osterrichi'). The land to which it is there applied was created a march after the destruction of the Avar empire [805], and was governed like all the other German marches. Politically it was divided into two margraviates; that of Friuli, including Friuli properly so called, Lower Pannonia to the south of the Drave, Carinthia, Istria, and the interior of Dalmatia—the sea-coast having been ceded to the Eastern emperor;—the eastern margraviate comprising Lower Pannonia to the north of the Drave, Upper Pannonia, and the Ostmark properly so called. The Ostmark included the Traungau to the east of the Enns, which was completely German, and the Grunzvittigau. … The early history of these countries lacks the unity of interest which the fate of a dynasty or a nation gives to those of the Magyar and the Chekh. They form but a portion of the German kingdom, and have no strongly marked life of their own. The march, with its varying frontier, had not even a geographical unity. In 876, it was enlarged by the addition of Bavaria; in 890, it lost Pannonia, which was given to Bracislav, the Croat prince, in return for his help against the Magyars, and in 937, it was destroyed and absorbed by the Magyars, who extended their frontier to the river Enns. After the battle of Lechfeld or Augsburg (955), Germany and Italy being no longer exposed to Hungarian invasions, the march was re-constituted and granted to the margrave Burkhard, the brother-in-law of Henry of Bavaria. Leopold of Babenberg succeeded him (973), and with him begins the dynasty of Babenberg, which ruled the country during the time of the Premyslides [in Bohemia] and the house of Arpad [in Hungary]. The Babenbergs derived their name from the castle of Babenberg, built by Henry, margrave of Nordgau, in honor of his wife, Baba, sister of Henry the Fowler. It reappears in the name of the town of Bamberg, which now forms part of the kingdom of Bavaria. … Though not of right an hereditary office, the margraviate soon became so, and remained in the family of the Babenbergs; the march was so important a part of the empire that no doubt the emperor was glad to make the defence of this exposed district the especial interest of one family. … The marriages of the Babenbergs were fortunate; in 1138 the brother of Leopold [Fourth of that name in the Margraviate] Conrad of Hohenstaufen, Duke of Franconia, was made emperor. It was now that the struggle began between the house of Hohenstaufen and the great house of Welf [or Guelf: See GUELFS AND GHIBELINES] whose representative was Henry the Proud, Duke of Saxony and Bavaria. Henry was defeated in the unequal strife, and was placed under the ban of the Empire, while the duchy of Saxony was awarded to Albert the Bear of Brandenburg, and the duchy of Bavaria fell to the share of Leopold IV. (1138). Henry the Proud died in the following year, leaving behind him a son under age, who was known later on as Henry the Lion. His uncle Welf would not submit to the forfeiture by his house of their old dominions, and marched against Leopold to reconquer Bavaria, but he was defeated by Conrad at the battle of Weinsberg (1140). Leopold died shortly after this victory, and was succeeded both in the duchy of Bavaria and in the margraviate of Austria by his brother, Henry II." Henry II. endeavored to strengthen himself in Bavaria by marrying the widow of Henry the Proud, and by extorting from her son, Henry the Lion, a renunciation of the latter's rights. But Henry the Lion afterwards repudiated his renunciation, and in 1156 the German diet decided that Bavaria should be restored to him. Henry of Austria was wisely persuaded to yield to the decision, and Bavaria was given up. "He lost nothing by this unwilling act of disinterestedness, for he secured from the emperor considerable compensation. From this time forward, Austria, which had been largely increased by the addition of the greater part of the lands lying between the Enns and the Inn, was removed from its almost nominal subjection to Bavaria and became a separate duchy [Henry II. being the first hereditary Duke of Austria]. An imperial edict, dated the 21st of September, 1156, declares the new duchy hereditary even in the female line, and authorizes the dukes to absent themselves from all diets except those which were held in Bavarian territory. It also permits them, in case of a threatened extinction of their dynasty, to propose a successor. … Henry II. was one of the founders of Vienna. He constructed a fortress there, and, in order to civilize the surrounding country, sent for some Scotch monks, of whom there were many at this time in Germany." In 1177 Henry II. was succeeded by Leopold V., called the Virtuous. "In his reign the duchy of Austria gained Styria, an important addition to its territory. This province was inhabited by Slovenes and Germans, and took its name from the castle of Steyer, built in 980 by Otokar III., count of the Trungau. In 1056, it was created a margraviate, and in 1150 it was enlarged by the addition of the counties of Maribor (Marburg) and Cilly. In 1180, Otokar VI. of Styria (1164-1102) obtained the hereditary title of duke from the Emperor in return for his help against Henry the Lion." Dying without children, Otokar made Leopold of Austria his heir. "Styria was annexed to Austria in 1192, and has remained so ever since. … Leopold V. is the first of the Austrian princes whose name is known in Western Europe. He joined the third crusade," and quarrelled with Richard Coeur de Lion at the siege of St. Jean d' Acre. Afterwards, when Richard, returning home by the Adriatic, attempted to pass through Austrian territory incognito, Leopold revenged himself by seizing and imprisoning the English king, finally selling his royal captive to a still meaner Emperor for 20,000 marks. Leopold VI. who succeeded to the Austrian duchy in 1198, did much for the commerce of his country. "He made Vienna the staple town, and lent a sum of 30,000 marks of silver to the city to enable it to increase its trade. He adorned it with many new buildings, among them the Neue Burg." His son, called Frederick the Fighter (1230-1246) was the last of the Babenberg dynasty. His hand was against all his neighbors, including the Emperor Frederick II., and their hands were against him. He perished in June, 1246, on the banks of the Leitha, while at war with the Hungarians.

      ALSO IN:
      E. F. Henderson,
      Select History Documents of the Middle Ages,
      book 2, number 7.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1246-1282.
Rodolph of Hapsburg and the acquisition of the Duchy for his family.

"The House of Austria owes its origin and power to Rhodolph of Hapsburgh, son of Albert IV. count of Hapsburgh. The Austrian genealogists, who have taken indefatigable but ineffectual pains to trace his illustrious descent from the Romans, carry it with great probability to Ethico, duke of Alsace, in the seventh century, and unquestionably to Guntram the Rich, count of Alsace and Brisgau, who flourished in the tenth." A grandson of Guntram, Werner by name, "became bishop of Strasburgh, and on an eminence above Windiisch, built the castle of Hapsburgh ['Habichtsburg' 'the castle of vultures'], which became the residence of the future counts, and gave a new title to the descendants of Guntram. … The successors of Werner increased their family inheritance by marriages, donations from the Emperors, and by becoming prefects, advocates, or administrators of the neighbouring abbeys, towns, or districts, and his great grandson, Albert III., was possessor of no inconsiderable territories in Suabia, Alsace, and that part of Switzerland which is now called the Argau, and held the landgraviate of Upper Alsace. His son, Rhodolph, received from the Emperor, in addition to his paternal inheritance, the town and district of Lauffenburgh, an imperial city on the Rhine. He acquired also a considerable accession of territory by obtaining the advocacy of Uri, Schweitz, and Underwalden, whose natives laid the foundation of the Helvetic Confederacy, by their union against the oppressions of feudal tyranny."

"On the death of Rodolph in 1232 his estates were divided between his sons Albert IV. and Rodolph II.; the former receiving the landgraviate of Upper Alsace, and the county of Hapsburg, together with the patrimonial castle; the latter, the counties Rheinfelden and Lauffenburg, and some other territories. Albert espoused Hedwige, daughter of Ulric, count of Kyburg; and from this union sprang the great Rodolph, who was born on the 1st of May 1218, and was presented at the baptismal font by the Emperor Frederic II. On the death of his father Albert in 1240, Rodolph succeeded to his estates; but the greater portion of these were in the hands of his paternal uncle, Rodolph of Lauffenburg; and all he could call his own lay within sight of the great hall of his castle. … His disposition was wayward and restless, and drew him into repeated contests with his neighbours and relations. … In a quarrel with the Bishop of Basel, Rodolph led his troops against that city, and burnt a convent in the suburbs, for which he was excommunicated by Pope Innocent IV. He then entered the service of Ottocar II. King of Bohemia, under whom he served, in company with the Teutonic Knights, in his wars against the Prussian pagans; and afterwards against Bela IV. King of Hungary." The surprising election, in 1272, of this little known count of Hapsburg, to be King of the Romans, with the substance if not the title of the imperial dignity which that election carried with it, was due to a singular friendship which he had acquired some fourteen years before. When Archbishop Werner, Elector of Mentz, was on his way to Rome in 1259, to receive the pallium, he "was escorted across the Alps by Rodolph of Hapsburg, and under his protection secured from the robbers who beset the passes. Charmed with the affability and frankness of his protector, the Archbishop conceived a strong regard for Rodolph;" and when, in 1272, after the Great Interregnum [see GERMANY: A. D. 1250-1272], the Germanic Electors found difficulty in choosing an Emperor, the Elector of Mentz recommended his friend of Hapsburg as a candidate. "The Electors are described by a contemporary as desiring an Emperor but detesting his power. The comparative lowliness of the Count of Hapsburg recommended him as one from whom their authority stood in little jeopardy; but the claims of the King of Bohemia were vigorously urged; and it was at length agreed to decide the election by the voice of the Duke of Bavaria. Lewis without hesitation nominated Rodolph. … The early days of Rodolph's reign were disturbed by the contumacy of Ottocar, King of Bohemia. That Prince … persisted in refusing to acknowledge the Count of Hapsburg as his sovereign. Possessed of the dutchies of Austria, Styria, Carniola and Carinthia, he might rely upon his own resources; and he was fortified in his resistance by the alliance of Henry, Duke of Lower Bavaria. But the very possession of these four great fiefs was sufficient to draw down the envy and distrust of the other German Princes. To all these territories, indeed, the title of Ottocar was sufficiently disputable. On the death of Frederic II. fifth duke of Austria [and last of the Babenberg dynasty] in 1246, that dutchy, together with Styria and Carniola, was claimed by his niece Gertrude and his sister Margaret. By a marriage with the latter, and a victory over Bela IV. King of Hungary, whose uncle married Gertrude, Ottocar obtained possession of Austria and Styria; and in virtue of a purchase from Ulric, Duke of Carinthia and Carniola, he possessed himself of those dutchies on Ulric's death in 1269, in defiance of the claims of Philip, brother of the late Duke. Against so powerful a rival the Princes assembled at Augsburg readily voted succours to Rodolph; and Ottocar having refused to surrender the Austrian dominions, and even hanged the heralds who were sent to pronounce the consequent sentence of proscription, Rodolph with his accustomed promptitude took the field [1276], and confounded his enemy by a rapid march upon Austria. In his way he surprised and vanquished the rebel Duke of Bavaria, whom he compelled to join his forces; he besieged and reduced to the last extremity the city of Vienna; and had already prepared a bridge of boats to cross the Danube and invade Bohemia, when Ottocar arrested his progress by a message of submission. The terms agreed upon were severely humiliating to the proud soul of Ottocar," and he was soon in revolt again, with the support of the Duke of Bavaria. Rodolph marched against him, and a desperate battle was fought at Marschfeld, August 26, 1278, in which Ottocar, deserted at a critical moment by the Moravian troops, was defeated and slain. "The total loss of the Bohemians on that fatal day amounted to more than 14,000 men. In the first moments of his triumph, Rodolph designed to appropriate the dominions of his deceased enemy. {200} But his avidity was restrained by the Princes of the Empire, who interposed on behalf of the son of Ottocar; and Wenceslaus was permitted to retain Bohemia and Moravia. The projected union of the two families was now renewed: Judith of Hapsburg was affianced to the young King of Bohemia; whose sister Agnes was married to Rodolph, youngest son of the King of the Romans." In 1282, Rodolph, "after satisfying the several claimants to those territories by various cessions of lands …. obtained the consent of a Diet held at Augsburg to the settlement of Austria, Styria, and Carniola, upon his two surviving sons; who were accordingly jointly invested with those dutchies with great pomp and solemnity; and they are at this hour enjoyed by the descendants of Rodolph of Hapsburg."

      ALSO IN:
      J. Planta,
      History of the Helvetic Confederacy.
      book 1, chapter 5 (volume 1).

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1282-1315.
   Relations of the House of Hapsburg to the Swiss Forest Cantons.
   The Tell Legend.
   The Battle of Morgarten.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1291-1349.
   Loss and recovery of the imperial crown.
   Liberation of Switzerland.
   Conflict between Frederick and Lewis of Bavaria.
   The imperial crown lost once more.

Rudolf of Hapsburg desired the title of King of the Romans for his son. "But the electors already found that the new house of Austria was becoming too powerful, and they refused. On his death, in fact, in 1291, a prince from another family, poor and obscure, Adolf of Nassau, was elected after an interregnum of ten months. His reign of six years is marked by two events; he sold himself to Edward I. in 1291, against Philip the Fair, for 100,000 pounds sterling, and used the money in an attempt to obtain in Thuringia a principality for his family as Rudolf had done in Austria. The electors were displeased and chose Albert of Austria to succeed him, who conquered and killed his adversary at Göllheim, near Worms (1298). The ten years reign of the new king of the Romans showed that he was very ambitious for his family, which he wished to establish on the throne of Bohemia, where the Slavonic dynasty had lately died out, and also in Thuringia and Meissen, where he lost a battle. He was also bent upon extending his rights, even unjustly—in Alsace and Switzerland—and it proved an unfortunate venture for him. For, on the one hand, he roused the three Swiss cantons of Uri, Schweitz, and Unterwalden to revolt; on the other hand, he roused the wrath of his nephew John of Swabia, whom he defrauded of his inheritance (domains in Switzerland. Swabia, and Alsace). As he was crossing the Reuss, John thrust him through with his sword (1308). The assassin escaped. One of Albert's daughters, Agnes, dowager queen of Hungary, had more than a thousand innocent people killed to avenge the death of her father. The greater part of the present Switzerland had been originally included in the Kingdom of Burgundy, and was ceded to the empire, together with that kingdom, in 1033. A feudal nobility, lay and ecclesiastic, had gained a firm footing there. Nevertheless, by the 12th century the cities had risen to some importance. Zurich, Basel, Bern, and Freiburg had an extensive commerce and obtained municipal privileges. Three little cantons, far in the heart of the Swiss mountains, preserved more than all the others their indomitable spirit of independence. When Albert of Austria became Emperor [King?] he arrogantly tried to encroach upon their independence. Three heroic mountaineers, Werner Stauffacher, Arnold of Melchthal, and Walter Fürst, each with ten chosen friends, conspired together at Rütli, to throw off the yoke. The tyranny of the Austrian bailiff Gessler, and William Tell's well-aimed arrow, if tradition is to be believed, gave the signal for the insurrection."

   "Albert's violent death left to Leopold, his successor in the
   duchy of Austria, the care of repressing the rebellion. He
   failed and was completely defeated at Mortgarten (1315). That
   was Switzerland's field of Marathon. … When Rudolf of
   Hapsburg was chosen by the electors, it was because of his
   poverty and weakness. At his death accordingly they did not
   give their votes for his son Albert. … Albert, however,
   succeeded in overthrowing his rival. But on his death they
   were firm in their decision not to give the crown for a third
   time to the new and ambitions house of Hapsburg. They likewise
   refused, for similar reasons, to accept Charles of Valois,
   brother of Philip the Fair, whom the latter tried to place on
   the imperial throne, in order that he might indirectly rule
   over Germany. They supported the Count of Luxemburg, who
   became Henry VII. By choosing emperors [kings?] who were
   poor, the electors placed them under the temptation of
   enriching themselves at the expense of the empire. Adolf
   failed, it is true, in Thuringia, but Rudolf gained Austria by
   victory; Henry succeeded in Bohemia by means of marriage, and
   Bohemia was worth more than Austria at that time because,
   besides Moravia, it was made to cover Silesia and a part of
   Lusatia (Oberlausitz). Henry's son, John of Luxemburg, married
   the heiress to that royal crown. As for Henry himself he
   remained as poor as before. He had a vigorous, restless
   spirit, and went to try his fortunes on his own account beyond
   the Alps. … He was seriously threatening Naples, when he
   died either from some sickness or from being poisoned by a
   Dominican in partaking of the host (1313). A year's
   interregnum followed; then two emperors [kings?] at once:
   Lewis of Bavaria and Frederick the Fair, son of the Emperor
   Albert. After eight years of war, Lewis gained his point by
   the victory of Mühldorf (1322), which delivered Frederick into
   his hands. He kept him in captivity for three years, and at
   the end of that time became reconciled with him, and they were
   on such good terms that both bore the title of King and
   governed in common. The fear inspired in Lewis by France and
   the Holy See dictated this singular agreement. Henry VII. had
   revived the policy of interference by the German emperors in
   the affairs of Italy, and had kindled again the quarrel with
   the Papacy which had long appeared extinguished. Lewis IV. did
   the same. … While Boniface VIII. was making war on Philip
   the Fair, Albert allied himself with him; when, on the other
   hand, the Papacy was reduced to the state of a servile
   auxiliary to France, the Emperor returned to his former
   hostility.
{201}
   When ex-communicated by Pope John XXII., who
   wished to give the empire to the king of France, Charles IV.,
   Lewis IV. made use of the same weapons. … Tired of a crown
   loaded with anxieties, Lewis of Bavaria was finally about to
   submit to the Pope and abdicate, when the electors perceived
   the necessity of supporting their Emperor and of formally
   releasing the supreme power from foreign dependency which
   brought the whole nation to shame. That was the object of the
   Pragmatic Sanction of Frankfort, pronounced in 1338 by the
   Diet, on the report of the electors. … The king of France
   and Pope Clement VI., whose claims were directly affected by
   this declaration, set up against Lewis IV. Charles of
   Luxemburg, son of John the Blind, who became king of Bohemia
   in 1346, when his father had been killed fighting on the
   French side at the battle of Crécy. Lewis died the following
   year. He had gained possession of Brandenburg and the Tyrol
   for his house, but it was unable to retain possession of them.
   The latter county reverted to the house of Austria in 1363.
   The electors most hostile to the French party tried to put up,
   as a rival candidate to Charles of Luxemburg, Edward III.,
   king of England, who refused the empire; then they offered it
   to a brave knight, Gunther of Schwarzburg, who died, perhaps
   poisoned, after a few months (1349). The king of Bohemia then
   became Emperor as Charles IV. by a second election."

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1330-1364.
   Forged charters of Duke Rudolf.
   The Privilegium Majus.
   His assumption of the Archducal title.
   Acquisition of Tyrol.
   Treaties of inheritance with Bohemia and Hungary.

King John, of Bohemia, had married his second son, John Henry, at the age of eight, to the afterwards notable Margaret Maultasche (Pouch mouth), daughter of the duke of Tyrol and Carinthia, who was then twelve years old. He hoped by this means to reunite those provinces to Bohemia. To thwart this scheme, the Emperor, Louis of Bavaria, and the two Austrian princes, Albert the Wise and Otto the Gay, came to an understanding. "By the treaty of Hagenau (1330), it was arranged that on the death of duke Henry, who had no male heirs, Carinthia should become the property of Austria, Tyrol that of the Emperor. Henry died in 1335, whereupon the Emperor, Louis of Bavaria, declared that Margaret Maultasche had forfeited all rights of inheritance, and proceeded to assign the two provinces to the Austrian princes, with the exception of some portion of the Tyrol which devolved on the house of Wittelsbach. Carinthia alone, however, obeyed the Emperor; the Tyrolese nobles declared for Margaret, and, with the help of John of Bohemia, this princess was able to keep possession of this part of her inheritance. … Carinthia also did Dot long remain in the undisputed possession of Austria. Margaret was soon divorced from her very youthful husband (1342), and shortly after married the son of the Emperor Louis of Bavaria, who hoped to be able to invest his son, not only with Tyrol, but also with Carinthia, and once more we find the houses of Hapsburg and Luxemburg united by a common interest. … When … Charles IV. of Bohemia was chosen emperor, he consented to leave Carinthia in the possession of Austria. Albert did homage for it. … According to the wish of their father, the four sons of Albert reigned after him; but the eldest, Rudolf IV., exercised executive authority in the name of the others [1358-1365]. … He was only 19 when he came to the throne, but he had already married one of the daughters of the Emperor Charles IV. Notwithstanding this family alliance, Charles had not given Austria such a place in the Golden Bull [see GERMANY: A. D. 1347-1492] as seemed likely to secure either her territorial importance or a proper position for her princes. They had not been admitted into the electoral college of the Empire, and yet their scattered possessions stretched from the banks of the Leitha to the Rhine. … These grievances were enhanced by their feeling of envy towards Bohemia, which had attained great prosperity under Charles IV. It was at this time that, in order to increase the importance of his house, Rudolf, or his officers of state, had recourse to a measure which was often employed in that age by princes, religious bodies, and even by the Holy See. It was pretended that there were in existence a whole series of charters which had been granted to the house of Austria by various kings and emperors, and which secured to their princes a position entirely independent of both empire and Emperor. According to these documents, and more especially the one called the 'privilegium majus,' the duke of Austria owed no kind of service to the empire, which was, however, bound to protect him; … he was to appear at the diets with the title of archduke, and was to have the first place among the electors. … Rudolf pretended that these documents had just come to light, and demanded their confirmation from Charles IV., who refused it. Nevertheless on the strength of these lying charters, he took the title of palatine archduke, without waiting to ask the leave of Charles, and used the royal insignia. Charles IV., who could not fail to be irritated by these pretensions, in his turn revived the claims which he had inherited from Premysl Otokar II. to the lands of Austria, Styria, Carinthia, and Carniola. These claims, however, were simply theoretical, and no attempt was made to enforce them, and the mediation of Louis the Great, King of Hungary, finally led to a treaty between the two princes, which satisfied the ambition of the Habsburgs (1364). By this treaty, the houses of Habsburg in Austria and of Luxemburg in Bohemia each guaranteed the inheritance of their lands to the other, in case of the extinction of either of the two families, and the estates of Bohemia and Austria ratified this agreement. A similar compact was concluded between Austria and Hungary, and thus the boundaries of the future Austrian state were for the first time marked out. Rudolf himself gained little by these long and intricate negotiations, Tyrol being all he added to his territory. Margaret Maultasche had married her son Meinhard to the daughter of Albert the Wise, at the same time declaring that, in default of heirs male to her son, Tyrol should once more become the possession of Austria, and it did so in 1363. Rudolf immediately set out for Botzen, and there received the homage of the Tyrolese nobles. …The acquisition of Tyrol was most important to Austria. It united Austria Proper with the old possessions of the Habsburgs in Western Germany, and opened the way to Italy. Margaret Maultasche died at Vienna in 1369. The memory of this restless and dissolute princess still survives among the Tyrolese."

SEE SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1386-1388.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1437-1516.
Contests for Hungary and Bohemia.
The right of Succession to the Hungarian Crown secured.

"Europe would have had nothing to fear from the Barbarians, if Hungary had been permanently united to Bohemia, and had held them in check. But Hungary interfered both with the independence and the religion of Bohemia. In this way they weakened each other, and in the 15th century wavered between the two Sclavonic and German powers on their borders (Poland and Austria) [see HUNGARY: A. D. 1301-1442, and 1442-1458]. United under a German prince from 1455 to 1458, separated for a time under national sovereigns (Bohemia until 1471, Hungary until 1490), they were once more united under Polish princes until 1526, at which period they passed definitively into the hands of Austria. After the reign of Ladislas of Austria, who won so much glory by the exploits of John Hunniades, George Podiebrad obtained the crown of Bohemia, and Matthias Corvinus, the son of Hunniades, was elected King of Hungary (1458). These two princes opposed successfully the chimerical pretensions of the Emperor Frederick III. Podiebrad protected the Hussites and incurred the enmity of the Popes. Matthias victoriously encountered the Turks and obtained the favour of Paul II., who offered him the crown of Podiebrad, his father-in-law. The latter opposed to the hostility of Matthias the alliance of the King of Poland, whose eldest son, Ladislas, he designated as his successor. At the same time, Casimir, the brother of Ladislas, endeavoured to take from Matthias the crown of Hungary. Matthias, thus pressed on all sides, was obliged to renounce the conquest of Bohemia, and content himself with the provinces of Moravia, Silesia, and Lusatia, which were to return to Ladislas if Matthias died first (1475-1478). The King of Hungary compensated himself at the expense of Austria. On the pretext that Frederick III. had refused to give him his daughter, he twice invaded his states and retained them in his possession [see HUNGARY: A. D. 1471-1487]. With this great prince Christendom lost its chief defender, Hungary her conquests and her political preponderance (1490). The civilization which he had tried to introduce into his kingdom was deferred for many centuries. … Ladislas (of Poland), King of Bohemia, having been elected King of Hungary, was attacked by his brother John Albert, and by Maximilian of Austria, who both pretended to that crown. He appeased his brother by the cession of Silesia (1491), and Maximilian by vesting in the House of Austria the right of succession to the throne of Hungary, in case he himself should die without male issue. Under Ladislas, and under his son Louis II., who succeeded him while still a child, in 1516 Hungary was ravaged with impunity by the Turks."

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1438-1493.
The Imperial Crown lastingly regained.
The short reign of Albert II., and the long reign of Frederick III.

"After the death of Sigismund, the princes, in 1438, elected an emperor [king?] from the house of Austria, which, with scarcely any intermission, has ever since occupied the ancient throne of Germany. Albert II. of Austria, who, as son-in-law of the late Emperor Sigismund, had become at the same time King of Hungary and Bohemia, was a well-meaning, distinguished prince, and would, without doubt, have proved of great benefit to the empire; but he died … in the second year of his reign, after his return from an expedition against the Turks. … In the year 1431, during the reign of Sigismund, a new council was assembled at Basle, in order to carry on the work of reforming the church as already commenced at Constance. But this council soon became engaged in many perplexing controversies with Pope Eugene IV. … The Germans, for a time, took no part in the dispute; at length, however, under the Emperor [King?] Albert II., they formally adopted the chief decrees of the council of Basle, at a diet held at Mentz in the year 1439. … Amongst the resolutions then adopted were such as materially circumscribed the existing privileges of the pope. … These and other decisions, calculated to give important privileges and considerable independence to the German church, were, in a great measure, annulled by Albert's cousin and successor, Duke Frederick of Austria, who was elected by the princes after him in the year 1440, as Frederick III. … Frederick, the emperor, was a prince who meant well but, at the same time, was of too quiet and easy a nature; his long reign presents but little that was calculated to distinguish Germany or add to its renown. From the east the empire was endangered by the approach of an enemy—the Turks, against whom no precautionary measures were adopted. They, on the 29th of May, 1453, conquered Constantinople. … They then made their way towards the Danube, and very nearly succeeded also in taking Hungary [see HUNGARY: A. D. 1442-1458]. … The Hungarians, on the death of the son of the Emperor Albert II., Wladislas Posthumus, in the year 1457, without leaving an heir to the throne, chose Matthias, the son of John Corvinus, as king, being resolved not to elect one from amongst the Austrian princes. The Bohemians likewise selected a private nobleman for their king, George Padriabrad [or Podiebrad], and thus the Austrian house found itself for a time rejected from holding possession of either of these countries. … In Germany, meantime, there existed numberless contests and feuds; each party considered only his own personal quarrels. … The emperor could not give any weight to public measures: scarcely could he maintain his dignity amongst his own subjects. The Austrian nobility were even bold enough to send challenges to their sovereign; whilst the city of Vienna revolted, and his brother Albert, taking pleasure in this disorder, was not backward in adding to it. Things even went to such an extremity, that, in 1462, the Emperor Frederick, together with his consort and son, Maximilian, then four years of age, was besieged by his subjects in his own castle of Vienna. A plebeian burgher, named Holzer, had placed himself at the head of the insurgents, and was made burgomaster, whilst Duke Albert came to Vienna personally to superintend the siege of the castle, which was intrenched and bombarded. {203} …The German princes, however, could not witness with indifference such disgraceful treatment of their emperor, and they assembled to liberate him. George Padriabrad, King of Bohemia, was the first who hastened to the spot with assistance, set the emperor at liberty, and effected a reconciliation between him and his brother. The emperor, however, was obliged to resign to him, for eight years, Lower Austria and Vienna. Albert died in the following year. … In the Germanic empire, the voice of the emperor was as little heeded as in his hereditary lands. … The feudal system raged under Frederick's reign to such an extent, that it was pursued even by the lower classes. Thus, in 1471, the shoeblacks in Leipsic sent a challenge to the university of that place; and the bakers of the Count Palatine Lewis, and those of the Margrave of Baden defied several imperial cities in Swabia. The most important transaction in the reign of Frederick, was the union which he formed with the house of Burgundy, and which laid the foundation for the greatness of Austria. … In the year 1486, the whole of the assembled princes, influenced especially by the representations of the faithful and now venerable Albert, called the Achilles of Brandenburg, elected Maximilian, the emperor's son, King of Rome. Indeed, about this period a changed and improved spirit began to show itself in a remarkable degree in the minds of many throughout the empire, so that the profound contemplator of coming events might easily see the dawn of a new era. … These last years were the best in the whole life of the emperor, and yielded to him in return for his many sufferings that tranquillity which was so well merited by his faithful generous disposition. He died on the 19th of August, 1493, after a reign of 54 years. The emperor lived long enough to obtain, in the year 1490, the restoration of his hereditary estates by the death of King Matthias, by means of a compact made with Wladislas, his successor."

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1468.
Invasion by George Podiebrad of Bohemia.
The crusade against him.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1471-1491.
   Hungarian invasion and capture of Vienna.
   Treaty of Presburg.
   Succession to the throne of Hungary secured.

"George, King of Bohemia, expired in 1471; and the claims of the Emperor and King of Hungary being equally disregarded, the crown was conferred on Uladislaus, son of Casimir IV. King of Poland, and grandson of Albert II. To this election Frederic long persisted in withholding his assent; but at length he determined to crush the claim of Matthias by formally investing Uladislaus with the kingdom and electorate of Bohemia, and the office of imperial cup-bearer. In revenge for this affront, Matthias marched into Austria: took possession of the fortresses of the Danube; and compelled the Emperor to purchase a cessation of hostilities by undertaking to pay an hundred thousand golden florins, one-half of which was disbursed by the Austrian states at the appointed time. But as the King of Hungary still delayed to yield up the captured fortresses, Frederic refused all further payment; and the war was again renewed. Matthias invaded and ravaged Austria; and though he experienced formidable resistance from several towns, his arms were crowned with success, and he became master of Vienna and Neustadt. Driven from his capital the terrified Emperor was reduced to the utmost distress, and wandered from town to town and from convent to convent, endeavouring to arouse the German States against the Hungarians. Yet even in this exigency his good fortune did not wholly forsake him; and he availed himself of a Diet at Frankfort to procure the election of his son Maximilian as King of the Romans. To this Diet, however, the King of Bohemia received no summons, and therefore protested against the validity of the election. A full apology and admission of his right easily satisfied Uladislaus, and he consented to remit the fine which the Golden Bull had fixed as the penalty of the omission. The death of Matthias Corvinus in 1490, left the throne of Hungary vacant, and the Hungarians, influenced by their widowed queen, conferred the crown upon the King of Bohemia, without listening to the pretensions of Maximilian. That valorous prince, however, sword in hand, recovered his Austrian dominions; and the rival kings concluded a severe contest by the treaty of Presburg, by which Hungary was for the present secured to Uladislaus; but on his death without heirs was to vest in the descendants of the Emperor."

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1477-1495.
   Marriage of Maximilian with Mary of Burgundy.
   His splendid dominion.
   His joyous character.
   His vigorous powers.
   His ambitions and aims.

"Maximilian, who was as active and enterprising as his father was indolent and timid, married at eighteen years of age, the only daughter of Charles the Bold, duke of Burgundy."

"She brought him Flanders, Franche-Comte, and all the Low Countries. Louis XI., who disputed some of those territories, and who, on the death of the duke, had seized Burgundy, Picardy, Ponthieu, and Artois, as fiefs of France, which could not be possessed by a woman, was defeated by Maximilian at Guinegaste; and Charles VIII., who renewed the same claims, was obliged to conclude a disadvantageous peace." Maximilian succeeded to the imperial throne on the death of his father in 1493.

"Between the Alps and the Bohemian frontier, the mark Austria was first founded round and about the castles of Krems and Melk. Since then, beginning first in the valley towards Bavaria and Hungary, and coming to the House of Hapsburg, it had extended across the whole of the northern slope of the Alps until where the Slavish, Italian, and German tongues part, and over to Alsace; thus becoming an archduchy from a mark. On all sides the Archdukes had claims; on the German side to Switzerland, on the Italian to the Venetian possessions, and on the Slavish to Bohemia and Hungary. To such a pitch of greatness had Maximilian by his marriage with Maria of Burgundy brought the heritage received from Charles the Bold. True to the Netherlanders' greeting, in the inscription over their gates, 'Thou art our Duke, fight our battle for us,' war was from the first his handicraft. He adopted Charles the Bold's hostile attitude towards France; he saved the greater part of his inheritance from the schemes of Louis XI. Day and night it was his whole thought, to conquer it entirely. {204} But after Maria of Burgundy's premature death, revolution followed revolution, and his father Frederick being too old to protect himself, it came about that in the year 1488 he was ousted from Austria by the Hungarians, whilst his son was kept a prisoner in Bruges by the citizens, and they had even to fear the estrangement of the Tyrol. Yet they did not lose courage. At this very time the father denoted with the vowels, A. E. I. O. U. ('Alles Erdreich ist Oesterreich unterthan'—All the earth is subject to Austria), the extent of his hopes. In the same year, his son negotiated for a Spanish alliance. Their real strength lay in the imperial dignity of Maximilian, which they had from the German Empire. As soon as it began to bestir itself, Maximilian was set at liberty; as soon as it supported him in the persons of only a few princes of the Empire, he became lord in his Netherlands. … Since then his plans were directed against Hungary and Burgundy. In Hungary he could gain nothing except securing the succession to his house. But never, frequently as he concluded peace, did he give up His intentions upon Burgundy. … Now that he had allied himself with a Sforza, and had joined the Liga, now that his father was dead, and the Empire was pledged to follow him across the mountains, and now, too, that the Italian complications were threatening Charles, he took fresh hope, and in this hope he summoned a Diet at Worms. Maximilian was a prince of whom, although many portraits have been drawn, yet there is scarcely one that resembles another, so easily and entirely did he suit himself to circumstances. … His soul is full of motion, of joy in things, and of plans. There is scarcely anything that he is not capable of doing. In his mines he is a good screener, in his armoury the best plater, capable of instructing others in new inventions. With musket in hand, he defends his best marksman, George Purkhard; with heavy cannon, which he has shown how to cast, and has placed on wheels, he comes as a rule nearest the mark. He commands seven captains in their seven several tongues; he himself chooses and mixes his food and medicines. In the open country, he feels himself happiest. … What really distinguishes his public life is that presentiment of the future greatness of his dynasty which he has inherited of his father, and the restless striving to attain all that devolved upon him from the House of Burgundy. All his policy and all his schemes were concentrated, not upon his Empire, for the real needs of which he evinced little real care, and not immediately upon the welfare of his hereditary lands, but upon the realization of that sole idea. Of it all his letters and speeches are full. … In March, 1495, Maximilian came to the Diet at Worms. … At this Reichstag the King gained two momentous prospects. In Wurtemberg there had sprung of two lines two counts of quite opposite characters. … With the elder, Maximilian now entered into a compact. Wurtemberg was to be raised to a dukedom—an elevation which excluded the female line from the succession—and, in the event of the stock failing, was to be a 'widow's portion' of the realm to the use of the Imperial Chamber. Now as the sole hopes of this family centred in a weakling of a boy, this arrangement held out to Maximilian and his successors the prospect of acquiring a splendid country. Yet this was the smaller of his two successes. The greater was the espousal of his children, Philip and Margaret, with the two children of Ferdinand the Catholic, Juana and Juan, which was here settled. This opened to his house still greater expectations,—it brought him at once into the most intimate alliance with the Kings of Spain. These matters might possibly, however, have been arranged elsewhere. What Maximilian really wanted in the Reichstag at Worms was the assistance of the Empire against the French with its world-renowned and much-envied soldiery. For at this time in all the wars of Europe, German auxiliaries were decisive. … If Maximilian had united the whole of this power in his hand, neither Europe nor Asia would have been able to withstand him. But God disposed that it should rather be employed in the cause of freedom than oppression. What an Empire was that which in spite of its vast strength allowed its Emperor to be expelled from his heritage, and did not for a long time take steps to bring him back again? If we examine the constitution of the Empire, not as we should picture it to ourselves in Henry III. 's time, but as it had at length become—the legal independence of the several estates, the emptiness of the imperial dignity, the electiveness of a head, that afterwards exercised certain rights over the electors,—we are led to inquire not so much into the causes of its disintegration, for this concerns us little, as into the way in which it was held together. What welded it together, and preserved it, would (leaving tradition and the Pope out of the question) appear, before all else, to have been the rights of individuals, the unions of neighbours, and the social regulations which universally obtained. Such were those rights and privileges that not only protected the citizen, his guild, and his quarter of the town against his neighbours and more powerful men than himself, but which also endowed him with an inner independence. … Next, the unions of neighbours. These were not only leagues of cities and peasantries, expanded from ancient fraternities—for who can tell the origin of the Hansa, or the earliest treaty between Uri and Schwyz?—into large associations, or of knights, who strengthened a really insignificant power by confederations of neighbours, but also of the princes, who were bound together by joint inheritances, mutual expectancies, and the ties of blood, which in some cases were very close. This ramification, dependent upon a supreme power and confirmed by it, bound neighbour to neighbour; and, whilst securing to each his privilege and his liberty, blended together all countries of Germany in legal bonds of union. But it is only in the social regulations that the unity was really perceivable. Only as long as the Empire was an actual reality, could the supreme power of the Electors, each with his own special rights, be maintained; only so long could dukes and princes, bishops and abbots hold their neighbours in due respect, and through court offices or hereditary services, through fiefs and the dignity of their independent position give their vassals a peculiar position to the whole. Only so long could the cities enjoying immediateness under the Empire, carefully divided into free and imperial cities, be not merely protected, but also assured of a participation in the government of the whole. Under this sanctified and traditional system of suzerainty and vassalage all were happy and contented, and bore a love to it such as is cherished towards a native town or a father's house. For some time past, the House of Austria had enjoyed the foremost position. It also had a union, and, moreover, a great faction on its side. The union was the Suabian League. Old Suabia was divided into three leagues—the league of the peasantry (the origin of Switzerland); the league of the knights in the Black Forest, on the Kocher, the Neckar, and the Danube; and the league of the cities. The peasantry were from the first hostile to Austria. The Emperor Frederick brought it to pass that the cities and knights, that had from time out of mind lived in feud, bound themselves together with several princes, and formed, under his protection, the league of the land of Suabia. But the party was scattered throughout the whole Empire."

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1493-1519.
   The Imperial reign of Maximilian.
   Formation of the Circle of Austria.
   The Aulic Council.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1496-1499.
   The Swabian War with the Swiss Confederacy and the Graubunden,
   or Grey Leagues (Grisons).
   Practical independence of both acquired.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1496-1526.
   Extraordinary aggrandizement of the House of Austria by its marriages.
   The Heritage of Charles V.
   His cession of the German inheritance to Ferdinand.
   The division of the House into Spanish and German branches.
   Acquisition of Hungary and Bohemia.

In 1496, Philip the Fair, son of Maximilian, Archduke and Emperor, by his marriage with Mary of Burgundy, "espoused the Infanta of Spain, daughter of Ferdinand [of Aragon] and Isabella of Castile. They had two sons, Charles and Ferdinand, the former of whom, known in history by the name of Charles V., inherited the Low Countries in right of his father, Philip (1506). On the death of Ferdinand, his maternal grandfather (1516), he became heir to the whole Spanish succession, which comprehended the kingdoms of Spain, Naples, Sicily, and Sardinia, together with Spanish America. To these vast possessions were added his patrimonial dominions in Austria, which were transmitted to him by his paternal grandfather, the Emperor Maximilian I. About the same time (1519), the Imperial dignity was conferred on this prince by the electors [see GERMANY: A. D. 1519]; so that Europe had not seen, since the time of Charlemagne, a monarchy so powerful as that of Charles V. This Emperor concluded a treaty with his brother Ferdinand; by which he ceded to him all his hereditary possessions in Germany. The two brothers thus became the founders of the two principal branches of the House of Austria, viz., that of Spain, which began with Charles V. (called Charles I. of Spain), and ended with Charles II. (1700); and that of Germany, of which Ferdinand I. was the ancestor, and which became extinct in the male line in the Emperor Charles VI. (1740). These two branches, closely allied to each other, acted in concert for the advancement of their reciprocal interests; moreover they gained each their own separate advantages by the marriage connexions which they formed. Ferdinand I. of the German line married Anne (1521), sister of Louis King of Hungary and Bohemia, who having been slain by the Turks at the battle of Mohacs (1526), these two kingdoms devolved to Ferdinand of the House of Austria. Finally, the marriage which Charles V. contracted with the Infant Isabella, daughter of Emmanuel, King of Portugal, procured Philip II. of Spain, the son of that marriage, the whole Portuguese monarchy, to which he succeeded on the death of Henry, called the Cardinal (1580). So vast an aggrandisement of power alarmed the Sovereigns of Europe."

ALSO IN: W. Coxe, History of the House of Austria, chapters 25 and 27 (volume 1).

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1519.
Death of Maximilian.
Election of Charles V., "Emperor of the Romans."

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1519-1555.
   The imperial reign of Charles V.
   The objects of his policy.
   His conflict with the Reformation and with France.

   "Charles V. did not receive from nature all the gifts nor all
   the charms she can bestow, nor did experience give him every
   talent; but he was equal to the part he had to play in the
   world. He was sufficiently great to keep his many-jewelled
   diadem. … His ambition was cold and wise. The scope of his
   ideas, which are not quite easy to divine, was vast enough to
   control a state composed of divers and distant portions, so as
   to make it always very difficult to amalgamate his armies, and
   to supply them with food, or to procure money. Indeed its very
   existence would have been exposed to permanent danger from
   powerful coalitions, had Francis I. known how to place its
   most vulnerable points under a united pressure from the armies
   of France, of England, of Venice, and of the Ottoman Empire.
   Charles V. attained his first object when he prevented the
   French monarch from taking possession of the inheritance of
   the house of Anjou, at Naples, and of that of the Viscontis at
   Milan. He was more successful in stopping the march of Solyman
   into Austria than in checking the spread of the Reformation in
   Germany. … Charles V. had four objects very much at heart:
   he wished to be the master in Italy, to check the progress of
   the Ottoman power in the west of Europe, to conquer the King
   of France, and to govern the Germanic body by dividing it, and
   by making the Reformation a religious pretext for oppressing
   the political defenders of that belief. In three out of four
   of these objects he succeeded. Germany alone was not
   conquered: if she was beaten in battle, neither any political
   triumph nor any religious results ensued. In Germany, Charles
   V. began his work too late, and acted too slowly; he undertook
   to subdue it at a time when the abettors of the Reformation
   had grown strong, when he himself was growing weaker. … Like
   many other brilliant careers, the career of Charles V. was
   more successful and more striking at the commencement and the
   middle than at the end, of its course. At Madrid, at Cambrai,
   at Nice, he made his rival bow down his head. At Crespy he
   again forced him to obey his will, but as he had completely
   made up his mind to have peace, Charles dictated it, in some
   manner, to his own detriment.
{206}
   At Passau he had to yield to the terms of his enemy—of an
   enemy whom Charles V. encountered in his old age, and when his
   powers had decayed. Although it may be said that the extent
   and the power of the sovereignty which Charles V. left to his
   successor at his death were not diminished, still his armies
   were weakened, his finances were exhausted, and the country
   was weary of the tyranny of the imperial lieutenants. The
   supremacy of the empire in Germany, for which he had struggled
   so much, was as little established at the end as at the
   beginning of his reign; religious unity was solemnly destroyed
   by the 'Recess' of Augsburg. But that which marks the position
   of Charles V. as the representative man of his epoch, and as
   the founder of the policy of modern times, is that, wherever
   he was victorious, the effect of his success was to crush the
   last efforts of the spirit of the middle ages, and of the
   independence of nations. In Italy, in Spain, in Germany, and
   in the Low Countries, his triumphs were so much gain to the
   cause of absolute monarchy and so much loss to the liberty
   derived from the old state of society. Whatever was the
   character of liberty in the middle ages—whether it were
   contested or incomplete, or a mockery—it played a greater
   part than in the four succeeding centuries. Charles V. was
   assuredly one of those who contributed the most to found and
   consolidate the political system of modern governments. His
   history has an aspect of grandeur. Had Francis I. been as
   sagacious in the closet as he was bold in the field, by a
   vigorous alliance with England, with Protestant Germany, and
   with some of the republics of Italy, he might perhaps have
   balanced and controlled the power of Charles V. But the French
   monarch did not possess the foresight and the solid
   understanding necessary to pursue such a policy with success.
   His rival, therefore, occupies the first place in the
   historical picture of the epoch. Charles V. had the sentiment
   of his position and of the part he had to play."

J. Van Praet, Essays on the Political History of the 15th, 16th, and 17th Centuries, pages 190-194.

See, also, GERMANY: A. D. 1519 to 1152-1561,
and FRANCE: A. D. 1520-1523, to 1547-1559.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1525-1527.
Successful Contest for the Hungarian and Bohemian Crowns.

In Hungary, "under King Matthias the house of Zapolya, so called from a Slavonic village near Poschega, whence it originated, rose to peculiar eminence. To this house, in particular, King Wladislas had owed his accession to the throne; whence, however, it thought itself entitled to claim a share in the sovereign power, and even a sort of prospective right to the throne. Its members were the wealthiest of all the magnates; they possessed seventy-two castles. … It is said that a prophecy early promised the crown to the young John Zapolya. Possessed of all the power conferred by his rich inheritance, Count of Zips, and Woiwode of Transylvania, he soon collected a strong party around him. It was he who mainly persuaded the Hungarians, in the year 1505, to exclude all foreigners from the throne by a formal decree; which, though they were not always able to maintain in force, they could never be induced absolutely to revoke. In the year 1514 the Woiwode succeeded in putting down an exceedingly formidable insurrection of the peasants with his own forces; a service which the lesser nobility prized the more highly, because it enabled them to reduce the peasantry to a still harder state of servitude. His wish was, on the death of Wladislas, to become Gubernator of the kingdom, to marry the deceased king's daughter Anne, and then to await the course of events. But he was here encountered by the policy of Maximilian. Anne was married to the Archduke Ferdinand; Zapolya was excluded from the administration of the kingdom; even the vacant Palatinate was refused him and given to his old rival Stephen Bathory. He was highly incensed. … But it was not till the year 1525 that Zapolya got the upper hand at the Rakosch. … No one entertained a doubt that he aimed at the throne. … But before anything was accomplished—on the contrary, just as these party conflicts had thrown the country into the utmost confusion, the mighty enemy, Soliman, appeared on the frontiers of Hungary, determined to put an end to the anarchy. … In his prison at Madrid, Francis I. had found means to entreat the assistance of Soliman; urging that it well beseemed a great emperor to succour the oppressed. Plans were laid at Constantinople, according to which the two sovereigns were to attack Spain with a combined fleet, and to send armies to invade Hungary and the north of Italy. Soliman, without any formal treaty, was by his position an ally of the Ligue, as the king of Hungary was, of the emperor. On the 23d of April, 1526, Soliman, after visiting the groves of his forefathers and of the old Moslem martyrs, marched out of Constantinople with a mighty host, consisting of about a hundred thousand men, and incessantly strengthened by fresh recruits on its road. … What power had Hungary, in the condition we have just described, of resisting such an attack? … The young king took the field with a following of not more than three thousand men. … He proceeded to the fatal plain of Mohaez, fully resolved with his small band to await in the open field the overwhelming force of the enemy. … Personal valour could avail nothing. The Hungarians were immediately thrown into disorder, their best men fell, the others took to flight. The young king was compelled to flee. It was not even granted him to die in the field of battle; a far more miserable end a waited him. Mounted behind a Silesian soldier, who served him as a guide, he had already been carried across the dark waters that divide the plain; his horse was already climbing the bank, when he slipped, fell back, and buried himself and his rider in the morass. This rendered the defeat decisive. … Soliman had gained one of those victories which decide the fate of nations during long epochs. … That two thrones, the succession to which was not entirely free from doubt, had thus been left vacant, was an event that necessarily caused a great agitation throughout Christendom. It was still a question whether such a European power as Austria would continue to exist;—a question which it is only necessary to state, in order to be aware of its vast importance to the fate of mankind at large, and of Germany in particular. … The claims of Ferdinand to both crowns, unquestionable as they might be in reference to the treaties with the reigning houses, were opposed in the nations themselves, by the right of ejection and the authority of considerable rivals. {207} In Hungary, as soon as the Turks had retired, John Zapolya appeared with the fine army which he had kept back from the conflict; the fall of the king was at the same time the fall of his adversaries. … Even in Tokay, however, John Zapolya was saluted as king. Meanwhile, the dukes of Bavaria conceived the design of getting possession of the throne of Bohemia. … Nor was it in the two kingdoms alone that these pretenders had a considerable party. The state of politics in Europe was such as to insure them powerful supporters abroad. In the first place, Francis I. was intimately connected with Zapolya: in a short time a delegate from the pope was at his side, and the Germans in Rome maintained that Clement assisted the faction of the Woiwode with money. Zapolya sent an agent to Venice with a direct request to be admitted a member of the Ligue of Cognac. In Bohemia, too, the French had long had devoted partisans. … The consequences that must have resulted, had this scheme succeeded, are so incalculable, that it is not too much to say they would have completely changed the political history of Europe. The power of Bavaria would have outweighed that of Austria in both German and Slavonian countries, and Zapolya, thus supported, would have been able to maintain his station; the Ligue, and with it high ultra-montane opinions would have held the ascendency in eastern Europe. Never was there a project more pregnant with danger to the growing power of the house of Austria. Ferdinand behaved with all the prudence and energy which that house has so often displayed in difficult emergencies. For the present, the all-important object was the crown of Bohemia. … All his measures were taken with such skill and prudence, that on the day of election, though the Bavarian agent had, up to the last moment, not the slightest doubt of the success of his negotiations, an overwhelming majority in the three estates elected Ferdinand to the throne of Bohemia. This took place on the 23d October, 1526. … On his brother's birth-day, the 24th of February, 1527, Ferdinand was crowned at Prague. …. The affairs of Hungary were not so easily or so peacefully settled. … At first, when Zapolya came forward, full armed and powerful out of the general desolation, he had the uncontested superiority. The capital of the kingdom sought his protection, after which he marched to Stuhlweissenburg, where his partisans bore down all attempts at opposition: he was elected and crowned (11th of November, 1526); in Croatia, too, he was acknowledged king at a diet; he filled all the numerous places, temporal and spiritual, left vacant by the disaster of Mohaez, with his friends. … [But] the Germans advanced without interruption; and as soon as it appeared possible that Ferdinand might be successful, Zapolya's followers began to desert him. … Never did the German troops display more bravery and constancy. They had often neither meat nor bread, and were obliged to live on such fruits as they found in the gardens: the inhabitants were wavering and uncertain—they submitted, and then revolted again to the enemy; Zapolya's troops, aided by their knowledge of the ground, made several very formidable attacks by night; but the Germans evinced, in the moment of danger, the skill and determination of a Roman legion: they showed, too, a noble constancy under difficulties and privations. At Tokay they defeated Zapolya and compelled him to quit Hungary. … On the 3rd November, 1527, Ferdinand was crowned in Stuhlweissenburg: only five of the magnates of the kingdom adhered to Zapolya. The victory appeared complete. Ferdinand, however, distinctly felt that this appearance was delusive. … In Bohemia, too, his power was far from secure. His Bavarian neighbours had not relinquished the hope of driving him from the throne at the first general turn of affairs. The Ottomans, meanwhile, acting upon the persuasion that every land in which the head of their chief had rested belonged of right to them, were preparing to return to Hungary; either to take possession of it themselves, or at first, as was their custom, to bestow it on a native ruler—Zapolya, who now eagerly sought an alliance with them—as their vassal."

L. Von Ranke, History of the Reformation in Germany, book 4, chapter 4 (volume 2).

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1564-1618.
   The tolerance of Maximilian II.
   The bigotry and tyranny of Rodolph and Ferdinand II.
   Prelude to the Thirty Years War.

"There is no period connected with these religious wars that deserves more to be studied than these reigns of Ferdinand I., Maximilian [the Second], and those of his successors who preceded the thirty years' war. We have no sovereign who exhibited that exercise of moderation and good sense which a philosopher would require, but Maximilian; and he was immediately followed by princes of a different complexion. … Nothing could be more complete than the difficulty of toleration at the time when Maximilian reigned; and if a mild policy could be attended with favourable effects in his age and nation, there can be little fear of the experiment at any other period. No party or person in the state was then disposed to tolerate his neighbour from any sense of the justice of such forbearance, but from motives of temporal policy alone. The Lutherans, it will be seen, could not bear that the Calvinists should have the same religious privileges with themselves. The Calvinists were equally opinionated and unjust; and Maximilian himself was probably tolerant and wise, chiefly because he was in his real opinions a Lutheran, and in outward profession, as the head of the empire, a Roman Catholic. For twelve years, the whole of his reign, he preserved the religious peace of the community, without destroying the religious freedom of the human mind. He supported the Roman Catholics, as the predominant party, in all their rights, possessions, and privileges; but he protected the Protestants in every exercise of their religion which was then practicable. In other words, he was as tolerant and just as the temper of society then admitted, and more so than the state of things would have suggested. … The merit of Maximilian was but too apparent the moment that his son Rodolph was called upon to supply his place. … He had always left the education of his son and successor too much to the discretion of his bigoted consort. Rodolph, his son, was therefore as ignorant and furious on his part as were the Protestants on theirs; he had immediate recourse to the usual expedients—force, and the execution of the laws to the very letter. … After Rodolph comes Matthias, and, unhappily for all Europe, Bohemia and the empire fell afterwards under the management of Ferdinand II. Of the different Austrian princes, it is the reign of Ferdinand II. that is more particularly to be considered. Such was the arbitrary nature of his government over his subjects in Bohemia, that they revolted. They elected for their king the young Elector Palatine, hoping thus to extricate themselves from the bigotry and tyranny of Ferdinand. This crown so offered was accepted; and, in the event, the cause of the Bohemians became the cause of the Reformation in Germany, and the Elector Palatine the hero of that cause. It is this which gives the great interest to this reign of Ferdinand II., to these concerns of his subjects in Bohemia, and to the character of this Elector Palatine. For all these events and circumstances led to the thirty years' war."

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1567-1660.
   Struggles of the Hapsburg House in Hungary and Transylvania to
   establish rights of sovereignty.
   Wars with the Turks.

A.D.

1651.
      Invasion of England by Charles II. and the Scots;
      Cromwell's victory at Worcester; complete conquest of
      Scotland.

1652.
      Victorious naval war of the English with the Dutch.
      End of the Fronde.
      Institution of the Liberum Veto in Poland.

1654.
      Incorporation of Scotland with the English Commonwealth,
      under Cromwell.
      Peace between the English and Dutch.
      Conquest of Nova Scotia, by the New England colonists.

1655.
Alliance of England and France against Spain.
English conquest of Jamaica.

1658.
      Capture of Dunkirk from the Spaniards and possession given
      by the French to the English.
      Death of Cromwell and succession of his son Richard as
      Protector.

1659.
      Meeting of a new Parliament in England;
      its dissolution;
      resuscitation and re-expulsion of the Rump, and formation
      of a provisional government by the Army.

1660.
      March of the English army under Monk from Scotland to
      London.
      Call of a new Parliament by Monk, and restoration of the
      monarchy, in the person of Charles II.

1661.
      Restoration of the Church of England and ejection of 2,000
      nonconformist ministers.
      Personal assumption of government by Louis XIV. in France.
      Beginning of the ministry of Colbert.

1662.
      Sale of Dunkirk to France by Charles II.
      Restoration of episcopacy in Scotland and persecution of
      the Covenanters.

1664.
      Seizure of New Netherland (henceforth New York) by the
      English from the Dutch and grant of the province to the
      duke of York.
      Grant of New Jersey to Berkeley and Carteret.

1665.
      Outbreak of the great Plague in London.
      Formal declarations of war between the English and the
      Dutch.

1666.
      The great fire in London.
      Tremendous naval battles between Dutch and English and
      defeat of the former.

1670.
      Treaty of the king of England with Louis XIV. of France,
      betraying his allies, the Dutch, and engaging to profess
      himself a Catholic.

1672.
      Alliance of England and France against the Dutch.
      Restoration of the Stadtholdership in Holland to the Prince
      of Orange, and murder of the De Witts.

1674.
Treaty of Westminster, restoring peace between the Dutch
and English and ceding New Netherland to the latter.

1679.
      Passage of the Habeas Corpus Act in England.
      Oppression of Scotland and persecution of the Covenanters.
      Defeat of Claverhouse at Drumclog.
      Defeat of Covenanters at Bothwell Bridge.

1681.
      Merciless despotism of the duke of York in Scotland.
      Beginning of "dragonnade" persecution of Protestants in
      France.
      Grant of Pennsylvania by Charles II. to William Penn.

1683.
      The Rye-house Plot, and execution of Lord Russell and
      Algernon Sidney, in England.
      Great invasion of Hungary and Austria by the Turks;
      their siege of Vienna, and the deliverance of the city by
      John Sobieski, king of Poland.
      Establishment of a penny post in London.

1685.
      Death of Charles II., king of England, and accession of his
      brother James II., an avowed Catholic.
      Rebellion of the duke of Monmouth.
      Revocation of the Edict of Nantes by Louis XIV. of France.

1686.
      Consolidation of New England under a royal
      governor-general.
      League of Augsburg against Louis XIV. of France.

1690.
The first congress of the American colonies.
Battle of the Boyne in Ireland.

1692.
The Salem Witchcraft madness in Massachusetts.
Massacre of Glencoe in Scotland.

1697.
Peace of Ryswick.
Cession of Strasburg and restoration of Acadia to France.

1699.
Peace of Carlowitz, between Turkey, Russia, Poland, Venice,
and the Emperor.

1700.
Prussia raised in rank to a kingdom.
First campaigns of Charles XII. of Sweden.

A.D.
1602.
Chartering of Dutch East India Company.
First acting of Shakespeare's "Hamlet."

1600.
      Gunpowder plot of English Catholics.
      Publication of Bacon's "Advancement of Learning," and part
      1 of Cervantes' "Don Quixote."

1606.
      Charter granted to the London and Plymouth companies, for
      American colonization.
      Organization of the Independent church of Brownists at
      Scrooby, England.

1607.
Settlement of Jamestown, Virginia.
Migration of Scrooby Independents to Holland.

1609.
      Settlement of the exiled Pilgrims of Scrooby at Leyden.
      Construction of the telescope by Galileo and discovery of
      Jupiter's moons.

1611.
Publication in England of the King James or Authorized
version of the Bible.

1616.
Opening of war between Sweden and Poland.
Death of Shakespeare and Cervantes.

1619.
Trial and execution of John of Barneveldt.
Introduction of slavery in Virginia.

1620.
      Decisive defeat of the Protestants of Bohemia in the battle
      of the White Mountain.
      Rising of the French Huguenots at Rochelle.
      Migration of the Pilgrims from Leyden to America.

1621.
Formation of the Dutch West India Company.
The first Thanksgiving Day in New England.

1622.
Appearance of the first known printed newspaper in England
"The Weekly Newes."

1625.
      Death of James I., of England, and accession of Charles I.;
      beginning of the English struggle between King and
      Parliament.
      Engagement of Wallenstein and his army in the service of
      the Emperor against the Protestants.

1627.
Alliance of England with the French Huguenots.
Siege of Rochelle by Richelieu.

1628.
      Passage by the English Parliament of the act called the
      Petition of Right.
      Assassination of the duke of Buckingham.
      Surrender of Rochelle to Richelieu.
      Publication of Harvey's discovery of the circulation of the
      blood.

1629.
Tumult in the English Parliament, dissolution by the king
and arrest of Eliot and others.

1630.
      Appearance in Germany of Gustavus Adolphus, king of Sweden,
      as the champion of Protestantism.
      Settlement of the colony of Massachusetts Bay, in New
      England, and founding of Boston.
      The Day of the Dupes in France.

1631.
      Siege, capture and sack of Magdeburg by the imperial
      general, Tilly.
      Defeat of Tilly on the Breitenfeld, at Leipzig, by Gustavus
      Adolphus.

1632.
      Defeat and death of Tilly.
      Victory and death of Gustavus Adolphus at Lützen.
      Patent to Lord Baltimore by James I., of England, granting
      him the territory in America called Maryland.
      First Jesuit mission to Canada.

1636.
Banishment of Roger Williams from Massachusetts, and his
founding of Providence.

1637.
      The Pequot War in New England.
      Introduction of Laud's Service-book in Scotland; tumult in
      St. Giles' church.

1638.
      Banishment of Anne Hutchinson from Massachusetts.
      Rising in Scotland against the Service-book;
      organization of the Tables;
      signing of the National Covenant.

1640.
Meeting of the Long Parliament in England.
Recovery of independence by Portugal.

1641.
      Impeachment and execution of Strafford and adoption of the
      Grand Remonstrance by the English Parliament.
      Catholic rising in Ireland and alleged massacres of
      Protestants.

1642.
      King Charles' attempt, in England, to arrest the Five
      Members, and opening of the Civil War at Edgehill.
      Conspiracy of Cinq Mars in France.
      Death of Cardinal Richelieu.

1643.
      Meeting of the Westminster Assembly of Divines.
      Subscription of the Solemn League and Covenant between the
      Scotch and English nations.
      Siege of Gloucester and first battle of Newbury.
      Death of Louis XIII. of France and accession of Louis XIV.

1645.
      Oliver Cromwell placed second in command of the English
      Parliamentary army.
      His victory at Naseby.
      Exploits of Montrose in Scotland.

1646.
Adoption of Presbyterianism by the English Parliament.
Surrender of King Charles to the Scottish army.

1647.
Surrender of King Charles by the Scots to the English, and
his seizure by the Army.

1648.
      The second Civil War in England.
      Cromwell's victory at Preston.
      Treaty of Newport with the king.
      Grand Army Remonstrance, and Pride's Purge of Parliament.
      Last campaigns of the Thirty Years War.
      Peace of Westphalia; cession of Alsace to France.

1649.
      Trial and execution of King Charles I., of England, and
      establishment of the Common-wealth.
      Campaign of Cromwell in Ireland.
      First civil war of the Fronde in France.

1650.
      Charles II. in Scotland.
      War between the English and the Scotch.
      Victory of Cromwell at Dunbar.
      The new Fronde in France, in alliance with Spain.

"The thirty years' war made Germany the centre-point of European politics. … No one at its commencement could have foreseen the duration and extent. But the train of war was everywhere laid, and required only the match to set it going; more than one war was joined to it, and swallowed up in it; and the melancholy truth, that war feeds itself, was never more clearly displayed. … Though the war, which first broke out in Bohemia, concerned only the house of Austria, yet by its originating in religious disputes, by its peculiar character as a religious war, and by the measures adopted both by the insurgents and the emperor, it acquired such an extent, that even the quelling of the insurrection was insufficient to put a stop to it. … Though the Bohemian war was apparently terminated, yet the flame had communicated to Germany and Hungary, and new fuel was added by the act of proscription promulgated against the elector Frederic and his adherents. From this the war derived that revolutionary character, which was henceforward peculiar to it; it was a step that could not but lead to further results, for the question of the relations between the emperor and his states, was in a fair way of being practically considered. New and bolder projects were also formed in Vienna and Madrid, where it was resolved to renew the war with the Netherlands. Under the present circumstances, the suppression of the Protestant religion and the overthrow of German and Dutch liberty appeared inseparable; while the success of the imperial arms, supported as they were by the league and the co-operation of the Spaniards, gave just grounds for hope. … By the carrying of the war into Lower Saxony, the principal scat of the Protestant religion in Germany (the states of which had appointed Christian IV. of Denmark, as duke of Holstein, head of their confederacy), the northern states had already, though without any beneficial result, been involved in the strife, and the Danish war had broken out. But the elevation of Albert of Wallenstein to the dignity of duke of Friedland and imperial general over the army raised by himself, was of considerably more importance, as it affected the whole course and character of the war. From this time the war was completely and truly revolutionary. The peculiar situation of the general, the manner of the formation as well as the maintenance of his army, could not fail to make it such. … The distinguished success of the imperial arms in the north of Germany unveiled the daring schemes of Wallenstein. He did not come forward as conqueror alone, but, by the investiture of Mecklenburg as a state of the empire, as a ruling prince. … But the elevation and conduct of this novus homo, exasperated and annoyed the Catholic no less than the Protestant states, especially the league and its chief; all implored peace, and Wallenstein's discharge. Thus, at the diet of the electors at Augsburg, the emperor was reduced to the alternative of resigning him or his allies: He chose the former. Wallenstein was dismissed, the majority of his army disbanded, and Tilly nominated commander-in-chief of the forces of the emperor and the league. … On the side of the emperor sufficient care was taken to prolong the war. The refusal to restore the unfortunate Frederic, and even the sale of his upper Palatine to Bavaria, must with justice have excited the apprehensions of the other princes. But when the Jesuits finally succeeded, not only in extorting the edict of restitution, but also in causing it to be enforced in the most odious manner, the Catholic states themselves saw with regret that peace could no longer exist. … The greater the success that attended the house of Austria, the more actively foreign policy laboured to counteract it. England had taken an interest in the fate of Frederic V. from the first, though this interest was evinced by little beyond fruitless negotiations. Denmark became engaged in the quarrel mostly through the influence of this power and Holland. Richelieu, from the time he became prime minister of France, had exerted himself in opposing Austria and Spain. He found employment for Spain in the contests respecting Veltelin, and for Austria soon after, by the war of Mantua. Willingly would he have detached the German league from the interest of the emperor; and though he failed in this, he procured the fall of Wallenstein. … Much more important, however, was Richelieu's influence on the war, by the essential share he had in gaining Gustavus Adolphus' active participation in it. … The nineteen years of his [Gustavus Adolphus'] reign which had already elapsed, together with the Polish war, which lasted nearly that time, had taught the world but little of the real worth of this great and talented hero. The decisive superiority of Protestantism in Germany, under his guidance, soon created a more just knowledge, and at the same time showed the advantages which must result to a victorious supporter of that cause. … The battle at Leipzig was decisive for Gustavus Adolphus and his party, almost beyond expectation. The league fell asunder; and in a short time he was master of the countries from the Baltic to Bavaria, and from the Rhine to Bohemia. … But the misfortunes and death of Tilly brought Wallenstein again on the stage as absolute commander-in-chief, bent on plans not a whit less extensive than those he had before formed. No period of the war gave promise of such great and rapid successes or reverses as the present, for both leaders were determined to effect them; but the victory of Lutzen, while it cost Gustavus his life, prepared the fall of Wallenstein. {209} … Though the fall of Gustavus Adolphus frustrated his own private views, it did not those of his party. … The school of Gustavus produced a number of men, great in the cabinet and in the field; yet it was hard, even for an Oxensteirn, to preserve the importance of Sweden unimpaired; and it was but partially done by the alliance of· Heilbronn. … If the forces of Sweden overrun almost every part of Germany in the following months, under the guidance of the pupils of the king, Bernard of Weimar and Gustavus Horn, we must apparently attribute it to Wallenstein's intentional inactivity in Bohemia. The distrust of him increased in Vienna the more, as he took but little trouble to diminish it; and though his fall was not sufficient to atone for treachery, if proved, it was for his equivocal character and imprudence. His death probably saved Germany from a catastrophe. … A great change took place upon the death of Wallenstein; as a prince of the blood, Ferdinand, king of Hungary and Bohemia, obtained the command. Thus an end was put to plans of revolutions from this quarter. But in the same year the battle of Nordlingen gave to the imperial arms a sudden preponderance, such as it had never before acquired. The separate peace of Saxony with the emperor at Prague, and soon after an alliance, were its consequences; Sweden driven back to Pomerania, seemed unable of herself, during the two following years, to maintain her ground in Germany: the victory of Wittstock turned the scale in her favour. … The war was prolonged and greatly extended by the active share taken in it by France: first against Spain, and soon against Austria. … The German war, after the treaty with Bernhard of Weimar, was mainly carried on by France, by the arming of Germans against Germans. But the pupil of Gustavus Adolphus preferred to fight for himself rather than others, and his early death was almost as much coveted by France as by Austria. The success of the Swedish arms revived under Baner. … At the general diet, which was at last convened, the emperor yielded to a general amnesty, or at least what was so designated. But when at the meeting of the ambassadors of the leading powers at Hamburg, the preliminaries were signed, and the time and place of the congress of peace fixed, it was deferred after Richelieu's death, (who was succeeded by Mazarin), by the war, which both parties continued, in the hope of securing better conditions by victory. A new war broke out in the north between Sweden and Denmark, and when at last the congress of peace was opened at Munster and Osnabruck, the negotiations dragged on for three years. … The German peace was negotiated at Munster between the emperor and France, and at Osnabruck between the emperor and Sweden; but both treaties, according to express agreement, Oct. 24, 1648, were to be considered as one, under the title of the Westphalian."

A. H. L. Heeren, A Manual of the History of the Political System of Europe and its Colonies, pages 91-99.

"The Peace of Westphalia has met manifold hostile comments, not only in earlier, but also in later, times. German patriots complained that by it the unity of the Empire was rent; and indeed the connection of the States, which even before was loose, was relaxed to the extreme. This was, however, an evil which could not be avoided, and it had to be accepted in order to prevent the French and Swedes from using their opportunity for the further enslavement of the land. … The religious parties also made objections to the peace. The strict Catholics condemned it as a work of inexcusable and arbitrary injustice. … The dissatisfaction of the Protestants was chiefly with the recognition of the Ecclesiastical Reservation. They complained also that their brethren in the faith were not allowed the free exercise of their religion in Austria. Their hostility was limited to theoretical discussions, which soon ceased when Louis XIV. took advantage of the preponderance which he had won to make outrageous assaults upon Germany, and even the Protestants were compelled to acknowledge the Emperor as the real defender of German independence."

A. Gindely, History of the Thirty Years' War, volume 2, chapter 10, section 4.

      See, also,
      GERMANY: A. D. 1618-1620, to 1648;
      FRANCE: A. D. 1624-1626; and
      ITALY: A. D. 1627-1631.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1621.
Formal establishment of the right of primogeniture in the
Archducal Family.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1624-1626.
Hostile combinations of Richelieu.
The Valtelline war in Northern Italy.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1627-1631.
War with France over the succession to the Duchy of Mantua.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1660-1664.
   Renewed war with the Turks.
   Help from France.
   Battle and victory of St. Gothard.
   Twenty years truce.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1668-1683.
   Increased oppression and religious persecution in Hungary.
   Revolt of Tekeli.
   The Turks again called in.
   Mustapha's great invasion and siege of Vienna.
   Deliverance of the city by John Sobieski.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1672-1714.
The wars with Louis XIV. of France: War of the Grand Alliance.
Peace of Ryswick.

"The leading principle of the reign [in France] of Louis XIV. … is the principle of war with the dynasty of Charles V.—the elder branch of which reigned in Spain, while the descendants of the younger branch occupied the imperial throne of Germany. … At the death of Mazarin, or to speak more correctly, immediately after the death of Philip IV., … the early ambition of Louis XIV. sought to prevent the junior branch of the Austrian dynasty from succeeding to the inheritance of the elder branch. He had no desire to see reconstituted under the imperial sceptre of Germany the monarchy which Charles V. had at one time wished to transmit entire to his son, but which, worn out and weakened, he subsequently allowed without regret to be divided between his son and his brother. Before making war upon Austria, Louis XIV. cast his eyes upon a portion of the territory belonging to Spain, and the expedition against Holland, begun in 1672 [see NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1672-1674, and 1674-1678], for the purpose of absorbing the Spanish provinces by overwhelming them, opened the series of his vast enterprises. His first great war was, historically speaking, his first great fault. He failed in his object: for at the end of six campaigns, during which the French armies obtained great and deserved success, Holland remained unconquered. {210} Thus was Europe warned that the lust of conquest of a young monarch, who did not himself possess military genius, but who found in his generals the resources and ability in which he was himself deficient, would soon threaten her independence. Condé and Turenne, after having been rebellious subjects under the Regency, were about to become the first and the most illustrious lieutenants of Louis XIV. Europe, however, though warned, was not immediately ready to defend herself. It was from Austria, more directly exposed to the dangers of the great war now commencing, that the first systematic resistance ought to have come. But Austria was not prepared to play such a part; and the Emperor Leopold possessed neither the genius nor the wish for it. He was, in fact, nothing more than the nominal head of Germany. … Such was the state of affairs in Europe when William of Orange first made his appearance on the stage. … The old question of supremacy, which Louis XIV. wished to fight out as a duel with the House of Austria, was now about to change its aspect, and, owing to the presence of an unexpected genius, to bring into the quarrel other powers besides the two original competitors. The foe of Louis XIV. ought by rights to have been born on the banks of the Danube, and not on the shores of the North Sea. In fact, it was Austria that at that moment most needed a man of genius, either on the throne or at the head of affairs. The events of the century would, in this case, doubtless have followed a different course: the war would have been less general, and the maritime nations would not have been involved in it to the same degree. … The treaties of peace would have been signed in some small place in France or Germany, and not in two towns and a village in Holland, such as Nimeguen, Ryswick, and Utrecht. … William of Orange found himself in a position soon to form the Triple Alliance which the very policy of Louis XIV. suggested. For France to attack Holland, when her object was eventually to reach Austria, and keep her out of the Spanish succession, was to make enemies at one and the same time of Spain, of Austria, and of Holland. But if it afterwards required considerable efforts on the part of William of Orange to maintain this alliance, it demanded still more energy to extend it. It formed part of the Stadtholder's ulterior plans to combine the union between himself and the two branches of the Austrian family, with the old Anglo-Swedish Triple Alliance, which had just been dissolved under the strong pressure brought to bear on it by Louis XIV. … Louis XIV., whose finances were exhausted, was very soon anxious to make peace, even on the morrow of his most brilliant victories; whilst William of Orange, beaten and retreating, ardently desired the continuance of the war. … The Peace of Nimeguen was at last signed, and by it were secured to Louis XIV. Franche-Comté, and some important places in the Spanish Low Countries on his northern frontier [see NIMEGUEN, PEACE OF]. This was the culminating point of the reign of Louis XIV. Although the coalition had prevented him from attaining the full object of his designs against the House of Austria, which had been to absorb by conquest so much of the territory belonging to Spain as would secure him against the effect of a will preserving the whole inheritance intact in the family, yet his armies had been constantly successful, and many of his opponents were evidently tired of the struggle. … Some years passed thus, with the appearance of calm. Europe was conquered; and when peace was broken, because, as was said, the Treaty of Nimeguen was not duly executed, the events of the war were for some time neither brilliant or important, for several campaigns began and ended without any considerable result. … At length Louis XIV. entered on the second half of his reign, which differed widely from the first. … During this second period of more than thirty years, which begins after the Treaty of Nimeguen and lasts till the Peace of Utrecht, events succeed each other in complete logical sequence, so that the reign presents itself as one continuous whole, with a regular movement of ascension and decline. … The leading principle of the reign remained the same; it was always the desire to weaken the House of Austria, or to secure an advantageous partition of the Spanish succession. But the Emperor of Germany was protected by the coalition, and the King of Spain, whose death was considered imminent, would not make up his mind to die. … During the first League, when the Prince of Orange was contending against Louis XIV. with the co-operation of the Emperor of Germany, of the King of Spain, and of the Electors on the Rhine, the religious element played only a secondary part in the war. But we shall see this element make its presence more manifest. … Thus the influence of Protestant England made itself more and more felt in the affairs of Europe, in proportion as the government of the Stuarts, from its violence, its unpopularity, and from the opposition offered to it, was approaching its end. … The second coalition was neither more united nor more firm than the first had been: but, after the expulsion of the Stuarts, the germs of dissolution no longer threatened the same dangers. … The British nation now made itself felt in the balance of Europe, and William of Orange was for the first time in his life successful in war at the head of his English troops. … This was the most brilliant epoch of the life of William III. … He was now at the height of his glory, after a period of twenty years from his start in life, and his destiny was accomplished; so that until the Treaty of Ryswick, which in 1698 put an end to his hostilities with France, and brought about his recognition as King of England by Louis XIV., not much more was left for him to gain; and he had the skill to lose nothing. … The negotiations for the Treaty of Ryswick were conducted with less ability and boldness, and concluded on less advantageous terms, than the Truce of Ratisbon or the Peace of Nimeguen. Nevertheless, this treaty, which secured to Louis the possession of Strasbourg, might, particularly as age was now creeping on him, have closed his military career without disgrace, if the eternal question, for the solution of which he had made so many sacrifices, and which had always held the foremost place in his thoughts, had not remained as unsettled and as full of difficulty as on the day when he had mounted the throne. {211} Charles II. of Spain was not dead, and the question of the Spanish succession, which had so actively employed the armies of Louis XIV., and taxed his diplomacy, was as undecided as at the beginning of his reign. Louis XIV. saw two alternatives before him: a partition of the succession between the Emperor and himself (a solution proposed thirty years before as a means to avoid war), or else a will in favour of France, followed of course by a recommencement of general hostilities. … Louis XIV. proposed in succession two schemes, not, as thirty years before, to the Emperor, but to the King of England, whose power and whose genius rendered him the arbiter of all the great affairs of Europe. … In the first of the treaties of partition, Spain and the Low Countries were to be given to the Prince of Bavaria; in the second, to the Archduke Charles. In both, France obtained Naples and Sicily for the Dauphin. … Both these arrangements … suited both France and England as a pacific solution of the question. … But events, as we know, deranged all these calculations, and Charles II., who, by continuing to live, had disappointed so much impatient expectation, by his last will provoked a general war, to be carried on against France by the union of England with the Empire and with Holland—a union which was much strengthened under the new dynasty, and which afterwards embraced the northern states of Germany. … William III. died at the age of fifty-two, on the 9th of March, 1702, at the beginning of the War of Succession. After him, the part he was to have played was divided. Prince Eugene, Marlborough, and Heinsius (the Grand Pensionary) had the conduct of political and especially of military affairs, and acted in concert. The disastrous consequences to France of that war, in which William had no part, are notorious. The battles of Blenheim, of Ramilies, and of Oudenarde brought the allied armies on the soil of France, and placed Louis XIV. on the verge of ruin."

J. Van Praet, Essays on the Political History of the 15th, 16th, and 17th Centuries, pages 390-414 and 441-455.

ALSO IN: H. Martin, History of France: Age of Louis XIV:, volume 2, chapters 2 and 4-6.

      T. H. Dyer,
      History of Modern Europe,
      book 5, chapters 5-6 (volume 3).

      See, also,
      GERMANY: A. D. 1686; and
      FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1690 to 1697.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1683-1687.
Merciless suppression of the Hungarian revolt.
The crown of Hungary made hereditary in the House of Hapsburg.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1683-1699.
Expulsion of the Turks from Hungary.
The Peace of Carlowitz.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1700.
Interest of the Imperial House in the question of the Spanish
Succession.

      See
      GERMANY: A. D. 1702, to 1704;
      ITALY: A. D. 1701-1713;
      SPAIN: A. D. 1702, to 1707-1710, and
      NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1702-1704, to 1710-1712.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1711.
The War of the Spanish Succession.
Its Circumstances changed.

"The death of the Emperor Joseph I., who expired April 17, 1711, at the age of thirty-two, changed the whole character of the War of the Spanish Succession. As Joseph left no male heirs, the hereditary dominions of the House of Austria devolved to his brother, the Archduke Charles; and though that prince had not been elected King of the Romans, and had therefore to become a candidate for the imperial crown, yet there could be little doubt that he would attain that dignity. Hence, if Charles should also become sovereign of Spain and the Indies, the vast empire of Charles V. would be again united in one person; and that very evil of an almost universal monarchy would be established, the prevention of which had been the chief cause for taking up arms against Philip V. … After an interregnum of half a year, during which the affairs of the Empire had been conducted by the Elector Palatine and the Elector of Saxony, as imperial vicars for South and North Germany, the Archduke Charles was unanimously named Emperor by the Electoral College (Oct. 12th). … Charles … received the imperial crown at Frankfort, December 22d, with the title of Charles VI."

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1713-1714.
   Ending of the War of the Spanish Succession.
   The Peace of Utrecht and the Treaty of Rastadt.
   Acquisition of the Spanish Netherlands, Naples and Milan.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1713-1719.
   Continued differences with Spain.
   The Triple Alliance.
   The Quadruple Alliance.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1714-1718.
Recovery of Belgrade and final expulsion of the Turks from
Hungary.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1718-1738.
   The question of the Succession.
   The Pragmatic Sanction of Charles VI., and its guarantee by
   the Powers.

   "On the death [A. D. 1711] of Joseph, the hopes of the house
   of Austria and the future destiny of Germany rested on Charles
   [then, as titular king of Spain, Charles III., ineffectually
   contesting the Spanish throne with the Bourbon heir, Philip V.
   afterwards, as Emperor, Charles VI.] who was the only
   surviving male of his illustrious family. By that event the
   houses of Austria, Germany and Europe were placed in a new and
   critical situation. From a principle of mistaken policy the
   succession to the hereditary dominions had never been
   established according to an invariable rule; for it was not
   clearly ascertained whether males of the collateral branches
   should be preferred to females in lineal descent, an
   uncertainty which had frequently occasioned many vehement
   disputes. To obviate this evil, as well as to prevent future
   disputes, Leopold [father of Joseph and Charles] had arranged
   the order of succession: to Joseph he assigned Hungary and
   Bohemia, and the other hereditary dominions; and to Charles
   the crown of Spain, and all the territories which belonged to
   the Spanish inheritance. Should Joseph die without issue male,
   the whole succession was to descend to Charles, and in case of
   his death, under similar circumstances, the Austrian dominions
   were to devolve on the daughters of Joseph in preference to
   those of Charles. This family compact was signed by the two
   brothers in the presence of Leopold. Joseph died without male
   issue; but left two daughters." He was succeeded by Charles in
   accordance with the compact.
{212}
   "On the 2nd of August, 1718, soon after the signature of the
   Quadruple Alliance, Charles promulgated a new law of
   succession for the inheritance of the house of Austria, under
   the name of the Pragmatic Sanction. According to the family
   compact formed by Leopold, and confirmed by Joseph and
   Charles, the succession was entailed on the daughters of
   Joseph in preference to the daughters of Charles, should they
   both die without issue male. Charles, however, had scarcely
   ascended the throne, though at that time without children,
   than he reversed this compact, and settled the right of
   succession, in default of his male issue, first on his
   daughters, then on the daughters of Joseph, and afterwards on
   the queen of Portugal and the other daughters of Leopold.
   Since the promulgation of that decree, the Empress had borne a
   son who died in his infancy, and three daughters, Maria
   Theresa, Maria Anne and Maria Amelia. With a view to insure
   the succession of these daughters, and to obviate the dangers
   which might arise from the claims of the Josephine
   archduchesses, he published the Pragmatic Sanction, and
   compelled his nieces to renounce their pretensions on their
   marriages with the electors of Saxony and Bavaria. Aware,
   however, that the strongest renunciations are disregarded, he
   obtained from the different states of his extensive dominions
   the acknowledgement of the Pragmatic Sanction, and made it the
   great object of his reign, to which he sacrificed every other
   consideration, to procure the guaranty of the European
   powers." This guaranty was obtained in treaties with the
   several powers, as follows: Spain in 1725; Russia, 1726,
   renewed in 1733; Prussia, 1728; England and Holland, 1731;
   France, 1738; the Empire, 1732. The inheritance which Charles
   thus endeavored to secure to his daughter was vast and
   imposing. "He was by election Emperor of Germany, by
   hereditary right sovereign of Hungary, Transylvania, Bohemia,
   Austria, Styria, Carinthia and Carniola, the Tyrol, and the
   Brisgau, and he had recently obtained Naples and Sicily, the
   Milanese and the Netherlands."

"The Pragmatic Sanction, though framed to legalize the accession of Maria Theresa, excludes the present Emperor's daughters and his grandchild by postponing the succession of females to that of males in the family of Charles VI."

J. D. Bourchier, The Heritage of the Hapsburgs (Fortnightly Review, March, 1889).

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1719.
Sardinia ceded to the Duke of Savoy in exchange for Sicily.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1733-1735.
   The war of the Polish Succession.
   Cession of Naples and Sicily to Spain, and Lorraine and Bar to
   France.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1737-1739.
   Unfortunate war with the Turks, in alliance with Russia.
   Humiliating peace of Belgrade.
   Surrender of Belgrade, with Servia, and part of Bosnia.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1740 (October).
Treachery among the Guarantors of the Pragmatic Sanction.
The inheritance of Marie Theresa disputed.

"The Emperor Charles VI. … died on the 20th of October, 1740. His daughter Maria Theresa, the heiress of his dominions with the title of Queen of Hungary, was but twenty-three years of age, without experience or knowledge of business; and her husband Francis, the titular Duke of Lorraine and reigning Grand Duke of Tuscany, deserved the praise of amiable qualities rather than of commanding talents. Her Ministers were timorous, irresolute, and useless: 'I saw them in despair,' writes Mr. Robinson, the British envoy, 'but that very despair was not capable of rendering them bravely desperate.' The treasury was exhausted, the army dispersed, and no General risen to replace Eugene. The succession of Maria Theresa was, indeed, cheerfully acknowledged by her subjects, and seemed to be secured amongst foreign powers by their guarantee of the Pragmatic Sanction; but it soon appeared that such guarantees are mere worthless parchments where there is strong temptation to break and only a feeble army to support them. The principal claimant to the succession was the Elector of Bavaria, who maintained that the will of the Emperor Ferdinand the First devised the Austrian states to his daughter, from whom the Elector descended, on failure of male lineage. It appeared that the original will in the archives at Vienna referred to the failure not of the male but of the legitimate issue of his sons; but this document, though ostentatiously displayed to all the Ministers of state and foreign ambassadors, was very far from inducing the Elector to desist from his pretensions. As to the Great Powers—the Court of France, the old ally of the Bavarian family, and mindful of its injuries from the House of Austria, was eager to exalt the first by the depression of the latter. The Bourbons in Spain followed the direction of the Bourbons in France. The King of Poland and the Empress of Russia were more friendly in their expressions than in their designs. An opposite spirit pervaded England and Holland, where motives of honour and of policy combined to support the rights of Maria Theresa. In Germany itself the Elector of Cologne, the Bavarian's brother, warmly espoused his cause: and 'the remaining Electors,' says Chesterfield, 'like electors with us, thought it a proper opportunity of making the most of their votes,—and all at the expense of the helpless and abandoned House of Austria!' The first blow, however, came from Prussia, where the King Frederick William had died a few months before, and been succeeded by his son Frederick the Second; a Prince surnamed the Great by poets."

Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope), History of England, 1713-1783, chapter 23 (volume 3).

"The elector of Bavaria acted in a prompt, honest, and consistent manner. He at once lodged a protest against any disposition of the hereditary estates to the prejudice of his own rights; insisted on the will of Ferdinand I.; and demanded the production of the original text. It was promptly produced. But it was found to convey the succession to the heirs of his daughter, the ancestress of the elector, not, as he contended, on the failure of male heirs, but in the absence of more direct heirs born in wedlock. Maria Theresa could, however, trace her descent through nearer male heirs, and had, therefore, a superior title. Charles Albert was in any event only one of several claimants. The King of Spain, a Bourbon, presented himself as the heir of the Hapsburg emperor Charles V. The King of Sardinia alleged an ancient marriage contract, from which he derived a right to the duchy of Milan. Even August of Saxony claimed territory by virtue of an antiquated title, which, it was pretended, the renunciation of his wife could not affect. All these were, however, mere vultures compared to the eagle [Frederick of Prussia] which was soon to descend upon its prey."

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1740 (October-November).
The War of the Succession.
Conduct of Frederick the Great as explained by himself.

"This Pragmatic Sanction had been guarantied by France, England, Holland, Sardinia, Saxony, and the Roman empire; nay by the late King Frederic William [of Prussia] also, on condition that the court of Vienna would secure to him the succession of Juliers and Berg. The emperor promised him the eventual succession, and did not fulfil his engagements; by which the King of Prussia, his successor, was freed from this guarantee, to which his father, the late king, had pledged himself, conditionally. … Frederic I., when he erected Prussia into a kingdom, had, by that vain grandeur, planted the scion of ambition in the bosom of his posterity; which, soon or late, must fructify. The monarchy he had left to his descendants was, if I may be permitted the expression, a kind of hermaphrodite, which was rather more an electorate than a kingdom. Fame was to be acquired by determining the nature of this being: and this sensation certainly was one of those which strengthened so many motives, conspiring to engage the king in grand enterprises. If the acquisition of the dutchy of Berg had not even met with almost insurmountable impediments, it was in itself so small that the possession would add little grandeur to the house of Brandenbourg. These reflections occasioned the king to turn his views toward the house of Austria, the succession of which would become matter of litigation, at the death of the emperor, when the throne of the Cæsars should be vacant. That event must be favourable to the distinguished part which the king had to act in Germany, by the various claims of the houses of Saxony and Bavaria to these states; by the number of candidates which might canvass for the Imperial crown; and by the projects of the court of Versailles, which, on such an occasion, must naturally profit by the troubles that the death of Charles VI. could not fail to excite. This accident did not long keep the world in expectation. The emperor ended his days at the palace La Favorite, on the 26th [20th] day of October, 1740. The news arrived at Rheinsberg when the king was ill of a fever. … He immediately resolved to reclaim the principalities of Silesia; the rights of his house to which [long dormant, the claim dating back to a certain covenant of heritage-brotherhood with the duke of Liegnitz, in 1537, which the emperor of that day caused to be annulled by the States of Bohemia] were incontestable: and he prepared, at the same time, to support these pretensions, if necessary, by arms. This project accomplished all his political views; it afforded the means of acquiring reputation, of augmenting the power of the state, and of terminating what related to the litigious succession of the dutchy of Berg. …The state of the court of Vienna, after the death of the emperor, was deplorable. The finances were in disorder; the army was ruined and discouraged by ill success in its wars with the Turks; the ministry disunited, and a youthful unexperienced princess at the head of the government, who was to defend the succession from all claimants. The result was that the government could not appear formidable. It was besides impossible that the king should be destitute of allies. … The war which he might undertake in Silesia was the only offensive war that could be favoured by the situation of his states, for it would be carried on upon his frontiers, and the Oder would always furnish him with a sure communication. … Add to these reasons, an army fit to march, a treasury ready prepared, and, perhaps, the ambition of acquiring renown. Such were the causes of the war which the king declared against Maria Theresa of Austria, queen of Hungary and Bohemia."

Frederick II. (Frederick the Great), History of My Own Times: Posthumous Works (translated by Holcroft), volume 1, chapters 1-2.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1740-1741.
The War of the Succession: Faithlessness of the King of Prussia.
The Macaulay verdict.

"From no quarter did the young queen of Hungary receive stronger assurances of friendship and support than from the King of Prussia. Yet the King of Prussia, the 'Anti-Machiavel,' had already fully determined to commit the great crime of violating his plighted faith, of robbing the ally whom he was bound to defend, and of plunging all Europe into a long, bloody, and desolating war, and all this for no end whatever except that he might extend his dominions and see his name in the gazettes. He determined to assemble a great army with speed and secrecy, to invade Silesia before Maria Theresa should be apprized of his design, and to add that rich province to his kingdom. … Without any declaration of war, without any demand for reparation, in the very act of pouring forth compliments and assurances of good will, Frederic commenced hostilities. Many thousands of his troops were actually in Silesia before the Queen of Hungary knew that he had set up any claim to any part of her territories. At length he sent her a message which could be regarded only as an insult. If she would but let him have Silesia, he would, he said, stand by her against any power which should try to deprive her of her other dominions: as if he was not already bound to stand by her, or as if his new promise could be of more value than the old one. It was the depth of winter. The cold was severe, and the roads deep in mire. But the Prussians pressed on. Resistance was impossible. The Austrian army was then neither numerous nor efficient. The small portion of that army which lay in Silesia was unprepared for hostilities. Glogau was blockaded; Breslau opened its gates; Ohlau was evacuated. A few scattered garrisons still held out; but the whole open country was subjugated: no enemy ventured to encounter the king in the field; and, before the end of January, 1741, he returned to receive the congratulations of his subjects at Berlin. {214} Had the Silesian question been merely a question between Frederic and Maria Theresa it would be impossible to acquit the Prussian king of gross perfidy. But when we consider the effects which his policy produced, and could not fail to produce, on the whole community of civilized nations, we are compelled to pronounce a condemnation still more severe. … The selfish rapacity of the king of Prussia gave the signal to his neighbours. … The evils produced by this wickedness were felt in lands where the name of Prussia was unknown; and, in order that he might rob a neighbour whom he had promised to defend, black men fought on the coast of Coromandel, and red men scalped each other by the great lakes of North America. Silesia had been occupied without a battle; but the Austrian troops were advancing to the relief of the fortresses which still held out. In the spring Frederic rejoined his army. He had seen little of war, and had never commanded any great body of men in the field. … Frederic's first battle was fought at Molwitz [April 10, 1741], and never did the career of a great commander open in a more inauspicious manner. His army was victorious. Not only, however, did he not establish his title to the character of an able general, but he was so unfortunate as to make it doubtful whether he possessed the vulgar courage of a soldier. The cavalry, which he commanded in person, was put to flight. Unaccustomed to the tumult and carnage of a field of battle, he lost his self-possession, and listened too readily to those who urged him to save himself. His English gray carried him many miles from the field, while Schwerin, though wounded in two places, manfully upheld the day. The skill of the old Field-Marshal and the steadiness of the Prussian battalions prevailed, and the Austrian army was driven from the field with the loss of 8,000 men. The news was carried late at night to a mill in which the king had taken shelter. It gave him a bitter pang. He was successful; but he owed his success to dispositions which others had made, and to the valour of men who had fought while he was flying. So unpromising was the first appearance of the greatest warrior of that age."

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1741 (April-May).
The War of the Succession: French responsibility.
The Carlyle verdict.

"The battle of Mollwitz went off like a signal shot among the Nations; intimating that they were, one and all, to go battling. Which they did, with a witness; making a terrible thing of it, over all the world, for above seven years to come. … Not that Mollwitz kindled Europe; Europe was already kindled for some two years past;—especially since the late Kaiser died, and his Pragmatic Sanction was superadded to the other troubles afoot. But ever since that image of Jenkins's Ear had at last blazed up in the slow English brain, like a fiery constellation or Sign in the Heavens, symbolic of such injustices and unendurabilities, and had lighted the Spanish-English War [see ENGLAND: A. D. 1739-1741], Europe was slowly but pretty surely taking fire. France 'could not see Spain humbled,' she said: England (in its own dim feeling, and also in the fact of things), could not do at all without considerably humbling Spain. France, endlessly interested in that Spanish-English matter, was already sending out fleets, firing shots,—almost, or altogether, putting her hand in it. 'In which case, will not, must not, Austria help us?' thought England,—and was asking, daily, at Vienna … when the late Kaiser died. … But if not as cause, then as signal, or as signal and cause together (which it properly was), the Battle of Mollwitz gave the finishing stroke and set all in motion. … For directly on the back of Mollwitz, there ensued, first, an explosion of Diplomatic activity, such as was never seen before; Excellencies from the four winds taking wing towards Friedrich; and talking and insinuating, and fencing and fugling, after their sort, in that Silesian camp of his, the centre being there. A universal rookery of Diplomatists, whose loud cackle is now as if gone mad to us; their work wholly fallen putrescent and avoidable, dead to all creatures. And secondly, in the train of that, there ensued a universal European War, the French and the English being chief parties in it; which abounds in battles and feats of arms, spirited but delirious, and cannot be got stilled for seven or eight years to come; and in which Friedrich and his War swim only as an intermittent Episode henceforth. … The first point to be noted is, Where did it originate? To which the answer mainly is … with Monseigneur, the Maréchal de Belleisle principally; with the ambitious cupidities and baseless vanities of the French Court and Nation, as represented by Belleisle. … The English-Spanish War had a basis to stand on in this Universe. The like had the Prussian-Austrian one; so all men now admit. If Friedrich had not business there, what man ever had in an enterprise he ventured on? Friedrich, after such trial and proof as has seldom been, got his claims on Schlesien allowed by the Destinies. … Friedrich had business in this War; and Maria Theresa versus Friedrich had likewise cause to appear in Court, and do her utmost pleading against him. But if we ask, What Belleisle or France and Louis XV. had to do there? the answer is rigorously Nothing. Their own windy vanities, ambitions, sanctioned not by fact and the Almighty Powers, but by Phantasm and the babble of Versailles; transcendent self-conceit, intrinsically insane; pretensions over their fellow-creatures which were without basis anywhere in Nature, except in the French brain; it was this that brought Belleisle and France into a German War. And Belleisle and France having gone into an Anti-Pragmatic War, the unlucky George and his England were dragged into a Pragmatic one,—quitting their own business, on the Spanish Main, and hurrying to Germany,—in terror as at Doomsday, and zeal to save the Keystone of Nature there. That is the notable point in regard to this War: That France is to be called the author of it, who, alone of all the parties, had no business there whatever."

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1741 (May-June).
Mission of Belleisle.
The thickening of the Plot.

"The defeat of Maria Theresa's only army [at Mollwitz] swept away all the doubts and scruples of France. The fiery Belleisle had already set out upon his mission to the various German courts, armed with powers which were reluctantly granted by the cardinal [Fleury, the French minister], and were promptly enlarged by the ambassador to suit his own more ambitious views of the situation. He travelled in oriental state. … The almost royal pomp with which he strode into the presence of princes of the blood, the copious eloquence with which he pleaded his cause, … were only the outward decorations of one of the most iniquitous schemes ever devised by an unscrupulous diplomacy. The scheme, when stripped of all its details, did not indeed at first appear absolutely revolting. It proposed simply to secure the election of Charles Albert of Bavaria as emperor, an honor to which he had a perfect right to aspire. But it was difficult to obtain the votes of certain electors without offering them the prospect of territorial gains, and impossible for Charles Albert to support the imperial dignity without greater revenues than those of Bavaria. It was proposed, therefore, that provinces should be taken from Maria Theresa herself, first to purchase votes against her own husband, and then to swell the income of the successful rival candidate. The three episcopal electors were first visited, and subjected to various forms of persuasion, bribes, flattery, threats,—until the effects of the treatment began to appear; the count palatine was devoted to France; and these four with Bavaria made a majority of one. But that was too small a margin for Belleisle's aspirations, or even for the safety of his project. The four remaining votes belonged to the most powerful of the German states, Prussia, Hanover, Saxony and Bohemia. … Bohemia, if it voted at all, would of course vote for the grand-duke Francis [husband of Maria Theresa]. Saxony and Hanover were already negotiating with Maria Theresa; and it was well understood that Austria could have Frederick's support by paying his price." Austria refused to pay the price, and Frederick signed a treaty with the king of France at Breslau on the 4th of June, 1741. "The essence of it was contained in four secret articles. In these the king of Prussia renounced his claim to Jülich-Berg in behalf of the house of Sulzbach, and agreed to give his vote to the elector of Bavaria for emperor. The king of France engaged to guarantee Prussia in the possession of Lower Silesia, to send within two months an army to the support of Bavaria, and to provoke an immediate rupture between Sweden and Russia."

"During these anxious summer months Maria Theresa and the Austrian court had resided mainly at Presburg, in Hungary. Here she had been occupied in the solution of domestic as well as international problems. The Magyars, as a manly and chivalrous race, had been touched by the perilous situation of the young queen; but, while ardently protesting their loyalty, insisted not the less on the recognition of their own inalienable rights. These had been inadequately observed in recent years, and in consequence no little disaffection prevailed in Hungary. The magnates resolved, therefore, as they had resolved at the beginning of previous reigns, to demand the restoration of all their rights and privileges. But it does not appear that they wished to take any ungenerous advantage of the sex or the necessities of Maria Theresa. They were argumentative and stubborn, yet not in a bargaining, mercenary spirit. They accepted in June a qualified compliance with their demands; and when on the 25th of that month the queen appeared before the diet to receive the crown of St. Stephen, and, according to custom, waved the great sword of the kingdom toward the four points of the compass, toward the north and the south, the east and the west, challenging all enemies to dispute her right, the assembly was carried away by enthusiasm, and it seemed as if an end had forever been put to constitutional technicalities. Such was, however, not the case. After the excitement caused by the dramatic coronation had in a measure subsided, the old contentions revived, as bitter and vexatious as before. These concerned especially the manner in which the administration of Hungary should be adjusted to meet the new state of things. Should the chief political offices be filled by native Hungarians, as the diet demanded? Could the co-regency of the grand-duke, which was ardently desired by the queen, be accepted by the Magyars? For two months the dispute over these problems raged at Presburg, until finally Maria Theresa herself found a bold, ingenious, and patriotic solution. The news of the Franco-Bavarian alliance and the fall of Passau determined her to throw herself completely upon the gallantry and devotion of the Magyars. It had long been the policy of the court of Vienna not to entrust the Hungarians with arms. … But Maria Theresa had not been robbed, in spite of her experience with France and Prussia, of all her faith in human nature. She took the responsibility of her decision, and the result proved that her insight was correct. On the 11th of September she summoned the members of the diet before her, and, seated on the throne, explained to them the perilous situation of her dominions. The danger, she said, threatened herself, and all that was dear to her. Abandoned by all her allies, she took refuge in the fidelity and the ancient valor of the Hungarians, to whom she entrusted herself, her children, and her empire. Here she broke into tears, and covered, her face with her handkerchief. The diet responded to this appeal by proclaiming the 'insurrection' or the equipment of a large popular force for the defence of the queen. So great was the enthusiasm that it nearly swept away even the original aversion of the Hungarians to the grand-duke Francis, who, to the queen's delight, was finally, though not without some murmurs, accepted as co-regent. … This uprising was organized not an hour too early, for dangers were pressing upon the queen from every side."

ALSO IN: Duc de Broglie, Frederick the Great and Maria Theresa, chapter 4 (volume 2).

"France now began to act with energy. In the month of August [1741] two French armies crossed the Rhine, each about 40, 000 strong. The first marched into Westphalia, and frightened George II. into concluding a treaty of neutrality for Hanover, and promising his vote to the Elector of Bavaria. The second advanced through South Germany on Passau, the frontier city of Bavaria and Austria. As soon as it arrived on German soil, the French officers assumed the blue and white cockade of Bavaria, for it was the cue of France to appear only as an auxiliary, and the nominal command of her army was vested in the Elector. From Passau the French and Bavarians passed into Upper Austria, and on Sept. 11 entered its capital, Linz, where the Elector assumed the title of Archduke. Five days later Saxony joined the allies. Sweden had already declared war on Russia. Spain trumped up an old claim and attacked the Austrian dominions in Italy. It seemed as if Belleisle's schemes were about to be crowned with complete success. Had the allies pushed forward, Vienna must have fallen into their hands. But the French did not wish to be too victorious, lest they should make the Elector too powerful, and so independent of them. Therefore, after six weeks' delay, they turned aside to the conquest of Bohemia."

F. W. Longman, Frederick the Great and the Seven Years War, chapter 4, section 4.

"While … a portion of the French troops, under the command of the Count de Segur, was left in Upper Austria, the remainder of the allied army turned towards Bohemia; where they were joined by a body of Saxons, under the command of Count Rutowsky. They took Prague by assault, on the night of the 25th of November, while the Grand Duke of Tuscany, the husband of Maria Theresa, was marching to his relief. In Prague, 3,000 prisoners were taken. The elector of Bavaria hastened there, upon hearing of the success of his arms, was crowned King of Bohemia, during the month of December, and received the oath of fidelity from the constituted authorities. But while he was thus employed, the Austrian general, Khevenhuller, had driven the Count de Segur out of Austria, and had himself entered Bavaria; which obliged the Bavarian army to abandon Bohemia and hasten to the defence of their own country."

      ALSO IN:
      Frederick II.,
      History of My Own Times
      (Posthumous Works, volume 1, chapter 5).

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1741 (October).
   Secret Treaty with Frederick.
   Lower Silesia conceded to him.
   Austrian success.

"By October, 1741, the fortunes of Maria Theresa had sunk to the lowest ebb, but a great revulsion speedily set in. The martial enthusiasm of the Hungarians, the subsidy from England, and the brilliant military talents of General Khevenhuller, restored her armies. Vienna was put in a state of defence, and at the same time jealousies and suspicion made their way among the confederates. The Electors of Bavaria and Saxony were already in some degree divided; and the Germans, and especially Frederick, were alarmed by the growing ascendency, and irritated by the haughty demeanour of the French. In the moment of her extreme depression, the Queen consented to a concession which England had vainly urged upon her before, and which laid the foundation of her future success. In October 1741 she entered into a secret convention with Frederick [called the convention of Ober-Schnellendorf], by which that astute sovereign agreed to desert his allies, and desist from hostilities, on condition of ultimately obtaining Lower Silesia, with Breslau and Neisse. Every precaution was taken to ensure secrecy. It was arranged that Frederick should continue to besiege Neisse, that the town should ultimately be surrendered to him, and that his troops should then retire into winter quarters, and take no further part in the war. As the sacrifice of a few more lives was perfectly indifferent to the contracting parties, and in order that no one should suspect the treachery that was contemplated, Neisse, after the arrangement had been made for its surrender, was subjected for four days and four nights to the horrors of bombardment. Frederick, at the same time talked, with his usual cynical frankness, to the English ambassador about the best way of attacking his allies the French; and observed, that if the Queen of Hungary prospered, he would perhaps support her, if not—everyone must look for himself. He only assented verbally to this convention, and, no doubt, resolved to await the course of events, in order to decide which Power it was his interest finally to betray; but in the meantime the Austrians obtained a respite, which enabled them to throw their whole forces upon their other enemies. Two brilliant campaigns followed. The greater part of Bohemia was recovered by an army under the Duke of Lorraine, and the French were hemmed in at Prague; while another army, under General Khevenhuller, invaded Upper Austria, drove 10,000 French soldiers within the walls of Linz, blockaded them, defeated a body of Bohemians who were sent to the rescue, compelled the whole French army to surrender, and then, crossing the frontier, poured in a resistless torrent over Bavaria. The fairest plains of that beautiful land were desolated by hosts of irregular troops from Hungary, Croatia, and the Tyrol; and on the 12th of February the Austrians marched in triumph into Munich. On that very day the Elector of Bavaria was crowned Emperor of Germany, at Frankfort, under the title of Charles VII., and the imperial crown was thus, for the first time, for many generations, separated from the House of Austria."

ALSO IN: F. Von Raumer, Contributions to Modern History: Frederick II. and his Times, chapter 13-14.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1742 (January-May).
Frederick breaks faith again.
Battle of Chotusitz.

   "The Queen of Hungary had assembled in the beginning of the
   year two considerable armies in Moravia and Bohemia, the one
   under Prince Lobkowitz, to defend the former province, and the
   other commanded by Prince Charles of Lorraine, her
   brother-in-law. This young Prince possessed as much bravery
   and activity as Frederick, and had equally with him the talent
   of inspiring attachment and confidence. … Frederick, alarmed
   at these preparations and the progress of the Austrians in
   Bavaria, abruptly broke off the convention of
   Ober-Schnellendorf, and recommenced hostilities. … The King
   of Prussia became apprehensive that the Queen of Hungary would
   again turn her arms to recover Silesia. He therefore
   dispatched Marshal Schwerin to seize Olmutz and lay siege to
   Glatz, which surrendered after a desperate resistance on the
   9th of January. Soon after this event, the King rejoined his
   army, and endeavoured to drive the Austrians from their
   advantageous position in the southern parts of Bohemia, which
   would have delivered the French troops in the neighbourhood
   and checked the progress of Khevenhüller in Bavaria.
{217}
   The king advanced to Iglau, on the frontiers of Bohemia, and,
   occupying the banks of the Taya, made irruptions into Upper
   Austria, his hussars spreading terror even to the gates of
   Vienna. The Austrians drew from Bavaria a corps of 10,000 men
   to cover the capital, while Prince Charles of Lorraine, at the
   head of 50,000 men, threatened the Prussian magazines in Upper
   Silesia, and by this movement compelled Frederick to detach a
   considerable force for their protection, and to evacuate
   Moravia, which he had invaded. Broglie, who commanded the
   French forces in that country, must now have fallen a
   sacrifice, had not the ever-active King of Prussia brought up
   30,000 men, which, under the Prince of Anhalt-Dessau, entering
   Bohemia, came up with Prince Charles at Czaslau, about
   thirty-five miles from Prague, before he could form a junction
   with Prince Lobkowitz. Upon this ensued [May 17, 1742] what is
   known in history as the battle of Czaslau [also, and more
   commonly, called the battle of Chotusitz]. … The numbers in
   the two armies were nearly equal, and the action was warmly
   contested on both sides. … The Prussians remained masters of
   the field, with 18 cannon, two pairs of colours and 1,200
   prisoners; but they indeed paid dearly for the honour, for it
   was computed that their loss was equal to that of their enemy,
   which amounted to 7,000 men on either side; while the Prussian
   cavalry, under Field-Marshal Buddenbroch, was nearly ruined.
   … Although in this battle the victory was, without doubt, on
   the side of the Prussians, yet the immediate consequences were
   highly favourable to the Queen of Hungary. The King was
   disappointed of his expected advantages, and conceived a
   disgust to the war. He now lowered his demands and made
   overtures of accommodation, which, on the 11th of June,
   resulted in a treaty of peace between the two crowns, which
   was signed at Breslau under the mediation of the British
   Ambassador."

ALSO IN: T. Carlyle, History of Friedrich II. of Prussia, book 13, chapter 13 (volume 5).

"The following are the preliminary articles which were signed at Breslau: 1. The queen of Hungary ceded to the king of Prussia Upper and Lower Silesia, with the principality of Glatz; except the towns of Troppau, Jaegendorff and the high mountains situated beyond the Oppa. 2. The Prussians undertook to repay the English 1,700,000 crowns; which sum was a mortgage loan on Silesia. The remaining articles related to a suspension of arms, an exchange of prisoners, and the freedom of religion and trade. Thus was Silesia united to the Prussian States. Two years were sufficient for the conquest of that important province. The treasures which the late king had left were almost expended; but provinces that do not cost more than seven or eight millions are cheaply purchased."

Frederic II., History of My Own Times (Posthumous Works, volume 1), chapter 6.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1742 (June-December).
Expulsion of the French from Bohemia.
Belleisle's retreat from Prague.

"The Austrian arms began now to be successful in all quarters. Just before the signature of the preliminaries, Prince Lobcowitz, who was stationed at Budweiss with 10,000 men, made an attack on Frauenberg; Broglio and Belleisle advanced from Piseck to relieve the town, and a combat took place at Sahay, in which the Austrians were repulsed with the loss of 500 men. This trifling affair was magnified into a decisive victory. … Marshal Broglio, elated with this advantage, and relying on the immediate junction of the King of Prussia, remained at Frauenberg in perfect security. But his expectations were disappointed; Frederic had already commenced his secret negotiations, and Prince Charles was enabled to turn his forces against the French. Being joined by Prince Lobcowitz, they attacked Broglio, and compelled him to quit Frauenberg with such precipitation that his baggage fell into the hands of the light troops, and the French retreated towards Branau, harassed by the Croats and other irregulars. … The Austrians, pursuing their success against the French, drove Broglio from Branau, and followed him to the walls of Prague, where he found Belleisle. … After several consultations, the two generals called in their posts, and secured their army partly within the walls and partly within a peninsula of the Moldau. … Soon afterwards the duke of Lorraine joined the army [of Prince Charles], which now amounted to 70 70,000 men, and the arrival of the heavy artillery enabled the Austrians to commence the siege."

"To relieve the French at Prague, Marshal Maillebois was directed to advance with his army from Westphalia. At these tidings Prince Charles changed the siege of Prague to a blockade, and marching against his new opponents, checked their progress on the Bohemian frontier; the French, however, still occupying the town of Egra. It was under these circumstances that Belleisle made his masterly and renowned retreat from Prague. In the night of the 16th of December, he secretly left the city at the head of 11,000 foot and 3,000 horse, having deceived the Austrians' vigilance by the feint of a general forage in the opposite quarter; and pushed for Egra through a hostile country, destitute of resources and surrounded by superior enemies. His soldiers, with no other food than frozen bread, and compelled to sleep without covering on the snow and ice, perished in great numbers; but the gallant spirit of Belleisle triumphed over every obstacle; he struck through morasses almost untrodden before, offered battle to Prince Lobkowitz, who, however, declined engaging, and at length succeeded in reaching the other French army with the flower of his own. The remnant left at Prague, and amounting only to 6,000 men, seemed an easy prey; yet their threat of firing the city, and perishing beneath its ruins, and the recent proof of what despair can do, obtained for them honourable terms, and the permission of rejoining their comrades at Egra. But in spite of all this skill and courage in the French invaders, the final result to them was failure; nor had they attained a single permanent advantage beyond their own safety in retreat. Maillebois and De Broglie took up winter quarters in Bavaria, while Belleisle led back his division across the Rhine; and it was computed that, of the 35,000 men whom he had first conducted into Germany, not more than 8,000 returned beneath his banner."

Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope), History of England, 1713-1783, chapter 24 (volume 3).

"Thus, at the termination of the campaign, all Bohemia was regained, except Egra; and on the 12th of May, 1743, Maria Theresa was soon afterwards crowned at Prague, to the recovery of which, says her great rival, her firmness had more contributed than the force of her arms. The only reverse which the Austrians experienced in the midst of their successes was the temporary loss of Bavaria, which, on the retreat of Kevenhuller, was occupied by marshal Seckendorf; and the Emperor made his entry into Munich on the 2d of October."

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1743.
   England drawn into the conflict.
   The Pragmatic Army.
   The Battle of Dettingen.

"The cause of Maria Theresa had begun to excite a remarkable enthusiasm in England. … The convention of neutrality entered into by George II. in September 1741, and the extortion of his vote for the Elector of Bavaria, properly concerned that prince only as Elector of Hanover; yet, as he was also King of England, they were felt as a disgrace by the English people. The elections of that year went against Walpole, and in February 1742 he found himself compelled to resign. He was succeeded in the administration by Pulteney, Earl of Bath, though Lord Carteret was virtually prime minister. Carteret was an ardent supporter of the cause of Maria Theresa. His accession to office was immediately followed by a large increase of the army and navy; five millions were voted for carrying on the war, and a subsidy of £500,000 for the Queen of Hungary. The Earl of Stair, with an army of 16,000 men, afterwards reinforced by a large body of Hanoverians and Hessians in British pay, was despatched into the Netherlands to cooperate with the Dutch. But though the States-General, at the instance of the British Cabinet, voted Maria Theresa a subsidy, they were not yet prepared to take an active part in a war which might ultimately involve them in hostilities with France. The exertions of the English ministry in favour of the Queen of Hungary had therefore been confined during the year 1742 to diplomacy, and they had helped to bring about … the Peace of Breslau. In 1743 they were able to do more," In April, 1743, the Emperor, Charles VII., regained possession of Bavaria and returned to Munich, but only to be driven out again by the Austrians in June. The Bavarians were badly beaten at Simpach (May 9), and Munich was taken (June 12) after a short bombardment. "Charles VII. was now again obliged to fly, and took refuge at Augsburg. At his command, Seckendorf [his general] made a convention with the Austrians at the village of Niederschönfeld, by which he agreed to abandon to them Bavaria, on condition that Charles's troops should be allowed to occupy unmolested quarters between Franconia and Suabia. Maria Theresa seemed at first indisposed to ratify even terms so humiliating to the Emperor. She had become perhaps a little too much exalted by the rapid turn of fortune. She had caused herself to be crowned in Prague. She had received the homage of the Austrians, and entered Vienna in a sort of triumph. She now dreamt of nothing less than conquering Lorraine for herself, Alsace for the Empire; of hurling Charles VII. from the Imperial throne, and placing on it her own consort." She was persuaded, however, to consent at length to the terms of the Niederschönfeld convention. "Meanwhile the allied army of English and Germans, under the Earl of Stair, nearly 40,000 strong, which, from its destined object, had assumed the name of the 'Pragmatic Army,' had crossed the Meuse and the Rhine in March and April, with a view to cut off the army of Bavaria from France. George II. had not concealed his intention of breaking the Treaty of Hanover of 1741, alleging as a ground that the duration of the neutrality stipulated in it had not been determined; and on June 19th he had joined the army in person. He found it in a most critical position. Lord Stair, who had never distinguished himself as a general, and was now falling into dotage, had led it into a narrow valley near Aschaffenburg, between Mount Spessart and the river Main; while Marshal Noailles [commanding the French], who had crossed the Rhine towards the end of April, by seizing the principal fords of the Main, both above and below the British position, had cut him off both from his magazines at Hanau, and from the supplies which he had expected to procure in Franconia. Nothing remained but for him to fight his way back to Hanau." In the battle of Dettingen, which followed (June 27), all the advantages of the French in position were thrown away by the ignorant impetuosity of the king's nephew, the Duke of Grammont, who commanded one division, and they suffered a severe defeat. "The French are said to have lost 6,000 men and the British half that number. It is the last action in which a king of England has fought in person. But George II., or rather Lord Stair, did not know how to profit by his victory. Although the Pragmatic Army was joined after the battle of Dettingen by 15,000 Dutch troops, under Prince Maurice of Nassau, nothing of importance was done during the remainder of the campaign."

      Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
      History of England,
      1713-1783, chapter 25 (volume 3).

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1743-1744.
   The Prussian King strikes in again.
   The Union of Frankfort.
   Siege and capture of Prague.

   "Everywhere Austria was successful, and Frederick had reason
   to fear for himself unless the tide of conquest could be
   stayed. He explains in the 'Histoire de Mon Temps' that he
   feared lest France should abandon the cause of the Emperor,
   which would mean that the Austrians, who now boldly spoke of
   compensation for the war, would turn their arms against
   himself. … France was trembling, not for her conquests, but
   for her own territory. After the battle of Dettingen, the
   victorious Anglo-Hanoverian force was to cross the Rhine above
   Mayence and march into Alsace, while Prince Charles of
   Lorraine, with a strong Austrian army, was to pass near Basle
   and occupy Lorraine, taking up his winter quarters in Burgundy
   and Champagne. The English crossed without any check and moved
   on to Worms, but the Austrians failed in their attempt. Worms
   became a centre of intrigue, which Frederick afterwards called
   'Cette abyme de mauvaisc fol.' The Dutch were persuaded by
   Lord Carteret to join the English, and they did at last send
   14,000 men, who were never of the least use.
{219}
   Lord Carteret also detached Charles Emanuel, King of Sardinia,
   from his French leanings, and persuaded him to enter into the
   Austro-English alliance [by the treaty of Worms, Sept. 13,
   1743, which conceded to the King of Sardinia Finale, the city
   of Placentia, with some other small districts and gave him
   command of the allied forces in Italy]. It was clear that
   action could not be long postponed, and Frederick began to
   recognize the necessity of a new war. His first anxiety was to
   guard himself against interference from his northern and
   eastern neighbours. He secured, as he hoped, the neutrality of
   Russia by marrying the young princess of Anhalt-Zerbst,
   afterwards the notorious Empress Catherine, with the
   Grand-Duke Peter of Russia, nephew and heir to the reigning
   Empress Elizabeth. … Thus strengthened, as he hoped, in his
   rear and flank, and having made the commencement of a German
   league called the Union of Frankfurt, by which Hesse and the
   Palatinate agreed to join Frederick and the Kaiser, he
   concluded on the 5th of June, 1744, a treaty which brought
   France also into this alliance. It was secretly agreed that
   Frederick was to invade Bohemia, conquer it for the Kaiser,
   and have the districts of Königgrätz, Bunzlau, and Leitmeritz
   to repay him for his trouble and costs; while France, which
   was all this time at war with Austria and England, should send
   an army against Prince Charles and the English. … The first
   stroke of the coming war was delivered by France. Louis XV.
   sent a large army into the Netherlands under two good leaders,
   Noailles and Maurice de Saxe. Urged by his mistress, the
   Duchesse de Châteauroux, he joined it himself early, and took
   the nominal command early in June. … The towns [Menin,
   Ypres, Fort Knoque, Furnes] rapidly fell before him, and
   Marshal Wade, with the Anglo-Dutch-Hanoverian army, sat still
   and looked at the success of the French. But on the night of
   the 30th June—1st July, Prince Charles crossed the Rhine by
   an operation which is worth the study of military students,
   and invaded Alsace, the French army of observation falling
   back before him. Louis XV. hurried back to interpose between
   the Austrians and Paris. … Maurice de Saxe was left in the
   Netherlands with 45,000 men. Thus the French army was
   paralysed, and the Austrian army in its turn was actually
   invading France. At this time Frederick struck in. He sent
   word to the King that, though all the terms of their
   arrangement had not yet been fulfilled, he would at once
   invade Bohemia, and deliver a stroke against Prague which
   would certainly cause the retreat of Prince Charles with his
   70,000 men. If the French army would follow Prince Charles in
   his retreat, Frederick would attack him, and between France
   and Prussia the Austrian army would certainly be crushed, and
   Vienna be at their mercy. This was no doubt an excellent plan
   of campaign, but, like the previous operations concerted with
   Broglio, it depended for success upon the good faith of the
   French, and this turned out to be a broken reed. On the 7th of
   August the Prussian ambassador at Vienna gave notice of the
   Union of Frankfurt and withdrew from the court of Austria; and
   on the 15th the Prussian army was put in march upon Prague
   [opening what is called the Second Silesian War]. Frederick's
   forces moved in three columns, the total strength being over
   80,000. … Maria Theresa was now again in great danger, but
   as usual retained her high courage, and once more called forth
   the enthusiasm of her Hungarian subjects, who sent swarms of
   wild troops, horse and foot, to the seat of war. … On the
   1st of September the three columns met before Prague, which
   had better defences than in the last campaign, and a garrison
   of some 16,000 men. … During the night of the 9th the
   bombardment commenced … and on the 16th the garrison
   surrendered. Thus, one month after the commencement of the
   march Prague was captured, and the campaign opened with a
   brilliant feat of arms."

      F. Von Raumer,
      Contributions to Modern History:
      Frederick II. and his Times,
      chapter 17-19.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1744-1745.
   Frederick's retreat and fresh triumph.
   Austria recovers the imperial crown.
   Saxony subdued.
   The Peace of Dresden.

After the reduction of Prague, Frederick, "in deference to the opinion of Marshal Belleisle, but against his own judgment, advanced into the south of Bohemia with the view of threatening Vienna. He thus exposed himself to the risk of being cut off from Prague. Yet even so he would probably have been able to maintain himself if the French had fulfilled their engagements. But while he was conquering the districts of the Upper Moldau, the Austrian army returned unimpaired from Alsace. The French had allowed it to cross the Rhine unmolested, and had not made the slightest attempt to harass its retreat [but applied themselves to the siege and capture of Freiburg]. They were only too glad to get rid of it themselves. In the ensuing operations Frederick was completely outmanoeuvred. Traun [the Austrian general], without risking a battle, forced him back towards the Silesian frontier. He had to choose between abandoning Prague and abandoning his communications with Silesia, and as the Saxons had cut off his retreat through the Electorate, there was really no choice in the matter. So he fell back on Silesia, abandoning Prague and his heavy artillery. The retreat was attended with considerable loss. Frederick was much struck with the skill displayed by Traun, and says, in his 'Histoire de mon Temps,' that he regarded this campaign as his school in the art of war and M. de Traun as his teacher. The campaign may have been an excellent lesson in the art of war, but in other respects it was very disastrous to Frederick. He had drawn upon himself the whole power of Austria, and had learnt how little the French were to be depended upon. His prestige was dimmed by failure, and even in his own army doubts were entertained of his capacity. But, bad as his position already was, it became far worse when the unhappy Emperor died [January 20, 1745], worn out with disease and calamity. This event put an end to the Union of Frankfort. Frederick could no longer claim to be acting in defence of his oppressed sovereign; the ground was cut from under his feet. Nor was there any longer much hope of preventing the Imperial Crown from reverting to Austria. The new Elector of Bavaria was a mere boy. In this altered state of affairs he sought to make peace. But Maria Theresa would not let him off so easily. {220} In order that she might use all her forces against him, she granted peace to Bavaria, and gave back to the young elector his hereditary dominions, on condition of his resigning all claim to hers and promising to vote for her husband as Emperor. While Frederick thus lost a friend in Bavaria, Saxony threw herself completely into the arms of his enemy, and united with Austria in a treaty [May 18] which had for its object, not the reconquest of Silesia merely, but the partition of Prussia and the reduction of the king to his ancient limits as Margrave of Brandenburg. Saxony was then much larger than it is now, but it was not only the number of troops it could send into the field that made its hostility dangerous. It was partly the geographical position of the country, which made it an excellent base for operations against Prussia, but still more the alliance that was known to subsist between the Elector (King Augustus III. of Poland) and the Russian Court. It was probable that a Prussian invasion of Saxony would be followed by a Russian invasion of Prussia. Towards the end of May, the Austrian and Saxon army, 75,000 strong, crossed the Giant Mountains and descended upon Silesia. The Austrians were again commanded by Prince Charles, but the wise head of Traun was no longer there to guide him. … The encounter took place at Hohenfriedberg [June 5], and resulted in a complete victory for Prussia. The Austrians and Saxons lost 9,000 killed and wounded, and 7,000 prisoners, besides 66 cannons and 73 flags and standards. Four days after the battle they were back again in Bohemia. Frederick followed, not with the intention of attacking them again, but in order to eat the country bare, so that it might afford no sustenance to the enemy during the winter. For his own part he was really anxious for peace. His resources were all but exhausted, while Austria was fed by a constant stream of English subsidies. As in the former war, England interposed with her good offices, but without effect; Maria Theresa was by no means disheartened by her defeat, and refused to hear of peace till she had tried the chances of battle once more. On Sept. 13 her husband was elected Emperor by seven votes out of nine, the dissentients being the King of Prussia and the Elector Palatine. This event raised the spirits of the Empress-Queen, as Maria Theresa was henceforward called, and opened a wider field for her ambition. She sent peremptory orders to Prince Charles to attack Frederick before he retired from Bohemia. A battle was accordingly fought at Sohr [Sept. 30], and again victory rested with the Prussians. The season was now far advanced, and Frederick returned home expecting that there would be no more fighting till after the winter. Such however, was far from being the intention of his enemies." A plan for the invasion of Brandenburg by three Austrian and Saxon armies simultaneously, was secretly concerted; but Frederick had timely warning of it and it was frustrated by his activity and energy. On the 23d of November he surprised and defeated Prince Charles at Hennersdorf. "Some three weeks afterwards [December 15] the Prince of Dessau defeated a second Saxon and Austrian army at Kesselsdorf, a few miles from Dresden. This victory completed the subjugation of Saxony and put an end to the war. Three days after Kesselsdorf, Frederick entered Dresden, and astonished everyone by the graciousness of his behaviour and by the moderation of his terms. From Saxony he exacted no cession of territory, but merely a contribution of 1,000,000 thalers (£150,000) towards the expenses of the war. From Austria he demanded a guarantee of the treaty of Breslau, in return for which he agreed to recognize Francis as Emperor. Peace was signed [at Dresden] on Christmas Day."

ALSO IN: T. Carlyle, History of Frederick II., book 15, chapters 3-15 (volume 4).

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1745 (September-October).
The Consort of Maria Theresa elected and crowned Emperor.
Rise of the new House of Hapsburg-Lorraine.

Francis of Lorraine, Grand Duke of Tuscany and husband of Maria Theresa, was elected Emperor, at Frankfort, Sept. 13, 1745, and crowned Oct. 1, with the title of Francis I. "Thus the Empire returned to the New House of Austria, that of Hapsburg-Lorraine, and France had missed the principal object for which she had gone to war." By the treaties signed at Dresden, December 25, between Prussia, Austria and Saxony, Frederick, as Elector of Brandenburg, assented to and recognized the election of Francis, against which he and the Elector Palatine had previously protested.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1746-1747.
   Further French conquests in the Netherlands.
   Lombardy recovered.
   Genoa won and lost.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1748 (October).
Termination and results of the War of the Succession.

   Since the conquest of Silesia by Frederick the Great of
   Prussia, "he had cast off all reserve. In his extraordinary
   Court at Potsdam this man of wit and war laughed at God, and
   at his brother philosophers and sovereigns; he ill-treated
   Voltaire, the chief organ of the new opinions; he wounded
   kings and queens with his epigrams; he believed neither in the
   beauty of Madam de Pompadour nor in the poetical genius of
   the Abbé Bernis, Prime Minister of France. The Empress thought
   the moment favourable for the recovery of Silesia; she stirred
   up Europe, especially the queens; she persuaded the Queen of
   Poland and the Empress of Russia; she paid court to the
   mistress of Louis XV. The monstrous alliance of France with
   the ancient state of Austria against a sovereign who
   maintained the equilibrium of Germany united all Europe
   against him. England alone supported him and gave him
   subsidies. She was governed at that time by a gouty lawyer,
   the famous William Pitt, afterwards Lord Chatham, who raised
   himself by his eloquence and by his hatred of the French.
   England wanted two things; the maintenance of the balance of power
   in Europe, and the destruction of the French and Spanish colonies.
{221}
   Her griefs were serious; the Spaniards had ill-treated her
   smugglers and the French wanted to prevent her from settling
   on their territory in Canada. In India, La Bourdonnaie and his
   successor Dupleix threatened to found a great empire in the
   face of the English. As a declaration of war the English
   confiscated 300 French ships (1756). The marvel of the war was
   to see this little kingdom of Prussia, interposed between the
   huge powers of Austria, France, and Russia, run from one to
   the other, and defy them all. This was the second period of
   the art of war. The unskillful adversaries of Frederick
   thought that he owed all his success to the precision of the
   manœuvres of the Prussian soldiers, to their excellent drill
   and rapid firing. Frederick had certainly carried the soldier
   machine to perfection. This was capable of imitation: the Czar
   Peter III. and the Count of St. Germin created military
   automatons by means of the lash. But they could not imitate
   the quickness of his manœuvres; the happy arrangement of his
   marches, which gave him great facility for moving and
   concentrating large masses, and directing them on the weak
   points of the enemy. In this terrible chase given by the large
   unwieldy armies of the allies to the agile Prussians, one
   cannot help noticing the amusing circumspection of the
   Austrian tacticians and the stupid folly of the fine gentlemen
   who led the armies of France. The Fabius of Austria, the sage
   and heavy Daun, was satisfied with a war of positions; he
   could not find encampments strong enough or mountains
   sufficiently inaccessible; his stationary troops were always
   beaten by Frederick. To begin with, he freed himself from the
   enmity of Saxony. He did not hurt, he only disarmed her. He
   struck his next blow in Bohemia. Repulsed by the Austrians,
   and abandoned by the English army, which determined at
   Kloster-seven to fight no more, threatened by the Russians,
   who were victorious at Joegerndorf, he passed into Saxony and
   found the French and Imperialists combined there. Prussia was
   surrounded by four armies. Frederick fancied himself lost and
   determined on suicide. He wrote to his sister and to d'Argens
   announcing his intention. There was only one thing which
   frightened him: it was, that when once he was dead the great
   distributor of glory—Voltaire—might make free with his
   name: he wrote an epistle to disarm him. … Having written
   this epistle he defeated the enemy at Rosbach. The Prince of
   Soubise, who thought that he fled, set off rashly in pursuit;
   then the Prussians unmasked their batteries, killed 3,000 men,
   and took 7,000 prisoners. In the French camp were found an
   army of cooks, actors, hair-dressers; a number of parrots,
   parasols, and huge cases of lavender-water, &c. (1757). None
   but a tactician could follow the King of Prussia in this
   series of brilliant and skillful battles. The Seven Years'
   War, however varied its incidents, was a political and
   strategical war: it has not the interest of the wars for
   ideas, the struggles for religion and for freedom of the 16th
   century and of our own time. The defeat of Rosbach was
   followed by another at Crevelt, and by great reverses balanced
   by small advantages; the total ruin of the French navy and
   colonies; the English masters of the ocean and conquerors of
   India; the exhaustion and humiliation of old Europe in the
   presence of young Prussia. This is the history of the Seven
   Years War. It was terminated under the ministry of the Duke of
   Choiseul," by the Peace of Hubertsburg and the Peace of Paris.

      See
      GERMANY: A. D. 1755-1756, to 1763;
      and, also, SEVEN YEARS' WAR.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1787-1791.
   War with the Turks.
   Treaty of Sistova.
   Slight Acquisitions of Territory.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1790-1797.
   Death of Joseph II. and Leopold II.
   Accession of Francis II.
   The Coalition against and war with revolutionary France, to
   the Peace of Campo Formio.

   "It is a mistake to imagine that the European Powers attacked
   the Revolution in France. It was the Revolution which attacked
   them. The diplomatists of the 18th century viewed at first
   with cynical indifference the meeting of the States-General at
   Versailles. … The two points which occupied the attention of
   Europe in 1789 were the condition of Poland and the troubles
   in the East. The ambitious designs of Catherine and the
   assistance lent to them by Joseph threatened the existence of
   the Turkish Empire, irritated the Prussian Court, and awakened
   English apprehensions, always sensitive about the safety of
   Stamboul. Poland, the battle-field of cynical diplomacy, torn
   by long dissensions and mined by a miserable constitution, was
   vainly endeavouring, under the jealous eyes of her great
   neighbours, to avert the doom impending, and to reassert her
   ancient claim to a place among the nations of the world. But
   Russia had long since determined that Poland must be a vassal
   State to her or cease to be a State at all, while Prussia,
   driven to face a hard necessity, realised that a strong Poland
   and a strong Prussia could not exist together, and that if
   Poland ever rose again to power, Prussia must bid good-bye to
   unity and greatness. These two questions to the States
   involved seemed to be of far more moment than any political
   reform in France, and engrossed the diplomatists of Europe
   until the summer of 1791. In February, 1790, a new influence
   was introduced into European politics by the death of the
   Emperor Joseph and the accession of his brother, Leopold II.
   Leopold was a man of remarkable ability, no enthusiast and no
   dreamer, thoroughly versed in the selfish traditions of
   Austrian policy and in some of the subtleties of Italian
   statecraft, discerning, temperate, resolute and clear-headed,
   quietly determined to have his own way, and generally skilful
   enough to secure it. Leopold found his new dominions in a
   state of the utmost confusion, with war and rebellion
   threatening him on every side. He speedily set about restoring
   order. He repealed the unpopular decrees of Joseph. He
   conciliated or repressed his discontented subjects. He
   gradually re-established the authority of the Crown. …
   Accordingly, the first eighteen months of Leopold's reign were
   occupied with his own immediate interests, and at the end of
   that time his success was marked.
{222}
   Catherine's vast schemes in Turkey had been checked. War had
   been averted. Poland had been strengthened by internal
   changes. Prussia had been conciliated and outmanœuvred, and
   her influence had been impaired. At last, at the end of
   August, 1791, the Emperor was free to face the French problem,
   and he set out for the Castle of Pillnitz to meet the King of
   Prussia and the Emigrant leaders at the Saxon Elector's Court.
   For some time past the restlessness of the French Emigrants
   had been causing great perplexity in Europe. Received with
   open arms by the ecclesiastical princes of the Rhine, by the
   Electors of Mayence and Trèves, they proceeded to agitate
   busily for their own restoration. … The object of the
   Emigrants was to bring pressure to bear at the European
   Courts, with the view of inducing the Powers to intervene
   actively in their behalf. … After his escape from France, in
   June, 1790, the Comte de Provence established his Court at
   Coblentz, where he was joined by his brother the Comte
   d'Artois, and where, on the plea that Louis was a prisoner, he
   claimed the title of Regent, and assumed the authority of
   King. The Court of the two French princes at Coblentz
   represented faithfully the faults and follies of the Emigrant
   party. But a more satisfactory spectacle was offered by the
   camp at Worms, where Condé was bravely trying to organise an
   army to fight against the Revolution in France. To Condé's
   standard flocked the more patriotic Emigrants. … But the
   German Princes in the neighbourhood looked with disfavour on
   the Emigrant army. It caused confusion in their dominions, and
   it drew down on them the hostility of the French Government.
   The Emperor joined them in protesting against it. In February,
   1792, Condé's army was compelled to abandon its camp at Worms,
   and to retire further into Germany. The Emperor was well aware
   of the reckless selfishness of the Emigrant princes. He had as
   little sympathy with them as his sister. He did not intend to
   listen to their demands. If he interfered in France at all, it
   would only be in a cautious and tentative manner, and in order
   to save Marie Antoinette and her husband. Certainly he would
   not undertake a war for the restoration of the Ancien Régime.
   … Accordingly, the interviews at Pillnitz came to nothing.
   … Early in March, 1792, Leopold suddenly died. His heir
   Francis, unrestrained by his father's tact and moderation,
   assumed a different tone and showed less patience. The chances
   of any effective pressure from the Powers declined, as the
   prospect of war rose on the horizon. Francis' language was
   sufficiently sharp to give the Assembly the pretext which it
   longed for, and on the 20th April, Louis, amid general
   enthusiasm, came down to the Assembly and declared war against
   Austria. The effects of that momentous step no comment can
   exaggerate. It ruined the best hopes of the Revolution, and
   prepared the way for a military despotism in the future."

      See
      FRANCE: A. D. 1790-1791;
      1791 (JULY-DECEMBER);
      1791-1792; 1792 (APRIL-JULY), and (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER);
      1792-1793 (DECEMBER-FEBRUARY);
      1793 (FEBRUARY-APRIL), and (JULY-DECEMBER);
      1794 (MARCH-JULY);
      1794-1795 (OCTOBER-MAY);
      1795 (JUNE-DECEMBER);
      1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER);
      and 1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL).

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1794-1796.
The Third partition of Poland.
Austrian share of the spoils.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1797 (October).
   Treaty of Campo-Formio with France.
   Cession of the Netherlands and Lombard provinces.
   Acquisition of Venice and Venetian territories.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1798-1806.
   Congress of Rastadt.
   Second Coalition against France.
   Peace of Luneville.
   Third Coalition.
   Ulm and Austerlitz.
   Peace of Presburg.
   Extinction of the Holy Roman Empire.
   Birth of the Empire of Austria.

"When Bonaparte sailed for Egypt he had left a congress at Rastadt discussing means for the execution of certain articles in the treaty of Campo Formio which were to establish peace between France and the Empire. … Though openly undertaking to invite the Germans to a congress in order to settle a general peace on the basis of the integrity of the Empire, the Emperor agreed in secret articles to use his influence to procure for the Republic the left bank of the Rhine with the exception of the Prussian provinces, to join with France in obtaining compensation in Germany for those injured by this change, and to contribute no more than his necessary contingent if the war were prolonged. The ratification of these secret provisions had been extorted from the Congress by threats before Bonaparte had left; but the question of indemnification had progressed no farther than a decision to secularise the ecclesiastical states for the purpose, when extravagant demands from the French deputies brought negotiation to a deadlock. Meanwhile, another coalition war had been brewing. Paul I. of Russia had regarded with little pleasure the doings of the Revolution, and when his proteges, the knights of St. John of Jerusalem, had been deprived of Malta by Bonaparte on his way to Egypt, when the Directory established by force of arms a Helvetic republic in Switzerland, when it found occasion to carry off the Pope into exile and erect a Roman republic, he abandoned the cautious and self-seeking policy of Catherine, and cordially responded to Pitt's advances for an alliance. At the same time Turkey was compelled by the invitation of Egypt to ally itself for once with Russia. Austria, convinced that the French did not intend to pay a fair price for the treaty of Campo Formio, also determined to renew hostilities; and Naples, exasperated by the sacrilege of a republic at Rome, and alarmed by French aggressiveness, enrolled itself in the league. The Neapolitan king, indeed, opened the war with some success, before he could receive support from his allies; but he was soon vanquished by the French, and his dominions were converted into a Parthenopean republic. Austria, on the contrary, awaited the arrival of the Russian forces; and the general campaign began early in 1799. The French, fighting against such generals as the Archduke Charles and the Russian Suvaroff, without the supervision of Carnot or the strategy and enterprise of Bonaparte, suffered severe reverses and great privations. Towards the end the Russian army endured much hardship on account of the selfishness of the Austrian cabinet; and this caused the Tsar, who thought he had other reasons for discontent, to withdraw his troops from the field. {223} When Bonaparte was made First Consul the military position of France was, nevertheless, very precarious. … The Roman and Cisalpine republics had fallen. The very congress at Rastadt had been dispersed by the approach of the Austrians; and the French emissaries had been sabred by Austrian troopers, though how their insolence came to be thus foully punished has never been clearly explained. At this crisis France was rescued from foreign foes and domestic disorders by its most successful general. … In the campaign which followed, France obtained signal satisfaction for its chagrin. Leaving Moreau to carry the war into Germany, Bonaparte suddenly crossed the Alps, and defeated the Austrians on the plain of Marengo. The Austrians, though completely cowed, refrained from concluding a definite peace out of respect for their engagements with England; and armistices, expiring into desultory warfare, prolonged the contest till Moreau laid the way open to Vienna, by winning a splendid triumph at Hohenlinden. A treaty of peace was finally concluded at Lunéville, when Francis II. pledged the Empire to its provisions on the ground of the consents already given at Rastadt. In conformity with the treaty of Campo Formio, Austria retained the boundary of the Adige in Italy; France kept Belgium and the left bank of the Rhine; and the princes, dispossessed by the cessions, were promised compensation in Germany; while Tuscany was given to France to sell to Spain at the price of Parma, Louisiana, six ships of the line, and a sum of money. Shortly afterwards peace was extended to Naples on easy terms. … The time was now come for the Revolution to complete the ruin of the Holy Roman Empire. Pursuant to the treaty of Lunéville, the German Diet met at Regensburg to discuss a scheme of compensation for the dispossessed rulers. Virtually the meeting was a renewal of the congress of Rastadt. … At Rastadt the incoherence and disintegration of the venerable Empire had become painfully apparent. … When it was known that the head of the nation, who had guaranteed the integrity of the Empire in the preliminaries of Leoben, and had renewed the assurance when he convoked the assembly, had in truth betrayed to the stranger nearly all the left bank of the Rhine,—the German rulers greedily hastened to secure every possible trifle in the scramble of redistribution. The slow and wearisome debates were supplemented by intrigues of the most degraded nature. Conscious that the French Consul could give a casting vote on any disputed question, the princes found no indignity too shameful, no trick too base, to obtain his favour. … The First Consul, on his side, prosecuted with a duplicity and address, heretofore unequalled, the traditional policy of France in German affairs. … Feigning to take into his counsels the young Tsar, whose convenient friendship was thus easily obtained on account of his family connections with the German courts, he drew up a scheme of indemnification and presented it to the Diet for endorsement. In due time a servile assent was given to every point which concerned the two autocrats. By this settlement, Austria and Prussia were more equally balanced against one another, the former being deprived of influence in Western Germany, and the latter finding in more convenient situations a rich recompense for its cessions on the Rhine; while the middle states, Bavaria, Baden, and Würtemberg, received very considerable accessions of territory. But if Bonaparte dislocated yet further the political structure of Germany, he was at least instrumental in removing the worst of the anachronisms which stifled the development of improved institutions among a large division of its people. The same measure which brought German separatism to a climax, also extinguished the ecclesiastical sovereignties and nearly all the free cities. That these strongholds of priestly obscurantism and bourgeois apathy would some day be invaded by their more ambitious and active neighbours, had long been apparent. … And war was declared when thousands of British subjects visiting France had already been ensnared and imprisoned. … Pitt had taken the conduct of the war out of the hands of Addington's feeble ministry. Possessing the confidence of the powers, he rapidly concluded offensive alliances with Russia, Sweden, and Austria, though Prussia obstinately remained neutral. Thus, by 1805, Napoleon had put to hazard all his lately won power in a conflict with the greater part of Europe. The battle of Cape Trafalgar crushed for good his maritime power, and rendered England safe from direct attack. The campaign on land, however, made him master of central Europe. Bringing the Austrian army in Germany to an inglorious capitulation at Ulm, he marched through Vienna, and, with inferior forces won in his best style the battle of Austerlitz against the troops of Francis and Alexander. The action was decisive. The allies thought not of renewing the war with the relays of troops which were hurrying up from North and South. Russian and Austrian alike wished to be rid of their ill-fated connection. The Emperor Alexander silently returned home, pursued only by Napoleon's flattering tokens of esteem; the Emperor Francis accepted the peace of Presburg, which deprived his house of the ill-gotten Venetian States, Tyrol, and its more distant possessions in Western Germany; the King of Prussia, who had been on the point of joining the coalition with a large army if his mediation were unsuccessful, was committed to an alliance with the conqueror by his terrified negotiator. And well did Napoleon appear to make the fruits of victory compensate France for its exertions. The empire was not made more unwieldy in bulk, but its dependents, Bavaria, Würtemberg, and Baden, received considerable accessions of territory, and the two first were raised to the rank of kingdoms; while the Emperor's Italian principality, which he had already turned into a kingdom of Italy to the great disgust of Austria, was increased by the addition of the ceded Venetian lands. But the full depth of Europe's humiliation was not experienced till the two following years. In 1806 an Act of Federation was signed by the kings of Bavaria and Würtemberg, the Elector of Baden, and thirteen minor princes, which united them into a league under the protection of the French Emperor. The objects of this confederacy, known as the Rheinbund were defence against foreign aggression and the exercise of complete autonomy at home. … Already the consequences of the Peace of Lunéville had induced the ruling Hapsburg to assure his equality with the sovereigns of France and Russia by taking the imperial title in his own right; and before the Confederation of the Rhine was made public he formally renounced his office of elective Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire and released from allegiance to him all the states and princes of the Reich, The triumph of the German policy of the Consulate was complete."

      See, also,
      FRANCE: A. D. 1798-1799, to 1805, and
      GERMANY: A. D. 1801-1803, to 1805-1806.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1809-1814.
   The second struggle with Napoleon and the second defeat.
   The Marriage alliance.
   The Germanic War of Liberation.
   The final alliance and the overthrow of the Corsican.

"On the 12th of July, 1806, fourteen princes of the south and west of Germany united themselves into the confederation of the Rhine, and recognised Napoleon as their protector. On the 1st of August, they signified to the diet of Ratisbon their separation from the Germanic body. The Empire of Germany ceased to exist, and Francis II. abdicated the title by proclamation. By a convention signed at Vienna, on the 15th of December, Prussia exchanged the territories of Anspach, Cleves and Neufchâtel for the electorate of Hanover, Napoleon had all the west under his power. Absolute master of France and Italy, as emperor and king, he was also master of Spain, by the dependence of that court; of Naples and Holland, by his two brothers; of Switzerland, by the act of mediation; and in Germany he had at his disposal the kings of Bavaria and Wurtemberg, and the confederation of the Rhine against Austria and Prussia. … This encroaching progress gave rise to the fourth coalition. Prussia, neutral since the peace of Bâle, had, in the last campaign, been on the point of joining the Austro-Russian coalition. The rapidity of the emperor's victories had alone restrained her; but now, alarmed at the aggrandizement of the empire, and encouraged by the fine condition of her troops, she leagued with Russia to drive the French from Germany. … The campaign opened early in October. Napoleon, as usual, overwhelmed the coalition by the promptitude of his marches and the vigour of his measures. On the 14th of October, he destroyed at Jena the military monarchy of Prussia, by a decisive victory. … The campaign in Poland was less rapid, but as brilliant as that of Prussia. Russia, for the third time, measured its strength with France. Conquered at Zurich and Austerlitz, it was also defeated at Eylau and Friedland. After these memorable battles, the emperor Alexander entered into a negotiation, and concluded at Tilsit, on the 21st of June, 1807, an armistice which was followed by a definitive treaty on the 7th of July. The peace of Tilsit extended the French domination on the continent. Prussia was reduced to half its extent. In the south of Germany, Napoleon had instituted the two kingdoms of Bavaria and Wurtemberg against Austria; further to the north, he created the two feudatory kingdoms of Saxony and Westphalia against Prussia. … In order to obtain universal and uncontested supremacy, he made use of arms against the continent, and the cessation of commerce against England. But in forbidding to the continental states all communication with England, he was preparing new difficulties for himself, and soon added to the animosity of opinion excited by his despotism, and the hatred of states produced by his conquering domination, the exasperation of private interests and commercial suffering occasioned by the blockade. … The expedition of Portugal in 1807, and the invasion of Spain in 1808, began for him and for Europe a new order of events. … The reaction manifested itself in three countries, hitherto allies of France, and it brought on the fifth coalition. The court of Rome was dissatisfied; the peninsula was wounded in its national pride by having imposed upon it a foreign king; in its usages, by the suppression of convents, of the Inquisition, and of the grandees; Holland suffered in its commerce from the blockade, and Austria supported impatiently its losses and subordinate condition. England, watching for an opportunity to revive the struggle on the continent, excited the resistance of Rome, the peninsula, and the cabinet of Vienna. … Austria … made a powerful effort, and raised 550,000 men, comprising the Landwehr, and took the field in the spring of 1809. The Tyrol rose, and King Jerome was driven from his capital by the Westphalians: Italy wavered; and Prussia only waited till Napoleon met with a reverse, to take arms; but the emperor was still at the height of his power and prosperity. He hastened from Madrid in the beginning of February, and directed the members of the confederation to keep their contingents in readiness. On the 12th of April he left Paris, passed the Rhine, plunged into Germany, gained the victories of Eckmühl and Essling, occupied Vienna a second time on the 15th of May and overthrew this new coalition by the battle of Wagram, after a campaign of four mouths. … The peace of Vienna, of the 11th of October, 1809, deprived the house of Austria of several more provinces, and compelled it again to adopt the continental system. … Napoleon, who seemed to follow a rash but inflexible policy, deviated from his course about this time by a second marriage. He divorced Josephine that he might give an heir to the empire, and married, on the 1st of April, 1810, Marie-Louise, arch-duchess of Austria. This was a decided error. He quitted his position and his post as a parvenu and revolutionary monarch, opposing in France the ancient courts as the republic had opposed the ancient governments. He placed himself in a false situation with respect to Austria, which he ought either to have crushed after the victory of Wagram, or to have reinstated in its possessions after his marriage with the arch-duchess. … The birth, on the 20th of March, 1811, of a son, who received the title of king of Rome, seemed to consolidate the power of Napoleon, by securing to him a successor. The war in Spain was prosecuted with vigour during the years 1810 and 1811. … While the war was proceeding in the peninsula with advantage, but without any decided success, a new campaign was preparing in the north. Russia perceived the empire of Napoleon approaching its territories. … About the close of 1810, it increased its armies, renewed its commercial relations with Great Britain, and did not seem indisposed to a rupture. The year 1811 was spent in negotiations which led to nothing, and preparations for war were made on both sides. … On the 9th of March, Napoleon left Paris. … During several months he fixed his court at Dresden, where the emperor of Austria, the king of Prussia, and all the sovereigns of Germany, came to bow before his high fortune. {225} On the 22nd of June, war was declared against Russia. … Napoleon, who, according to his custom, wished to finish all in one campaign, advanced at once into the heart of Russia, instead of prudently organizing the Polish barrier against it. His army amounted to about 500,000 men. He passed the Niemen on the 24th of June; took Wilna, and Witepsk, defeated the Russians at Astrowno, Polotsk, Mohilow Smolensko, at the Moskowa, and on the 14th of September, made his entry into Moscow. … Moscow was burned by its governor. … The emperor ought to have seen that this war would not terminate as the others had done; yet, conqueror of the foe, and master of his capital, he conceived hopes of peace which the Russians skilfully encouraged. Winter was approaching, and Napoleon prolonged his stay at Moscow for six weeks. He delayed his movements on account of the deceptive negotiations of the Russians; and did not decide on a retreat till the 19th of October. This retreat was disastrous, and began the downfall of the empire. … The cabinet of Berlin began the defections. On the 1st of March, 1813, it joined Russia and England, which were forming the sixth coalition. Sweden acceded to it soon after; yet the emperor, whom the confederate power thought prostrated by the last disaster, opened the campaign with new victories. The battle of Lutzen, won by conscripts, on the 2nd of May, the occupation of Dresden; the victory of Bautzen, and the war carried to the Elbe, astonished the coalition. Austria, which, since 1810, had been on a footing of peace, was resuming arms, and already meditating a change of alliance. She now proposed herself as a mediatrix between the emperor and the confederates. Her meditation was accepted; an armistice was concluded at Plesswitz, on the 4th of June, and a congress assembled at Prague to negotiate peace. It was impossible to come to terms. … Austria joined the coalition, and war, the only means of settling this great contest, was resumed. The emperor had only 280,000 men against 520,000. …. Victory seemed, at first, to second him. At Dresden he defeated the combined forces; but the defeats of his lieutenants deranged his plans. … The princes of the confederation of the Rhine chose this moment to desert the cause of the empire. A vast engagement having taken place at Leipsic between the two armies, the Saxons and Wurtembergers passed over to the enemy on the field of battle. This defection to the strength of the coalesced powers, who had learned a more compact and skilful mode of warfare, obliged Napoleon to retreat, after a struggle of three days. … The empire was invaded in all directions. The Austrians entered Italy; the English, having made themselves masters of the peninsula during the last two years, had passed the Bidassoa, under General Wellington, and appeared on the Pyrenees. Three armies pressed on France to the east and north. … Napoleon was … obliged to submit to the conditions of the allied powers; their pretensions increased with their power. … On the 11th of April, 1814, he renounced for himself and children the thrones of France and Italy, and received in exchange for his vast sovereignty, the limits of which had extended from Cadiz to the Baltic Sea, the little island of Elba."

      See
      GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (JANUARY-JUNE), to 1813;
      RUSSIA: A. D. 1812; and
      FRANCE: A. D. 1810-1812 to 1814.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1814-1815.
   Treaties of Paris and Congress of Vienna.
   Readjustment of French boundaries.
   Recovery of the Tyrol from Bavaria and Lombardy in Italy.
   Acquisition of the Venetian states.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (APRIL-JUNE),
      and 1815 (JULY-NOVEMBER):
      also VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1815.
   Return of Napoleon from Elba.
   The Quadruple Alliance.
   The Waterloo Campaign and Its results.

"After the treaty of Vienna in 1809, and still more conspicuously after the pacification of Europe, the political wisdom of the rulers of Austria inclined them ever more and more to the maintenance of that state of things which was known to friends and foes as the System. But what was the System? It was the organisation of do-nothing. It cannot even be said to have been reactionary: it was simply reactionary. … 'Mark time in place' was the word of command in every government office. The bureaucracy was engaged from morning to night in making work, but nothing ever came of it. Not even were the liberal innovations which had lasted through the reign of Leopold got rid of. Everything went on in the confused, unfinished, and ineffective state in which the great war had found it. Such was the famous System which was venerated by the ultra-Tories of every land, and most venerated where it was least understood. Two men dominate the history of Austria during this unhappy time—men who, though utterly unlike in character and intellect, were nevertheless admirably fitted to work together, and whose names will be long united in an unenviable notoriety. These were the Emperor Francis and Prince Metternich. The first was the evil genius of internal politics; the second exercised a hardly less baneful influence over foreign affairs. … For the external policy of Prince Metternich, the first and most necessary condition was, that Austria should give to Europe the impression of fixed adherence to the most extreme Conservative views. So for many years they worked together, Prince Metternich always declaring that he was a mere tool in the hands of his master, but in reality far more absolute in the direction of his own department than the emperor was in his. … Prince Metternich had the power of making the most of all he knew, and constantly left upon persons of real merit the impression that he was a man of lofty aspirations and liberal views, who forced himself to repress such tendencies in others because he thought that their repression was a sine quâ non for Austria. The men of ability, who knew him intimately, thought less well of him. {226} To them he appeared vain and superficial, with much that recalled the French noblesse of the old régime in his way of looking at things, and emphatically wanting in every element of greatness. With the outbreak of the Greek insurrection in 1821, began a period of difficulty and complications for the statesmen of Austria. There were two things of which they were mortally afraid—Russia and the revolution. Now, if they assisted the Greeks, they would be playing into the hands of the second; and if they opposed the Greeks, they would be likely to embroil themselves with the first. The whole art of Prince Metternich was therefore exerted to keep things quiet in the Eastern Peninsula, and to postpone the intolerable 'question d'Orient.' Many were the shifts he tried, and sometimes, as just after the accession of Nicholas, his hopes rose very high. All was, however, in vain. England and Russia settled matters behind his back; and although the tone which the publicists in his pay adopted towards the Greeks became more favourable in 1826-7, the battle of Navarino was a sad surprise and mortification to the wily chancellor. Not less annoying was the commencement of hostilities on the Danube between Russia and the Porte. The reverses with which the great neighbour met in his first campaign cannot have been otherwise than pleasing at Vienna. But the unfortunate success which attended his arms in the second campaign soon turned ill-dissembled joy into ill-concealed sorrow, and the treaty of Adrianople at once lowered Austria's prestige in the East, and deposed Metternich from the commanding position which he had occupied in the councils of the Holy Allies. It became, indeed, ever more and more evident in the next few years that the age of Congress politics, during which he had been the observed of all observers, was past and gone, that the diplomatic period had vanished away, and that the military period had begun. The very form in which the highest international questions were debated was utterly changed. At Vienna, in 1814, the diplomatists had been really the primary, the sovereigns only secondary personages; while at the interview of Münchengratz, between Nicholas and the Emperor Francis, in 1833, the great autocrat appeared to look upon Prince Metternich as hardly more than a confidential clerk. The dull monotony of servitude which oppressed nearly the whole of the empire was varied by the agitations of one of its component parts. When the Hungarian Diet was dissolved in 1812, the emperor had solemnly promised that it should be called together again within three years. Up to 1815, accordingly, the nation went on giving extraordinary levies and supplies without much opposition. When, however, the appointed time was fulfilled, it began to murmur. … Year by year the agitation went on increasing, till at last the breaking out of the Greek revolution, and the threatening appearance of Eastern politics, induced Prince Metternich to join his entreaties to those of many other counsellors, who could not be suspected of the slightest leaning to constitutional views. At length the emperor yielded, and in 1825 Presburg was once more filled with the best blood and most active spirits of the land, assembled in parliament. Long and stormy were the debates which ensued. Bitter was, from time to time, the vexation of the emperor, and great was the excitement throughout Hungary. In the end, however, the court of Vienna triumphed. Hardly any grievances were redressed, while its demands were fully conceded. The Diet of 1825 was, however, not without fruit. The discussion which took place advanced the political education of the people, who were brought back to the point where they stood at the death of Joseph II.—that is, before the long wars with France had come to distract their attention from their own affairs. … The slumbers of Austria were not yet over. The System dragged its slow length along. Little or nothing was done for the improvement of the country. Klebelsberg administered the finances in an easy and careless manner. Conspiracies and risings in Italy were easily checked, and batches of prisoners sent off from time to time to Mantua or Spielberg. Austrian influence rose ever higher and higher in all the petty courts of the Peninsula. … In other regions Russia or England might be willing to thwart him, but in Italy Prince Metternich might proudly reflect that Austria was indeed a 'great power.' The French Revolution of 1830 was at first alarming; but when it resulted in the enthronement of a dynasty which called to its aid a 'cabinet of repression,' all fears were stilled. The Emperor Francis continued to say, when any change was proposed, 'We must sleep upon it,' and died in 1835 in 'the abundance of peace.'"

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1815-1846.
   Gains of the Hapsburg monarchy.
   Its aggressive absolutism.
   Death of Francis I.
   Accession of Ferdinand I.
   Suppression of revolt in Galicia.
   Extinction and annexation of the Republic of Cracow.

   "In the new partition of Europe, arranged in the Congress of
   Vienna [see VIENNA. THE CONGRESS OF], Austria received
   Lombardy and Venice under the title of a Lombardo-Venetian
   kingdom, the Illyrian provinces also as a kingdom, Venetian
   Dalmatia, the Tirol, Vorarlberg, Salzburg, the Innviertel and
   Hausrucksviertel, and the part of Galicia ceded by her at an
   earlier period. Thus, after three and twenty years of war, the
   monarchy had gained a considerable accession of strength,
   having obtained, in lieu of its remote and unprofitable
   possessions in the Netherlands, territories which consolidated
   its power in Italy, and made it as great in extent as it had
   been in the days of Charles VI., and far more compact and
   defensible. The grand duchies of Modena, Parma, and Placentia,
   were moreover restored to the collateral branches of the house
   of Hapsburg. … After the last fall of Napoleon … the great
   powers of the continent … constituted themselves the
   champions of the principle of absolute monarchy. The
   maintenance of that principle ultimately became the chief
   object of the so-called Holy Alliance established in 1816
   between Russia, Austria and Prussia, and was pursued with
   remarkable steadfastness by the Emperor Francis and his
   minister, Prince Metternich [see HOLY ALLIANCE]. …
   Thenceforth it became the avowed policy of the chief
   sovereigns of Germany to maintain the rights of dynasties in
   an adverse sense to those of their subjects. The people, on
   the other hand, deeply resented the breach of those promises
   which had been so lavishly made to them on the general summons
   to the war of liberation.
{227}
   Disaffection took the place of that enthusiastic loyalty with
   which they had bled and suffered for their native princes; the
   secret societies, formed with the concurrence of their rulers,
   for the purpose of throwing off the yoke of the foreigner,
   became ready instruments of sedition. … In the winter of
   1819, a German federative congress assembled at Vienna. In May
   of the following year it published an act containing closer
   definitions of the Federative Act, having for their essential
   objects the exclusion of the various provincial Diets from all
   positive interference in the general affairs of Germany, and
   an increase of the power of the princes over their respective
   Diets, by a guarantee of aid on the part of the confederates"
   (see GERMANY: A. D. 1814-1820). During the next three years,
   the powers of the Holy Alliance, under the lead of Austria,
   and acting under a concert established at the successive
   congresses of Troppau, Laybach and Verona (see VERONA,
   CONGRESS OF), interfered to put down popular risings against
   the tyranny of government in Italy and Spain, while they
   discouraged the revolt of the Greeks.

"The commotions that pervaded Europe after the French Revolution of 1830 affected Austria only in her Italian dominions, and there but indirectly, for the imperial authority remained undisputed in the Lombardo-Venetian kingdom. But the duke of Modena and the archduke of Parma were obliged to quit those states, and a formidable insurrection broke out in the territory of the Church. An Austrian army of 18,000 men quickly put down the insurgents, who rose again, however, as soon as it was withdrawn: The pope again invoked the aid of Austria, whose troops entered Bologna in January, 1832, and established themselves there in garrison. Upon this, the French immediately sent a force to occupy Ancona, and for a while a renewal of the oft-repeated conflict between Austria and France on Italian ground seemed inevitable; but it soon appeared that France was not prepared to support the revolutionary party in the pope's dominions, and that danger passed away. The French remained for some years in Ancona, and the Austrians in Bologna and other towns of Romagna. This was the last important incident in the foreign affairs of Austria previous to the death of the Emperor Francis I. on the 2nd of March, 1835, after a reign of 43 years. … The Emperor Francis was succeeded by his son, Ferdinand I., whose accession occasioned no change in the political or administrative system of the empire. Incapacitated, by physical and mental infirmity, from labouring as his father had done in the business of the state, the new monarch left to Prince Metternich a much more unrestricted power than that minister had wielded in the preceding reign. … The province of Galicia began early in the new reign to occasion uneasiness to the government. The Congress of Vienna had constituted the city of Cracow an independent republic—a futile representative of that Polish nationality which had once extended from the Baltic to the Black Sea. After the failure of the Polish insurrection of 1831 against Russia, Cracow became the focus of fresh conspiracies, to put an end to which the city was occupied by a mixed force of Russians, Prussians, and Austrians; the two former were soon withdrawn, but the latter remained until 1840. When they also had retired, the Polish propaganda was renewed with considerable effect. An insurrection broke out in Galicia in 1846, when the scantiness of the Austrian military force in the province seemed to promise it success. It failed, however, as all previous efforts of the Polish patriots had failed, because it rested on no basis of popular sympathy. The nationality for which they contended had ever been of an oligarchical pattern, hostile to the freedom of the middle and lower classes. The Galician peasants had no mind to exchange the yoke of Austria, which pressed lightly upon them, for the feudal oppression of the Polish nobles. They turned upon the insurgents and slew or took them prisoners, the police inciting them to the work by publicly offering a reward of five florins for every suspected person delivered up by them, alive or dead. Thus the agents of a civilized government became the avowed instigators of an inhuman 'jacquerie.' The houses of the landed proprietors were sacked by the peasants, their inmates were tortured and murdered, and bloody anarchy raged throughout the land in the prostituted name of loyalty. The Austrian troops at last restored order; but Szela, the leader of the sanguinary marauders, was thanked and highly rewarded in the name of his sovereign. In the same year the three protecting powers, Austria, Russia, and Prussia, took possession of Cracow, and, ignoring the right of the other parties to the treaty of Vienna to concern themselves about the fate of the republic, they announced that its independence was annulled, and that the city and territory of Cracow were annexed to, and forever incorporated with, the Austrian monarchy. From this time forth the political atmosphere of Europe became more and more loaded with the presages of the storm that burst in 1848."

      W. K. Kelly,
      Continuation of Coxe's History of the House of Austria,
      chapter 5-6.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1815-1849.
   Arrangements in Italy of the Congress of Vienna.
   Heaviness of the Austrian yoke.
   The Italian risings.

   "By the treaty of Vienna (1815), the … entire kingdom of
   Venetian-Lombardy was handed over to the Austrians; the
   duchies of Modena, Reggio, with Massa and Carrara, given to
   Austrian princes; Parma, Piacenza, and Guastalla to Napoleon's
   queen, Maria Luisa, because she was an Austrian princess; the
   grand-duchy of Tuscany to Ferdinand III. of Austria; the duchy
   of Lucca to a Bourbon. Rome and the Roman states were restored
   to the new Pope, Pius VII.; Sicily was united to Naples under
   the Bourbons, and later deprived of her constitution, despite
   the promised protection of England; the Canton Ticino, though
   strictly Italian, annexed to the Swiss Confederation; the
   little republic of St. Marino left intact, even as the
   principality of Monaco. England retained Malta; Corsica was
   left to France. Italy, so Metternich and Europe fondly hoped,
   was reduced to a geographical expression. Unjust, brutal, and
   treacherous as was that partition, at least it taught the
   Italians that 'who would be free himself must strike the
   blow.' It united them into one common hatred of Austria and
   Austrian satellites. By substituting papal, Austrian, and
   Bourbon despotism for the free institutions, codes, and
   constitutions of the Napoleonic era, it taught them the
   difference between rule and misrule.
{228}
   Hence the demand of the Neapolitans during their first
   revolution (1820) was for a constitution; that of the
   Piedmontese and Lombards (1821) for a constitution and war
   against Austria. The Bourbon swore and foreswore, and the
   Austrians 'restored order' in Naples. The Piedmontese, who had
   not concerted their movement until Naples was crushed—after
   the abdication of Victor Emmanuel I., the granting of the
   constitution by the regent Charles Albert, and its abrogation
   by the new king Charles Felix—saw the Austrians enter
   Piedmont, while the leaders of the revolution went out into
   exile [see ITALY: A. D. 1820-1821]. But those revolutions and
   those failures were the beginning of the end. The will to be
   independent of all foreigners, the thirst for freedom, was
   universal; the very name of empire or of emperor, was rendered
   ridiculous, reduced to a parody—in the person of Ferdinand of
   Austria. But one illusion remained—in the liberating virtues
   of France and the French; this had to be dispelled by bitter
   experience, and for it substituted the new idea of one Italy
   for the Italians, a nation united, independent, free, governed
   by a president or by a king chosen by the sovereign people.
   The apostle of this idea, to which for fifty years victims and
   martyrs were sacrificed by thousands, was Joseph Mazzini; its
   champion, Joseph Garibaldi. By the genius of the former, the
   prowess of the latter, the abnegation, the constancy, the
   tenacity, the iron will of both, all the populations of Italy
   were subjugated by that idea: philosophers demonstrated it,
   poets sung it, pious Christian priests proclaimed it,
   statesmen found it confronting their negotiations, baffling
   their half-measures."

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1839-1840.
The Turko-Egyptian question and its settlement.
Quadruple Alliance.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848.
   The Germanic revolutionary rising.
   National Assembly at Frankfort.
   Archduke John elected Administrator of Germany.

"When the third French Revolution broke out, its influence was immediately felt in Germany. The popular movement this time was very different from any the Governments had hitherto had to contend with. The people were evidently in earnest, and resolved to obtain, at whatever cost, their chief demands. … The Revolution was most serious in the two great German States, Prussia and Austria. … It was generally hoped that union as well as freedom was now to be achieved by Germany; but, as Prussia and Austria were in too much disorder to do anything, about 500 Germans from the various States met at Frankfurt, and on March 21 constituted themselves a provisional Parliament. An extreme party wished the assembly to declare itself permanent; but to this the majority would not agree. It was decided that a National Assembly should be elected forthwith by the German people. The Confederate Diet, knowing that the provisional Parliament was approved by the nation, recognized its authority. Through the Diet the various Governments were communicated with, and all of them agreed to make arrangements for the elections. … The National Assembly was opened in Frankfurt on May 18, 1848. It elected the Archduke John of Austria as the head of a new provisional central Government. The choice was a happy one. The Archduke was at once acknowledged by the different governments, and on July 12 the President of the Confederate Diet formally made over to him the authority which had hitherto belonged to the Diet. The Diet then ceased to exist. The Archduke chose from the Assembly seven members, who formed a responsible ministry. The Assembly was divided into two parties, the Right and the Left. These again were broken up into various sections. Much time was lost in useless discussions, and it was soon suspected that the Assembly would not in the end prove equal to the great task it had undertaken."

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.
   Revolutionary risings.
   Bombardment of Prague and Vienna.
   Abdication of the Emperor Ferdinand.
   Accession of Francis Joseph.
   The Hungarian struggle for independence.

"The rise of national feeling among the Hungarian, Slavonic, and Italian subjects of the House of Hapsburg was not the only difficulty of the Emperor Ferdinand I. Vienna was then the gayest and the dearest centre of fashion and luxury in Europe, but side by side with wealth there seethed a mass of wretched poverty; and the protective trade system of Austria so increased the price of the necessaries of life that bread-riots were frequent. … The university students were foremost in the demand for a constitution and for the removal of the rigid censorship of the press and of all books. So, when the news came of the flight of Louis Philippe from Paris [see FRANCE: A. D. 1841-1848, and 1848] the students as well as the artisans of Vienna rose in revolt (March 13, 1848), the latter breaking machinery and attacking the houses of unpopular employers. A deputation of citizens clamoured for the resignation of the hated Metternich: his house was burnt down, and he fled to England. A second outbreak of the excited populace (May 15, 1848), sent the Emperor Ferdinand in helpless flight to Innsprück in Tyrol; but he returned when they avowed their loyalty to his person, though they detested the old bureaucratic system. Far more complicated, however, were the race jealousies of the Empire. The Slavs of Bohemia … had demanded of Ferdinand the union of Bohemia, Moravia, and Austrian Silesia in Estates for those provinces, and that the Slavs should enjoy equal privileges with the Germans. After an unsatisfactory answer had been received, they convoked a Slavonic Congress at Prague. … But while this Babel of tongues was seeking for a means of fusion, Prince Windischgrätz was assembling Austrian troops around the Bohemian capital. Fights in the streets led to a bombardment of the city, which Windischgrätz soon entered in triumph. This has left a bitterness between the Tsechs or Bohemians and the Germans which still divides Bohemia socially and politically. … The exciting news of the spring of 1848 had made the hot Asiatic blood of the Magyars boil; yet even Kossuth and the democrats at first only demanded the abolition of Metternich's system in favour of a representative government. … {229} Unfortunately Kossuth claimed that the Magyar laws and language must now be supreme, not only in Hungary proper, but also in the Hungarian 'crown lands' of Dalmatia, Croatia, and Slavonia, and the enthusiastic Magyars wished also to absorb the ancient principality of Transylvania; but this again was stoutly resisted by the Roumanians, Slavs, and Saxons of that little known corner of Europe, and their discontent was fanned by the court of Vienna. Jellachich, the Ban or Governor of Croatia, headed this movement, which aimed at making Agram the capital of the southern Slavs. Their revolt against the Hungarian ministry of Batthyanyi was at first disavowed in June, 1848, but in October was encouraged, by the perfidious government of Vienna. A conference between Batthyanyi and Jellachich ended with words of defiance: 'Then we must meet on the Drave,' said the Hungarian. 'No, on the Danube,' retorted the champion of the Slavs. The vacillating Ferdinand annulled his acceptance of the new Hungarian constitution and declared Jellachich dictator of Hungary. His tool was unfortunate. After crossing the Drave, the Slavs were defeated by the brave Hungarian 'honveds' (defenders); and as many as 9,000 were made prisoners. Unable to subdue Hungary, Jellachich turned aside towards Vienna to crush the popular party there. For the democrats, exasperated by the perfidious policy of the government, had, on October 6, 1848, risen a third time: the war-minister, Latour, had been hanged on a lamp-post, and the emperor again fled from his turbulent capital to the ever-faithful Tyrolese. But now Jellachich and Windischgrätz bombarded the rebellious capital. It was on the point of surrendering when the Hungarians appeared to aid the city; but the levies raised by the exertions of Kossuth were this time outmanœuvred [and defeated] by the imperialists at Schwechat (October 30, 1848), and on the next day Vienna surrendered. Blum, a delegate from Saxony [to the German Parliament of Frankfort, who had come on a mission of mediation to Vienna, but who had taken a part in the fighting], and some other democrats, were shot. By this clever but unscrupulous use of race jealousy the Viennese Government seemed to have overcome Bohemians, Italians, Hungarians, and the citizens of its own capital in turn; while it had diverted the southern Slavonians from hostility to actual service on its side. … The weak health and vacillating spirit of Ferdinand did not satisfy the knot of courtiers of Vienna, who now, flushed by success, sought to concentrate all power in the Viennese Cabinet. Worn out by the excitements of the year and by the demands of these men, Ferdinand, on December 2, 1848, yielded up the crown, not to his rightful successor, his brother, but to his nephew, Francis Joseph. He, a youth of eighteen, ascended the throne so rudely shaken, and still, in spite of almost uniform disaster in war, holds sway over an empire larger and more powerful than he found it in 1848. The Hungarians refused to recognise the young sovereign thus forced upon them; and the fact that he was not crowned at Presburg with the sacred iron crown of St. Stephen showed that he did not intend to recognise the Hungarian constitution. Austrian troops under Windischgrätz entered Buda-Pesth, but the Hungarian patriots withdrew from their capital to organize a national resistance; and when the Austrian Government proclaimed the Hungarian constitution abolished and the complete absorption of Hungary in the Austrian Empire, Kossuth and his colleagues retorted by a Declaration of Independence (April 24, 1849). The House of Hapsburg was declared banished from Hungary, which was to be a republic. Kossuth, the first governor of the new republic, and Görgei, its general, raised armies which soon showed their prowess." The first important battle of the war had been fought at Kapolna, on the right bank of the Theiss, on the 26th of February, 1849, Görgei and Dembinski commanding the Hungarians and Windischgrätz leading the Austrians. The latter won the victory, and the Hungarians retreated toward the Theiss. About the middle of March, Görgei resumed the offensive, advancing toward Pesth, and encountered the Austrians at Isaszeg, where he defeated them in a hard-fought battle,—or rather in two battles which are sometimes called by different names: viz., that of Tapio Biscke fought April 4th, and that of Godolo, fought on the 5th. It was now the turn of the Austrians to fall back, and they concentrated behind the Rakos, to cover Pesth. The Hungarian general passed round their left, carried Waitzen by storm, forced them to evacuate Pesth and to retreat to Presburg, abandoning the whole of Hungary with the exception of a few fortresses, which they held. The most important of these fortresses, that of Buda, the "twin-city," opposite Pesth on the Danube, was besieged by the Hungarians and carried by storm on the 21st of May. "In Transylvania, too, the Hungarians, under the talented Polish general Bem, overcame the Austrians, Slavonians, and Roumanians in many brilliant encounters. But the proclamation of a republic had alienated those Hungarians who had only striven for their old constitutional rights, so quarrels arose between Görgei and the ardent democrat Kossuth. Worse still, the Czar Nicholas, dreading the formation of a republic near his Polish provinces sent the military aid which Francis Joseph in May 1849 implored. Soon 80,000 Russians under Paskiewitch poured over the northern Carpathians to help the beaten Austrians, while others overpowered the gallant Bem in Transylvania. Jellachich with his Croats again invaded South Hungary, and Haynau, the scourge of Lombardy, marched on the strongest Hungarian fortress, Komorn, on the Danube." The Hungarians, overpowered by the combination of Austrians and Russians against them, were defeated at Pered, June 21; at Acz, July 3; at Komorn, July 11; at Waitzen, July 16; at Tzombor, July 20; at Segesvar, July 31; at Debreczin, August 2; at Szegedin, August 4; at Temesvar, August 10. "In despair Kossuth handed over his dictatorship to his rival Görgei, who soon surrendered at Vilagos with all his forces to the Russians (August 13, 1849). About 5,000 men with Kossuth, Bem, and other leaders, escaped to Turkey. Even there Russia and Austria sought to drive them forth; but the Porte, upheld by the Western Powers, maintained its right to give sanctuary according to the Koran. Kossuth and many of his fellow-exiles finally sailed to England [and afterwards to America], where his majestic eloquence aroused deep sympathy for the afflicted country. Many Hungarian patriots suffered death. All rebels had their property confiscated and the country was for years ruled by armed force, and its old rights were abolished."

AUSTRIA: A. D.1848-1849.
   Revolt in Lombardy and Venetia.
   War with Sardinia.
   Victories of Radetzky.
   Italy vanquished again.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1850.
Failure of the movement for Germanic national unity.
End of the Frankfort Assembly.

"Frankfort had become the centre of the movement. The helpless Diet had acknowledged the necessity of a German parliament, and had summoned twelve men of confidence charged with drawing up a new imperial constitution. But it was unable to supply what was most wanted—a strong executive. … Instead of establishing before all a strong executive able to control and to realise its resolutions, the Assembly lost months in discussing the fundamental rights of the German people, and thus was overhauled by the events. In June, Prince Windischgraetz crushed the insurrection at Prague; and in November the anarchy which had prevailed during the whole summer at Berlin was put down, when Count Brandenburg became first minister. … Schwarzenberg [at Vienna] declared as soon as he had taken the reins, that his programme was to maintain the unity of the Austrian empire, and demanded that the whole of it should enter into the Germanic confederation. This was incompatible with the federal state as contemplated by the National Assembly, and therefore Gagern, who had become president of the imperial ministry [at Frankfort], answered Schwarzenberg's programme by declaring that the entering of the Austrian monarchy with a majority of non-German nationalities into the German federal state was an impossibility. Thus nothing was left but to place the king of Prussia at the head of the German state. But in order to win a majority for this plan Gagern found it necessary to make large concessions to the democratic party, amongst others universal suffrage. This was not calculated to make the offer of the imperial crown acceptable to Frederic William IV., but his principal reason for declining it was, that he would not exercise any pressure on the other German sovereigns, and that, notwithstanding Schwarzenberg's haughty demeanour, he could not make up his mind to exclude Austria from Germany. After the refusal of the crown by the king, the National Assembly was doomed; it had certainly committed great faults, but the decisive reason of its failure was the lack of a clear and resolute will in Prussia. History, however, teaches that great enterprises, such as it was to unify an empire dismembered for centuries, rarely succeed at the first attempt. The capital importance of the events of 1848 was that they had made the German unionist movement an historical fact; it could never be effaced from the annals, that all the German governments had publicly acknowledged that tendency as legitimate, the direction for the future was given, and even at the time of failure it was certain, as Stockmar said, that the necessity of circumstances would bring forward the man who, profiting by the experiences of 1848, would fulfil the national aspirations."

F. H. Geffcken, The Unity of Germany (English Historical Review, April, 1891).

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1849-1859.
The Return to pure Absolutism.
Bureaucracy triumphant.

   "The two great gains which the moral earthquake of 1848
   brought to Austria were, that through wide provinces of the
   Empire, and more especially in Hungary, it swept away the sort
   of semi-vassalage in which the peasantry had been left by the
   Urbarium of Maria Theresa [an edict which gave to the peasants
   the right of moving from place to place, and the right of
   bringing up their children as they wished, while it
   established in certain courts the trial of all suits to which
   they were parties], and other reforms akin to or founded upon
   it, and introduced modern in the place of middle-age relations
   between the two extremes of society. Secondly, it overthrew
   the policy of do-nothing—a surer guarantee for the
   continuance of abuses than even the determination, which soon
   manifested itself at headquarters, to make the head of the
   state more absolute than ever. After the taking of Vienna by
   Windischgrätz, the National Assembly had, on the 15th of
   November 1848, been removed from the capital to the small town
   of Kremsier, in Moravia. Here it prolonged all ineffective
   existence till March 1849, when the court camarilla felt
   itself strong enough to put an end to an inconvenient censor,
   and in March 1849 it ceased to exist. A constitution was at
   the same time promulgated which contained many good
   provisions, but which was never heartily approved by the
   ruling powers, or vigorously carried into effect—the
   proclamation of a state of siege in many cities, and other
   expedients of authority in a revolutionary period, easily
   enabling it to be set at naught. The successes of the reaction
   in other parts of Europe, and, above all, the coup d'état in
   Paris, emboldened Schwartzenberg to throw off the mask; and on
   the last day of 1851 Austria became once more a pure
   despotism. The young emperor had taken 'Viribus unitis' for
   his motto; and his advisers interpreted those words to mean
   that Austria was henceforward to be a state as highly
   centralised as France—a state in which the minister at Vienna
   was absolutely to govern everything from Salzburg to the Iron
   Gate. The hand of authority had been severely felt in the
   pre-revolutionary period, but now advantage was to be taken of
   the revolution to make it felt far more than ever. In Hungary,
   for example, … it was fondly imagined that there would be no
   more trouble. The old political division into counties was
   swept away; the whole land was divided into five provinces;
   and the courtiers might imagine that from henceforth the
   Magyars would be as easily led as the inhabitants of Upper
   Austria. These delusions soon became general, but they owed
   their origin partly to the enthusiastic ignorance of those who
   were at the head of the army, and partly to two men"—Prince
   Schwartzenberg and Alexander Bach. Of the latter, the "two
   leading ideas were to cover the whole empire with a German
   bureaucracy, and to draw closer the ties which connected the
   court of Vienna with that of Rome.
{231}
   … If absolutism in Austria had a fair trial from the 31st of
   December 1851 to the Italian war, it is to Bach that it was
   owing; and if it utterly and ludicrously failed, it is he more
   than any other man who must bear the blame. Already, in 1849,
   the bureaucracy had been reorganised, but in 1852 new and
   stricter regulations were introduced. Everything was
   determined by precise rules—even the exact amount of hair
   which the employee was permitted to wear upon his face. Hardly
   any question was thought sufficiently insignificant to be
   decided upon the spot. The smallest matters had to be referred
   to Vienna. …. We can hardly be surprised that the great ruin
   of the Italian war brought down with a crash the whole edifice of
   the reaction."

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1856-1859.
   The war in Italy with Sardinia and France.
   Reverses at Magenta and Solferino.
   Peace of Villafranca.
   Surrender of Lombardy.

"From the wars of 1848-9 the King of Sardinia was looked upon by the moderate party as the champion of Italian freedom. Charles Albert had failed: yet his son would not, and indeed could not, go back, though, when he began his reign, there were many things against him. … Great efforts were made to win him over to the Austrian party, but the King was neither cast down by defeat and distrust nor won over by soft words. He soon showed that, though he had been forced to make a treaty with Austria, yet he would not cast in his lot with the oppression of Italy. He made Massimo d'Azeglio his chief Minister, and Camillo Benso di Cavour his Minister of Commerce. With the help of these two men he honestly carried out the reforms which had been granted by his father, and set new ones on foot. … The quick progress of reform frightened Count Massimo d'Azeglio. He retired from office in 1853, and his place was taken by Count Cavour, who made a coalition with the democratic party in Piedmont headed by Urbano Rattazzi. The new chief Minister began to work not only for the good of Piedmont but for Italy at large. The Milanese still listened to the hopes which Mazzini held out, and could not quietly hear their subjection. Count Cavour indignantly remonstrated with Radetzky for his harsh government. … The division and slavery of Italy had shut her out from European politics. Cavour held that, if she was once looked upon as an useful ally, then her deliverance might be hastened by foreign interference. The Sardinian army had been brought into good order by Alfonso della Marmora; and was ready for action. In 1855, Sardinia made alliance with England and France, who were at war with Russia; for Cavour looked on that power as the great support of the system of despotism on the Continent, and held that it was necessary for Italian freedom that Russia should be humbled. The Sardinian army was therefore sent to the Crimea, under La Marmora, where it did good service in the battle of Tchernaya. … The next year the Congress of Paris was held to arrange terms of peace between the allies and Russia, and Cavour took the opportunity of laying before the representatives of the European powers the unhappy state of his countrymen. … In December, 1851, Louis Napoleon Buonaparte, the President of the French Republic, seized the government, and the next year took the title of Emperor of the French. He was anxious to weaken the power of Austria, and at the beginning of 1859 it became evident that war would soon break out. As a sign of the friendly feeling of the French Emperor towards the Italian cause, his cousin, Napoleon Joseph, married Clotilda, the daughter of Victor Emmanuel. Count Cavour now declared that Sardinia would make war on Austria, unless a separate and national government was granted to Lombardy and Venetia, and unless Austria promised to meddle no more with the rest of Italy. On the other hand, Austria demanded the disarmament of Sardinia. The King would not listen to this demand, and France and Sardinia declared war against Austria. The Emperor Napoleon declared that he would free Italy from the Alps to the Adriatic. … The Austrian army crossed the Ticino, but was defeated by the King and General Cialdini. The French victory of Magenta, on June 4th forced the Austrians to retreat from Lombardy. … On June 24th the Austrians, who had crossed the Mincio, were defeated at Solferino by the allied armies of France and Sardinia. It seemed as though the French Emperor would keep his word. But he found that if he went further, Prussia would take up the cause of Austria, and that he would have to fight on the Rhine as well as on the Adige. When, therefore, the French army came before Verona, a meeting was arranged between the two Emperors. This took place at Villafranca, and there Buonaparte, without consulting his ally, agreed with Francis Joseph to favour the establishment of an Italian Confederation. …Austria gave up to the King of Sardinia Lombardy to the west of Mincio. But the Grand Duke of Tuscany and the Duke of Modena were to return to their States. The proposed Confederation was never made, for the people of Tuscany, Modena, Parma, and Romagna sent to the King to pray that they might be made part of his Kingdom, and Victor Emmanuel refused to enter on the scheme of the French Emperor. In return for allowing the Italians of Central Italy to shake off the yoke, Buonaparte asked for Savoy and Nizza. … The King … consented to give up the 'glorious cradle of his Monarchy' in exchange for Central Italy."

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1862-1866.
   The Schleswig-Holstein question.
   Quarrel with Prussia.
   The humiliating Seven Weeks War.

Conflict with Prussia grew out of the complicated Schleswig-Holstein question, reopened in 1862 and provisionally settled by a delusive arrangement between Prussia and Austria, into which the latter was artfully drawn by Prince Bismarck.

See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (DENMARK): A. D. 1848-1862, and GERMANY: A. D. 1861-1866.

No sooner was the war with Denmark over, than "Prussia showed that it was her intention to annex the newly acquired duchies to herself. This Austria could not endure, and accordingly, in 1866, war broke out between Austria and Prussia. Prussia sought alliance with Italy, which she stirred up to attack Austria in her Italian possessions. The Austrian army defeated the Italian at Eustazza [or Custozza (see ITALY: A. D. 1862-1866)]; but the fortunes of war were against them in Germany. Allied with the Austrians were the Saxons, the Bavarians, the Würtembergers, Baden and Hesse, and Hanover. The Prussians advanced with their chief army into Bohemia with the utmost rapidity, dreading lest the Southern allies should march north to Hanover, and cut the kingdom in half, and push on to Berlin. The Prussians had three armies, which were to enter Bohemia and effect a junction. The Elbe army under the King, the first army under Prince Frederick Charles, and the second army under the Crown Prince. The Elbe army advanced across Saxony by Dresden. The first army was in Lusatia, at Reichenberg, and the second army in Silesia at Heisse. They were all to meet at Gitschin. The Austrian army under General Benedek was at Königgrätz, in Eastern Bohemia. … As in the wars with Napoleon, so was it now; the Austrian generals … never did the right thing at the right moment. Benedek did indeed march against the first army, but too late, and when he found it was already through the mountain door, he retreated, and so gave time for the three armies to concentrate upon him. The Elbe army and the first met at Münchengratz, and defeated an Austrian army there, pushed on, and drove them back out of Gitschin on Königgrätz. … The Prussians pushed on, and now the Elbe army went to Smidar, and the first army to Horzitz, whilst the second army, under the Crown Prince, was pushing on, and had got to Gradlitz. The little river Bistritz is crossed by the high road to Königgrätz. It runs through swampy ground, and forms little marshy pools or lakes. To the north of Königgrätz a little stream of much the same character dribbles through bogs into the Elbe. … But about Chlum, Nedelist and Lippa is terraced high ground, and there Benedek planted his cannon. The Prussians advanced from Smidar against the left wing of the Austrians, from Horzitz against the centre, and the Crown Prince was to attack the right wing. The battle began on the 3d of July, at 7 o'clock in the morning, by the simultaneous advance of the Elbe and the first army upon the Bistritz. At Sadowa is a wood, and there the battle raged most fiercely. … Two things were against the Austrians; first, the incompetence of their general, and, secondly, the inferiority of their guns. The Prussians had what are called needle-guns, breach-loaders, which are fired by the prick of a needle, and for the rapidity with which they can be fired far surpassed the old-fashioned muzzle-loaders used by the Austrians. After this great battle, which is called by the French and English the battle of Sadowa (Sadowa (o Breve), not Sadowa (o Macron), as it is erroneously pronounced), but which the Germans call the battle of Königgrätz, the Prussians marched on Vienna, and reached the Marchfeld before the Emperor Francis Joseph would come to terms. At last, on the 23d of August, a peace which gave a crushing preponderance in Germany to Prussia, was concluded at Prague."

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1866-1867.
Concession of nationality to Hungary.
Formation of the dual Austro-Hungarian Empire.

   "For twelve years the name of Hungary, as a State, was erased
   from the map of Europe. Bureaucratic Absolutism ruled supreme
   in Austria, and did its best to obliterate all Hungarian
   institutions. Germanisation was the order of the day, the
   German tongue being declared the exclusive language of
   official life as well as of the higher schools. Government was
   carried on by means of foreign, German, and Czech officials.
   No vestige was left, not only of the national independence,
   but either of Home Rule or of self-government of any sort; the
   country was divided into provinces without regard for
   historical traditions; in short, an attempt was made to wipe
   out every trace denoting the existence of a separate Hungary.
   All ranks and classes opposed a sullen passive resistance to
   these attacks against the existence of the nation; even the
   sections of the nationalities which had rebelled against the
   enactments of 1848, at the instigation of the reactionary
   Camarilla, were equally disaffected in consequence of the
   short-sighted policy of despotical centralisation. …
   Finally, after the collapse of the system of Absolutism in
   consequence of financial disasters and of the misfortunes of
   the Italian War of 1859, the Hungarian Parliament was again
   convoked; and after protracted negotiations, broken off and
   resumed again, the impracticability of a system of provincial
   Federalism having been proved in the meantime, and the defeat
   incurred in the Prussian War of 1866 having demonstrated the
   futility of any reconstruction of the Empire of Austria in
   which the national aspirations of Hungary were not taken into
   due consideration—an arrangement was concluded under the
   auspices of Francis Deák, Count Andrássy, and Count Beust, on
   the basis of the full acknowledgment of the separate national
   existence of Hungary, and of the continuity of its legal
   rights. The idea of a centralised Austrian Empire had to give
   way to the dual Austro-Hungarian monarchy, which is in fact an
   indissoluble federation of two equal States, under the common
   rule of a single sovereign, the Emperor of Austria and King of
   Hungary, each of the States having a constitution, government,
   and parliament of its own, Hungary especially retaining, with
   slight modifications, its ancient institutions remodelled in
   1848. The administration of the foreign policy, the management
   of the army, and the disbursement of the expenditure necessary
   for these purposes, were settled upon as common affairs of the
   entire monarchy, for the management of which common ministers
   were instituted, responsible to the two delegations, co-equal
   committees of the parliaments of Hungary and of the
   Cisleithanian (Austrian) provinces. Elaborate provisions were
   framed for the smooth working of these common institutions,
   for giving weight to the constitutional influence, even in
   matters of common policy, of the separate Cisleithanian and
   Hungarian ministries, and for rendering their responsibility
   to the respective Parliaments an earnest and solid reality.
{233}
   The financial questions pending in the two independent and
   equal States were settled by a compromise; measures were taken
   for the equitable arrangement of all matters which might arise
   in relation to interests touching both States, such as
   duties, commerce, and indirect taxation, all legislation on
   these subjects taking place by means of identical laws
   separately enacted by the Parliament of each State. …
   Simultaneously with these arrangements the political
   differences between Hungary and Croatia were compromised by
   granting provincial Home Rule to the latter. … Thus the
   organisation of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy on the basis of
   dualism, and the compromise entered into between the two
   halves composing it, whilst uniting for the purposes of
   defence the forces of two States of a moderate size and extent
   into those of a great empire, able to cope with the exigencies
   of an adequate position amongst the first-class Powers of
   Europe, restored also to Hungary its independence and its
   unfettered sovereignty in all internal matters."

"The Ausgleich, or agreement with Hungary, was arranged by a committee of 67 members of the Hungarian diet, at the head of whom was the Franklin of Hungary, Francis Deák, the true patriot and inexorable legist, who had taken no part in the revolutions, but who had never given up one of the smallest of the rights of his country. … On the 8th of June [1867], the emperor Francis Joseph was crowned with great pomp at Pesth. On the 28th of the following June, he approved the decisions of the diet, which settled the position of Hungary with regard to the other countries belonging to his majesty, and modified some portions of the laws of 1848. … Since the Ausgleich the empire has consisted of two parts. … For the sake of clearness, political language has been increased by the invention of two new terms, Cisleithania and Transleithania, to describe the two groups, separated a little below Vienna by a small affluent of the Danube, called the Leitha—a stream which never expected to become so celebrated."

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1866-1887.
   The Austro-Hungarian Empire.
   Its new national life.
   Its difficulties and promises.
   Its ambitions and aims in Southeastern Europe.

"Peace politicians may say that a war always does more harm than good to the nations which engage in it. Perhaps it always does, at any rate, morally speaking, to the victors: but that it does not to the vanquished, Austria stands as a living evidence. Finally excluded from Italy and Germany by the campaign of 1866, she has cast aside her dreams of foreign domination, and has set herself manfully to the task of making a nation out of the various conflicting nationalities over which she presides. It does not require much insight to perceive that as long as she held her position in Germany this fusion was hopeless. The overwhelming preponderance of the German element made any approach to a reciprocity of interests impossible. The Germans always were regarded as sovereigns, the remaining nationalities as subjects; it was for these to command, for those to obey. In like manner, it was impossible for the Austrian Government to establish a mutual understanding with a population which felt itself attracted—alike by the ties of race, language, and geographical position—to another political union. Nay more, as long as the occupation of the Italian provinces remained as a blot on the Imperial escutcheon, it was impossible for the Government to command any genuine sympathy from any of its subjects. But with the close of the war with Prussia these two difficulties—the relations with Germany and the relations with Italy—were swept away. From this time forward Austria could appear before the world as a Power binding together for the interests of all, a number of petty nationalities, each of which was too feeble to maintain a separate existence. In short, from the year 1866 Austria had a raison d'être, whereas before she had none. … Baron Beust, on the 7th of February, 1867, took office under Franz Joseph. His programme may be stated as follows. He saw that the day of centralism and imperial unity was gone past recall, and that the most liberal Constitution in the world would never reconcile the nationalities to their present position, as provinces under the always detested and now despised Empire. But then came the question—Granted that a certain disintegration is inevitable, how far is this disintegration to go? Beust proposed to disarm the opposition of the leading nationality by the gift of an almost complete independence, and, resting on the support thus obtained, to gain time for conciliating the remaining provinces by building up a new system of free government. It would be out of place to give a detailed account of the well-known measure which converted the 'Austrian empire' into the 'Austro-Hungarian monarchy.' It will be necessary, however, to describe the additions made to it by the political machinery. The Hungarian Reichstag was constructed on the same principle as the Austrian Reichsrath. It was to meet in Pesth, as the Reichsrath at Vienna, and was to have its own responsible ministers. From the members of the Reichsrath and Reichstag respectively were to be chosen annually sixty delegates to represent Cisleithanian and sixty to represent Hungarian interests—twenty being taken in each case from the Upper, forty from the Lower House. These two 'Delegations,' whose votes were to be taken, when necessary, collectively, though each Delegation sat in a distinct chamber, owing to the difference of language, formed the Supreme Imperial Assembly, and met alternate years at Vienna and Pesth. They were competent in matters of foreign policy, in military administration, and in Imperial finance. At their head stood three Imperial ministers—the Reichskanzler, who presided at the Foreign Office, and was ex officio Prime Minister, the Minister of War, and the Minister of Finance. These three ministers were independent of the Reichsrath and Reichstag, and could only be dismissed by a vote of want of confidence on the part of the Delegations. The 'Ausgleich' or scheme of federation with Hungary is, no doubt, much open to criticism, both as a whole and in its several parts. It must always be borne in mind that administratively and politically it was a retrogression. {234} At a time in which all other European nations—notably North Germany—were simplifying and unifying their political systems, Austria was found doing the very reverse. … The true answer to these objections is, that the measure of 1867 was constructed to meet a practical difficulty. Its end was not the formation of a symmetrical system of government, but the pacification of Hungary. … The internal history of the two halves of the empire flows in two different channels. Graf Andrassy, the Hungarian Premier, had a comparatively easy task before him. There were several reasons for this. In the first place, the predominance of the Magyars in Hungary was more assured than that of the Germans in Cisleithania. It is true that they numbered only 5,000,000 out of the 16,000,000 inhabitants; but in these 5,000,000 were included almost all the rank, wealth, and intelligence of the country. Hence they formed in the Reichstag a compact and homogeneous majority, under which the remaining Slovaks and Croatians soon learnt to range themselves. In the second place, Hungary had the great advantage of starting in a certain degree afresh. Her government was not bound by the traditional policy of former Vienna ministries, and … it had managed to keep its financial credit unimpaired. In the third place, as those who are acquainted with Hungarian history well know, Parliamentary institutions had for a long time flourished in Hungary. Indeed the Magyars, who among their many virtues can hardly be credited with the virtue of humility, assert that the world is mistaken in ascribing to England the glory of having invented representative government, and claim this glory for themselves. Hence one of the main difficulties with which the Cisleithanian Government had to deal was already solved for Graf Andrassy and his colleagues."—Austria since Sadowa (Quarterly Review, volume 131, pages 90-95).—"It is difficult for anyone except an Austro-Hungarian statesman to realise the difficulties of governing the Dual Monarchy. Cisleithania has, as is well-known, a Reichsrath and seventeen Provincial Diets. The two Austrias, Styria, Carinthia, and Salzburg present no difficulties, but causes of trouble are abundant in the other districts. The Emperor will probably end by getting himself crowned King of Bohemia, although it will be difficult for him to lend himself to a proscription of the German language by the Tsechs, as he has been forced by the Magyars to lend himself to the proscription in parts of Hungary of Rouman and of various Slavonic languages. But how far is this process to continue? The German Austrians are as unpopular in Istria and Dalmatia as in Bohemia; and Dalmatia is also an ancient kingdom. These territories were originally obtained by the election of the King of Hungary to the crown of the tripartite kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia. Is 'Ferencz Jozsef' to be crowned King of Dalmatia? And is Dalmatia to have its separate Ministry and its separate official language, and its completely separate laws? And what then of Fiume, the so-called Hungarian port? Then, again, Galicia is also an ancient kingdom, although it has at other times formed part of Poland; and the Emperor is King of Galicia, as he is King of Bohemia and Dalmatia. Is he to be crowned King of Galicia? And if so, is the separate existence of Galicia to be a Polish or a Ruthenian existence, or, indeed, a Jewish? for the Jews are not only extraordinarily powerful and numerous there, but are gaining ground day by day. The Ruthenians complain as bitterly of being bullied by the Poles in Galicia as the Croats complain of the Magyars. Even here the difficulties are not ended. The Margraviate of Moravia contains a large Tsech population, and will have to be added to the Bohemian kingdom. Bukowina may go with Galicia or Transylvania, Austrian Silesia may be divided between the Tsechs of Bohemia and Moravia on the one part, and the Poles or Ruthenians or Jews of Galicia on the other. But what is to become of that which, with the most obstinate disregard of pedants, I intend to continue to call the Tyrol? Trieste must go with Austria and Salzburg, and the Northern Tyrol and Styria and Carinthia no doubt; but it is not difficult to show that Austria would actually be strengthened by giving up the Southern Tyrol, where the Italian people, or at least the Italian language, is gaining ground day by day. There really seems very little left of the integrity of the Austrian Empire at the conclusion of our survey of its constituent parts. Matters do not look much better if we turn to Trans-Leithania. Hungary has its Reichstag (which is also known by some terrible Magyar name), its House of Representatives, and its House of Magnates, and, although there are not so many Provincial Diets as in Austria, Slavonia and the Banat of Croatia possess a Common Diet with which the Magyars are far from popular; and the Principality of Transylvania also possessed separate local rights, for trying completely to suppress which the Magyars are at present highly unpopular. The Principality, although under Magyar rule, is divided between 'Saxons' and Roumans, who equally detest the Magyars, and the Croats and Slovenes who people the Banat are Slavs who also execrate their Ugrian rulers, inscriptions in whose language are defaced whenever seen. Croatia is under-represented at Pest, and says that she goes unheard, and the Croats, who have partial Home Rule without an executive, ask for a local executive as well, and demand Fiume and Dalmatia. If we look to the numbers of the various races, there are in Austria of Germans and Jews about 9,000,000 to about 13,000,000 Slavs and a few Italians and Roumans. There are in the lands of the Crown of Hungary 2,000,000 of Germans and Jews, of Roumans nearly 3,000,000, although the Magyars only acknowledge 2,500,000, and of Magyars and Slavs between five and six millions apiece. In the whole of the territories of the Dual Monarchy it will be seen that there are 18,000,000 of Slavs and only 17,000,000 of the ruling races—Germans, Jews, and Magyars—while between three and four millions of Roumans and Italians count along with the Slav majority as being hostile to the dominant nationalities. It is difficult to exaggerate the gravity for Austria of the state of things which these figures reveal."

"In past times, when Austria had held France tight bound between Spain, Germany, and the Netherlands, she had aspired to a dominant position in Western Europe; and, so long as her eyes were turned in that direction, she naturally had every interest in preserving the Ottoman Empire intact, for she was thus guaranteed against all attacks from the south. But, after the loss of her Italian possessions in 1805, and of part of Croatia in 1809, after the disasters of 1849, 1859 and 1866, she thought more and more seriously of indemnifying herself at the expense of Turkey. It was moreover evident that, in order to paralyse the damaging power of Hungary, it was essential for her to assimilate the primitive and scattered peoples of Turkey, accustomed to centuries of complete submission and obedience, and form thus a kind of iron band which should encircle Hungary and effectually prevent her from rising. If, in fact, we glance back at the position of Austria in 1860, and take the trouble carefully to study the change of ideas and interests which had then taken place in the policy of France and of Russia, the tendencies of the strongly constituted nations who were repugnant to the authority and influence of Austria, the basis of the power of that empire, and, finally, the internal ruin with which she was then threatened, we cannot but arrive at the conclusion that Austria, by the very instinct of self-preservation, was forced to turn eastwards and to consider how best she might devour some, at least, of the European provinces of Turkey. Austrian statesmen have been thoroughly convinced of this fact, and, impelled by the instinct above-mentioned, have not ceased carefully and consistently to prepare and follow out the policy here indicated. Their objects have already been partially attained by the practical annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1878 [see TURKS: A. D. 1878]; and it was striking to observe with what bitter feeling and resentment this measure was looked upon at the time by the Hungarian section of the empire. … Russia has never made any secret of her designs upon Turkey; she has, indeed, more than once openly made war in order to carry them out. But Austria remains a fatal obstacle in her path. Even as things at present stand, Austria, by her geographical position, so commands and dominates the Russian line of operations that, once the Danube passed, the Russians are constantly menaced by Austria on the flank and rear. … And if this be true now, how much more true would it be were Austria to continue her march eastwards towards Salonica. That necessarily, at some time or other, that march must be continued may be taken for almost certain; but that Austria has it in her power to commence it for the present, cannot, I think, be admitted. She must further consolidate and make certain of what she has. Movement now would bring upon her a struggle for life or death—a struggle whose issue may fairly be said, in no unfriendly spirit to Austria, to be doubtful. With at home a bitterly discontented Croatia, strong Pan-slavistic tendencies in Bosnia, Herzegovina, and Dalmatia, a Greek population thoroughly disaffected, and a Hungary whose loyalty is doubtful, she would have to deal beyond her frontiers with the not contemptible armies, when combined, of Servia, Bulgaria, and Greece, whose aspirations she would be asphyxiating for ever, with a bitterly hostile population in Macedonia, with the whole armed force of Turkey, and with the gigantic military power of Russia; whilst it is not fantastic to suppose that Germany would be hovering near ready to pounce on her German provinces when the 'moment psychologique' should occur. With such a prospect before her, it would be worse than madness for Austria to move until the cards fell more favourably for her."

      V. Caillard,
      The Bulgarian Imbroglio
      (Fortnightly Review, December, 1885).

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1878.
The Treaty of Berlin.
Acquisition of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

AUSTRO-HUNGARIAN EMPIRE.

AUXILIUM.

AVA.

AVALON.

AVARICUM.

   The true Avars are represented to have been a powerful
   Turanian people who exercised in the sixth century a wide
   dominion in Central Asia. Among the tribes subject to them was
   one called the Ogors, or Ouigours, or Ouiars, or Ouar Khouni,
   or Varchonites (these diverse names have been given to the
   nation) which is supposed to have belonged to the national
   family of the Huns. Some time in the early half of the sixth
   century, the Turks, then a people who dwelt in the very center
   of Asia, at the foot of the Altai mountains, making their
   first appearance in history as conquerors, crushed and almost
   annihilated the Avars, thereby becoming the lords of the
   Ouigours, or Ouar Khouni. But the latter found an opportunity
   to escape from the Turkish yoke. "Gathering together their
   wives and their children, their flocks and their herds, they
   turned their waggons towards the Setting Sun. This immense
   exodus comprised upwards of 200,000 persons. The terror which
   inspired their flight rendered them resistless in the onset;
   for the avenging Turk was behind their track. They overturned
   everything before them, even the Hunnic tribes of kindred
   origin, who had long hovered on the north-east frontiers of
   the Empire, and, driving out or enslaving the inhabitants,
   established themselves in the wide plains which stretch
   between·the Volga and the Don. In that age of imperfect
   information they were naturally enough confounded with the
   greatest and most formidable tribe of the Turanian stock known
   to the nations of the West. The report that the Avars had
   broken loose from Asia, and were coming in irresistible force
   to overrun Europe, spread itself all along both banks of the
   Danube and penetrated to the Byzantine court. With true
   barbaric cunning, the Ouar Khouni availed themselves of the
   mistake, and by calling themselves Avars largely increased the
   terrors of their name and their chances of conquest." The
   pretended Avars were taken into the pay of the Empire by
   Justinian and employed against the Hun tribes north and east
   of the Black Sea.
{236}
   They presently acquired a firm footing on both banks of the
   Danube, and turned their arms against the Empire. The
   important city of Sirmium was taken by them after an obstinate
   siege and its inhabitants put to the sword. Their ravages
   extended over central Europe to the Elbe, where they were
   beaten back by the warlike Franks, and, southwards, through
   Moesia, Illyria, Thrace, Macedonia and Greece, even to the
   Peloponnesus. Constantinople itself was threatened more than
   once, and in the summer of 626, it was desperately attacked by
   Avars and Persians in conjunction (see ROME: A. D. 565-628),
   with disastrous results to the assailants. But the seat of
   their Empire was the Dacian country—modern Roumania,
   Transylvania and part of Hungary—in which the Avars had
   helped the Lombards to crush and extinguish the Gepidæ. The
   Slavic tribes which, by this time, had moved in great numbers
   into central and south-eastern Europe, were largely in
   subjection to the Avars and did their bidding in war and
   peace. "These unfortunate creatures, of apparently an
   imperfect, or, at any rate, imperfectly cultivated
   intelligence, endured such frightful tyranny from their Avar
   conquerors, that their very name has passed into a synonyme
   for the most degraded servitude."

ALSO IN: E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 42. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

The Empire of the Avars was shaken and much diminished in the Seventh Century by an extensive rising of their oppressed Slavic subjects, roused and led, it is said, by a Frank merchant, or adventurer, named Samo, who became their king. The first to throw off the yoke were a tribe called the Vendes, or Wendes, or Venedi, in Bohemia, who were reputed to be half-castes, resulting from intercourse between the Avar warriors and the women of their Slavic vassals. Under the lead of Samo, the Wendes and Slovenes or Slavonians drove the Avars to the east and north; and it seems to have been in connection with this revolution that the Emperor Heraclius induced the Serbs or Servians and Croats—Slavic tribes of the same race and region—to settle in depopulated Dalmatia. "'From the year 630 A. D.' writes M. Thierry, 'the Avar people are no longer mentioned in the annals of of the East; the successors of Attila no longer figure beside the successors of Constantine. It required new wars in the West to bring upon the stage of history the khan and his people.' In these wars [of Pepin and Charlemagne] they were finally swept off from the roll of European nations."

"Hungary, now so called, was possessed by the Avars, who, joining with themselves a multitude of Hunnish tribes, accumulated the immense spoils which both they themselves and their equally barbarous predecessors had torn from the other nations of Europe. … They extended their limits towards Lombardy, and touched upon the very verge of Bavaria. … Much of their eastern frontier was now lost, almost without a struggle on their part, by the rise of other barbarous nations, especially the various tribes of Bulgarians." This was the position of the Avars at the time of Charlemagne, whom they provoked by forming an alliance with the ambitious Duke of Bavaria, Tassilo,—most obstinate of all who resisted the Frank king's imperious and imperial rule. In a series of vigorous campaigns, between 791 and 797 Charlemagne crushed the power of the Avars and took possession of their country. The royal "ring" or stronghold—believed to have been situated in the neighborhood of Tatar, between the Danube and the Theiss—was penetrated, and the vast treasure stored there was seized. Charlemagne distributed it with a generous hand to churches, to monasteries and to the poor, as well as to his own nobles, servants and soldiers, who are said to have been made rich. There were subsequent risings of the Avars and wars, until 805, when the remnant of that almost annihilated people obtained permission to settle on a tract of land between Sarwar and Haimburg, on the right bank of the Danube, where they would be protected from their Slavonian enemies. This was the end of the Avar nation.

AVARS, The Rings of the.
   The fortifications of the Avars were of a peculiar and
   effective construction and were called Hrings, or Rings. "They
   seem to have been a series of eight or nine gigantic ramparts,
   constructed in concentric circles, the inner one of all being
   called the royal circle or camp, where was deposited all the
   valuable plunder which the warriors had collected in their
   expeditions. The method of constructing these ramparts was
   somewhat singular. Two parallel rows of gigantic piles were
   driven into the ground, some twenty feet apart. The
   intervening space was filled with stones, or a species of
   chalk, so compacted as to become a solid mass. The sides and
   summit were covered with soil, upon which were planted trees
   and shrubs, whose interlacing branches formed an impenetrable
   hedge."

AVEBURY.

A gloomy lake called Avernus, which filled the crater of an extinct volcano, situated a little to the north of the Bay of Naples, was the object of many superstitious imaginations among the ancients. "There was a place near Lake Avernus called the prophetic cavern. Persons were in attendance there who called up ghosts. Anyone desiring it came thither, and, having killed a victim and poured out libations, summoned whatever ghost he wanted. The ghost came, very faint and doubtful to the sight, but vocal and prophetic; and, having answered the questions, went off."

Maximus Tyrius, quoted by C. C. Felton, in Greece, Ancient and Modern, c. 2, lecture 9.

AVIGNON: A. D. 1309-1348.
Made the seat of the Papacy.
Purchase of the city by Clement V.

AVIGNON: A. D. 1377-1417.
Return of Pope Gregory XI. to Rome.
Residence of the anti-popes of the great Schism.

AVIGNON: A. D. 1790-1791.
   Revolution and Anarchy.
   Atrocities committed.
   Reunion with France decreed.

"The Aviones were a Suevic clan. They are mentioned by Tacitus in connexion with the Reudigni, Angli, Varini, Eudoses, Suardones and Nuithones, all Suevic clans. These tribes must have occupied Mecklenburg-Schwerin, Mecklenburg-Strelitz and Sleswick-Holstein, the Elbe being their Eastern boundary. It is, however, impossible to define their precise localities."

A. J. Church and W. J. Brodribb, Minor Works of Tacitus, Geographical Notes to the Germany.

This is a Portuguese military-religions order which originated about 1147 during the wars with the Moors, and which formerly observed the monastic rule of St. Benedict. It became connected with the order of Calatrava in Spain and received from the latter its property in Portugal. Pope Paul III. united the Grand Mastership to the Crown of Portugal.

AVVIM, The.
The original inhabitants of the south-west corner of Canaan,
from which they were driven by the Philistines.

AYLESBURY ELECTION CASE.

The first battle fought and won by the invading Jutes after their landing in Britain under Hengest and Horsa. It was fought at the lowest ford of the river Medway.

AYOUBITE OR AIYUBITE DYNASTY.

AZOF: A. D. 1736-1739.
Captured by the Russians.
Secured to them by the Treaty of Belgrade.

AZTEC.

AZTEC AND MAYA PICTURE-WRITING.

"No nation ever reduced it [pictography] more to a system. It was in constant use in the daily transactions of life. They [the Aztecs] manufactured for writing purposes a thick coarse paper from the leaves of the agave plant by a process of maceration and pressure. An Aztec book closely resembles one of our quarto volumes. It is made of a single sheet, 12 to 15 inches wide, and often 60 or 70 feet long, and is not rolled, but folded either in squares or zigzags in such a manner that on opening there are two pages exposed to view. Thin wooden boards are fastened to each of the outer leaves, so that the whole presents as neat an appearance, remarks Peter Martyr, as if it had come from the shop of a skilful book binder. They also covered buildings, tapestries and scrolls of parchment with these devices. … What is still more astonishing, there is reason to believe, in some instances, their figures were not painted, but actually printed with movable blocks of wood on which the symbols were carved in relief, though this was probably confined to those intended for ornament only. In these records we discern something higher than a mere symbolic notation. They contain the germ of a phonetic alphabet, and represent sounds of spoken language. The symbol is often not connected with the idea, but with the word. The mode in which this is done corresponds precisely to that of the rebus. It is a simple method, readily suggesting itself. In the middle ages it was much in vogue in Europe for the same purpose for which it was chiefly employed in Mexico at the same time—the writing of proper names. For example, the English family Bolton was known in heraldry by a 'tun' transfixed by a 'bolt.' Precisely so the Mexican Emperor Ixcoatl is mentioned in the Aztec manuscripts under the figure of a serpent, coatl,' pierced by obsidian knives, 'ixtli.' … As a syllable could be expressed by any object whose name commenced with it, as few words can be given the form of a rebus without some change, as the figures sometimes represent their full phonetic value, sometimes only that of their initial sound, and as universally the attention of the artist was directed less to the sound than to the idea, the didactic painting of the Mexicans, whatever it might have been to them, is a sealed book to us, and must remain so in great part. … Immense masses of such documents were stored in the imperial archives of ancient Mexico. Torquemada asserts that five cities alone yielded to the Spanish governor on one requisition no less than 16,000 volumes or scrolls! Every leaf was destroyed. Indeed, so thorough and wholesale was the destruction of these memorials, now so precious in our eyes, that hardly enough remain to whet the wits of antiquaries. In the libraries of Paris, Dresden, Pesth, and the Vatican are, however, a sufficient number to make us despair of deciphering them, had we for comparison all which the Spaniards destroyed. Beyond all others the Mayas, resident on the peninsula of Yucatan, would seem to have approached nearest a true phonetic system. They had a regular and well understood alphabet of 27 elementary sounds, the letters of which are totally different from those of any other nation, and evidently originated with themselves. But besides these they used a large number of purely conventional symbols, and moreover were accustomed constantly to employ the ancient pictographic method in addition as a sort of commentary on the sound represented. … With the aid of this alphabet, which has fortunately been preserved, we are enabled to spell out a few words on the Yucatecan manuscripts and façades, but thus far with no positive results. The loss of the ancient pronunciation is especially in the way of such studies. In South America, also, there is said to have been a nation who cultivated the art of picture-writing, the Panos, on the river Ucayale."

BABAR,
   King of Ferghana, A. D. 1494-;
   King of Kabul, A. D. 1504-;
   Moghul Emperor or Padischah of India, A. D. 1526-1530.

"The city stands on a broad plain, and is an exact square, a hundred and twenty furlongs in length each way, so that the entire circuit is four hundred and eighty furlongs. While such is its size, in magnificence there is no other city that approaches it. It is surrounded, in the first place, by a broad and deep moat, full of water, behind which rises a wall fifty royal cubits in width and two hundred in height. … And here I may not omit to tell the use to which the mould dug out of the great moat was turned, nor the manner wherein the wall was wrought. As fast as they dug the moat the soil which they got from the cutting was made into bricks, and when a sufficient number were completed they baked the bricks in kilns. Then they set to building, and began with bricking the borders of the moat, after which they proceeded to construct the wall itself, using throughout for their cement hot bitumen, and interposing a layer of wattled reeds at every thirtieth course of the brick. On the top, along the edges of the wall, they constructed buildings of a single chamber facing one another, leaving between them room for a four-horse chariot to turn. In the circuit of the wall are a hundred gates, all of brass, with brazen lintels and side posts. The bitumen used in the work was brought to Babylon from the Is, a small stream which flows into the Euphrates at the point where the city of the same name stands, eight days' journey from Babylon. Lumps of bitumen are found in great abundance in this river. The city is divided into two portions by the river which runs through the midst of it. This river is the Euphrates. … The city wall is brought down on both sides to the edge of the stream; thence, from the corners of the wall, there is carried along each bank of the river a fence of burnt bricks. The houses are mostly three and four stories high; the streets all run in straight lines; not only those parallel to the river, but also the cross streets which lead down to the water side. At the river end of these cross streets are low gates in the fence that skirts the stream, which are, like the great gates in the outer wall, of brass, and open on the water. The outer wall is the main defence of the city. There is, however, a second inner wall, of less thickness than the first, but very little inferior to it in strength. The centre of each division of the town was occupied by a fortress. In the one stood the palace of the kings, surrounded by a wall of great strength and size: in the other was the sacred precinct of Jupiter Belus, a square enclosure, two furlongs each way, with gates of solid brass; which was also remaining in my time. In the middle of the precinct there was a tower of solid masonry, a furlong in length and breadth, upon which was raised a second tower, and on that a third, and so on up to eight. The ascent to the top is on the outside, by a path which winds round all the towers. … On the topmost tower there is a spacious temple."

According to Ctesias, the circuit of the walls of Babylon was but 360 furlongs. The historians of Alexander agreed nearly with this. As regards the height of the walls, "Strabo and the historians of Alexander substitute 50 for the 200 cubits of Herodotus, and it may therefore be suspected that the latter author referred to hands, four of which were equal to the cubit. The measure, indeed, of 50 fathoms or 200 royal cubits for the walls of a city in a plain is quite preposterous. … My own belief is that the height of the walls of Babylon did not exceed 60 or 70 English feet."

(So much new knowledge of the ancient peoples in the East has been and is being brought to light by recent search and study, and the account of it in English historical literature is so meagre as yet, that there seems to be good reason for deferring the treatment of these subjects, for the most part, to a later volume of this work. The reader is referred, therefore, to the article "Semites," in the hope that, before its publication is reached, in the fourth or fifth volume, there will be later and better works to quote from on all the subjects embraced. Terrien de Lacouperie's interesting theory, which is introduced below, in this place, is questioned by many scholars; and Professor Sayce, whose writings have done much to popularize the new oriental studies, seems to go sometimes in advance of the sure ground.)

   The Sumirians, inhabitants of the Shinar of the Old Testament
   narrative, and Accadians, who divided primitive Babylonia
   between them, "were overrun and conquered by the Semitic
   Babylonians of later history, Accad being apparently the first
   half of the country to fall under the sway of the new comers.
   It is possible that Casdim, the Hebrew word translated
   Chaldees or Chaldeans in the authorized version, is the
   Babylonian 'casidi' or conquerors, a title which continued to
   cling to them in consequence of their conquest. The Accadiaus
   had been the inventors of the pictorial hieroglyphics which
   afterwards developed into the cuneiform or wedge-shaped
   writing; they had founded the great cities of Chaldea, and had
   attained to a high degree of culture and civilization. Their
   cities possessed libraries, stocked with books, written partly
   on papyrus, partly on clay, which was, while still soft,
   impressed with characters by means of a metal stylus.
{239}
   The books were numerous, and related to a variety of subjects.
   … In course of time, however, the two dialects of Sumir and
   Accad ceased to be spoken; but the necessity for learning them
   still remained, and we find, accordingly, that down to the
   latest days of both Assyria and Babylonia, the educated
   classes were taught the old extinct Accadian, just as in
   modern Europe they are taught Latin."

"Since Sumir, the Shinar of the Bible, was the first part of the country occupied by the invading Semites, while Accad long continued to be regarded as the seat of an alien race, the language and population of primitive Chaldea have been named Accadian by the majority of Assyrian scholars. The part played by these Accadians in the intellectual history of mankind is highly important. They were the earliest civilizers of Western Asia, and it is to them that we have to trace the arts and sciences, the religious traditions and the philosophy not only of the Assyrians, but also of the Phœnicians, the Aramæans, and even the Hebrews themselves. It was, too, from Chaldea that the germs of Greek art and of much of the Greek pantheon and mythology originally came. Columnar architecture reached its first and highest development in Babylonia; the lions that still guard the main entrance of Mykenæ are distinctly Assyrian in character; and the Greek Herakles with his twelve labours finds his prototype in the hero of the great Chaldean epic. It is difficult to say how much of our present culture is not owed to the stunted, oblique-eyed people of ancient Babylonia; Jerusalem and Athens are the sacred cities of our modern life; and both Jerusalem and Athens were profoundly influenced by the ideas which had their first starting-point in primæval Accad. The Semite has ever been a trader and an intermediary, and his earliest work was the precious trade in spiritual and mental wares. Babylonia was the home and mother of Semitic culture and Semitic inspiration; the Phœnicians never forgot that they were a colony from the Persian Gulf, while the Israelite recounted that his father Abraham had been born in Ur of the Chaldees. Almost the whole of the Assyrian literature was derived from Accad, and translated from the dead language of primitive Chaldea."

"The place of China in the past and future is not that which it was long supposed to be. Recent researches have disclosed that its civilization, like ours, was variously derived from the same old focus of culture of south-western Asia. … It was my good fortune to be able to show, in an uninterrupted series of a score or so of papers in periodicals, of communications to the Royal Asiatic Society and elsewhere, published and unpublished, and of contributions to several works since April 1880, downwards, that the writing and some knowledge of arts, science and government of the early Chinese, more or less enumerated below, were derived from the old civilization of Babylonia, through the secondary focus of Susiana, and that this derivation was a social fact, resulting not from scientific teaching but from practical intercourse of some length between the Susian confederation and the future civilizers of the Chinese, the Bak tribes, who, from their neighbouring settlements in the N., moved eastwards at the time of the great rising of the XXIII. century B. C. Coming again in the field, Dr. J. Edkins has joined me on the same line."

"We could enumerate a long series of affinities between Chaldean culture and Chinese civilization, although the last was not borrowed directly. From what evidence we have, it seems highly probable that a certain number of families or of tribes, without any apparent generic name, but among which the Kutta filled an important position, came to China about the year 2500 B. C. These tribes, which came from the West, were obliged to quit the neighbourhood, probably north of the Susiana, and were comprised in the feudal agglomeration of that region, where they must have been influenced by the Akkado-Chaldean culture."

"Our earliest glimpse of the political condition of Chaldea shows us the country divided into numerous small states, each headed by a great city, made famous and powerful by the sanctuary or temple of some particular deity, and ruled by a patesi, a title which is now thought to mean priest-king, i. e., priest and king in one. There can be little doubt that the beginning of the city was every where the temple, with its college of ministering priests, and that the surrounding settlement was gradually formed by pilgrims and worshippers. That royalty developed out of the priesthood is also more than probable. … There comes a time when for the title of patesi is substituted that of king. … It is noticeable that the distinction between the Semitic newcomers and the indigenous Shumiro-Accadians continues long to be traceable in the names of the royal temple-builders, even after the new Semitic idiom, which we call the Assyrian, had entirely ousted the old language. … Furthermore, even superficial observation shows that the old language and the old names survive longest in Shumir,—the South. From this fact it is to be inferred with little chance of mistake that the North,—the land of Accad,— was earlier Semitized, that the Semitic immigrants established their first headquarters in that part of the country, that their power and influence thence spread to the South. Fully in accordance with these indications, the first grand historical figure that meets us at the threshold of Chaldean history, dim with the mists of ages and fabulous traditions, yet unmistakably real, is that of the Semite Sharrukin, king of Accad, or Agade, as the great Northern city came to be called—more generally known in history under the corrupt modern reading of Sargon, and called Sargon I., 'the First,' to distinguish him from a very famous Assyrian monarch of the same name who reigned many centuries later. As to the city of Agade, it is no other than the city of Accad mentioned in Genesis x, 10. It was situated close to the Euphrates on a wide canal just opposite Sippar, so that in time the two cities came to be considered as one double city, and the Hebrews always called it 'the two Sippars'—Sepharvaim, which is often spoken of in the Bible. … The tremendously ancient date of 3800 B. C. is now generally accepted for Sargon of Agade—perhaps the remotest authentic date yet arrived at in history."

"A horde of Cassites or Kossæans swept down from the mountains of Northern Elam under their leader, Khammuragas; Accad was conquered, a foreign dynasty established in the land, and the capital transferred from Agade to Babylon. Babylon now became a city of importance for the first time; the rank assigned to it in the mythical age was but a reflection of the position it held after the Cassite conquest. The Cassite dynasty is probably the Arabian dynasty of Berosos. … A newly-found inscription of Nabonidos makes the date [of its advent] B. C. 3750 [foot-note]. … The first care of Khammuragas, after establishing himself in Accad, was to extend his sway over the southern kingdom of Sumer as well. … Khammuragas became king of the whole of Babylonia. From this time onward the country remained a united monarchy. The Cassite dynasty must have lasted for several centuries, and probably included more than one line of kings. … It was under the Cassite dynasty that the kingdom of Assyria first took its rise,— partly, perhaps, in consequence of the Asiatic conquests of the Egyptian monarchs of the eighteenth dynasty. … In B. C. 1400 the Cassite king married an Assyrian princess. Her son, Kara-Murdas, was murdered by the party opposed to Assyrian influence, but the usurper, Nazi-bugas, was quickly overthrown by the Assyrians, who placed a vassal-prince on the throne. This event may be considered the turning-point in the history of the kingdoms of the Tigris and Euphrates; Assyria henceforth takes the place of the worn-out monarchy of Babylonia, and plays the chief part in the affairs of Western Asia until the day of its final fall. In little more than a hundred years later the Assyrians were again in Babylonia, but this time as avowed enemies to all parties alike; Babylon was captured by the Assyrian monarch Tiglath-Adar in B. C. 1270, and the rule of the Cassite dynasty came to an end."

For more than six centuries after the conquest of B. C. 1270, Babylonia was obscured by Assyria. During most of that long period, the Chaldean kingdom was subject to its northern neighbor and governed by Assyrian viceroys. There were frequent revolts and some intervals of independence; but they were brief, and the political life of Babylonia as a distinct power may be said to have been suspended from 1270 until 625 B. C., when Nabopolassar, who ruled first as the viceroy of the Assyrian monarch, threw off his yoke, took the attributes of sovereignty to himself, and joined the Medes in extinguishing the glory of Nineveh. "The Assyrian Empire was now shared between Media and Babylon. Nabucudur-utser, or Nebuchadrezzar, Nabopolassar's eldest son, was the real founder of the Babylonian empire. The attempt of Pharaoh Necho to win for Egypt the inheritance of Assyria was overthrown at the battle of Carchemish, and when Nebuchadrezzar succeeded his father in B. C. 604, he found himself the undisputed lord of Western Asia. Palestine was coerced in 602, and the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 laid a way open for the invasion of Egypt, which took place twenty years later. Tyre also underwent a long siege of thirteen years, but it is doubtful whether it was taken after all. Babylon was now enriched with the spoils of foreign conquest. It owed as much to Nebuchadrezzar as Rome owed to Augustus. The buildings and walls with which it was adorned were worthy of the metropolis of the world. The palace, now represented by the Kasr mound, was built in fifteen days, and the outermost of its three walls was seven miles in circuit. Hanging gardens were constructed for Queen Amytis, the daughter of the Median prince, and the great temple of Bel was roofed with cedar and overlaid with gold. The temple of the Seven Lights, dedicated to Nebo at Borsippa by an early king, who had raised it to a height of forty-two cubits, was completed, and various other temples were erected on a sumptuous scale, both in Babylon and in the neighbouring cities, while new libraries were established there. After a reign of forty-two years, six months and twenty-one days, Nebuchadrezzar died (B. C. 562), and left the crown to his son Evil-Merodach, who had a short and inactive reign of three years and thirty-four days, when he was murdered by his brother-in-law, Nergal-sharezer, the Neriglissar of the Greeks. … The chief event of his reign of four years and four months was the construction of a new palace. His son, who succeeded him, was a mere boy, and was murdered after a brief reign of four months. The power now passed from the house of Nabopolassar,—Nabu-nahid or Nabonidos, who was raised to the throne, being of another family. His reign lasted seventeen years and five months, and witnessed the end of the Babylonian empire,"—which was overthrown by Cyrus the Great (or Kyros), B. C. 539 [see PERSIA: B. C. 543-521], and swallowed up in the Persian empire which he founded.

BABYLONIAN JEWS.

BABYLONIAN TALENT.

"BABYLONISH CAPTIVITY" OF THE POPES.

BACCALAOS, OR BACALHAS, OR BACALHAO COUNTRY.

BACCHIADÆ.

BACCHIC FESTIVALS.

BACON'S REBELLION.

BACTRIA.

"Where the edge [of the tableland of Iran] rises to the lofty Hindu Kush, there lies on its northern slope a favored district in the region of the Upper Oxus. … On the banks of the river, which flows in a north-westerly direction, extend broad mountain pastures, where support is found in the fresh mountain air for numerous herds of horses and sheep, and beneath the wooded hills are blooming valleys. On these slopes of the Hindu Kush, the middle stage between the table-land and the deep plain of the Caspian Sea, lay the Bactrians—the Bakhtri of the Achaemenids, the Bakhdhi of the Avesta. … In ancient times the Bactrians were hardly distinguished from nomads; but their land was extensive and produced fruits of all kinds, with the exception of the vine. The fertility of the land enabled the Hellenic princes to make great conquests."

The Bactrians were among the people subjugated by Cyrus the Great and their country formed part of the Persian Empire until the latter was overthrown by Alexander (see MACEDONIA, &c.: B. C. 330-323). In the division of the Macedonian conquests, after Alexander's death, Bactria, with all the farther east, fell to the share of Seleucus Nicator and formed part of what came to be called the kingdom of Syria. About 256 B. C. the Bactrian province, being then governed by an ambitious Greek satrap named Diodotus, was led by him into revolt against the Syrian monarchy, and easily gained its independence, with Diodotus for its king (see SELEUCIDÆ: B. C. 281-224). "The authority of Diodotus was confirmed and riveted on his subjects by an undisturbed reign of eighteen years before a Syrian army even showed itself in his neighbourhood. … The Bactrian Kingdom was, at any rate at its commencement, as thoroughly Greek as that of the Seleucidæ." "From B. C. 206 to about B. C. 185 was the most flourishing period of the Bactrian monarchy, which expanded during that space from a small kingdom to a considerable empire"—extending over the greater part of modern Afghanistan and across the Indus into the Punjaub. But meantime the neighboring Parthians, who threw off the Seleucid yoke soon after the Bactrians had done so, were growing in power and they soon passed from rivalry to mastery. The Bactrian kingdom was practically extinguished about 150 B. C. by the conquests of the Parthian Mithridates I., "although Greek monarchs of the Bactrian series continued masters of Cabul and Western India till about B. C. 126."

BADEN: A. D. 1805-1806.
   Aggrandized by Napoleon.
   Created a Grand Duchy.
   Joined to the Confederation of the Rhine.

BADEN: A. D. 1813.
Abandonment of the Rhenish Confederacy and the French
Alliance.

BADEN: A. D. 1866.
The Seven Weeks War.
Indemnity and territorial cession to Prussia.

BADEN: A. D. 1870-1871. Treaty of Union with the Germanic Confederation, soon transformed into the German Empire.

BÆRSÆRK.

BÆTICA.

The ancient name of the province in Spain which afterwards
took from the Vandals the name of Andalusia.

BAGACUM.

The peasants of Gaul, whose condition had become very wretched during the distractions and misgovernment of the third century, were provoked to an insurrection, A. D. 287, which was general and alarming. It was a rising which seems to have been much like those that occurred in France and England eleven centuries later. The rebel peasants were called Bagauds,—a name which some writers derive from the Celtic word "bagad" or "bagat," signifying "tumultuous assemblage." They sacked and ruined several cities,—taking Autun after a siege of seven months,—and committed many terrible atrocities. The Emperor Maximian—colleague of Diocletian,—succeeded, at last, in suppressing the general outbreak, but not in extinguishing it every where. There were traces of it surviving long afterwards.

      ALSO IN:
      W. T. Arnold,
      The Roman System of Provincial Administration,
      chapter 4.

BAGDAD: A. D. 1258.
The Fall of the Caliphate.
Destruction of the city by the Mongols.

In 1252, on the accession of Mangu Khan, grandson of Jingis Khan, to the sovereignty of the Mongol Empire [see MONGOLS], a great Kuriltai or council was held, at which it was decided to send an expedition into the West, for two purposes: (1), to exterminate the Ismaileans or Assassins, who still maintained their power in northern Persia; (2), to reduce the Caliph of Bagdad to submission to the Mongol supremacy. The command of the expedition was given to Mangu's brother Khulagu, or Houlagou, who performed his appointed tasks with thoroughness and unmerciful resolution. In 1257 he made an end of the Assassins, to the great relief of the whole eastern world, Mahometan and Christian. In 1258 he passed on to Bagdad, preceded by an embassy which summoned the Caliph to submit, to raze the walls of Bagdad, to give up his vain pretensions to the sovereignty of the Moslem world, and to acknowledge the Great Khan for his lord. The feeble caliph and his treacherous and incapable ministers neither submitted nor made vigorous preparations for defence. As a consequence, Bagdad was taken after a siege which only excited the ferocity of the Mongols. They fired the city and slaughtered its people, excepting some Christians, who are said to have been spared through the influence of one of Khulagu's wives, who was a Nestorian. The sack of Bagdad lasted seven days. The number of the dead, we are told by Raschid, was 800,000. The caliph, Mostassem, with all his family, was put to death.

[Image]
I.
Asia Minor
And The
Balkan Peninsula
Near The Close Of The Twelfth Century.

Byzantine Empire.
Selj. Turks.
Servia.
Bulgaria.
Cilician Armenia.
Venetian Possessions.
States Under Latin Rule.
County Palatinate Of Cephalonia.

II ASIA MINOR AND THE BALKAN PENINSULA IN 1265 (SHOWING RESTORED BYZANTINE EMPIRE AND SURROUNDING STATES)

III ASIA MINOR.

IV TURKISH EMPIRE.

For a considerable period before this final catastrophe, in the decline of the Seljuk Empire, the Caliphate at Bagdad had become once more "an independent temporal state, though, instead of ruling in the three quarters of the globe, the caliphs ruled only over the province of Irak Arabi. Their position was not unlike that of the Popes in recent times, whom they also resembled in assuming a new name, of a pious character, at their inauguration. Both the Christian and the Moslem pontiff was the real temporal sovereign of a small state; each claimed to be spiritual sovereign over the whole of the Faithful; each was recognized as such by a large body, but rejected by others. But in truth the spiritual recognition of the Abbaside caliphs was more nearly universal in their last age than it had ever been before." With the fall of Bagdad fell the caliphate as a temporal sovereignty; but it survived, or was resurrected, in its spiritual functions, to become merged, a little later, in the supremacy of the sultan of the Ottoman Turks. "A certain Ahmed, a real or pretended Abbasside, fled [from Bagdad] to Egypt, where he was proclaimed caliph by the title of Al Mostanser Billah, under the protection of the then Sultan Bibars. He and his successors were deemed, in spiritual things, Commanders of the Faithful, and they were found to be a convenient instrument both by the Mameluke sultans and by other Mahometan princes. From one of them, Bajazet the Thunderbolt received the title of Sultan; from another, Selim the Inflexible procured the cession of his claims, and obtained the right to deem himself the shadow of God upon earth. Since then, the Ottoman Padishah has been held to inherit the rights of Omar and of Haroun, rights which if strictly pressed, might be terrible alike to enemies, neutrals, and allies."

BAGDAD: A. D. 1623-1638.
Taken by the Persians and retaken by the Turks.
Fearful slaughter of the inhabitants.

BAGISTANA.

"The Baglioni first came into notice during the wars they carried on with the Oddi of Perugia in the 14th and 15th centuries. This was one of those duels to the death, like that of the Visconti with the Torrensi of Milan, on which the fate of so many Italian cities of the middle ages hung. The nobles fought; the townsfolk assisted like a Greek chorus, sharing the passions of the actors, but contributing little to the catastrophe. The piazza was the theatre on which the tragedy was played. In this contest the Baglioni proved the stronger, and began to sway the state of Perugia after the irregular fashion of Italian despots. They had no legal right over the city, no hereditary magistracy, no title of princely authority. The Church was reckoned the supreme administrator of the Perugian commonwealth. But in reality no man could set foot on the Umbrian plain without permission from the Baglioni. They elected the officers of state. The lives and goods of the citizens were at their discretion. When a Papal legate showed his face, they made the town too hot to hold him. … It was in vain that from time to time the people rose against them, massacring Pandolfo Baglioni on the public square in 1393, and joining with Ridolfo and Braccio of the dominant house to assassinate another Pandolfo with his son Niccolo in 1460. The more they were cut down, the more they flourished. The wealth they derived from their lordships in the duchy of Spoleto and the Umbrian hill-cities, and the treasures they accumulated in the service of the Italian republics, made them omnipotent in their native town. … From father to son they were warriors, and we have records of few Italian houses, except perhaps the Malatesti of Rimini, who equalled them in hardihood and fierceness. Especially were they noted for the remorseless vendette which they carried on among themselves, cousin tracking cousin to death with the ferocity and and craft of sleuth-hounds. Had they restrained these fratricidal passions, they might, perhaps, by following some common policy, like that of the Medici in Florence or the Bentivogli in Bologna, have successfully resisted the Papal authority, and secured dynastic sovereignty. It is not until 1495 that the history of the Baglioni becomes dramatic, possibly because till then they lacked the pen of Matarazzo. But from this year forward to their final extinction, every detail of their doings has a picturesque and awful interest. Domestic furies, like the revel descried by Cassandra above the palace of Mycenae, seem to take possession of the fated house; and the doom which has fallen on them is worked out with pitiless exactitude to the last generation."

BAHRITE SULTANS.

BAIÆ.

Baiæ, in Campania, opposite Puteoli on a small bay near Naples, was the favorite watering place of the ancient Romans. "As soon as the reviving heats of April gave token of advancing summer, the noble and the rich hurried from Rome to this choice retreat; and here, till the raging dogstar forbade the toils even of amusement, they disported themselves on shore or on sea, in the thick groves or on the placid lakes, in litters and chariots, in gilded boats with painted sails, lulled by day and night with the sweetest symphonies of song and music, or gazing indolently on the wanton measures of male and female dancers. The bath, elsewhere their relaxation, was here the business of the day; … they turned the pools of Avernus and Lucrinus into tanks for swimming; and in these pleasant waters both sexes met familiarly together, and conversed amidst the roses sprinkled lavishly on their surface."

BALANCE OF POWER.

In European diplomacy, a phrase signifying the policy which aimed at keeping an approximate equilibrium of power among the greater nations.

BALBOA'S DISCOVERY OF THE PACIFIC.

   "The name 'Baleares' was derived by the Greeks from 'ballein,'
   to throw; but the art was taught them by the Phœnicians, and
   the name is no doubt Phœnician."

The chief instrument employed by the Medici to establish their power in Florence was "the pernicious system of the Parlamento and Balia, by means of which the people, assembled from time to time in the public square, and intimidated by the reigning faction, entrusted full powers to a select committee nominated in private by the chiefs of the great house. … Segni says: 'The Parlamento is a meeting of the Florentine people on the Piazza of the Signory. When the Signory has taken its place to address the meeting, the piazza is guarded by armed men, and then the people are asked whether they wish to give absolute power (Balia) and authority to the citizens named, for their good. When the answer, yes, prompted partly by inclination and partly by compulsion, is returned, the Signory immediately retires into the palace. This is all that is meant by this parlamento, which thus gives away the full power of effecting a change in the state."

J. A. Symonds, Renaissance in Italy: Age of the Despots, page 164, and foot-note.

BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES.

The States of southeastern Europe, lately emancipated, for the most part, from the rule of the Turks, are so associated by a common history, although remarkably diverse in race, that it seems expedient to bring them for discussion together. They occupy mainly the regions known in Roman times as MOESIA, DACIA and ILLYRICUM, to which names the reader is referred for some account of the scanty incidents of their early history.

The political condition in 1815 is shown by ROMAN
LETTERS and this style of boundary:

The Bulgarian boundary according to the Treaty of San Stefano 1878 is shown thus:

"In no part of Western Europe do we find districts inhabited by men differing in speech and national feeling, lying in distinct patches here and there over a large country. A district like one of our larger counties in which one parish, perhaps one hundred, spoke Welsh, another Latin, another English, another Danish, another Old French, another the tongue of more modern settlers, Flemings, Huguenots or Palatines, is something which we find hard to conceive, and which, as applied to our own land or to any other Western land, sounds absurd on the face of it. When we pass into South-eastern Europe, this state of things, the very idea of which seems absurd in the West, is found to be perfectly real. All the races which we find dwelling there at the beginning of recorded history, together with several races which have come in since, all remain, not as mere fragments or survivals, but as nations, each with its national language and national feelings, and each having its greater or less share of practical importance in the politics of the present moment. Setting aside races which have simply passed through the country without occupying it, we may say that all the races which have ever settled in the country are there still as distinct races. And, though each race has its own particular region where it forms the whole people or the great majority of the people, still there are large districts where different races really live side by side in the very way which seems so absurd when we try to conceive it in any Western country. We cannot conceive a Welsh, an English, and a Norman village side by side; but a Greek, a Bulgarian, and a Turkish village side by side is a thing which may be seen in many parts of Thrace. The oldest races in those lands, those which answer to Basques and Bretons in Western Europe, hold quite another position from that of Basques and Bretons in Western Europe. They form three living and vigorous nations, Greek, Albanian, and Rouman. They stand as nations alongside of the Slaves who came in later, and who answer roughly to the Teutons in the West, while all alike are under the rule of the Turk, who has nothing answering to him in the West. … When the Romans conquered the South-eastern lands, they found there three great races, the Greek, the Illyrian, and the Thracian. Those three races are all there still. The Greeks speak for themselves. The Illyrians are represented by the modern Albanians. The Thracians are represented, there seems every reason to believe, by the modern Roumans. Now had the whole of the South-eastern lands been inhabited by Illyrians and Thracians, those lands would doubtless have become as thoroughly Roman as the Western lands became. … But the position of the Greek nation, its long history and its high civilization, hindered this. {245} The Greeks could not become Romans in any but the most purely political sense. Like other subjects of the Roman Empire, they gradually took the Roman name; but they kept their own language, literature, and civilization. In short we may say that the Roman Empire in the East became Greek, and that the Greek nation became Roman. The Eastern Empire and the Greek-speaking lands became nearly coextensive. Greek became the one language of the Eastern Roman Empire, while those that spoke it still called themselves Romans. Till quite lately, that is till the modern ideas of nationality began to spread, the Greek-speaking subjects of the Turk called themselves by no name but that of Romans. … While the Greeks thus took the Roman name without adopting the Latin language, another people in the Eastern peninsula adopted both name and language, exactly as the nations of the West did. If, as there is good reason to believe, the modern Roumans represent the old Thracians, that nation came under the general law, exactly like the Western nations. The Thracians became thoroughly Roman in speech, as they have ever since kept the Roman name. They form in fact one of the Romance nations, just as much as the people of Gaul or Spain. … In short, the existence of a highly civilized people like the Greeks hindered in every way the influence of Rome from being so thorough in the East as it was in the West. The Greek nation lived on, and alongside of itself, it preserved the other two ancient nations of the peninsula. Thus all three have lived on to the present as distinct nations. Two of them, the Greeks and the Illyrians, still keep their own languages, while the third, the old Thracians, speak a Romance language and call themselves Roumans. … The Slavonic nations hold in the East a place answering to that which is held by the Teutonic nations in the West. … But though the Slaves in the East thus answer in many ways to the Teutons in the West, their position with regard to the Eastern Empire was not quite the same as that of the Teutons towards the Western Empire. … They learned much from the half Roman, half Greek power with which they had to do; but they did not themselves become either Greek or Roman, in the way in which the Teutonic conquerors in the Western Empire became Roman. … Thus, while in the West everything except a few survivals of earlier nations, is either Roman or Teutonic, in the East, Greeks, Illyrians, Thracians or Roumans, and Slaves, all stood side by side as distinct nations when the next set of invaders came, and they remain as distinct nations still. … There came among them, in the form of the Ottoman Turk, a people with whom union was not only hard but impossible, a people who were kept distinct, not by special circumstances, but by the inherent nature of the case. Had the Turk been other than what he really was, he might simply have become a new nation alongside of the other South-eastern nations. Being what he was the Turk could not do this. … The original Turks did not belong to the Aryan branch of mankind, and their original speech is not an Aryan speech. The Turks and their speech belong to altogether another class of nations and languages. … Long before the Turks came into Europe, the Magyars or Hungarians had come; and, before the Magyars came, the Bulgarians had come. Both the Magyars and the Bulgarians were in their origin Turanian nations, nations as foreign to the Aryan people of Europe as the Ottoman Turks themselves. But their history shows that a Turanian nation settling in Europe may either be assimilated with an existing European nation or may sit down as an European nation alongside of others. The Bulgarians have done one of these things; the Magyars have done the other; the Ottoman Turks have done neither. So much has been heard lately of the Bulgarians as being in our times the special victims of the Turk that some people may find it strange to hear who the original Bulgarians were. They were a people more or less nearly akin to the Turks, and they came into Europe as barbarian conquerors who were as much dreaded by the nations of South-eastern Europe as the Turks themselves were afterwards. The old Bulgarians were a Turanian people, who settled in a large part of the South-eastern peninsula, in lands which had been already occupied by Slaves. They came in as barbarian conquerors; but, exactly as happened to so many conquerors in Western Europe, they were presently assimilated by their Slavonic subjects and neighbours. They learned the Slavonic speech; they gradually lost all traces of their foreign origin. Those whom we now call Bulgarians are a Slavonic people speaking a Slavonic tongue, and they have nothing Turanian about them except the name which they borrowed from their Turanian masters. … The Bulgarians entered the Empire in the seventh century, and embraced Christianity in the ninth. They rose to great power in the South-eastern lands, and played a great part in their history. But all their later history, from a comparatively short time after the first Bulgarian conquest, has been that of a Slavonic and not that of a Turanian people. The history of the Bulgarians therefore shows that it is quite possible, if circumstances are favourable, for a Turanian people to settle among the Aryans of Europe and to be thoroughly assimilated by the Aryan nation among whom they settled."

BALKAN: 7th Century.
(Servia, Croatia, Bosnia, Dalmatia and Montenegro.)
The Slavonic settlement.

"No country on the face of our unfortunate planet has been oftener ravaged, no land so often soaked with the blood of its inhabitants. At the dawn of history Bosnia formed part of Illyria. It was said to have been already peopled by Slav tribes. Rome conquered all this region as far as the Danube, and annexed it to Dalmatia. Two provinces were formed, 'Dalmatia maritima,' and 'Dalmatia interna,' or 'Illyris barbara.' Order reigned, and as the interior communicated with the coast, the whole country flourished. Important ports grew upon the littoral. … At the fall of the Empire came the Goths, then the Avars, who, for two centuries, burned and massacred, and turned the whole country into a desert. … In 630 the Croats began to occupy the present Croatia, Slavonia, and the north of Bosnia, and in 640 the Servians, of the same race and language, exterminated the Avars and peopled Servia, Southern Bosnia, Montenegro and Dalmatia. The ethnic situation which exists to-day dates from this epoch."

"Heraclius [who occupied the throne of the Eastern Empire at Constantinople from 610 to 642] appears to have formed the plan of establishing a permanent barrier in Europe against the encroachments of the Avars and Sclavonians. … To accomplish this object, Heraclius induced the Serbs, or Western Sclavonians, who occupied the country about the Carpathian mountains, and who had successfully opposed the extension of the Avar empire in that direction, to abandon their ancient seats, and move down to the South into the provinces between the Adriatic and the Danube. The Roman and Greek population of these provinces had been driven towards the seacoast by the continual incursions of the northern tribes, and the desolate plains of the interior had been occupied by a few Sclavonian subjects and vassals of the Avars. The most important of the western Sclavonian tribes who moved southward at the invitation of Heraclius were the Servians and Croatians, who settled in the countries still peopled by their descendants. Their original settlements were formed in consequence of friendly arrangements, and, doubtless, under the sanction of an express treaty; for the Sclavonian people of Illyria and Dalmatia long regarded themselves as bound to pay a certain degree of territorial allegiance to the Eastern Empire. … These colonies, unlike the earlier invaders of the Empire, were composed of agricultural communities. … Unlike the military races of Goths, Huns, and Avars, who had preceded them, the Servian nations increased and flourished in the lands which they had colonized; and by the absorption of every relic of the ancient population, they formed political communities and independent states, which offered a firm barrier to the Avars and other hostile nations. … The states which they constituted were of considerable weight in the history of Europe; and the kingdoms or bannats of Croatia, Servia, Bosnia, Rascia and Dalmatia, occupied for some centuries a political position very similar to that now held by the secondary monarchical states of the present day."

See, also, AVARS: THE BREAKING OF THEIR DOMINION;
and SLAVONIC NATIONS: 6TH AND 7TH CENTURIES.

"At the period alluded to [the latter part of the ninth century] the Servians did not, like the rest of the Sclavonians, constitute a distinct state, but acknowledged the supremacy of the Eastern Roman Emperor: in fact the country they inhabited had, from ancient times, formed part of the Roman territory; and it still remained part of the Eastern Empire when the Western Empire was re-established, at the time of Charlemagne. The Servians, at the same period, embraced the Christian faith; but in doing so they did not subject themselves entirely, either to the empire or church of the Greeks. …. The Emperor … permitted the Servians to be ruled by native chiefs, solely of their own election, who preserved a patriarchal form of government. … In the eleventh century, the Greeks, despite of the stipulations they had entered into, attempted to take Servia under their immediate control, and to subject it to their financial system." The attempt met with a defeat which was decisive. "Not only did it put a speedy termination to the encroachment of the Court of Constantinople in imposing a direct government, but it also firmly established the princely power of the Grand Shupanes; whose existence depended on the preservation of the national independence. … Pope Gregory VII. was the first who saluted a Grand Shupane as King."

BALKAN: 9th-16th Centuries (Bosnia, Servia, Croatia, Dalmatia.)
   Conversion to Christianity.
   The Bogomiles.
   Hungarian crusades.
   Turkish conquest.

   After the Slavonic settlement of Servia, Bosnia, Croatia and
   Dalmatia, for a time "the sovereignty of Byzantium was
   acknowledged. But the conversion of these tribes, of identical
   race, to two different Christian rites, created an antagonism
   which still exists. The Croats were converted first by
   missionaries from Rome; they thus adopted Latin letters and
   Latin ritual; the Servians, on the contrary, and consequently
   part of the inhabitants of Bosnia, were brought to
   Christianity by Cyril and Methodius, who, coming from
   Thessalonica, brought the characters and rites of the Eastern
   Church. About 860 Cyril translated the Bible into Slav,
   inventing an alphabet which bears his name, and which is still
   in use. … In 874 Budimir, the first Christian King of
   Bosnia, Croatia and Dalmatia, called a diet upon the plain of
   Dalminium, where he tried to establish a regular organization.
   It was about this time that the name Bosnia appeared for the
   first time. It is said to be derived from a Slav tribe coming
   originally from Thrace. In 905 Brisimir, King of Servia,
   annexed Croatia and Bosnia; but this union did not last long.
   The sovereignty of Byzantium ceased in these parts after the
   year 1000. It was gained by Ladislaus, King of Hungary, about
   1091. In 1103 Coloman, King of Hungary, added the titles of
   'Rex Ramæ' (Herzegovina), then of 'Rex Bosniæ.' Since then
   Bosnia has always been a dependence of the crown of Saint
   Stephen. … About this time some Albigenses came to Bosnia.
   who converted to their beliefs a large number of the people
   who were called Catare, in German Patarener. In Bosnia they
   received and adopted the name of Bogomile, which means 'loving
   God.' Nothing is more tragic than the history of this heresy.
   … They [the Bogomiles] became in Bosnia a chief factor, both
   of its history and its present situation. … The Hungarian
   Kings, in obedience to the Pope, ceaselessly endeavoured to
   extirpate them, and their frequent wars of extermination
   provoked the hatred of the Bosnians. … In 1238 the first
   great crusade was organized by Bela IV. of Hungary, in
   obedience to Pope Gregory VII. The whole country was
   devastated, and the Bogomiles nearly all massacred, except a
   number who escaped to the forests and mountains. In 1245 the
   Hungarian Bishop of Kalocsa himself led a second crusade. In
   1280 a third crusade was undertaken by Ladislaus IV., King of
   Hungary, in order to regain the Pope's favour. … About the
   year 1300 Paul of Brebir, 'Banus Croatorum et Bosniæ
   dominus,' finally added Herzegovina to Bosnia. Under the Ban
   Stephen IV., the Emperor of Servia, the great Dushan, occupied
   Bosnia, but it soon regained its independence (1355), and
   under Stephen Tvartko, who took the title of king, the country
   enjoyed a last period of peace and prosperity. …
{247}
   Before his death the Turks appeared on the
   frontiers. At the memorable and decisive battle of Kossovo
   [see TURKS: A. D. 1360-1389], which gave them Servia, 30,000
   Bosnians were engaged, and, though retreating stopped the
   conqueror. Under Tvartko II., the second king, who was a
   Bogomile, Bosnia enjoyed some years' peace (1326-1443). Then
   followed [see TURKS: A. D. 1402-1451] a bloody interlude of
   civil war," which invited the Turks and prepared the way for
   them. "Mohammed II., who had just taken Constantinople (1453),
   advanced with a formidable army of 150,000 men, which nothing
   could resist. The country was laid waste: 30,000 young men
   were circumcised and enrolled amongst the janissaries; 200,000
   prisoners were made slaves; the towns which resisted were
   burned; the churches turned into mosques, and the land
   confiscated by the conquerors (1463). … A period of struggle
   lasted from 1463 till the definite conquest in 1527 [see
   TURKS: A. D. 1451-1481]. … When the battle of Mohacz (August
   29, 1526) gave Hungary to the Ottomans [see HUNGARY: A. D.
   1487-1526] Jaitche, the last rampart of Bosnia, whose defence
   had inspired acts of legendary courage, fell in its turn in
   1527. A strange circumstance facilitated the Mussulman
   conquest. To save their wealth, the greater number of
   magnates, and almost all the Bogomiles, who were exasperated
   by the cruel persecutions directed against them, went over to
   Islamism. From that time they became the most ardent followers
   of Mohammedanism, whilst keeping the language and names of
   their ancestors. They fought everywhere in the forefront of
   the battles which gained Hungary for the Turks." Within the
   present century the Bosnian Mussulmans have risen in arms
   "against all the reforms that Europe, in the name of modern
   principles, wrested from the Porte."

BALKAN: 10th-11th Centuries (Bulgaria).
The First Bulgarian Kingdom and its overthrow by Basil II.

"The glory of the Bulgarians was confined to a narrow scope both of time and place. In the 9th and 10th centuries they reigned to the south of the Danube, but the more powerful nations that had followed their emigration repelled all return to the north and all progress to the west. … In the beginning of the 11th century, the Second Basil [Byzantine or Greek Emperor, A. D. 976-1025] who was born in the purple, deserved the appellation of conqueror of the Bulgarians [subdued by his predecessor, John Zimisces, but still rebellious]. His avarice was in some measure gratified by a treasure of 400,000 pounds sterling (10,000 pounds' weight of gold) which he found in the palace of Lychnidus. His cruelty inflicted a cool and exquisite vengeance on 15,000 captives who had been guilty of the defence of their country. They were deprived of sight, but to one of each hundred a single eye was left, that he might conduct his blind century to the presence of their king. Their king is said to have expired of grief and horror; the nation was awed by this terrible example; the Bulgarians were swept away from their settlements, and circumscribed within a narrow province; the surviving chiefs bequeathed to their children the advice of patience and the duty of revenge."

E. Gibbon, Decline and fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 55. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

      ALSO IN:
      G. Finlay,
      History of the Byzantine Empire, from 716 to 1007,
      book 2, chapter 2.

"The reign of Isaac II. [Byzantine or Greek Emperor, A. D. 1185-1195] is filled with a series of revolts, caused by his incapable administration and financial rapacity. The most important of these was the great rebellion of the Vallachian and Bulgarian population which occupied the country between Mount Hæmus and the Danube. The immense population of this extensive country now separated itself finally from the government of the Eastern Empire, and its political destinies ceased to be united with those of the Greeks. A new European monarchy, called the Vallachian, or Second Bulgarian kingdom, was formed, which for some time acted an important part in the affairs of the Byzantine Empire, and contributed powerfully to the depression of the Greek race. The sudden importance assumed by the Vallachian population in this revolution, and the great extent of country then occupied by a people who had previously acted no prominent part in the political events of the East, render it necessary to give some account of their previous history. Four different countries are spoken of under the name of Vallachia by the Byzantine writers: Great Vallachia, which was the country round the plain of Thessaly, particularly the southern and south-western part. White Vallachia, or the modern Bulgaria, which formed the Vallachio-Bulgarian kingdom that revolted from Isaac II.; Black Vallachia, Mavro-Vallachia, or Karabogdon, which is Moldavia; and Hungarovallachia, or the Vallachia of the present day, comprising a part of Transylvania. … The question remains undecided whether these Vallachians are the lineal descendants of the Thracian race, who, Strabo tells us, extended as far south as Thessaly, and as far north as to the borders of Pannonia; for of the Thracian language we know nothing."

G. Finlay, History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires, from 716 to 1453, book 3, chapter 3, section 1.

"Whether they were of Slavic origin or of Gaelic or Welsh origin, whether they were the aboriginal inhabitants of the country who had come under the influence of the elder Rome, and had acquired so many Latin words as to overlay their language and to retain little more than the grammatical forms and mould of their own language, or whether they were the descendants of the Latin colonists of Dacia [see DACIA: TRAJAN'S CONQUEST] with a large mixture of other peoples, are all questions which have been much controverted. It is remarkable that while no people living on the south of the Balkans appear to be mentioned as Wallachs until the tenth century, when Anna Comnena mentions a village called Ezeban, near Mount Kissavo, occupied by them, almost suddenly we hear of them as a great nation to the south of the Balkans. They spoke a language which differed little from Latin. Thessaly, during the twelfth century is usually called Great Wallachia. … Besides the Wallachs in Thessaly, whose descendants are now called Kutzo-Wallachs, there were the Wallachs in Dacia, the ancestors of the present Roumanians, and Mavro-Wallachs in Dalmatia. Indeed, according to the Hungarian and Byzantine writers, there were during the twelfth century a series of Wallachian peoples, extending from the Theiss to the Dniester. … The word Wallach is used by the Byzantine writers as equivalent to shepherd, and it may be that the common use of a dialect of Latin by all the Wallachs is the only bond of union among the peoples bearing that name. They were all occasionally spoken of by the Byzantine writers as descendants of the Romans."

"The classical type of feature, so often met with among Roumanian peasants, pleads strongly for the theory of Roman extraction, and if just now I compared the Saxon peasants to Noah's ark figures rudely carved out of the coarsest wood, the Roumanians as often remind me of a type of face chiefly to be seen on cameo ornaments, or ancient signet rings. Take at random a score of individuals from any Roumanian village, and, like a handful of antique gems which have been strewn broadcast over the land, you will there surely find a good choice of classical profiles worthy to be immortalized on agate, onyx, or jasper. An air of plaintive melancholy generally characterizes the Roumanian peasant: it is the melancholy of a long-subjected and oppressed race. … Perhaps no other race possesses in such marked degree the blind and immovable sense of nationality which characterizes the Roumanians. They hardly ever mingle with the surrounding races, far less adopt manners and customs foreign to their own. This singular tenacity of the Roumanians to their own dress, manners and customs is probably due to the influence of their religion [the Greek church], which teaches that any divergence from their own established rules is sinful."

      E. Gérard,
      Transylvanian Peoples
      (Contemporary Review, March, 1887).

"In 1341, when John Cantacuzenus assumed the purple [at Constantinople], important prospects were opened to the Servians. Cantacuzenus … went up the mountains and prevailed upon Stephan Dushan, the powerful king of the Servians, whom he found in a country palace at Pristina, to join his cause." As the result of this connection, and by favor of the opportunities which the civil war and general decline in the Greek Empire afforded him, Stephan Dushan extended his dominions over Epirus, Thessaly, Macedonia, and a part of Thrace. "The Shkypetares in Albania followed his standard; Arta and Joannina were in his possession. From these points his Voivodes [Palatines], whose districts may easily be traced, spread themselves over the whole of the Roumelian territory on the Vardar and the Marizza, as far as Bulgaria, which he also regarded as a province of his kingdom. Being in the possession of so extensive a dominion, he now ventured to assume a title which was still in dispute between the Eastern and Western Empires, and could not rightly be claimed by either. As a Servian Krale, he could neither ask nor expect the obedience of the Greeks: therefore he called himself Emperor of the Roumelians—the Macedonian Christ-loving Czar—and began to wear the tiara. … Stephan Dushan died [December 2, 1356] before he had completed the Empire of which he had laid the foundation, and ere he had strengthened his power by the bulwark of national institutions."

BALKAN: 14th-18th Centuries (Roumania, or Wallachia, and Moldavia).
Four Centuries of Conflict with Hungarians and Turks.

"The Wallacho-Bulgarian monarchy, whatever may have been its limits, was annihilated by a horde of Tartars about A. D. 1250. The same race committed great havoc in Hungary, conquered the Kumani, overran Moldavia, Transylvania, &c., and held their ground there until about the middle of the 14th century, when they were driven northward by the Hungarian, Saxon, and other settlers in Transylvania; and with their exit we have done with the barbarians. … Until recently the historians of Roumania have had little to guide them concerning the events of the period beyond traditions which, though very interesting, are now gradually giving place to recorded and authenticated facts. …. It is admitted that the plains and slopes of the Carpathians were inhabited by communities ruled over by chieftains of varying power and influence. Some were banates, as that of Craiova, which long remained a semi-independent State; then there were petty voivodes or princes . … and besides these there were Khanates, … some of which were petty principalities, whilst others were merely the governorships of villages or groups of them. … Mircea, one of the heroes of Roumanian history, not only secured the independent sovereignty, and called himself Voivode of Wallachia 'by the grace of God,' but in 1389 he formed an alliance with Poland, and assumed other titles by the right of conquest. This alliance … had for its objects the extension of his dominions, as well as protection against Hungary on the one hand, and the Ottoman power on the other; for the … Turkish armies had overrun Bulgaria, and about the year 1391 they first made their appearance north of the Danube. At first the bravery of Mircea was successful in stemming the tide of invasion;" but after a year or two, "finding himself between two powerful enemies, the King of Hungary and the Sultan, Mircea elected to form an alliance with the latter, and concluded a treaty with him at Nicopolis (1393), known as the First Capitulation, by which Wallachia retained its autonomy, but agreed to pay an annual tribute and to acknowledge the suzerainty of the Sultan. … According to several historians Mircea did not adhere to it long, for he is said to have been in command of a contingent in the army of the crusaders, and to have been present at the battle of Nicopolis (1396), in which the flower of the French nobility fell, and, when he found their cause to be hopeless, once more to have deserted them and joined the victorious arms of Bajazet. Of the continued wars and dissensions in Wallachia during the reign of Mircea it is unnecessary to speak. He ruled with varying fortunes until 1418 A. D." A Second Capitulation was concluded, at Adrianople, with the Turks, in 1460, by a later Wallachian voivode, named Vlad. {249} It increased the tribute to the Porte, but made no other important change in the terms of suzerainty. Meantime, in the neighbouring Moldavian principality, events were beginning to shape themselves into some historical distinctness. "For a century after the foundation of Moldavia, or, as it was at first called, Bogdania, by Bogdan Dragosch [a legendary hero], the history of the country is shrouded in darkness. Kings or princes are named, one or more of whom were Lithuanians. … At length a prince more powerful than the rest ascended the throne. … This was Stephen, sometimes called the 'Great' or 'Good.' … He came to the throne about 1456 or 1458, and reigned until 1504, and his whole life was spent in wars against Transylvania, Wallachia, … the Turks, and Tartars. … In 1475 he was at war with the Turks, whom he defeated on the river Birlad. … In that year also Stephen … completely overran Wallachia. Having reduced it to submission, he placed a native boyard on the throne as his viceroy, who showed his gratitude to Stephen by rebelling and liberating the country from his rule; but he was in his turn murdered by his Wallachian subjects. In 1476 Stephen sustained a terrible defeat at the hands of the Ottomans at Valea Alba (the White Valley), but eight years afterwards, allied with the Poles, he again encountered [and defeated] this terrible enemy. … After the battle of Mohacs [see HUNGARY: A. D. 1487-1526] the Turks began to encroach more openly upon Roumanian (Moldo-Wallachian) territory. They occupied and fortified Braila, Giurgevo, and Galatz; interfered in the election of the princes … adding to their own influence, and rendering the princes more and more subservient to their will. This state of things lasted until the end of the 16th century, when another hero, Michael the Brave of Wallachia, restored tranquility and independence to the Principalities, and raised them for a season in the esteem of surrounding nations." Michael, who mounted the throne in 1593, formed an alliance with the Prince of Siebenbürgen (Transylvania) and the voivode of Moldavia, against the Turks. He began his warfare, November, 1591, by a wholesale massacre of the Turks in Bucharest and Jassy. He then took Giurgevo by storm and defeated the Ottoman forces in a battle at Rustchuk. In 1595, Giurgevo was the scene of two bloody battles, in both of which Michael came off victor, with famous laurels. The Turks were effectually driven from the country. The ambition of the victorious Michael was now excited, and he invaded Transylvania (1599) desiring to add it to his dominions. In a battle "which is called by some the battle of Schellenberg, and by others of Hermanstadt," he defeated the reigning prince, Cardinal Andreas, and Transylvania was at his feet. He subdued Moldavia with equal ease, and the whole of ancient Dacia became subject to his rule. The Emperor Rudolph, as suzerain of Transylvania, recognized his authority. But his reign was brief. Before the close of the year 1600 a rising occurred in Transylvania, and Michael was defeated in a battle fought at Miriszlo. He escaped to the mountains and became a fugitive for some months, while even his Wallachian throne was occupied by a brother of the Moldavian voivode. At length he made terms with the Emperor Rudolph, whose authority had been slighted by the Transylvanian insurgents, and procured men and money with which he returned in force, crushed his opponents at Goroszlo, and reigned again as viceroy. But he quarreled soon with the commander of the imperial troops, General Basta, and the latter caused him to be assassinated, some time in August, 1601. … The History of Moldo-Wallachia during the 17th century … possesses little interest for English readers." At the end of the 17th century "another great Power [Russia] was drawing nearer and nearer to Roumania, which was eventually to exercise a grave influence upon her destiny. … In the beginning of the 18th century there ruled two voivodes, Constantine Brancovano, in Wallachia, and Demetrius Cantemir in Moldavia, both of whom had been appointed in the usual manner under the suzerainty of the Porte; but these princes, independently of each other, had entered into negotiations with Peter the Great after the defeat of Charles XII. at Pultawa (1709), to assist them against the Sultan, their suzerain, stipulating for their own independence under the protection of the Czar." Peter was induced to enter the country with a considerable army [1711], but soon found himself in a position from which there appeared little chance of escape. He was extricated only by the cleverness of the Czarina, who bribed the Turkish commander with her jewels.

The Moldavian Voivode escaped with the Russians. The Wallachian, Brancovano, was seized, taken to Constantinople, and put to death, along with his four sons. "Stephen Cantacuzene, the son of his accusers, was made Voivode of Wallachia, but like his predecessors he only enjoyed the honour for a brief term, and two years afterwards he was deposed, ordered to Constantinople, imprisoned, and decapitated; and with him terminated the rule of the native princes, who were followed, both in Wallachia and Moldavia, by the so-called Phanariote governors [see PHANARIOTES] or farmers-general of the Porte."

   "The people that inhabit the two territories known on the map
   as Servia and Montenegro are one and the same. If you ask a
   Montenegrin what language he speaks, he replies 'Serb.' The
   last of the Serb Czars fell gloriously fighting at Kossovo in
   1389 [see TURKS: A. D. 1360-1389]. To this day the Montenegrin
   wears a strip of black silk upon his headgear in memory of
   that fatal day. … The brave Serbs who escaped from Kossovo
   found a sanctuary in the mountains that overlook the Bay of
   Cattaro. Their leader, Ivo, surnamed Tsernoi (Black), gave the
   name of Tzrnogora (Montenegro) to these desert rocks. …
   Servia having become a Turkish province, her colonists created
   in Montenegro a new and independent Servia [see TURKS: A. D.
   1451-1481]. The memory of Ivo the Black is still green in the
   country. Springs, ruins, and caverns are called after him,
   and the people look forward to the day when he will reappear
   as a political Messiah. But Ivo's descendants proved unworthy
   of him; they committed the unpardonable sin of marrying
   aliens, and early in the 16th century the last descendant of
   Ivo the Black retired to Venice.
{250}
   From 1516 to 1697 Montenegro
   was ruled by elective Vladikas or Bishops; from 1697 to 1851
   by hereditary Vladikas. For the Montenegrins the 16th, 17th
   and 18th centuries formed a period of incessant warfare. …
   Up till 1703 the Serbs of the mountain were no more absolutely
   independent of the Sultan than their enslaved kinsmen of the
   plain. The Havatch or Sultan's slipper tax was levied on the
   mountaineers. In 1703 Danilo Petrovitch celebrated his
   consecration as a Christian Bishop by ordering the slaughter
   of every Mussulman who refused to be baptised. This massacre
   took place on Christmas Eve 1703. … The 17th and 18th
   centuries were for Montenegro a struggle for existence. In the
   19th century began their struggle for an outlet to the sea.
   The fall of Venice would naturally have given the mountaineers
   the bay of Cattaro, had not the French stepped in and annexed
   Dalmatia." In 1813, the Vladika, Peter I., "with the aid of
   the British fleet … took Cattaro from the French, but
   (pursuant to an arrangement between Russia and Austria) was
   compelled subsequently to relinquish it to the latter power.
   … Peter I. of Montenegro … died in 1830, at the age of 80.
   … His nephew Peter II. was a wise ruler. … On the death of
   Peter II., Prince Danilo, the uncle of the present Prince,
   went to Russia to be consecrated Bishop of Montenegro. The
   czar seems to have laughed him out of this ancient practice;
   and the late Prince instead of converting himself into monk
   and bishop returned to his own country and married [1851]. …
   Prince Danilo was assassinated at Cattaro (1860). … He was
   succeeded by his nephew Nicholas."

      J. G. C. Minchin,
      Servia and Montenegro
      (National Life and Thought, lecture 19).

"The present form of government in Montenegro is at once the most despotic and the most popular in Europe—despotic, because the will of the Prince is the law of the land; and popular, because the personal rule of the Prince meets all the wants and wishes of the people. No Sovereign in Europe sits so firmly on his throne as the Prince of this little State, and no Sovereign is so absolute. The Montenegrins have no army; they are themselves a standing army."

      A. A. Paton,
      Researches on the Danube and the Adriatic,
      book 2, chapter 7 (volume 1).

"Montenegro is an extremely curious instance of the way in which favourable geographical conditions may aid a small people to achieve a fame and a place in the world quite out of proportion to their numbers. The Black Mountain is the one place where a South Sclavonic community maintained themselves in independence, sometimes seeing their territory overrun by the Turks, but never acknowledging Turkish authority de jure from the time of the Turkish Conquest of the 15th century down to the Treaty of Berlin. Montenegro could not have done that but for her geographical structure. She is a high mass of limestone; you cannot call it a plateau, because it is seamed by many valleys, and rises into many sharp mountain-peaks. Still, it is a mountain mass, the average height of which is rather more than 2,000 feet above the sea, with summits reaching 5,000. It is bare limestone, so that there is hardly anything grown on it, only grass—and very good grass—in spots, with little patches of corn and potatoes, and it has scarcely any water. Its upland is covered with snow in winter, while in summer the invaders have to carry their water with them, a serious difficulty when there were no roads, and active mountaineers fired from behind every rock, a difficulty which becomes more serious the larger the invading force. Consequently it is one of the most impracticable regions imaginable for an invading army. It is owing to those circumstances that this handful of people—because the Montenegrins of the 17th century did not number more than 40,000 or 50,000—have maintained their independence. That they did maintain it is a fact most important in the history of the Balkan Peninsula, and may have great consequences yet to come."

      J. Bryce,
      Relations of History and Geography
      (Contemporary Review, March, 1886).

BALKAN: 14th-19th Centuries.—(Servia):
   The long oppression of the Turk.
   Struggle for freedom under Kara Georg and Milosch.
   Independence achieved.
   The Obrenovitch dynasty.

"The brilliant victories of Stephan Dushan were a misfortune to Christendom. They shattered the Greek empire, the last feeble bulwark of Europe, and paved the way for those ultimate successes of the Asiatic conquerors which a timely union of strength might have prevented. Stephan Dushan conquered, but did not consolidate: and his scourging wars were insufficiently balanced by the advantage of the code of laws to which he gave his·name. His son Urosh, being a weak and incapable prince, was murdered by one of the generals of the army, and thus ended the Neman dynasty, after having subsisted 212 years, and produced eight kings and two emperors. The crown now devolved on Knes, or Prince Lasar; a connexion of the house of Neman. … Of all the ancient rulers of the country, his memory is held the dearest by the Servians of the present day." Knes Lasar perished in the fatal battle of Kossovo, and with him fell the Servian monarchy.

"The Turkish conquest was followed by the gradual dispersion or disappearance of the native nobility of Servia, the last of whom, the Brankovitch, lived as despots' in the castle of Semendria up to the beginning of the 18th century. … The period preceding the second siege of Vienna was the spring-tide of Islam conquest. After this event, in 1684, began the ebb. Hungary was lost to the Porte, and six years afterwards 37,000 Servian families emigrated into that kingdom; this first led the way to contact with the civilization of Germany. … Servia Proper, for a short time wrested from the Porte by the victories of Prince Eugene, again became a part of the dominions of the Sultan."

"But a turbulent militia overawed the government and tyrannized over the Rayahs. Pasvan Oglou and his bands at Widdin were, at the end of the last century, in open revolt against the Porte. Other chiefs had followed his example; and for the first time the Divan thought of associating Christian Rayahs with the spahis, to put down these rebels. The Dahis, as these brigand-chiefs were called, resolved to anticipate the approaching struggle by a massacre of the most influential Christians. This atrocious massacre was carried out with indescribable horrors. … Kara Georg [Black George], a peasant, born at Topola about the year 1767, getting timely information that his name was in the list of the doomed, fled into the woods, and gradually organized a formidable force. In the name of the Porte he combated the Dahis, who had usurped local authority in defiance of the Pasha of Belgrade. The Divan, little anticipating the ultimate issue of the struggle in Servia, was at first delighted at the success of Kara Georg; but soon saw with consternation that the rising of the Servian peasants grew into a formidable rebellion, and ordered the Pashas of Bosnia and Scodra to assemble all their disposable forces and invade Servia. Between 40,000 and 50,000 Bosniacs burst into Servia on the west, in the spring of 1806, cutting to pieces all who refused to receive Turkish authority. Kara Georg undauntedly met the storm," defeating the Turkish forces near Tchoupria, September, 1804, and more severely two years later (August, 1806) at Shabatz. In December of the same year he surprised and took Belgrade. "The succeeding years were passed in the vicissitudes of a guerilla warfare, neither party obtaining any marked success; and an auxiliary corps of Russians assisted in preventing the Turks from making the re-conquest of Servia. … Kara Georg was now a Russian lieutenant-general, and exercised an almost unlimited power in Servia; the revolution, after a struggle of eight years, appeared to be successful, but the momentous events then passing in Europe completely altered the aspect of affairs. Russia, in 1812, on the approach of the countless legions of Napoleon, precipitately concluded the treaty of Bucharest, the eighth article of which formally assured a separate administration to the Servians. Next year, however, was fatal to Kara Georg. In 1813, the vigour of the Ottoman empire … was now concentrated on the resubjugation of Servia. A general panic seemed to seize the nation; and Kara Georg and his companions in arms sought a retreat on the Austrian territory, and thence passed into Wallachia. In 1814, 300 Christians were impaled at Belgrade by the Pasha, and every valley in Servia presented the spectacle of infuriated Turkish spahis avenging on the Servians the blood, exile and confiscation of the ten preceding years. At this period, Milosh Obrenovitch appears prominently on the political tapis. He spent his youth in herding the famed swine of Servia; and during the revolution was employed by Kara Georg to watch the passes of the Balkans. … He now saw that a favourable conjuncture had come for his advancement from the position of chieftain to that of chief; he therefore lost no time in making terms with the Turks, offering to collect the tribute, to serve them faithfully, and to aid them in the resubjugation of the people. … He now displayed singular activity in the extirpation of all the other popular chiefs," until he found reason to suspect that the Turks were only using him to destroy him in the end. Then, in 1815, he turned upon them and raised the standard of revolt. The movement which he headed was so formidable that the Porte made haste to treat, and Milosch made favourable terms for himself, being reinstated as tribute-collector. "Many of the chiefs, impatient at the speedy submission of Milosh, wished to fight the matter out, and Kara Georg, in order to give effect to their plans, landed in Servia. Milosh pretended to be friendly to his designs, but secretly betrayed his place of concealment to the governor, whose men broke into the cottage where he slept, and put him to death."

"In 1817 Milosch was proclaimed hereditary Prince of Servia by the National Assembly. … In 1830 the autonomy of Servia was at length solemnly recognized by the Porte, and Milosch proclaimed 'the father of the Fatherland.' … If asked why the descendants of Milosch still rule over Servia, and not the descendants of Kara George, my answer is that every step in Servian progress is connected with the Obrenovitch dynasty. The liberation of the country, the creation of a peasant proprietary, the final withdrawal of the Turkish troops from Belgrade in 1862, the independence of the country, the extension of its territory, and the making of its railways,—all of these are among the results of Obrenovitch rule. The founder of the dynasty had in 1830 a great opportunity of making his people free as well as independent. But Milosch had lived too long with Turks to be a lover of freedom. … In 1839 Milosch abdicated. The reason for this step was that he refused to accept a constitution which Russia and Turkey concocted for him. This charter vested the actual government of the country in a Senate composed of Milosch's rivals, and entirely independent of that Prince. … It was anti-democratic, no less than anti-dynastic. Milosch was succeeded first by his son Milan, and on Milan's death by Michael. Michael was too gentle for the troubled times in which he lived, and after a two years's reign he too started upon his travels. … When Michael crossed the Save, Alexander Kara Georgevitch was elected Prince of Servia. From 1842 to 1858 the son of Black George lived—he can scarcely be said to have reigned—in Belgrade. During these 17 years this feeble son of a strong man did absolutely nothing for his country. … Late in 1858 he fled from Servia, and Milosch ruled in his stead. Milosch is the Grand Old Man of Serb history. His mere presence in Servia checked the intrigues of foreign powers. He died peacefully in his bed. … Michael succeeded his father. … Prince Michael was murdered by convicts in the park at Topschidera near Belgrade." He "was succeeded (1868) by Milan, the grandson of Zephrem, the brother of Milosch. As Milan was barely fourteen years of age, a Regency of three was appointed."

J. G. C. Minchin, Servia and Montenegro (National Life and Thought, lecture 19).

BALKAN: A. D. 1739 (Bosnia and Roumania).
Entire restoration of Bosnia to the Turks, and Cession of
Austrian Wallachia.

BALKAN: 19th Century (Roumania and Servia).
Awakening of a National Spirit.
The effect of historical teaching.

"No political fact is of more importance and interest in modern continental history than the tenacity with which the smaller nations of Europe preserve their pride of nationality in the face of the growing tendency towards the formation of large, strongly concentrated empires, supported by powerful armies. Why should Portugal utterly refuse to unite with Spain? Why do Holland and Belgium cling to their existence as separate States, in spite of all the efforts of statesmen to join them? Why do the people of Bohemia and Croatia, of Finland, and of Poland, refuse to coalesce with the rest of the population of the empires of which they form but small sections? Why, finally, do the new kingdoms of Roumania and Servia show such astonishing vitality? The arguments as to distinctive race or' distinctive language fail to answer all these questions. … This rekindling of the national spirit is the result chiefly of the development of the new historical school all over the Continent. Instead of remaining in ignorance of their past history, or, at best, regarding a mass of legends as containing the true tale of their countries' achievements, these small nations have now learnt from the works of their great historians what the story of their fatherlands really is, and what title they have to be proud of their ancestors. These great historians—Herculano, Palacky, Széchenyi, and the rest—who made it their aim to tell the truth and not to show off the beauties of a fine literary style, all belonged to the generation which had its interest aroused in the history of the past by the novels of Sir Walter Scott and the productions of the Romantic School, and they all learnt how history was to be studied, and then written, from Niebuhr, Von Ranke and their disciples and followers. From these masters they learnt that their histories were not to be made interesting at the expense of truth. … The vitality of the new historical school in Roumania is particularly remarkable, for in the Danubian provinces, which form that kingdom, even more strenuous efforts had been made to stamp out the national spirit than in Bohemia. The extraordinary rapidity with which the Roumanian people has reasserted itself in recent years, is one of the most remarkable facts in modern European history, and it is largely due to the labours of its historians. Up till 1822 the Roumanian language was vigorously proscribed; the rulers of the Danubian provinces permitted instruction to the upper classes in the language of the rulers only, and while Slavonic, and in the days of the Phanariots Greek, was the official and fashionable language, used in educating the nobility and bourgeois, the peasants were left in ignorance. Four men, whose names deserve record, first endeavoured to raise the Roumanian language to a literary level, and not only studied Roumanian history, but tried to teach the Roumanian people something of their own early history. Of these four, George Schinkaï was by far the most remarkable. He was an inhabitant of Transylvania, a Roumanian province which still remains subject to Hungary, and he first thought of trying to revive the Roumanian nationality by teaching the people their history. He arranged the annals of his country from A. D. 86 to A. D. 1739 with indefatigable labour, during the last half of the 18th century, and, according to Edgar Quinet, in such a truly modern manner, after such careful weighing of original authorities, and with such critical power, that he deserves to be ranked with the creators of the modern historical school. It need hardly be said that Schinkaï's History was not allowed to be printed by the Hungarian authorities, who had no desire to see the Roumanian nationality re-assert itself, and the censor marked on it 'opus igne, auctor patibulo dignus.' It was not published until 1853, more than forty years after its completion, and then only at Jassy, for the Hungarians still proscribed it in Transylvania. Schinkaï's friend, Peter Major, was more fortunate in his work, a 'History of the Origin of the Roumanians in Dacia,' which, as it did not touch on modern society, was passed by the Hungarian censorship, and printed at Buda Pesth in 1813. The two men who first taught Roumanian history in the provinces which now form the kingdom of Roumania were not such learned men as Schinkaï and Peter Major, but their work was of more practical importance. In 1813 George Asaky got leave to open a Roumanian class at the Greek Academy of Jassy, under the pretext that it was necessary to teach surveying in the Roumanian tongue, because of the questions which constantly arose in that profession, in which it would be necessary to speak to the peasants in their own language, and in his lectures he carefully inserted lessons in Roumanian history, and tried to arouse the spirit of the people. George Lazarus imitated him at Bucharest in 1816, and the fruit of this instruction was seen when the Roumanians partially regained their freedom. The Moldo-Wallachian princes encouraged the teaching of Roumanian history, as they encouraged the growth of the spirit of Roumanian independence, and when the Roumanian Academy was founded, an historical section was formed with the special mission of studying and publishing documents connected with Roumanian history. The modern scientific spirit has spread widely throughout the kingdom."

      H. Morse Stephens,
      Modern Historians and Small Nationalities
      (Contemporary Review, July, 1887).

BALKAN: A. D. 1829 (Roumania, or Wallachia and Moldavia).
   Important provisions of the Treaty of Adrianople.
   Life Election of the Hospodars.
   Substantial independence of the Turk.

BALKAN: A. D. 1856 (Roumania, or Wallachia and Moldavia).
Privileges guaranteed by the Treaty of Paris.

BALKAN: A. D. 1858-1866.
   (Roumania or Wallachia and Moldavia).
   Union of the two provinces under one Crown.
   Accession of Prince Charles of Hohenzollern.

BALKAN: A. D. 1875-1878.
   The Breaking of the Turkish yoke.
   Bulgarian atrocities.
   Russo-Turkish War.

In 1875, a revolt broke out in Herzegovina. "The efforts made to suppress the growing revolt strained the already weakened resources of the Porte, until they could bear up against it no longer, and the Herzegovinese rebellion proved the last straw which broke the back of Turkish solvency. … The hopes of the insurgents were of course quickened by this catastrophe, which, as they saw, would alienate much sympathy from the Turks. The advisers of the Sultan, therefore, thought it necessary to be conciliatory, and … they induced him to issue an Iradé, or circular note, promising the remission of taxes, and economical and social reforms. … Europe, however, had grown tired of the Porte's promises of amendment, and for some time the Imperial Powers had been laying their heads together, and the result of their consultations was the Andrassy Note. The date of this document was December 30th, 1875, and it was sent to those of the Western Powers who had signed the treaties of 1856. It declared that although the spirit of the suggested reforms was good, there was some doubt whether the Porte had the strength to carry them out; Count Andrassy, therefore, proposed that the execution of the necessary measures should be placed under the care of a special commission, half the members of which should be Mussulmans and half Christians. … It concluded with a serious warning, that if the war was not gone with the snow, 'the Governments of Servia and Montenegro, which have had great difficulty in keeping aloof from the movement, will be unable to resist the current.' … It was evident, however, that this note would have but little or no effect; it contained no coercive precautions, and accordingly the Porte quietly allowed the question to drop, and contented himself with profuse promises. … So affairs drifted on; the little war continued to sputter on the frontier; reinforced by Servians and Montenegrins, the Herzegovinese succeeded in keeping their enemy at bay, and, instigated, it is said, by Russian emissaries, put forward demands which the Porte was unable to accept. … The Powers, in no wise disconcerted by the failure of their first attempt to settle the difficulties between the Sultan and his rebellious subjects, had published a sequel to the Andrassy Note. There was an informal conference of the three Imperial Chancellors, Prince Bismarck, Prince Gortschakoff, and Count Andrassy, at Berlin, in May. … Then on May 18th the Ambassadors of England, France, and Italy were invited to Prince Bismarck's house, and the text of the famous Berlin Memorandum was laid before them. … While the three Chancellors were forging their diplomatic thunderbolt, a catastrophe of such a terrible nature had occurred in the interior of Turkey that all talk of armistices and mixed commissions had become stale and unprofitable. The Berlin Memorandum was not even presented to the Porte; for a rumour, though carefully suppressed by Turkish officials, was beginning to leak out that there had been an insurrection of the Christian population of Bulgaria, and that the most horrible atrocities had been committed by the Turkish irregular troops in its suppression. It was communicated to Lord Derby by Sir Henry Elliot on the 4th of May. … On June 16th a letter was received from him at the Foreign Office, saying, 'The Bulgarian insurrection appears to be unquestionably put down, although I regret to say, with cruelty, and, in some places, with brutality.' … A week afterwards the Constantinople correspondent of the Daily News … gave the estimates of Bulgarians slain as varying from 18,000 to 30,000, and the number of villages destroyed at about a hundred. … That there was much truth in the statements of the newspaper correspondents was … demonstrated beyond possibility of denial as soon as Sir Henry Elliot's despatches were made public. … 'I am satisfied,' wrote Sir Henry Elliot, 'that, while great atrocities have been committed, both by Turks upon Christians and Christians upon Turks, the former have been by far the greatest, although the Christians were undoubtedly the first to commence them.' … Meanwhile, the Daily News had resolved on sending out a special commissioner to make an investigation independent of official reports. Mr. J. A. MacGahan, an American, who had been one of that journal's correspondents during the Franco-German War, was the person selected. He started in company with Mr. Eugene Schuyler, the great authority on the Central Asian question, who, in the capacity of Consul-General, was about to prepare a similar statement for the Honorable Horace Maynard, the United States Minister at Constantinople. They arrived at Philippopolis on the 25th of July; where Mr. Walter Baring, one of the Secretaries of the British Legation at Constantinople, was already engaged in collecting information. The first of Mr. MacGahan's letters was dated July the 28th, and its publication in this country revived in a moment the half-extinct excitement of the populace. … Perhaps the passage which was most frequently in men's mouths at the time was that in which he described the appearance of the mountain village of Batak. 'We entered the town. On every side were skulls and skeletons charred among the ruins, or lying entire where they fell in their clothing. There were skeletons of girls and women, with long brown hair hanging to their skulls. We approached the church. There these remains were more frequent, until the ground was literally covered by skeletons, skulls, and putrefying bodies in clothing. Between the church and school there were heaps. The stench was fearful. We entered the churchyard. The sight was more dreadful. The whole churchyard, for three feet deep, was festering with dead bodies, partly covered; hands, legs, arms, and heads projecting in ghastly confusion. I saw many little hands, heads, and feet of children three years of age, and girls with heads covered with beautiful hair. The church was still worse. The floor was covered with rotting bodies quite uncovered. I never imagined anything so fearful. … The town had 9,000 inhabitants. There now remain 1,200. Many who had escaped had returned recently, weeping and moaning over their ruined homes. Their sorrowful wailing could be heard half a mile off. Some were digging out the skeletons of loved ones. A woman was sitting moaning over three small skulls, with hair clinging to them, which she had in her lap. The man who did this, Achmed Agra, has been promoted, and is still governor of the district.' An exceeding bitter cry of horror and disgust arose throughout the country on the receipt of this terrible news. Mr. Anderson at once asked for information on the subject, and Mr. Bourke was entrusted with the difficult duty of replying. He could only read a letter from Mr. Baring, in which he said that, as far as he had been able to discover, the proportion of the numbers of the slain was about 12,000 Bulgarians to 500 Turks, and that 60 villages had been wholly or partially burnt. … Mr. Schuyler's opinions were, as might be expected from the circumstance that his investigations had been shorter than those of Mr. Baring, and that he was ignorant of the Turkish language—which is that chiefly spoken in Bulgaria—and was therefore at the mercy of his interpreter, the more highly coloured. He totally rejected Lord Beaconsfield's idea that there had been a civil war, and that cruelties had been committed on both sides. On the contrary he asserted that 'the insurgent villages made little or no resistance. {254} In many cases they surrendered their arms on the first demand. … No Turkish women or children were killed in cold blood. No Mussulman women were, violated. No Mussulmans were tortured. No purely Turkish village was attacked or burnt. No Mosque was desecrated or destroyed. The Bashi-Bazouks, on the other hand, had burnt about 65 villages, and killed at least 15,000 Bulgarians.' The terrible story of the destruction of Batak was told in language of precisely similar import to that of Mr. MacGahan, whose narrative the American Consul had never seen, though there was a slight difference in the numbers of the massacred. 'Of the 8,000 inhabitants,' he said, 'not 2,000 are known to survive'. … Abdul Aziz had let loose the hordes of Bashi-Bazouks on defenceless Bulgaria, but Murad seemed utterly unable to rectify the fatal error; the province fell into a state of complete anarchy. … As Lord Derby remarked, it was impossible to effect much with an imbecile monarch and bankrupt treasury. One thing, at any rate, the Turks were strong enough to do, and that was to defeat the Servians, who declared war on Turkey on July 1st. … Up to the last Prince Milan declared that his intentions were purely pacific; but the increasing troubles of the Porte enabled him, with some small chance of success, to avail himself of the anti-Turkish spirit of his people and to declare war. His example was followed by Prince Nikita of Montenegro, who set out with his brave little army from Cettigne on July 2nd. At first if appeared as if the principalities would have the better of the struggle. The Turkish generals showed their usual dilatoriness in attacking Servia, and Tchernaieff, who was a man of considerable military talent, gave them the good-bye, and cut them off from their base of operations. This success was, however, transitory; Abdul Kerim, the Turkish Commander-in·Chief, drove back the enemy by mere force of numbers, and by the end of the month he was over the border. Meanwhile, the hardy Montenegrins had been considerably more fortunate; but their victories over Mukhtar Pasha were not sufficiently important to effect a diversion. The Servians fell back from all their positions of defence, and on September 1st received a most disastrous beating before the walls of Alexinatz. … On September 16th the Porte agreed to a suspension of hostilities until the 25th. It must be acknowledged that the Servians used this period of grace exceedingly ill. Prince Milan was proclaimed by General Tchernaieff, in his absence and against his will, King of Servia and Bosnia; and though, on the remonstrance of the Powers, he readily consented to waive the obnoxious title, the evil effect of the declaration remained. Lord Derby's proposals for peace, which were made on September 21st, were nevertheless accepted by the Sultan when he saw that unanimity prevailed among the Powers, and he offered in addition to prolong the formal suspension of hostilities to October 2nd. This offer the Servians, relying on the Russian volunteers who were flocking to join Tchernaieff, rejected with some contempt, and hostilities were resumed. They paid dearly for their temerity. Tchernaieff's position before Alexinatz was forced by the Turks after three days' severe fighting; position after position yielded to them; on October 31st Alexinatz was taken, and Deligrad was occupied on November 1st. Nothing remained between the outpost of the crescent and Belgrade, and it seemed as if the new Kingdom of Servia must perish in the throes of its birth." Russia now invoked the intervention of the powers, and brought about a conference at Constantinople, which effected nothing, the Porte rejecting all the proposals submitted. On the 24th of April, 1877, Russia declared war and entered upon a conflict with the Turks, which had for its result the readjustment of affairs in South-eastern Europe by the Congress and Treaty of Berlin.

BALKAN: A. D. 1878.
   Treaty of Berlin.
   Transfer of Bosnia to Austria.
   Independence of Servia, Montenegro and Roumania.
   Division and semi-independence of Bulgaria.

"(1) Bosnia, including Herzegovina, was assigned to Austria for permanent occupation. Thus Turkey lost a great province of nearly 1,250,000 inhabitants. Of these about 500,000 were Christians of the Greek Church, 450,000 were Mohammedans, mainly in the towns, who offered a stout resistance to the Austrian troops, and 200,000 Roman Catholics. By the occupation of the Novi-Bazar district Austria wedged in her forces between Montenegro and Servia, and was also able to keep watch over the turbulent province of Macedonia. (2) Montenegro received less than the San Stefano terms had promised her, but secured the seaports of Antivari and Dulcigno. It needed a demonstration of the European fleets off the latter port, and a threat to seize Smyrna, to make the Turks yield Dulcigno to the Montenegrians (who alone of all the Christian races of the peninsula had never been conquered by the Turks). (3) Servia was proclaimed an independent Principality, and received the district of Old Servia on the upper valley of the Morava. (4) Roumania also gained her independence and ceased to pay any tribute to the Porte, but had to give up to her Russian benefactors the slice acquired from Russia in 1856 between the Pruth and the northern mouth of the Danube. In return for this sacrifice she gained the large but marshy Dobrudscha district from Bulgaria, and so acquired the port of Kustendje on the Black Sea. (5) Bulgaria, which, according to the San Stefano terms, would have been an independent State as large as Roumania, was by the Berlin Treaty subjected to the suzerainty of the sultan, divided into two parts, and confined within much narrower limits. Besides the Dobrudscha, it lost the northern or Bulgarian part of Macedonia, and the Bulgarians who dwelt between the Balkans and Adrianople were separated from their kinsfolk on the north of the Balkans, in a province called Eastern Roumelia, with Philippopolis as capital. The latter province was to remain Turkish, under a Christian governor nominated by the Porte with the consent of the Powers. Turkey was allowed to occupy the passes of the Balkans in time of war."

ALSO IN: E. Hertslet, The Map of Europe by Treaty, volume 4, numbers 518, 524-532.

"During the reaction against Russia which followed the great war of 1878, negotiations were actually set on foot with a view to forming a combination of the Balkan States for the purpose of resisting Russian aggression. … Prince Alexander always favoured the idea of a Balkan Confederation which was to include Turkey; and even listened to proposals on the part of Greece, defining the Bulgarian and Greek spheres of influence in Macedonia. But the revolt of Eastern Roumelia, followed by the Servo-Bulgarian war and the chastisement of Greece by the Powers, provoked so much bitterness of feeling among the rival races that for many years nothing more was heard of a Balkan Confederation. The idea has lately been revived under different auspices and with somewhat different aims. During the past six years the Triple Alliance, with England, has, despite the indifference of Prince Bismarck, protected the Balkan States in general, and Bulgaria in particular from the armed intervention of Russia. It has also acted the part of policeman in preserving the peace throughout the Peninsula, and in deterring the young nations from any dangerous indulgence in their angry passions. The most remarkable feature in the history of this period has been the extraordinary progress made by Bulgaria. Since the revolt of Eastern Roumelia, Bulgaria has been treated by Dame Europa as a naughty child. But the Bulgarians have been shrewd enough to see that the Central Powers and England have an interest in their national independence and consolidation; they have recognised the truth that fortune favours those who help themselves, and they have boldly taken their own course, while carefully avoiding any breach of the proprieties such as might again bring them under the censure of the European Areopagus. They ventured, indeed, to elect a Prince of their own choosing without the sanction of that august conclave; the wiseacres shook their heads, and prophesied that Prince Ferdinand's days in Bulgaria might, perhaps, be as many as Prince Alexander's years. Yet Prince Ferdinand remains on the throne, and is now engaged in celebrating the fourth anniversary of his accession; the internal development of the country proceeds apace, and the progress of the Bulgarian sentiment outside the country—in other words, the Macedonian propaganda—is not a whit behind. The Bulgarians have made their greatest strides in Macedonia since the fall of Prince Bismarck, who was always ready to humour Russia at the expense of Bulgaria. … What happened after the great war of 1878? A portion of the Bulgarian race was given a nominal freedom which was never expected to be a reality; Russia pounced on Bessarabia, England on Cyprus, Austria on Bosnia and Herzegovina. France got something elsewhere, but that is another matter. The Bulgarians have never forgiven Lord Beaconsfield for the division of their race, and I have seen some bitter poems upon the great Israelite in the Bulgarian tongue which many Englishmen would not care to hear translated. The Greeks have hated us since our occupation of Cyprus, and firmly believe that we mean to take Crete as well. The Servians have not forgotten how Russia, after instigating them to two disastrous wars, dealt with their claims at San Stefano; they cannot forgive Austria for her occupation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and every Servian peasant, as he pays his heavy taxes, or reluctantly gives a big price for some worthless imported article, feels the galling yoke of her fiscal and commercial tyranny. Need it be said how outraged Bulgaria scowls at Russia, or how Roumania, who won Plevna for her heartless ally, weeps for her Bessarabian children, and will not be comforted? It is evident that the Balkan peoples have no reason to expect much benefit from the next great war, from the European Conference which will follow it, or from the sympathy of the Christian Powers. … What, then, do the authors of the proposed Confederation suggest as its ultimate aim and object? The Balkan States are to act independently of the foreign Powers, and in concert with one another. The Sick Man's inheritance lies before them, and they are to take it when an opportunity presents itself. They must not wait for the great Armageddon, for then all may be lost. If the Central Powers come victorious out of the conflict, Austria, it is believed, will go to Salonika; if Russia conquers, she will plant her standard at Stamboul, and practically annex the Peninsula. In either ease the hopes of the young nations will be destroyed forever. It is, therefore, sought to extricate a portion at least of the Eastern Question from the tangled web of European politics, to isolate it, to deal with it as a matter which solely concerns the Sick Man and his immediate successors. It is hoped that the Sick Man may be induced by the determined attitude of his expectant heirs to make over to them their several portions in his lifetime; should he refuse, they must act in concert, and provide euthanasia for the moribund owner of Macedonia, Crete, and Thrace. In other words, it is believed that the Balkan States, if once they could come to an understanding as regards their claims to what is left of the Ottoman Empire in Europe, might conjointly, and without the aid of any foreign Power, bring such pressure to bear upon Turkey as to induce her to surrender peaceably her European possessions, and to content herself henceforth with the position of an Asiatic Power."

      J. D. Bourchier,
      A Balkan Confederation
      (Fortnightly Review, September, 1891).

BALKAN: A. D. 1878-1886 (Bulgaria):
   Reunion of the two Bulgarias.
   Hostility of Russia.
   Victorious war with Servia.
   Abduction and abdication of Prince Alexander.

"The Berlin Treaty, by cutting Bulgaria into three pieces, contrary to the desire of her inhabitants, and with utter disregard of both geographical and ethnical fitness, had prepared the ground from which a crop of never-ending agitation was inevitably bound to spring—a crop which the Treaty of San Stefano would have ended in preventing. On either side of the Balkans, both in Bulgaria and in Roumelia, the same desire for union existed. Both parties were agreed as to this, and only differed as to the means by which the end should be attained. The Liberals were of opinion that the course of events ought to be awaited; the unionists, on the other hand, maintained that they should be challenged. It was a few individuals belonging to the latter party and acting with M. Karaveloff, the head of the Bulgarian Cabinet, who prepared and successfully carried out the revolution of September 18, 1885. So unanimously was this movement supported by the whole population, including even the Mussulmans, that it was accomplished and the union proclaimed without the least resistance being encountered, and without the shedding of one drop of blood! {256} Prince Alexander was in no way made aware of what was in preparation; but he knew very well that it would be his duty to place himself at the head of any national movement, and in a proclamation dated the 19th of September, and addressed from Tirnova, the ancient capital, he recommended union and assumed the title of Prince of North and South Bulgaria. The Porte protested in a circular, dated the 23rd of September, and called upon the Powers who had signed the Treaty of Berlin, to enforce the observance of its stipulations. On the 13th of October, the Powers collectively declare 'that they condemn this violation of the Treaty, and are sure that the Sultan will do all that he can, consistently with his sovereign rights, before resorting to the force which he has at his disposal.' From the moment when there was opposition to the use of force, which even the Porte did not seem in a hurry to employ, the union of the two Bulgarias necessarily became an accomplished fact. … Whilst England and Austria both accepted the union of the two Bulgarias as being rendered necessary by the position of affairs, whilst even the Porte (although protesting) was resigned, the Emperor of Russia displayed a passionate hostility to it, not at all in accord with the feelings of the Russian nation. … In Russia they had reckoned upon all the liberties guaranteed by the Constitution of Tirnova becoming so many causes of disorder and anarchy, instead of which the Bulgarians were growing accustomed to freedom. Schools were being endowed, the country was progressing in every way, and thus the Bulgarians were becoming less and less fitted for transformation into Russian subjects. Their lot was a preferable one, by far, to that of the people of Russia—henceforth they would refuse to accept the Russian yoke! … If, then, Russia wanted to maintain her high-handed policy in Bulgaria, she must oppose the union and hinder the consolidation of Bulgarian nationality by every means in her power; this she has done without scruple of any sort or kind, as will be shown by a brief epitome of what has happened recently. Servia, hoping to extend her territory in the direction of Tru and Widdin, and, pleading regard for the Treaty of Berlin and the theory of the balance of power, attacks Bulgaria. On November 14th [17th to 19th?] 1885, Prince Alexander defends the Slivnitza positions [in a three days' battle] with admirable courage and strategic skill. The Roumelian militia, coming in by forced marches of unheard-of length, perform prodigies of valour in the field. Within eight days, i. e., from the 20th to the 28th of November, the Servian army, far greater in numbers, is driven back into its own territory; the Dragoman Pass is crossed; Pirot is taken by assault; and Prince Alexander is marching on Nisch, when his victorious progress is arrested by the Austrian Minister, under threats of an armed intervention on the part of that country! On December 21st, an armistice is concluded, afterwards made into a treaty of pence, and signed at Bucharest on March 3rd by M. Miyatovitch on behalf of Servia, by M. Guechoff on behalf of Bulgaria, and by Madgid Pascha for the Sultan. Prince Alexander did all he could to bring about a reconciliation with the Czar and even went so far as to attribute to Russian instructors all the merit of the victories he had just won. The Czar would not yield. Then the Prince turned to the Sultan, and with him succeeded in coming to a direct understanding. The Prince was to be nominated Governor-General of Roumelia; a mixed Commission was to meet and modify the Roumelian statutes; more than this, the Porte was bound to place troops at his disposal in the event of his being attacked, … From that date the Czar swore that he would cause Prince Alexander's downfall. It was said that Prince Alexander of Battenberg had changed into a sword the sceptre which Russia had given him and was going to turn it against his benefactor. Nothing could be more untrue. Up to the very last moment, he did everything he could to disarm the anger of the Czar, but what was wanted from him was this—that he should make Bulgaria an obedient satellite of Russia, and rather than consent to do so he left Sofia. The story of the Prince's dethronement by Russian influence, or, as Lord Salisbury said, by Russian gold, is well known. A handful of malcontent officers, a few cadets of the École Militaire, and some of Zankoff's adherents, banding themselves together, broke into the palace during the night of the 21st of August, seized the Prince, and had him carried off, without escort, to Rahova on the Danube, from thence to Reni in Bessarabia, where he was handed over to the Russians! The conspirators endeavoured to form a government, but the whole country rose against them, in spite of the support openly given them by M. Bogdanoff the Russian diplomatic agent. On the 3rd of September, a few days after these occurrences, Prince Alexander returned to his capital, welcomed home by the acclamations of the whole people; but in answer to a respectful, not to say too humble, telegram in which he offered to replace his Crown in the hands of the Czar, that potentate replied that he ceased to have any relations with Bulgaria as long as Prince Alexander remained there. Owing to advice which came, no doubt, from Berlin, Prince Alexander decided to abdicate; he did so because of the demands of the Czar and in the interests of Bulgaria."

BALKAN: A. D. 1879-1889 (Servia).
Quarrels and divorce of King Milan and Queen Natalia.
Abdication of the King.

   "In October, 1875. … Milan, then but twenty-one years old,
   married Natalia Kechko, herself but sixteen. The present Queen
   was the daughter of a Russian officer and of the Princess
   Pulckerie Stourdza. She, as little as her husband, had been
   born with a likelihood to sit upon the throne, and a quiet
   burgher education had been hers at Odessa. But even here her
   great beauty attracted notice, as also her abilities, her
   ambition and her wealth. … At first all went well, to
   outward appearance at least, for Milan was deeply enamoured of
   his beautiful wife, who soon became the idol of the Servians,
   on account of her beauty and her amiability. This affection
   was but increased when, a year after her marriage, she
   presented her subjects with an heir. But from that hour the
   domestic discord began. The Queen had been ill long and
   seriously after her boy's birth; Milan had sought distractions
   elsewhere. Scenes of jealousy and recrimination grew frequent.
{257}
   Further, Servia was then passing through a
   difficult political crisis: the Turkish war was in full swing.
   Milan, little beloved ever since he began to reign, brought
   home no wreaths from this conflict, although his subjects
   distinguished themselves by their valour. Then followed in
   1882 the raising of the principality into a kingdom—a fact
   which left the Servians very indifferent, and in which they
   merely beheld the prospect of increased taxes, a prevision
   that was realized. As time went on, and troubles increased,
   King Milan became somewhat of a despot, who was sustained
   solely by the army, itself undermined by factious intrigues.
   Meantime the Queen, now grown somewhat callous to her
   husband's infidelities, aspired to comfort herself by assuming
   a political role, for which she believed herself to have great
   aptitude. … As she could not influence the decisions of the
   Prince, the lady entered into opposition to him, and made it
   her aim to oppose all his projects. The quarrel spread
   throughout the entire Palace, and two inimical factions were
   formed, that of the King and that of the Queen. … Meantime
   Milan got deeper and deeper into debt, so that after a time he
   had almost mortgaged his territory. … While the husband and
   wife were thus quarrelling and going their own ways, grave
   events were maturing in neighbouring Bulgaria. The coup d'état
   of Fillippopoli, which annexed Eastern Roumelia to the
   principality, enlarged it in such wise that Servia henceforth
   had to cut a sorry figure in the Balkans. Milan roused
   himself, or pretended to rouse himself, and war was declared
   against Bulgaria. … There followed the crushing defeat of
   Slivnitza, in which Prince Alexander of Battenberg carried off
   such laurels, and the Servians had to beat a disgraceful and
   precipitate retreat. Far from proving himself the hero
   Nathalie had dreamed, Milan … telegraphed to the Queen,
   busied with tending the wounded, that he intended to abdicate
   forthwith. This cowardly conduct gave the death blow to any
   feeling the Queen might have retained for the King. Henceforth
   she despised him, and took no pains to hide the fact. … In
   1887 the pair parted without outward scandals, the Queen
   taking with her the Crown Prince. … Florence was the goal of
   the Queen's wanderings, and here she spent a quiet winter. …
   The winter ended, Nathalie desired to return to Belgrade.
   Milan would not hear of it. … The Queen went to Wiesbaden in
   consequence. While residing there Milan professed to be
   suddenly taken with a paternal craving to see his son. … And
   to the shame of the German Government, be it said, they lent
   their hand to abducting an only child from his mother. …
   Before ever the excitement about this act could subside in
   Europe, Milan … petitioned the Servian Synod for a divorce,
   on the ground of 'irreconcilable mutual antipathy.' Neither by
   canonical or civil law was this possible, and the Queen
   refused her consent. … Nor could the divorce have been
   obtained but for the servile complaisance of the Servian
   Metropolitan Theodore. … Quick vengeance, however, was in
   store for Milan. The international affairs of Servia had grown
   more and more disturbed. … The King, perplexed, afraid,
   storm-tossed between divided counsels, highly irritable, and
   deeply impressed by Rudolph of Hapsburg's recent suicide,
   suddenly announced his intention to abdicate in favour of his
   son. … Without regret his people saw depart from among them
   a man who at thirty-five years of age was already decrepit,
   and who had not the pluck or ambition to try and overcome a
   difficult political crisis. … After kneeling down before his
   son and swearing fidelity to him as a subject (March, 1889),
   Milan betook himself off to tour through Europe … leaving
   the little boy and his guardians to extricate themselves. …
   'Now I can see mamma again,' were the first words of the boy
   King on hearing of his elevation. … Three Regents are
   appointed to aid the King during his minority."

From his conquest of the region beyond the Oxus, Jingis Khan moved southward with his vast horde of Mongols, in pursuit of the fugitive Khahrezmian prince, in 1220 or 1221, and invested the great city of Balkh,—which is thought in the east to be the oldest city of the world, and which may not impossibly have been one of the capitals of the primitive Aryan race. "Some idea of its extent and riches [at that time] may possibly be formed from the statement that it contained 1,200 large mosques, without including chapels, and 200 public baths for the use of foreign merchants and travellers—though it has been suggested that the more correct reading would be 200 mosques and 1,200 baths. Anxious to avert the horrors of storm and pillage, the citizens at once offered to capitulate; but Chinghiz, distrusting the sincerity of their submission so long as Sultan Mohammed Shah was yet alive, preferred to carry the place by force of arms—an achievement of no great difficulty. A horrible butchery ensued, and the 'Tabernacle of Islam'—as the pious town was called—was razed to the ground. In the words of the Persian poet, quoted by Major Price, 'The noble city he laid as smooth as the palm of his hand—its spacious and lofty structures he levelled in the dust.'"

BALMACEDA'S DICTATORSHIP.

BALNEÆ.

SEE THERMÆ.

BALTHI, OR BALTHINGS.

"The rulers of the Visigoths, though they, like the Amal kings of the Ostrogoths, had a great house, the Balthi, sprung from the seed of gods, did not at this time [when driven across the Danube by the Huns] bear the title of King, but contented themselves with some humbler designation, which the Latin historians translated into Judex (Judge)."

BALTIMORE: A. D. 1860.
The Douglas Democratic and Constitutional Union Conventions.

BALTIMORE: A. D. 1861 (April).
The city controlled by the Secessionists.
The Attack on the Sixth Massachusetts Regiment.

BALUCHISTAN.

BAN. BANAT.

"Ban is Duke (Dux), and Banat is Duchy. The territory [Hungarian] east of the Carpathians is the Banat of Severin, and that of the west the Banat of Temesvar. … The Banat is the cornucopia, not only of Hungary, but of the whole Austrian Empire."

Among the Croats, "after the king, the most important officers of the state were the bans. At first there was but one ban, who was a kind of lieutenant-general; but later on there were seven of them, each known by the name of the province he governed, as the ban of Sirmia, ban of Dalmatia, etc. To this day the royal lieutenant of Croatia (or 'governor-general,' if that title be preferred) is called the ban."

Sometimes called the "Battle of Edgecote"; fought July 26, 1469, and with success, by a body of Lancastrian insurgents, in the English "Wars of the Roses," against the forces of the Yorkist King, Edward IV. The latter were routed and most of their leaders' taken and beheaded.

Signifying the "Eastern Border"; a name applied originally by the Spaniards to the country on the eastern side of Rio de La Plata which afterwards took the name of Uruguay.

BANK OF ST. GEORGE.

BANK OF THE UNITED STATES.

BANKS OF AMSTERDAM, ENGLAND AND FRANCE.

The Bank of Amsterdam was founded in 1609, and replaced, after 1814. by the Netherland Bank. The Bank of England was founded in 1694 by William Patterson, a Scotchman; and that of France by John Law, in 1716. The latter collapsed with the Mississippi scheme and was revived in 1776.

BAPTISTS.

"The barathrum, or 'pit of punishment' at Athens, was a deep hole like a well into which criminals were precipitated. Iron hooks were inserted in the sides; which tore the body in pieces as it fell. It corresponded to the Ceadas of the Lacedæmonians."

BARBARIANS.

BARBARY STATES.

BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1505-1510.
   Spanish conquests on the coast.
   Oran.
   Bugia.
   Algiers.
   Tripoli.

In 1505, a Spanish expedition planned and urged by Cardinal Ximenes, captured Mazarquiver, an "important port, and formidable nest of pirates, on the Barbary coast, nearly opposite Carthagena." In 1509, the same energetic prelate led personally an expedition of 4,000 horse and 10,000 foot, with a fleet of 10 galleys and 80 smaller vessels, for the conquest of Oran. "This place, situated about a league from the former, was one of the most considerable of the Moslem possessions in the Mediterranean, being a principal mart for the trade of the Levant," and maintained a swarm of cruisers, which swept the Mediterranean "and made fearful depredations on its populous borders." Oran was taken by storm. "No mercy was shown; no respect for age or sex; and the soldiery abandoned themselves to all the brutal license and ferocity which seem to stain religious wars above every other. … No less than 4,000 Moors were said to have fallen in the battle, and from 5,000 to 8,000 were made prisoners. The loss of the Christians was inconsiderable." Recalled to Spain by King Ferdinand, Ximenes left the army in Africa under the command of Count Pedro Navarro. Navarro's "first enterprise was against Bugia (January 13th, 1510), whose king, at the head of a powerful army, he routed in two pitched battles, and got possession of his flourishing capital (January 31st). Algiers, Teunis, Tremecin, and other cities on the Barbary coast, submitted one after another to the Spanish arms. The inhabitants were received as vassals of the Catholic king. … They guaranteed, moreover, the liberation of all Christian captives in their dominions; for which the Algerines, however, took care to indemnify themselves, by extorting the full ransom from their Jewish residents. …On the 26th of July, 1510, the ancient city of Tripoli, after a most bloody and desperate defence, surrendered to the arms of the victorious general, whose name had now become terrible along the whole northern borders of Africa. In the following month, however (Aug. 28th), he met with a serious discomfiture in the island of Gelves, where 4,000 of his men were slain or made prisoners. This check in the brilliant career of Count Navarro put a final stop to the progress of the Castilian arms in Africa under Ferdinand. The results obtained, however, were of great importance. … Most of the new conquests escaped from the Spanish crown in later times, through the imbecility or indolence of Ferdinand's successors. The conquests of Ximenes, however, were placed in so strong a posture of defence as to resist every attempt for their recovery by the enemy, and to remain permanently incorporated with the Spanish empire."

W. H. Prescott, History of the Reign of Ferdinand and Isabella, chapter 21 (volume 3).

BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1516-1535.
   Piratical dominion of the Barbarossas in Algiers.
   Establishment of Turkish sovereignty.
   Seizure of Tunis by the Corsairs and its conquest by Charles V.

"About the beginning of the 16th century, a sudden revolution happened, which, by rendering the states of Barbary formidable to the Europeans, hath made their history worthy of more attention. This revolution was brought about by persons born in a rank of life which entitled them to act no such illustrious part. Hornc and Hayradin, the sons of a potter in the isle of Lisbos, prompted by a restless and enterprising spirit, forsook their father's trade, ran to sea, and joined a crew of pirates. They soon distinguished themselves by their valor and activity, and, becoming masters of a small brigantine, carried on their infamous trade with such conduct and success that they assembled a fleet of 12 galleys, besides many vessels of smaller force. Of this fleet Hornc, the elder brother, called Barbarossa from the red color of his beard, was admiral, and Hayradin second in command, but with almost equal authority. They called themselves the friends of the sea, and the enemies of all who sail upon it; and their names soon became terrible from the Straits of the Dardanelles to those of Gibraltar. … They often carried the prizes which they took on the coasts of Spain and Italy into the ports of Barbary, and, enriching the inhabitants by the sale of their booty, and the thoughtless prodigality of their crews, were welcome guests in every place at which they touched. The convenient situation of these harbours, lying so near the greatest commercial states at that time in Christendom, made the brothers wish for an establishment in that country. An opportunity of accomplishing this quickly presented itself [1516], which they did not suffer to pass unimproved." Invited by Entemi, king of Algiers, to assist him in taking a Spanish fort which had been built in his neighbourhood, Barbarossa was able to murder his too confiding employer, master the Algerine kingdom and usurp its crown. "Not satisfied with the throne which he had acquired, he attacked the neighbouring king of Tremecen, and, having vanquished him in battle, added his dominions to those of Algiers. At the same time, he continued to infest the coasts of Spain and Italy with fleets which resembled the armaments of a great monarch, rather than the light squadrons of a corsair. Their frequent cruel devastations obliged Charles [the Fifth—the great Emperor and King of Spain: 1519-1555], about the beginning of his reign, to furnish the Marquis de Comares, governor of Oran, with troops sufficient to attack him." Barbarossa was defeated in the ensuing war, driven from Tremecen, and slain [1518]. "His brother Hayradin, known likewise by the name of Barbarossa, assumed the sceptre of Algiers with the same ambition and abilities, but with better fortune. His reign being undisturbed by the arms of the Spaniards, which had full occupation in the wars among the European powers, he regulated with admirable prudence the interior police of his kingdom, carried on his naval operations with great vigour, and extended his conquests on the continent of Africa. But perceiving that the Moors and Arabs submitted to his government with reluctance, and being afraid that his continual depredations would one day draw upon him the arms of the Christians, he put his dominions under the protection of the Grand Seignior [1519], and received from him [with the title of Bey, or Beylerbey] a body of Turkish soldiers sufficient for his domestic as well as foreign enemies. At last, the fame of his exploits daily increasing, Solyman offered him the command of the Turkish fleet. … Barbarossa repaired to Constantinople, and … gained the entire confidence both of the sultan and his vizier. To them he communicated a scheme which he had formed of making himself master of Tunis, the most flourishing kingdom at that time on the coast of Africa; and this being approved of by them, he obtained whatever he demanded for carrying it into execution. His hopes of success in this undertaking were founded on the intestine divisions in the kingdom of Tunis." The last king of that country, having 34 sons by different wives, had established one of the younger sons on the throne as his successor. This young king attempted to put all of his brothers to death; but Alraschid, who was one of the eldest, escaped and fled to Algiers. Barbarossa now proposed to the Turkish sultan to attack Tunis on the pretence of vindicating the rights of Alraschid. His proposal was adopted and carried out; but even before the Turkish expedition sailed. {260} Alraschid himself disappeared—a prisoner, shut up in the Seraglio—and was never heard of again. The use of his name, however, enabled Barbarossa to enter Tunis in triumph, and the betrayed inhabitants discovered too late that he came as a viceroy, to make them the subjects of the sultan. "Being now possessed of such extensive territories, he carried on his depredations against the Christian states to a greater extent and with more destructive violence than ever. Daily complaints of the outrages committed by his cruisers were brought to the emperor by his subjects, both in Spain and Italy. All Christendom seemed to expect from him, as its greatest and most fortunate prince, that he would put an end to this new and odious species of oppression. At the same time Muley-Hascen, the exiled king of Tunis, … applied to Charles as the only person who could assert his rights in opposition to such a formidable usurper." The Emperor, accordingly, in 1535, prepared a great expedition against Tunis, drawing men and ships from every part of his wide dominions—from Spain, Italy, Germany and the Netherlands. "On the 16th of July the fleet, consisting of near 500 vessels, having on board above 30,000 regular troops, set sail from Cagliari, and, after a prosperous navigation, landed within sight of Tunis." The fort of Goletta, commanding the bay, was invested and taken; the corsair's fleet surrendered, and Barbarossa, advancing boldly from Tunis to attack the invaders, was overwhelmingly beaten, and fled, abandoning his capital. Charles's soldiers rushed into the unfortunate town, escaping all restraint, and making it a scene of indescribable horrors. "Above 30,000 of the innocent inhabitants perished on that unhappy day, and 10,000 were carried away as slaves. Muley-Hascen took possession of a throne surrounded with carnage, abhorred by his subjects, on whom he had brought such calamities." Before quitting the country, Charles concluded a treaty with Muley-Hascen, under which the latter acknowledged that he held his kingdom in fee of the crown of Spain, doing homage to the Emperor as his liege, and maintaining a Spanish garrison in the Goletta. He also released, without ransom, all the Christian slaves in his dominions, 20,000 in number, and promised to detain in servitude no subject of the Emperor thereafter. He opened his kingdom to the Christian religion, and to free trade, and pledged himself to exclude Turkish corsairs from his ports.

BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1541.
The disastrous expedition of Charles V. against Algiers.

Encouraged, and deceived, by his easy success at Tunis, the emperor, Charles V., determined, in 1541, to undertake the reduction of Algiers, and to wholly exterminate the freebooters of the north African coast. Before his preparations were completed, "the season unfortunately was far advanced, on which account the Pope entreated, and Doria conjured him not to expose his whole armament to a destruction almost unavoidable on a wild shore during the violence of the autumnal gales. Adhering, however, to his plan with determined obstinacy, he embarked at Porto Venere. … The force … which he had collected … consisted of 20,000 foot and 2,000 horse, mostly veterans, together with 3,000 volunteers. … Besides these there had joined his standard 1,000 soldiers sent by the Order of St. John, and led by 100 of its most valiant knights. Landing near Algiers without opposition, Charles immediately advanced towards the town. To oppose the invaders, Hassan had only 800 Turks, and 5,000 Moors, partly natives of Africa, and partly refugees from Spain. When summoned to surrender he, nevertheless, returned a fierce and haughty answer. But with such a handful of troops, neither his desperate courage nor consummate skill in war could have long resisted forces superior to those which had formerly defeated Barbarossa at the head of 60,000 men." He was speedily relieved from danger, however, by an opportune storm, which burst upon the region during the second day after Charles's debarkation. The Spanish camp was flooded; the soldiers drenched, chilled, sleepless and dispirited. In this condition they were attacked by the Moors at dawn, and narrowly escaped a rout. "But all feeling of this disaster was soon obliterated by a more affecting spectacle. As the tempest continued with unabated violence, the full light of day showed the ships, on which alone their safety depended, driving from their anchors, dashing against one another, and many of them forced on the rocks, or sinking in the waters. In less than an hour, 15 ships of war and 140 transports, with 8,000 men, perished before their eyes; and such of the unhappy sailors as escaped the fury of the sea, were murdered by the Arabs as soon as they reached land." With such ships as he could save, Doria sought shelter behind Cape Matafuz, sending a message to the emperor, advising that he follow with the army to that point. Charles could not do otherwise than act according to the suggestion; but his army suffered horribly in the retreat, which occupied three days. "Many perished by famine, as the whole army subsisted chiefly on roots and berries, or on the flesh of horses, killed for that purpose by the emperor's orders; numbers were drowned in the swollen brooks; and not a few were slain by the enemy." Even after the army had regained the fleet, and was reembarked, it was scattered by a second storm, and several weeks passed before the emperor reached his Spanish dominions, a wiser and a sadder man.

      ALSO IN:
      W. Robertson,
      History of the Reign of Charles V.,
      book 6 (volume 2.)

BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1543-1560.
   The pirate Dragut and his exploits.
   Turkish capture of Tripoli.
   Disastrous Christian attempt to recover the place.

Dragut, or Torghūd, a native of the Caramanian coast, opposite the island of Rhodes, began his career as a Mediterranean corsair some time before the last of the Barbarossas quitted the scene and was advanced by the favor of the Algerine. In 1540 he fell into the hands of one of the Dorias and was bound to the oar as a galley-slave for three years,—which did not sweeten his temper toward the Christian world. In 1543 he was ransomed, and resumed his piracies, with more energy than before. "Dragut's lair was at the island of Jerba [called Gelves, by the Spaniards]. … Not content with the rich spoils of Europe, Dragut took the Spanish outposts in Africa, one by one—Susa, Sfax, Monastir; and finally set forth to conquer 'Africa.' {261} It is not uncommon in Arabic to call a country and its capital by the same name. … 'Africa' meant to the Arabs the province of Carthage or Tunis and its capital, which was not at first Tunis but successively Kayrawan and Mahdiya. Throughout the later middle ages the name 'Africa' is applied by Christian writers to the latter city. … This was the city which Dragut took without a blow in the spring of 1550. Mahdiya was then in an anarchic state, ruled by a council of chiefs, each ready to betray the other, and none owing the smallest allegiance to any king, least of all the despised king of Tunis, Hamid, who had deposed and blinded his father, Hasan, Charles V. 's protégé. One of these chiefs let Dragut and his merry men into the city by night. … So easy a triumph roused the emulation of Christendom. … Don Garcia de Toledo dreamed of outshining the Corsair's glory. His father, the Viceroy of Naples, the Pope, and others, promised their aid, and old Andrea Doria took the command. After much delay and consultation a large body of troops was conveyed to Mahdiya and disembarked on June 28, 1550. Dragut, though aware of the project, was at sea, devastating the Gulf of Genoa, and paying himself in advance for any loss the Christians might inflict in Africa: his nephew Hisar Reis commanded in the city. When Dragut returned, the siege had gone on for a month," but he failed in attempting to raise it and retired to Jerba. Mahdiya was carried by assault on the 8th of September. "Next year, 1551, Dragut's place was with the Ottoman navy, then commanded by Sinan Pasha. … With nearly 150 galleys or galleots, 10,000 soldiers, and numerous siege-guns, Sinan and Dragut sailed out of the Dardanelles—whither bound no Christian could tell. They ravaged, as usual, the Straits of Messina, and then revealed the point of attack by making direct for Malta." But the demonstration made against the strong fortifications of the Knights of St. John was ill-planned and feebly executed; it was easily repelled. To wipe out his defeat, Sinan "sailed straight for Tripoli, some 64 leagues away. Tripoli was the natural antidote to Malta: for Tripoli, too, belonged to the Knights of St. John—much against their will—inasmuch as the Emperor had made their defence of this easternmost Barbary state a condition of their tenure of Malta." But the fortifications of Tripoli were not strong enough to resist the Turkish bombardment, and Gaspard de Villiers, the commandant, was forced to surrender (August 15th), "on terms, as he believed, identical with those which Suleyman granted to the Knights of Rhodes. But Sinan was no Suleyman; moreover, he was in a furious rage with the whole Order. He put the garrison—all save a few—in chains and carried them off to grace his triumph at Stambol. Thus did Tripoli fall once more into the hands of the Moslems. … The misfortunes of the Christians did not end here. Year after year the Ottoman fleet appeared in Italian waters. … Unable as they felt themselves to cope with the Turks at sea, the powers of Southern Europe resolved to strike one more blow on land, and recover Tripoli. A fleet of nearly 100 galleys and ships, gathered from Spain, Genoa, 'the Religion,' the Pope, from all quarters, with the Duke de Medina-Celi at their head, assembled at Messina. … Five times the expedition put to sea; five times was it driven back by contrary winds. At last, on February 10, 1560, it was fairly away for the African coast. Here fresh troubles awaited it. Long delays in crowded vessels had produced their disastrous effects: fevers and scurvy and dysentery were working their terrible ravages among the crews, and 2,000 corpses were flung into the sea. It was impossible to lay siege to Tripoli with a diseased army, and when actually in sight of their object the admirals gave orders to return to Jerba. A sudden descent quickly gave them the command of the beautiful island. … In two months a strong castle was built, with all scientific earthworks, and the admiral prepared to carry home such troops as were not needed for its defence. Unhappily for him, he had lingered too long. … He was about to prepare for departure when news came that the Turkish fleet had been seen at Goza. Instantly all was panic. Valiant gentlemen forgot their valour, forgot their coolness. … Before they could make out of the strait … the dread Corsair [Dragut] himself, and Ochiali, and Piali Pasha were upon them. Then ensued a scene of confusion that baffles description. Despairing of weathering the north side of Jerba the panic-stricken Christians ran their ships ashore and deserted them, never stopping even to set them on fire. … On rowed the Turks; galleys and galleons to the number of 56 fell into their hands; 18,000 Christians bowed down before their scimitars; the beach on that memorable 11th of May, 1560, was a confused medley of stranded ships, helpless prisoners, Turks busy in looting men and galleys—and a hideous heap of mangled bodies. The fleet and the army which had sailed from Messina … were absolutely lost."

ALSO IN: W. H. Prescott, History of the Reign of Philip II., book 4, chapter 1.

BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1563-1565.
Repulse of the Moors from Oran and Mazarquiver.
Capture of Penon de Velez.

In the spring of 1563 a most determined and formidable attempt was made by Hassem, the dey of Algiers, to drive the Spaniards from Oran and Mazarquiver, which they had held since the African conquests of Cardinal Ximenes. The siege was fierce and desperate; the defence most heroic. The beleaguered garrisons held their ground until a relieving expedition from Spain came in sight, on the 8th of June, when the Moors retreated hastily. In the summer of the next year the Spaniards took the strong island fortress of Penon de Velez, breaking up one more nest of piracy and strengthening their footing on the Barbary coast. In the course of the year following they blocked the mouth of the river Tetuan, which was a place of refuge for the marauders.

      W. H. Prescott,
      History of the Reign of Philip II.,
      book 4, chapter 1 (volume 2).

BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1565.
Participation in the Turkish Siege of Malta.
Death of Dragut.

BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1570-1571.
War with the Holy League of Spain, Venice and the Pope.
The Battle of Lepanto.

BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1572-1573.
Capture of Tunis by Don John of Austria.
Its recovery, with Goletta, by the Turks.

BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1579.
Invasion of Morocco by Sebastian of Portugal.
His defeat and death.

BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1664-1684.
Wars of France against the piratical powers.
Destructive bombardments of Algiers.

"The ancient alliance of the crown of France with the Ottoman Porte, always unpopular, and less necessary since France had become so strong, was at this moment [early in the reign of Louis XIV.] well-nigh broken, to the great satisfaction both of the Christian nations of the South and of the Austrian empire. … Divers plans were proposed in the King's council for attacking the Ottoman power on the Moorish coasts, and for repressing the pirates, who were the terror of the merchant-shipping and maritime provinces. Colbert induced the king to attempt a military settlement among the Moors as the best means of holding them in check. A squadron commanded by the Duke de Beaufort … landed 5,000 picked soldiers before Jijeli (or Djigelli), a small Algerine port between Bougiah and Bona. They took possession of Jijeli without difficulty (July 22, 1664); but discord arose between Beaufort and his officers; they did not work actively enough to fortify themselves," and before the end of September they were obliged to evacuate the place precipitately. "The success of Beaufort's squadron, commanded under the duke by the celebrated Chevalier Paul, ere long effaced the impression of this reverse: two Algerine flotillas were destroyed in the course of 1665." The Dey of Algiers sent one of his French captives, an officer named Du Babinais, to France with proposals of peace, making him swear to return if his mission failed. The proposals were rejected; Du Babinais was loyal to his oath and returned—to suffer death, as he expected, at the hands of the furious barbarian. "The devotion of this Breton Regulus was not lost: despondency soon took the place of anger in the heart of the Moorish chiefs. Tunis yielded first to the guns of the French squadron, brought to bear on it from the Bay of Goletta. The Pacha and the Divan of Tunis obligated themselves to restore all the French slaves they possessed, to respect French ships, and thenceforth to release all Frenchmen whom they should capture on foreign ships. …. Rights of aubaine, and of admiralty and shipwreck, were suppressed as regarded Frenchmen (November 25, 1665). The station at Cape Negro was restored to France. … Algiers submitted, six' months after, to nearly the same conditions imposed on it by Louis XIV.: one of the articles stipulated that French merchants should be treated as favorably as any foreign nation, and even more so (May 17, 1666). More than 3,000 French slaves were set at liberty." Between 1669 and 1672, Louis XIV. was seriously meditating a great war of conquest with the Turks and their dependencies, but preferred, finally, to enter upon his war with Holland, which brought the other project to naught. France and the Ottoman empire then remained on tolerably good terms until 1681, when a "squadron of Tripolitan corsairs having carried off a French ship on the coast of Provence, Duquesne, at the head of seven vessels, pursued the pirates into the waters of Greece. They took refuge in the harbor of Scio. Duquesne summoned the Pacha of Scio to expel them. The Pacha refused, and fired on the French squadron, when Duquesne cannonaded both the pirates and the town with such violence that the Pacha, terrified, asked for a truce, in order to refer the matter to the Sultan (July 23, 1681). Duquesne converted the attack into a blockade. At the news of this violation of the Ottoman territory, the Sultan, Mahomet IV., fell into a rage … and dispatched the Captain-Pacha to Scio with 32 galleys. Duquesne allowed the Turkish galleys to enter the harbor, then blockaded them with the pirates, and declared that he would burn the whole if satisfaction were not had of the Tripolitans. The Divan hesitated. War was about to recommence with the Emperor; it was not the moment to kindle it against France." In the end there was a compromise, and the Tripolitans gave up the French vessel and the slaves they had captured, promising, also, to receive a French consul at Tripoli. "During this time another squadron, commanded by Château-Renault, blockaded the coasts of Morocco, the men of Maghreb having rivalled in depredations the vassals of Turkey. The powerful Emperor of Morocco, Muley Ismael, sent the governor of Tetuan to France to solicit peace of Louis XIV. The treaty was signed at Saint-Germain, January 29, 1682, on advantageous conditions," including restitution of French slaves. "Affairs did not terminate so amicably with Algiers. From this piratical centre had proceeded the gravest offenses. A captain of the royal navy was held in slavery there, with many other Frenchmen. It was resolved to inflict a terrible punishment on the Algerines. The thought of conquering Algeria had more than once presented itself to the king and Colbert, and they appreciated the value of this conquest; the Jijeli expedition had been formerly a first attempt. They did not, however, deem it incumbent on them to embark in such an enterprise; a descent, a siege, would have required too great preparations; they had recourse· to another means of attack. The regenerator of the art of naval construction, Petit-Renau, invented bomb-ketches expressly for the purpose. … July 23, 1682, Duquesne anchored before Algiers, with 11 ships, 15 galleys, 5 bomb-ketches, and Petit-Renau to guide them. After five weeks' delay caused by bad weather, then by a fire on one of the bomb-ketches, the thorough trial took place during the night of August 30. The effect was terrible: a part of the great mosque fell on the crowd that had taken refuge there. During the night of September 3-4, the Algerines attempted to capture the bomb-ketches moored at the entrance of their harbor; they were repulsed, and the bombardment continued. The Dey wished to negotiate; the people, exasperated, prevented him. The wind shifting to the northwest presaged the equinoctial storm; Duquesne set sail again, September 12. The expedition had not been decisive. It was begun anew. June 18, 1683, Duquesne reappeared in the road of Algiers; he had, this time, seven bomb-ketches instead of five. These instruments of extermination had been perfected in the interval. The nights of June 26-27 witnessed the overthrow of a great number of houses, several mosques, and the palace of the Dey. A thousand men perished in the harbor and the town." The Dey opened negotiations, giving up 700 French slaves, but was killed by his Janizaries, and one Hadgi-Hussein proclaimed in his stead. {263} "The bombardment was resumed with increasing violence. … The Algerines avenged themselves by binding to the muzzles of their guns a number of Frenchmen who remained in their hands. … The fury of the Algerines drew upon them redoubled calamities. … The bombs rained almost without intermission. The harbor was strewn with the wrecks of vessels. The city was … a heap of bloody ruins." But "the bomb-ketches had exhausted their ammunition. September was approaching. Duquesne again departed; but a strong blockading force was kept up, during the whole winter, as a standing threat of the return of the 'infernal vessels.' The Algerines finally bowed their head, and, April 25, 1684, peace was accorded by Tourville, the commander of the blockade, to the Pacha, Dey, Divan, and troops of Algiers. The Algerines restored 320 French slaves remaining in their power, and 180 other Christians claimed by the King; the janizaries only which had been taken from them were restored; they engaged to make no prizes within ten leagues of the coast of France, nor to assist the other Moorish corsairs at war with France; to recognize the precedence of the flag of France over all other flags, &c., &c.; lastly, they sent an embassy to carry their submission to Louis XIV.; they did not, however, pay the damages which Duquesne had wished to exact of them."

BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1785-1801.
   Piratical depredations upon American commerce.
   Humiliating treaties and tribute.
   The example of resistance given by the United States.

"It is difficult for us to realize that only 70 years ago the Mediterranean was so unsafe that the merchant ships of every nation stood in danger of being captured by pirates, unless they were protected either by an armed convoy or by tribute paid to the petty Barbary powers. Yet we can scarcely open a book of travels during the last century without mention being made of the immense risks to which everyone was exposed who ventured by sea from Marseilles to Naples. … The European states, in order to protect their commerce, had the choice either of paying certain sums per head for each captive, which in reality was a premium on capture, or of buying entire freedom for their commerce by the expenditure of large sums yearly. The treaty renewed by France, in 1788, with Algiers, was for fifty years, and it was agreed to pay $200,000 annually, besides large presents distributed according to custom every ten years, and a great sum given down. The peace of Spain with Algiers is said to have cost from three to five millions of dollars. There is reason to believe that at the same time England was paying an annual tribute of about $280,000. England was the only power sufficiently strong on the sea to put down these pirates; but in order to keep her own position as mistress of the seas she preferred to leave them in existence in order to be a scourge to the commerce of other European powers, and even to support them by paying a sum so great that other states might find it difficult to make peace with them. When the Revolution broke out, we [of the United States of America] no longer had the safeguards for our commerce that had been given to us by England, and it was therefore that in our very first negotiations for a treaty with France we desired to have an article inserted into the treaty, that the king of France should secure the inhabitants of the United States, and their vessels and effects, against all attacks or depredations from any of the Barbary powers. It was found impossible to insert this article in the treaty of 1778, and instead of that the king agreed to 'employ his good offices and interposition in order to provide as fully and efficaciously as possible for the benefit, conveniency and safety of the United States against the princes and the states of Barbary or their subjects.'"

Direct negotiations between the United States and the piratical powers were opened in 1785, by a call which Mr. Adams made upon the Tripolitan ambassador. The latter announced to Mr. Adams that "'Turkey, Tripoli, Tunis, Algiers, and Morocco were the sovereigns of the Mediterranean; and that no nation could navigate that sea without a treaty of peace with them.' … The ambassador demanded as the lowest price for a perpetual peace 30,000 guineas for his employers and £3,000 for himself; that Tunis would probably treat on the same terms; but he could not answer for Algiers or Morocco. Peace with all four powers would cost at least $1,000,000, and Congress had appropriated only $80,000. … Mr. Adams was strongly opposed to war, on account of the expense, and preferred the payment of tribute. … Mr. Jefferson quite as decidedly preferred war." The opinion in favor of a trial of pacific negotiations prevailed, and a treaty with the Emperor of Morocco was concluded in 1787. An attempt at the same time to make terms with the Del of Algiers and to redeem a number of American captives in his hands, came to nothing. "For the sake of saving a few thousand dollars, fourteen men were allowed to remain in imprisonment for ten years. … In November, 1793, the number of [American] prisoners at Algiers amounted to 115 men, among whom there remained only ten of the original captives of 1785." At last, the nation began to realize the intolerable shame of the matter, and, "on January 2, 1794, the House of Representatives resolved that a 'naval force adequate for the protection of the commerce of the United States against the AIgerine forces ought to be provided.' In the same year authority was given to build six frigates, and to procure ten smaller vessels to be equipped as galleys. Negotiations, however, continued to go on," and in September, 1795, a treaty with the Dey was concluded. "In making this treaty, however, we had been obliged to follow the usage of European powers—not only pay a large sum for the purpose of obtaining peace, but an annual tribute, in order to keep our vessels from being captured in the future. The total cost of fulfilling the treaty was estimated at $992,463. 25."

   "The first treaty of 1795, with Algiers, which was negotiated
   during Washington's administration, cost the United States,
   for the ransom of American captives, and the Dey's
   forbearance, a round $1,000,000, in addition to which an
   annuity was promised. Treaties with other Barbary States
   followed, one of which purchased peace from Tripoli by the
   payment of a gross sum. Nearly $2,000,000 had been squandered
   thus far in bribing these powers to respect our flag, and
   President Adams complained in 1800 that the United States had
   to pay three times the tribute imposed upon Sweden and
   Denmark.
{264}
   But this temporizing policy only made matters worse. Captain
   Bainbridge arrived at Algiers in 1800, bearing the annual
   tribute money for the Dey in a national frigate, and the Dey
   ordered him to proceed to Constantinople to deliver Algerine
   dispatches. 'English, French, and Spanish ships of war have
   done the same,' said the Dey, insolently, when Bainbridge and
   the American consul remonstrated. 'You pay me tribute because
   you are my slaves.' Bainbridge had to obey. … The lesser
   Barbary States were still more exasperating. The Bashaw of
   Tripoli had threatened to seize American vessels unless
   President Adams sent him a present like that bestowed upon
   Algiers. The Bashaw of Tunis made a similar demand upon the
   new President [Jefferson]. … Jefferson had, while in
   Washington's cabinet, expressed his detestation of the method
   hitherto favored for pacifying these pests of commerce; and,
   availing himself of the present favorable opportunity, he sent
   out Commodore Dale with a squadron of three frigates and a
   sloop of war, to make a naval demonstration on the coast of
   Barbary. … Commodore Dale, upon arriving at Gibraltar [July,
   1801], found two Tripolitan cruisers watching for American
   vessels; for, as had been suspected, Tripoli already meditated
   war. The frigate Philadelphia blockaded these vessels, while
   Bainbridge, with the frigate Essex, convoyed American vessels
   in the Mediterranean. Dale, in the frigate President,
   proceeded to cruise off Tripoli, followed by the schooner
   Experiment, which presently captured a Tripolitan cruiser of
   14 guns after a spirited action. The Barbary powers were for a
   time overawed, and the United States thus set the first
   example among Christian nations of making reprisals instead of
   ransom the rule of security against these commercial
   marauders. In this respect Jefferson's conduct was applauded
   at home by men of all parties."

"The war with Tripoli dragged tediously along, and seemed no nearer its end at the close of 1803 than 18 months before. Commodore Morris, whom the President sent to command the Mediterranean squadron, cruised from port to port between May, 1802, and August, 1803, convoying merchant vessels from Gibraltar to Leghorn and Malta, or lay in harbor and repaired his ships, but neither blockaded nor molested Tripoli; until at length, June 21, 1803, the President called him home and dismissed him from the service. His successor was Commodore Preble, who Sept. 12, 1803, reached Gibraltar with the relief-squadron which Secretary Gallatin thought unnecessarily strong. … He found Morocco taking part with Tripoli. Captain Bainbridge, who reached Gibraltar in the 'Philadelphia' August 24, some three weeks before Preble arrived, caught in the neighborhood a Moorish cruiser of 22 guns with an American brig in its clutches. Another American brig had just been seized at Mogador. Determined to stop this peril at the outset, Preble united to his own squadron the ships which he had come to relieve, and with this combined force, … sending the 'Philadelphia' to blockade Tripoli, he crossed to Tangiers October 6, and brought the Emperor of Morocco to reason. On both sides prizes and prisoners were restored, and the old treaty was renewed, This affair consumed time; and when at length Preble got the 'Constitution' under way for the Tripolitan coast, he spoke [to] a British frigate off the Island of Sardinia, which reported that the 'Philadelphia' had been captured October 21, more than three weeks before. Bainbridge, cruising off Tripoli, had chased a Tripolitan cruiser into shoal water, and was hauling off, when the frigate struck on a reef at the mouth of the harbor. Every effort was made without success to float her; but at last she was surrounded by Tripolitan gunboats, and Bainbridge struck his flag. The Tripolitans, after a few days work, floated the frigate, and brought her under the guns of the castle. The officers became prisoners of war, and the crew, in number 300 or more, were put to hard labor. The affair was in no way discreditable to the squadron. … The Tripolitans gained nothing except the prisoners; for at Bainbridge's suggestion Preble, some time afterward, ordered Stephen Decatur, a young lieutenant in command of the 'Enterprise', to take a captured Tripolitan craft renamed the 'Intrepid,' and with a crew of 75 men to sail from Syracuse, enter the harbor of Tripoli by night, board the 'Philadelphia,' and burn her under the castle guns. The order was literally obeyed. Decatur ran into the harbor at ten o'clock in the night of February 16, 1804, boarded the frigate within half gun-shot of the Pacha's castle, drove the Tripolitan crew overboard, set the ship on fire, remained alongside until the flames were beyond control, and then withdrew without losing a man."

      H. Adams,
      History of the United States: Administration of Jefferson,
      volume 2, chapter 7.

   "Commodore Preble, in the meantime, hurried his preparations
   for more serious work, and on July 25th arrived off Tripoli
   with a squadron, consisting of the frigate Constitution, three
   brigs, three schooners, six gunboats, and two bomb vessels.
   Opposed to him were arrayed over a hundred guns mounted on
   shore batteries, nineteen gunboats, one ten-gun brig, two
   schooners mounting eight guns each, and twelve galleys.
   Between August 3rd and September 3rd five attacks were made,
   and though the town was never reduced, substantial damage was
   inflicted, and the subsequent satisfactory peace rendered
   possible. Preble was relieved by Barron in September, not
   because of any loss of confidence in his ability, but from
   exigencies of the service, which forbade the Government
   sending out an officer junior to him in the relief squadron
   which reinforced his own. Upon his return to the United States
   he was presented with a gold medal, and the thanks of Congress
   were tendered him, his officers, and men, for gallant and
   faithful services. The blockade was maintained vigorously, and
   in 1805 an attack was made upon the Tripolitan town of Derna,
   by a combined land and naval force; the former being under
   command of Consul-General Eaton, who had been a captain in the
   American army, and of Lieutenant O'Bannon of the Marines. The
   enemy made a spirited though disorganized defence, but the
   shells of the war-ships drove them from point to point, and
   finally their principal work was carried by the force under
   O'Bannon and Midshipman Mann. Eaton was eager to press
   forward, but he was denied reinforcements and military stores,
   and much of his advantage was lost.
{265}
   All further operations were, however, discontinued in June,
   1805, when, after the usual intrigues, delays, and
   prevarications, a treaty was signed by the Pasha, which
   provided that no further tribute should be exacted, and that
   American vessels should be forever free of his rovers.
   Satisfactory as was this conclusion, the uncomfortable fact
   remains that tribute entered into the settlement. After all
   the prisoners had been exchanged man for man, the Tripolitan
   Government demanded, and the United States paid, the handsome
   sum of sixty thousand dollars to close the contract. This
   treaty, however, awakened the conscience of Europe, and from
   the day it was signed the power of the Barbary Corsairs began
   to wane. The older countries saw their duty more clearly, and
   ceased to legalize robbery on the high seas."

ALSO IN: J. F. Cooper, History of the U. S. Navy, volume 1, chapter 18 and volume 2, chapters 1-7.

BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1815.
Final War of Algiers with the United States.
Death-blow to Algerine piracy.

"Just as the late war with Great Britain broke out, the Dey of Algiers, taking offense at not having received from America the precise articles in the way of tribute demanded, had unceremoniously dismissed Lear, the consul, had declared war, and had since captured an American vessel, and reduced her crew to slavery. Immediately after the ratification of the treaty with England, this declaration had been reciprocated. Efforts had been at once made to fit out ships, new and old, including several small ones lately purchased for the proposed squadrons of Porter and Perry, and before many weeks Decatur sailed from New York with the Guerrière, Macedonian, and Constellation frigates, now released from blockade; the Ontario, new sloop of war, four brigs, and two schooners. Two days after passing Gibralter, he fell in with and captured an Algerine frigate of 44 guns, the largest ship in the Algerine navy, which struck to the Guerrière after a running fight of twenty-five minutes. A day or two after, an Algerine brig was chased into shoal water on the Spanish coast, and captured by the smaller vessels. Decatur having appeared off Algiers, the terrified Dey at once consented to a treaty, which he submitted to sign on Decatur's quarter deck, surrendering all prisoners on hand, making certain pecuniary indemnities, renouncing all future claim to any American tribute or presents, and the practice, also, of reducing prisoners of war to slavery. Decatur then proceeded to Tunis and Tripoli, and obtained from both indemnity for certain American vessels captured under the guns of their forts by British cruisers during the late war. The Bey of Tripoli being short of cash, Decatur agreed to accept in part payment the restoration of liberty to eight Danes and two Neapolitans held as slaves."

R. Hildreth, History of the United States, Second Series, chapter 30 (volume 3).

      ALSO IN:
      A. S. Mackenzie,
      Life of Decatur,
      chapter 13-14.

BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1816.
   Bombardment of Algiers by Lord Exmouth.
   Relinquishment of Christian slavery in Algiers, Tripolis and
   Tunis.

"The corsairs of Barbary still scoured the Mediterranean; the captives, whom they had taken from Christian vessels, still languished in captivity in Algiers; and, to the disgrace of the civilized world, a piratical state was suffered to exist in its very centre. … The conclusion of the war [of the Coalition against Napoleon and France] made the continuance of these ravages utterly intolerable. In the interests of civilization it was essential that piracy should be put down; Britain was mistress of the seas, and it therefore devolved upon her to do the work. … Happily for this country the Mediterranean command was held by an officer [Lord Exmouth] whose bravery and skill were fully equal to the dangers before him. … Early in 1816 Exmouth was instructed to proceed to the several states of Barbary; to require them to recognize the cession of the Ionian Islands to Britain; to conclude peace with the kingdoms of Sardinia and Naples; and to abolish Christian slavery. The Dey of Algiers readily assented to the two first of these conditions; the Beys of Tripolis and Tunis followed the example of the Dey of Algiers, and in addition consented to refrain in future from treating prisoners of war as slaves. Exmouth thereupon returned to Algiers, and endeavoured to obtain a similar concession from the Dey. The Dey pleaded that Algiers was subject to the Ottoman Porte," and obtained a truce of three months in order to confer with the Sultan. But meantime the Algerines made an unprovoked attack upon a neighbouring coral fishery, which was protected by the British flag, massacring the fishermen and destroying the flag. This brought Exmouth back to Algiers in great haste, with an ultimatum which he delivered on the 27th of August. No answer to it was returned, and the fleet (which had been joined by some vessels of the Dutch navy) sailed into battle range that same afternoon. "The Algerines permitted the ships to move into their stations. The British reserved their fire till they could deliver it with good effect. A crowd of spectators watched the ships from the shore; and Exmouth waved his hat to them to move and save themselves from the fire. They had not the prudence to avail themselves of his timely warning. A signal shot was fired by the Algerines from the mole. The 'Queen Charlotte' replied by delivering her entire broadside. Five hundred men were struck down by the first discharge. … The battle, which had thus begun at two o'clock in the afternoon, continued till ten o'clock in the evening. By that time half Algiers had been destroyed; the whole of the Algerine navy had been burned; and, though a few of the enemy's batteries still maintained a casual fire, their principal fortifications were crumbling ruins; the majority of their guns were dismounted." The Dey humbled himself to the terms proposed by the British commander. "On the first day of September Exmouth had the satisfaction of acquainting his government with the liberation of all the slaves in the city of Algiers, and the restitution of the money paid since the commencement of the year by the Neapolitan and Sardinian Governments for the redemption of slaves." He had also extorted from the piratical Dey a solemn declaration that he would, in future wars, treat all prisoners according to the usages of European nations. In the battle which won these important results, "128 men were killed and 690 wounded on board the British fleet; the Dutch lost 13 killed and 52 wounded."

ALSO IN: H. Martineau, History of the Thirty Years Peace, book 1, chapter 6 (volume l).

"During the Napoleonic wars, the Dey of Algiers supplied grain for the use of the French armies; it was bought by merchants of Marseilles, and there was a dispute about the matter which was unsettled as late as 1829. Several instalments had been paid; the dey demanded payment in full according to his own figures, while the French government, believing the demand excessive, required an investigation. In one of the numerous debates on the subject, Hussein Pasha, the reigning dey, became very angry, struck the consul with a fan, and ordered him out of the house. He refused all reparation for the insult, even on the formal demand of the French government, and consequently there was no alternative but war." The expedition launched from the port of Toulon, for the chastisement of the insolent Algerine, "comprised 37,500 men, 3,000 horses, and 180 pieces of artillery. … The sea-forces included 11 ships of the line, 23 frigates, 70 smaller vessels, 377 transports, and 230 boats for landing troops. General Bourmont, Minister of War, commanded the expedition, which appeared in front of Algiers on the 13th of June, 1830." Hussein Pasha "had previously asked for aid from the Sultan of Turkey, but that wily ruler had blankly refused. The beys of Tunis and Tripoli had also declined to meddle with the affair." The landing of the French was effected safely and without serious opposition, at Sidi-Ferruch, about 16 miles west of Algiers. The Algerine army, 40,000 to 50,000 strong, commanded by Aga Ibrahim, son-in-law of the dey, took its position on the table-land of Staoueli, overlooking the French, where it waited while their landing was made. On the 19th General Bourmont was ready to advance. His antagonist, instead of adhering to the waiting attitude, and forcing the French to attack him, on his own ground, now went out to meet them, and flung his disorderly mob against their disciplined battalions, with the result that seldom fails. "The Arab loss in killed and wounded was about 3,000, … while the French loss was less than 500. In little more than an hour the battle was over, and the Osmanlis were in full and disorderly retreat." General Bourmont took possession of the Algerine camp at Staoueli, where he was again attacked on the 24th of June, with a similar disastrous result to the Arabs. He then advanced upon the city of Algiers, established his army in position behind the city, constructed batteries, and opened, on the 4th of July, a bombardment so terrific that the dey hoisted the white flag in a few hours. "Hussein Pasha hoped to the last moment to retain his country and its independence by making liberal concessions in the way of indemnity for the expenses of the war, and offered to liberate all Christian slaves in addition to paying them for their services and sufferings. The English consul tried to mediate on this basis, but his offers of mediation were politely declined. … It was finally agreed that the dey should surrender Algiers with all its forts and military stores, and be permitted to retire wherever he chose with his wives, children, and personal belongings, but he was not to remain in the country under any circumstances. On the 5th of July the French entered Algiers in great pomp and took possession of the city. … The spoils of war were such as rarely fall to the lot of a conquering army, when its numbers and the circumstances of the campaign are considered. In the treasury was found a large room filled with gold and silver coins heaped together indiscriminately, the fruits of three centuries of piracy; they were the coins of all the nations that had suffered from the depredations of the Algerines, and the variety in the dates showed very clearly that the accumulation had been the work of two or three hundred years. How much money was contained in this vast pile is not known; certain it is that nearly 50,000,000 francs, or £2,000,000 sterling, actually reached the French treasury. … The cost of the war was much more than covered by the captured property. … Many slaves were liberated. … The Algerine power was forever broken, and from that day Algeria has been a prosperous colony of France. Hussein Pasha embarked on the 10th of July with a suite of 110 persons, of whom 55 were women. He proceeded to Naples, where he remained for a time, went afterwards to Leghorn, and finally to Egypt." In Egypt he died, under circumstances which indicated poison.

      E. E. Crowe,
      History of the Reigns of Louis XVIII. and Charles X.,
      volume 2, chapter 13.

BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1830-1846.
The French war of Subjugation in Algeria with Abd-el-Kader.

   "When Louis Philippe ascended the throne [of France, A. D.
   1830] the generals of his predecessor had overrun the country
   [of Algiers]—though they did not effectually subdue it;
   their absolute dominion not extending far round Algiers—from
   Bona, on the east, in latitude 36° 53' North, longitude 7° 46'
   West, to Oran, on the west—nearly the entire extent of the
   ancient Libya. … There was always a party in the chamber of
   deputies opposed to the conquest who deprecated the
   colonisation of Algeria, and who steadily opposed any grants
   of either men or money to be devoted to the African
   enterprise. The natural result followed. Ten thousand men
   could not effect the work for which 40,000 were required; and,
   whilst the young colony languished, the natives became
   emboldened, and encouraged to make that resistance which cost
   the French so dear. Marshal Clausel, when entrusted with the
   government of the colony, and the supreme command of the
   troops … established a series of fortified posts, which were
   adequately garrisoned; and roads were opened to enable the
   garrisons promptly to communicate with each other. These
   positions, rapidly acquired, he was unable to maintain, in
   consequence of the home government recalling the greater part
   of his force. To recruit his army he resolved to enlist some
   corps of the natives; and, in October, 1830, the first
   regiment of zouaves was raised." … In 1833 we "first hear of
   Abd-el-Kader. This chief was the son of a marabout, or priest,
   in the province of Oran. He united consummate ability with
   great valour; was a devout Mohammedan; and when he raised the
   standard of the prophet, he called the Arabs around him, with
   the fullest confidence of success.
{267}
   His countrymen obeyed his call in great numbers; and,
   encouraged by the enthusiasm they displayed, he first, at the
   close of 1833, proclaimed himself emir of Tlemsen (the former
   name of Oran), and then seized on the port of Arzew, on the
   west side of the gulf of that name; and the port of
   Mostaganem, on the opposite coast. The province of Mascara,
   lying at the foot of the Atlas, was also under his rule. At
   that time General Desmichels commanded at Oran. He had not a
   very large force, but he acted promptly. Marching against
   Abd-el-Kader, he defeated him in two pitched battles; retook
   Arzew and Mostaganem; and, on the 26th of February, 1834,
   entered into a treaty with the emir, by which both parties
   were bound to keep the peace towards each other. During that
   year the terms were observed; but, in 1835, the Arab chief
   again commenced hostilities. He marched to the east, entered
   the French territories, and took possession of Medeah, being
   received with the utmost joy by the inhabitants. On the 26th
   of June, General Trezel, with only 2,300 men, marched against
   him. Abd-el-Kader had 8,000 Arabs under his command; and a
   sanguinary combat took place in the defiles of Mouley-Ismael.
   After a severe combat, the French forced the passage, but with
   considerable loss. … The French general, finding his
   position untenable, commenced a retrograde movement on the
   28th of June. In his retreat he was pursued by the Arabs; and
   before he reached Oran, on the 4th of July, he lost all his
   waggons, train, and baggage; besides having ten officers, and
   252 sous-officers and rank-and-file killed, and 308 wounded.
   The heads of many of the killed were displayed in triumph by
   the victors. This was a severe blow to the French, and the
   cause of great rejoicing to the Arabs. The former called for
   marshal Clausel to be restored to his command, and the
   government at home complied; at the same time issuing a
   proclamation, declaring that Algeria should not be abandoned,
   but that the honour of the French arms should be maintained.
   The marshal left France on the 28th of July; and as soon as he
   landed, he organised an expedition against Mascara, which was
   Abd-el-Kader's capital. … The Arab chieftain advanced to
   meet the enemy; but, being twice defeated, he resolved to
   abandon his capital, which the French entered on the 6th of
   December, and found completely deserted. The streets and
   houses were alike empty and desolate; and the only living
   creature they encountered was an old woman, lying on some
   mats, who could not move of herself, and had been either
   forgotten or abandoned. The French set fire to the deserted
   houses; and having effected the destruction of Mascara, they
   marched to Mostaganem, which Clausel determined to make the
   centre of French power in that district."

"A camp was established on the Taafna in April 1836, and an action took place there on the 25th, when the Tableau states that 3,000 French engaged 10,000 natives; and some of the enemies being troops of Morocco, an explanation was required of Muley-Abd-er-Rachman, the emperor, who said that the assistance was given to the Algerines without his knowledge. On July 6th, 1836, Abd-el-Kader suffered a disastrous defeat on the river Sikkak, near Tlemsen, at the hands of Marshal Bugeaud. November 1836, the first expedition was formed against Constantina. …After the failure of Clauzel, General Damrémont was appointed governor, February 12th, 1837; and on the 30th of May the treaty of the Taafna between General Bugeaud and Abd-el-Kader left the French government at liberty to direct an their attention against Constantina, a camp being formed at Medjoy-el-Ahmar in that direction. An army of 10,000 men set out thence on the 1st of October, 1837, for Constantina. On the 6th it arrived before Constantina; and on the 13th the town was taken with a severe loss, including Damrémont. Marshal Vallée succeeded Damrémont as governor. The fall of Constantina destroyed the last relic of the old Turkish government. … By the 27th January, 1838, 100 tribes had submitted to the French. A road was cleared in April by General Negrier from Constantina to Stora on the sea. This road, passing by the camps of Smendou and the Arrouch, was 22 leagues in length. The coast of the Bay of Stora, on the site of the ancient Rusicada, became covered with French settlers: and Philippeville was founded Oct. 1838, threatening to supplant Bona. Abd-el-Kader advancing in December 1837 to the province of Constantina, the French advanced also to observe him; then both retired, without coming to blows. A misunderstanding which arose respecting the second article of the treaty of Taafna was settled in the beginning of 1838. … When Abd-el-Kader assumed the royal title of Sultan and the command of a numerous army, the French, with republican charity and fraternal sympathy, sought to infringe the Taafna treaty, and embroil the Arab hero, in order to ruin his rising empire, and found their own on its ashes. The Emir had been recognised by the whole country, from the gates of Ouchda to the river Mijerda. … The war was resumed, and many French razzias took place. They once marched a large force from Algiers on Milianah to surprise the sultan's camp. They failed in their chief object, but nearly captured the sultan himself. He was surrounded in the middle of a French square, which thought itself sure of the reward of 100,000 francs (£4,000) offered for him; but uttering his favourite 'en-shallah' (with the will of God), he gave his white horse the spur, and came over their bayonets unwounded. He lost, however, thirty of his bodyguard and friends, but killed six Frenchmen with his own hand. Still, notwithstanding his successes, Abd-el-Kader had been losing all his former power, as his Arabs, though brave, could not match 80,000 French troops, with artillery and all the other ornaments of civilised warfare. Seven actions were fought at the Col de Mouzaia, where the Arabs were overthrown by the royal dukes, in 1841; and at the Oued Foddha, where Changarnier, with a handful of troops, defeated a whole population in a frightful gorge. It was on this occasion that, having no guns, he launched his Chasseurs d'Afrique against the fort, saying, 'Voilà mon artillerie!' Abd-el·Kader had then only two chances,—the support of Muley-Abd-er-Rahman, Emperor of Morocco; or the peace that the latter might conclude with France for him. General Bugeaud, who had replaced Marshal Vallée, organised a plan of campaign by movable columns radiating from Algiers, Oran, and Constantina; and having 100,000 excellent soldiers at his disposal, the results as against the Emir were slowly but surely effective. {268} General Negrier at Constantina, Changarnier amongst the Hadjouts about Medeah and Milianah, Cavaignae and Lamoricière in Oran,—carried out the commander-in-chiefs instructions with untiring energy and perseverance; and in the spring of 1843 the Duc d'Aumale, in company with General Changarnier, surprised the Emir's camp in the absence of the greatest part of his force, and it was with difficulty that he himself escaped. Not long afterwards he took refuge in Morocco, excited the fanatical passions of the populace of that empire, and thereby forced its ruler, Muley-Abd-er-Rahman, much against his own inclination, into a war with France; a war very speedily terminated by General Bugeaud's victory of Isly, with some slight assistance from the bombardment of Tangier and Mogador by the Prince de Joinville. In 1845 the struggle was maintained amidst the hills by the partisans of Abd-el-Kader; but our limits prevent us from dwelling on its particulars, save in one instance. … On the night of the 12th of June, 1845, about three months before Marshal Bugeaud left Algeria, Colonels Pelissier and St. Arnaud, at the head of a considerable force, attempted a razzia upon the tribe of the Beni-Oulell-Hiah, numbering, in men, women, and children, about 700 persons. This was in the Dahra. The Arabs escaped the first clutch of their pursuers; and when hard pressed, as they soon were, took refuge in the cave of Khartani, which had some odour of sanctity about it: some holy man or marabout had lived and died there, we believe. The French troops came up quickly to the entrance, and the Arabs were summoned to surrender. They made no reply. Possibly they did not hear the summons. … As there was no other outlet from the cave than that by which the Arabs entered, a few hours' patience must have been rewarded by the unconditional surrender of the imprisoned tribe. Colonels Pelissier and St. Arnaud were desirous of a speedier result; and by their order an immense fire was kindled at the mouth of the cave, and fed sedulously during the summer night with wood, grass, reeds, anything that would help to keep up the volume of smoke and flame which the wind drove, in roaring, whirling eddies, into the mouth of the cavern. It was too late now for the unfortunate Arabs to offer to surrender; the discharge of a cannon would not have been heard in the roar of that huge blast-furnace, much less smoke-strangled cries of human agony. The fire was kept up throughout the night; and when the day had fully dawned, the then expiring embers were kicked aside, and as soon as a sufficient time had elapsed to render the air of the silent cave breathable, some soldiers were directed to ascertain how matters were, within. They were gone but a few minutes; and they came back, we are told, pale, trembling, terrified, hardly daring, it seemed, to confront the light of day. No wonder they trembled and looked pale. They had found all the Arabs dead—men, women, children. … St. Arnaud and Pelissier were rewarded by the French minister; and Marshal Soult observed, that 'what would be a crime against civilisation in Europe might be a justifiable necessity in Africa.' … A taste of French bayonets at Isly, and the booming of French guns at Mogador, had brought Morocco to reason. … Morocco sided with France, and threatened Abel-el-Kader, who cut one of their corps to pieces, and was in June on the point of coming to blows with Muley-Abd-el-Rahman, the emperor. But the Emperor of Morocco took vigorous measures to oppose him, nearly exterminating the tribes friendly to him; which drew off many partisans from the Emir, who tried to pacify the emperor, but unsuccessfully." In December, 1846, "he asked to negotiate, offered to surrender; and after 24 hours' discussion he came to Sidi Brahim, the scene of his last exploits against the French, where he was received with military honours, and conducted to the Duke of Aumale at Nemours. France has been severely abused for the detention of Abd-el-Kader in Ham."

BARBES. BARBETS.

   The elders among the early Waldenses were called barbes, which
   signified "Uncle." Whence came the nickname Barbets, applied
   to the Waldensian people generally.

BARCA.

   "The city of Barcelona, which originally gave its name to the
   county of which it was the capital, was distinguished from a
   very early period by ample municipal privileges. After the
   union with Aragon in the 12th century, the monarchs of the
   latter kingdom extended towards it the same liberal
   legislation; so that, by the 13th, Barcelona had reached a
   degree of commercial prosperity rivalling that of any of the
   Italian republics. She divided with them the lucrative
   commerce with Alexandria; and her port, thronged with
   foreigners from every nation, became a principal emporium in
   the Mediterranean for the spices, drugs, perfumes, and other
   rich commodities of the East, whence they were diffused over
   the interior of Spain and the European continent. Her consuls,
   and her commercial factories, were established in every
   considerable port in the Mediterranean and in the north of
   Europe. The natural products of her soil, and her various
   domestic fabrics, supplied her with abundant articles of
   export. Fine wool was imported by her in considerable
   quantities from England in the 14th and 15th centuries, and
   returned there manufactured into cloth; an exchange of
   commodities the reverse of that existing between the two
   nations at the present day. Barcelona claims the merit of
   having established the first bank of exchange and deposit in
   Europe, in 1401; it was devoted to the accommodation of
   foreigners as well as of her own citizens. She claims the
   glory, too, of having compiled the most ancient written code,
   among the moderns, of maritime law now extant, digested from
   the usages of commercial nations, and which formed the basis
   of the mercantile jurisprudence of Europe during the Middle
   Ages. The wealth which flowed in upon Barcelona, as the result
   of her activity and enterprise, was evinced by her numerous
   public works, her docks, arsenal, warehouses, exchange,
   hospitals, and other constructions of general utility.
   Strangers, who visited Spain in the 14th and 15th centuries,
   expatiate on the magnificence of this city, its commodious
   private edifices, the cleanliness of its streets and public
   squares (a virtue by no means usual in that day), and on the
   amenity of its gardens and cultivated environs.
{269}
   But the peculiar glory of Barcelona was the freedom of her
   municipal institutions. Her government consisted of a senate
   or council of one hundred, and a body of regidores or
   counsellors, as they were styled, varying at times from four
   to six in number; the former intrusted with the legislative,
   the latter with the executive functions of administration. A
   large proportion of these bodies were selected from the
   merchants, tradesmen, and mechanics of the city. They were
   invested not merely with municipal authority, but with many of
   the rights of sovereignty. They entered into commercial
   treaties with foreign powers; superintended the defence of the
   city in time of war; provided for the security of trade;
   granted letters of reprisal against any nation who might
   violate it; and raised and appropriated the public moneys for
   the construction of useful works, or the encouragement of such
   commercial adventures as were too hazardous or expensive for
   individual enterprise. The counsellors, who presided over the
   municipality, were complimented with certain honorary
   privileges, not even accorded to the nobility. They were
   addressed by the title of magnificos; were seated, with their
   heads covered, in the presence of royalty; were preceded by
   mace-bearers, or lictors, in their progress through the
   country; and deputies from their body to the court were
   admitted on the footing and received the honors of foreign
   ambassadors. These, it will be recollected, were
   plebeians,—merchants and mechanics. Trade never was esteemed
   a degradation in Catalonia, as it came to be in Castile."

      W. H. Prescott,
      History of the Reign of Ferdinand and Isabella,
      introduction, section 2.

BARCELONA: A. D. 1713-1714.
Betrayal and desertion by the Allies.
Siege, capture and massacre by French and Spaniards.

The family of the great Carthaginian, Hamilcar Barca, father of the more famous Hannibal. The surname Barca, or Barcas, given to Hamilcar, is equivalent to the Hebrew Barak and signified lightning.

BARDS.

BARERE AND THE COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC SAFETY.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (MARCH-JUNE); (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER);
TO 1794-1795 (JULY-APRIL).

The Barmecides, or Barmekides, famous in the history of the Caliphate at Bagdad, and made familiar to all the world by the stories of the "Arabian Nights," were a family which rose to great power and wealth under the Caliph Haroun Alraschid. It took its name from one Khaled ibn Barmek, a Persian, whose father had been the "Barmek" or custodian of one of the most celebrated temples of the Zoroastrian faith. Khaled accepted Mahometanism and became one of the ablest agents of the conspiracy which overthrew the Ommiad Caliphs and raised the Abbasides to the throne. The first of the Abbaside Caliphs recognized his ability and made him vizier. His son Yahya succeeded to his power and was the first vizier of the famous Haroun Alraschid. But it was Jaafar, one of the sons of Yahya, who became the prime favorite of Haroun and who raised the family of the Barmecides to its acme of splendor. So much greatness in a Persian house excited wide jealousy, however, among the Arabs, and, in the end, the capricious lord and master of the all powerful vizier Jaafar turned his heart against him, and against all his house. The fall of the Barmecides was made as cruel as their advancement had been unscrupulous. Jaafar was beheaded without a moment's warning; his father and brother were imprisoned, and a thousand members of the family are said to have been slain.

BARNABITES. PAULINES.

"The clerks-regular of St. Paul (Panlines), whose congregation was founded by Antonio Maria Zacharia of Cremona and two Milanese associates in 1532, approved by Clement VII. in 1533, and confirmed as independent by Paul III. in 1534, in 1545 took the name of Barnabites, from the church of St. Barnabas, which was given up to them at Milan. The Barnabites, who have been described as the democratic wing of the Theatines, actively engaged in the conversion of heretics, both in Italy and in France and in that home of heresy, Bohemia."

BARNBURNERS.

The decisive battle, and the last but one fought, in the "Wars of the Roses." Edward IV., having been driven out of England and Henry VI. reinstated by Warwick, "the King-maker," the former returned before six months had passed and made his way to London. Warwick hastened to meet him with an army of Lancastrians and the two forces came together on Easter Sunday, April 14, 1471, near Barnet, only ten miles from London. The victory, long doubtful, was won for the white rose of York and it was very bloodily achieved. The Earl of Warwick was among the slain.

BARON.

"The title of baron, unlike that of Earl, is a creation of the [Norman] Conquest. The word, in its origin equivalent to 'homo,' receives under feudal institutions, like 'homo' itself, the meaning of vassal. Homage (hominium) is the ceremony by which the vassal becomes the man of his lord; and the homines of the king are barons. Possibly the king's thegn of Anglo-Saxon times may answer to the Norman baron."

BARONET.

"One approaches with reluctance the modern title of baronet. … Grammatically, the term is clear enough; it is the diminutive of baron: but baron is emphatically a man, the liege vassal of the king; and baronet, therefore, etymologically would seem to imply a a doubt. Degrees of honor admit of no diminution: a 'damoisel' and a 'donzello' are grammatical diminutives, but they do not lessen the rank of the bearer; for, on the contrary, they denote the heir to the larger honor, being attributed to none but the sons of the prince or nobleman, who bore the paramount title. They did not degrade, even in their etymological signification, which baronet appears to do, and no act of parliament can remove this radical defect. … Independently of these considerations, the title arose from the expedient of a needy monarch [James I.] to raise money, and was offered for sale. Any man, provided he were of good birth, might, 'for a consideration,' canton his family shield with the red hand of Ulster."

BARONY OF LAND.

BARROW.

A mound raised over the buried dead. "This form of memorial, … as ancient as it has been lasting, is found in almost all parts of the globe. Barrows, under diverse names, line the coasts of the Mediterranean, the seats of ancient empires and civilisations. … They abound in Great Britain and Ireland, differing in shape and size and made of various materials; and are known as barrows (mounds of earth) and cairns (mounds of stone) and popularly in some parts of England as lows, houes, and tumps."

BASHAN.

BASHI BOZOUK, OR BAZOUKS.

For the suppression of the revolt of 1875-77 in the Christian provinces of the Turkish dominions (see TURKS: 1861-1876), "besides the regular forces engaged against the Bulgarians, great numbers of the Moslem part of the local population had been armed by the Government and turned loose to fight the insurgents in their own way. These irregular warriors are called Bashi Bozouks, or Rottenheads. The term alludes to their being sent out without regular organization and without officers at their head."

BASIL I. (called the Macedonian), Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or Greek), A. D. 867-886.

BASILEUS.

"From the earliest period of history, the sovereigns of Asia had been celebrated in the Greek language by the title of Basileus, or King: and since it was considered as the first distinction among men, it was soon employed by the servile provincials of the east in their humble address to the Roman throne."

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 13. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

BASILICÆ.

"Among the buildings appropriated to the public service at Rome, none were more important than the Basilicæ. Although their name is Greek, yet they were essentially a Roman creation, and were used for practical purposes peculiarly Roman,—the administration of law and the transaction of merchants' business. Historically, considerable interest attaches to them from their connection with the first Christian churches. The name of Basilica was applied by the Romans equally to all large buildings intended for the special needs of public business. … Generally, however, they took the form most adapted to their purposes—a semi-circular apse or tribunal for legal trials and a central nave, with arcades and galleries on each side for the transaction of business. They existed not only as separate buildings, but, also as reception rooms attached to the great mansions of Rome. … It is the opinion of some writers that these private basilicæ, and not the public edifices, served as the model for the Christian Basilica."

   A compilation or codification of the imperial laws of the
   Byzantine Empire promulgated A. D. 884, in the reign of Basil
   I. and afterwards revised and amplified by his son, Leo VI.

      G. Finlay,
      History of the Byzantine Empire, from 716 to 1057,
      book 2, chapter 1, section 1.

"Basing House [mansion of the Marquis of Winchester, near Basingstoke, in Hampshire], an immense fortress, with a feudal castle and a Tudor palace within its ramparts, had long been a thorn in the side of the Parliament. Four years it had held out, with an army within, well provisioned for years, and blocked the road to the west. At last it was resolved to take it: and Cromwell was directly commissioned by Parliament to the work. Its capture is one of the most terrible and stirring incidents of the war. After six days' constant cannonade, the storm began at six o'clock in the morning of the 14th of October [A. D. 1645]. After some hours of desperate fighting, one after another its defences were taken and its garrison put to the sword or taken. The plunder was prodigious; the destruction of property unsparing. It was gutted, burnt, and the very ruins carted away."

      Mrs. Thompson,
      Recollections of Literary Characters and Celebrated Places,
      volume 2, chapter 1.

BASOCHE. BASOCHIENS.

"The Basoche was an association of the 'clercs du Parlement' [Parliament of Paris]. The etymology of the name is uncertain. … The Basoche is supposed to have been instituted in 1302, by Philippe-le-Bel, who gave it the title of 'Royaume de la Basoche,' and ordered that it should form a tribunal for judging, without appeal, all civil and criminal matters that might arise among the clerks and all actions brought against them. He likewise ordered that the president should be called 'Roi de la Basoche,' and that the king and his subjects should have an annual 'montre' or review. … Under the reign of Henry III. the number of subjects of the roi de la Basoche amounted to nearly 10,000. … The members of the Basoche took upon themselves to exhibit plays in the 'Palais,' in which they censured the public manners; indeed they maybe said to have been the first comic authors and actors that appeared in Paris. …At the commencement of the Revolution, the Basochiens formed a troop, the uniform of which was red, with epaulettes and silver buttons; but they were afterwards disbanded by a decree of the National Assembly."

"The western extremity of the Pyrenees, where France and Spain join, gives us a locality … where, although the towns, like Bayonne, Pampeluna, and Bilbao, are French or Spanish, the country people are Basques or Biscayans—Basques or Biscayans not only in the provinces of Biscay, but in Alava, Upper Navarre, and the French districts of Labourd and Soule. Their name is Spanish (the word having originated in that of the ancient Vascones), and it is not the one by which they designate themselves; though possibly it is indirectly connected with it. The native name is derived from the root Eusk-; which becomes Euskara when the language, Euskkerria when the country, and Euskaldunac when the people are spoken of."

BASSORAH.

"The name of Bastille or Bastel was, in ancient times, given to any kind of erection calculated to withstand a military force; and thus, formerly in England and on the borders of Scotland, the term Bastel-house was usually applied to places of strength and fancied security. Of the many Bastilles in France that of Paris, … which at first was called the Bastille St-Antoine, from being erected near the suburb of St-Antoine, retained the name longest. This fortress, of melancholy celebrity, was erected under the following circumstances: In the year 1356, when the English, then at war with France, were in the neighbourhood of Paris, it was considered necessary by the inhabitants of the French capital to repair the bulwarks of their city. Stephen Marcel, provost of the merchants, undertook this task, and, amongst other defences, added to the fortifications at the eastern entrance of the town, a gate flanked with a tower on each side." This was the beginning of the constructions of the Bastille. They were enlarged in 1369 by Hugh Aubriot, provost of Paris under Charles V. He "added two towers, which, being placed opposite to those already existing on each side of the gate, made of the Bastille a square fort, with a tower at each of the four angles." After the death of Charles V., Aubriot, who had many enemies, was prosecuted for alleged crimes, "was condemned to perpetual confinement, and placed in the Bastille, of which, according to some historians, he was the first prisoner. After some time, he was removed thence to Fort l'Evêque, another prison," from which he was liberated in 1381, by the insurrection of the Maillotins (see PARIS: A. D. 1381). "After the insurrection of the Maillotins, in 1382, the young king, Charles VI., still further enlarged the Bastille by adding four towers to it, thus giving it, instead of the square form it formerly possessed, the shape of an oblong or parallelogram. The fortress now consisted of eight towers, each 100 feet high, and, like the wall which united them, nine feet thick. Four of these towers looked on the city, and four on the suburb of St-Antoine. To increase its strength, the Bastille was surrounded by a ditch 25 feet deep and 120 feet wide. The road which formerly passed through it was turned on one side. … The Bastille was now completed (1383), and though additions were subsequently made to it, the body of the fortress underwent no important change. … Both as a place of military defence, and as a state prison of great strength, the Bastille was, even at an early period, very formidable."

For an account of the taking and destruction of the Bastille
by the people, in 1789,

"The Germanic Batavi had been peacefully united with the [Roman] Empire, not by Cæsar, but not long afterwards, perhaps by Drusus. They were settled in the Rhine delta, that is on the left bank of the Rhine and on the islands formed by its arms, upwards as far at least as the Old Rhine, and so nearly from Antwerp to Utrecht and Leyden in Zealand and southern Holland, on territory originally Celtic—at least the local names are predominantly Celtic; their name is still borne by the Betuwe, the lowland between the Waal and the Leck with the capital Noviomagus, now Nimeguen. They were, especially compared with the restless and refractory Celts, obedient and useful subjects, and hence occupied a distinctive position in the aggregate, and particularly in the military system of the Roman Empire. They remained quite free from taxation, but were on the other hand drawn upon more largely than any other canton in the recruiting; this one canton furnished to the army 1,000 horsemen and 9,000 foot soldiers; besides, the men of the imperial body-guard were taken especially from them. The command of these Batavian divisions was conferred exclusively on native Batavi. The Batavi were accounted indisputably not merely as the best riders and swimmers of the army, but also as the model of true soldiers."

"When the Cimbri and their associates, about a century before our era, made their memorable onslaught upon Rome, the early inhabitants of the Rhine island of Batavia, who were probably Celts, joined in the expedition. A recent and tremendous inundation had swept away their miserable homes. … The island was deserted of its population. At about the same period a civil dissension among the Chatti—a powerful German race within the Hercynian forest—resulted in the expatriation of a portion of the people. The exiles sought a new home in the empty Rhine island, called it 'Bet-auw,' or 'good meadow,' and were themselves called, thenceforward, Batavi, or Batavians."

"Galba [Roman Emperor], succeeding to the purple upon the suicide of Nero, dismissed the Batavian life-guards to whom he owed his elevation. He is murdered, Otho and Vitellius contend for the succession, while all eyes are turned upon the eight Batavian regiments. In their hands the scales of Empire seem to rest. They declare for Vitellius and the civil war begins. Otho is defeated; Vitellius acknowledged by Senate and people. Fearing, like his predecessors, the imperious turbulence of the Batavian legions, he, too, sends them into Germany. It was the signal for a long and extensive revolt, which had well-nigh overturned the Roman power in Gaul and Lower Germany. Claudius Civilis was a Batavian of noble race, who had served twenty-five years in the Roman armies. His Teutonic name has perished. … After a quarter of a century's service he was sent in chains to Rome and his brother executed, both falsely charged with conspiracy. … Desire to avenge his own wrongs was mingled with loftier motives in his breast. He knew that the sceptre was in the gift of the Batavian soldiery. … By his courage, eloquence and talent for political combinations, Civilis effected a general confederation of all the Netherland tribes, both Celtic and German. For a brief moment there was a united people, a Batavian commonwealth. … The details of the revolt [A. D. 69] have been carefully preserved by Tacitus, and form one of his grandest and most elaborate pictures. … The battles, the sieges, the defeats, the indomitable spirit of Civilis, still flaming most brightly when the clouds were darkest around him, have been described by the great historian in his most powerful manner. … The struggle was an unsuccessful one. After many victories and many overthrows, Civilis was left alone. … He accepted the offer of negotiation from Cerialis [the Roman commander]. … A colloquy was agreed upon. The bridge across the Nabalia was broken asunder in the middle and Cerialis and Civilis met upon the severed sides. … Here the story abruptly terminates. The remainder of the Roman's narrative is lost, and upon that broken bridge the form of the Batavian hero disappears forever."

"The present Military Order of the Bath, founded by King George I. in the year 1725, differs so essentially from the Knighthood of the Bath, or the custom of making Knights with various rites and ceremonies, of which one was Bathing, that it may almost be considered a distinct and new fraternity of chivalry. The last Knights of the Bath, made according to the ancient forms, were at the coronation of King Charles II.; and from that period until the reign of the first George, the old institution fell into total oblivion. At the latter epoch, however, it was determined to revive, as it was termed, The Order of the Bath, by erecting it into a regular Military Order'; and on the 25th May, 1725, Letters Patent were issued for that purpose. By the Statutes then promulgated, the number of Knights, independent of the Sovereign, a Prince of the Blood Royal, and a Great Master, was restricted to 35." It has since been greatly increased, and the Order divided into three classes: First Class, consisting of "Knights Grand Cross," not to exceed 50 for military and 25 for civil service; Second Class, consisting of "Knights Commanders," not to exceed 102 for military and 50 for civil service; Third Class, "Companions," not to exceed 525 for military and 200 for civil service.

A formidable revolt of the Dalmatians and Pannonians, A. D. 6, involved the Roman Empire, under Augustus, in a serious war of three years duration, which was called the Batonian War, from the names of two leaders of the insurgents,—Bato the Dalmatian, and Bato the Pannonian.

BATTLE ABBEY.

BATTLE OF THE CAMEL.

BATTLES.

The battles of which account is given in this work are so numerous that no convenience would be served by collecting references to them under this general heading. They are severally indexed under the names by which they are historically known.

The illustrious Visigothic race of the "Balthi" or "Baltha" ("the bold"), from which sprang Alaric, "continued to flourish in France in the Gothic province of Septimania, or Languedoc, under the corrupted appellation of Baux, and a branch of that family afterwards settled in the kingdom of Naples."

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 30, note. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

      R. G. Latham,
      The Germania of Tacitus; Epilegomena,
      section 20.

"Bavaria … falls into two divisions; the Bavaria of the Rhine, and the Bavaria of the Danube. In Rhenish Bavaria the descent is from the ancient Vangiones and Nemetes, either Germanized Gauls or Gallicized Germans, with Roman superadditions. Afterwards, an extension of the Alemannic and Suevic populations from the right bank of the Upper Rhine completes the evolution of their present Germanic character. Danubian Bavaria falls into two subdivisions. North of the Danube the valley of the Naab, at least, was originally Slavonic, containing an extension of the Slavonic population of Bohemia. But disturbance and displacement began early. … In the third and fourth centuries, the Suevi and Alemanni extended themselves from the Upper Rhine. … The northwestern parts of Bavaria were probably German from the beginning. South of the Danube the ethnology changes. In the first place the Roman elements increase; since Vindelicia was a Roman province. … Its present character has arisen from an extension of the Germans of the Upper Rhine."

"It is about this period [A. D. 547] that the Bavarians first become known in history as tributaries of the Franks; but at what time they became so is matter of dispute. From the previous silence of the annalists respecting this people, we may perhaps infer that both they and the Suabians remained independent until the fall of the Ostrogothic Empire in Italy. The Gothic dominions were bounded on the north by Rhætia and Noricum; and between these countries and the Thuringians, who lived still further to the north, was the country of the Bavarians and Suabians. Thuringia had long been possessed by the Franks, Rhætia was ceded by Vitisges, king of Italy, and Venetia was conquered by Theudebert [the Austrasian Frank King]. The Bavarians were therefore, at this period, almost surrounded by the Frankish territories. … Whenever they may have first submitted to the yoke, it is certain that at the time of Theudebert's death [A. D. 547], or shortly after that event, both Bavarians and Suabians (or Alemannians), had become subjects of the Merovingian kings."

BAVARIA: A. D. 1138-1183.
   Involved in the beginnings of the Guelf and Ghibelline
   Conflicts.
   The struggles of Henry the Proud and Henry the Lion.

BAVARIA: A. D. 1156.
Separation of the Austrian March, which becomes a distinct
Duchy.

BAVARIA: A. D. 1180-1356.
   The House of Wittelsbach.
   Its acquisition of Bavaria and the Palatinate of the Rhine.
   Loss of the Electoral Vote by Bavaria.

When, in 1180, the dominions of Henry the Lion, under the ban of the Empire, were stripped from him (see SAXONY: A. D. 1178-1183), by the imperial sentence of forfeiture, and were divided and conferred upon others by Frederick Barbarossa, the Duchy of Bavaria was given to Otto, Count Palatine of Wittelsbach. "As he claimed a descent from an ancient royal family of Bavaria, it was alleged that, in obtaining the sovereignty of that state, he had only in some measure regained those rights which in former times belonged to his ancestors."

   "Otto … was a descendant of that Duke Luitpold who fell in
   combat with the Hungarians, and whose sons and grandsons had
   already worn the ducal cap of Bavaria. No princely race in
   Europe is of such ancient extraction. … Bavaria was as yet
   destitute of towns: Landshutt and Munich first rose into
   consideration in the course of the 13th century; Ratisbon,
   already a flourishing town, was regarded as the capital and
   residence of the Dukes of Bavaria. … A further accession of
   dignity and power awaited the family in 1214 in the
   acquisition of the Palatinate of the Rhine. Duke Ludwig was
   now the most powerful prince of Southern Germany. … His son
   Otto the Illustrious, remaining … true to the imperial
   house, died excommunicate, and his dominions were placed for
   several years under an interdict. … Upon the death of Otto a
   partition of the inheritance took place. This partition became
   to the family an hereditary evil, a fatal source of quarrel
   and of secret or open enmity. … In [the] dark and dreadful
   period of interregnum [see GERMANY: A. D. 1250-1272], when all
   men waited for the final dissolution of the empire, nothing
   appears concerning the Wittelsbach family. … Finally in 1273
   Rudolf, the first of the Hapsburgs, ascended the
   long-unoccupied throne. … He won over the Bavarian princes
   by bestowing his daughters upon them in marriage.
{274}
   Louis remained faithful and rendered him good
   service; but the turbulent Henry, who had already made war
   upon his brother for the possession of the electoral vote,
   deserted him, and for this Bavaria was punished by the loss of
   the vote, and of the territory above the Enns." Afterwards,
   for a time, the Duke of Bavaria and the Count Palatine
   exercised the right of the electoral vote alternately; but in
   1356 by the Golden Bull of Charles IV. [see GERMANY: A. D.
   1347-1493], the vote was given wholly to the Count Palatine,
   and lost to Bavaria for nearly 300 years.

      J. I. von Döllinger,
      The House of Wittelsbach
      (Studies in European History, chapter 2).

BAVARIA: A. D. 1623.
Transfer to the Duke of the Electoral dignity of the Elector
Palatine.

BAVARIA: A. D. 1646-1648.
   Ravaged by the Swedes and French.
   Truce made and renounced by the Elector.
   The last campaigns of the war.

BAVARIA: A. D. 1648.
Acquisition of the Upper Palatinate in the Peace of
Westphalia.

BAVARIA: A. D. 1743 (April).
The Emperor-Elector recovers his Electoral territory.

BAVARIA: A. D. 1743 (June).
The Emperor-Elector again a fugitive.
The Austrians in Possession.

BAVARIA: A. D. 1748.
Termination and results of the war of the Austrian Succession.

"With the death of Maximilian Joseph, of Bavaria (30 December, 1777), the younger branch of the house of Wittelsbach became extinct, and the electorate of Bavaria … came to an end. By virtue of the original partition in 1310, the duchy of Bavaria ought to pass to the elder branch of the family, represented by Charles Theodore, the Elector Palatine. But Joseph [the Second, the Emperor], saw the possibility of securing valuable additions to Austria which would round off the frontier on the west. The Austrian claims were legally worthless. They were based chiefly upon a gift of the Straubingen territory which Sigismund was said to have made in 1426 to his son-in-law, Albert of Austria, but which had never taken effect and had since been utterly forgotten. It would be impossible to induce the diet to recognise such claims, but it might be possible to come to an understanding with the aged Charles Theodore, who had no legitimate children and was not likely to feel any very keen interest in his new inheritance. Without much difficulty the elector was half frightened, half induced to sign a treaty (3 January, 1778), by which he recognised the claims put forward by Austria, while the rest of Bavaria was guaranteed to him and his successors. Austrian troops were at once despatched to occupy the ceded districts. The condition of Europe seemed to assure the success of Joseph's bold venture. … There was only one quarter from which opposition was to be expected, Prussia. Frederick promptly appealed to the fundamental laws of the Empire, and declared his intention of upholding them with arms. But he could find no supporters except those who were immediately interested, the elector of Saxony, whose mother, as a sister of the late elector of Bavaria, had a legal claim to his allodial property, and Charles of Zweibrücken, the heir apparent of the childless Charles Theodore. … Frederick, left to himself, despatched an army into Bohemia, where the Austrian troops had been joined by the emperor in person. But nothing came of the threatened hostilities. Frederick was unable to force on a battle, and the so-called war was little more than an armed negotiation. … France and Russia undertook to mediate, and negotiations were opened in 1779 at Teschen, where peace was signed on the 13th of May. Austria withdrew the claims which had been recognised in the treaty with the Elector Palatine, and received the 'quarter of the Inn,' i. e., the district from Passau to Wildshut. Frederick's eventual claims to the succession in the Franconian principalities of Anspach and Baireuth, which Austria had every interest in opposing, were recognised by the treaty. The claims of Saxony were bought off by a payment of 4,000,000 thalers. The most unsatisfactory part of the treaty was that it was guaranteed by France and Russia. … On the whole, it was a great triumph for Frederick and an equal humiliation for Joseph II. His schemes of aggrandisement had been foiled."

BAVARIA: A. D. 1801-1803.
Acquisition of territory under the Treaty of Luneville.

BAVARIA: A. D. 1805-1806.
   Aggrandized by Napoleon.
   Created a Kingdom.
   Joined to the Confederation of the Rhine.

BAVARIA: A. D. 1809.
The revolt in the Tyrol.
Heroic struggle of Hofer and his countrymen.

BAVARIA: A. D. 1813.
Abandonment of Napoleon and the Rhenish Confederation.
Union with the Allies.

BAVARIA: A. D. 1814-1815.
Restoration of the Tyrol to Austria.
Territorial compensations.

BAVARIA: A. D. 1848 (March).
   Revolutionary outbreak.
   Expulsion of Lola Montez.
   Abdication of the King.

BAVARIA: A. D. 1866.
The Seven Weeks War.
Indemnity and territorial cession to Prussia.

BAVARIA: A. D. 1870-1871. Treaty of Union with the Germanic Confederation, soon transformed into the German Empire.

BAYEUX TAPESTRY.

A remarkable roll of mediæval tapestry, 214 feet long and 20 inches wide, preserved for centuries in the cathedral at Bayeux, Normandy, on which a pictorial history of the Norman invasion and conquest of England is represented, with more or less of names and explanatory inscriptions. Mr. E. A. Freeman (Norman Conquest, volume 3, note A) says: "It will be seen that, throughout this volume, I accept the witness of the Bayeux Tapestry as one of my highest authorities. I do not hesitate to say that I look on it as holding the first place among the authorities on the Norman side. That it is a contemporary work I entertain no doubt whatever, and I entertain just as little doubt as to its being a work fully entitled to our general confidence. I believe the tapestry to have been made for Bishop Odo, and to have been most probably designed by him as an ornament for his newly rebuilt cathedral church of Bayeux." The precious tapestry is now preserved in the public library at Bayeux, carefully stretched round the room under glass.

BAZAINE'S SURRENDER AT METZ.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (JULY-AUGUST), (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER), and (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER).

   The English commanded by the Duke of Clarence, defeated in
   Anjou by an army of French and Scots, under the Dauphin of
   France; the Duke of Clarence slain.

BEAUMARCHAIS'S TRANSACTIONS WITH THE UNITED STATES.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (FEBRUARY-APRIL:
TENNESSEE), and (APRIL-MAY: TENNESSEE-MISSISSIPPI).

One of the most famous abbeys and ecclesiastical schools of the middle ages. Its name was derived from the little beck or rivulet of a valley in Normandy, on the banks of which a pious knight, Herlouin, retiring from the world, had fixed his hermitage. The renown of the piety of Herlouin drew others around him and resulted in the formation of a religious community with himself at its head. Among those attracted to Herlouin's retreat were a noble Lombard scholar, Lanfranc of Pavia, who afterwards became the great Norman archbishop of Canterbury, and Anselm of Aosta, another Italian, who succeeded Lanfranc at Canterbury with still more fame. The teaching of Lanfranc at Bec raised it, says Mr. Green in his Short History of the English People, into the most famous school of Christendom; it was, in fact, the first wave of the intellectual movement which was spreading from Italy to the ruder countries of the West. The fabric of the canon law and of mediaeval scholasticism, with the philosophical skepticism which first awoke under its influence, all trace their origin to Bec. "The glory of Bec would have been as transitory as that of other monastic houses, but for the appearance of one illustrious man [Lanfranc] who came to be enrolled as a private member of the brotherhood, and who gave Bec for a while a special and honorable character with which hardly any other monastery in Christendom could compare."

BED OF JUSTICE.

"The ceremony by which the French kings compelled the registration of their edicts by the Parliament was called a 'lit de justice' [bed of justice]. The monarch proceeded in state to the Grand Chambre, and the chancellor, having taken his pleasure, announced that the king required such and such a decree to be entered on their records in his presence. It was held that this personal interference of the sovereign suspended for the time being the functions of all inferior magistrates, and the edict was accordingly registered without a word of objection. The form of registration was as follows: 'Le roi séant en son lit de justice a ordonné et ordonne que les présents édits seront enregistrés;' and at the end of the decree, 'Fait en Parlement, le roi y séant en son lit de justice.'"

"The origin of this term ['bed of justice'] has been much discussed. The wits complained it was so styled because there justice was put to sleep. The term was probably derived from the arrangement of the throne on which the king sat. The back and sides were made of bolsters and it was called a bed."

   An elaborate and entertaining account of a notable Bed of
   Justice held under the Regency, in the early part of the reign
   of Louis XV., will be found in the

Memoirs of the Duke de Saint Simon, abridged translation of St. John, volume 4, chapter 5-7.

   The field on which the great Jewish soldier and patriot, Judas
   Maccabæus, having but 800 men with him, was beset by an army
   of the Syrians and slain, B. C. 161.

BEG.

BEGGARS OF THE SEA.

BEGUINES.
BEGHINES.
BEGHARDS.
   Weaving Brothers.
   Lollards.
   Brethren of the Free Spirit.
   Fratricelli.
   Bizochi.
   Turlupins.

"In the year 1180 there lived in Liege a certain kindly, stammering priest, known from his infirmity as Lambert le Bègue. This man took pity on the destitute widows of the town. Despite the impediment in his speech, he was, as often happens, a man of a certain power and eloquence in preaching. … This Lambert so moved the hearts of his hearers that gold and silver poured in on him, given to relieve such of the destitute women of Liege as were still of good and pious life. With the moneys thus collected, Lambert built a little square of cottages, with a church in the middle and a hospital, and at the side a cemetery. Here he housed these homeless widows, one or two in each little house, and then he drew up a half monastic rule which was to guide their lives. The rule was very simple, quite informal: no vows, no great renunciation bound the 'Swestrones Brod durch Got.' A certain time of the day was set apart for prayer and pious meditation; the other hours they spent in spinning or sewing, in keeping their houses clean, or they went as nurses in time of sickness into the homes of the townspeople. … Thus these women, though pious and sequestered, were still in the world and of the world. … Soon we find the name' Swestrones Brod durch Got' set aside for the more usual title of Beguines or Beghines. Different authorities give different origins of this word. … Some have thought it was taken in memory of the founder, the charitable Lambert le Bègut. Others think that, even as the Mystics or Mutterers, the Lollards or Hummers, the Popelhards or Babblers, so the Beguines or Stammerers were thus nicknamed from their continual murmuring in prayer. This is plausible; but not so plausible as the suggestion of Dr. Mosheim and M. Auguste Jundt, who derive the word Beguine from the Flemish word 'beggen,' to beg. For we know that these pious women had been veritable beggars; and beggars should they again become. With surprising swiftness the new order spread through the Netherlands and into France and Germany. … Lambert may have lived to see a beguinage in every great town within his ken; but we hear no more of him. The Beguines are no longer for Liege, but for all the world. Each city possessed its quiet congregation; and at any sick-bed you might meet a woman clad in a simple smock and a great veil-like mantle, who lived only to pray and do deeds of mercy. … The success of the Beguines had made them an example. … Before St. Francis and St. Dominic instituted the mendicant orders, there had silently grown up in every town of the Netherlands a spirit of fraternity, not imposed by any rule, but the natural impulse of a people. The weavers seated all day long alone at their rattling looms, the armourers beating out their thoughts in iron, the cross-legged tailors and busy cobblers thinking and stitching together—these men silent, pious, thoughtful, joined themselves in a fraternity modelled on that of the Beguines. They were called the Weaving Brothers. Bound by no vows and fettered by no rule, they still lived the worldly life and plied their trade for hire. Only in their leisure they met together and prayed and dreamed and thought. … Such were the founders of the great fraternity of 'Fratres Textores,' or Beghards as in later years the people more generally called them."

"The Lollards differed from the Beghards less in reality than in name. We are informed respecting them that, at their origin in Antwerp, shortly after 1300, they associated together for the purpose of waiting upon patients dangerously sick, and burying the dead. … Very early, however, an element of a different kind began to work in those fellowships. Even about the close of the 13th century irregularities and extravagances are laid to their charge. …. The charges brought against the later Beghards and Lollards, in connection, on the one hand, with the fanatical Franciscans, who were violently contending with the Church, and on the other, with the Brethren and Sisters of the Free Spirit, relate to three particulars, viz., an a version to all useful industry, conjoined with a propensity to mendicancy and idleness, an intemperate spirit of opposition to the Church, and a skeptical and more or less pantheistical mysticism. … They … declared that the time of Antichrist was come, and on all hands endeavoured to embroil the people with their spiritual guides. Their own professed object was to restore the pure primeval state, the divine life of freedom, innocence, and nature. The idea they formed of that state was, that man, being in and of himself one with God, requires only to act in the consciousness of this unity, and to follow unrestrained the divinely implanted impulses and inclinations of his nature, in order to be good and godly."

"The names of beghards and beguines came not unnaturally to be used for devotees who, without being members of any regular monastic society, made a profession of religious strictness; and thus the applications of the names to some kinds of sectaries was easy—more especially as many of these found it convenient to assume the outward appearance of beghards, in the hope of disguising their differences from the church. But on the other hand, this drew on the orthodox beghards frequent persecutions, and many of them, for the sake of safety, were glad to connect themselves as tertiaries with the great mendicant orders. … In the 14th century, the popes dealt hardly with the beghards; yet orthodox societies under this name still remained in Germany; and in Belgium, the country of their origin, sisterhoods of beguines flourish to the present day. … Matthias of Janow, the Bohemian reformer, in the end of the 14th century, says that all who act differently from the profane vulgar are called beghardi or turlupini, or by other blasphemous names. … Among those who were confounded with the beghards—partly because, like them, they abounded along the Rhine—were the brethren and sisters of the Free Spirit. These appear in various places under various names. They wore a peculiarly simple dress, professed to give themselves to contemplation, and, holding that labour is a hindrance to contemplation and to the elevation of the soul to God, they lived by beggary. Their doctrines were mystical and almost pantheistic. … The brethren and sisters of the Free Spirit were much persecuted, and probably formed a large proportion of those who were burnt under the name of beghards."

"Near the close of this century [the 13th] originated in Italy the Fratricelli and Bizochi, parties that in Germany and France were denominated Beguards; and which, first Boniface VIII., and afterwards other pontiffs condemned, and wished to see persecuted by the Inquisition and exterminated in every possible way. The Fratricelli, who also called themselves in Latin 'Fratres parvi' (Little Brethren), or 'Fraterculi de paupere vita' (Little Brothers of the Poor Life), were Franciscan monks, but detached from the great family of Franciscans; who wished to observe the regulations prescribed by their founder St. Francis more perfectly than the others, and therefore possessed no property, either individually or collectively, but obtained their necessary food from day to day by begging. … They predicted a reformation and purification of the church. … They extolled Celestine V. as the legal founder of their sect; but Boniface and the succeeding pontiffs, who opposed the Fratricelli, they denied to be true pontiffs. As the great Franciscan family had its associates and dependents, who observed the third rule prescribed by St. Francis [which required only certain pious observances, such as fasts, prayers, continence, a coarse, cheap dress, gravity of manners, &c., but did not prohibit private property, marriage, public offices, and worldly occupations], and who were usually called Tertiarii, so also the sect of the Fratricelli … had numerous Tertiarii of its own. These were called, in Italy, Bizochi and Bocasoti; in France Beguini; and in Germany Beghardi, by which name all the Tertiarii were commonly designated. These differed from the Fratricelli … only in their mode of life. The Fratricelli were real monks, living under the rule of St. Francis; but the Bizochi or Beguini lived in the manner of other people. … Totally different from these austere Beguini and Beguinæ, were the German and Belgic Beguinæ, who did not indeed originate in this century, but now first came into notice. … Concerning the Turlupins, many have written; but none accurately. … The origin of the name, I know not; but I am able to prove from substantial documents, that the Turlupins who were burned at Paris, and in other parts of France were no other than the Brethren of the Free Spirit whom the pontiffs and councils condemned."

J. L. Von Mosheim, Inst's of Ecclesiastical History, book 3, century 13, part 2, chapter 2, section 39-41, and chapter 5, section 9, foot-note.

"This remarkable spot, lying on the direct route between Babylon and Ecbatana, and presenting the unusual combination of a copious fountain, a rich plain and a rock suitable for sculpture, must have early attracted the attention of the great monarchs who marched their armies through the Zagros range, as a place where they might conveniently set up memorials of their exploits. … The tablet and inscriptions of Darius, which have made Behistun famous in modern times, are in a recess to the right of the scarped face of the rock, and at a considerable elevation."

The mountain or rock of Behistun fixes the location of the district known to the Greeks as Bagistana. "It lies southwest of Elvend, between that mountain and the Zagrus in the valley of the Choaspes, and is the district now known as Kirmenshah."

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1886-1893.

BELA I., King of Hungary, A. D. 1060-1063.
   Bela II., A. D. 1131-1141.
   Bela III., A. D. 1173-1196.
   Bela IV., A. D. 1235-1270.

BELERION, OR BOLERIUM.

"This Belgian confederation included the people of all the country north of the Seine and Marne, bounded by the Atlantic on the west and the Rhine on the north and east, except the Mediomatrici and Treviri. … The old divisions of France before the great revolution of 1789 corresponded in some degree to the divisions of the country in the time of Cæsar, and the names of the people are still retained with little alteration in the names of the chief towns or the names of the ante-revolutionary divisions of France. In the country of the Remi between the Marne and the Aisne there is the town of Reims. In the territory of the Suessiones between the Marne and the Aisne there is Soissons on the Aisne. The Bellovaci were west of the Oise (Isara) a branch of the Seine: their chief town, which at some time received the name of Cæsaromagus, is now Beauvais. The Nervii were between and on the Sambre and the Schelde. The Atrebates were north of the Bellovaci between the Somme and the upper Schelde: their chief place was Nemetacum or Nemetocenna, now Arras in the old division of Artois. The Ambiani were on the Somme (Samara): their name is represented by Amiens (Samarobriva). The Morini, or sea-coast men extended from Boulogne towards Dunkerque. The Menapii bordered on the northern Morini and were on both sides of the lower Rhine (B. G. iv., 4). The Caleti were north of the lower Seine along the coast in the Pays de Caux. The Velocasses were east of the Caleti on the north side of the Seine as far as the Oise; their chief town was Rotomagus (Rouen) and their country was afterwards Vexin Normand and Vexin Français. The Veromandui were north of the Suessiones: their chief town under the Roman dominion, Augusta Veromanduorum, is now St. Quentin. The Aduatuci were on the lower Maas. The Condrusi and the others included under the name of Germani were on the Maas, or between the Maas and the Rhine. The Eburones had the country about Tongern and Spa, and were the immediate neighbours of the Menapii on the Rhine."

"Cæsar … informs us that, in their own estimation, they [the Belgæ] were principally descended from a German stock, the offspring of some early migration across the Rhine. … Strabo … by no means concurred in Cæsar's view of the origin of this … race, which he believed to be Gaulish and not German, though differing widely from the Galli, or Gauls of the central region."

In the second year of Cæsar's command in Gaul, B. C. 57, he led his legions against the Belgæ, whom he characterized in his Commentaries as the bravest of all the people of Gaul. The many tribes of the Belgian country had joined themselves in a great league to oppose the advancing Roman power, and were able to bring into the field no less than 290,000 men. The tribe of the Remi alone refused to join the confederacy and placed themselves on the Roman side. Cæsar who had quartered his army during the winter in the country of the Sequani, marched boldly, with eight legions, into the midst of these swarming enemies. In his first encounter with them on the banks of the Aisne, the Belgic barbarians were terribly cut to pieces and were so disheartened that tribe after tribe made submission to the proconsul as he advanced. But the Nervii, who boasted a Germanic descent, together with the Aduatuci, the Atrebates and the Veromandui, rallied their forces for a struggle to the death. The Nervii succeeded in surprising the Romans, while the latter were preparing their camp on the banks of the Sambre, and very nearly swept Cæsar and his veterans off the field, by their furious and tremendous charge. But the energy and personal influence of the one, with the steady discipline of the other, prevailed in the end over the untrained valour of the Nervii, and the proud nation was not only defeated but annihilated. "Their eulogy is preserved in the written testimony of their conqueror; and the Romans long remembered, and never failed to signalize their formidable valour. But this recollection of their ancient prowess became from that day the principal monument of their name and history, for the defeat they now sustained well nigh annihilated the nation. Their combatants were cut off almost to a man. The elders and the women, who had been left in secure retreats, came forth of their own accord to solicit the conqueror's clemency. … 'Of 600 senators,' they said, 'we have lost all but three; of 60,000 fighting men 500 only remain.' Cæsar treated the survivors with compassion."

BELGÆ OF BRITAIN, The.
   Supposed to be a colony from the Belgæ of the continent. The
   territory which they occupied is now embraced in the counties
   of Wiltshire and Somerset.

During the attacks of the Avars upon the territory of the Eastern Empire, in the last years of the 6th century, the city of Singidunum, at the junction of the Save with the Danube, was taken and totally destroyed. The advantageous site of the extinct town soon attracted a colony of Sclavonians, who raised out of the ruins a new and strongly fortified city—the Belgrade, or the White City of later times. "The Sclavonic name of Belgrade is mentioned in the 10th century by Constantine Porphyorgenitus: the Latin appellation of Alba Græca is used by the Franks in the beginning of the 9th."

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 46, note. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861
(SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

BENARES.

"The early history of Benares is involved in much obscurity. It is, indisputably, a place of great antiquity, and may even date from the time when the Aryan race first spread itself over Northern India. … It is certain that the city is regarded by all Hindus as coeval with the birth of Hinduism, a notion derived both from tradition and from their own writings. Allusions to Benares are exceedingly abundant in ancient Sanskrit literature; and perhaps there is no city in all Hindustan more frequently referred to. By reason of some subtle and mysterious charm, it has linked itself with the religious sympathies of the Hindus through every century of its existence. For the sanctity of its inhabitants—of its temples and reservoirs—of its wells and streams—of the very soil that is trodden—of the very air that is breathed—and of everything in and around it, Benares has been famed for thousands of years. … Previously to the introduction of the Buddhist faith into India, she was already the sacred city of the land,—the centre of Hinduism, and chief seat of its authority. Judging from the strong feelings of veneration and affection with which the native community regard her in the present day, and bearing in mind that the founder of Buddhism commenced his ministry at this spot, it seems indisputable that, in those early times preceding the Buddhist reformation, the city must have exerted a powerful and wide-spread religious influence over the land. Throughout the Buddhist period in India—a period extending from 700 to 1,000 years—she gave the same support to Buddhism which she had previously given to the Hindu faith. Buddhist works of that era … clearly establish the fact that the Buddhists of those days regarded the city with much the same kind of veneration as the Hindu does now."

BENEDICT II., Pope, A. D. 684-685.
   Benedict III., Pope, A. D. 855-858.
   Benedict IV., Pope, A. D. 900-903.
   Benedict V., Pope, A. D. 964-965.
   Benedict VI., Pope, A. D. 972-974.
   Benedict VII., Pope, A. D. 975-984.
   Benedict VIII., Pope, A. D. 1012-1024.
   Benedict IX., Pope, A. D. 1033-1044, 1047-1048.
   Benedict X., Antipope, A. D. 1058-1059.
   Benedict XI., Pope, A. D. 1303-1304.
   Benedict XII., Pope, A. D. 1334-1342.
   Benedict XIII., Pope, A. D. 1394-1423 (at Avignon).
   Benedict XIII., Pope, A. D. 1724-1730.
   Benedict XIV., Pope, A. D. 1740-1758.

"There were many monasteries in the West before the time of St. Benedict of Nursia (A. D. 480); but he has been rightly considered the father of Western monasticism; for he not only founded an order to which many religious houses became attached, but he established a rule for their government which, in its main features, was adopted as the rule of monastic life by all the orders for more than five centuries, or until the time of St. Dominic and St. Francis of Assisi. Benedict was first a hermit, living in the mountains of Southern Italy, and in that region he afterwards established in succession twelve monasteries, each with twelve monks and a superior. In the year 520 he founded the great monastery of Monte Casino as the mother-house of his order, a house which became the most celebrated and powerful monastery, according to Montalembert, in the Catholic universe, celebrated especially because there Benedict prepared his rule and formed the type which was to serve as a model to the innumerable communities submitting to that sovereign code. … Neither in the East nor in the West were the monks originally ecclesiastics; and it was not until the eighth century that they became priests, called regulars, in contrast with the ordinary parish clergy, who were called seculars. … As missionaries, they proved the most powerful instruments in extending the authority and the boundaries of the church. The monk had no individual property: even his dress belonged to the monastery. … To enable him to work efficiently, it was necessary to feed him well; and such was the injunction of Benedict, as opposed to the former practice of strict asceticism."

"Benedict would not have the monks limit themselves to spiritual labour, to the action of the soul upon itself; he made external labour, manual or literary, a strict obligation of his rule. … In order to banish indolence, which he called the enemy of the soul, he regulated minutely the employment of every hour of the day according to the seasons, and ordained that, after having celebrated the praises of God seven times a-day, seven hours a-day should be given to manual labour, and two hours to reading. … Those who are skilled in the practice of an art or trade, could only exercise it by the permission of the abbot, in all humility; and if anyone prided himself on his talent, or the profit which resulted from it to the house, he was to have his occupation changed until he had humbled himself. … Obedience is also to his eyes a work, obedientiae laborem, the most meritorious and essential of all. A monk entered into monastic life only to make the sacrifice of self. This sacrifice implied especially that of the will. … Thus the rule pursued pride into its most secret hiding-place. Submission had to be prompt, perfect, and absolute. The monk must obey always, without reserve, and without murmur, even in those things which seemed impossible and above his strength, trusting in the succour of God, if a humble and seasonable remonstrance, the only thing permitted to him, was not accepted by his superiors."

The Count de Montalembert, The Monks of the West, book 4, section 2 (volume 2).

      J. H. Newman,
      Mission of St. Benedict
      (Hist. Sketches, volume 2).

      P. Schaff,
      History of the Christian Church,
      volume 2, chapter 4, sections 43-45.

      E. F. Henderson,
      Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages,
      book 3, number 1.

BENEFICIUM. COMMENDATION.

Feudalism "had grown up from two great sources—the beneficium, and the practice of commendation, and had been specially fostered on Gallic soil by the existence of a subject population which admitted of any amount of extension in the methods of dependence. The beneficiary system originated partly in gifts of land made by the kings out of their own estates to their kinsmen and servants, with a special undertaking to be faithful; partly in the surrender by landowners of their estates to churches or powerful men, to be received back again and held by them as tenants for rent or service. By the latter arrangement the weaker man obtained the protection of the stronger, and he who felt himself insecure placed his title under the defence of the Church. By the practice of commendation, on the other hand, the inferior put himself under the personal care of a lord, but without altering his title or divesting himself of his right to his estate; he became a vassal and did homage. The placing of his hands between those of his lord was the typical act by which the connexion was formed."

BENEFIT OF CLERGY.

"Among the most important and dearly-prized privileges of the church was that which conferred on its members immunity from the operation of secular law, and relieved them from the jurisdiction of secular tribunals. … So priceless a prerogative was not obtained without a long and resolute struggle. … To ask that a monk or priest guilty of crime should not be subject to the ordinary tribunals, and that civil suits between laymen and ecclesiastics should be referred exclusively to courts composed of the latter, was a claim too repugnant to the common sense of mankind to be lightly accorded. … The persistence of the church, backed up by the unfailing resource of excommunication, finally triumphed, and the sacred immunity of the priesthood was acknowledged, sooner or later, in the laws of every nation of Europe." In England, when Henry II. in 1164, "endeavored, in the Constitutions of Clarendon, to set bounds to the privileges of the church, he therefore especially attacked the benefit of clergy. … The disastrous result of the quarrel between the King and the archbishop [Becket] rendered it necessary to abandon all such schemes of reform. … As time passed on, the benefit of clergy gradually extended itself. That the laity were illiterate and the clergy educated was taken for granted, and the test of churchmanship came to be the ability to read, so that the privilege became in fact a free pardon on a first offence for all who knew their letters. … Under Elizabeth, certain heinous offences were declared felonies without benefit of clergy. … Much legislation ensued from time to time, effecting the limitation of the privilege in various offences. … Early in the reign of Anne the benefit of clergy was extended to all malefactors by abrogating the reading test, thus placing the unlettered felon on a par with his better educated fellows, and it was not until the present century was well advanced that this remnant of mediæval ecclesiastical prerogative was abolished by 7 and 8 Geo. iv. c. 28."

ALSO IN: William Stubbs, Constitutional History of England, sections 722-725 (chapter 19, page 3).

The Duchy of Beneventum was a Lombard fief of the 8th and 9th centuries, in southern Italy, which survived the fall of the Lombard kingdom in northern Italy. It covered nearly the territory' of the modern kingdom of Naples. Charlemagne reduced the Duchy to submission with considerable difficulty, after he had extinguished the Lombard kingdom. It was afterwards divided into the minor principalities of Benevento, Salerno and Capua, and became part of the Norman conquest.

See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 800-1016; and 1000-1090; also, LOMBARDS: A. D. 573-774, and AMALFI.

BENEVOLENCES.

"The collection of benevolences, regarded even at the time [England, reign of Edward IV.] as an innovation, was perhaps a resuscitated form of some of the worst measures of Edward II. and Richard II., but the attention which it aroused under Edward IV. shows how strange it had become under the intervening kings. … Such evidence as exists shows us Edward IV. canvassing by word of mouth or by letter for direct gifts of money from his subjects. Henry III. had thus begged for new year's gifts. Edward IV. requested and extorted 'free-will offerings' from everyone who could not say no to the pleadings of such a king. He had a wonderful memory, too, and knew the name and the particular property of every man in the country who was worth taxing in this way. He had no excuse for such meanness; for the estates had shown themselves liberal."

Ptolemy Philadelphus, the second of the Ptolemies, founded a city on the Egyptian shore of the Red Sea, to which he gave the name of his mother, Berenice. It became an important port of trade. Subsequently two other cities of the same name were founded at points further south on the same coast, while a fourth Berenice came into existence on the border of the Great Syrtis, in Cyrenaica.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1759 (APRIL-AUGUST);
and FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER).

BERGER.

BERING SEA CONTROVERSY AND ARBITRATION.

BERLIN: A. D. 1848.
   Mistaken battle of soldiers and citizens.
   Continued disorder.
   State of siege.

BERMUDA HUNDRED.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864
(MAY: VIRGINIA), THE ARMY OF THE JAMES.

BERMUDO,
   King of Leon and the Asturias, or Oviedo, A. D. 788-791.
   Bermudo II., A. D. 982-999.
   Bermudo III., A. D. 1027-1037.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1798-1799 (AUGUST-APRIL); 1799 (NOVEMBER); 1806 (JANUARY-OCTOBER); 1814(JANUARY-MARCH); 1806-1807; SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1810; GERMANY: A. D. 1812-1813; 1813 (AUGUST), (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER), (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).

BERNE, A. D. 1353.
Joined to the original Swiss Confederation, or Old League of
High Germany.

BERSERKER. BÆRSÆRK.

"The word Bærsærk is variously spelt, and stated to be derived from 'bar' and 'særk,' or 'bareshirt.' The men to whom the title was applied [among the Northmen] … were stated to be in the habit of fighting without armour, and wearing only a shirt of skins, or at times naked. In Iceland they were sometimes called Ulfrhedin, i. e., wolfskin. The derivation of Bærsærk has been questioned, as in philology is not uncommon. The habit of their wearing bear (björn) skins, is said to afford the meaning of the word. In philology, to agree to differ is best. The Bærsærks, according to the sagas, appear to have been men of unusual physical development and savagery. They were, moreover, liable to what was called Bærsærkegang, or a state of excitement in which they exhibited superhuman strength, and then spared neither friend nor foe. … After an attack of Bærsærk frenzy, it was believed that the superhuman influence or spirit left the Bærsærk's body as a 'ham,' or cast-off shape or form, with the result that the Bærsærk suffered great exhaustion, his natural forces being used up."

At the beginning, in 1293, of the struggle of the Scottish nation to cast off the feudal yoke which Edward I. had laid upon it, the English king, marching angrily northwards, made his first assault upon Berwick. The citizens, whose only rampart was a wooden stockade, foolishly aggravated his wrath by gibes and taunts. "The stockade was stormed with the loss of a single knight, and nearly 8,000 of the citizens were mown down in a ruthless carnage, while a handful of Flemish traders who held the town-hall stoutly against all assailants were burned alive in it. … The town was ruined forever, and the great merchant city of the North sank from that time into a petty seaport." Subsequently recovered by the Scotch, Berwick was held by them in 1333 when Edward III. attempted to seat Edward Balliol, as his vassal, on the Scottish throne. The English laid siege to the place, and an army under the regent Douglas came to its relief. The battle of Halidon Hill, in which the Scotch were utterly routed, decided the fate of Berwick. "From that time the town remained the one part of Edward's conquests which was preserved by the English crown. Fragment as it was, it was viewed as legally representing the realm of which it had once formed a part. As Scotland, it had its chancellor, chamberlain, and other officers of state: and the peculiar heading of acts of Parliament enacted for England 'and the town of Berwick-upon-Tweed' still preserves the memory of its peculiar position."-

J. R. Green, Short History of the English People, chapter 4, sections 3 and 6.

BERYTUS.

The colony of Berytus (modern Beirut) was founded by Agrippa,
B. C. 15, and made a station for two legions.

The city of Berytus, modern Beirut, was destroyed by earthquake on the 9th of July, A. D. 551. "That city, on the coast of Phœnicia, was illustrated by the study of the civil law, which opened the surest road to wealth and dignity: the schools of Berytus were filled with the rising spirits of the age, and many a youth was lost in the earthquake who might have lived to be the scourge or the guardian of his country."

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 43. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

The Bessi were an ancient Thracian tribe who occupied the mountain range of Hæmus (the Balkan) and the upper valley of the Hebrus. They were subdued by Lucullus, brother of the conqueror of Mithridates.

The victory of Joshua over "the five kings of the Amorites" who laid siege to Gibeon; the decisive battle of the Jewish conquest of Canaan. "The battle of Beth-horon or Gibeon is one of the most important in the history of the world; and yet so profound has been the indifference, first of the religious world, and then (through their example or influence) of the common world, to the historical study of the Hebrew annals, that the very name of this great battle is far less known to most of us than that of Marathon or Cannæ."

   In the Maccabean war, Beth-horon was the scene of two of the
   brilliant victories of Judas Maccabeus, in B. C. 167 and
   162.

Later, at the time of the Jewish revolt against the Romans, it witnessed the disastrous retreat of the Roman general Cestius.

Fought by Joash, king of Israel, with Amaziah, king of Judah, defeating the latter and causing part of the walls of Jerusalem to be thrown down.

   A defeat suffered (B. C. 163) by the Jewish patriot, Judas·
   Maccabæus, at the hands of the Syrian monarch Antiochus
   Eupator: the youngest of the Maccabees being slain.

Defeat of an army sent by Antiochus, against Judas Maccabæus, the Jewish patriot, B. C. 165.

BEY. BEYLERBEY. PACHA. PADISCHAH.

"The administration of the [Turkish] provinces was in the time of Mahomet II. [the Sultan, A. D. 1451-1481, whose legislation organized the Ottoman government] principally intrusted to the Beys and Beylerbeys. These were the natural chiefs of the class of feudatories [Spahis], whom their tenure of office obliged to serve on horseback in time of war. They mustered under the Sanjak, the banner of the chief of their district, and the districts themselves were thence called Sanjaks, and their rulers Sanjak-beys. The title of Pacha, so familiar to us when speaking of a 'Turkish provincial ruler, is not strictly a term implying territorial jurisdiction, or even military authority. It is a title of honour, meaning literally the Shah's or sovereign's foot, and implying that the person to whom that title was given was one whom the sovereign employed. … The title of Pacha was not at first applied among the Ottomans exclusively to those officers who commanded armies or ruled provinces or cities. Of the five first Pachas, that are mentioned by Ottoman writers, three were literary men. By degrees this honorary title was appropriated to those whom the Sultan employed in war and set over districts and important towns; so that the word Pacha became almost synonymous with the word governor. The title Padischah, which the Sultan himself bears, and which the Turkish diplomatists have been very jealous in allowing to Christian Sovereigns, is an entirely different word, and means the great, the imperial Schah or Sovereign. In the time of Mahomet II. the Ottoman Empire contained in Europe alone thirty-six Sanjaks, or banners, around each of which assembled about 400 cavaliers."

The bezant was a Byzantine gold coin (whence its name), worth a little less than ten English shillings—$2.50.

BHARADARS.

BIBRACTE.

A tribe of ancient Britons who dwelt near the Thames. It is suspected, but not known, that they gave their name to Berks County.

This term was applied by Jeremy Bentham to the division of a legislative body into two chambers—such as the House of Lords and House of Commons in England, and the Senate and House of Representatives in the United States of America.

One of the three factions which divided Florence in the time of Savonarola, and after. The Bigi, or Greys, were the partisans of the Medici; their opponents were the Piagnoni, or Weepers, and the Arrabiati, or Madmen.

BILL OF RIGHTS.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JUNE-OCTOBER),
(SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER), to 1794-1795 (JULY-APRIL).

BIRGER, King of Sweden, A. D. 1290-1319.
Birger, or Berger Jarl, Regent of Sweden, A. D. 1250-1266.

BISMARCK'S MINISTRY.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1861-1866, to 1888; and FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (JUNE-JULY); 1870-1871; and 1871 (JANUARY-MAY).

BISSEXTILE YEAR.

BITHYNIANS, THYNIANS.

"Along the coast of the Euxine, from the Thracian Bosphorus. eastward to the river Halys, dwelt Bithynians or Thynians, Mariandynians and Paphlagonians,—all recognized branches of the widely extended 'l'hracian race. The Bithynians especially, in the northwestern portion of this territory, and reaching from the Euxine to the Propontis, are often spoken of as Asiatic Thracians,—while on the other hand various tribes among the Thracians of Europe are denominated Thyni or Thynians,—so little difference was there in the population on the two sides of the Bosphorus, alike brave, predatory, and sanguinary. The Bithynians of Asia are also sometimes called Bebrykians, under which denomination they extend as far southward as the gulf of Kios in the Propontis."

The Bithynians were among the people in Asia Minor subjugated by Crœsus, king of Lydia, and fell, with his fall, under the Persian rule. But, in some way not clearly understood, an independent kingdom of Bithynia was formed, about the middle of the 5th century B. C. which resisted the Persians, successfully resisted Alexander the Great and his successors in Asia Minor, resisted Mithridates of Pontus, and existed until B. C. 74, when its last king Nicomedes III. bequeathed his kingdom to Rome and it was made a Roman province.

BIZYE.

   "The Black Death appears to have had its origin in the centre
   of China, in or about the year 1333. It is said that it was
   accompanied at its outbreak by various terrestrial and
   atmospheric phænomena of a novel and most destructive
   character, phænomena similar to those which characterized the
   first appearance of the Asiatic Cholera, of the Influenza, and
   even in more remote times of the Athenian Plague. It is a
   singular fact that all epidemics of an unusually destructive
   character have had their homes in the farthest East, and have
   travelled slowly from those regions towards Europe. It
   appears, too, that the disease exhausted itself in the place
   of its origin at about the same time in which it made its
   appearance in Europe. … The disease still exists under the
   name of the Levant or Oriental Plague, and is endemic in Asia
   Minor, in parts of Turkey, and in Egypt. It is specifically a
   disease in which the blood is poisoned, in which the system
   seeks to relieve itself by suppuration of the glands, and in
   which, the tissues becoming disorganized, and the blood
   thereupon being infiltrated into them, dark blotches appear on
   the skin.
{284}
   Hence the earliest name by which the Plague was described. The
   storm burst on the Island of Cyprus at the end of the year
   1347, and was accompanied, we are told, by remarkable physical
   phænomena, as convulsions of the earth, and a total change in
   the atmosphere. Many persons affected died instantly. The
   Black Death seemed, not only to the frightened imagination of
   the people, but even to the more sober observation of the few
   men of science of the time, to move forward with measured
   steps from the desolated East, under the form of a dark and
   fetid mist. It is very likely that consequent upon the great
   physical convulsions which had rent the earth and preceded the
   disease, foreign substances of a deleterious character had
   been projected into the atmosphere. … The Black Death
   appeared at Avignon in January 1348, visited Florence by the
   middle of April, and had thoroughly penetrated France and
   Germany by August. It entered Poland in 1349, reached Sweden
   in the winter of that year, and Norway by infection from
   England at about the same time. It spread even to Iceland and
   Greenland. … It made its appearance in Russia in 1351, after
   it had well-nigh exhausted itself in Europe. It thus took the
   circuit of the Mediterranean, and unlike most plagues which
   have penetrated from the Eastern to the Western world, was
   checked, it would seem, by the barrier of the Caucasus. …
   Hecker calculates the loss to Europe as amounting to
   25,000,000."

      J. E. T. Rogers,
      History of Agriculture and Prices,
      volume 1, chapter 15.

      See, also, ENGLAND: A. D. 1348-1349;
      FRANCE: A. D. 1347-1348;
      FLORENCE: A. D. 1348;
      JEWS: A: D. 1348-1349.

A Prussian order of knighthood instituted by Frederick III., elector of Brandenburg, in 1701.

BLACK FRIARS.

BLACK GUELFS (NERI).

BLACK ROD.

"The gentleman whose duty it is to preserve decorum in the House of Lords, just as it is the duty of the Sergeant-at-Arms to maintain order in the House of Commons. These officials are bound to execute the commands of their respective chambers, even though the task involves the forcible ejection of an obstreperous member. … His [Black Rod's] most disturbing occupation, now-a-days, is when he conveys a message from the Lords to the Commons. … No sooner do the policemen herald his approach from the lobbies than the doors of the Lower Chamber are closed against him, and he is compelled to ask for admission with becoming humility and humbleness. After this has been granted, he advances to the bar, bows to the chair, and then—with repeated acts of obeisance—walks slowly to the table, where his request is made for the Speaker's attendance in the Upper House. The object may be to listen to the Queen's speech, or it may simply be to hear the Royal assent given to various bills. … The consequence is nearly always the same. The Sergeant-at-Arms shoulders the mace, the Speaker joins Black Rod, the members fall in behind, and a more or less orderly procession then starts on its way to the Peer's Chamber. … No matter what the subject under consideration, Black Rod's appearance necessitates a check … till the journey to the Lords has been completed, The annoyance thus caused has often found expression during recent sessions. So great was the grumbling last year [1890], indeed, that the Speaker undertook to devise a better system."-

BLACKFEET.

BLENNERHASSETT'S ISLAND.

An island in the Ohio, near Marietta, on which Harman Blennerhassett, a gentleman from Ireland, had created a charming home, at the beginning of the present century. He was drawn into Aaron Burr's mysterious scheme (see UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1806-1807); his island became the rendezvous of the expedition, and he was involved in the ruin of the treasonable project.

BLOCK BOOKS.

This term has been applied to the assumption by a belligerent power, in war, of the right to declare a given coast or certain enumerated ports, to be in the state of blockade, without actual presence of blockading squadrons to enforce the declaration; as by the British "Orders in Council" and the "Berlin" and "Milan Decrees" of Napoleon, in 1806-1807.

Fought on a plain called Bloreheath, near Drayton, in Staffordshire, England, Sept. 23, 1459, between 10,000 Lancastrians, commanded by Lord Audley, and about half that number of Yorkists under the Earl of Salisbury. The latter won a victory by superior strategy. The battle was the second that occurred in the Wars of the Roses.

BLUCHER'S CAMPAIGNS.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1806 (OCTOBER); 1812-1813; 1813
      (APRIL-MAY) to (OCTOBER-DECEMBER);
      FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH), and 1815.

BLUE-LIGHT FEDERALISTS.

"An incident, real or imaginary, which had lately [in 1813] occurred at New London [Connecticut] was seized upon as additional proof of collusion between the Federalists and the enemy. [See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812.] As the winter approached, Decatur had expected to get to sea with his two frigates. Vexed to find himself thwarted in every attempt by the watchfulness of the enemy, he wrote to the Navy Department in a fit of disgust, that, beyond all doubt, the British had, by signals or otherwise, instantaneous information of all his movements; and as proof of it, he stated that, after several nights of favorable weather, the report circulating in the town that an attempt was to be made to get out, 'in the course of the evening two blue lights were burned on both points of the harbor's mouth.' These 'signals to the enemy,' for such he unhesitatingly pronounced them, had been repeated, so he wrote, and had been seen by twenty persons at least of the squadron, though it does not appear that Decatur himself was one of the number. … Such a clamor was raised about it, that one of the Connecticut members of Congress moved for a committee of investigation. … The inquiry was … quashed; but the story spread and grew, and the more vehement opponents of the war began to be stigmatized as 'blue-light Federalists.'"

BOAIRE, The.
A "Cow-lord," having certain wealth in cattle, among the
ancient Irish.

Also called the Boruwa, or Cow-tribute. An humiliating exaction said to have been levied on the province of Leinster by a King Tuathal of Erin, in the second century, and which was maintained for five hundred years.

BOCLAND. BOOKLAND.

BŒOTARCHS.

BŒOTIA. BŒOTIANS.

"Between Phokis and Lokris on one side, and Attica (from which it is divided by the mountains Kithærôn and Parnes) on the other, we find the important territory called Bœotia, with its ten or twelve autonomous cities, forming a sort of confederacy under the presidency of Thebes, the most powerful among them. Even of this territory, destined during the second period of this history to play a part so conspicuous and effective, we know nothing during the first two centuries after 776 B. C. We first acquire some insight into it on occasion of the disputes between Thebes and Platæa, about the year 520 B. C."

In the Greek legendary period one part of this territory, subsequently Bœotian—the Copaic valley in the north—was occupied by the enterprising people called the Minyi, whose chief city was Orchomenus. Their neighbors were the Cadmeians of Thebes, who are "rich," as Grote expresses it, "in legendary antiquities." The reputed founder of Thebes was Cadmus, bringer of letters to Hellas, from Phœnicia or from Egypt, according to different representations. Dionysus (Bacchus) and Hêraklês were both supposed to recognize the Cadmeian city as their birth-place. The terrible legends of Œdipus and his unhappy family connect themselves with the same place, and the incident wars between Thebes and Argos—the assaults of the seven Argive chiefs and of their sons, the Epigoni—were, perhaps, real causes of a real destruction of the power of some race for whom the Cadmeians stand. They and their neighbors, the Minyi of Orchomenus, appear to have given way before another people, from Thessaly, who gave the name Bœotia to the country of both and who were the inhabitants of the Thebes of historic times.

   "That the Bœotia of history should never have attained to a
   significance corresponding to the natural advantages of the
   locality, and to the prosperity of the district in the
   pre-Homeric age, is due above all to one principal cause. The
   immigration of the Thessalian Bœotians, from which the country
   derived its name and the beginnings of its connected history,
   destroyed the earlier civilization of the land, without
   succeeding in establishing a new civilization capable of
   conducting the entire district to a prosperous and harmonious
   development. It cannot be said that the ancient germs of
   culture were suppressed, or that barbarous times supervened.
   The ancient seats of the gods and oracles continued to be
   honoured and the ancient festivals of the Muses on Mount
   Helicon, and of the Charites at Orchomenus, to be celebrated.
{286}
   In Bœotia too the beneficent influence of Delphi was at work,
   and the poetic school of Hesiod, connected as it was with
   Delphi, long maintained itself here. And a yet stronger
   inclination was displayed by the Æolian immigrants towards
   music and lyric poetry. The cultivation of the music of the
   flute was encouraged by the excellent reeds of the Copaic
   morasses. This was the genuinely national species of music in
   Bœotia. … And yet the Bœotians lacked the capacity for
   attracting to themselves the earlier elements of population in
   such a way as to bring about a happy amalgamation. … The
   Bœotian lords were not much preferable to the Thessalian; nor
   was there any region far or near, inhabited by Greek tribes,
   which presented a harsher contrast in culture or manners, than
   the district where the road led from the Attic side of Mount
   Parnes across to the Bœotian."

BŒOTIAN LEAGUE.

"The old Bœotian League, as far as its outward forms went, seems to have been fairly entitled to the name of a Federal Government, but in its whole history we trace little more than the gradual advance of Thebes to a practical supremacy over the other cities. … The common government was carried on in the name of the whole Bœotian nation. Its most important magistrates bore the title of Bœotarchs: their exact number, whether eleven or thirteen, is a disputed point of Greek archæology, or rather of Bœotian geography. … Thebes chose two Bœotarchs and each of the other cities one."

BOGDANIA.

A religious sect which arose among the Sclavonians of Thrace and Bulgaria, in the eleventh century, and suffered persecution from the orthodox of the Greek church. They sympathized with the Iconoclasts of former times, were hostile to the adoration of the Virgin and saints, and took more or less from the heretical doctrines of the Paulicians. Their name is derived by some from the two Sclavonian words, "Bog," signifying God, and "milui," "have mercy." Others say that "Bogumil," meaning "one beloved by God," was the correct designation. Basilios, the leader of the Bogomilians, was burned by the Emperor Alexius Comnenos, in the hippodrome, at Constantinople, A. D. 1118.

      G. Finlay,
      History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires, 716-1453,
      book 3, chapter 2, section 1.

"Whatever may be the inferences from the fact of Bohemia having been politically connected with the empire of the Germanic Marcomanni, whatever may be those from the element Boioas connecting its population with the Boii of Gaul and Bavaria (Baiovarii), the doctrine that the present Slavonic population of that kingdom—Tshekhs [or Czekhs] as they call themselves—is either recent in origin or secondary to any German or Keltic aborigines, is wholly unsupported by history. In other words, at the beginning of the historical period Bohemia was as Slavonic as it is now. From A. D. 526 to A. D. 550, Bohemia belonged to the great Thuringian Empire. The notion that it was then Germanic (except in its political relations) is gratuitous. Nevertheless, Schaffarik's account is, that the ancestors of the present Tshekhs came, probably, from White Croatia: which was either north of the Carpathians, or each side of them. According to other writers, however, the parts above the river Kulpa in Croatia sent them forth. In Bohemian the verb 'ceti' = 'to begin,' from which Dobrowsky derives the name Czekhs = the beginners, the foremost, i. e., the first Slavonians who passed westwards. The powerful Samo, the just Krok, and his daughter, the wise Libussa, the founder of Prague, begin the uncertain list of Bohemian kings, A. D. 624-700. About A. D. 722, a number of petty chiefs become united under P'remysl the husband of Libussa. Under his son Nezamysl occurs the first Constitutional Assembly at Wysegrad; and in A. D. 845, Christianity was introduced. But it took no sure footing till about A. D. 966. Till A. D. 1471 the names of the Bohemian kings and heroes are Tshekh—Wenceslaus, Ottokar, Ziska, Podiebrad. In A. D. 1564, the Austrian connexion and the process of Germanizing began. … The history and ethnology of Moravia is nearly that of Bohemia, except that the Marcomannic Germans, the Turks, Huns, Avars, and other less important populations may have effected a greater amount of intermixture. Both populations are Tshekh, speaking the Tshekh language—the language, probably, of the ancient Quadi."

BOHEMIA: A. D. 1276.
War of King Ottocar with the Emperor Rodolph of Hapsburg.
His defeat and death.

BOHEMIA: A. D. 1355.
The succession fixed in the Luxemburg dynasty.
Incorporation of Moravia, Silesia, &c.

The diet of the nobles, in 1355, joined Charles IV. in "fixing the order of succession in the dynasty of Luxemburg, and in definitely establishing that principle of primogeniture which had already been the custom in the Premyslide dynasty. Moravia, Silesia, Upper Lusatia, Brandenburg, which had been acquired from the margrave Otto, and the county of Glatz (Kladsko), with the consent of the diets of these provinces, were declared integral and inalienable portions of the kingdom of Bohemia."

BOHEMIA: A. D. 1378-1400.

"Some sparks of the fire which Wielif had lighted [see ENGLAND: A. D. 1360-1414], blown over half Europe, as far as remote Bohemia, quickened into stronger activity a flame which for long years burned and scorched and consumed, defying all efforts to extinguish it. But for all this, it was not Wiclif who kindled the Bohemian fires. His writing did much to fan and feed them; while the assumed and in part erroneously assumed, identity of his teaching with that of Hus contributed not a little to shape the tragic issues of the Bohemian reformer's life. But the Bohemian movement was an independent and eminently a national one. If we look for the proper forerunners of Hus, his true spiritual ancestors, we shall find them in his own land, in a succession of earnest and faithful preachers. … John Hus (b. 1369, d. 1415), the central figure of the Bohemian Reformation, took in the year 1394 his degree as Bachelor of Theology in that University of Prague, upon the fortunes of which he was destined to exercise so lasting an influence; and four years later, in 1398, he began to deliver lectures there. … He soon signalized himself by his diligence in breaking the bread of life to hungering souls, and his boldness in rebuking vice in high places as in low. So long as he confined himself to reproving the sins of the laity, leaving those of the Clergy and monks unassailed, he found little opposition, nay, rather support and applause from these. But when [1405] he brought them also within the circle of his condemnation, and began to upbraid them for their covetousness, their ambition, their luxury, their sloth, and for other vices, they turned angrily upon him, and sought to undermine his authority, everywhere spreading reports of the unsoundness of his teaching. … While matters were in this strained condition, events took place at Prague which are too closely connected with the story that we are telling, exercised too great an influence in bringing about the issues that lie before us, to allow us to pass them by. … The University of Prague, though recently founded—it only dated back to the year 1348—was now, next after those of Paris and Oxford, the most illustrious in Europe. … This University, like that of Paris, on the pattern of which it had been modelled, was divided into four 'nations'—four groups, that is, or families of scholars—each of these having in academical affairs a single collective vote. These nations were the Bavarian, the Saxon, the Polish, and the Bohemian. This does not appear at first an unfair division—two German and two Slavonic; but in practical working the Polish was so largely recruited from Silesia, and other German or half-German lands, that its vote was in fact German also. The Teutonic votes were thus as three to one, and the Bohemians in their own land and their own University on every important matter hopelessly outvoted. When, by, aid of this preponderance, the University was made to condemn the teaching of Wiclif … matters came to a crisis. Urged by Hus, who as a stout patriot, and an earnest lover of the Bohemian language and literature, had more than a theological interest in the matter,—by Jerome [of Prague],—by a large number of the Bohemian nobility,—King Wenzel published an edict whereby the relations of natives and foreigners were completely reversed. There should be henceforth three votes for the Bohemian nation, and only one for the three others. Such a shifting of the weights certainly appears as a redressing of one inequality by creating another. At all events it was so earnestly resented by the Germans, by professors and students alike, that they quitted the University in a body, some say of five, and some of thirty thousand, and founded the rival University of Leipsic, leaving no more than two thousand students at Prague. Full of indignation against Hus, whom they regarded as the prime author of this affront and wrong, they spread throughout all Germany the most unfavourable reports of him and of his teaching. This exodus of the foreigners had left Hus, who was now Rector of the University, with a freer field than before. But Church matters at Prague did not mend; they became more confused and threatening every day; until presently the shameful outrage against all Christian morality which a century later did a still more effectual work, served to put Hus into open opposition to the corrupt hierarchy of his time. Pope John XXIII., having a quarrel with the King of Naples, proclaimed a crusade against him, with what had become a constant accompaniment of this,—Indulgences to match. But to denounce Indulgences, as Hus with fierce and righteous indignation did now, was to wound Rome in her most sensitive part. He was excommunicated at once, and every place which should harbour him stricken with an interdict. While matters were in this frame the Council of Constance [see PAPACY: A. D. 1414-1418] was opened, which should appease all the troubles of Christendom, and correct whatever was amiss. The Bohemian difficulty could not be omitted, and Hus was summoned to make answer at Constance for himself. He had not been there four weeks when he was required to appear before the Pope and Cardinals (Nov. 18, 1414). After a brief informal hearing he was committed to harsh durance from which he never issued as a free man again. Sigismund, the German King and Emperor Elect, who had furnished Hus with a safe-conduct which should protect him, 'going to the Council, tarrying at the Council, returning from the Council,' was absent from Constance at the time, and heard with real displeasure how lightly regarded this promise and pledge of his had been. Some big words too he spoke, threatening to come himself and release the prisoner by force; but, being waited on by a deputation from the Council, who represented to him that he, as a layman, in giving such a safe conduct had exceeded his powers, and intruded into a region which was not his, Sigismund was convinced, or affected to be convinced. … More than seven months elapsed before Hus could obtain a hearing before the Council. This was granted to him at last. Thrice heard (June 5, 7, 8, 1415),—if indeed such tumultuary sittings, where the man speaking for his life, and for much more than his life, was continually interrupted and overborne by hostile voices, by loud cries of 'Recant,' 'Recant,' may be reckoned as hearings at all,—he bore himself, by the confession of all, with courage, meekness and dignity." He refused to recant. Some of the articles brought against him, he said, "charged him with teaching things which he had never taught, and he could not, by this formal act of retraction, admit that he had taught them." He was condemned, sentenced to the stake, and burned, on the 6th of July, 1415. His friend, Jerome, of Prague, suffered the same fate in the following May.

"The fate of Huss and Jerome created an instant and fierce excitement among the Bohemians. An address, defending them against the charge of heresy and protesting against the injustice and barbarity of the Council, was signed by 400 or 500 nobles and forwarded to Constance. The only result was that the Council decreed that no safe-conduct could be allowed to protect a heretic, that the University of Prague must be reorganized, and the strongest measures applied to suppress the Hussite doctrines in Bohemia. This was a defiance which the Bohemians courageously accepted. Men of all classes united in proclaiming that the doctrines of Huss should be freely taught, and that no Interdict of the Church should be enforced: the University, and even Wenzel's queen, Sophia, favored this movement, which soon became so powerful that all priests who refused to administer the sacrament 'in both forms' were driven from the churches. … When the Council of Constance was dissolved [1418], Sigismund [the Emperor] hastened to Hungary to carry on a new war with the Turks, who were already extending their conquests along the Danube. The Hussites in Bohemia employed this opportunity to organize themselves for resistance; 40,000 of them, in July, 1419, assembled on a mountain to which they gave the name of Tabor, and chose as their leader a nobleman who was surnamed Ziska, 'the one-eyed.' The excitement soon rose to such a pitch that several monasteries were stormed and plundered. King Wenzel arrested some of the ringleaders, but this only inflamed the spirit of the people. They formed a procession in Prague, marched through the city, carrying the sacramental cup at their head, and took forcible possession of several churches. When they halted before the city-hall, to demand the release of their imprisoned brethren, stones were thrown at them from the windows, whereupon they broke into the building and hurled the Burgomaster and six other officials upon the upheld spears of those below. … The Hussites were already divided into two parties, one moderate in its demands, called the Calixtines, from the Latin 'calix,' a chalice, which was their symbol [referring to their demand for the administration of the eucharistic cup to the laity, or communion 'sub utraque specie'—whence they were also called 'Utraquists']; the other radical and fanatic, called the 'Taborites,' who proclaimed their separation from the Church of Rome and a new system of brotherly equality through which they expected to establish the Millenium upon earth. The exigencies of their situation obliged these two parties to unite in common defence against the forces of the Church and the Empire, during the sixteen years of war which followed; but they always remained separated in their religious views, and mutually intolerant. Ziska, who called himself 'John Ziska of the Chalice, commander in the hope of God of the Taborites,' had been a friend and was an ardent follower of Huss. He was an old man, bald-headed, short, broad-shouldered, with a deep furrow across his brow, an enormous aquiline nose, and a short red moustache. In his genius for military operations, he ranks among the great commanders of the world; his quickness, energy and inventive talent were marvellous, but at the same time he knew neither tolerance nor mercy. … Sigismund does not seem to have been aware of the formidable character of the movement, until the end of his war with the Turks, some months afterwards, and he then persuaded the Pope to summon all Christendom to a crusade against Bohemia. During the year 1420 a force of 100,000 soldiers was collected, and Sigismund marched at their head to Prague. The Hussites met him with the demand for the acceptance of the following articles: 1.—The word of God to be freely preached; 2.—The sacrament to be administered in both forms; 3.—The clergy to possess no property or temporal authority; 4.—All sins to be punished by the proper authorities. Sigismund was ready to accept these articles as the price of their submission, but the Papal Legate forbade the agreement, and war followed. On the 1st of November, 1420, the Crusaders were totally defeated by Ziska, and all Bohemia was soon relieved of their presence. The dispute between the moderates and the radicals broke out again; the idea of a community of property began to prevail among the Taborites, and most of the Bohemian nobles refused to act with them. Ziska left Prague with his troops and for a time devoted himself to the task of suppressing all opposition through the country, with fire and sword. He burned no less than 550 convents and monasteries, slaying the priests and monks who refused to accept the new doctrines. … While besieging the town of Raby, an arrow destroyed his remaining eye, yet he continued to plan battles and sieges as before. The very name of the blind warrior became a terror throughout Germany. In September, 1421, a second Crusade of 200,000 men, commanded by five German Electors, entered Bohemia from the west. … But the blind Ziska, nothing daunted, led his wagons, his flail-men, and mace-wielders against the Electors, whose troops began to fly before them. No battle was fought; the 200,000 Crusaders were scattered in all directions, and lost heavily during their retreat. Then Ziska wheeled about and marched against Sigismund, who was late in making his appearance. The two armies met on the 8th of January, 1422 [at Deutschbrod], and the Hussite victory was so complete that the Emperor narrowly escaped falling into their hands. … A third Crusade was arranged and Frederick of Brandenburg (the Hohenzollern) selected to command it, but the plan failed from lack of support. {289} The dissensions among the Hussites became fiercer than ever; Ziska was at one time on the point of attacking Prague, but the leaders of the moderate party succeeded in coming to an understanding with him, and he entered the city in triumph. In October, 1424, while marching against Duke Albert of Austria, who had invaded Moravia, he fell a victim to the plague. Even after death he continued to terrify the German soldiers, who believed that his skin had been made into a drum, and still called the Hussites to battle. A majority of the Taborites elected a priest, called Procopius the Great, as their commander in Ziska's stead; the others who thenceforth styled themselves 'Orphans,' united under another priest, Procopius the Little. The approach of another Imperial army, in 1426, compelled them to forget their differences, and the result was a splendid victory over their enemies. Procopius the Great then invaded Austria and Silesia, which he laid waste without mercy. The Pope called a fourth Crusade, which met the same fate as the former ones: the united armies of the Archbishop of Treves, the Elector Frederick of Brandenburg and the Duke of Saxony, 200,000 strong, were utterly defeated, and fled in disorder, leaving an enormous quantity of stores and munitions of war in the hands of the Bohemians. Procopius, who was almost the equal of Ziska as a military leader, made several unsuccessful attempts to unite the Hussites in one religious body. In order to prevent their dissensions from becoming dangerous to the common cause, he kept the soldiers of all sects under his command, and undertook fierce invasions into Bavaria, Saxony and Brandenburg, which made the Hussite name a terror to all Germany. During these expeditions one hundred towns were destroyed, more than 1,500 villages burned, tens of thousands of the inhabitants slain, and such quantities of plunder collected that it was impossible to transport the whole of it to Bohemia. Frederick of Brandenburg and several other princes were compelled to pay heavy tributes to the Hussites: the Empire was thoroughly humiliated, the people weary of slaughter, yet the Pope refused even to call a Council for the discussion of the difficulty. … The German princes made a last and desperate effort: an army of 130,000 men, 40,000 of whom were cavalry, was brought together, under the command of Frederick of Brandenburg, while Albert of Austria was to support it by invading Bohemia from the south. Procopius and his dauntless Hussites met the Crusaders on the 14th of August, 1431, at a place called Thauss, and won another of their marvellous victories. The Imperial army was literally cut to pieces, 8,000 wagons, filled with provisions and munitions of war, and 150 cannons, were left upon the field. The Hussites marched northward to the Baltic, and eastward into Hungary, burning, slaying, and plundering as they went. Even the Pope now yielded, and the Hussites were invited to attend the Council at Basel, with the most solemn stipulations in regard to personal safety and a fair discussion of their demands. … In 1433, finally 300 Hussites, headed by Procopius, appeared in Basel. They demanded nothing more than the acceptance of the four articles upon which they had united in 1420; but after seven weeks of talk, during which the Council agreed upon nothing and promised nothing, they marched away, after stating that any further negotiation must be carried on in Prague. This course compelled the Council to act; an embassy was appointed, which proceeded to Prague, and on the 30th of November, the same year, concluded a treaty with the Hussites. The four demands were granted, but each with a condition attached which gave the Church a chance to regain its lost power. For this reason, the Taborites and 'Orphans' refused to accept the compact; the moderate party united with the nobles and undertook to suppress the former by force. A fierce internal war followed, but it was of short duration. In 1434, the Taborites were defeated [at Lipan, May 30], their fortified mountain taken, Procopius the Great and the Little were both slain, and the members of the sect dispersed. The Bohemian Reformation was never again dangerous to the Church of Rome."

      ALSO IN:
      C. A. Peschek,
      Reformation and Anti-Reformation in Bohemia,
      introductory chapter.

      E. H. Gillett,
      Life and Times of John Hus,
      volume 2, chapters 13-18.

      E. de Schweinitz,
      History of the Church known as the Unitas Fratrum,
      chapter 9.

BOHEMIA: A. D. 1434-1457.
   Organization of the Utraquist National Church.
   Minority of Ladislaus Posthumus.
   Regency of George Podiebrad.
   Origin of the Unitas Fratrum.

"The battle of Lipan was a turning point in the history of the Hussites. It put Bohemia and Moravia into the hands of the Utraquists, and enabled them to carry out their plans unhindered. The man who was foremost in shaping events and who became more and more prominent, until he exercised a commanding influence, was John of Rokycana. … At the diet of 1435 he was unanimously elected archbishop. … Meantime Sigismund endeavored to regain his kingdom. The Diet made demands which were stringent and humiliating; but he pledged himself to fulfill them, and on the 5th of July, 1436, at a meeting held with great pomp and solemnity, in the market-place of Iglau, was formally acknowledged as King of Bohemia. On the same occasion, the Compactata were anew ratified and the Bohemians readmitted to the fellowship of the mother church. But scarcely had Sigismund reached his capital when he began so serious a reaction in favor of Rome that Rokycana secretly left the city and retired to a castle near Pardubic (1437). The king's treachery was, however, cut short by the hand of death, on the 9th of December, of the same year, at Znaim, while on his way to Hungary; and his successor and son-in-law, Albert of Austria, followed him to the grave in 1439, in the midst of a campaign against the Turks. Bohemia was left without a ruler, for Albert had no children except a posthumous son [Ladislaus Posthumus.]"

   "A time of anarchy began and various leagues arose, the most
   powerful of which stood under Baron Ptacek. … He … called
   an ecclesiastical convention at Kuttenberg (October 4th). This
   convention brought about far-reaching results. … Rokycana
   was acknowledged as Archbishop elect, the supreme direction of
   ecclesiastical affairs was committed into his hands, the
   priests promised him obedience, and 24 doctrinal and
   constitutional articles were adopted which laid the foundation
   of the Utraquist Church as the National Church of Bohemia.
{290}
   But the Taborites stood aloof. … At last a disputation was
   agreed upon," as the result of which the Taborites were
   condemned by the Diet. "They lost all prestige; their towns,
   with the exception of Tabor, passed out of their hands; their
   membership was scattered and a large part of it joined the
   National Church. In the following summer Ptacek died and
   George Podiebrad succeeded him as the head of the league.
   Although a young man of only 24 years, he displayed the
   sagacity of an experienced statesman and was distinguished by
   the virtues of a patriot. In 1448 a bold stroke made him
   master of Prague and constituted him practically Regent of all
   Bohemia; four years later his regency was formally
   acknowledged. He was a warm friend of Rokycana, whose
   consecration he endeavored to bring about." When it was found
   that Rome could not be reconciled, there were thoughts of
   cutting loose altogether from the Roman Catholic and uniting
   with the Greek Church. "Negotiations were actually begun in
   1452, but came to an abrupt close in the following year, in
   consequence of the fall of Constantinople. About the same time
   Ladislaus Posthumus, Albert's son, assumed the crown,
   Podiebrad remaining Regent. The latter continued the friend of
   Rokycana; the former, who was a Catholic, conceived a strong
   dislike to him. As soon as Rokycana had given up the hope of
   conciliating Rome, he began to preach, with great power and
   eloquence, against its corruptions." It was at this time that
   a movement arose among certain of his followers which resulted
   in the formation of the remarkable religious body which called
   itself Unitas Fratrum. The leading spirit in this movement was
   Rokycana's nephew, commonly called Gregory the Patriarch. The
   teaching and influence which shaped it was that of Peter
   Chelcicky. Gregory and his companions, wishing to dwell
   together, in the Christian unity of which they had formed an
   ideal in their minds, found a retreat at the secluded village
   of Kunwald, on the estate of George Podiebrad. "The name which
   they chose was 'Brethren of the Law of Christ'—'Fratres
   Legis Christi'; inasmuch, however, as this name gave rise to
   the idea that they were a new order of Monks, they changed it
   simply into 'Brethren.' When the organization of their Church
   had been completed, they assumed the additional title of
   'Jednota Bratrska,' or Unitas Fratrum, that is, the Unity of
   the Brethren, which has remained the official and significant
   appellation of the Church to the present day. …. It was
   often abbreviated into 'The Unity.' Another name by which the
   Church called itself was 'The Bohemian Brethren.' It related
   to all the Brethren, whether they belonged to Bohemia,
   Moravia, Prussia or Poland. To call them The Bohemian-Moravian
   Brethren, or the Moravian Brethren, is historically incorrect.
   The name Moravian arose in the time of the Renewed Brethren's
   Church, because the men by whom it was renewed came from
   Moravia. … The organization of the Unitas Fratrum took place
   in the year 1457."

      E. De Schweinitz,
      History of the Church known as Unitas Fratrum,
      chapters 10-12.

BOHEMIA: A. D. 1458-1471.
   Papal excommunication and deposition of the king, George
   Podiebrad.
   A crusade.
   War with the Emperor and Matthias of Hungary.
   Death of Podiebrad and election of Ladislaus of Poland.

"George Podiebrad had scarcely ascended the throne before the Catholics, at the instigation of the pope, required him to fulfil his coronation oath, by expelling all heretics from the kingdom. He complied with their request, banished the Taborites, Picards, Adamites, and all other religious sects who did not profess the Catholic doctrines, and issued a decree that all his subjects should become members of the Catholic church, as communicants under one or both kinds. The Catholics, however, were not satisfied; considering the Calixtins as heretics, they entreated him to annul the compacts, or to obtain a new ratification of them from the new pope: To gratify their wishes he sent an embassy to Rome, requesting a confirmation of the compacts; but Pius, under the pretence that the compacts gave occasion to heresy, refused his ratification, and sent Fantino della Valle, as legate, to Prague, for the purpose of persuading the king to prohibit the administration of the communion under both kinds. In consequence of this legation the king called a diet, at which the legate and the bishops of Olmutz and Breslau were present. The ill success of the embassy to Rome having been announced, he said, 'I am astonished, and cannot divine the intentions of the pope. The compacts were the only means of terminating the dreadful commotions in Bohemia, and if they are annulled, the kingdom will again relapse into the former disorders. The council of Basle, which was composed of the most learned men in Europe, approved and granted them to the Bohemians, and pope Eugenius confirmed them. They contain no heresy, and are in all respects conformable to the doctrines of the holy church. I and my wife have followed them from our childhood, and I am determined to maintain them till my death.' … Fantino replying in a long and virulent invective, the king ordered him to quit the assembly, and imprisoned him in the castle of Podiebrad, allowing him no other sustenance except bread and water. The pope, irritated by this insult, annulled the compacts, in 1463, and fulminated a sentence of excommunication against the king, unless he appeared at Rome within a certain time to justify his conduct. This bull occasioned a great ferment among the Catholics; Podiebrad was induced to liberate the legate, and made an apology to the offended pontiff; while Frederic, grateful for the assistance which he had recently received from the king of Bohemia, when besieged by his brother Albert, interposed his mediation with the pope, and procured the suspension of the sentence of excommunication. Pius dying on the 14th of August, 1464, the new pope, Paul II., persecuted the king of Bohemia with increasing acrimony. He sent his legate to Breslau to excite commotions among the Catholics, endeavoured without effect to gain Casimir, king of Poland, by the offer of the Bohemian crown, and applied with the same ill success to the states of Germany. He at length overcame the gratitude of the emperor by threats and promises, and at the diet of Nuremberg in 1467, the proposal of his legate Fantino, to form a crusade against the heretic king of Bohemia, was supported by the imperial ambassadors. {291} Although this proposal was rejected by the diet, the pope published a sentence of deposition against Podiebrad, and his emissaries were allowed to preach the crusade throughout Germany, and in every part of the Austrian territories. The conduct of Frederic drew from the king of Bohemia, in 1468, a violent invective against his ingratitude, and a formal declaration of war; he followed this declaration by an irruption into Austria, spreading devastation as far as the Danube. Frederic in vain applied to the princes of the empire for assistance: and at length excited Matthias king of Hungary against his father-in-law, by offering to invest him with the kingdom of Bohemia. Matthias, forgetting his obligations to Podiebrad, to whom he owed his life and crown, was dazzled by the offer, and being assisted by bodies of German marauders, who had assumed the cross, invaded Bohemia. At the same time the intrigues of the pope exciting the Catholics to insurrection, the country again became a prey to the dreadful evils of a civil and religious war. The vigour and activity of George Podiebrad suppressed the internal commotions, and repelled the invasion of the Hungarians; an armistice was concluded, and the two kings, on the 4th of April, 1469, held an amicable conference at Sternberg, in Moravia, where they entered into a treaty of peace. But Matthias, influenced by the perfidious maxim, that no compact should be kept with heretics, was persuaded by the papal legate to resume hostilities. After overrunning Moravia and Silesia, he held a mock diet at Olmutz with some of the Catholic party, where he was chosen king of Bohemia, and solemnly crowned by the legate. … Podiebrad, in order to baffle the designs both of the emperor and Matthias, summoned a diet at Prague, and proposed to the states as his successor, Ladislaus, eldest son of Casimir, king of Poland, by Elizabeth, second daughter of the emperor Albert. The proposal was warmly approved by the nation, … as the Catholics were desirous of living under a prince of their own communion, and the Calixtins anxious to prevent the accession of Frederic or Matthias, both of whom were hostile to their doctrines. The states accordingly assented without hesitation, and Ladislaus was unanimously nominated successor to the throne. The indignation of Matthias was inflamed by his disappointment, and hostilities were continued with increasing fury. The two armies, conducted by their respective sovereigns, the ablest generals of the age, for some time kept each other in check; till at length both parties, wearied by the devastation of their respective countries, concluded a kind of armistice, on the 22nd of July, 1470, which put a period to hostilities. On the death of Podiebrad, in the ensuing year, Frederic again presenting himself as a candidate, was supported by still fewer adherents than on the former occasion; a more numerous party espoused the interests of Matthias; but the majority declaring for Ladislaus, he was re-elected, and proclaimed king. Frederic supported Ladislaus in preference to Matthias, and by fomenting the troubles in Hungary, as well as by his intrigues with the king of Poland, endeavoured not only to disappoint Matthias of the throne of Bohemia, but even to drive him from that of Hungary."

      W. Coxe.
      History of the House of Austria,
      chapter 18 (volume 1).

BOHEMIA: A. D. 1471-1479.
War with Matthias of Hungary.
Surrender of Moravia and Silesia.

BOHEMIA: A. D. 1516-1576.
   Accession of the House of Austria.
   The Reformation and its strength.
   Alternating toleration and persecution.

In 1489 Vladislav "was elected to the throne of Hungary after the death of Mathias Corvinus. He died in 1516, and was succeeded on the throne of Bohemia and Hungary by his minor son, Louis, who perished in 1526 at the battle of Mohacz against the Turks [see HUNGARY: A. D. 1487-1526]. An equality of rights was maintained between the Hussites and the Roman Catholics during these two reigns. Louis left no children, and was succeeded on the throne of Hungary and Bohemia by Ferdinand of Austria [see, also, AUSTRIA: A. D. 1406-1526], brother of the Emperor Charles V., and married to the sister of Louis, a prince of a bigoted and despotic character. The doctrines of Luther had already found a speedy echo amongst the Calixtines under the preceding reign; and Protestantism gained so much ground under that of Ferdinand, that the Bohemians refused to take part in the war against the Protestant league of Smalkalden, and formed a union for the defence of the national and religious liberties, which were menaced by Ferdinand. The defeat of the Protestants at the battle of Muhlberg, in 1547, by Charles V., which laid prostrate their cause in Germany, produced a severe reaction in Bohemia. Several leaders of the union were executed, others imprisoned or banished; the property of many nobles was confiscated, the towns were heavily fined, deprived of several privileges, and subjected to new taxes. These measures were carried into execution with the assistance of German, Spanish, and Hungarian soldiers, and legalized by an assembly known under the name of the Bloody Diet. … The Jesuits were also introduced during that reign into Bohemia. The privileges of the Calixtine, or, as it was officially called, the Utraquist Church, were not abolished; and Ferdinand, who had succeeded to the imperial crown after the abdication of his brother Charles V., softened, during the latter years of his reign, his harsh and despotic character. … He died in 1564, sincerely regretting, it is said, the acts of oppression which he had committed against his Bohemian subjects. He was succeeded by his son, the Emperor Maximilian II., a man of noble character and tolerant disposition, which led to the belief that he himself inclined towards the doctrines of the Reformation. He died in 1576, leaving a name venerated by all parties. … Maximilian's son, the Emperor Rudolph, was educated at the court of his cousin, Philip II. of Spain, and could not be but adverse to Protestantism, which had, however, become too strong, not only in Bohemia, but also in Austria proper, to be easily suppressed; but several indirect means were adopted, in order gradually to effect this object."

      V. Krasinski,
      Lectures on the Religious History of the Slavonic Nations,
      lecture 2.

BOHEMIA: A. D. 1611-1618.
   The Letter of Majesty, or Royal Charter, and Matthias's
   violation of it.
   Ferdinand of Styria forced upon the nation as king by
   hereditary right.
   The throwing of the Royal Counsellors from the window.
   Beginning of the Thirty Years War.

In 1611 the Emperor Rodolph was forced to surrender the crown of Bohemia to his brother Matthias. The next year he died, and Matthias succeeded him as Emperor also. "The tranquillity which Rodolph II.'s Letter of Majesty [see GERMANY: A. D. 1608-1618] had established in Bohemia lasted for some time, under the administration of Matthias, till the nomination of a new heir to this kingdom in the person of Ferdinand of Gratz [Styria]. This prince, whom we shall afterwards become better acquainted with under the title of Ferdinand II., Emperor of Germany, had, by the violent extirpation of the Protestant religion within his hereditary dominions, announced himself as an inexorable zealot for popery, and was consequently looked upon by the Catholic part of Bohemia as the future pillar of their church. The declining health of the Emperor brought on this hour rapidly; and, relying on so powerful a supporter, the Bohemian Papists began to treat the Protestants with little moderation. The Protestant vassals of Roman Catholic nobles, in particular, experienced the harshest treatment. At length several of the former were incautious enough to speak somewhat loudly of their hopes, and by threatening hints to awaken among the Protestants a suspicion of their future sovereign. But this mistrust would never have broken out into actual violence, had the Roman Catholics confined themselves to general expressions, and not by attacks on individuals furnished the discontent of the people with enterprising leaders. Henry Matthias, Count Thurn, not a native of Bohemia, but proprietor of some estates in that kingdom, had, by his zeal for the Protestant cause, and an enthusiastic attachment to his newly adopted country, gained the entire confidence of the Utraquists, which opened him the way to the most important posts. … Of a hot and impetuous disposition, which loved tumult because his talents shone in it—rash and thoughtless enough to undertake things which cold prudence and a calmer temper would not have ventured upon—unscrupulous enough, where the gratification of his passions was concerned, to sport with the fate of thousands, and at the same time politic enough to hold in leading-strings such a people as the Bohemians then were. He had already taken an active part in the troubles under Rodolph's administration; and the Letter of Majesty which the States had extorted from that Emperor, was chiefly to be laid to his merit. The court had intrusted to him, as burgrave or castellan of Calstein, the custody of the Bohemian crown, and of the national charter. But the nation had placed in his hands something far more important—itself —with the office of defender or protector of the faith. The aristocracy by which the Emperor was ruled, imprudently deprived him of this harmless guardianship of the dead, to leave him his full influence over the living. They took from him his office of burgrave, or constable of the castle, which had rendered him dependent on the court, thereby opening his eyes to the importance of the other which remained, and wounded his vanity, which yet was the thing that made his ambition harmless. From this moment he was actuated solely by a desire of revenge; and the opportunity of gratifying it was not long wanting. In the Royal Letter which the Bohemians had extorted from Rodolph II., as well as in the German religious treaty, one material article remained undetermined. All the privileges granted by the latter to the Protestants, were conceived in favour of the Estates or governing bodies, not of the subjects; for only to those of ecclesiastical states had a toleration, and that precarious, been conceded. The Bohemian Letter of Majesty, in the same manner, spoke only of the Estates and the imperial towns, the magistrates of which had contrived to obtain equal privileges with the former. These alone were free to erect churches and schools, and openly to celebrate their Protestant worship: in all other towns, it was left entirely to the government to which they belonged, to determine the religion of the inhabitants. The Estates of the Empire had availed themselves of this privilege in its fullest extent; the secular indeed without opposition; while the ecclesiastical, in whose case the declaration of Ferdinand had limited this privilege, disputed, not without reason, the validity of that limitation. What was a disputed point in the religious treaty, was left still more doubtful in the Letter of Majesty. … In the little town of Klostergrab, subject to the Archbishop of Prague; and in Braunau, which belonged to the abbot of that monastery, churches were founded by the Protestants, and completed notwithstanding the opposition of their superiors, and the disapprobation of the Emperor. … By the Emperor's orders, the church at Klostergrab was pulled down; that at Braunau forcibly shut up, and the most turbulent of the citizens thrown into prison. A general commotion among the Protestants was the consequence of this measure; a loud outcry was everywhere raised at this violation of the Letter of Majesty; and Count Thurn animated by revenge, and particularly called upon by his office of defender, showed himself not a little busy in inflaming the minds of the people. At his instigation deputies were summoned to Prague from every circle in the empire, to concert the necessary measures against the common danger. It was resolved to petition the Emperor to press for the liberation of the prisoners. The answer of the Emperor, already offensive to the states, from its being addressed, not to them, but to his viceroy, denounced their conduct as illegal and rebellious, justified what had been done at Klostergrab and Braunau as the result of an imperial mandate, and contained some passages that might be construed into threats. Count Thurn did not fail to augment the unfavourable impression which this imperial edict made upon the assembled Estates. … He held it … advisable first to direct their indignation against the Emperor's counsellors; and for that purpose circulated a report, that the imperial proclamation had been drawn up by the government at Prague and only signed in Vienna. Among the imperial delegates, the chief objects of the popular hatred, were the President of the Chamber, Slawata, and Baron Martinitz, who had been elected in place of Count Thurn, Burgrave of Calstein. … Against two characters so unpopular the public indignation was easily excited, and they were marked out for a sacrifice to the general indignation. {293} On the 23rd of May, 1618, the deputies appeared armed, and in great numbers, at the royal palace, and forced their way into the hall where the Commissioners Sternberg, Martinitz, Lobkowitz, and Slawata were assembled. In a threatening tone they demanded to know from each of them, whether he had taken any part, or had consented to, the imperial proclamation. Sternberg received them with composure, Martinitz and Slawata with defiance. This decided their fate; Sternberg and Lobkowitz, less hated, and more feared, were led by the arm out of the room; Martinitz and Slawata were seized, dragged to a window, and precipitated from a height of 80 feet, into the castle trench. Their creature, the secretary Fabricius, was thrown after them. This singular mode of execution naturally excited the surprise of civilized nations. The Bohemians justified it as a national custom, and saw nothing remarkable in the whole affair, excepting that anyone should have got up again safe and sound after such a fall. A dunghill, on which the imperial commissioners chanced to be deposited, had saved them from injury. [The incident of the flinging of the obnoxious ministers from the window is often referred to as 'the defenestration at Prague.'] … By this brutal act of self-redress, no room was left for irresolution or repentance, and it seemed as if a single crime could be absolved only by a series of violences. As the deed itself could not be undone, nothing was left but to disarm the hand of punishment. Thirty directors were appointed to organize a regular insurrection. They seized upon all the offices of state, and all the imperial revenues, took into their own service the royal functionaries and the soldiers, and summoned the whole Bohemian nation to avenge the common cause."

BOHEMIA: A. D. 1618-1620.
   Conciliatory measures defeated by Ferdinand.
   His election to the Imperial throne, and his deposition in
   Bohemia.
   Acceptance of the crown by Frederick the Palatine Elector.
   His unsupported situation.

BOHEMIA: A. D. 1620.
   Disappointment in the newly elected King.
   His aggressive Calvinism.
   Battle of the White Mountain before Prague.
   Frederick's flight.
   Annulling of the Royal charter.
   Loss of Bohemian Liberties.

BOHEMIA: A. D. 1621-1648.
   The Reign of Terror.
   Death, banishment, confiscation, dragoonades.
   The country a desert.
   Protestantism crushed, but not slain.

"In June, 1621, a fearful reign of terror began in Bohemia, with the execution of 27 of the most distinguished heretics. For years the unhappy people bled under it; thousands were banished, and yet Protestantism was not fully exterminated. The charter was cut into shreds by the Emperor himself; there could be no forbearance towards 'such acknowledged rebels.' As a matter of course, the Lutheran preaching was forbidden under the heaviest penalties; heretical works, Bibles especially, were taken away in heaps. Jesuit colleges, churches, and schools came into power; but this was not all. A large number of distinguished Protestant families were deprived of their property, and, as if that were not enough, it was decreed that no non-Catholic could be a citizen, nor carry on a trade, enter into a marriage, nor make a will; anyone who harboured a Protestant preacher forfeited his property; whoever permitted Protestant instruction to be given was to be fined, and whipped out of town; the Protestant poor who were not converted were to be driven out of the hospitals, and to be replaced by Catholic poor; he who gave free expression to his opinions about religion was to be executed. In 1624 an order was issued to all preachers and teachers to leave the country within eight days under pain of death; and finally, it was ordained that whoever had not become Catholic by Easter, 1626, must emigrate. … But the real conversions were few; thousands quietly remained true to the faith; other thousands wandered as beggars into foreign lands, more than 30,000 Bohemian families, and among them 500 belonging to the aristocracy, went into banishment. Exiled Bohemians were to be found in every country of Europe, and were not wanting in any of the armies that fought against Austria. Those who could not or would not emigrate, held to their faith in secret. Against them dragoonades were employed. Detachments of soldiers were sent into the various districts to torment the heretics till they were converted. The 'Converters' (Seligmacher) went thus throughout all Bohemia, plundering and murdering. … No succour reached the unfortunate people; but neither did the victors attain their end. Protestantism and the Hussite memories could not be slain, and only outward submission was extorted. … A respectable Protestant party exists to this day in Bohemia and Moravia. But a desert was created; the land was crushed for a generation. Before the war Bohemia had 4,000,000 inhabitants, and in 1648 there were but 700,000 or 800,000. These figures appear preposterous, but they are certified by Bohemian historians. In some parts of the country the population has not attained the standard of 1620 to this day."

      ALSO IN:
      C. A. Peschek,
      Reformation and Anti-Reformation in Bohemia,
      volume 2.

      E. de Schweinitz,
      History of the Church known as the Unitas Fratrum,
      chapter 47-51.

BOHEMIA: A. D. 1631-1632.
Temporary occupation by the Saxons.
Their expulsion by Wallenstein.

BOHEMIA: A. D. 1646-1648.
   Last campaigns of the Thirty Years War.
   Surprise and capture of part of Prague by the Swedes.
   Siege of the old city.
   Peace.

BOHEMIA: A. D. 1740.
The question of the Austrian Succession.
The Pragmatic Sanction.

BOHEMIA: A. D. 1742 (JUNE-DECEMBER).
   Expulsion of the French.
   Belleisle's retreat.
   Maria Theresa crowned at Prague.

BOHEMIA: A. D. 1757.
   The Seven Years War.
   Frederick's invasion and defeat.
   Battles of Prague and Kolin.

BOIANS, OR BOII.

Some passages in the earlier history and movements of the powerful Gallic tribe known as the Boii will be found touched upon under ROME: B. C. 390-347, and B. C. 295-191, in accounts given of the destruction of Rome by the Gauls, and of the subsequent wars of the Romans with the Cisalpine Gauls. After the final conquest of the Boians in Gallia Cisalpina, early in the second century, B. C., the Romans seem to have expelled them, wholly or partly, from that country, forcing them to cross the Alps. They afterwards occupied a region embraced in modern Bavaria and Bohemia, both of which countries are thought to have derived their names from these Boian people. Some part of the nation, however, associated itself with the Helvetii and joined in the migration which Cæsar arrested. He settled these Boians in Gaul, within the Æduan territory, between the Loire and the Allier. Their capital city was Gergovia, which was also the name of a city of the Arverni. The Gergovia of the Boians is conjectured to have been modern Moulius. Their territory was the modern Bourbonnais, which probably derived its name from them. Three important names, therefore, in European geography and history, viz.—Bourbon, Bavaria and Bohemia, are traced to the Gallic nation of the Boii.

"Taken literally, the name [Transoxania] is a translation of the Arabic Mavera-un-nehr (that which lies beyond or across the river), and it might therefore be supposed that Transoxania meant the country lying beyond or on the right shore of the Oxus. But this is not strictly speaking the case. … From the period of the Samanides down to modern times, the districts of Talkan, Tokharistan and Zem, although lying partly or entirely on the left bank of the Oxus, have been looked on as integral portions of Bokhara. Our historical researches seem to prove that this arrangement dates from the Samanides, who were themselves originally natives of that part of Khorassan. … It is almost impossible in dealing geographically with Transoxania to assign definitely an accurate frontier. We can and will therefore comprehend in our definition of Transoxania solely Bokhara, or the khanate of Bokhara; for although it has only been known by the latter name since the time of Sheïbani and of the Ozbegs [A. D. 1500], the shores of the Zerefshan and the tract of country stretching southwards to the Oxus and northwards to the desert of Kizil Kum, represent the only parts of the territory which have remained uninterruptedly portions of the original undivided state of Transoxania from the earliest historical times. … Bokhara, the capital from the time of the Samanides, and at the date of the very earliest geographical reports concerning Transoxania, is said, during its prosperity, to have been the largest city of the Islamite world. … Bokhara was not, however, merely a luxurious city, distinguished by great natural advantages; it was also the principal emporium for the trade between China and Western Asia; in addition to the vast warehouses for silks, brocades, and cotton stuffs, for the finest carpets, and all kinds of gold and silversmiths' work, it boasted of a great money-market, being in fact the Exchange of all the population of Eastern and Western Asia. … Sogd … comprised the mountainous part of Transoxania (which may be described as the extreme western spurs of the Thien-Shan). … The capital was Samarkand, undoubtedly the Maracanda of the Greeks, which they specify as the capital of Sogdia. The city has, throughout the history of Transoxania been the rival of Bokhara. Before the time of the Samanides, Samarkand was the largest city beyond the Oxus, and only began to decline from its former importance when Ismail chose Bokhara for his own residence. Under the Khahrezmians it is said to have raised itself again, and become much larger than its rival, and under Timour to have reached the culminating point of its prosperity."

Bokhara was taken by Jingis Khan in the summer of 1219. "It was then a very large and magnificent city. Its name, according to the historian Alai-ud-din, is derived from Bokhar, which in the Magian language means the Centre of Science." The city surrendered after a siege of a few days. Jingis Khan, on entering the town, saw the great mosque and asked if it was the Sultan's palace. "Being told it was the house of God, he dismounted, climbed the steps, and said in a loud voice to his followers, 'The hay is cut, give your horses fodder.' They easily understood this cynical invitation to plunder. … The inhabitants were ordered to leave the town in a body, with only their clothes, so that it might be more easily pillaged, after which the spoil was divided among the victors. 'It was a fearful day,' says Ibn al Ithir; 'one only heard the sobs and weeping of men, women and children, who were separated forever; women were ravished, while men died rather than survive the dishonour of their wives and daughters.' The Mongols ended by setting fire to all the wooden portion of the town, and only the great mosque and certain palaces which were built of brick remained standing."

"The flourishing city on the Zerefshan had become a heap of rubbish, but the garrison in the citadel, commanded by Kok Khan, continued to hold out with a bravery which deserves our admiration. The Mongols used every imaginable effort to reduce this last refuge of the enemy; the Bokhariots themselves were forced on to the scaling-ladders: but all in vain, and it was not until the moat had been literally choked with corpses of men and animals that the stronghold was taken and its brave defenders put to death. The peaceable portion of the population was also made to suffer for this heroic resistance. More than 30,000 men were executed, and the remainder were, with the exception of the very old people among them, reduced to slavery, without any distinction of rank whatever; and thus the inhabitants of Bokhara, lately so celebrated for their learning, their love of art, and their general refinement, were brought down to a dead level of misery and degradation and scattered to all quarters."

BOLERIUM.

BOLESLAUS I., King of Poland, A. D. 1000-1025.
   Boleslaus II., King of Poland, A. D. 1058-1083.
   Boleslaus III., Duke of Poland, A. D. 1102-1138.
   Boleslaus IV., Duke of Poland, A. D. 1146-1173.
   Boleslaus V., King of Poland, A. D. 1227-1279.

BOLGARI.

BOLIVAR'S LIBERATION OF THE SOUTH AMERICAN STATES.

See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1810-1819, 1819-1830;
and PERU: A. D. 1820-1826, 1825-1826, and 1826-1876.

"With the Toromonos tribe, who occupied, as Orbigny tells us, a district of from 11° to 13° of South latitude, it was an established rule for every man to build his house, with his own hands alone, and if he did otherwise he lost the title of man, as well as became the laughing-stock of his fellow citizens. The only clothing worn by these people was a turban on the head, composed of feathers, the rest of the body being perfectly naked; whilst the women used a garment, manufactured out of cotton, that only partially covered their persons. … The ornament in which the soft sex took most pride was a necklace made of the teeth of enemies, killed by their husbands in battle. Amongst the Moxos polygamy was tolerated, and woman's infidelity severely punished. … The Moxos cultivated the land with ploughs, and other implements of agriculture, made of wood. They fabricated canoes, fought and fished with bows and arrows. In the province of the Moxos lived also a tribe called Itonomos, who, besides these last named instruments of war, used two edged wooden scimitars. The immorality of these Itonomos was something like that of the Mormons of our time. … The Canichanas, who lived near Machupo, between 13° and 14° South latitude and 67° to 68° West longitude, are reputed by M. d'Orbigny as the bravest of the Bolivian Indians. They are accredited to have been cannibals. …Where Jujuy—the most northern province· of the Argentine Republic—joins Bolivia, we have in the present day the Mataguaya and Cambas Indians. The latter are represented to me by Dr. Matienzo, of Rosario, as intelligent and devoted to agricultural labor. They have fixed tolderias [villages], the houses of which are clean and neat. Each town is commanded by a capitan, whose sovereignty is hereditary to his male descendants only."

BOLIVIA: A. D. 1825-1826.
The independent Republic founded and named in Upper Peru.
The Bolivian Constitution.

"Upper Peru [or Las Charcas, as it was more specifically known] … had been detached [in 1776—see ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1580-1777] from the government of Lima … to form part of the newly constituted Viceroyalty of Buenos Ayres. The fifteen years' struggle for independence was here a sanguinary one indeed. There is scarcely a town, village, or noticeable place in this vast region where blood is not recorded to have been shed in this terrible struggle. … The Spanish army afterwards succumbed to that of the independents of Peru; and thus Upper Peru gained, not indeed liberty, but independence under the rule of a republican army. This vast province was incapable of governing itself. The Argentines laid claim to it as a province of the confederation; but they already exercised too great a preponderance in the South American system, and the Colombian generals obtained the relinquishment of these pretensions. Sucre [Bolivar's Chief of Staff] assumed the government until a congress could be assembled: and under the influence of the Colombian soldiery Upper Peru was erected into an independent state by the name of the Republic of Bolivar, or Bolivia."

For an account of the Peruvian war of liberation—the results of which embraced Upper Peru—and the adoption of the Bolivian constitution by the latter,

   On the final conquest of the Boian Gauls in North Italy, a new
   Roman colony and frontier fortress were established, B. C.
   189, called first Felsina and then Bononia, which is the
   Bologna of modern Italy.

"Just at this time [end of the 11th century] we find a famous school of law established in Bologna, and frequented by multitudes of pupils, not only from all parts of Italy, but from Germany, France, and other countries. The basis of all its instructions was the Corpus Juris Civilis. Its teachers, who constitute a series of distinguished jurists extending over a century and a half, devoted themselves to the work of expounding the text and elucidating the principles of the Corpus Juris, and especially the Digest. From the form in which they recorded and handed down the results of their studies, they have obtained the name of glossators. On their copies of the Corpus Juris they were accustomed to write glosses, i. e., brief marginal explanations and remarks. These glosses came at length to be an immense literature."

See GERMANY: A. D. 1807 (JUNE-JULY);
1813 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER), and (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).

      See
      FRANCE: A. D. 1805-1806 (DECEMBER-SEPTEMBER);
      SPAIN: A. D. 1808 (MAY-SEPTEMBER), to 1812-1814.

"About four miles to the south of Florence, on an eminence overlooking the valley of the little river Greve, and the then bridle-path leading towards Siena and Rome, there was a very strong castle, called Monte Boni, Mons Boni, as it is styled in sundry deeds of gift executed within its walls in the years 1041, 1085, and 1100, by which its lords made their peace with the Church, in the usual way, by sharing with churchmen the proceeds of a course of life such as needed a whitewashing stroke of the Church's office. A strong castle on the road to Rome, and just at a point where the path ascended a steep hill, offered advantages and temptations not to be resisted; and the lords of Monte Boni 'took toll' of passengers. But, as Villani very naïvely says, 'the Florentines could not endure that another should do what they abstained from doing.' So as usual they sallied forth from their gates one fine morning, attacked the strong fortress, and razed it to the ground. All this was, as we have seen, an ordinary occurrence enough in the history of young Florence. This was a way the burghers had. They were clearing their land of these vestiges of feudalism, much as an American settler clears his ground of the stumps remaining from the primeval forest. But a special interest will be admitted to belong to this instance of the clearing process, when we discover who those noble old freebooters of Monte Boni were. The lords of Monte Boni were called, by an easy, but it might be fancied ironical, derivation from the name of their castle 'Buoni del Monte,'—the Good Men of the Mountain;—and by abbreviation, Buondelmonte, a name which we shall hear more of anon in the pages of this history. But when, after the destruction of their fortress, these Good Men of the Mountain became Florentine citizens, they increased and multiplied; and in the next generation, dividing off into two branches, they assumed, as was the frequent practice, two distinctive appellations; the one branch remaining Buondelmonti, and the other calling themselves Buonaparte. This latter branch shortly afterwards again divided itself into two, of which one settled at San Miniato al Tedesco, and became extinct there in the person of an aged canon of the name within this century; while the other first established itself at Sarzaua, a little town on the coast about half-way between Florence and Genoa, and from thence at a later period transplanted itself to Corsica; and has since been heard of."

T. A. Trollope, History of the Commonwealth of Florence, volume 1, pages 50-51.

BONIFACE III., Pope, A. D. 607, FEBRUARY TO NOVEMBER.
   Boniface IV., Pope, A. D. 608-615.
   Boniface V., Pope, A. D. 619-625.
   Boniface VI., Pope, A. D. 896.
   Boniface VII., Pope, A. D. 974, 984-985.
   Boniface VIII., Pope, A. D. 1294-1303.
   Boniface IX., Pope, A. D. 1389-1404.

BONONIA IN GAUL.

BONONIA IN ITALY.

BOOK OF THE DEAD.

"A collection (ancient Egyptian) of prayers and exorcisms composed at various periods for the benefit of the pilgrim soul in his journey through Amenti (the Egyptian Hades); and it was in order to provide him with a safe conduct through the perils of that terrible valley that copies of this work, or portions of it, were buried with the mummy in his tomb. Of the many thousands of papyri which have been preserved to this day, it is perhaps scarcely too much to say that one half, if not two thirds, are copies more or less complete of the Book of the Dead."

M. Naville published in 1887 a collation of the numerous differing texts of the Book of the Dead, on the preparation of which he had been engaged for ten years.

BOR-RUSSIA.

BORDARII.

BORDEAUX: A. D. 1650.
   Revolt of the Frondeurs.
   Siege of the city.
   Treaty of Peace.

BORDEAUX: A. D. 1652-1653.
   The last phase of the Fronde.
   Rebellion of the Society of the Ormée.
   Cromwell's help invoked.
   Siege and submission of the city.

"The peace of Bordeaux in October, 1650. had left the city tranquil, but not intimidated, and its citizens were neither attached to the government nor afraid of it. … There, as at Paris, a violent element obtained control, ready for disturbance, and not alarmed by the possibility of radical changes in the government. … During the popular emotion against Épernon, meetings, mostly of the lower classes, had been held under some great elms near the city, and from this circumstance a party had taken the name of the Ormée. It now assumed a more definite form, and began to protest against the slackness of the officers and magistrates, who it was charged, were ready to abandon the popular cause. The Parliament was itself divided into two factions," known as the Little Fronde and the Great Fronde—the latter of which was devoted to the Prince of Condé. "The Ormée was a society composed originally of a small number of active and violent men, and in its organization not wholly unlike the society of the Jacobins. … Troubles increased between this society and the parliament, and on June 3d [1652] it held a meeting attended by 3,000 armed men, and decided on the exile of fourteen of the judges who were regarded as traitors to the cause. … The offending judges were obliged to leave the city, but in a few days the Parliament again obtained control, and the exiles were recalled and received with great solemnity. But the Ormée was not thus to be overcome. On June 25th these contests resulted in a battle in the streets, in which the society had the advantage. Many of the judges abandoned the conflict and left the city. The Ormée established itself at the Hotel de Ville, and succeeded in controlling for the most part the affairs of the city. … Condé decided that he would recognize the Ormée as a political organization, and strengthen it by his approval. … The restoration of the King's authority at Paris [see FRANCE: A. D. 1651-1653] strengthened the party at Bordeaux that desired peace, and increased the violence of the party that was opposed to it. Plots were laid for the overthrow of the local authorities, but they were wholly unsuccessful. … The desire of the people, the nobility, and the clergy was for peace. Only by speedy aid from Spain could the city be kept in hostility to its King and in allegiance to Condé. Spain was asked to send assistance and prevent this important loss, but the Spanish delayed any vigorous action, partly from remissness and partly from lack of troops and money. The most of the province of Guienne was gradually lost to the insurgents. … Condé seems to have left Guienne to itself. … In this condition, the people of Bordeaux turned to Cromwell as the only person who had the power to help them. … The envoys were received by Cromwell, but he took no steps to send aid to Bordeaux. Hopes were held out which encouraged the city and alarmed the French minister, but no ships were sent." Meantime, the King's forces in Guienne advanced with steady success, and early in the summer of 1653 they began the siege of the city. The peace party within, thus encouraged, soon overthrew the Ormée, and arranged terms for the submission of the town. "The government proceeded at once to erect the castles of Trompette and Ho, and they were made powerful enough to check any future turbulence."

BORDEAUX: A. D. 1793.
Revolt against the Revolutionary Government of Paris.
Fearful vengeance of the Terrorists.

BORDER-RUFFIANS.

BOROUGH. CITY. TOWN. VILLE.

"The burh of the Anglo-Saxon period was simply a more strictly organized form of the township. It was probably in a more defensible position; had a ditch and mound instead of the quickset hedge or 'tun' from which the township took its name; and as the 'tun' originally was the fenced homestead of the cultivator, the burh was the fortified house and court-yard of the mighty man—the king, the magistrate, or the noble."

"I must freely confess that I do not know what difference, except a difference in rank, there is in England between a city and a borough. … A city does not seem to have any rights or powers as a city which are not equally shared by every other corporate town. The only corporate towns which have any special powers above others are those which are counties of themselves; and all cities are not counties of themselves, while some towns which are not cities are. The city in England is not so easily defined as the city in the United States. There, every corporate town is a city. This makes a great many cities, and it leads to an use of the word city in common talk which seems a little strange in British ears. In England, even in speaking of a real city, the word city is seldom used, except in language a little formal or rhetorical; in America it is used whenever a city is mentioned. But the American rule has the advantage of being perfectly clear and avoiding all doubt. And it agrees very well with the origin of the word: a corporate town is a 'civitas,' a commonwealth; any lesser collection of men hardly is a commonwealth, or is such only in a much less perfect degree. This brings us to the historical use of the word. It is clear at starting that the word is not English. It has no Old-English equivalent; burh, burgh, borough, in its various spellings and various shades of meaning, is our native word for urbes of every kind from Rome downward. It is curious that this word should in ordinary speech have been so largely displaced by the vaguer word tun, town, which means an enclosure of any kind, and in some English dialects is still applied to a single house and its surroundings. … In common talk we use the word borough hardly oftener than the word city; when the word is used, it has commonly some direct reference to the parliamentary or municipal characters of the town. Many people, I suspect, would define a borough as a town which sends members to Parliament, and such a definition, though still not accurate, has, by late changes, been brought nearer to accuracy than it used to be. City and borough, then, are both rather formal words; town is the word which comes most naturally to the lips when there is no special reason for using one of the others. Of the two formal words, borough is English; city is Latin; it comes to us from Gaul and Italy by some road or other. It is in Domesday that we find, by no means its first use in England, but its first clearly formal use, the first use of it to distinguish a certain class of towns, to mark those towns which are 'civitates' as well as burgi from those which are burgi only. Now in Gaul the 'civitas' in formal Roman language was the tribe and its territory, the whole land of the Arverni, Parisii, or any other tribe. In a secondary sense it meant the head town of the tribe. … When Christianity was established, the 'civitas' in the wider sense marked the extent of the bishop's diocese; the 'civitas' in the narrower sense became the immediate seat of his bishopstool. Thus we cannot say that in Gaul a town became a city because it was a bishop's see; but we may say that a certain class of towns became bishops' sees because they were already cities. But in modern French use no distinction is made between these ancient capitals which became bishoprics and other towns of less temporal and spiritual honour. The seat of the bishopric, the head of the ancient province, the head of the modern department, the smaller town which has never risen to any of those dignities, are all alike ville. Lyons, Rheims, Paris, are in no way distinguished from meaner places. The word cité is common enough, but it has a purely local meaning. It often distinguishes the old part of a town, the ancient 'civitas,' from later additions. In Italy on the other hand, città is both the familiar and the formal name for towns great and small. It is used just like ville in French."

BOROUGH-ENGLISH.

Fought March 16, 1322, in the civil war which arose in England during the reign of Edward II. on account of the King's favorites, the Déspensers. Thomas, Earl of Lancaster, the leader of opposition, was defeated, captured, summarily tried and beheaded.

The name which the Greeks gave anciently to the river now known as the Dnieper. It also became the name of a town near the mouth of the river, which was originally called Olbia,—a very early trading settlement of the Milesians.

BOSNIA.

The word means literally an 'ox-ford,' and the Greeks derived it as a name from the legend of Io, who, driven by a gad-fly, swam across the straits from Europe into Asia. They gave the name particularly to that channel, on which Constantinople lies, but applied it also to other similar straits, such as the Cimmerian Bosporus, opening the Sea of Azov.

   "Respecting Bosporus, or Pantikapæum (for both names denote
   the same city, though the former name often comprehends the
   whole annexed dominion) founded by Milesian settlers on the
   European side of the Kimmerian Bosporus (near Kertsch) we
   first hear, about the period when Xerxes was repulsed from
   Greece (480-479 B. C.) It was the centre of a dominion
   including Phanagoria, Kepi, Hermonassa, and other Greek cities
   on the Asiatic side of the strait; and it is said to have been
   governed by what seems to have been an oligarchy—called the
   Archæanaktidæ—for forty-two years (480-438 B. C.) After them
   we have a series of princes standing out individually by name,
   and succeeding each other in the same family, [438-284 B. C.].
   … During the reigns of these princes, a connexion of some
   intimacy subsisted between Athens and Bosporus; a connexion
   not political, since the Bosporanic princes had little
   interest in the contentions about Hellenic hegemony—but of
   private intercourse, commercial exchange and reciprocal good
   offices. The eastern corner of the Tauric Chersonesus, between
   Pantikapæum and Theodosia, was well suited for the production
   of corn; while plenty of fish, as well as salt, was to be had
   in or near the Palus Mæotis. Corn, salted fish and meat, hides
   and barbaric slaves in considerable numbers, were in demand
   among all Greeks round the Ægean, and not least at Athens,
   where Scythian slaves were numerous; while oil and wine, and
   other products of more southern regions, were acceptable in
   Bosporus and the other Pontic ports.
{299}
   This important traffic seems to have been mainly carried on in
   ships and by capital belonging to Athens and other Ægean
   maritime towns, and must have been greatly under the
   protection and regulation of the Athenians, so long as their
   maritime empire subsisted. Enterprising citizens of Athens
   went to Bosporus (as to Thrace and the Thracian Chersonesus),
   to push their fortunes. … We have no means of following [the
   fortunes of the Bosporanic princes] in detail; but we know
   that, about a century B. C., the then reigning prince,
   Parisades IV. found himself so pressed and squeezed by the
   Scythians, that he was forced (like Olbia and the Pentapolis)
   to forego his independence, and to call in, as auxiliary or
   master, the formidable Mithridates Eupator of Pontus; from
   whom a new dynasty of Bosporanic kings began—subject,
   however, after no long interval, to the dominion and
   interference of Rome."

"During the reign of Justin [A. D. 565-574] the city of Bosporus, in Tauris, had been captured by the Turks, who then occupied a considerable portion of the Tauric Chersonesus. The city of Cherson alone continued to maintain its independence in the northern regions of the Black Sea."

BOSSISM.

The "Spoils System" in American politics [see SPOILS SYSTEM] developed enormously the influence and power of certain leaders and managers of party organizations, in the great cities and some of the states, who acquired the names of "Bosses," while the system of politics which they represented was called "Bossism." The notorious William H. Tweed, of the New York "Tammany Ring" [see NEW YORK: A. D. 1863-1871] seems to have been the first of the species to be dubbed "Boss Tweed" by his "heelers," or followers, and the title passed from him to others of like kind.

BOSTON: A. D. 1628-1630.
The first white inhabitant.
The founding and naming of the city.

BOSTON: A. D. 1631-1651.
   The Puritan Theocracy.
   Troubles with Roger Williams, Anne Hutchinson and the
   Presbyterians.

BOSTON: A. D. 1657-1669.
The Halfway Covenant and the founding of the Old South Church.

"In Massachusetts after 1650 the opinion rapidly gained ground that all baptised persons of upright and decorous lives ought to be considered, for practical purposes, as members of the church, and therefore entitled to the exercise of political rights, even though unqualified for participation in the Lord's Supper. This theory of church membership, based on what was at that time stigmatized as the Halfway Covenant, aroused intense opposition. It was the great question of the day. In 1657 a council was held in Boston, which approved the principle of the Halfway Covenant; and as this decision was far from satisfying the churches, a synod of all the clergymen in Massachusetts was held five years later, to reconsider the great question. The decision of the synod substantially confirmed the decision of the council, but there were some dissenting voices. Foremost among the dissenters, who wished to retain the old theocratic regime in all its strictness, was Charles Chauncey, the president of Harvard College, and Increase Mather agreed with him at the time, though he afterward saw reason to change his opinion and published two tracts in favour of the Halfway Covenant. Most bitter of all toward the new theory of church-membership was, naturally enough, Mr. Davenport of New Haven. This burning question was the source of angry contentions in the First Church of Boston. Its teacher, the learned and melancholy Norton, died in 1663, and four years later the aged pastor, John Wilson, followed him. In choosing a successor to Wilson the church decided to declare itself in opposition to the liberal decision of the synod, and in token thereof invited Davenport to come from New Haven to take charge of it. Davenport, who was then seventy years old, was disgusted at the recent annexation of his colony to Connecticut. He accepted the invitation and came to Boston, against the wishes of nearly half of the Boston congregation, who did not like the illiberal principle which he represented. In little more than a year his ministry at Boston was ended by death; but the opposition to his call had already proceeded so far that a secession from the old church had become inevitable. In 1669 the advocates of the Halfway Covenant organized themselves into a new society under the title of the 'Third Church in Boston.' A wooden meeting-house was built on a lot which had once belonged to the late governor Winthrop, in what was then the south part of the town, so that the society and its meeting-house became known as the South Church; and after a new church founded in Summer Street in 1717 took the name of the New South, the church of 1669 came to be further distinguished as the Old South. As this church represented a liberal idea which was growing in favour with the people, it soon became the most flourishing church in America. After sixty years its numbers had increased so that the old meeting-house could not contain them; and in 1729 the famous building which still stands was erected on the same spot,—a building with a grander history than any other on the American continent, unless it be that other plain brick building in Philadelphia where the Declaration of Independence was adopted and the Federal Constitution framed."

ALSO IN: H. M. Dexter, The Congregationalism of the last 300 years, lecture 9.

      W. Emerson,
      Historical Sketch of the First Church in Boston,
      section 4-7.

BOSTON: A. D. 1761.
The question of the Writs of assistance and James Otis's
speech.

"For some years these officers [of the customs] had been resisted in making seizures of uncustomed goods, which were frequently rescued from their possession by interested parties, and the determination of the commissioners of customs to break up this practice frequently led to collisions; but no flagrant outbreak occurred until the seizure of John Hancock's sloop 'Liberty' (June 10, 1768), laden with a cargo of Madeira wine. The officer in charge, refusing a bribe, was forcibly locked up in the cabin, the greater part of the cargo was removed, and the remainder entered at the custom-house as the whole cargo. This led to seizure of the vessel, said to have been the first made by the commissioners, and for security she was placed under the guns of the 'Romney,' a man-of-war in the harbor. For this the revenue officers were roughly handled by the mob. Their boat was burned, their houses threatened, and they, with their alarmed families, took refuge on board the 'Romney,' and finally in the Castle. These proceedings undoubtedly led to the sending additional military forces to Boston in September. The General Court was in session at the time, but no effectual proceedings were taken against the rioters. Public sympathy was with them in their purposes if not in their measures."

M. Chamberlain, The Revolution Impending (Narrative and Critical History of America, volume 6, chapter 1).

"Before news had reached England of the late riot in Boston, two regiments from Halifax had been ordered thither. When news of that riot arrived, two additional regiments were ordered from Ireland. The arrival of an officer, sent by Gage from New York, to provide quarters for these troops, occasioned a town meeting in Boston, by which the governor was requested to summon a new General Court, which he peremptorily refused to do. The meeting then recommended a convention of delegates from all the towns in the province to assemble at Boston in ten days; 'in consequence of prevailing apprehensions of a war with France'—such was the pretence—they advised all persons not already provided with fire-arms to procure them at once; they also appointed a day of fasting and prayer, to be observed by all the Congregational societies. Delegates from more than a hundred towns met accordingly at the day appointed [Sept. 22], chose Cushing, speaker of the late House, as their chairman, and petitioned Bernard to summon a General Court. The governor not only refused to receive their petition, but denounced the meeting as treasonable. In view of this charge, the proceedings were exceedingly cautious and moderate. All pretensions to political authority were expressly disclaimed. In the course of a four days' session a petition to the King was agreed to, and a letter to the agent, De Berdt, of which the chief burden was to defend the province against the charge of a rebellious spirit. Such was the first of those popular conventions, destined within a few years to assume the whole political authority of the colonies. The day after the adjournment the troops from Halifax arrived. There was room in the barracks at the castle, but Gage, alarmed at the accounts from Massachusetts, had sent orders from New York to have the two regiments quartered in the town. The council were called upon to find quarters, but, by the very terms of the Quartering Act, as they alleged, till the barracks were full there was no necessity to provide quarters elsewhere. Bernard insisted that the barracks had been reserved for the two regiments expected from Ireland, and must, therefore, be considered as already full. The council replied, that, even allowing that to be the case, by the terms of the act, the provision of quarters belonged not to them, but to the local magistrates. There was a large building in Boston belonging to the province, known as the 'Manufactory House,' and occupied by a number of poor families. Bernard pressed the council to advise that this building be cleared and prepared for the reception of the troops; but they utterly refused. The governor then undertook to do it on his own authority. The troops had already landed, under cover of the ships of war, to the number of a thousand men. Some of them appeared to demand an entrance into the Manufactory House; but the tenants were encouraged to keep possession; nor did the governor venture to use force. One of the regiments encamped on the common; for a part of the other regiment, which had no tents, the temporary use of Faneuil Hall was reluctantly yielded; to the rest of it, the Town House, used also as a State House, all except the council chamber, was thrown open by the governor's order. It was Sunday. The Town House was directly opposite the meeting-house of the First Church. Cannon were planted in front of it; sentinels were stationed in the streets; the inhabitants were challenged as they passed. The devout were greatly aggravated and annoyed by the beating of drums and the marching of the troops. Presently Gage came to Boston to urge the provision of quarters. The council directed his attention to the terms of the act, and referred him to the selectmen. As the act spoke only of justices of the peace, the selectmen declined to take any steps in the matter. Bernard then constituted what he called a Board of Justices, and required them to find quarters; but they did not choose to exercise a doubtful and unpopular authority. Gage was finally obliged to quarter the troops in houses which he hired for the purpose, and to procure out of his own military chest the firing, bedding, and other articles mentioned in the Quartering Act, the council having declined to order any expenditure for those purposes, on the ground that the appropriation of money belonged exclusively to the General Court."

T. Hutchinson, History of the Province of Massachusetts Bay, 1749-1774, pages 202-217.

BOSTON: A. D. 1770.
   Soldiers and citizens in collision.
   The "Massacre."
   Removal of the troops.

"As the spring of the year 1770 appeared, the 14th and 29th regiments had been in Boston about seventeen months. The 14th was in barracks near the Brattle Street Church; the 29th was quartered just south of King Street; about midway between them, in King Street, and close at hand to the town-house, was the main guard, whose nearness to the public buildings had been a subject of great annoyance to the people. … One is forced to admit … that a good degree of discipline was maintained; no blood had as yet been shed by the soldiers, although provocations were constant, the rude element in the town growing gradually more aggressive as the soldiers were never allowed to use their arms. Insults and blows with fists were frequently taken and given, and cudgels also came into fashion in the brawls. Whatever awe the regiments had inspired at their first coming had long worn off. In particular the workmen of the rope-walks and ship-yards allowed their tongues the largest license and were foremost in the encounters. About the 1st of March fights of unusual bitterness had occurred near Grey's rope-walk, not far from the quarters of the 29th, between the hands of the rope-walk and soldiers of that regiment, which had a particularly bad reputation. The soldiers had got the worst of it, and were much irritated. Threats of revenge had been made, which had called out arrogant replies, and signs abounded that serious trouble was not far off. From an early hour on the evening of the 5th of March the symptoms were very ominous. … At length an altercation began in King Street between a company of lawless boys and a few older brawlers on the one side, and the sentinel, who paced his beat before the custom-house, on the other. … The soldier retreated up the steps of the custom-house and called out for help. A file of soldiers was at once despatched from the main guard, across the street, by Captain Preston, officer of the guard, who himself soon followed to the scene of trouble. A coating of ice covered the ground, upon which shortly before had fallen a light snow. A young moon was shining; the whole transaction, therefore, was plainly visible. The soldiers, with the sentinel, nine in number, drew up in line before the people, who greatly outnumbered them. The pieces were loaded and held ready, but the mob, believing that the troops would not use their arms except upon requisition of a civil magistrate, shouted coarse insults, pressed upon the very muzzles of the pieces, struck them with sticks, and assaulted the soldiers with balls of ice. In the tumult precisely what was said and done cannot be known. Many affidavits were taken in the investigation that followed, and, as always at such times, the testimony was most contradictory. Henry Knox, afterwards the artillery general, at this time a bookseller, was on the spot and used his influence with Preston to prevent a command to fire. Preston declared that he never gave the command. The air, however, was full of shouts, daring the soldiers to fire, some of which may have been easily understood as commands, and at last the discharge came. If it had failed to come, indeed, the forbearance would have been quite miraculous. Three were killed outright, and eight were wounded, only one of whom, Crispus Attucks, a tall mulatto who faced the soldiers, leaning on a stick of cordwood, had really taken any part in the disturbance. The rest were bystanders or were hurrying into the street, not knowing the cause of the tumult. … A wild confusion … took possession of the town. The alarm-bells rang frantically; on the other hand the drums of the regiments thundered to arms. … What averted a fearful battle in the streets was the excellent conduct of Hutchinson"—the lieutenant-governor, who made his way promptly to the scene, caused the troops to be sent back to their barracks, ordered the arrest of Captain Preston and the nine soldiers who had done the firing, and began an investigation of the affair the same night. The next day a great town meeting was held, and, as crowds from the surrounding towns pressed in, it was adjourned from Faneuil Hall to the Old South Church, and overflowed in the neighboring streets. A formal demand for the removal of the troops was sent to the governor and council by a committee which had Samuel Adams at its head. Governor Hutchinson disclaimed authority over the troops; but their commanding officer, Colonel Dalrymple, proposed to compromise by sending away the 29th regiment and retaining the 14th. As the committee returned to the meeting with this proposal, through the crowd, Adams dropped right and left the words, "Both regiments or none."—"Both regiments or none." So he put into the mouths of the people their reply, which they shouted as with one voice when the report of the committee was made to them. There was a determination in the cry which overcame even the obstinacy of Governor Hutchinson, and the departure of both regiments was ordered that same day. "In England the affair was regarded as a 'successful bully' of the whole power of the government by the little town, and when Lord North received details of these events he always referred to the 14th and 29th as the 'Sam Adams regiments.'"

      R. Frothingham,
      The Sam Adams Regiments
      (Atlantic Monthly, volumes 9, 10, and 12; 1862-63).

T. Hutchinson, History of the Province of Massachusetts Bay, 1749-1774, pages 270-280.

H. Niles, Principles and Acts of the Revolution (Centennial edition), pages 15-79.

   "The episode [of the affray of March 5th] had … a sequel
   which is extremely creditable to the American people. It was
   determined to try the soldiers for their lives, and public
   feeling ran so fiercely against them that it seemed as if
   their fate was sealed. The trial, however, was delayed for
   seven months, till the excitement had in some degree subsided.
   Captain Preston very judiciously appealed to John Adams, who
   was rapidly rising to the first place both among the lawyers
   and the popular patriots of Boston, to undertake his defence.
   Adams knew well how much he was risking by espousing so
   unpopular a cause, but he knew also his professional duty,
   and, though violently opposed to the British government, he
   was an eminently honest, brave, and humane man.
{302}
   In conjunction with Josiah Quincy, a young lawyer who was also
   of the patriotic party, he undertook the invidious task, and he
   discharged it with consummate ability. … There was abundant
   evidence that the soldiers had endured gross provocation and
   some violence. If the trial had been the prosecution of a
   smuggler or a seditious writer, the jury would probably have
   decided against evidence, but they had no disposition to shed
   innocent blood. Judges, counsel, and jurymen acted bravely and
   honourably. All the soldiers were acquitted, except two, who
   were found guilty of manslaughter, and who escaped with very
   slight punishment. It is very remarkable that after Adams had
   accepted the task of defending the incriminated soldiers, he
   was elected by the people of Boston as their representative in
   the Assembly, and the public opinion of the province appears
   to have fully acquiesced in the verdict. In truth, although no
   people have indulged more largely than the Americans in
   violent, reckless, and unscrupulous language, no people have
   at every period of their history been more signally free from
   the thirst for blood, which in moments of great political
   excitement has been often shown both in England and France."

      W. E. H. Lecky,
      History of England in the 18th Century,
      chapter 12 (volume 3).

      Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
      History of England,
      1713-1783, volume 5, page 269.

"News reached Boston in the spring of this year [1773] that the East India Company, which was embarrassed by the accumulation of tea in England, owing to the refusal of the Americans to buy it, had induced parliament to permit its exportation to America without the payment of the usual duty [See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1772-1773]. This was intended to bribe the colonists to buy; for there had been a duty both in England and in America. That in England was six pence a pound, that in America three pence. Ships were laden and sent to Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Charleston, and they were now expected to arrive in a short time. … On the 28th of November, 1773, which was Sunday, the first tea-ship (the 'Dartmouth ') entered the harbor [of Boston]. The following morning the citizens were informed by placard that the 'worst of plagues, the detested tea,' had actually arrived, and that a meeting was to be held at nine in the morning, at Faneuil Hall, for the purpose of making 'a united and successful resistance to this last, worst, and most destructive measure of administration.' The Cradle of Liberty was not large enough to contain the crowd that was called together, Adams rose and made a stirring motion expressing determination that the tea should not be landed, and it was unanimously agreed to. The meeting then adjourned to the Old South meeting-house, where the motion was repeated, and again adopted without an opposing voice. The owner of the ship protested in vain that the proceedings were illegal; a watch of twenty-five persons was set, to see that the intentions of the citizens were not evaded, and the meeting adjourned to the following morning. The throng at that time was as great as usual, and while the deliberations were going on, a message was received from the governor, through the sheriff, ordering them to cease their proceedings. It was voted not to follow the advice, and the sheriff was hissed and obliged to retreat discomfited. It was formally resolved that any person importing tea from England should be deemed an enemy to his country, and it was declared that at the risk of their lives and properties the landing of the tea should be prevented, and its return effected. It was necessary that some positive action should be taken in regard to the tea within twenty days from its arrival, or the collector of customs would confiscate ships and cargoes. … The twenty days would expire on the 16th of December. On the fourteenth a crowded meeting was held at the Old South, and the importer was enjoined to apply for a clearance to allow his vessel to return with its cargo. He applied, but the collector refused to give an answer until the following day. The meeting therefore adjourned to the 16th, the last day before confiscation would be legal, and before the tea would be placed under protection of the ships of war in the harbor. There was another early morning meeting, and 7,000 people thronged about the meeting-house, all filled with a sense of the fact that something notable was to occur. The importer appeared and reported that the collector refused a clearance. He was then directed to ask the governor for a pass to enable him to sail by the Castle. Hutchinson had retreated to his mansion at Milton, and it would take some time to make the demand. The importer started out in the cold of a New England winter, apologized to his Excellency for his visit, but assured him that it was involuntary. He received a reply that no pass could be given him. … It was six o'clock before the importer returned, and a few candles were brought in to relieve the fast-increasing darkness. He reported the governor's reply, and Samuel Adams rose and exclaimed: 'This meeting can do nothing more to save the country!' In an instant there was a shout on the porch; there was a war-whoop in response, and forty or fifty of the men disguised as Indians rushed out of the doors, down Milk Street towards Griffin's (afterwards Liverpool) Wharf, where the vessels lay. The meeting was declared dissolved, and the throng followed their leaders, forming a determined guard about the wharf. The 'Mohawks' entered the vessel; there was tugging at the ropes; there was breaking of light boxes; there was pouring of precious tea into the waters of the harbor. For two or three hours the work went on, and three hundred and forty-two chests were emptied. Then, under the light of the moon, the Indians marched to the sound of fife and drum to their homes, and the vast throng melted away, until not a man remained to tell of the deed. The committee of correspondence held a meeting next day, and Samuel Adams and four others were appointed to prepare an account of the affair to be posted to other places. Paul Revere, who is said to have been one of the 'Mohawks,' was sent express to Philadelphia with the news, which was received at that place on the 26th. It was announced by ringing of bells, and there was every sign of joy. … The continent was universally stirred at last."

      ALSO IN:
      E. G. Porter,
      The Beginning of the Revolution
      (Memorial History of Boston, volume 3, chapter 1).

T. Hutchinson, History of the Province of Massachusetts Bay, 1749-1774, pages 429-440.

G. Bancroft, History of the United States. (Author's last revision), volume 3, chapter 34.

      J. Kimball,
      The 100th Anniversary of the Destruction of Tea
      (Essex Inst. Hist. Coll.,
      volume 12, number 3).

BOSTON: A. D. 1774.
   The Port Bill and the Massachusetts Act.
   Commerce interdicted.
   Town Meetings forbidden.

BOSTON: A. D. 1774.
The enforcement of the Port Bill and its effects.
Military occupation of the city by General Gage.

"The execution of this measure [the Port Bill] devolved on Thomas Gage, who arrived at Boston May 13, 1774, as Captain General and Governor of Massachusetts. He was not a stranger in the colonies. He had exhibited gallantry in Braddock's defeat. … He had married in one of the most respectable families in New York, and had partaken of the hospitalities of the people of Boston. His manners were pleasing. Hence he entered upon his public duties with a large measure of popularity. But he took a narrow view of men and things about him. … General Gage, on the 17th of May, landed at the Long Wharf and was received with much parade. … On the first day of June the act went into effect. It met with no opposition from the people, and hence, there was no difficulty in carrying it into rigorous execution. 'I hear from many,' the governor writes, 'that the act has staggered the most presumptuous; the violent party men seem to break, and people to fall off from them.' Hence he looked for submission; but Boston asked assistance from other colonies, and the General Court requested him to appoint a day of fasting and prayer. The loyalists felt uneasy at the absence of the army. … Hence a respectable force was soon concentrated in Boston. On the 4th of June, the 4th or king's own regiment, and on the 15th the 43d regiment, landed at the Long Wharf and encamped on the common." The 5th and 38th regiments arrived on the 4th and 5th of July; the 59th regiment was landed at Salem August 6, and additional troops were ordered from New York, the Jerseys and Quebec. "The Boston Port Bill went into operation amid the tolling of bells, fasting and prayer. … It bore severely upon two towns, Boston and Charlestown, which had been long connected by a common patriotism. Their laborers were thrown out of employment, their poor were deprived of bread, and gloom pervaded their streets. But they were cheered and sustained by the large contributions sent from every quarter for their relief, and by the noble words that accompanied them. … The excitement of the public mind was intense; and the months of June, July, and August, were characterized by varied political activity. Multitudes signed a solemn league and covenant against the use of British goods. The breach between the whigs and loyalists daily became wider. Patriotic donations from every colony were on their way to the suffering towns. Supplies for the British troops were refused. … It was while the public mind was in this state of excitement that other acts arrived which General Gage was instructed to carry into effect." These were the acts which virtually annulled the Massachusetts charter, which forbade town meetings, and which provided for the sending of accused persons to England or to other colonies for trial. "Should Massachusetts submit to the new acts? Would the other colonies see, without increased alarm, the humiliation of Massachusetts? This was the turning-point of the Revolution. It did not find the patriots unprepared. They had an organization beyond the reach alike of proclamations from the governors, or of circulars from the ministry. This was the Committees of Correspondence, chosen in most of the towns in legal town-meetings, or by the various colonial assemblies, and extending throughout the colonies. … The crisis called for all the wisdom of these committees. A remarkable circular from Boston addressed to the towns (July, 1774), dwelt upon the duty of opposing the new laws; the towns, in their answers, were bold, spirited, and firm and echoed the necessity of resistance. Nor was this all. The people promptly thwarted the first attempts to exercise authority under them. Such councillors as accepted their appointments were compelled to resign, or, to avoid compulsion, retired into Boston." General Gage now began (in September) movements to secure the cannon and powder in the neighborhood. Some 250 barrels of powder belonging to the province were stealthily removed by his orders from a magazine at Charlestown and two field-pieces were carried away from Cambridge. "The report of this affair, spreading rapidly, excited great indignation. The people collected in large numbers, and many were in favor of attempting to recapture the powder and cannon. Influential patriots, however, succeeded in turning their attention in another direction. … Meantime the fact of the removal of the powder became magnified into a report that the British had cannonaded Boston, when the bells rang, beacon-fires blazed on the hills, the neighbor colonies were alarmed, and the roads were filled with armed men hastening to the point of supposed danger. These demonstrations opened the eyes of the governor to the extent of the popular movement. … General Gage saw no hope of procuring obedience but by the power of arms; and the patriot party saw no safety in anything short of military preparation. Resistance to the acts continued to be manifested in every form. On the 9th of September the memorable Suffolk resolves [drawn by Joseph Warren] were adopted [by a convention of Suffolk county, which embraced Boston] … and these were succeeded by others in other counties equally bold and spirited. These resolves were approved by the Continental Congress, then in session. Everywhere the people either compelled the unconstitutional officers to resign, or opposed every attempt to exercise authority, whether by the governor or constable. They also made every effort to transport ammunition and stores to places of security. Cannon and muskets were carried secretly out of Boston. The guns were taken from an old battery at Charlestown, where the navy yard is, … silently, at night. … General Gage immediately began to fortify Boston Neck. This added intensity to the excitement. The inhabitants became alarmed at so ominous a movement; and, on the 5th of September, the selectmen waited on the general, represented the public feeling, and requested him to explain his object. The governor stated in reply that his object was to protect his majesty's troops and his majesty's subjects; and that he had no intention to stop up the avenue, or to obstruct the free passage over it, or to do anything hostile against the inhabitants. He went on with the works and soon mounted on them two twenty-four pounders and eight nine pounders."

ALSO IN: R. Frothingham, Life and Times of Joseph Warren, chapter 11, and appendix 1 (giving text of the Suffolk Resolves).

BOSTON: A. D. 1775.
   The beginning of war.
   Lexington.
   Concord.
   The British troops beleaguered in the city.
   Battle of Bunker Hill.

BOSTON: A. D. 1775-1776.
The siege directed by Washington.
Evacuation of the city by the British.

BOTANY BAY.

BOULOGNE: A. D. 1801.
Bonaparte's preparations for the invasion of England.
Nelson's attack.

BOUQUET'S EXPEDITION.

From King Louis IX. (St. Louis), of France, "through his last male child, Robert de France, Comte de Clermont, sprang the House of Bourbon. An ancient barony, the inheritance of Béatrix, wife of this prince, was erected into a dukedom in favour of Louis, his son, and gave to his descendants the name which they have retained, that of France being reserved for the Royal branch. … The House which had the honour of supplying sovereigns to our country was called 'France.' But our kings, jealous of that great name, reserved it for their own sons and grandsons. Hence the designation 'fils' and 'petit-fils de France.' The posterity of each 'fils de France' formed a cadet branch which took its name from the title borne by its head, Valois, Artois, Bourbon, &c. At the time of the accession of Henry IV. the name of Bourbon remained with those younger branches of Condé and Montpensier, which had sprung from the main branch before the death of Henry III. But Henry IV.'s children, those of Louis XIII., and those of their successors in the throne, were surnamed 'de France'; whilst in conformity with the law the descendants of Louis XIII.'s second son received the surname d' Orleans, from the title borne by their grandfather. … Possessors of vast territories which they [the Bourbons] owed more to family alliances than to the generosity of kings, they had known how to win the affection of their vassals. Their magnificent hospitality drew around them a numerous and brilliant nobility. Thus the 'hôtel' of those brave and august princes, the 'gracieux ducs de Bourbon,' as our ancient poet called them, was considered the best school in which a young nobleman could learn the profession of arms. The order of the Écu, instituted by one of them, had been coveted and worn by the bravest warriors of France. Sufficiently powerful to outshine the rank and file of the nobility, they had at the same time neither the large estates nor the immense power which enabled the Dukes of Bourgogne, of Bretagne, and other great vassals, to become the rivals or the enemies of the royal authority." The example of the treason of the Constable Bourbon [see FRANCE: A. D. 1520-1523] "was not followed by any of the princes of his House. … The property of the Connétable was definitely alienated from his House, and Vendôme [his brother] did not receive the hereditary possessions of the Dukes d' Alençon, to which his wife was entitled. He died on the 25th of March, 1538, leaving but a scanty patrimony to his numerous descendants. … Five only of his sons obtained their majority. … Two of these princes founded families: Antoine [Duc de Vendôme and afterwards King of Navarre through his marriage with Jeanne d' Albret, see NAVARRE: A. D. 1528-1563], father of Henry IV., who was the ancestor of all the Bourbons now living, and Louis [Prince de Condé, born 1530], who was the root of the House of Condé and all its branches."

Duc d' Aumale, History of the Princes of the House of Condé, book 1, chapter 1, and foot-note.

BOURGEOIS. BOURG.

In France, "the word Bourg originally meant any aggregation of houses, from the greatest city to the smallest hamlet. But … the word shifted its meaning, and came to signify an assemblage of houses surrounded with walls. Secondly, the word Bourgeois also was at first used as synonymous with the inhabitant of a bourg. Afterward, when corporate franchises were bestowed on particular bourgs, the word acquired a sense corresponding with that of the English designation Burgess; that is a person entitled to the privileges of a municipal corporation. Finally, the word Bourgeoisie, in its primitive sense, was the description of the burgesses when spoken of collectively. But, in its later use, the word would be best rendered into English by our term citizenship; that is, the privilege of franchise of being a burgess."

The city of Bourges, France, was originally the capital city of the Gallic tribe of the Bituriges, and was called Avaricum. "As with many other Gaulish towns, the original name became exchanged for that of the people, i. e., Bituriges, and thence the modern Bourges and the name of the province, Berri."

The battle of Bouvines, fought at Bouvines, in Flanders, not far from Tournay, on the 27th of August, A. D. 1214, was one of the important battles of European history. On one side were the French, led by their king Philip Augustus, and fighting ostensibly as the champions of the Pope and the church. On the other side was an allied army of English, under king John, of Germans, under Otho, the Guelf—one of two rival claimants of the imperial crown—and of Flemings and Lotharingians, led by their several lords. Philip Augustus had expelled the English king from his Norman dukedom and caused a court of the peers of France to declare the title forfeit. From that success his ambition rose so high that he had aspired to the conquest of the English crown. A terrible pope—Innocent III.—had approved his ambition and encouraged it; for John, the miserable English king, had given provocations to the church which had brought the thunders of the Vatican upon his head. Excommunicated, himself, his kingdom under interdict,—the latter offered itself a tempting prey to the vigorous French king, who posed as the champion of the pope. He had prepared a strong army and a fleet for the invasion of England; but fate and papal diplomacy had baffled his schemes. At the last moment, John had made a base submission, had meekly surrendered his kingdom to the pope and had received it back as a papal fief. Whereupon the victorious pope commanded his French champion to forego his intended attack. Philip, under these circumstances, determined to use the army he had assembled against a troublesome and contumacious vassal, the count of Flanders. The pope approved, and Flanders was overrun. King John led an English force across the channel to the help of the Flemish count, and Otho, the German king or emperor, who was king John's nephew, joined the coalition, to antagonize France and the pope. The battle of Bouvines was the decisive conflict of the war. It humbled, for the time, the independent spirit of Flanders, and several remoter consequences can be traced to it. It was "the first real French victory. It roused the national spirit as nothing else could have roused it; it was the nation's first taste of glory, dear above all things to the French heart. … The battle somewhat broke the high spirit of the barons: the lesser barons and churches grouped themselves round the king; the greater lords came to feel their weakness in the presence of royalty. Among the incidental consequences of the day of Bouvines was the ruin of Otho's ambition. He fled from the field into utter obscurity. He retired to the Hartz mountains, and there spent the remaining years of his life in private. King John, too, was utterly discredited by his share in the year's campaign. To it may partly be traced his humiliation before his barons, and the signing of the Great Charter in the following year at Runnymede."

"The battle of Bouvines was not the victory of Philip Augustus alone, over a coalition of foreign princes; the victory was the work of king and people, barons, burghers, and peasants, of Ile de France, of Orleanness, of' Picardy, of Normandy, of Champagne, and of Burgundy. … The victory of Bouvines marked the commencement of the time at which men might speak, and indeed did speak, by one single name, of 'the French.' The nation in France and the kingship in France on that day rose out of and above the feudal system."

      See, also,
      ITALY: A. D. 1183-1250,
      and ENGLAND: A. D. 1205-1213, and 1215.

BOVATE, OR OXGANG.

"Originally as much as an ox-team could plough in a year. Eight Bovates are usually said to have made a Carucate, but the number of acres which made a Bovate are variously stated in different records from 8 to 24."

See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST AND EMPIRE: A. D. 815-945; also, SAMANIDES; also, TURKS (SELJUKS): A. D. 1004-1063.

BOYARS.

"In the old times, when Russia was merely a collection of independent principalities, each reigning prince was surrounded by a group of armed men, composed partly of Boyars, or large landed proprietors, and partly of knights, or soldiers of fortune. These men, who formed the Noblesse of the time, were to a certain extent under the authority of the Prince, but they were by no means mere obedient, silent executors of his will. The Boyars might refuse to take part in his military expeditions. … Under the Tartar domination this political equilibrium was destroyed. When the country had been conquered, the princes became servile vassals of the Khan, and arbitrary rulers towards their own subjects. The political significance of the nobles was thereby greatly diminished."

"During the first year of the war [of the Rebellion, in the United States] the Union soldiers commonly called their opponents 'Rebs' and 'Secesh'; in 1862, 'Confeds'; in 1863, 'Gray-backs' and 'Butternuts'; and in 1864, 'Johnnies.' The nickname 'Butternuts' was given the Confederates on account of their homespun clothes, dyed reddish-brown with a dye made of butternut bark. The last name, 'Johnnies,' is said to have originated in a quarrel between two pickets, which began by the Union man's saying that the Confederates depended on England to get them out of their scrape. … The Union man … said that a 'Reb' was no better than a Johnny Bull, anyhow. … The name stuck, and in the last part of the war the Confederate soldiers were almost universally called 'Johnnies.' Throughout the war the Confederates dubbed all the Union soldiers 'Yankees' and 'Yanks,' without any reference to the part of the country they came from. … Other nicknames for Union soldiers, occasionally used, were 'Feds,' 'Blue Birds' and 'Blue Bellies.' Since the war the opponents have been commonly called 'Boys in Blue' and 'Boys in Gray.'"

BOZRA.

BRABANT: A. D. 1096-1099. Duke Godfrey de Bouillon in the First Crusade, and his kingdom of Jerusalem.

   From the beginning of the 12th century, the county, afterwards
   the duchy, of Brabant, existed under its own counts and dukes,
   until the beginning of the 15th century, when it drifted under
   the influences which at that time were drawing all the
   Netherland States within the sphere of the sovereignty of the
   Burgundian dukes.

BRACHYCEPHALIC MEN.

BRADDOCK'S DEFEAT.

BRADFORD'S PRESS.

See PRINTING, &c.: A. D. 1535-1709, 1704-1729,
and PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1692-1696.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER,
and OCTOBER-NOVEMBER: TENNESSEE).

BRAHMANISM.

BRAHMANS.

"A. D. 928, Henry the Fowler, marching across the frozen bogs, took Brannibor, a chief fortress of the Wends; first mention in human speech of the place now called Brandenburg: Bor or 'Burg of the Brenns' (if there ever was any Tribe of Brenns,—Brennus, there as elsewhere, being name for King or Leader); 'Burg of the Woods,' say others,—who as little know. Probably, at that time, a town of clay huts, with ditch and palisaded sod-wall round it; certainly 'a chief fortress of the Wends,'—who must have been a good deal surprised at sight of Henry on the rimy winter morning near a thousand years ago. … That Henry appointed due Wardenship in Brannibor was in the common course. Sure enough, some Murkgraf must take charge of Brannibor,—he of the Lausitz eastward, for example, or he of Salzwedel westward:—that Brannibor, in time, will itself be found the fit place, and have its own Markgraf of Brandenburg; this, and what in the next nine centuries Brandenburg will grow to, Henry is far from surmising. … In old books are lists of the primitive Markgraves of Brandenburg, from Henry's time downward; two sets, Markgraves of the Witekind race,' and of another: but they are altogether uncertain, a shadowy intermittent set of Markgraves, both the Witekind set and the Non-Witekind; and truly, for a couple of centuries, seem none of them to have been other than subaltern Deputies, belonging mostly to Lausitz or Salzwedel; of whom therefore we can say nothing here, but must leave the first two hundred years in their natural gray state,—perhaps sufficiently conceivable by the reader. … The Ditmarsch-Stade kindred, much slain in battle with the Heathen, and otherwise beaten upon, died out, about the year 1130 (earlier perhaps, perhaps later, for all is shadowy still); and were succeeded in the Salzwedel part of their function by a kindred called 'of Ascanien and Ballenstadt'; the Ascanier or Anhalt Margraves; whose History, and that of Brandenburg, becomes henceforth articulate to us. … This Ascanien, happily, has nothing to do with Brute of Troy or the pious Æneas's son; it is simply the name of a most ancient Castle (etymology unknown to me, ruins still dimly traceable) on the north slope of the Hartz Mountains; short way from Aschersleben,—the Castle and Town of Aschersleben are, so to speak, a second edition of Ascanien. … The kindred, called Grafs and ultimately Herzogs (Dukes) of 'Ascanien and Ballenstädt,' are very famous in old German History, especially down from this date. Some reckon that they had intermittently been Markgrafs, in their region, long before this; which is conceivable enough; at all events it is very plain they did now attain the Office in Salzwedel (straightway shifting it to Brandenburg); and held it continuously, it and much else that lay adjacent, for centuries, in a highly conspicuous manner. In Brandenburg they lasted for about two-hundred years."

   "He they call 'Albert the Bear (Albrecht der Bär),' first of
   the Ascanien Markgraves of Brandenburg;—first wholly
   definite Markgrave of Brandenburg that there is; once a very
   shining figure in the world, though now fallen dim enough
   again, … got the Northern part of what is still called
   Saxony, and kept it in his family; got the Brandenburg
   Countries withal, got the Lausitz; was the shining figure and
   great man of the North in his day. The Markgrafdom of
   Salzwedel (which soon became of Brandenburg) he very naturally
   acquired (A. D. 1142 or earlier); very naturally, considering
   what Saxon and other honours and possessions he had already
   got hold of. We can only say, it was the luckiest of events
   for Brandenburg, and the beginning of all the better destinies
   it has had.
{307}
   A conspicuous Country ever since in the world, and which grows
   ever more so in our late times. … He transferred the
   Markgrafdom to Brandenburg, probably as more central in his
   wide lands; Salzwedel is henceforth the led Markgrafdom or
   Marck, and soon falls out of notice in the world. Salzwedel is
   called henceforth ever since the 'Old Marck (Alte Marck,
   Altmarck)'; the Brandenburg countries getting the name of 'New
   Marck.' … Under Albert the Markgrafdom had risen to be an
   Electorate withal. The Markgraf of Brandenburg was now
   furthermore the Karfürst of Brandenburg: officially
   'Arch-treasurer of the Holy Roman Empire'; and one of the
   Seven who have a right (which became about this time an
   exclusive one for those Seven) to choose, to 'kieren' the
   Romish Kaiser; and who are therefore called 'Kur-Princes,'
   Kurfürste or Electors, as the highest dignity except the
   Kaiser's own."

BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1168-1417. Under the Ascanian, the Bavarian and the Luxemburg lines, to the first of the Hohenzollern.

Albert the Bear was succeeded in 1168 by his son Otho. "In 1170, as it would appear, the name of Brandenburg was substituted for that of North Mark, which had ceased to describe more than the original nucleus of the colony, now one of the several districts into which it was divided. The city and territory of Brandenburg were not probably included in the imperial grant, but were inherited from the Wendish prince, Pribislaw, whom Albert had converted to Christianity. … Under Otho II., brother of the preceding, the family inheritance was sorely mismanaged. The Margrave becoming involved in some quarrel with the See of Magdeburg, the Archbishop placed him under the ban; and as the price of release Otho was required to accept the Suzerainty of the prelate for the older and better part of his dominions. His brother and successor, Albert II., was also unfortunate in the beginning of his career: but recovered the favor of the Emperor, and restored the prestige of his house before his death. … Very important acquisitions were made during the reign of these two princes. The preoccupations of the King of Denmark gave them a secure foothold in Pomerania, which the native nobility acknowledged; the frontiers were pushed eastward to the Oder, where the New Mark was organized, and the town of Frankfort was laid out; purchase put them in possession of the district of Lebus; and the bride of Otho III., a Bohemian princess, brought him as her dowry an extensive region on the Upper Spree with several thriving villages—all this in spite of the division of power and authority. … Otho III. died in 1267, John one year later; and a new partition of the estate was made between their several sons, the oldest, Otho IV., receiving, however, the title and prerogatives of head of the house." The last margrave of the Ascanian line, Waldemar, died in 1310. "His cousin and only heir, Henry, was a minor, and survived him but a year." Then "a host of claimants arose for the whole or parts of the Mark. The estates showed at first a gallant devotion to the widow, and intrusted the reins of authority to her; but she repaid this fidelity by hastily espousing the Duke of Brunswick, and transferring her rights to him. The transaction was not, however, ratified by the estates, and the Duke failed to enforce it by arms. Pomerania threw off the yoke which it had once unwillingly accepted; Bohemia reclaimed the wedding portion of Otho's bride; the Duke of Liegnitz sought to recover Lebus, although it had once been regularly sold; and in the general scramble the Church, through its local representatives, fought with all the energy of mere worldly robbers. But in this crisis the Emperor forgot neither the duties of his station nor the interests of his house. Louis II. of Bavaria then wore the purple. By feudal law a vacant fief reverted to its suzerain. … It was not therefore contrary to law, nor did it shock the moral sense of the age, when Louis drew the Mark practically into his own possession by conferring it nominally upon his minor son. … During the minority of Louis the Margrave, the province was administered by Louis the Emperor, and with some show of vigor." But troubles so thickened about the Emperor, in his conflict with the House of Austria, on the one hand, and with the Pope on the other [see GERMANY: A. D. 1314-1317], that he could not continue the protection of his son. The Mark of Brandenburg was invaded by the King of Poland, and its Margrave "watched the devastation in helpless dismay." The people defended themselves. "The young city of Frankfort was the leader in the tardy but successful uprising. The Poles were expelled; the citizens had for the time saved the Mark. … The Margrave finally wearied even of the forms of authority, and sold his unhappy dominions to his two brothers, another Louis and Otho. In the meantime his father had died. The Electors—or five of them—had already deposed him and chosen in his place Charles of Moravia, a prince of the house of Luxemburg, as his successor. He became respectably and even creditably known in history as Charles IV. … Although he failed in the attempt to subdue by arms the Margrave of Brandenburg, who had naturally espoused his father's cause, he was persistent and ingenious in diplomatic schemes for overthrowing the House of Bavaria and bringing the Mark under his own sceptre. … From Louis he procured … a treaty of succession, by which he should acquire Brandenburg in case of the death of that Margrave and his brother Otho without heirs. His intrigues were finally crowned with complete success. Louis died suddenly in 1365. Otho, thenceforth alone in the charge, vacillated between weak submission to the Emperor's will, and spurts of petulant but feeble resistance; until Charles put an end to the farce by invading the Mark, crushing the army of the Margrave, and forcing him to an abject capitulation. In 1371, after a nominal rule of half a century, and for the price of a meagre annuity, the Bavarian line transferred all its rights to the family of Charles IV." Charles died in 1378. His son Wenzel, "for whom the Mark had been destined in the plans of Charles, acquired, meanwhile, the crown of Bohemia, a richer prize, and Brandenburg passed to the next son, Sigismond. The change was a disastrous one." Sigismond pawned the Mark to his kinsman, Jobst, of Moravia, and it fell into great disorder. "Imperial affairs during this period were in scarcely less confusion. Wenzel of Bohemia had been chosen emperor, and then deposed for obvious unfitness. Rupert, Count Palatine, had next been ejected, and had died. Again the post was vacant, and Sigismond, still the real Elector of Brandenburg, … issued successfully from the contest. His good fortune was due in a conspicuous degree to the influence and the money of Frederic, Burggrave of Nuremberg [see HOHENZOLLERN, RISE OF THE HOUSE OF]; and it is to the credit of Sigismond that he did not add ingratitude to his other vices, but on his election as emperor hastened [1411] to make his patron statthalter, or viceroy of the Mark." Six years later, in 1417, Frederic was formally invested with the sovereignty of the Mark, as Margrave and Elector.

      H. Tuttle,
      History of Prussia to the Accession of Frederick the Great,
      chapters 1 and 3.

BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1417-1640.
Rising importance of the Hohenzollern family.
Acquisition of the Duchy of Prussia.

On being invested with the Electorate of Brandenburg, Frederick of Nuremberg sold the office of Burggrave to the Nurembergers and devoted himself to his new province. "Temperate, just, and firm in his dealings, he succeeded in reducing Brandenburg from anarchy to order. Already as deputy for Sigismund he had begun the task. … During the reign of his son and successor, characteristically known as Frederick Ironteeth [1440-1472], the strong hand was not relaxed; and Brandenburg became thenceforward tamed to law and order. The Electorate, which during the preceding century had been curtailed by losses in war and by sales, began again to enlarge its borders. The New March, which had been sold in the days of Sigismund to the Teutonic Knights, was now [1455] bought back from them in their need. … Albert Achilles, the brother and successor of Frederick II., was a man as powerful and as able as his predecessor. By his accession the principalities of Baireuth and Anspach, which had been separated from the Electorate for the younger sons of Frederick I., were reunited to it; and by a scheme of cross-remainders new plans were laid for the acquisition of territory. … It was already understood that the Electorate was to descend according to the law of primogeniture; but Anspach and Baireuth were still reserved as appanages for younger sons; and upon the death of Albert Achilles, in 1484, his territories were again divided, and remained so for more than a hundred years. The result of the division, however, was to multiply and not to weaken the strength of the House. The earlier years of the 16th century saw the Hohenzollerns rising everywhere to power. Albert Achilles had been succeeded [1486] by John, of whom little is known except his eloquence, and by Joachim [1499], who was preparing to bear his part against the Reformation. A brother of Joachim had become, in 1514, Elector of Mentz; and the double vote of the family at the election of Charles V. had increased their importance. The younger branch was rising also to eminence. George of Brandenburg, Margrave of Anspach, and grandson of Albert Achilles, was able in 1524 to purchase the Duchy of Jagerndorf in Silesia, and with it the reversions to the principalities of Oppeln and Ratibor, which eventually fell to him. His younger brother, Albert, had been chosen in 1511 Grand Master of the Teutonic Order, and was already converting his office into the hereditary Dukedom of Prussia," which it became in 1525 (see POLAND: A. D. 1333-1572). "The Elector Joachim I. of Brandenburg is perhaps the least prominent, but was not the least prudent, of his family. Throughout his life he adhered to the old faith, and preserved his dominions in tranquility. His son and successor, Joachim II., to the joy of his people, adopted the new religion [1539]; and found in the secularized bishoprics of Brandenburg, Havelburg, and Lebus, some compensation for the ecclesiastical Electorate which was about to pass, upon the death of Albert of Mentz, from his family. But he also was able to secure the continuance of peace. Distrustful of the success of the League of Smalkald he refused to join in it, and became chiefly known as a mediator in the struggles of the time. The Electors John George [1571-1598] and Joachim Frederick [1598-1608] followed the same policy of peace. … Peace and internal progress had characterized the 16th century; war and external acquisitions were to mark the 17th. The failure of the younger line in 1603 caused Bayreuth, Anspach, and Jagerndorf to fall to the Elector Joachim Frederick; but as they were re-granted almost at once to younger sons, and never again reverted to the Electorate, their acquisition became of little importance. The Margrave, George Frederick, however, had held, in addition to his own territories, the office of administrator for Albert Frederick, second Duke of Prussia, who had become imbecile; and, by his death, the Elector of Brandenburg became next of kin, and claimed to succeed to the office. The admission of this claim placed the Electors in virtual possession of the Duchy. By a deed of co-infeoffment, which Joachim II. had obtained in 1568 from his father-in-law the King of Poland, they were heirs to the Duchy upon failure of the younger line. … Duke Albert died in 1618; and Brandenburg and Prussia were then united under the Elector John Sigismund. It was well that the Duchy had been secured before the storm which was already gathering over the Empire had burst. … During the long struggle of the Thirty Years' War, the history of Brandenburg is that of a sufferer rather than an actor. … George William, who died in 1640, bequeathed a desert to his successor. That successor was Frederick William, to be known in history as the Great Elector."

BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1630-1631.
Compulsory alliance of the Elector with Gustavus Adolphus of
Sweden.

BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1634.
Desertion of the Protestant cause.
Alliance with the Emperor.

BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1640-1688.
   The Great Elector.
   His development of the strength of the Electorate.
   His successful wars.
   His acquisition of the complete sovereignty of Prussia.
   Fehrbellin.

"Frederic William, known in history as the Great Elector, was only twenty years old when he succeeded his father. He found everything in disorder: his country desolate, his fortresses garrisoned by troops under a solemn order to obey only the mandates of the Emperor, his army to be counted almost on the fingers. His first care was to conclude a truce with the Swedes; his second to secure his western borders by an alliance with Holland; his third—not in order of action, for in that respect it took first place—to raise the nucleus of an army; his fourth, to cause the evacuation of his fortresses. … To allay the wrath of the Emperor, he temporised until his armed force had attained the number of 8,000. That force once under arms, he boldly asserted his position, and with so much effect that in the discussions preceding the Peace of Westphalia he could exercise a considerable influence. By the terms of that treaty, the part of Pomerania known as Hinter Pommern, the principalities of Magdeburg and Halberstadt, and the bishoprics of Minden and Kammin were ceded to Brandenburg. … The Peace once signed, Frederic William set diligently to work to heal the disorders and to repair the mischief which the long war had caused in his dominions. … He specially cherished his army. We have seen its small beginning in 1640-42. Fifteen years later, in 1655, or seven years after the conclusion of the Peace of Westphalia, it amounted to 25,000 men, well drilled and well disciplined, disposing of seventy-two pieces of cannon. In the times in which he lived he had need of such an army. In 1654, Christina, the wayward and gifted daughter of Gustavus Adolphus, had abdicated. Her successor on the throne of Sweden was her cousin, Charles Gustavus, Duke of Zweibrücken. … The right of Charles Gustavus to the succession was, however, contested by John Casimir, King of Poland. … War ensued. In that war the star of Charles Gustavus was in the ascendant, and the unfortunate John Casimir was forced to abandon his own dominions and to flee into Silesia. The vicinity of the two rivals to his own outlying territories was, however, too near not to render anxious Frederic William of Brandenburg. To protect Prussia, then held in fief from the King of Poland, he marched with 8,000 men to its borders. But even with such a force he was unable, or perhaps, more correctly, he was prudently unwilling, to resist the insistence put upon him at Königsberg by the victorious King of Sweden (1656) to transfer to him the feudal overlordship of that province. Great results followed from this compliance. Hardly had the treaty been signed, when John Casimir, returning from Silesia with an Imperial army at his back, drove the Swedes from Poland, and recovered his dominions. He did not evidently intend to stop there. Then it was that the opportunity arrived to the Great Elector. Earnestly solicited by the King of Sweden to aid him in a contest which had assumed dimensions so formidable, Frederic William consented, but only on the condition that he should receive the Polish palatinates (Woiwodshaften) of Posen and Kalisch as the price of a victorious campaign. He then joined the King with his army, met the enemy at Warsaw, fought with him close to that city a great battle, which lasted three days (28th to 30th July 1656), and which terminated then, thanks mainly to the pertinacity of the Brandenburgers—in the complete defeat of the Poles. The victory gained, Frederic William withdrew his troops. … Again did John Casimir recover from his defeat; again, aided by the Imperialists, did he march to the front, reoccupy Warsaw, and take up a threatening position opposite to the Swedish camp. The King of Sweden beheld in this action on the part of his enemy the prelude to his own certain destruction, unless by any means he could induce the Elector of Brandenburg once more to save him. He sent, then, urgent messengers after him to beg him to return. The messengers found Frederic William at Labian. There the Elector halted and there, joined the next day, 20th November 1656, by King Charles Gustavus, he signed a treaty, by which, on condition of his material aid in the war, the latter renounced his feudal overlordship over Prussia, and agreed to acknowledge the Elector and his male descendants as sovereign dukes of that province. In the war which followed, the enemies of Sweden and Brandenburg multiplied on every side. The Danes and Lithuanians espoused the cause of John Casimir. Its issue seemed to Frederic William more than doubtful. He asked himself, then, whether—the new enemies who had arisen being the enemies of Sweden and not of himself—he had not more to gain by sharing in the victories of the Poles than in the defeats of the Swedes. Replying to himself affirmatively, he concluded, 29th September 1657, through the intermediation of the Emperor, with the Poles, at Wehlau, a treaty whereby the dukedom of Prussia was ceded in absolute sovereignty to the Elector of Brandenburg and his male issue, with reversion to Poland in case of the extinction of the family of the Franconian Hohenzollerns; in return, Frederic William engaged himself to support the Poles in their war against Sweden with a corps of 4,000 men. But before this convention could be acted upon, fortune had again smiled upon Charles Gustavus. Turning in the height of winter against the Danes, the King of Sweden had defeated them in the open field, pursued them across the frozen waters of the Belt to Fünen and Seeland, and had imposed upon their king the humiliating peace of Roeskilde (1658). He seemed inclined to proceed still further in the destruction of the ancient rival of his country, when a combined army of Poles and Brandenburgers suddenly poured through Mecklenburg into Holstein, drove thence the Swedes, and gave them no rest till they had evacuated likewise Schleswig and Jutland (1659). In a battle which took place shortly afterwards on the island of Fünen, at Nyborg, the Swedes suffered a defeat. This defeat made Charles Gustavus despair of success, and he had already begun to treat for peace, when death snatched him from the scene (January 1660). The negotiations which had begun, however, continued, and finally peace was signed on the 1st May 1660, in the monastery of Oliva, close to Danzig. This peace confirmed to the Elector of Brandenburg his sovereign rights over the duchy of Prussia. From this epoch dates the complete union of Brandenburg and Prussia—a union upon which a great man was able to lay the foundation of a powerful North German Kingdom!" During the next dozen years, the Great Elector was chiefly busied in establishing his authority in his dominions and curbing the power of the nobles, particularly in Prussia. {310} In 1674, when Louis XIV. of France provoked war with the German princes by his attack on the Dutch, Frederic William led 20,000 men into Alsace to join the Imperial forces. Louis then called upon his allies, the Swedes, to invade Brandenburg, which they did, under General Wrangel, in January, 1675. "Plundering and burning as they advanced, they entered Havelland, the granary of Berlin, and carried their devastations up to the very gates of that capital." The Elector was retreating from Alsace before Turenne when he heard of the invasion. He paused for some weeks, to put his army in good condition, and then he hurried northwards, by forced marches. The enemy was taken by surprise, and attacked while attempting to retreat, near Fehrbellin, on the 18th of June. After two hours of a tremendous hand-to-hand conflict, "the right wing of the Swedes was crushed and broken; the centre and left wing were in full retreat towards Fehrbellin. The victors, utterly exhausted—they had scarcely quitted their saddles for eleven days—were too worn out to pursue. It was not till the following morning that, refreshed and recovered, they followed the retreating foe to the borders of Mecklenburg. … The Great Elector promptly followed up his victory till he had compelled the Swedes to evacuate all Pomerania. Three years later, when they once more crossed the border from Livonia, he forced them again to retreat; and although in the treaty signed at St. Germain in 1670 he was forced to renounce his Pomeranian conquests, he did not the less establish the ultimate right of the State of which he was the real founder to those lands on the Baltic for which he had so hardly struggled at the negotiations which preceded the Peace of Westphalia. When he died (9th May 1688) he left the Kingdom already made in a position of prosperity sufficient to justify his son and successor in assuming, thirteen years later, on the anniversary of the victory of FehrbeIlin, the title of King."

BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1648.
   The Peace of Westphalia.
   Loss of part of Pomerania.
   Compensating acquisitions.

See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1672-1674, and 1674-1678;
also NIMEGUEN, PEACE OF.

BRASIDAS IN CHALKIDIKE.

"As the most valuable part of the cargo which Americus Vespucius carried back to Europe was the well-known dye-wood, 'Cæsalpina Braziliensis,'—called in the Portuguese language 'pau brazil,' on account of its resemblance to 'brazas,' 'coals of fire,'—the land whence it came was termed the 'land of the brazil-wood'; and finally this appellation was shortened to Brazil, and completely usurped the names Vera Cruz, or Santa Cruz."

BRAZIL: A. D. 1500-1504.
Discovery, exploration of the coast and first settlement.

BRAZIL: A. D. 1510-1661.
   Portuguese colonization and agriculture.
   Introduction of Slavery.
   The coming of the Jesuits.
   Conquests of the Dutch, and the Portuguese recovery of them.

"Brazil, on which the Portuguese ships had been cast by accident, had been found to unite in itself the capabilities of every part of the world in which Europeans have settled, though happily gold and silver had not yet been discovered, and the colonists betook themselves from the first to agriculture. 'The first permanent settlements on this coast were made by Jews, exiled by the persecution of the Inquisition; and the government supplemented these by sending out criminals of all kinds. But gradually the consequence of Brazil became recognized, and, as afterwards happened in New England, the nobility at home asked to share the land among themselves. Emmanuel would not countenance such a claim, but this great prince died in 1521, and his successor, John III., extended to Brazil the same system which had been adopted in Madeira and the Azores. The whole sea-coast of Brazil was parcelled out by feudal grants. It was divided into captaincies, each 50 leagues in length, with no limits in the interior; and these were granted out as male fiefs, with absolute power over the natives, such as at that time existed over the serfs who tilled the soil in Europe. But the native Brazilians were neither so easy a conquest as the Peruvians, nor so easily induced to labour; and the Portuguese now began to bring negros from the Guinea coast. This traffic in human flesh had long been vigorously pursued in various parts of Europe; the Portuguese now introduced it to America. The settlers of Brazil were, properly speaking, the first European colonists. For they sold their own possessions at home, and brought their households with them to the new country. Thus they gradually formed the heart of a new nation, whereas the chief Spaniards always returned home after a certain tenure of their offices, and those who remained in the colony descended to the rank of the conquered natives. Many of those who came to Brazil had already served in the expeditions to the East; and they naturally perceived that the coast of America might raise the productions of India. Hence Brazil early became a plantation colony, and its prosperity is very much due to the culture of the sugar cane. {311} The Portuguese were greatly assisted, both in the East and the West, by the efforts of the newly founded order of the Jesuits. … John III. in [1549] sent out six of the order with the first governor of Brazil. … The Dutch, made bold by their great successes in the East, now sought to win the trade of Brazil by force of arms, and the success of the East India Company encouraged the adventurers who subscribed the funds for that of the West Indies, incorporated in 1621. The Dutch Admiral, Jacob Willekens, successfully assaulted San Salvador [Bahia] in 1624, and though the capital was afterwards retaken by the intrepid Archbishop Texeira, one half of the coast of Brazil submitted to the Dutch. Here, as in the East, the profit of the company was the whole aim of the Dutch, and the spirit in which they executed their design was a main cause of its failure. … But … the profits of the company … rose at one time to [cent?] per cent. The visions of the speculators of Amsterdam became greater; and they resolved to become masters of all Brazil. … The man whom they despatched [1637] to execute this design was Prince John Maurice of Nassau. … In a short time he had greatly extended the Dutch possessions. But the Stad-houder was subject, not to the wise and learned men who sat in the States-General, but to the merchants who composed the courts of the company. They thought of nothing but their dividends; they considered that Maurice kept up more troops and built more fortresses than were necessary for a mercantile community, and that he lived in too princely a fashion for one in their service. Perhaps they suspected him of an intention of slipping into that royal dignity which the feudal frame of Brazilian society seemed to offer him. At any rate, in 1643, they forced him to resign. A recent revolution had terminated the subjection of Portugal to Spain, and the new king of Portugal concluded a truce for ten years with Holland. War was therefore supposed to be out of the question. … But the recall of Maurice was the signal for an independent revolt in Brazil. Though the mother countries were at peace, war broke out between the Dutch and the Portuguese of Brazil in 1645. The Jesuits had long preached a crusade against the heretic Dutch. … John Ferdinand de Vieyra, a wealthy merchant of Pernambuco, led a general uprising of the Brazilians, and although the Dutch made a stubborn resistance, they received no assistance from home; they were driven from one post after another, until, in 1654, the last of the company's servants quitted Brazil. The Dutch declared war against Portugal; but in 1661 peace was made, and the Dutch sold their claims for 8,000,000 florins, the right of trading being secured to them. But after the expulsion of the Dutch, the trade of Brazil came more and more into the hands of the English."

ALSO IN: R. G. Watson, Spanish and Portuguese South America, volume 1, chapters 9 and 15; volume 2, chapters 1-4.

"The celebrated republic of St. Paul, as it is usually denominated, had its rise about the year 1531, from a very inconsiderable beginning. A mariner of the name of Ramalho, having been shipwrecked on this part of the coast, was received among a small Indian tribe called the Piratininga, after the name of their chief. Here he was found by De Sousa some years afterwards, and, contrary to the established policy of permitting no settlement excepting immediately on the sea-coast, he allowed this man to remain, on account of his having intermarried and having a family. The advantages of this establishment were such, that permission was soon after given to others to settle here, and as the adventurers intermarried with the natives, their numbers increased rapidly. … A mixed race was formed, possessing a compound of civilized and uncivilized manners and customs. The Jesuits soon after established themselves with a number of Indians they had reclaimed, and exerted a salutary influence in softening and harmonizing the growing colony. In 1581, the seat of government was removed from St. Vincent on the coast to St. Pauls; but its subjection to Portugal was little more than nominal. … The mixture produced an improved race, 'the European spirit of enterprise,' says Southey, 'developed itself in constitutions adapted to the country.' But it is much more likely that the free and popular government which they enjoyed produced the same fruits here as in every other country. … They soon quarreled with the Jesuits [1581], on account of the Indians whom they had reduced to slavery. The Jesuits declaimed against the practice; but as there were now many wealthy families among the Paulistas, the greater part of whose fortunes consisted in their Indians, it was not heard with patience. The Paulistas first engaged in war against the enemies of their allies, and afterwards on their own account, on finding it advantageous. They established a regular trade with the other provinces whom they supplied with Indian slaves. They by this time acquired the name of Mamelukes, from the peculiar military discipline they adopted, bearing some resemblance to the Mamelukes of Egypt. The revolution in Portugal, when Philip II. of Spain placed himself on its throne, cast the Paulistas in a state of independence, as they were the only settlers in Brazil which did not acknowledge the new dynasty. From the year 1580 until the middle of the following century, they may be regarded as a republic, and it was during this period they displayed that active and enterprising character for which they were so much celebrated. … While a Spanish king occupied the throne of Portugal, they attacked the Spanish settlements on the Paraguay, alleging that the Spaniards were encroaching on their territory. … They attacked the Jesuit missions [1629]. … As they had fixed themselves east of the Parana, the Paulistas laid hold of this as a pretext. They carried away upwards of 2,000 of their Indians into captivity, the greater part of whom were sold and distributed as slaves. The Jesuits complained to the king of Spain and to the pope; the latter fulminated his excommunication. The Paulistas attacked the Jesuits in their college, and put their principal to death, expelled the remainder, and set up a religion of their own; at least no longer acknowledged the supremacy of the pope. In consequence of the interruption of the African trade during the Dutch war, the demand for Indian slaves was very much increased. The Paulistas redoubled their exertions, and traversed every part of the Brazils in armed troops. … The foundation was laid of enmity to the Portuguese, which continues to this day, although a complete stop was put to the infamous practice in the year 1756. … When the house of Braganza, in 1640, ascended the throne, the Paulistas, instead of acknowledging him, conceived the idea of electing a king for themselves. They actually elected a distinguished citizen of the name of Bueno, who persisted in refusing to accept, upon which they were induced to acknowledge Joam IV. [1641]. It was not until long afterwards that they came under the Portuguese government."

      ALSO IN: R. Southey,
      History of Brazil,
      chapter 23 (volume 2).

BRAZIL: A. D. 1654-1777. The Portuguese policy of exclusion and restriction.-Boundary disputes with Spain.

"The period of peace which followed these victories [over the Dutch] … was used by the Portuguese government only to get up a kind of old Japanese system of isolation, by which it was intended to keep the colony in perpetual tutelage. In consequence of this even now, after the lapse of half a century since it violently separated itself, Brazilians generally entertain a bitter grudge against the mother country. All the trade to and from Brazil was engrossed by Portugal; every functionary, down to the last clerk, was Portuguese. Any other European of scientific education was looked at with suspicion; and particularly they sought to prevent by all means the exploration of the interior, as they feared not only that the eyes of the natives might be opened to their mode of administration, but also that such travellers might side with the Spaniards in their long dispute regarding the boundaries of the two nations, as the French astronomer, La Condamine, had done. This question, which arose shortly after the discovery, and was hushed up only during the short union of both crowns (from 1581-1640), broke out with renewed vigor now and then, maugre the Treaty of Tordesilhas in 1494 [see AMERICA: A. D. 1494]. … By the Treaty of Sao Ildefonso, in 1777, both parties having long felt how impracticable the old arrangements were—at least, for their American colonies—the boundaries were fixed upon the principle of the 'uti possidetis,' at any rate so far as the imperfect knowledge of the interior allowed; but this effort also proved to be vain. … The unsolved question descended as an evil heritage to their respective heirs, Brazil and the South American Republics. A few years ago it gave rise to the terrible war with Paraguay; and it will lead to fresh conflicts between Brazil and the Argentine Republic."

BRAZIL: A. D. 1808-1822.
Becomes the asylum of Portuguese royalty.
The founding of the independent Empire.

   "While anarchy and ruin … overspread the greater part of the
   beautiful continent of South America, the Empire of Brazil won an
   independent existence without bloodshed, and kept it with
   credit. The Dutch conquest of Brazil, and its reconquest by
   the Portuguese, has been mentioned in a former chapter. The
   country long remained under the close and oppressive monopoly
   imposed upon it by the Portuguese; but in 1808 [1807] when
   Napoleon invaded Portugal, the regent embarked [see PORTUGAL:
   A. D. 1807], with the royal insignia, for Brazil, which at
   once assumed the dignity of an integral part of the kingdom.
   The ports were opened to the commerce of the world; the
   printing-press was introduced; learning was encouraged; the
   enormous resources of the country were explored; foreign
   settlers were invited to establish themselves; embassies were
   sent to European powers of the first rank, and diplomatic
   agents received. New towns and harbours were planned; new life
   was breathed into every department of the state. After a few
   years, the state of affairs in Europe compelled King John VI.
   to return to Europe, as the only chance of preserving the
   integrity of the monarchy. The Cortes of Lisbon invited their
   sovereign to revisit his ancient capital, and deputies from
   Brazil were summoned to attend the sittings of the National
   Assembly. But before the deputies could arrive, the Cortes had
   resolved that Brazil should be again reduced to absolute
   dependence on Portugal. A resolution more senseless or more
   impracticable can hardly be imagined. The territory of Brazil
   was as large as all Europe put together; Portugal was a little
   kingdom, isolated and without influence among the monarchies
   of the Old World; yet it was deliberately decreed that all the
   monopolies of the exploded colonial system should be revived,
   and that England should be deprived of her free trade to
   Brazil. The king appointed his eldest son, Dom Pedro, Regent
   of the new kingdom, and soon after took his departure for
   Lisbon, with many of the emigrant nobility. Dom Pedro assumed
   the government under the perplexing circumstances of an empty
   treasury, a heavy public debt, and the provinces almost in
   revolt. Bahia disavowed his authority, and the Cortes withheld
   their support from him. The regent reduced his expenditure to
   the monthly sum allowed to his princess for pin money; he
   retired to a country house, and observed the most rigid
   economy. By great exertions he reduced the public expenditure
   from $50,000,000 to $15,000,000; but the northern and internal
   provinces still withheld their taxes; the army became
   mutinous, and the ministers of his father, who still remained
   in power, were unpopular; the regent in despair demanded his
   recall. But the Brazilians were at length disarmed by his
   noble conduct; they recognized his activity, his beneficence,
   his assiduity in the affairs of government, and the habitual
   feelings of affection and respect for the House of Braganza,
   which had for a moment been laid asleep by distrust, were
   reawakened with renewed strength. It was fortunate that the
   quarrels which disturbed Brazil were accommodated before the
   arrival of intelligence from Portugal. Hardly had the king
   arrived in Lisbon when he found himself obliged to assent to a
   constitution which treated his Brazilian subjects as mere
   colonists; succeeding mails brought orders more and more
   humiliating to the Brazilians.
{313}
   The design of declaring Brazil an independent kingdom, grew
   more and more in public favour; but the prince was unwilling
   to place himself in direct rebellion to the crown of Portugal,
   and steadily adhered to his determination to leave America. At
   length, it is related, a despatch was delivered to the regent,
   which he declined to show to any of his ministers, but which
   evidently excited in his mind no ordinary emotions of anger:
   he crushed the paper in his hand, and moved away to a window,
   where he stood for a few moments in thought; at length he
   turned to his council with the words 'Independencia ou
   morte':—the exclamation was received with tumultuous cheers,
   and was adopted as the watchword of the Revolution. The
   Portuguese troops were sent back to Europe. The Cortes of
   Lisbon were now anxious to recall their obnoxious decrees; to
   admit the deputies from Brazil; to make any concession that
   might be demanded. But it was too late: the independence of
   Brazil was formally proclaimed in August, 1822, and in
   December of the same year, Dom Pedro was crowned Emperor of
   Brazil. This is the first, and as yet the only instance of a
   modern colony achieving its independence, and separating
   itself completely from its metropolis without bloodshed."

BRAZIL: A. D. 1825-1865.
   Wars with the Argentines.
   Abdication of Dom Pedro I,
   The Guerra dos Cabanos.

"In 1825, chiefly through the mediation of England, Brazil was acknowledged as an independent empire. But the inner commotions continued, and were not even soothed by a new Constitution, drawn up in 1823, and sworn to by the Emperor in 1824. New revolts in Pernambuco, and some of the other Northern provinces, and a war of three years with the Argentine Republic, which ended in 1828 by Brazil giving up Banda Oriental, annexed only eleven years before, disturbed and weakened the land. The foreign soldiers, enlisted for this war, and retained after its conclusion to keep down the Opposition, and the extravagant private life of the Emperor, who recklessly trampled down the honour of respectable families, provoked dissatisfaction and murmurs, which rose to the highest pitch when he insisted upon carrying on a most unpopular war in Portugal to defend the rights of his daughter, Dona Maria da Gloria (in whose favour he had abdicated the Portuguese Crown), against his brother. Don Miguel [see PORTUGAL: A. D. 1824-1889]. In April, 1831, Dom Pedro I., so enthusiastically raised to the Brazilian throne only nine years before, was forced to abdicate it, deserted and betrayed by everyone, in behalf of his younger son, Pedro. The next period was the most disturbed one that the young Empire had yet witnessed. Slave revolts at Bahia, a civil war in the South, which almost cost it the province of Rio Grande do Sul, and the bloody rebellion known as the Guerra dos Cabanos, in Pará and Amazon, from 1835 to 1837, followed each other quickly. In this last revolt, the Brazilians had stirred up the Indians and mestizoes against the abhorred Portuguese, without considering that they should not be able to quench the fire, they had themselves kindled. In a short time, the fury of the whole colored population turned against all whites, Brazilians and Portuguese alike, without any distinction. More than 10,000 persons are said to have perished in this Guerra dos Cabanos; and, to the present day, those terrible times and the barbarous cruelties committed by the Indians, half-castes, and mulattoes, continue to be talked of with awe in the two provinces. A revolution in Minas, got up by the personal ambitions of a few political leaders, rather than emanating from the spirit of the people, and the war against Rosas, the Dictator of the Argentine Republic, passed over Brazil without leaving deep traces, at least when compared with the last war against Paraguay; which, besides the stimulus of the old differences about boundaries, was occasioned by the endless vexations and restrictions with which the Dictator Lopez strove to ruin the Brazilian trade on the Paraguay, and to prejudice the province of Mato Grosso."

The Brazilian act of emancipation, known as the Law of Rio Branco (taking that name from the Minister who carried it through) was passed on the 28th of September, 1871, "and from that date it was enacted 'that children henceforth born of slave women shall be considered of free condition.' … Such children are not to be actually free, but are 'bound to serve the owners of their mothers for a term of 21 years, under the name of 'apprentices.' These must work, under severe penalties, for their hereditary masters; but if the latter inflict on them excessive bodily punishment, they are allowed to bring suit in a criminal court, which may declare their freedom. A provision was also made for the emancipation of government slaves; and there was a clause which insured a certain sum, to be annually set aside from fines, which was to aid each province in emancipating by purchase a certain number of slaves. … The passage of this law did not prove merely prospective in its effects. In a very short time the sums placed aside for emancipating slaves by purchase resulted in the freedom of many bondmen. And more than this, there seemed to be a generous private rivalry in the good work, from motives of benevolence and from religious influence. Many persons in various parts of Brazil liberated their slaves without compensation. … I am happy to say that the number liberated, either by the provisions of the State or by private individuals, is always in an increasing ratio. When the writer first went to Brazil [1852] … it was estimated that there were 3,000,000 in slavery. … There were at the beginning of 1875, when the law of emancipation had been but a little more than three years in operation, 1,476,567 slaves."

"On the 25th of March, 1884, slavery was abolished in the province of Ceará. The Rio News says, 'The movement began only 15 months ago, the first municipality liberating its slaves on the 1st of January, 1883. The new tax law of last November greatly accelerated this progress, because it made slave-holding impossible, the value of the slave being less than the tax.'" On the 28th of September, 1885, the impatience of the Brazilians to rid themselves of slavery expressed itself in a new Emancipation Act, known as the Saraiva law. It provided for facilitating and hastening the extension of freedom, by increasing the public fund appropriated to it, by defining the valuation of slaves, and by other effective provisions, so that "within ten years [from its date] it is supposed that slavery will have ceased to exist in Brazil."

"On March 30, 1887, the official return gave the number of slaves in Brazil as 723,419, of the legal value of $485,225,212. On May 13, 1888, the Crown Princess, as regent, gave the royal assent to a short measure of two clauses, the first declaring that slavery was abolished in Brazil from the day of the promulgation of the law, and the second repealing all former Acts on the subject. Both Chambers refused to consider the claim for compensation made by the slave owners."

BRAZIL: A. D. 1889-1891.
   Revolution.
   Overthrow of the Empire.
   Establishment of the Republic of the United States of Brazil.
   Religious freedom declared

"The sudden collapse of the Imperial Government in November [1889], resulting in the downfall of Dom Pedro and his banishment, caused universal surprise. For some time the Government had been credited by the Republican journals with the wish and intention to disperse the army throughout the provinces and along the frontier, so that, with the assistance of the newly-organised National Guard, the succession of the Princess Imperial to the throne might be secured in the event of the death or incapacity through old age of the Emperor Dom Pedro. An infantry battalion, ordered to embark for a distant province, mutinied and refused to go. The War Department resolved to compel them by force to depart." The result was a general mutiny (November 15, 1889), which soon became a revolution. "The organiser of the mutiny was Colonel Benjamin Constant Botelho de Magalhaes, an officer of exceptional ability and Professor in the Military Academy. The movement seemed directed at first only against the obnoxious Ouro Preto Ministry; but the enthusiasm of the Republicans, under the leadership of a popular agitator, Jose de Patrocinio, was so very pronounced, that at a meeting held in the city hall, in the afternoon of November 15, a resolution proclaiming the Republic was passed by acclamation. About the same hour, a self-constituted committee, consisting of General Deodoro [da Fonseca], Benjamin Constant, and Quintino Bocayuva, met and organised a Provisional Government," with Marshal Deodoro da Fonseca for its Chief, Colonel Botelho de Magalhaes for Minister of War. "A formal decree was issued declaring a federal Republic, the several provinces of the late Empire constituting the States and each State arranging its own constitution and electing its deliberative bodies and local governments. On the morning of the 16th the deposed Emperor received intimation that he and his family must leave the country within twenty-four hours:—'Between 2 and 3 o'clock on the morning of the 17th an officer appeared at the palace and informed the Emperor that he must at once embark, with all the members of his family. The wretched old man protested that he was not a fugitive, and that he preferred to embark by day; but after listening to the officer's explanation that a conflict might occur and blood might be shed, he finally yielded, protesting that in such a crisis his old grey head was the only one that was cool. And so at the dead hour of night, with no one to say a farewell and bid him God-speed, the aged Emperor, with his devoted wife and children, went down to the Caes Pharonx, where a launch was waiting to convey them out to the small gunboat Parnahyba. About 10 o'clock the gunboat steamed out of the harbour and went down to Ilha Grande to wait for the merchant steamer Alagoas, which had been chartered to convey the exiles to Europe'. … It was said that the Imperial Ministry, principally through the instrumentality of Ouro Preto, had arranged with Dom Pedro to abdicate at the end of January, 1890, in favour of his daughter, the Countess d'Eu. But the Countess, with her husband, was extremely unpopular with the army and navy, and from these the feeling of disloyalty spread rapidly among the people. By decree of the Provisional Government, the provinces of Brazil, united by the tie of federation, were to be styled the 'United States of Brazil,' and general elections were to take place in August, 1890, to confirm the establishment of the Republic. A counter-revolution broke out in Rio on December 18. A number of soldiers, sailors, and civilians took part in it, and troops had to be ordered out to disperse them. It was not until the 20th that the disturbance was finally quelled."

"The revolution was the work of leaders who were not only conscious of their power, but also confident that the nation would inevitably condone their temporary acts of usurpation. There were no signs of weakness, vacillation or uncertainty in their action. … A coalition of the army officers and the constitution-makers and political dreamers of the League would have been impracticable if the leaders had not known that the 20 provinces of the Empire were profoundly disaffected and would readily acquiesce in a radical change of government. … The Emperor of Brazil has enjoyed the reputation of being one of the most enlightened and progressive sovereigns of his time. … He was a ruler with many fascinating and estimable traits, who endeared himself to his people. This and much more may be said in praise of the deposed and banished Emperor; but when the record of his public services and of his private virtues is complete, the fact remains that he stood for a system of centralization that practically deprived the great series of federated provinces of their autonomy and his subjects of the privileges of self-government. Dom Pedro II. was not a constitutional reformer. The charter which he had received from his father was not modified in any essential respect during his long reign."

   "A new Constitution … was ratified by the first National
   Congress, convened on November 15, 1890. By this instrument the
   Brazilian nation constituted itself into a federal republic,
   under the name of the United States of Brazil. Each of the old
   provinces was declared a self-governing state, to be
   administered under a republican form of government, with power
   to impose taxes, and subject to no interference from the
   Central Government, except for purposes of national defense or
   the preservation of internal order or for the execution of
   Federal laws.
{315}
   Legislation relating to customs, paper currency, and postal
   communications is reserved to the Federal Government. The
   right of suffrage is secured to all male citizens over 21
   years old, with the exception of beggars, persons ignorant of
   the alphabet, soldiers in actual service, and persons under
   monastic vows, registration being the only prerequisite. The
   executive authority is vested in the President … elected by
   the people directly for the term of six years, and …. not
   eligible for the succeeding term. … Senators are elected by
   the Legislatures of the States for nine years, three from each
   State, one retiring and his successor being chosen every three
   years. … The Chamber of Deputies has the initiative in all
   laws relating to taxation. Deputies are elected for three
   years by direct popular vote in the proportion of one to every
   70,000 inhabitants. … It is declared that no sect or church
   shall receive aid from the National or State governments." In
   1891, differences arose between the President and Congress, at
   first over financial measures passed by the Chambers and
   vetoed by the President and schemes recommended by the
   President that were voted down by Congress. In November the
   President published a decree dissolving Congress, closed the
   Chambers by force, proclaimed himself Dictator on the
   invitation of officers of the army, and convoked a new
   Congress, to be charged with the revision of the constitution.
   The State of Rio Grande do Sul led off in a revolt against
   this usurpation, and on the 23d of November, after some shots
   had been fired into the city of Rio de Janeiro by a naval
   squadron acting against him, President Fonseca resigned.
   "Floriano Peixoto was immediately installed by the
   revolutionary committee as President in his stead … and the
   country soon settled down under the new government."

"When Deodoro, after struggling for twelve months with the factions in Congress, closed the doors of São Christovão Palace and proclaimed a dictatorship, he had recourse to a familiar expedient of Latin-American civilization. The speedy collapse of his administration, when it was wholly dependent upon military force, was a good augury for the future of Brazil. … In the early days of the Republic, the Provisional Ministry were unable to agree upon the radical policy of disestablishing the Church. … Fortunately for Brazil there was no compromise of the disestablishment question. … Under the Constitution no religious denomination was permitted to hold relations of dependence upon, or alliance with, the federal or State governments. … Every church was made free in the free State. Civil marriage was recognized as essential. … Perhaps the most hopeful sign for the cause of progress and religion is the adoption of educational suffrage."

BREAD AND CHEESE WAR.

BREHON LAWS.

"The portion of the Irish tribe system which has attracted most attention is the mode in which the judicial authority was withdrawn from the chief and appropriated by the hereditary caste of the Brehons, and also the supposed anomalous principles which they applied to the decision of the cases which came before them. The earlier English writers found no terms too strong to express their abhorrence and contempt of these native judges, and their contempt for the principles upon which they proceeded. On the other hand, Irish writers attributed to these professional arbitrators advanced principles of equity wholly foreign to an early community. … The translation of the existing vast mass of Brehon law books, and the translation [publication?] of the most important of them by the order of the government, have disposed of the arguments and assertions on both sides. It is now admitted, that the system and principles of the Brehon jurisprudence present no characteristics of any special character, although in them primitive ideas of law were elaborated in a manner not found elsewhere; … the laws which existed among the native Irish were in substance those which are found to have prevailed among other Aryan tribes in a similar stage of social progress; as the social development of the nation was prematurely arrested, so also were the legal ideas of the same stage of existence retained after they had disappeared in all other nations of Europe. This legal survival continued for centuries the property of an hereditary caste, who had acquired the knowledge of writing, and some tincture of scholastic philosophy and civil law. … The learning of the Brehons consisted (1) in an acquaintance with the minute ceremonies, intelligible now only to an archæologist, and not always to him, by which the action could be instituted, and without which no Brehon could assume the role of arbitrator; and (2) in a knowledge of the traditions, customs and precedents of the tribe, in accordance with which the dispute should be decided."

BREMEN: A. D. 1801-1803.
One of six free cities which survive the Peace of Luneville.

BREMEN: A. D. 1815.
Once more a Free City and a member of the Germanic
Confederation.

BREMEN: A. D. 1888.
Surrender of free privileges.
Absorption in the Zollverein and Empire.

Fought and won by Edmund Ironsides in his contest with Cnut,
or Canute, for the English throne A. D. 1016.

BRESCIA: A. D. 1849.
Bombardment, capture and brutal treatment by the Austrian
Haynau.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1741 (MAY-JUNE); 1742 (JANUARY-MAY);
1742 (JUNE); GERMANY: A. D. 1757 (JULY-DECEMBER), and 1760.

BRETAGNE.

BRETHREN OF THE COMMON LOT OR COMMON LIFE.

"The Societies of the Beguines, Beghards, and Lollards [see BEGUINES], which from the first laboured under various defects and imperfections, had in course of time degenerated, and by their own fault, either fallen to pieces of themselves, or been suppressed. The two things, however, still existed, viz., the propensity to religious association, … and, likewise, the outward condition, which required and rendered practicable the efforts of benevolence and charity, strengthened by cooperation. The last was particularly the case in the Netherlands, and most in the northern provinces. … Here, then, the Institute of the Common Lot takes its rise. … The first author of this new series of evolutions was Gerhard Groot (Geert Groete or de Groot, Gerhardus Magnus), a man of glowing piety and great zeal in doing good, a powerful popular orator and an affectionate friend of youth [1340-1384]. … His affection for Holy Scripture and the ancient Fathers kindled in Gerhard's bosom the liveliest zeal for collecting the records of Christian antiquity. … Hence, he had long before employed young men, under his oversight, as copyists, thereby accomplishing the threefold end of multiplying these good theological works, giving profitable employment to the youths, and obtaining an opportunity of influencing their minds. This he continued more and more to do. The circle of his youthful friends, scholars, and transcribers, became from day to day larger, and grew at length into a regular society. Having thus in part owed its origin to the copying of the Scriptures and devotional books, the Society from the outset, and through its whole continuance, made the Holy Scripture and its propagation, the copying, collecting, preserving, and utilizing of good theological and ascetical books, one of its main objects. … The members were called 'Brethren of the Common Lot,' [or of the Common Life] or 'Brethren of Good Will,' 'Fratres Collationarii,' 'Jeronymians,' and 'Gregorians.' … Imitating the Church at Jerusalem, and prompted by brotherly affection, they mutually shared with each other their earnings and property, or consecrated also their fortune, if they possessed any, to the service of the community. From this source, and from donations and legacies made to them, arose the 'Brother-houses,' in each of which a certain number of members lived together, subjected, it is true, in dress, diet, and general way of life, to an appointed rule, but yet not conventually sequestered from the world, with which they maintained constant intercourse, and in such a way as, in opposition to Monachism [monasticism], to preserve the principle of individual liberty."

"Through the wonderful activity of that fraternity of teachers, begun about 1360, called the Brethren of the Common Life, the Netherlands had the first system of common schools in Europe. These schools flourished in every large town and almost in every village, so that popular education was the rule."

      ALSO IN:
      S. Kettlewell,
      Thomas à Kempis and the Brothers of Common Life,
      chapters 5-6 (volume 1).

BRETHREN OF THE FREE SPIRIT.

   The treaty, called at the time "the great peace," concluded
   May 8, 1360, between Edward III. of England and John II. of
   France, in which Edward renounced his pretensions to the
   French crown, released for a ransom King John, then a prisoner
   in his hands, and received the full sovereignty of Guienne,
   Poitou and Ponthieu in France, besides retaining Calais and
   Guisnes.

BRETWALDA.

A title given to some of the early English kings. "Opinions differ as to the meaning of the word Bretwalda. Palgrave and Lappenberg take it as equivalent to 'ruler of Britain': Kemble construes it 'broad-ruling,' and sees in it a dignity without duty, hardly more than an accidental predominance.' (Saxons in England, ii., 18.) The list of those who obtained this 'ducatus' includes Ethelbert of Kent, who broke the power of the petty kings as far as the Humber, Redbald of East Anglia, who obtained it by some means even in the lifetime of Ethelbert, and the three great Northumbrian kings, Edwin, Oswold and Oswy, whose supremacy however did not extend to Kent."

ALSO IN: E. A. Freeman, History of the Norman Conquest of England, volume 1, appendix B.

A serious reverse suffered by the Arab followers of Mahomet in their early movements against the Persians, A. D. 634. A force of 9,000 or 10,000 having crossed the Euphrates by a bridge of boats were beaten back, their bridge destroyed and half of them slain or drowned.

One of the strongest and fiercest of the tribes of ancient Britain, believed by some historians to have been the original pre-Celtic inhabitants of the island. At the time of the Roman conquest they held the whole interior northward from the Humber and Mersey to the Forth and Clyde. They were subdued by Agricola.

See, also, BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES, and A. D. 43-53; also, IRELAND, TRIBES of EARLY CELTIC INHABITANTS.

BRIGANTINE. BERGANTIN.

BRISBANE.

BRISSOT DE WARVILLE AND THE GIRONDISTS.

BRISSOTINS.

The party of the Girondists, in the French Revolution, was sometimes so called, after Brissot de Warville, one of its leaders.

"Within its comparatively narrow limits Bristol must have been in general character and aspect not unlike what it is to-day—a busy, bustling, closely-packed city, full of the eager, active, surging life of commercial enterprise. Ostmen from Waterford and Dublin, Northmen from the Western Isles and the more distant Orkneys, and even from Norway itself, had long ago learnt to avoid the shock of the 'Higra,' the mighty current which still kept its heathen name derived from the sea-god of their forefathers, and make it serve to float them into the safe and commodious harbour of Bristol, where a thousand ships could ride at anchor. As the great trading centre of the west Bristol ranked as the third city in the kingdom, surpassed in importance only by Winchester and London. The most lucrative branch of its trade, however, reflects no credit on its burghers. All the eloquence of S. Wulfstan and all the sternness of the Conqueror had barely availed to check for a while their practice of kidnapping men for the Irish slave-market; and that the traffic was in full career in the latter years of Henry I. we learn from the experiences of the canons of Laon."

"Next to the capital, but next at an immense distance, stood Bristol, then the first English seaport. … Pepys, who visited Bristol eight years after the Restoration, was struck by the splendour of the city. But his standard was not high; for he noted down as a wonder the circumstance that, in Bristol, a man might look round him and see nothing but houses. … A few churches of eminent beauty rose out of a labyrinth of narrow lanes built upon vaults of no great solidity. If a coach or cart entered those alleys, there was danger that it would be wedged between the houses, and danger also that it would break in the cellars. Goods were therefore conveyed about the town almost exclusively in trucks drawn by dogs; and the richest inhabitants exhibited their wealth, not by riding in carriages, but by walking the streets with trains of servants in rich liveries and by keeping tables loaded with good cheer. The hospitality of the city was widely renowned, and especially the collations with which the sugar refiners regaled their visitors. … This luxury was supported by a thriving trade with the North American Plantations and with the West Indies. The passion for colonial traffic was so strong that there was scarcely a small shopkeeper in Bristol who had not a venture on board of some ship bound for Virginia or the Antilles. Some of these venturers indeed were not of the most honourable kind. There was, in the Transatlantic possessions of the crown, a great demand for labour; and this demand was partly supplied by a system of crimping and kidnapping at the principal English seaports. Nowhere was this system in such active and extensive operation as at Bristol. … The number of houses appears, from the returns of the hearth-money, to have been, in the year 1685, just 5,300. … The population of Bristol must therefore have been about 29,000."

The popular excitement produced in England in 1831 by the action of the House of Lords in rejecting the Reform Bill, led to riots in several places, but most seriously at Bristol. "The Bristol mobs have always been noted for their brutality; and the outbreak now was such as to amaze and confound the the whole kingdom. … {318} The lower parts of the city were the harbourage of probably a worse seaport populace than any other place in England, while the police was ineffective and demoralised. There was no city in which a greater amount of savagery lay beneath a society proud, exclusive, and mutually repellent, rather than enlightened and accustomed to social co-operation. These are circumstances which go far to account for the Bristol riots being so fearfully bad as they were. Of this city, Sir Charles Wetherell—then at the height of his unpopularity as a vigorous opponent of the Reform Bill—was recorder; and there he had to go, in the last days of October, in his judicial capacity. … The symptoms of discontent were such as to induce the mayor, Mr. Pinney, to apply to the home-office for military aid. Lord Melbourne sent down some troops of horse, which were quartered within reach, in the neighbourhood of the city. … Sir Charles Wetherell could not be induced to relinquish his public entry, though warned of the danger by the magistrates themselves. … On Saturday, October 29, Sir Charles Wetherell entered Bristol in pomp; and before he reached the Mansion House at noon, he must have been pretty well convinced, by the hootings and throwing of stones, that he had better have foregone the procession. For some hours the special constables and the noisy mob in front of the Mansion House exchanged discourtesies of an emphatic character, but there was no actual violence till night. At night, the Mansion House was attacked, and the Riot Act was read; but the military were not brought down, as they ought to have been, to clear the streets. The mayor had 'religious scruples,' and was 'humane'; and his indecision was not overborne by any aid from his brother-magistrates. When the military were brought in, it was after violence had been committed, and when the passions of the mob were much excited. Sir Charles Wetherell escaped from the city that night. During the dark hours, sounds were heard provocative of further riot; shouts in the streets, and the hammering of workmen who were boarding up the lower windows of the Mansion House and the neighbouring dwellings. On the Sunday morning, the rioters broke into the Mansion House without opposition; and from the time they got into the cellars, all went wrong. Hungry wretches and boys broke the necks of the bottles, and Queen Square was strewed with the bodies of the dead-drunk. The soldiers were left without orders, and their officers without that sanction of the magistracy in the absence of which they could not act, but only parade; and in this parading, some of the soldiers naturally lost their tempers, and spoke and made gestures on their own account, which did not tend to the soothing of the mob. This mob never consisted of more than five or six hundred. … The mob declared openly what they were going to do; and they went to work unchecked—armed with staves and bludgeons from the quays, and with iron palisades from the Mansion House—to break open and burn the bridewell, the jail, the bishop's palace, the custom-house, and Queen Square. They gave half an hour's notice to the inhabitants of each house in the square, which they then set fire to in regular succession, till two sides, each measuring 550 feet, lay in smoking ruins. The bodies of the drunken were seen roasting in the fire. The greater number of the rioters were believed to be under twenty years of age, and some were mere children; some Sunday scholars, hitherto well conducted, and it may be questioned whether one in ten knew anything of the Reform Bill, or the offences of Sir Charles Wetherell. On the Monday morning, after all actual riot seemed to be over, the soldiery at last made two slaughterous charges. More horse arrived, and a considerable body of foot soldiers; and the constabulary became active; and from that time the city was in a more orderly state than the residents were accustomed to see it. … The magistrates were brought to trial, and so was Colonel Brereton, who was understood to be in command of the whole of the military. The result of that court-martial caused more emotion throughout the kingdom than all the slaughtering and burning, and the subsequent executions which marked that fearful season. It was a year before the trial of the magistrates was entered upon. The result was the acquittal of the mayor, and the consequent relinquishment of the prosecution of his brother-magistrates."

H. Martineau, A History of the Thirty Years' Peace, book 4, chapter 4 (volume 2).

   "It appears that the southeastern part of the island, or the
   district now occupied by the county of Kent, was occupied by
   the Cantii, a large and influential tribe, which in Cæsar's
   time, was divided among four chiefs or kings. To the west, the
   Regni held the modern counties of Sussex and Surrey, from the
   sea-coast to the Thames. Still farther west, the Belgæ
   occupied the country from the southern coast to the Bristol
   Channel, including nearly the whole of Hampshire, Wiltshire
   and Somersetshire. The whole of the extensive district
   extending from the Belgæ to the extreme western point of the
   island, then called Antivestæum or Bolerium (now the Land's
   End) including Devonshire and Cornwall, was occupied by the
   Dumnonii, or Damnonii. On the coast between the Dumnonii and
   the Belgæ the smaller tribe of the Durotriges held the modern
   county of Dorset. On the other side of the Thames, extending
   northwards to the Stour, and including the greater part of
   Middlesex as well as Essex, lay the Trinobantes. To the north
   of the Stour dwelt the Iceni, extending over the counties of
   Suffolk, Norfolk, Cambridge and Huntingdon. The Coritavi
   possessed the present counties of Northampton, Leicester,
   Rutland, Derby, Nottingham and Lincoln; and the south-eastern
   part of Yorkshire was held by the Parisi. Between the tribes
   last enumerated, in the counties of Buckingham, Bedford and
   Hertford, lay the tribe called by Ptolemy the Catyeuchlani,
   and by others Catuvellani. Another name, apparently, for this
   tribe, or for a division of it, was the Cassii. West of these
   were the Atrebates, in Berkshire; and still further west were
   the Dobuni, in the counties of Oxford and Gloucester. … The
   interior of the island northward was occupied by the
   Brigantes, who held the extensive districts, difficult of
   approach on account of their mountains and woods, extending
   from the Humber and the Mersey to the present borders of
   Scotland. This extensive tribe appears to have included
   several smaller ones [the Voluntii, the Sestuntii, the
   Jugantes and the Cangi].
{319}
   The Brigantes are believed to have been the original
   inhabitants of the island, who had been driven northward by
   successive invasions. … Wales, also, was inhabited by a
   primitive population. The northern counties … was the
   territory of the Ordovices. The southeastern counties … were
   held by the Demetae. The still more celebrated tribe of the
   Silures inhabited the modern counties of Hereford, Radnor,
   Breeknoek, Monmouth and Clamorgan. Between these and the
   Brigantes lay the Cornabii or Carnabii. The wilder parts of
   the island of Britain, to the north of the Brigantes, were
   inhabited by a great number of smaller tribes, some of whom
   seem to have been raised in the scale of civilization little
   above savages. Of these we have the names of no less than
   twenty-one. Bordering on the Brigantes were the Otadeni,
   inhabiting the coast from the Tyne to the Firth of Forth. …
   Next to them were the Gadeni. … The Selgovæ inhabited
   Annandale, Nithsdale and Eskdale, in Dumfriesshire, with the
   East of Galloway. The Novantes inhabited the remainder of
   Galloway. The Damnii, a larger tribe, held the country from
   the chain of hills separating Galloway from Carrick, northward
   to the river Ern. These tribes lay to the south of the Forth
   and Clyde. Beyond the narrow boundary formed by these rivers
   lay [the Horestii, the Venricones or Vernicomes, the Taixali
   or Taexali, the Vacomagi, the Albani, the Cantæ, the Logi, the
   Carnabii, the Catini, the Mertæ, the Carnonacæ, the Creones,
   the Cerones, and the Epidii]. The ferocious tribe of the
   Attacotti inhabited part of Argyleshire, and the greater part
   of Dumbartonshire. The wild forest country of the interior,
   known as the Caledonia Sylva (or Forest of Celyddon), extended
   from the ridge of mountains between Inverness and Perth,
   northward to the forest of Balnagowan, including the middle
   parts of Inverness and Ross, was held by the Caledonii, which
   appears to have been at this time [of the conquests of
   Agricola] the most important and powerful of all the tribes
   north of the Brigantes."

Having extended his conquests in Gaul to the British Channel and the Strait of Dover (see GAUL: B. C. 58-51), Cæsar crossed the latter, in August, B. C. 55, and made his first landing in Britain, with two legions, numbering 8,000 to 10,000 men. Portus Itius, from which he sailed, was probably either Wissant or Boulogne, and his landing place on the British coast is believed to have been near Deal. The Britons disputed his landing with great obstinacy, but were driven back, and offered to submit; but when a few days afterwards, Cæsar's fleet suffered greatly from a storm, they reconsidered their submission and opened hostilities again. Routed in a second battle, they once more sued for peace, and gave hostages; whereupon Cæsar reembarked his troops and returned to the continent, having remained in Britain not more than three weeks and penetrated the island a short distance only. The following summer he crossed to Britain again, determined on making a thorough conquest of the country. This time he had five legions at his back, with two thousand horse, and the expedition was embarked on more than eight hundred ships. He sailed from and landed at the same points as before. Having established and garrisoned a fortified camp, he advanced into the country, encountering and defeating the Britons, first, at a river, supposed to be the Stour which flows past Canterbury. A storm which damaged his fleet then interrupted his advance, compelling him to return to the coast. When the disaster had been repaired he marched again, and again found the enemy on the Stour, assembled under the command of Cassivelaunus, whose kingdom was north of the Thames. He dispersed them, after much fighting, with great slaughter, and crossed the Thames, at a point, it is supposed, near the junction of the Wey. Thence he pushed on until he reached the "oppidum" or stronghold of Cassivelaunus, which is believed by some to have been on the site of the modern town of St. Albans,—but the point is It disputed one. On receiving the submission of Cassivelaunus, and of other chiefs, or kings, fixing the tribute they should pay and taking hostages, Cæsar returned to the coast, reembarked his army and withdrew. His stay in Britain on this occasion was about sixty days.

Nearly a hundred years passed after Cæsar's hasty invasion of Britain before the Romans reappeared on the island, to enforce their claim of tribute. It was under the fourth of the imperial successors of Julius Cæsar, the feeble Claudius, that the work of Roman conquest in Britain was really begun. Aulus Plautius, who commanded in Gaul, was sent over with four legions, A. D. 43, to obtain a footing and to smooth the way for the Emperor's personal campaign. With him went one, Vespasian, who began in Britain to win the fame which pushed him into the imperial seat and to a great place in Roman history. Plautius and Vespasian made good their occupation of the country as far as the Thames, and planted their forces strongly on the northern bank of that river; before they summoned the Emperor to their aid. Claudius came before the close of the military season, and his vanity was gratified by the nominal leading of an advance on the chief oppidum, or stronghold of the Britons, called Camulodunum, which occupied the site of the modern city of Colchester. The Trinobantes, whose capital it was, were beaten and the place surrendered. Satisfied with this easy victory, the Emperor returned to Rome, to enjoy the honors of a triumph; while Vespasian, in command of the second legion, fought his way, foot by foot, into the southwest of the island, and subjugated the obstinate tribes of that region. During the next ten years, under the command of Ostorius Scapula, who succeeded Plautius, and Avitus Didius Gallus, who succeeded Ostorius, the Roman power was firmly settled in southern Britain, from the Stour, at the East, to the Exe and the Severn at the West. The Silures, of South Wales, who had resisted most stubbornly, under Caractacus, the fugitive Trinobantine prince, were subdued and Caractacns made captive. The Iceni (in Suffolk, Norfolk and Cambridge-shire) were reduced from allies to sullen dependents. The Brigantes, most powerful of all the tribes, and who held the greater part of the whole north of modern England, were still independent, but distracted by internal dissensions which Roman influence was active in keeping alive. This, stated briefly, was the extent to which the conquest of Britain was carried during the reign of Claudius, between A. D. 43 and 54.

From A. D. 50 to 61, while Didius Gallus and his successor Veranius commanded in Britain, nothing was done to extend the Roman acquisitions. In the latter year, Suetonius Paulinus came to the command, and a stormy period of war ensued. His first movement was to attack the Druids in the isle of Mona, or Anglesey, into which they had retreated from Gaul and Britain, in successive flights, before the implacable hostility of Rome. "In this gloomy lair, secure apparently, though shorn of might and dignity, they still persisted in the practice of their unholy superstition. … Here they retained their assemblies, their schools, and their oracles; here was the asylum of the fugitives; here was the sacred grove, the abode of the awful deity, which in the stillest noon of night or day the priest himself scarce ventured to enter lest he should rush unwittingly into the presence of its lord." From Segontium (modern Caernarvon) Suetonius crossed the Menai Strait on rafts and boats with one of his legions, the Batavian cavalry swimming their horses. The landing was fiercely disputed by women and men, priests and worshippers; but Roman valor bore down all resistance. "From this moment the Druids disappear from the page of history; they were exterminated, we may believe, upon their own altars; for Suetonius took no half measures." This accomplished, the Roman commander was quickly called upon to meet a terrific outburst of patriotic rage on the part of the powerful nation of the Iceni, who occupied the region now forming the counties of Suffolk, Norfolk, Cambridge, and Huntingdon. They had been allies of the Romans, first; then tributaries, under their own king, and finally subjects, much oppressed. Their last king, Prasutagus, had vainly hoped to win favor for his wife and children, when he died, by bequeathing his kingdom to the Roman State. But the widowed queen, Boudicea, or Boadicea, and her daughters, were only exposed with more helplessness to the insolence and the outrages of a brutal Roman officer. They appealed to their people and maddened them by the exposure of indescribable wrongs. The rising which ensued was fierce and general beyond precedent. "The Roman officials fled, or, if arrested, were slaughtered; and a vast multitude, armed and unarmed, rolled southward to overwhelm and extirpate the intruders. To the Colne, to the Thames, to the sea, the country lay entirely open." The colony at Camulodunum (Colchester), was destroyed; Verulamium (St. Albans), and Londinium (London), were sacked and burned; not less than 70,000 of the Romans in Britain were slaughtered without mercy. Suetonius made haste to quit Anglesey when the dreadful news reached him, and pressed, with all speed, along the great highway of Watling Street—gathering up his forces in hand as he went—to reach the awful scene of rage and terror. He had collected but 10,000 men when he confronted, at last, the vast swarm of the insurgents, on a favorable piece of ground that he had secured, in the neighborhood of Camulodunum. But, once more, the valor of undisciplined semi-barbarism wrecked itself on the firm shields of the Roman cohorts, and 80,000 Britons are said to have fallen in the merciless fight. The insurrection was crushed and Roman authority in Britain reaffirmed. But the grim Suetonius dealt so harshly with the broken people that even Rome remonstrated, and he was, presently, recalled, to give place to a more pacific commander.

For seventeen years after the recall of Suetonius Paulinus (A. D. 61) there was a suspension of Roman conquest in Britain. The military power in the island suffered great demoralization, resulting naturally from the chaos of affairs at Rome, between Nero and Vespasian. These conditions ceased soon after the accession of the Flavian Emperor, and he, who had attained first in Britain the footing from which he climbed to the throne, interested himself in the spreading of his sovereignty over the whole of the British island. C. Julius Agricola was the soldier and statesman—a great man in each character—whom he selected for the work. Agricola was made prefect or Governor of Britain, A. D. 78. "Even in his first summer, when he had been but a few months in the island, and when none even of his own officers expected active service, Agricola led his forces into the country of the Ordovices, in whose mountain passes the war of independence still lingered, drove the Britains across the Menai Straits and pursued them into Anglesey, as Suetonius had done before him, by boldly crossing the boiling current in the face of the enemy. Another summer saw him advance northward into the territory of the Brigantes, and complete the organization of the district, lately reduced, between the Humber and Tyne. Struck perhaps with the natural defences of the line from the Tyne to the Solway, where the island seems to have broken, as it were, in the middle and soldered unevenly together, he drew a chain of forts from sea to sea. … In the third year of his command, Agricola pushed forward along the eastern coast, and, making good with roads and fortresses every inch of his progress, reached, as I imagine, the Firth of Forth. … Here he repeated the operations of the preceding winter, planting his camps and stations from hill to hill, and securing a new belt of territory, ninety miles across, for Roman occupation." The next two years were spent in strengthening his position and organizing his conquest. In A. D. 83 and 84 he advanced beyond the Forth, in two campaigns of hard fighting, the latter of which was made memorable by the famous battle of the Grampians, or Graupius, fought with the Caledonian hero Galgacus. At the close of this campaign he sent his fleet northward to explore the unknown coast and to awe the remoter tribes, and it is claimed that the vessels of Agricola circumnavigated the island of Britain, for the first time, and saw the Orkneys and Shetlands. The further plans of the successful prefect were interrupted by his sudden recall. Vespasian, first, then Titus, had died while he pursued his victorious course in Caledonia, and the mean Domitian was envious and afraid of his renown.

A fresh inroad of the wild Caledonians of the north upon Roman Britain, in the year 208, caused the Emperor Severus to visit the distant island in person, with his two worthless sons, Caracalla and Geta. He desired, it is said, to remove those troublesome youths from Rome and to subject them to the wholesome discipline of military life. The only result, so far as they were concerned, was to give Caracalla opportunities for exciting mutiny among the troops and for making several attempts against his father's life. But Severus persisted in his residence in Britain during more than two years, and till his death, which occurred at Eboracum (York) on the 4th of February, A. D. 211. During that time he prosecuted the war against the Caledonians with great vigor, penetrating to the northern extremity of the island, and losing, it is said; above 50,000 men, more by the hardships of the climate and the march than by the attacks of the skulking enemy. The Caledonians made a pretence of submission, at last, but were soon in arms again. Severus was then preparing to pursue them to extermination, when he died.

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 6. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

"During the reign of Gallienus [A. D. 260-268] … the pirate fleets of the Franks infested the British seas, and it became needful to have a fleet to protect the coast. The command of this fleet had been conferred on Carausius, a Menapian by birth; but he was suspected of conniving at piracy, in order that he might enrich himself by becoming a sharer in their booty, when they returned laden with plunder. To save himself, therefore, from punishment, he usurped the imperial power, A. D. 288, and reigned over Britain for seven years. A vast number of his coins struck in Britain have been preserved, so many that the history of Carausius has been written from his medals. He was slain at length by his minister Allectus, who usurped his power. The Franks [as allies of Allectus] had well-nigh established their power over the south portion of Britain when it was broken by Constantius, the father of Constantine the Great, who defeated Allectus in a decisive battle, in which that usurper was slain. … Allectus held the government of Britain for three years. Many of his coins are found."

Under the scheme of government designed by Diocletian and amended by Constantine, "Britain formed part of a vast pro-consulate, extending from Mount Atlas to the Caledonian deserts, and was governed by the Gallic prefect, through a 'vicar' or deputy at York. The island was divided into five new provinces. … Britain was under the orders of the Count of Britain, assisted by the subordinate officers. The Duke of Britain commanded in the north. The Count of the Saxon Shore, governed the 'Maritime Tract' and provided for the defence of the southeastern coast. The Saxon Shore on the coast of Britain must not be mistaken for the Saxon Shore on the opposite coast of France, the headquarters of which were the harbour of Boulogne. The names of the several provinces into which Britain was divided are given in the 'Notitia,' viz:

1. Britannia Prima, which included all the south and west of England, from the estuary of the Thames to that of the Severn.

2. Britannia Secunda, which included the Principality of Wales, bounded by the Severn on the east and the Irish Channel on the west.

3. Flavia Cæsariensis,—all the middle portion of Britain, from the Thames to the Humber and the· estuary of the Dee.

4. Maxima Cæsariensis,—the Brigantian territory, lying between the estuaries of the Humber and Dee, and the Barrier of the Lower Isthmus.

5. Valentia,—the most northern portion, lying between the barrier of Hadrian and that of Antoninus."

The distracted condition of affairs in the Roman Empire that soon followed the death of Constantine, which was relieved by Julian for a brief term, and which became worse at his death, proved especially ruinous to Roman Britain. The savage tribes of Caledonia—the Picts, now beginning to be associated with the Scots from Ireland—became bolder from year to year in their incursions, until they marched across the whole extent of Britain. "Their path was marked by cruelties so atrocious, that it was believed at the time and recorded by St. Jerome that they lived on human flesh. London, even, was threatened by them, and the whole island, which, like all the other provinces of the Empire, had lost every spark of military virtue, was incapable of opposing any resistance to them. Theodosius, a Spanish officer, and father of the great man of the same name who was afterwards associated in the Empire, was charged by Valentinian with the defence of Britain. He forced the Scots to fall back (A. D. 367-370), but without having been able to bring them to an engagement."

"The splendour of the cities and the security of the fortifications were diligently restored by the paternal care of Theodosius, who with a strong hand confined the trembling Caledonians to the northern angle of the island, and perpetuated, by the name and settlement of the new province of Valentia, the glories of the reign of Valentinian."

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 25. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

In 383, four years after Theodosius the Great had been associated in the Roman sovereignty by the young Emperor Gratian, and placed on the throne of the East, the generous Gratian lost his own throne, and his life, through a revolt that was organized in Britain. "One Maximus, a Spaniard by birth, occupying a high official position in that province, forced on step by step into insurrection, by a soldiery and a people of whom he appears to have been the idol, raised the standard of revolt in the island, and passed over into Gaul, attended by a large multitude,—130,000 men and 70,000 women, says Zosimus, the Byzantine historian. This colony, settling in the Armorican peninsula, gave it the name of Brittany, which it has since retained. The rebel forces were soon victorious over the two Emperors who had agreed to share the Roman throne [Gratian and his boy-brother Valentinian who divided the sovereignty of the West between them, while Theodosius ruled the East]. Gratian they slew at Lyons; Valentinian they speedily expelled from Italy. … Theodosius adopted the cause of his brother Emperor" and overthrew Maximus (see ROME: A. D. 379-395).

ALSO IN: E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 27. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

"The Roman soldiers in Britain, seeing that the Empire was falling to pieces under the feeble sway of Honorius, and fearing lest they, too, should soon he ousted from their dominion in the island (part of which was already known as the Saxon Shore) clothed three usurpers successively with the imperial purple [A. D. 407], falling, as far as social position was concerned, lower and lower in their choice each time. The last and least ephemeral of these rulers was a private soldier named Constantine, and chosen for no other reason but his name, which was accounted lucky, as having been already borne by a general who had been carried by a British army to supreme dominion."

The usurper Constantine soon led his legions across the channel into Gaul, then ravaged by the Vandals, Sueves, Alans and Burgundians who passed the Rhine in 406. He was welcomed with joy by the unhappy people who found themselves abandoned to the barbarians. Some successes which the new Constantine had, in prudent encounters with detached parties of the German invaders, were greatly magnified, and gave prestige to his cause. He was still more successful, for a time, in buying the precarious friendship of some tribes of the enemy, and made, on the whole, a considerable show of dominion in Gaul during two or three years. The seat of his government was established at Arles, to which city the offices and court of the Roman Prefect of Gaul had retreated from Trèves in 402. With the help of a considerable army of barbarian auxiliaries (a curious mixture of Scots, Moors and Marcomanni) he extended his sovereignty over Spain. He even extorted from the pusillanimous court at Ravenna a recognition of his usurped royalty, and promised assistance to Honorius against the Goths. But the tide of fortune presently turned. The lieutenant of Constantine in Spain, Count Gerontius, became for some reason disaffected and crowned a new usurper, named Maximus. In support of the latter he attacked Constantine and shut him up in Arles. At the same time, the Emperor Honorius, at Ravenna, having made peace with the Goths, sent his general Constantius against the Gallo-British usurper. Constantius, approaching Arles, found it already besieged by Gerontius. The latter was abandoned by his troops, and fled, to be slain soon afterwards. Arles capitulated to the representative of the great name which Honorius still bore, as titular Imperator of Rome. Constantine was sent to Ravenna, and put to death on the way (A. D. 411).

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 31. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

      ALSO IN:
      P. Godwin,
      History of France: Ancient Gaul,
      book 3, chapter 10.

"Up to the moment … when the Imperial troops quitted Britain, we see them able easily to repel the attacks of its barbarous assailants. When a renewal of their inroads left Britain weak and exhausted at the accession of the Emperor Honorius, the Roman general Stilicho renewed the triumphs which Theodosius had won. The Pict was driven back afresh, the Saxon boats chased by his galleys as far as the Orkneys, and the Saxon Shore probably strengthened with fresh fortresses. But the campaign of Stilicho was the last triumph of the Empire in its western waters. The struggle Rome had waged so long drew in fact to its end; at the opening of the fifth century her resistance suddenly broke down; and the savage mass of barbarism with which she had battled broke in upon the Empire. … The strength of the Empire, broken everywhere by military revolts, was nowhere more broken than in Britain, where the two legions which remained quartered at Richborough and York set up more than once their chiefs as Emperors and followed them across the channel in a march upon Rome. The last of these pretenders, Constantine, crossed over to Gaul in 407 with the bulk of the soldiers quartered in Britain, and the province seems to have been left to its own defence; for it was no longer the legionaries, but 'the people of Britain' who, 'taking up arms,' repulsed a new onset of the barbarians. … They appealed to Honorius to accept their obedience, and replace the troops. But the legions of the Empire were needed to guard Rome itself: and in 410 a letter of the Emperor bade Britain provide for its own government and its own defence. Few statements are more false than those which picture the British provincials as cowards, or their struggle against the barbarian as a weak and unworthy one. Nowhere, in fact, through the whole circuit of the Roman world, was so long and so desperate a resistance offered to the assailants of the Empire. … For some thirty years after the withdrawal of the legions the free province maintained an equal struggle against her foes. Of these she probably counted the Saxons as still the least formidable. …. It was with this view that Britain turned to what seemed the weakest of her assailants, and strove to find … troops whom she could use as mercenaries against the Pict."

      ALSO IN:
      J. M. Lappenberg,
      History of England under the Anglo-Saxon Kings,
      volume 1, pages 57-66.

   "Yet once again a supplicating embassy was sent to the Roman
   general Ætius, during his third consulship, in the year 446.
   … Ætius was unable to help them."

      J. M. Lappenberg,
      History of England under the Anglo-Saxon Kings,
      page 63.

"The date of the letters of appeal is fixed by the form of their address: 'The groans of the Britons to Ætius for the third time Consul. The savages drive us to the sea and the sea casts us back upon the savages: so arise two kinds of death, and we are either drowned or slaughtered.' The third Consulate of Aetius fell in A. D. 446, a year memorable in the West as the beginning of a profound calm which preceded the onslaught of Attila. The complaint of Britain has left no trace in the poems which celebrated the year of repose; and our Chronicles are at any rate wrong when they attribute its rejection to the stress of a war with the Huns. It is possible, indeed, that the appeal was never made, and that the whole story represents nothing but a rumour current in the days of Gildas among the British exiles in Armorica."

"The Britons were soon restricted to the western parts of the island, where they maintained themselves in several small states, of which those lying to the east yielded more and more to Germanic influence; the others protected by their mountains, preserved for a considerable time a gradually decreasing independence. … In the south-west we meet with the powerful territory of Damnonia, the kingdom of Arthur, which bore also the name of West Wales. Damnonia, at a later period, was limited to Dyvnaint, or Devonshire, by the separation of Cernau, or Cornwall. The districts called by the Saxons those of the Sumorsætas, of the Thornsætas (Dorsetshire). and the Wiltsætas were lost to the kings of Dyvnaint at an early period; though for centuries afterwards a large British population maintained itself in those parts among the Saxon settlers, as well as among the Defnsætas, long after the Saxon conquest of Dyvnaint, who for a considerable time preserved to the natives of that shire the appellation of the 'Welsh kind.' Cambria (Cymru), the country which at the present day we call Wales, was divided into several states." The chief of these early states was Venedotia (Gwynedd), the king of which was supreme over the other states. Among these latter were Dimetia (Dyved), or West Wales; Powys, which was east of Gwynedd and Snowdon mountain; Gwent (Monmouthshire) or South-east Wales, the country of the Silures. "The usages and laws of the Cambrians were in all these states essentially the same. An invaluable and venerable monument of them, although of an age in which the Welsh had long been subject to the Anglo-Saxons, and had adopted many of their institutions and customs, are the laws of the king Howel Dda, who reigned in the early part of the 10th century. … The partition of Cambria into several small states is not, as has often been supposed, the consequence of a division made by king Rodri Mawr, or Roderic the Great, among his sons. … Of Dyfed, during the first centuries after the coming of the Saxons, we know very little; but with regard to Gwynedd, which was in constant warfare with Northumbria and Mercia, our information is less scanty: of Gwent, also, as the bulwark of Dimetia, frequent mention occurs. On the whole we are less in want of a mass of information respecting the Welsh, than of accuracy and precision in that which we possess. … An obscurity still more dense than that over Wales involves the district lying to the north of that country, comprised under the name of Cumbria."

J. M. Lappenberg, History of England under the Anglo-Saxon Kings, volume 1, page 119-122.

BRITAIN, GREAT:
ADOPTION Of The Name For The United Kingdoms Of England And
Scotland.

"Many are the speculations which have been started as to the etymology of the word Britannia, and among the later ones have been some of the most extraordinary. Yet surely it is not one of those philological difficulties which we need despair of solving. Few persons will question that the name Britannia is connected with the name Britanni, in the same way as Germania, Gallia, Graecia, &c., with Germani, Galli, Graeci, &c., and it is not unreasonable to assume that Britanni was originally nothing more than the Latinized form of the Welsh word Brython, a name which we find given in the Triads to one of the three tribes who first colonized Britain. … From the Welsh 'brith' and Irish 'brit,' parti-coloured, may have come Brython, which on this hypothesis would signify the painted men. … As far then as philology is concerned, there seems to be no objection to our assuming Brython, and therefore also Britanni, to signify the painted men. How this Celtic name first came to denote the inhabitants of these islands is a question, the proper answer to which lies deeper than is generally supposed. … The 'Britannic Isles' is the oldest name we find given to these islands in the classical writers. Under this title Polybius (3. 57) refers to them in connection with the tin-trade, and the well-known work on the Kosmos (c. 3) mentions 'The Britannic Isles, Albion and Ierne.' … But in truth neither the authorship nor the age of this last-named work has been satisfactorily settled, and therefore we cannot assert that the phrase 'The Britannic Isles' came into use before the second century B. C. The name Britannia first occurs in the works of Cæsar and was not improbably invented by him."

The etymology contended for by Dr. Guest is scouted by Mr. Rhys, on principles of Celtic phonology. He, on the contrary, traces relations between the name Brython and "the Welsh vocables 'bethyn,' cloth, and its congeners," and concludes that it signified "a clothed or cloth-clad people."

BRITANNIA PRIMA AND SECUNDA.

BRITISH COLUMBIA: A. D. 1858-1871.
Establishment of provincial government.
Union with the Dominion of Canada.

"British Columbia, the largest of the Canadian provinces, cannot be said to have had any existence as a colony until 1858. Previous to that year provision had been made by a series of Acts for extending the Civil and Criminal Laws of the Courts of Lower and Upper Canada over territories not within any province, but otherwise the territory was used as a hunting ground of the Hudson's Bay Company. The disputes and difficulties that arose from the influx of miners owing to the gold discoveries in 1856, resulted in the revocation of the licence of the Hudson's Bay Company, and the passing of the Imperial Act 21 & 22 Vic., c. 99, to provide for the government of British Columbia. … Sir James Douglas was appointed Governor and by his commission he was authorised to make laws, institutions and ordinances for the peace, order and good government of British Columbia, by proclamation issued under the public seal of the colony. … The Governor continued to legislate by proclamation until 1864, when his proclamations gave way to Ordinances passed by the Governor with the advice and consent of the Legislative Council. … Up to this time the Governor of British Columbia was also Governor of the neighbouring island of Vancouver. Vancouver's Island is historically an older colony than British Columbia. Though discovered in 1592 it remained practically unknown to Europeans for two centuries, and it was not until 1849, when the island was granted to the Hudson's Bay Company, that a Governor was appointed. … In 1865 the legislature of the island adopted a series of resolutions in favour of union with British Columbia, and by the Imperial Act 29 & 30 Vic. (i), c. 67, the two colonies were united. … By an Order in Council dated the 16th day of May, 1871, British Columbia was declared to be a province of the Dominion [see CANADA: A. D. 1867, and 1869-1873] from the 20th of July, 1871."

ALSO IN: H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States, volume 27: British Columbia.

BRITISH COLUMBIA: A. D. 1872.
Settlement Of The San Juan Water Boundary Dispute.

BRITISH EAST AFRICA AND SOUTH AFRICA COMPANIES.

BRITISH HONDURAS.

BRITONS, OR BRITHONS.

BRITONS OF CUMBRIA AND STRATHCLYDE.

At the time that the British island practically severed its connection with the expiring Roman Empire (about 409) the Britons of the continent,—of the Armorican province, or modern Brittany,—followed the example. "They expelled the Roman magistrates, who acted under the authority of the usurper Constantine; and a free government was established among a people who had so long been subject to the arbitrary will of a master."

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 31. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

   "From this time, perhaps, we ought to date that isolation of
   Brittany from the politics of the rest of France which has not
   entirely disappeared even at the present day."

The Armoricans, however, were found fighting by the side of the Romans and the Goths, against the Huns, on the great day at Chalons.

"Charlemagne's supremacy over the Armoricans may be compared to the dominion exercised by Imperial Russia amongst the Caucasian tribes—periods during which the vassals dare not claim the rights of independence, intercalated amongst the converse periods when the Emperor cannot assert the rights of authority; yet the Frank would not abandon the prerogative of the Cæsars, whilst the mutual antipathy between the races inflamed the desire of dominion on the one part, and the determination of resistance on the other. Britanny is divided into Bretagne Bretonnante and Bretagne Gallicante, according to the predominance of the Breyzad and the Romane languages respectively. The latter constituted the march-lands, and here the Counts-marchers were placed by Charlemagne and his successors, Franks mostly by lineage; yet one Breyzad, Nominoë, was trusted by Louis-le-débonnaire [A. D. 818] with a delegated authority. Nominoë deserved his power; he was one of the new men of the era, literally taken from the plough. … The dissensions among the Franks enabled Nominoë to increase his authority. Could there be any adversary of the Empire so stupid as not to profit by the battle of Fontenay. … Nominoë assumed the royal title, vindicated the independence of his ancient people, and enabled them, in the time of Rollo, to assert with incorrect grandiloquence, pardonable in political argument, that the Frank had never reigned within the proper Armorican boundaries." Nominoë transmitted his crown to his son Herispoë; but the latter reigned briefly, succumbing to a conspiracy which raised his nephew, Solomon, to the throne. Solomon was a vigorous warrior, sometimes fighting the Franks, and sometimes struggling with the Normans, who pressed hard upon his small kingdom. He extended his dominions considerably, in Maine, Anjou, and the future Normandy, and his royal title was sanctioned by Charles the Bald. But he, too, was conspired against, blinded and dethroned, dying in prison; and, about 912, the second duke of Normandy established his lordship over the distracted country. "Historical Britanny settled into four great counties, which also absorbed the Carlovingian march-lands, Rennes, Nantes, Vannes and Cornouailles, rivalling and jealousing, snarling and warring against each other for the royal or ducal dignity, until the supremacy was permanently established in Alan Fergant's line, the ally, the opponent, the son-in-law of William the Bastard. But the suzerainty or superiority of all Britanny was vested in the Conqueror's and the Plantagenet's lineage, till the forfeiture incurred by King John—an unjust exercise of justice."

"After the death of Solomon … all these districts or territories merged in the three dominations of Nantes, Rennes, and Cornouaille. Amongst the Celts concord was impossible. In early times Nomenoe, the Ruler of Cornouaille, had assumed, by Papal authority, the royal style, but the Counts of Rennes acquired the pre-eminence over the other chieftains. Regality vanished. Geoffrey, son of Conan [A. D. 992-1008] … must be distinguished as the first Duke of Brittany. He constituted himself Duke simply by taking the title. This assumption may possibly have been sanctioned by the successor of Saint Peter; and, by degrees, his rank in the civil hierarchy became ultimately recognized. … The Counts of Brittany, and the Dukes in like manner, in later times, rendered homage 'en parage' to Normandy in the first instance, and that same homage was afterwards demanded by the crown of France. But the Capetian monarchs refused to acknowledge the 'Duke,' until the time of Peter Mauclerc, son of Robert, Count of Dreux, Earl of Richmond [A. D. 1213-1237]."

Almost simultaneously with the beginning of the Hundred Years War of the English kings in France, there broke out a malignant and destructive civil war in Brittany, which French and English took part in, on the opposing sides. "John III. duke of that province, had died without issue, and two rivals disputed his inheritance. The one was Charles de Blois, husband of one of his nieces and nephew of the King of France; the other, Montfort, … younger brother of the last duke and … disinherited by him. The Court of Peers, devoted to the king, adjudged the duchy to Charles de Blois, his nephew. Montfort immediately made himself master of the strongest places, and rendered homage for Brittany to king Edward [III. of England], whose assistance he implored. This war, in which Charles de Blois was supported by France and Montfort by England, lasted twenty-four years without interruption, and presented, in the midst of heroic actions, a long course of treacheries and atrocious robberies." The war was ended in 1365 by the battle of Auray, in which Charles de Blois was slain, and Bertrand Du Guesclin, the famous Breton warrior, was taken prisoner. This was soon followed by the treaty of Guérande, which established Montfort in the duchy.

The family of Montfort, having been established in the duchy of Brittany by the arms of the English, were naturally inclined to English connections; "but the Bretons would seldom permit them to be effectual. Two cardinal feelings guided the conduct of this brave and faithful people; the one an attachment to the French nation and monarchy in opposition to foreign enemies; the other, a zeal for their own privileges, and the family of Montfort, in opposition to the encroachments of the crown. In Francis II., the present duke [at the time of the accession of Charles VIII. of France, A. D. 1483], the male line of that family was about to be extinguished. His daughter Anne was naturally the object of many suitors, among whom were particularly distinguished the duke of Orleans, who seems to have been preferred by herself; the lord of Albret, a member of the Gascon family of Foix, favoured by the Breton nobility, as most likely to preserve the peace and liberties of their country, but whose age rendered him not very acceptable to a youthful princess; and Maximilian, king of the Romans [whose first wife, Mary of Burgundy, died in 1482]. Britany was rent by factions and overrun by the armies of the regent of France, who did not lose this opportunity of interfering with its domestic troubles, and of persecuting her private enemy, the duke of Orleans. Anne of Britany, upon her father's death, finding no other means of escaping the addresses of Albret, was married by proxy to Maximilian. This, however, aggravated the evils of the country, since France was resolved at all events to break off so dangerous a connexion. And as Maximilian himself was unable, or took not sufficient pains to relieve his betrothed wife from her embarrassments, she was ultimately compelled to accept the hand of Charles VIII. He had long been engaged by the treaty of Arras to marry the daughter of Maximilian, and that princess was educated at the French court. But this engagement had not prevented several years of hostilities, and continual intrigues with the towns of Flanders against Maximilian. The double injury which the latter sustained in the marriage of Charles with the heiress of Britany seemed likely to excite a protracted contest; but the king of France, who had other objects in view, and perhaps was conscious that he had not acted a fair part, soon came to an accommodation, by which he restored Artois and Franche-comté. … France was now consolidated into a great kingdom: the feudal system was at an end."

In the contract of marriage between Charles VIII. and Anne of Brittany, "each party surrendered all separate pretensions upon the Duchy, and one stipulation alone was considered requisite to secure the perpetual union of Bretany with France, namely, that in case the queen should survive her consort, she should not remarry unless either with the future king, or, if that were not possible, with the presumptive heir of the crown."

"Duprat [chancellor of Francis I. of France], whose administration was … shameful, promoted one measure of high utility. Francis I. until then had governed Brittany only in the quality of duke of that province; Duprat counselled him to unite this duchy in an indissoluble manner with the crown, and he prevailed upon the States of Brittany themselves to request this reunion, which alone was capable of preventing the breaking out of civil wars at the death of the king. It was irrevocably voted by the States assembled at Vannes in 1532. The king swore to respect the rights of Brittany, and not to raise any subsidy therein without the consent of the States Provincial."

BRIXHAM CAVE.

A cavern near Brixham, Devonshire, England, in which noted evidences of a very early race of men, contemporaneous with certain extinct animals, have been found.

BROMSEBRO, PEACE OF (1645).

BRONZE AGE.

"A few families of Walloons, in 1624, built their cottages on Long Island, and began the cultivation of the lands they had secured, the women working in the fields, while the men were engaged in the service of the company [the Dutch West India Company, controlling the colony of New Netherland]. These were the first settlers of Brooklyn. They were joined in time by a few others, until there were enough to be incorporated as a village. The numbers were not large, for Brooklyn, nearly forty years afterward, contained only 31 households and 134 souls."

"The occupation of land within the limits of the present city of Brooklyn … had steadily progressed, until now (1646) nearly the whole water-front, from Newtown Creek to the southerly side of Gowanus Bay, was in the possession of individuals who were engaged in its actual cultivation. … The village … which was located on the present Fulton Avenue, in the vicinity of the junction of Hoyt and Smith streets with said avenue, and southeast of the present City Hall, was called Breuckelen, after the ancient village of the same name in Holland, some 18 miles from Amsterdam." The town of Breuckelen was organized under a commission from the Colonial Council in 1646, and two schepens appointed. The following winter Jan Teunissen was commissioned as schout.

BROTHERS. BROTHERHOODS.

BROWN, GEORGE, AND THE CANADIAN "CLEAR GRITS."

BROWN, GENERAL JACOB, AND THE WAR OF 1812.

     See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812
     (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER); 1813 (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER);
     1814 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

BROWNISTS.

BROWNLOW, PARSON, AND THE RECONSTRUCTION OF TENNESSEE.

"After the Tencteri [on the Rhine] came, in former days, the Bructeri; but the general account now is, that the Chamavi and Angrivarii entered their settlements, drove them out and utterly exterminated them with the common help of the neighbouring tribes, either from hatred of their tyranny, or from the attractions of plunder, or from heaven's favourable regard for us. It did not even grudge us the spectacle of the conflict. More than 60,000 fell, not beneath the Roman arms and weapons, but, grander far, before our delighted eyes."

"The original settlements of the Bructeri, from which they were driven by the Chamavi and Angrivarii, seem to have been between the Rhine and the Ems, on either side of the Lippe. Their destruction could hardly have been so complete as Tacitus represents, as they are subsequently mentioned by Claudian."

Tacitus, Minor works, translated by Church and Brodribb: The Germany, with geographical notes.

BRUGES: A. D. 13th-15th CENTURIES.
Commercial Importance In The Hanseatic League.

See NETHERLANDS (AUSTRIAN PROVINCES): A. D. 1745;
and AIX-LA-CHAPELLE: THE CONGRESS, &c.

BRUMAIRE, THE MONTH.

BRUMAIRE, THE EIGHTEENTH OF.

The peace which Antony and Octavius were forced by their own soldiers to make at Brundisium, B. C. 40, postponed for ten years the final struggle between the two chief Triumvirs. For a much longer time it "did at least secure the repose of Italy. For a period of three hundred and fifty years, except one day's fighting in the streets of Rome, from Rhegium to the Rubicon no swords were again crossed in war."

BRUNNABURGH, OR BRUNANBURH, BATTLE OF.

In the tenth century, a prince named Bruno, younger son of the reigning duke of Bavaria, and grandson of the Emperor Henry the Fowler, received as his patrimony the country about the Ocker. "Having fixed his residence at a village established by Charlemagne on the banks of that river, it became known as the 'Vicus Brunonis,' and, when enlarged and formed into a city, afterwards gave its name to the principality of which it formed the capital."

BRUNSWICK: IN THE HANSEATIC LEAGUE.

BRUNSWICK-LÜNEBURG, OR HANOVER.

BRUNSWICK: THE GUELF CONNECTION.

BRUNSWICK: A. D. 1546.
Final Separation From The Lüneburg Or Hanoverian Branch Of The
House.

BRUSSELS: A. D. 1695. BOMBARDMENT BY THE FRENCH.

BRUTUM FULMEN.

A phrase, signifying a blind thrust, or a stupid and ineffectual blow, which was specially applied in a contemporary pamphlet by Francis Hotman to the Bull of excommunication issued by Pope Sixtus V. against Henry of Navarre, in 1585.

BRUTUS, LUCIUS JUNIUS, AND THE EXPULSION OF THE TARQUINS.

BRUTUS, MARCUS JUNIUS, AND THE ASSASSINATION OF CAESAR.

BUBASTIS.

"On the eastern side of the Delta [of the Nile], more than half-way from Memphis to Zoan, lay the great city of Pi-beseth, or Bubastis. Vast mounds now mark the site and preserve the name; deep in their midst lie the shattered fragments of the beautiful temple which Herodotus saw, and to which in his days the Egyptians came annually in vast numbers to keep the greatest festival of the year, the Assembly of Bast, the goddess of the place. Here, after the Empire had fallen, Shishak [Sheshonk] set up his throne, and for a short space revived the imperial magnificence of Thebes."

BUCHAREST, TREATY OF (1812).

See TURKS: A. D. 1789-1812; also BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: 14TH-19TH CENTURIES (SERVIA).

BUCKINGHAM, ASSASSINATION OF.

BUCKINGHAM PALACE.

BUCKTAILS.

BUDA: A. D. 1529-1567.
   Taken by the Turks.
   Besieged by the Austrians.
   Occupied by the Sultan.
   Becomes the seat of a Pasha.

Buda, on the right bank of the Danube, and Pesth, on the left,
were incorporated in 1872 into one city—Buda-Pesth.

BUDDHISM.

"The annual financial statement which the Chancellor of the Exchequer makes in the House of Commons in a Committee of ways and means. In making this statement the minister gives a view of the general financial policy of the government, and at the same time presents an estimate of the probable income and expenditure for the following twelve months, and a statement of what taxes it is intended to reduce or abolish, or what new ones it may be necessary to impose.—To open the budget, to lay before the legislative body the financial estimates and plans of the executive government."

Mr. Dowell in his History of Taxation (volume 1, chapter 5) states that the phrase 'opening the Budget' came into use in England during the reign of George III., and that it bore a reference to the bougette, or little bag, in which the chancellor of the exchequer kept his papers. The French, he adds, adopted the term in the present century, about 1814. The following, however, is in disagreement with Mr. Dowell's explanation: "In the reign of George II. the word was used with conscious allusion to the celebrated pamphlet which ridiculed Sir R. Walpole as a conjuror opening his budget or 'bag of tricks.' Afterwards, it must, for a time, have been current as slang; but, as it supplied a want, it was soon taken up into the ordinary vocabulary."

   A nomadic tribe which Herodotus describes as anciently
   inhabiting a region between the Ural Mountains and the Caspian
   Sea.

BUELL, GENERAL DON CARLOS, CAMPAIGNS OF.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1861 (JULY-NOVEMBER);
      A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY: KENTUCKY-TENNESSEE);
      A. D. 1862 (FEBRUARY-APRIL: TENNESSEE);
      A. D. 1862 (JUNE-OCTOBER: TENNESSEE-KENTUCKY).

BUENA VISTA, BATTLE OF.

BUENOS AYRES, VICEROYALTY AND REPUBLIC OF.

BUENOS AYRES, The City of: A. D. 1534.
First and unsuccessful founding of the city.

BUFFALO, New York: A. D. 1779.
The Site Occupied By The Senecas After Sullivan's Expedition.

BUFFINGTON FORD, BATTLE OF.

BUGIA, CONQUEST BY THE SPANIARDS (1510).

BULGARIA.

BULGARIANS, THE RELIGIOUS SECTARIES SO CALLED.

BULL "CLERICIS LAICOS."

Published by Pope Boniface VIII. February 24, 1296, forbidding "the clergy to pay and the secular powers to exact, under penalty of excommunication, contributions or taxes, tenths, twentieths, hundredths, or the like, from the revenues or the goods of the churches or their ministers."

      ALSO IN:
      E. F. Henderson,
      Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages,
      book 4, number 6.

BULL "DOMINUS REDEMPTOR NOSTER."

BULL "EXURGE DOMINE."

See GOLDEN BULL, BYZANTINE; also GERMANY: A. D. 1347-1493. and HUNGARY: A. D. 1114-1301.

A papal bull promulgated in 1155 by Pope Adrian IV. (the one Englishman who ever attained to St. Peter's seat) assuming to bestow the kingdom of Ireland on the English King Henry II.

BULL, "SALVATOR MUNDI," THE.

BULL "UNIGENITUS," THE.

BULL RUN, OR MANASSAS, FIRST BATTLE OF.

BULL RUN, SECOND BATTLE OF.

BULLA, THE.

BUMMERS, SHERMAN'S.

BUND, BUNDESRATH, BUNDESPRESIDENT, BUNDESGERICHT, THE SWISS.

BUNDES-STAAT.

BUNDSCHUH INSURRECTIONS.

BUNKER HILL, BATTLE OF.

BURDIGALA.

The original name of the modern city of Bordeaux, which was a town of the Gallic tribe called the Bituriges-Vivisci.

BURGAGE TENURE.

BURGESS.

BURGH, OR BURGI, OR BURH.

BURGOS, BATTLE OF.

BURGOYNE, GENERAL JOHN, AND THE WAR OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1775 (APRIL-MAY);
      A. D. 1777 (JULY-OCTOBER).

BURGRAVES.

"About the middle of the fourth century, the countries, perhaps of Lusace and Thuringia, on either side of the Elbe, were occupied by the vague dominion of the Burgundians—a warlike and numerous people of the Vandal race, whose obscure name insensibly swelled into a powerful kingdom, and has finally settled on a flourishing province. … The disputed possession of some salt-pits engaged the Alemanni and the Burgundians in frequent contests. The latter were easily tempted by the secret solicitations and liberal offers of the emperor [Valentinian, A. D. 371]; and their fabulous descent from the Roman soldiers who had formerly been left to garrison the fortresses of Drusus was admitted with mutual credulity, as it was conducive to mutual interest. An army of fourscore thousand Burgundians soon appeared on the banks of the Rhine, and impatiently required the support and subsidies which Valentinian had promised; but they were amused with excuses and delays, till at length, after a fruitless expectation, they were compelled to retire. The arms and fortifications of the Gallic frontier checked the fury of their just resentment."

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 25. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

"We first hear of them [the Burgundians] as a tribe of Teutonic stock, located between the Oder and the Vistula, on either bank of the river Warta. When the Gepidæ descended southward with the Goths, the Burgundians were compelled to recoil before the advance of the former tribe: one portion of them took refuge in Bornholm, an island of the Baltic; the remainder turned westward, and made an attempt to enter Gaul. They were repulsed by Probus, but permitted to settle near the sources of the Main. Jovian showed them favour, and gave them lands in the Germania Secunda. This was in the latter part of the fourth century. Just at its close, they adopted Christianity, but under an Arian form. Ammianus tells us that they were a most warlike race."

"The other Teutonic people had very little regard for the Burgundians; they accused them of having degenerated from the valor of their ancestors, by taking in petty towns (bourgades), whence their name Burgundii sprang; and they looked upon them as being more suitable for the professions of mechanics, smiths, and carpenters, than for a military life."

"A document of A. D. 786, in noticing the high tract of lands between Ellwangen and Anspach, has the following expression,—'in Waldo, qui vocatur Virgunnia.' Grimm looks for the derivation of this word in the Mœso-Gothic word 'fairguni,' Old High 'German 'fergunnd'=woody hill-range. … I have little doubt but that this is the name of the tract of land from which the name Burgundi arose; and that it is the one which fixes their locality. If so, between the Burgundian and Suevic Germans, the difference, such as it was, was probably, almost wholly political."

"In the south-east of Gaul, the Burgundians had, after many wars and some reverses, established themselves (443) with the consent of the Romans in the district then called Sapaudia and now Savoy. Their territory was somewhat more extensive than the province which was the cradle of the present royal house of Italy, since it stretched northwards beyond the lake of Neufchatel and southwards as far as Grenoble. Here the Burgundian immigrants under their king Gundiok, were busy settling themselves in their new possession, cultivating the lands which they had divided by lot, each one receiving half the estate of a Roman host or 'hospes' (for under such gentle names the spoliation was veiled), when the news came that the terrible Hun had crossed the Rhine [A. D. 451], and that all hosts and guests in Gaul must unite for its defence."

"Their [the Burgundians] domain, considerably more extensive than when we last viewed it on the eve of Attila's invasion, now included the later provinces of Burgundy, Franche-Comté and Dauphiné, besides Savoy and the greater part of Switzerland—in fact the whole of the valleys of the Saone and the Rhone, save that for the last hundred miles of its course the Visigoths barred them from the right bank and from the mouths of the latter river." At the time now spoken of (A. D. 500), the Burgundian kingdom was divided between two brother-kings, Gundobad, reigning at Lyons and Vienne, and Godegisel at Geneva. Godegisel, the younger, had conspired with Clovis, the king of the Franks, against Gundobad, and in this year 500 the two confederates defeated the latter, at Dijon, driving him from the most part of his kingdom. But Gundobad presently recovered his footing, besieged and captured his treacherous brother at Vienne and promptly put him to death—thereby reuniting the kingdom.

"I am impatient to pursue the final ruin of that kingdom [the Burgundian] which was accomplished under the reign of Sigismond, the son of Gundobald [or Gundobad]. The Catholic Sigismond has acquired the honours of a saint and martyr; but the hands of the royal saint were stained with the blood of his innocent son. … It was his humble prayer that Heaven would inflict in this world the punishment of his sins. His prayer was heard; the avengers were at hand; and the provinces of Burgundy were overwhelmed by an army of victorious Franks. After the event of an unsuccessful battle, Sigismond … with his wife and two children, was transported to Orleans and buried alive in a deep well by the stern command of the sons of Clovis, whose cruelty might derive some excuse from the maxims and examples of their barbarous age. … The rebellious Burgundians, for they attempted to break their chains, were still permitted to enjoy their national laws under the obligation of tribute and military service; and the Merovingian princes peaceably reigned over a kingdom whose glory and greatness had been first overthrown by the arms of Clovis."

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 38. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

After the overthrow of the Burgundian monarchy by the sons of Clovis, the territory of the Burgundians, with part of the neighboring Frank territory added to it, became, under the name of Burgundia or Burgundy, one of the three Frank kingdoms (Austrasia and Neustria being the other two), into which the Merovingian princes divided their dominion. It occupied "the east of the country, between the Loire and the Alps, from Provence on the south to the hill-ranges of the Vosges on the north."

BURGUNDY: A. D. 843-933.
   Divisions of the early kingdom.
   The later kingdoms of the south and the French dukedom of the
   northwest.

By the treaty of Verdun, A. D. 843, which formally divided the empire of Charlemagne between his three grandsons, a part of Burgundy was taken to form, with Italy and Lorraine, the kingdom of the Emperor Lothar, or Lothaire. In the further dissolutions which followed, a kingdom of Burgundy or Provence was founded in 877 by one Boso, a prince who had married Irmingard, daughter of the Emperor Louis II., son of Lothaire. It "included Provence, Dauphiné, the southern part of Savoy, and the country between the Saone and the Jura," and is sometimes called the kingdom of Cis-Jurane Burgundy. "The kingdom of Trans-Jurane Burgundy, … founded by Rudolf in A. D. 888, recognized in the same year by the Emperor Arnulf, included the northern part of Savoy, and all Switzerland between the Reuss and the Jura."

"The kingdoms of Provence and Transjuran Burgundy were united, in 933, by Raoul II., King of Transjuran Burgundy, and formed the kingdom of Arles, governed, from 937 to 993, by Conrad le Pacifique."

      Sir F. Palgrave,
      History of Normandy and England,
      book 1, chapter 4.

   "Several of the greater and more commercial towns of France,
   such as Lyons, Vienne, Geneva, Besançon, Avignon, Arles,
   Marseille and Grenoble were situated within the bounds of his
   [Conrad the Pacific's] states."

"Of the older Burgundian kingdom, the northwestern part, forming the land best known as the Duchy of Burgundy, was, in the divisions of the ninth century, a fief of Karolingia or the Western Kingdom. This is the Burgundy which has Dijon for its capital, and which was held by more than one dynasty of dukes as vassals of the Western kings, first at Laon, and then at Paris. This Burgundy, which, as the name of France came to bear its modern sense may be distinguished as the French Duchy, must be carefully distinguished from the Royal Burgundy" of the Cis-Jurane and Trans-Jurane kingdoms mentioned above.

      E. A. Freeman,
      Historical Geography of Europe,
      chapter 6, section 1.

BURGUNDY: A. D. 888-1032.
The French Dukedom.
The Founding Of The First Capetian House.

Of the earliest princes of this northwestern fragment of the old kingdom of Burgundy little seems to have been discoverable. The fief and its title do not seem to have become hereditary until they fell into the grasping hands of the Capetian family, which happened just at the time when the aspiring counts of Paris were rising to royal rank. In the early years of the tenth century the reigning count or duke was Richard-le-Justicier, whose distinguishing princely virtue is recorded in his name. This Richard-le-Justicier was a brother of that Boso, or Boson, son-in-law of the Emperor Louis II., who took advantage of the confusions of the time to fashion for himself a kingdom of Burgundy in the South (Cis-Jurane Burgundy, or Provence,—see above). Richard's son Raoul, or Rudolph, married Emma, the daughter of Robert, Count of Paris and Duke of France, who was soon afterwards chosen king, by the nobles who tired of Carlovingian misrule. King Robert's reign was short; he fell in battle with the Carlovingians, at Soissons, the next year (A. D. 923). His son Hugh, called Le Grand, or The Great, found it more to his taste to be king-maker than to be king. He declined the proffered crown, and brought about the coronation of his brother-in-law, the Burgundian Rudolph, who reigned for eleven years. When he died, in 934, Hugh the Great still held the crown at his disposal and still refused to wear it himself. It now pleased this king-maker to set a Carlovingian prince on the throne, in the person of Louis d'Outre Mer, a young son of Charles the Simple, who had been reared in England by his English mother. But, if Duke Hugh cared nothing for the name, he cared much for the substance, of power. He grasped dominion wherever it fell within his reach, and the Burgundian duchy was among the states which he clutched. King Rudolph left no son to inherit either his dukedom or his kingdom. He had a brother, Hugh, who claimed the Duchy; but the greater Hugh was too strong for him and secured, with the authority of the young king, his protegé, the title of Duke of Burgundy and the larger part of the domain. "In the Duchy of France or the County of Paris Hugh-le-Grand had nothing beyond the regalities to desire, and both in Burgundy and the Duchy he now became an irremovable Viceroy. But the privileges so obtained by Hugh-le-Grand produced very important political results, both present and future. Hugh assumed even a loftier bearing than before; Burgundy was annexed to the Duchy of France, and passed with the Duchy; and the grant thereof made by Hugh Capet to his son [brother?] Henri-le-Grand, severing the same from the crown, created the premier Duchy of Christendom, the most splendid appanage which a prince of the third race [the Capetians] could enjoy—the rival of the throne."

Sir F. Palgrave, History of Normandy and England, book 1, part 2, chapters 1-4.

Hugh-le-Grand died in 956. "His power, which, more than his talents or exploits, had given him the name of Great, was divided between his children, who were yet very young. … There is some doubt as to their number and the order of their birth. It appears, however, that Otho was the eldest of his three sons. He had given him his part of the duchy of Burgundy, and had made him marry the daughter and heir of Gislebert, duke of another part of Burgundy, to which Otho succeeded the same year. The latter dying in 963 or 965, the duchy of Burgundy passed to his third brother, sometimes named Henry, sometimes Eudes. Hugues [Hugh], surnamed Capet, who succeeded to the county of Paris and the duchy of France, was but the second son."

In 987 Hugh Capet became king of France and founded the lasting dynasty which bears his name. His elder brother Henry remained Duke of Burgundy until his death, in 1002, when his royal nephew, Robert, son and successor of Hugh, annexed the Duchy to the Crown. It so remained until 1032. Then King Henry I., son of Robert, granted it as an appanage to his brother Robert, who founded the first Capetian House of Burgundy.

BURGUNDY: A. D. 1032.
The Last Kingdom.
Its Union With Germany, And Its Dissolution.

The last kingdom which bore the name of Burgundy—though more often called the kingdom of Arles—formed, as stated above, by the union of the short-lived kingdoms of Provence and Transjurane Burgundy, became in 1032 nominally united to the dominions of the Emperor-King of Germany. Its last independent king was Rudolf III., son of Conrad the Pacific, who was uncle to the Emperor Henry II. Being childless, he named Henry his heir. The latter, however, died first, in 1024, and Rudolf attempted to cancel his bequest, claiming that it was made to Henry personally, not as King of the Germans. When, however, the Burgundian king died, in 1032, the then reigning Emperor, Conrad the Salic, or the Franconian, formally proclaimed the union of Burgundy with Germany. "But since Burgundy was ruled almost exclusively by the great nobility, the sovereignty of the German Emperors there was never much more than nominal. Besides, the country, from the Bernese Oberland to the Mediterranean, except that part of Allemannia which is now German Switzerland, was inhabited by a Romance people, too distinct in language, customs and laws from the German empire ever really to form a part of it. … Yet Switzerland was thenceforth connected forever with the development of Germany, and for 500 years remained a part of the empire."

"The weakness of Rodolph-le-Fainéant [Rodolph III., who made Henry II. of Germany his heir, as stated above], gave the great lords of the kingdom of Arles an opportunity of consolidating their independence. Among these one begins to remark Berchtold and his son, Humbert-aux-Blanches-Mains (the White-handed), Counts of Maurienne, and founders of the House of Savoy; Otto William, who it is pretended was the son of Adalbert, King of Italy, and heir by right of his mother to the county of Burgundy, was the founder of the sovereign house of Franche-Comté [County Palatine of Burgundy]; Guigue, Count of Albon, founder of the sovereign house of the dauphins of Viennois; and William, who it is pretended was the issue of a brother of Rodolph of Burgundy, King of France, and who was sovereign count of Provence. These four lords had, throughout the reign of Rodolph, much more power than he in the kingdom of Arles; and when at his death his crown was united to that of the Empire, the feudatories who had grown great at his expense became almost absolutely independent. On the other hand, their vassals began on their side to acquire importance under them; and in Provence can be traced at this period the succession of the counts of Forcalquier and of Venaissin, of the princes of Orange, of the viscounts of Marseille, of the barons of Baux, of Sault, of Grignau, and of Castellane. We can still follow the formation of a great number of other feudatory or rather sovereign houses. Thus the counts of Toulouse, those of Rouergue, the dukes of Gascony, the counts of Foix, of Beam, and of Carcassone, date least from this epoch; but their existence is announced to us only by their diplomas and their wills."

BURGUNDY: A. D. 1127-1378.
The Franco-Germanic Contest For The Valley Of The Rhone.
End Of The Kingdom Of Arles.

"As soon as the Capetian monarchs had acquired enough strength at home to be able to look with safety abroad, they began to make aggressions on the tempting and wealthy dependencies of the distant emperors. But the Rhone valley was too important in itself, and of too great strategical value as securing an easy road to Italy, to make it possible for the emperors to acquiesce easily in its loss. Hence a long conflict, which soon became a national conflict of French and Germans, to maintain the Imperial position in the 'middle kingdom' of the Rhone valley. M. Fournier's book ['Le Royaume d' Arles et de Vienne (1138-1178)'; par Paul Fournier] aims at giving an adequate account of this struggle. … From the times of the mighty Barbarossa to the times of the pretentious and cunning Charles of Luxemburg [see GERMANY: A. D. 1138-1268, and A. D. 1347-1493], nearly every emperor sought by constant acts of sovereignty to uphold his precarious powers in the Arelate. Unable to effect much with their own resources, the emperors exhausted their ingenuity in finding allies and inventing brilliant schemes for reviving the Arelate, which invariably came to nothing. Barbarossa won the hand of the heiress of the county of Burgundy, and sought to put in place of the local dynasties princes on whom he could rely, like Berthold of Zäringen, whose father had received in 1127 from Conrad III. the high-sounding but meaningless title of Hector of the Burgundies. But his quarrel with the church soon set the clergy against Frederick, and, led by the Carthusian and Cistercian orders, the Churchmen of the Arelate began to look upon the orthodox king of the French as their truest protector from a schismatic emperor. But the French kings of the period saw in the power of Henry of Anjou [Henry II., of England—see ENGLAND: A. D. 1154-1189] a more real and pressing danger than the Empire of the Hohenstaufen. The result was an alliance between Philip Augustus and his successors and the Swabian emperors, which gave Frederick and his successors a new term in which they could strive to win back a real hold over Burgundy. Frederick II. never lost sight of this object. His investiture of the great feudal lord William of Baux with the kingdom of Arles in 1215; his long struggle with the wealthy merchant city of Marseilles; his alliance with Raymond of Toulouse and the heretical elements in Provence against the Pope and the French; his efforts to lead an army against Innocent IV. at Lyons, were among the chief phases of his constant efforts to make the Imperial influence really felt in the valley of the Rhone. But he had so little success that the French crusaders against the Albigenses waged open war within its limits, and destroyed the heretic city of Avignon [see ALBIGENSES: A. D. 1217-1229], while Innocent in his exile could find no surer protection against the emperor than in the Imperial city of Lyons. After Frederick's death the policy of St. Louis of France was a complete triumph. His brother, Charles of Anjou, established himself in Provence, though in later times the Angevin lords of Provence and Naples became so strong that their local interests made them enemies rather than friends of the extension of French power on their borders. The subsequent efforts of the emperors were the merest shams and unrealities. Rudolf of Hapsburg acquiesced without a murmur in the progress of Philip the Fair, who made himself master of Lyons, and secured the Free County of Burgundy for his son [see FRANCHE-COMTÉ]. … The residence of the Popes at Avignon was a further help to the French advance. … Weak as were the early Valois kings, they were strong enough to push still further the advantage won by their greater predecessors. The rivalry of the leading states of the Rhone valley, Savoy and Dauphiny, facilitated their task. Philip VI. aspired to take Vienne as Philip IV. had obtained Lyons. The Dauphin, Humbert II., struggled in vain against him, and at last accepted the inevitable by ceding to the French king the succession to all his rights in Dauphiny, henceforth to become the appanage of the eldest sons of the French kings. At last, Charles of Luxemburg, in 1378, gave the French aggressions a legal basis by conferring the Vicariat of Arles on the Dauphin Charles, subsequently the mad Charles VI. of France. From this grant Savoy only was excepted. Henceforth the power of France in the Rhone valley became so great that it soon became the fashion to despise and ignore the theoretical claims of the Empire."

The Athenæum, Oct. 3, 1891, reviewing "Le Royaume d'Arles et de Vienne," par Paul Fournier.

BURGUNDY: A. D. 1207-1401.
Advance Of The Dominions Of The House Of Savoy Beyond Lake
Geneva.

BURGUNDY: A. D. 1364.
The French Dukedom.
The Planting Of The Burgundian Branch Of The House Of Valois.

The last Duke of Burgundy of the Capetian house which descended from Robert, son of King Robert, died in December, 1361. He was called Philip de Rouvre, because the Château de Rouvre, near Dijon, had been his birth-place, and his residence. He was still in his youth when he died, although he had borne the ducal title for twelve years. It fell to him at the age of four, when his father died. From his mother and his grandmother he inherited, additionally, the county of Burgundy (Franche Comté) and the counties of Boulogne, Auvergne and Artois. His tender years had not prevented the marriage of the young duke to Margaret, daughter and heiress of the Count of Flanders. John II. King of France, whose mother was a Burgundian princess, claimed to be the nearest relative of the young duke, when the latter died, in 1361, and, although his claim was disputed by the King of Navarre, Charles the Bad, King John took possession of the dukedom. He took it by right of succession, and not as a fief which had lapsed, the original grant of King Robert having contained no reversionary provision. Franche Comté, or the county of Burgundy, together with Artois, remained to the young widow, Margaret of Flanders, while the counties of Boulogne and Auvergne passed to John of Boulogne, Count de Montfort. A great opportunity for strengthening the crown of France, by annexing to it the powerful Burgundian dukedom, was now offered to King John; but he lacked the wisdom to improve it. He preferred to grant it away as a splendid appanage for his favorite son—the fourth—the spirited lad Philip, called the Fearless, who had stood by his father's side in the disastrous battle of Poitiers, and who had shared his captivity in England. By a deed which took effect on King John's death, in 1364, the great duchy of Burgundy was conferred on Philip the Fearless and on his heirs. Soon afterwards, Philip's marriage with the young widow of his predecessor, Philip de Rouvre, was brought about, which restored to their former union with the dukedom the Burgundian County (Franche Comté) and the county of Artois, while it gave to the new duke prospectively the rich county of Flanders, to which Margaret was the heiress. Thus was raised up anew the most formidable rival which the royal power in France had ever to contend with, and the magnitude of the blunder of King John was revealed before half a century had passed.

BURGUNDY: A. D. 1405-1453.
Civil war with the Armagnacs.
Alliance with the English.

BURGUNDY: A. D. 1467.
   Charles The Bold.
   His Position, Between Germany And France.
   His Antagonism To Louis Xi.
   The "Middle Kingdom" Of His Aims.

Charles, known commonly in history as Charles the Bold, became Duke of Burgundy in 1467, succeeding his father Philip, misnamed "The Good." "His position was a very peculiar one; it requires a successful shaking-off of modern notions fully to take in what it was. Charles held the rank of one of the first princes in Europe without being a King, and without possessing an inch of ground for which he did not owe service to some superior lord. And, more than this, he did not owe service to one lord only. The phrase of 'Great Powers' had not been invented in the 15th century; but there can be no doubt that, if it had been, the Duke of Burgundy would have ranked among the foremost of them. He was, in actual strength, the equal of his royal neighbour to the west, and far more than the equal of his Imperial neighbour to the east. Yet for every inch of his territories he owed a vassal's duty to one or other of them. Placed on the borders of France and the Empire, some of his territories were held of the Empire and some of the French Crown. Charles, Duke of Burgundy, Count of Flanders and Artois, was a vassal of France; but Charles, Duke of Brabant, Count of Burgundy, Holland, and a dozen other duchies and counties, held his dominions as a vassal of Cæsar. His dominions were large in positive extent, and they were valuable out of all proportion to their extent. No other prince in Europe was the direct sovereign of so many rich and flourishing cities, rendered still more rich and flourishing through the long and, in the main, peaceful administration of his father. The cities of the Netherlands were incomparably greater and more prosperous than those of France or England; and, though they enjoyed large municipal privileges, they were not, like those of Germany, independent commonwealths, acknowledging only an external suzerain in their nominal lord; Other parts of his dominions, the Duchy of Burgundy especially, were as rich in men as Flanders was rich in money. So far the Duke of Burgundy had some great advantages over every other prince of his time. But, on the other hand, his dominions were further removed than those of any prince in Europe from forming a compact whole. He was not King of one kingdom, but Duke, Count, and Lord of innumerable duchies, counties, and lordships, acquired by different means, held by different titles and of different overlords, speaking different languages, subject to different laws, transmitted according to different rules of succession. … They lay in two large masses, the two Burgundies forming one and the Low Countries forming the other, so that their common master could not go from one capital to another without passing through a foreign territory. {333} And, even within these two great masses, there were portions of territory intersecting the ducal dominions which there was no hope of annexing by fair means. … The career of Charles the Bold … divides itself into a French and a German portion. In both alike he is exposed to the restless rivalry of Lewis of France; but in the one period that rivalry is carried on openly within the French territory, while in the second period the crafty king finds the means to deal far more effectual blows through the agency of Teutonic hands. … As a French prince, he joined with other French princes to put limits on the power of the Crown, and to divide the kingdom into great feudal holdings, as nearly independent as might be of the common overlord. As a French prince, he played his part in the War of the Public Weal [see FRANCE: A. D. 1461-1468], and insisted, as a main object of his policy, on the establishment of the King's brother as an all but independent Duke of Normandy. The object of Lewis was to make France a compact monarchy; the object of Charles and his fellows was to keep France as nearly as might be in the same state as Germany. But, when the other French princes had been gradually conquered, won over, or got rid of in some way or other by the crafty policy of Lewis, Charles remained no longer the chief of a coalition of French princes, but the personal rival, the deadly enemy, of the French King. … Chronologically and geographically alike. Charles and his Duchy form the great barrier, or the great connecting link, whichever we choose to call it, between the main divisions of European history and European geography. The Dukes of Burgundy of the House of Valois form a sort of bridge between the later Middle Age and the period of the Renaissance and the Reformation. They connect those two periods by forming the kernel of the vast dominion of that Austrian House which became their heir, and which, mainly by virtue of that heirship fills such a space in the history of the 16th and 17th centuries. But the dominions of the Burgundian Dukes hold a still higher historical position. They may be said to bind together the whole of European history for the last thousand years. From the 9th century to the 19th, the politics of Europe have largely gathered round the rivalry between the Eastern and the Western Kingdoms—in modern language, between Germany and France. From the 9th century to the 19th, a succession of efforts have been made to establish, in one shape or another, a middle state between the two. Over and over again during that long period have men striven to make the whole or some portion of the frontier lands stretching from the mouth of the Rhine to the mouth of the Rhone into an independent barrier state. … That object was never more distinctly aimed at, and it never seemed nearer to its accomplishment, than when Charles the Bold actually reigned from the Zuyder Zee to the Lake of Neufchâtel, and was not without hopes of extending his frontier to the Gulf of Lyons. … Holding, as he did, parts of old Lotharingia and parts of old Burgundy, there can be no doubt that he aimed at the re-establishment of a great Middle Kingdom, which should take in all that had ever been Burgundian or Lotharingian ground. He aimed, in short, as others have aimed before and since, at the formation of a state which should hold a central position between France, Germany and Italy—a state which should discharge, with infinitely greater strength, all the duties which our own age has endeavoured to throw on Switzerland, Belgium and Savoy. … Undoubtedly it would have been for the permanent interest of Europe if he had succeeded in his attempt."

      E. A. Freeman,
      Charles the Bold
      (Historical Essays, 1st series, number 11).

BURGUNDY: A. D. 1467-1468.
The war of Charles the Bold with the Liegeois
and his troubles with Louis XI.

"Soon after the pacification of the troubles of France [see FRANCE: A. D. 1461-1468], the Duke of Burgundy began a war against the Liegeois, which lasted for several years; and whenever the king of France [Louis XI.] had a mind to interrupt him, he attempted some new action against the Bretons, and, in the meantime, supported the Liegeois underhand; upon which the Duke of Burgundy turned against him to succour his allies, or else they came to some treaty or truce among themselves. … During these wars, and ever since, secret and fresh intrigues were carried on by the princes. The king was so exceedingly exasperated against the Dukes of Bretagne and Burgundy that it was wonderful. … The king of France's aim, in the meantime, was chiefly to carry his design against the province of Bretagne, and he looked upon it as a more feasible attempt, and likelier to give him less resistance than the house of Burgundy. Besides, the Bretons were the people who protected and entertained all his malcontents; as his brother, and others, whose interest and intelligence were great in his kingdom; for this cause he endeavoured very earnestly with Charles, Duke of Burgundy, by several advantageous offers and proposals, to prevail with him to desert them, promising that upon those terms he also would abandon the Liegeois, and give no further protection to his malcontents. The Duke of Burgundy would by no means consent to it, but again made preparations for war against the Liegeois, who had broken the peace." This was in October, 1467. The Duke (Charles the Bold) attacked St. Tron, which was held by a garrison of 3,000 of the men of Liege. The Liegeois, 30,000 strong, came to the relief of the besieged town, and were routed, leaving 6,000 slain on the field. St. Tron and Tongres were both surrendered, and Liege, itself, after considerable strife among its citizens, opened its gates to the Duke, who entered in triumph (Nov. 17, 1467) and hanged half-a-dozen for his moderate satisfaction. In the course of the next summer the French king opened war afresh upon the Duke of Bretagne and forced him into a treaty, before the Duke of Burgundy, his ally, could take the field. The king, then being extremely anxious to pacify the Duke of Burgundy, took the extraordinary step of visiting the latter at Peronne, without any guard, trusting himself wholly to the honor of his enemy. But it happened unfortunately, during the king's stay at Peronne, that a ferocious revolt occurred at Liege, which was traced beyond denial to the intrigues of two agents whom king Louis had sent thither not long before, for mischief-making purposes. The Duke, in his wrath, was not easily restrained from doing some violence to the king; but the royal trickster escaped from his grave predicament by giving up the unhappy Liegeois to the vengeance of Duke Charles and personally assisting the latter to inflict it. {334} "After the conclusion of the peace [dictated by Charles at Peronne and signed submissively by Louis] the King and the Duke of Burgundy set out the next morning [Oct. 15, 1468] for Cambray, and from thence towards the country of Liége: it was the beginning of winter and the weather was very bad. The king had with him only his Scotch guards and a small body of his standing forces; but he ordered 300 of his men-at-arms to join him." Liége was invested, and, notwithstanding its walls had been thrown down the previous year, it made a stubborn defense. During a siege of a fortnight, several desperate sallies were made, by the last one of which both the Duke and the King were brought into great personal peril. Exhausted by this final effort, the Liegeois were unprepared to repel a grand assault which the besieging forces made upon the town the next morning—Sunday, Oct. 30. Liege was taken that day almost without resistance, the miserable inhabitants flying across the Maes into the forest of Ardennes, abandoning their homes to pillage. The Duke of Burgundy now permitted King Louis to return home, while he remained a few days longer in desolate Liege, which his fierce hatred had doomed. "Before the Duke left the city, a great number of those poor creatures who had hid themselves in the houses when the town was taken, and were afterwards made prisoners, were drowned. He also resolved to burn the city, which had always been very populous; and orders were given for firing it in three different places, and 3,000 or 4,000 foot of the country of Limbourg (who were their neighbours, and used the same habit and language), were commanded to effect this desolation, but to secure the churches. … All things being thus ordered, the Duke began his march into the country of Franchemont: he was no sooner out of town, but immediately we saw a great number of houses on fire beyond the river; the duke lay that night four leagues from the city, yet we could hear the noise as distinctly as if we had been upon the spot; but whether it was the wind which lay that way, or our quartering upon the river, that was the cause of it, I know not. The next day the Duke marched on, and those who were left in the town continued the conflagration according to his orders; but all the churches (except some few) were preserved, and above 300 houses belonging to the priests and officers of the churches, which was the reason it was so soon reinhabited, for many flocked thither to live with the priests."

ALSO IN: J. F. Kirk, History of Charles the Bold, book 1, chapters 7-9; book 2.

BURGUNDY: A. D. 1476-1477.
   Charles The Bold And The Swiss.
   His Defeats And His Death.
   The Effects Of His Fall.

"Sovereign of the duchy of Burgundy, of the Free County, of Hainaut, of Flanders, of Holland, and of Gueldre, Charles wished, by joining to it Lorraine, a portion of Switzerland, and the inheritance of old King René, Count of Provence, to recompose the ancient kingdom of Lorraine, such as it had existed under the Carlovingian dynasty; and flattered himself that by offering his daughter to Maximilian, son of Frederick III., he would obtain the title of king. Deceived in his hopes, the Duke of Burgundy tried means to take away Lorraine from the young René. That province was necessary to him, in order to join his northern states with those in the south. The conquest was rapid, and Nancy opened its gates to Charles the Rash; but it was reserved for a small people, already celebrated for their heroic valour and by their love of liberty, to beat this powerful man. Irritated against the Swiss, who had braved him, Charles crossed over the Jura, besieged the little town of Granson, and, in despite of a capitulation, caused all the defenders to be hanged or drowned. At this news the eight cantons which then composed the Helvetian republic arose, and under the very walls of the town which had been the theatre of his cruelty they attacked the Duke and dispersed his troops [March 3, 1476]. Some months later [June 21], supported by young René of Lorraine, despoiled of his inheritance, they exterminated a second Burgundian army before Morat. Charles, vanquished, reassembled a third army, and marched in the midst of winter against Nancy, which had fallen into the hands of the Swiss and Lorrainers. It was there that he perished [January 5, 1477] betrayed by his mercenary soldiers, and overpowered by numbers."

   "And what was the cause of this war? A miserable cart-load of
   sheep skins that the Count of Romont had taken from the Swiss,
   in his passage through his estates. If God Almighty had not
   forsaken the Duke of Burgundy it is scarce conceivable he
   would have exposed himself to such great dangers upon so small
   and trivial an occasion; especially considering the offers the
   Swiss had made him, and that his conquest of such enemies
   would yield him neither profit nor honour; for at that time
   the Swiss were not in such esteem as now, and no people in the
   world could be poorer." At Granson, "the poor Swiss were
   mightily enriched by the plunder of his [the Duke of
   Burgundy's] camp. At first they did not understand the value
   of the treasure they were masters of, especially the common
   soldiers. One of the richest and most magnificent tents in the
   world was cut into pieces. There were some of them that sold
   quantities of dishes and plates of silver for about two sous
   of our money, supposing they had been pewter. His great
   diamond, … with a large pearl fixed to it, was taken up by a
   Swiss, put up again into the case, thrown under a wagon, taken
   up again by the same soldier, and after all offered to a
   priest for a florin, who bought it, and sent it to the
   magistrates of that country, who returned him three francs as
   a sufficient reward. [This was long supposed to be the famous
   Sancy diamond; but Mr. Streeter thinks that the tradition
   which so connects it is totally disproved.] They also took
   three very rich jewels called the Three Brothers, another
   large ruby called La Hatte, and another called the Ball of
   Flanders, which were the fairest and richest in the world;
   besides a prodigious quantity of other goods." In his last
   battle, near Nancy, the Duke had less than 4,000 men, "and of
   that number not above 1,200 were in a condition to fight." He
   encountered on this occasion a powerful army of Swiss and
   Germans, which the Duke of Lorraine had been able to collect,
   with the help of the king of France and others. It was against
   the advice of all his counsellors that the headstrong,
   half-mad Duke Charles dashed his little army upon this greater
   one, and he paid the penalty.
{335}
   It was broken at the first shock, and the Duke was killed in
   the confused rout without being known. His body, stripped
   naked by the pillagers and mangled by wolves or dogs, was
   found frozen fast in a ditch. "I cannot easily determine
   towards whom God Almighty showed his anger most, whether
   towards him who died suddenly, without pain or sickness in the
   field of battle, or towards his subjects, who never enjoyed
   peace after his death, but were continually involved in wars
   against which they were not able to maintain themselves, upon
   account of the civil dissensions and cruel animosities that
   arose among them. … As I had seen these princes puissant,
   rich and honourable, so it fared with their subjects: for I
   think I have seen and known the greatest part of Europe, yet I
   never knew any province or country, though of a larger extent,
   so abounding in money, so extravagantly fine in their
   furniture, so sumptuous in their buildings, so profuse in
   their expenses, so luxurious in their feasts and
   entertainments, and so prodigal in all respects, as the
   subjects of these princes in my time; and if any think I have
   exaggerated, others who lived in my time will be of opinion
   that I have rather said too little. … In short, I have seen
   this family in all respects the most flourishing and
   celebrated of any in Christendom: and then, in a short space
   of time, it was quite ruined and turned upside down, and left
   the most desolate and miserable of any house in Europe, as
   regards both prince and subjects."

"The popular conception of this war [between Charles the Bold and the Swiss] is simply that Charles, a powerful and encroaching prince, was overthrown in three great battles by the petty commonwealths which he had expected easily to attach to his dominion. Grandson and Morat are placed side by side with Morgarten and Sempach. Such a view as this implies complete ignorance of the history; it implies ignorance of the fact that it was the Swiss who made war upon Charles, and not Charles who made war upon the Swiss; it implies ignorance of the fact that Charles's army never set foot on proper Swiss territory at all, that Grandson and Morat were at the beginning of the war no part of the possessions of the Confederation. … The mere political accident that the country which formed the chief seat of war now forms part of the Swiss Confederation has been with many people enough to determine their estimate of the quarrel. Grandson and Morat are in Switzerland; Burgundian troops appeared and were defeated at Grandson and Morat; therefore Charles must have been an invader of Switzerland, and the warfare on the Swiss side must have been a warfare of purely defensive heroism. The simple fact that it was only through the result of the Burgundian war that Grandson and Morat ever became Swiss territory at once disposes of this line of argument. … The plain facts of the case are that the Burgundian war was a war declared by Switzerland against Burgundy … and that in the campaigns of Grandson and Morat the Duke of Burgundy was simply repelling and avenging Swiss invasions of his own territory and the territory of his allies."

Louis XI. of France, who had been eagerly watching while Charles the Bold shattered his armies and exhausted his strength in Switzerland, received early news of the death of the self-willed Duke. While the panic and confusion which it caused still prevailed, the king lost no time in taking possession of the duchy of Burgundy, as an appanage which had reverted to the crown, through default of male heirs. The legality of his claim has been much in dispute. "Charles left an only daughter, undoubted heiress of Flanders and Artois, as well as of his dominions out of France, but whose right of succession to the duchy of Burgundy was more questionable. Originally the great fiefs of the crown descended to females, and this was the case with respect to the two first mentioned. But John had granted Burgundy to his son Philip by way of appanage; and it was contended that the appanages reverted to the crown in default of male heirs. In the form of Philip's investiture, the duchy was granted to him and his lawful heirs, without designation of sex. The construction, therefore, must be left to the established course of law. This, however, was by no means acknowledged by Mary, Charles's daughter, who maintained both that no general law restricted appanages to male heirs, and that Burgundy had always been considered as a feminine fief, John himself having possessed it, not by reversion as king (for descendants of the first dukes were then living), but by inheritance derived through females. Such was this question of succession between Louis XI. and Mary of Burgundy, upon the merits of whose pretensions I will not pretend altogether to decide, but shall only observe that, if Charles had conceived his daughter to be excluded from this part of his inheritance, he would probably, at Conflans or Peronne, where he treated upon the vantage ground, have attempted at least to obtain a renunciation of Louis's claim. There was one obvious mode of preventing all further contest, and of aggrandizing the French monarchy far more than by the reunion of Burgundy. This was the marriage of Mary with the dauphin, which was ardently wished in France." The dauphin was a child of seven years; Mary of Burgundy a masculine-minded young woman of twenty, Probably Louis despaired of reconciling the latter to such a marriage. At all events, while he talked of it occasionally, he proceeded actively in despoiling the young duchess, seizing Artois and Franche Comté, and laying hands upon the frontier towns which were exposed to his arms. He embittered her natural enmity to him by various acts of meanness and treachery. "Thus the French alliance becoming odious in Flanders, this princess married Maximilian of Austria, son of the Emperor Frederic—a connexion which Louis strove to prevent, though it was impossible then to foresee that it was ordained to retard the growth and to bias the fate of Europe during three hundred years. This war lasted till after the death of Mary, who left one son Philip and one daughter Margaret."

"The king [Louis XI.] had reason to be more than ordinarily pleased at the death of that duke [of Burgundy], and he triumphed more in his ruin than in that of all the rest of his enemies, as he thought that nobody, for the future, either of his own subjects, or his neighbours, would be able to oppose him, or disturb the tranquillity of his reign. … Although God Almighty has shown, and does still show, that his determination is to punish the family of Burgundy severely, not only in the person of the duke, but in their subjects and estates; yet I think the king our master did not take right measures to that end. For, if he had acted prudently, instead of pretending to conquer them, he should rather have endeavoured to annex all those large territories, to which he had no just title, to the crown of France by some treaty of marriage; or to have gained the hearts and affections of the people, and so have brought them over to his interest, which he might, without any great difficulty, have effected, considering how their late afflictions had impoverished and dejected them. If he had acted after that manner, he would not only have prevented their ruin and destruction, but extended and strengthened his own kingdom, and established them all in a firm and lasting peace."

"He [Louis XI.] reassured, caressed, comforted the duchy of Burgundy, gave it a parliament, visited his good city of Dijon, swore in St. Benignus' church to respect all the old privileges and customs that could be sworn to, and bound his successors to do the same on their accession. Burgundy was a land of nobles; and the king raised a bridge of gold for all the great lords to come over to him."

BURGUNDY: A. D. 1477-1482.
Reign of the Burgundian heiress in the Netherlands.
Her marriage with Maximilian of Austria.

A Suevic clan of Germans whose settlements were anciently in the neighborhood of modern Cracow.

BURLINGAME CHINESE EMBASSY AND TREATIES.

BURMA:
   Rise of the kingdom.
   First war with the English (1824-1826).
   Cession of Assam and Aracan.

BURNED CANDLEMAS.

BURNSIDE, General Ambrose E.
Retirement from command of the Army of the Potomac.

BUSHWHACKERS.

A name commonly given to the rebel guerrillas or half-bandits of the southwest in the American Civil War.

In the first years of their conquest and occupation of Mesopotamia and the Delta of the Euphrates and Tigris—as early as A. D. 638—the Moslems founded two cities which acquired importance in Mahometan history. In both cases, these cities appear to have arisen out of the need felt by the Arabs for more salubrious sites of residence than their predecessors in the ancient country had been contented with. Of Bussorah, or Bassorah, the city founded in the Delta, the site is said to have been changed three times. Kufa was built on a plain very near to the neglected city of Hira, on the Euphrates. "Kufa and Bussorah … had a singular influence on the destinies of the Caliphate and of Islam itself. The vast majority of the population came from the Peninsula and were of pure Arabian blood. The tribes which, with their families, scenting from afar the prey of Persia, kept streaming into Chaldæa from every corner of Arabia, settled chiefly in these two cities. At Kufa, the races from Yemen and the south predominated; at Bussorah, from the north. Rapidly they grew into two great and luxurious capitals, with an Arab population each of from 150,000 to 200,000 souls. On the literature, theology, and politics of Islam, these cities had a greater influence than the whole Moslem world besides. … The people became petulant and factious, and both cities grew into hotbeds of turbulence and sedition. The Bedouin element, conscious of its strength, was jealous of the Coreish, and impatient of whatever checked its capricious humour. Thus factions sprang up which, controlled by the strong and wise arm of Omar, broke loose under the weaker Caliphs, eventually rent the unity of Islam, and brought on disastrous days."

BUTE'S ADMINISTRATION.

BUTTERNUTS.

BYTOWN.

BYZACIUM.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE.

The Eastern Roman Empire, having its capital at Byzantium (modern Constantinople), the earlier history of which will be found sketched under the caption ROME: A. D. 394-395, to 717-800, has been given, in its later years, the name of the Byzantine Empire. The propriety of this designation is questioned by some historians, and the time when it begins to be appropriate is likewise a subject of debate. For some discussion of these questions,

BYZANTINE EMPIRE.
   Its part in history.
   Its defence of Europe.
   Its civilizing influence.

"The later Roman Empire was the bulwark of Europe against the oriental danger; Maurice and Heraclius, Constantine IV. and Leo the Isaurian were the successors of Themistocles and Africanus. … Until the days of the crusades, the German nations did not combine with the Empire against the common foe. Nor did the Teutons, by themselves, achieve any success of ecumenical importance against non-Aryan races. I may be reminded that Charles the Great exterminated the Avars; but that was after they had ceased to be really dangerous. When there existed a truly formidable Avar monarchy it was the Roman Empire that bore the brunt; and yet while most people who read history know of the Avar war of Charles, how few there are who have ever heard of Priscus, the general who so bravely warred against the Avars in the reign of Maurice. I may be reminded that Charles Martel won a great name by victories, in southern Gaul over the Saracens; yet those successes sink into insignificance by the side of the achievement of his contemporary, the third Leo, who held the gate of eastern Europe against all the forces which the Saracen power, then at its height, could muster. Everyone knows about the exploits of the Frank; it is almost incredible how little is known of the Roman Emperor's defence of the greatest city of Christian Europe, in the quarter where the real danger lay. …. The Empire was much more than the military guard of the Asiatic frontier; it not only defended but also kept alive the traditions of Greek and Roman culture. We cannot over-estimate the importance of the presence of a highly civilised state for a system of nations which were as yet only beginning to be civilised. The constant intercourse of the Empire with Italy, which until the eleventh century was partly imperial, and with southern Gaul and Spain, had an incalculable influence on the development of the West. Venice, which contributed so much to the growth of western culture, was for a long time actually, and for a much longer time nominally, a city of the Roman Empire, and learned what it taught from Byzantium. The Byzantine was the mother of the Italian school of painting, as Greece in the old days had been the mistress of Rome in the fine arts; and the Byzantine style of architecture has had perhaps a wider influence than any other. It was to New Rome that the Teutonic kings applied when they needed men of learning, and thither students from western countries, who desired a university education, repaired. … It was, moreover, in the lands ruled by New Rome that old Hellenic culture and the monuments of Hellenic literature were preserved, as in a secure storehouse, to be given at length to the 'wild nations' when they had been sufficiently tamed. And in their taming New Rome played an indispensable part. The Justinian law, which still interpenetrates European civilisation, was a product of New Rome. In the third place the Roman Empire for many centuries entirely maintained European commerce. This was a circumstance of the greatest importance; but unfortunately it is one of those facts concerning which contemporary historians did not think of leaving records to posterity. The fact that the coins of the Roman Emperors were used throughout Europe in the Middle Ages speaks for itself. … In the fourth place, the Roman Empire preserved a great idea which influenced the whole course of western European history down to the present day—the idea of the Roman Empire itself. If we look at the ecumenical event of 800 A. D. from a wide point of view, it really resolves itself into this: New Rome bestowed upon the western nations a great idea, which moulded and ordered their future history; she gave back to Old Rome the idea which Old Rome bestowed upon her five centuries before. … If Constantinople and the Empire had fallen, the imperial idea would have been lost in the whirl of the 'wild nations.' It is to New Rome that Europeans really owe thanks for the establishment of the principle and the system which brought law and order into the political relations of the West."

   "The accession of Leo the Isaurian to the throne of
   Constantinople suddenly opened a new era in the history of
   the Eastern Empire. … When Leo III. was proclaimed emperor
   [A. D. 717], it seemed as if no human power could save
   Constantinople from falling as Rome had fallen. The Saracens
   considered the sovereignty of every land, in which any remains
   of Roman civilization survived, as within their grasp. Leo, an
   Isaurian, and an Iconoclast, consequently a foreigner and a
   heretic, ascended the throne of Constantine and arrested the
   victorious career of the Mohammedans. He then reorganized the
   whole administration so completely in accordance with the new
   exigencies of Eastern society that the reformed empire
   outlived for many centuries every government contemporary
   with its establishment.
{338}
   The Eastern Roman Empire, thus reformed, is called by modern
   historians the Byzantine Empire; and the term is well devised
   to mark the changes effected in the government, after the
   extinction of the last traces of the military monarchy of
   ancient Rome. … The provincial divisions of the Roman Empire
   had fallen into oblivion. A new geographical arrangement into
   Themes appears to have been established by Heraclius, when he
   recovered the Asiatic provinces from the Persians; it was
   reorganized by Leo, and endured as long as the Byzantine
   government. The number of themes varied at different periods.
   The Emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus, writing about the
   middle of the tenth century, counts sixteen in the Asiatic
   portion of the Empire and twelve in the European. … The
   European provinces were divided into eight continental and
   five insular or transmarine themes, until the loss of the
   exarchate of Ravenna reduced the number to twelve. Venice and
   Naples, though they acknowledged the suzerainty of the Eastern
   Empire, acted generally as independent cities. … When Leo
   was raised to the throne the Empire was threatened with
   immediate ruin. … Every army assembled to encounter the
   Saracens broke out into rebellion. The Bulgarians and
   Sclavonians wasted Europe up to the walls of Constantinople;
   the Saracens ravaged the whole of Asia Minor to the shores of
   the Bosphorus."

      G. Finlay,
      History of the Byzantine Empire,
      book 1, chapter 1.

      ALSO IN:
      E. W. Brooks,
      The Emperor Zenon and the Isaurians
      (English History Review, April, 1893).

   The dynasty founded by Leo the Isaurian held the throne until
   the dethronement of Constantine VI. by his mother, Irene, A.
   D. 797, and her dethronement, in turn by, Nicephorus I., A. D.
   802. It embraced the following reigns:

   Constantine V., called Copronymus, A. D. 741-775;
   Leo IV., 775-780;
   Constantine VI., 780-797;
   Irene, 797-802.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 726-751.
   The Iconoclastic Controversy.
   Rupture with the West.
   Fall of the Exarchate of Ravenna.
   End of authority in Italy.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 802-820. Emperors:
   Nicephorus 1., A. D. 802-811;
   Stauracius, A. D. 811;
   Michael I., A. D. 811-813;
   Leo V., A. D. 813-820.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 820-1057.
The Amorian and Basilian or Macedonian dynasties.

Michael, the Amorian (820-829) so named from his birth-place; Amorium, in Phrygia, was a soldier, raised to the throne by a revolution which deposed and assassinated his friend and patron, the Emperor Leo V. Michael transmitted the crown to his son (Theophilus, 829-842) and grandson. The latter, called Michael the Drunkard, was conspired against and killed by one of the companions of his drunken orgies (867), Basil the Maeedonian, who had been in early life a groom. Basil founded a dynasty which reigned, with several interruptions, from A. D. 867 to 1057—a period covering the following reigns:

   Basil I., A. D. 867-886;
   Leo VI., A. D. 886-911;
   Constantine VII. (Porphyrogenitus), A. D. 911-950;
   Romanus I. (Colleague), A. D. 919-944;
   Constantine VIII. (Colleague), A. D. 944;
   Romanus II., A. D. 959-963;
   Nicephorus II., A. D. 963-969;
   John Zimisces, A. D. 969-976;
   Basil II., A. D. 963-1025;
   Constantine IX., A. D. 963-1028;
   Romanus III., A. D. 1028-1034;
   Michael IV., A. D. 1034-1041;
   Michael V., A. D. 1041-1042;
   Zoe and Theodora, A. D. 1042-1056;
   Constantine X., A. D. 1042-1054;
   Michael VI., A. D. 1056-1057.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 865-1043.
Wars, commerce and Church Connection with the Russians.

"Amidst all the crimes and revolutions of the Byzantine government—and its history is but a series of crimes and revolutions—it was never dismembered by intestine war. A sedition in the army, a tumult in the theatre, a conspiracy in the palace, precipitated a monarch from the throne; but the allegiance of Constantinople was instantly transferred to his successor, and the provinces implicitly obeyed the voice of the capital. The custom, too, of partition, so baneful to the Latin kingdoms, and which was not altogether unknown to the Saracens, never prevailed in the Greek Empire. It stood in the middle of the tenth century, as vicious indeed and cowardly, but more wealthy, more enlightened, and far more secure from its enemies than under the first successors of Heraclius. For about one hundred years preceding there had been only partial wars with the Mohammedan potentates; and in these the emperors seem gradually to have gained the advantage, and to have become more frequently the aggressors. But the increasing distractions of the East encouraged two brave usurpers, Nicephorus Phocas and John Zimisces, to attempt the actual recovery of the lost provinces. They carried the Roman arms (one may use the term with less reluctance than usual) over Syria; Antioch and Aleppo were taken by storm; Damascus submitted; even the cities of Mesopotamia, beyond the ancient boundary of the Euphrates, were added to the trophies of Zimisces, who unwillingly spared the capital of the Khalifate. From such distant conquests it was expedient, and indeed necessary to withdraw; but Cilicia and Antioch were permanently restored to the Empire. At the close of the tenth century the emperors of Constantinople possessed the best and greatest portion of the modern kingdom of Naples, a part of Sicily, the whole [present] European dominions of the Ottomans, the province of Anatolia or Asia Minor, with some part of Syria and Armenia."

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1054.
Ecclesiastical division of the
Eastern from the Roman Church.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1057-1081.
Between the Basilian and the Comnenian dynasties.
A dark period.

"The moment that the last of the Macedonian dynasty was gone, the elements of discord seemed unchained, and the double scourge of civil war and foreign invasion began to afflict the empire. In the twenty-four years between 1057 and 1081 were pressed more disasters than had been seen in any other period of East Roman history, save perhaps the reign of Heraclius. … The aged Theodora had named as her successor on the throne Michael Stratiocus, a contemporary of her own who had been an able soldier 25 years back. But Michael VI. was grown aged and incompetent, and the empire was full of ambitious generals, who would not tolerate a dotard on the throne. Before a year had passed a band of great Asiatic nobles entered into a conspiracy to overturn Michael, and replace him by Isaac Comnenus, the chief of one of the ancient Cappadocian houses, and the most popular general of the East. Isaac Comnenus and his friends took arms, and dispossessed the aged Michael of his throne with little difficulty. But a curse seemed to rest upon the usurpation; Isaac was stricken down by disease when he had been little more than a year on the throne, and retired to a monastery to die. His crown was transferred to Constantine Ducas, another Cappadocian noble," who reigned for seven troubled years. His three immediate successors were:

   Romanus IV., A. D. 1067-1071;
   Michael VII., A. D. 1071-1078;
   Nicephorus III., A. D. 1078-1081.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1064.
Great revival of pilgrimages from Western Europe to the Holy
Land.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1081-1085.
Attempted Norman conquest from Southern Italy.

Robert Guiscard, the Norman adventurer who had carved for himself a principality in Southern Italy and acquired the title of Duke of Apulia,—his duchy coinciding with the subsequent Norman kingdom of Naples—conceived the ambitious design of adding the Byzantine Empire to his estate. His conquests in Italy had been mostly at the expense of the Byzantine dominions, and he believed that he had measured the strength of the degenerate Roman-Greeks. He was encouraged, moreover, by the successive revolutions which tossed the imperial crown from hand to hand, and which had just given it to the Comnenian, Alexius I. Beyond all, he had a claim of right to interfere in the affairs of the Empire; for his young daughter was betrothed to the heir-expectant whose expectations were now vanishing, and had actually been sent to Constantinople to receive her education for the throne. To promote his bold undertaking, Robert obtained the approval of the pope, and an absolution for all who would join his ranks. Thus spiritually equipped, the Norman duke invaded Greece, in the summer of 1081, with 150 ships and 30,000 men. Making himself master, on the way, of the island of Corcyra (Corfu), and taking several ports on the mainland, he laid siege to Dyrrachium, and found it a most obstinate fortification to reduce. Its massive ancient walls defied the Norman enginery, and it was not until February, 1082, that Robert Guiscard gained possession of the town, by the treachery of one of its defenders. Meantime the Normans had routed and scattered one large army, which the Emperor Alexius led in person to the relief of Dyrrachium; but the fortified towns in Illyria and Epirus delayed their advance toward Constantinople. Robert was called home to Italy by important affairs and left his son Bohemund (the subsequent Crusader and Prince of Antioch), in command. Bohemund defeated Alexius again in the spring of 1083, and still a third time the following autumn. All Epirus was overrun and Macedonia and Thessaly invaded; but the Normans, while besieging Larissa, were undone by a stratagem, lost their camp and found it necessary to retreat. Robert was then just reentering the field, in person, and had won an important naval battle at Corfu, over the combined Greeks and Venetians, when he died (July, 1085), and his project of conquest in Greece ended with him. Twenty years afterwards, his son Bohemund, when Prince of Antioch, and quarreling with the Byzantines, gathered a crusading army in France and Italy to lead it against Constantinople; but it was stopped by stubborn Dyrrachium, and never got beyond. Alexius had recovered that strong coast defence shortly after Robert Guiscard's death, with the help of the Venetians and Amalfians. By way of reward, those merchant allies received important commercial privileges, and the title of Venice to the sovereignty of Dalmatia and Croatia was recognized. "From this time the doge appears to have styled himself lord of the kingdoms of Dalmatia and Croatia."

G. Finlay, History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires, book 3, chapter 2, section 1.

   Alexius I., A. D. 1081-1118;
   John II., A. D. 1118-1143;
   Manuel I., A. D. 1143-1181;
   Alexius II., A. D. 1181-1183;
   Andronicus I., A. D. 1183-1185.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1146.
Destructive invasion of Roger, king of Sicily.
Sack of Thebes and Corinth.

   When Roger, king of Sicily, united the Norman possessions in
   Southern Italy to his Sicilian realm he became ambitious, in
   his turn, to acquire some part of the Byzantine possessions.
   His single attack, however, made simultaneously with the
   second crusading movement (A. D. 1146), amounted to no more
   than a great and destructive plundering raid in Greece. An
   insurrection in Corfu gave that island to him, after which his
   fleet ravaged the coasts of Eubœa and Attica, Acarnania and
   Ætolia. "It then entered the gulf of Corinth, and debarked a
   body of troops at Crissa. This force marched through the
   country to Thebes, plundering every town and village on the
   way. Thebes offered no resistance, and was plundered in the
   most deliberate and barbarous manner. The inhabitants were
   numerous and wealthy. The soil of Bœotia is extremely
   productive, and numerous manufactures established in the city
   of Thebes gave additional value to the abundant produce of
   agricultural industry. … All military spirit was now dead,
   and the Thebans had so long lived without any fear of invasion
   that they had not even adopted any effectual measures to
   secure or conceal their movable property. The conquerors,
   secure against all danger of interruption, plundered Thebes at
   their leisure. … When all ordinary means of collecting booty
   were exhausted, the citizens were compelled to take an oath on
   the Holy Scriptures that they had not concealed any portion of
   their property yet many of the wealthiest were dragged away
   captive, in order to profit by their ransom; and many of the
   most skilful workmen in the silk-manufactories, for which
   Thebes had long been famous, were pressed on board the fleet
   to labour at the oar. …
{340}
   Benjamin of Tudela, who visited Thebes about twenty years
   later, or perhaps in 1161, speaks of it as then a large city,
   with two thousand Jewish inhabitants, who were the most
   eminent manufacturers of silk and purple cloth in all Greece.
   The silks of Thebes continued to be celebrated as of superior
   quality after this invasion. … From Bœotia the army passed
   to Corinth. … Corinth was sacked as cruelly as Thebes; men
   of rank, beautiful women, and skilful artisans, with their
   wives and families, were carried away into captivity. … This
   invasion of Greece was conducted entirely as a plundering
   expedition. … Corfu was the only conquest of which Roger
   retained possession; yet this passing invasion is the period
   from which the decline of Byzantine Greece is to be dated. The
   century-and-a-half which preceded this disaster had passed in
   uninterrupted tranquillity, and the Greek people had increased
   rapidly in numbers and wealth. The power of the Sclavonian
   population sank with the ruin of the kingdom of Achrida; and
   the Sclavonians who now dwelt in Greece were peaceable
   cultivators of the soil, or graziers. The Greek population, on
   the other hand, was in possession of an extensive commerce and
   many flourishing manufactures. The ruin of this commerce and
   of these manufactures has been ascribed to the transference of
   the silk trade from Thebes and Corinth to Palermo, under the
   judicious protection it received from Roger; but it would be
   more correct to say that the injudicious and oppressive
   financial administration of the Byzantine Emperors destroyed
   the commercial prosperity and manufacturing industry of the
   Greeks; while the wise liberality and intelligent protection
   of the Norman kings extended the commerce and increased the
   industry of the Sicilians. When the Sicilian fleet returned to
   Palermo, Roger determined to employ all the silk-manufacturers
   in their original occupations. He consequently collected all
   their families together, and settled them at Palermo,
   supplying them with the means of exercising their industry
   with profit to themselves, and inducing them to teach his own
   subjects to manufacture the richest brocades, and to rival the
   rarest productions of the East. … It is not remarkable that
   the commerce and manufactures of Greece were transferred in
   the course of another century to Sicily and Italy."

      G. Finlay,
      History of Byzantine and Greek Empires, from 716 to 1453,
      book 3, chapter 2, section 3.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1147-1148.
Trouble with the German and French Crusaders.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1185-1204.
   The Angeli.
   Isaac II., A. D. 1185-1195;
   Alexius III., A. D. 1195-1203;
   Alexius IV., A. D. 1203-1204.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1203-1204.
Its overthrow by the Venetians and Crusaders.
Sack of Constantinople.

The last of the Comnenian Emperors in the male line—the brutal Andronicus I.—perished horribly in a wild insurrection at Constantinople which his tyranny provoked, A. D. 1185. His successor, Isaac Angelus, collaterally related to the imperial house, had been a contemptible creature before his coronation, and received no tincture of manliness or virtue from that ceremony. In the second year of his reign, the Empire was shorn of its Bulgarian and Wallachian provinces by a successful revolt. In the tenth year (A. D. 1195), Isaac was pushed from his throne, deprived of sight and shut up in a dungeon, by a brother of equal worthlessness, who styled himself Alexius III. The latter neglected, however, to secure the person of Isaac's son, Alexius, who escaped from Constantinople and made his way to his sister, wife of Philip, the German King and claimant of the western imperial crown. Philip thereupon plotted with the Venetians to divert the great crusading expedition, then assembling to take ship at Venice, and to employ it for the restoration of young Alexius and his father Isaac to the Byzantine throne. The cunning and perfidious means by which that diversion was brought about are related in another place (see CRUSADES: A. D. 1201-1203). The great fleet of the crusading filibusters arrived in the Bosphorus near the end of June, 1203. The army which it bore was landed first on the Asiatic side of the strait, opposite the imperial city. After ten days of parley and preparation it was conveyed across the water and began its attack. The towers guarding the entrance to the Golden Horn—the harbor of Constantinople—were captured, the chain removed, the harbor occupied; and the imperial fleet seized or destroyed. On the 17th of July a combined assault by land and water was made on the walls of the city, at their northwest corner, near the Blachern palace, where they presented one face to the Horn and another to the land. The land-attack failed. The Venetians, from their ships, stormed twenty-five towers, gained possession of a long stretch of the wall, and pushed into the city far enough to start a conflagration which spread ruin over an extensive district. They could not hold their ground, and withdrew; but the result was a victory. The cowardly Emperor, Alexius III., fled from the city that night, and blind old Isaac Angelus was restored to the throne. He was ready to associate his son in the sovereignty, and to fulfill, if he could, the contracts which the latter had made with Venetians and Crusaders. These invaders had now no present excuse for making war on Constantinople any further. But the excuse was soon found. Money to pay their heavy claims could not be raised, and their hatefulness to the Greeks was increased by the insolence of their demeanor. A serious collision occurred at length, provoked by the plundering of a Mahometan mosque which the Byzantines had tolerated in their capital. Once more, on this occasion, the splendid city was fired by the ruthless invaders, and an immense district in the richest and most populous part was destroyed, while many of the inhabitants perished. The fire lasted two days and nights, sweeping a wide belt from the harbor to the Marmora. The suburbs of Constantinople were pillaged and ruined by the Latin soldiery, and more and more it became impossible for the two restored emperors to raise money for paying the claims of the Crusaders who had championed them. Their subjects hated them and were desperate. At last, in January, 1204, the public feeling of Constantinople flamed out in a revolution which crowned a new emperor,—one Alexis Ducas, nicknamed Mourtzophlos, on account of his eyebrows, which met. {341} A few days afterwards, with suspicious opportuneness, Isaac and Alexius died. Then both sides entered upon active preparations for serious war; but it was not until April 9th that the Crusaders and Venetians were ready to assail the walls once more. The first assault was repelled, with heavy loss to the besiegers. They rested two days and repeated the attack on the 12th with irresistible resolution and fury. The towers were taken, the gates were broken down, knights and soldiers poured into the fated city, killing without mercy, burning without scruple—starting a third appalling conflagration which laid another wide district in ruins. The new emperor fled, the troops laid down their arms,—Constantinople was conquered and prostrate. "Then began the plunder of the city. The imperial treasury and the arsenal were placed under guard; but with these exceptions the right to plunder was given indiscriminately to the troops and sailors. Never in Europe was a work of pillage more systematically and shamelessly carried out. Never by the army of a Christian state was there a more barbarous sack of a city than that perpetrated by these soldiers of Christ, sworn to chastity, pledged before God not to shed Christian blood, and bearing upon them the emblem of the Prince of Peace. … 'Never since the world was created,' says the Marshal [Villehardouin] 'was there so much booty gained in one city. Each man took the house which pleased him, and there were enough for all. Those who were poor found themselves suddenly rich. There was captured an immense supply of gold and silver, of plate and of precious stones, of satins and of silk, of furs and of every kind of wealth ever found upon the earth.' … The Greek eye-witness [Nicetas] gives the complement of the picture of Villehardouin. The lust of the army spared neither maiden nor the virgin dedicated to God. Violence and debauchery were everywhere present; cries and lamentations and the groans of the victims were heard throughout the city; for everywhere pillage was unrestrained and lust unbridled. … A large part of the booty had been collected in the three churches designated for that purpose. … The distribution was made during the latter end of April. Many works of art in bronze were sent to the melting-pot to be coined. Many statues were broken up in order to obtain the metals with which they were adorned. The conquerors knew nothing and cared nothing for the art which had added value to the metal."

      ALSO IN:
      G. Finlay,
      History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires, from 716 to 1453,
      book 3, chapter 3, section 3.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1204-1205.
The partitioning of the Empire by the Crusaders and the Venetians.

"Before the crusaders made their last successful attack on Constantinople, they concluded a treaty partitioning the Byzantine empire and dividing the plunder of the capital. … This treaty was entered into by the Frank crusaders on the one part, and the citizens of the Venetian republic on the other, for the purpose of preventing disputes and preserving unity in the expedition." The treaty further provided for the creation of an Empire of Romania, to take the place of the Byzantine Empire, and for the election of an Emperor to reign over it. The arrangements of the treaty in this latter respect were carried out, not long after the taking of the city by the election of Baldwin, count of Flanders, the most esteemed and the most popular among the princes of the crusade, and he received the imperial crown of the new Empire of Romania at the hands of the legate of the pope. "Measures were immediately taken after the coronation of Baldwin to carry into execution the act of partition as arranged by the joint consent of the Frank and Venetian commissioners. But their ignorance of geography, and the resistance offered by the Greeks in Asia Minor, and by the Vallachians and Albanians in Europe, threw innumerable difficulties in the way of the proposed distribution of fiefs. The quarter of the Empire that formed the portion of Baldwin consisted of the city of Constantinople, with the country in its immediate vicinity, as far as Bizya and Tzouroulos in Europe and Nicomedia in Asia. Beyond the territory around Constantinople, Baldwin possessed districts extending as far as the Strymon in Europe and the Sangarins in Asia; but his possessions were intermingled with those of the Venetians and the vassals of the Empire. Prokonnesos, Lesbos, Chios, Lemnos, Skyros, and several smaller islands, also fell to his share."

      G. Finlay,
      History of Greece from its Conquest by the Crusaders,
      chapter 4, sections 1-2.

"In the division of the Greek provinces the share of the Venetians was more ample than that of the Latin emperor. No more than one fourth was appropriated to his domain; a clear moiety of the remainder was reserved for Venice and the other moiety was distributed among the adventurers of France and Lombardy. The venerable Dandolo was proclaimed Despot of Romania, and was invested, after the Greek fashion, with the purple buskins. He ended at Constantinople his long and glorious life; and if the prerogative was personal, the title was used by his successors till the middle of the fourteenth century, with the singular, though true, addition of 'Lords of one fourth and a half of the Roman Empire.' … They possessed three of the eight quarters of the city. … They had rashly accepted the dominion and defence of Adrianople; but it was the more reasonable aim of their policy to form a chain of factories and cities and islands along the maritime coast, from the neighbourhood of Ragnsa to the Hellespont and the Bosphorus. … For the price of 10,000 marks the republic purchased of the marquis of Montferrat the fertile island of Crete or Candia with the ruins of a hundred cities. … In the moiety of the adventurers the Marquis Boniface [of Montferrat] might claim the most liberal reward; and, besides the isle of Crete, his exclusion from the throne [for which he had been a candidate against Baldwin of Flanders] was compensated by the royal title and the provinces beyond the Hellespont. But he prudently exchanged that distant and difficult conquest for the kingdom of Thessalonica or Macedonia, twelve days' journey from the capital, where he might be supported by the neighbouring powers of his brother-in-law, the king of Hungary. … The lots of the Latin pilgrims were regulated by chance or choice or subsequent exchange. … At the head of his knights and archers each baron mounted on horseback to secure the possession of his share, and their first efforts were generally successful. But the public force was weakened by their dispersion; and a thousand quarrels must arise under a law and among men whose sole umpire was the sword."

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 61. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

      See
      ROMANIA.
      THE EMPIRE;
      GREEK EMPIRE OF NICÆA;
      TREBIZOND;
      EPIRUS:
      NAXOS, THE MEDIÆVAL DUKEDOM
      ACHAIA: A. D. 1205-1387:
      ATHENS: A. D. 1205-1456:
      SALONIKI.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1261-1453.
The Greek restoration.
Last struggle with the Turks and final overthrow.

   The story of the shadowy restoration of a Greek Empire at
   Constantinople, its last struggle with the Turks, and its fall
   is told elsewhere.

"From the hour of her foundation to that in which her sun finally sank in blood, Christian Constantinople was engaged in constant struggles against successive hordes of barbarians. She did not always triumph in the strife, but, even when she was beaten she did not succumb, but carried on the contest still; and the fact that she was able to do so is alone a sufficing proof of the strength and vitality of her organization. … Of the seventy-six emperors and five empresses who occupied the Byzantine throne, 15 were put to death, 7 were blinded or otherwise mutilated, 4 were deposed and imprisoned in monasteries, and 10 were compelled to abdicate. This list, comprising nearly half of the whole number, is sufficient indication of the horrors by which the history of the empire is only too often marked, and it may be frankly admitted that these dark stains, disfiguring pages which but for them would be bright with the things which were beautiful and glorious, go some way to excuse, if not to justify, the obloquy which Western writers have been so prone to cast upon the East. But it is not by considering the evil only, any more than the good only, that it is possible to form a just judgment upon an historic epoch. To judge the Byzantine Empire only by the crimes which defiled the palace would be as unjust as if the French people were to be estimated by nothing but the Massacre of St. Bartholomew, the Reign of Terror, and the Commune of 1871. The dynastic crimes and revolutions of New Rome were not a constant feature in her history. On the contrary, the times of trouble and anarchy were episodes between long periods of peace. They arose either from quarrels in the imperial family itself, which degraded the dignity of the crown, or from the contentions of pretenders struggling among themselves till one or other had worsted his rivals and was able to become the founder of a long dynasty. … The most deplorable epoch in the history of the Byzantine Empire, the period in which assassination and mutilation most abounded, was that in which it was exposed to the influence of the Crusaders, and thus brought into contact with Western Europe. … The Byzantine people, although in every respect the superiors of their contemporaries, were unable entirely to escape the influence of their neighborhood. As the guardians of classical civilization, they strove to keep above the deluge of barbarism by which the rest of the world was then inundated. But it was a flood whose waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth, and sometimes all the high hills were covered, even where might have rested the ark in which the traditions of ancient culture were being preserved. … The Byzantine Empire was predestinated to perform in especial one great work in human history. That work was to preserve civilization during the period of barbarism which we call the Middle Ages. … Constantinople fell, and the whole Hellenic world passed into Turkish slavery. Western Europe looked on with unconcern at the appalling catastrophe. It was in vain that the last of the Palaiologoi cried to them for help. 'Christendom,' says Gibbon, 'beheld with indifference the fall of Constantinople,' … Up to her last hour she had never ceased, for more than a thousand years, to fight. In the fourth century she fought the Goths; in the fifth, the Huns and Vandals; in the sixth, the Slavs; in the seventh, the Persians, the Avars, and the Arabs; in the eighth, ninth, and tenth, the Bulgars, the Magyars, and the Russians; in the eleventh, the Koumanoi, the Petzenegoi, and the Seljoukian Turks; in the twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth, the Ottomans, the Normans, the Crusaders, the Venetians, and the Genoese. No wonder that at last she fell exhausted. The wonder is, how she could keep herself alive so long. But it was by this long battle that she succeeded in saving from destruction, amid the universal cataclysm which overwhelmed the classical world, the civilization of the ancients, modified by the Christian religion. The moral and intellectual development of modern Europe are owing to the Byzantine Empire, if it be true that this development is the common offspring of antiquity upon the one hand and of Christianity upon the other."

The ancient Greek city of Byzantium, which occupied part of the site of the modern city of Constantinople, was founded, according to tradition, by Megarians, in the seventh century B. C. Its situation on the Bosphorus enabled the possessors of the city to control the important corn supply which came from the Euxine, while its tunny fisheries were renowned sources of wealth. It was to the latter that the bay called the Golden Horn was said to owe its name. The Persians, the Lacedæmonians, the Athenians and the Macedonians were successive masters of Byzantium, before the Roman day, Athens and Sparta having taken and retaken the city from one another many times during their wars.

"When the news of the disastrous retreat [of Washington, in 1776] through the Jerseys and the miseries of Valley Forge reached France, many good friends to America began to think that now indeed all was lost. But, the stout heart of Franklin never flinched. 'This is indeed bad news,' said he, 'but ça ira, ça ira [literally, 'this will go, this will go'], it will all come right in the end.' Old diplomats and courtiers, amazed at his confidence, passed about his cheering words. They were taken up by the newspapers; they were remembered by the people, and, in the dark days of the French Revolution, were repeated over and over again on every side, and made the subject of a stirring song which, till the Marseillaise Hymn appeared, had no equal in France."

J. B. McMaster, History of the People of the United States, volume 2, page 89.

"The original words (afterward much changed) were by Ladré, a street singer; and the music was a popular dance tune of the time composed by Bécourt, a drummer of the Grand Opera."

"The original name of the tune to which the words were written is 'Le Carillon National,' and it is a remarkable circumstance that it was a great favourite with the unfortunate Marie Antoinette, who used to play it on the harpsichord."

"An Arab legend asserts that this famous temple was erected by Abraham and his son Ishmael with the aid of the angel Gabriel. Mahomet lent his authority to the legend and devoted to it several chapters in the Koran, and thus it became one of the Mussulman articles of faith. Even before the introduction of Islamism this story was current through a great part of Arabia and spread abroad in proportion as the Ishmaelitish tribes gained ground. … This temple, whose name 'square house' indicates its form, is still preserved. It was very small and of very rude construction. It was not till comparatively recent times that it had a door with a lock. … For a long time the sole sacred object it contained was the celebrated black stone hadjarel-aswad, an aerolite, which is still the object of Mussulman veneration. … We have already mentioned Hobal, the first anthropomorphic idol, placed in the Caaba. This example was soon copied. … The Caaba thus became a sort of Arabian Pantheon, and even the Virgin Mary, with her child on her knees, eventually found a place there."

"The term Cabala is usually applied to that wild system of Oriental philosophy which was introduced, it is uncertain at what period, into the Jewish schools: in a wider sense it comprehended all the decisions of the Rabbinical courts or schools, whether on religious or civil points."

"The philosophic Cabala aspired to be a more sublime and transcendental Rabbinism. It was a mystery not exclusive of, but above their more common mysteries; a secret more profound than their profoundest secrets. It claimed the same guaranty of antiquity, of revelation, of tradition; it was the true, occult, to few intelligible sense of the sacred writings and of the sayings of the most renowned Wise Men; the inward interpretation of the genuine interpretation of the Law and the Prophets. Men went on; they advanced, they rose from the most full and perfect study of the Talmuds to the higher doctrines, to the more divine contemplations of the Cabala. And the Zohar was the Book of the Cabala which soared almost above the comprehension of the wisest. … In its traditional, no doubt unwritten form, the Cabala, at least a Cabala, ascends to a very early date, the Captivity; in its proper and more mature form, it belongs to the first century, and reaches down to the end of the seventh century of our era. The Sepher Yetzira, the Book of Creation, which boasts itself to be derived from Moses, from Abraham, if not from Adam, or even aspires higher, belongs to the earlier period; the Zohar, the Light, to the later. The remote origin of the Cabala belongs to that period when the Jewish mind, during the Captivity, became so deeply impregnated with Oriental notions, those of the Persian or Zoroastrian religion. Some of the first principles of the Cabala, as well as many of the tenets, still more of the superstitions, of the Talmud, coincide so exactly with the Zendavesta … as to leave no doubt of their kindred and affiliation."

"There is in the government of the United States no such thing as a Cabinet in the English sense of the term. But I use the term, not only because it is current in America to describe the chief ministers of the President, but also because it calls attention to the remarkable difference which exists between the great officers of State in America and the similar officers in the free countries of Europe. Almost the only reference in the Constitution to the ministers of the President is that contained in the power given him to require the opinion in writing of the principal officer in each of the executive departments upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices.' All these departments have been created by Acts of Congress. Washington began in 1789 with four only, at the head of whom were the following four officials: Secretary of State, Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary of War, Attorney General. In 1798 there was added a Secretary of the Navy, in 1829 a Postmaster General, and in 1849 a Secretary of the Interior. … Each receives a salary of $8,000 (£1,600). All are appointed by the President, subject to the consent of the Senate (which is practically never refused), and may be removed by the President alone. Nothing marks them off from any other officials who might be placed in charge of a department, except that they are summoned by the President to his private council. None of them can vote in Congress, Art. XI., §6 of the Constitution providing that 'no person holding any office under the United States shall be a member of either House during his continuance in office.'"

"In 1862 a separate Department of Agriculture was established. … In 1889 the head of the Department became Secretary of the Department of Agriculture and a Cabinet officer. A Bureau of Labor under the Interior Department was created in 1884. In 1888 Congress constituted it a separate department, but did not make its head a Secretary, and therefore not a Cabinet officer." There are now (1891) eight heads of departments who constitute the President's Cabinet.

W. W. and W. F. Willoughby, Government and Administration of the United States (Johns Hopkins University Studies, series IX., numbers 1-2), chapter 10.

"Few things in our history are more curious than the origin and growth of the power now possessed by the Cabinet. From an early period the Kings of England had been assisted by a Privy Council to which the law assigned many important functions and duties (see PRIVY COUNCIL). During several centuries this body deliberated on the gravest and most delicate affairs. But by degrees its character changed. It became too large for despatch and secrecy. The rank of Privy Councillor was often bestowed as an honorary distinction on persons to whom nothing was confided, and whose opinion was never asked. The sovereign, on the most important occasions, resorted for advice to a small knot of leading ministers. The advantages and disadvantages of this course were early pointed out by Bacon, with his usual judgment and sagacity: but it was not till after the Restoration that the interior council began to attract general notice. During many years old fashioned politicians continued to regard the Cabinet as an unconstitutional and dangerous board. Nevertheless, it constantly became more and more important. It at length drew to itself the chief executive power, and has now been regarded, during several generations, as an essential part of our polity. Yet, strange to say, it still continues to be altogether unknown to the law. The names of the noblemen and gentlemen who compose it are never officially announced to the public. No record is kept of its meetings and resolutions; nor has its existence ever been recognized by any Act of Parliament. During some years the word Cabal was popularly used as synonymous with Cabinet. But it happened by a whimsical coincidence that, in 1671, the Cabinet consisted of five persons the initial letters of whose names made up the word Cabal, Clifford, Arlington, Buckingham, Ashley, and Lauderdale. These ministers were therefore emphatically called the Cabal; and they soon made that appellation so infamous that it has never since their time been used except as a term of reproach."

"Walpole's work, … the effect of his policy, when it was finally carried through, was to establish the Cabinet on a definite footing, as the seat and centre of the executive government, to maintain the executive in the closest relation with the legislature, to govern through the legislature, and to transfer the power and authority of the Crown to the House of Commons. Some writers have held that the first Ministry in the modern sense was that combination of Whigs whom William called to aid him in government in 1695. Others contend that the second administration of Lord Rockingham, which came into power in 1782, after the triumph of the American colonists, the fall of Lord North, and the defeat of George III., was the earliest Ministry of the type of to-day. At whatever date we choose first to see all the decisive marks of that remarkable system which combines unity, steadfastness, and initiative in the executive, with the possession of supreme authority alike over men and measures by the House of Commons, it is certain that it was under Walpole that its ruling principles were first fixed in parliamentary government, and that the Cabinet system received the impression that it bears in our own time. … Perhaps the most important of all the distinctions between the Cabinet in its rudimentary stage at the beginning of the century and its later practice, remains to be noticed. Queen Anne held a Cabinet every Sunday, at which she was herself present, just as we have seen that she was present at debates in the House of Lords. With a doubtful exception in the time of George III., no sovereign has been present at a meeting of the Cabinet since Anne. … This vital change was probably due to the accident that Anne's successor did not understand the language in which its deliberations were carried on. The withdrawal of the sovereign from Cabinet Councils was essential to the momentous change which has transferred the whole substance of authority and power from the Crown, to a committee chosen by one member of the two Houses of Parliament, from among other members. … The Prime Minister is the keystone of the Cabinet arch. Although in Cabinet all its members stand on an equal footing, speak with equal voice, and, on the rare occasions when a division is taken, are counted on the fraternal principle of one man, one vote, yet the head of the Cabinet is 'primus inter pares,' and occupies a position which, so long as it lasts, is one of exceptional and peculiar authority. It is true that he is in form chosen by the Crown, but in practice the choice of the Crown is pretty strictly confined to the man who is designated by the acclamation of a party majority. … The Prime Minister, once appointed, chooses his own colleagues, and assigns them to their respective offices. … The flexibility of the Cabinet system allows the Prime Minister in an emergency to take upon himself a power not inferior to that of a dictator, provided always that the House of Commons will stand by him. In ordinary circumstances, he leaves the heads of departments to do their own work in their own way. … Just as the Cabinet has been described as being the regulator of relations between Queen, Lords and Commons, so is the Prime Minister the regulator of relations between the Queen and her servants. … Walpole was in practice able to invest himself with more of the functions and powers of a Prime Minister than any of his successors, and yet was compelled by the feeling of the time earnestly and profusely to repudiate both the name and title, and everyone of the pretensions that it involves. The earliest instance in which I have found, the head of the government designated as the Premier is in a letter to the Duke of Newcastle from the Duke of Cumberland in 1746."

"In theory the Cabinet is nothing but a committee of the Privy Council, yet with the Council it has in reality no dealings; and thus the extraordinary result has taken place, that the Government of England is in the hands of men whose position is legally undefined: that while the Cabinet is a word of every-day use, no lawyer can say what a Cabinet is: that while no ordinary Englishman knows who the Lords of the Council are, the Church of England prays, Sunday by Sunday, that these Lords may be 'endued with wisdom and understanding'! that while the collective responsibility of Ministers is a doctrine appealed to by members of the Government, no less than by their opponents, it is more than doubtful whether such responsibility could be enforced by any legal penalties: that, to sum up this catalogue of contradictions, the Privy Council has the same political powers which it had when Henry VIII. ascended the throne, whilst it is in reality composed of persons many of whom never have taken part or wished to take part in the contests of political life."

CABUL: A. D. 1840-1841.
   Occupation by the British.
   Successful native rising.
   Retreat and destruction of the British army.

CABUL: A. D. 1878-1880.
Murder of Major Cavagnari, the British Resident.
Second occupation by the English.

CACIQUE.

"Cacique, lord of vassals, was the name by which the natives of Cuba, designated their chiefs. Learning this, the conquerors applied the name generally to the rulers of wild tribes, although in none of the dialects of the continent is the word found."

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY; also, TEXAS: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

CADE'S REBELLION.

This was the first of the decisive series of battles in which the Arab followers of Mohammed effected the overthrow of the Persian Empire (the Sassannian) and the conquest of its dominions. It was desperately fought, A. D. 636, under the walls of the fortified town of Cadesia (Kadisiyeh in the Arabic) situated near the Sea of Nedjef, between the Euphrates and the Arabian desert. The Persians numbered 120,000 men, under Rustam, their best general. The Arabs were but 30,000 strong at first, but were reinforced the second day. They were commanded by Sa'ad and led by the redoubtable Kaled. The battle was obstinately prolonged through four days, but ended in the complete rout of the Persians and the death of Rustam, with 40,000 of his men.

CADMEANS, OR KADMEIANS.

The Cadurci were one of the tribes of ancient Gaul whose chief place was Divona, now Cahors on the Lot.

An ancient people so-called by the Greeks, whose territory was on the south-western border of the Caspian Sea,—the district of modern Persians called Ghilan or Ghulan. Their native name was "Gaels."

A famous siege and reduction of the Scottish castle of
Caerlaverock, in Dumfriesshire, by Edward I. A. D. 1300.

CAERLEON.

"Caer," like the "Ceaster" of the Saxons, is a corruption by Celtic tongues of the Roman "Castrum." "In memory of the second legion, which had been so long established at the Silurian Isca, they [the Welsh] gave to the ruins of that city the name of Caer-Legion, the city of the legion, now softened to Caerleon."

"Octavius was the adopted heir of Julius Cæsar; from the moment of his adoption the surname Cæsar became appropriated to him, and it was by this name accordingly that he was most familiarly known to his own contemporaries. Modern writers for the sake of distinction have agreed for the most part to confine this illustrious title to the first of the Cæsarian dynasty; but we should doubtless gain a clearer conception of the gradual process by which the idea of a dynastic succession fixed itself in the minds of the Romans, if we followed their own practice in this particular, and applied the name of Cæsar, not to Augustus only, but also to his adopted son Tiberius, to the scions of the same lineage who succeeded him, and even to those of later and independent dynasties. As late indeed as the reign of Diocletian, the Roman monarch was still eminently the Cæsar. It was not till the close of the third century of our era that that illustrious title was deposed from its preeminence, and restricted to a secondary and deputed authority. Its older use was however revived and perpetuated, though less exclusively, through the declining ages of the empire, and has survived with perhaps unbroken continuity even to our own days. The Austrian Kaiser still retains the name, though he has renounced the succession, of the Cæsars of Rome, while the Czar of Muscovy pretends to derive his national designation by direct inheritance from the Cæsars of Byzantium."

CÆSAR-AUGUSTA.

One of the fortified posts established in Spain by the Emperor Augustus, B. C. 27, and in which the veterans of the legions were settled. The place and its name (corrupted) survive in modern Saragossa.

CÆSAREA IN CAPPADOCIA: A. D. 260.
Capture, massacre and pillage by Sapor, king of Persia.

CÆSAROMAGUS IN BRITAIN.

CÆSAR'S TOWER.

CAFFA.

CAIRN.

CAIRO: A. D. 1879-1883.
Revolt against the Khedive and the foreign control.
Occupation by the British.

CAIROAN.

   "After the loss of the true Calabria [to the Lombards] the
   vanity of the Greeks substituted that name instead of the more
   ignoble appellation of Bruttium; and the change appears to
   have taken place before the time of Charlemagne."

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 45; note. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

Immediately after his great victory won at Creci, the English king, Edward III. laid siege to the strong city of Calais. He built a town of huts round the city, "which he called 'Newtown the Bold,' and laid it out with a market, regular streets and shops, and all the necessary accommodation for an army, and hither were carried in vast stores of victuals and other necessaries, obtained by ravaging the country round and by shipment from England." Calais held out for a year, and angered the king so by its obstinacy that when, in August, 1347, starvation forced its people to surrender, he required that six of the chief burgesses should be given up to him, with halters round their necks, for execution. Eustache St. Pierre and five others nobly offered themselves for the sacrifice, and it was only by the weeping intercession of Queen Philippa that Edward was induced to spare their lives. He expelled all the inhabitants who refused to take an oath of fealty to him and repeopled the town with Englishmen.

CALAIS: A. D. 1596-1598.
Surprise and capture by the Spaniards.
Restoration to France.

"It was to repress the never-ceasing incursions of the Mohammedans, as well as to return these incursions with interest, that, in the time of Fernando [Fernando II. of the early Spanish kingdom of Leon], two military orders, those of Calatrava and Santiago [or St. Jago—or St. James of Compostella], were instituted. The origin of the former order was owing to the devotion of two Cistercian monks; St. Raymond, abbot of Fitero, and his companion, the friar Diego Velasquez. These intrepid men, who had both borne arms previous to their monastic profession, indignant at the cowardice of the Templars, who resigned into the king of Castile's hands the fortress of Calatrava, which had been confided to their defense by the emperor Alfonso, proposed, in 1158, to the regency of that kingdom, to preserve that position against the assailants. The proposal was readily accepted. The preaching of the warlike abbot was so efficacious, that in a short time he assembled 20,000 men, whom he conducted to Calatrava, and among whom were not a few of his own monks. There he drew up the institutions of the order, which took its name from the place, and which in its religious government long followed the Cistercian rule, and wore the same monastic habit,—a white robe and scapulary. [By pope Benedict XIII. the habit was dispensed with, and the knights allowed to marry 'once.'—Foot-note.] The other order commenced in 1161. Some robbers of Leon, touched with their past enormities, resolved to make reparation for them, by defending the frontiers against the incursions of the Mohammedans. Don Pedro Fernandez—if the 'don' has not been added to give something like respectability to the origin—was the chief founder of the order. He engaged the brethren to assume the rule of St. Augustine, in addition to the ordinary obligations of knighthood. His military and monastic fraternity was approved by king Fernando; at whose suggestion the knights chose Santiago as their patron, whose bloody sword, in form of a cross, became their professional symbol. These two orders were richly endowed by successive kings of Leon and Castile, until their possessions became immense."

S. A. Dunham, History of Spain and Portugal, book 3, section 2, chapter 1, division 2.

In 1396 the knights of the order of St. James of Compostella "received permission to marry. In 1493, the Grand Mastership was united to the crown of Spain." In 1523 the right of nomination to the Grand Mastership of the Order of Calatrava was transferred from the Pope to the crown of Spain, "and since that time the order has gradually merged into a court institution. The state dress is a white robe, with a red cross on the left breast. The permission to marry has been enjoyed since 1540."

A naval confederation, formed at a very early period of Greek history, by the seven maritime cities of Orchomenus, Athens, Ægina, Epidaurus, Hermione, Prasiæ and Nauplia against the kings of Argos. The island of Calauria, off the eastern point of Argolis, was the center of the confederacy.

CALEDONIA SYLVA.

One of the wild tribes which occupied the Highlands of Scotland when the Romans held Britain, and whose name they gave finally to all the Highland tribes and to that part of the island.

"This was a correction and improvement of the Julian [see CALENDAR, JULIAN]. It was discovered at length, by more accurate astronomical observations, that the true solar or tropical year was 365 days, 5 hours, 48 minutes, and 57 seconds; whence it fell short of the Julian or Egyptian computation of 365 days and 6 hours by an interval of 11 minutes, 3 seconds, … which, in the course of 130 years, amounted to a whole day. At the end of 130 years, therefore, the tropical year began a day earlier than the civil, or fell back a day behind it. … In the time of Pope Gregory XIII., A. D. 1582, … the [vernal] equinox was found to be on the 11th of March, having fallen back ten days. In order, therefore, to bring it forward to its former place of the 21st, he left out ten days in October, calling the 5th the 15th day of that month. Whence in that year of confusion, the 22d day of December became the first of January, A. D. 1583, which was the first year of the Gregorian Era. In making this correction, he was principally assisted by the celebrated mathematician Clavius. But to prevent the repetition of this error in future, a further reformation of the Julian Calendar was wanting. Because the vernal equinox fell backwards three days in the course of 390 years, Gregory, chiefly by the assistance of Aloysius Lillius, decreed that three days should be omitted in every four centuries: namely, that every first, second and third centurial year, which would otherwise be bissextile, should be a common year; but that every fourth centurial year should remain bissextile. Thus, the years A. D. 1700, 1800, 1900, and 2100, 2200, 2300, were to be common years; but A. D. 1600, 2000, 2400, to remain leap years. By this ingenious reform, the Julian Calendar is rendered sufficiently accurate for all the purposes of chronology, and even of astronomy, for 6000 years to come. … The Gregorian or reformed Julian year was not adopted in England until A. D. 1751, when, the deficiency from the time of the Council of Nice then amounting to eleven days, this number was struck out of the month of September, by Act of Parliament; and the 3d day was counted the 14th, in that year of confusion. The next year A. D. 1752, was the first of the new style, beginning January 1, instead of March 25."

The change from Old Style, as the Julian Calendar, and dates according with it, now came to be called to New Style, or the reformed, Gregorian Calendar, was made in Spain, Portugal, part of Italy, part of the Netherlands, France, Denmark, and Lorraine, in A. D. 1582; in Poland in 1586; in Hungary in 1587; in Catholic Switzerland in 1583; in Catholic Germany in 1584; in most parts of Protestant Germany, and Switzerland in 1700 and 1701, and, lastly, in England, in 1751. In Russia, Greece, and the East generally, the Old Style is still retained.

   "The epoch of the Julian Era, which precedes the common or
   Christian Era by forty-five years, is the reformation of the
   Roman calendar by Julius Cæsar, who ordained that the Year of
   Rome 707 should consist of 15 months, forming altogether 445
   days; that the ensuing year, 708, should be composed of 365
   days; and that every fourth year should contain 366 days, the
   additional day being introduced after the 6th of the calends
   of March, i. e., the 24th of February, which year he called
   Bissextile, because the 6th of the calends of March were then
   doubled. Julius Cæsar also divided the months into the number
   of days which they at present contain. The Roman calendar,
   which was divided into calends, nones and ides, was used in
   most public instruments throughout Europe for many centuries.
   … The calend is the 1st day of each month. The ides were
   eight days in each month: in March, May, July and October the
   ides commence on the 15th, and in all other months on the 13th
   day. The nones are the 5th day of each month, excepting in
   March, May, July and October, when the nones fall on the 7th
   day. The days of the month were reckoned backwards instead of
   forwards: thus, the 3d calends of February is the 30th of
   January; the 4th calends of February the 29th January. …
   Excepting July and August, which were named after Julius and
   Augustus Cæsar, having been called Quintilis and Sextilis, the
   Roman months bore their present names.
{348}
   An error prevailed for 37 years after the death of Julius
   Cæsar, from reckoning every third instead of every fourth year
   a bissextile, or leap year, as if the year contained 365 days,
   8 hours. When this mistake was detected, thirteen
   intercalations had occurred instead of ten, and the year
   consequently began three days too late: the calendar was,
   therefore, again corrected, and it was ordered that each of
   the ensuing twelve years should contain 365 days only, and
   that there should not be any leap year until A. U. C. 760 or
   A. D. 7. From that time the years have been calculated without
   mistakes, and the Roman year has been adopted by all Christian
   nations, though about the sixth century they began to date
   from the birth of our Saviour."

"It might naturally have been expected that Julius Cæsar would have so ordered his reformed solar year, as to begin on the day of the winter solstice, which, in the 'Year of Confusion' [i. e., the year in which the error of the calendar was corrected] was supposed to fall on December 25. But he chose to begin his new year on the first of January following, because on that day the moon was new, or in conjunction with the sun, at 7 hours, 6 minutes and 35 seconds after noon. By this means he began his year on a most high or holy day among the ancient Druids, with whose usages he was well acquainted, and also made his new year the first of a lunar cycle."

For an account of the subsequent correction of the Julian calendar, see CALENDAR, GREGORIAN

CALENDS.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SHOSHONEAN FAMILY, and MODOCS AND
THEIR CALIFORNIA NEIGHBORS.

CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1543-1781.
   Origin of the name.
   Early Spanish exploration and settlement.
   The founding of the Franciscan missions.

"The settlements of the Spanish missionaries within the present limits of the State of California date from the first foundation of San Diego in 1769. The missions that were later founded north of San Diego were, with the original establishment itself, for a time known merely by some collective name, such as the Northern Missions. But later the name California, already long since applied to the country of the peninsular missions to the Southward, was extended to the new land, with various prefixes or qualifying phrases; and out of these the definitive name Alta [or Upper] California at last came, being applied to our present country during the whole period of the Mexican Republican ownership. As to the origin of the name California, no serious question remains that this name, as first applied, between 1535 and 1539 to a portion of Lower California, was derived from an old printed romance, the one which Mr. Edward Everett Hale rediscovered in 1862, and from which he drew this now accepted conclusion. For, in this romance, the name California was already before 1520 applied to a fabulous island, described as near the Indies and also 'very near the Terrestrial Paradise.' Colonists whom Cortes brought to the newly discovered peninsula in 1535, and who returned the next year, may have been the first to apply the name to this supposed island, on which they had been for a time resident. The coast of Upper California was first visited during the voyage of the explorer Juan Cabrillo in 1542-43. Several landings were then made on the coast and on the islands, in the Santa Barbara region. … In 1579 Drake's famous visit took place [see AMERICA: A. D. 1572-1580]. … It is … almost perfectly sure that he did not enter or observe the Golden Gate, and that he got no sort of idea of the existence of the Great Bay. … This result of the examination of the evidence about Drake's voyage is now fairly well accepted, although some people will always try to insist that Drake discovered our Bay of San Francisco. The name San Francisco was probably applied to a port on this coast for the first time by Cermeñon, who, in a voyage from the Philippines in 1595 ran ashore, while exploring the coast near Point Reyes. It is now, however, perfectly sure that neither he nor any other Spanish navigator before 1769 applied this name to our present bay, which remained utterly unknown to Europeans during all this period. … In 1602-3, Sebastian Vizcaino conducted a Spanish exploring expedition along the California coast. … From this voyage a little more knowledge of the character of the coast was gained; and thenceforth geographical researches in the region of California ceased for over a century and a half. With only this meagre result we reach the era of the first settlement of Upper California. The missions of the peninsula of Lower California passed, in 1767, by the expulsion of the Jesuits, into the hands of the Franciscans; and the Spanish government, whose attention was attracted in this direction by the changed conditions, ordered the immediate prosecution of a long-cherished plan to provide the Manilla ships, on their return voyage, with good ports of supply and repairs, and to occupy the northwest land as a safeguard against Russian or other aggressions. … Thus began the career of Spanish discovery and settlement in California. The early years show a generally rapid progress, only one great disaster occurring,—the destruction of San Diego Mission in 1775, by assailing Indians. But this loss was quickly repaired. In 1770 the Mission of San Carlos was founded at Monterey. In 1772, a land expedition, under Fages and Crespi, first explored the eastern shore of our San Francisco Bay, in an effort to reach by land the old Port of San Francisco. … After 1775, the old name began to be generally applied to the new Bay, and so, thenceforth, the name Port of San Francisco means what we now mean thereby. In 1775, Lieutenant Ayala entered the new harbor by water. In the following year the Mission at San Francisco was founded, and in October its church was dedicated. Not only missions, however, but pueblos, inhabited by Spanish colonists, lay in the official plan of the new undertakings. The first of these to be established was San Jose, founded in November, 1777. The next was Los Angeles, founded in September, 1781."

      ALSO IN:
      H. H. Bancroft,
      History of the Pacific States, volume 13
      (California, volume 1).

CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1846-1847.
The American conquest and its unexplained preludes.

"Early in 1846, the Americans in California numbered about 200, mostly able-bodied men, and who in their activity, enterprise, and audacity, constituted quite a formidable element in this sparsely inhabited region. The population of California at this time was 6,000 Mexicans and 200,000 Indians. We now come to a period in the history of California that has never been made clear, and respecting which there are conflicting statements and opinions. The following facts were obtained by careful inquiry of intelligent parties who lived in California during the period mentioned, and who participated in the scenes narrated. The native Californians appear to have entertained no very strong affection for their own government, or, rather, they felt that under the influences at work they would inevitably, and at no very distant period, become a dismembered branch of the Mexican nation; and the matter was finally narrowed down to this contested point, namely, whether this state surgery should be performed by Americans or English, the real struggle being between these two nationalities. In the northern part of the territory, such native Californians as the Vallejos, Castros, etc., with the old American settlers, Leese, Larkin, and others, sympathized with the United States, and desired annexation to the American republic. In the south, Pio Pico, then governor of the territory, and other prominent native Californians, with James Alexander Forbes, the English consul, who settled in Santa Clara in 1828, were exerting themselves to bring the country under English domination. … This was the state of affairs for two or three years previous to the Mexican War. For some months before the news that hostilities between the United States and Mexico had commenced [see MEXICO: A. D. 1846-1847] reached California, the belief that such an event would certainly occur was universal throughout the territory. This quickened the impulses of all parties, and stimulated the two rivals—the American and English—in their efforts to be the first to obtain a permanent hold of the country. The United States government had sent Colonel Fremont to the Pacific on an exploring expedition. Colonel Fremont had passed through California, and was on his way to Oregon, when, in March, 1846, Lieutenant Gillespie, of the United States marine service, was sent from Washington with dispatches to Colonel Fremont. Lieutenant Gillespie went across Mexico to Mazatlan, and from thence by sea to California. He finally overtook Fremont early in June, 1846, a short distance on the road to Oregon, and communicated to him the purport of his dispatches, they having been committed to memory and the papers destroyed before he entered Mexico. What these instructions authorized Colonel Fremont to do has never been promulgated, but it is said they directed him to remain in California, and hold himself in readiness to cooperate with the United States fleet, in case war with Mexico should occur. Fremont immediately returned to California, and camped a short time on Feather River, and then took up his headquarters at Sutter's Fort. A few days after, on Sunday, June 14th, 1846, a party of fourteen Americans, under no apparent command, appeared in Sonoma, captured the place, raised the Bear flag, proclaimed the independence of California, and carried off to Fremont's headquarters four prominent citizens, namely, the two Vallejos, J. P. Leese, and Colonel Prudhon. On the consummation of these achievements, one Merritt was elected captain. This was a rough party of revolutionists, and the manner in which they improvised the famous Bear flag shows upon what slender means nations and kingdoms are sometimes started. From an estimable old lady they obtained a fragmentary portion of her white skirt, on which they painted what was intended to represent a grizzly bear, but not being artistic in their work … the Mexicans, with their usual happy faculty on such occasions, called it the 'Bandera Colchis,' or 'Hog Flag.' This flag now ornaments the rooms of the Pioneer Society in San Francisco. On the 18th of June, 1846, William B. Ide, a native of New England, who had emigrated to California the year previous, issued a proclamation as commander-in-chief of the fortress of Sonoma. This proclamation declared the purpose to overthrow the existing government, and establish in its place the republican form. … General Castro now proposed to attack the feebly manned post at Sonoma, but he was frustrated by a rapid movement of Fremont, who, on the 4th of July, 1846, called a meeting of Americans at Sonoma; and this assembly, acting under his advice, proclaimed the independence of the country, appointed Fremont Governor, and declared war against Mexico. During these proceedings at Sonoma, a flag with one star floated over the headquarters of Fremont at Sutter's Fort. The meaning of this lone-star flag no one seems to have understood. … Just as Fremont, with his company, had started for the coast to confront Castro, and act on the aggressive generally, he was suddenly brought to a stand by the astounding intelligence that Commodore Sloat had arrived at Monterey, and that, on the 7th of July, 1846, he had raised the American flag and taken possession of the place; also, that, by command of Commodore Sloat, Commander Montgomery, of the United States sloop-of-war Portsmouth, then lying in San Francisco Bay, had, on the 8th of July, taken possession of Yerba Buena and raised the American flag on the plaza. This of course settled the business for all parties. The Mexican flag and the Bear flag were lowered, and in due time, nolens volens, all acquiesced in the flying of the Stars and Stripes. … Commodore Sloat … had heard of the commencement of hostilities on the Rio Grande, … sailed from Mazatlan for California, took possession of the country and raised the American flag on his own responsibility. These decisive steps on the part of Commodore Sloat were not taken a moment too soon, as on the 14th of July the British man-of-war Collingwood, Sir George Seymour commanding, arrived at Monterey," intending, as Sir George acknowledged, "to take possession of that portion of the country." In August, Commodore Sloat relinquished the command of the Pacific squadron to Commodore Stockton, who "immediately instituted bold and vigorous measures for the subjugation of the territory. All his available force for land operations was 350 men—sailors and marines. {350} But so rapid and skilful were Stockton's movements, and so efficient was the cooperation of Fremont with his small troop, that California was effectually conquered in January, 1847. During all this period the people of the United States were ignorant of what was transpiring in California and vice versa. But the action of Commodore Sloat … and … Commodore Stockton … did but anticipate the wishes of the United States Government, which had, in June, 1846, dispatched General Kearney across the country from Fort Leavenworth [see NEW MEXICO: A. D. 1846], at the head of 1,600 men, with orders to conquer California, and when conquered to assume the governorship of the territory. General Kearney arrived in California via San Pasqual with greatly diminished forces, December, 1846, a few weeks before active military operations in that region ceased."

      ALSO IN:
      H. H. Bancroft,
      History of the Pacific States, volume 17
      (California, volume 5), chapters 1-16.

CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1848-1849.
The discovery of Gold and the immigration of the Gold-hunters.

"In the summer of 1847 the American residents of California, numbering perhaps 2,000, and mostly established near San Francisco Bay, looked forward with hope and confidence to the future. Their government held secure possession of the whole territory, and had announced its purpose to hold it permanently. … It so happened that at this time one of the leading representatives of American interests in California was John A. Sutter, a Swiss by his parentage; a German by the place of his birth in Baden; an American by residence and naturalization in Missouri; and a Mexican by subsequent residence and naturalization in California. In 1839 he had settled at the junction of the Sacramento and American rivers, near the site of the present city of Sacramento." His rancho became known as Sutter's Fort. In the summer of 1847 he planned the building of a flour-mill, and "partly to get lumber for it, he determined to build a saw-mill also. Since there was no good timber in the valley, the saw-mill must be in the mountains. The site for it was selected by James W. Marshall, a native of New Jersey, a skilful wheelwright by occupation, industrious, honest, generous, but 'cranky,' full of wild fancies, and defective in some kinds of business sense. … The place for his mill was in the small valley of Coloma, 1,500 feet above the level of the sea, and 45 miles from Sutter's Fort, from which it was accessible by wagon without expense for road-making." Early in 1848 the saw-mill was nearly completed; "the water had been turned into the race to carry away some of the loose dirt and gravel, and then had been turned off again. On the afternoon of Monday, the 24th of January, Marshall was walking in the tail-race, when on its rotten granite bed-rock he saw some yellow particles and picked up several of them. The largest were about the size of grains of wheat. … He thought they were gold, and went to the mill, where he told the men that he had found a gold mine. At the time, little importance was attached to his statement. It was regarded as a proper subject for ridicule. Marshall hammered his new metal and found it malleable; he put it into the kitchen fire, and observed that it did not readily melt or become discolored; he compared its color with gold coin; and the more he examined it the more he was convinced that it was gold." He soon found an opportunity to show his discovery to Sutter, who tested the metal with acid and by careful weighing, and satisfied himself that Marshall's, conclusion was correct. In the spring of 1848 San Francisco, a village of about 700 inhabitants, had two newspapers, the 'Californian' and the 'California Star,' both weeklies. The first printed mention of the gold discovery was a short paragraph in the former, under date of the 15th of March, stating that a gold mine had been found at Sutter's Mill, and that a package of the metal worth $30 had been received at New Helvetia. … Before the middle of June the whole territory resounded with the cry of 'gold'! … Nearly all the men hurried off to the mines. Workshops, stores, dwellings, wives, and even ripe fields of grain, were left for a time to take care of themselves. … 'The reports of the discovery, which began to reach the Atlantic States in September, 1849, commanded little credence there before January; but the news of the arrival of large amounts of gold at Mazatlan, Valparaiso, Panama, and New York, in the latter part of the winter, put an end to all doubt, and in the spring there was such a rush of peaceful migration as the world had never seen. In 1849, 25,000—according to one authority 50,000—immigrants went by land, and 23,000 by sea from the region east of the Rocky Mountains, and by sea perhaps 40,000 from other parts of the world. … The gold yield of 1848 was estimated at $5,000,000; that of 1849 at $23,000,000; that of 1850 at $50,000,000; that of 1853 at $65,000,000; and then came the decline which has continued until the present time [1890] when the yield is about $12,000,000."

J. S. Hittell, The Discovery of Gold in California (Century Magazine, February, 1891).

ALSO IN: E. E. Dunbar, The Romance of the Age, or the Discovery of Gold in California.

      H. H. Bancroft,
      History of the Pacific States,
      volume 18 (California, volume 6) chapters 2-4.

"The association of citizens known as the vigilance committee, which was organized in San Francisco on the 15th of May, 1856, has had such an influence on the growth and prosperity of that city that now [1877], at the end of 21 years, a true account of the origin and subsequent action of that association will be read with interest. For some time the corruption in the courts of law, the insecurity of the ballot-box at elections, and the infamous character of many of the public officials, had been the subject of complaint, not only in San Francisco, but throughout the State of California. It was evident to the honest and respectable citizens of, San Francisco that … it would become the duty of the people to protect themselves by reforming the courts of law, and by taking the ballot-box from the hands of greedy and unprincipled politicians." The latter were represented by a newspaper called the Sunday Times, edited by one James P. Casey. {351} The opinion of the better classes of citizens was voiced by the Evening Bulletin, whose editor was James King. On the 14th of May, 1856, King was shot by Casey, in the public street, receiving a wound from which he died six days later, and intense excitement of feeling in the city was produced. Casey surrendered himself and was lodged in jail. During the evening of the 14th some of the members of a vigilance committee which had been formed in 1851, and which had then checked a free riot of crime in the suddenly populated and unorganized city, by trying and executing a few desperadoes, came together and determined the organization of another committee for the same purpose. "The next day (the 15th) a set of rules and regulations were drawn up which each member was obliged to sign. The committee took spacious rooms, and all citizens of San Francisco having the welfare of the city at heart were invited to join the association. Several thousands enrolled themselves in a few days. … The members of the vigilance committee were divided into companies of 100, each company having a captain. Early on Sunday (the 18th) orders were sent to the different captains to appear with their companies ready for duty at the headquarters of the committee, in Sacramento Street, at nine o'clock. When all the companies had arrived, they were formed into one body, in all about 2,000 men. Sixty picked men were selected as a guard for the executive committee. At half-past eleven the whole force moved in the direction of the jail. A large number of spectators had collected, but there was no confusion, no noise. They marched through the city to Broadway, and there formed in the open space before the jail. … The houses opposite the jail were searched for men and arms secreted there, the committee wishing to prevent any chance of a collision which might lead to bloodshed. A cannon was then brought forward and placed in front of the jail, the muzzle pointed at the door." The jailer was now called upon to deliver Casey to the committee, and complied, being unable to resist. One Charles Cora, who had killed a United States marshal the November previous, was taken from the jail at the same time. The two prisoners were escorted to the quarters of the vigilance committee and there confined under guard. Two days afterwards (May 20th) Mr. King died. Casey and Cora were put on trial before a tribunal which the committee had organized, were condemned to death, and were hanged, with solemnity, on the 22d, from a platform erected in front of the building on Sacramento Street. "The executive committee, finding that the power they held was perfectly under control, and that there was no danger of any popular excesses, determined to continue their work and rid the country of the gang of ruffians which had for so long a time managed elections in San Francisco and its vicinity. These men were all well known, and were ordered to leave San Francisco. Many went away. Those who refused to go were arrested and taken to the rooms of the committee, where they were confined until opportunities offered for shipping them out of the country. … The governor of California at this time was Mr. J. Neely Johnson. … The major-general of the second division of state militia (which included the city and county of San Francisco) was Mr. William T. Sherman [afterwards well known in the world as General Sherman] who had resigned his commission in the United States army and had become a partner in the banking house of Lucas, Turner & Co., in San Francisco. … Toward the end of May, Governor Johnson … appealed to General Sherman for advice and assistance in putting a stop to the vigilance committee. At this time General Wool was in command of the United States troops, and Commodore Farragut had charge of the navy yard." General Wool was applied to for arms, and Commodore Farragut was asked to station a vessel of war at anchor off San Francisco. Both officers declined to act as requested, having no authority to do so. "When Governor Johnson returned to Sacramento, a writ was issued, at his request, by Judge Terry of the supreme court, commanding the sheriff of San Francisco to bring before him one William Mulligan, who was then in the hands of the vigilance committee." The vigilance committee refused to surrender their prisoner to the sheriff, and General Sherman was ordered to call out the militia of his division to support that officer. At the same time the governor issued a proclamation declaring the city of San Francisco in a state or insurrection. General Sherman found it impossible to arm his militia for service, and resigned the command. The governor sought and obtained arms elsewhere; but the schooner which brought them was seized and the arms possessed by the committee. On attempting to arrest the person who had charge of the schooner, one of the vigilance committee's policemen, named Hopkins, was stabbed by the afterwards notorious Judge Terry, who, with some others, had undertaken to protect the man. "The signal for a general meeting under arms was sounded, and in a short time 1,500 men were reported ready for duty. In an hour 4,000 men were under arms and prepared to act against the so-caned law-and-order party, who were collected in force at the different armories. These armories were surrounded." Judge Terry was demanded and delivered up, and all the arms and ammunition in the armories were removed. "In this way was settled the question of power between the vigilance committee, who wished to restore order and were working to establish an honest judiciary and a pure ballot, and their opponents, the law-and-order party, who wished to uphold the dignity of the law by means of a butcher's knife in the hands of a judge of the supreme court. Although the committee were masters in San Francisco, their position was made more precarious by the very fact of their having disarmed their opponents. The attention of the whole Union was attracted to the state of things in California, and it was rumored that instructions had been sent from Washington to all the United States vessels in the Pacific to proceed at once to San Francisco; and that orders were on the way, placing the United States military force in California at the disposal of Governor Johnson. The committee went on steadily with their work. … All the important changes which they had undertaken had been carried out successfully, and they would gladly have given up the responsibility they had assumed had it not been for the case of Judge Terry. … At last the physicians announced that Hopkins was out of danger, and on the 7th of August Judge Terry was released. … Having got rid of Judge Terry the committee prepared to bring their labours to a close, and on the 18th of August the whole association, numbering over 5,000 men, after marching through the principal streets of San Francisco, returned to their headquarters in Sacramento Street, where after delivering up their arms they were relieved from duty. … In the following November there was an election of city and county officers. Every thing went off very quietly. A 'people's ticket', bearing the names of thoroughly trustworthy citizens, irrespective of party, was elected by a large majority, and for the last 20 years San Francisco has had the reputation of being one of the best governed cities in the United States."

T. G. Cary, The San Francisco Vigilance Committee (Atlantic Monthly, December 1877).

ALSO IN: H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States, volume 18 (California, volume 6), chapter 25.

CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1877-1880.
Denis Kearney and the Sand Lot Party.
The new state constitution.

"Late in 1877 a meeting was called in San Francisco to express sympathy with the men then on strike at Pittsburg in Pennsylvania. … Some strong language used at this meeting, and exaggerated by the newspapers, frightened the business men into forming a sort of committee of public safety. … The chief result of the incident was further irritation of the poorer classes, who perceived that the rich were afraid of them, and therefore disposed to deal harshly with them. Shortly after came an election of municipal officers and members of the State legislature. The contest, as is the custom in America, brought into life a number of clubs and other organizations, purporting to represent various parties or sections of a party, and among others a body calling itself' 'The Working men's Trade and Labor Union,' the Secretary of which was a certain Denis Kearney. When the election was over, Kearney declared that he would keep his union going, and form a working man's party. He was a drayman by trade, Irish by birth, brought up a Roman Catholic, but accustomed to include his religion among the established institutions he reviled. He had borne a good character for industry and steadiness till some friend 'put him into stocks,' and the loss of what he hoped to gain is said to have first turned him to agitation. He had gained some faculty in speaking by practice at a Sunday debating club called the Lyceum of Self Culture. … Kearney's tongue, loud and abusive, soon gathered an audience. On the west side of San Francisco, as you cross the peninsula from the harbor towards the ocean, there is (or then was) a large open space, laid out for building, but not yet built on, covered with sand, and hence called the Sand Lot. Here the mob had been wont to gather for meetings; here Kearney formed his party. At first he had merely vagabonds to listen, but one of the two great newspapers took him up. These two, the Chronicle and the Morning Call, were in keen rivalry, and the former seeing in this new movement a chance of going ahead, filling its columns with sensational matter and increasing its sale among working men, went in hot and strong for the Sand Lot party. … The advertisement which the Chronicle gave him by its reports and articles, and which he repaid by advising working men to take it, soon made him a personage; and his position was finally assured by his being, along with several other speakers, arrested and prosecuted on a charge of riot, in respect of inflammatory speeches delivered at a meeting on 'the top of Nob Hill, one of the steep heights which make San Francisco the most picturesque of American cities. The prosecution failed, and Kearney was a popular hero. Clerks and the better class of citizens now began to attend his meetings, though many went from mere curiosity, as they would have gone to a circus; the W. P. C. (Working man's Party of California) was organized as a regular party, embracing the whole State of California, with Kearney for its President. … The Sand Lot party drew its support chiefly from the Democrats, who here, as in the East, have the larger share of the rabble: hence its rise was not unwelcome to the Republicans, because it promised to divide and weaken their old opponents; while the Democrats, hoping ultimately to capture it, gave a feeble resistance. Thus it grew the faster, and soon began to run a ticket of its own at city and State elections. It carried most of the city offices, and when the question was submitted to the people whether a new Constitution should be framed for California, it threw its vote in favor of having one and prevailed. … Next came, in the summer of 1878, the choice of delegates to the convention which was to frame the new Constitution. The Working man's Party obtained a substantial representation in the convention, but its nominees were ignorant men, without experience or constructive ideas. … However; the working men's delegates, together with the more numerous and less corruptible delegates of the farmers, got their way in many things and produced that surprising instrument by which California is now governed. …

1. It restricts and limits in every possible way the powers of the State legislature, leaving it little authority except to carry out by statutes the provisions of the Constitution. It makes 'lobbying,' i. e., the attempt to corrupt a legislator, and the corrupt action of a legislator, felony.

2. It forbids the State legislature or local authorities to incur debts beyond a certain limit, taxes uncultivated land equally with cultivated, makes sums due on mortgage taxable in the district where the mortgaged property lies, authorizes an income tax, and directs a highly inquisitorial scrutiny of everybody's property for the purposes of taxation.

3. It forbids the 'watering of stock,' declares that the State has power to prevent corporations from conducting their business so as to 'infringe the general well-being of the State'; directs the charges of telegraph and gas companies, and of water-supplying bodies, to be regulated and limited by law; institutes a railroad commission with power to fix the transportation rates on all railroads and examine the books and accounts of all transportation companies.

   4. It forbids all corporations to employ any Chinese, debars
   them from the suffrage, forbids their employment on any public
   works, annuls all contracts for 'coolie labour,' directs the
   legislature to provide for the punishment of any company which
   shall import Chinese, to impose conditions on the residence of
   Chinese, and to cause their removal if they fail to observe
   these conditions. It also declares that eight hours shall
   constitute a legal day's work on all public works. When the
   Constitution came to be submitted to the vote of the people,
   in May 1879, it was vehemently opposed by the monied men. …
{353}
   The struggle was severe, but the Granger party commanded so
   many rural votes, and the Sand Lot party so many in San
   Francisco (whose population is nearly a third of that of the
   entire State) that the Constitution was carried, though by a
   small majority, only 11,000 out of a total of 145,000 citizens
   voting. … The next thing was to choose a legislature to
   carry out the Constitution. Had the same influences prevailed
   in this election as prevailed in that of the Constitutional
   Convention, the results might have been serious. But
   fortunately there was a slight reaction. … A series of
   statutes was passed which gave effect to the provisions of the
   Constitution in a form perhaps as little harmful as could be
   contrived, and certainly less harmful than had been feared
   when the Constitution was put to the vote. Many bad bills,
   particularly those aimed at the Chinese, were defeated, and
   one may say generally that the expectations of the Sand Lot
   men were grievously disappointed. While all this was passing,
   Kearney had more and more declined in fame and power. He did
   not sit either in the Constitutional Convention or in the
   legislature of 1880. The mob had tired of his harangues,
   especially as little seemed to come of them, and as the
   candidates of the W. P. C. had behaved no better in office
   than those of the old parties. He had quarreled with the
   Chronicle. He was, moreover, quite unfitted by knowledge or
   training to argue the legal, economical, and political
   questions involved in the new Constitution so that the
   prominence of these questions threw him into the background.
   … Since 1880 he has played no part in Californian politics,
   and is indeed so insignificant that no one cares to know where
   he goes or what he does."

J. Bryce, The American Commonwealth, chapter 90 (volume 2), and appendix to volume 1 (containing the text of the Constitution of California).

CALIGULA.

The title Caliph, or Khalifa, simply signifies in the Arabic language "Successor." The Caliphs were the successors of Mahomet.

CALLEVA.

One of the greater towns of Roman Britain, the walls of which, found at Silchester enclose an area of three miles in circuit.

Fought in the wars of the Romans with the Persians, on the banks of the Euphrates, Easter Eve. A. D. 531. The Romans, commanded by Belisarius, suffered an apparent defeat, but they checked an intended advance of the Persians on Antioch.

"In this year, B. C. 149, the tribune L. Calpurnius Piso Frugi, who was one of the Roman writers of annals, proposed and carried a Lex Calpurnia, which made a great change in the Roman criminal procedure. Before this time and to the third Punic war, when a magistratus had misconducted himself in his foreign administration by oppressive acts and spoliation, there were several ways of inquiring into his offence. … But these modes of procedure were insufficient to protect the subjects of Rome against bad magistratus. … The remedy for these evils was the establishment of a court under the name of Quaestio Perpetua de pecuniis repetundis, the first regular criminal court that existed at Rome. Courts similarly constituted were afterwards established for the trial of persons charged with other offences. The Lex Calpurnia defined the offence of Repetundæ, as it was briefly named, to be the taking of money by irregular means for the use of a governor. The name Repetundæ was given to this offence, because the object of the procedure was to compel the governor to make restitution. … The court consisted of a presiding judge … and of a body of judices or jurymen annually appointed. The number of this body of judices is not known, but they were all senators. The judge and a jury taken from the body of the judices tried all the cases which came before them during one year; and hence came the name Quaestio Perpetua or standing court, in opposition to the extraordinary commissions which had hitherto been appointed as the occasion arose. We do not know that the Lex Calpurnia contained any penalties. As far as the evidence shows, it simply enabled the complainants to obtain satisfaction."

CALVIN AND THE REFORMATION.

CAMARILLA.

A circle of irresponsible chamber counsellors—courtiers—surrounding a sovereign with influences superior to those of his responsible ministers.

CAMBALU, OR CAMBALEC.

"Camboricum was without doubt a very important town, which commanded the southern fens. It had three forts or citadels, the principal of which occupied the district called the Castle-end, in the modern town of Cambridge, and appears to have had a bridge over the Cam, or Granta; of the others, one stood below the town, at Chesterton, and the other above it, at Granchester. Numerous roads branched off from this town. … Bede calls the representative of Camboricum, in his time, a 'little deserted city,' and tells us how, when the nuns of Ely wanted a coffin for their saintly abbess, Etheldreda, they found a beautiful sculptured sarcophagus of white marble outside the city walls of the Roman town."

CAMBRAI: A. D. 1595-1598.
   End of the Principality of governor Balagni.
   Siege and capture by the Spaniards.
   Retention under the treaty of Vervins.

In 1689, when Claverhouse was raising the Highland clans in favor of James II., "William Cleland, who had fought with distinguished bravery at Bothwell, and was one of the few men whom Claverhouse feared, made an offer to the [Scottish] Estates to raise a regiment among the Cameronians, under the colonelcy of the Earl of Angus, and the offer was accepted. Such was the origin of the Cameronian regiment. Its first lieutenant-colonel was Cleland; its first chaplain was Shields. Its courage was first tried at Dunkeld, where these 800 Covenanted warriors rolled back the tide of Celtic invasion; and since that, undegenerate though changed, it has won trophies in every quarter of the world."

"Besides the regular authorities known to and avowed by the law … there existed under the Bourbon rule at Naples [overthrown by Garibaldi in 1860] a self-constituted authority more terrible than either. It was not easy to obtain exact proof of the operation of this authority, for it was impatient of question, its vengeance was prompt, and the instrument of that vengeance was the knife. In speaking of it as one authority it is possible to err, for different forms or branches of this secret institution at times revealed their existence by the orders which they issued. This secret influence was that of the Camorra, or Camorristi, a sort of combination of the violence of the middle ages, of the trades union tyranny of Sheffield, and of the blackmail levy of the borders. The Camorristi were a body of unknown individuals who subsisted on the public, especially on the smaller tradespeople. A man effected a sale of his ware; as the customer left his shop a man of the people would enter and demand the tax on the sale for the Camorra. None could escape from the odious tyranny. It was impalpable to the police. It did not confine itself to the industry of illicit taxation. It issued its orders. When the Italian Parliament imposed stamp duties, that sensibly increased the cost of litigation, that indispensable luxury of the Neapolitans, the advocates received letters warning them to cease all practice in the courts so long as these stamp duties were enforced. 'Otherwise,' continued the mandate, 'we shall take an early opportunity of arranging your affairs.' Signed by 'the Camorra of the avvocati.' The arrangement hinted at was to be made by the knife. … The Italian government, much to its credit, made a great onslaught on the Camorristi. Many were arrested, imprisoned or exiled, some even killed one another in prison. But the total eradication of so terrible a social vice must be [published in 1867] a work of great difficulty, perseverance and time."

CAMP OF REFUGE AT ELY.

CAMPAGNA, OR CAMPANIA.

"'The name of Campania,' says Pelligrini, 'which was first applied to the territory of Capua alone, extended itself by successive re-arrangements of the Italian provinces over a great part of Central Italy, and then gradually shrank back again into its birth-place, and at last became restricted to the limits of one city only, Naples, and that one of the least importance in Italy. What naturally followed was the total disuse of the name.' … The term Campania, therefore, became obsolete except in the writings of a few mediaeval authors, whose statements created some confusion by their ignorance of the different senses in which it had at different times been used. An impression seems, however, to have prevailed that the district of Capua had been so named on account of its flat and fertile nature, and hence every similar tract of plain country came to be called a campagna in the Italian language. The exact time when the name, which had thus become a mere appellative, was applied to the Roman Campagna is not accurately ascertained. … It will be seen that the term Roman Campagna is not a geographical definition of any district or province with clearly fixed limits, but that it is a name loosely employed in speaking of the tract which lies round the city of Rome."

"The history of the Campus Martius presents us with a series of striking contrasts. It has been covered in successive ages, first by the cornfields of the Tarquinian dynasty, then by the parade ground of the great military republic, next by a forest of marble colonnades and porticoes, and, lastly, by a confused mass of mean and filthy streets, clustering round vast mansions, and innumerable churches of every size and description. … During the time of the Republic, the whole Campus seems to have been considered state property and was used as a military and athletic exercise ground and a place of meeting for the comitia centuriata."

"We have hitherto employed this name to designate the whole of the meadow land bounded by the Tiber on one side, and on the other by the Collis Hortulorum, the Quirinal and the Capitoline. … But the Campus Martius, strictly speaking, was that portion only of the flat ground which lies in the angle formed by the bend of the stream. According to the narrative of Livy, it was the property of the Tarquins, and upon their expulsion was confiscated, and then consecrated to Mars; but Dionysius asserts that it had been previously set apart to the god and sacrilegiously appropriated by the tyrant. … During the republic the Campus Martius was employed specially for two purposes. (1.) As a place for holding the constitutional assemblies (comitia) especially the Comitia Centuriata, and also for ordinary public meetings (conciones). (2.) For gymnastic and warlike sports. For seven centuries it remained almost entirely open. … In the Comitia, the citizens, when their votes were taken, passed into enclosures termed septa, or ovilia, which were, for a long period, temporary wooden erections."

CAMULODUNUM.

CANAAN. CANAANITES.

"Canaan signifies 'the lowlands,' and was primarily the name of the coast on which the great cities of Phoenicia were built. As, however, the inland parts of the country were inhabited by a kindred population, the name came to be extended to designate the whole of Palestine, just as Palestine itself meant originally only the small territory of the Philistines."

CANADA. (NEW FRANCE.)

"The year after the failure of Verrazano's last enterprise, 1525, Stefano Gomez sailed from Spain for Cuba and Florida; thence he steered northward in search of the long hoped-for passage to India, till he reached Cape Race, on the southeastern extremity of Newfoundland. The further details of his voyage remain unknown, but there is reason to suppose that he entered the Gulf of St. Lawrence and traded upon its shores. An ancient Castilian tradition existed that the Spaniards visited these coasts before the French, and having perceived no appearance of mines or riches, they exclaimed frequently 'Aca nada' [signifying 'here is nothing']; the natives caught up the sound, and when other Europeans arrived, repeated it to them. The strangers concluded that these words were a designation, and from that time this magnificent country bore the name of Canada. … Father Hennepin asserts that the Spaniards were the first discoverers of Canada, and that, finding nothing there to gratify their extensive desires for gold, they bestowed upon it the appellation of Capo di Nada, 'Cape Nothing,' whence by corruption its present name. … La Potherie gives the same derivation. … This derivation would reconcile the different assertions of the early discoverers, some of whom give the name of Canada to the whole valley of the St. Lawrence; others, equally worthy of credit, confine it to a small district in the neighbourhood of Stadacona (now Quebec). … Duponceau, in the Transactions of the [American] Philosophical Society, of Philadelphia, founds his conjecture of the Indian origin of the name of Canada upon the fact that, in the translation of the Gospel of St. Matthew into the Mohawk tongue, made by Brandt, the Indian chief, the word Canada is always used to signify a village. The mistake of the early discoverers, in taking the name of a part for that of the whole, is very pardonable in persons ignorant of the Indian language. … The natural conclusion … is, that the word Canada was a mere local appellation, without reference to the country; that each tribe had their own Canada, or collection of huts, which shifted its position according to their migrations."

"Canada was the name which Cartier found attached to the land and there is no evidence that he attempted to displace it. … Nor did Roberval attempt to name the country, while the commission given him by the king does not associate the name of Francis or any new name therewith. … There seems to have been a belief in New England, at a later day, that Canada was derived from William and Emery de Caen (Cane, as the English spelled it), who were in New France in 1621, and later. Cf. Morton's 'New English Canaan,' Adam's edition, page 235, and Josselyn's 'Rarities,' page 5; also, J. Reade, in his history of geographical names in Canada, printed in New Dominion Monthly, xi. 344."

B. F. De Costa, Jacques Cartier and his Successors (Narrative and Critical History of America, volume 4, chapter 2), and Editor's foot-note.

"Cartier calls the St. Lawrence the 'River of Hochelaga,' or 'the great river of Canada.' He confines the name of Canada to a district extending from the Isle aux Coudres in the St. Lawrence to a point at some distance above the site of Quebec. The country below, he adds, was called by the Indians Saguenay, and that above, Hochelaga. In the map of Gerard Mercator (1569) the name Canada is given to a town, with an adjacent district, on the river Stadin (St. Charles). Lescarbot, a later writer, insists that the country on both sides of the St. Lawrence, from Hochelaga to its mouth, bore the name of Canada. In the second map of Ortelius, published about the year 1572; New France, Nova Francia is thus divided:—'Canada,' a district on the St. Lawrence above the River Saguenay; 'Chilaga' (Hochelaga), the angle between the Ottawa and the St. Lawrence; 'Saguenai,' a district below the river of that name; 'Moscosa,' south of the St. Lawrence and east of the River Richelieu; 'Avacal,' west and south of Moscosa; 'Norumbega,' Maine and New Brunswick; 'Apalachen,' Virginia, Pennsylvania, etc.; 'Terra Corterealis,' Labrador; 'Florida,' Mississippi, Alabama, Florida. Mercator confines the name of New France to districts bordering on the St. Lawrence. Others give it a much broader application. The use of this name, or the nearly allied names of Francisca and La Francisane, dates back, to say the least, as far as 1525, and the Dutch geographers are especially free in their use of it, out of spite to the Spaniards. The derivation of the name of Canada has been a point of discussion. It is, without doubt, not Spanish, but Indian. … Lescarbot affirms that Canada is simply an Indian proper name, of which it is vain to seek a meaning. Belleforest also calls it an Indian word, but translates it 'Terre,' as does also Thevet."

F. Parkman, Pioneers of France in the New World: Champlain, chapter 1, foot-note.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY;
      HURONS; OJIBWAYS; SIOUAN FAMILY;
      ATHAPASCAN FAMILY, AND ESKIMAUAN FAMILY.

CANADA: A. D. 1501-1504. Portuguese, Norman and Breton fishermen on the Newfoundland banks.

CANADA: A. D. 1534-1535.
Possession taken by Jacques Cartier for the King of France.

CANADA: A. D. 1541-1603.
Jacques Cartier's last undertaking.
Unsuccessful French attempts at Colonization.

CANADA: A. D. 1603-1605.
   The Beginning of Champlain's Career in the New World.
   Colonization at Port Royal.
   Exploration of the New England coast.

In Pontgravé's expedition of 1603 to New France [see AMERICA: A. D. 1541-1603], "Samuel de Champlain, a captain in the navy, accepted a command …. at the request of De Chatte [or De Chastes]; he was a native of Saintonge, and had lately returned to France from the West Indies, where he had gained a high name for boldness and skill. Under the direction of this wise and energetic man the first successful efforts were made to found a permanent settlement in the magnificent province of Canada, and the stain of the errors and disasters of more than seventy years was at length wiped away. Pontgravé and Champlain sailed for the St. Lawrence in 1603," explored it as far as the rapids of St. Louis, and then returned to France. They found that the patron of their undertaking, De Chastes, was dead. "Pierre du Guast, Sieur de Monts, had succeeded to the powers and privileges of the deceased, with even a more extensive commission. De Monts was a Calvinist, and had obtained from the king the freedom of religious faith for himself and his followers in America, but under the engagement that the Roman Catholic worship should be established among the natives. … The trading company established by De Chatte was continued and increased by his successor. With this additional aid De Monts was enabled to fit out a more complete armament than had ever hitherto been engaged in Canadian commerce. He sailed from Havre on the 7th of March, 1604, with four vessels. Of these, two under his immediate command were destined for Acadia. Champlain, Poutrincourt, and many other volunteers, embarked their fortunes with him, purposing to cast their future lot in the New World. A third vessel was dispatched under Pontgravé to the Strait of Canso, to protect the exclusive trading privileges of the company. The fourth steered for Tadoussac, to barter for the rich furs brought by the Indian hunters from the dreary wilds of the Saguenay. On the 6th of May De Monts reached a harbor on the coast of Acadia;" but, for some reason not to be understood, his projected colony was quartered on the little islet of St. Croix, near the mouth of the river of that name, which became subsequently the boundary between Maine and New Brunswick. Meantime, the fine harbor, now Annapolis, then named Port Royal, had been discovered, and was granted, with a large surrounding territory, by De Monts to De Poutrincourt, who proposed to settle upon it as its feudal proprietor and lord. The colony at St. Croix having been housed and put in order, De Poutrincourt sailed for France, intending to bring his family and establish himself at Port Royal. De Monts, Champlain, and those who remained, suffered a winter of terrible hardships, and thirty-five died before spring. De Monts now resolved to seek a better site for his infant settlement, and, finding no other situation so good he resumed possession of that most desirable Port Royal which he had granted away to Poutrincourt and removed his colony thither. Champlain, meanwhile, in the summer of 1605, had explored the coast southward far down the future home of the English Puritans, looking into Massachusetts Bay, taking shelter in Plymouth harbor and naming it Port St. Louis, doubling Cape Cod (which he called Cap Blanc), turning back at Nausett Harbor, and gaining on the whole a remarkable knowledge of the country and its coast. Soon after Champlain's return from this coasting voyage, De Monts was called home to France, by news of machinations that were threatening to extinguish his patent, and Pontgravé was left in command of the colony at Port Royal.

In De Monts' petition to the king for leave to colonize Acadia that region was defined "as extending from the 40th to the 46th degree of north latitude, or from Philadelphia to beyond Montreal."

      ALSO IN:
      E. F. Slafter,
      Memoir preface to "Voyages of Samuel de Champlain"
      (Prince Society, 1880), chapters 1-5.

"De Monts found his pathway in France surrounded with difficulties. The Rochelle merchants who were partners in the enterprise desired a return for their investments. The Baron de Poutrincourt, who was still possessed with the desire to make the New World his home, proved of assistance to De Monts. De Poutrincourt returned to Acadia and encouraged the colonists, who were on the verge of deserting Port Royal. With De Poutrincourt emigrated at this time a Parisian advocate, named Mark Lescarbot, who was of great service to the colony. During the absence of De Poutrincourt on an exploring expedition down the coast, Lescarbot drained and repaired the colonists' fort, and made a number of administrative changes, much improving the condition of the settlers. The following winter was one of comfort, indeed of enjoyment. … In May, however, the sad news reached the colony that the company of the merchants on whom it depended had been broken up. Their dependence being gone, on the 30th of July most of the colonists left Acadia for France in vessels sent out for them. For two years the empty buildings of Port Royal stood, a melancholy sight, with not a white person in them, but under the safe protection of Memberton, the Micmak chief, who proved a trusty friend to the French. The opposition to the company of Rochelle arose from various causes. In addition to its financial difficulties the fact of De Monts being a Protestant was seized on as the reason why nothing was being done in the colony to christianize the Indians. Accordingly when De Monts, fired with a new scheme for exploring the northwest passage, turned over the management of Acadian affairs to De Poutrincourt, who was a sincere Catholic, some of the difficulties disappeared. It was not, however, till two years later that arrangements were made for a new Acadian expedition."

CANADA: A. D. 1608-1611.
   Champlain's third and fourth expeditions.
   His settlement at Quebec, discovery of Lake Champlain, and
   first wars with the Iroquois.

"De Monts in no way lost heart, and he resolved to continue in the career of exploration for settlement. A new, expedition was determined on, and De Monts selected the Saint Lawrence as the spot where the effort should be made. Champlain counselled the change. In Nova Scotia and on the coast of New Brunswick and Maine he had been struck by the number of ports affording protection to vessels from sea, and by the small number of Indians whom he had met. In Nova Scotia he would be exposed to rival attempts at settlement, and at the same time he could not see the possibility of obtaining Indian allies. In Canada the full control would remain with those who first made a settlement on the Saint Lawrence, and Champlain counted the native tribes as powerful instruments in carrying out his policy. We have the key here to his conduct in assisting the Hurons in their wars. …. In 1608 Champlain started for the St. Lawrence. Pontgravé was with the expedition. A settlement was made at Quebec, as the most suitable place. Some ground was cleared, buildings were commenced, when a conspiracy was discovered. The ringleader was hanged and three of those actively implicated were sent back to France with Pontgravé on his return in the autumn. Matters now went peaceably on. The summer was passed in completing the 'Abitation de Quebec,' of which Champlain has left us a sketch. It was situated in the present Lower Town on the river bank, in the corner where Notre Dame Street meets Sous le Fort Street. It was here Champlain laid the foundation for the future city. Winter came, the scurvy carrying off twenty of their number. … In June, Des Marais, Pontgravé's son-in-law, arrived, telling him that Pontgravé was at Tadousac. Champlain proceeded thither. The question had then to be discussed, what policy should be followed with the Indians? Should they be aided by what force Champlain could command, in the expedition which they had resolved to make against the Iroquois? It is plain that no advance in discovery could have been made without their assistance, and that this assistance could only have been obtained by rendering them service. … With the view of making explorations beyond the points then known by Europeans, Champlain in the middle of June ascended the St. Lawrence. About a league and a half west of the river Saint Anne, they were joined by a party of Algonquins who were to form a part of the expedition. Champlain tells us of their mortal feud with the Iroquois, a proof that in no way he created it. They all returned to Quebec, where there was festivity for some days. It was brought to a close and the war parties started; Champlain with nine men, Des Marais and a pilot, joined it [them?]. With his Indian allies he ascended the Richelieu and reached Lake Champlain, the first white man who saw its waters: subsequently for 165 years to be the scene of contest between the Indian and white man, the French and English, the revolted Colonies and the Mother Country. … The advance up Lake Champlain was made only by night. They reached Crown Point. They were then in the Iroquois domain; very shortly they knew of the presence of the enemy." On the 30th of July the invaders fought a battle with the Iroquois, who fled in terror before the arquebuse of Champlain, which killed two of their chiefs and wounded a third. Soon after his return to Quebec from this expedition—the beginning of the long war of the French with the Iroquois—Champlain was summoned to France. The patent of De Monts had been revoked and he could not obtain its renewal. "Nevertheless, De Monts, with his associates decided to continue their efforts, and, in March, 1610, Champlain again started for Canada." After reaching Quebec his stay this time was short. He joined his Indian allies in another expedition of war, and helped them to win another victory over the Iroquois, at a place on the Richelieu, one league above Sorel. On returning he got news of the assassination of Henry IV. and started at once for France. {358} "The death of Henry IV. exercised great influence on the fortunes of Canada. He had personally taken interest in Champlain's voyages, and his energetic mind was well qualified to direct the fortunes of a growing colony. Louis XIII. was not then ten years old. Mary of Medecis was under the control of her favourites, Leonora Galigai, and her husband, Concino Concini. Richelieu had not then appeared on the scene. … The Jesuits were becoming all-powerful at Court. … France was unsettled and disordered. The Protestants, not without provocation, were acting with passion and without judgment. The assassination of the King had alarmed them. The whole kingdom was threatened with convulsion and anarchy, and Canada was to pass out of the notice of those in power: and, in the sense of giving aid, half a century was to elapse before the French Government could comprehend the duty of taking part in the defence of the country, and of protecting the persons of those living in New France. The ground was to be regarded simply as a field for the active trader, side by side with the devoted missionary. Thus the Government fell virtually under the control of the Jesuits, who, impatient of contra aimed only at the establishment of their authority, which was to bring the colony to the verge of destruction." Champlain returned to his colony in the spring of 1611, facing its prospects with such courage as he found in his own stout heart.

ALSO IN: E. B. O'Callaghan, editor., Doc. History of New York, volume 3, pages 1-9.

CANADA: A. D. 1610-1613.
The Acadian colony revived, but destroyed by the English of
Virginia.

Port Royal was left uninhabited till 1610, when Poutrincourt returned at the instance of the king to make the new settlement a central station for the conversion of the Indians,—a work which made some Jesuit missionaries prominent in the history of the New World. His son followed in 1611, with fathers Pierre Biard, and Enemond Masse. Madame la Marquise de Guercheville, a pious Catholic, to whom De Monts had ceded his title to Acadia, and to whom afterwards the French king granted the whole territory now covered by the United States, was the chief patroness of these voyages. Desiring to make another settlement, she despatched a vessel in 1613 with two more Jesuits, father Quentin and Gilbert Du Thet, and forty-eight men under La Saussaye. "When they arrived at Port Royal, they only found five persons—fathers Biard and Masse, their servant, the apothecary Hébert, and another. All the rest were absent, either hunting or trading. They showed the Queen's letter to Hébert, who represented Biencourt in his absence, and taking the two Jesuits, with their servant and luggage aboard, again set sail. It was their intention to establish the colony at Pentagoet, which father Biard had visited the year previous, but when off Grand Manan a thick fog came on, which lasted for two days, and when it became clear, they put into a harbor on the eastern side of Mount Desert Island, in Maine. The harbor was deep, secure and commodious, and they judged this would be a favorable site for the colony, and named the place St. Sauveur. … La Saussaye was advised by the principal colonists to erect a sufficient fortification before commencing to cultivate the soil, but he disregarded this advice, and nothing was completed in the way of defence, except the raising of a small palisaded structure, when a storm burst upon the colony, which was little expected by its founders. In 1607 a company of London merchants had founded a colony on the James River, in Virginia, where, after suffering greatly from the insalubrity of the climate and want of provisions, they had attained a considerable degree of property. In 1613 they sent a fleet of eleven vessels to fish on the coast of Acadia, convoyed by an armed vessel under the command of Captain Samuel Argal, who had been connected with the colony since 1609. Argal was one of those adventurers formed in the school of Drake, who made a trade of piracy, but confined themselves to the robbery of those who were so unfortunate as not to be their own countrymen. … When Argal arrived at Mount Desert, he was told by the Indians that the French were there in the harbor with a vessel. Learning that they were not very numerous, he at once resolved to attack them. All the French were ashore when Argal approached, except ten men, most of whom were unacquainted with the working of a ship. Argal attacked the French with musketry, and at the second discharge Gilbert Du Thet fell hack, mortally wounded; four others were severely injured, and two young men, named Lemoine and Neveau, jumped overboard and were drowned. Having taken possession of the vessel, Argal went ashore and informed La Saussaye that the place where they were was English territory, and included in the charter of Virginia, and that they must remove; but, if they could prove to him that they were there under a commission from the crown of France, he would treat them tenderly. He then asked La Saussaye to show him his commission; but, as Argal, with unparalleled indecency, had abstracted it from his chest while the vessel was being plundered by his men, the unhappy governor was of course unable to produce it. Argal then assumed a very lofty tone. … When Argal arrived in Virginia, he found that his perfidious theft of the French governor's commission was likely to cause his prisoners to be treated as pirates. They were put into prison and in a fair way of being executed, in spite of Argal's remonstrances, until struck with shame and remorse, he produced the commission which he had so dishonestly filched from them, and the prisoners were set free. But the production of this document, while it saved the lives of one set of Frenchmen, brought ruin upon all the others who remained in Acadia. The Virginia colonists … resolved to send Argal to destroy all the French settlements in Acadia, and erase all traces of their power. … The only excuse offered for this piratical outrage of Argal—which was committed during a period of profound peace—was the claim which was made by England to the whole continent of North America, founded on the discoveries of the Cabots more than a century before. That claim might, perhaps, have been of some value if followed by immediate occupancy, as was the case with the Spaniards in the South, but that not having been done, and the French colony being the oldest, it was entitled to, at least, as much consideration as that of Virginia. Singularly enough, this act produced no remonstrance from France."

      ALSO IN:
      W. C. Bryant and S. H. Gay,
      Popular History of the United States,
      volume 1, chapter 12.

CANADA: A. D. 1611-1616.
The founding of Montreal.
Champlain's invasion of the Iroquois in New York.

"In 1611 Champlain again returned to America … and on the 28th of May proceeded in search of his allies, whom he was to meet by appointment. Not finding them he employed his time in choosing a site for a new settlement, higher up the river than Quebec. After a careful survey, he fixed upon an eligible spot in the vicinity of Mont Royal. His choice has been amply justified by the great prosperity to which this place, under the name of Montreal, has subsequently risen. Having cleared a considerable space of ground, he fenced it in by an earthen ditch and planted grain in the enclosure. At length, on the 13th of June, three weeks after the time appointed, a party of his Indian friends appeared. … As an evidence of their good will they imparted much valuable information respecting the geography of this continent, with which they seemed to be tolerably well acquainted as far south as the Gulf of Mexico. They readily agreed to his proposal to return shortly with 40 or 50 of his people to prosecute discoveries and form settlements in their country if he thought proper. They even made a request that a French youth should accompany them, and make observations upon their territory and tribe. Champlain again returned to France, with a view of making arrangements for more extensive operations; but this object was now of very difficult accomplishment. De Monts, who had been appointed governor of Saintonge, was no longer inclined to take the lead in measures of this kind, and excused himself from going to court by stating the urgency of his own affairs. He therefore committed the whole conduct of the settlement to Champlain, advising him, at the same time, to seek some powerful protector, whose influence would overcome any opposition which might be made to his plans. The latter was so fortunate as to win over, almost immediately, the Count de Soissons to aid him in his designs. This nobleman obtained the title of lieutenant-general of New France; and, by a formal agreement, transferred to Champlain all the functions of that high office. The Count died soon after, but Champlain found a still more influential friend in the Prince of Conde, who succeeded to all the privileges of the deceased, and transferred them to him in a manner equally ample. These privileges, including a monopoly of the fur trade, gave great dissatisfaction to the merchants; but Champlain endeavored to remove their principal objection, by permitting as many of them as chose to accompany him to the New World, and to engage in this traffic. In consequence of this permission, three merchants from Normandy, one from Rochelle, and one from St. Malo, accompanied him. They were allowed the privileges of a free trade on contributing six men each to assist in projects of discovery, and giving one-twentieth of their profits towards defraying the expenses of the settlement. In the beginning of March [1613] the expedition sailed from Harfleur, and on the 7th of May arrived at Quebec. Champlain now engaged in a new project." His new project was a voyage of exploration up the Ottawa River, which he accomplished with great difficulty, through the aid of his Indian allies, but from which he returned disappointed in the hope he had entertained of discovering the northern sea and a way to India thereby. The next summer found Champlain again in France, where "matters still continued favorable for the colony. The Prince of Conde retained his influence at Court, and no difficulty was consequently found in equipping a small fleet, to carry out settlers and supplies from Rouen and St. Malo. On board of this fleet came four fathers of the order of the Recollets, whose benevolence induced them to desire the conversion of the Indians to Christianity. These were the first priests who settled in Canada. Champlain arrived safely, on the 25th of May, at Tadoussac, whence he immediately pushed forward to Quebec, and subsequently to the usual place of Indian rendezvous, at the Lachine Rapids. Here he found his Algonquin and Huron allies full of projects of war against the Iroquois, whom they now proposed to assail among the lakes to the westward, with a force of 2,000 fighting men."

"Champlain found the Hurons and their allies preparing for an expedition against their ancient enemies, the Iroquois. Anxious to reconnoitre the hostile territory, and also to secure the friendship of the Canadian savages, the gallant Frenchman resolved to accompany their warriors. After visiting the tribes at the head waters of the Ottawa, and discovering Lake Huron [at Georgian Bay], which, because of its 'great extent,' he named 'La Mer Douce,' Champlain, attended by an armed party of ten Frenchmen, accordingly set out toward the south, with his Indian allies. Enraptured with the 'very beautiful and pleasant country' through which they passed, and amusing themselves with fishing and hunting, as they descended the chain of 'Shallow Lakes,' which discharge their waters through the River Trent, the expedition reached the banks of Lake Ontario. Crossing the end of the lake, 'at the outlet of the great River of Saint Lawrence,' and passing by many beautiful islands on the way, the invaders followed the eastern shore of Ontario for fourteen leagues, toward their enemy's country. … Leaving the shores of the lake, the invaders continued their route inland to the southward, for 25 or 30 leagues." After a journey of five days, "the expedition arrived before the fortified village of the Iroquois, on the northern bank of the Onondaga Lake, near the site of the present town of Liverpool. The village was inclosed by four rows of palisades, made of large pieces of timber closely interlaced. The stockade was 30 feet high, with galleries running around like a parapet." In the siege which followed the Iroquois were dismayed by the firearms of Champlain and his men, and by the operation of a moveable tower with which he advanced to their stockade and set fire to it. But his Indian allies proved incapable of acting in any rational or efficient way, or to submit to the least direction, and the attack was abortive. After a few days the invading force retreated, carrying Champlain with them and forcing him to remain in the Huron country until the following spring (1616), when he made his way back to Montreal.

The above account, which fixes on Onondaga Lake the site of the Iroquois fort to which Champlain penetrated, does not agree with the views of Parkman, O'Callaghan, and some other historians, who trace Champlain's route farther westward in New York; but it accepts the conclusions reached by O. H. Marshall, J. V. H. Clark, and other careful students of the question. Mr. MacMullen, in the "History of Canada" quoted above, finds an extraordinary route for the expedition via Lakes Huron and St. Clair, to the vicinity of Detroit.

      ALSO IN:
      O. H. Marshall,
      Champlain's Expedition against the Onondagas.
      Champlain's Voyages (Prince Society). 1880.

      E. B. O'Callaghan, editor,
      Doc. History of New York,
      volume 3, pages 10-24.

CANADA: A. D. 1616-1628.
   Champlain and the fur traders.
   The first Jesuit mission.
   Creation of the Company of the Hundred Associates.

"The exploration in the distant Indian territories which we have just described in the preceding pages was the last made by Champlain. He had plans for the survey of other regions yet unexplored, but the favorable opportunity did not occur. Henceforth he directed his attention more exclusively than he had hitherto done to the enlargement and strengthening of his colonial plantation, without such success, we regret to say, as his zeal, devotion and labors fitly deserved. The obstacles that lay in his way were insurmountable. The establishment or factory, we can hardly call it a plantation, at Quebec, was the creature of a company of merchants. They had invested considerable sums in shipping, buildings, and in the employment of men, in order to carry on a trade in furs and peltry with the Indians, and they naturally desired remunerative returns. This was the limit of their purpose in making the investment. … Under these circumstances, Champlain struggled on for years against a current which he could barely direct, but by no means control. … He succeeded at length in extorting from the company a promise to enlarge the establishment to 80 persons, with suitable equipments, farming implements, all kinds of seeds, and domestic animals, including cattle and sheep. But when the time came, this promise was not fulfilled. Differences, bickerings and feuds sprang up in the company. Some wanted one thing, and some wanted another. The Catholics wished to extend the faith of their church into the wilds of Canada, while the Huguenots desired to prevent it, or at least not to promote it by their own contributions. The company, inspired by avarice and a desire to restrict the establishment to a mere trading post, raised an issue to discredit Champlain. It was gravely proposed that he should devote himself exclusively to exploration, and that the government and trade should henceforth be under the direction and control of Pont Gravé. But Champlain … obtained a decree ordering that he should have the command at Quebec, and at all other settlements in New France, and that the company should abstain from any interference with him in the discharge of the duties of his office." In 1620 the Prince de Condé sold his viceroyalty to the Duke de Montmorency, then high-admiral of France, who commissioned Champlain anew, as his lieutenant, and supported him vigorously. Champlain had made voyages to Canada in 1617 and 1618, and now, in 1620, he proceeded to his post again. At Quebec he began immediately the building of a fort, which he called fort St. Louis. The company of associates opposed this work, and so provoked the Duke of Montmorency by their conduct that "in the spring of 1621, he summarily dissolved the association of merchants, which he denominated the 'Company of Rouen and St. Malo,' and established another in its place. He continued Champlain in the office of lieutenant, but committed all matters relating to trade to William de Caen, a merchant of high standing, and to Émeric de Caen, the nephew of the former, a good naval captain." In the course of the following year, however, the new and the old trading companies were consolidated in one. "Champlain remained at Quebec four years before again returning to France. His time was divided between many local enterprises of great importance. His special attention was given to advancing the work on the unfinished fort, in order to provide against incursions of the hostile Iroquois, who at one time approached the very walls of Quebec, and attacked unsuccessfully the guarded house of the Recollects on the St. Charles." In the summer of 1624 Champlain returned again to France, where the Duke de Montmorency was just selling, or had sold, his viceroyalty to the Duke de Ventadour. "This nobleman, of a deeply religious cast of mind, had taken holy orders, and his chief purpose in obtaining the viceroyalty was to encourage the planting of Catholic missions in New France. As his spiritual directors were Jesuits, he naturally committed the work to them. Three fathers and two lay brothers of this order were sent to Canada in 1625, and others subsequently joined them. … Champlain was reappointed lieutenant, but remained in France two years." Returning to Quebec in July, 1626, he found, as usual, that everything but trade had suffered neglect in his absence. Nor was he able, during the following year, to improve much the prospects of the colony. As a colony, "it had never prospered. The average number composing it had not exceeded about 50 persons. At this time it may have been somewhat more, but did not reach a hundred. A single family only appears to have subsisted by the cultivation of the soil. The rest were sustained by supplies sent from France. … The company as a mere trading association, was doubtless successful. … The large dividends that they were able to make, intimated by Champlain to be not far from forty per centum yearly, were, of course, highly satisfactory to the company. … Nearly twenty years had elapsed since the founding of Quebec, and it still possessed only the character of a trading post, and not that of a colonial plantation. This progress was satisfactory neither to Champlain, to the Viceroy, nor to the Council of State. In the view of these several interested parties, the time had come for a radical change in the organization of the company. Cardinal de Richelieu had risen by his extraordinary ability as a statesman, a short time anterior to this, into supreme authority. … He lost no time in organizing measures. … The company of merchants whose finances had been so skilfully managed by the Caens was by him at once dissolved. A new one was formed, denominated 'La Compagnie de la Nouvelle-France,' consisting of a hundred or more members, and commonly known as the Company of the Hundred Associates. It was under the control and management of Richelieu himself. {361} Its members were largely gentlemen in official positions. … Its authority extended over the whole domain of New France and Florida. … It entered into an obligation … within the space of 15 years to transport 4,000 colonists to New France. … The organization of the company … was ratified by the Council of State on the 6th of May, 1628."

E. F. Slafter, Memoir of Champlain (Voyages: Prince Society, 1880, volume 1), chapter 9.

ALSO IN: Père Charlevoix, History of New France, translated by J. G. Shea, book 4 (volume 2).

CANADA: A. D. 1628-1635.
Conquest and brief occupation by the English.
Restoration to France.

"The first care of the new Company was to succor Quebec, whose inmates were on the verge of starvation. Four armed vessels, with a fleet of transports commanded by Roquemont, one of the associates, sailed from Dieppe with colonists and supplies in April, 1628; but nearly at the same time another squadron, destined also for Quebec, was sailing from an English port. War had at length broken out in France. The Huguenot revolt had come to a head. Rochelle was in arms against the king; and Richelieu, with his royal ward, was beleaguering it with the whole strength of the kingdom. Charles I. of England, urged by the heated passions of Buckingham, had declared himself for the rebels, and sent a fleet to their aid. … The attempts of Sir William Alexander to colonize Acadia had of late turned attention in England towards the New World; and, on the breaking out of the war, an expedition was set on foot, under the auspices of that singular personage, to seize on the French possessions in North America. It was a private enterprise, undertaken by London merchants, prominent among whom was Gervase Kirke, an Englishman of Derbyshire, who had long lived at Dieppe, and had there married a Frenchwoman. Gervase Kirke and his associates fitted out three small armed ships, commanded respectively by his sons David, Lewis and Thomas. Letters of marque were obtained from the king, and the adventurers were authorized to drive out the French from Acadia and Canada. Many Huguenot refugees were among the crews. Having been expelled from New France as settlers, the persecuted sect were returning as enemies." The Kirkes reached the St. Lawrence in advance of Roquemont's supply ships, intercepted the latter and captured or sank the whole. They then sailed back to England with their spoils, and it was not until the following summer that they returned to complete their conquest. Meantime, the small garrison and population at Quebec were reduced to starvation, and were subsisting on acorns and roots when, in July 1629, Admiral David Kirke, with his three ships, appeared before the place. Champlain could do nothing but arrange a dignified surrender. For three years following, Quebec and New France remained under the control of the English. They were then restored, under a treaty stipulation to France. "It long remained a mystery why Charles consented to a stipulation which pledged him to resign so important a conquest. The mystery is explained by the recent discovery of a letter from the king to Sir Isaac Wake, his ambassador at Paris. The promised dowry of Queen Henrietta Maria, amounting to 800,000 crowns, had been but half paid by the French government, and Charles, then at issue with his Parliament and in desperate need of money, instructs his ambassador that, when he receives the balance due, and not before, he is to give up to the French both Quebec and Port Royal, which had also been captured by Kirke. The letter was accompanied by 'solemn instruments under our hand and seal' to make good the transfer on fulfilment of the condition. It was for a sum equal to about $240,000 that Charles entailed on Great Britain and her colonies a century of bloody wars. The Kirkes and their associates, who had made the conquest at their own cost, under the royal authority, were never reimbursed, though David Kirke received the honor of knighthood, which cost the king nothing,"—and also the grant of Newfoundland. On the 5th of July, 1632, Quebec was delivered up by Thomas Kirke to Émery de Caen, commissioned by the French king to reclaim the place. The latter held command for one year, with a monopoly of the fur trade; then Champlain resumed the government, on behalf of the Hundred Associates, continuing in it until his death, which occurred on Christmas Day, 1635.

      F. Parkman,
      Pioneers of France in the New World: Champlain,
      chapters 16-17.

      ALSO IN:
      Calendar of State Papers: Colonial Series, 1574-1660,
      pages 96-143.

      D. Brymuer,
      Report on Canadian Archives,
      pages xi-xiv, and note D.

The first of the Jesuit missionaries came to Quebec in 1625, as stated above, but it was not until nearly seven years later that they made their way into the heart of the Indian country and began there their devoted work. "The Father Superior of the Mission was Paul le Jeune, a man devoted in every fibre of mind and heart to the work on which he had come. He utterly scorned difficulty and pain. He had received the order to depart for Canada 'with inexpressible joy at the prospect of a living or dying martyrdom.' Among his companions was Jean de Brébœuf, a man noble in birth and aspect, of strong intellect and will, of zeal which knew no limit, and recognized no obstacle in the path of duty. … Far in the west, beside a great lake of which the Jesuits had vaguely heard, dwelt the Hurons, a powerful nation with many kindred tribes over which they exercised influence. The Jesuits resolved to found a mission among the Hurons. Once in every year a fleet of canoes came down the great river, bearing six or seven hundred Huron warriors, who visited Quebec to dispose of their furs, to gamble and to steal. Brébœuf and two companions took passage [1634] with the returning fleet, and set out for the dreary scene of their new apostolate. … The Hurons received with hospitable welcome the black-robed strangers. The priests were able to repay the kindness with services of high value. They taught more effective methods of fortifying the town in which they lived. They promised the help of a few French musketeers against an impending attack by the Iroquois. They cured diseases; they bound up wounds. They gave simple instruction to the young, and gained the hearts of their pupils by gifts of beads and raisins. The elders of the people came to have the faith explained to them: they readily owned that it was a good faith for the French, but they could not be persuaded that it was suitable for the red man. {362} The fathers laboured in hope and the savages learned to love them. … Some of their methods of conversion were exceedingly rude. A letter from Father Garnier has been preserved in which pictures are ordered from France for the spiritual improvement of the Indians. Many representations of souls in perdition are required, with appropriate accompaniment of flames, and triumphant demons tearing them with pincers. One picture of saved souls would suffice, and 'a picture of Christ without a beard.' They were consumed by a zeal for the baptism of little children. At the outset the Indians welcomed this ceremonial, believing that it was a charm to avert sickness and death. But when epidemics wasted them they charged the calamity against the mysterious operations of the fathers, and refused now to permit baptism. The fathers recognized the hand of Satan in this prohibition, and refused to submit to it. They baptized by stealth. … In time, the patient, self-denying labour of the fathers might have won those discouraging savages to the cross; but a fatal interruption was at hand. A powerful and relentless enemy, bent on extermination, was about to sweep over the Huron territory, involving the savages and their teachers in one common ruin. Thirty-two years had passed since those ill judged expeditions in which Champlain had given help to the Hurons against the Iroquois. The unforgiving savages had never forgotten the wrong. … The Iroquois [1648-1649] attacked in overwhelming force the towns of their Huron enemies; forced the inadequate defences; burned the palisades and wooden huts; slaughtered with indescribable tortures the wretched inhabitants. In one of these towns they found Brébœuf and one of his companions. They bound the ill fated missionaries to stakes; they hung around their necks collars of red-hot iron; they poured boiling water on their heads; they cut stripes of flesh from their quivering limbs and ate them in their sight. To the last Brébœuf cheered with hopes of heaven the native converts who shared his agony. And thus was gained the crown of martyrdom for which in the fervour of their enthusiasm, these good men had long yearned. In a few years the Huron nation was extinct; famine and small-pox swept off those whom the Iroquois spared. The Huron mission was closed by the extirpation of the race for whom it was founded. Many of the missionaries perished; some returned to France. Their labour seemed to have been in vain; their years of toil and suffering left no trace."

"With the fall of the Hurons, fell the best hope of the Canadian mission. They, and the stable and populous communities around them, had been the rude material from which the Jesuit would have formed his Christian empire in the wilderness; but, one by one, these kindred peoples were uprooted and swept away, while the neighboring Algonquins, to whom they had been a bulwark, were involved with them in a common ruin. … In a measure, the occupation of the Jesuits was gone. Some of them went home, 'well resolved,' writes the Father Superior, 'to return to the combat at the first sound of the trumpet'; while of those who remained, about twenty in number, several soon fell victims to famine, hardship and the Iroquois. A few years more, and Canada ceased to be a mission. Political and commercial interests gradually became ascendant, and the story of Jesuit propagandism was interwoven with her civil and military annals."

ALSO IN: Father Charlevoix, History of New France, translated by Shea, books 5-7 (volume 2).

      J. G. Shea,
      The Jesuits, Recollects, and the Indians
      (Narrative and Critical History of America,
      volume 4, chapter 6).

CANADA: A. D. 1634-1673.
   Nicolet.
   Marquette.
   Joliet.
   Pioneer exploration in the West and discovery of the Mississippi.

When Champlain gave up his work, the map of New France was blank beyond Lake Ontario and Georgian Bay. The first of the French explorers who widened it far westward was a Norman named Jean Nicolet, who came to America in 1618, and who was trained for many years in Champlain's service. "After dwelling some time among the Nipissings, he visited the Far West; seemingly between the years 1634 and 1640. In a birch-bark canoe, the brave Norman voyageur crossed or coasted Lake Huron, entered the St. Mary's River, and, first of white men, stood at the strait now called Sault Ste Marie. He does not seem to have known of Lake Superior, but returned down the St. Mary's River, passed from Lake Huron through the western detour to Michilimackinac, and entered another fresh-water sea, Mitchigannon or Michigan, also afterwards known as the Lake of the Illinois, Lake St. Joseph, Lake Dauphin, or even Algonquin Lake. Here he visited the Menomonee tribe of Indians, and after them the Winnibagoes. … The fierce wrath of the Iroquois had driven numbers of the Hurons, Ottawas, and several minor Algonquin tribes westward. The Iroquois, like a wedge, had split the northern tribes into east and west. Sault Ste Marie became a central point for the refugees. … Another gathering place for the fugitives had been found very near the south-west corner of this great lake. This was La Pointe, one of the Apostle Islands, near the present town of Ashland in Wisconsin. The Jesuits took up these two points as mission centres. … In 1669 the Fathers Dablon and Marquette, with their men, had erected a palisaded fort, enclosing a chapel and house, at Sault Ste Marie. In the same year Father Allouez had begun a mission at Green Bay. In 1670 an intrepid explorer, St. Lusson, under orders from Intendant Talon, came west searching for copper-mines. He was accompanied by the afterwards well-known Joliet. When this party arrived at Sault Ste Marie, the Indians were gathered together in great numbers, and with imposing ceremonies St. Lusson took possession of 'Sainte Marie du Saut, as also of Lakes Huron and Superior, the island of Manetoulin, and all countries, rivers, lakes, and streams contiguous and adjacent thereunto.' … It was undoubtedly the pressing desire of the Jesuit fathers to visit the country of the Illinois and their great river that led to the discovery of the 'Father of Waters.' Father Allouez indeed had already ascended the Fox River from Lake Michigan, and seen the marshy lake which is the head of a tributary of the Mississippi. At last on June 4th, 1672, the French minister, Colbert, wrote to Talon: 'As after the increase of the colony there is nothing more important for the colony than the discovery of a passage to the South Sea, his Majesty wishes you to give it your attention.' {363} This message to the Intendant came as he was leaving for France, and he recommended the scheme and the explorer he had in view for carrying it out to the notice of the Governor, Frontenac, who had just arrived. Governor Frontenac approved and the explorer started. The man chosen for the enterprise was Louis Joliet, who had already been at Sault Ste Marie. He was of humble birth, and was a native of New France. … The French Canadian explorer was acceptable to the missionaries, and immediately journeyed west to meet Marquette, who was to accompany him. … M. Joliet met the priest Marquette at St. Ignace Mission, Michilimackinac. Jacques Marquette, of whom we have already heard, was born in 1637 at Laon, Champagne, in France. He sprang of an ancient and distinguished family. … On May 17th, 1673, with deepest religious emotion, the trader and missionary launched forth on Lake Michigan their two canoes, containing seven Frenchmen in all, to make the greatest discovery of the time. They hastened to Green Bay, followed the course of Father Allouez up the Fox River, and reached the tribe of the Mascoutins or Fire Nation on this river. These were new Indians to the explorers. They were peaceful, and helped the voyagers on their way. With guides furnished, the two canoes were transported for 2,700 paces, and the head waters of the Wisconsin were reached. After an easy descent of 30 or 40 leagues, on June 17th, 1673, the feat was accomplished, the Mississippi was discovered by white men, and the canoes shot out upon its surface in latitude 43°. Sailing down the great river for a month, the party reached the village of Akansea, on the Arkansas River, in latitude 34°, and on July 17th began their return journey. It is but just to say that some of the Recollet fathers, between whom and the Jesuits jealousy existed, have disputed the fact of Joliet and Marquette ever reaching this point. The evidence here seems entirely in favour of the explorers. On their return journey the party turned from the Mississippi into a tributary river in latitude 38°. This was the Illinois. Ascending this, the Indian town of Kaskaskia was reached, and here for a time Father Marquette remained. Joliet and his party passed on," arriving at Montreal in due time, but losing all their papers in the rapids of the St. Lawrence. Father Marquette established a mission among the Illinois Indians, but his labors were cut short. He died while on a journey to Green Bay, May 18, 1675. "High encomiums of Father Marquette fill—and deservedly so—the 'Jesuit Relations.' We have his autograph map of the Mississippi. This great stream he desired to call 'Conception River,' but the name, like those of 'Colbert' and 'Buade' [the family name of Count Frontenac], which were both bestowed upon it, have failed to take the place of the musical Indian name."

ALSO IN: F. Parkman, La Salle and the Discovery of the Great West, chapters 2-5.

J. W. Monette, History of the Discovery and settlement of the Valley of the Mississippi, book 2, chapter 1 (volume l).

      S. S. Hebberd,
      History of Wisconsin under the dominion of France,
      chapters 1-2.

CANADA: A. D. 1637-1657.
The Sulpician settlement of Montreal and religious activity at
Quebec.

Champlain was succeeded as governor of New France by M. de Châteaufort, of whose brief administration little is known, and the latter was followed by M. de Montmagny, out of the translation of whose name the Indians formed the title Onontio, signifying "Great Mountain," which they afterwards applied to all the French governors. Montmagny entered with zeal into the plans of Champlain, "but difficulties accumulated on all sides. Men and money were wanting, trade languished, and the Associated Company in France were daily becoming indifferent to the success of the colony. Some few merchants and inhabitants of the outposts, indeed, were enriched by the profitable dealings of the fur-trade, but their suddenly-acquired wealth excited the jealousy rather than increased the general prosperity of the settlers. The work of religious institutions was alone pursued with vigor and success in those times of failure and discouragement. At Sillery, one league from Quebec, an establishment was founded for the instruction of the savages and the diffusion of Christian light [1637]. The Hotel Dieu owed its existence to the Duchesse d'Aiguillon two years afterward, and the convent of the Ursulines was founded by the pious and high-born Madame de la Peltrie. The partial success and subsequent failure of Champlain and his Indian allies in their encounters with the Iroquois had emboldened these brave and politic savages. They now captured several canoes belonging to the Hurons, laden with furs, which that friendly people were conveying to Quebec. Montmagny's military force was too small to allow of his avenging this insult; he, however, zealously promoted an enterprise to build a fort and effect a settlement on the island of Montreal, which he fondly hoped would curb the audacity of his savage foes. The Associated Company would render no aid whatever to this important plan, but the religious zeal of the Abbé Olivier overcame all difficulties. He obtained a grant of Montreal from the king, and dispatched the Sieur de Maisonneuve and others to take possession. On the 17th of May, 1641, the place destined for the settlement was consecrated by the superior of the Jesuits. At the same time the governor erected a fort at the entrance of the River Richelieu," which so far checked the Iroquois that they entered into a treaty of peace and respected it for a brief period.

The settlement of Montreal was undertaken by an association of thirty-five rich and influential persons in France, among whom was the Duke de Liancourt de la Hoche Guyon. "This company obtained a concession of the island in 1640, and a member of the association arrived at Quebec from France with several immigrating families, some soldiers, and an armament valued at 25,000 piastres." In 1642 "a reinforcement of colonists arrived, led by M. d'Ailleboust de Musseau. During the following year, a second party came. At this time the European population resident in Canada did not exceed 200 souls. The immigrants who now entered it had been selected with the utmost care."

In 1657 the seigniority of Montreal was ceded to the Seminary of St. Sulpice in Paris, where the reins of its government were held until 1692.

Father Charlevoix, History of New France, translated by Shea, volume 3, page 23.

"From about the year 1640 to the year 1700, a constant warfare was maintained between the Iroquois and the French, interrupted occasionally by negotiations and brief intervals of peace. As the former possessed both banks of the St. Lawrence, and the circuits of lakes Erie and Ontario, they intercepted the fur trade, which the French were anxious to maintain with the western nations. … The war parties of the League ranged through these territories so constantly that it was impossible for the French to pass in safety through the lakes, or even up the St. Lawrence above Montreal. … So great was the fear of these sudden attacks, that both the traders and the missionaries were obliged to ascend the Ottawa river to near its source, and from thence to cross over to the Sault St. Marie, and the shores of Lake Superior. … To retaliate for these frequent inroads, and to prevent their recurrence, the country of the Iroquois was often invaded by the French. … In 1665, M. Courcelles, governor of Canada, led a strong party into the country of the Mohawks; but the hardships they encountered rendered it necessary for them to return without accomplishing their purpose. The next year, M. de Tracy, Viceroy of New France, with 1,200 French and 600 Indians, renewed the invasion with better success. He captured Te-ä-ton-ta-ló-ga, one of the principal villages of the Mohawks, situated at the mouth of the Schoharie Creek; but after destroying the town, and the stores of corn, which they found in caches, they were obliged to retire without meeting an opposing force. Again, in 1684. M. De La Barre, then governor of Canada, entered the country of the Onondagas, with about 1,800 men. Having reached Hungry Bay, on the east shore of lake Ontario, a conference was had with a delegation of Iroquois chiefs. … A species of armistice was finally agreed upon, and thus the expedition ended. A more successful enterprise was projected and carried into execution in 1687 by M. De Nonville, then governor of Canada. Having raised a force of 2,000 French and 600 Indians, he embarked them in a fleet of 200 bateau, and as many birch bark canoes. After coasting lake Ontario from Kingston to Irondequoit bay, in the territory of the Senecas, he landed at the head of this bay, and found himself within a few miles of the principal villages of the Senecas, which were then in the counties of Ontario and Monroe." After one battle with about 500 of the Senecas, the latter retreated into the interior, and the French destroyed four of their villages, together with the surrounding fields of growing corn. "To retaliate for this invasion, a formidable party of the Iroquois, in the fall of the same year, made a sudden descent upon Fort Chambly, on the Sorel River, near Montreal. Unable to capture the fort, which was resolutely defended by the garrison, they ravaged the settlements adjacent, and returned with a number of captives. About the same time, a party of 800 attacked Frontenac, on the site of Kingston, and destroyed and laid waste the plantations and establishments of the French without the fortification. In July of the ensuing year the French were made to feel still more sensibly the power of their revenge. A band of 1,200 warriors, animated with the fiercest resentment, made a descent upon the island of Montreal. … All that were without the fortifications fell under the rifle or the relentless tomahawk. Their houses were burned, their plantations ravaged, and the whole island covered with desolation. About 1,000 of the French, according to some writers, perished in this invasion, or were carried into captivity. … Overwhelmed by this sudden disaster, the French destroyed their forts at Niagara and Frontenac, and thus yielded the whole country west of Montreal to the possession of the Iroquois. At this critical period Count Frontenac again became governor of Canada, and during the short residue of his life devoted himself, with untiring energy, to restore its declining prosperity."

      J. R. Brodhead,
      History of the State of New York,
      volume 2, chapters 3 and 8.

      O. H. Marshall,
      Expedition of the Marquis de Nonville against the Senecas
      (Historical Writings, pages 123-186).

CANADA: A. D. 1660-1688.
French encroachments and English concessions in Newfoundland.

CANADA: A.D. 1663-1674.
Erected by Colbert into a Royal Province.
Brief career of the French West India Company.

   "In 1663 the proceedings of the company [of the hundred
   associates] became so obnoxious that the king of France
   decided upon the immediate resumption of his rights, and the
   erecting of Canada into a royal government: Monsieur de Mésy
   was appointed governor, and proceeded from France to Quebec
   with 400 regular troops, and 100 families as settlers, with
   cattle, horses and implements of agriculture. Under the royal
   jurisdiction, the governor, a king's commissioner, an
   apostolical vicar, and four other gentlemen, were formed into
   a sovereign council, to whom were confided the powers of
   cognizance in all causes, civil and criminal, to judge in the
   last resort according to the laws and ordinances of France,
   and the practice of the Parliament of Paris, reserving the
   general legislative powers of the Crown, to be applied
   according to circumstances. This Council was further invested
   with the regulation of commerce, the expenditure of the public
   monies, and the establishment of inferior courts at Three
   Rivers and Montreal. This change of Canada from an
   ecclesiastical mission to a secular government was owing to
   the great Colbert, who was, animated by the example of Great
   Britain, to improve the navigation and commerce of his country
   by colonial establishments. The enlightened policy of this
   renowned financial minister of Louis XIV. was followed by the
   success which it deserved. To a regulated civil government was
   added increased military protection against the Iroquois
   Indians; the emigration of French settlers to New France was
   promoted by every possible means, and a martial spirit was
   imparted to the population, by the location in the colony of
   the disbanded soldiers of the Carignan regiment … and other
   troops, whose officers became the principal Seigneurs of the
   colony, on condition of making cessions of land under the
   feudal tenure, as it still exists, to the soldiers and other
   inhabitants." The ambitious projects of Louis XIV. soon led,
   however, to a new measure which proved less satisfactory in
   its working.
{365}
   "The French West India Company was remodelled [1664], and
   Canada added to their possessions, subordinate to the crown of
   France, with powers controlled by his Majesty's governors and
   Intendants in the different colonies." The domain of the
   company embraced all the possessions of France in the New
   World and its islands and on the African coast. "The company
   was to enjoy a monopoly of the territories and the trade of
   the colonies thus conceded for 40 years; it was not only to
   enjoy the exclusive navigation, but his Majesty conferred a
   bounty of 30 livres on every ton of goods exported to France.
   … The company was not only endowed as Seigneur with all
   unconceded lands, but invested with the right of extinguishing
   the titles of seigniories granted or sold by previous
   companies, on condition of reimbursing the grantees and
   purchasers for their costs and improvements." The West India
   Company's management soon showed evil effects, and came to an
   end after ten years of unsatisfactory trial. "Monsieur De
   Talon, the Intendant, a man of profound views, … perceived
   that it was the natural interest of the Company to discourage
   colonization. He represented to the minister Colbert the
   absolute necessity of the total resumption of the rights of
   the crown; drew his attention to the means of obtaining
   abundance of warlike instruments and naval stores within the
   colony … and, in fact, at last prevailed; so that, in 1674,
   the king of France resumed his rights to all the territories
   conceded to the West India Company, assumed their debts and
   the current value of their stock, and appointed a governor,
   council and judges for the direction of the Canadian colonies.
   … From this period (1674), when the population, embracing
   converted Indians, did not exceed 8,000, the French settlement
   in Canada rapidly progressed, and as it rose in power, and
   assumed offensive operations on the New England frontier, the
   jealousy of the British colonies became roused, and both
   parties, aided alternately by the Indians, carried on a
   destructive and harassing border warfare."

"Second only to Champlain among the heroes of Canadian history stands Robert Cavelier de la Salle—a man of iron if ever there was one—a man austere and cold in manner, and endowed with such indomitable pluck and perseverance as have never been surpassed in this world. He did more than any other man to extend the dominion of France in the New World. As Champlain had founded the colony of Canada and opened the way to the great lakes, so La Salle completed the discovery of the Mississippi, and added to the French possessions the vast province of Louisiana. … In 1669 La Salle made his first journey to the west, hoping to find a northwest passage to China, but very little is known about this expedition, except that the Ohio river was discovered, and perhaps also the Illinois. La Salle's feudal domain of St. Sulpice, some eight miles from Montreal, bears to-day the name of La Chine, or China, which is said to have been applied to it in derision of this fruitless expedition. In 1673 the priest Marquette and the fur-trader Joliet actually reached the Mississippi by way of the Wisconsin, and sailed down the great river as far as the mouth of the Arkansas; and now the life-work of La Salle began in earnest. He formed a grand project for exploring the Mississippi to its mouth, and determining whether it, flowed into the Gulf of California or the Gulf of Mexico. The advance of Spain on the side of Mexico was to be checked forever, the English were to be confined to the east of the Alleghanies, and such military posts were to be established as would effectually confirm the authority of Louis XIV. throughout the centre of this continent. La Salle had but little ready money, and was surrounded by rivals and enemies; but he had a powerful friend in Count Frontenac, the Viceroy of Canada. … At length, after surmounting innumerable difficulties, a vessel [the Griffon or Griffin] was built and launched on the Niagara river [1679], a small party of 30 or 40 men were gathered together, and La Salle, having just recovered from a treacherous dose of poison, embarked on his great enterprise. His departure was clouded by the news that his impatient creditors had laid hands upon his Canadian estates; but, nothing daunted, he pushed on through Lakes Erie and Huron, and after many disasters reached the southern extremity of Lake Michigan. The vessel was now sent back, with half the party, to Niagara, carrying furs to appease the creditors and purchase additional supplies for the remainder of the journey, while La Salle with his diminished company pushed on to the Illinois, where a fort was built, and appropriately named Fort Crèvecœur, or, as we might translate it, the 'fort of the breaking heart.' Here, amid perils of famine, mutiny, and Indian attack, and exposed to death from the wintry cold, they waited until it became evident to all that their vessel must have perished. She never was heard from again, and most likely had foundered on her perilous voyage. To add to the trouble, La Salle was again poisoned; but his iron constitution, aided by some lucky antidote, again carried him safely through the ordeal, and about the 1st of March, 1680, he started on foot for Montreal. Leaving Fort Crèveœur and its tiny garrison under command of his faithful lieutenant, Tonty, he set out with four Frenchmen and one Mohegan guide. … They made their way for a thousand miles across Michigan and Western Canada to Niagara, and so on to Montreal. … At Niagara La Salle learned that a ship from France, freighted for him with a cargo worth more than 20,000 livres, had been wrecked in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and nothing had been saved. In spite of this dreadful blow he contrived to get together supplies and reenforcements at Montreal, and had returned to Fort Frontenac, at the lower end of Lake Ontario, when still more woful tidings were received. Here, toward the end of July, a message came from the fortress so well named Crèvecœur. The garrison had mutinied and destroyed the fort, and made their way back through Michigan." The indomitable La Salle promptly hunted down the deserters, and sent them in chains to Quebec. He then "proceeded again to the Illinois to reconstruct his fort, and rescue, if possible, his lieutenant Tonty and the few faithful followers who had survived the mutiny. This little party, abandoned in the wilderness, had found shelter among the Illinois Indians; but during the summer of 1680 the great village or town of the Illinois was destroyed by the Iroquois, and the hard-pressed Frenchmen retreated up the western shore of Lake Michigan to Green Bay.- {366} On arriving at the Illinois, therefore, La Salle found nothing but the terrible traces of fire and massacre and cannibal orgies; but he spent the following winter to good purpose in securing the friendship of the western Indians, and in making an alliance with them against the Iroquois. Then, in May, 1681, he set out again for Canada, to look after his creditors and obtain new resources. On the way home, at the outlet of Lake Michigan, he met his friend Tonty, and together they paddled their canoes a thousand miles and came to Fort Frontenac. So, after all this hardship and disaster, the work was to be begun anew; and the enemies of the great explorer were exulting in what they imagined must be his despair. But that was a word of which La Salle knew not the meaning, and now his fortunes began to change. In Mr. Parkman's words, 'Fate at length seemed tired of the conflict with so stubborn an adversary.' At this third venture everything went smoothly. The little fleet passed up the great lakes, from the outlet of Ontario to the head of Michigan, and gained the Chicago River. Crossing the narrow portage, they descended the Illinois and the Mississippi, till they came out upon the Gulf of Mexico; and on the 9th of April, 1682, the fleurs-de-lis were planted at the mouth of the great river, and all the country drained by its tributaries, from the Alleghanies to the Rocky Mountains, was formally declared to be the property of the king of France, and named after him Louisiana. Returning up the river after his triumph, La Salle founded a station or small colony on the Illinois, which he called St. Louis, and leaving Tonty in command, kept on to Canada, and crossed to France for means to circumvent his enemies and complete his far-reaching schemes. A colony was to be founded at the mouth of the Mississippi, and military stations were to connect this with the French settlements in Canada. At the French court La Salle was treated like a hero, and a fine expedition was soon fitted out, but everything was ruined by jealousy and ill-will between La Salle and the naval commander, Beaujeu. The fleet sailed beyond the mouth of the Mississippi, the colony was thrown upon the coast of Texas, some of the vessels were wrecked, and Beaujeu—though apparently without sinister design—sailed away with the rest, and two years of terrible suffering followed. At last, in March, 1687, La Salle started to find the Mississippi, hoping to ascend it to Tonty's fort on the Illinois, and obtain relief for his followers. But he had scarcely set out on this desperate enterprise when two or three mutinous wretches of his party laid an ambush for him in the forest, and shot him dead. Thus, at the early age of forty-three, perished this extraordinary man, with his life-work but half accomplished. Yet his labors had done much towards building up the imposing dominion with which New France confronted New England in the following century."

      J. Fiske,
      The Romance of the Spanish and French Explorers
      (Harper's Magazine, volume 64, pages 446-448.)

      ALSO IN:
      F. Parkman,
      La Salle and the Discovery of the Great West.

      Chevalier Tonti,
      Account of M. de la Salle's last Expedition
      (New York Historical Society Collections, volume 2).

      C. Le Clercq,
      First Establishment of the Faith in New France,
      translated by Shea,
      chapters 21-25 (volume 2).

CANADA: A. D. 1689-1690.
   The first Inter-Colonial War (King William's War):
   The Schenectady Massacre.
   Montreal threatened, Quebec attacked, and Port Royal taken by
   the English.

   The Revolution of 1688, in England, which drove James II. from
   the throne, and called to it his daughter Mary with her able
   husband, William of Orange, produced war between England and
   France (see FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1690). The French and English
   colonies in America were soon involved in the contest, and so
   far as it troubled American history, it bears in New England
   annals 'the name of King William's War. "If the issue had
   depended on the condition of the colonies, it could hardly
   have seemed doubtful. The French census for the North American
   continent, in 1688, showed but 11,249 persons, scarcely a
   tenth part of the English population on its frontiers; about a
   twentieth part of English North America. West of Montreal, the
   principal French posts, and those but inconsiderable ones,
   were at Frontenac, at Mackinaw, and on the Illinois. At,
   Niagara, there was a wavering purpose of maintaining a post,
   but no permanent occupation. So weak were the garrisons that
   English traders, with an escort of Indians, had ventured even
   to Mackinaw. … France, bounding its territory next New
   England by the Kennebec, claimed the whole eastern coast, Nova
   Scotia, Cape Breton, Newfoundland, Labrador, and Hudson's Bay;
   and to assert and defend this boundless region, Acadia and its
   dependencies counted but 900 French inhabitants. The
   missionaries, swaying the minds of the Abenakis, were the sole
   source of hope. On the declaration of war by France against
   England, Count Frontenac, once more governor of Canada, was
   charged to recover Hudson's Bay; to protect Acadia; and, by a
   descent from Canada, to assist a fleet from France in making
   conquest of New York. Of that province De Callieres was, in
   advance, appointed governor; the English Catholics were to be
   permitted to remain,—other inhabitants to be sent into
   Pennsylvania or New England. … In the east, blood was first
   shed at Cocheco, where, thirteen years before, an unsuspecting
   party of 350 Indians had been taken prisoners and shipped for
   Boston, to be sold into foreign slavery. The memory of the
   treachery was indelible, and the Indian emissaries of Castin
   easily excited the tribe of Penacook to revenge. On the
   evening of the 27th of June [1689] two squaws repaired to the
   house of Richard Waldron, and the octogenarian magistrate bade
   them lodge on the floor. At night, they rise, unbar the gates,
   and summon their companions," who tortured the aged Waldron
   until he died. "The Indians, burning his house and others that
   stood near it, having killed three-and-twenty, returned to the
   wilderness with 29 captives." In August, the stockade at
   Pemaquid was taken by 100 Indians from the French mission on
   the Penobscot. "Other inroads were made by the Penobscot and
   St. John Indians, so that the settlements east of Falmouth
   were deserted. In September, commissioners from New England
   held a conference with the Mohawks at Albany, soliciting an
   alliance. 'We have burned Montreal,' said they; 'we are the
   allies of the English; we will keep the chain unbroken.'
{367}
   But they refused to invade the Abenakis. … Frontenac … now
   used every effort to win the Five Nations [the Iroquois] to
   neutrality or to friendship. To recover esteem in their eyes;
   to secure to Durantaye, the commander at Mackinaw, the means
   of treating with the Hurons and the Ottawas; it was resolved
   by Frontenac to make a triple descent into the English
   provinces. From Montreal, a party of 110, composed of French
   and of the Christian Iroquois,—having De Mantet and Sainte
   Helene as leaders … —for two and twenty days waded through
   snows and morasses, through forests and across rivers, to
   Schenectady. The village had given itself calmly to slumber:
   through open and unguarded gates the invaders entered silently
   [February 8, 1690], and having, just before midnight, reached its
   heart, the war-whoop was raised (dreadful sound to the mothers
   of that place and their children!), and the dwellings set on
   fire. Of the inhabitants, some, half clad, fled through the
   snows to Albany; 60 were massacred, of whom 17 were children
   and 10 were Africans. … The party from Three Rivers, led by
   Hertel, and consisting of but 52 persons … surprised the
   settlement at Salmon Falls, on the Piscataqua, and, after a
   bloody engagement, burned houses, barns, and cattle in the
   stalls, and took 54 prisoners, chiefly women and children. …
   Returning from this expedition, Hertel met the war party,
   under Portneuf, from Quebec, and, with them and a
   reenforcement from Castin, made a successful attack on the
   fort and settlement in Casco Bay. Meantime, danger taught the
   colonies the necessity of union, and, on the 1st day of May,
   1690, New York beheld the momentous example of an American
   congress [see UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1690]. … At
   that congress it was resolved to attempt the conquest of
   Canada by marching an army, by way of Lake Champlain, against
   Montreal, while Massachusetts should, with a fleet, attack
   Quebec."

G. Bancroft, History of the United States, chapter 21 (volume 3), (part 3, chapter 11, volume 2, in the "Author's last Revision").

Before the end of the month in which the congress was held, Port Royal and the whole of Acadia had already been conquered, having surrendered to an expedition sent out by Massachusetts, in eight small vessels, under Sir William Phips. The larger fleet (consisting of 32 ships and carrying 2,000 men) directed against Quebec, sailed in August from Nastasket, and was, likewise, commanded by Phips. "The plan of the campaign contemplated a diversion to be made by an assault on Montreal, by a force composed of English from Connecticut and New York, and of Iroquois Indians, at the same time with the attack on Quebec by the fleet. And a second expedition into Maine under Captain Church was to threaten the Eastern tribes whose incursions had, during the last summer, been so disastrous. … As is so apt to happen when a plan involves the simultaneous action of distant parties, the condition of success failed. The movement of Church, who had with him but 300 men, proved ineffective as to any contribution to the descent upon Canada. … It was not till after a voyage of more than six weeks that the fleet from Boston cast anchor within the mouth of the river St. Lawrence, and meanwhile the overland expedition against Montreal had miscarried. The commanders respectively of the Connecticut and the New York troops had disagreed, and could not act effectively together. … The supply, both of boats and of provisions, was found to be insufficient. The disastrous result was that a retreat was ordered, without so much as an embarkation of the troops on Lake Champlain. Frontenac was at Montreal, whither he had gone to superintend the defence, when the intelligence, so unexpected, reached him from Quebec; and presently after came the tidings of Phips's fleet being in the St. Lawrence. Nothing could have been more opportune than this coincidence, which gave the Governor liberty to hasten down to direct his little force of 200 soldiers at the capital. The French historian says that, if he had been three days later, or if the English fleet had not been delayed by contrary winds, or had had better pilots in the river, where it was nearly a fortnight more in making its slow way, Frontenac would have come down from the upper country only to find the English commander in his citadel. As it was, there ensued a crushing mortification and sorrow to Massachusetts. New France was made much more formidable than ever." The fleet arrived before Quebec Oct. 6, and retreated on the 11th, after considerable cannonading and an assault which the French repelled. It suffered storms and disasters on the return voyage, and lost altogether some 200 men.

      ALSO IN:
      F. Parkman,
      Count Frontenac and New France under Louis XIV.,
      chapters 10-13.

F. Bowen, Life of Sir W. Phips, (Library of American Biographies, volume 7), chapters 2-3.

      J. Pearson, et al,
      History of the Schenectady Patent,
      chapters 8-10.

CANADA: A. D. 1692-1697.
   The first Inter-Colonial War (King William's War):
   Abortive plans of invasion on both sides.
   French recovery of Acadia.

"The defeat of the expedition of 1690 was probably attributable to the want of concert on the part of the troops from Connecticut and New York and those from Massachusetts, and the failure of the supplies which were sought from England. … But there was mismanagement on all hands in the conduct of the expedition; and it seems to have been predestinated that New England should not be delivered from the presence of the French at the north, until time had wrought the necessary changes which were to render the conquest of that country available for the promotion of still more important ends. Hence a new expedition, projected two years later, and resolved to be prosecuted in the following year [1693], was attended with the like circumstances of mortification and defeat. England herself participated in this enterprise, and … the government was informed that it had 'pleased the king, out of his great goodness and disposition for the welfare of all his subjects, to send a considerable strength of ships and men into the West Indies, and to direct Sir Francis Wheeler, the admiral, to sail to New England from the Caribbee Islands, so as to be there by the last of May or the middle of June at furthest, with a strength sufficient to overcome the enemy, if joined and seconded by the forces of New England.' … Unfortunately for the success of these plans, the letter, which should have reached Boston by the first of April, did not arrive until July; and the mortality which prevailed in the fleet during its stay in the West Indies was so great that, when the commander-in-chief, Sir Francis Wheeler, anchored off Nantasket,—bringing himself the news of the projected invasion,—he had lost 1,300 out of 2,100 sailors, and 1,800 out of 2,400 soldiers. {368} All thoughts of reducing Canada were therefore abandoned; but a plan for another year was settled with the governor, the details of which were that 2,000 land forces should be sent from England to Canseau by the first of June, to be joined by 2,000 from the colonies, and that the whole force should go up the St. Lawrence, divide and simultaneously attack Montreal and Quebec. Changes in the government of the province, however, and other causes, prevented the execution of this plan, whose success was problematical even if it had been attempted. But if the plans of the English for the reduction of Canada were doomed to disappointment, the plans of the French for the recovery of Acadia were more successful. For the first year after the conquest of that country, indeed, the French were as little concerned to regain, as the English were to retain, the possession of its territory; nor was Massachusetts able to bear the charge of a sufficient military force to keep its inhabitants in subjection, though she issued commissions to judges and other officers, and required the administration of the oath of fidelity. In the course of that year [1691], authority was given to Mr. John Nelson, of Boston, who had taken an active part in the overthrow of Andros, and who was bound thither on a trading voyage, to be commander-in-chief of Acadia; but as he neared the mouth of the St. John's, he was taken by Monsieur Villebon, who, under a commission from the French king, had touched at Port Royal, and ordered the English flag to be struck, and the French flag to be raised in its place. The next year an attempt was made to dislodge Villebon, but without success. … In the summer of 1696, Pemaquid was taken by the French, under D'Iberville and Castine, and the frontier of the dominion of France was extended into Maine; and by the treaty of the following year Acadia was receded to France, and the English relinquished their claims to the country. The last year of King William's War, as it was long termed in New England, was a year of especial alarm to the province [Massachusetts] and rumors were rife that the French were on the eve of fitting out a formidable fleet for the invasion of the colonies and the conquest of New York." According to the plan of the French undertaking, a powerful fleet from France was to be joined by a force of 1,500 men, raised by Count Frontenac, in Canada, and make, first, a conquest of Boston. "When that town was taken, they were to range the coast to Piscataqua, destroying the settlements as far back into the country as possible. Should there be time for further acquisitions, they were next to go to New York, and upon its reduction the Canadian troops were to march overland to Quebec, laying waste the country as they proceeded." This project was frustrated by happenings much the same in kind as those which thwarted the designs of the English against Quebec. The fleet was delayed by contrary winds, and by certain bootless undertakings in Newfoundland, until the season was too far advanced for the enterprise contemplated. "The peace of Ryswick, which soon followed, led to a temporary suspension of hostilities. France, anxious to secure as large a share of territory in America as possible, retained the whole coast and adjacent islands from Maine to Labrador and Hudson's Bay, with Canada, and the Valley of the Mississippi. The possessions of England were southward from the St. Croix. But the bounds between the nations were imperfectly defined, and were, for a long time, a subject of dispute and negotiation.".

      ALSO IN:
      F. Parkman,
      Count Frontenac and New France under Louis XIV.,
      chapters 16-19.

The war with the "Bastonnais" or "Bostonnais," as he called the New Englanders, did not divert Frontenac's attention from "the grand castigation which at last he was planning for the Iroquois. He had succeeded, in 1694, in inducing them to meet him in general council at Quebec, and had framed the conditions of a truce; but the English at Albany intrigued to prevent the fulfilment, and war was again imminent. Both sides were endeavoring to secure the alliance of the tribes of the upper lakes. These wavered, and Frontenac saw the peril and the remedy. His recourse was to attack the Iroquois in their villages at once, and conquer on the Mohawk the peace he needed at Michilimackinac. It was Frontenac's last campaign. Early in July [1696] he left Montreal with 2,200 men. He went by way of Fort Frontenac, crossed Lake Ontario, landed at Oswego, and struggled up its stream, and at last set sails to his canoes on Lake Onondaga. Then his force marched again, and Frontenac, enfeebled by his years, was borne along in an arm-chair. Eight or nine miles and a day's work brought them to the Onondaga village; but its inhabitants had burned it and fled. Vaudreuil was sent with a detachment which destroyed the town of the Oneidas. After committing all the devastation of crops that he could, in hopes that famine would help him, Frontenac began his homeward march before the English at Albany were aroused at all. The effect was what Frontenac wished. The Iroquois ceased their negotiations with the western tribes, and sued for peace."

      G. Stewart, Jr.,
      Frontenac and His Times
      (Narrative and Critical History of America, volume 4,
      chapter 7).

      ALSO IN:
      F. Parkman,
      Count Frontenac and New France under Louis XIV.,
      chapters 18-19.

CANADA: A. D. 1698-1710.
Colonization of Louisiana and the organization of its separate
government.

CANADA: A. D. 1700-1735.
The spread of French occupation in the Mississippi Valley and
on the Lakes.

   "From the time of La Salle's visit in 1679, we can trace a
   continuous French occupation of Illinois. … He planted his
   citadel of St. Louis on the summit of 'Starved Rock,'
   proposing to make that the centre of his colony. … At first
   his colony was exceedingly feeble, but it was never
   discontinued. 'Joutel found a garrison at Fort St. Louis …
   in 1687, and in 1689 La Hontan bears testimony that it still
   continued. In 1696 a public document proves its existence; and
   when Tonty, in 1700, again descended the Mississippi, he was
   attended by twenty Canadians, residents on the Illinois.'
{369}
   Even while the wars named after King William and Queen Anne
   were going on, the French settlements were growing in numbers
   and increasing in size; those wars over, they made still more
   rapid progress. Missions grew into settlements and parishes.
   Old Kaskaskia was begun in what La Salle called the
   'terrestrial paradise' before the close of the seventeenth
   century. The Wabash Valley was occupied about 1700, the first
   settlers entering it by the portage leading from the Kankakee.
   Later the voyageurs found a shorter route to the fertile
   valley. … The French located their principal missions and
   posts with admirable judgment. There is not one of them in
   which we cannot see the wisdom of the priest, of the soldier,
   and the trader combined. The triple alliance worked for an
   immediate end, but the sites that they chose are as important
   to-day as they were when they chose them. … La Salle's
   colony of St. Louis was planted in one of the gardens of the
   world, in the midst of a numerous Indian population, on the
   great line of travel between Lake Michigan and the Mississippi
   River. Kaskaskia and the neighboring settlements held the
   centre of the long line extending from Canada to Louisiana.
   'The Wabash colony commanded that valley and the Lower Ohio.
   Detroit was a position so important that, securely held by the
   French, it practically banished from the English mind for
   fifty years the thought of acquiring the Northwest. … Then
   how unerringly were the French guided to the carrying places
   between the Northern and the Southern waters, viz., Green Bay,
   Fox River, and the Wisconsin; the Chicago River and the
   Illinois; the St. Joseph and the Kankakee; the St. Joseph and
   the Wabash; the Maumee and the Wabash; and, later, on the eve
   of the war that gave New France to England, the Chautauqua and
   French Creek routes from Lake Erie to the Ohio. … In due
   time the French began to establish themselves on the Northern
   frontier of the British colonies. They built Fort Niagara in
   1726, four years' after the English built Fort Oswego.
   Following the early footsteps of Champlain, they ascended to
   the head of the lake that bears his name, where they fortified
   Crown Point in 1727, and Ticonderoga in 1731. Presque Isle,
   the present site of the city of Erie, was occupied about the
   time that Vincennes was founded in the Wabash Valley [1735].
   Finally, just on the eve of the last struggle between England
   and France, the French pressed into the valleys of the
   Alleghany and the Ohio, at the same time that the English also
   began to enter them."

CANADA: A. D. 1702-1710.
   The Second Inter-Colonial War (Queen Anne's War):
   Border ravages in New England and Acadia.
   English Conquest of Acadia.

CANADA: A. D. 1711-1713.
   The Second Inter-Colonial War.
   Walker's Expedition against Quebec.
   Massacre of Fox Indians.
   The Peace of Utrecht.

After the reduction of Port Royal, which was practically the conquest of Acadia, Colonel Nicholson, who bore the honors of that achievement, repaired to England and prevailed with the government to fit out an adequate expedition for the Conquest of Canada. "The fleet, consisting of 15 ships of war and 40 transports, was placed under the command of Sir Hovenden Walker; seven veteran regiments from Marlborough's army, with a battalion of marines, were intrusted to Mrs. Masham's second brother, whom the queen had pensioned and made a brigadier-general, whom his bottle companions called honest Jack Hill. … From June 25th to the 30th day of July 1711, the fleet lay at Boston, taking in supplies and the colonial forces. At the same time, an army of men from Connecticut, New Jersey, and New York, Palatine emigrants, and about 600 Iroquois, assembling at Albany, prepared to burst upon Montreal; while in Wisconsin the English had allies in the Foxes, who were always wishing to expel the French from Michigan. In Quebec, measures of defence began by a renewal of friendship with the Indians. To deputies from the Onondagas and Senecas, the governor spoke of the fidelity with which the French had kept their treaty; and he reminded them of their promise to remain quiet upon their mats. A war festival was next held, at which were present all the savages domiciliated near the French settlements, and all the delegates of their allies who had come down to Montreal. In the presence of 700 or 800 warriors, the war song was sung and the hatchet uplifted. The savages of the remote west were wavering, till twenty Hurons from Detroit took up the hatchet, and swayed all the rest by their example. By the influence of the Jesuits over the natives, an alliance extending to the Ojibways constituted the defence of Montreal. Descending to Quebec, Vaudreuil found Abenaki volunteers assembling for his protection. Measures for resistance had been adopted with heartiness; the fortifications were strengthened; Beauport was garrisoned; and the people were resolute and confiding; even women were ready to labor for the common defence. Toward the last of August, it was said that peasants at Matanes had descried 90 or 96 vessels with the English flag. Yet September came, and still from the heights of Cape Diamond no eye caught one sail of the expected enemy. The English squadron, leaving Boston on the 30th of July [1711], after loitering near the bay of Gaspé, at last began to ascend the St. Lawrence, while Sir Hovenden Walker puzzled himself with contriving how he would secure his vessels during the winter at Quebec." At the same time, the present and actual difficulties of the expedition were so heedlessly and ignorantly dealt with that eight ships of the fleet were wrecked among the rocks and shoals near the Egg Islands, and 884 men were drowned. The enterprise was then abandoned. "'Had we arrived safe at Quebec,' wrote the admiral, 'ten or twelve thousand men must have been left to perish of cold and hunger: by the loss of a part, Providence saved all the rest.' Such was the issue of hostilities in the north-east. Their total failure left the expedition from Albany no option but to return, and Montreal was unmolested. Detroit, in 1712, almost fell before the valor of a party of the Ottagamies, or Foxes. … Resolving to burn Detroit, they pitched their lodgings near the fort, which Du Buisson, with but twenty Frenchmen, defended. Aware of their intention, he summoned his Indian allies from the chase; and, about the middle of May, Ottawas and Hurons and Pottawottamies, with one branch of the Sacs, Illinois, Menomonies, and even Osages and Missouris, each nation with its own ensign, came to his relief. {370} So wide was the influence of the missionaries in the West. … The warriors of the Fox nation, far from destroying Detroit, were themselves besieged, and at last were compelled to surrender at discretion. Those Who bore arms were ruthlessly murdered; the rest distributed among the confederates, to be enslaved or massacred at the will of their masters. Cherished as the loveliest spot in Canada, the possession of Detroit secured for Quebec a great highway to the upper Indian tribes and to the Mississippi. … In the meantime, the preliminaries of a treaty had been signed between France and England; and the war … was suspended by negotiations that were soon followed by the uncertain peace of Utrecht [April 11, 1713]. … England, by the peace of Utrecht, obtained from France large concessions of territory in America. The assembly of New York had addressed the queen against French settlements in the West; William Penn advised to establish the St. Lawrence as the boundary on the north, and to include in our colonies the valley of the Mississippi. 'It will make a glorious country'; such were his prophetic words. … The colony of Louisiana excited in Saint-John 'apprehensions of the future undertakings of the French in North America.' The occupation of the Mississippi valley had been proposed to Queen Anne; yet, at the peace, that immense region remained to France. But England obtained the bay of Hudson and its borders; Newfoundland, subject to the rights of France in its fisheries; and all Nova Scotia, or Acadia, according to its ancient boundaries. It was agreed that 'France should never molest the Five Nations subject to the dominion of Great Britain.' But Louisiana, according to French ideas, included both banks of the Mississippi. Did the treaty of Utrecht assent to such an extension of French territory? And what were the ancient limits of Acadia? Did it include all that is now New Brunswick? or had France still a large territory on the Atlantic between Acadia and Maine? And what were the bounds of the territory of the Five Nations, which the treaty appeared to recognize as a part of the English dominions? These were questions which were never to be adjusted amicably."

G. Bancroft, History of the U. S. (Author's Last Revision), part 3, chapter 12 (volume 2).

With reference to the destruction of the Fox Indians at Detroit, a recent writer says: "The French official reports pretend that the Wisconsin Indians, being in secret alliance with the Iroquois and the English, had come to Detroit with the express purpose of besieging the fort and reducing it to ruins; and their statement has heretofore been unsuspectingly accepted by all historians. But there is little doubt that the charge is a shameful falsehood. The Fox Indians had rendered themselves very obnoxious to the French. Firmly lodged on the Fox River, they controlled the chief highway to the West; a haughty, independent and intractable people, they could not be cajoled into vassalage. It was necessary for the success of the French policy to get them out of the way. They were enticed to Detroit in order that they might be slaughtered."

      S. S. Hebberd,
      History of Wisconsin under the dominion of France,
      chapters 5-6.

      W. Kingsford,
      History of Canada,
      book 6, chapters 5-6 (volume 2).

CANADA: A. D. 1744-1748.
The Third Inter-Colonial War (King George's War).
Loss and recovery of Louisbourg and Cape Breton.

CANADA: A. D. 1748-1754. Active measures to fortify possession of the Ohio Valley and the West.

CANADA: A. D. 1750-1753.
Boundaries disputes with England.
Futile negotiations at Paris.

   "For the past three years [1750-1753] the commissioners
   appointed under the treaty of Aix-La-Chapelle to settle the
   question of boundaries between France and England in America
   had been in session at Paris, waging interminable war on
   paper; La Galissonière and Silhouette for France, Shirley and
   Mildmay for England. By the treaty of Utrecht, Acadia belonged
   to England; but what was Acadia? According to the English
   commissioners, it comprised not only the peninsula called Nova
   Scotia, but all the immense tract of land between the River
   St. Lawrence on the north, the Gulf of the same name on the
   east, the Atlantic on the south, and New England on the west.
   The French commissioners, on their part, maintained that the
   name Acadia belonged of right only to about a twentieth part
   of this territory, and that it did not even cover the whole of
   the Acadian peninsula, but only its southern coast, with an
   adjoining belt of barren wilderness. When the French owned
   Acadia, they gave it boundaries as comprehensive as those
   claimed for it by the English commissionaries; now that it
   belonged to a rival, they cut it down to a paring of its
   former self. … Four censuses of Acadia while it belonged to
   the French had recognized the mainland as included in it; and
   so do also the early French maps. Its prodigious shrinkage was
   simply the consequence of its possession by an alien. Other
   questions of limits, more important and equally perilous,
   called loudly for solution. What line should separate Canada
   and her western dependencies from the British colonies?
   Various principles of demarcation were suggested, of which the
   most prominent was a geographical one. All countries watered
   by streams falling into the St. Lawrence, the Great Lakes, and
   the Mississippi were to belong to her. This would have planted
   her in the heart of New York and along the crests of the
   Alleghanies, giving her all the interior of the continent, and
   leaving nothing to England but a strip of sea-coast. Yet in
   view of what France had achieved; of the patient gallantry of
   her explorers, the zeal of her missionaries, the adventurous
   hardihood of her bushrangers, revealing to civilized mankind
   the existence of this wilderness world, while her rivals
   plodded at their workshops, their farms, or their
   fisheries,—in view of all this, her pretensions were moderate
   and reasonable compared with those of England. The treaty of
   Utrecht had declared the Iroquois, or Five Nations, to be
   British subjects; therefore it was insisted that all countries
   conquered by them belonged to the British Crown. But what was
   an Iroquois conquest? The Iroquois rarely occupied the
   countries they overran. … But the range of their war-parties
   was prodigious; and the English laid claim to every mountain,
   forest or prairie where an Iroquois had taken a scalp.
{371}
   This would give them not only the country between the
   Alleghanies and the Mississippi, but also that between Lake
   Huron and the Ottawa, thus reducing Canada to the patch on the
   American map now represented by the province of Quebec,—or
   rather by a part of it, since the extension of Acadia to the
   St. Lawrence would cut off the present counties of Gaspé,
   Rimouski and Bonaventure. Indeed, among the advocates of
   British claims there were those who denied that France had any
   rights whatever on the south side of the St. Lawrence. Such
   being the attitude of the two contestants, it was plain there
   was no resort but the last argument of kings. Peace must be
   won with the sword."

CANADA: A. D. 1749-1755. Relative to the very dubious English claim based on treaties with the Iroquois,

"While the negotiations [between England and France, at Paris] were pending, Braddock arrived in the Chesapeake. In March [1755] he reached Williamsburgh, and visited Annapolis; on the 14th of April, he, with Commodore Keppel, held a congress at Alexandria. There were present, of the American governors, Shirley, next to Braddock in military rank; Delancey, of New York; Morris, of Pennsylvania; Sharpe, of Maryland; and Dinwiddie, of Virginia. … Between England and France peace existed under ratified treaties; it was proposed not to invade Canada, but to repel encroachments on the frontier. For this end, four expeditions were concerted by Braddock at Alexandria. Lawrence, the lieutenant-governor of Nova Scotia, was to reduce that province according to the English interpretation of its boundaries; Johnson [afterwards Sir William Johnson, of New York] from his long acquaintance with the Six Nations, was selected to enroll Mohawk warriors in British pay and lead them with provincial militia against Crown Point; Shirley proposed to drive the French from Niagara; the commander-in-chief was to recover the Ohio valley."

      G. Bancroft,
      History of the United States (Author's last revision),
      volume 2, pages 416-419.

CANADA: A. D. 1755 (June).
   French disaster at Sea.
   Frustrated attempt against Nova Scotia.
   The arrival of Dieskau at Quebec.

"In 1754, France fully awakened to the fact that England not only intended to maintain her position in the wilds of America, but likewise by sea. She equipped an armament under the command of admirals Macnamara and Bois de la Mothe, of 18 ships of the line and 9 frigates, having on board, ostensibly for Canada, eleven battalions of troops under General Dieskau, an 'élève' of Marshal Saxe. England, apprised of this force being sent, despatched Vice-Admiral Boscawen with 11 ships of the line and one frigate to intercept it en route. Both sailed about the same time, the 22d of April, 1755. The French ambassador at London being duly notified, replied: 'That his royal master would consider the first gun fired at sea in a hostile manner to be a declaration of war.' The esoteric instructions of the French fleet were to rendezvous at Chebuctou Harbour, destroy Halifax, and then proceed to Annapolis for the same purpose. While the instructions were of necessity secret, it was well known in Acadia that an attempt would be made by France to recover possession of the province. It was this fleet, so eagerly expected by the Acadians, that gave rise to the insolent manner in which they addressed the Council at Halifax, and which led to an immediate removal of their arms and subsequent dispersal. Owing to misadventure, some of the French fleet under Macnamara had to put back to Brest; the remainder met the English off the coast of Newfoundland [June 8] in a dense fog; avoiding an engagement, several of them escaped by taking the northern route via Belleisle … successfully reaching their 'harbour of refuge,' Louisbourg. The 'Lys' and the 'Alcyde' were sufficiently unfortunate to be compelled to face the guns of the English frigates 'Dunkirk' and 'Defiance,' and after five hours close engagement the 'Lys' struck its colors … followed by the 'Alcyde,' when Hocquart in command became Boscawen's prisoner by sea for the third time, together with £76,000 sterling in money, eight companies of soldiers and several officers and engineers. The unexpected rencontre with Boscawen's fleet, the loss of two of their vessels, and the knowledge that the garrison at Halifax was considerably reinforced by the forces brought out by Boscawen, caused the abandonment of all attempts to recover Acadia. Dieskau, after landing a few regiments at Louisbourg, proceeded to Quebec."

ALSO IN: J. Campbell, Naval History of Great Britain, volume 5, pages 104-106.

CANADA: A. D. 1755 (July).
Defeat of Braddock's Expedition against Fort Duquesne.

According to the English plan of campaign, concerted with Braddock at Alexandria, Governor Shirley was to lead an army for the conquest of Niagara; but his march westward ended at Oswego. "Colonel Philip Schuyler led the first regiment of the expedition. Boats were built at Oswego to convey 600 men by lake. Shirley followed by way of the Mohawk, and reached Oswego August 21. He was delayed from various causes, and in October a council of war decided that the attack on Niagara should be postponed for a year. Shirley was to have met Braddock in victory at Niagara. Both branches of the plan had been shattered. The great western scheme sank to a mere strengthening of the defences of Oswego. Colonel Mercer was left in command of a garrison of 700 men, with instructions to build two new forts, and General Shirley took the remainder of his force back to Albany. The pitiful failure led to recriminations relative to the causes of the fatal delays."

CANADA: A. D. 1755 (September).
The Battle of Lake George and defeat of Dieskau.

"The expedition against Crown Point on Lake Champlain, had been intrusted to General William Johnson. His troops were drawn principally from Massachusetts and Connecticut; a regiment from New Hampshire joined them at Albany. At the head of boat navigation on the Hudson, a fort was built which, in honor of their commander, whom they reverenced as 'a brave and virtuous man,' the soldiers named Fort Lyman. But when Johnson assumed the command he ungenerously changed the name to Fort Edward. Leaving a garrison in this fort; Johnson moved with about 5,000 men to the head of Lake George, and there formed a camp, intending to descend into Lake Champlain. Hendrick, the celebrated Mohawk chief, with his warriors, were among these troops. Israel Putnam, too, was there, as a captain, and John Stark as a lieutenant, each taking lessons in warfare. The French were not idle; the district of Montreal made the most strenuous exertions to meet the invading foe. All the men who were able to bear arms were called into active service; so that, to gather in the harvest, their places were supplied by men from other districts. The energetic Baron Dieskau resolved, by a bold attack, to terrify the invaders. Taking with him 200 regulars, and about 1,200 Canadians and Indians, he set out to capture Fort Edward; but, as he drew near, the Indians heard that it was defended by cannon, which they greatly dreaded, and they refused to advance. He now changed his plan, and resolved to attack Johnson's camp, which was supposed to be without cannon. Meantime scouts had reported to Johnson that they had seen roads made through the woods in the direction of Fort Edward. Not knowing the movements of Dieskau, a detachment of 1,000 men, under Colonel Ephraim Williams, of Massachusetts, and 200 Mohawks, under Hendrick, marched to relieve that post. The French had information of their approach and placed themselves in ambush. They were concealed among the thick bushes of a swamp, on the one side, and rocks and trees on the other. The English recklessly marched into the defile. They were vigorously attacked [Sept. 5] and thrown into confusion. Hendrick was almost instantly killed, and in a short time Williams fell also. The detachment commenced to retreat, occasionally halting to check their pursuers. The firing was heard in the camp; as the sound drew nearer and nearer, it was evident the detachment was retreating. The drums beat to arms, trees were hastily felled and thrown together to form a breastwork, upon which were placed a few cannon, just arrived from the Hudson. Scarcely were these preparations made when the panting fugitives appeared in sight, hotly pursued by the French and Indians. Intending to enter the camp with the fugitives, Dieskau urged forward his men with the greatest impetuosity. The moment the fugitives were past the muzzles of the cannon they opened with a tremendous shower of grape, which scattered the terrified Indians and checked the Canadians, but the regulars pushed on. A determined contest ensued, which lasted five hours, until the regulars were nearly all slain, while the Indians and Canadians did but little execution; they remained at a respectful distance among the trees. At length the enemy began to retreat, and the Americans leaped over the breastworks and pursued them with great vigor. That same evening, after the pursuit had ceased, as the French were retreating, they were suddenly attacked with great spirit by the New Hampshire regiment, which was on its way from Fort Edward. They were so panic stricken by this new assault that they abandoned everything and fled for their lives. Dieskau had been wounded once or twice at the commencement of the battle, but he never left his post. … He was taken prisoner, kindly treated, and sent to England, where he died. Johnson was slightly wounded at the commencement of the battle, and prudently retired from danger. To General Lyman belongs the honor of the victory, yet Johnson, in his report of the battle, did not even mention his name. Johnson, for his exertions on that day, was made a baronet, and received from royal favor a gift of $25,000. He had friends at court, but Lyman was unknown. Colonel Ephraim Williams, who fell in this battle, while passing through Albany, had taken the precaution to make his will, in which he bequeathed property to found a free school in western Massachusetts. That school has since grown into Williams College."

CANADA: A. D. 1755 (October-November).
Removal and dispersion in exile of the French Acadians.

CANADA: A. D. 1756.
   Formal declarations of war.
   The "Seven Years War" of Europe, called the "French and Indian
   War" in British America.
   Montcalm sent from France.

"On the 18th of May, 1756, England, after a year of open hostility, at length declared war. She had attacked France by land and sea, turned loose her ships to prey on French commerce, and brought some 300 prizes into her ports. It was the act of a weak government, supplying by spasms of violence what it lacked in considerate resolution. France, no match for her amphibious enemy in the game of marine depredation, cried out in horror; and to emphasize her complaints and signalize a pretended good faith which her acts had belied, ostentatiously released a British frigate captured by her cruisers. She in her turn declared war on the 9th of June: and now began the most terrible conflict of the 18th century; one that convulsed Europe and shook America, India, the coasts of Africa, and the islands of the sea."

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1754-1755, and after;
also GERMANY: A. D. 1755-1756, and after.

   "Henceforth France was to turn her strength against her
   European foes; and the American war, the occasion of the
   universal outbreak, was to hold in her eyes a second place.
   … Still, something must be done for the American war; at
   least there must be a new general to replace Dieskau. None of
   the court favorites wanted a command in the backwoods, and the
   minister of war was free to choose whom he would. His choice
   fell on Louis Joseph, Marquis de Montcalm-Gozon de Saint
   Véran. … The Chevalier de Lévis, afterwards Marshal of
   France, was named as his second in command. … The troops
   destined for Canada were only two battalions, one belonging to
   the regiment of La Sarre, and the other to that of Royal
   Roussillon. Louis XV. and Pompadour sent 100,000 men to fight
   the battles of Austria, and could spare but 1,200 to
   reinforce. New France." Montcalm, who reached Quebec in May,
   was placed in difficult relations with the governor-general,
   Vaudreuil, by the fact that the latter held command of the
   colonial troops. The forces in New France, were of three
   kinds,—"the 'troupes de terre,' troops of the line, or
   regulars from France; the 'troupes de la marine,' or colony
   regulars; and lastly the militia.
{373}
   The first consisted of the four battalions that had come over with
   Dieskau and the two that had come with Montcalm, comprising in
   all a little less than 3,000 men. Besides these, the
   battalions of Artois and Bourgogne, to the number of 1,100
   men, were in garrison at Louisbourg." This constituted
   Montcalm's command. The colony regulars and the militia
   remained subject to the orders of the governor, who manifested
   an early jealousy of Montcalm. The former troops numbered less
   than 2,000 men. "All the effective male population of Canada,
   from 15 years to 60, was enrolled in the militia. … In 1750
   the militia of all ranks counted about 13,000; and eight years
   later the number had increased to about 15,000. Until the last
   two years of the war, those employed in actual warfare were
   but few. … To the white fighting force of the colony are to
   be added the red men. … The military situation was somewhat
   perplexing. Iroquois spies had brought reports of great
   preparations on the part of the English. As neither party
   dared offend these wavering tribes, their warriors could pass
   with impunity from one to the other, and were paid by each for
   bringing information, not always trustworthy. They declared
   that the English were gathering in force to renew the attempt
   made by Johnson the year before against Crown Point and
   Ticonderoga, as well as that made by Shirley against Forts
   Frontenac and Niagara. Vaudreuil had spared no effort to meet
   the double danger. Lotbinière, a Canadian engineer, had been
   busied during the winter in fortifying Ticonderoga, while
   Pouchot, a captain in the battalion of Béarn, had rebuilt
   Niagara, and two French engineers were at work in
   strengthening the defenses of Frontenac. … Indians presently
   brought word that 10,000 English were coming to attack
   Ticonderoga." Both Montcalm and Lévis, with troops, "hastened
   to the supposed scene of danger … and reached Ticonderoga at
   the end of June. They found the fort … advanced towards
   completion. It stood on the crown of the promontory. … The
   rampart consisted of two parallel walls ten feet apart, built
   of the trunks of trees, and held together by transverse logs
   dovetailed at both ends, the space between being filled with
   earth and gravel well packed. Such was the first Fort
   Ticonderoga, or Carillon,—a structure quite distinct from the
   later fort of which the ruins still stand on the same spot.
   … Ticonderoga was now the most advanced position of the
   French, and Crown Point, which had before held that perilous
   honor, was in the second line. … The danger from the English
   proved to be still remote. … Meanwhile, at the head of Lake
   George, the raw bands of ever-active New England, were
   mustering for the fray."

      ALSO IN:
      W. Kingsford,
      History of Canada,
      book 11, chapter 9 (volume 3).

CANADA: A. D. 1756-1757.
   French successes.
   Capture of Oswego and Fort William Henry.
   Bloody work of the savage allies.

   On the death of Braddock, Governor Shirley became
   commander-in-chief of the British forces in America, "a
   position for which he was not adapted by military knowledge.
   … His military schemes for the season of 1756 were grand in
   conception and theory, but disastrous failures in practice.
   Ten thousand men were to advance against Crown Point—6, 000
   for service on Lake Ontario, 3,000 for an attack on Fort
   Duquesne, and 2,000 to advance up the river Kennebec, destroy
   the settlement adjoining the Chaudière and descending the
   mouth of that river within three miles of Quebec, keep all
   that part of Canada in alarm. While each of these armies was
   being put into motion, the season had become too far advanced
   for action at any one point. Moreover, the British Government,
   dissatisfied with a Provincial officer being at the head of its
   army in America, determined upon sending out General Lord
   Loudoun. While Shirley was preparing, Montcalm advanced
   against the three forts at Oswego, the terror of the French in
   the Iroquois country and which it had been their desire to
   destroy for many years back; they likewise commanded the
   entrance to Lake Ontario. The English had a garrison of 1,800
   men in these divided between Fort Ontario … Fort Oswego …
   and Fort George, or Rascal … about a mile distant from each
   other." Montcalm took all three of the forts without much
   difficulty, and demolished them. "Shirley was much blamed for
   this defeat and the failure of his projects, and lost both his
   government and command, being succeeded by John Campbell,
   fourth Earl of Loudoun, Baron Mauchlaw, one of the sixteen
   peers of Scotland, with General Abercromby as second in
   command—both notorious for previous incompetency. … They
   were sent out with considerable reinforcements, and had
   transferred to them by Shirley 16,000 men in the field, of
   whom 6,000 were regulars; but, with that masterly inactivity
   and indecision for which Loudoun was most renowned, no further
   movement was made this year. The year 1757 was not
   distinguished by any military movements of much moment." An
   intended attack on Louisbourg was postponed because of news
   that a powerful French fleet held possession of its harbor and
   that the garrison was very strong. "Montcalm, finding himself
   free from attack, penetrated with his army of 7,606 men to
   Fort William Henry, at the head of Lake George. Included were
   2,000 Indians. The fort was garrisoned by 2,264 regulars under
   Colonel Munroe of the 35th Regiment, and in the neighborhood
   there was an additional force of 4,600 men under General Webb.
   On the 3d of August the fort was invested and, after a summons
   to surrender was rejected, the attack was begun and continued
   with undiminished fervor until the 9th at noon, when a
   capitulation was signed. General Webb did not join Munroe, as
   he was instructed to do by Abercromby's plans, some cowardice
   being attributed to him by contemporary writers. An incident
   of the war which has given rise to a great deal of controversy
   and ill-feeling up to the present moment, was the so-called
   massacre at Fort William Henry, the outcome of the numerous
   horde of savages the French allies had in the engagement. …
   On the morning following the surrender, the garrison was to
   march out under a proper escort to protect them from injury at
   the hands of the Indians. The evacuation had barely commenced,
   when a repetition of the looting of the day previous, which
   ensued immediately after the capitulation had been signed, was
   attempted.
{374}
   An effort being made by the escort to stop it, some drunken
   Indians attacked the defile, which resulted in the murdering
   and scalping of some 60 or 70 of the prisoners; maltreating
   and robbing a large number of others. Upon a careful
   investigation of the contemporary authorities, no blame
   whatever can be attached to the good fame of the brave and
   humane Montcalm or De Lévis. … Fort George, or William
   Henry, as it was indifferently called, like its compeer Fort
   Oswego, was razed to the ground and the army retreated into
   their winter quarters at Montreal. The termination of the year
   left the French masters of Lakes Champlain and George,
   together with the chain of great lakes connecting the St.
   Lawrence with the Mississippi; also the undisturbed possession
   of all the country in dispute west of the Alleghany
   Mountains."

CANADA: A. D. 1758.
The loss of Louisbourg and Fort Du Quesne.
Bloody defeat of the English at Ticonderoga.

"The affairs of Great Britain in North America wore a more gloomy aspect, at the close of the campaign of 1757, than at any former period. By the acquisition of fort William Henry, the French had obtained complete possession of the lake Champlain, and George. By the destruction of Oswego, they had acquired the dominion of those lakes which connect the St. Lawrence with the waters of the Mississippi, and unite Canada to Louisiana. By means of fort Du Quêsne, they maintained their ascendency over the Indians, and held undisturbed possession of the country west of the Allegheny mountains; while the English settlers were driven to the blue ridge. The great object of the war in that quarter was gained, and France held the country for which hostilities had been commenced. … But this inglorious scene was about to be succeeded by one of unrivalled brilliancy. … The brightest era of British history was to commence. … The public voice had, at length, made its way to the throne, and had forced, on the unwilling monarch, a minister who has been justly deemed one of the greatest men of the age in which he lived. … In the summer of 1757, an administration was formed, which conciliated the great contending interests in parliament; and Mr. Pitt was placed at its head. … Possessing the public confidence without limitation, he commanded all the resources of the nation, and drew liberally from the public purse. … In no part of his majesty's dominions was the new administration more popular than in his American colonies. … The circular letter of Mr. Pitt assured the several governors that, to repair the losses and disappointments of the last inactive campaign, the cabinet was determined to send a formidable force, to operate by sea and land, against the French in America; and he called upon them to raise as large bodies of men, within their respective governments, as the number of inhabitants might allow. … The legislature of Massachusetts agreed to furnish 7,000 men; Connecticut 5,000; and New Hampshire 3,000. … Three expeditions were proposed. The first was against Louisbourg; the second against Ticonderoga and Crown Point; and the third against fort Du Quêsne. The army destined against Louisbourg, consisting of 14,000 men, was commanded by major general Amherst. [The expedition was successful and Louisbourg fell, July 26, 1758.]"

"The expedition against Ticonderoga and Crown Point was conducted by General Abercrombie in person. His army, consisting of near 16,000 effectives, of whom 9,000 were provincials, was attended by a formidable train of artillery, and possessed every requisite to ensure success. On the 5th of July he embarked on lake George, and reached the landing place early the next morning. A disembarkation being effected without opposition, the troops were immediately formed in four columns, the British in the centre, and the provincials on the flanks; in which order they marched towards the advanced guard of the French, composed of' one battalion posted in a log camp, which, on the approach of the English, made a precipitate retreat. Abercrombie continued his march towards Ticonderoga, with the intention of investing that place; but, the woods being thick, and the guides unskilful, his columns were thrown into confusion, and, in some measure, entangled with each other. In this situation Lord Howe, at the head of the right centre column, fell in with a part of the advanced guard of the French; which, in retreating from lake George, was likewise lost in the wood. He immediately attacked and dispersed them; killing several, and taking 148 prisoners, among whom were five officers. This small advantage was purchased at a dear rate. Though only two officers, on the side of the British, were killed, one of these was Lord Howe himself, who fell on the first fire. This gallant young nobleman had endeared himself to the whole army. … Without farther opposition, the English army took possession of the post at the Saw Mills, within two miles of Ticonderoga. This fortress [called Carillon by the French], which commands the communication between the two lakes, is encompassed on three sides by water, and secured in front by a morass. The ordinary garrison amounting to 4,000 men, was stationed under the cannon of the place, and covered by a breast-work, the approach to which had been rendered extremely difficult by trees felled in front, with their branches outward, many of which were sharpened so as to answer the purpose of chevaux-de-frize. This body of troops was rendered still more formidable by its general than by its position. It was commanded by the marquis de Montcalm. Having learned from his prisoners the strength of the army under the walls of Ticonderoga, and that a reinforcement of 3,000 men was daily expected, general Abercrombie thought it advisable to storm the place before this reinforcement should arrive. The troops marched to the assault with great intrepidity; but their utmost efforts could make no impression on the works. … After a contest of near four hours, and several repeated attacks, general Abercrombie ordered a retreat. The army retired to the camp from which it had marched in the morning; and, the next day, resumed its former position on the south side of lake George. In this rash attempt, the killed and wounded of the English amounted to near 2,000 men, of whom not quite 400 were provincials. The French were covered during the whole action, and their loss was inconsiderable. Entirely disconcerted by this unexpected and bloody repulse, General Abercrombie relinquished his designs against Ticonderoga and Crown Point. {375} Searching however for the means of repairing the misfortune, if not the disgrace, sustained by his arms, he readily acceded to a proposition made by colonel Bradstreet, for an expedition against fort Frontignac. This fortress stands on the north side of Ontario. … Colonel Bradstreet embarked on the Ontario at Oswego, and on the 25th of August, landed within one mile of the fort. In two days, his batteries were opened at so short a distance that almost every shell took effect; and the governor, finding the place absolutely untenable, surrendered at discretion. … After destroying the fort and vessels, and such stores as could not be brought off, colonel Bradstreet returned to the army which undertook nothing farther during the campaign. The demolition of Fort Frontignac and of the stores which had been collected there, contributed materially to the success of the expedition against fort Du Quêsne. The conduct of this enterprise had been entrusted to General Forbes, who marched from Philadelphia, about the beginning of July, at the head of the main body of the army, destined for this service, in order to join colonel Bouquet at Raystown. So much time was employed in preparing to move from this place, that the Virginia regulars, commanded by Colonel Washington, were not ordered to join the British troops until the month of September. … Early in October general Forbes moved from Raystown; but the obstructions to his march were so great that he did not reach fort Du Quêsne until late in November. The garrison, being deserted by the Indians, and too weak to maintain the place against the formidable army which was approaching, abandoned the fort the evening before the arrival of the British, and escaped down the Ohio in boats. The English placed a garrison in it, and changed its name to Pittsburg, in compliment to their popular minister. The acquisition of this post was of great importance to Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia."

      ALSO IN:
      W. C. Bryant and S. H. Gay,
      Popular History of the United States,
      volume 3, chapter 11.

"Wolfe's name stood high in the esteem of all who were qualified to judge, but, at the same time, it stood low in the column of colonels in the Army List. The great minister [Pitt] thought that the former counterbalanced the latter. … One of the last gazettes in the year 1758 announced the promotion of Colonel James Wolfe to the rank of major-general, and his appointment to the chief command of the expedition against Quebec. About the middle of February, 1759, the squadron sailed from England to Louisbourg, where the whole of the British force destined for the River St. Lawrence was ordered to assemble. … Twenty-two ships of the line, five frigates, and nineteen smaller vessels of war, with a crowd of transports, were mustered under the orders of the admiral [Saunders], and a detachment of artillery and engineers, and ten battalions of infantry, with six companies of Rangers, formed Wolfe's command; the right flank companies of the three regiments which still garrisoned Louisbourg soon after joined the army, and were formed into a corps called the Louisbourg Grenadiers. The total of the land forces embarked were somewhat under 8,000."

"Wolfe, with his 8,000 men, ascended the St. Lawrence in the fleet in the month of June. With him came Brigadiers Monckton, Townshend and Murray, youthful and brave like himself, and, like himself, already schooled to arms. … The Grenadiers of the army were commanded by Colonel Guy Carleton, and part of the light infantry by Lieutenant-Colonel William Howe, both destined to celebrity in after years, in the annals of the American revolution. Colonel Howe was brother of the gallant Lord Howe, whose fall in the preceding year was so generally lamented. Among the officers of the fleet was Jervis, the future admiral, and ultimately Earl St. Vincent; and the master of one of the ships was James Cook, afterwards renowned as a discoverer. About the end of June, the troops debarked on the large, populous, and well-cultivated Isle of Orleans, a little below Quebec, and encamped in its fertile fields. Quebec, the citadel of Canada, was strong by nature. It was built round the point of a rocky promontory, and flanked by precipices. … The place was tolerably fortified, but art had not yet rendered it, as at the present day, impregnable. Montcalm commanded the post. His troops were more numerous than the assailants; but the greater part of them were Canadians, many of them inhabitants of Quebec; and he had a host of savages. His forces were drawn out along the northern shore below the city, from the River St. Charles to the Falls of Montmorency, and their position was secured by deep intrenchments. … After much resistance, Wolfe established batteries at the west point of the Isle of Orleans, and at Point Levi, on the right (or south) bank of the St. Lawrence, within cannon range of the city. … Many houses were set on fire in the upper town, the lower town was reduced to rubbish; the main fort, however, remained unharmed. Anxious for a decisive action, Wolfe, on the 9th of July, crossed over in boats from the Isle of Orleans to the north bank of the St. Lawrence, and encamped below the Montmorency. It was an ill-judged position. … On the 18th of July, Wolfe made a reconnoitering expedition up the river, with two armed sloops, and two transports with troops. He passed Quebec unharmed and carefully noted the shores above it. Rugged cliffs rose almost from the water's edge. … He returned to Montmorency disappointed, and resolved to attack Montcalm in his camp, however difficult to be approached, and however strongly posted. Townshend and Murray, with their brigades, were to cross the Montmorency at low tide, below the falls, and storm the redoubt thrown up in front of the ford. Monckton, at the same time, was to cross, with part of his brigade in boats from Point Levi. … As usual in complicated orders, part were misunderstood, or neglected, and confusion was the consequence." The assault was repelled and Wolfe fell back across the river, having lost four hundred men, with two vessels, which run aground and were burned. He felt the failure deeply, and his chagrin was increased by news of the successes of his coadjutors at Ticonderoga and Niagara. {376} "The difficulties multiplying around him, and the delay of General Amherst in hastening to his aid, preyed incessantly on his spirits. … The agitation of his mind, and his acute sensibility, brought on a fever, which for some time incapacitated him from taking the field. In the midst of his illness he called a council of war, in which the whole plan of operations was altered. It was determined to convey troops above the town, and endeavor to make a diversion in that direction, or draw Montcalm into the open field. … The brief Canadian summer was over; they were in the month of September. The camp at Montmorency was broken up. The troops were transported to Point Levi, leaving a sufficient number to man the batteries on the Isle of Orleans. On the 5th and 6th of September the embarkation took place above Point Levi, in transports which had been sent for the purpose. Montcalm detached De Bougainville with 1,500 men to keep along the north shore above the town, watch the movements of the squadron, and prevent a landing. To deceive him, Admiral Holmes moved with the ships of war three leagues beyond the place where the landing was to be attempted. He was to drop down, however, in the night, and protect the landing. … The descent was made in flat-bottomed boats, past midnight, on the 13th of September. They dropped down silently, with the swift current. 'Qui va la?' (who goes there?) cried a sentinel from the shore. 'La France,' replied a captain in the first boat, who understood the French language. 'A quel regiment?' was the demand. 'De la Reine' (the queen's) replied the captain, knowing that regiment was in De Bougainville's detachment. Fortunately, a convoy of provisions was expected down from De Bougainville's, which the sentinel supposed this to be. 'Passe,' cried he, and the boats glided on without further challenge. The landing took place in a cove near Cape Diamond, which still bears Wolfe's name. He had marked it in reconnoitering, and saw that a cragged path straggled up from it to the Heights of Abraham, which might be climbed, though with difficulty, and that it appeared to be slightly guarded at top. Wolfe was among the first that landed and ascended up the steep and narrow path, where not more than two could go abreast, and which had been broken up by cross ditches. Colonel Howe, at the same time, with the light infantry and Highlanders, scrambled up the woody precipices, helping themselves by the roots and branches, and putting to flight a sergeant's guard posted at the summit. Wolfe drew up the men in order as they mounted; and by the break of day found himself in possession of the fateful Plains of Abraham. Montcalm was thunderstruck when word was brought to him in his camp that the English were on the heights threatening the weakest part of the town. Abandoning his intrenchments, he hastened across the river St. Charles and ascended the heights, which slope up gradually from its banks. His force was equal in number to that of the English, but a great part was made up of colony troops and savages. When he saw the formidable host of regulars he had to contend with, he sent off swift messengers to summon De Bougainville with his detachment to his aid; and De Vaudreil to reinforce him with 1,500 men from the camp. In the meantime he prepared to flank the left of the English line and force them to the opposite precipices." In the memorable battle which ensued, Wolfe, who led the English line, received, first, a musket ball in his wrist, and soon afterward was struck by a second in the breast. He was borne mortally wounded to the rear, and lived just long enough to hear a cry from those around him that the enemy ran. Giving a quick order for Webb's regiment to be hurried down to the Charles River bridge and there obstruct the French retreat, he turned upon his side, saying, "Now, God be praised, I will die in peace," and expired. In the meantime the French commander, Montcalm, had received his death-wound, while striving to rally his flying troops. The victory of the English was complete, and they hastened to fortify their position on the Plains of Abraham, preparing to attack the citadel. But, Montcalm dying of his wound the following morning, no further defence of the place was undertaken. It was surrendered on the 17th of September to General Townshend, who had succeeded to the command.

      Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
      History of England,
      1713-1783, chapter 35 (volume 4).

CANADA: A. D. 1759 (July-August).
The fall of Niagara, Ticonderoga and Crown Point.

"For the campaign of 1759 the British Parliament voted liberal supplies of men and money, and the American colonies, encouraged by the successes of the preceding year, raised large numbers of troops. Amherst superseded Abercrombie as commander-in-chief. The plan for the year embraced three expeditions: Fort Niagara was to be attacked by Prideaux, assisted by Sir William Johnson; Amherst was to march his force against Ticonderoga and Crown Point; and Quebec was to be assailed by an army under Wolfe and a fleet under Saunders. Prideaux and Amherst, after the capture of the forts, were to descend the St. Lawrence, take Montreal, and join the army before Quebec. … Vaudreuil, the Governor, having received warning from France of the intentions of the English, sent a small force to Niagara under the engineer Pouchot, not expecting to be able to hold the post, and not wishing to sacrifice many men, or to spare the troops from the more important points. Pouchot repaired the defences, and when the alarm was given that the English were near, sent for men from Presqu' Isle, Venango, and Detroit. Prideaux, in command of two British regiments, a battalion of Royal Americans, two battalions from New York, and a train of artillery, was joined by Johnson with a detachment of Indians. They began their march from Schenectady on the 20th of May, and, after a difficult journey, reached Oswego, where a detachment under Colonel Haldimand was left to take possession and form a post, and the remainder of the forces embarked on Lake Ontario, and on the 1st of July landed without opposition about six miles east of the mouth of the Niagara. … Prideaux began his trenches on the 10th, and on the 11th a sally was made from the fort; but the English placed themselves in line of battle, and the French were obliged to retire. Prideaux was steadily advancing the work … when, on the 19th, he was killed by the bursting of a shell from a Coehorn mortar in one of the trenches, where he had gone to issue orders. {377} Amherst appointed General Gage to succeed him, but before the arrival of Gage the command devolved upon General Johnson, who carried on the siege according to the plans of Prideaux." On the 24th a considerable force of French and Indians, about 1,600 strong, sent to the relief of the beleaguered fort, was intercepted and routed, most of the French officers and men being slain or captured. This took from Pouchot his last hope, and he surrendered the following day. "As the stations beyond Niagara were now completely cut off from communication with the east, and had given up a large part of their men to join D'Aubry [in the attempt to relieve Niagara], they were no longer capable of resistance. Presqu' Isle, Venango, and Le Bœuf were easily taken by Colonel Bouquet, who had been sent to summon them to surrender." The detachment left at Oswego, in charge of stores, was attacked by a body of French and Indians from La Presentation (Ogdensburg), but the attack failed. "For the reduction of the forts at Ticonderoga and Crown Point, Amherst had somewhat more than 11,000 men. He began preparations early in May at Albany, preparing boats, gathering stores, and disciplining the new recruits." In June he reached Lake George with his army, but it was not until late in July that "the army moved down the lake in four columns, in a fleet of whale-boats, bateaux, and artillery rafts, very much as Abercromby's men had gone to their defeat the year before, and left the boats nearly opposite the former landing-place. The vanguard, pushing on rapidly over the road to the falls, met a detachment of French and Indians, whom they overpowered and scattered after a slight skirmish, and the main body pressed on and took a position at the saw mills. From prisoners it was learned that Bourlamaque commanded at Ticonderoga with 3,400 men. Montcalm was at Quebec." The French 'withdrew from their outer lines into the fort, and made a show of resistance for several days while they evacuated the place. An explosion, during the night of the 25th of July, "and the light of the burning works, assured the English of the retreat of the French, of which they had already heard from a deserter, and Colonel Haviland pursued them down the lake with a few troops, and took sixteen prisoners and some boats laden with powder. … After the flames were extinguished, Amherst, who had lost about 75 men, went to work to repair the fortifications and complete the road from the lake. Some sunken French boats were raised, and a brig was built. Amherst was slowly preparing to attack Crown Point, and sent Rogers with his rangers to reconnoitre. But on the first of August they learned that the French had abandoned that fort also; and on the 16th that Bourlamaque's men were encamped on the Isle aux Noix, at the northern extremity of Lake Champlain, commanding the entrance to the Richelieu. They had been joined by some small detachments, and numbered about 3,500 men. Amherst spent his time in fortifying Crown Point, and building boats and rafts," until "it was too late to descend to Montreal and go to the help of Wolfe; the time for that had been passed in elaborate and useless preparations."

      W. L. Stone,
      Life and Times of Sir W. Johnson,
      volume 2, chapter 4.

CANADA: A. D. 1760.
The completion of the English conquest.
The end of "New France."

"Notwithstanding the successes of 1759, Canada was not yet completely conquered. If Amherst had moved on faster and taken Montreal, the work would have been finished; but his failure to do so gave the French forces an opportunity to rally, and the indefatigable De Levis, who had succeeded Montcalm, gathered what remained of the army at Montreal, and made preparations for attempting the recovery of Quebec. … After several fruitless attacks had been made on the British outposts during the winter, De Levis refitted all the vessels yet remaining early in the spring and gathered the stores still left at the forts on the Richelieu. On the 17th of April, he left Montreal with all his force and descended the river, gathering up the detached troops on the way; the whole amounting to more than 10,000 men. Quebec had been left in charge of Murray, with 7,000 men, a supply of heavy artillery, and stores of ammunition and provisions; but the number of men had been much reduced by sickness and by hardship encountered in bringing fuel to the city from forests, some as far as ten miles away. Their position, however, had been very much strengthened. … De Levis encamped at St. Foy, and on the 27th advanced to within three miles of the city."

   "On the 28th of April, Murray, marching out from the city,
   left the advantageous ground which he first occupied, and
   hazarded an attack near Sillery Wood. The advance-guard, under
   Bourlamaque, returned it with ardor. In danger of being
   surrounded, Murray was obliged to fly, leaving 'his very fine
   train of artillery,' and losing 1,000 men. The French appear
   to have lost about 300, though Murray's report increased it
   more than eightfold. During the next two days, Levi [Levis]
   opened trenches against the town; but the frost delayed the
   works. The English garrison, reduced to 2,200 effective men,
   labored with alacrity; women, and even cripples were set to
   light work. In the French army, not a word would be listened
   to of the possibility of failure. But Pitt had foreseen and
   prepared for all. A fleet at his bidding went to relieve the
   city; and to his wife he was able to write in June: 'Join, my
   love, with me, in most humble and grateful thanks to the
   Almighty. Swanton arrived at Quebec in the Vanguard on the
   15th of May, and destroyed all the French shipping, six or
   seven in number. The siege was raised on the 17th. with every
   happy circumstance. The enemy left their camp standing;
   abandoned 40 pieces of cannon. Happy, happy day! My joy and
   hurry are inexpressible.' When the spring opened. Amherst had
   no difficulties to encounter in taking possession of Canada
   but such as he himself should create. A country suffering from
   a four years' scarcity, a disheartened peasantry, five or six
   battalions, wasted by incredible services and not recruited
   from France, offered no opposition. Amherst led the main army
   of 10,000 men by way of Oswego; though the labor of getting
   there was greater than that of proceeding directly upon
   Montreal. He descended the St. Lawrence cautiously, taking
   possession of the feeble works at Ogdensburg. Treating the
   helpless Canadians with humanity, and with no loss of lives
   except in passing the rapids, on the 7th of September, 1760,
   he met before Montreal the army of Murray.
{378}
   The next day Haviland arrived with forces from Crown Point;
   and, in the view of the three armies, the flag of St. George
   was raised in triumph over the gate of Montreal. … The
   capitulation [signed by the Marquis de Vaudreuil, governor,
   against the protest of Levis] included all Canada, which was
   said to extend to the crest of land dividing branches of Lakes
   Erie and Michigan from those of the Miami, the Wabash, and the
   Illinois rivers. Property and religion were cared for in the
   terms of surrender; but for civil liberty no stipulation was
   thought of. … On the fifth day after the capitulation,
   Rogers departed with 200 rangers to carry English banners to
   the upper posts. … The Indians on the lakes were at peace,
   united under Pontiac, the great chief of the Ottawas, happy in
   a country fruitful of corn and abounding in game. The
   Americans were met at the mouth of a river by a deputation of
   Ottawas. 'Pontiac,' said they, 'is the chief and lord of the
   country you are in; wait till he can see you.' When Pontiac
   and Rogers met, the savage chieftain asked: 'How have you
   dared to enter my country without my leave?' 'I come,' replied
   the English agent, 'with no design against the Indians, but to
   remove the French.'" Pontiac, after some delay, smoked the
   calumet with Rogers and consented to his mission. The latter
   then proceeded to take possession of Detroit. In the following
   spring he went on to the French posts in the northwest.

G. Bancroft, History of the United States. (Author's last revision), volume 2, pages 522-524.

ALSO IN: W. Smith, History of Canada, volume 1, chapter 7 (giving the Articles of Capitulation in full).

CANADA: A. D. 1763-1774.
   The Province of Quebec created.
   Eleven years of military rule.
   The Quebec Act of 1774.
   Extension of Quebec Province to the
   Ohio and the Mississippi.

"For three years after the conquest, the government of Canada was entrusted to military chiefs, stationed at Quebec, Montreal and Three Rivers, the headquarters of the three departments into which General Amherst divided the country. Military councils were established to administer law, though, as a rule, the people did not resort to such tribunals, but settled their difficulties among themselves. In 1763, the king, George III., issued a proclamation establishing four new governments, of which Quebec was one. Labrador, from St. John's River to Hudson's Bay, Anticosti, and the Magdalen Islands, were placed under the jurisdiction of Newfoundland, and the islands of St. John (or Prince Edward Island, as it was afterwards called), and Cape Breton (Ile Royale) with the smaller islands adjacent thereto, were added to the government of Nova Scotia. Express power was given to the governors, in the letters-patent by which these governments were constituted, to summon general assemblies, with the advice and consent of His Majesty's Council, 'in such manner and form as was usual in those colonies and provinces which were under the King's immediate government.' … No assembly, however, ever met, as the French-Canadian population were unwilling to take the test oath, and the government of the province was carried on solely by the governor general, with the assistance of an executive council, composed in the first instance of the two lieutenant-governors of Montreal and Three Rivers, the chief justice, the surveyor general of customs, and eight others chosen from the leading residents in the colony. From 1763 to 1774 the province remained in a very unsettled state, chiefly on account of the uncertainty that prevailed as to the laws actually in force. … The province of Quebec remained for eleven years under the system of government established by the proclamation of 1763. In 1774, Parliament intervened for the first time in Canadian affairs and made important constitutional changes. The previous constitution had been created by letters-patent under the great seal of Great Britain, in the exercise of an unquestionable and undisputed prerogative of the Crown. The colonial institutions of the old possessions of Great Britain, now known as the United States of America, had their origin in the same way. But in 1774, a system of government was granted to Canada by the express authority of Parliament. This constitution was known as the Quebec Act, and greatly extended the boundaries of the province of Quebec, as defined in the proclamation of 1763. On one side, the province extended to the frontiers of New England, Pennsylvania, New York province, the Ohio, and the left bank of the Mississippi; on the other, to the Hudson's Bay Territory. Labrador, and the islands annexed to Newfoundland by the proclamation of 1763, were made part of the province of Quebec. … The Act of 1774 was exceedingly unpopular in England and in the English-speaking colonies, then at the commencement of the Revolution. Parliament, however, appears to have been influenced by a desire to adjust the government of the province so as to conciliate the majority of the people. … The new constitution came into force in October, 1774. The Act sets forth among the reasons for legislation that the provisions made by the proclamation of 1763 were 'inapplicable to the state and circumstances of the said province, the inhabitants whereof amounted at the conquest, to above 65,000 persons professing the religion of the Church of Rome, and enjoying an established form of constitution and system of laws, by which their persons and property had been protected, governed, and ordered for a long series of years, from the first establishment of the province.' Consequently, it is provided that Roman Catholics should be no longer obliged to take the test oath, but only the oath of allegiance. The government of the province was entrusted to a governor and a legislative council, appointed by the Crown, inasmuch as it was 'inexpedient to call an assembly.' This council was to comprise not more than twenty-three, and not less than seventeen members, and had the power, with the consent of the governor or commander-in-chief for the time being, to make ordinances for the peace, welfare, and good government of the province. They had no authority, however, to lay on any taxes or duties except such as the inhabitants of any town or district might be authorized to assess or levy within its precincts for roads and ordinary local services. No ordinance could be passed, except by a majority of the council, and every one had to be transmitted within six months after its enactment to His Majesty for approval or disallowance. {379} It was also enacted that in all matters of controversy, relative to property and civil rights, recourse should be had to the French civil procedure, whilst the criminal law of England should obtain to the exclusion of every other criminal code which might have prevailed before 1764. … Roman Catholics were permitted to observe their religion with perfect freedom, and their clergy were to enjoy their 'accustomed dues and rights' with respect to such persons as professed that creed. Consequently, the Roman Catholic population of Canada were relieved of their disabilities many years before people of the same belief in Great Britain and Ireland received similar privileges. The new constitution was inaugurated by Major General Carleton, afterwards Lord Dorchester, who nominated a legislative council of twenty-three members, of whom eight were Roman Catholics."

      ALSO IN:
      W. Houston,
      Documents Illustrative of the Canadian Constitution,
      pages 90-96.

CANADA: A. D. 1775-1776.
   Invasion by the revolting American colonists.
   Loss and recovery of Montreal.
   Successful defence of Quebec.

At the beginning of the revolt of the thirteen colonies which subsequently formed, by their separation from Great Britain, the United States of America, it was believed among them that Canada would join their movement if the British troops which occupied the country were driven out. Acting on this belief, the Continental Congress at Philadelphia, in June, 1775, adopted a resolution instructing General Schuyler to repair without delay to Ticonderoga (which had been surprised and taken a few weeks before by Ethan Allen and his "Green Mountain Boys"), and "if he found it practicable, and it would not be disagreeable to the Canadians, immediately to take possession of St. John's and Montreal, and pursue any other measures in Canada which might have a tendency to promote the peace and security of these colonies." General Schuyler found it difficult to gather troops and supplies for the projected expedition, and it was the middle of August before he was prepared to move. His chief subordinate officer was General Richard Montgomery, an Irishman, formerly in the British service, but settled latterly in New York; and he was to be supported by a cooperative movement planned and led by Benedict Arnold. "General Montgomery, with 3,000 men, would go down Lake Champlain and attack Montreal; while General Arnold, with 1,200, was to seek the headwaters of Kennebec River, cross the height of land, and descend the Chaudiere to the very gates of Quebec. The brave General Carleton, who had been with Wolfe at Quebec, was now in command of the forces of Canada—if 500 British regulars and a few hundred militia might be so denominated. No doubt Governor Carleton with his small army undertook too much. He sought to defend the way to Montreal by holding Fort St. John, and that to Quebec by defending Chambly. Both these places fell before the Americans. General Montgomery pushed on down the River Richelieu and occupied Sorel, throwing forces across the St. Lawrence, and erected batteries on both sides to prevent intercourse between Montreal and Quebec. Montreal, now defenceless, was compelled to surrender on the 13th of November, and 11 British vessels were given up to the enemy. It was really a dark hour for Canada. General Carleton has been severely criticized for dividing his forces. The truth is, the attack was so unexpected, and so soon after the outbreak of the rebellion, that no plan of defence for Canada had been laid. … General Carleton escaped from Montreal, and, in a boat, passed the Sorel batteries with muffled oars under cover of night. The general had but reached Quebec in time. The expedition of Arnold had already gained the St. Lawrence on the side opposite the' Ancient Capital.' The energy displayed by Arnold's men was remarkable. The Kennebec is a series of rapids. Its swift current hurries over dangerous rocks at every turn. The highlands when reached consist of swamps and rocky ridges covered with forest. The Chaudiere proved worse than the Kennebec, and, the current being with the boats, dashed them to pieces on the rocks. Arnold's men, on their six weeks' march, had run short of food, and were compelled to eat the dogs which had accompanied them. Not much more than half of Arnold's army reached the St. Lawrence. Arnold's force crossed the St. Lawrence, landed at Wolfe's Cove, and built huts for themselves on the Plains of Abraham. On the 5th of December Montgomery joined the Kennebec men before Quebec. The united force was of some 3,000 men, supported by about a dozen light guns. Carleton had, for the defence of Quebec, only one company of regulars and a few seamen and marines of a sloop of war at Quebec. The popularity of the governor was such that he easily prevailed upon the citizens, both French and English, to enroll themselves in companies for the defence of their homes. He was able to count upon about 1,600 bayonets. The defences of Quebec were, however, too strong for the Americans. On the night of December 31st, a desperate effort was made to take the city by escalade. Four attacks were made simultaneously. Arnold sought to enter by the St. Charles, on the north side of Quebec, and Montgomery by the south, between Cape Diamond and the St. Lawrence. Two feints were to be made on the side towards the Plains of Abraham. The hope of the commanders was to have forced the gates from the lower to the upper town in both cases. Arnold failed to reach the lower town, and in a sortie the defenders cut off nearly the whole of his column. He escaped wounded. Montgomery was killed at the second entrenchment of the lower town, and his troops retired in confusion. The American generals have been criticized by experts for not making their chief attack on the wall facing on the Plains of Abraham. … General Arnold remained before Quebec, though his troops had become reduced to 800 men. General Carleton pursued a policy of acting strictly on the defensive. If he retained Quebec it would be his greatest success. General Arnold sought to gain the sympathy of the French Canadian seigniors and people, but without any success. Three thousand troops, however, came to reinforce Arnold early in the year, and 4,000 occupied Montreal, St. John's, and Chambly. But on the 6th of May relief came from England; men of war and transports, with three brigades of infantry besides artillery, stores, and ammunition. The Americans withdrew to Sorel. The British troops followed them, and a brigade encamped at Three Rivers. {380} The Americans attempted to surprise the force at Three Rivers, but were repulsed with heavy loss. The Americans now fell back from Montreal, deserted all the posts down to Lake Champlain, and Governor Carleton had the pleasure of occupying Isle-aux-Noix as the outpost, leaving Canada as it had been before the first attack in the year before."

ALSO IN: B. J. Lossing, Life and Times of Philip Schuyler, volume 1, chapters 19-29, and volume 2, chapters 1-4.

J. Sparks, Life and Treason of Benedict Arnold, chapters 3-5, (Library of American Biographies, volume 3).

J. Armstrong, Life of Richard Montgomery (Library of American Biographies, volume 1).

CANADA: A. D. 1776.
General Carleton's unsuccessful advance against Ticonderoga.

CANADA: A. D 1783.
Settlement of boundaries in the Treaty of Peace between Great
Britain and the United States.

CANADA: A. D. 1783-1784.
Influx of the "United Empire Loyalists" from the United
States.

CANADA: A. D. 1791
The Constitutional Act.
Division of the province into Upper and Lower Canada.

"In 1791 a bill was introduced by Pitt dividing the Province into Upper and Lower Canada, the line of division being so drawn as to give a great majority to the British element in Upper Canada and a great majority to the French settlers in Lower Canada. The measure was strongly opposed by Fox, who urged that the separation of the English and French inhabitants was most undesirable. … The act was passed, and is known as the Constitutional Act of 1791. … In each province the legislature was to consist of the Governor, a Legislative Council and a Legislative Assembly. The Governor had power to give or withhold the royal assent to bills, or to reserve them for consideration by the Crown. He could summon, prorogue, or dissolve the legislature, but was required to convene the legislature at least once a year. The Legislative Council in Upper Canada consisted of not less than 7, and in Lower Canada of not less than 15 members, chosen by the King for life, the Speaker being appointed by the Governor-General. The Legislative Assembly was in counties elected by 40s, freeholders, and in towns by owners of houses of £5 yearly value and by resident inhabitants paying £10 yearly rent. The number and limits of electoral districts were fixed by the Governor-General. Lower Canada had 50 members, Upper Canada 16 members, assigned to their respective legislatures. The new Constitution did not prove a success. Serious differences arose between the Legislative Council and the Legislative Assembly in regard to the control of the revenue and supplies, differences which were aggravated by the conflict that still went on between the French and English races. … The discontent resulted in the rebellion of 1837-8."

ALSO IN: W. Houston, Docs. Illustrative of the Canadian Const., pages 112-133.

CANADA: A. D. 1818.
Convention between Great Britain and the United States
relating to Fisheries, etc.

"The Family Compact manifestly grew out of the principles of the U. E. Loyalists. It was the union of the leaders of the loyalists with others of kindred spirit, to rule Upper Canada, heedless of the rights or wishes of its people. We have admired the patriotic, heroic and sentimental side of U. E. loyalism; but plainly, as related to civil government, its political doctrines and practices were tyrannical. Its prominent members belonged to the class which in the American colonies, in the persons of Governors Bernard and Hutchinson, and many others of high office and standing, had plotted to destroy the liberties of the people and had hastened the American revolution. … By the years 1818 or 1820 a junto or cabal had been formed, definite in its aims and firmly combined together, known as the Family Compact, not to its best leaders seeming an embodiment of selfishness, but rather set for patriotic defence and hallowed with the name of religion."

"Upper Canada … has long been entirely governed by a party commonly designated throughout the Province as the 'Family Compact,' a name not much more appropriate than party designations usually are, inasmuch as there is, in truth, very little of family connection among the persons thus united. For a long time this body of men, receiving at times accessions to its members, possessed almost all the highest public offices, by means of which, and of its influence in the Executive Council, it wielded all the powers of government; it maintained influence in the legislature by means of its predominance in the Legislative Council; and it disposed of a large number of petty posts which are in the patronage of the Government all over the Province. Successive Governors, as they came in their turn, are said to have either submitted quietly to its influence, or, after a short and unavailing struggle, to have yielded to this well-organized party the real conduct of affairs. The bench, the magistracy, the high offices of the Episcopal Church, and a great part of the legal profession, are filled by the adherents of this party: by grant or purchase, they have acquired nearly the whole of the waste lands of the Province; they are all powerful in the chartered banks, and, till lately, shared among themselves almost exclusively all offices of trust and profit. The bulk of this party consists, for the most part, of native-born inhabitants of the colony, or of emigrants who settled in it before the last war with the United States; the principal members of it belong to the church of England, and the maintenance of the claims of that church has always been one of its distinguishing characteristics."

"The influences which produced the Family Compact were not confined to Upper Canada. In the Lower Province, as well as in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, similar causes led to similar results, and the term Family Compact has at one time or another been a familiar one in all the British North American colonies. … The designation Family Compact, however, did not owe its origin to any combination of North American colonists, but was borrowed from the diplomatic history of Europe."

"It was in Lower Canada that the greatest difficulties arose. A constant antagonism grew up between the majority of the legislative council, who were nominees of the Crown, and the majority of the representative assembly, who were elected by the population of the province [see above: A. D. 1791]. The home Government encouraged and indeed kept up that most odious and dangerous of all instruments for the supposed management of a colony—a 'British party' devoted to the so-called interests of the mother country, and obedient to the word of command from their masters and patrons at home. The majority in the legislative council constantly thwarted the resolutions of the vast majority of the popular assembly. Disputes arose as to the voting of supplies. The Government retained in their service officials whom the representative' assembly had condemned, and insisted on the right to pay them their salaries out of certain funds of the colony. The representative assembly took to stopping the supplies, and the Government claimed the right to counteract this measure by appropriating to the purpose such public moneys as happened to be within their reach at the time. The colony—for indeed on these subjects the population of Lower Canada, right or wrong, was so near to being of one mind that we may take the declarations of public meetings as representing the colony—demanded that the legislative council should be made elective, and that the colonial government should not be allowed to dispose of the moneys of the colony at their pleasure. The House of Commons and the Government here replied by refusing to listen to the proposal. … It is not necessary to suppose that in all these disputes the popular majority were in the right and the officials in the wrong. No one can doubt that there was much bitterness of feeling arising out of the mere differences of race. … At last the representative assembly refused to vote any further supplies or to carry on any further business. They formulated their grievances against the home Government. Their complaints were of arbitrary conduct on the part of the governors; intolerable composition of the legislative council, which they insisted ought to be elective; illegal appropriation of the public money, and violent prorogation of the provincial parliament. One of the leading men in the movement which afterwards became rebellion in Lower Canada was Mr. Louis Joseph Papineau. This man had risen to high position by his talents, his energy, and his undoubtedly honourable character. He had represented Montreal in the representative Assembly of Lower Canada, and he afterwards became Speaker of the House. He made himself leader of the movement to protest against the policy of the governors, and that of the Government by whom they were sustained. He held a series of meetings, at some of which undoubtedly rather strong language was used. … Lord Gosford, the governor, began by dismissing several militia officers who had taken part in some of these demonstrations; Mr. Papineau himself was an officer of this force. Then the governor issued warrants for the apprehension of many members of the popular Assembly on the charge of high treason. Some of these at once left the country; others against whom warrants were issued were arrested, and a sudden resistance was made by their friends and supporters. Then, in a manner familiar to all who have read anything of the history of revolutionary movements, the resistance to a capture of prisoners suddenly transformed itself into open rebellion."

Among the grievances which gave rise to discontent in both Upper and Lower Canada, "first of all there was the chronic grievance of the Clergy Reserves [which were public lands set apart by the Act of 1791 for the support of the Protestant Clergy], common both to British and French, to Upper and to Lower Canada. In Upper Canada these reserves amounted to 2,500,000 acres, being one-seventh of the lands in the Province. Three objections were made against continuing these Reserves for the purpose for which they had been set apart. The first objection arose from the way in which the Executive Council wished to apply the revenues accruing from these lands. According to the Act they were to be applied for 'maintaining the Protestant religion in Canada'; and the Executive Council interpreted this as meaning too exclusively the Church of England, which was established by law in the mother-country. But the objectors claimed a right for all Protestant denominations to share in the Reserves. The second objection was that the amount of these lands was too large for the purpose in view: and the third referred to the way in which the Reserves were selected. These 2,500,000 acres did not lie in a block, but, when the early surveys were made, every seventh lot was reserved; and as these lots were not cleared for years the people complained that they were not utilized, and so became inconvenient barriers to uniform civilization. With the Roman Catholics, both priests and people, the Clergy Reserves were naturally unpopular. … An additional source of complaint was found in the fact that the government of Upper and Lower Canada had found its way into the hands of a few powerful families banded together by a Family Compact [see above: A. D. 1820-1837]. … But the Constitutional difficulty was, after all, the great one, and it lay at the bottom of the whole dispute. … Altogether the issues were very complicated in the St. Lawrence Valley Provinces and the Maritime Provinces … and so it is not to be wondered at that some should interpret the rebellion as a class, and perhaps semi-religious, contest rather than a race-conflict. The constitutional dead-lock, however, was tolerably clear to those who looked beneath the surface. … The main desire of all was to be freed of the burden of Executive Councils, nominated at home and kept in office with or without the wish of the people. In Upper Canada, William Lyon Mackenzie, and in Lower Canada, Louis Papineau and Dr. Wolfred Nelson, agitated for independence."

Report of Commissioner appointed to inquire into the grievances complained of in Lower Canada, (House of Commons, February 20, 1837).

CANADA: A. D. 1837-1838.
The rebellion under Papineau and Mackenzie, and its suppression.
The Burning of the Caroline.

"Immediately on the breaking out of the rebellion, the constitution of Lower Canada was suspended; the revolt was put down at once, and with little difficulty. Though the outbreak in Upper Canada showed that a comparatively small portion of the population was disaffected to the government, there were some sharp skirmishes before the smouldering fire was completely trodden out. … On the night of the 4th of December, 1837, when all Toronto was asleep, except the policemen who stood sentries over the arms in the city hall, and a few gentlemen who sat up to watch out the night with the Adjutant-General of Militia in the Parliament House, the alarm came that the rebels were upon the city. They were under the command of a newspaper editor named Mackenzie, whose grotesque figure was until lately [this was published in 1865] familiar to the frequenters of the Canadian House of Assembly. Rumours had been rife for some days past of arming and drilling among the disaffected in the Home and London districts. … The alarm threw Toronto into commotion. … The volunteers were formed in the market square during the night and well armed. In point of discipline, even in the first instance, they were not wholly deficient, many of them being retired officers and discharged men from both the naval and military services. … Towards morning news came of a smart skirmish which had occurred during the night, in which a party of the rebels were driven back and their leader killed. During the succeeding day and night, loyal yeomen kept pouring in to act in defence of the crown. Sir Allan, then Colonel, Macnab, the Speaker of the House of Assembly … raised a body of his friends and adherents in the course of the night and following day, and, seizing a vessel in the harbour at Hamilton, hurried to Toronto. … The rebels were defeated and dispersed next day, at a place some two miles from Toronto. In this action, the Speaker took the command of the Volunteers, which he kept during the subsequent campaign on the Niagara frontier, and till all danger was over. … Mackenzie soon rallied his scattered adherents, and seized Navy Island, just above Niagara Falls, where he was joined by large numbers of American 'sympathizers,' who came to the spot on the chance of a quarrel with the English. On receipt of this intelligence, the Speaker hastened from the neighbourhood of Brantford (where he had just dispersed a band of insurgents under the command of a doctor named Duncombe) to reinforce Colonel Cameron, formerly of the 79th, who had taken up a position at Chippewa. Navy Island, an eyott some quarter of a mile in length, lies in the Niagara River within musket-shot of the Canadian bank. The current runs past the island on both sides with great velocity, and, immediately below it, hurries over the two miles of rocks and rapids that precede its tremendous leap. The rebels threw up works on the side facing the Canadians. They drew their supplies from Fort Schlosser, an American work nearly opposite the village of Chippewa." A small steamboat, named the Caroline, had been secured by the insurgents and was plying between Fort Schlosser and Navy Island. She "had brought over several field-pieces and other military stores; it therefore became necessary to decide whether it was not expedient for the safety of Canada to destroy her. Great Britain was not at war with the United States, and to cut out an American steamer from an American port was to incur a heavy responsibility. Nevertheless Colonel Macnab determined to assume it." A party sent over in boats at night to Fort Schlosser surprised the Caroline at her wharf, fired her and sent her adrift in the river, to be carried over the Falls.

"On all sides the insurgents were crushed, jails were filled with their leaders, and 180 were sentenced to be hanged. Some of them were executed and some were banished to Van Dieman's Land, while others were pardoned on account of their youth. But there was a great revulsion of feeling in England, and after a few years, pardons were extended to almost all. Even Papineau and Mackenzie, the leaders of the rebellion, were allowed to come back, and, strange to say, both were elected to seats in the Canadian Assembly."

On the American border the Canadian rebellion of 1837-38 was very commonly called "the Patriot War."

CANADA: A. D. 1840-1841.
   International Imbroglio consequent on the burning of the
   Caroline.
   The McLeod Case.

   The burning of the steamer Caroline (see, above, A. D.
   1837-1836) gave rise to a serious question between Great
   Britain and the United States. "In the fray which occurred, an
   American named Durfree was killed. The British government
   avowed this invasion to be a public act and a necessary
   measure of self-defence; but it was a question when Mr. Van
   Buren [President of the United States] went out of office
   whether this avowal had been made in an authentic manner. …
   In November, 1840, one Alexander McLeod came from Canada to
   New York, where he boasted that he was the slayer of Durfree,
   and thereupon was at once arrested on a charge of murder and
   thrown into prison. This aroused great anger in England, and
   the conviction of McLeod was all that was needed to cause
   immediate war. … Our [the American] government was, of
   course, greatly hampered in action … by the fact that McLeod
   was within the jurisdiction and in the power of the New York
   courts, and wholly out reach of those of the United States.
   … Mr. Webster [who became Secretary of State under President
   Taylor] … was hardly in office before he received a demand
   from Mr. Fox for the release of McLeod, in which full avowal
   was made that the burning of the Caroline was a public act.
   Mr. Webster determined that … the only way to dispose of
   McLeod was to get him out of prison, separate him,
   diplomatically speaking, from the affair of the Caroline, and
   then take that up as a distinct matter for negotiation with
   the British government. … His first step was to instruct the
   Attorney-General to proceed to Lockport, where McLeod was
   imprisoned, and communicate with the counsel for the defence,
   furnishing them with authentic information that the
   destruction of the Caroline was a public act, and that
   therefore, McLeod could not be held responsible. …
{383}
   This threw the responsibility for McLeod, and for consequent
   peace or war, where it belonged, on the New York authorities,
   who seemed, however, but little inclined to assist the general
   government. McLeod came before the Supreme Court of New York
   in July, on a writ of habeas corpus, but they refused to
   release him on the grounds set forth in Mr. Webster's
   instructions to the Attorney-General, and he was remanded for
   trial in October, which was highly embarrassing to our
   government, as it kept this dangerous affair open." But when
   McLeod came to trial in October, 1841, it appeared that he was
   a mere braggart who had not even been present when Durfree was
   killed. His acquittal happily ended the case, and smoothed the
   way to the negotiation of the Ashburton treaty, which opened
   at Washington soon afterwards and which settled all questions
   between England and the United States.

CANADA: A. D. 1840-1867.
   Reunion of the provinces.
   The opposition of races.
   Clear Grits and Conservatives.

"The reunion of the two Provinces had been projected before: it was greatly desired by the British of the Lower Province; and in 1822 a bill for the purpose had actually been brought into the Imperial Parliament, but the French being bitterly opposed to it, the Bill had been dropped. The French were as much opposed to reunion as ever, clearly seeing, what the author of the policy [Lord Durham] had avowed, that the measure was directed against their nationality. But since the Rebellion they were prostrate. Their Constitution had been superseded by a Provisional Council sitting under the protection of Imperial bayonets, and this Council consented to the union. The two Provinces were now [July, 1840] placed under a Governor-General with a single legislature, consisting, like the legislatures of the two Provinces before, of an Upper House nominated by the Crown and a Lower House elected by the people. Each province was to have the same number of representatives, although the population of the French Province was at that time much larger than that of the British Province. The French language was proscribed in official proceedings. French nationality was thus sent, constitutionally, under the yoke. But to leave it its votes, necessary and right as that might be, was to leave it the only weapon which puts the weak on a level with the strong, and even gives them the advantage, since the weak are the most likely to hold together and to submit to the discipline of organised party. … The French … 'had the wisdom,' as their manual of history … complacently observes, 'to remain united among themselves, and by that union were able to exercise a happy influence on the Legislature and the Government.' Instead of being politically suppressed, they soon, thanks to their compactness as an interest and their docile obedience to their leaders, became politically dominant. The British factions began to bid against each other for their support, and were presently at their feet. … The statute proscribing the use of the French language in official proceedings was repealed, and the Canadian Legislature was made bi-lingual. The Premiership was divided between the English and the French leader, and the Ministries were designated by the double name—'the Lafontaine—Baldwin,' or 'the Macdonald-Taché.' The French got their full share of seats in the Cabinet and of patronage; of public funds they got more than their full share, especially as being small consumers of imported goods they contributed far less than their quota to the public revenue. By their aid the Roman Catholics of the Upper Province obtained the privilege of Separate Schools in contravention of the principle of religious equality and severance of the Church from the State. In time it was recognized as a rule that a Ministry to retain power must have a majority from each section of the Province. This practically almost reduced the Union to a federation, under which French nationality was more securely entrenched than ever. Gradually the French and their clergy became, as they have ever since been, the basis of what styles itself a Conservative party, playing for French support, by defending clerical privilege, by protecting French nationality, and, not least, by allowing the French Province to dip her hand deep in the common treasury. On the other hand, a secession of thorough-going Reformers from the Moderates … gave birth to the party of the 'Clear Grits,' the leader of which was Mr. George Brown, a Scotch Presbyterian, and which having first insisted on the secularization of the Clergy Reserves, became, when that question was out of the way, a party of general opposition to French and Roman Catholic influence. … A change had thus come over the character and relations of parties. French Canada, so lately the seat of disaffection, became the basis of the Conservative party. British Canada became the stronghold of the Liberals. … A period of tricky combinations, perfidious alliances, and selfish intrigues now commenced, and a series of weak and ephemeral governments was its fruit."

ALSO IN: W. Houston, Docs. Illustrative of the Canadian Const., pages 149-185.

      J. G. Bourinot,
      Manual of the Constitutional History of Canada,
      chapter 5.

CANADA: A. D. 1842.
Settlement of boundary disputes with the United States by the
Ashburton Treaty.

CANADA: A. D. 1854.1866.
The Reciprocity Treaty with the United States and its
abrogation.

   The Fenian movement (see IRELAND: A. D. 1858-1867) had its
   most serious outcome in an attempted invasion of Canada from
   the United States, which took place in 1866. "Canadian
   volunteers were under arms all day on the 17th of March, 1866,
   expecting a Fenian invasion, but it was not made: in April an
   insignificant attack was made upon New Brunswick. About 900
   men, under Colonel O'Neil, crossed from Buffalo to Fort Erie on
   the night of May 31st. Moving westward, this body aimed at
   destroying the Welland Canal, when they were met by the
   Queen's Own Volunteer Regiment of Toronto, and the 13th
   battalion of Hamilton Militia, near the village of Ridgeway.
   Here, after a conflict of two hours, in which for a time the
   Volunteers drove the enemy before them, the Canadian
   forces retired to Ridgeway, and thence to Port Colborne, with
   a loss of nine killed and 30 wounded.
{384}
   Colonel Peacock, in charge of a body of regulars, was marching
   to meet the volunteers, so that O'Neil was compelled to flee
   to Fort Erie, and, crossing to the United States with his men,
   was arrested, but afterwards liberated. The day after the
   skirmish the regulars and volunteers encamped at Fort Erie,
   and the danger on the Niagara Frontier was past. A Fenian
   expedition threatened Prescott, aiming at reaching the capital
   at Ottawa, and another band of marauders crossed the border
   from St. Albans, Vermont, but both were easily driven back.
   The Fenian troubles roused strong feeling in Canada against
   the American authorities. … A Fenian attack was led by Colonel
   O'Neil on the Lower Canadian frontier, in 1870, but it was
   easily met, and the United States authorities were moved to
   arrest the repulsed fugitives. A foolish movement was again
   made in 1871 by the same leader, through Minnesota, against
   Manitoba. Through the prompt action of the friendly American
   commander at Fort Pembina, the United States troops followed
   the Fenians across the border, arrested their leader, and,
   though he was liberated after a trial at St. Paul, Minnesota,
   the expedition ended as a miserable and laughable failure.
   These movements of the Fenian Society, though trifling in
   effect, yet involved Canada in a considerable expense from the
   maintenance of bodies of the Active Militia at different
   points along the frontier. The training of a useful force of
   citizen soldiery however resulted."

      G. Bryce,
      Short History of the Canadian People,
      pages 468-470.

      ALSO IN:
      G. T. Denison, Jr.,
      The Fenian Raid on Fort Erie.
      Correspondence Relating to the Fenian Invasion.
      Official Report of General John O'Neill.

CANADA: A. D. 1867.
   Federation of the provinces of British North America in the
   Dominion of Canada.
   The constitution of the Dominion.

"The Union between Upper and Lower Canada lasted until 1867, when the provinces of British North America were brought more closely together in a federation and entered on a new era in their constitutional history. For many years previous to 1865, the administration of government in Canada had become surrounded with political difficulties of a very perplexing character. … Parties at last were so equally balanced on account of the antagonism between the two sections, that the vote of one member might decide the fate of an administration, and the course of legislation for a year or a series of years. From the 21st of May, 1862, to the end of June, 1864, there were no less than five different ministries in charge of the public business. Legislation, in fact, was at last practically at a dead-lock. … It was at this critical juncture of affairs that the leaders of the government and opposition, in the session of 1864, came to a mutual understanding, after the most mature consideration of the whole question. A coalition government was formed on the basis of a federal union of all the British American provinces, or of the two Canadas, in case of the failure of the larger scheme. … It was a happy coincidence that the legislatures of the lower provinces were about considering a maritime union at the time the leading statesmen of Canada had combined to mature a plan of settling their political difficulties. The Canadian ministry at once availed themselves of this fact to meet the maritime delegates at their convention in Charlottetown, and the result was the decision to consider the question of the larger union at Quebec. Accordingly, on the 10th of October, 1864, delegates from all the British North American provinces assembled in conference, in 'the ancient capital,' and after very ample deliberations during eighteen days, agreed to 72 resolutions, which form the basis of the Act of Union. These resolutions were formally submitted to the legislature of Canada in January, 1865, and after an elaborate debate, which extended from the 3d of February to the 14th of March, both houses agreed by very large majorities to an address to her Majesty praying her to submit a measure to the Imperial Parliament for the purpose of uniting the provinces in accordance with the provisions of the Quebec resolutions.' Some time, however, had to elapse before the Union could be consummated, in consequence of the strong opposition that very soon exhibited itself in the maritime provinces, more especially to the financial terms of the scheme." Certain modifications of the terms of the Quebec resolutions were accordingly made, and "the provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick, being at last in full accord, through the action of their respective legislatures, the plan of union was submitted on the 12th of February, 1867, to the Imperial Parliament, where it met with the warm support of the statesmen of all parties, and passed without amendment in the course of a few weeks, the royal assent being given on the 29th of March. The new constitution came into force on the First of July, [annually celebrated since, as 'Dominion Day '] 1867, and the first parliament of the united provinces met on November of the same year. … The confederation, as inaugurated in 1867, consisted only of the four provinces of Ontario [Upper Canada], Quebec [Lower Canada], Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick. By the 146th section of the Act of Union, provision was made for the admission of other colonies on addresses from the parliament of Canada, and from the respective legislatures of Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, and British Columbia. Rupert's Land and the North-west Territory might also at any time be admitted into the Union on the address of the Canadian Parliament. … The title of Dominion did not appear in the Quebec resolutions. The 71st Res. is to the effect that 'Her Majesty be solicited to determine the rank and name of the federated Provinces.' The name ['The Dominion of Canada'] was arranged at the conference held in London in 1866, when the union bill was finally drafted."

T. G. Bourinot, Manual of Constitutional History of Canada, chapter 6-7 (with foot-note).

   "The Federal Constitution of the Dominion of Canada is
   contained in the British North America Act, 1867, a statute of
   the British Parliament (30 Vict., c. 3). I note a few of the
   many points in which it deserves to be compared with that of
   the United States. The Federal or Dominion Government is
   conducted on the so-called 'Cabinet system' of England, i. e.,
   the Ministry sit in Parliament, and hold office at the
   pleasure of the House of Commons. The Governor-General
   [appointed by the Crown] is in the position of an
   irresponsible and permanent executive similar to that of the
   Crown of Great Britain, acting on the advice of responsible
   ministers.
{385}
   He can dissolve Parliament. The Upper House or Senate, is
   composed of 78 persons, nominated for life by the
   Governor-General, i. e., the Ministry. The House of Commons
   has at present 210 members, who are elected for five years.
   Both senators and members receive salaries. The Senate has
   very little power or influence. The Governor-General has a
   veto but rarely exercises it, and may reserve a bill for the
   Queen's pleasure. The judges, not only of the Federal or
   Dominion Courts, but also of the provinces, are appointed by
   the Crown, i. e., by the Dominion Ministry, and hold for good
   behaviour. Each of the Provinces, at present [1888] seven in
   number, has a legislature of its own, which, however, consists
   in Ontario, British Columbia, and Manitoba, of one House only,
   and a Lieutenant-Governor, with a right of veto on the acts of
   the legislature, which he seldom exercises. Members of the
   Dominion Parliament cannot sit in a Provincial legislature.
   The Governor-General has a right of disallowing acts of a
   Provincial legislature, and sometimes exerts it, especially
   when a legislature is deemed to have exceeded its
   constitutional competence. In each of the Provinces there is a
   responsible Ministry, working on the Cabinet system of
   England. The distribution of matters within the competence of
   the Dominion Parliament and of the Provincial legislatures
   respectively, bears a general resemblance to that existing in
   the United States; but there is this remarkable distinction,
   that whereas in the United States, Congress has only the
   powers actually granted to it, the State legislatures
   retaining all such powers as have not been taken from them,
   the Dominion Parliament has a general power of legislation,
   restricted only by the grant of certain specific and exclusive
   powers to the Provincial legislatures. Criminal law is
   reserved for the Dominion Parliament; and no Province has the
   right to maintain a military force. Questions as to the
   constitutionality of a statute, whether of the Dominion
   Parliament or of a Provincial legislature, come before the
   courts in the ordinary way, and if appealed, before the
   Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in England. The
   Constitution of the Dominion was never submitted to a popular
   vote, and can be altered only by the British Parliament,
   except as regards certain points left to its own legislature.
   … There exists no power of amending the Provincial
   constitutions by popular vote similar to that which the
   peoples of the several States exercise in the United States."

J. Bryce, The American Commonwealth, volume 1, appendix., note (B) to chapter 80.

      ALSO IN:
      J. E. C. Munro,
      The Constitution of Canada
      (with text of Act in appendix)
      Parl. Debate on Confederation, 3d Sess., 8th Prov.
      Parliament of Canada.

      W. Houston,
      Docs. Illustrative of the Canadian Constitution,
      pages 186-224.

CANADA: A. D. 1869-1873.
   Acquisition of the Hudson's Bay Territory.
   Admission or Manitoba, British Columbia and Prince Edward's
   Island to the Dominion.

"In 1869 … the Dominion was enlarged by the acquisition of the famous Hudson's Bay Territory. When the charter of the Hudson's Bay Company expired in 1869, Lord Granville, then Colonial Secretary, proposed that the chief part of the Company's territories should be transferred to the Dominion for £300,000; and the proposition was agreed to on both sides. The Hudson's Bay Charter dated from the reign of Charles II. The region to which it referred carries some of its history imprinted in its names. Prince Rupert was at the head of the association incorporated by the Charter into the Hudson's Bay Company. The name of Rupert's Land perpetuates his memory. … The Hudson's Bay Company obtained from King Charles, by virtue of the Charter in 1670, the sole and absolute government of the vast watershed of Hudson's Bay, the Rupert's Land of the Charter, on condition of paying yearly to the King and his successors 'two elks and two black beavers,' 'whensoever and all often as we, our heirs and successors, shall happen to enter into the said countries, territories and regions.' The Hudson's Bay Company was opposed by the North West Fur Company in 1788, which fought them for a long time with Indians and law, with the tomahawk of the red man and the legal judgment of a Romilly or a Keating. In 1812 Lord Selkirk founded the Red River Company. This interloper on the battle field was harassed by the North West Company, and it was not until 1821, when the Hudson's Bay and North West Companies—impoverished by their long warfare-amalgamated their interests, that the Red River settlers were able to reap their harvests in peace, disturbed only by occasional plagues of locusts and blackbirds. In 1885, on Lord Selkirk's death, the Hudson's Bay Company bought the settlement from his executors. It had been under their sway before that, having been committed to their care by Lord Selkirk during his lifetime. The privilege of exclusive trading east of the Rocky Mountains was conferred by Royal license for twenty-one years in May 1888, and some ten years later the Company received a grant of Vancouver's Island for the term of ten years from 1849 to 1859. The Hudson's Bay Company were always careful to foster the idea that their territory was chiefly wilderness, and discountenanced the reports of its fertility and fitness for colonisation which were from time to time brought to the ears of the English Government. In 1857, at the instance of Mr. Labouchere, a Select Committee of the House of Commons was appointed to enquire into the state of the British possessions under the Company's administration. Various Government expeditions, and the publication of many Blue Books, enlightened the public mind as to the real nature of those tracts of land which the council from the Fenchurch Street house declared to be so desolate. … During the sittings of the Committee there was cited in evidence a petition from 575 Red River settlers to the Legislative Assembly of Canada demanding British protection. This appeal was a proceeding curiously at variance with the later action of the settlement. When in 1869 the chief part of the territories was transferred to Canada, on the proposition of Earl Granville, the Red River country rose in rebellion, and refused to receive the new Governor. Louis Riel, the insurgent chief, seized on Fort Garry and the Company's treasury, and proclaimed the independence of the settlement. Sir Garnet, then Colonel, Wolseley, was sent in command of an expedition which reached Fort Garry on August 28, when the insurgents submitted without resistance, and the district received the name of Manitoba."

Manitoba and the Northwest Territories were admitted to the Dominion Confederation May 12, 1870; British Columbia, July 20, 1871; Prince Edward Island, July 1, 1873.

      G. E. Ellis,
      The Hudson Bay Company
      (Narrative and Critical History of America, volume 8).

See, also, BRITISH COLUMBIA: A. D. 1858-1871,
and NORTHWEST TERRITORIES of CANADA.

CANADA: A. D. 1885-1888.
   Termination of the Fishery articles of the Treaty of Washington.
   Renewed controversies.
   The rejected Treaty.

The first great step in African exploration "was the discovery of the Canary Islands. These were the 'Elysian fields' and 'Fortunate islands' of antiquity. Perhaps there is no country in the world that has been so many times discovered, conquered, and invaded, or so much fabled about, as these islands. There is scarcely a nation upon earth of any maritime repute that has not had to do with them. Phœnicians, Carthaginians, Romans, Moors, Genoese, Normans, Portuguese, and Spaniards of every province (Aragonese, Castilians, Gallicians, Biscayans, Andalucians) have all made their appearance in these islands. The Carthaginians are said to have discovered them, and to have reserved them as an asylum in case of extreme danger to the state. Sertorius, the Roman general who partook the fallen fortunes of Marius is said to have meditated retreat to these 'islands of the blessed,' and by some writers is supposed to have gone there. Juba, the Mauritanian prince, son of the Jupa celebrated by Sallust, sent ships to examine them, and has left a description of them. Then came the death of empires, and darkness fell upon the human race, at least upon the records of their history. When the world revived, and especially when the use of the loadstone began to be known among mariners, the Canary Islands were again discovered. Petrarch is referred to by Viera to prove that the Genoese sent out an expedition to these islands. Las Casas mentions that an English or French vessel bound from France or England to Spain was driven by contrary winds to the Canary Islands, and on its return spread abroad in France an account of the voyage."

CANCELLARIUS.

CANDIA.

This is the name of the principal town in the island of Crete, but has been often applied to Crete itself.

See TURKS: A. D. 1645-1669, where an account is given of the so-called "War of Candia"; also CRETE: A. D. 823.

A tribe in early Britain which occupied the westerly part of
Modern Carnarvonshire.

"On the other bank of the Rhine [on the right bank] next to the Batavi, in the modern Kennemer district (north Holland, beyond Amsterdam) dwelt the Cannenefates, closely related to them but less numerous; they are not merely named among the tribes subjugated by Tiberius, but were also treated like the Batavi in the furnishing of soldiers."

An important inscribed stone found in 1865 at San, or Tanis, in Egypt, which is a monument of the reign of Ptolemy Euergetes, who ascended the throne in 246 B. C. It gives "in hieroglyphics and Greek (the demotic version is on the edge) a decree of the priests assembled at Canopus for their yearly salutation of the king. When they were so assembled, in his ninth year, his infant daughter Berenice, fell sick and died, and there was great lamentation over her. The decree first recounts the generous conduct and prowess of the king, who had conquered all his enemies abroad, and had brought back from Persia all the statues of the gods carried off in old time from Egypt by foreign kings. He had also, in a great threatening of famine, when the Nile had failed to rise to its full amount, imported vast quantities of corn from Cyprus, Phœnicia, &c., and fed his people. Consequently divine honours are to be paid to him and his queen as 'Benefactor-Gods' in all the temples of Egypt, and feasts are to be held in their honour. … This great inscription, far more perfect and considerably older than the Rosetta Stone, can now be cited as the clearest proof of Champollion's reading of the hieroglyphics."

In the conflict which arose between the German Emperor, Henry IV. (then crowned only as King of the Romans) and Pope Gregory VII. (the inflexible Hildebrand), the former was placed at a great disadvantage by revolts and discontents in his own Germanic dominions. When, therefore, on the 22d of February, A. D. 1076, the audacious pontiff pronounced against the king his tremendous sentence, not only of excommunication, but of deposition, releasing all Christians from allegiance to him, he addressed a large party, both in Germany and Italy, who were more than willing to accept an excuse for depriving Henry of his crown. This party controlled a diet held at Tribur, in October, which declared that his forfeiture of the throne would be made irrevocable if he did not procure from the pope a release from his excommunication before the coming anniversary of its pronunciation, in February. A diet to be held then at Augsburg, under the presidency of the pope, would determine the affairs of the Empire. With characteristic energy, Henry resolved to make his way to the pope, in person, and to become reconciled with him, before the Augsburg meeting. Accompanied by the queen, her child, and a few attendants, he crossed the Alps, with great hardship and danger, in the midst of an uncommonly cold and snowy winter. Meantime, the pope had started upon his journey to Augsburg. Hearing on the way of Henry's movement to meet him, not desiring the encounter, and distrusting, moreover, the intentions of his enemy, he took refuge in the strong fortress of Canossa, high up in the rocky recesses of the Apennines. To that mountain retreat the desperate king pressed his way. "It was January 21, 1077, when Henry arrived at Canossa; the cold was severe and the snow lay deep. He was lodged at the foot of the castle-steep, and had an interview with the countess Matilda [mistress of the castle, and devoted friend of the pope], Hugh, abbot of Clugny, and others, in the Chapel of St. Nicolas, of which no traces now remain. Three days were spent in debating terms of reconciliation; Matilda and Hugh interceded with the pope on the king's behalf, but Gregory was inexorable; unless Henry surrendered the crown into the pope's hands the ban should not be taken off. Henry could not stoop so low as this, but he made up his mind to play the part of a penitent suppliant. Early on the morning of January 25 he mounted the winding, rocky path, until he reached the uppermost of the three walls, the one which enclosed the castle yard. And here, before the gateway which still exists, and perpetuates in its name, 'Porta di penitenza,' the memory of this strange event, the king, barefoot, and clad in a coarse woolen shirt, stood knocking for admittance. But he knocked in vain: from morning till evening the heir of the Roman Empire stood shivering outside the fast-closed door. Two more days he climbed the rugged path and stood weeping and imploring to be admitted." At last, the iron-willed pontiff consented to a parley, and an agreement was brought about by which Henry was released from excommunication, but the question of his crown was left for future settlement. In the end he gained nothing by his extraordinary abasement of himself. Many of his supporters were alienated by it; a rival king was elected. Gathering all his energies, Henry then stood his ground and made a fight in which even Gregory fled before him; but it was all to no avail. The triumph remained with the priests.

The Cantabrians were an ancient people in the north of Spain, inhabiting a region to the west of the Asturians. They were not conquered by the Romans until the reign of Augustus, who led an expedition against them in person, B. C. 27, but was forced by illness to commit the campaign to his lieutenants. The Cantabrians submitted soon after being defeated in a great battle at Vellica, near the sources of the Ebro; but in 22 B. C. they joined the Asturians in a desperate revolt, which was not subdued until three years later.

CANTON: A. D. 1839-1842.
   The Opium War.
   Ransom of the city from English assault.
   Its port opened to British trade.

CANTON: A. D. 1856-1857.
Bombardment by the English.
Capture by the English and French.

CANUTE, OR CNUT,
   King of England, A. D.1017-1035,
   and King of Denmark, A. D. 1018-1035.
   Canute II., King of Denmark, A. D. 1080-1086.
   Canute III., King of Denmark, A. D. 1147-1156.
   Canute IV., King of Denmark, A. D. 1182-1202.

CANZACA.

A battle fought A. D. 591, by the Romans, under Narses, supporting the cause of Chosroës II. king of Persia, against a usurper Bahram, who had driven him from his throne. Bahram was defeated and Chosroës restored.

After the surrender of Placentia or Plaisance, in Newfoundland, to England, under the treaty of Utrecht (see NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1713), the French government determined to fortify strongly some suitable harbor on the island of Cape Breton for a naval station, and especially for the protection of the fisheries of France on the neighboring coasts. The harbor known previously as Havre a l' Anglois was chosen for the purpose. "When the French government decided in favour of Havre a l' Anglois its name was changed to Louisbourg, in honour of the king; and, to mark the value set upon Cape Breton it was called Isle Royale, which it retained until its final conquest in 1758, when its ancient name was resumed." In 1720 the fortifications were commenced, and the work of their construction was prosecuted with energy and with unstinted liberality for more than twenty years. "Even the English colonies contributed a great proportion of the materials used in their construction. When Messrs. Newton and Bradstreet, who were sent to confer with M. de St. Ovide [to remonstrate against the supplying of arms to the Indians in Nova Scotia] … returned to Annapolis, they reported that during their short stay at Louisbourg, in 1725, fourteen colonial vessels, belonging chiefly to New England, arrived there with cargoes of boards, timber and bricks. … Louisbourg [described, with a plan, in the work here quoted] … had, between the years 1720 and 1745, cost the French nation the enormous sum of 30,000,000 livres, or £1,200,000 sterling; nevertheless, as Dussieux informs us, the fortifications were still unfinished, and likely to remain so, because the cost had far exceeded the estimates; and it was found such a large garrison would be required for their defence that the government had abandoned the idea of completing them according to the original design."

"The fort was built of stone, with walls more than 30 feet high, and a ditch 80 feet wide, over which was a communication with the town by a drawbridge. It had six bastions and three batteries, with platforms for 148 cannon and six mortars. On an islet, which was flanked on one side by a shoal, a battery of 30 guns, 28 pounders, defended the entrance of the harbor, which was about 400 yards wide, and was also commanded from within by the Grand or Royal Battery, mounting as many guns, of the calibre of 42 pounds. The fort … was a safe rendezvous and refuge for French fleets and privateers, sailing in the Western Hemisphere. It commanded the maritime way into Canada, and it watched the English settlements all along the coast. It was a standing threat to the great business of New England seamen, which was the fishery on the banks."

"'So great was its strength that it was called the Dunkirk of America. It had nunneries and palaces, terraces and gardens. That such a city rose upon a low and desolate island in the infancy of American colonization appears incredible; explanation is alone found in the fishing enthusiasm of the period.'"

CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1745.
Conquest by the New Englanders.
Fall of Louisbourg.

CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1758-1760.
The final capture and destruction of Louisbourg, by the English.

"In May, 1758 [during the Seven Years War,—see CANADA: A. D. 1750-1753 and after], a powerful fleet, under command of Admiral Boscawen, arrived at Halifax for the purpose of recapturing a place [Louisbourg] which ought never to have been given up. The fleet consisted of 23 ships of the line and 18 frigates, besides transports, and when it left Halifax it numbered 157 vessels. With it was a land force, under Jeffery Amherst, of upward of 12,000 men. The French forces at Louisbourg were much inferior, and consisted of only 8 ships of the line and 3 frigates, and of about 4,000 soldiers. The English fleet set sail from Halifax on the 28th of May, and on the 8th of June a landing was effected in Gabarus Bay. The next day the attack began, and after a sharp conflict the French abandoned and destroyed two important batteries. The siege was then pushed by regular approaches; but it was not until the 26th of July that the garrison capitulated. By the terms of surrender the whole garrison were to become prisoners of war and to be sent to England, and the English acquired 218 cannon and 18 mortars, beside great quantities of ammunition and military stores. All the vessels of war had been captured or destroyed; but their crews, to the number of upward of 2,600 men, were included in the capitulation. Two years later, at the beginning of 1760, orders were sent from England to demolish the fortress, render the harbor impracticable, and transport the garrison and stores to Halifax. These orders were carried out so effectually that few traces of its fortifications remain, and the place is inhabited only by fishermen."

C. C. Smith, The Wars on the Seaboard (Narrative and Critical History of America, volume 5, chapter 7).

CAPE COLONY.

CAPHARSALAMA, Battle of.
One of the victories of the Jewish patriot, Judas Maccabæus
over the Syrian general Nicanor, B. C. 162.

CAPHTOR.

An ancient Phœnician settlement on the coast of the Nile Delta. "From an early period the whole of this district had been colonised by the Phœnicians, and as Phœnicia itself was called Keft by the Egyptians, the part of Egypt in which they had settled went by the name of Keft-ur, or 'Greater Phœnicia.'"

   On the other hand, Ewald and other writers say that "the
   Philistines came from Caphtor," and that "this now obsolete
   name probably designated either the whole or a part of Crete."

Fought B. C. 220 in the Social War of the Achæan and Ætolian
Leagues. The forces of the former were totally routed.

"In prehistoric times this hill was called the Mons Saturnius, see Varro, Lin. Lat., volume 41; its name being connected with that legendary 'golden age' when Saturn himself reigned in Italy. … This hill, which, like the other hills of Rome, has had its contour much altered by cutting away and levelling, consists of a mass of tufa rock harder in structure than that of the Palatine hill. It appears once to have been surrounded by cliffs, very steep at most places, and had only approaches on one side—that towards the Forum. … The top of the hill is shaped into two peaks of about equal height, one of which was known as the Capitolium, and the other as the Arx, or Citadel. … The Capitolium was also in early time known as the 'Mars Tarpeius,' so called from the familiar legend of the treachery of Tarpeia. … In later times the name 'rupes Tarpeia' was applied, not to the whole peak, but to a part of its cliff which faced towards the 'Vicus Jugarius' and the 'Forum Magnum.' The identification of that part of the Tarpeian rock, which was used for the execution of criminals, according to a very primitive custom, is now almost impossible. At one place the cliff of the Capitolium is quite perpendicular, and has been cut very carefully into an upright even surface; a deep groove, about a foot wide, runs up the face of this cutting, and there are many rock-cut chambers excavated in this part of the cliff, some openings into which appear in the face of the rock. This is popularly though erroneously known as the Tarpeian rock. … The perpendicular cliff was once very much higher than it is at present, as there is a great accumulation of rubbish at its foot. … That this cliff cannot be the Tarpeian rock where criminals were executed is shown by Dionysius (viii. 78, and vii. 35), who expressly says that this took place in the sight of people in the Forum Magnum, so that the popular Rupes Tarpeia is on the wrong side of the hill."

CAPITULARIES.

"It is commonly supposed that the term capitularies applies only to the laws of Charlemagne; this is a mistake. The word 'capitula,' 'little chapters,' equally applies to all the laws of the Frank kings. … Charlemagne, in his capitularies, did anything but legislate. Capitularies are, properly speaking, the whole acts of his government, public acts of all kinds by which he manifested his authority."

      ALSO IN:
      E. F. Henderson,
      Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages,
      book 2.

CAPITULATION OF CHARLES V.

CAPPADOCIA.

CAPTAL.
   A title, derived from "capitalis," originally equivalent to
   count, and anciently borne by several lords in Aquitaine.
   "Towards the 14th century there were no more than two captals
   acknowledged, that of Buch and that of Franc."

CAPUA.

Capua, originally an Etruscan city, called Vulturnum, was taken by the Samnites, B. C. 424, and was afterwards a city in which Etruscan and neighboring Greek influences were mixed in their effect on a barbarous new population. "Capua became by its commerce and agriculture the second city in Italy in point of size—the first in point of wealth and luxury. The deep demoralization in which, according to the accounts of the ancients, that city surpassed all others in Italy, is especially reflected in the mercenary recruiting and in the gladiatorial sports, both of which pre-eminently flourished in Capua. Nowhere did recruiting officers find so numerous a concourse as in this metropolis of demoralized civilization. … The gladiatorial sports … if they did not originate, were at any rate carried to perfection in Capua. There, sets of gladiators made their appearance even during banquets."

CAPUA: B. C. 216-211.
   Welcome to Hannibal.
   Siege and capture by the Romans.
   The city repeopled.

"The Capuchins were only a branch of the great Franciscan order, and their mode of life a modification of its Rule. Among the Franciscans the severity of their Rule had early become a subject of discussion, which finally led to a secession of some of the members, of whom Matteo de' Bassi, of the convent of Montefalcone was the leading spirit. These were the rigorists who desired to restore the primitive austerities of the Order. They began by a change of dress, adding to the usual monastic habit a 'cappuccio,' or pointed hood, which Matteo claimed was of the same pattern as that worn by St. Francis. By the bull 'Religionis zelus' (1528), Matteo obtained from Pope Clement VII. leave for himself and his companions to wear this peculiar dress; to allow their beards to grow; to live in hermitages, according to the rule of St. Francis, and to devote themselves chiefly to the reclaiming of great sinners. Paul III. afterwards gave them permission to settle wheresoever they liked. Consistently with the austerity of their professions, their churches were unadorned, and their convents built in the simplest style. They became very serviceable to the Church, and their fearlessness and assiduity in waiting upon the sick during the plague, which ravaged the whole of Italy, made them extremely popular."

CAPUCHONS, OR CAPUTIATI.

"The term caravel was originally given to ships navigated wholly by sails as distinguished from the galley propelled by oars. It has been applied to a great variety of vessels of different size and construction. The caravels of the New World discoverers may be generally described as long narrow boats of from 20 to 100 tons burden, with three or four masts of about equal height carrying sometimes square and sometimes lateen sails, the fourth mast set at the heel of the bow-sprit carrying square sails. They were usually half-decked, and adorned with the lofty forecastle and loftier poop of the day. The latter constituted over that part of the vessel a double or treble deck, which was pierced for cannon. … The galera was a vessel of low bulwarks, navigated by sails and oars, usually twenty or thirty oars on either side, four or five oarsmen to a bench. … The galeaza was the largest class of galera, or craft propelled wholly or in part by oars. … A galeota was a small galera, having only 16 or 20 oarsmen on a side, and two masts. The galeon was a large armed merchant vessel with high bulwarks, three or four decks, with two or three masts, square rigged, spreading courses and top-sails, and sometimes top-gallant sails. … Those which plied between Acapulco and Manila were from 1,200 to 2,000 tons burden. A galeoncillo was a small galeon. The carac was a large carrying vessel, the one intended for Columbus' second voyage being 1,250 toneles or 1,500 tons. A nao, or navio, was a large ship with high bulwarks and three masts. A nave was a vessel with deck and sails, the former distinguishing it from the barca, and the absence of oars from a galera. The bergantin, or brig, had low bulwarks. … The name brigantine was applied in America also to an open flat-bottomed boat, which usually carried one sail and from 8 to 16 men."

CARCHEMISH.

   Fought, B. C. 604, between the armies of Necho, the Egyptian
   Pharaoh, and Nebuchadnezzar, then crown prince of Babylon.
   Necho, being defeated, was driven back to Egypt and stripped
   of all his Syrian conquests.

      "South of the lake [Lake of Van, in Asia Minor] lay the
      Carduchi, whom the later Greeks call the Gordyæans and
      Gordyenes; but among the Armenians they were known as
      Kordu, among the Syrians as Kardu. These are the ancestors
      of the modern Kurds, a nation also of the Aryan stock."

Under Saladin and the Ayonbite dynasty the Kurds played an important part in mediæval history.

Fought and won by an army of Scots, under King Malcolm, invading the then English earldom of Bernicia, A. D. 1018, and securing the annexation of Lothian to the Scottish kingdom. The battlefield was near that on which Flodden was afterwards fought.

"The Carians may be called the doubles of the Leleges. They are termed the 'speakers of a barbarous tongue,' and yet, on the other hand, Apollo is said to have spoken Carian. As a people of pirates clad in bronze they once upon a time had their day in the Archipelago, and, like the Normans of the Middle Ages, swooped down from the sea to desolate the coasts; but their real home was in Asia Minor, where their settlements lay between those of Phrygians and Pisidians, and community of religion united them with the Lydians and Mysians."

The country of the Carians was the mountainous district in the southwestern angle of Asia Minor, the coast of which is indented with gulfs and frayed with long-projecting rocky promontories. The island of Rhodes lies close to it on the south. The Carians were subjugated by the Lydian King Crœsus, and afterwards passed under the Persian yoke. The Persians permitted the establishment of a vassal kingdom, under a dynasty which fixed its capital at Halicarnassus, and made that city one of the splendid Asiatic outposts of Greek art and civilization, though always faithfully Persian in its politics. It was to the memory of one of the Carian kings at Halicarnassus, Mausolus, that the famous sepulchral monument, which gave its name to all similar edifices, and which the ancients counted among the seven wonders of the world, was erected by his widow. Halicarnassus offered an obstinate resistance to Alexander the Great and was destroyed by that ruthless conqueror after it had succumbed to his siege. Subsequently rebuilt, it never gained importance again. The Turkish town of Budrum now occupies the site.

CARIZMIANS.

CARL, OR KARL.

CARLINGS.

CARLISTS AND CHRISTINOS.

CARLOMAN,
King of the Franks (East Franks-Germany-in association with
Louis III.), A. D. 876-881;

CARLOS.

CARLOVINGIANS.

CARMAGNOLE.

"The Germanians of Herodotus are the Carmanians of the later Greeks, who also passed with them as a separate nation, though closely allied to the Persians and Medes. They wandered to and fro to the east of Persia in the district now called Kirman."

"In the 277th year of the Hegira [A. D. 890], and in the neighbourhood of Cufa, an Arabian preacher of the name of Carmath assumed the lofty and incomprehensible style of the Guide, the Director, the Demonstration, the Word, the Holy Ghost, the Camel, the Herald of the Messiah, who had conversed with him in a human shape, and the representative of Mohammed the son of Ali, of St. John the Baptist, and of the Angel Gabriel." Carmath was one of the eastern proselytes of the sect of the Ishmaileans or Ishmailites—the same from which sprang the terrible secret order of the Assassins. He founded another branch of the Ishmaileans, which, taking his name, were called the Carmathians. The sect made rapid gains among the Bedouins and were soon a formidable and uncontrollable body. "After a bloody conflict they prevailed in the province of Bahrein, along the Persian Gulf. Far and wide the tribes of the desert were subject to the sceptre, or rather to the sword, of Abu Said and his son Abu Taher; and these rebellious imams could muster in the field 107,000 fanatics. … The cities of Racca and Baalbec, of Cufa and Bassorah, were taken and pillaged; Bagdad was filled with consternation; and the caliph trembled behind the veils of his palace. … The rapine of the Carmathians was sanctified by their aversion to the worship of Mecca. They robbed a caravan of pilgrims, and 20,000 devout Moslems were abandoned on the burning sands to a death of hunger and thirst. Another year [A. D. 929] they suffered the pilgrims to proceed without interruption; but, in the festival of devotion, Abu Taher stormed the holy city and trampled on the most venerable relics of the Mahometan faith. Thirty thousand citizens and strangers were put to the sword; the sacred precincts were polluted by the burial of 3,000 dead bodies; the well of Zemzen overflowed with blood; the golden spout was forced from its place; the veil of the Caaba was divided among these impious sectaries; and the black stone, the first monument of the nation, was borne away in triumph to their capital. After this deed of sacrilege and cruelty they continued to infest the confines of Irak, Syria and Egypt; but the vital principle of enthusiasm had withered at the root. … It is needless to enquire into what factions they were broken, or by whose swords they were finally extirpated. The sect of the Carmathians may be considered as the second visible cause of the decline and fall of the empire of the caliphs."

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 52, and note by Dr. Smith. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

CARMELITE FRIARS.

"About the middle of the [12th] century, one Berthold, a Calabrian, with a few companions, migrated to Mount Carmel [Palestine], and in the place where the prophet Elias of old is said to have hid himself, built a humble cottage with a chapel, in which he and his associates led a laborious and solitary life. As others continued to unite themselves with these residents on Mount Carmel, Albert the patriarch of Jerusalem, near the commencement of the next century, prescribed for them a rule of life; which the Pontiffs afterwards sanctioned by their authority, and also changed in various respects, and when it was found too rigorous and burdensome, mitigated considerably. Such was the origin of the celebrated order of Carmelites, or as it is commonly called the order of St. Mary of Mount Carmel [and known in England as the White Friars]; which subsequently passed from Syria into Europe, and became one of the principal mendicant orders. The Carmelites themselves reject with disdain this account of their origin, and most strenuously contend that the holy prophet Elias of the Old Testament, was the parent and founder of their society. But they were able to persuade very few, (or rather none out of their society), that their origin was so ancient and illustrious."

J. L. von Mosheim, Institutes of Ecclesiastical History, book 3, century 12, part 2, chapter 2, section 21.

CARNAC.

A Spartan festival, said to have been instituted B. C. 676. "The Carneian festival fell in the Spartan month Carneius, the Athenian Metageitnon, corresponding nearly to our August. It was held in honour of Apollo Carneius, a deity worshipped from very ancient times in the Peloponnese, especially at Amyclæ. … It was of a warlike character, like the Athenian Boedrömia."

See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JUNE-OCTOBER), to 1797 (SEPTEMBER), and 1800-1801 (MAY-FEBRUARY).

The Carnutes were a tribe who occupied a region supposed to be the center of Gaul. The modern city of Chartres stands in the midst of it. The sacred general meeting place of the Druids was in the country of the Carnutes.

A work put forth by Charlemagne against image-worship, in considerable sympathy with the views of the Eastern Iconoclasts and against the decrees of the Second Council of Nicaea (A. D. 787), is known as the Caroline Books. It is supposed to have been chiefly the composition of the king’s learned friend and counsellor; Alcuin, the Englishman.

CAROLINGIA.

On the division of the empire of Charlemagne between his three grandsons, A. D. 843, the western kingdom, which fell to Charles, took for a time the name of Carolingia, as part of Lothar’s middle kingdom took the name of Lotharingia, or Lorraine. But the name died out, or was slowly superseded by that of France.

CAROLINGIANS.

CARPET-BAGGERS.

CARR DIKE.

A Roman work in Britain, formed for the draining of the
Lincolnshire Fens, and used, also, as a road.

CARRACKS, OR CARACS.

"A large species of merchant vessel, principally used in coasting trade," among the Spaniards of the 15th and 16th centuries.

W. Irving, Life and Voyages of Columbus, book 6, chapter 1 (volume 1), foot-note.

CARRARA FAMILY, The:
Its rise to sovereignty at Padua and its struggle with the
Visconti of Milan.

"The militia of every city [in Lombardy, or northern Italy, eleventh and twelfth centuries] was divided into separate bodies, according to local partitions, each led by a Gonfaloniere, or standard-bearer. They fought on foot, and assembled round the carroccio, a heavy car drawn by oxen, and covered with the flags and armorial bearings of the city. A high pole rose in the middle of this car, bearing the colours and a Christ, which seemed to bless the army, with both arms extended. A priest said daily mass at an altar placed in the front of the car. The trumpeters of the community, seated on the back part, sounded the charge and the retreat. It was Heribert, archbishop of Milan, contemporary of Conrad the Salic, who invented this car in imitation of the ark of alliance, and caused it to be adopted at Milan. All the free cities of Italy followed the example: this sacred car, intrusted to the guardianship of the militia, gave them weight and confidence."

CARTERET’S MINISTRY.

Ethbaal, or Ithobaal, a priest of Astarte, acquired possession of the throne of Tyre B. C. 917, deposing and putting to death the legitimate prince, a descendant of Hiram, Solomon’s ally and friend. The Jezebel of Jewish history, who married Ahab, king of Israel, was the daughter of this king Ethbaal. "Ethbaal was succeeded by his son Balezor (885-877 B. C.). After eight years Balezor left two sons, Mutton and Sicharbaal, both under age. … Mutton died in the year 853 B. C. and again left a son nine years old, Pygmalion, and a daughter, Elissa, a few years older, whom he had married to his brother Sicharbaal, the priest of the temple of Melkarth. Mutton had intended that Elissa and Pygmalion should reign together, and thus the power really passed into the hands of Sicharbaal, the husband of Elissa. When Pygmalion reached his sixteenth year the people transferred to him the sovereignty of Tyre, and he put Sicharbaal, his uncle, to death … (846 B. C.). Elissa [or Dido, as she was also called] fled from Tyre before her brother, as we are told, with others who would not submit to the tyranny of Pygmalion. The exiles … are said … to have landed on the coast of Africa, in the neighbourhood of Ityke, the old colony of the Phenicians, and there to have bought as much land of the Libyans as could be covered by the skin of an ox. By dividing this into very thin strips they obtained a piece of land sufficient to enable them to build a fortress. This new dwelling-place, or the city which grew up round this fortress, the wanderers called, in reference to their old home, Karthada (Karta hadasha), i. e., 'the new city,' the Karchedon of the Greeks, the Carthage of the Romans. The legend of the purchase of the soil may have arisen from the fact that the settlers for a long time paid tribute to the ancient population, the Maxyans, for their soil."

"The city proper, at the time at which it is best known to us, the period of the Punic wars, consisted of the Byrsa or Citadel quarter, a Greek word corrupted from the Canaanitish Bozra, or Bostra, that is, a fort, and of the Cothon or harbour quarter, so important in the history of the final siege. To the north and west of these, and occupying all the vast space between them and the isthmus behind, were the Megara (Hebrew, Magurim), that is, the suburbs and gardens of Carthage, which, with the city proper, covered an area of 23 miles in circumference. Its population must have been fully proportioned to its size. Just before the third Punic war, when its strength had been drained … it contained 700,000 inhabitants."

      ALSO IN:
      E. A. Freeman,
      Carthage
      (Hist. Essays, 4th series).

"All our positive information, scanty as it is, about Carthage and her institutions, relates to the fourth, third, or second centuries B. C.; yet it may be held to justify presumptive conclusions as to the fifth century B. C., especially in reference to the general system pursued. The maximum of her power was attained before her first war with Rome, which began in 264 B. C.; the first and second Punic wars both of them greatly reduced her strength and dominion. Yet in spite of such reduction we learn that about 150 B. C. shortly before the third Punic war, which ended in the capture and depopulation of the city, not less than 700,000 souls were computed in it, as occupants of a fortified circumference of above twenty miles, covering a peninsula with its isthmus. Upon this isthmus its citadel Byrsa was situated, surrounded by a triple wall of its own, and crowned at its summit by a magnificent temple of Æsculapius. The numerous population is the more remarkable, since Utica (a considerable city, colonized from Phœnicia more anciently than even Carthage itself, and always independent of the Carthaginians, though in the condition of an inferior and discontented ally) was within the distance of seven miles from Carthage on the one side, and Tunis seemingly not much further off on the other. Even at that time, too, the Carthaginians are said to have possessed 300 tributary, cities in Libya. Yet this was but a small fraction of the prodigious empire which had belonged to them certainly in the fourth century B. C. and in all probability also between 480-410 B. C. That empire extended eastward as far as the Altars of the Philæni, near the Great Syrtis,—westward, all along the coast to the Pillars of Herakles and the western coast of Morocco. The line of coast southeast of Carthage, as far as the bay called the Lesser Syrtis, was proverbial (under the name of Byzacium and the Emporia) for its fertility. Along this extensive line were distributed indigenous Libyan tribes, living by agriculture; and a mixed population called Liby-Phœnician. … Of the Liby-Phœnician towns the number is not known to us, but it must have been prodigiously great. … A few of the towns along the coast,—Hippo, Utica, Adrumetum, Thapsus. Leptis, &c.—were colonies from Tyre, like Carthage itself. … Yet the Carthaginians contrived in time to render every town tributary, with the exception of Utica. … At one time, immediately after the first Punic war, they took from the rural cultivators as much as one-half of their produce, and doubled at one stroke the tribute levied upon the towns. … The native Carthaginians, though encouraged by honorary marks to undertake … military service were generally averse to it, and sparingly employed. … A chosen division of 2,500 citizens, men of wealth and family, formed what was called the Sacred Band of Carthage distinguished for their bravery in the field as well as for the splendour of their arms, and the gold and silver plate which formed part of their baggage. We shall find these citizen troops occasionally employed on service in Sicily: but most part of the Carthaginian army consists of Gauls, Iberians, Libyans, &c., a mingled host got together for the occasion, discordant in language as well as in customs."

CARTHAGE: B. C. 409-405.
Invasions of Sicily.
Destruction of Selinus, Himera and Agrigentum.

CARTHAGE: B. C. 264-241.
   The first war with Rome.
   Expulsion from Sicily.
   Loss of maritime supremacy.

At the close of the First Punic War, the veteran army of mercenaries with which Hamilcar Barca had maintained himself so long in Sicily—a motley gathering of Greeks, Ligurians, Gauls, Iberians, Libyans and others—was sent over to Carthage for the long arrears of pay due them and for their discharge. The party in power in Carthage, being both incapable and mean, and being also embarrassed by an empty treasury, exasperated this dangerous body of men by delays and by attempts at bargaining with them for a reduction of their claims, until a general mutiny was provoked. The mercenaries, 20,000 strong, with Spendius, a runaway Campanian slave, Matho, an African, and Autaritus, a Gaul, for their leaders, marched from the town of Sicca, where they were quartered, and camped near Tunis, threatening Carthage. The government became panic-stricken and took no measures which did not embolden the mutineers and increase their demands. All the oppressed African peoples in the Carthaginian domain rose to join the revolt, and poured into the hands of the mercenaries the tribute money which Carthage would have wrung from them. The latter was soon brought to a state of sore distress, without an army, without ships, and with its supplies of food mostly cut off. The neighboring cities of Utica and Hippo Zarytus were besieged. At length the Carthaginian government, controlled by a party hostile to Hamilcar, was obliged to call him to the command, but associated with him Hanno, his bitterest personal enemy and the most incompetent leader of the ruling faction. Hamilcar succeeded, after a desperate and long struggle, in destroying the mutineers to almost the last man, and in saving Carthage. But the war, which lasted more than three years (B. C. 241-238), was merciless and horrible beyond description. It was known to the ancients as the "Truceless War" and the "Inexpiable War." The scenes and circumstances of it have been extraordinarily pictured in Flaubert's "Salammbo," which is one of the most revolting but most powerful of historical romances.

CARTHAGE: B. C. 237-202.
   Hamilcar in Spain.
   The second war with Rome.
   Hannibal in Italy and Sicily.
   Scipio in Africa.
   The great defeat at Zama.
   Loss of naval dominion and of Spain.

Carthage existed by Roman sufferance for fifty years after the ending of the Second Punic War, and even recovered some considerable prosperity in trade, though Rome took care that her chances for recovery should be slight. When Hannibal gave signs of being able to reform the government of the city and to distinguish himself in statesmanship as he had immortalized himself in war, Rome demanded him, and he escaped her chains only by flight. When, even without Hannibal, Carthage slowly repaired the broken fortunes of her merchants, there was an enemy at her door always ready, at the bidding of Rome, to plunder them afresh. This was Massinissa, the Numidian prince, client and obedient servant of the Roman state. Again and again the helpless Carthaginians appealed to Rome to protect them from his depredations, and finally they ventured to attempt the protection of themselves. Then the patient perfidy of Roman statecraft grasped its reward. It had waited many years for the provocations of Massinissa to work their effect; the maddened Carthaginians had broken, at last, the hard letter of the treaty of 201 by assailing the friend and ally of Rome. The pretext sufficed for a new declaration of war, with the fixed purpose of pressing it to the last extreme. Old Cato, who had been crying in the ears of the Senate, "Carthago delenda est," should have his wish. The doomed Carthaginians were kept in ignorance of the fate decreed, until they had been foully tricked into the surrender of their arms and the whole armament of their city. But when they knew the dreadful truth, they threw off all cowardice and rose to such a majesty of spirit as had never been exhibited in their history before. Without weapons, or engines or ships, until they made them anew, they shut their gates and kept the Roman armies out for more than two years. It was another Scipio, adopted grandson and namesake of the conqueror of Hannibal, who finally entered Carthage (B. C. 146), fought his way to its citadel, street by street, and, against his own wish, by command of the implacable senate at Rome, levelled its last building to the earth, after sending the inhabitants who survived to be sold as slaves.

"A settlement named Junonia, had been made at Carthage by C. Gracchus [which furnished his enemies one of their weapons against him, because, they said, he had drawn on himself the curse of Scipio] and it appears that the city of Gracchus still existed. Cæsar restored the old name, and, as Strabo says, rebuilt the place: many Romans who preferred Carthage to Rome were sent there, and some soldiers; and it is now, adds Strabo [reign of Augustus] more populous than any town in Libya."

Carthage was surprised and captured by the Vandals on the 9th of Oct., A. D. 439,—nine years after the conquest and destruction of the African provinces by Genseric began;—585 years after the ancient Carthage was destroyed by Scipio. "A new city had risen from its ruins, with the title of a colony; and though Carthage might yield to the royal prerogatives of Constantinople, and perhaps to the trade of Alexandria or the splendour of Antioch, she still maintained the second rank in the West—as the Rome (if we may use the style of contemporaries) of the African world. … The buildings of Carthage were uniform and magnificent. A shady grove was planted in the midst of the capital; the new port, a secure and capacious harbour, was subservient to the commercial industry of citizens and strangers; and the splendid games of the circus and theatre were exhibited almost in the presence of the barbarians. The reputation of the Carthaginians was not equal to that of their country, and the reproach of Punic faith still adhered to their subtle and faithless character. The habits of trade and the abuse of luxury had corrupted their manners. … The King of the Vandals severely reformed the vices of a voluptuous people. … The lands of the proconsular province, which formed the immediate district of Carthage, were accurately measured and divided among the barbarians."

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 33. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

CARTHAGE: A. D. 534-558.

The Province of Africa after Justinian's conquest. "Successive inroads [of the Moorish tribes] had reduced the province of Africa to one-third of the measure of Italy; yet the Roman emperors continued to reign above a century over Carthage and the fruitful coast of the Mediterranean. But the victories and the losses of Justinian were alike pernicious to mankind; and such was the desolation of Africa that a stranger might wander whole days without meeting the face either of a friend or an enemy. The nation of the Vandals had disappeared. … Their numbers were infinitely surpassed by the number of the Moorish families extirpated in a relentless war; and the same destruction was retaliated on the Romans and their allies, who perished by the climate, their mutual quarrels, and the rage of the barbarians. When Procopius first landed [with Belisarius, A. D. 533] he admired the populousness of the cities and country, strenuously exercised in the labours of commerce and agriculture. In less than twenty years that busy scene was converted into a silent solitude; the wealthy citizens escaped to Sicily and Constantinople; and the secret historian has confidently affirmed that five millions of Africans were consumed by the wars and government of the Emperor Justinian."

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 43. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

"In the 77th year of the Hegira [A. D. 698] … Abd'almalec [the Caliph] sent Hossan Ibn Anno'man, at the head of 40,000 choice troops, to carry out the scheme of African conquest [which had languished for some years, during the civil wars among the Moslems]. That general pressed forward at once with his troops against the city of Carthage, which, though declined from its ancient might and glory, was still an important seaport, fortified with lofty walls, haughty towers and powerful bulwarks, and had a numerous garrison of Greeks and other Christians. Hossan proceeded according to the old Arab mode; beleaguering and reducing it by a long siege; he then assailed it by storm, scaled its lofty walls with ladders, and made himself master of the place. Many of the inhabitants fell by the edge of the sword; many escaped by sea to Sicily and Spain. The walls were then demolished; the city was given up to be plundered by the soldiery, the meanest of whom was enriched by booty. … The triumph of the Moslem host was suddenly interrupted. While they were revelling in the ravaged palaces of Carthage, a fleet appeared before the port; snapped the strong chain which guarded the entrance, and sailed into the harbor. It was a combined force of ships and troops from Constantinople and Sicily; reinforced by Goths from Spain; all under the command of the prefect John, a patrician general of great valor and experience. Hossan felt himself unable to cope with such a force; he withdrew, however in good order, and conducted his troops laden with spoils to Tripoli and Caerwan, and, having strongly posted them, he awaited reinforcements from the Caliph. These arrived in course of time by sea and land. Hossan again took the field; encountered the prefect John, not far from Utica, defeated him in a pitched battle and drove him to embark the wrecks of his army and make all sail for Constantinople. Carthage was again assailed by the victors, and now its desolation was complete, for the vengeance of the Moslems gave that majestic city to the flames. A heap of ruins and the remains of a noble aqueduct are all the relics of a metropolis that once valiantly contended for dominion with Rome."

Hasdrubal, son-in-law and successor of Hamilcar Barca in Spain, founded New Carthage—modern Carthagena—some time between 229 and 221 B. C. to be the capital of the Carthaginian dominion in the Spanish peninsula.

One of the last enterprises of the French in the war which was closed by the Peace of Ryswick—undertaken, in fact, while the negotiations at Ryswick were in progress—was the storming and sacking of Carthagena by a privateer squadron, from Brest, commanded by rear-admiral Pointis, April, 1697. "The inhabitants were allowed to carry away their effects; but all the gold, silver, and precious stones were the prey of the conqueror. Pointis … reentered Brest safe and sound, bringing back to his ship-owners more than ten millions. The officers of the squadron and the privateers had well provided for themselves besides, and the Spaniards had probably lost more than twenty millions."

H. Martin, History of France: Age of Louis XIV. (translated by M. L. Booth), volume 2, chapter 2.

"St. Bruno, once a canon of St. Cunibert's, at Cologne, and afterward chancellor of the metropolitan church of Rheims, followed by six companions, founded a monastery near Grenoble, amid the bleak and rugged mountains of the desert of Chartreuse (A. D. 1084). The rule given by St. Bruno to his disciples was founded upon that of St. Benedict, but with such modifications as almost to make of it a new and particular one. The Carthusians were very nearly akin to the monks of Vallis-Umbrosa and Camaldoli; they led the same kind of life—the eremitical joined to the cenobitic. Each religious had his own cell, where he spent the week in solitude, and met the community only on Sunday. … Never, perhaps, had the monastic life surrounded itself with such rigors and holy austerities. … The religious were bound to a life-long silence, having renounced the world to hold converse with Heaven alone. Like the solitaries of Thebais they never eat meat, and their dress, as an additional penance, consisted only of a sack-cloth garment. Manual labors, broken only by the exercise of common prayer; a board on the bare earth for a couch; a narrow cell, where the religious twice a day receives his slight allowance of boiled herbs;—such is the life of pious austerities of which the world knows not the heavenly sweetness. For 800 years has this order continued to edify and to serve the Church by the practice of the most sublime virtue; and its very rigor seems to hold out a mysterious attraction to pious souls. A congregation of women has embraced the primitive rule."

J. E. Darras, History of the Catholic Church, volume 3, chapter 4, par. 26, and chapter 10, par. 11.

From the account of a visit to the Grande Chartreuse, the parent monastery, near Grenoble, made in 1667, by Dom Claude Lancelot, of Port Royal, the following is taken: "All I had heard of this astonishing seclusion falls infinitely short of the reality. No adequate description can be given of the awful magnificence of this dreary solitude. … The desert of the Chartreuse is wholly inaccessible but by one exceedingly narrow defile. This pass, which is only a few feet wide, is indeed truly tremendous. It winds between stupendous granite rocks, which overhang above. … The monastery itself is as striking as the approach. … On the west … there is a little space which … is occupied by a dark grove of pine trees; on every other side the rocks, which are as steep as so many walls, are not more than ten yards from the convent. By this means a dim and gloomy twilight perpetually reigns within."

M. A. Schimmelpenninck, A tour to Alet and La Grande Chartreuse, volume 1, pages 6-13.

CARTOUCHE.

"It is impossible to travel in Upper Egypt without knowing what is meant by a cartouche. A cartouche is that elongated oval terminated by a straight line which is to be seen on every wall of the Egyptian temples, and of which other monuments also afford us numerous examples. The cartouche always contains the name of a king or of a queen, or in some cases the names of royal princesses. To designate a king there are most frequently two cartouches side by side. The first is called the prænomen, the second the nomen."

CARUCATE.

CASALE: A. D. 1628-1631.
Siege by the Imperialists.
Final acquisition by France.

CASDIM.

CASHMERE: A. D. 1846.
Taken from the Sikhs by the English and given as a kingdom to
Gholab Singh.

CASIMIR I., King of Poland, A. D. 1037-1058.
Casimir II., Duke of Poland, A. D. 1177-1194.
Casimir III. (called The Great), King of Poland, A. D. 1333-1370.
Casimir IV., King of Poland, A. D. 1445-1492.
Casimir, John, King of Poland, A. D. 1648-1668.

CASPIAN GATES (PYLÆ CASPIÆ).

An important pass in the Elburz Mountains, so called by the Greeks. It is identified with the pass known to the modern Persians as the Girduni Sunlurmh, some fifty miles or more eastward, or northeastward, from Teheran. "Through this pass alone can armies proceed from Armenia, Media, or Persia eastward, or from Turkestan, Khorasan and Afghanistan into the more western parts of Asia. The position is therefore one of primary importance. It was to guard it that Rhages was built so near to the eastern end of its territory."

CASSIAN ROAD.

One of the great Roman roads of antiquity, which ran from
Rome, by way of Sutrium and Clusium to Arretium and Florentia.

The "tin islands," from which the Phœnicians and Carthaginians obtained their supply of tin. Some archæologists identify them with the British islands, some with the Scilly islands, and some with the islands in Vigo Bay, on the coast of Spain.

CASSOPIANS.

CASTALIAN SPRING.

A spring which issued from between two peaks or cliffs of Mount Parnassus and flowed downward in a cool stream past the temple of Apollo at Delphi.

"The caste system of India is not based upon an exclusive descent as involving a difference of rank and culture, but upon an exclusive descent as involving purity of blood. In the old materialistic religion which prevailed so largely in the ancient world, and was closely associated with sexual ideas, the maintenance of purity of blood was regarded as a sacred duty. The individual had no existence independent of the family. Male or female, the individual was but a link in the life of the family; and any intermixture would be followed by the separation of the impure branch from the parent stem. In a word, caste was the religion of the sexes, and as such exists in India to this day. … The Hindus are divided into an infinite number of castes, according to their hereditary trades and professions; but in the present day they are nearly all comprehended in four great castes, namely, the Brahmans, or priests; the Kshatriyas, or soldiers; the Vaisyas, or merchants; and the Sudras, or servile class. The Brahmans are the mouth of Brahma; the Kshatriyas are his arms; the Vaisyas are his thighs; and the Sudras are his feet. The three first castes of priests, soldiers, and merchants, are distinguished from the fourth caste of Sudras by the thread, or paita, which is worn depending from the left shoulder and resting on the right side below the loins. The investiture usually takes place between the eighth and twelfth year, and is known as the second birth, and those who are invested are termed the 'twice born.' It is difficult to say whether the thread indicates a separation between the conquerors and the conquered; or whether it originated in a religious investiture from which the Sudras were excluded."

"Among the delusions about modern India which it seems impossible to kill, the belief still survives that, although there have been many changes in the system of caste, it remains true that the Hindu population is divided into the four great classes described by Mann: Brahmans, Kshatriyas, Vaisyas, and Sudras. In India itself this notion is fostered by the more learned among the Brahmans, who love to make themselves and others believe in the continuous existence of a divinely constituted organization. To what extent the religious and social systems shadowed forth in the ancient Brahmanical literature had an actual existence it is difficult to say, but it is certain that little remains of them now. The Brahmans maintain their exceptional position; but no one can discern the other great castes which Manu described. Excluding the Brahmans, caste means for the most part hereditary occupation, but it also often signifies a common origin of tribe or race. India, in the words of Sir Henry Maine, is divided into a vast number of independent, self-acting, organised social groups—trading, manufacturing, cultivating. In the enormous majority of instances, caste is only the name for a number of practices which are followed by each one of a multitude of groups of men, whether such a group be ancient and natural or modern and artificial. As a rule, every trade, every profession, every guild, every tribe, every class, is also a caste; and the members of a caste not only have their special objects of worship, selected from the Hindu Pantheon, or adopted into it, but they exclusively eat together, and exclusively intermarry.' Mr. Kitts, in his interesting 'Compendium of the Castes and Tribes of India,' compiled from the Indian Census reports of 1881, enumerates 1929 different castes. Forty-seven of these have each more than 1,000,000 members; twenty-one have 2,000,000 and upwards. The Brahmans, Kunbis (agriculturists), and Chumars (workers in leather), are the only three castes each of which has more than 10,000,000; nearly 15 per cent. of the inhabitants of India are included in these three castes. The distinctions and subdivisions of caste are innumerable, and even the Brahmans, who have this in common, that they are reverenced by the members of all other castes, are as much divided among themselves as the rest. There are nearly 14,000,000 Brahmans; according to Mr. Sherring, in his work on 'Hindu Tribes and Castes,' there are more than 1,800 Brahmanical subdivisions; and it constantly happens that to a Brahman of some particular class or district the pollution of eating with other Brahmans would be ruinous. … The Brahmans have become so numerous that only a small proportion can be employed in sacerdotal functions, and the charity which it is a duty to bestow upon them could not, however profuse, be sufficient for their support. They are found in almost every occupation. They are soldiers, cultivators, traders, and servants; they were very numerous in the old Sepoy army, and the name of one of their subdivisions, 'Pande,' became the generic term by which the mutineers of 1857 were commonly known by the English in India. … Mr. Ibbetson, in his report on the census in the Punjab, shows how completely it is true that caste is a social and not a religious institution. Conversion to Mohammedanism, for instance, does not necessarily affect the caste of the convert."

CASTEL

CASTELAR AND REPUBLICANISM IN SPAIN.

CASTELLANO.

CASTILE: A. D. 1212-1238.
   Progress of arms.
   Permanent union of the crown with that of Leon.
   Conquest of Cordova.
   Vassalage imposed on Granada and Murcia.

CASTILE: A. D. 1248-1350. Reigns of St. Ferdinand, Alfonso the Learned, and their three successors.

CASTILE: A. D. 1366-1369.
Pedro the Cruel and the invasion of the English Black Prince.

CASTILE: A. D. 1368-1476.
   Under the house of Trastamare.
   Discord and civil war.
   The triumph of Queen Isabella and her marriage to
   Ferdinand of Aragon.

CASTILE: A. D. 1516.
The crown united with that of Aragon, by Joanna, mother of
Charles V.

CASTILLA DEL ORO.

CASTLE ST. ANGELO.

The Mausoleum of Hadrian, begun by the emperor Hadrian, A. D. 135, and probably completed by Antoninus Pius, "owes its preservation entirely to the peculiar fitness of its site and shape for the purposes of a fortress, which it has served since the time of Belisarius. … After the burial of Marcus Aurelius, the tomb was closed until the sack of Rome by Alaric in 410 A. D., when his barbarian soldiers probably broke it open in search of treasure, and scattered the ashes of the Antonines to the winds. From this time, for a hundred years, the tomb was turned into a fortress, the possession of which became the object of many struggles in the wars of the Goths under Vitiges (537 A. D.) and Totilas (killed 552). From the end of the sixth century, when Gregory the Great saw on its summit a vision of St. Michael sheathing his sword, in token that the prayers of the Romans for preservation from the plague were heard, the Mausoleum of Hadrian was considered as a consecrated building, under the name of 'S. Angelus inter Nubes,' 'Usque ad Cœlos,' or 'Inter Cœlos,' until it was seized in 923 A. D. by Alberic, Count of Tusculum, and the infamous Marozia, and again became the scene of the fierce struggles between Popes, Emperors, and reckless adventurers which marked those miserable times. The last injuries appear to have been inflicted upon the building in the contest between the French Pope Clemens VII. and the Italian Pope Urban VIII. [see PAPACY: A. D. 1377-1417]. The exterior was then finally dismantled and stripped. Partial additions and restorations soon began to take place. Boniface IX., in the beginning of the fifteenth century, erected new battlements and fortifications on and around the building; and since his time it has remained in the possession of the Papal government. The strange medley of Papal reception rooms, dungeons and military magazines which now encumbers the top, was chiefly built by Paul III. The corridor connecting it with the Vatican dates from the time of Alexander Borgia (1494 A. D.), and the bronze statue of St. Michael on the summit, which replaced an older marble statue, from the reign of Benedict XIV."

CASTOR WARE.

"Durobrivian or Castor ware, as it is variously called, is the production of the extensive Romano-British potteries on the River Nen in Northamptonshire and Huntingdonshire, which, with settlements, are computed to have covered a district of some twenty square miles in extent. … There are several varieties … and two especially have been remarked; the first, blue, or slate-coloured, the other reddish-brown, or of a dark copper colour."

"When a Roman army was in the field it never halted, even for a single night, without throwing up an entrenchment capable of containing the whole of the troops and their baggage. This field-work was termed Castra. … The form of the camp was a square, each side of which was 2,017 Roman feet in length. The defences consisted of a ditch, (fossa,) the earth dug out, being thrown inwards so as to form a rampart, (agger,) upon the summit of which a palisade (vallum) was erected of wooden stakes, (valli-sudes,) a certain number of which were carried by each soldier, along with his entrenching tools."

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: HURONS, &c., and IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY: THEIR CONQUESTS, &c.

"The Roman Catacombs—a name consecrated by long usage, but having no etymological meaning, and not a very determinate geographical one—are a vast labyrinth of galleries excavated in the bowels of the earth in the hills around the Eternal City; not in the hills on which the city itself was built, but in those beyond the walls. Their extent is enormous, not as to the amount of superficial soil which they underlie, for they rarely, if ever, pass beyond the third milestone from the city, but in the actual length of their galleries; for these are often excavated on various levels, or piani, three, four, or even five, one above the other, and they cross and recross one another, some times at short intervals, on each of these levels; so that, on the whole, there are certainly not less that 350 miles of them; that is to say, if stretched out in one continuous line, they would extend the whole length of Italy itself. The galleries are from two to four feet in width, and vary in height according to the nature of the rock in which they are dug. The walls on both sides are pierced with horizontal niches, like shelves in a book-case, or berths in a steamer, and every niche once contained one or more dead bodies. At various intervals this succession of shelves is interrupted for a moment, that room may be made for a doorway opening into a small chamber; and the walls of these chambers are generally pierced with graves in the same way as the galleries. These vast excavations once formed the ancient Christian cemeteries of Rome; they were begun in apostolic times, and continued to be used as burial-places of the faithful until the capture of the city by Alaric in the year 410. In the third century, the Roman Church numbered twenty-five or twenty-six of them, corresponding to the number of her titles or parishes within the city; and besides these, there are about twenty others, of smaller dimensions, isolated monuments of special martyrs, or belonging to this or that private family. Originally they all belonged to private families or individuals, the villas or gardens in which they were dug being the property of wealthy citizens who had embraced the faith of Christ, and devoted of their substance to His service. Hence their most ancient titles were taken merely from the names of their lawful owners, many of which still survive. … It has always been agreed among men of learning who have had an opportunity of examining these excavations, that they were used exclusively by the Christians as places of burial and of holding religious assemblies. Modern research has placed it beyond a doubt, that they were also originally designed for this purpose and for no other."

   The Catalan Grand Company was a formidable body of military
   adventurers—mercenary soldiers—formed in Sicily during the
   twenty years of war that followed the Sicilian Vespers. "High
   pay and great license drew the best sinews in Catalonia and
   Aragon into the mercenary battalions of Sicily and induced
   them to submit to the severest discipline." The conclusion of
   peace in 1302 threw this trained army out of employment, and
   the greater part of its members were enlisted in the service
   of Andronicus II., of the restored Greek empire at
   Constantinople. They were under the command of one Roger de
   Flor, who had been a Templar, degraded from his knighthood for
   desertion, and afterwards a pirate; but whose military talents
   were undoubted. The Grand Company soon quarrelled with the
   Greek emperor; its leader was assassinated, and open war
   declared. The Greek army was terribly defeated in a battle at
   Apros, A. D. 1307, and the Catalans plundered Thrace for two
   years without resistance. Gallipoli, their headquarters, to
   which they brought their captives, became one of the great
   slave marts of Europe. In 1310 they marched into the heart of
   Greece, and were engaged in the service of Walter de Brienne,
   Duke of Athens.
{399}
   He, too, found them dangerous servants. Quarrels were followed
   by war; the Duke perished in a battle (A. D. 1311) with his
   Catalan mercenaries on the banks of the Cephissus; his
   dukedom, embracing Attica and Bœotia, was the prize of their
   victory. The widows and daughters of the Greek nobles who had
   fallen were forced to marry the officers of the Catalans, who
   thus settled themselves in family as well as estate. They
   elected a Duke of Athens; but proceeded afterwards to make the
   duchy an appanage of the House of Aragon. The title was held
   by sons of the Aragonese kings of Sicily until 1377, when it
   passed to Alphonso V., king of Aragon, and was retained by the
   kings of Spain after the union of the crowns of Aragon and
   Castile. The titular dukes were represented at Athens by
   regents. "During the period the duchy of Athens was possessed
   by the Sicilian branch of the house of Aragon, the Catalans
   were incessantly engaged in wars with all their neighbours."
   But, gradually, their military vigor and discipline were lost,
   and their name and power in Greece disappeared about 1386,
   when Athens and most of the territory of its duchy was
   conquered by Nero Acciainoli, a rich and powerful Florentine,
   who had become governor of Corinth, but acted as an
   independent prince, and who founded a new ducal family.

      G. Finlay,
      History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires,
      book 4, chapter 2, section 2.

      ALSO IN:
      G. Finlay,
      History of Greece from its Conquest by the Crusaders,
      chapter 7, section 3.

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 62. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

CATALANS: A. D. 1151.

CATALANS: A. D. 12th-15th Centuries.
Commercial importance and municipal freedom of Barcelona.

CATALANS: A. D. 1461-1472.
Long but unsuccessful revolt against John II. of Aragon.

CATALANS: A. D. 1640-1652.
   Revolt.
   Renunciation of allegiance to the Spanish crown.
   Annexation to France offered and accepted.
   Re-subjection to Spain.

CATALANS: A. D. 1705.
Adhesion to the Allies in the War of the Spanish Succession.

CATALAUNIAN PLAINS.

CATALONIA.

CATAPAN.

CATERANS.

"In 1384 an act was passed [by the Scotch parliament] for the suppression of masterful plunderers, who get in the statute their Highland name of 'cateran.' … This is the first of a long succession of penal and denunciatory laws against the Highlanders."

CATHARISTS, OR PATARENES.

"Among all the sects of the Middle Ages, very far the most important in numbers and in radical antagonism to the Church, were the Cathari, or the Pure, as with characteristic sectarian assumption they styled themselves. Albigenses they were called in Languedoc; Patarenes in North Italy; Good Men by themselves. Stretching through central Europe to Thrace and Bulgaria, they joined hands with the Paulicians of the East and shared their errors. Whether these Cathari stood in lineal historical descent from the old Manichæans, or had generated a dualistic scheme of their own, is a question hard to answer, and which has been answered in very different ways. This much, however, is certain, that in all essentials they agreed with them."

"In Italy, men supposed to hold the same belief [as that of the Paulicians, Albigenses, etc.] went by the name of the Paterini, a word of uncertain derivation, perhaps arising from their willingness meekly to submit to all sufferings for Christ's sake (pati), perhaps from a quarter in the city of Milan named 'Pataria'; and more lately by that of Cathari (the Pure, Puritans), which was soon corrupted into Gazari, whence the German 'Ketzer,' the general word for a heretic."

CATHAY.

CATHELINEAU AND, THE INSURRECTION IN LA VENDEE.

CATHOLIC ASSOCIATION AND THE CATHOLIC RENT IN IRELAND.

CATHOLIC DEFENDERS.

CATHOLICS (Ireland): A. D. 1795-1796.
Persecution by Protestant mobs.
Formation of the Orange Society.

CATHOLICS (England and Ireland): A. D. 1829.
Emancipation from civil disabilities.

An ancient rampart, the remains of which are found in southern Scotland, running from the south-east corner of Peeblesshire to the south side of Liddesdale. It is supposed to have marked the boundary between the old Anglian kingdom of Bernicia and the territory of the British kings of Alcluith (Dumbarton).

CATTANI. VASSALI. MASNADA. SERVI.

The feudal barons of northern Italy were called Cattani. In the Florentine territory, "many of these Cattani, after having been subdued and made citizens of Florence, still maintained their feudal following, and were usually attended by troops of retainers, half slaves, half freedmen, called 'Uomini di Masnada,' who held certain possessions of them by the tenure of military service, took oaths of fidelity, and appear to have included every rank of person in the different Italian states according to the quality of the chief; but without any degradation of character being attached to such employment. This kind of servitude, which could not be thrown off without a formal act of manumission, was common in the north of Italy, and began in the 11th century, when innumerable chieftains started up owning no superior but the emperor. Being at constant war with each other they sought every means of creating a military following by granting lands to all ranks of people, and it is probable that many slaves were then partly emancipated for the purpose: such a condition, though not considered dishonourable, was thus essentially tinged with the colours of slavery, and so far differed from the 'Vassi' and 'Vassali,' as well as from the 'Vavasours.' … Some slight, perhaps unnecessary distinction is made between the 'Vassi,' who are supposed to have been vassals of the crown, and the 'Vassali,' who were the vassals of great lords. The 'Vavasours' were the vassals of great vassals. … This union [as described above] of 'Servi,' slaves, or vassals of one chief, was called 'Masnada,' and hence the name 'Masnadieri,' so often recurring in early Italian history; for the commanders of these irregular bands were often retained in the pay of the republic and frequently kept the field when the civic troops had returned to their homes, or when the war was not sufficiently important to bring the latter out with the Carroccio. … Besides these military Villains, who were also called 'Fedeli,' there were two other kinds of slaves amongst the early Italians, namely prisoners of war and the labourers attached to the soil, who were considered as cattle in every respect except that of their superior utility and value: the former species of slavery was probably soon dissolved by the union of self-interest and humanity: the latter began to decline in the 12th century, partly continued through the 13th, and vanished entirely in the 14th century."

"The Caucasus has always possessed a certain fascination not for the Russians only, but also for western nations, and is peculiarly rich in historical traditions, and in memories of ancient times and ancient nations. Here to the rocks of Elbruz, Prometheus lay chained; and to Colchis, where the Phasis flowed towards the sea, through ever green woods, came the Argonauts. The present Kutais is the old capital of King Æetes, near which, in the sacred grove of Ares, hung the golden fleece. The gold mines which the Russians discovered in 1864 were apparently known to the Greeks, whose colony, Dioscurias, was an assemblage of 300 diverse nationalities. … Here on the coasts of the stormy and dangerous Black Sea arose the famous Pontine kingdom [see MITHRIDATIC WARS] which in spite of its valiant resistance under Mithridates, fell a victim to Roman aggression. Along the rivers Kura and Rion ran the old commercial road from Europe to Asia, which enriched the Venetians and the Genoese in the middle ages. Up to recent times this trade consisted not only of all sorts of other merchandise, but of slaves; numberless girls and women were conveyed to Turkish harems and there exercised an important influence on the character of the Tartar and Mongol races. In the middle ages the Caucasus was the route by which the wild Asiatic hordes, the Goths, Khasars, Huns, Avars, Mongols, Tartars, and Arabs crossed from Asia into Europe; and consequently its secluded valleys contain a population composed of more different and distinct races than any other district in the world. … It was in the 16th century, under Ivan the Terrible, that Russia first turned her attention to the conquest of the Caucasus; but it was not till 1859 that the defeat and capture of the famous Schamyl brought about the final subjugation of the country. … In 1785 [after the partial conquest of 1784—see TURKS: A. D. 1776-1792] the mountaineers had been incited to take arms by a so-called prophet Scheick Mansur, but he was seized and banished to Solovetsk, on the White Sea. In 1820 a Mollah, Kasi by name, made his appearance in Daghestan, and began to preach the 'Kasawat,' that is, holy war against the Russians. To him succeeded another equally fanatical adventurer, Hamset Beg. The work which they had begun was carried on by Schamyl, who far surpassed his predecessors in all the qualities which make up a successful guerilla chief, and who maintained the unequal conflict against the enemies of his country for 25 years with singular good fortune, undaunted courage, untiring energy, and conspicuous ability. He was of the tribe of the Lesghians in Daghestan, and was born in 1796, in the village of Gimri, of poor shepherd parents. In spite of his humble origin he raised himself to the rank of an Imaum, surrounded himself with a strong body-guard of devoted adherents, whom he named Murides, and succeeded in fanning to a flame the patriotic ardour of his fellow-countrymen. The capture of the mountain fastness of Achulgo in 1839 seemed to be the death-blow of Schamyl's cause, for it brought about the loss of the whole of Daghestan, the very focus of the Murides' activity. {401} Schamyl barely escaped being made a prisoner, and was forced to yield up his son, Djammel-Edden, only nine years of age as a hostage. The boy was sent to St. Petersburg and placed in a cadet corps, which he left at the conclusion of his military education somewhere about 1850 and returned to his native country in 1854 where he died a few years later. In 1840 the Tchetchens, who had previously been pacified, rose in arms once more, and Daghestan and other parts of the country followed their example. The country of the Tchetchens was a specially favourable theatre for the conflict with the Russians; its long mountain chains, rocky fastnesses, impenetrable forests, and wild precipices and gorges rendered ambuscades and surprises of constant and, to the Russians, fatal occurrence. During the earlier stages of the war, Russia had ransomed the officers taken prisoners by the mountaineers, but, subsequently, no quarter was given on either side. At last, by means of a great concentration of troops on all the threatened points, by fortifying the chief central stations, find by forming broad military roads throughout the district, the Russians succeeded in breaking down Schamyl's resistance. He now suffered one reverse after another. His chief fastnesses, Dargo, Weden, and Guni, were successively stormed and destroyed; and, finally, he himself and his family were taken prisoners. He was astonished and, it is said, not altogether gratified to find that a violent death was not to close his romantic career. He and his family were at first interned at Kaluga in Russia, both a house and a considerable sum of money for his maintenance being assigned to him. But after a few years he was allowed to remove to Mecca, where he died. His sons and grandsons, who have entirely adopted the manners of the Russians, are officers in the Circassian guard. In 1864 the pacification of the whole country was accomplished, and a few years later the abolition of serfdom was proclaimed at Tifiis. After the subjugation of the various mountain tribes, the Circassians had the choice given them by the Government of settling on the low country along the Kuban, or of emigrating to Turkey. The latter course was chosen by the bulk of the nation, urged, thereto, in great measure, by envoys from Turkey. As many as 400,000 are said to have come to the ports, where the Sultan had promised to send vessels to receive them; but delays took place, and a large number died of want and disease. Those who reached Turkey were settled on the west coasts of the Black Sea, in Bulgaria and near Varna, and proved themselves most troublesome and unruly subjects. Most of those who at first remained in Circassia followed their fellow-countrymen in 1874."

"The real Caucasus was the most lofty range of mountains known to the Greeks before [Alexander's conquests], and they were generally regarded as the highest mountains in the world. Hence when the army of Alexander came in sight of the vast mountain barrier [of the Hindoo Koosh] that rose before them as they advanced northward from Arachosia, they seem to have at once concluded that this could be no other than the Caucasus." Hence the name Caucasus given by the Greeks to those mountains; "for the name of Hindoo Koosh, by which they are still known, is nothing more than a corruption of the Indian Caucasus."

CAUCUS.
   In 1634—the fourth year of the colony of Massachusetts
   Bay—the freemen of the colony chose Dudley instead of
   Winthrop for governor. The next year they "followed up the
   doctrine of rotation in office by choosing Haynes as governor,
   a choice agreed upon by deputies from the towns, who came
   together for that purpose previously to the meeting of the
   court—the first instance of 'the caucus system' on record."

CAUSENNÆ, OR ISINÆ.

A town of some importance in Roman Britain. "There can be no doubt that this town occupied the site of the modern Ancaster, which has been celebrated for its Roman antiquities since the time of Leland."

CAVE DWELLERS.

"We find a hunting and fishing race of cave-dwellers, in the remote pleistocene age, in possession of France, Belgium, Germany, and Britain, probably of the same stock as the Eskimos, living and forming part of a fauna in which northern and southern, living and extinct, species are strangely mingled with those now living in Europe. In the neolithic age caves were inhabited, and used for tombs, by men of the Iberian or Basque race, which is still represented by the small dark-haired peoples of Europe."

CAVE OF ADULLAM.

CAWNPUR, OR CAWNPORE: A. D. 1857.
Siege by the Sepoy mutineers.
Surrender and massacre of the English.

"The Celtiberi occupied the centre of Spain, and a large part of the two Castiles, an elevated table land bordered and intersected by mountains. They were the most warlike race in the Spanish peninsula."

"The appellation Celtiberians indicates that in the north-eastern part of the peninsula [Spain] there was a mixture of Celts and Iberians. Nevertheless the Iberians must have been the prevailing race, for we find no indications of Celtic characteristics in the people."

"The Celts form a branch of the great family of nations which has been variously called Aryan, Indo-European, Indo-Germanic, Indo-Celtic and Japhetic, its other branches being represented by the Italians, the Greeks, the Litu-Slaves, the Armenians, the Persians and the chief peoples of Hindustan. … The Celts of antiquity who appeared first and oftenest in history were those of Gallia, which, having been made by the French into Gaule, we term Gaul. It included the France and Switzerland of the present day, and much territory besides. This people had various names. One of them was Galli, which in their language meant warriors or brave men; … but the Gauls themselves in Cæsar's time appear to have preferred the name which he wrote Celtæ. This was synonymous with the other and appears to have meant warriors. … The Celtic family, so far back as we can trace it into the darkness of antiquity consisted of two groups or branches, with linguistic features of their own which marked them off from one another. To the one belonged the ancestors of the people who speak Gaelic in Ireland, the Isle of Man and the Highlands of the North. … The national name which the members of this group have always given themselves, so far as one knows, is that of Gaidhel, pronounced and spelt in English Gael, but formerly written by themselves Goidel. … The other group is represented in point of speech by the people of Wales and the Bretons. … The national name of those speaking these dialects was that of Briton; but, since that word has now no precise meaning, we take the Welsh form of it, which is Brython, and call this group Brythons and Brythonic, whenever it is needful to be exact. The ancient Gauls must also be classified with them, since the Brythons may be regarded as Gauls who came over to settle in Britain."

"Who were the Keltre of Spain? the population whose name occurs in the word Celtici and Celtiberi, Keltic Iberians or Iberian Kelts? … I think, that though used to denominate the tribe and nations allied to the Gauls, it [the word Celt or Kelt] was, originally, no Gallic word—as little native as Welsh is British. I also think that even the first populations to which it was applied were other than Keltic in the modern sense of the term. I think, in short, that it was a word belonging to the Iberian language, applied, until the time of Cæsar at least, to Iberic populations. … By the time of Cæsar, however, a great number of undoubted Gauls were included under the name Celtæ: in other words, the Iberian name for an Iberian population was first adopted by the Greeks as the name for all the inhabitants of south-western Gaul, and it was then extended by the Romans so as to include all the populations of Gallia except the Belgæ and Aquitanians."

CELTS.

A name given among archæologists to certain prehistoric implements, both stone and bronze, of the wedge, chisel and axe kind. Mr. Thomas Wright, contends that the term is properly applied only to the bronze chisels, which the old antiquary Hearne identified with the Roman celtis, or chisel—whence the name. It has evidently no connection with the word Celt used ethnologically.

CENABUM.

"The censorship was an office so remarkable that, however familiar the subject may be to many readers, it is necessary here to bestow some notice on it. Its original business was to take a register of the citizens and of their property; but this, which seems at first sight to be no more than the drawing up of a mere statistical report, became in fact, from the large discretion allowed to every Roman officer, a political power of the highest importance. The censors made out the returns of the free population; but they did more; they divided it according to its civil distinctions, and drew up a list of the senators, a list of the equites, a list of the members of the several tribes, or of those citizens who enjoyed the right of voting, and a list of the ærarians, consisting of those freedmen, naturalized strangers, and others, who, being enrolled in no tribe, possessed no vote in the comitia, but still enjoyed all the private rights of Roman citizens. Now the lists thus drawn up by the censors were regarded as legal evidence of a man's condition. … From thence the transition was easy, according to Roman notions, to the decision of questions of right; such as whether a citizen was really worthy of retaining his rank. … If a man behaved tyrannically to his wife or children, if he was guilty of excessive cruelty even to his slaves, if he neglected his land, if he indulged in habits of extravagant expense, or followed any calling which was regarded as degrading, the offence was justly noted by the censors, and the offender was struck off from the list of senators, if his rank was so high; or, if he were an ordinary citizen, he was expelled from his tribe, and reduced to the class of the ærarians. … The censors had the entire management of the regular revenues of the state, or of its vectigalia. They were the commonwealth's stewards, and to their hands all its property was entrusted. … With these almost kingly powers, and arrayed in kingly state, for the censor's robe was all scarlet … the censors might well seem too great for a free commonwealth."

CENTRAL AMERICA: A. D. 1821-1871.
   Separation from Spain, and Independence.
   Attempted federation and its failures.
   Wars and revolutions of the five Republics.

"The central part of the American continent, extending from the southern boundary of Mexico to the Isthmus of Panama, consisted in the old colonial times of several Intendancies, all of which were united in the Captaincy-General of Guatemala. Like the West Indian Islands, it was a neglected part of the Spanish Empire. … Central America has no history up to the epoch of independence. … It was not until the success of the Revolution had become certain on both sides of them, both in Mexico and New Granada, that the Intendancies which made up the Captaincy-General of Guatemala declared themselves also independent of Spain. The cry of liberty had indeed been raised in Costa Rica in 1813, and in Nicaragua in 1815; but the Revolution was postponed for six years longer. Guatemala, the seat of government, published its declaration in September, 1821, and its example was speedily followed by San Salvador and Honduras. Nicaragua, on proclaiming its independence, together with one of the departments of Guatemala, declared its adhesion to what was known in Mexico as the plan of Ignala [see MEXICO: A. D. 1820-1826]. As there were no Spanish troops in Central America, the recusant Spanish official party could make no resistance to the popular movement; and many of them crossed the sea to Cuba or returned to Spain. … The Revolution of Central America thus stands alone in the history of independence, as having been accomplished without the shedding of blood." During the brief empire of Iturbide in Mexico [see as above] the Central American states were annexed to it, though with strong resistance on the part of all except Guatemala. "On the proclamation of the Federal Republic in Mexico [1824], the whole of Central America, except the district of Chiapas, withdrew from the alliance, and drove out the Mexican officials as only a year before they had driven out the Spanish officials. The people now had to face the task of forming a government for themselves: and … they now resolved on combining in a federation, in imitation of the great United States of North America. Perhaps no states were ever less suited to form a federal union. The petty territories of Central America lie on two Oceans, are divided by lofty mountains, and have scarcely any communication with each other: and the citizens of each have scarcely any common interest. A Central American federation, however, was an imposing idea, and the people clung to it with great pertinacity. The first effort for federation was made under the direction of General Filisola. All the Intendancies combined in one sovereign state; first under the name of the 'United Provinces,' afterwards (November 22, 1823) under that of the 'Federal Republic' of Central America. … A constitution of the most liberal kind was voted. This constitution is remarkable for having been the first which abolished slavery at once and absolutely and declared the slave trade to be piracy. … The clerical and oligarchic party set their faces stubbornly against the execution of the constitution, and began the revolt at Leon in Nicaragua. The union broke down in 1826, and though Morazan [of Honduras] reconstituted it in 1829, its history is a record of continual rebellion and reaction on the part of the Guatemaltec oligarchy. Of all South American conservative parties this oligarchy was perhaps the most despicable. They sank to their lowest when they raised the Spanish flag in 1832. But in doing this they went too far. Morazan's successes date from this time, and having beaten the Guatemaltecs, he transferred the Federal government in 1834 to San Salvador. But the Federal Republic of Central America dragged on a precarious existence until 1838, when it was overthrown by the revolt of Carrera in Guatemala. From the first the influence of the Federalists in the capital began to decay, and it was soon apparent that they had little power except in Honduras, San Salvador and Nicaragua. The Costa Ricans, a thriving commercial community, but of no great political importance, and separated by mountainous wastes from all the rest, soon ceased to take any part in public business. A second Federal Republic, excluding Costa Rica, was agreed to in 1842; but it fared no better than the first. The chief representative of the Federalist principle in Central America was Morazan, of Honduras, from whose government Carrera had revolted in 1838. On the failure of the Federation Morazan had fled to Chile, and on his return to Costa Rica he was shot at San José by the Carrerists. This was a great blow to the Liberals, and it was not until 1847 that a third Federation, consisting of Honduras, San Salvador, and Nicaragua, was organized. For some years Honduras, at the head of these states, carried on a war against Guatemala to compel it to join the union. Guatemala was far more than their match: San Salvador and Nicaragua soon failed in the struggle, and left Honduras to carry on the war alone. Under General Carrera Guatemala completely defeated its rival; and to his successes are due the revival of the Conservative or Clerical party all over Central America. … The government of each state became weaker and weaker: revolutions were everywhere frequent: and ultimately … the whole country was near falling into the hands of a North American adventurer [see NICARAGUA: A. D. 1855-1860]. In former times the English government had maintained some connection with the country [originating with the buccaneers and made important by the mahogany-cutting] through the independent Indians of the Mosquito coast, over whom, for the purposes of their trade with Jamaica, it had maintained a protectorate: and even a small English commercial colony, called Greytown, had been founded on this coast at the mouth of the river San Juan. Towards the close of Carrera's ascendancy this coast was resigned to Nicaragua, and the Bay Islands, which lie off the coast, to Honduras: and England thus retained nothing in the country but the old settlement of British Honduras, with its capital, Belize. After Carrera's death in 1865, the Liberal party began to reassert itself: and in 1871 there was a Liberal revolution in Guatemala itself."

CENTRAL ASIA.

CENTURION.

The officer commanding one of the fifty-five centuries or companies in a Roman legion of the empire.

CEORL.

CERAMICUS OF ATHENS.

The Ceramicus was originally the most important of the suburban districts of Athens and derived its name from the potters. "It is probable that about the time of Pisistratus the market of the ancient suburb called the Ceramicus (for every Attic district possessed its own market) was constituted the central market of the city. … They [the Pisistratidæ] connected Athens in all directions by roadways with the country districts: these roads were accurately measured, and all met on the Ceramicus, in the centre of which an altar was erected to the Twelve Gods. From this centre of town and country were calculated the distances to the different country districts, to the ports, and to the most important sanctuaries of the common fatherland. … [In the next century—in the age of Pericles—the population had extended to the north and west and] part of the ancient potters' district or Ceramicus had long become a quarter of the city [the Inner Ceramicus]; the other part remained suburb [the Outer Ceramicus]. Between the two lay the double gate or Dipylum, the broadest and most splendid gate of the city. … Here the broad carriage-road which, avoiding all heights, ascended from the market-place of Hippodamus directly to the city-market of the Ceramicus, entered the city; from here straight to the west led the road to Eleusis, the sacred course of the festive processions. … From this road again, immediately outside the gate, branched off that which led to the Academy. … The high roads in the vicinity of the city gates were everywhere bordered with numerous and handsome sepulchral monuments, in particular the road leading through the outer Ceramicus. Here lay the public burial-ground for the citizens who had fallen in war; the vast space was divided into fields, corresponding to the different battle-fields at home and abroad."

CESS.

A word, corrupted from "assess," signifying a rate, or tax; used especially in Scotland, and applied more particularly to a tax imposed in 1678, for the maintenance of troops, during the persecution of the Covenanters.

CHÆRONEA:(B. C. 86).

CHAGAN.

CHALCEDON.

An ancient Greek city, founded by the Megarians on the Asiatic side of the Bosphorus, nearly opposite to Byzantium, like which city it suffered in early times many changes of masters. It was bequeathed to the Romans by the last king of Bithynia.

CHALCIS AND ERETRIA.

"The most dangerous rivals of Ionia were the towns of Eubœa, among which, in the first instance, Cyme, situated in an excellent bay of the east coast, in a district abounding in wine, and afterwards the two sister-towns on the Euripus, Chalcis and Eretria, distinguished themselves by larger measures of colonization. While Eretria, the 'city of rowers,' rose to prosperity especially by means of purple-fisheries and a ferry-navigation conducted on a constantly increasing scale, Chalcis, the 'bronze city,' on the double sea of the Bœotian sound, contrived to raise and employ for herself the most important of the many treasures of the island—its copper. … Chalcis became the Greek centre of this branch of industry; it became the Greek Sidon. Next to Cyprus there were no richer stores of copper in the Greek world than on Eubœa, and in Chalcis were the first copper-works and smithies known in European Greece."

The Chalcidians were enterprising colonists, particularly in Thrace, in the Macedonian peninsula, where they are said to have founded thirty-two towns, which were collectively called the Chalcidice, and in southern Italy and Sicily. It was the abundant wealth of Thrace in metallic ores which drew the Chalcidians to it. About 700 B. C. a border feud between Chalcis and Eretria, concerning certain "Lelantian fields" which lay between them, grew to such proportions and so many other states came to take part in it, that, "according to Thucydides no war of more universal importance for the whole nation was fought between the fall of Troja and the Persian war."

CHALCUS.

CHALDEA. CHALDEES.

CHALDEAN CHURCH.

Among the many pretenders to the Roman imperial throne—"the thirty tyrants," as they were called—of the distracted reign of Gallienus, was Tetricus, who had been governor of Aquitaine. The dangerous honor was forced upon him, by a demoralized army, and he reigned against his will for several years over Gaul, Spain and Britain. At length, when the iron-handed Aurelian had taken the reins of government at Rome, Tetricus secretly plotted with him for deliverance from his own uncoveted greatness. Aurelian invaded Gaul and Tetricus led an army against him, only to betray it, in a great battle at Chalons (271), where the rebels were cut to pieces.

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 11. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

CHALONS: A. D. 366.

CHALONS: A. D. 451.

   The Chalybes, or Chalybians, were an ancient people in Asia
   Minor, on the coast of the Euxine, probably east of the Halys,
   who were noted as workers of iron.

In the middle years of the revolt that dethroned the Carlovingians and raised the Capetians to a throne which they made the throne of a kingdom of France, Count Herbert of Vermandois allied himself with the party of the latter, and began operations for the expanding of his domain. "The Champaign of Rheims, the 'Campania Remensis'—a most appropriate descriptive denomination of the region—an extension of the plains of Flanders—but not yet employed politically as designating a province—was protected against Count Herbert on the Vermandois border by the Castrum Theodorici—Château Thierry. … Herbert's profuse promises induced the commander to betray his duty. … Herbert, through this occupation of Château Thierry, obtained the city of Troyes and all the 'Campania Remensis,' which, under his potent sway, was speedily developed into the magnificent County of Champagne. Herbert and his lineage held Champagne during three generations, until some time after the accession of the Capets, when the Grand Fief passed from the House of Vermandois to the House of Blois."

CHAMPS DE MARS. CHAMPS DE MAI.

When the Merovingian kings of the Franks summoned their captains to gather for the planning and preparing of campaigns, the assemblies were called at first the Champs de Mars, because the meeting was in earliest spring—in March. "But as the Franks, from serving on foot, became cavaliers under the second [the Carlovingian] race, the time was changed to May, for the sake of forage, and the assemblies were called Champs de Mai."

"The name [of the Chancellor], derived probably from the cancelli or screen behind which the secretarial work of the royal household was carried on, claims a considerable antiquity; and the offices which it denotes are various in proportion. The chancellor of the Karolingian sovereigns, succeeding to the place of the more ancient referendarius, is simply the royal notary; the archi-cancellarius is the chief of a large body of such officers associated under the name of the chancery, and is the keeper of the royal seal. It is from this minister that the English chancellor derives his name and function. Edward the Confessor, the first of our sovereigns who had a seal, is also the first who had a chancellor; from the reign of the Conqueror the office has descended in regular succession. It seems to have been to a comparatively late period, generally if not always, at least in England, held by an ecclesiastic who was a member of the royal household and on a footing with the great dignitaries. The chancellor was the most dignified of the royal chaplains, if not the head of that body. The whole secretarial work of the household and court fell on the chancellor and the chaplains. … The chancellor was, in a manner, the secretary of state for all departments."

"In the reign of Edward I. we begin to perceive signs of the rise of the extraordinary or equitable jurisdiction of the Chancellor. The numerous petitions addressed to the King and his Council, seeking the interposition of the royal grace and favour either to mitigate the harshness of the Common Law or supply its deficiencies, had been in the special care of the Chancellor, who examined and reported upon them to the King. … At length, in 1348, by a writ or ordinance of the 22d year of Edward III. all such matters as were 'of Grace' were directed to be dispatched by the Chancellor or by the Keeper of the Privy Seal. This was a great step in the recognition of the equitable jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery, as distinct from the legal jurisdiction of the Chancellor and of the Courts of Common Law; although it was not until the following reign that it can be said to have been permanently established."

"The Lord Chancellor is a Privy Councillor by his office; a Cabinet Minister; and, according to Lord Chancellor Ellesmere, prolocutor [chairman, or Speaker] of the House of Lords by prescription."

CHANCELLOR'S ROLLS.

CHANCERY.

CHANTRY PRIESTS.

"With the more wealthy and devout [in the 14th, 15th and 16th centuries] it was the practice to erect little chapels, which were either added to churches or enclosed by screens within them, where chantry priests might celebrate mass for the good of their souls in perpetuity. … Large sums of money were … devoted to the maintenance of chantry priests, whose duty it was to say mass for the repose of the testator's soul. … The character and conduct of the chantry priests must have become somewhat of a lax order in the 16th century."

R. R. Sharpe, Introduction to "Calendar of Wills in the Court of Husting, London," volume 2, page viii.

The Spanish province which now forms the Republic of Bolivia. Also called, formerly, Upper Peru, and sometimes the province of Potosi.

CHARIBERT I.,
King of Aquitaine, A. D. 561-567.
Charibert II., King of Aquitaine, A. D. 628-631.

CHARLEMAGNE'S EMPIRE.

      See
      FRANKS (CARLOVINGIAN EMPIRE): A. D. 768-814;
      ROMAN EMPIRE: A. D. 800;
      LOMBARDS: A. D. 754-774;
      SAXONS: A. D. 772-804;
      AVARS: 791-805;
      and SPAIN: A. D. 778.

CHARLEMAGNE'S SCHOOL OF THE PALACE.

CHARLES
   (called The Great—Charlemagne),
   King of Neustria, A. D. 768;
   of all the Franks, A. D. 771;
   of Franks and Lombardy, 774;
   Emperor of the West, 800-814.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER); 1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL); 1797 (APRIL-MAY); 1798-1799 (AUGUST-APRIL); 1799 (AUGUST-DECEMBER); also GERMANY: 1809 (JANUARY-.JUNE), (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

Charles I. (of Anjou),
King of Naples and Sicily, 1266-1282;
King of Naples, 1282-1285.

Charles II. (called The Bald),
Emperor, and King of Italy, A. D. 875-877;
King of Neustria and Burgundy, 840-877.

Charles II.,
   King of England, 1660-1685.
   (By a loyal fiction, supposed to have
   reigned from 1649, when his father was beheaded;
   though the throne was in Cromwell's possession).

Charles III. (called The Fat),
   Emperor, King of the East Franks (Germany),
   and King of Italy, A. D. 881-888;
   King of the West Franks (France), 884-888.

Charles IV.,
   Emperor, and King of Italy, 1355-1378;
   King of Bohemia, 1346-1378;
   King of Germany, 1347-1378;
   King of Burgundy, 1365-1378.

Charles V.,
   Emperor, 1519-1558;
   Duke of Burgundy, 1506-1555;
   King of Spain (as Charles I.) and of Naples,
   or the Two Sicilies, 1516-1556.

Charles Martel,
Duke of Austrasia and Mayor of the Palace
(of the King of the Franks), A. D. 715-741.

CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1780.
Siege by the British.
Surrender of the city.

CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1860.
The splitting of the National Democratic Convention.

CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1860.
The adoption of the Ordinance of Secession.

CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1861 (April).
The Beginning of war.
Bombardment of Fort Sumter.

CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1863 (April).
The attack and repulse of the Monitor fleet.

CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1863 (July).
The Union troops on Morris Island.
Assault on Fort Wagner.

CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1863 (August-December).
Siege of Fort Wagner.
Bombardment of the city.

CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1865 (February).
Evacuation by the Confederates.
Occupation by Federal troops.

CHARTER OF FORESTS.

CHARTERHOUSE, OR CHARTREUSE.

CHARTISTS. CHARTISM.

The Norman, Rollo, investing the city of Chartres, sustained there, on the 20th of July, A. D. 911, the most serious defeat which he and his pirates ever suffered.

A name, signifying the godly or pious, assumed by a party among the Jews, in the second century B. C., who resisted the Grecianizing tendencies of the time under the influence of the Græco-Syrian domination, and who were the nucleus of the Maccabean revolt. The later school of the Pharisees is represented by Ewald (History of Israel, book 5, section 2) to have been the product of a narrowing transformation of the school of the Chasidim; while the Essenes, in his view, were a purer residue of the Chasidim "who strove after piety, yet would not join the Pharisees"; who abandoned "society as worldly and incurably corrupt," and in whom "the conscience of the nation, as it were, withdrew into the wilderness."

A modern sect, borrowing the name, founded by one Israel Baal Schem, who first appeared in Podolia, in 1740, is said to embrace most of the Jews in Galicia, Hungary, Southern Russia, and Wallachia.

CHÂTEAU GALLAIRD.

This was the name given to a famous castle, built by Richard Cœur de Lion in Normandy, and designed to be the key to the defences of that important duchy. "As a monument of warlike skill, his 'Saucy Castle,' Château Gaillard, stands first among the fortresses of the Middle Ages. Richard fixed its site where the Seine bends suddenly at Gaillon in a great semicircle to the north, and where the Valley of Les Andèlys breaks the line of the chalk cliffs along its bank. The castle formed part of an intrenched camp which Richard designed to cover his Norman capital. … The easy reduction of Normandy on the fall of Chateau Gaillard at a later time [when it was taken by Philip Augustus, of France] proved Richard's foresight."

CHATTANOOGA: A. D. 1863 (October-November).
   The siege.
   The battle on Lookout Mountain.
   The assault of Missionary Ridge.
   The Routing of Bragg's army.

"Beyond [the Mattiaci] are the Chatti, whose settlements begin at the Hercynian forest, where the country is not so open and marshy as in the other cantons into which Germany stretches. They are found where there are hills, and with them grow less frequent, for the Hercynian forest keeps close till it has seen the last of its native Chatti. Hardy frames, close-knit limbs, fierce countenances, and a peculiarly vigorous courage, mark the tribe. For Germans, they have much intelligence and sagacity. … Other tribes you see going to battle, the Chatti to a campaign."

"The settlements of the Chatti, one of the chief German tribes, apparently coincide with portions of Westphalia, Nassau, Hesse-Darmstadt and Hesse-Cassel. Dr. Latham assumes the Chatti of Tacitus to be the Suevi of Cæsar. The fact that the name Chatti does not occur in Cæsar renders this hypothesis by no means improbable."

"The tribe of the Chauci … beginning at the Frisian settlements and occupying a part of the coast, stretches along the frontier of all the tribes which I have enumerated, till it reaches with a bend as far as the Chatti. This vast extent of country is not merely possessed but densely peopled by the Chauci, the noblest of the German races, a nation who would maintain their greatness by righteous dealing. Without ambition, without lawless violence, … the crowning proof of their valour and their strength is, that they keep up their superiority without harm to others. … Dwelling on one side of the Chauci and Chatti, the Cherusci long cherished, unassailed, an excessive and enervating love of peace. This was more pleasant than safe, … and so the Cherusci, ever reputed good and just, are now called cowards and fools, while in the case of the victorious Chatti success has been identified with prudence. The downfall of the Cherusci brought with it also that of the Fosi, a neighbouring tribe."

"The settlements of the Chauci … must have included almost the entire country between the Ems and the Weser—that is, Oldenburg and part of Hanover—and have taken in portions of Westphalia about Munster and Paderborn. The Cherusci … appear to have occupied Brunswick and the south part of Hanover. Arminius who destroyed the Roman army under Varus, was a Cheruscan chief. … The Fosi … must have occupied part of Hanover."

Tacitus, Minor Works, translated by Church and Brodribb: The Germany, with Geographical notes.

Bishop Stubbs conjectures that the Chauci, Cherusci, and some other tribes may have been afterwards comprehended under the general name "Saxon."

CHEBUCTO.

CHEIROTONIA.

CHEMI.

CHERRY VALLEY, The massacre at.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778 (JUNE-NOVEMBER)

CHERSON.

"A thousand years after the rest of the Greek nation was sunk in irremediable slavery, Cherson remained free. Such a phenomenon as the existence of manly feeling in one city, when mankind everywhere else slept contented in a state of political degradation, deserved attentive consideration. … Cherson retained its position as an independent State until the reign of Theophilus [Byzantine emperor A. D. 829-842], who compelled it to receive a governor from Constantinople; but, even under the Byzantine government, it continued to defend its municipal institutions, and, instead of slavishly soliciting the imperial favour, and adopting Byzantine manners, it boasted of its constitution and self government. But it gradually lost its former wealth and extensive trade, and when Vladimir, the sovereign of Russia, attacked it in 988, it was betrayed into his hands by a priest, who informed him how to cut off the water. … Vladimir obtained the hand of Anne, the sister of the emperors Basil II. and Constantine VIII., and was baptised and married in the church of the Panaghia at Cherson. To soothe the vanity of the Empire, he pretended to retain possession of his conquest as the dowry of his wife. Many of the priests who converted the Russians to Christianity, and many of the artists who adorned the earliest Russian churches with paintings and mosaics, were natives of Cherson."

CHERSONESUS.

The Greek name for a peninsula, or "land-island," applied most especially to the long tongue of land between the Hellespont and the Gulf of Melas.

"If we wished to know, for instance, who has taught us the game of chess, the name of chess would tell us better than anything else that it came to the West from Persia. In spite of all that has been written to the contrary, chess was originally the game of Kings, the game of Shahs. This word Shah became in Old French eschac, Italian scacco, German Schach; while the Old French eschecs was further corrupted into chess. The more original form chec has likewise been preserved, though we little think of it when we draw a cheque, or when we suffer a check, or when we speak of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The great object of the chess-player is to protect the king, and when the king is in danger, the opponent is obliged to say 'check,' i. e., Shah, the king. … After this the various meanings of check, cheque, or exchequer become easily intelligible, though it is quite true that if similar changes of meaning, which in our case we can watch by the light of history, had taken place in the dimness of prehistoric ages, it would be difficult to convince the sceptic that exchequer, or scaccarium, the name of the chess-board was afterwards used for the checkered cloth on which accounts were calculated by means of counters, and that a checkered career was a life with many cross-lines."

One of the fiercest of the battles fought between the Welsh and the Angles, A. D. 613. The latter were the victors.

CHEVY CHASE.

CHICAGO: A. D. 1812.

Evacuation of the Fort Dearborn Post, and massacre of most of the retreating garrison.

"The greatest event in the history of Chicago was the Great Fire, as it is termed, which broke out on the evening of Oct. 8, 1871. Chicago was at that time [except in the business centre] a city of wood. For a long time prior to the evening referred to there had been blowing a hot wind from the southwest, which had dried everything to the inflammability of tinder, and it was upon a mass of sun and wind-dried wooden structures that the fire began its work. It is supposed to have originated from the accidental upsetting of a kerosene lamp in a cow barn [Mrs. O'Leary's] on De Koven Street, near the corner of Jefferson, on the west side of the river. This region was composed hugely of shanties, and the fire spread rapidly, very soon crossing the river to the South Side, and fastening on that portion of the city which contained nearly all the leading business houses, and which was built up very largely with stone and brick. But it seemed to enkindle as if it were tinder. Some buildings were blown up with gunpowder, which, in connection with the strong southwest gale, prevented the extension of the flames to the south. The fire swept on Monday steadily to the north, including everything from the lake to the South Branch, and then crossed to the North Side, and, taking in everything from the lake to the North Branch, it burned northward for a distance of three miles, where it died out at the city limits, when there was nothing more to burn. In the midst of this broad area of devastation, on the north side of Washington Square, between Clark Street and Dearborn Avenue, the well-known Ogden house stands amid trees of the ancient forest and surrounded by extensive grounds, the solitary relic of that section of the city before the fiery flood. The total area of the land burned over was 2,100 acres. Nearly 20,000 buildings were consumed; 100,000 people were rendered homeless; 200 lives were lost, and the grand total of values destroyed is estimated at $200,000,000. Of this vast sum, nearly one-half was covered by insurance, but under the tremendous losses many of the insurance companies were forced to the wall, and went into liquidation, and the victims of the conflagration recovered only about one-fifth of their aggregate losses. Among the buildings which were burned were the court-house, custom-house and post office, chamber of commerce, three railway depots, nine daily newspaper offices, thirty-two hotels, ten theatres and halls, eight public schools and some branch school buildings, forty-one churches, five elevators, and all the national banks. If the Great Fire was an event without parallel in its dimensions and the magnitude of its dire results, the charity which followed it was equally unrivalled in its extent. … All the civilized world appeared to instantly appreciate the calamity. Food, clothing, supplies of every kind, money, messages of affection, sympathy, etc., began pouring in at once in a stream that appeared endless and bottomless. In all, the amount contributed reached over $7,000,000. … It was believed by many that the fire had forever blotted out Chicago from the list of great American cities, but the spirit of her people was undaunted by calamity, and, encouraged by the generous sympathy and help from all quarters, they set to work at once to repair their almost ruined fortunes. … Rebuilding was at once commenced, and, within a year after the fire, more than $40,000,000 were expended in improvements. The city came up from its ruins far more palatial, splendid, strong and imperishable than before. In one sense the fire was a benefit. Its consequence was a class of structures far better, in every essential respect, than before the conflagration. Fire-proof buildings became the rule, the limits of wood were carefully restricted, and the value of the reconstructed portion immeasurably exceeded that of the city which had been destroyed."

"Thousands of people on the North Side fled far out on the prairie, but other thousands, less fortunate, were hemmed in before they could reach the country, and were driven to the Sands, a group of beach-hillocks fronting on Lake Michigan. These had been covered with rescued merchandise and furniture. The flames fell fiercely upon the heaps of goods, and the miserable refugees were driven into the black waves, where they stood neck-deep in chilling water, scourged by sheets of sparks and blowing sand. A great number of horses had been collected here, and they too dashed into the sea, where scores of them were drowned. Toward evening the Mayor sent a fleet of tow-boats which took off the fugitives at the Sands. When the next day [Tuesday, October 10] dawned, the prairie was covered with the calcined ruins of more than 17,000 buildings. … This was the greatest and most disastrous conflagration on record. The burning of Moscow, in 1812, caused a loss amounting to £30,000,000; but the loss at Chicago was in excess of this amount. The Great Fire of London, in 1006, devastated a tract of 430 acres, and destroyed 13,000 buildings; but that of Chicago swept over 1,900 acres, and burned more than 17,000 buildings."

The following is the statement of area burned over, and of property destroyed, made by the Chicago Relief and Aid Society, and which is probably authoritative: "The total area burned over in the city, including streets, was 2,124 acres, or nearly three and one-third square miles. This area contained about 73 miles of streets, 18,000 buildings, and the homes of 100,000 people."

      ALSO IN:
      E. Colbert and E. Chamberlain,
      Chicago and the Great Conflagration.

CHICAGO: A. D. 1886-1887.
   The Haymarket Conspiracy.
   Crime of the Anarchists.
   Their trial and execution.

"In February, 1886, Messrs. McCormick, large agricultural-machine makers of Chicago, refusing to yield to the dictation of their workmen, who required them to discharge some non-Union hands they had taken on, announced a 'lock-out,' and prepared to resume business as soon as possible with a new staff. Spies, Lingg, and other German Anarchists saw their opportunity. They persuaded the ousted workmen to prevent the 'scabs,'—anglicé, 'blacklegs,'—from entering the works on the day of their reopening. Revolvers, rifles, and bombs were readily found, the latter being entrusted principally to the hands of professional 'Reds.' The most violent appeals were made to the members of Unions and the populace generally; but though a succession of riots were got up, they were easily quelled by the resolute action of the police, backed by the approval of the immense majority of the people of Chicago. Finally, a mass meeting in arms was called to take place on May 4th, 1886, at 7.30 p.m., in the Haymarket, a long and recently widened street of the town, for the express purpose of denouncing the police. But the intention of the Anarchists was not merely to denounce the police: this was the pretext only. The prisons were to be forced, the police-stations blown up, the public buildings attacked, and the onslaught on property and capital to be inaugurated by the devastation of one of the fairest cities of the Union. By 8 p. m. a mob of some three or four thousand persons had been collected, and were regaled by speeches that became more violent as the night wore on. At 10 p. m. the police appeared in force. The crowd were commanded to disperse peaceably. A voice shouted: 'We are peaceable.' Captain Schaack says this was a signal. The words were hardly uttered when a spark flashed through the air. It looked like the lighted remnant of a cigar, but hissed like a miniature sky-rocket.' It was a bomb, and fell amid the ranks of the police. A terrific explosion followed, and immediately afterwards the mob opened fire upon the police. The latter, stunned for a moment, soon recovered themselves, returned the fire, charged the mob, and in a couple of minutes dispersed it in every direction. But eight of their comrades lay dead upon the pavement, and scores of others were weltering in their blood around the spot. Such was the Chicago outrage of May 4th, 1886."

The Anarchists who were arrested and brought to trial for this crime were eight in number,—August Spies, Michael Schwab, Samuel Fielden, Albert H. Parsons, Adolph Fischer, George Engel, Louis Lingg, and Oscar W. Neebe. The trial began July 14, 1886. The evidence closed on the 10th of August; the argument of council consumed more than a week, and on the 20th of August the jury brought in a verdict which condemned Neebe to imprisonment for fifteen years, and all the other prisoners to death. Lingg committed suicide in prison; the sentences of Schwab and Fielding were commuted by the Governor to imprisonment for life; the remaining four were hanged on the 11th of November, 1887.

      Judge Gary,
      The Chicago Anarchists of 1886
      (Century Magazine, April, 1893).

"As a fitting mode of celebrating the four hundredth anniversary of the landing of Columbus on Oct. 12, 1492, it was proposed to have a universal exhibition in the United States, The idea was first taken up by citizens of New York, where subscriptions to the amount of $5,000,000 were obtained from merchants and capitalists before application was made for the sanction and support of the Federal Government. When the matter came up in Congress the claims of Chicago were considered superior, and a bill was passed and approved on April 25, 1890, entitled 'An Act to provide for celebrating the four hundredth anniversary of the discovery of America by Christopher Columbus, by holding an international exhibition of arts, industries, manufactures, and the products of the soil, mine, and sea in the city of Chicago, in the State of Illinois.' The act provided for the appointment of commissioners who should organize the exposition. … When the organization was completed and the stipulated financial support from the citizens and municipality of Chicago assured, President Harrison, on December 24, 1890, issued a proclamation inviting all the nations of the earth to participate in the World's Columbian Exposition. Since the time was too short to have the grounds and buildings completed for the summer of 1892, as was originally intended, the opening of the exposition was announced for May, 1893. When the work was fairly begun it was accelerated, as many as 10,000 workmen being employed at one time, in order to have the buildings ready to be dedicated with imposing ceremonies on Oct. 12. 1892. in commemoration of the exact date of the discovery of America."

SEE ALSO C. D. Arnold and H. D. Higinbotham, Official Views Of The World's Columbian Exposition https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/22847

On May 1, 1893, the Fair was opened with appropriate ceremonies by President Cleveland.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (JUNE-JULY: VIRGINIA);
and 1864 (MAY-JUNE: VIRGINIA).

CHICORA.

CHILDERIC II.,
King of the Franks (Austrasia), A. D. 660-673.
Childeric III., King of the Franks (Neustria), A. D. 742-752.

CHILDREN OF REBECCA.

"The land of Chili, from 30° Ssouth latitude, was and is still in part occupied by several tribes who speak the same language. They form the fourth and most southern group of the Andes people, and are called Araucanians. Like almost all American tribal names, the term Araucanian is indefinite; sometimes it is restricted to a single band, and sometimes so extended as to embrace a group of tribes. Some regard them as a separate family, calling them Chilians, while others, whom we follow, regard them as the southern members of the Andes group, and still others class them with the Pampas Indians. The name Araucanian is an improper one, introduced by the Spaniards, but it is so firmly fixed that it cannot be changed. The native names are Moluche (warriors) and Alapuche (natives). Originally they extended from Coquimbo to the Chonos Archipelago and from ocean to ocean, and even now they extend, though not very far, to the east of the Cordilleras. They are divided into four (or, if we include the Picunche, five) tribes, the names of which all end in 'tche' or 'che,' the word for man. Other minor divisions exist. The entire number of the Araucanians is computed at about 30,000 souls, but it is decreasing by sickness as well as by vice. They are owners of their land and have cattle in abundance, pay no taxes, and even their labor in the construction of highways is only light. They are warlike, brave, and still enjoy some of the blessings of the Inca civilization; only the real, western Araucanians in Chili have attained to a sedentary life. Long before the arrival of the Spaniards the government of the Araucanians offered a striking resemblance to the military aristocracy of the old world. All the rest that has been written of their high stage of culture has proved to be an empty picture of fancy. They followed agriculture, built fixed houses, and made at least an attempt at a form of government, but they still remain, as a whole, cruel, plundering savages."

The Standard Natural History (J. S. Kingsley, editor), volume 6, pages 232-234.

"The Araucanians inhabit the delightful region between the Andes and the sea, and between the rivers Bio-bio and Valdivia. They derive the appellation of Araucanians from the province of Arauco. …. The political division of the Araucanian state is regulated with much intelligence. It is divided from north to south into four governments. … Each government is divided into five provinces, and each province into nine counties. The state consists of three orders of nobility, each being subordinate to the other, and all having their respective vassals. They are the Toquis, the Apo-Ulmenes, and the Ulmenes. The Toquis, or governors, are four in number. They are independent of each other, but confederated for the public welfare. The Arch-Ulmenes govern the provinces under their respective Toquis. The Ulmenes govern the counties. The upper ranks, generally, are likewise comprehended under the term Ulmenes."

      ALSO IN:
      J. I. Molina,
      Geographical, Natural and Civil History of Chili,
      volume 2, book 2.

CHILE: A. D. 1450-1724.
The Spanish conquest.
The Araucanian War of Independence.

"In the year 1450 the Peruvian Inca, Yupanqui, desirous of extending his dominions towards the south, stationed himself with a powerful army at Atacama. Thence he dispatched a force of 10,000 men to Chili, under the command of Chinchiruca, who, overcoming almost incredible obstacles, marched through a sandy desert as far as Copiapo, a distance of 80 leagues. The Copiapins flew to arms, and prepared to resist this invasion. But Chinchiruca, true to the policy which the Incas always observed, stood upon the defensive, trusting to persuasion rather than to force for the accomplishment of his designs. … While he proffered peace, he warned them of the consequences of resisting the 'Children of the Sun.'" After wavering for a time, the Copiapins submitted themselves to the rule of the Incas. "The adjoining province of Coquimbo was easily subjugated, and steadily advancing, the Peruvians, some six years after their first entering the country, firmly established themselves in the valley of Chili, at a distance of more than 200 leagues from the frontier of Atacama. The 'Children of the Sun' had met thus far with little resistance, and, encouraged by success, they marched their victorious armies against the Purumancians, a warlike people living beyond the river Rapel." Here they were desperately resisted, in a battle which lasted three days, and from which both armies withdrew, undefeated and unvictorious. On learning this result, the Inca Yupanqui ordered his generals to relinquish all attempts at further conquest, and to "seek, by the introduction of wise laws, and by instructing the people in agriculture and the arts, to establish themselves more firmly in the territory already acquired. To what extent the Peruvians were successful in the endeavor to ingraft their civilization, religion, and customs upon the Chilians, it is at this distant day impossible to determine, since the earliest historians differ widely on the subject. {412} Certain it is, that on the arrival of the Spaniards the Incas, at least nominally, ruled the country, and received an annual tribute of gold from the people. In the year 1535, after the death of the unfortunate Inca Atahuallpa, Diego Almagro, fired by the love of glory and the thirst for gold, yielded to the solicitations of Francisco Pizarro, the conqueror of Peru, and set out for the subjection of Chili, which, as yet, had not been visited by any European. His army consisted of 570 Spaniards, well equipped, and 15,000 Peruvian auxiliaries. Regardless of difficulties and dangers this impetuous soldier selected the near route that lay along the summits of the Andes, in preference to the more circuitous road passing through the desert of Atacama. Upon the horrors of this march, of which so thrilling an account is given by Prescott in the 'Conquest of Peru,' it is unnecessary for us to dwell; suffice it to state that, on reaching Copiapo no less than one-fourth of his Spanish troops, and two-thirds of his Indian auxiliaries, had perished from the effects of cold, fatigue and starvation. … Everywhere the Spaniards met with a friendly reception from the natives, who regarded them as a superior race of beings, and the after conquest of the country would probably have been attended with no difficulty had a conciliatory policy been adopted; but this naturally inoffensive people, aroused by acts of the most barbarous cruelty, soon flew to arms. Despite the opposition of the natives, who were now rising in every direction to oppose his march, Almagro kept on, overcoming every obstacle, until he reached the river Cachapoal, the northern boundary of the Purumancian territory." Here he met with so stubborn and effective a resistance that he abandoned his expedition and returned to Peru, where, soon after, he lost his life [see PERU: A. D. 1533-1548] in a contest with the Pizarros. "Pizarro, ever desirous of conquering Chili, in 1540 dispatched Pedro Valdivia for that purpose, with some 200 Spanish soldiers and a large body of Peruvians;" The invasion of Valdivia was opposed from the moment he entered the country; but he pushed on until he reached the river Mapoclio, and "encamped upon the site of the present capital of Chili. Valdivia, finding the location pleasant, and the surrounding plain fertile, here founded a city on the 24th of February, 1541. To this first European settlement in Chili he gave the name of Santiago, in honor of the patron saint of Spain. He laid out the town in Spanish style; and as a place of refuge in case of attack, erected a fort upon a steep rocky hill, rising some 200 feet above the plain." The Mapochins soon attacked the infant town, drove its people to the fort and burned their settlement; but were finally repulsed with dreadful slaughter. "On the arrival of a second army from Peru, Valdivia, whose ambition had always been to conquer the southern provinces of Chili, advanced into the country of the Purumancians. Here history is probably defective, as we have no account of any battles fought with these brave people. … We simply learn that the Spanish leader eventually gained their good-will, and established with them an alliance both offensive and defensive. … In the following year (1546) the Spanish forces crossed the river Maulé, the southern boundary of the Purumancians, and advanced toward the Itata. While encamped near the latter river, they were attacked at dead of night by a body of Araucanians. So unexpected was the approach of this new enemy, that many of the horses were captured, and the army with difficulty escaped total destruction. After this terrible defeat, Valdivia finding himself unable to proceed, returned to Santiago." Soon afterwards he went to Peru for reinforcements and was absent two years; but came back, at the end of that time, with a large band of followers, and marched to the South. "Reaching the bay of Talcahuano without having met with any opposition, on the 5th of October, 1550, he founded the city of Concepcion on a site at present known as Penco." The Araucanians, advancing boldly upon the Spaniards at Concepcion, were defeated in a furious battle which cost the invaders many lives. Three years later, in December, 1553, the Araucanians had their revenge, routing the Spaniards utterly and pursuing them so furiously that only two of their whole army escaped. Valdivia was among the prisoners taken and was slain. Again and again, under the lead of a youthful hero, Lautaro, and a vigorous toqui, or chief, named Caupolican, the Araucanians assailed the invaders of their country with success; but the latter increased in numbers and gained ground, at last, for a time, building towns and extending settlements in the Araucanian territory. The indomitable people were not broken in spirit, however; and in 1598, by an universal and simultaneous rising, they expelled the Spaniards from almost every settlement they had made. "In 1602 … of the numerous Spanish forts and settlements south of the Bio-Bio, Nacimiento and Arauco only had not fallen. Valdivia and Osorno were afterward rebuilt. About the same time a fort was erected at Boroa. This fort was soon after abandoned. Valdivia, Osorno, Nacimiento, and Arauco still remain. But of all the 'cities of the plain' lying within the boundaries of the haughty Araucanians, not one ever rose from its ashes; their names exist only in history; and the sites where they once flourished are now marked by ill-defined and grass-grown ruins. From the period of their fall dates the independence of the Araucanian nation; for though a hundred years more were wasted in the vain attempt to reconquer the heroic people … the Spaniards, weary of constant war, and disheartened by the loss of so much blood and treasure, were finally compelled to sue for peace; and in 1724 a treaty was ratified, acknowledging their freedom, and establishing the limits of their territory."

ALSO IN: R. G. Watson, Spanish and Portuguese South America, volume 1, chapters 12-14.

J. I. Molina; Geographical, Natural and Civil History of Chili, volume 2, books 1, 3-4.

CHILE: A. D. 1810-1818.
The achievement of independence.
San Martin, the Liberator.

"Chili first threw off the Spanish yoke in September, 1810 [on the pretext of fidelity to the Bourbon king dethroned by Napoleon], but the national independence was not fully established till April 1818. During the intermediate period, the dissensions of the different parties; their disputes as to the form of government and the law of election; with other distracting causes, arising out of the ambition of turbulent individuals, and the inexperience of the whole nation in political affairs; so materially retarded the union of the country, that the Spaniards, by sending expeditions from Peru, were enabled, in 1814, to regain their lost authority in Chili. Meanwhile the Government of Buenos Ayres, the independence of which had been established in 1810 [see ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1806-1820], naturally dreaded that the Spaniards would not long be confined to the western side of the Andes; but would speedily make a descent upon the provinces of the River Plate, of which Buenos Ayres is the capital. In order to guard against this formidable danger, they bravely resolved themselves to become the invaders, and by great exertions equipped an army of 4,000 men. The command of this force was given to General Don José de San Martin, a native of the town of Yapeyu in Paraguay; a man greatly beloved by all ranks, and held in such high estimation by the people, that to his personal exertions the formation of this army is chiefly due. With these troops San Martin entered Chili by a pass over the Andes heretofore deemed inaccessible, and on the 12th of February, 1817, attacked and completely defeated the royal army at Chacabuco. The Chilians, thus freed from the immediate presence of the enemy, elected General O'Higgins [see PERU: A. D. 1550-1816] as Director; and he, in 1818, offered the Chilians a constitution, and nominated five senators to administer the affairs of the country. This meritorious officer, an Irishman by descent, though born in Chili, has ever since [1825] remained at the head of the government. It was originally proposed to elect General San Martin as Director; but this he steadily refused, proposing his companion in arms, O'Higgins, in his stead. The remnant of the Spanish army took refuge in Talcuhuana, a fortified sea-port near Conception, on the southern frontier of Chili. Vigorous measures were taken to reduce this place, but, in the beginning of 1818, the Viceroy of Peru, by draining that province of its best troops, sent off a body of 5,000 men under General Osorio, who succeeded in joining the Spaniards shut up in Talcuhuana. Thus reinforced, the Royal army, amounting in all to 8,000, drove back the Chilians, marched on the capital, and gained other considerable advantages; particularly in a night attack at Talca, on the 19th of March 1818, where the Royalists almost entirely dispersed the Patriot forces. San Martin, however, who, after the battle of Chacabuco, had been named Commander-in-chief of the united armies of Chili and Buenos Ayres," rallied his army and equipped it anew so quickly that, "on the 5th of April, only 17 days after his defeat, he engaged, and, after an obstinate and sanguinary conflict, completely routed the Spanish army on the plains of Maypo. From that day Chili may date her complete independence; for although a small portion of the Spanish troops endeavoured to make a stand at Conception, they were soon driven out and the country left in the free possession of the Patriots. Having now time to breathe, the Chilian Government, aided by that of Buenos Ayres, determined to attack the Royalists in their turn, by sending an armament against Peru [see PERU; A. D. 1820-1826]—a great and bold measure, originating with San Martin."

      General B. Mitre,
      The Emancipation of South America:
      History of San Martin.

CHILE: A. D. 1833-1884.
A successful oligarchy and its constitution.
The war with Peru and Bolivia.

"After the perfection of its national independence, the Chilean government soon passed into the permanent control of civilians, 'while the other governments of the west coast remained prizes for military chieftains.' Its present constitution was framed in 1833, and though it is only half a century old 'it is the oldest written national constitution in force in all the world except our own, unless the Magna Charta of England be included in the category.' The political history of Chile during the fifty years of its life has been that of a well ordered commonwealth, but one of a most unusual and interesting sort. Its government has never been forcibly overthrown, and only one serious attempt at revolution has been made. Chile is in name and in an important sense a republic, and yet its government is an oligarchy. Suffrage is restricted to those male citizens who are registered, who are twenty-five years old if unmarried and twenty-one if married, and who can read and write; and there is also a stringent property qualification. The consequence is that the privilege of voting is confined to an aristocracy: in 1876, the total number of ballots thrown for president was only 46,114 in a population of about two and a quarter millions. The president of Chile has immense powers of nomination and appointment, and when he is a man of vigorous will he tyrannically sways public policy, and can almost always dictate the name of his successor. The government has thus become practically vested in a comparatively small number of leading Chilean families. There is no such thing as 'public opinion' in the sense in which we use the phrase, and the newspapers, though ably conducted, do not attempt, as they do not desire, to change the existing order of things. 'History,' says Mr. Browne, 'does not furnish an example of a more powerful political "machine" under the title of republic; nor, I am bound to say, one which has been more ably directed so far as concerns the aggrandizement of the country, or more honestly administered so far as concerns pecuniary corruption.' The population of Chile doubled between 1843 and 1875; the quantity of land brought under tillage was quadrupled; … more than 1,000 miles of railroad were built; a foreign export trade of $31,695,039 was reported in 1878; and two powerful iron-clads, which were destined to playa most important part in Chilean affairs, were built in England. Meanwhile, the constitution was officially interpreted so as to guarantee religious toleration, and the political power of the Roman Catholic priesthood diminished. Almost everything good, except home manufactures and popular education, flourished. The development of the nation in these years was on a wonderful scale for a South American state, and the contrast between Chile and Peru was peculiarly striking. … Early in 1879 began the great series of events which were to make the fortune of Chile. We use the word 'great,' in its low, superficial sense, and without the attribution of any moral significance to the adjective. {414} The aggressor in the war between Chile and Peru was inspired by the most purely selfish motives, and it remains to be seen whether the just gods will not win in the long run, even though the game of their antagonists be played with heavily plated iron-clads. … At the date last mentioned Chile was suffering, like many other nations, from a general depression in business pursuits. Its people were in no serious trouble, but as a government it was in a bad way. … The means to keep up a sinking fund for the foreign debt had failed, and the Chilean five per cents were quoted in London at sixty-four. 'A political cloud also was darkening again in the north, in the renewal of something like a confederation between Peru and Bolivia.' In this state of things the governing oligarchy of Chile decided, rather suddenly, Mr. Browne thinks, upon a scheme which was sure to result either in splendid prosperity or absolute ruin, and which contemplated nothing less than a war of conquest against Peru and Bolivia, with a view to seizing the most valuable territory of the former country. There is a certain strip of land bordering upon the Pacific and about 400 miles long, of which the northern three quarters belonged to Peru and Bolivia, the remaining one quarter to Chile. Upon this land a heavy rain never falls, and often years pass in which the soil does not feel a shower. … Its money value is immense. 'From this region the world derives almost its whole supply of nitrates—chiefly saltpetre—and of iodine;' its mountains, also, are rich in metals, and great deposits of guano are found in the highlands bordering the sea. The nitrate-bearing country is a plain, from fifty to eighty miles wide, the nitrate lying in layers just below a thin sheet of impacted stones, gravel, and sand. The export of saltpetre from this region was valued in 1882 at nearly $30,000,000, and the worth of the Peruvian section, which is much the largest and most productive, is estimated, for government purposes, at a capital of $600,000,000. Chile was, naturally, well aware of the wealth which lay so close to her own doors, and to possess herself thereof, and thus to rehabilitate her national fortunes, she addressed herself to war. The occasion for war was easily found. Bolivia was first attacked, a difficulty which arose at her port of Antofagasta, with respect to her enforcement of a tax upon some nitrate works carried on by a Chilean company, affording a good pretext; and when Peru attempted intervention her envoy was confronted with Chile's knowledge of a secret treaty between Peru and Bolivia, and war was formally declared by Chile upon Peru, April 5, 1879. This war lasted, with some breathing spaces, for almost exactly five years. At the outset the two belligerent powers—Bolivia being soon practically out of the contest—seemed to be about equal in ships, soldiers, and resources; but the supremacy which Chile soon gained upon the seas substantially determined the war in her favor. Each nation owned two powerful iron-clads, and six months were employed in settling the question of naval superiority. … On the 21st of May, 1879, the Peruvian fleet attacked and almost destroyed the Chilean wooden frigates which were blockading Iquique; but in chasing a Chilean corvette the larger Peruvian iron-clad—the Independencia—ran too near the shore, and was fatally wrecked. 'So Peru lost one of her knights. The game she played with the other—the Huascar—was admirable, but a losing one;' and on the 8th of October of the same year the Huascar was attacked by the Chilean fleet, which included two iron-clads, and was finally captured' after a desperate resistance.'… From this moment the Peruvian coast was at Chile's mercy: the Chilean arms prevailed in every pitched battle, at San Francisco [November 16, 1879], at Tacna [May 26, 1880], at Arica [June 7, 1880]; and finally, on the 17th of January, 1881, after a series of actions which resembled in some of their details the engagements that preceded our capture of the city of Mexico [ending in what is known as the Battle of Miraflores], the victorious army of Chile took possession of Lima, the capital of Peru. … The results of the war have thus far exceeded the wildest hopes of Chile. She has taken absolute possession of the whole nitrate region, has cut Bolivia off from the sea, and achieved the permanent dissolution of the Peru-Bolivian confederation. As a consequence, her foreign trade has doubled, the revenue of her government has been trebled, and the public debt greatly reduced. The Chilean bonds, which were sold at 64 in London in January, 1879, and fell to 60 in March of that year, at the announcement of the war, were quoted at 95 in January, 1884."

      ALSO IN:
      H. Birkedal,
      The late War in South America
      (Overland Monthly, January, February, and March, 1884).

      Message of the President of the United States,
      transmitting Papers relating to the War in South America,
      January 26, 1882.

CHILE: A. D. 1885-1891.
   The presidency and dictatorship of Balmaceda.
   His conflict with the Congress.
   Civil war.

   "Save in the one struggle in which the parties resorted to
   arms, the political development of Chili was free from civil
   disturbances, and the ruling class was distinguished among the
   Spanish-American nations not only for wealth and education,
   but for its talent for government and love of constitutional
   liberty. The republic was called 'the England of South
   America,' and it was a common boast that in Chili a
   pronunciamiento or a revolution was impossible. The spirit of
   modern Liberalism became more prevalent, … As the Liberal
   party became all-powerful it split into factions, divided by
   questions of principle and by struggles for leadership and
   office. … The patronage of the Chilian President is
   enormous, embracing not only the general civil service, but
   local officials, except in the municipalities, and all
   appointments in the army and navy and in the telegraph and
   railroad services and the giving out of contracts. The
   President has always been able to select his successor, and
   has exercised this power, usually in harmony with the wishes
   of influential statesmen, sometimes calling a conference of
   party chiefs to decide on a candidate. In the course of time
   the more advanced wing of the Liberals grew more numerous than
   the Moderates. The most radical section had its nucleus in a
   Reform Club in Santiago, composed of young university men, of
   whom Balmaceda was the finest orator. Entering Congress in
   1868, he took a leading part in debates. …
{415}
   In 1885 he was the most popular man in the country; but his
   claim to the presidential succession was contested by various
   other aspirants—older politicians and leaders of factions
   striving for supremacy in Congress. He was elected by an
   overwhelming majority, and as President enjoyed an unexampled
   degree of popularity. For two or three years the politicians
   who had been his party associates worked in harmony with his
   ideas. … At the flood of the democratic tide he was the most
   popular man in South America. But when the old territorial
   families saw the seats in Congress and the posts in the civil
   service that had been their prerogative filled by new men, and
   fortunes made by upstarts where all chances had been at their
   disposal, then a reaction set in, corruption was scented, and
   Moderate Liberals, joining hands with the Nationalists and the
   reviving Conservative party, formed an opposition of
   respectable strength. In the earlier part of his
   administration Balmaceda had the co-operation of the
   Nationalists, who were represented in the Cabinet. In the last
   two years of his term, when the time drew near for selecting
   his successor, defection and revolt and the rivalries of
   aspirants for the succession threw the party into disorder and
   angered its hitherto unquestioned leader. … In January,
   1890, the Opposition were strong enough to place their
   candidate in the chair when the House of Representatives
   organized. The ministry resigned, and a conflict between the
   Executive and legislative branches of the Government was
   openly begun when the President appointed a Cabinet of his own
   selection. … This ministry had to face an overwhelming
   majority against the President, which treated him as a
   dictator and began to pass hostile laws and resolutions that
   were vetoed, and refused to consider the measures that he
   recommended. The ministers were cited before the Chambers and
   questioned about the manner of their appointment. They either
   declined to answer, or answered in a way that increased the
   animosity of Congress, which finally passed a vote of censure,
   in obedience to which, as was usual, the Cabinet resigned.
   Then Balmaceda appointed a ministry in open defiance of
   Congress, with Sanfuentes at its head, the man who was already
   spoken of as his selected candidate for the presidency. He
   prepared for the struggle that he invited by removing the
   chiefs of the administration of the departments and replacing
   them with men devoted to himself and his policy, and making
   changes in the police, the militia, and, to some extent, in
   the army and navy commands. The press denounced him as a
   dictator, and indignation meetings were held in every town.
   Balmaceda and his supporters pretended to be not only the
   champions of the people against the aristocracy, but of the
   principle of Chili for the Chilians."

"The conflict between President Balmaceda and Congress ripened into revolution. On January 1, 1891, the Opposition members of the Senate and House of Deputies met, and signed an Act declaring that the President was unworthy of his post, and that he was no longer head of the State nor President of the Republic, as he had violated the Constitution. On January 7 the navy declared in favour of the Legislature, and against Balmaceda. The President denounced the navy as traitors, abolished all the laws of the country, declared himself Dictator, and proclaimed martial law. It was a reign of terror. The Opposition recruited an army in the Island of Santa Maria under General Urrutia and Commander Canto. On February 14 a severe fight took place with the Government troops in Iquique, and the Congressional army took possession of Pisagua. In April, President Balmaceda … delivered a long message, denouncing the navy. … The contest continued, and April 7, Arica, in the province of Tarapaca, was taken by the revolutionists. Some naval fights occurred later, and the iron-clad Blanco Encalada was blown up by the Dictator's torpedo cruisers. Finally, on August 21, General Canto landed at Concon, ten miles north of Valparaiso. Balmaceda's forces attacked immediately and were routed, losing 3,500 killed and wounded. The Congress army lost 600. On the 28th a decisive battle was fought at Placilla, near Valparaiso. The Dictator had 12,000 troops, and the opposing army 10,000. Balmaceda's forces were completely routed after five hours' hard fighting, with a loss of 1,500 men. Santiago formally surrendered, and the triumph of the Congress party was complete. A Junta, headed by Señor Jorge Montt, took charge of affairs at Valparaiso August 30. Balmaceda, who had taken refuge at the Argentine Legation in Santiago, was not able to make his escape, and to avoid capture, trial, and punishment, committed suicide, September 20, by shooting himself. On the 19th November Admiral Jorge Montt was chosen by the Electoral College, at Santiago, President of Chili, and on December 26 he was installed with great ceremony and general rejoicings."

CHILIARCHS.

CHILPERIC I.

A seat in the British House of Commons "cannot be resigned, nor can a man who has once formally taken his seat for one constituency throw it up and contest another. Either a disqualification must be incurred, or the House must declare the seat vacant." The necessary disqualification can be incurred by accepting an office of profit under the Crown,—within certain official categories. "Certain old offices of nominal value in the gift of the Treasury are now granted, as of course, to members who wish to resign their seats in order to be quit of Parliamentary duties or to contest another constituency. These offices are the Stewardship of the Chiltern Hundreds [Crown property in Buckinghamshire], of the manors of East Hendred, Northstead, or Hempholme, and the escheatorship of Munster. The office is resigned as soon as it has operated to vacate the seat and sever the tie between the member and his constituents."

"That spacious seat of ancient civilization which we call China has loomed always so large to western eyes, … that, at eras far apart, we find it to have been distinguished by different appellations according as it was regarded as the terminus of a southern sea-route coasting the great peninsulas and islands of Asia, or as that of a northern land route traversing the longitude of that continent. In the former aspect the name applied has nearly always been some form of the name Sin, Chin, Sinæ, China. In the latter point of view the region in question was known to the ancients as the land of the Seres; the middle ages as the Empire of Cathay. The name of China has been supposed, like many another word and name connected with trade and geography of the far east, to have come to us through the Malays, and to have been applied by them to the great eastern monarchy from the style of the dynasty of Thsin, which a little more than two centuries before our era enjoyed a brief but very vigorous existence. … There are reasons however for believing that the name of China must have been bestowed at a much earlier date, for it occurs in the laws of Manu, which assert the Chinas to have been degenerate Kshatryas, and in the Mahabharat, compositions many centuries older than the imperial dynasty of Thsin. … This name may have yet possibly been connected with the Thsin, or some monarchy of like dynastic title; for that dynasty had reigned locally in Shensi from the 9th century before our era; and when, at a still earlier date, the empire was partitioned into many small kingdoms, we find among them the dynasties of the Tcin and the Ching. … Some at least of the circumstances which have been collected … render it the less improbable that the Sinim of the prophet Isaiah … should be truly interpreted as indicating the Chinese. The name of China in this form was late in reaching the Greeks and Romans, and to them it probably came through people of Arabian speech, as the Arabs, being without the sound of 'ch,' made the China of the Hindus and Malays into Sin, and perhaps sometimes into Thin. Hence the Thin of the author of the Periplus of the Erythraean Sea, who appears to be the first extant author to employ the name in this form; hence also the Sinæ and Thinæ of Ptolemy. … If we now turn to the Seres we find this name mentioned by classic authors much more frequently and at an earlier date by at least a century. The name is familiar enough to the Latin poets of the Augustan age, but always in a vague way. … The name of Seres is probably from its earliest use in the west identified with the name of the silkworm and its produce, and this association continued until the name ceased entirely to be used as a geographical expression. … It was in the days of the Mongols … that China first became really known to Europe, and that by a name which, though especially applied to the northern provinces, also came to bear a more general application, Cathay. This name, Khitai, is that by which China is styled to this day by all, or nearly all, the nations which know it from an inland point of view, including the Russians, the Persians, and the nations of Turkestan; and yet it originally belonged to a people who were not Chinese at all. The Khitans were a people of Manchu race, who inhabited for centuries a country to the north-east of China." During a period between the 10th and 12th centuries, the Khitans acquired supremacy over their neighbours and established an empire which embraced Northern China and the adjoining regions of Tartary. "It must have been during this period, ending with the overthrow of the dynasty [called the Leao or Iron Dynasty] in 1123, and whilst this northern monarchy was the face which the Celestial Empire turned to Inner Asia, that the name of Khitan, Khitat, or Khitaï, became indissolubly associated with China."

"The origin of the Chinese race is shrouded in some obscurity. The first records we have of them represent them as a band of immigrants settling in the north-eastern provinces of the modern empire of China, and fight their way amongst the aborigines, much as the Jews of old forced their way into Canaan against the various tribes which they found in possession of the land. It is probable that though they all entered China by the same route, they separated into bands almost on the threshold of the empire, one body, those who have left us the records of their history in the ancient Chinese books, apparently followed the course of the Yellow River, and, turning south-ward with it from its northernmost bend, settled themselves in the fertile districts of the modern provinces of Shansi and Honan. But as we find also that at about the same period a large settlement was made as far south as Annam, of which there is no mention in the books of the northern Chinese, we must assume that another body struck directly southward through the southern provinces of China to that country. The question then arises, where did these people come from? and the answer which recent research [see BABYLONIA PRIMITIVE] gives to this question is, from the south of the Caspian Sea. … In all probability, the outbreak in Susiana of, possibly, some political disturbance, in about the 24th or 23rd century B. C., drove the Chinese from the land of their adoption, and that they wandered eastward until they finally settled in China and the countries south of it. … It would appear also that the Chinese came into China possessed of the resources of Western Asian culture. They brought with them a knowledge of writing and astronomy, as well as of the arts which primarily minister to the wants and comfort of mankind. The invention of these civilising influences is traditionally attributed to the Emperor Hwang-te, who is said to have reigned from B. C. 2697-2597. But the name of this sovereign leads us to suppose that he never sat on the throne in China. One of his names, we are told, was Nai, anciently Nak, and in the Chinese paleographical collection he is described by a character composed of a group of phonetics which read Nak-kon-ti. The resemblance between this name and that of Nak-hunte, who, according to the Susian texts, was the chief of the gods, is sufficiently striking, and many of the attributes belonging to him are such as to place him on an equality with the Susian deity. {417} In exact accordance also with the system of Babylonian chronology he established a cycle of twelve years, and fixed the length of the year at 360 days composed of twelve months, with an intercalary month to balance the surplus time. He further, we are told, built a Ling tai, or observatory, reminding us of the Babylonian Zigguratu, or house of observation, 'from which to watch the movements of the heavenly bodies.' The primitive Chinese, like the Babylonians, recognised five planets besides the sun and moon, and, with one exception, knew them by the same names. … The various phases of these planets were carefully watched, and portents were derived from every real and imaginary change in their relative positions and colours. A comparison between the astrological tablets translated by Professor Sayce and the astrological chapter (27th) in the She ke, the earliest of the Dynastic Histories, shows a remarkable parallelism, not only in the general style of the forecasts, but in particular portents which are so contrary to Chinese prejudices, as a nation, and the train of thought of the people that they would be at once put down as of foreign origin, even if they were not found in the Babylonian records. … In the reign of Chwan Hu (2513-2435 B. C.), we find according to the Chinese records, that the year, as among the Chaldeans, began with the third month of the solar year, and a comparison between the ancient names of the months given in the Urh ya, the oldest Chinese dictionary, with the Accadian equivalents, shows, in some instances, an exact identity. … These parallelisms, together with a host of others which might be produced, all point to the existence of an early relationship between Chinese and Mesopotamian culture; and, armed with the advantages thus possessed, the Chinese entered into the empire over which they were ultimately to overspread themselves. But they came among tribes who, though somewhat inferior to them in general civilisation, were by no means destitute of culture. … Among such people, and others of a lower civilisation, such as the Jungs of the west and the Teks, the ancestors of the Tekke Turcomans, in the north, the Chinese succeeded in establishing themselves. The Emperor Yaou (2356-2255 B. C.) divided his kingdom into twelve portions, presided over by as many Pastors, in exact imitation of the duodenary feudal system of Susa with their twelve Pastor Princes. To Yaou succeeded Shun, who carried on the work of his predecessor of consolidating the Chinese power with energy and success. In his reign the first mention is made of religious worship. … In Shun's reign occurred the great flood which inundated most of the provinces of the existing empire. The waters, we are told, rose to so great a height, that the people had to betake themselves to the mountains to escape death. The disaster arose, as many similar disasters, though of a less magnitude, have since arisen, in consequence of the Yellow River bursting its bounds, and the 'Great Yu' was appointed to lead the waters back to their channel. With unremitting energy he set about his task, and in nine years succeeded in bringing the river under control. … As a reward for the services he had rendered to the empire, he was invested with the principality of Hea, and after having occupied the throne conjointly with Shun for some years, he succeeded that sovereign on his death, in 2208 B. C. With Yu began the dynasty of Hea, which gave place, in 1766 B. C., to the Shang Dynasty. The last sovereign of the Hea line, Kieh kwei, is said to have been a monster of iniquity, and to have suffered the just punishment for his crimes at the hands of T'ang, the prince of the State of Shang, who took his throne from him. In like manner, 640 years later, Woo Wang, the prince of Chow, overthrew Chow Sin, the last of the Shang Dynasty, and established himself as the chief of the sovereign state of the empire. By empire it must not be supposed that the empire, as it exists at present, is meant. The China of the Chow Dynasty lay between the 33rd and 38th parallels of latitude, and the 106th and 119th of longitude only, and extended over no more than portions of the provinces of Pih chih-li, Shanse, Shense, Honan, Keang-se, and Shan-tung. This territory was re-arranged by Woo Wang into the nine principalities established by Yu. … Woo is held up in Chinese history as one of the model monarchs of antiquity. … Under the next ruler, K'ang (B. C. 1078-1053), the empire was consolidated, and the feudal princes one and all acknowledged their allegiance to the ruling house of Chow. … From all accounts there speedily occurred a marked degeneracy in the characters of the Chow kings. … Already a spirit of lawlessness was spreading far and wide among the princes and nobles, and wars and rumours of wars were creating misery and unrest throughout the country. … The hand of every man was against his neighbour, and a constant state of internecine war succeeded the peace and prosperity which had existed under the rule of Woo-wang. … As time went on and the disorder increased, supernatural signs added their testimony to the impending crisis. The brazen vessels upon which Yu had engraved the nine divisions of the empire were observed to shake and totter as though foreshadowing the approaching change in the political position. Meanwhile Ts'in on the northwest, Ts'oo on the south, and Tsin on the north, having vanquished all the other states, engaged in the final struggle for the mastery over the confederate principalities. The ultimate victory rested with the state of Ts'in, and in 255 B. C., Chaou-seang Wang became the acknowledged ruler over the 'black-haired' people. Only four years were given him to reign supreme, and at the end of that time he was succeeded by his son, Heaou-wan Wang, who died almost immediately on ascending the throne. To him succeeded Chwang-seang Wang, who was followed in 246 B. C. by Che Hwang-te, the first Emperor of China. The abolition of feudalism, which was the first act of Che Hwang-to raised much discontent among those to whom the feudal system had brought power and emoluments, and the countenance which had been given to the system by Confucius and Mencius made it desirable—so thought the emperor—to demolish once for all their testimony in favour of that condition of affairs, which he had decreed should be among the things of the past. With this object he ordered that the whole existing literature, with the exception of books on medicine, agriculture, and divination should be burned. The decree was obeyed as faithfully as was possible in the case of so sweeping an ordinance, and for many years a night of ignorance rested on the country. The construction of one gigantic work—the Great Wall of China—has made the name of this monarch as famous as the destruction of the books has made it infamous. {418} Finding the Heung-nu Tartars were making dangerous inroads into the empire, he determined with characteristic thoroughness to build a huge barrier which should protect the northern frontier of the empire through all time. In 214 B. C. the work was begun under his personal supervision, and though every endeavor was made to hasten its completion he died (209) leaving it unfinished. His death was the signal for an outbreak among the dispossessed feudal princes, who, however, after some years of disorder, were again reduced to the rank of citizens by a successful leader, who adopted the title of Kaou-te, and named his dynasty that of Han (206). From that day to this, with occasional interregnums, the empire has been ruled on the lines laid down by Che Hwang-te. Dynasty has succeeded dynasty, but the political tradition has remained unchanged, and though Mongols and Manchoos have at different times wrested the throne from its legitimate heirs, they have been engulfed in the homogeneous mass inhabiting the empire, and instead of impressing their seal on the country have become but the reflection of the vanquished. The dynasties from the beginning of the earlier Han, founded, as stated above, by Kaou-te, are as follows:

The earlier Han Dynasty B. C. 206-A. D. 25; the late Han A. D. 25-220; the Wei 220-280; the western Tsin 265-317; the eastern Tsin 317-420; the Sung 420-479; the Ts'e 479-502; the Leang 502-557; the Ch'in 557-589. Simultaneously with these— the northern Wei A. D. 386-534; the western Wei 535-557; the eastern Wei 534-550; the northern Ts'e 550-577; the northern Chow 557-589. The Suy 589-618; the T'ang 618-907; the later Leang 907-923; the later T'ang 923-936; the later Tsin 936-947; the later Han 947-951; the later Chow 951-960, the Sung 960-1127; the southern Sung 1127-1280; the Yuen 1280-1368; the Ming 1368-1614; the Ts'ing 1644. Simultaneously with some of these— the Leaou 907-1125; the western Leaou 1125-1168; the Kin 1115-1280.

CHINA:
   The Religions of the People.
   Confucianism.
   Taouism.
   Buddhism.

"The Chinese describe themselves as possessing three religions, or more accurately, three sects, namely Joo keaou, the sect of Scholars; Fuh keaou, the sect of Buddha; and Taou keaou, the sect of Taou. Both as regards age and origin, the sect of Scholars, or, as it is generally called, Confucianism, represents pre-eminently the religion of China. It has its root in the worship of Shang-te, a deity which is associated with the earliest traditions of the Chinese race. Hwang-te (2697 B. C.) erected a temple to his honour, and succeeding emperors worshipped before his shrine. … During the troublous times which followed after the reign of the few first sovereigns of the Chow Dynasty, the belief in a personal deity grew indistinct and dim, until, when Confucius [born B. C. 551] began his career, there appeared nothing strange in his atheistic doctrines. He never in any way denied the existence of Shang-te, but he ignored him. His concern was with man as a member of society, and the object of his teaching was to lead him into those paths of rectitude which might best contribute to his own happiness, and to the well-being of that community of which he formed part. Man, he held, was born good, and was endowed with qualities which, when cultivated and improved by watchfulness and self-restraint, might enable him to acquire godlike wisdom and to become 'the equal of Heaven.' He divided mankind into four classes, viz., those who are born with the possession of knowledge; those who learn, and so readily get possession of knowledge; those who are dull and stupid, and yet succeed in learning; and, lastly, those who are dull and stupid, and yet do not learn. To all these, except those of the last class, the path to the climax reached by the 'Sage' is open. Man has only to watch, listen to, understand, and obey the moral sense implanted in him by Heaven, and the highest perfection is within his reach. … In this system there is no place for a personal God. The impersonal Heaven, according to Confucius, implants a pure nature in every being at his birth, but, having done this, there is no further supernatural interference with the thoughts and deeds of men. It is in the power of each one to perfect his nature, and there is no divine influence to restrain those who take the downward course. Man has his destiny in his own hands, to make or to mar. Neither had Confucius any inducement to offer to encourage men in the practice of virtue, except virtue's self. He was a matter-of-fact, unimaginative man, who was quite content to occupy himself with the study of his fellow-men, and was disinclined to grope into the future or to peer upwards. No wonder that his system, as he enunciated it, proved a failure. Eagerly he sought in the execution of his official duties to effect the regeneration of the empire, but beyond the circle of his personal disciples he found few followers, and as soon as princes and statesmen had satisfied their curiosity about him they turned their backs on his precepts and would [have] none of his reproofs. Succeeding ages, recognising the loftiness of his aims, eliminated all that was impracticable and unreal in his system, and held fast to that part of it that was true and good. They were content to accept the logic of events, and to throw overboard the ideal 'sage,' and to ignore the supposed potency of his influence; but they clung to the doctrines of filial piety, brotherly love, and virtuous living. It was admiration for the emphasis which he laid on these and other virtues which has drawn so many millions of men unto him; which has made his tomb at Keo-foo heen to be the Mecca of Confucianism, and has adorned every city of the empire with temples built in his honour. … Concurrently with the lapse of pure Confucianism, and the adoption of those principles which find their earliest expression in the pre-Confucian classics of China, there is observable a return to the worship of Shang-te. The most magnificent temple in the empire is the Temple of Heaven at Peking, where the highest object of Chinese worship is adored with the purest rites. … What is popularly known in Europe as Confucianism is, therefore, Confucianism with the distinctive opinions of Confucius omitted. … But this worship of Shang-te is confined only to the emperor. The people have no lot or heritage in the sacred acts of worship at the Altar of Heaven. … Side by side with the revival of the Joo keaou, under the influence of Confucius, grew up a system of a totally different nature, and which, when divested of its esoteric doctrines, and reduced by the practically-minded Chinamen to a code of morals, was destined in future ages to become affiliated with the teachings of the Sage. {419} This was Taouism, which was founded by Laou-tsze, who was a contemporary of Confucius. An air of mystery hangs over the history of Laou-tsze. Of his parentage we know nothing, and the historians, in their anxiety to conceal their ignorance of his earlier years, shelter themselves behind the legend that he was born an old man. … The primary meaning of Taou is 'The way,' 'The path,' but in Laou-tsze's philosophy it was more than the way, it was the way-goer as well. It was an eternal road; along it all beings and things walked; it was everything and nothing, and the cause and effect of all. All things originated from Taou, conformed to Taou, and to Taou at last returned. … 'If, then, we had to express the meaning of Taou, we should describe it as the Absolute; the totality of Being and Things; the phenomenal world and its order; and the ethical nature of the good man, 'and the principle of his action.' It was absorption into this 'Mother of all things' that Laou-tsze aimed at. And this end was to be attained to by self-emptiness, and by giving free scope to the uncontaminated nature which, like Confucius, he taught was given by Heaven to all men. … But these subtleties, like the more abstruse speculations of Confucius, were suited only to the taste of the schools. To the common people they were foolishness, and, before long, the philosophical doctrine of Laou-tsze of the identity of existence and non-existence, assumed in their eyes a warrant for the old Epicurean motto, 'Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die.' The pleasures of sense were substituted for the delights of virtue, and the next step was to desire prolongation of the time when those pleasures could be enjoyed. Legend said that Laou-tsze had secured to himself immunity from death by drinking the elixir of immortality, and to enjoy the same 'privilege became the all-absorbing object of his followers. The demand for elixirs and charms produced a supply, and Taouism quickly degenerated into a system of magic. … The teachings of Laou-tsze having familiarised the Chinese mind with philosophical doctrines, which, whatever were their direct source, bore a marked resemblance to the musings of Indian sages, served to prepare the way for the introduction of Buddhism. The exact date at which the Chinese first became acquainted with the doctrines of Buddha was, according to an author quoted in K'ang-he's Imperial Encyclopædia, the thirtieth year of the reign of She Hwang-te, i. e., B. C. 216. The story this writer tells of the difficulties which the first missionaries encountered is curious, and singularly suggestive of the narrative of St. Peter's imprisonment."

"Buddhism … penetrated to China along the fixed route from India to that country, round the north-west corner of the Himalayas and across Eastern Turkestan. Already in the 2nd year B. C., an embassy, perhaps sent by Huvishka [who reigned in Kabul and Kashmere] took Buddhist books to the then Emperor of China, A-ili; and the Emperor Ming-ti, 62 A. D., guided by a dream, is said to have sent to Tartary and Central India and brought Buddhist books to China. From this time Buddhism rapidly spread there. … In the fourth century Buddhism became the state religion."

"The conquest of China was commenced by Chinghiz [or Jingis Khan], although it was not completed for several generations. Already in 1205 he had invaded Tangut, a kingdom occupying the extreme northwest of China, and extending beyond Chinese limits in the same direction, held by a dynasty of Tibetan race, which was or had been a vassal to the Kin. This invasion was repeated in succeeding years; and in 1211 his attacks extended to the Empire of the Kin itself. In 1214 he ravaged their provinces to the Yellow River, and in the following year took Chungtu or Peking. In 1219 he turned his arms against Western Asia; … but a lieutenant whom he had left behind him in the East continued to prosecute the subjection of Northern China. Chinghiz himself on his return from his western conquests renewed his attack on Tangut, and died on that enterprise, 18th August. Okkodai, the son and successor of Chinghiz, followed up the subjugation of China, extinguished the Kin finally in 1234 and consolidated with his Empire all the provinces north of the Great Kiang. The Southern provinces remained for the present subject to the Chinese dynasty of the Sung, reigning now at Kingssé or Hangcheu. This kingdom was known to the Tartars as Nangkiass, and also by the quasi-Chinese title of Mangi or Manzi, made so famous by Marco Polo and the travellers of the following age."

Kublai, or Khubilai Khan, one of the grandsons of Jingis Khan, who reigned as the Great Khan or Supreme lord of the Mongols from 1259 until 1294, "was the sovereign of the largest empire that was ever controlled by one man. China, Corea, Thibet, Tung-King, Cochin China, a great portion of India beyond the Ganges, the Turkish and Siberian realms from the Eastern Sea to the Dnieper, obeyed his commands; and although the chief of the Hordes of Jagatai and Ogatai refused to acknowledge him, the Ilkhans of Persia … were his feudatories. … The Supreme Khan had immediate authority only in Mongolia and China. … The capital of the Khakan, after the accession of Khubilai, was a new city he built close to the ancient metropolis of the Liao and Kin dynasties."

"Khan-Bálig (Mong., 'The Khan's city'), the Cambalu of Marco, Peking … was captured by Chinghiz in 1215, and in 1264 Kublai made it his chief residence. In 1267 he built a new city, three 'li' to the north-east of the old one, to which was given the name of Ta-tu or 'Great Court,' called by the Mongols Daïdu, the Taydo of Odoric and Taidu of Polo, who gives a description of its dimensions, the number of its gates, etc., similar to that in the text. The Chinese accounts give only eleven gates. This city was abandoned as a royal residence on the expulsion of the Mongol dynasty in 1368, but re-occupied in 1421 by the third Ming Emperor, who built the walls as they now exist, reducing their extent and the number of the gates to nine. This is what is commonly called the 'Tartar city' of the present day (called also by the Chinese Lau-Chhing or 'Old Town'), which therefore represents the Taydo of Odoric."

CHINA: A. D. 1294-1882.
   Dissolution of the Empire of Kublai Khan.
   The Ming dynasty and its fall.
   The enthronement of the present Manchu Tartar Dynasty, of the
   Tsings or Ch'ings.
   The appearance of the Portuguese and the Jesuit Missionaries.

"The immediate successors of Kublai, brought up in the luxuries of the imperial palace, the most gorgeous at that time in the world, relied upon the prestige with which the glory of the late emperor invested them, and never dreamed that change could touch a dominion so vast and so solid. Some devoted themselves to elegant literature and the improvement of the people; later princes to the mysteries of Buddhism, which became, in some degree, the state religion; and as the cycle went round, the dregs of the dynasty abandoned themselves, as usual, to priests, women, and eunuchs. … The distant provinces threw off their subjection; robbers ravaged the land, and pirates the sea; a minority and a famine came at the same moment; and in less than ninety years after its commencement, the fall of the dynasty was only illumined by some few flashes of dying heroism, and every armed Tartar, who could obtain a horse to aid his flight, spurred back to his native deserts. Some of them, of the royal race, turning to the west, took refuge with the Manchows, and in process of time, marrying with the families of the chiefs, intermingled the blood of the two great tribes. The proximate cause of this catastrophe was a Chinese of low birth, who, in the midst of the troubles of the time, found means to raise himself by his genius from a servile station to the leadership of a body of the malcontents, and thence to step into the imperial throne. The new dynasty [the Ming] began their reign with great brilliance. The emperor carried the Tartar war into their own country, and at home made unrelenting war upon the abuses of his palace. He committed the mistake, however, of granting separate principalities to the members of his house, which in the next reign caused a civil war, and the usurpation of the throne by an uncle of the then emperor. The usurper found it necessary to transfer the capital to Peking, as a post of defence against the eastern Tartars, who now made their appearance again on this eventful stage. He was successful, however, in his wars in the desert, and he added Tonquin and Cochin China to the Chinese dominions. After him the fortunes of the dynasty began to wane. The government became weaker, the Tartars stronger, some princes attached themselves to literature, some to Buddhism or Taoism: Cochin China revolted, and was lost to the empire, Japan ravaged the coasts with her privateers; famine came to add to the horrors of misrule."

Leitch Ritchie, History of the Oriental Nations, book 7, chapter 1 (volume 2).

"From without, the Mings were constantly harassed by the encroachments of the Tartars; from within, the ceaseless intriguing of the eunuchs (resulting in one case in the temporary deposition of an Emperor) was a fertile cause of trouble. Towards the close of the 16th century the Portuguese appeared upon the scene, and from their 'concession' at Macao, some time the residence of Camoens, opened commercial relations between China and the West. They brought the Chinese, among other things, opium, which had previously been imported overland from India. They possibly taught them how to make gunpowder, to the invention of which the Chinese do not seem, upon striking a balance of evidence, to possess an independent claim. About the same time [1580] Rome contributed the first instalment of those wonderful Jesuit fathers, whose names may truly be said to have filled the empire 'with sounds that echo still,' the memory of their scientific labours and the benefits they thus conferred upon China having long survived the wreck and discredit of the faith to which they devoted their lives. And at this distance of time it does not appear to be a wild statement to assert that had the Jesuits, the Franciscans, and the Dominicans, been able to resist quarrelling among themselves, and had they rather united to persuade Papal infallibility to permit the incorporation of ancestor worship with the rites and ceremonies of the Romish church—China would at this moment be a Catholic country, and Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism would long since have receded into the past. Of all these Jesuit missionaries, the name of Matteo Ricci [who died in 1610] stands by common consent first upon the long list. … The overthrow of the Mings [A. D. 1644], was brought about by a combination of events, of the utmost importance to those who would understand the present position of the Tartars as rulers of China. A sudden rebellion had resulted in the capture of Peking by the insurgents, and in the suicide of the Emperor who was fated to be the last of his line. The Imperial Commander-in-chief, Wu San-kuei, at that time away on the frontiers of Manchuria, engaged in resisting the incursions of the Manchu Tartars, now for a long time in a state of ferment, immediately hurried back to the capital, but was totally defeated by the insurgent leader, and once more made his way, this time as a fugitive and a suppliant, towards the Tartar camp. Here he obtained promises of assistance, chiefly on condition that he would shave his head and grow a tail in accordance with Manchu custom, and again set off with his new auxiliaries towards Peking, being reinforced on the way by a body of Mongol volunteers. As things turned out Wu San-kuei arrived at Peking in advance of these allies, and actually succeeded, with the remnant of his own scattered forces, in routing the troops of the rebel leader before the Tartars and the Mongols came up. He then started in pursuit of the flying foe. Meanwhile the Tartar contingent arrived; and on entering the capital, the young Manchu prince in command was invited by the people of Peking to ascend the vacant throne. So that by the time Wu San-kuei re-appeared he found a new dynasty [the Ch'ing or Tsing dynasty of the present day] already established, and his late Manchu ally at the head of affairs. His first intention had doubtless been to continue the Ming line of Emperors; but he seems to have readily fallen in with the arrangement already made, and to have tendered his formal allegiance on the four following conditions:

(2.) That the first place at the great triennial examination for the highest literary degrees should never be given to a Tartar.

(3.) That the people should adopt the national costume of the Tartars in their everyday life; but that they should be allowed to bury their corpses in the dress of the late dynasty.

(4.) That this condition of costume should not apply to the women of China, who were not to be compelled either to wear the hair in a tail before marriage (as the Tartar girls do) or to abandon the custom of compressing' their feet.

The great Ming dynasty was now at an end, though not destined wholly to pass away. A large part of it may be said to remain in the literary monuments which were executed during its three centuries of existence. The dress of the period survives upon the modern Chinese stage; and when occasionally the present alien yoke is found to gall, seditious whispers of 'restoration' are not altogether unheard. … The age of the Ch'ings is the age in which we live; but it is not so familiar to some persons as it ought to be, that a Tartar, and not a Chinese sovereign, is now seated upon the throne of China. For some time after the accession of the first Manchu Emperor there was considerable friction between the two races, due, among other natural causes, to the enforced adoption of the peculiar coiffure in vogue among the Manchus—i. e., the tail, or plaited queue of hair, which now hangs down every Chinaman's back. This fashion was for a long time vigorously resisted by the inhabitants of southern China, though now regarded by all alike as one of the most sacred characteristics of the 'black-haired people.' … The subjugation of the empire by the Manchus was followed by a military occupation of the country, which has survived the original necessity, and is part of the system of government at the present day. Garrisons of Tartar troops were stationed at various important centres of population. … Those Tartar garrisons still occupy the same positions; and the descendants of the first battalions, with occasional reinforcements from Peking, live side by side and in perfect harmony with the strictly Chinese populations. These Bannermen, as they are called, may be known by their square, heavy faces, which contrast strongly with the sharper and more astute physiognomies of the Chinese. They speak the dialect of Peking, now recognised as the official language par excellence. They do not use their family or surnames—which belong rather to the clan than to the individual—but in order to conform to the requirements of Chinese life, the personal name is substituted. Their women do not compress their feet, and the female coiffure and dress are wholly Tartar in character. Intermarriage between the two races is not considered desirable, though instances are not unknown. In other respects, it is the old story of 'vida victrix;' the conquering Tartars have been themselves conquered by the people over whom they set themselves to rule. They have adopted the language, written and colloquial, of China. … Manchu, the language of the conquerors, is still kept alive at the Court of Peking. By a State fiction, it is supposed to be the language of the sovereign. … Eight emperors of this line have already occupied the throne, and 'become guests on high;' the ninth is yet [in 1882] a boy less than ten years of age. Of these eight, the second in every way fills the largest space in Chinese history. K'ang Hsi (or Kang Hi) reigned for sixty-one years. … Under the third Manchu Emperor, Yung Cheng [A. D. 1723-1736], began that violent persecution of the Catholics which has continued almost to the present day. The various sects—Jesuits, Dominicans, Franciscans—had been unable to agree about the Chinese equivalent for God, and the matter had been finally referred to the Pope. Another difficulty had arisen as to the toleration of ancestral worship by Chinese converts professing the Catholic faith. … As the Pope refused to permit the embodiment of this ancient custom with the ceremonies of the Catholic church, the new religion ceased to advance, and by-and-by fell into disrepute."

ALSO IN S. W. Williams, The Middle Kingdom, chapters 17, and 19-20 (volume 2).

CHINA: A. D. 1839-1842.
   The Opium War with England.
   Treaty of Nanking.
   Opening of the Five Ports.

"The first Chinese war [of England] was in one sense directly attributable to the altered position of the East India Company after 1833. [See INDIA: A. D. 1823-1833.] Up to that year trade between England and China had been conducted in both countries on principles of strict monopoly. The Chinese trade was secured to the East India Company, and the English trade was confined to a company of merchants specially nominated for the purpose by the Emperor. The change of thought which produced the destruction of monopolies in England did not penetrate to the conservative atmosphere of the Celestial Empire, and, while the trade in one country was thrown open to everyone, trade in the other was still exclusively confined to the merchants nominated by the Chinese Government. These merchants, Hong merchants as they were called, traded separately, but were mutually liable for the dues to the Chinese Government and for their debts to the foreigners. Such conditions neither promoted the growth of trade nor the solvency of the traders; and, out of the thirteen Hong merchants in 1837, three or four were avowedly insolvent. (State Papers, volume 27, page 1310.) Such were the general conditions on which the trade was conducted. The most important article of trade was opium. The importation of opium into China had, indeed, been illegal since 1796. But the Chinese Government had made no stringent efforts to prohibit the trade, and a Select Committee of the House of Commons had declared that it was inadvisable to abandon an important source of revenue to the East India Company. (State Papers, volume 29, page 1020.) The opium trade consequently throve, and grew from 4,100 chests in 1796 to 30,000 chests in 1837, and the Chinese connived at or ignored the growing trade. (Ibid., p. 1019). … In 1837 the Chinese Government adopted a fresh policy. {422} It decided on rigourously stopping the trade at which it had previously tacitly connived. … Whether the Chinese Government was really shocked at the growing use of the drug and the consequences of its use, or whether it was alarmed at a drain of silver from China which disturbed what the political arithmeticians of England a hundred years before would have called the balance of trade, it undoubtedly determined to check the traffic by every means at its disposal. With this object it strengthened its force on the coast and sent Lin, a man of great energy, to Canton [March, 1839] with supreme authority. (State Papers, volume 29, page 934, and Autobiography of Sir H. Taylor, volume 1, appendix, page 343.) Before Lin's arrival cargoes of opium had been seized by the Custom House authorities. On his arrival Lin required both the Hong merchants and the Chinese merchants to deliver up all the opium in their possession in order that it might be destroyed. (State Papers, volume 29, page 936.) The interests of England in China were at that time entrusted to Charles Elliot. … But Elliot occupied a very difficult position in China. The Chinese placed on their communications to him the Chinese word 'Yu,' and wished him to place on his despatches to them the Chinese word 'Pin.' But Yu signifies a command, and Pin a humble address, and a British Plenipotentiary could not receive commands from, or humble himself before, Chinese officials. (State Papers, volume 29, pages 881, 886, 888.) And hence the communications between him and the Chinese Government were unable to follow a direct course, but were frequently or usually sent through the Hong merchants. Such was the state of things in China when Lin, arriving in Canton, insisted on the surrender and destruction of all the opium there. Elliot was at Macao. He at once decided on returning to the post of difficulty and danger; and, though Canton was blockaded by Chinese forces and its river guarded by Chinese batteries, he made his way up in a boat of H. M. S. 'Larne,' and threw himself among his imprisoned countrymen. After his arrival he took the responsibility of demanding the surrender into his own hands, for the service of his Government, of all the British opium in China, and he surrendered the opium which he thus obtained, amounting to 20,283 chests, to the Chinese authorities, by whom it was destroyed. (Ibid., pages 945, 967.) The imminent danger to the lives and properties of a large number of British subjects was undoubtedly removed by Elliot's action. Though some difficulty arose in connection with the surrender, Lin undertook gradually to relax the stringency of the measures which he had adopted (ibid., page 977), and Elliot hoped that his own zealous efforts to carry out the arrangement which he had made would lead to the raising of the blockade. He was, however, soon undeceived. On the 4th of April Lin required him, in conjunction with the merchants, to enter into a bond under which all vessels hereafter engaged in the opium traffic would have been confiscated to the Chinese Government, and all persons connected with the trade would 'suffer death at the hands of the Celestial Court.' (Ibid., page 989.) This bond Elliot steadily refused to sign (ibid., page 992); and feeling that 'all sense of security was broken to pieces' (ibid., page 978), he ordered all British subjects to leave Canton (ibid., page 1004), he himself withdrew to the Portuguese settlement at Macao (ibid., page 1007), and he wrote to Auckland, the Governor-General of India, for armed assistance. (Ibid., page 1009.) These grave events naturally created profound anxiety. A Select Committee of the House of Commons had formally declined to interfere with the trade. The opium monopoly at that time was worth some £1,000,000 or £1,500,000 a year to British India (ibid., page 1020); and India, engaged in war with Afghanistan and already involved in a serious deficit, could not afford to part with so large an amount of its revenue (ibid., page 1020). Nine-tenths of the British merchants in China were engaged in the illegal trade (ibid., page 1030), while Elliot, in enforcing the surrender of the opium, had given the merchants bonds on the British Government for its value, and the 20,000 chests surrendered were supposed to be worth from 600 to 1,200 dollars a chest (ibid., page 987), or say from £2,400,000 to £4,800,000. … As the summer advanced, moreover, a fresh outrage increased the intensity of the crisis. On the 7th July some British seamen landed near Hong Kong, and engaged in a serious riot. A native was unfortunately killed on the occasion, and though Elliot, at his own risk, gave the relations of the victim a large pecuniary compensation, and placed the men engaged in the riot on their trial, Lin was not satisfied. He moved down to the coast, cut off the supplies of British subjects, and threatened to stop the supplies to Macao if the Portuguese continued to assist the British. (Ibid., pages 1037-1039.) The British were in consequence forced to leave Macao; and about the same time a small schooner, the 'Black Joke,' was attacked by the Chinese, and a British subject on board of her seriously wounded. Soon afterwards, however, the arrival of a ship of war, the 'Volage,' in Chinese waters enabled Elliot to assume a bolder front. He returned to Macao; he even attempted to procure supplies from the mainland. But, though he succeeded in purchasing food, 'the Mandarin runners approached and obliged the natives to take back their provisions,' and Elliot, exasperated at their conduct, fired on some war junks of the Chinese, which returned the fire. A week afterwards Elliot declared the port and river of Canton to be in a state of blockade. (Ibid., page 1066.) The commencement of the blockade, however, did not lead to immediate war. On the contrary, the Chinese showed considerable desire to avert hostilities. They insisted, indeed, that some British sailor must be surrendered to them to suffer for the death of the Chinaman who had fallen in the riot of Hong Kong. But they showed so much anxiety to conclude an arrangement on this point that they endeavoured to induce Elliot to declare that a sailor who was accidentally drowned in Chinese waters, and whose body they had found, was the actual murderer. (State Papers, volume 30, page 27.) And in the meanwhile the trade which Lin had intended to destroy went on at least as actively as ever. Lin's proceedings had, indeed, the effect of stimulating it to an unprecedented degree. The destruction of vast stores of opium led to a rise in the price of opium in China. The rise in price produced the natural consequence of an increased speculation; and, though British shipping was excluded from Chinese waters, and the contents of British vessels had to be transferred to American bottoms for conveyance into Chinese ports, British trade had never been so large or so advantageous as in the period which succeeded Lin's arbitrary proceedings. {423} Elliot was, of course, unable to prevent war either by the surrender of a British sailor to the Chinese, or by even assuming that a drowned man was the murderer; and war in consequence became daily more probable. In January, 1840, operations actually commenced. Elliot was instructed to make an armed demonstration on the northern coasts of China, to take possession of some island on the coast, and to obtain reparation and indemnity, if possible by a mere display of force, but otherwise to proceed with the squadron and thence send an ultimatum to Pekin. In accordance with these orders the Island of Chusan was occupied in July, and the fleet was sent to the mouth of the Peiho with orders to transmit a letter to Pekin. But the sea off the Peiho is shallow, the ships could not approach the coasts, and the Chinese naturally refused to yield to an empty demonstration. The expedition was forced to return to Chusan, where it found that the troops whom they had left behind were smitten by disease, that one out of every four men were dead, and that more than one-half of the survivors were invalided. Thus, throughout 1840, the Chinese war was only attended with disaster and distress. Things commenced a little more prosperously in 1841 by the capture of the Chinese position at the mouth of the Canton river. Elliot, after this success, was even able to conclude a preliminary treaty with the Chinese authorities. But this treaty did not prove satisfactory either to the British Government or to the Chinese. The British saw with dismay that the treaty made no mention of the trade in opium which had been the ostensible cause of the war. The Whig Government accordingly decided on superseding Elliot. He was recalled and replaced by Henry Pottinger. Before news of his recall reached him, however, the treaty which had led to his supersession had been disavowed by the Chinese authorities, and Elliot had commenced a fresh attack on the Chinese force which guarded the road to Canton. British sailors and British troops, under the command of Bremer and Gough, won a victory which placed Canton at their mercy. But Elliot, shrinking from exposing a great town to the horrors of an assault, stopped the advance of the troops and admitted the city to a ransom of £1,250,000. (Sir H. Taylor's Autobiography, volume 1, appendix, pages 353-363.) His moderation was naturally unacceptable to the troops and not entirely approved by the British Government. It constituted, however, Elliot's last action as agent in China. The subsequent operations were conducted under Pottinger's advice."

"Sir Henry Pottinger, who arrived as Plenipotentiary on the 10th of August, took the chief direction of the affairs. … To the end of 1841 there were various successes achieved by the land and naval forces, which gave the British possession of many large fortified towns, amongst which were Amoy, Ting-hai, Chin-hai, Ning-po, and Shang-hai. The Chinese were nevertheless persevering in their resistance, and in most cases evinced a bravery which showed how mistaken were the views which regarded the subjection of this extraordinary people as an easy task. … The British fleet on the 13th of June [1842] entered the great river Kiang, and on the 6th of July advanced up the river, and cut off its communication with the Grand Canal, by which Nanking, the ancient capital of China, was supplied with grain. The point where the river intersects the canal is the city of Chin-Kiang-foo. … On the morning of the 21st the city was stormed by the British, in three brigades. The resistance of the Tartar troops was most desperate. Our troops fought under a burning sun, whose overpowering heat caused some to fall dead. The obstinate defence of the place prevented its being taken till six o'clock in the evening. When the streets were entered, the houses were found almost deserted. They were filled with ghastly corpses, many of the Tartar soldiers having destroyed their families and then committed suicide. The city, from the number of the dead, had become uninhabitable."

"The destruction of life was appalling. … Every Manchu preferred resistance, death, suicide, or flight, to surrender. Out of a Manchu population of 4,000, it was estimated that not more than 500 survived, the greater part having perished by their own hands. … Within twenty-four hours after the troops landed, the city and suburbs of Chinkiang were a mass of ruin and destruction. … The total loss of the English was 37 killed and 131 wounded. … Some of the large ships were towed up to Nanking, and the whole fleet reached it August 9th, at which time preparations had been made for the assault. … Everything was ready for the assault by daylight of August 15th;" but on the night of the 14th the Chinese made overtures for the negotiation of peace, and the important Treaty of Nanking was soon afterwards concluded. Its terms were as follows: "1. Lasting peace between the two nations. 2. The ports of Canton, Amoy, Fuhchau, Ningpo, and Shanghai [known afterwards as the Treaty Ports] to be opened to British trade and residence, and trade conducted according to a well-understood tariff. 3. 'It being obviously necessary and desirable that British subjects should have some port whereat they may careen and refit their ships when required,' the island of Hongkong to be ceded to her Majesty. 4. Six millions of dollars to be paid as the value of the opium which was delivered up 'as a ransom for the lives of H. B. M. Superintendent and subjects,' in March, 1839. 5. Three millions of dollars to be paid for the debts due to British merchants. 6. Twelve millions to be paid for the expenses incurred in the expedition sent out 'to obtain redress for the violent and unjust proceedings of the Chinese high authorities.' 7. The entire amount of $21,000,000 to be paid before December 31, 1845. 8. All prisoners of war to be immediately released by the Chinese. 9. The Emperor to grant full and entire amnesty to those of his subjects who had aided the British." Articles 10 to 13 related to the tariff of export and import dues that should be levied at the open ports; to future terms of official correspondence, etc. The Treaty was signed by the Commissioners on the 29th of August, 1842, and the Emperor's ratification was received September 15th.

"The phrase 'Taiping Rebellion is wholly of foreign manufacture; at Peking and everywhere among those loyal to the government the insurgents were styled 'Chang-mao tseh,' or 'Long-haired rebels,' while on their side, by a whimsical resemblance to English slang, the imperialists were dubbed 'imps.' When the chiefs assumed to be aiming at independence in 1850, in order to identify their followers with their cause they took the term 'Ping Chao,' or 'Peace Dynasty,' as the style of their sway, to distinguish it from the 'Tsing Chao,' or 'Pure Dynasty' of the Manchus. Each of them prefixed the adjective 'Ta' (or 'Tai,' in Cantonese), 'Great,' as is the Chinese custom with regard to dynasties and nations; thus the name Tai-ping became known to foreigners."

"This remarkable movement, which at one time excited much interest in Western lands, originated with a man named Hung Sew-tseuen [or Hung Siu-tseuen], son of a humble peasant residing in a village near Canton. On the occasion of one of his visits to the provincial city, probably in the year 1833, he appears to have seen a foreign Protestant missionary addressing the populace in the streets, assisted by a native interpreter. Either then or on the following day he received from some tract-distributor a book entitled 'Good Words for Exhorting the Age,' which consisted of essays and sermons by Leang A-fah, a well-known convert and evangelist. Taking the volume home with him, he looked it over with some interest, but carelessly laid it aside in his book-case. A few years afterward he attended for the second time the competitive literary examination with high hopes of honor and distinction, having already passed with much credit the lower examination in the district city. His ambitious venture, however, met with severe disappointment, and he returned to his friends sick in mind and body. During this state of mental depression and physical infirmity, which continued for some forty days, he had certain strange visions, in which he received commands from heaven to destroy the idols. These fancied revelations seem to have produced a deep impression on his mind, and led to a certain gravity of demeanor after his recovery and return to his quiet occupation as a student and village schoolmaster. When the English war broke out, and foreigners swept up Canton River with their wonderful fire-ships, … it is not surprising that Hung should have had his attention again attracted to the Christian publication which had lain so long neglected in his library. … The writings of Leang A-fah contained chapters from the Old and New Testament Scriptures, which he found to correspond in a striking manner with the preternatural sights and voices of that memorable period in his history [during his sickness, six years before]; and this strange coincidence convinced him of their truth, and of his being divinely appointed to restore the world, that is China, to the worship of the true God. Hung Sew-tseuen accepted his mission and began the work of propagating the faith he had espoused. Among his first converts was one Fung Yun-san, who became a most ardent missionary and disinterested preacher. These two leaders of the movement traveled far and near through the country, teaching the people of all classes and forming a society of God-worshippers. All the converts renounced idolatry and gave up the worship of Confucius. Hung, at this time apparently a sincere and earnest seeker after truth, went to Canton and placed himself under the instructions of the Reverend Mr. Roberts, an American missionary, who for some cause fearing that his novitiate might be inspired by mercenary motives, denied him the rite of baptism. But, without being offended at this cold and suspicious treatment, he went home and taught his converts how to baptize themselves. The God-worshippers rapidly increased in numbers, and were known and feared as zealous iconoclasts. … For a year after Hung Sew-tseuen had rejoined the God-worshippers that society retained its exclusively religious nature, but in the autumn of 1850 it was brought into direct collision with the civil magistrates, when the movement assumed a political character of the highest aims." It was soon a movement of declared rebellion, and allied with a rebel army of bandits and pirates which had taken arms against the government in south-eastern China.

"The Hakka schoolmaster proclaimed his 'mission' in 1850. A vast horde gathered to him. He nominated five 'Wangs' or soldier sub-kings from out of his clan, and commenced his northward movement from Woosewen in January, 1851. Through the rich prosperous provinces his desultory march, interspersed with frequent halts, spread destruction and desolation. The peaceful fled shudderingly before this wave of fierce, stalwart ruffianhood, with its tatterdemalian tawdriness, its flaunting banners, its rusty naked weapons. Everywhere it gathered in the local scoundrelism. The pirates came from the coast; the robbers from the interior mountains rallied to an enterprise that promised so well for their trade. In the perturbed state of the Chinese population the horde grew like an avalanche as it rolled along. The Heavenly King [as Hung now styled himself] met with no opposition to speak of, and in 1853 his promenade ended under the shadow of the Porcelain Tower, in the city of Nanking, the second metropolis of the Chinese Empire, where, till the rebellion and his life ended simultaneously, he lived a life of licentiousness, darkened further by the grossest cruelties. The rebellion had lasted nearly ten years when the fates brought it into collision with the armed civilization of the West. The Imperialist forces had made sluggishly some head against it. Nanking had been invested after a fashion for years on end. 'The prospects of the Tai-pings,' says Commander Brine, 'in the early spring of 1860, had become very gloomy.' The Imperialist generals had hemmed Tai-pingdom within certain limits in the lower valley of the Yantsze, and the movement languished further 'from its destructive and exhausting nature, which for continued vitality constantly required new districts of country to exhaust and destroy.' But in 1859 China and the West came into collision. … The rebellion had opportunity to recover lost ground. For the sixth time the 'Faithful King' relieved Nanking. The Imperialist generals fell back, and then the Tai-pings took the offensive, and as the result of sundry victories, the rebellion regained an active and flourishing condition. … Shanghai, one of the treaty ports, was threatened."

"Europe … has known evil days under the hands of fierce conquerors, plundering and destroying in religion's name; but its annals may be ransacked in vain, without finding any parallel to the miseries endured in those provinces of China over which 'The Heavenly King,' the Tai-ping prophet, extended his fell sway for ten sad years. Hung Sew-tsuen (better known in China by his assumed title, Tien Wang) … had read Christian tracts, had learnt from a Christian missionary; and when he announced publicly three years afterwards that part of his mission was to destroy the temples and images, and showed in the jargon of his pretended visions some traces of his New Testament study, the conclusion was instantly seized by the sanguine minds of a section set upon evangelizing the East, that their efforts had produced a true prophet, fit for the work. Wedded to this fancy, they rejected as the inventions of the enemies of missions the tales of Taiping cruelty which soon reached Europe: and long after the details of the impostor's life at Nankin, with its medley of visions, executions, edicts, and harem indulgence, became notorious to the world, prayers were offered for his success by devotees in Great Britain as bigoted to his cause as the bloodiest commander, or 'Wang,' whom he had raised from the ranks of his followers to carry out his 'exterminating decrees.' The Taiping cause was lost in China before it was wholly abandoned by these fanatics in England, and their belief in its excellence so powerfully reacted on our policy, that it might have preserved us from active intervention down to the present time, had not certain Imperialist successes elsewhere, the diminishing means of their wasted possessions, and the rashness of their own chiefs, brought the Taiping arms into direct collision with us. And with the occasion there was happily raised up the man whose prowess was to scatter their blood-cemented empire to pieces far more speedily than it had been built up."

"The Taiping rebellion was of so barbarous a nature that its suppression had become necessary in the interests of civilization. A force raised at the expense of the Shanghai merchants, and supported by the Chinese government, had been for some years struggling against its progress. This force, known as the 'Ever Victorious Army,' was commanded at first by Ward, an American, and, on his death, by Burgevine, also an American, who was summarily dismissed; for a short time the command was held by Holland, an English marine officer, but he was defeated at Taitsan 22 February, 1863, Li Hung Chang, governor-general of the Kiang provinces, then applied to the British commander-in-chief for the services of an English officer, and Gordon [Charles George, subsequently known as 'Chinese Gordon'] was authorised to accept the command. He arrived at Sung-Kiong and entered on his new duties as a mandarin and lieutenant-colonel in the Chinese service on 24 March 1863. His force was composed of some three to four thousand Chinese, officered by 150 Europeans of almost every nationality and often of doubtful character. By the indomitable will of its commander this heterogeneous body was moulded into a little army whose high-sounding title of 'ever-victorious' became a reality, and in less than two years, after 33 engagements, the power of the Taipings was completely broken and the rebellion stamped out. The theatre of operations was the district of Kiangsoo, lying between the Yang-tze-Kiang river in the north and the bay of Hang-chow in the south." Before the summer of 1863 was over, Gordon had raised the rebel siege of Chanzu, and taken from the Taipings the towns of Fushan, Taitsan, Quinsan, Kahpoo, Wokong, Patachiaow, Leeku, Wanti, and Fusaiqwan. Finally, in December, the great city of Soo-chow was surrendered to him, Gordon was always in front of all his storming parties, "carrying no other weapon than a little cane. His men called it his 'magic wand,' regarding it as a charm that protected his life and led them on to victory. When Soo-chow fell Gordon had stipulated with the Governor-general Li for the lives of the Wangs (rebel leaders). They were treacherously murdered by Li's orders. Indignant at this perfidy, Gordon refused to serve any longer with Governor Li, and when on 1 Jan, 1864 money anti rewards were heaped upon him by the Emperor, declined them all. … After some [two] months of inaction it became evident that if Gordon did not again take the field the Taipings would regain the rescued country," and he was prevailed upon to resume his campaign, which, although badly wounded in one of the battles, he brought to an end in the following April (1864), by the capture of Chan-chu-fu, "This victory not only ended the campaign but completely destroyed the rebellion, and the Chinese regular forces were enabled to occupy Nankin in the July following. The large money present offered to Gordon by the emperor was again declined, although he had spent his pay in promoting the efficiency of his force, so that he wrote home: 'I shall leave China as poor as when I entered it.'"

CHINA: A. D. 1856-1860,
   War with England and France.
   Bombardment and capture of Canton.
   The Allies in Pekin.
   Their destruction of the Summer Palace.
   Terms of peace.

The speech from the throne at the opening of the English Parliament, on February 3, 1857, "stated that acts of violence, insults to the British flag, and infractions of treaty rights, committed by the local authorities at Canton, and a pertinacious refusal of redress, had rendered it necessary for her Majesty's officers in China to have recourse to measures of force to obtain satisfaction. The alleged offences of the Chinese authorities at Canton had for their single victim the lorcha 'Arrow.' The lorcha 'Arrow' was a small boat built on the European model. The word 'Lorcha' is taken from the Portuguese settlement at Macao, at the mouth of the Canton river. It often occurs in treaties with the Chinese authorities. On October 8, 1856, a party of Chinese in charge of an officer boarded the 'Arrow,' in the Canton river. They took off twelve men on a charge of piracy, leaving two men in charge of the lorcha, The 'Arrow' was declared by its owners to be a British vessel. {426} Our consul at Canton, Mr. Parkes, demanded from Yeh, the Chinese Governor of Canton, the return of the men, basing his demand upon the Treaty of 1843, supplemental to the Treaty of 1842. This treaty did not give the Chinese authorities any right to seize Chinese offenders, or supposed offenders, on board an English vessel. It merely gave them a right to require the surrender of the offenders at the hands of the English. The Chinese Governor, Yeh, contended, however, that the lorcha was a Chinese pirate vessel, which had no right whatever to hoist the flag of England. It may be plainly stated at once that the 'Arrow' was not an English vessel, but only a Chinese vessel which had obtained by false pretences the temporary possession of a British flag. Mr. Consul Parkes, however, was fussy, and he demanded the instant restoration of the captured men, and he sent off to our Plenipotentiary at Hong Kong, Sir John Bowring, for authority and assistance in the business. Sir John Bowring … ordered the Chinese authorities to surrender all the men taken from the 'Arrow,' and he insisted that an apology should be offered for their arrest, and a formal pledge given that no such act should ever be committed again. If this were not done within forty-eight hours, naval operations were to be begun against the Chinese. The Chinese Governor, Yeh, sent back all the men, and undertook to promise that for the future great care should be taken that no British ships should be visited improperly by Chinese officers. But he could not offer an apology for the particular case of the 'Arrow,' for he still maintained, as was indeed the fact, that the 'Arrow' was a Chinese vessel, and that the English had nothing to do with her. Accordingly Sir John Bowring carried out his threat, and had Canton bombarded by the fleet which Admiral Sir Michael Seymour commanded. From October 23 to November 13 naval and military operations were kept up continuously. Commissioner Yeh retaliated by foolishly offering a reward for the head of every Englishman. This news from China created a considerable sensation in England. On February 24, 1857, Lord Derby brought forward in the House of Lords a motion, comprehensively condemning the whole of the proceedings of the British authorities in China. The debate would have been memorable if only for the powerful speech in which the venerable Lord Lyndhurst supported the motion, and exposed the utter illegality of the course pursued by Sir John Bowring. The House of Lords rejected the motion of Lord Derby by a majority of 146 to 110. On February 26 Mr. Cobden brought forward a similar motion in the House of Commons. … Mr. Cobden had probably never dreamed of the amount or the nature of the support his motion was destined to receive. The vote of censure was carried by 263 votes against 247—a majority of 16. Lord Palmerston announced two or three days after that the Government had resolved on a dissolution and an appeal to the country. Lord Palmerston understood his countrymen." In the ensuing elections his victory was complete. "Cobden, Bright, Milner Gibson, W. J. Fox, Layard, and many other leading opponents of the Chinese policy, were left without seats. Lord Palmerston came back to power with renewed and redoubled strength." He "had the satisfaction before he left office [in 1858] of being able to announce the capture of Canton. The operations against China had been virtually suspended … when the Indian Mutiny broke out. England had now got the cooperation of France. France had a complaint of long standing against China on account of the murder of some missionaries, for which redress had been asked in vain. There was, therefore, an allied attack made upon Canton [December, 1857], and of course the city was easily captured. Commissioner Yeh himself was taken prisoner, not until he had been sought for and hunted out in most ignominious fashion. He was found at last hidden away in some obscure part of a house. He was known by his enormous fatness. … He was put on board an English man-of-war, and afterwards sent to Calcutta, where he died early in the following year. Unless report greatly belied him he had been exceptionally cruel, even for a Chinese official. The English and French Envoys, Lord Elgin and Baron Gros, succeeded in making a treaty with China. By the conditions of the treaty, England and France were to have ministers at the Chinese Court, on certain special occasions at least, and China was to be represented in London and Paris; there was to be toleration of Christianity in China, and a certain freedom of access to Chinese rivers for English and French mercantile vessels, and to the interior of China for English and French subjects. China was to pay the expenses of the war. It was further agreed that the term 'barbarian' was no longer to be applied to Europeans in China. There was great congratulation in England over this treaty, and the prospect it afforded of a lasting peace with China. The peace thus procured lasted in fact exactly a year. … The treaty of Tien-tsin, which had been arranged by Lord Elgin and Baron Gros, contained a clause providing for the exchange of the ratifications at Pekin within a year from the date of the signature, which took place in June 1858. Lord Elgin returned to England, and his brother, Mr. Frederick Bruce, was appointed in March 1859 Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary to China. Mr. Bruce was directed to proceed by way of the Peiho to Tien-tsin, and thence to Pekin to exchange the ratifications of the treaty. Lord Malmesbury, who was then Foreign Secretary … impressed upon Mr. Bruce that he was not to be put off from going to the capital. Instructions were sent out from England at the same time to Admiral Hope, the Naval Commander-in-Chief in China, to provide a sufficient force to accompany Mr. Bruce to the mouth of the Peiho. The Peiho river flows from the highlands on the west into the Gulf of Pecheli, at the north-cast corner of the Chinese dominions. The capital of the Empire is about 100 miles inland from the mouth of the Peiho. It does not stand on that river, which flows past it at some distance westward, but it is connected with the river by means of a canal. The town of Tien-tsin stands on the Peiho near its junction with one of the many rivers that flow into it, and about forty miles from the mouth. The entrance to the Peiho was defended by the Taku forts. On June 20, 1859, Mr. Bruce and the French Envoy reached the mouth of the Peiho with Admiral Hope's fleet, some nineteen vessels in all, to escort them. They found the forts defended; some negotiations and inter-communications took place, and a Chinese official from Tien-tsin came to Mr. Bruce and endeavoured to obtain some delay or compromise. {427} Mr. Bruce became convinced that the condition of things predicted by Lord Malmesbury was coming about, and that the Chinese authorities were only trying to defeat his purpose. He called on Admiral Hope to clear a passage for the vessels. When the Admiral brought up his gunboats the forts opened fire. The Chinese artillerymen showed unexpected skill and precision. Four of the gunboats were almost immediately disabled. All the attacking vessels got aground. Admiral Hope attempted to storm the forts. The attempt was a complete failure. Admiral Hope himself was wounded; so was the commander of the French vessel which had contributed a contingent to the storming party. The attempt to force a passage of the river was given up and the mission to Pekin was over for the present. It seems only fair to say that the Chinese at the mouth of the Peiho cannot be accused of perfidy. They had mounted the forts and barricaded the river openly and even ostentatiously. … It will be easily imagined that the news created a deep sensation in England. People in general made up their minds at once that the matter could not be allowed to rest there, and that the mission to Pekin must be enforced. … Before the whole question came to be discussed in Parliament the Conservatives had gone out and the Liberals had come in. The English and French Governments determined that the men who had made the treaty of Tien-tsin—Lord Elgin and Baron Gros—should be sent back to insist on its reinforcement. Sir Hope Grant was appointed to the military command of our land forces, and General Cousin de Montauban, afterwards Count Palikao, commanded the soldiers of France. The Chinese, to do them justice, fought very bravely, but of course they had no chance whatever against such forces as those commanded by the English and French generals. The allies captured the Taku forts [August, 1860], occupied Tien-tsin, and marched on Pekin. The Chinese Government endeavoured to negotiate for peace, and to interpose any manner of delay, diplomatic or otherwise, between the allies and their progress to the capital. Lord Elgin consented at last to enter into negotiations at Tungchow, a walled town ten or twelve miles nearer than Pekin. Before the negotiations took place, Lord Elgin's secretaries, Mr. Parkes and Mr. Loch, some English officers, Mr. Bowlby, the correspondent of the 'Times,' and some members of the staff of Baron Gros, were treacherously seized by the Chinese while under a flag of truce and dragged off to various prisons. Mr. Parkes and Mr. Loch, with eleven of their companions, were afterwards released, after having been treated with much cruelty and indignity, but thirteen of the prisoners died of the horrible ill-treatment they received. Lord Elgin refused to negotiate until the prisoners had been returned, and the allied armies were actually at one of the great gates of Pekin, and had their guns in position to blow the gate in, when the Chinese acceded to their terms. The gate was surrendered, the allies entered the city, and the English and French flags were hoisted side by side on the walls of Pekin. It was only after entering the city that Lord Elgin learned of the murder of the captives. He then determined that the Summer Palace should be burnt down as a means of impressing the mind of the Chinese authorities generally with some sense of the danger of treachery and foul play. Two days were occupied in the destruction of the palace. It covered an area of many miles. Gardens, temples, small lodges, and pagodas, groves, grottoes, lakes, bridges, terraces, artificial hills, diversified the vast space. All the artistic treasures, all the curiosities, archaeological and other, that Chinese wealth and Chinese taste, such as it was, could bring together, had been accumulated in this magnificent pleasaunce. The surrounding scenery was beautiful. The high mountains of Tartary ramparted one side of the enclosure. The buildings were set on fire; the whole place was given over to destruction. A monument was raised with an inscription in Chinese, setting forth that such was the reward of perfidy and cruelty. Very different opinions were held in England as to the destruction of the Imperial palace. To many it seemed an act of unintelligible and unpardonable vandalism. Lord Elgin explained, that if he did not demand the surrender of the actual perpetrators, it was because he knew full well that no difficulty would have been made about giving him a seeming satisfaction. The Chinese Government would have selected for vicarious punishment, in all probability, a crowd of mean and unfortunate wretches who had nothing to do with the murders. … It is somewhat singular that so many persons should have been roused to indignation by the destruction of a building who took with perfect composure the unjust invasion of a country. The allied powers now of course had it all their own way. England established her right to have an envoy in Pekin, whether the Chinese liked it or not. China had to pay a war indemnity, and a large sum of money as compensation to the families of the murdered prisoners and to those who had suffered injuries, and to make an apology for the attack by the garrison of the Taku forts. Perhaps the most important gain to Europe from the war was the knowledge that Pekin was not by any means so large a city as we had all imagined it to be, and that it was on the whole rather a crumbling and tumble-down sort of place."

J. McCarthy, Short History of our own Time, chapters 12, 15, 17 (chapters 30 and 42, volume 3, of larger work).

CHINA: A. D. 1857-1868.
Treaty with the United States.
The Burlingame Embassy and the Burlingame Treaties.

"The government of the United States viewed with anxiety the new breaking out of hostilities between Great Britain, supported by France as an ally, and China, in the year 1856. President Buchanan sent thither the Honorable William B. Reed to watch the course of events, and to act the part of a mediator and peacemaker when opportunity should offer. In this he was sustained by the influence of Russia. Mr. Reed arrived in Hong Kong, on the fine war steamer Minnesota, November 7, 1857. He at once set himself to remove the difficulties between the English and Chinese, and save if possible the future effusion of blood. He endeavored in vain to persuade the proud and obstinate governor Yeh to yield, and save Canton from bombardment. {428} He proceeded to the north, and made on behalf of his government a treaty of peace with China which was signed June 18. The first article of the treaty contains a significant reference to the posture of the United States in relation to the war then in progress, as well as to any which might thereafter arise. The article says: 'There shall be, as there have always been, peace and friendship between the United States of America and the Ta-Tsing Empire, and between their people respectively. They shall not insult or oppress each other for any trifling cause, so as to produce an estrangement between them; and if any other nation should act unjustly or oppressively, the United States will exert their good offices, on being informed of the case, to bring about an amicable arrangement of the question, thus showing their friendly feelings.' A subsequent article of this treaty is to be interpreted by keeping in view the bitter root of the difficulties between Great Britain and China which led to the previous war of 1839 to '42, and to this war. After stating the ports where Americans shall be permitted to reside and their vessels to trade, it continues in the following language: 'But said vessels shall not carry on a clandestine and fraudulent trade at other ports of China not declared to be legal, or along the coasts thereof; and any vessel under the American flag violating this provision shall, with her cargo, be subject to confiscation to the Chinese government; and any citizen of the United States who shall trade in any contraband article of merchandise shall be subject to be dealt with by the Chinese government, without being entitled to any countenance or protection from that of the United States; and the United States will take measures to prevent their flag from being abused by the subjects of other nations as a cover for the violation of the laws of the empire.'… The development of the foreign trade with China during the brief time which has passed [1870] since the last war has been very great. … The American government has been represented most of the time by the Honorable Anson Burlingame, who has taken the lead, with remarkable ability and success, in establishing the policy of peaceful co-operation between the chief treaty-powers, in encouraging the Chinese to adopt a more wise and progressive policy in their entercourse with foreign nations and in the introduction of the improvements of the age. … Mr. Burlingame, who had been in China six years, determined [in 1867] to resign his post and return to America. The news of it excited much regret among both Chinese and foreign diplomatists. The former endeavored in vain to dissuade him from his purpose. Failing to accomplish this, he was invited by Prince Kung to a farewell entertainment, at which were present many of the leading officers of the government. During it they expressed to him their gratitude for his offices to them as an intelligent and disinterested counselor and friend. And they seem to have conceived at this time the thought of putting the relations of the empire with foreign countries upon a more just and equal basis, by sending to them an imperial embassy of which he should be the head. They promptly consulted some of their more reliable friends among the foreign gentlemen at the capital, and in two days after they tendered to Mr. Burlingame, much to his surprise, the appointment of minister plenipotentiary of China to the Western powers. … Mr. Burlingame left the Chinese capital on the 25th of November, 1867. The embassy consisted, besides the principal, of Chih-kang and Sun Chia-ku, a Manchu and a Chinese officer, each wearing the red ball on his cap which indicates an official of a rank next to the highest in the empire; J. McLeary Brown, formerly of the British legation, and M. Deschamps, as secretaries; Teh Ming and Fung I as Chinese attachés, and several other persons in subordinate positions. … It went to Shanghai, thence to San Francisco, where it was most cordially welcomed by both the American and Chinese mercantile communities. It reached Washington in May, 1868. The embassy was treated with much distinction at the American capital. No American statesman was so capable and disposed to enter cordially into its objects as the Secretary of State at that time, the Honorable William H. Seward, whose mind had long apprehended the great features of the policy which American and foreign nations should pursue in relation to the Chinese empire. On the 16th of July the Senate of the United States ratified a treaty which he had made in behalf of this country with the representative of the Chinese government. The treaty defines and fixes the principles of the intercourse of Western nations with China, of the importance of which I have already spoken. It secures the territorial integrity of the empire, and concedes to China the rights which the civilized nations of the world, accord to each other as to eminent domain over land and waters, and jurisdiction over persons and property therein. It takes the first step toward the appointment of Chinese consuls in our seaports—a measure promotive of both Chinese and American interests. It secures exemption from all disability or persecution on account of religious faith in either country. It recognizes the right of voluntary emigration and makes penal the wrongs of the coolie traffic. It pledges privileges as to travel or residence in either country such as are enjoyed by the most favored nation. It grants to the Chinese permission to attend our schools and colleges, and allows us to freely establish and maintain schools in China. And while it acknowledges the right of the Chinese government to control its own whole interior arrangements, as to railroads, telegraphs and other internal improvements, it suggests the willingness of our government to afford aid toward their construction by designating and authorizing suitable engineers to perform the work, at the expense of the Chinese government. The treaty expressly leaves the question of naturalization in either country an open one. … It is not necessary to follow in detail the progress of this first imperial Chinese embassy. In England it was received at first very coldly, and it was some months before proper attention could be secured from the government to its objects. At length, however, on November 20, it was presented to the queen at Windsor Castle. … What heart is there that will not join in the cordial wish that the treaties made by the embassy with Great Britain, France, Prussia and other European powers may be the commencement of a new era in the diplomatic and national intercourse of China with those and all other lands of the West!"

      ALSO IN:
      Treaties and Conventions between the
      United States and other Powers (1889),
      page 159 and 179.

"China is generally regarded as a stationary power which can fairly hold its own, though it has lost Annam to France, and the suzerainty of Upper Burmah to England, and the Amoor Valley to Russia, but which is not a serious competitor in the race for empire. There is a certain plausibility in this view. On the other hand, China has recovered Eastern Turkestan from Mahommedan rule and from a Russian protectorate, is dominating the Corea, and has stamped out a dangerous rebellion in Yunnan. No one can doubt that if China were to get for sovereign a man with the organising and aggressive genius of Peter the Great or Frederick the Second, it would be a very formidable neighbour to either British India or Russia. Neither is it easy to suppose that the improvements, now tentatively introduced into China, will not soon be taken up and pushed on a large scale, so that railways will be carried into the heart of Asia, and large armies drilled and furnished with arms of precision on the European model. In any such case the rights which China has reluctantly conceded or still claims over Annam and Tonquin, over Siam, over Upper Burmah, and over Nepaul, may become matters of very serious discussion. At present the French settlements arrest the expansion of China in the direction most dangerous to the world. Unfortunately, the climate of Saigon is such as no European cares to settle in, and the war to secure Tonquin was so unpopular that it cost a French premier his tenure of office. … 'Whatever, however, be the fortune of China in this direction, it is scarcely doubtful that she will not only people up to the furthest boundary of her recognised territory, but gradually acquire new dominions. The history of our Straits Settlements will afford a familiar instance how the Chinese are spreading. They already form half the population predominating in Singapore and Perak, and the best observers are agreed that the Malay cannot hold his own against them. They are beginning to settle in Borneo and Sumatra, and they are supplanting the natives in some of the small islands of the Pacific, such as Hawaii. The climate of all these countries suits them, and they commend themselves to governments and employers by their power of steady industry; and they intermarry freely up to a safe point with the women of the country, getting all the advantages of alliance, yet not sacrificing their nationality. Several causes have retarded their spread hitherto: the regions enumerated have mostly been too insecure for an industrial people to flourish in, until the British or the Dutch established order; the government of China has hitherto discouraged emigration; English administrations have been obliged to be rather wary in their dealings with a people who showed at Sarawak and Penang that they were capable of combining for purposes of massacre; and the Chinese superstition about burial in the sacred soil of the Celestial Empire made the great majority of the emigrants birds of passage. All these causes are disappearing. … Europeans cannot flourish under the tropics, and will not work with the hand where an inferior race works. What we have to consider, therefore, is the probability that the natives who are giving way to the Chinese in the Malay Peninsula will be able to make head against them in Borneo or Sumatra. Borneo is nearly six times as big as Java, and if it were peopled like Java would support a population of nearly 100,000,000. … In the long run the Chinese, who out-number the Malays as sixteen to one, who are more decidedly industrial, and who organise where they can in a way that precludes competition, are tolerably certain to gain the upper hand. They may not destroy the early settlers, but they will reduce them to the position of the Hill tribes in India, or of the Ainos in Japan. Assume fifty years hence that China has taken its inevitable position as one of the great powers of the world, and that Borneo has a population of 10,000,000, predominantly Chinese, is it easy to suppose in such a case that the larger part of Borneo would still be a dependency of the Netherlands? or that the whole island would not have passed, by arms or diplomacy, into the possession of China? … There are those who believe that the Chinaman is likely to supersede the Spaniard and Indian alike in parts of South America. Without assuming that all of these possibilities are likely to be realised, there is surely a strong presumption that so great a people as the Chinese, and possessed of such enormous natural resources, will sooner or later overflow their borders and spread over new territory, and submerge weaker races."

CHIOS.

The rocky island known anciently as Chios, called Scio in modern times, was one of the places which claimed Homer's birth. It is situated in the Ægean Sea, separated by a strait only five miles wide from the Asiatic coast. The wines of Chios were famous in antiquity and have a good reputation at the present day. The island was an important member of the Ionian confederation, and afterwards subject to Athens, from which it revolted twice, suffering terrible barbarities in consequence.

"The chiton [of the ancient Greeks] was an oblong piece of cloth arranged round the body so that the arm was put through a hole in the closed side, the two ends of the open side being fastened over the opposite shoulder by means of a button or clasp. On this latter side, therefore, the chiton was completely open, at least as far as the thigh, underneath of which the two ends might be either pinned or stitched together. Round the hips the chiton was fastened with a ribbon or girdle, and the lower part could be shortened as much as required by pulling it through this girdle. … Frequently sleeves, either shorter and covering only the upper arm, or continued to the wrist were added to the chiton. … The short-sleeved chiton is frequently worn by women and children on monuments. Of the sleeveless chiton, worn by men over both shoulders, it is stated that it was the sign of a free citizen. Slaves and artisans are said to have worn a chiton with one hole for the left arm, the right arm and half the chest remaining quite uncovered. … It appears clearly that the whole chiton consists of one piece. Together with the open and half-open kinds of the chiton we also find the closed double chiton flowing down to the feet. It was a piece of cloth considerably longer than the human body, and closed on both sides, inside of which the person putting it on stood as in a cylinder."

"The principal, or rather, the sole garment, of the Dorian maidens was the chiton, or himation made of woolen stuff, and without sleeves, but fastened on either shoulder by a large clasp, and gathered on the breast by a kind of brooch. This sleeveless robe, which seldom reached more than half way to the knee, was moreover left open up to a certain point on both sides, so that the skirts or wings, flying open as they walked, entirely exposed their limbs. … The married women, however, did not make their appearance in public 'en chemise,' but when going abroad donned a second garment which seems to have resembled pretty closely their husbands' himatia."

CHITTIM.

CHIVALRY.

"The primitive sense of this well-known word, derived from the French Chevalier, signifies merely cavalry, or a body of soldiers serving on horseback; and has been used in that general acceptation by the best of our poets, ancient and modern, from Milton to Thomas Campbell. But the present article respects the peculiar meaning given to the word in modern Europe, as applied to the order of knighthood, established in almost all her kingdoms during the middle ages, and the laws, rules, and customs, by which it was governed. Those laws and customs have long been antiquated, but their effects may still be traced in European manners; and, excepting only the change which flowed from the introduction of the Christian religion, we know no cause which has produced such general and permanent difference betwixt the ancients and moderns, as that which has arisen out of the institution of chivalry. … From the time that cavalry becomes used in war, the horseman who furnishes and supports a charger arises, in all countries, into a person of superior importance to the mere foot-soldier. … In various military nations, therefore, we find that horsemen are distinguished as an order in the state. … But, in the middle ages, the distinction ascribed to soldiers serving on horseback assumed a very peculiar and imposing character. They were not merely respected on account of their wealth or military skill, but were bound together by a union of a very peculiar character, which monarchs were ambitious to share with the poorest of their subjects, and governed by laws directed to enhance, into enthusiasm, the military spirit and the sense of personal honour associated with it. The aspirants to this dignity were not permitted to assume the sacred character of knighthood until after a long and severe probation, during which they practised, as acolytes, the virtues necessary to the order of Chivalry. Knighthood was the goal to which the ambition of every noble youth turned; and to support its honours, which (in theory at least) could only be conferred on the gallant, the modest, and the virtuous, it was necessary he should spend a certain time in a subordinate situation, attendant upon some knight of eminence, observing the conduct of his master, as what must in future be the model of his own, and practising the virtues of humility, modesty, and temperance, until called upon to display those of a higher order. … In the general and abstract definition of Chivalry, whether as comprising a body of men whose military service was on horseback, and who were invested with peculiar honours and privileges, or with reference to the mode and period in which these distinctions and privileges were conferred, there is nothing either original or exclusively proper to our Gothic ancestors. It was in the singular tenets of Chivalry,—in the exalted, enthusiastic, and almost sanctimonious, ideas connected with its duties,—in the singular balance which its institutions offered against the evils of the rude ages in which it arose, that we are to seek those peculiarities which render it so worthy of our attention. … The education of the future knight began at an early period. The care of the mother, after the first years of early youth were passed, was deemed too tender, and the indulgences of the paternal roof too effeminate, for the future aspirant to the honours of chivalry. … To counteract these habits of indulgence, the first step to the order of knighthood was the degree of Page. The young and noble stripling, generally about his twelfth year, was transferred from his father's house to that of some baron or gallant knight, sedulously chosen by the anxious parent as that which had the best reputation for good order and discipline. … When advancing age and experience in the use of arms had qualified the page for the hardships and dangers of actual war, he was removed, from the lowest to the second gradation of chivalry, and became an Eseuyer, Esquire, or Squire. The derivation of this phrase has been much contested. It has been generally supposed to be derived from its becoming the official duty of the esquire to carry the shield (Escu) of the knight his master, until he was about to engage the enemy. Others have fetched the epithet (more remotely certainly) from Scuria, a stable, the charger of the knight being under the especial care of the squire. {431} Others, again, ascribe the derivation of the word to the right which the squire himself had to carry a shield, and to blazon it with armorial bearings. This, in later times, became almost the exclusive meaning attached to the appellative esquire; and, accordingly, if the phrase now means anything, it means a gentleman having a right to carry arms. There is reason, however, to think this is a secondary meaning of the word, for we do not find the word Escuyer, applied as a title of rank, until so late as the Ordonnance of Blois, in 1579. … In actual war the page was not expected to render much service, but that of the squire was important and indispensable. Upon a march he bore the helmet and shield of the knight and led his horse of battle, a tall heavy animal fit to bear the weight of a man in armour, but which was led in hand in marching, while the knight rode an ambling hackney. The squire was also qualified to perform the part of an armourer, not only lacing his master's helmet and buckling his cuirass, but also closing with a hammer the rivets by which the various pieces were united to each other. … In the actual shock of battle, the esquire attended closely on the banner of his master, or on his person if he were only a knight bachelor, kept pace with him during the melee, and was at hand to remount him when his steed was slain, or relieve him when oppressed by numbers. If the knight made prisoners they were the charge of the esquire; if the esquire himself fortuned to make one, the ransom belonged to his master. … A youth usually ceased to be a page at 14, or a little earlier, and could not regularly receive the honour of knighthood until he was one-and-twenty. … Knighthood was, in its origin, an order of a republican, or at least an oligarchic nature; arising … from the customs of the free tribes of Germany [see COMITATUS], and, in its essence, not requiring the sanction of a monarch. On the contrary, each knight could confer the order of knighthood upon whomsoever preparatory noviciate and probation had fitted to receive it. The highest potentates sought the accolade, or stroke which conferred the honour, at the hands of the worthiest knight whose achievements had dignified the period. … Though no positive regulation took place on the subject, ambition on the part of the aspirant, and pride and policy on that of the sovereign princes and nobles of high rank, gradually limited to the latter the power of conferring knighthood. … Knights were usually made either on the eve of battle, or when the victory had been obtained; or they were created during the pomp of some solemn warning or grand festival. … The spirit of chivalry sunk gradually under a combination of physical and moral causes; the first arising from the change gradually introduced into the art of war, and the last from the equally great alteration produced by time in the habits and modes of thinking in modern Europe. Chivalry began to dawn in the end of the 10th, and beginning of the 11th century. It blazed forth with high vigour during the crusades, which indeed may be considered as exploits of national knight-errantry, or general wars, undertaken on the very same principles which actuated the conduct of individual knights adventurers. But its most brilliant period was during the wars between France and England, and it was unquestionably in those kingdoms that the habit of constant and honourable opposition, unembittered by rancour or personal hatred, gave the fairest opportunity for the exercise of the virtues required from him whom Chaucer terms 'a very perfect gentle knight.' Froissart frequently makes allusions to the generosity exercised by the French and English to their prisoners, and contrasts it with the dungeons to which captives taken in war were consigned both in Spain and Germany. Yet both these countries, and indeed every kingdom in Europe, partook of the spirit of chivalry in a greater or less degree; and even the Moors of Spain caught the emulation, and had their orders of Knighthood as well as the Christians. But even during this splendid period, various causes were silently operating the future extinction of the flame, which blazed thus wide and brightly. An important discovery, the invention of gunpowder, had taken place, and was beginning to be used in war, even when chivalry was in its highest glory. … Another change, of vital importance, arose from the institution of the bands of gens-d'armes, or men at arms in France, constituted … expressly as a sort of standing army. … A more fatal cause had, however, been for some time operating in England, as well as France, for the destruction of the system we are treating of. The wars of York and Lancaster in England, and those of the Huguenots and of the League, were of a nature so bitter and rancorous, as was utterly inconsistent with the courtesy, fair play, and gentleness, proper to chivalry. … The civil wars not only operated in debasing the spirit of chivalry, but in exhausting and destroying the particular class of society from which its votaries were drawn."

      H. Hallam,
      State of Europe during the Middle Ages,
      chapter 9, part 2 (volume 3).

F. P. Guizot, History of Civilization in France, 6th lecture, 2d course (volume 4).

"The chlamys [worn by the ancient Greeks] … was an oblong piece of cloth thrown over the left shoulder, the open ends being fastened across the right shoulder by means of a clasp; the corners hanging down were, as in the himation, kept straight by means of weights sewed into them. The chlamys was principally used by travellers and soldiers."

CHOCIM.

CHOCZIM (KHOTZIM, CHOTYN, KHOTIN, CHOCIM, KOTZIM): A. D. 1622.
Defeat of the Turks by the Poles.

CHOCZIM: A. D. 1672.
Taken by Sobieska and the Poles.
Great defeat of the Turks.

CHORASMIA.

CHOREGIA.

CHOTYN.

CHOUANS. CHOUANNERIE.

CHRISTIAN ERA.

CHRISTIANITY:

"Historical geography has of late years become an integral part of the historical science. Recent investigations have opened up the subject and a solid beginning has been made—but it is only a beginning. It is clearly recognized that the land itself as it appears at different periods is one of those invaluable original documents upon which history is built, and no stone is being left unturned to clear away mysteries and to bring to our aid a realism hitherto unknown to the science. … But the special branch of this vast and complicated theme of historical geography which interests us most and which I desire briefly to bring to your attention is that which deals with the Christian Church. … Our eyes first rest upon that little group at Jerusalem that made up the Pentecostal Church. Its spread was conditioned by the extent and character of the Roman Empire, by the municipal genius of that empire, its great highways by land and sea; conditioned by the commercial routes and the track of armies outside the bounds of civilization; conditioned by the spread of languages— Aramaic, Greek, and Latin,—and, most important of all, conditioned by the whereabouts of the seven million Jews massed in Syria, Babylonia, and Egypt, and scattered everywhere throughout the Empire and far beyond its boundaries."

H. W. Hulbert, The Historical Geography of the Christian Church (American Society of Church History, volume 3).

"When we turn from the Jewish 'dispersion' in the East to that in the West, we seem in quite a different atmosphere. Despite their intense nationalism, all unconsciously to themselves, their mental characteristics and tendencies were in the opposite direction from those of their brethren. With those of the East rested the future of Judaism; with them of the West, in a sense, that of the world. The one represented old Israel groping back into the darkness of the past; the other young Israel, stretching forth its hands to where the dawn of a new day was about to break. These Jews of the West are known by the term Hellenists. … The translation of the Old Testament into Greek may be regarded as the starting point of Hellenism. It rendered possible the hope that what in its original form had been confined to the few, might become accessible to the world at large. … In the account of the truly representative gathering in Jerusalem on that ever-memorable Feast of Weeks, the division of the 'dispersion' into two grand sections—the Eastern or Trans-Euphratic, and the Western or Hellenist—seems clearly marked. In this arrangement the former would include 'the Parthians, Medes, Elamites, and dwellers in Mesopotamia,' Judæa standing, so to speak, in the middle, while 'the Cretes and Arabians' would typically represent the farthest outrunners respectively of the Western and Eastern Diaspora. The former, as we know from the New Testament, commonly bore in Palestine the name of the 'dispersion of the Greeks', and of 'Hellenists' or 'Grecians.' On the other hand, the Trans-Euphratic Jews, who 'inhabited Babylon and many of the other satrapies,' were included with the Palestinians and the Syrians under the term 'Hebrews,' from the common language which they spoke. But the difference between the 'Grecians' and the 'Hebrews' was far deeper than merely of language, and extended to the whole direction of thought."

A. Edersheim. The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, volume 1, book 1, chapters 2-3, and 1.

   "Before Pentecost an assembly of the believers took place, at
   which the post vacated in the number of the apostles by the
   suicide of the traitor Judas of Kerioth, was filled up by the
   election of Matthias by lot. On this occasion the number of
   the assembled brethren amounted to about 120 men. … At the
   feast of Pentecost … a very considerable accession was made
   to the formerly moderate band of believers in Jerusalem; …
   about 3,000 souls received the word and were joined to the
   Church by baptism (Acts ii. 41). We must not, however, at once
   credit the Church in Jerusalem with this increase. For among
   the listeners to the apostolic discourse there were
   Israelitish guests and proselytes from near and distant
   countries (ii. 5, 9-11, 14), whence we may infer that of those
   newly converted many were not living in Jerusalem itself, but
   partly in Judæa and Galilee, partly in countries beyond
   Palestine, who therefore returned home after the feast days
   were ended.
{433}
   Some of these might, under certain circumstances, form
   the centre of a small Church in the dispersion, so that
   gradually Churches may have arisen to which also James may
   possibly have addressed his Epistle. … So abundantly did God
   bless with success the activity of the early apostles though
   limited to the nation of Israel and the land of Canaan, and
   their fidelity within a circumscribed sphere. Hence there
   existed at the end of the period of which we treat numerous
   Christian Churches in Jerusalem and the whole country of Judæa
   (comp. Galatians i. 22, etc.: Acts xi. 1), also on the coast (Acts
   ix. 32-35, etc.) in Samaria and Galilee, and finally in Syria,
   Phenicia, and Cyprus, (Acts ix. 2, 10, 25, xi. 19), some of
   which were directly, some indirectly, founded by the Twelve,
   and were, in any case, governed and guided by them.' In the
   above named districts outside Palestine, it might not, indeed,
   have been easy to find a Christian Church consisting
   exclusively of believing Jews, for as a rule they consisted of
   believing Jews and individual Gentiles. On the other hand, we
   shall scarcely be wrong in regarding the Christian Churches
   within Palestine itself as composed entirely of believing
   Israelites. But even among these there were many distinctions,
   e. g., between Palestinians and Hellenists."

"We find the early [Jewish] Christians observing the national feasts and holidays (Acts ii. 1: xviii. 21: xx. 6, 16: Romans xiv. 5). They take part in the worship of the temple and the synagogue; they pray at the customary hours (chapters ii. 46; iii. 1; volume 42; x. 9). They observe the fasts, and undergo voluntary abstinence, binding themselves by special vows like all pious Jews (xiii. 2: xvii. 18; xxi. 23). They scrupulously avoid unlawful food, and all legal defilement (x. 14). They have their children circumcised (xv. 5; xvi. 3; 65493 volume 2). … This scrupulous piety won for them the esteem and admiration of the people (chap. volume 13)." At first their creed was "comprised in a single dogma: 'Jesus is the Messiah.' … Their preaching of the Gospel strictly followed the lines of Messianic tradition (i. 7; ii. 36; iii. 20). … But in reality all this formed only the outside of their life and creed. … Herein lies the profound significance of the miracle of Pentecost. That day was the birthday of the Church, not because of the marvelous success of Peter's preaching, but because the Christian principle, hitherto existing only objectively and externally in the person of Jesus, passed from that moment into the souls of His disciples. … And thus in the very midst of Judaism we see created and unfolded a form of religious life essentially different from it—the Christian life."

"By the two parables of the Mustard Seed and the Leaven, Christ marked out the two sides or aspects of His truth—its external growth from the least to the greatest, and its internal action on society at large—as setting up a ferment, and making a new lump out of the unkneaded mass of the old humanity. With these two symbols in view we may gauge what the gospel was designed to be and to do. It was to grow into a great outward society—the tree of the Church; but it was also to do a work on secular society as such, corresponding to the action of leaven on flour. The history of Christianity has been the carrying out of these two distinct and contrasted conceptions; but how imperfectly, and under what drawbacks."

Reverend J. B. Heard, Alexandrian and Carthaginian Theology Contrasted, page 186.

"The organic connection of Jewish Christians with the synagogue, which must, in accordance with the facts before us, be regarded as a rule, is certainly not to be taken as a mere incidental phenomenon, a customary habit or arbitrary accommodation, but as a moral fact resting upon an internal necessity, having its foundation in the love of Jewish Christians to their nation, and in the adhesion of their religious consciousness to the old covenant. To mistake this would be to underrate the wide bearing of the fact. But lest we should over-estimate its importance, we must at once proceed to another consideration. Within Judaism we must distinguish not only the Rabbinical or Pharisaic tradition of the original canonical revelation, but also within the canon itself we have to distinguish the Levitical element from the prophetic, … taking the latter not in a close but a wide sense as the living spiritual development of the theocracy."

"Moreover the law had claims on a Hebrew of Palestine wholly independent of his religious obligations. To him it was a national institution, as well as a divine covenant. Under the Gospel he might consider his relations to it in this latter character altered, but as embodying the decrees and usages of his country it still demanded his allegiance. To be a good Christian he was not required to be a bad citizen. On these grounds the more enlightened members of the mother-church would justify their continued adhesion to the law. Nor is there any reason to suppose that St. Paul himself took a different view of their obligations."

"The term 'Jewish-Christianity' is applicable exclusively to those Christians who really retained, entirely or in the smallest part, the national and political forms of Judaism and insisted upon the observance of the Mosaic Law without modification as essential to Christianity, at least to the Christianity of the Jewish-born converts, or who indeed rejected these forms, but acknowledged the prerogative of the Jewish people also in Christianity."

"After the miraculous healing of the cripple and the discourse of the Apostle Peter on that occasion, the historian goes on to say, Many of them which heard the word believed, and the number of the men was about 5,000' (iv. 4). It seems as if in consequence of this event, which made no little stir, a larger number joined themselves to the Church. Nor is it probable that this healing took place until a long time after the beginning of the Church. The miracle, with the effect which it had, serves as a resting place at which the result of the previous growth of the Church may be ascertained. And here the number again incidentally mentioned refers without doubt to the Church at Jerusalem."

The early history of the Churches "falls into three periods which mark three distinct stages in its progress: (1) The Extension of the Church to the Gentiles; (2) The Recognition of Gentile Liberty; (3) The Emancipation of the Jewish Churches. … And soon enough the pressure of events began to be felt. The dispersion was the link which connected the Hebrews of Palestine with the outer world. Led captive by the power of Greek philosophy at Athens and Tarsus and Alexandria, attracted by the fascinations of Oriental mysticism in Asia, swept along with the busy whirl of social life in the city and court of the Cæsars, these outlying members of the chosen race had inhaled a freer spirit and contracted wider interests than their fellow-countrymen at home. By a series of insensible gradations—proselytes of the covenant—proselytes of the gate—superstitious devotees who observed the rites without accepting the faith of the Mosaic dispensation—curious lookers-on who interested themselves in the Jewish ritual as they would in the worship of Isis or of Astarte—the most stubborn zealot of the law was linked to the idolatrous heathen whom he abhorred and who despised him in turn. Thus the train was unconsciously laid, when the spark fell from heaven and fired it. … Meanwhile at Jerusalem some years passed away before the barrier of Judaism was assailed. The Apostles still observed the Mosaic ritual; they still confined their preaching to Jews by birth, or Jews by adoption, the proselytes of the covenant. At length a breach was made, and the assailants as might be expected were Hellenists. The first step towards the creation of an organized ministry was also the first step towards the emancipation of the Church. The Jews of Judæa, 'Hebrews of the Hebrews' had ever regarded their Hellenist brethren with suspicion and distrust; and this estrangement reproduced itself in the Christian Church. The interests of the Hellenist widows had been neglected in the daily distribution of alms. Hence 'arose a murmuring of the Hellenists against the Hebrews' (Acts vi. 1), which was met by the appointment of seven persons specially charged with providing for the wants of these neglected poor. If the selection was made, as St. Luke's language seems to imply, not by the Hellenists themselves but by the Church at large (vi. 2), the concession when granted was carried out in a liberal spirit. All the names of the seven are Greek, pointing to a Hellenist rather than a Hebrew extraction, and one is especially described as a proselyte, being doubtless chosen to represent a hitherto small but growing section of the community. By this appointment the Hellenist members obtained a status in the Church; and the effects of this measure soon became visible. Two out of the seven stand prominently forward as the champions of emancipation, Stephen the preacher and martyr of liberty, and Philip the practical worker."

"The Hellenist Stephen roused deep-stirring movements chiefly in Hellenist circles. … The persecution of the Jerusalem community—perhaps specially of its Hellenist part—which followed the stoning of Stephen, became a means of promoting the spread of the Christian faith to … Cyprus, at last to so important a centre as Antioch, the imperial capital of the East. To the winning of the Jews to faith in Jesus there is already added the reception into the Christian community of the pious Gentile Cornelius, a proselyte of the gate. … Though this appears in tradition as an individual case sanctioned by special Divine guidance, in the meantime Hellenist Christians had already begun to preach the Gospel to born Greeks, also at Antioch in Syria, and successfully (Acts xi. 19-26), Barnabas is sent thither from Jerusalem."

"Philip, driven from Jerusalem by the persecution, preached Christ to the Samaritans. … The Apostles who had remained at Jerusalem, hearing of the success of Philip's preaching, sent two of their number into this new and fruitful field of labor. … Peter and John return to Jerusalem while the Deacon Philip is called, by a new manifestation of the will of God, yet further to extend the field of Christian missions. It is not a Samaritan but a pagan, whom he next instructs in the truth. … He was an Ethiopian eunuch, a great dignitary of the court of Meroë, treasurer of the Queen. … This man, a pagan by birth, had taken a long journey to worship the true God in the temple of Jerusalem."

"For the sake of the popular feeling Herod Agrippa laid hands on members of the community, and caused James the brother of John (the sons of Zebedee) to be put to death by the sword, in the year 44, for soon thereafter Herod Agrippa died. Peter also was taken prisoner, but miraculously escaped and provisionally left Jerusalem. From this time on James the brother of the Lord appears ever more and more as really bearing rank as head of the Jerusalem community, while Peter more and more devotes himself to the apostolic mission abroad, and indeed, more accurately, to the mission in Israel."

"The accounts which we have regarding the apostle Peter, represent him as preaching the gospel from the far east to distant parts of the west. … According to his own words, he founded churches in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, and according to the testimony of ancient historians of the Church in the east also; in Syria, Babylon, Mesopotamia, Chaldaea, Arabia, Phoenicia and Egypt, and in the west, at Rome, in Britain, Ireland, Helvetia and Spain."

J. E. T. Wiltsch, Hand Book of the Geography and Statistics of The Church, volume 1, pages 19-20.

"Three and three only of the personal disciples and immediate followers of our Lord hold any prominent place in the Apostolic records—James, Peter, and John; the first the Lord's brother, the two latter the foremost members of the Twelve. Apart from an incidental reference to the death of James the son of Zebedee, which is dismissed in a single sentence, the rest of the Twelve are mentioned by name for the last time on the day of the Lord's Ascension. Thenceforward they disappear wholly from the canonical writings. And this silence also extends to the traditions of succeeding ages. We read indeed of St. Thomas in India, of St. Andrew in Scythia; but such scanty notices, even if we accept them as trustworthy, show only the more plainly how little the Church could tell of her earliest teachers. Doubtless they laboured zealously and effectively in the spread of the Gospel; but, so far as we know, they have left no impress of their individual mind and character on the Church at large. Occupying the foreground, and indeed covering the whole canvas of early ecclesiastical history, appear four figures alone, St. Paul, and the three Apostles of the Circumcision."

"While Peter (as it appears) is occupied with the work of preaching to the Jews outside of Palestine, the community at Jerusalem, and indeed the Palestinian communities in general, stand under the leadership of the brother of the Lord, James, as their recognised head. They remain strictly in the life of the law, and still hold securely to the hope of the conversion of the whole of God's people (which Paul had for the present given up). The mission to the Gentiles is indeed recognised, but the manner of its conduct by Paul and the powerful increase of Pauline communities excite misgivings and dissensions. For in these mixed communities, in the presence of what is often a preponderating Gentile element, it becomes ever clearer in what direction the development is pressing; that, in fact, for the sake of the higher Christian communion the legal customs even of the Jewish Christians in these communities must inevitably be broken down, and general Christian freedom, on principle, from the commands of the law, gain recognition."

"The fall of Jerusalem occurred in the Autumn of the year 70 [see JEWS: A. D. 66-70]. And soon the catastrophe came which solved the difficult problem. … Jerusalem was razed to the ground, and the Temple-worship ceased, never again to be revived. The Christians foreseeing the calamity had fled before the tempest. … Before the crisis came, they had been deprived of the counsel and guidance of the leading apostles. Peter had fallen a martyr at Rome; John had retired to Asia Minor; James, the Lord's brother, was slain not long before the great catastrophe. … He was succeeded by his cousin Symeon, the son of Clopas and nephew of Joseph. Under these circumstances the Church was reformed at Pella. Its history in the ages following is a hopeless blank."

"While Cæsarea succeeded Jerusalem as the political capital of
Palestine, Antioch succeeded it as the centre of Christendom."

"Under Macedonian rule the Greek intellect had become the leading intellectual power of the world. The great Greek-speaking towns of the East were alike the strongholds of intellectual power, the battlefields of opinion and systems, and the laboratories of scientific research, where discoveries were made and literary undertakings requiring the combination of forces were carried out. Such was Antioch on the Orontes, the meeting point of Syrian and Greek intellect; such, above all, was Alexandria."

"The chief line along which the new religion developed was that which led from Syrian Antioch through the Cilician Gates, across Lycaonia to Ephesus, Corinth, and Rome. One subsidiary line followed the land route by Philadelphia, Troas, Philippi, and the Egnatian Way to Brindisi and Rome; and another went north from the Gates by Tyana and Cæsareia of Cappadocia to Amisos in Pontus, the great harbour of the Black Sea, by which the trade of Central Asia was carried to Rome. The maintenance of close and constant communication between the scattered congregations must be presupposed, as necessary to explain the growth of the Church and the attitude which the State assumed towards it. Such communication was, on the view advocated in the present work, maintained along the same lines on which the general development of the Empire took place; and politics, education and religion grew side by side."

"The incitement to the wider preaching of the Gospel in the Greek world starts from the Christian community at Antioch. For this purpose Barnabas receives Paul as a companion (Acts xiii., and xiv.) Saul, by birth a Jew of the tribe of Benjamin, born at Tarsus in Cilicia, educated as a Pharisee; and although indeed as a Hellenist, he had command of Greek and had come into contact with Greek culture and Greek life, yet had not actually passed through the discipline of Greek culture, was introduced by Gamaliel to the learned study of the law, and his whole soul was seized with fiery zeal for the Statutes of the fathers. … After [his conversion and] his stay in Damascus and in Arabia and the visit to Peter (and James) at Jerusalem, having gone to Syria and Cilicia, he was taken to Antioch by Barnabas."

"The strength and zeal of the Antioch Christian society are shown in the sending forth of Paul and Barnabas, with Mark, a cousin of Barnabas, for their companion for a part of the way, on a preaching tour in the eastern districts of Asia Minor. First they visited Cyprus, where Sergius Paulus, the proconsul, was converted. Thence they sailed to Attalia, on the southern coast of Pamphylia, and near Perga; from Perga they proceeded to Antioch in Pisidia, and from there eastward to Iconium, and as far as Lystra and Derbe in Lycaonia. Retracing their steps, they came back to Attalia, and sailed directly to Antioch. … This was the first incursion of Paul into the domain of heathenism."

"How then should Paul and Barnabas proceed? To leave Syria they must go first to Seleuceia, the harbour of Antioch, where they would find ships going south to the Syrian coast and Egypt, and west either by way of Cyprus or along the coast of Asia Minor. The western route led toward the Roman world, to which all Paul's subsequent history proves that he considered himself called by the Spirit. The Apostles embarked in a ship for Cyprus, which was very closely connected by commerce and general intercourse with the Syrian coast. After traversing the island from east to west, they must go onward. Ships going westward naturally went across the coast of Pamphylia, and the Apostles, after reaching Paphos, near the west end of Cyprus, sailed in one of these ships, and landed at Attalia in Pamphylia."

"The work starting from Antioch, by which access to the faith is opened to the Gentiles, the formation of (preponderatingly) Gentile Christian communities, now introduces into the original Christian development an important problem, which (about the year 52, probably not later), (Galatians ii.; Acts xv.) leads to discussions and explanations at the so-called Apostolic Council [at Jerusalem]. … For Paul, who has risen to perfect independence by the energy of his own peculiar stamp of gospel, there now begin the years of his powerful activity, in which he not only again visits and extends his former missionary field in Asia Minor, but gains a firm footing in Macedonia (Philippi), Athens, and Achaia (Corinth); then on the so-called third missionary journey he exercises a comprehensive influence during a stay of nearly three years at Ephesus, and finally looks from Achaia towards the metropolis of the world."

"If the heathen whom he (Paul) had won to the faith and received into the Church were to be persuaded to adopt circumcision and the law before they could attain to full participation in the Christian salvation, his preaching had fallen short of his aim, it had been in vain, since it was very doubtful whether the Gentiles gained over to believe in the Messiah would submit to the condition. Paul could only look on those who made such a demand as false brethren, who having no claim to Christian brotherhood had forced themselves into the Church at Antioch in an unauthorized way (Galatians ii. 4), and was persuaded that neither the primitive Church as such, nor its rulers, shared this view. In order therefore to prevent the Gentile Christians from being disturbed on this point, he determined to go to Jerusalem and there to challenge a decision in the matter that should put an end to the strife (ii. 2). The Church at Antioch also recognized this necessity; hence followed the proceedings in Jerusalem [about A. D. 52], whither Paul and Barnabas repaired with other associates (Galatians ii. 1, Acts xv. 2 ff). … It is certain that when Paul laid his (free) gospel before the authorities in Jerusalem, they added nothing to it (Galatians ii. 2-6). i. e., they did not require that the gospel he preached to the Gentiles should, besides the sole condition of faith which he laid down, impose Judaism upon them as a condition of participation in salvation. … Paul's stipulations with the authorities in Jerusalem respecting their future work were just as important for him as the recognition of his free gospel (Galatians ii. 7-10). They had for their basis a recognition on the part of the primitive apostles that he was entrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision, to which they could add nothing (ii. 6), just as Peter (as admittedly the most prominent among the primitive apostles) was entrusted with that of the circumcision."

Bernhard Weiss, A Manual of Introduction to the New Testament, volume 1, pages 172-175, 178.

"It seems clear that the first meetings of the Christians as a community apart—meetings that is of a private rather than a proselytising character—took place, as we see from Acts i. 13-15, in private apartments, the upper rooms or large guest-chambers in the houses of individual members. Such a room was doubtless provided by the liberality of Titus Justus (Acts xviii. 7), such a room again was the upper chamber in which St. Paul preached at Troas (Acts xx. 7, 8); in such assembled the converts saluted by the Apostle as the church which is in the house of Aquila and Prisca, of Nymphas and of Philemon. … The primitive Roman house had only one story, but as the cities grew to be more densely populated upper stories came into use, and it was the custom to place in these dining apartments, which were called cenacula. Such apartments would answer to the 'upper rooms' … associated with the early days of Christianity. … The Christian communities contained from an early period members of wealth and social position, who could accommodate in their houses large gatherings of the faithful; and it is interesting to reflect that while some of the mansions of an ancient city might be witnessing in suppers of a Trimalchio or a Virro, scenes more revolting to modern taste than almost anything presented by the pagan world, others, perhaps in the same street, might be the seat of Christian worship or of the simple Christian meal."

"Our knowledge of the Apostle Paul's life is far from being complete. We have only a brief sketch of journeys and toils that extended over a period of thirty years. Large spaces are passed over in silence. For example, in the catalogue of his sufferings, incidentally given, he refers to the fact that he had been shipwrecked three times, and these disasters were all prior to the shipwreck on the Island of Malta described by Luke. Shortly after the conference at Jerusalem he started on his second missionary tour. He was accompanied by Silas, and was joined by Timothy at Lystra. He revisited his converts in Eastern Asia Minor, founded churches in Galatia and Phrygia, and from Troas, obedient to a heavenly summons, crossed over to Europe. Having planted at Philippi a church that remained remarkably devoted and loyal to him, he followed the great Roman road to Thessalonica, the most important city in Macedonia. Driven from there and from Berea, he proceeded to Athens [see ATHENS: A. D. 54 (?)]. In that renowned and cultivated city he discoursed on Mars Hill to auditors eager for new ideas in philosophy and religion, and in private debated with Stoics and Epicureans. At Corinth, which had risen from its ruins and was once more rich and prosperous, he remained for a year and a half. It was there, probably, that he wrote his two Epistles to the Thessalonian Christians. After a short stay at Ephesus he returned to Antioch by way of Cesarea and Jerusalem. It was not long before Paul—a second Alexander, but on a peaceful expedition—began his third great missionary journey. Taking the land route from Antioch, he traversed Asia Minor to Ephesus, a flourishing commercial mart, the capital of the Roman province of Asia. There, with occasional absences, he made his abode for upwards of two years. From Ephesus, probably, he wrote the Epistle to the Galatians. … From Ephesus Paul also wrote the First Epistle to the Corinthians. The Second Epistle to the Corinthians he probably wrote from Philippi. … Coming down through Greece, he remained there three months. There he composed his Epistle to the Romans. … The untiring Apostle now turned his face towards Jerusalem. He desired to be present at the festival of the Pentecost. In order to save time, he sailed past Ephesus, and at Miletus bade a tender farewell to the Ephesian elders. He had fulfilled his pledge given at the conference, and he now carried contributions from the Christians of Macedonia and Achaia for the poor at Jerusalem."

"We may safely say that if Saul had been less of a Jew, Paul the Apostle would have been less bold and independent. His work would have been more superficial, and his mind less unfettered. God did not choose a heathen to be the apostle for the heathen; for he might have been ensnared by the traditions of Judaism, by its priestly hierarchy and the splendours of its worship, as indeed it happened with the church of the second century. On the contrary God chose a Pharisee. But this Pharisee had the most complete experience of the emptiness of external ceremonies and the crushing yoke of the law. There was no fear that he would ever look back, that he would be tempted to set up again what the grace of God had justly overthrown (Galatians ii. 18). Judaism was wholly vanquished in his soul, for it was wholly displaced."

"Notwithstanding the opposition he met from his countrymen, in spite of all the liberal and the awakened sympathies which he derived from his work, despite the necessity of contending daily and hourly for the freedom of the Gospel among the Gentiles, he never ceased to be a Jew. … The most ardent patriot could not enlarge with greater pride on the glories of the chosen race than he does in the Epistle to the Romans. His care for the poor in Judæa is a touching proof of the strength of this national feeling. His attendance at the great annual festivals in Jerusalem is still more significant. 'I must spend the coming feast at Jerusalem.' This language becomes the more striking when we remember that he was then intending to open out a new field of missionary labour in the far West, and was bidding perhaps his last farewell to the Holy City, the joy of the whole earth."

"The Macedonian Churches are honorably distinguished above all others by their fidelity to the Gospel and their affectionate regard for St. Paul himself. While the Church of Corinth disgraced herself by gross moral delinquencies, while the Galatians bartered the liberty of the Gospel for a narrow formalism, while the believers of Ephesus drifted into the wildest speculative errors, no such stain attaches to the brethren of Philippi and Thessalonica. It is to the Macedonian congregations that the Apostle ever turns for solace in the midst of his severest trials and sufferings. Time seems not to have chilled these feelings of mutual affection. The Epistle to the Philippians was written about ten years after the Thessalonian letters. It is the more surprising therefore that they should resemble each other so strongly in tone. In both alike St. Paul drops his official title at the outset, … and in both he adopts throughout the same tone of confidence and affection. In this interval of ten years we meet with one notice of the Macedonian Churches. It is conceived in terms of unmeasured praise. The Macedonians had been called upon to contribute to the wants of their poorer brethren in Judæa, who were suffering from famine. They had responded nobly to the call. Deep-sunk in poverty and sorely tried by persecution, they came forward with eager joy and poured out the riches of their liberality, straining their means to the utmost in order to relieve the sufferers. … We may imagine that the people still retained something of those simpler habits and that sturdier character, which triumphed over Greeks and Orientals in the days of Philip and Alexander, and thus in the early warfare of the Christian Church the Macedonian phalanx offered a successful resistance to the assaults of an enemy, before which the lax and enervated ranks of Asia and Achaia had yielded ignominiously."

At Jerusalem, "the Apostle was rescued by a detachment of the Roman garrison from a mob of Jewish malignants, was held in custody for two years at Cesarea, and was finally enabled to accomplish a long-cherished intention to go to Rome, by being conveyed there as a prisoner, he having made an appeal to Cæsar. After being wrecked on the Mediterranean and cast ashore on the Island of Malta, under the circumstances related in Luke's graphic and accurate description of the voyage, he went on his way in safety to the capital."

"Paul's apostolic career, as known to us, lasted … twenty-nine or thirty years; and it falls into three distinct periods which are summarized in the following chronological table:

   First Period
      Essentially Missionary:
      35 A. D.,
         Conversion of Paul, Journey to Arabia;
      38,
         First visit to Jerusalem;
      38-49,
         Mission in Syria and Cilicia-Tarsus and Antioch;
      50-51,
         First missionary journey Cyprus, Pamphylia and Galatia
         (Acts xiii., xiv.);
      52,
         Conference at Jerusalem (Acts xv.; Galatians ii.);
      52-55,
         Second missionary journey
         Epistles to the Thessalonians (from Corinth).

   Second Period
      The Great Conflicts, and the Great Epistles:
      54,
         Return to Antioch
         Controversy with Peter (Gal. ii. 12-22);
      55-57,
         Mission to Ephesus and Asia;
      56,
         Epistle to the Galatians;
      57 or 58 (Passover),
         First Epistle to the Corinthians
         (Ephesus);
      57 or 58 (Autumn),
         Second Epistle to the Corinthians.
         (Macedonia);
      58 (Winter),
         Epistle to the Romans.

   Third Period
      The Captivity:
      58 or 59 (Pentecost),
         Paul is arrested at Jerusalem;
      58-60, or 59-61,
         Captivity at Cæsarea
         Epistles to Philemon, Colossians and Ephesians;
      60 or 61 (Autumn),
         Departure for Rome;
      61 or 62 (Spring),
         Arrival of Paul in Rome;
      62-63,
         Epistle to the Philippians;
      63 or 64,
         End of the narrative of the Acts of the Apostles."

"The impression that we get from Acts is, that the evangelisation of Asia Minor originated from St. Paul; and that from his initiative the new religion gradually spread over the country through the action of many other missionaries (Acts xix. 10). Moreover, missionaries not trained by him, were at work in South Galatia and in Ephesus as early as 54-56 A. D. (Gal. volume 7-10; Acts xviii. 25). … The Christian Church in Asia Minor was always opposed to the primitive native character. It was Christianity, and not the Imperial government, which finally destroyed the native languages, and made Greek the universal language of Asia Minor. The new religion was strong in the towns before it had any hold of the country parts. The ruder and the less civilised any district was, the slower was Christianity in permeating it. Christianity in the early centuries was the religion of the more advanced, not of the 'barbarian' peoples; and in fact it seems to be nearly confined within the limits of the Roman world, and practically to take little thought of any people beyond, though in theory, 'Barbarian and Scythian' are included in it. … The First Epistle of John was in all probability 'addressed primarily to the circle of Asiatic Churches, of which Ephesus was the centre.'"

"Unless we are prepared to reject without a hearing all the traditions of Christianity, we cannot refuse to believe that the latest years of the Apostle St. John were spent in the Roman province of Asia and chiefly in Ephesus its capital. This tradition is singularly full, consistent and well-authenticated. Here he gathered disciples about him, organized churches, appointed bishops and presbyters. A whole chorus of voices unite in bearing testimony to its truth. One who passed his earlier life in these parts and had heard his aged master, a disciple of St. John himself, recount his personal reminiscences of the great Apostle; another, who held this very see of Ephesus, and writing less than a century after the Apostle's death was linked with the past by a chain of relatives all bishops in the Christian Church; a third who also flourished about the close of the century and numbered among his teachers an old man from this very district—are the principal, because the most distinct; witnesses to a fact which is implied in several other notices of earlier or contemporary writers. As to the time at which St. John left his original home and settled in this new abode no direct account is preserved; but a very probable conjecture may be hazarded. The impending fall of the Holy City was the signal for the dispersion of the followers of Christ. About this same time the three other great Apostles, St. Peter, St. Paul and St. James, died a martyr's death; and on St. John, the lust surviving of the four great pillars of the Church, devolved the work of developing the theology of the Gospel and completing the organization of the Church. It was not unnatural that at such a crisis he should fix his residence in the centre of a large and growing Christian community, which had been planted by the Apostle of the Gentiles, and watered by the Apostle of the Circumcision. The missionary labours of St. Paul and St. Peter in Asia Minor were confirmed and extended by the prolonged residence of their younger contemporary. At all events such evidence as we possess is favourable to this view of the date of St. John's settlement at Ephesus. Assuming that the Apocalypse is the work of the beloved Apostle, and accepting the view which assigns it to the close of Nero's reign or thereabouts, we find him now for the first time in the immediate neighbourhood of Asia Minor and in direct communication with Ephesus and the neighbouring Churches. St. John however was not alone. Whether drawn thither by the attraction of his presence or acting in pursuance of some common agreement, the few surviving personal disciples of the Lord would seem to have chosen Asia Minor as their permanent abode, or at all events as their recognised headquarters. Here at least we meet with the friend of St. John's youth and perhaps his fellow-townsman, Andrew of Bethsaida, who with him had first listened to John the Baptist, and with him also had been the earliest to recognise Jesus as the Christ. Here too we encounter Philip the Evangelist with his daughters, and perhaps also Philip of Bethsaida, the Apostle. Here also was settled the Apostle's namesake, John the Presbyter, also a personal disciple of Jesus, and one Aristion, not otherwise known to us, who likewise had heard the Lord. And possibly also other Apostles whose traditions Papias recorded [see J. B. Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, page 527], Matthew and Thomas and James, may have had some connexion, temporary or permanent, with this district. Thus surrounded by the surviving disciples of the Lord, by bishops and presbyters of his own appointment, and by the pupils who gathered about him and looked to him for instruction, St. John was the focus of a large and active society of believers. In this respect he holds a unique position among the great teachers of the new faith. St. Peter and St. Paul converted disciples and organized congregations; St. John alone was the centre of a school. His life prolonged till the close of the century, when the Church was firmly rooted and widely extended, combined with his fixed abode in the centre of an established community to give a certain definiteness to his personal influence which would be wanting to the wider labours of these strictly missionary preachers. Hence the notices of St. John have a more solid basis and claim greater attention than stories relating to the other Apostles."

"In the parable of Jesus, of which we are speaking, it is said that 'the earth bringeth forth fruit of herself;'—that is, to transfer the Greek term into English, 'automatically.' That epithet is chosen which denotes most precisely a self-acting, spontaneous energy, inherent in the seed which Jesus, through his discourses, his acts of mercy and power, and his patience unto death, was sowing in the world. This grand prophetic declaration, uttered in a figure so simple and beautiful, in the ears of a little company of Galileans, was to be wonderfully verified in the coming ages of Christian history."

"Plutarch looked upon it as the great mission of Alexander to transplant Grecian culture into distant countries, and to conciliate Greeks and barbarians, and to fuse them into one. He says of him, not without reason, that he was sent of God for this purpose; though the historian did not divine that this end itself was only subsidiary to, and the means of, one still higher—the making, viz., the united peoples of the East and West more accessible to the new creation which was to proceed from Christianity, and by the combination of the elements of Oriental and Hellenic culture the preparing for Christianity a material in which it might develop itself. If we overlook this ulterior end, and do not fix our regards on the higher quickening spirit destined to reanimate, for some new end, that combination which already bore within itself a germ of corruption, we might well doubt whether that union was really a gain to either party; whether, at least, it was not everywhere attended with a correspondent loss. For the fresh vigour which it infused into the old national spirit must have been constantly repressed by the violence which the foreign element did to it. To introduce into that combination a new living principle of development, and, without prejudice to their original essence, to unite peculiarities the most diverse into a whole in which each part should be a complement to the other, required something higher than any element of human culture. The true living communion between the East and the West, which should combine together the two peculiar principles that were equally necessary for a complete exhibition of the type of humanity, could first come only from Christianity. But still, as preparatory thereto, the influence which, for three centuries, went forth from Alexandria, that centre of the intercourse of the world, was of great importance."

      A. Neander,
      General History of the Christian Religion and Church,
      volume 1, introduction.

"The Greek version [of the Old Testament, the Septuagint], like the Targum of the Palestinians, originated, no doubt, in the first place, in a felt national want on the part of the Hellenists, who as a body were ignorant of Hebrew. Hence we find notices of very early Greek versions of at least parts of the Pentateuch. But this, of course, could not suffice. On the other hand, there existed, as we may suppose, a natural curiosity on the part of the students, specially in Alexandria, which had so large a Jewish population, to know the sacred books on which the religion and history of Israel were founded. Even more than this, we must take into account the literary tastes of the first three Ptolemies (successors in Egypt of Alexander the Great), and the exceptional favour which the Jews for a time enjoyed."

"Alongside of the province of Asia Minor, Rome very early attains to an outstanding importance for young Christianity. If, as we have supposed, the community here which emancipated itself from the synagogue was mainly recruited from among the proselyte circles which had formed themselves around the Jewish synagogue, if Paul during the years of his captivity, and Peter also, influenced this preponderatingly Gentile-Christian community, we must, however, by no means undervalue for the Christian community the continuous influence of Judaism on the Roman world, an influence which was not lessened but rather increased by the destruction of Jerusalem. Many thousands of Jewish captives had arrived here and been sold as slaves—Rome was the greatest Jewish city in the Empire, … and in part it was an enlightened and liberal Judaism. Jewish Hellenism had already long availed itself of the weapons of Hellenic philosophy and science … in order to exalt the Jewish faith. … Under this stimulus there was … developed a proselytism which was indeed attracted by that monotheism and the belief in providence and prophecy and the moral ideas allied therewith, and which also had a strong tendency to Jewish customs and festivals—especially the keeping of the Sabbath—but which remained far from binding itself to a strictly legal way of life in circumcision, etc. We may suppose that Roman Christianity not only appeared in the character of such a proselytism, but also retained from it a certain Jewish colouring."

"The last notice of the Roman Church in the Apostolic writings seems to point to two separate communities, a Judaizing Church and a Pauline Church. The arrival of the Gentile Apostle in the metropolis, it would appear, was the signal for the separation of the Judaizers, who had hitherto associated with their Gentile brethren coldly and distrustfully. The presence of St. Paul must have vastly strengthened the numbers and influence of the more liberal and Catholic party; while the Judaizers provoked by rivalry redoubled their efforts, that in making converts to the Gospel they might also gain proselytes to the law."

"Historical information of any certainty on the latter period of Paul's life is entirely wanting. While the epistles require this unknown period, and a second captivity, as a basis for their apostolic origin, on the other hand, the hypothesis of a second captivity scarcely finds any real foundations except in the three Pastoral letters."

It only remains for us, returning to the close of the apostle's life, to put together the slender indications that we have of its date. He embarked for Rome in the autumn of 60 (or 61) A. D.; but was compelled by shipwreck to winter in the island of Malta, and only reached the Eternal City in the spring of 61 (62). Luke adds that he remained there as a prisoner for two years, living in a private house under the guard of a soldier; then his narrative breaks off abruptly, and we are confronted with the unknown (Acts, xxviii. 30). Paul is supposed to have perished in the frightful persecution caused by the fire of Rome in July 64 A. D. All that is certain is that he died a martyr at Rome under Nero (Sabatier).

[The purpose of what follows in this article is to give a brief history of Christianity in some of its relations to general history by the method of this work, and in the light of some of the best thought of our time. The article as a combination of quotations from many authors attempts a presentation of historic facts, and also a positive and representative view, so far as this may be obtained under the guidance of ideas common to many of the books used. Some of these books have had more influence on the development of the article than others: entire harmony and a full presentation of any author's view would manifestly be impossible. Nevertheless, the reader may discover in the article principles and elements of unity derived from the literature and representing it. Unfortunately, one of the essential parts of such a history must be omitted—biography.]

"Christian belief, Christian morality, the Christian view of the world, of which the church as a religious society and institution is the focus, as fluid spiritual elements permeate humanity as it becomes Christian, far beyond the sphere of the church proper; while conversely the church is not assured against the possibility that spiritual elements originally alien to her may dominate and influence her in their turn. … In this living interaction the peculiar life of the church is unfolded, in accordance with its internal principles of formation, into an extraordinarily manifold and complicated object of historical examination. … For this purpose it is necessary to elucidate the general historical movement of the church by the relative separation of certain of its aspects, without loosening the bond of unity."

"Such, in fact, has been the history of the Faith: a sad and yet a glorious succession of battles, often hardly fought, and sometimes indecisive, between the new life and the old life. … The Christian victory of common life was wrought out in silence and patience and nameless agonies. It was the victory of the soldiers and not of the captains of Christ's army. But in due time another conflict had to be sustained, not by the masses, but by great men, the consequence and the completion of that which had gone before. … The discipline of action precedes the effort of reason. … So it came to pass that the period during which this second conflict of the Faith was waged was, roughly speaking, from the middle of the second to the middle of the third century."

B. F. Westcott, Essays in the History of Religious Thought in the West, pages 194-197.

"Philosophy went on its way among the higher classes, but laid absolutely no hold on men at large. The reformation which it wrought in a few elect spirits failed utterly to spread downward to the mass of mankind. The poor were not touched by it; society was not helped by it; its noblest men, and they grew fewer and fewer, generation by generation, bewailed bitterly the universal indifference. The schools dwindled into a mere university system of culture; Christianity developed into a religion for the civilised world. … New ideas it had in abundance, but new ideas were not the secret of its power. The essential matter in the Gospel was that it was the history of a Life. It was a tale of fact that all could understand, that all could believe, that all could love. It differed fundamentally from Philosophy, because it appealed not to culture, but to life. … It was the spell of substantial facts, living facts, … the spell of a loyalty to a personal Lord; and those who have not mastered the difference between a philosopher's speculations about life, and the actual record of a life which, in all that makes life holy and beautiful, transcended the philosopher's most pure and lofty dreams, have not understood yet the rudiments of the reason why the Stoic could not, while Christianity could and did, regenerate society."

The "period, from the accession of Marcus Aurelius (A. D. 161) to the accession of Valerian (A. D. 253) was for the Gentile world a period of unrest and exhaustion, of ferment and of indecision. The time of great hopes and creative minds was gone. The most conspicuous men were, with few exceptions, busied with the past. … Local beliefs had lost their power. Even old Rome ceased to exercise an unquestioned moral supremacy. Men strove to be cosmopolitan. They strove vaguely after a unity in which the scattered elements of ancient experience should be harmonized. The effect can be seen both in the policy of statesmen and in the speculations of philosophers, in Marcus Aurelius, or Alexander Severus, or Decius, no less than in Plotinus or Porphyry. As a necessary consequence, the teaching of the Bible accessible in Greek began to attract serious attention among the heathen. The assailants of Christianity, even if they affected contempt, shewed that they were deeply moved by its doctrines. The memorable saying of Numenius, 'What is Plato but Moses speaking in the language of Athens?' shews at once the feeling after spiritual sympathy which began to be entertained, and the want of spiritual insight in the representatives of Gentile thought."

B. F. Westcott, Essays in the History of Religious Thought in the West, pages 196-197.

"To our minds it appears that the preparation of philosophy for Christianity was complete. … The time was ripe for that movement of which Justin is the earliest [complete] representative."

"The writing in defense of Christianity is called the apology, and the writer an apologist. … There were two classes of apologists, the Greek and the Latin, according to the territory which they occupied, and the language in which they wrote. But there were further differences. The Greeks belonged mostly to the second century, and their writings exhibited a profound intimacy with the Greek philosophy. Some of them had studied in the Greek schools, and entered the church only in mature life. They endeavored to prove that Christianity was the blossom of all that was valuable in every system. They stood largely on the defensive. The Latins, on the other hand, were aggressive. They lived mostly in the third century. … The principal Greek apologists [were] Aristo, Quadratus, Aristides [A. D. 131], Justin [A. D. 160], Melito [A. D. 170], Miltiades, Irenaeus, Athenagoras [A. D. 178], Tatian, Clement of Alexandria [A. D. 200], Hippolytus, and Origen [A. D. 225]."

Lightfoot assigns to about A. D. 150 (?) the author of the Epistle to Diognetus. "Times without number the defenders of Christianity appeal to the great and advantageous change wrought by the Gospel in all who embraced it. … 'We who hated and destroyed one another, and on account of their different manners would not receive into our houses men of a different tribe, now, since the coming of Christ, live familiarly with them. We pray for our enemies, we endeavor to persuade those who hate us unjustly to live conformably to the beautiful precepts of Christ, to the end that they may become partakers with us of the same joyful hope of a reward from God, the Ruler of all.' This distinction between Christians and heathen, this consciousness of a complete change in character and life, is nowhere more beautifully described than in the noble epistle … to Diognetus."

"For Christians are not distinguished from the rest of mankind either in locality or in speech or in customs. For they dwell not somewhere in cities of their own, neither do they use some different language, nor practise an extraordinary kind of life. … But while they dwell in cities of Greeks and barbarians as the lot of each is cast, and follow the native customs in dress and food and the other arrangements of life, yet the constitution of their own citizenship, which they set forth, is marvellous, and confessedly contradicts expectation. They dwell in their own countries, but only as sojourners; they bear their share in all things as citizens, and they endure all hardships as strangers. Every foreign country is a fatherland to them, and every fatherland is foreign. … Their existence is on earth, but their citizenship is in heaven. They obey the established laws, and they surpass the laws in their own lives. They love all men and they are persecuted by all. … War is urged against them as aliens by the Jews, and persecution is carried on against them by the Greeks, and yet those that hate them cannot tell the reason of their hostility."

J. B. Lightfoot, Translation of the Epistle to Diognetus (The Apostolic Fathers, pages 505-506).

"These apologists rise against philosophy also, out of which they themselves had arisen, in the full consciousness of their faith open to all and not only to the cultured few, the certainty of which, based upon revelation, cannot be replaced by uncertain human wisdom, which, moreover, is self-contradictory in its most important representatives. On the other hand, they willingly recognise in the philosophy by means of which they had themselves been educated, certain elements of truth, which they partly derive from the seed-corns of truth, which the divine Logos had scattered among the heathen also, partly externally from a dependence of Greek wisdom on the much older wisdom of the East, and therefore from the use of the Scriptures of the Old Testament. To the reproach that they had deserted the religion which had been handed down from their ancestors and thereby made sacred, they oppose the right of recognised truth, the right of freedom of conscience; religion becomes the peculiar affair of personal conviction, against which methods of force do not suffice: God is to be obeyed rather than man."

"Such a morality, as Roman greatness was passing away, took possession of the ground. Its beginnings were scarcely felt, scarcely known of, in the vast movement of affairs in the greatest of empires. By and by its presence, strangely austere, strangely gentle, strangely tender, strangely inflexible, began to be noticed. But its work was long only a work of indirect preparation. Those whom it charmed, those whom it opposed, those whom it tamed, knew not what was being done for the generations which were to follow."

"The more spiritual and profound historians of the Church recognize it as a manifestation of this divine life flowing into human history. But this is true of the organized church only with important qualifications. The life must manifest itself in an organization; but the organization is neither the only nor the complete exposition of the life. … The life which creates the organization penetrates and purifies also the family and the state, renovates individuals, and blooms and fructifies in Christian civilizations; and these are also historical manifestations."

It was the great formative period of the world's new life, and all streams tended to flow together. The influence of Greek thought on Roman law had led, under the circumstances of Roman commercial life, to the development of an ideal "jus gentium," a kind of natural law discovered by the reason. This conception transformed the Roman law and brought it into touch with the new sense of human relations. "It was by means of this higher conception of equity which resulted from the identification of the jus gentium with the jus naturale—that the alliance between law and philosophy was really made efficient."

"There were three agencies whose influence in working simultaneously and successively at this identical task, the developing and importing of the jus gentium, was decisive of the ultimate result. These were the praetorian edict [which reached its climax under the Republic and was completed under Hadrian], Roman scientific jurisprudence [which developed its greatest ability about A. D. 200] and imperial legislation."

"The liberal policy of Rome gradually extended the privileges of her citizenship till it included all her subjects; and along with the 'Jus suffragii,' went of course the 'Jus honorum.' Even under Augustus we find a Spaniard consul at Rome; and under Galba an Egyptian is governor of Egypt. It is not long before even the emperor himself is supplied by the provinces. It is easy to comprehend therefore how the provincials forgot the fatherland of their birth for the fatherland of their citizenship. Once win the franchise, and to great capacity was opened a great: career. The Roman Empire came to be a homogeneous mass of privileged persons, largely using the same language, aiming at the same type of civilisation, equal among themselves, but all alike conscious of their superiority to the surrounding barbarians."

"As far as she could, Rome destroyed the individual genius of nations; she seems to have rendered them unqualified for a national existence. When the public life of the Empire ceased, Italy, Gaul, and Spain were thus unable to become nations. Their great historical existence did not commence until after the arrival of the barbarians, and after several centuries of experiments amid violence and calamity, But how does it happen that the countries which Rome did not conquer, or did not long have under her sway, now hold such a prominent place in the world—that they exhibit so much originality and such complete confidence in their future? Is it only because, having existed a shorter time, they are entitled to a longer future? Or, perchance, did Rome leave behind her certain habits of mind, intellectual and moral qualities, which impede and limit activity?"

Patriotism was a considerable part of both the ancient religion and the old morality. The empire weakened the former and deeply injured the latter by conquest of the individual states. It had little to offer in place of these except that anomaly, the worship of the emperor; and a law and justice administered by rulers who, to say the least, grew very rich. "The feeling of pride in Roman citizenship … became much weaker as the citizenship was widened. … Roman citizenship included an ever growing proportion of the population in every land round the Mediterranean, till at last it embraced the whole Roman world. … Christianity also created a religion for the Empire, transcending all distinctions of nationality. … The path of development for the Empire lay in accepting the religion offered it to complete its organisation. Down to the time of Hadrian there was a certain progress on the part of the Empire towards a recognition of this necessity."

The relations of the laws of the Empire to Christianity may be briefly stated, but there are differences of opinion which cannot be noted here: "A. D. 30 to 100, Christians treated as a sect of the Jews and sharing in the general toleration accorded to them. A. D. 100 to 250, Christians recognized, … and rendered liable to persecution: (1st) For treason and impiety. (2nd) As belonging to illegal associations, but at the same time protected in their capacity of members of Friendly or Burial Societies of a kind allowed by the law. A. D. 250 to 260, Christianity recognized as a formidable power by the State. Commencement of an open struggle between Christianity and the secular authority. … The cemeteries of the Christians now for the first time interfered with and become places of hiding and secret assembly. A. D. 260 to 300, Persecutions cease for a time, 40 years Peace for the Church. Time of much prosperity when, as Eusebius writes, 'great multitudes flocked to the religion of Christ.' A. D. 300 to 313, Last decisive struggle under Diocletian."

"The judges decided simply in accordance with the laws, and, in the great majority of cases, did so coolly, calmly, without passion, as men who were simply discharging their duty. … Not the priests, but the Emperors led the attack. … It is true the Christians never rebelled against the State. They cannot be reproached with even the appearance of a revolutionary spirit. Despised, persecuted, abused, they still never revolted, but showed themselves everywhere obedient to the laws, and ready to pay to the Emperors the honor which was their due. Yet in one particular they could not obey, the worship of idols, the strewing of incense to the Cæsar-god. And in this one thing it was made evident that in Christianity lay the germ of a wholly new political and social order. This is the character of the conflict which we are now to review. It is a contest of the spirit of Antiquity against that of Christianity, of the ancient heathen order of the world against the new Christian order. Ten persecutions are commonly enumerated, viz., under Nero, Domitian, Trajan, Hadrian, Marcus Aurelius, Septimius Severus, Maximinus the Thracian, Decius, Valerian, and Diocletian. This traditional enumeration is, however, very superficial, and leaves entirely unrecognized the real course of the struggles. … Though times of relative tranquillity occurred, Christianity remained, notwithstanding, a prohibited religion. This being the case, the simple arrangement of the persecutions in a series makes the impression that they were all of the same character, while in fact the persecution under Nero was wholly different from that under Trajan and his successors, and this again varied essentially from those under Decius and Diocletian. The first persecution which was really general and systematically aimed at the suppression of the Church, was the Decian [see ROME: A. D. 192-284]. That under Trajan and his successors [see ROME: A. D. 96-138, 138-180, and 303-305] consisted merely of more or less frequent processes against individual Christians, in which the established methods of trial were employed, and the existing laws were more or less sharply used against them. Finally, the persecutions under Nero and Domitian [see ROME: A. D. 64-68, and 70-96] were mere outbreaks of personal cruelty and tyrannical caprice. … Christianity is the growing might; with the energy of youth it looks the future in the face, and there sees victory beckoning onward. And how changed are now its ideas of that triumph! The earlier period had no thought of any victory but that which Christ was to bring at his coming. … But in the time of Cyprian the hopes of the Christians are directed towards another victory: they begin to grasp the idea that Christianity will vanquish heathenism from within, and become the dominant religion in the Roman Empire. … It is true that the Christians were still greatly in the minority. It is generally assumed that they formed about one-twelfth of the whole population in the East, and in the West about one-fifteenth. Even this is perhaps too high an estimate. But there were two things which gave a great importance to this minority. First, that no single religion of the much divided Heathenism had so many adherents as the Christian. Over against the scattered forces of Heathenism, the Christians formed a close phalanx; the Church was a compact and strongly framed organization. Second, the Christians were massed in the towns, while the rural population was almost exclusively devoted to Heathenism. There existed in Antioch, for instance, a Christian church of fifty thousand souls."

"The Encyclopedia of Missions" on the authority of the late Professor R. D. Hitchcock states that there are on record "the names of churches existing at this period [at the close of the persecutions] in 525 cities: cities of Europe 188, of Asia 214, of Africa 123." (See Appendix D.) There were tendencies at work in many of these against that toward general catholic (universal) organization, but in suffering and sympathy the Christian Churches formed a vast body of believers. "Such a vast organisation of a perfectly new kind, with no analogy in previously existing institutions, was naturally slow in development. … The critical stage was passed when the destruction of Jerusalem annihilated all possibility of a localised centre for Christianity, and made it clear that the centralisation of the Church could reside only in an idea—viz., a process of intercommunication, union and brotherhood. It would be hardly possible to exaggerate the share which frequent intercourse from a very early stage between the separate congregations had in moulding the development of the Church. Most of the documents in the New Testament are products and monuments of this intercourse; all attest in numberless details the vivid interest which the scattered communities took in one another. From the first the Christian idea was to annihilate the separation due to space, and hold the most distant brother as near as the nearest. A clear consciousness of the importance of this idea first appears in the Pastoral Epistles, and is still stronger in writings of A. D. 80-100. … The close relations between different congregations is brought into strong relief by the circumstances disclosed in the letters of Ignatius: the welcome extended everywhere to him; the loving messages sent when he was writing to other churches; the deputations sent from churches off his road to meet him and convoy him; the rapidity with which news of his progress was sent round, so that deputations from Ephesus, Magnesia, and Tralles were ready to visit him in Smyrna; the news from Antioch which reached him in Troas, but which was unknown to him in Smyrna; the directions which he gave to call a council of the church in Smyrna, and send a messenger to congratulate the church in Antioch; the knowledge that his fate is known to and is engaging the efforts of the church in Rome."

"The fellowship … thus strongly impressed by apostolic hands on the infant Church, is never wholly lost sight of throughout all the ages, and its permanent expression is found in the synod, whether œcumenic, provincial, or diocesan. This becomes fainter as we reach the age in which a presbyter, told off from the body to a distinct parish, attains gradual isolation from his brethren. But this comes some centuries later. … Everywhere, till that decline, the idea is that of a brotherhood or corporate office, a unity of function pervaded by an energy of brotherly love. … It is no mere confluence of units before distinct."

"It is the age when the New Testament writings begin to come together to form a generally recognized canon. The opposition too to the sovereign spirit of Montanist prophecy undoubtedly increased the need for it. … After the example of the Gnostics, a beginning is also made with exegetical explanation of New Testament writings; Melito with one on the Revelation of John, a certain Heraclitus with one on the Apostles. … Finally, in this same opposition to the heretics, it is sought to secure the agreement of the different churches with one another, and in this relation importance is gained by the idea of a universal (Catholic) Church. So-called catholic Epistles of men of repute in the church to different communities are highly regarded. As illustrations take those of Bishop Dionysius of Corinth to Lacedæmon, Athens, Crete, Paphlagonia, Pontus, Rome (Euseb. 4, 23)."

"This period [100-312] may be divided into the Post-Apostolic Age which reaches down to the middle of the second century, and the Age of the Old Catholic Church which ends with the establishment of the Church under Constantine. … The point of transition from one Age to the other may be unhesitatingly set down at A. D. 170. The following are the most important data in regard thereto. The death about A. D. 165 of Justin Martyr, who marks the highest point reached in the Post-Apostolic Age and forms also the transition to the Old Catholic Age; and Irenaeus, flourishing somewhere about A. D. 170, who was the real inaugurator of this latter age. Besides these we come upon the beginnings of the Trinitarian controversies about the year 170. Finally, the rejection of Montanism from the universal Catholic Church was effected about the year 170 by means of the synodal institution called into existence for that purpose."

"If every church must so live in the world as to be a part of its collective being, then it must always be construed in and through the place and time in which it lives."

"The Church of the first three centuries was never, except perhaps on the day of Pentecost, in an absolutely ideal condition. But yet during the ages of persecution, the Church as a whole was visibly an unworldly institution. It was a spiritual empire in recognized antagonism with the world-empire."

All the greater forces of the age, political and legal, and commercial, aided those working within the church to create an organic unity. "Speaking with some qualifications, the patristic church was Greek, as the primitive church had been Jewish, and the mediæval church was to be Latin. Its unity, like that of the Greek nation, was federative; each church, like each of the Grecian states, was a little commonwealth. As the Greece which resisted the Persians was one, not by any imperial organization, but by common ideas and a common love of liberty, so the church of the fathers was one, not by any organic connection, but by common thoughts and sympathies, above all by a common loyalty to Christ. Naturally the questions which agitated such a church were those which concern the individual soul rather than society. Its members made much of personal beliefs and speculative opinions; and so long as the old free spirit lasted they allowed one another large freedom of thought, only requiring that common instinct of loyalty to Christ. Happily for the world, that free spirit did not die out from the East for at least two centuries after Paul had proclaimed the individual relationship of the soul to God. … The genius of the Greek expressing itself in thought, of the Latin in ruling power, the Christianity which was to the former a body of truth, became to the latter a system of government."

The Apostolic ideal was set forth, and within a few generations forgotten. The vision was only for a time and then vanished. "The kingdom of Christ, not being a kingdom of this world, is not limited by the restrictions which fetter other societies, political or religious. It is in the fullest sense free, comprehensive, universal. … It is most important that we should keep this ideal definitely in view, and I have therefore stated it as broadly as possible. Yet the broad statement, if allowed to stand alone, would suggest a false impression, or at least would convey only a half truth. It must be evident that no society of men could hold together without officers, without rules, without institutions of any kind; and the Church of Christ is not exempt from this universal law. The conception in short is strictly an ideal, which we must ever hold before our eyes. … Every member of the human family was potentially a member of the Church, and, as such, a priest of God. … It will hardly be denied, I think, by those who have studied the history of modern civilization with attention, that this conception of the Christian Church has been mainly instrumental in the emancipation of the degraded and oppressed, in the removal of artificial barriers between class and class, and in the diffusion of a general philanthropy untrammelled by the fetters of party or race; in short, that to it mainly must be attributed the most important advantages which constitute the superiority of modern societies over ancient. Consciously or unconsciously, the idea of an universal priesthood, of the religious equality of all men, which, though not untaught before, was first embodied in the Church of Christ, has worked and is working untold blessings in political institutions and in social life. But the careful student will also observe that this idea has hitherto been very imperfectly apprehended; that throughout the history of the Church it has been struggling for recognition, at most times discerned in some of its aspects but at all times wholly ignored in others; and that therefore the actual results are a very inadequate measure of its efficacy, if only it could assume due prominence and were allowed free scope in action. … It may be a general rule, it may be under ordinary circumstances a practically universal law, that the highest acts of congregational worship shall be performed through the principal officers of the congregation. But an emergency may arise when the spirit and not the letter must decide, The Christian ideal will then … interpret our duty. The higher ordinance of the universal priesthood will overrule all special limitations. The layman will assume functions which are otherwise restricted to the ordained minister."

"No Church now existing is an exact counterpart of the Apostolic Church. … Allusions bear out the idea that the Church at Corinth was as yet almost struetureless—little more than an aggregate of individuals—with no bishop, presbyter or deacon."

J. W. Cunningham, The Growth of the Church in its Organization and Institutions, pages 73, 18.

"Some time before the middle of the second century heresy began sadly to distract the Christian community; and to avoid imminent danger of schism, it was deemed expedient in a few great towns to arm the chairman of the eldership with additional power. A modified form of prelacy was thus introduced."

Respecting the rise of the Episcopate as a distinct office there is a difference of opinion among scholars,—some holding that it was expressly ordained by the Apostles, others that it arose quite independently of them; a third class think that it was developed gradually out of the eldership, but not without the sanction of one or more of the Apostles. "For the Church is a catholic society, that is, a society belonging to all nations and ages. As a catholic society it lacks the bonds of the life of a city or a nation—local contiguity, common language, common customs. We cannot then very well conceive how its corporate continuity could have been maintained otherwise than through some succession of persons such as, bearing the apostolic commission for ministry, should be in each generation the necessary centres of the Church's life."

"Jewish presbyteries existed already in all the principal cities of the dispersion, and Christian presbyteries would early occupy a not less wide area. … The name of the presbyter then presents no difficulty. But what must be said of the term bishop? … But these notices, besides establishing the general prevalence of episcopacy, also throw considerable light on its origin. They indicate that the relation suggested by the history of the word 'bishop' and its transference from the lower to the higher office is the true solution, and that the episcopate was created out of the presbytery. … They seem to hint also that, so far as this development was affected at all by national temper and characteristics, it was slower where the prevailing influences were more purely Greek, as at Corinth and Philippi and Rome, and more rapid where an Oriental spirit predominated, as at Jerusalem and Antioch and Ephesus. Above all, they establish this result clearly, that its maturer forms are seen first in those regions where the latest surviving Apostles (more especially St. John) fixed their abode, and at a time when its prevalence cannot be dissociated from their influence or their sanction."

"Since then in the constitution of the church two elements met together—the aristocratic and the monarchical—it could not fail to be the case that a conflict would ensue between them. … These struggles between the presbyterial and episcopal systems belong among the most important phenomena connected with the process of the development of church life in the third century. Many presbyters made a capricious use of their power, hurtful to good discipline and order in the communities."

      A. Neander,
      General History of the Christian Religion and Church,
      volume 1, section 2.

"As a rule Christianity would get a footing first in the metropolis of its region. The lesser cities would be evangelized by missions sent from thence; and so the suffragan sees would look on themselves as daughters of the metropolitan see. The metropolitan bishop is the natural center of unity for the bishops of the province. … The bishops of the metropolitan sees acquired certain rights which were delegated to them by their brother bishops. Moreover, among the most important churches a certain order of precedence grew up which corresponded with the civil dignity of the cities in which those churches existed; and finally the churches which were founded by the apostles were treated with peculiar reverence."

"The triumph of the episcopal system undoubtedly promoted unity, order, and tranquillity. But, on the other hand, it was unfavourable to the free development of the life of the church; and while the latter promoted the formation of a priesthood foreign to the essence of that development of the kingdom of God which the New Testament sets forth, on the other hand a revolution of sentiment which had already been prepared—an altered view of the idea of the priesthood—had no small influence on the development of the episcopal system. Thus does this change of the original constitution of the Christian communities stand intimately connected with another and still more radical change,—the formation of a sacerdotal caste in the Christian church. … Out of the husk of Judaism Christianity had evolved itself to freedom and independence,—had stripped off the forms in which it first sprang up, and within which the new spirit lay at first concealed, until by its own inherent power it broke through them. This development belonged more particularly to the Pauline position, from which proceeded the form of the church in the Gentile world. In the struggle with the Jewish elements which opposed the free development of Christianity, this principle had triumphantly made its way. In the churches of pagan Christians the new creation stood forth completely unfolded; but the Jewish principle, which had been vanquished, pressed in once more from another quarter. Humanity was as yet incapable of maintaining itself at the lofty position of pure spiritual religion. The Jewish position was better adapted to the mass, which needed first to be trained before it could apprehend Christianity in its purity,—needed to be disabused from paganism. Out of Christianity, now become independent, a principle once more sprang forth akin to the principles of the Old Testament,—a new outward shaping of the kingdom of God, a new discipline of the law which one day was to serve for the training of rude nations, a new tutorship for the spirit of humanity, until it should arrive at the maturity of the perfect manhood in Christ. This investiture of the Christian spirit in a form nearly akin to the position arrived at in the Old Testament, could not fail, after the fruitful principle had once made its appearance, to unfold itself more and more, and to bring to light one after another all the consequences which it involved; but there also began with it a reaction of the Christian consciousness as it yearned after freedom, which was continually bursting forth anew in an endless variety of appearances, until it attained its triumph at the Reformation."

      A. Neander,
      General History of the Christian Religion and Church,
      volume 1, section 2, B.

"Though the forms of [pagan] religion had broken away, the spirit of religion was still quick; it had even developed: the sense of sin, an almost new phenomenon, began to invade Society and Philosophy; and along with this, an almost importunate craving after a revelation. The changed tone of philosophy, the spread of mysticism, the rapid growth of mystery-worship, the revived Platonism, are all articulate expressions of this need. The old Philosophy begins not only to preach but to pray: the new strives to catch the revealed voice of God in the oracles of less unfaithful days. … In the teeth of an organised and concentrated despotism a new society had grown up, self-supporting, self-regulated, a State within the State. Calm and assured amid a world that hid its fears only in blind excitement, free amid the servile, sanguine amid the despairing, Christians lived with an object. United in loyal fellowship by sacred pledges more binding than the sacramentum of the soldier, welded together by a stringent discipline, led by trained and tried commanders, the Church had succeeded in attaining unity. It had proved itself able to command self-devotion even to the death. It had not feared to assimilate the choicest fruits of the choicest intellects of East and West. … Yet the centripetal forces were stronger; Tertullian had died an heresiarch, and Origen but narrowly and somewhat of grace escaped a like fate. If rent with schisms and threatened with disintegration, the Church was still an undivided whole."

"The designation of the Universal Christian Church as Catholic dates from the time of Irenaeus. … At the beginning of this age, the heretical as well as the non-heretical Ebionism may be regarded as virtually suppressed, although some scanty remnants of it might yet be found. The most brilliant period of Gnosticism, too, … was already passed. But in Manichæism there appeared, during the second half of the third century, a new peril of a no less threatening kind inspired by Parseeism and Buddhism. … With Marcus Aurelius, Paganism outside of Christianity as embodied in the Roman State, begins the war of extermination against the Church that was ever more and more extending her boundaries. Such manifestation of hostility, however, was not able to subdue the Church. … During the same time the episcopal and synodal-hierarchical organization of the church was more fully developed by the introduction of an order of Metropolitans, and then in the following period it reached its climax in the oligarchical Pentarchy of Patriarchs, and in the institution of œcumenical Synods."

      For biography,
      W. Smith and H. Wace,
      A Dictionary of Christian Biography.

"Missionary effort in this period was mainly directed to the conversion of the heathen. On the ruins of Jerusalem, Hadrian's colony of Ælia Capitolina was planted; so that even there the Church, in its character and modes of worship, was a Gentile community. Christianity was early carried to Edessa, the capital of the small state of Osrhene, in Mesopotamia. After the middle of the second century, the Church at Edessa was sufficiently flourishing to count among its members the king, Abgar Bar Manu. At about this time the gospel was preached in Persia, Media, Parthia, and Bactria. We have notices of churches in Arabia in the early part of the third century. They were visited several times by Origen, the celebrated Alexandrian Church teacher (185-254). In the middle of the fourth century a missionary, Theophilus, of Diu, found churches in India. In Egypt, Christianity made great progress, especially at Alexandria, whence it spread to Cyrene and other neighboring places. In upper Egypt, where the Coptic language and the superstition of the people were obstacles in its path, Christianity had, nevertheless, gained a foothold as early as towards the close of the second century. At this time the gospel had been planted in proconsular Africa, being conveyed thither from Rome, and there was a flourishing church at Carthage. In Gaul, where the Druidical system, with its priesthood and sacrificial worship, was the religion of the Celtic population, several churches were founded from Asia Minor. At Lyons and Vienne there were strong churches in the last quarter of the second century. At this time Irenæus, Bishop of Lyons, speaks of the establishment of Christianity in Germany, west of the Rhine, and Tertullian, the North African presbyter, speaks of Christianity in Britain. The fathers in the second century describe in glowing terms, and not without rhetorical exaggeration, the rapid conquests of the Gospel. The number of converts in the reign of Hadrian must have been very large. Otherwise we cannot account for the enthusiastic language of Justin Martyr respecting the multitude of professing Christians. Tertullian writes in a similar strain. Irenæus refers to Barbarians who have believed without having a knowledge of letters, through oral teaching merely."

"Christianity first began its activity in the country among the Jewish and Greek population of the Delta, but gradually also among the Egyptians proper (the Copts) as may be inferred from the Coptic (Memphytic) translation of the New Testament (third century). In the second century, Gnosticism [see GNOSTICS], which had its chief seat here as well as in Syria, and, secondly, towards the close of the century, the Alexandrian Catechetical School, show the importance of this centre of religious movement and Christian education."

"Never perhaps has the free statement of the Christian idea had less prejudice to encounter than at Alexandria at the close of the second century. Never has it more successfully vindicated by argument its right to be the great interpreter of the human spirit. The institutions of the great metropolis were highly favourable to this result. The Museum, built by the Ptolemies, was intended to be, and speedily became, the centre of an intense intellectual life. The Serapeum, at the other end of the town, rivalled it in beauty of architecture and wealth of rare MSS. The Sebastion, reared in honour of Augustus, was no unworthy companion to these two noble establishments. In all three, splendid endowments and a rich professoriate attracted the talent of the world. If the ambition of a secured reputation drew many eminent men away to Rome, the means of securing such eminence were mainly procured at Alexandria. … The Christian Church in this city rose to the height of its grand opportunity. It entered the lists without fear and without favour, and boldly proclaimed its competence to satisfy the intellectual cravings of man. Numbers of restless and inquiring spirits came from all parts of the world, hoping to find a solution of the doubts that perplexed them. And the Church, which had already brought peace to the souls of the woman and the slave, now girded herself to the harder task of convincing the trained intelligence of the man of letters and the philosopher."

C. T. Cruttwell, A Literary History of Early Christianity, book 4, chapter 1 (volume 2).

"The question … came up for decision towards the close of the sub-apostolic age, as to what shape the Church was finally to take. Two types were set before her to choose from—one the Hebrew-Latin type, as we may call it, into which … she finally settled down; the other the Hellenist type of a Demos, or commonwealth of free citizens, all equal, all alike kings and priests unto God, and whose moral and spiritual growth was left very much to the initiative of each member of the community. In Alexandria, as the meeting-point of all nationalities, and where Judaism itself had tried to set up a new type of thought, eclectic between Hebraism and Hellenism, and comprehending what was best in both, naturally enough there grew up a Christian type of eclecticism corresponding to that of Philo. … Into this seething of rival sects and races the Alexandrian school of catechists threw themselves, and made a noble attempt to rescue the Church, the synagogue, and the Stoics alike from the one bane common to all—the dangerous delusion that the truth was for them, not they for the truth. Setting out on the assumption that God's purpose was the education of the whole human family, they saw in the Logos doctrine of St. John the key to harmonise all truth, whether of Christian sect, Hebrew synagogue, or Stoic philosophy. … To educate all men up to this standard seemed to them the true ideal of the Church. True Gnosis was their keynote; and the Gnostic, as Clemens loves to describe himself, was to them the pattern philosopher and Christian in one. They regarded, moreover, a discipline of at least three years as imperative; it was the preliminary condition of entrance into the Christian Church."

The two great Christian writers of Alexandria were Clement and Origen. "The universal influence of Origen made itself felt in the third century over the whole field of Greek theology. In him, as it were, everything which had hitherto been striven after in the Greek field of theology, had been gathered together, so as, being collected here in a centre, to give an impulse in the most various directions; hence also the further development of theology in subsequent times is always accustomed to link itself on to one side or the other of his rich spiritual heritage. … And while this involves that Christianity is placed on friendly relations with the previous philosophical development of the highest conceptions of God and the world, yet on the other hand Christian truth also appears conversely as the universal truth which gathers together in itself all the hitherto isolated rays of divine truth. … In the great religious ferment of the time there was further contained the tendency to seek similar religious ideas amid the different mythological religious forms and to mingle them syncretistically. This religious ferment was still further increased by the original content of Christianity, that mighty leaven, which announced a religion destined to the redemption and perfecting of the world, and by this means a like direction and tendency was imparted to various other religious views likewise. The exciting and moving effect of Gnosticism on the Church depended at the same time on the fact, that its representatives practically apprehended Christianity in the manner of the antique religious mysteries, and in so doing sought to lean upon the Christian communities and make themselves at home in them, according as their religious life and usages seemed to invite them, and to establish in them a community of the initiated and perfect; an endeavour which the powerful ascetic tendency in the church exploited and augmented in its own sense, and for which the institution of prophecy, which was so highly respected and powerful in the communities, afforded a handle. In this way the initiated were able to make for themselves a basis in the community on which they could depend, while the religio-philosophical speculations, which are always intelligible only to a few, at the same time propagated themselves and branched out scholastically."

"At Alexandria, Basilides (A. D. 125) and Valentine exerted in turn an extraordinary influence; the latter endeavored to establish his school at Rome about the year 140. The Gnostics of Syria professed a more open dualism than those of Egypt. The Church of Antioch had to resist Saturnin, that of Edessa to oppose Bordesanes and Tatian."

E. De Pressensé, The Early Years of Christianity; The Martyrs and Apologists, page 135.

"There was something very imposing in those mighty systems, which embraced heaven and earth. How plain and meagre in comparison seemed simple Christianity! There was something remarkably attractive in the breadth and liberality of Gnosticism. It seemed completely to have reconciled Christianity with culture. How narrow the Christian Church appeared! Even noble souls might be captivated by the hope of winning the world over to Christianity in this way. … Over against the mighty systems of the Gnostics, the Church stood, in sober earnestness and childlike faith, on the simple Christian doctrine of the Apostles. This was to be sought in the churches founded by the apostles themselves, where they had defined the faith in their preaching."

"Greek philosophy had joined hands with Jewish theosophy, and the Church knew not where to look for help. So serious did the danger seem, when it was assailed at once and from opposite sides by Jewish and Greek types of Gnosticism, the one from the monotheistic point of view impugning the Godhead, the other for the Docetic side explaining away [us a spiritual illusion] the manhood of Christ, that the Church, in despair of beating error by mere apology, fell back on the method of authority. The Church was the only safe keeper of the deposit of sacred tradition; whoever impugned that tradition, let him be put out of the communion of saints."

Reverend J. B. Heard, Alexandrian and Carthaginian Theology Contrasted, page 41.

"The interest, the meaning, of Gnosticism rest entirely upon its ethical motive. It was an attempt, a serious attempt, to fathom the dread mystery of sorrow and pain, to answer that spectral doubt, which is mostly crushed down by force—Can the world as we know it have been made by God? 'Cease,' says Basilides, 'from idle and curious variety, and let us rather discuss the opinions, which even barbarians have held, on the subject of good and evil.' 'I will say anything rather than admit that Providence is wicked.' Valentinus describes in the strain of an ancient prophet the woes that afflict mankind. 'I durst not affirm,' he concludes, 'that God is the author of all this.' So Tertullian says of Marcion, 'like many men of our time, and especially the heretics, he is bewildered by the question of evil.' They approach the problem from a non-Christian point of view, and arrive therefore at a non-Christian solution. … Many of them, especially the later sectaries, accepted the whole Christian Creed, but always with reserve. The teaching of the Church thus became in their eyes a popular exoteric confession, beneath their own Gnosis, or Knowledge, which was a Mystery, jealously guarded from all but the chosen few."

"The chief points of interest in the history of the Church of Cæsarea during this period are the residence of Origen there (first between A. D. 215 and 219 and again after his final departure from Alexandria in 231), the education of Eusebius, the foundation of the great library by Pamphilus, and the martyrdoms during the Diocletian persecution. Most of these will come before us again in other connexions, but they require mention here. It would be difficult to over-estimate the effect of what they imply on the Church at large. Had the work of Origen, Pamphilus, and Eusebius at Cæsarea remained unrecorded, there would be a huge blank in ecclesiastical history, rendering much that is otherwise known scarcely intelligible. Had that work never been done, the course of ecclesiastical history would have been very different. In the whole of the second and third centuries it would be difficult to name two more influential Christians than Origen and Eusebius; and Pamphilus laboured earnestly to preserve and circulate the writings of the one and to facilitate those of the other. It was from the libraries of Pamphilus at Cæsarea and of Alexander at Jerusalem that Eusebius obtained most of his material" for his "Ecclesiastical History," which has preserved titles and quotations from many lost books of exceeding value.

"Edessa (the modern Urfa) was from the beginning of the third century one of the chief centres of Syrian Christian life and theological study. For many years, amid the vicissitudes of theological persecution, a series of flourishing theological schools were maintained there, one of which (the 'Persian school') is of great importance as the nursery of Nestorianism in the extreme East. It was as bishop of Edessa, also, that Jacob Baradæus organized the monophysite churches into that Jacobite church of which he is the hero. From the scholars of Edessa came many of the translations which carried Greek thought to the East, and in the periods of exciting controversy Edessa was within the range of the theological movements that stirred Alexandria and Constantinople. The 'Chronicle of Edessa,' as it is called because the greater number of its notices relate to Edessene affairs, is a brief document in Syriac contained in a manuscript of six leaves in the Vatican library. It is one of the most important fundamental sources for the history of Edessa, contains a long official narrative of the flood of A. D. 201, which is perhaps the only existing monument of heathen Syriac literature, and includes an excellent and very carefully dated list of the bishops of Edessa from A. D. 313 to 543."

The Syriac Versions (of the Gospel) form a group of which mention should undoubtedly be made. The Syriac versions of the Bible (Old Testament) are among the most ancient remains of the language, the Syriac and the Chaldee being the two dialects of the Aramaean spoken in the North. Of versions of the New Testament, "the 'Peshito' or the 'Simple,' though not the oldest text, has been the longest known. … The 'Curetonian' … was discovered after its existence had been for a long time suspected by sagacious scholars [but is not much more than a series of fragments]. … Cureton, Tregelles, Alford, Ewald, Bleek, and others, believe this text to be older than the Peshito [which speaks for the Greek text of the second century, though its own date is doubtful]. … Other valuable Syriac versions are 'Philoxenian' … and the 'Jerusalem Syriac Lectionary' … a service-book with lessons from the Gospels for Sundays and feast days throughout the year … written at Antioch in 1030 in a dialect similar to that in use in Jerusalem and from a Greek text of great antiquity." A recent discovery renders these facts and statements of peculiar interests.

"If Ebionism [see EBIONISM] was not primitive Christianity, neither was it a creation of the second century. As an organization, a distinct sect, it first made itself known, we may suppose, in the reign of Trajan: but as a sentiment, it had been harboured within the Church from the very earliest days. Moderated by the personal influence of the Apostles, soothed by the general practice of their church, not yet forced into declaring themselves by the turn of events, though scarcely tolerant of others, these Judaizers were tolerated for a time themselves. The beginning of the second century was a winnowing season in the Church of the Circumcision. … It is a probable conjecture, that after the destruction of Jerusalem the fugitive Christians, living in their retirement in the neighbourhood of the Essene settlements, received large accessions to their numbers from this sect, which thus inoculated the Church with its peculiar views. It is at least worthy of notice, that in a religious work emanating from this school of Ebionites the 'true Gospel' is reported to have been first propagated 'after the destruction of the holy place.'"

"If the world is indebted to Rome for the organisation of the Church, Rome is indebted to Carthage for the theory on which that organisation is built. The career of Carthage as a Christian centre exemplifies the strange vicissitudes of history. The city which Rome in her jealousy had crushed, which, not content with crushing, she had obliterated from the face of the earth, had at the bidding of Rome's greatest son risen from her ashes, and by her career almost verified the poet's taunt that the greatness of Carthage was reared on the ruin of Italy. For in truth the African capital was in all but political power no unworthy rival of Rome. It had steadily grown in commercial prosperity. Its site was so advantageous as to invite, almost to compel, the influx of trade, which ever spontaneously moves along the line of least resistance. And the people were well able to turn this natural advantage to account. A mixed nationality, in which the original Italian immigration lent a steadying force to the native Punic and kindred African elements that formed its basis, with its intelligence enriched by large accessions of Greek settlers from Cyrene and Alexandria—Carthage had developed in the second century of our era into a community at once wealthy, enterprising and ambitious. … It was no longer in the sphere of profane literature, but in her contributions to the cause of Christianity and the spiritual armoury of the Church, that the proud Queen of Africa was to win her second crown of fame. … The names of Tertullian, Cyprian and Augustine, at once suggest the source from which Papal Rome drew the principles of Church controversy, Church organisation, and Church doctrine, which have consolidated her authority, and to some extent justified her pretensions to rule the conscience of Christendom."

C. T. Cruttwell, A Literary History of Early Christianity, book 5, chapter 2 (volume 2).

"At the end of the second century the African Tertullian first began to wrestle with the difficulties of the Latin language in the endeavour to make it a vehicle for the expression of Christian ideas. In reading his dogmatic writings the struggle is so apparent that it seems as though we beheld a rider endeavouring to discipline an unbroken steed. Tertullian's doctrine is, however, still wholly Greek in substance, and this continued to be the case in the church of the Latin tongue until the end of the fourth century. Hilary, Ambrose, even Jerome, are essentially interpreters of Greek philosophy and theology to the Latin West. With Augustine learning begins to assume a Latin form, partly original and independent—partly, I say, for even later compositions are abundantly interwoven with Greek elements and materials. Very gradually from the writings of the African fathers of the church does the specific Latin element come to occupy that dominant position in Western Christendom, which soon, partly from self-sufficient indifference, partly from ignorance, so completely severed itself from Greek influences that the old unity and harmony could never be restored. Still the Biblical study of the Latins is, as a whole, a mere echo and copy of Greek predecessors."

From Carthage which was afterward the residence of "the primate of all Africa … the Christian faith soon disseminated throughout Numidia, Mauritania and Getulia, which is proved by the great number of bishops at two councils held at Carthage in 256 and 308. At the latter there were 270 bishops, whose names are not given, but at the former were bishops from (87) … cities."

"In the West, Rome remains and indeed becomes ever more and more the 'sedes Apostolica,' by far the most important centre where, alongside of the Roman element, there are to be found elements streaming together from all points of the Empire. Greek names, and the long lasting (still dominant in the second century) maintenance of Greek as the written language of Roman Christianity are here noteworthy. … Rome was the point of departure not only for Italy and the Western Provinces, but without doubt also for Proconsular Africa, where in turn Carthage becomes the centre of diffusion. … The diffusion in the Græco-Roman world as a whole goes first to the more important towns and from these gradually over the country. … The instruments however of this mission are by no means exclusively apostolic men, who pursue missions as their calling; … every Christian becomes a witness in his own circle, and intercourse and trade bring Christians hither and thither, and along with them their Christian faith."

"It has been contended, and many still believe, that in ancient Rome the doctrines of Christ found no proselytes, except among the lower and poorer classes of citizens. … The gospel found its way also to the mansions of the masters, nay, even to the palace of the Cæsars. The discoveries lately made on this subject are startling, and constitute a new chapter in the history of imperial Rome. … A difficulty may arise in the mind of the reader: how was it possible for these magistrates, generals, consuls, officers, senators, and governors of provinces, to attend to their duties without performing acts of idolatry? … The Roman emperors gave plenty of liberty to the new religion from time to time; and some of them, moved by a sort of religious syncretism, even tried to ally it with the official worship of the empire, and to place Christ and Jupiter on the steps of the same 'lararium.' … We must not believe that the transformation of Rome from a pagan into a Christian city was a sudden and unexpected event, which took the world by surprise. It was the natural result of the work of three centuries, brought to maturity under Constantine by an inevitable reaction against the violence of Diocletian's rule. It was not a revolution or a conversion in the true sense of these words; it was the official recognition of a state of things which had long ceased to be a secret. The moral superiority of the new doctrines over the old religions was so evident, so overpowering, that the result of the struggle had been a foregone conclusion since the age of the first apologists. The revolution was an exceedingly mild one, the transformation almost imperceptible. … The transformation may be followed stage by stage in both its moral and material aspect. There is not a ruin of ancient Rome that does not bear evidence of the great change. … Rome possesses authentic remains of the 'houses of prayer' in which the gospel was first announced in apostolic times. … A very old tradition, confirmed by the 'Liber Pontificalis,' describes the modern church of S. Pudentiana as having been once the private house of the same Pudens who was baptized by the apostles, and who is mentioned in the epistles of S. Paul. … The connection of the house with the apostolate of SS. Peter and Paul made it very popular from the beginning. … Remains of the house of Pudens were found in 1870. They occupy a considerable area under the neighboring houses. … {449} Among the Roman churches whose origin can be traced to the hall of meeting, besides those of Pudens and Prisca already mentioned, the best preserved seems to be that built by Demetrias at the third mile-stone of the Via Latina, near the 'painted tombs.'… The Christians took advantage of the freedom accorded to funeral colleges, and associated themselves for the same purpose, following as closely as possible their rules concerning contributions, the erection of lodges, the meetings, and the … love feasts; and it was largely through the adoption of these well-understood and respected customs that they were enabled to hold their meetings and keep together as a corporate body through the stormy times of the second and third centuries. Two excellent specimens of scholæ connected with Christian cemeteries and with meetings of the faithful have come down to us, one above the Catacombs of Callixtus, the other above those of Soter." This formation of Christian communities into colleges is an important fact, and connects these Christian societies with one of the social institutions of the Empire which may have influenced the church as an organization. "The experience gained in twenty-five years of active exploration in ancient Rome, both above and below ground, enables me to state that every pagan building which was capable of giving shelter to a congregation was transformed, at one time or another, into a church or a chapel. … From apostolic times to the persecution of Domitian, the faithful were buried, separately or collectively, in private tombs which did not have the character of a Church institution. These early tombs, whether above or below ground, display a sense of perfect security, and an absence of all fear or solicitude. This feeling arose from two facts: the small extent of the cemeteries, which secured to them the rights of private property, and the protection and freedom which the Jewish colony in Rome enjoyed from time immemorial. … From the time of the apostles to the first persecution of Domitian, Christian tombs, whether above or below ground, were built with perfect impunity and in defiance of public opinion. We have been accustomed to consider the catacombs of Rome as crypts plunged in total darkness, and penetrating the bowels of the earth at unfathomable depths. This is, in a certain measure, the case with those catacombs, or sections of catacombs, which were excavated in times of persecution; but not with those belonging to the first century. The cemetery of these members of Domitian's family who had embraced the gospel—such as Flavius Clemens, Flavia Domitilla, Plautilla, Petronilla, and others-reveals a bold example of publicity. … How is it possible to imagine that the primitive Church did not know the place of the death of its two leading apostles? In default of written testimony let us consult monumental evidence. There is no event of the imperial age and of imperial Rome which is attested by so many noble structures, all of which point to the same conclusion,—the presence and execution of the apostles in the capital of the empire."

The Church at Rome "gave no illustrious teachers to ancient Christianity. … All the greatest questions were debated elsewhere. … By a sort of instinct of race, [it] occupied itself far more with points of government and organization than of speculation. Its central position, in the capital of the empire, and its glorious memories, guaranteed to it a growing authority."

E. De Pressensé, The Early Years of Christianity: The Martyrs and Apologists, page 41.

"Of the history of the Gallican Churches before the middle of the second century we have no certain information. It seems fairly probable indeed that, when we read in the Apostolic age of a mission of Crescens to 'Galatia' or 'Gaul,' the western country is meant rather than the Asiatic settlement which bore the same name; and, if so, this points to some relations with St. Paul himself. But, even though this explanation should be accepted, the notice stands quite alone. Later tradition indeed supplements it with legendary matter, but it is impossible to say what substratum of fact, if any, underlies these comparatively recent stories. The connection between the southern parts of Gaul and the western districts of Asia Minor had been intimate from very remote times. Gaul was indebted for her earliest civilization to her Greek settlements like Marseilles, which had been colonized from Asia Minor some six centuries before the Christian era; and close relations appear to have been maintained even to the latest times. During the Roman period the people of Marseilles still spoke the Greek language familiarly along with the vernacular Celtic of the native population and the official Latin of the dominant power. When therefore Christianity had established her headquarters in Asia Minor, it was not unnatural that the Gospel should flow in the same channels which already conducted the civilization and the commerce of the Asiatic Greeks westward. At all events, whatever we may think of the antecedent probabilities, the fact itself can hardly be disputed. In the year A. D. 177, under Marcus Aurelius, a severe persecution broke out on the banks of the Rhone in the cities of Vienne and Lyons—a persecution which by its extent and character bears a noble testimony to the vitality of the Churches in these places. To this incident we owe the earliest extant historical notice of Christianity in Gaul."

J. B. Lightfoot, Essays on the work entitled Supernatural Religion, pages 251-252.

"The Churches of proconsular Africa, of Spain, of Italy, and of Southern Gaul constitute, at this period, the Western Church, so different in its general type from the Eastern. With the exception of Irenaeus [bishop of Lyons] and Hippolytus [the first celebrated preacher of the West, of Italy and, for a period, Lyons] who represent the oriental element in Gaul and at Rome, the Western Fathers are broadly distinguished from those of the East. … They affirm rather than demonstrate; … they prefer practical to speculative questions. The system of episcopal authority is gradually developed with a larger amount of passion at Carthage, with greater prudence and patience in Italy."

E. De Pressensé, The Early Years of Christianity: the Martyrs and Apologists.

"Christians are generally mentioned as having existed in all parts of Spain at the close of the second century; before the middle of the third century there is a letter of the Roman bishop Anterus (in 237) to the bishops of the provinces of Bœtica and Toletana; … and after the middle of the same century a letter of Cyprian's was addressed to … people … in the north … as well as … in the south of that country."

J. E. T. Wiltsch, Handbook of the Geography and Statistics of the Church, pages 40-41.

"All that we can safely assert is that there is some reason for believing that there were Christians in Britain before A. D. 200. Certainly there was a British Church with bishops of its own soon after A. D. 300, and possibly some time before that. Very little can be known about this Celtic Church; but the scanty evidence tends to establish three points, (1) It had its origin from, and remained largely dependent upon, the Gallic Church. (2) It was confined almost exclusively to Roman settlements. (3) Its numbers were small and its members were poor. … That Britain may have derived its Christianity from Asia Minor cannot be denied; but the peculiar British custom respecting Easter must not be quoted in evidence of it. It seems to have been a mere blunder, and not a continuation of the old Quarta-deciman practice. Gaul is the more probable parent of the British Church. … At the Council of Rimini in 359 Constantius offered to pay out of the treasury the travelling expenses of all the bishops who attended. Out of more than four hundred bishops, three from Britain were the only clergy who availed themselves of this offer. Neither at Rimini, any more than at Arles, do the British representatives make any show: they appear to be quite without influence."

"It has been observed that the first indisputable appearance of the Goths in European history must be dated in A. D. 238, when they laid waste the South-Danubian province of Moesia as far as the Black Sea. In the thirty years (238-269) that followed, there took place no fewer than ten such inroads. … From these expeditions they returned with immense booty,—corn and cattle, silks and fine linen, silver and gold, and captives of all ranks and ages. It is to these captives, many of whom were Christians, and not a few clergy, that the introduction of Christianity among the Goths is primarily due. … The period of the inroads, which so strangely formed a sowing-time for Christianity, was followed by a long period of tranquillity, during which the new faith took root and spread. … It is to the faithful work and pure lives of [Christian] men … who had fled from Roman civilisation for conscience sake, to the example of patience in misfortune and high Christian character displayed by the captives, and to the instruction of the presbyters sprinkled among them, that we must look, as the source of Christianity among the Goths. … The fact (to which we shall have to refer later), that, of all the sea raids undertaken by the Goths between the years 238 and 269, the Visigoths took part in only two, while the Ostrogoths, who were settled in Southern Russia along the coast of the Euxine from the Crimea to the Dneister, were engaged probably in all of them, makes it very unlikely that the captives mentioned by Philostorgius were carried anywhere else than the eastern settlements. To the influence of these Asian Christians, exerted mainly, if not entirely upon the Ostrogoths, must be added the ever-increasing intercourse carried on by sea between the Crimea and both the southern shore of the Euxine and Constantinople. To these probabilities has now to be added the fact that the only traces of an organised Gothic Church existing before the year 341 are clearly to be referred to a community in this neighbourhood. Among the bishops who were present at the Council of Nicaea (A. D. 325), and who signed the symbol which was then approved, we find a certain Theophilus, before whose name stand the words, 'de Gothis,' and after it the word 'Bosphoritanus.' There can be little doubt that this was a bishop representing a Gothic Church on the Cimmerian Bosphorus; and if, following the Paris MSS., we read further down the list the name Domnus Bosphorensis or Bosphoranus, we may find here another bishop from this diocese, and regard Theophilus as chief or arch-bishop of the Crimean churches. The undoubted presence at this council of at least one bishop of the Goths, and the conclusion drawn therefrom in favour of the orthodoxy of the Gothic Church in general, led afterwards to the greatest confusion. Failing to distinguish between the Crimean and Danubian communities, the historians often found their information contradictory, and altered it in the readiest way to suit the condition of the Church which they had specially in view. … The conversion of that section of the nation, which became the Gothic Church, was due to the apostolic labours of one of their own race,—the great missionary bishop Ulfilas [see GOTHS: A. D. 341-381]. But to him too was to be traced the heresy in which they stopped short on the way from heathenism to a complete Christian faith."

"The superstitions of the barbarians, who had found homes in the empire, had been exchanged for a more wholesome belief. But Christianity had done more than this. It had extended its influence to the distant East and South, to Abyssinia, and the tribes of the Syrian and Lybian deserts, to Armenia, Persia, and India."

"We have before us many significant examples of the facility with which the most intelligent of the Pagans accepted the outward rite of Christian baptism, and made a nominal profession of the Faith, while they retained and openly practiced, without rebuke, without remark, with the indulgence even of genuine believers, the rites and usages of the Paganism they pretended to have abjured. We find abundant records of the fact that personages high in office, such as consuls and other magistrates, while administering the laws by which the old idolatries were proscribed, actually performed Pagan rites and even erected public statues to Pagan divinities. Still more did men, high in the respect of their fellow-Christians, allow themselves to cherish sentiments utterly at variance with the definitions of the Church."

      C. Merivale,
      Four lectures on some Epochs of Early Church History,
      page 150.

   "We look back to the early acts and policy of the Church
   towards the new nations, their kings and their people; the
   ways and works of her missionaries and lawgivers, Ulfilas
   among the Goths, Augustine in Kent, Remigius in France,
   Boniface in Germany, Anschar in the North, the Irish Columban
   in Burgundy and Switzerland, Benedict at Monte Cassino; or the
   reforming kings, the Arian Theodoric, the great German
   Charles, the great English Alfred. Measured by the light and
   the standards they have helped us to attain to, their methods
   no doubt surprise, disappoint—it may be, revolt us; and all
   that we dwell upon is the childishness, or the imperfect
   morality, of their attempts.
{451}
   But if there is anything certain in history, it is
   that in these rough communications of the deepest truths, in
   these [for us] often questionable modes of ruling minds and
   souls, the seeds were sown of all that was to make the hope
   and the glory of the foremost nations. … I have spoken of
   three other groups of virtues which are held in special regard
   and respect among us—those connected with manliness and hard
   work, with reverence for law and liberty, and with pure family
   life. The rudiments and tendencies out of which these have
   grown appear to have been early marked in the German races;
   but they were only rudiments, existing in company with much
   wilder and stronger elements, and liable, amid the changes and
   chances of barbarian existence, to be paralysed or trampled
   out. No mere barbarian virtues could by themselves have stood
   the trial of having won by conquest the wealth, the lands, the
   power of Rome. But their guardian was there. What Christianity
   did for these natural tendencies to good was to adopt them, to
   watch over them, to discipline, to consolidate them. The
   energy which warriors were accustomed to put forth in their
   efforts to conquer, the missionaries and ministers of
   Christianity exhibited in their enterprises of conversion and
   teaching. The crowd of unknown saints whose names fill the
   calendars, and live, some of them, only in the titles of our
   churches, mainly represent the age of heroic spiritual
   ventures, of which we see glimpses in the story of St.
   Boniface, the apostle of Germany; of St. Columban and St.
   Gall, wandering from Ireland to reclaim the barbarians of the
   Burgundian deserts and of the shores of the Swiss lakes. It
   was among men like these—men who were then termed
   emphatically 'men of religion'—that the new races saw the
   example of life ruled by a great and serious purpose, which
   yet was not one of ambition or the excitement of war; a life
   of deliberate and steady industry, of hard and uncomplaining
   labour; a life as full of activity in peace, of stout and
   brave work, as a warrior's was wont to be in the camp, on the
   march, in the battle. It was in these men and in the
   Christianity which they taught, and which inspired and
   governed them, that the fathers of our modern nations first
   saw exemplified the sense of human responsibility, first
   learned the nobleness of a ruled and disciplined life, first
   enlarged their thoughts of the uses of existence, first were
   taught the dignity and sacredness of honest toil. These great
   axioms of modern life passed silently from the special homes
   of religious employment to those of civil; from the cloisters
   and cells of men who, when they were not engaged in worship,
   were engaged in field-work or book-work,—clearing the forest,
   extending cultivation, multiplying manuscripts—to the guild
   of the craftsman, the shop of the trader, the study of the
   scholar. Religion generated and fed these ideas of what was
   manly and worthy in man."

"Shortly after the beginning of the fourth century there occurred an event which, had it been predicted in the days of Nero or even of Decius, would have been deemed a wild fancy. It was nothing less than the conversion of the Roman Emperor to the Christian faith. It was an event of momentous importance in the history of the Christian religion. The Roman empire, from being the enemy and persecutor of the Church, thenceforward became its protector and patron. The Church entered into an alliance with the State, which was to prove fruitful of consequences, both good and evil, in the subsequent history of Europe. Christianity was now to reap the advantages and incur the dangers arising from the friendship of earthly rulers and from a close connection with the civil authority. Constantine was born in 274. He was the son of Constantius Chlorus. His mother, Helena, was of obscure birth. She became a Christian—whether before or after his conversion, is doubtful. … After the death of Constantine's father, a revolt against Galerius augmented the number of emperors, so that, in 308, not less than six claimed to exercise rule. The contest of Constantine was at first in the West, against the tyrannical and dissolute Maxentius. It was just before his victory over this rival at the Milvian Bridge, near Rome, that he adopted the Christian faith. That there mingled in this decision, as in most of the steps of his career, political ambition, is highly probable. The strength of the Christian community made it politic for him to win its united support. But he sincerely believed in the God whom the Christians worshipped, and in the help which, through his providence, he could lend to his servants. … Shortly before his victory over Maxentius there occurred what he asserted to be the vision of a flaming cross in the sky, seen by him at noonday, on which was the inscription, in Greek, 'By this conquer.' It was, perhaps, an optical illusion, the effect of a parhelion beheld in a moment when the imagination … was strongly excited. He adopted the labarum, or the standard of the cross, which was afterwards carried in his armies. [See ROME: A. D. 323.] In later contests with Licinius, the ruler in the East, who was a defender of paganism, Constantine became more distinctly the champion of the Christian cause. The final defeat of Licinius, in 323, left him the master of the whole Roman world. An edict signed by Galerius, Constantine, and Licinius, in 311, had proclaimed freedom and toleration in matters of religion. The edict of Milan, in 312, emanating from the two latter, established unrestricted liberty on this subject. If we consider the time when it was issued, we shall be surprised to find that it alleges as a motive for the edict the sacred rights of conscience."

   "Towards the end of the year Constantine left Rome for Milan,
   where he met Licinius. This meeting resulted in the issue of
   the famous edict of Milan. Up to that hour Christianity had
   been an 'illicita religio,' and it was a crime to be a
   Christian. Even in Trajan's answer to Pliny this position is
   assumed, though it forms the basis of humane regulations. The
   edict of Milan is the charter of Christianity; it proclaims
   absolute freedom in the matter of religion. Both Christians
   and all others were to be freely permitted to follow
   whatsoever religion each might choose. Moreover, restitution
   was to be made to the Christian body of all churches and other
   buildings which had been alienated from them during the persecution.
{452}
   This was in 313 A. D. … But the causes of dissension
   remained behind. Once more (323) the question between paganism
   and Christianity was to be tried on the field of battle, and
   their armies confronted one another on the plains of
   Hadrianople. Again the skill of Constantine and the trained
   valour of his troops proved superior to the undisciplined
   levies of Licinius; while at sea Crispus, the eldest and
   ill-fated son of Constantine, destroyed the enemy's fleet in
   the crowded waters of the Hellespont, sowing thereby the seeds
   of his father's jealousy. Byzantium fell, but not without a
   vigorous resistance; and, after one more crushing defeat on
   the site of the modern Scutari, Licinius submitted himself to
   the mercy of Constantine. … What we notice in the whole of
   these events is the enormous power which still belonged to
   paganism. The balance still wavered between paganism and
   Christianity. … Constantine had now, by a marvellous
   succession of victories, placed himself in a position of
   supreme and undisputed power. At this juncture it is of
   interest to observe that … the divided empire, which
   followed the reign of Constantine, served to sustain
   Catholicity at least in one half of the world. … The
   foundation of Constantinople was the outward symbol of the new
   monarchy and of the triumph of Christianity. … The choice of
   this incomparable position for the new capital of the world
   remains the lasting proof of Constantine's genius. … The
   magnificence of its public buildings, its treasures of art,
   its vast endowments, the beauty of its situation, the rapid
   growth of its commerce, made it worthy to be 'as it were a
   daughter of Rome herself.' But the most important thought for
   us is the relation of Constantinople to the advance of
   Christianity. That the city which had sprung into supremacy
   from its birth and had become the capital of the conquered
   world, should have excluded from the circuit of its walls all
   public recognition of polytheism, and made the Cross its most
   conspicuous ornament, and the token of its greatness, gave a
   reality to the religious revolution. … The imperial centre
   of the world had been visibly displaced."

With the first General Council of the Church, held at Nicæa, A. D. 325 (see NICÆA), "the decisions … of which received the force of law from the confirmation of the Emperor, a tendency was entered upon which was decisive for the further development; decisive also by the fact that the Emperor held it to be his duty to compel subordination to the decisions of the council on penalty of banishment, and actually carried out this banishment in the case of Arius and several of his adherents. The Emperor summoned general synods, the fiscus provided the cost of travel and subsistence (also at other great synods), an imperial commissioner opened them by reading the imperial edict, and watched over the course of business. Only the bishops and their appointed representatives had votes. Dogmatic points fixed … were to be the outcome of unanimous agreement, the rest of the ordinances (on the constitution, discipline and worship) of a majority of votes."

"The direct influence of the emperor, however, does not appear until the Emperor Marcian procured from the Council of Chalcedon the completion of the Patriarchal system. Assuming that Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch were Patriarchates by the recognition of their privileges at the Council of Nicæa (though the canon of that council does not really admit that inference), the Council of Chalcedon, by its ninth, seventeenth and twenty-eighth canons, enlarged and fixed the patriarchal jurisdiction and privileges of the Church of Constantinople, giving it authority over the Dioceses of Thrace, Asia and Pontus, with the power of ordaining and requiring canonical obedience from the metropolis of those Dioceses, and also the right to adjudicate appeals in causes ecclesiastical from the whole Eastern Church. The Bishop of Jerusalem also obtained in this council patriarchal authority over Palestine. The organization of the Church was thus conformed to that of the empire, the patriarchs corresponding to the Prætorian Prefects, the exarchs, to the governors of the Dioceses, and the metropolitans to the governors of the provinces—the Bishop of Rome being given by an edict of Valentinian III., of the year 445, supreme appellate jurisdiction in the West, and the Bishop of Constantinople, by these canons of Chalcedon, supreme appellate jurisdiction in the East. … Dean Milman remarks that the Episcopate of St. John Chrysostom was the last attempt of a bishop of Constantinople to be independent of the political power, and that his fate involved the freedom of the Church of that city."

J. H. Egar, Christendom: Ecclesiastical and Political, from Constantine to the Reformation, pages 25-27.

"The name of patriarch, probably borrowed from Judaism, was from this period the appellation of the highest dignitaries of the church, and by it were more immediately, but not exclusively, designated the bishops of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. One patriarch accordingly presided over several provinces, and was distinguished from the metropolitan in this, that the latter was subordinate to him, and had only the superintendence of one province or a small district. However the designation applied only to the highest rulers of the church in the east, and not to those in the west, for here the title of patriarch was not unfrequently given, even in later times, to the metropolitan. The first mention of this title occurs in the second letter of the Roman bishop, Anacletus at the beginning of the second century, and it is next spoken of by Socrates; and after the Council of Chalcedon, in 451, it came into general use. The bishop of Constantinople bore the special title of œcumenical bishop or patriarch; there were also other titles in use among the Nestorians and Jacobites. The Primates and Metropolitans or Archbishops arose contemporaneously. The title of Eparch is also said to have been given to primates about the middle of the fifth century. The metropolitan of Ephesus subscribed himself thus in the year 680, therefore in the succeeding period. There was no particular title of long continuance for the Roman bishop until the sixth century; but from the year 536 he was usually called Papa, and from the time of Gregory the Great he styled himself Servus Servorum Dei."

J. E. T. Wiltsch, Handbook of the Geography and Statistics of the Church, pages 70, 71 and 72.

"Christianity may now be said to have ascended the imperial throne: with the single exception of Julian, from this period the monarchs of the Roman empire professed the religion of the Gospel. This important crisis in the history of Christianity almost forcibly arrests the attention to contemplate the change wrought in Christianity by its advancement into a dominant power in the state; and the change in the condition of mankind up to this period, attributable to the direct authority or indirect influence of the new religion. By ceasing to exist as a separate community, and by advancing its pretentions to influence the general government of mankind, Christianity to a certain extent, forfeited its independence. It could not but submit to these laws, framed, as it might seem, with its own concurrent voice. It was no longer a republic, governed exclusively—as far, at least, as its religious concerns—by its own internal polity. The interference of the civil power in some of its most private affairs, the promulgation of its canons, and even, in some cases, the election of its bishops by the state, was the price which it must inevitably pay for its association with the ruling power. … During the reign of Constantine Christianity had made a rapid advance, no doubt, in the number of its proselytes as well as in its external position. It was not yet the established religion of the empire. It did not as yet stand forward as the new religion adapted to the new order of things, as a part of the great simultaneous change which gave to the Roman world a new capital, a new system of government, and, in some important instances, anew jurisprudence. … The religion of the emperor would soon become that of the court, and, by somewhat slower degrees, that of the empire. At present, however, as we have seen, little open aggression took place upon paganism. The few temples which were closed were insulated cases, and condemned as offensive to public morality. In general the temples stood in all their former majesty, for as yet the ordinary process of decay from neglect or supineness could have produced little effect. The difference was, that the Christian churches began to assume a more stately and imposing form. In the new capital they surpassed in grandeur, and probably in decoration, the pagan temples, which belonged to old Byzantium. The immunities granted to the Christian clergy only placed them on the same level with the pagan priesthood. The pontifical offices were still held by the distinguished men of the state: the emperor himself was long the chief pontiff; but the religious office had become a kind of appendage to the temporal dignity. The Christian prelates were constantly admitted, in virtue of their office, to the imperial presence."

"As early as Constantine's time the punishment of crucifixion was abolished; immoral practices, like infanticide, and the exhibition of gladiatorial shows, were discouraged, the latter of these being forbidden in Constantinople; and in order to improve the relation of the sexes, severe laws were passed against adultery, and restrictions were placed on the facility of divorce. Further, the bishops were empowered, in the name of religion, to intercede with governors, and even with the emperor, in behalf of the unfortunate and oppressed. And gradually they obtained the right of exercising a sort of moral superintendence over the discharge of their official duties by the judges, and others, who belonged to their communities. The supervision of the prisons, in particular, was entrusted to them; and, whereas in the first instance their power of interference was limited to exhortations addressed to the judges who superintended them, in Justinian's reign the bishops were commissioned by law to visit the prisons on two days of each week in order to inquire into, and, if necessary, report upon, the treatment of the prisoners. In all these and many other ways, the influence of the State in controlling and improving society was advanced by its alliance with the Church."

   "The Christians were still a separate people. … It can
   scarcely be doubted that the stricter moral tone of
   Constantine's legislation more or less remotely emanated from
   Christianity. … During the reign of Constantine Christianity
   continued to advance beyond the borders of the Roman empire,
   and in some degree to indemnify herself for the losses which
   she sustained in the kingdom of Persia. The Ethiopians appear
   to have attained some degree of civilization; a considerable
   part of the Arabian commerce was kept up with the other side
   of the Red Sea through the port of Adulis; and Greek letters
   appear, from inscriptions recently discovered, to have made
   considerable progress among this barbarous people. … The
   theological opinions of Christianity naturally made more rapid
   progress than its moral influence. The former had only to
   overpower the resistance of a religion which had already lost
   its hold upon the mind, or a philosophy too speculative for
   ordinary understandings and too unsatisfactory for the more
   curious and inquiring; it had only to enter, as it were, into
   a vacant place in the mind of man. But the moral influence had
   to contest, not only with the natural dispositions of man, but
   with the barbarism and depraved manners of ages. While, then,
   the religion of the world underwent a total change, the Church
   rose on the ruins of the temple, and the pontifical
   establishment of paganism became gradually extinct or suffered
   violent suppression; the moral revolution was far more slow
   and far less complete. … Everywhere there was exaggeration
   of one of the constituent elements of Christianity; that
   exaggeration which is the inevitable consequence of a strong
   impulse upon the human mind. Wherever men feel strongly, they
   act violently. The more speculative Christians, therefore, who
   were more inclined, in the deep and somewhat selfish
   solicitude for their own salvation, to isolate themselves from
   the infected class of mankind, pressed into the extreme of
   asceticism; the more practical, who were in earnest in the
   desire of disseminating the blessings of religion throughout
   society, scrupled little to press into their service whatever
   might advance their cause. With both extremes the dogmatical
   part of the religion predominated. … In proportion to the
   admitted importance of the creed, men became more sternly and
   exclusively wedded to their opinions. … While they swept in
   converts indiscriminately from the palace and the public
   street, while the emperor and the lowest of the populace were
   alike admitted on little more than the open profession of
   allegiance, they were satisfied if their allegiance in this
   respect was blind and complete. Hence a far larger admixture
   of human passions, and the common vulgar incentives of action,
   were infused into the expanding Christian body.
{454}
   Men became Christians, orthodox Christians, with little
   sacrifice of that which Christianity aimed chiefly to
   extirpate. Yet, after all, this imperfect view of Christianity
   had probably some effect in concentrating the Christian
   community, and holding it together by a new and more
   indissoluble bond. The world divided into two parties. …
   All, however, were enrolled under one or the other standard,
   and the party which triumphed eventually would rule the whole
   Christian world."

"Of this deterioration of morals we have abundant evidence. Read the Canons of the various Councils and you will learn that the Church found it necessary to prohibit the commission of the most heinous and abominable crimes not only by the laity, but even by the clergy. Read the homilies of such preachers as Chrysostom, Basil, and Gregory, and you may infer what the moral tone of a Christian congregation must have been to which such reproofs could be addressed. Read, above all, the treatise on Providence, or De Gubernatione Dei, written at the close of our period by Salvian, a presbyter of Marseilles. The barbarians had over-spread the West, and Christians had suffered so many hardships that they began to doubt whether there was any Divine government of human affairs. Salvian retorted that the fact of their suffering was the best evidence of the doctrine of Providence, for the miseries they endured were the effects of the Divine displeasure provoked by the debauchery of the Church. And then he proceeds to draw up an indictment and to lend proof which I prefer not to give in detail. After making every allowance for rhetorical exaggeration, enough remains to show that the morality of the Church had grievously declined, and that the declension was due to the inroads of Pagan vice. … Under this head, had space permitted, some account would have been given of the growth of the Christian literature of this period, of the great writers and preachers, and of the opposing schools of interpretation which divided Christendom. In the Eastern Church we should have had to notice [at greater length the work of] Eusebius of Cæsarea, the father of Church History and the friend of Constantine; Ephrem the Syrian, the poet-preacher; the three Cappadocians, Basil of Cæsarea, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus, each great in his own way, the first as a preacher and administrator, the second as a thinker, the third as a poet and panegyrist; Chrysostom, the orator and exegete; Theodore of Mopsuestia and Theodoret of Kyros, along with Chrysostom the most influential representatives of the School of Antioch. In the Western Church we should have had to speak of Ambrose, the eloquent preacher and voluminous writer; of Jerome, the biblical critic; and of Augustine, the philosopher and controversialist, whose thoughts live among us even at the present day."

W. Stewart, The Church of the 4th and 5th Centuries (St. Giles' Lectures, 4th series).

"Hitherto Christian asceticism had been individualistic in its character. … In the third century hermits began to form a class by themselves in the East and in Africa; in the fourth they began to be organized into communities. After the institution of monastic societies, this development of Christian asceticism spread far and wide from the deserts of the Thebaid and Lower Egypt; Basil, Jerome, Athanasius, Augustine, Ambrose, were foremost among its earliest advocates and propagators; Cassian, Columbanus, Benedict, and others, crowned the labours of their predecessors by a more elaborate organization."

"'The Eastern Church,' says a well-known writer, 'was like the East, stationary and immutable; the Western, like the West, progressive and flexible. This distinction is the more remarkable, because at certain periods of their course, there can be no doubt that the civilization of the Eastern Church was far higher than that of the Western.'"

It is the more remarkable because this long-continuing uniformity, while peculiarly adapted to a people and a church which should retain and transmit an inheritance of faith and culture, stands in singular contrast to the reputed character of the Greek-speaking peoples of the East. The word Greek, however, has, as an adjective, many meanings, and there is danger of wrong inference through inattention to these; some of its distinctive characters are therefore indicated in brackets in various places in the following matter. "The New Rome at the time of its foundation was Roman. … But from the first it was destined to become Greek; for the Greeks, who now began to call themselves Romans—an appellation which they have ever since retained—held fast to their language, manners, and prejudices, while they availed themselves to the full of their rights as Roman citizens. The turning-point in this respect was the separation of the empires of the East and the West in the time of Arcadius and Honorius; and in Justinian's time we find all the highest offices in the hands of the Greeks, and Greek was the prevailing language. But the people whom we call by this name were not the Hellenes of Greece proper, but the Macedonian Greeks. This distinction arose with the establishment of Greek colonies with municipal government throughout Asia by Alexander the Great and his successors. The type of character which was developed in them and among those who were Hellenised by their influence, differed in many respects from that of the old Greeks. The resemblance between them was indeed maintained by similarity of education and social feelings, by the possession of a common language and literature, and by their exclusiveness, which caused them to look down on less favoured races; but while the inhabitants of Greece retained more of the independent spirit and of the moral character and patriotism of their forefathers, the Macedonian Greeks were more cosmopolitan, more subservient, and more ready to take the impress of those among whom they were thrown: and the astuteness and versatility which at all times had formed one element in the Hellenic character, in them became the leading characteristic. The influence of this type is traceable in the policy of the Eastern Empire, varying in intensity in different ages in proportion to the power exercised by the Greeks: until, during the later period of the history—in the time of the Comneni, and still more in that of the Palæologi—it is the predominant feature."

"What have been the effects of Christianity on what we call national character in Eastern Christendom? … The Greeks of the Lower Empire are taken as the typical example of these races, and the Greeks of the Lower Empire have become a byword for everything that is false and base. The Byzantine was profoundly theological, we are told, and profoundly vile. … Those who wish to be just to [it] … will pass … to the … equitable and conscientious, but by no means, indulgent, judgments of Mr. Finlay, Mr. Freeman, and Dean Stanley. One fact alone is sufficient to engage our deep interest in this race. It was Greeks [Hellenist Jews] and people imbued with Greek ideas who first welcomed Christianity. It was in their language that it first spoke to the world, and its first home was in Greek households and in Greek cities. It was in Greek [Hellenistic] atmosphere that the Divine Stranger from the East, in many respects so widely different from all that Greeks were accustomed to, first grew up to strength and shape; first showed its power of assimilating and reconciling; first showed what it was to be in human society. Its earliest nurslings were Greeks; Greeks [Hellenist Jews] first took in the meaning and measure of its amazing and eventful announcements; Greek sympathies first awoke and vibrated to its appeals; Greek obedience, Greek courage, Greek suffering first illustrated its new lessons. Had it not first gained over Greek mind and Greek belief, it is hard to see how it would have made its further way. … The Roman conquest of the world found the Greek race, and the Eastern nations which it had influenced, in a low and declining state—morally, socially, politically. The Roman Empire, when it fell, left them in the same discouraging condition, and suffering besides from the degradation and mischief wrought on all its subjects by its chronic and relentless fiscal oppression. … These were the men in whose childish conceit, childish frivolity, childish self-assertion, St. Paul saw such dangers to the growth of Christian manliness and to the unity of the Christian body—the idly curious and gossiping men of Athens; the vain and shamelessly ostentatious Corinthians, men in intellect, but in moral seriousness babes; the Ephesians, 'like children carried away with every blast of vain teaching,' the victims of every impostor, and sport of every deceit; the Cretans, proverbially, 'ever liars, evil beasts, slow bellies;' the passionate, volatile, Greek-speaking, Celts of Asia, the 'foolish' Galatians. … The Greek of the Roman times is portrayed in the special warnings of the Apostolic Epistles. After Apostolic times he is portrayed in the same way by the heathen satirist Lucian, and by the Christian preacher Chrysostom; and such, with all his bad tendencies, aggravated by almost uninterrupted misrule and oppression, the Empire, when it broke up, left him. The prospects of such a people, amid the coming storms, were dark. Everything, their gifts and versatility, as well as their faults, threatened national decay and disintegration. … These races whom the Empire of the Cæsars left like scattered sheep to the mercy of the barbarians, lived through a succession of the most appalling storms, and kept themselves together, holding fast, resolute and unwavering, amid all their miseries and all their debasement, to the faith of their national brotherhood. … This, it seems to me, Christianity did for a race which had apparently lived its time, and had no future before it—the Greek race in the days of the Cæsars. It created in them, in a new and characteristic degree, national endurance, national fellowship and sympathy, national hope. … It gave them an Empire of their own, which, undervalued as it is by those familiar with the ultimate results of Western history, yet withstood the assaults before which, for the moment, Western civilisation sank, and which had the strength to last a life—a stirring and eventful life—of ten centuries. The Greek Empire, with all its evils and weaknesses, was yet in its time the only existing image in the world of a civilised state. … The lives of great men profoundly and permanently influence national character; and the great men of later Greek memory are saints. They belong to the people more than emperors and warriors; for the Church is of the people. … The mark which such men left on Greek society and Greek character has not been effaced to this day, even by the melancholy examples of many degenerate successors. … Why, if Christianity affected Greek character so profoundly, did it not do more? Why, if it cured it of much of its instability and trifling, did it not also cure it of its falsehood and dissimulation? Why, if it impressed the Greek mind so deeply with the reality of the objects of faith, did it not also check the vain inquisitiveness and spirit of disputatiousness and sophistry, which filled Greek Church history with furious wranglings about the most hopeless problems? Why, if it could raise such admiration for unselfishness and heroic nobleness, has not this admiration borne more congenial fruit? Why, if heaven was felt to be so great and so near, was there in real life such coarse and mean worldliness? Why, indeed? … Profoundly, permanently, as Christianity affected Greek character, there was much in that character which Christianity failed to reach, much that it failed to correct, much that was obstinately refractory to influences which, elsewhere, were so fruitful of goodness and greatness. The East, as well as the West, has still much to learn from that religion, which each too exclusively claims to understand, to appreciate, and to defend."

"The types of character that were developed in the Eastern Church, as might be expected, were not of the very highest. There was among them no St. Francis, no St. Louis. The uniformity which pervades everything Byzantine prevented the development of such salient characters as are found in the West. It is difficult, no doubt, to form a true estimate of the influence of religion on men's lives in Eastern countries, just as it is of their domestic relations, and even of the condition of the lower classes, because such matters are steadily ignored by the contemporary historians. But all the evidence tends to show that individual rather than heroic piety was fostered by the system which prevailed there. That at certain periods a high tone of spirituality prevailed among certain classes is sufficiently proved by the beautiful hymns of the Eastern Church, many of which, thanks to Dr. Neale's singular felicity in translation, are in use among ourselves. But the loftier development of their spirit took the form of asceticism, and the scene of this was rather the secluded monastery, or the pillar of the Stylite, than human society at large. But if the Eastern Church did not rise as high as her sister of the West, she never sank as low."

"The Greek Church, or, as it calls itself, the Holy Orthodox, Catholic, Apostolic, Oriental Church, has a venerable if not an eventful history. Unlike the Church of the West, it has not been moulded by great political movements, the rise and fall of kingdoms, and the convulsions which have passed over the face of modern society. Its course has been out of the sight of European civilisation, it has grown up among peoples who have been but slightly affected, if they have been affected at all, by the progressive movements of mankind. It has no middle ages. It has no renaissance. It has no Reformation. It has given birth to no great universities and schools of learning. It has no Protestantism. It remains very much as the fourth and fifth centuries left it. … When the royal throne in the days of the first Christian Emperor was removed from Rome to Constantinople, there arose at once a cause of strife between the bishops of old and new Rome, as Byzantium or Constantinople was named. Each claimed pre-eminence, and each alternately received it from the governing powers, in Church and State. One Council decreed (A. D. 381) that the Bishop of the new Rome should be inferior only to that of the old; another declared (A. D. 451) the equality of both prelates. The Patriarch of Constantinople at the close of the sixth century claimed superiority over all Christian Churches,—a claim which might have developed, had circumstances favoured it, into an Eastern Papacy. The assumption was, however, but short-lived, and the Bishop of Rome, Boniface, obtained from the Emperor Phocas in 606 the much-coveted position. The Eastern Church submitted, but from this time looked with a jealous eye on her Western sister. She noted and magnified every point of divergence between them. Differences or apparent differences in doctrine and ritual were denounced as heresies. Excommunications fulminated between the Eastern and Western city, and ecclesiastical bitterness was intensified by political intrigue. … In the ninth century the contest grew very fierce. The holder of the Eastern see, Photius, formulated and denounced the terrible doctrinal and other defections of the Western prelate and his followers. The list is very formidable. They, the followers of Rome, deemed it proper to fast on the seventh day of the week—that is on the Jewish Sabbath; in the first week of Lent they permitted the use of milk and cheese; they disapproved wholly of the marriage of priests; they thought none but bishops could anoint with the holy oil or confirm the baptized, and that they therefore anointed a second time those who had been anointed by presbyters; and fifthly, they had adulterated the Constantinopolitan Creed by adding to it the words Filioque, thus teaching that the Holy Spirit did not proceed only from the Father, but also from the Son. This last was deemed, and has always been deemed by the Greek Church the great heresy of the Roman Church. … The Greek Church to-day in all its branches—in Turkey, Greece, and Russia—professes to hold firmly by the formulas and decisions of the seven Œcumenical or General Councils, regarding with special honour that of Nice. The Nicene and Athanasian Creeds are the symbols of its faith, the Filioque clause being omitted from the former, and the eighth article reading thus: 'And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father, and with the Father and Son together is worshipped and glorified.' … The Greek Church, unlike the Latin, denounces the use of images as objects of devotion, and holds in abhorrence every form of what it terms 'image worship.' Its position in this manner is very curious. It is true, no figures of our Lord, of the Virgin, or saints, such as one sees in churches, wayside chapels, and in the open fields in countries where the Roman Church is powerful, are to be seen in Russia, Greece, or any of those lands where the Eastern Church is supreme. On the other hand, pictures of the plainest kind everywhere take their place, and are regarded with the deepest veneration."

      J. C. Lees,
      The Greek Church, (in the Churches of Christendom).
      lecture 4.

CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 337-476.
The fall of Imperial Rome.
The rise of Ecclesiastical Rome.

The political and religious history of the Empire from the death of Constantine is so fully narrated under Rome that mere mention here of a few events will suffice, viz.: the revival of Paganism under the Emperor Julian; the reascendency of Christianity; the formal establishment of Christianity as the religion of the Romans, by the suffrages of the senate; the final division of the Empire into East and West between the sons of Theodosius; the three sieges and the sacking of Rome by Alaric; the legal separation of the Eastern and Western Empires; the pillage of Rome by the Vandals and its final submission to the barbarians.

"A heathen historian traces the origin of the calamities which he records to the abolition of sacrifice by Theodosius, and the sack of Rome to the laws against the ancient faith passed by his son. This objection of the heathens that the overthrow of idolatry and the ascendency of Christianity were the cause of the misfortunes of the empire was so wide spread, and had such force with those, both Pagans and Christians, who conceived history to be the outcome of magical or demonic powers, that Augustine devoted twelve years of his life to its refutation. His treatise, 'De Civitate Dei,' was begun in 413, and was not finished till 426, within four years of his death. Rome had once been taken; society, consumed by inward corruption, was shaken to its foundations by the violent onset of the Teutonic tribes; men's hearts were failing them for fear; the voice of calumny cried aloud, and laid these woes to the charge of the Christian faith. Augustine undertook to refute the calumny, and to restore the courage of his fellow-Christians. Taking a rapid survey of history, he asks what the gods had ever done for the well-being of the state or for public morality. He maintains that the greatness of Rome in the past was due to the virtues of her sons, and not to the protection of the gods. He shows that, long before the rise of Christianity, her ruin had begun with the introduction of foreign vices after the destruction of Carthage, and declares that much in the ancient worship, instead of preventing, had hastened that ruin. He rises above the troubles of the present, and amid the vanishing glories of the city of men he proclaims the stability of the city of God. At a time when the downfall of Rome was thought to presage approaching doom, Augustine regarded the disasters around him as the birth-throes of a new world, as a necessary moment in the onward movement of Christianity."

W. Stewart, The Church of the 4th and 5th Centuries (St. Giles' Lectures, 4th series).

"There is as little ground for discovering a miraculous, as there is for disowning a providential element in the course of events. The institutions of Roman authority and law had been planted regularly over all the territory which the conquering hordes coveted and seized; alongside of every magistrate was now placed a minister of Christ, and by every Hall of Justice stood a House of Prayer. The Representative of Cæsar lost all his power and dignity when the armies of Cæsar were scattered in flight; the minister of Christ felt that behind him was an invisible force with which the hosts of the alien could not cope, and his behaviour impressed the barbarian with the conviction that there was reality here. That beneficent mission of Leo, A. D. 452, of which Gibbon says: 'The pressing eloquence of Leo, his majestic aspect and sacerdotal robes, excited the veneration of Attila for the spiritual father of the Christians'—would be but an instance of what many nameless priests from provincial towns did, 'not counting their lives dear to them.' The organisation of the Latin state vitalised by a new spiritual force vanquished the victors. It was the method and the discipline of this organisation, not the subtlety of its doctrine, nor the fervour of its officials, that beat in detail one chief with his motley following after another. Hence too it came about that the Christianity which was adopted as the religion of Europe was not modified to suit the tastes of the various tribes that embraced it, but was delivered to each as from a common fountain-head. … It was a social triumph, proceeding from religious motives which we may regard with unstinted admiration and gratitude."

"The temporal fall of the Imperial metropolis tended to throw a brighter light upon her ecclesiastical claims. The separation of the East and the West had already enhanced the religious dignity of the ancient capital. The great Eastern patriarchates of Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem had up to that time all held themselves equal, if not superior to Rome. Constantinople had even assumed certain airs of supremacy over all. The General Councils which had defined the Faith at Nicæa and Constantinople had been composed almost wholly of Orientals. The great Doctors of the Church, the men who had defended or diffused the common Faith, had been mostly Greeks by origin and language. None had been Romans, and it was rarely, till the fourth century, that any of them had written in the Latin tongue. When Athanasius, exiled from Alexandria, came to Italy and Gaul, it was three years before he could learn enough of the language of the West to address its congregations in public. But this curious fact shows that the Western Christians were now no longer the little Greek colony of the first and second centuries. Christianity had become the national religion of the native races. The Romans might now feel that they were becoming again a people; that their glorious career was assuming, as it were, a new point of departure. … For at this moment the popular instinct could not fail to perceive how strongly the conscience of the barbarians had been affected by the spiritual majesty of Christian Rome. The Northern hordes had beaten down all armed resistance. They had made a deep impression upon the strength of the Eastern Empire; they had, for a moment at least, actually overcome the Western; they had overrun many of the fairest provinces, and had effected a permanent lodgement in Gaul and Spain, and still more recently in Africa. Yet in all these countries, rude as they still were, they had submitted to accept the creed of the Gospel. There was no such thing as a barbarian Paganism established within the limits of the Empire anywhere, except perhaps in furthest Britain."

      C. Merivale,
      Four lectures on some Epochs of Early Church History,
      pages 130-136.

"When the surging tides of barbarian invasion swept over Europe, the Christian organization was almost the only institution of the past which survived the flood. It remained as a visible monument of what had been, and, by so remaining, was of itself an antithesis to the present. The chief town of the Roman province, whatever its status under barbarian rule, was still the bishop's see. The limits of the old 'province,' though the boundary of a new kingdom might bisect them, were still the limits of his diocese. The bishop's tribunal was the only tribunal in which the laws of the Empire could be pleaded in their integrity. The bishop's dress was the ancient robe of a Roman magistrate. The ancient Roman language which was used in the Church services was a standing protest against the growing degeneracy of the 'vulgar tongue.' … As the forces of the Empire became less and less, the forces of the Church became more and more. The Churches preserved that which had been from the first the secret of Imperial strength. For underneath the Empire which changed and passed, beneath the shifting pageantry of Emperors who moved across the stage and were seen no more, was the abiding empire of law and administration,—which changed only as the deep sea changes beneath the windswept waves. That inner empire was continued in the Christian Churches. In the years of transition from the ancient to the modern world, when all civilized society seemed to be disintegrated, the confederation of the Christian Churches, by the very fact of its existence upon the old imperial lines, was not only the most powerful, but the only powerful organization in the civilized world. It was so vast, and so powerful, that it seemed to be, and there were few to question its being, the visible realization of that Kingdom of God which our Lord Himself had preached."

      E. Hatch;
      The Organization of the Christian Churches,
      pages 160-178.

"St. Chrysostom was born there A. D. 347; and it was in his time that Antioch, with its hundred thousand Christians, became the leading Church in Asia, especially in the Arian controversy [see ARIANISM], for Arianism was very prevalent there. But all this lies outside our period. The so-called 'School of Antioch' has its origin just before … our period [311, Wiltsch]. Dorotheus, … and the martyr Lucian may be regarded as its founders. In contrast to the allegorising mysticism of the School of Alexandria, it was distinguished by a more sober and critical interpretation of Scripture. It looked to grammar and history for its principles of exegesis. But we must not suppose that there was at Antioch an educational establishment like the Catechetical School at Alexandria, which, by a succession of great teachers, kept up a traditional mode of exegesis and instruction. It was rather an intellectual tendency which, beginning with Lucian and Dorotheus, developed in a definite direction in Antioch and other Syrian Churches. … These notices of the Churches of Jerusalem, Cæsarea in Palestine, and Antioch must suffice as representative of the Syrian Churches. The number of these Churches was considerable even in the second century, and by the beginning of the fourth was very large indeed, as is seen by the number of bishops who attend local Councils."

"It has often astonished me that no one has ever translated the letters of St. Jerome. The letters of St. Augustine have been translated, and are in many parts very entertaining reading, but they are nothing in point of living interest when compared with St. Jerome's. These letters illustrate life about the year 400 as nothing else can. They show us, for instance, what education then was, what clerical life consisted in; they tell us of modes and fashions, and they teach us how vigorous and constant was the communication at that same period between the most distant parts of the Roman empire. We are apt to think of the fifth century as a time when there was very little travel, and when most certainly the East and West—Ireland, England, Gaul and Palestine—were much more widely and completely separated than now, when steam has practically annihilated time and space. And yet such an idea is very mistaken. There was a most lively intercourse existing between these regions, a constant Church correspondence kept up between them, and the most intense and vivid interest maintained by the Gallic and Syrian churches in the minutest details of their respective histories. Mark now how this happened. St. Jerome at Bethlehem was the centre of this intercourse. His position in the Christian world in the beginning of the fifth century can only be compared to, but was not at all equalled by, that of John Calvin at the time of the Reformation. Men from the most distant parts consulted him. Bishops of highest renown for sanctity and learning, like St. Augustine, and Exuperius of Toulouse in southern France, deferred to his authority. The keen interest he took in the churches of Gaul, and the intimate knowledge he possessed of the most petty local details and religious gossip therein, can only be understood by one who has studied his very abusive treatise against Vigilantius or his correspondence with Exuperius. … But how, it may be asked, was this correspondence carried on when there was no postal system? Here it was that the organization of monasticism supplied a want. Jerome's letters tell us the very name of his postman. He was a monk named Sysinnius. He was perpetually on the road between Marseilles and Bethlehem. Again and again does Jerome mention his coming and his going. His appearance must indeed have been the great excitement of life at Bethlehem. Travelling probably via Sardinia, Rome, Greece, and the islands of the Adriatic, he gathered up all kinds of clerical news on the way—a piece of conduct on his part which seems to have had its usual results. As a tale-bearer, he not only revealed secrets, but also separated chief friends, and this monk Sysinnius with his gossips seems to have been the original cause of the celebrated quarrel between Augustine and Jerome."

"The baptism of Chlodovech [Clovis—see FRANKS: A. D. 481- 511] was followed by the wholesale conversion of the Franks. No compulsion was used to bring the heathen into the Church. As a heathen, Chlodovech had treated the Church with forbearance; he was equally tolerant to heathenism when he was a Christian. But his example worked, and thousands of noble Franks crowded to the water of regeneration. Gregory of Tours reckons the Franks as Christians after the baptism of their king, which took place at Christmas, A. D. 496. His conversion made no alteration in the policy and conduct of Chlodovech; he remained the same mixture of cunning and audacity, of cruelty and sensuality, that he was before. … But, though his baptism was to him of no moral import, its consequences were wide spreading. When Gregory of Tours compares the conversion of Chlodovech with that of Constantine the Great, he was fully in the right. … And the baptism of Chlodovech declared to the world that the new blood being poured into the veins of the old and expiring civilization, had been quickened by the same elements, and would unite with the old in the new development. … That many of those who were baptized carried with them into their new Christianity their old heathen superstitions as well as their barbarism is certain; and the times were not those in which the growth of the great Christian graces was encouraged; the germs, however, of a new life were laid."

   "The details of the history of the Merovingian period of
   Frankish history are extraordinarily complicated; happily, it
   is not at all necessary for our purpose to follow them. … In
   the earlier years after the conquest, all ranks of the clergy
   were filled by Gallo-Romans. The Franks were the dominant
   race, and were Christian, but they were new converts from a
   rude heathenism, and it would take some generations to raise
   up a 'native ministry' among them. Not only the literature of
   the (Western) Church, but all its services, and, still more,
   the conversational intercourse of all civilized and Christian
   people, was in Latin. Besides, the Franks were warriors, a
   conquering caste, a separate nation; and to lay down the
   battle-axe and spear, and enter into the peaceful ranks of the
   Romano-Gallic Church, would have seemed to them like changing
   their nationality for that of the more highly cultured,
   perhaps, but, in their eyes, subject race. The Frank kings did
   not ignore the value of education. Clovis is said to have
   established a Palatine school, and encouraged his young men to
   qualify themselves for the positions which his conquests had
   opened out to them.
{459}
   His grandsons, we have seen, prided themselves on
   their Latin culture. After a while, Franks aspired to the
   magnificent positions which the great sees of the Church
   offered to their ambition; and we find men with Teutonic
   names, and no doubt of Teutonic race, among the bishops. …
   For a still longer period, few Franks entered into the lower
   ranks of the Church. Not only did the priesthood offer little
   temptation to them, but also the policy of the kings and
   nobles opposed the diminution of their military strength, by
   refusing leave to their Franks to enter into holy orders or
   into the monasteries. The cultured families of the cities
   would afford an ample supply of men for the clergy, and
   promising youths of a lower class seem already not
   infrequently to have been educated for the service of the
   Church. It was only in the later period, when some approach
   had been made to a fusion of the races, that we find Franks
   entering into the lower ranks of the Church, and
   simultaneously we find Gallo-Romans in the ranks of the
   armies. … Monks wielded a powerful spiritual influence. But
   the name of not a single priest appears in the history of the
   times as exercising any influence or authority. … Under the
   gradual secularization of the Church in the Merovingian
   period, the monasteries had the greatest share in keeping
   alive a remnant of vital religion among the people; and in the
   gradual decay of learning and art, the monastic institution
   was the ark in which the ancient civilization survived the
   deluge of barbarism, and emerged at length to spread itself
   over the modern world."

"Two Anglo-Saxon monks, St. Wilfrid, bishop of York, and St. Willibrord undertook the conversion of the savage fishermen of Friesland and Holland at the end of the seventh and beginning of the eighth century; they were followed by another Englishman, the most renowned of all these missionaries, Winfrith, whose name was changed to Boniface, perhaps by the Pope, in recognition of his active and beneficent apostleship. When Gregory II. appointed him bishop of Germany (723), he went through Bavaria and established there the dioceses of Frisingen, Passau, and Ratisbon. When Pope Zacharias bestowed the rank of metropolitan upon the Church of Mainz in 748, he entrusted its direction to St. Boniface, who from that time was primate, as it were, of all Germany, under the authority of the Holy See. St. Boniface was assassinated by the Pagans of Friesland in 755."

"Boniface, whose original name was Winfrid, was of a noble Devonshire family (A. D. 680), educated at the monastery of Nutcelle, in Hampshire, and at the age of thirty-five years had obtained a high reputation for learning and ability, when (in A. D. 716), seized with the prevalent missionary enthusiasm, he abandoned his prospects at home, and set out with two companions to labour among the Frisians. … Winfrid was refused permission by the Duke to preach in his dominions, and he returned home to England. In the following spring he went to Rome, where he remained for some months, and then, with a general authorization from the pope to preach the gospel in Central Europe, he crossed the Alps, passed through Bavaria into Thuringia, where he began his work. While here the death of Radbod, A. D. 719, and the conquest of Frisia by Charles Martel, opened up new prospects for the evangelization of that country, and Boniface went thither and laboured for three years among the missionaries, under Willibrord of Utrecht. Then, following in the track of the victorious forces of Charles Martel, he plunged into the wilds of Hessia, converted two of its chiefs whose example was followed by multitudes of the Hessians and Saxons, and a monastery arose at Amöneburg as the head-quarters of the mission. The Bishop of Rome being informed of this success, summoned Boniface to Rome, A. D. 723, and consecrated him a regionary bishop, with a general jurisdiction over all whom he should win from paganism into the Christian fold, requiring from him at the same time the oath which was usually required of bishops within the patriarchate of Rome, of obedience to the see. … Boniface was not only a zealous missionary, an earnest preacher, a learned scholar, but he was a statesman and an able administrator. He not only spread the Gospel among the heathen, but he organized the Church among the newly converted nations of Germany; he regulated the disorder which existed in the Frankish Church, and established the relations between Church and State on a settled basis. The mediæval analysts tell us that Boniface crowned Pepin king, and modern writers have usually reproduced the statement. 'Rettberg, and the able writer of the biography of Boniface in Herzog (Real Ecyk, s. v.), argue satisfactorily from Boniface's letters that he took no part in Pepin's coronation.' When Boniface withdrew from the active supervision of the Frankish Churches, it is probable that his place was to some extent supplied in the councils of the mayor and in the synods of the Church by Chrodegang, Bishop of Metz, a man whose character and influence in the history of the Frank Church have hardly hitherto been appreciated."

"Both Karlmann and Pippin tried to reform certain abuses that had crept into the Church. Two councils, convoked by Karlmann, the one in Germany (742), the other in the following year at Lestines (near Charleroi, in Belgium), drew up decrees which abolished superstitious rites and certain Pagan ceremonies, still remaining in force; they also authorized grants of Church lands by the 'Prince' for military purposes on condition of a payment of an annual rent to the Church; they reformed the ecclesiastical life, forbade the priests to hunt or to ride through the woods with dogs, falcons, or sparrow-hawks; and, finally, made all priests subordinate to their diocesan bishops, to whom they were obliged to give account each year of their faith and their ministry—all of which were necessary provisions for the organization of the ecclesiastical hierarchy and for the regulation of church government. Similar measures were taken by the Council of Soissons, convoked by Pippin in 744. In 747, Karlmann renounced the world and retired to the celebrated Italian monastery of Monte Cassino. As he left he entrusted his children to the care of their uncle, Pippin, who robbed them of their inheritance and ruled alone over the whole Frankish Empire. … Charlemagne enlarged and completed the work which had only been begun by Charles Martel and Pippin. … The Middle Ages acknowledged two Masters, the Pope and the Emperor, and these two powers came, the one from Rome, and the other from Austrasian France. … The mayors of Austrasia, Pippin of Heristal, and Charles Martel, rebuilt the Frankish monarchy and prepared the way for the empire of Charlemagne; … the Roman pontiffs … gathered around them all the churches of the West, and placed themselves at the head of the great Catholic society, over which one day Gregory VII. and Innocent III. should claim to have sole dominion."

      See MAYORS OF THE PALACE;
      FRANKS: A. D. 768-814;
      and PAPACY: A. D. 755-774, and 774.

The coronation of Charlemagne at Rome by Pope Leo III. (see ROMAN EMPIRE, A. D. 800) gave the Western Church the place in the state it had held under the earlier Roman emperors. The character of so great a man, the very books he read and all that fed the vigorous ideal element in so powerful a spirit are worthy of interest; for this at least he sought to accomplish—to give order to a tumultuous and barbarian world, and to establish learning, and purify the church: "While at table, he liked to hear a recital or a reading, and it was histories and the great deeds of past times which were usually read to him. He took great pleasure, also, in the works of St. Augustine, and especially in that whose title is 'De Civitate Dei.' … He practiced the Christian religion in all its purity and with great fervour, whose principles had been taught him from his infancy. … He diligently attended … church in the evening and morning, and even at night, to assist at the offices and at the holy sacrifice, as much as his health permitted him.' He watched with care that nothing should be done but with the greatest propriety, constantly ordering the guardians of the church not to allow anything to be brought there or left there inconsistent with or unworthy of the sanctity of the place. … He was always ready to help the poor, and it was not only in his own country, or within his own dominions that he dispensed those gratuitous liberalities which the Greeks call 'alms,' but beyond the seas—in Syria, in Egypt, in Africa, at Jerusalem, at Alexandria, at Carthage, everywhere where he learned that Christians were living in poverty—he pitied their misery and loved to send them money. If he sought with so much care the friendship of foreign sovereigns, it was, above all, to procure for the Christians living under their rule help and relief. Of all the holy places, he had, above all, a great veneration for the Church of the Apostle St. Peter at Rome."

"The religious side of Charles' character is of the greatest interest in the study of his remarkable character as a whole and his religious policy led to the most important and durable results of his reign. He inherited an ecclesiastical policy from his father; the policy of regulating and strengthening the influence of the Church in his dominions as the chief agent of civilization, and a great means of binding the various elements of the empire into one; the policy of accepting the Bishop of Rome as the head of Western Christianity, with patriarchal authority over all its Churches."

The following is a noteworthy passage from Charlemagne's Capitulary of 787: "It is our wish that you may be what it behoves the soldiers of the church to be;—religious in heart, learned in discourse, pure in act, eloquent in speech; so that all who approach your house in order to invoke the Divine Master, or to behold the excellence of the religious life, may be edified in beholding you, and instructed in hearing you discourse or chant, and may return home rendering thanks to God most High. Fail not, as thou regardest our favour, to send a copy of this letter to all thy suffragans and to all the monasteries; and let no monk go beyond his monastery to administer justice or to enter the assemblies and the voting-places. Adieu."

CHRISTIANITY: 5th-7th Centuries.
The Nestorian, Monophysite and Monothelite Controversies.

The story of the conversion of Ireland by St. Patrick, and of the missionary labors of the Church which he founded, is briefly told elsewhere.

"The early Church worked her way, in the literal sense of the word, 'underground,' under camp and palace, under senate and forum. But turn where we will in these Celtic missions, we notice how different were the features that marked them now. In Dalaradia St. Patrick obtains the site of his earliest church from the chieftain of the country, Dichu. At Tara, he obtains from King Laoghaire a reluctant toleration of his ministry. In Connaught he addresses himself first to the chieftains of Tirawley, and in Munster baptizes Angus, the king, at Cashel, the seat of the kings. What he did in Ireland reproduces itself in the Celtic missions of Wales and Scotland, and we cannot but take note of the important influence of Welsh and Pictish chiefs. … The people may not have adopted the actual profession of Christianity, which was all perhaps that in the first instance they adopted from any clear or intelligent appreciation of its superiority to their former religion. But to obtain from the people even an actual profession of Christianity was an important step to ultimate success. It secured toleration at least for Christian institutions. It enabled the missionaries to plant in every tribe their churches, schools, and monasteries, and to establish among the half pagan inhabitants of the country societies of holy men, whose devotion, usefulness, and piety soon produced an effect on the most barbarous and savage hearts.'"

   "The Medieval Church of the West found in the seventh century
   an immense task before it to fulfil. … The missionaries who
   addressed themselves to the enormous task of the conversion of
   Germany may be conveniently divided into three groups—the
   British, the Frankish, and, entering somewhat later into an
   honourable rivalry with these, the Anglo-Saxon. A word or two
   upon each of these groups. The British—they include Irish and
   Scotch—could no longer find a field for the exercise of their
   ministry in England, now that there the Roman rule and
   discipline, to which they were so little disposed to submit,
   had everywhere won the day. Their own religious houses were
   full to overflowing. At home there was little for them to do,
   while yet that divine hunger and thirst for the winning of
   souls, which had so possessed the heart of St. Patrick, lived
   on in theirs. To these so minded, pagan Germany offered a welcome
   field of labour, and one in which there was ample room for all.
{461}
   Then there were the Frankish missionaries, who enjoyed the support
   of the Frankish kings, which sometimes served them in good
   stead; while at other times this protection was very far from
   a recommendation in their eyes who were easily persuaded to
   see in these missionaries the emissaries of a foe. Add to
   these the Anglo-Saxons; these last, mindful of the source from
   which they had received their own Christianity, making it a
   point to attach their converts to Rome, even as they were
   themselves bound to her by the closest ties. The language
   which these spoke—a language which as yet can have diverged
   very little from the Low German of Frisia, must have given to
   them many facilities which the Frankish missionaries possessed
   in a far slighter degree, the British not at all; and this may
   help to account for a success on their parts far greater than
   attended the labours of the others. To them too it was mainly
   due that the battle of the Creeds, which had been fought and
   lost by the Celtic missionaries in England, and was presently
   renewed in Germany, had finally the same issues there as in
   England. … At the same time, there were differences in the
   intensity and obstinacy of resistance to the message of truth,
   which would be offered by different tribes. There was ground,
   which at an early day had been won for the Gospel, but which
   in the storms and confusion of the two preceding centuries had
   been lost again; the whole line, that is, of the Danube and
   the Rhine, regions fair and prosperous once, but in every
   sense wildernesses now. In these we may note a readier
   acceptance of the message than found place in lands which in
   earlier times that message had never reached; as though
   obscure reminiscences and traditions of the past, not wholly
   extinct, had helped to set forward the present work."

"From Ireland came Gallus, Fridolin, Kilian, Trutbert and Levin. … The order in which these men succeeded one another cannot always be established, from the uncertainty of the accounts. … We know thus much, that of all those above-mentioned, Gallus was the first, for his labours in Helvetia (Switzerland) were continued from the preceding into the period of which we are now treating. On the other hand, it is uncertain as to Fridolin whether he had not completed his work before Gallus, in the sixth century, for in the opinion of some he closed his career in the time of Clodoveus I., but, according to others, he is said to have lived under Clodoveus II., or at another period. His labours extended over the lands on the Moselle, in the Vosges Mountains, over Helvetia, Rhætia and Nigra Silva (the Black Forest). He built the monastery of Sekkinga on the Rhine. Trutbert was a contemporary and at the same time a countryman of Gallus. His sphere of action is said to have been Brisgovia (Breisgau) and the Black Forest. Almost half a century later Kilian proclaimed the gospel in Franconia and Wirtzburg, with two assistants, Colonatus and Totnanus. In the latter place they converted duke Gozbert, and were put to death there in 688. After the above mentioned missionaries from Ireland, in the seventh century, had built churches and monasteries in the southern Germany, the missionaries from Britain repaired with a similar purpose, to the northern countries. … Men from other nations, as Willericus, bishop of Brema, preached in Transalbingia at the beginning of the ninth century. Almost all the missionaries from the kingdom of the Franks selected southern Germany as their sphere of action: Emmeran, about 649, Ratisbona, Rudbert, about 696, Bajoaria (Bavaria), Corbinian the country around Frisinga, Otbert the Breisgau and Black Forest, and Pirminius the Breisgau, Bajoaria, Franconia, Helvetia, and Alsatis."

      J. E. T. Wiltsch,
      Handbook of the Geography and Statistics of the Church,
      volume 1, pages 365-367.

   "Though kindly treated, the Church of Rome did not make any
   progress under the Ostrogoths. But when their power had been
   broken (553), and Rome had been placed again under the
   authority of the Emperor of Constantinople [see ROME: A. D.
   535-553], the very remoteness of her new master insured to the
   Church a more prosperous future. The invasion of the Lombards
   drove a great many refugees into her territory, and the Roman
   population showed a slight return of its old energy in its
   double hatred toward them, as barbarians and as Arians. … It
   was at this favorable point in the state of affairs, though
   critical in some respects, that Gregory the Great made his
   appearance (590-604). He was a descendant of the noble Anicia
   family, and added to his advantages of birth and position the
   advantages of a well-endowed body and mind. He was prefect of
   Rome when less than thirty years old, but after holding this
   office a few months he abandoned the honors and cares of
   worldly things for the retirement of the cloister. His
   reputation did not allow him to remain in the obscurity of
   that life. Toward 579 he was sent to Constantinople by Pope
   Pelagius II. as secretary or papal nuncio, and he rendered
   distinguished services to the Holy See in its relations with
   the Empire and in its struggles against the Lombards. In 590
   the clergy, the senate, and the people raised him with one
   accord to the sovereign pontificate, to succeed Pelagius. As
   it was still necessary for every election to be confirmed by
   the Emperor at Constantinople, Gregory wrote to him to beg him
   not to sanction this one; but the letter was intercepted and
   soon orders arrived from Maurice ratifying the election.
   Gregory hid himself, but he was discovered and led back to
   Rome. When once Pope, though against his will, he used his
   power to strengthen the papacy, to propagate Christianity, and
   to improve the discipline and organization of the Church. …
   Strengthened thus by his own efforts, he undertook the
   propagation of Christianity and orthodoxy both within and
   without the limits of the old Roman Empire. Within those
   limits there were still some who clung to paganism, in Sicily,
   Sardinia, and even at the very gates of Rome, at Terracina,
   and doubtless also in Gaul, as there is a constitution of
   Childebert still extant dated 554, and entitled: 'For the
   abolition of the remains of idolatry.' There were Arians very
   near to Rome—namely, the Lombards; but through the
   intervention of Theudalinda, their queen, Gregory succeeded in
   having Adelwald, the heir to the throne, brought up in the
   Catholic faith; as early as 587 the Visigoths in Spain, under
   Reccared, were converted. … The Roman Empire had perished,
   and the barbarians had built upon its ruins many slight
   structures that were soon overthrown.
{462}
   Not even had the Franks, who were destined to be perpetuated
   as a nation, as yet succeeded in founding a social state of
   any strength; their lack of experience led them from one
   attempt to another, all equally vain; even the attempt of
   Charlemagne met with no more permanent success. In the midst
   of these successive failures one institution alone, developing
   slowly and steadily through the centuries, following out the
   spirit of its principles, continued to grow and gain in power,
   in extent and in unity. … The Pope had now become, in truth,
   the ruler of Christendom. He was, however, still a subject of
   the Greek Emperor; but a rupture was inevitable, as his
   authority, on the one hand, was growing day by day, and the
   emperor's on the contrary, was declining."

"The real power which advanced the credit of the Roman see during these ages was the reaction against the Byzantine despotism over the Eastern Church; and this is the explanation of the fact that although the new map of Europe had been marked out, in outline at least, by the year 500, the Roman see clung to the eastern connection until the first half of the eighth century. … In the political or diplomatic struggle between the Church and the Emperors, in which the Emperors endeavored to make the Church subservient to the imperial policy, or to adjust the situation to the necessities of the empire, and the Church strove to retain its autonomy as a witness to the faith and a legislator in the affairs of religion, the Bishop of Rome became, so to speak, the constitutional head of the opposition; and the East was willing to exalt his authority, as a counterpoise to that of the Emperor, to any extent short of acknowledging that the primacy implied a supremacy."

J. H. Egar, Christendom: Ecclesiastical and Political, from Constantine to the Reformation, page 99.

"The election system was only used for one degree of the ecclesiastical dignitaries, for the bishopric. The lower dignitaries were chosen by the bishop. They were divided into two categories of orders—the higher and the lower orders. There were three higher orders, namely, the priests, the deacons, and the sub-deacons, and four lower orders, the acolytes, the door-keepers, the exorcists, and the readers. The latter orders were not regarded as an integral part of the clergy, as their members were the servants of the others. As regards the territorial divisions, the bishop governed the diocese, which at a much later date was divided into parishes, whose spiritual welfare was in the hands of the parish priest or curate (curio). The parishes, taken together, constituted the diocese; the united dioceses, or suffragan bishoprics, constituted the ecclesiastical province, at whose head stood the metropolitan or archbishop. When a provincial council was held, it met in the metropolis and was presided over by the metropolitan. Above the metropolitans were the Patriarchs, in the East, and the Primates in the West, bishops who held the great capitals or the apostolic sees, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Rome, Jerusalem, Cesarea in Cappadocia, Carthage in Africa, and Heraclius in Thrace; among them Rome ranked higher by one degree, and from this supreme position exercised a supreme authority acknowledged by all the Church."

"The divergence of the two Churches, Eastern and Western, was greater in reality than it appears to be from a superficial view. It was based on essential variations in the character and disposition of the people in the East and in the West, on the nature of their civilization, and on the different, almost antagonistic, development of the Christian idea in one Church and in the other. … The Eastern Church rejoiced in its direct affiliation with apostolic times, in its careful preservation of traditions, and was convinced of its especial right to be considered the true heir and successor of Christ. … The letter of the law superseded the spirit; religion stiffened into formalism; piety consisted in strict observance of ceremonial rites; external holiness replaced sincere and heartfelt devotion. … Throughout the West the tendency was in a contrary direction—towards the practical application of the religious idea. The effete, worn-out civilization of the past was there renovated by contact and admixture with young and vigorous races, and gained new strength and vitality in the struggle for existence. The Church, freed from control, became independent and self-asserting; the responsibility of government, the preservation of social order, devolved upon it, and it rose proudly to the task."

"On the overthrow of the Western Empire, and the demonstration, rendered manifest to all, that with the complete triumph of the new world of secular polities a new spiritual development, a new phase of Divine guidance, was opening, the conscience of the believers was aroused to a sense of the sinfulness of their cowardly inactivity. 'Go ye into all nations, and baptize them,' had been the last words of their blessed Master. … It is to this new or revived missionary spirit which distinguished the sixth century, of which I would place Pope Gregory the First, or the Great, as the central figure, that I desire now to introduce you. Remember that the Empire, which had represented the unity of mankind, had become disintegrated and broken into fragments. Men were no longer Romans, but Goths and Sueves, Burgundians and Vandals, and beyond them Huns, Avars, Franks, and Lombards, some with a slight tincture of Christian teaching, but most with none. … Let but the Gospel be proclaimed to all, and leave the issue in God's hands! Such was the contrast between the age of Leo and the age of Gregory! … The conversion of Clovis and the Franks is, I suppose, the earliest instance of a Christian mission carried out on a national scale by the common action of the Church represented by the Pope and See of Rome. It becomes accordingly a great historical event, deserving the earnest consideration not of Churchmen only, but of all political enquirers."

      C. Merivale,
      Four Lectures on some Epochs of Early Church History,
      pages 172-177.

"Christianity thus renewed its ardor for proselytism, and Gregory contributed to its success most wisely by enjoining precepts of moderation upon his missionaries, and by the skillful manner in which he made the transition to Catholicism easy to the pagans; he wrote to Augustine: 'Be careful not to destroy the pagan temples; it is only necessary to destroy the idols, then to sprinkle the edifice with holy water, and to build altars and place relics there. If the temples are well built, it is a wise and useful thing for them to pass from the worship of demons to the worship of the true God; for while the nation sees its old places of worship still standing, it will be the more ready to go there, by force of habit, to worship the true God.' In the interior Gregory succeeded in arranging the different degrees of power in the Church, and in forcing the recognition of the supreme power of the Holy See. We find him granting the title of Vicar of Gaul to the bishop of Arles, and corresponding with Augustine, archbishop of Canterbury, in regard to Great Britain, with the archbishop of Seville in regard to Spain, with the archbishop of Thessalonica in regard to Greece, and, finally, sending legates 'a latere' to Constantinople. In his Pastoral, which he wrote on the occasion of his election, and which became an established precedent in the West, he prescribed to the bishops their several duties, following the decisions of many councils. He strengthened the hierarchy by preventing the encroachments of the bishops upon one another: 'I have given to you the spiritual direction of Britain,' he wrote to the ambitious Augustine, 'and not that of the Gauls.' He rearranged the monasteries, made discipline the object of his vigilant care, reformed Church music, and substituted the chant that bears his name for the Ambrosian chant, 'which resembled,' according to a contemporary, 'the far-off noise of a chariot rumbling over pebbles.' Rome, victorious again with the help of Gregory the Great, continued to push her conquests to distant countries after his death."

"It seems right to add a word of caution against the common confusion between the British Church and the English Church. They were quite distinct, and had very little to do with one another. To cite the British bishops at the Councils of Arles and Rimini as evidence of the antiquity of the English Church is preposterous. There was then no England; and the ancestors of English Churchmen were heathen tribes on the continent. The history of the Church of England begins with the episcopate of Archbishop Theodore (A. D. 668), or at the very earliest with the landing of Augustine (A. D. 597). By that time the British Church had been almost destroyed by the heathen English. … Bede tells us that down to his day the Britons still treated English Christians as pagans."

"About the year 580, in the pontificate of Pelagius, Gregory occupied the rank of a deacon among the Roman clergy. He was early noted for his zeal and piety; coming into large possessions, as an off-shoot of an ancient and noble family, he had expended his wealth in the foundation of no less than seven monasteries, and had become himself the abbot of one of them, St. Andrew's, at Rome. Devoted as he was from the first to all the good works to which the religious profession might best apply itself, his attention was more particularly turned to the cause of Christian missions by casually remarking a troop of young slaves exhibited for sale in the Roman market. Struck with the beauty or fresh complexion of these strangers, he asked whether they were Christians or Pagans. They were Pagans, it was replied. How sad, he exclaimed, that such fair countenances should lie under the power of demons. 'Whence came they?'—'From Anglia.'—'Truly they are Angels. What is the name of their country?'—'Deira.'—'Truly they are subject to the wrath of God: ira Dei. And their king?'—'Is named Ælla.'—'Let them learn to sing Allelujah.' Britain had lately fallen under the sway of the heathen Angles. Throughout the eastern section of the island, the faith of Christ, which had been established there from early times, had been, it seems, utterly extirpated. The British church of Lucius and Albanus still lingered, but was chiefly confined within the ruder districts of Cornwall, Wales, and Cumbria. The reported destruction of the people with all their churches, and all their culture, begun by the Picts and Scots, and carried on by the Angles and their kindred Saxons, had made a profound impression upon Christendom. The 'Groans of the Britons' had terrified all mankind, and discouraged even the brave missionaries of Italy and Gaul. … Gregory determined to make the sacrifice himself. He prevailed on the Pope to sanction his enterprise; but the people of Rome, with whom he was a favourite, interposed, and he was constrained reluctantly to forego the peril and the blessing. But the sight he had witnessed in the market-place still retained its impression upon him. He kept the fair-haired Angles ever in view; and when, in the year 592, he was himself elevated to the popedom, he resolved to send a mission, and fling upon the obscure shores of Britain the full beams of the sun of Christendom, as they then seemed to shine so conspicuously at Rome. Augustine was the preacher chosen from among the inmates of one of Gregory's monasteries, for the arduous task thus imposed upon him. He was to be accompanied by a select band of twelve monks, together with a certain number of attendants. … There is something very remarkable in the facility with which the fierce idolaters, whose name had struck such terror into the Christian nations far and near, yielded to the persuasions of this band of peaceful evangelists."

      C. Merivale,
      Four lectures on some Epochs of Early Church History,
      pages 192-198.

The Roman missionaries in England landed in Kent and appear to have had more influence with the petty courts of the little kingdoms than with the people. The conversion of the North of England must be credited to the Irish monastery on the island of Iona. "At the beginning of the sixth century these Irish Christians were seized with an unconquerable impulse to wander afar and preach Christianity to the heathen. In 563 Columba, with twelve confederates, left Ireland and founded a monastery on a small island off the coast of Scotland (Iona or Hy), through the influence of which the Scots and Picts of Britain became converted to Christianity, twenty-three missions among the Scots and eighteen in the country of the Picts having been established at the death of Columba (597). Under his third successor the heathen Saxons were converted; Aedan, summoned by Osward of Northumbria, having labored among them from 635 to 651 as missionary, abbot, and bishop. His successors, Finnan and Colman, worthily carried on his work, and introduced Christianity into other Anglo-Saxon kingdoms near East Anglia, Mercia, and Essex."

"Two bands of devoted men had hitherto been employed in the conversion of England, the Roman, assisted by their converts and some teachers from France, and the Irish, who were plainly the larger body. Between the two there were the old differences as to the time of keeping Easter and the form of the clerical tonsure. … Thus, while Oswy [King of Mercia] was celebrating Easter according to the custom he had learnt at Iona, his queen Earfleda observed it according to the rule which she had learnt in Kent, and was still practising the austerities of Lent. These differences were tolerated during the Episcopate of Aidan and Finan, but when Finan died and was succeeded by Colman, the controversy" was terminated by Oswy, after much debate, with the words—"'I will hold to St. Peter, lest, when I present myself at the gates of Heaven, he should close them against me.' … Colman, with all his Irish brethren, and thirty Northumbrians who had joined the monastery, quitted Lindisfarne and sailed to Iona."

The impartial historian to whom we owe all the early history of the English Church, thus records the memory of these devoted men as it remained in the minds of Englishmen long after their departure. It is a brief passage, one like those in the greater Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius, which must stand for much we do not know. Referring to their devoted lives—"For this reason the religious habit was at that time in great veneration; so that wheresoever any clergyman or monk happened to come, he was joyfully received by all persons, as God's servant; and if they chanced to meet him upon the way, they ran to him, and bowing, were glad to be signed with his hand, or blessed with his mouth. Great attention was also paid to their exhortations; and on Sundays they flocked eagerly to the church, or the monasteries, not to feed their bodies, but to hear the word of God; and if any priest happened to come into a village, the inhabitants flocked together to hear from him the word of life; for the priests and clergymen went into the village on no other account than to preach, baptize, visit the sick, and, in few words, to take care of souls; and they were so free from worldly avarice, that none of them received lands and possessions for building monasteries, unless they were compelled to do so by the temporal authorities; which custom was for some time after observed in all the churches of the Northumbrians. But enough has now been said on this subject."

The Venerable Bede's Ecclesiastical History of England; edited by J. A. Giles, book 3, chapter 26.

The English Church passed through several stages during this period. A notable one was the rise and fall of a loose monastic system which attracted men and women of the better classes, but for lack of a strict rule brought itself into disrepute. Another was the development of classical learning and the foundation of the school at Jarrow in Northumberland resulting in making England the intellectual centre of the world. Venerable Bede, who wrote the Ecclesiastical History of the English Church, was the greatest teacher of this epoch; and Alcuin, a Northumbrian by birth, and of the school at York, of the next. Invited by Charlemagne to the Frankish Court, he carried English learning to the Continent, and although he died at the time of the foundation of the Empire, left his influence in many ways on the development of European culture. A single fact of interest will suffice, to show the close connection of this early history with that of Rome and the continent—viz., to Alcuin we are largely indebted for the parent script which formed our Roman letters. (I. Taylor, The Alphabet, volume 2, page 180.) Northumbrian learning and the rich libraries of ancient and Anglo-Saxon literature were destroyed by the Danes, who, in their incursions, showed for a long time peculiar animosity to monks and monasteries. Although the service of this early Anglo-Saxon Church was partly in the vernacular, and large portions, if not all, of the Gospels had been translated, little remains to us of its early religious literature. The translations of the Gospel into Anglo-Saxon that have come down to us are to be attributed to a late period.

   "In the beginning of this 9th century, a sister of the
   reigning Bulgarian king, Bogoris, had fallen as a captive into
   the keeping of the Greek emperor. For thirty-eight years she
   lived at Constantinople, and was there instructed in the
   doctrines of the Christian Faith. Meanwhile, the
   administration passed into the hands of the empress Regent,
   Theodora. She was interested in a certain monk named Cupharas,
   who had been taken prisoner by the Bulgarians, and with a view
   to his redemption, she opened negotiations with Bogoris. An
   exchange of prisoners was finally effected. The sister of
   Bogoris was restored to him, while Cupharas was permitted to
   return to Constantinople. Before the release of the pious
   monk, however, he had striven, though quite unavailingly, to
   win the Bulgarian prince to the service of the Cross. These
   fruitless endeavors were supplemented by the entreaties of the
   king's sister, on her return from Constantinople. … At last,
   fear snapped the fetters which love had failed to disengage.
   … His baptism was celebrated at midnight with profoundest
   secrecy. The rite was administered by no less a personage than
   the patriarch Photius. He emphasized the solemnity of the
   occasion by presenting the neophyte with a lengthy treatise on
   Christianity, theoretical and practical, considered mainly in
   its bearings on the duties of a monarch. The emperor Michael
   stood sponsor by proxy, and the Bulgarian king received, as
   his Christian name, that of his imperial god-father. … The
   battle-cries of theology rang over Christendom, and the world
   was regaled with the spectacle of a struggle between the rival
   Churches for the possession of Bulgaria, a country till
   recently so conspicuously destitute of dogma of any kind. The
   Bulgarians themselves, doubtless much astonished at the uproar
   for their sake, and, surely, more perplexed than ever by the
   manners and customs of Christianity, began to waver in their
   adherence to the Western Church, and to exhibit symptoms of an
   inclination to transfer their allegiance to Constantinople.
   The strife went on for years. At last, A. D. 877, the Latin
   clergy having been dismissed from the country, Pope John VIII.
   solemnly expostulated, protesting against the Greek
   proclivities of the Bulgarians, and predicting dire results
   from their identity with a Church which was rarely free from
   heresy in one form or another. Nevertheless, the Byzantine
   leanings of Bulgaria did culminate in union with the Eastern Church.
{465}
   A Greek archbishop and bishops of the same communion, settled
   in the country. … 'The Eastern branch' of the Slavonic
   languages, properly so called, 'comprehends the Russian, with
   various local dialects, the Bulgarian, and the Illyrian. The
   most ancient document of this Eastern branch is the so-called
   ecclesiastical Slavonic, i. e., the ancient Bulgarian, into
   which Cyrillus and Methodius translated the Bible in the
   middle of the 9th century. This is still the authorized
   version of the Bible for the whole Slavonic race, and to the
   student of the Slavonic languages it is what Gothic is to the
   student of German.'"

      G. F. Maclear,
      Conversion of the West: The Slavs,
      pages 54-69.

"In the opening years of the 9th century, Moravia stretched from the Bavarian borders to the Hungarian river Drina, and from the banks of the Danube, beyond the Carpathian mountains, to the river Stryi in Southern Poland. Into this territory Christianity had been ushered as early as A. D. 801, by Charlemagne, who, as his custom was, enforced baptism at the point of the sword, at least as far as the king was concerned. Efforts were subsequently made by the archbishops of Salzburg and Passau to fan this first feeble flicker into something like a flame. But no success attended their exertions. Paganism was overpoweringly strong, and Christianity not only weak, but rude and uncouth in type. … The story of this country, during the process of emancipation from paganism, is but a repetition of the incidents with which, in neighbouring states, we have already become familiar. Ramifications of the work of Cyril and Methodius extended into Servia. The Slavonic alphabet made way there, as in Bohemia and Moravia, for Christianity. The Servians 'enjoyed the advantage of a liturgy which was intelligible to them; and we find that, early in the 10th century, a considerable number of Slavonian priests from all the dioceses were ordained by the bishop of Nona, who was himself a Slavonian by descent.'"

"If the missionary spirit is the best evidence of vitality in a church, it certainly was not wanting in the Eastern Church during the ninth and tenth centuries of our era. This period witnessed the conversion to Christianity of the principal Slavonic peoples, whereby they are both linked with Constantinople, and bound together by those associations of creed, as well as race, which form so important a factor in the European politics of the present day. The Moravians, the Bulgarians, and the Russians were now brought within the fold of the Church; and the way was prepared for that vast extension of the Greek communion by which it has spread, not only throughout the Balkan peninsula and the lands to the north of it, but wherever Russian influence is found—as far as the White Sea on the one side, and Kamtchatka on the other, and into the heart of Central Asia. The leaders in this great work were the two brothers, Cyril and Methodius, who in consequence of this, have since been known as the Apostles of the Slavonians. What Mezrop did for the Armenians, what Ulfilas did for the Goths, was accomplished for that race by Cyril in the invention of a Slavonic alphabet, which from this cause is still known by the name of the Cyrillic. The same teacher, by his translation of the Scriptures into their tongue, provided them with a literary language, thereby producing the same result which Luther's Bible subsequently effected for Germany, and Dante's Divina Commedia for Italy. It is no matter for surprise that, throughout the whole of this great branch of the human race—even amongst the Russians, who owed their Christianity to another source—the names of these two brothers should occupy the foremost place in the calendar of Saints. It is not less significant that their names are not even mentioned by the Byzantine historians."

The earlier missions of the Western Church have been described, but it is noteworthy that again and again missions to the same regions are necessary. It requires such a map as the one accompanying this article to make plain the slowness of its diffusions and the long period needed to produce even a nominally Christian Europe. "The views of Charlemagne for the conquest and conversion of the Northern heathens [see SAXONS: A. D. 772-804], were not confined to the limits, wide as they were, of Saxony. The final pacification effected at Salz, seemed to open his eyes to more extensive enterprises in prospect. Political may have combined with religious motives in inducing him to secure the peace of his new frontiers, by enlisting the tribes of Denmark under the banner of the Cross, and he conceived the idea of planting a church in the neighbourhood of Hamburg, which should become a missionary centre. This plan, though interrupted by his death, was not neglected by his son Louis le Debonnaire, or 'the Pious.' … But it is easier to propose such a plan than find one willing to carry it out. The well-known ferocity of the Northmen long deterred anyone from offering himself for such a duty. At length he received intelligence from Wala, the abbot of Corbey, near Amiens, that one of his monks was not unwilling to undertake the perilous enterprise, The intrepid volunteer was Anskar."

   "In 822, Harold, the king of Jutland, and claimant of the
   crown of Denmark, came to seek the help of Louis the Pious,
   the son, and one of the successors, of Charlemagne. … On
   Harold's return to Denmark he was accompanied by Anskar, who
   well deserves to be called the apostle of Scandinavia. …
   Thus Anskar and Autbert set out in the train of Harold, and
   during the journey and voyage a kindly feeling sprang up
   between the royal and the missionary families. Harold got no
   cordial greeting from his proud heathen subjects when he
   announced to them that he had done homage to the emperor, and
   that he had embraced the gospel. He seems to have been very
   sincere and very earnest in his endeavours to induce his
   nobles and subjects to abandon idolatry and embrace
   Christianity. To expect that he was altogether judicious in
   these efforts would be to suppose that he had those views
   regarding the relation that ought to subsist between rulers
   and subjects, … views regarding liberty of conscience and
   the right of private judgment. …
{466}
   The result was that after two years, in 828, he was compelled
   to abdicate the throne. … The position of Anskar, difficult
   as it was while Harold was on the throne, became still more
   difficult after his abdication. … But just at the time when
   the door was shut against him in Denmark, another was opened
   in Sweden, which promised to be wider and more effectual. …
   He was kindly received by the Swedish king, who gave him
   permission to preach, and his subjects freedom to accept and
   profess the gospel of Christ. As Anskar had been led to
   expect, so he found, many Christian captives, who had been
   brought from other countries,—France, Germany, Britain,
   Ireland,—and who, having been as sheep without a shepherd,
   gladly received from Anskar those consolations and
   exhortations which were fitted to alleviate the sorrows of
   their captivity. … After a year and a half's stay in Sweden,
   Anskar returned home, and gladdened the heart of the good
   emperor, and doubtless of many others, by the cheering
   prospect he was able to present of the acceptance of the
   gospel by the Swedes. He was now made nominally bishop of
   Hamburg, but with the special design of superintending and
   conducting missionary operations both in Denmark and
   Sweden…. Horik, king of Denmark, who had driven Harold from
   his throne, … had been hitherto an uncompromising enemy of
   the gospel. Anskar undertook the management of some political
   negotiations with him, and in the conduct of them made so
   favourable an impression on him that he refused to have any
   other negotiator or ambassador of the German king at his
   court. He treated him as a personal friend, and gave him full
   liberty to conduct missionary operations. These operations he
   conducted with his usual zeal, and by God's blessing, with
   much success. Many were baptized. The Christians of Germany
   and Holland traded more freely with the Danes than before, and
   the Danes resorted in larger numbers as traders to Holland and
   Germany; and in these and other ways a knowledge of the
   gospel, and some apprehension of the blessings which it brings
   with it, were diffused among the people. … Although the
   Norwegians were continually coming into contact, in the
   varying relations of war and peace, with the Swedes and the
   Danes, the French and the Germans, the English and the Irish,
   and although in this way some knowledge of the Christian
   system must have been diffused among them, yet the formal
   introduction of it into their country was a full century later
   than its introduction into Denmark and Sweden."

"The conversions in Denmark were confined to the mainland. The islands still remained pagan, while human victims continued to be offered till the Emperor Henry I. extorted from Gorm, the first king of all Denmark, in A. D. 934, protection for the Christians throughout his realm, and the abolition of human sacrifices. In Sweden, for seventy years after Anskar's death, the nucleus of a Christian Church continued to be restricted to the neighbourhood of Birka, and the country was hardly visited by Christian missionaries."

"It is very remarkable that, in the whole history of the introduction of Christianity into Norway and Iceland, extending over a period of a century and a half, we meet not with the name of any noted bishop, or ecclesiastic, or missionary. There were, no doubt, ecclesiastics employed in the work, and these would appear to have been generally Englishmen; but they occupied a secondary place, almost their only province being to baptize those whom the kings compelled to submit to that ordinance. The kings were the real missionaries; and one cannot help feeling a kind of admiration for the ferocious zeal which one and another of them manifested in the undertaking,—even as the Lord commended the unjust steward because he had done wisely, although his wisdom was wholly misdirected. The most persistent and the most successful of these missionary kings was Olaf the Thick, who came from England in 1017, and set himself with heart and soul to the work of the demolition of heathenism, and the substitution of Christianity as the national religion."

"In the middle of the 10th century, the widowed Princess Olga, lately released from the cares of regency, travelled from Kief to Constantinople. Whether her visit had political objects, or whether she was prompted to pay it solely, as some say, by a desire to know more of the holy faith of which only glimpses had been vouchsafed her at home, cannot be positively decided. But her sojourn in the imperial city was a turning-point in her career. Baptism was administered to her by the patriarch Polyeuctes, the emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus officiating as sponsor. Polyeuctes then solemnly addressed the princess, predicting that through her instrumentality Russia should be richly blessed. 'Olga,' writes M. Mouravieff, 'now become Helena by baptism, that she might resemble both in name and deed the mother of Constantine the Great, stood meekly bowing down her head, and drinking in, as a sponge that is thirsty of moisture, the instructions of the prelate.' … Some latent impressions favourable to Christianity her youngest grandson, Vladimir, doubtless owed to her. Nevertheless when, at the death of his brother Yarapolk, for which indeed he was held responsible, he mounted the throne, no signs of a gracious character revealed themselves. He was, on the contrary, a bitter and bigoted pagan. … It seems to have occurred to many missionaries of varying types, that a chief of such mark should not be left at the mercy of his own violent passions. The spiritual well-being of Vladimir accordingly became the object of laborious journeys, of much exertion, and of redundant eloquence. … Last of all came a Greek emissary. He was neither 'a priest nor a missionary, but a philosopher.' … Like Bogoris, the wild Russian chief was greatly moved. … The following year the king laid before the elders of his council the rival pleas of these variously recommended forms of faith, and solicited their advice. The nobles mused awhile, and then counselled their master to ascertain how each religion worked at home. This, they thought, would be more practical evidence than the plausible representations of professors. On this suggestion Vladimir acted. Envoys were chosen,—presumably, for their powers of observation,—and the embassy of inquiry started. 'This public agreement,' says the historian of the Russian Church, 'explains in some degree the sudden and general acceptance of Christianity which shortly after followed in Russia. {467} It is probable that not only the chiefs, but the common people also, were expecting and ready for the change.' A report, far from encouraging, was in due time received from the ambassadors. Of the German and Roman, as well as the Jewish, religions in daily life, they spoke in very disparaging terms, while they declared the Mussulman creed, when reduced to practice, to be utterly out of the question. Disappointed in all these quarters, they now proceeded, by command, to Constantinople, or, as the Russians called it, Tzaragorod. … Singularly enough, the Russian envoys, accustomed, as we must suppose them to have been, only to the barest simplicity of life, had complained not only of the paucity of decoration in the Latin churches, but of a lack of beauty in their appointments. Thus the preparations of the patriarch were accurately fitted to their expectant frame of mind. They were led into the church of S. Sophia, gleaming with variegated marbles, and porphyries, and jasper, at that time 'the masterpiece of Christian architecture.' The building glittered with gold, and rich mosaics. The service was that of a high festival, either of St. John Chrysostom, or of the Death of the Virgin, and was conducted by the patriarch in person, clad in his most gorgeous vestments. … On their return to Vladimir, they dilated with eager delight on the wonders they had seen. The king listened gravely to their glowing account of 'the temple, like which there was none upon earth.' After sweetness, they protested, bitterness would be unbearable, so that—whatever others might do—they at all events should at once abandon heathenism. While the king hesitated, his boyers turned the scale by reminding him that if the creed of the Greeks had not indeed had much to recommend it, his pious and sagacious grandmother, Princess Olga, would not have loved and obeyed it. Her name acted like a talisman. Vladimir resolved to conform to Christianity. But still, fondly clinging to the habits of his forefathers, he cherished the idea of wooing and winning his new religion by the sword. … Under the auspices of the sovereign, the stately church of St. Basil soon arose, on the very spot recently occupied by the temple of Perun. Kief became the centre of Christian influence, whence evangelizing energies radiated in all directions. Schools and churches were built, while Michael, the first metropolitan, attended by his bishops, 'made progresses into the interior of Russia, everywhere baptizing and instructing the people.' The Greek canon law came into force, and the use of the service-book and choral music of the Greek communion became general, while, in the Slavonic Scriptures and Liturgy of Cyril and Methodius, a road was discovered which led straight to the hearts of the native population. 'Cyril and Methodius, if anyone, must be considered by anticipation as the first Christian teachers of Russia; their rude alphabet first instructed the Russian nation in letters, and, by its quaint Greek characters, still testifies in every Russian book, and on every Russian house or shop, the Greek source of the religion and literature of the empire.'"

"As in the first centuries it was necessary that the leaven of Christianity should gradually penetrate the entire intellectual life of the cultivated nations, before a new spiritual creation, striking its root in the forms of the Grecian and Roman culture, which Christianity appropriated, could in these forms completely unfold itself; so after the same manner it was necessary that the leaven of Christianity which … had been introduced into the masses of the untutored nations, should gradually penetrate their whole inward life, before a new and peculiar spiritual creation could spring out of it, which should go on to unfold itself through the entire period of the middle ages. And the period in which we now are must be regarded as still belonging to the epoch of transition from that old spiritual creation which flourished on the basis of Grecian and Roman culture to the new one."

      A. Neander,
      General History of the Christian Religion and Church,
      volume 3, page 456.

   We leave the author's sentence incomplete, that it may
   express the more fully all the subsequent history of
   Christianity.

CHRYSE.

Vague reports of a region called Chryse (the Golden), somewhere beyond the Ganges, and of an island bearing the same name, off the mouths of the Ganges, as well as of another island called Argyre (the Silver Island), were prevalent among the early Roman geographical writers. They probably all had reference to the Malay peninsula, which Ptolemy called the Golden Chersonese.

CHRYSOBULUM.

Modern Scutari, opposite Constantinople; originally the port of the city of Chalcedon.

CHUMARS.

CHURCH OF ENGLAND:
James' Declaration of Indulgence.
Trial of the seven Bishops.

CHURCH OF ENGLAND: A. D. 1711-1714.
The Occasional Conformity Bill and the Schism Act.

CHURCH OF FRANCE.

CHURCH OF LATTER DAY SAINTS.

CHURCH OF ROME.

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND:
The Revolution and re-establishment of the Presbyterian
Church.

CILICIA.-KILIKIA.

An ancient district in the southeastern corner of Asia Minor, bordering on Syria. It was a satrapy of the Persian Empire, then a part of the kingdom of the Selucidæ, and afterwards a Roman province. The chief city of Cilicia was Tarsus, a very ancient commercial emporium, whose people were noted for mental acuteness. The Apostle Paul is to be counted among the distinguished natives of Tarsus, and a quite remarkable number of eminent teachers of philosophy were from the same birthplace.

During the Mithridatic wars piracy was developed to alarming proportions in the eastern parts of the Mediterranean Sea. Distracted by civil conflicts and occupied by foreign ones, simultaneously, the Romans, for a considerable period, gave no proper heed to the growth of this lawlessness, until they found their commerce half destroyed and Rome and Italy actually threatened with starvation by the intercepting of their supplies from abroad. The pirates flourished under the protection and encouragement of the king of Pontus, at whose instance they established their chief headquarters, their docks, arsenals and magazines, at various points on the coast of Cilicia. Hence the name Cilician came to be applied to all the pirates of the time. This era of piracy was brought to an end, at last, by Pompey, who was sent against them, B. C. 67, with extraordinary powers conferred by the law known as the Lex Gabinia. He proceeded to his undertaking with remarkable energy and ability, and his hunting down of the freebooters which he accomplished effectually within three months from the day his operations began, was really the most brilliant exploit of his life.

CILICIAN GATES.

A pass through the Taurus range of mountains, opening from Cappadocia into Cilicia, was anciently called the Pylæ Ciliciæ or Cilician Gates. The city of Tyana was situated at the entrance to the pass. Both Xenophon and Alexander, who traversed it, seem to have regarded the pass as one which no army could force if properly defended.

E. H. Bunbury, History of Ancient Geography, chapter 10, section 2, and chapter 12, section 1.

CILURNUM.

A Roman city in Britain, "the extensive ruins of which, well described as a British Pompeii, are visible near the modern hamlets of Chesters."

"For a considerable period [second century, B. C.] an 'unsettled people' had been wandering along the northern verge of the country occupied by the Celts on both sides of the Danube. They called themselves the Cimbri, that is, the Chempho, the champions, or, as their enemies translated it, the robbers; a designation, however, which to all appearance had become the name of the people even before their migration. They came from the north, and the first Celtic people with whom they came in contact were, so far as is known, the Boii, probably in Bohemia. More exact details as to the cause and the direction of their migration have not been recorded by contemporaries and cannot be supplied by conjecture. … But the hypothesis that the Cimbri, as well as the similar horde of the Teutones which afterwards joined them, belonged in the main not to the Celtic nation, to which the Romans at first assigned them, but to the Germanic, is supported by the most definite facts: viz., by the existence of two small tribes of the same name—remnants left behind to all appearance in their primitive seats—the Cimbri in the modern Denmark, the Teutones in the north-east of Germany in the neighbourhood of the Baltic, where Pytheas, a contemporary of Alexander the Great, makes mention of them thus early in connection with the amber trade; by the insertion of the Cimbri and Teutones in the list of the Germanic peoples among the Ingævones alongside of the Chauci; by the judgment of Cæsar, who first made the Romans acquainted with the distinction between the Germans and the Celts, and who includes the Cimbri, many of whom he must himself have seen, among the Germans; and lastly, by the very names of the people and the statements as to their physical appearance and habits. … On the other hand it is conceivable enough that such a horde, after having wandered perhaps for many years, and having doubtless welcomed every brother-in-arms who joined it in its movements near to or within the land of the Celts, would include a certain amount of Celtic elements. … When men afterwards began to trace the chain, of which this emigration, the first Germanic movement which touched the orbit of ancient civilization, was a link, the direct and living knowledge of it had long passed away."

"The name Kymri, or Cymri, still exists. It is the name that the Welsh give themselves, but I am not aware that any other people have called them by that name. These Kymri are a branch of the great Celtic people, and this resemblance of the words Kymri and Cimbri has led many modern writers to assume that the Cimbri were also a Celtic people, as many of the ancient writers name them. But these ancient writers are principally the later Greeks, who are no authority at all on such a matter. … The name Cimbri has perished in Germany, while that of the Teutones, by some strange accident, is now the name of the whole Germanic population."

   The Cimbri and the Teutones made their first appearance on the
   Roman horizon in the year 113 B. C. when they entered Noricum.
   The Noricans were an independent people, as yet, but accepted
   a certain protection from Rome, and the latter sent her
   consul, Carbo, with an army, to defend them. Carbo made an
   unfortunate attempt to deal treacherously with the invaders
   and suffered an appalling defeat. Then the migrating
   barbarians, instead of pressing into Italy, on the heels of
   the flying Romans, turned westward through Helvetia to Gaul,
   and occupied themselves for four years in ravaging that
   unhappy country. In 109 B. C., having gathered their plunder
   into the fortified town of Aduatuca and left it well
   protected, they advanced into the Roman province of Narbo,
   Southern Gaul, and demanded land to settle upon. The Romans
   resisted and were again overwhelmingly beaten. But even now
   the victorious host did not venture to enter Italy, and
   nothing is known of its movements until 105 B. C., when a
   third Roman army was defeated in Roman Gaul and its commander
   taken prisoner and slain. The affrighted Romans sent strong
   re-enforcements to the Rhone; but jealousy between the consul
   who commanded the new army and the proconsul who retained
   command of the old delivered both of them to destruction. They
   were virtually annihilated, Oct. 6, B. C. 105, at Arausio
   (Orange), on the left bank of the Rhone. It is said that
   80,000 Roman soldiers perished on that dreadful field, besides
   half as many more of camp followers. "This much is certain,"
   says Mommsen, "that only a few out of the two armies succeeded
   in escaping, for the Romans had fought with the river in their
   rear. It was a calamity which materially and morally far
   surpassed the day of Cannæ." In the panic which this disaster
   caused at Rome the constitution of the Republic was broken
   down. Marius, conqueror of Jugurtha, was recalled from Africa
   and not only re-elected to the Consulship, but invested with
   the office for five successive years. He took command in Gaul
   and found that the formidable invaders had moved off into
   Spain. This gave him time, fortunately, for the organizing and
   disciplining of his demoralized troops. When the barbarians
   reappeared on the Rhone, in the summer of 102 B. C., he faced
   them with an army worthy of earlier Roman times. They had now
   resolved, apparently, to force their way, at all hazards, into
   Italy, and had divided their increasing host, to move on Rome
   by two routes. The Cimbri, reinforced by the Tigorini, who had
   joined them, made a circuit to the Eastern Alps, while the
   Teutones, with Ambrones and Tougeni for confederates crossed
   the Rhone and attacked the defenders of the western passes.
   Failing to make any impression on the fortified camp of Marius
   the Teutones rashly passed it, marching straight for the coast
   road to Italy.
{470}
   Marius cautiously followed and after some days gave battle to
   the barbarians, in the district of Aquæ Sextiæ, a few miles
   north of Massilia. The Romans that day took revenge for
   Arausio with awful interest. The whole barbaric horde was
   annihilated. "So great was the number of dead bodies that the
   land in the neighborhood was made fertile by them, and the
   people of Massilia used the bones for fencing their
   vineyards." Meantime the Cimbri and their fellows had reached
   and penetrated the Brenner pass and were in the valley of the
   Adige. The Roman army stationed there had given way before
   them, and Marius was needed to roll the invasion back. He did
   so, on the 30th of July B. C. 101, when the Cimbri were
   destroyed, at a battle fought on the Raudine Plain near
   Vercellæ, as completely as the Teutones had been destroyed at
   Aquæ Sextiæ.

CIMBRIAN CHERSONESUS.

The modern Danish promontory of Jutland; believed to have been the home of the Cimbri before they migrated southwards and invaded Gaul.

The mountains of Viterbo, which formed anciently the frontier of Rome towards Etruria, were then covered with a thick forest—"the 'silva Ciminia' of which Livy gives so romantic a description. It was, however, nothing but a natural division between two nations which were not connected by friendship, and wished to have little to do with each other. … This forest was by no means like the 'silva Hercynia' with which Livy compares it, but was of just such an extent that, according to his own account, the Romans only wanted a couple of hours to march through it."

"The name Cimmerians appears in the Odyssey,—the fable describes them as dwelling beyond the ocean-stream, immersed in darkness and unblessed by the rays of Helios. Of this people as existent we can render no account, for they had passed away, or lost their identity and become subject, previous to the commencement of trustworthy authorities: but they seem to have been the chief occupants of the Tauric Chersonese (Crimea) and of the territory between that peninsula and the river Tyras (Dneister) at the time when the Greeks first commenced their permanent settlements on those coasts in the seventh century B. C. The numerous localities which bore their name, even in the time of Herodotus, after they had ceased to exist as a nation,—as well as the tombs of the Cimmerian kings then shown near the Tyras,—sufficiently attest the fact; and there is reason to believe that they were—like their conquerors and successors the Scythians—a nomadic people, mare-milkers, moving about with their tents and herds, suitably to the nature of those unbroken steppes which their territory presented, and which offered little except herbage in profusion. Strabo tells us—on what authority we do not know—that they, as well as the Trêres and other Thracians, had desolated Asia Minor more than once before the time of Ardys [King of Lydia, seventh century B. C.] and even earlier than Homer."

In 1787 "an offer was made to Congress by John Cleve Symmes [afterwards famous for his theory that the earth is hollow, with openings at the poles], to buy two millions of acres between the Little and the Great Miamis. Symmes was a Jerseyman of wealth, had visited the Shawanese country, had been greatly pleased with its fertility, and had come away declaring that every acre in the wildest part was worth a silver dollar. It was too, he thought, only a question of time, and a very short time, when this value would be doubled and tripled. Thousands of immigrants were pouring into this valley each year, hundreds of thousands of acres were being taken up, and the day would soon come when the rich land along the Miamis and the Ohio would be in great demand. There was therefore a mighty fortune in store for the lucky speculator who should buy land from Congress for five shillings an acre and sell it to immigrants for twenty. But … his business lagged, and though his offer to purchase was made in August, 1787, it was the 15th of May, 1788, before the contract was closed. In the meantime he put out a pamphlet and made known his terms of sale. A copy soon fell into the hands of Matthias Denman. He became interested in the scheme and purchased that section on which now stands the city of Cincinnati. One third he kept, one third he sold to Robert Patterson, and the remainder to John Filson. The conditions of the purchase from Symmes gave them two years in which to begin making clearings and building huts. But the three determined to lose no time, and at once made ready to layout a city directly opposite that spot where the waters of the Licking mingled themselves with the Ohio. Denman and Patterson were no scholars. But Filson had once been a schoolmaster, knew a little of Latin and something of history, and to him was assigned the duty of choosing a name for the town. … He determined to make one, and produced a word that was a most absurd mixture of Latin, Greek and French. He called the place Losantiville, which, being interpreted, means the city opposite the mouth of the Licking. A few weeks later the Indians scalped him."

J. B. McMaster, History of the People of the United States, volume 1, page 516.

   The name given a little later to Filson's settlement was
   conferred on it by General St. Clair, Governor of the
   Territory, in honor of the Society of the Cincinnati.

"Men of the present generation who in childhood rummaged in their grandmothers' cosy garrets cannot fail to have come across scores of musty and worm-eaten pamphlets, their yellow pages crowded with italics and exclamation points, inveighing in passionate language against the wicked and dangerous Society of the Cincinnati. Just before the army [of the American Revolution] was disbanded, the officers, at the suggestion of General Knox, formed themselves [April, 1783] into a secret society, for the purpose of keeping up their friendly intercourse and cherishing the heroic memories of the struggle in which they had taken part. With the fondness for classical analogies which characterized that time, they likened themselves to Cincinnatus, who was taken from the plow to lead an army, and returned to his quiet farm so soon as his warlike duties were over. They were modern Cincinnati. A constitution and by-laws were established for the order, and Washington was unanimously chosen to be its president. Its branches in the several states were to hold meetings each Fourth of July, and there was to be a general meeting of the whole society every year in the month of May. French officers who had taken part in the war were admitted to membership, and the order was to be perpetuated by descent through the eldest male representatives of the families of the members. It was further provided that a limited membership should from time to time be granted, as a distinguished honour, to able and worthy citizens, without regard to the memories of the war. A golden American eagle attached to a blue ribbon edged with white was the sacred badge of the order; and to this emblem especial favour was shown at the French court, where the insignia of foreign states were generally, it is said, regarded with jealousy. No political purpose was to be subserved by this order of the Cincinnati, save in so far as the members pledged to one another their determination to promote and cherish the union between the states. In its main intent the society was to be a kind of masonic brotherhood, charged with the duty of aiding the widows and the orphan children of its members in time of need. Innocent as all this was, however, the news of the establishment of such a society was greeted with a howl of indignation all over the country. It was thought that its founders were inspired by a deep-laid political scheme for centralizing the government and setting up a hereditary aristocracy. … The absurdity of the situation was quickly realized by Washington, and he prevailed upon the society, in its first annual meeting of May, 1784, to abandon the principle of hereditary membership. The agitation was thus allayed, and in the presence of graver questions the much-dreaded brotherhood gradually ceased to occupy popular attention."

J. B. McMaster, History of the People of the United States, volume 1, chapter 2.

"The hereditary succession was never abandoned. A recommendation to that effect was indeed made to the several State Societies, at the first General Meeting in Philadelphia. … But the proposition, unwillingly urged, was accepted in deprecatory terms by some, and by others it was totally rejected. … At the second General Meeting, it was resolved 'that the alterations could not take effect until they had been agreed to by all the State Societies.' They never were so agreed to, and consequently the original Institution remains in full force. Those Societies that accepted the proposed alterations unconditionally, of course perished with their own generation."

      A. Johnston,
      Some Accounts of the Society of the Cincinnati
      (Pennsylvania Historical Society Memoirs,
      volume 6, pages 51-53).

"The claim to membership has latterly been determined not by strict primogeniture, but by a 'just elective preference, especially in the line of the first-born,' who has a moral but not an absolutely indisputable right; and membership has always been renewed by election. … Six only of the original thirteen states—Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and South Carolina—are still [in 1873] represented at the General Meetings. The largest society, that of Massachusetts, consisting originally of 343 members, now [1873] numbers less than 80; that of New York, from 230 had in 1858 decreased to 73; the 268 of Pennsylvania to about 60; the 110 of New Jersey, in 1866, to 60; and the 131 of South Carolina was, in 1849, reduced to 71."

      F. S. Drake,
      Memorials of the Society of the Cincinnati of Massachusetts,
      page 37.

"Hastings, Sandwich, Dover, Romney, Hythe—this is the order in which the Cinque Ports were ranked in the times when they formed a flourishing and important confederation. Winchelsea and Rye were added to these five … soon after the Norman Conquest. … The new comers were officially known as 'the two Ancient Towns.' When therefore we wish to speak of this famous corporation with strict accuracy we say, 'The five Cinque Ports and two Ancient Towns.' The repetition of the number 'five' in this title probably never struck people so much as we might expect, since it very soon came to be merely a technical term, the French form of the word being pronounced, and very often spelt 'Synke' or 'Sinke,' just as if it was the English 'Sink.' … The difference between the Cinque Ports and the rest of the English coast towns is plainly indicated by mediæval custom, since they were generally spoken of collectively as 'The Ports.' … Most writers upon this subject … have been at pains to connect the Cinque Ports by some sort of direct descent with the five Roman stations and fortresses which, under the Comes Littoris Saxonici [see SAXON SHORE, COUNT OF], guarded the south-eastern shores of Britain."

   "Our kings have thought them [the Cinque Ports] worthy a
   peculiar regard; and, in order to secure them against
   invasions, have granted them a particular form of government.
   They are under a keeper, who has the title of Lord Warden of
   the Cinque Ports (an officer first appointed by William the
   Conqueror), who has the authority of an admiral among them,
   and issues out writs in his own name. The privileges anciently
   annexed to these ports and their dependents were [among
   others]: An exemption from all taxes and tolls. … A power to
   punish foreigners, as well as natives, for theft. … A power
   to raise mounds or banks in any man's land against breaches of
   the sea. … To convert to their own use such goods as they
   found floating on the sea; those thrown out of ships in a
   storm; and those driven ashore when no wreck or ship was to be
   seen. To be a guild or fraternity, and to be allowed the
   franchises of court-leet and court-baron. A power to assemble
   and keep a portmote or parliament for the Cinque Ports.
{472}
   … Their barons to have the privilege of supporting the
   canopy over the king's head at his coronation. In return for
   these privileges the Cinque Ports were required to fit out 57
   ships, each manned with 21 men and a boy, with which they were
   to attend the king's service for 15 days at their own expense;
   but if the state of affairs required their assistance any
   longer they were to be paid by the crown. … As the term
   baron occurs continually throughout all the charters of the
   Ports, it may not be improper to inform our readers that it is
   of the same import as burgess or freeman. … The
   representatives of the Ports in parliament are to this day
   styled barons." The post of Warden of the Cinque Ports,
   "formerly considered of so much honour and consequence, is now
   converted into a patent sinecure place, for life, with a
   salary of £4,000 a year."

History of the Boroughs of Great Britain;
together with the Cinque Ports, volume 3.

   The office of Warden of the Cinque Ports has been held during
   the present century by Mr. Pitt, the Earl of Liverpool, the
   Duke of Wellington, the Earl of Dalhousie, Viscount
   Palmerston, and Earl Granville.

CIRCASSIANS.

CIRCUMNAVIGATION OF THE WORLD: A. D. 1519-1522.
Magellan's voyage: the first in history.

"The race, in its first institution [among the Romans], was a simple contest, of two chariots, whose drivers were distinguished by white and red liveries: two additional colours, a light green and a cerulian blue, were afterwards introduced; and as the races were repeated twenty-five times, one hundred chariots contributed in the same day to the pomp of the circus. The four factions soon acquired a legal establishment and a mysterious origin, and their fanciful colours were derived from the various appearances of nature in the four seasons of the year. … Another interpretation preferred the elements to the seasons, and the struggle of the green and blue was supposed to represent the conflict of the earth and sea. Their respective victories announced either a plentiful harvest or a prosperous navigation, and the hostility of the husbandmen and mariners was somewhat less absurd than the blind ardour of the Roman people, who devoted their lives and fortunes to the colour which they had espoused. … Constantinople adopted the follies, though not the virtues, of ancient Rome; and the same factions which had agitated the circus raged with redoubled fury in the hippodrome. Under the reign of Anastasius [A. D. 491-518] this popular frenzy was inflamed by religious zeal; and the greens, who had treacherously concealed stones and daggers under baskets of fruit, massacred, at a solemn festival, 3,000 of their blue adversaries. From the capital this pestilence was diffused into the provinces and cities of the East, and the sportive distinction of two colours produced two strong and irreconcilable factions, which shook the foundations of a feeble government. … A sedition, which almost laid Constantinople in ashes, was excited by the mutual hatred and momentary reconciliation of the two factions." This fearful tumult, which acquired the name of the Nika sedition, from the cry, "Nika" (vanquish), adopted by the rioters, broke out in connection with the celebration of the festival of the Ides of January, A. D. 532. For five days the city was given up to the mob and large districts in it were burned, including many churches and other stately edifices. The emperor Justinian would have abandoned his palace and throne, but for the heroic opposition of his consort, Theodora. On the sixth day, the imperial authority was re-established by the great soldier, Belisarius, after 30,000 citizens had been slain in the hippodrome and in the streets.

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 40. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

"The races and wild beast shows in the circi were among the most ancient and most favourite Roman amusements, and the buildings dedicated to these sports were numerous, and nearly equal in magnificence to the amphitheatres. The Circus Maximus, which was first provided with permanent seats for the spectators as early as the time of Tarquinius Priscus, was successively restored and ornamented by the republican government in 327 and 174 B. C. and by Julius Cæsar, Augustus, Claudius, Domitian and Trojan. The result was a building which, in dimensions and magnificence, rivalled the Coliseum, but has, unfortunately, proved far less durable, scarcely a vestige of it now being left."

CIRRHA.

CIRRHÆAN, OR KIRRHÆAN WAR, THE.

CIRTA.

An ancient Numidian city. The modern town of Constantina in
Algeria is on its site.

CISALPINE GAUL (GALLIA CISALPINA).

CISALPINE REPUBLIC.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL); 1797 (MAY-OCTOBER); 1799 (APRIL-SEPTEMBER); and 1801-1803.

CISLEITHANIA.

CISSIA (KISSIA).

"Harding was an Englishman who spent his boyhood in the monastery of Sherborne in Dorset, till he was seized with a passion for wandering and for study which led him first to Scotland, then to Gaul, and at last to Rome. It chanced that on his return thence, passing through the duchy of Burgundy, he stopped at the abbey of Molêmes. As he saw the ways and habits familiar to his childhood reproduced in those of the monks, the wanderer's heart yearned for the peaceful life which he had forsaken; he took the vows, and became a brother of the house. But when, with the zeal of a convert, he began to look more closely into his monastic obligations, he perceived that the practice of Molêmes, and indeed of most other monasteries, fell very far short of the strict rule of S. Benedict. He remonstrated with his brethren till they had no rest in their minds. At last after long and anxious debates in the chapter, the abbot determined to go to the root of the matter, and appointed two brethren, whose learning was equalled by their piety, to examine diligently the original rule and declare what they found in it. The result of their investigations justified Harding's reproaches and caused a schism in the convent. The majority refused to alter their accustomed ways; finding they were not to be reformed, the zealous minority, consisting of Robert the abbot, Harding himself (or Stephen as he was called in religion) and sixteen others equally 'stiff-necked in their holy obstinacy,' left Molêmes, and sought a new abode in the wilderness. The site which they chose—in the diocese of Chalon-sur-Saône, not far from Dijon—was no happy valley, no 'green retreat' such as the earlier Benedictine founders had been wont to select. It was a dismal swamp overgrown with brushwood, a forlorn, dreary, unhealthy spot, from whose marshy character the new house took its name of 'the Cistern'—Cistellum, commonly called Citeaux. There the little band set to work in 1098 to carry into practice their views of monastic duty. … Three-and-twenty daughter houses were brought to completion during his [Harding's] life-time. One of the earliest was Pontigny, founded in 1114, and destined in after-days to become inseparably associated with the name of another English saint. Next year there went forth another Cistercian colony, whose glory was soon to eclipse that of the mother-house itself. Its leader was a young monk called Bernard, and the place of its settlement was named Clairvaux. From Burgundy and Champagne the 'White Monks,' as the Cistercians were called from the colour of their habit, soon spread over France and Normandy. In 1128 they crossed the sea and made an entrance into their founder's native land."

"The territorial disintegration of Germany [see GERMANY: 13TH CENTURY] had introduced a new and beneficial element into the national life, by allowing the rise and growth of the free cities. These were of two classes: those which stood in immediate connection with the Empire, and were practically independent republics; and those which, while owning some dependence upon spiritual or temporal princes, had yet conquered for themselves a large measure of self-government. The local distribution of the former, which is curiously unequal, depended upon the circumstances which attended the dissolution of the old tribal dukedoms. Wherever some powerful house was able to seize upon the inheritance, free cities were few: wherever the contrary was the case, they sprang up in abundance. In Swabia and on the Rhine there were more than a hundred: Franconia on the contrary counted only Nürnberg and five smaller cities: Westphalia, Dortmund and Herford: while in Bavaria, Regensburg stood alone. … The Imperial free cities … were self-governed, under constitutions in which the aristocratic and the democratic elements mingled in various proportions: they provided for their own defence: they were republics, in the midst of States where the personal will of the ruler counted for more and more. … In these cities the refined and luxurious civilization, to which the princes were indifferent, and on which the knights waged predatory war, found expression in the pursuit of letters and the cultivation of the arts of life. There, too, the Imperial feeling, which was elsewhere slowly dying out of the land, retained much of its force. The cities held, so to speak, directly of the Empire, to which they looked for protection against powerful and lawless neighbours, and they felt that their liberties and privileges were bound up with the maintenance of the general order. … In them, too, as we might naturally expect, religious life put on a freer aspect."

   "Prior to the peace of Luneville [1801], Germany possessed 133
   free cities, called Reichstädte. A Reichstadt ('civitas
   imperii') was a town under the immediate authority of the
   Emperor, who was represented by an imperial official called a
   Vogt or Schultheis. The first mention of the term 'civitas
   imperii' (imperial city) occurs in an edict of the emperor
   Frederick II. [1214-1250], in which Lubeck was declared a
   'civitas imperii' in perpetuity. In a later edict, of the year
   1287, we find that King Rudolf termed the following places
   'civitates regni' (royal cities), viz., Frankfort, Friedberg,
   Wetzlar, Oppenheim, Wesel, and Boppart. All these royal cities
   subsequently became imperial cities in consequence of the
   Kings of Germany being again raised to the dignity of
   Emperors. During the reign of Louis the Bavarian [1314-1347]
   Latin ceased to be the official language, and the imperial
   towns were designated in the vernacular 'Richstat.' In course
   of time the imperial towns acquired, either by purchase or
   conquest, their independence. Besides the Reichstädte, there
   were Freistädte, or free towns, the principal being Cologne,
   Basle, Mayence, Ratisbon, Spires, and Worms. The free towns
   appear to have enjoyed the following immunities:—1. They were
   exempt from the oath of allegiance to the Emperor. 2. They
   were not bound to furnish a contingent for any expedition
   beyond the Alps. 3. They were free from all imperial taxes and
   duties. 4. They could not be pledged. 5. They were
   distinguished from the imperial towns by not having the
   imperial eagle emblazoned on the municipal escutcheon."
   Subsequently "the free towns were placed on the same footing
   as the Reichstädt, and the term 'Freistadt,' or free town, was
   disused. The government of the imperial towns was in the hands
   of a military and civil governor. … On the imperial towns
   becoming independent, the administration of the town was
   entrusted to a college of from four to twenty-four persons,
   according to the population, and the members of this kind of
   town council were called either Rathsmann, Rathsfreund, or
   Rathsherr, which means councilman or adviser.
{474}
   The town councillors appear to have selected one or more of
   their number as presidents, with the title of Rathsmeister,
   Burgermeister, or Stadtmeister. … Many of the imperial towns
   gained their autonomy either by purchase or force of arms. In
   like manner we find that others either lost their privileges
   or voluntarily became subjects of some burgrave or
   ecclesiastical prince, e. g., Cologne, Worms, and Spires
   placed themselves under the jurisdiction of their respective
   archbishops, whereas Altenburg, Chemnitz and Zwickau were
   seized by Frederick the Quarrelsome in his war with the
   Emperor; whilst others, like Hagenau, Colmar, Landau, and
   Strasburg, were annexed or torn from the German Empire. As the
   Imperial towns increased in wealth and power they extended the
   circle of their authority over the surrounding districts, and,
   in order to obtain a voice in the affairs of the empire, at
   length demanded that the country under their jurisdiction
   should be represented at the Reichstag (Imperial Diet). To
   accomplish this, they formed themselves into Bunds or
   confederations to assert their claims, and succeeded in
   forcing the Emperor and the princes to allow their
   representatives to take part in the deliberations of the Diet.
   The principal confederations brought into existence by the
   struggles going on in Germany were the Rhenish and Suabian
   Bunds, and the Hansa. [See HANSA TOWNS.] … At the Diet held
   at Augsburg in 1474, it appears that almost all the imperial
   towns were represented, and in 1648, on the peace of
   Westphalia, when their presence in the Diet was formally
   recognized, they were formed into a separate college. … By
   the peace of Luneville four of the imperial towns, viz.,
   Aix-la-Chapelle, Cologne, Spires, and Worms, were ceded to
   France. In 1803, all the imperial towns lost their autonomy
   with the exception of the following six:—Augsburg, Nuremberg,
   Frankfort, Lubeck, Hamburg, and Bremen; and in 1806 the first
   three, and in 1810 the others, shared the same fate, but in
   1815, on the fall of Napoleon, Bremen, Hamburg, Lubeck, and
   Frankfort, recovered their freedom, and were admitted as
   members of the German Bund, which they continued to be up to
   the year 1866."

"According to the German historians the period of the greatest splendour of these towns was during the 14th and 15th centuries. … In the 16th century they still enjoyed the same prosperity, but the period of their decay was come. The Thirty-Years War hastened their fall, and scarcely one of them escaped destruction and ruin during that period. Nevertheless, the treaty of Westphalia mentions them positively, and asserts their position as immediate states, that is to say, states which depended immediately upon the Emperor; but the neighbouring Sovereigns, on the one hand, and on the other the Emperor himself, the exercise of whose power, since the Thirty-Years War, was limited to the lesser vassals of the empire, restricted their sovereignty within narrower and narrower limits. In the 18th century, 51 of them were still in existence, they filled two benches at the diet, and had an independent vote there; but, in fact, they no longer exercised any influence upon the direction of general affairs. At home they were all heavily burthened with debts, partly because they continued to be charged for the Imperial taxes at a rate suited to their former splendour, and partly because their own administration was extremely bad. It is very remarkable that this bad administration seemed to be the result of some secret disease which was common to them all, whatever might be the form of their constitution. … Their population decreased, and distress prevailed in them. They were no longer the abodes of German civilization; the arts left them, and went to shine in the new towns created by the Sovereigns, and representing modern society. Trade forsook them—their ancient energy and patriotic vigour disappeared. Hamburg almost alone still remained a great centre of wealth and intelligence, but this was owing to causes quite peculiar to herself."

Of the 48 Free Cities of the Empire remaining in 1803, 42 were then robbed of their franchises, under the exigencies of the Treaty of Luneville (see GERMANY: A. D. 1801-1803). After the Peace of Pressburg only three survived, namely, Hamburg, Lubeck and Bremen (see GERMANY: A. D. 1805-1806). These were annexed to France by Napoleon in 1810.

The Congress of Vienna, in 1815, restored freedom to them, and to Frankfort, likewise, and they became members of the Germanic Confederation then formed.

Lubeck gave up its privileges as a free city in 1866, joining the Prussian Customs Union. Hamburg and Bremen did the same in 1888, being absorbed in the Empire. This extinguished the last of the "free cities."

CITY.

CITY OF THE VIOLET CROWN.

"Ancient poets called Athens 'The City of the Violet Crown,' with an unmistakable play upon the name of the Ionian stock to which it belonged, and which called to mind the Greek word for violet."

CIUDAD RODRIDGO: A. D. 1810-1812.
Twice besieged and captured by the French and by the English.

CIVES ROMANI AND PEREGRINI.

"Before the Social or Marsic war (B. C. 90) there were only two classes within the Roman dominions who were designated by a political name, Cives Romani, or Roman citizens, and Peregrini, a term which comprehended the Latini, the Socii and the Provinciales, such as the inhabitants of Sicily. The Cives Romani were the citizens of Rome, the citizens of Roman colonies and the inhabitants of the Municipia which had received the Roman citizenship."

CIVIL-SERVICE REFORM IN ENGLAND.

"It was not till long after 1832 that the inherent mischief of the partisan system [of appointments in the national civil service] became manifest to the great body of thinking people. When that result was attained, the final struggle with patronage in the hands of members of Parliament began on a large scale. It seems to have been, even then, foreseen by the best informed that it could not be removed by any partisan agency. They began to see the need of some method by which fitness for the public service could be tested otherwise than by the fiat of a member of Parliament or the vote of the Cabinet or the Treasury. What that method should be was one of the great problems of the future. No government had then solved it. That there must be tests of fitness independent of any political action, or mere official influence, became more and more plain to thinking men. The leaders of the great parties soon began to see that a public opinion in favor of such tests was being rapidly developed, which seriously threatened their power, unless the party system itself could be made more acceptable to the people. … There was an abundance of fine promises made. But no member gave up his patronage—no way was opened by which a person of merit could get into an office or a place except by the favor of the party or the condescension of a member. The partisan blockade of every port of entry to the public service, which made it tenfold easier for a decayed butler or an incompetent cousin of a member or a minister, than for the promising son of a poor widow, to pass the barrier, was, after the Reform Bill as before, rigidly maintained. Fealty to the party and work in its ranks—subserviency to members and to ministers—and electioneering on their behalf—these were the virtues before which the ways to office and the doors of the Treasury were opened. Year by year, the public discontent with the whole system increased. … During the Melbourne administration, between 1834 and 1841, a demand for examinations, as a condition for admission to the service, came from two very different quarters. One was the higher officials, who declared that they could not do the public work with such poor servants as the partisan system supplied. The other was the more independent, thoughtful portion of the people, who held it to be as unjust as it was demoralizing for members of Parliament and other officers to monopolize the privilege of saying who might enter the public service. Lord Melbourne then yielded so far as to allow pass examinations to be instituted in some of the larger offices; and he was inclined to favor competitive examinations, but it was thought to be too great an innovation to attempt at once. These examinations—several of them being competitive—introduced by public officers in self-defence many years previous to 1853, had before that time produced striking results. In the Poor Law Commission, for example, they had brought about a reform that arrested public attention. Under the Committee on Education, they had caused the selection of teachers so much superior 'that higher salaries were bidden for them for private service.' … These examinations were steadily extended from office to office down to the radical change made in 1853. … It had been provided, long before 1853, that those designed for the civil service of India, should not only be subjected to a pass examination, but should, before entering the service, be subjected to a course of special instruction at Haileybury College, a sort of civil West Point. This College was abolished in 1854, but equivalent instruction was elsewhere provided for. The directors had the patronage of nomination for such instruction. … If it seems strange that a severe course of study, for two years in such a college, was not sufficient to weed out the incompetents which patronage forced into it, we must bear in mind that the same influence which sent them there was used to keep them there. … Both the Derby and the Aberdeen administrations, in 1852 and 1853, took notice that the civil service was in a condition of peril to British India; and, without distinction of party, it was agreed that radical reforms must be promptly made. There was corruption, there was inefficiency, there was disgraceful ignorance, there was a humiliating failure in the government to command the respect of the more intelligent portion of the people of India, and there was a still more alarming failure to overawe the unruly classes. It was as bad in the army as in the civil offices. … There was, in short, a hotbed of abuses prolific of those influences which caused the fearful outbreak of 1857. It was too late when reform was decided upon, to prevent the outbreak, but not too late to save British supremacy in India. A change of system was entered upon in 1853. The 36th and 37th clauses of the India act of that year provided 'that all powers, rights, and privileges of the court of directors of the said India Company to nominate or appoint persons to be admitted as students … shall cease; and that, subject to such regulations as might be made, any person, being a natural born subject of her Majesty, who might be desirous of presenting himself, should be admitted to be examined as a candidate.' Thus, it will be seen, Indian patronage received its death-blow, and the same blow opened the door of study for the civil service of India to every British citizen. … In 1853, the British Government had reached a final decision that the partisan system of appointments could not be longer tolerated. Substantial control of nominations by members of Parliament, however guarded by restrictions and improved by mere pass examinations, had continued to be demoralizing in its effect upon elections, vicious in its influence upon legislation, and fatal to economy and efficiency in the departments. … The administration, with Lord Aberdeen at its head, promptly decided to undertake a radical and systematic reform. … It was decided that, in the outset, no application should be made to Parliament. The reform should be undertaken by the English Executive … for the time being. The first step decided upon was an inquiry into the exact condition of the public service. Sir Stafford Northcote (the present Chancellor of the Exchequer) and Sir Charles Trevelyan were appointed in 1853 to make such inquiry and a report. They submitted their report in November of the same year. … A system of competitive examinations … [was] recommended. … The report was accompanied with a scheme for carrying the examinations into effect, from which quote the following passages. {476} … 'Such a measure will exercise the happiest influence in the education of the lower classes throughout England, acting by the surest of all motives—the desire a man has of bettering himself in life. … They will have attained their situations in an independent manner through their own merits. The sense of this conduct cannot but induce self-respect and diffuse a wholesome respect among the lower no less than the higher classes of official men. … The effect of it in giving a stimulus to the education of the lower classes can hardly be overestimated.' Such was the spirit of the report. This was the theory of the merit system, then first approved by an English administration for the home government. I hardly need repeat that the examinations referred to as existing were (with small exception) mere pass examinations, and that the new examinations proposed were open, competitive examinations. … But the great feature of the report, which made it really a proposal for the introduction of a new system, was its advocacy of open competition. Except the experiment just put on trial in India, no nation had adopted that system. It was as theoretical as it was radical. … A chorus of ridicule, indignation, lamentation, and wrath arose from all the official and partisan places of politics. The government saw that a further struggle was at hand. It appeared more clear than ever that Parliament was not a very hopeful place in which to trust the tender years of such a reform. … The executive caused the report to be spread broadcast among the people, and also requested the written opinions of a large number of persons of worth and distinction both in and out of office. The report was sent to Parliament, but no action upon it was requested. … About the time that English public opinion had pronounced its first judgment upon the official report, and before any final action had been taken upon it, the Aberdeen administration went out. … Lord Palmerston came into power early in 1855, than whom, this most practical of nations never produced a more hard-headed, practical statesman. … Upon his administration fell the duty of deciding the fate of the new system advocated in the report. … He had faith in his party, and believed it would gain more by removing grave abuses than by any partisan use of patronage. … Making no direct appeal to Parliament, and trusting to the higher public opinion, Lord Palmerston's administration advised that an order should be made by the Queen in Council for carrying the reform into effect; and such an order was made on the 21st of May, 1855."

CIVIL-SERVICE REFORM IN THE UNITED STATES.

"The question as to the Civil Service [in the United States] arises from the fact that the president has the power of appointing a vast number of petty officials, chiefly postmasters and officials concerned with the collection of the federal revenue. Such officials have properly nothing to do with politics, they are simply the agents or clerks or servants of the national government in conducting its business; and if the business of the national government is to be managed on such ordinary principles of prudence as prevail in the management of private business, such servants ought to be selected for personal merit and retained for life or during good behaviour. It did not occur to our earlier presidents to regard the management of the public business in any other light than this. But as early as the beginning of the present century a vicious system was growing up in New York and Pennsylvania. In those states the appointive offices came to be used as bribes or as rewards for partisan services. By securing votes for a successful candidate, a man with little in his pocket and nothing in particular to do could obtain some office with a comfortable salary. It would be given to him as a reward, and some other man, perhaps more competent than himself, would have to be turned out in order to make room for him. A more effective method of driving good citizens 'out of politics' could hardly be devised. It called to the front a large class of men of coarse moral fibre. … The civil service of these states was seriously damaged in quality, politics degenerated into a wild scramble for offices, salaries were paid to men who did little or no public service in return, and the line which separates taxation from robbery was often crossed. About the same time there grew up an idea that there is something especially democratic, and therefore meritorious, about 'rotation in office.'" On the change of party which took place upon the election of Jackson to the presidency in 1828, "the methods of New York and Pennsylvania were applied on a national scale. Jackson cherished the absurd belief that the administration of his predecessor Adams had been corrupt, and he turned men out of office with a keen zest. During the forty years between Washington's first inauguration and Jackson's the total number of removals from office was 74, and out of this number 5 were defaulters. During the first year of Jackson's administration the number of changes made in the civil service was about 2,000. Such was the abrupt inauguration upon a national scale of the so-called Spoils System. The phrase originated with W. L. Marcy, of New York, who, in a speech in the senate in 1831 declared that 'to the victors belong the spoils.' … In the canvass of 1840 the Whigs promised to reform the civil service, and the promise brought them many Democratic votes; but after they had won the election they followed Jackson's example. The Democrats followed in the same way in 1845, and from that time down to 1885 it was customary at each change of party to make a 'clean sweep' of the offices. Soon after the Civil War the evils of the system began to attract serious attention on the part of thoughtful people."

"It was not until 1867 that any important move was made [toward a reform]. … This was by Mr. Jencks, of Rhode Island, who introduced a bill, made an able report and several speeches in its behalf. Unfortunately, death soon put an end to his labors and deprived the cause of an able advocate. But the seed he had sown bore good fruit. Attention was so awakened to the necessity of reform, that President Grant, in his message in 1870, called the attention of Congress to it, and that body passed an act in March, 1871, which authorized the President to prescribe, for admission to the Civil Service, such regulations as would best promote its efficiency, and ascertain the fitness of each candidate for the position he sought. For this purpose, it says, he may 'employ suitable persons to conduct such inquiries, and may prescribe their duties, and establish regulations for the conduct of persons who may receive appointments in the Civil Service.' {477} In accordance with this act, President Grant appointed a Civil Service Commission, of which George William Curtis was made chairman, afterwards succeeded by Dorman B. Eaton, and an appropriation of $25,000 was made by Congress to defray its expenses. A like sum was voted next year; but after that nothing was granted until June, 1882, when, instead of $25,000 asked for by the President, $15,000 was grudgingly appropriated. It is due to Mr. Silas W. Burt, Naval Officer in New York, who had long been greatly interested in the subject of Reform, to say that he deserves the credit of having been the first to introduce open competitive examinations. Before the appointment of Grant's committee, he had held such an examination in his office. … Under Grant's commission, open competitive examinations were introduced in the departments at Washington, and Customs Service at New York, and in part in the New York Post office. Although this commission labored under many disadvantages in trying a new experiment, it was able to make a very satisfactory report, which was approved by the President and his cabinet. … The rules adopted by Grant's commission were prepared by the chairman, Mr. Curtis. They were admirably adapted for their purpose, and have served as the basis of similar rules since then. The great interest taken by Mr. Curtis at that time, and the practical value of his work, entitled him to be regarded as the leader of the Reform. … Other able men took an active part in the movement, but the times were not propitious, public sentiment did not sustain them, and Congress refused any further appropriation, although the President asked for it. As a consequence, Competitive Examinations were everywhere suspended, and a return made to 'pass examinations.' And this method continued in use at Washington until July, 1883, after the passage of the Civil Service Reform Act. … President Hayes favored reform of the Civil Service, and strongly urged it in his messages to Congress; yet he did things not consistent with his professions, and Congress paid little attention to his recommendations, and gave him no effectual aid. But we owe it to him that an order was passed in March, 1879, enforcing the use of competitive examinations in the New York Custom House. The entire charge of this work was given to Mr. Burt by the Collector. … In 1880, Postmaster James revived the competitive methods in some parts of his office. … When the President, desiring that these examinations should be more general and uniform, asked Congress for an appropriation, it was refused. But, notwithstanding this, competitive examinations continued to be held in the New York Custom House and Post office until the passage of the Reform Act of 1883. Feeling that more light was needed upon the methods and progress of reform in other countries, President Hayes had formally requested Mr. Dorman B. Eaton to visit England for the purpose of making such inquiries. Mr. Eaton spent several months in a careful, thorough examination; and his report was transmitted to Congress in December, 1879, by the President, in a message which described it as an elaborate and comprehensive history of the whole subject. This report was afterwards embodied in Mr. Eaton's 'Civil Service in Great Britain.' … For this invaluable service Mr. Eaton received no compensation from the Government, not even his personal expenses to England having been paid. And to Mr. Eaton is due, also, the credit of originating Civil Service Reform Associations."

      H. Lambert,
      The Progress of Civil Service Reform in the United States,
      pages 6-10.

"The National Civil Service Reform League was organized at Newport, R. I., on the 11th of August, 1881. It was the result of a conference among members of civil service reform associations that had spontaneously arisen in various parts of the country for the purpose of awakening public interest in the question, like the clubs of the Sons of Liberty among our fathers, and the anti-slavery societies among their children. The first act of the League was a resolution of hearty approval of the bill then pending in Congress, known as the Pendleton bill. Within less than two years afterward the Civil Service law was passed in Congress by a vote in the Senate of 38 yeas to 5 nays, 33 Senators being absent, and in the House only a week later, by a vote of 155 yeas to 47 nays, 87 members not voting. In the House the bill was put upon its passage at once, the Speaker permitting only thirty minutes for debate. This swift enactment of righteous law was due, undoubtedly, to the panic of the party of administration, a panic which saw in the disastrous result of the recent election a demand of the country for honest politics; and it was due also to the exulting belief of the party of opposition that the law would essentially weaken the dominant party by reducing its patronage. The sudden and overwhelming vote was that of a Congress of which probably the members had very little individual knowledge or conviction upon the subject. But the instinct in regard to intelligent public opinion was undoubtedly sure, and it is intelligent public opinion which always commands the future. … The passage of the law was the first great victory of the ten years of the reform movement. The second is the demonstration of the complete practicability of reform attested by the heads of the largest offices of administration in the country. In the Treasury and Navy departments, the New York Custom House and Post Office, and other important custom houses and post offices, without the least regard to the wishes or the wrath of that remarkable class of our fellow-citizens, known as political bosses, it is conceded by officers, wholly beyond suspicion of party independence, that, in these chief branches of the public service, reform is perfectly practicable and the reformed system a great public benefit. And, although as yet these offices are by no means thoroughly reorganized upon reform principles, yet a quarter of the whole number of places in the public service to which the reformed methods apply are now included within those methods."

G. W. Curtis, Address at Annual Meeting of the National Civil-Service Reform League. 1891.

St. Bernard, "the greatest reformer of the abuses of the monastic life, if not the greatest monk in history [A. D. 1091-1153] … revived the practice in the monastery of Citeaux, which he first entered, and in that of Clairvaux, which he afterwards founded, of the sternest discipline which had been enjoined by St. Benedict. He became the ideal type of the perfect monk. … He was not a Pope, but he was greater than any Pope of his day, and for nearly half a century the history of the Christian Church is the history of the influence of one monk, the Abbot of Clairvaux."

"The convent of Citeaux was found too small for the number of persons who desired to join the society which could boast of so eminent a saint. Finding his influence beneficial, Bernard proceeded to found a new monastery. The spot which he chose for his purpose was in a wild and gloomy vale, formerly known as the Valley of Wormwood. … The district pertained to the bishopric of Langres; and here Bernard raised his far famed abbey of Clairvaux."

"The word Clan signifies simply children or descendants, and the clan name thus implies that the members of it are or were supposed to be descended from a common ancestor or eponymus, and they were distinguished from each other by their patronymics, the use of surnames in the proper sense being unknown among them. [See GENS, ROMAN.] … In considering the genealogies of the Highland clans we must bear in mind that in the early state of the tribal organisation the pedigree of the sept or clan, and of each member of the tribe, had a very important meaning. Their rights were derived through the common ancestor, and their relation to him, and through him to each other, indicated their position in the succession, as well as their place in the allocation of the tribe land. In such a state of society the pedigree occupied the same position as the title-deed of the feudal system, and the Sennachies were as much the custodiers of the rights of families as the mere panegyrists of the clan. … During the 16th century the clans were brought into direct contact with the Crown, and in the latter part of it serious efforts were made by the Legislature to establish an efficient control over them. These gave rise to the Acts of 1587 and 1594; … but they were followed in a few years by an important Statute, which had a powerful effect upon the position of the clans, and led to another great change in the theory of their descent. … The chiefs of the clans thus found themselves compelled to defend their rights upon grounds which could compete with the claims of their eager opponents, and to maintain an equality of rank and prestige with them in the Heralds' Office, which must drive them to every device necessary to effect their purpose; and they would not hesitate to manufacture titles to the land when they did not exist, and to put forward spurious pedigrees better calculated to maintain their position when a native descent had lost its value and was too weak to serve their purpose. From this period MS. histories of the leading Highland families began to be compiled, in which these pretensions were advanced and spurious charters inserted. … The form which these pretentious genealogies took was that of making the eponymus or male ancestor of the clan a Norwegian, Dane, or Norman, or a cadet of some distinguished family, who succeeded to the chiefship and to the territory of the clan by marriage with the daughter and heiress of the last of the old Celtic line, thus combining the advantage of a descent which could compete with that of the great Norman families with a feudal succession to their lands; and the new form of the clan genealogy would have the greater tendency to assume this form where the clan name was derived not from a personal name or patronymic but from a personal epithet of its founder. … The conclusion, then, to which [an] analysis of the clan pedigrees which have been popularly accepted at different times has brought us, is that, so far as they profess to show the origin of the different clans, they are entirely artificial and untrustworthy, but that the older genealogies may be accepted as showing the descent of the clan from its eponymus or founder, and within reasonable limits for some generations beyond him, while the later spurious pedigrees must be rejected altogether. It may seem surprising that such spurious pedigrees and fabulous origins should be so readily credited by the Clan families as genuine traditions, and receive such prompt acceptance as the true fount from which they sprung; but we must recollect that the fabulous history of Hector Boece was as rapidly and universally adopted as the genuine annals of the national history, and became rooted in those parts of the country to which its fictitious events related as local traditions. When Hector Boece invested the obscure usurper Grig with the name and attributes of a fictitious king, Gregory the Great, and connected him with the royal line of kings, the Clan Gregor at once recognised him as their eponymous ancestor, and their descent from him is now implicitly believed in by all the MacGregors. It is possible, however, from these genealogies, and from other indications, to distribute the clans in certain groups, as having apparently a closer connection with each other, and these groups we hold in the main to represent the great tribes into which the Gaelic population was divided before they became broken up into clans. The two great tribes which possessed the greater part of the Highlands were the Gallgaidheal or Gael in the west, who had been under the power of the Norwegians, and the great tribe of the Moravians, or Men of Moray, in the Central and Eastern Highlands. To the former belong all the clans descended of the Lords of the Isles, the Campbells and Macleods probably representing the older inhabitants of their respective districts; to the latter belong in the main the clans brought in the old Irish genealogies from the kings of Dalriada of the tribe of Lorn, among whom the old Mormaers of Moray appear. The group containing the Clan Andres or old Rosses, the Mackenzies and Mathesons, belong to the tribe of Ross, the Clan Donnachy to Athole, the Clan Lawren to Stratherne, and the Clan Pharlane to Lennox, while the group containing the MacNabs, Clan Gregor, and Mackinnons, appear to have emerged from Glendochart, at least to be connected with the old Columban monasteries. The Clans, properly so called, were thus of native origin; the surnames partly of native and partly of foreign descent."

CLAVERHOUSE AND THE COVENANTERS.

See TARIFF LEGISLATION (UNITED STATES): A. D. 1816-1824, and 1832; and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1828-1833.

CLAYBANKS AND CHARCOALS.

   During the American civil war the Conservative and Radical
   factions in Missouri were sometimes called Claybanks and
   Charcoals.

CLEAR GRITS.

CLEMENT II., Pope, A. D. 1046-1047.
   Clement III., Pope, A. D. 1187-1191.
   Clement IV., Pope, A. D. 1265-1268.
   Clement V., Pope, A. D. 1305-1314.
   Clement VI., Pope, A. D. 1342-1352.
   Clement VII., Pope, A. D. 1378-1394 (Antipope at Avignon).
   Clement VII., Pope, A. D. 1523-1534.
   Clement VIII., Pope, A. D. 1591-1605.
   Clement IX., Pope, A. D. 1667-1669.
   Clement X., Pope, A. D. 1670-1676.
   Clement XI., Pope, A. D. 1700-1721.
   Clement XII., Pope, A. D. 1730-1740.
   Clement XIII., Pope, A. D. 1758-1769.
   Clement XIV., Pope, A. D. 1769-1774.

CLEOPATRA AND CÆSAR.

CLEOPATRA'S NEEDLES.

"The two obelisks known as Cleopatra's Needles were originally set up by Thothmes III. at Heliopolis. Augustus transferred them to Alexandria, where they remained until recently. At present (July, 1880) one ornaments the Thames Embankment [London] while the other is on its way to the United States of America."

   The obelisk last mentioned now stands in Central Park, New
   York, having been brought over and erected by Commander
   Gorringe, at the expense of the late William H. Vanderbilt.

CLERGY RESERVES.

CLERMONT.

CLERUCHI.

CLEVELAND:

"To [the Roman] family or household united under the control of a living master, and the clan which originated out of the breaking up of such households, there further belonged the dependents or 'listeners' (clientes, from 'cluere'). This term denoted not the guests, that is, the members of similar circles who were temporarily sojourning in another household than their own, and still less the slaves who were looked upon in law as the property of the household and not as members of it, but those individuals who, while they were not free burgesses of any commonwealth, yet lived within one in a condition of protected freedom. The class included refugees who had found a reception with a foreign protector, and those slaves in respect to whom their master had for the time being waived the exercise of his rights, and so conferred on them practical freedom. This relation had not properly the character of a relation 'de jure,' like the relation of a man to his guest or to his slave: the client remained non-free, although good faith and use and wont alleviated in his case the condition of non-freedom. Hence the 'listeners' of the household (clientes) together with the slaves strictly so-called formed the 'body of servants' ('familia') dependent on the will of the 'burgess' ('patronus,' like 'patricius')."

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (APRIL-MAY); 1776 (JUNE), (AUGUST); 1778 (JUNE); 1778-1779; 1780 (FEBRUARY-AUGUST); 1781 (JANUARY).

CLINTONIANS AND BUCKTAILS.

CLIVE'S CONQUESTS AND RULE IN INDIA.

"Even at the present day there stands unchanged the great sewer, the 'cloaca maxima,' the object of which, it may be observed, was not merely to carry away the refuse of the city, but chiefly to drain the large lake which was formed by the Tiber between the Capitoline, Aventine and Palatine, then extended between the Palatine and Capitoline, and reached as a swamp as far as the district between the Quirinal and Viminal. This work, consisting of three semicircles of immense square blocks, which, though without mortar, have not to this day moved a knife's breadth from one another … equalling the pyramids in extent and massiveness, far surpasses them in the difficulty of its execution. It is so gigantic, that the more one examines it the more inconceivable it becomes how even a large and powerful state could have executed it. … Whether the cloaca maxima was actually executed by Tarquinus Priscus or by his son Superbus is a question about which the ancients themselves are not agreed, and respecting which true historical criticism cannot presume to decide. But this much may be said, that the structure must have been completed before the city encompassed the space of the seven hills and formed a compact whole. … But such a work cannot possibly have been executed by the powers of a state such as Rome is said to have been in those times."

A great monastery founded in Meath, Ireland, by St. Finnian, in the sixth century, "which is said to have contained no fewer than 3,000 monks and which became a great training-school in the monastic life." The twelve principal disciples of Finnian were called the "Twelve Apostles of Ireland," St. Columba being the chief.

Clothaire II., King of the Franks (Neustria), A. D. 584-628;
(Austrasia), 613-622; Burgundy, 613-628.

Clovis II., King of the Franks (Neustria), A. D. 638-654;
(Austrasia), 650-654; (Burgundy), 638-654.

"In 1735 there was formed in the capital [London] the celebrated Beef Steak Club, or 'Sublime Society of Beef Steaks,' as its members always desired to be designated. The origin of this club is singular, and was in this wise. Rich, a celebrated harlequin, and patentee of Covent Garden Theatre in the time of George II., while engaged during the daytime in directing and controlling the arrangements of the stage scenery was often visited by his friends, of whom he had a very numerous circle. One day, while the Earl of Peterborough was present, Rich felt the pangs of hunger so keenly that he cooked a beef-steak and invited the earl to partake of it, which he did, relishing it so greatly that he came again, bringing some friends with him on purpose to taste the same fare. In process of time the beef-steak dinner became an institution. Some of the chief wits and greatest men of the nation, to the number of 24, formed themselves into a society, and took as their motto 'Steaks and Liberty.' Among its early celebrities were Bubb Doddington, Aaron Hill, Dr. Hoadley, Richard Glover, the two Colmans, Garrick and John Beard. The number of the 'steaks' remained at its original limit until 1785, when it was augmented by one, in order to secure the admission of the Heir-Apparent."

W. C. Sydney, England and the English in the 18th Century, chapter 6 (volume 1).

In 1711, a political club which took this name was founded in London by Henry St. John, afterwards Lord Bolingbroke, to counteract the "extravagance of the Kit Cat" and "the drunkenness of the Beefsteak." "This society … continued for some time to restrain the outburst of those elements of disunion with which the Harley ministry was so rife. To be a member of this club was esteemed a distinguished honour. They addressed each other as 'brother'; and we find their ladies in their correspondence claiming to be enrolled as sisters. The members of this club were the Dukes of Ormond, Shrewsbury, Beaufort; the Earls of Oxford, Arran, Jersey, Orrery, Bathurst; Lords Harley, Duplin, Masham; Sir Robert Raymond, Sir William Windham, Colonel Hill, Colonel Desney, St. John, Granville, Arbuthnot, Prior, Swift, and Friend."

   "During his literary career Dr. Johnson assisted in the
   foundation of no fewer than three clubs, each of which was
   fully deserving of the name. In 1749 he established a club at
   a house in Ivy Lane, Paternoster Row, and only the year before
   he died he drafted a code of rules for a club, of which the
   members should hold their meetings, thrice in each week, at
   the Essex Head in the Strand; an establishment which was then
   kept by a former servant of his old friends the Thrales. Those
   members who failed to put in an appearance at the club were
   required to forfeit the sum of two pence. There is an
   interesting account of one of the meetings of the Ivy Lane
   Club, at which Johnson presided, in Sir John Hawkins's
   biography of him. … The next club with which Johnson became
   acquainted was the most influential of them all, and was the
   one which is now chiefly remembered in connection with his
   name. It was, however, a plant of slow and gradual growth. The
   first meeting of its members, who exulted in the designation
   of 'The Club,' was held in 1763 at a hostelry called the
   Turk's Head, situated in Gerard Street, Soho.
{481}
   'The Club' retained that title until after the funeral of Garrick,
   when it was always known as 'The Literary Club.' As its
   numbers were small and limited, the admission to it was an
   honour greatly coveted in political, legal, and literary
   circles. 'The Club' originated with Sir Joshua Reynolds, then
   President of the Royal Academy, who at first restricted its
   numbers to nine, these being Reynolds himself, Samuel Johnson,
   Edmund Burke, Dr. Christopher Nugent (an accomplished Roman
   Catholic physician), Bennet Langton, Topham Beauclerk, Sir
   John Hawkins, Oliver Goldsmith, and M. Chamier, Secretary in
   the War Office. The members assembled every Monday evening
   punctually at seven o'clock, and, having partaken of an
   inexpensive supper, conversed on literary, scientific and
   artistic topics till the clock indicated the hour of retiring.
   The numbers of the Literary Club were subsequently augmented
   by the enrolment of Garrick, Edward Gibbon, Lord Charlemont,
   Sir William Jones, the eminent Oriental linguist, and James
   Boswell, of biographical fame. Others were admitted from time
   to time, until in 1791 it numbered 35. In December, 1772, the
   day of meeting was altered to Friday, and the weekly suppers
   were commuted to fortnightly dinners during the sitting of
   parliament. Owing to the conversion of the original tavern
   into a private house, the club moved, in 1783, first to
   Prince's, in Sackville Street; next to Le Telier's in Dover
   Street; then, in 1792, to Parsloe's in St. James's Street; and
   lastly, in February, 1799, to the Thatched House Tavern in St.
   James's Street, where it remained until long after 1848."

      W. C. Sydney,
      England and the English in the 18th Century,
      chapter 6 (volume 1).

CLUBS:
   The Kit Cat.
   "The Kit Cat Club was instituted in 1699. Its most illustrious
   members were Congreve, Prior, Sir John Vanbrugh, the Earl of
   Orrery, and Lord Somers; but the members becoming more
   numerous, the most violent party obtained the majority, and
   the Earl and his friends were less regular in their
   attendance. … The Kit Cat took its name from a pastry-cook
   [Christopher Katt], whose pies formed a regular dish at the
   suppers of the club."

"The October Club came first into importance in the latest years of Anne, although it had existed since the last decade of the 17th century. The stout Tory squires met together in the 'Bell' Tavern, in narrow, dirty King Street, Westminster, to drink October ale, under Dahl's portrait of Queen Anne, and to trouble with their fierce uncompromising Jacobitism the fluctuating purposes of Harley and the crafty counsels of St. John. The genius of Swift tempered their hot zeal with the cool air of his 'advice.' Then the wilder spirits seceded, and formed the March Club, which retained all the angry Jacobitism of the parent body, but lost all its importance."

ALSO IN: W. C. Sydney, England and the English in the 18th century, chapter 6.

CLUBMEN.

The famous monastery of Clugny, or Cluny, was founded A. D. 910, at Cluny, near Macon, in Burgundy, by the abbot Count Berno, who had previously established and ruled the monastery of Gigni, near Lyons. It was founded under the auspices and at the expense of William, Count of Auvergne, commonly called William the Pious. "In the disastrous times which followed the death of Charles the Great and the failure of his scheme to reorganize the Western world under a single head, the discipline of the religious houses fell with everything else; fell, not perhaps quite so soon, yet by the end of the ninth century had fallen almost as low as it was possible to fall. But here symptoms of a moral reaction showed themselves earlier than elsewhere. The revival dates from 910, the year of the foundation of the Monastery of Clugny in Burgundy, which was destined to exercise an enormous influence on the future of the Church. While matters at Rome were at their worst, there were silently training there the men who should inaugurate a new state of things [notably Hildebrand, afterwards Pope Gregory VII.] Already, so one said at the time, the whole house of the Church was filled with the sweet savour of the ointment there poured out. It followed that wherever in any religious house there were any aspirations after a higher life, any longings for reformation, that house affiliated itself to Clugny; thus beginning to constitute a Congregation, that is a cluster of religious houses, scattered it might be over all Christendom, but owning one rule, acknowledging the superiority of one mother house, and receiving its abbots and priors from thence. In the Clugnian Congregation, for example, there were about two thousand houses in the middle of the twelfth century—these mostly in France; the Abbot, or Arch-Abbot, as he was called, of Clugny, being a kind of Pope of Monasticism, and for a long time, the Pope excepted, quite the most influential Church-ruler in Christendom."

      S. R. Gardiner and J. B. Mullinger,
      Introduction to the Study of English History,
      chapter 3, section 8.

      E. F. Henderson,
      Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages,
      book 3, number 4.

CLUNIAC MONKS.

CNOSSUS.

CNUT.

COALITION MINISTRY OF FOX AND LORD NORTH.

COALITIONS AGAINST NAPOLEON.

COALITIONS AGAINST NAPOLEON: GERMANY: A. D. 1812-1813, and 1813 (MAY-AUGUST), and FRANCE: A. D. 1814-1815.

COALITIONS AGAINST REVOLUTIONARY FRANCE.

See TARIFF LEGISLATION (ENGLAND): A. D. 1836-1839; 1842; 1845-1846; and TARIFF LEGISLATION (FRANCE): A. D. 1853-1860.

COCCIUM.

An important Roman town in Britain, the remains of which are supposed to be found at Ribchester.

COCO TRIBES.

CODES.

CŒLE-SYRIA.

"Hollow Syria"—the long, broad, fertile and beautiful valley which lies between the Libanus and Antilibanus ranges of mountains, and is watered by the Orontes and the Leontes or Littany rivers. "Few places in the world are more remarkable, or have a more stirring history, than this wonderful vale."

CŒNOBIUM. CŒNOBITES.

"The word 'Cœnobium' is equivalent to 'monasterium' in the later sense of that word. Cassian distinguishes the word thus. 'Monasterium,' he says, 'may be the dwelling of a single monk, Cœnobium must be of several; the former word,' he adds, 'expressed only the place, the latter the manner of living.'"

ALSO IN: J. Bingham, Antiquity of the Christian Church, book 7, chapter 2, section 3.

COGNOMEN, NOMEN, PRÆNOMEN.

COHORTS.

When Cæsar first opened to the Romans some knowledge of Britain, the site of modern Colchester was occupied by an "oppidum," or fastness of the Trinobantes, which the Romans called Camulodunum. A little later, Camulodunum acquired some renown as the royal town of the Trinobantine king, or prince, Cunobelin,—the Cymbeline of Shakespeare. It was after the death of Cunobelin, and when his son Caractacus was king, during the reign of the emperor Claudius, that the Romans began their actual conquest of Britain. Claudius was present, in person, when Camulodunum was taken, and he founded there the first Roman colony in the island, calling it Claudiana Victricensis. That name was too cumbrous to be preserved; but the colonial character of the town caused it to be called Colonia-ceaster, the Colonia fortress,—abbreviated, in time, to Colne-ceaster, and, finally, to Colchester. The colony was destroyed by the Iceni, at the time of their rising, under Boadicea, but was reconstituted and grew into an important Roman town.

On the collapse of the Royalist rising of 1648, which produced what is called the Second Civil War of the Puritan revolutionary period, Colchester received the "wreck of the insurrection," so far as London and the surrounding country had lately been threatened by it. Troops of cavaliers, under Sir Charles Lucas and Lord Capel, having collected in the town, were surrounded and beleaguered there by Fairfax, and held out against their besiegers from June until late in August. "After two months of the most desperate resistance, Colchester, conquered by famine and sedition, at last surrendered (Aug. 27); and the next day a court-martial condemned to death three of its bravest, defenders, Sir Charles Lucas, Sir George Lisle, and Sir Bernard Gascoign, as an example, it was said, to future rebels who might be tempted to imitate them. In vain did the other prisoners, Lord Capel at their head, entreat Fairfax to suspend the execution of the sentence, or at least that they should all undergo it, since all were alike guilty of the offence of these three. Fairfax, excited by the long struggle, or rather intimidated by Ireton, made no answer, and the condemned officers were ordered to be shot on the spot." Gascoign, however, was reprieved at the last moment.

"The Colchians appear to have been in part independent, in part subject to Persia. Their true home was evidently that tract of country [on the Euxine] about the river Phasis. … Here they first became known to the commercial Greeks, whose early dealings in this quarter seem to have given rise to the poetic legend of the Argonauts. The limits of Colchis varied at different times, but the natural bounds were never greatly departed from. They were the Euxine on the east, the Caucasus on the north, the mountain range which forms the watershed between the Phasis (Rion) and the Cyrus (Kur) on the west, and the high ground between Batoum and Kars (the Moschian mountains) on the south. … The most interesting question connected with the Colchians is that connected with their nationality. They were a black race dwelling in the midst of whites, and in a country which does not tend to make its inhabitants dark complexioned. That they were comparatively recent immigrants from a hotter climate seems therefore to be certain. The notion entertained by Herodotus of their Egyptian extraction appears to have been a conjecture of his own. … Perhaps the modern theory that the Colchians were immigrants from India is entitled to some share of our attention. … If the true Colchi were a colony of blacks, they must have become gradually absorbed in the white population proper to the country."

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (JUNE-JULY: VIRGINIA), and 1864 (MAY-JUNE: VIRGINIA).

COLLEGIA.

Numerous associations called "collegia" existed in ancient Rome, having various purposes. Some were religious associations (collegia templorum); some were organizations of clerks or scribes; some were guilds of workmen; some appear to have had a political character, although the political clubs were more commonly called "sodalitates."

COLOMAN.

This general title will be used, for convenience, to cover, for considerable periods of their history, the territory now divided between the republics of Venezuela, Ecuador, and the United States of Colombia (formerly New Granada), the latter embracing the Isthmus of Panama. The history of these countries being for a long time substantially identical in the main, and only distinguishable at intervals, it seems to be difficult to do otherwise than hold it, somewhat arbitrarily, under one heading, until the several currents of events part company distinctly.

COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1536-1731.
The Spanish conquest of New Granada.
Creation of the new vice-royalty.

   "For some time after the disastrous failure of the attempt of
   Las Casas to found a colony on the Pearl coast of Cumaná, the
   northern portion of Spanish South America, from the Orinoco
   westwards, is almost lost to history. The powers working for
   good had signally failed, and the powers of evil seemed to
   have it almost all their own way. … Lying behind these
   extensive coasts to the westward in the interior, is the
   region to which the Spaniards gave the name of the kingdom of
   New Granada, the name being applied in consequence of a
   resemblance which was detected between the plain around Santa
   Fe de Bogotá and the royal Vega which adjoins the historical
   Moorish capital. New Granada was a most extensive region,
   comprising as it did the entire country from sea to sea in the
   north, lying between 60° and 78° longitude, and from 6° to 15°
   of latitude." The Spanish conquest of New Granada was achieved
   in the main by Ximenes de Quesada, who invaded the country
   from the north, although the governor of Quito, Benalcazar,
   entered it likewise from the south. "Ximenes de Quesada came
   to America about the year 1535, in the suite of the Governor
   of Santa Marta, by whom he was selected to lead an expedition
   against the Chibchas, who dwelt on the plain of Bogotá and
   around the headwaters of the Magdalena. Setting out in April
   1536 with 800 men, he succeeded in pushing his way through the
   forest and across innumerable streams. He contrived to subsist
   for eight months, during which he traversed 450 miles,
   enduring meanwhile the very utmost exertions and privations
   that human nature could support. … When he had surmounted
   the natural difficulties in his path, his remaining force
   consisted of but 166 men, with 60 horses. On March 2d, 1537,
   he resumed his advance; and, as usually happened, the mere
   sight of his horsemen terrified the Indians into submission.
   At Tunja, according to the Spanish historians, he was
   treacherously attacked whilst resting in the palace of one of
   the chiefs. … In any case, the chief was taken, and, after
   much slaughter, Ximenes found himself the absolute possessor
   of immense riches, one golden lantern alone being valued at
   6,000 ducats. From Tunja Ximenes marched upon the sacred city
   of Iraca, where two Spanish soldiers accidentally set fire to
   the great Temple of the Sun. The result was that, after a
   conflagration which lasted several days, both the city and the
   temple were utterly destroyed. … On the 9th of August, 1538,
   was founded the city of Bogotá. Ximenes was soon here joined
   by Frederman, a subject of the Emperor Charles V., with 160
   soldiers, with whom he had been engaged in conquering
   Venezuela; and likewise by Benalcazar, the conqueror of Quito.
   This latter warrior had crossed the continent in triumph at
   the head of 150 Spaniards, together with a multitude of native
   followers."
{484}
   In the intrigues and jealous rivalries between the three which
   followed, Ximenes de Quesada was pushed aside, at first, and
   even fined and banished by the Emperor; but in the end he
   triumphed and was appointed marshal of the kingdom of New
   Granada. "On his return to Bogotá in 1551, he, to his credit,
   exhibited an energy in protecting the people of the country
   against their invaders, equal to that which he had displayed
   in effecting their conquest. Ten years later he commanded a
   force organized to repel an attack from the ruler of
   Venezuela; shortly after which he was appointed Adelantado of
   the Kingdom of New Granada. He devoted three years, and an
   enormous amount of toil and money, to an absurd expedition in
   quest of the fabled El Dorado [see EL DORADO]." Quesada died
   of leprosy in 1572. Until 1718 the kingdom of New Granada
   remained subject to the Viceroy of Peru. In that year the
   Viceroyalty of Peru "was divided into two portions, the
   northern region, from the frontiers of Mexico as far as to the
   Orinoco, and on the Southern Sea from Veragua to Tumbez,
   forming the Viceroyalty of New Granada, of which the capital
   was Bogota. To this region, likewise, was assigned the inland
   province of Quito. The Viceroyalty of New Granada, in fact,
   comprised what now [1884] forms the Republic of Venezuela, the
   United States of Columbia, and the Republic of Equador." In
   1731 "it was deemed expedient to detach from the Viceroyalty
   of New Granada the provinces of Venezuela, Maracaibo, Varinas,
   Cumaná, and Spanish Guyana, and to form them into a separate
   Captain-Generalship, the residence of the ruler being fixed at
   Caracas in Venezuela."

      R. G. Watson,
      Spanish and Portuguese South America,
      volume 2, chapter 9.

COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1810-1819.
   The struggle for independence and its achievement.
   Miranda and Simon Bolivar.
   The Earthquake in Venezuela.
   The founding of the Republic of Colombia.

"The Colombian States occupy the first place in the history of South American independence. … The Colombian States were first in the struggle because they were in many ways nearest to Europe. It was through them that intercourse between the Pacific coast and Europe was mainly carried on: Porto Bello and Carthagena were thus the main inlets of European ideas. Besides, there was here constant communication with the West Indies; and government, population and wealth were less centralised than in the more important viceroyalties of Mexico and Peru. The Indians of New Granada had always been a restless race, and the increase of taxation which was resorted to for the defence of the coast in the war with Great Britain (1777-1783) produced discontents among the whole population, both red and white. … The French Revolution, coming soon afterwards, was another link in the chain of causes. … In Venezuela, which the industry of its inhabitants had raised from a poor mission district to a thriving commercial province, the progress of modern ideas was yet faster. … The conquest of Trinidad by England in 1797 gave a new turn to the movement. … It was from Trinidad that the first attempts were made to excite the Spanish colonists to revolution. Francis Miranda, by whom this was done, was a type of many other men to whom is due the credit of leading the South American peoples to independence. He was a native of Caraccas, and when a young man had held a French commission in the American War of Independence. On his return to Venezuela in 1783 he found the populace, as we have already mentioned, in an excited state, and finding that he was suspected of designs for liberating his own country, he went to Europe, and again attached himself to the French service. … Being proscribed by the Directory, he turned to England, and … when the war [between England and Spain] broke out afresh in 1804, and England sent out an expedition to invade Buenos Ayres, Miranda believed that his opportunity was come. In 1806, by English and American aid, he sailed from Trinidad and landed with 500 men on the coast of Venezuela. But the 'Colombian Army,' as Miranda named it, met with a cool reception among the people. His utter inability to meet the Spanish forces compelled him to retreat to Trinidad, nor did he reappear on the continent until after the revolution of 1810. The principal inhabitants of Caraccas had been meditating the formation of a provisional government, on the model of the juntas of Spain, ever since the abdication of the king [see SPAIN: A. D. 1807-1808]; but it was not until 1810, when the final victory of Napoleon in Spain appeared certain, that they made a decisive movement in favour of independence. Spain, for the time at least, was now blotted out of the list of nations. Acting, therefore, in the name of Ferdinand VII., they deposed the Spanish colonial officers, and elected a supreme junta or council. Similar juntas were soon established in New Granada, at Santa Fe, Quito, Carthagena, and the other chief towns of the Viceroyalty … and the fortune of the patriot party in new Granada, from their close neighbourhood, was closely linked with that of the Venezuelans. The Regency of Cadiz, grasping for itself all the rights and powers of the Spanish nation, determined to reduce the colonists to subjection. They therefore declared the port of Caraccas in a state of blockade, as the British government had done in the previous generation with that of Boston; and, as in the case of Boston, this resolution of the Regency amounted to a declaration of war. … A congress of all the provinces of Venezuela now met at Caraccas, and published a declaration of independence on the 5th of July, 1811, and those of Mexico and New Granada soon followed. … The powers of nature seemed to conspire with the tyranny of Europe to destroy the young South American Republic. On the 26th of March, 1812, Venezuela was visited by a fearful earthquake, which destroyed the capital [Caraccas] and several other towns, together with 20,000 people, and many others perished of hunger and in other ways. This day was Holy Thursday; and the superstitious people, prompted by their priests, believed this awful visitation to be a judgment from God for their revolt. The Spanish troops, under Monteverde, now began a fresh attack on the disquieted Venezuelans. Miranda, who on his return had been placed at the head of the army, had in the meantime overrun New Granada, and laid the foundation of the future United States of Colombia. But the face of affairs was changed by the news of the earthquake. Smitten with despair, his soldiers now deserted to the royalists; he lost ground everywhere; the fortress of Puerto Cavello, commanded by the great Bolivar, then a colonel in the service of the Republic, was surrendered through treachery. {485} On the 25th of June Miranda himself capitulated, with all his forces; and Venezuela fell once more into the hands of the royalists. Miranda himself was arrested, in defiance of the terms of the surrender, and perished in an European dungeon, as Toussaint had perished a few years before. … Monteverde emptied the prisons of their occupants, and filled them with the families of the principal citizens of the republic; and Caraccas became the scene of a Reign of Terror. After Miranda's capitulation, Bolivar had gone to New Granada, which still maintained its independence, and entered into the service of that republic. Bolivar now reappeared in a new character, and earned for himself a reputation in the history of the new world which up to a certain point ranks with that of Washington. Simon Bolivar, like Miranda, was a native of Caraccas. … Like Miranda, he had to some extent learned modern ideas by visiting the old world and the United States. When the cruelties of Monteverde had made Venezuela ripe for a new revolt, Bolivar reappeared on his native soil at the head of a small body of troops from the adjacent republic. The successes which he gained so incensed the royalists that they refused quarter to their prisoners, and war to the death ('guerra a muerte') was proclaimed. All obstacles disappeared before Bolivar's generalship, and on the 4th of August, 1813, he publicly entered Caraccas, the fortress of Puerto Cavello being now the only one in the possession of the royalists. Bolivar was hailed with the title of the liberator of Venezuela. He was willing to see the republic restored; but the inhabitants very properly feared to trust at this time to anything but a military government, and vested the supreme power in him as dictator (1814). The event indeed proved the necessity of a military government. The defeated royalists raised fresh troops, many thousands of whom were negro slaves, and overran the whole country; Bolivar was beaten at La Puerta, and forced to take refuge a second time in New Granada; and the capital fell again into the hands of the royalists. … The War of Independence had been undertaken against the Regency; and had Ferdinand, on his restoration to the throne in 1814, shown any signs of conciliation, he might yet have recovered his American provinces. But the government persisted in its course of absolute repression. … New Granada, where Bolivar was general in chief of the forces, was the only part where the insurrection survived; and in 1815 a fleet containing 10,000 men under General Morillo arrived off Carthagena, its principal port. … Carthagena was only provisioned for a short time: and Bolivar, overpowered by numbers, quitted the soil of the continent and went to the West Indies to seek help to relieve Carthagena, and maintain the contest for liberty." Obtaining assistance in Hayti, he fitted out an expedition "which sailed in April from the port of Aux Cayes. Bolivar landed near Cumana, in the eastern extremity of Venezuela, and from this point he gradually advanced westwards, gaining strength by slow degrees. In the meantime, after a siege of 116 days, Carthagena surrendered; 5,000 of its inhabitants had perished of hunger. Both provinces were now in Morillo's hands. Fancying himself completely master of the country, he proceeded to wreak a terrible vengeance on the Granadines. But at the news of Bolivar's reappearance, though yet at a distance, the face of affairs changed. … His successes in the year 1817 were sure, though slow: in 1818, after he had been joined by European volunteers, they were brilliant. Bolivar beat the royalists in one pitched battle after another [Sagamoso, July 1, 1819, and Pantano de Bargas, July 25]: and at length a decisive victory was won by his lieutenant, Santander, at Boyaca, in New Granada, August 1, 1819. This battle, in which some hundreds of British and French auxiliaries fought on the side of liberty, completely freed the two countries from the yoke of Spain."

ALSO IN: C. S. Cochrane, Journal of a Residence in Colombia, volume 1, chapters 6-8.

      C. Cushing,
      Simon Bolivar
      (North American Review, January, 1829, and January, 1830).

COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1819-1830.
   The glory and the fall of Bolivar.
   Dissolution of the Colombian Federation.
   Tyranny under the Liberator, and monarchical schemes.

Three days after the battle of Boyaca, Bolivar entered Bogota in triumph. "A congress met in December and decided that Venezuela and Nueva Granada should form one republic, to be called Colombia. Morillo departed for Europe in 1820, and the victory gained by Bolivar at Carabobo on June 24, 1821, decided the fate of Colombia. In the following January General Bolivar assembled an army at Popayan to drive the Spaniards out of the province of Quito. His second in command, General Sucre, led an advanced guard, which was reinforced by a contingent of volunteers from Peru, under Santa Cruz. The Spanish General Ramirez was entirely defeated in the battle of Pichincha, and Quito was incorporated with the new republic of Colombia."

C. R. Markham, Colonial History of South America (Narrative and Critical History of America, volume 8, chapter 5).

   "The provinces of New Granada and Venezuela, together with the
   Presidency of Quito, now sent delegates to the convention of
   Cucuta, in 1821, and there decreed the union of the three
   countries as a single state by the name of the Republic of
   Colombia. The first Colombian federal constitution was
   concocted by the united wisdom of the delegates; and the
   result might easily have been foreseen. It was a farrago of
   crude and heterogeneous ideas. Some of its features were
   imitated from the American political system, some from the
   English, some from the French. … Bolivar of course became
   President: and the Republic had need of him. The task of
   liberation was not yet completed. Carthagena, and many other
   strong places, remained in Spanish hands. Bolivar reduced
   these one by one, and the second decisive victory of Carabobo,
   in 1822, finally secured Colombian freedom. The English claim
   the chief share in the battle of Carabobo: for the British
   legion alone carried the main Spanish position, losing in the
   feat two-thirds of its numbers. The war now fast drew to its
   close. The republic was able to contest with the invaders the
   dominion of the sea: General Padilla, on the 23rd of July,
   1823, totally destroyed the Spanish fleet: and the Spanish
   commander finally capitulated at Puerto Cavello in December.
{486}
   All these hard-won successes were mainly owing to the bravery
   and resolution of Bolivar. Bolivar deserves to the full the
   reputation of an able and patriotic soldier. He was now set
   free … to render important services to the rest of South
   America: and among the heroes of independence perhaps his name
   will always stand first. But Bolivar the statesman was a man
   very different from Bolivar the general. He was alternately
   timid and arbitrary. He was indeed afraid to touch the
   problems of statesmanship which awaited him: but instead of
   leading the Colombian people through independence to liberty,
   he stubbornly set his face against all measures of political
   or social reform. His fall may be said to have begun with the
   moment when his military triumphs were complete. The
   disaffection to the constitution of the leading people in
   Venezuela and Ecuador [the new name given to the old province
   of Quito, indicating its position at the equator] in 1826 and
   1827, was favoured by the Provincial governors, Paez and
   Mosquera; and Bolivar, instead of resisting the disintegration
   of the state, openly favoured the military dictatorships which
   Paez and Mosquera established. This policy foreshadowed the
   reign of absolutism in New Granada itself. Bolivar … had now
   become not only the constitutional head of the Colombian
   federation, but also the military head of the Peruvian
   republics [see PERU: A. D. 1820-1826, 1825-1826, and
   1826-1876]: and there can be no doubt that he intended the
   Colombian constitution to be reduced to the Peruvian model. As
   a first step towards reuniting all the South American nations
   under a military government, Paez, beyond reasonable doubt,
   with Bolivar's connivance, proclaimed the independence of
   Venezuela, April 30th, 1826. This practically broke up the
   Colombian federation: and the destruction of the constitution,
   so far as it regarded New Granada itself, soon followed.
   Bolivar had already resorted to the usual devices of military
   tyranny. The terrorism of Sbirri, arbitrary arrests, the
   assumption of additional executive powers, and, finally, the
   suppression of the vice-presidency, all pointed one way. …
   At length, after the practical secession of Venezuela and
   Ecuador under their military rulers, Congress decreed a
   summons for a Convention, which met at Ocaña in March, 1828.
   … The liberals, who were bent on electoral reform and
   decentralization, were paralyzed by the violent bearing of the
   Bolivian leaders: and Bolivar quartered himself in the
   neighbourhood, and threatened the Convention at the head of an
   army of 3,000 veterans. He did not, however, resort to open
   force. Instead of this, he ordered his party to recede from
   the Convention: and this left the Convention without the means
   of making a quorum. From this moment the designs of Bolivar
   were unmistakable. The dissolution of the Convention, and the
   appointment of Bolivar as Dictator, by a junta of notables,
   followed as a matter of course; and by the 'Organic decree' of
   August 1828, Bolivar assumed the absolute sovereignty of
   Colombia. A reign of brute force now followed: but the triumph
   of Bolivar was only ephemeral. … The Federation was gone:
   and it became a question of securing military rule in the
   separate provinces. A portentous change now occurred in
   Ecuador. The democratic party under Flores triumphed over the
   Bolivians under Mosquera: and Paez assured his chief that no
   help was to be expected from Venezuela. At the Convention of
   Bogota, in 1830, though it was packed with Bolivar's nominees,
   it became clear that the liberator's star had set at last. …
   This convention refused to vote him President. Bolivar now
   withdrew from public life: and a few months later, December
   17, 1830, he died broken-hearted at San Pedro, near Santa
   Martha. Bolivar, though a patriot as regarded the struggle
   with Spain, was in the end a traitor to his fellow citizens.
   Recent discoveries leave little doubt that he intended to
   found a monarchy on the ruins of the Spanish dominion. England
   and France, both at this time strongly conservative powers,
   were in favour of such a scheme; and a Prince of the House of
   Bourbon had already been nominated to be Bolivar's successor."

"About one month before his death, General Bolivar, the so-called 'Liberator' of South America, wrote a letter to the late General Flores of Ecuador, in which the following remarkable passages occur, which have never before been published in the English language: 'I have been in power for nearly 20 years, from which I have gathered only a few definite results: 1. America, for us, is ungovernable. 2. He who dedicates his services to a revolution, plows the sea. 3. The only thing that can be done in America, is to emigrate. 4. This country will inevitably fall into the hands of the unbridled rabble, and little by little become a prey to petty tyrants of all colors and races.'"

The abolition of slavery in the three republics of New Granada, Venezuela and Ecuador was initiated in the Republic of Colombia, while it embraced them all. "By a law of the 21st of July, 1821, it was provided that the children of slaves, born after its publication in the principal cities of the republic, should be free. … Certain revenues were appropriated to the creation of an emancipation fund in each district. … Aside from a certain bungling looseness with which almost all Spanish-American laws are drawn, it [the act of 1821] contains some very sensible regulations, and served to lay a solid foundation for the work of emancipation, since completed by the three republics which then constituted Colombia." In Ecuador the completion of emancipation was reached in 1854.

   "The proposition for assembling this body emanated from
   Bolivar, who, in 1823, as president of Colombia, invited the
   governments of Mexico, Peru, Chile, and Buenos Ayres, to form
   a confederacy of the Spanish-American states, by means of
   plenipotentiaries to be convened, in the spirit of classic
   analogy, in the isthmus of Panama. To this invitation the
   governments of Peru and Mexico promptly acceded, Chile and
   Buenos Ayres neglected or declined to be represented in the
   assembly, for the reasons which we shall presently state.
{487}
   This magnificent idea of a second Achæan League seized on the
   imaginations of many speculative and of some practical men in
   America and Europe, as destined to create a new era in the
   political history of the world by originating a purer system
   of public law, and almost realizing Bernardin de Saint
   Pierre's league of the modern nations. In its original shape,
   it was professedly a plan of a belligerent nature, having for
   its main object to combine the revolutionized states against
   the common enemy. But time was required for carrying it into
   effect. Meanwhile the project, magnified by the course of
   events, began to change its complexion. The United States were
   invited to participate in the Congress, so as to form an
   American policy, and a rallying point for American interests,
   in opposition to those of Europe; and, after the discussions
   which are so familiar to all, the government of the United
   States accepted the invitation, and despatched its
   representatives to Panama. … In the interval, between the
   proposal of the plan and its execution, Central America was
   added to the family of American nations, and agreed to take
   part in the Congress. At length, after many delays, this
   modern Amphictyonic Council, consisting of plenipotentiaries
   from Colombia, Central America, Peru and Mexico, assembled in
   the city of Panama, June 22, 1826, and in a session of three
   weeks concluded various treaties; one of perpetual union,
   league, and confederation; others relating to the contingents
   which the confederates should contribute for the common
   defence; and another for the annual meeting of the Congress in
   time of war. Having thus promptly despatched their private
   affairs, the assembly adjourned to Tacubaya in Mexico, on
   account of the insalubrious climate of Panama, before the
   delegation of the United States had arrived; since when it has
   justly acquired the epithet of 'introuvable,' and probably
   never will reassemble in its original form. Is there not a
   secret history of all this? Why did Chile and Buenos Ayres
   refuse to participate in the Congress? Why has it now vanished
   from the face of the earth? The answer given in South America
   is, that Bolivar proposed the assembly as part of a grand
   scheme of ambition,—ascribed to him by the republican party,
   and not without some countenance from his own conduct,—for
   establishing a military empire to embrace the whole of
   Spanish-America, or at least an empire uniting Colombia and
   the two Perus. To give the color of plausibility to the
   projected assembly, the United States were invited to be
   represented; and it is said Bolivar did not expect, nor very
   graciously receive, their acceptance of the invitation."

      C. Cushing,
      Bolivar and the Bolivian Constitution
      (North American Review, January, 1830).

In the United States "no question, in its day, excited more heat and intemperate discussion, or more feeling between a President and Senate, than this proposed mission to the Congress of American nations at Panama; and no heated question ever cooled off and died out so suddenly and completely. … Though long since sunk into oblivion, and its name almost forgotten, it was a master subject on the political theatre during its day; and gave rise to questions of national and of constitutional law, and of national policy, the importance of which survive the occasion from which they sprung; and the solution of which (as then solved), may be some guide to future action, if similar questions again occur. Besides the grave questions to which the subject gave rise, the subject itself became one of unusual and painful excitement. It agitated the people, made a violent debate in the two Houses of Congress, inflamed the passions of parties and individuals, raised a tempest before which Congress bent, made bad feeling between the President [John Quincy Adams] and the Senate; and led to the duel between Mr. Randolph and Mr. Clay. It was an administration measure, and pressed by all the means known to an administration. It was evidently relied upon as a means of acting upon the people—as a popular movement which might have the effect of turning the tide which was then running high against Mr. Adams and Mr. Clay. … Now, the chief benefit to be derived from its retrospect—and that indeed is a real one—is a view of the firmness with which was then maintained, by a minority, the old policy of the United States, to avoid entangling alliances and interference with the affairs of other nations;—and the exposition of the Monroe doctrine, from one so competent to give it as Mr. Adams."

      International American Conference (of 1889):
      Reports and Discussions,
      volume 4, History appendix.

COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1830-1886.
   Revolutions and civil wars.
   The New Confederation (1863) of the United States of Colombia.
   The Republic of Colombia.

   "New Granada was obliged in 1830 to recognize the disruption
   of Colombia, which had long been an accomplished fact. From
   this date the three states have a separate history, which is
   very much of a piece, though Venezuela was for some years
   preserved from the intestine commotions which have from the
   beginning distracted New Granada and Ecuador. … Mosquera,
   who had won the election which decided the fate of Bolivar did
   not long occupy the presidency. … Mosquera was soon driven
   out by General Urdanete, who was now at the head of the
   conservative or Bolivian party. But after the death of their
   leader, this party suffered a natural relapse, and Urdanete
   was overthrown early in 1831. The history of New Granada may
   be said really to commence with the presidency of Bolivar's
   old rival and companion in arms, Santander, who was elected
   under the constitution of 1832. … His presidency … was a
   comparatively bright episode: and with its termination in 1836
   begins the dark and troubled period which the Granadines
   emphatically designate by the name of the 'Twelve Years.' The
   scanty measure of liberalism which Santander had dealt out to
   the people was now withdrawn. Marquez, his successor, was a
   sceptic in politics and a man of infirm will. … Now began
   the ascendancy of clericalism, of absolutist oligarchy, and of
   government by the gallows. This same system continued under
   President Herran, who was elected in 1841; and then appeared
   on the scene, as his chief minister, the famous Dr. Ospina,"
   who brought back the Jesuits and curtailed the constitution.
   Liberalism again gained ground, electing General Lopez to the
   presidency in 1849 find once more expelling the Jesuits. In
   April 1854 a radical revolution overturned the constitution
   and President Obando was declared dictator. The conservatives
   rallied, however, and regained possession of the government
   before the close of the year.
{488}
   In 1857 Ospina entered on the presidency and civil war soon
   raged throughout the country. "After a hundred fights the
   revolution triumphed in July, 1861. … Mosquera, who was now
   in possession of the field, was a true pupil of Bolivar's, and
   he thought the time had come for reviving Bolivar's plans. …
   In 1863 Mosquera's new Federal Constitution was proclaimed.
   Henceforth each State [of the eight federal States into which
   the 44 provinces of New Granada were divided] became
   practically independent under its own President; and to mark
   the change the title of the nation was altered. At first it
   was called the Granadine Confederation: but it afterwards took
   the name of Colombia [the United States of Colombia], which
   had formerly been the title of the larger Confederation under
   Bolivar. Among the most important facts in recent Colombian
   history is the independence of the State of Panama, which has
   become of great importance through the construction of the
   railway connecting the port of Colon, or Aspinwall, as it was
   named by the Americans, on the Atlantic, with that of Panama
   on the Pacific. This rail way was opened in 1855; and in the
   same year Panama declared itself a sovereign state. The State
   of Panama, after many years of conservative domination, has
   now perhaps the most democratic government in the world. The
   President is elected for two years only, and is incapable of
   re-election. Panama has had many revolutions of its own; nor
   has the new Federal Constitution solved all the difficulties
   of the Granadine government. In 1867 Mosquera was obliged to
   have recourse to a coup d'état, and declared himself dictator,
   but he was soon afterwards arrested; a conservative revolution
   took place; Mosquera was banished; and Gutierrez became
   President. The liberals, however, came back the next year,
   under Ponce. Since 1874 [the date of writing being 1879],
   General Perez has been President of Colombia."

"The federal Constitution of 1863 was clearly formed on the model of the Constitution of the United States of America. It remained in force until 1886, when it was superseded by a law which gave the State a centralized organization and named it the 'Republic of Colombia.'"

      Constitution of the Republic of Colombia, with
      Historical Introduction by B. Moses (Supplement to Annals
      of American Academy of Political and Social Science,
      January, 1893).

COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1885-1891.
   The Revolution of 1885.
   The constitution of 1886.
   The presidency of Dr. Nuñez.

"Cartagena is virtually the centre of political power in Colombia, for it is the residence of President Nuñez, a dictator without the name. Before the revolution of 1885, during which Colon was burned and the Panama Railway protected by American marines, the States enjoyed a large measure of home rule. The insurgents who were defeated in that struggle were Radicals and advanced Liberals. They were making a stand against centralized government, and they were overthrown. When the followers of Dr. Nuñez were victorious, they transformed the constitutional system of the country. … Dr. Nuñez, who had entered public life as a Radical agitator, swung completely around the circle. As the leader of the National party he became the ally of Clericalism, and the defender of ecclesiastical privilege. Being a man of unrivalled capacity for directing public affairs and enforcing party discipline, he has established a highly centralized military government without incurring unpopularity by remaining constantly in sight and openly exercising authority. … Strong government has not been without its advantages; but the system can hardly be considered either republican or democratic. … Of all the travesties of popular government which have been witnessed in Spanish America, the political play enacted in Bogotá and Cartagena is the most grotesque. Dr. Nuñez is known as the titular President of the Republic. His practice is to go to the capital at the beginning of the presidential term, and when he has taken the oath of office to remain there a few weeks until all matters of policy and discipline are arranged among his followers. He then retires to his country-seat in Cartagena, leaving the vice-President to bear the burdens of state."

In 1892, Dr. Rafael Nuñez was elected President for a fourth
term, the term of office being six years.

COLONI.

COLONIA AGRIPPINENSIS.

Agrippina, the daughter of Germanicus and the mother of Nero, founded on the Rhine the Colonia Agrippinensis (modern Cologne)—probably the only colony of Roman veterans ever established under female auspices. The site had been previously occupied by a village of the Ubii. "It is curious that this abnormal colony has, alone, of all its kindred foundations, retained to the present day the name of Colonia."

COLONIA, URUGUAY.

See Roman: 13TH-14TH CENTURIES, and A. D. 1347-1354; also PAPACY: A. D. 1294-1348.

COLORADO: A. D. 1803-1848. Acquisition of the eastern part in the Louisiana Purchase and the western part from Mexico.

COLORADO: A. D. 1806-1876.
   Early explorations.
   Gold discoveries.
   Territorial and state organization.

   The first American explorer to penetrate to the mountains of
   Colorado was Lieutenant Zebulon Pike, sent out with a small
   party by General Wilkinson, in 1806. He approached within 15
   miles of the Rocky Mountain Peak which bears his name. A more
   extensive official exploration of the country was made in 1819
   by Major Stephen H. Long, whose report upon the whole region
   drained by the Missouri, Arkansas and Platte rivers and their
   tributaries was unfavorable and discouraging. Fremont's
   explorations, which touched Colorado, were made in 1843-44.
   "The only persons encountered in the Rocky mountains by
   Frémont at this time were the few remaining traders and their
   former employees, now their colonists, who lived with their
   Mexican and Indian wives and half-breed children in a
   primitive manner of life, usually under the protection of some
   defensive structure called a fort.
{489}
   The first American families in Colorado were a part of the
   Mormon battalion of 1846, who, with their wives and children,
   resided at Pueblo from September to the spring and summer of
   the following year, when they joined the Mormon emigration to
   Salt Lake. … Measures were taken early in March, 1847, to
   select locations for two United States forts between the
   Missouri and the Rocky mountains, the sites selected being
   those now occupied by Kearney City and Fort Laramie. … Up to
   1853 Colorado's scant population still lived in or near some
   defensive establishment, and had been decreasing rather than
   increasing for the past decade, owing to the hostility of the
   Indians." In 1858 the first organized searching or prospecting
   for gold in the region was begun by a party of Cherokee
   Indians and whites. Other parties soon followed; the search
   succeeded; and the Pike's Peak mining region was speedily
   swarming with eager adventurers. In the fall of 1858 two rival
   towns were laid out on the opposite sides of Cherry Creek.
   They were named respectively Auraria and Denver. The struggle
   for existence between them was bitter, but brief. Auraria
   succumbed and Denver survived, to become the metropolis of the
   Mountains. The first attempt at political organization was
   made at the Auraria settlement, in November, 1858, and took
   the form of a provisional territorial organization, under the
   name of the Territory of Jefferson; but the provisional
   government did not succeed in establishing its authority,
   opposed as it was by conflicting claims to territorial
   jurisdiction on the part of Utah, New Mexico, Kansas,
   Nebraska, and Dakota. At length, on the 28th of February,
   1861, an act of Congress became law, by which the proposed new
   territory was duly created, but not bearing the name of
   Jefferson. "The name of Colorado was given to it at the
   suggestion of the man selected for its first governor. …
   'Some,' says Gilpin, 'wanted it called Jefferson, some
   Arcadia. … I said the people have to a great extent named
   the States after the great rivers of the country … and the
   great feature of that country is the great Colorado river.'"
   Remaining in the territorial condition until July 1876,
   Colorado was then admitted to the Union as a state.

H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States, volume 20: Colorado, chapter 2-6.

"The Flavian Amphitheatre, or Colosseum, was built by Vespasian and Titus in the lowest part of the valley between the Cælean and Esquiline Hills, which was then occupied by a large artificial pool for naval fights ('Naumachia'). … The exact date of the commencement of the Colosseum is doubtful, but it was opened for use in A. D. 80. … As built by the Flavian Emperors the upper galleries ('mœniani') were of wood, and these, as in the case of the Circus Maximus, at many times caught fire from lightning and other causes, and did much damage to the stone-work of the building."

COLOSSUS OF RHODES.

The church, or the organization of Christianity, in Scotland, which resulted from the labors of the Irish missionary, Columba, in the sixth century, and which spread from the great monastery that he founded on the little island of Iona, or Ia, or Hii, near the greater island of Mull. The church of Columba, "not only for a time embraced within its fold the whole of Scotland north of the Firths of Forth and Clyde, and was for a century and a half the national church of Scotland, but was destined to give to the Angles of Northumbria the same form of Christianity for a period of thirty years." It represented some differences from the Roman church which two centuries of isolation had produced in the Irish church, from which it sprang.

See CHICAGO: A. D. 1892-1893. also C. D. Arnold, Author H. D. Higinbotham, Official Views Of The World's Columbian Exposition, https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/22847

COMANA.

Comana, an ancient city of Cappadocia, on the river Sarus (Sihoon) was the seat of a priesthood, in the temple of Enyo, or Bellona, so venerated, so wealthy and so powerful that the chief priest of Comana counted among the great Asiatic dignitaries in the time of Cæsar.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SNOSHONEAN FAMILY, and KIOWAN FAMILY, and APACHE GROUP.

COMES LITTORIS SAXONICI.

COMES PALATII.

COMITATUS. COMITES. GESITHS. THEGNS.

   Comitatus is the name given by Tacitus to a body of warlike
   companions among the ancient Germans "who attached themselves
   in the closest manner to the chieftain of their choice. They
   were in many cases the sons of the nobles who were ambitious
   of renown or of a perfect education in arms. The princeps
   provided for them horses, arms, and such rough equipment as
   they wanted. These and plentiful entertainment were accepted
   instead of wages. In time of war the comites fought for their
   chief, at once his defenders and the rivals of his prowess.
   … In the times of forced and unwelcome rest they were
   thoroughly idle; they cared neither for farming nor for
   hunting, but spent the time in feasting and in sleep. …
{490}
   Like the Frank king, the Anglo-Saxon king seems to have
   entered on the full possession of what had been the right of
   the elective principes [to nominate and maintain a comitatus,
   to which he could give territory and political power]: but the
   very principle of the comitatus had undergone a change from
   what it was in the time of Tacitus, when it reappears in our
   historians, and it seems to have had in England a peculiar
   development and a bearing of special importance on the
   constitution. In Tacitus the comites are the personal
   following of the princeps; they live in his house, are
   maintained by his gifts, fight for him in the field. If there
   is little difference between companions and servants, it is
   because civilization has not yet introduced voluntary
   helplessness. … Now the king, the perpetual princeps and
   representative of the race, conveys to his personal following
   public dignity and importance. His gesiths and thegns are
   among the great and wise men of the land. The right of having
   such dependents is not restricted to him, but the gesith of
   the ealdorman or bishop is simply a retainer, a pupil or a
   ward: the free household servants of the ceorl are in a
   certain sense his gesiths also. But the gesiths of the king
   are his guard and private council; they may be endowed by him
   from the folkland and admitted by him to the witenagemot. …
   The Danish huscarls of Canute are a late reproduction of what
   the familia of the Northumbrian kings must have been in the
   eighth century. … The development of the comitatus into a
   territorial nobility seems to be a feature peculiar to English
   history. … The Lombard gasind, and the Bavarian sindman were
   originally the same thing as the Anglo-Saxon gesith. But they
   sank into the general mass of vassalage as it grew up in the
   ninth and tenth centuries. … Closely connected with the
   gesith is the thegn; so closely that it is scarcely possible
   to see the difference except in the nature of the employment.
   The thegn seems to be primarily the warrior gesith; in this
   idea Alfred uses the word as translating the 'miles' of Bede.
   He is probably the gesith who has a particular military duty
   in his master's service: But he also appears as a landowner.
   The ceorl who has acquired five hides of land, and a special
   appointment in the king's hall, with other judicial rights,
   becomes thegn-worthy. … And from this point, the time of
   Athelstan, the gesith is lost sight of, except very
   occasionally; the more important members of the class having
   become thegns, and the lesser sort sinking into the ranks of
   mere servants to the king. The class of thegns now widens; on
   the one hand the name is given to all who possess the proper
   quantity of land, whether or no they stand in the old relation
   to the king; on the other the remains of the old nobility
   place themselves in the king's service. The name of thegn
   covers the whole class which after the Conquest appears under
   the name of knights, with the same qualification in land and
   nearly the same obligations. It also carried so much of
   nobility as is implied in hereditary privilege. The thegn-born
   are contrasted with the ceorl-born; and are perhaps much the
   same as the gesithcund. … Under the name of thegn are
   included however various grades of dignity. The class of
   king's thegns is distinguished from that of the medial thegns,
   and from a residuum that falls in rank below the latter. …
   The very name, like that of the gesith, has different senses
   in different ages and kingdoms; but the original idea of
   military service runs through all the meanings of thegn, as
   that of personal association is traceable in all the
   applications of gesith."

      William Stubbs,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 2, section 14
      and chapter 6, sections 63-65.

COMITIA CENTURIATA.

"Under the original constitution of Rome, the patricians alone … enjoyed political rights in the state, but at the same time they were forced to bear the whole burden of political duties. In these last were included, for example, the tilling of the king's fields, the construction of public works and buildings; … citizens alone, also, were liable to service in the army. … The political burdens, especially those connected with the army, grew heavier, naturally, as the power of Rome increased, and it was seen to be an injustice that one part of the people, and that, too, the smaller part, should alone feel their weight. This led to the first important modification of the Roman constitution, which was made even before the close of the regal period. According to tradition, its author was the king Servius Tullius, and its general object was to make all men who held land in the state liable to military service. It thus conferred no political rights on the plebeians, but assigned to them their share of political duties. … According to tradition, all the freeholders in the city between the ages of 17 and 60, with some exceptions, were divided, without distinction as to birth, into five classes ('classis,' 'a summoning,' 'calo') for service in the infantry according to the size of their estates. Those who were excepted served as horsemen. These were selected from among the very richest men in the state. … Of the five classes of infantry, the first contained the richest men. … The members of the first class were required to come to the battle array in complete armor, while less was demanded of the other four. Each class was subdivided into centuries or bodies of a hundred men each, for convenience in arranging the army. There were in all 193 centuries. … This absolute number and this apportionment were continued, as the population increased and the distribution of wealth altered, until the name century came to have a purely conventional meaning, even if it had any other in the beginning. Henceforth a careful census was taken every fourth year, and all freeholders were made subject to the 'tributum.' The arrangement of the people thus described was primarily made simply for military purposes. … Gradually, however, this organization came to have political significance, until finally these men, got together for what is the chief political duty in a primitive state, enjoyed what political privileges there were. … In the end, this 'exercitus' of Servius Tullius formed another popular assembly, the Comitia Centuriata, which supplanted the comitia curiata entirely, except in matters connected with the religion of the family and very soon of purely formal significance. This organization, therefore, became of the highest civil importance, and was continued for civil purposes long after the army was marshalled on quite another plan."

COMITIA CURIATA.

"In the beginning, any member of any one of the clans which were included in the three original Roman tribes, was a Roman citizen. So, too, were his children born in lawful wedlock, and those who were adopted by him according to the forms of law. Illegitimate children, on the other hand, were excluded from the number of citizens. These earliest Romans called themselves patricians (patricii, children of their fathers'), for some reason about which we cannot be sure. Perhaps it was in order to distinguish themselves from their illegitimate kinsmen and from such other people as lived about, having no pretense of blood connection with them, and who were, therefore, incapable of contracting lawful marriages, according to the patrician's view of this religious ceremony. The patricians … were grouped together in families, clans and tribes, partly on the basis of blood relationship, but chiefly on the basis of common religious worship. Besides these groups, there was still another in the state, the curia, or 'ward,' which stood between the clan and the tribe. In the earliest times, tradition said, ten families formed a clan, ten clans a curia and ten curiæ a tribe. These numbers, if they ever had any historical existence, could not have sustained themselves for any length of time in the case of the clans and families, for such organisms of necessity would increase and decrease quite irregularly. About the nature of the curia we have practically no direct information. The organization had become a mere name at an early period in the city's history. Whether the members of a curia thought of themselves as having closer kinship with one another than with members of other curiæ is not clear. We know, however, that the curiæ were definite political sub-divisions of the city, perhaps like modern wards, and that each curia had a common religious worship for its members' participation. Thus much, at any rate, is significant, because it has to do with the form of Rome's primitive popular assembly. When the king wanted to harangue the people ('populus,' cf. 'populor,' 'to devastate') he called them to a 'contio' (compounded of 'co' and 'venio'). But if he wanted to propose to them action which implied a change in the organic law of the state, he summoned them to a comitia (compounded of 'con' and 'eo'). To this the name comitia curiata was given, because its members voted by curiæ. Each curia had one vote, the character of which was determined by a majority of its members, and a majority of the curiæ decided the matter for the comitia."

A district of northern Syria, between Cilicia and the Euphrates, which acquired independence during the disorders which broke up the empire of the Seleucidæ, and was a separate kingdom during the last century B. C. It was afterwards made a Roman province. Its capital was Samosata.

COMMENDATION.

COMMERCIUM.

"The municipal law of England, or the rule of civil conduct prescribed to the inhabitants of this kingdom, may with sufficient propriety be divided into two kinds; the 'lex non scripta,' the unwritten or common law; and the 'lex scripta,' the written or statute law. The 'lex non scripta,' or unwritten law, includes not only general customs, or the common law properly so called, but also the particular customs of certain parts of the kingdom; and likewise those particular laws that are by custom observed only in certain courts and jurisdictions. When I call these parts of our law 'leges non scriptre,' I would not be understood as if all those laws were at present merely oral, or communicated from the former ages to the present solely by word of mouth. … But, with us at present, the monuments and evidences of our legal customs are contained in the records of the several courts of justice, in books of reports and judicial decisions, and in the treatises of learned sages of the profession, preserved and handed down to us from the times of highest antiquity. However, I therefore style these parts of our law 'leges non scriptre,' because their original institution and authority are not set down in writing, as Acts of Parliament are, but they receive their binding power, and the force of laws, by long and immemorial usage, and by their universal reception throughout the kingdom."

Sir W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England. introduction, section 3.

   The commonalty; the commons. In feudal usage, the term
   signified, as defined by Littré, the body of the bourgeois or
   burghers of a town who had received a charter which gave them
   rights of self-government. "In France the communal
   constitution was during this period (12th century) encouraged,
   although not very heartily, by Lewis VI., who saw in it one
   means of fettering the action of the barons and bishops and
   securing to himself the support of a strong portion of his
   people. In some cases the commune of France is, like the
   guild, a voluntary association, but its objects are from the
   first more distinctly political. In some parts of the kingdom
   the towns had risen against their lords in the latter half of
   the eleventh century, and had retained the fruits of their
   hard-won victories.
{492}
   In others, they possessed, in the
   remaining fragments of the Karolingian constitution, some
   organisation that formed a basis for new liberties. The great
   number of charters granted in the twelfth century shows that
   the policy of encouraging the third estate was in full sway in
   the royal councils, and the king by ready recognition of the
   popular rights gained the affections of the people to an
   extent which has few parallels in French history. The French
   charters are in both style and substance very different from
   the English. The liberties which are bestowed are for the most
   part the same, exemption from arbitrary taxation, the right to
   local jurisdiction, the privilege of enfranchising the villein
   who has been for a year and a day received within the walls,
   and the power of electing the officers. But whilst all the
   English charters contain a confirmation of free and good
   customs, the French are filled with an enumeration of bad
   ones. … The English have an ancient local constitution the
   members of which are the recipients of the new grant, and
   guilds of at least sufficient antiquity to render their
   confirmation typical of the freedom now guaranteed; French
   communia is a new body which, by the action of a sworn
   confederacy, has wrung from its oppressors a deliverance from
   hereditary bondage. … The commune lacks too the ancient
   element of festive religious or mercantile association which
   is so conspicuous in the history of the guild. The idea of the
   latter is English, that of the former is French or Gallic. Yet
   notwithstanding these differences, the substantial identity of
   the privileges secured by these charters seems to prove the
   existence of much international sympathy. The ancient
   liberties of the English were not unintelligible to the
   townsmen of Normandy; the rising freedom of the German cities
   roused a corresponding ambition in the towns of Flanders; and
   the struggles of the Italian municipalities awoke the energies
   of the cities of Provence. All took different ways to win the
   same liberties. … The German Hansa may have been derived
   from England; the communa of London was certainly derived from
   France. … The communa of London, and of those other English
   towns which in the twelfth century aimed at such a
   constitution, was the old English guild in a new French garb:
   it was the ancient association, but directed to the attainment
   of municipal rather than mercantile privileges."

"Oppression and insurrection were not the sole origin of the communes. … Two causes, quite distinct from feudal oppression, viz., Roman traditions and Christian sentiments, had their share in the formation of the communes and in the beneficial results thereof. The Roman municipal regimen, which is described in M. Guizot's 'Essais sur l'Histoire de France' (1st Essay, pages 1-44), [also in 'History of Civilization,' volume 2, lecture 2] did not every where perish with the Empire; it kept its footing in a great number of towns, especially in those of Southern Gaul."

COMNENIAN DYNASTY.

   The dynasty of Byzantine emperors founded, A. D. 1081, by
   Alexius Comnenos, and consisting of Alexius I., John II.,
   Manuel 1., Alexius II., and Andronicus I., who was murdered A.
   D. 1185.

"It is perhaps impossible to ascertain the epoch when the polarity of the magnet was first known in Europe. The common opinion which ascribes its discovery to a citizen of Amalfi in the 14th century, is undoubtedly erroneous. Guiot de Provins, a French poet who lived about the year 1200, or, at the latest, under St. Louis, describes it in the most unequivocal language. James de Vitry, a bishop in Palestine, before the middle of the 13th century, and Guido Guinizzelli, an Italian poet of the same time, are equally explicit. The French, as well as Italians, claim the discovery as their own; but whether it were due to either of these nations, or rather learned from their intercourse with the Saracens, is not easily to be ascertained. … It is a singular circumstance, and only to be explained by the obstinacy with which men are apt to reject improvements, that the magnetic needle was not generally adopted in navigation till very long after the discovery of its properties, and even after their peculiar importance had been perceived. The writers of the 13th century, who mention the polarity of the needle, mention also its use in navigation; yet Capmany has found no distinct proof of its employment till 1403, and does not believe that it was frequently on board Mediterranean ships at the latter part of the preceding age."

   "Both Chaucer, the English, and Barbour, the Scottish, poet,
   allude familiarly to the compass in the latter part of the
   14th century."

"We have no certain information of the directive tendency of the natural magnet being known earlier than the middle or end of the 11th century (in Europe, of course). … That it was known at this date and its practical value recognized, is shown by a passage from an Icelandic historian, quoted by Hanstien in his treatise of Terrestrial Magnetism. In this extract an expedition from Norway to Iceland in the year 868 is described; and it is stated that three ravens were taken as guides, for, adds the historian, 'in those times seamen had no loadstone in the northern countries.' This history was written about the year A. D. 1068, and the allusion I have quoted obviously shows that the author was aware of natural magnets having been employed as a compass. At the same time it fixes a limit of the discovery in northern countries. We find no mention of artificial magnets being so employed till about a century later."

COMPURGATION.

Among the Teutonic and other peoples, in early times, one accused of a crime might clear himself by his own oath, supported by the oaths of certain compurgators, who bore witness to his trustworthiness.

CONDÉ, The Second Prince Louis de (called The Great).
Campaigns in the Thirty Years War, and the war with Spain.

CONDOTTIERE.

In the general meaning of the word, a conductor or leader; applied specially, in Italian history, to the professional military leaders of the 13th and 14th centuries, who made a business of war very much as a modern contractor makes a business of railroad construction, and who were open to engagement, with the troops at their command, by any prince, or any free city whose offers were satisfactory.

CONFEDERACY OF DELOS, OR THE DELIAN.

CONFEDERATION OF THE BRITISH AMERICAN PROVINCES.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1805-1806; 1806 (JANUARY-AUGUST); and 1813 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER); also, FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH).

CONFESSION OF AUGSBURG.

CONFUCIANISM.

"Since Leopold II.'s accession to the throne [of Belgium], his great object has been to secure colonial possessions to Belgium for her excess of population and production. To this end he founded, in October, 1876, with the aid of eminent African explorers, the International African Association. Its object was to form committees in several countries, with a view to the collection of funds, and to the establishment of a chain of stations across Africa, passing by Lake Tanganyika, to assist future explorers. Accordingly committees were formed, whose presidents were as follows: in England, the Prince of Wales; in Germany the Crown Prince; in Italy the King's brother; in France, M. de Lesseps; and in Belgium, King Leopold. Sums of money were subscribed, and stations were opened from Bagomoyo (just south of Zanzibar) to Lake Tanganyika; but when toward the close of 1877, Stanley reappeared on the Atlantic coast and revealed the immense length of the marvelous Congo River, King Leopold at once turned his attention in that direction. That he might not put himself forward prematurely, he acted under cover of an association and a committee of exploration, which were in reality formed and entirely supported by the King's energy and by the large sums of money that he lavished upon them. Through this association King Leopold maintained Stanley for five years on the Congo. During this time a road was made from the coast to Stanley Pool, where the navigable portion of the Upper Congo commences; and thus was formed the basis of the future empire. During this period Stanley signed no less than four thousand treaties or concessions of territory, on which upward of two thousand chiefs had placed their marks in sign of adhesion. {494} At a cost of many months of transportation, necessitating the employment of thousands of porters, light steamers were placed on the upper river which was explored as far as Stanley Falls. Its numerous tributaries also were followed up as far as the rapids that interrupt their courses. Many young Belgian officers and other adventurous explorers established themselves on the banks of the Congo and the adjoining river, the Kouiliou, and founded a series of stations, each occupied by one or two Europeans and by a few soldiers from Zanzibar. In this way the country was insensibly taken possession of in the most pacific manner, without a struggle and with no bloodshed whatever; for the natives, who are of a very gentle disposition, offered no resistance. The Senate of the United States, which was called upon, in 1884, to give an opinion on the rights of the African Association, made a careful examination of the matter, and recognized the legality of the claims and title deeds submitted to them. A little later, in order to mark the formation of a state, the Congo Association adopted as its flag a gold star on a blue ground. A French lawyer. M. Deloume, in a very well-written pamphlet entitled 'Le Droit des Gens dans l'Afrique Equatoriale,' has proved that this proceeding was not only legitimate, but necessary. The embryo state, however, lacked one essential thing, namely, recognition by the civilized powers. It existed only as a private association, or, as a hostile publicist expressed it, as 'a state in shares, indulging in pretensions of sovereignty.' Great difficulties stood in the way of realizing this essential condition. Disputes, on the one hand with France and on the other with Portugal, appeared inevitable. … King Leopold did not lose heart. In 1882 he obtained from the French government an assurance that, while maintaining its rights to the north of Stanley Pool, it would give support to the International Association of the Congo. With Portugal it seemed very difficult to come to an understanding. … Prince Bismarck took part in the matter, and in the German Parliament praised highly the work of the African Association. In April, 1884, he proposed to France to come to an understanding, and to settle all difficulties by general agreement. From this proposition sprang the famous Berlin conference, the remarkable decisions of which we shall mention later. At the same time, before the conference opened, Germany signed an agreement with the International Association of the Congo, in which she agreed to recognize its flag as that of a state, in exchange for an assurance that her trade should be free, and that German subjects should enjoy all the privileges of the most favored nations. Similar agreements were entered upon with nearly all the other countries of the globe. The delegates of the Association were accepted at the conference on the same footing as those of the different states that were represented there, and on February 26, the day on which the act was signed, Bismarck expressed himself as follows: 'The new State of the Congo is destined to be one of the chief safe-guards of the work we have in view, and I sincerely trust that its development will fulfill the noble aspirations of its august founder.' Thus the Congo International Association, hitherto only a private enterprise, seemed now to be recognized as a sovereign state, without having, however, as yet assumed the title. But where were the limits of its territory. … Thanks to the interference of France, after prolonged negotiations an understanding was arrived at on February 15, 1885, by which both parties were satisfied. They agreed that Portugal should take possession of the southern bank of the Congo, up to its junction with the little stream Uango, above Nokki, and also of the district of Kabinda forming a wedge that extends into the French territory on the Atlantic Ocean. The International Congo Association—for such was still its title—was to have access to the sea by a strip of land extending from Manyanga (west of Leopoldville) to the ocean, north of Banana, and comprising in addition to this port, Boma and the important station of Vivi. These treaties granted the association 931,285 square miles of territory, that is to say, a domain eighty times the size of Belgium, with more than 7,500 miles of navigable rivers. The limits fixed were, on the west, the Kuango, an important tributary of the Congo; on the south, the sources of the Zambesi; on the east, the Lakes Bangweolo, Moero, and Tanganyika, and a line passing through Lake Albert Edward to the river Ouelle; on the north, a line following the fourth degree of latitude to the Mobangi River on the French frontier. The whole forms one eleventh part of the African continent. The association became transformed into a state in August 1885, when King Leopold, with the authorization of the Belgian Chambers, notified the powers that he should assume the title of Sovereign of the Independent State of the Congo, the union of which with Belgium was to be exclusively personal. The Congo is, therefore, not a Belgian colony, but nevertheless the Belgian Chambers have recently given valuable assistance to the King's work; first, in taking, on July 26, 1889, 10,000,000 francs' worth of shares in the railway which is to connect the seaport of Matadi with the riverport of Leopoldville, on Stanley Pool, and secondly by granting a loan of 25,000,000 francs to the Independent State on August 4, 1890. The King, in a will laid before Parliament, bequeaths all his African possessions to the Belgian nation, authorizing the country to take possession of them after a lapse of ten years."

      E. de Laveleye,
      The Division of Africa
      (The Forum, January, 1891).

      ALSO IN:
      H. M. Stanley,
      The Congo, and the Founding of its Free State.

"Philip of Neri, a young Florentine of good birth (1515-1595; canonised 1622) … in 1548 instituted at Rome the Society of the Holy Trinity, to minister to the wants of the pilgrims at Rome. But the operations of his mission gradually extended till they embraced the spiritual welfare of the Roman population at large, and the reformation of the Roman clergy in particular. No figure is more serene and more sympathetic to us in the history of the Catholic reaction than that of this latter-day 'apostle of Rome.' From his association, which followed the rule of St. Augustine, sprang in 1575 the Congregation of the Oratory at Rome, famous as the seminary of much that is most admirable in the labours of the Catholic clergy."

"In the year 1766, there were above a hundred Congregations of the Oratory of S. Philip in Europe and the East Indies; but since the revolutions of the last seventy years many of these have ceased to exist, while, on the contrary, within the last twelve years two have been established in England."

CONGREGATIONALISM.

CONGRESS OF BERLIN.

CONGRESS OF PANAMA.

CONGRESS OF PARIS.

CONGRESS OF VIENNA.

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES.

"The Constitution created Congress and conferred upon it powers of legislation for national purposes, but made no provision as to the method by which these powers should be exercised. In consequence Congress has itself developed a method of transacting its business by means of committees. The Federal Legislature consists of two Houses—the Senate, or Upper and less numerous branch, and the House of Representatives, or the Lower and more numerous popular branch. The Senate is composed of two members from each State elected by the State legislatures for a term of six years, one third of whom retire every two years. The presiding officer is the Vice-President. Early in each session the Senate chooses a President pro tempore, so as to provide for any absence of the Vice-President, whether caused by death, sickness, or for other reasons. The House of Representatives is at present [1891] composed of 332 members and four delegates from the Territories. These delegates, however, have no vote, though they may speak. The House is presided over by a Speaker, elected at the beginning of each [Congress]. A quorum for business is, in either House, a majority. Congress meets every year in the beginning of December. Each Congress lasts two years and holds two sessions—a long and a short session. The long session lasts from December to midsummer [or until the two Houses agree upon an adjournment]. The short session lasts from December, when Congress meets again, until the 4th of March. The term of office then expires for all the members of the House and for one-third of the Senators. The long session ends in even years (1880 and 1882, etc.), and the short session in odd years (1881 and 1883). Extra sessions may be called by the President for urgent business. In the early part of the November preceding the end of the short session of Congress occurs the election of Representatives. Congressmen then elected do not take their seats until thirteen months later, that is, at the reassembling of Congress in December of the year following, unless an extra session is called. The Senate frequently holds secret, or, as they are called, executive sessions, for the consideration of treaties and nominations of the President, in which the House of Representatives has no voice. It is then said to sit with closed doors. An immense amount of business must necessarily be transacted by a Congress that legislates for nearly 63,000,000 of people. … Lack of time, of course, prevents a consideration of each bill separately by the whole legislature. To provide a means by which each subject may receive investigation and consideration, a plan is used by which the members of both branches of Congress are divided into committees. Each committee busies itself with a certain class of business, and bills when introduced are referred to this or that committee for consideration, according to the subjects to which the bills relate. … The Senate is now divided between 50 and 60 committees, but the number varies from session to session. … The House of Representatives is organized into 60 committees [appointed by the Speaker], ranging, in their number of members, from thirteen down. … The Committee of Ways and Means, which regulates customs duties and excise taxes, is by far the most important. … Congress ordinarily assembles at noon and remains in session until 4 or 5 P. M., though towards the end of the term it frequently remains in session until late in the night. … There is still one feature of Congressional government which needs explanation, and that is the caucus. A caucus is the meeting of the members of one party in private, for the discussion of the attitude and line of policy which members of that party are to take on questions which are expected to arise in the legislative halls. Thus, in Senate caucus, is decided who shall be members of the various committees. In these meetings is frequently discussed whether or not the whole party shall vote for or against this or that important bill, and thus its fate is decided before it has even come up for debate in Congress."

W. W. and W. F. Willoughby, Government and Administration of the United States (Johns Hopkins University Studies, series ix., numbers 1-2), chapter 9.

      J. Story,
      Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States,
      book 3, chapters 8-31 (volumes 2-3).

"The first discoveries made of this part of New England were of its principal river and the fine meadows lying upon its bank. Whether the Dutch at New Netherlands, or the people of New Plymouth, were the first discoverers of the river is not certain. Both the English and the Dutch claimed to be the first discoverers, and both purchased and made a settlement of the lands upon it nearly at the same time. … From this fine river, which the Indians call Quonehtacut, or Connecticut, (in English the long river) the colony originally took its name."

According to Dutch accounts, the river was entered by Adriaen Block, ascended to latitude 41° 48', and named Fresh River, in 1614.

In 1631, the Earl of Warwick granted to Lord Say and Sele, Lord Brooke, Sir Richard Saltonstall, and others, "the territory between Narragansett River and southwest towards New York for 120 miles and west to the Pacific Ocean, or, according to the words of President Clap of Yale College, 'from Point Judith to New York, and from thence a west line to the South Sea, and if we take Narragansett River in its whole length the tract will extend as far north as Worcester. It comprehends the whole of the colony of Connecticut and more. This was called the old patent of Connecticut, and had been granted the previous year, 1630, by the Council of Plymouth [or Council for New England] to the Earl of Warwick. Yet before the English had planted settlements in Connecticut the Dutch had purchased of the Pequots land where Hartford now stands and erected a small trading fort called 'The House of Good Hope.'"

In 1635, four years after the Connecticut grant, said to have been derived originally from the Council for New England, in 1630, had been transferred by the Earl of Warwick to Lord Say and Seal and others, the Council made an attempt, in connivance with the English court, to nullify all its grants, to regain possession of the territory of New England and to parcel it out by lot among its own members. In this attempted parcelling, which proved ineffectual, Connecticut fell to the lot of the Earl of Carlisle, the Duke of Lennox, and the Duke of Hamilton. Modern investigation seems to have found the alleged grant from the Council of Plymouth, or Council for New England, to the Earl of Warwick, in 1630, to be mythical. "No one has ever seen it, or has heard of anyone who claims to have seen it. It is not mentioned even in the grant from Warwick to the Say and Sele patentees in 1631. … The deed is a mere quit-claim, which warrants nothing and does not even assert title to the soil transferred. … Why the Warwick transaction took this peculiar shape, why Warwick transferred, without showing title, a territory which the original owners granted anew to other patentees in 1635, are questions which are beyond conjecture."

   "In October, 1634, some men of Plymouth, led by William
   Holmes, sailed up the Connecticut river, and, after bandying
   threats with a party of Dutch who had built a rude fort on the
   site of Hartford, passed on and fortified themselves on the
   site of Windsor. Next year Governor Van Twiller sent a company
   of seventy men to drive away these intruders, but after
   reconnoitering the situation the Dutchmen thought it best not
   to make an attack. Their little stronghold at Hartford
   remained unmolested by the English, and, in order to secure
   the communication between this advanced outpost and New
   Amsterdam, Van Twiller decided to build another fort at the
   mouth of the river, but this time the English were beforehand.
   Rumours of Dutch designs may have reached the ears of Lord Say
   and Sele and Lord Brooke—'fanatic Brooke,' as Scott calls him
   in 'Marmion'—who had obtained from the Council for New
   England a grant of territory on the shores of the Sound. These
   noblemen chose as their agent the younger John Winthrop, son
   of the Massachusetts governor, and this new-comer arrived upon
   the scene just in time to drive away Van Twiller's vessel and
   build an English fort which in honour of his two patrons he
   called 'Say-Brooke.' Had it not been for seeds of discontent
   already sown in Massachusetts, the English hold upon the
   Connecticut valley might perhaps have been for a few years
   confined to these two military outposts at Windsor and
   Saybrooke. But there were people in Massachusetts who did not
   look with favour upon the aristocratic and theocratic features
   of its polity. The provision that none but church-members
   should vote or hold office was by no means unanimously
   approved. … Cotton declared that democracy was no fit
   government either for church or for commonwealth, and the
   majority of the ministers agreed with him. Chief among those
   who did not was the learned and eloquent Thomas Hooker, pastor
   of the church at Newtown. … There were many in Newtown who
   took Hooker's view of the matter; and there, as also in
   Watertown and Dorchester, which in 1633 took the initiative in
   framing town governments with selectmen, a strong disposition
   was shown to evade the restrictions upon the suffrage. While
   such things were talked about, in the summer of 1633, the
   adventurous John Oldham was making his way through the forest
   and over the mountains into the Connecticut valley, and when
   he returned to the coast his glowing accounts set some people
   to thinking. Two years afterward, a few pioneers from
   Dorchester pushed through the wilderness as far as the
   Plymouth men's fort at Windsor, while a party from Watertown
   went farther and came to a halt upon the site of Wethersfield.
   A larger party, bringing cattle and such goods as they could
   carry, set out in the autumn and succeeded in reaching
   Windsor. … In the next June, 1636, the Newtown congregation,
   a hundred or more in number, led by their sturdy pastor, and
   bringing with them 160 head of cattle, made the pilgrimage to
   the Connecticut valley. Women and children took part in this
   pleasant summer journey; Mrs. Hooker, the pastor's wife, being
   too ill to walk, was carried on a litter. Thus, in the
   memorable year in which our great university was born, did
   Cambridge become, in the true Greek sense of a much-abused
   word, the metropolis or 'mother town' of Hartford. The
   migration at once became strong in numbers.
{497}
   During the past twelvemonth a score of ships had brought from
   England to Massachusetts more than 3,000 souls, and so great
   an accession made further movement easy. Hooker's pilgrims
   were soon followed by the Dorchester and Watertown
   congregations, and by the next May 800 people were living in
   Windsor, Hartford, and Wethersfield. As we read of these
   movements, not of individuals, but of organic communities,
   united in allegiance to a church and its pastor, and fervid
   with the instinct of self-government, we seem to see Greek
   history renewed, but with centuries of added political
   training. For one year a board of commissioners from
   Massachusetts governed the new towns, but at the end of that
   time the towns chose representatives and held a General Court
   at Hartford, and thus the separate existence of Connecticut
   was begun. As for Springfield, which was settled about the
   same time by a party from Roxbury, it remained for some years
   doubtful to which state it belonged."

"It must be noted that [the] Newtown, Watertown, and Dorchester migrations had not been altogether a simple transfer of individual settlers from one colony to another. In each of these migrations a part of the people was left behind, so that the Massachusetts towns did not cease to exist. And yet each of them brought its Massachusetts magistrates, its ministers (except Watertown), and all the political and ecclesiastical machinery of the town; and at least one of them (Dorchester) had hardly changed its structure since its members first organized in 1630 at Dorchester in England. The first settlement of Connecticut was thus the migration of three distinct and individual town organizations out of the jurisdiction of Massachusetts and into absolute freedom. It was the Massachusetts town system set loose in the wilderness. At first the three towns retained even their Massachusetts names; and it was not until the eighth court meeting, February 21 1636 (7), that it was decided that the plantacon [c tilde] nowe called Newtowne slalbe called & named by the name of Harteforde Towne, likewise the plantacon [c tilde] nowe called 'Watertowne shalbe called & named Wythersfeild,' and the plantacon [c tilde] called Dorchester shalbe called Windsor.' On the same day the boundaries between the three towns were 'agreed' upon, and thus the germ of the future State was the agreement and union of the three towns. Accordingly, the subsequent court meeting at Hartford, May 1, 1637, for the first time took the name of the 'Genrall Corte,' and was composed, in addition to the town magistrates who had previously held it, of 'comittees' of three from each town. So simply and naturally did the migrated town system evolve, in this binal assembly, the seminal principle of the Senate and House of Representatives of the future State of Connecticut. The Assembly further showed its consciousness of separate existence by declaring 'an offensive warr ag' the Pequoitt,' assigning the proportions of its miniature army and supplies to each town, and appointing a commander. … So complete are the features of State-hood, that we may fairly assign May 1, 1637, as the proper birthday of Connecticut. No king, no Congress, presided over the birth: its seed was in the towns. January 14, 1638 (9), the little Commonwealth formed the first American Constitution at Hartford. So far as its provisions are concerned, the King, the Parliament, the Plymouth Council, the Warwick grant, the Say and Sele grant, might as well have been non-existent: not one of them is mentioned. … This constitution was not only the earliest but the longest in continuance of American documents of the kind, unless we except the Rhode Island charter. It was not essentially altered by the charter of 1662, which was practically a royal confirmation of it; and it was not until 1818 that the charter, that is the constitution of 1639, was superseded by the present constitution. Connecticut was as absolutely a state in 1639 as in 1776."

A. Johnston, The Genesis of a New England State (Johns Hopkins University Studies, number 11).

The following is the text of those "Fundamental Orders" adopted by the people dwelling on Connecticut River, January 14, 1638 (9), which formed the first of written constitutions: "FORASMUCH as it hath pleased the Allmighty God by the wise disposition of his diuyne pruidence so to Order and dispose of things that we the Inhabitants and Residents of Windsor, Harteford and Wethersfield are now cohabiting and dwelling in and vppon the River of Conectecotte and the Lands thereunto adioyueing; And well knowing where a people are gathered togather the word of God requires that to mayntayne the peace and vnion of such a people there should be an orderly and decent Gouerment established according to God, to order and dispose of the affayres of the people at all seasons as occation shall require; doe therefore assotiate and conioyne our selues to be as one Publike State or ComonweIth; and doe, for our selues and our Successors and such as shall be adioyned to vs att any tyme hereafter, enter into Combination and Confederation togather, to mayntayne and prsearue the liberty and purity of the gospell of our Lord Jesus wch we now prfesse, as also the disciplyne of the Churches, wch according to the truth of the said gospell is now practised amongst vs; As also in or Ciuell Affaires to be guided and gouerned according to such Lawes, Rules, Orders and decrees as shall be made, ordered & decreed, as followeth:—1. It is Ordered, sentenced and decreed, that there shall be yerely two generall Assemblies or Courts, the one the second thursday in Aprill, the other the second thursday in September following; the first shall be called the Courte of Election, wherein shall be yerely Chosen fro tyme to tyme soe many Magestrats and other publike Officers as shall be found requisitte: Whereof one to be chosen Gouernour for the yeare ensueing and vntill another be chosen, and noe other Magestrate to be chosen for more than one yeare; pruided allwayes there be sixe chosen besids the Gouernour; wch being chosen and sworne according to an Oath recorded for that purpose shall haue power to administer iustice according to the Lawes here established, and for want thereof according to the rule of the word of God; wch choise shall be made by all that are admitted freemen and haue taken the Oath of Fidellity, and doe cohabitte wthin this Jurisdiction, (hauing beene admitted Inhabitants by the maior prt of the Towne wherein they liue,) or the mayor prte of such as shall be then prsent. {498} 2. It is Ordered, sentenced and decreed, that the Election of the aforesaid Magestrats shall be on this manner: euery prson prsent and quallified for choyse shall bring in (to the prsons deputed to receaue the) one single papr wth the name of him written in yt whom he desires to haue Gouernour, and he that hath the greatest nuber of papers shall be Gouernor for that yeare. And the rest of the Magestrats or publike Officers to be chosen in this manner: The Secretary for the tyme being shall first read the names of all that are to be put to choise and then shall seuerally nominate them distinctly, and euery one that would haue the prson nominated to be chosen shall bring in one single paper written vppon, and he that would not haue him chosen shall bring in a blanke: and euery one that hath more written papers then blanks shall be a Magistrat for that yeare; wth papers shall be receaued and told by one or more that shall be then chosen by the court and sworne to be faythfull therein: but in case there should not be sixe chosen as aforesaid, besids the Gouernor, out of those wch are nominated, then he or they wch haue the most written paprs shall be a Magestrate or Magestrats for the ensueing yeare, to make up the foresaid nuber. 3. It is Ordered, sentenced and decreed, that the Secretary shall not nominate any prson, nor shall any prson be chosen newly into the Magestraey wch was not prpownded in some Generall Courte before, to be nominated the next Election; and to that end yt shall be lawfull for ech of the Townes aforesaid by their deputyes to nominate any two who they conceaue fitte to be put to election; and the Courte may ad so many more as they, iudge requisitt. 4. It is Ordered, sentenced and decreed that noe prson be chosen Gouernor aboue once in two yeares, and that the Gouernor be always a meber of some approved congregation, and formerly of the Magestracy wthin this Jurisdiction; and all the Magestrats Freemen of this Comonwelth: and that no Magestrate or other publike officer shall execute any prte of his or their Office before they are seuerally sworne, wch shall be done in the face of the Courte if they be prsent, and in case of absence by some deputed for that purpose. 5. It is Ordered, senteneed and decreed, that to the aforesaid Courte of Election the seurall Townes shall send their deputyes, and when the Elections are ended they may prceed in any publike searuice as at other Courts. Also the other Generall Courte in Septemher shall be for makeing of lawes, and any other publike occation, wch conserns the good of the Comonwelth. 6. It is Ordered, sentenced and decreed, that the Gournor shall, ether by himselfe or by the secretary, send out sumons to the Constables of eur Towne for the cauleing of these two standing Courts, on month at lest before their seu'all tymes: And also if the Gournor and the gretest prte of the Magestmts see cause vppon any spetiall occation to call a generall Courte, they may giue order to the secretary soe to doe wthin fowerteene dayes warneing; and if vrgent necessity so require, vppon a shorter notice, giueing sufficient grownds for yt to the deputyes when they meete, or els be questioned for the same; And if the Gournor and Mayor prte of Magestrats shall ether neglect or refuse to call the two Generall standing Courts or ether of the, as also at other tymes when the occutions of the Comonwelth require, the Freemen thereof, or the Mayor prte of them, shall petition to them soe to doe: if then yt be ether denyed or neglected the said Freemen or the Mayor prte of them shall haue power to giue order to the Constables of the seuerall Townes to doe the same, and so may meete togather, and chuse to themselues a Moderator, and may prceed to do any Acte of power, wch any other Generall Courte may. 7. It is Ordered, sentenced and decreed that after there are warrants giuen out for any of the suid Generall Courts, the Constable or Constables of ech Towne shall forthwth give notice distinctly, to the inhabitants of the same, in some Pubhke Assembly or by goeing or sending fro howse to howse, that at a place and tyme by him or them lymited and sett, they meet and assemble the selues togather to elect and chuse certen deputyes to be att the Generall Courte then following to agitate the afayres of the comonwelth; wch said Deputyes shall be choseu by all that are admitted Inhabitants in the seurall Townes and haue taken the oath of fidellity; pruided that non be chosen a Deputy for any Generall Courte wch is not a Freeman of this Comonwelth. The foresaid deputyes shall be chosen in manner following; euery prson that is prsent and quallified as before exprssed, shall bring thr names of such, written in seurrall papers, as they desire to haue chosen for that Imployment, and these 3 or 4, more or lesse, being the nuber agreed on to be chosen for that tyme, that haue greatest nuber of papers written for the shall be deputyes for that Courte; whose names shall be endorsed on the backe side of the warrant and returned into the Courte, wth the Constable or Constables hand vnto the same. 8. It is Ordered, sentenced and decreed, that Wyndsor, Hartford and Wethersfield shall haue power, ech Towne, to send fower of their freemen as deputyes to euery Generall Courte; and whatsoeuer other Townes shall be hereafter added to this Jurisdiction, they shall send so many deputyes as the Courte shall judge meete, a reasonable prportion to the nuber of Freemen that are in the said Townes being to be attended therein; wch deputyes shall have the power of the whole Towne to giue their voats and alowance to all such lawes and orders as may be for the publike good, and unto wch the said Townes are to be bownd. 9. It is ordered and decreed, that the deputyes thus chosen shall haue power and liberty to appoynt a tyme and a place of meeting togather before any Generall Courte to aduise and consult of all such things as may concerne the good of the publike, as also to examine their owne Elections, whether according to the order, and if they or the gretest prte of them find any election to be illegall they may seclud such for prsent fro their meeting, and returne the same and their resons to the Courte; and if yt proue true, the Courte may fyne the prty or prtyes so intruding and the Towne, if they see cause, and giue out a warrant to goe to a newe election in a legall way, either in prte or in whole. Also the said deputyes shall haue power to fyne any that shall be disorderly at their meetings, or for not coming in due tyme or place according to appoyntment; and they may returne the said fynes into the Courte if yt be refused to be paid, and the tresurer to take notice of yt, and to estreete or levy the same as he doth other fynes. {499} 10. It is Ordered, sentenceJ and decreed, that euery Generall Courte, except such as through neglecte of the Gou'nor and the greatest prte of Magestrats the Freemen themselves doe call, shall consist of the Gouernor, or some one chosen to moderate the Court, and 4 other Magestruts at lest, wth the mayor prte of the deputyes of the seuerall Townes legally chosen; and in case the Freemen or mayor prte of the, through neglect or refusall of the Gouernor and mayor prte of the magestrats, shall call a Courte, yt shall consist of the mayor prte of Freemen that are prsent or their deputyes, wty a Moderator chosen by the: In wch said Generall Courts shall consist the supreme power of the Comonwelth, and they only shall haue power to make laws or repeale the, to graunt leuyes, to admitt of Freemen, dispose of lands vndisposed of, to seuerall Townes or prsons, and also shall haue power to call ether Courte or Magestrate or any other prson whatsoeuer into question for any misdemeanour, and may for just causes displace or deale otherwise according to the nature of the offence; and also may deale in any other matter that concerns the good of this comon welth, excepte election of Magestrats, wch shall be done by the whole boddy of Freemen. In wch Courte the Gouernour or Moderator shall haue power to order the Courte to giue liberty of spech, and silence vncensonable and disorderly speakeings, to put all things to voate, and in case the voate be equall to haue the casting voice. But non of these Courts shall be adiorned or dissolued wthout the consent of the maior prte of the Court. 11. It is ordered, sentenced and decreed, that when any Gemerall Courte vppon the occations of the Comonwelth haue agreed vppon any sume or somes of mony to be leuyed vppon the seuerall Townes wthin this Jurisdiction, that a Comittee be chosen to sett out and appoynt wt shall be the prportion of euery Towne to pay of the said leuy, prvided the Comittees be made vp of an equall nuber out of each Towne. 14th January, 1638, the 11 Orders abouesaid are voted."

"In the height of the Hutchinson controversy [see MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1636-1638], John Davenport, an eminent nonconformist minister from London, had arrived at Boston, and with him a wealthy company, led by two merchants, Theophilus Eaton and Edward Hopkins. Alarmed at the new opinions and religious agitations of which Massachusetts was the seat, notwithstanding very advantageous offers of settlement there, they preferred to establish a separate community of their own, to be forever free from the innovations of error and licentiousness. Eaton and others sent to explore the coast west of the Connecticut, selected a place for settlement near the head of a spacious bay at Quinapiack [or Quinnipiack], or, as the Dutch called it, Red Hill, where they built a hut and spent the winter. They were joined in the spring [April, 1638] by the rest of their company, and Davenport preached his first sermon under the shade of a spreading oak. Presently they entered into what they called a 'plantation covenant,' and a communication being opened with the Indians, who were but few in that neighborhood, the lands of Quinapiack were purchased, except a small reservation on the east side of the bay, the Indians receiving a few presents and a promise of protection. A tract north of the bay, ten miles in one direction and thirteen in the other, was purchased for ten coats; and the colonists proceeded to lay out in squares the ground-plan of a spacious city, to which they presently gave the name of New Haven."

"They formed their political association by what they called a 'plantation covenant,' 'to distinguish it from a church covenant, which could not at that time be made.' In this compact they resolved, 'that, as in matters that concern the gathering and ordering of a church, so likewise in all public offices which concern civil order, as choice of magistrates and officers, making and repealing of laws; dividing allotments of inheritance, and all things of like nature,' they would 'be ordered by the rules which the Scriptures hold forth.' It had no external sanction, and comprehended no acknowledgment of the government of England. The company consisted mostly of Londoners, who at home had been engaged in trade. In proportion to their numbers, they were the richest of all the plantations. Like the settlers on Narragansett Bay, they had no other title to their lands than that which they obtained by purchase from the Indians."

"In June, 1639, the whole body of settlers [at Quinnipiack, or New Haven] came together to frame a constitution. A tradition, seemingly well founded, says that the meeting was held in a large barn. According to the same account, the purpose for which they had met and the principles on which they ought to proceed were set forth by Davenport in a sermon. 'Wisdom hath builded her house, she hath hewn out seven pillars,' was the text. There is an obvious connection between this and the subsequent choice of seven of the chief men to lay the foundation of the constitution. … Davenport set forth the general system on which the constitution ought to be framed. The two main principles which he laid down were, that Scripture is a perfect and sufficient rule for the conduct of civil affairs, and that church-membership must be a condition of citizenship. In this the colonists were but imitating the example of Massachusetts. … After the sermon, five resolutions [followed by a sixth, constituting together what was called the 'fundamental agreement' of New Haven Colony], formally introducing Davenport's proposals, were carried. If a church already existed, it was not considered fit to form a basis for the state. Accordingly a fresh one was framed by a curiously complicated process. As a first step, twelve men were elected. These twelve were instructed, after a due interval for consideration, to choose seven out of their own number, who should serve as a nucleus for the church. At the same time an oath was taken by the settlers, which may be looked on as a sort of preliminary and provisional test of citizenship, pledging them to accept the principles laid down by Davenport. Sixty-three of the inhabitants took the oath, and their example was soon followed by fifty more. By October, four months after the original meeting, the seven formally established the new commonwealth. They granted the rights of a freeman to all who joined them, and who were recognized members either of the church at New Haven or of any other approved church. The freemen thus chosen entered into an agreement to the same effect as the oath already taken. They then elected a Governor and four Magistrates, or, as they were for the present called, a Magistrate and four Deputies. … The functions of the Governor and Magistrates were not defined. Indeed, but one formal resolution was passed as to the constitution of the colony, namely, 'that the Word of God shall be the only rule attended unto in ordering the affairs of government.'"

J. A. Doyle, The English in America: The Puritan Colonies, volume 1, chapter 6.

"Of all the New England colonies, New Haven was most purely a government by compact, by social contract. … The free planters … signed each their names to their voluntary compact, and ordered that 'all planters hereafter received in this plantation should submit to the said foundamentall agreement, and testifie the same by subscribing their names.' It is believed that this is the sole instance of the formation of an independent civil government by a general compact wherein all the parties to the agreement were legally required to be actual signers thereof. When this event occurred, John Locke was in his seventh year, and Rousseau was a century away."

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1640-1655.
The attempted New Haven colonization on the Delaware.
Fresh quarrels with the Dutch.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1643.
The confederation of the colonies.
The progress and state of New Haven and the River Colony.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1650.
Settlement of boundaries with the Dutch of New Netherland.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1660-1663.
The beginning of boundary conflicts with Rhode Island.

"Against the colony of New Haven the king had a special grudge. Two of the regicide judges, who had sat in the tribunal which condemned his father, escaped to New England in 1660 and were well received there. They were gentlemen of high position. Edward Whalley was a cousin of Cromwell and Hampden. … The other regicide, William Goffe, as a major-general in Cromwell's army, had won such distinction that there were some who pointed to him as the proper person to succeed the Lord Protector on the death of the latter. He had married Whalley's daughter. Soon after the arrival of these gentlemen, a royal order for their arrest was sent to Boston. … The king's detectives hotly pursued them through the woodland paths of New England, and they would soon have been taken but for the aid they got from the people. Many are the stories of their hairbreadth escapes. Sometimes they took refuge in a cave on a mountain near New Haven, sometimes they hid in friendly cellars; and once, being hard put to it, they skulked under a wooden bridge, while their pursuers on horseback galloped by overhead. After lurking about New Haven and Milford for two or three years, on hearing of the expected arrival of Colonel Nichols and his commission [the royal commission appointed to take possession of the American grant lately made by the king to his brother, the Duke of York], they sought a more secluded hiding place near Hadley, a village lately settled far up the Connecticut river, within the jurisdiction of Massachusetts. Here the avengers lost the trail, the pursuit was abandoned, and the weary regicides were presently forgotten. The people of New Haven had been especially zealous in shielding the fugitives. … The colony, moreover, did not officially recognize the restoration of Charles II. to the throne until that event had been commonly known in New England for more than a year. For these reasons, the wrath of the king was specially roused against New Haven."

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1662-1664.
The Royal Charter and annexation of New Haven to the River Colony.

   "The Restoration in England left the New Haven colony under a
   cloud in the favor of the new government: it had been tardy
   and ungracious in its proclamation of Charles II.; it had been
   especially remiss in searching for the regicide colonels,
   Goffe and Whalley; and any application for a charter would
   have come from New Haven with a very ill grace. Connecticut
   was under no such disabilities; and it had in its Governor,
   John Winthrop [the younger, son of the first governor of
   Massachusetts], a man well calculated to win favor with the
   new King. … In March, 1660, the General Court solemnly
   declared its loyalty to Charles II., sent the Governor to
   England to offer a loyal address to the King and ask him for a
   charter, and laid aside £500 for his expenses. Winthrop was
   successful, and the charter was granted April 20, 1662. The
   acquisition of the charter raised the Connecticut leaders to
   the seventh heaven of satisfaction. And well it might, for it
   was a grant of privileges with hardly a limitation.
   Practically the King had given Winthrop 'carte blanche,' and
   allowed him to frame the charter to suit himself. It
   incorporated the freemen of Connecticut as a 'body corporate
   and pollitique,' by the name of 'The Governor and Company of
   the English Collony of Conecticut in New England in America.'
   … The people were to have all the liberties and immunities
   of free and natural subjects of the King, as if born within
   the realm. It granted to the Governor and Company all that
   part of New England south of the Massachusetts line and west
   of the 'Norroganatt River commonly called Norroganatt Bay' to
   the South Sea, with the 'Islands thereunto adioyneinge.' …
   It is difficult to see more than two points in which it [the
   charter] altered the constitution adopted by the towns in
   1639. There were now to be two deputies from each town; and
   the boundaries of the Commonwealth now embraced the rival
   colony of New Haven. … New Haven did not submit without a
   struggle, for not only her pride of separate existence but the
   supremacy of her ecclesiastical system was at stake. For three
   years a succession of diplomatic notes passed between the
   General Court of Connecticut and 'our honored friends of New
   Haven, Milford, Branford, and Guilford.' …
{501}
   In October, 1664, the Connecticut General Court appointed the
   New Haven magistrates commissioners for their towns, 'with
   magistraticall powers,' established the New Haven local
   officers in their places for the time, and declared oblivion
   for any past resistance to the laws. In December, Milford
   having already submitted, the remnant of the New Haven General
   Court, representing New Haven, Guilford, and Branford, held
   its last meeting and voted to submit, 'with a salvo jure of
   our former rights and claims, as a people who have not yet
   been heard in point of plea.' The next year the laws of New
   Haven were laid aside forever, and her towns sent deputies to
   the General Court at Hartford. … In 1701 the General Court
   … voted that its annual October session should thereafter be
   held at New Haven. This provision of a double capital was
   incorporated into the constitution of 1818, and continued
   until in 1873 Hartford was made sole capital."

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1664.
Royal grant to the Duke of York, in conflict with the charter.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1674-1675.
Long Island and the western half of the colony granted to the
Duke of York.

In 1674, after the momentary recovery of New York by the Dutch, and its re-surrender to the English, "the king issued a new patent for the province, in which he not only included Long Island, but the territory up to the Connecticut River, which had been assigned to Connecticut by the royal commissioners. The assignment of Long Island was regretted, but not resisted; and the island which is the natural sea-wall of Connecticut passed, by royal decree, to a province whose only natural claim to it was that it barely touched it at one corner. The revival of the duke's claim to a part of the mainland was a different matter, and every preparation was made for resistance. In July, 1675, just as King Philip's war had broken out in Plymouth, hasty word was sent from the authorities at Hartford to Captain Thomas Bull at Saybrook that Governor Andros of New York was on his way through the Sound for the purpose, as he avowed, of aiding the people against the Indians. Of the two evils, Connecticut rather preferred the Indians. Bull was instructed to inform Andros, if he should call at Saybrook, that the colony had taken all precautions against the Indians, and to direct him to the actual scene of conflict, but not to permit the landing of any armed soldiers. 'And you are to keep the king's colors standing there, under his majesty's lieutenant, the governor of Connecticut; and if any other colors be set up there, you are not to suffer them to stand. … But you are in his majesty's name required to avoid striking the first blow; but if they begin, then you are to defend yourselves, and do your best to secure his majesty's interest and the peace of the whole colony of Connecticut in our possession.' Andros came and landed at Saybrook, but confined his proceedings to reading the duke's patent against the protest of Bull and the Connecticut representatives."

Report of Regents of the University on the Boundaries of the State of New York, page 21.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1685-1687.
The hostile king and the hidden charter.
Sir Edmund Andros in possession of the government.

"During the latter years of the reign of Charles II. the king had become so reckless of his pledges and his faith that he did not scruple to set the dangerous example of violating the charters that had been granted by the crown. Owing to the friendship that the king entertained for Winthrop, we have seen that Connecticut was favored by him to a degree even after the death of that great man. But no sooner had Charles demised and the sceptre passed into the hands of his bigoted brother, King James II., than Connecticut was called upon to contend against her sovereign for liberties that had been affirmed to her by the most solemn muniments known to the law of England. The accession of James II. took place on the 6th day of February 1685, and such was his haste to violate the honor of the crown that, early in the summer of 1685, a quo warranto was issued against the governor and company of Connecticut, citing them to appear before the king, within eight days of St. Martin's, to show by what right and tenor they exercised certain powers and privileges." This was quickly followed by two other writs, conveyed to Hartford by Edward Randolph, the implacable enemy of the colonies. "The day of appearance named in them was passed long before the writs were served." Mr. Whiting was sent to England as the agent of the colony, to exert such influences as might be brought to bear against the plainly hostile and unscrupulous intentions of the king; but his errand was fruitless. "On the 28th of December another writ of quo warranto was served upon the governor and company of the colony. This writ bore date the 23d of October, and required the defendants to appear before the king' within eight days of the purification of the Blessed Virgin.' … Of course, the day named was not known to the English law, and was therefore no day at all in legal contemplation." Already, the other New England colonies had been brought under a provisional general government, by commissioners, of whom Joseph Dudley was named president. President Dudley "addressed a letter to the governor and council, advising them to resign the charter into the king's hands. Should they do so, he undertook to use his influence in behalf of the colony. They did not deem it advisable to comply with the request. Indeed they had hardly time to do so before the old commission was broken up, and a new one granted, superseding Dudley and naming Sir Edmund Andros governor of New England. Sir Edmund arrived in Boston on the 19th of December, 1686, and the next day he published his commission and took the government into his hands. Scarcely had he established himself, when he sent a letter to the governor and company of Connecticut, acquainting them with his appointment, and informing them that he was commissioned by the king to receive their charter if they would give it up to him."

On receipt of the communication from Andros, "the General Court was at once convened, and by its direction a letter was addressed to the English Secretary of State, earnestly pleading for the preservation of the privileges that had been granted to them. For the first time they admitted the possibility that their petition might be denied, and in that case requested to be united to Massachusetts. This was construed by Sir Edmund as a virtual surrender; but as the days went by he saw that he had mistaken the spirit and purpose of the colony. Andros finally decided to go in person to Connecticut. He arrived at Hartford the last day of October, attended by a retinue of 60 officers and soldiers. The Assembly, then in session, received him with every outward mark of respect. After this formal exchange of courtesies, Sir Edmund publicly demanded the charter, and declared the colonial government dissolved. Tradition relates that Governor Treat, in calm but earnest words, remonstrated against this action. … The debate was continued until the shadows of the early autumnal evening had fallen. After candles were lighted, the governor and his council seemed to yield; and the box supposed to contain the charter was brought into the room, and placed upon the table. Suddenly the lights were extinguished. Quiet reigned in the room, and in the dense crowd outside the building. The candles were soon relighted; but the charter had disappeared, and after the most diligent search could not be found. The common tradition has been, that it was taken under cover of the darkness by Captain Joseph Wadsworth, and hidden by him in the hollow trunk of a venerable and noble oak tree standing near the entrance-gate of Governor Wyllys's mansion. The charter taken by Captain Wadsworth was probably the duplicate, and remained safely in his possession for several years. There is reason to believe that, some time before the coming of Andros to Hartford, the original charter had been carefully secreted, and the tradition of later times makes it probable that, while the duplicate charter that was taken from the table was hidden elsewhere, the original charter found a safe resting place in the heart of the tree that will always be remembered as The Charter Oak. This tree is said to have been preserved by the early settlers at the request of the Indians. 'It has been the guide of our ancestors for centuries,' they said, 'as to the time of planting our corn. When the leaves are the size of a mouse's ears, then is the time to put it in the ground.' The record of the Court briefly states that Andros, having been conducted to the governor's seat by the governor himself, declared that he had been commissioned by his Majesty to take on him the government of Connecticut. The commission having been read, he said that it was his Majesty's pleasure to make the late governor and Captain John Allyn members of his council. The secretary handed their common seal to Sir Edmund, and afterwards wrote these words inclosing the record: 'His Excellency, Sir Edmund Andros, Knight, Captain-General and Governor of his Majesty's Territory and Dominion in New England, by order from his Majesty, King of England, Scotland and Ireland, the 31st of October, 1687, took into his hands the government of this colony of Connecticut, it being by his Majesty annexed to the Massachusetts and other colonies under his Excellency's government. Finis.' Andros soon disclosed a hand of steel beneath the velvet glove of plausible words and fair promises."

ALSO IN: J. G. Palfrey, History of New England, book 3, chapter 13 (volume 3).

"April, 1689, came at last. The people of Boston, at the first news of the English Revolution, clapped Andros into custody. May 9, the old Connecticut authorities quietly resumed their functions, and called the assembly together for the following month. William and Mary were proclaimed with great fervor. Not a word was said about the disappearance or reappearance of the charter; but the charter government was put into full effect again, as if Andros had never interrupted it. An address was sent to the king, asking that the charter be no further interfered with; but operations under it went on as before. No decided action was taken by the home government for some years, except that its appointment of the New York governor, Fletcher, to the command of the Connecticut militia, implied a decision that the Connecticut charter had been superseded. Late in 1693, Fitz John Winthrop was sent to England as agent to obtain a confirmation of the charter. He secured an emphatic legal opinion from Attorney General Somers, backed by those of Treby and Ward, that the charter was entirely valid, Treby's concurrent opinion taking this shape: 'I am of the same opinion, and, as this matter is stated, there is no ground of doubt.' The basis of the opinion was that the charter had been granted under the great seal; that it had not been surrendered under the common seal of the colony, nor had any judgment of record been entered against it; that its operation had merely been interfered with by overpowering force; that the charter therefore remained valid; and that the peaceable submission of the colony to Andros was merely an illegal suspension of lawful authority. In other words, the passive attitude of the colonial government had disarmed Andros so far as to stop the legal proceedings necessary to forfeit the charter, and their prompt action, at the critical moment, secured all that could be secured under the circumstances. William was willing enough to retain all possible fruit of James's tyranny, as he showed by enforcing the forfeiture of the Massachusetts charter; but the law in this case was too plain, and he ratified the lawyers' opinion in April, 1694. The charter had escaped its enemies at last, and its escape is a monument of one of the advantages of a real democracy. … Democracy had done more for Connecticut than class influence had done for Massachusetts."

"The decisions which established the rights of Connecticut included Rhode Island. These two commonwealths were the portion of the British empire distinguished above all others by the largest liberty. Each was a nearly perfect democracy under the shelter of a monarchy. … The crown, by reserving to itself the right of appeal, had still a method of interfering in the internal affairs of the two republics. Both of them were included among the colonies in which the lords of trade advised a complete restoration of the prerogatives of the crown. Both were named in the bill which, in April, 1701, was introduced into parliament for the abrogation of all American charters. The journals of the house of lords relate that Connecticut was publicly heard against the measure, and contended that its liberties were held by contract in return for services that had been performed; that the taking away of so many charters would destroy all confidence in royal promises, and would afford a precedent dangerous to all the chartered corporations of England. Yet the bill was read a second time, and its principle, as applied to colonies, was advocated by the mercantile interest and by 'great men' in England. The impending war with the French postponed the purpose till the accession of the house of Hanover."

G. Bancroft, History of the United States (Author's last revision), part 3, chapter 3 (volume 2).

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1753-1799.
   Western territorial claims.
   Settlements in the Wyoming Valley.
   Conflicts with the Penn colonists.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1754.
The Colonial Congress at Albany, and Franklin's plan of union.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1755-1760.
The French and Indian War, and conquest of Canada.

      See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1750-1753; 1755; 1756;
      1756-1757; 1758; 1759; 1760;
      NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1749-1755; 1755;
      Ohio (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754; 1754; 1755;
      CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1758-1760.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1760-1765.
   The question of taxation by Parliament.
   The Sugar Act.
   The Stamp Act.
   The Stamp Act Congress.

"The English government understood very well that the colonies were earnestly opposed to the Stamp Act, but they had no thought of the storm of wrath and resistance which it would arouse. It was a surprise to many of the leaders of public affairs in America. … Governor Fitch and Jared Ingersoll, with other prominent citizens who had done all in their power to oppose the scheme of taxation … counselled submission. They mistook the feeling of the people. … The clergy were still the leaders of public opinion, and they were united in denunciation of the great wrong. Societies were organized under the name of the Sons of Liberty, the secret purpose of which was to resist the Stamp Act by violent measures if necessary. … Mr. Ingersoll, who had done all in his power to oppose the bill, after its passage decided to accept the position of stamp agent for Connecticut. Franklin urged him to take the place, and no one doubted his motives in accepting it. The people of Connecticut, however, were not pleased with this action. … He was visited by a crowd of citizens, who inquired impatiently if he would resign." Ingersoll put them off with evasive replies for some time; but finally there was a gathering of a thousand men on horseback, from Norwich, New London, Windham, Lebanon and other towns, each armed with a heavy peeled club, who surrounded the obstinate stamp agent at Wethersfield and made him understand that they were in deadly earnest. "'The cause is not worth dying for,' said the intrepid man, who would never have flinched had he not felt that, after all, this band of earnest men were in the right. A formal resignation was given him to sign. … After he had signed his name, the crowd cried out, 'Swear to it!' He begged to be excused from taking an oath. 'Then shout Liberty and Property,' said the now good-natured company. To this he had no objection, and waved his hat enthusiastically as he repeated the words. Having given three cheers, the now hilarious party dined together." Ingersoll was then escorted to Hartford, where he read his resignation publicly at the court-house.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1766-1768.
The Townshend duties.
The Circular Letter of Massachusetts.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1768-1770.
The quartering of troops in Boston.
The "Massacre" and the removal of the troops.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1770-1773.
   Repeal of the Townshend duties except on tea.
   Committees of Correspondence instituted.
   The tea ships and the Boston Tea-party.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1770, and 1772-1773;
and BOSTON: A. D. 1773.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1774.
   The Boston Port Bill.
   The Massachusetts Act.
   The Quebec Act.
   The First Continental Congress.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1775.
   The beginning of the War of the American Revolution.
   Lexington.
   Concord.
   New England in arms and Boston beleaguered.
   Ticonderoga.
   Bunker Hill.
   The Second Continental Congress.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1776.
Assumes to be a "free, sovereign and independent State."

"In May, 1776, the people had been formally released from their allegiance to the crown; and in October the general assembly passed an act assuming the functions of a State. The important section of the act was the first, as follows: 'That the ancient form of civil government, contained in the charter from Charles the Second, King of England, and adopted by the people of this State, shall be and remain the civil Constitution of this State, under the sole authority of the people thereof, independent of any king or prince whatever. And that this Republic is, and shall forever be and remain, a free, sovereign and independent State, by the name of the State of Connecticut.' The form of the act speaks what was doubtless always the belief of the people, that their charter derived its validity, not from the will of the crown, but from the assent of the people. And the curious language of the last sentence, in which 'this Republic' declares itself to be 'a free, sovereign, and independent State,' may serve to indicate something of the appearance which state sovereignty doubtless presented to the Americans of 1776-89."

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1786.
Partial cession of western territorial claims to the United States.
The Western Reserve in Ohio.

      See
      UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786;
      PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1753-1799;
      and OHIO: A. D. 1786-1796.

CONNUBIUM.

CONOYS.

CONRAD I.,
King of the East Franks (Germany),
(the first of the Saxon line), A. D. 911-919.

   Conrad II., King of the Romans (King of Germany), A. D. 1024-1039;
   King of Italy, 1026-1039; King of Burgundy, 1032-1039;
   Emperor, 1027-1039.

Conrad III., King of Germany (the first of the Swabian or
Hohenstauffen dynasty), 1137-1152.

CONSCRIPT FATHERS.

The Roman senators were so called,—"Patres Conscripti." The origin of the designation has been much discussed, and the explanation which has found most acceptance is this: that when, at the organization of the Republic, there was a new creation of senators, to fill the ranks, the new senators were called "conscripti" ("added to the roll") while the older ones were called "patres" ("fathers"), as before. Then the whole senate was addressed as "Patres et Conscripti," which lapsed finally into "Patres-Conscripti."

CONSCRIPTION IN THE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR.

The name "Conservative," to replace that of Tory (see ENGLAND: A. D. 1680 for the origin of the latter) as a party designation, was first introduced in 1831, by Mr. John Wilson Croker, in an article in the Quarterly Review. "It crept slowly into general favour, although some few there were who always held out against it, encouraged by the example of the late leader of the party, Lord Beaconsfield, who was not at all likely to extend a welcome to anything which came with Mr. Croker's mark upon it."

CONSILIO DI CREDENZA.

CONSISTORY COURTS OF THE BISHOPS.

"The duties of the officials of these courts resembled in theory the duties of the censors under the Roman Republic. In the middle ages, a lofty effort had been made to overpass the common limitations of government, to introduce punishment for sins as well as crimes, and to visit with temporal penalties the breach of the moral law. … The administration of such a discipline fell as a matter of course, to the clergy. … Thus arose throughout Europe a system of spiritual surveillance over the habits and conduct of every man, extending from the cottage to the castle, taking note of all wrong dealing, of all oppression of man by man, of all licentiousness and profligacy, and representing upon earth, in the principles by which it was guided, the laws of the great tribunal of Almighty God. Such was the origin of the church courts, perhaps the greatest institutions yet devised by man. But to aim at these high ideals is as perilous as it is noble; and weapons which may be safely trusted in the hands of saints become fatal implements of mischief when saints have ceased to wield them. … The Consistory Courts had continued into the sixteenth century with unrestricted jurisdiction, although they had been for generations merely perennially flowing fountains, feeding the ecclesiastical exchequer. The moral conduct of every English man and woman remained subject to them. … But between the original design and the degenerate counterfeit there was this vital difference,—that the censures were no longer spiritual. They were commuted in various gradations for pecuniary fines, and each offence against morality was rated at its specific money value in the Episcopal tables. Suspension and excommunication remained as ultimate penalties; but they were resorted to only to compel unwilling culprits to accept the alternative. The misdemeanours of which the courts took cognizance were 'offences against chastity,' 'heresy,' or 'matter sounding thereunto,' 'witchcraft,' 'drunkenness,' 'scandal,' 'defamation,' 'impatient words,' 'broken promises,' 'untruth,' 'absence from church,' 'speaking evil of saints,' 'non-payment of offerings,' and other delinquencies incapable of legal definition."

"The name is derived from the 'comes stabuli' of the Byzantine court, and appears in the west as early as the days of Gregory of Tours. The duties of the constables of France … and those of the constables of Naples … are not exactly parallel with [those of] the constables of England. In Naples the constable kept the King's sword, commanded the army, appointed the quarters, disciplined the troops and distributed the sentinels; the marshals and all other officers being his subordinates. The French office was nearly the same. In England, however, the marshal was not subordinate to the constable. Probably the English marshals fulfilled the duties which had been in Normandy discharged by the constables. The marshal is more distinctly an officer of the court, the constable one of the castle or army. … The constable … exercised the office of quartermaster-general of the court and army and succeeded to the duties of the Anglo-Saxon staller."

William Stubbs, Constitutional History of England, chapter 11, section 122, and note.

CONSTABLE OF FRANCE.

"No other dignity in the world has been held by such a succession of great soldiers as the office of Constable of France. The Constable was originally a mere officer of the stables, but his power had increased by the suppression of the office of Grand Seneschal, and by the time of Philip Augustus he exercised control over all the military forces of the crown. He was the general in chief of the army and the highest military authority in the kingdom. The constables had for four centuries been leaders in the wars of France, and they had experienced strange and varied fortunes. The office had been bestowed on the son of Simon de Montfort, and he for this honor had granted to the king of France his rights over those vast domains which had been given his father for his pious conquests. [See ALBIGENSES: A. D. 1217-1229.] It had been bestowed on Raoul de Nesle, who fell at Courtrai, where the French nobility suffered its first defeat from Flemish boors; on Bertrand de Guesclin, the last of the great warriors, whose deeds were sung with those of the paladins of Charlemagne; on Clisson, the victor of Roosebeck [or Rosebecque]; on Armagnac, whose name has a bloody preeminence among the leaders of the fierce soldiery who ravaged France during the English wars; on Buchan, whose Scotch valor and fidelity gained him this great trust among a foreign people; on Richemont, the companion of Joan Darc; on Saint Pol, the ally of Charles the Bold, the betrayer and the victim of Louis XI.; on the Duke of Bourbon, who won the battle of Pavia against his sovereign, and led his soldiers to that sack of Rome which made the ravages of Genseric and Alaric seem mild; on Anne of Montmorenci, a prominent actor in every great event in France from the battle of Pavia against Charles V. to that of St. Denis against Coligni; on his son, the companion of Henry IV. in his youth, and his trusted adviser in his age. … The sword borne by such men had been bestowed [1621] on Luines, the hero of an assassination, who could not drill a company of infantry; it was now [1622] given to the hero of many battles [the Duke of Lesdeguières], and the great office was to expire in the hands of a great soldier."

CONSTANTINE, Pope, A. D. 708-715.
Constantine I. (called The Great), Roman Emperor, A. D. 306-337.

Constantine V. (called Copronymus),
Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or Greek), A. D. 741-775.

Constantine VII. (called Porphyrogenitus),
Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or Greek), A. D. 911-950.

Constantine VIII. (colleague of Constantine VII.),
Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or Greek), A. D. 944.

Constantine XIII. (Polæologus), Greek Emperor
of Constantinople, A. D. 1448-1453.

"Constantine had for some time contemplated the erection of a new capital. The experience of nearly half a century had confirmed the sagacity of Diocletian's selection of a site on the confines of Europe and Asia [Nicomedia] as the whereabouts in which the political centre of gravity of the Empire rested. At one time Constantine thought of adopting the site of ancient Troy, and is said to have actually commenced building a new city there. … More prosaic reasons ultimately prevailed. The practical genius of Constantine recognized in the town of Byzantium, on the European side of the border line between the two continents, the site best adapted for his new capital. All subsequent ages have applauded his discernment, for experience has endorsed the wisdom of the choice. By land, with its Asian suburb of Chrysopolis [modern Scutari], it practically spanned the narrow strait and joined Europe and Asia: by sea, it was open on one side to Spain, Italy, Greece, Africa, Egypt, Syria; on the other to the Euxine, and so by the Danube it had easy access to the whole of that important frontier between the Empire and the barbarians; and round all the northern coasts of the sea it took the barbarians in flank. … The city was solemnly dedicated with religious ceremonies on the 11th of May, 330, and the occasion was celebrated, after the Roman fashion, by a great festival, largesses and games in the hippodrome, which lasted forty days. The Emperor gave to the city institutions modelled after those of the ancient Rome."

"The new walls of Constantine stretched from the port to the Propontis … at the distance of fifteen stadia from the ancient fortification, and, with the city of Byzantium, they enclosed five of the seven hills which, to the eyes of those who approach Constantinople, appear to rise above each other in beautiful order. About a century after the death of the founder, the new buildings … already covered the narrow ridge of the sixth and the broad summit of the seventh hill. … The buildings of the new city were executed by such artificers as the reign of Constantine could afford; but they were decorated by the hands of the most celebrated masters of the age of Pericles and Alexander. … By his commands the cities of Greece and Asia were despoiled of their most valuable ornaments."

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 17. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

"The new city was an exact copy of old Rome. … It was inhabited by senators from Rome. Wealthy individuals from the provinces were likewise compelled to keep up houses at Constantinople, pensions were conferred upon them, and a right to a certain amount of provisions from the public stores was annexed to these dwellings. Eighty thousand loaves of bread were distributed daily to the inhabitants of Constantinople. … The tribute of grain from Egypt was appropriated to supply Constantinople, and that of Africa was left for the consumption of Rome."

ALSO IN: J. B. Bury, History of the later Roman Empire, book 1, chapter 5 (volume 1).

CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 363-518.
The Eastern Court from Valens to Anastatius.
Tumults at the capital.

CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 400.
Popular rising against the Gothic soldiery.
Their expulsion from the city.

During the reign of Anastatius, at Constantinople, the fierce controversy which had raged for many years throughout the empire, between the Monophysites (who maintained that the divine and the human natures in Christ were one), and the 'adherents of the Council of Chalcedon (which declared that Christ possessed two natures in one person), was embittered at the imperial capital by opposition between the emperor, who favored the Monophysites, and the patriarch who was strict in Chalcedonian orthodoxy. In 511, and again in 512, it gave rise to two alarming riots at Constantinople. On the first occasion, a Monophysite or Eutychian party "burst into the Chapel of the Archangel in the Imperial Palace and dared to chant the Te Deum with the addition of the forbidden words, the war-cry of many an Eutychian mob, 'Who wast crucified for us.' The Trisagion, as it was called, the thrice-repeated cry to the Holy One, which Isaiah in his vision heard uttered by the seraphim, became, by the addition of these words, as emphatic a statement as the Monophysite party could desire of their favourite tenet that God, not man, breathed out his soul unto death outside the gates of Jerusalem. … On the next Sunday the Monophysites sang the verse which was their war-cry in the great Basilica itself." The riot which ensued was quieted with difficulty by the patriarch, to whom the emperor humbled himself. But in the next year, on a fast-day (Nov. 6) the Monophysites gave a similar challenge, singing the Trisagion with the prohibited words added, and "again psalmody gave place to blows; men wounded and dying lay upon the floor of the church. … The orthodox mob streamed from all parts into the great forum. There they swarmed and swayed to and fro all that day and all that night, shouting forth, not the greatness of the Ephesian Diana, but 'Holy, Holy, Holy,' without the words' 'Who wast crucified.' They hewed down the monks,—a minority of their class,—who were on the side of the imperial creed, and burned their monasteries with fire." After two days of riot, the aged emperor humbled himself to the mob, in the great Circus, offered to abdicate the throne and made peace by promises to respect the decrees of Chalcedon.

"Forty-six years after the flight of Mahomet from Mecca his disciples appeared in arms under the walls of Constantinople. They were animated by a genuine or fictitious saying of the prophet, that, to the first army which besieged the city of the Cæsars, their sins were forgiven. … No sooner had the Caliph Moawiyah [the first of the Ommiade caliphs, seated at Damascus,] suppressed his rivals and established his throne, than he aspired to expiate the guilt of civil blood by the success of this holy expedition; his preparations by sea and land were adequate to the importance of the object; his standard was entrusted to Sophian, a veteran warrior. … The Greeks had little to hope, nor had their enemies any reasons of fear, from the courage and vigilance of the reigning Emperor, who disgraced the name of Constantine, and imitated only the inglorious years of his grandfather Heraclius. Without delay or opposition, the naval forces of the Saracens passed through the unguarded channel of the Hellespont, which even now, under the feeble and disorderly government of the Turks, is maintained as the natural bulwark of the capital. The Arabian fleet cast anchor and the troops were disembarked near the palace of Hebdomon, seven miles from the city. During many days, from the dawn of light to the evening, the line of assault was extended from the golden gate to the Eastern promontory. … But the besiegers had formed an insufficient estimate of the strength and resources of Constantinople. The solid and lofty walls were guarded by numbers and discipline; the spirit of the Romans was rekindled by the last danger of their religion and empire; the fugitives from the conquered provinces more successfully renewed the defence of Damascus and Alexandria; and the Saracens were dismayed by the strange and prodigious effects of artificial fire. This firm and effectual resistance diverted their arms to the more easy attempts of plundering the European and Asiatic coasts of the Propontis; and, after keeping the sea from the month of April to that of September, on the approach of winter they retreated four score miles from the capital, to the isle of Cyzicus, in which they had established their magazine of spoil and provisions. So patient was their perseverance, or so languid were their operations, that they repeated in the six following summers the same attack and retreat, with a gradual abatement of hope and vigour, till the mischances of shipwreck and disease, of the sword and of fire, compelled them to relinquish the fruitless enterprise. They might bewail the loss, or commemorate the martyrdom, of 30,000 Moslems who fell in the siege of Constantinople. … The event of the siege revived, both in the East and West, the reputation of the Roman arms, and cast a momentary shade over the glories of the Saracens. … A peace, or truce of thirty years was ratified between the two Empires; and the stipulation of an annual tribute, fifty horses of a noble breed, fifty slaves, and 3,000 pieces of gold, degraded the majesty of the commander of the faithful."

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 52. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

"When Leo [the Isaurian] was raised to the [Byzantine] throne [A. D. 717], the empire was threatened with immediate ruin. Six emperors had been dethroned within the space of twenty-one years. … The Bulgarians and Sclavonians wasted Europe up to the walls of Constantinople; the Saracens ravaged the whole of Asia Minor to the shores of the Bosphorus. … The Caliph Suleiman, who had seen one private adventurer succeed the other in quick succession on the imperial throne, deemed the moment favourable for the final conquest of the Christians; and, reinforcing his brother's army [in Asia Minor], he ordered him to lay siege to Constantinople. The Saracen empire had now reached its greatest extent. From the banks of the Sihun and the Indus to the shores of the Atlantic in Mauretania and Spain, the order of Suleiman was implicitly obeyed. … The army Moslemah led against Constantinople was the best-appointed that had ever attacked the Christians: it consisted of 80,000 warriors. The Caliph announced his intention of taking the field in person with additional forces, should the capital of the Christians offer a protracted resistance to the arms of Islam. The whole expedition is said to have employed 180,000 men. … Moslemah, after capturing Pergamus, marched to Abydos, where he was joined by the Saracen fleet. He then transported his army across the Hellespont, and marching along the shore of the Propontis, invested Leo in his capital both by land and sea. The strong walls of Constantinople, the engines of defence with which Roman and Greek art had covered the ramparts, and the skill of the Byzantine engineers, rendered every attempt to carry the place by assault hopeless, so that the Saracens were compelled to trust to the effect of a strict blockade for gaining possession of the city. … The besiegers encamped before Constantinople on the 15th August 717. The Caliph Suleiman died before he was able to send any reinforcements to his brother. The winter proved unusually severe." Great numbers of the warriors from the south were destroyed by the inclemency of a climate to which they had not become inured; many more died of famine in the Moslem camp, while the besieged city was plentifully supplied. The whole undertaking was disastrous from its beginning to its close, and, exactly one year from the pitching of his camp under the Byzantine walls, "on the 15th of August 718, Moslemah raised the siege, after ruining one of the finest armies the Saracens ever assembled. … Few military details concerning Leo's defence of Constantinople have been preserved, but there can be no doubt that it was one of the most brilliant exploits of a warlike age. … The vanity of Gallic writers has magnified the success of Charles Martel over a plundering expedition of the Spanish Arabs into a marvellous victory, and attributed the deliverance of Europe from the Saracen yoke to the valour of the Franks. A veil has been thrown over the talents and courage of Leo, a soldier of fortune, just seated on the imperial throne, who defeated the long-planned schemes of conquest of the Caliphs Welid and Suleiman. It is unfortunate that we have no Isaurian literature. … The war was languidly carried on for some years and the Saracens were gradually expelled from most of their conquests beyond Mount Tauris."

      G. Finlay,
      History of the Byzantine Empire from 716 to 1057,
      chapter 1.

"In the year 865, a nation hitherto unknown made its first appearance in the history of the world, where it was destined to act no unimportant part. Its entrance into the political system of the European nations was marked by an attempt to take Constantinople, a project which it has often revived. … In the year 862, Rurik, a Scandinavian or Varangian chief, arrived at Novgorod, and laid the first foundation of the state which has grown into the Russian empire. The Russian people, under Varangian domination, rapidly increased in power, and reduced many of their neighbours to submission. … From what particular circumstance the Russians were led to make their daring attack on Constantinople is not known. The Emperor Michael [III.] had taken the command of an army to act against the Saracens, and Oryphas, admiral of the fleet, acted as governor of the capital during his absence. Before the Emperor had commenced his military operations, a fleet of 200 Russian vessels of small size, taking advantage of a favourable wind, suddenly passed through the Bosphorus, and anchored at the mouth of the Black River in the Propontis, about 18 miles from Constantinople. This Russian expedition had already plundered the shores of the Black Sea, and from its station within the Bosphorus it ravaged the country about Constantinople, and plundered the Prince's Islands, pillaging the monasteries and slaying the monks as well as the other inhabitants. The Emperor, informed by Oryphas of the attack on his capital hastened to its defence. … It required no great exertions on the part of the imperial officers to equip a force sufficient to attack and put to flight these invaders; but the horrid cruelty of the barbarians, and the wild daring of their Varangian leaders, made a profound impression on the people of Constantinople."

   Notwithstanding an active and increasing commercial
   intercourse between the Greeks and the Russians,
   Constantinople was exposed, during the tenth century and part
   of the eleventh, to repeated attacks from the masterful
   Varangians and their subjects. In the year 907, a fleet of
   2,000 Russian vessels or boats swarmed into the Bosphorus, and
   laid waste the shores in the neighborhood of Constantinople.
   "It is not improbable that the expedition was undertaken to
   obtain indemnity for some commercial losses sustained by
   imperial negligence, monopoly or oppression. The subjects of
   the emperor were murdered, and the Russians amused themselves
   with torturing their captives in the most barbarous manner.
{508}
   At length Leo [VI.] purchased their retreat by the payment of a
   large sum of money. … These hostilities were terminated by a
   commercial treaty in 912." There was peace under this treaty
   until 941, when a third attack on Constantinople was led by
   Igor, the son of Rurik. But it ended most disastrously for the
   Russians and Igor escaped with only a few boats. The result
   was another important treaty, negotiated in 945. In 970 the
   Byzantine Empire was more seriously threatened by an attempt
   on the part of the Russians to subdue the kingdom of Bulgaria;
   which would have brought them into the same dangerous
   neighborhood to Constantinople that the Russia of our own day
   has labored so hard to reach. But the able soldier John
   Zimisces happened to occupy the Byzantine throne; the Russian
   invasion of Bulgaria was repelled and Bulgaria, itself, was
   reannexed to the Empire, which pushed its boundaries to the
   Danube, once more. For more than half a century,
   Constantinople was undisturbed by the covetous ambition of her
   Russian fellow Christians. Then they invaded the Bosphorus
   again with a formidable armament; but the expedition was
   wholly disastrous and they retreated with a loss of 15,000
   men. "Three years elapsed before peace was re-established; but
   a treaty was then concluded and the trade at Constantinople
   placed on the old footing. From this period the alliance of
   the Russians with the Byzantine Empire was long uninterrupted;
   and as the Greeks became more deeply imbued with
   ecclesiastical prejudices, and more hostile to the Latin
   nations, the Eastern Church became, in their eyes, the symbol
   of their nationality, and the bigoted attachment of the
   Russians to the same religious formalities obtained for them
   from the Byzantine Greeks the appellation of the most
   Christian nation."

      G. Finlay,
      History of the Byzantine Empire, from 716 to 1057,
      book 2, chapter 3, section 2.

Alexius Comnenus, the emperor who occupied the Byzantine throne at the time of the First Crusade, and who became historically prominent in that connection, acquired his crown by a successful rebellion. He was collaterally of the family of Isaac Comnenus, (Isaac I.) who had reigned briefly in 1057-1059,—he, too, having been, in his imperial office, the product of a revolution. But the interval of twenty-two years had seen four emperors come and go—two to the grave and two into monastic seclusion. It was the last of these—Nicephorus III. (Botaneites) that Alexius displaced, with the support of an army which he had previously commanded. One of the gates of the capital was betrayed to him by a German mercenary, and he gained the city almost without a blow. "The old Emperor consented to resign his crown and retire into a monastery. Alexius entered the imperial palace, and the rebel army commenced plundering every quarter of the city. Natives and mercenaries vied with one another in license and rapine. No class of society was sacred from their lust and avarice, and the inmates of monasteries, churches, and palaces were alike plundered and insulted. This sack of Constantinople by the Sclavonians, Bulgarians, and Greeks in the service of the families of Comnenus, Ducas, and Paleologos, who crept treacherously into the city, was a fit prologue to its sufferings when it was stormed by the Crusaders in 1204. From this disgraceful conquest of Constantinople by Alexius Comnenus, we must date the decay of its wealth and civic supremacy, both as a capital and a commercial city. … The power which was thus established in rapine terminated about a century later in a bloody vengeance inflicted by an infuriated populace on the last Emperor of the Comnenian family, Andronicus I. Constantinople was taken on the 1st of April, 1081, and Alexius was crowned in St. Sophia's next day."

      G. Finlay,
      History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires, from 716 to 1453,
      book 3, chapter 1.

CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1204.
Conquest and brutal sack by Crusaders and Venetians.

CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1204-1261.
The Latin Empire and its fall.
Recovery by the Greeks.

CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1261.
Great privileges conceded to the Genoese.
Pera and its citadel Galata given up to them.

   On the 25th of July, A. D. 1261. Constantinople was surprised
   and the last Latin emperor expelled by the fortunate arms of
   Michael Palæologus, the Greek usurper at Nicæa. (See GREEK
   EMPIRE OF NICÆA.) Twenty days later Michael made his triumphal
   entry into the ancient capital. "But after the first transport
   of devotion and pride, he sighed at the dreary prospect of
   solitude and ruin. The palace was defiled with smoke and dirt
   and the gross intemperance of the Franks; whole streets had
   been consumed by fire, or were decayed by the injuries of
   time; the sacred and profane edifices were stripped of their
   ornaments; and, as if they were conscious of their approaching
   exile, the industry of the Latins had been confined to the
   work of pillage and destruction. Trade had expired under the
   pressure of anarchy and distress, and the numbers of
   inhabitants had decreased with the opulence of the city. It
   was the first care of the Greek monarch to reinstate the
   nobles in the palaces of their fathers. … He repeopled
   Constantinople by a liberal invitation to the provinces, and
   the brave 'volunteers' were seated in the capital which had
   been recovered by their arms. Instead of banishing the
   factories of the Pisans, Venetians, and Genoese, the prudent
   conqueror 'accepted their oaths of allegiance, encouraged
   their industry, confirmed their privileges and allowed them to
   live under the jurisdiction of their proper magistrates. Of
   these nations the Pisans and Venetians preserved their
   respective quarters in the city; but the services and power of
   the Genoese [who had assisted in the reconquest of
   Constantinople] deserved at the same time the gratitude and
   the jealousy of the Greeks. Their independent colony was first
   planted at the seaport town of Heraclea in Thrace. They were
   speedily recalled, and settled in the exclusive possession of
   the suburb of Galata, an advantageous post, in which they
   revived the commerce and insulted the majesty of the Byzantine
   Empire. The recovery of Constantinople was celebrated as the
   era of a new Empire."
{509}
   The new empire thus established in the ancient Roman capital
   of the east made some show of vigor at first. Michael
   Palæologus "wrested from the Franks several of the noblest
   islands of the Archipelago—Lesbos, Chios, and Rhodes. His
   brother Constantine was sent to command in Malvasia and
   Sparta; and the Eastern side of the Morea, from Argos and
   Napoli to Cape Tænarus, was repossessed by the Greeks. … But
   in the prosecution of these Western conquests the countries
   beyond the Hellespont were left naked to the Turks; and their
   depredations verified the prophecy of a dying senator, that
   the recovery of Constantinople would be the ruin of Asia." Not
   only was Asia Minor abandoned to the new race of Turkish
   conquerors—the Ottomans—but those most aggressive of the
   proselytes of Islam were invited in the next generation to
   cross the Bosphorus, and to enter Thrace as partisans in a
   Greek civil war. Their footing in Europe once gained, they
   devoured the distracted and feeble empire piece by piece,
   until little remained to it beyond the capital itself. Long
   before the latter fell, the empire was a shadow and a name. In
   the very suburbs of Constantinople, the Genoese podesta, at
   Pera or Galata, had more power than the Greek Emperor; and the
   rival Italian traders, of Genoa, Venice and Pisa, fought their
   battles under the eyes of the Byzantines with indifference,
   almost, to the will or wishes, the opposition or the help of
   the latter. "The weight of the Roman Empire was scarcely felt
   in the balance of these opulent and powerful republics. …
   The Roman Empire (I smile in transcribing the name) might soon
   have sunk into a province of Genoa, if the ambition of the
   republic had not been checked by the ruin of her freedom and
   naval power. A long contest of 130 years was determined by the
   triumph of Venice. … Yet the spirit of commerce survived
   that of conquest; and the colony of Pera still awed the
   capital and navigated the Euxine, till it was involved by the
   Turks in the final servitude of Constantinople itself."

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 62-63. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

      ALSO IN:
      G. Finlay,
      History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires,
      book 4, chapter 2.

      See, also,
      TURKS (THE OTTOMANS): A. D. 1240-1326; 1326-1359;
      1360-1389; 1389-1403, &c.

CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1348-1355.
War with the Genoese.
Alliance with Venice and Aragon.

John Cantacuzenos, who usurped the throne in 1347, "had not reigned a year before he was involved in hostilities with the Genoese colony of Galata, which had always contained many warm partisans of the house of Paleologos [displaced by Cantacuzenos]. This factory had grown into a flourishing town, and commanded a large portion of the Golden Horn. During the civil war, the Genoese capitalists had supplied the regency with money, and they now formed almost every branch of the revenue which the imperial government derived from the port. … The financial measures of the new emperor reduced their profits. … The increased industry of the Greeks, and the jealousy of the Genoese, led to open hostilities. The colonists of Galata commenced the war in a treacherous manner, without any authority from the republic of Genoa (1348). With a fleet of only eight large and some small galleys they attacked Constantinople while Cantacuzenos was absent from the capital, and burned several buildings and the greater part of the fleet he was then constructing. The Empress Irene, who administered the government in the absence of her husband, behaved with great prudence and courage and repulsed a bold attack of the Genoese. Cantacuzenos hastened to the capital, where he spent the winter in repairing the loss his fleet had sustained. As soon as it was ready for action, he engaged the Genoese in the port, where he hoped that their naval skill would be of no avail, and where the numerical superiority of his ships would insure him a victory. He expected, moreover, to gain possession of Galata itself by an attack on the land side while the Genoese were occupied at sea. The cowardly conduct of the Greeks, both by sea and land, rendered his plans abortive. The greater part of his ships were taken, and his army retreated without making a serious attack. Fortunately for Cantacuzenos, the colonists of Galata received an order from the Senate of Genoa to conclude peace. … Their victory enabled them to obtain favourable terms, and to keep possession of some land they had seized, and on which they soon completed the construction of a new citadel. The friendly disposition manifested by the government of Genoa induced Cantacuzenos to send ambassadors to the Senate to demand the restoration of the island of Chios, which had been conquered by a band of Genoese exiles in 1346. A treaty was concluded, by which the Genoese were to restore the island to the Emperor of Constantinople in ten years. … But this treaty was never carried into execution, for the exiles at Chios set both the republic of Genoa and the Greek Empire at defiance, and retained their conquest." The peace with Genoa was of short duration. Cantacuzenos was bent upon expelling the Genoese from Galata, and as they were now involved in the war with the Venetians which is known as the war of Caffa he hoped to accomplish his purpose by joining the latter. "The Genoese had drawn into their hands the greater part of the commerce of the Black Sea. The town of Tana or Azof was then a place of great commercial importance, as many of the productions of India and China found their way to western Europe from its warehouses. The Genoese, in consequence of a quarrel with the Tartars, had been compelled to suspend their intercourse with Tana, and the Venetians, availing themselves of the opportunity, had extended their trade and increased their profits. The envy of the Genoese led them to obstruct the Venetian trade and capture Venetian ships, until at length the disputes of the two republics broke out in open war in 1348. In the year 1351, Cantacuzenos entered into an alliance with Venice, and joined his forces to those of the Venetians, who had also concluded an alliance with Peter the Ceremonious, king of Aragon. Nicholas Pisani, one of the ablest admirals of the age, appeared before Constantinople with the Venetian fleet; but his ships had suffered severely from a storm, and his principal object was attained when he had convoyed the merchantmen of Venice safely into the Black Sea. Cantacuzenos, however, had no object but to take Galata; and, expecting to receive important aid from Pisani, he attacked the Genoese colony by sea and land. His assault was defeated in consequence of the weakness of the Greeks and the lukewarmness of the Venetians. {510} Pisani retired to Negropont, to effect a junction with the Catalan fleet; and Pagano Doria, who had pursued him with a superior force, in returning to Galata to pass the winter, stormed the town of Heracleia on the Sea of Marmora, where Cantacuzenos had collected large magazines of provisions, and carried off a rich booty, with many wealthy Greeks, who were compelled to ransom themselves by paying large sums to these captors. Cantacuzenos was now besieged in Constantinople, … The Genoese, unable to make any impression on the city, indemnified themselves by ravaging the Greek territory on the Black Sea. … Early in the year 1352, Pisani returned to Constantinople with the Catalan fleet, under Ponzio da Santapace, and a great battle was fought between the allies and the Genoese, in full view of Constantinople and Galata. The scene of the combat was off the island of Prote, and it received the name of Vrachophagos from some sunken rocks, of which the Genoese availed themselves in their manœuvres. The honour of a doubtful and bloody day rested with the Genoese. … Pisani soon quitted the neighbourhood of Constantinople, and Cantacuzenos, having nothing more to hope from the Venetian alliance … concluded a peace with the republic of Genoa. In this war he had exposed the weakness of the Greek empire, and the decline of the maritime force of Greece, to all the states of Europe. The treaty confirmed all the previous privileges and encroachments of the colony of Galata and other Genoese establishments in the Empire."

      G. Finlay,
      History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires, 716-1453,
      book 4, chapter 2, section 4.

The retirement of the Greeks from the contest did not check the war between Genoa and Venice and the other allies of the latter, which was continued until 1355. The Genoese were defeated, August 29, 1353, by the Venetians and Catalans, in a great battle fought near Lojera, on the northern coast of Sardinia, losing 41 galleys and 4,500 or 5,000 men. They obtained their revenge the next year, on the 4th of November, when Paganino Doria surprised the Venetian admiral, Pisani, at Portolongo, opposite the island of Sapienzu, as he was preparing to go into winter-quarters. "The Venetians sustained not so much a defeat as a total discomfiture; 450 were killed; an enormous number of prisoners, loosely calculated at 6,000, and a highly valuable booty in prizes and stores, were taken." In June, 1355, the war was ended by a treaty which excluded Venice from all Black Sea ports except Caffa.

Mahomet II., son of Amurath II. came to the Ottoman throne, at the age of twenty-one, in 1451. "The conquest of Constantinople was the first object on which his thoughts were fixed at the opening of his reign. The resolution with which he had formed this purpose expressed itself in his stern reply to the ambassadors of the Emperor, offering him tribute if he would renounce the project of building a fort on the European shore of the Bosporus, which, at the distance of only five miles from the capital, would give him the command of the Black Sea. He ordered the envoys to retire, and threatened to flay alive any who should dare to bring him a similar message again. The fort was finished in three months and garrisoned with 400 janizaries; a tribute was exacted of all vessels that passed, and war was formally declared by the Sultan. Constantine [Constantine Palæologus, the last Greek Emperor] made the best preparations in his power for defence; but he could muster only 600 Greek soldiers." In order to secure aid from the Pope and the Italians, Constantine united himself with the Roman Church. A few hundred troops were then sent to his assistance; but, at the most, he had only succeeded in manning the many miles of the city wall with 9,000 men, when, in April, 1453, the Sultan invested it. The Turkish army was said to number 250,000 men, and 420 vessels were counted in the accompanying fleet. A summons to surrender was answered with indignant refusal by Constantine, "who had calmly resolved not to survive the fall of the city," and the final assault of the furious Turks was made on the 29th of May, 1453. The heroic Emperor was slain among the last defenders of the gate of St. Romanos, and the janizaries rode over his dead body as they charged into the streets of the fallen Roman capital. "The despairing people—senators, priests, monks, nuns, husbands, wives and children—sought safety in the church of St. Sophia. A prophecy had been circulated that here the Turks would be arrested by an angel from heaven, with a drawn sword; and hither the miserable multitude crowded, in the expectation of supernatural help. The conquerors followed, sword in hand, slaughtering those whom they encountered in the street. They broke down the doors of the church with axes, and, rushing in, committed every act of atrocity that a frantic thirst for blood and the inflamed passions of demons could suggest. All the unhappy victims were divided as slaves among the soldiers, without regard to blood or rank, and hurried off to the camp; and the mighty cathedral, so long the glory of the Christian world, soon presented only traces of the orgies of hell. The other quarters of the city were plundered by other divisions of the army. … About noon the Sultan made his triumphal entry by the gate of St. Romanos, passing by the body of the Emperor, which lay concealed among the slain. Entering the church, he ordered a moolah to ascend the bema and announce to the Mussulmans that St. Sophia was now a mosque, consecrated to the prayers of the true believers. He ordered the body of the Emperor to be sought, his head to be exposed to the people, and afterwards to be sent as a trophy, to be seen by the Greeks, in the principal cities of the Ottoman Empire. For three days the city was given up to the indescribable horrors of pillage and the license of the Mussulman soldiery. Forty thousand perished during the sack of the city and fifty thousand were reduced to slavery."

      ALSO IN:
      G. Finlay,
      History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires from 716 to 1453,
      book 4, chapter 2.

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 68. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1453-1481.
The city repopulated and rebuilt.
Creation of the Turkish Stamboul.

"It was necessary for Mohammed II. to repeople Constantinople, in order to render it the capital of the Ottoman Empire. The installation of an orthodox Patriarch calmed the minds of the Greeks, and many who had emigrated before the siege gradually returned, and were allowed to claim a portion of their property. But the slow increase of population, caused by a sense of security and the hope of gain, did not satisfy the Sultan, who was determined to see his capital one of the greatest cities of the East, and who knew that it had formerly exceeded Damascus, Bagdad and Cairo, in wealth, extent and population. From most of his subsequent conquests Mohammed compelled the wealthiest of the inhabitants to emigrate to Constantinople, where he granted them plots of land to build their houses. … Turks, Greeks, Servians, Bulgarians, Albanians, and Lazes, followed one another in quick succession, and long before the end of his reign Constantinople was crowded by a numerous and active population, and presented a more flourishing aspect than it had done during the preceding century. The embellishment of his capital was also the object of the Sultan's attention. … Mosques, minarets, fountains and tombs, the great objects of architectural magnificence among the Mussulmans, were constructed in every quarter of the city. … The picturesque beauty of the Stamboul of the present day owes most of its artificial features to the Othoman conquest, and wears a Turkish aspect. The Constantinople of the Byzantine Empire disappeared with the last relics of the Greek Empire. The traveller who now desires to view the vestiges of a Byzantine capital, and examine the last relics of Byzantine architecture, must continue his travels eastward to Trebizond."

      G. Finlay,
      History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires, from 716 to 1453,
      book 4, chapter 2, section 7.

CONSTITUTION OF THE ARGENTINE REPUBLIC.

The subjoined text of the Constitution of the Argentine Republic is a translation "from the official edition of 1868," taken from R. Napp's work on "The Argentine Republic," prepared for the Central Argentine Commission on the Centenary Exhibition at Philadelphia, 1876. According to the "Statesman's Year-Book" of 1893, there have been no modifications since 1860:

Part I.

Article I.
   The Argentine Nation adopts the federal-republican, and
   representative form of Government, as established by the
   present Constitution.

Article 2.
The Federal Government shall maintain the Apostolic Roman
Catholic Faith.

Article 3.
   The authorities of the Federal Government shall reside in the
   city which a special law of Congress may declare the capital
   of the Republic, subsequently to the cession by one or more of
   the Provincial Legislatures, of the territory about to be
   federalized.

Article 4.
   The Federal Government shall administer the expenses of the
   Nation out of the revenue in the National Treasury, derived
   from import and export duties; from the sale and lease of the
   public lands; from postage; and from such other taxes as the
   General Congress may equitably and proportionably lay upon the
   people; as also, from such loans and credits as may be decreed
   by it in times of national necessity, or for enterprises of
   national utility.

Article 5.
   Each Province shall make a Constitution for itself, according
   to the republican representative system, and the principles,
   declarations and guarantees of this Constitution; and which
   shall provide for (secure) Municipal Government, primary
   education and the administration of justice. Under these
   conditions the Federal Government shall guarantee to each
   Province the exercise and enjoyment of its institutions.

Article 6.
   The Federal Government shall intervene in the Provinces to
   guarantee the republican form of Government, or to repel
   foreign invasion, and also, on application of their
   constituted authorities, should they have been deposed by
   sedition or by invasion from another Province, for the purpose
   of sustaining or re-establishing them.

Article 7.
   Full faith shall be given in each Province to the pubic acts,
   and judicial proceedings of every other Province; and Congress
   may by general laws, prescribe the manner in which such acts
   and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

Article 8.
   The citizens of each Province shall be entitled to all the
   rights, privileges and immunities, inherent to the citizens of
   all the several Provinces. The reciprocal extradition of
   criminals between all the Provinces, is obligatory.

Article 9.
   Throughout the territory of the Nation, no other than the
   National Custom-Houses shall be allowed, and they shall be
   regulated by the tariffs sanctioned by Congress.

Article 10.
   The circulation of all goods produced or manufactured in the
   Republic, is free within its borders, as also, that of all
   species of merchandise which may be dispatched by the
   Custom-Houses of entry.

Article 11.
   Such articles of native or foreign production, as well as
   cattle of every kind, which pass from one Province to another,
   shall be free from all transit-duties, and also the vehicles,
   vessels or animals, which transport them; and no tax, let it
   be what it may, can be henceforward imposed upon them on
   account of such transit.

Article 12.
   Vessels bound from one Province to another, shall not be
   compelled to enter, anchor, or pay transit-duties; nor in any
   case can preferences be granted to one port over another, by
   any commercial laws or regulations.

Article 13.
   New Provinces may be admitted into the Nation; but no Province
   shall be erected within the territory of any other Province,
   or Provinces, nor any Province be formed by the junction of
   various Provinces, without the consent of the legislatures of
   the Provinces concerned, as well as of Congress.

Article 14.
   All the inhabitants of the Nation shall enjoy the following
   rights, according to the laws which regulate their exercise:
   viz. to labor and to practice all lawful industry; to trade
   and navigate; to petition the authorities; to enter, remain
   in, travel over and leave, Argentine territory; to publish
   their ideas in the public-press without previous censure; to
   enjoy and dispose of their property; to associate for useful
   purposes; to profess freely their religion; to teach and to
   learn.

Article 15.
   In the Argentine Nation there are no slaves; the few which now
   exist shall be free from the date of the adoption of this
   Constitution, and a special law shall regulate the indemnity
   acknowledged as due by this declaration. All contracts for the
   purchase and sale of persons is a crime, for which those who
   make them, as well as the notary or functionary which
   authorizes them, shall be responsible, and the slaves who in
   any manner whatever may be introduced, shall be free from the
   sole fact that they tread the territory of the Republic.

Article 16.
   The Argentine Nation does not admit the prerogatives of blood
   nor of birth; in it, there are no personal privileges or
   titles of nobility. All its inhabitants are equal in presence
   of the law, and admissible to office without other condition
   than that of fitness. Equality is the basis of taxation as
   well as of public-posts.

Article 17.
   Property is inviolable, and no inhabitant of the Nation can be
   deprived of it, save by virtue of a sentence based on law. The
   expropriation for public utility must be authorized by law and
   previously indemnified. Congress alone shall impose the
   contributions mentioned in Article 4. No personal service
   shall be exacted save by virtue of law, or of a sentence
   founded on law. Every author or inventor is the exclusive
   proprietor of his work, invention or discovery, for the term
   which the law accords to him. The confiscation of property is
   henceforward and forever, stricken from the Argentine
   penal-code. No armed body can make requisitions, nor exact
   assistance of any kind.

Article 18.
   No inhabitant of the Nation shall suffer punishment without a
   previous judgment founded on a law passed previously to the
   cause of judgment, nor be judged by special commissions, or
   withdrawn from the Judges designated by law before the opening
   of the cause. No one shall be obliged to testify against
   himself; nor be arrested, save by virtue of a written order
   from a competent authority. The defense at law both of the
   person and his rights, is inviolable. The domicil, private
   papers and epistolary correspondence, are inviolable; and a
   law shall determine in what cases, and under what imputations,
   a search-warrant can proceed against and occupy them. Capital
   punishment for political causes, as well as every species of
   torture and whippings, are abolished for ever. The prisons of
   the Nation shall be healthy and clean, for the security, and
   not for the punishment, of the criminals detained in them, and
   every measure which under pretext of precaution may mortify
   them more than such security requires, shall render
   responsible the Judge who authorizes it.

Article 19.
   Those private actions of men that in nowise offend public
   order and morality, or injure a third party, belong alone to
   God, and are beyond the authority of the magistrates. No
   inhabitant of the Nation shall be compelled to do what the law
   does not ordain, nor be deprived of anything which it does not
   prohibit.

Article 20.
   Within the territory of the Nation, foreigners shall enjoy all
   the civil rights of citizens; they can exercise their
   industries, commerce or professions, in accordance with the
   laws; own, buy and sell real-estate; navigate the rivers and
   coasts; freely profess their religion, and testate and marry.
   They shall not be obliged to become citizens, nor to pay
   forced contributions. Two years previous residence in the
   Nation shall be required for naturalization, but the
   authorities can shorten this term in favour of him who so
   desires it, under the allegation and proof of services
   rendered to the Republic.

Article 21.
   Every Argentine citizen is obliged to arm himself in defense
   of his country and of this Constitution, according to the laws
   which Congress shall ordain for the purpose, and the decrees
   of the National Executive. For the period of ten years from
   the day on which they may have obtained their citizenship,
   this service shall be voluntary on the part of the
   naturalized.

Article 22.
   The people shall not deliberate nor govern save by means of
   their Representatives and Authorities, created by this
   Constitution. Every armed force or meeting of persons which
   shall arrogate to itself the rights of the people, and
   petition in their name, is guilty of sedition.

Article 23.
   In the event of internal commotion or foreign attack which
   might place in jeopardy the practice of this Constitution, and
   the free action of the Authorities created by it, the Province
   or territory where such disturbance exists shall be declared
   in a state of siege, all constitutional guarantees being
   meantime suspended there. But during such suspension the
   President of the Republic cannot condemn nor apply any
   punishment per se. In respect to persons, his power shall be
   limited to arresting and removing them from one place to
   another in the Nation, should they not prefer to leave Argentine
   territory.

Article 24.
Congress shall establish the reform of existing laws in all
branches, as also the trial by Jury.

Article 25.
   The Federal Government shall foment European immigration; and
   it cannot restrict, limit, nor lay any impost upon, the entry
   upon Argentine territory, of such foreigners as come for the
   purpose of cultivating the soil, improving manufactures, and
   introducing and teaching the arts and sciences.

Article 26.
   The navigation of the interior rivers of the Nation is free to
   all flags, subject only to such regulations as the National
   Authority may dictate.

Article 27.
   The Federal Government is obliged to strengthen the bonds of
   peace and commerce with foreign powers, by means of treaties
   which shall be in conformity with the principles of public law
   laid down in this Constitution.

Article 28.
   The principles, rights and guarantees laid down in the
   foregoing articles, cannot be altered by any laws intended to
   regulate their practice.

Article 29.
   Congress cannot grant to the Executive, nor the provincial
   legislatures to the Governor of Provinces, any "extraordinary
   faculties," nor the "sum of the public power," nor
   "renunciations or supremacies" by which the lives, honor or
   fortune of the Argentines shall be at the mercy of any
   Government or person whatever. Acts of this nature shall be
   irremediably null and void, and shall subject those who frame,
   vote, or sign them, to the pains and penalties incurred by
   those who are infamous traitors to their country.

Article 30.
   This Constitution can be reformed in whole or in part. The
   necessity for the reform shall be declared by Congress by at
   least a two-thirds vote; but it can only be accomplished by a
   convention called ad hoc.

Article 31.
   This Constitution, and the laws of the Nation which shall be
   made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made or which
   shall be made with Foreign Powers, shall be the supreme law of
   the land; and the authorities of every Province shall be bound
   thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any Province
   to the contrary notwithstanding, excepting in the case of
   Buenos-Aires, in the treaties ratified after the compact of
   November 11th, 1859.

Article 32.
   The Federal Congress shall not dictate laws restricting the
   liberty of the press, nor establish any federal jurisdiction
   over it.

Article 33.
   The enumeration in this Constitution of certain rights and
   guarantees, shall not be construed to deny or disparage other
   rights and guarantees, not enumerated; but which spring from
   the principle of popular sovereignty, and the republican form
   of Government.

Article 34.
   The Judges of the Federal courts shall not be Judges of
   Provincial tribunals at the same time; nor shall the federal
   service, civil as well as military, constitute a domicil in
   the Province where it may be exercised, if it be not
   habitually that of the employé; it being understood by this,
   that all Provincial public-service is optional in the Province
   where such employé may casually reside.

Article 35.
   The names which have been successively adopted for the Nation,
   since the year 1810 up to the present time; viz., the United
   Provinces of the Rio de la Plata, Argentine Republic and
   Argentine Confederation, shall henceforward serve without
   distinction, officially to designate the Government and
   territory of the Provinces, whilst the words Argentine Nation
   shall be employed in the making and sanction of the laws.

Part II.—Section I.

Article 36.
   All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a
   Congress composed of two Chambers, one of National Deputies,
   and the other of Senators of the Provinces and of the capital.

Chapter I.

Article 37.
   The Chamber of Deputies shall be composed of representatives
   elected directly by the people of the Provinces, for which
   purpose each one shall be considered as a single electoral
   district, and by a simple plurality of votes in the ratio of
   one for each 20,000 inhabitants, or for a fraction not less
   than 10,000.

Article 38.
   The deputies for the first Legislature shall be nominated in
   the following proportion: for the Province of Buenos-Aires,
   twelve; for that of Córdoba, six; for Catamarca, three;
   Corrientes, four; Entre-Rios, two; Jujui, two; Mendoza, three;
   Rioja, two; Salta, three; Santiago, four; San Juan, two;
   Santa-Fé, two; San Luis, two; and for that of Tucumán, three.

Article 39.
   For the second Legislature a general census shall be taken,
   and the number of Deputies be regulated by it; thereafter,
   this census shall be decennial.

Article 40.
   No person shall be a Deputy who shall not have attained the
   age of twenty-five years, have been four years in the exercise
   of citizenship, and be a native of the Province which elects
   him, or a resident of it for the two years immediately
   preceding.

Article 41.
   For the first election, the provincial Legislatures shall
   regulate the method for a direct election of the National
   Deputies. Congress shall pass a general law for the future.

Article 42.
   The Deputies shall hold their place for four years, and are
   re-eligible; but the House shall be renewed each biennial, by
   halves; for which purpose those elected to the first
   Legislature, as soon as the session opens, shall decide by lot
   who shall leave at the end of the first period.

Article 43.
In case of vacancy, the Government of the Province or of the
capital, shall call an election for a new member.

Article 44.
The origination of the tax-laws and those for the recruiting
of troops, belongs exclusively to the House of Deputies.

Article 45.
   It has the sole right of impeaching before the Senate, the
   President, Vice-President, their Ministers, and the members of
   the Supreme Court and other inferior Tribunals of the Nation,
   in suits which may be undertaken against them for the improper
   discharge of, or deficiency in, the exercise of their
   functions; or for common crimes, after having heard them, and
   declared by a vote of two thirds of the members present, that
   there is cause for proceeding against them.

Chapter II.

Article 46.
   The Senate shall be composed of two Senators from each
   Province, chosen by the Legislatures thereof by plurality of
   vote, and two from the capital elected in the form prescribed
   for the election of the President of the Nation. Each Senator
   shall have one vote.

Article 47.
   No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained the
   age of thirty years, been six years a citizen of the Nation,
   enjoy an annual rent or income of two thousand hard-dollars,
   and be a native of the Province which elects him, or a
   resident of the same for the two years immediately preceding.

Article 48.
   The Senators shall enjoy their trust for nine years, and are
   indefinitely re-eligible; but the Senate shall be renewed by
   thirds each three years, and shall decide by lot, as soon as
   they be all re-united, who shall leave at the end of the first
   and second triennial periods.

Article 49.
The Vice-President of the Nation shall be President of the
Senate; but shall have no vote, except in a case of a tie.

Article 50.
   The Senate shall choose a President pro-tempore who shall
   preside during the absence of the Vice-President, or when he
   shall exercise the office of President of the Nation.

Article 51.
   The Senate shall have sole power to try all impeachments
   presented by the House of Deputies. When sitting for that
   purpose they shall be under oath. When the President of the
   Nation is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside. No person
   shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of
   the members present.

Article 52.
   Judgment in case of impeachment, shall not extend farther than
   to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy
   any office of honor, trust, or profit under the Nation. But
   the party convicted shall, nevertheless, be liable to
   indictment, trial, judgment and punishment according to law,
   before the ordinary tribunals.

Article 53.
   It belongs, moreover, to the Senate, to authorize the
   President to declare martial law in one or more points of the
   Republic, in case of foreign aggression.

Article 54.
   When any seat of a Senator be vacant by death, resignation or
   other reason, the Government to which the vacancy belongs,
   shall immediately proceed to the election of a new member.

Chapter III.

Article 55.
   Both Chambers shall meet in ordinary session, every year from
   the 1st May until the 30th September. They can be
   extraordinarily convoked, or their session be prolonged by the
   President of the Nation.

Article 56.
   Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns, and
   qualifications of its own members. Neither of them shall enter
   into session without an absolute Majority of its members; but
   a smaller number may compel absent members to attend the
   sessions, in such terms and under such penalties as each House
   may establish.

Article 57.
   Both Houses shall begin and close their sessions
   simultaneously. Neither of them whilst in sessions can suspend
   its meetings for more than three days, without the consent of
   the other.

Article 58.
   Each House may make its rules of proceeding, and with the
   concurrence of two-thirds punish its members for disorderly
   behavior in the exercise of their functions, or remove, and
   even expel them from the House, for physical or moral
   incapacity occurring after their incorporation; but a majority
   of one above one half of the members present, shall suffice to
   decide questions of voluntary resignation.

Article 59.
   In the act of their incorporation the Senators and Deputies
   shall take an oath to properly fulfil their charge, and to act
   in all things in conformity to the prescriptions of this
   Constitution.

Article 60.
   No member of Congress can be indicted, judicially
   interrogated, or molested for any opinion or discourse which
   he may have uttered in fulfilment of his Legislative duties.

Article 61.
   No Senator or Deputy, during the term for which he may have
   been elected, shall be arrested, except when taken 'in
   flagrante' commission of some crime which merits capital
   punishment or other degrading sentence; an account thereof
   shall be rendered to the Chamber he belongs to, with a verbal
   process of the facts.

Article 62.
   When a complaint in writing be made before the ordinary courts
   against any Senator or Deputy, each Chamber can by a
   two-thirds vote, suspend the accused in his functions and
   place him at the disposition of the competent judge for trial.

Article 63.
   Each of the Chambers can cause the Ministers of the Executive
   to come to their Hall, to give such explanations or
   information as may be considered convenient.

Article 64.
   No member of Congress can receive any post or commission from
   the Executive, without the previous consent of his respective
   Chamber, excepting such as are in the line of promotion.

Article 65.
   The regular ecclesiastics cannot be members of Congress, nor
   call the Governors of Provinces represent the Province which
   they govern.

Article 66.
The Senators and Deputies shall be remunerated for their
services, by a compensation to be ascertained by law.

Chapter IV.

1. To legislate upon the Custom-Houses and establish import duties; which, as well as all appraisements for their collection, shall be uniform throughout the Nation, it being clearly understood that these, as well as all other national contributions, can be paid in any money at the just value which may be current in the respective Provinces. Also, to establish export duties.

2. To lay direct taxes for determinate periods, whenever the common defense and general welfare require it, which shall be uniform throughout the territory of the Nation.

5. To establish and regulate a National Bank in the capital, with branches in the Provinces, and with power to emit bills.

7. To annually determine the estimates of the National Administration, and approve or reject the accounts of expenses.

8. To grant subsidies from the National Treasury to those Provinces, whose revenues, according to their budgets, do not suffice to cover the ordinary expenses.

9. To regulate the free navigation of the interior rivers, open such ports as may be considered necessary, create and suppress Custom-Houses, but without suppressing those which existed in each Province at the time of its incorporation.

10. To coin money, regulate the value thereof and of foreign coin, and adopt a uniform system of weights and measures for the whole Nation.

11. To decree civil, commercial, penal and mining Codes, but such Codes shall have no power to change local jurisdiction; their application shall belong to the Federal or Provincial courts, in accordance with such things or persons as may come under their respective jurisdiction; especially, general laws embracing the whole Nation, shall be passed upon naturalization and citizenship, subject to the principle of native citizenship; also upon bankruptcy, the counterfeiting of current-money and public State documents; and such laws as may be required for the establishment of trial by Jury.

12. To regulate commerce by land and sea with foreign nations, and between the Provinces.

13. To establish and regulate the general post-offices and post-roads of the Nation.

14. To finally settle the National boundaries, fix those of the Provinces, create new Provinces, and determine by a special legislation, the organization and governments, which such National territories as are beyond the limits assigned to the Province, should have.

15. To provide for the security of the frontiers; preserve peaceful relations with the Indians, and promote their conversion to Catholicism.

16. To provide all things conducive to the prosperity of the country, to the advancement and happiness of the Provinces, and to the increase of enlightenment, decreeing plans for general and university instruction, promoting industry, immigration, the construction of railways, and navigable canals, the peopling of the National lands, the introduction and establishment of new industries, the importation of foreign capital and the exploration of the interior rivers, by protection laws to these ends, and by temporary concessions and stimulating recompenses.

17. To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court, create and suppress public offices, fix their attributes, grant pensions, decree honors and general amnesties.

   18. To accept or reject the resignation of the President or
   Vice-President of the Republic, and declare new elections; to
   make the scrutiny and rectification of the same.

19. To ratify or reject the treaties made with other Nations and the Concordats with the Apostolic See, and regulate the patronage of advowsons throughout the Nation.

20. To admit religious orders within the Nation, other than those already existing.

22. To grant letters of marque and reprisal, and to make rules concerning prizes.

23. To fix the land and sea forces in time of peace and war: and to make rules and regulations for the government of said forces.

24. To provide for calling forth the militia of all, or a part of, the Provinces, to execute the laws of the Nation, suppress insurrections or repel invasions. To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining said militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the Nation, reserving to the Provinces respectively, the appointment of the corresponding chiefs and officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.

25. To permit the introduction of foreign troops within the territory of the Nation, and the going beyond it of the National forces.

26. To declare martial law in any or various points of the Nation in case of domestic commotion, and ratify or suspend the declaration of martial law made by the executive during the recess.

27. To exercise exclusive legislation over the territory of the National capital, and over such other places acquired by purchase or cession in any of the Provinces, for the purpose of establishing forts, arsenals, warehouses, or other needful national buildings.

28. To make all laws and regulations which shall be necessary for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all others vested by the present Constitution in the Government of the Argentine Nation.

Chapter V.

Article 68.
   Laws may originate in either of the Houses of Congress, by
   bills presented by their members or by the Executive,
   excepting those relative to the objects treated of in Article
   44.

Article 69.
   A bill being approved by the House wherein it originated,
   shall pass for discussion to the other House. Being approved
   by both, it shall pass to the Executive of the Nation for his
   examination; and should it receive his approbation he shall
   publish it as law.

Article 70.
Every bill not returned within ten working-days by the
Executive, shall be taken as approved by him.

Article 71.
   No bill entirely rejected by one House, can be presented again
   during that year. But should it be only amplified or corrected
   by the revising House, it shall return to that wherein it
   originated; and if there the additions or corrections be
   approved by an absolute majority, it shall pass to the
   Executive. If the additions or corrections be rejected, it
   shall return to the revising House, and if here they be again
   sanctioned by a majority of two-thirds of its members, it
   shall pass to the other House, and it shall not be understood
   that the said additions and corrections are rejected, unless
   two-thirds of the members present should so vote.

Article 72.
   A bill being rejected in whole or in part by the Executive, he
   shall return it with his objections to the House in which it
   originated; here it shall be debated again; and if it be
   confirmed by a majority of two-thirds, it shall pass again to
   the revising House. If both Houses should pass it by the same
   majority, it becomes a law, and shall be sent to the Executive
   for promulgation. In such case the votes of both Houses shall
   be by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons so voting
   shall be recorded, as well as the objections of the Executive,
   and shall be immediately published in the daily-press. If the
   Houses differ upon the objections, the bill cannot be renewed
   during that year.

Article 73.
   The following formula shall be used in the passage of the
   laws: "The Senate and Chamber of Deputies of the Argentine
   Nation in Congress assembled, etc. decree, or sanction, with
   the force of law."

Section II.—Chapter I.

Article 74.
   The Executive power of the Nation shall be exercised by a
   citizen, with the title of "President of the Argentine
   Nation."

Article 75.
   In case of the sickness, absence from the capital, death,
   resignation or dismissal of the President, the Executive power
   shall be exercised by the Vice-President of the Nation. In
   case of the removal, death, resignation, or inability of the
   President and Vice-President of the Nation, Congress will
   determine which public functionary shall then fill the
   Presidency, until the disability be removed or a new President
   be elected.

Article 76.
   No person except a natural-born citizen or a son of a
   natural-born citizen brought forth abroad, shall be eligible
   as President or Vice-President of the Nation; he is required
   to belong to the Apostolic-Roman-Catholic communion, and
   possess the other qualifications required to be elected
   Senator.

Article 77.
   The President and Vice-President shall hold office during the
   term of six years; and cannot be re-elected except after an
   interval of an equal period.

Article 78.
   The President of the Nation shall cease in his functions the
   very day on which his period of six years expires, and no
   event whatever which may have interrupted it, can be a motive
   for completing it at a later time.

Article 79.
   The President and Vice-President shall receive a compensation
   from the National Treasury, which cannot be altered during the
   period for which they shall have been elected. During the same
   period they cannot exercise any other office nor receive any
   other emolument from the Nation, or any of its Provinces.

Article 80.
   The President and Vice-President before entering upon the
   execution of their offices, shall take the following oath
   administered by the President of the Senate (the first time by
   the President of the Constituent Congress) in Congress
   assembled: "I (such an one) swear by God our Lord, and by
   these Holy Evangelists, that I will faithfully and
   patriotically execute the office of President (or
   Vice-President) of the Nation, and observe and cause to be
   faithfully observed, the Constitution of the Argentine Nation.
   If I should not do so, let God and the Nation indict me."

Chapter II.

Article 81.
   The election of the President and Vice-President of the
   Nation, shall be made in the following manner:-The capital and
   each of the Provinces shall by direct vote nominate a board of
   electors, double the number of Deputies and Senators which
   they send to Congress, with the same qualifications and under
   the same form as those prescribed for the election of
   Deputies. Deputies or Senators, or officers in the pay of the
   Federal Government cannot be electors. The electors being met
   in the National-capital and in that of their respective
   Provinces, four months prior to the conclusion of the term of
   the out-going President, they shall proceed by signed ballots,
   to elect a President, and Vice-President, one of which shall
   state the person as President, and the other the person as
   Vice-President, for whom they vote. Two lists shall be made of
   all the individuals elected as President, and other two also,
   of those elected as Vice-President, with the number of votes
   which each may have received. These lists shall be signed by
   the electors, and shall be remitted closed and sealed, two of
   them (one of each kind) to the President of the Provincial
   Legislature, and to the President of the Municipality in the
   capital, among whose records they shall remain deposited and
   closed; the other two shall be sent to the President of the
   Senate (the first time to the President of the Constituent
   Congress).

Article 82.
   The President of the Senate (the first time that of the
   Constituent Congress) all the lists being received, shall open
   them in the presence of both Houses. Four members of Congress
   taken by lot and associated to the Secretaries, shall
   immediately proceed to count the votes, and to announce the
   number which may result in favor of each candidate for the
   Presidency and Vice-Presidency of the Nation. Those who have
   received an absolute majority of all the votes in both cases,
   shall be immediately proclaimed President and Vice-President.

Article 83.
   In case there be no absolute majority, on account of a
   division of the votes, Congress shall elect one of the two
   persons who shall have received the highest number of votes.
   If the first majority should have fallen to a single person,
   and the second to two or more, Congress shall elect among all
   the persons who may have obtained the first and second
   majorities.

Article 84.
   This election shall be made by absolute plurality of votes,
   and voting by name. If, on counting the first vote, no
   absolute majority shall have been obtained, a second trial
   shall be made, limiting the voting to the two persons who
   shall have obtained the greatest number of suffrages at the
   first trial. In case of an equal number of votes, the
   operation shall be repeated, and should the result be the
   same, then the President of the Senate (the first time that of
   the Constituent Congress) shall decide it. No scrutiny or
   rectification of these elections can be made, unless
   three-fourth parts of all the members of the Congress be
   present.

Article 85.
   The election of the President and Vice-President of the
   Nation, shall be concluded in a single meeting of the
   Congress, and thereafter, the result and the electoral lists
   shall be published in the daily-press.

Chapter III.

1. He is the supreme chief of the Nation, and is charged with
the general administration of the country.

2. He issues such instructions and regulations as may be necessary for the execution of the laws of the Nation, taking care not to alter their spirit with regulative exceptions.

4. He participates in making the laws according to the
Constitution; and sanctions and promulgates them.

5. He nominates the Judges of the Supreme Court and of the Inferior Federal tribunals, and appoints them by and with the consent and advice of the Senate.

6. He has power to pardon or commute penalties against officers subject to Federal jurisdiction, preceded by a report of the proper Tribunal, excepting in case of impeachment by the House of Deputies.

7. He grants retiring-pensions, leaves of absence and pawnbrokers' licences, in conformity to the laws of the Nation.

8. He exercises the rights of National Patronage in the presentation of Bishops for the cathedrals, choosing from a ternary nomination of the Senate.

9. He grants letters-patent or retains the decrees of the Councils, the bulls, briefs and rescripts of the Holy Roman Pontiff, by and with the consent of the Supreme Court, and must require a law for the same when they contain general and permanent dispositions.

10. He appoints and removes Ministers Plenipotentiary and Chargé d'Affaires, by and with the consent and advice of the Senate; and himself alone appoints and removes the Ministers of his Cabinet, the officers of the Secretary-ships, Consular Agents, and the rest of the employés of the Administration whose nomination is not otherwise ordained by this Constitution.

11. He annually opens the Sessions of Congress, both Houses being united for this purpose in the Senate Chamber, giving an account to Congress on this occasion of the state of the Nation, of the reforms provided by the Constitution, and recommending to its consideration such measures as may be judged necessary and convenient.

12. He prolongs the ordinary meetings of Congress or convokes it in extra session, when a question of progress or an important interest so requires.

13. He collects the rents of the Nation and decrees their expenditure in conformity to the law or estimates of the Public expenses.

14. He negotiates and signs those treaties of peace, of commerce, of navigation, of alliance, of boundaries and of neutrality, requisite to maintain good relations with foreign powers; he receives their Ministers and admits their Consuls.

16. He confers, by and with the consent of the Senate, the high military grades in the army and navy of the Nation; and by himself on the field of battle.

17. He disposes of the land and sea forces, and takes charge of their organization and distribution according to the requirements of the Nation.

18. By the authority and approval of Congress, he declares war and grants letters of marque and reprisal.

19. By and with the consent of the Senate, in case of foreign aggression and for a limited time, he declares martial law in one or more points of the Nation. In case of internal commotion he has this power only when Congress is in recess, because it is an attribute which belongs to this body. The President exercises it under the limitations mentioned in Article 23.

20. He may require from the chiefs of all the branches and departments of the Administration, and through them from all other employés, such reports as he may believe necessary, and they are compelled to give them.

21. He cannot absent himself from the capital of the Nation without permission of Congress. During the recess he can only do so without permission on account of important objects of public service.

22. The President shall have power to fill all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions, which shall expire at the end of their next session.

Chapter IV.

Article 87.
   Five Minister-Secretaries; to wit, of the Interior; of Foreign
   Affairs; of Finance; of Justice, Worship and Public
   Instruction; and of War and the Navy; shall have under their
   charge the dispatch of National affairs, and they shall
   counter-sign and legalize the acts of the President by means
   of their signatures, without which requisite they shall not be
   efficacious. A law shall determine the respective duties of
   the Ministers.

Article 88.
   Each Minister is responsible for the acts which he legalizes,
   and collectively, for those which he agrees to with his
   colleagues.

Article 89.
   The Ministers cannot determine anything whatever, by
   themselves, except what concerns the economical and
   administrative regimen of their respective Departments.

Article 90.
   As soon as Congress opens, the Ministers shall present to it a
   detailed report of the State of the Nation, in all that
   relates to their respective Departments.

Article 91.
They cannot be Senators or Deputies without resigning their
places as Ministers.

Article 92.
The Ministers can assist at the meetings of Congress and take
part in its debates, but they cannot vote.

Article 93.
   They shall receive for their services a compensation
   established by law, which shall not be increased or
   diminished, in favor or against, the actual incumbents.

Section III.—Chapter I.

Article 94.
   The Judicial Power of the Nation shall be exercised by a
   Supreme Court of Justice, and by such other inferior Tribunals
   as Congress may establish within the dominion of the Nation.

Article 95.
   The President of the Nation cannot in any case whatever,
   exercise Judicial powers, arrogate to himself any knowledge of
   pending causes, or reopen those which have terminated.

Article 96.
   The Judges of the Supreme Court and of the lower
   National-Tribunals, shall keep their places quamdiu se bene
   gesserit, and shall receive for their services a compensation
   determined by law, which shall not be diminished in any manner
   whatever during their continuance in office.

Article 97.
   No one can be a member of the Supreme Court of Justice, unless
   he shall have been an attorney at law of the Nation for eight
   years, and shall possess the qualifications required for a
   Senator.

Article 98.
   At the first installation of the Supreme Court, the
   individuals appointed shall take an oath administered by the
   President of the Nation, to discharge their functions, by the
   good and legal administration of Justice according to the
   prescriptions of this Constitution. Thereafter, the oath shall
   be taken before the President of the Court itself.

Article 99.
   The Supreme Court shall establish its own internal and
   economical regulations, and shall appoint its subaltern
   employés.

Chapter II.

Article 100.
   The Judicial power of the Supreme Court and the lower
   National-Tribunals, shall extend to all cases arising under
   this Constitution, the laws of the Nation with the reserve
   made in clause 11 of Article 67, and by treaties with foreign
   nations; to all cases affecting ambassadors, public Ministers
   and foreign Consuls; to all cases of admiralty and maritime
   jurisdiction; to controversies to which the Nation shall be
   party; to controversies between two or more Provinces; between
   a Province and the citizens of another; between the citizens
   of different Provinces; and between a Province or its
   citizens, against a foreign State or citizen.

Article 101.
   In these cases the Supreme Court shall exercise an appelate
   jurisdiction according to such rules and exceptions as
   Congress may prescribe; but in all cases affecting
   ambassadors, ministers and foreign consuls, or those in which
   a Province shall be a party, it shall exercise original and
   exclusive jurisdiction.

Article 102.
   The trial of all ordinary crimes except in cases of
   impeachment, shall terminate by jury, so soon as this
   institution be established in the Republic. These trials shall
   be held in the same Province where the crimes shall have been
   committed, but when not committed within the frontiers of the
   Nation, but against International Law, Congress shall
   determine by a special law the place where the trial shall
   take effect.

Article 103.
   Treason against the Nation shall only consist in levying war
   against it, or in adhering to its enemies, giving them aid and
   comfort. Congress shall fix by a special law the punishment of
   treason; but it cannot go beyond the person of the criminal,
   and no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood to
   relatives of any grade whatever.

Article 104.
   The Provinces keep all the powers not delegated by this
   Constitution to the Federal Government, and those which were
   expressly reserved by special compacts at the time of their
   incorporation.

Article 105.
   They create their own local institutions and are governed by
   these. They elect their own Governors, their Legislators and
   other Provincial functionaries, without intervention from the
   Federal Government.

Article 106.
Each Province shall make its own Constitution in conformity
with the dispositions of Article 5.

Article 107.
   The Provinces with the consent of Congress can celebrate
   contracts among themselves for the purposes of administering
   justice and promoting economical interests and works of common
   utility, and also, can pass protective laws for the purpose
   with their own resources, of promoting manufactures,
   immigration, the building of railways and canals, the peopling
   of their lands, the introduction and establishment of new
   industries, the import of foreign-capital and the exploration
   of their rivers.

Article 108.
   The Provinces cannot exercise any powers delegated to the
   Nation. They cannot celebrate compacts of a political
   character, nor make laws on commerce or internal or external
   navigation; nor establish Provincial Custom-Houses, nor coin
   money, nor establish Banks of emission, without authority of
   Congress; nor make civil, commercial, penal or mining Codes
   after Congress shall have sanctioned those provided for in
   this Constitution; nor pass laws upon citizenship or
   naturalization; bankruptcy, counterfeiting money or public
   State-documents; nor lay tonnage dues; nor arm vessels of war
   or raise armies, save in the case of foreign invasion, or of a
   danger so imminent that it admits of no delay, and then an
   account thereof must be immediately given to the Federal
   Government; or name or receive foreign agents; or admit new
   religious orders.

Article 109.
   No Province can declare or make war to another Province. Its
   complaints must be submitted to the Supreme Court of Justice
   and be settled by it. Hostilities de facto are acts of
   civil-war and qualified as seditious and tumultuous, which the
   General Government must repress and suffocate according to
   law.

Article 110.
The Provincial Governors are the natural agents of the Federal
Government to cause the fulfilment of the laws of the Nation.

CONSTITUTION OF BELGIUM.

CONSTITUTION OF BOLIVIA.

CONSTITUTION OF BRAZIL.

   The following text of the Constitution of the United States of
   Brazil, adopted February 24, 1891, is taken from a translation
   published in Bulletin No. 7 of the Bureau of American
   Republics, Washington:

   We, the representatives of the Brazilian people, united in
   constitutional congress, to organize a free and democratic
   regime, do establish, decree and promulgate the following
   constitution of the Republic of the United States of Brazil:

Article 1.
   The Brazilian nation, adopting as a form of government the
   Federal Republic proclaimed November 15, 1889, constitutes
   itself, by the perpetual and indissoluble union of its former
   provinces, the United States of Brazil.

Article 2.
   Each of the former provinces shall constitute a State, and the
   former municipal district shall form the Federal District,
   continuing to be the capital of the Union until the following
   article shall be carried in to effect.

Article 3.
   In the center there is allotted as the property of the Union a
   zone of 14,400 square kilometres, which in due time shall be
   laid off for the establishment of the future federal capital.
   Sole paragraph.—After the change of site of the
   capital, the present Federal District shall constitute a
   State.

Article 4.
   The States shall have the right to incorporate themselves one
   with another, sub-divide themselves, dismember themselves to
   join with others or form new States, with the consent of the
   respective local legislatures in two successive annual
   sessions and the approval of the national Congress.

Article 5.
   It shall be the duty of each State to provide, at its own
   expense, for the necessities of its government and
   administration; but the Union shall extend assistance to any
   State which, in case of public calamity, shall demand it.

Article 6.
   The Federal Government shall not interfere in matters
   pertaining peculiarly to the States, save:
   (1) To repel foreign invasion, or the invasion of one State by
   another.
   (2) To maintain the federative republican form of government.
   (3) To reestablish order and tranquillity in the States at the
   request of the respective governments.
   (4) To assure the execution of the laws and federal decrees.

Article 7.
   It is the exclusive prerogative of the Union to decree:
   (1) Duties on imports from foreign countries.
   (2) Duties of entry, departure, and stay of vessels; the
   coasting trade for national articles being free of duties, as
   well as for foreign merchandise that has already paid an
   import duty.
   (3) Stamp duties, save the restrictions imposed by article 9,
   §1. No.1.
   (4) Postal and federal telegraphic taxes.
   §1. The Union alone shall have the power:
   (1) To establish banks of emission.
   (2) To create and maintain custom-houses.
   §2. The taxes decreed by the Union shall be uniform for all
   the States.
   §3. The laws of the Union and the acts and decisions of its
   authorities shall be executed throughout the country by
   federal officials, except that the enforcement of the former
   may be committed to the governments of the States, with the
   consent of the said States.

Article 8.
   The Federal Government is forbidden to make distinctions and
   preferences in favor of the ports of any of the States against
   those of others.

Article 9.
   The States alone are competent to decree taxes:
   (1) On the exportation of merchandise of their own production.
   (2) On landed property.
   (3) On the transmission of property.
   (4) On industries and professions.
   § 1. The States also have the exclusive right to decree:
   (1) Stamp duties on instruments emanating from their
   respective governments and business of their internal economy.
   (2) Contributions touching their own telegraphs and postal
   service.
   § 2. The products of the other States are exempt from imposts
   in the State whence they are exported.
   §3. It is lawful for a State to levy duties on imports of
   foreign goods only when intended for consumption in its own
   territory; but it shall, in such case, cover into the federal
   treasury the amount of duties collected.
   §4. The right is reserved to the States of establishing
   telegraph lines between the different points of their own
   territory, and between these and those of other States not
   served by federal lines; but the Union may take possession of
   them when the general welfare shall require.

Article 10.
   The several States are prohibited from taxing the federal
   property or revenue, or anything in the service of the Union,
   and vice versa.

Article 11.
   It is forbidden to the States, as well as to the Unions:
   (1) To impose duties on the products of the other States, or
   of foreign countries, in transit through the territory of any
   State, or from one State to another, as also on the vehicles,
   whether by land or water, by which they are transported.
   (2) To establish, aid, or embarrass the exercise of religious
   worship.
   (3) To enact ex post facto laws.

Article 12.
   In addition to the sources of revenue set forth in articles 7
   and 9, it shall be lawful for the Union, as well as for the
   States, cumulatively or otherwise, to create any others
   whatsoever which may not be in contravention of the terms of
   articles 7, 9, and 11, § 1.

Article 13.
   The right or the Union and of the States to legislate in
   regard to railways and navigation of internal waters shall be
   regulated by federal law. Sole paragraph.—The
   coastwise trade shall be carried on in national vessels.

Article 14.
   The land and naval forces are permanent national institutions,
   intended for the defense of the country from foreign attack
   and the maintenance of the laws of the land. Within the limits
   of the law, the armed forces are from their nature held to
   obedience, each rank to its superior, and bound to support all
   constitutional institutions.

Article 15.
   The legislative, executive, and judicial powers are organs of
   the national sovereignty, harmonious and independent among
   themselves.

Article 16.
   The legislative power is vested in the national Congress, with
   the sanction of the President of the Republic.
   § 1. The national Congress is composed of two branches, the
   Chamber of Deputies and the Senate.
   § 2. The elections for senators and for deputies shall be held
   simultaneously throughout the country.
   § 3. No person shall be senator and deputy at the same time.

Article 17.
   The Congress shall assemble in the federal capital on the 3d
   day of May of each year, unless some other day shall be fixed
   by law, without being convoked, and shall continue in session
   4 months from the date of the opening, and may be prorogued,
   adjourned, or convoked in extraordinary session.
   § 1. The Congress alone shall have the power to deliberate on
   the prorogation or extension of its session.
   § 2. Each legislature shall last for 3 years.
   § 3. The governor of any State in which there shall be a
   vacancy in the representation, including the case of
   resignation, shall order a new election to be held at once.

Article 18.
   The Chamber and the Senate shall hold their sessions apart and
   in public, unless otherwise resolved by a majority vote, and
   shall deliberate only when, in each of the chambers, there
   shall be present an absolute majority of its members. Sole
   paragraph.—To each of the chambers shall belong the right
   to verify and recognize the powers of its members, to choose
   its own presiding officers, to organize its internal
   government, to regulate the service of its own police rules,
   and to choose its own secretaries.

Article 19.
   The deputies and senators can not be held to account for their
   opinions, expressions, and votes in the discharge of their
   mandate.

Article 20.
   Deputies and senators, from the time of receiving their
   certificate of election until a new election, can not be
   arrested or proceeded against criminally without the
   permission of their respective chambers, except in the case of
   a flagrant crime, in which bail is inadmissible. In such case,
   the prosecution being carried to exclusive decision, the
   prosecuting authority shall send the court records to the
   respective chamber for its decision on the prosecution of the
   charge, unless the accused shall prefer immediate judgment.

Article 21.
   The members of the two chambers, on taking their seats, shall
   take a formal obligation, in public session, to perform their
   duties faithfully.

Article 22.
   During the sessions the senators and deputies shall receive an
   equal pecuniary salary and mileage, which shall be fixed by
   Congress at the end of each session for the following one.

Article 23.
   No member of the Congress, from the time of his election, can
   make contracts with the executive power or receive from it any
   paid commission or employment.
   § 1. Exceptions to this prohibition are:
   (1) Diplomatic missions.
   (2) Commissions or military commands.
   (3) Advancement in rank and legal promotion.

   § 2.
   No deputy or senator, however, can accept an appointment for
   any mission, commission, or command mentioned in Nos. 1 and 2
   of the preceding paragraph, without the consent of the chamber
   to which he belongs, when such acceptance would prevent the
   exercise of his legislative duties, except in case of war or
   such as involve the honor or integrity of the nation.

Article 24.
   No deputy or senator can be president or form part of a
   directory of any bank, company, or enterprise which enjoys the
   favors of the Federal Government defined in and by law.
   Sole paragraph.—Nonobservance of the provisions of the
   foregoing article by any deputy or senator shall involve the
   loss of his seat.

Article 25.
The legislative commission shall be incompatible with the
exercise of any other functions during the sessions.

Article 26.
   The conditions for eligibility to the national Congress are:
   (1) To be in possession of the rights of Brazilian citizenship
   and to be registered as a voter.
   (2) For the Chamber, to have been for more than 4 years a
   Brazilian citizen; and for the Senate, for more than 6 years.
   This provision does not include those citizens referred to in
   No.4, article 69.

Article 27.
The Congress shall by special legislation declare the cases of
electoral incompetency.

Article 28.
   The Chamber of Deputies shall be composed of the
   representatives of the people, elected by the States and the
   Federal District by direct suffrage, the representation of the
   minority being guarantied.

§ 1. The number of the deputies shall be fixed by law in such a way as not to exceed one for each 70,000 inhabitants, and that there shall not be less than four for each State. § 2. To this end the Federal Government shall at once order a census to be taken of the population of the Republic, which shall be revised every 10 years.

Article 29.
   To the Chamber belongs the initiative in the adjournment of
   the legislative sessions and in all legislation in regard to
   taxation, to the determination of the size of the army and
   navy, in the discussion of propositions from the executive
   power, and in the decision to proceed or not in charges
   against the President of the Republic under the terms of
   article 53, and against the ministers of state in crimes
   connected with those of the said President.

Article 30.
   The Senate shall be composed of citizens eligible under the
   terms of article 26 and more than 35 years of age, to the
   number of three senators for each State and three for the
   Federal District, chosen in the same manner as the deputies.

Article 31.
   The mandate of a senator shall continue for 9 years, and
   one-third of the Senate shall be renewed every 3 years.
   Sole paragraph.—A senator elected in place of another
   shall exercise his mandate during the remainder of
   the term of the latter.

Article 32.
   The Vice President of the Republic shall be the president of
   the Senate, where he shall vote only in case of tie, and shall
   be replaced in case of absence or impediment by the vice
   president of that body.

Article 33.
   The Senate alone shall have the power to try and sentence the
   President of the Republic and the other federal officers
   designated by the constitution, under the conditions and in
   the manner which it prescribes.
   § 1. The Senate, when sitting as a tribunal of justice, shall
   be presided over by the president of the federal supreme
   court.
   § 2. It shall not pass sentence of condemnation unless
   two-thirds of its members be present.
   § 3. It shall not impose other penalties than the loss of
   office and prohibition from holding any other, without
   prejudice to the action of ordinary justice against the
   condemned.

Article 34. The national Congress shall have exclusive power: (1) To estimate the revenue, and fix the expenditures of the Federal Government annually, and take account of the receipts and expenditures of each financial budget. (2) To authorize the executive to contract loans and make other operations of credit. (3) To legislate in regard to the public debt and furnish means for its payment. (4) To control the collection and disposition of the national revenue. (5) To regulate international commerce, as well as that of the States with each other and with the Federal District; to establish and regulate the collection of customs duties in the ports, create or abolish warehouses of deposit. (6) To legislate in regard to navigation of rivers running through more than one State, or through foreign territory. (7) To determine the weight, value, inscription, type, and denomination of the currency. (8) To create banks of emission, legislate in regard to this emission and to tax it. (9) To fix the standard of weights and measures. (10) To determine definitely the boundaries of the States between each other, those of the Federal District, and those of the national territory with the adjoining nations. (11) To authorize the Government to declare war, if there be no recourse to arbitration or in case of failure of this, and to make peace. (12) To decide definitively in regard to treaties and conventions with foreign nations. (13) To remove the capital of the Union. (14) To extend aid to the States in the case referred to in article 5. (15) To legislate in regard to federal postal and telegraph service. (16) To adopt the necessary measures for the protection of the frontiers. (17) To fix every year the number of the land and naval forces. (18) To make laws for the organization of the army and navy. (19) To grant or refuse to foreign forces passage through the territory of the country to carry on military operations. (20) To mobilize and make use of the national guard or local militia in the cases designated by the Constitution. (21) To declare a state of siege at one or more points in the national territory, in the emergency of an attack by foreign forces, or internal disturbance, and to approve or suspend the state of siege proclaimed by the executive power or its responsible agents in the absence of the Congress. (22) To regulate the conditions and methods of elections for federal offices throughout the country. (23) To legislate upon the civil, criminal, and commercial laws and legal procedures of the federal judiciary. (24) To establish uniform naturalization laws. (25) To create and abolish federal public offices, to fix the duties of the same, and designate their salaries. (26) To organize the federal judiciary according to the terms of article 55 and the succeeding, section 3. (27) To grant amnesty. (28) To commute and pardon penalties imposed upon federal officers for offenses arising from their responsibility. (29) To make laws regarding Government lands and mines. (30) To legislate in regard to the municipal organization of the Federal District, as well as to the police, the superior instruction and other services which in the capital may be reserved for the Government of the Union. (31) To govern by special legislation those points of the territory of the Republic needed for the establishment of arsenals, other establishments or institutions for federal uses. (32) To settle cases of extradition between the States. (33) To enact such laws and resolutions as may be necessary for the exercise of the powers belonging to the Union. (34) To enact the organic laws necessary for the complete execution of the requirements of the Constitution. (35) To prorogue and adjourn its own sessions.

Article 35.
   It shall belong likewise to the Congress, but not exclusively:
   (1) To watch over the Constitution and the laws, and provide
   for necessities of a federal character.
   (2) To promote in the country the development of literature,
   the arts, and sciences, together with immigration,
   agriculture, manufactures, and commerce, without privileges
   such as would obstruct the action of the local governments.
   (3) To create institutions of higher instruction and of high
   school education in the States.
   (4) To provide for high school instruction in the Federal
   District.

Article 36.
   Save the exceptions named in article 27, all bills may
   originate, indifferently, in the Chamber or in the Senate, and
   may be introduced by any of their members.

Article 37.
   A bill, after being passed in one of the chambers, shall be
   submitted to the other, and, if the latter shall approve the
   same, it shall send it to the executive, who, if he approve
   it, shall sanction and promulgate it.
   § 1. If, however, the President of the Republic shall consider
   it unconstitutional, or contrary to the good of the nation, he
   shall refuse his sanction to the same within 10 working days,
   counted from that on which he received it (the bill), and
   shall return it, within the same period, to the chamber in
   which it originated, with his reasons for his refusal.
   § 2. The failure of the executive to signify his disapproval
   within the above-named 10 days shall be considered as an
   approval, and in case his sanction be refused after the close
   of the session of the Congress, the President shall make
   public his reasons therefor.

   § 3. The bill sent back to the chamber where it originated
   shall be discussed and voted upon by call of names, and shall
   be considered as passed if it obtain two-thirds of the votes
   of the members present; and, in this case, it shall be sent to
   the other chamber, whence, if it receive the same majority, it
   shall return, as a law, to the executive to be formally
   promulgated.
   § 4. The sanction and promulgation shall be effected in the
   following forms:
   (1) "The national Congress enacts and I sanction the following
   law (or resolution)."
   (2) "The national Congress enacts and I promulgate the
   following law (or resolution)."

Article 38.
   If the law be not promulgated by the President of the Republic
   within 48 hours, in the cases provided for in §§ 2 and 3 of
   the preceding article, the president of the Senate, or the
   vice president, if the former shall not do so in the same
   space of time, shall promulgate it, making use of the
   following formula: "I, president (or vice president) of the
   Senate, make known to whomsoever these presents may come, that
   the national Congress enacts and promulgates the following law
   (or resolution)."

Article. 39.
   A bill from one chamber, amended in the other, shall return to
   the former, which, if it accept the amendments, shall send it,
   changed to conform with the same, to the executive.
   § 1. In the contrary case, it shall go back to the amending
   chamber, where the alterations shall be considered as
   approved, if they receive the vote of two-thirds of the
   members present; in the latter case, the bill shall return to
   the chamber where it originated, and there the amendments can
   be rejected only by a two-thirds vote.
   § 2. If the alterations be rejected by such vote, the bill
   shall be submitted without them to the approval of the
   executive.

Article 40.
Bills finally rejected or not approved, shall not be presented
again in the same legislative session.

Article 41.
   The executive power shall be exercised by the President of the
   United States of Brazil, as elective chief of the nation.
   § 1. The Vice President, elected simultaneously with the
   President, shall serve in place of the latter in case of
   impediment and succeed him in case of vacancy in the
   Presidency.
   § 2. In case of impediment or vacancy in the Vice Presidency,
   the following officers, in the order named, shall be called to
   the Presidency: The vice president of the Senate, the
   president of the Chamber of Deputies, the president of the
   federal supreme court.
   § 3. The following are the conditions of eligibility to the
   Presidency or Vice Presidency of the Republic:
   (1) Must be a native of Brazil.
   (2) Must be in the exercise of political rights.
   (3) Must be more than 35 years of age.

Article 42.
   In case of vacancy from any cause in the Presidency or Vice
   Presidency before the expiration of the first 2 years of the
   Presidential term, a new election shall be held.

Article 43.
   The President shall hold his office during 4 years, and is not
   eligible for reelection for the next succeeding term.
   § 1. The Vice President who shall fill the Presidency during
   the last year of the Presidential term shall not be eligible
   to the Presidency for the next term of that office.
   § 2. On the same day on which his Presidential term shall
   cease the President shall, without fail, cease to exercise the
   functions of his office, and the newly elected President shall
   at once succeed him.
   § 3. If the latter should be hindered or should fail to do so,
   the succession shall be effected in accordance with §§ 1 and 2
   of article 41.
   § 4. The first Presidential term shall expire on the 15th of
   November, 1894.

Article 44.
   On taking possession of his office, the President, in a
   session of the Congress, or, if it be not assembled, before
   the federal supreme court, shall pronounce the following
   affirmation: "I promise to maintain the federal Constitution
   and comply with its provisions with perfect loyalty, to
   promote the general welfare of the Republic, to observe its
   laws, and support the union, integrity, and independence of
   the nation."

Article 45.
   The President and Vice President shall not leave the national
   territory without the permission of the Congress, under
   penalty of loss of office.

Article 46.
The President and Vice President shall receive the salary
fixed by the Congress in the preceding Presidential term.

Article 47.
   The President and Vice President shall be chosen by direct
   suffrage of the nation and an absolute majority of the votes.
   § 1. The election shall take place on the first day of March
   in the last year of the Presidential term, and the counting of
   the votes cast at the different precincts shall at once be
   made in the respective capitals of the States and in the
   federal capital. The Congress shall make the count at its
   first session of the same year, with any number of members
   present.
   § 2. If none of those voted for shall have received an
   absolute majority, the Congress shall elect, by a majority of
   votes of those present, one of the two who, in the direct
   election, shall have received the highest number of votes. In
   case of a tie the older shall be considered elected.
   § 3. The manner of the election and of the counting of the
   votes shall be regulated by ordinary legislation.
   § 4. The relatives, both by consanguinity and by marriage, in
   the first and second degrees, of the President and Vice
   President shall be ineligible for the offices of President and
   Vice President, provided the said officials are in office at
   the time of the election or have left the office even 6 months
   before.

Article 48.
   To the President of the Republic shall belong the exclusive
   right to:
   (1) Sanction, promulgate, and make public the laws and
   resolutions of the Congress; issue decrees, instructions, and
   regulations for their faithful execution.
   (2) Choose and dismiss at will the cabinet officers.
   (3) Exercise or appoint some one to exercise supreme command
   over the land and naval forces of the United States of Brazil,
   as well as over the local police, when called to arms for the
   internal or external defense of the Union.
   (4) Govern and distribute, under the laws of the Congress,
   according to the necessities of the National Government, the
   land and naval forces.
   (5) Dispose of the offices, both military and civil, of a
   federal character, with the exceptions specified in the
   Constitution.
   (6) Pardon crimes and commute penalties for offenses subject
   to federal jurisdiction, save in the cases mentioned in
   article 34, No. 28, and article 52, § 2.
   (7) Declare war and make peace, under the provisions of
   article 34, No. 11.
   (8) Declare war at once in case of foreign invasion or
   aggression.

   (9) Give an annual statement to the national Congress of the
   condition of the country, with a recommendation
   of pressing provisions and reforms, through a message,
   which he shall send to the secretary of the Senate on the day
   of the opening of the legislative session.
   (10) Convoke the Congress in extra session.
   (11) Appoint the federal judges when proposed by the supreme
   court.
   (12) Appoint the members of the federal supreme court and
   ministers of the diplomatic corps, with the approval of the
   senate; and, in the absence of the Congress, appoint them in
   commission until considered by the senate.
   (13) Appoint the other members of the diplomatic corps and
   consular agents.
   (14) Maintain relations with foreign states.
   (15) Declare, directly, or through his responsible agents, a
   state of siege at any point of the national territory, in case
   of foreign aggression or serious internal disturbance.
   (Article 6, No.3; article 34, No. 21; and article 80.)
   (16) Set on foot international negotiations, celebrate
   agreements, conventions, and treaties, always ad referendum to
   the Congress, and approve those made by the States in
   conformity with article 65, submitting them when necessary to
   the authority of the Congress.

Article 49.
   The President of the Republic shall be assisted by the
   ministers of state (cabinet officers), agents of his
   confidence, who sign the acts and preside over their
   respective departments into which the federal administration
   is divided.

Article 50.
   The cabinet ministers shall not exercise any other employment
   or function of a public nature, be eligible to the Presidency
   or Vice Presidency of the Union, or be elected deputy or
   senator. Sole paragraph.—Any deputy or senator, who
   shall accept the position of cabinet minister, shall lose his
   seat in the respective chamber, and a new election shall at
   once be held, in which he shall not be voted for.

Article 51.
   The cabinet ministers shall not appear at the sessions of the
   Congress, and shall communicate with that body in writing only
   or by personal conference with the committees of the chambers.
   The annual report of the ministers shall be addressed to the
   President of the Republic, and distributed to all the members
   of the Congress.

Article 52.
   The cabinet ministers shall not be responsible to the Congress
   or to the courts for advice given to the President of the
   Republic.
   § 1. They shall be responsible, nevertheless, with respect to
   their acts, for crimes defined in the law.
   § 2. For common crimes and those for which they are
   responsible they shall be prosecuted and tried by the federal
   supreme court, and for those committed jointly with the
   President of the Republic, by the authority competent to judge
   this latter.

Article 53.
   The President of the United States of Brazil shall be brought
   to trial and judgment, after the Chamber of Deputies shall
   have decided that he should be tried on the charges made
   against him, in the federal supreme court, in the case of
   common crimes, and in those of responsibility, in the Senate.
   Sole paragraph.—As soon as it shall be decided to try
   him on the charges brought, the President shall be suspended
   in the exercise of the duties of his office.

Article 54.
   Crimes of responsibility on the part of the President of the
   Republic are such as are directed against:
   (1) The political existence of the Union.
   (2) The Constitution and the form of the Federal Government.
   (3) The free exercise of the political powers.
   (4) The legal enjoyment and exercise of political or
   individual rights.
   (5) The internal security of the country.
   (6) The purity of the administration.
   (7) The constitutional keeping and use of the public funds.
   (8) The financial legislation enacted by the Congress.
   § 1. These offenses shall be defined in a special law.
   § 2. Another law shall provide for the charges, the trial, and
   the judgment.
   § 3. Both these laws shall be enacted in the first session of
   the first Congress.

Article 55.
   The judicial power of the Union shall be lodged in a federal
   supreme court, sitting in the capital of the Republic, and as
   many inferior federal courts and tribunals, distributed
   through the country, as the Congress shall create.

Article 56.
   The federal supreme court shall be composed of fifteen
   justices, appointed under the provisions of article 48, No.
   12, from among the oldest thirty citizens of well-known
   knowledge and reputation who may be eligible to the Senate.

Article 57.
   The federal justices shall hold office for life, being
   removable solely by judicial sentence.
   § 1. Their salaries shall be fixed by law of the Congress, and
   can not be diminished.
   § 2. The Senate shall try the members of the federal supreme
   court for crimes of responsibility, and this latter the lower
   federal judges.

Article 58.
   The federal courts shall choose their presidents from among
   their own members, and shall organize their respective
   clerical corps.
   § 1. In these corps the appointment and dismissal of the
   respective clerks, as well as the filling of the judicial
   offices in the respective judicial districts, shall belong to
   the presidents of the respective courts.
   § 2. The President of the Republic shall appoint from among
   the members of the federal supreme court the attorney-general
   of the Republic, whose duties shall be defined by law.

Article 59.
   To the federal supreme court shall belong the duty of:
   (1) Trying and judging by original and exclusive
   jurisdiction:
   (a) The President of the Republic for common crimes, and the
   cabinet ministers in the cases specified in article 52.
   (b) The ministers of the diplomatic corps for common crimes
   and those of responsibility.
   (c) Cases and disputes between the States and the Union, or
   between the States one with another.
   (d) Disputes and claims between foreign states and the Union,
   or between foreign nations and the States.
   (e) Conflicts between the federal courts one with another, or
   between these and those of the States, as well as those
   between the courts of one State and those of another.
   (2) Deciding, on appeal, questions pronounced upon by the
   lower federal courts and tribunals, as well as those mentioned
   in § 1 of the present article and in article 60.
   (3) Reviewing the proceedings of finished trials, under the
   provisions of article 81.
   § 1. Decisions of State courts in last appeal can be carried
   to the federal supreme court:
   (a) When the validity or application of the federal laws or
   treaties is called in question and the decision of the State
   court shall be against the same.
   (b) When the validity of laws or acts of the governments of
   the States in respect to the Constitution or of the federal
   laws is contested and the State court shall have decided in
   favor of the validity of the acts or laws in question.
   § 2. In the cases which involve the application of the laws of
   the States, the federal court shall consult the jurisprudence
   of the local tribunals, and vice versa, the State court shall
   consider that of the federal tribunals when the interpretation
   of the laws of the Union is involved.

Article 60.
   It shall belong to the federal courts to decide:
   (a) Cases in which the plaintiff or the defendant shall rest
   the case on some provision of the federal Constitution.
   (b) All suits brought against the Government of the Union or
   the national treasury based on constitutional provisions, on
   the laws and regulations of the executive power, or on
   contracts made with the said Government.
   (c) Suits arising from compensations, claims, indemnification
   of damages, or any others whatsoever brought by the Government
   of the Union against private individuals, and vice versa.
   (d) Litigations between a State and the citizens of another,
   or between citizens of different States having differences in
   their laws.
   (e) Suits between foreign states and Brazilian citizens.
   (f) Actions begun by foreigners, and based either on contracts
   with the Federal Government or on conventions or treaties of
   the Union with other nations.
   (g) Questions of maritime law and navigation, whether on the
   sea or on the rivers and lakes of the country.
   (h) Questions of international law, whether criminal or civil.
   (i) Political crimes.
   § 1. Congress is forbidden to commit any part of the federal
   jurisdiction to the State courts.
   § 2. Sentences and orders of the federal judges will be
   executed by federal court officers, and the local police shall
   assist them when called upon by the same.

Article 61.
   The decisions of the State courts or tribunals in matters
   within their competence shall put an end to the suits and
   questions, except as to
   (1) habeas corpus, or
   (2) effects of a foreigner deceased in cases not provided for
   by convention or treaty. In such cases there shall be
   voluntary recourse to the federal supreme court.

Article 62.
   The State courts shall not have the power to intervene in
   questions submitted to the federal tribunals, or to annul,
   alter, or suspend the sentences or orders of these latter;
   and, reciprocally, the federal judiciary can not interfere in
   questions submitted to the State courts, or annul, alter, or
   suspend their decisions or orders, except in the cases
   provided in this Constitution.

Article 63.
   Each State shall be governed by the constitution and laws
   which it shall adopt, respect being observed for the
   constitutional principles of the Union.

Article 64.
   The unexplored mines and wild lands lying within the States
   shall belong to these States respectively; and to the Union
   only as much territory as may be necessary for the defense of
   the frontiers, for fortifications, military works, and federal
   railways. Sole paragraph.—The national properties,
   not necessary for the service of the Union, shall pass to the
   domain of the States in whose territory they may be situated.

Article 65.
   The States shall have the right to:
   (1) Conclude agreements and conventions among themselves, if
   such be not of a political character. (Article 48, No. 16.)
   (2) Exercise in general any and every power or right not
   denied expressly by the Constitution, or implicitly in its
   express terms.

Article 66.
   It is forbidden to the States to:
   (1) Refuse to recognize public documents of the Union, or of
   any of the States, of a legislative, administrative, or
   judicial character.
   (2) Reject the currency or notes issued by banks, which
   circulate by act of the Federal Government.
   (3) Make or declare war, one with another, or make reprisals.
   (4) Refuse the extradition of criminals demanded by the
   justice of other States, or of the Federal District, in
   conformity with the laws of Congress which relate to this
   subject. (Article 41, No. 32.)

Article 67.
   Save the restrictions specified in the Constitution, and the
   federal laws, the Federal District shall be governed directly
   by the municipal authorities. Sole paragraph.—Expenses
   of a local character in the capital of the Republic must be
   provided for exclusively by the municipal authorities.

Article 68.
   The States shall organize themselves in such a manner as to
   assure the autonomy of the municipalities in everything that
   concerns their peculiar interests.

Article 69.
   The following shall be Brazilian citizens:
   (1) Natives of Brazil, though of foreign parentage (father),
   provided he be not in the service of his nation.
   (2) Sons of a Brazilian father, and illegitimate sons of a
   Brazilian mother, born in foreign parts, if they take up their
   residence (domicile) in the republic.
   (3) Sons of a Brazilian father who may be in another country
   in the service of the Republic, although they do not make
   their domicile in Brazil.
   (4) Foreigners, who, being in Brazil on the 15th of November,
   1889, shall not declare, within 6 months from the time when
   the Constitution enters into force, their desire to preserve
   their original nationality.
   (5) Foreigners who possess property (real estate) in Brazil
   and are married to Brazilian women, or have Brazilian
   children, provided they reside in Brazil, unless they shall
   declare their intention of not changing their nationality.
   (6) Foreigners naturalized in any other way.

Article 70.
   Citizens of more than 21 years of age, and registered
   according to law, shall be electors.
   § 1. The following shall not be registered as electors for
   federal or State elections:
   (1) Beggars.
   (2) Persons ignorant of the alphabet.
   (3) Soldiers on pay, except alumni of the military schools of
   higher instruction.
   (4) Members of monastic orders, companies, congregations, or
   communities of whatsoever denomination, who are subject to
   vows of obedience, rule, or statute, which implies the
   surrender of individual liberty.
   § 2. Citizens who can not be registered shall not be eligible.

Article 71.
   The rights of the Brazilian citizen can be suspended or lost
   only in the following cases:
   § 1. The rights may be suspended:
   (a) For physical or moral incapacity.
   (b) For criminal conviction, during the operation of the
   sentence.
   § 2. They may be lost:
   (a) By naturalization in a foreign country.
   (b) By acceptance of employment or pension from a foreign
   power, without permission of the federal executive.
   § 3. The means of reacquiring lost rights of the Brazilian
   citizen shall be specified by federal law.

Article 72. The Constitution secures to Brazilians and foreigners residing in the country the inviolability of their rights touching individual liberty, and security, and property, in the following terms: § 1. No person shall be forced to do, or leave undone, anything whatever, except by virtue of law. § 2. Before the law all persons are equal. The Republic does not recognize privileges of birth, or titles of nobility, and abolishes all existing honorary orders, with all their prerogatives and decorations, as well as all hereditary and conciliar titles. {524} § 3. All persons and religious professions may exercise, publicly and freely, the right of worship, and may associate themselves for that purpose, acquire property, observance being had to the provisions of the common law. § 4. The Republic recognizes only the civil marriage, the celebration of which shall be gratuitous. § 5. The cemeteries shall be secular in character, and be managed by the municipal authorities, being free to all religious sects for the exercise of their respective rites as regards their members, provided they do not offend public morals or the laws. § 6. The instruction given in the public institutions shall be secular. § 7. No sect or church shall receive official aid, nor be dependent on, nor connected with, the Government of the Union, or of the States. § 8. All persons have the right of free association and assembly, without arms; and the police force shall not intervene, except to maintain the public order. § 9. Any person whatsoever shall have the right to address, by petition, the public powers, denounce abuses of the authorities, and appeal to the responsibility of the accused. § 10. In time of peace any person may, without passport, enter or leave the territory of the Republic, with his fortune and goods, whenever and however he may choose. § 11. The house is the inviolable asylum of the person; no one can enter it at night without the consent of the inhabitant, except to aid the victims of a crime or disaster; nor by day, unless in the cases and in the form prescribed by law. § 12. The expression of opinion shall be free, in respect to whatever subject, through the press or through the tribune, without subjection to censorship, each one being responsible for the abuses he may commit, in the cases and in the form prescribed by law. Anonymous publications are forbidden. § 13. Cases of flagrante delicto alone excepted, no arrest shall be made, unless after declaration of the charge (save in cases determined by law), and by written order of the competent authorities. § 14. No person shall be kept in prison without charge formally made, save the exceptions mentioned in the law, or taken to prison, or detained there, if he give bail, in cases where such is lawful. § 15. No person shall be condemned, except by competent authority, and in virtue of law already existing and in the form prescribed by it. § 16. The law shall secure to the accused the fullest defense by all the recourses and means essential to the same, including the notice of the charge, delivered to the prisoner within 24 hours and signed by the proper authority along with the names of the accusers and witnesses. § 17. The rights of property are maintained in all their plenitude, and no disappropriation shall be made, except from necessity or public utility, and indemnity shall, in such cases, be made beforehand. Mines belong to the owners of the soil, under the limitations to be established by the law to encourage the development of this branch of industry. § 18. Correspondence under seal is inviolable. § 19. No penalty shall extend beyond the person of the delinquent. § 20. The penalty of the galleys is abolished, as also judicial banishment. § 21. The death penalty is abolished, except in the cases under military law in time of war. § 22. The habeas corpus shall always be granted when the individual suffers violence or compulsion, through illegality or abuse of power, or considers himself in imminent danger of the same. § 23. There shall be no privileged tribunal, except in such cases as, from their nature, belong to special courts. § 24. The free exercise of any profession, moral, intellectual, or industrial, is guarantied. § 25. Industrial inventions belong to their authors, to whom the law will grant a temporary privilege, or to whom the Congress will give a reasonable premium, when it is desirable to make the invention public property. § 26. To authors of literary and artistic works is guarantied the exclusive right of reproducing them through the press or by any other mechanical process, and their heirs shall enjoy the same right during the space of time determined by the law. § 27. The law shall also secure the rights of property in trade-marks. § 28. No Brazilian can be deprived of his civil and political rights on account of religious belief or duty, nor be exempted from the performance of any civic duty. § 29. Those who shall claim exemption from any burden imposed by the laws of the Republic on its citizens, on account of religious belief, or who shall accept any foreign decoration or title of nobility, shall lose all their political rights. § 30. No tax of any kind shall be collected except in virtue of a law authorizing the same. § 31. The institution of trial by jury is maintained.

Article 73.
   Public offices, civil or military, are accessible to all
   Brazilian citizens, always observing the conditions of
   particular capacity fixed by the law; but the accumulation of
   remunerations is forbidden.

Article 74.
Commissions, offices, and positions not subject to removal are
guarantied in all their plenitude.

Article 75.
Only such public officials as have become infirm in the
service of the nation shall be retired on pay.

Article 76.
   Officers of the army and navy shall lose their commissions
   only in case of condemnation to more than 2 years in prison,
   pronounced in judgment by the competent tribunals.

Article 77.
   There shall be a special court for the trial of military
   offenses committed by soldiers or marines.
   § 1. This court shall be composed of a supreme military
   tribunal, whose members shall hold their seats for life, and
   of the councils necessary for the formulation of the charge
   and the judgment of the crimes.
   § 2. The organization and powers of the supreme military
   tribunal shall be determined by law.

Article 78.
   The enumeration of the rights and guaranties expressed in the
   Constitution does not exclude other guaranties and rights, not
   enumerated, but resulting from the form of government
   established and principles settled by said Constitution.

Article 79.
The citizen vested with the functions of either of these three
federal powers shall not exercise those of another.

Article 80.
   Any part of the territory of the Union may be declared in
   state of siege, and the constitutional guaranties suspended
   for a determined period, whenever the security of the Republic
   so demands in case of foreign aggression or intestine
   disturbance. (Article 34, No. 21.)
   § 1. The power to execute the above provision may, if the
   Congress be not in session and the country be in imminent
   peril, be used by the federal executive. (Article 48, No. 15.)
   § 2. In the exercise of this power, during the state of siege,
   the executive shall be restricted to the following
   measures of repression against persons:
{525}
   (1) To their detention in a place not allotted to persons
   accused of common crimes.
   (2) To banishment to other parts of the national territory.
   § 3. As soon as the Congress shall have assembled, the
   President of the Republic shall make a report to that body of
   the exceptional measures which may have been taken.
   § 4. The authorities who shall have ordered such measures
   shall be responsible for any abuses that may have been
   committed.

Article 81.
   In criminal cases, trials concluded may be reviewed at any
   time, in favor of the condemned parties, by the federal
   supreme court, for the purpose of correcting or of confirming
   the sentence.
   § 1. The law shall determine the cases and the form of such
   revision, which may be asked for by the condemned, by anyone
   of the people, or by the attorney-general of the Republic, ex
   officio.
   § 2. In such revision the penalties imposed by the sentence
   reviewed can not be increased.
   § 3. The provisions of the present article are applicable to
   military trials.

Article 82.
   Public officers shall be strictly responsible for the abuses
   and omissions that occur in the exercise of the duties of
   their offices, as well as for the indulgences and negligences
   for which they do not hold their subordinates responsible.
   Sole paragraph.—They shall all be bound by formal
   obligation, on taking possession of their offices, to
   discharge the lawful duties of the same.

Article 83.
   Until revoked, the laws of the ancien regime shall remain in
   force, in as far as they are not, explicitly or implicitly,
   contrary to the system of government established by the
   Constitution, and to the principles laid down in the same.

Article 84.
The federal government guaranties the payment of the public
debt, both internal and foreign.

Article 85.
   The officers of the line and of the annexed classes of the
   navy shall have the same commissions and advantage as those of
   the army of corresponding rank.

Article 86.
   Every Brazilian shall be bound to military service in defense
   of the country and the Constitution, as provided by the
   federal laws.

Article 87.
   The federal army shall be made up of contingents which the
   states and the Federal District are bound to furnish,
   constituted in conformity with the annual law regulating the
   number of the forces.
   § 1. The general organization of the army shall be determined
   by a federal law, in accordance with No. 18 of article 34.
   § 2. The Union shall have charge of the military instruction
   of the troops and of the higher military instruction.
   § 3. Compulsory recruiting for military purposes is abolished.
   § 4. The army and navy shall be made up by volunteering
   without bounties, or, if this means be not sufficient, by lot
   previously determined. The crews for the navy shall be made up
   from the naval school, the schools of marine apprentices, and
   the merchant marine, by means of lot.

Article 88.
   In no case, either directly or indirectly, alone or in
   alliance with another nation, shall the United States of
   Brazil engage in a war of conquest.

Article 89.
   A tribunal of accounts shall be instituted for the auditing of
   the receipt and expense accounts and examining into their
   legality before their presentation to the Congress. The
   members of this tribunal shall be appointed by the President
   of the Republic, with the approval of the Senate, and can lose
   their seats only by sentence.

Article 90.
   The Constitution may be amended, at the initiative of the
   national Congress, or of the legislatures of the States.
   § 1. An amendment shall be considered as proposed, when,
   having been presented by one-fourth, at least, of the members
   of either house of the Congress, it shall have been accepted
   in three readings (discussions) by two-thirds of the votes in
   both houses of the Congress, or when it shall have been asked
   for by two-thirds of the States represented, each one by a
   majority of the votes of its legislature, said votes to be
   taken in the course of 1 year.
   § 2. The proposed amendment shall be considered approved, if,
   in the following year, after three discussions, it shall have
   been adopted by a majority of two-thirds of the votes in the
   two houses of the Congress.
   § 3. The amendment adopted shall be published with the
   signatures of the presidents and clerks of the two chambers,
   and be incorporated into the Constitution as a part of the
   same.
   § 4. No project having a tendency to abolish the federative
   republican form, or the equal representation of the States in
   the Senate, shall be admitted for consideration in the
   Congress.

Article 91.
   This Constitution, after approval, shall be promulgated by the
   president of the Congress and signed by the members of the
   same.

Article I.
   After the promulgation of this Constitution, the Congress, in
   joint assembly, shall choose consecutively, by an absolute
   majority of votes in the first balloting, and, if no candidate
   shall receive such, by a plurality in the second balloting,
   the President and Vice President of the United States of
   Brazil.
   § 1. This election shall be in two distinct ballotings, for
   the President and Vice President respectively, the ballots for
   President being taken and counted, in the first place, and
   afterwards for Vice President.
   § 2. The President and Vice President, thus elected, shall
   occupy the Presidency and Vice Presidency of the Republic
   during the first Presidential term.
   § 3. For said election there shall be no incompatibilities
   admitted.
   § 4. As soon as said election shall be concluded, the Congress
   shall consider as terminated its mission in joint session and,
   separating into Chamber and Senate, shall enter upon the
   exercise of its functions as defined by law, on the 15th of
   June of the present year, and can not in any case be
   dissolved.
   § 5. In the first year of the first legislature, among its
   preparatory measures, the Senate shall designate the first and
   second third of its members, whose term of office shall cease
   at the end of the first and second 3-year terms.
   § 6. The discrimination shall be made in three lists,
   corresponding to the three classes, allotting to them the
   senators of each State and of the Federal District according
   to the number of votes received by them respectively, so as to
   allot to the third for the last 3 years the one receiving the
   highest number of votes in the Federal District and in each
   State, and to the other two-thirds the remaining two names in
   the order of the number of votes received by them
   respectively.
   § 7. In case of tie, the oldest shall be preferred, and if the
   ages are equal, the choice shall be made by lot.

Article 2.
   The State which, by the end of the year 1892, shall not have
   adopted its constitution, shall, by act of the federal
   legislative power, be placed under that of one of the other
   States, which it shall judge most suitable, until the State
   thus subjected to said constitution, shall amend it in the
   manner provided in the same.

Article 3.
   As fast as the States shall be organized, the Federal
   Government shall deliver to them the administration of the
   services which belong to them, and shall settle the
   responsibility of the federal administration in all that
   relates to said services and to the payment of the respective
   officials.

Article 4.
   While, during the period of organization of their services,
   the States shall be engaged in regulating their expenses, the
   Federal Government shall, for this purpose, open special
   credits to them, under conditions determined by the Congress.

Article 5.
   In the States which shall become organized the classification
   of the revenues established in the Constitution shall enter
   into force.

Article 6.
   In the first appointments for the federal magistracy and for
   that of the States, the preference shall be given to the
   justices and magistrates of the higher courts of the greatest
   note. Such as are not admitted into the new organization of
   the judiciary, and have served 30 years, shall be retired on
   full pay. Those who have served for less than 30 years shall
   continue to receive their salaries until they shall be
   employed, or retired with pay corresponding to their length of
   service. The payment of salaries of magistrates retired or set
   aside shall be made by the Federal Government.

Article 7.
   To D. Pedro de Alcantara, ex-Emperor of Brazil, a pension is
   granted, to run from the 15th of November, 1889, sufficient to
   guaranty him a decent subsistence during his lifetime. The
   Congress, at its first session, shall fix the amount of said
   pension.

Article 8.
   The Federal Government shall acquire for the nation the house
   in which Dr. Benjamin Constant Botelho de Magalhães died, and
   shall have placed on it a memorial slab in memory of that
   great patriot, the founder of the Republic. Sole
   paragraph.—The widow of the said Dr. Benjamin Constant
   shall have, during her lifetime, the usufruct of the said
   house. We order, then, all the authorities to whom the
   recognition and execution of this Constitution belongs, to
   execute it and have it executed and observed faithfully and
   fully in all its provisions. Let the same be published and
   observed throughout the territory of the nation.

Hall of the sessions of the National Constitutional Congress, in the city of Rio de Janeiro, in the year 1891, and the third of the Republic.

CONSTITUTION OF CALIFORNIA. For an account of the main features of this singular constitution,

CONSTITUTION OF CANADA.

The history of the Confederation of the provinces of British North America, forming the Dominion of Canada, is given briefly under CANADA: A. D. 1867. The following is the text of the Act of the Parliament of Great Britain by which the Confederation was formed and its constitution established:

An Act for the Union of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick, and the Government thereof; and for purposes connected therewith. 29TH MARCH, 1867.

WHEREAS the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick have expressed their desire to be federally united into one Dominion under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, with a constitution similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom: And whereas such a Union would conduce to the welfare of the Provinces and promote the interests of the British Empire; And whereas on the establishment of the Union by authority of Parliament it is expedient, not only that the Constitution of the Legislative Authority in the Dominion be provided for, but also that the nature of the Executive Government therein be declared: And whereas it is expedient that provision be made for the eventual admission into the Union of other parts of British North America: Be it therefore enacted and declared by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:

   1. This Act may be cited as The British North America Act,
   1867.
   2. The provisions of this Act referring to Her Majesty the
   Queen extend also to the heirs and successors of Her Majesty,
   Kings and Queens of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
   Ireland.
   3. It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the advice of
   Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council, to declare by
   Proclamation that, on and after a day therein appointed, not
   being more than six months after the passing of this Act, the
   Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick shall form
   and be one Dominion under the name of Canada; and on and after
   that day those three Provinces shall form and be one Dominion
   under that name accordingly.
   4. The subsequent provisions of this Act shall, unless it is
   otherwise expressed or implied, commence and have effect on
   and after the Union, that is to say, on and after the day
   appointed for the Union taking effect in the Queen's
   Proclamation; and in the same provisions, unless it is
   otherwise expressed or implied, the name Canada shall be taken
   to mean Canada as constituted under this Act.

5. Canada shall be divided into four Provinces, named Ontario,
Quebec, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick.

6. The parts of the Province of Canada (as it exists at the passing of this Act) which formerly constituted respectively the Provinces of Upper Canada and Lower Canada shall be deemed to be severed, and shall form two separate Provinces. The part which formerly constituted the Province of Upper Canada shall constitute the Province of Ontario; and the part which formerly constituted the Province of Lower Canada shall constitute the Province of Quebec.

7. The Provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick shall have the same limits as at the passing of this Act.

8. In the general census of the population of Canada, which is hereby required to be taken in the year one thousand eight hundred and seventy-one, and in every tenth year thereafter, the respective populations of the four Provinces shall be distinguished.

9. The Executive Government and authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen.

10. The provisions of this Act referring to the Governor General extend and apply to the Governor General for the time being of Canada, or other the Chief Executive Officer or Administrator, for the time being carrying on the Government of Canada on behalf and in the name of the Queen, by whatever title he is designated.

11. There shall be a Council to aid and advise in the Government of Canada, to be styled the Queen's Privy Council for Canada; and the persons who are to be members of that Council shall be from time to time chosen and summoned by the Governor General and sworn in as Privy Councillors, and members thereof may be from time to time removed by the Governor General.

12. All powers, authorities, and functions which under any Act of the Parliament of Great Britain, or of the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, or of the Legislature of Upper Canada, Lower Canada, Canada, Nova Scotia, or New Brunswick, are at the Union vested in or exerciseable by the respective Governors or Lieutenant Governors of those Provinces, with the advice, or with the advice and consent, of the respective Executive Councils thereof, or in conjunction with those Councils, or with any number of members thereof, or by those Governors or Lieutenant Governors individually, shall, as far as the same continue in existence and capable of being exercised after the Union in relation to the Government of Canada, be vested in and exerciseable by the Governor General, with the advice or with the advice and consent of or in conjunction with the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, or any members thereof, or by the Governor General individually, as the case requires, subject nevertheless (except with respect to such as exist under Acts of the Parliament of Great Britain or of the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland) to be abolished or altered by the Parliament of Canada.

   13. The provisions of this Act referring to the Governor
   General in Council shall be construed as referring to the
   Governor General acting by and with the advice of the Queen's
   Privy Council for Canada.

14. It shall be lawful for the Queen, if Her Majesty thinks fit, to authorize the Governor General from time to time to appoint any person or any persons, jointly or severally, to be his Deputy or Deputies within any part or parts of Canada, and in that capacity to exercise during the pleasure of the Governor General such of the powers, authorities, and functions of the Governor General as the Governor General deems it necessary and expedient to assign to him or them, subject to any limitations or directions expressed or given by the Queen; but the appointment of such a Deputy or Deputies shall not affect the exercise by the Governor General himself of any power, authority or function.

15. The Command-in-Chief of the Land and Naval Militia, and of all Naval and Military Forces, of and in Canada, is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen.

16. Until the Queen otherwise directs, the seat of Government of Canada shall be Ottawa.

17. There shall be one Parliament for Canada, consisting of the Queen, an Upper House styled the Senate, and the House of Commons.

18. The privileges, immunities, and powers to be held, enjoyed, and exercised by the Senate and by the House of Commons, and by the members thereof respectively, shall be such as are from time to time defined by Act of the Parliament of Canada, but so that the same shall never exceed those at the passing of this Act held, enjoyed, and exercised by the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and by the members thereof.

19. The Parliament of Canada shall be called together not later than six months after the Union.

20. There shall be a Session of the Parliament of Canada once at least in every year, so that twelve months shall not intervene between the last sitting of the Parliament in one Session and its first sitting in the next Session.

21. The Senate shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, consist of seventy-two members, who shall be styled Senators.

22. In relation to the constitution of the Senate, Canada shall be deemed to consist of three divisions—1. Ontario; 2. Quebec; 3. The Maritime Provinces, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick; which three divisions shall (subject to the provisions of this Act) be equally represented in the Senate as follows: Ontario by twenty-four Senators; Quebec by twenty-four Senators; and the Maritime Provinces by twenty-four Senators, twelve thereof representing Nova Scotia, and twelve thereof representing New Brunswick. In the case of Quebec each of the twenty-four Senators representing that Province shall be appointed for one of the twenty-four Electoral Divisions of Lower Canada specified in Schedule A. to chapter one of the Consolidated Statutes of Canada.

   23. The qualification of a Senator shall be as follows:
   (l) He shall be of the full age of thirty years:
   (2) He shall be either a natural born subject of the Queen, or
   a subject of the Queen naturalized by an Act of the Parliament
   of Great Britain, or of the Parliament of the United Kingdom
   of Great Britain and Ireland, or of the Legislature of one of
   the Provinces of Upper Canada, Lower Canada, Canada, Nova
   Scotia, or New Brunswick, before the Union, or of the
   Parliament of Canada after the Union:
   (3) He shall be legally or equitably seised as of freehold for
   his own use and benefit of lands or tenements held in free and
   common socage, or seised or possessed for his own use and
   benefit of lands or tenements held in franc-alleu or in
   roture, within the Province for which he is appointed, of the
   value of four thousand dollars, over and above all rents,
   dues, debts, charges, mortgages, and incumbrances due or
   payable out of or charged on or affecting the same:
{528}
   (4) His real and personal property shall be together worth
   $4,000 over and above his debts and liabilities:
   (5) He shall be resident in the Province for which he is
   appointed:
   (6) In the case of Quebec he shall have his real property
   qualification in the Electoral Division for which he is
   appointed, or shall be resident in that Division.

24. The Governor General shall from time to time, in the Queen's name, by instrument under the Great Seal of Canada, summon qualified persons to the Senate; and, subject to the provisions of this Act, every person so summoned shall become and be a member of the Senate and a Senator.

25. Such persons shall be first summoned to the Senate as the Queen by warrant under Her Majesty's Royal Sign Manual thinks fit to approve, and their names shall be inserted in the Queen's Proclamation of Union.

26. If at any time on the recommendation of the Governor General the Queen thinks fit to direct that three or six members be added to the Senate, the Governor General may by summons to three or six qualified persons (as the case may be), representing equally the three divisions of Canada, add to the Senate accordingly.

27. In case of such addition being at any time made the Governor General shall not summon any person to the Senate, except on a further like direction by the Queen on the like recommendation, until each of the three divisions of Canada is represented by twenty-four Senators and no more.

29. A Senator shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, hold his place in the Senate for life.

30. A Senator may by writing under his hand addressed to the Governor General resign his place in the Senate, and thereupon the same shall be vacant.

   31. The place of a Senator shall become vacant in any of the
   following cases:
   (1) If for two consecutive Sessions of the Parliament he fails
   to give his attendance in the Senate:
   (2) If he takes an oath or makes a declaration or
   acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a
   foreign power, or does an act whereby he becomes a subject or
   citizen, or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject
   or citizen of a foreign power:
   (3) If he is adjudged bankrupt or insolvent, or applies for
   the benefit of any law relating to insolvent debtors, or
   becomes a public defaulter:
   (4) If he is attainted of treason or convicted of felony or of
   any infamous crime:
   (5) If he ceases to be qualified in respect of property or of
   residence; provided, that a Senator shall not be deemed to
   have ceased to be qualified in respect of residence by reason
   only of his residing at the seat of the Government of Canada
   while holding an office under that Government requiring his
   presence there.

   32. When a vacancy happens in the Senate by resignation,
   death, or otherwise, the Governor General shall by summons to
   a fit and qualified person fill the vacancy.

33. If any question arises respecting the qualification of a Senator or a vacancy in the Senate the same shall be heard and determined by the Senate.

34. The Governor General may from time to time, by instrument under the Great Seal of Canada, appoint a Senator to be Speaker of the Senate, and may remove him and appoint another in his stead.

35. Until the Parliament of Canada otherwise provides, the presence of at least fifteen Senators, including the Speaker, shall be necessary to constitute a meeting of the Senate for the exercise of its powers.

36. Questions arising in the Senate shall be decided by a majority of voices, and the Speaker shall in all cases have a vote, and when the voices are equal the decision shall be deemed to be in the negative.

37. The House of Commons shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, consist of one hundred and eighty-one members, of whom eighty-two shall be elected for Ontario, sixty-five for Quebec, nineteen for Nova Scotia, and fifteen for New Brunswick.

38. The Governor General shall from time to time, in the Queen's name, by instrument under the Great Seal of Canada, summon and call together the House of Commons.

39. A Senator shall not be capable of being elected or of sitting or voting as a member of the House of Commons.

40. Until the Parliament of Canada otherwise provides, Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick shall, for the purposes of the election of members to serve in the House of Commons, be divided into Electoral Districts as follows: (1) Ontario shall be divided into the Counties, Ridings of Counties, Cities, parts of Cities, and Towns enumerated in the first Schedule to this Act, each whereof shall be an Electoral District, each such District as numbered in that Schedule being entitled to return one member. (2) Quebec shall be divided into sixty-five Electoral Districts, composed of the sixty-five Electoral Divisions into which Lower Canada is at the passing of this Act divided under chapter two of the Consolidated Statutes of Canada, chapter seventy-five of the Consolidated Statutes for Lower Canada, and the Act of the Province of Canada of the twenty-third year of the Queen, chapter one, or any other Act amending the same in force at the Union, so that each such Electoral Division shall be for the purposes of this Act an Electoral District entitled to return one member. (3) Each of the eighteen Counties of Nova Scotia shall be an Electoral District. The County of Halifax shall be entitled to return two members, and each of the other Counties one member. (4) Each of the fourteen Counties into which New Brunswick is divided, including the City and County of St. John, shall be an Electoral District; the City of St. John shall also be a separate Electoral District. Each of those fifteen Electoral Districts shall be entitled to return one member.

41. Until the Parliament of Canada otherwise provides, all laws in force in the several Provinces at the Union relative to the following matters or any of them, namely,—the qualifications and disqualifications of persons to be elected or to sit or vote as members of the House of Assembly or Legislative Assembly in the several Provinces, the voters at elections of such members, the oaths to be taken by voters, the returning officers, their powers and duties, the proceedings at elections, the periods during which elections may be continued, the trial of controverted elections, and proceedings incident thereto, the vacating of seats of members, and the execution of new writs in case of seats vacated otherwise than by dissolution,—shall respectively apply to elections of members to serve in the House of Commons for the same several Provinces. Provided that, until the Parliament of Canada otherwise provides, at any election for a Member of the House of Commons for the District of Algoma, in addition to persons qualified by the law of the Province of Canada to vote, every male British subject aged twenty-one years or upwards, being a householder, shall have a vote.

42. For the first election of members to serve in the House of Commons the Governor General shall cause writs to be issued by such person, in such form, and addressed to such returning officers as he thinks fit. The person issuing writs under this section shall have the like powers as are possessed at the Union by the officers charged with the issuing of writs for the election of members to serve in the respective House of Assembly or Legislative Assembly of the Province of Canada, Nova Scotia, or New Brunswick; and the Returning Officers to whom writs are directed under this section shall have the like powers as are possessed at the Union by the officers charged with the returning of writs for the election of members to serve in the same respective House of Assembly or Legislative Assembly.

43. In case a vacancy in the representation in the House of Commons of any Electoral District happens before the meeting of the Parliament, or after the meeting of the Parliament before provision is made by the Parliament in this behalf, the provisions of the last foregoing section of this Act shall extend and apply to the issuing and returning of a writ in respect of such vacant District.

44. The House of Commons on its first assembling after a general election shall proceed with all practicable speed to elect one of its members to be Speaker.

45. In case of a vacancy happening in the office of Speaker by death, resignation or otherwise, the House of Commons shall with all practicable speed proceed to elect another of its members to be Speaker.

47. Until the Parliament of Canada otherwise provides, in case of the absence for any reason of the Speaker from the chair of the House of Commons for a period of forty-eight consecutive hours, the House may elect another of its members to act as Speaker, and the member so elected shall during the continuance of such absence of the Speaker have and execute all the powers, privileges, and duties of Speaker.

   48. The presence of at least twenty members of the House of
   Commons shall be necessary to constitute a meeting of the
   House for the exercise of its powers, and for that purpose the
   Speaker shall be reckoned as a member.

   49. Questions arising in the House of Commons shall be decided
   by a majority of voices other than that of the Speaker, and
   when the voices are equal, but not otherwise, the Speaker
   shall have a vote.

50. Every House of Commons shall continue for five years from the day of the return of the writs for choosing the House (subject to be sooner dissolved by the Governor General), and no longer.

   51. On the completion of the census in the year one thousand
   eight hundred and seventy-one, and of each subsequent
   decennial census, the representation of the four Provinces
   shall be re-adjusted by such authority, in such manner and
   from such time as the Parliament of Canada from time to time
   provides, subject and according to the following rules:
   (1) Quebec shall have the fixed number of sixty-five members:
   (2) There shall be assigned to each of the other Provinces
   such a number of members as will bear the same proportion to
   the number of its population (ascertained at such census) as
   the number sixty-five bears to the number of the population of
   Quebec (so ascertained):
   (3) In the computation of the number of members for a Province
   a fractional part not exceeding one-half of the whole number
   requisite for entitling the Province to a member shall be
   disregarded; but a fractional part exceeding one-half of that
   number shall be equivalent to the whole number:
   (4) On any such re-adjustment the number of members for a
   Province shall not be reduced unless the proportion which the
   number of the population of the Province bore to the number of
   the aggregate population of Canada at the then last preceding
   re-adjustment of the number of members for the Province is
   ascertained at the then latest census to be diminished by
   one-twentieth part or upwards: (5) Such re-adjustment shall
   not take effect until the termination of the then existing
   Parliament.

52. The number of members of the House of Commons may be from time to time increased by the Parliament of Canada, provided the proportionate representation of the Provinces prescribed by this Act is not thereby disturbed.

53. Bills for appropriating any part of the public revenue, or for imposing any tax or impost, shall originate in the House of Commons.

54. It shall not be lawful for the House of Commons to adopt or pass any vote, resolution, address, or bill for the appropriation of any part of the public revenue, or of any tax or impost, to any purpose that has not been first recommended to that House by message of the Governor General in the Session in which such vote, resolution, address, or bill is proposed.

55. Where a bill passed by the Houses of the Parliament is presented to the Governor General for the Queen's assent, he shall declare according to his discretion, but subject to the provisions of this Act and to Her Majesty's instructions, either that he assents thereto in the Queen's name, or that he withholds the Queen's assent, or that he reserves the bill for the signification of the Queen's pleasure.

56. Where the Governor General assents to a bill in the Queen's name, he shall by the first convenient opportunity send an authentic copy of the Act to one of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State, and if the Queen in Council within two years after receipt thereof by the Secretary of State thinks fit to disallow the Act, such disallowance (with a certificate of the Secretary of State of the day on which the Act was received by him) being signified by the Governor General, by speech or message to each of the Houses of the Parliament, or by proclamation, shall annul the Act from and after the day of such signification.

57. A bill reserved for the signification of the Queen's pleasure shall not have any force unless and until within two years from the day on which it was presented to the Governor General for the Queen's assent, the Governor General signifies, by speech or message to each of the Houses of the Parliament or by proclamation, that it has received the assent of the Queen in Council. An entry of every such speech, message, or proclamation shall be made in the Journal of each House, and a duplicate thereof duly attested shall be delivered to the proper officer to be kept among the Records of Canada.

58. For each Province there shall be an officer, styled the Lieutenant Governor, appointed by the Governor General in Council by instrument under the Great Seal of Canada.

59. A Lieutenant Governor shall hold office during the pleasure of the Governor General; but any Lieutenant Governor appointed after the commencement of the first Session of the Parliament of Canada shall not be removable within five years from his appointment, except for cause assigned, which shall be communicated to him in writing within one month after the order for his removal is made, and shall be communicated by message to the Senate and to the House of Commons within one week thereafter if the Parliament is then sitting, and if not then within one week after the commencement of the next Session of the Parliament.

60. The salaries of the Lieutenant Governors shall be fixed and provided by the Parliament of Canada.

61. Every Lieutenant Governor shall, before assuming the duties of his office, make and subscribe before the Governor General, or' some person authorized by him, oaths of allegiance and office similar to those taken by the Governor General.

62. The provisions of this Act referring to the Lieutenant Governor extend and apply to the Lieutenant Governor for the time being of each Province or other the chief executive officer or administrator for the time being carrying on the government of the Province, by whatever title he is designated.

63. The Executive Council of Ontario and of Quebec shall be composed of such persons as the Lieutenant Governor from to time thinks fit, and in the first instance of the following officers, namely:—The Attorney-General, the Secretary and Registrar of the Province, the Treasurer of the Province, the Commissioner of Crown Lands, and the Commissioner of Agriculture and Public Works, with in Quebec the Speaker of the Legislative Council and the Solicitor General.

64. The Constitution of the Executive Authority in each of the Provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, continue as it exists at the Union until altered under the authority of this Act.

65. All powers, authorities, and functions which under any Act of the Parliament of Great Britain, or of the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, or of the Legislature of Upper Canada, Lower Canada, or Canada, were or are before or at the Union vested in or exerciseable by the respective Governors or Lieutenant Governors of those Provinces, with the advice, or with the advice and consent, of the respective Executive Councils thereof, or in conjunction with those Councils, or with any number of members thereof, or by those Governors or Lieutenant Governors individually, shall, as far as the same are capable of being exercised after the Union in relation to the Government of Ontario and Quebec, respectively, be vested in, and shall or may be exercised by the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario and Quebec respectively, with the advice or with the advice and consent of or in conjunction with the respective Executive Councils, or any members thereof, or by the Lieutenant Governor individually, as the case requires, subject nevertheless (except with respect to such as exist under Acts of the Parliament of Great Britain, or of the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland), to be abolished or altered by the respective Legislatures of Ontario and Quebec.

66. The provisions of this Act, referring to the Lieutenant Governor in Council shall be construed as referring to the Lieutenant Governor of the Province acting by and with the advice of the Executive Council thereof.

67. The Governor General in Council may from time to time appoint an administrator to execute the office and functions of Lieutenant Governor during his absence, illness, or other inability.

68. Unless and until the Executive Government of any Province otherwise directs with respect to the Province, the seats of Government of the Provinces shall be as follows, namely,—of Ontario, the City of Toronto; of Quebec, the City of Quebec; of Nova Scotia, the City of Halifax; and of New Brunswick, the City of Fredericton.

69. There shall be a Legislature for Ontario consisting of the Lieutenant Governor and of one House, styled the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

70. The Legislative Assembly of Ontario shall be composed of eighty-two members, to be elected to represent the eighty-two Electoral Districts set forth in the first Schedule to this Act.

71. There shall be a Legislature for Quebec consisting of the Lieutenant Governor and of two Houses, styled the Legislative Council of Quebec and the Legislative Assembly of Quebec.

72. The Legislative Council of Quebec shall be composed of twenty-four members, to be appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in the Queen's name, by instrument under the Great Seal of Quebec, one being appointed to represent each of the twenty-four Electoral Divisions of Lower Canada in this Act referred to, and each holding office for the term of his life, unless the Legislature of Quebec otherwise provides under the provisions of this Act.

73. The qualifications of the Legislative Councillors of Quebec shall be the same as those of the Senators for Quebec.

74. The place of a Legislative Councillor of Quebec shall become vacant in the cases, 'mutatis mutandis' in which the place of Senator becomes vacant.

75. When a vacancy happens in the Legislative Council of Quebec, by resignation, death, or otherwise, the Lieutenant Governor, in the Queen's name, by instrument under the Great Seal of Quebec, shall appoint a fit and qualified person to fill the vacancy.

76. If any question arises respecting the qualification of a Legislative Councillor of Quebec, or a vacancy in the Legislative Council of Quebec, the same shall be heard and determined by the Legislative Council.

77. The Lieutenant Governor may from time to time, by instrument under the Great Seal of Quebec, appoint a member of the Legislative Council of Quebec to be Speaker thereof, and may remove him and appoint another in his stead.

78. Until the Legislature of Quebec otherwise provides, the presence of at least ten members of the Legislative Council, including the Speaker, shall be necessary to constitute a meeting for the exercise of its powers.

79. Questions arising in the Legislative Council of Quebec shall be decided by a majority of voices, and the Speaker shall in all cases have a vote, and when the voices are equal the decision shall be deemed to be in the negative.

80. The Legislative Assembly of Quebec shall be composed of sixty-five members, to be elected to represent the sixty-five Electoral Divisions or Districts of Lower Canada in this Act referred to, subject to alteration thereof by the Legislature of Quebec: Provided that it shall not be lawful to present to the Lieutenant Governor of Quebec for assent any bill for altering the limits of any of the Electoral Divisions or Districts mentioned in the second Schedule to this Act, unless the second and third readings of such bill have been passed in the Legislative Assembly with the concurrence of the majority of the members representing all those Electoral Divisions or Districts, and the assent shall not be given to such bills unless an address has been presented by the Legislative Assembly to the Lieutenant Governor stating that it has been so passed.

81. The Legislatures of Ontario and Quebec respectively shall be called together not later than six months after the Union.

82. The Lieutenant Governor of Ontario and of Quebec shall from time to time, in the Queen's name, by instrument under the Great Seal of the Province, summon and call together the Legislative Assembly of the Province.

83. Until the Legislature of Ontario or of Quebec otherwise provides, a person accepting or holding in Ontario or in Quebec any office, commission, or employment, permanent or temporary, at the nomination of the Lieutenant Governor, to which an annual salary, or any fee, allowance, emolument, or profit of any kind or amount whatever from the Province is attached, shall not be eligible as a member of the Legislative Assembly of the respective Province, nor shall he sit or vote as such; but nothing in this section shall make ineligible any person being a member of the Executive Council of the respective Province, or holding any of the following offices, that is to say, the offices of Attorney-General, Secretary and Registrar of the Province, Treasurer of the Province, Commissioner of Crown Lands, and Commissioner of Agriculture and Public Works and, in Quebec, Solicitor-General, or shall disqualify him to sit or vote in the House for which he is elected, provided he is elected while holding such office.

84. Until the Legislatures of Ontario and Quebec respectively otherwise provide, all laws which at the Union are in force in those Provinces respectively, relative to the following matters, or any of them, namely,—the qualifications and disqualifications of persons to be elected or to sit or vote as members of the Assembly of Canada, the qualifications or disqualifications of voters, the oaths to be taken by voters, the Returning Officers, their powers and duties, the proceedings at elections, the periods during which such elections may be continued, and the trial of controverted elections and the proceedings incident thereto, the vacating of the seats of members and the issuing and execution of new writs in case of seats vacated otherwise than by dissolution, shall respectively apply to elections of members to serve in the respective Legislative Assemblies of Ontario and Quebec. Provided that until the Legislature of Ontario otherwise provides, at any election for a member of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario for the District of Algoma, in addition to persons qualified by the law of the Province of Canada to vote, every male British subject, aged twenty-one years or upwards, being a householder, shall have a vote.

85. Every Legislative Assembly of Ontario and every Legislative Assembly of Quebec shall continue for four years from the day of the return of the writs for choosing the same (subject nevertheless to either the Legislative Assembly of Ontario or the Legislative Assembly of Quebec being sooner dissolved by the Lieutenant Governor of the Province), and no longer.

86. There shall be a session of the Legislature of Ontario and of that of Quebec once at least in every year, so that twelve months shall not intervene between the last sitting of the Legislature in each Province in one session and its first sitting in the next session.

87. The following provisions of this Act respecting the House of Commons of Canada, shall extend and apply to the Legislative Assemblies of Ontario and Quebec, that is to say,—the provisions relating to the election of a Speaker originally and on vacancies, the duties of the Speaker, the absence of the Speaker, the quorum, and the mode of voting, as if those provisions were here re-enacted and made applicable in terms to each such Legislative Assembly.

88. The constitution of the Legislature of each of the Provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, continue as it exists at the Union until altered under the authority of this Act; and the House of Assembly of New Brunswick existing at the passing of this Act shall, unless sooner dissolved, continue for the period for which it was elected.

89. Each of the Lieutenant Governors of Ontario, Quebec, and Nova Scotia shall cause writs to be issued for the first election of members of the Legislative Assembly thereof in such form and by such person as he thinks fit, and at such time and addressed to such Returning Officer as the Governor General directs, and so that the first election of member of Assembly for any Electoral District or any subdivision thereof shall be held at the same time and at the same places as the election for a member to serve in the House of Commons of Canada for that Electoral District.

90. The following provisions of this Act respecting the Parliament of Canada, namely,—the provisions relating to appropriation and tax bills, the recommendation of money votes, the assent to bills, the disallowance of Acts. and the signification of pleasure on bills reserved,—shall extend and apply to the Legislatures of the several Provinces as if those provisions were here re-enacted and made applicable in terms to the respective Provinces and the Legislatures thereof, with the substitution of the Lieutenant Governor of the Province for the Governor General, of the Governor General for the Queen and for a Secretary of State, of one year for two years, and of the Province for Canada.

91. It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of Canada, in relation to all matters not coming within the classes of subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces; and for greater certainty, but not so as to restrict the generality of the foregoing terms of this section, it is hereby declared that (notwithstanding anything in this Act) the exclusive legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada extends to all matters coming within the classes of subjects next hereinafter enumerated, that is to say,— 1. The Public Debt and Property. 2. The regulation of Trade and Commerce. 3. The raising of money by any mode or system of Taxation. 4. The borrowing of money on the public credit. 5. Postal service. 6. The Census and Statistics. 7. Militia, Military and Naval Service, and Defence. 8. The fixing of and providing for the salaries and allowances of civil and other officers of the Government of Canada. 9. Beacons, Buoys, Lighthouses, and Sable Island. 10. Navigation and Shipping. 11. Quarantine and the establishment and maintenance of Marine Hospitals. 12. Sea coast and inland Fisheries. 13. Ferries between a Province and any British or Foreign country, or between two Provinces. 14. Currency and Coinage. 15. Banking, incorporation of banks, and the issue of paper money. 16. Savings Banks. 17. Weights and Measures. 18. Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes. 19. Interest. 20. Legal tender. 21. Bankruptcy and Insolvency. 22. Patents of invention and discovery. 23. Copyrights. 24. Indians, and lands reserved for the Indians. 25. Naturalization and Aliens. 26. Marriage and Divorce. 27. The Criminal Law, except the Constitution of Courts of Criminal Jurisdiction, but including the Procedure in Criminal Matters. 28. The Establishment, Maintenance, and Management of Penitentiaries. 29. Such classes of subjects as are expressly excepted in the enumeration of the classes of subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces. And any matter coming within any of the classes of subjects enumerated in this section shall not be deemed to come within the class of matters of a local or private nature comprised in the enumeration of the classes of subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces.

92. In each Province the Legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to matters coming within the classes of subjects next hereinafter enumerated; that is to say,— 1. The amendment from time to time, notwithstanding anything in this Act, of the Constitution of the Province, except as regards the office of Lieutenant Governor. 2. Direct Taxation within the Province in order to the raising of a Revenue for Provincial purposes. 3. The borrowing of money on the sole credit of the Province. 4. The establishment and tenure of Provincial offices and the appointment and payment of Provincial officers. 5. The management and sale of the Public Lands belonging to the Province and of the timber and wood thereon. 6. The establishment, maintenance, and management of public and reformatory prisons in and for the Province. 7. The establishment, maintenance, and management of hospitals, asylums, charities, and eleemosynary institutions in and for the Province, other than marine hospitals. 8. Municipal institutions in the Province. 9. Shop, saloon, tavern, auctioneer, and other licenses in order to the raising of a revenue for Provincial, local, or municipal purposes. 10. Local works and undertakings other than such as are of the following classes, a. Lines of steam or other ships, railways, canals, telegraphs, and other works and undertakings connecting the Province with any other or others of the Provinces, or extending beyond the limits of the Province: b. Lines of steamships between the Province and any British or foreign country. c. Such works as, although wholly situate within the Province, are before or after their execution declared by the Parliament of Canada to be for the general advantage of Canada or for the advantage of two or more of the Provinces. 11. The incorporation of companies with Provincial objects. 12. The solemnization of marriage in the Province. 13. Property and civil rights in the Province. 14. The administration of justice in the Province, including the constitution, maintenance, and organization of Provincial Courts, both of civil and of criminal jurisdiction, and including procedure in Civil matters in those Courts. 15. The imposition of punishment by fine, penalty, or imprisonment for enforcing any law of the Province made in relation to any matter coming within any of the classes of subjects enumerated in this section. 16. Generally all matters of a merely local or private nature in the Province.

   93. In and for each Province the Legislature may exclusively
   make laws in relation to education, subject and according to
   the following provisions:
   (1) Nothing in any such law shall prejudicially affect any
   right or privilege with respect to denominational schools
   which any class of persons have by law in the Province at the
   Union.
   (2) All the powers, privileges, and duties at the Union by law
   conferred and imposed in Upper Canada on the separate schools
   and school trustees of the Queen's Roman Catholic subjects
   shall be and the same are hereby extended to the dissentient
   schools of the Queen's Protestant and Roman Catholic subjects
   in Quebec.
   (3) Where in any Province a system of separate or dissentient
   schools exists by law at the Union or is thereafter,
   established by the Legislature of the Province, an appeal
   shall lie to the Governor General in Council from any Act or
   decision of any Provincial authority affecting any right or
   privilege of the Protestant or Roman Catholic minority of the
   Queen's subjects in relation to education:
{533}
   (4) In case any such Provincial law as from time to time seems
   to the Governor General in Council requisite for the due
   execution of the provisions of this section is not made, or in
   case any decision of the Governor General in Council on any
   appeal under this section is not duly executed by the proper
   Provincial authority in that behalf, then find in every such
   case, and as far only as the circumstances of each case
   require, the Parliament of Canada may make remedial laws for
   the due execution of the provisions of this section and of any
   decision of the Governor General in Council under this
   section.

94. Notwithstanding anything in this Act, the Parliament of Canada may make provision for the uniformity of all or any of the laws relative to property and civil rights in Ontario, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick, and of the procedure of all or any of the Courts in those three Provinces; and from and after the passing of any Act in that behalf the power of the Parliament of Canada to make laws in relation to any matter comprised in any such Act shall, notwithstanding anything in this Act, be unrestricted; but any Act of the Parliament of Canada making provision for such uniformity shall not have effect in any Province unless and until it is adopted and enacted as law by the Legislature thereof.

95. In each Province the Legislature may make laws in relation to Agriculture in the Province, and to Immigration into the Province; and it is hereby declared that the Parliament of Canada may from time to time make laws in relation to Agriculture in all or any of the Provinces, and to Immigration into all or any of the Provinces; and any law of the Legislature of a Province relative to Agriculture or to Immigration shall have effect in and for the Province as long and as far only as it is not repugnant to any Act of the Parliament of Canada.

96. The Governor General shall appoint the Judges of the Superior, District, and County Courts in each Province, except those of the Courts of Probate in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.

97. Until the laws relative to property and civil rights in Ontario, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick, and the procedure of the Courts in those Provinces, are made uniform, the Judges of the Courts of those Provinces appointed by the Governor General shall be selected from the respective Bars of those Provinces.

98. The Judges of the Courts of Quebec shall be selected from the Bar of that Province.

99. The Judges of the Superior Courts shall hold office during good behaviour, but shall be removable by the Governor General on address of the Senate and House of Commons.

100. The salaries, allowances, and pensions of the Judges of the Superior, District, and County Courts (except the Courts of Probate in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick), and of the Admiralty Courts in cases where the Judges thereof are for the time being paid by salary, shall be fixed and provided by the Parliament of Canada.

101. The Parliament of Canada may, notwithstanding anything in this Act, from time to time, provide for the constitution, maintenance, and organization of a general Court of Appeal for Canada, and for the establishment of any additional Courts for the better administration of the Laws of Canada.

102. All duties and revenues over which the respective Legislatures of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick before and at the Union had and have power of appropriation, except such portions thereof as are by this Act reserved to the respective Legislatures of the Provinces, or are raised by them in accordance with the special powers conferred on them by this Act, shall form one Consolidated Revenue Fund, to be appropriated for the public service of Canada in the manner and subject to the charges in this Act provided.

103. The Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada shall be permanently charged with the costs, charges, and expenses incident to the collection, management, and receipt thereof, and the same shall form the first charge thereon, subject to be reviewed and audited in such manner as shall be ordered by the Governor General in Council until the Parliament otherwise provides.

   104. The annual interest of the public debts of the several
   Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick at the
   Union shall form the second charge on the Consolidated Revenue
   Fund of Canada.

105. Unless altered by the Parliament of Canada, the salary of the Governor General shall be ten thousand pounds sterling money of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, payable out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada, and the same shall form the third charge thereon.

106. Subject to the several payments by this Act charged on the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada, the same shall be appropriated by the Parliament of Canada for the public service.

107. All stocks, cash, banker's balances, and securities for money belonging to each Province at the time of the Union, except as in this Act mentioned, shall be the property of Canada, and shall be taken in reduction of the amount of the respective debts of the Provinces at the Union.

108. The public works and property of each Province, enumerated in the third schedule to this Act, shall be the property of Canada.

109. All lands, mines, minerals, and royalties belonging to the several Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick at the Union, and all sums then due or payable for such lands, mines, minerals, or royalties, shall belong to the several Provinces of Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick in which the same are situate or arise, subject to any trusts existing in respect thereof, and to any interest other than that of the Province in the same.

110. All assets connected with such portions of the public debt of each Province as are assumed by that Province shall belong to that Province.

111. Canada shall be liable for the debts and liabilities of each Province existing at the Union.

112. Ontario and Quebec conjointly shall be liable to Canada for the amount (if any) by which the debt of the Province of Canada exceeds at the Union sixty-two million five hundred thousand dollars, and shall be charged with interest at the rate of five per centum per annum thereon.

113. The assets enumerated in the fourth Schedule to this Act belonging at the Union to the Province of Canada shall be the property of Ontario and Quebec conjointly.

114. Nova Scotia shall be liable to Canada for the amount (if any) by which its public debt exceeds at the Union eight million dollars, and shall be charged with interest at the rate of five per centum per annum thereon.

115. New Brunswick shall be liable to Canada for the amount (if any) by which its public debt exceeds at the Union seven million dollars, and shall be charged with interest at the rate of five per centum per annum thereon.

116. In case the public debt of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick do not at the Union amount to eight million dollars and seven million dollars respectively, they shall respectively receive by half-yearly payments in advance from the Government of Canada interest at five per centum per annum on the difference between the actual amounts of their respective debts and such stipulated amounts.

117. The several provinces shall retain all their respective public property not otherwise disposed of in this Act, subject to the right of Canada to assume any lands or public property required for fortifications or for the defence of the country.

118. The following sums shall be paid yearly by Canada to the several Provinces for the support of their Governments and Legislatures: Ontario, eighty thousand dollars; Quebec, seventy thousand dollars; Nova Scotia, sixty thousand dollars; New Brunswick, fifty thousand dollars; [total] two hundred and sixty thousand dollars; and an annual grant in aid of each Province shall be made, equal to eighty cents per head, of the population us ascertained by the census of one thousand eight hundred and sixty-one, and in the case of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, by each subsequent decennial census until the population of each of those two Provinces amounts to four hundred thousand souls, at which rate such grant shall thereafter remain. Such grant shall be in full Settlement of all future demands on Canada, and shall be paid half-yearly in advance to each Province; but the Government of Canada shall deduct from such grants, as against any Province, all sums chargeable as interest on the Public Debt of that Province in excess of the several amounts stipulated in this Act.

119. New Brunswick shall receive by half-yearly payments in advance from Canada, for the period of ten years from the Union, an additional allowance of sixty-three thousand dollars per annum; but as long as the Public Debt of that Province remains under seven million dollars a deduction equal to the interest at five per centum per annum on such deficiency shall be made from that allowance of sixty-three thousand dollars.

120. All payments to be made under this Act, or in discharge of liabilities created under any Act of the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick respectively, and assumed by Canada, shall, until the Parliament of Canada otherwise directs, be made in such form and manner as may from time to time be ordered by the Governor General in Council.

121. All articles of the growth, produce, or manufacture of anyone of the Provinces shall, from and after the Union, be admitted free into each of the other Provinces.

122. The Customs and Excise Laws of each Province shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, continue in force until altered by the Parliament of Canada.

123. Where Customs duties are, at the Union, leviable on any goods, wares or merchandises in any two Provinces, those goods, wares and merchandises may, from and after the Union, be imported from one of those Provinces into the other of them on proof of payment of the Customs duty leviable thereon in the Province of exportation, and on payment of such further amount (if any) of Customs duty as is leviable thereon in the Province of importation.

124. Nothing in this Act shall affect the right of New Brunswick to levy the lumber dues provided in chapter fifteen, of title three, of the Revised Statutes of New Brunswick, or in any Act amending that act before or after the Union, and not increasing the amount of such dues; but the lumber of any of the Provinces other than New Brunswick stall not be subjected to such dues.

125. No lands or property belonging to Canada or any Province shall be liable to taxation.

126. Such portions of the duties and revenues over which the respective Legislatures of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick had before the Union power of appropriation as are by this Act reserved to the respective Governments or Legislatures of the Provinces, and all duties and revenues raised by them in accordance with the special powers conferred upon them by this act, shall in each Province form one Consolidated Revenue Fund to be appropriated for the public service of the Province.

127. If any person being at the passing of this Act a member of the Legislative Council of Canada, Nova Scotia, or New Brunswick, to whom a place in the Senate is offered, does not within thirty days thereafter, by writing under his hand, addressed to the Governor General of the Province of Canada, or to the Lieutenant Governor of Nova Scotia or New Brunswick (as the case may be), accept the same, he shall be deemed to have declined the same; and any person who, being at the passing of this Act a member of the Legislative Council of Nova Scotia or New Brunswick, accepts a place in the Senate, shall thereby vacate his seat in such Legislative Council.

128. Every member of the Senate or House of Commons of Canada shall before taking his seat therein, take and subscribe before the Governor General or some person authorized by him, and every member of a Legislative Council or Legislative Assembly of any Province shall before taking his seat therein, take and subscribe before the Lieutenant Governor of the Province, or some person authorized by him, the oath of allegiance contained in the fifth Schedule to this Act; and every member of the Senate of Canada and every member of the Legislative Council of Quebec shall also, before taking his seat therein, take and subscribe before the Governor General, or some person authorized by him, the declaration of qualification contained in the same Schedule.

129. Except as otherwise provided by this Act, all laws in force in Canada, Nova Scotia, or New Brunswick at the Union, and all courts of civil and criminal jurisdiction, and all legal commissions, powers and authorities, and all officers, judicial, administrative, and ministerial, existing therein at the Union, shall continue in Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick respectively, as if the Union had not been made, subject nevertheless (except with respect to such as are enacted by or exist under Acts of the Parliament of Great Britain or of the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland), to be repealed, abolished or altered by the Parliament of Canada, or by the Legislature of the respective Province, according to the authority of the Parliament or of that Legislature under this Act.

130. Until the Parliament of Canada otherwise provides, all officers of the several Provinces having duties to discharge in relation to matters other than those coming within the classes of subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces shall be officers of Canada, and shall continue to discharge the duties of their respective offices under the same liabilities, responsibilities and penalties as if the Union had not been made.

131. Until the Parliament of Canada otherwise provides, the Governor General in Council may from time to time appoint such officers as the Governor General in Council deems necessary or proper for the effectual execution of this Act.

132. The Parliament and Government of Canada shall have all powers necessary or proper for performing the obligations of Canada or of any Province thereof, as part of the British Empire towards foreign countries, arising under treaties between the Empire and such foreign countries.

133. Either the English or the French language may be used by any person in the debates of the Houses of Parliament of Canada and of the Houses of the Legislature of Quebec; and both those languages shall be used in the respective records and journals of those Houses; and either of those languages may be used by any person or in any pleading or process in or issuing from any Court of Canada established under this Act, and in or from all or any of the Courts of Quebec. The Acts of the Parliament of Canada and of the Legislature of Quebec shall be printed and published in both those languages.

134. Until the Legislature of Ontario or of Quebec otherwise provides, the Lieutenant Governors of Ontario and Que bee may each appoint under the Great Seal of the Province the following officers, to hold office during pleasure, that is to say,—the Attorney General, the Secretary and Registrar of the Province, the Treasurer of the Province, the Commissioner of Crown Lands and the Commissioner of Agriculture and Public Works, and, in the case of Quebec, the Solicitor General; and may, by order of the Lieutenant Governor in Council from time to time prescribe the duties of those officers and of the several departments over which they shall preside or to which they shall belong, and of the officers and clerks thereof; and may also appoint other and additional officers to hold office during pleasure, and may from time to time prescribe the duties of those officers, and of the several departments over which they shall preside or to which they shall belong, and of the officers and clerks thereof.

130. Until the Legislature of Ontario or Quebec otherwise provides, all rights, powers, duties, functions, responsibilities or authorities at the passing of this Act vested in or imposed on the Attorney General, Solicitor General, Secretary and Registrar of the Province of Canada, Minister of Finance, Commissioner of Crown Lands, Commissioner of Public Works, and Minister of Agriculture and Receiver General, by any law, statute or ordinance of Upper Canada, Lower Canada, or Canada, and not repugnant to this Act, shall be vested in or imposed on any officer to be appointed by the Lieutenant Governor for the discharge of the same or any of them; and the Commissioner of Agriculture and Public Works shall perform the duties and functions of the office of Minister of Agriculture at the passing of this Act imposed by the law of the Province of Canada as well as those of the Commissioner of Public Works.

136. Until altered by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, the Great Seals of Ontario and Quebec respectively, shall be the same or of the same design, as those used in the Provinces of Upper Canada and Lower Canada respectively before their Union as the Province of Canada.

137. The words "and from thence to the end of the then next ensuing Session of the Legislature," or words to the same effect, used in any temporary Act of the Province of Canada not expired before the Union, shall be construed to extend and apply to the next Session of Parliament of Canada, if the subject matter of the Act is within the powers of the same as defined by this Act, or to the next Sessions of the Legislatures of Ontario and Quebec respectively, if the subject matter of the Act is within the powers of the same as defined by this Act.

138. From and after the Union, the use of the words "Upper Canada," instead of "Ontario," or "Lower Canada" instead of "Quebec," in any deed, writ, process, pleading, document, matter or thing, shall not invalidate the same.

139. Any Proclamation under the Great Seal of the Province of Canada, issued before the Union to take effect at a time which is subsequent to the Union, whether relating to that Province or to Upper Canada, or to Lower Canada, and the several matters and things therein proclaimed shall be and continue of like force and effect as if the Union had not been made.

140. Any proclamation which is authorized by any Act of the Legislature of the Province of Canada to be issued under the Great Seal of the Province of Canada, whether relating to that Province or to Upper Canada, or to Lower Canada, and which is not issued before the Union, may be issued by the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario or of Quebec, as its subject matter requires, under the Great Seal thereof; and from and after the issue of such Proclamation the same and the several matters and things therein proclaimed shall be and continue of the like force and effect in Ontario or Quebec as if the Union had not been made.

141. The Penitentiary of the Province of Canada shall, until the Parliament of Canada otherwise provides, be and continue the Penitentiary of Ontario and of Quebec.

142. The division and adjustment of the debts, credits, liabilities, properties and assets of Upper Canada and Lower Canada shall be referred to the arbitrament of three arbitrators, one chosen by the Government of Ontario, one by the Government of Quebec, and one by the Government of Canada; and the selection of the Arbitrators shall not be made until the Parliament of Canada and the Legislatures of Ontario and Quebec have met; and the arbitrator chosen by the Government of Canada shall not be a resident either in Ontario or in Quebec.

143. The Governor General in Council may from time to time order that such and so many of the records, books, and documents of the Province of Canada as he thinks fit shall be appropriated and delivered either to Ontario or to Quebec, and the same shall henceforth be the property of that Province: and any copy thereof or extract therefrom, duly certified by the officer having charge of the original thereof shall be admitted as evidence.

144. The Lieutenant Governor of Quebec may from time to time, by Proclamation under the Great Seal of the Province, to take effect from a day to be appointed therein, constitute townships in those parts of the Province of Quebec in which townships are not then already constituted, and fix the metes and bounds thereof.

145. Inasmuch as the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick have joined in a declaration that the construction of the Intercolonial Railway is essential to the consolidation of the Union of British North America, and to the assent thereto of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, and have consequently agreed that provision should be made for its immediate construction by the Government of Canada: Therefore, in order to give effect to that agreement, it shall be the duty of the Government and Parliament of Canada to provide for the commencement, within six months after the Union, of a railway connecting the River St. Lawrence with the City of Halifax in Nova Scotia, and for the construction thereof without intermission, and the completion thereof with all practicable speed.

146. It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the advice of Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council, on Addresses from the Houses of the Parliament of Canada, and from the Houses of the respective Legislatures of the Colonies or Provinces of Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, and British Columbia, to admit those Colonies or Provinces, or any of them, into the Union, and on Address from the Houses of the Parliament of Canada to admit Rupert's Land and the North-western Territory, or either of them, into the Union, on such terms and conditions in each case as are in the Addresses expressed and as the Queen thinks fit to approve, subject to the provisions of this Act, and the provisions of any Order in Council in that behalf shall have effect as if they had been enacted by the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

147. In case of the admission of Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island, or either of them, each shall be entitled to a representation in the Senate of Canada of four members, and (notwithstanding anything in this Act) in case of the admission of Newfoundland the normal number of Senators shall be seventy-six and their maximum number shall be eighty-two; but Prince Edward Island when admitted shall be deemed to be comprised in the third of the three divisions into which Canada is, in relation to the constitution of the Senate, divided by this Act, and accordingly, after the admission of Prince Edward Island, whether Newfoundland is admitted or not, the representation of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick in the Senate shall, as vacancies occur, be reduced from twelve to ten members respectively; and the representation of each of those Provinces shall not be increased at any time beyond ten, except under the provisions of this Act for the appointment of three or six additional Senators under the direction of the Queen.

An Act respecting the Establishment of Provinces in the
Dominion of Canada. [29TH JUNE, 1871.]

WHEREAS doubts have been entertained respecting the powers of the Parliament of Canada to establish Provinces in territories admitted, or which may hereafter be admitted, into the Dominion of Canada, and to provide for the representation of such Provinces in the said Parliament, and it is expedient to remove such doubts, and to vest such powers in the said Parliament: Be it enacted by the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords, Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:

1. This Act may be cited for all purposes as The British North America Act, 1871.

2. The Parliament of Canada may from time to time establish new Provinces in any territories forming for the time being part of the Dominion of Canada, but not included in any Province thereof, and may, at the time of such establishment, make provision for the constitution and administration of any such Province, and for the passing of laws for the peace, order and good government of such Province, and for its representation in the said Parliament.

3. The Parliament of Canada may from time to time, with the consent of the Legislature of any Province of the said Dominion, increase, diminish, or otherwise alter the limits of such Province, upon such terms and conditions as may be agreed to by the said Legislature, and may, with the like consent, make provision respecting the effect and operation of any such increase or diminution or alteration of territory in relation to any Province affected thereby.

4. The Parliament of Canada may from time to time make provision for the administration, peace, order, and good government of any territory not for the time being included in any Province.

5. The following Acts passed by the said Parliament of Canada, and intituled respectively: "An Act for the temporary government of Rupert's Land and the North-Western Territory when united with Canada;" and "An Act to amend and continue the Act thirty-two and thirty-three Victoria, chapter three, and to establish and provide for the government of the Province of Manitoba," shall be and be deemed to have been valid and effectual for all purposes whatsoever from the date at which they respectively received the assent, in the Queen's name, of the Governor General of the said Dominion of Canada.

6. Except as provided by the third section of this Act, it shall not be competent for the Parliament of Canada to alter the provisions of the last mentioned Act of the said Parliament in so far as it relates to the Province of Manitoba, or of any other Act hereafter establishing new Provinces in the said Dominion, subject always to the right of the Legislature of the Province of Manitoba to alter from time to time the provisions of any law respecting the qualification of electors and members of the Legislative Assembly, and to make laws respecting elections in the said Province.

   An Act to remove certain doubts with respect to the powers of
   the Parliament of Canada, under Section 18 of the British
   North America Act, 1867. [19TH JULY, 1875.]

WHEREAS by section 18 of The British North America Act, 1867,
it is provided as follows:-

"The privileges, immunities, and powers to be held, enjoyed, and exercised by the Senate and by the House of Commons, and by the members thereof respectively, shall be such as are from time to time defined by Act of the Parliament of Canada, but so that the same shall never exceed those at the passing of this Act held, enjoyed, and exercised by the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and by the members thereof." And whereas doubts have arisen with regard to the power of defining by an Act of the Parliament of Canada, in pursuance of the said section, the said privileges, powers or immunities; and it is expedient to remove such doubts: Be it therefore enacted by the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:-

1. Section 18 of The British North America Act, 1867, is hereby repealed, without prejudice to anything done under that section, and the following section shall be substituted for the section so repealed:—The privileges, immunities, and powers to be held, enjoyed and exercised by the Senate and by the House of Commons, and by the members thereof respectively, shall be such as are from time to time defined by Act of the Parliament of Canada, but so that any Act of the Parliament of Canada defining such privileges, immunities and powers shall not confer any privileges, immunities, or powers exceeding those at the passing of such Act held, enjoyed, and exercised by the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and by the members thereof.

2. The Act of the Parliament of Canada passed in the thirty-first year of the reign of her present Majesty, chapter twenty-four, intituled An Act to provide for oaths to witnesses being administered in certain cases for the purposes of either House of Parliament, shall be deemed to be valid, and to have been valid as from the date at which the royal assent was given thereto by the Governor General of the Dominion of Canada.

An Act respecting the Representation in the Parliament of Canada of Territories which for the time being form part of the Dominion of Canada, but are not included in any Province. [25TH JUNE, 1886.]

WHEREAS it is expedient to empower the Parliament of Canada to provide for the representation in the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, or either of them, of any territory which for the time being forms part of the Dominion of Canada, but is not included in any Province: Be it therefore enacted by the Queen's. Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in the present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:

1. The Parliament of Canada may from time to time make provision for the representation in the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, or in either of them, of any territories which for the time being form part of the Dominion of Canada, but are not included in any Province thereof.

2. Any Act passed by the Parliament of Canada before the passing of this Act for the purpose mentioned in this Act shall, if not disallowed by the Queen, be, and shall be deemed to have been, valid and effectual from the date at which it received the assent, in Her Majesty's name, of the Governor-General of Canada. It is hereby declared that any Act passed by the Parliament of Canada, whether before or after the passing of this Act, for the purpose mentioned in this Act, or in The British North America Act, 1871, has effect, notwithstanding anything in The British North America Act, 1867, and the number of Senators or the number of Members of the House of Commons specified in the last-mentioned Act is increased by the number of Senators or of Members, as the case may be, provided by any such Act of the Parliament of Canada for the representation of any provinces or territories of Canada.

3. This Act maybe cited as The British North America Act, 1886. This Act and The British North America Act, 1867, and The British North America Act, 1871, shall be construed together, and may be cited together as The British North America Acts, 1861 to 1886.

CONSTITUTION OF CHILE.

CONSTITUTION OF CLEISTHENES.

CONSTITUTION OF COLOMBIA.

CONSTITUTION OF THE CONFEDERATE STATES OF AMERICA.

CONSTITUTION OF DENMARK.

CONSTITUTION OF ENGLAND.

"Our English Constitution was never made, in the sense in which the Constitutions of many other countries have been made. There never was any moment when Englishmen drew out their political system in the shape of a formal document, whether as the carrying out of any abstract political theories or as the imitation of the past or present system of any other nation. There are indeed certain great political documents, each of which forms a landmark in our political history. There is the Great Charter [see ENGLAND: A. D. 1215], the Petition of Rights [ENGLAND: A. D. 1625-1628, and 1628], the Bill of Rights [ENGLAND: A. D. 1689 (October)]. But not one of these gave itself out as the enactment of anything new. All claimed to set forth, with new strength, it might be, and with new clearness, those rights of Englishmen which were already old. … The life and soul of English law has ever been precedent; we have always held that whatever our fathers once did their sons have a right to do again."

"It is, in the first place, necessary to have a clear understanding of what we mean when we talk about 'the English Constitution.' Few terms in our language have been more laxly employed. … Still, the term, 'the English Constitution' is susceptible of full and accurate explanation: though it may not be easy to set it lucidly forth, without first investigating the archaeology of our history, rather more deeply than may suit hasty talkers and superficial thinkers. … Some furious Jacobins, at the close of the last century, used to clamour that there was no such thing as the English Constitution, because it could not be produced in full written form, like that of the United States. … But an impartial and earnest investigator may still satisfy himself that England has a constitution, and that there is ample cause why she should cherish it. And by this it is meant that he will recognise and admire, in the history, the laws and the institutions of England, certain great leading principles, which have existed from the earliest period of our nationality down to the present time; expanding and adapting themselves to the progress of society and civilization, advancing and varying in development, but still essentially the same in substance and spirit. These great primeval and enduring principles are the principles of the English Constitution. And we are not obliged to learn them from imperfect evidences or precarious speculation; for they are imperishably recorded in the Great Charter, and in Charters and Statutes connected with and confirmatory of Magna Charta [see ENGLAND: A. D. 1215]. … These great primeval and enduring principles of our Constitution are as follows: The government of the country by an hereditary sovereign, ruling with limited powers, and bound to summon and consult a parliament of the whole realm, comprising hereditary peers and elective representatives of the commons. That without the sanction of parliament no tax of any kind can be imposed; and no law can be made, repealed, or altered. That no man be arbitrarily fined or imprisoned, that no man's property or liberties be impaired, and that no man be in any way punished, except after a lawful trial. Trial by jury. That justice shall not be sold or delayed. These great constitutional principles can all be proved, either by express terms or by fair implication, from Magna Carta, and its … supplement [the statute 'Confirmatio Cartarum ']. Their vigorous development was aided and attested in many subsequent statutes, especially in the Petition of Rights and the Bill of Rights. … Lord Chatham called these three 'The Bible of the English Constitution,' to which appeal is to be made on every grave political question."

"The fact that our constitution has to be collected from statutes, from legal decisions, from observation of the course of conduct of the business of politics; that much of what is written is of a negative sort, stating what the Crown and its ministers cannot do; that there is no part of it which an omnipotent Parliament may not change at will; all this is a puzzle not only to foreign jurists who are prepared to say, with De Tocqueville, that the English constitution does not exist, but to ourselves who are prepared to maintain that it is a monument, if only we can find it, of political sagacity. Those who praise it call it flexible; those who criticise it unstable."

ALSO IN: William Stubbs, Constitutional History of England in its Origin and Development.

CONSTITUTION OF FRANCE.

CONSTITUTION OF FRANCE: A. D. 1795 (or the Year Three).
The Constitution of the Directory.

CONSTITUTION OF FRANCE: A. D. 1875-1889.
The Constitution of the Third Republic.

   The circumstances of the framing and adoption in 1875 of the
   Constitution of the Third Republic will be found narrated
   under FRANCE: A. D. 1871-1876.

The following is the text of the organic law of 1875, with the later amendatory and supplemental enactments, down to July 17, 1889, as translated and edited, with an historical introduction, by Mr. Charles F. A. Currier, and published in the Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, March, 1893. It is reproduced here with the kind permission of the President of the Academy, Professor Edmund J. James:

CONSTITUTION OF FRANCE: 1875.
Law on the Organization of the Public Powers. February 25.

ARTICLE 1.
   The legislative power is exercised by two assemblies: the
   Chamber of Deputies and the Senate. The Chamber of Deputies is
   elected by universal suffrage, under the conditions determined
   by the electoral law.

The composition, the method of election, and the powers of the
Senate shall be regulated by a special law.

ARTICLE 2.
   The President of the Republic is chosen by an absolute
   majority of votes of the Senate and Chamber of Deputies united
   in National Assembly. He is elected for seven years. He is
   re-eligible.

ARTICLE 3.
   The President of the Republic has the initiative of the laws,
   concurrently with the members of the two Chambers. He
   promulgates the laws when they have been voted by the two
   Chambers; he looks after and secures their execution. He has
   the right of pardon; amnesty can be granted by law only. He
   disposes of the armed force. He appoints to all civil and
   military positions. He presides over national festivals;
   envoys and ambassadors of foreign powers are accredited to
   him. Every act of the President of the Republic must be
   countersigned by a Minister.

ARTICLE 4.
   As vacancies occur on and after the promulgation of the
   present law, the President of the Republic appoints, in the
   Council of Ministers, the Councilors of State in ordinary
   service. The Councilors of State thus chosen may be dismissed
   only by decree rendered in the Council of Ministers. The
   Councilors of State chosen by virtue of the law of May 24,
   1872, cannot, before the expiration of their powers, be
   dismissed except in the manner determined by that law. After
   the dissolution of the National Assembly, revocation may be
   pronounced only by resolution of the Senate.

ARTICLE 5.
   The President of the Republic may, with the advice of the
   Senate, dissolve the Chamber of Deputies before the legal
   expiration of its term. [In that case the electoral colleges
   are summoned for new elections within the space of three
   months.]

ARTICLE 6.
   The Ministers are jointly and severally ('solidairement')
   responsible to the Chambers for the general policy of the
   government, and individually for their personal acts. The
   President of the Republic is responsible in case of high
   treason only.

ARTICLE 7.
   In case of vacancy by death or for any other reason, the two
   Chambers assembled together proceed at once to the election of
   a new President. In the meantime the Council of Ministers is
   invested with the executive power.

ARTICLE 8.
   The Chambers shall have the right by separate resolutions,
   taken in each by an absolute majority of votes, either upon
   their own initiative or upon the request of the President of
   the Republic, to declare a revision of the Constitutional Laws
   necessary. After each of the two Chambers shall have come to
   this decision, they shall meet together in National Assembly
   to proceed with the revision. The acts effecting revision of
   the constitutional laws, in whole or in part, must be by an
   absolute majority of the members composing the National
   Assembly. [During the continuance, however, of the powers
   conferred by the law of November 20, 1873, upon Marshal de
   MacMahon, this revision can take place only upon the
   initiative of the President of the Republic.]

[ARTICLE 9.
The seat of the Executive Power and of the two Chambers is at
Versailles.]

CONSTITUTION OF FRANCE: 1875.
Law on the Organization of the Senate. February 24.

   [Footnote: By the constitutional law of
   August 14, 1884, it was provided that Articles 1 to 7
   of this law should no longer have a constitutional
   character; and they were repealed
   by the law of December 9, 1884, infra.]

[ARTICLE 1.
   The Senate consists of three hundred members: Two hundred and
   twenty-five elected by the departments and colonies, and
   seventy-five elected by the National Assembly.]

[ARTICLE 2.
   The departments of the Seine and Nord elect each five
   senators. The following departments elect four senators each:
   Seine-Inférieure, Pas-dc-Calais, Gironde, Rhône, Finistère,
   Côtes-du-Nord. The following departments elect three senators
   each: Loire-Inférieure, Saône-et-Loire, Ille-et-Vilaine,
   Seine-et-Oise, Isère, Puy-de-Dôme, Somme, Bouches-du-Rhône,
   Aisne, Loire, Manche, Maine-et-Loire, Morbihan, Dordogne,
   Haute-Garonne, Charente-Inférieure, Calvados, Sarthe, Hérault,
   Basses-Pyrénées, Gard, Aveyron, Vendée, Orne, Oise, Vosges,
   Allier. All the other departments elect two senators each. The
   following elect one senator each: The Territory of Belfort,
   the three departments of Algeria, the four colonies:
   Martinique, Guadeloupe, Reunion and the French Indies.]

[ARTICLE 3.
   No one can be senator unless he is a French citizen, forty
   years of age at least, and enjoying civil and political
   rights.]

[ARTICLE 4.
   The senators of the departments and colonies are elected by an
   absolute majority and by 'scrutin de liste', by a college
   meeting at the capital of the department or colony and
   composed: (1) of the deputies; (2) of the general councilors;
   (3) of the arrondissement councilors; (4) of delegates
   elected, one by each municipal council, from among the voters
   of the commune. In the French Indies the members of the
   colonial council or of the local councils are substituted for
   the general councilors, arrondissement councilors and
   delegates from the municipal councils. They vote at the
   capital of each district.]

[ARTICLE 5.
The senators chosen by the Assembly are elected by 'scrutin de
liste' and by an absolute majority of votes.]

[ARTICLE 6.
   The senators of the departments and colonies are elected for
   nine years and renewable by thirds every three years. At the
   beginning of the first session the departments shall be
   divided into three series containing an equal number of
   senators each. It shall be determined by lot which series
   shall be renewed at the expiration of the first and second
   triennial periods.]

[ARTICLE 7.
   The senators elected by the Assembly are irremovable.
   Vacancies by death, by resignation, or for any other reason,
   shall, within the space of two months, be filled by the Senate
   itself.]

ARTICLE 8.
   The Senate has, concurrently with the Chamber of Deputies, the
   initiative and passing of laws. Money bills, however, must
   first be introduced in, and passed by the Chamber of Deputies.

ARTICLE 9.
   The Senate may be constituted a Court of Justice to judge
   either the President of the Republic or the Ministers, and to
   take cognizance of attacks made upon the safety of the State.

ARTICLE 10.
   Elections to the Senate shall take place one month before the
   time fixed by the National Assembly for its own dissolution.
   The Senate shall organize and enter upon its duties the same
   day that the National Assembly is dissolved.

ARTICLE 11.
The present law shall be promulgated only after the
passage of the law on the public powers.

CONSTITUTION OF FRANCE; 1875.
Law on the Relations of the Public Powers. July 16.

ARTICLE 1.
   The Senate and the Chamber of Deputies shall assemble each
   year the second Tuesday of January, unless convened earlier by
   the President of the Republic. The two Chambers continue in
   session at least five months each year. The sessions of each
   begin and end at the same time. [On the Sunday following the
   opening of the session, public prayers shall be addressed to
   God in the churches and temples, to invoke His aid in the
   labors of the Chambers.]

ARTICLE 2.
   The President of the Republic pronounces the closure of the
   session. He may convene the Chambers in extra session. He must
   convene them if, during the recess, an absolute majority of
   the members of each Chamber request it. The President may
   adjourn the Chambers. The adjournment, however, must not
   exceed one month, nor take place more than twice in the same
   session.

ARTICLE 3.
   One month at least before the legal expiration of the powers
   of the President of the Republic, the Chambers must be called
   together in National Assembly and proceed to the election of a
   new President. In default of a summons, this meeting shall
   take place, as of right, the fifteenth day before the
   expiration of those powers. In case of the death or
   resignation of the President of the Republic, the two Chambers
   shall reassemble immediately, as of right. In case the Chamber
   of Deputies, in consequence of Article 5 of the law of
   February 25, 1875, is dissolved at the time when the
   presidency of the Republic becomes vacant, the electoral
   colleges shall be convened at once, and the Senate shall
   reassemble as of right.

ARTICLE 4.
   Every meeting of either of the two Chambers which shall be
   held at a time other than the common session of both is
   illegal and void, except the case provided for in the
   preceding article, and that when the Senate meets as a court
   of justice; and in this last case, judicial duties alone shall
   be performed.

ARTICLE 5.
   The sittings of the Senate and of the Chamber of Deputies are
   public. Nevertheless each Chamber may meet in secret session,
   upon the request of a fixed number of its members, determined
   by the rules. It decides by absolute majority whether the
   sitting shall be resumed in public upon the same subject.

ARTICLE 6.
   The President of the Republic communicates with the Chambers
   by messages, which are read from the tribune by a Minister.
   The Ministers have entrance to both Chambers, and must be
   heard when they request it. They may be represented, for the
   discussion of a specific bill, by commissioners designated by
   decree of the President of the Republic.

ARTICLE 7.
   The President of the Republic promulgates the laws within the
   month following the transmission to the Government of the law
   finally passed. He must promulgate, within three days, laws
   whose promulgation shall have been declared urgent by an
   express vote in each Chamber. Within the time fixed for
   promulgation the President of the Republic may, by a message
   with reasons assigned, request of the two Chambers a new
   discussion, which cannot be refused.

ARTICLE 8.
   The President of the Republic negotiates and ratifies
   treaties. He communicates them to the Chambers as soon as the
   interests and safety of the State permit. Treaties of peace,
   and of commerce, treaties which involve the finances of the
   State, those relating to the persons and property of French
   citizens in foreign countries, shall become definitive only
   after having been voted by the two Chambers. No cession, no
   exchange, no annexation of territory shall take place except
   by virtue of a law.

ARTICLE 9.
The President of the Republic cannot declare war except by the
previous assent of the two Chambers.

ARTICLE 10.
   Each Chamber is the judge of the eligibility of its members,
   and of the legality of their election; it alone can receive
   their resignation.

ARTICLE 11.
   The bureau of each Chamber is elected each year for the entire
   session, and for every extra session which may be held before
   the ordinary session of the following year. When the two
   Chambers meet together as a National Assembly, their bureau
   consists of the President, Vice-Presidents and Secretaries of
   the Senate.

   [Footnote: The bureau of the Senate consists of a president,
   four vice-presidents, six secretaries and three questors; the
   bureau of the Chamber of Deputies is the same, except that
   there are eight secretaries instead of six.]

ARTICLE 12.
   The President of the Republic may be impeached by the Chamber
   of Deputies only, and tried by the Senate only. The Ministers
   may be impeached by the Chamber of Deputies for offences
   committed in the performance of their duties. In this case
   they are tried by the Senate. The Senate may be constituted a
   court of Justice, by a decree of the President of the
   Republic, issued in the Council of Ministers, to try all
   persons accused of attempts upon the safety of the State. If
   procedure is begun by the ordinary courts, the decree
   convening the Senate may be issued any time before the
   granting of a discharge. A law shall determine the method of
   procedure for the accusation, trial and judgment.

ARTICLE 13.
   No member of either Chamber shall be prosecuted or held
   responsible on account of any opinions expressed or votes cast
   by him in the performance of his duties.

ARTICLE 14.
   No member of either Chamber shall, during the session, be
   prosecuted or arrested for any offence or misdemeanor, except
   on the authority of the Chamber of which he is a member,
   unless he be caught in the very act. The detention or
   prosecution of a member of either Chamber is suspended for the
   session, and for its [the Chamber's] entire term, if it
   demands it.

CONSTITUTION OF FRANCE: 1879.
Law Revising Article 9 of the Constitutional Law of
February 25, 1875, June 21.

CONSTITUTION OF FRANCE: 1884.
Law Partially Revising the Constitutional Laws, August 14.

ARTICLE 1.
   Paragraph 2 of Article 5 of the constitutional law of February
   25, 1875, on the Organization of the Public Powers, is amended
   as follows: "In that case the electoral colleges meet for new
   elections within two months, and the Chamber within the ten
   days following the close of the elections."

ARTICLE 2.
   To Paragraph 3 of Article 8 of the same law of February 25,
   1875, is added the following: "The Republican form of the
   Government cannot be made the subject of a proposed revision.
   Members of families that have reigned in France are ineligible
   to the presidency of the Republic."

ARTICLE 3.
   Articles 1 to 7 of the constitutional law of February 24,
   1875, on the Organization of the Senate, shall no longer have
   a constitutional character.

[Footnote: And may therefore be amended by ordinary
legislation. See the law of December 9, 1884, infra.]

ARTICLE 4.
Paragraph 3 of Article 1 of the constitutional law of July 16,
1875, on the Relation of the Public Powers, is repealed.

ARTICLE 1.
   A decree of the President of the Republic, issued at least six
   weeks in advance, determines the day for the elections to the
   Senate, and at the same time that for the choice of delegates
   of the municipal councils. There must be an interval of at
   least one month between the choice of delegates and the
   election of senators.

ARTICLE 2.
   Each municipal council elects one delegate. The election is
   without debate, by secret ballot, and by an absolute majority
   of votes. After two ballots a plurality is sufficient, and in
   case of an equality of votes, the oldest is declared elected.
   If the Mayor is not a member of the municipal council, he
   presides, but shall not vote.

On the same day and in the same way an alternate is elected, who takes the place of the delegate in case of refusal or inability to serve.

The choice of the municipal councils shall not extend to a deputy, a general councilor, or an arrondissement councilor.

All communal electors, including the municipal councilors, are
eligible without distinction.

ARTICLE 3.
In the communes where a municipal committee exists, the
delegate and alternate shall be chosen by the old council.

ARTICLE 4.
   If the delegate was not present at the election, the Mayor
   shall see to it that he is notified within twenty-four hours.
   He must transmit to the Prefect, within five days, notice of
   his acceptance. In case of refusal or silence, he is replaced
   by the alternate, who is then placed upon the list as the
   delegate of the commune.

ARTICLE 5.
   The official report of the election of the delegate and
   alternate is transmitted at once to the Prefect; it states the
   acceptance or refusal of the delegates and alternates, as well
   as the protests raised, by one or more members of the
   municipal council, against the legality of the election. A
   copy of this official report is posted on the door of the town
   hall.

ARTICLE 6.
   A statement of the results of the election of delegates and
   alternates is drawn up within a week by the Prefect; this is
   given to all requesting it, and may be copied and published.
   Every elector may, at the bureaux of the prefecture, obtain
   information and a copy of the list, by communes, of the
   municipal councilors of the department, and, at the bureaux of
   the sub-prefectures a copy of the list, by communes, of the
   municipal councilors of the arrondissement.

ARTICLE 7.
   Every communal elector may, within three days, address
   directly to the Prefect a protest against the legality of the
   election. If the Prefect deems the proceedings illegal, he may
   request that they be set aside.

ARTICLE 8.
   Protests concerning the election of the delegate or alternate
   are decided, subject to an appeal to the Council of State, by
   the council of the prefecture, and, in the colonies, by the
   privy council. A delegate whose election is annulled because
   he does not satisfy the conditions demanded by law, or on
   account of informality, is replaced by the alternate. In case
   the election of the delegate and alternate is rendered void,
   as by the refusal or death of both after their acceptance, new
   elections are held by the municipal council on a day fixed by
   an order of the Prefect.

ARTICLE 9.
   Eight days, at the latest, before the election of senators,
   the Prefect, and, in the colonies, the Director of the
   Interior, arranges the list of the electors of the department
   in alphabetical order. The list is communicated to all
   demanding it, and may be copied and published. No elector has
   more than one vote.

ARTICLE 10.
   The deputies, the members of the general council, or of the
   arrondissement councils, who have been announced by the
   returning committees, but whose powers have not been verified,
   are enrolled upon the list of electors and are allowed to
   vote.

ARTICLE 11.
   In each of the three departments of Algeria the electoral
   college is composed: (1) of the deputies; (2) of the members
   of the general councils, of French citizenship; (3) of
   delegates elected by the French members of each municipal
   council from among the communal electors of French
   citizenship.

ARTICLE 12.
   The electoral college is presided over by the President of the
   civil tribunal of the capital of the department or colony. The
   President is assisted by the two oldest and two youngest
   electors present at the opening of the meeting. The bureau
   thus constituted chooses a secretary from among the electors.
   If the President is prevented [from presiding] his place is
   taken by the Vice-President [of the civil tribunal], and, in
   his absence, by the oldest justice.

ARTICLE 13.
   The bureau divides the electors in alphabetical order into
   sections of at least one hundred voters each. It appoints the
   President and Inspectors of each of these sections. It decides
   all questions and contests which may arise in the course of
   the election, without, however, power to depart from the
   decisions rendered by virtue of Article 8 of the present law.

ARTICLE 14.
   The first ballot begins at eight o'clock in the morning and
   closes at noon. The second begins at two o'clock and closes at
   four o'clock. The third, if it takes place, begins at six
   o'clock and closes at eight o'clock. The results of the
   ballotings are determined by the bureau and announced the same
   day by the President of the electoral college.

ARTICLE 15.
   No one is elected senator on either of the first two ballots
   unless he receives: (1) an absolute majority of the votes
   cast; and (2) a number of votes equal to one-fourth of the
   total number of electors registered. On the third ballot a
   plurality is sufficient, and, in case of an equality of votes,
   the oldest is elected.

ARTICLE 16.
   Political meetings for the nomination of senators may take
   place conformably to the rules laid down by the law of June 6,
   1868 subject to the following conditions:

[Footnote: France is divided Into twenty-six judicial districts, in each of which there is a cour d'appel. There are similar courts in Algeria and the colonies. The Cour de Cassation is the supreme court of appeal for all France, Algeria and the colonies.]

I. These meetings may be held from the date of the election of delegates up to the day of the election [of senators] inclusive;

II. They must be preceded by a declaration made, at latest, the evening before, by seven senatorial electors of the arrondissement, and indicating the place, the day and the hour the meeting is to take place, and the names, occupation and residence of the candidates to be presented;

III. The municipal authorities will see to it that no one is admitted to the meeting unless he is a deputy, general councilor, arrondissement councilor, delegate or candidate. The delegate will present, as a means of identification, a certificate from the Mayor of his commune, the candidate a certificate from the official who shall have received the declaration mentioned in the preceding paragraph.

ARTICLE 17.
   Delegates who take part in all the ballotings shall, if they
   demand it, receive from the State, upon the presentation of
   their letter of summons, countersigned by the President of the
   electoral college, a remuneration for traveling expenses,
   which shall be paid to them upon the same basis and in the
   same manner as that given to jurors by Articles 35, 90 and
   following, of the decree of June 18, 1811. A public
   administrative regulation shall determine the method of fixing
   the amount and the method of payment of this remuneration.

ARTICLE 18.
   Every delegate who, without lawful reason, shall not take part
   in all the ballotings, or, having been hindered, shall not
   have given notice to the alternate in sufficient season,
   shall, upon the demand of the public prosecutor, be punished
   by a fine of fifty francs by the civil tribunal of the
   capital.

   [Footnote: Of the department.] The same penalty may be
   imposed upon the alternate who, after having been notified by
   letter, telegram, or notice personally delivered in due
   season, shall not have taken part in the election.

ARTICLE 19.
   Every attempt at corruption by the employment of means
   enumerated in Articles 177 and following, of the Penal Code,
   to influence the vote of an elector, or to keep him from
   voting, shall be punished by imprisonment of from three months
   to two years, and a fine of from fifty to five hundred francs,
   or by one of these two penalties alone. Article 463 of the
   Penal Code shall apply to the penalties imposed by the present
   article.

ARTICLE 20.
   It is incompatible for a senator to be:
   I. Councilor of State, Maitre de Requêtes, Prefect or
   Sub-Prefect, except Prefect of the Seine and Prefect of
   Police;
   II. Member of the courts of appeal ("appel, ") or of the
   tribunals of first instance, except public prosecutor at the
   court of Paris;

III. General Paymaster, Special Receiver, official or employé
of the central administration of the ministries.

ARTICLE 21.
   The following shall not be elected by the department or the
   colony included wholly or partially in their jurisdiction,
   during the exercise of their duties and during the six months
   following the cessation of their duties by resignation,
   dismissal, change of residence, or other cause:

I. The First Presidents, Presidents, and members of the courts
of appeal ("appel");

II. The Presidents, Vice-Presidents, Examining Magistrates,
and members of the tribunals of first instance;

   III. The Prefect of Police; Prefects and Sub-Prefects, and
   Prefectorial General Secretaries; the Governors, Directors of
   the Interior, and General Secretaries of the Colonies;

XI. The Supervisors of Direct and Indirect Taxes, of
Registration of Lands and of Posts;

ARTICLE 22.
   A senator elected in several departments, must let his choice
   be known to the President of the senate within ten days
   following the verification of the elections. If a choice is
   not made in this time, the question is settled by lot in open
   session. The vacancy shall be filled within one month and by
   the same electoral body. The same holds true in case of an
   invalidated election.

ARTICLE 23.
   If by death or resignation the number of senators of a
   department is reduced by one·half, the vacancies shall be
   filled within the space of three months, unless the vacancies
   occur within the twelve months preceding the triennial
   elections. At the time fixed for the triennial elections, all
   vacancies shall be filled which have occurred, whatever their
   number and date.

[ARTICLE 24.
   The election of senators chosen by the National Assembly takes
   place in public sitting, by "scrutin de liste," and by an
   absolute majority of votes, whatever the number of ballotings.]

[ARTICLE 25.
   When it is necessary to elect successors of senators chosen by
   virtue of Article 7 of the law of February 24, 1875, the
   Senate proceeds in the manner indicated in the preceding
   article].

ARTICLE 26.
   Members of the Senate receive the same salary as members of
   the Chamber of Deputies.
   [Footnote: See Article 17, law of November 30, 1875, infra. ]

ARTICLE 27.
   There are applicable to elections to the Senate all the
   provisions of the electoral law relating:
   I. to cases of unworthiness and incapacity;
   II. to offences, prosecutions, and penalties;
   III. to election proceedings, in all respects not contrary to
   the provisions of the present law.

ARTICLE 28.
   For the first election of members of the Senate, the law which
   shall determine the date of the dissolution of the National
   Assembly shall fix, without regard to the intervals
   established by Article 1, the date on which the municipal
   councils shall meet for the election of delegates and the day
   for the election of Senators. Before the meeting of the
   municipal councils, the National Assembly shall proceed to the
   election of those Senators whom it is to choose.

ARTICLE 29.
   The provisions of Article 21, by which an interval of six
   months must elapse between the cessation of duties and
   election, shall not apply to officials, except Prefects and
   Sub-Prefects, whose duties shall have ceased either before the
   promulgation of the present law or within twenty days
   following.

[Footnote: See infra, the laws of June 10, 1885, and
February 13, 1889, amending the electoral law. ]

ARTICLE 1.
   The deputies shall be chosen by the voters registered:
   I. upon the lists drawn up in accordance with the law of July 7, 1874;
   II. upon the supplementary list including those who have lived
   in the commune six months. Registration upon the supplementary
   list shall take place conformably to the laws and regulations
   now governing the political electoral lists, by the committees
   and according to the forms established by Articles 1, 2 and 3
   of the law of July 7, 1874. Appeals relating to the formation
   and revision of either list shall be carried directly before
   the Civil Chamber of the Court of Appeal ("Cassation"). The
   electoral lists drawn up March 31, 1875, shall serve until
   March 31, 1876.

ARTICLE 2.
   The soldiers of all ranks and grades, of both the land and
   naval forces, shall not vote when they are with their
   regiment, at their post or on duty. Those who, on election
   day, are in private residence, in non-activity or in
   possession of a regular leave of absence, may vote in the
   commune on the lists of which they are duly registered. This
   last provision applies equally to officers on the unattached
   list or on the reserve list.

ARTICLE 3.
   During the electoral period, circulars and platforms
   ("professions de foi") signed by the candidates, placards and
   manifestoes signed by one or more voters, may, after being
   deposited with the public prosecutor, be posted and
   distributed without previous authorization. The distribution
   of ballots is not subjected to this deposit.

[Footnote: See, however, a law of December 20, 1878, by which
deposit is made necessary.]

Every public or municipal official is forbidden to distribute ballots, platforms and circulars of candidates. The provisions of Article 19 of the organic law of August 2, 1875, on the elections of Senators, shall apply to the elections of deputies.

ARTICLE 4.
   Balloting shall continue one day only. The voting occurs at
   the chief place of the commune; each commune may nevertheless
   be divided, by order of the Prefect, into as many sections as
   may be demanded by local circumstances and the number of
   voters. The second ballot shall take place the second Sunday
   following the announcement of the first ballot, according to
   the provisions of Article 65, of the law of March 15, 1849.

ARTICLE 5.
   The method of voting shall be according to the provisions of
   the organic and regulating decrees of February 2, 1852. The
   ballot is secret. The voting lists used at the elections in
   each section, signed by the President and Secretary, shall
   remain deposited for eight days at the Secretary's office at
   the town hall, where they shall be communicated to every voter
   requesting them.

ARTICLE 6.
Every voter is eligible, without any tax qualification, at the
age of twenty-five years.

ARTICLE 7.
   No soldier or sailor forming part of the active forces of land
   or sea may, whatever his rank or position, be elected a member
   of the Chamber of Deputies. This provision applies to soldiers
   and sailors on the unattached list or in non-activity, but
   does not extend to officers of the second section of the list
   of the general staff, nor to those who, kept in the first
   section for having been commander-in-chief in the field, have
   ceased to be employed actively, nor to officers who, having
   privileges acquired on the retired list, are sent to or
   maintained at their homes while awaiting the settlement of
   their pension. The decision by which the officer shall have
   been permitted to establish his rights on the retired list
   shall become, in this case, irrevocable. The rule laid down in
   the first paragraph of the present Article shall not apply to
   the reserve of the active army nor to the territorial army.

ARTICLE 8.
   The exercise of public duties paid out of the treasury of the
   State is incompatible with the office of deputy. Consequently
   every official elected deputy shall be superseded in his
   duties if, within the eight days following the verification of
   powers, he has not signified that he does not accept the
   office of deputy. There are excepted from the preceding
   provisions the duties of Minister, Under Secretary of State,
   Ambassador, Minister Plenipotentiary, Prefect of the Seine,
   Prefect of Police, First President of the Court of Appeal
   ("cassation,") First President of the Court of Accounts, First
   President of the Court of Appeal ("appel") of Paris, Attorney
   General at the Court of Appeal ("cassation,") Attorney General
   at the Court of Accounts, Attorney General at the Court of
   Appeal ("appel") of Paris, Archbishop and Bishop, Consistorial
   Presiding Pastor in consistorial districts whose capital has
   two or more pastors, Chief Rabbi of the Central consistory,
   Chief Rabbi of the Consistory of Paris.

ARTICLE 9.
   There are also excepted from the provisions of Article 8:
   I. titular professors of chairs which are filled by
   competition or upon the nomination of the bodies where the
   vacancy occurs;
   II. persons who have been charged with a temporary mission.
   All missions continuing more than six months cease to be
   temporary and are governed by Article 8 above.

ARTICLE 10.
   The official preserves the rights which he has acquired to a
   retiring pension, and may, after the expiration of his term of
   office, be restored to active service. The civil official who,
   having had twenty years of service at the date of the
   acceptance of the office of deputy, and shall be fifty years
   of age at the time of the expiration of this term of office,
   may establish his rights to an exceptional retiring pension.
   This pension shall be regulated according to the third
   Paragraph of Article 12 of the law of June 9, 1853. If the
   official is restored to active service after the expiration of
   his term of office, the provisions of Article 3, Paragraph 2,
   and Article 28 of the law of June 9, 1853, shall apply to him.
   In duties where the rank is distinct from the employment, the
   official, by the acceptance of the office of deputy, loses the
   employment and preserves the rank only.

ARTICLE 11.
   Every deputy appointed or promoted to a salaried public
   position ceases to belong to the Chamber by the very fact of
   his acceptance; but he may be re-elected, if the office which
   he occupies is compactible with the office of deputy. Deputies
   who become Ministers or Under-Secretaries of State are not
   subjected to a re-election.

ARTICLE 12.
   There shall not be elected by the arrondissement or the colony
   included wholly or partially in their jurisdiction, during the
   exercise of their duties or for six months following the
   expiration of their duties due to resignation, dismissal,
   change of residence, or any other cause:
   I. The First-Presidents, Presidents, and members of the Courts
   of Appeal ("appel");
   II. The Presidents, Vice-Presidents, Titular Judges, Examining
   Magistrates, and members of the tribunals of first instance;
   III. The Prefect of Police; the Prefects and General
   Secretaries of the Prefectures; the Governors, Directors of
   the Interior, and General Secretaries of the Colonies;
   IV. The Chief Arrondissement Engineers and Chief
   Arrondissement Road-Surveyors;
   V. The School Rectors and Inspectors;
   VI. The Primary School Inspectors;
   VII. The Archbishops, Bishops, and Vicars General;
   VIII. The General Paymasters and Special Receivers of Money;
   IX. The Supervisors of Direct and Indirect Taxes, of
   Registration of Lands, and of Posts;
   X. The Guardians and Inspectors of Forests. The Sub-Prefects
   shall not be elected in any of the arrondissements of the
   department where they perform their duties.

ARTICLE 14.
   Members of the Chamber of Deputies are elected by single
   districts. Each administrative arrondissement shall elect one
   deputy. Arrondissements having more than 100,000 inhabitants
   shall elect one deputy in addition for every additional
   100,000 inhabitants or fraction of 100,000. Arrondissements of
   this kind shall be divided into districts whose boundaries
   shall be established by law and may be changed only by law.

ARTICLE 15.
Deputies shall be chosen for four years. The Chamber is
renewable integrally.

ARTICLE 16.
   In ease of vacancy by death, resignation, or otherwise, a new
   election shall be held within three months of the date when
   the vacancy occurred. In case of option, the vacancy shall be
   filled within one month.

ARTICLE 17.
   The deputies shall receive a salary. This salary is regulated
   by Articles 96 and 97 of the law of March 15, 1849, and by the
   provisions of the law of February 16, 1872.

ARTICLE 18.
   No one is elected on the first ballot unless he receives: (1)
   an absolute majority of the votes cast; (2) a number of votes
   equal to one-fourth of the number of voters registered. On the
   second ballot a plurality is sufficient. In case of an equality
   of votes, the oldest is declared elected.

ARTICLE 20.
   The voters living in Algeria in a place not yet made a
   commune, shall be registered on the electoral list of the
   nearest commune. When it is necessary to establish electoral
   districts, either for the purpose of grouping mixed communes
   in each of which the number of voters shall be insufficient,
   or to bring together voters living in places not formed into
   communes the decrees for fixing the seat of these districts
   shall be issued by the Governor-General, upon the report of
   the Prefect or of the General commanding the division.

ARTICLE 21.
   The four colonies to which senators have been assigned by the
   law of February 24, 1875, on the organization of the Senate,
   shall choose one deputy each.

ARTICLE 22.
   Every violation of the prohibitive provisions of Article 3,
   Paragraph 3, of the present law shall be punished by a fine of
   from sixteen francs to three hundred francs. Nevertheless the
   criminal courts may apply Article 463 of the Penal Code. The
   provisions of Article 6 of the law of July 7, 1874, shall
   apply to the political electoral lists. The decree of January
   29, 1871, and the laws of April 10, 1871, May 2, 1871, and
   February 18, 1873, are repealed. Paragraph 11 of Article 15 of
   the organic decree of February 2, 1852, is also repealed, in
   so far as it refers to the law of May 21, 1836, on lotteries,
   reserving, however, to the courts the right to apply to
   convicted persons Article 42 of the Penal Code. The provisions
   of the laws and decrees now in force, with which the present
   law does not conflict, shall continue to be applied.

ARTICLE 23.
   The provision of Article 12 of the present law by which an
   interval of six months must elapse between the expiration of
   duties and election, shall not apply to officials, except
   Prefects and Sub-Prefects, whose duties shall have ceased
   either before the promulgation of the present law or within
   the twenty days following it.

CONSTITUTION OF FRANCE: 1879.
Law Relating to the Seat of the Executive Power and of the
Chambers at Paris. July 22.

ARTICLE 2.
   The Palace of the Luxemburg and the Palais-Bourbon are
   assigned, the first to the use of the Senate, the second to
   that of the Chamber of Deputies. Nevertheless each of the
   Chambers is authorized to choose, in the city of Paris, the
   palace which it wishes to occupy.

ARTICLE 3.
   The various parts of the palace of Versailles now occupied by
   the Senate and Chamber of Deputies preserve their
   arrangements. Whenever, according to Articles 7 and 8 of the
   law of February 25, 1875, on the organization of the public
   powers, a meeting of the National Assembly takes place, it
   shall sit at Versailles, in the present hall of the Chamber of
   Deputies. Whenever, according to Article 9 of the law of
   February 24, 1875, on the organization of the Senate, and
   Article 12 of the constitutional law of July 16, 1875, on the
   relations of the public powers, the Senate shall be called
   upon to constitute itself a Court of Justice, it shall
   indicate the town and place where it proposes to sit.

ARTICLE 4.
The Senate and Chamber of Deputies will sit at Paris on and
after November 3 next.

ARTICLE 5.
   The Presidents of the Senate and Chamber of Deputies are
   charged with the duty of securing the external and internal
   safety of the Chambers over which they preside. To this end
   they have the right to call upon the armed force and every
   authority whose assistance they judge necessary. The demands
   may be addressed directly to all officers, commanders, or
   officials, who are bound to obey immediately, under the
   penalties established by the laws. The Presidents of the
   Senate and Chamber of Deputies may delegate to the questors or
   to one of them their right of demanding aid.

ARTICLE 6.
   Petitions to either of the Chambers can be made and presented
   in writing only. It is forbidden to present them in person or
   at the bar.

ARTICLE 7.
   Every violation of the preceding article, every provocation,
   by speeches uttered publicly, or by writings, or printed
   matter, posted or distributed, to a crowd upon the public
   ways, having for an object the discussion, drawing up, or
   carrying to the Chambers or either of them, of petitions,
   declarations, or addresses—whether or not any results follow
   such action—shall be punished by the penalties enumerated in
   Paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the law of June 7, 1848.

ARTICLE 8.
The preceding provisions do not diminish the force of the law
of June 7, 1848, on riotous assemblies.

ARTICLE 9.
Article 463 of the Penal Code applies to the offences
mentioned in the present law.

CONSTITUTION OF FRANCE: 1884.
Law Amending the Organic Laws on the Organization of the
Senate and the Elections of Senators. December 9.

ARTICLE 1.
   The Senate consists of three hundred members, elected by the
   departments and the colonies. The present members, without any
   distinction between senators elected by the National Assembly
   or the Senate and those elected by the departments and
   colonies, maintain their term of office during the time for
   which they have been chosen.

ARTICLE 2.
   The department of the Seine elects ten senators. The
   department of the Nord elects eight senators. The following
   departments elect five senators each: Côtes-du-Nord,
   Finistère, Gironde. Ille-et-Vilaine, Loire, Loire-Inférieure,
   Pas-de-Calais, Rhône, Saône-et-Loire, Seine-Inférieure. The
   following departments elect four senators each: Aisne,
   Bouches-du-Rhône, Charente-Inférieure, Dordogne,
   Haute-Garonne, Isère, Maine-et-Loire, Manche, Morbihan,
   Puy-de-Dome, Seine-et-Oise, Somme. The following departments
   elect three senators each: Ain, Allier, Ardèche, Ardennes,
   Aube, Aude, Aveyron, Calvados, Charente, Cher, Corrèze, Corse,
   Côte·d'Or, Creuse, Doubs, Drôme, Eure, Eure-et-Loir, Gard,
   Gers, Hérault, Indre, Indre-et-Loire, Jura, Landes,
   Loir-et-Cher, Haute-Loire, Loiret, Lot, Lot-et-Garonne, Marne,
   Haute-Marne, Mayenne, Meurthe-et-Moselle, Meuse, Nièvre, Oise,
   Orne, Basses-Pyréneées, Haute-Saône, Sarthe, Savoie,
   Haute-Savoie, Seine-et-Marne, Deux-Sèvres, Tarn, Var, Vendée,
   Vienne, Haute-Vienne, Vosges, Yonne. The following departments
   elect two senators each: Basses-Alpes, Hautes-Alpes,
   Alpes-Maritimes, Ariège, Cantal, Lozère, Hautes-Pyrénées,
   Pyrénées-Orientales, Tarn-et-Garonne, Vancluse. The following
   elect one senator each: the Territory of Belfort, the three
   departments of Algeria, the four colonies: Martinique,
   Guadeloupe, Réunion and French Indies.

ARTICLE 3.
   In the departments where the number of senators is increased
   by the present law, the increase shall take effect as
   vacancies occur among the life senators. To this end, within
   eight days after the vacancy occurs, it shall be determined by
   lot what department shall be called upon to elect a senator.
   This election shall take place within three months of the
   determination by lot. Furthermore, if the vacancy occurs
   within six months preceding the triennial election, the
   vacancy shall be filled at that election. The term of office
   in this case shall expire at the same time as that of the
   other senators belonging to the same department.

ARTICLE 4.
   No one shall be a senator unless he is a French citizen, forty
   years of age, at least, and enjoying civil and political
   rights. Members of families that have reigned in France are
   ineligible to the Senate.

ARTICLE 5.
   The soldiers of the land and naval forces cannot be elected
   senators. There are excepted from this provision:
   I. The Marshals and Admirals of France;
   II. The general officers maintained without limit of age in
   the first section of the list of the general staff and not
   provided with a command;
   III. The general officers placed in the second section of the
   list of the general staff;
   IV. Soldiers of the land and naval forces who belong either to
   the reserve of the active army or to the territorial army.

ARTICLE 6.
   Senators are elected by "scrutin de liste," by a college
   meeting at the capital of the department or colony, and
   composed:
   (1) of the Deputies;
   (2) of the General Councilors;
   (3) of the Arrondissement Councilors;
   (4) of delegates elected from among the voters of the commune,
   by each Municipal Council.

Councils composed of ten members shall elect one delegate. Councils composed of twelve members shall elect two delegates. Councils composed of sixteen members shall elect three delegates. Councils composed of twenty-one members shall elect six delegates. Councils composed of twenty-three members shall elect nine delegates. Councils composed of twenty-seven members shall elect twelve delegates. Councils composed of thirty members shall elect fifteen delegates. Councils composed of thirty-two members shall elect eighteen delegates. Councils composed of thirty-four members shall elect twenty-one delegates. Councils composed of thirty-six members or more shall elect twenty-four delegates. The Municipal Council of Paris shall elect thirty delegates. In the French Indies the members of the local councils take the place of Arrondissement Councilors. The Municipal Council of Pondichéry shall elect five delegates. The Municipal Council of Karikal shall elect three delegates. All the other communes shall elect two delegates each. The balloting takes place at the capital of each district.

ARTICLE 7.
   Members of the Senate are elected for nine years. The Senate
   is renewed every three years according to the order of the
   present series of departments and colonies.

ARTICLE 8.
   Articles 2 (paragraphs 1 and 2), 3, 4, 5, 8, 14, 16, 19 and 23
   of the organic law of August 2, 1875, on the Elections of
   Senators are amended as follows:

"Article 2 (paragraphs 1 and 2). In each Municipal Council the election of delegates takes place without debate and by secret ballot, by "scrutin de liste" and by an absolute majority of votes cast. After two ballots a plurality is sufficient, and in case of an equality of votes the oldest is elected. The procedure and method is the same for the election of alternates. Councils having one, two, or three delegates to choose shall elect one alternate. Those choosing six or nine delegates elect two alternates. Those choosing twelve or fifteen delegates elect three alternates. Those choosing eighteen or twenty-one delegates elect four alternates. Those choosing twenty-four delegates elect five alternates. The Municipal Council of Paris elects eight alternates; The alternates take the place of delegates in case of refusal or inability to serve, in the order determined by the number of votes received by each of them.

   Article 3.
   In communes where the duties of a Municipal Council are
   performed by a special delegation organized by virtue of
   Article 44 of' the law of April 5, 1884, the senatorial
   delegates and alternates shall be chosen by the old council.

   Article 4.
   If the delegates were not present at the election, notice is
   given them by the Mayor within twenty-four hours. They must
   within five days notify the Prefect of their acceptance. In
   case of declination or silence they shall be replaced by the
   alternates, who are then placed upon the list as the delegates
   of the commune.

   Article 5.
   The official report of the election of delegates and
   alternates is transmitted at once to the Prefect. It indicates
   the acceptance or declination of the delegates and alternates,
   as well as the protests made by one or more members of the
   Municipal Council against the legality of the election. A copy
   of this official report is posted on the door of the town
   hall.

   Article 8.
   Protests concerning the election of delegates or alternates
   are decided, subject to an appeal to the Council of State, by
   the Council of the Prefecture, and, in the colonies, by the
   Privy Council. Delegates whose election is set aside because
   they do not satisfy the conditions demanded by law, or because
   of informality, are replaced by the alternates. In case the
   election of a delegate and of an alternate is rendered void,
   as by the refusal or death of both after their acceptance, new
   elections are held by the Municipal Council on a day fixed by
   decree of the Prefect.

   Article 14.
   The first ballot begins at eight o'clock in the morning and
   closes at noon. The second begins at two o'clock and closes at
   four o'clock. The third begins at seven o'clock and closes at
   ten o'clock. The results of the ballotings are determined by
   the bureau and announced immediately by the President of the
   electoral college.

   Article 16.
   Political meetings for the nomination of senators may be held
   from the date of the promulgation of the decree summoning the
   electors up to the day of the election inclusive. The
   declaration prescribed by Article 2 of the law of June 30,
   1881, shall be made by two voters, at least. The forms and
   regulations of this Article, as well as those of Article 3,
   shall be observed. The members of Parliament elected or
   electors in the department, the senatorial electors, delegates
   and alternates, and the candidates, or their representatives,
   may alone be present at these meetings. The municipal
   authorities will see to it that no other person is admitted.
   Delegates and alternates shall present as a means of
   identification a certificate from the Mayor of the commune;
   candidates or their representatives a certificate from the
   official who shall have received the declaration mentioned in
   Paragraph 2.

   Article 19.
   Every attempt at corruption or constraint by the employment of
   means enumerated in Articles 177 and following of the Penal
   Code, to influence the vote of an elector or to keep him from
   voting, shall be punished by imprisonment of from three months
   to two years, and by a fine of from fifty francs to five
   hundred francs, or by one of these penalties alone. Article
   463 of the Penal Code is applicable to the penalties provided
   for by the present article.

   Article 23.
   Vacancies caused by the death or resignation of senators shall
   be filled within three months; moreover, if the vacancy occurs
   within the six months preceding the triennial elections, it
   shall be filled at those elections."

ARTICLE 9.
   There are repealed:
   (1) Articles 1 to 7 of the law of February 24, 1875, on the
   organization of the Senate;
   (2) Articles 24 and 25 of the law of August 2, 1875, on the
   elections of senators.

In case a special law on parliamentary incompatibilities shall not have been passed at the date of the next senatorial elections, Article 8, of the law of November 30, 1875, shall apply to those elections. Every official affected by this provision, who has had twenty years of service and is fifty years of age at the date of his acceptance of the office [of senator], may establish his right to a proportional retiring pension, which shall be governed by the third paragraph of Article 12, of the law of June 9, 1853.

[Footnote: Articles 1, 2 and 3 repealed
by the law of February 13 1889, infra.]

[ARTICLE 1.
The members of the Chamber of Deputies are elected by "scrutin
de liste."]

[ARTICLE 2.
   Each department elects the number
   of deputies assigned to it in the table
   (Footnote: This table may be found in the Bulletin des Lois,
   twelfth series, No. 15,518; and in the Journal Officiel for
   June 17, 1885, page 3074.)
   annexed to the present law, on the basis of one deputy for
   seventy thousand inhabitants, foreign residents not included.
   Account shall be taken, nevertheless, of every fraction
   smaller than seventy thousand.
   (Footnote: i. e., fractions of less than 70,000 are entitled
   to a deputy.)
   Each department elects at least three deputies. Two deputies
   are assigned to the territory of Belfort, six to Algeria, and
   ten to the colonies, as is indicated by the table. This table
   can be changed by law only.]

ARTICLE 4.
Members of families that have reigned in France are ineligible
to the Chamber of Deputies.

ARTICLE 5.
   No one is elected on the first ballot unless he receives: (1)
   an absolute majority of the votes cast; (2) a number of votes
   equal to one-fourth of the total number of voters registered.
   On the second ballot a plurality is sufficient. In case of an
   equality of votes, the oldest of the candidates is declared
   elected.

ARTICLE 6.
   Subject to the case of a dissolution foreseen and regulated by
   the Constitution, the general elections take place within
   sixty days preceding the expiration of the powers of the
   Chamber of Deputies.

ARTICLE 7.
Vacancies shall not be filled which occur in the six months
preceding the renewal of the Chamber.

CONSTITUTION OF FRANCE: 1887.
Law on Parliamentary Incompatibilities. December 26.

Until the passage of a special law on parliamentary incompatibilities, Articles 8 and 9 of the law of November 30, 1875, shall apply to senatorial elections. Every official affected by this provision who has had twenty years of service and is fifty years of age at the time of his acceptance of the office [of senator]. may establish his rights to a proportional retiring pension, which shall be governed by the third paragraph of Article 12 of the law of June 9, 1853.

CONSTITUTION OF FRANCE: 1889.
Law Re-establishing Single Districts for the Election of
Deputies. February 13.

ARTICLE 2.
   Members of the Chamber of Deputies are elected by single
   districts. Each administrative arrondissement in the
   departments, and each municipal arrondissement at Paris and at
   Lyons, elects one deputy. Arrondissements whose population
   exceeds one hundred thousand inhabitants elect an additional
   deputy for every one hundred thousand or fraction of one
   hundred thousand inhabitants. The arrondissements are in this
   case divided into districts, a table of which is annexed to
   the present law and can be changed by a law only.

   [Footnote: This table may be found in the Journal
   Officiel for February 14, 1889. pages 76 and following; and
   in the Bulletin des Lois, twelfth series, No. 20,475.]

ARTICLE 3.
   One deputy is assigned to the territory of Belfort, six to
   Algeria, and ten to the colonies, as is indicated by the
   table.

ARTICLE 4.
   On and after the promulgation of the present law, until the
   renewal of the Chamber of Deputies, vacancies occurring in the
   Chamber of Deputies shall not be filled.

ARTICLE 2.
   Every citizen who offers himself or is offered at the general
   or partial elections must, by a declaration signed or
   countersigned by himself, and duly legalized, make known in
   what district he means to be a candidate. This declaration is
   deposited, and a provisional receipt obtained therefor, at the
   Prefecture of the department concerned, the fifth day, at
   latest, before the day of election. A definitive receipt shall
   be delivered within twenty-four hours.

ARTICLE 3.
   Every declaration made in violation of Article 1 of the
   present law is void and not to be received. If declarations
   are deposited by the same citizen in more than one district,
   the earliest in date is alone valid. If they bear the same
   date, all are void.

ARTICLE 4.
   It is forbidden to sign or post placards, to carry or
   distribute ballots, circulars, or platforms in the interest of
   a candidate who has not conformed to the requirements of the
   present law.

ARTICLE 5.
   Ballots bearing the name of a citizen whose candidacy is put
   forward in violation of the present law shall not be included
   in the return of votes. Posters, placards, platforms, and
   ballots posted or distributed to support a candidacy in a
   district where such candidacy is contrary to the law, shall be
   removed or seized.

ARTICLE 6.
   A fine of ten thousand francs shall be imposed on the
   candidate violating the provisions of the present law, and one
   of five thousand francs on all persons acting in violation of
   Article 4 of the present law.

CONSTITUTION OF GERMANY.

CONSTITUTION OF GERMANY: 13th-17th Centuries.
The Old (Holy Roman) Empire.
The Golden Bull.

On the 18th day of January, 1871, at Versailles, King William of Prussia assumed the title of German Emperor. On the 16th of April following the Emperor issued a proclamation, by and with the consent of the Council of the German Confederation, and of the Imperial Diet, decreeing the adoption of a constitution for the Empire.

The following is a translation of the text of the Constitution, as transmitted by the American Minister at Berlin to his Government:

His Majesty the King of Prussia, in the name of the North German Union, His Majesty the King of Bavaria, His Majesty the King of Würtemberg, His Royal Highness the Grand Duke of Baden, and His Royal Highness the Grand Duke of Hesse, and by Rhine for those parts of the Grand Duchy of Hesse which are situated south of the Main, conclude an eternal alliance for the protection of the territory of the confederation, and of the laws of the same, as well as for the promotion of the welfare of the German people. This confederation shall bear the name of the German Empire, and shall have the following constitution.

Article I.
   The territory of the confederation shall consist of the States
   of Prussia, with Lauenburg, Bavaria, Saxony, Würtemberg,
   Baden, Hesse, Mecklenburg-Schwerin, Saxe-Weimar,
   Mecklenburg-Strelitz, Oldenburg, Brunswick, Saxe-Meiningen,
   Saxe-Altenburg, Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, Anhalt,
   Schwarzburg-Rudolstadt, Schwarzburg-Sondershnusen, Waldeck,
   Reuss of the elder branch, Reuss of the younger branch,
   Schaumburg-Lippe, Lippe, Lubeck, Bremen, and Hamburg.

Article 2.
   Within this territory the Empire shall have the right of
   legislation according to the provisions of this constitution,
   and the laws of the Empire shall take precedence of those of
   each individual state. The laws of the Empire shall be
   rendered binding by imperial proclamation, such proclamation
   to be published in a journal devoted to the publication of the
   laws of the Empire, (Reichsgesetzblatt.) If no other period
   shall be designated in the published law for it to take
   effect, it shall take effect on the fourteenth day after the
   day of its publication in the law-journal at Berlin.

Article 3.
   There is one citizenship for all Germany, and the citizens or
   subjects of each state of the federation shall be treated in
   every other state thereof as natives, and shall have the right
   of becoming permanent residents, of carrying on business, of
   filling public offices, and may acquire all civil rights on
   the same conditions as those born in the state, and shall also
   have the same usage as regards civil prosecutions and the
   protection of the laws. No German shall be limited, in the
   exercise of this privilege, by the authorities of his native
   state, or by the authorities of any other state of the
   confederation. The regulations governing the care of paupers,
   and their admission into the various parishes, are not
   affected by the principle enunciated in the first paragraph.
   In like manner those treaties shall remain in force which have
   been concluded between the various states of the federation in
   relation to the custody of persons who are to be banished, the
   care of sick, and the burial of deceased citizens. With regard
   to the rendering of military service to the various states,
   the necessary laws will be passed hereafter. All Germans in
   foreign countries shall have equal claims upon the protection
   of the Empire.

Article 4.
The following matters shall be under the supervision of the
Empire and its legislature:

1. The privilege of carrying on trade in more than one place; domestic affairs and matters relating to the settlement of natives of one state in the territory of another; the right of citizenship; the issuing and examination of passports; surveillance of foreigners and of manufactures, together with insurance business, so far as these matters are not already provided for by article 3 of this constitution, (in Bavaria, however, exclusive of domestic affairs and matters relating to the settlement of natives of one state in the territory of another;) and likewise matters relating to colonization and emigration to foreign countries.

2. Legislation concerning customs duties and commerce, and such imposts as are to be applied to the uses of the Empire.

3. Regulation of weights and measures of the coinage, together with the emission of funded and unfunded paper money.

7. The organization of a general system of protection for German trade in foreign countries; of German navigation, and of the German flag on the high seas; likewise the organization of a general consular representation of the Empire.

8. Railway matters, (subject in Bavaria to the provisions of article 46,) and the construction of means of communication by land and water for the purposes of home defense and of general commerce.

9. Rafting and navigation upon those waters which are common to several States, and the condition of such waters, as likewise river and other water dues.

10. Postal and telegraphic affairs; but in Bavaria and Hungary these shall be subject to the provisions of article 52.

11. Regulations concerning the execution of judicial sentences in civil matters, and the fulfillment of requisitions in general.

13. General legislation regarding the law of obligations, criminal law, commercial law, and the law of exchange; likewise judicial proceedings.

Article 5.
   The legislative power of the Empire shall be exercised by the
   federal council and the diet. A majority of the votes of both
   houses shall be necessary and sufficient for the passage of a
   law. When a law is proposed in relation to the army or navy,
   or to the imposts specified in article 35, the vote of the
   presiding officer shall decide; in case of a difference of
   opinion in the federal council, if said vote shall be in favor
   of the retention of the existing arrangements.

Article 6.
   The federal council shall consist of the representatives of
   the states of the confederation, among whom the votes shall be
   divided in such a manner that Prussia, including the former
   votes of Hanover, the electorate of Hesse, Holstein, Nassau,
   and Frankfort shall have 17 votes; Bavaria, 6 votes; Saxony, 4
   votes; Würtemberg, 4 votes; Baden, 3 votes; Hesse, 3 votes;
   Mecklenburg-Schwerin, 2 votes; Saxe-Weimar, 1 vote;
   Mecklenburg-Strelitz, 1 vote; Oldenburg, 1 vote; Brunswick, 2
   votes; Saxe-Meiningen, 1 vote; Saxe-Altenburg, 1 vote;
   Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, 1 vote; Anhalt, 1 vote;
   Schwarzburg-Rudolstadt, 1 vote; Schwarzburg-Sondershansen, 1
   vote; Waldeck, 1 vote; Reuss, elder branch, 1 vote; Reuss,
   younger branch, 1 vote; Schaumburgh-Lippe, 1 vote; Lippe, 1
   vote; Lubeck, 1 vote; Bremen, 1 vote; Hamburgh, 1 vote; total
   58 votes. Each member of the confederation shall appoint as
   many delegates to the federal council as it has votes; the
   total of the votes of each state shall, however, be cast by
   only one delegate.

Article 7.
   The federal council shall take action upon:
   1. The measures to be proposed to the diet and the resolutions
   passed by the same.
   2. The general provisions and regulations necessary for the
   execution of the laws of the Empire, so far as no other
   provision is made by said laws.
   3. The defects which may be discovered in the execution of the
   laws of the Empire, or of the provisions and regulations
   heretofore mentioned. Each member of the confederation shall
   have the right to introduce motions, and it shall be the duty
   of the presiding officer to submit them for deliberation.
   Legislative action shall take place by simple majority, with
   the exceptions of the provisions in articles 5, 37, and 78.
   Votes not represented or instructed shall not be counted. In
   the case of a tie, the vote of the presiding officer shall
   decide. When legislative action upon a subject which does not
   affect, according to the provisions of this constitution, the
   whole Empire is taken, the votes of only those states of the
   confederation shall be counted which shall be interested in
   the matter in question.

Article 8.
   The federal council shall appoint from its own members
   permanent committees:
   1. On the army and the fortifications.
   2. On naval affairs.
   3. On duties and taxes.
   4. On commerce and trade.
   5. On railroads, post offices, and telegraphs.
   6. On the judiciary.
   7. On accounts.

In each of these committees there shall be representatives of at least four states of the confederation, beside the presiding officer, and each state shall be entitled to only one vote in the same. In the committee on the army and fortifications Bavaria shall have a permanent seat; the remaining members of it, as well as the members of the committee on naval affairs, shall be appointed by the Emperor; the members of the other committees shall be elected by the federal council. These committees shall be newly formed at each session of the federal council, i. e., each year, when the retiring members shall again be eligible. Besides, there shall be appointed in the federal council a committee on foreign affairs, over which Bavaria shall preside, to be composed of the plenipotentiaries of the Kingdoms of Bavaria, Saxony, and Würtemberg, and of two plenipotentiaries of the other states of the Empire, who shall be elected annually by the federal council. Clerks shall be placed at the disposal of the committees to perform the necessary work appertaining thereto.

Article 9.
   Each member of the federal council shall have the right to
   appear in the diet, and shall be heard there at any time when
   he shall so request, to represent the views of his government,
   even when the same shall not have been adopted by the majority
   of the council. Nobody shall be at the same time a member of
   the federal council and of the diet.

Article 10.
The Emperor shall afford the customary diplomatic protection
to the members of the federal council.

Article II.
   The King of Prussia shall be the president of the
   confederation, and shall have the title of German Emperor. The
   Emperor shall represent the Empire among nations, declare war,
   and conclude peace in the name of the same, enter into
   alliances and other conventions with foreign countries,
   accredit embassadors, and receive them. For a declaration of
   war in the name of the Empire, the consent of the federal
   council shall be required, except in case of an attack upon
   the territory of the confederation or its coasts. So far as
   treaties with foreign countries refer to matters which,
   according to article 4, are to be regulated by the legislature
   of the Empire, the consent of the federal council shall be
   required for their ratification, and the approval of the diet
   shall be necessary to render them valid.

Article 12.
The Emperor shall have the right to convene the federal
council and the diet, and to open, adjourn, and close them.

Article 13.
   The convocation of the federal council and the diet shall take
   place annually, and the federal council may be called together
   for the preparation of business without the diet; the latter,
   however, shall not be convoked without the federal council.

Article 14.
The convocation of the federal council shall take place as
soon as demanded by one-third of its members.

Article 14.
   The chancellor of the Empire, who shall be appointed by the
   Emperor, shall preside in the federal council, and supervise
   the conduct of its business. The chancellor of the Empire
   shall have the right to delegate the power to represent him to
   any member of the federal council.

Article 16.
   The necessary bills shall be laid before the diet in the name
   of the Emperor, in accordance with the resolutions of the
   federal council, and they shall be represented in the diet by
   members of the federal council or by special commissioners
   appointed by said council.

Article 17.
   To the Emperor shall belong the right to prepare and publish
   the laws of the Empire. The laws and regulations of the
   Emperor shall be published in the name of the Empire, and
   require for their validity the signature of the chancellor of
   the Empire, who thereby becomes responsible for their
   execution.

Article 18.
   The Emperor shall appoint the officers of the Empire, require
   them to take the oath of allegiance, and dismiss them when
   necessary. Officials appointed to an office of the Empire from
   one of the states of the confederation shall enjoy the same
   rights to which they were entitled in their native states by
   their official position, provided no other legislative
   provision shall have been made previously to their entrance
   into the service of the Empire.

Article 19.
   If states of the confederation shall not fulfill their
   constitutional duties, proceedings may be instituted against
   them by military execution. This execution shall be ordered by
   the federal council, and enforced by the Emperor.

Article 20.
   The members of the diet shall be elected by universal
   suffrage, and by direct secret ballot. Until regulated by law,
   which is reserved by section 5 of the election law of May 31,
   1869 (Bundesgesetzblatt, 1869, section 145,) 48 delegates
   shall be elected in Bavaria, 17 in Würtemberg, 14 in Baden, 6
   in Hesse, south of the river Main, and the total number of
   delegates shall be 382.

Article 21.
   Officials shall not require a leave of absence in order to
   enter the diet. When a member of the diet accepts a salaried
   office of the Empire, or a salaried office in one of the
   states of the confederation, or accepts any office of the
   Empire, or of a state, with which a high rank or salary is
   connected, he shall forfeit his seat and vote in the diet, but
   may recover his place in the same by a new election.

Article 22.
   The proceedings of the diet shall be public. Truthful reports
   of the proceedings of the public sessions of the diet shall
   subject those making them to no responsibility.

Article 23.
   The diet shall have the right to propose laws within the
   jurisdiction of the Empire, and to refer petitions addressed
   to it to the federal council or the chancellor of the Empire.

Article 24.
   Each legislative period of the diet shall last three years.
   The diet may be dissolved by a resolution of the federal
   council, with the consent of the Emperor.

Article 25.
   In the case of a dissolution of the diet, new elections shall
   take place within a period of 60 days, and the diet shall
   reassemble within a period of 90 days after the dissolution.

Article 26.
   Unless by consent of the diet, an adjournment of that body
   shall not exceed the period of 30 days, and shall not be
   repeated during the same session, without such consent.

Article 27.
   The diet shall examine into the legality of the election of
   its members and decide thereon. It shall regulate the mode of
   transacting business, and its own discipline, by establishing
   rules therefor, and elect its president, vice-presidents, and
   secretaries.

Article 28.
   The diet shall pass laws by absolute majority. To render the
   passage of laws valid, the presence of the majority of the
   legal number of members shall be required. When passing laws
   which do not affect the whole Empire, according to the
   provisions of this constitution, the votes of only those
   members shall be counted who shall have been elected in those
   states of the confederation which the laws to be passed shall
   affect.

Article 29.
   The members of the diet shall be the representatives of the
   entire people, and shall not be subject to orders and
   instructions from their constituents.

Article 30.
   No member of the diet shall at any time suffer legal
   prosecution on account of his vote, or on account of
   utterances made while in the performance of his functions, or
   be held responsible outside of the diet for his actions.

Article 31.
   Without the consent of the diet, none of its members shall be
   tried or punished, during the session, for any offense
   committed, except when arrested in the act of committing the
   offense, or in the course of the following day. The same rule
   shall apply in the case of arrests for debt. At the request of
   the diet, all legal proceedings instituted against one of its
   members, and likewise imprisonment, shall be suspended during
   its session.

Article 32.
The members of the diet shall not be allowed to draw any
salary, or be compensated as such.

Article 33.
   Germany shall form a customs and commercial union, having a
   common frontier for the collection of duties. Such territories
   as cannot, by reason of their situation, be suitably embraced
   within the said frontier, shall be excluded. It shall be
   lawful to introduce all articles of commerce of a state of the
   confederation into any other state of the confederation,
   without paying any duty thereon, except so far as such
   articles are subject to taxation therein.

Article 34.
   The Hanseatic towns, Bremen and Hamburg, shall remain free
   ports outside of the common boundary of the customs union,
   retaining for that purpose a district of their own, or of the
   surrounding territory, until they shall request to be admitted
   into the said union.

Article 35.
   The Empire shall have the exclusive power to legislate
   concerning everything relating to the customs, the taxation of
   salt and tobacco manufactured or raised in the territory of
   the confederation; concerning the taxation of manufactured
   brandy and beer, and of sugar and sirup prepared from beets or
   other domestic productions. It shall have exclusive power to
   legislate concerning the mutual protection of taxes upon
   articles of consumption levied in the several states of the
   Empire; against embezzlement; as well as concerning the
   measures which are required, in granting exemption from the
   payment of duties, for the security of the common customs
   frontier. In Bavaria, Würtemberg, and Baden, the matter of
   imposing duties on domestic brandy and beer is reserved for
   the legislature of each country. The states of the
   confederation shall, however, endeavor to bring about uniform
   legislation regarding the taxation of these articles.

Article 36.
   The imposing of duties and excises on articles of consumption,
   and the collection of the same (article 35,) is left to each
   state of the confederation within its own territory, so far as
   this has been done by each state heretofore. The Emperor shall
   have the supervision of the institution of legal proceedings
   by officials of the empire, whom he shall designate as
   adjuncts to the custom or excise offices, and boards of
   directors of the several states, after hearing the committee
   of the Confederate Council on customs and revenues. Notices
   given by these officials as to defects in the execution of the
   laws of the Empire (article 35) shall be submitted to the
   confederate council for action.

Article 37.
   In taking action upon the rules and regulations for the
   execution of the laws of the Empire, (article 35,) the vote of
   the presiding officer shall decide, whenever he shall
   pronounce for upholding the existing rule or regulation.

Article 38.
   The amounts accruing from customs and other revenues
   designated in article 35 of the latter, so far as they are
   subject to legislation by the diet, shall go to the treasury
   of the Empire. This amount is made up of the total receipts
   from the customs and other revenues, after deducting
   therefrom:
   I. Tax compensations and reductions in conformity with
   existing laws or regulations.
   2. Reimbursements for taxes unduly imposed.
   3. The costs for collection and administration, viz.:
   a. In the department of customs, the costs which are
   required for the protection and collection of customs on the
   frontiers and in the frontier districts.
   b. In the department of the duty on salt, the costs
   which are used for the pay of the officers charged with
   collecting and controlling these duties in the salt mines.
   c. In the department of duties on beet-sugar and
   tobacco, the compensation which is to be allowed, according to
   the resolutions of the confederate council, to the several
   state governments for the costs of the collection of these
   duties.
   d. Fifteen per cent. of the total receipts in the
   departments of the other duties.

The territories situated outside of the common customs frontier shall contribute to the expenses of the Empire by paying an 'aversum,' (a sum of acquittance.) Bavaria, Würtemberg, and Baden shall not share in the revenues from duties on liquors and beer, which go into the treasury of the Empire, nor in the corresponding portion of the aforesaid 'aversum.'

Article 39.
   The quarterly statements to be regularly made by the revenue
   officers of the federal states at the end of every quarter,
   and the final settlements (to be made at the end of the year,
   and after the closing of the account-books) of the receipts
   from customs, which have become due in the course of the
   quarter, or during the fiscal year, and the revenues of the
   treasury of the Empire, according to article 38, shall be
   arranged by the boards of directors of the federal states,
   after a previous examination in general summaries in which
   every duty is to be shown separately; these summaries shall be
   transmitted to the federal committee on accounts. The latter
   provisionally fixes, every three months, taking as a basis
   these summaries, the amount due to the treasury of the Empire
   from the treasury of each state, and it shall inform the
   federal council and the federal States of this act;
   furthermore, it shall submit to the federal council, annually,
   the final statement of these amounts, with its remarks. The
   federal council shall act upon the fixing of these amounts.

Article 40.
   The terms of the customs-union treaty of July 8, 1867, remain
   in force, so far as they have not been altered by the
   provisions of this constitution, and as long as they are not
   altered in the manner designated in articles 7 and 78.

Article 41.
   Railways, which are considered necessary for the defense of
   Germany or for purposes of general commerce, may be built for
   the account of the Empire by a law of the Empire, even in
   opposition to the will of those members of the confederation
   through whose territory the railroads run, without detracting
   from the rights of the sovereign of that country; or private
   persons may be charged with their construction and receive
   rights of expropriation. Every existing railway company is
   bound to permit new railroad lines to be connected with it, at
   the expense of these latter. All laws granting existing
   railway companies the right of injunction against the building
   of parallel or competition lines are hereby abolished
   throughout the Empire, without detriment to rights already
   acquired. Such right of injunction can henceforth not be
   granted in concessions to be given hereafter.

Article 42.
   The governments of the federal states bind themselves, in the
   interest of general commerce, to have the German railways
   managed as a uniform net-work, and for this purpose to have
   the lines constructed and equipped according to a uniform
   system.

Article 43.
   Accordingly, as soon as possible, uniform arrangements as to
   management, shall be made, and especially shall uniform
   regulations be instituted for the police of the railroads. The
   Empire shall take care that the administrative officers of the
   railway lines keep the roads always in such a condition as is
   required for public security, and that they be equipped with
   the necessary rolling stock.

Article 44.
   Railway companies are bound to establish such passenger trains
   of suitable velocity as may be required for ordinary travel,
   and for the establishment of harmonizing schedules of travel;
   also, to make provision for such freight trains as may be
   necessary for commercial purposes, and to establish, without
   extra remuneration, offices for the direct forwarding of
   passengers and freight trains, to be transferred, when
   necessary, from one road to another.

Article 45.
   The Empire shall have control over the tariff of fares. The
   same shall endeavor to cause:
   1. Uniform regulations to be speedily introduced on all German
   railway lines.
   2. The tariff to be reduced and made uniform as far as
   possible, and particularly to cause a reduction of the tariff
   for the transport of coal, coke, wood, minerals, stone, salt,
   crude iron, manure, and similar articles, for long distances,
   as demanded by the interests of agriculture and industry, and
   to introduce a one-penny tariff as soon as practicable.

Article 46.
   In case of distress, especially in case of an extraordinary
   rise in the price of provisions, it shall be the duty of the
   railway companies to adopt temporarily a low special tariff,
   to be fixed by the Emperor, on motion of the competent
   committee, for the forwarding of grain, flour, vegetables, and
   potatoes. This tariff shall, however, not be less than the
   lowest rate for raw produce existing on the said line. The
   foregoing provisions, and those of articles 42 to 45, shall
   not apply to Bavaria. The imperial government has, however,
   the power, also with regard to Bavaria, to establish, by way
   of legislation, uniform rules for the construction and
   equipment of such railways as may be of importance for the
   defense of the country.

Article 47.
   The managers of all railways shall be required to obey,
   without hesitation, requisitions made by the authorities of
   the Empire for the use of their roads for the defense of
   Germany. Particularly shall the military and all material of
   war be forwarded at uniform reduced rates.

Article 48.
   The mails and telegraphs shall be organized and managed as
   state institutions throughout the German Empire. The
   legislation of the empire in regard to postal and telegraphic
   affairs, provided for in article 4, does not extend to those
   matters whose regulation is left to the managerial
   arrangement, according to the principles which have controlled
   the North German administration of mails and telegraphs.

Article 49.
   The receipts of mails and telegraphs are a joint affair
   throughout the Empire. The expenses shall be paid from the
   general receipts. The surplus goes into the treasury of the
   Empire. (Section 12.).

Article 50.
   The Emperor has the supreme supervision of the administration
   of mails and telegraphs. The authorities appointed by him are
   in duty bound and authorized to see that uniformity be
   established and maintained in the organization of the
   administration and in the transaction of business, as also in
   regard to the qualifications of employés. The Emperor shall
   have the power to make general administrative regulations, and
   also exclusively to regulate the relations which are to exist
   between the post and telegraph offices of Germany and those of
   other countries. It shall be the duty of all officers of the
   post-office and telegraph department to obey imperial orders.
   This obligation shall be included in their oath of office. The
   appointment of superior officers (such as directors,
   counselors, and superintendents,) as they shall be required
   for the administration of the mails and telegraphs, in the
   various districts; also the appointment of officers of the
   posts and telegraphs (such as inspectors or comptrollers,)
   acting for the aforesaid authorities in the several districts,
   in the capacity of supervisors, shall be made by the Emperor
   for the whole territory of the German Empire, and these
   officers shall take the oath of fealty to him as a part of
   their oath of office. The governments of the several states
   shall be informed in due time, by means of imperial
   confirmation and official publication, of the aforementioned
   appointments, so far as they may relate to their territories.
   Other officers required by the department of mails and
   telegraphs, as also all officers to be employed at the various
   stations, and for technical purposes, and hence officiating at
   the actual centers of communication, &c., shall be appointed
   by the respective governments of the states. Where there is no
   independent administration of inland mails or telegraphs, the
   terms of the various treaties are to be enforced.

Article 51.
   In assigning the surplus of the post-office department to the
   treasury of the Empire for general purposes, (article 49,) the
   following proceeding is to be observed in consideration of the
   difference which has heretofore existed in the clear receipts
   of the post-office departments of the several territories, for
   the purpose of securing a suitable equalization during the
   period of transition below named. Of the post-office surplus,
   which accumulated in the several mail districts during the
   five years from 1861 to 1865, an average yearly surplus shall
   be computed, and the share which every separate mail district
   has had in the surplus resulting therefrom for the whole
   territory of the Empire shall be fixed upon by a percentage.
   In accordance with the proportion thus made, the several
   states shall be credited on the account of their other
   contributions to the expenses of the empire with their quota
   accruing from the postal surplus in the Empire, for a period
   of eight years subsequent to their entrance into the
   post-office department of the Empire. At the end of the said
   eight years this distinction shall cease, and any surplus in
   the post-office department shall go, without division, into
   the treasury of the Empire, according to the principle
   enunciated in article 49. Of the quota of the post-office
   department surplus resulting during the aforementioned period
   of eight years in favor of the Hanseatic towns, one-half shall
   every year be placed at the disposal of the Emperor, for the
   purpose of providing for the establishment of uniform
   post-offices in the Hanseatic towns.

Article 52.
   The stipulations of the foregoing articles 48 to 51 do not
   apply to Bavaria and Würtemberg. In their stead the following
   stipulation shall be valid for these two states of the
   confederation. The Empire alone is authorized to legislate
   upon the privileges of the post-office and telegraph
   departments, on the legal position of both institutions toward
   the public, upon the franking privilege and rates of postage,
   and upon the establishment of rates for telegraphic
   correspondence into Hanseatic towns. Exclusive, however, of
   managerial arrangements, and the fixing of tariffs for
   internal communication within Bavaria and Würtemberg. In the
   same manner the Empire shall regulate postal and telegraphic
   communication with foreign countries, excepting the immediate
   communication of Bavaria and Würtemberg with their neighboring
   states, not belonging to the Empire, in regard to which
   regulation the stipulations in article 49 of the postal treaty
   of November 23, 1867, remains in force. Bavaria and Würtemberg
   shall not share in the postal and telegraphic receipts which
   belong to the treasury of the Empire.

Article 53.
   The navy of the Empire is a united one, under the supreme
   command of the Emperor. The Emperor is charged with its
   organization and arrangement, and he shall appoint the
   officers and officials of the navy, and in his name these and
   the seamen are to be sworn in. The harbor of Kiel and the
   harbor of the Iade are imperial war harbors. The expenditures
   required for the establishment and maintenance of the navy and
   the institutions connected therewith shall be defrayed from
   the treasury of the Empire. All sea-faring men of the Empire,
   including machinists and hands employed in ship-building, are
   exempt from service in the army, but obliged to serve in the
   imperial navy. The apportionment of men to supply the wants of
   the navy shall be made according to the actual sea-faring
   population, and the quota furnished in accordance herewith by
   each state shall be credited to the army account.

Article 54.
   The merchant vessels of all states of the confederation shall
   form a united commercial marine. The Empire shall determine
   the process for ascertaining the tonnage of sea-going vessels,
   shall regulate the issuing of tonnage-certificates and
   sea-letters, and shall fix the conditions to which a permit
   for commanding a sea-going vessel shall be subject. The
   merchant vessels of all the states of the confederation shall
   be admitted on an equal footing to the harbors, and to all
   natural and artificial water-courses of the several states of
   the confederation, and shall receive the same usage therein.
   The duties which shall be collected from sea-going vessels, or
   levied upon their freights, for the use of naval institutions
   in the harbors, shall not exceed the amount required for the
   maintenance and ordinary repair of these institutions. On all
   natural water-courses, duties are only to be levied for the
   use of special establishments, which serve for facilitating
   commercial intercourse. These duties, as well as the duties
   for navigating such artificial channels, which are property of
   the state, are not to exceed the amount required for the
   maintenance and ordinary repair of the institutions and
   establishments. These rules apply to rafting, so far as it is
   carried on on navigable water-courses. The levying of other or
   higher duties upon foreign vessels or their freights than
   those which are paid by the vessels of the federal states or
   their freights does not belong to the various states, but to
   the Empire.

Article 55.
The flag of the war and merchant navy shall be black, white,
and red.

Article 56.
   The Emperor shall have the supervision of all consular affairs
   of the German Empire, and he shall appoint consuls, after
   hearing the committee of the federal council on commerce and
   traffic. No new state consulates are to be established within
   the jurisdiction of the German consuls. German consuls shall
   perform the functions of state consuls for the states of the
   confederation not represented in their district. All the now
   existing state consulates shall be abolished, as soon as the
   organization of the German consulates shall be completed, in
   such a manner that the representation of the separate
   interests of all the federal states shall be recognized by the
   federal council as secured by the German consulates.

Article 57.
Every German is subject to military duty, and in the discharge
of this duty no substitute can be accepted.

Article 58.
   The costs and the burden of all the military system of the
   Empire are to be borne equally by all the federal states and
   their subjects, and no privileges or molestations to the
   several states or classes are admissible. Where an equal
   distribution of the burdens cannot be effected 'in natura'
   without prejudice to the public welfare, affairs shall be
   equalized by legislation in accordance with the principles of
   justice.

Article 59.
   Every German capable of bearing arms shall serve for seven
   years in the standing army, ordinarily from the end of his
   twentieth to the beginning of his twenty-eighth year; the
   first three years in the army of the field, the last four
   years in the reserve; during the next five years he shall
   belong to the militia. In those states of the confederation in
   which heretofore a longer term of service than twelve years
   was required by law, the gradual reduction of the required
   time of service shall take place in such a manner as is
   compatible with the interests and the war-footing of the army
   of the Empire. As regards the emigration of men belonging to
   the reserve, only those provisions shall be in force which
   apply to the emigration of members of the militia.

Article 60.
   The strength of the German army in time of peace shall be,
   until the 31st December, 1871, one per cent. of the population
   of 1867, and shall be furnished by the several federal states
   in proportion to their population. In future the strength of
   the army in time of peace shall be fixed by legislation.

Article 61.
   After the publication of this constitution the full Prussian
   military system of legislation shall be introduced without
   delay throughout the Empire, as well the statutes themselves
   as the regulations, instructions, and ordinances issued for
   their execution, explanation, or completion; thus, in
   particular, the military penal code of April 3, 1845; the
   military orders of the penal court of April 3, 1845; the
   ordinance concerning the courts of honor of July 20, 1843; the
   regulations with respect to recruiting, time of service,
   matters relating to the service and subsistence, to the
   quartering of troops, claims for damages, mobilizing, &c., for
   times of peace and war. Orders for the attendance of the
   military upon religious services is, however, excluded. When a
   uniform organization of the German army shall have been
   established, a comprehensive military law for the Empire shall
   be submitted to the diet and the federal council for their
   action in accordance with the constitution.

Article 62.
   For the purpose of defraying the expenses of the whole German
   army, and the institutions connected therewith, the sum of 225
   (two hundred and twenty-five) thalers, shall be placed at the
   disposal of the Emperor until the 31st of December, 1871, for
   each man in the army on the peace-footing, according to
   article 60. (See section 12.) After the 31st of December,
   1871, the payment of these contributions of the several states
   to the imperial treasury must be continued: The strength of
   the army in time of peace, which has been temporarily fixed in
   article 60, shall be taken as a basis for calculating these
   amounts until it shall be altered by a law of the Empire. The
   expenditure of this sum for the whole army of the Empire and
   its establishments shall be determined by a budget law. In
   determining the budget of military expenditures, the lawfully
   established organization of the imperial army, in accordance
   with this constitution, shall be taken as a basis.

Article 63.
   The total land force of the Empire shall form one army, which,
   in war and in peace, shall be under the command of the
   Emperor. The regiments, &c., throughout the whole German army
   shall bear continuous numbers. The principal colors and the
   cut of the garments of the Royal Prussian army shall serve as
   a pattern for the rest of the army. It is left to commanders
   of contingent forces to choose the external badges, cockades,
   &c. It shall be the duty and the right of the Emperor to take
   care that, throughout the German army, all divisions be kept
   full and well equipped, and that unity be established and
   maintained in regard to organization and formation, equipment,
   and command in the training of the men, as well as in the
   qualification of the officers. For this purpose the Emperor
   shall be authorized to satisfy himself at any time of the
   condition of the several contingents, and to provide remedies
   for existing defects. The Emperor shall determine the
   strength, composition, and division of the contingents of the
   imperial army, and also the organization of the militia, and
   he shall have the right to designate garrisons within the
   territory of the confederation, as also to call any portion of
   the army into active service. In order to maintain the
   necessary unity in the care, arming, and equipment of all
   troops of the German army, all orders hereafter to be issued
   for the Prussian army shall be communicated in due form to the
   commanders of the remaining contingents by the committee on
   the army and fortifications, provided for in article 8, No. 1.

Article 64.
   All German troops are bound implicitly to obey the orders of
   the Emperor. This obligation shall be included in the oath of
   allegiance. The commander-in-chief of a contingent, as well as
   all officers commanding troops of more than one contingent,
   and all commanders of fortresses, shall be appointed by the
   Emperor. The officers appointed by the Emperor shall take the
   oath of fealty to him. The appointment of generals, or of
   officers performing the duties of generals, in a contingent
   force, shall be in each case subject to the approval of the
   Emperor. The Emperor has the right with regard to the transfer
   of officers, with or without promotion, to positions which are
   to be filled in the service of the Empire, be it in the
   Prussian army or in other contingents, to select from the
   officers of all the contingents of the army of the Empire.

Article 65.
   The right to build fortresses within the territory of the
   Empire shall belong to the Emperor, who, according to section
   12, shall ask for the appropriation of the necessary means
   required for that purpose, if not already included in the
   regular appropriation.

Article 66.
   If not otherwise stipulated, the princes of the Empire and the
   senates shall appoint the officers of their respective
   contingents, subject to the restriction of article 64. They
   are the chiefs of all the troops belonging to their respective
   territories, and are entitled to the honors connected
   therewith. They shall have especially the right to hold
   inspections at any time, and receive, besides the regular
   reports and announcements of changes for publication, timely
   information of all promotions and appointments concerning
   their respective contingents. They shall also have the right
   to employ, for police purposes, not only their own troops but
   all other contingents of the army of the Empire who are
   stationed in their respective territories.

Article 67.
   The unexpended portion of the military appropriation shall,
   under no circumstances, fall to the share of a single
   government, but at all times to the treasury of the Empire.

Article 68.
   The Emperor shall have the power, if the public security of
   the Empire demands it, to declare martial law in any part
   thereof, until the publication of a law regulating the
   grounds, the form of announcement, and the effects of such a
   declaration, the provisions of the Prussian law of June 4,
   1851, shall be substituted therefor. (Laws of 1851, page 451.)

The provisions contained in this section shall go into effect in Bavaria as provided for in the treaty of alliance of November 23, 1870, ( Bundesgesetzblatt, 1871, section 9,) under III, section 5, in Würtemberg, as provided for in the military convention of November 21-25, 1870, ( Bundesgesetzblatt, 1870, section 658.)

Article 69.
   All receipts and expenditures of the Empire shall be estimated
   yearly, and included in the financial estimate. The latter
   shall be fixed by law before the beginning of the fiscal year,
   according to the following principles:

Article 70.
   The surplus of the previous year, as well as the customs
   duties, the common excise duties, and the revenues derived
   from the postal and telegraph service, shall be applied to the
   defrayal of all general expenditure. In so far as these
   expenditures are not covered by the receipts, they shall be
   raised, as long as no taxes of the Empire shall have been
   established, by assessing the several states of the Empire
   according to their population, the amount of the assessment to
   be fixed by the Chancellor of the Empire in accordance with
   the budget agreed upon.

Article 71.
   The general expenditure shall be, as a rule, granted for one
   year; they may, however, in special cases, be granted for a
   longer period. During the period of transition fixed in
   Article 60, the financial estimate, properly classified, of
   the expenditures of the army shall be laid before the federal
   council and the diet for their information.

Article 72.
      An annual report of the expenditure of all the receipts of
      the Empire shall be rendered to the federal council and the
      diet, through the Chancellor of the Empire.

Article 73.
   In cases of extraordinary requirements, a loan may be
   contracted in accordance with the laws of the Empire, such
   loan to be granted by the Empire.

Articles 69 and 71 apply to the expenditures for the Bavarian army only according to the provisions of the addition to section XI of the treaty of November 23, 1870; and article 72 only so far as is required to inform the federal council and the diet of the assignment to Bavaria of the required sum for the Bavarian army.

Article 74.
   Every attempt against the existence, the integrity, the
   security, or the constitution of the German Empire; finally,
   any offense committed against the federal council, the diet, a
   member of the federal council, or of the diet, a magistrate or
   public official of the Empire, while in the execution of his
   duty, or with reference to his official position, by word,
   writing, printing, signs, or caricatures, shall be judicially
   investigated, and upon conviction punished in the several
   states of the Empire, according to the laws therein existing,
   or which shall hereafter exist in the same, according to which
   laws a similar offense against anyone of the states of the
   Empire, its constitution, legislature, members of its
   legislature, authorities or officials is to be judged.

Article 75.
   For those offenses, specified in Article 74, against the
   German Empire, which, if committed against one of the states
   of the Empire, would be deemed high treason, the superior
   court of appeals of the three free Hanseatic towns at Lubeck
   shall be the competent deciding tribunal in the first and last
   resort. More definite provisions as to the competency and the
   proceedings of the superior court of appeals shall be adopted
   by the Legislature of the Empire. Until the passage of a law
   of the Empire, the existing competency of the courts in the
   respective states of the Empire, and the provisions relative
   to the proceedings of those courts, shall remain in force.

Article 76.
   Disputes between the different states of the confederation, so
   far as they are not of a private nature, and therefore to be
   decided by the competent authorities, shall be settled by the
   federal council, at the request of one of the parties.
   Disputes relating to constitutional matters in those of the
   states of the confederation whose constitution contains no
   provision for the settlement of such differences, shall be
   adjusted by the federal council, at the request of one of the
   parties, or, if this cannot be done, they shall be settled by
   the legislative power of the confederation.

Article 77.
   If in one of the states of the confederation justice shall be
   denied, and no sufficient relief can be procured by legal
   measures, it shall be the duty of the federal council to
   receive substantiated complaints concerning denial or
   restriction of justice, which are to be judged according to
   the constitution and the existing laws of the respective
   states of the confederation, and thereupon to obtain judicial
   relief from the confederate government in the matter which
   shall have given rise to the complaint.

Amendments of the constitution shall be made by legislative enactment. They shall be considered as rejected when 14 votes are cast against them in the federal council. The provisions of the constitution of the Empire, by which fixed rights of individual states of the confederation are established in their relation to the whole, shall only be modified with the consent of that state of the confederation which is immediately concerned.

CONSTITUTION OF JAPAN.

The following text of the Constitution of the Empire of Japan, promulgated by the Emperor, February 11, 1889, is from a pamphlet published at Johns Hopkins University on the occasion of a meeting of professors, students and guests, April 17, 1889, to celebrate its promulgation:

Having, by virtue of the glories of Our Ancestors, ascended the throne of a lineal succession unbroken for ages eternal; desiring to promote the welfare of, and to give development to the moral and intellectual faculties of Our beloved subjects, the very same that have been favoured with the benevolent care and affectionate vigilance of Our Ancestors; and hoping to maintain the prosperity of the State, in concert with Our people and with their support, We hereby promulgate, in pursuance of Our Imperial Rescript of the 14th day of the 10th month of the 14th year of Meiji, a fundamental law of State, to exhibit the principles, by which We are to be guided in Our conduct, and to point out to what Our descendants and Our subjects and their descendants are forever to conform. The rights of sovereignty of the State, We have inherited from Our Ancestors, and We shall bequeath them to Our descendants. Neither We nor they shall in future fail to wield them, in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution hereby granted. We now declare to respect and protect the security of the rights and of the property of Our people, and to secure to them the complete enjoyment of the same, within the extent of the provisions of the present Constitution and of the law. The Imperial Diet shall first be convoked for the 23d year of Meiji, and the time of its opening shall be the date, when the present Constitution comes into force. When in the future it may become necessary to amend any of the provisions of the present Constitution, We or Our successors shall assume the initiative right, and submit a project for the same to the Imperial Diet. The Imperial Diet shall pass its vote upon it, according to the conditions imposed by the present Constitution, and in no otherwise shall Our descendants or Our subjects be permitted to attempt any alteration thereof. Our Ministers of State, on Our behalf, shall be held responsible for the carrying out of the present Constitution, and Our present and future subjects shall forever assume the duty of allegiance to the present Constitution. [His Imperial Majesty's Sign-Manual.] The 11th day of the 2nd month of the 22nd year of Meiji. [Countersigned by Ministers.]

Chapter I.

Article I.
The Empire of Japan shall be reigned over and governed by a
line of Emperors unbroken for ages eternal.

Article II.
   The Imperial Throne shall be succeeded to by Imperial male
   descendants, according to the provisions of the Imperial House
   Law.

Article IV.
   The Emperor is the head of the Empire, combining in Himself
   the rights of sovereignty, and exercises them, according to
   the provisions of the present Constitution.

Article V.
The Emperor exercises the legislative power with the consent
of the Imperial Diet.

Article VI.
The Emperor gives sanction to laws, and orders them to be
promulgated and executed.

Article VII.
The Emperor convokes the Imperial Diet, opens, closes, and
prorogues it, and dissolves the House of Representatives.

Article VIII.
   The Emperor, in consequence of an urgent necessity to maintain
   public safety or to avert public calamities, issues, when the
   Imperial Diet is not sitting, Imperial Ordinances in the place
   of law. Such Imperial Ordinances are to be laid before the
   Imperial Diet at its next session, and when the Diet does not
   approve the said Ordinances, the Government shall declare them
   to be invalid for the future.

Article IX.
   The Emperor issues, or causes to be issued, the Ordinances
   necessary for the carrying out of the laws, or for the
   maintenance of the public peace and order, and for the
   promotion of the welfare of the subjects. But no Ordinance
   shall in any way alter any of the existing laws.

Article X.
   The Emperor determines the organization of the different
   branches of the administration, and the salaries of all civil
   and military officers, and appoints and dismisses the same.
   Exceptions especially provided for in the present Constitution
   or in other laws, shall be in accordance with the respective
   provisions (bearing thereon).

Article XII.
The Emperor determines the organization and peace standing of
the Army and Navy.

Article XIV.
The Emperor proclaims the law of siege. The conditions and
effects of the law of siege shall be determined by law.

Article XV
The Emperor confers titles of nobility, rank, orders, and
other marks of honor.

Article XVI.
The Emperor orders amnesty, pardon, commutation of punishment,
and rehabilitation.

Article XVII.
   A Regency shall be instituted in conformity with the
   provisions of the Imperial House Law. The Regent shall
   exercise the powers appertaining to the Emperor in His name.

Chapter II.

Article XVIII.
The conditions necessary for being a Japanese subject shall be
determined by law.

Article XIX.
   Japanese subjects may, according to qualifications determined
   in law or ordinances, be appointed to civil or military
   offices equally, and may fill any other public offices.

Article XX.
Japanese subjects are amenable to service in the Army or Navy,
according to the provisions of law.

Article XXI.
Japanese subjects are amenable to the duty of paying taxes,
according to the provisions of law.

Article XXII.
Japanese subjects shall have the liberty of abode and of
changing the same within the limits of law.

Article XXIII.
No Japanese subject shall be arrested, detained, tried, or
punished, unless according to law.

Article XXIV.
No Japanese subject shall be deprived of his right of being
tried by the judges determined by law.

Article XXV.
   Except in the cases provided for in the law, the house of no
   Japanese subject shall be entered or searched without his
   consent.

Article XXVI.
Except in the cases mentioned in the law, the secrecy of the
letters of every Japanese subject shall remain inviolate.

Article XXVII.
   The right of property of every Japanese subject shall remain
   inviolate. Measures necessary to be taken for the public
   benefit shall be provided for by law.

Article XXVIII.
   Japanese subjects shall, within limits not prejudicial to
   peace and order, and not antagonistic to their duties as
   subjects, enjoy freedom of religious belief.

Article XXIX.
   Japanese subjects shall, within the limits of law, enjoy the
   liberty of speech, writing, publication, public meetings, and
   associations.

Article XXX.
   Japanese subjects may present petitions, by observing the
   proper forms of respect, and by complying with the rules
   specially provided for the same.

Article XXXI.
   The provisions contained in the present Chapter shall not
   affect the exercise of the powers appertaining to the Emperor
   in times of war or in cases of a national emergency.

Article XXXII.
   Each and everyone of the provisions contained in the preceding
   Articles of the present Chapter, that are not in conflict with
   the laws or the rules and discipline of the Army and Navy,
   shall apply to the officers and men of the Army and of the
   Navy.

Chapter III.

Article XXXIII.
The Imperial Diet shall consist of two Houses, a House of
Peers and a House of Representatives.

Article XXXIV.
   The House of Peers shall, in accordance with the Ordinance
   concerning the House of Peers, be composed of the members of
   the Imperial Family, of the orders of nobility, and of those
   persons who have been nominated thereto by the Emperor.

Article XXXV.
   The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members
   elected by the people according to the provisions of the Law
   of Election.

Article XXXVIII.
Both Houses shall vote upon projects of law submitted to it by
the Government, and may respectively initiate projects of law.

Article XXXIX.
   A Bill, which has been rejected by either the one or the other
   of the two houses, shall not be again brought in during the
   same session.

Article XL.
   Both Houses can make representations to the Government, as to
   laws or upon any other subject. When, however, such
   representations are not accepted, they cannot be made a second
   time during the same session.

Article XLII.
   A session of the Imperial Diet shall last during three months.
   In case of necessity, the duration of a session may be
   prolonged by Imperial Order.

Article XLI II.
   When urgent necessity arises, an extraordinary session may be
   convoked, in addition to the ordinary one. The duration of an
   extraordinary session shall be determined by Imperial Order.

Article XLIV.
   The opening, closing, prolongation of session, and prorogation
   of the Imperial Diet, shall be effected simultaneously for
   both Houses. In case the House of Representatives has been
   ordered to dissolve, the House of Peers shall at the same time
   be prorogued.

Article XLV.
   When the House of Representatives has been ordered to
   dissolve, Members shall be caused by Imperial Order to be
   newly elected, and the new House shall be convoked within five
   months from the day of dissolution.

Article XLVI.
   No debate can be opened and no vote can be taken in either
   House of the Imperial Diet, unless not less than one-third of
   the whole number of the members thereof is present.

Article XLVII.
   Votes shall be taken in both Houses by absolute majority. In
   the case of a tie vote, the President shall have the casting
   vote.

Article XLVIII.
   The deliberations of both Houses shall be held in public. The
   deliberations may, however, upon demand of the Government or
   by resolution of the House, be held in secret sitting.

Article XLIX.
Both Houses of the Imperial Diet may respectively present
addresses to the Emperor.

Article LI.
   Both Houses may enact, besides what is provided for in the
   present Constitution and in the Law of the Houses, rules
   necessary for the management of their internal affairs.

Article LII.
   No member of either House shall be held responsible outside
   the respective Houses, for any opinion uttered or for any vote
   given in the House. When, however, a Member himself has given
   publicity to his opinions by public speech, by documents in
   printing or in writing, or by any other similar means he
   shall, in the matter, be amenable to the general law.

Article LIII.
   The members of both Houses shall, during the session, be free
   from arrest, unless with the consent of the House, except in
   cases of flagrant delicts, or of offences connected with a
   state of internal commotion or with a foreign trouble.

Article LIV.
The Ministers of State and the Delegates of the Government
may, at any time, take seats and speak in either House.

Chapter IV.

Article LV.
   The respective Ministers of State shall give their advice to
   the Emperor, and be responsible for it. All Laws, Imperial
   Ordinances, and Imperial Rescripts of whatever kind, that
   relate to the affairs of the State, require the
   countersignature of a Minister of State.

Article LVI.
   The Privy Council shall, in accordance with the provisions for
   the organization of the Privy Council, deliberate upon
   important matters of State, when they have been consulted by
   the Emperor.

Chapter V.

Article LVII.
   The Judicature shall be exercised by the Courts of Law
   according to law, in the name of the Emperor. The organization
   of the Courts of Law shall be determined by law.

Article LVIII.
   The judges shall be appointed from among those, who possess
   proper qualifications according to law. No judge shall be
   deprived of his position, unless by way of criminal sentence
   or disciplinary punishment. Rules for disciplinary punishment
   shall be determined by law.

Article LIX.
   Trials and judgments of a Court shall be conducted publicly.
   When, however, there exists any fear that such publicity may
   be prejudicial to peace and order, or to the maintenance of
   public morality, the public trial may be suspended by
   provision of law or by the decision of the Court of Law.

Article LX.
All matters, that fall within the competency of a special
Court, shall be specially provided for by law.

Article LXI.
   No suit at law, which relates to rights alleged to have been
   infringed by the legal measures of the executive authorities,
   and which shall come within the competency of the Court of
   Administrative Litigation specially established by law, shall
   be taken cognizance of by a Court of Law.

Chapter VI.

Article LXII.
   The imposition of a new tax or the modification of the rates
   (of an existing one) shall be determined by law. However, all
   such administrative fees or other revenue having the nature of
   compensation shall not fall within the category of the above
   clause. The raising of national loans and the contracting of
   other liabilities to the charge of the National Treasury,
   except those that are provided in the Budget, shall require
   the consent of the Imperial Diet.

Article LXIII.
   The taxes levied at present shall, in so far as they are not
   remodelled by new law, be collected according to the old
   system.

Article LXIV.
   The expenditure and revenue of the State require the consent
   of the Imperial Diet by means of an annual Budget. Any and all
   expenditures overpassing the appropriations set forth in the
   Titles and Paragraphs of the Budget, or that are not provided
   for in the Budget, shall subsequently require the approbation
   of the Imperial Diet.

Article LXV.
The Budget shall be first laid before the House of
Representatives.

Article LXVI.
   The expenditures of the Imperial House shall be defrayed every
   year out of the National Treasury, according to the present
   fixed amount for the same, and shall not require the consent
   thereto of the Imperial Diet, except in case an increase
   thereof is found necessary.

Article LXVII.
   Those already fixed expenditures based by the Constitution
   upon the powers appertaining to the Emperor, and such
   expenditures as may have arisen by the effect of law, or that
   appertain to the legal obligations of the Government, shall be
   neither rejected nor reduced by the Imperial Diet, without the
   concurrence of the Government.

Article LXVIII.
   In order to meet special requirements, the Government may ask
   the consent of the Imperial Diet to a certain amount as a
   Continuing Expenditure Fund, for a previously fixed number of
   years.

Article LXIX.
   In order to supply deficiencies which are unavoidable, in the
   Budget, and to meet requirements unprovided for in the same, a
   Reserve Fund shall be provided in the Budget.

Article LXX.
   When the Imperial Diet cannot be convoked, owing to the
   external or internal condition of the country, in case of
   urgent need for the maintenance of public safety, the
   Government may take all necessary financial measures, by means
   of an Imperial Ordinance. In the case mentioned in the
   preceding clause, the matter shall be submitted to the
   Imperial Diet at its next session, and its approbation shall
   be obtained thereto.

Article LXXI.
   When the Imperial Diet has not voted on the Budget, or when
   the Budget has not been brought into actual existence, the
   Government shall carry out the Budget of the preceding year.

Article LXXII.
   The final account of the expenditures and revenue of the State
   shall be verified and confirmed by the Board of Audit, and it
   shall be submitted by the Government to the Imperial Diet,
   together with the report of verification of the said Board.
   The organization and competency of the Board of Audit shall be
   determined by law separately.

Chapter VII.

Article LXXIII.
   When it has become necessary in future to amend the provisions
   of the present Constitution, a project to that effect shall be
   submitted to the Imperial Diet by Imperial Order. In the above
   case, neither House can open the debate, unless not less than
   two-thirds of the whole number of Members are present, and no
   amendment can be passed, unless a majority of not less than
   two-thirds of the Members present is obtained.

Article LXXIV.
   No modification of the Imperial House Law shall be required to
   be submitted to the deliberation of the Imperial Diet. No
   provision of the present Constitution can be modified by the
   Imperial House Law.

Article LXXV.
No modification can be introduced into the Constitution, or
into the Imperial House Law, during the time of a Regency.

Article LXXVI.
   Existing legal enactments, such as laws, regulations,
   Ordinances, or by whatever names they may be called, shall, so
   far as they do not conflict with the present Constitution,
   continue in force. All existing contracts or orders, that
   entail obligations upon the Government, and that are connected
   with expenditure shall come within the scope of Article LXVII.

CONSTITUTION OF LYCURGUS.
   "The constitution of Lykourgos was especially adapted to make
   heroes, and it made them. To serve his country and die for
   her, this was the Spartan's chief ambition. 'Victory or
   death!' was their war-cry; honor, their supreme law. 'That
   most to be admired in Lykourgos,' says Xenophon, 'is that he
   was able to make a noble death seem preferable to a dishonored
   life. This great lawgiver provided for the happiness of the
   brave man, and devoted the coward to infamy. … At Sparta men
   would be ashamed to sit at table with the coward, to touch his
   weapons or his hand: in the games neither party will receive
   him. He has the lowest place at the dances and the dramatic
   representations. In the street he is pushed aside by younger
   men. His daughters share in his disgrace; they are excluded
   from public feasts, and can obtain no husbands.'"

Mr. Grote remarks upon the "unparalleled steadiness" of the Spartan constitution ascribed to Lycurgus, which was maintained "for four or five successive centuries, in the midst of governments like the Grecian, all of which had undergone more or less of fluctuation. No considerable revolution—not even any palpable or formal change—occurred in it from the days of the Messenian war down to those of Agis III.: in spite of the irreparable blow which the power and territory of the state sustained from Epameinondas and the Thebans, the form of government nevertheless remained unchanged. It was the only government in Greece which could trace an unbroken peaceable descent from a high antiquity and from its real or supposed founder."

CONSTITUTION OF MEXICO.

The following translated text of the Constitution of Mexico is from Bulletin No. 9 of the Bureau of the American Republics, published in July, 1891:

Preamble.
   In the name of God and with the authority of the Mexican
   people. The representatives of the different States, of the
   District and Territories which compose the Republic of Mexico,
   called by the Plan proclaimed in Ayutla the 1st of March,
   1854, amended in Acapulco the 11th day of the same month and
   year, and by the summons issued the 17th of October, 1855, to
   constitute the nation under the form of a popular,
   representative, democratic republic, exercising the powers
   with which they are invested, comply with the requirements of
   their high office, decreeing the following political
   Constitution of the Mexican Republic, on the indestructible
   basis of its legitimate independence, proclaimed the 16th of
   September, 1810, and completed the 27th of September, 1821.

Article I.
   The Mexican people recognize that the rights of man are the
   basis and the object of social institutions. Consequently they
   declare that all the laws and all the authorities of the
   country must respect and maintain the guarantees which the
   present Constitution establishes.

Article 2.
   In the Republic all are born free. Slaves who set foot upon
   the national territory recover, by that act alone, their
   liberty, and have a right to the protection of the laws.

Article 3.
   Instruction is free. The law shall determine what professions
   require a diploma for their exercise, and with what requisites
   they must be issued.

Article 4.
   Every man is free to adopt the profession, industrial pursuit,
   or occupation which suits him, the same being useful and
   honorable, and to avail himself of its products. Nor shall
   anyone be hindered in the exercise of such profession,
   industrial pursuit, or occupation, unless by judicial sentence
   when such exercise attacks the rights of a third party, or by
   governmental resolution, dictated in terms which the law marks
   out, when it offends the rights of society.

Article 5.
   No one shall be obliged to give personal services without just
   compensation, and without his full consent. The state shall
   not permit any contract, pact, or agreement to be carried into
   effect which has for its object the diminution, loss, or
   irrevocable sacrifice of the liberty of man, whether it be for
   the sake of labor, education, or a religious vow. The law,
   consequently, may not recognize monastic orders, nor may it
   permit their establishment, whatever may be the denomination
   or object with which they claim to be formed.

[Footnote: This sentence was introduced into the original article September 25, 1873, with other less important amendments.]

Neither may an agreement be permitted in which anyone
stipulates for his proscription or banishment.

Article 6.
   The expression of ideas shall not be the object of any
   judicial or administrative inquisition, except in case it
   attacks morality, the rights of a third party, provokes some
   crime or misdemeanor, or disturbs public order.

Article 7.
   The liberty to write and to publish writings on any subject
   whatsoever is inviolable. No law or authority shall establish
   previous censure, nor require security from authors or
   printers, nor restrict the liberty of the press, which has no
   other limits than respect of private life, morality, and the
   public peace. The crimes which are committed by means of the
   press shall be judged by the competent tribunals of the
   Federation, or by those of the States, those of the Federal
   District and the Territory of Lower California, in accordance
   with their penal laws.

[Footnote: This article was amended May 15, 1883, by introducing the last sentence as a substitute for the following: "The crimes of the press shall be judged by one jury which attests the fact and by another which applies the law and designates the punishment."]

Article 8.
   The right of petition, exercised in writing in a peaceful and
   respectful manner, is inviolable; but in political matters
   only citizens of the Republic may exercise it. To every
   petition must be returned a written opinion by the authority
   to whom it may have been addressed, and the latter is obliged
   to make the result known to the petitioner.

Article 9.
   No one may be deprived of the right peacefully to assemble or
   unite with others for any lawful object whatsoever, but only
   citizens of the Republic may do this in order to take part in
   the political affairs of the country. No armed assembly has a
   right to deliberate.

Article 10.
   Every man has a right to possess and carry arms for his
   security and legitimate defence. The law shall designate what
   arms are prohibited and the punishment which those shall incur
   who carry them.

Article 11.
   Every man has a right to enter and to go out of the Republic,
   to travel through its territory and change his residence,
   without the necessity of a letter of security, passport,
   safe-conduct, or other similar requisite. The exercise of this
   right shall not prejudice the legitimate faculties of the
   judicial or administrative authority in cases of criminal or
   civil responsibility.

Article 12.
   There are not, nor shall there be recognized in the Republic,
   titles of nobility, or prerogatives, or hereditary honors.
   Only the people, legitimately represented, may decree
   recompenses in honor of those who may have rendered or may
   render eminent services to the country or to humanity.

Article 13.
   In the Mexican Republic no one may be judged by special law
   nor by special tribunals. No person or corporation may have
   privileges, or enjoy emoluments, which are not compensation
   for a public service and are established by law. Martial law
   may exist only for crimes and offences which have a definite
   connection with military discipline. The law shall determine
   with all clearness the cases included in this exception.

Article 14.
   No retroactive law shall be enacted. No one may be judged or
   sentenced except by laws made prior to the act, and exactly
   applicable to it, and by a tribunal which shall have been
   previously established by law.

Article 15.
   Treaties shall never be made for the extradition of political
   offenders, nor for the extradition of those violators of the
   public order who may have held in the country where they
   committed the offence the position of slaves; nor agreements
   or treaties in virtue of which may be altered the guarantees
   and rights which this Constitution grants to the man and to
   the citizen.

Article 16.
   No one may be molested in his person, family, domicile, papers
   and possessions, except in virtue of an order written by the
   competent authority, which shall establish and assign the
   legal cause for the proceedings. In the case of in flagrante
   delicto any person may apprehend the offender and his
   accomplices, placing them without delay at the disposal of the
   nearest authorities.

Article 17.
   No one may be arrested for debts of a purely civil character.
   No one may exercise violence in order to reclaim his rights.
   The tribunals shall always be prompt to administer justice.
   This shall be gratuitous, judicial costs being consequently
   abolished.

Article 18.
   Imprisonment shall take place only for crimes which deserve
   corporal punishment. In any state of the process in which it
   shall appear that such a punishment might not be imposed upon
   the accused, he shall be set at liberty under bail. In no case
   shall the imprisonment or detention be prolonged for default
   of payment of fees, or of any furnishing of money whatever.

Article 19.
   No detention shall exceed the term of three days, unless
   justified by a writ showing cause of imprisonment and other
   requisites which the law establishes. The mere lapse of this
   term shall render responsible the authority that orders or
   consents to it, and the agents, ministers, wardens, or jailers
   who execute it. Any maltreatment in the apprehension or in the
   confinement of the prisoners, any injury which may be
   inflicted without legal ground, any tax or contribution in the
   prisons, is an abuse which the laws must correct and the
   authorities severally punish.

Article 20.
   In every criminal trial the accused shall have the following
   guarantees:
   I. That the grounds of the proceedings and the name of the
   accuser, if there shall be one, shall be made known to him.
   II. That his preparatory declaration shall be taken within
   forty-eight hours, counting from the time he may be placed at
   the disposal of the judge.
   III. That he shall be confronted with the witnesses who
   testify against him.
   IV. That he shall be furnished with the data which he requires
   and which appear in the process, in order to prepare for his
   defence.
   V. That he shall be heard in defence by himself or by counsel,
   or by both, as he may desire. In case he should have no one to
   defend him, a list of official defenders shall be presented to
   him, in order that he may choose one or more who may suit him.

Article 21.
   The application of penalties properly so called belongs
   exclusively to the judicial authority. The political or
   administrative authorities may only impose fines, as
   correction, to the extent of five hundred dollars, or
   imprisonment to the extent of one month, in the cases and
   manner which the law shall expressly determine.

Article 22.
   Punishments by mutilation and infamy, by branding, flogging,
   the bastinado, torture of whatever kind, excessive fines,
   confiscation of property, or any other unusual or
   extraordinary penalties, shall be forever prohibited.

Article 23.
   In order to abolish the penalty of death, the administrative
   power is charged to establish, as soon as possible, a
   penitentiary system. In the meantime the penalty of death
   shall be abolished for political offences, and shall not be
   extended to other cases than treason during foreign war,
   highway robbery, arson, parricide, homicide with treachery,
   premeditation or advantage, to grave offences of the military
   order, and piracy, which the law shall define.

Article 24.
   No criminal proceeding may have more than three instances. No
   one shall be tried twice for the same offence, whether by the
   judgment he be absolved or condemned. The practice of
   absolving from the instance is abolished.

Article 25.
   Sealed correspondence which circulates by the mails is free
   from all registry. The violation of this guarantee is an
   offence which the law shall punish severely.

Article 26.
   In time of peace no soldier may demand quarters, supplies, or
   other real or personal service without the consent of the
   proprietor. In time of war he shall do this only in the manner
   prescribed by the law.

Article 27.
   Private property shall not be appropriated without the consent
   of the owner, except for the sake of public use, and with
   previous indemnification. The law shall determine the
   authority which may make the appropriation and the conditions
   under which it may be carried out. No corporation, civil or
   ecclesiastical, whatever may be its character, denomination,
   or object, shall have legal capacity to acquire in
   proprietorship or administer for itself real estate, with the
   single exception of edifices destined immediately and directly
   to the service and object of the institution.

Article 28.
   There shall be no monopolies, nor places of any kind for the
   sale of privileged goods, nor prohibitions under titles of
   protection to industry. There shall be excepted only those
   relative to the coining of money, to the mails, and to the
   privileges which, for a limited time, the law may concede to
   inventors or perfectors of some improvement.

Article 29.
   In cases of invasion, grave disturbance of the public peace,
   or any other cases whatsoever which may place society in great
   danger or conflict, only the President of the Republic in
   concurrence with the Council of Ministers and with the
   approbation of the Congress of the Union, and, in the recess
   thereof, of the permanent deputation, may suspend the
   guarantees established by this Constitution, with the
   exception of those which assure the life of man; but such
   suspension shall be made only for a limited time, by means of
   general provisions, and without being limited to a determined
   person. If the suspension should take place during the session
   of Congress, this body shall concede the authorizations which
   it may esteem necessary in order that the Executive may meet
   properly the situation. If the suspension should take place
   during the recess, the permanent deputation shall convoke the
   Congress without delay in order that it may make the
   authorizations.

Article 30.
   Mexicans are:
   I. All those born, within or without the Republic, of Mexican
   parents.
   II. Foreigners who are naturalized in conformity with the laws
   of the Federation.
   III. Foreigners who acquire real estate in the Republic or
   have Mexican children; provided they do not manifest their
   resolution to preserve their nationality.

Article 31.
   It is an obligation of every Mexican:
   I. To defend the independence, the territory, the honor, the
   rights and interests of his country.
   II. To contribute for the public expenses, as well of the
   Federation as of the State and municipality in which he
   resides, in the proportional and equitable manner which the
   laws may provide.

Article 32.
   Mexicans shall be preferred to foreigners in equal
   circumstances, for all employments, charges, or commissions of
   appointment by the authorities, in which the condition of
   citizenship may not be indispensable. Laws shall be issued to
   improve the condition of Mexican laborers, rewarding those who
   distinguish themselves in any science or art, stimulating
   labor, and founding practical colleges and schools of arts and
   trades.

Article 33.
   Foreigners are those who do not possess the qualifications
   determined in Article 30. They have a right to the guarantees
   established by … [Articles 1-29] of the present
   Constitution, except that in all cases the Government has the
   right to expel pernicious foreigners. They are under
   obligation to contribute to the public expenses in the manner
   which the laws may provide, and to obey and respect the
   institutions, laws, and authorities of the country, subjecting
   themselves to the judgments and sentences of the tribunals,
   without power to seek other protection than that which the
   laws concede to Mexican citizens.

Article 34.
   Citizens of the Republic are all those who, having the quality
   of Mexicans, have also the following qualifications:
   I. Eighteen years of age if married, or twenty-one if not
   married.
   II. An honest means of livelihood.

Article 35.
   The prerogatives of the citizen are:
   I. To vote at popular elections.
   II. The privilege of being voted for for any office subject to
   popular election, and of being selected for any other
   employment or commission, having the qualifications
   established by law.
   III. To associate to discuss the political affairs of the
   country.
   IV. To take up arms in the army or in the national guard for
   the defence of the Republic and its institutions.
   V. To exercise in all cases the right of petition.

Article 36.
   Every citizen of the Republic is under the following
   obligations:
   I. To be inscribed on the municipal roll, stating the property
   which he has, or the industry, profession, or labor by which
   he subsists.
   II. To enlist in the national guard.
   III. To vote at popular elections in the district to which he
   belongs.
   IV. To discharge the duties of the offices of popular election
   of the Federation, which in no case shall be gratuitous.

Article 37.
   The character of citizen is lost:
   I. By naturalization in a foreign country.
   II. By serving officially the government of another country or
   accepting its decorations, titles, or employments without
   previous permission from the Federal Congress; excepting
   literary, scientific, and humanitarian titles, which may be
   accepted freely.

Article 38.
   The law shall prescribe the cases and the form in which may be
   lost or suspended the rights of citizenship and the manner in
   which they may be regained.

Article 39.
   The national sovereignty resides essentially and originally in
   the people. All public power emanates from the people, and is
   instituted for their benefit. The people have at all times the
   inalienable right to alter or modify the form of their
   government.

Article 40.
   The Mexican people voluntarily constitute themselves a
   democratic, federal, representative republic, composed of
   States free and sovereign in all that concerns their internal
   government, but united in a federation established according
   to the principles of this fundamental law.

Article 41.
   The people exercise their sovereignty by means of Federal
   officers in cases belonging to the Federation, and through
   those of the States in all that relates to the internal
   affairs of the States within the limits respectively
   established by this Federal Constitution, and by the special
   Constitutions of the States, which latter shall in no case
   contravene the stipulations of the Federal Compact.

Article 42.
   The National Territory comprises that of the integral parts of
   the Federation and that of the adjacent islands in both
   oceans.

Article 43.
   The integral parts of the Federation are: the States of
   Aguascalientes, Colima, Chiapas, Chihuahua, Durango,
   Guanajuato, Guerrero, Jalisco, Mexico, Michoacan, Nuevo Leon
   and Coahuila, Oajaca, Puebla, Querétaro, San Luis Potosi,
   Sinaloa, Sonora, Tabasco, Tamaulipas, Tlascala, Valle de
   Mexico, Veracruz, Yucatan, Zacatecas, and the Territory of
   Lower California.

Article 44.
   The States of Aguascalientes, Chiapas, Chihuahua, Durango,
   Guerrero, Mexico, Puebla, Queretaro, Sinaloa, Sonora,
   Tamaulipas, and the Territory of Lower California shall
   preserve the limits which they now have.

Article 45.
   The States of Colima and Tlascala shall preserve in their new
   character of States the limits which they have had as
   Territories of the Federation.

Article 46.
   The State of the Valley of Mexico shall be formed of the
   territory actually composing the Federal District, but the
   erection into a State shall only have effect when the supreme
   Federal authorities are removed to another place.

Article 47.
   The State of Nuevo Leon and Coahuila shall comprise the
   territory which has belonged to the two distinct States of
   which it is now formed, except the part of the hacienda of
   Bonanza, which shall be reincorporated in Zacatecas, on the
   same terms in which it was before its incorporation in
   Coahuila.

Article 48.
   The States of Guanajuato, Jalisco, Michoacan, Oajaca, San Luis
   Potosi, Tabasco, Veracruz, Yucatan, and Zacatecas shall
   recover the extension and limits which they had on the 31st of
   December, 1852, with the alterations the following Article
   establishes.

Article 49.
   The town of Contepec, which has belonged to Guanajuato, shall
   be incorporated in Michoacan. . The municipality of Ahualulco,
   which has belonged to Zacatecas, shall be incorporated in San
   Luis Potosi. The municipalities of Ojo-Caliente and San
   Francisco de los Adames, which have belonged to San Luis, as
   well as the towns of Nueva Tlascala and San Andres del Teul,
   which have belonged to Jalisco, shall be incorporated in
   Zacatecas. The department of Tuxpan shall continue to form a
   part of Veracruz. The canton of Huimanguillo, which has
   belonged to Veracruz, shall be incorporated in Tabasco.

[Footnote: Besides the twenty-four States which are mentioned in this section there have been created subsequently, according to executive decrees issued in accordance with the Constitution, the four following: XXV. That of Campeche, separated from Yucatan. XXVI. That of Coahuila, separated from Nuevo Leon. XXVII. That of Hidalgo, in territory of the ancient State of Mexico, which formed the second military district. XXVIII. That of Morelos, in territory also of the ancient State of Mexico, which formed the third military district.]

Article 50.
   The supreme power of the Federation is divided for its
   exercise into legislative, executive, and judicial. Two or
   more of these powers shall never be united in one person or
   corporation, nor the legislative power be deposited in one
   individual.

Article 51.
   The legislative power of the nation is deposited in a general
   Congress, which shall be divided into two houses, one of
   Deputies and the other of Senators.

   [Footnote: The original form of this article was as
   follows: "The exercise of the supreme legislative power is
   vested in one assembly, which shall be denominated Congress of
   the Union."]

Article 52.
   The House of Deputies shall be composed of representatives of
   the nation, elected in their entire number every two years by
   Mexican citizens.

Article 53.
   One deputy shall be elected for each forty thousand
   inhabitants, or for a fraction which exceeds twenty thousand.
   The territory in which the population is less than that
   determined in this article shall, nevertheless, elect one
   deputy.

Article 55.
   The election for deputies shall be indirect in the first
   degree, and by secret ballot, in the manner which the law
   shall prescribe.

Article 56.
   In order to be eligible to the position of a deputy it is
   required that the candidate be a Mexican citizen in the
   enjoyment of his rights; that he be fully twenty-five years of
   age on the day of the opening of the session; that he be a
   resident of the State or Territory which makes the election,
   and that he be not an ecclesiastic. Residence is not lost by
   absence in the discharge of any public trust bestowed by
   popular election.

Article 57.
   The positions of Deputy and of Senator are incompatible with
   any Federal commission or office whatsoever for which a salary
   is received.

Article 58.
   The Deputies and the Senators from the day of their election
   to the day on which their trust is concluded, may not accept
   any commission or office offered by the Federal Executive, for
   which a salary is received, except with the previous license
   of the respective house. The same requisites are necessary for
   the alternates of Deputies and Senators when in the exercise
   of their functions.

A. The Senate is composed of two Senators for each State and two for the Federal District. The election of Senators shall be indirect in the first degree. The Legislature of each State shall declare elected the person who shall have obtained the absolute majority of the votes cast, or shall elect from among those who shall have obtained the relative majority in the manner which the electoral law shall prescribe. For each Senator there shall be elected an alternate.

B. The Senate shall be renewed one-half every two years. The Senators named in the second place shall go out at the end of the first two years, and thereafter the half who have held longer.

   C. The same qualifications are required for a Senator as for a
   Deputy, except that of age, which must be at least thirty
   years on the day of the opening of the session.

Article 59.
   The Deputies and Senators are privileged from arrest for their
   opinions manifested in the performance of their duties, and
   shall never be liable to be called to account for them.

Article 60.
Each house shall judge of the election of its members, and
shall solve the doubts which may arise regarding them.

Article 61.
   The houses may not open their sessions nor perform their
   functions without the presence in the Senate of at least
   two-thirds, and in the House of Deputies of more than one-half
   of the whole number of their members, but those present of one
   or the other body must meet on the day indicated by the law
   and compel the attendance of absent members under penalties
   which the law shall designate.

Article 62.
   The Congress shall have each year two periods of ordinary
   sessions: the first, which may be prorogued for thirty days,
   shall begin on the 16th of September and end on the 15th of
   December, and the second, which may be prorogued for fifteen
   days, shall begin the 1st of April and end the last day of
   May.

Article 63.
   At the opening of the sessions of the Congress the President
   of the Union shall be present and shall pronounce a discourse
   in which he shall set forth the state of the country. The
   President of the Congress shall reply in general terms.

Article 64.
   Every resolution of the Congress shall have the character of a
   law or decree. The laws and decrees shall be communicated to
   the Executive, signed by the Presidents of both houses and by
   a Secretary of each of them, and shall be promulgated in this
   form: "The Congress of the United States of Mexico decrees:"
   (Text of the law or decree.)

Article 65.
   The right to initiate laws or decrees belongs:
   I. To the President of the Union.
   II. To the Deputies and Senators of the general Congress.
   III. To the Legislatures of the States.

Article 66.
   Bills presented by the President of the Republic, by the
   Legislatures of the States, or by deputations from the same,
   shall pass immediately to a committee. Those which the
   Deputies or the Senators may present shall be subjected to the
   procedure which the rules of debate may prescribe.

Article 67.
   Every bill which shall be rejected in the house where it
   originated, before passing to the other house, shall not again
   be presented during the sessions of that year.

Article 68.
   The second period of sessions shall be destined, in all
   preference, to the examination of and action upon the
   estimates of the following fiscal year, to passing the
   necessary appropriations to cover the same, and to the
   examination of the accounts of the past year, which the
   Executive shall present.

Article 69.
   The last day but one of the first period of sessions the
   Executive shall present to the House of Deputies the bill of
   appropriations for the next year following and the accounts of
   the preceding year. Both shall pass to a committee of five
   Representatives appointed on the same day, which shall be
   under obligation to examine said documents, and present a
   report on them at the second session of the second period.

Article 70.
   The formation of the laws and of the decrees may begin
   indiscriminately in either of the two houses, with the
   exception of bills which treat of loans, taxes, or imposts, or
   of the recruiting of troops, all of which must be discussed
   first in the House of Deputies.

Article 71.
   Every bill, the consideration of which does not belong
   exclusively to one of the houses, shall be discussed
   successively in both, the rules of debate being observed with
   reference to the form, the intervals, and manner of proceeding
   in discussions and voting.

A. A bill having been approved in the house where it originated, shall pass for its discussion to the other house. If the latter body should approve it, it will be remitted to the Executive, who, if he shall have no observations to make, shall publish it immediately.

B. Every bill shall be considered as approved by the Executive if not returned with observations to the house where it originated within ten working days, unless during this term Congress shall have closed or suspended its sessions, in which case the return must be made the first working day on which it shall meet.

C. A bill rejected wholly or in part by the Executive must be returned with his observations to the house where it originated. It shall be discussed again by this body, and if it should be confirmed by an absolute majority of votes, it shall pass again to the other house. If by this house it should be sanctioned with the same majority, the bill shall be a law or decree, and shall be returned to the Executive for promulgation. The voting on the law or decree shall be by name.

D. If any bill should be rejected wholly in the house in which it did not originate, it shall be returned to that in which it originated with the observations which the former shall have made upon it. If having been examined anew it should be approved by the absolute majority of the members present, it shall be returned to the house which rejected it, which shall again take it into consideration, and if it should approve it by the same majority it shall pass to the Executive, to be treated in accordance with division A; but, if it should reject it, it shall not be presented again until the following sessions.

E. If a bill should be rejected only in part, or modified, or receive additions by the house of revision, the new discussion in the house where it originated shall treat only of the rejected part, or of the amendments or additions, without being able to alter in any manner the articles approved. If the additions or amendments made by the house of revision should be approved by the absolute majority of the votes present in the house where it originated, the whole bill shall be passed to the Executive, to be treated in accordance with division A. But if the additions or amendments made by the house of revision should be rejected by the majority of the votes in the house where it originated, they shall be returned to the former, in order that the reasons of the latter may be taken into consideration; and if by the absolute majority of the votes present said additions or amendments shall be rejected in this second revision, the bill, in so far as it has been approved by both houses, shall be passed to the Executive, to be treated in accordance with division A; but if the house of revision should insist, by the absolute majority of the votes present, on said additions or amendments, the whole bill shall not be again presented until the following sessions, unless both houses agree by the absolute majority of their members present that the law or decree shall be issued solely with the articles approved, and that the parts added or amended shall be reserved to be examined and voted in the following sessions.

F. In the interpretation, amendment, or repeal of the laws or decrees, the rules established for their formation shall be observed.

G. Both houses shall reside in the same place, and they shall not remove to another without first agreeing to the removal and on the time and manner of making it, designating the same point for the meeting of both. But if both houses, agreeing to the removal, should differ as to time, manner, or place, the Executive shall terminate the difference by choosing one of the places in question. Neither house shall suspend its sessions for more than three days without the consent of the other.

H. When the general Congress meets in extra sessions, it shall occupy itself exclusively with the object or objects designated in the summons; and if the special business shall not have been completed on the day on which the regular session should open, the extra sessions shall be closed nevertheless, leaving the points pending to be treated of in the regular sessions. The Executive of the Union shall not make observations on the resolutions of the Congress when this body prorogues its sessions or exercises functions of an electoral body or a jury.

Article 72.
   The Congress has power:
   I. To admit new States or Territories into the Federal Union,
   incorporating them in the nation.
   II. To erect Territories into States when they shall have a
   population of eighty thousand inhabitants and the necessary
   elements to provide for their political existence.
   III. To form new States within the limits of those existing,
   it being necessary to this end:
   1. That the fraction or fractions which asked to be erected
   into a State shall number a population of at least one hundred
   and twenty thousand inhabitants.
   2. That it shall be proved before Congress that they have
   elements sufficient to provide for their political existence.
   3. That the Legislatures of the States, the territories of
   which are in question, shall have been heard on the expediency
   or inexpediency of the establishment of the new State, and
   they shall be obliged to make their report within six months,
   counted from the day on which the communication relating to it
   shall have been remitted to them.
   4. That the Executive of the Federation shall likewise be
   heard, who shall send his report within seven days, counted
   from the date on which he shall have been asked for it.
   5. That the establishment of the new State shall have been
   voted for by two-thirds of the Deputies and Senators present
   in their respective houses.
   6. That the resolution of Congress shall have been ratified by
   the majority of the Legislatures of the States, after
   examining a copy of the proceedings; provided that the
   Legislatures of the States whose territory is in question
   shall have given their consent.
   7. If the Legislatures of the States whose territory is in
   question shall not have given their consent, the ratification
   mentioned in the preceding clause must be made by two-thirds
   of the Legislatures of the other States.

   A. The exclusive powers of the House of Deputies are:
   I. To constitute itself an Electoral College in order to
   exercise the powers which the law may assign to it, in respect
   to the election of the Constitutional President of the
   Republic, Magistrates of the Supreme Court, and Senators for
   the Federal District.

   II. To judge and decide upon the resignations which the
   President of the Republic or the Magistrates of the Supreme
   Court of Justice may make. The same power belongs to it in
   treating of licenses solicited by the first.

III. To watch over, by means of an inspecting committee from its own body, the exact performance of the business of the chief auditorship.

V. To constitute itself a jury of accusation, for the high
functionaries of whom Article 103 of this Constitution treats.

VI. To examine the accounts which the Executive must present annually, to approve the annual estimate of expenses, and to initiate the taxes which in its judgment ought to be decreed to cover these expenses.

I. To approve the treaties and diplomatic conventions which the Executive may make with foreign powers.

II. To ratify the appointments which the President of the Republic may make of ministers, diplomatic agents, consuls-general, superior employés of the Treasury, colonels and other superior officers of the national army and navy, on the terms which the law shall provide.

III. To authorize the Executive to permit the departure of national troops beyond the limits of the Republic, the passage of foreign troops through the national territory, the station of squadrons of other powers for more than a month in the waters of the Republic.

IV. To give its consent in order that the Executive may dispose of the national guard outside of their respective States or Territories, determining the necessary force.

V. To declare, when the Constitutional legislative and executive powers of a State shall have disappeared, that the case has arrived for appointing to it a provisional Governor, who shall call elections in conformity with the Constitutional laws of the said State. The appointment of Governor shall be made by the Federal Executive with the approval of the Senate, and in its recesses with the approval of the Permanent Commission. Said functionary shall not be elected Constitutional Governor at the elections which are had in virtue of the summons which he shall issue.

VI. To decide political questions which may arise between the powers of a State, when any of them may appear with this purpose in the Senate, or when on account of said questions Constitutional order shall have been interrupted during a conflict of arms. In this case the Senate shall dictate its resolution, being subject to the general Constitution of the Republic and to that of the State. The law shall regulate the exercise of this power and that of the preceding.

VII. To constitute itself a jury of judgment in accordance
with Article 105 of this Constitution.

II. Communicate within itself, and with the Executive of
the Union, by means of committees from its own body.

III. Appoint the employés of its secretaryship, and make
the internal regulations for the same.

IV. Issue summons for extraordinary elections, with the object of filling the vacancies of their respective members.

IV. To regulate definitely the limits of the States, terminating the differences which may arise between them relative to the demarcation of their respective territories, except when these difficulties have a contentious character.

VI. To establish the internal order of the Federal District and Territories, taking as a basis that the citizens shall choose by popular election the political, municipal, and judicial authorities, and designating the taxes necessary to cover their local expenditure.

VII. To approve the estimates of the Federal expenditure, which the Executive must annually present to it, and to impose the necessary taxes to cover them.

VIII. To give rules under which the Executive may make loans on the credit of the nation; to approve said loans, and to recognize and order the payment of the national debt.

IX. To establish tariffs on foreign commerce, and to prevent, by means of general laws, onerous restrictions from being established with reference to the commerce between the States.

X. To issue codes, obligatory throughout the Republic, of mines and commerce, comprehending in this last banking institutions.

XI. To create and suppress public Federal employments and to establish, augment, or diminish their salaries.

XII. To ratify the appointments which the Executive may make of ministers, diplomatic agents, and consuls, of the higher employés of the Treasury, of the colonels and other superior officers of the national army and navy.

XIII. To approve the treaties, contracts, or diplomatic
conventions which the Executive may make.

      XV. To regulate the manner in which letters of marque may
      be issued; to dictate laws according to which must be
      declared good or bad the prizes on sea and land, and to
      issue laws relating to maritime rights in peace and war.

XVI. To permit or deny the entrance of foreign troops into the territory of the Republic, and to consent to the station of squadrons of other powers for more than a month in the waters of the Republic.

XVII. To permit the departure of national troops beyond the
limits of the Republic.

[Footnote: Amended by Section B, Clause III., Article 72,
of the law of the 13th of November, 1874.]

XVIII. To raise and maintain the army and navy of the
Union, and to regulate their organization and service.

XIX. To establish regulations with the purpose of organizing, arming, and disciplining the national guard, reserving respectively to the citizens who compose it the appointment of the commanders and officers, and to the States the power of instructing it in conformity with the discipline prescribed by said regulations.

XX. To give its consent in order that the Executive may control the national guard outside of its respective States and Territories, determining the necessary force.

XXII. To dictate laws on the general means of communication
and on the post-office and mails.

XXIII. To establish mints, fixing the conditions of their operation, to determine the value of foreign money, and adopt a general system of weights and measures.

XXIV. To fix rules to which must be subject the occupation
and sale of public lands and the price of these lands.

XXVI. To grant rewards or recompense for eminent services
rendered to the country or humanity.

XXVII. To prorogue for thirty working days the first period
of its ordinary sessions.

      XXVIII. To form rules for its internal regulation, to take
      the necessary measures to compel the attendance of absent
      members, and to correct the faults or omissions of those
      present.

      XXIX. To appoint and remove freely the employés of its
      secretaryship and those of the chief auditorship, which
      shall be organized in accordance with the provisions of the
      law.

XXX. To make all laws which may be necessary and proper to render effective the foregoing powers and all others granted by this Constitution and the authorities of the Union.

[Footnote: See respecting this Article the additions A, B, and C to Article 72 of the law of the 13th of November, already cited.]

Article 73.
   During the recess of Congress there shall be a Permanent
   Deputation composed of twenty-nine members, of whom fifteen
   shall be Deputies and fourteen Senators, appointed by their
   respective houses the evening before the close of the
   sessions.

I. To give its consent to the use of the national guard in the
cases mentioned in Article 72, Clause XX.

II. To determine by itself, or on the proposal of the Executive, after hearing him in the first place, the summons of Congress, or of one house alone, for extra sessions, the vote of two-thirds of the members present being necessary in both cases. The summons shall designate the object or objects of the extra sessions.

III. To approve the appointments which are referred to in
Article 85, Clause III.

   IV. To administer the oath of office to the President of the
   Republic, and to the Justices of the Supreme Court, in the
   cases provided by this Constitution.

   V. To report upon all the business not disposed of, in order
   that the Legislature which follows may immediately take up
   such unfinished business.

Article 75.
   The exercise of the supreme executive power of the Union is
   vested in a single individual, who shall be called "President
   of the United States of Mexico."

Article 76.
   The election of President shall be indirect in the first
   degree, and by secret ballot, in such manner as may be
   prescribed by the electoral law.

Article 77.
   To be eligible to the position of President, the candidate
   must be a Mexican citizen by birth, in the exercise of his
   rights, be fully thirty-five years old at the time of the
   election, not belong to the ecclesiastical order, and reside
   in the country at the time the election is held.

Article 78.
   The President shall enter upon the performance of the duties
   of his office on the first of December, and shall continue in
   office four years, being eligible for the Constitutional
   period immediately following; but he shall remain incapable
   thereafter to occupy the presidency by a new election until
   four years shall have passed, counting from the day on which
   he ceased to perform his functions.

Article 79.
   In the temporary default of the President of the Republic, and
   in the vacancy before the installation of the newly-elected
   President, the citizen who may have performed the duties of
   President or Vice-President of the Senate, or of the Permanent
   Commission in the periods of recess, during the month prior to
   that in which said default may have occurred, shall enter upon
   the exercise of the executive power of the Union.

   A. The President and Vice-President of the Senate and of the
   Permanent Commission shall not be reëlected to those offices
   until a year after having held them.

B. If the period of sessions of the Senate or of the Permanent Commission shall begin in the second half of a month, the default of the President of the Republic shall be covered by the President or Vice-President who may have acted in the Senate or in the Permanent Commission during the first half of the said month.

C. The Senate and the Permanent Commission shall renew, the last day of each month, their Presidents and Vice-Presidents. For these offices the Permanent Commission shall elect, alternatively, in one month two Deputies and in the following month two Senators.

D. When the office of President of the Republic is vacant, the functionary who shall take it constitutionally as his substitute must issue, within the definite term of fifteen days, the summons to proceed to a new election, which shall be held within the term of three months, and in accordance with the provisions of Article 76 of this Constitution. The provisional President shall not be eligible to the presidency at the elections which are held to put an end to his provisional term.

E. If, on account of death or any other reason, the functionaries who, according to this law, should take the place of the President of the Republic, might not be able in any absolute manner to do so, it shall be taken, under predetermined conditions, by the citizen who may have been President or Vice-President of the Senate or the Permanent Commission in the month prior to that in which they discharged those offices.

F. When the office of President of the Republic shall become vacant within the last six months of the constitutional period, the functionary who shall take the place of the President shall terminate this period.

G. To be eligible to the position of President or Vice-President of the Senate or of the Permanent Commission, one must be a Mexican citizen by birth.

H. If the vacancy in the office of President of the Republic should occur when the Senate and Permanent Commission are performing their functions in extra sessions, the President of the Commission shall fill the vacancy, under conditions indicated in this article.

I. The Vice-President of the Senate or of the Permanent Commission shall enter upon the performance of the functions which this Article confers upon them, in the vacancies of the office of President of the Senate or of the Permanent Commission, and in the periods only while the impediment lasts.

J. The newly-elected President shall enter upon the discharge of his duties, at the latest, sixty days after that of the election. In case the House of Deputies shall not be in session, it shall be convened in extra session, in order to make the computation of votes within the term mentioned.

Article 80.
   In the vacancy of the office of President, the period of the
   newly-elected President shall be computed from the first of
   December of the year prior to that of his election, provided
   he may not have taken possession of his office on the date
   which Article 78 determines.

Article 81.
   The office of President of the Union may not be resigned,
   except for grave cause, approved by Congress, before whom the
   resignation shall be presented.

Article 82.
   If for any reason the election of President shall not have
   been made and published by the first of December, on which the
   transfer of the office should be made, or the President-elect
   shall not have been ready to enter upon the discharge of his
   duties, the term of the former President shall end
   nevertheless, and the supreme executive power shall be
   deposited provisionally in the functionary to whom it belongs
   according to the provisions of the reformed Article 79 of this
   Constitution.

Article 83.
   The President, on taking possession of his office, shall take
   an oath before Congress, and in its recess before the
   Permanent Commission, under the following formula: "I swear to
   perform loyally and patriotically the duties of President of
   the United States of Mexico, according to the Constitution,
   and seek in everything for the welfare and prosperity of the
   Union."

Article 84.
   The President may not remove from the place of the residence
   of the Federal powers, nor lay aside the exercise of his
   functions, without grave cause, approved by the Congress, and
   in its recesses by the Permanent Commission.

I. To promulgate and execute the laws passed by the Congress of the Union, providing, in the administrative sphere, for their exact observance.

II. To appoint and remove freely the Secretaries of the Cabinet, to remove the diplomatic agents and superior employés of the Treasury, and to appoint and remove freely the other employés of the Union whose appointment and removal are not otherwise provided for in the Constitution or in the laws.

   III. To appoint ministers, diplomatic agents, consuls-general,
   with the approval of Congress, and, in its recess, of the
   Permanent Commission.

IV. To appoint, with the approval of Congress, the colonels and other superior officers of the national army and navy, and the superior employés of the treasury.

V. To appoint the other officers of the national army and
navy, according to the laws.

VI. To control the permanent armed force by sea and land for
the internal security and external defence of the Federation.

VII. To control the national guard for the same objects within
the limits established by Article 72, Clause XX.

   VIII. To declare war in the name of the United States of
   Mexico, after the passage of the necessary law by the Congress
   of the Union.

   X. To direct diplomatic negotiations and make treaties with
   foreign powers, submitting them for the ratification of the
   Federal Congress.

XII. To convoke Congress in extra sessions when the Permanent
Commission shall consent to it.

XIII. To furnish the judicial power with that assistance which
may be necessary for the prompt exercise of its functions.

XIV. To open all classes of ports, to establish maritime and
frontier custom-houses and designate their situation.

   XV. To grant, in accordance with the laws, pardons to
   criminals sentenced for crimes within the jurisdiction of the
   Federal tribunals.

   XVI. To grant exclusive privileges, for a limited time and
   according to the proper law, to discoverers, inventors, or
   perfecters of any branch of industry.

Article 86.
   For the dispatch of the business of the administrative
   department of the Federation there shall be the number of
   Secretaries which the Congress may establish by a law, which
   shall provide for the distribution of business and prescribe
   what shall be in charge of each Secretary.

Article 87.
   To be a Secretary of the Cabinet it is required that one shall
   be a Mexican citizen by birth, in the exercise of his rights,
   and fully twenty-five years old.

Article 88.
   All the regulations, decrees, and orders of the President must
   be signed by the Secretary of the Cabinet who is in charge of
   the department to which the subject belongs. Without this
   requisite they shall not be obeyed.

Article 89.
   The Secretaries of the Cabinet, as soon as the sessions of the
   first period shall be opened, shall render an account to the
   Congress of the state of their respective departments.

Article 90.
   The exercise of the judicial power of the Federation is vested
   in a Supreme Court of Justice and in the district and circuit
   courts.

Article 91.
   The Supreme Court of Justice shall be composed of eleven
   judges, four supernumeraries, one fiscal, and one
   attorney-general.

Article 92.
   Each of the members of the Supreme Court of Justice shall
   remain in office six years, and his election shall be indirect
   in the first degree, under conditions established by the
   electoral law.

Article 93.
   In order to be elected a member of the Supreme Court of
   Justice it is necessary that one be learned in the science of
   the law in the judgment of the electors, more than thirty-five
   years old, and a Mexican citizen by birth, in the exercise of
   his rights.

Article 94.
   The members of the Supreme Court of Justice, on entering upon
   the exercise of their charge, shall take an oath before
   Congress, and, in its recesses, before the Permanent
   Commission, in the following form: "Do you swear to perform
   loyally and patriotically the charge of Magistrate of the
   Supreme Court of Justice, which the people have conferred upon
   you in conformity with the Constitution, seeking in everything
   the welfare and prosperity of the Union?"

Article 95.
   A member of the Supreme Court of Justice may resign his office
   only for grave cause, approved by the Congress, to whom the
   resignation shall be presented. In the recesses of the
   Congress the judgment shall be rendered by the Permanent
   Commission.

Article 96.
The law shall establish and organize the circuit and district
courts.

I. All controversies which may arise in regard to the fulfilment and application of the Federal laws, except in the case in which the application affects only private interests; such a case falls within the competence of the local judges and tribunals of the common order of the States, of the Federal District, and of the Territory of Lower California.

V. Those that may arise between a State and one or more
citizens of another State.

Article 98.
   It belongs to the Supreme Court of Justice, in the first
   instance, to take cognizance of controversies which may arise
   between one State and another, and of those in which the Union
   may be a party.

Article 99.
   It belongs also to the Supreme Court of Justice to determine
   the questions of jurisdiction which may arise between the
   Federal tribunals, between these and those of the States, or
   between the courts of one State and those of another.

Article 100.
   In the other cases comprehended in Article 97, the Supreme
   Court of Justice shall be a court of appeal or, rather, of
   last resort, according to the graduation which the law may
   make in the jurisdiction of the circuit and district courts.

Article 101.
The tribunals of the Federation shall decide all questions
which arise:

I. Under laws or acts of whatever authority which violate
individual guarantees.

II. Under laws or acts of the State authority which violate or
restrain the sovereignty of the States.

III. Under laws or acts of the State authority which invade
the sphere of the Federal authority.

Article 102.
   All the judgments which the preceding article mentions shall
   be had on petition of the aggrieved party, by means of
   judicial proceedings and forms which shall be prescribed by
   law. The sentence shall be always such as to affect private
   individuals only, limiting itself to defend and protect them
   in the special case to which the process refers, without
   making any general declaration respecting the law or act which
   gave rise to it.

Article 103.
   The Senators, the Deputies, the members of the Supreme Court
   of Justice, and the Secretaries of the Cabinet are responsible
   for the common crimes which they may commit during their terms
   of office, and for the crimes, misdemeanors, and negligence
   into which they may fall in the performance of the duties of
   said office. The Governors of the States are likewise
   responsible for the infraction of the Constitution and Federal
   laws. The President of the Republic is also responsible; but
   during the term of his office he may be accused only for the
   crimes of treason against the country, express violation of
   the Constitution, attack on the freedom of election, and grave
   crimes of the common order. The high functionaries of the
   Federation shall not enjoy any Constitutional privilege for
   the official crimes, misdemeanors, or negligence into which
   they may fall in the performance of any employment, office, or
   public commission which they may have accepted during the
   period for which, in conformity with the law, they shall have
   been elected. The same shall happen with respect to those
   common crimes which they may commit during the performance of
   said employment, office, or commission. In order that the
   cause may be initiated when the high functionary shall have
   returned to the exercise of his proper functions, proceeding
   should be undertaken in accordance with the provision of
   Article 104 of this Constitution.

Article 104.
   If the crime should be a common one, the House of
   Representatives, formed into a grand jury, shall declare, by
   an absolute majority of votes, whether there is or is not
   ground to proceed against the accused. In the negative case,
   there shall be no ground for further proceedings; in the
   affirmative, the accused shall be, by the said act, deprived
   of his office, and subjected to the action of the ordinary
   tribunals.

Article 105.
   The houses shall take cognizance of official crimes, the House
   of Deputies as a jury of accusation, the Senators as a jury of
   judgment. The jury of accusation shall have for its object to
   declare, by an absolute majority of votes, whether the accused
   is or is not culpable. If the declaration should be
   absolutory, the functionary shall continue in the exercise of
   his office; if it should be condemnatory, he shall be
   immediately deprived of his office, and shall be placed at the
   disposal of the Senate. The latter, formed into a jury of
   judgment, and, with the presence of the criminal and of the
   accuser, if there should be one, shall proceed to apply, by an
   absolute majority of votes, the punishment which the law
   designates.

Article 106.
   A judgment of responsibility for official crimes having been
   pronounced, no favor of pardon may be extended to the
   offender.

Article 107.
   The responsibility for official crimes and misdemeanors may be
   required only during the period in which the functionary
   remains in office, and one year thereafter.

Article 108.
With respect to demands of the Civil order, there shall be no
privilege or immunity for any public functionary.

Article 109.
   The States shall adopt for their internal regimen the popular,
   representative, republican form of government, and may provide
   in their respective Constitutions for the reelection of the
   Governors in accordance with what Article 78 provides for the
   President of the Republic.

Article 110.
   The States may regulate among themselves, by friendly
   agreements, their respective boundaries; but those regulations
   shall not be carried into effect without the approval of the
   Congress of the Union.

1. Form alliances, treaties, or coalitions with another State, or with foreign powers, excepting the coalition which the frontier States may make for offensive or defensive war against the Indians.

Article 112.
Neither may any State, without the consent of the Congress of
the Union:

I. Establish tonnage duties, or any port duty, or impose taxes
or duties upon importations or exportations.

   III. Make war by itself on any foreign power except in cases
   of invasion or of such imminent peril as to admit of no delay.
   In these cases the State shall give notice immediately to the
   President of the Republic.

Article 113.
Each State is under obligation to deliver without delay the
criminals of other States to the authority that claims them.

Article 114.
The Governors of the States are obliged to publish and cause
to be obeyed the Federal laws.

Article 115.
   In each State of the Federation entire faith and credit shall
   be given to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings
   of all the other States. The Congress may, by means of general
   laws, prescribe the manner of proving said acts, records, and
   proceedings, and the effect thereof.

Article 116.
   The powers of the Union are bound to protect the States
   against all invasion or external violence. In case of
   insurrection or internal disturbance they shall give them like
   protection, provided the Legislature of the State, or the
   Executive, if the Legislature is not in session, shall request
   it.

Article 117.
   The powers which are not expressly granted by this
   Constitution to the Federal authorities are understood to be
   reserved to the States.

Article 118.
   No person may at the same time hold two Federal elective
   offices; but if elected to two, he may choose which of them he
   will fill.

Article 119.
No payment shall be made which is not comprehended in the
budget or determined by a subsequent law.

Article 120.
   The President of the Republic, the members of the Supreme
   Court of Justice, the Deputies, and other public officers of
   the Federation, who are chosen by popular election, shall
   receive a compensation for their services, which shall be
   determined by law and paid by the Federal Treasury. This
   compensation may not be renounced, and any law which augments
   or diminishes it shall not have effect during the period for
   which a functionary holds the office.

Article 121.
   Every public officer, without any exception, before taking
   possession of his office, shall take an oath to maintain this
   Constitution and the laws which emanate from it.

Article 122.
   In time of peace no military authority may exercise more
   functions than those which have close connection with military
   discipline. There shall be fixed and permanent military
   commands only in the castles, fortresses, and magazines which
   are immediately under the government of the Union; or in
   encampments, barracks, or depots which may be established
   outside of towns for stationing troops.

Article 123.
   It belongs exclusively to the Federal authorities to exercise,
   in matters of religious worship and external discipline, the
   intervention which the laws may designate.

Article 124.
   The States shall not impose any duty for the simple passage of
   goods in the internal commerce. The Government of the Union
   alone may decree transit duties, but only with respect to
   foreign goods which cross the country by international or
   interoceanic lines, without being on the national territory
   more time than is necessary to traverse it and depart to the
   foreign country. They shall not prohibit, either directly or
   indirectly, the entrance to their territory, or the departure
   from it, of any merchandise, except on police grounds; nor
   burden the articles of national production on their departure
   for a foreign country or for another State. The exemptions
   from duties which they concede shall be general; they may not
   be decreed in favor of the products of specified origin. The
   quota of the import for a given amount of merchandise shall be
   the same, whatever may have been its origin, and no heavier
   burden may be assigned to it than that which the similar
   products of the political entity in which the import is
   decreed bear. The national merchandise shall not be submitted
   to definite route nor to inspection or registry on the ways,
   nor any fiscal document be demanded for its internal
   circulation. Nor shall they burden foreign merchandise with a
   greater quota than that which may have been permitted them by
   the Federal law to receive.

Article 125.
   The forts, military quarters, magazines, and other edifices
   necessary to the government of the Union shall be under the
   immediate inspection of the Federal authorities.

Article 126.
   This Constitution, the laws of the Congress of the Union which
   emanate from it, and all the treaties made or which shall be
   made by the President of the Republic, with the approval of
   Congress, shall be the supreme law of the whole Union. The
   judges of each State shall be guided by said Constitution,
   law, and treaties in spite of provisions to the contrary which
   may appear in the Constitutions or laws of the States.

Article 127.
   The present Constitution may be added to or reformed. In order
   that additions or alterations may become part of the
   Constitution, it is required that the Congress of the Union,
   by a vote of two-thirds of the members present, shall agree to
   the alterations or additions, and that these shall be approved
   by the majority of the Legislatures of the States. The
   Congress of the Union shall count the votes of the
   Legislatures and make the declaration that the reforms or
   additions have been approved.

Article 128.
   This Constitution shall not lose its force and vigor even if
   its observance be interrupted by a rebellion. In case that by
   any public disturbance a government contrary to the principles
   which it sanctions shall be established, as soon as the people
   recover their liberty its observance shall be reestablished,
   and in accordance with it and the laws which shall have been
   issued in virtue of it, shall be judged not only those who
   shall have figured in the government emanating from the
   rebellion, but also those who shall have cooperated with it.

Article 1.
   The State and the Church are independent of one another. The
   Congress may not pass laws establishing or prohibiting any
   religion.

Article 2.
   Marriage is a civil contract. This and the other acts relating
   to the civil state of persons belong to the exclusive
   jurisdiction of the functionaries and authorities of the civil
   order, within limits provided by the laws, and they shall have
   the force and validity which the same attribute to them.

Article 3.
   No religious institution may acquire real estate or capital
   fixed upon it, with the single exception established in
   Article 27 of this Constitution.

Article 4.
   The simple promise to speak the truth and to comply with the
   obligations which have been incurred, shall be substituted for
   the religious oath, with its effects and penalties.

CONSTITUTION OF NETHERLANDS KINGDOM.
After 1830, this became the Kingdom of Holland.

CONSTITUTION OF NORWAY.

"On May 17, 1814, … a constitution was granted to Norway. The Fundamental Law of the constitution (Grundlöv), which almost every peasant farmer now-a-days has framed and hung up in the chief room of his house, bears the date the 4th of November 1814."

Article 1.
   The kingdom of Norway is a free, independent, undivisible, and
   inalienable state, united to Sweden under the same king. The
   form of its government is limited, hereditary, and
   monarchical.

Article 2.
   The Lutheran evangelical religion shall continue to be the
   ruling religion of the kingdom; those of the inhabitants which
   profess it are bound to bring up their children in its tenets;
   Jesuits and monastic orders shall not be prohibited in the
   kingdom. The admission of Jews into the kingdom shall always
   be, as formerly, prohibited.

Article 2.
The king shall always profess the evangelical Lutheran
religion, which he shall maintain and protect.

Article 3.
The person of the king is sacred: he can neither be blamed or
accused.

Article 4.
   The succession is lineal, and collateral, such as it is
   determined by the order of succession decreed by the general
   estates of Sweden, and sanctioned by the king in the Act of
   the 26th September 1810, of which a translation is annexed to
   this Constitution. Of the number of legitimate heirs, is
   comprehended the child in its mother's womb, which, as soon as
   it shall be born, after the death of its father, takes the
   place which is due to him in the line of succession. When a
   Prince, heir of the re-united crowns of Norway and Sweden,
   shall be born, his name, and the day of his birth shall be
   announced at the first Storthing, and inscribed in the
   registers.

Article 5.
   Should there not be found any prince, a legitimate heir to the
   throne, the king can propose his successor at the Storthing of
   Norway, and at the same time to the states general of Sweden.
   As soon as the king shall have made the proposition, the
   representatives of the two nations shall choose from among
   them a committee, invested with the right of determining the
   election, in case the king's proposition should not, by the
   plurality of voices, be approved of separately by the
   representatives of each of the countries. The number of
   members of this committee, shall be composed of an equal
   number of Norwegians and Swedes, so that the step to follow in
   the election shall be regulated by a law which the king shall
   propose at the same time to the next Storthing, and the states
   general of Sweden. They shall draw by lot one out of the
   committee for its member.

Article 6.
   The Storthing of Norway, and the states general of Sweden
   shall concert to fix by a law the king's majority; if they
   cannot agree, a committee, taken from the representatives of
   the two nations, shall decide it in the manner established by
   article 5th, title 2nd. As soon as the king shall have
   attained the years of majority fixed by the law, he shall
   publicly declare that he is of age.

[Footnote: Storthing is the national assembly, or general
estates of the kingdom.]

   [Footnote: A law of the Storthing, 13th July 1815, and
   sanctioned by the king, declared that the king is major on
   arriving at the age of eighteen years.]

Article 7.
   When the king comes of age he shall take into his hands the
   reins of government, and make the following oath to the
   Storthing: "I swear, on my soul and conscience, to govern the
   kingdom of Norway conformably to its constitution and laws."
   If the Storthing is not then assembled, this oath shall be
   deposited in writing in the council, and solemnly repeated by
   the king at the first Storthing, either vivâ voce or by
   writing, by the person whom he shall have appointed to this
   effect.

Article 8.
   The coronation of the king shall take place when he is of age,
   in the cathedral of Drontheim, at the time and with those
   ceremonies that shall be fixed by himself.

Article 9.
The King shall pass some time in Norway yearly, unless this is
prevented by urgent circumstances.

Article 10.
   The king shall exclusively choose a council of Norwegians,
   citizens, who shall have attained the seventieth year of their
   age. This council shall be composed at least of a minister of
   state, and seven other members. In like manner the king can
   create a viceroy or a government. The king shall arrange the
   affairs between the members of the council, in such manner as
   he shall consider expedient. Besides these ordinary members of
   council, the king, or in his absence the viceroy (or the
   government jointly with the ordinary members of council) may
   on particular occasions, call other Norwegians, citizens, to
   sit there, provided they are not members of the Storthing. The
   father and son, or two brothers, shall not, at the same time,
   have a seat in the council.

Article 11.
   The king shall appoint a governor of the kingdom in his
   absence, and on failure it shall be governed by the viceroy or
   a governor, with five at least of the members of council. They
   shall govern the kingdom in the name and behalf of the king;
   and they shall observe inviolably, as much the principles
   contained in this fundamental law as those relative precepts
   the king shall lay down in his instructions. They shall make a
   humble report to the king upon those affairs they have
   decided. All matters shall be decided by plurality of votes.
   If the votes happen to be equal, the viceroy or governor, or
   in their absence the first member of council, shall have two.

Article 12.
   The prince royal or his eldest son can be viceroy; but this
   can only occur when they have attained the majority of the
   king. In the case of a governor, either a Norwegian or a Swede
   may be nominated. The viceroy shall remain in the kingdom, and
   shall not be allowed to reside in a foreign one beyond three
   months each year. When the king shall be present, the
   viceroy's functions shall cease. If there is no viceroy, but
   only a governor, the functions of the latter shall also cease,
   in which event he is only the first member of council.

Article 13.
   During the residence of the king in Sweden, he shall always
   have near him the minister of state of Norway, and two of the
   members of the Norwegian council, when they shall be annually
   changed. These are charged with similar duties, and the same
   constitutional responsibility attaches to them as to the
   sitting council in Norway; and it is only in their presence
   that state affairs shall be decided by the king. All petitions
   addressed to the king by Norwegian citizens ought, first, to
   be transmitted to the Norwegian council, that they may be duly
   considered previously to decisions being pronounced. In
   general, no affairs ought to be decided before the council has
   expressed an opinion, in case it should be met with important
   objections. The minister of state of Norway ought to report
   the affairs, and he shall be responsible for expedition in the
   resolutions which shall have been taken.

Article 14.
   The king shall regulate public worship and its rites, as well
   as all assemblies that have religion for their object, so that
   ministers of religion may observe their forms prescribed to
   them.

Article 15.
   The king can give and abolish ordinances which respect
   commerce, the custom-house, manufactures, and police. They
   shall not, however, be contrary to the constitution nor the
   laws adopted by the Storthing. They shall have provisional
   force until the next Storthing.

Article 16.
   The king shall in general regulate the taxes imposed by the
   Storthing. The public treasurer of Norway shall remain in
   Norway, and the revenues shall only be employed towards the
   expenses of Norway.

Article 17.
   The king shall superintend the manner in which the domains and
   crown property of the state are employed and governed, in the
   manner fixed by the Storthing, and which shall be most
   advantageous to the country.

Article 18.
   The king in council has the right to pardon criminals when the
   supreme tribunal has pronounced its opinion. The criminal has
   the choice of receiving pardon from the king or of submitting
   to the punishment to which he is condemned. In the causes
   which the Odelsthing would have ordered to be carried to the
   Rigsret, there can be no other pardon but that which shall
   liberate from a capital punishment.

Article 19.
   The king, after having heard his Norwegian council, shall
   dispose of all the civil, ecclesiastic, and military
   employments. Those who assist in the functions shall swear
   obedience and fidelity to the constitution and to the king.
   The princes of the royal family cannot be invested with any
   civil employment; yet the prince royal, or his eldest son, may
   be nominated viceroy.

Article 20.
   The governor of the kingdom, the minister of state, other
   members of council, and those employed in the functions
   connected with these offices, the envoys and consuls, superior
   magistrates, civil and ecclesiastic commanders of regiments,
   and other military bodies, governors of fortresses, and
   commanders-in-chief of ships of war, shall, without previous
   arrest, be deposed by the king and his Norwegian council. As
   to the pension to be granted to those employed they shall be
   decided by the first Storthing. In the mean time, they shall
   enjoy two-third parts of their former salary. The others
   employed can only be suspended by the king, and they shall
   afterwards be brought before the tribunals, but cannot be
   deposed excepting by order of an arrest, and the king cannot
   make them change their situations contrary to their will.

Article 21.
   The king can confer orders of knighthood on whomsoever he
   chooses, in reward of distinguished services, which shall be
   published; but he can confer no other rank, with the title,
   than that which is attached to every employment. An order of
   knighthood does not liberate the person on whom it is
   conferred from those duties common to all citizens, and
   particular titles are not conferred in order to obtain
   situations in the state. Such persons shall preserve the title
   and rank attached to those situations which they have
   occupied. No person can, for the future, obtain personal,
   mixed, or hereditary privileges.

Article 22.
The king elects and dismisses, whenever he thinks proper, all
the officers attached to his court.

Article 23.
   The king is commander-in-chief of all the forces, by sea and
   land, in the kingdom, and these cannot be increased or
   diminished without the consent of the Storthing. They will not
   be ceded to the service of any foreign power, and troops
   belonging to a foreign power (except auxiliary troops in case
   of a hostile invasion,) cannot enter the country without the
   consent of the Storthing. During peace, the Norwegian troops
   shall be stationed in Norway, and not in Sweden.
   Notwithstanding this the king may have in Sweden a Norwegian
   guard, composed of volunteers, and may for a short time, not
   exceeding six weeks in a year, assemble troops in the environs
   of the two countries, for exercising; but in case there are
   more than 3,000 men, composing the army of one of the two
   countries, they cannot in time of peace enter the other.

[Footnote: The law of the Storthing, 5th July 1816, bears, that troops of the line shall be employed beyond the frontiers of the kingdom, and the interpretation given by it to that law is, that troops of the line shall be employed beyond the frontiers of the two kingdoms.]

The Norwegian army and gun-boats shall not be employed without the consent of the Storthing. The Norwegian fleet shall have dry docks, and during peace its stations and harbours in Norway. Ships of war of both countries shall be supplied with the seamen of the other, so long as they shall voluntarily engage to serve. The landwehr, and other Norwegian forces, which are not calculated among the number of troops, of the line, shall never be employed beyond the frontiers of the kingdom of Norway.

Article 24.
   The king has the right of assembling troops, commencing war,
   making peace, concluding and dissolving treaties, sending
   ministers to, and receiving those of, foreign courts. When he
   begins war he ought to advise the council of Norway, consult
   it, and order it to prepare an address on the state of the
   kingdom, relative to its finances, and proper means of
   defence. On this the king shall convoke the minister of state
   of Norway, and those of the council of Sweden, at an
   extraordinary assembly, when he shall explain all those
   relative circumstances that ought to be taken into
   consideration; with a representation of the Norwegian council,
   and a similar one on the part of Sweden, upon the state of the
   kingdom, shall then be presented. The king shall then require
   advice upon these objects; and each shall be inserted in a
   register, under the responsibility imposed by the
   constitution, when the king shall then adopt that resolution
   which he judges most, proper for the benefit of the state.

Article 25.
   On this occasion all the members of council must be present,
   if not prevented by some lawful cause, and no resolution ought
   to be adopted unless one half of the members are present. In
   Norwegian affairs, which, according to the fifteenth article,
   are decided in Sweden, no resolution shall be taken unless the
   minister of state of Norway and one of the members of council,
   or two members, are present.

Article 26.
   The representations respecting employments, and other
   important acts, excepting those of a diplomatic and military
   nature, properly so called, shall be referred to the council
   by him who is one of the members in the department charged
   with it, who shall accordingly draw up the resolution adopted
   in council.

Article 27.
   If any member of council is prevented from appearing, and
   referring the affairs which belong to his peculiar department,
   he shall be replaced in this office by one of the others
   appointed to this purpose, either by the king, if personally
   present, and if not, by him who has precedence in the council,
   jointly with the other members composing it. Should several of
   these be prevented from appearing, so that only one half of
   the ordinary number is present, the other employed in the
   offices shall in like manner have right to sit in council; and
   in that event it shall be afterwards referred to the king, who
   decides if they ought to continue to exercise this office.

Article 28.
   The council shall keep a register of all affairs that may come
   under its consideration. Every individual who sits in it shall
   be at liberty to give his opinion freely, which the king is
   obliged to hear; but it is reserved to his majesty to adopt
   resolutions after he has consulted his own mind. If a member
   of council finds that the king's resolution is contrary to the
   form of government, the laws of the kingdom, or injurious to
   the state, he shall consider it his duty to oppose it, and
   record his opinion in the register accordingly; but he who
   remains silent shall be presumed to have agreed with the king,
   and shall be responsible for it, even in the case of being
   referred to at a future period; and the Odelsthing is
   empowered to bring him before the Rigsret.

Article 29.
All the orders issued by the king (military affairs excepted)
shall be countersigned by the Norwegian minister of state.

Article 30.
   Resolutions made in absence of the king, by the council in
   Norway, shall be publicly proclaimed and signed by the
   viceroy, or the governor and council, and countersigned by him
   who shall have referred them, and he is further responsible
   for the accuracy and dispatch with the register in which the
   resolution is entered.

Article 31.
   All representations relative to the affairs of this country,
   as well as writings concerning them, must be in the Norwegian
   language.

Article 32.
   The heir-apparent to the throne, if a son of the reigning
   king, shall have the title of prince royal, the other
   legitimate heirs to the crown shall be culled princes, and the
   king's daughters princesses.

Article 33.
   As soon as the heir shall have attained the age of eighteen,
   he shall have a right to sit in council, without, however,
   having a vote, or any responsibility.

Article 34.
   No prince of the blood shall marry without permission of the
   king, and in case of contravention, he shall forfeit his right
   to the crown of Norway.

Article 35.
   The princes and princesses of the royal family, shall not, so
   far as respects their persons, be bound to appear before other
   judges, but before the king or whomsoever he shall have
   appointed for that purpose.

Article 36.
   The minister of state of Norway, as well as the two members of
   council who are near the king, shall have a seat and
   deliberative voice in the Swedish council, where objects
   relative to the two kingdoms shall be treated of. In affairs
   of this nature the advice of the council ought also to be
   understood, unless these require quick dispatch, so as not to
   allow time.

Article 37.
   If the king happens to die, and the heir to the throne is
   under age, the council of Norway, and that of Sweden, shall
   assemble, and mutually call a convocation of the Storthing in
   Norway and Diet of Sweden.

Article 38.
   Although the representatives of the two kingdoms should have
   assembled, and regulated the administration during the king's
   minority, a council composed of an equal number of Norwegian
   and Swedish members shall govern the kingdoms, and follow
   their fundamental reciprocal laws. The minister of state of
   Norway who sits in this council, shall draw by ballot in order
   to decide on which of its members the preference shall happen
   to fall.

Article 39.
   The regulations contained in the two last articles shall be
   always equally adopted after the constitution of Sweden. It
   belongs to the Swedish council, in this quality, to be at the
   head of government.

Article 40.
   With respect to more particular and necessary affairs that
   might occur in cases under the three former articles, the king
   shall propose to the first Storthing in Norway, and at the
   first Diet in Sweden, a law having for its basis the principle
   of a perfect equality existing between the two kingdoms.

Article 41.
   The election of guardians to be at the head of government
   during the king's minority, shall be made after the same rules
   and manner formerly prescribed in the second title, Article
   5th, concerning the election of an heir to the throne.

Article 42.
   The individuals who in the cases under the 38th and 39th
   articles, are at the head of government, shall be, the
   Norwegians at the Storthing of Norway, and shall take the
   following oath: "I swear, on my soul and conscience, to govern
   the kingdom conformably to its constitution and laws;" and the
   Swedes shall also make a similar oath. If there is not a
   Storthing or Diet, it shall be deposited in writing in the
   council, and afterwards repeated at the first of these when
   they happen to assemble.

Article 43.
As soon as the governments have ceased, they shall be restored
to the king, and the Storthing.

Article 44.
   If the Storthing is not convoked, agreeably to what is
   expressed in the 38th and 39th articles, the supreme tribunal
   shall consider it as an imperious duty, at the expiration of
   four weeks, to call a meeting.

Article 45.
   The charge of the education of the king, in case his father
   may not have left in writing instructions regarding it, shall
   be regulated in the manner laid down under the 5th and 41st
   articles. It is held to be an invariable rule, that the king
   during his minority shall learn the Norwegian language.

Article 46.
   If the masculine line of the royal family is extinct, and
   there has not been elected a successor to the throne, the
   election of a new dynasty shall be proceeded in, and after the
   manner prescribed under the 5th article. In the mean time the
   executive power shall be exercised agreeably to the 41st
   article.

Article 1.
   Legislative power is exercised by the Storthing, which is
   constituted of two houses, namely, the Lagthing and
   Odelsthing.

Article 2.
   None shall have a right to vote but Norwegians, who have
   attained twenty·five years, and resided in the country during
   five years.
   1. Those who are exercising, or who have exercised functions.
   2. Possess land in the country, which has been let for more
   than five years.
   3. Are burgesses of some city, or possess either in it, or
   some village, a house, or property of the value of at least
   three hundred bank crowns in silver.

Article 3.
   There shall be drawn up in cities by the magistrates, and in
   every parish by the public authority and the priest, a
   register of all the inhabitants who are voters. They shall
   also note in it without delay, those changes which may
   successively take place. Before being inscribed in the
   register, everyone shall take an oath, before the tribunal, of
   fidelity to the constitution.

1. By the accusation of crime before a tribunal; 2. By not attaining the proper age; 3. By insolvency or bankruptcy, until creditors have obtained their payment in whole, unless it can be proved that the former has arisen from fire, or other unforeseen events.

1. By condemnation to the house of correction, slavery, or punishment for defamatory language; 2. By acceptance of the service of a foreign power, without the consent of government. 3. By obtaining the right of citizen in a foreign country. 4. By conviction of having purchased and sold votes, and having voted in more than one electoral assembly.

6. The electoral assemblies and districts are held every three years, and shall finish before the end of the month of December.

7. Electoral assemblies shall be held for the country, at the manor-house of the parish, the church, town-hall, or some other fit place. In the country they shall be directed by the first minister and assistants; and in towns, by magistrates and sheriffs; election shall be made in the order appointed by the registers. Disputes concerning the right of voting shall be decided by the directors of the assembly, from whose judgment an appeal may be made to the Storthing.

8. Before proceeding to the election, the constitution shall be read with a loud voice in the cities, by the first magistrate, and in the country by the curate.

9. In cities, an elector shall be chosen by fifty eligible inhabitants. They shall assemble eight days after, in the place appointed by the magistrate, and choose, either from amongst themselves, or from others who are eligible in the department of their election, a fourth of their number to sit at the Storthing, that is after the manner of three to six in choosing one; seven to ten in electing two; eleven to fourteen in choosing three, and fifteen to eighteen in electing four; which is the greatest number permitted to a city to send. If these consist of less than 150 eligible inhabitants, they shall send the electors to the nearest city, to vote conjointly with the electors of the former, when the two shall only be considered as forming one district.

[Footnote: A law passed 8th February 1816, contains this amendment. Twenty-five electors and more shall not elect more than three representatives, which shall be, ad interim, the greatest number which the bailiwick can send: and, consequently, out of which the number of representatives in the county, which are sixty-one, shall be diminished from fifty to fifty-three.]

10. In each parish in the country the eligible inhabitants shall choose in proportion to their number electors in the following manner; that is to say, a hundred may choose one; two to three hundred, three; and so on in the same proportion.

[Footnote: If future Storthings discover the number of representatives of towns from an increase of population should amount to thirty, the same Storthing shall have right to augment of new the number of representatives of the country, in the manner fixed by the principles of the constitution, which shall be held as a rule in future.]

Electors shall assemble a month after, in the place appointed by the bailiff, and choose, either from amongst themselves or the others of the bailiwick eligible, a tenth of their own number to sit at the Storthing, so that five to fourteen may choose one; fifteen to twenty-four may choose two of them; twenty-five to thirty-four, three; thirty-five and beyond it, four. This is the greatest number.

11. The powers contained in the 9th and 10th articles shall have their proper force and effect until next Storthing. If it is found that the representatives of cities constitute more or less than one-third of those of the kingdom, the Storthing, as a rule for the future, shall have right to change these powers in such a manner that representatives of the cities may join with those of the country, as one to two; and the total number of representatives ought not to be under seventy-five, nor above one hundred.

12. Those eligible, who are in the country, and are prevented from attending by sickness, military service, or other proper reasons, can transmit their votes in writing to those who direct the electoral assemblies, before their termination.

13. No person can be chosen a representative, unless he is thirty years of age, and has resided ten years in the country.

14. The members of council, those employed in their offices, officers of the court, and its pensioners, shall not be chosen as representatives.

15. Individuals chosen to be representatives, are obliged to accept of the election, unless prevented by motives considered lawful by the electors, whose judgment may be submitted to the decision of the Storthing. A person who has appeared more than once as representative at an ordinary Storthing, is not obliged to accept of the election for the next ordinary Storthing. If legal reasons prevent a representative from appearing at the Storthing, the person who after him has most votes shall take his place.

16. As soon as representatives have been elected, they shall receive a writing in the country from the superior magistrate, and in the cities from the magistrate, also from all the electors, as a proof that they have been elected in the manner prescribed by the constitution. The Storthing shall judge of the legality of this authority.

17. All representatives have a right to claim an indemnification in travelling to and returning from the Storthing; as well as subsistence during the period they shall have remained there.

18. During the journey, and return of representatives, as well as the time they may have attended the Storthing, they are exempted from arrest; unless they are seized in some flagrant and public act, and out of the Storthing they shall not be responsible for the opinions they may have declared in it. Everyone is bound to conform himself to the order established in it.

19. Representatives, chosen in the manner above declared, compose the Storthing of the kingdom of Norway.

20. The opening of the Storthing shall be made the first lawful day in the month of February, every three years, in the capital of the kingdom, unless the king, in extraordinary circumstances, by foreign invasion or contagious disease, fixes on some other city of the kingdom. Such change ought then to be early announced.

21. In extraordinary cases, the king has the right of assembling the Storthing, without respect to the ordinary time. The king will then cause to be issued a proclamation, which is to be read in all the principal churches six weeks at least previous to the day fixed for the assembling of members of the Storthing at the place appointed.

22. Such extraordinary Storthing may be dissolved by the king when he shall judge fit.

23. Members of the Storthing shall continue in the exercise of their office during three consecutive years, as much during an extraordinary as any ordinary Storthing that might be held during this time.

24. If an extraordinary Storthing is held at a time when the ordinary Storthing ought to assemble, the functions of the first will cease, as soon as the second shall have met.

25. The extraordinary Storthing, no more than the ordinary, can be held if two-thirds of the members do not happen to be present.

26. As soon as the Storthing shall be organized, the king, or the person who shall be appointed by him for that purpose, shall open it by an address, in which he is to describe the state of the kingdom, and those objects to which he directs the attention of the Storthing. No deliberation ought to take place in the king's presence. The Storthing shall choose from its members one-fourth part to form the Lagthing, and the other three-fourths to constitute the Odelsthing. Each of these houses shall have its private meetings, and nominate its president and secretary.

1. To make and abolish laws, establish imposts, taxes, custom-houses, and other public acts, which shall, however, only exist until the 1st of July of that year, when a new Storthing shall be assembled, unless this last is expressly renewed by them.

5. To fix the yearly grant for the maintenance of the king and viceroy, and also appendages of the royal family; which ought not, however, to consist in landed property.

6. To exhibit the register of the sitting council in Norway, and all the reports, and public documents (the affairs of military command excepted), and certified copies, or extracts of the registers kept by the ministers of state and members of council near the king, or the public documents, which shall have been produced.

7. To communicate whatever treaties the king shall have concluded in the name of the state with foreign powers, excepting secret articles, provided these are not in contradiction with the public articles.

8. To require all individuals to appear before the Storthing on affairs of state, the king and royal family excepted. This is not, however, applicable to the princes of the royal family, as they are invested with other offices than that of viceroy.

9. To examine the lists of provisional pensions; and to make such alterations as shall be judged necessary.

10. To name five revisers, who are annually to examine the accounts of the state, and publish printed extracts of these, which are to be remitted to the revisers also every year before the 1st of July. 11. To naturalize foreigners.

28. Laws ought first to be proposed to the Odelsthing, either by its own members or the government, through one of the members of council. If the proposition is accepted, it shall be sent to the Lagthing, who approve or reject it; and in the last case return it accompanied with remarks. These shall be weighed by the Odelsthing, which sets the proposed law aside, or remits it to the Lagthing, with or without alterations. When a law shall have been twice proposed by the Odelsthing to the Lagthing, and the latter shall have rejected it a second time, the Storthing shall assemble, when two-thirds of the votes shall decide upon it. Three days at least ought to pass between each of those deliberations.

29. When a resolution proposed by the Odelsthing shall be approved by the Lagthing, or by the Storthing alone, a deputation of these two houses to the Storthing shall present it to the king if he is present, and if not, to the viceroy, or Norwegian council, and require it may receive the royal sanction.

30. Should the king approve of the resolution, he subscribes to it, and from that period it is declared to pass into a public law. If he disapproves he returns it to the Odelsthing, declaring that at this time he does not give it his sanction.

31. In this event, the Storthing, then assembled, ought to submit the resolution to the king, who may proceed in it in the same manner if the first ordinary Storthing presents again to him the same resolution. But if, after reconsideration, it is still adopted by the two houses of the third ordinary Storthing, and afterwards submitted to the king, who shall have been intreated not to withhold his sanction to a resolution that the Storthing, after the most mature deliberations, believes to be useful; it shall acquire the strength of a law, even should it not receive the king's signature before the closing of the Storthing.

32. The Storthing shall sit as long as it shall be judged necessary, but not beyond three months, without the king's permission. When the business is finished, or after it has assembled for the time fixed, it is dissolved by the king. His Majesty gives, at the same time, his sanction to the decrees not already decided, either in corroborating or rejecting them. All those not expressly sanctioned are held to be rejected by him.

33. Laws are to be drawn up in the Norwegian language, and (those mentioned in 31st article excepted) in name of the king, under the seal of the kingdom, and in these terms:—"We, &c. Be it known, that there has been submitted to us a decree of the Storthing (of such a date) thus expressed (follows the resolution); We have accepted and sanctioned as law the said decree, in giving it our signature, and seal of the kingdom."

34. The king's sanction is not necessary to the resolutions of the Storthing, by which the legislative body,

6. And in short, the resolution by which the Odelsthing orders some member of council to appear before the tribunals.

35. The Storthing can demand the advice of the supreme tribunal in judicial matters.

36. The Storthing will hold its sittings with open doors, and its acts shall be printed and published, excepting in cases where a contrary measure shall have been decided by the plurality of votes.

37. Whoever molests the liberty and safety of the Storthing, renders himself guilty of an act of high treason towards the country.

Article 1.
   The members of the Lagthing and supreme tribunal composing the
   Rigsret, judge in the first and last instance of the affairs
   entered upon by the Odelsthing, either against the members of
   council or supreme tribunal for crimes committed in the
   exercise of their offices, or against the members of Storthing
   for acts committed by them in a similar capacity. The
   president of the Lagthing has the precedence in the Rigsret.

2. The accused can, without declaring his motive for so doing, refuse, even a third part of the members of the Rigsret, provided, however, that the number of persons who compose this tribunal be not reduced to less than fifteen.

3. The supreme tribunal shall judge in the last instance, and ought not to be composed of a lesser number than the resident and six assessors.

4. In time of peace the supreme tribunal, with two superior officers appointed by the king, constitutes a tribunal of the second and last resort in all military affairs which respect life, honour, and loss of liberty for a time beyond the space of three months.

5. The arrests of the supreme tribunal shall not in any case be called upon to be submitted to revisal.

6. No person shall be named member of the supreme tribunal, if he has not attained at least thirty years of age.

Article 1.
   Employments in the states shall be conferred only on Norwegian
   citizens, who profess the Evangelical Lutheran religion—have
   sworn fidelity to the constitution and king, speak the
   language of the country, and are,—

2. Or born in a foreign country, their father and mother being Norwegians, and at that period not the subjects of another state.

3. Or, who on the 17th May, 1814, had a permanent residence in the kingdom, and did not refuse to take an oath to maintain the independence of Norway.

5. Or who have been naturalized by the Storthing. Foreigners, however, may be nominated to these official situations in the university and colleges, as well as to those of physicians, and consuls in a foreign country. In order to succeed to an office in the superior tribunal, the person must be thirty years old; and to fill a place in the inferior magistracy,—a judge of the tribunal of first instance, or a public receiver, he must be twenty-five.

2. Norway does not acknowledge herself owing any other debt than that of her own.

3. A new general code, of a civil and criminal nature, shall first be published; or, if that is impracticable, at the second ordinary Storthing. Meantime, the laws of the state, as at present existing, shall preserve their effect, since they are not contrary to this fundamental law, or provisional ordinances published in the interval. Permanent taxes shall continue to be levied until next Storthing.

4. No protecting dispensation, letter of respite, or restitutions, shall be granted after the new general code shall be published.

5. No persons can be judged but in conformity to the law, or be punished until a tribunal shall have taken cognizance of the charges directed against them. Torture shall never take place.

7. Fees due to officers of justice are not to be combined with rents payable to the public treasury.

8. Arrest ought not to take place excepting in cases and in the manner fixed by law. Illegal arrests, and unlawful delays, render him who occasions them responsible to the person arrested. Government is not authorized to employ military force against the members of the state, but under the forms prescribed by the laws, unless an assembly which disturbs the public tranquillity does not instantly disperse after the articles of the code concerning sedition shall have been read aloud three times by the civil authorities.

9. The liberty of the press shall be established. No person can be punished for a writing he has ordered to be printed or published, whatever may be the contents of it, unless he has, by himself or others, wilfully declared, or prompted others to, disobedience of the laws, contempt for religion, and constitutional powers, and resistance to their operations; or has advanced false and defamatory accusations against others. It is permitted to everyone to speak freely his opinion on the administration of the state, or on any other object whatever.

10. New and permanent restrictions on the freedom of industry are not to be granted in future to anyone.

14. If the interest of the state requires that anyone should sacrifice his moveable or immovable property for the public benefit, he shall be fully indemnified by the public treasury.

15. The capital, as well as the revenues of the domains of the church, can be applied only for the interests of the clergy, and the prosperity of public instruction. The property of benevolent institutions shall be employed only for their profit.

16. The right of the power of redemption called Odelsret*, and that of possession, called Afædesret (father's right), shall exist. Particular regulations, which will render these of utility to the states and agriculture, shall be determined by the first or second Storthing.

[Footnote: In virtue of the right of "Odelsret," members of a family to whom certain lands originally pertained, can reclaim and retake possession of the same, even after the lapse of centuries, provided these lands are representative of the title of the family; that is, if for every ten years successively they shall have judicially made reservation of their right. This custom, injurious perhaps to the progress of agriculture, does, however, attach the peasants to their native soil.]

17. No county, barony, majorat or "fidei commis" shall be created for the future.

18. Every citizen of the state, without regard to birth or fortune, shall be equally obliged, during a particular period, to defend his country. [Footnote: Every person is obliged to serve from twenty-one to twenty-three, and not after.] The application of this principle and its restrictions, as well as the question of ascertaining to what point it is of benefit to the country, that this obligation should cease at the age of twenty-five,—shall be abandoned to the decision of the first ordinary Storthing, after they shall have been discharged by a committee; in the meantime, vigorous efforts shall preserve their effect.

19. Norway shall retain her own language, her own finances and coin: institutions which shall be determined upon by laws.

20. Norway has the right of having her own flag of trade and war, which shall be an union flag.

21. If experience should show the necessity of changing some part of this fundamental law, a proposition to this purpose shall be made to an ordinary Storthing, published and printed; and it only pertains to the next ordinary Storthing to decide if the change proposed ought to be effectual or not. Such alteration, however, ought never to be contrary to the principles of this fundamental law; and should only have for its object those modifications in which particular regulations do not alter the spirit of the constitution. Two-thirds of the Storthing ought to agree upon such a change.

CONSTITUTION OF PRUSSIA.

   The following text of the Constitution granted by Frederick
   William, King of Prussia, on the 31st of January, 1850, with
   subsequent alterations, is a translation made by Mr. Charles
   Lowe, and published in the appendix to his Life of Prince
   Bismarck, 1885.

We, Frederick William, &c., hereby proclaim and give to know that, whereas the Constitution of the Prussian State, promulgated by us on the 5th December, 1848, subject to revision in the ordinary course of legislation, and recognised by both Chambers of our Kingdom, has been submitted to the prescribed revision; we have finally established that Constitution in agreement with both Chambers. Now, therefore, we promulgate, as a fundamental law of the State, as follows:—

Article 1.
All parts of the Monarchy in its present extent form the
Prussian State Territory.

Article 3.
   The Constitution and the laws determine under what conditions
   the quality and civil rights of a Prussian may be acquired,
   exercised, and forfeited.

Article 4.
   All Prussians are equal before the law. Class privileges there
   are none. Public offices, subject to the conditions imposed by
   law, are equally accessible to all who are competent to hold
   them.

Article 5.
   Personal freedom is guaranteed. The forms and conditions under
   which any limitation thereof, especially arrest, is
   permissible, will be determined by law.

Article 6.
   The domicile is inviolable. Intrusion and search therein, as
   well as the seizing of letters and papers, are only allowed in
   legally settled cases.

Article 7.
No one may be deprived of his lawful judge. Exceptional
tribunals and extraordinary commissions are inadmissible.

Article 8.
Punishments can only be threatened or inflicted according to
the law.

Article 9.
   Property is inviolable. It can only be taken or curtailed from
   reasons of public weal and expediency, and in return for
   statutory compensation which, in urgent cases at least, shall
   be fixed beforehand.

Article 10.
Civil death and confiscation of property, as punishments, are
not possible.

Article 11.
   Freedom of emigration can only be limited by the State, with
   reference to military service. Migration fees may not be
   levied.

Article 12.
   Freedom of religious confession, of meeting in religious
   societies (Art. 30 and 31), and of the common exercise of
   religion in private and public, is guaranteed. The enjoyment
   of civil and political rights is independent of religious
   belief, yet the duties of a citizen or a subject may not be
   impaired by the exercise of religious liberty.

Article 13.
Religious and clerical societies, which have no corporate
rights, can only acquire those rights by special laws.

Article 14.
   The Christian religion is taken as the basis of those State
   institutions which are connected with the exercise of
   religion—all religious liberty guaranteed by Art. 12
   notwithstanding.

Article 15.
   [Footnote: Affected by the Falk laws of 1875, and by
   the act of 1887 which repealed them.
   See GERMANY: A. D. 1873-1887.]

The Protestant and Roman Catholic Churches, as well as every other religious society, regulate and administer their own affairs in an independent manner, and remain in possession and enjoyment of the institutions, foundations, and moneys intended for their purposes of public worship, education, and charity.

   Intercourse between religious societies and their superiors
   shall be unobstructed. The making public of Church ordinances
   is only subject to those restrictions imposed on all other
   publications.

Article 17.
A special law will be passed with respect to Church patronage,
and to the conditions on which it may be abolished.

   Abolished is the right of nominating, proposing, electing, and
   confirming, in the matter of appointments to ecclesiastical
   posts, in so far as it belongs to the State, and is not based
   on patronage or special legal titles.

Article 19.
   Civil marriage will be introduced in accordance with a special
   law, which shall also regulate the keeping of a civil
   register.

Article 21.
   The education of youth shall be sufficiently cared for by
   public schools. Parents and their substitutes may not leave
   their children or wards without that education prescribed for
   the public folk-schools.

Article 22.
   Every one shall be at liberty to give instruction, and
   establish institutions for doing so, providing he shall have
   given proof of his moral, scientific, and technical capacity
   to the State authorities concerned.

Article 23.
   All public and private institutions of an educational kind are
   under the supervision of authorities appointed by the State.
   Public teachers have the rights and duties of State servants.

Article 24.
[Footnote: We cannot translate "Volkschule" better
than by "folk-school."]

In the establishment of public folk-schools, confessional differences shall receive the greatest possible consideration. Religious instruction in the folk-schools will be superintended by the religious societies concerned. Charge of the other (external) affairs of the folk-schools belongs to the Parish (Commune). With the statutory co-operation of the Commune, the State shall appoint teachers in the public folk-schools from the number of those qualified (for such posts).

Article 25.
   The means for establishing, maintaining, and enlarging the
   public folk-schools shall be provided by the Communes, which
   may, however, be assisted by the State in proven cases of
   parochial inability. The obligations of third persons—based
   on special legal titles—remain in force. The State,
   therefore, guarantees to teachers in folk-schools a steady
   income suitable to local circumstances. In public folk-schools
   education shall be imparted free of charge.

Article 27.
   Every Prussian is entitled to express his opinion freely by
   word, writing, print, or artistic representation. Censorship
   may not be introduced; every other restriction on freedom of
   the Press will only be imposed by law.

Article 28.
   Offences committed by word, writing, print, or artistic
   representation will be punished in accordance with the general
   penal code.

Article 29.
   All Prussians are entitled to meet in closed rooms, peacefully
   and unarmed, without previous permission from the authorities.
   But this provision does not apply to open-air meetings, which
   are subject to the law with respect to previous permission
   from the authorities.

Article 30.
   All Prussians have the right to assemble (in societies) for
   such purposes as do not contravene the penal laws. The law
   will regulate, with special regard to the preservation of
   public security, the exercise of the right guaranteed by this
   and the preceding article.

Article 31.
The law shall determine the conditions on which corporate
rights may be granted or refused.

Article 32.
   The right of petitioning belongs to all Prussians. Petitions
   under a collective name are only permitted to authorities and
   corporations.

Article 33.
   The privacy of letters is inviolable. The necessary
   restrictions of this right, in cases of war and of criminal
   investigation, will be determined by law.

Article 34.
All Prussians are bound to bear arms. The extent and manner of
this duty will be fixed by law.

Article 35.
   The army comprises all sections of the standing army and the
   Landwehr (territorial forces). In the event of war, the King
   can call out the Landsturm in accordance with the law.

Article 36.
   The armed force (of the nation) can only be employed for the
   suppression of internal troubles, and the execution of the
   laws, in the cases and manner specified by statute, and on the
   requisition of the civil authorities. In the latter respect
   exceptions will have to be determined by law.

Article 37.
   The military judiciary of the army is restricted to penal
   matters, and will be regulated by law. Provisions with regard
   to military discipline will remain the subject of special
   ordinances.

Article 38.
   The armed force (of the nation) may not deliberate either when
   on or off duty; nor may it otherwise assemble than when
   commanded to do so. Assemblies and meetings of the Landwehr
   for the purpose of discussing military institutions, commands
   and ordinances, are forbidden even when it is not called out.

Article 39.
   The provisions of Arts. 5, 6, 29, 30, and 32 will only apply
   to the army in so far as they do not conflict with military
   laws and rules of discipline.

Article 40.
   The establishment of feudal tenures is forbidden. The Feudal
   Union still existing with respect to surviving fiefs shall be
   dissolved by law.

Article 41.
The provisions of Art. 40 do not apply to Crown fiefs or to
non-State fiefs.

Article 42.
Abolished without compensation, in accordance with special
laws passed, are:

   1. The exercise or transfer of judicial power connected with
   the possession of certain lands, together with the dues and
   exemptions accruing from this right;

2. The obligations arising from patriarchal jurisdiction, vassalage, and former tax and trading institutions. And with these rights are also abolished the counter-services and burdens hitherto therewith connected.

Article 44.
   The King's Ministers are responsible. All Government acts
   (documentary) of the King require for their validity the
   approval of a Minister, who thereby assumes responsibility for
   them.

Article 45.
   The King alone is invested with executive power. He appoints
   and dismisses Ministers. He orders the promulgation of laws,
   and issues the necessary ordinances for their execution.

Article 47.
   The King fills all posts in the army, as well as in other
   branches of the State service, in so far as not otherwise
   ordained by law.

Article 48.
   The King has the right to declare war and make peace, and to
   conclude other treaties with foreign governments. The latter
   require for their validity the assent of the Chambers in so
   far as they are commercial treaties, or impose burdens on the
   State, or obligations on its individual subjects.

Article 49.
   The King has the right to pardon, and to mitigate punishment.
   But in favour of a Minister condemned for his official acts,
   this right can only be exercised on the motion of that Chamber
   whence his indictment emanated. Only by special law can the
   King suppress inquiries already instituted.

Article 50.
   The King may confer orders and other distinctions, not
   carrying with them privileges. He exercises the right of
   coinage in accordance with the law.

Article 51.
   The King convokes the Chambers, and closes their sessions. He
   may dissolve both at once, or only one at a time. In such a
   case, however, the electors must be assembled within a period
   of 60 days, and the Chambers summoned within a period of 90
   days respectively after the dissolution.

Article 52.
   The King can adjourn the Chambers. But without their assent
   this adjournment may not exceed the space of 30 days, nor be
   repeated during the same session.

Article 53.
   The Crown, according to the laws of the Royal House, is
   hereditary in the male line of that House in accordance with
   the law of primogeniture and agnatic succession.

Article 54.
   The King attains his majority on completing his 18th year. In
   presence of the united Chambers he will take the oath to
   observe the Constitution of the Monarchy steadfastly and
   inviolably, and to rule in accordance with it and the laws.

Article 55.
Without the consent of both Chambers the King cannot also be
ruler of foreign realms (Reiche).

Article 56.
   If the King is a minor, or is otherwise lastingly prevented
   from ruling himself, the Regency will be undertaken by that
   agnate (Art. 53) who has attained his majority and stands
   nearest the Crown. He has immediately to convoke the Chambers,
   which, in united session, will decide as to the necessity of
   the Regency.

Article 57.
   If there be no agnate of age, and if no legal provision has
   previously been made for such a contingency, the Ministry of
   State will convoke the Chambers, which shall then elect a
   Regent in united session. And until the assumption of the
   Regency by him, the Ministry of State will conduct the
   Government.

Article 58.
   The Regent will exercise the powers invested in the King in
   the latter's name; and, after institution of the Regency, he
   will take an oath before the united Chambers to observe the
   Constitution of the Monarchy steadfastly and inviolably, and
   to rule in accordance with it and the laws. Until this oath is
   taken, the whole Ministry of State for the time being will
   remain responsible for all acts of the Government.

Article 59.
To the Crown Trust Fund appertains the annuity drawn from the
income of the forests and domains.

Article 60.
   The Ministers, as well as the State officials appointed to
   represent them, have access to each Chamber, and must at all
   times be listened to at request. Each Chamber can demand the
   presence of the Ministers. The Ministers are only entitled to
   vote in one or other of the Chambers when members of it.

Article 61.
   On the resolution of a Chamber the Ministers may be impeached
   for the crime of infringing the Constitution, of bribery, and
   of treason. The decision of such a case lies with the Supreme
   Tribunal of the Monarchy sitting in United Senates. As long as
   two Supreme Tribunals co-exist, they shall unite for the above
   purpose. Further details as to matters of responsibility,
   (criminal) procedure (thereupon), and punishments, are
   reserved for a special law.

Article 62.
   The legislative power will be exercised in common by the King
   and by two Chambers. Every law requires the assent of the King
   and the two Chambers. Money bills and budgets shall first be
   laid before the Second Chamber; and the latter (i. e.,
   budgets) shall either be wholly approved by the First Chamber,
   or rejected altogether.

Article 63.
   In the event only of its being urgently necessary to maintain
   public security, or deal with an unusual state of distress
   when the Chambers are not in session, ordinances, which do not
   contravene the Constitution, may be issued with the force of
   law, on the responsibility of the whole Ministry. But these
   must be laid for approval before the Chambers at their next
   meeting.

Article 64.
   The King, as well as each Chamber, has the right of proposing
   laws. Bills that have been rejected by one of the Chambers, or
   by the King, cannot be re-introduced in the same session.

Articles 65-68.
   The First Chamber is formed by royal ordinance, which can only
   be altered by a law to be issued with the approval of the
   Chambers. The First Chamber is composed of members appointed
   by the King, with hereditary rights, or only for life.

Article 69.
   The Second Chamber consists of 430 members. The electoral
   districts are determined by law. They may consist of one or
   more Circles (Arrondissements), or of one or more of the
   larger towns.

   [Footnote: Originally 350 only—a number which, in 1851, was
   increased by 2, for the Principality of Hohenzollern, and in
   1867 by 80 for the annexed provinces.]

Article 70.
   Every Prussian who has completed his 25th year (i. e.,
   attained his majority), and is capable of taking part in the
   elections of the Commune where he is domiciled, is entitled to
   act as a primary voter (Urwähler). Anyone who is entitled to
   take part in the election of several Communes, can only
   exercise his right as primary voter in one Commune.

Article 71.
   For every 250 souls of the population, one (secondary) elector
   (Wahlmann) shall be chosen. The primary voters fall into three
   classes, in proportion to the amount of direct taxes they
   pay—and in such a manner as that each class will represent a
   third of the sum-total of the taxes paid by the primary
   voters. This sum-total is reckoned:—

(a) by Parishes, in case the Commune does not form of itself a
primary electoral district.

(b) by (Government) Districts (Bezirke), in case the primary electoral district consists of several Communes.

The first class consists of those primary voters, highest in the scale of taxation, who pay a third of the total. The second class consists of those primary voters, next highest in the scale, whose taxes form a second third of the whole; and the third class is made up of the remaining tax-payers (lowest in the scale) who contribute the other third of the whole. Each class votes apart, and for a third of the secondary electors. These classes may be divided into several voting sections, none of which, however, must include more than 500 primary voters. The secondary voters are elected in each class from the number of the primary voters in their district, without regard to the classes.

Article 72.
   The deputies are elected by the secondary voters. Details will
   be regulated by an electoral law, which must also make the
   necessary provision for those cities where flour and slaughter
   duties are levied instead of direct taxes.

Article 73.
The legislative period of the Second Chamber is fixed at three
years.

Article 74.
   Eligible as deputy to the Second Chamber is every Prussian who
   has completed his thirtieth year, has forfeited none of his
   civil rights in consequence of a valid judicial sentence, and
   has been a Prussian subject for three years. The president and
   members of the Supreme Chamber of Accounts cannot sit in
   either House of the Diet (Landtag).

Article 75.
   After the lapse of a legislative period the Chambers will be
   elected anew, and the same in the event of dissolution. In
   both cases, previous members are re-eligible.

Article 76.
   Both Houses of the Diet of the Monarchy shall be regularly
   convened by the King in the period from the beginning of
   November in each year till the middle of the following
   January, and otherwise as often as circumstances require.

Article 77.
   The Chambers will be opened and closed by the King in person,
   or by a Minister appointed by him to do so, at a combined
   sitting of the Chambers. Both Chambers shall be simultaneously
   convened, opened, adjourned, and closed. If one Chamber is
   dissolved, the other shall be at the same time prorogued.

Article 78.
   Each Chamber will examine the credentials of its members, and
   decide thereupon. It will regulate its own order of business
   and discipline by special ordinances, and elect its president,
   vice-presidents, and office-bearers. Civil servants require no
   leave of absence in order to enter the Chamber. If a member of
   the Chamber accepts a salaried office of the State, or is
   promoted in the service of the State to a post involving
   higher rank or increase of pay, he shall lose his seat and
   vote in the Chamber, and can only recover his place in it by
   re-election. No one can be member of both Chambers.

Article 79.
   The sittings of both Chambers are public. On the motion of its
   president, or of ten members, each Chamber may meet in private
   sitting—at which this motion will then have to be discussed.

Article 80.
   Neither of the Chambers can pass a resolution unless there be
   present a majority of the legal number of its members. Each
   Chamber passes its resolutions by absolute majority of votes,
   subject to any exceptions that may be determined by the order
   of business for elections.

Article 81.
   Each Chamber has the separate right of presenting addresses to
   the King. No one may in person present to the Chambers, or to
   one of them, a petition or address. Each Chamber can transmit
   the communications made to it to the Ministers, and demand of
   them an answer to any grievances thus conveyed.

Article 82.
Each Chamber is entitled to appoint commissions of inquiry
into facts—for its own information.

Article 83.
   The members of both Chambers are representatives of the whole
   people. They vote according to their simple convictions, and
   are not bound by commissions or instructions.

Article 84.
   For their votes in the Chamber they can never be called to
   account, and for the opinions they express therein they can
   only be called to account within the Chamber, in virtue of the
   order of business. No member of a Chamber can, without its
   assent, be had up for examination, or be arrested during the
   Parliamentary session for any penal offence, unless he be
   taken in the act, or in the course of the following day. A
   similar assent shall be necessary in the case of arrest for
   debts. All criminal proceedings against a member of the
   Chamber, and all arrests for preliminary examination, or civil
   arrest, shall be suspended during the Parliamentary session on
   demand from the Chamber concerned.

Article 85.
   The members of the Second Chamber shall receive out of the
   State Treasury travelling expenses and daily fees, according
   to a statutory scale; and renunciation thereof shall be
   inadmissible.

Article 86.
   The judicial power will be exercised in the name of the King,
   by independent tribunals subject to no other authority but
   that of the law. Judgment shall be executed in the name of the
   King.

Article 87.
   The judges will be appointed for life by the King, or in his
   name. They can only be removed or temporarily suspended from
   office by judicial sentence, and for reasons foreseen by the
   law. Temporary suspension from office (not ensuing on the
   strength of a law), and involuntary transfer to another place,
   or to the retired list, can only take place from the causes
   and in the form mentioned by law, and in virtue of a judicial
   sentence. But these provisions do not apply to cases of
   transfer, rendered necessary by changes in the organisation of
   the courts or their districts.

Article 90.
To the judicial office only those can be appointed who have
qualified themselves for it as prescribed by law.

Article 91.
   Courts for special kinds of affairs, and, in particular,
   tribunals for trade and commerce, shall be established by
   statute in those places where local needs may require them.
   The organisation and jurisdiction of such courts, as well as
   their procedure and the appointment of their members, the
   special status of the latter, and the duration of their
   office, will be determined by law.

Article 93.
   The proceedings of the civil and criminal courts shall be
   public. But the public may be excluded by an openly declared
   resolution of the court, when order or good morals may seem
   endangered (by their admittance). In other cases publicity of
   proceedings can only be limited by law.

Article 94.
   In criminal cases the guilt of the accused shall be determined
   by jurymen, in so far as exceptions are not determined by a
   law issued with the previous assent of the Chambers. The
   formation of a jury-court shall be regulated by a law.

Article 95.
   By a law issued with the previous assent of the Chambers,
   there may be established a special court whereof the
   jurisdiction shall include the crimes of high treason, as well
   as those crimes against the internal and external security of
   the State, which may be assigned to it by law.

Article 96.
   The competence of the courts and of the administrative
   authorities shall be determined by law. Conflicts of authority
   between the courts and the administrative authorities shall be
   settled by a tribunal appointed by law.

Article 97.
   A law shall determine the conditions on which public, civil,
   and military officials may be sued for wrongs committed by
   them in exceeding their functions. But the previous assent of
   official superiors need not be requested.

Article 98.
   The special legal status (Rechtsverhältnisse) of State
   officials (including advocates and solicitors) not belonging
   to the judicial class, shall be determined by a law, which,
   without restricting the Government in the choice of its
   executive agents, will grant civil servants proper protection
   against arbitrary dismissal from their posts or diminution of
   their pay.

Article 99.
   All income and expenditure of the State must be pre-estimated
   for every year, and be presented in the Budget, which shall be
   annually fixed by a law.

Article 100.
   Taxes and dues for the State Treasury may only be raised in so
   far as they shall have been included in the Budget or ordained
   by special laws.

Article 101.
   In the matter of taxes there must be no privilege of persons.
   Existing tax-laws shall be subjected to a revision, and all
   such privileges abolished.

Article 102.
State and Communal officers can only levy dues on the strength
of a law.

Article 103.
   The contracting of loans for the State Treasury can only be
   effected on the strength of a law; and the same holds good of
   guarantees involving a burden to the State.

Article 104.
   Budget transgressions require subsequent approval by the
   Chambers. The Budget will be examined and audited by the
   Supreme Chamber of Accounts. The general Budget accounts of
   every year, including tabular statistics of the National Debt,
   shall, with the comments of the Supreme Chamber of Accounts,
   be laid before the Chambers for the purpose of exonerating the
   Government. A special law will regulate the establishment and
   functions of the Supreme Chamber of Accounts.

Article 105.
   The representation and administration of the Communes,
   Arrondissements and Provinces of the Prussian State, will be
   determined in detail by special laws.

Article 106.
   Laws and ordinances become binding after having been published
   in the form prescribed by law. The examination of the validity
   of properly promulgated Royal ordinances is not within the
   competence of the authorities, but of the Chambers.

Article 107.
   The Constitution may be altered by ordinary legislative means;
   and such alteration shall merely require the usual absolute
   majority in both Chambers on two divisions (of the House),
   between which there must elapse a period of at least
   twenty-one days.

Article 108.
   The members of both Chambers, and all State officials, shall
   take the oath of fealty and obedience to the King, and swear
   conscientiously to observe the Constitution. The army will not
   take the oath to the Constitution.

Article 109.
   Existing taxes and dues will continue to be raised; and all
   provisions of existing statute-books, single laws, and
   ordinances, which do not contravene the present Constitution,
   will remain in force until altered by law.

Article 110.
   All authorities holding appointments in virtue of existing
   laws will continue their activity pending the issue of organic
   laws affecting them.

Article 111.
   In the event of war or revolution, and pressing danger to
   public security therefrom ensuing, Articles 5, 6, 7, 27, 28,
   29, 30, and 36 of the Constitution may be suspended for a
   certain time, and in certain districts—the details to be
   determined by law.

Article 112.
Until issue of the law contemplated in Article 26, educational
matters will be controlled by the laws at present in force.

Article 113.
   Prior to the revision of the criminal code, a special law will
   deal with offences committed by word, writing, print, or
   artistic representation.

Article 115.
   Until issue of the electoral law contemplated in Article 72,
   the ordinance of 30th May, 1849, touching the return of
   deputies to the Second Chamber, will remain in force; and with
   this ordinance is associated the provisional electoral law for
   elections to the Second Chamber in the Hohenzollern
   Principalities of 30th April, 1851.

Article 116.
The two supreme tribunals still existing shall be combined
into one-to be organised by a special law.

Article 117.
   The claims of State officials appointed before the
   promulgation of the Constitution shall be taken in to special
   consideration by the Civil Servant Law.

Article 118.
   Should changes in the present Constitution be rendered
   necessary by the German Federal Constitution to be drawn up on
   the basis of the Draft of 26th May, 1849, such alterations
   will be decreed by the King; and the ordinances to this effect
   laid before the Chambers, at their first meeting. The Chambers
   will then have to decide whether the changes thus
   provisionally ordained harmonise with the Federal Constitution
   of Germany.

Article 119.
   The Royal oath mentioned in Article 54, as well as the oath
   prescribed to be taken by both Chambers and all State
   officials, will have to be tendered immediately after the
   legislative revision of the present Constitution (Articles 62
   and 108).

In connection with Article 44 the course of domestic and parliamentary politics drew forth the following Declaratory Rescript from the German Emperor and King of Prussia, in 1882:—

"The right of the King to conduct the Government and policy of Prussia according to his own discretion is limited by the Constitution (of January 31, 1850), but not abolished. The Government acts (documentary) of the King require the counter-signature of a Minister, and, as was also the case before the Constitution was issued, have to be represented by the King's Ministers; but they nevertheless remain Government acts of the King, from whose decisions they result, and who thereby constitutionally expresses his will and pleasure. It is therefore not admissible, and leads to obscuration of the constitutional rights of the King, when their exercise is so spoken of as if they emanated from the Ministers for the time being responsible for them, and not from the King himself. The Constitution of Prussia is the expression of the monarchical tradition of this country, whose development is based on the living and actual relations of its Kings to the people. These relations, moreover, do not admit of being transferred to the Ministers appointed by the King, for they attach to the person of the King. Their preservation, too, is a political necessity for Prussia. It is, therefore, my will that both in Prussia and in the Legislative Bodies of the realm (or Reich), there may be no doubt left as to my own constitutional right and that of my successors to personally conduct the policy of my Government; and that the theory shall always be gainsaid that the [doctrine of the] inviolability of the person of the King, which has always existed in Prussia, and is enunciated by Article 43 of the Constitution, or the necessity of a responsible counter-signature of my Government acts, deprives them of the character of Royal and independent decisions. It is the duty of my Ministers to support my constitutional rights by protecting them from doubt and obscuration, and I expect the same from all State servants (Beamten) who have taken to me the official oath. I am far from wishing to impair the freedom of elections, but in the case of those officials who are intrusted with the execution of my Government acts, and may, therefore, in conformity with the disciplinary law forfeit their situations, the duty solemnly undertaken by their oath of service also applies to the representation by them of the policy of my Government during election times. The faithful performance of this duty I shall thankfully acknowledge, and I expect from all officials that, in view of their oath of allegiance, they will refrain from all agitation against my Government also during elections.

CONSTITUTION OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE.

CONSTITUTION OF THE ROMAN REPUBLIC.

      See ROME: B. C. 509, to B. C. 286;
      also COMITIA CENTURIATA;
      COMITIA CURIATA;
      CONSULS, ROMAN;
      CONSULAR TRIBUNES;
      SENATE, ROMAN;
      PLEBEIANS.

CONSTITUTION OF SOLON.

CONSTITUTION OF SPAIN (1812).

See SPAIN: A. D. 1814-1827. (1869). See SPAIN: A. D. 1866-1873. (The Early Kingdoms.) See CORTES.

CONSTITUTION OF SULLA.

CONSTITUTION OF SWEDEN.

"Four fundamental laws account for the present political constitution of Sweden: the law concerning the form of government (regerings-formen) dated June 6, 1809; the law on representation (riksdags-ordningen), June 22, 1866; the order of succession (successions-ordningen), September 26, 1810; and the law on the liberty of the press (tryckfrihets-forordningen), July 16, 1812. The union with Norway is regulated by the act of union (riks-akten), Aug. 6, 1815. … The representation of the nation, since the law of June 22, 1866, rests not as formerly on the division of the nation into four orders, but on election only. Two chambers, having equal authority, compose the diet. The members of the first chamber are elected for nine years by the 'landstingen' (species of provincial assemblies) and by the 'stadsfullmäktige' (municipal counsellors) of cities which do not sit in the 'landsting.'"

"The First Chamber consists (1892) of 147 members, or one deputy for every 30,000 of the population. The election of the members takes place by the 'Landstings,' or provincial representations, 25 in number, and the municipal corporations of the towns, not already represented in the 'Landstings,' Stockholm, Göteberg, Malmö and Norrköping. All members of the First Chamber must be above 35 years of age, and must have possessed for at least three years previous to the election either real property to the taxed value of 80,000 kroner, or 4,444 l., or an annual income of 4,000 kroner, or 223 l. They are elected for the term of nine years, and obtain no payment for their services. The Second Chamber consists (Autumn 1892) of 228 members, of whom 76 are elected by the towns and 146 by the rural districts, one representative being returned for every 10,000 of the population of towns, one for every 'Domsaga,' or rural district, of under 40,000 inhabitants, and two for rural districts of over 40,000 inhabitants. All natives of Sweden, aged 21, possessing real property to the taxed value of 1,000 kroner, or 56 l., or farming, for a period of not less than five years, landed property to the taxed value of 6,000 kroner, or 333 l., or paying income tax on an annual income of 800 kroner, or 45 l., are electors; and all natives, aged 25, possessing, and having possessed at least one year previous to the election, the same qualifications, may be elected members of the Second Chamber. The number of qualified electors to the Second Chamber in 1890 was 288,096, or 6.0 of the population; only 110,896, or 38.5 of the electors actually voted. In the smaller towns and country districts the election may either be direct or indirect, according to the wish of the majority. The election is for the term of three years, and the members obtain salaries for their services, at the rate of 1,200 kroner, or 67 l., for each session of four months, besides travelling expenses. … The members of both Chambers are elected by ballot, both in town and country."

"The Diet, or Riksdag, assembles every year, in ordinary session, on the 15th of January, or the day following, if the 15th is a holiday. It may be convoked in extraordinary session by the king. In case of the decease, absence, or illness of the king, the Diet may be convoked extraordinarily by the Council of State, or even, if this latter neglects to do so, by the tribunals of second instance. The king may dissolve the two chambers simultaneously, or one of them alone, during the ordinary sessions, but the new Diet assembles after the three months of the dissolution, and can only be dissolved again four months after resuming its sitting. The king dissolves the extraordinary session when he deems proper. … The Diet divides the right of initiative with the king: the consent of the synod is necessary for ecclesiastical Laws. … Every three years the Diet names a commission of twenty-four members (twelve from each chamber), charged with the duty of electing six persons who are commissioned under the presidency of the Procureur general of the Diet to watch over the liberty of the press."

The following is the text of the Constitution as adopted in 1809, the subsequent modifications of which are indicated above:

   Form of government adopted by the King and the Estates of the
   Swedish Realm, at Stockholm, on the 6th of June, 1809;
   together with the Alterations afterwards introduced.

We Charles, by the Grace of God, King of the Swedes, the Goths, and the Vandals, &c. &e. &e. Heir to Norway, Duke of Sleswick-Holstein; Stormarn, and Ditmarsen, Count of Oldenburg and Delmenhorst, &c. &c. &c. make known, that having unlimited confidence in the estates of the realm, charged them with drawing up a new form of government, as the perpetual groundwork of the prosperity and independence of our common native land, We do hereby perform a dear and pleasing duty in promulgating the fundamental law (which has been) upon mature deliberation, framed and adopted by the estates of the realm, and presented unto Us this day, together with their free and unanimous offer of the Swedish crown. Having with deep emotion and an affectionate interest in the prosperity of a nation which has afforded Us so striking a proof of confidence and attachment, complied with their request, We trust to our endeavors to promote its happiness, as the reciprocal rights and duties of the monarch and the subjects have been marked so distinctly, that, without encroachment on the sacred nature and power of majesty, the constitutional liberty of the people is protected. We do therefore hereby adopt, sanction, and ratify this form of government, such as it follows here:—

We the underwritten representatives of the Swedish realm, counts, barons, bishops, knights, nobles, clergymen, burghers, and peasants, assembled at a general Diet, in behalf of ourselves and our brethren at home, Do hereby make known, that, having by the late change of government, to which we, the deputies of the Swedish people, gave our unanimous assent, exercised our rights of drawing up a new and improved constitution, we have, in repealing those fundamental laws, which down to this day have been in force more or less; viz.,—The Form of Government of the 21st of August 1772, the Act of Union and Security, of the 21st of February and the 3d of April 1789, the Ordinance of Diet, of the 24th of January 1617, as well as all those laws, acts, statutes, and resolutions comprehended under the denomination of fundamental laws;—We have Resolved to adopt for the kingdom of Sweden and its dependencies the following constitution, which from henceforth shall be the chief fundamental law of the realm, reserving to Ourselves, before the expiration of the present Diet, to consider the other fundamental laws, mentioned in the 85th article of this constitution.

Article 1.
   The kingdom of Sweden shall be governed by a king, who shall
   be hereditary in that order of succession which the estates
   will further hereafter determine.

Article 2.
   The king shall profess the pure evangelical faith, such as is
   contained and declared m the Augsburgian Confession, and
   explained in the Decree of the Diet at Upsala in the year
   1593.

Article 3.
The majesty of the king shall be held sacred and inviolable;
and his actions shall not be subject to any censure.

Article 4.
   The king shall govern the realm alone, in the manner
   determined by this constitution. In certain cases, however,
   (to be specified) he shall take the opinion of a council of
   state, which shall be constituted of well-informed,
   experienced, honest, and generally-esteemed native Swedes,
   noblemen and commoners, who profess the pure evangelical
   faith.

Article 5.
   The council of state shall consist of nine members, viz., the
   minister of state and justice, who shall always be a member of
   the king's supreme court of judicature, the minister of state
   for foreign affairs, six counsellors of state, three of whom
   at least must have held civil offices, and the chancellor of
   the court, or aulic chancellor. The secretaries of state shall
   have a seat and vote in the council, when they have to report
   matters there, and in cases that belong to their respective
   departments. Father and son, or two brothers, shall not be
   permitted to be constant members of the council of state.

Article 6.
   The secretaries of state shall be four, viz.—One for
   military affairs; a second for public economy, mining, and all
   other affairs connected with the civil and interior
   administration; a third for the finances of the realm, inland
   and foreign commerce, manufactures, &c.; and the fourth, for
   affairs relating to religion, public education, and charities.

Article 7.
   All affairs of government shall be laid before the king, and
   decided in a council of state: those of a ministerial nature,
   however, excepted, concerning the relations of the realm with
   foreign powers, and matters of military command, which the
   king decides in his capacity of commander-in-chief of the land
   and naval forces.

Article 8.
   The king can make no decision in matters in which the council
   of state are to be heard, unless at least three counsellors of
   state, and the secretary of state whom it concerns, or his
   deputy-secretary, are present.—All the members of the council
   shall, upon due notice, attend all deliberations deemed of
   importance, and which concern the general administration of
   the affairs of the kingdom; such as questions for adopting new
   statutes, repealing or altering those in existence,
   introducing new institutions in the different branches of the
   administration, &c.

Article 9.
   Minutes shall be kept of all matters which shall come before
   the king in his council of state. The ministers of state, the
   counsellors of state, the aulic chancellor, and the
   secretaries of state or deputy-secretaries, shall be
   peremptorily bound to deliver their opinions: it is, however,
   the prerogative of the king to decide. Should it, however,
   unexpectedly occur, that the decisions of the king are
   evidently contrary to the constitution and the common law of
   the realm, it shall in that case be the duty of the members of
   the council of state to make spirited remonstrances against
   such decision or resolution. Unless a different opinion has
   been recorded in the minutes (for then the counsellors present
   shall be considered as having advised the king to the adopted
   measure), the members of the council shall be responsible for
   their advices, as enacted in the 106th article.

Article 10. Necessary informations having been demanded and obtained from the proper boards, authorities, and functionaries, the affairs for deliberation shall be prepared by the secretary of state and eight skilful and impartial men, consisting of four nobles and four commoners, in order to their being laid before the king in the council of state.—The secretary, as well as all the other members of this committee (which are nominated by the king) for preparing the general affairs of the kingdom, shall upon all occasions, when so met, deliver their opinions to the minutes, which shall afterwards be reported to the king and the council of state.

Article 11.
   As to the management of the ministerial affairs, they may be
   prepared and conducted in the manner which appears most
   suitable to the king. It appertains to the minister for
   foreign affairs to lay such matters before him in the presence
   of the aulic chancellor, or some other member of the council,
   if the chancellor cannot attend. In the absence of the
   minister of state this duty devolves upon the aulic
   chancellor, or any other member of the council of state, whom
   his majesty may appoint. After having ascertained the opinions
   of these official persons entered in the minutes, and for
   which they shall be responsible, the king shall pronounce his
   decision in their presence. It shall be the duty of the aulic
   chancellor to keep the minutes on these occasions. The king
   shall communicate to the council of state the information on
   these topics as may be necessary, in order that they may have
   a general knowledge even of this branch of the administration.

Article 12.
   The king can enter into treaties and alliances with foreign
   powers, after having ascertained, as enacted in the preceding
   article, the opinion of the minister of state for foreign
   affairs, and of the aulic chancellor.

Article 13.
   When the king is at liberty to commence war, or conclude
   peace, he shall convoke an extraordinary council of state; the
   ministers of state, the counsellors of state, the aulic
   chancellor, and the secretaries of state; and, after having
   explained to them the circumstances which require their
   consideration, he shall desire their opinions thereon, which
   each of them shall individually deliver, on the responsibility
   defined in the 107th article. The king shall thereafter have a
   right to adopt the resolutions, or make such decision as may
   appear to him most beneficial for the kingdom.

Article 14.
The king shall have the supreme command of the military forces
by sea and land.

Article 15.
   The king shall decide in all matters of military command, in
   the presence of that minister or officer to whom he has
   entrusted the general management thereof. It shall be the duty
   of this person to give his opinion, under responsibility, upon
   the resolutions taken by the king, and in case of these being
   contrary to his advice, he shall be bound to enter his
   objections and counsel in the minutes, which the king must
   confirm by his own signature. Should this minister or official
   person find the resolutions of the king to be of a dangerous
   tendency, or founded on mistaken or erroneous principles, he
   shall advise his majesty to convoke two or more military
   officers of a superior rank into a council of war. The king
   shall, however, be at liberty to comply with or to reject this
   proposition for a council of war; and if approved of, he may
   take what notice he pleases of the opinions of such council,
   which shall, however, be entered in the minutes.

Article 16.
   The king shall promote the exercise of justice and right, and
   prevent partiality and injustice. He shall not deprive any
   subject of life, honour, liberty, and property, without
   previous trial and sentence, and in that order which the laws
   of the country prescribe. He shall not disturb, or cause to be
   disturbed, the peace of any individual in his house. He shall
   not banish any from one place to another, nor constrain, or
   cause to be constrained, the conscience of any; but shall
   protect everyone in the free exercise of his religion,
   provided he does not thereby disturb the tranquillity of
   society, or occasion public offence. The king shall cause
   everyone to be tried in that court to which he properly
   belongs.

Article 17.
   The king's prerogative of justice shall be invested in twelve
   men, learned in the law, six nobles, and six commoners, who
   have shown knowledge, experience, and integrity in judicial
   matters. They shall be styled counsellors of justice, and
   constitute the king's supreme court of justice.

Article 18.
   The supreme court of justice shall take cognizance of
   petitions to the king for cancelling sentences which have
   obtained legal force, and granting extension of time in
   lawsuits, when it has been, through some circumstances,
   forfeited.

Article 19.
   If information be sought by judges or courts of justice
   concerning the proper interpretation of the law, the
   explanation thus required shall be given by the said supreme
   court.

Article 20.
   In time of peace, all cases referred from the courts martial
   shall be decided in the supreme court of justice. Two military
   officers of a superior degree, to be nominated by the king,
   shall, with the responsibility of judges, attend and have a
   vote in such cases in the supreme court. The number of judges
   may not, however, exceed eight. In time of war, all such cases
   shall be tried as enacted by the articles of war.

Article 21.
   The king, should he think fit to attend, shall have right to
   two votes in causes decided by the supreme court. All
   questions concerning explanations of the law shall be reported
   to him, and his suffrages counted, even though he should not
   have attended the deliberations of the court.

Article 22.
   Causes of minor importance may be decided in the supreme court
   by five members, or even four, if they are all of one opinion;
   but in causes of greater consequence seven counsellors, at
   least, must attend. More than eight members of the supreme
   court, or four noblemen and four commoners, may not be at one
   time in active service.

Article 23.
All the decrees of the supreme court of justice shall issue in
the king's name, and under his hand and seal.

Article 24.
   The cases shall be prepared in the "king's inferior court for
   revision of judiciary affairs," in order to be laid before, or
   produced in the supreme court.

Article 25.
   In criminal cases the king has a right to grant pardon, to
   mitigate capital punishment, and to restore property forfeited
   to the crown. In applications, however, of this kind, the
   supreme court shall be heard, and the king give his decision
   in the council of state.

Article 26.
   When matters of justice are laid before the council of state,
   the minister of state and justice, and, at least, two
   counsellors of state, two members of the supreme court, and
   the chancellor of justice shall attend, who must all deliver
   their opinions to the minutes, according to the general
   instruction for the members of the council of state, quoted in
   the 91st article.

Article 21.
   The king shall nominate, as chancellor of justice, a
   juris-consult, an able and impartial man, who has previously
   held the office of a judge. It shall be his chief duty, as the
   highest legal officer or attorney general of the king, to
   prosecute, either personally or through the officers or
   fiscals under him, in all such cases as concern the public
   safety and the rights of the crown, on the king's behalf, to
   superintend the administration of justice, and to take
   cognizance of, and correct, errors committed by judges or
   other legal officers in the discharge of their official
   duties.

Article 28.
   The king, in his council of state, has a right to appoint
   native Swedes to all such offices and places within the
   kingdom for which the king's commissions are granted. The
   proper authorities shall, however, send in the names of the
   candidates to be put in nomination for such employments. The
   king may, likewise, appoint foreigners of eminent talents to
   military offices, without, however, entrusting to them the
   command of the fortresses of the realm. In preferments the
   king shall only consider the merits and the abilities of the
   candidates, without any regard to their birth. Ministers and
   counsellors of state and of justice, secretaries of state,
   judges, and all other civil officers, must always be of the
   pure evangelical faith.

Article 29.
   The archbishop and bishops shall be elected as formerly, and
   the king nominates one of the three candidates proposed to
   him.

Article 30.
   The king appoints, as formerly, the incumbents of rectories in
   the gift of the crown. As to the consistorial benefices, the
   parishioners shall be maintained in their usual right of
   election.

Article 31.
   Citizens, who are freemen of towns, shall enjoy their
   privilege as heretofore, of proposing to the king three
   candidates for the office of burgomaster or mayor, one of whom
   the king selects. The aldermen and secretaries of the
   magistracy of Stockholm shall be elected in the same manner.

Article 32.
   The king appoints envoys to foreign courts and the officers of
   the embassies, in the presence of the minister of state for
   foreign affairs and the aulic chancellor.

Article 33.
   When offices, for which candidates are proposed, are to be
   filled up, the members of the council of state shall deliver
   their opinions on the qualifications and merits of the
   applicants. They shall also have right to make respectful
   remonstrances against the nomination of the king respecting
   other offices.

Article 34.
   The new functionaries created by this constitution, viz.—the
   ministers and counsellors of state and counsellors of justice,
   shall be paid by the crown, and may not hold any other civil
   offices. The two ministers of state are the highest
   functionaries of the realm. The counsellors of state shall
   hold the rank of generals, and the counsellors of justice that
   of lieutenant-generals.

Article 35.
   The minister of state for foreign affairs, the counsellors of
   state, the presidents of the public boards, the grand governor
   of Stockholm, the deputy governor, and the chief magistrate of
   police in the city, the aulic chancellor, the chancellor of
   justice, the secretaries of state, the governors or
   lord-lieutenants of provinces, field marshals, generals and
   admirals of all degrees, adjutant generals, adjutant in chief,
   adjutants of the staff, the governors of fortresses, captain
   lieutenants, and officers of the king's life guards, colonels
   of the regiments, and officers second in command in the foot
   and horse guards, lieutenant-colonels in the brigade of the
   life regiments, chiefs of the artillery of the royal
   engineers, ministers, envoys, and commercial agents with
   foreign powers, and official persons employed in the king's
   cabinet for the foreign correspondence, and at the embassies,
   as holding places of trust, can be removed by the king, when
   he considers it necessary for the benefit of the realm. The
   king shall, however, signify his determination in the council
   of state, the members whereof shall be bound to make
   respectful remonstrances, if they see it expedient.

Article 36.
   Judges, and all other official persons, not included in the
   preceding article, cannot be suspended from their situations
   without legal trial, nor be translated or removed to other
   places, without having themselves applied for these.

Article 31.
   The king has power to confer dignities on those who have
   served their country with fidelity, bravery, virtue, and zeal.
   He may also promote to the order of counts and barons,
   persons, who by eminent merits have deserved such an honour.
   Nobility and the dignity of a count and baron, granted from
   this time, shall no longer devolve to any other than the
   individual himself thus created a noble, and after him, to the
   oldest of his male issue in a direct descending line, and this
   branch of the family being extinct, to the nearest male
   descendant of the ancestor.

Article 38.
   All despatches and orders emanating from the king, excepting
   such as concern military affairs, shall be countersigned by
   the secretary who has submitted them to the council, and is
   responsible for their being conformable to the minutes. Should
   the secretary find any of the decisions made by the king to be
   contrary to the spirit of the constitution, he shall make his
   remonstrances respecting the same, in the council of state.
   Should the king still persist in his determination, it shall
   then be the duty of the secretary to refuse his countersign,
   and resign his place, which he may not resume until the
   estates of the realm shall have examined and approved of his
   conduct. He shall, however, in the mean time, receive his
   salary, and all the fees of his office as formerly.

Article 39.
   If the king wishes to go abroad, he shall communicate his
   resolution to the council of state, in a full assembly, and
   take the opinion of all its members, as enacted in the ninth
   article. During the absence of the king he may not interfere
   with the government, or exercise the regal power, which shall
   be carried on, in his name, by the council of state; the
   council of state cannot, however, confer dignities or create
   counts, barons, and knights; and all officers appointed by the
   council shall only hold their places ad interim.

Article 40.
   Should the king be in such a state of health as to be
   incapable of attending to the affairs of the kingdom, the
   council of state shall conduct the administration, as enacted
   in the preceding article.

Article 41.
   The king shall be of age after having completed eighteen
   years. Should the king die before the heir of the crown has
   attained this age, the government shall be conducted by the
   council of state, acting with regal power and authority, in
   the name of the king, until the estates of the realm shall
   have appointed a provisional government or regency; and the
   council of state is enjoined strictly to conform to the
   enactments of this constitution.

Article 42.
   Should the melancholy event take place, that the whole royal
   family became extinct on the male side, the council of state
   shall exercise the government with regal power and authority,
   until the estates have chosen another royal house, and the new
   king has taken upon himself the government. All occurrences or
   things having reference to the four last articles, shall be
   determined by the whole council of state and the secretaries
   of state.

Article 43.
   When the king takes the field of battle, or repairs to distant
   parts of the kingdom, he shall constitute four of the members
   of the council of state to exercise the government in those
   affairs which he is pleased to prescribe.

Article 44.
   No prince of the royal family shall be permitted to marry
   without having obtained the consent of the king, and in the
   contrary case shall forfeit his right of inheritance to the
   kingdom, both for himself and descendants.

Article 45.
   Neither the crown prince, or any other prince of the royal
   family, shall have any appanage or civil place. The princes of
   the blood may, however, bear titles of dukedoms and
   principalities, as heretofore, but without any claims upon
   those provinces.

Article 46.
   The kingdom shall remain divided, as heretofore, into
   governments, under the usual provincial administrations. No
   governor-general shall, from this time, be appointed within
   the kingdom.

Article 47.
   The courts of justice, superior as well as inferior, shall
   administer justice according to the laws and statutes of the
   realm. The provincial governors, and all other public
   functionaries, shall exercise the offices entrusted to them
   according to existing regulations; they shall obey the orders
   of the king, and be responsible to him if any act is done
   contrary to law.

Article 48.
   The court of the king is under his own management, and he may
   at his own pleasure appoint or discharge all his officers and
   attendants there.

Article 49.
   The estates of the realm shall meet every fifth year. In the
   decree of every Diet the day shall be fixed for the next
   meeting of the estates. The king may, however, convoke the
   estates to an extraordinary Diet before that time.

Article 50.
   The Diets shall be held in the capital, except when the
   invasion of an enemy, or some other important impediment, may
   render it dangerous for the safety of the representatives.

Article 51.
   When the king or council convokes the estates, the period for
   the commencement of the Diet shall be subsequent to the
   thirtieth, and within the fiftieth day, to reckon from that
   day when the summons has been proclaimed in the churches of
   the capital.

Article 52.
   The king names the speakers of the nobles, the burghers and
   the peasants: the archbishop is, at all times, the constant
   speaker of the clergy.

Article 53.
   The estates of the realm shall, immediately after the opening
   of the Diet, elect the different committees, which are to
   prepare the affairs intended for their consideration. Such
   committees shall consist in,

a constitutional committee, which shall take cognizance of questions concerning proposed alterations in the fundamental laws, report thereupon to the representatives, and examine the minutes held in the council of state;

a committee of finances, which shall examine and report upon the state and management of the revenues;

a committee of the bank for inquiring into the administration of the affairs of the national bank;

a law committee for digesting propositions concerning improvements in the civil, criminal, and ecclesiastical laws;

      a committee of public grievances and matters of economy, to
      attend to the defects in public institutions, suggest
      alterations, &c.

Article 54.
   Should the king desire a special committee for deliberating
   with him on such matters as do not come within the cognizance
   of any of the other committees, and are to be kept secret, the
   estates shall select it. This committee shall, however, have
   no right to adopt any resolutions, but only to give their
   opinion on matters referred to them by the king.

Article 55.
   The representatives of the realm shall not discuss any subject
   in the presence of the king, nor can any other committee than
   the one mentioned in the above article hold their
   deliberations before him.

Article 56.
   General questions started at the meetings or the orders of the
   estates, cannot be immediately discussed or decided, but shall
   be referred to the proper committees, which are to give their
   opinion thereupon. The propositions or report of the
   committees shall, in the first instance, without any
   alteration or amendment, be referred to the estates at the
   general meetings of all the orders. If at these meetings,
   observations should be made which may prevent the adoption of
   the proposed measure, these objections shall be communicated
   to the committee, in order to its being examined and revised.
   A proposition thus prepared having been again referred to the
   estates, it shall remain with them to adopt it, with or
   without alterations, or to reject it altogether. Questions
   concerning alterations in the fundamental laws, shall be thus
   treated:

If the constitutional committee approves of the suggestion of one of the representatives, or the committee reports in favour of or against a measure proposed by the king, the opinion of the committee shall be referred to the estates, who may discuss the topic, but not come to any resolution during that Diet.

If at the general meetings of the orders no observations are made against the opinion of the committee, the question shall be postponed till the Diet following, and then be decided solely by yes or no, as enacted in the 75th article of the ordinance of Diet.

If, on the contrary, objections are urged at the general meetings of the orders against the opinion of the committee, these shall be referred back for its reconsideration. If all the orders be of one opinion, the question shall be postponed for final decision, as enacted above. Should again a particular order differ from the other orders, twenty members shall be elected from among every order, and added to the committee, for adjusting the differences. The question being thus prepared, shall be decided at the following Diet.

Article 57.
   The ancient right of the Swedish people, of imposing taxes on
   themselves, shall be exercised by the estates only at a
   general Diet.

Article 58.
   The king shall at every Diet lay before the committee of
   finances the state of the revenues in all their branches.
   Should the crown have obtained subsidies through treaties with
   foreign powers, these shall be explained in the usual way.

Article 59.
   The king shall refer to the decision of this committee to
   determine what the government may require beyond the ordinary
   taxation, to be raised by an extraordinary grant.

Article 60.
   No taxes of any description whatever can be increased without
   the express consent of the estates. The king may not farm or
   let on lease the revenues of state, for the sake of profit to
   himself and the crown; nor grant monopolies to private
   individuals, or corporations.

Article 61.
   All taxes shall be paid to the end of that term for which they
   have been imposed. Should, however, the estates meet before
   the expiration of that term, new regulations shall take place.

Article 62.
   The funds required by government having been ascertained by
   the committee of finances, it shall rest with the estates
   whether to assign proportionate means, and also to determine
   how the various sums granted shall be appropriated.

Article 63.
   Besides these means, two adequate sums shall be voted and set
   apart for the disposal of the king, after he has consulted the
   council of state,—for the defence of the kingdom, or some
   other important object;—the other sum to be deposited in the
   national bank, in case of war, after the king has ascertained
   the opinion of the council and convened the estates. The seal
   of the order for this latter sum may not be broken, nor the
   money be paid by the commissioners of the bank, till the
   summons to Diet shall have been duly proclaimed in the
   churches of the capital.

Article 64.
   The ordinary revenues of the land, as well as the
   extraordinary grants which may be voted by the estates, shall
   be at the disposal of the king for the civil list and other
   specified purposes.

Article 65.
   The above means may not be applied but for the assigned
   purposes, and the council of state shall be responsible if
   they permit any deviation in this respect, without entering
   their remonstrances in the minutes, and pointing out what the
   constitution in this case ordains.

Article 66.
   The funds of amortissement or national debt, shall remain, as
   heretofore, under the superintendence and direction of the
   estates, who have guaranteed or come under a responsibility
   for the national debt; and after having received the report of
   the committee of finances on the affairs of that
   establishment, the estates will provide, through a special
   grant, the requisite means for paying the capital as well as
   the interest of this debt, in order that the credit of the
   kingdom may be maintained.

Article 67.
   The deputy of the king shall not attend the meetings of the
   directors or commissioners of the funds of amortissement, on
   any other occasion than when the directors are disposed to
   take his opinion.

Article 68.
   The means assigned for paying off the national debt shall not,
   under any pretence or condition, be appropriated to other
   purposes.

Article 69.
   Should the estates, or any particular order, entertain doubts
   either in allowing the grant proposed by the committee of
   finances, or as to the participation in the taxes, or the
   principles of the management of the funds of amortissement,
   these doubts shall be communicated to the committee for their
   further consideration.—If the committee cannot coincide in
   the opinions of the estates, or a single order, it shall
   depute some members to explain circumstances. Should this
   order still persist in its opinion, the question shall be
   decided by the resolution of three orders. If two orders be of
   one, and the other two of a different opinion, thirty new
   members of every order shall be added to the committee—the
   committee shall then vote conjointly, and not by orders, with
   folded billets, for adopting, or rejecting, unconditionally
   the proposition of the committee.

Article 70.
   The committee of taxation shall at every Diet suggest general
   principles for dividing the future taxes, and the amount
   having been fixed, the committee shall also propose how these
   are to be paid, referring their proposition to the
   consideration and decision of the states.

Article 71.
   Should a difference of opinion arise between the orders, as to
   these principles and the mode of applying them, and dividing
   the taxes; or, what hardly can be presumed, any order decline
   participating in the proposed taxation, the order, which may
   thus desire some alteration, shall communicate their views to
   the other representatives, and suggest in what mode this
   alteration may be effected without frustrating the general
   object. The committee of taxation having again reported
   thereon to the estates, they, the estates, shall decide the
   question at issue. If three orders object to the proposition
   of the committee, it shall be rejected. If, again, three
   orders oppose the demands of a single order, or if two be of
   an opinion contrary to that of the other two, the question
   shall be referred to the committee of finances, with an
   additional number of members, as enacted in the above article.
   If the majority of this committee assent to the proposition of
   the committee of taxation, in those points concerning which
   the representatives have disagreed, the proposition shall be
   considered as the general resolution of the estates. Should
   it, on the contrary, be negatived by a majority of votes, or
   be rejected by three orders, the committee of taxation shall
   propose other principles for levying and dividing the taxes.

Article 72.
   The national bank shall remain, as formerly, under the
   superintendence and guarantee of the estates, and the
   management of directors selected from among all the orders,
   according to existing regulations. The states alone can issue
   bank-notes, which are to be recognized as the circulating
   medium of the realm.

Article 73.
   No troops, new taxes or imposts, either in money or kind, can
   be levied without the voluntary consent of the estates, in the
   usual order, as aforesaid.

Article 74.
   The king shall have no right to demand or levy any other aid
   for carrying on war, than that contribution of provisions
   which may be necessary for the maintenance of the troops
   during their march through a province. These contributions
   shall, however, be immediately paid out of the treasury,
   according to the fixed price-current of provisions, with an
   augmentation of a moiety, according to this valuation. Such
   contributions may not be demanded for troops which have been
   quartered in a place, or are employed in military operations,
   in which case they shall be supplied with provisions from the
   magazines.

Article 75.
   The annual estimation of such rentes as are paid in kind shall
   be fixed by deputies elected from among all the orders of the
   estates.

Article 76.
   The king cannot, without the consent of the estates, contract
   loans within or without the kingdom, nor burthen the land with
   any new debts.

Article 77.
   He cannot also, without the consent of the estates, vend,
   pledge, mortgage, or in any other way alienate domains, farms,
   forests, parks, preserves of game, meadows, pasture-land,
   fisheries, and other appurtenances of the crown. These shall
   be managed according to the instructions of the estates.

Article 78.
No part of the kingdom can be alienated through sale,
mortgage, donation, or in any other way whatever.

Article 79.
   No alteration can be effected in the standard value of the
   coin, either for enhancing or deteriorating it, without the
   consent of the estates.

Article 80.
   The land and naval forces of the realm shall remain on the
   same footing, till the king and the estates may think proper
   to introduce some other principles. No regular troops can be
   raised, without the mutual consent of the king and the
   estates.

Article 81.
   This form of government and the other fundamental laws cannot
   be altered or repealed, without the unanimous consent of the
   king and the estates. Questions to this effect cannot be
   brought forward at the meetings of the orders, but must be
   referred to the constitutional committee, whose province it is
   to suggest such alterations in the fundamental laws, as may be
   deemed necessary, useful, and practicable. The estates may not
   decide on such proposed alterations at the same Diet. If all
   the orders agree about the alteration, it shall be submitted
   to the king, through the speakers, for obtaining his royal
   sanction, After having ascertained the opinion of the council,
   the king shall take his resolution, and communicate to the
   estates either his approbation or reasons for refusing it. In
   the event of the king proposing any alteration in the
   fundamental laws, he shall, after having taken the opinion of
   the council, deliver his proposition to the estates, who
   shall, without discussing it, again refer it to the
   constitutional committee. If the committee coincide in the
   proposition of the king, the question shall remain till next
   Diet. If again the committee is averse to the proposition of
   the king, the estates may either reject it immediately or
   adjourn it to the following Diet. In the case of all the
   orders approving of the proposition, they shall request that a
   day be appointed to declare their consent in the presence of
   his majesty, or signify their disapprobation through their
   speakers.

Article 82.
   What the estates have thus unanimously resolved and the king
   sanctioned, concerning alterations in the fundamental laws, or
   the king has proposed and the estates approved of, shall for
   the future have the force and effect of a fundamental law.

Article 83.
   No explanation of the fundamental laws may be established by
   any other mode or order, than that prescribed by the two
   preceding articles. Laws shall be applied according to their
   literal sense.

Article 84.
   When the constitutional committee find no reason for approving
   of the proposition, made by a representative concerning
   alterations or explanations of the fundamental laws, it shall
   be the duty of the committee to communicate to him, at his
   request, their opinion, which the proposer of the resolution
   may publish, with his own motion, and under the usual
   responsibility of authors.

Article 85.
   As fundamental laws of the present form of government, there
   shall be considered the ordinance of Diet, the order of
   succession, and the act concerning universal liberty of the
   press.

Article 86.
   By the liberty of the press is understood the right of every
   Swedish subject to publish his writings, without any
   impediment from the government, and without being responsible
   for them, except before a court of justice, or liable to
   punishment, unless their contents be contrary to a clear law,
   made for the preservation of public peace. The minutes, or
   protocols, or the proceedings, may be published in any case,
   excepting the minutes kept in the council of state and before
   the king in ministerial affairs, and those matters of military
   command; nor may the records of the bank, and the office of
   the funds of amortissement, or national debt, be printed.

Article 87.
   The estates, together with the king, have the right to make
   new and repeal old laws. In this view such questions must be
   proposed at the general meetings of the orders of the estates,
   and shall be decided by them, after having taken the opinion
   of the law committee, as laid down in the 56th article. The
   proposition shall be submitted, through the speakers, to the
   king, who, after having ascertained the opinion of the council
   of state and supreme court, shall declare either his royal
   approbation, or motives for withholding it. Should the king
   desire to propose any alteration in the laws, he shall, after
   having consulted the council of state and supreme court, refer
   his proposition, together with their opinion, to the
   deliberation of the states, who, after having received the
   report of the law committee, shall decide on the point. In all
   such questions the resolution of three orders shall be
   considered as the resolution of the estates of the realm. If
   two orders are opposed to the other two, the proposition is
   negatived, and the law is to remain as formerly.

Article 88.
   The same course, or mode of proceeding, shall be observed in
   explaining the civil, criminal, and ecclesiastical laws, as in
   making these. Explanations concerning the proper sense of the
   law given by the supreme court in the name of the king, in the
   interval between the Diets, may be rejected by the states, and
   shall not afterwards be valid, or cited by the courts of
   judicature.

Article 89.
   At the general meetings of the orders of the estates,
   questions may be proposed for altering, explaining, repealing,
   and issuing acts concerning public economy; and the principles
   of public institutions of any kind may be discussed. These
   questions shall afterwards be referred to the committee of
   public grievances and economical affairs, and then be
   submitted to the decision of the king, in a council of state.
   When the king is pleased to invite the estates to deliberate
   with him on questions concerning the general administration,
   the same course shall be adopted as is prescribed for
   questions concerning the laws.

Article 90.
   During the deliberations of the orders, or their committees,
   no questions shall be proposed but in the way expressly
   prescribed by this fundamental law, concerning either
   appointing or removing of officers, decisions and resolutions
   of the government and courts of law, and the conduct of
   private individuals and corporations.

Article 91.
   When the king, in such cases as those mentioned in the 39th
   article, is absent from the kingdom longer than twelve months,
   the council shall convoke the estates to a general Diet, and
   cause the summons to be proclaimed within fifteen days from
   the above time, in the churches of the capital, and speedily
   afterwards in the other parts of the kingdom. If the king,
   after being informed thereof, does not return to the kingdom,
   the estates shall adopt such measures as they deem most
   beneficial for the country.

Article 92.
   The same shall be enacted in case of any disease or ill health
   of the king, which might prevent him from attending to the
   affairs of the kingdom for more than twelve months.

Article 93.
   When the heir of the crown, at the decease of the king, is
   under age, the council of state shall issue summons to the
   representatives to meet. The estates of the realm shall have
   the right, without regard to the will of a deceased king
   concerning the administration, to appoint one or several
   guardians, to rule in the king's name, according to this
   fundamental law, till the king becomes of age.

Article 94.
   Should it ever happen that the royal family become extinct in
   the male line, the council of state shall convene the estates,
   to elect another royal family to rule conformably to this
   fundamental law.

Article 95.
   Should, contrary to expectation, the council of state fail to
   convoke the estates, in the cases prescribed by the 91st, 93d,
   and 94th articles, it shall be the positive duty of the
   directors of the house of nobles, the chapters throughout the
   kingdom, the magistrates in the capital, and the governors in
   the provinces, to give public notice thereof, in order that
   elections of deputies to the Diet may forthwith take place,
   and the estates assemble to protect their privileges and
   rights of the kingdom. Such a Diet shall be opened on the
   fiftieth day from that period when the council of state had
   proclaimed the summons in the churches of the capital.

Article 96.
   The estates shall at every Diet appoint an officer,
   distinguished for integrity and learning in the law, to watch
   over, as their deputy, the conduct of the judges and other
   official men, and who shall, in legal order and at the proper
   court, arraign those who in the performance of their offices
   have betrayed negligence and partiality, or else have
   committed any illegal act. He shall, however, be liable to the
   same responsibility as the law prescribes for public
   prosecutors in general.

Article 97.
This deputy or attorney-general of the estates shall be chosen
by twelve electors out of every order.

Article 98.
   The electors shall at the same time they choose the said
   attorney-general, elect a person possessing equal or similar
   qualities to succeed him, in case of his death before the next
   Diet.

Article 99.
   The attorney-general may, whenever he pleases, attend the
   sessions of all the superior and inferior courts, and the
   public offices, and shall have free access to their records
   and minutes; and the king's officers shall be bound to give
   him every assistance.

Article 100.
   The attorney-general shall at every Diet present a report of
   the performance of his office, explaining the state of the
   administration of justice in the land, noticing the defects in
   the existing laws, and suggesting new improvements. He shall
   also, at the end of each year, publish a general statement
   concerning these.

Article 101.
   Should the supreme court, or any of its members, from
   interest, partiality, or negligence, judge so wrong that an
   individual, contrary to law and evidence, did lose or might
   have lost life, liberty, honour, or property, the
   attorney-general shall be bound, and the chancellor of justice
   authorised, to arraign the guilty, according to the laws of
   the realm, in the court after mentioned.

Article 102.
   This court is to be denominated the court of justice for the
   realm, and shall be formed by the president in the superior
   court of Swea, the presidents of all the public boards, four
   senior members of the council of state, the highest commander
   of the troops within the capital, and the commander of the
   squadron of the fleet stationed at the capital, two of the
   senior members of the superior court of Swea, and the senior
   member of all the public boards. Should any of the officers
   mentioned above decline attending this court, he shall be
   legally responsible for such a neglect of duty. After trial,
   the judgment shall be publicly announced: no one can alter
   such a sentence. The king may, however, extend pardon to the
   guilty, but not admitting him any more into the service of the
   kingdom.

Article 103.
   The estates shall at every Diet nominate a jury of twelve
   members from out of each order, for deciding if the members of
   the supreme court of justice have deserved to fill their
   important places, or if any member, without having been
   legally convicted for the faults mentioned in the above
   articles, yet ought to be removed from office.

Article 104.
   The estates shall not resolve themselves into a court of
   justice, nor enter into any special examination of the
   decrees, verdicts, resolutions of the supreme court.

Article 105.
   The constitutional committee shall have right to demand the
   minutes of the council of state, except those which concern
   ministerial or foreign affairs, and matters of military
   command, which may only be communicated as far as these have a
   reference to generally known events, specified by the
   committee.

Article 106.
   Should the committee find from these minutes that any member
   of the council of state has openly acted against the clear
   dictates of the constitution, or advised any infringement
   either of the same or of the other laws of the realm, or that
   he had omitted to remonstrate against such a violation, or
   caused and promoted it by wilfully concealing any information,
   the committee shall order the attorney-general to institute
   the proper proceedings against the guilty.

Article 107.
   If the constitutional committee should find that any or all
   the members of the council of state have not consulted the
   real interest of the kingdom, or that any of the secretaries
   of state have not performed his or their official duties with
   impartiality, activity, and skill, the committee shall report
   it to the estates, who, if they deem it necessary, may signify
   to the king their wish of having those removed, who may thus
   have given dissatisfaction. Questions to this effect may be
   brought forward at the general meetings of the orders, and
   even be proposed by any of the committees. These cannot,
   however, be decided until the constitutional committee have
   delivered their opinion.

Article 108.
   The estates shall at every Diet appoint six individuals, two
   of whom must be learned in the law, besides the
   attorney-general, to watch over the liberty of the press.
   These deputies shall be bound to give their opinion as to the
   legality of publications, if such be requested by the authors.
   These deputies shall be chosen by six electors out of every
   order.

Article 109.
   Diets may not last longer than three months from the time that
   the king has informed the representatives of the state of the
   revenues. Should, however, the estates at the expiration of
   that time not have concluded their deliberations, they may
   demand the Diet to be prolonged for another month, which the
   king shall not refuse. If again, contrary to expectation, the
   estates at the expiration of this term have not regulated the
   civil list, the king shall dissolve the Diet, and taxation
   continue in its former state till the next meeting of
   representatives.

Article 110.
   No representative shall be responsible for any opinion uttered
   at meetings of the orders, or of the committees, unless by the
   express permission of at least five-sixths of his own order:
   nor can a representative be banished from the Diet. Should any
   individual or body, either civil or military, endeavour to
   offer violence to the estates, or to any individual
   representative, or presume to interrupt and disturb their
   deliberations, it shall be considered as an act of treason,
   and it rests with the estates to take legal cognizance of such
   an offence.

Article 111.
   Should any representative, after having announced himself as
   such, be insulted, either at the Diet or on his way to or from
   the same, it shall be punished as a violation of the peace of
   the king.

Article 112.
   No official person may exercise his official authority (his
   authority in that capacity) to influence the elections of
   deputies to the Diet, under pain of losing his place.

Article 113.
Individuals elected for regulating the taxation shall not be
responsible for their lawful deeds in this their capacity.

Article 114.
   The king shall leave the estates in undisturbed possession of
   their liberties, privileges, and immunities. Modifications
   which the prosperity of the realm may demand can only be done
   with the general concurrence and consent of the estates and
   the sanction of the king. Nor can any new privileges be
   granted to one order, without the consent of the other, and
   the sanction of the sovereign.

   This we have confirmed by our names and seals, on the sixth
   day of the month of June, in the year after the birth of our
   Lord one thousand eight hundred and nine.

   On behalf of the Nobles, M. Ankarsvard.
   On behalf of the Clergy, Jac. Ax. Lindblom.
   On behalf of the Burghers, H. N. Schwan.
   On behalf of the Peasantry, Lars Olsson, Speakers.

The above form of government we have not only acknowledged Ourselves, but do also command all our faithful subjects to obey it; in confirmation of which, we have thereto affixed our manual signature and the seal of the realm. In the city of our royal residence, Stockholm, on the sixth day of the month of June, in the year after the birth of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and nine.

CHARLES.

CONSTITUTION OF THE SWISS CONFEDERATION.

After the Sonderbund secession and war of 1847 (see SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1803-1848), the task of drawing up a Constitution for the Confederacy was confided to a committee of fourteen members, and the work was finished on the 14th of April, 1848. "The project was submitted to the Cantons, and accepted at once by thirteen and a half; others joined during the summer, and the new Constitution was finally promulgated with the assent of all on the 12th September. Hence arose the seventh and last phase of the Confederation, by the adoption of a Federal Constitution for the whole of Switzerland, being the first which was entirely the work of Swiss, without any foreign influence, although its authors had studied that of the United States. … It was natural that, as in process of time commerce and industry were developed, and as the differences between the legislation of the various Cantons became more apparent, a revision of the first really Swiss Confederation should be necessary. This was proposed both in 1871 and 1872, but the partisans of a further centralization, though successful in the Chambers, were defeated upon an appeal to the popular vote on the 12th of May 1872, by a majority of between five and six thousand, and by thirteen Cantons to nine. The question was, however, by no means settled, and in 1874 a new project of revision more acceptable to the partisans of cantonal independence, was adopted by the people, the numbers being 340,199, to 198,013. The Cantons were about two to one in favour of the revision, 14½ declaring for and 7½ against it. This Constitution bears date the 29th May, 1874, and has since been added to and altered in certain particulars."

   "Since 1848, … Switzerland has been a federal state,
   consisting of a central authority, the Bund, and 19 entire and
   six half states, the Cantons; to foreign powers she presents
   an united front, while her internal policy allows to each
   Canton a large amount of independence. … The basis of all
   legislative division is the Commune or Gemeinde; corresponding
   in some slight degree to the English Parish. The Commune in
   its legislative and administrative aspect or
   'Einwohnergemeinde' is composed of all the inhabitants of a
   Commune. It is self-governing and has the control of the local
   police; it also administers all matters connected with
   pauperism, education, sanitary and funeral regulations, the
   fire brigade, the maintenance of public peace and
   trusteeships. … At the head of the Commune is the
   Gemeinderath, or Communal Council, whose members are elected
   from the inhabitants for a fixed period. It is presided over
   by an Ammann, or Mayor, or President. … Above the Commune on
   the ascending scale comes the Canton. … Each of the 19
   Cantons and 6 half Cantons is a sovereign state, whose
   privileges are nevertheless limited by the Federal
   Constitution, particularly as regards legal and military
   matters; the Constitution also defines the extent of each
   Canton, and no portion of a Canton is allowed to secede and
   join itself to another Canton. … Legislative power is in the
   hands of the 'Volk'; in the political sense of the word the
   'Volk' consists of all the Swiss living in the Canton, who
   have passed their 20th year and are not under disability from
   crime or bankruptcy.
{588}
   The voting on the part of the people deals mostly with
   alterations in the cantonal constitution, treaties, laws,
   decisions of the First Council involving expenditures of Frs.
   100,000 and upward, and other decisions which the Council
   considers advisable to subject to the public vote, which also
   determines the adoption of propositions for the creation of
   new laws, or the alteration or abolition of old ones, when
   such a plebiscite is demanded by a petition signed by 5,000
   voters. … The First Council (Grosse Rath) is the highest
   political and administrative power of the Canton. It
   corresponds to the 'Chamber' of other countries. Every 1,300
   inhabitants of an electoral circuit send one member. … The
   Kleine Rath or special council (corresponding to the
   'Ministerium' of other continental countries) is composed of
   three members and has three proxies. It is chosen by the First
   Council for a period of two years. It superintends all
   cantonal institutions and controls the various public boards.
   … The populations of the 22 sovereign Cantons constitute
   together the Swiss Confederation."

P. Hauri, Sketch of the Constitution of Switzerland (in Strickland's The Engadine).

The following text of the Federal Constitution of the Swiss Confederation is a translation from parallel French and German texts, by Professor Albert Bushnell Hart, of Harvard College. It appeared originally in "Old South Leaflets," No. 18, and is now reprinted under permission from Professor Hart, who has most kindly revised his translation throughout and introduced the later amendments, to July, 1893.

In the Name of Almighty God. The Swiss Confederation, desiring to confirm the alliance of the Confederates, to maintain and to promote the unity, strength, and honor of the Swiss nation, has adopted the Federal Constitution following:

Chapter I. General Provisions.

ARTICLE 1.
   The peoples of the twenty-two sovereign Cantons of
   Switzerland, united by this present alliance, viz.: Zurich,
   Bern, Luzern, Uri, Schwyz, Unterwalden (Upper and Lower),
   Glarus, Zug, Freiburg, Solothurn, Basel (urban and rural),
   Schaffhausen, Appenzell (the two Rhodes), St. Gallen, Grisons,
   Aargau, Thurgau, Ticino, Vaud, Valais, Neuchâtel, and Geneva,
   form in their entirety the Swiss Confederation.

ARTICLE 2.
   The purpose of the Confederation is, to secure the
   independence of the country against foreign nations, to
   maintain peace and order within, to protect the liberty and
   the rights of the Confederates, and to foster their common
   welfare.

ARTICLE 3.
   The Cantons are sovereign, so far as their sovereignty is not
   limited by the Federal Constitution; and, as such, they
   exercise all the rights which are not delegated to the federal
   government.

ARTICLE 4.
   All Swiss are equal before the law. In Switzerland there are
   neither political dependents, nor privileges of place, birth,
   persons, or families.

ARTICLE 5.
   The Confederation guarantees to the Cantons their territory,
   their sovereignty, within the limits fixed by Article 3, their
   Constitutions, the liberty and rights of the people, the
   constitutional rights of citizens, and the rights and powers
   which the people have conferred on those in authority.

ARTICLE 6.
The Cantons are bound to ask of the Confederation the guaranty
of their Constitutions. This guaranty is accorded, provided:

(a) that the Constitutions contain nothing contrary to the
provisions of the Federal Constitution.

(b) That they assure the exercise of political rights,
according to republican forms, representative or democratic.

ARTICLE 7.
   All separate alliances and all treaties of a political
   character between the Cantons are forbidden. On the other hand
   the Cantons have the right to make conventions among
   themselves upon legislative, administrative or judicial
   subjects; in all cases they shall bring such conventions to
   the attention of the federal officials, who are authorized to
   prevent their execution, if they contain anything contrary to
   the Confederation, or to the rights of other Cantons. Should
   such not be the case, the covenanting Cantons are authorized
   to require the cooperation of the federal officials in
   carrying out the convention.

ARTICLE 8.
   The Confederation has the sole right of declaring war, of
   making peace, and of concluding alliances and treaties with
   foreign powers, particularly treaties relating to tariffs and
   commerce.

ARTICLE 9.
   By exception the Cantons preserve the right of concluding
   treaties with foreign powers, respecting the administration of
   public property, and border and police intercourse; but such
   treaties shall contain nothing contrary to the Confederation
   or to the rights of other Cantons.

ARTICLE 10.
   Official intercourse between Cantons and foreign governments,
   or their representatives, shall take place through the Federal
   Council. Nevertheless, the Cantons may correspond directly
   with the inferior officials and officers of a foreign State,
   in regard to the subjects enumerated in the preceding article.

ARTICLE 12.
   No members of the departments of the federal government, civil
   and military officials of the Confederation, or federal
   representatives or commissioners, shall receive from any
   foreign government any pension, salary, title, gift, or
   decoration. Such persons, already in possession of pensions,
   titles, or decorations, must renounce the enjoyment of
   pensions and the bearing of titles and decorations during
   their term of office. Nevertheless, inferior officials may be
   authorized by the Federal Council to continue in the receipt
   of pensions. No decoration or title conferred by a foreign
   government shall be borne in the federal army. No officer,
   non-commissioned officer, or soldier shall accept such
   distinction.

ARTICLE 13.
   The Confederation has no right to keep up a standing army. No
   Canton or Half-Canton shall, without the permission of the
   federal government keep up a standing force of more than three
   hundred men; the mounted police [gendarmerie] is not included
   in this number.

ARTICLE 14.
   In case of differences arising between Cantons, the States
   shall abstain from violence and from arming themselves; they
   shall submit to the decision to be taken upon such differences
   by the Confederation.

ARTICLE 15.
   In case of sudden danger of foreign attack, the authorities of
   the Cantons threatened shall request the aid of other members
   of the Confederation and shall immediately notify the federal
   government; the subsequent action of the latter shall not
   thereby be precluded. The Cantons summoned are bound to give
   aid. The expenses shall be borne by the Confederation.

Article 16.
   In case of internal disturbance, or if the danger is
   threatened by another Canton, the authorities of the Canton
   threatened shall give immediate notice to the Federal Council,
   in order that that body may take the measures necessary,
   within the limits of its power (Article 102, §§ 3, 10, 11), or
   may summon the Federal Assembly. In extreme cases the
   authorities of the Canton are authorized, while giving
   immediate notice to the Federal Council, to ask the aid of
   other Cantons, which are bound to afford such aid. If the
   executive of the Canton is unable to call for aid, the federal
   authority having the power may, and if the safety of
   Switzerland is endangered shall, intervene without
   requisition. In case of federal intervention, the federal
   authorities shall take care that the provisions of Article 5
   be observed. The expenses shall be borne by the Canton asking
   aid or occasioning federal intervention, except when the
   Federal Assembly otherwise decides on account of special
   circumstances.

Article 17.
   In the cases mentioned in Articles 15 and 16, every Canton is
   bound to afford undisturbed passage for the troops. The troops
   shall immediately be placed under federal command.

Article 18.
   Every Swiss is bound to perform military service. Soldiers who
   lose their lives or suffer permanent injury to their health,
   in consequence of federal service, are entitled to aid from
   the Confederation for themselves or their families, in case of
   need. Each soldier shall receive without expense his first
   equipment, clothing, and arms. The weapon remains in the hands
   of the soldier, under conditions which shall be prescribed by
   federal legislation. The Confederation shall enact uniform
   provisions as to an exemption tax.

Article 19.
   The federal army is composed:
   (a) Of the cantonal military corps.
   (b) Of all Swiss who do not belong to such military corps, but
   are nevertheless liable to military service.

The Confederation exercises control over the army and the material of war provided by law. In cases of danger, the Confederation has also the exclusive and direct control of men not included in the federal army, and of all other military resources of the Cantons. The Cantons have authority over the military forces of their territory, so far as this right is not limited by the Federal Constitution or laws.

Article 20.
   The laws on the organization of the army are passed by the
   Confederation. The enforcement of military laws in the Cantons
   is intrusted to the cantonal officials, within limits which
   shall be fixed by federal legislation, and under the
   supervision of the Confederation. Military instruction of
   every kind pertains to the Confederation. The same applies to
   the arming of troops. The furnishing and maintenance of
   clothing and equipment is within the power of the Cantons; but
   the Cantons shall be credited with the expenses therefor,
   according to a regulation to be established by federal
   legislation.

Article 21.
   So far as military reasons do not prevent, bodies of troops
   shall be formed out of the soldiers of the same Cantons. The
   composition of these bodies of troops, the maintenance of
   their effective strength, the appointment and promotion of
   officers of these bodies of troops, belong to the Cantons,
   subject to general provisions which shall be established by
   the Confederation.

Article 22.
   On payment of a reasonable indemnity, the Confederation has
   the right to use or acquire drill-grounds and buildings
   intended for military purposes, within the Cantons, together
   with the appurtenances thereof. The terms of the indemnity
   shall be settled by federal legislation.

Article 23.
   The Confederation may construct at its own expense, or may aid
   by subsidies, public works which concern Switzerland or a
   considerable part of the country. For this purpose it may
   expropriate property, on payment of a reasonable indemnity.
   Further enactments upon this matter shall be made by federal
   legislation. The Federal Assembly may forbid public works
   which endanger the military interests of the Confederation.

Article 24.
   The Confederation has the right of superintendence over dike
   and forest police in the upper mountain regions. It may
   cooperate in the straightening and embankment of torrents as
   well as in the afforesting of the districts in which they
   rise. It may prescribe the regulations necessary to assure the
   maintenance of these works, and the preservation of existing
   forests.

Article 25.
   The Confederation has power to make legislative enactments for
   the regulation of the right of fishing and hunting,
   particularly with a view to the preservation of the large game
   in the mountains, as well as for the protection of birds
   useful to agriculture and forestry.

Article 26.
Legislation upon the construction and operation of railroads
is in the province of the Confederation.

Article 27.
   The Confederation has the right to establish, besides the
   existing Polytechnic School, a Federal University and other
   institutions of higher instruction, or to subsidize
   institutions of such nature. The Cantons provide for primary
   instruction, which shall be sufficient, and shall be placed
   exclusively under the direction of the secular authority. It
   is compulsory and, in the public schools, free. The public
   schools shall be such that they may be frequented by the
   adherents of all religious sects, without any offense to their
   freedom of conscience or of belief. The Confederation shall
   take the necessary measures against such Cantons as shall not
   fulfill these duties.

Article 28.
The customs are in the province of the Confederation. It may
levy export and import duties.

Article 29.
   The collection of the federal customs shall be regulated
   according to the following principles:
   1. Duties ou imports:
   (a) Materials necessary for the manufactures and agriculture
   of the country shall be taxed as low as possible.
   (b) It shall be the same with the necessities of life.
   (c) Luxuries shall be subjected to the highest duties.

Unless there are imperative reasons to the contrary, these principles shall be observed also in the conclusion of treaties of commerce with foreign powers.

3. The customs legislation shall include suitable provisions for the continuance of commercial and market intercourse across the frontier. The above provisions do not prevent the Confederation from making temporary exceptional provisions, under extraordinary circumstances.

Article 30.
   The proceeds of the customs belong to the Confederation. The
   indemnity ceases which hitherto has been paid to the Cantons
   for the redemption of customs, for road and bridge tolls,
   customs duties and other like dues. By exception, and on
   account of their international alpine roads, the Cantons of
   Uri, Grisons, Ticino, and Valais receive an annual indemnity,
   which, considering all the circumstances, is fixed as follows:
   Uri, 80,000 francs. Grisons, 200,000 francs. Ticino, 200,000
   francs. Valais, 50,000 francs. The Cantons of Uri and Ticino
   shall receive in addition, for clearing the snow from the
   Saint Gotthard road, an annual indemnity of 40,000 francs, so
   long as that road shall not be replaced by a railroad.

Article 31.
   The freedom of trade and of industry is guaranteed throughout
   the whole extent of the Confederation. The following subjects
   are excepted:

(a) The salt and gunpowder monopoly, the federal customs, import duties on wines and other spirituous liquors, and other taxes on consumption expressly permitted by the Confederation, according to article 32.

(b) [Added by Amendment of December 22, 1885.] The manufacture and sale of alcohol, under Article 32 (ii).

(c) [Added by Amendment of December 22, 1885.] Drinking places, and the retail trade in spirituous liquors; but nevertheless the Cantons may by legislation subject the business of keeping drinking places, and the retail trade in spirituous liquors, to such restrictions as are required for the public welfare.

(d) [Originally (b)] Measures of sanitary police against epidemics and cattle diseases.

(e) [Originally (c)] Provisions in regard to the exercise of trades and manufactures, in regard to taxes imposed thereon, and in regard to the police of the roads. These provisions shall not contain anything contrary to the principle of freedom of trade and manufacture.

Article 32.
   The Cantons are authorized to collect the import duties on
   wines and other spirituous liquors, provided in Article 31
   (a), always under the following restrictions:

   (a) The collection of these import duties shall in no wise
   impede transportation: commerce shall be obstructed as little
   as possible and shall not be burdened with any other dues.

(b) If the articles imported for consumption are reexported from the Canton, the duties paid on importation shall be refunded, without further charges.

(d) The existing import duties on wines and other spirituous liquors of Swiss origin shall not be increased by the Cantons which already levy them. Such duties shall not be established upon such articles by Cantons which do not at present collect them.

(e) The laws and ordinances of the Cantons on the collection of import duties shall, before their going into effect, be submitted to the federal government for approval, in order that it may, if necessary, cause the enforcement of the preceding provisions. All the import duties now levied by the Cantons, as well as the similar duties levied by the Communes, shall cease without indemnity, at the end of the year 1890.

Article 32 (ii).
   [Amendment of December 22, 1885.]
   The Confederation is authorized by legislation to make
   regulations for the manufacture and sale of alcohol. In this
   legislation those products which are intended for exportation,
   or which have been subjected to a process excluding them from
   use as a beverage, shall be subjected to no tax. Distillation
   of wine, fruit, and their by-products, of gentian root,
   juniper berries, and similar products, is not subject to
   federal legislation as to manufacture or tax. After the
   cessation of the import duties on spirituous liquors, provided
   for in Article 32 of the Constitution, the trade in liquors
   not distilled shall not be subjected by the Cantons to any
   special taxes or to other limitations than those necessary for
   protection against adulterated or noxious beverages.
   Nevertheless, the powers of the Cantons, defined in Article
   31, are retained over the keeping of drinking places, and the
   sale at retail of quantities less than two liters. The net
   proceeds resulting from taxation on the sale of alcohol belong
   to the Cantons in which the tax is levied. The net proceeds to
   the Confederation from the internal manufacture of alcohol,
   and the corresponding addition to the duty on imported
   alcohol, are divided among all the Cantons, in proportion to
   the actual population as ascertained from time to time by the
   next preceding federal census. Out of the receipts therefrom
   the Cantons must expend not less than one tenth in combating
   drunkenness in its causes and effects. [For additional
   articles of this Amendment see Temporary Provisions, Article
   6, at the end of this Constitution. ]

Article 33.
   The Cantons may require proofs of competency from those who
   desire to practice a liberal profession. Provision shall be
   made by federal legislation by which such persons may obtain
   certificates of competency which shall be valid throughout the
   Confederation.

Article 34.
   The Confederation has power to enact uniform provisions as to
   the labor of children in factories, and as to the duration of
   labor fixed for adults therein, and as to the protection of
   workmen against the operation of unhealthy and dangerous
   manufactures. The transactions of emigration agents and of
   organizations for insurance, not instituted by the State, are
   subject to federal supervision and legislation.

Article 34 (ii).
   [_Amendment of December _17, 1890.]
   The Confederation shall by law provide for insurance against
   sickness and accident, with due regard for existing
   sick-benefit funds. The Confederation may require
   participation therein, either by all persons or by particular
   classes of the population.

Article 35.
   The opening of gaming houses is forbidden. Those which now
   exist shall be closed December 31, 1877. The concessions which may
   have been granted or renewed since the beginning of the year
   1871 are declared invalid. The Confederation may also take
   necessary measures concerning lotteries.

Article 36.
   The posts and telegraphs in all Switzerland are controlled by
   the Confederation. The proceeds of the posts and telegraphs
   belong to the federal treasury. The rates shall, for all parts
   of Switzerland, be fixed according to the same principle and
   as fairly as possible. Inviolable secrecy of letters and
   telegrams is guaranteed.

Article 37.
   The Confederation exercises general oversight over those roads
   and bridges in the maintenance of which it is interested. The
   sums due to the Cantons mentioned in Article 30, on account of
   their international alpine roads, shall be retained by the
   federal government if such roads are not kept by them in
   suitable condition.

Article 38.
   The Confederation exercises all the exclusive rights
   pertaining to coinage. It has the sole right of coining money.
   It establishes the monetary system, and may enact provisions,
   if necessary, for the rate of exchange of foreign coins.

[Article 39.
   (Abrogated by the article following it).
   The Confederation has the power to make by law general
   provisions for the issue and redemption of bank notes. But it
   shall not create any monopoly for the issue of bank notes, nor
   make such notes a legal tender.]

Article 39.
   [Substitute for former Article 39, adopted October 18,
   1891.] The Confederation has the exclusive power to issue bank
   notes and other like currency. The Confederation may exercise
   the exclusive power over the issue of bank notes through a
   National Bank carried on under a special department of
   administration; or it may assign the right to a central joint
   stock bank hereafter to be created, which shall be
   administered under the coöperation and supervision of the
   Confederation; but the privilege to take over the bank, by
   paying a compensation, shall be retained. The bank possessed
   of the exclusive right to issue notes shall have for its chief
   function to regulate the circulation of money in Switzerland
   and to facilitate exchange. To the Cantons shall be paid at
   least two-thirds of the net profits of the bank beyond a
   reasonable interest or a reasonable dividend to the
   stockholders, and the necessary transfers to the reserve fund.
   The bank and its branches shall not be subjected to taxation
   by the Cantons. The Confederation shall not make bank notes
   and other like currency legal tender, except in urgent need in
   time of war. The principal office of the bank and the details
   of its organization, as well as in general the carrying into
   effect this article, shall be determined by federal law.

Article 40.
   The Confederation fixes the standard of weights and measures.
   The Cantons, under the supervision of the Confederation,
   [shall] enforce the laws relating thereto.

Article 41.
   The manufacture and the sale of gunpowder throughout
   Switzerland pertain exclusively to the Confederation. Powders
   used for blasting and not suitable for shooting are not
   included in the monopoly.

Article 42.
   The expenditures of the Confederation are met as follows:
   (a) Out of the income from federal property.
   (b) Out of the proceeds of the federal customs levied at the
   Swiss frontier.
   (c) Out of the proceeds of the posts and telegraphs.
   (d) Out of the proceeds of the powder monopoly.
   (e) Out of half of the gross receipts from the tax on military
   exemptions levied by the Cantons.
   (f) Out of the contributions of the Cantons, which shall be
   determined by federal legislation, with special reference to
   their wealth and taxable resources.

Article 43.
   Every citizen of a Canton is a Swiss citizen. As such he may
   participate, in the place where he is domiciled, in all
   federal elections and popular votes, after having duly proven
   his qualification as a voter. No person can exercise political
   rights in more than one Canton. The Swiss settled as a citizen
   outside his native Canton enjoys in the place where he is
   domiciled, all the rights of the citizens of the Canton,
   including all the rights of the communal citizen.
   Participation in municipal and corporate property, and the
   right to vote upon purely municipal affairs, are excepted from
   such rights, unless the Canton by legislation has otherwise
   provided. In cantonal and communal affairs, he gains the right
   to vote after a residence of three months. Cantonal laws
   relating to the right of Swiss citizens to settle outside the
   Cantons in which they were born, and to vote on communal
   questions, are submitted for the approval of the Federal
   Council.

Article 44.
   No Canton shall expel from its territory one of its own
   citizens, nor deprive him of his rights, whether acquired by
   birth or settlement. [Origine ou cité.] Federal legislation
   shall fix the conditions upon which foreigners may be
   naturalized, as well as those upon which a Swiss may give up
   his citizenship in order to obtain naturalization in a foreign
   country.

Article 45.
   Every Swiss citizen has the right to settle anywhere in Swiss
   territory, on condition of submitting a certificate of origin,
   or a similar document. By exception, settlement may be refused
   to or withdrawn from, those who, in consequence of a penal
   conviction, are not entitled to civil rights. In addition,
   settlement may be withdrawn from those who have been
   repeatedly punished for serious offenses, and also from those
   who permanently come upon the charge of public charity, and to
   whom their Commune or Canton of origin, as the case may be,
   refuses sufficient succor, after they have been officially
   asked to grant it. In the Cantons where the poor are relieved
   in their place of residence the permission to settle, if it
   relates to citizens of the Canton, may be coupled with the
   condition that they shall be able to work, and that they shall
   not, in their former domicile in the Canton of origin, have
   permanently become a charge on public charity. Every expulsion
   on account of poverty must be approved by the government of
   the Canton of domicile, and previously announced to the
   government of the Canton of origin. A Canton in which a Swiss
   establishes his domicile may not require security, nor impose
   any special obligations for such establishment. In like manner
   the Communes cannot require from Swiss domiciled in their
   territory other contributions than those which they require
   from their own subjects. A federal law shall establish the
   maximum fee to be paid the Chancery for a permit to settle.

Article 46.
   Persons settled in Switzerland are, as a rule, subjected to
   the jurisdiction and legislation of their domicile, in all
   that pertains to their personal status and property rights.
   The Confederation shall by law make the provisions necessary
   for the application of this principle and for the prevention
   of double taxation of a citizen.

Article 47.
   A federal law shall establish the distinction between
   settlement and temporary residence, and shall at the same time
   make the regulations to which Swiss temporary residents shall
   be subjected as to their political rights and their civil
   rights.

Article 48.
   A federal law shall provide for the regulation of the expenses
   of the illness and burial of indigent persons amenable to one
   Canton, who have fallen ill or died in another Canton.

Article 49.
   Freedom of conscience and belief is inviolable. No person can
   be constrained to take part in a religious society, to attend
   religious instruction, to perform a religious rite, or to
   incur penalties of any kind whatever on account of religious
   opinion. The person who exercises the parent's or guardian's
   authority has the right, conformably to the principles above
   stated, to regulate the religious education of children up to
   the age of sixteen completed years. The exercise of civil or
   political rights shall not be abridged by any provisions or
   conditions whatever of an ecclesiastical or religious kind. No
   person shall, on account of a religious belief, release
   himself from the accomplishment of a civil duty. No person is
   bound to pay taxes of which the proceeds are specifically
   appropriated to the actual expenses of the worship of a
   religious body to which he does not belong. The details of the
   carrying out of this principle are reserved for federal
   legislation.

Article 50.
   The free exercise of religious worship is guaranteed within
   the limits compatible with public order and good morals. The
   Cantons and the Confederation may take suitable measures for
   the preservation of public order and of peace between the
   members of different religious bodies, and also against
   encroachments of ecclesiastical authorities upon the rights of
   citizens and of the State. Contests in public and private law,
   which arise out of the formation or the division of religious
   bodies, may be brought by appeal before the competent federal
   authorities. No bishopric shall be created upon Swiss
   territory without the consent of the Confederation.

Article 51.
   The order of the Jesuits, and the societies affiliated with
   them, shall not be received into any part of Switzerland; and
   all action in church and school is forbidden to its members.
   This prohibition may be extended also, by federal ordinance,
   to other religious orders, the action of which is dangerous to
   the state or disturbs the peace between sects.

Article 52.
   The foundation of new convents or religious orders, and the
   reestablishment of those which have been suppressed, are
   forbidden.

Article 53.
   The civil status and the keeping of records thereof is subject
   to the civil authority. The Confederation shall by law enact
   detailed provisions upon this subject. The control of places o
   burial is subject to the civil authority. It shall take care
   that every deceased person may be decently interred.

Article 54.
   The right of marriage is placed under the protection of the
   Confederation. No limitation upon marriage shall be based upon
   sectarian grounds, nor upon the poverty of either of the
   contractants, nor on their conduct, nor on any other
   consideration of good order. A marriage contracted in a Canton
   or in a foreign country, conformably to the law which is there
   in force, shall be recognized as valid throughout the
   Confederation. By marriage the wife acquires the citizenship
   of her husband. Children born before the marriage are made
   legitimate by the subsequent marriage of their parents. No tax
   upon admission or similar tax shall be levied upon either
   party to a marriage.

Article 55.
   The freedom of the press is guaranteed. Nevertheless the
   Cantons by law enact the measures necessary for the
   suppression of abuses. Such laws are submitted for the
   approval of the Federal Council. The Confederation may enact
   penalties for the suppression of press offenses directed
   against it or its authorities.

Article 56.
   Citizens have the right of forming associations, provided that
   there be in the purpose of such associations, or in the means
   which they employ, nothing unlawful or dangerous to the state.
   The Cantons by law take the measures necessary for the
   suppression of abuses.

Article 58.
   No person shall be deprived of his constitutional judge.
   Therefore no extraordinary tribunal shall be established.
   Ecclesiastical jurisdiction is abolished.

Article 59.
   Suits for personal claims against a solvent debtor having a
   domicile in Switzerland, must be brought before the judge of
   his domicile; in consequence, his property outside the Canton
   in which he is domiciled may not be attached in suits for
   personal claims. Nevertheless, with reference to foreigners,
   the provisions of international treaties shall not thereby be
   affected. Imprisonment for debt is abolished.

Article 60.
   All the Cantons are bound to treat the citizens of the other
   confederated States like those of their own State in
   legislation and in all judicial proceedings.

Article 61.
Civil judgments definitely pronounced in any Canton may be
executed anywhere in Switzerland.

Article 62.
   The exit duty on property [traite foraine] is abolished in the
   interior of Switzerland, as well as the right of redemption
   [droit de retrait] by citizens of one Canton against those of
   other confederated States.

Article 63.
The exit duty on property is abolished as respects foreign
countries, provided reciprocity be observed.

Article 64.
   The Confederation has power to make laws:
   On legal competency.
   On all legal questions relating to commerce and to
   transactions affecting chattels (law of commercial
   obligations, including commercial law and law of exchange).
   On literary and artistic copyright.
   On the protection of new patterns and forms, and of inventions
   which are represented in models and are capable of industrial
   application. [Amendment of December 20, 1887.]
   On the legal collection of debts and on bankruptcy. The
   administration of justice remains with the Cantons, save as
   affected by the powers of the Federal Court.

Article 65.
   [(Abrogated by Amendment of June 20, 1879.) The
   death penalty is abolished; nevertheless the provisions of
   military law in time of war shall be observed. Corporal
   punishment is abolished.]

Article 65.
   [Amendment of June 20, 1879.]
   No death penalty shall be pronounced for a political crime.
   Corporal punishment is abolished.

Article 66.
The Confederation by law fixes the limits within which a Swiss
citizen may be deprived of his political rights.

Article 67.
   The Confederation by law provides for the extradition of
   accused persons from one Canton to another; nevertheless,
   extradition shall not be made obligatory for political
   offenses and offenses of the press.

Article 68.
   Measures are taken by federal law for the incorporation of
   persons without country (Heimathlosen), and for the prevention
   of new cases of that nature.

Article 69.
   Legislation concerning measures of sanitary police against
   epidemic and cattle diseases, causing a common danger, is
   included in the powers of the Confederation.

Article 70.
   The Confederation has power to expel from its territory
   foreigners who endanger the internal or external safety of
   Switzerland.

Chapter II.

Article 71.
   With the reservation of the rights of the people and of the
   Cantons (Articles 89 and 121), the supreme authority of the
   Confederation is exercised by the Federal Assembly, [Assemblée
   fédérale; Bundesversammlung] which consists of two sections or
   councils, to wit:
   (A) The National Council.
   (B) The Council of States.

Article 72.
   The National Council [Conseil National; Nationalrath] is
   composed of representatives of the Swiss people, chosen in the
   ratio of one member for each 20,000 persons of the total
   population. Fractions of upwards of 10,000 persons are
   reckoned as 20,000. Every Canton, and in the divided Cantons
   every Half-Canton, chooses at least one representative.

Article 73.
   The elections for the National Council are direct. They are
   held in federal electoral districts, which in no case shall be
   formed out of parts of different Cantons.

Article 74.
   Every Swiss who has completed twenty years of age, and who in
   addition is not excluded from the rights of a voter by the
   legislation of the Canton in which he is domiciled, has the
   right to vote in elections and popular votes. Nevertheless,
   the Confederation by law may establish uniform regulations for
   the exercise of such right.

Article 75.
Every lay Swiss citizen who has the right to vote is eligible
for membership in the National Council.

Article 76.
The National Council is chosen for three years, and entirely
renewed at each general election.

Article 77.
   Representatives to the Council of States, members of the
   Federal Council, and officials appointed by that Council,
   shall not at the same time be members of the National Council.

Article 78.
   The National Council chooses out of its own number, for each
   regular or extraordinary session, a President and a
   Vice-President. A member who has held the office of President
   during a regular session is ineligible either as President, or
   Vice-President at the next regular session. The same member
   may not be Vice-President during two consecutive regular
   sessions. When the votes are equally divided the President has
   a casting vote; in elections he votes in the same manner as
   other members.

Article 79.
The members of the National Council receive a compensation out
of the federal treasury.

Article 80.
   The Council of States [Conseil des États; Ständerath] consists
   of forty-four representatives of the Cantons. Each Canton
   appoints two representatives; in the divided Cantons, each
   Half-State chooses one.

Article 81.
The members of the National Council and those of the Federal
Council may not be representatives in the Council of States.

Article 82.
   The Council of States chooses out of its own number for each
   regular or extraordinary session a President and a
   Vice-President. Neither the President nor the Vice-President
   can be chosen from among the representatives of the Canton
   from which the President has been chosen for the regular
   session next preceding. Representatives of the same Canton
   cannot occupy the position of Vice-President during two
   consecutive regular sessions. When the votes are equally
   divided the President has a casting vote; in elections he
   votes in the same manner as the other members.

Article 83.
Representatives in the Council of States receive a
compensation from the Cantons.

Article 84.
   The National Council and the Council of States consider all
   the subjects which the present Constitution places within the
   competence of the Confederation, and which are not assigned to
   any other federal authority.

Article 85.
The subjects within the competence of the two Councils are
particularly the following:

2. Laws and ordinances on subjects which by the Constitution are placed within the federal competence.

3. The salary and compensation of members of the federal governing bodies and of the Federal Chancery; the creation of federal offices and the determination of salaries therefor.

4. The election of the Federal Council, of the Federal Court, and of the Chancellor, and also of the Commander-in-chief of the federal army. The Confederation may by law assign to the Federal Assembly other powers of election or of confirmation.

5. Alliances and treaties with foreign powers, and also the approval of treaties made by the Cantons between themselves or with foreign powers; nevertheless the treaties made by the Cantons shall be brought before the Federal Assembly only in case the Federal Council or another Canton protests.

6. Measures for external safety and also for the maintenance of the independence and neutrality of Switzerland; the declaration of war and the conclusion of peace.

7. The guaranty of the Constitution and of the territory of the Cantons; intervention in consequence of such guaranty; measures for the internal safety of Switzerland, for the maintenance of peace and order; amnesty and pardon.

8. Measures for the preservation of the Constitution, for carrying out the guaranty of the cantonal constitutions, and for fulfilling federal obligations.

10. The determination of the annual budget, the audit of public accounts, and federal ordinances authorizing loans.

12. Protests against the decisions of the Federal Council upon administrative conflicts. (Article 113.)

Article 86.
   The two Councils assemble annually in regular session upon a
   day to be fixed by the standing orders. They are convened in
   extra session by the Federal Council upon the request either
   of one fourth of the members of the National Council, or of
   five Cantons.

Article 87.
In either Council a quorum is a majority of the total number
of its members.

Article 88.
In the National Council and in the Council of States a
majority of those voting is required.

Article 89.
   Federal laws, enactments, and resolutions shall be passed only
   by the agreement of the two Councils. Federal laws shall be
   submitted for acceptance or rejection by the people, if the
   demand is made by 30,000 voters or by eight Cantons. The same
   principle applies to federal resolutions which have a general
   application, and which are not of an urgent nature.

Article 90.
The Confederation shall by law establish the forms and
intervals to be observed in popular votes.

Article 92.
   Each Council takes action separately. But in the case of the
   elections specified in Article 85, § 4, of pardons, or of
   deciding a conflict of jurisdiction (Art. 85, § 13), the two
   Councils meet in joint session, under the direction of the
   President of the National Council, and a decision is made by
   the majority of the members of both Councils present and
   voting.

Article 93.
   Measures may originate in either Council, and may be
   introduced by any of their members. The Cantons may by
   correspondence exercise the same right.

Article 95.
   The supreme direction and executive authority of the
   Confederation is exercised by a Federal Council [Conseil
   fédéral; Bundesrath], composed of seven members.

Article 96.
   The members of the Federal Council are chosen for three years
   by the Councils in joint session from among all the Swiss
   citizens eligible to the National Council. But not more than
   one member of the Federal Council shall be chosen from the
   same Canton. The Federal Council is chosen anew after each
   election of the National Council. Vacancies which occur in the
   course of the three years are filled at the first ensuing
   session of the Federal Assembly, for the remainder of the term
   of office.

Article 97.
   The members of the Federal Council shall not, during their
   term of office, occupy any other office, either in the service
   of the Confederation or in a Canton, or follow any other
   pursuit, or exercise a profession.

Article 98.
   The Federal Council is presided over by the President of the
   Confederation. There is a Vice-President. The President of the
   Confederation and the Vice-President of the Federal Council
   are chosen for one year by the Federal Assembly from among the
   members of the Council. The retiring President shall not be
   chosen as President or Vice-President for the year ensuing.
   The same member shall not hold the office of Vice-President
   during two consecutive years.

Article 99.
   The President of the Confederation and the other members of
   the Federal Council receive an annual salary from the federal
   treasury.

Article 101.
   The members of the Federal Council have the right to speak but
   not to vote in either house of the Federal Assembly, and also
   the right to make motions on the subject under consideration.

Article 102.
The powers and the duties of the Federal Council, within the
limits of this Constitution, are particularly the following:

1. It conducts federal affairs, conformably to the laws and resolutions of the Confederation.

2. It takes care that the Constitution, federal laws and ordinances, and also the provisions of federal concordats, be observed; upon its own initiative or upon complaint, it takes measures necessary to cause these instruments to be observed, unless the consideration of redress be among the subjects which should be brought before the Federal Court, according to Article 113.

4. It introduces bills or resolutions into the Federal Assembly, and gives its opinion upon the proposals submitted to it by the Councils or the Cantons.

5. It executes the laws and resolutions of the Confederation and the judgments of the Federal Court, and also the compromises or decisions in arbitration upon disputes between Cantons.

6. It makes those appointments which are not assigned to the Federal Assembly, Federal Court, or other authority.

7. It examines the treaties made by Cantons with each other, or with foreign powers, and approves them, if proper. (Article 85, § 5.)

8. It watches over the external interests of the Confederation, particularly the maintenance of its international relations, and is, in general, intrusted with foreign relations.

9. It watches over the external safety of Switzerland, over the maintenance of independence and neutrality.

10. It watches over the internal safety of the Confederation, over the maintenance of peace and order.

11. In cases of urgency, and when the Federal Assembly is not in session, the Federal Council has power to raise the necessary troops and to employ them, with the reservation that it shall immediately summon the Councils if the number of troops exceeds two thousand men, or if they remain in arms more than three weeks.

12. It administers the military establishment of the Confederation, and all other branches of administration committed to the Confederation.

13. It examines such laws and ordinances of the Cantons as must be submitted for its approval; it exercises supervision over such departments of the cantonal administration as are placed under its control.

14. It administers the finances of the Confederation, introduces the budget, and submits accounts of receipts and expenses.

15. It supervises the conduct of an the officials and employees of the federal administration.

16. It submits to the Federal Assembly at each regular session an account of its administration and a report of the condition of the Confederation, internal as well as external, and calls attention to the measures which it deems desirable for the promotion of the general welfare. It also makes special reports when the Federal Assembly or either Council requires it.

Article 103.
   The business of the Federal Council is distributed by
   departments among its members. This distribution has the
   purpose only of facilitating the examination and despatch of
   business; decisions emanate from the Federal Council as a
   single authority.

Article 104.
The Federal Council and its departments have power to call in
experts on special subjects.

Article 105.
   A Federal Chancery [Chancellerie fédérale; Bundeskanzlei], at
   the head of which is placed the Chancellor of the
   Confederation, conducts the secretary's business for the
   Federal Assembly and the Federal Council. The Chancellor is
   chosen by the Federal Assembly for the term of three years, at
   the same time as the Federal Council. The Chancery is under
   the special supervision of the Federal Council. A federal law
   shall provide for the organization of the Chancery.

Article 106.
   There shall be a Federal Court [Tribunal fédéral;
   Bundesgericht] for the administration of justice in federal
   concerns. There shall be, moreover, a jury for criminal cases.
   (Article 112.)

Article 107.
   The members and alternates of the Federal Court shall be
   chosen by the Federal Assembly, which shall take care that all
   three national languages are represented therein. A law shall
   establish the organization of the Federal Court and of its
   sections, the number of judges and alternates, their term of
   office, and their salary.

Article 108.
   Any Swiss citizen eligible to the National Council may be
   chosen to the Federal Court. The members of the Federal
   Assembly and of the Federal Council, and officials appointed
   by those authorities, shall not at the same time belong to the
   Federal Court. The members of the Federal Court shall not,
   during their term of office, occupy any other office, either
   in the service of the Confederation or in a Canton, nor engage
   in any other pursuit, nor practice a profession.

Article 109.
The Federal Court organizes its own Chancery and appoints the
officials thereof.

2. Between the Confederation on one part and corporations or individuals on the other part, when such corporations or individuals are plaintiffs, and when the amount involved is of a degree of importance to be determined by federal legislation.

4. Between Cantons on one part and corporations or individuals on the other part, when one of the parties demands it, and the amount involved is of a degree of importance to be determined by federal legislation. It further has jurisdiction in suits concerning the status of persons not subjects of any government (heimathlosat), and the conflicts which arise between Communes of different Cantons respecting the right of local citizenship. [Droit de cité.]

Article 111.
   The Federal Court is bound to give judgment in other cases
   when both parties agree to abide by its decision, and when the
   amount involved is of a degree of importance to be determined
   by federal legislation.

Article 112.
The Federal Court, assisted by a jury to decide upon questions
of fact, has criminal jurisdiction in:

1. Cases of high treason against the Confederation, of rebellion or violence against federal authorities.

3, Political crimes and misdemeanors which are the cause or the result of disturbances which occasion armed federal intervention.

4. Cases against officials appointed by a federal authority,
where such authority relegates them to the Federal Court.

1. Over conflicts of jurisdiction between federal authorities
on one part and cantonal authorities on the other part.

2. Disputes between Cantons, when such disputes are upon
questions of public law.

3. Complaints of violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, and complaints of individuals for the violation of concordats or treaties. Conflicts of administrative jurisdiction are reserved, and are to be settled in a manner prescribed by federal legislation. In all the fore-mentioned cases the Federal Court shall apply the laws passed by the Federal Assembly and those resolutions of the Assembly which have a general import. It shall in like manner conform to treaties which shall have been ratified by the Federal Assembly.

Article 114.
   Besides the cases specified in Articles 110, 112, and 113, the
   Confederation may by law place other matters within the
   jurisdiction of the Federal Court; in particular, it may give
   to that court powers intended to insure the uniform
   application of the laws provided for in Article 64.

Article 115.
All that relates to the location of the authorities of the
Confederation is a subject for federal legislation.

Article 116.
   The three principal languages spoken in Switzerland, German,
   French, and Italian, are national languages of the
   Confederation.

Article 117.
   The officials of the Confederation are responsible for their
   conduct in office. A federal law shall enforce this
   responsibility.

Chapter III. (These four articles abrogated by the four articles following them, 118-122.) Article 118. The Federal Constitution may at any time be amended.

[Article 119.
Amendment is secured through the forms required for passing
federal laws.]

[Article 120.
   When either Council of the Federal Assembly passes a
   resolution for amendment of the Federal Constitution and the
   other Council does not agree; or when fifty thousand Swiss
   voters demand amendment, the question whether the Federal
   Constitution ought to be amended is, in either case, submitted
   to a vote of the Swiss people, voting yes or no. If in either
   case the majority of the Swiss citizens who vote pronounce in
   the affirmative, there shall be a new election of both
   Councils for the purpose of preparing amendments.]

[Article 121.
   The amended Federal Constitution shalt be in force when it
   has been adopted by the majority of Swiss citizens who take
   part in the vote thereon and by a majority of the States. In
   making up a majority of the States the vote of a Half-Canton
   is counted as half a vote. The result of the popular vote in
   each Canton is considered to be the vote of the State.]

Article 118.
[Amendment of July 5, 1891.] The Federal Constitution
may at any time be amended as a whole or in part.

Article 119.
   [Amendment of July 5, 1891.] General revision is
   secured through the forms required for passing the federal
   laws.

Article 120.
   When either Council of the Federal Assembly passes a
   resolution for general revision and the other Council does not
   agree; or when fifty thousand Swiss voters demand general
   revision the question whether there shall be such a revision
   must, in either case, be submitted to the popular vote of the
   Swiss people. If, in either case, the majority of the Swiss
   citizens who vote on the question pronounce in the
   affirmative, there shall be a new election of both Councils
   for the purpose of preparing a general revision.

Article 121. [Amendment of July 5, 1891.] Specific amendments may be brought forward either through a Proposition of the People [Volksanregung] (Initiative) or by Federal legislation. A Proposition of the People means a demand supported by fifty thousand Swiss voters, either for suspension, repeal, or alteration of specified articles of the Federal Constitution. If by means of the method of Proposition of the People several different subjects are brought forward either for alteration or for incorporation into the Federal Constitution, each one of those separate subjects must be presented in a separate demand for a popular vote [Initintivbegehren]. The demand for a popular vote may take the form either of a request in general terms, or of a definite draft. If such a demand be made in the form of a request in general terms and the Councils of the Federal Assembly agree thereto, the said Councils shall thereupon prepare a specific amendment of the purport indicated by those asking amendment; and such specific amendment shall be submitted to the people and to the states for their acceptance or rejection. In case the Councils of the Federal Assembly do not agree thereto, the question of specific amendment shall then be subjected to the people for a popular vote; and in case the majority of the Swiss voters vote therefor, an amendment of the purport indicated by the vote of the people shall then be prepared by the Federal Assembly. In case the request shall take the form of a specific draft and the Federal Assembly agree thereto, the draft is then to be submitted to the people and the States for acceptance or rejection. If the Federal Assembly shall not agree thereto it may either prepare a substitute draft for itself, or it may propose the rejection of the proposition. The proposition to reject such substitute draft or proposition shall be submitted to the vote of the people and of the States at the same time with the general Proposition of the People.

Article 122.
   [Amendment of July 5, 1891.] The procedure upon the
   Proposition of the People and the popular votes concerning
   amendment of the Federal Constitution, shall be regulated in
   detail by a Federal Law.

Article 123.
   [Amendment of July 5, 1891.] The amended Federal
   Constitution or the specific amendments proposed, as the case
   may be, shall be in force when adopted by the majority of the
   Swiss citizens who take part in the vote thereon and by a
   majority of the Cantons. In making up the majority of the
   States the vote of a half of each Canton is counted as half a
   vote. The result of the popular vote in each Canton is
   considered to be the vote of the state.

Article 1.
   The proceeds of the posts and customs shall be divided upon
   the present basis, until such time as the Confederation shall
   take upon itself the military expenses up to this time borne
   by the Cantons. Federal legislation shall provide, besides,
   that the loss which may be occasioned to the finances of
   certain Cantons by the sum of the charges which result from
   Articles 20, 30, 36 (§ 2), and 42 (e), shall fall upon such
   Cantons only gradually, and shall not attain its full effect
   till after a transition period of some years. Those Cantons
   which, at the going into effect of Article 20 of the
   Constitution, have not fulfilled the military obligations
   which are imposed upon them by the former Constitution, or by
   federal laws, shall be bound to carry them out at their own
   expense.

Article 2.
   The provisions of the federal laws and of the cantonal
   concordats, constitutions or cantonal laws, which are contrary
   to this Constitution, cease to have effect by the adoption of
   the Constitution or the publication of the laws for which it
   provides.

Article 3.
   The new provisions relating to the organization and
   jurisdiction of the Federal Court take effect only after the
   publication of federal laws thereon.

Article 4.
   A delay of five years is allowed to Cantons for the
   establishment of free instruction in primary public education.
   (Art. 27.)

Article 5.
   Those persons who practice a liberal profession, and who,
   before the publication of the federal law provided for in
   Article 33, have obtained a certificate of competence from a
   Canton or a joint authority representing several Cantons, may
   pursue that profession throughout the Confederation.

Article 6.
   [Amendment of December 22, 1885. For the remainder of
   this amendment see article 32 (ii).] If a federal law for
   carrying out Article 32 (ii) be passed before the end of 1890,
   the import duties levied on spirituous liquors by the Cantons
   and Communes, according to Article 32, cease on the going into
   effect of such law. If, in such case, the shares of any Canton
   or Commune, out of the sums to be divided, are not sufficient
   to equal the average annual net proceeds of the taxes they
   have levied on spirituous liquors in the years 1880 to 1884
   inclusive, the Cantons and Communes affected shall, till the
   end of 1890, receive the amount of the deficiency out of the
   amount which is to be divided among the other Cantons
   according to population; and the remainder only shall be
   divided among such other Cantons and Communes, according to
   population. The Confederation shall further provide by law
   that for such Cantons or Communes as may suffer financial loss
   through the effect of this amendment, such loss shall not come
   upon them immediately in its full extent, but gradually up to
   the year 1895. The indemnities thereby made necessary shall be
   previously taken out of the net proceeds designated in Article
   32 (ii), paragraph 4.

   Thus resolved by the National Council to be submitted to the
   popular vote of the Swiss people and of the Cantons. Bern,
   January 31, 1874. Ziegler, President. Schiess, Secretary.

   Thus resolved by the Council of States, to be submitted to the
   popular vote of the Swiss people and of the Cantons. Bern,
   January 31, 1874. A. Kopp, President. J. L. Lutscher,
   Secretary.

CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781.
The Articles of Confederation.

CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1787-1789, and 1791-1870.
A sketch of the history of the framing and adoption of the
Federal Constitution of the United States will be found under

The following text of the original instrument, with the subsequent amendments to it, is one prepared by Professor Albert Bushnell Hart, and is the result of a careful comparison with the original manuscripts, preserved in the State Department at Washington. "It is intended to be absolutely exact in word, spelling, capitalization and punctuation. A few headings and paragraph numbers, inserted for convenience of reference, are indicated by brackets." "Those parts of the Constitution which were temporary in their nature, or which have been superseded or altered by later amendments, are included within the signs []." This text, originally printed in the "American History Leaflets," is reproduced with Professor Hart's consent. The paragraphing has been altered, to economize space, but it is otherwise exactly reproduced:

"WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Article I.
   Section 1.
   All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a
   Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate
   and House of Representatives.

   Section 2
   [§ 1.]
   The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members
   chosen every second Year by the People of the several States,
   and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications
   requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the
   State Legislature.

   [§ 2.]
   No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have
   attained to the Age of twenty-five Years, and been seven Years
   a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when
   elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be
   chosen.

   [§ 3.]
   Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among
   the several States which may be included within this Union,
   according to their respective Numbers, [which shall be
   determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons,
   including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and
   excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other
   Persons.]

The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; [and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.]

   [§ 4.]
   When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State,
   the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election
   to fill such Vacancies.

   [§ 5.]
   The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and
   other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

   Section 3.
   [§ 1.]
   The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two
   Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof,
   for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.

   [§ 2.]
   Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of
   the first Election, they shall be divided as equally as may be
   into three Classes. The Seats of the Senators of the first
   Class shall be vacated at the Expiration of the second Year,
   of the second Class at the Expiration of the fourth Year, and
   of the third Class at the Expiration of the sixth Year, so
   that one third may be chosen every second Year; and if
   Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the
   Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof
   may make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the
   Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies.

   [§ 3.]
   No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to
   the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the
   United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an
   Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

   [§ 4.]
   The Vice President of the United States shall be President of
   the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally
   divided.

   [§ 5.]
   The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a
   President pro tempore, in the Absence of the Vice President,
   or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the
   United States.

   [§ 6.]
   The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.
   When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or
   Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried,
   the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be
   convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members
   present.

   [§ 7.]
   Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than
   to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy
   any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States:
   but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and
   subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment,
   according to Law.

   Section 4.
   [§ 1.]
   The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators
   and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the
   Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law
   make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of
   chusing Senators.

   [§ 2.]
   The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and
   such Meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless
   they shall by Law appoint a different Day.

   Section 5.
   [§ 1.]
   Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and
   Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each
   shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number
   may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel
   the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under
   such Penalties as each House may provide.

   [§ 2.]
   Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish
   its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the
   Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.

   [§ 3.]
   Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from
   time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in
   their Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the
   Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire
   of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal.

   [§ 4.]
   Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without
   the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days,
   nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall
   be sitting.

   Section 6.
   [§ 1.]
   The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation
   for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of
   the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases,
   except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged
   from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their
   respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the
   same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall
   not be questioned in any other Place.

   [§ 2.]
   No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which
   he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the
   Authority of the United States, which shall have been created,
   or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during
   such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United
   States, shall be a Member of either House during his
   Continuance in Office.

   Section 7.
   [§ 1.]
   All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of
   Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with
   Amendments as on other Bills.

   [§ 2.]
   Every Bill which shall have passed the House of
   Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law,
   be presented to the President of the United States; If he
   approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with
   his Objections to that House in which it shall have
   originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their
   Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such
   Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass
   the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to
   the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered,
   and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a
   Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be
   determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons
   voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the
   Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be
   returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted)
   after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a
   Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the
   Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which
   Case it shall not be a Law.

   [§ 3.]
   Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of
   the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary
   (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to
   the President of the United States; and before the same shall
   take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by
   him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House
   of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations
   prescribed in the Case of a Bill.

   Section 8.
   The Congress shall have Power
   [§ 1.]
   To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay
   the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general
   Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and
   Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

   [§ 3.]
   To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the
   several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

   [§ 4.]
   To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform
   Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United
   States;

   [§ 5.]
   To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign
   Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

   [§ 6.]
   To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities
   and current Coin of the United States;

   [§ 8.]
   To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by
   securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the
   exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

   [§ 10.]
   To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the
   high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

   [§ 11.]
   To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make
   Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

   [§ 12.]
   To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to
   that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

   [§ 14.]
   To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land
   and naval Forces;

   [§ 15.]
   To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws
   of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

   [§ 16.]
   To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the
   Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be
   employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the
   States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the
   Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline
   prescribed by Congress;

   [§ 17.]
   To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever,
   over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by
   Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress,
   become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to
   exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the
   Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the same
   shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals,
   dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—And

   [§ 18.]
   To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for
   carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other
   Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the
   United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

   Section 9.
   [§ 1.]
   [The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the
   States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be
   prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand
   eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on
   such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.]

   [§ 2.]
   The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be
   suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the
   public Safety may require it.

   [§ 4.]
   No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in
   Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed
   to be taken.

   [§ 5.]
   No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any
   State.

   [§ 6.]
   No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or
   Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor
   shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to
   enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.

   [§ 7.]
   No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence
   of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and
   Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money
   shall be published from time to time.

   [§ 8.]
   No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States:
   And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under
   them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of
   any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind
   whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

   Section 10.
   [§ 1.]
   No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or
   Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin
   Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and
   silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of
   Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation
   of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

   [§ 2.]
   No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any
   Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be
   absolutely necessary for executing its inspection Laws: and
   the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State
   on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of
   the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the
   Revision and Control of the Congress.

   [§ 3.]
   No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty
   of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace,
   enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or
   with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually
   invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of
   delay.

Section 1. [§ 1.] The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows

   [§ 2.]
   Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature
   thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole
   Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may
   be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative,
   or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the
   United States, shall be appointed an Elector. [The Electors
   shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for
   two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant
   of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List
   of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for
   each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit
   sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States,
   directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the
   Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of
   Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes
   shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number
   of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority
   of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be
   more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number
   of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately
   chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person
   have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the
   said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in
   chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the
   Representation from each State having one Vote: A quorum for
   this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two
   thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall
   be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of
   the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes
   of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there
   should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate
   shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.]

   [§ 3.]
   The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors,
   and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day
   shall be the same throughout the United States.

   [§ 4.]
   No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the
   United States, at the time of the Adoption of this
   Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;
   neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall
   not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been
   fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

   [§ 5.]
   In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his
   Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and
   Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice
   President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of
   Removal, Death, Resignation, or Inability, both of the
   President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall
   then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly,
   until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be
   elected.

   [§ 6.]
   The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his
   Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor
   diminished during the Period for which he shall have been
   elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other
   Emolument from the United States, or any of them.

   [§ 7.]
   Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take
   the following Oath or Affirmation:—
      "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully
      execute the Office of President of the United States, and
      will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and
      defend the Constitution of the United States."

Section 2. [§ 1.] The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

   [§ 2.]
   He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the
   Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators
   present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the
   Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors,
   other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme
   Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose
   Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which
   shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest
   the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think
   proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in
   the Heads of Departments.

   [§ 3.]
   The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that
   may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting
   Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next
   Session.

   Section 3.
   He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of
   the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration
   such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he
   may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or
   either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with
   Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to
   such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive
   Ambassadors and other public Ministers: he shall take Care
   that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all
   the Officers of the United States.

   Section 4.
   The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the
   United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment
   for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes
   and Misdemeanors.

Article III.
   Section 1.
   The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in
   one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress
   may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both
   of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices
   during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for
   their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished
   during their Continuance in Office.

   Section 2.
   [§ 1.]
   The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and
   Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the
   United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made,
   under their Authority;
   —to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers
   and Consuls;
   —to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;
   —to Controversies to which the United States shall be a
   Party;
   —to Controversies between two or more States;
   —between a State and Citizens of another State;

—between Citizens of different States, —between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

   [§ 2.]
   In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and
   Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the
   supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the
   other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have
   appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such
   Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall
   make.

   [§ 3.]
   The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall
   be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where
   the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not
   committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place
   or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Section 3. [§ 1.] Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

   [§ 2.]
   The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of
   Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of
   Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person
   attainted.

Article IV.
   Section 1.
   Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the
   public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other
   State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the
   Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be
   proved, and the Effect thereof.

Section 2. [§ 1.] The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

   [§ 2.]
   A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other
   Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another
   State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State
   from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the
   State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

   [§ 3.]
   [No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the
   Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of
   any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service
   or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to
   whom such Service or Labour may be due.]

   Section 3.
   [§ 1.]
   New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union;
   but no new State shall be formed or erected within the
   Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by
   the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States,
   without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States
   concerned as well as of the Congress.

   [§ 2.]
   The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all
   needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or
   other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in
   this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any
   Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

   Section 4.
   The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union
   a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of
   them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature,
   or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened)
   against domestic Violence.

Article V.
   The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both Houses shall deem it
   necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or,
   on the Application of the Legislatures of two-thirds of the
   several States, shall call a Convention for proposing
   Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all
   Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when
   ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several
   States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one
   or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the
   Congress; Provided that [no Amendment which may be made prior
   to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any
   Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth
   Section of the first Article; and] that no State, without its
   Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the
   Senate.

Article VI.
   [§ 1.]
   All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the
   Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the
   United States under this Constitution, as under the
   Confederation.

   [§ 2.]
   This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which
   shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or
   which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States,
   shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every
   State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or
   Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

   [§ 3.]
   The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the
   Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive
   and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the
   several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to
   support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be
   required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust
   under the United States.

Article VII.
   The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be
   sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between
   the States so ratifying the Same.

   DONE in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States
   present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our
   Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the
   Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth In
   Witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our names.

   DELAWARE.
      Geo: Read
      John Dickinson
      Gunning Bedford jun
      Richard Bassett
      Jaco: Broom

   MARYLAND.
      James McHenry
      Dan of St. Thos. Jenifer
      Danl Carroll

   NORTH CAROLINA.
      Wm. Blount
      Richd. Dobbs Spaight
      Hu Williamson

   NEW JERSEY.
      Wil: Livingston
      Wm: Paterson.
      David Brearley
      Jona: Dayton

   SOUTH CAROLINA.
      J. Rutledge,
      Charles Pinckney
      Charles Cotesworth Pinckney
      Pierce Butler.

   PENNSYLVANIA.
      B Franklin
      Thos. Fitz Simons
      Thomas Mifflin
      Jared Ingersoll
      Robt. Morris
      James Wilson.
      Geo. Clymer
      Gouv Morris

[Footnote: These signatures have no other legal force than
that of attestation.]

ARTICLES in addition to and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

[Footnote: This heading appears only in the joint resolution
submitting the first ten amendments.]

[Article 1.]
   Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
   religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
   abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right
   of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
   Government for a redress of grievances.

[Article II.]
   A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a
   free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,
   shall not be infringed.

[Article III.]
   No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house,
   without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a
   manner to be prescribed by law.

[Article IV.]
   The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
   papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and
   seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue,
   but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and
   particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
   persons or things to be seized.

[Article V.]
   No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise
   infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a
   Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval
   forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of
   War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the
   same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor
   shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness
   against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or
   property, without due process of law; nor shall private
   property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

[Article VI.]
   In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right
   to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the
   State and district wherein the crime shall have been
   committed, which district shall have been previously
   ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause
   of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against
   him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his
   favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

[Article VII.]
   In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall
   exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be
   preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise
   re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according
   to the rules of the common law.

[Article VIII.]
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines
imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

[Article IX.]
   The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall
   not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the
   people.

[Article X.]
   The powers not delegated to the United States by the
   Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved
   to the States respectively, or to the people.

   [Footnote: Amendments First to Tenth appear to have been in
   force from November 3, 1791. (See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D.
   1791.)]

[Article XI.]
   The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed
   to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or
   prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of
   another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign
   State.

[Article XII.]
   The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote
   by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at
   least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with
   themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted
   for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for
   as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all
   persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for
   as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which
   lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the
   seat of the government of the United States, directed to the
   President of the Senate;—The President of the Senate shall,
   in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives,
   open all the certificates and the votes shall then be
   counted;—The person having the greatest number of votes for
   President, shall be the President, if such number be a
   majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no
   person have such majority, then from the persons having the
   highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted
   for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose
   immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the
   President, the votes shall be taken by states, the
   representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for
   this purpose shall consist of a member or members from
   two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states
   shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of
   Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the
   right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day
   of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as
   President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional
   disability of the President.—The person having the greatest
   number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the
   Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole
   number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a
   majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the
   Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the
   purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of
   Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be
   necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally
   ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to
   that of Vice-President of the United States.

Article XIII.
   Section 1.
   Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a
   punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly
   convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place
   subject to their jurisdiction.

   Section 2.
   Congress shall have power to enforce this article by
   appropriate legislation.

[Footnote: Proclaimed to be in force December 18, 1865.
[See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (JANUARY).]]

Article XIV.
   Section 1.
   All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and
   subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the
   United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State
   shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
   privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor
   shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or
   property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person
   within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

   Section 2.
   Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States
   according to their respective numbers, counting the whole
   number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.
   But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of
   electors for President and Vice President of the United
   States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and
   Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the
   Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants
   of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of
   the United States, or in any way abridged, except for
   participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of
   representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion
   which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole
   number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

   Section 3.
   No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or
   elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office,
   civil or military, under the United States, or under any
   State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of
   Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a
   member of any State legislature, or as an executive or
   judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of
   the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or
   rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the
   enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of
   each House, remove such disability.

   Section 4.
   The validity of the public debt of the United States,
   authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of
   pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection
   or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United
   States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or
   obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion
   against the United States, or any claim for the loss or
   emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and
   claims shall be held illegal and void.

   Section 5.
   The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate
   legislation, the provisions of this article.

   [Footnote: Proclaimed to be in force July 28. 1868.
   [See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865-1866
   (DECEMBER-APRIL); 1866 (JUNE),
   and 1866-1867 (OCTOBER-MARCH).]]

Article XV.
   Section 1.
   The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not
   be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on
   account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

   Section 2.
   The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by
   appropriate legislation."

[Footnote: Proclaimed to be in force March 30, 1870.
[See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1869-1870.]]

CONSTITUTION OF VENEZUELA.

The following text is taken from Bulletin No. 34 of the Bureau
of the American Republics:

Article I.
   The States that the constitution of March 28, 1864, declared
   independent and united to form the Venezuelan Federation, and
   that on April 27, 1881, were denominated Apure, Bolivar,
   Barquisimeto, Barcelona, Carabobo, Cojedes, Cumamá, Falcón,
   Guzmán Blanco, Guárico, Gunynna, Guzmán, Maturin, Nuevn
   Esparta, Portuguesa, Táchira, Trujillo, Yaracay, Zamora, and
   Zulia are constituted into nine grand political bodies, viz:
   The State of Bermudez, composed of Barcelona, Cumaná, and
   Maturin; the State of Miranda, composed of Bolivar, Guzman
   Blanco, Guárico, and Nueva Esparta; the State of Carabobo,
   composed of Carabobo and Nirgua; the State of Zamora, composed
   of Cojedes, Portuguesa, and Zamora; the State of Lara,
   composed of Barquisimeto and Yaracuy, except the department of
   Nirgua; the State of Los Andes, composed of Guzman, Trujillo,
   and Táchira; the State of Bolivar, composed of Guayana and
   Apure; the State of Zulia, and also the State of Falcón. And
   they are thus constituted to continue one only nation, free,
   sovereign, and independent, under the title of the United
   States of Venezuela.

Article. 2.
   The boundaries of these great States are determined by those
   that the law of April 28, 1856, that arranged the last
   territorial division, designated for the ancient provinces
   until it shall be re-formed.

Article. 3.
   The boundaries of the United States of the Venezuelan
   Federation are the same that in 1810 belonged to the old
   Captaincy-General of Venezuela.

Article. 4.
   The States that are grouped together to form the grand
   political bodies will be called Sections. These are equal
   among themselves; the constitutions prescribed for their
   internal organism must be harmonious with the federative
   principles established by the present compact, and the
   sovereignty not delegated resides in the State without any
   other limitations than those that devolve from the compromise
   of association.

1st, All persons that may have been or may be born on Venezuelan soil, whatever may be the nationality of their parents;

2d, The children of a Venezuelan father or mother that may have been born on foreign soil, if they should come to take up their domicile in the country and express the desire to become citizens;

4th, Those born or that shall be born in any of the Spanish-American republics or in the Spanish Antilles, provided that they may have taken up their residence in the territory of the Republic and express a willingness to become citizens.

Article. 6.
Those that take up their residence and acquire nationality in
a foreign country do not lose the character of Venezuelans.

Article. 7.
   Males over twenty-one years of age are qualified Venezuelan
   citizens, with only the exceptions contained in this
   constitution.

Article. 8.
   All Venezuelans are obliged to serve the nation according to
   the prescriptions of the laws, sacrificing his property and
   his life, if necessary, to defend the country.

Article. 9.
   Venezuelans shall enjoy, in all the States of the Union, the
   rights and immunities inherent to their condition as citizens
   of the Federation, and they shall also have imposed upon them
   there the same duties that are required of those that are
   natives or domiciled there.

Article. 10.
   Foreigners shall enjoy the same civil rights as Venezuelans
   and the same security in their persons and property. They can
   only take advantage of diplomatic means in accordance with
   public treaties and in cases when right permits it.

Article. 11.
   The law will determine the right applicable to the condition
   of foreigners, according as they may be domiciled or in
   transit.

Article. 12.
   The States that form the Venezuelan Federation reciprocally
   recognize their respective autonomies; they are declared equal
   in political entity, and preserve, in all its plenitude, the
   sovereignty not expressly delegated in this constitution.

   1st, To organize themselves in accord with the principles of
   popular, elective, federal, representative, alternative, and
   responsible government;

   2d, To establish the fundamental regulations of their interior
   regulation and government in entire conformity with the
   principles of this constitution;

3d, To defend themselves against all violence that threatens the sectional independence or the integrity of the Venezuelan Federation;

4th, To not alienate to a foreign power any part of their territory, nor to implore its protection, nor to establish or cultivate political or diplomatic relations with other nations, since this last is reserved to the Federal power;

5th, To not combine or ally themselves with another nation, nor to separate themselves to the prejudice of the nationality of Venezuela and her territory;

6th, To cede to the nation the territory that may be necessary for the Federal district;

7th, To cede to the Government of the Federation the territory necessary for the erection of forts, warehouses, shipyards, and penitentiaries, and for the construction of other edifices indispensable to the general administration;

8th, To leave to the Government of the Federation the administration of the Amazonas and Goajira territories and that of the islands which pertain to the nation, until it may be convenient to elevate them to another rank;

9th, To reserve to the powers of the Federation all legislative or executive jurisdiction concerning maritime, coastwise, and fluvial navigation, and the national roads, considering as such those that exceed the limits of a State and lead to the frontiers of others and to the Federal district;

10th, To not subject to contributions the products or articles upon which national taxes are imposed, or those that are by law exempt from tax before they have been offered for consumption;

11th, To not impose contributions on cattle, effects, or any class of merchandise in transit for another State, in order that traffic may be absolutely free, and that in one section the consumption of others may not be taxed;

12th, To not prohibit the consumption of the products of other States nor to tax their productions with greater general or municipal taxes than those paid on products raised in the locality;

13th, To not establish maritime or territorial custom-houses for the collection of imports, since there will be national ones only;

15th, To cede to the Government of the Federation the administration of mines, public lands, and salt mines, in order that the first may be regulated by a system of uniform working and that the latter may be applied to the benefit of the people;

17th, To comply with and cause to be complied with and executed the Constitution and laws of the federation and the decrees and orders that the federal power, the tribunals, and courts may expedite in use of their attributes and legal faculties;

18th, To give entire faith to and to cause to be complied with and executed the public acts and judicial procedures of the other States;

19th, To organize their tribunals and courts for the administration of justice in the State and to have for all of them the same substantive civil and criminal legislation and the same laws of civil and criminal procedure;

20th, To present judges for the court of appeals and to submit to the decision of this supreme tribunal of the States;

21st, To incorporate the extradition of criminals as a political principle in their respective Constitutions;

22d, To establish direct and public suffrage in popular elections, making it obligatory and endorsing it in the electoral registry. The vote of the suffragist must be cast in full and public session of the respective board; it will be inscribed in the registry books that the law prescribes for elections, which can not be substituted in any other form, and the elector, for himself or by another at his request in case of impediment or through ignorance, will sign the memorandum entry of his vote, and without this requisite it can not be claimed that in reality he has voted;

24th, To reserve to the powers of the Federation the laws and provisions necessary for the creation, conservation, and progress of general schools, colleges, or universities designed for the teaching of the sciences;

25th, To not impose duties upon the national employés, except in the quality of citizens of the State and insomuch as these duties may not be incompatible with the national public service;

26th, To furnish the proportional contingent that pertains to them to compose the national public forces in time of peace or war;

27th, To not permit in the States of the Federation forced enlistments and levies that have or may have for their object an attack on liberty or independence or a disturbance of the public order of the Nation, of other States, or of another Nation;

28th, To preserve a strict neutrality in the contentions that may arise in other States;

30th, To defer and submit to the decision of the Congress or the High Federal Court in all the controversies that may arise between two or more States when they can not, between themselves and by pacific measures, arrive at an agreement. If, for any cause, they may not designate the arbiter to whose decision they may submit, they leave it, in fact, to the High Federal Court;

31st, To recognize the competency of Congress and of the court of appeals to take cognizance of the causes that, for treason to the country or for the infraction of the Constitution and laws of the Federation, may be instituted against those that exercise executive authority in the States, it being their duty to incorporate this precept in their constitutions. In these trials the modes of procedure that the general laws prescribe will be followed and they will be decided in consonance with those laws;

32d, To have as the just income of the States, two-thirds of the total product of the impost collected as transit tax in all the custom-houses of the Republic and two-thirds of that collected from mines, public lands, and salt mines administered by the Federal Power and to distribute this income among all the States of the Federation in proportion to the population of each;

33d, To reserve to the Federal Power the amount of the third part of the income from transit tax, the production of mines, public lands, and salt mines, to be invested in the improvement of the country;

34th, To keep far away from the frontier those individuals that, through political motives, take refuge in a State, provided that the State interested requests it.

1st, The inviolability of life, capital punishment being
abolished in spite of any law that establishes it;

2d, Property, with all its attributes, rights and privileges, will only be subjected to contributions decreed by legislative authority, to judicial decision, and to be taken for public works after indemnity and condemnation;

4th, The domestic hearth, that can not be approached except to prevent the perpetration of crime, and this itself must be done in accordance with law;

   5th, Personal liberty, and consequently
      (1) forced recruiting for armed service is abolished,
      (2) slavery is forever proscribed,
      (3) slaves that tread the soil of Venezuela are free, and
      (4) nobody is obliged to do that which the law does not
          command, nor is impeded from doing that which it does not
          prohibit;

6th, The freedom of thought, expressed by word or through the press, is without any restriction to be submitted to previous censure. In cases of calumny or injury or prejudice to a third party, the aggrieved party shall have every facility to have his complaints investigated before competent tribunals of justice in accordance with the common laws;

7th, The liberty of traveling without passport, to change the domicil, observing the legal formalities, and to depart from and return to the Republic, carrying off and bringing back his or her property;

8th, The liberty of industry and consequently the proprietorship of discoveries and productions. The law will assign to the proprietors a temporary privilege or the mode of indemnity in case that the author agrees to its publication;

9th, The liberty of reunion and assembling without arms, publicly or privately, the authorities being prohibited from exercising any act of inspection or coercion;

10th, The liberty of petition, with the right of obtaining action by resolution; petition can be made by any functionary, authority or corporation. If the petition shall be made in the name of various persons, the first five will respond for the authenticity of the signatures and all for the truth of the assertions;

11th, The liberty of suffrage at popular elections without any restriction except to males under eighteen years of age;

12th, The liberty of instruction will be protected to every extent. The public power is obliged to establish gratuitous instruction in primary schools, the arts, and trades;

   14th, Individual security, and, therefore
      (1) no Venezuelan can be imprisoned or arrested in
      punishment for debts not founded in fraud or crime;
      (2) nor to be obliged to lodge or quarter soldiers in his
      house;
      (3) nor to be judged by special commissions or tribunals,
      but by his natural judges and by virtue of laws dictated
      before the commission of the crime or act to be judged;
      (4) nor to be imprisoned nor arrested without previous
      summary information that a crime meriting corporal
      punishment has been committed, and a written order from the
      functionary that orders the imprisonment, stating the cause
      of arrest, unless the person may be caught in the
      commission of the crime;
      (5) nor to be placed in solitary confinement for any cause;
      (6) nor to be obliged to give evidence, in criminal causes,
      against himself or his blood relations within the fourth
      degree of consanguinity or against his relations by
      marriage within the second degree, or against husband or
      wife;
      (7) nor to remain in prison when the reasons that caused
      the imprisonment have been dissipated;
      (8) nor to be sentenced to corporal punishment for more
      than ten years;
      (9) nor to remain deprived of his liberty for political
      reasons when order is reestablished.

Article. 15.
   Equality: in virtue of which
      (1) all must be judged by the very same laws and subject to
      equal duty, service and contributions;
      (2) no titles of nobility, hereditary honors, and
      distinctions will be conceded, nor employments or offices
      the salaries or emoluments of which continue after the
      termination of service;
      (3) no other official salutation than "citizen" and "you"
      will be given to employés and corporations. The present
      enumeration does not impose upon the States the obligation
      to accord other guarantees to their inhabitants.

Article 16.
   The laws in the States will prescribe penalties for the
   infractions of these guarantees, establishing modes of
   procedure to make them effective.

Article 17.
   Those who may issue, sign, or execute, or order executed any
   decrees, orders, or resolutions that violate or in any manner
   infringe upon the guarantees accorded to Venezuelans are
   culpable and must be punished according to the law. Every
   citizen is empowered to bring charges.

Article 18.
The National Legislature will be composed of two chambers, one
of Senators and another of Deputies.

Article 20.
   To form the Chamber of Deputies, each State will name, by
   popular election in accordance with paragraph 22 of Article 13
   of this Constitution, one Deputy for each thirty-five thousand
   inhabitants and another for an excess not under fifteen
   thousand. In the same manner it will elect alternates in equal
   number to the principals.

Article 21.
The Deputies will hold office for four years, when they will
be renewed in their entirety.

First, to examine the annual account that the President of the
United States of Venezuela must render;

Second, to pass a vote of censure of the Ministers of the
Cabinet, in which event their posts will be vacant;

Third, to hear charges against the persons in charge of the office of the National Executive for treason to the country, for infraction of the constitution, or for ordinary crimes; against the ministers and other National employés for infraction of the Constitution and laws and for fault in the discharge of their duties according to article 75 of this constitution and of the general laws of the Republic. This attribute is preventative and neither contracts nor diminishes those that other authorities have to judge and punish.

Article 23.
When a charge is instituted by a Deputy or by any corporation
or individual the following rules will be observed:

(2) the commission will, within three days, render an opinion, declaring whether or not there is foundation for instituting a cause;

   (3) the Chamber will consider the information and decide upon
   the cause by the vote of an absolute majority of the members
   present, the accusing Deputy abstaining from voting.

Article 24.
   The declaration that there is foundation for the cause
   operates to suspend from office the accused and incapacitates
   him for the discharge of any public function during the trial.

Article 25.
   To form this Chamber each State, through its respective
   legislature, will elect three principal Senators and an equal
   number of alternates to supply the vacancies that may occur.

Article 26.
To be a Senator it is required that he shall be a Venezuelan
by birth and thirty years of age.

Article 27.
The Senators will occupy their posts for four years and be
renewed in their entirety.

Article 28.
It is the prerogative of the Senate to substantiate and decide
the causes initiated in the Chamber of Deputies.

Article 29.
   If the cause may not have been concluded during the sessions,
   the Senate will continue assembled for this purpose only until
   the cause is finished.

Article 30.
   The National Legislature will assemble on the 20th day of
   February of each year or as soon thereafter as possible at the
   capital of the United States without the necessity of previous
   notice. The sessions will last for seventy days to be
   prolonged until ninety days at the judgment of the majority.

Article 31.
   The Chambers will open their sessions with two-thirds of their
   number at least; and, in default of this number, those present
   will assemble in preparatory commission and adopt measures for
   the concurrence of the absentees.

Article 32.
   The sessions having been opened, they may be continued by
   two-thirds of those that may have installed them, provided
   that the number be not less than half of all the members
   elected.

Article 33.
   Although the Chambers deliberate separately, they may assemble
   together in the Congress when the constitution and laws
   provide for it or when one of the two Chambers may deem it
   necessary. If the Chamber that is invited shall agree, it
   remains to it to fix the day and the hour of the joint
   session.

(7) to judge of the qualifications of their members and to consider their resignations.

Article 36.
   One of the Chambers cannot suspend its sessions nor change its
   place of meeting without the consent of the other; in case of
   disagreement they will reassemble together and execute that
   which the majority resolves.

Article 37.
   The exercise of any other public function, during the
   sessions, is incompatible with those of a Senator or Deputy.
   The law will specify the remunerations that the members of the
   national Legislature shall receive for their services. And
   whenever an increase of said remunerations is decreed, the law
   that sanctions it will not begin to be in force until the
   following period when the Chambers that sanctioned it shall
   have been renewed in their entirety.

Article 38.
   The Senators and Deputies shall enjoy immunity from the 20th
   day of January of each year until thirty days after the close
   of the sessions and this consists in the suspension of all
   civil or criminal proceeding, whatever may be its origin or
   nature; when anyone shall perpetrate an act that merits
   corporal punishment the investigation shall continue until the
   end of the summing up and shall remain in this state while the
   term of immunity continues.

Article 39.
   The Congress will be presided over by the President of the
   Senate and the presiding officer of the Chamber of Deputies
   will act as Vice-President.

Article 40.
   The members of the Chambers are not responsible for the
   opinions they express or the discourses they pronounce in
   session.

Article 41.
   Senators and deputies that accept office or commission from
   the National Executive thereby leave vacant the posts of
   legislators in the Chambers to which they were elected.

Article 42.
   Nor can senators and deputies make contracts with the general
   Government or conduct the prosecution of claims of others
   against it.

(2) to locate the Federal District in an unpopulated territory not exceeding three miles square, where will be constructed the capital city of the Republic. This district will be neutral territory, and no other elections will be there held than those that the law determines for the locality, The district will be provisionally that which the constituent assembly designated or that which the National Legislature may designate;

(3) to organize everything relating to the custom-houses, whose income will constitute the treasure of the Union until these incomes are supplied from other sources;

(4) to dispose in everything relating to the habitation and security of ports and seacoasts;

(5) to create and organize the postal service and to fix the
charges for transportation of correspondence;

(6) to form the National Codes in accordance with paragraph 19, article 13 of this Constitution;

(7) to fix the value, type law, weight, and coinage of national money, and to regulate the admission and circulation of foreign money;

(8) to designate the coat-of-arms and the national flag which will be the same for all the States;

(12) to dictate necessary measures to perfect the census of the current population and the national statistics;

(13) to annually fix the armed forces by sea and land and to
dictate the army regulations;

(14) to decree rules for the formation and substitution of the
forces referred to in the preceding clause;

(16) to ratify or reject the contracts for national public works made by the President with the approval of the Federal Council, without which requisite they will not be carried into effect;

(19) to promote whatever conduces to the prosperity of the country and to its advancement in the general knowledge of the arts and sciences;

(22) to establish, under the names of territories, special regulations for the government of regions inhabited by unconquered and uncivilized Indians. Such territories will be under the immediate supervision of the Executive of the Union;

(23) to establish the modes of procedure and to designate the penalties to be imposed by the Senate in the trials originated in the Chamber of Deputies;

(25) to permit or refuse the admission of foreigners into the
service of the Republic;

(26) to make laws in respect to retirements from the military service and army pensions;

(27) to dictate the law of responsibility on the part of all national employés and those of the States for infraction of the constitution and the general laws of the Union;

(29) to elect the Federal Council provided for in this constitution and to convoke the alternates of the senators and deputies who may have been chosen for it.

Article 44.
   Besides the preceding enumeration the National Legislature may
   pass such laws of general character as may be necessary, but
   in no case can they be promulgated, much less executed, if
   they conflict with this constitution, which defines the
   prerogatives of the public powers in Venezuela.

Article 45.
   The laws and decrees of the National Legislature may be
   proposed by the members of either chamber, provided that the
   respective projects are conformed to the rules established for
   the Parliament of Venezuela.

Article 46.
   After a project may have been presented, it will be read and
   considered in order to be admitted; and if it is, it must
   undergo three discussions, with an interval of at least one
   day between each, observing the rules established for debate.

Article 47.
   The projects approved in the chamber in which they were
   originated will be passed to the other for the purposes
   indicated in the preceding article, and if they are not
   rejected they will be returned to the chamber whence they
   originated, with the amendments they may have undergone.

Article 48.
   If the chamber of their origin does not agree to the
   amendments, it may insist and send its written reasons to the
   other. They may also assemble together in Congress and
   deliberate, in general commission, over the mode of agreement,
   but if this can not be reached, the project will be of no
   effect after the chamber of its origin separately decides upon
   the ratification of its insistence.

Article 49.
   Upon the passing of the projects from one to the other
   chamber, the days on which they have been discussed will be
   stated.

Article 50.
The law reforming another law must be fully engrossed and the
former law, in all its parts, will be annulled.

Article 51.
In the laws this form will be used: "The Congress of the
United States of Venezuela decrees."

Article 52.
The projects defeated in one legislature cannot be
reintroduced except in another.

Article 53.
   The projects pending in a chamber at the close of the sessions
   must undergo the same three discussions in succeeding
   legislatures.

Article 54.
Laws are annulled with the same formalities established for
their sanction.

Article 55.
   When the ministers of Cabinet may have sustained, in a
   chamber, the unconstitutionality of a project by word or in
   writing, and, notwithstanding this, it may have been
   sanctioned as law, the National Executive, with the
   affirmative vote of the Federal Council, will suspend its
   execution and apply to the legislatures of the States, asking
   their vote in the matter.

Article 56.
   In case of the foregoing article, each State will represent
   one vote expressed by the majority of the members of the
   legislature present, and the result will be sent to the High
   Federal Court in this form: "I confirm" or "I reject."

Article 57.
   If a majority of the legislatures of the States agree with the
   Federal Executive, the High Federal Court will confirm the
   suspension, and the Federal Executive himself will render an
   account to the next Congress relative to all that has been
   done in the matter.

Article 58.
The laws will not be observed until after being published in
the solemn form established.

Article 60.
   No legislative disposition will have a retroactive effect,
   except in matters of judicial procedure and that which imposes
   a lighter penalty.

Article 61.
   There will be a Federal Council composed of one senator and
   one deputy for each State and of one more deputy for the
   Federal District, who will be elected by the Congress each two
   years from among the respective representations of the States
   composing the Federation and from that of the Federal
   District. This election will take place in the first fifteen
   days of the meeting of Congress, in the first and third year
   of the constitutional period.

Article 62.
   The Federal Council elects from its members the President of
   the United States of Venezuela, and in the same manner the
   person who shall act in his stead in case of his temporal or
   permanent disability during his term. The election of a person
   to be President of the United States of Venezuela who is not a
   member of the Federal Council, as well as of those who may
   have to act in his stead in case of his temporal or permanent
   disability, is null of right and void of efficacy.

Article 63.
   The members of the Federal Council hold office for two years,
   the same as the President of the United States of Venezuela,
   whose term is of equal duration; and neither he nor they can
   be reëlected for the term immediately succeeding, although
   they may return to occupy their posts as legislators in the
   chambers to which they belong.

Article 64.
   The Federal Council resides in the district and exercises the
   functions prescribed in this constitution. It cannot
   deliberate with less than an absolute majority of all its
   members; it dictates the interior regulations to be observed
   in its deliberations, and annually appoints the person who
   shall preside over its sessions.

(2) to preside over the cabinet, in whose discussions he will have a vote, and to inform the Council of all the matters that refer to the General Administration;

(4) to sign the official letters to the Sovereigns or Presidents of other countries;

(5) to order the execution of the laws and decrees of the National Legislature, and to take care that they are complied with and executed;

   (6) to promulgate the resolutions and decrees that may have
   been proposed and received the approbation of the Federal
   Council, in conformity with article 66 of this constitution;

(7) to organize the Federal District and to act therein as the chief civil and political authority established by this constitution;

(9) to render an account to Congress, within the first eight days of its annual session, of the cases in which, with the approval of the Federal Council, he may have exercised all or any of the faculties accorded to him in article 66 of this compact;

Article 66.
   Besides the foregoing prerogatives, that are personal to the
   president of the United States of Venezuela, he can, with the
   deliberate vote of the Federal Council, exercise the
   following:

(2) to administer the public lands, mines, and salt mines of the States as their delegate;

(3) to convoke the National Legislature in its regular sessions, and in extraordinary session when the gravity of any subject demands it;

   (4) to nominate persons for diplomatic positions,
   consuls-general, and consuls; those named for the first and
   second positions must be Venezuelans by birth;

   (5) to direct negotiations and celebrate all kinds of treaties
   with other nations, submitting these to the National
   Legislature;

   (6) to celebrate contracts of national interest in accordance
   with the laws and to submit them the legislatures for their
   approval;

(7) to nominate the employés of hacienda, which nominations are not to be made by any other authority. It is required that these employés shall be Venezuelan by birth;

(8) to remove and suspend employés of his own free motion, ordering them to be tried if there should be cause for it;

(9) to declare war in the name of the Republic when Congress shall have decreed it;

first, demand from the States the assistance necessary for the national defense;

second, require, in anticipation, the contributions and negotiate the loans decreed by the National Legislature;

third, arrest or expel persons who pertain to the nation with which war is carried on and who may be opposed to the defense of the country;

fourth, to suspend the guaranties that may be incompatible with the defense of the country, except that of life;

fifth, to select the place to which the General Power of the Federation may be provisionally translated when there may be grave reasons for it;

      sixth, to bring to trial for treason to the country those
      Venezuelans who may be, in any manner, hostile to the
      national defense;

seventh, to issue registers to corsairs and privateers and to prescribe the laws that they must observe in cases of capture;

(11) to employ the public force and the powers contained in numbers 1, 2, and 5 of the preceding clause with the object of reëstablishing constitutional order in case of armed insurrection against the institutions of the Nation;

(12) to dispose of the public force for the purpose of quelling every armed collision between two or more States, requiring them to lay down their arms and submit their controversies to the arbitration to which they are pledged by number 30, article 14 of this constitution;

(16) to defend the territory designated for the Federal District when there may be reasons to apprehend that it will be invaded by hostile forces.

Article 67.
   The President of the United States of Venezuela shall have the
   ministers for his cabinet that the law designates. It will
   determine their functions and duties and will organize their
   bureaus.

Article 68.
   To be a minister of the cabinet it is required that the person
   shall be twenty-five years of age, a Venezuelan by birth or
   five years of naturalization.

Article 69.
   The ministers are the natural and proper organs of the
   President of the United States of Venezuela. All his acts must
   be subscribed by them and without such requisite they will not
   be complied with nor executed by the authorities, employees,
   or private persons.

Article 70.
   All the acts of the ministers must be conformed to this
   Constitution and the laws; their personal responsibility is
   not saved, although they may have the written order of the
   President.

Article 71.
   The settlement of all business, except the fiscal affairs of
   the bureaus, will be determined in the council of ministers,
   and their responsibility is collective and consolidated.

Article 72.
   The ministers, within the five first sessions of each year,
   will render an account to the Chambers of what they may have
   done or propose to do in their respective branches. They will
   also render written or verbal reports that may be requested of
   them, reserving only that which, in diplomatic affairs, it may
   not be convenient to publish.

Article 73.
   Within the same period, they will present to the National
   Legislature the estimates of public expenditures and the
   general account of the past year.

Article 74.
   The ministers have the right to be heard in the Chambers, and
   are obliged to attend when they may be called upon for
   information.

(5) for subornation or bribery in the affairs under their charge or in the nominations for public employees;

Article 76.
   The High Federal Court will be composed of as many judges as
   there may be States of the Federation and with the following
   qualities:

Article 77.
   For the nomination of judges of the High Federal Court the
   Congress will convene on the fifteenth day of its regular
   sessions and will proceed to group together the representation
   of each State from which to form a list of as many candidates
   for principal judges and an equal number of alternates as
   there may be States of the Federation. The Congress, in the
   same or following session, will elect one principal and one
   alternate for each State, selecting them from the respective
   lists.

Article 78. The law will determine the different functions of the judges and other officers of the High Federal Court.

Article 79.
   The judges and their respective alternates will hold office
   for four years. The principals and their alternates in office
   can not accept during this period any office in the gift of
   the executive without previous resignation and lawful
   acceptance. The infraction of this disposition will be
   punished with four years of disability to hold public office
   in Venezuela.

   (1) to take cognizance of civil or criminal causes that may be
   instituted against diplomatic officers in those cases
   permitted by the law of nations;

(2) to take cognizance of causes ordered by the President to be instituted against cabinet ministers when they may be accused according to the cases provided for in this Constitution. In the matter of the necessity of suspension from office, they will request the President to that effect and he will comply;

(4) to have jurisdiction of the causes of responsibility instituted against diplomatic agents accredited to another nation for the wrong discharge of their functions;

(5) to have jurisdiction in civil trials when the nation is defendant and the law sanctions it;

(6) to dissipate the controversies that may arise between the officials of different States in political order in the matter of jurisdiction or competence;

(7) to take cognizance of all matters of political nature that the States desire to submit for their consideration;

(8) to declare which may be the law in force when the national and State laws may be found to conflict with each other;

(9) to have jurisdiction in the controversies that may result from contracts or negotiations celebrated by the president of the federation;

Article 81.
   The Court of Appeals referred to in paragraph 20, article 13
   of this Constitution, is the tribunal of the states; it will
   be composed of as many judges as there are states of the
   federation, and their terms of office will last for four
   years.

Article 82.
A judge of the Court of Appeals must have the following
qualifications:

(1) he must be an attorney at law in the exercise of his profession, and must have had at least six years practice;

Article 83.
   Every four years the legislature of each State will form a
   list of as many attorneys, with the qualifications expressed
   in the preceding article, as there are States, and will remit
   it, duly certified, to the Federal Council in order that this
   body, from the respective lists, may select a judge for each
   State in the organization of this high tribunal.

Article 84.
   After the Federal Council may have received the lists from all
   the States, it will proceed, in public session, to verify the
   election; forming thereafter a list of the attorneys not
   elected, in order that from this general list, which will be
   published in the official paper, the permanent vacancies that
   may occur in the Court of Appeals may be filled by lot. The
   temporary vacancies will be filled according to law.

(1) to take cognizance of criminal causes or those of responsibility that may be instituted against the high functionaries of the different States, applying the laws of the States themselves in matters of responsibility, and in case of omission of the promulgation of a law of constitutional precept, it will apply to the cause in question the general laws of the land;

(2) to take cognizance and to decide in cases of appeal in the form and terms directed by law;

(3) to annually report to the National Legislature the difficulties that stand in the way of uniformity in the matter of civil or criminal legislation;

(4) to dispose of the rivalries that may arise between the officers or functionaries of judicial order in the different States of the federation and amongst those of a single State, provided that the authority to settle them does not exist in the State.

Article 86.
   The National Executive is exercised by the Federal Council,
   the President of the United States of Venezuela, or the person
   who fills his vacancies, in union with the cabinet ministers
   who are his organs. The President of Venezuela must be a
   Venezuelan by birth.

Article 87.
   The functions of National Executive can not be exercised
   outside of the federal district except in the case provided
   for in number 5, paragraph 10, article 66 of the Constitution.
   When the President, with the approval of the Council, shall
   take command of the army or absent himself from the district
   on account of matters of public interest that demand it, he
   can not exercise any functions and will be replaced by the
   Federal Council in accordance with article 62 of this
   Constitution.

Article 88.
   Everything that may not be expressly assigned to the general
   administration of the nation in this Constitution is reserved
   to the States.

Article 89.
   The tribunals of justice in the States are independent; the
   causes originated in them will be concluded in the same States
   without any other review than that of the Court of Appeals in
   the cases provided for by law.

Article 90.
   Every act of Congress and of the National Executive that
   violates the rights guaranteed to the States in this
   Constitution, or that attacks their independence, must be
   declared of no effect by the High Court, provided that a
   majority of the legislatures demands it.

Article 91.
   The public national force is divided into naval and land
   troops, and will be composed of the citizen militia that the
   States may organize according to law.

Article 92.
   The force at the disposal of the federation will be organized
   from citizens of a contingent furnished by each State in
   proportion to its population, calling to service those
   citizens that should render it according to their internal
   laws.

Article 93.
   In case of war the contingent can be augmented by bodies of
   citizen militia up to the number of men necessary to fill the
   draft of the National Government.

Article 94.
   The National Government may change the commanders of the
   public force supplied by the States in the cases and with the
   formalities provided for in the national military law and then
   their successors will be called for from the States.

Article 95.
The military and civil authority can never be exercised by the
same person or corporation.

Article 96.
   The nation, being in possession of the right of ecclesiastical
   patronage, will exercise it as the law upon the subject may
   direct.

Article 97.
   The Government of the Federation will have no other resident
   employees with jurisdiction or authority in the States than
   those of the States themselves. The officers of hacienda,
   those of the forces that garrison national fortresses,
   arsenals created by law, navy-yards, and habilitated ports,
   that only have jurisdiction in matters peculiar to their
   respective offices and within the limits of the forts and
   quarters that they command, are excepted; but even these must
   be subject to the general laws of the State in which they
   reside. All the elements of war now existing belong to the
   National Government; nevertheless it is not to be understood
   that the States are prohibited from acquiring those that they
   may need for domestic defense.

Article 98.
   The National Government can not station troops nor military
   officers with command in a State, although they may be from
   that or another State, without permission of the government of
   the State in which the force is to be stationed.

Article 99.
   Neither the National Executive nor those of the States can
   resort to armed intervention in the domestic contentions of a
   State; it is only permitted to them to tender their good
   offices to bring about a pacific solution in the case.

Article 100.
   In case of a permanent or temporary vacancy in the office of
   President of the United States of Venezuela, the States will
   be immediately informed as to who has supplied the vacancy.

Article 101.
Exportation in Venezuela is free and no duty can be placed
upon it.

Article 102.
   All usurped authority is without effect and its acts are null.
   Every order granted for a requisition, direct or indirect, by
   armed force or by an assemblage of people in subversive
   attitude is null of right and void of efficacy.

Article 103.
The exercise of any function not conferred by the constitution
or laws is prohibited to every corporation or authority.

Article 104.
   Any citizen may accuse the employees of the nation or the
   States before the chamber of deputies, before their respective
   superiors in office, or before the authorities designated by
   law.

Article 105.
   No payment shall be made from the National Treasury for which
   Congress has not expressly provided in the annual estimate,
   and those that may infringe this rule will be civilly
   responsible to the National Treasury for the sums they have
   paid out. In every payment from the public Treasury the
   ordinary expenses will be preferred to the extraordinary
   charges.

Article 106.
   The offices of collection and disbursement of the national
   taxes shall be always separate, and the officers of collection
   may disburse only the salaries of their respective employees.

Article 107.
   When, for any reason, the estimate of appropriations for a
   fiscal period have not been made, that of the immediately
   preceding period will continue in force.

Article 108.
   In time of elections, the public national force or that of the
   States themselves will remain closely quartered during the
   holding of popular elections.

Article 109.
   In international treaties of commerce and friendship this
   clause will be inserted, to wit: "all the disagreements
   between the contracting parties must be decided without an
   appeal to war, by the decision of a power or friendly powers."

Article 110.
   No individual can hold more than one office within the gift of
   Congress and the National Executive. The acceptance of any
   other is equivalent to resignation of the first. Officials
   that are removable will cease to hold office upon accepting
   the charge of a Senator or Deputy when they are dependents of
   the National Executive.

Article 111.
The law will create and designate other national tribunals
that may be necessary.

Article 112.
   National officers can not accept gifts, commissions, honors,
   or emoluments from a foreign nation without permission from
   the National Legislature.

Article 113.
   Armed force can not deliberate; it is passive and obedient. No
   armed body can make requisitions nor demand assistance of any
   kind, but from the civil authorities, and in the mode and form
   prescribed by law.

Article 114.
The Nation and the States will promote foreign immigration and
colonization in accordance with their respective laws.

Article 115.
   A law will regulate the manner in which national officers,
   upon taking charge of their posts, shall take the oath to
   comply with their duties.

Article 116.
The National Executive will negotiate with the Governments of
America over treaties of alliance or confederation.

Article 117.
   The law of Nations forms a part of the National Legislation;
   its dispositions will be specially in force in cases of civil
   war, which can be terminated by treaties between the
   belligerents who will have to respect the humanitarian customs
   of Christians and civilized nations, the guarantee of life being,
   in every case, inviolable.

Article 118.
   This constitution can be reformed by the National Legislature
   if the legislatures of the States desire it, but there shall
   never be any reform except in the parts upon which the
   majority of the States coincide; also a reform can be made
   upon one or more points when two-thirds of the members of the
   National Legislature, deliberating separately and by the
   proceedings established to sanction the laws, shall accord it;
   but, in this second case, the amendment voted shall be
   submitted to the legislatures of the States, and it will stand
   sanctioned in the point or points that may have been ratified
   by them.

Article 119.
   This constitution will take effect from the day of its
   official promulgation in each State, and in all public acts
   and official documents there will be cited the date of the
   Federation to begin with February 20, 1859, and the date of
   the law to begin with March 28, 1864.

Article 120.
   The constitutional period for the offices of the General
   Administration of the Republic will continue to be computed
   from February 20, 1882, the date on which the reformed
   constitution took effect.

Article 121.
   For every act of civil and political life of the States of the
   Federation, its basis of population is that which is
   determined in the last census approved by the National
   Legislature.

Article 122.
   The Federal Constitution of April 27, 1881, is repealed. Done
   in Caracas, in the Palace of the Federal Legislative Corps,
   and sealed with the seal of Congress on the 9th day of April,
   1891. The 28th year of the Law and the 33rd year of the
   Federation.

   (Here follow the signatures of the Presidents,
   Vice-Presidents, and Second Vice-Presidents of the Senate and
   Chamber of Deputies, together with those of the Senators and
   Deputies of the various States, followed by those of the
   President and the ministers of his cabinet.)

CONSTITUTION OF THE WATAUGA ASSOCIATION (the first Western American Commonwealth).

CONSTITUTIONS OF CLARENDON.

The "Constitutions of Clarendon" were a series of declarations drawn up by a council which King Henry II. of England convened at Clarendon, near Winchester, in 1164, and which were intended to determine the law on various points in dispute between the Crown and the laity, on one side, and the Church on the other. The issues in question were those which brought Henry into collision with Thomas Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury. The general provisions embodied in the Constitutions of Clarendon "would now be scarcely challenged in the most Catholic country in the world.

1. During the vacancy of any archbishopric, bishopric, abbey, or priory of royal foundation, the estates were to be in the custody of the Crown. Elections to these preferments were to be held in the royal chapel, with the assent of the king and council.

2. In every suit to which a clerk was a party, proceedings were to commence before the king's justices, and these justices were to decide whether the case was to be tried before a spiritual or a civil court. If it was referred to a spiritual court, a civil officer was to attend to watch the trial, and if a clerk was found guilty of felony the Church was to cease to protect him.

3. No tenant-in-chief of the king, or officer of his household, was to be excommunicated, or his lands laid under an interdict, until application had been first made to the king, or, in his absence, to the chief justice.

4. Laymen were not to be indicted in a bishop's court, either for perjury or other similar offence, except in the bishop's presence by a lawful prosecutor and with lawful witnesses. If the accused was of so high rank that no prosecutor would appear, the bishop might require the sheriff to call a jury to inquire into the case.

5. Archbishops, bishops, and other great persons were forbidden to leave the realm without the king's permission.

6. Appeals were to be from the archdeacon to the bishop, from the bishop to the archbishop, from the archbishop to the king, and no further; that, by the king's mandate, the case might be ended in the archbishop's court.

The last article the king afterwards explained away. It was one of the most essential, but he was unable to maintain it; and he was rash, or he was ill-advised, in raising a second question, on which the pope would naturally be sensitive, before he had disposed of the first."

When the Romans had rid themselves of their kings and established a republic, or, rather, an aristocratic government, "the civil duties of the king were given to two magistrates, chosen for a year, who were at first called 'prætores' or generals, 'judices' or judges, or consules (cf. con 'together' and salio 'to leap') or 'colleagues.' In the matter of their power, no violent departure was made from the imperium of the king. The greatest limitation on the consuls was the short period for which they were at the head of the state; but even here they were thought of, by a fiction, as voluntarily abdicating at the expiration of their term, and as nominating their successors, although they were required to nominate the men who had already been selected in the 'comitia centuriata.' Another limitation was the result of the dual character of the magistracy. The imperium was not divided between the consuls, but each possessed it in full, as the king had before. When, therefore, they did not agree, the veto of the one prevailed over the proposal of the other, and there was no action."

"As judges, the consuls occupied altogether the place of the kings. They decided the legal disputes of the citizens either personally or by deputy. Their criminal jurisdiction was probably limited to the most important cases. … In the warlike state of the Romans the military character of the consuls was no doubt most prominent and most important. When the consul led the army into the field he possessed the unlimited military power of the kings (the imperium). He was entrusted with the direction of the war, the distribution of the booty, and the first disposal of the conquered land. … The oldest designation for the consuls, therefore, was derived from their military quality, for they were called prætors, that is, commanders. It was, however, precisely in war that the division of power among two colleagues must often have proved prejudicial … and the necessity of unity in the direction of affairs was felt to be indispensable. The dictatorship served this purpose. By decree of the senate one of the consuls could be charged with naming a dictator for six months, and in this officer the full power of the king was revived for a limited period. The dictatorship was a formal suspension of the constitution of the republic. … Military was substituted for common law, and Rome, during the time of the dictatorship, was in a state of siege."

In the later years of the Roman empire, "two consuls were created by the sovereigns of Rome and Constantinople for the sole purpose of giving al date to the year and a festival to the people. But the expenses of this festival, in which the wealthy and the vain aspired to surpass their predecessors, insensibly arose to the enormous sum of four score thousand pounds; the wisest senators declined a useless honour which involved the certain ruin of their families, and to this reluctance I should impute the frequent chasms in the last age of the consular Fasti. … The succession of consuls finally ceased in the thirteenth year of Justinian [A. D. 541] whose despotic temper might be gratified by the final extinction of a title which admonished the Romans of their ancient freedom. Yet the annual consulship still lived in the minds of the people; they fondly expected its speedy restoration … and three centuries elapsed after the death of Justinian before that obsolete dignity, which had been suppressed by custom, could be abolished by law. The imperfect mode of distinguishing each year by the name of a magistrate was usefully supplied by the date of a permanent era."

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 40. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

"There were no consuls in 531 and 532. The Emperor held the office alone in 533, and with a colleague in 534. Belisarius was sole consul in 535. The two following years, having no consuls of their own, were styled the First and Second after the Consulship of Belisarius. John of Cappadocia gave his name to the year 538, and the years 539 and 540 had again consuls, though one only for each year. In 541 Albinus Basilius sat in the curule chair, and he was practically the last of the long list of warriors, orators, demagogues, courtiers, which began (in the year 500 B. C.) with the names of Lucius Junius Brutus and Lucius Tarquinius Collatinus. All the rest of the years of Justinian, twenty-four in number, were reckoned as Post Consulatum Basilii."

The plebeians of Rome having demanded admission for their order to the consulship, a compromise was arranged, B. C. 444, which settled that, thereafter, "the people should be free to elect either consuls—that is, patricians according to the old law—or in their place other officers under the title of 'military tribunes with consular power,' consisting of patricians and plebeians. … It is not reported in what respect the official competency of the consular tribunes was to differ from that of the consuls. Still, so much is plain, that the difference consisted not alone in name. The number of the consular tribunes was in the beginning fixed at three."

CONTIONES, OR CONCIONES.

The contiones, or conciones, at Rome, were assemblies of the people, "less formal than the comitia," held for the mere purpose of discussing public questions, and incapable of passing any binding resolution. "They could not be called together by anybody except the magistrates, neither had every man the liberty of speaking in them, of making proposals or of declaring his opinion; … but even in this limited manner public questions could be discussed and the people could be enlightened. … The custom of discussing public questions in the contiones became general after the comitia of the tribes had obtained full legislative competency."

CONTRABANDS.

In the early part of the American civil war of 1861-65, the escaped slaves of the Confederates, who came within the Union lines, were called contrabands, General Butler having supplied the term by declaring them to be "contraband of war."

CONVENT.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (AUGUST),
and 1792 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER), to 1705 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).

CONVOCATION.

The assemblies of the clergy in the two ecclesiastical provinces of England are called the Convocation of Canterbury and the Convocation of York. The former, which is the superior body, frequently receives the name of Convocation, simply. It is constituted upon the model of Parliament, and is, in fact, the Parliament of the Church of England. It has two Houses: the upper one consisting of the Archbishop and his Bishops; the lower one composed of deans, archdeacons and proctors, representing the inferior clergy. The Convocation of York has but one House. Since 1716 Convocation has possessed slight powers.

COPAIC REEDS.

COPENHAGEN: A. D. 1807.
Bombardment of the city by the English.
Seizure of the fleet.

COPPERHEADS.

During the American Civil War, the Democratic Party in the Northern States "comprised two well-recognized classes: The Anti-War (or Peace) Democrats, commonly called 'Copperheads,' who sympathized with the Rebellion, and opposed the War for the Union; and the War (or Union) Democrats, who favored a vigorous prosecution of the War for the preservation of the Union."

The descendants of the ancient Egyptian race, who form to this day the larger part of the population of Egypt.

CORCYRA.

CORDELIERS.

CORDYENE.

COREA.

COREISH, KOREISH.

Corfu was won by the Venetians in the early years of the Latin conquest of the Greek empire (1216), but was presently lost, to come back again into the possession of the republic 170 years later. "No part of Greece has been so often cutoff from the Greek body. Under Pyrrhos and Agathoklês, no less than under Michael Angelos and Roger, it obeyed an Epeirot or Sicilian master. … At last, after yet another turn of Sicilian rule, it passed for 400 years [1386-. 1797] to the great commonwealth [of Venice]. In our own day Corfu was not added to free Greece till long after the deliverance of Attica and Peloponnesos. But, under so many changes of foreign masters, the island has always remained part of Europe and of Christendom. Alone among the Greek lands, Corfu has never passed under barbarian rule. It has seen the Turk only, for one moment, as an invader [see TURKS: A. D. 1714-1718], for another moment as a nominal overlord."

CORINIUM.

A Roman city in Britain, on the site of which is the modern city of Cirencester. Some of the richest mosaic pavements found in England have been uncovered there.

CORINTH.

Corinth, the chief city and state, in ancient times, of the narrow isthmus which connects Peloponnesus with northern Greece, "owed everything to her situation. The double sea by the isthmus, the confluence of the high road of the whole of Hellas, the rocky citadel towering aloft over land and sea, through which rushed—or around which flowed—an abundance of springs; all these formed so extraordinary a commixture of advantages, that, if the intercourse with other countries remained undisturbed, they could not but call forth an important city. As in Argolis, so on the isthmus also, other besides Dorian families had in the days of the migration helped to found the new state. … By the side of the Dorian, five non-Dorian tribes existed in Corinth, attesting the multitude and variety of population, which were kept together as one state by the royal power of the Heraclidæ, supported by the armed force of the Dorians. In the ninth century [B. C.] the royal power passed into the hands of a branch of the Heraclidæ deriving its descent from Bacchis [one of the earliest of the kings]; and it was in the extraordinary genius of this royal line that the greatness of the city originated. The Bacchiadæ opened the city to the immigration of the industrious settlers who hoped to make their fortunes more speedily than elsewhere at this meeting point of all Greek high-roads of commerce. They cherished and advanced every invention of importance. … They took commerce into their own hands, and established the tramway on the isthmus, along which ships were, on rollers, transported from one gulf to the other. … They converted the gulf which had hitherto taken its name from Crisa into the Corinthian, and secured its narrow inlet by means of the fortified place of Molycria. … They continued their advance along the coast and occupied the most important points on the Achelous."

CORINTH: B. C. 745-725.
   Constitutional Revolution.
   End of Monarchy.
   The prytanes.
   Commercial progress.

A violent contention which arose between two branches of the Bacchiadæ "no doubt gave the nobles of Corinth power and opportunity to end the struggle by a change in the constitution, and by the discontinuance of the monarchy; this occurred in the year 745 B. C., after eight generations of kings. … Yet the place at the head of the commonwealth was not to be entirely taken away from the ancient royal house. A presiding chief (a prytanis), newly elected each year by the whole nobility from the members of the royal race, was henceforward to conduct the government [see PRYTANIS]. It was a peculiar arrangement which this change introduced into Corinth. We may assume that the sovereignty was transferred to the nobles collectively, or to their representative. This representation seems to have been so regulated that each of the eight tribes sent an equal number of members to the Gerousia, i. e. the council of elders. … But the first of these eight tribes, to which belonged the royal family, was privileged. From it was chosen the head of the state, an office for which only a Bacchiad was eligible—that is, only a member of the old royal house, which took the foremost place in the first tribe. This clan of the Bacchiadæ is said to have contained 200 men. 'They were numerous and wealthy,' says Strabo. Accordingly the royal house did not exclusively retain the first rank in the state, but only in conjunction with the families connected with it by kindred and race. … The new constitution of Corinth, the government by nobles, under the dynastic presidency of one family, became a type for other cantons. It was a Corinthian of the Bacchiadæ who, twenty or thirty years after the introduction of the prytanes, regulated the oligarchy of the Thebans and gave them laws (about 725 B. C.) … The fall of the monarchy in Corinth at first brought with it disastrous consequences for the power and prestige of the commonwealth. The communities of the Megarians—either because the new government made increased demands upon them, or because they considered their allegiance had ceased with the cessation of monarchy, and thought the moment was favourable—deserted Corinth and asserted their freedom. The five communities on the isthmus united together around the territory of Megara, lying in the plain by the Saronic Gulf, where the majority of the Doric tribes had settled; the city of Megara, in the vicinity of two ancient fortresses … became the chief centre of the communities, now associated in one commonwealth. … The important progress of Corinth under the prytany of the Bacchiadæ was not due to successes upon the mainland, but in another sphere. For navigation and commerce no canton in Hellas was more favourably situated. Lying on the neck of the isthmus, it extended from sea to sea, an advantageous position which had indeed first attracted the Phœnicians thither in ancient times. … Corinth, says Thucydides, was always from the first a centre of commerce, and abounded in wealth; for the population within and without the Peloponnesus communicated with each other more in ancient times by land across the isthmus than by sea. But when the Hellenes became more practised in navigation, the Corinthians with their ships put down piracy and established marts on both sides; and through this influx of riches their city became very powerful."

CORINTH: B. C. 509-506.
Opposition to the desire of Sparta to restore tyranny at
Athens.

CORINTH: B. C. 458-456.
Alliance with Ægina in unsuccessful war with Athens and Megara.

CORINTH: B. C. 435-432.
   Quarrel with Korkyra.
   Interference of Athens.
   Events leading to the Peloponnesian War.

CORINTH: B. C. 429-427.
The Peloponnesian War: sea-fights and defeats.
Fruitless aid to the Mitylenæans.

CORINTH: B. C. 395-387.
   Confederacy against Sparta.
   The Corinthian War.
   Battle on the Nemea.
   The Peace of Antalcidas.

CORINTH: B. C. 368-365.
Attempt of Epaminondas to surprise the city.
Attempt of the Athenians.

CORINTH: B. C. 337.
Congress of Greek states to acknowledge the hegemony of Philip
of Macedon.

"In the desolate land of Greece, Cæsar, besides other plans, … busied himself above all with the restoration of Corinth. Not only was a considerable burgess-colony conducted thither, but a plan was projected for cutting through the isthmus, so as to avoid the dangerous circumnavigation of the Peloponnesus and to make the whole traffic between Italy and Asia pass through the Corintho-Saronic gulf."

"Cæsar sent to Corinth a large number of freedmen, and other settlers were afterwards sent by Augustus; but it is certain that many Greeks came to live in the new Corinth, for it became a Greek town. Corinth was a mass of ruins when the new settlers came, and while they were removing the rubbish, they grubbed up the burial places, where they found a great number of earthen figures and bronze urns, which they sold at a high price and filled Rome with them."

"Corinth rapidly rose under these auspices, became a centre of commerce and art, and took the lead among the cities of European Hellas. Here was established the seat of the Roman government of Achaia, and its population, though the representations we have received of it are extravagant, undoubtedly exceeded that of any Grecian rival."

CORINTH: A. D. 1146.
Sacked by the Normans of Sicily.
Abduction of silk weavers.

The fortifications of the isthmus of Corinth were stormed and the Peloponnesus invaded by Amurath II. in 1445. "Corinth itself, a city sanctified by its antiquity, by its gods, by its arts, by the beauty of its women, by its fountains, its cypresses, its very ruins themselves, whence its unrivalled situation had always restored it, fell anew, buried in its flames, by the hands of Tourakhan, that ancient and ambitious vizier of Amurath. Its flames were seen from Athens, from Ægina, from Lepanto, from Cytheron, from Pindus. The inhabitants, as also those of Patras, were led into slavery in Asia, to the number of 60,000."

CORINTH: A. D. 1463-1464.
Unsuccessful siege by the Venetians.
Fortification of the Isthmus.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (APRIL-MAY: TENNESSEE-MISSISSIPPI), and (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER: MISSISSIPPI).

"On Sunday [August 6, 1893] the canal across the Isthmus of Corinth—[projected by Cæsar—see ROME: B. C. 45-44] begun by Nero, and completed, nearly 2,000 years later, by a Greek engineer, M. Matsas—was opened by the King of Greece, who steamed through the canal in his yacht, accompanied by a procession consisting of four Greek torpedo-boats and other vessels, including three English men-of-war and an English despatch-boat. The canal … will be practicable for all but the largest vessels."

[Transcriber's note: "It was planned by the Hungarian architects István Türr and Béla Gerster… Its construction was started by a French company, which ceased works only after the two ends had been dug, due to financial difficulties. A Greek company took over, the main contractor being Antonis Matsas, and continued (and completed) the project." http://wiki.phantis.com]

CORINTHIAN TALENT.

CORITANI, OR CORITAVI. A British tribe which occupied the lower valley of the Trent and its vicinity.

See TARIFF LEGISLATION (ENGLAND):
A. D. 1815-1828; 1836-1839; 1842; and 1845-1846.

In the division of the spoils of his conquest of England, William the Conqueror gave to his brother Robert almost the whole shire of Cornwall, besides other vast estates. "Out of those possessions," says Mr. Freeman, "arose that great Earldom, and afterwards Duchy, of Cornwall, which was deemed too powerful to be trusted in the hands of any but men closely akin to the royal house, and the remains of which have for ages formed the appanage of the heir-apparent to the Crown."

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (AUGUST), (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER); 1780 (FEBRUARY-AUGUST); 1780-1781; 1781 (JANUARY-MAY); 1781 (MAY-OCTOBER).

CORONATION.

"The royal consecration in its most perfect form included both coronation and unction. The wearing of a crown was a most ancient sign of royalty, into the origin of which it is useless now to inquire; but the solemn rite of crowning was borrowed from the Old Testament by the Byzantine Cæsars; the second Theodosius was the first emperor crowned with religious ceremonies in Christian times. The introduction of the rite of anointing is less certainly ascertained. It did not always accompany coronation, and, although usual with the later emperors is not recorded in the case of the earlier ones."

CORONATION STONE.

CORPS DE BELGIQUE.

   "The Corpus Juris Civilis represents the Roman law in the form
   which it assumed at the close of the ancient period (a
   thousand years after the decemviral legislation of the Twelve
   Tables), and through which mainly it has acted upon modern
   times. It was compiled in the Eastern Roman Empire (the
   Western ceased in 476 A. D.) under the Emperor Justinian, …
   who reigned 527-565 A. D. The plan of the work, as laid out
   by [his great law-minister] Tribonian, included two principal
   parts, to be made from the constitutions of the Roman
   emperors, and from the treatises of the Roman lawyers. The
   constitutiones' (law-utterances) of the emperors consisted
   of:
   1. 'Orationes,' proposals of law, submitted to and adopted by
   the Senate;
   2. 'Edicta,' laws issued directly by the emperor as head of
   the state;
   3. 'Mandata,' instructions addressed by the emperor to high
   officers of law and justice;
   4. 'Decreta,' decisions given by the emperor in cases brought
   before him by appeal or otherwise;
   5. 'Rescripta,' answers returned by the emperor when consulted
   on questions of law by parties in a suit or by magistrates.
{615}
   … Three or four collections had
   already been made, in which the most important constitutions
   were selected from the mass, presented in a condensed form,
   and arranged according to their subjects. The last and most
   elaborate of these collections was the Theodosian Code,
   compiled about a century before the accession of Justinian; it
   is still in great part extant. … The new Codex
   Constitutionem, prepared in little more than a year, was
   published in April, 529. The next work was to digest the
   treatises of the most eminent law writers. Thirty-nine were
   selected, nearly all of whom lived between 100 B. C. and 250
   A. D. Their books (2,000 in number) were divided among a body
   of collaborators (sixteen besides Tribonian), each of whom
   from the books assigned to him extracted what he thought
   proper. … and putting the extracts (9,000 in all) under an
   arranged series of heads. … The Digest—or Pandects
   (all-receiving), as it is also called from the multiplicity of
   its sources—was issued with authority of law, in December,
   533. … While the Digest or Pandects forms much the largest
   fraction of the Corpus Juris, its relative value and
   importance are far more than proportionate to its extent. The
   Digest is, in fact, the soul of the Corpus. … To bring the
   Codex Constitutionem into better conformity with the Digest,
   it was revised in 534 and issued as we now have it in November
   of that year. … The Corpus Juris includes also an elementary
   text-book, the Institutiones (founded on the 'institutiones' of
   Gaius, who flourished about 150). … The Institutes, Digest
   and Codex were given, as a complete body of law, to the
   law-schools at Constantinople, Rome, Berytus, Alexandria,
   Cæsarea, to be studied in their five years' curriculum. In the
   courts it was to supersede all earlier authorities. … Later
   statutes of Justinian, arranged in order of time, form the
   Novels ('novellae constitutione,' most of them in Greek), the
   last component of the Corpus Juris."

CORREGIDOR.

"The original inhabitants of Corsica are supposed to have been Ligurians, but at a very early period the people had commercial intercourse with Spain, Ionia and Tuscany. The island was subsequently occupied by the Carthaginians, who, however, were expelled by the Romans during the first Punic war. A few years later Corsica came under the dominion of Rome, and that sway was nominally maintained until the downfall of the Empire. It then fell under the dominion of the Vandals, and after their expulsion owned successively the rule of the Goths, the Saracens and the Pisans, and finally of the Genoese. It came into the possession of the latter people in the year 1120. Pisa subsequently made several attempts to drive out her rivals, but they were in the end void of results. But in 1448, Genoa, having sustained great losses in the constant wars in which she was engaged, was induced to surrender the administration of Corsica and of her colonies in the Levant to a corporation known as the Bank of St George. From that time the island was administered by governors appointed by the Bank of St George, almost precisely in the manner in which, in England, up to 1859, the East Indies were administered by an 'imperium in imperio.'"

CORSICA: A. D. 1729-1769.
   The Struggle for independence.
   Romance of King Theodore.
   The Paolis.
   Cession to France.

The revolt of 1558 was renewetl in 1564, but ended in 1567, upon the death of its leader, Sampiero. For the next century and a half, Corsica remained inactive; "depressed and miserable under renewed Genoese exactions and tyrannies, but too exhausted to resume hostilities. In 1729, however, fighting again broke out, suddenly roused by one of the many private wrongs then pressing upon the lower orders, and the rebellion soon spread over the whole island. It was well organized under two leaders of energy and ability, and was more determined in its measures than ever. … Genoa had recourse to the emperor of Germany, from whom she bought several thousand mercenaries, who were sent across the sea to try their skill upon these unconquerable islanders. … The courage and chivalry of his insular foes … won for them the regard of the opposing General Wachtendonk; and, chiefly through his mediation, a treaty, supposed to be favourable to the islanders, was concluded between Genoa and the Corte legislative assembly in 1732. Wachtendonk remained in the island another year to see the treaty carried out, and in June, 1734, the German general returned to his own country. … But he had scarcely retired before the treaty was broken. Genoa began anew her system of illegal arrests and attempted assassinations; and, once more, the people arose under Hyacinth Paoli, an obscure native of the little village of Morosaglia, but a man of spirit and talent, and a scholar. Under the direction of this man, and of Giafferi, his colleague, a democratic constitution, in the highest degree prudent and practical, was framed for the Corsican people. … Early in the next year occurred a strange and romantic adventure in this adventureful country. A man, handsome and well-dressed, surrounded by obsequious courtiers, and attended by every luxury, landed in the island from a vessel well-furnished with gold, ammunition, and arms. This man was a German adventurer, Baron Theodore von Neuhoff, who, after a romantic youth, had suddenly conceived a desire to become king of Corsica. He was a man of great talent and personal fascination, of good judgment, and enthusiastic disposition. He had fallen in love with the bravery and determination of the Corsicans, and longed to head such a nation. He had put himself into communication with the leading islanders; and, having really some little influence at the continental courts, persuaded them that he had much more. He offered to obtain such assistance from foreign potentates, by his persuasions, as should effectually oust the Genoese; and, in return, requested the crown of Corsica. His genius and his enthusiasm were so great, and his promises so dazzling, that, after some hesitation, the poor Corsicans, in their despair, seized upon this last straw; and in March, 1736, Theodore was crowned king. His exertions for the good of this country were untiring. He established manufactures and promoted with all his power art and commerce, at the same time that, with all the force of his genius, he endeavoured to persuade foreign powers to lend their assistance to his new subjects in the field. {616} His style of living meanwhile was regal and sumptuous. … Towards the conclusion of his first year of sovereignty, Theodore left Corsica on a continental tour, with the avowed object of hastening the promised succour. In two years he returned, bringing with him three large and several smaller war vessels, handsomely laden with ammunition, which had actually been raised by means of his talents and persuasive faculties, chiefly amongst the Dutch. But, meanwhile, the Corsicans had had other affairs to which to attend. France had interfered at the request of Genoa; and negotiations were actively going on, which the arrival of the pseudo-king could only interrupt. Theodore, although now so well attended, found himself unheeded and disregarded; and after a few months was forced to leave his new kingdom to its fate, and to return to the continent. Five years later, in 1743, he again returned, again well equipped, this time with English vessels, but with the same ill success. Convinced now that his chance was over and his dream of royalty destroyed, Theodore returned to England with a sore heart, spending his remaining years in this asylum for dethroned kings and ruined adventurers. His tomb may be seen in Westminster Abbey. For the next five and twenty years the war continued between Corsica and Genoa, still fought out on the blood-deluged plains of the unhappy little island. But the republic of Genoa was now long past her prime, and her energies were fading into senility; and, had it not been for the ever-increasing assistance of France, her intrepid foes would long ere this have got the better of her. In May, 1768, a treaty was signed between Genoa and France, by which the republic ceded her now enfeebled claims on Corsica to her ally, and left her long-oppressed victim to fight the contest out with the French troops. During this time, first Gaffori, then Pasquale Paoli, were the leaders of the people. Gaffori, a man of refinement, and a hero of skill and intrepidity, was murdered in a vendetta in 1753, and in 1755 Pasquale, youngest son of the old patriot Hyacinth Paoli, left his position as officer in the Neapolitan service, and landed, by the general desire of his own people, at Aleria, to undertake the command of the Corsican army. … From 1764 to 1768 a truce was concluded between the foes. … In August, 1768, the truce was to expire; but, before the appointed day had arrived, an army of 20,000 French suddenly swooped down upon the luckless island. … It was a hopeless struggle for Corsica; but the heroism of the undaunted people moved all Europe to sympathy. … The Corsicans at first got the better of their formidable foe, at the Bridge of Golo, in the taking of Borgo, and in other lesser actions. … Meanwhile, the country was being destroyed, and the troops becoming exhausted. … The battle of Ponte Nuovo, on the 9th of May, 1769, at once and forever annihilated the Corsican cause. … After this victory, the French rapidly gained possession of the whole island, and shortly afterwards the struggle was abandoned. … In the same year, 1769, Napoleon Buonaparte was born in the house out of the Place du Marché at Ajaccio. 'I was born,' he said himself in a letter to Paoli, 'the year my country died.'"

CORTES, The early Spanish.
The old monarchical constitutions of Castile and Aragon.

"The earliest instance on record of popular representation in Castile occurred at Burgos, in 1169; nearly a century antecedent to the celebrated Leicester parliament. Each city had but one vote, whatever might be the number of its representatives. A much greater irregularity, in regard to the number of cities required to send deputies to cortes [the name signifying 'court'] on different occasions, prevailed in Castile, than had ever existed in England; though, previously to the 15th century, this does not seem to have proceeded from any design of infringing on the liberties of the people. The nomination of these was originally vested in the householders at large, but was afterwards confined to the municipalities,—a most mischievous alteration, which subjected their election eventually to the corrupt influence of the crown. They assembled in the same chamber with the higher orders of the nobility and clergy, but on questions of moment, retired to deliberate by themselves. After the transaction of other business, their own petitions were presented to the sovereign, and his assent gave them the validity of laws. The Castilian commons, by neglecting to make their money grants depend on corresponding concessions from the crown, relinquished that powerful check on its operations so beneficially exerted in the British parliament, but in vain contended for even there till a much later period than that now under consideration. Whatever may have been the right of the nobility and clergy to attend in cortes, their sanction was not deemed essential to the validity of legislative acts; for their presence was not even required in many assemblies of the nation which occurred in the 14th and 15th centuries. The extraordinary power thus committed to the commons was, on the whole, unfavorable to their liberties. It deprived them of the sympathy and cooperation of the great orders of the state, whose authority alone could have enabled them to withstand the encroachments of arbitrary power, and who, in fact, did eventually desert them in their utmost need. … The Aragonese cortes was composed of four branches, or arms; the ricos hombres, or great barons; the lesser nobles, comprehending the knights; the clergy; and the commons. The nobility of every denomination were entitled to a seat in the legislature. The ricos hombres were allowed to appear by proxy, and a similar privilege was enjoyed by baronial heiresses. The number of this body was very limited, twelve of them constituting a quorum. {617} The arm of the ecclesiastics embraced an ample delegation from the inferior as well as higher clergy. It is affirmed not to have been a component of the national legislature until more than a century and a half after the admission of the commons. Indeed, the influence of the church was much less sensible in Aragon than in the other kingdoms of the Peninsula. … The commons enjoyed higher consideration and civil privileges. For this they were perhaps somewhat indebted to the example of their Catalan neighbors, the influence of whose democratic institutions naturally extended to other parts of the Aragonese monarchy. The charters of certain cities accorded to the inhabitants privileges of nobility, particularly that of immunity from taxation; while the magistrates of others were permitted to take their seats in the order of hidalgos. From a very early period we find them employed in offices of public trust, and on important missions. The epoch of their admission into the national assembly is traced as far back as 1133, several years earlier than the commencement of popular representation in Castile. Each city had the right of sending two or more deputies selected from persons eligible to its magistracy; but with the privilege of only one vote, whatever might be the number of its deputies. Any place which had been once represented in cortes might always claim to be so. By a statute of 1307, the convocation of the states, which had been annual, was declared biennial. The kings, however, paid little regard to this provision, rarely summoning them except for some specific necessity. The great officers of the crown, whatever might be their personal rank, were jealously excluded from their deliberations. … It was in the power of any member to defeat the passage of a bill, by opposing to it his veto or dissent, formally registered to that effect. He might even interpose his negative on the proceedings of the house, and thus put a stop to the prosecution of all further business during the session. This anomalous privilege, transcending even that claimed in the Polish diet, must have been too invidious in its exercise, and too pernicious in its consequences, to have been often resorted to. This may be inferred from the fact that it was not formally repealed until the reign of Philip II., in 1502. … The cortes exercised the highest functions, whether of a deliberative, legislative, or judicial nature. It had a right to be consulted on all matters of importance, especially on those of peace and war. No law was valid, no tax could be imposed, without its consent; and it carefully provided for the application of the revenue to its destined uses. It determined the succession to the crown, removed obnoxious ministers, reformed the household and domestic expenditure of the monarch, and exercised the power, in the most unreserved manner, of withholding supplies, as well as of resisting what it regarded as an encroachment on the liberties of the nation. … The statute-book affords the most unequivocal evidence of the fidelity with which the guardians of the realm discharged the high trust reposed in them, in the numerous enactments it exhibits for the security both of person and property. Almost the first page which meets the eye in this venerable record contains the General Privilege, the Magna Charta, as it has been well denominated, of Aragon. It was granted by Peter the Great to the cortes at Saragossa, in 1283. It embraces a variety of provisions for the fair and open administration of justice; for ascertaining the legitimate powers intrusted to the cortes; for the security of property against exactions of the crown; and for the conservation of their legal immunities to the municipal corporations and the different orders of nobility. … The Aragonese, who rightly regarded the General Privilege as the broadest basis of their liberties, repeatedly procured its confirmation by succeeding sovereigns. … The judicial functions of the cortes have not been sufficiently noticed by writers. They were extensive in their operation, and gave it the name of the General Court."

W. H. Prescott, History of the Reign of Ferdinand and Isabella, introduction, sections 1-2.

   "Castile bore a closer analogy to England in its form of civil
   polity than France or even Aragon. But the frequent disorders
   of its government and a barbarous state of manners rendered
   violations of law much more continual and flagrant than they
   were in England under the Plantagenet dynasty. And besides
   these practical mischiefs, there were two essential defects in
   the constitution of Castile, through which perhaps it was
   ultimately subverted. It wanted those two brilliants in the
   coronet of British liberty, the representation of freeholders
   among the commons, and trial by jury. The cortes of Castile
   became a congress of deputies from a few cities, public
   spirited, indeed, and intrepid, as we find them in bad times,
   to an eminent degree, but too much limited in number, and too
   unconnected with the territorial aristocracy, to maintain a
   just balance against the crown. … Perhaps in no European
   monarchy except our own was the form of government more
   interesting than in Aragon, as a fortunate temperament of law
   and justice with the royal authority. … Blancas quotes a
   noble passage from the acts of cortes in 1451. 'We have always
   heard of old time, and it is found by experience, that seeing
   the great barrenness of this land, and the poverty of the
   realm, if it were not for the liberties thereof, the folk
   would go hence to live and abide in other realms and lands
   more fruitful.' This high spirit of freedom had long animated
   the Aragonese. After several contests with the crown in the
   reign of James I., not to go back to earlier times, they
   compelled Peter III. in 1283 to grant a law called the General
   Privilege, the Magna Charta of Aragon, and perhaps a more full
   and satisfactory basis of civil liberty than our own." They
   further "established a positive right of maintaining their
   liberties by arms. This was contained in the Privilege of
   Union granted by Alfonso III. in 1287, after a violent
   conflict with his subjects; but which was afterwards so
   completely abolished, and even eradicated from the records of
   the kingdom, that its precise words have never been recovered.
   … That watchfulness over public liberty which originally
   belonged to the aristocracy of ricos hombres … and which was
   afterwards maintained by the dangerous Privilege of Union,
   became the duty of a civil magistrate whose office and
   functions are the most pleasing feature in the constitutional
   history of Aragon. The Justiza or Justiciary of Aragon has
   been treated by some writers as a sort of anomalous
   magistrate. … But I do not perceive that his functions were,
   in any essential respect, different from those of the chief
   justice of England, divided, from the time of Edward I., among
   the judges of the King's Bench. …
{618}
   All the royal as well as territorial judges were
   bound to apply for his opinion in case of legal difficulties
   arising in their courts, which he was to certify within eight
   days. By subsequent statutes of the same reign it was made
   penal for anyone to obtain letters from the king, impeding the
   execution of the Justiza's process, and they were declared
   null. Inferior courts were forbidden to proceed in any
   business after his prohibition. … There are two parts of his
   remedial jurisdiction which deserve special notice. These are
   the processes of juris firma, or firma del derechio, and of
   manifestation. The former bears some analogy to the writs of
   'pone' and 'certiorari' in England, through which the Court of
   King's Bench exercises its right of withdrawing a suit from
   the jurisdiction of inferior tribunals. But the Aragonese
   juris firma was of more extensive operation. … The process
   termed manifestation afforded as ample security for personal
   liberty as that of juris firma did for property."

For some account of the loss of the old constitutional liberties of Castile and Aragon, under Charles V.,

"The councils or meetings of the bishops after the reconquest, like the later Councils of Toledo, were always 'jussu regis,' and were attended by counts and magnates 'ad videndum sine ad audiendum verbum Domini.' But when the ecclesiastical business was ended, it was natural that the lay part of the assembly should discuss the affairs of the kingdom and of the people; and insensibly this after-part of the proceedings grew as the first part diminished in importance. The exact date when the Council merged into the Curia or Cortes is difficult to determine; Señor Colmeiro takes the so-named Council of Leon in 1020 as the true starting-point of the latter. The early monarchy of Spain was elective, and the acclamation of the assembled people (plebs) was at least theoretically necessary to render the king's election valid. The presence of the citizens at the Cortes or Zamora, though stated by Sandoval and Morales, is impugned by Señor Colmeiro; but at the Council of Oviedo in 1115 were present bishops of Spain and Portugal 'cum principibus et plebe praedictae regionis,' and these latter also subscribed the Acts. Still, though present and making their influence more and more felt, there is no record of a true representation of cities until Alfonso IX. convoked the Cortes of Leon in 1188, 'cum archiepiscopo, et episcopis, et magnatibus regni mei et cum electis civibus ex singulis civitatibus'; from this time the three estates—clergy, nobles, citizens—were always represented in the Cortes of Leon. Unfortunately, the political development of Castille did not synchronise with that of Leon. In general, that of Castille was fully half a century later. We pass by as more than doubtful the alleged presence of citizens at Burgos in 1169; the 'majores civitatum et villarum' at the Cortes of Carrion in 1188 were not deputies, but the judges or governors of twenty-eight cities. It is not till the united Cortes of both kingdoms met at Seville in 1250, that we find true representation in Castille. Castille was always more feudal than Leon. It is in this want of simultaneous development, and in the presence of privileged classes, that we find the germ of the evils which eventually destroyed the liberties of Spain. Neither the number of deputies nor of the cities represented was ever fixed; at Burgos, in 1315, we find 200 deputies (procuradores) from 100 cities; gradually the number sank till seventeen, and finally twenty-two, cities alone were represented. The deputies were chosen from the municipality either by lot, by rotation, or by election; they were the mere spokesmen of the city councils, whose mandate was imperative. Their payment was at first by the cities, but, after 1422, by the king; and there are constant complaints that the salary was insufficient. The reign of Juan II. (1406-54) was fatal to the liberties of Castille; the answers to the demands and petitions of the deputies were deferred; and, in fact, if not in form, the law that no tax should be levied without consent of the Cortes was constantly violated. Still, but for the death of Prince Juan, in 1497, and the advent of the Austrian dynasty with the possession of the Low Countries, the old liberties might yet have been recovered. … With the Cortes of Toledo, in 1538, ended the meeting of the three estates. The nobility first, then the clergy, were eliminated from the Cortes, leaving only the proctors of the cities to become servile instruments for the purposes of taxation."

      W. Webster,
      Review of Colmeiro's
      "Cortes de los Antiguos Reinos de Leon y de Castilla"
      (Academy, August 16, 1884).

   A battle fought in western Phrygia, B. C. 281, in which
   Lysimmachus, one of the disputants for Alexander's empire, was
   defeated by Seleucus, and slain.

CORVÉE.

One of the feudal rights possessed in France (under the old regime, before the Revolution) "by the lord of the manor over his subjects, by means of which he could employ for his own profit a certain number of their days of labour, or of their oxen and horses. The 'Corvée à volonté,' that is to say, at the arbitrary will of the Seigneur, had been completely abolished [before the Revolution]: forced labour had been for some time past confined to a certain number of days a year."

A. de Tocqueville, On the State of Society in France before 1789, note 4 E. (p. 499).

COS, OR KOS.

One of the islands in the Ægean called the Sporades, near the Carian coast of Asia Minor. The island was sacred to Asclepius, or Æsculapeus, and was the birthplace of the celebrated physician Hippocrates, as well as of the painter Apelles. It was an Æolian colony, but joined the Dorian confederacy.

COSMOS, COSMIOS, COSMOPOLIS.

"The origin of the Cossack tribes is lost in the obscurity of ages; and many celebrated historians are still divided in opinion as to whence the term Cossack, or rather Kosaque, is properly to be derived. This word, indeed, is susceptible of so many etymological explanations, as scarcely to offer for anyone of them decided grounds of preference. Everything, however, would seem to favour the belief that the word Cossack, or Kosaque, was in much earlier use in the vicinity of the Caucasus than in the Ukraine. … Sherer, in his 'Annals of Russia Minor,' (La Petite Russie,) traces back the origin of the Cossacks to the ninth century; but he does not support his assertion by any facts clothed with the dignity of historical truth. It appears certain, however, that the vast pasture lands between the Don and the Dnieper, the country lying on the south of Kïow, and traversed by the Dnieper up to the Black Sea, was the principal birthplace of the Cossacks. When, in 1242, Batukhan came with 500,000 men to take possession of the empire which fell to his share of the vast inheritance left by Tchingis Khan [see MONGOLS: A. D. 1229-1294], he extirpated many nations and displaced many others. One portion of the Komans flying from the horrors of this terrific storm, and arriving on the borders of the Caspian Sea, on the banks of the Iaïk, (now Ouralsek,) turned to the left, and took refuge between the embouchures of that river, where they dwelt in small numbers, apart from their brethren, in a less fertile climate. These were, incontestably, the progenitors of the Cossacks of the Iaïk, who are, historically, scarcely important enough for notice. … At the approach of this formidable invasion towards the Don, that portion of the Komans located on the left bank took refuge in the marshes, and in the numerous islands formed by that river near its embouchure. Here they found a secure retreat; and from thence, having, from their new position, acquired maritime habits and seafaring experience, they not only, themselves, resorted to piracy as a means of existence, but likewise enlisted in a formidable confederacy, for purposes of rapine and pillage, all the roving and discontented tribes in their surrounding neighbourhood. These latter were very numerous. The Tartars, ever but indifferent seamen, had not the courage to join them in these piratical expeditions. This division of the Komans is indubitably the parent stock of the modern Cossacks of the Don, by far the most numerous of the Cossack tribes: by amalgamation; however, with whole hosts of Tartar and Calmuck hordes, lawless, desperate, and nomadic as themselves, they lost, in some degree, the primitive and deeply marked distinctive character of their race. The Komans of the Dnieper offered no more energetic resistance to the invading hordes of Batukhan than had been shown by their brethren of the Don: they dispersed in various directions, and from this people, flying at the advance of the ferocious Tartars, descended a variety of hordes, who occasionally figure in history as distinct and independent nations. … [They] ultimately found a permanent resting-place in the wild islets of the Dnieper, below the cataracts, where dwelt already a small number of their ancient compatriots, who had escaped the general destruction of their nation. This spot became the cradle of the Cossacks of the Ukraine, or of the tribes known in after times as the Polish Cossacks. When Guedynum, Grand Duke of Lithuania, after having defeated twelve Russian princes on the banks of the Piërna, conquered Kïow with its dependencies in 1320, the wandering tribes scattered over the steppes of the Ukraine owned his allegiance. After the victories of Olgierd, of Vitold, and of Ladislas Iagellon, over the Tartars and the Russians, large bodies of Scythian militia, known subsequently by the comprehensive denomination of Cossacks, or Kosaques, served under these conquerors: and after the union of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania with Poland, in 1386, they continued under the dominion of the grand dukes of Lithuania, forming, apparently, an intermediate tribe or caste, superior to the peasantry and inferior to the nobles. At a later period, when the Ukraine was annexed to the Polish crown, they passed under the protection of the kings of Poland. … Although there may, doubtless, exist several species or castes of Cossacks, and to whom Russia in order to impose on Europe, is pleased to give as many different names, yet there never have been, nor will there ever be, properly speaking, more than two principal tribes of the Cossack nation, namely the Cossacks of the Don, or Don-Cossacks, and the Cossacks of the Black Sea, known in ancient times as the Polish Cossacks, or Zaporowscy Kozacy. … The Cossacks [of the Don] … have rendered signal service to Russia, which, ever since the year 1549, has taken them under her protection, without, however, the existence of any official act, treaty, or stipulation, confirming their submission to that power. … The Don-Cossacks enjoy a certain kind of liberty and independence; they have a hetman, attaman, or chief, nominated by the Emperor of Russia; and to this chief they yield an obedience more or less willing and implicit; in general, they are commanded only by Cossack officers, who take equal rank in the Russian army. They have a separate war administration of their own; although they are compelled to furnish a stated number of recruits who serve in a manner for life, inasmuch as they are rarely discharged before attaining sixty years of age: on the whole, their condition is happier than that of the rest of the Russian population. They belong to the Greek-Russian church. The existence of this small republic of the Don, in the very heart of the most despotic and most extensive empire in the world, appears to constitute a problem, the solution of which is not as yet definitely known, and the ultimate solution of which yet remains to be ascertained."

The Cossacks of the Ukraine transferred their allegiance from the King of Poland to the Czar of Russia in 1654, after a revolt led by their hetman, Bogdan Khmelnitski, in which they were assisted by the neighboring Tartars, and which was accompanied by terrible scenes of slaughter and destruction.

COSTA RICA: A. D. 1813-1871.
   Independence of Spain.
   Brief annexation to Mexico.
   The failures of federation, the wars and revolutions of
   Central America.

COSTA RICA: A. D. 1850.
The Clayton Bulwer Treaty and the projected Nicaragua Canal.

COTARII.

"There were two land-locked docks or harbours, opening the one into the other, and both, it would seem, the work of human hands. … The outer harbour was rectangular, about 1,400 feet long and 1,100 broad, and was appropriated to merchant vessels; the inner was circular like a drinking cup, whence it was called the Cothon, and was reserved for ships of war. It could not be approached except through the merchant harbour, and the entrance to this last was only 70 feet wide, and could be closed at any time by chains. The war harbour was entirely surrounded by quays, containing separate docks for 220 ships. In front of each dock were two Ionic pillars of marble, so that the whole must have presented the appearance of a splendid circular colonnade. Right in the centre of the harbour was an island, the headquarters of the admiral."

COTSETI.

"Cotton had been used in the extreme East and in the extreme West from the earliest periods of which we have any record. The Spaniards, on their discovery of America, found the Mexicans clothed in cotton. … But though the use of cotton had been known from the earliest ages, both in India and America, no cotton goods were imported into Europe; and in the ancient world both rich and poor were clothed in silk, linen, and wool. The industrious Moors introduced cotton into Spain. Many centuries afterwards cotton was imported into Italy, Saxony and the Low Countries. Isolated from the rest of Europe, with little wealth, little industry, and no roads; rent by civil commotions; the English were the last people in Europe to introduce the manufacture of cotton goods into their own homes. Towards the close of the 16th century, indeed, cotton goods were occasionally mentioned in the Statute Book, and the manufacture of the cottons of Manchester was regulated by Acts passed in the reigns of Henry VIII., Edward VI., and Elizabeth. But there seem to be good reasons for concluding that Manchester cottons, in the time of the Tudors, were woollen goods, and did not consist of cotton at all. More than a century elapsed before any considerable trade in cotton attracted the attention of the legislature. The woollen manufacturers complained that people were dressing their children in printed cottons; and Parliament was actually persuaded to prohibit the introduction of Indian printed calicoes. Even an Act of Parliament, however, was unable to extinguish the growing taste for Indian cottons. … The taste for cotton led to the introduction of calico-printing in London; Parliament in order to encourage the new trade, was induced to sanction the importation of plain cotton cloths from India under a duty. The demand, which was thus created for calicoes, probably promoted their manufacture at home. … Up to the middle of the last century cotton goods were really never made at all. The so-called cotton manufactures were a combination of wool or linen and cotton. No Englishman had been able to produce a cotton thread strong enough for the warp; … The superior skill of the Indian manufacturers enabled them to use cotton for a warp; while clumsy workmanship made the use of cotton as a warp unattainable at home. In the middle of the 18th century, then, a piece of cotton cloth in the true sense of the term, had never been made in England. The so-called cotton goods were all made in the cottages of the weavers. The yarn was carded by hand; it was spun by hand; it was worked into cloth by a hand loom. … The operation of weaving was, however, much more rapid than that of spinning. The weaver consumed more weft than his own family could supply him with; and the weavers generally experienced the greatest difficulty in obtaining sufficient yarn. About the middle of the 18th century the ingenuity of two persons, a father and a son, made this difference more apparent. The shuttle had originally been thrown by the hand from one end of the loom to the other. John Kay, a native of Bury, by his invention of the fly-shuttle [patented in 1733], saved the weaver from this labour. … Robert Kay, John Kay's son, added the drop-box, by means of which the weaver was able 'to use any one of three shuttles, each containing a different coloured weft, without the trouble of taking them from and replacing them in the lathe.' By means of these inventions the productive power of each weaver was doubled. … Carding and roving were both slowly performed. … The trade was in this humble and primitive state when a series of extraordinary and unparalleled inventions revolutionised the conditions on which cotton had been hitherto prepared. A little more than a century ago John Hargreaves, a poor weaver in the neighbourhood of Blackburn, was returning home from a long walk, in which he had been purchasing a further supply of yarn for his loom. As he entered his cottage, his wife Jenny accidentally upset the spindle which she was using. Hargreaves noticed that the spindles which were now thrown into an upright position, continued to revolve, and that the thread was still spinning in his wife's hand. The idea immediately occurred to him that it would be possible to connect a considerable number of upright spindles with one wheel, and thus multiply the productive power of each spinster. … Hargreaves succeeded in keeping his admirable invention secret for a time; but the powers of his machine soon became known. His ignorant neighbours hastily concluded that a machine, which enabled one spinster to do the work of eight, would throw multitudes of persons out of employment. A mob broke into his house and destroyed his machine. Hargreaves himself had to retire to Nottingham, where, with the friendly assistance of another person, he was able to take out a patent [1770] for the spinning-jenny, as the machine, in compliment to his industrious wife, was called. The invention of the spinning-jenny gave a new impulse to the cotton manufacture. But the … yarn spun by the jenny, like that which had previously been spun by hand, was neither fine enough nor hard enough to be employed as warp, and linen or woollen threads had consequently to be used for this purpose. {621} In the very year, however, in which Hargreaves moved from Blackburn to Nottingham, Richard Arkwright [who began life as a barber's assistant] took out a patent [1769] for his still more celebrated machine. … 'After many years intense and painful application,' he invented his memorable machine for spinning by rollers; and laid the foundations of the gigantic industry which has done more than any other trade to concentrate in this country the wealth of the world. … He passed the thread over two pairs of rollers, one of which was made to revolve much more rapidly than the other. The thread, after passing the pair revolving slowly, was drawn into the requisite tenuity by the rollers revolving at a higher rapidity. By this simple but memorable invention Arkwright succeeded in producing thread capable of employment as warp. From the circumstance that the mill at which his machinery was first erected was driven by water power, the machine received the somewhat inappropriate name of the water frame; the thread spun by it was usually called the water twist. Invention of the spinning-jenny and the water frame would have been useless if the old system of hand-carding had not been superseded by a more efficient and more rapid process. Just as Arkwright applied rotatory motion to spinning, so Lewis Paul introduced revolving cylinders for carding cotton. … This extraordinary series of inventions placed an almost unlimited supply of yarn at the disposal of the weaver. But the machinery, which had thus been introduced, was still incapable of providing yarn fit for the finer qualities of cotton cloth. … This defect, however, was removed by the ingenuity of Samuel Crompton, a young weaver residing near Bolton. Crompton succeeded in combining in one machine the various excellences 'of Arkwright's water frame and Hargreaves' jenny.' Like the former, his machine, which from its nature is happily called the mule, 'has a system of rollers to reduce the roving; and like the latter it has spindles without bobbins to give the twist. … The effects of Crompton's great invention may be stated epigrammatically. … The natives of India could spin a pound of cotton into a thread 119 miles long.' The English succeed in spinning the same thread to a length of 160 miles. Yarn of the finest quality was at once at the disposal of the weaver. … The ingenuity of Hargreaves, Arkwright and Crompton had been exercised to provide the weaver with yarn. … The spinster had beaten the weaver. … Edmund Cartwright, a clergyman residing in Kent, happened to be staying at Matlock in the summer of 1784, and to be thrown into the company of some Manchester gentlemen. The conversation turned on Arkwright's machinery, and 'one of the company observed that, as soon as Arkwright's patent expired, so many mills would be erected and so much cotton spun that hands would never be found to weave it.' Cartwright replied 'that Arkwright must then set his wits to work to invent a weaving mill.' … Within three years he had himself proved that the invention was practicable by producing the power-loom. Subsequent inventors improved the idea which Cartwright had originated, and within fifty years from the date of his memorable visit to Matlock there were not less than 100,000 power-looms at work in Great Britain alone. … Other inventions, less generally remembered, were hardly less wonderful or less beneficial than these. … Scheele, the Swedish philosopher, discovered in 1774 the bleaching properties of chlorine, or oxymuriatic acid. Berthollet, the French chemist, conceived the idea of applying the acid to bleaching cloth. … In the same year in which Watt and Henry were introducing the new acid to the bleacher, Bell, a Scotchman, was laying the foundations of a trade in printed calicoes. 'The old method of printing was by blocks of sycamore.' … This clumsy process was superseded by cylinder printing. … Such are the leading inventions, which made Great Britain in less than a century the wealthiest country in the world."

      ALSO IN:
      R. W. C. Taylor,
      Introduction to a History of the Factory System,
      chapter 10.

COUNCIL FOR NEW ENGLAND.

COUNCIL, THE PRIVY.

There are seven councils admitted by both the Greek and Latin churches as œcumenical (or ecumenical)—that is general, or universal. The Roman Catholics recognize thirteen more, making twenty in all—as follows:

1. The synod of apostles in Jerusalem. 2. The first Council of Nice, A. D. 325 (see NICÆA, THE FIRST COUNCIL). 3. The first Council of Constantinople, A. D. 381. 4. The first Council of Ephesus, A. D. 431. 5. The Council of Chalcedon, A. D. 451. 6. The second Council of Constantinople, A. D. 553. 7. The third Council of Constantinople, A. D. 681. 8. The second Council of Nice, A. D. 787. 9. The fourth Council of Constantinople, A. D. 869. 10. The first Lateran Council, A. D. 1123. 11. The second Lateran Council, A. D. 1139. 12. The third Lateran Council, A. D. 1179. 13. The fourth Lateran Council, A. D. 1215. 14. The first œcumenical synod of Lyon, A. D. 1245. 15. The second œcumenical synod of Lyon, A. D. 1274. 16. The Synod of Vienne in Gaul, A. D. 1311. 17. The Council of Constance, A. D. 1414 (see PAPACY: A. D. 1414-1418). 18. The Council of Basel, A. D. 1431 (see PAPACY: A. D. 1431-1448). 19. The Council of Trent, A. D. 1545 (see PAPACY: A. D. 1537-1563). 20. The Council of the Vatican, A. D. 1869 (see PAPACY: A. D. 1869-1870).

"The defence of the Roman empire was at length committed [under Constantine and his successors] to eight masters-general of the cavalry and infantry. Under their orders thirty-five military commanders were stationed in the provinces—three in Britain, six in Gaul, one in Spain, one in Italy, five on the Upper and four on the Lower Danube, in Asia eight, three in Egypt, and four in Africa. The titles of Counts and Dukes, by which they were properly distinguished, have obtained in modern languages so very different a sense that the use of them may occasion some surprise. But it should be recollected that the second of those appellations is only a corruption of the Latin word which was indiscriminately applied to any military chief. All these provincial generals were therefore dukes; but no more than ten among them were dignified with the rank of counts or companions, a title of honour, or rather of favour, which had been recently invented in the court of Constantine. A gold belt was the ensign which distinguished the office of the counts and dukes."

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 17. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

"The Duke and the Count of modern Europe—what are they but the Generals and Companions (Duces and Comites) of a Roman province? Why or when they changed places, the Duke climbing up into such unquestioned pre-eminence over his former superior the Count, I know not, nor yet by what process it was discovered that the latter was the precise equivalent of the Scandinavian Jarl."

COUNT OF THE DOMESTICS.

In the organization of the Imperial Household, during the later period of the Roman empire, the officers called Counts of the Domestics "commanded the various divisions of the household troops, known by the names of Domestici and Protectores, and thus together replaced the Prætorian Prefect of the earlier days of the Empire. … Theoretically, their duties would not greatly differ from those of a Colonel in the Guards."

COUNT OF THE SACRED LARGESSES.

In the later Roman empire, "the Count who had charge of the Sacred (i. e. Imperial) Bounty, should have been by his title simply the Grand Almoner of the Empire. … In practice, however, the minister who took charge of the Imperial Largesses had to find ways and means for every other form of Imperial expenditure. … The Count of the Sacred Largesses was therefore in fact the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the Empire."

COUNT OF THE SAXON SHORE.

COUNT PALATINE.

COUREURS DE BOIS.

"Out of the beaver trade [in the 17th century] rose a huge evil, baneful to the growth and the morals of Canada. All that was most active and vigorous in the colony took to the woods, and escaped from the control of intendants, councils and priests, to the savage freedom of the wilderness. Not only were the possible profits great, but, in the pursuit of them, there was a fascinating element of adventure and danger. The bush rangers, or coureurs de bois, were to the king an object of horror. They defeated his plans for the increase of the population, and shocked his native instinct of discipline and order. Edict after edict was directed against them; and more than once the colony presented the extraordinary spectacle of the greater part of its young men turned into forest outlaws. … We hear of seigniories abandoned; farms turning again into forests; wives and children left in destitution. The exodus of the coureurs de bois would take at times the character of an organized movement. The famous Du Lhut is said to have made a general combination of the young men of Canada to follow him into the woods. Their plan was to be absent four years, in order that the edicts against them might have time to relent. The intendant Duchesneau reported that 800 men out of a population of less than 10,000 souls had vanished from sight in the immensity of a boundless wilderness. Whereupon the king ordered that any person going into the woods without a license should be whipped and branded for the first offence, and sent for life to the galleys for the second. … Under such leaders as Du Lhut, the coureurs de bois built forts of palisades at various points throughout the West and Northwest. They had a post of this sort at Detroit some time before its permanent settlement, as well as others on Lake Superior and in the Valley of the Mississippi. They occupied them as long as it suited their purposes, and then abandoned them to the next comer. Michillimackinac was, however, their chief resort."

COURT BARON.

COURT CUSTOMARY.

COURT-LEET.

COURT OF CHANCERY.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

COURT OF HIGH COMMISSION.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.

The battle of Courtrai (July 11, A. D. 1302), in which the barons and knights of France were fearfully slaughtered by the sturdy burghers of Flanders, was sometimes called the Day of the Spurs, on account of the great number of gilt spurs which was taken from the bodies of the dead and hung up by the victors in Courtrai cathedral.

COURTS OF LOVE.

COVENANTERS.

The name given to the signers and supporters of the Scottish National Covenant (see SCOTLAND: A. D. 1557, 1581 and 1638) and afterwards to all who adhered to the Kirk of Scotland. The war of Montrose with the Covenanters will be found narrated under SCOTLAND: A. D. 1644-1645. For the story of the persecution which they suffered under the restored Stuarts,

COWBOYS.

During the War of the American Revolution, "there was a venal and bloody set which hung on the skirts of the British army, well known as Cow-boys. They were plunderers and ruffians by profession, and came to have their name from their cattle-stealing. Some of the most cruel and disgraceful murders and barbarities of the war were perpetrated by them. Whenever they were caught they were hung up at once."

CRACOW: A. D. 1793-1794.
   Occupied by the Russians.
   Rising of the citizens.
   Surrender and cession to Austria.

CRACOW: A. D. 1831-1846.
   Occupation by the Austrians, Russians and Prussians.
   Extinction of the Republic.
   Annexation to Austria.

CRADLE OF LIBERTY.

CRAFT-GUILDS.

CRAL.-KRALE.

"The princes of Servia (Ducange, Famil, Dalmaticæ, &c., c. 2-4, 9) were styled 'despots' in Greek, and Cral in their native idiom (Ducange, Gloss. Græc., page 751). That title, the equivalent of king, appears to be of Sclavonic origin, from whence it has been borrowed by the Hungarians, the modern Greeks, and even by the Turks (Leunclavius, Pandect. Turc., p. 422), who reserve the name of Padishah for the Emperor."

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 63, note. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

CRANNOGES.

CRASSUS AND THE FIRST TRIUMVIRATE.

CRATERUS, AND THE WARS OF THE DIADOCHI.

   The second battle fought between the Britons and the invading
   Jutes, under Hengest, for the possession of southeastern
   Britain.

CREDIT MOBILIER SCANDAL.

On the meeting of the Congress of the United States in December, 1872, attention was called by the Speaker to charges made in the preceding canvass "that the Vice-President, the Vice-President elect, the Secretary of the Treasury, several Senators, the Speaker of the House, and a large number of Representatives had been bribed, during the years 1867 and 1868, by presents of stock in a corporation known as the Credit Mobilier [organized to contract for building the Union Pacific Railroad] to vote and act for the benefit of the Union Pacific Railroad Company. On his motion, an investigating committee was appointed, L. P. Poland, of Vermont, being chairman. The Poland Committee reported February 18th, 1873, recommending the expulsion of Oakes Ames, of Massachusetts, for selling to members of Congress shares of the stock of the Credit Mobilier below their real value, with intent thereby to influence the votes of such members,' and of James Brooks, of New York, for receiving such stock. The House modified the proposed expulsion into an 'absolute condemnation' of the conduct of both members."

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY; also UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1813-1814 (AUGUST-APRIL), and FLORIDA: A. D. 1816-1818.

CREOLE.

"In Europe it is very common to attach to the term Creole the idea of a particular complexion. This is a mistake. The designation Creole [in Spanish American regions] properly belongs to all the natives of America born of parents who have emigrated from the Old World, be those parents Europeans or Africans. There are, therefore, white as well as black Creoles. … The term Creole is a corruption of the Spanish word 'criollo,' which is derived from 'criar,' to create or to foster. The Spaniards apply the term 'criollo' not merely to the human race, but also to animals propagated in the colonies, but of pure European blood: thus they have creole horses, bullocks, poultry, &c."

"The term Creole is commonly applied in books to the native of a Spanish colony descended from European ancestors, while often the popular acceptation conveys the idea of an origin partly African. In fact, its meaning varies in different times and regions, and in Louisiana alone has, and has had, its broad and its close, its earlier and its later, significance. For instance, it did not here first belong to the descendants of Spanish, but of French settlers. But such a meaning implied a certain excellence of origin, and so came early to include any native of French or Spanish descent by either parent, whose pure non-mixture with the slave race entitled him to social rank. Much later the term was adopted by, not conceded to, the natives of European-African, or Creole-African blood, and is still so used among themselves. At length the spirit of commerce availed itself of the money value of so honored a title, and broadened its meaning to take in any creature or thing of variety or manufacture peculiar to Louisiana, that might become an object of sale, as Creole ponies, chickens, cows, shoes, eggs, wagons, baskets, cabbages, etc. … There are no English, Scotch, Irish, Western, or Yankee Creoles, these all being included under the distinctive term 'Americans.' … There seems to be no more serviceable definition of the Creoles of Louisiana or of New Orleans than to say they are the French-speaking, native, ruling class."

G. E. Waring, Jr., and G. W Cable, History and Present Condition of New Orleans (Tenth Census of the U. S., volume 19, page 218).

A Turkish Order instituted in 1799 by the reforming sultan, Selim III. Lord Nelson, after the victory of Aboukir, was the first to receive this decoration.

CRETAN LABYRINTH.

CRETE.

"The institutions of the Cretan state show in many points so great a similarity to those of Sparta, that it is not surprising if it seemed to the ancients as though either Crete were a copy of Sparta, or Sparta of Crete. Meanwhile this similarity may be explained, apart from intentional imitation, by the community of nationality, which, under like conditions, must produce like institutions. For in Crete, as in Laconia, Dorians were the ruling people, who had subdued the old inhabitants of the island and placed them in a position of subordination. … It is, however, beyond doubt that settlements were made in Crete by the Phoenicians, and that a large portion of the island was subject to them. In the historical period, it is true, we no longer find them here; we find, on the contrary, only a number of Greek states, all moreover Dorian. Each of these consisted of a city with its surrounding district, in which no doubt also smaller cities in their turn were found standing in a relation of subordination to the principal city. For that each city of the 'ninety-citied' or 'hundred-citied' isle, as Homer calls it, formed also an independent state, will probably not be supposed. As independent states our authorities give us reason to recognize about seventeen. The most important of these were in earlier times Cnossus, Gortyn and Cydonia."-

The Romans came into collision with the Cretans during their conflict with the Cilician pirates. The Cretans, degenerate and half piratical themselves, had formed an alliance with the professional buccaneers, and defeated, off Cydonia, a Roman fleet that had been sent against the latter, B. C. 71. They soon repented of the provocation they had offered and sent envoys to Rome to buy peace by heavy bribes; but neither the penitence nor the bribes prevailed. Three years passed, however, before the proconsul, Quintus Metellus, appeared in Crete (B. C. 68) to exact satisfaction, and two years more were spent in overcoming the stubborn resistance of the islanders. The taking of Cydonia cost Metellus a bloody battle and a prolonged siege. Cnossus and other towns held out with equal courage. In the end, however, Crete was added to the conquered dominions of Rome. At the last of the struggle there occurred a conflict of jurisdiction between Metellus and Pompey, and their respective forces fought with one another on the Cretan soil.

"The reign of Al Hakem, the Ommiade Caliph of Spain, was disturbed by continual troubles; and some theological disputes having created a violent insurrection in the suburbs of Cordova, about 15,000 Spanish Arabs were compelled to emigrate in the year 815. The greater part of these desperadoes established themselves at Alexandria, where they soon took an active part in the civil wars of Egypt. The rebellion of Thomas [an officer who disputed the Byzantine throne with Michael II.], and the absence of the naval forces of the Byzantine Empire from the Archipelago, left the island of Crete unprotected. The Andalusian Arabs of Alexandria availed themselves of this circumstance to invade the island, and establish a settlement on it, in the year 823. Michael was unable to take any measures for expelling the invaders, and an event soon happened in Egypt which added greatly to the strength of this Saracen colony. The victories of the lieutenants of the Caliph Almamum compelled the remainder of the Andalusian Arabs to quit Alexandria; so that Abou Hafs, called by the Greeks Apochaps, joined his countrymen in Crete with forty ships, determined to make the new settlement their permanent home. It is said by the Byzantine writers that they commenced their conquest of the island by destroying their fleet, and constructing a strong fortified camp, surrounded by an immense ditch, from which it received the name of Chandak, now corrupted by the western nations into Candia. … The Saracens retained possession of Crete for 135 years."

      G. Finlay,
      History of the Byzantine Empire, from 716 to 1057,
      book 1, chapter 3.

During the stay of these piratical Andalusian Arabs at Alexandria, "they cut in pieces both friends and foes, pillaged the churches and mosques, sold above 6,000 Christian captives, and maintained their station in the capital of Egypt till they were oppressed by the forces and presence of Almamon himself."

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 52. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

      ALSO IN:
      S. A. Dunham,
      History of Spain and Portugal,
      book 3, chapter 1.

"In the subordinate station of great domestic, or general of the East, he [Nicephorus Phocas, afterwards emperor, on the Byzantine throne], reduced the island of Crete, and extirpated the nest of pirates who had so long defied, with impunity, the majesty of the Empire. … Seven months were consumed in the siege of Candia; the despair of the native Cretans was stimulated by the frequent aid of their brethren of Africa and Spain; and, after the massy wall and double ditch had been stormed by the Greeks, a hopeless conflict was still maintained in the streets and houses of the city. The whole island was subdued in the capital, and a submissive people accepted, without resistance, the baptism of the conqueror."

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 52. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

CRETE: A. D. 1866-1868.
   Unsuccessful revolt.
   Struggle for independence.
   Turkish concession of the Organic Regulation.

CRIMEA: A. D. 1571.
Expedition of the Khan to Moscow.
The city stormed and sacked.

CRIMEA: A. D. 1776-1784.
The process of acquisition by Russia.
Final recognition of Russian sovereignty by the Sultan.

CRIMEA: A. D. 1853-1855.
War of Russia with Turkey and her allies.
Siege of Sebastopol.

CRISIS OF 1857.

CROMLECHS.

Rude stone monuments found in many parts of the British Islands, France, and elsewhere, usually formed by three or more huge, rough, upright stones, with a still larger stone lying flatly upon them. In France these are called Dolmens. They were formerly thought to be "Druids altars," to which notion they owe the name Cromlechs; but it is now very generally concluded by archæologists that they were constructed for burial chambers, and that originally, in most cases, they were covered with mounds of earth, forming the well known barrows, or grave mounds, or tumuli.

CROMWELLIAN SETTLEMENT OF IRELAND.

CROMWELL'S IRONSIDES.

CROTON. KROTON.

CRUITHNIGH.-CRUITHNIANS.

"Like all the great movements of mankind, the Crusades must be traced to the coincidence of many causes which influenced men of various nations and discordant feelings, at the same period of time, to pursue one common end with their whole heart. Religious zeal, the fashion of pilgrimages, the spirit of social development, the energies that lead to colonisation or conquest, and commercial relations, only lately extended so widely as to influence public opinion, all suddenly received a deep wound. Every class of society felt injured and insulted, and unity of action was created as if by a divine impulse. The movement was facilitated by the circumstance that Europe began to adopt habits of order just at the time when Asia was thrown into a state of anarchy by the invasions of the Seljouk Turks. Great numbers of pilgrims had always passed through the Byzantine empire to visit the holy places in Palestine. We still possess an itinerary of the road from Bordeaux to Jerusalem, by the way of Constantinople, written in the fourth century for the use of pilgrims. Though the disturbed and impoverished state of Europe, after the fall of the Western Empire, diminished the number of pilgrims, still, even in times of the greatest anarchy, many passed annually through the Eastern Empire to Palestine. The improvement which dawned on the western nations during the eleventh century, and the augmented commerce of the Italians, gave additional importance to the pilgrimage to the East. About the year 1064, during the reign of Constantine X., an army or caravan of seven thousand pilgrims passed through Constantinople, led by the Archbishop of Mentz and four bishops. They made their way through Asia Minor, which was then under the Byzantine government; but in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem they were attacked by the Bedouins, and only saved from destruction by the Saracen emir of Ramla, who hastened to their assistance. These pilgrims are reported to have lost 3,000 of their number, without being able to visit either the Jordan or the Dead Sea. The invasions of the Seljouks [see TURKS (THE SELJUKS): A. D. 1073-1092] increased the disorders in Palestine. … In the year 1076 the Seljouk Turks took possession of Jerusalem, and immediately commenced harassing the pilgrims with unheard-of exactions. The Saracens had in general viewed the pilgrims with favour, as men engaged in fulfilling a pious duty, or pursuing lawful gain with praiseworthy industry, and they had levied only a reasonable toll on the pilgrims, and a moderate duty on their merchandise; while in consideration of these imposts, they had established guards to protect them on the roads by which they approached the holy places. The Turks, on the contrary, acting like mere nomads, uncertain of retaining possession of the city, thought only of gratifying their avarice. They plundered the rich pilgrims, and insulted the poor. The religious feelings of the Christians were irritated, and their commerce ruined; a cry for vengeance arose throughout all Europe, and men's minds were fully prepared for an attempt to conquer Palestine, when Peter the Hermit began to preach that it was a sacred duty to deliver the tomb of Christ from the hands of the Infidels."

G. Finlay, History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires, book 3, chapter 2, section 1.

Pope Urban II., one of two rival pontiffs then contending for recognition by the Church, entered with great eagerness into the movement stirred by Peter the Hermit, and gave it a powerful impulse through his support, while obtaining for himself, at the same time, a decisive advantage over his competitor, by the popularity of the agitation. A great Council was convened at Piacenza, A. D. 1094, and a second at Clermont, in the autumn of the same year, to deliberate upon the action to be taken. The city of Clermont could not contain the vast multitude of bishops, clergy and laity which assembled, and an army of many thousands was tented in the surrounding country. To that excited congregation, at a meeting in the great square of Clermont, Pope Urban addressed a speech which is one of the notable utterances of History. "He began by detailing the miseries endured by their brethren in the Holy Land; how the plains of Palestine were desolated by the outrageous heathen, who with the sword and the firebrand carried wailing into the dwellings and flames into the possessions of the faithful; how Christian wives and daughters were defiled by pagan lust; how the altars of the true God were desecrated, and the relics of the saints trodden under foot. 'You,' continued the eloquent pontiff (and Urban II. was one of the most eloquent men of the day), 'you, who hear me, and who have received the true faith, and been endowed by God with power, and strength, and greatness of soul,—whose ancestors have been the prop of Christendom, and whose kings have put a barrier against the progress of the infidel,—I call upon you to wipe off these impurities from the face of the earth, and lift your oppressed fellow-Christians from the depths into which they have been trampled.' … The warmth of the pontiff communicated itself to the crowd, and the enthusiasm of the people broke out several times ere he concluded his address. He went on to portray, not only the spiritual but the temporal advantages that would accrue to those who took up arms in the service of the cross. Palestine was, he said, a land flowing with milk and honey, and precious in the sight of God, as the scene of the grand events which had saved mankind. That land, he promised, should be divided among them. Moreover, they should have full pardon for all their offences, either against God or man. 'Go, then,' he added, 'in expiation of your sins; and go assured, that after this world shall have passed away, imperishable glory shall be yours in the world which is to come.' The enthusiasm was no longer to be restrained, and loud shouts interrupted the speaker; the people exclaiming as if with one voice, 'Dieu le veult! Dieu le veult!' … The news of this council spread to the remotest parts of Europe in an incredibly short space of time. Long before the fleetest horseman could have brought the intelligence, it was known by the people in distant provinces; a fact which was considered as nothing less than supernatural. But the subject was in everybody's mouth, and the minds of men were prepared for the result. The enthusiastic merely asserted what they wished, and the event tallied with their prediction."

      C. Mackay,
      Memoirs of Extraordinary Popular Delusions: The Crusades,
      (volume 2).

"About twenty years after the conquest of Jerusalem by the Turks, the holy sepulchre was visited by an hermit of the name of Peter, a native of Amiens, in the province of Picardy in France. His resentment and sympathy were excited by his own injuries, and the oppression of the Christian name; he mingled his tears with those of the patriarch, and earnestly inquired, if no hopes of relief could be entertained from the Greek emperors of the East. The patriarch exposed the vices and weakness of the successors of Constantine. 'I will rouse,' exclaimed the hermit, 'the martial nations of Europe in your cause;' and Europe was obedient to the call of the hermit. The astonished patriarch dismissed him with epistles of credit and complaint, and no sooner did he land at Bari, than Peter hastened to kiss the feet of the Roman pontiff. His stature was small, his appearance contemptible; but his eye was keen and lively, and he possessed that vehemence of speech which seldom fails to impart the persuasion of the soul. He was born of a gentleman's family (for we must now adopt a modern idiom), and his military service was under the neighbouring counts of Boulogne, the heroes of the first crusade. Invigorated by the approbation of the pontiff, this zealous missionary traversed, with speed and success, the provinces of Italy and France. His diet was abstemious, his prayers long and fervent, and the alms which he received with one hand, he distributed with the other; his head was bare, his feet naked, his meagre body was wrapt in a coarse garment; he bore and displayed a weighty crucifix; and the ass on which he rode was sanctified in the public eye by the service of the man of God. He preached to innumerable crowds in the churches, the streets, and the highways. … When he painted the sufferings of the natives and pilgrims of Palestine, every heart was melted to compassion; every breast glowed with indignation, when he challenged the warriors of the age to defend their brethren and rescue their Saviour: his ignorance of art and language was compensated by sighs and tears, and ejaculations; and Peter supplied the deficiency of reason by loud and frequent appeals to Christ and his Mother, to the saints and angels of paradise, with whom he had personally conversed. The most perfect orator of Athens might have envied the success of his eloquence; the rustic enthusiast inspired the passions which he felt, and Christendom expected with impatience the counsels and decrees of the supreme pontiff."

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 58. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

      ALSO IN:
      J. C. Robertson,
      History of the Christian Church,
      book 6, chapter 4 (volume 4).

The first army of Crusaders to set out on the long march to Jerusalem was a mob of men, women and children which had not patience to wait for the organized movement of the military leaders. They gathered in vast numbers on the banks of the Moselle and the Meuse, in the spring of 1096, with Peter the Hermit for their chosen chief. There were nine knights, only, in the swarm, and but few who had horses to ride, or efficient arms to bear, or provisions to feed upon. Knowing nothing, and therefore fearing nothing, they marched away, through France, Germany, Hungary and beyond, begging food where they could and subsisting by pillage when it needed. A knight called Walter the Penniless led the van, and Peter followed, with his second division, by a somewhat different route. Walter escaped serious trouble until he reached the country of the savage Bulgarians. Peter's senseless mob provoked the just wrath of the Hungarians by storming the small city of Semlin and slaying 4,000 of its inhabitants. The route of both was lined with the bones of thousands who perished of hunger, of exposure, of disease, and by the swords of Hungarians and Bulgarians. A third and a fourth host of like kind followed in their wake, led by a monk, Gotschalk, a priest named Volkmar, and a Count Emicon. These terrorized even more all the countries through which they passed,—especially where Jews were to be hunted and killed,—and were destroyed in Hungary to almost the last man. Peter and Walter reached Constantinople with 100,000 followers, it is said, even yet, after all who had fallen by the way. Still refusing to wait for the better appointed expeditions that were in progress, and still appalling eastern Christendom by their lawless barbarities, they passed into Asia Minor, and their miserable career soon came to an end. Attacking the Turks in the city of Nicæa,—which had become the capital of the Seljouk sultan of Roum,—they were beaten, routed, scattered, slaughtered, until barely 3,000 of the great host escaped. "Of the first Crusaders," says Gibbon, "300,000 had already perished before a single city was rescued from the infidels,—before their graver and more noble brethren had completed the preparations of their enterprise." Meantime the knights and princes of the crusade had gathered their armies and were now (in the summer of 1096) beginning to move eastward, by different routes. Not one of the greater sovereigns of Europe had enlisted in the undertaking. The chiefs of one armament were Godfrey de Bouillon, duke of the Lower Lorraine, or Brabant; his brothers, Eustace, count of Boulogne, and Baldwin; his cousin, Baldwin de Bourg, with Baldwin, count of Hainaut, Dudon de Contz, and other knights celebrated in the "Jerusalem Delivered" of Tasso. This expedition followed nearly the route of Peter the Hermit, through Hungary and Bulgaria, giving hostages for its orderly conduct and winning the good-will of those countries, even maddened as they were by the foregoing mobs. {628} Another larger following from France was led by Hugh, count of Vermandois, brother of the king of France; Robert, duke of Normandy, eldest son of William the Conqueror; Stephen, count of Blois, the Conqueror's son-in-law, and Robert, count of Flanders. These took the road into Italy, and to Bari, whence, after spending the winter, waiting for favorable weather, they were transported by ships to Greece, and pursued their march to Constantinople. They were followed by a contingent from southern Italy, under Bohemond, the Norman prince of Tarentum, son of Robert Guiscard, and his knightly cousin, Tancred. A fourth army, gathered in southern France by count Raymond of Toulouse and Bishop Adhemer, the appointed legate and representative of the pope, chose still another route, through Lombardy, Dalmatia and Macedonia, into Thrace. On passing through the territories of the Byzantine emperor (Alexius I.), all the crusaders experienced his distrust, his duplicity, and his cautious ill-will—which, under the circumstances were natural enough. Alexius managed so well that he extorted from each of the princes an acknowledgment of his rights of sovereignty over the region of their expected conquests, with an oath of fealty and homage, and he pushed them across the Bosphorus so adroitly that no two had the opportunity to unite their forces under the walls of Constantinople. Their first undertaking in Asia [May and June, A. D. 1097] was the siege of Nicæa, and they beleaguered it with an army which Gibbon believes to have been never exceeded within the compass of a single camp. Here, again, they were mastered by the cunning diplomacy of the Greek emperor. When the sultan of Roum yielded his capital, he was persuaded to surrender it to Alexius, and the imperial banner protected it from the rage of the discomfited crusaders. But they revenged themselves on the Turk at Dorylæum, where he attacked them during their subsequent march, and where he suffered a defeat which ended all fighting in Asia Minor. Baldwin, brother of Godfrey, now improved his opportunities by stealing away from the army, with a few hundred knights and men, to make conquests on his own account; with such success that he won the city of Edessa, with a sweep of country around it, and founded a principality which subsisted for half a century. The rest fared on, meeting no opposition from infidel swords, but sickening and dying by thousands, from heat and from want of water and food, until they came to Antioch. There, the Turkish emir in command, with a stout garrison of horse and foot, had prepared for a stubborn defence, and he held the besiegers at bay for seven months, while they starved in their ill-supplied camps. The city was delivered to them by a traitor, at length, but prince Bohemond, the crafty Norman, secured the benefit of the treason to himself, and forced his compatriots to concede to him the sovereignty of Antioch. The sufferings of the crusaders did not end with the taking of the city. They brought famine and pestilence upon themselves anew by their greedy and sensual indulgence, and they were soon under siege in their own turn, by a great army which the Turks had brought against them. Death and desertion were in rivalry to thin their wasted ranks. The survivors were in gloom and despair, when an opportune miracle occurred to excite them afresh. A lance, which visions and apparitions certified to be the very spear that pierced the Redeemer's side, was found buried in a church at Antioch. Under the stimulus of this amazing discovery they sallied from the town and dispersed the great army of the Turks in utter rout. Still the quarrels of the leaders went on, and ten months more were consumed before the remains of the Latin army advanced to Jerusalem. It was June, A. D. 1099, when they saw the Holy City and assailed its formidable walls. Their number was now reduced to 40,000, but their devotion and their ardor rose to frenzy, and after a siege of little more than a month they forced an entrance by storm. Then they spared neither age nor sex until they had killed all who denied the Savior of mankind—the Prince of Peace.

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 58. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

CRUSADES: A. D. 1099-1144.
The Latin conquests in the east.
The Kingdom of Jerusalem.

   "The tales of victory brought home by the pilgrims excited the
   most extravagant expectations in the minds of their auditors,
   and nothing was deemed capable of resisting European valour.
   The pope called upon all who had taken the cross to perform
   their vow, the emperor Henry IV. had the crusade preached, in
   order to gain favour with the clergy and laity. Many princes
   now resolved to visit in person the new empire founded in the
   East. Three great armies assembled: the first in Italy under
   the archbishop of Milan, and the two counts of Blandrate; the
   second in France under Hugh the Great and Stephen of Blois
   [who had deserted their comrades of the first expedition at
   Antioch, and] whom shame and remorse urged to perform their
   vow, William, duke of Guienne and count of Poitou, who
   mortgaged his territory to William Rufus of England to procure
   funds, the count of Nevers, the duke of Burgundy, the bishops
   of Laon and Soissons; the third in Germany, under the bishop
   of Saltzburg, the aged duke Welf of Bavaria, Conrad the master
   of the horse to the emperor, and many other knights and
   nobles. Ida also, the margravine of Austria, declared her
   resolution to share the toils and dangers of the way, and pay
   her vows at the tomb of Christ. Vast numbers of women of all
   ranks accompanied all these armies,—nay, in that of the duke
   of Guienne, who was inferior to none in valour, but united to
   it the qualities of a troubadour and glee-man, there appeared
   whole troops of young women. The Italian pilgrims were the
   first to arrive at Constantinople. They set out early in the
   spring, and took their way through Carinthia, Hungary, and
   Bulgaria. Though the excesses committed by them were great,
   the emperor gave them a kind reception, and the most prudent
   and friendly advice respecting their future progress. While
   they abode at Constantinople, Conrad and the count of Blois,
   and the duke of Burgundy, arrived, and at Whitsuntide they all
   passed over, and encamped at Nicomedia."
{629}
   With ignorant fatuity, and against all experienced advice, the
   new Crusaders resolved to direct their march to Bag-dad and to
   overthrow the caliphate. The first body which advanced was cut
   to pieces by the Turks on the banks of the Halys, and only a
   few thousands, out of more than one hundred thousand, are said
   to have made their escape by desperate flight. The second and
   third armies were met successively by the victorious Moslems,
   before they had advanced so far, and were even more completely
   annihilated. The latter body contained, according to the
   chroniclers of the time, 150,000 pilgrims, of whom scarcely
   one thousand were saved from slavery or death. The men fell
   under the swords of the Turks; the women and girls, in great
   numbers, finished out their days in the harems of the East.
   Out of the wreck of the three vast armaments a slender column
   of 10,000 men was got together after some weeks at Antioch and
   led to Jerusalem (A. D. 1102). Most of these perished in
   subsequent battles, and very few ever saw Europe again. "Such
   was the fruitless termination of this second great movement of
   the West, in which perhaps a third of a million of pilgrims
   left their homes, never to revisit them."

Crusades: A. D. 1104-1111.
Conquest of maritime cities of Syria and Palestine.
Destruction of the Library of Tripoli.

"The prosperity and the safety of Jerusalem appeared closely connected with the conquest of the maritime cities of Syria and Palestine; it being by them alone that it could receive succour, or establish prompt and easy communications with the West. The maritime nations of Europe were interested in seconding, in this instance, the enterprises of the king of Jerusalem. … From the period of the first crusades, the Pisans and the Genoese had constantly sent vessels to the seas of the East; and their fleets had aided the Christians in several expeditions against the Mussulmans. A Genoese fleet had just arrived in the seas of Syria when Baldwin undertook the siege of Ptolemaïs [Acre]. The Genoese were invited to assist in this conquest; but as religion was not the principle to bring them into action, they required, in return for their assistance and their labour, that they should have a third of the booty; they likewise stipulated to have a separate church for themselves, and a national factory and tribunal in the conquered city. Ptolemaïs was besieged by land and sea, and after a bloody resistance of twenty days, the inhabitants and the garrison proposed to surrender, and implored the clemency of the conquerors. The city opened its gates to the Christians, and the inhabitants prepared to depart, taking with them whatever they deemed most valuable; but the Genoese, at the sight of such rich booty, paid no respect to the capitulation, and massacred without pity a disarmed and defenceless people. … In consequence of this victory, several places which the Egyptians still held on the coasts of Syria fell into the hands of the Christians." Among those was the city of Tripoli. "Raymond, Count de St. Gilles and of Thoulouse, one of the companions of Godfrey, after having wandered for a long time about Asia, had died before this place, of which he had commenced the siege. In memory of his exploits in the first crusade, the rich territory of Tripoli was created a county, and became the inheritance of his family. This territory was celebrated for its productions. … A library established in this city, and celebrated through all the East, contained the monuments of the ancient literature of the Persians, the Arabians, the Egyptians, and the Greeks. A hundred copyists were there constantly employed in transcribing manuscripts. … After the taking of the city, a priest attached to Count Bernard de St. Gilles, entered the room in which were collected a vast number of copies of the Koran, and as he declared the library of Tripoli contained only the impious books of Mahomet, it was given up to the flames. … Bibles, situated on the smiling and fertile shores of Phoenicia, Sarepta, where St. Jerome saw still in his day the tower of Isaiah; and Berytus, famous in the early days of the church for its school of eloquence, shared the fate of Tripoli, and became baronies bestowed upon Christian knights. After these conquests, the Pisans, the Genoese, and several warriors who had followed Baldwin in his expeditions, returned into Europe; and the king of Jerusalem, abandoned by these useful allies, was obliged to employ the forces which remained in repulsing the invasions of the Saracens."

During the reign of Fulk, the fourth king of Jerusalem, the Latin power in Palestine and its neighboring territories began to be seriously shaken by a vigorous Turkish prince named Zenghi, on whom the sultan Mahmoud had conferred the government of all the country west of the Tigris. It was the first time since the coming of the Christians of the West that the whole strength of Islam in that region had been so nearly gathered into one strong hand, to be used against them, and they felt the effect speedily, being themselves weakened by many quarrels. In 1143 King Fulk died, leaving the crown to a young son, Baldwin III.,—a boy of thirteen, whose mother governed in his name. The next year Zenghi captured the important city of Edessa, and consternation was produced by his successes. Europe was then appealed to for help against the advancing Turk, and the call from Jerusalem was taken up by St. Bernard of Clairvaux, the irresistible enthusiast, whose influence accomplished, in his time, whatever he willed to have done. Just half a century after Peter the Hermit, St. Bernard preached a Second Crusade, and with almost equal effect, notwithstanding the better knowledge now possessed of all the hardships and perils of the expedition. This time, royalty took the lead. King Conrad of Germany commanded a great army from that country, and another host followed King Louis VII. from France. "Both armies marched down the Danube, to Constantinople, in the summer of 1147. At the same moment King Roger [of Naples], with his fleet, attacked, not the Turks, but the Greek seaport towns of the Morea. Manuel [the Byzantine emperor] thereupon, convinced that the large armies were designed for the destruction of his empire in the first place, with the greatest exertions, got together troops from all his provinces, and entered into a half-alliance with the Turks of Asia Minor. The mischief and ill-feeling was increased by the lawless conduct of the German hordes; the Greek troops attacked them more than once; whereupon numerous voices were raised in Louis's headquarters to demand open war against the faithless Greeks. {630} The kings were fully agreed not to permit this, but on arriving in Constantinople they completely fell out, for, while Louis made no secret of his warm friendship for Roger, Conrad promised the Emperor of Constantinople to attack the Normans as soon as the Crusade should be ended. This was a bad beginning for a united campaign in the East, and moreover, at every step eastward, new difficulties arose. The German army, broken up into several detachments, and led without ability or prudence, was attacked in Asia Minor by the Emir of Iconium, and cut to pieces, all but a few hundred men. The French, though better appointed, also suffered severe losses in that country, but contrived nevertheless, to reach Antioch with a very considerable force, and from thence might have carried the project which the second Baldwin had conceived in vain, namely, the defence of the northeastern frontier, upon which, especially since Zenki [Zenghi] had made his appearance, the life or death of the Christian states depended. But in vain did Prince Raymond of Antioch try to prevail upon King Louis to take this view, and to attack without delay the most formidable of all their adversaries, Noureddin [son of Zenghi, now dead]. Louis would not hear or do anything till he had seen Jerusalem and prayed at the Holy Sepulchre. … In Jerusalem he [King Louis] was welcomed by Queen Melisende (now regent, during her son's minority, after Fulco's death), with praise and gratitude, because he had not taken part in the distant wars of the Prince of Antioch, but had reserved his forces for the defence of the holy city of Jerusalem. It was now resolved to lead the army against Damascus, the only Turkish town whose Emir had always refused to submit to either Zenki or Noureddin. Nevertheless Noureddin instantly collected all his available forces, to succour the besieged town." But he was spared further exertion by the jealous disagreement of the Christians, who began to take thought as to what should be done with Damascus when they took it. The Syrian barons concluded that they would prefer to leave the city in Turkish hands, and by treacherous manœuvres they forced king Louis to raise the siege. "The German king, long since tired of his powerless position, returned home in the autumn of 1148, and Louis, after much pressing, stayed a few months longer, and reached Europe in the following spring. The whole expedition … had been wrecked, without honour and without result, by the most wretched personal passions, and the most narrow and selfish policy."

"So ended in utter shame and ignominy the Second Crusade. The event seemed to give the lie to the glowing promises and prophecies of St. Bernard. So vast had been the drain of population to feed this holy war that, in the phrase of an eye-witness, the cities and castles were empty, and scarcely one man was left to seven women; and now it was known that the fathers, the husbands, the sons, or the brothers of these miserable women would see their earthly homes no more. The cry of anguish charged Bernard with the crime of sending them forth on an errand in which they had done absolutely nothing and had reaped only wretchedness and disgrace. For a time Bernard himself was struck dumb: but he soon remembered that he had spoken with the authority of God and his vicegerent, and that the guilt or failure must lie at the door of the pilgrims."

When the news reached Europe that Saladin, the redoubtable new champion of Islam had expelled the Christians and the Cross from Jerusalem, polluting once more the precincts of the Holy Sepulchre, the effect produced was something not easily understood at the present day. If we may believe historians of the time, the pope (Urban III.) died of grief; "Christians forgot all the ills of their own country to weep over Jerusalem. … Luxury was banished from cities; injuries were forgotten and alms were given abundantly, Christians slept upon ashes, clothed themselves in haircloth, and expiated their disorderly lives by fasting and mortification. The clergy set the example; the morals of the cloister were reformed, and cardinals, condemning themselves to poverty, promised to repair to the Holy Land, supported on charity by the way. These pious reformations did not last long; but men's minds were not the less prepared for a new crusade by them, and all Europe was soon roused by the voice of Gregory VIII., who exhorted the faithful to assume the cross and take up arms."

   "The emperor Frederic Barbarossa and the kings of France and
   England assumed the cross; and the tardy magnitude of their
   armaments was anticipated by the maritime states of the
   Mediterranean and the ocean. The skilful and provident
   Italians first embarked in the ships of Genoa, Pisa, and
   Venice. They were speedily followed by the most eager pilgrims
   of France, Normandy and the Western Isles. The powerful
   succour of Flanders, Frise, and Denmark filled near a hundred
   vessels; and the northern warriors were distinguished in the
   field by a lofty stature and a ponderous battle-axe. Their
   increasing multitudes could no longer be confined within the
   walls of Tyre [which the Latins still held], or remain
   obedient to the voice of Conrad [Marquis of Montferrat, who
   had taken command of the place and repelled the attacks of
   Saladin]. They pitied the misfortunes and revered the dignity
   of Lusignan [the nominal king of Jerusalem, lately captive in
   Saladin's hands], who was released from prison, perhaps to
   divide the army of the Franks. He proposed the recovery of
   Ptolemais, or Acre, thirty miles to the south of Tyre; and the
   place was first invested [July, 1189] by 2,000 horse and
   30,000 foot under his nominal command. I shall not expatiate
   on the story of this memorable siege, which lasted near two
   years, and consumed, in a narrow space, the forces of Europe
   and Asia. … At the sound of the holy trumpet the Moslems of
   Egypt, Syria, Arabia, and the Oriental provinces assembled
   under the servant of the prophet: his camp was pitched and
   removed within a few miles of Acre; and he laboured, night and
   day, for the relief of his brethren and the annoyance of the
   Franks. … In the spring of the second year, the royal fleets
   of France and England cast anchor in the bay of Acre, and the
   siege was more vigorously prosecuted by the youthful emulation
   of the two kings, Philip Augustus and Richard Plantagenet.
{631}
   After every resource had been tried, and every hope was
   exhausted, the defenders of Acre submitted to their fate. …
   By the conquest of Acre the Latin powers acquired a strong
   town and a convenient harbour; but the advantage was most
   dearly purchased. The minister and historian of Saladin
   computes, from the report of the enemy, that their numbers, at
   different periods, amounted to 500,000 or 600,000; that more
   than 100, 000 Christians were slain; that a far greater number
   was lost by disease or shipwreck." On the reduction of Acre,
   king Philip Augustus returned to France, leaving only 500
   knights and 10,000 men behind him. Meantime, the old emperor,
   Frederick Barbarossa, coming by the landward route, through
   the country of the Greeks and Asia Minor, with a well-trained
   army of 20,000 knights and 50,000 men on foot, had perished by
   the way, drowned in a little Cilician torrent, and only 5,000
   of his troops had reached the camp at Acre. Old as he was, (he
   was seventy when he took the cross) Barbarossa might have
   changed the event of the Crusade if he had reached the scene
   of conflict; for he had brains with his valor and character
   with his ferocity, which Richard Cœur de Lion had not. The
   latter remained another year in the Holy Land; recovered
   Cæsarea and Jaffa; threatened Saladin in Jerusalem seriously,
   but to no avail; and stirred up more and fiercer quarrels
   among the Christians than had been customary, even on the soil
   which was sacred to them. In the end, a treaty was arranged
   which displeased the more devout on both sides. "It was
   stipulated that Jerusalem and the holy sepulchre should be
   open, without tribute or vexation, to the pilgrimage of the
   Latin Christians; that, after the demolition of Ascalon, they
   should inclusively possess the sea-coast from Jaffa to Tyre;
   that the count of Tripoli and the prince of Antioch should be
   comprised in the truce; and that, during three years and three
   months, all hostilities should cease. … Richard embarked for
   Europe, to seek a long captivity and a premature grave; and
   the space of a few months concluded the life and glories of
   Saladin."

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 59. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

"A halo of false glory surrounds the Third Crusade from the associations which connect it with the lion-hearted king of England. The exploits of Richard I. have stirred to enthusiasm the dullest of chroniclers, have furnished themes for jubilant eulogies, and have shed over his life that glamour which cheats even sober-minded men when they read the story of his prototype Achilleus in the tale of Troy. … When we turn from the picture to the reality, we shall see in this Third Crusade an enterprise in which the fiery zeal which does something towards redeeming the savage brutalities of Godfrey and the first crusaders is displaced by base and sordid greed, by intrigues utterly of the earthy, by wanton crimes from which we might well suppose that the sun would hide away its face; and in the leaders of this enterprise we shall see men in whom morally there is scarcely a single quality to relieve the monotonous blackness of their infamy; in whom, strategically, a very little generalship comes to the aid of a blind brute force."

ALSO IN: Mrs. W. Busk, Mediaeval Popes, Emperors, Kings and Crusaders, book 2, chapter 12, and book 3, chapters 1-2.

A crusading expedition of German barons and their followers, which went to the Holy Land, by way of Italy, in 1196, is generally counted as the Fourth Crusade, though some writers look upon it as a movement supplementary to the Third Crusade. The Germans, who numbered some 40,000, do not seem to have been welcomed by the Christians of Palestine. The latter preferred to maintain the state of peace then prevailing; but the new crusaders forced hostilities at once. Saladin was dead; his brother Saphadin accepted the challenge to war with prompt vigor and struck the first hard blow, taking Jaffa, with great slaughter, and demolishing its fortifications. But Saphadin was presently defeated in a battle fought between Tyre and Sidon, and Jaffa was recovered, together with other towns and most of the coast. But, a little later, the Germans suffered, in their turn, a most demoralizing reverse at the castle of Thoron, which they besieged, and were further disturbed, in the midst of their depression, by news of the death of their emperor, Henry VI. A great part of them, thereupon, returned home. Those who remained, or many of them, occupied Jaffa, where they were attacked, a few months later, and cut to pieces.

CRUSADES: A. D. 1201-1203.
   The Fifth Movement.-
   Treachery of the Venetians.
   Conquest of Constantinople.

"Every traveller returning from Syria brought a prayer for immediate help from the survivors of the Third Crusade. It was necessary to act at once if any portion even of the wreck of the kingdom of Jerusalem were to be saved. Innocent the Third, and some, at least, of the statesmen of the West were fully alive to the progress which Islam had made since the departure of the Western kings. In 1197, however, after five years of weary waiting, the time seemed opportune for striking a new blow for Christendom. Saladin, the great Sultan, had died in 1193, and his two sons were already quarreling about the partition of his empire. The contending divisions of the Arab Moslems were at this moment each bidding for the support of the Christians of Syria. The other great race of Mahometans which had threatened Europe, the Seljukian Turks, had made a halt in their progress through Asia Minor. … Other special circumstances which rendered the moment favourable for a new crusade, combined with the profound conviction of the statesmen of the West of the danger to Christendom from the progress of Islam, urged Western Europe to take part in the new enterprise. The reigning Pope, Innocent III., was the great moving spirit of the Fourth Crusade." The popular preacher of the Crusade was found in an ignorant priest named Fulk, of Neuilly, whose success in kindling public enthusiasm was almost equal to that of Peter the Hermit. Vast numbers took the cross, with Theobald, count of Champagne, Louis, count of Blois and Chartres, Simon de Montfort, Walter of Brienne, Baldwin, count of Flanders, Hugh of St. Pol, Geoffrey de Villehardouin, marshal of Champagne and future historian of the Crusade, and many other prominent knights and princes among the leaders. The young count of Champagne was the chosen chief; but he sickened and died and his place was taken by Boniface, marquis of Montferrat. {632} It was the decision of the leaders that the expedition should be directed in the first instance against the Moslem power in Egypt, and that it should be conveyed to the attack of Egypt by sea. Venice, alone, seemed to be able to furnish ships, sailors and supplies for so great a movement, and a contract with Venice for the service was concluded in the spring of 120l. But Venice was mercenary, unscrupulous and treacherous, caring for nothing but commercial gains. Before the crusaders could gather at her port for embarkation, she had betrayed them to the Moslems. By a secret treaty with the sultan of Egypt, the fact of which is coming more and more conclusively to light, she had undertaken to frustrate the Crusade, and to receive important commercial privileges at Alexandria as compensation for her treachery. When, therefore, in the early summer of 1202, the army of the Crusade was collected at Venice to take ship, it encountered difficulties, discouragements and ill-treatments which thickened daily. The number assembled was not equal to expectation. Some had gone by sea from Flanders; some by other routes. But Venice had provided transport for the whole, and inflexibly demanded pay for the whole. The money in hand was not equal to this claim. The summer was lost in disputes and attempted compromises. Many of the crusaders withdrew in disgust and went home. At length, in defiance of the censures of the pope and of the bitter opposition of many leaders and followers of the expedition, there was a bargain struck, by the terms of which the crusaders were to assist the Venetians in taking and plundering the Christian city of Zara, a dreaded commercial rival on the Dalmatian coast of the Adriatic, belonging to the king of Hungary, himself one of the promoters of the very crusade which was now to be turned against him. The infamous compact was carried out. Zara was taken, and in the end it was totally destroyed by the Venetians. In the meantime, the doomed city was occupied by the crusading army through the winter, while a still more perfidious plot was being formed. Old Dandolo, the blind doge of Venice, was the master spirit of it. He was helped by the influence of Philip, one of the two rivals then fighting for the imperial crown in Germany and Italy. Philip had married a daughter of Isaac II. (Angelos), made emperor at Constantinople on the fall of the dynasty of Comnenus, and that feeble prince had lately been dethroned by his brother. The son and heir of Isaac, named Alexius, had escaped from Constantinople and had made his way to Philip imploring help. Either Philip conceived the idea, or it was suggested to him, that the armament of the Crusade might be employed to place the young Alexius on the throne of his father. To the Venetians the scheme was more than acceptable. It would frustrate the Crusade, which they had pledged themselves to the sultan of Egypt to accomplish; it would satisfy their ill-will towards the Byzantines, and, more important than all else, it would give them an opportunity to secure immeasurable advantages over their rivals in the great trade which Constantinople held at command. The marquis of Montferrat, commander of the Crusade, had some grievances of his own and some ambitions of his own, which made him favorable to the new project, and he was easily won to it. The three influences thus combined—those of Philip, of Dandolo, and of Montferrat—overcame all opposition. Some who opposed were bribed, some were intimidated, some were deluded by promises, some deserted the ranks. Pope Innocent remonstrated, appealed and threatened in vain. The pilgrim host, "changed from a crusading army into a filibustering expedition," set sail from Zara in the spring of the year 1203, and was landed, the following June, not on the shores of Egypt or Syria, but under the walls of Constantinople. Its conquest, pillage and brutally destructive treatment of the great city are described in another place.

      ALSO IN:
      G. Finlay,
      History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires, 716-1453,
      book 3, chapter 3.

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 59. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

"The religious wars fostered and promoted vice; and the failure of army after army was looked on as a clear manifestation of God's wrath against the sins of the camp. This feeling was roused to its highest pitch when, in the year 1212, certain priests—Nicolas was the name of one of these mischievous madmen—went about France and Germany calling on the children to perform what the fathers, through their wickedness, had been unable to effect, promising that the sea should be dry to enable them to march across; that the Saracens would be miraculously stricken with a panic at the sight of them; that God would, through the hands of children only, whose lives were yet pure, work the recovery of the Cross and the Sepulchre. Thousands—it is said fifty thousand—children of both sexes responded to the call. They listened to the impassioned preaching of the monks, believed their lying miracles, their visions, their portents, their references to the Scriptures, and, in spite of all that their parents could do, rushed to take the Cross, boys and girls together, and streamed along the roads which led to Marseilles and Genoa, singing hymns, waving branches, replying to those who asked whither they were going, 'We go to Jerusalem to deliver the Holy Sepulchre,' and shouting their rallying cry, 'Lord Jesus, give us back thy Holy Cross.' They admitted whoever came, provided he took the Cross; the infection spread, and the children could not be restrained from joining them in the towns and villages along their route. Their miserable parents put them in prison; they escaped; they forbade them to go; the children went in spite of prohibition. They had no money, no provisions, no leaders; but the charity of the towns they passed through supported them. At their rear streamed the usual tail of camp followers. … There were two main bodies. One of these directed its way through Germany, across the Alps, to Genoa. On the road they were robbed of all the gifts which had been presented them; they were exposed to heat and want, and very many either died on the march or wandered away from the road and so became lost to sight; when they reached Italy they dispersed about the country, seeking food, were stripped by the villagers, and in some cases were reduced to slavery. {633} Only seven thousand out of their number arrived at Genoa. Here they stayed for some days. They looked down upon the Mediterranean, hoping that its bright waves would divide to let them pass. But they did not; there was no miracle wrought in their favour; a few of noble birth were received among the Genoese families, and have given rise to distinguished houses of Genoa; among them is the house of Vivaldi. The rest, disappointed and disheartened, made their way back again, and got home at length, the girls with the loss of their virtue, the boys with the loss of their belief, all barefooted and in rags, laughed at by the towns they went through, and wondering why they had ever gone at all. This was the end of the German army. That of the French was not so fortunate, for none of them ever got back again at all. When they arrived at Marseilles, thinned probably by the same causes as those which had dispersed the Germans, they found, like their brethren, that the sea did not open a path for them, as had been promised. Perhaps some were disheartened and went home again. But fortune appeared to favour them. There were two worthy merchants at Marseilles, named Hugh Ferrens, and William Porcus, Iron Hugh and Pig William, who traded with the East, and had in port seven ships, in which they proposed to convey the children to Palestine. With a noble generosity they offered to take them for nothing, all for love of religion, and out of the pure kindness of their hearts. Of course this offer was accepted with joy, and the seven vessels laden with the happy little Crusaders, singing their hymns and flying their banners, sailed out from Marseilles, bound for the East, accompanied by William the Good and Hugh the Pious. It was not known to the children, of course, that the chief trade of these merchants was the lucrative business of kidnapping Christian children for the Alexandrian market. It was so, however, and these respectable tradesmen had never before made so splendid a coup. Unfortunately, off the Island of St. Peter, they encountered bad weather, and two ships went down with all on board. What must have been the feelings of the philanthropists, Pig William and Iron Hugh, at this misfortune? They got, however, five ships safely to Alexandria, and sold all their cargo, the Sultan of Cairo buying forty of the boys, whom he brought up carefully and apart, intending them, doubtless, for his best soldiers. A dozen refusing to change their faith were martyred. None of the rest ever came back. Nobody in Europe seems to have taken much notice of this extraordinary episode."

For six years after the betrayal of the vows of the crusaders of 1202-1204—who sacked Constantinople instead of rescuing Jerusalem—the Christians of Palestine were protected by a truce with Saphadin, the brother of Saladin, who had succeeded the latter in power. Hostilities were then rashly provoked by the always foolish Latins, and they soon found themselves reduced to sore straits, calling upon Europe for fresh help. Pope Innocent III. did not scruple to second their appeal. A new crusade was preached with great earnestness, and a general Council of the Church—the Fourth of Lateran—was convened for the stimulation of it. "The Fifth Crusade [or the Sixth, as more commonly numbered], the result of this resolution, was divided in the sequel into three maritime expeditions: the first [A. D. 1216] consisting principally of Hungarians under their king, Andrew; the second [A. D. 1218] composed of Germans, Italians, French and English nobles and their followers; and the third [A. D. 1228] led by the Emperor Frederic II. in person. … Though the King of Hungary was attended by the flower of a nation which, before its conversion to Christianity, had been the scourge and terror of Western Europe, the arms of that monarch, even aided by the junction of numerous German crusaders under the dukes of Austria and Bavaria, performed nothing worthy of notice: and after a single campaign in Palestine, in which the Mussulman territories were ineffectually ravaged, the fickle Andrew deserted the cause and returned with his forces to Europe. His defection did not prevent the duke of Austria, with the German crusaders, from remaining, in concert with the King of Jerusalem, his barons, and the knights of the three religious orders, for the defence of Palestine; and, in the following year, the constancy of these faithful champions of the Cross was rewarded by the arrival of numerous reinforcements from Germany. … It was resolved to change the scene of warfare from the narrow limits of the Syrian shore to the coast of Egypt, … and the situation of Damietta, at the mouth of the Nile, pointed out that city as the first object of attack." After a siege of seventeen months, during which both the besieged and the besiegers suffered horribly, from famine and from pestilence, Damietta was taken (A. D. 1219), Nine-tenths of its population of 80,000 had perished. "Both during the siege and after the capture of Damietta, the invasion of Egypt had filled the infidels with consternation; and the alarm which was betrayed in their counsels proved that the crusaders, in choosing that country for the theatre of operations, had assailed the Mussulman power in its most vital and vulnerable point. Of the two sons of Saphadin, Coradinus and Camel, who were now uneasily seated on the thrones of Damascus and Cairo, the former, in despair of preserving Jerusalem, had already demolished its fortifications; and the brothers agreed in repeatedly offering the cession of the holy city and of all Palestine to the Christians, upon the single condition of their evacuating Egypt. Every object which had been ineffectually proposed in repeated Crusades, since the fatal battle of Tiberias, might now have been gloriously obtained by the acceptance of these terms, and the King of Jerusalem, the French and English leaders, and the Teutonic knights, all eagerly desired to embrace the offer of the Sultans. But the obstinate ambition and cupidity of the surviving papal legate, Cardinal Pelagius, of the Italian chieftains, and of the knights of the other two religious orders, by holding out the rich prospect of the conquest and plunder of Egypt, overruled every wise and temperate argument in the Christian councils, and produced a rejection of all compromise with the infidels. {634} After a winter of luxurious inaction, the legate led the crusading host from Damietta toward Cairo (A. D. 1220)." The expedition was as disastrous in its result as it was imbecile in its leadership. The whole army, caught by the rising of the Nile, was placed in so helpless a situation that it was glad to purchase escape by the surrender of Damietta and the evacuation of Egypt. The retreat of the greater part of these crusaders did not end until they had reached home. Pope Honorius III. (who had succeeded Innocent III. in 1216) strove to shift responsibility for the failure from his wretched legate to the Emperor Frederic II., who had thus far evaded the fulfilment of his crusading promises and vows, being occupied in struggles with the papacy. At length, in 1228, Frederic embarked for Palestine with a small force, pursued by the maledictions of the pope, who denounced him for daring to assume the Cross while under the ban of the church, as much as he had denounced him before for neglecting it. But the free-thinking Hohenstauffen cared little, apparently, and went his way, shunned scrupulously by all pious souls, including the knights of Palestine, except those of the Teutonic order. With the help of the latter he occupied and refortified Jaffa and succeeded in concluding a treaty with the Sultan which restored Jerusalem to the Christians, reserving certain rights to the Mahometans; giving up likewise Bethlehem, Nazareth and some other places to the Christians, and securing peace for ten years. Frederic had married, a few years before, for his second empress, Iolante, daughter and heiress of the titular king of Jerusalem, John de Brienne. With the hand of this princess, he received from her father a solemn transfer of all his rights to that shadowy throne. He now claimed those rights, and, entering Jerusalem, with the Teutonic knights (A. D. 1229), he crowned himself its king. The patriarch, the Templars and the Hospitallers refused to take part in the ceremony; the pope denounced Frederic's advantageous treaty as soon as he had news of it, and all that it gained for the Christians of Palestine was thrown away by them as speedily as possible.

"No Crusader, since Godfrey de Bouillon, had effected so much as Frederick the Second. What would he not have obtained, had the Pope, the Patriarch and the Orders given him their hearty cooperation?"

CRUSADES: A. D. 1248-1254.
The Seventh Movement.
Expedition of Saint Louis to Egypt.

The Seventh Crusade was undertaken, with little aid from other countries, by the devout and wonderfully Christian-like young king of France, Louis IX., afterwards canonized, and known in history as St. Louis. "He carried it out with a picked army, furnished by the feudal chivalry and by the religious and military orders dedicated to the service of the Holy Land. The Isle of Cyprus was the trysting-place appointed for all the forces of the expedition. Louis arrived there on the 12th of September, 1248, and reckoned upon remaining there only a few days; for it was Egypt that he was in a hurry to reach. The Christian world was at that time of opinion that, to deliver the Holy Land, it was necessary first of all to strike a blow at Islamism in Egypt, wherein its chief strength resided. But scarcely had the crusaders formed a junction in Cyprus, when the vices of the expedition and the weaknesses of its chief began to be manifest. Louis, unshakable in his religious zeal, was wanting in clear ideas and fixed resolves as to the carrying out of his design. … He did not succeed in winning a majority in the council of chiefs over to his opinion as to the necessity for a speedy departure for Egypt; it was decided to pass the winter in Cyprus. … At last a start was made from Cyprus in May, 1249, and, in spite of violent gales of wind which dispersed a large number of vessels, they arrived on the 4th of June before Damietta. … Having become masters of Damietta, St. Louis and the crusaders committed the same fault there as in the Isle of Cyprus: they halted there for an indefinite time. They were expecting fresh crusaders; and they spent the time of expectation in quarreling over the partition of the booty taken in the city. They made away with it, they wasted it blindly. … Louis saw and deplored these irregularities, without being in a condition to stop them. At length, on the 20th of November, 1249, after more than five months' inactivity at Damietta, the crusaders put themselves once more in motion, with the determination of marching upon Babylon, that outskirt of Cairo, now called Old Cairo, which the greater part of them, in their ignorance, mistook for the real Babylon, and where they flattered themselves they would find immense riches, and avenge the olden sufferings of the Hebrew captives. The Mussulmans had found time to recover from their first fright, and to organize, at all points, a vigorous resistance. On the 8th of February, 1250, a battle took place twenty leagues from Damietta, at Mansourah ('the city of victory'), on the right bank of the Nile. … The battle-field was left that day to the crusaders; but they were not allowed to occupy it as conquerors, for, three days afterwards, on the 11th of February, 1250, the camp of St. Louis was assailed by clouds of Saracens, horse and foot, Mamelukes and Bedouins. All surprise had vanished, the Mussulmans measured at a glance the numbers of the Christians, and attacked them in full assurance of success, whatever heroism they might display; and the crusaders themselves indulged in no more self·illusion, and thought only of defending themselves. Lack of provisions and sickness soon rendered defence almost as impossible as attack; every day saw the Christian camp more and more encumbered with the famine-stricken, the dying, and the dead; and the necessity for retreating became evident." An attempt to negotiate with the enemy failed, because they insisted on the surrender of the king as hostage,—which none would concede. "On the 5th of April, 1250, the crusaders decided upon retreating. This was the most deplorable scene of a deplorable drama; and at the same time it was, for the king, an occasion for displaying, in their most sublime and attractive traits, all the virtues of the Christian. Whilst sickness and famine were devastating the camp, Louis made himself visitor, physician and comforter; and his presence and his words exercised upon the worst cases a searching influence. … {635} When the 5th of April, the day fixed for the retreat, had come, Louis himself was ill and much enfeebled. He was urged to go aboard one of the vessels which were to descend the Nile, carrying the wounded and the most suffering; but he refused absolutely, saying, 'I don't separate from my people in the hour of danger.' He remained on land, and when he had to move forward he fainted away. When he came to himself, he was amongst the last to leave the camp. … At four leagues distance from the camp it had just left, the rear-guard of the crusaders, harassed by clouds of Saracens, was obliged to halt. Louis could no longer keep on his horse. 'He was put up at a house,' says Joinville, 'and laid, almost dead, upon the lap of a tradeswoman from Paris; and it was believed that he would not last till evening.'" The king, in this condition, with the whole wreck of his army,—only 10,000 in number remaining to him,—were taken prisoners. Their release from captivity was purchased a month later by the surrender of Damietta and a ransom-payment of 500,000 livres. They made their way to St. Jean d' Acre, in Palestine, whence many of them returned home. But King Louis, with some of his knights and men-at-arms—how many is not known—stayed yet in the Holy Land for four years, striving and hoping against hope to accomplish something for the deliverance of Jerusalem, and expending "in small works of piety, sympathy, protection, and care for the future of the Christian population in Asia, his time, his strength, his pecuniary resources, and the ardor of a soul which could not remain idly abandoned to sorrowing over great desires unsatisfied." The good and pious but ill-guided king returned to France in the summer of 1254, and was received with great joy.

F. P. Guizot, Popular History of France, chapter 17; www.gutenberg.org/files/11952

On the arrival in France of the news of the disastrous failure of Saint Louis's expedition to Egypt, there occurred an outbreak of fanaticism as insensate as that of the children's crusade of forty years before. It was said to have originated with a Hungarian named Jacob, who began to proclaim that Christ rejected the great ones of the earth from His service, and that the deliverance of the Holy City must be accomplished by the poor and humble. "Shepherds left their flocks, labourers laid down the plough, to follow his footsteps. … The name of Pastors was given to these village crusaders. … At length, assembled to the number of more than 100,000, these redoubtable pilgrims left Paris and divided themselves into several troops, to repair to the coast, whence they were to embark for the East. The city of Orleans, which happened to be in their passage, became the theatre of frightful disorders. The progress of their enormities at length created serious alarm in the government and the magistracy; orders were sent to the provinces to pursue and disperse these turbulent and seditious bands. The most numerous assemblage of the Pastors was fixed to take place at Bourges, where the 'master of Hungary' [Jacob] was to perform miracles and communicate the will of Heaven. Their arrival in that city was the signal for murder, fire and pillage. The irritated people took up arms and marched against these disturbers of the public peace; they overtook them between Mortemer and Villeneuve-sur-le-Cher, where, in spite of their numbers, they were routed, and received the punishment due to their brigandages. Jacob had his head cut off by the blow of an axe; many of his companions and disciples met with death on the field of battle, or were consigned to punishment; the remainder took to flight."

Crusades: A. D. 1270-1271.
   The last undertakings.
   Saint Louis at Tunis.
   Prince Edward in Palestine.

   "For seven years after his return to France, from 1254 to
   1261, Louis seemed to think no more about them [the crusades],
   and there is nothing to show that he spoke of them even to his
   most intimate confidants; but, in spite of his apparent
   calmness, he was living, so far as they were concerned, in a
   continual ferment of imagination and internal fever, even
   flattering himself that some favorable circumstance would call
   him back to his interrupted work. … In 1261, Louis held, at
   Paris, a Parliament, at which, without any talk of a new
   crusade, measures were taken which revealed an idea of it. …
   In 1263 the crusade was openly preached. … All objections,
   all warnings, all anxieties came to nothing in the face of
   Louis's fixed idea and pious passion. He started from Paris on
   the 16th of March, 1270, a sick man almost already, but with
   soul content, and probably the only one without misgiving in
   the midst of all his comrades. It was once more at
   Aigues-Mortes that he went to embark. All was as yet dark and
   undecided as to the plan of the expedition. … Steps were
   taken at hap-hazard with full trust in Providence and utter
   forgetfulness that Providence does not absolve men from
   foresight. … It was only in Sardinia, after four days' halt
   at Cagliari, that Louis announced to the chiefs of the
   crusade, assembled aboard his ship, the 'Mountjoy,' that he
   was making for Tunis, and that their Christian work would
   commence there. The king of Tunis (as he was then called),
   Mohammed Mostanser, had for some time been talking of his
   desire to become a Christian, if he could be efficiently
   protected against the seditions of his subjects. Louis
   welcomed with transport the prospect of Mussulman conversions.
   … But on the 17th of July, when the fleet arrived before
   Tunis, the admiral, Florent de Varennes, probably without the
   king's orders, and with that want of reflection which was
   conspicuous at each step of the enterprise, immediately took
   possession of the harbor and of some Tunisian vessels as
   prize, and sent word to the king 'that he had only to support
   him and that the disembarkation of the troops might be
   effected with perfect safety.' Thus war was commenced at the
   very first moment against the Mussulman prince whom there had
   been promise of seeing before long a Christian. At the end of
   a fortnight, after some fight between the Tunisians and the
   crusaders, so much political and military blindness produced
   its natural consequences. The re-enforcements promised to
   Louis by his brother Charles of Anjou, king of Sicily, had not
   arrived; provisions were falling short; and the heats of an
   African summer were working havoc amongst the army with such
   rapidity that before long there was no time to bury the dead;
   but they were cast pell-mell into the ditch which surrounded
   the camp, and the air was tainted thereby.
{636}
   On the 3d of August Louis was attacked by the epidemic fever."
   On the 25th of August he died. His son and successor, Philip
   III., held his ground before Tunis until November, when he
   gladly accepted a payment of money from the Tunisian prince
   for withdrawing his army. Disaster followed him. A storm
   destroyed part of his fleet, with 4,000 or 5,000 men, and sunk
   all the treasure he had received from the Moslems. On the
   journey home through Italy his wife met with an accident which
   ended her life and that of her prematurely born child. The
   young king arrived at Paris, May, 1271, bringing the remains
   of five of his family for burial at St. Denis: his wife, his
   son, his father, his brother, and his brother-in-law,—all
   victims of the fatal crusade. While France was thus burying
   the last of her crusaders, Prince Edward (afterwards King
   Edward I.) of England, landed in Syria at the head of a few
   hundred knights and men at arms. Joined by the Templars and
   Hospitallers, he had an army of 6,000 or 7,000 men, with which
   he took Nazareth and made there a bloody sacrifice to the
   memory of the gentle Nazarene. He did nothing more. Being
   wounded by an assassin, he arranged a truce with the Sultan of
   Egypt and returned home. His expedition was the last from
   Europe which strove with the Moslems for the Holy Land. The
   Christians of Palestine, who still held Acre and Tyre, Sidon
   and a few other coast cities, were soon afterwards
   overwhelmed, and the dominion of the Crescent in Syria was
   undisputed any more by force of arms, though many voices cried
   vainly against it. The spirit of the Crusades had expired.

F. P. Guizot, Popular History of France, chapter 17. www.gutenberg.org/files/11952

      ALSO IN:
      J. F. Michaud,
      History of the Crusades,
      book 15.

"After the fall of Acre [A. D. 1291] the headquarters of the Templars were established at Limisso in the island of Cyprus, and urgent letters were sent to Europe for succour." In 1295, James de Molay, the head of the English province, became Grand Master, and soon after his arrival in Palestine he entered into an alliance with Ghazan Khan, the Mongol ruler of Persia, who had married a Christian princess of Armenia and was not unfriendly to the Christians, as against the Mamelukes of Egypt, with whom he was at war. The Mongol Khan invited the Templars to join him in an expedition against the Sultan of Egypt, and they did so in the spring of 1299, at Antioch. "An army of 30,000 men was placed by the Mogul emperor under the command of the Grand Master, and the combined forces moved up the valley of the Orontes towards Damascus. In a great battle fought at Hems, the troops of the sultans of Damascus and Egypt were entirely defeated and pursued with great slaughter until nightfall. Aleppo, Hems, Damascus, and all the principal cities, surrendered to the victorious arms of the Moguls, and the Templars once again entered Jerusalem in triumph, visited the Holy Sepulchre and celebrated Easter on Mount Zion." The khan sent ambassadors to Europe, offering the possession of Palestine to the Christian powers if they would give him their alliance and support, but none responded to the call. Ghazan Khan fell ill and withdrew from Syria; the Templars retreated to Cyprus once more and their military career, as the champions of the Cross, was at an end.

"The principle of the crusades was a savage fanaticism; and the most important effects were analogous to the cause. Each pilgrim was ambitious to return with his sacred spoils, the relics of Greece and Palestine; and each relic was preceded and followed by a train of miracles and visions. The belief of the Catholics was corrupted by new legends, their practice by new superstitions; and the establishment of the inquisition, the mendicant orders of monks and friars, the last abuse of indulgences, and the final progress of idolatry, flowed from the baleful fountain of the holy war. The active spirit of the Latins preyed on the vitals of their reason and religion; and if the ninth and tenth centuries were the times of darkness, the thirteenth and fourteenth were the age of absurdity and fable. … Some philosophers have applauded the propitious influence of these holy wars, which appear to me to have checked rather than forwarded the maturity of Europe."

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 61. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

"The crusades may be considered as material pilgrimages on an enormous scale, and their influence upon general morality seems to have been altogether pernicious. Those who served under the cross would not indeed have lived very virtuously at home; but the confidence in their own merits which the principle of such expeditions inspired must have aggravated the ferocity and dissoluteness of their ancient habits. Several historians attest the depravation of morals which existed, both among the crusaders and in the states formed out of their conquests."

"It was not possible for the crusaders to travel through so many countries, and to behold their various customs and institutions, without acquiring information and improvement. Their views enlarged; their prejudices wore off; new ideas crowded into their minds; and they must have been sensible, on many occasions, of the rusticity of their own manners when compared with those of a more polished people. … Accordingly, we discover, soon after the commencement of the crusades, greater splendour in the courts of princes, greater pomp in public ceremonies, a more refined taste in pleasure and amusements, together with a more romantic spirit of enterprise spreading gradually over Europe; and to these wild expeditions, the effect of superstition and folly, we owe the first gleams of light which tended to dispel barbarism and ignorance. But the beneficial consequences of the crusades took place slowly; their influence upon the state of property, and, consequently, of power, in the different kingdoms of Europe, was more immediate as well as discernible."

"The crusades are not, in my mind, either the popular delusions that our cheap literature has determined them to be, nor papal conspiracies against kings and peoples, as they appear to the Protestant controversialist; nor the savage outbreaks of expiring barbarism, thirsting for blood and plunder, nor volcanic explosions of religious intolerance. I believe them to have been, in their deep sources, and in the minds of their best champions, and in the main tendency of their results, capable of ample justification. They were the first great effort of mediæval life to go beyond the pursuit of selfish and isolated ambitions; they were the trial-feat of the young world, essaying to use, to the glory of God and the benefit of man, the arms of its new knighthood. … That in the end they were a benefit to the world no one who reads can doubt; and that in their course they brought out a love for all that is heroic in human nature, the love of freedom, the honour of prowess, sympathy with sorrow, perseverance to the last and patient endurance without hope, the chronicles of the age abundantly prove; proving, moreover, that it was by the experience of those times that the forms of those virtues were realized and presented to posterity."

William Stubbs, Seventeen Lectures on the Study of Mediæval and Modern History, lecture 8.

"Though begun under the name and influence of religious belief, the crusades deprived religious ideas, I shall not say of their legitimate share of influence, but of their exclusive and despotic possession of the human mind. This result, though undoubtedly unforeseen, arose from various causes. The first was evidently the novelty, extent, and variety of the scene which displayed itself to the crusaders; what generally happens to travellers happened to them. It is mere common-place to say, that travelling gives freedom to the mind; that the habit of observing different nations, different manners and different opinions, enlarges the ideas, and disengages the judgment from old prejudices. The same thing happened to those nations of travellers who have been called the crusaders; their minds were opened and raised by having seen a multitude of different things, of having become acquainted with other manners than their own. They found themselves also placed in connexion with two states of civilization, not only different from their own, but more advanced—the Greek state of society on the one hand, and the Mussulman on the other. … It is curious to observe in the chronicles the impression made by the crusaders on the Mussulmans, who regarded them at first as the most brutal, ferocious, and stupid barbarians they had ever seen. The crusaders, on their part, were struck with the riches and elegance of manners which they observed among the Mussulmans. These first impressions were succeeded by frequent relations between the Mussulmans and Christians. These became more extensive and important than is commonly believed. … There is another circumstance which is worthy of notice. Down to the time of the crusades, the court of Rome, the centre of the Church, had been very little in communication with the laity, unless through the medium of ecclesiastics; either legates sent by the court of Rome, or the whole body of the bishops and clergy. There were always some laymen in direct relation with Rome; but upon the whole, it was by means of churchmen that Rome had any communication with the people of different countries. During the crusades, on the contrary, Rome became a halting-place for a great portion of the crusaders, either in going or returning. A multitude of laymen were spectators of its policy and its manners, and were able to discover the share which personal interest had in religious disputes. There is no doubt that this newly-acquired knowledge inspired many minds with a boldness hitherto unknown. When we consider the state of the general mind at the termination of the crusades, especially in regard to ecclesiastical matters, we cannot fail to be struck with a singular fact: religious notions underwent no change, and were not replaced by contrary or even different opinions. Thought, notwithstanding, had become more free; religious creeds were not the only subject on which the human mind exercised its faculties; without abandoning them, it began occasionally to wander from them, and to take other directions. … The social state of society had undergone an analogous change. … Without entering into the details … we may collect into a few general facts the influence of the crusades on the social state of Europe. They greatly diminished the number of petty fiefs, petty domains, and petty proprietors; they concentrated property and power in a smaller number of hands. It is from the time of the crusades that we may observe the formation and growth of great fiefs—the existence of feudal power on a large scale. … This was one of the most important results of the crusades. Even in those cases where small proprietors preserved their fiefs, they did not live upon them in such an insulated state as formerly. The possessors of great fiefs became so many centres around which the smaller ones were gathered, and near which they came to live. During the crusades, small proprietors found it necessary to place themselves in the train of some rich and powerful chief, from whom they received assistance and support. They lived with him, shared his fortune, and passed through the same adventures that he did. When the crusaders returned home, this social spirit, this habit of living in intercourse with superiors continued to subsist, and had its influence on the manners of the age. … The extension of the great fiefs, and the creation of a number of central points in society, in place of the general dispersion which previously existed, were the two principal effects of the crusades, considered with respect to their influence upon feudalism. As to the inhabitants of the towns, a result of the same nature may easily be perceived. The crusades created great civic communities. Petty commerce and petty industry were not sufficient to give rise to communities such as the great cities of Italy and Flanders. It was commerce on a great scale—maritime commerce, and, especially, the commerce of the East and West, which gave them birth; now it was the crusades which gave to the maritime commerce the greatest impulse it had yet received. On the whole, when we survey the state of society at the end of the crusades, we find that the movement tending to dissolution and dispersion, the movement of universal localization (if I may be allowed such an expression), had ceased, and had been succeeded by a movement in the contrary direction, a movement of centralization. All things tended to mutual approximation; small things were absorbed in great ones, or gathered round them. Such was the direction then taken by the progress of society."

_F. Guizot, History of Civilization, lecture 8 (volume 1). https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/61572

CRUSADES: A. D. 1467-1471. Crusade Instigated by the Pope against George Podiebrad, king of Bohemia.

CTESIPHON.

"The Parthian monarchs, like the Mogul sovereigns of Hindostan, delighted in the pastoral life of their Scythian ancestors, and the imperial camp was frequently pitched in the plain of Ctesiphon, on the eastern banks of the Tigris, at the distance of only three miles from Seleucia. The innumerable attendants on luxury and despotism resorted to the court, and the little village of Ctesiphon insensibly swelled into a great city. Under the reign of Marcus, the Roman generals penetrated as far as Ctesiphon and Seleucia. They were received as friends by the Greek colony; they attacked as enemies the seat of the Parthian kings; yet both cities experienced the same treatment. The sack and conflagration of Seleucia, with the massacre of 300,000 of the inhabitants, tarnished the glory of the Roman triumph, Seleucia, already exhausted by the neighborhood of a too powerful rival, sunk under the fatal blow; but Ctesiphon, in about thirty-three years, had sufficiently recovered its strength to maintain an obstinate siege against the emperor Severus. The city was, however, taken by assault; the king, who defended it in person, escaped with precipitation; 100,000 captives and a rich booty rewarded the fatigues of the Roman soldiers. Notwithstanding these misfortunes, Ctesiphon succeeded to Babylon and to Seleucia as one of the great capitals of the East."

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 8. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

"Of the islands, Cuba was the second discovered; but no attempt had been made to plant a colony there during the lifetime of Columbus; who, indeed, after skirting the whole extent of its southern coast, died in the conviction that it was part of the continent. At length, in 1511, Diego, the son and successor of the 'admiral,' who still maintained the seat of government in Hispaniola, finding the mines much exhausted there, proposed to occupy the neighbouring island of Cuba, or Fernandina, as it is called, in compliment to the Spanish monarch. He prepared a small force for the conquest, which he placed under the command of Don Diego Velasquez. … Velasquez, or rather his lieutenant Narvaez, who took the office on himself of scouring the country, met with no serious opposition from the inhabitants, who were of the same family with the effeminate natives of Hispaniola." After the conquest, Velasquez was appointed governor, and established his seat of government at St. Jago, on the southeast corner of the island.

CUBA: A. D. 1514-1851.
   Slow development of the island.
   Capture of Havana by the English.
   Discontent with Spanish rule.
   Conspiracies of revolution.

"Velasquez founded many of the towns of the island, the first of which was Baracoa, then Bayamo, and in 1514 Trinidad, Santo Espiritu, Puerto Principe; next, in 1515, Santiago de Cuba, as also, in the same year, the town of Habana. … This period (1511-1607) is particularly interesting to the general reader from the fact that in it the explorations of Hernandez de Cadoba and Grijalva to Darien, Yucatan, etc., were inaugurated,—events which had so much to do with the spread of Spanish rule and discovery, paving the way as they did for the exploration of Mexico under Hernando Cortes, who, in the early history of Cuba, figures largely as the lieutenant of the Governor Velasquez. … In 1524, Diego Velasquez died, —his death hastened, it is said, by the troubles brought upon him by his disputes with his insubordinate lieutenant, Cortes. … In the history of the improvement of the island, his government will bear favorable comparison with many of the later governments; and while that great evil, slavery, was introduced into the island in his time, so also was the sugar cane. … Up to 1538, there seems to be nothing specially striking in the general history of the island, if we except the constant attacks with fire and sword of the 'filibusteros,' or pirates of all nations, from which most all the sea-coast towns suffered more or less; but in that year there arrived at Santiago de Cuba a man destined to play an important part in the history and discovery of the new world, and named as Provincial Governor of Florida as well as of Cuba,—I allude to Hernando de Soto, who brought with him 10 large vessels, prepared and fitted out expressly for the conquest of the new Spanish territory of Florida. After much care and preparation, this expedition started out from the city of Habana, the 12th of May [see FLORIDA: A. D. 1528-1542]. … In this period, also, was promulgated that order, secured, it is believed, by the noble efforts of Padre Las Casas, prohibiting the enslaving of the aborigines; while, also, such had become its importance as a town, all vessels directed to and from Mexico were ordered to stop at Havana. In the period of years that elapsed from 1607 to 1762, the island seems to have been in a perfect state of lethargy, except the usual changes of its many Governors, and the raids made upon it by pirates, or by more legalized enemies in the form of French and English men-of-war. In this latter year, however, occurred an event of much import, from the fact that after it, or upon its occurrence, the Government of Spain was led to see the great importance of Cuba, and particularly Havana, as the 'Key to the New World,'—this event was the taking of Havana by the English. {639} On the 6th of June, 1762, there arrived off the port of Havana an English squadron of 32 ships and frigates, with some 200 transports, bringing with them a force of nearly 20,000 men of all arms, under command of the Duke of Albemarle. This formidable armament, the largest that America had ever seen, laid siege to the city of Havana, whose garrison consisted at that time of only about 2,700 regulars and the volunteers that took up arms immediately for the defense of the place. … The garrison, however, made a very gallant and prolonged defense, notwithstanding the smallness of their numbers, and finally, surrendering, were permitted to march out with the honors of war, the English thus coming into possession of the most important defences on the coast, and, subsequently, taking possession of the town of Matanzas. Remaining in possession of this portion of the Island of Cuba for many months (until July 6, 1763), the English, by importing negro labor to cultivate the large tracts of wild land, and by shipping large quantities of European merchandize, gave a start to the trade and traffic of the island that pushed it far on its way to the state of prosperity it has now reached; but by the treaty of peace, at Paris, in February, 1763 [see Seven Years War], was restored to Spain the portion of the island wrested from her by the English. … In this period (1762-1801) the island made rapid advances in improvement and civilization, many of the Captains-General of this period doing much to improve the towns and the people, beautifying the streets, erecting buildings, etc. In 1763, a large emigration took place from Florida, and in 1795 the French emigrants from Santo Domingo came on to the island in large numbers. … From 1801, rapid increase in the prosperity of the island has taken place. … At various times insurrections, some of them quite serious in their nature, have shown what the natural desire of the native population is for greater privileges and freedom. … In 1823, there was a society of 'soles,' as it was called, formed for the purpose of freeing the island, having at its head young D. Francisco Lemus, and having for its pretext that the island was about to be sold to England. In 1829, there was discovered the conspiracy of the Black Eagle, as it was called (Aguila Negra), an attempt on the part of the population to obtain their freedom, some of the Mexican settlers in the island being prominent in it. The insurrection, or attempt at one, by the blacks in 1844, was remarkable for its wide-spread ramifications among the slaves of the island, as well as its thorough organization,—the intention being to murder all the whites on the island. Other minor insurrections there were, but it remained for Narciso Lopez, with a force of some 300 men, to make the most important attempt [1851], in which he lost his life, to free the island."

Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope), History of England, 1713-1783, chapter 38 (volume 4).

CUBA: A. D. 1845-1860.
   Acquisition coveted by the slave-power in the United States.
   Attempted purchase.
   Filibustering schemes.
   The Ostend Manifesto.

"When the Spanish colonies in America became independent, they abolished slavery. Apprehensive that the republics of Mexico and Columbia would be anxious to wrest Cuba and Porto Rico from Spain, secure their independence, and introduce into those islands the idea, if they did not establish the fact, of freedom, the slave-masters [of the United States] at once sought to guard against what they deemed so calamitous an event. … But after the annexation of Texas, there was a change of feeling and purpose, and Cuba, from being an object of dread, became an object of vehement desire. The propagandists, strengthened and emboldened by that signal triumph, now turned their eyes towards this beautiful 'isle of the sea,' as the theatre of new exploits; and they determined to secure the 'gem of the Antilles' for the coronet of their great and growing power. During Mr. Polk's administration an attempt was made to purchase it, and the sum of $100,000,000 was offered therefor. But the offer was promptly declined. What, however, could not be bought it was determined to steal, and filibustering movements and expeditions became the order of the day. For no sooner was President Taylor inaugurated than he found movements on foot in that direction; and, in August, 1849, he issued a proclamation, affirming his belief that an 'armed expedition' was being fitted out 'against Cuba or some of the provinces of Mexico,' and calling upon all good citizens' to discountenance and prevent any such enterprise.' In 1851 an expedition, consisting of some 500 men, sailed from New Orleans under Lopez, a Cuban adventurer. But though it effected a landing, it was easily defeated, and its leader and a few of his followers were executed. Soon afterward, a secret association, styling itself the Order of the Lone Star, was formed in several of the Southern cities, having a similar object in view; but it attracted little notice and accomplished nothing. … In August, 1854, President Pierce instructed Mr. Marcy, his Secretary of State, to direct Buchanan, Mason and Soulé, ministers respectively at the courts of London, Paris and Madrid, to convene in some European city and confer with each other in regard to the matter of gaining Cuba to the United States. They met accordingly, in October, at Ostend. The results of their deliberations were published in a manifesto, in which the reasons are set forth for the acquisition; and the declaration was made that the Union could never enjoy repose and security 'as long as Cuba is not embraced within its boundaries.' But the great source of anxiety, the controlling motive, was the apprehension that, unless so annexed, she would 'be Africanized and become a second San Domingo,' thus 'seriously to endanger' the Union. This paper attracted great attention and caused much astonishment. It was at first received with incredulity, as if there had been some mistake or imposition practised. … But there was no mistake. … It was the deliberate utterance of the conference, and it received the indorsement of Mr. Pierce and his administration. The Democratic national conventions of 1856 and of 1860 were quite as explicit as were the authors of the Ostend manifesto 'in favor of the acquisition of Cuba.'"

      H. Wilson,
      History of the Rise and Fall of the Slave Power in America,
      volume 2, chapter 47.

      ALSO IN:
      H. Von Holst,
      Constitutional and Political History of the United States,
      volume 4, chapter 2,
      and volume 5, chapter 1.

"The length of the Egyptian foot is … shown to be equal to 1.013 English foot, or 12.16 inches (0.3086 metre) and the cubit to 18.24 English inches, or 0.463 metre. This cubit was identical with the Phœnician or Olympic cubit, afterwards adopted in Greece. … The second of the two Egyptian cubits was the royal cubit, or cubit of Memphis, of seven palms or twenty-eight digits. … The mean length of the Egyptian royal cubit is … ascertained to be 20.67 English inches, or 525 mm. … There is much conflict of opinion as to the actual length of the several cubits in use by the Jews at different periods; but the fact that Moses always mentions the Egyptian measures … as well as the Egyptian weights … proves that the Hebrews originally brought their weights and measures from Egypt. … In his dissertation on cubits, Sir Isaac Newton states grounds for his opinion that the sacred cubit of the Jews was equal to 24.7 of our inches, and that the royal cubit of Memphis was equivalent to five-sixths of this sacred Jewish cubit, or 20.6 inches."

CUFA.

It used to be set forth by religious historians that the Culdees were an ardent religious fraternity in Scotland, probably founded by Columba, the saintly Irish missionary of the sixth century, and having its principal seat in Iona; that they "were the lights of Scotland in a dark and superstitious age"; that they struggled for several centuries against the errors and the oppressive pretensions of Rome, and that "the strength and vigor of the Reformation in Scotland, where the Papal power received its first and most decisive check, may be traced not indirectly to the faith, the doctrines, and the spirit of the ancient Culdees." It was claimed for the Presbyterian Church that its form of church government prevailed among the Culdees, while the supporters of Episcopacy found evidences to the contrary. But all these views, with all the controversies fomented by them, have been dissipated by modern historical investigation. The facts gathered by Dean Reeves and published in 1864, in his work on the "Culdees of the British Islands," supported by the more recent studies of Mr. W. F. Skene, are now generally accepted. Says Mr. Skene, (Celtic Scotland, book 2, chapter 6): "It is not till after the expulsion of the Columban monks from the kingdom of the Picts, in the beginning of the eighth century, that the name of Culdee appears. To Adamnan, to Eddi and to Bede it was totally unknown. They knew of no body of clergy who bore this name, and in the whole range of ecclesiastical history there is nothing more utterly destitute of authority than the application of this name to the Columban monks of the sixth and seventh centuries, or more utterly baseless than the fabric which has been raised upon that assumption." Mr. Skene's conclusion is that the Culdees sprang from an ascetic order called Deicolæ or God-worshippers; that in Irish the name became Ceile De, thence corrupted into Culdee; that they were hermits, who became in time associated in communities, and were finally brought under the canonical rule of the Roman church, along with the secular clergy.

CULHUACAN.

CUMÆ. CUMÆAN SIBYL.

"Earlier than 735 B. C., … though we do not know the precise era of its commencement, there existed one solitary Grecian establishment in the Tyrrhenian Sea,—the Campanian Cumæ, near Cape Misenum; which the more common opinion of chronologists supposed to have been founded in 1050 B. U. and which has even been carried back by some authors to 1139 B. C. … We may at least feel certain that it is the most ancient Grecian establishment in any part of Italy. … The Campanian Cumæ—known almost entirely by this its Latin designation—received its name and a portion of its inhabitants from the Æolic Kymê in Asia Minor. … Cumæ, situated on the neck of the peninsula which terminates in Cape Misenum, occupied a lofty and rocky hill overhanging the sea and difficult of access on the land side. … In the hollow rock under the very walls of the town was situated the cavern of the prophetic Sibyl,—a parallel and reproduction of the Gergithian Sibyl, near Kymê in Æolis: in the immediate neighborhood, too, stood the wild woods and dark lake of Avernus, consecrated to the subterranean gods, and offering an establishment of priests, with ceremonies evoking the dead, for purposes of prophecy or for solving doubts and mysteries. It was here that Grecian imagination localized the Cimmerians and the fable of Odysseus; and the Cumæans derived gains from the numerous visitors to this holy spot, perhaps hardly less than those of the inhabitants of Krissa from the vicinity of Delphi. Of the relations of these Cumæans with the Hellenic world generally, we unfortunately know nothing; but they seem to have been in intimate connection with Rome during the time of the kings, and especially during that of the last king Tarquin,—forming the intermediate link between the Greek and Latin world, whereby the feelings of the Teukrians and Gergitheans near the Æolic Kymê and the legendary stories of Trojan as well as Grecian heroes,—Æneas and Odysseus—passed into the antiquarian imagination of Rome and Latium. The writers of the Augustan age knew Cumæ only in its decline, and wondered at the vast extent of its ancient walls, yet remaining in their time. But during the two centuries prior to 500 B. C. these walls inclosed a full and thriving population, in the plenitude of prosperity."

"The Britons of Cumbria occupy a tolerably large space on the map, but a very small one in history;—their annals have entirely perished;—and nothing authentic remains concerning them, except a very few passages, wholly consisting of incidental notices relating to their subjection and their misfortunes. Romance would furnish much more; for it was in Cumbria that Rhyderc, or Roderic the magnificent, is therein represented to have reigned, and Merlin to have prophesied. Arthur held his court in merry Carlisle; and Peredur, the Prince of Sunshine, whose name we find amongst the princes of Strathclyde, is one of the great heroes of the 'Mabinogion,' or tales of youth, long preserved by tradition amongst the Cymri. These fantastic personages, however, are of importance in one point of view, because they show, what we might otherwise forget—that from the Ribble in Lancashire, or thereabouts, up to the Clyde, there existed a dense population composed of Britons, who preserved their national language and customs, agreeing in all respects with the Welsh of the present day. So that even in the tenth century, the ancient Britons still inhabited the greater part of the western coast of the island, however much they had been compelled to yield to the political supremacy of the Saxon invaders. The 'Regnum Cumbrense' comprehended many districts, probably governed by petty princes or Reguli, in subordination to a chief monarch or Pendragon. Reged appears to have been somewhere in the vicinity of Annandale. Strathclyde is of course the district or vale of Clydesdale. In this district, or state, was situated Alcluyd, or Dunbritton, now Dumbarton, where the British kings usually resided; and the whole Cumbrian kingdom was not infrequently called Strathclyde, from the ruling or principal state; just as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland is often designated in common language as 'England,' because England is the portion where the monarch and legislature are found. Many dependencies of the Cumbrian kingdom extended into modern Yorkshire, and Leeds was the frontier town between the Britons and the Angles. … The kings of Cumbria became the vassals, or 'men,' of the Anglo-Saxon kings. Eugenius had thus submitted to Athelstane. Of the nature of the obligation I shall speak hereafter. The Anglo-Saxon kings appear to have been anxious to extend and confirm their supremacy; Edmund proceeded against Donald, or Dumhnail, the Scottish King of Cumbria (A. D. 945), with the most inveterate and implacable hostility. … Edmund, having thus obtained possession of Cumbria, granted the country to Malcolm, King of the Scots, upon condition, as the chronicles say, of being his co-operator, both by sea and by land. … From this period the right of the Scottish kings or princes to the kingdom of Cumbria, as vassals of the English crown, seems to have been fully admitted: and the rights of the Scottish kings to the 'Earldom of Cumberland'—for such it was afterwards termed—were founded upon Edmund's grant. The Britons of Strathclyde, and Reged, and Cumbria, gradually melted away into the surrounding population; and, losing their language, ceased to be discernible as a separate race. Yet it is most probable that this process was not wholly completed until a comparatively recent period."

Cumbria and Cambria (Wales), the two states long maintained by the Britons, against the Angles and Saxons, bore, in reality, the same name, Cumbria being the more correct form of it. The earliest development of the so-called Welsh poetry seems to have been in Cumbria rather than in Wales. Taliesen and Aneurin were Cumbrian bards, and Arthur, if any historical personage stands behind his kingly shadow, was probably a Cumbrian hero.

CUNEIFORM WRITING.

The characters employed for the written languages of ancient Babylonia and Assyria, have been called cuneiform, from the Latin cunens, a wedge, because the marks composing them are wedge-shaped. All knowledge of those characters and of the languages expressed in them had been lost for many centuries, and its recent recovery is one of the most marvelous achievements of our age. "Travellers had discovered inscriptions engraved in cuneiform, or, as they were also termed, arrow-headed characters, on the ruined monuments of Persepolis and other ancient sites in Persia. Some of these monuments were known to have been erected by the Achæmenian princes—Darius, the son of Hystaspes, and his successors—and it was therefore inferred that the inscriptions also had been carved by order of the same kings. The inscriptions were in three different systems of cuneiform writing; and since the three kinds of inscription were always placed side by side, it was evident that they represented different versions of the same text. … It was clear that the three versions of the Achæmenian inscriptions were addressed to the three chief populations of the Persian Empire, and that the one which invariably came first was composed in ancient Persian, the language of the sovereign himself. Now this Persian version happened to offer the decipherer less difficulties than the two others which accompanied it. The number of distinct characters employed in writing it did not exceed forty, while the words were divided from one another by a slanting wedge. Some of the words contained so many characters that it was plain that these latter must denote letters and not syllables, and that consequently the Persian cuneiform system must have consisted of an alphabet, and not of a syllabary. It was further plain that the inscriptions had to be read from left to right, since the ends of all the lines were exactly underneath one another on the left side, whereas they terminated irregularly on the right. … The clue to the decipherment of the inscriptions was first discovered by the successful guess of a German scholar, Grotefend. Grotefend noticed that the inscriptions generally began with three or four words, one of which varied, while the others remained unchanged. The variable word had three forms, though the same form always appeared on the same monument. Grotefend, therefore, conjectured that this word represented the name of a king, the words which followed it being royal titles." Working on this conjecture, he identified the three names with Darius, Xerxes and Artaxerxes, and one of the supposed titles with a Zend word for "king," which gave him a considerable part of the cuneiform alphabet. He was followed in the work by Burnouf, Lassen and Sir Henry Rawlinson, until, finally, Assyrian inscriptions were read with "almost as much certainty as a page of the Old Testament."

"Except from its influence upon the imagination, it would be hardly worth while to notice the legend of the curfew-bell, so commonly supposed to have been imposed by William [the Conqueror] upon the English, as a token of degradation and slavery; but the 'squilla di lontano, che paja il giorno pianger che si muore,' was a universal custom of police throughout the whole of mediaeval Europe, not unconnected with devotional feeling."

"In the year [1061] after King Henry's death [Henry I. of France], in a Synod held at Caen by the Duke's authority [Duke William of Normandy, who became in 1066 the Conqueror, and King of England], and attended by Bishops, Abbots, and Barons, it was ordered that a bell should be rung every evening, at hearing of which prayer should be offered, and all people should get within their houses and shut their doors. This odd mixture of piety and police seems to be the origin of the famous and misrepresented Curfew. Whatever was its object, it was at least not ordained as any special hardship on William's English subjects."

E. A. Freeman, History of the Norman Conquest of England, chapter 12, section 3 (volume 3).

"It is only necessary in this work to describe the general type of the municipal organization which existed in the provinces of the Roman Empire after the time of Constantine. … The proprietors of land in the Roman provinces generally dwelt in towns and cities, as a protection against brigands and man-stealers. Every town had an agricultural district which formed its territory, and the landed proprietors constituted the municipality. The whole local authority was vested in an oligarchical senate called the Curia, consisting probably of one hundred of the wealthiest landed proprietors in the city or township. This body elected the municipal authorities and officers, and filled up vacancies in its own body. It was therefore independent of the proprietors from among whom it was taken, and whose interests it ought to have represented. The Curia—not the body of landed proprietors—formed therefore the Roman municipality. The Curia was used by the imperial government as an instrument of fiscal extortion."

"When the progress of fiscal tyranny had almost sapped the vigor of society, the decuriones [members of the municipal curiæ, called, also, curiales] … being held jointly responsible for the taxation, became the veriest slaves of the empire. Responsible jointly for the taxes, they were, by the same token, responsible for their colleagues and their successors; their estates were made the securities of the imperial dues; and if any estate was abandoned by its proprietor, they were compelled to occupy it and meet the imposts exigible from it. Yet they could not relinquish their offices; they could not leave the city except by stealth; they could not enter the army, or the priesthood, or any office which might relieve them from municipal functions. … Even the children of the Curial were adscribed to his functions, and could engage in no course of life inconsistent with the onerous and intolerable duty. In short, this dignity was so much abhorred that the lowest plebeian shunned admission to it, the members of it made themselves bondmen, married slave-women, or joined the barbaric hordes in order to escape it; and malefactors, Jews and heretics were sometimes condemned to it, as an appropriate penalty for their offenses."

"The Court of Rome, commonly called the Roman Curia, consisted of a number of dignified ecclesiastics who assisted the Pope in the executive administration. The Pontiff's more intimate advisers, or, as we should say, his privy council, were the College of Cardinals [see PAPACY: A. D. 1059], consisting of a certain number of cardinal bishops, cardinal priests, and cardinal deacons. The cardinal deacons, at first seven and afterwards fourteen in number, were originally ecclesiastics appointed as overseers and guardians of the sick and poor in the different districts of Rome. Equal to them in rank were the fifty cardinal priests, as the chief priests of the principal Roman churches were called; who, with the cardinal deacons, formed, in very early times, the presbytery, or senate of the Bishop of Rome. … According to some authorities, cardinal bishops were instituted in the 9th century; according to others not till the 11th, when seven bishops of the dioceses nearest to Rome—Ostia, Porto, Velitrae, Tusculum, Præneste, Tibur, and the Sabines—were adopted by the Pope partly as his assistants in the service of the Lateran, and partly in the general administration of the Church. In process of time, the appointment of such cardinal bishops was extended not only to the rest of Italy but also to foreign countries. Though the youngest of the cardinals in point of time, cardinal bishops were the highest in rank, and enjoyed the pre-eminence in the College. Their titles were derived from their dioceses. … But they were also called by their own names. The number of the cardinals was indefinite and varying. The Council of Basle endeavoured to restrict it to 24. But this was not carried out, and Pope Sixtus V. at length fixed the number at 70. The Council called the Consistory, which advised with the Pope both in temporal and ecclesiastical matters, was ordinarily private, and confined to the cardinals alone; though on extraordinary occasions, and for solemn purposes of state, as in the audiences of foreign ambassadors, &c., other prelates, and even distinguished laymen, might appear in it."

CURIA REGIS OF THE NORMAN KINGS.

"The Curia Regis [under the Norman Kings of England], the supreme tribunal of judicature, of which the Exchequer was the financial department or session, was … the court of the king sitting to administer justice with the advice of his counsellors; those counsellors being, in the widest acceptation, the whole body of tenants-in-chief, but in the more limited usage, the great officers of the household and specially appointed judges. The great gatherings of the national council may be regarded as full sessions of the Curia Regis, or the Curia Regis as a perpetual committee of the national council."

"Not long after the granting of Magna Charta, the Curia Regis was permanently divided into three committees or courts, each taking a certain portion of the business: (1) Fiscal matters were confined to the Exchequer; (2) civil disputes, where neither the king's interest nor any matter savouring of a criminal nature were involved, were decided in the Common Pleas; and (3) the court of King's Bench retained all the remaining business and soon acquired the exclusive denomination of the ancient Curia Regis."

"But the same staff of judges was still retained for all three courts, with the chief justiciar at their head. Towards the end of Henry III.'s reign, the three courts received each a distinct staff, and on the abolition by Edward I. of the office of chief justiciar, the only remaining bond of union being severed, they became completely separated. Some trace of their ancient unity of organization always survived, however, in the court of Exchequer Chamber; until at length after six centuries of independent existence they were again united by the Judicature Act, 1873. Together with the Court of Chancery and the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty courts, they now form divisions of a consolidated High Court of Justice, itself a branch of the Supreme Court of Judicature."

"The Aula Regia, or Curia Regis … has been described in various and at first sight contradictory terms. Thus it has been called the highest Law Court, the Ministry of the King, a Legislative Assembly, &c. The apparent inconsistency of these descriptions vanishes on closer inspection, and throws great light on mediæval history. For the Curia Regis possessed every attribute which has been ascribed to it."

CURIALES.

CURULE ÆDILES.

CURULE CHAIR.

In ancient Rome, "certain high offices of state conferred upon the holder the right of using, upon public occasions, an ivory chair of peculiar form. This chair was termed Sella Curulis. … This was somewhat in the form of a modern camp-stool."

CUSH. CUSHITES.

   "Genesis, like the Hebrews of later date, includes under the
   name of Cush the nations dwelling to the South, the Nubians,
   Ethiopians and tribes of South Arabia."

CUSTER'S LAST BATTLE.

CUSTOMS DUTIES.

"Among the Ionic portion of Hellas are to be reckoned (besides Athens) Eubœa, and the numerous group of islands included between the southernmost Eubœan promontory, the eastern coast of Peloponnesus, and the northwestern coast of Krête. Of these islands some are to be considered as outlying prolongations, in a southeasterly direction, of the mountain-system of Attica; others of that of Eubœa; while a certain number of them lie apart from either system, and seem referable to a volcanic origin. To the first class belong Keôs, Kythnus, Seriphus, Pholegandrus, Sikinus, Gyarus, Syra, Paros, and Antiparos; to the second class Andros, Tênos, Mykonos, Dêlos, Naxos, Amorgos; to the third class Kimôlus, Mêlos, Thêra. These islands passed amongst the ancients by the general name of the Cyclades and the Sporades; the former denomination being commonly understood to comprise those which immediately surrounded the sacred island of Dêlos,—the latter being given to those which lay more scattered and apart. But the names are not applied with uniformity or steadiness even in ancient times: at present, the whole group are usually known by the title of Cyclades."

The battle in which Pelopidas, the Theban patriot, friend and colleague of Epaminondas, was slain. It was fought B. C. 364, in Thessaly, near Pharsalus, on the heights called Cynoscephalæ, or the Dog's Heads, and delivered the Thessalian cities from the encroachments of the tyrant of Pheræ.

CYNOSCEPHALÆ: (B. C. 197).

Two successive naval battles fought, one in July and the second in October, B. C. 411, between the Athenians and the Peloponnesian allies, in the Hellespont, are jointly called the Battle of Cynossema. The name was taken from the headland called Cynossema, or the "Dog's Tomb," "ennobled by the legend and the chapel of the Trojan queen Hecuba." The Athenians had the advantage in both encounters, especially in the latter one, when they were joined by Alcibiades, with reenforcements, just in time to decide the doubtful fortunes of the day.

"The Greek name of the island was derived from the abundance in which it produced the beautiful plant ('Copher') which furnishes the 'al-henna,' coveted throughout the East for the yellow dye which it communicates to the nails. It was rich in mines of copper, which has obtained for it the name by which it is known in the modern languages of the West."

"The first authentic record with regard to Cyprus is an inscription on an Egyptian tombstone of the 17th century B. C., from which it appears that the island was conquered by Thothmes III. of Egypt, in whose reign the exodus of the Children of Israel is supposed to have taken place. This was no doubt anterior to the establishment of any Greek colonies, and probably, also, before the Phœnicians had settled in the island. … As appears from various inscriptions and other records, Cyprus became subject successively to Egypt, as just mentioned, to Assyria, to Egypt again in 568 B. C., when it was conquered by Amasis, and in 525 B. C. to Persia. Meanwhile the power of the Greeks had been increasing. … The civilization of the West was about to assert itself at Marathon and Salamis; and Cyprus, being midway between East and West, could not fail to be involved in the coming conflict. On the occasion of the Ionic revolt [see PERSIA: B. C. 521-493] the Greek element in Cyprus showed its strength: and in 502 B. C. the whole island, with the single exception of the Phœnician town of Amathus, took part with the Ionians in renouncing the authority of the Persian king." But in the war which followed, the Persians, aided by the Phœnicians of the mainland, reconquered Cyprus, and the Cyprian Greeks were long disheartened. They recovered their courage, however, about 410 B. C. when Evagoras, a Greek of the royal house of Teucer, made himself master of Salamis, and finally established a general sovereignty over the island—even extending his power to the mainland and subjugating Tyre. "The reign of Evagoras is perhaps the most brilliant period in the history of Cyprus. Before his death, which took place in 374 B. C., he had raised the island from the position of a mere dependency of one or other of the great Eastern monarchies, had gained for it a place among the lending states of Greece, and had solved the question as to which division of the ancient world the Cyprian people should be assigned. Consequently when, some forty years later, the power of Persia was shattered by Alexander the Great at the battle of Issus, the kings of the island hastened to offer him their submission as the leader of the Greek race, and sent 120 ships to assist him in the siege of Tyre." After Alexander's death, Cyprus was disputed between Antigonus and Ptolemy.

The king of Egypt secured the prize, and the island remained under the Greek-Egyptian crown, until it passed, with the rest of the heritage of the Ptolemys to the Romans. "When the [Roman] empire was divided, on the death of Constantine the Great, Cyprus, like Malta, passed into the hands of the Byzantine Emperors. Like Malta, also, it was exposed to frequent attacks from the Arabs; but, although they several times occupied the island and once held it for no less than 160 years, they were always expelled again by the Byzantine Emperors, and never established themselves there as firmly as they did in Malta. The crusades first brought Cyprus into contact with the western nations of modern Europe."

"The annexation of Cyprus was decreed in 696 [B. C. 58] by the people [of Rome], that is, by the leaders of the democracy, the support given to piracy by the Cypriots being alleged as the official reason why that course should now be adopted. Marcus Cato, intrusted by his opponents with the execution of this measure, came to the island without an army; but he had no need of one. The king [a brother of the king of Egypt] took poison; the inhabitants submitted without offering resistance to their inevitable fate, and were placed under the governor of Cilicia."

"This rich and pleasant territory [the island of Cyprus] had afforded a refuge to the Jews of the continent through three generations of disturbance and alarm, and the Hebrew race was now [A. D. 117] probably not inferior there in number to the native Syrians or Greeks. On the first outburst of a Jewish revolt [against the Roman domination, in the last year of the reign of Trajan] the whole island fell into the hands of the insurgents, and became an arsenal and rallying point for the insurrection, which soon spread over Egypt, Cyrene and Mesopotamia. The leader of the revolt in Cyprus bore the name of Artemion, but we know no particulars of the war in this quarter, except that 240,000 of the native population is said to have fallen victims to the exterminating fury of the insurgents. When the rebellion was at last extinguished in blood, the Jews were forbidden thenceforth to set foot on the island; and even if driven thither by stress of weather, the penalty of death was mercilessly enforced. … The Jewish population of Cyrenaica outnumbered the natives. … The hostility of the Jews in these parts was less directed against the central government and the Roman residents than the native race. … Of these 220,000 are said to have perished."

CYPRUS: A. D. 1191.
Conquest by Richard Cœur de Lion.
Founding of the Latin Kingdom.

During the civil strife and confusion of the last years of the Comnenian dynasty of emperors at Constantinople, one of the members of the family, Isaac Comnenos, secured the sovereignty of Cyprus and assumed the title of emperor. With the alliance of the king of Sicily, he defeated the Byzantine forces sent against him, and was planted securely, to all appearance, on his newly built throne at the time of the Third Crusade. Circumstances at that time (A. D. 1191) gave him a fatal opportunity to provoke the English crusaders. First, he seized the property and imprisoned the crews of three English ships that were wrecked on the Cyprian coast. Not satisfied with that violence, he refused shelter from the storm to a vessel which bore Berengaria of Navarre, the intended wife of King Richard. "The king of England immediately sailed to Cyprus; and when Isaac refused to deliver up the ship-wrecked crusaders, and to restore their property, Richard landed his army and commenced a series of operations, which ended in his conquering the whole island, in which he abolished the administrative institutions of the Eastern Empire, enslaving the Greek race, introducing the feudal system, by which he riveted the chains of a foreign domination, and then gave it as a present to Guy of Lusignan, the titular king of Jerusalem, who became the founder of a dynasty of Frank kings in Cyprus."

      G. Finlay,
      History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires, from 716 to 1453,
      book 3, chapter 3, section 1.

   Before giving Cyprus to Guy of Lusignan, Richard had sold the
   island to the Templars, and Guy had to pay the knights heavily
   for the extinguishment of their rights. Richard, therefore,
   was rather a negotiator than a giver in the transaction.

      William Stubbs,
      Seventeen Lectures on the Study of Mediæval
      and Modern History,
      lecture 8.

"The house of Lusignan maintained itself in Cyprus for nearly three centuries, during which, although fallen somewhat from the blessedness which had been broken up by Isaac Comnenus, the island seems to have retained so much fertility and prosperity as to make its later history very dark by contrast. … Guy, we are told, received Cyprus for life only, and did homage for the island to Richard. As he already bore the title of king, the question whether he should hold Cyprus as a kingdom does not seem to have arisen. … On his death, in April, 1194, Richard putting in no claim for the reversion, his brother, Amalric of Lusignan, constable of Palestine, entered on the possession as his heir. … Amalric succeeded to the crown of Jerusalem; the crown of Jerusalem, which, after the year 1269, became permanently united with that of Cyprus, was an independent crown, and the king of Jerusalem an anointed king: the union of the crowns therefore seems to have precluded any question as to the tenure by which the kingdom of Cyprus should be held. … The homage then due to Richard, or to the crown of England, ceased at the death of Guy."

William Stubbs, Seventeen Lectures on the Study of Mediæval and Modern History, lecture 8.

The last reigning king of Cyprus was James II., a bastard brother of Queen Charlotte, whom he drove from the Cypriot throne in 1464. This king married a Venetian lady, Caterina Cornaro, in 1471 and was declared to be "the son-in·law of the Republic." The unscrupulous republic is said to have poisoned its son·in-law in order to secure the succession. He died in 1473, and a son, born after his death, lived but two years. Cyprus was then ruled by the Venetians for fifteen years in the name of Caterina, who finally renounced her rights wholly in favor of the republic. After 1489, until its conquest by the Turks, Cyprus was a Venetian dependency, in form as well as in fact, but tributary to the Sultan of Egypt.

William Stubbs, Seventeen Lectures on the Study of Mediæval and Modern History, lecture 8.

CYRENAICA. CYRENE. KYRENE.

A city, growing into a kingdom, which was founded at an early day by the Greeks, on that projecting part of the coast of Libya, or northern Africa, which lies opposite to Greece. The first settlers were said to have been from the little island of Thera, whose people were bold and enterprising. The site they chose "was of an unusual nature, especially for islanders, and lay several miles away from the sea, the shores of which were devoid of natural bays for anchorage. But, with this exception, every advantage was at hand: instead of the narrow stony soil of their native land, they found the most fertile corn-fields, a broad table-land with a healthy atmosphere and watered by fresh springs; a well-wooded coast-land, unusually well adapted for all the natural products which the Hellenes deemed essential; while in the background spread mysteriously the desert, a world passing the comprehension of the Hellenes, out of which the Libyan tribes came to the shore with horses and camels, with black slaves, with apes, parrots and other wonderful animals, with dates and rare fruits. … An abundant spring of water above the shore was the natural point at which the brown men of the deserts and the mariners assembled. Here regular meetings became customary. The bazaar became a permanent market, and the market a city which arose on a grand scale, broad and lofty, on two rocky heights, which jut out towards the sea from the plateau of the desert. This city was called Cyrene. … Large numbers of population immigrated from Crete, the islands and Peloponnesus. A large amount of new land was parcelled out, the Libyans were driven back, the landing-place became the port of Apollonia, and the territory occupied by the city itself was largely extended. Cyrene became, like Massalia, the starting point of a group of settlements, the centre of a small Greece: Barca and Hesperides [afterwards called Berenice] were her daughters. Gradually a nation grew up, which extended itself and its agriculture, and contrived to cover a large division of African land with Hellenic culture. This was the new era which commenced for Cyrene with the reign of the third king, the Battus who, on account of the marvellously rapid rise of his kingdom, was celebrated as 'the fortunate' in all Hellas. The Battiadæ [the family or dynasty of Battus] were soon regarded as a great power."

Cyrenaica became subject to Egypt under the Ptolemys, and was then usually called Pentapolis, from the five cities of Cyrene, Apollonia, Arsinoë (formerly Teuchira), Berenice (formerly Hesperis, or Hesperides) and Ptolemais (the port of Barca). Later it became a province of the Roman Empire, and finally, passing under Mahometan rule, sank to its present state, as a district, called Barca, of the kingdom of Tripoli.—Cyrene was especially famous for the production of a plant called silphium—supposed to be assafœtida—on which the ancients seem to have set an extraordinary value. This was one of the principal sources of the wealth of Cyrene.

E. H. Bunbury, History of Ancient Geography, chapter 8, section 1, and chapter 12, section 2.

"In the middle of this reign [of Ptolemy, called Lathyrus, king of Egypt] died Ptolemy Apion, king of Cyrene. He was the half-brother of Lathyrus and Alexander, and having been made king of Cyrene by his father Euergetes II., he had there reigned quietly for twenty years. Being between Egypt and Carthage, then called the Roman province of Africa, and having no army which he could lead against the Roman legions, he had placed himself under the guardianship of Rome; he had bought a truce during his lifetime, by making the Roman people his heirs in his will, so that on his death they were to have his kingdom. Cyrene had been part of Egypt for above two hundred years, and was usually governed by a younger son or brother of the king. But on the death of Ptolemy Apion, the Roman senate, who had latterly been grasping at everything within their reach, claimed his kingdom as their inheritance, and in the flattering language of their decree by which the country was enslaved, they declared Cyrene free."

Cyzicus, which had then become one of the largest and wealthiest cities of Asia Minor, was besieged for an entire year (B. C. 74-73) by Mithridates in the Third Mithridatic war. The Roman Consul Lucullus came to the relief of the city and succeeded in gaining a position which blockaded the besiegers and cut off their supplies. In the end, Mithridates retreated with a small remnant only, of his great armament, and never recovered from the disaster.

CZAR, OR TZAR.

Ancient Dacia embraced the district north of the Danube between the Theiss and the Dneister. "The Dacians [at the time of Augustus, in the last half century B. C.] occupied the whole of what now forms the southern part of Hungary, the Banat and Transylvania. … The more prominent part which they henceforth assumed in Roman history was probably owing principally to the immediate proximity in which they now found themselves to the Roman frontier. The question of the relation in which the Dacians stood to the Getæ, whom we find in possession of these same countries at an earlier period, was one on which there existed considerable difference of opinion among ancient writers: but the prevailing conclusion was that they were only different names applied to the same people. Even Strabo, who describes them as distinct, though cognate tribes, states that they spoke the same language. According to his distinction the Getæ occupied the more easterly regions, adjoining the Euxine, and the Dacians the western, bordering on the Germans."

   At the beginning of the second century, when Trajan conquered
   the Dacians and added their country to the Roman Empire, "they
   may be considered as occupying the broad block of land bounded
   by the Theiss, the Carpathians, the lower Danube or Ister, and
   the Pruth." In his first campaign, A. D. 102, Trajan
   penetrated the country to the heart of modern Transylvania,
   and forced the Dacians to give him battle at a place called
   Tapæ, the site of which is not known. He routed them with much
   slaughter, as they had been routed at the same place, Tapæ,
   sixteen years before, in one of the ineffectual campaigns
   directed by Domitian. They submitted, and Trajan established
   strong Roman posts in the country; but he had scarcely reached
   Rome and celebrated his triumph there, before the Dacians were
   again in arms. In the spring of the year 104, Trajan repaired
   to the lower Danube in person, once more, and entered the
   Dacian country with an overwhelming force. This time the
   subjugation was complete, and the Romans established their
   occupation of the country by the founding of colonies and the
   building of roads.
{647}
   Dacia was now made a Roman province, and "the language of the
   Empire became, and to this day substantially remains, the
   national tongue of the inhabitants. … Of the Dacian
   province, the last acquired and the first to be surrendered of
   the Roman possessions, if we except some transient
   occupations, soon to be commemorated, in the East, not many
   traces now exist; but even these may suffice to mark the
   moulding power of Roman civilization. … The accents of the
   Roman tongue still echo in the valleys of Hungary and
   Wallachia; the descendants of the Dacians at the present day
   repudiate the appellation of Wallachs, or strangers, and still
   claim the name of Romúni."

DACOITS.

DACOTAS.

   Fought, A. D. 603, between the Northumbrians and the Scots of
   Dalriada, the army of the latter being almost wholly
   destroyed.

DAGOBERT I.,
   King of the Franks
   (Neustria), A. D. 628-638;
   (Austrasia), 622-633:
   (Burgundy), 628-638.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (JULY, and AUGUST-DECEMBER: S. CAROLINA).

DAKOITS. DAKOITEE.

The Dakoits of India, who were suppressed soon after the Thugs, were "robbers by profession, and even by birth." Dakoitee "was established upon a broad basis of hereditary caste, and was for the most part an organic state of society. 'I have always followed the trade of my ancestors, Dakoitee.' said Lukha, a noted Dakoit, who subsequently became approver. 'My ancestors held this profession before me,' said another, 'and we train boys in the same manner. In my caste if there were any honest persons, i. e., not robbers, they would be turned out.'" The hunting down of the Dakoits was begun in 1838, under the direction of Colonel Sleeman, who had already hunted down the Thugs.

DAKOTA: A. D. 1834-1838. Partly joined, in succession, to Michigan, Wisconsin, and Iowa Territories.

DAKOTAS.

DALAI LAMA.

DALCASSIANS.

The people of North Munster figure prominently under that name in early Irish history.

DALMATIA.

"The narrow strip of land on the eastern side of the Hadriatic on which the name of Dalmatia has settled down has a history which is strikingly analogous to its scenery. … As the cultivation and civilization of the land lies in patches, as harbours and cities alternate with barren hills, so Dalmatia has played a part in history only by fits and starts. This fitful kind of history goes on from the days of Greek colonies and Illyrian piracy to the last war between Italy and Austria. But of continuous history, steadily influencing the course of the world's progress, Dalmatia has none to show."

See SLAVONIC PEOPLES: 6TH AND 7TH CENTURIES;
also, BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: 7TH CENTURY.

DALMATIA: 14th Century.
Conquest from the Venetians by Louis the Great of Hungary.

Austria recovered possession of Dalmatia under the
arrangements of the Congress of Vienna.

DALRIADA.

"A district forming the northeast corner of Ireland and comprising the north half of the county of Antrim, was called Dalriada. It appears to have been one of the earliest settlements of the Scots among the Picts of Ulster and to have derived its name from its supposed founder Cairbre, surnamed Righfhada or Riada. It lay exactly opposite the peninsula of Kintyre [Scotland] from whence it was separated by a part of the Irish channel of no greater breadth than about fourteen miles; and from this Irish district the colony of Scots, which was already Christian [fifth century] passed over and settled in Kintyre and in the island of Isla"—establishing a Scotch Dalriada.

The kingdom of Damascus, or "Aram of Damascus" as it was entitled, was formed soon after that Syrian region threw off the yoke of dependence which David and Solomon had imposed upon it. "Rezon, the outlaw, was its founder. Hader, or Hadad, and Rimmon, were the chief divinities of the race, and from them the line of its kings derived their names,—Hadad, Ben-hadad, Hadad-ezer, Tabrimmon."

"Though frequently captured and plundered in succeeding centuries by Egypt and Assyria, neither of those nations was able to hold it long in subjection because of the other. It was probably a temporary repulse of the Assyrians, under Shalmaneser II., by the Damascene general Naaman to which reference is made in 2 Kings volume 1: 'by him the Lord had given deliverance unto Syria.' … After the great conquerors of Egypt and Asia, each in his day, had captured and plundered Damascus, it was taken without resistance by Parmenio for Alexander the Great [B. C. 333]. In it Pompey spent the proudest year of his life, 64 B. C., distributing at his pleasure the thrones of the East to the vassals of Rome. Cleopatra had received the city as a love-gift from Mark Antony, and Tiberius had bestowed it upon Herod the Great, before Aretas of Petra, the father of the princess whom Herod Antipas divorced for Herodias' sake, and the ruler whose officers watched the city to prevent the escape of Paul, made it, we know not how, a part of his dominions."

"Two years after the deliverance of the king [Saint Louis], and whilst he was still in Palestine, the Mamelukes, fearing a fresh invasion of the Franks, in order to prevent their enemies from taking Damietta and fortifying themselves in that city, entirely destroyed it. Some years after, as their fears were not yet removed, and the second crusade of Louis IX. spread fresh alarms throughout the East, the Egyptians caused immense heaps of stone to be cast into the mouth of the Nile, in order that the Christian fleets might not be able to sail up the river. Since that period a new Damietta has been built at a small distance from the site of the former city."

DAMNONIA.

DAMOISEL. DAMOISELLE. DONZELLO.

"In mediæval Latin 'domicella' is used for the unmarried daughter of a prince or noble, and 'domicellus,' contracted from 'domnicellus,' the diminutive of 'dominus,' for the son. These words are the forerunners of the old French 'dâmoisel' in the masculine, and 'damoiselle' in the feminine gender. Froissart calls Richard, prince of Wales, son of Edward: 'le jeune damoisil Richart.' In Romance the word is indifferently 'damoisel' and' 'danzel,' in Italian 'donzello.' All of these are evidently titles under the same notion as that of child and 'enfant,' of which the idea belongs to the knights of an earlier period."

DANCING PLAGUE.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863-1864 (DECEMBER-APRIL:
      TENNESSEE-MISSISSIPPI).

"A tax of two shillings on the hide of land, originally levied as tribute to the Danes under Ethelred, but continued [even under the Plantagenets], like the income tax, as a convenient ordinary resource."

DANELAGH, OR DANELAGA, OR DANELAU.

   The district in England held by the Danes after their treaty
   with Alfred the Great, extending south to the Thames, the Lea
   and the Ouse; north to the Tyne; west of the mountain district
   of Yorkshire, Westmoreland and Cumberland. "Over all this
   region the traces of their colonization abound in the villages
whose names end in by, the Scandinavian equivalent of the English
   tun or ham."

DANES AS VIKINGS.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 855-880, 979-1016, and 1016-1042; also NORMANS: A. D. 787-880.

DANTE AND THE FACTIONS OF FLORENCE.

DANTON AND THE FRENCH REVOLUTION.

DARA.

One of the capitals of the Parthian kings, the site of which has not been identified.

DARDANIANS OF THE TROAD.

DARIUS,
   King of Persia, B. C. 521-486.
   Darius II., B. C. 425-405.
   Darius III. (Codomannus), B. C. 336-331.

The historical period, so-called, is nearly identical with that more commonly named the Middle Ages; but its duration may be properly considered as less by a century or two. From the 5th to the 13th century is a definition of the period which most historians would probably accept.

DAR-UL-ISLAM AND DAR-UL-HARB.

"The Koran divides the world into two portions, the House of Islam, Dar-ul-Islam, and the House of War, Dar-ul-harb. It has generally been represented by Western writers on the institutes of Mahometanism and on the habits of Mahometan nations, that the Dar-ul-harb, the House of War, comprises all lands of the misbelievers. … There is even a widely-spread idea among superficial talkers and writers that the holy hostility, the Jehad [or Dhihad] of Mussulmans against non-Mussulmans is not limited to warfare between nation and nation; but that 'it is a part of the religion of every Mahometan to kill as many Christians as possible, and that by counting up a certain number killed, they think themselves secure of heaven.' But careful historical investigators, and statesmen long practically conversant with Mahometan populations have exposed the fallacy of such charges against those who hold the creed of Islam. … A country which is under Christian rulers, but in which Mahometans are allowed free profession of their faith, and peaceable exercise of their ritual, is not a portion of the House of War, of the Dar-ul-harb; and there is no religious duty of warfare, no Jehad, on the part of true Mussulmans against such a state. This has been of late years formally determined by the chief authorities in Mahometan law with respect to British India."

DASTAGERD.

The favorite residence of the last great Persian king and conqueror, Chosroes (A. D. 590-628), was fixed at Dastagerd, or Artemita, sixty miles north of Ctesiphon, and east of the Tigris. His palaces and pleasure grounds were of extraordinary magnificence.

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 46. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

DASYUS.

DAUPHINS OF FRANCE. DAUPHINE.

In 1349, Philip VI., or Philip de Valois, of France, acquired by purchase from Humbert II., count of Vienne, the sovereignty of the province of Dauphine. This principality became from that time the appanage of the eldest sons of the kings of France and gave them their peculiar name or title of the Dauphins. The title in question had been borne by the counts of Vienne (in Dauphiné), "on account of the dolphin which they carried upon their helmets and on their armorial bearings."

DAVIS, Jefferson.
Election to the Presidency of the rebellious
"Confederate States."

See GERMANY: A. D. 1806 (OCTOBER); 1806-1807; 1807 (FEBRUARY-JUNE); also RUSSIA: A. D. 1812; and GERMANY: A. D. 1812-1813; 1813 (AUGUST), (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).

DEAN FOREST.

The "Royal Forest of Dean," situated in the southwestern angle of the county of Gloucester, England, between the Severn and the Wye, is still so extensive that it covers some 23,000 acres, though much reduced from its original dimensions. Its oaks and its iron mines have played important parts in British history. The latter were worked by the Romans and still give employment to a large number of miners. The former were thought to be so essential to the naval power of England that the destruction of the Forest is said to have been one of the special duties prescribed to the Spanish Armada.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1812 (JUNE-OCTOBER),
      (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER);
      A. D. 1813 (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER).

   At Athens, in the time of Solon (6th century, B. C.) the
   Thetes—"the cultivating tenants, metayers and small
   proprietors of the country … are exhibited as weighed down
   by debts and dependence, and driven in large numbers out of a
   state of freedom into slavery—the whole mass of them (we are
   told) being in debt to the rich, who were proprietors of the
   greater part of the soil. They had either borrowed money for
   their own necessities, or they tilled the lands of the rich as
   dependent tenants, paying a stipulated portion of the produce,
   and in this capacity they were largely in arrear.
{650}
   All the calamitous effects were here seen of the old harsh law
   of debtor and creditor—once prevalent in Greece, Italy, Asia,
   and a large portion of the world—combined with the
   recognition of slavery as a legitimate status, and of the
   right of one man to sell himself as well as that of another
   man to buy him. Every debtor unable to fulfil his contract was
   liable to be adjudged as the slave of his creditor, until he
   could find means either of paying it or working it out; and
   not only he himself, but his minor sons and unmarried
   daughters and sisters also, whom the law gave him the power of
   selling. The poor man thus borrowed upon the security of his
   body (to translate literally the Greek phrase) and upon that
   of the persons in his family. So severely had these oppressive
   contracts been enforced, that many debtors had been reduced
   from freedom to slavery in Attica itself,—many others had
   been sold for exportation,—and some had only hitherto
   preserved their own freedom by selling their children. … To
   their relief Solon's first measure, the memorable
   Seisachtheia, shaking off of burthens, was directed. The
   relief which it afforded was complete and immediate. It
   cancelled at once all those contracts in which the debtor had
   borrowed on the security either of his person or of his land:
   it forbade all future loans or contracts in which the person
   of the debtor was pledged as security: it deprived the
   creditor in future of all power to imprison, or enslave, or
   extort work from, his debtor, and confined him to an effective
   judgment at law authorizing the seizure of the property of the
   latter. It swept off all the numerous mortgage pillars from
   the landed properties in Attica, leaving the land free from
   all past claims. It liberated and restored to their full
   rights all debtors actually in slavery under previous legal
   adjudication; and it even provided the means (we do not know
   how) of re-purchasing in foreign lands, and bringing back to a
   renewed life of liberty in Attica, many insolvents who had
   been sold for exportation. And while Solon forbad every
   Athenian to pledge or sell his own person into slavery, he
   took a step farther in the same direction by forbidding him to
   pledge or sell his son, his daughter, or an unmarried sister
   under his tutelage—excepting only the case in which either of
   the latter might be detected in unchastity. … One thing is
   never to be forgotten in regard to this measure, combined with
   the concurrent amendments introduced by Solon in the law—it
   settled finally the question to which it referred. Never again
   do we hear of the law of debtor and creditor as disturbing
   Athenian tranquility. The general sentiment which grew up at
   Athens, under the Solonian money-law and under the
   democratical government, was one of high respect for the
   sanctity of contracts. … There can be little doubt that
   under the Solonian law, which enabled the creditor to seize
   the property of his debtor, but gave him no power over the
   person, the system of money-lending assumed a more beneficial
   character."

"The hold of the creditor was on the person of the debtor. The obligation of a debt was a tying up or binding, or bondage, of the person: the payment was a solution, a loosing or release of the person from that bondage. The property of the debtor was not a pledge for the debt. It could be made so by special agreement, though in the earliest law only by transferring it at once to the ownership of the creditor. Without such special agreement, the creditor whose debtor failed to pay could not touch his property. Even when the debtor had been prosecuted and condemned to pay, if he still failed, the creditor could not touch his property. He could seize his person—I speak now of the early law, in the first centuries of the republic—and after holding him in rigorous confinement for sixty days, with opportunities, however, either to pay himself or get somebody to pay for him, if payment still failed, he could sell him as a slave, or put him to death; if there were several creditors, they could cut his body into pieces and divide it among them. This extreme severity was afterward softened; but the principle remained long unchanged, that the hold of the creditor was on the person of the debtor. If the debtor obstinately and to the last refused to surrender his property, the creditor could not touch it."

"During the first half of the Samnite war [B. C. 326-304], but in what year is uncertain, there was passed that famous law which prohibited personal slavery for debt. No creditor might for the future attach the person of his debtor, but he might only seize his property; and all those whose personal freedom was pledged for their debts (nexi), were released from their liability, if they could swear that they had property enough to meet their creditor's demands. It does not appear that this great alteration in the law was the work of any tribune, or that it arose out of any general or deliberate desire to soften the severity of the ancient practice. It was occasioned, we are told, by one scandalous instance of abuse of power on the part of a creditor. … But although personal slavery for debt was thus done away with, yet the consequences of insolvency were much more serious at Rome than they are in modern Europe. He whose property had once been made over to his creditors by the prætor's sentence, became, ipso facto, infamous; he lost his tribe, and with it all his political rights; and the forfeiture was irrevocable, even though he might afterwards pay his debts to the full; nor was it even in the power of the censors to replace him on the roll of citizens. So sacred a thing did credit appear in the eyes of the Romans."

"Debt has been regarded as a crime by primitive society in every part of the world. In Palestine, as in Rome, the creditor had power over the person of the debtor, and misfortune was commonly treated with a severity which was not always awarded to crime."

"In this country [England] the same system was gradually introduced in Plantagenet times. The creditor, who had been previously entitled to seize the goods, or even the land of the debtor, was at last authorised to seize his person. In one sense, indeed, the English law was, in this respect, more irrational than the cruel code of the Jews, or the awful punishment [death and dismemberment or slavery—Gibbon, chapter 44] which the law of the Twelve Tables reserved for debtors. In Palestine the creditor was, at least, entitled to the service of the debtor or of his children, and the slave had the prospect of an Insolvent Debtor's Relief Act in the Sabbatical year. Even the law of the Twelve Tables allowed the creditors to sell the debtor into slavery, instead of resorting to the horrible alternative of partitioning his body. But in England the creditors had no such choice. They had nothing to do but to throw the debtor into prison; and by his imprisonment deprive themselves of the only chance of his earning money to pay their debts. A law of this kind was intolerable to a commercial people. The debtor languished in gaol, the creditor failed to obtain payment of his debt. When trade increased in Tudor times, the wits of legislators were exercised in devising some expedient for satisfying the creditor without imprisoning the debtor. The Chancellor was authorised to appoint commissioners empowered to divide the debtor's property among the creditors. By an Act of Anne the debtor who complied with the law was released from further liability, and was practically enabled to commence life anew. In 1826, a debtor was allowed to procure his own bankruptcy; while in 1831, commissioners were appointed to carry out the arrangements which had been previously conducted under the Court of Chancery. The law of bankruptcy which was thus gradually developed by the legislation of three centuries only applied to persons in trade. No one who was not a trader could become a bankrupt; the ordinary debtor became as a matter of course an insolvent, and passed under the insolvent laws. The statutes, moreover, omitted to give any very plain definition of a trader. The distinction between trader and non-trader which had been gradually drawn by the Courts was not based on any very clear principle. A person who made bricks on his own estate of his own clay was not a trader; but a person who bought the clay and then made the bricks was a trader. Farmers, again, were exempt from the bankruptcy law; but farmers who purchased cattle for sale at a profit were liable to it. The possibility, moreover, of a trader being made a bankrupt depended on the size of his business. A petitioning creditor in bankruptcy was required to be a person to whom at least £100 was due; if two persons petitioned, their debts were required to amount to £150; if more than two persons petitioned, to £200. A small shopkeeper, therefore, who could not hope to obtain credit for £200, £150, or £100, could not become a bankrupt; he was forced to become an insolvent. The treatment of the insolvent was wholly different from that of the bankrupt. The bankruptcy law was founded on the principle that the goods and not the person of the debtor should be liable for the debt; the insolvency law enabled the person of the debtor to be seized, but provided no machinery for obtaining his goods. … Up to 1838 the first step in insolvency was the arrest of the debtor. Any person who made a deposition on oath that some other person was in debt to him, could obtain his arrest on what was known as 'mesne process.' The oath might possibly be untrue; the debt might not be due; the warrant issued on the sworn deposition as a matter of course. But, in addition to the imprisonment on mesne process, the insolvent could be imprisoned for a further period on what was known as 'final process.' Imprisonment on mesne process was the course which the creditor took to prevent the flight of the debtor; imprisonment on final process was the punishment which the Court awarded to the crime of debt. Such a system would have been bad enough if the debtors' prisons had been well managed. The actual condition of these prisons almost exceeds belief. Dickens, indeed, has made the story of a debtor's imprisonment in the Marshalsea familiar to a world of readers. … The Act of 1813 had done something to mitigate the misery which the law occasioned. The Court which was constituted by it released 50,000 debtors in 13 years. But large numbers of persons were still detained in prison for debt. In 1827 nearly 6,000 persons were committed in London alone for debt. The Common Law Commissioners, reporting in 1830, declared that the loud and general complaints of the law of insolvency were well founded; and Cottenham, in 1838, introduced a bill to abolish imprisonment for debt in all cases. The Lords were not prepared for so complete a remedy; they declined to abolish imprisonment on final process, or to exempt from imprisonment on mesne process, persons who owed more than £20, and who were about to leave the country. Cottenham, disappointed at these amendments, decided on strengthening his own hands by instituting a fresh inquiry. He appointed a commission in 1839, which reported in 1840, and which recommended the abolition of imprisonment on final process, and the union of bankruptcy and insolvency. In 1841, in 1842, in 1843, and in 1844 Cottenham introduced bills to carry out this report. The bills of 1841, 1842, and 1843 were lost. The bill of 1844 was not much more successful. Brougham declared that debtors who refused to disclose their property, who refused to answer questions about it, who refused to give it up, or who fraudulently made away with it, as well as debtors who had been guilty of gross extravagance, deserved imprisonment. He introduced an alternative bill giving the Cou rt discretionary power to imprison them. The Lords, bewildered by the contrary counsels of two such great lawyers as Cottenham and Brougham, decided on referring both bills to one Select Committee. The Committee preferred Brougham's bill, amended it, and returned it to the House. This bill became ultimately law. It enabled both private debtors and traders whose debts amounted to less than the sums named in the Bankruptcy Acts to become bankrupts; and it abolished Imprisonment in all cases where the debt did not exceed £20."

   "In New York, by the act of April 26, 1831, c. 300, and which
   went into operation on March 1st, 1832, arrest and
   imprisonment on civil process at law, and on execution in
   equity founded upon contract, were abolished. The provision
   under the act was not to apply to any person who should have
   been a non-resident of the state for a month preceding (and
   even this exception was abolished by the act of April 25th,
   1840); nor to proceedings as for a contempt to enforce civil
   remedies; nor to actions for fines and penalties; nor to suits
   founded in torts … nor on promises to marry; or for moneys
   collected by any public officer; or for misconduct or neglect
   in office, or in any professional employment.
{652}
   The plaintiff, however, in any suit, or upon any judgment or
   decree, may apply to a judge for a warrant to arrest the
   defendant, upon affidavit stating a debt or demand due, to
   more than $50; and that the defendant is about to remove
   property out of the jurisdiction of the court, with intent to
   defraud his creditors; or that he has property or rights in
   action which he fraudulently conceals; or public or corporate
   stock, money, or evidences of debt, which he unjustly refuses
   to apply to the payment of the judgment or decree in favor of
   the plaintiff; or that he has assigned, or is about to assign
   or dispose of his property, with intent to defraud his
   creditors; or has fraudulently contracted the debt, or
   incurred the obligation respecting which the suit is brought.
   If the judge shall be satisfied, on due examination, of the
   truth of the charge, he is to commit the debtor to jail,
   unless he complies with certain prescribed conditions or some
   one of them, and which are calculated for the security of the
   plaintiff's claim. Nor is any execution against the body to be
   issued on justices' judgments, except in cases essentially the
   same with those above stated. … By the New York act of 1846,
   c. 150, the defendant is liable for imprisonment as in actions
   for wrong, if he be sued and judgment pass against him in
   actions on contracts for moneys received by him (and it
   applies to all male persons) in a fiduciary character. The
   legislature of Massachusetts, in 1834 and 1842, essentially
   abolished arrest and imprisonment for debt, unless on proof
   that the debtor was about to abscond. As early as 1790, the
   constitution of Pennsylvania established, as a fundamental
   principle, that debtors should not be continued in prison
   after surrender of their estates in the mode to be prescribed
   by law, unless in cases of a strong presumption of fraud. In
   February, 1819, the legislature of that state exempted women
   from arrest and imprisonment for debt; and this provision as
   to women was afterwards applied in New York to all civil
   actions founded upon contract. … Females were first exempted
   from imprisonment for debt in Louisiana and Mississippi; and
   imprisonment for debt, in all cases free from fraud, is now
   abolished in each of those states. The commissioners in
   Pennsylvania, in their report on the Civil Code, in January,
   1835, recommended that there be no arrest of the body of the
   debtor on mesne process, without an affidavit of the debt, and
   that the defendant was a non-resident, or about to depart
   without leaving sufficient property, except in cases of force,
   fraud, or deceit, verified by affidavit. This suggestion was
   carried into effect by the act of the legislature of
   Pennsylvania of July 12th, 1842, entitled 'An Act to abolish
   imprisonment for debt, and to punish fraudulent debtors.' In
   New Hampshire, imprisonment on mesne process and execution for
   debt existed under certain qualifications, until December 23,
   1840, when it was abolished by statute, in cases of contract
   and debts accruing after the first of March, 1841. In Vermont,
   imprisonment for debt, on contracts made after first January,
   1839, is abolished, as to resident citizens, unless there be
   evidence that they are about to abscond with their property;
   so, also, the exception in Mississippi applies to cases of
   torts, frauds, and meditated concealment, or fraudulent
   disposition of property."

      J. Kent,
      Commentaries on American Law;
      edited by O. W. Holmes, Jr.,
      volume 2 (foot-note).

   "In many states the Constitution provides
   (A) that there shall be no imprisonment for debt:
      Indiana. C. 1, 22;
      Minnesota. C. I, 12;
      Kansas. C. B. Rts. 16;
      Maryland. C. 3, 38;
      North Carolina. C. 1, 16;
      Missouri. C. 2. 16;
      Texas. C. 1, 18;
      Oregon. C. 1, 19;
      Nevada. C. 1, 14;
      South Carolina. C. 1, 20;
      Georgia. C. 1, 1, 21;
      Alabama. C. 1, 21;
      Mississippi. C. 1, 11;
      Florida. C. Decl'n Rts. 15.

   (B) That there shall be no imprisonment for debt
   (1) in any civil action on mesne or final process, in seven states:
      Ohio. C. 1, 15;
      Iowa. C. 1, 19;
      Nebraska. C. 1, 20;
      Tennessee. C. 1, 18;
      Arkansas. C. 2, 16;
      California. C. 1, 15;
      Oregon. C. 1, 15;
      Arizona. B. Uts. 18.

      (2) In any action or judgment founded upon contract, in
      three states:
      New Jersey. C. 1, 17;
      Michigan. C. 6, 33;
      Wisconsin. C. 1, 16.

   (C) In six, that there shall be no person imprisoned for debt
   in any civil action when he has delivered up his property for
   the benefit of his creditors in the manner prescribed by law;
      Vermont. C. 2, 33;
      Rhode Island. C. 1, 11;
      Pennsylvania. C. 1, 16;
      Illinois. C. 2, 12;
      Kentucky. C. 13, 19;
      Colorado. C. 2, 12.

… But the above principles are subject to the following
exceptions in the several states respectively:

   So (3) generally, in civil or criminal actions, for fraud:
      Vermont,
      Rhode Island,
      New Jersey,
      Pennsylvania,
      Ohio,
      Indiana,
      Illinois,
      Michigan,
      Iowa,
      Minnesota,
      Kansas,
      Nebraska,
      North Carolina,
      Kentucky,
      Arkansas,
      California,
      Oregon,
      Nevada,
      Colorado,
      South Carolina,
      Florida,
      Arizona.

   And so, in two, the legislature has power to provide for the
   punishment of fraud and for reaching property of the debtor
   concealed from his creditors:
      Georgia. C. 1, 2, 6;
      Louisiana. C. 223.

So (4) absconding debtors may be imprisoned: Oregon. Or debtors (5) in cases of libel or slander: Nevada. (6) In civil cases of tort generally: California, Colorado. (7) In cases of malicious mischief: California. (8) Or of breach of trust: Michigan, Arizona. (9) Or of moneys collected by public officers, or in any professional employment: Michigan, Arizona."

F. J. Stimson, American Statute Law: Digest of Constitutions and Civil Public Statutes of all the States and Territories relating to Persons and Property, in force January 1, 1886, art. 8.

DÉCADI OF THE FRENCH REPUBLICAN CALENDAR.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (JANUARY-JUNE), and (JULY); also, INDEPENDENCE HALL.

"At the Congress of Paris in 1856, subsequently to the conclusion of the treaty, which ended the Crimean war [see RUSSIA: A. D. 1854-1856], a declaration of principles was signed on April 16th, by the plenipotentiaries of all the powers represented there, which contained four articles: 'First. Privateering is and remains abolished. Second, The neutral flag covers enemies' goods, with the exception of contraband of war. Third, Neutral goods, except of contraband of war, are not liable to capture under an enemy's flag. Fourth, Blockades, to be binding, must be effective—that is to say, maintained by a force really sufficient to prevent access to the coast of the enemy.' The adherence of other powers was requested to these principles," and all joined in signing it except the United States, Spain, and Mexico. The objection on the part of the United States was stated in a circular letter by Mr. Marcy, then Secretary of State, who "maintained that the right to resort to privateers is as incontestable as any other right appertaining to belligerents; and reasoned that the effect of the declaration would be to increase the maritime preponderance of Great Britain and France, without even benefiting the general cause of civilization; while, if public ships retained the right of capturing private property, the United States, which had at that time a large mercantile marine and a comparatively small navy, would be deprived of all means of retaliation. … The President proposes, therefore [wrote Mr. Marcy] to add to the first proposition contained in the declaration of the Congress of Paris the following words: 'and that the private property of the subjects and citizens of a belligerent on the high seas shall be exempted from seizure by public armed vessels of the other belligerent, except it be contraband.' … Among the minor states of Europe there was complete unanimity and a general readiness to accept our amendment to the rules"; but England opposed, and the offered amendment was subsequently withdrawn. "Events … have shown that … our refusal to accept the Declaration of Paris has brought the world nearer to the principles which we proposed, which became known as the 'Marcy amendment for the abolition of war against private property on the seas.'"

      ALSO IN:
      F. Wharton,
      Digest of the International law of the United States,
      chapter 17, section 342 (volume 3).

DECLARATION OF RIGHTS.

DECUMÆ.

DECUMATES LAND.

DECURIONES.

DEDITITIUS. COLONUS. SERVUS.

"The poor Provincial [of the provinces of the Roman empire at the time of the breaking up in the fifth century] who could not fly to the Goths because his whole property was in land, hunted to despair by the tax-gatherer, would transfer that land to some wealthy neighbour, apparently on condition of receiving a small life annuity out of it. He was then called the Dedititius (or Surrenderer) of the new owner, towards whom he stood in a position of a certain degree of dependence. Not yet, however, were his sorrows or those of his family at an end, for the tax-gatherer still regarded him as responsible for his land. … On his death his sons, who had utterly lost their paternal inheritance, and still found themselves confronted with the claim for taxes, were obviously without resource. The next stage of the process accordingly was that they abdicated the position of free citizens and implored the great man to accept them as Coloni, a class of labourers, half-free, half-enslaved, who may perhaps with sufficient accuracy be compared to the serfs 'adscripti glebæ' of the middle ages. … Before long they became mere slaves (Servi) without a shadow of right or claim against their new lords."

With the "increase of great estates and simultaneous increase in the number of slaves (so many Goths were made slaves by Claudius [A. D. 268-270], to give one instance, that there was not a district without them), the small proprietors could no longer maintain the fruitless struggle, and, as a class, wholly disappeared. Some, no doubt, became soldiers; others crowded into the already overflowing towns; while others voluntarily resigned their freedom, attached themselves to the land of some rich proprietor, and became his villeins, or coloni. But this was not the chief means by which this class was formed and increased. … After a successful war these serfs were given … to landed proprietors without payment; and in this way not only was the class of free peasants diminished or altogether destroyed—a happier result—the slave system was directly attacked. The coloni themselves were not slaves. The codes directly distinguish them from slaves, and in several imperial constitutions they are caned 'ingenui.' They could contract a legal marriage and could hold property. … On the other hand, the coloni were like slaves in that they were liable to personal punishment. … A colonus was indissolubly attached to the land, and could not get quit of the tie, even by enlisting as a soldier. The proprietor could sell him with the estate, but had no power whatever of selling him without it; and if he sold the estate, he was compelled to sell the coloni along with it. … The position of these villeins was a very miserable one. … These coloni in Gaul, combined together, were joined by the free peasants still left [A. D. 287], whose lot was not less wretched than their own, and forming into numerous bands, spread themselves over the country to pillage and destroy. They were called Bagaudæ, from a Celtic word meaning a mob or riotous assembly; and under this name recur often in the course of the next century both in Gaul and Spain."

DEEMSTERS.

DEFENDERS.

DEFTERDARS.

One of the kingdoms of the Angles, covering what is now called the East Riding of Yorkshire, with some territory beyond it. Sometimes it was united with the kingdom of Bernicia, north of it, to form the greater kingdom of Northumbria.

DEKARCHIES.

DEKELEIA. DEKELEIAN WAR.

DELATION. DELATORS.

Under the empire, there was soon bred at Rome an infamous class of men who bore a certain resemblance—with significant contrasts likewise—to the sycophants of Athens. They were known as delators, and their occupation was delation. "The delator was properly one who gave notice to the fiscal officers of moneys that had become due to the treasury of the state, or more strictly to the emperor's fiscus." But the title was extended to informers generally, who dragged their fellow-citizens before the tribunals for alleged violations of law. Augustus made delation a profession by attaching rewards to the information given against transgressors of his marriage laws. Under the successor of Augustus, the sullen and suspicious Tiberius, delation received its greatest encouragement and development. "According to the spirit of Roman criminal procedure, the informer and the pleader were one and the same person. There was no public accuser, … but the spy who discovered the delinquency was himself the man to demand of the senate, the prætor or the judge, an opportunity of proving it by his own eloquence and ingenuity. The odium of prosecution was thus removed from the government to the private delator."

"Almost every writer on American history that I have met with appears to have taken pains to perpetuate the stereotyped error that 'Lord Delawarr touched at this bay in his passage to Virginia in 1610.' … Lord Delawarr himself, in his letter of the 7th of July, 1610, giving an account of his voyage to Virginia, not only makes no mention of that bay, or of his approaching it, but expressly speaks of his first reaching the American coast on the '6th of June, at what time we made land to the southward of our harbor, the Chesiopiock Bay.' The first European who is really known to have entered the bay, after Hudson, was Capt. Samuel Argall [July 1610]. … The name of Lord Delawarr, however, seems to have been given to the bay soon afterwards by the Virginians."

The first attempt at settlement on the Delaware was made by the Dutch, who claimed the country in right of Hudson's discovery and Mey's exploration of the Bay, notwithstanding the broad English claim, which covered the whole of it as part of an indefinite Virginia. In 1629, pursuant to the patroon ordinance of the Dutch West India Company, which opened New Netherland territory to private purchasers, "Samuel Godyn and Samuel Blommaert, both directors of the Amsterdam Chamber, bargained with the natives for the soil from Cape Henlopen to the mouth of Delaware river; in July, 1630, this purchase of an estate more than thirty miles long was ratified at Fort Amsterdam by Minuit [then Governor of New Netherland] and his council. It is the oldest deed for land in Delaware, and comprises the water-line of the two southern counties of that state. … A company was soon formed to colonize the tract acquired by Godyn and Blommaert. The first settlement in Delaware, older than any in Pennsylvania, was undertaken by a company, of which Godyn, Van Rensselaer, Blommaert, the historian De Laet, and a new partner, David Petersen de Vries, were members. By joint enterprise, in December, 1630, a ship of 18 guns, commanded by Pieter Heyes, and laden with emigrants, store of seeds, cattle and agricultural implements, embarked from the Texel, partly to cover the southern shore of Delaware Bay with fields of wheat and tobacco, and partly for a whale fishery on the coast. … Early in the spring of 1631, the … vessel reached its destination, and just within Cape Henlopen, on Lewes Creek, planted a colony of more than thirty souls. The superintendence of the settlement was intrusted to Gillis Hosset. A little fort was built and well beset with palisades: the arms of Holland were affixed to a pillar; the country received the name Swaanendael; the water that of Godyn's Bay. The voyage of Heyes was the cradling of a state. That Delaware exists as a separate commonwealth is due to this colony. According to English rule, occupancy was necessary to complete a title to the wilderness; and the Dutch now occupied Delaware. On the 5th of May, Heyes and Hosset, in behalf of Godyn and Blommaert, made a further purchase from Indian chiefs of the opposite coast of Cape May, for twelve miles on the bay, on the sea, and in the interior; and, in June, this sale of a tract twelve miles square was formally attested at Manhattan. Animated by the courage of Godyn, the patroons of Swaanendael fitted out a second expedition under the command of De Vries. But, before he set sail, news was received of the destruction of the fort, and the murder of its people. Hasset, the commandant, had caused the death of an Indian chief; and the revenge of the savages was not appeased till not one of the emigrants remained alive. De Vries, on his arrival, found only the ruins of the house and its palisades, half consumed by fire, and here and there the bones of the colonists."

ALSO IN: J. R. Brodhead, History of the State of New York, volume 1, chapter 7.

   "William Usselinx, a distinguished merchant in Stockholm, was
   the first to propose to the Swedish government a scheme for
   planting a colony in America. He was a native of Antwerp, and
   had resided in Spain, Portugal and the Azores, at a time when
   the spirit of foreign adventure pervaded every class of
   society. … In the year 1624 he proposed to the Swedish
   monarch, Gustavus Adolphus, a plan for the organization of a
   trading company, to extend its operations to Asia, Africa,
   America and Terra Magellanica. …
{655}
   Whether Usselinx had ever been in America is uncertain, but he
   had, soon after the organization of the Dutch West India
   Company, some connection with it, and by this and other means
   was able to give ample information in relation to the country
   bordering on the Delaware, its soil, climate, and productions.
   … His plan and contract were translated into the Swedish
   language by Schrader, the royal interpreter, and published to
   the nation, with an address strongly appealing both to their
   piety and their love of gain. The king recommended it to the
   States, and an edict dated at Stockholm, July 2d, 1626, was
   issued by royal authority, in which people of all ranks were
   invited to encourage the project and support the Company.
   Books were opened for subscription to the stock … and
   Gustavus pledged the royal treasure for its support to the
   amount of 400,000 dollars. … The work was ripe for
   execution, when the German war [the Thirty Years War], and
   afterwards the king's death, prevented it, and rendered the
   fair prospect fruitless. … The next attempt on the part of
   the Swedes to plant a colony in America was more successful.
   But there has been much difference among historians in
   relation to the period when that settlement was made. … It
   is owing to the preservation, among the Dutch records at
   Albany, of an official protest issued by Kieft, the Governor
   at New Amsterdam, that we do certainly know the Swedes were
   here in the spring of 1638. Peter Minuit, who conducted to our
   shore the first Swedish colony, had been Commercial Agent, and
   Director General of the Dutch West India Company, and Governor
   of the New Netherlands. … At this time Christina, the infant
   daughter of Gustavus Adolphus, had ascended the throne of
   Sweden. … Under the direction of Oxenstiern, the celebrated
   chancellor of Sweden, whose wisdom and virtue have shed a
   glory on the age in which he lived, the patent which had been
   granted in the reign of Gustavus to the company formed under
   the influence of Usselinx was renewed, and its privileges
   extended to the citizens of Germany. Minuit, being now out of
   employment, and probably deeming himself injured by the
   conduct of the Dutch Company [which had displaced him from the
   governorship of the New Netherlands, through the influence of
   the patroons, and appointed Wouter Van Twiller, a clerk, to
   succeed him], had determined to offer his services to the
   crown of Sweden. … Minuit laid before the chancellor a plan
   of procedure, urged a settlement on the Delaware, and offered
   to conduct the enterprise. Oxenstiern represented the case to
   the queen … and Minuit was commissioned to command and
   direct the expedition."

      B. Ferris,
      History of the Original Settlements on the Delaware,
      part 1, chapters 2-3.

"With two ships laden with provisions and other supplies requisite for the settlement of emigrants in a new country, and with fifty colonists, Minuit sailed from Sweden late in 1637, and entered Delaware Bay in April, 1638. He found the country as he had left it, without white inhabitants. Minqua Kill, now Wilmington, was selected as the place for the first settlement, where he bought a few acres of land of the natives, landed his colonists and stores, erected a fort, and began a small plantation. He had conducted his enterprise with some secrecy, that he might avoid collision with the Dutch; but the watchful eyes of their agents soon discovered him, and reported his presence to the director at New Amsterdam. Kieft [successor to Van Twiller] had just arrived, and it became one of his first duties to notify a man who had preceded him in office that he was a trespasser and warn him off. Minuit, knowing that Kieft was powerless to enforce his protest, being without troops or money, paid no attention to his missive, and kept on with his work. … He erected a fort of considerable strength, named Christina, for the Swedish queen, and garrisoned it with 24 soldiers. Understanding the character of the Indians, he conciliated their sachems by liberal presents and secured the trade. In a few months he was enabled to load his ships with peltries and despatch them to his patrons. … The colony had to all appearance a promising future. … Within two years, however, their prospects were clouded. The Company had failed to send out another ship with supplies and merchandise for the Indian trade. Provisions failed, trade fell off, and sickness began to prevail. … They resolved to remove to Manhattan, where they could at least have 'enough to eat.' On the eve of 'breaking up' to carry their resolution into effect, succor came from an unexpected quarter. The fame of New Sweden, as the colony was called, of its fertile lands and profitable trade, had reached other nations of Europe. In Holland itself a company was formed to establish a settlement under the patronage of the Swedish Company." This Dutch company "freighted a ship with colonists and supplies, which fortunately arrived when the Swedish colony was about to be broken up and the country abandoned. The spirits of the Swedes were revived. … Their projected removal was indefinitely deferred and they continued their work with fresh vigor. The Dutch colonists were located in a settlement by themselves, only a few miles from Fort Christina. They were loyal to the Swedes. … In the autumn of the same year, 1640, Peter Hollaendare, who had been appointed deputy governor of the colony, and Moens Kling, arrived from Sweden with three ships laden with provisions and merchandise for the straitened colonists. They also brought out a considerable company of new emigrants. New Sweden was now well established and prosperous. More lands were bought, and new settlements were made. Peter Minuit died the following year."

      ALSO IN:
      I. Acrelius,
      History of New Sweden
      (Pennsylvania Historical Society Mem., volume 11)
      chapter 1.

G. B. Keen, New Sweden (Narrative and Critical History of America, volume 4, chapter 9).

      J. F. Jameson,
      Willem Usselinx
      (Papers of the American Historical Association,
      volume 2, number 3).

DELAWARE. A. D. 1640-1656.
The struggle between the Swedes and the Dutch and the final
victory of the latter.

   "The [Swedish] colony grew to such importance that John
   Printz, a lieutenant-colonel of cavalry, was sent out in 1642
   as governor, with orders for developing industry and trade. He
   took pains to command the mouth of the river, although the
   Dutch had established Fort Nassau on its eastern bank, and the
   Swedish settlements were on the western bank exclusively.
{656}
   Collisions arose between the Dutch and the Swedes, and when
   the former put up the arms of the States General on the
   completion of a purchase of lands from the Indians, Printz in
   a passion ordered them to be torn down. The Swedes gained in
   strength while the Dutch lost ground in the vicinity. In 1648
   the Dutch attempted to build a trading post on the Schuylkill,
   when they were repulsed by force by the Swedes. Individuals
   seeking to erect houses were treated in the same way. The
   Swedes in turn set up a stockade on the disputed ground.
   Director Stuyvesant found it necessary in 1651 to go to confer
   with Printz with a view to holding the country against the
   aggressive English. The Indians were called into council and
   confirmed the Dutch title, allowing the Swedes little more
   than the site of Fort Christina. Fort Casimir was erected
   lower down the river, to protect Dutch interests. The two
   rulers agreed to be friends and allies, and so continued for
   three years. The distress of the Swedish colony led to appeals
   for aid from the home country whither Governor Printz had
   returned. In 1654 help was given, and a new governor, John
   Claude Rysingh, marked his coming by the capture of Fort
   Casimir, pretending that the Dutch West India Company
   authorized the act. The only revenge the Dutch could take was
   the seizure of a Swedish vessel which by mistake ran into
   Manhattan Bay. But the next year orders came from Holland
   exposing the fraud of Rysingh, and directing the expulsion of
   the Swedes from the South River. A fleet was organized and
   Director Stuyvesant recovered Fort Casimir without firing a
   gun. After some parley Fort Christina was also surrendered.
   Such Swedes as would not take the oath of allegiance to the
   Dutch authorities were sent to the home country. Only twenty
   persons accepted the oath, and of three clergymen two were
   expelled, and the third escaped like treatment by the sudden
   outbreak of Indian troubles. In 1656 the States General and
   Sweden made these transactions [a] matter of international
   discussion. The Swedes presented a protest against the action
   of the Dutch, and it was talked over, but the matter was
   finally dropped. In the same year the West India Company sold
   its interests on the South River to the city of Amsterdam, and
   the colony of New Amstel was erected, so that the authority of
   New Netherland was extinguished."

      ALSO IN:
      E. Armstrong,
      Introduction to the Record of Upland
      (Historical Society of Pennsylvania Memoirs, volume 7).

      B. Ferris,
      History of the Original Settlements on the Delaware,
      part 1, chapter 6-7.

      Report of the Amsterdam Chamber of the W. I. Co.
      (Documents relative to Colonial History of New York,
      volume 1, pages 587-646).

"Five days after the capitulation of New Amsterdam [surrendered by the Dutch to the English, Aug. 29, 1664 see NEW YORK: A. D. 1664] Nicolls, with Cartwright and Maverick … commissioned their colleague, Sir Robert Carr, to go," with three ships and an adequate military force, "and reduce the Delaware settlements. Carr was instructed to promise the Dutch the possession of all their property and all their present privileges, 'only that they change their masters.' To the Swedes he was to 'remonstrate their happy return under a monarchical government, and his majesty's good inclination to that nation.' To Lord Baltimore's officers in Maryland, he was to declare that their proprietor's pretended right to the Delaware being 'a doubtful case,' possession would be kept for the king 'till his majesty is informed and satisfied otherwise.' … The Swedes were soon made friends," but the Dutch attempted [October] some resistance, and yielded only after a couple of broadsides from the ships had killed three and wounded ten of their garrison. "Carr now landed … and claimed the pillage for himself as 'won by the sword.' Assuming an authority independent of Nicolls, he claimed to be the 'sole and chief commander and disposer' of all affairs on the Delaware." His acts of rapacity and violence, when reported to his fellow commissioners, at New York, were condemned and repudiated, and Nicolls, the presiding commissioner, went to the Delaware in person to displace him. "Carr was severely rebuked, and obliged to give up much of his ill-gotten spoil. Nevertheless, he could not be persuaded to leave the place for some time. The name of New Amstel was now changed to New Castle, and an infantry garrison established there. … Captain John Carr was appointed commander of the Delaware, in subordination to the government of New York, to which it was annexed 'as an appendage'; and thus affairs remained for several years."

DELAWARE: A. D. 1674-1760.
   In dispute between the Duke of York and the
   Proprietary of Maryland.
   Grant by the Duke to William Penn:

DELAWARE: A. D. 1691-1702.
The practical independence of Penn's "lower counties" acquired.

"In April, 1691, with the reluctant consent of William Penn, the 'territories,' or 'lower counties,' now known as the State of Delaware, became for two years a government by themselves under Markham. … The disturbance by Keith [see PENNSYLVANIA; A. D. 1692-1696] creating questions as to the administration of justice, confirmed the disposition of the English government to subject Pennsylvania to a royal commission; and in April 1693, Benjamin Fletcher, appointed governor by William and Mary, once more united Delaware to Pennsylvania." But Penn, restored to his authority in 1694, could not resist the jealousies which tended so strongly to divide the Delaware territories from Pennsylvania proper. "In 1702, Pennsylvania convened its legislature apart, and the two colonies were never again united. The lower counties became almost an independent republic; for, as they were not included in the charter, the authority of the proprietary over them was by sufferance only, and the executive power intrusted to the governor of Pennsylvania was too feeble to restrain the power of their people. The legislature, the tribunals, the subordinate executive officers of Delaware knew little of external control."

G. Bancroft, History of the United States. (author's last revision), part 3, chapter 2 (volume 2).

The question of jurisdiction over Delaware was involved throughout in the boundary dispute between the proprietaries of Pennsylvania and Maryland.

DELAWARE: A. D. 1760-1766.
   The question of taxation by Parliament.
   The Stamp Act and its repeal.
   The Declaratory Act.
   The First Continental Congress.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1766-1767 to 1774;
      and BOSTON: A. D. 1768 to 1773.

DELAWARE: A. D. 1775.
   The beginning of the war of the American Revolution.
   Lexington.
   Concord.
   Action taken on the news.
   Ticonderoga.
   The siege of Boston.
   Bunker Hill.
   The Second Continental Congress.

DELAWARE: A. D. 1777-1779.
Withholding ratification from the Articles of Confederation.

DELAWARE: A. D. 1787.
The adoption and ratification of the Federal Constitution.

DELAWARE: A. D. 1861 (April).
Refusal of troops on the call of President Lincoln.

DELHI: A. D. 1760-1761.
   Taken and plundered by the Mahrattas.
   Then by the Afghans.
   Collapse of the Mogul Empire.

DELHI: A. D. 1857.
   The Sepoy Mutiny.
   Massacre of Europeans.
   Explosion of the magazine.
   English siege and capture of the city.

DELIAN CONFEDERACY.

DELIAN FESTIVAL.

A serious defeat suffered by the Athenians in the Peloponnesian War, B. C. 424, at the hands of the Thebans and other Bœotians. It was consequent upon the seizure by the Athenians of the Bœotian temple of Delium—a temple of Apollo—on the sea-coast, about five miles from Tanagra, which they fortified and intended to hold. After the defeat of the army which was returning from this exploit, the garrison left at Delium was besieged and mostly captured. Among the hoplites who fought at Delium was the philosopher Socrates. The commander Hippocrates was slain.

DELOS.

Delos, the smallest island of the group called the Cyclades, but the most important in the eyes of the Ionian Greeks, being their sacred isle, the fabled birthplace of Apollo and long the chief seat and center of his worship. "The Homeric Hymn to Apollo presents to us the island of Delos as the centre of a great periodical festival in honour of Apollo, celebrated by all the cities, insular and continental, of the Ionic name. What the date of this hymn is, we have no means of determining: Thucydides quotes it, without hesitation, as the production of Homer, and, doubtless, it was in his time universally accepted as such,—though modern critics concur in regarding both that and the other hymns as much later than the Iliad and Odyssey. It cannot probably be later than 600 B. C. The description of the Ionic visitors presented to us in this hymn is splendid and imposing; the number of their ships, the display of their finery, the beauty of their women, the athletic exhibitions as well as the matches of song and dance,—all these are represented as making an ineffaceable impression on the spectator: 'the assembled Ionians look as if they were beyond the reach of old age or death.' Such was the magnificence of which Delos was the periodical theatre, and which called forth the voices and poetical genius not merely of itinerant bards, but also of the Delian maidens in the temple of Apollo, during the century preceding 560 B. C. At that time it was the great central festival of the Ionians in Asia and Europe."

During the war with Persia, Delos was made the common treasury of the Greeks; but Athens subsequently took the custody and management of the treasury to herself and reduced Delos to a dependency. The island was long the seat of an extensive commerce, and Delian bronze was of note in the arts.

"In the midst of the losses and turmoil of the [Peloponnesian] war it had been determined [at Athens] to offer a solemn testimony of homage to Apollo on Delos, [B. C. 425]—a homage doubtless connected with the complete cessation of the pestilence, which had lasted as long as the fifth year of the war. The solemnity consisted in the renewed consecration of the entire island to the divine Giver of grace; all the coffins containing human remains being removed from Delos, and Rhenea appointed to be henceforth the sole burial-place. This solemnity supplemented the act formerly performed by the orders of Pisistratus, and it was doubtless in the present instance also intended, by means of a brilliant renewal of the Delian celebration, to strengthen the power of Athens in the island sea, to give a festive centre to the Ionic world. … But the main purpose was clearly one of morality and religion. It was intended to calm and edify the minds of the citizens."

Three years later (B. C. 422) the Athenians found some reason for another purification of Delos which was more radical, consisting in the expulsion of all the inhabitants from the island. The unfortunate Delians found an asylum at Adramyttium in Asia, until they were restored to their homes next year, through the influence of the Delphic oracle.

Early in the first war of Mithridates with the Romans (B. C. 88), Delos, which had been made a free port and had become the emporium of Roman commerce in the east, was seized by a Pontic fleet, and pillaged, 20,000 Italians being massacred on the island. The treasures of Delos were sent to Athens and the island restored to the Athenian control.

"Almost under the eyes of the fleet of Lucullus, the pirate Athenodorus surprised in 685 [B. C. 69] the island of Delos, destroyed its far-famed shrines and temples, and carried off the whole population into slavery."

"Thrace and Sarmatia were the Guinea Coast of the Romans. The entrepôt of this trade was Delos, which had been made a free port by Rome after the conquest of Macedonia. Strabo tells us that in one day 10,000 slaves were sold there in open market. Such were the vile uses to which was put the Sacred Island, once the treasury of Greece."

DELPHI. KRISSA (CRISSA). KIRRHA (CIRRHA).

"In those early times when the Homeric Hymn to Apollo was composed the town of Krissa [in Phocis, near Delphi] appears to have been great and powerful, possessing all the broad plain between Parnassus, Kirphis, and the gulf, to which latter it gave its name,—and possessing also, what was a property not less valuable, the adjoining sanctuary of Pytho itself, which the Hymn identifies with Krissa, not indicating Delphi as a separate place. The Krissæans, doubtless, derived great profits from the number of visitors who came to visit Delphi, both by land and by sea, and Kirrha was originally only the name for their seaport. Gradually, however, the port appears to have grown in importance at the expense of the town; … while at the same time the sanctuary of Pytho with its administrators expanded into the town of Delphi, and came to claim an independent existence of its own. … In addition to the above facts, already sufficient in themselves as seeds of quarrel, we are told that the Kirrhæans abused their position as masters of the avenue to the temple by sea, and levied exorbitant tolls on the visitors who landed there. … Besides such offence against the general Grecian public, they had also incurred the enmity of their Phocian neighbours by outrages upon women, Phocian as well as Argeian, who were returning from the temple. Thus stood the case, apparently, about 595 B. C., when the Amphiktyonic meeting interfered … to punish the Kirrhæans. After a war of ten years, the first Sacred War in Greece, this object was completely accomplished, by a joint force of Thessalians under Eurylochus, Sikyonians under Kleisthenes, and Athenians under Alkmæon; the Athenian Solon being the person who originated and enforced, in the Amphiktyonic council, the proposition of interference. Kirrha … was destroyed, or left to subsist merely as a landing place; and the whole adjoining plain was consecrated to the Delphian god, whose domains thus touched the sea. … The fate of Kirrha in this war is ascertained: that of Krissa is not so clear, nor do we know whether it was destroyed, or left subsisting in a position of inferiority with regard to Delphi. From this time forward, the Delphian community appears as substantive and autonomous, exercising in their own right the management of the temple; though we shall find, on more than one occasion, that the Phocians contest this right. … The spoils of Kirrha were employed by the victorious allies in founding the Pythian Games. The octennial festival hitherto celebrated at Delphi in honour of the god, including no other competition except in the harp and the pæan, was expanded into comprehensive games on the model of the Olympic, with matches not only of music, but also of gymnastics and chariots,—celebrated, not at Delphi itself, but on the maritime plain near the ruined Kirrha,—and under the direct superintendence of the Amphiktyons themselves. … They were celebrated in the latter half of summer, or first half of every third Olympic year. … Nothing was conferred but wreaths of laurel."

      See, also, ATHENS: B. C. 610-586;
      PYTHO; ORACLES OF THE GREEKS;
      and AMPHIKTYONIC COUNCIL.

DELPHI: B. C. 357-338.
   Seizure by the Phocians.
   The Sacred Wars.
   Deliverance by Philip of Macedon.
   War with Amphissa.

DEMES. DEMI.

      See MACEDONIA: B. C. 315-310, 310-301;
      also GREECE: B. C. 307-301;
      and RHODES: B. C. 305-304.

DEMIURGI. COSMOS. TAGOS OR TAGUS.

Of the less common titles applied among the ancient Greeks to their supreme magistrates, are "Cosmos, or Cosmios, and Tagos (signifying Arranger and Commander), the former of which we find in Crete, the latter in the Thessalian cities. With the former we may compare the title of Cosmopolis, which was in use among the Epizephyrian Locrians. A more frequent title is that of Demiurgi, a name which seems to imply a constitution no longer oligarchical, but which bestowed certain rights on the Demos. In the time of the Peloponnesian war magistrates of this kind existed in Elis and in the Arcadian Mantinæa. … The title is declared by Grammarians to have been commonly used among the Dorians. … A similar title is that of Demuchus, which the supreme magistrates of Thespiæ in Bœotia seem to have borne. … The Artyni at Epidaurus and Argos we have already mentioned."

DEMOCRATIC OR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLICAN PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES.

      See GREECE: B. C. 425,
      and SYRACUSE: B. C. 415-413;
      and ATHENS: B. C. 415-413.

See GREECE: B. C. 357-336, 351-348, and 323-322; and ATHENS: B. C. 359-338, and 336-322.

DEMOTIC WRITING.

DEMUCHUS.

DENMARK.

Fought A. D. 577, near Bath, England, between the invading West Saxons and the Britons. The victory of the former gave them possession of the lower valley of the Severn and practically completed the Saxon conquest of England.

DERRY.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1789 (JULY); 1790; 1792 (AUGUST), to 1793-1794 (NOVEMBER-JUNE).

DESPOT OF EPIRUS.

"The title of despot, by which they [the mediæval princes of Epirus] are generally distinguished, was a Byzantine honorary distinction, never borne by the earlier members of the family until it had been conferred on them by the Greek Emperor."

      G. Finlay,
      History of Greece from its conquest by the Crusaders,
      chapter 6, section 1.

DESTRIERS. PALFREYS.

"A cavaliere or man-at-arms was accompanied by one 'Destriero' or strong war-horse, and one or two, sometimes three, mounted squires who led the animal fully caparisoned; or carried the helmet; lance and shield of their master: these 'Destrieri' ('rich and great horses' as Villani calls them), were so named because they were led on the right hand without any rider, and all ready for mounting: the squire's horses were of an inferior kind called 'Ronzini,' and on the 'Palafreni' or palfreys the knight rode when not in battle."

DESTROYING ANGELS, OR DANITES.

DETROIT: A. D. 1686-1701.
The first French forts.
Cadillac's founding of the city.

At the beginning of the war called "Queen Anne's War" (1702) "Detroit had already been established. In June, 1701, la Mothe Cadillac, with a Jesuit father and 100 men, was sent to construct a fort and occupy the country; hence he is spoken of as the founder of the city. In 1686, a fort [called Fort St. Joseph] had been constructed to the south of the present city, where Fort Gratiot now stands, but it soon fell into decay and was abandoned. It was not the site selected by Cadillac."

"Fort St. Joseph was abandoned in the year 1688. The establishment of Cadillac was destined to a better fate and soon rose to distinguished importance among the western outposts of Canada."

"The French inhabitants here are settled on both sides of the river for about eight miles. When I took possession of the country soon after the surrender of Canada [see CANADA: A. D. 1760], they were about 2,500 in number, there being near 500 that bore arms (to whom I administered oaths of allegiance) and near 300 dwelling houses. Our fort here is built of stockadoes, is about 25 feet high, and 1,200 yards in circumference. … The inhabitants raise wheat and other grain in abundance, and have plenty of cattle, but they enrich themselves chiefly by their trade with the Indians, which is here very large and lucrative."

DETROIT: A. D. 1775-1783.
Held by the British throughout the War of Independence.

DEVA.

One of the Roman garrison towns in Britain, on the site of which is modern Chester, taking its name from the castra or fortified station of the legions. It was the station of the 20th legion.

DEVIL'S CAUSEWAY, The.
The popular name of an old Roman road in England which runs
from Silchester to London.

On the 13th of September, 1763, during the progress of Pontiac's War, a train of wagons and packhorses, traversing the Niagara portage between Lewiston and Fort Schlosser, guarded by an escort of 24 soldiers, was ambuscaded by a party of Seneca warriors at the place called the Devil's Hole, three miles below the Niagara cataract. Seventy of the whites were slain, and only three escaped.

DHIHAD.

The immediate successors of Alexander the Great, who divided his empire, are sometimes so-called. "The word diadochi means 'successors,' and is used to include Antigonus, Ptolemy, Seleucus, Lysimachus, etc.—the actual companions of Alexander."

DIAMOND DISCOVERY IN SOUTH AFRICA (1867).

DICASTERIA.

The great popular court, or jury, in ancient Athens, called the Heliæa, or Heliastæ consisting at one time of six thousand chosen citizens, was divided into ten sections, called Dicasteria. Their places of meeting also bore the same name.

DIES ATRI.

   The days on which the Romans thought it unlucky to undertake
   business of importance—for example, the day after the
   Calends, Nones and Ides of each month—were called Dies Atri.

DIET.

"An assembly, council, … Parliament. … The peculiar sense of the word undoubtedly arose from a popular etymology that connected it with the Latin 'dies,' a day, especially a set day, a day appointed for public business; whence, by extension, a meeting for business, an assembly."

"The annual general councils and special councils of Charles the Great did not long survive him, and neither his descendants nor their successors revived them. They were compelled, to be sure, both by custom and by policy to advise with the chief men of the kingdom before taking any important step or doing anything that depended for success on their consent and cooperation, but they varied the number of their counsellors and the time, place, and manner of consulting them to suit their own convenience. Great formal assemblies of counsellors summoned from all parts of the realm were termed Imperial Diets (Reichstage); small, or local, or informal assemblies of a similar kind were known as Court Diets (Hoftage). Princes and other royal vassals, margraves, palsgraves, Graves, barons, and even royal Dienstmannen were indiscriminately summoned, but the Diets were in no sense representative bodies until the Great Interregnum [see GERMANY: A. D. 1250-1272] when certain cities acquired such influence in public affairs that they were invited to send delegates. The first Diet in which they participated was held at Worms in February, 1255, by King William of Holland. Most of the cities of the Rhenish League were there represented, and they constituted an important factor of the assembly. The affairs of the church shared attention with temporal affairs in the Diets until the Popes succeeded in making good their claims to supremacy in spiritual matters. Thereafter they were altogether left to synods and church councils. … Imperial Diets and Court Diets continued to be held at irregular intervals, whenever and wherever it pleased the king to convene them, but Imperial Diets were usually held in Imperial cities. These were not such heterogenous assemblies as formerly, for few royal vassals, except princes, and no royal Dienstmannen whatever were now invited to attend. Graves and barons, and prelates who were not princes, continued to be summoned, but the number and influence of the Graves and barons in the Diets steadily waned. Imperial cities were for many years only occasionally asked to participate, that is to say, only when the king had especial need of their good offices, but in the latter half of the 14th century they began to be regularly summoned. {661} Imperial Diets were so frequently held during the Hussite War and thereafter, that it became pretty well settled what persons and what cities should take part in them, and only those persons and those cities that were entitled to take part in them were regarded as Estates of the realm. In the 15th century they developed into three chambers or colleges, viz., the College of Electors [see GERMANY: A. D. 1125-1152], the College of Princes, Graves, and Barons, usually called the Council of Princes of the Empire (Reichsfürstenrath), and the College of Imperial Cities. The Archbishop of Mentz presided in the College of Electors, and the Archbishop of Salzburg and the Duke of Austria presided alternately in the Council of Princes of the Empire. The office of presiding in the College of Imperial Cities devolved upon the Imperial city in which the Diet sat. The king and members of both the upper Colleges sometimes sent deputies to represent them, instead of attending in person. In 1474 the cities adopted a method of voting which resulted in a division of their College into two Benches, called the Rhenish Bench and the Swabian Bench, because the Rhenish cities were conspicuous members of the one, and the Swabian cities conspicuous members of the other. In the Council of Princes, at least, no regard was had to the number of votes cast, but only to the power and influence of the voters, whence a measure might pass the Diet by less than a majority of the votes present. Having passed, it was proclaimed as the law of the realm, upon receiving the king's assent, but was only effective law in so far as the members of the Diet, present or absent, assented to it. … Not a single Imperial Diet was summoned between 1613 and 1640. The king held a few Court Diets during that long interval, consisting either of the Electors alone, or of the Electors and such other Princes of the Empire as he chose to summon. The conditions of membership, and the manner of voting in the College of Electors and the College of Imperial Cities remained unchanged. … The cities long strove in vain to have their votes recognized as of equal weight with the others, but the two upper Colleges insisted on regarding them as summoned for consultation only, until the Peace of Westphalia settled the matter by declaring that 'a decisive vote (votum decisivum) shall belong to the Free Imperial Cities not less than to the rest of the Estates of the Empire.' Generally, but not always, the sense of each College was expressed by the majority of votes cast. The Peace of Westphalia provided that 'in religious matters and all other business, when the Estates cannot be considered one body (corpus), as also when the Catholic Estates and those of the Augsburg Confession go into two parts (in duas partes euntibus), a mere amicable agreement shall settle the differences without regard to majority of votes.' When the 'going into parts,' (itio in partes) took place each College deliberated in two bodies, the Corpus Catholicorum and the Corpus Evangelicorum. The king no longer attended the Imperial Diets in person, but sent commissioners instead, and it was now the common practice of members of both the upper Colleges to send deputies to represent them."

"The establishment of a permanent diet, attended, not by the electors in person, but by their representatives, is one of the most striking peculiarities of Leopold's reign" (Leopold I., 1657-1705). This came about rather accidentally than with intention, as a consequence of the unusual prolongation of the session of a general diet which Rudolph convoked at Ratisbon, soon after his accession to the throne. "'So many new and important objects … occurred in the course of the deliberations that the diet was unusually prolonged, and at last rendered perpetual, as it exists at present, and distinguishes the Germanic constitution as the only one of its kind—not only for a certain length of time, as was formerly, and as diets are generally held in other countries, where there are national states; but the diet of the Germanic empire was established by this event for ever. The diet acquired by this circumstance an entirely different form. So long as it was only of short duration, it was always expected that the emperor, as well as the electors, princes, counts and prelates, if not all, yet the greatest part of them, should attend in person. … It is true, it had long been customary at the diets of Germany, for the states to deliver their votes occasionally by means of plenipotentiaries; but it was then considered only as an exception, whereas it was now established as a general rule, that all the states should send their plenipotentiaries, and never appear themselves. … The whole diet, therefore, imperceptibly acquired the form of a congress, consisting solely of ministers, similar in a great degree to a congress where several powers send their envoys to treat of peace. In other respects, it may be compared to a congress held in the name of several states in perpetual alliance with each other, as in Switzerland, the United Provinces, and as somewhat of a similar nature exists at present in North America; but with this difference,—that in Germany the assembly is held under the authority of one common supreme head, and that the members do not appear merely as deputies, or representatives invested with full power by their principals, which is only the case with the imperial cities; but so that every member of the two superior colleges of the empire is himself an actual sovereign of a state, who permits his minister to deliver his vote in his name and only according to his prescription.'"

      S. A. Dunham,
      History of the Germanic Empire,
      book 3, chapter 3 (volume 3)—(quoting Putter's Historical
      Development of the Germanic Constitution.)

   Of the later Diet, of the Germanic Confederation, something
   may be learned under GERMANY: A. D. 1814-1820, and 1848
   (MARCH-SEPTEMBER).

DIGITI.

Dijon, the old capital of the Dukes of Burgundy, was originally a strong camp-city—an "urbs quadrata"—of the Romans, known as the Castrum Divionense. Its walls were 30 feet high, 15 feet thick, and strengthened with 33 towers.

DIMETIA.

In the 15th century, down to the year 1466, Dinant was a populous and thriving town. It was included in the little state of the prince-bishop of Liege, and was involved in the war of the Duke of Burgundy with Liege, which ruined both Liege and Dinant. "It was inhabited by a race of industrious artisans, preëminent for their skill in the manufacture of copper. The excellence of their workmanship is attested by existing specimens—organ-screens, baptismal fonts, and other ecclesiastical decorations. But the fame of Dinant had been chiefly spread by its production of more common and useful articles, especially of kitchen utensils,—'pots and pans and similar wares,'—which, under the name of 'Dinanderie,' were known to housewives throughout Europe." In the course of the war a party of rude young men from Dinant gave deep, unforgivable provocation to the Duke of Burgundy by caricaturing and questioning the paternity of his son, the count of Charolais, afterwards Duke Charles the Bold. To avenge this insult nothing less than the destruction of the whole city would satisfy the implacable and ferocious Burgundians. It was taken by the count of Charolais in August, 1466. His first proceeding was to sack the town, in the most thorough and deliberate manner. Then 800 of the more obnoxious citizens were tied together in pairs and drowned in the Meuse, while others were hanged. This accomplished, the surviving women, children and priests were expelled from the town and sent empty-handed to Liege, while the men were condemned to slavery, with the privilege of ransoming themselves at a heavy price, if they found anywhere the means. Finally, the torch was applied, Dinant was burned, and contractors were subsequently employed by the Duke for several months, to demolish the ruins and remove the very materials of which the city had been built.

Pericles "was the proposer of the law [at Athens] which instituted the 'Dioboly,' or free gift of two obols to each poor citizen, to enable him to pay the entrance-money at the theatre during the Dionysia."

DIOCESES OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE.

"The civil government of the empire was distributed [under Constantine and his successors] into thirteen great dioceses, each of which equalled the just measure of a powerful kingdom. The first of these dioceses was subject to the jurisdiction of the Count of the East. The place of Augustal Præfect of Egypt was no longer filled by a Roman knight, but the name was retained. … The eleven remaining dioceses—of Asiana, Pontica, and Thrace; of Macedonia, Dacia and Pannonia, or Western Illyricum; of Italy and Africa; of Gaul, Spain, and Britain—were governed by twelve vicars or vice-præfects."

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 17. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

"The ceremony of his abdication was performed in a spacious plain about three miles from Nicomedia [May 1, A. D. 305]. The Emperor ascended a lofty throne, and, in a speech full of reason and dignity, declared his intention, both to the people and to the soldiers who were assembled on this extraordinary occasion. As soon as lie had divested himself of the purple, he withdrew from the gazing multitude, and, traversing the city in a covered chariot, proceeded without delay to the favourite retirement [Salona] which he had chosen in his native country of Dalmatia."

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 13. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

A code of laws framed at Syracuse, immediately after the Athenian siege, by a commission of ten citizens the chief of whom was one Dioklês. These laws were extinguished in a few years by the Dyonisian tyranny, but revived after a lapse of sixty years. The code is "also said to have been copied in various other Sicilian cities, and to have remained in force until the absorption of all Sicily under the dominion of the Romans."

DIONYSIA AT ATHENS.

"The four principal Attik Dionysiak festivals were (1) the Dionysia Mikra, the Lesser or Rural Dionysia; (2) the Dionysia Lenaia; (3) the Anthesteria; and (4) the Dionysia Megala, the Greater or City Dionysia. The Rural Dionysia, celebrated yearly in the month Posideon (December-January) throughout the various townships of Attike, was presided over by the demarch or mayor. The celebration occasioned a kind of rustic carnival, distinguished like almost all Bakchik festivals, by gross intemperance and licentiousness, and during which slaves enjoyed a temporary freedom, with licence to insult their superiors and behave in a boisterous and disorderly manner. It is brought vividly before us in the 'Acharnes' of Aristophanes. … The Anthesteria, or Feast of Flowers, celebrated yearly in the month Anthesterion (February-March), … lasted for three days, the first of which was called Pithoigia, or Tap-barrel-day, on which they opened the casks and tried the wine of the previous year. … The Dionysia Megala, the Greater or City Dionysia, celebrated yearly in the month Elaphebolion (March-April) was presided over by the Archon Eponymos, so-called because the year was registered in his name, and who was first of the nine. The order of the solemnities was as follows: I. The great public procession. II. The chorus of Youths. III. The Komos, or band of Dionysiak revellers, whose ritual is best illustrated in Milton's exquisite poem. IV. The representation of Comedy and Tragedy; for at Athenai the stage was religion and the theatre a temple. At the time of this great festival the capital was filled with rustics from the country townships, and strangers from all parts of Hellas and the outer world."

DISRAELI-DERBY AND BEACONSFIELD MINISTRIES.

DISRUPTION OF THE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND.

DISSENTERS, OR NONCONFORMISTS, English:
   First bodies organized.
   Persecutions under Charles II. and Anne.
   Removal of Disabilities.

DIVODURUM.

DIWANI.

DOBUNI, The.
A tribe of ancient Britons who held a region between the two
Avons.

DOCETISM.

"We note another phase of gnosticism in the doctrine so directly and warmly combated in the epistles of John: we refer to docetism—that is, the theory which refused to recognize the reality of the human body of Christ."

      E. Reuss,
      History of Christian Theology in the Apostolic Age,
      page 323.

DODONA.

DOGE.

DOKIMASIA.

"All magistrates [in ancient Athens] whether elected by cheirotonia or by lot, were compelled, before entering upon their office, to subject themselves to a Dokimasia, or scrutiny into their fitness for the post."

DÖLICHOCEPHALIC MEN.

A term used in ethnology, signifying "long-headed," as distinguishing one class of skulls among the remains of primitive men, from another class called brachycephalic, or "broad-headed."

DOLMENS.

DOMESDAY, OR DOOMSDAY BOOK.

DOMINICANS.

DOMINION OF CANADA.-DOMINION DAY.

DOMINUS.

DON JOHN OF AUSTRIA.

DONALD BANE, King of Scotland, A. D. 1093-1098
(expelled during part of the period by Duncan II.)

DONATION OF CONSTANTINE.

DONATION OF THE COUNTESS MATILDA.

DONATIONS OF PEPIN AND CHARLEMAGNE.

"The Donatist controversy was not one of doctrine, but of ecclesiastical discipline; the contested election for the archbishopric of Carthage. Two competitors, Cecilius and Donatus, had been concurrently elected while the church was yet in a depressed state, and Africa subject to the tyrant Maxentius [A. D. 306-312]. Scarcely had Constantine subdued that province, when the two rivals referred their dispute to him. Constantine, who still publicly professed paganism, but had shown himself very favourable to the Christians, instituted a careful examination of their respective claims, which lasted from the year 312 to 315, and finally decided in favour of Cecilius. Four hundred African bishops protested against this decision; from that time they were designated by the name of Donatists. … In compliance with an order of the emperor, solicited by Cecilius, the property of the Donatists was seized and transferred to the antagonist body of the clergy. They revenged themselves by pronouncing sentence of excommunication against all the rest of the Christian world. … Persecution on one side and fanaticism on the other were perpetuated through three centuries, up to the period of the extinction of Christianity in Africa. The wandering preachers of the Donatist faction had no other means of living than the alms of their flocks. … As might be expected, they outdid each other in extravagance, and soon gave in to the most frantic ravings: thousands of peasants, drunk with the effect of these exhortations, forsook their ploughs and fled to the deserts of Getulia. Their bishops, assuming the title of captains of the saints, put themselves at their head, and they rushed onward, carrying death and desolation into the adjacent provinces: they were distinguished by the name of Circumcelliones: Africa was devastated by their ravages."

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY:
      KENTUCKY-TENNESSEE).

DONUM.

DONZELLO.

"These laws were republished by King Alfred as 'The Dooms of Ine' who [Ine] came to the throne in A. D. 688. In their first clause they claim to have been recorded by King Ine with the counsel and teaching of his father Cenred and of Hedde, his bishop (who was Bishop of Winchester from A. D. 676 to 705) and of Eorcenweld, his bishop (who obtained the see of London in 675); and so, if genuine, they seem to represent what was settled customary law in Wessex during the last half of the seventh century."

DOOMSDAY, OR DOMESDAY BOOK.

"Out of the great Pelasgian population [see PELASGIANS], which covered Anterior Asia Minor and the whole European peninsular land, a younger people had issued forth separately, which we find from the first divided into two races. These main races we may call, according to the two dialects of the Greek language, the Dorian and the Ionian, although these names are not generally used until a later period to designate the division of the Hellenic nation. No division of so thorough a bearing could have taken place unless accompanied by an early local separation. We assume that the two races parted company while yet in Asia Minor. One of them settles in the mountain-cantons of Northern Hellas, the other along the Asiatic coast. In the latter the historic movement begins. With the aid of the art of navigation, learnt from the Phœnicians the Asiatic Greeks at an early period spread over the sea; domesticating themselves in lower Egypt, in countries colonized by the Phœnicians, in the whole Archipelago, from Crete to Thrace; and from their original as well as from their subsequent seats send out numerous settlements to the coast of European Greece, first from the East side, next, after conquering their timidity, also taking in the country, beyond Cape Malea from the West. At first they land as pirates and enemies, then proceed to permanent settlements in gulfs and straits of the sea, and by the mouths of rivers, where they unite with the Pelasgian population. The different periods of this colonization may be judged of by the forms of divine worship, and by the names under which the maritime tribes were called by the natives. Their rudest appearance is as Carians; as Leleges their influence is more beneficent and permanent."

In the view of Dr. Curtius, the later migration of Ionian tribes from Southern Greece to the coasts of Asia Minor,—which is an undoubted historic fact,—was really a return "into the home of their ancestors"—"the ancient home of the great Ionic race." Whether that be the true view or not, the movement in question was connected, apparently, with important movements among the Dorian Greeks in Greece itself. These latter, according to all accounts, and the agreement of all historians, were long settled in Thessaly, at the foot of Olympus (see GREECE: THE MIGRATIONS). It was there that their moral and political development began; there that they learned to look at Olympus as the home of the gods, which all Greeks afterwards learned to do from them. "The service rendered by the Dorian tribe," says Dr. Curtius, "lay in having carried the germs of national culture out of Thessaly, where the invasion of ruder peoples disturbed and hindered their farther growth, into the land towards the south, where these germs received an unexpectedly new and grand development. … A race claiming descent from Heracles united itself in this Thessalian coast-district with the Dorians and established a royal dominion among them. Ever afterwards Heraclidæ and Dorians remained together, but without ever forgetting the original distinction between them. In their seats by Olympus the foundations were laid of the peculiarity of the Dorians in political order and social customs; at the foot of Olympus was their real home."-

From the neighborhood of Olympus the Dorians moved southwards and found another home in "the fertile mountain-recess between Parnassus and Œta, … the most ancient Doris known to us by name." Their final movement was into Peloponnesus, which was "the most important and the most fertile in consequences of all the migrations of Grecian races, and which continued, even to the latest periods to exert its influence upon the Greek character." Thenceforwards the Dorians were the dominant race in Peloponnesus, and to their chief state, Lacedæmonia, or Sparta, was generally conceded the headship of the Hellenic family. This Doric occupation of Peloponnesus, the period of which is supposed to have been about 1100 B. C., no doubt caused the Ionic migration from that part of Greece and colonization of Asia Minor.

The subsequent division of the Hellenic world between Ionians and Dorians is thus defined by Schömann: "To the Ionians belong the inhabitants of Attica, the most important part of the population of Eubœa, and the islands of the Ægean included under the common name of Cyclades, as well as the colonists both on the Lydian and Carian coasts of Asia Minor and in the two larger islands Of Chios and Samos which lie opposite. To the Dorians within the Peloponnese belong the Spartans, as well as the dominant populations of Argos, Sicyon, Philus, Corinth, Troezene and Epidaurus, together with the island of Ægina; outside the Peloponnese, but nearest to it, were the Megarid, and the small Dorian Tetrapolis [also called Pentapolis and Tripolis] near Mount Parnassus; at a greater distance were the majority of the scattered islands and a large portion of the Carian coasts of Asia Minor and the neighbouring islands, of which Cos and Rhodes were the most important. Finally, the ruling portion of the Cretan population was of Dorian descent."

      See, also,
      GREECE: THE MIGRATIONS; ASIA MINOR:
      THE GREEK COLONIES; HERACLIDÆ; SPARTA;
      and ÆOLIANS.

DORIS AND DRYOPIS.

"The little territory [in ancient Greece] called Doris and Dryopis occupied the southern declivity of Mount Œta, dividing Phokis on the north and northwest from the Ætolians, Ænianes and Malians. That which was called Doris in the historical times, and which reached in the times of Herodotus nearly as far eastward as the Maliac gulf, is said to have formed a part of what had been once called Dryopis; a territory which had comprised the summit of Œta as far as the Sperchius, northward, and which had been inhabited by an old Hellenic tribe called Dryopes. The Dorians acquired their settlement in Dryopis by gift from Hêraklês, who, along with the Malians (so ran the legend), had expelled the Dryopes and compelled them to find for themselves new seats at Hermionê, and Asinê, in the Argolic peninsula of Peloponnesus,—at Styra and Karystus in Eubœa,—and in the island of Kythnus; it is only in these five last-mentioned places that history recognizes them. The territory of Doris was distributed into four little townships,—Pindus, or Akyphas, Bœon, Kytinion and Erineon. … In itself this tetrapolis is so insignificant that we shall rarely find occasion to mention it; but it acquired a factitious consequence by being regarded as the metropolis of the great Dorian cities in Peloponnesus, and receiving on that ground special protection from Sparta."

ALSO IN: C. O. Müller, History and Antiquity of the Doric Race, book 1, chapter 2.

"In the low-countries the supreme government, the states-general, interfered [in the Calvinistic controversy], and in the year 1618 convoked the first and only synod bearing something of the character of a general council that has been convened by protestants. It assembled at Dort, and continued its sittings from November till May following. Its business was to decide the questions at issue between the Calvinists and Arminians; the latter party were also termed remonstrants. James [I.] was requested to send over representatives for the English Church, and chose four divines:—Carlton bishop of Llandaff, Hall dean of Worcester, afterwards bishop successively of Exeter and Norwich, Davenant afterwards bishop of Salisbury, and Dr. S. Ward of Cambridge. They were men of learning and moderation. … The history of this famous synod is told in various ways. Its decisions were in favour of the doctrines termed Calvinistic, and the remonstrants were expelled from Holland. … The majority were even charged by the other party with having bound themselves by an oath before they entered upon business, to condemn the remonstrants."

DOUBLOON. DOBLON.

DOUGHFACES.

The "Missouri Compromise," of 1820, in the United States, "was a Northern measure, carried by Northern votes. With some the threats of disunion were a sufficient influence; some, whom in the debate Randolph [John Randolph, of Virginia] called doughfaces, did not need even that. … There has been always a singular servility in the character of a portion of the American people. In that class the slaveholder has always found his Northern servitor. Randolph first gave it a name to live by in the term doughface."

W. C. Bryant and S. H. Gay, Popular History of the United States, volume 4, pages 270 and 294.

DRACHMA.

DRACONIAN LAWS.

DRAGON. PENDRAGON.

A title sometimes given in Welsh poetry to a king or great military leader. Supposed to be derived from the figure of a dragon on their flags, which they borrowed from the Romans.

DRAVIDIAN RACES.

DRESDEN: A. D. 1813.
   Occupied by the Prussians and Russians.
   Taken by the French.
   Invested by the Allies.
   Great battle before the city and victory for Napoleon.
   French reverses.
   St Cyr's surrender.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1812-1813; 1813 (APRIL-MAY); (AUGUST); (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER); and (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 53. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

DRUIDS.

The priesthood of a religion which existed among the Celts of Gaul and Britain before they were Christianized. "Greek and Roman writers give us very little information on this subject and the early Welsh records and poetry none at all. Modern Welsh writers have, however, made up for this want in their genuine literature by inventing an elaborate Druidical system of religion and philosophy which, they pretend, survived the introduction of Christianity and was secretly upheld by the Welsh bards in the Middle Ages. This Neo-Druidic imposture has found numerous adherents."

"Pliny, alluding to the Druids' predilection for groves of oak, adds the words: 'ut inde appellati quoque interpretatione Græca possint Druidæ videri.' … Had he possessed knowledge enough of the Gaulish language, he would have seen that it supplied an explanation which rendered it needless to have recourse to Greek, namely in the native word 'dru,' which we have in 'Drunemeton,' or the sacred Oak-grove, given by Strabo as the name of the place of assembly of the Galatians. In fact, one has, if I am not mistaken, been skeptic with regard to this etymology, not so much on phonological grounds as from failing exactly to see how the oak could have given its name to such a famous organization as the druidic one must be admitted to have been. But the parallels just indicated, as showing the importance of the sacred tree in the worship of Zeus and the gods representing him among nations other than the Greek one, help to throw some light on this point. According to the etymology here alluded to, the Druids would be the priests of the god associated or identified with the oak; that is, as we are told, the god who seemed to those who were familiar with the pagan theology of the Greeks, to stand in the same position in Gaulish theology that Zeus did in the former. This harmonizes thoroughly with all that is known about the Druids."

      J. Rhys,
      Hibbert Lectures, 1886, on Celtic Heathendom,
      lecture 2, part 2.

"Our traditions of the Scottish and Irish Druids are evidently derived from a time when Christianity had long been established. These insular Druids are represented as being little better than conjurors, and their dignity is as much diminished as the power of the king is exaggerated. … He is a Pharaoh or Belshazzar with a troop of wizards at his command; but his Druids are sorcerers and rain-doctors. … The Druids of Strabo's description walked in scarlet and gold brocade and wore golden collars and bracelets; but their doctrines may have been much the same as those of the soothsayers by the Severn, the Irish medicine-men or those rustic wizards by the Loire. … After the conversion of Ireland was accomplished the Druids disappear from history. Their mystical powers were transferred without much alteration to the abbots and bishops who ruled the 'families of the saints.'"

For an account of the final destruction of the Druids, in their last retreat, on the island of Mona, or Anglesey,

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (MAY: VIRGINIA)
      THE ARMY OF THE JAMES.

One of the aboriginal nations of ancient Greece, whose territory was in the valley of the Spercheus and extended as far as Parnassus and Thermopylæ; but who were afterwards widely dispersed in many colonies. It is, says C. O. Müller, "historically certain that a great part of the Dryopians were consecrated as a subject people to the Pythian Apollo (an usage of ancient times, of which there are many instances) and that for a long time they served as such."

DUBH GALLS.

      See IRELAND: 9TH-10TH CENTURIES:
      also NORMANS.
      NORTHMEN: 8TH-9TH CENTURIES.

"In the middle of the 18th century it was in dimensions and population the second city in the empire, containing, according to the most trustworthy accounts, between 100,000 and 120,000 inhabitants. Like most things in Ireland, it presented vivid contrasts, and strangers were equally struck with the crowds of beggars, the inferiority of the inns, the squalid wretchedness of the streets of the old town, and with the noble proportions of the new quarter, and the brilliant and hospitable society that inhabited it. The Liffey was spanned by four bridges, and another on a grander scale was undertaken in 1753. St. Stephen's Green was considered the largest square in Europe. The quays of Dublin were widely celebrated."

DUBRIS, OR DUBRÆ.

The Roman port on the east coast of Britain which is now known as Dover. In Roman times, as now, it was the principal landing-place on the British side of the channel.

DUCES.

DU GUESCLIN'S CAMPAIGNS:

"These people [tribes of the ancient Germans] first resided near the head of the Lippe, and then removed to the settlements of the Chamavi and the Angrevarii, who had expelled the Bructeri."

Dumbarton Castle, held by the party of Mary Queen of Scots, in the civil war which followed her deposition and detention in England, was captured in 1571, for the regent Lennox, by an extraordinary act of daring on the part of one Capt. Crawford.

"It is … a remarkable circumstance that the Dumnonii, whom we find in the time of Ptolemy occupying the whole of the southwestern extremity of Britain, including both Devonshire and Cornwall, and who must therefore have been one of the most powerful nations in the island, are never once mentioned in the history of the conquest of the country by the Romans; nor is their name found in any writer before Ptolemy. … The conjecture of Mr. Beale Poste … that they were left in nominal independence under a native king … appears to me highly probable."

There appears to have been a northern branch of the Dumnonii or Damnonii, which held an extensive territory on the Clyde and the Forth.

      See FRANCE:
      A. D. 1792 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER);
      1792-1793; and 1793 (FEBRUARY-APRIL).

The fortress of Dunbar, besieged by the English under the Earl of Salisbury in 1339, was successfully defended in the absence of the governor, the Earl of March, by his wife, known afterwards in Scotch history and tradition as "Black Agnes of Dunbar."

DUNDEE (CLAVERHOUSE) AND THE COVENANTERS.

DUNKIRK: A. D. 1646.
   Siege and capture by the French.
   Importance of the port.
   Its harborage of pirates.

DUNMORE'S WAR.

DUPLEIX AND THE FRENCH IN INDIA.

   The humiliating treaty of peace concluded with the Persians,
   A. D. 363, after the defeat and death of the Roman emperor
   Julian, by his successor Jovian.

DURBAR, OR DARBAR.

An audience room in the palace of an East Indian prince. Hence applied to a formal audience or levee given by the governor-general of India, or by one of the native princes.

DUROBRIVÆ.

A name given to two Roman towns in Britain; one of which has been identified with modern Rochester, the other with the town of Castor, near Peterborough.

DUROBRIVIAN WARE.

DUROCOBRIVÆ.

An important market-town in Roman Britain, supposed to have been situated at or near modern Dunstable.

DUROTRIGES.

One of the tribes of ancient Britain whose home was in the modern county of Dorset.

DUROVERNUM.

A Roman town in Britain, identified with the modern
Canterbury. Durovernum was destroyed by the Jutes in 455.

DUTCH EAST INDIA COMPANY.

DUTCH GAP CANAL.

DUTCH WEST INDIA COMPANY.

DYVED.

EADMUND, EADWINE, ETC.

EALDORMAN.

"The chieftains of the first settlers in our own island bore no higher title than Ealdorman or Heretoga. … The name of Ealdorman is one of a large class; among a primitive people age implies command and command implies age; hence in a somewhat later stage of language the elders are simply the rulers and the eldest are the highest in rank, without any thought of the number of years which they may really have lived. It is not perfectly clear in what the authority or dignity of the King exceeded that of the Ealdorman. … Even the smallest Kingdom was probably formed by the union of the districts of several Ealdormen."

"The organisation of the shire was of much the same character as that of the hundred [each shire containing, however, a number of hundreds], but it was ruled by an ealdorman as well as by a gerefa, and in some other respects bore evidence of its previous existence as an independent unity. Its gemot was not only the scir-gemot but the folc-gemot also, the assembly of the people; its ealdorman commanded not merely the military force of the hundreds, but the lords of the franchises and the church vassals with their men. Its gerefa or sheriff collected the fiscal us well as the local imposts. Its ealdorman was one of the king's witan. The ealdorman, the princeps of Tacitus, and princeps, or satrapa, or subregulus of Bede, the dux of the Latin chroniclers and the comes of the Normans, was originally elected in the general assembly of the nation. … The hereditary principle appears however in the early days of the kingdom as well as in those of Edward the Confessor; in the case of an under-kingdom being annexed to a greater the old royal dynasty seems to have continued to hand down its delegated authority from father to son. The under-kings of Hwiccia thus continued to act as ealdormen under Mercia for a century; and the ealdormanship of the Gyrwas or fen-countrymen seems likewise to have been hereditary. The title of ealdorman is thus much older than the existing division of shires, nor was it ever the rule for every shire to have an ealdorman to itself as it had its sheriff. … But each shire was under an ealdorman, who sat with the sheriff and bishop in the folkmoot, received a third part of the profits of the jurisdiction, and commanded the military force of the whole division. From the latter character he derived the name of heretoga, leader of the host ('here'), or dux, which is occasionally given him in charters."

EARL.

"The title of earl had begun to supplant that of ealdorman in the reign of Ethelred; and the Danish jarl, from whom its use in this sense was borrowed, seems to have been more certainly connected by the tie of comitatus with his king than the Anglo-Saxon ealdorman need be supposed to have been."

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (MAY-JUNE: VIRGINIA);
      (JULY: VIRGINIA-MARYLAND);
      (AUGUST-OCTOBER: VIRGINIA);
      and 1865 (FEBRUARY-MARCH: VIRGINIA).

"In the second year of the reign of Valentinian and Valens [A. D. 365], on the morning of the 21st day of July, the greater part of the Roman world was shaken by a violent and destructive earthquake. The impression was communicated to the waters; the shores of the Mediterranean were left dry by the sudden retreat of the sea. … But the tide soon returned with the weight of an immense and irresistible deluge, which was severely felt on the coasts of Sicily, of Dalmatia, of Greece and of Egypt. … The city of Alexandria annually commemorated the fatal day on which 50,000 persons had lost their lives in the inundation."

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 26. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

EAST ANGLIA.

The kingdom formed in Britain by that body of the Angles which settled in the eastern district now embraced in the counties of Norfolk and Suffolk (North-folk and South-folk).

EAST INDIA COMPANY, The English: A. D. 1600-1702.
Its rise and early undertakings.

EAST INDIA COMPANY: A. D. 1773.
Constitution of the Company changed by the Acts of Lord North.

EAST INDIA COMPANY: A. D. 1813-1833.-
Deprived of its monopoly of trade.
Reconstitution of government.

"For a number of generations in Europe there has been one question that, carelessly or maliciously touched upon, has never failed to stimulate strife and discord among the nations. This is 'the Eastern Question,' the problem how to settle the disputes, political and religious, in the east of Europe."

The first occasion in European politics on which the problems of the Ottoman empire received the name of the Eastern Question seems to have been that connected with the revolt of Mehemet Ali in 1831 (see TURKS: A. D. 1831-1840). M. Guizot, in his "Memoirs," when referring to that complication, employs the term, and remarks: "I say the Eastern Question, for this was in fact the name given by all the world to the quarrel between the Sultan Mahmoud, and his subject the Pacha of Egypt, Mehemet Ali. Why was this sounding title applied to a local contest? Egypt is not the whole Ottoman empire. The Ottoman empire is not the entire East. The rebellion, even the dismemberment of a province, cannot comprise the fate of a sovereignty. The great states of Western Europe have alternately lost or acquired, either by internal dissension or war, considerable territories; yet under the aspect of these circumstances no one has spoken of the Western question. Why then has a term never used in the territorial crises of Christian Europe, been considered and admitted to be perfectly natural and legitimate when the Ottoman empire is in argument? It is that there is at present in the Ottoman empire no local or partial question. If a shock is felt in a corner of the edifice, if a single stone is detached, the entire building appears to be, and is in fact, ready to fall. … The Egyptian question was in 1839 the question of the Ottoman empire itself. And the question of the Ottoman empire is in reality the Eastern question, not only of the European but of the Asiatic East; for Asia is now the theatre of the leading ambitions and rivalries of the great powers of Europe; and the Ottoman empire is the highway, the gate, and the key of Asia."

F. P. Guizot, Memoirs to Illustrate the History of My Own Time, volume 4, page 322.

   The several occasions since 1840 on which the Eastern Question
   has troubled Europe may be found narrated under the following
   captions:

      RUSSIA: A. D. 1853-1854, to 1854-1856;
      TURKS: A. D. 1861-1877, 1877-1878, and 1878;
      also BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES.

Among English writers, the term "the Eastern Question" has acquired a larger meaning, which takes in questions connected with the advance of Russia upon the Afghan and Persian frontiers.

A great and disastrous battle of the Germans with the Danes, or Northmen, fought February 2, 880. The Germans were terribly beaten, and nearly all who survived the fight were swept away into captivity and slavery. The slain received "martyrs' honours; and their commemoration was celebrated in the Sachsen-land churches till comparatively recent times. An unexampled sorrow was created throughout Saxony by this calamity, which, for a time, exhausted the country; —Scandinavia and Jutland and the Baltic isles resounded with exultation."

EBBSFLEET.

The supposed first landing-place in Britain of the Jutes, under Hengest, A. D. 449 or 450, when English history, as English, begins. It was also the landing-place, A. D. 597, of Augustine and his fellow missionaries when they entered the island to undertake the conversion of its new inhabitants to Christianity. Ebbsfleet is in the Isle of Thanet, at the mouth of the Thames.

EBIONISM.

The heresy (so branded) of a sect of Jewish Christians, which spread somewhat extensively in the second, third and fourth centuries. "The characteristic marks of Ebionism in all its forms are: degradation of Christianity to the level of Judaism; the principle of the universal and perpetual validity of the Mosaic law; and enmity to the apostle Paul." The name of the Ebionites came from a Hebrew word signifying "poor."

P. Schaff, History of the Christian Church, second period, chapter 4, section 68.

EBORACUM, OR EBURACUM.

The military capital of Roman Britain, and afterwards of the Anglian kingdoms of Deira and Northumbria. In Old English its name became Eorforwick, whence, by further corruption, resulted the modern English name York. The city was one of considerable splendor in Roman times, containing the imperial palace with many temples and other imposing buildings.

The Eburones were a strong Germanic tribe, who occupied in Cæsar's time the country between Liége and Cologne, and whose ancestors were said to have formed part of the great migrant horde of the Cimbri and Teutones. Under a young chief, Ambiorix, they had taken the lead in the formidable revolt which occurred among the Belgic tribes, B. C. 54-53. Cæsar, when he had suppressed the revolt, determined to bring destruction on the Eburones, and he executed his purpose in a singular manner. He circulated a proclamation through all the neighboring parts of Gaul and Germany, declaring the Eburones to be traitors to Rome and outlaws, and offering them and their goods as common prey to any who would fall on them. This drew the surrounding barbarians like vultures to a feast, and the wretched Eburones were soon hunted out of existence. Their name disappeared from the annals of Gaul.

ECBATANA.

"The Southern Ecbatana or Agbatana,—which the Medes and Persians themselves knew as Hagmatán,—was situated, as we learn from Polybius and Diodorus, on a plain at the foot of Mount Orontes, a little to the east of the Zagros range. The notices of these authors … and others, render it as nearly certain as possible that the site was that of the modern town of Hamadan. … The Median capital has never yet attracted a scientific expedition. … The chief city of northern Media, which bore in later times the names of Gaza, Gazaca, or Canzaca, is thought to have been also called Ecbatana, and to have been occasionally mistaken by the Greeks for the southern or real capital."

ECCLESIA.
The general legislative assembly of citizens in ancient Athens
and Sparta.

In the later period of the Hundred Years War, after the death of the Maid of Orleans, when the English were being driven from France and the authority of the king was not yet established, lawless violence prevailed widely. "Adventurers spread themselves over the provinces under a name, 'the Skinners,' Les Ecorcheurs, which sufficiently betokens the savage nature of their outrages, if we trace it to even its mildest derivation, stripping shirts, not skins."

ECTHESIS OF HERACLIUS.

ECUADOR:
The aboriginal kingdom of Quito and its conquest by the
Peruvians and the Spaniards.

"Of the old Quitu nation which inhabited the highlands to the north and south of the present capital, nothing is known to tradition but the name of its last king, Quitu, after whom his subjects were probably called. His domains were invaded and conquered by the nation of the Caras, or Carans, who had come by sea in balsas (rafts) from parts unknown. These Caras, or Carans, established the dynasty of the Scyris at Quito, and extended their conquests to the north and south, until checked by the warlike nation of the Puruhas, who inhabited the present district of Riobamba. … In the reign of Hualcopo Duchicela, the 13th Scyri, the Peruvian Incas commenced to extend their conquests to the north. … About the middle of the 15th century the Inca Tupac Yupanqui, father of Huaynacapac, invaded the dominions of the Scyris, and after many bloody battles and sieges, conquered the kingdom of Puruha and returned in triumph to Cuzco. Hualcopo survived his loss but a few years. He is said to have died of grief, and was succeeded by his son Cacha, the 15th and last of the Scyris. Cacha Duchicela at once set out to recover his paternal dominions. Although of feeble health, he seems to have been a man of great energy and intrepidity. He fell upon the garrison which the Inca had left at Mocha, put it to the sword, and reoccupied the kingdom of Puruha, where he was received with open arms. He even carried his banners further south, until checked by the Cañares, the inhabitants of what is now the district of Cuenca, who had voluntarily submitted to the Inca, and now detained the Scyri until Huaynacapac, the greatest of the Inca dynasty, came to their rescue." On the plain of Tiocajas, and again on the plain of Hatuntaqui, great battles were fought, in both of which the Scyri was beaten, and in the last of which he fell. "On the very field of battle the faithful Caranquis proclaimed Pacha, the daughter of the fallen king, as their Scyri. Huaynacapac now regulated his conduct by policy. He ordered the dead king to be buried with all the honors due to royalty, and made offers of marriage to young Pacha, by whom he was not refused. … The issue of the marriage was Atahuallpa, the last of the native rulers of Peru. … {671} As prudent and highly politic as the conduct of Huaynacapac is generally reputed to have been, so imprudent and unpolitic was the division of the empire which he made on his death bed, bequeathing his paternal dominions to his first-born and undoubtedly legitimate son, Huascar, and to Atahuallpa the kingdom of Quito. He might have foreseen the evil consequences of such a partition. His death took place about the year 1525. For five or seven years the brothers lived in peace." Then quarrels arose, leading to civil war, resulting in the defeat and death of Huascar. Atahuallpa had just become master of the weakened and shaken empire of the Incas, when the invading Spaniards, under Pizarro, fell on the doomed land and made its riches their own. The conquest of the Spaniards did not include the kingdom of Quito at first, but was extended to the latter in 1533 by Sebastian de Benalcazar, whom Pizarro had put in command of the Port of San Miguel. Excited by stories of the riches of Quito, and invited by ambassadors from the Canares, the old enemies of the Quito tribes, Benalcazar, "without orders or permission from Pizarro … left San Miguel, at the head of about 150 men. His second in command was the monster Juan de Ampudia." The fate of Quito was again decided on the plain of Tiocajas, where Rumiñagui, a chief who had seized the vacant throne, made a desperate but vain resistance. He gained time, however, to remove whatever treasures there may have been at Quito beyond the reach of its rapacious conquerors, and "where he hid them is a secret to the present day. … Traditions of the great treasures hidden in the mountains by Rumiñagui are eagerly repeated and believed at Quito. … Having removed the gold and killed the Virgins of the Sun, and thus placed two objects so eagerly coveted by the invaders beyond their reach, Rumiñagui set fire to the town, and evacuated it with an his troops and followers. It would be difficult to describe the rage, mortification and despair of the Spaniards, on finding smoking ruins instead of the treasures which they had expected. … Thousands of innocent Indians were sacrificed to their disappointed cupidity. … Every nook and corner of the province was searched; but only in the sepulchres some little gold was found. … Of the ancient buildings of Quito no stone was left upon the other, and deep excavations were made under them to search for hidden treasures. Hence there is no vestige left at Quito of its former civilization; not a ruin, not a wall, not a stone to which the traditions of the past might cling. … On the 28th of August, 1534, the Spanish village of Quito [San Francisco de Quito] was founded."

ALSO IN: W. H. Prescott, History of Conquest of Peru, book 3, chapter 2 (volume 1), and chapter 9 (volume 2).

ECUADOR: A. D. 1822-1888.
Confederated with New Granada and Venezuela in the Colombian
Republic.

In 1822 "the Province of Quito was incorporated into the Colombian Republic [see COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1819-1830]. It was now divided into three departments on the French system: and the southernmost of these received its name from the Equator (Ecuador) which passes through it. Shortly after Venezuela had declared itself independent of the Colombian Republic [1826—see, as above], the old province of Quito did the same, and placed its fortunes in the hands of one of Bolivar's lieutenants, named Flores. The name of Ecuador was now extended to all three departments. Flores exercised the chief authority for 15 years. The constitution limited the Presidency to four: but Flores made an arrangement with one of his lieutenants called Roca-Fuerte, by which they succeeded each other, the outgoing President becoming governor of Guayaquil. In 1843 Flores found himself strong enough to improve upon this system. He called a convention, which reformed the constitution in a reactionary sense, and named him dictator for ten years. In 1845 the liberal reaction had set in all over Colombia; and it soon became too strong for Flores. Even his own supporters began to fail him, and he agreed to quit the country on being paid an indemnity of $20,000." During the next 15 years Ecuador was troubled by the plots and attempts of Flores to regain his lost power. In 1860, with Peruvian help, he succeeded in placing one of his party, Dr. Moreno, in the presidency, and he, himself, became governor of Guayaquil. In August, 1875, Moreno was assassinated.

After the assassination of President Moreno, "the clergy succeeded in seating Dr. Antonio Barrero in the presidential chair by a peaceful and overwhelming election. … Against his government the liberal party made a revolution, and, September 8, 1876, succeeded in driving him from power, seating in his place General Ygnacio de Veintemilla, who was one of Barrero's officers, bound to him by many tics. … He called an obedient convention at Ambato, in 1878, which named him President ad interim, and framed a constitution, the republicanism of which it is difficult to find. Under this he was elected President for four years, terminating 30th August, 1882, without right of re-election except after an interval of four years."

G. E. Church, Report on Ecuador (Senate Ex. Doc. 69, U. S. 47th Congress, 2d session, volume 3).

President Veintemilla seized power as a Dictator, by a pronunciamento, April 2, 1882; but civil war ensued and he was overthrown in 1883. Senor José M. P. Caamaño was then chosen Provisional President, and in February, 1884, he was elected President, by the Legislative body. He was succeeded in 1888 by Don Antonio Flores.

ECUMENICAL, OR ŒCUMENICAL COUNCIL.
A general or universal council of the Christian Church.

"The chief depositories of the Norse mythology are the Elder or Saemund's Edda (poetry) and the Younger or Snorre's Edda. (prose). In Icelandic Edda means 'great-grand-mother,' and some think this appellation refers to the ancient origin of the myths it contains. Others connect it with the Indian 'Veda' and the Norse 'vide,' (Swedish 'vela,' to know)."

"The word Edda is never found at all in any of the dialects of the Old Northern tongue, nor indeed in any other tongue known to us. The first time it is met with is in the Lay of Righ, where it is used as a title for great-grandmother, and from this poem the word is cited (with other terms from the same source) in the collection at the end of Scaldscaparmal. How or why Snorri's book on the Poetic Art came to be called Edda we have no actual testimony. … Snorri's work, especially the second part of it, Scaldscaparmal, handed down in copies and abridgments through the Middle Ages, was looked on as setting the standard and ideal of poetry. It seems to have kept up indeed the very remembrance of court-poetry, the memory of which, but for it, would otherwise have perished. But though the mediæval poets do not copy Edda (i. e., Snorri's rules) they constantly allude to it, and we have an unbroken series of phrases from 1340 to 1640 in which Edda is used as a synonym for the technical laws of the court-metre (a use, it may be observed, entirely contrary to that of our own days)."

G. Vigfusson and F. Y. Powell, Corpus Poeticum Boreale, volume 1, introduction, section 4.

Edessa, or Ægre, the ancient Macedonian capital, "a place of primitive antiquity, according to a Phrygian legend the site of the gardens of Midas, at the northern extremity of Mount Bermius, where the Lydias comes forth from the mountains. … Ægre was the natural capital of the land. With its foundation the history of Macedonia had its beginning; Ægre is the germ out of which the Macedonian empire grew."

On the march of the armies of the First Crusade, as they approached Syria, Baldwin, the able, selfish and self-willed brother of Godfrey of Bouillon, left the main body of the crusaders, with a band of followers, and moved off eastwards, seeking the prizes of a very worldly ambition, and leaving his devouter comrades to rescue the holy sepulchre without his aid. Good fortune rewarded his enterprise and he secured possession of the important city of Edessa. It was governed by a Greek prince, who owed allegiance to the Byzantine emperor, but who paid tribute to the Turks. "It had surrendered to Pouzan, one of the generals of Malek-shah, in the year 1087, but during the contests of the Turks and Saracens in the north of Syria it had recovered its independence. Baldwin now sullied the honour of the Franks, by exciting the people to murder their governor Theodore, and rebel against the Byzantine authority [other historians say that he was guilty of no more than a passive permission of these acts]; he then took possession of the place in his own name and founded the Frank principality of Edessa, which lasted about 47 years."

      G. Finlay,
      History of Byzantine and Greek Empires A. D. 716-1453,
      book 3, chapter 2, section 1.

See, also, CRUSADES: A. D. 1006-1099, and 1147-1149;
also, JERUSALEM: A. D. 1099-1144.

EDHEL

EDINBURGH: A. D. 1559-1560.
Seized by the Lords of the Congregation.
The Treaty of July, 1560.

EDINBURGH: A. D. 1650.
Surrender to Cromwell.
Siege and reduction of the Castle.

"Edinburgh, though still but a small town, excited the admiration of travellers who were acquainted with the greatest cities of England and the Continent; nor was their admiration entirely due to the singular beauty of its situation. The quaint architecture of the older houses—which sometimes rose to the height of nine, ten or eleven stories—indeed, carried back the mind to very barbarous times; for it was ascribed to the desire of the population to live as near as possible to the protection of the castle. The filth of the streets in the early years of the 18th century was indescribable. … The new quarter, which now strikes every stranger by its spacious symmetry, was not begun till the latter half of the 18th century, but as early as 1723 an English traveller described the High Street as 'the stateliest street in the world.' … Under the influence of the Kirk the public manners of the town were marked by much decorum and even austerity, but the populace were unusually susceptible of fierce political enthusiasm, and when excited they were extremely formidable. … A city guard, composed chiefly of fierce Highlanders, armed and disciplined like regular soldiers, and placed under the control of the magistrates, was established in 1606; and it was not finally abolished till the present century. Edinburgh, at the beginning of the 18th century, was more than twice as large as any other Scotch town. Its population at the time of the union slightly exceeded 30,000, while that of Glasgow was not quite 15,000, that of Dundee not quite 10,000, and that of Perth about 7,000."

"The circumstances of the Porteous Riot are familiar wherever the English tongue is spoken, because they were made the dramatic opening of one of his finest stories by that admirable genius who, like Shakespeare in his plays, has conveyed to plain men more of the spirit and action of the past in noble fiction, than they would find in most professed chronicles of fact. The early scenes of the 'Heart of Midlothian' are an accurate account of the transaction which gave so much trouble to Queen Caroline and the minister [Walpole]. A smuggler who had excited the popular imagination by his daring and his chivalry was sentenced to be hanged; after his execution the mob pressed forward to cut down his body: Porteous, the captain of the City Guard, ordered his men to fire, and several persons were shot dead: he was tried for murder, convicted, and sentenced, but at the last moment a reprieve arrived from London, to the intense indignation of a crowd athirst for vengeance: four days later, under mysterious ringleaders who could never afterwards be discovered, fierce throngs suddenly gathered together at nightfall to the beat of drum, broke into the prison, dragged out the unhappy Porteous, and sternly hanged him on a dyer's pole close by the common place of public execution."

"From a very early period the Edomites were the chief of the nations of Arabia Petræa. Amongst the branches sprung, according to Arab tradition, from the primitive Amalika, they correspond to the Arcam, and the posterity of Esau, after settling amongst them as we have seen, became the dominant family from which the chiefs were chosen. The original habitation of the Edomites was Mount Seir, whence they spread over all the country called by the Greeks Gebalene, that is the prolongation of the mountains joining on the north the land of Moab, into the Valley of Arabah, and the surrounding heights. … Saul successfully fought the Edomites; under David, Joab and Abishai, his generals, completely defeated them, and David placed garrisons in their towns. In their ports of Elath and Eziongeber were built the fleets sent to India by Hiram and Solomon. … After the schism of the ten tribes, the Edomites remained dependent on the King of Judah."

      F. Lenormant,
      Manual of Ancient History of the East,
      book 7, chapter 4.

      See, also,
      NABATHEANS; JEWS: THE EARLY HEBREW
      HISTORY; and AMALEKITES.

After the revolt of Moorish or Mahometan Spain from the caliphate of Bagdad, the African provinces of the Moslems assumed independence, and several dynasties became seated—among them that of the Edrisites, which founded the city and kingdom of Fez, and which reigned from A. D. 829 to 907.

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 52. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

EDUCATION.

"In the education of youth [the Egyptians] were particularly strict; and 'they knew,' says Plato, 'that children ought to be early accustomed to such gestures, looks, and motions as are decent and proper; and not to be suffered either to hear or learn any verses and songs other than those which are calculated to inspire them with virtue; and they consequently took care that every dance and ode introduced at their feasts or sacrifices should be subject to certain regulations.'"

Sir J. G. Wilkinson, The Manners and Customs of the Ancient Egyptians, volume 1, page 321.

"The children were educated according to their station and their future position in life. They were kept in strict subjection by their parents, and respect to old age was particularly inculcated; the children of the priests were educated very thoroughly in writing of all kinds, hieroglyphic, hieratic, and demotic, and in the sciences of astronomy, mathematics, etc. The Jewish deliverer Moses was educated after the manner of the priests, and the 'wisdom of the Egyptians' became a proverbial expression among the outside nations, as indicating the utmost limit of human knowledge."

"On the education of the Egyptians, Diodorus makes the following remarks:—'The children of the priests are taught two different kinds of writing,—what is called the sacred, and the more general; and they pay great attention to geometry and arithmetic. For the river, changing the appearance of the country very materially every year, is the cause of many and various discussions among neighbouring proprietors about the extent of their property; and it would be difficult for any person to decide upon their claims without geometrical reasoning, founded on actual observation. Of arithmetic they have also frequent need, both in their domestic economy, and in the application of geometrical theorems, besides its utility in the cultivation of astronomical studies; for the orders and motions of the stars are observed at least as industriously by the Egyptians as by any people whatever; and they keep record of the motions of each for an incredible number of years, the study of this science having been, from the remotest times, an object of national ambition with them. … But the generality of the common people learn only from their parents or relations that which is required for the exercise of their peculiar professions, … a few only being taught anything of literature, and those principally the better class of artificers.' Hence it appears they were not confined to any particular rules in the mode of educating their children, and it depended upon a parent to choose the degree of instruction he deemed most suitable to their mode of life and occupations, as among other civilised nations."

Sir J. G. Wilkinson, The Manners and Customs of the Egyptians, volume 1, pages 175-176.

"There is nothing like being a scribe,' the wise say; 'the scribe gets all that is upon earth.' … The scribe is simply a man who knows how to read and write, to draw up administrative formulas, and to calculate interest. The instruction which he has received is a necessary complement of his position if he belongs to a good family, whilst if he be poor it enables him to obtain a lucrative situation in the administration or at the house of a wealthy personage. There is, therefore, no sacrifice which the smaller folk deem too great, if it enables them to give their sons the acquirements which may raise them above the common people, or at least insure a less miserable fate. If one of them, in his infancy, displays any intelligence, they send him, when about six or eight years old, to the district school, where an old pedagogue teaches him the rudiments of reading, writing, and arithmetic. Towards ten or twelve years old, they withdraw him from the care of this first teacher and apprentice him to a scribe in some office, who undertakes to make him a 'learned scribe.' The child accompanies his master to his office or work-yard, and there passes entire months in copying letters, circulars, legal documents, or accounts, which he does not at first understand, but which he faithfully remembers. There are books for his use full of copies taken from well-known authors, which he studies perpetually. If he requires a brief, precise report, this is how Ennana worded one of his:—'I reached Elephantine and accomplished my mission. I reviewed the infantry and the chariot soldiers from the temples, as well as the servants and subordinates who are in the houses of Pharaoh's … officials. As my journey is for the purpose of making a report in the presence of his Majesty, … the course of my business is as rapid as that of the Nile; you need not, therefore, feel anxious about me.' There is not a superfluous word. If, on the other hand, a petition in a poetical style be required, see how Pentoïrit asked for a holiday. 'My heart has left me, it is travelling and does not know how to return, it sees Memphis and hastens there. Would that I were in its place. I remain here, busy following my heart, which endeavours to draw me towards Memphis. I have no work in hand, my heart is tormented. May it please the god Ptah to lead me to Memphis, and do thou grant that I may be seen walking there. I am at leisure, my heart is watching, my heart is no longer in my bosom, languor has seized my limbs; my eye is dim, my ear hardened, my voice feeble, it is a failure of all my strength. I pray thee remedy all this.' The pupil copies and recopies, the master inserts forgotten words, corrects the faults of spelling, and draws on the margin the signs or groups unskilfully traced. When the book is duly finished and the apprentice can write all the formulas from memory, portions of phrases are detached from them, which he must join together, so as to combine new formulas; the master then entrusts him with the composition of a few letters, gradually increasing the number and adding to the difficulties. As soon as he has fairly mastered the ordinary daily routine his education is ended, and an unimportant post is sought for. He obtains it and then marries, becoming the head of a family, sometimes before he is twenty years old; he has no further ambition, but is content to vegetate quietly in the obscure circle where fate has thrown him."

"In the schools, where the poor scribe's child sat on the same bench beside the offspring of the rich, to be trained in discipline and wise learning, the masters knew how by timely words to goad on the lagging diligence of the ambitious scholars, by holding out to them the future reward which awaited youths skilled in knowledge and letters. Thus the slumbering spark of self-esteem was stirred to a flame in the youthful breast, and emulation was stimulated among the boys. The clever son of the poor man, too, might hope by his knowledge to climb the ladder of the higher offices, for neither his birth nor position raised any barrier, if only the youth's mental power justified fair hopes for the future. In this sense, the restraints of caste did not exist, and neither descent nor family hampered the rising career of the clever. Many a monument consecrated to the memory of some nobleman gone to his long home, who during life had held high rank at the court of Pharaoh, is decorated with the simple but laudatory inscription, 'His ancestors were unknown people.' It is a satisfaction to avow that the training and instruction of the young interested the Egyptians in the highest degree. For they fully recognised in this the sole means of cultivating their national life, and of fulfilling the high civilizing mission which Providence seemed to have placed in their hands. But above all things they regarded justice, and virtue had the highest price in their eyes."

   "The primitive Chaldeans were pre-eminently a literary people,
   and it is by their literary relics, by the scattered contents
   of their libraries, that we can know and judge them. As
   befitted the inventors of a system of writing, like the
   Chinese they set the highest value on education, even though
   examinations may have been unknown among them. Education,
   however, was widely diffused. … Assur-bani-pal's library was
   open to the use and enjoyment of all his subjects, and the
   syllabaries, grammars, lexicons, and reading-books that it
   contained, show the extent to which not only their own
   language was studied by the Assyrians, but the dead language
   of ancient Accad as well. It became as fashionable to compose
   in this extinct tongue as it is now-a-days to display one's
   proficiency in Latin prose, and 'dog-Accadian' was perpetrated
   with as little remorse as 'dog-Latin' at the present time. One
   of the Babylonian cylinders found by General di Cesnola in the
   temple-treasure of Kurium, which probably belongs to the
   period of Nebuchadnezzar's dynasty, has a legend which
   endeavours to imitate the inscriptions of the early Accadian
   princes; but the very first word, by an unhappy error, betrays
   the insufficient knowledge of the old language possessed by
   its composer. Besides a knowledge of Accadian, the educated
   Assyrian was required to have also a knowledge of Aramaic,
   which had now become the 'lingua franca' of trade and
   diplomacy; and we find the Rabshakeh (Rab-sakki), or prime
   minister, who was sent against Hezekiah by Sennacherib,
   acquainted with Hebrew as well.
{675}
   The grammatical and lexical works in the library of
   Nineveh are especially interesting, as being the earliest
   attempts of the kind of which we know, and it is curious to
   find the Hamiltonian method of learning languages forestalled
   by the scribes of Assur-bani-pal. In this case, as in all
   others, the first enquiries into the nature of speech, and the
   first grammars and dictionaries, were due to the necessity of
   comparing two languages together; it was the Accadian which
   forced the Semitic Assyrian or Babylonian to study his own
   tongue. And already in these first efforts the main principles
   of Semitic grammar are laid down clearly and definitely."

"The Babylonians were the Chinese of the ancient world. They were essentially a reading and writing people. … The books were for the most part written upon clay with a wooden reed or metal stylus, for clay was cheap and plentiful, and easily impressed with the wedge-shaped lines of which the characters were composed. But besides clay, papyrus and possibly also parchment were employed as writing materials. … The use of clay for writing purposes extended, along with Babylonian culture, to the neighbouring populations of the East. … It is astonishing how much matter can be compressed into the compass of a single tablet: The cuneiform system of writing allowed the use of many abbreviations—thanks to its 'ideographic' nature—and the characters were frequently of a very minute size. Indeed, so minute is the writing on many of the Assyrian (as distinguished from the Babylonian) tablets that it is clear not only that the Assyrian scribes and readers must have been decidedly short-sighted, but also that they must have made use of magnifying glasses. We need not be surprised, therefore, to learn that Sir A. H. Layard discovered a crystal lens, which had been turned on a lathe, upon the site of the great library of Nineveh. … To learn the cuneiform syllabary was a task of much time and labour. The student was accordingly provided with various means of assistance. The characters of the syllabary were classified and named; they were further arranged according to a certain order, which partly depended on the number of wedges or lines of which each was composed. Moreover, what we may term dictionaries were compiled. … To learn the signs, however, with their multitudinous phonetic values and ideographic significations, was not the whole of the labour which the Babylonian boy had to accomplish. The cuneiform system of writing, along with the culture which had produced it, had been the invention of the non-Semitic Accado-Sumerian race, from whom it had been borrowed by the Semites. In Semitic hands the syllabary underwent further modifications and additions, but it bore upon it to the last the stamp of its alien origin. On this account alone, therefore, the Babylonian student who wished to acquire a knowledge of reading and writing was obliged to learn the extinct language of the older population of the country. There was, however, another reason which even more imperatively obliged him to study the earlier tongue. A large proportion of the ancient literature, more especially that which related to religious subjects, was written in Accado-Sumerian. Even the law-cases of earlier times, which formed precedents for the law of a later age, were in the same language. In fact, Accado-Sumerian stood in much the same relation to the Semitic Babylonians that Latin has stood to the modern inhabitants of Europe. … Besides learning the syllabary, therefore, the Babylonian boy had to learn the extinct of Accad and Sumer. … The study of foreign tongues naturally brought with it an inquisitiveness about the languages of other people, as well as a passion for etymology. … But there were other things besides languages which the young student in the schools of Babylonia and Assyria was called upon to learn. Geography, history, the names and nature of plants, birds, animals, and stones, as well as the elements of law and religion, were all objects of instruction. The British Museum possesses what may be called the historical exercise of some Babylonian lad in the age of Nebuchadnezzar or Cyrus, consisting of a list of the kings belonging to one of the early dynasties, which he had been required to learn by heart. … A considerable proportion of the inhabitants of Babylonia could read and write. The contract tablets are written in a variety of running hands, some of which are as bad as the worst that passes through the modern post. Every legal document required the signatures of a number of witnesses, and most of these were able to write their own names. … In Assyria, however, education was by no means so widely spread. Apart from the upper and professional classes, including the men of business, it was confined to a special body of men—the public scribes. … There was none of that jealous exclusion of women in ancient Babylonia which characterizes the East of today, and it is probable that boys and girls pursued their studies at the same schools. The education of a child must have begun early."

"It is not, perhaps, generally known that Peking contains an ancient university; for, though certain buildings connected with it have been frequently described, the institution itself has been but little noticed. It gives, indeed, so few signs of life that it is not surprising it should be overlooked. … If a local situation be deemed an essential element of identity, this old university must yield the palm of age to many in Europe, for in its present site it dates, at most, only from the Yuen, or Mongol, dynasty, in the beginning of the fourteenth century. But as an imperial institution, having a fixed organization and definite objects, it carries its history, or at least its pedigree, back to a period far anterior to the founding of the Great Wall. Among the Regulations of the House of Chow, which flourished a thousand years before the Christian era, we meet with it already in full-blown vigor, and under the identical name which it now bears, that of Kwotszekien, or 'School for the Sons of the Empire.' It was in its glory before the light of science dawned on Greece, and when Pythagoras and Plato were pumping their secrets from the priests of Heliopolis. And it still exists, but it is only an embodiment of 'life in death:' its halls are tombs, and its officers living mummies. In the 13th Book of the Chowle (see Rites de Tcheou, traduction par Édouard Biot), we find the functions of the heads of the Kwotszekien laid down with a good deal of minuteness. {676} The presidents were to admonish the Emperor of that which is good and just, and to instruct the Sons of the State in the 'three constant virtues' and the 'three practical duties'—in other words, to give a course of lectures on moral philosophy. The vice-presidents were to reprove the Emperor for his faults (i. e., to perform the duty of official censors) and to discipline the Sons of the State in the sciences and arts—viz., in arithmetic, writing, music, archery, horsemanship and ritual ceremonies. … The old curriculum is religiously adhered to, but greater latitude is given, as we shall have occasion to observe, to the term 'Sons of the State.' In the days of Chow, this meant the heir-apparent, princes of the blood, and children of the nobility. Under the Tatsing dynasty it signifies men of defective scholarship throughout the provinces, who purchase literary degrees, and more specifically certain indigent students of Peking, who are aided by the imperial bounty. The Kwotszekien is located in the northeastern angle of the Tartar city, with a temple of Confucius attached, which is one of the finest in the Empire. The main edifice (that of the temple) consists of a single story of imposing height, with a porcelain roof of tent-like curvature. … It contains no seats, as all comers are expected to stand or kneel in presence of the Great Teacher. Neither does it boast anything in the way of artistic decoration, nor exhibit any trace of that neatness and taste which we look for in a sacred place. Perhaps its vast area is designedly left to dust and emptiness, in order that nothing may intervene to disturb the mind in the contemplation of a great name which receives the homage of a nation. … In an adjacent block or square stands a pavilion known as the 'Imperial Lecture-room,' because it is incumbent on each occupant of the Dragon throne to go there at least once in his life-time to hear a discourse on the nature and responsibilities of his office. … A canal spanned by marble bridges encircles the pavilion, and arches of glittering porcelain, in excellent repair, adorn the grounds. But neither these nor the pavilion itself constitutes the chief attraction of the place. Under a long corridor which encloses the entire space may be seen as many as one hundred and eighty-two columns of massive granite, each inscribed with a portion of the canonical books. These are the 'Stone Classics'—the entire 'Thirteen,' which formed the staple of a Chinese education, being here enshrined in a material supposed to be imperishable. Among all the Universities in the world, the Kwotszekien is unique in the possession of such a library. This is not, indeed, the only stone library extant—another of equal extent being found at Singanfu, the ancient capital of the Tangs. But, that too, was the property of the Kwotszekien ten centuries ago, when Singan was the seat of empire. The 'School for the Sons of the Empire' must needs follow the migrations of the court; and that library, costly as it was, being too heavy for transportation, it was thought best to supply its place by the new edition which we have been describing. … In front of the temple stands a forest of columns of scarcely inferior interest. They are three hundred and twenty in number, and contain the university roll of honor, a complete list of all who since the founding of the institution have attained to the dignity of the doctorate. Allow to each an average of two hundred names, and we have an army of doctors sixty thousand strong! (By the doctorate I mean the third or highest degree.) All these received their investiture at the Kwotszekien, and, throwing themselves at the feet of its president, enrolled themselves among the 'Sons of the Empire.' They were not, however—at least the most of them were not—in any proper sense alumni of the Kwotszekien, having pursued their studies in private, and won their honors by public competition in the halls of the Civil-service Examining Board. … There is an immense area occupied by lecture-rooms, examination-halls and lodging-apartments. But the visitor is liable to imagine that these, too, are consecrated to a monumental use—so rarely is a student or a professor to be seen among them. Ordinarily they are as desolate as the halls of Baalbec or Palmyra. In fact, this great school for the 'Sons of the Empire' has long ceased to be a seat of instruction, and degenerated into a mere appendage of the civil-service competitive examinations on which it hangs as a dead weight, corrupting and debasing instead of advancing the standard of national education."

W. A. P. Martin, The Chinese, their Education, Philosophy and Letters, pages 85-90.

   "All the best authorities are agreed that great pains were
   taken by the Persians—or, at any rate, by those of the
   leading clans—in the education of their sons. During the
   first five years of his life the boy remained wholly with the
   women, and was scarcely, if at all, seen by his father. After
   that time his training commenced. He was expected to rise
   before dawn, and to appear at a certain spot, where he was
   exercised with other boys of his age in running, slinging
   stones, shooting with the bow, and throwing the javelin. At
   seven he was taught to ride, and soon afterward he was allowed
   to begin to hunt. The riding included, not only the ordinary
   management of the horse, but the power of jumping on and off
   his back when he was at speed, and of shooting with the bow
   and throwing the javelin with unerring aim, while the horse
   was still at full gallop. The hunting was conducted by
   state-officers, who aimed at forming by its means in the
   youths committed to their charge all the qualities needed in
   war. The boys were made to bear extremes of heat and cold, to
   perform long marches, to cross rivers without wetting their
   weapons, to sleep in the open air at night, to be content with
   a single meal in two days, and to support themselves
   occasionally on the wild products of the country, acorns, wild
   pears and the fruit of the terebinth tree. On days when there
   was no hunting they passed their mornings in athletic
   exercises, and contests with the bow or the javelin, after
   which they dined simply on the plain food mentioned above as
   that of the men in the early times, and then employed
   themselves during the afternoon in occupations regarded as not
   illiberal—for instance, in the pursuits of agriculture,
   planting, digging for roots, and the like, or in the
   construction of arms and hunting implements, such as nets and
   springes. Hardy and temperate habits being secured by this
   training, the point of morals on which their preceptors mainly
   insisted was the rigid observance of truth. Of intellectual
   education they had but little. It seems to have been no part
   of the regular training of a Persian youth that he should
   learn to read.
{677}
   He was given religious notions and a certain amount of moral
   knowledge by means of legendary poems, in which the deeds of
   gods and heroes were set before him by his teachers, who
   recited or sung them in his presence, and afterwards required
   him to repeat what he had heard, or, at any rate, to give some
   account of it. This education continued for fifteen years,
   commencing when the boy was five, and terminating when he
   reached the age of twenty. The effect of this training was to
   render the Persian an excellent soldier and a most
   accomplished horseman. … At fifteen years of age the Persian
   was considered to have attained to manhood, and was enrolled
   in the ranks of the army, continuing liable to military
   service from that time till he reached the age of fifty. Those
   of the highest rank became the body-guard of the king, and
   these formed the garrison of the capital. … Others, though
   liable to military service, did not adopt arms as their
   profession, but attached themselves to the Court and looked to
   civil employment, as satraps, secretaries, attendants, ushers,
   judges, inspectors, messengers. … For trade and commerce the
   Persians were wont to express extreme contempt."

      G. Rawlinson,
      The Five Great Monarchies of the Ancient Eastern World,
      volume 3, pages 238-242.

After the death of Cyrus, according to Xenophon, the Persians degenerated, in the education of their youth and otherwise. "To educate the youth at the gates of the palace is still the custom," he says; "but the attainment and practice of horsemanship are extinct, because they do not go where they can gain applause by exhibiting skill in that exercise. Whereas, too, in former times, the boys, hearing causes justly decided there, were considered by that means to learn justice, that custom is altogether altered; for they now see those gain their causes who offer the highest bribes. Formerly, also, boys were taught the virtues of the various productions of the earth, in order that they might use the serviceable, and avoid the noxious; but now they seem to be taught those particulars that they may do as much harm as possible; at least there are nowhere so many killed or injured by poison as in that country."

Xenophon, Cyropædia and Hellenics; translated by J. S. Watson and H. Dale, pages 284-285.

"According to the statement of Josephus, Moses had already prescribed 'that boys should learn the most important laws, because that is the best knowledge and the cause of prosperity.' 'He commanded to instruct children in the elements of knowledge (reading and writing), to teach them to walk according to the laws, and to know the deeds of their forefathers. The latter, that they might imitate them; the former, that growing up with the laws they might not transgress them, nor have the excuse of ignorance.' Josephus repeatedly commends the zeal with which the instruction of the young was carried on. 'We take most pains of all with the instruction of children, and esteem the observance of the laws and the piety corresponding with them the most important affair of our whole life.' 'If anyone should question one of us concerning the laws, he would more easily repeat all than his own name. Since we learn them from our first consciousness, we have them, as it were, engraven on our souls; and a transgression is rare, but the averting of punishment impossible.' In like manner does Philo express himself: 'Since the Jews esteem their laws as divine revelations, and are instructed in the knowledge of them from their earliest youth, they bear the image of the law in their souls.' … In view of all this testimony it cannot be doubted, that in the circles of genuine Judaism boys were from their tenderest childhood made acquainted with the demands of the law. That this education in the law was, in the first place, the duty and task of parents is self-evident. But it appears, that even in the age of Christ, care was also taken for the instruction of youth by the erection of schools on the part of the community. … The later tradition that Joshua ben Gamla (Jesus the son of Gamaliel) enacted that teachers of boys … should be appointed in every province and in every town, and that children of the age of six or seven should be brought to them, is by no means incredible. The only Jesus the son of Gamaliel known to history is the high priest of that name, about 63-65 after Christ. … It must therefore be he who is intended in the above notice. As his measures presuppose a somewhat longer existence of boys' schools, we may without hesitation transfer them to the age of Christ, even though not as a general and established institution. The subject of instruction, as already appears from the above passages of Josephus and Philo, was as good as exclusively the law. For only its inculcation in the youthful mind, and not the means of general education, was the aim of all this zeal for the instruction of youth. And indeed the earliest instruction was in the reading and inculcation of the text of scripture. … Habitual practice went hand in hand with theoretical instruction. For though children were not actually bound to fulfil the law, they were yet accustomed to it from their youth up."

      E. Schürer,
      History of the Jewish People in the time of Jesus Christ,
      volume 2, pages 47-50.

   In the fourth century B. C. the Council of Seventy Elders
   "instituted regularly appointed readings from the Law; on
   every sabbath and on every week day a portion from the
   Pentateuch was to be read to the assembled congregation. Twice
   a week, when the country people came up from the villages to
   market in the neighbouring towns, or to appeal at the courts
   of justice, some verses of the Pentateuch, however few, were
   read publicly. At first only the learned were allowed to read,
   but at last it was looked upon as so great an honour to belong
   to the readers, that everyone attempted or desired to do so.
   Unfortunately the characters in which the Torah was written
   were hardly readable. Until that date the text of the Torah
   had been written in the ancient style with Phœnician or old
   Babylonian characters, which could only be deciphered by
   practised scribes. … From the constant reading of the Law,
   there arose among the Judæans an intellectual activity and
   vigour, which at last gave a special character to the whole
   nation. The Torah became their spiritual and intellectual
   property, and their own inner sanctuary. At this time there
   sprang up other important institutions, namely, schools, where
   the young men could stimulate their ardour and increase their
   knowledge of the Law and its teachings. The intellectual
   leaders of the people continually enjoined on the rising
   generation, 'Bring up a great many disciples.' And what they
   enjoined so strenuously they themselves must have assisted to
   accomplish. One of these religious schools (Beth-Waad) was
   probably established in Jerusalem.
{678}
   The teachers were called scribes (sopherim) or wise men; the
   disciples, pupils of the wise (Talmude Chachamim). The wise
   men or scribes had a two-fold work; on the one hand they had
   to explain the Torah, and on the other, to make the laws
   applicable to each individual and to the community at large.
   This supplementary interpretation was called 'explanation'
   (Midrash); it was not altogether arbitrary, but rested upon
   certain rules laid down for the proper interpretation of the
   law. The supreme council and the houses of learning worked
   together, and one completed the other. A hardly perceptible,
   but most important movement was the result; for the
   descendants of the Judæans of that age were endowed with a
   characteristic, which they might otherwise have claimed as
   inborn, the talent for research and the intellectual
   penetration, needed for turning and returning words and data,
   in order to discover some new and hidden meaning."

"In his [Samuel's] time we first hear of what in modern phraseology are called the Schools of the Prophets. Whatever be the precise meaning of the peculiar word, which now came first into use as the designation of these companies, it is evident that their immediate mission consisted in uttering religious hymns or songs, accompanied by musical instruments—psaltery, tabret, pipe and harp, and cymbals. In them, as in the few solitary instances of their predecessors, the characteristic element was that the silent seer of visions found an articulate voice, gushing forth in a rhythmical flow, which at once riveted the attention of the hearer. These, or such as these, were the gifts which under Samuel were now organized, if one may say so, into a system."

A description of the Athenian education of the young is given by Plato in one of his dialogues: "Education," he says, "and admonition commence in the first years of childhood, and last to the very end of life. Mother and nurse and father and tutor are quarrelling about the improvement of the child as soon as ever he is able to understand them: he cannot say or do anything without their setting forth to him that this is just and that is unjust; this is honourable, that is dishonourable; this is holy, that is unholy; do this and abstain from that. And if he obeys, well and good; if not, he is straightened by threats and blows, like a piece of warped wood. At a later stage they send him to teachers, and enjoin them to see to his manners even more than to his reading and music; and the teachers do as they are desired. And when the boy has learned his letters and is beginning to understand what is written·, as before he understood only what was spoken, they put into his hands the works of great poets, which he reads at school; in these are contained many admonitions, and many tales, and praises, and encomia of ancient famous men, which he is required to learn by heart, in order that he may imitate or emulate them and desire to become like them. Then, again, the teachers of the lyre take similar care that their young disciple is temperate and gets into no mischief; and when they have taught him the use of the lyre, they introduce him to the poems of other excellent poets, who are the lyric poets; and these they set to music, and make their harmonies and rhythms quite familiar to the children, in order that they may learn to be more gentle, and harmonious, and rhythmical, and so more fitted for speech and action; for the life of men in every part has need of harmony and rhythm. Then they send them to the master of gymnastic, in order that their bodies may better minister to the virtuous mind, and that the weakness of their bodies may not force them to play the coward in war or on any other occasion. This is what is done by those who have the means, and those who have the means are the rich; their children begin education soonest and leave off latest. When they have done with masters, the state again compels them to learn the laws, and live after the pattern which they furnish, and not after their own fancies; and just as in learning to write, the writing-master first draws lines with a style for the use of the young beginner, and gives him the tablet and makes him follow the lines, so the city draws the laws, which were the invention of good law-givers who were of old times; these are given to the young man, in order to guide him in his conduct whether as ruler or ruled; and he who transgresses them is to be corrected, or, in other words, called to account, which is a term used not only in your country, but also in many others. Now when there is all this care about virtue private and public, why, Socrates, do you still wonder and doubt whether virtue can be taught?"

The ideas of Aristotle on the subject are in the following: "There can be no doubt that children should be taught those useful things which are really necessary, but not all thing's; for occupations are divided into liberal and illiberal; and to young children should be imparted only such kinds of knowledge as will be useful to them without vulgarizing them. And any occupation, art, or science, which makes the body or soul or mind of the freeman less fit for the practice or exercise of virtue, is vulgar; wherefore we call those arts vulgar which tend to deform the body, and likewise all paid employments, for they absorb and degrade the mind. There are also some liberal arts quite proper for a freeman to acquire, but only in a certain degree, and if he attend to them too closely, in order to obtain perfection in them, the same evil effects will follow. The object also which a man sets before him makes a great difference; if he does or learns anything for his own sake or for the sake of his friends, or with a view to excellence, the action will not appear illiberal; but if done for the sake of others, the very same action will be thought menial and servile. The received subjects of instruction, as I have already remarked, are partly of a liberal and partly of an illiberal character. The customary branches of education are in number four; they are—(l) reading and writing, (2) gymnastic exercises, (3) music, to which is sometimes added (4) drawing. Of these, reading and writing and drawing are regarded as useful for the purposes of life in a variety of ways, and gymnastic exercises are thought to infuse courage. Concerning music a doubt may be raised—in our own day most men cultivate it for the sake of pleasure, but originally it was included in education, because nature herself, as has been often said, requires that we should be able, not only to work well, but to use leisure well; for, as I must repeat once and again, the first principle of all action is leisure. {679} Both are required, but leisure is better than occupation; and therefore the question must be asked in good earnest, what ought we to do when at leisure? Clearly we ought not to be amusing ourselves, for then amusement would be the end of life. But if this is inconceivable, and yet amid serious occupations amusement is needed more than at other times (for he who is hard at work has need of relaxation, and amusement gives relaxation, whereas occupation is always accompanied with exertion and effort), at suitable times we should introduce amusements, and they should be our medicines, for the emotion which they create in the soul is a relaxation, and from the pleasure we obtain rest. … It is clear then that there are branches of learning and education which we must study with a view to the enjoyment of leisure, and these are to be valued for their own sake; whereas those kinds of knowledge which are useful in business are to be deemed necessary, and exist for the sake of other things. And therefore our fathers admitted music into education, not on the ground either of its necessity or utility, for it is not necessary, nor indeed useful in the same manner as reading and writing, which are useful in money-making, in the management of a house-hold, in the acquisition of knowledge and in political life, nor like drawing, useful for a more correct judgment of the works of artists, nor again like gymnastic, which gives health and strength; for neither of these is to be gained from music. There remains, then, the use of music for intellectual enjoyment in leisure; which appears to have been the reason of its introduction, this being one of the ways in which it is thought that a freeman should pass his leisure. … We are now in a position to say that the ancients witness to us; for their opinion may be gathered from the fact that music is one of the received and traditional branches of education. Further, it is clear that children should be instructed in some useful things,—for example, in reading and writing,—not only for their usefulness, but also because many other sorts of knowledge are acquired through them. With a like view they may be taught drawing, not to prevent their making mistakes in their own purchases, or in order that they may not be imposed upon in the buying or selling of articles, but rather because it makes them judges of the beauty of the human form. To be always seeking after the useful does not become free and exalted souls. … We reject the professional instruments and also the professional mode of education in music—and by professional we mean that which is adopted in contests, for in this the performer practises the art, not for the sake of his own improvement, but in order to give pleasure, and that of a vulgar sort, to his hearers. For this reason the execution of such music is not the part of a freeman but of a paid performer, and the result is that the performers are vulgarized, for the end at which they aim is bad."

"The most striking difference between early Greek education and ours was undoubtedly this; that the physical development of boys was attended to in a special place and by a special master. It was not thought sufficient for them to play the chance games of childhood; they underwent careful bodily training under a very fixed system, which was determined by the athletic contests of after life. … When we compare what the Greeks afforded to their boys, we find it divided into two contrasted kinds of exercise: hunting, which was practised by the Spartans very keenly, and no doubt also by the Eleans and Arcadians, as may be seen from Xenophon's 'Tract on (Hare) Hunting'; and gymnastics, which in the case of boys were carried on in the so-caned palæstra, a sort of open-air gymnasium (in our sense) kept by private individuals as a speculation, and to which the boys were sent, as they were to their ordinary school-master. We find that the Spartans, who had ample scope for hunting with dogs in the glens and coverts of Mount Taygetus, rather despised mere exercises of dexterity in the palæstra, just as our sportsmen would think very little of spending hours in a gymnasium. But those Greeks who lived in towns like Athens, and in the midst of a thickly populated and well-cultivated country, could not possibly obtain hunting, and therefore found the most efficient substitute. Still we find them very far behind the English in their knowledge or taste for out-of-door games. … The Greeks had no playgrounds beyond the palæstra or gymnasium; they had no playgrounds in our sense, and though a few proverbs speak of swimming as a universal accomplishment which boys learned, the silence of Greek literature on the subject makes one very suspicious as to the generality of such training. … In one point, certainly, the Greeks agreed more with the modern English than with any other civilised nation. They regarded sport as a really serious thing. … The names applied to the exercising-places indicate their principal uses. Palæstra means a wrestling place; gymnasium originally a place for naked exercise, but the word early lost this connotation and came to mean mere physical training. … In order to leave home and reach the palæstra safely as well as to return, Greek boys were put under the charge of a pædagogue, in no way to be identified (as it now is) with a schoolmaster. … I think we may be justified in asserting that the study of the epic poets, especially of the Iliad and Odyssey, was the earliest intellectual exercise of schoolboys, and, in the case of fairly educated parents, even anticipated the learning of letters. For the latter is never spoken of as part of a mother's or of home education. Reading was not so universal or so necessary as it now is. … We may assume that books of Homer were read or recited to growing boys, and that they were encouraged or required to learn them off by heart. This is quite certain to all who estimate justly the enormous influence ascribed to Homer, and the principles assumed by the Greeks to have underlain his work. He was universally considered to be a moral teacher, whose characters were drawn with a moral intent, and for the purpose of example or avoidance. … Accordingly the Iliad and Odyssey were supposed to contain all that was useful, not only for godliness, but for life. All the arts and sciences were to be derived (by interpretation) from these sacred texts. … In early days, and in poor towns, the place of teaching was not well appointed, nay, even in many places, teaching in the open air prevailed. … This was … like the old hedge schools of Ireland, and no doubt of Scotland too. They also took advantage, especially in hot weather, of colonnades, or shady corners among public buildings, as at Winchester the summer term was called cloister-time, from a similar practice, even in that wealthy foundation, of instructing in the cloisters. On the other hand, properly appointed schools in respectable towns were furnished with some taste, and according to traditional notions. … {680} We may be sure that there were no tables or desks, such furniture being unusual in Greek houses; it was the universal custom, while reading or writing, to hold the book or roll on the knee—to us an inconvenient thing to do, but still common in the East. There are some interesting sentences, given for exercise in Greek and Latin, in the little known 'Interpretamenta' of Dositheus, now edited and explained by German scholars. The entry of the boy is thus described, in parallel Greek and Latin: 'First I salute the master, who returns my salute: Good morning, master; good morning, school fellows. Give me my place, my seat, my stool. Sit closer. Move up that way. This is my place, I took it first.' This mixture of politeness and wrangling is amusing, and no doubt to be found in all ages. It seems that the seats were movable. … The usual subdivision of education was into three parts; letters, … including reading, writing, counting, and learning of the poets; music in the stricter sense, including singing and playing on the lyre; and lastly gymnastic, which included dancing. … It is said that at Sparta the education in reading and writing was not thought necessary, and there have been long discussions among the learned whether the ordinary Spartan in classical days was able to read. We find that Aristotle adds a fourth subject to the three above named—drawing, which he thinks requisite, like music, to enable the educated man to judge rightly of works of art. But there is no evidence of a wide diffusion of drawing or painting among the Greeks, as among us. … Later on, under the learned influences of Alexandria, and the paid professoriate of Roman days, subjects multiplied with the decline of mental vigour and spontaneity of the age, and children began to be pestered, as they now are, with a quantity of subjects, all thought necessary to a proper education, and accordingly all imperfectly acquired. This was called the encyclical education, which is preserved in our Encyclopædia of knowledge. It included,(1) grammar,(2) rhetoric, (3) dialectic, (4) arithmetic, (5) music, (6) geometry, (7) astronomy, and these were divided into the earlier Trivium, and the later Quadrivium."

"Reading was taught with the greatest pains, the utmost care was taken with the intonation of the voice, and the articulation of the throat. We have lost the power of distinguishing between accent and quantity. The Greeks did not acquire it without long and anxious training of the ear and the vocal organs. This was the duty of the phonascus. Homer was the common study of all Greeks. The Iliad and Odyssee were at once the Bible, the Shakespeare, the Robinson Crusoe, and the Arabian Nights of the Hellenic race. Long passages and indeed whole books were learnt by heart. The Greek, as a rule, learnt no language but his own. Next to reading and repetition came writing, which was carefully taught. Composition naturally followed, and the burden of correcting exercises, which still weighs down the backs of schoolmasters, dates from these early times. Closely connected with reading and writing is the art of reckoning, and the science of numbers leads us easily to music. Plato considered arithmetic as the best spur to a sleepy and uninstructed spirit; we see from the Platonic dialogues how mathematical problems employed the mind and thoughts of young Athenians. Many of the more difficult arithmetical operations were solved by geometrical methods, but the Greeks carried the art of teaching numbers to considerable refinement. They used the abacus, and had an elaborate method of finger reckoning, which was serviceable up to 10,000. Drawing was the crowning accomplishment to this vestibule of training. By the time the fourteenth year was completed, the Greek boy would have begun to devote himself seriously to the practice of athletics."

      O. Browning,
      An Introduction to the History of Educational Theories,
      chapter 1.

"It has sometimes been imagined that in Greece separate edifices were not erected as with us expressly for school-houses, but that both the didaskalos and the philosopher taught their pupils in fields, gardens or shady groves. But this was not the common practice, though many schoolmasters appear to have had no other place wherein to assemble their pupils than the portico of a temple or some sheltered corner in the street, where in spite of the din of business and the throng of passengers the worship of learning was publicly performed. … But these were the schools of the humbler classes. For the children of the noble and the opulent spacious structures were raised, and furnished with tables, desks,—for that peculiar species of grammateion which resembled the plate cupboard, can have been nothing but a desk,—forms, and whatsoever else their studies required. Mention is made of a school at Chios which contained one hundred and twenty boys, all of whom save one were killed by the falling in of the roof. … The apparatus of an ancient school was somewhat complicated: there were mathematical instruments, globes, maps, and charts of the heavens, together with boards whereon to trace geometrical figures, tablets, large and small, of box-wood, fir, or ivory, triangular in form, some folding with two, and others with many leaves; books too and paper, skins of parchment, wax for covering the tablets, which, if we may believe Aristophanes, people sometimes ate when they were hungry. To the above were added rulers, reed-pens, pen-cases, pen-knives, pencils, and last, though not least, the rod which kept them to the steady use of all these things: At Athens these schools were not provided by the state. They were private speculations, and each master was regulated in his charges by the reputation he had acquired and the fortunes of his pupils. Some appear to have been extremely moderate in their demands. … The earliest task to be performed at school was to gain a knowledge of the Greek characters, large and small, to spell next, next to read. … In teaching the art of writing their practice nearly resembled our own. … These things were necessarily the first step in the first class of studies, which were denominated music, and comprehended everything connected with the development of the mind; and they were carried to a certain extent before the second division called gymnastics was commenced. They reversed the plan commonly adopted among ourselves, for with them poetry preceded prose, a practice which, coöperating with their susceptible temperament, impressed upon the national mind that imaginative character for which it was preëminently distinguished. {681} And the poets in whose works they were first initiated were of all the most poetical, the authors of lyrical and dithyrambic pieces, selections from whose verses they committed to memory, thus acquiring early a rich store of sentences and imagery ready to be adduced in argument or illustration, to furnish familiar allusions or to be woven into the texture of their style. … Among the other branches of knowledge most necessary to be studied, and to which they applied themselves nearly from the outset, was arithmetic, without some inkling of which, a man, in Plato's opinion, could scarcely be a citizen at all. … The importance attached to this branch of education, nowhere more apparent than in the dialogues of Plato, furnishes one proof that the Athenians were preëminently men of business, who in all their admiration for the good and beautiful never lost sight of those things which promote the comfort of life, and enable a man effectually to perform his ordinary duties. With the same views were geometry and astronomy pursued. … The importance of music, in the education of the Greeks, is generally understood. It was employed to effect several purposes. First, to sooth and mollify the fierceness of the national character, and prepare the way for the lessons of the poets, which, delivered amid the sounding of melodious strings, when the soul was rapt and elevated by harmony, by the excitement of numbers, by the magic of the sweetest associations, took a firm hold upon the mind, and generally retained it during life. Secondly, it enabled the citizens gracefully to perform their part in the amusements of social life, every person being in his turn called upon at entertainments to sing or play upon the lyre. Thirdly, it was necessary to enable them to join in the sacred choruses, rendered frequent by the piety of the state, and for the due performance in old age of many offices of religion, the sacerdotal character belonging more or less to all the citizens of Athens. Fourthly, as much of the learning of a Greek was martial and designed to fit him for defending his country, he required some knowledge of music that on the field of battle his voice might harmoniously mingle with those of his countrymen, in chaunting those stirring, impetuous, and terrible melodies, called pæans, which preceded the first shock of fight. For some, or all of these reasons, the science of music began to be cultivated among the Hellenes, at a period almost beyond the reach even of tradition."

"In thinking of Greek education as furnishing a possible model for us moderns, there is one point which it is important to bear in mind: Greek education was intended only for the few, for the wealthy and well-born. Upon all others, upon slaves, barbarians, the working and trading classes, and generally upon all persons spending their lives in pursuit of wealth or any private ends whatsoever, it would have seemed to be thrown away. Even well-born women were generally excluded from most of its benefits. The subjects of education were the sons of full citizens, themselves preparing to be full citizens, and to exercise all the functions of such. The duties of such persons were completely summed up under two heads, duties to the family and duties to the State, or, as the Greeks said, œconomic and political duties. The free citizen not only acknowledged no other duties besides these, but he looked down upon persons who sought occupation in any other sphere. Œconomy and Politics, however, were very comprehensive terms. The former included the three relations of husband to wife, father to children, and master to slaves and property; the latter, three public functions, legislative, administrative, and judiciary. All occupations not included under these six heads the free citizen left to slaves or resident foreigners. Money-making, in the modern sense, he despised, and, if he devoted himself to art or philosophy, he did so only for the benefit of the State."

"From his birth every Spartan belonged to the state, which decided … whether he was likely to prove a useful member of the community, and extinguished the life of the sickly or deformed infant. To the age of seven however the care of the child was delegated to its natural guardians, yet not so as to be left wholly to their discretion, but subject to certain established rules of treatment, which guarded against every mischievous indulgence of parental tenderness. At the end of seven years began a long course of public discipline, which grew constantly more and more severe as the boy approached toward manhood. The education of the young was in some degree the business of all the elder citizens; for there was none who did not contribute to it, if not by his active interference, at least by his presence and inspection. But it was placed under the especial superintendence of an officer selected from the men of most approved worth; and he again chose a number of youths, just past the age of twenty, and who most eminently united courage with discretion, to exercise a more immediate command over the classes, into which the boys were divided. The leader of each class directed the sports and tasks of his young troop, and punished their offences with military rigour, but was himself responsible to his elders for the mode in which he discharged his office. The Spartan education was simple in its objects; it was not the result of any general view of human nature, or of any attempt to unfold its various capacities: it aimed at training men who were to live in the midst of difficulty and danger, and who could only be safe themselves while they held rule over others. The citizen was to be always ready for the defence of himself and his country, at home and abroad, and he was therefore to be equally fitted to command and to obey. His body, his mind, and his character were formed for this purpose, and for no other: and hence the Spartan system, making directly for its main end, and rejecting all that was foreign to it, attained, within its own sphere, to a perfection which it is impossible not to admire. The young Spartan was perhaps unable either to read or write: he scarcely possessed the elements of any of the arts or sciences by which society is enriched or adorned: but he could run, leap, wrestle, hurl the disk, or the javelin, and wield every other weapon, with a vigour and agility, and grace which were no where surpassed. These however were accomplishments to be learnt in every Greek palæstra: he might find many rivals in all that he could do; but few could approach him in the firmness with which he was taught to suffer. From the tender age at which he left his mother's lap for the public schools, his life was one continued trial of patience. Coarse and scanty fare, and this occasionally withheld, a light dress, without any change in the depth of winter, a bed of reeds, which he himself gathered from the Eurotas, blows exchanged with his comrades, stripes inflicted by his governors, more by way of exercise than of punishment, inured him to every form of pain and hardship. … {682} The Muses were appropriately honoured at Sparta with a sacrifice on the eve of a battle, and the union of the spear and the lyre was a favourite theme with the Laconian poets, and those who sang of Spartan customs. Though bred in the discipline of the camp, the young Spartan, like the hero of the Iliad, was not a stranger to music and poetry. He was taught to sing, and to play on the flute and the lyre: but the strains with which his memory was stored, and to which his voice was formed, were either sacred hymns, or breathed a martial spirit; and it was because they cherished such sentiments that the Homeric lays, if not introduced by Lycurgus, were early welcomed at Sparta. … As these musical exercises were designed to cultivate, not so much an intellectual, as a moral taste; so it was probably less for the sake of sharpening their ingenuity, than of promoting presence of mind, and promptness of decision, that the boys were led into the habit of answering all questions proposed to them, with a ready, pointed, sententious brevity, which was a proverbial characteristic of Spartan conversation. But the lessons which were most studiously inculcated, more indeed by example than by precept, were those of modesty, obedience, and reverence for age and rank; for these were the qualities on which, above all others, the stability of the commonwealth reposed. The gait and look of the Spartan youths, as they passed along the streets, observed Xenophon, breathed modesty and reserve. In the presence of their elders they were bashful as virgins, and silent as statues, save when a question was put to them. … In truth, the respect for the laws, which rendered the Spartan averse to innovation at home, was little more than another form of that awe with which his early habits inspired him for the magistrates and the aged. With this feeling was intimately connected that quick and deep sense of shame, which shrank from dishonour as the most dreadful of evils, and enabled him to meet death so calmly, when he saw in it the will of his country."

"It is a prevalent opinion that common schools, as we now have them, were an American invention. No legislation, it is asserted, taxing all in order that all may be taught can be traced back further than to the early laws of Massachusetts. Those who deny this assertion are content with showing something of the sort in Scotland and Germany a generation or two before the landing of the Plymouth pilgrims. The truth is, however, that, as much of our social wit is now credited to the ancient Greeks, something of our educational wisdom ought to be. Two centuries ago John Locke, as an able political writer, was invited to draw up a code of fundamental laws for the new colony of Carolina, and in like manner, more than 2,300 years ago, Charondas, a master of a similar type in Magna Græcia, was called to a similar task. This was to frame a series of statutes for the government of a Greek colony founded about 446 B. C., in the foot of Italy. This colony was Thurii, and conspicuous among the enactments of Charondas was the following: 'Charondas made a law unlike those of lawgivers before him, for he enacted that the sons of the citizens should all learn letters (or writing) … the city making payment to the teachers. He thought that the poor, not able to pay wages themselves, would otherwise fail of the best training. He counted writing the most important study, and with reason. Through writing, most things in life, and those the most useful, are accomplished—as ballots, epistles, laws, covenants. Who can sufficiently praise the learning of letters? … Writing alone preserves the most brilliant utterances of wise men and the oracles of gods, nay philosophy and all culture. All these things it alone hands down to all future generations. Wherefore nature should be viewed as the source of life, but the source of living well we should consider the culture derived from writing. Inasmuch, then, as illiterates are deprived of a great good, Charondas came to their help, judging them worthy of public care and outlay. Former legislators had caused the sick to be attended by physicians at the public expense, thinking their bodies worthy of cure. He did more, for he cured souls afflicted with ignorance. The doctors of the body we pray that we may never need, while we would fain abide for ever with those who minister to the mind diseased.'—This extract is from the 'Bibliotheca Historica' of Diodorus Siculus (Book x. § 13), who was flourishing at the birth of Christ and was the most painstaking chronicler of the Augustan age. The legislation is worth notice for more than one reason. It rebukes the self-conceit of those who hold that the education of all at the charge of all is an idea born in our own time or country. It has also been strangely unnoticed by historians who ought to have kept it before the people."

"Before the rise of philosophy, the teacher of the people had been the rhapsode, or public reciter; after that event he gradually gives place to the sophist (… one who makes wise), or, as he later with more modesty calls himself, the philosopher (… lover of wisdom). The history of Greece for centuries is, on its inner side, a history of the struggle between what the rhapsode represents and what the philosopher represents, between popular tradition and common sense on the one hand, and individual opinion and philosophy on the other. The transition from the first to the second of these mental conditions was accomplished for the world, once for all, by the Greeks."

"There is no instance on record of a philosopher whose importance as a thinker is so closely bound up with the personality of the man as it was in the case of Socrates. … His teaching was not of a kind to be directly imparted and faithfully handed down, but could only be left to propagate itself freely by stirring up others to a similar self·culture. … The youth and early manhood of Socrates fall in the most brilliant period of Grecian history. Born during the last years of the Persian war, he was a near contemporary of all those great men who adorned the age of Pericles. As a citizen of Athens he could enjoy the opportunities afforded by a city, which united every means of culture by its unrivalled fertility of thought. Poverty and low birth were but slender obstacles in the Athens of Pericles. … Socrates, no doubt, began life by learning his father's trade, … which he probably never practised, and certainly soon gave up. {683} He considered it to be his special calling to labour for the moral and intellectual improvement of himself and others—a conviction which he felt so strongly that it appeared to him in the light of a divine revelation. Moreover he was confirmed in it by a Delphic oracle, which, of course, must not be regarded as the cause of, but rather as an additional support to his reforming zeal. … To be independent, he tried, like the Gods, to rise superior to his wants; and by carefully practising self-denial and abstemiousness, he was really able to boast that his life was more pleasant and more free from troubles than that of the rest of mankind. Thus he was able to devote his whole powers to the service of others, without asking or taking reward; and thus he became so engrossed by his labours for his native city, that he rarely passed its boundaries or even went outside its gates. He did not, however, feel himself called upon to take part in the affairs of the state. … Anyone convinced as he was, that care for one's own culture must precede care for public business, and that a thorough knowledge of self, together with a deep and many-sided experience, was a necessary condition of public activity, must have thought that, to educate individuals by influence, was the more pressing need, and have held that he was doing his country a better service by educating able statesmen for it, than by actually discharging a statesman's duties. Accordingly, Socrates never aimed at being anything but a private citizen. … Just as little was he desirous of being a public teacher like the Sophists. He not only took no pay, but he gave no methodical course. He did not profess to teach, but to learn in common with others, not to force his convictions upon them, but to examine theirs; not to pass the truth that came to hand like a coin fresh from the mint, but to stir up a desire for truth and virtue, to point out the way to it, to overthrow what was spurious, and to seek out real knowledge. Never weary of talking, he was on the look out for every opportunity of giving an instructive and moral turn to the conversation. Day by day he was about in the market and public promenades, in schools and workshops, ever ready to converse with friends or strangers, with citizens and foreigners, but always prepared to lead them to higher subjects; and whilst thus in his higher calling serving God, he was persuaded that he was also serving his country in a way that no one else could do. Deeply as he deplored the decline of discipline and education in his native city, he felt that he could depend but little on the Sophists, the moral teachers of his day. The attractive powers of his discourse won for him a circle of admirers, for the most part consisting of young men of family, drawn to him by the most varied motives, standing to him in various relations, and coming to him, some for a longer, others for a shorter time. For his own part, he made it his business not only to educate these friends, but to advise them in everything, even in worldly matters. But out of this changing, and in part loosely connected, society, a nucleus was gradually formed of decided admirers,—a Socratic school, which we must consider united far less by a common set of doctrines, than by a common love for the person of Socrates."

"Nowhere, except in Athens, do we hear of a philosophic body with endowments, legal succession, and the other rights of a corporation. This idea, which has never since died out of the world, was due to Plato, who bequeathed his garden and appointments in the place called after the hero Hekademus, to his followers. But he was obliged to do it in the only form possible at Athens. He made it a religious foundation, on the basis of a fixed worship to the Muses. … The head or President of Plato's 'Association of the Muses,' was the treasurer and manager of the common fund, who invited guests to their feasts, to which each member contributed his share. … The members had, moreover, a right to attend lectures and use the library or scientific appointments, such as maps, which belonged to the school. It was this endowment on a religious basis which saved the income and position of Plato's school for centuries. … This then is the first Academy, so often imitated in so many lands, and of which our colleges are the direct descendants. … The school of Plato, then governed by Xenocrates, being the bequest of an Athenian citizen who understood the law, seems never to have been assailed. The schools of Epicurus and Zeno were perhaps not yet recognised. But that of Theophrastus, perhaps the most crowded, certainly the most distinctly philo-Macedonian, … this was the school which was exiled, and which owed its rehabilitation not only to the legal decision of the courts, but still more to the large views of King Demetrius, who would not tolerate the persecution of opinion. But it was the other Demetrius, the philosopher, the pupil of Aristotle, the friend of Theophrastus, to whom the school owed most, and to whom the world owes most in the matter of museums and academies, next after Plato. For this was the man who took care, during his Protectorate of Athens in the interest of Casander, to establish a garden and 'peripatos' for the Peripatetic school, now under Theophrastus. … It is remarkable that the Stoic school—it too the school of aliens—did not establish a local foundation or succession, but taught in public places, such as the Painted Portico. In this the Cynical tone of the Porch comes out. Hence the succession depended upon the genius of the leader."

An account of the Academy, the Lyceum, etc., will be found
under the caption GYMNASIA.

"Some scholars … may doubt if there was anything at Athens which could answer to the College Life of modern times. Indeed it must be owned that formal history is nearly silent on the subject, that ancient writers take little notice of it, and such evidences as we have are drawn almost entirely from a series of inscriptions on the marble tablets, which were covered with the ruins and the dust of ages, till one after another came to light in recent days, to add fresh pages to the story of the past. Happily they are both numerous and lengthy, and may be already pieced together in an order which extends for centuries. They are known to Epigraphic students as the records which deal with the so-called Ephebi; with the youths, that is, just passing into manhood, for whom a special discipline was provided by the State, to, fit them for the responsibilities of active life. It was a National system with a many-sided training; the teachers were members of the Civil Service; the registers were public documents, and, as such, belonged to the Archives of the State. {684} The earlier inscriptions of the series date from the period of Macedonian ascendency, but in much earlier times there had been forms of public drill prescribed for the Ephebi. … We find from a decree, which, if genuine, dates even from the days of Pericles, that the young men of Cos were allowed by special favour to share the discipline of the Athenian Ephebi. Soon afterwards others were admitted on all sides. The aliens who had gained a competence as merchants or as bankers, found their sons welcomed in the ranks of the oldest families of Athens; strangers flocked thither from distant countries, not only from the isles of Greece, and from the coasts of the Ægean, but, as Hellenic culture made its way through the far East, students even of the Semitic race were glad to enrol their names upon the College registers, where we may still see them with the marks of their several nationalities affixed. The young men were no longer, like soldiers upon actual service, beginning already the real work of life, and on that account, perhaps, the term was shortened from the two years to one; but the old associations lasted on for ages, even in realistic Athens, which in early politics at least had made so clean a sweep. The outward forms were still preserved, the soldier's drill was still enforced, and though many another feature had been added, the whole institution bore upon its face the look rather of a Military College than of a training school for a scholar or a statesman. The College year began somewhat later than the opening of the civil year, and it was usual for all the students to matriculate together; that is, to enter formally their names upon the registers, which were copied afterwards upon the marble tablets, of which large fragments have survived. … 'To put the gown on,' or, as we should say, 'to be a gownsman,' was the phrase which stood for being a member of the College; and the gown, too, was of black, as commonly among ourselves. But Philostratus tells us, by the way, that a change was made from black to white at the prompting of Herodes Atticus, the munificent and learned subject of the Antonines, who was for many years the presiding genius of the University of Athens. The fragment of an inscription lately found curiously confirms and supplements the writer's statement. … The members of the College are spoken of as 'friends' and 'messmates'; and it is probable that some form of conventual life prevailed among them, without which the drill and supervision, which are constantly implied in the inscriptions, could scarcely have been enforced by the officials. But we know nothing of any public buildings for their use save the gymnasia, which in all Greek towns were the centres of educational routine, and of which there were several well known at Athens. … The College did not try to monopolise the education of its students. It had, indeed, its own tutors or instructors, but they were kept for humbler drill; it did not even for a long time keep an organist or choirmaster of its own; it sent its students out for teaching in philosophy and rhetoric and grammar, or, in a word, for all the larger and more liberal studies. Nor did it favour any special set of tenets to the exclusion of the rest. It encouraged impartially all the schools of higher thought. … The Head of the College held the title of Cosmetes, or of rector. … The Rector, appointed only for a year by popular election, was no merely honorary head, but took an important part in the real work of education. He was sometimes clothed with priestly functions. … The system of education thus described was under the control of the government throughout. … It may surprise us that our information comes almost entirely from the inscriptions, and that ancient writers are all nearly silent on the subject. … But there was little to attract the literary circles in arrangements so mechanical and formal; there was too much of outward pageantry, and too little of real character evolved."

The reign of the Emperor Justinian "may be signalised as the fatal epoch at which several of the noblest institutions of antiquity were abolished. He shut the schools of Athens (A. D. 529), in which an uninterrupted succession of philosophers, supported by a public stipend, had taught the doctrines of Plato, Aristotle, Zeno, and Epicurus, ever since the time of the Antonines. They were, it is true, still attached to paganism, and even to the arts of magic."

"Ptolemy, upon whom, on Alexander's death, devolved the kingdom of Egypt, supplies us with the first great instance of what may be called the establishment of Letters. He and Eumenes may be considered the first founders of public libraries. … A library, however, was only one of two great conceptions brought into execution by the first Ptolemy; and as the first was the embalming of dead genius, so the second was the endowment of living. … Ptolemy, … prompted, or at least, encouraged, by the celebrated Demetrius of Phalerus, put into execution a plan for the formal endowment of literature and science. The fact indeed of the possession of an immense library seemed sufficient to render Alexandria a University; for what could be a greater attraction to the students of all lands, than the opportunity afforded them of intellectual converse, not only with the living, but with the dead, with all who had anywhere at any time thrown light upon any subject of inquiry? But Ptolemy determined that his teachers of knowledge should be as stationary and as permanent as his books; so, resolving to make Alexandria the seat of a 'Studium Generale,' he founded a College for its domicile, and endowed that College with ample revenues. Here, I consider, he did more than has been commonly done, till modern times. It requires considerable knowledge of medieval Universities to be entitled to give an opinion; as regards Germany, for instance, or Poland, or Spain; but, as far as I have a right to speak, such an endowment has been rare down to the sixteenth century, as well as before Ptolemy. … To return to the Alexandrian College. It was called the Museum,—a name since appropriated to another institution connected with the seats of science. … There was a quarter of the city so distinct from the rest in Alexandria, that it is sometimes spoken of as a suburb. It was pleasantly situated on the water's edge, and had been set aside for ornamental buildings, and was traversed by groves of trees. Here stood the royal palace, here the theatre and amphitheatre; here the gymnasia and stadium; here the famous Serapeum. {685} And here it was, close upon the Port, that Ptolemy placed his Library and College. As might be supposed, the building was worthy of its purpose; a noble portico stretched along its front, for exercise or conversation, and opened upon the public rooms devoted to disputations and lectures. A certain number of Professors were lodged within the precincts, and a handsome hall, or refectory, was provided for the common meal. The Prefect of the house was a priest, whose appointment lay with the government. Over the Library a dignified person presided. … As to the Professors, so liberal was their maintenance, that a philosopher of the very age of the first foundation called the place a 'bread basket,' or a 'bird coop'; yet, in spite of accidental exceptions, so careful on the whole was their selection, that even six hundred years afterwards, Ammianus describes the Museum under the title of 'the lasting abode of distinguished men.' Philostratus, too, about a century before, calls it 'a table gathering together celebrated men.' … As time went on new Colleges were added to the original Museum; of which one was a foundation of the Emperor Claudius, and called after his name. … A diversity of teachers secured an abundance of students. 'Hither,' says Cave, 'as to a public emporium of polite literature, congregated, from every part of the world, youthful students, and attended the lectures in Grammar, Rhetoric, Poetry, Philosophy, Astronomy, Music, Medicine, and other arts and sciences'; and hence proceeded, as it would appear, the great Christian writers and doctors, 'Clement, … Origen, Anatolius, and Athanasius. St. Gregory Thaumaturgus, in the third century, may be added; he came across Asia Minor and Syria from Pontus, as to a place, says his namesake of Nyssa, 'to which young men from all parts gathered together, who were applying themselves to philosophy.' As to the subjects taught in the Museum, Cave has already enumerated the principal; but he has not done justice to the peculiar character of the Alexandrian school. From the time that science got out of the hands of the pure Greeks, into those of a power which had a talent for administration, it became less theoretical, and bore more distinctly upon definite and tangible objects. … Egyptian Antiquities were investigated, at least by the disciples of the Egyptian Manetho, fragments of whose history are considered to remain; while Carthaginian and Etruscan had a place in the studies of the Claudian College. The Museum was celebrated, moreover, for its grammarians; the work of Hephæstion 'de Metris' still affords matter of thought to a living Professor of Oxford; and Aristarchus, like the Athenian Priscian, has almost become the nickname for a critic. Yet, eminent as is the Alexandrian school in these departments of science, its fame rests still more securely upon its proficiency in medicine and mathematics. Among its physicians is the celebrated Galen, who was attracted thither from Pergamus; and we are told by a writer of the fourth century, that in his time the very fact of a physician having studied at Alexandria, was an evidence of his science which superseded further testimonial. As to Mathematics, it is sufficient to say, that, of four great ancient names, on whom the modern science is founded, three came from Alexandria. Archimedes indeed was a Syracusan; but the Museum may boast of Apollonius of Perga, Diophantus, a native Alexandrian, and Euclid, whose country is unknown. To these illustrious names, may be added, Eratosthenes of Cyrene, to whom astronomy has obligations so considerable; Pappus; Theon; and Ptolemy, said to be of Pelusium, whose celebrated system, called after him the Ptolemaic, reigned in the schools till the time of Copernicus, and whose Geography, dealing with facts, not theories, is in repute still. Such was the celebrated 'Studium' or University of Alexandria; for a while in the course of the third and fourth centuries, it was subject to reverses, principally from war. The whole of the Bruchion, the quarter of the city in which it was situated, was given to the flames; and, when Hilarion came to Alexandria, the holy hermit, whose rule of life did not suffer him to lodge in cities, took up his lodgment with a few solitaries among the ruins of its edifices. The schools, however, and the library continued; the library was reserved for the Caliph Omar's famous judgment; as to the schools, even as late as the twelfth century, the Jew, Benjamin of Tudela, gives us a surprising report of what he found in Alexandria."

      J. H. Newman,
      Historical Sketches: Rise and Progress of Universities,
      chapter 8.

"In the three centuries which intervened between Alexander and Augustus, Athens was preëminently the training school for philosophy, Rhodes, on the other hand, as the only Greek state of political importance in which a career of grand and dignified activity was open for the orator, distinguished itself in the study of eloquence, while Alexandria rested its fame chiefly on the excellence of its instruction in Philology and Medicine. At a subsequent period the last mentioned University obtained even greater celebrity as having given birth to a school of philosophers who endeavored to combine into a species of theosophic doctrine the mental science of Europe with the more spiritual minded and profoundly human religions of the East. In the third century Alexandria became conspicuous as the headquarters of the Eclectics and Neo·Platonists."

E. Kirkpatrick, Historical Development of Superior Instruction (Barnard's American Journal of Education, volume 24, pages 466-467).

"If we cast a final glance at the question of education, we shall find but little to say of it, as far as regards the period before Cicero. In the republican times the state did not trouble itself about the training of youth: a few prohibitory regulations were laid down, and the rest left to private individuals. Thus no public instruction was given; public schools there were, but only as private undertakings for the sake of the children of the rich. All depended on the father; his personal character and the care taken by the mother in education decided the development of the child's disposition. Books there were none; and therefore they could not be put into the hands of children. A few rugged hymns, such as those of the Salii and Arval brothers, with the songs in Fescennine verse, sung on festivals and at banquets, formed the poetical literature. A child would hear, besides, the dirges, or memorial verses, composed by women in honour of the dead, and sometimes, too, the public panegyrics pronounced on their departed relatives, a distinction accorded to women also from the time of Camillus. {686} Whatever was taught a boy by father or mother, or acquired externally to the house, was calculated to make the Roman 'virtus' appear in his eyes the highest aim of his ambition; the term including self-mastery, an unbending firmness of will, with patience, and an iron tenacity of purpose in carrying through whatever was once acknowledged to be right. The Greek palestra and its naked combatants always seemed strange and offensive to Roman eyes. In the republican times the exercises of the gymnasium were but little in fashion; though riding, swimming, and other warlike exercises were industriously practised, as preparations for the campaign. The slave pædagogus, assigned to young people to take charge of them, had a higher position with the Romans than the Greeks; and was not allowed to let his pupils out of his sight till their twentieth year. The Latin Odyssey of Livius Andronicus was the school-book first in use; and this and Ennius were the only two works to create and foster a literary taste before the destruction of Carthage. The freedman Sp. Carvilius was the first to open a school for higher education. After this the Greek language and literature came into the circle of studies, and in consequence of the wars in Sicily, Macedon, and Asia, families of distinction kept slaves who knew Greek. Teachers quickly multiplied, and were either liberti, or their descendants. No free-born Roman would consent to be a paid teacher, for that was held to be a degradation. The Greek language remained throughout the classical [age] one for Romans: they even made their children begin with Homer. As, by the seventh century of the republic, Ennius, Plautus, Pacuvius, and Terence, had already become old poets, dictations were given to scholars from their writings. The interpretation of Virgil began under Augustus, and by this time the younger Romans were resorting to Athens, Rhodes, Apollonia, and Mitylene, in order to make progress in Greek rhetoric and philosophy. As Roman notions were based entirely on the practical and the useful, music was neglected as a part of education; while, as a contrast, boys were compelled to learn the laws of the twelve tables by heart. Cicero, who had gone through this discipline with other boys of his time, complains of the practice having begun to be set aside; and Scipio Æmilianus deplored, as an evil omen of degeneracy, the sending of boys and girls to the academies of actors, where they learnt dancing and singing, in company with young women of pleasure. In one of these schools were to be found as many as five hundred young persons, all being instructed in postures and motions of the most abandoned kind. … On the other hand, the gymnastic exercises, which had once served the young men as a training for war, fell into disuse, having naturally become objectless and burdensome, now that, under Augustus, no more Roman citizens chose to enlist in the legions. Still slavery was, and continued to be, the foremost cause of the depravation of youth, and of an evil education. … It was no longer the mothers who educated their own children: they had neither inclination nor capacity for such duty, for mothers of the stamp of Cornelia had disappeared. Immediately on its birth, the child was intrusted to a Greek female slave, with some male slave, often of the worst description, to help her. … The young Roman was not educated in the constant companionship of youths of his own age, under equal discipline: surrounded by his father's slaves and parasites, and always accompanied by a slave when he went out, he hardly received any other impressions than such as were calculated to foster conceit, indolence, and pride in him."

"Besides schools of high eminence in Mytilene, Ephesus, Smyrna, Sidon, etc., we read that Apollonia enjoyed so high a reputation for eloquence and political science as to be entrusted with the education of the heir-apparent of the Roman Empire. Antioch was noted for a Museum modelled after that of the Egyptian metropolis, and Tarsus boasted of Gymnasia and a University which Strabo does not hesitate to describe as more than rivaling those of Athens and Alexandria. There can be little doubt that the philosophers, rhetoricians, and grammarians who swarmed in the princely retinues of the great Roman aristocracy, and whose schools abounded in all the most wealthy and populous cities of the empire east and west, were prepared for their several callings in some one or other of these institutions. Strabo tells us … that Rome was overrun with Alexandrian and Syrian grammarians, and Juvenal describes one of the Quirites of the ancient stamp as emigrating in sheer disgust from a city which from these causes had become thoroughly and utterly Greek. … That external inducements were held out amply sufficient to prevail upon poor and ambitious men to qualify themselves at some cost for vocations of this description is evident from the wealth to which, as we are told, many of them rose from extreme indigence and obscurity. Suetonius, in the still extant fragment of his essay 'de claris rhetoribus,' after alluding to the immense number of professors and doctors met with in Rome, draws attention to the frequency with which individuals who had distinguished themselves as teachers of rhetoric had been elevated into the senate, and advanced to the highest dignities of the state. That the profession of a philologist was occasionally at least well remunerated is evident from the facts recorded by the same author in his work 'de claris grammaticis,' section 3. He there mentions that there were at one time upwards of twenty well attended schools devoted to this subject at Rome, and that one fortunate individual, Q. Remmius Palaemon, derived four hundred thousand sesterces, or considerably above three thousand a year, from instruction in philology alone. Julius Caesar conferred the citizenship, together with large bounties in money, and immunity from public burthens, on distinguished rhetoricians and philologists, in order to encourage their presence at Rome. … That individuals who thus enjoyed an income not greatly below the revenues of an English Bishopric were not, as the name might lead us to imagine, employed in teaching the accidents of grammar, but possessed considerable pretensions to that higher and more thoughtful character of the scholar which it has been reserved for modern Europe to exhibit in perfection, is not only in itself highly probable, but supported by the distinctest and most unimpeachable evidence. Seneca tells us that history was amongst the subjects professed by grammarians, and Cicero regards the most thorough and refined perception of all that pertains to the spirit and individuality of the author as an indispensable requisite in those who undertake to give instruction in this subject. … The grammatici appear to have occupied a position very closely analogous to that of the teachers of collegiate schools in England, and the gymnasial professors in Germany."

E. Kirkpatrick, Historical Development of Superior Instruction (Barnard's American Journal of Education, volume 24, pages 468-470.)

"The utter confusion subsequent upon the downfall of the Roman Empire and the irruption of the Germanic races was causing, by the mere brute force of circumstance, a gradual extinction of scholarship too powerful to be arrested. The teaching of grammar for ecclesiastical purposes was insufficient to check the influence of many causes leading to this overthrow of learning. It was impossible to communicate more than a mere tincture of knowledge to students separated from the classical tradition, for whom the antecedent history of Rome was a dead letter. The meaning of Latin words derived from the Greek was lost. … Theological notions, grotesque and childish beyond description, found their way into etymology and grammar. The three persons of the Trinity were discovered in the verb, and mystic numbers in the parts of speech. Thus analytical studies like that of language came to be regarded as an open field for the exercise of the mythologising fancy; and etymology was reduced to a system of ingenious punning. … Virgil, the only classic who retained distinct and living personality, passed from poet to philosopher, from philosopher to Sibyl, from Sibyl to magician, by successive stages of transmutation, as the truth about him grew more dim and the faculty to apprehend him weakened. Forming the staple of education in the schools of the grammarians, and metamorphosed by the vulgar consciousness into a wizard, he waited on the extreme verge of the dark ages to take Dante by the hand, and lead him, as the type of human reason, through the realms of Hell and Purgatory."

"If institutions could do all, if laws supplied and the means furnished to society could do everything, the intellectual state of Gaulish civil society at this epoch [4th-5th centuries] would have been far superior to that of the religious society. The first, in fact, alone possessed all the institutions proper to second the development of mind, the progress and empire of ideas. Roman Gaul was covered with large schools. The principal were those of Trèves, Bordeaux, Autun, Toulouse, Poitiers, Lyons, Narbonne, Aries, Marseilles, Vienne, Besançon, &c. Some were very ancient; those of Marseilles and of Autun, for example, dated from the first century. They were taught philosophy, medicine, jurisprudence, literature, grammar, astrology, all the sciences of the age. In the greater part of these schools, indeed, they at first taught only rhetoric and grammar; but towards the fourth century, professors of philosophy and law were everywhere introduced. Not only were these schools numerous, and provided with many chairs, but the emperors continually took the professors of new measures into favor. Their interests are, from Constantine to Theodosius the younger, the subject of frequent imperial constitutions, which sometimes extended, sometimes confirmed their privileges. … After the Empire was divided among many masters, each of them concerned himself rather more about the prosperity of his states and the public establishments which were in them. Thence arose a momentary amelioration, of which the schools felt the effects, particularly those of Gaul, under the administration of Constantius Clorus, of Julian, and of Gratian. By the side of the schools were, in general, placed other analogous establishments. Thus, at Trèves there was a grand library of the imperial palace, concerning which no special information has reached us, but of which we may judge by the details· which have reached us concerning that of Constantinople. This last had a librarian and seven scribes constantly occupied—four for Greek, and three for Latin. They copied both ancient and new works. It is probable that the same institution existed at Trèves, and in the great towns of Gaul. Civil society, then, was provided with means of instruction and intellectual development. It was not the same with religious society. It had at this epoch no institution especially devoted to teaching; it did not receive from the state any aid to this particular aim. Christians, as well as others, could frequent the public schools; but most of the professors were still pagans. … It was for a long time in the inferior classes, among the people, that Christianity was propagated, especially in the Gauls, and it was the superior classes which followed the great schools. Moreover, it was hardly until the commencement of the fourth century that the Christians appeared there, and then but few in number. No other source of study was open to them. The establishments which, a little afterwards, became, in the Christian church, the refuge and sanctuary of instruction, the monasteries, were hardly commenced in the Gauls. It was only after the year 360 that the two first were founded by St. Martin—one at Ligugé, near Poitiers, the other at Marmoutiers, near Tours; and they were devoted rather to religious contemplation than to teaching. Any great school, any special institution devoted to the service and to the progress of intellect, was at that time, therefore, wanting to the Christians. … All things in the fifth century, attest the decay of the civil schools. The contemporaneous writers, Sidonius Apollinaris and Mamertius Claudianus, for example, deplore it in every page, saying that the young men no longer studied, that professors were without pupils, that science languished and was being lost. … It was especially the young men of the superior classes who frequented the schools; but these classes … were in rapid dissolution. The schools fell with them; the institutions still existed, but they were void—the soul had quitted the body. The intellectual aspect of Christian society was very different. … Institutions began to rise, and to be regulated among the Christians of Gaul. The foundation of the greater portion of the large monasteries of the southern provinces belongs to the first half of the fifth century. … The monasteries of the south of Gaul were philosophical schools of Christianity; it was there that intellectual men meditated, discussed, taught; it was from thence that new ideas, daring thoughts, heresies, were sent forth. … {688} Towards the end of the sixth century, everything is changed: there are no longer civil schools; ecclesiastical schools alone subsist. Those great municipal schools of Treves, of Poitiers, of Vienne, of Bordeaux, &c., have disappeared; in their place have arisen schools called cathedral or episcopal schools, because each episcopal see had its own. The cathedral school was not always alone; we find in certain dioceses other schools, of an uncertain nature and origin, wrecks, perhaps, of some ancient civil school, which, in becoming metamorphosed, had perpetuated itself. … The most flourishing of the episcopal schools from the sixth to the middle of the eighth century were those of: 1. Poitiers. There were many schools in the monasteries of the diocese at Poitiers itself, at Ligugé, at Ansion, &c. 2. Paris. 3. LeMans. 4. Bourges. 5. Clermont. There was another school in the town where they taught the Theodosian code; a remarkable circumstance, which I do not find elsewhere. 6. Vienne. 7. Châlons-sur-Saone. 8. ArIes. 9. Gap.

   The most flourishing of the monastic schools of the same epoch
   were those of:
   1. Luxeuil, in Franche-Comté.
   2. Fontenelle, or Saint Vandrille, in Normandy; in which were
   about 300 students.
   3. Sithiu, in Normandy.
   4. Saint Médard, at Soissons.
   5. Lerens.

It were easy to extend this list; but the prosperity of monastic schools was subject to great vicissitudes; they flourished under a distinguished abbot, and declined under his successor. Even in nunneries, study was not neglected; that which Saint Cesaire founded at Aries contained, at the commencement of the sixth century, two hundred nuns, for the most part occupied in copying books, sometimes religious books, sometimes, probably, even the works of the ancients. The metamorphosis of civil schools into ecclesiastical schools was complete. Let us see what was taught in them. We shall often find in them the names of sciences formerly professed in the civil schools, rhetoric, logic, grammar, geometry, astrology, &c.; but these were evidently no longer taught except in their relations to theology. This is the foundation of the instruction: all was turned into commentary of the Scriptures, historical, philosophical, allegorical, moral, commentary. They desired only to form priests; all studies, whatsoever their nature, were directed towards this result. Sometimes they went even further: they rejected the profane sciences themselves, whatever might be the use made of them."

      F. Guizot,
      History of Civilization to the French Revolution,
      volume 2, lecture 4 and 16.

Popular accounts represent St. Patrick as "founding at least a hundred monasteries, and even those who consider that the greater number of the Irish colleges were raised by his followers after his death, admit the fact of his having established an episcopal monastery and school at Armagh, where he and his clergy carried out the same rule of life that he had seen followed in the churches of Gaul. … The school, which formed a portion of the Cathedral establishment, soon rose in importance. Gildas taught here for some years before joining St. Cadoc at Llancarvan; and in process of time the number of students, both native and foreign, so increased that the university, as we may justly call it, was divided into three parts, one of which was devoted entirely to students of the Anglo-Saxon race. Grants for the support of the schools were made by the Irish kings in the eighth century; and all through the troublous times of the ninth and tenth centuries, when Ireland was overrun by the Danes, and so many of her sanctuaries were given to the flames, the succession of divinity professors at Armagh remained unbroken, and has been carefully traced by Usher. We need not stop to determine how many other establishments similar to those of Armagh were really founded in the lifetime of St. Patrick. In any case the rapid extension of the monastic institute in Ireland, and the extraordinary ardour with which the Irish cœnobites applied themselves to the cultivation of letters remain undisputed facts. 'Within a century after the death of St. Patrick,' says Bishop Nicholson, 'the Irish seminaries had so increased that most parts of Europe sent their children to be educated here, and drew thence their bishops and teachers.' The whole country for miles round Leighlin was denominated the 'land of saints and scholars.' By the ninth century Armagh could boast of 7,000 students, and the schools of Cashel, Dindaleathglass, and Lismore vied with it in renown. This extraordinary multiplication of monastic seminaries and scholars may be explained partly by the constant immigration of British refugees who brought with them the learning and religious observances of their native cloisters, and partly by that sacred and irresistible impulse which animates a newly converted people to heroic acts of sacrifice. In Ireland the infant church was not, as elsewhere, watered with the blood of martyrs. … The bards, who were to be found in great numbers among the early converts of St. Patrick, had also a considerable share in directing the energies of their countrymen to intellectual labour. They formed the learned class, and on their conversion to Christianity were readily disposed to devote themselves to the culture of sacred letters. … It would be impossible, within the limits of a single chapter, to notice even the names of all the Irish seats of learning, or of their most celebrated teachers, everyone of whom has his own legend in which sacred and poetic beauties are to be found blended together. One of the earliest monastic schools was that erected by Enda, prince of Orgiel, in that western island called from the wild flowers which even still cover its rocky soil, Aran-of-the-Flowers, a name it afterwards exchanged for that of Ara-na-naomh, or Aran-of-the-Saints. … A little later St. Finian founded his great school of Clonard, whence, says Usher, issued forth a stream of saints and doctors, like the Greek warriors from the wooden horse. …. This desolate wilderness was soon peopled by his disciples, who are said to have numbered 3,000, of whom the twelve most eminent are often termed the Twelve Apostles of Ireland. … Among them none were more famous than St. Columba, St. Kieran, and St. Brendan. The first of these is known to every English reader as the founder of Iona; and Kieran, the carpenter's son, as he is called, is scarcely less renowned among his own countrymen. … It was in the year 563 that St. Columba, after founding the monasteries of Doire-Calgaich and Dair-magh in his native land, and incurring the enmity of one of the Irish kings, determined on crossing over into Scotland in order to preach the faith to the Northern Picts. Accompanied by twelve companions, he passed the Channel in a rude wicker boat covered with skins, and landed at Port-na Currachan, on a spot now marked by a heap of huge conical stones. {689} Conall, king of the Albanian Scots, granted him the island of I, Hi, or Ai, hitherto occupied by the Druids, and there he erected the monastery which, in time, became the mother of three hundred religious houses. … Iona, or I-Colum-kil, as it was called by the Irish, came to be looked on as the chief seat of learning, not only in Britain, but in the whole Western world. 'Thither, as from a nest,' says Odonellus, playing on the Latin name of the founder, 'these sacred doves took their flight to every quarter.' They studied the classics, the mechanical arts, law, history, and physic. They improved the arts of husbandry and horticulture, supplied the rude people whom they had undertaken to civilise with ploughshares and other utensils of labour, and taught them the use of the forge, in the mysteries of which every Irish monk was instructed from his boyhood. They transferred to their new homes all the learning of Armagh or Clonard. … In every college of Irish origin, by whomsoever they were founded or on whatever soil they flourished, we thus see study blended with the duties of the missionary and the cœnobite. They were religious houses, no doubt, in which the celebration of the Church office was often kept up without intermission by day and night; but they were also seminaries of learning, wherein sacred and profane studies were cultivated with equal success. Not only their own monasteries but those of every European country were enriched with their manuscripts, and the researches of modern bibliopolists are continually disinterring from German or Italian libraries a Horace, or an Ovid, or a Sacred Codex whose Irish gloss betrays the hand which traced its delicate letters."

"If there ever was a man who by his mere natural endowments soared above other men, it was Charlemagne. His life, like his stature, was colossal. Time never seemed wanting to him for anything that he willed to accomplish, and during his ten years campaign against the Saxons and Lombards, he contrived to get leisure enough to study grammar, and render himself tolerably proficient as a Latin writer in prose and verse. He found his tutors in the cities that he conquered. When he became master of Pisa, he gained the services of Peter of Pisa, whom he set over the Palatine school, which had existed even under the Merovingian kings, though as yet it was far from enjoying the fame to which it was afterwards raised by the teaching of Alcuin. He possessed the art of turning enemies into friends, and thus drew to his court the famous historian, Paul Warnefrid, deacon of the Church of Rome, who had previously acted as secretary to Didier, king of the Lombards. … Another Italian scholar, St. Paulinus, of Aquileja, was coaxed into the service of the Frankish sovereign after his conquest of Friuli; I will not say that he was bought, but he was certainly paid for by a large grant of confiscated territory made over by diploma to 'the Venerable Paulinus, master of the art of grammar.' But none of these learned personages were destined to take so large a part in that revival of learning which made the glory of Charlemagne's reign, as our own countryman Alcuin. It was in 781, on occasion of the king's second visit to Italy, that the meeting took place at Parma, the result of which was to fix the English scholar at the Frankish court. Having obtained the consent of his own bishop and sovereign to this arrangement, Alcuin came over to France in 782, bringing with him several of the best scholars of York, among whom were Wizo, Fredegis, and Sigulf. Charlemagne received him with joy, and assigned him three abbeys for the maintenance of himself and his disciples, those namely, of Ferrières, St. Lupus of Troyes, and St. Josse in Ponthieu. From this time Alcuin held the first place in the literary society that surrounded the Frankish sovereign, and filled an office the duties of which were as vast as they were various. Three great works at once claimed his attention, the correction of the liturgical books, the direction of the court academy, and the establishment of other public schools throughout the empire. … But it was as head of the Palatine school that Alcuin's influence was chiefly to be felt in the restoration of letters. Charlemagne presented himself as his first pupil, together with the three princes, Pepin, Charles, and Louis, his sister Gisla and his daughter Richtrude, his councillors Adalard and Angilbert, and Eginhard his secretary. Such illustrious scholars soon found plenty to imitate their example, and Alcuin saw himself called on to lecture daily to a goodly crowd of bishops, nobles, and courtiers. The king wished to transform his court into a new Athens preferable to that of ancient Greece, in so far as the doctrine of Christ is to be preferred to that of Plato. All the liberal arts were to be taught there, but in such a way as that each should bear reference to religion, for this was regarded as the final end of of all learning. Grammar was studied in order better to understand the Holy Scriptures and to transcribe them more correctly; music, to which much attention was given, was chiefly confined to the ecclesiastical chant; and it was principally to explain the Fathers and refute errors contrary to the faith that rhetoric and dialectics were studied. 'In short,' says Crevier, 'the thought both of the king and of the scholar who laboured with him was to refer all things to religion, nothing being considered as truly useful which did not bear some relation to that end.' At first Alcuin allowed the study of the classic poets, and in his boyhood, as we know, he had been a greater reader of Virgil than of the Scriptures. … The authors whose study Charlemagne and Alcuin desired to promote, were not so much Virgil and Cicero, as St. Jerome and St. Augustine; and Charlemagne, in his excessive admiration of those Fathers, gave utterance to the wish that he had a dozen such men at his court. The 'City of God' was read at the royal table, and the questions addressed by the court students to their master turned rather on the obscurities of Holy Writ than the difficulties of prosody. In one thing, however, they betrayed a classic taste, and that was in their selection of names. The Royal Academicians all rejoiced in some literary soubriquet; Alcuin was Flaccus; Angilbert, Homer; but Charlemagne himself adopted the more scriptural appellation of David. The eagerness with which this extraordinary man applied himself to acquire learning for himself, and to extend it throughout his dominions, is truly admirable, when we remember the enormous labours in which he was constantly engaged."

King Alfred "gathered round him at his own court the sons of his nobility to receive, in conjunction with his own children, a better education than their parents would be able or willing to give them in their own households. To this assemblage of pupils Asser has attached the name of school, and a violent controversy once distracted the literary world concerning the sense in which the word was to be understood, and whether it was not the beginning or origin of a learned institution still existing. In speaking of this subject, Asser has taken occasion to enumerate and describe the children who were born to Alfred from his wife Elswitha, daughter of Ethelred the 'Big,' alderman of the Gaini, and a noble of great wealth and influence in Mercia. 'The sons and daughters,' says Asser, 'which he had by his wife above mentioned, were Ethelfled the eldest, after whom came Edward, then Ethelgiva, then Ethelswitha, and Ethelwerd, besides those who died in their infancy, one of whom was Edmund. Ethelfled, when she arrived at a marriageable age, was united to Ethelred, earl of Mercia; Ethelgiva was dedicated to God, and submitted to the rules of a monastic life; Ethelwerd, the youngest, by the Divine counsels and admirable prudence of the king, was consigned to the schools of learning, where, with the children of almost all the nobility of the country, and many also who were not noble, he prospered under the diligent care of his teachers. Books in both languages, namely, in Latin and Saxon, were read in the school. They also learned to write; so that, before they were of an age to practise manly arts, namely hunting and such other pursuits as befit noblemen, they became studious and clever in the liberal arts. Edward and Ethelswitha were bred up in the king's court, and received great attention from their servants and nurses; nay, they continue to this day, with the love of all about them, and shew affability, and even gentleness, towards all, both foreigners and natives, and are in complete subjection to their father; nor, among their other studies which appertain to this life and are fit for noble youths, are they suffered to pass their time idly and unprofitably, without learning the liberal arts; for they have carefully learned the Psalms and Saxon books, especially the Saxon Poems, and are continually in the habit of making use of books.' The schools of learning, to which Asser alludes in this passage, as formed for the use of the king's children and the sons of his nobles, are again mentioned elsewhere by the same author, as 'the school which he had studiously collected together, consisting of many of the nobility of his own nation:' and in a third passage, Asser speaks of the 'sons of the nobility who were bred up in the royal household.' It is clear, then, from these expressions, that the king's exertions to spread learning among his nobles and to educate his own children, were of a most active and personal nature, unconnected with any institutions of a more public character: the school was kept in his own household, and not in a public seat of learning. We may perhaps adduce these expressions of Asser as militating against the notion, that an University or Public Seminary of Learning existed in the days of Alfred. Though it is most probable that the several monasteries, and other societies of monks and churchmen, would employ a portion of their idle time in teaching youth, and prosecuting their own studies; yet there is no proof that an authorized seat of learning, such as the Universities of Oxford or Cambridge, existed in England, until many hundred years after the time of Alfred."

"Even as early as the tenth century, persons having a taste for learning and for elegant amenities found their way into Spain from all adjoining countries; a practice in subsequent years still more indulged in, when it became illustrated by the brilliant success of Gilbert, who … passed from the Infidel University of Cordova to the papacy of Rome. The khalifs of the West carried out the precepts of Ali, the fourth successor of Mohammed, in the patronage of literature. They established libraries in all their chief towns; it is said that not fewer than seventy were in existence. To every mosque was attached a public school, in which the children of the poor were taught to read and write, and instructed in the precepts of the Koran. For those in easier circumstances there were academies, usually arranged in twenty-five or thirty apartments, each calculated for accommodating four students; the academy being presided over by a rector. In Cordova, Granada, and other great cities, there were universities frequently under the superintendence of Jews; the Mohammedan maxim being that the real learning of a man is of more public importance than any particular religious opinions he may entertain. In this they followed the example of the Asiatic khalif, Haroun Alraschid, who actually conferred the superintendence of his schools on John Masué, a Nestorian Christian. The Mohammedan liberality was in striking contrast with the intolerance of Europe. … In the universities some of the professors of polite literature gave lectures on Arabic classical works; others taught rhetoric or composition, or mathematics, or astronomy. From these institutions many of the practices observed in our colleges were derived. They held Commencements, at which poems were read and orations delivered in presence of the public. They had also, in addition to these schools of general learning, professional ones, particularly for medicine. With a pride perhaps not altogether inexcusable, the Arabians boasted of their language as being the most perfect spoken by man. … It is not then surprising that, in the Arabian schools, great attention was paid to the study of language, and that so many celebrated grammarians were produced. By these scholars, dictionaries, similar to those now in use, were composed; their copiousness is indicated by the circumstance that one of them consisted of sixty volumes, the definition of each word being illustrated or sustained by quotations from Arab authors of acknowledged repute. They had also lexicons of Greek, Latin, Hebrew; and cyclopedias such as the Historical Dictionary of Sciences of Mohammed Ibn Abdallah, of Granada."

J. W. Draper, History of the Intellectual Development of Europe, volume 2, chapter 2.

   "The Saracenic kings formed libraries of unparalleled size and
   number. That of Hakem amounted to 600,000 volumes, of which 44
   were employed in the mere catalogue. Upwards of 70 public
   libraries were established in his dominions. 100,000 volumes
   were numbered in the library of Cairo, and were freely lent to
   the studious citizen. The taste of the sovereign communicated
   itself to the subject, and a private doctor declared that his
   books were sufficient to load 400 camels.
{691}
   Nor were the Saracens less attentive to the foundation
   of schools and colleges. Eighty of the latter institutions
   adorned Cordova in the reign of Hakem; in the fifteenth
   century fifty were scattered over the city and plain of
   Granada. 200,000 dinars (about £100,000 sterling) were
   expended on the foundation of a single college at Baghdad. It
   was endowed with an annual revenue of 15,000 dinars, and was
   attended by 6,000 students. The princes of the house of Omeya
   honoured the Spanish academies by their presence and studies,
   and competed, not without success, for the prizes of learning.
   Numerous schools for the purpose of elementary instruction
   were founded by a long series of monarchs. … In this manner
   the Arabians, within two centuries, constructed an apparatus
   for mental improvement which hitherto had not been equalled
   save in Alexandria, and to which the Church, after ruling the
   intellect of Europe for more than five hundred years, could
   offer no parallel."

The Intellectual Revival of the Middle Ages
(Westminster Review, January, 1876).

In the later times of the Roman empire, "the loss of the dignity of political freedom, the want of the cheerfulness of advancing prosperity, and the substitution of the less philosophical structure of the Latin language for the delicate intellectual mechanism of the Greek, fixed and augmented the prevalent feebleness and barrenness of intellect. Men forgot, or feared, to consult nature, to seek for new truths, to do what the great discoverers of other times had done; they were content to consult libraries, to study and defend old opinions, to talk of what great geniuses had said. They sought their philosophy in accredited treatises, and dared not question such doctrines as they there found. … In the mean time the Christian religion had become the leading subject of men's thoughts; and divines had put forward its claims to be, not merely the guide of men's lives, and the means of reconciling them to their heavenly Master, but also to be a Philosophy in the widest sense in which the term had been used;—a consistent speculative view of man's condition and nature, and of the world in which he is placed. … It was held, without any regulating principle, that the philosophy which had been bequeathed to the world by the great geniuses of heathen antiquity, and the philosophy which was deduced from, and implied by, the Revelations made by God to man, must be identical; and, therefore, that Theology is the only true philosophy. … This view was confirmed by the opinion which prevailed, concerning the nature of philosophical truth; a view supported by the theory of Plato, the practice of Aristotle, and the general propensities of the human mind: I mean the opinion that all science may be obtained by the use of reasoning alone;—that by analyzing and combining the notions which common language brings before us, we may learn all that we can know. Thus Logic came to include the whole of Science; and accordingly this Abelard expressly maintained. … Thus a Universal Science was established, with the authority of a Religious Creed. Its universality rested on erroneous views of the relation of words and truth; its pretensions as a science were admitted by the servile temper of men's intellects; and its religious authority was assigned it, by making all truth part of religion. And as Religion claimed assent within her own jurisdiction under the most solemn and imperative sanctions, Philosophy shared in her imperial power, and dissent from their doctrines was no longer blameless or allowable. Error became wicked, dissent became heresy; to reject the received human doctrines, was nearly the same as to doubt the Divine declarations. The Scholastic Philosophy claimed the assent of all believers. The external form, the details, and the text of this Philosophy, were taken, in a great measure, from Aristotle; though, in the spirit, the general notions, and the style of interpretation, Plato and the Platonists had no inconsiderable share. … It does not belong to our purpose to consider either the theological or the metaphysical doctrines which form so large a portion of the treatises of the schoolmen. Perhaps it may hereafter appear, that some light is thrown on some of the questions which have occupied metaphysicians in all ages, by that examination of the history of the Progressive Sciences in which we are now engaged; but till we are able to analyze the leading controversies of this kind, it would be of little service to speak of them in detail. It may be noticed, however, that many of the most prominent of them refer to the great question, 'What is the relation between actual things and general terms?' Perhaps in modern times, the actual things would be more commonly taken as the point to start from; and men would begin by considering how classes and universals are obtained from individuals. But the schoolmen, founding their speculations on the received modes of considering such subjects, to which both Aristotle and Plato had contributed, travelled in the opposite direction, and endeavored to discover how individuals were deduced from genera and species;—what was 'the Principle of Individuation.' This was variously stated by different reasoners. Thus Bonaventura solves the difficulty by the aid of the Aristotelian distinction of Matter and Form. The individual derives from the Form the property of being something, and from the Matter the property of being that particular thing. Duns Scotus, the great adversary of Thomas Aquinas in theology, placed the principle of Individuation in 'a certain determining positive entity,' which his school called Hæcceity or 'thisness.' 'Thus an individual man is Peter, because his humanity is combined with Petreity.' The force of abstract terms is a curious question, and some remarkable experiments in their use had been made by the Latin Aristotelians before this time. In the same way in which we talk of the quantity and quality of a thing, they spoke of its 'quiddity.' We may consider the reign of mere disputation as fully established at the time of which we are now speaking [the Middle Ages]; and the only kind of philosophy henceforth studied was one in which no sound physical science had or could have a place."

"Scholasticism was philosophy in the service of established and accepted theological doctrines. … More particularly, Scholasticism was the reproduction of ancient philosophy under the control of ecclesiastical doctrine. … The name of Scholastics (doctores scholastici) which was given to the teachers of the septem liberales artes [seven liberal arts] (grammar, dialectic, rhetoric, in the Trivium; arithmetic, geometry, music and astronomy, in the Quadrivium), or at least some of them, in the Cloister-Schools founded by Charlemagne, as also to teachers of theology, was afterwards given to all who occupied themselves with the sciences, and especially with philosophy. … Johannes Scotus, or Erigena [ninth century] is the earliest noteworthy philosopher of the Scholastic period. He was of Scottish nationality, but was probably born and brought up in Ireland. At the call of Charles the Bald he emigrated to France."

"Scholasticism, at the last, from the prodigious mental activity which it kept up, became a tacit universal insurrection against authority: it was the swelling of the ocean before the storm. … It was a sign of a great awakening of the human mind when theologians thought it both their duty and their privilege to philosophize. There was a vast waste of intellectual labor, but still it was intellectual labor, and, as we shall see, it was not in the end unfruitful."

"Scholasticism had its hour of glory, its erudite doctors, its eloquent professors, chief among whom was Abelard (1070-1142). … At a time when printing did not exist, when manuscript copies were rare, a teacher who combined knowledge with the gift of speech was a phenomenon of incomparable interest, and students flocked from all parts of Europe to take advantage of his lectures. Abelard is the most brilliant representative of the scholastic pedagogy, with an original and personal tendency towards the emancipation of the mind. 'It is ridiculous,' he said, 'to preach to others what we can neither make them understand nor understand ourselves.' With more boldness than Saint Anselm, he applied dialectics to theology, and attempted to reason out the grounds of his faith. The seven liberal arts constituted what may be called the secondary instruction of the Middle Age, such as was given in the claustral or conventual schools, and later, in the universities. The liberal arts were distributed into two courses of study, known as the 'trivium' and the 'quadrivium.' The 'trivium' comprised grammar (Latin grammar, of course), dialectics, or logic, and rhetoric; and the 'quadrivium,' music, arithmetic, geometry, and astronomy. It is important to note the fact that this programme contains only abstract and formal studies,—no real and concrete studies. The sciences which teach us to know man and the world, such as history, ethics, the physical and natural sciences, were omitted and unknown, save perhaps in a few convents of the Benedictines. Nothing which can truly educate man, and develop his faculties as a whole, enlists the attention of the Middle Age. From a course of study thus limited there might come skillful reasoners and men formidable in argument, but never fully developed men. The methods employed in the ecclesiastical schools of the Middle Age were in accord with the spirit of the times, when men were not concerned about liberty and intellectual freedom; and when they thought more about the teaching of dogmas than about the training of the intelligence. The teachers recited or read their lectures, and the pupils learned by heart. The discipline was harsh. Corrupt human nature was distrusted. In 1363, pupils were forbidden the use of benches and chairs, on the pretext that such high seats were an encouragement to pride. For securing obedience, corporal chastisements were used and abused. The rod is in fashion in the fifteenth as it was in the fourteenth century. 'There is no other difference,' says an historian, 'except that the rods in the fifteenth century are twice as long as those in the fourteenth.'"

"Up to the end of the eleventh century the instruction was, speaking generally, and allowing for transitory periods of revival, and for a few exceptional schools, a shrunken survival of the old 'trivium et quadrivium.' The lessons, when not dictated and learnt by heart from notes, were got up from bald epitomes. All that was taught, moreover, was taught solely with a view to 'pious uses.' Criticism did not exist; the free spirit of speculation could not, of course, exist. … As we approach the period which saw the birth of those institutions known as Studia Publica or Generalia, and ere long to be known as 'universities,' we have to extend our vision and recognize the circumstances of the time, and those changes in the social condition of Europe which made great central schools possible—schools to be frequented not merely by the young ecclesiastic, but by laymen. Among other causes which led to the diffusion of a demand for education among the laity, was, I think, the institution or reorganization of municipalities. It was about the end of the eleventh century that the civic Communes (Communia) began to seek and obtain, from royal and other authorities, charters of incorporation constituting their internal government and conferring certain freedoms and privileges as against the encroachment of lay and ecclesiastical feudal barons. … About the same time, and somewhat prior to this, trade guilds had been formed in many cities for mutual protection, the advancement of commerce, and the internal regulation of the various crafts. There immediately followed a desire for schools in the more important commercial towns. In Italy such schools arose in Bologna, Milan, Brescia, and Florence; and in Germany they arose in Lübeck, Hamburg, Breslau, Nordhausen, Stettin, Leipsic, and Nürnberg. The distinctive characteristic of these city schools was, that they do not seem to have been under the direct control of the Church, or to have been always taught by priests; further, that the native tongue (German or Italian, as the case might be) was taught. Reading, writing, and a little arithmetic seem to have formed the staple of the instruction. The custom of dictating, writing down, and then learning by heart what was written—universal in the schools of the preceding centuries—was, of course, still followed in these burgh schools. This custom was almost inevitable. … The increased communication with Africa and the East through the Crusades had introduced men to a standard of learning among the Arabs, unknown in Europe. Outside the school, the order of chivalry had introduced a new and higher ethical spirit than had been known in the previous centuries. Civic communities and trade guilds were forming themselves and seeking charters of incorporation. Above all; the Crusades, by stimulating the ardour and exciting the intellects of men, had unsettled old convention by bringing men of all ranks within the sacred circle of a common enthusiasm, and into contact with foreign civilizations. {693} The desire for a higher education, and the impulse to more profound investigation, that characterized the beginning and course of the twelfth century, was thus only a part of a widespread movement, political and moral. … While the Romano-Hellenic schools had long disappeared, there still existed, in many towns, episcopal schools of a high class, many of which might be regarded as continuations of the old imperial provincial institutions. … In Bologna and Paris, Rheims and Naples, it was so. The arts curriculum professed in these centres was, for the time and state of knowledge, good. These schools, indeed, had never quite lost the fresh impulse given by Charlemagne and his successors. … According to my view of educational history, the great 'studia publica' or 'generalia' arose out of them. They were themselves, in a narrow sense, already 'studia publica.' … Looking, first, to the germ out of which the universities grew, I think we must say that the universities may be regarded as a natural development of the cathedral and monastery schools; but if we seek for an external motive force urging men to undertake the more profound and independent study of the liberal arts, we can find it only in the Saracenic schools of Bagdad, Babylon, Alexandria, and Cordova. … To fix precisely the date of the rise of the first specialized schools or universities is impossible, for the simple reason that they were not founded. … The simplest account of the new university origins is the most correct. It would appear that certain active-minded men of marked eminence began to give instruction in medical subjects at Salerno, and in law at Bologna, in a spirit and manner not previously attempted, to youths who had left the monastery and cathedral schools, and who desired to equip themselves for professional life. Pupils flocked to them; and the more able of these students, finding that there was a public demand for this higher specialized instruction, remained at headquarters, and themselves became teachers or doctors. The Church did not found universities any more than it founded the order of chivalry. They were founded by a concurrence (not wholly fortuitous) of able men who had something they wished to teach, and of youths who desired to learn. None the less were the acquiescence and protection of Church and State necessary in those days for the fostering of these infant seminaries. … Of the three great schools which we have named, there is sufficient ground for believing that the first to reach such a development as to entitle it to the name of a studium generale or university was the 'Schola Salernitana,' although it never was a university, technically speaking."

"Ideas, till this time scattered, or watched over in the various ecclesiastical schools, began to converge to a common centre. The great name of University was recognised in the capital of France, at the moment that the French tongue had become almost universal. The conquests of the Normans, and the first crusade, had spread its powerfully philosophic idiom in every direction, to England, to Sicily, and to Jerusalem. This circumstance alone invested France, central France, Paris, with an immense attractive power. By degrees, Parisian French became a proverb. Feudalism had found its political centre in the royal city; and this city was about to become the capital of human thought. The beginner of this revolution was not a priest, but a handsome young man of brilliant talents, amiable and of noble family. None wrote love verses, like his, in the vulgar tongue; he sang them, too. Besides, his erudition was extraordinary for that day. He alone, of his time, knew both Greek and Hebrew. May be, he had studied at the Jewish schools (there were many in the South), or under the rabbins of Troyes, Vitry, or of Orleans. There were then in Paris two leading schools: the old Episcopal school of the parvis Notre Dame, and that of St. Geneviève, on the hill, where shone William of Champeaux. Abelard joined his pupils, submitted to him his doubts, puzzled him, laughed at him, and closed his mouth. He would have served Anselm of Laon the same, had not the professor, being a bishop, expelled him from his diocese. In this fashion this knight-errant of logic went on, unhorsing the most celebrated champions. He himself declared that he had only renounced tilt and tourney through his passion for intellectual combats. Henceforward, victorious and without a rival, he taught at Paris and Melun, the residence of Louis-le-Gros, and the lords flocked to hear him; anxious to encourage one of themselves, who had discomfited the priests on their own ground, and had silenced the ablest clerks. Abelard's wonderful success is easily explained. All the lore and learning which had been smothered under the heavy, dogmatical forms of clerical instruction, and hidden in the rude Latin of the middle age, suddenly appeared arrayed in the simple elegance of antiquity, so that men seemed for the first time to hear and recognise a human voice. The daring youth simplified and explained everything; presenting philosophy in a familiar form, and bringing it home to men's bosoms. He hardly suffered the obscure or supernatural to rest on the hardest mysteries of faith. It seemed as if till then the Church had lisped and stammered; while Abelard spoke. All was made smooth and easy. He treated religion courteously and handled her gently, but she melted away in his hands. Nothing embarrassed the fluent speaker: he reduced religion to philosophy, and morality to humanity. 'Crime,' he said, 'consists not in the act, but in the intention.' It followed, that there was no such thing as sins of habit or of ignorance—'They who crucified Jesus, not knowing him to have been the Saviour, were guilty of no sin.' What is original sin?—'Less a sin, than a punishment.' But then, wherefore the redemption and the passion, if there was no sin?—'It was an act of pure love. God desired to substitute the law of love for that of fear.'"

   "It is difficult, by a mere perusal of Abelard's works, to
   understand the effect he produced upon his hearers by the
   force of his argumentation, whether studied or improvised, and
   by the ardor and animation of his eloquence, and the grace and
   attractiveness of his person. But the testimony of his
   contemporaries is unanimous; even his adversaries themselves
   render justice to his high oratorical qualities. No one ever
   reasoned with more subtlety, or handled the dialectic tool
   with more address; and assuredly, something of these qualities
   is to be found in the writings he has left us. But the intense
   life, the enthusiastic ardor which enlivened his discourses,
   the beauty of his face, and the charm of his voice cannot be
   imparted by cold manuscripts.
{694}
   Héloise, whose name is inseparably linked with that of her
   unfortunate husband, and whom Charles de Rémusat does not
   hesitate to call 'the first of women'; who, in any case, was a
   superior person of her time; Héloise, who loved Abelard with
   'an immoderate love,' and who, under the veil of a
   'religieuse' and throughout the practice of devotional duties,
   remained faithful to him until death; Héloise said to him in
   her famous letter of 1136: 'Thou hast two things especially
   which could instantly win thee the hearts of all women: the
   charm thou knowest how to impart to thy voice in speaking and
   singing.' External gifts combined with intellectual qualities
   to make of Abelard an incomparable seducer of minds and
   hearts. Add to this an astonishing memory, a knowledge as
   profound as was compatible with the resources of his time, and
   a vast erudition which caused his contemporaries to consider
   him a master of universal knowledge. … How can one be
   astonished that with such qualities Abelard gained an
   extraordinary ascendency over his age; that, having become the
   intellectual ruler and, as it were, the dictator of the
   thought of the twelfth century, he should have succeeded in
   attracting to his chair and in retaining around it thousands
   of young men; the first germ of those assemblages of students
   who were to constitute the universities several years later?
   … It is not alone by the outward success of his scholastic
   apostolate that Abelard merits consideration as the precursor
   of the modern spirit and the promoter of the foundation of the
   universities; it is also by his doctrine, or at least by his
   method. … No one claims that Abelard was the first who, in
   the Middle Ages, had introduced dialectics into theology,
   reason into authority. In the ninth century, Scotus Erigena
   had already said: 'Authority is derived from reason.'
   Scholasticism, which is nothing but logic enlightening
   theology, an effort of reason to demonstrate dogma, had begun
   before Abelard; but it was he who gave movement and life to
   the method by lending it his power and his renown."

"Greek was an unknown tongue: only a very few of the Latin classics received a perfunctory attention: Boethius was preferred to Cicero, and the Moral Sentences ascribed to Cato to either. Rules couched in barbarous Latin verse were committed to memory. Aristotle was known only in incorrect Latin translations, which many of the taught, and some of the teachers probably, supposed to be the originals. Matters were not mended when the student, having passed through the preliminary course of arts, advanced to the study of the sciences. Theology meant an acquaintance with the 'Sentences' of Peter Lombard, or, in other cases, with the 'Summa' of Thomas Aquinas; in medicine, Galen was an authority from which there was no appeal. On every side the student was fenced round by traditions and prejudices, through which it was impossible to break. In truth, he had no means of knowing that there was a wider and fairer world beyond. Till the classical revival came, every decade made the yoke of prescription heavier, and each generation of students, therefore, a feebler copy of the last."

"What at first had been everywhere a Greek became in Western Europe a Latin religion. The discipline of Rome maintained the body of doctrine which the thought of Greece had defined. A new Latin version, superseding alike the venerable Greek translation of the Old Testament and the original words of Evangelists and Apostles, became the received text of Holy Scripture. The Latin Fathers acquired an authority scarcely less binding. The ritual, lessons, and hymns of the Church were Latin. Ecclesiastics transacted the business of civil departments requiring education. Libraries were armories of the Church: grammar was part of her drill. The humblest scholar was enlisted, in her service: she recruited her ranks by founding Latin schools. 'Education in the rudiments of Latin,' says Hallam, 'was imparted to a greater number of individuals than at present;' and, as they had more use for it than at present, it was longer retained. If a boy of humble birth had a taste for letters, or if a boy of high birth had a distaste for arms, the first step was to learn Latin. His foot was then on the ladder. He might rise by the good offices of his family to a bishopric, or to the papacy itself by merit and the grace of God. Latin enabled a Greek from Tarsus (Theodore) to become the founder of learning in the English church; and a Yorkshireman (Alcuin) to organize the schools of Charlemagne. Without Latin, our English Winfrid (St. Boniface) could not have been apostle of Germany and reformer of the Frankish Church; or the German Albert, master at Paris of Thomas Aquinas; or Nicholas Breakspeare, Pope of Rome. With it, Western Christendom was one vast field of labor: calls for self-sacrifice, or offers of promotion, might come from north or south, from east or west. Thus in the Middle Ages Latin was made the groundwork of education; not for the beauty of its classical literature, nor because the study of a dead language was the best mental gymnastic, or the only means of acquiring a masterly freedom in the use of living tongues, but because it was the language of educated men throughout Western Europe, employed for public business, literature, philosophy, and science; above all, in God's providence, essential to the unity, and therefore enforced by the authority of, the Western Church."

      C. S. Parker,
      Essay on the History of Classical Education
      (quoted in Dr. Henry Barnard's "Letters, Essays and
      Thoughts on Studies and Conduct," page 467).

   "The countries of western Europe, leavened, all of them, by
   the one spirit of the feudal and catholic Middle Age, formed
   in some sense one community, and were more associated than
   they have been since the feudal and catholic unity of the
   Middle Age has disappeared and given place to the divided and
   various life of modern Europe. In the mediæval community
   France held the first place. It is now well known that to
   place in the 15th century the revival of intellectual life and
   the re-establishment of civilisation, and to treat the period
   between the 5th century, when ancient civilisation was ruined
   by the barbarians, and the 15th, when the life and intellect
   of this civilisation reappeared and transformed the world, as
   one chaos, is a mistake. The chaos ends about the 10th
   century; in the 11th there truly comes the first
   re-establishment of civilisation, the first revival of
   intellectual life; the principal centre of this revival is
   France, its chief monuments of literature are in the French
   language, its chief monuments of art are the French cathedrals.
{695}
   This revival fills the 12th and 13th centuries with its
   activity and with its works; all this time France has the
   lead; in the 14th century the lead passes to Italy; but now
   comes the commencement of a wholly new period, the period of
   the Renaissance properly so called, the beginning of modern
   European life, the ceasing of the life of the feudal and
   catholic Middle Age. The anterior and less glorious
   Renaissance, the Renaissance within the limits of the Middle
   Age itself, a revival which came to a stop and could not
   successfully develop itself, but which has yet left profound
   traces in our spirit and our literature,—this revival belongs
   chiefly to France. France, then, may well serve as a typical
   country wherein to trace the mediæval growth of intellect and
   learning; above all she may so stand for us, whose connection
   with her in the Middle Age, owing to our Norman kings and the
   currency of her language among our cultivated class, was so
   peculiarly close; so close that the literary and intellectual
   development of the two countries at that time intermingles,
   and no important event can happen in that of the one without
   straightway affecting and interesting that of the other. …
   With the hostility of the long French Wars of Edward the Third
   comes the estrangement, never afterwards diminishing but
   always increasing."

      M. Arnold,
      Schools and Universities on the Continent,
      chapter 1.

"The name of Abelard recalls the European celebrity and immense intellectual ferment of this school [of Paris] in the 12th century. But it was in the first year of the following century, the 13th, that it received a charter from Philip Augustus, and thenceforth the name of University of Paris takes the place of that of School of Paris. Forty-nine years later was founded University College, Oxford, the oldest college of the oldest English University. Four nations composed the University of Paris,—the nation of France, the nation of Picardy, the nation of Normandy, and (signal mark of the close intercourse which then existed between France and us!) the nation of England. The four nations united formed the faculty of arts. The faculty of theology was created in 1257, that of law in 1271, that of medicine in 1274. Theology, law, and medicine had each their Dean; arts had four Procurators, one for each of the four nations composing this faculty. Arts elected the rector of the University, and had possession of the University chest and archives. The preeminence of the Faculty of Arts indicates, as indeed does the very development of the University, an idea, gradually strengthening itself, of a lay instruction to be no longer absorbed in theology, but separable from it. The growth of a lay and modern spirit in society, the preponderance of the crown over the papacy, of the civil over the ecclesiastical power, is the great feature of French history in the 14th century, and to this century belongs the highest development of the University. … The importance of the University in the 13th and 14th centuries was extraordinary. Men's minds were possessed with a wonderful zeal for knowledge, or what was then thought knowledge, and the University of Paris was the great fount from which this knowledge issued. The University and those depending on it made at this time, it is said, actually a third of the population of Paris; when the University went on a solemn occasion in procession to Saint Denis, the head of the procession, it is said, had reached St. Denis before the end of it had left its starting place in Paris. It had immunities from taxation, it had jurisdiction of its own, and its members claimed to be exempt from that of the provost of Paris; the kings of France strongly favoured the University, and leaned to its side when the municipal and academical authorities were in conflict; if at any time the University thought itself seriously aggrieved, it had recourse to a measure which threw Paris into dismay,—it shut up its schools and suspended its lectures. In a body of this kind the discipline could not be strict, and the colleges were created to supply centres of discipline which the University in itself,—an apparatus merely of teachers and lecture-rooms,—did not provide. The 14th century is the time when, one after another, with wonderful rapidity, the French colleges appeared. Navarre, Montaigu, Harcourt, names so familiar in the school annals of France, date from the first quarter of the 14th century. The College of Navarre was founded by the queen of Philip the Fair, in 1304; the College of Montaigu, where Erasmus, Rabelais, and Ignatius Loyola were in their time students, was founded in 1314 by two members of the family of Montaigu, one of them Archbishop of Rouen. The majority of these colleges were founded by magnates of the church, and designed to maintain a certain number of bursars, or scholars, during their university course. … Along with the University of Paris there existed in France, in the 14th century, the Universities of Orleans, Angers, Toulouse, and Montpellier. Orleans was the great French school for the study of the civil law. … The civil law was studiously kept away from the University of Paris, for fear it should drive out other studies, and especially the study of theology; so late as the year 1679 there was no chair of Roman or even of French law in the University of Paris. The strength of this University was concentrated on theology and arts, and its celebrity arose from the multitude of students which in these branches of instruction it attracted."

The University of Paris acquired the name of "the Sorbonne" "from Robert of Sorbon, aulic chaplain of St. Louis, who established one of the 63 colleges of the University. … The name of Sorbonne was first applied to the theological faculty only; but at length the whole University received this designation."

   "The precise date of the organization at Paris of the four
   Nations which maintained themselves there until the latest
   days of the university escapes the most minute research.
   Neither for the Nations nor for the Faculties was there any
   sudden blossoming, but rather a slow evolution, an insensible
   preparation for a definite condition. Already at the close of
   the twelfth century there is mention in contemporary documents
   of the various provinces of the school of Paris. The Nations
   are mentioned in the bulls of Gregory IX. (1231) and of
   Innocent IV. (1245). In 1245, they already elect their
   attendants, the beadles. In 1249, the existence of the four
   Nations—France, Picardy, Normandy, and England—is proved by
   their quarrels over the election of a rector. … Until the
   definitive constitution of the Faculties, that is, until 1270
   or 1280, the four Nations included the totality of students
   and masters.
{696}
   After the formation of the Faculties, the four Nations
   comprised only the members of the Faculty of Arts and those
   students of other Faculties who had not yet obtained the grade
   of Bachelor of Arts. The three superior Faculties, Theology,
   Medicine, and Law, had nothing in common thenceforward with
   the Nations. … At Bologna, as at Paris, the Nations were
   constituted in the early years of the thirteenth century, but
   under a slightly different form. There the students were
   grouped in two distinct associations, the Ultramontanes and
   the Citramontanes, the foreigners and the Italians, who formed
   two universities, the Transalpine and the Cisalpine, each with
   its chiefs, who were not styled procurators but counsellors;
   the first was composed of eighteen Nations and the second of
   seventeen. At Padua twenty-two Nations were enumerated.
   Montpellier had only three in 1339,—the Catalans, the
   Burgundians, the Provençals; each sub-divided, however, into
   numerous groups. Orleans had ten: France, Germany, Lorraine,
   Burgundy, Champagne, Picardy, Normandy, Touraine, Guyanne, and
   Scotland; Poitiers had four: France, Aquitaine, Touraine, and
   Berry; Prague had four also, in imitation of Paris; Lerida had
   twelve, in imitation of Bologna, etc. But whether more or less
   numerous, and whatever their special organization, the Nations
   in all the universities bore witness to that need of
   association which is one of the characteristics of the Middle
   Ages. … One of the consequences of their organization was to
   prevent the blending and fusion of races, and to maintain the
   distinction of provinces and nationalities among the pupils of
   the same university."

"It is known that Justinian established in Rome a school of law, similar to those of Constantinople and Berytus. When Rome ceased to be subject to Byzantine rule, this law-school seems to have been transferred to Ravenna, where it continued to keep alive the knowledge of the Justinian system. That system continued to be known and used, from century to century, in a tradition never wholly interrupted, especially in the free cities of Northern Italy. It seems even to have penetrated beyond Italy into Southern France. But it was destined to have, at the beginning of the twelfth century, a very extraordinary revival. This revival was part of a general movement of the European mind which makes its appearance at that epoch. The darkness which settled down on the world, at the time of the barbarian invasions, had its midnight in the ninth and tenth centuries. In the eleventh, signs of progress and improvement begin to show themselves, becoming more distinct towards its close, when the period of the Crusades was opening upon Europe. Just at this time we find a famous school of law established in Bologna, and frequented by multitudes of pupils, not only from all parts of Italy, but from Germany, France, and other countries. The basis of all its instruction was the Corpus Juris Civilis [see CORPUS JURIS CIVILIS]. Its teachers, who constitute a series of distinguished jurists extending over a century and a half, devoted themselves to the work of expounding the text and elucidating the principles of the Corpus Juris, and especially the Digest. From the form in which they recorded and handed down the results of their studies, they have obtained the name of glossators. On their copies of the Corpus Juris they were accustomed to write glosses, i. e., brief marginal explanations and remarks. These glosses came at length to be an immense literature. … Here, then, in this school of the glossators, at Bologna, in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, the awakened mind of Europe was brought to recognize the value of the Corpus Juris, the almost inexhaustible treasure of juristic principles, precepts, conceptions, reasonings, stored up in it."

"In the twelfth century the law school of the University of Bologna eclipsed all others in Europe. The two great branches of legal study in the middle ages, the Roman law and the canon law, began in the teaching of Irnerius and Gratian at Bologna in the first half of the twelfth century. At the beginning of this century the name of university first replaces that of school; and it is said that the great university degree, that of doctor, was first instituted at Bologna, and that the ceremony for conferring it was devised there. From Bologna the degree and its ceremonial travelled to Paris. A bull of Pope Honorius, in 1220, says that the study of 'bomæ literæ' had at that time made the city of Bologna famous throughout the world. Twelve thousand students from all parts of Europe are said to have been congregated there at once. The different nations had their colleges, and of colleges at Bologna there were fourteen. These were founded and endowed by the liberality of private persons; the university professors, the source of attraction to this multitude of students, were paid by the municipality, who found their reward in the fame, business, and importance brought to their town by the university. The municipalities of the great cities of northern and central Italy were not slow in following the example of Bologna; in the thirteenth century Padua, Modena, Piacenza, Parma, Ferrara, had each its university. Frederick II. founded that of Naples in 1224; in the fourteenth century were added those of Pavia, Perugia, Pisa, and Turin. Colleges of examiners, or, as we should say, boards, were created by Papal bull to examine in theology, and by imperial decree to examine in law and medicine. It was in these studies of law and medicine that the Italian universities were chiefly distinguished."

   "The Bologna School of jurisprudence was several times
   threatened with total extinction. In the repeated difficulties
   with the city the students would march out of the town, bound
   by a solemn oath not to return; and if a compromise was to be
   effected, a papal dispensation from that oath must first be
   obtained. Generally on such occasions, the privileges of the
   university were reaffirmed and often enlarged. In other cases,
   a quarrel between the pope and the city, and the ban placed
   over the latter, obliged the students to leave; and then the
   city often planned and furthered the removal of the
   university. King Frederic II., in 1226, during the war against
   Bologna, dissolved the school of jurisprudence, which seems to
   have been not at all affected thereby, and he formally
   recalled that ordinance in the following year. Originally the
   only school in Bologna was the school of jurisprudence, and in
   connection with it alone a university could be formed. ….
   Subsequently eminent teachers of medicine and the liberal arts
   appeared, and their pupils, too, sought to form a university
   and to choose their own rector.
{697}
   As late as 1295 this innovation was disputed by the jurists
   and interdicted by the city, so that they had to connect
   themselves with the university of jurisprudence. But a few
   years later we find them already in possession again of a few
   rectors, and in 1316 their right was formally recognized in a
   compromise between the university of jurisprudence and the
   city. The students called themselves 'philosophi et medici' or
   'physici'; also by the common name of 'artistæ.' Finally a
   school of theology, founded by pope Innocent VI., was added in
   the second half of the 14th century; it was placed under the
   bishop, and organized in imitation of the school at Paris, so
   that it was a 'universitas magistrorum,' not 'scholarium.' As,
   however, by this arrangement the students of theology in the
   theological university had no civil privileges of their own,
   they were considered individually as belonging to the
   'artistæ.' From this time Bologna had four universities, two
   of jurisprudence, the one of medicine and philosophy, and the
   theological, the first two having no connection with the
   others, forming a unit, and therefore frequently designated as
   one university."

      F. C. Savigny,
      The Universities of the Middle Ages
      (Barnard's American Journal of Education,
      volume 22, pages 278-279).

"The oldest and most frequented university in Italy, that of Bologna, is represented as having flourished in the twelfth century. Its prosperity in early times depended greatly on the personal conduct of the principal professors, who, when they were not satisfied with their entertainment, were in the habit of seceding with their pupils to other cities. Thus high schools were opened from time to time in Modena, Reggio, and elsewhere by teachers who broke the oaths that bound them to reside in Bologna, and fixed their centre of education in a rival town. To make such temporary changes was not difficult in an age when what we have to call an university, consisted of masters and scholars, without college buildings, without libraries, without endowments, and without scientific apparatus. The technical name for such institutions seems to have been 'studium scholarium,' Italianised into 'studio' or 'studio pubblico.' Among the more permanent results of these secessions may be mentioned the establishment of the high school at Vicenza by translation from Bologna in 1204, and the opening of a school at Arezzo under similar circumstances in 1215; the great University of Padua first saw the light in consequence of political discords forcing the professors to quit Bologna for a season. The first half of the thirteenth century witnessed the foundation of these 'studi' in considerable numbers. That of Vercelli was opened in 1228, the municipality providing two certified copyists for the convenience of students who might wish to purchase textbooks. In 1224 the Emperor Frederick II., to whom the south of Italy owed a precocious eminence in literature, established the University of Naples by an Imperial diploma. With a view to rendering it the chief seat of learning in his dominions, he forbade the subjects of the Regno to frequent other schools, and suppressed the University of Bologna by letters general. Thereupon Bologna joined the Lombard League, defied the Emperor, and refused to close the schools, which numbered at that period about ten thousand students of various nationalities. In 1227 Frederick revoked his edict, and Bologna remained thenceforward unmolested. Political and internal vicissitudes, affecting all the Italian universities at this period, interrupted the prosperity of that of Naples. In the middle of the thirteenth century Salerno proved a dangerous rival. … An important group of 'studi pubblici' owed their origin to Papal or Imperial charters in the first half of the fourteenth century. That of Perugia was founded in 1307 by a Bull of Clement V. That of Rome dated from 1303, in which year Boniface VIII. gave it a constitution by a special edict; but the translation of the Papal See to Avignon caused it to fall into premature decadence. The University of Pisa had already existed for some years, when it received a charter in 1343 from Clement VI. That of Florence was first founded in 1321. … The subjects taught in the high schools were Canon and Civil Law, Medicine, and Theology. These faculties, important for the professional education of the public, formed the staple of the academical curriculum. Chairs of Rhetoric, Philosophy, and Astronomy were added according to occasion, the last sometimes including the study of judicial astrology. If we enquire how the humanists or professors of classic literature were related to the universities, we find that, at first at any rate, they always occupied a second rank. The permanent teaching remained in the hands of jurists, who enjoyed life engagements at a high rate of pay, while the Latinists and Grecians could only aspire to the temporary occupation of the Chair of Rhetoric, with salaries considerably lower than those of lawyers or physicians."

   "Few of the Italian universities show themselves in their full
   vigour till the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, when the
   increase of wealth rendered a more systematic care for
   education possible. At first there were generally three sorts
   of professorships—one for civil law, another for canonical
   law, the third for medicine; in course of time professorships
   of rhetoric, of philosophy, and of astronomy were added, the
   last commonly, though not always, identical with astrology.
   The salaries varied greatly in different cases. Sometimes a
   capital sum was paid down. With the spread of culture
   competition became so active that the different universities
   tried to entice away distinguished teachers from one another,
   under which circumstances Bologna is said to have sometimes
   devoted the half of its public income (20,000 ducats) to the
   university. The appointments were as a rule made only for a
   certain time, sometimes for only half a year, so that the
   teachers were forced to lead a wandering life, like actors.
   Appointments for life were, however, not unknown. … Of the
   chairs which have been mentioned, that of rhetoric was
   especially sought by the humanist; yet it depended only on his
   familiarity with the matter of ancient learning whether or no
   he could aspire to those of law, medicine, philosophy, or
   astronomy. The inward conditions of the science of the day
   were as variable as the outward conditions of the teacher.
   Certain jurists and physicians received by far the largest
   salaries of all, the former chiefly as consulting lawyers for
   the suits and claims of the state which employed them. …
{698}
   Personal intercourse between the teachers and the taught,
   public disputations, the constant use of Latin and often of
   Greek, the frequent changes of lecturers and the scarcity of
   books, gave the studies of that time a colour which we cannot
   represent to ourselves without effort. There were Latin
   schools in every town of the least importance, not by any
   means merely as preparatory to higher education, but because,
   next to reading, writing, and arithmetic, the knowledge of
   Latin was a necessity; and after Latin came logic. It is to be
   noted particularly that these schools did not depend on the
   Church, but on the municipality; some of them, too, were
   merely private enterprises. This school system, directed by a
   few distinguished humanists, not only attained a remarkable
   perfection of organisation, but became an instrument of higher
   education in the modern sense of the phrase."

      J. Burckhardt,
      The Civilisation of the Period of the Renaissance in Italy,
      volume 1, part 3, chapter 5.

"The earliest university in Germany was that of Prague. It was in 1348, under the Emperor Charles IV., when the taste for letters had revived so signally in Europe, when England may be said to have possessed her two old universities already for three centuries, Paris her Sorbonne already for four, that this university was erected as the first of German Universities. The idea originated in the mind of the Emperor, who was educated in Paris, at the university of that town, and was eagerly taken up by the townspeople of that ancient and wealthy city, for they foresaw that affluence would shower upon them if they could induce a numerous crowd of students to flock together within their walls. But the Pope and the Emperor took an active part in favouring and authorizing the institution; they willingly granted to it wide privileges, and made it entirely independent of Church and State. The teaching of the professors, and the studies of the students, were submitted to no control whatever. After the model of the University of Paris, they divided themselves into different faculties, and made four such divisions—one for divinity, another for medical science, a third for law, and a fourth for philosophy. The last order comprised those who taught and learned the fine arts and the sciences, which two departments were separate at Sorbonne. All the German universities have preserved this outward constitution, and in this, as in many other circumstances, the precedent of Prague has had a prevailing influence on her younger sister institutions. The same thing may be said particularly of the disciplinary tone of the university. In other countries, universities sprang from rigid clerical and monastic institutions, or bore a more or less ecclesiastical character which imposed upon them certain more retired habits, and a severer kind of discipline. Prague took from the beginning a course widely different. The students, who were partly Germans, partly of Slavonian blood, enjoyed a boundless liberty. They lodged in the houses of the townspeople, and by their riches, their mental superiority, and their number (they are recorded to have been as many as twenty thousand in the year 1409), became the undisputed masters of the city. The professors and the inhabitants of Prague, far from checking them, rather protected the prerogatives of the students, for they found out that all their prosperity depended on them. … Not two generations had passed since the erection of an institution thus constituted, before Huss and Jerome of Prague began to teach the necessity of an entire reformation of the Church. The phenomenon is characteristic of the bold spirit of inquiry that must have grown up at the new University. However, the political consequences that attended the promulgation of such doctrines led almost to the dissolution of the University itself. For, the German part of the students broke up, in consequence of repeated and serious quarrels that had taken place with the Bohemian and Slavonic party, and went to Leipzig, where straightway a new and purely German University was erected. While Prague became the seat of a protracted and sanguinary war, a great number of Universities rose into existence around it, and attracted the crowds that had formerly flocked to the Bohemian capital. It appeared as if Germany, though it had received the impulse from abroad, would leave all other countries behind itself in the erection and promotion of these learned institutions, for all the districts of the land vied with each other in creating universities. Thus arose those of Rostock, Ingolstadt, Vienna, Heidelberg, Cologne, Erfurt, Tübingen, Greifswalde, Trèves, Mayence and Bâles-schools which have partly disappeared again during the political storms of subsequent ages. The beginning of the sixteenth century added to them one at Frankfort on the Oder, and another, the most illustrious of all, Wittenberg. Everyone who is acquainted with the history and origin of the Reformation, knows what an important part the latter of these universities took in the weighty transactions of those times. … Wittenberg remained by no means the only champion of Protestantism. At Marburg, Jena, Königsberg, and Helmstadt, universities of a professedly Protestant character were erected. These schools became the cradle and nurseries of the Reformation."

The Universities of Germany (Dublin University Magazine, volume 46, pages 83-85).

"The German universities of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries were founded in the following order: Prague, 1348; Vienna, 1388; Erfurt, 1392; Leipsic, 1409; Rostock, 1419; Greifswald, 1456; Freiburg, 1457; Ingolstadt, 1472; Tübingen, 1477; and Mayence, 1477. Thus, it will be seen that they were established in quick succession—an unmistakable proof of the growing scientific interest of the age."

   "Tradition reports that a school had … been founded at
   Utrecht, by some zealous missionary, in the time of Charles
   Martel, at which his son Pepin received his education. However
   this may have been, the renown of the Utrecht School of St.
   Martin is of very ancient date. … During the invasion by the
   Normans, this school at Utrecht was suppressed, but was
   reëstablished in 917, and regained its former renown. The
   Emperor, Henry the Fowler, placed here his three sons, Otto,
   Henry and Bruno, to be educated, of whom the last became
   afterward archbishop of Cologne and archduke of Lottringen,
   and was noted for his extraordinary learning and friendship
   for the poet Prudentius. At the beginning of the 12th century,
   Utrecht possessed no less than five flourishing schools,
   several of which had each a 'rector' in addition to the
   priests who had the general control. At about the same time,
   several convents became distinguished as educational
   institutions, especially those of Egmond, Nymwegen,
   Middleburg, in Zealand, and Aduwert, near Gröningen.
{699}
   In Holland, as in Belgium, in addition to the schools that
   were attached to the cathedrals, convents, and chapters, there
   were established in the course of the twelfth century, by the
   more wealthy communities, public schools especially designed
   for the instruction of the citizens and laity. It is also
   worthy of notice that the authority to open such schools was
   always derived from the counts—by whom it was conferred,
   sometimes upon the cities as an especial privilege, and
   sometimes upon merely private persons as a mark of particular
   favor. The jurisdiction of the feudal lords was the same here
   as in Belgium; but while in the latter country, with the
   exception perhaps of the elementary schools in some of the
   cities, the right of supervision everywhere devolved upon the
   chapters, instruction in these public schools of Holland was
   wholly withdrawn from the clergy, and they were made
   essentially secular in their character. The privilege of thus
   establishing schools was conferred upon some of the cities at
   the following dates:

Dort, by Count Floris V., A. D. 1290; the Hague, 1322; Leyden, 1324; and Rotterdam in 1328, by William III.; Delft and Amsterdam, in 1334, by William IV.; Leyden again, 1357; Haarlem, 1389; Alkmar, 1398; Hoorn, 1358 and 1390; the Hague, 1393; Schiedam and Ondewater, 1394; and Rotterdam, in 1402, by Albert of Bavaria.

These schools, adds Stallaert, on the authority of Buddingh, were generally styled 'School en Schryfambacht,' 'Schoole en Kostern,' (school and writing offices, schools and clerks' houses,) and the 'Schoolmijsters' (school-masters) were looked upon as professional men or craftsmen—as was the case also in Belgium, where they formed distinct guilds and fraternities. These public schools of Holland were divided into 'large' and 'small' schools, (groote en bijschoolen,) Latin being taught in the first division. The institution at Zwolle, attained special notoriety in the fourteenth century, under the direction of the celebrated Johan Cele. According to Thomas à Kempis and Ten Bussche, its pupils numbered about a thousand, gathered from Holland, Belgium, and the principal provinces of Germany."

Public Instruction in Holland
(Barnard's American Journal of Education, volume 14).

"The University of Oxford did not spring into being in any particular year, or at the bidding of any particular founder: it was not established by any formal charter of incorporation. Taking its rise in a small and obscure association of teachers and learners, it developed spontaneously into a large and important body, long before its existence was recognised by prince or by prelate. There were certainly schools at Oxford in the reign of Henry I., but the previous history of the place does not throw much light on their origin, or explain the causes of their popularity. The town seems to have grown up under the shadow of a nunnery, which is said to have been founded by St. Frideswyde as far back as the eighth century. Its authentic annals, however, begin with the year 912, when it was occupied and annexed by Edward the Elder, King of the West Saxons. … Oxford was considered a place of great strategical importance in the eleventh century. Its position on the borders of Mercia and Wessex rendered it also, particularly convenient for parleys between Englishmen and Danes, and for great national assemblies. … Retaining for a while its rank as one of the chief centres of political life in the south of England, and as a suitable meeting-place for parliaments and synods, Oxford became thenceforward more and more distinctively known as a seat of learning and a nursery of clerks. The schools which existed at Oxford before the reign of King John, are so seldom and so briefly noticed in contemporary records, that it would be difficult to show how they developed into a great university, if it were not for the analogy of kindred institutions in other countries. There can be little doubt, however, that the idea of a university, the systems of degrees and faculties, and the nomenclature of the chief academical officers, were alike imported into England from abroad. … In the earliest and broadest sense of the term, a university had no necessary connexion with schools or literature, being merely a community of individuals bound together by some more or less acknowledged tie. Regarded collectively in this light, the inhabitants of any particular town might be said to constitute a university, and in point of fact the Commonalty of the townsmen of Oxford was sometimes described as a university in formal documents of the middle ages. The term was, however, specially applied to the whole body of persons frequenting the schools of a large studium. Ultimately it came to be employed in a technical sense as synonymous with studium, to denote the institution itself. This last use of the term seems to be of English origin, for the University of Oxford is mentioned as such in writs and ordinances of the years 1238, 1240, and 1253, whereas the greater seat of learning on the banks of the Seine was, until the year 1263, styled 'the University of the Masters,' or 'the University of the Scholars,' of Paris. The system of academical degrees dates from the second half of the twelfth century."

   "In the early Oxford … of the twelfth and most of the
   thirteenth centuries, colleges with their statutes were
   unknown. The University was the only corporation of the
   learned, and she struggled into existence after hard fights
   with the town, the Jews, the Friars, the Papal courts. The
   history of the University begins with the thirteenth century.
   She may be said to have come into being as soon as she
   possessed common funds and rents, as soon as fines were
   assigned, or benefactions contributed to the maintenance of
   scholars. Now the first recorded fine is the payment of
   fifty-two shillings by the townsmen of Oxford as part of the
   compensation for the hanging of certain clerks. In the year
   1214 the Papal Legate, in a letter to his 'beloved sons in
   Christ, the burgesses of Oxford,' bade them excuse the
   'scholars studying in Oxford' half the rent of their halls, or
   hospitia, for the space of ten years. The burghers were also
   to do penance, and to feast the poorer students once a year;
   but the important point is, that they had to pay that large
   yearly fine 'propter suspendium clericorum'—all for the
   hanging of the clerks. Twenty-six years after this decision of
   the Legate, Robert Grossteste, the great Bishop of Lincoln,
   organized the payment and distribution of the fine, and
   founded the first of the chests, the chest of St. Frideswyde.
{700}
   These chests were a kind of Mont de Piété, and to found them
   was at first the favourite form of benefaction. Money was left
   in this or that chest, from which students and masters would
   borrow, on the security of pledges, which were generally
   books, cups, daggers, and so forth. Now, in this affair of
   1214 we have a strange passage of history, which happily
   illustrates the growth of the University. The beginning of the
   whole affair was the quarrel with the town, which in 1209, had
   hanged two clerks, 'in contempt of clerical liberty.' The
   matter was taken up by the Legate—in those bad years of King
   John, the Pope's viceroy in England—and out of the
   humiliation of the town the University gained money,
   privileges, and halls at low rental. These were precisely the
   things that the University wanted. About these matters there
   was a constant strife, in which the Kings as a rule, took part
   with the University. … Thus gradually the University got the
   command of the police, obtained privileges which enslaved the
   city, and became masters where they had once been despised,
   starveling scholars. … The result, in the long run, was that
   the University received from Edward III. 'a most large
   charter, containing many liberties, some that they had before,
   and others that he had taken away from the town.' Thus Edward
   granted to the University 'the custody of the assize of bread,
   wine, and ale,' the supervising of measures and weights, the
   sole power of clearing the streets of the town and suburbs.
   Moreover, the Mayor and the chief Burghers were condemned
   yearly to a sort of public penance and humiliation on St.
   Scholastica's Day. Thus, by the middle of the fourteenth
   century, the strife of Town and Gown had ended in the complete
   victory of the latter."

"To mark off the Middle Age from the Modern Period of the University is certainly very difficult. Indeed the earlier times do not form a homogeneous whole, but appear perpetually shifting and preparing for a new state. The main transition however was undoubtedly about the middle of the fourteenth century; and the Reformation, a remarkable crisis, did but confirm what had been in progress for more than a century and a half: so that the Middle Age of the University contained the thirteenth century, and barely the former half of the fourteenth. … There is no question, that during this Middle Age the English Universities were distinguished far more than ever afterwards by energy and variety of intellect. Later times cannot produce a concentration of men eminent in all the learning and science of the age, such as Oxford and Cambridge then poured forth, mightily influencing the intellectual development of all Western Christendom. Their names indeed may warn us against an undiscriminating disparagement of the Monasteries, as 'hotbeds of ignorance and stupidity'; when so many of those worthies were monks of the Benedictine, Franciscan, Dominican, Carmelite, or reformed Augustinian order. But in consequence of this surpassing celebrity, Oxford became the focus of a prodigious congregation of students, to which nothing afterwards bore comparison. The same was probably true of Cambridge in relative proportion. … A tolerably well authenticated account, attacked of late by undue scepticism, fixes [the number of] those of Oxford at thirty thousand, in the middle of the thirteenth century. The want indeed of contemporary evidence must make us cautious of yielding absolute belief to this: in fact we have no document on this matter even as old as the Reformation. … Not only did the Church and the new orders of Monks draw great numbers thither, but the Universities themselves were vast High Schools, comprising boys and even children. It is not extravagant, if Cambridge was not yet in great repute, to imagine fifteen thousand students of all ages at Oxford, and as many more attendants. Nor was it at all difficult to accommodate them in the town, when Oxford contained three hundred Halls and Inns: and as several students dwelt in one room, and were not careful for luxury, each building on an average might easily hold one hundred persons. The style of Architecture was of the simplest and cheapest kind, and might have been easily run up on a sudden demand: and a rich flat country, with abundant water carriage, needed not to want provisions. That the numbers were vast, is implied by the highly respectable evidence which we have, that as many as three thousand migrated from Oxford on the riots of 1209; although the Chronicler expressly states that not all joined in the secession. In the reign of Henry III. the reduced numbers are reckoned at fifteen thousand. After the middle of the fourteenth century, they were still as many as from three to four thousand; and after the Reformation they mount again to five thousand. On the whole therefore the computation of thirty thousand, as the maximum, may seem, if not positively true, yet the nearest approximation which we can expect. Of Cambridge we know no more than that the numbers were much lower than at Oxford. … While in the general, there was a substantial identity between the scholastic learning of Oxford and of Paris, yet Oxford was more eager in following positive science:—and this, although such studies were disparaged by the Church, and therefore by the public. Indeed originally the Church had been on the opposite side; but the speculative tendency of the times had carried her over, so that speculation and theology went hand in hand. In the middle of the thirteenth century we may name Robert Grosseteste and John Basingstock, as cultivating physical science, and (more remarkable still) the Franciscan Roger Bacon: a man whom the vulgar held to be equal to Merlin and Michael Scott as a magician, and whom posterity ranks by the noblest spirits of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, in all branches of positive science,—except theology. A biography of Roger Bacon should surely be written! Unfortunately, we know nothing as to the influence of these men on their times, nor can we even learn whether the University itself was at all interested in their studies. … We have … a strange testimony to the interest which in the beginning of the fourteenth century the mass of the students took in the speculation of their elders; for the street rows were carried on under the banners of Nominalists and Realists. … The coarse and ferocious manners prevalent in the Universities of the Middle Ages are every where in singular contrast to their intellectual pretensions: but the Universities of the Continent were peaceful, decorous, dignified,—compared with those of England. The storms which were elsewhere occasional, were at Oxford the permanent atmosphere. For nearly two centuries our 'Foster Mother' of Oxford lived in a din of uninterrupted furious warfare; nation against nation, school against school, faculty against faculty. Halls, and finally Colleges, came forward as combatants; and the University, as a whole, against the Town; or against the Bishop of Lincoln; or against the Archbishop of Canterbury. Nor was Cambridge much less pugnacious."

"Various facts and circumstances … lend probability to the belief that, long before the time when we have certain evidence of the existence of Cambridge as a university, the work of instruction was there going on. The Camboritum of the Roman period, the Grantebrycgr of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, the Grentebrige of Domesday, must always have been a place of some importance. It was the meeting-place of two great Roman roads,—Akeman Street, running east and west, and the Via Devana, traversing the north and the south. … Confined at first to the rising ground on the left bank of the river, it numbered at the time of the Norman Conquest as many as four hundred houses, of which twenty-seven were pulled down to make way for the castle erected by William the Conqueror. … Under the castle walls, with the view, it would seem, of making some atonement for many a deed of violence and wrong, the Norman sheriff, Picot by name, founded the Church of St. Giles, and instituted in connection with it a small body of secular canons. … The year 1112 was marked by the occurrence of an event of considerable importance in connection with the subsequent history of the university. The canons of St. Giles, attended by a large concourse of the clergy and laity, crossed the river, and took up their abode in a new and spacious priory at Barnwell. … The priory at Barnwell, which always ranked among the wealthiest of the Cambridge foundations, seems from the first to have been closely associated with the university; and the earliest university exhibitions were those founded by William de Kilkenny, bishop of Ely from 1254 to 1257, for two students of divinity, who were to receive annually the sum of two marks from the priory. In the year 1133 was founded the nunnery of St. Rhadegund, which, in the reign of Henry VII., was converted into Jesus College; and in 1135 a hospital of Augustinian canons, dedicated to St. John the Evangelist, was founded by Henry Frost, a burgess of the town. … It was … a very important foundation, inasmuch as it not only became by conversion in the sixteenth century the College of St. John the Evangelist, but was also … the foundation of which Peterhouse, the earliest Cambridge college, may be said to have been in a certain sense the offshoot. … In the year 1229 there broke out at Paris a feud of more than ordinary gravity between the students and the citizens. Large numbers of the former migrated to the English shores; and Cambridge, from its proximity to the eastern coast, and as the centre where Prince Louis, but a few years before, had raised the royal standard, seems to have attracted the great majority. … The university of Cambridge, like that of Oxford, was modelled mainly on the university of Paris. Its constitution was consequently oligarchic rather than democratic, the government being entirely in the hands of the teaching body, while the bachelors and undergraduates had no share in the passing of new laws and regulations."

"The earliest existing college at Cambridge is St. Peter's, generally called Peterhouse, historically founded A. D. 1257, in the reign of Henry III. The Universities are known merely by their situation; as Oxford, Cambridge, Durham, St. Andrews'; but each college has a name, according to the taste of its founder or first members. These names may be divided into two classes, those named from the founder, as Pembroke, Clare, Gonville and Caius (this had two founders, the restorer being Dr. Kaye, who Latinized his name into Caius, always pronounced Keys), King's (from King Henry VI.),—Queens' (from the queens both of Henry VI. and Edward IV.), Sidney Sussex, and Downing;—and those named for beatified persons and objects of worship,—St. Peter's, St. John's, St. Catharine's, St. Mary Magdalene, Corpus Christi, Emmanuel, Jesus Christ's, Trinity and Trinity Hall. The apparent impiety of these names, which in one case of an ancient name now changed, was absolutely revolting, entirely passes off with a few days' use. St. Catharine's soon becomes Cats, and St. Mary Magdalene is always called Maudlin. You readily admit the superiority of Trinity over Corpus ale; go to see a friend who lives on Christ's piece; and hear with regret, that in the boat races Emmanuel has been bumped by Jesus; an epithet being probably prefixed to the last name. These names of course were given in monkish times,—Trinity by Henry VIII., but all the colleges except one were founded before the reign of James I. … The seventeen colleges … are distinct corporations. Their foundations, resources, buildings, governing authorities and students, are entirely separate from each other. Nor has any one college the least control in any other. The plan, however, is much the same in all. The presiding authority is in most cases called the Master, or speaking more generally, the Head; while the net proceeds of all the college funds—for the vast wealth supposed to belong to the University really is in the hands of the separate colleges—are distributed among certain of the graduates, called Fellows, who with the Head constitute the corporation. These corporations give board and lodging on various terms to such students as choose to enter the college and comply with its rules, in order to receive its assistance in obtaining the honors of the University; and each college offers its own peculiar inducements to students. … The whole body of the colleges, taken together, constitutes the University. All those who after residing seven years at some college, have taken the degree of Master of Arts, or a higher one, and keep their name on the college lists by a small payment, vote at the University elections for members of Parliament and all other officers, and manage its affairs. … The colleges, at certain intervals; present such students as comply with their conditions to University authorities for matriculation, for certain examinations, and for the reception of degrees; and until one receives the degree of Master of Arts, he must remain a member of some college, not necessarily one and the same, to hold any University privileges. After this stage, he may, under certain conditions, break up all his college connections, and yet remain in the University."

"Salamanca was founded in the 13th-century, and received its statutes in the year 1422, out of which was developed the following constitution. The rector, with eight 'consiliarii,' all students, who could appoint their successors, administered the university. The doctors render the oath of obedience to the rector. The 'domscholaster' is the proper judge of the school; but he swears obedience to the rector. A bachelor of law must have studied six years, and after five years more he could become licentiate. In filling a paid teachership, the doctor was chosen next in age of those holding the diploma, unless a great majority of the scholars objected, in which case the rector and council decided. This liberal constitution for the scholars is in harmony with the code of Alphonzo X., soon after 1250, in which the liberty of instruction was made a general principle of law. This constitution continued in Salamanca into the 17th century, for Retes speaks of a disputation which the rector held at that time under his presidency. Alcala university was established by cardinal Ximenes, in 1510, for the promotion of the study of theology and philosophy, for which reason it contained a faculty of canon, but not of civil law. The center of the university was the college of St. Ildefons, consisting of thirty-three prebendaries, who could be teachers or scholars, since for admission were required only poverty, the age of twenty, and the completion of the course of the preparatory colleges. These thirty-three members elected annually a rector and three councilors, who controlled the entire university. Salaried teachers were elected, not by the rector and council alone, but by all the students. It had wide reputation. When visited by Francis I., while a prisoner of Spain, he was welcomed by 11,000 students. The Coimbra university, in Portugal, received statutes in 1309, from king Dionysius, with a constitution similar to those just mentioned."

F. C. Savigny, The Universities of the Middle Ages (Barnard's American Journal of Education, volume 22, page 324).

"Modern education begins with the Renaissance. The educational methods that we then begin to discern will doubtless not be developed and perfected till a later period; the new doctrines will pass into practice only gradually, and with the general progress of the times. But from the sixteenth century education is in possession of its essential principles. … The men of the sixteenth century having renewed with classical antiquity an intercourse that had been too long interrupted, it was natural that they should propose to the young the study of the Greeks and the Romans. What is called secondary instruction really dates from the sixteenth century. The crude works of the Middle Age are succeeded by the elegant compositions of Athens and Rome, henceforth made accessible to all through the art of printing; and, with the reading of the ancient authors, there reappear through the fruitful effect of imitation, their qualities of correctness in thought, of literary taste, and of elegance in form. In France, as in Italy, the national tongues, moulded, and, as it were, consecrated by writers of genius, become the instruments of an intellectual propaganda. Artistic taste, revived by the rich products of a race of incomparable artists, gives an extension to the horizon of life, and creates a new class of emotions. Finally, the Protestant Reform develops individual thought and free inquiry, and at the same time, by its success, it imposes still greater efforts on the Catholic Church. This is not saying that everything is faultless in the educational efforts of the sixteenth century. First, as is natural for innovators, the thought of the teachers of this period is marked by enthusiasm rather than by precision. They are more zealous in pointing out the end to be attained, than exact in determining the means to be employed. Besides, some of them are content to emancipate the mind, but forget to give it proper direction. Finally, others make a wrong use of the ancients; they are too much preoccupied with the form and the purity of language; they fall into Ciceromania, and it is not their fault if a new superstition, that of rhetoric, does not succeed the old superstition, that of the Syllogism."

Rabelais' description of the imaginary education of Gargantua gives us the educational ideas of a man of genius in the 16th century: "Gargantua," he writes, "awaked, then, about four o'clock in the morning. Whilst they were rubbing him, there was read unto him some chapter of the Holy Scripture aloud and clearly, with a pronunciation fit for the matter, and hereunto was appointed a young page born in Basché, named Anagnostes. According to the purpose and argument of that lesson, he oftentimes gave himself to revere, adore, pray, and send up his supplications to that good God whose word did show His majesty and marvellous judgments. Then his master repeated what had been read, expounding unto him the most obscure and difficult points. They then considered the face of the sky, if it was such as they had observed it the night before, and into what signs the sun was entering, as also the moon for that day. This done, he was appareled, combed, curled, trimmed and perfumed, during which time they repeated to him the lessons of the day before. He himself said them by heart, and upon them grounded practical cases concerning the estate of man, which he would prosecute sometimes two or three hours, but ordinarily they ceased as soon as he was fully clothed. Then for three good hours there was reading. This done, they went forth, still conferring of the substance of the reading, and disported themselves at ball, tennis, or the 'pile trigone,' gallantly exercising their bodies, as before they had done their minds. All their play was but in liberty, for they left off when they pleased, and that was commonly when they did sweat, or were otherwise weary. Then were they very well dried and rubbed, shifted their shirts, and walking soberly, went to see if dinner was ready. Whilst they stayed for that, they did clearly and eloquently recite some sentences that they had retained of the lecture. In the mean time Master Appetite came, and then very orderly sat they down at table. At the beginning of the meal there was read some pleasant history of ancient prowess, until he had taken his wine. Then, if they thought good, they continued reading, or began to discourse merrily together; speaking first of the virtue, propriety, efficacy, and nature of all that was served in at that table; of bread, of wine, of water, of salt, of flesh, fish, fruits, herbs, roots, and of their dressing. By means whereof, he learned in a little time all the passages that on these subjects are to be found in Pliny, Athenæus, Dioscorides, Julius, Pollux, Galen, Porphyrius, Oppian, Polybius, Heliodorus, Aristotle, Œlian, and others. {703} Whilst they talked of these things, many times, to be the more certain, they caused the very books to be brought to the table, and so well and perfectly did he in his memory retain the things above said, that in that time there was not a physician that knew half so much as he did. Afterwards they conferred of the lessons read in the morning, and ending their repast with some conserve of quince, he washed his hands and eyes with fair fresh water, and gave thanks unto God in some fine canticle, made in praise of the divine bounty and munificence. This done, they brought in cards, not to play, but to learn a thousand pretty tricks and new inventions, which were all grounded upon arithmetic. By this means he fell in love with that numerical science, and every day after dinner and supper he passed his time in it as pleasantly as he was wont to do at cards and dice. … After this they recreated themselves with singing musically, in four or five parts, or upon a set theme, as it best pleased them. In matter of musical instruments, he learned to play the lute, the spinet, the harp, the German flute, the flute with nine holes, the violin, and the sackbut. This hour thus spent, he betook himself to his principal study for three hours together, or more, as well to repeat his matutinal lectures as to proceed in the book wherein he was, as also to write handsomely, to draw and form the antique and Roman letters. This being done, they went out of their house, and with them a young gentleman of Touraine, named Gymnast, who taught the art of riding. Changing then his clothes, he mounted on any kind of horse, which he made to bound in the air, to jump the ditch, to leap the palisade, and to turn short in a ring both to the right and left hand. … The time being thus bestowed, and himself rubbed, cleansed, and refreshed with other clothes, they returned fair and softly; and passing through certain meadows, or other grassy places, beheld the trees and plants: comparing them with what is written of them in the books of the ancients, such as Theophrastus, Dioscorides, Marinus, Pliny, Nicander, Macer, and Galen, and carried home to the house great handfuls of them, whereof a young page called Rhizotomos had charge—together with hoes, picks, spuds, pruning-knives, and other instruments requisite for herborising. Being come to their lodging, whilst supper was making ready, they repeated certain passages of that which had been read, and then sat down at table. … During that repast was continued the lesson read at dinner as long as they thought good: the rest was spent in good discourse, learned and profitable. After that they had given thanks, they set themselves to sing musically, and play upon harmonious instruments, or at those pretty sports made with cards, dice or cups,—thus made merry till it was time to go to bed; and sometimes they would go make visits unto learned men, or to such as had been travellers in strange countries. At full night they went into the most open place of the house to see the face of the sky, and there beheld the comets, if any were, as likewise the figures, situations, aspects, oppositions, and conjunctions of the stars. Then with his master did he briefly recapitulate, after the manner of the Pythagoreans, that which he had read, seen, learned, done, and understood in the whole course of that day. Then they prayed unto God the Creator, falling down before Him, and strengthening their faith towards Him, and glorifying Him for His boundless bounty; and, giving thanks unto Him for the time that was past, they recommended themselves to His divine clemency for the future. Which being done, they entered upon their repose."

   "The schools of France and Italy owed little to the great
   modern movement of the Renaissance. In both these countries
   that movement operated, in both it produced mighty results;
   but of the official establishments for instruction it did not
   get hold. In Italy the mediæval routine in those
   establishments at first opposed a passive resistance to it;
   presently came the Catholic reaction, and sedulously shut it
   out from them. In France the Renaissance did not become a
   power in the State, and the routine of the schools sufficed to
   exclude the new influence till it took for itself other
   channels than the schools. But in Germany the Renaissance
   became a power in the State; allied with the Reformation,
   where the Reformation triumphed in German countries the
   Renaissance triumphed with it, and entered with it, into the
   public schools. Melancthon and Erasmus were not merely enemies
   and subverters of the dominion of the Church of Rome, they
   were eminent humanists; and with the great but single
   exception of Luther, the chief German reformers were all of
   them distinguished friends of the new classical learning, as
   well as of Protestantism. The Romish party was in German
   countries the ignorant party also, the party untouched by the
   humanities and by culture. Perhaps one reason why in England
   our schools have not had the life and growth of the schools of
   Germany and Holland is to be found in the separation, with us,
   of the power of the Reformation and the power of the
   Renaissance. With us, too, the Reformation triumphed and got
   possession of our schools; but our leading reformers were not
   at the same time, like those of Germany, the nation's leading
   spirits in intellect and culture. In Germany the best spirits
   of the nation were then the reformers; in England our best
   spirits,—Shakspeare, Bacon, Spenser,—were men of the
   Renaissance, not men of the Reformation, and our reformers
   were men of the second order. The Reformation, therefore,
   getting hold of the schools in England was a very different
   force, a force far inferior in light, resources, and
   prospects, to the Reformation getting hold of the schools in
   Germany. But in Germany, nevertheless, as Protestant orthodoxy
   grew petrified like Catholic orthodoxy, and as, in
   consequence, Protestantism flagged and lost the powerful
   impulse with which it started, the school flagged also, and in
   the middle of the last century the classical teaching of
   Germany, in spite of a few honourable names like Gesner's,
   Ernesti's, and Heyne's, seems to have lost all the spirit and
   power of the 16th century humanists, to have been sinking into
   a mere church appendage, and fast becoming torpid. A
   theological student, making his livelihood by teaching till he
   could get appointed to a parish, was the usual school-master.
   'The schools will never be better,' said their great
   renovator, Friedrich August Wolf, the well-known critic of
   Homer, 'so long as the school-masters are theologians by
   profession.
{704}
   A theological course in a university, with its smattering of
   classics, is about as good a preparation for a classical
   master as a course of feudal law would be.' Wolf's coming to
   Halle in 1783, invited by Von Zedlitz, the minister for public
   worship under Frederick the Great, a sovereign whose civil
   projects and labours were not less active and remarkable than
   his military, marks an era from which the classical schools of
   Germany, reviving the dormant spark planted in them by the
   Renaissance, awoke to a new life."

It is surprising to learn "how much was left untaught, in the sixteenth century, in the schools. Geography and history were entirely omitted in every scheme of instruction, mathematics played but a subordinate part, while not a thought was bestowed either upon natural philosophy or natural history. Every moment and every effort were given to the classical languages, chiefly to the Latin. But we should be overhasty, should we conclude, without further inquiry, that these branches, thus neglected in the schools, were therefore every where untaught. Perhaps they were reserved for the university alone, and there, too, for the professors of the philosophical faculty, as is the case even at the present day with natural philosophy and natural history; nay, logic, which was a regular school study in the sixteenth century, is, in our day, widely cultivated at the university. We must, therefore, in order to form a just judgment upon the range of subjects taught in the sixteenth century, as well as upon the methods of instruction, first cast a glance at the state of the universities of that period, especially in the philosophical faculties. A prominent source of information on this point is to be found in the statutes of the University of Wittenberg, revised by Melancthon, in the year 1545. The theological faculty appears, by these statutes, to have consisted of four professors, who read lectures on the Old and New Testaments,—chiefly on the Psalms, Genesis, Isaiah, the Gospel of John, and the Epistle to the Romans. They also taught dogmatics, commenting upon the Nicene creed and Augustine's book, 'De spiritu et litera.' The Wittenberg lecture schedule for the year 1561, is to the same effect; only we have here, besides exegesis and dogmatics, catechetics likewise. According to the statutes, the philosophical faculty was composed of ten professors. The first was to read upon logic and rhetoric; the second, upon physics, and the second book of Pliny's natural history; the third, upon arithmetic and the 'Sphere' of John de Sacro Busto; the fourth, upon Euclid, the 'Theoriæ Planetarum' of Burbach, and Ptolemy's' Almagest'; the fifth and sixth, upon the Latin poets and Cicero; the seventh, who was the 'Pedagogus,' explained to the younger class, Latin Grammar, Linacer 'de emendata structura Latini sermonis,' Terence, and some of Plautus; the eighth, who was the 'Physicus,' explained Aristotle's 'Physics and Dioscorides'; the ninth gave instruction in Hebrew; and the tenth reviewed the Greek Grammar, read lectures on Greek Classics at intervals, also on one of St. Paul's Epistles, and, at the same time, on ethics. … Thus the philosophical faculty appears to have been the most fully represented at Wittenberg, as it included ten professors, while the theological had but four, the medical but three. … We have a … criterion by which to judge of the limited nature of the studies of that period, as compared with the wide field which they cover at the present day, in the then almost total lack of academical apparatus and equipments. The only exception was to be found in the case of libraries; but, how meager and insufficient all collections of books must have been at that time, when books were few in number and very costly, will appear from the fund, for example, which was assigned to the Wittenberg library; it yielded annually but one hundred gulden, (about $63,) with which, 'for the profit of the university and chiefly of the poorer students therein, the library may be adorned and enriched with books in all the faculties and in every art, as well in the Hebrew and Greek tongues.' Of other apparatus, such as collections in natural history, anatomical museums, botanical gardens, and the like, we find no mention; and the less, inasmuch as there was no need of them in elucidation of such lectures as the professors ordinarily gave. When Paul Eber, the theologian, read lectures upon anatomy, he made no use of dissection."

K. von Raumer, Universities in the Sixteenth Century (Barnard's American Journal of Education, volume 5, pages 535-540).

   "Luther … felt that, to strengthen the Reformation, it was
   requisite to work on the young, to improve the schools, and to
   propagate throughout Christendom the knowledge necessary for a
   profound study of the holy Scriptures. This, accordingly, was
   one of the objects of his life. He saw it in particular at the
   period which we have reached, and wrote to the councillors of
   all the cities of Germany, calling upon them to found
   Christian schools. 'Dear sirs,' said he, 'we annually expend
   so much money on arquebuses, roads, and dikes; why should we
   not spend a little to give one or two schoolmasters to our
   poor children? God stands at the door, and knocks; blessed are
   we if we open to him. Now the word of God abounds. O my dear
   Germans, buy, buy, while the market is open before your
   houses. … Busy yourselves with the children,' continues
   Luther, still addressing the magistrates; 'for many parents
   are like ostriches; they are hardened towards their little
   ones, and satisfied with having laid the egg, they care
   nothing for it afterwards. The prosperity of a city does not
   consist merely in heaping up great treasures, in building
   strong walls, in erecting splendid mansions, in possessing
   glittering arms. If madmen fall upon it, its ruin will only be
   the greater. The true wealth of a city, its safety, and its
   strength, is to have many learned, serious, worthy,
   well-educated citizens. And whom must we blame because there
   are so few at present, except you magistrates, who have
   allowed our youth to grow up like trees in a forest?' Luther
   particularly insisted on the necessity of studying literature
   and languages: 'What use is there, it may be asked, in
   learning Latin, Greek, and Hebrew? We can read the Bible very
   well in German. Without languages,' replies he, 'we could not
   have received the gospel. … Languages are the scabbard that
   contains the sword of the Spirit; they are the casket that
   guards the jewels; they are the vessel that holds the wine;
   and as the gospel says, they are the baskets in which the
   loaves and fishes are kept to feed the multitude. If we
   neglect the languages, we shall not only eventually lose the
   gospel, but be unable to speak or write in Latin or in German.
{705}
   No sooner did men cease to cultivate them than Christendom
   declined, even until it fell under the power of the pope. But
   now that languages are again honored, they shed such light
   that all the world is astonished, and everyone is forced to
   acknowledge that our gospel is almost as pure as that of the
   apostles themselves. In former times the holy fathers were
   frequently mistaken, because they were ignorant of languages.
   … If the languages had not made me positive as to the
   meaning of the word, I might have been a pious monk, and
   quietly preached the truth in the obscurity of the cloister;
   but I should have left the pope, the sophists, and their
   antichristian empire still unshaken."

J. H. Merle d' Aubigné, History of the Reformation of the 16th Century, book 10, chapter 9 (volume 3).

Luther, in his appeal to the municipal magistrates of Germany, calls for the organization of common schools to be supported at public cost. "Finally, he gives his thought to the means of recruiting the teaching service. 'Since the greatest evil in every place is the lack of teachers, we must not wait till they come forward of themselves; we must take the trouble to educate them and prepare them.' To this end Luther keeps the best of the pupils, boys and girls, for a longer time in school; gives them special instructors, and opens libraries for their use. In his thought he never distinguishes women teachers from men teachers; he wants schools for girls as well as for boys. Only, not to burden parents and divert children from their daily labor, he requires but little time for school duties. … 'My opinion is [he says] that we must send the boys to school one or two hours a day, and have them learn a trade at home for the rest of the time. It is desirable that these two occupations march side by side.' … Luther gives the first place to the teaching of religion: 'Is it not reasonable that every Christian should know the Gospel at the age of nine or ten?' Then come the languages, not, as might be hoped, the mother tongue, but the learned languages, Latin, Greek, and Hebrew. Luther had not yet been sufficiently rid of the old spirit to comprehend that the language of the people ought to be the basis of universal instruction. He left to Comenius the glory of making the final separation of the primary school from the Latin school. … Physical exercises are not forgotten in Luther's pedagogical regulations. But he attaches an especial importance to singing. 'Unless a school-master know how to sing, I think him of no account.' 'Music,' he says again, 'is a half discipline which makes men more indulgent and more mild.' At the same time that he extends the programme of studies, Luther introduces a new spirit into methods. He wishes more liberty and more joy in the school. 'Solomon,' he says, 'is a truly royal schoolmaster. He does not, like the monks, forbid the young to go into the world and be happy. Even as Anselm said: "A young man turned aside from the world is like a young tree made to grow in a vase." The monks have imprisoned young men like birds in their cage. It is dangerous to isolate the young.' … Do not let ourselves imagine, however, that Luther at once exercised a decisive influence on the current education of his day. A few schools were founded, called writing schools; but the Thirty Years' War, and other events, interrupted the movement of which Luther has the honor of having been the originator. … In the first half of the seventeenth century, Ratich, a German, and Comenius, a Slave, were, with very different degrees of merit, the heirs of the educational thought of Luther. With something of the charlatan and the demagogue, Ratich devoted his life to propagating a novel art of teaching, which be called didactics, and to which he attributed marvels. He pretended, by his method of languages, to teach Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, in six months. But nevertheless, out of many strange performances and lofty promises, there issue some thoughts of practical value. The first merit of Ratich was to give the mother tongue, the German language, the precedence over the ancient languages."

"When learning began to revive after the long sleep of the Middle Ages, Italy experienced the first impulse. Next came Germany and the contiguous provinces of the Low Countries. The force of the movement in these regions is shown by an event of great importance, not always noticed by historians. In 1400, there was established at Deventer, in the northeastern province of the Netherlands, an association or brotherhood, usually called Brethren of the Life in Common [see BRETHREN OF THE COMMON LOT]. In their strict lives, partial community of goods, industry in manual labor, fervent devotion, and tendency to mysticism, they bore some resemblance to the modern Moravians. But they were strikingly distinguished from the members of this sect by their earnest cultivation of knowledge, which was encouraged among themselves and promoted among others by schools, both for primary and advanced education. In 1430, the Brethren had established forty-five branches, and by 1460 more than thrice that number. They were scattered through different parts of Germany and the Low Countries, each with its school subordinate to the head college at Deventer. It was in these schools, in the middle of the fifteenth century, that a few Germans and Netherlanders were, as Hallam says, roused to acquire that extensive knowledge of the ancient languages which Italy as yet exclusively possessed. Their names should never be omitted in any remembrance of the revival of letters; for great was their influence upon subsequent times. Chief among these men were Wessels, of Groningen, 'one of those who contributed most steadily to the purification of religion'; Hegius of Deventer, under whom Erasmus obtained his early education, and who probably was the first man to print Greek north of the Alps; Dringeberg, who founded a good school in Alsace; and Longius, who presided over one at Munster. Thanks to the influence of these pioneers in learning, education had made great progress among the Netherlanders by the middle of the sixteenth century. … We have the testimony of the Italian Guicciardini to the fact that before the outbreak of the war with Spain even the peasants in Holland could read and write well. As the war went on, the people showed their determination that in this matter there should be no retrogression. In the first Synod of Dort, held in 1574, the clergy expressed their opinion upon the subject by passing a resolution or ordinance which, among other things, directed 'the servants of the Church' to obtain from the magistrates in every locality a permission for the appointment of schoolmasters, and an order for their compensation as in the past. {706} Before many years had elapsed the civil authorities began to establish a general school system for the country. In 1582, the Estates of Friesland decreed that the inhabitants of towns and villages should, within the space of six weeks, provide good and able Reformed schoolmasters, and those who neglected so to do would be compelled to accept the instructors appointed for them. This seems to have been the beginning of the supervision of education by the State, a system which soon spread over the whole republic. In these schools, however, although they were fostered by the State, the teachers seem, in the main, to have been paid by their pupils. But as years went on, a change came about in this part of the system. It probably was aided by the noteworthy letter which John of Nassau, the oldest brother of William the Silent, the noble veteran who lived until 1606, wrote to his son Lewis William, Stadtholder of Friesland. In this letter, which is worthy of a place on the walls of every schoolhouse in America, the gallant young stadt-holder is instructed to urge on the States-General 'that they, according to the example of the pope and Jesuits, should establish free schools, where children of quality as well as of poor families, for a very small sum, could be well and christianly educated and brought up. This would be the greatest and most useful work, and the highest service that you could ever accomplish for God and Christianity, and especially for the Netherlands themselves. … In summa, one may jeer at this as popish trickery, and undervalue it as one will: there still remains in the work an inexpressible benefit. Soldiers and patriots thus educated, with a true knowledge of God and a Christian conscience, item, churches and schools, good libraries, books, and printing-presses, are better than all armies, arsenals, armories, munitions, alliances, and treaties that can be had or imagined in the world.' Such were the words in which the Patriarch of the Nassaus urged upon his countrymen a common-school system. In 1609, when the Pilgrim Fathers took up their residence in Leyden, the school had become the common property of the people, and was paid for among other municipal expenses. It was a land of schools supported by the State—a land, according to Motley, 'where every child went to school, where almost every individual inhabitant could write and read, where even the middle classes were proficient in mathematics and the classics, and could speak two or more modern languages.' Does any reader now ask whence the settlers of Plymouth, who came directly from Holland, and the other settlers of New England whose Puritan brethren were to be found in thousands throughout the Dutch Republic, derived their ideas of schools first directed, and then supported by the State."

To commemorate the deliverance of Leyden from the Spanish siege in 1574 (see NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1573-1574), "and as a reward for the heroism of the citizens, the Prince of Orange, with the consent of the Estates of the province, founded the University of Leyden. Still, the figment of allegiance remained; the people were only fighting for their constitutional rights, and so were doing their duty to the sovereign. Hence the charter of the university ran in the name of Philip, who was credited with its foundation, as a reward to his subjects for their rebellion against his evil counsellors and servants, 'especially in consideration of the differences of religion, and the great burdens and hardships borne by the citizens of our city of Leyden during the war with such faithfulness.' Motley calls this 'ponderous irony,' but the Hollanders were able lawyers and intended to build on a legal basis. This event marks an epoch in the intellectual history of Holland and of the world. … The new university was opened in 1575, and from the outset took the highest rank. Speaking, a few years ago, of its famous senate chamber, Niebuhr called it 'the most memorable room of Europe in the history of learning.' The first curator was John Van der Does, who had been military commandant of the city during the siege. He was of a distinguished family, but was still more distinguished for his learning, his poetical genius, and his valor. Endowed with ample funds, the university largely owed its marked pre-eminence to the intelligent foresight and wise munificence of its curators. They sought out and obtained the most distinguished scholars of all nations, and to this end spared neither pains nor expense. Diplomatic negotiation and even princely mediation were often called in for the acquisition of a professor. Hence it was said that it surpassed all the universities of Europe in the number of its scholars of renown. These scholars were treated with princely honors. … The 'mechanicals' of Holland, as Elizabeth called them, may not have paid the accustomed worship to rank, but to genius and learning they were always willing to do homage. Space would fail for even a brief account of the great men, foreign and native, who illuminated Leyden with their presence. … But it was not alone in scholarship and in scientific research that the University of Leyden gave an impetus to modern thought. Theological disputes were developed there at times, little tempests which threatened destruction to the institution, but they were of short duration. The right of conscience was always respected, and in the main the right of full and public discussion. … When it was settled that dissenters could not be educated in the English universities, they flocked to Leyden in great numbers, making that city, next to Edinburgh, their chief resort. Eleven years after the opening of the University of Leyden, the Estates of democratic Friesland, amid the din of war, founded the University of Franeker, an institution which was to become famous as the home of Arminius. … Both of these universities were perpetually endowed with the proceeds of the ecclesiastical property which had been confiscated during the progress of the war."

D. Campbell, The Puritan in Holland, England, and America, chapters 2, 20, and 3.

   "In contemplating the events of the fifteenth and sixteenth
   centuries, in their influence on English civilisation, we are
   reminded once more of the futility of certain modern
   aspirations. No amount of University Commissions, nor of
   well-meant reforms, will change the nature of Englishmen. It
   is impossible, by distributions of University prizes and
   professorships, to attract into the career of letters that
   proportion of industry and ingenuity which, in Germany for
   example, is devoted to the scholastic life.
{707}
   Politics, trade, law, sport, religion, will claim their own in
   England, just as they did at the Revival of Letters. The
   illustrious century which Italy employed in unburying,
   appropriating, and enjoying the treasures of Greek literature
   and art, our fathers gave, in England, to dynastic and
   constitutional squabbles, and to religious broils. The
   Renaissance in England, and chiefly in Oxford, was like a
   bitter and changeful spring. There was an hour of genial
   warmth, there breathed a wind from the south, in the lifetime
   of Chaucer; then came frosts and storms; again the brief
   sunshine of court favour shone on literature for a while, when
   Henry VIII. encouraged study, and Wolsey and Fox founded
   Christ Church and Corpus Christi College, once more the bad
   days of religious strife returned, and the promise of learning
   was destroyed. Thus the chief result of the awakening thought
   of the fourteenth century in England was not a lively delight
   in literature, but the appearance of the Lollards. The
   intensely practical genius of our race turned, not to letters,
   but to questions about the soul and its future, about property
   and its distribution. The Lollards were put down in Oxford;
   'the tares were weeded out' by the House of Lancaster, and in
   the process the germs of free thought, of originality, and of
   a rational education, were destroyed. 'Wyclevism did domineer
   among us,' says Wood; and, in fact, the intellect of the
   University was absorbed, like the intellect of France during
   the heat of the Jansenist controversy, in defending or
   assailing '267 damned conclusions,' drawn from the books of
   Wyclife. The University 'lost many of her children through the
   profession of Wyclevism.'"

Dr. John Colet, appointed Dean of St. Paul's in 1505, "resolved, whilst living and in health, to devote his patrimony to the foundation of a school in St. Paul's Churchyard, wherein 153 children, without any restriction as to nation or country, who could already read and write, and were of 'good parts and capacities,' should receive a sound Christian education. The 'Latin adulterate, which ignorant blind fools brought into this world,' poisoning thereby 'the old Latin speech, and the very Roman tongue used in the time of Tully and Sallust, and Virgil and Terence, and learned by St. Jerome, St. Ambrose, and St. Augustine,'—all that 'abusion which the later blind world brought in, and which may rather be called Blotterature than Literature,'—should be 'utterly abanished and excluded' out of this school. The children should be taught good literature, both Latin and Greek, 'such authors that have with wisdom joined pure chaste eloquence'—'specially Christian authors who wrote their wisdom in clean and chaste Latin, whether in prose or verse; for,' said Colet, 'my intent is by this school specially to increase knowledge, and worshipping of God and Our Lord Jesus Christ, and good Christian life and manners in the children.' … The building consisted of one large room, divided into an upper and lower school by a curtain, which could be drawn at pleasure; and the charge of the two schools devolved upon a high-master and a sub-master respectively. The forms were arranged so as each to seat sixteen boys, and were provided each with a raised desk, at which the head-boy sat as president. The building also embraced an entrance-porch and a little chapel for divine service. Dwelling-houses were erected, adjoining the school, for the residence of the two masters; and for their support, Colet obtained, in the spring of 1510, a royal license to transfer to the Wardens and Guild of Mercers in London, real property to the value of £53 per annum (equivalent to at least £530 of present money). Of this the head-master was to receive as his salary £35 (say £350) and the under-master £18 (say £180) per annum. Three or four years after, Colet made provision for a chaplain to conduct divine service in the chapel, and to instruct the children in the Catechism, the Articles of the faith, and the Ten Commandments,—in English; and ultimately, before his death, he appears to have increased the amount of the whole endowment to £122 (say £1,200) per annum. So that it, may be considered, roughly, that the whole endowment, including the buildings, cannot have represented a less sum than £30,000 or £40,000 of present money. And if Colet thus sacrificed so much of his private fortune to secure a liberal (and it must be conceded his was a liberal) provision for the remuneration of the masters who should educate his 153 boys, he must surely have had deeply at heart the welfare of the boys themselves. And, in truth, it was so. Colet was like a father to his schoolboys. … It was not to be expected that he should find the school-books of the old grammarians in any way adapted to his purpose. So at once he set his learned friends to work to provide him with new ones. The first thing wanted was a Latin Grammar for beginners. Linacre undertook to provide this want, and wrote with great pains and labour, a work in six books, which afterwards came into general use. But when Colet saw it, at the risk of displeasing his friend, he put it altogether aside. It was too long and too learned for his 'little beginners.' So he condensed within the compass of a few pages two little treatises, an 'Accidence' and a 'Syntax,' in the preface to the first of which occur the gentle words quoted above. These little books, after receiving additions from the hands of Erasmus, Lilly, and others, finally became generally adopted and known as Lilly's Grammar. This rejection of his Grammar seems to have been a sore point with Linacre, but Erasmus told Colet not to be too much concerned about it. … Erasmus, in the same letter in which he spoke of Linacre's rejected Grammar … put on paper his notions of what a schoolmaster ought to be, and the best method of teaching boys, which he fancied Colet might not altogether approve, as he was wont somewhat more to despise rhetoric than Erasmus did. He stated his opinion that—'In order that the teacher might be thoroughly up to his work, he should not merely be a master of one particular branch of study. He should himself have travelled through the whole circle of knowledge. In philosophy he should have studied Plato and Aristotle, Theophrastus and Plotinus; in Theology the Sacred Scriptures, and after them Origen, Chrysostom, and Basil among the Greek fathers, and Ambrose and Jerome among the Latin fathers; among the poets, Homer and Ovid; in geography, which is very important in the study of history, Pomponins Mela, Ptolemy, Pliny, Strabo. He should know what ancient names of rivers, mountains, countries, cities, answer to the modern ones; and the same of trees, animals, instruments, clothes, and, gems, with regard to which it is incredible how ignorant even educated men are. {708} He should take note of little facts about agriculture, architecture, military and culinary arts, mentioned by different authors. He should be able to trace the origin of words, their gradual corruption in the languages of Constantinople, Italy, Spain, and France. Nothing should be beneath his observation which can illustrate history or the meaning of the poets. But you will say what a load you are putting on the back of the poor teacher! It is so; but I burden the one to relieve the many. I want the teacher to have traversed the whole range of knowledge, that it may spare each of his scholars doing it. A diligent and thoroughly competent master might give boys a fair proficiency in both Latin and Greek, in a shorter time and with less labour than the common run of pedagogues take to teach their babble.' On receipt of this … Colet wrote to Erasmus: … '"What! I shall not approve!" So you say! What is there of Erasmus's that I do not approve?'"

Roger Ascham, the friend of Lady Jane Grey and the tutor of Queen Elizabeth, was born in 1515, and died in 1568. "It was partly with the view to the instruction of his own children, that he commenced the 'Schole-master,' the work by which he is most and best known, to which he did not live to set the last hand. He communicated the design and import of the book in a letter to Sturmius, in which he states, that not being able to leave his sons a large fortune, he was resolved to provide them with a preceptor, not one to be hired for a great sum of money, but marked out at home with a homely pen. In the same letter he gives his reasons for employing the English language, the capabilities of which he clearly perceived and candidly acknowledged, a high virtue for a man of that age, who perhaps could have written Latin to his own satisfaction much more easily than his native tongue. But though the benefit of his own offspring might be his ultimate object, the immediate occasion of the work was a conversation at Cecil's, at which Sir Richard Sackville expressed great indignation at the severities practiced at Eton and other great schools, so that boys actually ran away for fear of merciless flagellation. This led to the general subject of school discipline, and the defects in the then established modes of tuition. Ascham coinciding with the sentiments of the company, and proceeding to explain his own views of improvement, Sackville requested him to commit his opinions to paper and the 'Schole-master' was the result. It was not published till 1670. … We … quote a few passages, which throw light upon the author's good sense and good nature. To all violent coercion, and extreme punishment, he was decidedly opposed:—'I do agree,' says he, 'with all good school-masters in all these points, to have children brought to good perfectness in learning, to all honesty in manners; to have all faults rightly amended, and every vice severely corrected, but for the order and way that leadeth rightly to these points, we somewhat differ.' 'Love is better than fear, gentleness than beating, to bring up a child rightly in learning.' 'I do assure you there is no such whetstone to sharpen a good wit, and encourage a will to learning, as is praise.'… 'The scholar is commonly beat for the making, when the master were more worthy to be beat for the mending, or rather marring, of the same; the master many times being as ignorant as the child what to say properly and fitly to the matter.' … This will I say, that even the wisest of your great beaters do as oft punish nature as they do correct faults. Yea many times the better nature is the sorer punished. For if one by quickness of wit take his lesson readily, another by hardness of wit taketh it not so speedily; the first is always commended, the other is commonly punished, when a wise school-master should rather discreetly consider the right disposition of both their natures, and not so much weigh what either of them is able to do, as what either of them is likely to do hereafter. For this I know, not only by reading of books in my study, but also by experience of life abroad in the world, that those which be commonly the wisest, the best learned, and best men also, when they be old, were never commonly the quickest of wit when they were young. Quick wits commonly be apt to take, unapt to keep. Some are more quick to enter speedily than be able to pierce far, even like unto oversharp tools, whose edges be very soon turned.'"

"The education of youth is set forth in the Formula of Approval granted by Paul III. in 1540," to the plans of Ignatius Loyola for the foundation of the Society of Jesus, "as the first duty embraced by the new Institute. … Although the new religious were not at once able to begin the establishment of colleges, yet the plan of those afterwards founded, was gradually ripening in the sagacious mind of St. Ignatius, who looked to these institutions as calculated to oppose the surest bulwarks against the progress of heresy. The first regular college of the Society was that established at Gandia in 1546, through the zeal of St. Francis Borgia, third General of the Society; and the regulations by which it was governed, and which were embodied in the constitutions, were extended to all the Jesuit colleges afterwards founded. The studies were to include theology, both positive and scholastic, as well as grammar, poetry, rhetoric, and philosophy. The course of philosophy was to last three years, that of theology four; and the Professors of Philosophy were enjoined to treat their subject in such a way as to dispose the mind for the study of theology, instead of setting up faith and reason in opposition to one another. The theology of St. Thomas, and the philosophy of Aristotle, were to be followed, except on those points where the teaching of the latter was opposed to the Catholic faith."

   "As early as the middle of the sixteenth century … [the
   Society of Jesus] had several colleges in France, particularly
   those of Billom, Mauriac, Rodez, Tournon, and Pamiers. In 1561
   it secured a footing in Paris, notwithstanding the resistance
   of the Parliament, of the university, and of the bishops
   themselves. A hundred years later it counted nearly fourteen
   thousand pupils in the province of Paris alone. The college of
   Clermont, in 1651, enrolled more than two thousand young men.
   The middle and higher classes assured to the colleges of the
   society an ever-increasing membership.
{709}
   At the end of the seventeenth century, the Jesuits could
   inscribe on the roll of honor of their classes a hundred
   illustrious names, among others those of Condé and Luxembourg,
   Fléchier and Bossuet, Lamoignon and Séguier, Descartes,
   Comeille, and Moliere. In 1710 they controlled six hundred and
   twelve colleges and a large number of universities. They were
   the real masters of education, and they maintained this
   educational supremacy till the end of the eighteenth century.
   Voltaire said of these teachers: 'The Fathers taught me
   nothing but Latin and nonsense.' But from the seventeenth
   century, opinions are divided, and the encomiums of Bacon and
   Descartes must be offset by the severe judgment of Leibnitz.
   'In the matter of education, says this great philosopher, 'the
   Jesuits have remained below mediocrity.' Directly to the
   contrary, Bacon had written: 'As to whatever relates to the
   instruction of the young, we must consult the schools of the
   Jesuits, for there can be nothing that is better done.' … A
   permanent and characteristic feature of the educational policy
   of the Jesuits is, that, during the whole course of their
   history, they have deliberately neglected and disdained
   primary instruction. The earth is covered with their Latin
   colleges; and wherever they have been able, they have put
   their hands on the institutions for university education; but
   in no instance have they founded a primary school. Even in
   their establishment for secondary instruction, they entrust
   the lower classes to teachers who do not belong to their
   order, and reserve to themselves the direction of the higher
   classes."

"The Jesuits owed their success partly to the very narrow task which they set themselves, little beyond the teaching of Latin style, and partly to the careful training which they gave their students, a training which often degenerated into mere mechanical exercise. But the mainspring of their influence was the manner in which they worked the dangerous force of emulation. Those pupils who were most distinguished at the end of each month received the rank of prætor, censor, and decurion. The class was divided into two parts, called Romans and Carthaginians, Greeks and Trojans. The students sat opposite each other, the master in the middle, the walls were hung with swords, spears and shields which the contending parties carried off in triumph as the prize of victory. These pupils' contests wasted a great deal of time. The Jesuits established public school festivals, at which the pupils might be exhibited, and the parents flattered. They made their own school books, in which the requirements of good teaching were not so important as the religious objects of the order. They preferred extracts to whole authors; if they could not prune the classics to their fancy they would not read them at all. What judgment are we to pass on the Jesuit teaching as a whole? It deserves praise on two accounts. First, it maintained the dignity of literature in an age which was too liable to be influenced by considerations of practical utility. It maintained the study of Greek in France at a higher level than the University, and resisted the assaults of ignorant parents on the fortress of Hellenism. Secondly, it seriously set itself to understand the nature and character of the individual pupil, and to suit the manner of education to the mind that was to receive it. Whatever may have been the motives of Jesuits in gaining the affections, and securing the devotion of the children under their charge; whether their desire was to develop the individuality which they probed, or to destroy it in its germ, and plant a new nature in its place; it must be admitted that the loving care which they spent upon their charge was a new departure in education, and has become a part of every reasonable system since their time. Here our praise must end. … They amused the mind instead of strengthening it. They occupied in frivolities such as Latin verses the years which they feared might otherwise be given to reasoning and the acquisition of solid knowledge. … Celebrated as the Jesuit schools have been, they have owed much more to the fashion which filled them with promising scholars, than to their own excellence in dealing with their material. … They have never stood the test of modern criticism. They have no place in a rational system of modern education."

      O. Browning,
      Introduction to the History of Educational Theories,
      chapter 8.

"The annual appropriations passed by Parliament allow the minister of public instruction $8,307,774 for all kinds of public educational institutions, elementary and secondary schools, universities, technical and art schools, museums, and philanthropic institutions. Generally, this principle is adhered to by the state, to subsidize the highest institutions of learning most liberally, to share the cost of maintaining secondary schools with church and community, and to leave the burden of maintaining elementary schools almost entirely to the local or communal authorities. … In the Austrian public schools no distinctions are made with the pupils as regards their religious confessions. The schools are open to all, and are therefore common schools in the sense in which that term is employed with us. In Prussia it is the policy of the Government to separate the pupils of different religious confessions in … elementary, but not to separate them in secondary schools. In Austria and Hungary, special teachers of religion for the elementary and secondary schools are employed; in Prussia this is done only in secondary schools, while religion is taught by the secular teachers in elementary schools. This is a very vital difference, and shows how much nearer the Austrian schools have come to our ideal of a common school."

"The treaty of Paris, of March 30, 1814, fixed the boundaries of the Netherlands, and united Holland and Belgium. In these new circumstances, the system of public instruction became the subject of much difficulty between the Calvinists of the northern provinces and the Catholics of the southern. The government therefore undertook itself to manage the organization of the system of instruction in its three grades. … William I. desired to free the Belgians from French influence, and with this object adopted the injudicious measure of attempting to force the Dutch language upon them. He also endeavored to familiarize them with Protestant ideas, and to this end determined to get the care of religious instruction exclusively into the hands of the state. But the clergy were energetic in asserting their rights; the boldness of the Belgian deputies to the States-General increased daily; and the project for a system of public and private instruction which was laid before the second chamber on the 26th November, 1829, was very unfavorably received by the Catholics. The government very honorably confessed its error by repealing the obnoxious ordinances of 1825. But it was too late, and the Belgian provinces were lost to Holland. On the 12th October, 1830, the provisory government repealed all laws restricting the freedom of instruction, and the present system, in which liberty of instruction and governmental aid and supervision are recognized, commenced."

Public Instruction in Belgium (Barnard's American Journal of Education, volume 8, pages 582-583).

"Denmark has long been noted for the excellence of her schools. … The perfection and extension of the system of popular instruction date from the beginning of the eighteenth century, when Bishop Thestrup, of Aalberg, caused 6 parish schools to be established in Copenhagen and when King Frederick IV. (1699-1730) had 240 school-houses built. … Christian VI. (17301746), … ordained in 1739 the establishment of common or parish schools in every town and in every larger village. The branches of instruction were to be religion, reading, writing, and arithmetic. No one was to be allowed to teach unless he had shown himself qualified to the satisfaction of the clergyman of the parish. …. Many difficulties, however (especially the objections of the landed proprietors, who had their own schools on their estates), hindered the free development of the common school system, and it was not until 1814 that a new and more favorable era was inaugurated by the law of July 29 of that year. According to this law the general control of the schools is in the hands of a minister of public instruction and subordinate superintendents for the several departments of the kingdom."

Education in Denmark (United States Bureau of Education, Circulars of Information, 1877, no. 2), pages 40-41.

"With a population in 1890 of 2,185,157, the pupils enrolled in city and rural schools in Denmark numbered 231,940, or about 10 per cent. of the population receiving the foundation of an education. In 1881 the illiterates to 100 recruits numbered 0.36; in Sweden at that date, the per cent. was 0.39."

"Oxford and Cambridge, as establishments for education, consist of two parts—of the University proper, and of the Colleges. The former, original and essential, is founded, controlled, and privileged by public authority, for the advantage of the nation. The latter, accessory and contingent, are created, regulated, and endowed by private munificence, for the interest of certain favored individuals. Time was, when the Colleges did not exist, and the University was there; and were the Colleges again abolished, the University would remain entire. The former, founded solely for education, exists only as it accomplishes the end of its institution; the latter, founded principally for aliment and habitation, would still exist, were all education abandoned within their walls. The University, as a national establishment, is necessarily open to the lieges in general; the Colleges, as private institutions, might universally do, as some have actually done—close their gates upon all, except their foundation members. The Universities and Colleges are thus neither identical, nor vicarious of each other. If the University ceases to perform its functions, it ceases to exist; and the privileges accorded by the nation to the system of public education legally organized in the University, can not, without the consent of the nation—far less without the consent of the academical legislature—be lawfully transferred to the system of private education precariously organized in the Colleges, and over which neither the State nor the University have any control. They have, however, been unlawfully usurped. Through the suspension of the University, and the usurpation of its functions and privileges by the Collegial bodies, there has arisen the second of two systems, diametrically opposite to each other.—The one, in which the University was paramount, is ancient and statutory; the other, in which the Colleges have the ascendant, is recent and illegal.—In the former, all was subservient to public utility, and the interests of science; in the latter, all is sacrificed to private monopoly, and to the convenience of the teacher. … In the original constitution of Oxford, as in that of all the older Universities of the Parisian model, the business of instruction was not confided to a special body of privileged professors. The University was governed, the University was taught, by the graduates at large. Professor, Master, Doctor, were originally synonymous. Every graduate had an equal right of teaching publicly in the University the subjects competent to his faculty, and to the rank of his degree; nay, every graduate incurred the obligation of teaching publicly, for a certain period, the subjects of his faculty, for such was the condition involved in the grant of the degree itself."

Sir William Hamilton, Discussions on Philosophy and Literature, etc.: Education, chapter 4.

What is a public school in England? "The question is one of considerable difficulty. To some extent, however, the answer has been furnished by the Royal Commission appointed in 1861 to inquire into the nature and application of the endowments and revenues, and into the administration and management of certain specified colleges and schools commonly known as the Public Schools Commission. Nine are named in the Queen's letter of appointment, viz., Eton, Winchester, Westminster, the Charterhouse, St. Paul's, Merchant Taylors', Harrow, Rugby, and Shrewsbury. The reasons probably which suggested this selection were, that the nine named foundations had in the course of centuries emerged from the mass of endowed grammar-schools, and had made for themselves a position which justified their being placed in a distinct category, and classed as 'public schools.' It will be seen as we proceed that all these nine have certain features in common, distinguishing them from the ordinary grammar-schools which exist in almost every country town in England. Many of these latter are now waking up to the requirements of the new time and following the example of their more illustrious sisters. The most notable examples of this revival are such schools as those at Sherborne, Giggleswick, and Tunbridge Wells, which, while remodelling themselves on the lines laid down by the Public Schools Commissioners, are to some extent providing a training more adapted to the means and requirements of our middle classes in the nineteenth century than can be found at any of the nine public schools. {711} But twenty years ago the movement which has since made such astonishing progress was scarcely felt in quiet country places like these, and the old endowments were allowed to run to waste in a fashion which is now scarcely credible. The same impulse which has put new life into the endowed grammar-schools throughout England has worked even more remarkably in another direction. The Victorian age bids fair to rival the Elizabethan in the number and importance of the new schools which it has founded and will hand on to the coming generation. Marlborough, Haileybury, Uppingham, Rossall, Clifton, Cheltenham, Radley, Malvern, and Wellington College, are nine schools which have taken their place in the first rank. … In order, then, to get clear ideas on the general question, we must keep these three classes of schools in mind—the nine old foundations recognized in the first instance by the Royal Commission of 1861; the old foundations which have remained local grammar-schools until within the last few years, but are now enlarging their bounds, conforming more or less to the public-school system, and becoming national institutions; and, lastly, the modern foundations which started from the first as public schools, professing to adapt themselves to the new circumstances and requirements of modern English life. The public schools of England fall under one or other of these categories. … We may now turn to the historic side of the question, dealing first, as is due to their importance, with the nine schools of our first category. The oldest, and in some respects most famous of these, is Winchester School, or, as it was named by its founder William of Wykeham, the College of St. Mary of Winchester, founded in 1382. Its constitution still retains much of the impress left on it by the great Bishop of the greatest Plantagenet King, five centuries ago. Toward the end of the fourteenth century Oxford was already the center of English education, but from the want of grammar-schools boys went up by hundreds untaught in the simplest rudiments of learning, and when there lived in private hostels or lodging-houses, in a vast throng, under no discipline, and exposed to many hardships and temptations. In view of this state of things, William of Wykeham founded his grammar-school at Winchester and his college at Oxford, binding the two together, so that the school might send up properly trained scholars to the university, where they would be received at New College, in a suitable academical home, which should in its turn furnish governors and masters for the school. … Next in date comes the royal foundation of Eton, or 'The College of the Blessed Mary of Eton, near Windsor.' It was founded by Henry VI., A. D. 1446, upon the model of Winchester, with a collegiate establishment of a provost, ten fellows (reduced to seven in the reign of Edward IV.), seventy scholars, and ten chaplains (now reduced to two; who are called 'conducts'), and a head and lower master, ten lay clerks, and twelve choristers. The provost and fellows are the governing body, who appoint the head master. … Around this center the great school, numbering now a thousand boys, has gathered, the college, however, still retaining its own separate organization and traditions. Besides the splendid buildings and playing-fields at Eton, the college holds real property of the yearly value of upward of £20,000, and forty' livings ranging from £100 to £1,200 of yearly value. … The school next in date stands out in sharp contrast to Winchester and Eton. It is St. Paul's School, founded by Dean Colet. … Shrewsbury School, which follows next in order of seniority, claims a royal foundation, but is in reality the true child of the town's folk. The dissolution of the monasteries destroyed also the seminaries attached to many of them, to the great injury of popular education. This was specially the case in Shropshire, so in 1551 the bailiffs, burgesses, and inhabitants of Shrewsbury and the neighborhood petitioned Edward VI. for a grant of some portion of the estates of the dissolved collegiate churches for the purpose of founding a free school. The King consented, and granted to the petitioners the appropriated tithes of several livings and a charter, but died before the school was organized. It was in abeyance during Mary's reign, but opened in the fourth year of Elizabeth, 1562, by Thomas Aston. … We have now reached the great group of Elizabethan schools, to which indeed Shrewsbury may also be said to belong, as it was not opened until the Queen had been three years on the throne. The two metropolitan schools of Westminster and Merchant Taylors' were in fact founded in 1560, two years before the opening of Shrewsbury. Westminster as a royal foundation must take precedence. It is a grammar-school attached by the Queen to the collegiate church of St. Peter, commonly called Westminster Abbey, and founded for the free education of forty scholars in Latin, Greek, and Hebrew. The Queen, with characteristic thriftiness, provided no endowment for her school, leaving the cost of maintenance as a charge on the general revenues of the dean and chapter, which indeed were, then as now, fully competent to sustain the burden. … Merchant Taylors', the other metropolitan school founded in 1560, owes its origin to Sir Thomas White, a member of the Court of Assistants of the company, and founder of St. John's College, Oxford. It was probably his promise to connect the school with his college which induced the Company to undertake the task. … Sir Thomas White redeemed his promise by endowing the school with thirty-seven fellowships at St. John's College. … Rugby, or the free school of Lawrence Sheriff, follows next in order, having been founded in 1567 by Lawrence Sheriff, grocer, and citizen of London. His 'intent' (as the document expressing his wishes is called) declares that his lands in Rugby and Brownsover, and his 'third of a pasture-ground in Gray's Inn Fields, called Conduit Close,' shall be applied to maintain a free grammar school for the children of Rugby and Brownsover, and the places adjoining, and four poor almsmen of the same parishes. These estates, after providing a fair schoolhouse and residences for the master and almsmen, at first produced a rental of only £24 13s. 4d. In due time, however, Conduit Close became a part of central London, and Rugby School the owner of eight acres of houses in and about the present Lamb's Conduit Street. The income of the whole trust property amounts now to about £6,000, of which £255 is expended on the maintenance of the twelve almsmen. … Harrow School was founded in 1571, four years later than Rugby, by John Lyon, a yeoman of the parish. {712} He was owner of certain small estates in and about Harrow and Barnet, and of others at Paddington and Kilburn. All these he devoted to public purposes, but unfortunately gave the former for the perpetual education of the children and youth of the parish, and the latter for the maintenance and repair of the highways from Harrow and Edgeware to London. The present yearly revenue of the school estates is barely over £1,000, while that of the highway trust is nearly £4,000. But, though the poorest in endowments, Harrow, from its nearness to London, and consequent attractions for the classes who spend a large portion of their year in the metropolis either in attendance in Parliament, or for pleasure, has become the rival of Eton as a fashionable school. … Last on the list of the nine schools comes the Charterhouse (the Whitefriars of Thackeray's novels). It may be fairly classed with the Elizabethan schools, though actually founded in 1609, after the accession of James I. In that year a substantial yeoman, Thomas Sutton by name, purchased from Lord Suffolk the lately dissolved Charterhouse, by Smithfield, and obtained letters patent empowering him to found a hospital and school on the old site."

      T. Hughes,
      The Public Schools of England
      (North American Review, April, 1879).

"In rougher days it was found, that in large schools the stronger and larger boys reduced the smaller and weaker to the condition of Helots. Here the authorities stepped in, and despairing of eradicating the evil, took the power which mere strength had won, and conferred it upon the seniors of the school—the members, that is, of the highest form or forms. As in those days, promotion was pretty much a matter of rotation, everyone who remained his full time at the school, was pretty sure to reach in time the dominant class, and the humblest fag looked forward to the day when he would join the ranks of the ruling aristocracy. Meantime he was no longer at the beck of any stronger or ruder classfellow. His 'master' was in theory, and often in practice, his best protector: he imposed upon him very likely what may be called menial offices—made him carry home his 'Musæ'—field for him at cricket—brush his coat; if we are to believe school myths and traditions, black his shoes, and even take the chill off his sheets. The boy, how-ever, saw the son of a Howard or a Percy similarly employed by his side, and in cheerfully submitting to an ancient custom, he was but following out the tendencies of the age and class to which he belonged. … The mere abolition of the right of fagging, vague and undefined as were the duties attached to it, would have been a loss rather than a gain to the oppressed as a class. It would merely have substituted for the existing law, imperfect and anomalous as that law might be, the licence of brute force and the dominion of boyish truculence. … Such was, more or less, the state of things when he to whom English education owes so incalculable a debt, was placed at the head of Rugby School. … It was hoped that he who braved the anger of his order by his pamphlet on Church Reform—at whose bold and uncompromising language bishops stood aghast and courtly nobles remonstrated in vain—would make short work of ancient saws and mediæval traditions—that a revolution in school life was at hand. And they were not mistaken. … What he did was to seize on the really valuable part of the existing system—to inspire it with that new life, and those loftier purposes, without which mere institutions, great or small, must, sooner or later, wither away and perish. His first step was to effect an important change in the actual machinery of the school—one which, in itself, amounted to a revolution. The highest form in the school was no longer open to all whom a routine promotion might raise in course of time to its level. Industry and talent as tested by careful examinations (in the additional labour of which he himself bore the heaviest burden), were the only qualifications recognised. The new-modelled 'sixth form' were told, that the privileges and powers which their predecessors had enjoyed for ages were not to be wrested from them; but that they were to be held for the common good, as the badges and instruments of duties and responsibilities, such as anyone with less confidence in those whom he addressed would have hesitated to impose. They were told plainly that without their co-operation there was no hope of keeping in check the evils inherent in a society of boys. Tyranny, falsehood, drinking, party-spirit, coarseness, selfishness—the evil spirits that infest schools—these they heard Sunday after Sunday put in their true light by a majestic voice and a manly presence, with words, accents, and manner which would live in their memory for years; but they were warned that, to exercise such spirits, something more was needed than the watchfulness of masters and the energy of their chief. They themselves must use their large powers, entrusted to them in recognition of the principle, or rather of the fact, that in a large society of boys some must of necessity hold sway, to keep down, in themselves and those about them, principles and practices which are ever ready, like hideous weeds, to choke the growth of all that is fair and noble in such institutions. Dr. Arnold persevered in spite of opposition, obloquy, and misrepresentation. … But he firmly established his system, and his successors, men differing in training and temperament from himself and from each other, have agreed in cordially sustaining it. His pupils and theirs, men in very different walks of life, filling honourable posts at the universities and public schools, or ruling the millions of India, or working among the blind and toiling multitudes of our great towns, feel daily how much of their usefulness and power they owe to the sense of high trust and high duty which they imbibed at school."

Our Public Schools—Their Discipline and Instruction
(Fraser's Magazine, volume 1, pages 407-409).

"The recognition by the English State of its paramount duty in aiding the work of national education is scarcely more than a generation old. The recognition of the further and far more extensive work of supplementing by State aid, or by State agency, all deficiencies in the supply of schools, dates only thirteen years back [to 1870]; while the equally pressing duty of enforcing, by a universal law, the use of the opportunities of education thus supplied, is a matter almost of yesterday. The State has only slowly stepped into its proper place; more slowly in the case of England than in the case of any other of the leading European nations. … In 1699 the Society for the Propagation of Christian Knowledge was founded, and by it various schools were established throughout the country. {713} In 1782 Robert Raikes established his first Sunday school, and in a few years the Union, of which he was the founder, had under its control schools scattered all over the country. But the most extensive efforts made for popular education were those of Andrew Bell and Joseph Lancaster towards the close of the eighteenth century. … They misconceived and misjudged the extent of the work that had to be accomplished. They became slaves to their system—that which was called the Monitorial system … and by elevating it to undue importance they did much to discredit the very work in which they were engaged. … Amongst the Nonconformist followers of Lancaster there arose the British and Foreign School Society; while by those of Bell there was established, on the side representing the Church, the National Society. The former became the recognised agency of the Dissenters, the latter of the Church; and through one or other of these channels State aid, when it first began to flow, was obliged to take its course. … In 1802 the first Sir Robert Peel passed a Bill which restricted children's labour in factories, and required that reading, writing, and arithmetic should be taught to them during a part of each day. This was the beginning of the factory legislation. … In 1807 Mr. Whitebread introduced a Bill for the establishment of parochial schools through the agency of local vestries, who were empowered to draw on the rates for the purpose. The House of Commons accepted the Bill, but it was thrown out in the House of Lords. … The movement for a State recognition of education was pressed more vigorously when the fears and troubles of European war were clearing away. It was in 1816 that Brougham obtained his Select Committee for Inquiring into the Education of the Poor in the Metropolis. … In 1820 Brougham introduced, on the basis of his previous inquiries, an Education Bill. … By this Bill the issue between the contending parties in the State, which was henceforward destined to be the chief stumbling-block in the way of a State education, was placed on a clear and well-defined basis. … The Church was alarmed at anything which seemed to trench upon what she naturally thought to be her appointed task. The Dissenters dreaded what might add to the impregnability of the Church's strongholds. … When the beginning was actually made it came … as an almost unnoticed proposal of the Executive. In 1832 the sum of £20,000 for public education was placed in the estimates; it was passed by the Committee of Supply; and the first step was taken on that course from which the State has never since drawn back. No legislation was necessary. … The next great step was taken in 1839, when the annual vote was increased from £20,000 to £30,000, and when a special department was created to supervise the work. Hitherto grants had been administered by the Treasury to meet a certain amount of local exertion, and in general reliance upon vague assurances as to maintenance of the schools by local promoters. … The conditions which were soon found to be necessary as securities, either for continuance or for efficiency, were not yet insisted upon. To do this it was necessary to have a Department specially devoted to this work; and the means adopted for creating such a Department was one which had the advantage of requiring no Act of Parliament. By an order in Council a Special Committee of the Privy Council was established, and, in connection with this Committee, a special staff of officers was engaged. The same year saw the appointment of the first inspectors of schools. It was thus that the Education Department was constituted. The plan which the advisers of the Government in this new attempt had most at heart was that of a Normal Training College for teachers. … But it was surrounded with so much matter for dispute, gathered during a generation of contention, that the proposal all but wrecked the Government of Lord Melbourne. The Church objected to the scheme. … In the year 1844, after five years of the new administration, it was possible to form some estimate, not only of the solid work accomplished, but of the prospects of the immediate future. … Between 1839 and 1844, under the action of the Committee of Council, £170,000 of Imperial funds had been distributed to meet £430,000 from local resources. In all, therefore, about one million had been spent in little more than ten years. What solid good had this accomplished? … According to a careful and elaborate report in the year 1845, only about one in six, even of the children at school, was found able to read the Scriptures with any ease. Even for these the power of reading often left them when they tried a secular book. Of reading with intelligence there was hardly any; and about one-half of the children who came to school left, it was calculated, unable to read. Only about one child in four had mastered, even in the most mechanical way, the art of writing. As regards arithmetic, not two per cent. of the children had advanced as far as the rule of three. … The teaching of the schools was in the hands of men who had scarcely any training, and who had often turned to the work because all other work had turned away from them. Under them it was conducted upon that monitorial system which was the inheritance from Dr. Bell, the rival of Lancaster. The pupils were set to teach one another. … The inquiries of the Committee of Council thus gave the death-blow, in public estimation, to the once highly-vaunted monitorial system. But how was it to be replaced? The model of a better state of things was found in the Dutch schools. There a selected number of the older pupils, who intended to enter upon the profession of teachers, were apprenticed, when they had reached the age of thirteen, to the teacher. … After their apprenticeship they passed to a Training College. … Accordingly, a new and important start was made by the Department on the 25th of August 1846. … In 1851 twenty-five Training Colleges had been established; and these had a sure supply of qualified recruits in the 6,000 pupil teachers who were by that time being trained to the work. … The ten years between 1842 and 1852 saw the Parliamentary grant raised from £40,000 to £160,000 a year, with the certainty of a still further increase as the augmentation grants to teachers and the stipends to pupil teachers grew in number. Nearly 3,800 schools had been built with Parliamentary aid, providing accommodation for no less than 540,000 children. The State had contributed towards this more than £400,000; and a total expenditure had been incurred in providing schools of more than £1,000,000. … But the system was as yet only tentative; and a mass of thorny religious questions had to be faced before a really national system could be established. {714} … All parties became convinced that the first step was to inquire into the merits and defects of the existing system, and on the basis of sound information to plan some method of advance. Under this impression it was that the Commission on Public Education, of which the Duke of Newcastle was chairman, was appointed in 1858." The result of the Commission of 1858 was a revision of the educational Code which the Committee of the Privy Council had formulated. The New Code proved unsatisfactory in its working, and every year showed more plainly the necessity of a fully organized system of national education. "Out of the discussions there arose two societies, which fairly expressed two different views. … The first of these was the Education League, started at Birmingham in 1869. … Its basis, shortly stated, was that of a compulsory system of school provision, by local authorities through means of local rates; the schools so provided to be at once free and unsectarian. … In this programme the point which raised most opposition was the unsectarian teaching. It was chiefly to counteract this part of the League's objects that there was formed the Education Union, which urged a universal system based upon the old lines. … By common consent the time for a settlement was now come. Some guarantee must be taken that the whole edifice should not crumble to pieces; that for local agencies there should be substituted local authorities; and that the State should be supplied with some machinery whereby the gaps in the work might be supplied. It was in this position of opinion that Mr. Forster, as Vice-President, introduced his Education Bill in 1870. … The measure passed the House of Lords without any material alteration; and finally became Law on the 9th of August 1870."

The schools to which the provisions of the Act of 1870 extends, and the regulations under which such schools are to be conducted, are defined in the Act as follows: "Every elementary school which is conducted in accordance with the following regulations shall be a public elementary school within the meaning of this Act; and every public elementary school shall be conducted in accordance with the following regulations (a copy of which regulations shall be conspicuously put up in every such school); namely

(1.) It shall not be required, as a condition of any child being admitted into or continuing in the school, that he shall attend or abstain from attending any Sunday school, or any place of religious worship, or that he shall attend any religious observance or any instruction in religious subjects in the school or elsewhere, from which observance or instruction he may be withdrawn by his parent, or that he shall, if withdrawn by his parent, attend the school on any day exclusively set apart for religious observance by the religious body to which his parent belongs:

(2.) The time or times during which any religious observance is practised or instruction in religious subjects is given at any meeting of the school shall be either at the beginning or at the end or at the beginning and the end of such meeting, and shall be inserted in a time-table to be approved by the Education Department, and to be kept permanently and conspicuously affixed in every school-room; and any scholar may be withdrawn by his parent from such observance or instruction without forfeiting any of the other benefits of the school:

(3.) The school shall be open at all times to the inspection of any of Her Majesty's inspectors, so, however, that it shall be no part of the duties of such inspector to inquire into any instruction in religious subjects given at such school, or to examine any scholar therein in religious knowledge or in any religious subject or book:

(4.) The school shall be conducted in accordance with the conditions required to be fulfilled by an elementary school in order to obtain an annual parliamentary grant."

"The new Act retained existing inspected schools, … it also did away with all denominational classifications of schools and with denominational inspection, treating all inspected schools as equally belonging to a national system of schools and under national inspection, the distinctions as to inspectors and their provinces being henceforth purely geographical. But the new Act no longer required that public elementary schools established by voluntary agency and under voluntary management should have in them any religious character or element whatever, whether as belonging to a Christian Church or denomination, or as connected with a Christian philanthropic society, or as providing for the reading of the Scriptures in the school. It was left open to any party or any person to establish purely voluntary schools if they thought fit. But, furthermore, the Act made provision for an entirely new class of schools, to be established and (in part) supported out of local rates, to be governed by locally-elected School Boards, and to have just such and so much religious instruction given in them as the governing boards might think proper, at times preceding or following the prescribed secular school hours, and under the protection of a time-table Conscience Clause, as in the case of voluntary schools, with this restriction only, that in these schools no catechism or denominational religious formulary of any sort was to be taught. The mode of electing members to the School Boards was to be by what is called the cumulative vote—that is, each elector was to have as many votes as there were candidates, and these votes he could give all to one, or else distribute among the candidates as he liked; and all ratepayers were to be electors. … The new law … made a clear separation, in one respect, between voluntary and Board schools. Both were to stand equally in relation to the National Education Department, under the Privy Council; but the voluntary schools were to have nothing to do with local rates or rate aid, nor Local Boards to have any control over voluntary schools."

   "To sum up … in few words what may be set down as the chief
   characteristics of our English system of Elementary Education,
   I should say

(1) first, that whilst about 30 per cent. of our school accommodation is under the control of school boards, the cost of maintenance being borne in part by local rates as well as by the Parliamentary grant, fully 70 per cent. is still in the hands of voluntary school-managers, whose subscriptions take the place of the rates levied by school boards.

(2) In case a deficiency in school accommodation is reported in any school district, the Education Department have the power to require that due provision shall be made for the same within a limited time; the 'screw' to be applied to wilful defaulters in a voluntary school district being the threat of a board, and in a school board district the supercession of the existing board by a new board, nominated by the Department, and remunerated out of the local rates.

(3) Attendance is enforced everywhere by bye-laws, worked either by the school board or by the School Attendance Committee: and although these local authorities are often very remiss in discharging their duties, and the magistrates not seldom culpably lenient in dealing with cases brought before them, there are plenty of districts in which regularity of school attendance has been improved fully 10 per cent. in the past two or three years. …

(4) The present provision for teachers, and the means in existence for keeping up the supply, are eminently satisfactory. Besides a large but somewhat diminishing body of apprenticed pupil teachers, there is a very considerable and rapidly increasing number of duly qualified assistants, and at their head a large array of certificated teachers, whose ranks are being replenished, chiefly from the Training Colleges, at the rate of about 2,000 a year.

(5) The whole of the work done is examined and judged every year by inspectors and inspectors' assistants organised in districts each superintended by a senior inspector—the total cost of this inspection for the present year being estimated at about £150,000."

Reverend H. Roe, The English System of Elementary Education (International Health Exhibition, London, 1884: Conference on Education, section A).

"The result of the work of the Education Department is causing a social revolution in England. If the character of the teaching is too mechanical, if the chief aim of the teacher is to earn as much money as possible for his managers, it must be remembered that this cannot be done without at least giving the pupil the ability to read and write. Of course the schools are not nearly so good as the friends of true education wish. Much remains to be done. … Free education will shortly be an accomplished fact; the partial absorption of the voluntary schools by the School Boards will necessarily follow, and further facilitate the abolition of what have been the cause of so much evil—result examinations, and 'grant payments.' 'Write "Grant factory" on three-fourths of our schools,' said an educator to me. … The schools are known as

(1) Voluntary Schools, which have been built, and are partly supported by voluntary subscriptions. These are under denominational control.

(2) Board Schools: viz., schools built and supported by money raised by local taxation, and controlled by elected School Boards.

Out of 4,688,000 pupils in the elementary schools, 2,154,000 are in the schools known as Voluntary, provided by, and under the control of the Church of England; 1,780,000 are in Board Schools; 330,000 attend schools under the British School Society, or other undenominational control; 248,000 are in Roman Catholic schools; and 174,000 belong to Wesleyan schools. The schools here spoken of correspond more nearly than any other in England to the Public School of the United States and Australia; but are in many respects very different, chiefly from the fact that they are provided expressly for the poor, and in many cases are attended by no other class."

In 1891, a bill passed Parliament which aims at making the elementary schools of the country free from the payment of fees. The bill as explained in the House of Commons, "proposed to give a grant of 10s. per head to each scholar in average attendance between five and fourteen years of age, and as regarded such children schools would either become wholly free, or would continue to charge a fee reduced by the amount of the grant, according as the fee at present charged did or did not exceed 10s. When a school had become free it would remain free, or when a fee was charged, the fee would remain unaltered unless a change was required for the educational benefit of the locality; and under this arrangement he believed that two-thirds of the elementary schools in England and Wales would become free. There would be no standard limitations, but the grant would be restricted to schools where the compulsory power came in, and as to the younger children, it was proposed that in no case should the fee charged exceed 2d." In a speech made at Birmingham on the free education bill, Mr. Chamberlain discussed the opposition to it made by those who wished to destroy the denominational schools, and who objected to their participation in the proposed extension of public support. "To destroy denominational schools," he said, "was now an impossibility, and nothing was more astonishing than the progress they had made since the Education Act of 1870. He had thought, he said, they would die out with the establishment of Board schools, but he had been mistaken, for in the last twenty-three years they had doubled their accommodation, and more than doubled their subscription list. At the present time they supplied accommodation for two-thirds of the children of England and Wales. That being the case, to destroy voluntary schools—to supply their places with Board schools, as the Daily News cheerfully suggested—would be to involve a capital expenditure of £50,000,000, and £5,000,000 extra yearly in rates, But whether voluntary or denominational schools were good or bad, their continued existence had nothing to do with the question of free education, and ought to be kept quite distinct from it. To make schools free was not to give one penny extra to any denominational endowment. At the present time the fee was a tax, and if the parents did not pay fees they were brought before the magistrates, and if they still did not pay they might be sent to gaol. The only thing the Government proposed to do was not to alter the tax but to alter the incidence. The same amount would be collected; it would be paid by the same people, but it would be collected from the whole nation out of the general taxation." The bill was passed by the Commons July 8, and by the Lords on the 24th of the same month. The free education proposals of the Government are said to have been generally accepted throughout the country by both Board and Voluntary schools.

EDUCATION: France: A. D. 1565-1802.
   The Jesuits.
   Port Royal.
   The Revolution.
   Napoleon.

"The Jesuits invaded the province long ruled by the University alone. By that adroit management of men for which they have always been eminent, and by the more liberal spirit of their methods, they outdid in popularity their superannuated rival. Their first school at Paris was established in 1565, and in 1762, two years before their dissolution, they had eighty-six colleges in France. They were followed by the Port Royalists, the Benedictines, the Oratorians. The Port Royal schools [see PORT ROYAL], from which perhaps a powerful influence upon education might have been looked for, restricted this influence by limiting very closely the number of their pupils. Meanwhile the main funds and endowments for public education in France were in the University's hands, and its administration of these was as ineffective as its teaching. … The University had originally, as sources of revenue, the Post Office and the Messageries, or Office of Public Conveyance; it had long since been obliged to abandon the Post Office to Government, when in 1719 it gave up to the same authority the privilege of the Messageries, receiving in return from the State a yearly revenue of 150,000 livres. For this payment, moreover, it undertook the obligation of making the instruction in all its principal colleges gratuitous. Paid or gratuitous, however, its instruction was quite inadequate to the wants of the time, and when the Jesuits were expelled from France in 1764, their establishments closed, and their services as teachers lost, the void that was left was strikingly apparent, and public attention began to be drawn to it. It is well known how Rousseau among writers, and Turgot among statesmen, busied themselves with schemes of education; but the interest in the subject must have reached the whole body of the community, for the instructions of all three orders of the States General in 1789 are unanimous in demanding the reform of education, and its establishment on a proper footing. Then came the Revolution, and the work of reform soon went swimmingly enough, so far as the abolition of the old schools was concerned. In 1791 the colleges were all placed under the control of the administrative authorities; in 1792 the jurisdiction of the University was abolished; in 1793 the property of the colleges was ordered to be sold, the proceeds to be taken by the State; in September of the same year the suppression of all the great public schools and of all the University faculties was pronounced. For the work of reconstruction Condorcet's memorable plan had in 1792 been submitted to the Committee of Public Instruction appointed by the Legislative Assembly. This plan proposed a secondary school for every 4,000 inhabitants; for each department, a departmental institute, or higher school; nine lycées, schools carrying their studies yet higher than the departmental institute, for the whole of France; and to crown the edifice, a National Society of Sciences and Arts, corresponding in the main with the present institute of France. The whole expense of national instruction was to be borne by the State, and this expense was estimated at 29,000,000 of francs. But 1792 and 1793 were years of furious agitation, when it was easier to destroy than to build. Condorcet perished with the Girondists, and the reconstruction of public education did not begin till after the fall of Robespierre. The decrees of the Convention for establishing the Normal School, the Polytechnic, the School of Mines, and the écoles centrales, and then Daunou's law in 1795, bore, however, many traces of Condorcet's design. Daunou's law established primary schools, central schools, special schools, and at the head of all the Institute of France, this last a memorable and enduring creation, with which the old French Academy became incorporated. By Daunou's law, also, freedom was given to private persons to open schools. The new legislation had many defects. … The country, too, was not yet settled enough for its education to organise itself successfully. The Normal School speedily broke down; the central schools were established slowly and with difficulty; in the course of the four years of the Directory there were nominally instituted ninety·one of these schools, but they never really worked. More was accomplished by private schools, to which full freedom was given by the new legislation, at the same time that an ample and open field lay before them. They could not, however, suffice for the work, and education was one of the matters for which Napoleon, when he became Consul, had to provide. Foureroy's law, in 1802, took as the basis of its school-system secondary schools, whether established by the communes or by private individuals; the Government undertook to aid these schools by grants for buildings, for scholarships, and for gratuities to the masters; it prescribed Latin, French, geography, history, and mathematics as the instruction to be given in them. They were placed under the superintendence of the prefects. To continue and complete the secondary schools were instituted the lyceums; here the instruction was to be Greek and Latin, rhetoric, logic, literature, moral philosophy, and the elements of the mathematical and physical sciences. The pupils were to be of four kinds: boursiers nationaux, scholars nominated to scholarships by the State; pupils from the secondary schools, admitted as free scholars by competition; paying boarders, and paying day-scholars."

"The question of the education of youth is one of those in which the struggle between the Catholic Church and the civil power has been, and still is, hottest. It is also one of those in which France, which for a long time had remained far in the rear, has made most efforts, and achieved most progress in these latter years. … Napoleon I. conceived education as a means of disciplining minds and wills and moulding them into conformity with the political system which he had put in force; accordingly he gave the University the monopoly of public education. Apart from the official system of teaching, no competition was allowed except that specially authorised, regulated, and controlled by the State itself. Religious instruction found a place in the official programmes, and members of the clergy were even called on to supply it, but this instruction itself, and these priests themselves, were under the authority of the State. Hence two results: on the one hand the speedy impoverishment of University education, … on the other hand, the incessant agitation of all those who were prevented by the special organisation given to the University from expounding their ideas or the faith that was in them from the professorial chair. This agitation was begun and carried on by the Catholic Church itself, as soon as it felt more at liberty to let its ambitions be discerned. {717} On this point the Church met with the support of a good number of Liberals, and it is in a great measure to its initiative that are due the three important laws of 1833, 1850, and 1875, which have respectively given to France freedom of primary education, of secondary education, and finally that of higher education; which have given, that is to say, the right to everyone, under certain conditions of capacity and character, to open private schools in competition with the three orders of public schools. But the Church did not stop there. Hardly had it insured liberty to its educational institutions—a liberty by which all citizens might profit alike, but of which its own strong organisation and powerful resources enabled it more easily to take advantage—hardly was this result obtained than the Church tried to lay hands on the University itself, and to make its doctrines paramount there. … Thence arose a movement hostile to the enterprises of the Church, which has found expression since 1880 in a series of laws which Excluded her little by little from the positions she had won, and only left to her, as to all other citizens, the liberty to teach apart from, and concurrently with, the State. The right to confer degrees has been given back to the State alone; the privilege of the 'letter of obedience' has been abolished; religious teaching has been excluded from the primary schools; and after having 'laicized,' as the French phrase is, the curriculum, the effort was persistently made to 'laicize' the staff. …. From the University point of view, the territory of France is divided into seventeen academies, the chief towns of which are Paris, Douai, Caen, Rennes, Poitiers, Bordeaux, Toulouse, Montpellier, Aix, Grenoble, Chambéry, Lyons, Besançon, Nancy, Dijon, Clermont, and Algiers. Each academy has a rector at its head, who, under the authority of the Minister of Public Instruction, is charged with the material administration of higher and secondary education, and with the methods of primary instruction in his district. The administration of this last belongs to the prefect of each department, assisted by an academy-inspector. In each of these three successive stages—department, academy, and central administration—is placed a council, possessing administrative and disciplinary powers. The Departmental Council of Public Instruction, which comprises six officials … forms a disciplinary council for primary education, either public or free (i. e., State or private). This council sees to the application of programmes, lays down rules, and appoints one or more delegates in each canton to superintend primary schools. The Academic Council … performs similar functions with regard to secondary and higher education. The Higher Council of Public Instruction sits at Paris. It comprises forty-four elected representatives of the three educational orders, nine University officials, and four 'free' schoolmasters appointed by the Minister, and is the disciplinary court of appeal for the two preceding councils. … Such is the framework, administrative as well as judicial, in which education, whether public or free, lives and moves. … Since 1882 Primary Education has been compulsory for all children of both sexes, from the age of six to the end of the thirteenth year, unless before reaching the latter age they have been able to pass an examination, and to gain the certificate of primary studies. To satisfy the law, the child's name must be entered at a public or private school; he may, however, continue to receive instruction at home, but in this case, after he has reached the age of eight, he must be examined every year before a State board. … At the age of thirteen the child is set free from further teaching, whatever may be the results of the education he has received. … In public schools the course of instruction does not include, as we have said, religious teaching; but one day in the week the school must take a holiday, to allow parents to provide such teaching for their children, if they wish to do so. The school building cannot be used for that purpose. In private schools religious instruction may be given, but this is optional. The programme of primary education includes: moral and civic instruction; reading, writing, French, geography and history (particularly those of France); general notions of law and science; the elements of drawing, modelling, and music; and gymnastics. No person of either sex can become a teacher, either public or private, unless he possesses the 'certificate of capacity for primary instruction' given by a State board. For the future—putting aside certain temporary arrangements—no member of a religious community will be eligible for the post of master in a public school. … As a general rule, every commune is compelled to maintain a public school, and, if it has more than 500 inhabitants, a second school for girls only. … The sum total of the State's expenses for primary education in 1887 is as high as eighty-five million francs (£3,400,000), and that without mentioning grants for school buildings, whereas in 1877 the sum total was only twelve millions (£480,000). … From 1877 to 1886, the number of public schools rose from 61,000 to 66,500; that of the pupils from 4,200,000 to 4,500,000, with 96,600 masters and mistresses; that of training schools for male teachers from 79 to 89, of training schools for female teachers from 18 to 77, with 5,400 pupils (3,500 of them women), and 1,200 masters. As to the results a single fact will suffice. In these ten years, before the generations newly called to military service have been able to profit fully by the new state of things, the proportion of illiterate recruits (which is annually made out directly after the lots are drawn) has already fallen from 15 to 11 per cent."

   "In 1872, after the dreadful disaster of the war, Monsieur
   Thiers, President of the Gouvernement de la Défense Nationale,
   and Monsieur Jules Simon, Minister of Public Instruction, felt
   that what was most important for the nation was a new system
   of public instruction, and they set themselves the task of
   determining the basis on which this new system was to be
   established. In September, 1882, Monsieur Jules Simon issued a
   memorable circular calling the attention of all the most
   distinguished leaders of thought to some proposed plans. He
   did not long remain in power, but in his retirement he wrote a
   book entitled: 'Réforme de l'Enseignement Secondaire.'
   Monsieur Bréal, who was commissioned to visit the schools of
   Germany, soon after published another book which aroused new
   enthusiasm in France. … From that day a complete educational
   reform was decided on.
{718}
   In 1872 we had at the Ministeré de l'Instruction Publique
   three distinguished men: Monsieur Dumont for the Enseignement
   Supérieur, one from whom we hoped much and whose early death
   we had to mourn in 1884; Monsieur Zévort for the Enseignement
   Secondaire, who also died ere the good seed which he had sown
   had sprung up and borne fruit (1887); and Monsieur Buisson to
   whose wisdom, zeal, and energy we owe most of the work of the
   Enseignement Primaire. At their side, of maturer years than
   they, stood Monsieur Gréard, Recteur de l'Académie de Paris.
   … All the educationists of the first French Revolution had
   insisted on the solidarity of the three orders of education;
   maintaining that it was not possible to separate one from
   another, and that there ought to be a close correspondence
   between them. This principle lies at the root of the whole
   system of French national instruction. Having established this
   principle, the four leaders called upon all classes of
   teachers to work with them, and professors who had devoted
   their life to the promotion of superior instruction brought
   their experience and their powers of organization to bear upon
   schools for all classes, from the richest to the poorest. …
   But to reform and to reconstruct a system of instruction is
   not a small task. It is not easy to change at once the old
   methods, to give a new spirit to the masters, to teach those
   who think that what had been sufficient for them need not be
   altered and is sufficient forever. However, we must say that
   as soon as the French teachers heard of the great changes
   which were about to take place, they were all anxious to rise
   to the demands made on them, and were eager for advice and
   help. Lectures on pedagogy and psychology were given to them
   by the highest professors of philosophy, and these lessons
   were so much appreciated that the attention of the University
   of France was called to the necessity for creating at the
   Sorbonne a special course of lectures on pedagogy. Eleven
   hundred masters and mistresses attended them the first year
   that they were inaugurated; from that time till now their
   number has always been increasing. Now we have at the Sorbonne
   a Chaire Magistrale and Conférences for the training of
   masters and professors; and the faculties at Lyons, Bordeaux,
   Nancy, and Montpellier have followed the example given at the
   Sorbonne, Paris. … In 1878, the Musée Pedagogique was
   founded; in 1882, began the publication of the Revue
   Pedagogique and the Revue Internationale de l'Enseignement.
   Four large volumes of the Dictionnaire de Pédagogie, each
   containing about 3,000 closely printed pages, have also come
   out under the editorship of Monsieur Buisson, all the work of
   zealous teachers and educationists. In 1879 normal schools
   were opened. Then in 1880 primary schools, and in 1882 we may
   say that the Ecoles Maternelles and the Ecoles Enfantines were
   created, so different are they from the infant schools or the
   Salles d'Asile; in 1883 a new examination was established for
   the Professorat and the Direction des Ecoles Normales, as well
   as for the inspectors of primary instruction; and in July,
   1889, the law about public and private teaching was
   promulgated, perhaps one of the most important that has ever
   been passed by the Republic."

      Mme. Th. Armagnac,
      The Educational Renaissance of France
      (Education, September, 1890).

The whole number of pupils registered in the primary, elementary and superior schools, public and private, of France and Algiers (excluding the "écoles maternelles") for the school-year 1890-91, was 5,593,883; of which 4,384,905 were in public schools (3,760,601, "laïque," and 624,304 "congréganiste"), and 1,208,978 in private schools (151,412 "laïques," and 1,057,566 "congréganiste"). Of 36,484 communes, 35,503 possessed a public school, and 875 were joined for school purposes with another commune. The male teachers employed in the elementary and superior public schools numbered 28,657; female teachers, 24,273; total 52,930.

Ministère de l'Instruction publique, Résumé des états de situation de l'enseignement primaire pour l'année scolaire 1890-1891.

   "The present system of National Education in Ireland was
   founded in 1831. In this year grants of public money for the
   education of the poor were entrusted to the lord-lieutenant in
   order that they might be applied to the education of the
   people. This education was to be given to children of every
   religious belief, and to be superintended by commissioners
   appointed for the purpose. The great principle on which the
   system was founded was that of 'united secular and separate
   religious instruction.' No child should be required to attend
   any religious instruction which should be contrary to the
   wishes of his or her parents or guardians. Times were to be
   set apart during which children were to have such religious
   instruction as their parents might think proper. It was to be
   the duty of the Commissioners to see that these principles
   were carried out and not infringed on in any way. They had
   also power to give or refuse money to those who applied for
   aid to build schools. Schools are 'vested' and 'non-vested.'
   Vested schools are those built by the Board of National
   Education; non-vested schools are the ordinary schools, and
   are managed by those who built them. If a committee of persons
   build a school, it is looked on by the Board as the 'patron.'
   If a landowner or private person builds a school, he is
   regarded as the patron if he has no committee. The patron,
   whether landlord or committee, has power to appoint or dismiss
   a manager, who corresponds with the Board. The manager is also
   responsible for the due or thorough observance of the laws and
   rules. Teachers are paid by him after he certifies that the
   laws have been kept, and gives the attendance for each
   quarter. When an individual is patron, he may appoint himself
   manager and thus fill both offices. … The teachers are paid
   by salaries and by results fees. The Boards of Guardians have
   power to contribute to these results fees. Some unions do so
   and are called 'contributory.' School managers in Ireland are
   nearly always clerics of some denomination. There are
   sometimes, but very rarely, lay managers. … From the census
   returns of 1881 it appears that but fifty-nine per cent. of
   the people of Ireland are able to read and write, The greater
   number of national schools through Ireland are what are
   called 'unmixed,' that is, attended by children of one
   denomination only. The rest of the schools are called 'mixed,'
   that is, attended by children of different forms of religion.
   The percentage of schools that show a 'mixed' attendance tends
   to become smaller each year. … There are also twenty-nine
   'model' schools in different parts of Ireland. These schools
   are managed directly by the Board of National Education. …
{719}
   According to the report of the Commissioners of National
   Education for 1890, the 'percentage of average attendance to
   the average number of children on the rolls of the schools was
   but 59.0,' and the percentage of school attendance to the
   estimated population of school age in Ireland would be less
   than 50. Different reasons might be given for this small
   percentage of attendance. The chief reasons are, first,
   attendance at school not being compulsory, and next, education
   not being free. … The pence paid for school fees in Ireland
   may seem, to many people, a small matter. But in a country
   like Ireland, where little money circulates, and a number of
   the people are very poor, school pence are often not easily
   found every week. In 1890, £104,550 4s. and 8d. was paid in
   school fees, being an average of 4s. 32¾d. per unit of average
   attendance."

"In 1739 the schools throughout the country were regulated by a royal ordinance, but this paid so little regard to the economical and physical condition of Norway that it had to be altered and modified as early as 1741. Compulsory instruction, however, had thus been adopted, securing to every child in the country instruction in the Christian doctrine and in reading, and this coercion was retained in all later laws. … Many portions of the country are intersected by high mountains and deep fiords, so that a small population is scattered over a surface of several miles. In such localities the law has established 'ambulatory schools,' whose teachers travel from one farm to another, living with the different peasants. Although this kind of instruction has often been most incomplete and the teachers very mediocre, still educational coercion has everywhere been in force, and Christian instruction everywhere provided for the children. These 'ambulatory schools' formerly existed in large numbers, but with the increase of wealth and population, and the growing interest taken in education, their number has gradually diminished, and that of fixed circle-schools augmented in the same proportion."

      G. Gade,
      Report on the Educational System of Norway
      (United States Bureau of Education,
      Circulars of Information, July, 1871).

"School attendance is compulsory for at least 12 weeks each year for all children in the country districts from 8 years of age to confirmation, and from 7 years to confirmation in the towns. According to the law of 1889, which in a measure only emphasizes preceding laws, each school is to have the necessary furnishings and all indispensable school material. The Norwegians are so intent upon giving instruction to all children that in case of poverty of the parents the authorities furnish text-books and the necessary clothing, so that school privileges may be accorded to all of school age."

"The most important era in the history of public instruction in Prussia, as well as in other parts of Germany, opens with the efforts put forth by the king and people, to rescue the kingdom from the yoke of Napoleon in 1809. In that year the army was remodeled and every citizen converted into a soldier; landed property was declared free of feudal service; restrictions on freedom of trade were abolished, and the whole state was reorganized. Great reliance was placed on infusing a German spirit into the people by giving them freer access to improved institutions of education from the common school to the university. Under the councils of Hardenberg, Humboldt, Stein, Altenstein, these reforms and improvements were projected, carried on, and perfected in less than a single generation. The movement in behalf of popular schools commenced by inviting C. A. Zeller, of Wirtemberg, to Prussia. Zeller was a young theologian, who had studied under Pestalozzi in Switzerland, and was thoroughly imbued with the method and spirit of his master. On his return he had convened the school teachers of Wirtemberg in barns, for want of better accommodations being allowed him, and inspired them with a zeal for Pestalozzi's methods, and for a better education of the whole people. On removing to Prussia he first took charge of the seminary at Koenigsberg, soon after founded the seminary at Karalene, and went about into different provinces meeting with teachers, holding conferences, visiting schools, and inspiring school officers with the right spirit. The next step taken was to send a number of young men, mostly theologians, to Pestalozzi's institution at Ifferten, to acquire his method, and on their return to place them in new, or reorganized teachers' seminaries. To these new agents in school improvement were joined a large body of zealous teachers, and patriotic and enlightened citizens, who, in ways and methods of their own, labored incessantly to confirm the Prussian state, by forming new organs for its internal life, and new means of protection from foreign foes. They proved themselves truly educators of the people. Although the government thus not only encouraged, but directly aided in the introduction of the methods of Pestalozzi into the public schools of Prussia, still the school board in the different provinces sustained and encouraged those who approved and taught on different systems. … Music, which was one of Pestalozzi's great instruments of culture, was made the vehicle of patriotic songs, and through them the heart of all Germany was moved to bitter hatred of the conqueror who had desolated her fields and homes, and humbled the pride of her monarchy. All these efforts for the improvement of elementary education, accompanied by expensive modifications in the establishments of secondary and superior education, were made when the treasury was impoverished, and taxes the most exorbitant in amount were levied on every province and commune of the kingdom."

For this notable educational work begun in Prussia in 1809, and which gave a new character to the nation, "the Providential man appeared in Humboldt, as great a master of the science and art of education as Scharnhorst was a master of the organisation of war. Not only was he himself, as a scholar and an investigator, on a level with the very first of his age, not only had he lived with precisely those masters of literature, Schiller and Goethe, who were most deliberate in their self-culture, and have therefore left behind most instruction on the higher parts of education, but he had been specially intimate with F. A. Wolf. It is not generally known in England that Wolf was not merely the greatest philologer but also the greatest teacher and educationist of his time. … Formed by such teachers, and supported by a more intense belief in culture than almost any man of his time, Humboldt began his work in April, 1809. {720} In primary education Fichte had already pointed to Pestalozzi as the best guide. One of that reformer's disciples, C. A. Zeller, was summoned to Königsberg to found a normal school, while the reformer himself, in his weekly educational journal, cheered fallen Prussia by his panegyric, and wrote enthusiastically to Nicolovius pronouncing him and his friends the salt and leaven of the earth that would soon leaven the whole mass. It is related that in the many difficulties which Zeller not unnaturally had to contend with, the King's genuine benevolence, interest in practical improvement, and strong family feeling, were of decisive use. … The reform of the Gymnasia was also highly successful. Süvern here was among the most active of those who worked under Humboldt's direction. In deference to the authority of Wolf the classics preserved their traditional position of honour, and particular importance was attached to Greek. … But it was on the highest department of education that Humboldt left his mark most visibly. He founded the University of Berlin; he gave to Europe a new seat of learning, which has ever since stood on an equality with the very greatest of those of which Europe boasted before. We are not indeed to suppose that the idea of such a University sprang up for the first time at this moment, or in the brain of Humboldt. Among all the losses which befell Prussia by the Peace of Tilsit none was felt more bitterly than the loss of the University of Halle, where Wolf himself had made his fame. Immediately after the blow fell, two of the Professors of Halle made their way to Memel and laid before the King a proposal to establish a High School at Berlin. This was on August 22nd, 1807. … On September 4th came an Order of Cabinet, in which it was declared to be one of the most important objects to compensate the loss of Halle. It was added that neither of the two Universities which remained to Prussia, those of Königsberg and Frankfurt-on-the-Oder, could be made to supply the place of Halle, Königsberg being too remote from the seat of Government and Frankfurt not sufficiently provided with means. At Berlin a University could best, and at least expense, be established. Accordingly all funds which had hitherto gone to Halle were to go for the future to Berlin, and assurances were to be given to the expelled Professors which might prevent their talents being lost to the country. A University is not founded in a day, and accordingly while Stein held office the design did not pass beyond the stage of discussion. … Humboldt sent in his Report on May 12, 1809, and on August 16th followed the Order of Cabinet assigning to the new University, along with the Academies of Science and Art, an annual dotation of 150,000 thalers, and the Palace of Prince Henry as its residence. During the rest of his term of office Humboldt was occupied in negotiations with eminent men of science all over Germany, whose services he hoped to procure. He was certainly not unsuccessful. He secured Fichte for Philosophy; Schleiermacher, De Wette, and Marheineke for Theology; Savigny and Schmalz for Jurisprudence; Friedländer, Kohlrausch, Hufeland, and Reil for Medicine; Wolf, Buttmann, Böckh, Heindorf, and Spalding for the Study of Antiquity; Niebuhr and Rühs for History; Tralles for Mathematics (Gauss refused the invitation). The University was opened at Michaelmas of 1810, and as the first result of it the first volume of Niebuhr's Roman History, opening so vast a field of historical speculation, was published in 1811. … Altogether in that period of German history the relations of literature, or rather culture in general, to politics are remarkable and exceptional. There had been a most extraordinary intellectual movement, a great outpouring of genius, and yet this had taken place not, as according to some current theories it ought to have done, in the bosom of political liberty, but in a country where liberty was unknown. And as it was not the effect, so the new literature did not seem disposed to become the cause, of liberty. Not only was it careless of internal liberty, but it was actually indifferent to national independence. The golden age of German literature is the very period when Germany was conquered by France. … So far literature and culture seemed a doubtful benefit, and might almost be compared to some pernicious drug, which should have the power to make men forget their country and their duties. Not unreasonably did Friedrich Perthes console himself for the disasters of Germany by reflecting that at least they had brought to an end 'the paper time,' the fool's paradise of a life made up of nothing more substantial than literature. In Humboldt's reform we have the compensation for all this. Here while on the one hand we see the grand spectacle of a nation in the last extremity refusing to part with the treasures of its higher life, on the other hand that higher life is no longer unnaturally divorced from political life. It is prized as one of the bulwarks of the State, as a kind of spiritual weapon by which the enemy may be resisted. And in the new and public-spirited generation of thinkers, of which Fichte and Sehleiermacher were the principal representatives, culture returns to politics the honour that has been done to it. … In Humboldt and his great achievements of 1809, 1810, meet and are reconciled the two views of life which found their most extreme representatives in Goethe and Stein."

   "There is no organic school-law in Prussia, … though
   sketches and projects of such a law have more than once been
   prepared. But at present the public control of the higher
   schools is exercised through administrative orders and
   instructions, like the minutes of our Committee of Council on
   Education. But the administrative authority has in Prussia a
   very different basis for its operations from that which it has
   in England, and a much firmer one. It has for its basis these
   articles of the Allgemeine Landrecht, or common law of
   Prussia, which was drawn up in writing in Frederick the
   Great's reign, and promulgated in 1794, in the reign of his
   successor:—'Schools and universities are State institutions,
   having for their object the instruction of youth in useful and
   scientific knowledge. Such establishments are to be instituted
   only with the State's previous knowledge and consent. All
   public schools and public establishments of education are
   under the State's supervision, and must at all times submit
   themselves to its examinations and inspections.
{721}
   Whenever the appointment of teachers is not by virtue of the
   foundation or of a special privilege vested in certain persons
   or corporations, it belongs to the State. Even where the
   immediate supervision of such schools and the appointment of
   their teachers is committed to certain private persons or
   corporations, new teachers cannot be appointed, and important
   changes in the constitution and teaching of the school cannot
   be adopted without the previous knowledge or consent of the
   provincial school authorities. The teachers in the gymnasiums
   and other higher schools have the character of State
   functionaries.' … It would be a mistake to suppose that the
   State in Prussia shows a grasping and centralising spirit in
   dealing with education; on the contrary, it makes the
   administration of it as local as it possibly can; but it takes
   care that education shall not be left to the chapter of
   accidents. … Prussia is now divided into eight provinces,
   and these eight provinces are again divided into twenty-six
   governmental districts, or Regierungen. There is a Provincial
   School Board (Provinzial-Schulcollegium) in the chief town of
   each of the eight provinces, and a Governmental District Board
   in that of each of the twenty-six Regierungen. In general, the
   State's relations with the higher class of secondary schools
   are exercised through the Provincial Board; its relations with
   the lower class of them, and with the primary schools, through
   the District Board. In Berlin, the relations with these also
   are managed by the Provincial Board. A
   Provinzial-Schulcollegium has for its president the High
   President of the province; for its director the vice-president
   of that governmental district which happens to have for its
   centre the provincial capital. The Board has two or three
   other members, of whom, in general, one is a Catholic and one
   is a Protestant; and one is always a man practically
   conversant with school matters. The District Board has in the
   provincial capitals the same president and director as the
   Provincial Board; in the other centres of Regierungen it has
   for its president the President of the Regierung, and three or
   four members selected on the same principle as the members of
   the Provincial Board. The provincial State authority,
   therefore, is, in general, for gymnasiums, the larger
   progymnasiums, and Realschulen of the first rank, the
   Provincial School Board; for the smaller progymnasiums,
   Realschulen of the second rank, the higher Burgher Schools,
   and the primary schools of all kinds, the Governmental
   District Board. Both boards are in continual communication
   with the Educational Minister at Berlin. … Besides the
   central and provincial administration there is a local or
   municipal administration for schools that are not Crown
   patronage schools. … In most towns the local authority for
   schools of municipal patronage is the town magistracy,
   assisted by a Stadtschulrath; sometimes the local authority is
   a Curntorium or Schulcommission."

"The secondary school differs from the elementary schools by a course of instruction going beyond the immediate demands of every-day life; from the special school, by the more general character of the courses of instruction; from the university, by its preparatory character. It has the special aim to give that sound basis of scientific and literary education which enables a man to participate in solving the higher problems of life in church, state, and society, In accordance with their historical development, two directions can be clearly traced, viz., the gymnasium and the real-school: the former comprising gymnasia and pro-gymnasia; and the latter real-schools of the first class, real-schools of the second class, and higher burgher-schools."

History of Secondary Instruction in Germany (U. S. Bureau of Education, Circulars of Information, 1874, number 3), page 41.

"The name gymnasium came into use as early as the sixteenth century. The ministerial decree of the 12th of November, 1812, ordered that all learned school institutions, such as lyceums, pedagogiums, collegiums, Latin schools, etc., should bear the name gymnasium. A gymnasium is and has long been a classical school."

"The New Yorker, anxious for a high degree of perfection in the elementary schools of his State, must be struck forcibly by the following merits of the Elementary School System of Prussia. …

1. Compulsory education laws, necessitating a full and regular attendance of the children of school age.

2. Official courses of study fixing the work to be accomplished in each of the different grades of schools. Uniformity is thus secured in the work done in all schools of the same class.

3. Definite qualifications and experience in teaching for eligibility to the office of school commissioner.

4. Provisions elevating teaching to the dignity of a
profession and making the tenure of office secure.

5. Trained teachers in rural as well as city districts and a school year of at least forty weeks.

6. General supervision of instruction for children of school age in private schools and families, including the qualifications of instructors. …

Every Prussian child between the ages of 6 and 14 must, except in cases of severe illness or other extraordinary cause, be present at every session of the school he attends. The lists of the children of school age, in charge of the local police (in rural districts the Burgermeister), are kept so carefully that it is impossible to escape the provisions of the compulsory education laws, as much so as it is to evade the military service. Dispensations amounting to more than four weeks in the school year are never given to children under 12 years of age, and to them only when sickness in the family or other unusual cause make it advisable. … In order to understand the qualifications required of school commissioners (Kreisschulinspektoren) in Prussia, let us review briefly the requirements of male teachers.

1. Elementary schools. It may be stated at the outset that almost all the male elementary school teachers are normal school graduates. To insure similarity in training and a thorough knowledge of character, few foreigners and few beside normal school (Schullehrer-Seminar) graduates are admitted to the male teaching force. From 6 to 14 the would-be teacher has attended, let us suppose, an elementary school. He must then absolve the three years' course laid down for the preparatory schools. … He is now ready for the normal school. At the close of a three years' course at the normal school he is admitted to the first teachers' examination. If successful, he must next practice as candidate or assistant teacher not less than two years and not more than five years before his admission to the final test. … If a teacher fails to pass the examination within five years, he is dropped.

2. Middle schools. For teachers of lower classes the same requirements with the addition of ability to teach a foreign tongue, or natural history in its broadest sense, and the attainment of the mark 'good' in all subjects at the final examination. … For higher classes, a special examination provided for middle school teachers. … There is really no gradation between elementary and middle schools. The latter merely go on somewhat further with elementary school work, introducing French, Latin and English.

3. High schools (Realschulen, Realgymnasien, Progymnasien and Gymnasien). All high school teachers, except those engaged in technical departments, must first absolve the nine years' gymnasial course, which commences at the close of the third school year.

Next comes the university course of three or four years. The candidate is now ready for the State examination. The subjects for this State examination … are divided into four classes:

1. The ancient languages and German; 2. Mathematics and natural sciences; 3. History and geography; 4. Religion and Hebrew.

At the close of one year's practice to test teaching capacity he receives a second certificate and is thereupon engaged provisionally. … The school commissioners … are either former regular high school teachers, general doctors of philosophy or more rarely theologians, or former normal school teachers. All must have had practical experience in teaching. … The work to be accomplished in each Prussian elementary school is definitely laid down by law. Each school is not a law unto itself as to what shall be done and when and how this is to be done. I have learned by practical experience that the work in ungraded schools compares most favorably with that of graded schools."

J. R. Parsons, Jr., Prussian Schools through American eyes, chapter 1, sections 5-10.

Prussian elementary schools are now free. "In this respect Prussia has passed through three stages. Under the first elementary schools were entirely self-supporting; under the second they received State aid, but were still largely self-supporting; under the third, Laws of 1888 and 1889, elementary schools were made free and the State pays a larger proportion of the cost of maintenance. Districts must pay for repairs, new buildings and cost of heating. If unwilling to provide proper accommodations for the children of school age, they can be forced by the government to do so. Poor districts may receive special government aid to meet such expenses. … The direct aim of the laws of June 14, 1888, and March 31, 1889, was to lighten the burden of local taxation for schools for children of school age. These laws have had a beneficial effect in increasing slightly the wages of teachers. Teachers' salaries are still quite small in Prussia, particularly in the case of females. Allowances are generally made for house-rent and fuel. Teachers in rural districts are provided with a house and garden. Their salaries are often not much more than half those paid city teachers of the same grade, and yet, as regards professional training and character of work, they are fully equal to city teachers. … The average annual salary received by teachers in Prussia in 1886 was $267.50. The average for the same year in New York was $409.27. The Prussian teacher, however, received fuel and dwelling free, in addition to his regular salary. … In 1885 the population of Prussia was 28,318,470, and the total cost of public education per caput was $1,7717. Drs. Schneider and Petersilie of Berlin, in 'Preussische Statistik 101,' published in 1889, reckon the total cost for 1888, excluding army and navy schools, at $50,192,857. … In Prussia, elementary instruction is the first consideration. The resolution adopted by the national assembly (Landtag) December 22, 1870, is a good illustration of this. It was at the very crisis of the Franco-German war, yet the Landtag called on the government to increase the number of normal schools and the capacity of those already existing, and 'thus to put an end to the practice of filling up teachers' vacancies by appointing unqualified individuals.'"

J. R. Parsons, Jr., Prussian Schools through American eyes, chapter 1, sections 15-17.

"Throughout Prussia there is now one school-room and one teacher to 446 inhabitants and 78.8 children actually attending school. This shows that there are far too few teachers. But the government and the cities have recently devoted considerable sums to the establishment of new places for teachers, so that, in the year 1881, there were 10,000 more teachers working in the public schools than in 1873. The salaries of the teachers were also raised. The average payment in the country is 954 marks, in the cities 1,430 marks. … The expense of maintaining the Prussian national schools amounts annually to about 102,000,000 of marks, 43,000,000 of which are paid by the cities. One hundred and ten colleges for the training of teachers are now engaged in the education of male and female instructors, with an attendance of 9,892 pupils; that is, there is one pupil to every 2,758 inhabitants. In the case of the female teachers only, a considerable degree of assistance is rendered by private institutions. … The intermediary schools established in 1872, and recently converted into the higher citizen schools, form a transition from the national schools to the higher schools. These teach religion, German, French, English, history and geography, arithmetic and mathematics, natural history and physics, writing, drawing, singing, and gymnastics. The course embraces six years without Latin, with the privilege of one year's service in the army instead of three. Complementary to the national school is the finishing school. There are a large number in Prussia, namely, 1,261 with 68,766 pupils: 617 with 10,395 in the country, and 644 with 58,371 in the cities. Of these 644,342 are obligatory by local statutes, 302 are optional. Since the law of 1878 special care has been devoted to the compulsory education of orphaned children. … The preparatory instruction of female teachers leaves much to be desired."

F. Kirchner, Contemporary Educational Thought in Prussia (Educational Review, May, 1891).

"About 25 per cent. of all the teachers in public middle schools are women, hence … women hold positions in these schools more frequently than in the lower, the purely elementary, schools of the kingdom. The greatest ratio of women teachers in Prussia is found in private middle schools, where 2,422 of 3,126 (or nearly 80 percent.) are women. … In all the public schools of Prussia (elementary, middle, and secondary) only 10,600 women teachers were employed [1887], or 14¼ per cent. of all the teachers in the kingdom. … Before the public schools of the kingdom had the care and close supervision on the part of the state which they have now, many more private schools were in existence than at present. During the last 25 years the private schools have not increased in numbers, but perceptibly decreased."

"After serfdom had been abolished, the Emperor Alexander II. saw that the indispensable consequence of this great reform must be a thorough reorganization of public instruction. In 1861 a committee was appointed to draw up the plan of a law. In 1862 M. Taneef submitted to the Emperor a 'General plan for the organization of popular education,' which contained some very excellent points. The result was the General Regulations of 1864, which are still in force. … The difficulties which a complete reorganization of popular education meets in Russia are enormous. They are principally caused by the manner in which the inhabitants live, scattered over a large extent of country, and by their extreme poverty. … The density of population is so small that there are only 13.6 inhabitants to one square kilometer (2.6 square kilometers to 1 square mile), instead of 69 as in France. Under these circumstances only the children from the center hamlet and those living-nearest to it could attend school regularly, especially during the winter-months. The remainder of the inhabitants would pay their dues without having any benefit, which would necessarily foster discontent. As Prince Gagarin says, 'It has, therefore, not been possible to make education in Russia compulsory, as in Germany, nor even to enforce the establishment of a school in each community.' It is doubtless impossible at present to introduce into Russia the educational systems of the western countries."

      E. de Laveleye,
      Progress of Education in Russia
      (United States Bureau of Education,
      Circulars of Information, 1875, number 3), pages 31-32.

"The existing system of education in Scotland is an outcome of causes deeply involved in the political and religious history of the country. … This system was preceded by a complicated variety of educational agencies, of which the chief were parish schools, founded upon a statute of 1646, which was revived and made operative in 1696. Parish and burgh schools, supported by local funds and by tuition fees, made up the public provision for education. In addition there were schools partly maintained by parliamentary grants, mission and sessional schools maintained by the Established Church and the Free Church, and other parochial and private schools. Parish and burgh schools carried instruction to the level of the universities, which were easily accessible to all classes. The date of the passage of the 'Scotch Education Act' (1872) was opportune for the organization of these various agencies into a system maintained by the combined action of the Government and local authorities. In framing the Scotch act care was taken, as in framing the English act two years before, to guard the rights of the Government with respect to funds appropriated from the public treasury. At the same time equal care was shown for the preservation of the Scotch ideal. This was a broad and comprehensive ideal, embracing the different grades of scholastic work. … This ideal differentiates the Scotch act from the English act passed two years before. The latter related to elementary schools exclusively; the former has a wider scope, providing the foundations of a system of graded schools correlated to the universities which lie beyond its province. With respect to the interests of the Government, the two acts are substantially the same. … For the general direction of the system a Scotch educational department was created, composed, like the English department, of lords of the privy council, and having the same president. … The act ordered every parent to secure the instruction of his children between the ages of 5 and 13, or until a certificate of exemption should be secured. Parents failing in this obligation are subject to prosecution and penalty by fine or imprisonment. The compulsory provision extends to blind children. Parochial or burghal authorities were authorized to pay the tuition fees of those children whose parents could not meet the expenditure, a provision rendered unnecessary by the recent remission of all fees. The Scotch act, by a sweeping clause, made compulsory attendance universal; the English act left the matter of compulsion to local managers. A subsequent act (1878) fixed the standard of exemption in Scotland at the fifth [grade, or year of study], which pupils should pass at 11 years of age. In 1883, the upper limit of compulsory attendance in Scotland was raised to 14 years. … The universities of Scotland have been more intimately related to the life of the common people than those of any other country. In this respect, even more if possible than in their constitution, they present a marked contrast to the English universities. To their democratic spirit may be traced many of the characteristics which differentiate the Scotch people and policies from those of England. To their widespread influence, to the ambitions which they awakened, and the opportunities which they brought within the reach of the whole body of Scottish youth is due, in large measure, the independent and honorable part that Scotland has played in the history of the United Kingdom. This popular character of the universities has been fostered by the curriculum of the common schools, by the easy passage from the schools to the higher institutions; by the inexpensive mode of student life in the university towns, and by the great number of scholarship funds available for the poor. These conditions, however, have not been without their disadvantages. Of these, the chief are the low entrance standards and the consequent forcing of preparatory instruction upon the university professors. … As a result of long-continued efforts a Scotch universities act was passed in 1889. This act provided for the reorganization of the four universities; for the elevation of their standards; the enrichment of their curricula, and the increase of their resources. … The Scotch universities have taken part in the popular movements of the last decade. They maintain local examinations for secondary schools and students. St. Andrews has been particularly active in promoting the higher education of women, having instituted the special degree of L. L. A. (lady literate in arts). Edinburgh also grants a certificate in arts to women. Aberdeen has recently appointed a lecturer on education, following thus the precedent set by Edinburgh and St. Andrews. The four universities are united in a scheme of university extension."

United States Commissioner of Education, Report, 1889-90, volume 1, pages 188-207.

"Sweden has two ancient and famous universities—Upsala and Lund. That of Lund is in the south part of the kingdom, and when founded was on Danish territory. The income from its estates is about 176,000 rix-dollars ($46,315) per annum. It also receives yearly aid from the state. In 1867 it had 75 professors and tutors, and 400 students. Upsala is the larger university, located at the old town of that name—the ancient capital of Sweden—an hour and a half by rail north of Stockholm. It has 100 professors and tutors, and 1,449 students, an increase of 131 over the year 1869. … This university had its beginning as an institution of learning as far back as 1250. In 1438 it had one academic professorship, and was dedicated as an university in 1477. Its principal endowment was by Gustavus Adolphus in 1624, when he donated to it all of the estate in lands that he possessed, amounting in all to 300 farms."

C. C. Andrews, Report on the Educational System of Sweden (United States Bureau of Education, Circulars of Information, July, 1871).

"The influence of the Reformation, and, in the following age, of the Jesuit reaction, gave to Switzerland, as to Germany, its original and fundamental means and agencies of national education, and impressed also upon the population a habit of dutiful regard for schools and learning. It was not, however, till forty years ago that the modern education of Switzerland was organized. 'The great development of public education in Switzerland,' to quote Mr. Kay, 'dates from 1832, after the overthrow of the old oligarchical forms of cantonal government and the establishment of the present democratic forms.' Zürich, Lausanne, and Geneva take the lead in Switzerland as centres of educational influence. The canton in which the work of educational reform began was Zürich. … The instrument of the reform, rather the revolution, was Scherr, a trained school-teacher from Würtemberg, a teacher, in particular, of deaf mutes to speak articulately. This man initiated in Zürich the new scheme and work of education, and founded the first Training College. He was looked upon by the oligarchs, partly feudalists, and partly manufacturers, as a dangerous revolutionist, and was exiled from Zürich. But now a monument to his memory adorns the city. The work which he began could not be suppressed or arrested. Zürich has ever since taken the lead in education among the cantons of Switzerland. Derived originally from Germany, the system is substantially identical with that of Germany. … The principles and methods are substantially alike throughout. There are, first, the communal schools—these of course in largest number—one to every village, even for every small hamlet, provided and maintained, wholly or chiefly, by the commune; there are burgher schools in towns, including elementary, real, and superior schools, supported by the towns; there are cantonal schools—gymnasia and industrial or technical schools—supported by the State, that is, by the canton. There is often a Cantonal University. There is of course a Cantonal Training School or College, and there are institutes of various kinds. The Cantonal Universities, however, are on a small and economical scale; as yet there is no Federal University. School life in Switzerland is very long, from six to fourteen or fifteen, and for all who are to follow a profession, from fifteen to twenty-two."

"Every step in the process of teaching is fixed by unalterable usage. So much is this the case, that in describing one school I describe all, and in tracing the steps of one student I point out the course of all; for in China there are no new methods or short roads. In other countries, a teacher, even in the primary course, finds room for tact and originality. In those who dislike study, a love of it is to be inspired by making 'knowledge pleasant to the taste'; and the dull apprehension is to be awakened by striking and apt illustrations. … In China there is nothing of this. The land of uniformity, all processes in arts and letters are as much fixed by universal custom as is the cut of their garments or the mode of wearing their hair. The pupils all tread the path trodden by their ancestors of a thousand years ago, nor has it grown smoother by the attrition of so many feet. The undergraduate course may be divided into three stages, in each of which there are two leading studies: In the first the occupations of the student are committing to memory (not reading) the canonical books and writing an infinitude of diversely formed characters, as a manual exercise. In the second, they are the translation of his text books (i. e., reading), and lessons in composition. In the third, they are belles lettres and the composition of essays. Nothing could be more dreary than the labors of the first stage. … Even the stimulus of companionship in study is usually denied, the advantages resulting from the formation of classes being as little appreciated as those of other labor saving machinery. Each pupil reads and writes alone, the penalty for failure being so many blows with the ferule or kneeling for so many minutes on the rough brick pavement which serves for a floor. At this period fear is the strongest motive addressed to the mind of the scholar. … This arctic winter of monotonous toil once passed, a more auspicious season dawns on the youthful understanding. The key of the cabala which he has been so long and so blindly acquiring is put into his hands. He is initiated in the translation and exposition of those sacred books which he had previously stored away in his memory. … The light however is let in but sparingly, as it were, through chinks and rifts in the long dark passage. A simple character here and there is explained, and then, it may be after the lapse of a year or two, the teacher proceeds to the explication of entire sentences. Now for the first time the mind of the student begins to take in the thoughts of those he has been taught to regard as the oracles of wisdom. … The value of this exercise can hardly be overestimated. When judiciously employed it does for the Chinese what translation into and out of the dead languages of the west does for us. It calls into play memory, judgment, taste, and gives him a command of his own vernacular which, it is safe to assert, he would never acquire in any other way. … The first step in composition is the yoking together of double characters. {725} The second is the reduplication of these binary compounds and the construction of parallels—an idea which runs so completely through the whole of Chinese literature that the mind of the student requires to be imbued with it at the very outset. This is the way he begins: The teacher writes, 'wind blows,' the pupil adds, 'rain falls'; the teacher writes, 'rivers are long,' the pupil adds, 'seas are deep,' or 'mountains are high,' &c. From the simple subject and predicate, which in their rude grammar they describe as 'dead' and' living' characters, the teacher conducts his pupil to more complex forms, in which qualifying words and phrases are introduced. He gives as a model some such phrase as 'The Emperor's grace is vast as heaven and earth,' and the lad matches it by 'The Sovereign's favor is profound as lake and sea.' These couplets often contain two propositions in each member, accompanied by all the usual modifying terms; and so exact is the symmetry required by the rules of the art that not only must noun, verb, adjective, and particle respond to each other with scrupulous exactness, but the very tones of the characters are adjusted to each other with the precision of music. Begun with the first strokes of his untaught pencil, the student, whatever his proficiency, never gets beyond the construction of parallels. When he becomes a member of the institute or a minister of the imperial cabinet, at classic festivals and social entertainments, the composition of impromptu couplets, formed on the old model, constitutes a favorite pastime. Reflecting a poetic image from every syllable, or concealing the keen point of a cutting epigram, they afford a fine vehicle for sallies of wit; and poetical contests such as that of Melibœus and Menalcas are in China matters of daily occurrence. If a present is to be given, on the occasion of a marriage, a birth-day, or any other remarkable occasion, nothing is deemed so elegant or acceptable as a pair of scrolls inscribed with a complimentary distich. When the novice is sufficiently exercised in the 'parallels' for the idea of symmetry to have become an instinct, he is permitted to advance to other species of composition which afford freer scope for his faculties. Such are the 'shotiah,' in which a single thought is expanded in simple language, the 'lun,' the formal discussion of a subject more or less extended, and epistles addressed to imaginary persons and adapted to all conceivable circumstances. In these last, the forms of the 'complete letter writer' are copied with too much servility; but in the other two, substance being deemed of more consequence than form, the new fledged thought is permitted to essay its powers and to expatiate with but little restraint. In the third stage, composition is the leading object, reading being wholly subsidiary. It takes for the most part the artificial form of verse, and of a kind of prose called 'wen-chang,' which is, if possible, still more artificial. The reading required embraces mainly rhetorical models and sundry anthologies. History is studied, but only that of China, and that only in compends; not for its lessons of wisdom, but for the sake of the allusions with which it enables a writer to embellish classic essays. The same may be said of other studies; knowledge and mental discipline are at a discount and style at a premium. The goal of the long course, the flower and fruit of the whole system, is the 'wen-chang '; for this alone can insure success in the pubic examinations for the civil service, in which students begin to adventure soon after entering on the third stage of their preparatory course. … We hear it asserted that 'education is universal in China; even coolies are taught to read and write.' In one sense this is true, but not as we understand the terms 'reading and writing.' In the alphabetical vernaculars of the west, the ability to read and write implies the ability to express one's thoughts by the pen and to grasp the thoughts of others when so expressed. In Chinese, and especially in the classical or book language, it implies nothing of the sort. A shopkeeper may be able to write the numbers and keep accounts without being able to write anything else; and a lad who has attended school for several years will pronounce the characters of an ordinary book with faultless precision, yet not comprehend the meaning of a single sentence. Of those who can read understandingly (and nothing else ought to be called reading), the proportion is greater in towns than in rural districts. But striking an average, it does not, according to my observation, exceed one in twenty for the male sex and one in ten thousand for the female." The literary examinations, "coming down from the past, with the accretions of many centuries, … have expanded into a system whose machinery is as complex as its proportions are enormous. Its ramifications extend to every district of the empire; and it commands the services of district magistrates, prefects, and other civil functionaries up to governors and viceroys. These are all auxiliary to the regular officers of the literary corporation. In each district there are two resident examiners, with the title of professor, whose duty it is to keep a register of all competing students and to exercise them from time to time in order to stimulate their efforts and keep them in preparation for the higher examinations in which degrees are conferred. In each province there is one chancellor or superintendent of instruction, who holds office for three years, and is required to visit every district and hold the customary examinations within that time, conferring the first degree on a certain percentage of the candidates. There are, moreover, two special examiners for each province, generally members of the Hanlin, deputed from the capital to conduct the great triennial examination and confer the second degree. The regular degrees are three: 1st. 'Siu-tsai' or 'Budding talent.' 2d. 'Ku-jin' or 'Deserving of promotion.' 3d. 'Tsin-shi' or 'Fit for office.' To which may be added, as a fourth degree, the Hanlin, or member of the 'Forest of Pencils.' … The first degree only is conferred by the provincial chancellor, and the happy recipients, fifteen or twenty in each department, or 1 per cent. of the candidates, are decorated with the insignia of rank and admitted to the ground floor of the nine storied pagoda. The trial for the second degree is held in the capital of each province, by special commissioners, once in three years. It consists of three sessions of three days each, making nine days of almost continuous exertion—a strain to the mental and physical powers, to which the infirm and aged frequently succumb. In addition to composition in prose and verse, the candidate is required to show his acquaintance with history, (the history of China;) philosophy, criticism, and various branches of archæology. Again 1 per cent. is decorated; but it is not until the more fortunate among them succeed in passing the metropolitan triennial that the meed of civil office is certainly bestowed. {726} They are not, however, assigned to their respective offices until they have gone through two special examinations within the palace and in the presence of the emperor. On this occasion the highest on the list is honored with the title of 'chuang yuen' or 'laureate,' a distinction so great that in the last reign it was not thought unbefitting the daughter of a 'chuang yuen' to be raised to the position of consort of the Son of Heaven. A score of the best are admitted to membership in the Academy, two or three score are attached to it as pupils or probationers, and the rest drafted off to official posts in the capital or in the provinces, the humblest of which is supposed to compensate the occupant for a life of penury and toil."

      Reverend W. A. P. Martin,
      Report on the System of Public Instruction in China
      (United States Bureau of Education,
      Circulars of Information, 1877, number 1).

From the fourth to the eighth centuries of the Christian era, "after the conquest of Corea by the Japanese emperor Jigo Kogo, came letters, writing, books, literature, religion, ethics, politics, medicine, arts, science, agriculture, manufactures, and the varied appliances of civilization; and with these entered thousands of immigrants from Corea and China. Under the intellectual influence of Buddhism—the powerful and aggressive faith that had already led captive the half of Asia—of the Confucian ethics and philosophy, and Chinese literature, the horizon of the Japanese mind was immensely broadened. … In the time of the European 'dark ages' the Japanese were enjoying what, in comparison, was a high state of civilization. … Under the old regime of the Sho-guns, all foreign ideas and influences were systematically excluded, and the isolation of Japan from the rest of the world was made the supreme policy of the government. Profound peace lasted from the beginning of the seventeenth century to 1868. During this time, schools and colleges, literature and learning, flourished. It was the period of scholastic, not of creative, intellectual activity. The basis of education was Chinese. What we consider the means of education, reading and writing, were to them the ends. Of classified science there was little or none. Mathematics was considered as fit only for merchants and shop-keepers. No foreign languages were studied, and their acquisition was forbidden. … There was no department of education, though universities were established at Kioto and Yedo, large schools in the daimio's capitals, and innumerable private schools all over the country. Nine-tenths of the people could read and write. Books were very numerous and cheap. Circulating libraries existed in every city and town. Literary clubs and associations for mutual improvement were common even in country villages. Nevertheless, in comparison with the ideal systems and practice of the progressive men of New Japan, the old style was as different from the present as the training of an English youth in mediæval times is from that of a London or Oxford student of the present day. Although an attempt to meet some of the educational necessities arising from the altered conditions of the national life were made under the Sho-gun's regime, yet the first attempt at systematic work in the large cities was made under the Mikado's government, and the idea of a new national plan of education is theirs only. In 1871 the Mom Bu Sho, or department of education, was formed, of which the high counselor Oki, a man of indomitable vigor and perseverance, was made head. … According to the scheme of national education promulgated in 1872, the empire is divided into eight Dai Gaku Ku, (Daigakku,) or great educational divisions. In each of' these there is to be a university, normal school, schools of foreign languages, high schools, and primary schools. The total number of schools will number, it is expected, over 55,000. Only in the higher schools is a foreign language to be taught. In the lower schools the Japanese learning and elementary science translated or adopted from European or American text-books are to be taught. The general system of instruction, methods, discipline, school-aids, furniture, architecture, are to be largely adopted from foreign models, and are now to a great extent in vogue throughout the country."

      W. E. Griffis,
      Education in Japan
      (United States Bureau of Education,
      Circulars of Information, 1875, number 2).

EDUCATION: Modern: America. A. D. 1619-1819.
Virginia.
College of William and Mary.

"In 1619—one year before the Pilgrim Fathers came to the land named New England by Captain John Smith—Sir Edwin Sandys, president of the Virginia Company in old England, moved the grant of ten thousand acres of land for the establishment of a university at Henrico. The proposed grant, which was duly made, included one thousand acres for an Indian college; the remainder was to be 'the foundation of a seminary of learning for the English.' The very same year the bishops of England, at the suggestion of the King, raised the sum of fifteen hundred pounds for the encouragement of Indian Education. … Tenants were sent over to occupy the university lands, and Mr. George Thorpe, a gentleman of His Majesty's Privy Chamber, came over to be the superintendent of the university itself. This first beginning of philanthropy toward the Indians and of educational foundations for the Indians in America was suspended by reason of the Indian massacre, in the spring of 1622, when Mr. Thorpe and three hundred and forty settlers, including tenants of the university, were cut off by an insurrection of savages. It was only two years after this terrible catastrophe that the idea of a university in Virginia was revived. Experience with treacherous Indians suggested that the institution should be erected upon a secluded sheltered site—an island in the Susquehanna River. … The plan was broken off by the death of its chief advocate and promoter, Mr. Edward Palmer. But the idea of a university for Virginia was not lost. … In 1660, the colonial Assembly of Virginia took into their own hands the project of founding educational institutions within their borders. The motive of the Virginians was precisely the same as that of the great and general Court of Massachusetts, when it established Harvard College, and grammar schools to fit youth 'for ye university.' The Virginians voted 'that for the advance of learning, education of youth, supply of the ministry, and promotion of piety, there be land taken upon purchases for a college and free schoole, and that there be, with as much speede as may be convenient, housing erected thereon for entertainment of students and schollers.' {727} It was also voted in 1660 that the various commissioners of county courts take subscriptions on court days for the benefit of the college, and that the commissioners send orders throughout their respective counties to the vestrymen of all the parishes for the purpose of raising money from such inhabitants as 'have not already subscribed.' It appears from the record of this legislation in Hening's Statutes of Virginia that already in 1660, 'His Majestie's Governour, Council of State, and Burgesses of the present grand Assembly have severally subscribed severall considerable sumes of money and quantityes of tobacco,' to be paid upon demand after a place had been provided and built upon for educational purposes. A petition was also recommended to Sir William Berkeley, then governor of Virginia, that the King be petitioned for letters patent authorizing collections from 'well disposed people in England for the erecting of colledges and schooles in this countrye.' This action of the Virginians in 1660 ought to be taken as much better evidence of an early regard for education in that colony than the well-known saying of Governor Berkeley would seem to indicate. In reply to an inquiry by the lords commissioners of trades and plantations respecting the progress of learning in the colony of Virginia, Berkeley said, 'I thank God there are no free schools nor printing, and I hope we shall not have these hundred years.' This answer by a crusty old governor has been quoted perhaps too often as an index of the real sentiments of colonial Virginia toward the cause of education. Not only is the tone of popular legislation entirely opposed to the current view, but Berkeley's own acts should modify our judgment of his words. He actually subscribed, with other gentlemen of the colony, for 'a Colledge of students of the liberal arts and sciences.' Undoubtedly Sir William did not believe in popular education as it is now understood. If he had done so, he would have been much in advance of his time. … Some writers would have us believe that the college was actually planted as early as 1661, but this is highly improbable. Early educational enactments in Virginia were like many of those early towns—on paper only. And yet the Virginians really meant to have both towns and a college. In 1688-'89, twenty-five hundred pounds were subscribed by a few wealthy gentlemen in the colony and by their merchant friends in England toward the endowment of the higher education. In 1691 the colonial Assembly sent the Reverend James Blair, the commissary or representative of the Bishop of London, back to England to secure a charter for the proposed college. Virginia's agent went straight to Queen Mary and explained the educational ambition of her colony in America. The Queen favored the idea of a college, and William wisely concurred. The royal pair agreed to allow two thousand pounds out of the quit-rents of Virginia toward building the college. … The English Government concluded to give not only £2,000 in money, but also 20,000 acres of land, with a tax of one penny on every pound of tobacco exported from Maryland and Virginia, together with all fees and profits arising from the office of surveyor-general, which were to be controlled by the president and faculty of the college. They were authorized to appoint special surveyors for the counties whenever the governor and his council thought it necessary. These privileges, granted by charter in 1693, were of great significance in the economic history of Virginia. They brought the entire land system of the colony into the hands of a collegiate land office. Even after the Revolution, one-sixth of the fees to all public surveyors continued to be paid into the college treasury down to the year 1819, when this custom was abolished."

      H. B. Adams,
      The College of William and Mary
      (Circulars of Information of the Bureau of Education,
      1887, number 1).

   "The Public Latin School of Boston enjoys the distinction of
   being the oldest existing school within the bounds of the
   United States. It was founded in the spring of 1635, thus
   ante-dating Harvard College, and has been in continuous
   existence ever since, with the interruption of a few months,
   during the siege of Boston, 1775-1776." The two hundred and
   fiftieth anniversary of the founding of the school was
   celebrated April 23, 1885, on which occasion the Reverend Phillips
   Brooks, D. D., delivered an address from which the following
   passages are taken: "The colony under Winthrop arrived in the
   Arabella and founded Boston in 1630. On the 4th of September,
   1633, the Griffin brought John Cotton from the Lincolnshire
   Boston, full of pious spirit and wise plans for the new colony
   with which he had cast in his lot. It has been suggested that
   possibly we owe to John Cotton the first suggestion of the
   first town-school. … However this may be, here is the town
   record of the 13th of the second month, 1635. It is forever
   memorable, for it is the first chapter of our Book of Genesis,
   the very cradle of all our race: 'At a general meeting upon
   publique notice … it was then generally agreed upon that our
   brother Philemon Pormort shall be entreated to become
   scholemaster, for the teaching and nourtering of children
   among us.' It was two hundred and fifty years ago to-day
   [April 23, 1885] just nineteen years after the day when
   William Shakespeare died, just seventy-one years after the day
   when he was born. How simple that short record is, and how
   unconscious that short view is of the future which is wrapped
   up in it! Fifty-nine thousand children who crowd the Boston
   public schools to-day—and who can count what thousands yet
   unborn?—are to be heard crying out for life in the dry,
   quaint words of that old vote. By it the first educational
   institution, which was to have continuous existence in
   America, and in it the public school system of the land, came
   into being. Philemon Pormort, the first teacher of the Latin
   School, is hardly more than a mere shadow of a name. It is not
   even clear that he ever actually taught the school at all. A
   few years later, with Mr. Wheelwright, after the Hutchinson
   excitement, he disappears into the northern woods, and is one
   of the founders of Exeter, in New Hampshire. There are rumors
   that he came back to Boston and died here, but it is all very
   uncertain. … The name 'free school' in those days seems to
   have been used to characterize an institution which should not
   be restricted to any class of children, and which should not
   be dependent on the fluctuating attendance of scholars for its
   support. It looked forward to ultimate endowment, like the
   schools of England. The town set apart the rent of Deer
   Island, and some of the other islands in the harbor, for its help.
{728}
   All the great citizens, Governor Winthrop, Governor Vane, Mr.
   Bellingham, and the rest, made generous contributions to it.
   But it called, also, for support from those who sent their
   children to it, and who were able to pay something; and it was
   only of the Indian children that it was distinctly provided
   that they should be 'taught gratis.' It was older than any of
   the schools which, in a few years, grew up thick around it.
   The same power which made it spring out of the soil was in all
   the rich ground on which these colonists, unlike any other
   colonists which the world has ever seen, had set their feet.
   Roxbury had its school under the Apostle Eliot in 1645.
   Cambridge was already provided before 1643. Charlestown did
   not wait later than 1636. Salem and Ipswich were, both of
   them, ready in 1637. Plymouth did not begin its system of
   public instruction till 1663. It was in 1647 that the General
   Court enacted that resolve which is the great charter of free
   education in our Commonwealth, in whose preamble and ordinance
   stand the immortal words: 'That learning may not be buried in
   the grave of our fathers, in church and Commonwealth, the Lord
   assisting our endeavors, it is therefore ordered that every
   township in this jurisdiction, after the Lord hath increased
   them to the number of fifty householders, shall then forthwith
   appoint one within their town to teach all such children as
   shall resort to him to write and read.' There can be no doubt,
   then, of our priority. But mere priority is no great thing.
   The real interest of the beginning of the school is the large
   idea and scale on which it started. It taught the children,
   little Indians and all, to read and write. But there seems
   every reason to suppose that it taught also the Latin tongue,
   and all that then was deemed the higher knowledge. It was the
   town's only school till 1682."

"The first settlers in New England, recognizing the importance of a higher education than could be given in the common schools, began at once the founding of a university. The avowed object of this university was the training of young men for the ministry. Nothing could show clearer the spirit of these early colonists. Though less than four thousand in number, and scattered along the shores of Massachusetts Bay in sixteen hamlets, they were, nevertheless, able to engage in such an enterprise before adequate provision had been made for food, raiment, shelter, a civil government, or divine worship; at a time when soil and climate had disappointed them, and their affairs were in a most critical condition; for, not only were they called to face famine, disease, and death, but the mother country and the surrounding savage tribes were threatening them with war. … It was near the close of 1636, a little more than six years after the landing of the Puritans, when this first step was taken by the General Court of the Massachusetts Colony. At this assembly, presided over by Sir Henry Vane, governor of the colony, the General Court agreed to give £400 (a munificent sum for the time) towards the founding of a school or college, but left the question of its location and building to be determined by the Court that was to sit in September of the following year. This, it is said, was the first assembly 'in which the people by their representatives ever gave their own money to found a place of education.' At the next Court it was decided to locate the college at Newtown, or 'the New Towne,' and twelve of the principal magistrates and ministers were chosen to carry out this design. A few months later, they changed the name of the town to Cambridge, not only to tell their posterity whence they came, but also, as Quincy aptly says, to indicate 'the high destiny to which they intended the institution should aspire.' Another year, however, passed before the College was organized. The impulse given to it then was due to aid which came from so unexpected a quarter that it must have seemed to the devout men of New England as a clear indication of the divine favor. The Reverend John Harvard, a Non-conformist minister, was graduated, in 1635, from the Puritan college of Emmanuel, at Cambridge, England, and came, two years later, to America and settled in Charlestown, where he immediately took a prominent part in town affairs. His contemporaries gave him the title of reverend, and he is said to have officiated occasionally in Charlestown as 'minister of God's word.' One has recently said of him that he was 'beloved and honored, a well-trained and accomplished scholar of the type then esteemed,' and that in the brief period of his life in America —scarcely more than a year—he cemented more closely friendships that had been begun in earlier years. The project of a college was then engrossing the thought of these early friends and doubtless he also became greatly interested in it. Thus it happened that, when his health failed, through his own love of learning and through sympathy with the project of his daily associates, he determined to bequeath one-half of his estate, probably about £800, besides his excellent library of three hundred and twenty volumes, towards the endowment of the college. This bequest rendered possible the immediate organization of the college, which went into operation 'on the footing of the ancient institutions of Europe,' and, out of gratitude to Harvard, the General Court voted that the new institution should bear his name."

   "New England early adopted, and has, with a single exception,
   constantly maintained the principle that the public should
   provide for the instruction of all the youth. That which
   elsewhere, as will be found, was left to local provision, as
   in New York; or to charity, as in Pennsylvania; or to parental
   interest, as in Virginia, was in most parts of New England
   early secured by law. … The act of 1642 in Massachusetts,
   whose provisions were adopted in most of the adjacent
   colonies, was admirable as a first legislative school law. It
   was watchful of the neglect of parents, and looked well after
   the ignorant and the indigent. But it neither made schooling
   free, nor imposed a penalty for its neglect. … Schools were
   largely maintained by rates, were free only to the
   necessitous, and in not a few of the less populous districts
   closed altogether or never opened. This led, five years later,
   to more stringent legislation. … As suggesting the general
   scope and tenor of the law, the following extract is made. …
{729}
   'It is therefore ordered by this Court and authority thereof
   that every township within this jurisdiction, after the Lord
   hath increased them to the number of fifty householders, shall
   then forthwith appoint one within their town to teach all such
   children as shall resort to him, to write and read; whose
   wages shall be paid, either by the parents or masters of such
   children, or by the inhabitants in general, by way of supply,
   as the major part of those who order the prudentials of the
   town shall appoint; provided that those who send their
   children be not oppressed by paying much more than they can
   have them taught for in the adjoining towns. And it is further
   ordered that where any town shall increase to the number of
   one hundred families or house-holders, they shall set up a
   grammar-school, the master thereof being able to instruct
   youths so far as they may be fitted for the university; and if
   any town neglect the performance hereof, above one year, then
   every such town shall pay five pounds per annum to the next
   such school, till they shall perform this order.' … Three
   years after the law just cited Connecticut passed a very
   similar one. … In Rhode Island there was no attempt at a
   school system prior to the efforts of John Howland about 1790.
   There were schools in both Providence and Newport; but the
   colony was small (with a population of less than ten thousand
   in 1700), broken into feeble settlements, and offering little
   opportunity for organization. … It is claimed that, at the
   surrender of the Dutch in New York (1664), so general was the
   educational spirit, almost every town in the colony had its
   regular school and more or less permanent teachers. After the
   occupation of the province by the English, little attention
   was given to education. … Thirteen years after the
   surrender, a Latin school was opened in the city; but the
   first serious attempt to provide regular schooling was in the
   work of the 'Society for the Propagation of the Gospel' (1704)
   in the founding of Trinity School. The society kept up an
   efficient organization, for many years, and at the opening of
   the Revolution had established and chiefly supported more than
   twenty schools in the colony. About 1732, also, there was
   established in New York city a school after the plan of the
   Boston Latin School, free as that was free, and which became,
   according to eminent authority, the germ of the later King's
   (now Columbia) College."

EDUCATION: A. D. 1683-1779. Pennsylvania.
Origin of the University of Pennsylvania.

"Education had not been over-looked in the policy of Penn. In his Frame of Government we read: 'The governor and provincial council shall erect and order all public schools, and encourage and reward the authors of useful sciences and laudable inventions, in the said province. … And … a committee of manners, education and arts, that all wicked and scandalous living may be prevented, and that youth may be successively trained up in virtue and useful knowledge and arts.' The first movement to establish an educational institution of a high grade was in the action of the Executive Council which proposed, November 17, 1683, 'That Care be Taken about the Learning and Instruction of Youth, to wit: A School of Arts and Sciences.' It was not until 1689, however, that the 'Public Grammar School' was set up in Philadelphia. This institution, founded upon the English idea of a 'free' school,' was formally chartered in 1697 as the 'William Penn Charter School.' It was intended as the head of a system of schools for all, rather than a single school for a select few, an idea which the founders of the Charitable School, fifty years later, had also in mind—an idea which was never carried out in the history of either institution. The failure of Penn's scheme of government, and the turmoil during the early part of the eighteenth century arising from the conflicts between different political parties, for a time influenced very decidedly educational zeal in the province. The government, which at the outset had taken such high ground on the subject, ceased to exert itself in behalf of education, and the several religious denominations and the people themselves in neighborhood organizations took up the burden and planted schools as best they could throughout the growing colony. … Feeling the importance for some provision to supplement the education then given in the established schools, Benjamin Franklin as early as 1743 drew up a proposal for establishing an academy. … He secured the assistance of a number of friends, many of them members of the famous Junto, and then published his pamphlet entitled 'Proposals Relating to the Education of Youth in Pennsylvania.' … On all sides the paper met with great favor and generous support. The result was the organization of a board of trustees, consisting of 24 of those who had subscribed to the scheme of the Academy, with Franklin as president. This body immediately set about to realize the object of the pamphlet, and nourished by subscriptions, lotteries, and gifts the Academy was placed in a flourishing condition. … The Academy comprised three schools, the Latin, the English, and the mathematical, over each of which was placed a master, one of whom was the rector of the institution. … The English School was neglected. The other schools were favored, especially the Latin School. In the eyes of Franklin and many of the supporters of the Academy, the English School was the one of chief importance. What we would call a 'starving out' process was begun by which the English School was kept in a weak condition, most of the funds going to the Latin School. … The success of the Academy was so gratifying to all interested in it that it was determined to apply for a charter. This was granted to the trustees by Thomas and Richard Penn, the proprietors, on July 13, 1753. Desirous at the same time of enlarging the course of instruction, the trustees elected Mr. William Smith teacher of logic, rhetoric, natural and moral philosophy. Mr. Smith accepted the position and entered upon his duties at the Academy in May, 1754. The history of the institution from this date, whether known as the Academy or the College, to 1779 is the history of the life of William Smith."

      J. L. Stewart,
      Historical Sketch of the University of Pennsylvania
      (United States Bureau of Education,
      Circular of Information, 1892, number 2:
      Benjamin Franklin and the University, chapter 4).

"For sixty years the only school for higher education in New England had been Harvard College, at Cambridge. The people, and especially the clergy, of Connecticut naturally desired the benefit of a similar establishment nearer home. The three ministers of New Haven, Milford, and Branford first moved in the enterprise. Ten ministers, nine of them being graduates of Harvard College, met at Branford [1701] and made a contribution from their libraries of about forty volumes in folio 'for the founding of a college.' Other donations presently came in. An Act of Incorporation was granted by the General Court. It created a body of trustees, not to be more than eleven in number nor fewer than seven, all to be clergymen and at least forty years of age. The Court endowed the College with an annual grant, subject to be discontinued at pleasure, of one hundred and twenty pounds in 'country pay,'—equivalent to sixty pounds sterling. The College might hold property 'not exceeding the value of five hundred pounds per annum'; its students were exempted from the payment of taxes and from military service; and the Governor and his Council gave a formal approval of its application to the citizens for pecuniary id. … The first President was Abraham Pierson, minister of Killingworth, at which place he continued to reside, though the designated seat of the College was at Saybrook. Eight students were admitted, and arranged in classes. At each of the first two annual commencements one person, at the third three persons, received the degree of Bachelor of Arts. President Pierson was succeeded, at his death, by Mr. Andrew, minister at Milford, to which place the elder pupils were accordingly transferred, while the rest went to Saybrook, where two tutors had been provided to assist their studies. … For nearly twenty years the College of Connecticut … continued to be an unsatisfactory experiment. While the rector taught some youth at Milford, and two tutors had other pupils at Saybrook, and the few scores of books which had been obtained for a library were divided between the two places, there was small prospect of the results for which institutions of learning are created. Notwithstanding the general agreement that whatever facilities for the higher education could be commanded should be brought together and combined, the choice of the place was embarrassed by various considerations. … Saybrook, Wethersfield, Hartford, and New Haven competed with each other for the preference, offering such contributions as they were able towards the erection of a college building. The offer from New Haven, larger than that of any other town, was seven hundred pounds sterling. The plan of fixing the College there, promoted by the great influence of Governor Saltonstall, was adopted by the trustees; and with money obtained by private gifts, and two hundred and fifty pounds accruing from a sale of land given by the General Assembly, a building was begun [1717], which finally cost a thousand pounds sterling. … The Assembly gave the College a hundred pounds. Jeremiah Dummer sent from England a substantial present of books. Governor Saltonstall contributed fifty pounds sterling, and the same sum was presented by Jahleel Brenton, of Newport, in Rhode Island. But the chief patronage came from Elihu Yale,—a native of New Haven, but long resident in the East Indies, where he had been Governor of Fort St. George. He was now a citizen of London, and Governor of the East India Company. His contributions, continued through seven years, amounted to some four hundred pounds sterling; and he was understood to have made arrangements for a further bounty of five hundred pounds, which, however, through unfortunate accidents, never came to its destination. The province made a grant of forty pounds annually for seven years."

J. G. Palfrey, History of New England, book 4, chapter 11, and book 5, chapter 4 (volume 4).

   "The establishment of a college in the city of New York was
   many years in agitation before the design was carried into
   effect. At length, under an act of Assembly passed in
   December, 1746, and other similar acts which followed, moneys
   were raised by public lottery 'for the encouragement of
   learning and towards the founding a college' within the
   colony. These moneys were, in November, 1751, vested in
   trustees. … The trustees, in November, 1753, invited Dr.
   Samuel Johnson, of Connecticut, to be President of the
   intended college. Dr. Johnson consequently removed to New York
   in the month of April following, and in July, 1754, commenced
   the instruction of a class of students in a room of the
   school-house belonging to Trinity Church; but he would not
   absolutely accept the presidency until after the passing of
   the charter. This took place on the 31st of October in the
   same year, 1754; from which period the existence of the
   college is properly to be dated. The Governors of the college,
   named in the charter, are the Archbishop of Canterbury, and
   the first Lord Commissioner for Trade and Plantations, both
   empowered to act by proxies; the Lieutenant-governor of the
   province, and several other public officers; together with the
   rector of Trinity Church, the senior minister of the Reformed
   Protestant Dutch Church, the ministers of the German Lutheran
   Church, of the French Church, of the Presbyterian
   Congregation, and the President of the college, all ex
   officio, and twenty-four of the principal gentlemen of the
   city. The college was to be known by the name of King's
   College. Previously to the passing of the charter, a parcel of
   ground to the westward of Broadway, bounded by Barclay,
   Church, and Murray streets and the Hudson River, had been
   destined by the vestry of Trinity Church as a site for the
   college edifice; and, accordingly, after the charter was
   granted, a grant of the land was made on the 13th of May,
   1755. … The part of the land thus granted by Trinity Church,
   not occupied for college purposes, was leased, and became a
   very valuable endowment to the college. The sources whence the
   funds of the institution were derived, besides the proceeds of
   the lotteries above mentioned, were the voluntary
   contributions of private individuals in this country, and sums
   obtained by agents who were subsequently sent to England and
   France. In May, 1760, the college buildings began to be
   occupied. In 1763 a grammar school was established. In March,
   1763, Dr. Johnson resigned the presidency, and the Reverend Dr.
   Myles Cooper, of Oxford, who had previously been appointed
   Professor of Moral Philosophy and assistant to the President,
   was elected in his place. … In consequence of the dispute
   between this and the parent country, Dr. Cooper returned to
   England, and the Reverend Benjamin Moore was appointed praeses pro
   tempore during the absence of Dr. Cooper, who, however, did
   not return. On the breaking out of the Revolutionary War the
   business of the college was almost entirely broken up, and it
   was not until after the return of peace that its affairs were
   again regularly attended to.
{731}
   In May, 1784, the college, upon its own application, was
   erected into a university; its corporate title was changed
   from King's College to Columbia College, and it was placed
   under the control of a board termed Regents of the University.
   … The college continued under that government until April,
   1787, when the Legislature of the State restored it to its
   original position under the present name of Columbia College.
   … At the same time a new body was created, called by the
   same name, 'The Regents of the University,' under which all
   the seminaries of learning mentioned in the act creating it
   were placed by the legislature. This body still exists under
   its original name."

"It was not until over thirty years after the close of the war of 1776 that a regular system of schools at the public expense was established. New England boasted with pride of being the first in education, as she had been in war. Her example was closely followed by the other States. In New York, in 1805, many gentlemen of prominence associated for the purpose of establishing a free school in New York City for the education of the children of persons in indigent circumstances, and who did not belong to, or were not provided for by, any religious society. These public-spirited gentlemen presented a memorial to the Legislature, setting forth the benefits that would result to society from educating such children, and that it would enable them more effectually to accomplish the objects of their institution if the schools were incorporated. The bill of incorporation was passed April 9, 1805. This was the nucleus from which the present system of public schools started into existence. Later on, in the year 1808, we find from annual printed reports that two free schools were opened and were in working order. … It was the intention of the founders of these schools—among whom the names of De Witt Clinton, Ferdinand de Peyster, John Murray, and Leonard Bleecker stand prominent as officers—to avoid the teachings of any religious society; but there were among the people many who thought that sufficient care was not being bestowed upon religious instruction: to please these malcontents the literary studies of the pupils were suspended one afternoon in every week, and an association of fifty ladies of 'distinguished consideration ·in society' met on this day and examined the children in their respective catechisms. … To read, write, and know arithmetic in its first branches correctly, was the extent of the educational advantages which the founders of the free-school system deemed necessary for the accomplishment of their purposes."

      A. H. Rhine,
      The Early Free Schools of America.
      (Popular Science Monthly, March, 1880).

"The question of the endowment of educational institutions by the Government in aid of the cause of education seems to have met no serious opposition in the Congress of the Confederation, and no member raised his voice against this vital and essential provision relating to it in the ordinance of May 20, 1785, 'for ascertaining the mode of disposing of lands in the Western Territory.' This provided: 'There shall be reserved the lot No. 16 of every township for the maintenance of public schools within said township.' This was an endowment of 640 acres of land (one section of land, one mile square) in a township 6 miles square, for the support and maintenance of public schools' within said township.' The manner of establishment of public schools thereunder, or by whom, was not mentioned. It was a reservation by the United States, and advanced and established a principle which finally dedicated one thirty-sixth part of all public lands of the United States, with certain exceptions as to mineral, &c., to the cause of education by public schools. … In the Continental Congress, July 13, 1787, according to order, the ordinance for the government of the 'Territory of the United States northwest of the river Ohio' came on, was read a third time, and passed [see NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D.1787]. It contained the following: 'Art. 3. Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.' The provision of the ordinance of May 20, 1785, relating to the reservation of the sixteenth section in every township of public land, was the inception of the present rule of reservation of certain sections of land for school purposes. The endowment was the subject of much legislation in the years following. The question was raised that there was no reason why the United States should not organize, control, and manage these public schools so endowed. The reservations of lands were made by surveyors and duly returned. This policy at once met with enthusiastic approval from the public, and was tacitly incorporated into the American system as one of its fundamental organic ideas. Whether the public schools thus endowed by the United States were to be under national or State control remained a question, and the lands were held in reservation merely until after the admission of the State of Ohio in 1802. … To each organized Territory, after 1803, was and now is reserved the sixteenth section (until after the Oregon Territory act reserved the thirty-sixth as well) for school purposes, which reservation is carried into grant and confirmation by the terms of the act of admission of the Territory or State into the Union; the State then becoming a trustee for school purposes. These grants of land were made from the public domain, and to States only which were known as public-land States. Twelve States, from March 3, 1803, known as public-land States, received the allowance of the sixteenth section to August 14, 1848. … Congress, June 13, 1812, and May 26, 1824, by the acts ordering the survey of certain towns and villages in Missouri, reserved for the support of schools in the towns and villages named, provided that the whole amount reserved should not exceed one-twentieth part of the whole lands included in the general survey of such town or village. These lots were reserved and sold for the benefit of the schools. Saint Louis received a large fund from this source. … In the act for the organization of the Territory of Oregon, August 14, 1848, Senator Stephen A. Douglas inserted an additional grant for school purposes of the thirty-sixth section in each township, with indemnity for all public-land States thereafter to be admitted, making the reservation for school purposes the sixteenth and thirty-sixth sections, or 1,280 acres in each township of six miles square reserved in public-land States and Territories, and confirmed by grant in terms in the act of admission of such State or Territory into the Union. From March 13, 1853, to June 30, 1880, seven States have been admitted into the Union having a grant of the sixteenth and thirty-sixth sections, and the same area has been reserved in eight Territories."

"The Constitution of the United States makes no provision for the education of the people; and in the Convention that framed it, I believe the subject was not even mentioned. A motion to insert a clause providing for the establishment of a national university was voted down. I believe it is also the fact, that the Constitutions of only three of the thirteen original States made the obligation to maintain a system of Free Schools a part of their fundamental law."

"Williams College, at Williamstown, Berkshire County, Mass., was chartered in 1793. The town and the college were named in honor of Colonel Ephraim Williams, who had command of the forts in the Hoosac Valley, and was killed in a battle with the French and Indians, September 8, 1755. By his will he established a free school in the township which was to bear his name. The most advanced students of this free school became the first college class, numbering 4, and received the regular degree of bachelor of arts in the autumn of 1795. The small amount left by the will of Colonel Williams was carefully managed for 30 years by the executors, and they then obtained permission from the State legislature to carry out the benevolent purposes of the testator. The fund for building was increased by individual subscriptions, and by the avails of a lottery, which the general court granted for that purpose. The building which is now known as West College was then erected for the use of the free school and was finished in 1790. … The free school was opened in 1791, with Reverend Ebenezer Fitch, a graduate of Yale College, as preceptor, and Mr. John Lester as assistant. … The success of the school was so great that the next year the trustees asked the legislature to incorporate the school into a college. This was done, and a grant of $4,000 was made from the State treasury for the purchase of books and philosophical apparatus. The college was put under the care of 12 trustees, who elected Preceptor Fitch the first president of the college."

      E. B. Parsons
      (United States Bureau of Education,
      Circular of Information, 1891, number 6:
      History of Higher Education in Massachusetts, chapter 9).

"Connecticut took the lead in the creation of a permanent fund for the support of schools. The district known as the Western Reserve, in Northern Ohio, had been secured to her in the adjustment of her claims to lands confirmed to her by the charter of King Charles II. The Legislature of the State, in 1795, passed an act directing the sale of all the land embraced in the Reserve, and setting apart the avails as a perpetual fund for the maintenance of common schools. The amount realized was about $1,120,000. … New York was the next State to establish a common school fund for the aid and maintenance of schools in the several school districts of the State. The other Northern States except New Hampshire, Vermont, Pennsylvania, and one or two others, have established similar funds. … In all the new States, the 500,000 acres, given by act of Congress, on their admission into the Union, for the support of schools, have been sacredly set apart for that purpose, and generally other lands belonging to the States have been added to the fund. … Prior to the war the Slave States had made attempts to establish plans for popular education, but with results of an unsatisfactory character. In Virginia a school system was in force for the education of the children of indigent white persons. In North Carolina a large school fund, exceeding two millions of dollars, had been set apart for the maintenance of schools. In all of these States common schools had been introduced, but they did not flourish as in the North and West. … There was not the same population of small and independent farmers, whose families could be united into a school district. … A more serious obstacle was the slave population, constituting one-third of the whole, and in some of the States more than half, whom it was thought dangerous to educate."

      V. M. Rice,
      Special Report on the Present State of Education, 1867,
      pages 19-23.

   "In 1804, when Michigan was organized as a Territory, Congress
   granted a township of land for a seminary of learning, and the
   university to be established in 1817 was to be in accordance
   with this grant. The Territorial government committed the
   interests of higher education to the care of the Governor and
   the Judges, and it is supposed that through the exertions of
   Honorable A. B. Woodward, then presiding Judge of the Supreme Court
   of the Territory of Michigan, that the act establishing a
   university was framed. A portion of this most curious document
   of the early History of Michigan will be given. It is entitled
   'An act to establish the Catholepistemiad or University
   Michigania.' 'Be it enacted by the Governor and Judges of the
   Territory of Michigan, That there shall be in the said
   Territory a catholepistemiad or university denominated the
   Catholepistemiad or University Michigania. The
   Catholepistemiad or University of Michigania shall be composed
   of thirteen didaxum or professorships; first, a didaxia or
   professorship catholepistemia, or universal science, the
   dictator or professor of which shall be president of the
   institution; second, a didaxia or professorship of
   anthropoglassica, or literature embracing all of the
   episternum or sciences relative to language; third, a didaxia
   or professorship of mathematica or mathematics; fourth, a
   didaxia or professorship of physiognostica or natural history,
   etc.' The act thus continues through the whole range of the
   'thirteen didaxum'; the remaining nine are as follows: Natural
   philosophy, astronomy, chemistry, medical sciences, economical
   sciences, ethical sciences, military sciences, historical
   sciences, and intellectual. The university was to be under the
   control of the professors and president, who were to be
   appointed by the Governor, while the institution was to be the
   center and controlling power of the educational system of the
   State.
{733}
   It was to be supported by taxation by an increase of the
   amount of taxes already levied, by 15 per cent. Also power was
   given to raise money for the support of the university by
   means of lotteries. This remarkable document was not without
   its influence in shaping the public school policy of Michigan,
   but it was many years before the State approximated its
   learned provisions. Impracticable as this educational plan
   appears for a handful of people in the woods of Michigan, it
   served as a foundation upon which to build. The officers and
   president were duly appointed, and the work of the new
   university began at once. At first the university appeared as
   a school board, to establish and maintain primary schools
   which they held under their charge. Then followed a course of
   study for classical academies, and finally, in October, 1817,
   an act was passed establishing a college in the city of
   Detroit called 'The First College of Michigania.' … The
   people contributed liberally to these early schools, the sum
   of three thousand dollars being subscribed at the beginning.
   … An act was passed on the 30th of April, 1821, by the
   Governor and Judges establishing a university in Detroit to
   take the place of the catholepistemiad and to be called the
   'University of Michigan.' In its charter nearly all the powers
   of the former institution were substantially confirmed, except
   the provision for taxes and lotteries. … The second
   corporation, known as the 'University of Michigan,' carried on
   the work of education already begun from 1821 to the third
   organization, in 1837. The education was very limited,
   consisting in one classical academy at Detroit, and part of
   the time a Lancasterian school. The boards of education kept
   up and transmitted the university idea to such an extent that
   it may be said truly and legally that there was one University
   of Michigan, which passed through three successive stages of
   development marked by the dates 1817, 1821, and 1837," at
   which time it was removed to Ann Arbor.

      F. W. Blackmar,
      Federal and State Aid to Higher Education
      (United States Bureau of Education.
      Circular of Information, 1890, number 1), pages 239-241.

      ALSO IN:
      E. M. Farrand,
      History of the University of Michigan.

"Amherst College originated in a strong desire on the part of the people of Massachusetts to have a college near the central part of the State, where the students should be free from the temptations of a large city, where the expenses of an education should not be beyond the means of those who had but little money, and where the moral and religious influences should be of a decidedly Christian character. … The ministers of Franklin County, at a meeting held in Shelburne May 18, 1815, expressed it as their opinion that a literary institution of high order ought to be established in Hampshire County, and that the town of Amherst appeared to them to be the most eligible place for it. Their early efforts for a literary institution in Hampshire County resulted in the first place in the establishment of an academy in Amherst, which was incorporated in the year 1816. … In the year 1818 a constitution was adopted by the trustees of Amherst Academy, for the raising and management of a fund of at least $50,000, for the classical education of indigent young men of piety and talents for the Christian ministry. … This charity fund may be said to be the basis of Amherst College, for though it was raised by the trustees of Amherst Academy it was really intended to be the foundation of a college, and has always been a part of the permanent funds of Amherst College, kept sacredly from all other funds for the specific object for which it was given. … This was for many years the only permanent fund of Amherst College, and without this it would have seemed impossible at one time to preserve the very existence of the college. So Amherst College grew out of Amherst Academy, and was built permanently on the charity fund raised by the trustees of that academy. … Although the charity fund of $50,000 had been received in 1818, it was not till 1820 that the recipient felt justified in going forward to erect buildings for a college in Amherst. Efforts were made for the removal of Williams College from Williamstown to Hampshire County, and to have the charity fund used in connection with that college; and, if that were done, it was not certain that Amherst could be regarded as the best location for the college. But the legislature of Massachusetts decided that Williams College could not be removed from Williamstown, and nothing remained but for the friends of the new institution to go on with their plans for locating it at Amherst. … This first college edifice was ready for occupation and dedicated on the 18th of September, 1821. In the month of May, 1821, Reverend Zephaniah Swift Moore, D. D., was unanimously elected by the trustees of Amherst Academy president of the new institution."

      T. P. Field
      (United States Bureau of Education, Circular of
      Information, 1891, number 6: History of Higher Education
      in Massachusetts), chapter 11.

"When Massachusetts, in 1837, created a Board of Education, then were first united into a somewhat related whole the more or less excellent but varied and independent organizations, and a beginning made for a State system. It was this massing of forces, and the hearty co-operation he initiated, in which the work of Horace Mann showed its matchless greatness. 'Rarely,' it has been said, 'have great ability, unselfish devotion, and brilliant success, been so united in the course of a single life.' A successful lawyer, a member of the State Legislature, and with but limited experience as a teacher, he has left his impress upon the educational sentiments of, not only New England, but the United States."

"It is estimated that in 1840 the proportion of college students to the entire population in the United States was 1 to 1,540; in 1860, 1 to 2,012; in 1870,1 to 2,546; in 1880, 1 to 1,840; and in 1886, 1 to about 1,400, Estimating all our combined efforts in favor of higher education, we fall far short of some of the countries of the Old World."

F. W. Blackmar, Federal and State Aid to Higher Education in the United States (U. S. Bureau of Education, Circulars of Information, 1890, number 1), page 36.

"From the earliest settlement of Ontario, schools were established as the wants of the inhabitants required. The Legislature soon recognized the needs of the country, and made grants of land and money in aid of elementary, secondary, and superior education. Statutes were passed from time to time for the purpose of opening schools to meet the demands of the people. The sparsely settled condition of the Province delayed for a while the organization of the system. It was not until 1844 that the elementary schools were put on a comprehensive basis. In that year the Reverend Egerton Ryerson, LL. D., was appointed Chief Superintendent of Education, and the report which he presented to the House of Assembly sketched in an able manner the main features of the system of which he was the distinguished founder, and of which he continued for thirty-three years to be the efficient administrator. In 1876 the office of chief superintendent was abolished, and the schools of the Province placed under the control of a member of the Government with the title of Minister of Education. … The system of education in Ontario may be said to combine the best features of the systems of several countries. To the Old World it is indebted for a large measure of its stability, uniformity and centralization; to the older settled parts of the New World for its popular nature, its flexibility and its democratic principles which have given, wherever desirable, local control and individual responsibility. From the State of New York we have borrowed the machinery of our school; from Massachusetts the principle of local taxation; from Ireland our first series of text books; from Scotland the co-operation of parents with the teacher, in upholding his authority; from Germany the system of Normal Schools and the Kindergarten; and from the United States generally the non-denominational character of elementary, secondary, and university education. Ontario may claim to have some features of her system that are largely her own. Among them may be mentioned a division of state and municipal authority on a judicious basis; clear lines separating the function of the University from that of the High Schools, and the function of the High Schools from that of the Public or elementary schools; a uniform course of study; all High and Public Schools in the hands of professionally trained teachers; no person eligible to the position of inspector who does not hold the highest grade of a teacher's certificate, and who has not had years of experience as a teacher; inspectors removable if inefficient, but not subject to removal by popular vote; the examinations of teachers under Provincial instead of local control; the acceptance of a common matriculation examination for admission to the Universities and to the learned professions; a uniform series of text books for the whole Province; the almost entire absence of party politics in the manner in which school boards, inspectors and teachers discharge their duties; the system national instead of sectarian, but affording under constitutional guarantees and limitations protection to Roman Catholic and Protestant Separate Schools and denominational Universities."

"Next to the Ordinance of 1787, the Congressional grant of 1862 is the most important educational enactment in America. … By this gift forty-eight colleges and universities have received aid, at least to the extent of the Congressional grant; thirty-three of these, at least, have been called into existence by means of this act. In thirteen States the proceeds of the land scrip were devoted to institutions already in existence. The amount received from the sales of land scrip from twenty-four of these States aggregates the sum of $13,930,456, with land remaining unsold estimated at nearly two millions of dollars. These same institutions have received State endowments amounting to over eight million dollars. The origin of this gift must be sought in local communities. In this country all ideas of national education have arisen from those States that have felt the need of local institutions for the education of youth. In certain sections of the Union, particularly the North and West, where agriculture was one of the chief industries, it was felt that the old classical schools were not broad enough to cover all the wants of education represented by growing industries. There was consequently a revulsion from these schools toward the industrial and practical side of education. Evidences of this movement are seen in the attempts in different States to found agricultural, technical, and industrial schools. These ideas found their way into Congress, and a bill was introduced in 1858, which provided for the endowment of colleges for the teaching of agriculture and the mechanical arts. The bill was introduced by Honorable Justin S. Morrill, of Vermont; it was passed by a small majority, and was vetoed by President Buchanan. In 1862 the bill was again presented with slight changes, passed and signed, and became a law July 2, 1862. … It stipulated to grant to each State thirty thousand acres of land for each Senator and Representative in Congress to which the States were respectively entitled by the census of 1860, for the purpose of endowing 'at least one college where the leading object shall be, without excluding other scientific and classical studies, and including military tactics, to teach such branches of learning as are related to agriculture and the mechanic arts, in such manner as the Legislatures of the States may respectively prescribe, in order to promote the liberal and practical education of the industrial classes in the several pursuits and professions of life.' … From this proposition all sorts of schools sprang up, according to the local conception of the law and local demands. It was thought by some that boys were to be taught agriculture by working on a farm, and purely agricultural schools were founded with the mechanical arts attached. In other States classical schools of the stereotyped order were established, with more or less science; and, again, the endowment in others was devoted to scientific departments. The instruction of the farm and the teaching of pure agriculture have not succeeded in general, while the schools that have made prominent those studies relating to agriculture and the mechanic arts, upon the whole, have succeeded best. … In several instances the managers of the land scrip have understood that by this provision the State could not locate the land within the borders of another State, but its assignees could thus locate lands, not more than one million acres in any one State. By considering this question, the New York land scrip was bought by Ezra Cornell, and located by him for the college in valuable lands in the State of Wisconsin, and thus the fund was augmented. However, the majority of the States sold their land at a sacrifice, frequently for less than half its value. There was a lull in the land market during the Civil War, and this cause, together with the lack of attention in many States, sacrificed the gift of the Federal Government. The sales ranged all the way from fifty cents to seven dollars per acre, as the average price for each State."

F. W. Blackmar, Federal and State Aid to Higher Education (United States Bureau of Education, Circulars of Information, 1890, number 1), pages 47-49.

"On the second of July, 1862, … [President Lincoln] signed the act of congress, donating public lands for the establishment of colleges of agriculture and mechanic arts. This act had been introduced into congress by the Honorable Justin S. Morrill. … The Morrill act provided for a donation of public land to the several states, each state to receive thirty thousand acres for each senator and representative it sent to congress. States not containing within their own borders public land subject to sale at private entry received land scrip instead. But this land scrip the recipient states were not allowed to locate within the limits of any other state or of any territory of the United States. The act laconically directed 'said scrip to be sold by said states.' The proceeds of the sale, whether of land or scrip, in each state were to form a perpetual fund. … In the execution of this trust the State of New York was hampered by great and almost insuperable obstacles. For its distributive share it received land scrip to the amount of nine hundred and ninety thousand acres. The munificence of the endowment awakened the cupidity of a multitude of clamorous and strangely unexpected claimants. … If the princely domain granted to the State of New York by congress was not divided and frittered away, we owe it in great measure to the foresight, the energy, and the splendid courage of a few generous spirits in the legislature of whom none commanded greater respect or exercised more influence than Senator Andrew Dickson White, the gentleman who afterwards became first president of Cornell University. … But the all-compelling force which prevented the dispersion and dissipation of the bounty of congress was the generous heart of Ezra Cornell. While rival institutions clamored for a division of the 'spoils,' and political tricksters played their base and desperate game, this man thought only of the highest good of the State of New York, which he loved with the ardor of a patriot and was yet to serve with the heroism of a martyr. … When the legislature of the State of New York was called upon to make some disposition of the congressional grant, Ezra Cornell sat in the senate. … Of his minor legislative achievements I shall not speak. One act, however, has made his name as immortal as the state it glorified. By a gift of half a million dollars (a vast sum in 1865, the last year of the war!) he rescued for the higher education of New York the undivided grant of congress; and with the united endowments he induced the legislature to establish, not merely a college of applied science but a great modern university—'an institution,' according to his own admirable definition, 'where any person can find instruction in any study.' It was a high and daring aspiration to crown the educational system of our imperial state with an organ of universal knowledge, a nursery of every science and of all scholarship, an instrument of liberal culture and of practical utility to all classes of our people. This was, however, the end; and to secure it Ezra Cornell added to his original gift new donations of land, of buildings, and of money. … But one danger threatened this latest birth of time. The act of congress donating land scrip required the states to sell it. The markets were immediately glutted. Prices fell. New York was selling at an average price of fifty cents an acre. Her princely domain would bring at this rate less than half a million dollars! Was the splendid donation to issue in such disaster? If it could be held till the war was over, till immigration opened up the Northwest, it would be worth five times five hundred thousand dollars! So at least thought one far-seeing man in the State of New York. And this man of foresight had the heart to conceive, the wisdom to devise, and the courage to execute—he alone in all the states—a plan for saving to his state the future value of the lands donated by congress. Ezra Cornell made that wonderful and dramatic contract with the State of New York! He bound himself to purchase at the rate of sixty cents per acre the entire right of the commonwealth to the scrip, still unsold; and with the scrip, thus purchased by him as an individual he agreed to select and locate the lands it represented, to pay the taxes, to guard against trespasses and defend from fires, to the end that within twenty years when values had appreciated he might sell the land and turn into the treasury of the State of New York for the support of Cornell University the entire net proceeds of the enterprise. Within a few years Ezra Cornell had located over half a million acres of superior pine land in the Northwestern states, principally in Wisconsin. Under bonds to the State of New York to do the state's work he had spent about $600,000 of his own cash to carry out the trust committed to him by the state, when, alas, in the crisis of 1874, fortune and credit sank exhausted and death came to free the martyr-patriot from his bonds. The seven years that followed were the darkest in our history. … Ezra Cornell was our founder; Henry W. Sage followed him as wise masterbuilder. The edifices, chairs and libraries which bear the name of 'Sage' witness to [his] later gifts: but though these now aggregate the princely sum of $1,250,000, [his] management of the university lands has been [his] greatest achievement. From these lands, with which the generosity and foresight of Ezra Cornell endowed the university, there have been netted under [Mr. Sage's] administration, not far short of $4,000,000, with over 100,000 acres still to sell. Ezra Cornell's contract with the state was for twenty years. It expired August 4, 1886, when a ten years' extension was granted by the state. The trust will be closed in 1896."

      J. G. Schurman,
      Address at Inauguration to the Presidency of
      Cornell University, November 11, 1892.

   "Educators, political economists, and statesmen felt the need
   of some central agency by which the general educational
   statistics of the country could be collected, preserved,
   condensed, and properly arranged for distribution. This need
   found expression finally in the action taken at a convention
   of the superintendence department of the National Educational
   Association, held at Washington February, 1866, when it was
   resolved to petition Congress in favor of a National Bureau of
   Education. …
{736}
   The memorial was presented in the House of Representatives by
   General Garfield, February 14, 1866, with a bill for the
   establishment of a National Bureau on essentially the basis
   the school superintendents had proposed. Both bill and
   memorial were referred to a committee of seven members. …
   The bill was reported back from the committee, with an
   amendment in the nature of a substitute, providing for the
   creation of a department of education instead of the bureau
   originally proposed. Thus altered, it was passed by a vote of
   nearly two to one. In the Senate it was referred to the
   Committee on the Judiciary … who the following winter
   reported it without amendment and with a recommendation that
   it pass, which it did on the 1st of March, 1867, receiving on
   the next day the approval of the President. By the act of July
   28, 1868, which took effect June 30, 1869, the Department of
   Education was abolished, and an Office of Education in the
   Department of the Interior was established, with the same
   objects and duties. … The act of March 2, 1867, …
   established an agency 'for the purpose of collecting such
   statistics and facts as shall show the condition and progress
   of education in the several States and Territories, and of
   diffusing such information respecting the organization and
   management of school systems and methods of teaching as shall
   aid the people of the United States in the establishment and
   maintenance of efficient school systems and otherwise promote
   the cause of education.' It will be perceived that the chief
   duty of the office under the law is to act as an educational
   exchange. Exercising and seeking to exercise no control
   whatever over its thousands of correspondents, the office
   occupies a position as the recipient of voluntary information
   which is unique."

      C. Warren,
      Answers to Inquiries about the United States Bureau
      of Education, chapters 2-3.

The public schools of the State of New York were not entirely free until 1867. In his report to the Legislature made in February of that year, the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Honorable Victor M. Rice, said: "The greatest defect in our school system is, as I have urged in previous reports, the continuance of the rate bill system. Our common schools can never reach their highest degree of usefulness until they shall have been made entirely free. … To meet this public demand, to confer upon the children of the State the blessings of free education, a bill has already been introduced into your honorable body. … The main features of the bill are the provisions to raise, by State tax, a sum about equal to that raised in the districts by rate bills, and to abolish the rate bill system; to facilitate the erection and repair of school houses." The bill referred to was passed at the same session of the Legislature, and in his next succeeding report, Superintendent Rice gave the following account of the law and its immediate effects: "While the general structure of the school law was not disturbed, a material modification was made by the Act (chap. 406, Laws of 1867), which took effect on the first day of October of the same year, and which, among other things, provided for the abolishment of rate-bills, and for increased local and State taxation for school purposes. This was primarily a change in the manner of raising the requisite funds; not an absolute increase of the aggregate amount to be raised. It involved and encouraged such increase, so far as the inhabitants in the several school districts should authorize it, by substituting taxation exclusively on property, for a mixed assessment which, in part, was a tax on attendance. Thus relieved of an old impediment, and supplied with additional power and larger resources, the cause of public instruction, during the last fiscal year, has wrought results unequaled in all the past. … The effect of this amendment has not been confined to the financial policy thereby inaugurated. It is distinctly traceable in lengthened terms of school, in a larger and more uniform attendance, and in more liberal expenditures for school buildings and appliances."

Superintendent of Public Instruction of the State of New York, Annual Report, 1869, pages 5-6.

   "By the will of Johns Hopkins, a merchant of Baltimore, the
   sum of $7,000,000 was devoted to the endowment of a university
   [chartered in 1867] and a hospital, $3,500,000 being
   appropriated to each. … To the bequest no burdensome
   conditions were attached. … Just what this new university
   was to be proved a very serious question to the trustees. The
   conditions of Mr. Hopkins's bequest left the determination of
   this matter open. … A careful investigation led the trustees
   to believe that there was a growing demand for opportunities
   to study beyond the ordinary courses of a college or a
   scientific school, particularly in those branches of learning
   not included in the schools of law, medicine and theology.
   Strong evidence of this demand was afforded by the increasing
   attendance of American students upon the lectures of the
   German universities, as well as by the number of students who
   were enrolling themselves at Harvard and Yale for the
   post-graduate courses. It was therefore determined that the
   Johns Hopkins should be primarily a university, with advanced
   courses of lectures and fully equipped laboratories; that the
   courses should be voluntary, and the teaching not limited to
   class instruction. The foundation is both old and new. In so
   far as each feature is borrowed from some older university,
   where it has been fairly tried and tested, it is old, but at
   the same time this particular combination of separate features
   has here been made for the first time. … In the ordinary
   college course, if a young man happens to be deficient in
   mathematics, for example, he is either forced to lose any
   advantage he may possess in Greek or Latin, or else is obliged
   to take a position in mathematics for which he is unprepared.
   In the college department of the Johns Hopkins, this
   disadvantage does not exist; the classifying is specific for
   each study. The student has also the privilege of pushing
   forward in any one study as rapidly as he can with advantage;
   or, on the other hand, in case of illness or of unavoidable
   interruption, of prolonging the time devoted to the course, so
   that no part of it shall be omitted. As the studies are
   elective, it is possible to follow the usual college course if
   one desires. Seven different courses of study are indicated,
   any of which leads to the Baccalaureate degree, thus enabling
   the student to direct and specialize his work. The same
   standard of matriculation and the same severity of
   examinations are maintained in all these courses.
{737}
   A student has the privilege of extending his study beyond the
   regular class work, and he will be credited with all such
   private and outside study, if his examiners are satisfied of
   his thoroughness and accuracy."

      S. B. Herrick,
      The Johns Hopkins University
      (Scribner's Monthly, December 1879).

"The letter announcing and creating the Peabody endowment was dated February 7, 1867. In that letter, after referring to the ravages of he late war, the founder of the Trust said: 'I feel most deeply that it is the duty and privilege of the more favoured and wealthy portions of our nation to assist those who are less fortunate.' He then added: 'I give one million of dollars for the encouragement and promotion of intellectual, moral, and industrial education among the young of the more destitute portions of the Southern and Southwestern States of the Union.' On the day following, ten of the Trustees selected by him held a preliminary meeting in Washington. Their first business meeting was held in the city of New York, the 19th of March following, at which a general plan was adopted and an agent appointed. Mr. Peabody returned to his native country again in 1869, and on the 1st day of July, at a special meeting of the Trustees held at Newport, added a second million to the cash capital of the fund. … According to the donor's directions, the principal must remain intact for thirty years. The Trustees are not authorized to expend any part of it, nor yet to add to it any part of the accruing interest. The manner of using the interest, as well as the final distribution of the principal, was left entirely to the discretion of a self-perpetuating body of Trustees. Those first appointed had, however, the rare advantage of full consultation with the founder of the Trust while he still lived, and their plans received his cordial and emphatic approbation. … The pressing need of the present seemed to be in the department of primary education for the masses, and so they determined to make appropriations only for the assistance of public free schools. The money is not given as a charity to the poor. It would be entirely inadequate to furnish any effectual relief if distributed equally among all those who need it, and would, moreover, if thus widely dissipated, produce no permanent results. But the establishment of good public schools provides for the education of all children, whether rich or poor, and initiates a system which no State has ever abandoned after a fair trial. So it seemed to the donor as well as to his Trustees, that the greatest good of the greatest number would be more effectually and more certainly attained by this mode of distribution than by any other. No effort is made to distribute according to population. It was Mr. Peabody's wish that those States which had suffered most from the ravages of war should be assisted first."

The report made by the treasurer of the Fund in 1890, showed a principal sum invested to the amount of $2,075,175.22, yielding an income that year of $97,818. In the annual report of the U. S. Commissioner of Education made February 1, 1891, he says: "It would appear to the student of education in the Southern States that the practical wisdom in the administration of the Peabody Fund and the fruitful results that have followed it could not be surpassed in the history of endowments."

"The founding at Palo Alto of 'a university for both sexes, with the colleges, schools, seminaries of learning, mechanical institutes, museums, galleries of art, and all other things necessary and appropriate to a university of high degree,' was determined upon by the Honorable Leland Stanford and Jane Lathrop Stanford in 1884. In March of the year following the Legislature of California passed an Act providing for the administration of trust funds in connection with institutions of learning. November 14, 1885, the Grant of Endowment was publicly made, in accordance with this Act, and on the same day the Board of Trustees held its first meeting in San Francisco. The work of construction was at once begun, and the cornerstone laid May 14, 1887. The University was formally opened to students October 1, 1891. The idea of the university, in the words of its founders, 'came directly and largely from our son and only child, Leland, and in the belief that had he been spared to advise as to the disposition of our estate, he would have desired the devotion of a large portion thereof to this purpose, we will that for all time to come the institution hereby founded shall bear his name, and shall be known as The Leland Stanford Junior University.' The object of the University, as stated in its Charter, is 'to qualify students for personal success and direct usefulness in life'; and its purposes, 'to promote the public welfare by exercising an influence in behalf of humanity and civilization, teaching the blessings of liberty regulated by law, and inculcating love and reverence for the great principles of government as derived from the inalienable rights of man to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.' The University is located on the Palo Alto estate in the Santa Clara valley, thirty-three miles southeast of San Francisco, on the Coast Division of the Southern Pacific Railway. The estate consists of over eight thousand acres, partly lowland and partly rising into the foothills of the Santa Cruz range. On the grounds is the residence of the Founders, and an extensive and beautiful arboretum containing a very great variety of shrubs and trees. The property conveyed to the University, in addition to the Palo Alto estate, consists of the Vina estate, in Tehama County, of fifty-five thousand acres, of which about four thousand acres are planted in vines, and the Gridley estate, in Butte County, of twenty-two thousand acres, devoted mainly to the raising of wheat. … The founders of the Leland Stanford Junior University say: 'As a further assurance that the endowment will be ample to establish and maintain a university of the highest grade, we have, by last will and testament, devised to you and your successors additional property. We have done this as a security against the uncertainty of life and in the hope that during our lives the full endowment may go to you. The aggregate of the domain thus dedicated to the founding of the University, is over eighty-five thousand acres, or more than one hundred and thirty-three square miles, among the best improved and most valuable lands in the State."

Leland Stanford Junior University, Circulars of Information, numbers 6 and 1-2.

"Clark University was founded [at Worcester] by … a native of Worcester County, Massachusetts. It was 'not the outcome of a freak of impulse, or of a sudden wave of generosity, or of the natural desire to perpetuate in a worthy way one's ancestral name. To comprehend the genesis of the enterprise we must go back along the track of Mr. Clark's personal history 20 years at least. For as long ago as that, the idea came home with force to his mind that all civilized communities are in the hands of experts. … Looking around at the facilities obtainable in this country for the prosecution of original research, he was struck with the meagerness and the inadequacy. Colleges and professional schools we have in abundance, but there appeared to be no one grand inclusive institution, unsaddled by an academic department, where students might pursue as far as possible their investigation of any and every branch of science. … Mr. Clark went abroad and spent eight years visiting the institutions of learning in almost every country of Europe. He studied into their history and observed their present working.' … It is his strong and expressed desire that the highest possible academic standards be here forever maintained; that special opportunities and inducements be offered to research; that to this end the instructors be not overburdened with teaching or examinations. … A charter was granted early in 1887. Land and other property that had been before secured by the founder was transferred to the board, and the erection of a central building was begun. In the spring of 1888 G. Stanley Hall, then a professor at the Johns Hopkins University, was invited to the presidency. … The plans of the university had so far progressed that work was begun in October, 1889, in mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, and psychology."

      G. G. Bush,
      History of Higher Education in Massachusetts
      (United States Bureau of Education,
      Circular of Information, 1891, number 6), chapter 18.

"At its Annual Meeting in May, 1889, the Board of the American Baptist Education Society resolved to take immediate steps toward the founding of a well-equipped college in the city of Chicago. At the same time John D. Rockefeller made a subscription of $600,000 and this sum was increased during the succeeding year by about $600,000 more in subscriptions representing more than two thousand persons. Three months after the completion of this subscription, Mr. Rockefeller made an additional proffer of $1,000,000. The site of the University consists of three blocks of ground—about two thousand feet long and three hundred and sixty-two feet wide, lying between the two South Parks of Chicago, and fronting on the Midway Plaisance, which is itself a park connecting the other two. One-half of this site is a gift of Marshall Field of Chicago, and the other half has been purchased at a cost of $132,500. At the first meeting of the Board after it had become an incorporated body, Professor William R. Harper, of Yale University, was unanimously elected President of the University. … It has been decided that the University will begin the work of instruction on the first day of October, 1892. … The work of the University shall be arranged under three general divisions, viz., The University Proper, The University-Extension Work, The University Publication Work."

   The following statistics of education in the United States are
   from the returns gathered for the Eleventh Census, 1890. In
   these statistics the states and territories are classed in
   five great geographical divisions, defined as follows: North
   Atlantic Division, embracing the New England States, New York,
   New Jersey, and Pennsylvania; South Atlantic Division,
   embracing the States of the eastern coast, from Delaware to
   Florida, together with the District of Columbia; North Central
   Division, embracing Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan,
   Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, North and South Dakota,
   Nebraska, and Kansas; South Central Division, embracing
   Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas,
   Arkansas, and Oklahoma; Western Division, embracing all the
   remaining States and Territories. The total taxation for
   public schools in the United States, as reported by this
   census, was $102,164,796; of which $37,619,786 was raised in
   the North Atlantic Division, $5,678,474 in the South Atlantic
   Division, $47,033,142 in the North Central Division,
   $5,698.562 in the South Central Division, and $6,134,832 in
   the Western Division. From funds and rents there were raised
   for school purposes a total of $25,694,449 in the United
   States at large, of which $8,273,147 was raised in the North
   Atlantic Division, $2,307,051 in the South Atlantic Division,
   $8,432,593 in the North Central Division, $3,720,158 in the
   South Central Division, and $2,961,500 in the Western
   Division. The total of all "ordinary" receipts for school
   support in the United States, was $139,619,440, of which
   $49,201,216 were in the North Atlantic Division, $8,685,223 in
   the South Atlantic Division. $61,108,263 in the North Central
   Division, $10,294,621 in the South Central Division, and
   $10,330,117 in the Western Division. The total "ordinary
   expenditures" were $138,786,393 in the whole United States;
   being $47,625,548 in the North Atlantic Division, $8,630,711
   in the South Atlantic Division, $62,815.531 in the North
   Central Division, $9,860,050 in the South Central Division,
   and $9,854,544 in the Western Division. For teachers' wages
   there was a total expenditure of $88,705,992, $28,067,821
   being in the North Atlantic Division, $6,400,063 in the South
   Atlantic Division, $39,866,831 in the North Central Division,
   $8,209,509 in the South Central Division, and $6,161,768 in
   the Western Division. The total expenditure for Libraries and
   Apparatus was $1,667,787, three-fourths of which was in the
   North Atlantic and North Central Divisions. The expenditure
   reported for construction and care of buildings, was
   $24,224,793, of which $10,687,114 was in the North Atlantic
   Division, $884,277 was in the South Atlantic Division,
   $9,869,489 in the North Central Division, $770,257 in the
   South Central Division, and $2,013,656 in the Western
   Division. Reported estimates of the value of buildings and
   other school property are incomplete, but $27,892,831 are
   given for Massachusetts, $41,626,735 for New York, $35,435,412
   for Pennsylvania, $32,631,549 for Ohio, $26,814,480 for
   Illinois, and these are the States that stand highest in the
   column.
{739}
   The apparent enrollment in Public Schools for the
   census year, reported to July, 1891, was as follows:
      North Atlantic Division, 3,124,417;
      South Atlantic Division, 1,758,285;
      North Central Division, 5,032,182;
      South Central Division, 2,334,694;
      Western Division, 520,286;
      Total for the United States, 12,769,864
   being 20.39 per cent. of the population, against 19.84 per
   cent. in 1880. The reported enrollment in Private Schools at
   the same time was:
      North Atlantic Division, 196,173;
      South Atlantic Division, 165,253;
      North Central Division, 187,827;
      South Central Division, 200,202;
      Western Division, 54,749;
      Total for the United States, 804,204.
   The reported enrollment in Parochial Schools was:
      North Atlantic Division, 311,684;
      South Atlantic Division, 30,869;
      North Central Division, 398,585;
      South Central Division, 41,115;
      Western Division, 17,349;
      Total for the United States, 799,602.
   Of this total, 626,496 were enrolled in Catholic and 151,651
   in Lutheran Parochial Schools; leaving only 21,455 in the
   schools of all other denominations. Total enrollment reported
   in all schools 14,373,670. The colored public school
   enrollment in the Southern States was 1,288,229 in 1890,
   against 797,286 in 1880,—an increase of more than 61 per
   cent. The enrollment of whites was 3,358,527, against
   2,301,804,—an increase of nearly 46 per cent. The approximate
   number of Public School-houses in the United States, for the
   census year 1890 is given at 219,992, being 42,949 in the
   North Atlantic Division, 32,142 in the South Atlantic
   Division, 97,166 in the North Central Division, 38,962 in the
   South Central Division, 8,773 in the Western Division. The
   largest number reported is 14,214 in Pennsylvania. Of 6,408
   school-houses in Virginia 4,568 are for white, and 1,840 for
   colored children; in North Carolina, 3,973 white and 1,820
   colored. The above statistics are taken in part from the
   Compendium of the Eleventh Census, published in 1894, and
   partly from tables courteously furnished from the Census
   Bureau in advance of their publication.

"To know Comenius [born in Moravia, 1592] and the part he played in the seventeenth century, to appreciate this grand educational character, it would be necessary to begin by relating his life; his misfortunes; his journeys to England [1638], where Parliament invoked his aid; to Sweden [1642], where the Chancellor Oxenstiern employed him to write manuals of instruction; especially his relentless industry, his courage through exile, and the long persecutions he suffered as a member of the sect of dissenters, the Moravian Brethren; and the schools he founded at Fulneck, in Bohemia, at Lissa and at Patak, in Poland."

"Comenius's inspiring motive, like that of all leading educationalists, was social regeneration. He believed that this could be accomplished through the school. He lived under the hallucination that by a proper arrangement of the subject-matter of instruction, and by a sound method, a certain community of thought and interests would be established among the young, which would result in social harmony and political settlement. He believed that men could be manufactured. … The educational spirit of the Reformers, the conviction that all—even the humblest—must be taught to know God, and Jesus Christ whom he has sent, was inherited by Comenius in its completeness. In this way, and in this way only, could the ills of Europe be remedied, and the progress of humanity assured. While, therefore, he sums up the educational aim under the threefold heads of Knowledge, Virtue, and Piety or Godliness, he in truth has mainly in view the last two. Knowledge is of value only in so far as it forms the only sound basis, in the eyes of a Protestant theologian, of virtue and godliness. We have to train for a hereafter. … By knowledge Comenius meant knowledge of nature and of man's relation to nature. It is this important characteristic of Comenius's educational system that reveals the direct influence of Bacon and his school. … It is in the department of Method, however, that we recognise the chief contribution of Comenius to education. The mere attempt to systematise was a great advance. In seeking, however, for foundations on which to erect a coherent system, he had to content himself with first principles which were vague and unscientific. … In the department of knowledge, that is to say, knowledge of the outer world, Comenius rested his method on the scholastic maxim, 'Nihil est in intellectu quod non prius fuerit in sensu.' This maxim he enriched with the Baconian induction, comprehended by him only in a general way. … From the simple to the complex, from the particular to the general, the concrete before the abstract, and all, step by step, and even by insensible degrees,—these were among his leading principles of method. But the most important of all his principles was derived from the scholastic maxim quoted above. As all is from sense, let the thing to be known be itself presented to the senses, and let every sense be engaged in the perception of it. When it is impossible, from the nature of the case, to present the object itself, place a vivid picture of it before the pupil. The mere enumeration of these few principles, even if we drop out of view all his other contributions to method and school-management, will satisfy any man familiar with all the more recent treatises on Education, that Comenius, even after giving his precursors their due, is to be regarded as the true founder of modern Method, and that he anticipates Pestalozzi and all of the same school. … Finally, Comenius's views as to the inner organisation of a school were original, and have proved themselves in all essential respects correct. The same may be said of his scheme for the organisation of a State-system—a scheme which is substantially, mutatis mutandis, at this moment embodied in the highly-developed system of Germany. When we consider, then, that Comenius first formally and fully developed educational method, that he introduced important reforms into the teaching of languages, that he introduced into schools the study of Nature, that he advocated with intelligence, and not on purely sentimental grounds, a milder discipline, we are justified in assigning to him a high, if not the highest, place among modern educational writers."

"Any description of popular education in Europe would be incomplete, which should not give prominence to the Institute of the Christian Brothers—or the Brothers of the Christian Doctrine—including in that term the earliest professional school for the training of teachers in Europe; one of the most remarkable body of teachers devoted exclusively and without pay to the education of the children of the poor that the world has ever seen. … The Institute was established as a professional school in 1681, and to Abbe John Baptist de la Salle, belongs the high honor not only of founding it, but of so infusing into its early organization his own profound conviction of the Christ-like character of its mission among the poor, that it has retained for nearly two centuries the form and spirit of its origin. This devoted Christian teacher was born at Rheims on the 30th of April, 1651. … He was early distinguished for his scholarly attainments and maturity of character; and at the age of seventeen, before he had completed his full course of theological study, he was appointed Canon in the Cathedral church of Rheims. From the first, he became interested in the education of the young, and especially of the poor, as the most direct way of leading them to a Christian life;—and with this view before he was twenty-one years old, he assumed the direction of two charities, devoted to female education. From watching the operation of these schools, conducted by teachers without professional training, without plan and without mutual sympathy and aid, he conceived the design of bringing the teachers of this class of schools from the neighboring parishes into a community for their moral and professional improvement. For this purpose, he invited them first to meet, and then to lodge at his house, and afterwards, about the year 1681, he purchased a house for their special accommodation. Here, out of school hours and during their holy days, they spent their time in the practice of religious duties, and in mutual conferences on the work in which they were engaged. About this period, a large number of free schools for the poor were established in the neighboring towns; and applications were constantly made to the Abbe for teachers formed under his training, care, and influence. To meet this demand, and make himself more directly useful in the field of Christian education, he resigned his benefice, that he might give his whole attention to the work. To close the distance between himself, having a high social position and competence from his father's estate, and the poor schoolmasters to whom he was constantly preaching an unreserved consecration of themselves to their vocation—he not only resigned his canonry, with its social and pecuniary advantages, but distributed his patrimony, in a period of scarcity, in relieving the necessities of the poor, and in providing for the education of their children. He thus placed himself on a footing of equality—as to occupation, manner of life, and entire dependence on the charity of others—with the schoolmasters of the poor. The annals of education or religion show but few such examples of practical self-denial, and entire consecration to a sense of duty. … Having completed his act of resignation and self-imposed poverty, he assembled his teachers, announced to them what he had done, and sung with them a Te Deum. After a retreat—a period set apart to prayer and fasting-continued for seventeen days, they devoted themselves to the consideration of the best course to give unity, efficiency, and permanence to their plans of Christian education for the poor. They assumed the name of 'The Brothers of the Christian Doctrine,' as expressive of their vocation—which by usage came to be abbreviated into 'Christian Brothers.' They took on themselves vows of poverty, celibacy, and obedience for three years. They prescribed to themselves the most frugal fare, to be provided in turns by each other, They adopted at that time some rules of behavior, which have since been incorporated into the fundamental rules of the order. … In 1702 the first step was taken to establish an Institute at Rome, under the mission of one of the brothers, Gabriel Drolin, who after years of poverty, was made conductor of one of the charitable schools founded by Pope Clement XI. This school became afterwards the foundation of the house which the brothers have had in Rome since the pontificate of Benedict XIII., who conferred on the institute the constitution of a religious order. In 1703, under the pecuniary aid of M. Chateau Blanc, and the countenance of the archbishop, M. de Gontery, a school was opened at Avignon. … In 1789, the National Assembly prohibited vows to be made in communities; and in 1790, suppressed all religious societies; and in 1791, the institute was dispersed. At that date there were one hundred and twenty houses, and over one thousand brothers, actively engaged in the duties of the school room. The continuity of the society was secured by the houses established in Italy, to which many of the brothers fled. … In 1801, on the conclusion of a Concordat between the Pope and the government, the society was revived in France by the opening of a school at Lyons; and in 1815, they resumed their habit, and opened a novitiate, the members of which were exempt from military service. At the organization of the university in 1808, the institute was legally reorganized, and from that time has increased in numbers and usefulness. … In 1842, there were 390 houses (of which 326 were in France), with 3,030 brothers, and 585 novices. There were 642 schools with 163,700 children, besides evening schools with 7,800 adults in attendance, and three reformatory schools with 2,000 convicts under instruction."

"In 1878 their numbers had increased to 11,640; they had 1,249 establishments, and the number of their scholars was 390,607."

"Rousseau, who had educated himself, and very badly at that, was impressed with the dangers of the education of his day. A mother having asked his advice, he took up the pen to write it; and, little by little, his counsels grew into a book, a large work, a pedagogic romance ['Emile']. This romance, when it appeared in 1762, created a great noise and a great scandal. The Archbishop of Paris, Christophe de Beaumont, saw in it a dangerous, mischievous work, and gave himself the trouble of writing a long encyclical letter in order to point out the book to the reprobation of the faithful. This document of twenty-seven chapters is a formal refutation of the theories advanced in 'Emile.' … In those days, such a condemnation was a serious matter; its consequences to an author might be terrible. Rousseau had barely time to flee. His arrest was decreed by the parliament of Paris, and his book was burned by the executioner. … As a fugitive, Rousseau did not find a safe retreat even in his own country. {741} He was obliged to leave Geneva, where his book was also condemned, and Berne, where he had sought refuge, but whence he was driven by intolerance. He owed it to the protection of Lord Keith, governor of Neufchâtel, a principality belonging to the King of Prussia, that he lived for some time in peace in the little town of Motiers in the Val de Travers. … The renown of the book, condemned by so high an authority, was immense. Scandal, by attracting public attention to it, did it good service. What was most serious and most suggestive in it was not, perhaps, seized upon; but the 'craze' of which it was the object had, notwithstanding, good results. Mothers were won over, and resolved to nurse their own infants; great lords began to learn handicrafts, like Rousseau's imaginary pupil; physical exercises came into fashion; the spirit of innovation was forcing itself a way. … Three men above all the rest are noted for having popularized the pedagogic method of Rousseau, and for having been inspired in their labors by 'Emile.' These were Basedow, Pestalozzi, and Froebel. Basedow, a German theologian, had devoted himself entirely to dogmatic controversy, until the reading of 'Emile' had the effect of enlarging his mental horizon, and of revealing to him his true vocation. … Pestalozzi of Zurich, one of the foremost educators of modern times, also found his whole life transformed by the reading of 'Emile,' which awoke in him the genius of a reformer. … The most distinguished among his disciples and continuators is Froebel, the founder of those primary schools … known by the name of 'kindergartens,' and the author of highly esteemed pedagogic works. These various attempts, these new and ingenious processes which, step by step, have made their way among us, and are beginning to make their workings felt, even in institutions most stoutly opposed to progress, are all traceable to Rousseau's 'Emile.' … It is true that 'Emile' contains pages that have outlived their day, many odd precepts, many false ideas, many disputable and destructive theories; but at the same time we find in it so many sagacious observations, such upright counsels, suitable even to modern times, so lofty an ideal, that, in spite of everything, we cannot read and study it without profit. … There is absolutely nothing practicable in his [Rousseau's] system. It consists in isolating a child from the rest of the world; in creating expressly for him a tutor, who is a phœnix among his kind; in depriving him of father, mother, brothers, and sisters, his companions in study; in surrounding him with a perpetual charlatanism, under the pretext of following nature; and in showing him only through the veil of a factitious atmosphere the society in which he is to live. And, nevertheless, at each step it is sound reason by which we are met; by an astonishing paradox, this whimsicality is full of good sense; this dream overflows with realities; this improbable and chimerical romance contains the substance and the marrow of a rational and truly modern treatise on pedagogy. Sometimes we must read between the lines, add what experience has taught us since that day, transpose into an atmosphere of open democracy those pages, written under the old order of things, but even then quivering with the new world which they were bringing to light, and for which they prepared the way. Reading 'Emile' in the light of modern prejudices, we can see in it more than the author wittingly put into it; but not more than logic and the instinct of genius set down there. To unfold the powers of children in due proportion to their age; not to transcend their ability; to arouse in them the sense of the observer and of the pioneer; to make them discoverers rather than imitators: to teach them accountability to themselves and not slavish dependence upon the words of others; to address ourselves more to the will than to custom, to the reason rather than to the memory; to substitute for verbal recitations lessons about things; to lead to theory by way of art; to assign to physical movements and exercises a prominent place, from the earliest hours of life up to perfect maturity; such are the principles scattered broadcast in this book, and forming a happy counterpoise to the oddities of which Rousseau was perhaps most proud."

In Switzerland, up to the end of the eighteenth century, the state of primary instruction was very bad. "The teachers were gathered up at hazard; their pay was wretched; in general they had no lodgings of their own, and they were obliged to hire themselves out for domestic service among the well-off inhabitants of the villages, in order to find food and lodging among them. A mean spirit of caste still dominated instruction, and the poor remained sunk in ignorance. It was in the very midst of this wretched and unpropitious state of affairs that there appeared, towards the end of the eighteenth century, the most celebrated of modern educators. … Born at Zurich in 1746, Pestalozzi died at Brugg in Argovia in 1827. This unfortunate great man always felt the effects of the sentimental and unpractical education given him by his mother, who was left a widow with three children in 1751. He early formed the habit of feeling and of being touched with emotion, rather than of reasoning and of reflecting. The laughing-stock of his companions, who made sport of his awkwardness, the little scholar of Zurich accustomed himself to live alone and to become a dreamer. Later, towards 1760, the student of the academy distinguished himself by his political enthusiasm and his revolutionary daring. At that early period he had conceived a profound feeling for the miseries and the needs of the people, and he already proposed as the purpose of his life the healing of the diseases of society. At the same time there was developed in him an irresistible taste for a simple, frugal, and almost ascetic life. To restrain his desires had become the essential rule of his conduct, and, to put it in practice, he forced himself to sleep on a plank, and to subsist on bread and vegetables."

"In spite … of Pestalozzi's patent disqualifications in many respects for the task he undertook; in spite of his ignorance of even common subjects (for he spoke, read, wrote, and cyphered badly, and knew next to nothing of classics or science); in spite of his want of worldly wisdom, of any comprehensive and exact knowledge of men and of things; in spite of his being merely an elementary teacher,—through the force of his all-conquering love, the nobility of his heart, the resistless energy of his enthusiasm, his firm grasp of a few first principles, his eloquent exposition of them in words, his resolute manifestation of them in deeds,—he stands forth among educational reformers as the man whose influence on education is wider, deeper, more penetrating, than that of all the rest—the prophet and the sovereign of the domain in which he lived and laboured. … {742} It was late in life—he was fifty-two years of age—before Pestalozzi became a practical school-master. He had even begun to despair of ever finding the career in which he might attempt to realize the theories over which his loving heart and teeming brain had been brooding from his earliest youth. … At fifty-two years of age, then, we find Pestalozzi utterly unacquainted with the science and the art of education, and very scantily furnished even with elementary knowledge, undertaking at Stanz, in the canton of Unterwalden, the charge of eighty children, whom the events of war had rendered homeless and destitute. … The house in which the eighty children were assembled to be boarded, lodged, and taught, was an old tumble-down Ursuline convent, scarcely habitable, and destitute of all the conveniences of life. The only apartment suitable for a schoolroom was about twenty-four feet square, furnished with a few desks and forms; and into this were crowded the wretched children, noisy, dirty, diseased, and ignorant, with the manners and habits of barbarians. Pestalozzi's only helper in the management of the institution was an old woman, who cooked the food and swept the rooms; so that he was, as he tells us himself, not only the teacher, but the paymaster, man-servant, and almost the housemaid of the children. … 'My wishes [he writes] were now accomplished. I felt convinced that my heart would change the condition of my children as speedily as the springtide sun reanimates the earth frozen by the winter. Nor,' he adds, 'was I mistaken. Before the springtide sun melted away the snow from our mountains, you could no longer recognise the same children.' … 'I was obliged,' he says, 'unceasingly to be everything to my children. I was alone with them from morning to night. It was from my hand they received whatever could be of service both to their bodies and minds. All succour, all consolation, all instruction came to them immediately from myself. Their hands were in my hand; my eyes were fixed on theirs, my tears mingled with theirs, my smiles encountered theirs, my soup was their soup, my drink was their drink. I had around me neither family, friends, nor servants; I had only them. I was with them when they were in health, by their side when they were ill. I slept in their midst. I was the last to go to bed, the first to rise in the morning. When we were in bed I used to pray with them and talk to them till they went to sleep. They wished me to do so.' … 'I knew,' he says, 'no system, no method, no art but that which rested on the simple consequences of the firm belief of the children in my love towards them. I wished to know no other.' … Gradually … Pestalozzi advanced to the main principles of his system of moral education. … He says:—'Nature develops all the human faculties by practice, and their growth depends on their exercise.' 'The circle of knowledge commences close around a man, and thence extends concentrically.' 'Force not the faculties of children into the remote paths of knowledge, until they have gained strength by exercise on things that are near them.' 'There is in Nature an order and march of development. If you disturb or interfere with it, you mar the peace and harmony of the mind. And this you do, if, before you have formed the mind by the progressive knowledge of the realities of life, you fling it into the labyrinth of words, and make them the basis of development.' 'The artificial march of the ordinary school, anticipating the order of Nature, which proceeds without anxiety and without haste, inverts this order by placing words first, and thus secures a deceitful appearance of success at the expense of natural and safe development.' In these few sentences we recognise all that is most characteristic in the educational principles of Pestalozzi. … To set the intellectual machinery in motion—to make it work, and keep it working; that was the sole object at which he aimed; of all the rest he took little account. … He relied upon a principle which must be insisted on as cardinal and essential in education. He secured the thorough interest of his pupils in the lesson, and mainly through their own direct share in it. … Observation, … according to Pestalozzi (and Bacon had said the same thing before him), is the absolute basis of all knowledge, and is therefore the prime agent in elementary education. It is around this theory, as a centre of gravity, that Pestalozzi's system revolves."

   "During the short period, not more than a year, which
   Pestalozzi spent among the children at Stanz, he settled the
   main features of the Pestalozzian system. Sickness broke out
   among the children, and the wear and tear was too great even
   for Pestalozzi. He would probably have sunk under his efforts
   if the French, pressed by the Austrians, had not entered
   Stanz, in January, 1799, and taken part of the Ursuline
   Convent for a military hospital. Pestalozzi was, therefore,
   obliged to break up the school, and he himself went to a
   medicinal spring on the Gurnigel in the Canton Bern. … He
   came down from the Gurnigel, and began to teach in the primary
   schools (i. e., schools for children from four to eight years
   old) of Burgdorf, the second town in the Canton. Here the
   director was jealous of him, and he met with much opposition.
   … In less than a year Pestalozzi left this school in bad
   health, and joined Krüsi in opening a new school in Burgdorf
   Castle, for which he afterward (1802) obtained Government aid.
   Here he was assisted in carrying out his system by Krüsi,
   Tobler, and Bluss. He now embodied the results of his
   experience in a work which has obtained great celebrity—'How
   Gertrude Teaches her Children' [also published in England
   under the title of 'Leonard and Gertrude]. In 1802 Pestalozzi,
   for once in his life a successful and popular man, was elected
   a member of a deputation sent by the Swiss people to Paris. On
   the restoration of the Cantons in 1804. the Castle of Burgdorf
   was again occupied by one of the chief magistrates, and
   Pestalozzi and his establishment were moved to the Monastery
   of Buchsee. Here the teachers gave the principal direction to
   another, the since celebrated Fellenburg, 'not without my
   consent,' says Pestalozzi, 'but to my profound mortification.'
   He therefore soon accepted an invitation from the inhabitants
   of Yverdun to open an institution there, and within a
   twelvemonth he was followed by his old assistants, who had
   found government by Fellenburg less to their taste than
   no-government by Pestalozzi.
{743}
   The Yverdun Institute had soon a world-wide reputation.
   Pestalozzian teachers went from it to Madrid, to Naples, to
   St. Petersburg. Kings and philosophers joined in doing it
   honor. But, as Pestalozzi himself has testified, these praises
   were but as a laurel-wreath encircling a skull. The life of
   the Pestalozzian institutions had been the love which the old
   man had infused into all the members, teachers as well as
   children; but this life was wanting at Yverdun. The
   establishment was much too large to be carried on successfully
   without more method and discipline than Pestalozzi,
   remarkable, as he himself says, for his 'unrivalled incapacity
   to govern,' was master of. The assistants began each to take
   his own line, and even the outward show of unity was soon at
   an end. … Thus the sun went down in clouds, and the old man,
   when he died at the age of eighty, in 1827, had seen the
   apparent failure of all his toils. He had not, however, failed
   in reality. It has been said of him that his true fortune was
   to educate ideas, not children, and when twenty years later
   the centenary of his birth was celebrated by school-masters,
   not only in his native country, but throughout Germany, it was
   found that Pestalozzian ideas had been sown, and were bearing
   fruit, over the greater part of central Europe."

EDUCATION: A. D. 1804-1891.
Co-education and the Higher Education of
Women in the United States.

"When to a few daring minds the conviction came that education was a right of personality rather than of sex, and when there was added to this growing sentiment the pressing demand for educated women as teachers and as leaders in philanthropy, the simplest means of equipping women with the needful preparation was found in the existing schools and colleges. … In nearly every State west of the Alleghanies, 'Universities' had been founded by the voluntary tax of the whole population. Connected with all the more powerful religious denominations were schools and colleges which called upon their adherents for gifts and students. These democratic institutions had the vigor of youth, and were ambitious and struggling. 'Why,' asked the practical men of affairs who controlled them, 'should not our daughters go on with our sons from the public schools to the university which we are sacrificing to equip and maintain?' It is not strange that with this and much more practical reasoning of a similar kind, co-education was established in some colleges at their beginning, in others after debate, and by a radical change in policy. When once the chivalrous desire was aroused to give girls as good an education as their brothers, Western men carried out the principle unflinchingly. From the kindergarten to the preparation for the doctorate of philosophy, educational opportunities are now practically alike for men and women. The total number of colleges of arts and sciences empowered by law to give degrees, reporting to Washington in 1888, was three hundred and eighty-nine. Of these, two hundred and thirty-seven, or nearly two-thirds, were co-educational. Among them are nearly all the State universities, and nearly all the colleges under the patronage of the Protestant sects. Hitherto I have spoken as if co-education were a Western movement; and in the West it certainly has had greater currency than elsewhere. But it originated, at least so far as concerns superior secondary training, in Massachusetts. Bradford Academy, chartered in 1804, is the oldest incorporated institution in the country to which boys and girls were from the first admitted; but it closed its department for boys in 1836, three years after the foundation of co-educational Oberlin, and in the very year when Mount Holyoke was opened by Mary Lyon, in the large hope of doing for young women what Harvard had been founded to do for young men just two hundred years before. Ipswich and Abbot Academies in Massachusetts had already been chartered to educate girls alone. It has been the dominant sentiment in the East that boys and girls should be educated separately. The older, more generously endowed, more conservative seats of learning, inheriting the complications of the dormitory system, have remained closed to women. … In the short period of the twenty years after the war the four women's colleges which are the richest in endowments and students of any in the world were founded and set in motion. These colleges—Vassar, opened in 1865, Wellesley and Smith in 1875, and Bryn Mawr in 1885—have received in gifts of every kind about $6,000,000, and are educating nearly two thousand students. For the whole country the Commissioner of Education reports two hundred and seven institutions for the superior instruction of women, with more than twenty-five, thousand students. But these resources proved inadequate. There came an increasing demand, especially from teachers, for education of all sorts. … In an attempt to meet a demand of this sort the Harvard Annex began twelve years ago [in 1879] to provide a few women with instruction from members of the Harvard faculty. … Barnard College in New York is an annex of Columbia only in a sense, for not all her instruction is given by Columbia's teaching force, though Columbia will confer degrees upon her graduates. The new woman's college at Cleveland sustains temporarily the same relations to, Adelbert College, though to a still greater extent she provides independent instruction."

A. F. Palmer, Review of the Higher Education of Women (Woman and the Higher Education, pages 105-127).

"The Cleveland College for Women, Cleveland, Ohio, was first opened for instruction in 1888 as a department of Western Reserve University. At the same time the trustees of the university decided to receive no more women into Adelbert College. That the success of the new school might be assured, the faculty of Adelbert College generously offered their services for a term of years as instructors. During the first year twenty-three young women were admitted, but two of whom were in the regular courses. During 1889-90 the number of students increased to thirty-eight. … In 1887 Evelyn College, an institution for women, was opened at Princeton, N. J. Its location at this place gives the institution very great advantages, inasmuch as the use of the libraries and museums of the College of New Jersey, popularly known as Princeton College, are granted to the students."

"The latest report of the United States Commissioner of Education contains over two hundred institutions for the superior education of women. The list includes colleges and seminaries entitled to confer degrees, and a few seminaries, whose work is of equal merit, which do not give degrees. Of these more than two hundred institutions for the education of women exclusively, only 47 are situated within [western states]. … Of these 47, but 30 are chartered with authority to confer degrees. … The extent to which the higher education of women is in the West identified with co-education, can be seen by comparing the two statements above given. Of the total 212 higher institutions receiving women, and of the total 195 such institutions which confer the regular degrees in arts, science, and letters, upon their graduates, 165 are co-educational. … Among colleges characterized from birth by a liberal and progressive spirit may be mentioned 'The Cincinnati Wesleyan Woman's College.' This institution was chartered in 1842, and claims to be 'the first liberal collegiate institution in the world for the exclusive education of women.' … The West is committed to co-education, excepting only the Roman Catholic, the Lutheran, and the Protestant Episcopal sects,—which are not yet, as sects, committed to the collegiate education of women at all,—and the Presbyterian sect, whose support, in the West, of 14 co-educational colleges against 4 for the separate education of young men, almost commits it to the co-educational idea. … In 1853, Antioch College was opened at Yellow Springs, Ohio. It was the first endeavor in the West to found a college under Christian but non-sectarian auspices. Its president, Horace Mann, wrote of it: 'Antioch is now the only first-class college in all the West that is really an unsectarian institution.' … Antioch was from the first avowedly co-educational."

M. W. Sewall, Education of Women in the Western States (Woman's Work in America, pages 61-70).

"Most people would probably be ready to say that except for the newly founded Woman's College in Baltimore and Tulane University [State university of Louisiana], the collegiate education of women does not exist in the South. But as matter of fact, there are no less than one hundred and fifty institutions in the South which are authorized by the Legislatures of their respective States to confer the regular college degrees upon women. Of these, forty-one are co-educational, eighty-eight are for women alone, and twenty-one are for colored persons of both sexes. The bureau of education makes no attempt to go behind the verdict of the State Legislatures, but on looking over the catalogues of all these institutions it is, as might have been expected, easy to see that the great majority of them are not in any degree colleges, in the ordinary sense of the word. Not a single one of the so-called female colleges presents a real college course, and many of the co-educational colleges are colleges only in name."

      C. L. Franklin,
      Education of Women in the Southern States
      (Woman's Work in America, pages 93-94).

"Frœbel (Friedrich Wilhelm August) was born April 21, 1782, at Oberweissbach, in the principality of Schwanburg-Rudolstadt. His mother died when he was so young that he never even remembered her; and he was left to the care of an ignorant maid-of-all-work, who simply provided for his bodily wants. … Not until he was ten years of age did he receive the slightest regular instruction. He was then sent to school, to an uncle who lived in the neighborhood, … He pronounced the boy to be idle (which, from his point of view, was quite true) and lazy (which certainly was not true)—a boy, in short, that you could do nothing with. … It was necessary for him to earn his bread, and we next find him a sort of apprentice to a woodsman in the great Thuringian forest. Here, as he afterward tells us, he lived some years in cordial intercourse with nature and mathematics, learning even then, though unconsciously, from the teaching he received, how to teach others. … In 1801 he went to the University of Jena, where he attended lectures on natural history, physics, and mathematics; but, as he tells us, gained little from them. … This … was put an end to by the failure of means to stay at the University. For the next few years he tried various occupations. … While engaged in an architect's office at Frankfort, he formed an acquaintance with the Rector of the Model School, a man named Gruner. Gruner saw the capabilities of Frœbel, and detected also his entire want of interest in the work that he was doing; and one day suddenly said to him: 'Give up your architect's business; you will do nothing at it. Be a teacher. We want one now in the school; you shall have the place.' This was the turning point in Frœbel's life. He accepted the engagement, began work at once, and tells us that the first time he found himself in the midst of a class of 30 or 40 boys, he felt that he was in the element that he had missed so long—'the fish was in the water.' He was inexpressibly happy. … In a calmer mood he severely questioned himself as to the means by which he was to satisfy the demands of his new position. About this time he met with some of Pestalozzi's writings, which so deeply impressed him that he determined to go to Yverdun and study Pestalozzi on the spot. He accomplished his purpose, and lived and worked for two years with Pestalozzi. His experience at Yverdun impressed him with the conviction that the science of education had still to draw out from Pestalozzi's system those fundamental principles which Pestalozzi himself did not comprehend. 'And therefore,' says Schmidt, 'this genial disciple of Pestalozzi supplemented his system by advancing from the point which Pestalozzi had reached through pressure from without, to the innermost conception of man, and arriving at the thought of the true development and culture of mankind.' … His educational career commenced November 13th, 1816, in Greisheim, a little village near Stadt-Ilm, in Thuringia; but in 1817, when his Pestalozzian friend, Middendorf, joined him … the school was transferred to the beautiful village of Keilhau, near Rudolstadt, which may be considered as his chief starting-place. … Langenthal, another Pestalozzian, associated himself with them, and they commenced building a house. The number of pupils rose to twelve in 1818. Then the daughter of war-counselor Hoffman of Berlin, from enthusiasm for Frœbel's educational ideas, became his wife. She had a considerable dowry, which, together with the accession of Frœbel's elder brother, increased the funds and welfare of the school. In 1831 he was invited by the composer, Schnyder von Wartensee, to erect a similar garden on his estate, near the lake of Sempach, in the canton Luzern. It was done. Frœbel changed his residence the next year, from Keilhau to Switzerland. In 1834 the government of Bern invited him to arrange a training course for teachers in Burgdorf. In 1835 he became principal of the orphan asylum in Burgdorf, but in 1836 he and his wife wished to return to Germany. There he was active in Berlin, Keilhau, Blankenburg, Dresden, Liebenstein in Thuringia, Hamburg, (1849,) and Marienthal, near Liebenstein, where he lived until his decease in 1852, among the young ladies, whom he trained as nurses for the kindergarten, and the little children who attended his school."

"The child thinks only through symbols. In other words, it explains all it sees not by the recorded experience of others, as does an adult, but by marshaling and comparing its own concept or symbol of what it has itself seen. Its sole activity is play. 'The school begins with teaching the conventionalities of intelligence. Froebel would have the younger children receive a symbolic education in plays, games, and occupations which symbolize the primitive arts of man.' For this purpose, the child is led through a series of primitive occupations in plaiting, weaving, and modeling, through games and dances, which bring into play all the social relations, and through songs and the simple use of number, form and language. The 'gifts' all play their manifold purpose, inspiring the child, awakening its interest, leading the individual along the path the race has trod, and teaching social self-control. The system has its palpable dangers. The better and more intricate the tool, the more skill needed in its safe use. … The kindergarten requires trained hands. With trivial teachers its methods may easily degenerate into mere amusement, and thwart all tendency to attention, application, or industry. Valuable as it is in its hints for the care and development of children, its gay round needs to be ballasted with the purpose and theory uppermost in Froebel's mind when he opened his first school in a German peasant village, down whose main street a brook tumbled, and through whose lanes the halberdier still walked by night and sang the hours. It is idle to suppose that Froebel founded a perfect system, or to insist on all the details of the professional kindergartner's creed. Here as elsewhere, and aforetime, it has taken only forty years from the founder's death for faith to degenerate into religion and sect. But the central purpose he had in view must be steadily maintained. He sought his ends through play, and not through work. It is as dangerous for this method to harden into an approach to the primary school as it is for it to soften into a riot of misrule, and lax observance of order. … Switzerland, then the only republic in Europe, was the first country to adopt Froebel's method, though in some Swiss towns the kindergarten is still supported by private associations. France, another republic, has more children beginning school under an adaptation of Froebel than all the rest of the world put together. It was Froebel's own opinion that 'the spirit of American nationality was the only one in the world with which his method was in complete harmony, and to which its legitimate institutions would present no barriers.' The figures given below of the growth of the kindergarten in this country are the best possible proof of the truth of Froebel's prescient assertion. … In 1870 there were in this country only five kindergarten schools, and in 1872 the National Education Association at its Boston meeting appointed a committee which reported a year later recommending the system. Between 1870 and 1873, experimental kindergartens were established in Boston, Cleveland, and St. Louis, public attention was enlisted by the efforts of Miss Elizabeth Palmer Peabody, the most important worker in the early history of the kindergarten in this country, and the system began a rapid growth. Taking private and public kindergartens together, the advance of the system has displayed this most rapid progress:

                1875 1880 1885 1891-2
   Schools. 95 232 413 1,001
   Teachers. 216 524 902 2,242
   Pupils. 2,809 8,871 18,780 50,423

Down to 1880, these figures, outside of St. Louis, relate almost altogether to private schools. By 1885 the public kindergartens were not over a fifth in number of the schools, and held not over a fourth of the pupils. In the figures last given in this table there are 724 private kindergartens with 1,517 teachers and 29,357 pupils, and 277 public kindergartens with 725 teachers and 21,066 pupils, so that the latter have now 27 per cent. of the schools, 33 per cent. of the teachers, and 42 per cent. of the pupils. … Yet great as is this advance, the kindergarten as yet plays but an infinitesimal part in our educational system as a whole. … Of the sixteen American cities with a population of over 200,000 in 1890, only four—Philadelphia, Boston, Milwaukee, and St. Louis have incorporated the kindergarten on any large scale in their public-school systems. Four more—New York, Chicago, Brooklyn, and Buffalo—have kindergarten associations organized to introduce the new method as a part of free public education."

      T. Williams,
      The Kindergarten Movement
      (The Century, January, 1893).

The movement in England to secure a higher education for women dates from 1865. "In that year a Royal Commission was appointed to inquire into and report on the endowed grammar schools of England and Wales, and on what is called 'secondary' education generally. Several ladies who were already alive to the deficiencies in the education of their own sex, memorialized this Commission to extend the scope of its inquiry to girls' schools, and the Commission taking what was then thought quite a bold step, consented to do so. … One of the points brought out was the absence of any institutions doing for women what the universities did for men, and the consequent difficulty in which women stood of obtaining the highest kind of education—a difficulty which told on girls' schools by making it hard for them to procure thoroughly competent mistresses. This led in the course of the next year or two—the report of the Commission having been published in 1868—to the establishment of a college for women, which was first placed at Hitchin, a town on the Great Northern Railway, between London and Cambridge, and in a little while, when money had been collected sufficient for the erection of buildings, this college was finally settled at Girton, a spot about two miles from Cambridge, whence it takes the name of Girton College. Its purpose was to provide for women the same teaching in the same subjects as men receive in Cambridge University, and the teachers were nearly all of them professors or tutors there, men in some cases of high eminence. {746} Meanwhile, in Cambridge itself, a system of day classes for women, taught by University teachers, had been created, at first as an experiment for one year only. When several years had passed, when the number attending had increased, and it was found that women came to lodge in Cambridge in order to profit by these lectures, a house was hired in which to receive them, and ultimately a company was formed and a building erected a little way out of Cambridge, under the name of Newnham Hall, to which the lectures, now mainly designed for these students coming from a distance, were attached. Thus, at about the same time, though from somewhat different origins, Girton and Newnham came into being and began their course of friendly rivalry. Both have greatly developed since then. Their buildings have been repeatedly enlarged. Their numbers have risen steadily. … In Girton the charge for lodging, board and instruction is £100 per annum, in Newnham a little less. The life in both is very similar, a lady being placed at the head as resident principal, while the affairs are managed by a committee including both men and women. The lectures are delivered partly by Cambridge men, professors in the University, or tutors or lecturers in some of the colleges, partly by ladies, who, having once been students themselves, have come back as teachers. These lectures cover all the subjects required in the degree examinations of the University; and although students are not obliged to enter themselves for those examinations, they are encouraged to do so, and do mostly set the examinations before them as their goal. Originally the University took no official notice of the women students, and their being examined by the regular degree examiners of the University was a matter of pure favor on the part of those gentlemen. … At last, however, some examiners came into office (for the examiners are changed every two years) who disapproved of this informal examination of the women candidates, and accordingly a proposal was made to the University that it should formally authorize and impose on the examiners the function heretofore discharged by them in their individual capacity. This proposal, after some discussion and opposition, was carried, so that now women may enter both for the honor examinations and the pass examinations for the University degree as a matter of right. Their names do not appear in the official lists among those of the men, but separately; they are, however, tested by the same question papers and judged by the same standard. … Some Oxford graduates and their friends, stimulated by the success of Girton and Newnham, have founded two similar institutions in Oxford, one of which, Episcopalian and indeed High Church in its proclivities, is called Lady Margaret Hall, while the other, in compliment to the late Mrs. Somerville, has been given the title of Somerville Hall. These establishments are conducted on much the same lines as the two Cambridge colleges. … In the large towns where new colleges have been lately founded or courses of lectures established, such as Manchester, Liverpool, and Leeds, steps are usually taken to provide lectures for women. … What is called among you the question of co-education has come up very little in England. All the lectures given inside the walls of the four English colleges I have mentioned are, of course, given to women only, the colleges being just as exclusively places for women as Trinity and St. John's are places for men. … At this moment the principal of one of the two halls of which Newnham consists is a daughter of the Prime Minister [Miss Helen Gladstone], while her predecessor was a niece of the Marquis of Salisbury. The principal of Girton is a niece of the late Lord Lawrence, the famous Governor-General of India. Of the students a fair proportion belong to the wealthy classes, while a somewhat larger proportion mean to take teaching as their profession."

"In 1865 John Boynton of Templeton, Mass., gave $100,000 for the endowment and perpetual support of a Free Institute for the youth of Worcester County, Mass. He thus explained his objects: 'The aim of this school shall ever be the instruction of youth in those branches of education not usually taught in the public schools, which are essential and best adapted to train the young for practical life'; especially such as were intending to be mechanics, or manufacturers, or farmers. In furtherance of this object, ten months later, in 1866, Ichabod Washburn of Worcester gave $25,000, and later $50,000 more to erect, equip, and endow a machine-shop which should accommodate twenty apprentices and a suitable number of skilled workmen to instruct them and to carry on the shop as a commercial establishment. The apprentices were to be taught the use of tools in working wood and metals, and to be otherwise instructed, much as was customary fifty years ago for boys learning a trade. The Worcester Free Institute was opened for students in November, 1868, as a technical school of about college grade; and the use of the shops and shop instruction was limited to those students in the course of mechanical engineering. Thus did the Worcester School under the leadership of Prest. C. O. Thompson incorporate tool-instruction and shop-practice into the training of mechanical engineers. … In the same year, 1868, Victor Della-Vos introduced into the Imperial Technical (engineering) School at Moscow the Russian method of class-instruction in the use of tools. … The great value of the work of Della-Vos lay in the discovery of the true method of tool-instruction, for without his discovery the later steps would have been impossible. In 1870, under the direction of Professor Robinson and Prest. J. M. Gregory of the University of Illinois, a wood-working shop was added to the appliances for the course in architecture, and an iron-working shop to the course in mechanical engineering in that institution. In 1871, the Stevens Institute of Hoboken, N. J., munificently endowed by Edwin A. Stevens, as a school of mechanical engineering, fitted up a series of shops for the use of its students. The next step forward was taken by Washington University in St. Louis in providing for all its engineering students systematic instruction in both wood and metals. In 1872, a large shop in the Polytechnic School was equipped with work-benches, two lathes, a forge, a gear-cutter and full sets of carpenters', machinists', and forging tools. … {747} Thus far had we progressed when the Philadelphia Exposition of 1876 was opened. None of us knew anything of the Moscow school, or of the one in Bohemia in which the Russian method had been adopted in 1874. … In his report of 1876, Prest. J. D. Runkle, of the Mass. Institute of Technology, gave a full exposition of the theory and practice of tool-instruction of Della-Vos as exhibited at the Philadelphia Exposition, and he recommended that without delay the course in mechanical engineering at the Institute be completed by the addition of a series of Instruction Shops. The suggestion was acted on, and in the spring of 1877 a class of mechanical engineering students was given instruction in chipping and filing. … The St. Louis Manual Training School was established June 6, 1879. It embodied hopes long cherished and plans long formed. For the first time in America the age of admission to school-shops was reduced to fourteen years as a minimum, and a very general three-years' course of study was organized. The ordinance by which the school was established specified its objects in very general terms:—'Its objects shall be instruction in mathematics, drawing, and the English branches of a high-school course, and instruction and practice in the use of tools. The tool-instruction, as at present contemplated, shall include carpentry, wood-turning, pattern-making, iron clipping and filing, forge-work, brazing and soldering, the use of machine-shop tools, and such other instruction of a similar character, its it may be deemed advisable to add to the foregoing from time to time. The students will divide their working hours, as nearly as possible, equally between mental and manual exercises.' … The Baltimore Manual Training School, a public school, on the same footing as the high school, was opened in 1883. The Chicago Manual Training School, established as an incorporated school by the Commercial Club of that city, was opened in January, 1884. … Manual training was introduced into the high school of Eau Claire, Wisconsin, in 1884. The 'Scott Manual Training School' was organized as a part of the high school of Toledo in 1884. … Manual training was introduced into the College (high school) of the City of New York in 1884. The Philadelphia Manual Training School, a public high school, was opened in September, 1885. The Omaha high school introduced manual training in 1885. … Dr. Adler's Workingman's School for poor children has for several years taught manual training to the very lowest grades. … The Cleveland Manual Training School was incorporated in 1885, and opened in connection with the city high school, in 1886. New Haven, which had for some time encouraged the use of tools by the pupils of several of its grammar schools, in September, 1886, opened a regular shop and furnished systematic instruction in tool-work. The school board of Chicago added manual training to the course of the 'West Side High School' in September, 1886."

"Concerning the manual-training school there are two widely different views. The one insists that it shall teach no trade, but the rudiments of all of them; the other that the particular industries may properly be held to maintain schools to recruit their own ranks. The first would teach the use of the axe, the saw, the plane, the hammer, the square, the chisel, and the file; claiming that 'the graduate from such a course at the end of three years is within from one to three months of knowing quite as thoroughly as an apprentice who had served seven years any one of the twenty trades to which he may choose to turn.' Of this class are, besides most of those already named, the Haish Manual Training School of Denver; that of Tulane University, New Orleans; the Felix Adler's 'Workingman's School, of New York City; and the School of Manual Technology, Vanderbilt University, Nashville. Among schools of the second class are some interesting institutions. They include the numerous general and special trade-schools for boys, instruction in the manifold phases of domestic economy for girls, and the yet small but rapidly growing class of industries open alike to both. Sewing is taught in public or private schools in Baltimore, Boston, Cincinnati, Chicago, New York, Philadelphia, Providence, St. Louis, and about a dozen other cities, besides in a number of special institutions. Cooking-schools are no longer a novelty in half as many of the larger cities, since their introduction into New York city in 1876. Printing may be learned in the Kansas Agricultural College; Cooper Union, New York; Girard College, Philadelphia, and elsewhere. Telegraphy, stenography, wood-engraving, various kinds of smithing, and carpentry, have, especially the last two, numerous representatives. The New York Kitchen Garden, for the instruction of children in the work of the household, is an interesting modification of the Kindergarten along the industrial line. For young ladies, the Elizabeth Aull Seminary, Lexington, Missouri, is a school of home-work, in which 'are practically taught the mysteries of the kitchen and laundry,' and upon whose graduates is conferred the degree of 'Mistress of Home-Work.' The Lasell Seminary at Auburndale, Massachusetts, also has recently (1885) undertaken a similar but more comprehensive experiment, including lessons and lectures in anatomy and physiology, with hygiene and sanitation, the principles of common law by an eminent attorney, instruction and practice in the arts of domestic life, the principles of dress, artistic house-furnishing, healthy homes, and cooking. Of training-schools for nurses there are thirty-one. … Of schools of a different character still, there have been or are the Carriage Builder's Apprenticeship School, New York; those of Hoe & Co., printing-press manufacturers; and Tiffany & Co., jewelers; and the Tailors' 'Trades School' recently established and flourishing in Baltimore, besides the Pennsylvania Railroad novitiate system, at Altoona; in which particular trades or guilds or corporations have sought to provide themselves with a distinct and specially trained class of artisans. The latest and in some respects the most interesting experiment of the kind is that of the 'Baltimore and Ohio Railroad service' at Mt. Clare, Baltimore. It was inaugurated in 1885, apprentices being selected from applicants by competitive examination."

"The University Extension Movement, which has now been before the country eighteen years, has revealed the existence of a real need for larger opportunities of higher education amongst the middle and working classes. From the time of its inauguration in 1873 by the University of Cambridge, owing mainly to the enthusiastic advocacy and skill in practical affairs of Mr. James Stuart (at that time Fellow and Lecturer of Trinity College), down to the present day, when the principle has been accepted by all the Universities in Great Britain and by some in countries beyond the seas, the movement has shown marvellous vitality and power of adjustment to changing conditions. From a small beginning in three towns in the Midlands, it has grown until the centres in connection with the various branches are to be numbered by hundreds and the students by tens of thousands. The success attained by Cambridge in the first three years led, in 1876, to the formation of the London Society for the Extension of University Teaching, for the express purpose of carrying on similar work within the metropolitan area. In 1878 the University of Oxford undertook to make similar arrangements for Lectures, but after a year or two, they were for the time abandoned. Subsequently in 1885 the Oxford work was revived and has since been carried on with vigour and success. The University of Durham is associated with Cambridge in this work in the northeast of England, while courses of Lectures on the Extension plan have been given for several years in connection with Victoria University in centres around Manchester. Two or three years ago the four Scottish Universities united in forming a like scheme for Scotland, while at the close of 1889 a Society for the Extension of University Teaching was formed in the north of Ireland. Finally the movement has spread to Greater Britain and the United States, and there are signs that work on similar lines is about to be established in various countries on the continent of Europe."

"One of the chief characteristics of the system is the method of teaching adopted in connection with it. A working man at one of the centres in the north of England who had attended the lectures for several terms, described the method as follows in a paper read by him at a meeting:

'Any town or village which is prepared to provide an audience, and pay the necessary fees, can secure a course of twelve lectures on any subject taught in the University, by a lecturer who has been educated at the University, and who is specially fitted for lecturing work. A syllabus of the course is printed and put into the hands of students. This syllabus is a great help to persons not accustomed to note-taking. Questions are given on each lecture, and written answers can be sent in by anyone, irrespective of age or sex. All the lectures, except the first, are preceded by a class, which lasts about an hour. In this class the students and the lecturer talk over the previous lecture. The written answers are returned with such corrections as the lecturer deems necessary. At the end of the course an examination is held and certificates are awarded to the successful candidates. These lectures are called University Extension Lectures.'

'Advanced systematic teaching for the people, without distinction of rank, sex, or age, given by means of lectures, classes, and written papers during a connected course, conducted by men "who believe in their work, and intend to do it," teachers who connect the country with the University by manner, method, and information.'"

"The first conscious attempts to introduce English University Extension methods into this country were made in 1887, by individuals connected with the Johns Hopkins University. The subject was first publicly presented to the American Library Association at their meeting upon one of the Thousand Islands in September, 1887. The idea was heartily approved," and the first result of the suggestion was a course of lectures on economic questions given in one of the lecture-rooms of the Buffalo Library the following winter by Dr. Edward W. Bemis. The next winter "Dr. Bemis repeated his course on 'Economic Questions of the Day' in Canton, Ohio. … The Canton experiment was followed in February, 1889, by another course, conducted by Dr. Bemis, in connection with the Public Library at St. Louis. … About the time when these various experiments were being tried in St. Louis, Canton, and Buffalo, individual members of Johns Hopkins University were attempting to introduce University Extension methods in connection with local lectures in the city of Baltimore. … The idea of University Extension in connection with Chautauqua was conceived by Dr. J. H. Vincent during a visit to England, in 1886, when he saw the English lecture system in practical operation and his own methods of encouraging home reading in growing favor with university men. The first definite American plan, showing at once the aims, methods, cost, and history, of University Extension lectures, was drawn up at Chautauqua by the writer of this article in the early summer of 1888. … Contemporary with the development of Chautauqua College and University Extension was the plan of Mr. Seth T. Stewart, of Brooklyn, New York, for 'University and School Extension.' … Several public meetings were held in New York in 1889-90 for the promotion of University and School Extension. … One of the most gratifying recent experiments in University Extension in America has been in the city of Philadelphia under the auspices of the American Society for the Extension of University Teaching. At various local centres Mr. Richard G. Moulton, one of the most experienced lecturers from Cambridge, England, lectured for ten weeks in the winter and spring of 1891 to large and enthusiastic audiences. All the essential features of English University Extension were methodically and persistently carried out. … The American field for University Extension is too vast for the missionary labors of any one society or organization. … The most significant sign of the times with regard to University Extension in America is the recent appropriation of the sum of $10,000 for this very object by the New York legislature. The money is to be expended under the direction of the Regents of the University of the State of New York. … The intention of the New York act is simply to provide the necessary means for organizing a State system of University Extension … and to render such general assistance and co-operation as localities may require."

On the opening, in 1892, of the Chicago University, munificently endowed by Mr. John D. Rockefeller, of Cleveland, University Extension was made one of the three grand divisions of its organization.

EDWARD,
   King of Portugal,
      A. D. 1433-1438.
   Edward, called the Confessor, King of England,
      A. D. 1042-1065.
   Edward, called the Elder, King of Wessex,
      A. D. 901-925.
   Edward, called the Martyr, King of Wessex,
      A. D. 975.
   Edward I., King of England,
      A. D. 1274-1307.
   Edward II., King of England,
      A. D. 1307-1327.
   Edward III., King of England,
      A. D. 1327-1377.
   Edward V., King of England (first king of the House of York),
      A. D. 1461-1483.
   Edward V., titular King of England,
      A. D. 1483 (from April 9, when his father, Edward IV.,
      died, until June 22, when he is believed to have been
      murdered in the Tower by command of his uncle, the usurper,
      Richard III.).
   Edward VI., King of England,
      A. D. 1547-1553.

EGINA. EGINETANS.

A Roman road constructed from Apollonia on the Adriatic to the
shores of the Hellespont; finally carried to Byzantium.

"Egypt is designated in the old inscriptions, as well as in the books of the later Christian Egyptians, by a word which signifies 'the black land,' and which is read in the Egyptian language Kern, or Kami."

"The ancients had early remarked that the cultivable land of Egypt was distinguished by its dark and almost black colour. … The neighbouring region of the Arabian desert bore the name of Tesher, or the red land. … The Egyptians designated themselves simply as 'the people of the black land,' and … the inscriptions, so far as we know, have handed down to us no other appellation. … A real enigma is proposed to us in the derivation and meaning of the curious proper name, by which the foreign peoples of Asia, each in its own dialect, were accustomed to designate Egypt. The Hebrews gave the land the name of Mizraim; the Assyrians Muzur; the Persians, Mudraya. We may feel assured that at the basis of all these designations there lies an original form which consisted of the three letters M-z-r, all explanations of which have been as yet unsuccessful. Although I intend hereafter to consider more particularly the derivation of this puzzling name, which is still preserved at the present day in the Arabic appellation Misr, I will here premise the remark that this name was originally applied only to a certain definite part of Egypt, in the east of the Delta, which, according to the monuments, was covered and defended by many 'zor,' or fortresses, and was hence called in Egyptian Mazor (that is, fortified)."

   "Brugsch explains the name Egypt by 'ha-ka-ptah,' i. e. 'the
   precinct of Ptah.' As Ptah was more especially the god of
   Memphis, this name would have come from Memphis."

"The last use of Kem died out in the form Chemi in Coptic, the descendant of the classical language, which ceased to be spoken a century ago. It survives among us in the terms 'chemistry' and 'alchemy,' sciences thought to be of Egyptian origin."

The lists of Egyptian kings which have been found "agree in presenting the name of Mena [or Menes] as that of the first Pharaoh of Egypt, and as such he is unhesitatingly accepted, although no contemporary monumental record of the fact has yet been discovered. According to Manetho, the age of Mena dates back to a period of 5,004 years before the Christian era, a date which is nearly equal to 7,000 years from the present day. Brugsch favours a somewhat less interval, namely, 4455 B. C.; others place it as low as 2700 B. C., whilst Birch and Chabas adopt a medium date, namely 4000 B. C., which is equivalent to 6000 years backward from the existing time. These extreme variations are chiefly referable to the difficulty of ascertaining the precise length of each individual reign, and especially to the occasional contemporaneous reign of two or more kings, and sometimes the existence of two or more dynasties in different parts of the empire. … Lieblein gives full credit to the chronology of Manetho [a priest of Heliopolis, who wrote about 260 B. C.], as recorded by the historian Africanus, as likewise did the distinguished Mariette, and differs very little from the standard adopted by Birch. He assigns to Mena, as the pioneer of the first monarchy, a date in round numbers of 3900 years."

"As to the era … when the first Pharaoh mounted the throne, the German Egyptologers have attempted to fix it at the following epochs: Boeckh, B. C. 5702; Unger, 5613; Brugsch, 4455; Lauth, 4157; Lepsius, 3892; Bunsen, 3623. The difference between the two extreme points of the series is amazingly great, for its number of years amounts to no less than 2079. … The calculations in question are based on the extracts already often mentioned from a work by the Egyptian priest Manetho on the history of Egypt. That learned man had then at his command the annals of his country's history, which were preserved in the temples, and from them, the best and most accurate sources, be derived the materials for his work, composed in the Greek language, on the history of the ancient Egyptian Dynasties. His book, which is now lost, contained a general review of the kings of the land, divided into Thirty Dynasties, arranged in the order of their names, with the lengths of their reigns, and the total duration of each dynasty. Though this invaluable work was little known and certainly but little regarded by the historians of the old classical age, large extracts were made from it by some of the ecclesiastical writers. In process of time the copyists, either by error or designedly, corrupted the names and the numbers, and thus we only possess at the present day the ruins instead of the complete building. The truth of the original, and the authenticity of its sources were first proved by the deciphering of the Egyptian writings. And thus the Manethonian list served, and still serves, as a guide for assigning to the royal names read on the monuments their places in the Dynasties."

"The Egyptians, together with some other nations, form, as it would seem, a third branch of that [the Caucasian] race, namely, the family called Cushite, which is distinguished by special characters from the Pelasgian and the Semitic families. Whatever relations may be found always to exist between these great races of mankind, thus much may be regarded as certain, that the cradle of the Egyptian people must be sought in the interior of the Asiatic quarter of the world. In the earliest ages of humanity, far beyond all historical remembrance, the Egyptians, for reasons unknown to us, left the soil of their primeval home, took their way towards the setting sun, and finally crossed that bridge of nations, the Isthmus of Suez, to find a new fatherland on the favoured banks of the holy Nile. Comparative philology, in its turn, gives powerful support to this hypothesis. The Egyptian language … shows in no way any trace of a derivation and descent from the African families of speech. On the contrary, the primitive roots and the essential elements of the Egyptian grammar point to such an intimate connection with the Indo-Germanic and Semitic languages that it is almost impossible to mistake the close relations which formerly prevailed between the Egyptians and the races called Indo-Germanic and Semitic."

"It has been maintained by some that the immigration was from the south, the Egyptians having been a colony from Ethiopia which gradually descended the Nile and established itself in the middle and lower portions of the valley; and this theory can plead in its favour, both a positive statement of Diodorus, and the fact, which is quite certain, of an ethnic connection between the Egyptians and some of the tribes who now occupy Abyssinia (the ancient Ethiopia). But modern research has shown quite unmistakably that the movement of the Egyptians was in the opposite direction. … We must look, then, rather to Syria or Arabia than to Ethiopia as the cradle of the Egyptian nation. At the same time we must admit that they were not mere Syrians or Arabs, but had, from the remotest time whereto we can go back, distinct characteristics, whereby they have a good claim to be considered as a separate race."

"So far as our knowledge reaches, the northern edge of Africa, like the valley of the Nile as far as the marshes at the foot of the Abyssinian hills, was inhabited by nations who in colour, language, and customs were sharply distinguished from the negro. These nations belong to the whites: their languages were most closely allied to the Semitic. From this, and from their physical peculiarities, the conclusion has been drawn that these nations at some time migrated from Asia to the soil of Africa. They formed a vast family, whose dialects still continue in the language of the Berbers. Assisted by the favourable conditions of their land, the tribe which settled on the Lower Nile quickly left their kinsmen far behind. Indeed the latter hardly rose above a pastoral life. The descendants of these old inhabitants of the valley of the Nile, in spite of the numerous layers which the course of centuries has subsequently laid upon the soil of the land, still form the larger part of the population of Egypt, and the ancient language is preserved in the dialect of the Copts."

   The following are the Egyptian Dynasties, from the first
   Pharaoh, Mena, to the epoch of the Hyksos, or Shepherd kings,
   with the dates and periods assigned to each by Brugsch:

   The First Dynasty; of Thinis: B. C. 4400-4166.
   The Second; of Thinis: 4133-4000.
   The Third; of Memphis: 3966-3766.
   The Fourth; of Memphis: 3733-3600.
   The Fifth; of Elephantine: 3566-3333.
   The Sixth; of Memphis: 3300-3066.
   The Seventh to the Eleventh
      (a confused and obscure period): 3033-2500.
   The Twelfth; of Thebes: 2466-2266.

      H. Brugsch-Bey,
      History of Egypt under the Pharaohs,
      appendix A.

   "The direct descendants of Menes [or Mena] form the First
   Dynasty, which, according to Manetho, reigned 253 years. No
   monument contemporary with these princes has come down to us.
   … The Second Dynasty, to which Manetho assigns nine kings,
   lasted 302 years. It was also originally from This [or
   Thinis], and probably related to the First. … When this
   family had become extinct, a Dynasty, originally from Memphis,
   seized the throne, forming the Third, and to it a duration of
   214 years is attributed. … With the Fourth Dynasty, Memphite
   like the Third, and which reigned 284 years, history becomes
   clearer and monuments more numerous. This was the age of the
   three Great Pyramids, built by the three kings, Khufu (the
   Cheops of Herodotus), Shafra (Chefren), and Menkara
   (Mycerinus). … The Fifth Dynasty came originally from
   Elephantine, at the southern extremity of Upper Egypt, and
   there possibly the kings generally resided, though at the same
   time Memphis was not deprived of its importance. … On the
   death of the last king of the Fifth Dynasty, a new family, of
   Memphitic origin according to Manetho, came to the throne. …
   Primitive art attained its highest point under the Sixth
   Dynasty. … But, from the time of the civil commotions in
   which Neit-aker [the Nitocris of Herodotus] perished, Egyptian
   civilization underwent a sudden and unaccountable eclipse.
   From the end of the Sixth Dynasty to the commencement of the
   Eleventh, Manetho reckons 436 years, and for this whole period
   the monuments are absolutely silent. Egypt seems then to have
   disappeared from the rank of nations; and when this long
   slumber ended, civilization commenced a new career, entirely
   independent of the past. …
{751}
   Thus ends that period of nineteen centuries, which modern
   scholars know as the Old Empire. … Thebes did not exist in
   the days of the glory of the Old Empire. The holy city of Amen
   seems to have been founded during the period of anarchy and
   obscurity, succeeding, as we have said, to the Sixth Dynasty.
   Here was the birthplace of that renewed civilization, that new
   monarchy, we are accustomed to call the Middle Empire, the
   middle age in fact of ancient Egypt—a middle age anterior to
   the earliest ages of all other history. From Thebes cane the
   six kings of the Eleventh Dynasty. … We again quote the
   excellent remarks of M. Mariette: 'When, with the Eleventh
   Dynasty, we see Egypt awake from her long slumber, all old
   traditions appear to be forgotten; the proper names used in
   ancient families, the titles of functionaries, the style of
   writing, and even the religion—all seem new. This,
   Elephantine, and Memphis, are no longer the favourite
   capitals. Thebes for the first time becomes the seat of
   sovereign power. Egypt, moreover, has lost a considerable
   portion of her territory, and the authority of her legitimate
   kings hardly extends beyond the limited district of the
   Thebaid. The study of the monuments confirms these general
   views; they are rude, primitive, sometimes coarse; and when we
   look at them we may well believe that Egypt, under the
   Eleventh Dynasty, again passed through a period of infancy, as
   she had already done under the Third Dynasty.' A dynasty
   probably related to, and originally from the same place as
   these first Theban princes succeeded them. … This Twelfth
   Dynasty reigned for 213 years, and its epoch was one of
   prosperity, of peace at home and glorious achievements abroad.
   … Although the history of the Twelfth Dynasty is clear and
   well known, illustrated by numerous monuments, there is,
   nevertheless, no period in the annals of Egypt more obscure
   than the one closing with the Thirteenth Dynasty. It is one
   long series of revolutions, troubles, and internal
   dissensions, closed by a terrible catastrophe, the greatest
   and most lasting recorded in Egyptian history, which a second
   time interrupted the march of civilization on the banks of the
   Nile, and for a while struck Egypt from the list of nations."

F. Lenormant and E. Chevallier, Manual of Ancient History of the East, book 3, chapter 1-2.

According to the Manethouian account which the Jewish historian Josephus has preserved to us by transcribing it, the Egyptian Netherlands were at a certain time overspread by a wild and rough people, which came from the countries of the east, overcame the native kings who dwelt there, and took possession of the whole country, without finding any great opposition on the part of the Egyptians. They were called Hyksos, which Josephus interpreted as meaning Shepherd-kings. "Hyk," he explained, meant King, in the holy language, and "sos," in the dialect of the people, signified Shepherd. But Dr. Brugsch identifies "sos" with the name "Shasu," which the old Egyptians gave to the Bedouins, whose name became equivalent to Shepherds. Hence Dr. Brugsch inclines to the ancient opinion transmitted by Josephus, that the Hyksos were Arabs or Bedouins—the Shasu of the Egyptian records, who hung on the northeastern frontier of Egypt from the most ancient times and were always pressing into the country, at every opportunity. But many objections against this view are raised and the different theories advanced to account for the Hyksos are quite numerous. Canon Rawlinson says: "The Egyptians of the time of Herodotus seem to have considered that they were Philistines. Moderns have regarded them as Canaanites, Syrians, Hittites. It is an avoidance rather than a solution of the difficulty to say that they were 'a collection of all the nomad hordes of Arabia and Syria' [Lenormant], since there must have been a directing hand. … On the whole, therefore, we lean to the belief that the so-called Hyksos or Shepherds were Hittites."

"It is maintained on good authority that the Hyksos, or Shepherd-Kings, had secured possession of the eastern frontier of Lower Egypt immediately after the close of the Twelfth Dynasty; that at this time the Thirteenth and the Fourteenth Dynasties ruled contemporaneously, the former in Upper, the latter in Lower Egypt; one was illegitimate, the other the illegitimate line; but authors are not in accord as to their right of priority. It is supposed that, while Egypt claimed the Thirteenth Dynasty as her own, the Hyksos usurped the mastery over the Fourteenth Dynasty, and governed through the agency of its kings, treating them meanwhile as vassal chiefs. These local kings had cities from which they were unable to escape, and were deprived of an army of defence. Such was the state of the country for 184 years, when the Fourteenth Dynasty died out, and when the Fifteenth Dynasty, constituted of six successive Hyksos kings, took the reins of government into their own hands. Lieblein, whose views we are now endeavouring to express, assigns as the date of the invasion of the Hyksos 2108 years B. C. … It is not improbable that the well-known journey of Abraham to Egypt was made during the early period of the reign of the Shepherd-Kings; whilst the visit of Joseph occurred near the close of their power."

"'The Shepherds possessed themselves of Egypt by violence,' writes Mariette-Bey, 'but the civilization which they immediately adopted on their conquest was rather Egyptian than Asiatic, and the discoveries of Avaris (San) prove that they did not even banish from their temples the gods of the ancient Egyptian Pantheon.' In fact the first shepherd-king, Solatis himself, employed an Egyptian artist to inscribe … his title on the statue of a former legitimate Pharaoh. 'They did not disturb the civilization more than the Persians or the Greeks, but simply accepted the higher one they had conquered.' So our revered scholar Dr. Birch has summed up the matter; and Professor Maspero has very happily described it thus: 'The popular hatred loaded them with ignominious epithets, and treated them as accursed, plague-stricken, leprous. Yet they allowed themselves very quickly to be domesticated. … Once admitted to the school of Egypt, the barbarians progressed quickly in the civilized life. The Pharaonic court reappeared around these shepherd-kings, with all its pomp and all its following of functionaries great and small. The royal style and title of Cheops and the Amenemhas were fitted to the outlandish names of Jannes and Apapi. The Egyptian religion, without being officially adopted, was tolerated, and the religion of the Canaanites underwent some modifications to avoid hurting beyond measure the susceptibility of the worshippers of Osiris.'"

In a late Italian work ("Gli Hyksos") by Dr. C. A. de Cara, "he puts together all that is ascertained in regard to them [the Hyksos], criticises the theories that have been propounded on their behalf, and suggests a theory of his own. Nothing that has been published on the subject seems to have escaped his notice. … His own view is that the Hyksos represented a confederacy of various Asiatic tribes, under the leadership of the northern Syrians. That their ruling class came from this part of the world seems to me clear from the name of their supreme god Sutekh, who occupied among them the position of the Semitic Baal."

"Historical research concerning the history of the Hyksos may be summed up as follows:

I. A certain number of non-Egyptian kings of foreign origin, belonging to the nation of the Menti, ruled for a long time in the eastern portion of the Delta.

II. These chose as their capitals the cities of Zoan and
Avaris, and provided them with strong fortifications.

III. They adopted not only the manners and customs of the Egyptians, but also their official language and writing, and the order of their court was arranged on Egyptian models.

IV. They were patrons of art, and Egyptian artists erected, after the ancient models, monuments in honour of these usurpers, in whose statues they were obliged to reproduce the Hyksos physiognomy, the peculiar arrangement of the beard und head-dress, as well as other variations of their costume.

V. They honored Sutekh, the son of Nut, as the supreme god of their newly acquired country, with the surname Nub, 'the golden.' He was the origin of all that is evil and perverse in the visible and invisible world, the opponent of good and the enemy of light. In the cities of Zoan and Avaris, splendid temples were constructed in honour of this god, and other monuments raised, especially Sphinxes, carved out of stone from Syene.

VI. In all probability one of them was the founder of a new era, which most likely began with the first year of his reign. Down to the time of the second Ramses, four hundred years had elapsed of this reckoning which was acknowledged even by the Egyptians.

VII. The Egyptians were indebted to their contact with them for much useful knowledge. In particular their artistic views were expanded and new forms and shapes, notably that of the winged sphinx, were introduced, the Semitic origin of which is obvious at a glance. …

The inscriptions on the monuments designate that foreign people who once ruled in Egypt by the name of Men or Menti. On the walls of the temple of Edfû it is stated that 'the inhabitants of the land of Asher are called Menti.' … In the different languages, … and in the different periods of history, the following names are synonymous: Syria, Rutennu of the East, Asher, and Menti."—"Since, on the basis of the most recent and best investigations in the province of ancient Egyptian chronology, we reckon the year 1350 B. C. as a mean computation for the reign of Ramses, the reign of the Hyksos king, Nub, and probably its beginning, falls in the year 1750 B. C., that is, 400 years before Ramses II. Although we are completely in the dark as to the place King Nub occupied in the succession of the kindred princes of his house, yet the number mentioned is important, as an approximate epoch for the stay of the foreign kings in Egypt. According to the statement in the Bible, the Hebrews from the immigration of Jacob into Egypt until the Exodus remained 430 years in that land. Since the Exodus from Egypt took place in the time of Meneptah II., the son of Ramses II.—the Pharaoh of the oppression—the year B. C. 1300 may be an approximate date. If we add to this 430 years, as expressing the total duration of the sojourn of the Hebrews in Egypt, we arrive at the year 1730 B. C. as the approximate date for the immigration of Jacob into Egypt, and for the time of the official career of Joseph at the court of Pharaoh. In other words, the time of Joseph (1730 B. C.) must have fallen in the period of the Hyksos domination, about the reign of the above-mentioned prince Nub (1750 B. C)."

H. Brugsch-Bey, Egypt under the Pharaohs (edition of 1891, by M. Brodrick), pages 106-109, and 126.

"The dominion of the Hyksos by necessity gave rise to profound internal divisions, alike in the different princely families and in the native population itself. Factions became rampant in various districts, and reached the highest point in the hostile feeling of the inhabitants of Patoris or the South country against the people of Patomit or North country, who were much mixed with foreign blood. … From this condition of divided power and of mutual jealousy the foreign rulers obtained their advantage and their chief strength, until King Aahmes made himself supreme."

   "The duration of the reign of this first Pharaoh of the New
   Empire was twenty-five years. He was succeeded by his son
   Amenhotep I. and the latter by his son Thothmes I. "The reign
   of Thothmes 1. … derives its chief distinction from the fact
   that, at this period of their history, the Egyptians for the
   first time carried their arms deep into Asia, overrunning
   Syria, and even invading Mesopotamia, or the tract between the
   Tigris and the Euphrates. Hitherto the furthest point reached
   in this direction had been Sharuhen in Southern Palestine. …
   Syria was hitherto almost an undiscovered region to the
   powerful people which nurturing its strength in the Nile
   valley, had remained content with its own natural limits and
   scarcely grasped at any conquests. A time was now come when
   this comparative quietude and absence of ambition were about
   to cease. Provoked by the attack made upon her from the side
   of Asia, and smarting from the wounds inflicted upon her pride
   and prosperity by the Hyksos during the period of their rule,
   Egypt now set herself to retaliate, and for three centuries
   continued at intervals to pour her armies into the Eastern
   continent, and to carry fire and sword over the extensive and
   populous regions which lay between the Mediterranean and the
   Zagros mountain range. There is some uncertainty as to the
   extent of her conquests; but no reasonable doubt can be
   entertained that for a space of three hundred years Egypt was
   the most powerful and the most aggressive state that the world
   contained, and held a dominion that has as much right to be
   called an 'Empire' as the Assyrian, the Babylonian or the Persian.
{753}
   While Babylonia, ruled by Arab conquerors, declined in
   strength, and Assyria proper was merely struggling into
   independence, Egypt put forth her arm and grasped the fairest
   regions of the earth's surface." The immediate successor of
   Thothmes I. was his son, Thothmes II., who reigned in
   association with a sister of masculine character, queen
   Hatasu. The strong-minded queen, moreover, prolonged her reign
   after the death of this elder brother, until a younger
   brother, Thothmes III. displaced her. The Third Thothmes was
   the greatest of Egyptian conquerors and kings. He carried his
   arms beyond the Euphrates, winning a memorable victory at
   Megiddo over the confederated kings of the Syrian and
   Mesopotamian countries. He left to his son (Amenhotep II.) "a
   dominion extending about 1,100 miles from north to south, and
   (in places) 450 miles from west to east." He was a great
   builder, likewise, and "has left the impress of his presence
   in Egypt more widely than almost any other of her kings, while
   at the same time he has supplied to the great capitals of the
   modern world their most striking Egyptian monuments." The
   larger of the obelisks now standing in Rome and
   Constantinople, as well as those at London and New York were
   all of them produced in the reign of this magnificent Pharaoh.
   The two obelisks last named stood originally, and for fourteen
   centuries at the front of the great temple of the sun, in
   Heliopolis. They were removed by the Roman Emperor, Augustus,
   B. C: 23, to Alexandria, where they took in time the name of
   Cleopatra's Needles,—although Cleopatra had no part in their
   long history. After nineteen centuries more of rest, these
   strangely coveted monuments were again disturbed, and
   transported into lands which their builder knew not of. The
   later kings of the Eighteenth Dynasty seem to have, none of
   them, possessed the energy and character of Thothmes III. The
   line ended about 1400 B. C. with Horemheb, who left no heirs.

EGYPT: About B. C. 1500-1400.
   The Tell el-Amarna Tablets.
   Correspondence of the Egyptian kings with Babylonia, Assyria,
   Armenia, Asia Minor, Syria and Palestine.

"The discovery made in 1887 by a peasant woman of Middle Egypt may be described as the most important of all contributions to the early political history of Western Asia. We have become possessed of a correspondence, dating from the fifteenth century B. C., which was carried on during the reigns of three Egyptian kings, with the rulers of Babylon, Assyria, Armenia, Asia Minor, Syria, and Palestine, during a period of great activity, when revolutions which affected the whole history of the east shore lands of the Mediterranean were in progress; and we find in these tablets a contemporary picture of the civilisation of the age. … The Tell Amarna tablets represent a literature equal in bulk to about half the Pentateuch, and concerned almost exclusively with political affairs, They are clay tablets, varying from two inches to a foot in length, with a few as large as eighteen inches, covered with cuneiform writing generally on both sides, and often on the edges as well. The peasantry unearthed nearly the complete collection, including some 320 pieces in all; and explorers afterwards digging on the site have added only a few additional fragments. The greater number were bought for the Berlin Museum, while eighty-two were acquired for England, and the rest remain either in the Boulak Museum at Cairo; or, in a few instances, in the hands of private collectors. … Tell Amarna (apparently 'the mound of the tumuli ') is an important ruined site on the east bank of the Nile, about a hundred and fifty miles in a straight line south of Cairo. Its Egyptian name is said to have been Khu-en-aten, 'Glory of the Sun-disk.'"

"The collection of Cuneiform Tablets recently found [1887] at Tell el-Amarna in Upper Egypt, consisted of about three hundred and twenty documents, or portions of documents. The British Museum possesses eighty-two … the Berlin Museum has one hundred and sixty, a large number being fragments; the Gizeh Museum has sixty; and a few are in the hands of private persons. … In color the Tablets vary from a light to a dark dust tint, and from a flesh-color to dark brick-red. The nature of the clay of which they are made sometimes indicates the countries from which they come. The size of the Tablets in the British Museum varies from 8¾ inches x 4-7/8 inches to 2-1/8 inches x 1-11/16 inches; the longest text contains 98 lines, the shortest 10. … The greater number are rectangular, and a few are oval; and they differ in shape from any other cuneiform documents known to us. … The writing … resembles to a certain extent the Neo-Babylonian, i. e., the simplification of the writing of the first Babylonian Empire used commonly in Babylonia and Assyria for about seven centuries B. C. It possesses, however, characteristics different from those of any other style of cuneiform writing of any period now known to exist; and nearly every tablet contains forms of characters which have hitherto been thought peculiar to the Ninevite or Assyrian style of writing. But, compared with the neat, careful hand employed in the official documents drawn up for the kings of Assyria, it is somewhat coarse and careless, and suggests the work of unskilled scribes. One and the same hand, however, appears in tablets which come from the same person and the same place. On some of the large tablets the writing is bold and free; on some of the small ones the characters are confused and cramped, and are groups of strokes rather than wedges. The spelling … is often careless, and in some instances syllables have been omitted. At present it is not possible to say whether the irregular spelling is due to the ignorance of the scribe or to dialectic peculiarities. … The Semitic dialect in which these letters are written is Assyrian, and is, in some important details, closely related to the Hebrew of the Old Testament. … The documents were most probably written between the years B. C. 1500 to 1450. … They give an insight into the nature of the political relations which existed between the kings of Western Asia and the kings of Egypt, and prove that an important trade existed between the two countries from very early times. … A large number of the present tablets are addressed to 'the King of Egypt,' either Amenophis III. or Amenophis IV. Nearly all of them consist of reports of disasters to the Egyptian power and of successful intrigues against it, coupled by urgent entreaties for help, pointing to a condition of distraction and weakness in Egypt. … The most graphic details of the disorganized condition, and of the rival factions, of the Egyptian dependencies lying on the coastline of Phoenicia and Northern Palestine, are to be gathered from a perusal of the dispatches of the governors of the cities of Byblos, Beyrut and Tyre."

"In the present state of cuneiform research I believe it to be impossible to give a translation of the Tell el-Amarna texts which would entirely satisfy the expert or general reader. No two scholars would agree as to any interpretation which might be placed upon certain rare grammatical forms and unknown words in the Babylonian text, and any literal translation in a modern language would not be understood by the general reader on account of the involved style and endless repetition of phrases common to a Semitic idiom and dialect. About the general meaning of the contents of the greater number of the letters there can be no doubt whatever, and it is therefore possible to make a summary of the contents of each letter, which should, as a rule, satisfy the general reader, and at the same time form a guide to the beginner in cuneiform. Summaries of the contents of the Tell el-Amarna tablets in the British Museum have been published in 'The Tell el-Amarna Tablets in the British Museum, with autotype facsimiles,' printed by order of the Trustees, London, 1892, and it is hoped that the transliteration, given in the following pages may form a useful supplement to that work." …

No. 1. A Letter from Egypt—Amenophis III. to Kallimma (?) Sin, King of Karaduniyash, referring to his proposed marriage with Sukharti, the daughter of Kallimma-Sin, and containing the draft of a commercial treaty, and an allusion to the disappearance of certain chariots and horses.

No.2. Letters from Babylonia-Burraburiyash, King of Karaduniyash, to Amenophis IV., referring to the friendship which had existed between their respective fathers, and the help which had been rendered to the King of Egypt by Burraburiyash himself; the receipt of two manahs of gold is acknowledged and a petition is made for more.

No. 3. Burraburiyash, King of Karaduniyash to Amenophis IV., complaining that the Egyptian messengers had visited his country thrice without bringing gifts, and that they withheld some of the gold which had been sent to him from Egypt; Burraburiyash announces the despatch of a gift of lapis-lazuli for the Egyptian princess who was his son's wife. …

No. 30. Letter from Abi-milki, governor of Tyre, to the King of Egypt, reporting that he believes Zimrida will not be able to stir up disaffection in the city of Sidon, although he has caused much hostility against Tyre. He asks for help to protect the city, and for water to drink and wood to burn, and he sends with his messenger Ili-milki five talents of copper and other gifts for the King of Egypt. He reports that the King of Danuna is dead and that his brother reigns in his stead; one half of the city of Ugarit has been destroyed by fire; the soldiers of the Khatti have departed; Itagamapairi, governor of Kedesh, and Aziru are fighting against Namyawiza. If the King of Egypt will but send a few troops, all will be well with Tyre. …

No. 43. Letter from the governor of a town in Syria to the King of Egypt, reporting that the rebels have asserted their independence; that Biridashwi has stirred up rebellion in the city of Inu-Amma; that its people have captured chariots in the city of Ashtarti: that the kings of the cities of Buzruna and Khalunni have made a league with Biridashwi to slay Namyawiza (who, having taken refuge in Damascus and being attacked by Arzawiya, declared himself to be a vassal of Egypt); that Arzawiya went to the city of Gizza and afterwards captured the city of Shaddu; that Itakkama ravaged the country of Gizza; and that Arzawiya and Biridashwi have wasted the country of Abitu.

No. 44. Continuation (1) of a letter to the King of Egypt, reporting that, owing to the hostilities of Abd-Ashirta, Khâya, an official, was unable to send ships to the country of Amurri, as he had promised. The ships from Arvad which the writer has in his charge, lack their full complement of men for war service, and he urges the king to make use of the ships and crews which he has had with him in Egypt. The writer of the letter also urges the King of Egypt to appoint an Egyptian official over the naval affairs of Sidon, Beyrut and Arvad, and to seize Abd-Ashirta and put him under restraint to prevent him obstructing the manning of the ships of war. …

No. 58. Letter from the governor of a district in Palestine (?) to the governors of neighbouring states in the land of Canaan, informing them that he is about to send his messenger Akiya on a mission to the King of Egypt, and to place himself and every thing that he has at his disposal. Akiya will go to Egypt by the way of Canaan, and the writer of this letter suggests that any gifts they may have to send to Egypt should be carried by him, for Akiya is a thoroughly trustworthy man.

      C. Bezold,
      Oriental Diplomacy: Being the transliterated
      text of the Cuneiform Despatches,
      preface.

Under the title of "The Story of a 'Tell,'" Mr. W. M. Flinders Petrie, the successful excavator and explorer of Egyptian antiquities, gave a lecture in London, in June, 1892, in which he described the work and the results of an excavation then in progress under his direction on the supposed site of Lachish, at a point where the maritime plain of Philistia rises to the mountains of Judæa, on the route from Egypt into Asia. The chairman who introduced Mr. Petrie defined the word "Tell" as follows: "A Tell is a mound of earth showing by the presence of broken pottery or worked stone that it is the site of a ruined city or village. In England when a house falls down or is pulled down the materials are usually worth the expense of removing for use in some new building. But in Egypt common houses have for thousands of years been built of sun-dried bricks; in Palestine of rough rubble walling, which, on falling, produces many chips, with thick flat roofs of plaster. It is thus often less trouble to get new than to use old material; the sites of towns grow in height, and depressions are filled up." The mound excavated by Mr. Petrie is known as Tell el Hesy. After he left the work it was carried on by Mr. Bliss, and Mr. Petrie in his lecture says "The last news is that Mr. Bliss has found the long looked for prize, a cuneiform tablet. … From the character of the writing, which is the same as on the tablets written in Palestine in 1400. B. C., to the Egyptian king at Tel el Amarna, we have a close agreement regarding the chronology of the town. Further, it mentions Zimrida as a governor, and this same man appears as governor of Lachish on the tablets found at Tel el Amarna. We have thus at last picked up the other end of the broken chain of correspondence between Palestine and Egypt, of which one part was so unexpectedly found in Egypt a few years ago on the tablets at Tel el Amarna; and we may hope now to recover the Palestinian part of this intercourse and so establish the pre-Israelite history of the land."

      W_. M. F. Petrie,
      The Story of a "Tell"
      (The City and the Land, lecture 6)._

EGYPT: About B. C. 1400-1200.
The first of the Ramesides.
The Pharaohs of the Oppression and the Exodus.

"Under the Nineteenth Dynasty, which acquired the throne after the death of Har-em-Hebi [or Hor-em-heb] the fortune of Egypt maintained to some extent its ascendancy; but, though the reigns of some war-like kings throw a bright light on this epoch, the shade of approaching trouble already darkens the horizon." Ramses I. and his son, or son-in-law, Seti I., were involved in troublesome wars with the rising power of the Hittites, in Syria, and with the Shasu of the Arabian desert. Seti was also at war with the Libyans, who then made their first appearance in Egyptian history. His son Ramses II., the Sesostris of the Greeks, who reigned for sixty-seven years, in the fourteenth century B. C., has always been the most famous of the Egyptian kings, and, by modern discovery, has been made the most interesting of them to the Christian world. He was a busy and boastful warrior, who accomplished no important conquests; but "among the Pharaohs he is the builder 'par excellence.' It is almost impossible to find in Egypt a ruin or an ancient mound, without reading his name." … It was to these works, probably, that the Israelites then in Egypt were forced to contribute their labor; for the Pharaoh of the oppression is identified, by most scholars of the present day, with this building and boasting Sesostris.

F. Lenormant and E. Chevallier, Manual of the Ancient History of the East, book 3, chapter 3.

"The extreme length of the reign of Ramses was, as in other histories, the cause of subsequent weakness and disaster. His successor was an aged son, Menptah, who had to meet the difficulties which were easily overcome by the youth of his energetic father. The Libyans and their maritime allies broke the long tranquillity of Egypt by a formidable invasion and temporary conquest of the north-west. The power of the monarchy was thus shaken, and the old king was not the leader to restore it. His obscure reign was followed by others even obscurer, and the Nineteenth Dynasty ended in complete anarchy, which reached its height when a Syrian chief, in what manner we know not, gained the rule of the whole country. It is to the reign of Menptah that Egyptian tradition assigned the Exodus, and modern research has come to a general agreement that this is its true place in Egyptian history. … Unfortunately we do not know the duration of the oppression of the Israelites, nor the condition of Lower Egypt during the Eighteenth Dynasty, which, according to the hypothesis here adopted, corresponds to a great part of the Hebrew sojourn. It is, however, clear from the Bible that the oppression did not begin till after the period of Joseph's contemporaries, and had lasted eighty years before the Exodus. It seems almost certain that this was the actual beginning of the oppression, for it is very improbable that two separate Pharaohs are intended by the 'new king which knew not Joseph' and the builder of Rameses, or, in other words, Ramses II., and the time from the accession of Ramses II. to the end of Menptah's reign can have little exceeded the eighty years of Scripture between the birth of Moses and the Exodus. … If the adjustment of Hebrew and Egyptian history for the oppression, as stated above, be accepted, Ramses II. was probably the first, and certainly the great oppressor. His character suits this theory; he was an undoubted autocrat who … covered Egypt and Lower Nubia with vast structures that could only have been produced by slave-labor on the largest scale."

   From the anarchy in which the Nineteenth Dynasty came to its
   end, order was presently restored by the seating in power of a
   new family, which claimed to be of the Rameside stock. The
   second of its kings, who called himself Ramses III. and who is
   believed to be the Rhampsinitus of the Greeks, appears to have
   been one of the ablest of the monarchs of his line. The
   security and prosperity of Egypt were recovered under his
   reign and he left it in a state which does not seem to have
   promised the rapid decay which ensued. "It is difficult to
   understand and account for the suddenness and completeness of
   the collapse. … The hieratic chiefs, the high priests of the
   god Ammon at Thebes, gradually increased in power, usurped one
   after another the prerogatives of the Pharaohs, by degrees
   reduced their authority to a shadow, and ended with an open
   assumption not only of the functions, but of the very insignia
   of royalty. A space of nearly two centuries elapsed, however,
   before this change was complete. Ten princes of the name of
   Ramses, and one called Meri-Tum, all of them connected by
   blood with the great Rameside house, bore the royal title and
   occupied the royal palace, in the space between B. C. 1280 and
   B. C. 1100. Egyptian history during this period is almost
   wholly a blank. No military expeditions are conducted—no
   great buildings are reared—art almost disappears—literature
   holds her tongue." Then came the dynasty of the priest-kings,
   founded by Her-Hor, which held the throne for more than a
   century and was contemporary in its latter years with David
   and Solomon. The Twenty-Second Dynasty which succeeded had its
   capital at Bubastis and is concluded by Dr. Brugsch to have
   been a line of Assyrian kings, representing an invasion and
   conquest of Egypt by Nimrod, the great king of Assyria. Other
   Egyptologists disagree with Dr. Brugsch in this, and Professor
   Rawlinson, the historian of Assyria, finds objections to the
   hypothesis from his own point of view.
{756}
   The prominent monarch of this dynasty was the Sheshonk of
   Biblical history, who sheltered Jeroboam, invaded Palestine
   and plundered Jerusalem. Before this dynasty came to an end it
   had lost the sovereignty of Egypt at large, and its Pharaohs
   contended with various rivals and invaders. Among the latter,
   power grew in the hands of a race of Ethiopians, who had risen
   to importance at Napata, on the Upper Nile, and who extended
   their power, at last, over the whole of Egypt. The Ethiopian
   domination was maintained for two-thirds of a century, until
   the great wave of Assyrian conquest broke upon Egypt in 672 B.
   C. and swept over it, driving the Ethiopians back to Napata
   and Meroë.

EGYPT: B. C. 670-525.
   Assyrian conquest and restored independence.
   The Twenty-sixth Dynasty.
   The Greeks at Naucratis.

Although Syria and Palestine had then been suffering for more than a century from the conquering arms of the Assyrians, it was not until 670 B. C., according to Professor Rawlinson, that Esarhaddon passed the boundaries of Egypt and made himself master of that country. His father Sennacherib, had attempted the invasion thirty years before, at the time of his siege of Jerusalem, and had recoiled before some mysterious calamity which impelled him to a sudden retreat. The son avenged his father's failure. The Ethiopian masters of Egypt were expelled and the Assyrian took their place. He "broke up the country into twenty governments, appointing in each town a ruler who bore the title of king, but placing all the others to a certain extent under the authority of the prince who reigned at Memphis. This was Neco, the father of Psammetichus (Psamtik I.)—a native Egyptian of whom we have some mention both in Herodotus and in the fragments of Manetho. The remaining rulers were likewise, for the most part, native Egyptians." These arrangements were soon broken up by the expelled Ethiopian king, Tirhakah, who rallied his forces and swept the Assyrian kinglets out of the country; but Asshur-bani-pal, son and successor of Esarhaddon, made his appearance with an army in 668 or 667 B. C. and Tirhakah fled before him. Again and again this occurred, and for twenty years Egypt was torn between the Assyrians and the Ethiopians, in their struggle for the possession of her. At length, out of the chaos produced by these conflicts there emerged a native ruler—the Psammetichus mentioned above—who subjugated his fellow princes and established a new Egyptian monarchy, which defended itself with success against Assyria and Ethiopia, alike. The Twenty-Sixth Dynasty, of Sais, founded by Psammetichus, is suspected to have been of Libyan descent. It ruled Egypt until the Persian conquest, and brought a great new influence to bear on the country and people, by the introduction of Greek soldiers and traders. It was under this dynasty that the Greek city of Naucratis was founded, on the Canobic branch of the Nile.

The site of Naucratis, near the Canobic branch of the Nile, was determined by excavations which Mr. W. M. Flinders Petrie began in 1884, and from which much has been learned of the history of the city and of early relations between the Egyptians and the Greeks. It is concluded that the settlement of Naucratis dates from about 660 B. C.—not long after the beginning of the reign of Psammitichus—and that its Greek founders became the allies of that monarch and his successors against their enemies. "All are agreed that before the reign of Psammitichus and the founding of Naucratis, Egypt was a sealed book to the Greeks. It is likely that the Phoenicians, who were from time to time the subjects of the Pharaohs, were admitted, where aliens like the Greeks were excluded. We have indeed positive evidence that the Egyptians did not wish strange countries to learn their art, for in a treaty between them and the Hittites it is stipulated that neither country shall harbour fugitive artists from the other. But however the fact may be accounted for, it is an undoubted fact that long before Psammitichus threw Egypt open to the foreigner, the Phoenicians had studied in the school of Egyptian art, and learned to copy all sorts of handiwork procured from the valley of the Nile. … According to Herodotus and Diodorus, the favour shown to the Greeks by the King was the cause of a great revolt of the native Egyptian troops, who left the frontier fortresses, and marched south beyond Elephantine, where they settled, resisting all the entreaties of Psammitichus, who naturally deplored the loss of the mainstay of his dominions, and developed into the race of the Sebridae. Wiedemann, however, rejects the whole story as unhistorical, and certainly, if we closely consider it, it contains great inherent improbabilities. … Psammitichus died in B. C: 610, and was succeeded by his son Necho, who was his equal in enterprise and vigour. This King paid great attention to the fleet of Egypt, and Greek shipwrights were set to work on both the Mediterranean and Red Seas to build triremes for the State navy. A fleet of his ships, we are told, succeeded in sailing round Africa, a very great feat for the age. The King even attempted the task, of which the completion was reserved for the Persian Darius, the Ptolemies, and Trajan, of making a canal from the Mediterranean to the Red Sea. Herodotus says that, after sacrificing the lives of 120,000 men to the labour and heat of the task, he gave it up, in consequence of the warning of an oracle that he was toiling only for the barbarians. … Necho, like his father, must needs try the edge of his new weapon, the Ionian mercenaries, on Asia. At first he was successful. Josiah, King of Judah, came out against him, but was slain, and his army dispersed. Greek valour carried Necho as far as the Euphrates. … But Nebuchadnezzar, son of the King of Babylon, marched against the invaders, and defeated them in a great battle near Carehemish. His father's death recalled him to Babylon, and Egypt was for the moment saved from counter-invasion by the stubborn resistance offered to the Babylonian arms by Jehoiakim, King of Judah, a resistance fatal to the Jewish race; for Jerusalem was captured after a long siege, and most of the inhabitants carried into captivity. Of Psammitichus II., who succeeded Necho, we should know but little were it not for the archaeological record. Herodotus only says that he attacked Ethiopia, and died after a reign of six years. {757} But of the expedition thus summarily recorded we have a lasting and memorable result in the well-known inscriptions written by Rhodians and other Greek mercenaries on the legs of the colossi at Abu Simbel in Nubia, which record how certain of them came thither in the reign of Psammitichus, pushing up the river in boats as far as it was navigable, that is, perhaps, up to the second cataract. … Apries, the Hophra of the Bible, was the next king. The early part of his reign was marked by successful warfare against the Phoenicians and the peoples of Syria; but, like his predecessor, he was unable to maintain a footing in Asia in the face of the powerful and warlike Nebuchadnezzar. The hostility which prevailed between Egypt and Babylon at this time caused King Apries to open a refuge for those Jews who fled from the persecution of Nebuchadnezzar. He assigned to their leaders, among whom were the daughters of the King of Judah, a palace of his own at Daphnae, 'Pharaoh's house at Tahpanhes,' as it is called by Jeremiah. That prophet was among the fugitives, and uttered in the palace a notable prophecy, (xliii. 9) that King Nebuchadnezzar should come and spread his conquering tent over the pavement before it. Formerly it was supposed that this prophecy remained unfulfilled, but this opinion has to be abandoned. Recently discovered Egyptian and Babylonian inscriptions prove that Nebuchadnezzar conquered Egypt as far as Syene. … The fall of Apries as brought about by his ingratitude to the Greeks, and his contempt for the lives of his own subjects. He had formed the project of bringing under his sway the Greek cities of the Cyrenaica. … Apries despatched against Cyrene a large force; but the Cyreneans bravely defended themselves, and as the Egyptians on this occasion marched without their Greek allies, they were entirely defeated, and most of them perished by the sword, or in the deserts which separate Cyrene from Egypt. The defeated troops, and their countrymen who remained behind in garrison in Egypt, imputed the disaster to treachery on the part of Apries. … They revolted, and chose as their leader Amasis, a man of experience and daring. But Apries, though deserted by his subjects, hoped still to maintain his throne by Greek aid. At the head of 30,000 Ionians and Carians he marched against Amasis. At Momemphis a battle took place between the rival kings and between the rival nations; but the numbers of the Egyptians prevailed over the arms and discipline of the mercenaries, and Apries was defeated and captured by his rival, who, however, allowed him for some years to retain the name of joint-king. It is the best possible proof of the solidity of Greek influence in Egypt at this time that Amasis, though set on the throne by the native army after a victory over the Greek mercenaries, yet did not expel these latter from Egypt, but, on the contrary, raised them to higher favour than before. … In the delightful dawn of connected European history we see Amasis as a wise and wealthy prince, ruling in Egypt at the time when Polycrates was tyrant of Samos; and when Croesus of Lydia, the richest king of his time, was beginning to be alarmed by the rapid expansion of the Persian power under Cyrus. … In the days of Psammitichus III., the son of Amasis, the storm which had overshadowed Asia broke upon Egypt. One of the leaders of the Greek mercenaries in Egypt named Phanes, a native of Halicarnassus, made his way to the Persian Court, and persuaded Cambyses, who, according to the story, had received from Amasis one of those affronts which have so often produced wars between despots, to invade Egypt in full force."

The kings of the Twenty-Sixth or Saite Dynasty maintained the independence of Egypt for nearly a century and a half, and even revived its military glories briefly, by Necho's ephemeral conquests in Syria and his overthrow of Josiah king of Judah. In the meantime, Assyria and Babylonia had fallen and the Persian power raised up by Cyrus had taken their place. In his own time, Cyrus did not finish a plan of conquest which included Egypt; his son Cambyses took up the task. "It appears that four years were consumed by the Persian monarch in his preparations for his Egyptian expedition. It was not until B. C. 525 that he entered Egypt at the head of his troops and fought the great battle which decided the fate of the country. The struggle was long and bloody [see PERSIA: B. C. 549-521]. Psammenitus, who had succeeded his father Amasis, had the services, not only of his Egyptian subjects, but of a large body of mercenaries besides, Greeks and Carians. … In spite of their courage and fanaticism, the Egyptian army was completely defeated. … The conquest of Egypt was followed by the submission of the neighbouring tribes. … Even the Greeks of the more remote Barca and Cyrene sent gifts to the conqueror and consented to become his tributaries." But Cambyses wasted 50,000 men in a disastrous expedition through the Libyan desert to Ammon, and he retreated from Ethiopia with loss and shame. An attempted rising of the Egyptians, before he had quitted their country, was crushed with merciless severity. The deities, the temples and the priests of Egypt were treated with insult and contempt and the spirit of the people seems to have been entirely broken. "Egypt became now for a full generation the obsequious slave of Persia, and gave no more trouble to her subjugator than the weakest, or the most contented, of the provinces."

"The Persian kings, from Cambyses to Darius II. Nothus, are enrolled as the Twenty-Seventh Dynasty of Manetho. The ensuing revolts [see ATHENS: B. C. 460-449] are recognized in the Twenty-Eighth (Saite) Dynasty, consisting only of Amyrtæus, who restored the independence of Egypt (B. C. 414-408), and the Twenty-Ninth (Mendesian) and Thirtieth (Sebennyte) Dynasties (about B. C. 408-353), of whose intricate history we need only here say that they ruled with great prosperity and have left beautiful monuments of art. The last king of independent Egypt was Nectanebo II., who succumbed to the invasion of Artaxerxes Ochus, and fled to Ethiopia (B. C. 353). The last three kings of Persia, Ochus, Arses, and Darius Codomannus, form the Thirty-First Dynasty of Manetho, ending with the submission of Egypt to Alexander the Great (B. C. 332)."

"In the summer of 332 [after the siege and destruction of Tyre—see TYRE: B. C. 332, and MACEDONIA, &c.: B. C. 334-330] Alexander set forward on his march toward Egypt, accompanied by the fleet, which he had placed under the orders of Hephæstion." But, being detained on the way several months by the siege of Gaza, it was not before December that he entered Egypt. "He might safely reckon not merely on an easy conquest, but on an ardent reception, from a people who burnt to shake off the Persian tyranny. … Mazaces [the Persian commander] himself, as soon as he heard of the battle of Issus, became aware that all resistance to Alexander would be useless, and met him with a voluntary submission. At Pelusium he found the fleet, and, having left a garrison in the fortress, ordered it to proceed up the Nile as far as Memphis, while he marched across the desert. Here he conciliated the Egyptians by the honours which he paid to all their gods, especially to Apis, who had been so cruelly insulted by the Persian invaders. … He then embarked, and dropt down the western or Canobic arm of the river to Canobus, to survey the extremity of the Delta on that side, and having sailed round the lake Mareotis, landed on the narrow belt of low ground which parts it from the sea, and is sheltered from the violence of the northern gales … by a long ridge of rock, then separated from the main land by a channel, nearly a mile (seven stades) broad and forming the isle of Pharos. On this site stood the village of Racotis, where the ancient kings of Egypt had stationed a permanent guard to protect this entrance of their dominions from adventurers. … Alexander's keen eye was immediately struck by the advantages of this position for a city, which should become a great emporium of commerce, and a link between the East and the West. … He immediately gave orders for the beginning of the work, himself traced the outline, which was suggested by the natural features of the ground itself, and marked the site of some of the principal buildings, squares, palaces and temples" (see ALEXANDRIA: B. C. 332). Alexander remained in Egypt until the spring of 331, arranging the occupation and administration of the country. "The system which he established served in some points as a model for the policy of Rome under the Emperors." Before quitting the country he made a toilsome march along the coast, westward, and thence, far into the desert, to visit the famous oracle of Ammon.

In the division of the empire of Alexander the Great between his generals, when he died, Ptolemy Lagus—reputed to be a natural son of Alexander's father Philip—chose Egypt (see MACEDONIA: B. C. 323-316), with a modesty which proved to be wise. In all the provinces of the Macedonian conquest, it was the country most easily to be held as an independent state, by reason of the sea and desert which separated it from the rest of the world. It resulted from the prudence of Ptolemy that he founded a kingdom which lasted longer and enjoyed more security and prosperity than any other among the monarchies of the Diadochi. He was king of Egypt, in fact, for seventeen years before, in 307, B. C., he ventured to assume the name (see MACEDONIA: B. C. 310-301). Meantime, he had added to his dominion the little Greek state of Cyrene, on the African coast with Phœnicia, Judæa, Cœle-Syria, and the island of Cyprus. These latter became disputed territory, fought over for two centuries, between the Ptolemies and the Seleucids, sometimes dominated by the one and sometimes by the other (see SELEUCIDÆ: B. C. 281-224, and 224-187). At its greatest extent, the dominion of the Ptolemies, under Ptolemy Philadelphus, son of Ptolemy Lagus, included large parts of Asia Minor and many of the Greek islands. Egypt and Cyrene they held, with little disturbance, until Rome absorbed them. Notwithstanding the vices which the family of Ptolemy developed, and which were as rank of their kind as history can show, Egypt under their rule appears to have been one of the most prosperous countries of the time. In Alexandria, they more than realized the dream of its Macedonian projector. They made it not only the wealthiest city of their day, but the greatest seat of learning,—the successor of Athens as the capital of Greek civilization in the ancient world.

   The first Ptolemy abdicated in favor of his son, Ptolemy
   Philadelphus, in 284 B. C., and died in the second year
   following.

"Although the political constitution of Egypt was not greatly altered when the land fell into Greek hands, yet in other respects great changes took place. The mere fact that Egypt took its place among a family of Hellenistic nations, instead of claiming as of old a proud isolation, must have had a great effect on the trade, the manufactures, and the customs of the country. To begin with trade. Under the native kings Egypt had scarcely any external trade, and trade could scarcely spring up during the wars with Persia. But under the Ptolemies, intercourse between Egypt and Sicily, Syria or Greece, would naturally and necessarily advance rapidly. Egypt produced manufactured goods which were everywhere in demand; fine linen, ivory, porcelain, notably that papyrus which Egypt alone produced, and which was necessary to the growing trade in manuscripts. Artificial barriers being once removed, enterprising traders of Corinth and Tarentum, Ephesus and Rhodes, would naturally seek these goods in Egypt, bringing in return whatever of most attractive their own countries had to offer. It seems probable that the subjects of the Ptolemies seldom or never had the courage to sail direct down the Red Sea to India. In Roman times this voyage became not unusual, but at an earlier time the Indian trade was principally in the hands of the Arabs of Yemen and of the Persian Gulf. Nevertheless the commerce of Egypt under the Ptolemies spread eastwards as well as westwards. The important towns of Arsinoë and Berenice arose on the Red Sea as emporia of the Arabian trade. And as always happens when Egypt is in vigorous hands, the limits of Egyptian rule and commerce were pushed further and further up the Nile. The influx into Alexandria and Memphis of a crowd of Greek architects, artists, and artizans, could not fail to produce movement in that stream of art which had in Egypt long remained all but stagnant. … If we may trust the somewhat over-coloured and flighty panegyrics which have come down to us, the material progress of Egypt under Ptolemy Philadelphus was most wonderful. We read, though we cannot for a moment trust the figures of Appian, that in his reign Egypt possessed an army of 200,000 foot soldiers and 40,000 horsemen, 300 elephants and 2,000 chariots of war. The fleet at the same period is said to have included 1,500 large vessels, some of them with twenty or thirty banks of oars. Allowing for exaggeration, we must suppose that Egypt was then more powerful than it had been since the days of Rameses."

The throne of Egypt being disputed, B. C. 80, between Cleopatra Berenice, who had seized it, and her step-son, Ptolemy Alexander, then in Rome, the latter bribed the Romans to support his claims by making a will in which he named the Roman Republic as his heir. The Senate, thereat, sent him to Alexandria with orders that Berenice should marry him and that they should reign jointly, as king and queen. The order was obeyed. The foully mated pair were wedded, and, nineteen days afterwards, the young king procured the death of his queen. The crime provoked an insurrection in which Ptolemy Alexander was slain by his own guard. This ended the legitimate line of the Ptolemies; but an illegitimate prince, usually called Auletes, or "the piper," was put on the throne, and he succeeded in holding it for twenty-four years. The claim of the Romans, under the will of Ptolemy Alexander, seems to have been kept in abeyance by the bribes which Auletes employed with liberality among the senatorial leaders. In 58 B. C. a rising at Alexandria drove Auletes from the throne; in 54 B. C. he bought the support of Gabinius, Roman pro-consul in Syria, who reinstated him. He died in 51 B. C. leaving by will his kingdom to his elder daughter, Cleopatra, and his elder son, Ptolemy, who, according to the abominable custom of the Ptolemies, were to marry one another and reign together. The Roman people, by the terms of the will were made its executors. When, therefore, Cæsar, coming to Alexandria, three years afterwards, found the will of Auletes set at nought, Ptolemy occupying the throne, alone, and Cleopatra struggling against him, he had some ground for a pretension of right to interfere.

EGYPT: B. C. 48-47.
   Civil war between Cleopatra and Ptolemy.
   Intervention of Cæsar.
   The rising against him.
   The Romans besieged in Alexandria.
   Their ruthless victory.

After the battle of Actium and the death of Cleopatra, Egypt was reduced by Octavius to the rank of a Roman province and the dynasty of the Ptolemies extinguished. But Octavius "had no intention of giving to the senate the rich domain which he tore from its native rulers. He would not sow in a foreign soil the seeds of independence which he was intent upon crushing nearer home. … In due time he persuaded the senate and people to establish it as a principle, that Egypt should never be placed under the administration of any man of superior rank to the equestrian, and that no senator should be allowed even to visit it, without express permission from the supreme authority."

See ALEXANDRIA: B. C. 48-47 to A. D. 413-415;
and CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 33-100, and 100-312.

The career of conquest pursued by Chosroes, the last Persian conqueror, extended even to Egypt, and beyond it. "Egypt itself, the only province which had been exempt since the time of Diocletian from foreign and domestic war, was again subdued by the successors of Cyrus. Pelusium, the key of that impervious country, was surprised by the cavalry of the Persians: they passed with impunity the innumerable channels of the Delta, and explored the long valley of the Nile from the pyramids of Memphis to the confines of Æthiopia. Alexandria might have been relieved by a naval force, but the archbishop and the præfect embarked for Cyprus; and Chosroes entered the second city of the empire, which still preserved a wealthy remnant of industry and commerce. His western trophy was erected, not on the walls of Carthage, but in the neighbourhood of Tripoli: the Greek colonies of Cyrene were finally extirpated." By the peace concluded in 628, after the death of Chosroes, all of his conquests were restored to the empire and the cities of Syria and Egypt evacuated by their Persian garrisons.

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 46. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

   The Mamelukes were a military body created by Saladin. "The
   word means slave (literally, the possessed'), and … they
   were brought in youth from northern countries to serve in the
   South. Saladin himself was a Kurd, and long before his
   accession to power, Turkish and Kurdish mercenaries were
   employed by the Caliphs of Bagdad and Cairo, as the Pope
   employs Swiss. … Subsequently, however, Circassia became the
   country which most largely furnished this class of troops.
   Their apprenticeship was a long and laborious one: they were
   taught, first of all, to read the Koran and to write; then
   followed lance-exercise, during which time nobody was allowed
   to speak to them. At first they either resided in the castle,
   or were exercised living under tents; but after the time of
   Sultan Barkouk they were allowed to live in the town [Cairo],
   and the quarter now occupied by the Jews was at that time
   devoted to the Circassian Mamelukes. After this period they
   neglected their religious and warlike exercises, and became
   degenerate and corrupt. … The dynasty of Saladin … was of
   no duration, and ended in 648 A. H., or 1250 of the Christian era.
{760}
   Then began the so-called Bahrite Sultans, in consequence of
   the Mamelukes of the sultan Negm-ed-din having lodged in
   Rodah, the Island in the Nile (Bahr-en-Nil). The intriguer of
   the period was Sheger-ed-dur, the widow of the monarch, who
   married one of the Mamelukes, Moez-eddin-aibek-el-Turcomany,
   who became the first of these Bahrite Sultans, and was himself
   murdered in the Castle of Cairo through this woman. … Their
   subsequent history, until the conquest of Egypt by Sultan
   Selim in 1517, presents nothing but a series of acts of lust,
   murder and rapine. So rapidly did they expel each other from
   power, that the average reign of each did not exceed five or
   six years. … The 'fleeting purple' of the decline and fall
   of the Roman Empire is the spectacle which these Mameluke
   Dynasties constantly present."

      A. A. Paton,
      History of the Egyptian Revolution,
      volume 1, chapters 3-5.

EGYPT: A. D. 1516-1517.
Overthrow of the Mameluke Sultans.
Ottoman conquest by Sultan Selim.

EGYPT: A. D. 1798-1799.
   Bonaparte's organization of government.
   His victory at Aboukir.
   His return to France.

EGYPT: A. D. 1800.
   Discontent and discouragement of the French.
   The repudiated Treaty of El Arish.
   Turkish defeat at Heliopolis.
   Revolt crushed at Cairo.
   Assassination of Kleber.

EGYPT: A. D. 1801-1802.
Expulsion of the French by the English.
Restoration of the province to Turkey.

EGYPT: A. D. 1803-1811.
The rise of Mohammad 'Aly (or Mehemet Ali) to power.
His treacherous destruction of the Mamelukes.

"It was during the French occupation that Mohammad 'Aly [or Mehemet Ali] came on the scene. He was born in 1768 at the Albanian port of Kaballa, and by the patronage of the governor was sent to Egypt in 1801 with the contingent of troops furnished by Kaballa to the Ottoman army then operating with the English against the French. He rapidly rose to the command of the Arnaut or Albanian section of the Turkish army, and soon found himself an important factor in the confused political position which followed the departure of the British army. The Memluk Beys had not been restored to their former posts as provincial governors, and were consequently ripe for revolt against the Porte; but their party was weakened by the rivalry of its two leaders, El-Elfy and El-Bardisy, who divided their followers into two hostile camps. On the other hand, the Turkish Pasha appointed by the Porte had not yet gained a firm grip of the country, and was perpetually apprehensive of a recall to Constantinople. Mohammad 'Aly at the head of his Albanians was an important ally for either side to secure, and he fully appreciated his position. He played off one party against the other, the Pasha against the Beys, so successfully, that he not only weakened both sides, but made the people of Cairo, who were disgusted with the anarchy of Memluk and Turk alike, his firm friends; and at last suffered himself, with becoming hesitation, to be persuaded by the entreaty of the populace to become [1805] their ruler, and thus stepped to the supreme power in the curious guise of the people's friend. A fearful time followed Mohammad 'Aly's election—for such it was—to the governorship of Egypt. The Turkish Pasha, Khurshid, held the citadel, and Mohammad 'Aly, energetically aided by the people of Cairo, laid siege to it. From the minaret of the mosque of Sultan Hasan, and from the heights of Mukattam, the besiegers poured their fire into the citadel, and Khurshid replied with an indiscriminate cannonade upon the city. The firing went on for weeks (pausing on Fridays), till a messenger arrived from Constantinople bringing the confirmation of the popular vote, in the form of a firman, appointing Mohammad 'Aly governor of Egypt. Khurshid shortly afterwards retired, and the soldiery amused themselves in the approved Turkish and (even worse) Albanian fashion by making havoc of the houses of the citizens. Mohammad 'Aly now possessed the title of Governor of Egypt, but beyond the walls of Cairo his authority was everywhere disputed by the Beys. … An attempt was made to ensnare certain of the Beys, who were encamped north of the metropolis. On the 17th of August, 1805, the dam of the canal of Cairo was to be cut, and some chiefs of Mohammad 'Aly's party wrote informing them that he would go forth early on that morning with most of his troops to witness the ceremony, inviting them to enter and seize the city, and, to deceive them, stipulating for a certain sum of money as a reward. The dam, however, was cut early in the preceding night, without any ceremony. On the following morning these Beys, with their Memluks, a very numerous body, broke open the gate of the suburb El-Hosey-niyeh, and gained admittance into the city. … They marched along the principal street for some distance, with kettle-drums behind each company, and were received with apparent joy by the citizens. At the mosque called the Ashrafiyeh they separated, one party proceeding to the Azhar and the houses of certain sheykhs, and the other party continuing along the main street, and through the gate called Bab-Zuweyleh, where they turned up towards the citadel. Here they were fired on by some soldiers from the houses; and with this signal a terrible massacre commenced. Falling back towards their companions, they found the by-streets closed; and in that part of the main thoroughfare called Beyn-el-Kasreyn, they were suddenly placed between two fires. Thus shut up in a narrow street, some sought refuge in the collegiate mosque of the Barkukiyeh, while the remainder fought their way through their enemies, and escaped over the city wall with the loss of their horses. Two Memluks had in the meantime succeeded, by great exertions, in giving the alarm to their comrades in the quarter of the Azhar, who escaped by the eastern gate called Bab-el-Ghureyyib. A horrible fate awaited those who had shut themselves up in the Barkukiyeh. Having begged for quarter and surrendered, they were immediately stripped nearly naked, and about fifty were slaughtered on the spot; and about the same number were dragged away. … The wretched captives were then chained and left in the court of the Pasha's house; and on the following morning the heads of their comrades, who had perished the day before, were skinned and stuffed with straw before their eyes. {761} One Bey and two other men paid their ransom, and were released; the rest, without exception, were tortured, and put to death in the course of the ensuing night. … The Beys were disheartened by this revolting butchery, and most of them retired to the upper country. Urged by England, or more probably by the promise of a bribe from El-Elfy, the Porte began a leisurely interference in favour of the Memluks; but the failure of El-Elfy's treasury, and a handsome bribe from Mohammad 'Aly, soon changed the Sultan's views, and the Turkish fleet sailed away. … An attempt of the English Government to restore the Memluks by the action of a force of 5,000 men under General Fraser ended in disaster and humiliation, and the citizens of Cairo had the satisfaction of seeing the heads of Englishmen exposed on stakes in the Ezbekiyeh. Mohammad 'Aly now adopted a more conciliatory policy towards the Memluks, granted them land, and encouraged them to return to Cairo. The clemency was only assumed in order to prepare the way for the act of consummate treachery which finally uprooted the Memluk power. … Early in the year 1811, the preparations for an expedition against the Wahhabis in Arabia being complete, all the Memluk Beys then in Cairo were invited to the ceremony of investing Mohammad 'Aly's favourite son, Tusun, with a pelisse and the command of the army. As on the former occasion, the unfortunate Memluks fell into the snare. On the 1st of March, Shahin Bey and the other chiefs (one only excepted) repaired with their retinues to the citadel, and were courteously received by the Pasha. Having taken coffee, they formed in procession, and, preceded and followed by the Pasha's troops, slowly descended the steep and narrow road leading to the great gate of the citadel; but as soon as the Memluks arrived at the gate it was suddenly closed before them. The last of those who made their exit before the gate was shut were Albanians under Salih Kush. To those troops their chief now made known the Pasha's orders to massacre all the Memluks within the citadel; therefore having returned by another way, they gained the summit of the walls and houses, that hem in the road in which the Memluks were, and some stationed themselves upon the eminences of the rock through which that road is partly cut. Thus securely placed, they commenced a heavy fire on their defenceless victims, and immediately the troops who closed the procession, and who had the advantage of higher ground, followed their example. … 470 Memluks entered the citadel, and of these very few, if any, escaped. One of these is said to have been a Bey. According to some, he leaped his horse from the ramparts, and alighted uninjured, though the horse was killed by the fall. Others say that he was prevented from joining his comrades, and discovered the treachery while waiting without the gate. He fled and made his way to Syria. This massacre was the signal for an indiscriminate slaughter of the Memluks throughout Egypt, orders to this effect being transmitted to every governor; and in Cairo itself, the houses of the Beys were given over to the soldiery, who slaughtered all their adherents, treated their women in the most shameless manner, and sacked their dwellings. … The last of his rivals being now destroyed, Mohammad 'Aly was free to organize the administration of the country, and to engage in expeditions abroad."

EGYPT: A. D. 1807.
Occupation of Alexandria by the English.
Disastrous failure of their expedition.

EGYPT: A. D. 1831-1840.
   Rebellion of Mehemet Ali.
   Successes against the Turks.
   Intervention of the Western Powers.
   Egypt made an hereditary Pashalik.

EGYPT: A. D. 1840-1869.
   Mehemet Ali and his successors.
   The khedives.
   The opening of the Suez Canal.

   "By the treaty of 1840 between the Porte and the European
   Powers, … his title to Egypt having been … affirmed …
   Mehemet Ali devoted himself during the next seven years to the
   social and material improvement of the country, with an
   aggregate of results which has fixed his place in history as
   the 'Peter the Great' of Egypt. Indeed, except some additions
   and further reforms made during the reign of his reputed
   grandson, Ismail Pasha, the whole administrative system, up
   till less than ten years ago, was, in the main, his work; and
   notwithstanding many admitted defects, it was at his death
   incomparably the most civilised and efficient of then existing
   Mussulman Governments. In 1848, this great satrap, then
   verging on his eightieth year, was attacked by a mental
   malady, induced, as it was said, by a potion administered in
   mistaken kindness by one of his own daughters, and the
   government was taken over by his adopted son, Ibrahim Pasha,
   the hero of Koniah and Nezib. He lingered till August 1849,
   but Ibrahim had already pre-deceased him; and Abbas, a son of
   the latter, succeeded to the viceregal throne. Though born and
   bred in Egypt, Abbas was a Turk of the worst type—ignorant,
   cowardly, sensual, fanatic, and opposed to reforms of every
   sort. Thus his feeble reign of less than six years was, in
   almost everything, a period of retrogression. On a night in
   July, 1854, he was strangled in his sleep by a couple of his
   own slaves,—acting, it was variously said, on a secret order
   from Constantinople, or at the behest of one of his wives. To
   Abbas succeeded Said, the third son of Mehemet Ali, an amiable
   and liberal-minded prince who retrieved much of the mischief
   done by his predecessor, but lacked the vigorous intelligence
   and force of character required to carry on the great work
   begun by his father. His reign will be chiefly memorable for
   the concession and commencement of the Suez Canal, the
   colossal work which, while benefiting the trade of the world,
   has cost so much to Egypt. Said died in January 1863, and was
   succeeded by his nephew Ismail Pasha, the second son of
   Ibrahim. As most of the leading incidents of this Prince's
   reign, as also the chief features of his character, are still
   fresh in the public memory, I need merely recall a few of the
   more salient of both. Amongst the former, history will give
   the first place to his creation of the huge public debt which
   forms the main element of a problem that still confronts
   Europe.
{762}
   But, for this the same impartial judge will at least
   equally blame the financial panderers who ministered to his
   extravagance, with exorbitant profit to themselves, but at
   ruinous cost to Egypt. On the other hand, it is but historical
   justice to say that Ismail did much for the material progress
   of the country. He added more than 1,000 to the 200 miles of
   railway in existence at the death of Said. He greatly improved
   the irrigation, and so increased the cultivable area of the
   country; multiplied the primary schools, and encouraged native
   industries. For so much, at least, history will give him
   credit. As memorable, though less meritorious, were the
   magnificent fetes with which, in 1869, he opened the Suez
   Canal, the great work which England had so long opposed, but
   through which—as if by the irony of history—the first ship
   that passed flew the English flag, and to the present traffic
   of which we contribute more than eighty per cent. In personal
   character, Ismail was of exceptional intelligence, but cruel,
   crafty, and untrustworthy both in politics and in his private
   relations. … It may be mentioned that Ismail Pasha was the
   first of these Ottoman Viceroys who bore the title of
   'Khedive,' which is a Perso-Arabic designation signifying rank
   a shade less than regal. This he obtained in 1867 by heavy
   bribes to the Sultan and his chief ministers, as he had the
   year before by similar means ousted his brother and uncle from
   the succession, and secured it for his own eldest son,—in
   virtue of which the latter now [1890] nominally reigns."

EGYPT: A. D. 1870-1883.
   Conquest of the Soudan.
   Measures for the suppression of the slave-trade.
   The government of General Gordon.
   Advent of the Mahdi and beginning of his revolt.

In 1870, Ismail Pasha "made an appeal for European assistance to strengthen him in completing the conquest of Central Africa. [Sir Samuel] Baker was accordingly placed in command of 1,200 men, supplied with cannon and steam-boats, and received the title of Governour-General of the provinces which he was commissioned to subdue. Having elected to make Gondokoro the seat of his government, he changed its name to Ismailia. He was not long in bringing the Bari to submission, and then, advancing southwards, he came to the districts of Dufilé and Fatiko, a healthy region endowed by nature with fertile valleys and irrigated by limpid streams, but for years past converted into a sort of hell upon earth by the slave-hunters who had made it their headquarters. From these pests Baker delivered the locality, and having by his tact and energy overcome the distrust of the native rulers, he established over their territory a certain number of small military settlements. … Baker returned to Europe flattering himself with the delusion that he had put an end to the scourge of slave dealing. It was true that various slave-dealers' dens on the Upper Nile had been destroyed, a number of outlaws had been shot, and a few thousand miserable slaves had been set at liberty; but beyond that nothing had been accomplished; no sooner had the liberator turned his back than the odious traffic recommenced with more vigour than before through the region south of Gondokoro. This, however, was only one of the slave-hunting districts, and by no means the worst. … Under European compulsion … the Khedive Ismail undertook to promote measures to put a stop to the scandal. He entered into various conventions with England on the subject; and in order to convince the Powers of the sincerity of his intentions, he consented to put the equatorial provinces under the administration of an European officer, who should be commissioned to carry on the work of repression, conquest and organisation that had been commenced by Baker. His choice fell upon a man of exceptional ability, a brilliant officer trained at Woolwich, who had already gained high renown in China, not only for military talent, but for his adroitness and skill in negotiation and diplomacy. This was Colonel Gordon, familiarly known as 'Chinese Gordon,' who was now to add fresh lustre to his name in Egypt as Gordon Pasha. Gordon was appointed Governour-General of the Soudan in 1874. With him were associated Chaillé-Long, an American officer, who was chief of his staff; the German, Dr. Emin Effendi, medical officer to the expedition; Lieutenants Chippendall and Watson; Gessi and Kemp, engineers. … Thenceforward the territories, of which so little had hitherto been known, became the continual scene of military movements and scientific excursions. … The Soudan was so far conquered as to be held by about a dozen military outposts stationed along the Nile from Lake No to Lakes Albert and Ibrahim. … In 1876 Gordon went back to Cairo. Nevertheless, although he was wearied with the continual struggle of the past two years, worn down by the incessant labours of internal organisation and geographical investigations, disheartened, too, by the jealousies, rivalries, and intrigues of all around him, and by the ill feeling of the very people whom the Khedive's Government had sent to support him, he consented to return again to his post; this time with the title of Governour-General of the Soudan, Darfur, and the Equatorial Provinces. At the beginning of 1877 he took possession of the Government palace at Khartoum. … Egyptian authority, allied with European civilisation, appeared now at length to be taking some hold on the various districts, and the Cairo Government might begin to look forward to a time when it could reckon on some reward for its labours and sacrifices. The area of the new Egyptian Soudan had now become immense. Geographically, its centre included the entire valley of the Nile proper, from Berber to the great lakes; on the east were such portions of the valleys of the Blue Nile and Atbara as lay outside Abyssinia; and on the west were the districts watered by the Bahr-el-Ghazal, and the Bahr-el-Arab, right away to the confines of Wadai. … Unfortunately in 1879 Ismail Pasha was deposed, and, to the grievous loss of the Soudan, Gordon was recalled. As the immediate consequence, the country fell back into the hands of Turkish pashas; apathy, disorder, carelessness, and ill feeling reappeared at Khartoum, and the Arab slave-dealers, who had for a period been kept under by Baker, Gessi, and Gordon, came once more to the front. … It was Raouf Pasha who, in 1879, succeeded Gordon as Governour-General. He had three Europeans as his subordinates—Emin Bey, who before Gordon left, had been placed in charge of the province of the equator; Lupton Bey, an Englishman, who had followed Gessi as Governour on the Bahr-el-Ghazal; and Slatin Bey, an Austrian, in command of Darfur. Raouf had barely been two years at Khartoum when the Mahdi appeared on the scene. {763} Prompted either by personal ambition or by religious hatred, the idea of playing the part of 'Mahdi' had been acted upon by many an Arab fanatic [see MAHDI]. Such an idea, at an early age, had taken possession of a certain Soudanese of low birth, a native of Dongola, by name Mohammed Ahmed. Before openly aspiring to the role of the regenerator of Islam he had filled several subordinate engagements, notably one under Dr. Peney, the French surgeon-general in the Soudan, who died in 1861. Shortly afterwards he received admittance into the powerful order of the Ghelani dervishes, and then commenced his schemes for stirring up a revolution in defence of his creed. His proceedings did not fail to attract the attention of Gessi Pasha, who had him arrested at Shekka and imprisoned for five months. Under the government of Raouf he took up his abode upon the small island of Abba, on the Nile above Khartoum, where he gained a considerable notoriety by the austerity of his life and by the fervour of his devotions, thus gradually gaining a high reputation for sanctity. Not only offerings but followers streamed in from every quarter. He became rich as well as powerful. … Waiting till May 1881, he then assumed that a propitious time had arrived for the realisation of his plans, and accordingly had himself publicly proclaimed as 'Mahdi,' inviting every fakir and every religious leader of Islam to come and join him at Abba. … Convinced that it was impolitic to tolerate any longer the revolutionary intrigues of such an adventurer at the very gates of Khartoum, Raouf Pasha resolved to rid the country of Mohammed and to send him to Cairo for trial. An expedition was accordingly despatched to the island of Abba, but unfortunately the means employed were inadequate to the task. Only a small body of black soldiers were sent to arrest the agitator in his quarters, and they, inspired no doubt by a vague and superstitious dread of a man who represented himself as the messenger of Allah, wavered and acted with indecision. Before their officers could rally them to energy, the Mahdi, with a fierce train of followers, knife in hand, rushed upon them, and killing many, put the rest to flight; then, seeing that a renewed assault was likely to be made, he withdrew the insurgent band into a retreat of safety amongst the mountains of Southern Kordofan. Henceforth revolt was openly declared. Such was the condition of things in August 1881. Chase was given, but every effort to secure the person of the pretended prophet was baffled. A further attempt was made to arrest him by the Mudir of Fashoda with 1,500 men, only to be attended with a still more melancholy result. After a desperate struggle the Mudir lay stretched upon the ground, his soldiers murdered all around him. One single officer, with a few straggling cavalry, escaped the massacre, and returned to report the fatal news. The reverse caused an absolute panic in Khartoum, an intense excitement spreading throughout the Soudan…. Meantime the Mahdi's prestige was ever on the increase, and he soon felt sufficiently strong to assume the offensive. His troops overran Kordofan and Sennar, advancing on the one hand to the town of Sennar, which they set on fire, and on the other to El-Obeid, which they placed in a state of siege. In the following July a fresh and more powerful expedition, this time numbering 6,000 men, under the command of Yussuf Pasha, left Fashoda and made towards the Mahdi's headquarters. It met with no better fate than the expeditions that had gone before. … And then it was that the English Government, discerning danger for Egypt in this insurrection of Islam, set to work to act for the Khedive. It told off 11,000 men, and placed them under the command of Hicks Pasha, an officer in the Egyptian service who had made the Abyssinian campaign. At the end of December 1882 this expedition embarked at Suez for Suakin, crossed the desert, reached the Nile at Berber, and after much endurance on the way, arrived at Khartoum. Before this, El-Obeid had fallen into the Mahdi's power, and there he had taken up his headquarters. Some trifling advantages were gained by Hicks, but having entered Kordofan with the design of retaking El-Obeid, he was, on the 5th of November 1883, hemmed in amongst the Kasgil passes, and after three days' heroic fighting, his army of about 10,000 men was overpowered by a force five or six times their superior in numbers, and completely exterminated. Hicks Pasha himself, his European staff, and many Egyptian officers of high rank, were among the dead, and forty-two guns fell into the hands of the enemy. Again, not a man was left to carry the fatal tidings to Khartoum. Rebellion continued to spread. After being agitated for months, the population of the Eastern Soudan also made a rising. Osman Digna, the foremost of the Mahdi's lieutenants, occupied the road between Suakin and Berber, and surrounded Sinkat and Tokar; then, having destroyed, one after another, two Egyptian columns that had been despatched for the relief of these towns, he finally cut off the communication between Khartoum and the Red Sea. The tide of insurrection by this time had risen so high that it threatened not only to overthrow the Khedive's authority in the Soudan, but to become the source of serious peril to Egypt itself."

EGYPT: A. D. 1875-1882.
   Bankruptcy of the state.
   English and French control of finances.
   Native hostility to the foreigners.
   Rebellion, led by Arabi.
   English bombardment of Alexandria.

"The facilities given by foreign money-lenders encouraged extravagance and ostentation on the part of the sovereign and the ruling classes, while mismanagement and corrupt practices were common among officials, so that the public debt rose in 1875 to ninety-one millions, and in January, 1881, to ninety-eight millions. … The European capitalists obtained for their money nominally six to nine per cent., but really not less than eight to ten per cent., as the bonds were issued at low rates. … The interest on these borrowed millions was punctually paid up to the end of 1875, when the Khedive found that he could not satisfy his creditors, and the British government interfered in his favour. Mr. Cave was sent to examine into Egyptian finances, and he reported that loans at twelve and thirteen per cent. were being agreed to and renewed at twenty-five per cent., and that some measure of consolidation was necessary. The two western Powers now took the matter in hand, but they thereby recognized the whole of these usurious demands. {764} The debt, although under their control, and therefore secured, was not reduced by the amount already paid in premiums for risk. Nor was the rate of interest diminished to something more nearly approaching the rate payable on English consols, which was three per cent. A tribunal under the jurisdiction of united European and native judges was also established in Egypt to decide complaints of foreigners against natives, and vice versa. In May, 1876, this tribunal gave judgment that the income of the Khedive Ismail, from his private landed property, could be appropriated to pay the creditors of the state, and an execution was put into the Viceregal palace, Er Ramleh, near Alexandria. The Khedive pronounced the judgment invalid, and the tribunal ceased to act. Two commissioners were now again sent to report on Egyptian finances—M. Joubert, the director of the Paris Bank, for France, and Mr. Goschen, a former minister, for England. These gentlemen proposed to hand over the control of the finances to two Europeans, depriving the state of all independence and governing power. The Khedive, in order to resist these demands, convoked a sort of Parliament in order to make an appeal to the people. From this Parliament was afterwards developed the Assembly of Notables, and the National party, now so often spoken of. In 1877 a European commission of control over Egyptian finance was named. … Nubar Pasha was made Prime minister in 1878; the control of the finances was entrusted to Mr. Wilson, an Englishman; and later, the French controller, M. de Blignières, entered the Cabinet. Better order was thus restored to the finances. Rothschild's new loan of eight and a half millions was issued at seventy-three, and therefore brought in from six to eight per cent. nett. … But to be able to pay the creditors their full interest, economy had to be introduced into the national expenditure. To do this, clumsy arrangements were made, and the injustice shown in carrying them out embittered many classes of the population, and laid the foundations of a fanatical hatred of race against race. … In consequence of all this, the majority of the notables, many ulemas, officers, and higher officials among the Egyptians, formed themselves into a National party, with the object of resisting the oppressive government of the foreigner. They were joined by the great mass of the discharged soldiers and subordinate officials, not to mention many others. At the end of February, 1870, a revolt broke out in Cairo. Nubar, hated by the National party, was dismissed by the Khedive Ismail, who installed his son Tewfik as Prime minister. In consequence of this, the coupons due in April were not paid till the beginning of May, and the western Powers demanded the reinstatement of Nubar. That Tewfik on this occasion retired and sided with the foreigners is the chief cause of his present [1882] unpopularity in Egypt. Ismail, however, now dismissed Wilson and De Blignières, and a Cabinet was formed, consisting chiefly of native Egyptians, with Sherif Pasha as Prime minister. Sherif now raised for the first time the cry of which we have since heard so much, and which was inscribed by Arabi on his banners, 'Egypt for the Egyptians.' The western Powers retorted by a menacing naval demonstration, and demanded of the Sultan the deposition of the Khedive. In June, 1870, this demand was agreed to. Ismail went into exile, and his place was filled br Mahomed Tewfik. … The new Khedive, with apathetic weakness, yielded the reconstruction of his ministry and the organization of his finances to the western Powers. Mr. Baring and M. de Blignières, as commissioners of the control, aided by officials named by Rothschild to watch over his private interests, now ruled the land. They devoted forty-five millions (about sixteen shillings per head on the entire population) to the payment of interest. The people were embittered by the distrust shown towards them, and the further reduction of the army from fifty to fifteen thousand men threw a large number out of employment. … Many acts of military insubordination occurred, and at last, on the 8th of November, 1881, the great military revolt broke out in Cairo. … Ahmed Arabi, colonel of the 4th regiment, now first came into public notice. Several regiments, headed by their officers, openly rebelled against the orders of the Khedive, who was compelled to recall the nationalist, Sherif Pasha, and to refer the further demands of the rebels for the increase of the army, and for a constitution, to the Sultan. Sherif Pasha, however, did not long enjoy the confidence of the National Egyptian party, at whose head Arabi now stood, winning every day more reputation and influence. The army, in which he permitted great laxity of discipline, was entirely devoted to him. … A pretended plot of Circassian officers against his life he dexterously used to increase his popularity. … Twenty-six officers were condemned to death by court-martial, but the Khedive, at the instance of the western Powers, commuted the sentence, and they were banished to Constantinople. This leniency was stigmatized by the National party as treachery to the country, and the Chamber of Notables retorted by naming Arabi commander-in-chief of the army and Prime minister without asking the consent of the Khedive. The Chamber soon afterwards came into conflict with the foreign comptrollers. … This ended in De Blignières resigning his post, and in the May of the present year (1882) the consuls of the European Powers declared that a fleet of English and French ironclads would appear before Alexandria, to demand the disbanding of the army and the punishment of its leaders. The threat was realized, and, in spite of protests from the Sultan, a fleet of English and French ironclads entered the harbour of Alexandria. The Khedive, at the advice of his ministers and the chiefs of the National party, appealed to the Sultan. … The popular hatred of foreigners now became more and more apparent, and began to assume threatening dimensions. … On the 30th of May, Arabi announced that a despatch from the Sultan had reached him, promising the deposition of Tewfik in favour of his uncle Halim Pasha. … On the 3rd of June, Dervish Pasha, a man of energy notwithstanding his years, had sailed from Constantinople. … His object was to pacify Egypt and to reconcile Tewfik and Arabi Pasha. … Since the publication of the despatch purporting to proclaim Halim Pasha as Khedive, Arabi had done nothing towards dethroning the actual ruler. But on the 2nd of June he began to strengthen the fortifications of Alexandria with earthworks. … {765} The British admiral protested, and the Sultan, on the remonstrances of British diplomacy, forbad the continuation of the works. … Serious disturbances took place in Alexandria on the 11th. The native rabble invaded the European quarter, plundered the shops, and slew many foreigners. … Though the disturbances were not renewed, a general emigration of foreigners was the result. … On the 22nd a commission, consisting of nine natives and nine Europeans … began to try the ringleaders of the riot. … But events were hurrying on towards war. The works at Alexandria were recommenced, and the fortifications armed with heavy guns. The English admiral received information that the entrance to the harbour would be blocked by sunken storeships, and this, he declared, would be an act of open war. A complete scheme for the destruction of the Suez canal was also discovered. … The English, on their side, now began to make hostile demonstrations; and Arabi, while repudiating warlike intentions, declared himself ready for resistance. … On the 27th the English vice-consul advised his fellow-countrymen to leave Alexandria, and on the 3rd of July, according to the 'Times,' the arrangements for war were complete. … Finally, as a reconnaissance on the 9th showed that the forts were still being strengthened, he [the English admiral] informed the governor of Alexandria, Zulficar Pasha, that unless the forts had been previously evacuated and surrendered to the English, he intended to commence the bombardment at four the next morning. … As the French government were unable to take part in any active measures (a grant for that purpose having been refused by the National Assembly), the greater part of their fleet, under Admiral Conrad, left Alexandria for Port Said. The ironclads of other nations, more than fifty in number, anchored outside the harbour of Alexandria. … On the evening of the 10th of July … and at daybreak on the 11th, the … ironclads took up the positions assigned to them. There was a gentle breeze from the east, and the weather was clear. At 6.30 a. m. all the ships were cleared for action. At seven the admiral signalled to the Alexandra to fire a shell into Fort Ada. … The first shot fired from the Alexandra was immediately replied to by the Egyptians; whereupon the ships of the whole fleet and the Egyptian forts and batteries opened fire, and the engagement became general. … At 8.30 Fort Marsa-el-Kanat was blown up by shells from the Invincible and Monarch, and by nine o'clock the Téméraire, Monarch, and Penelope had silenced most of the guns in Fort Meks, although four defied every effort from their protected situation. By 11.45 Forts Marabout and Adjemi had ceased firing, and a landing party of seamen and marines was despatched, under cover of the Bittern's guns, to spike and blow up the guns in the forts. At 1.30 a shell from the Superb burst in the chief powder magazine of Fort Ada and blew it up. By four o'clock all the guns of Fort Pharos, and half an hour later those of Fort Meks, were disabled, and at 5.30 the admiral ordered the firing to cease. The ships were repeatedly struck and sustained some damage. … The English casualties were five killed and twenty-eight wounded, a comparatively small loss. The Egyptian loss is not known. … At 1 p. m. on the 12th of July, the white flag was hoisted by the Egyptians. Admiral Seymour demanded, as a preliminary measure, the surrender of the forts commanding the entrance to the harbour, and the negotiations on this point were fruitlessly protracted for some hours. As night approached the city was seen to be on fire in many places, and the flames were spreading in all directions. The English now became aware that the white flag had merely been used as means to gain time for a hasty evacuation of Alexandria by Arabi and his army. Sailors and marines were now landed, and ships of other nations sent detachments on shore to protect their countrymen. But it was too late; Bedouins, convicts, and ill-disciplined soldiers had plundered and burnt the European quarter, killed many foreigners, and a Reuter's telegram of the 14th said, 'Alexandria is completely destroyed.'"

      C. F. Goodrich,
      Report on British Military and Naval Operations in Egypt,
      1882,
      part 1.

EGYPT: A. D. 1882-1883.
   The massacre and destruction in Alexandria.
   Declared rebellion of Arabi.
   Its suppression by the English.
   Banishment of Arabi.
   English occupation.

The city of Alexandria had become "such a scene of pillage, massacre, and wanton destruction as to make the world shudder. It was the old tale of horrors. Houses were plundered and burned; the European quarter, including the stately buildings surrounding the Great Square of Mehemet Ali, was sacked and left a heap of smoldering ruins; and more than two thousand Europeans, for the most part Levantines, were massacred with all the cruelty of oriental fanaticism. This was on the afternoon of the 12th. It was the second massacre that had occurred under the very eyes of the British fleet. The admiral's failure to prevent it has been called unfortunate by some and criminal by others. It seems to have been wholly without excuse. … The blue-jackets were landed on the 13th, and cleared the way before them with a Gatling gun. The next day, more ships having arrived, a sufficient force was landed to take possession of the entire city. The khedive was escorted back to Ras-el-Tin from Ramleh, and given a strong guard. Summary justice was dealt out to all hostile Arabs who had been captured in the city. In short, English intervention was followed by English occupation. The bombardment of Alexandria had defined clearly the respective positions of Arabi and the khedive toward Egypt and the Egyptian people. … The khedive was not only weak in the eyes of his people, but he was regarded as the tool of England. … From the moment the first shot was fired upon Alexandria, Arabi was the real ruler of the people. … The conference at Constantinople was stirred by the news of the bombardment of Alexandria. It presented a note to the Porte, July 15, requesting the dispatch of Turkish troops to restore the status quo in Egypt. But the sultan had no idea of taking the part of the Christian in what all Islam regarded as a contest between the Moslem and the unbeliever. … In Egypt, the khedive had been prevailed upon, after some demur, to proclaim Arabi a rebel and discharge him from his cabinet. Arabi had issued a counter-proclamation, on the same day, declaring Tewfik a traitor to his people and his religion. {766} Having received the news of the khedive's proclamation, Lord Dufferin, the British ambassador at Constantinople, announced to the conference that England was about to send an expedition to Egypt to suppress the rebellion and to restore the authority of the khedive. Thereupon the sultan declared that he had decided to send a Turkish expedition. Lord Dufferin feigned to accept the sultan's cooperation, but demanded that the Porte, as a preliminary step, should declare Arabi a rebel. Again the sultan was confronted with the danger of incurring the wrath of the Moslem world. He could not declare Arabi a rebel. … In his desperation, he sent a force of 3,000 men to Suda bay with orders to hold themselves in readiness to enter Egypt at a moment's notice. … In the meantime, however, the English expedition had arrived in Egypt and was proceeding to crush the rebellion, regardless of the diplomatic delays and bickerings at Constantinople. … It was not until the 15th of August that Sir Garnet Wolseley arrived with his force in Egypt. The English at that time held only two points, Alexandria and Suez, while the entire Egyptian interior, as well as Port Said and Ismailia, were held by Arabi, whose force, it was estimated, now amounted to about 70,000 men, of whom at least 50,000 were regulars. The objective point of General Wolseley's expedition to crush Arabi was, of course, the city of Cairo. There were two ways of approaching that city, one from Alexandria, through the Delta, and the other from the Suez canal. There were many objections to the former route. … The Suez canal was supposed to be neutral water. … But England felt no obligation to recognize any neutrality, … acting upon the principle, which is doubtless sound, that 'the neutrality of any canal joining the waters of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans will be maintained, if at all, by the nation which can place and keep the strongest ships at each extremity.' In other words, General Wolseley decided to enter Cairo by way of the Suez canal and Ismailia. But he kept his plan a profound secret. Admiral Seymour alone knew his purpose. … On the 19th, the transports moved eastward from Alexandria, as if to attack Abukir; but under the cover of darkness that night, they were escorted on to Port Said, where they learned that the entire canal, owing to the preconcerted action of Admiral Seymour, was in the hands of the British. On the 21st, the troops met Sir Henry McPherson's Indian contingent at Ismailia. Two days were now consumed in rest and preparation. The Egyptians cut off the water supply, which came from the Delta by the Sweet Water Canal, by damming the canal. A sortie to secure possession of the dam was therefore deemed necessary, and was successfully made on the 24th. Further advances were made, and on the 26th, Kassassin, a station of some importance on the canal and railway, was occupied. Here the British force was obliged to delay for two weeks, while organizing a hospital and a transport service. This gave Arabi opportunity to concentrate his forces at Zagazig and Tel-el-Kebir. But he knew it was for his interest to strike at once before the British transports could come up with the advance. He therefore made two attempts, one on August 28, and the other on September 9, to regain the position lost at Kassassin. But he failed in both, though inflicting some loss upon his opponents. On the 12th of September preparations were made by General Wolseley for a decisive battle. He had become convinced from daily reconnoissance and from the view obtained in the engagement of September 9, that the fortifications at Tel-el-Kebir were both extensive and formidable. … It was therefore decided to make the approach under cover of darkness. … At 1.30 on the morning of the 13th General Wolseley gave the order for the advance, his force consisting of about 11,000 infantry, 2,000 cavalrymen, and sixty field-guns. They had only the stars to guide them, but so accurately was the movement conducted that the leading brigades of each division reached the enemy's outposts within two minutes of each other. 'The enemy (says General Wolseley) were completely surprised, and it was not until one or two of their advanced sentries fired their rifles that they realized our close proximity to their works.' … The intrenchments were not carried without a severe struggle. The Egyptians fought with a desperate courage and hundreds of them were bayoneted at their posts. … But what could the rank and file accomplish when 'each officer knew that he would run, but hoped his neighbor would stay.' At the first shot Arabi and his second in command took horse and galloped to Belbeis, where they caught a train for Cairo. Most of the other officers, as the reports of killed and wounded show, did the same. The Egyptians fired their first shot at 4.55 A. M., and at 6.45 the English had possession of Arabi's headquarters and the canal bridge. The British loss was 57 killed, 380 wounded, and 22 missing. The Egyptian army left about 2,000 dead in the fortifications. … A proof of the completeness of the success was the entire dissipation of Arabi's army. Groups of soldiers, it is true, were scattered to different parts of Egypt; but the army organization was completely broken up with the battle of Tel-el-Kebir. … 'Major-General Lowe was ordered to push on with all possible speed to Cairo. … General Lowe [reached] the great barracks of Abbassieh, just outside of Cairo, at 4.45 P. M., on the 14th instant. The cavalry marched sixty-five miles in these two days. … A message was sent to Arabi Pasha through the prefect of the city, calling upon him to surrender forthwith, which he did unconditionally.' … Before leaving England, Wolseley had predicted that he would enter Cairo on the 16th of September; but with still a day to spare the feat was accomplished, and Arabi's rebellion was completely crushed. England now stood alone. Victory had been won without the aid of France or the intervention of Turkey. In Constantinople negotiations regarding Turkish expeditions were still pending when Lord Dufferin received the news of Wolseley's success, and announced to the Porte that there was now no need of a Turkish force in Egypt, as the war was ended. France at once prepared to resume her share in the control; but England, having borne the sole burden of the war, did not propose now to share the influence her success had given her. And it was for the interest of Egypt that she should not. … England's first duty, after quiet was assured, was to send away all the British troops except a force of about 11,000 men, which it was deemed advisable to retain in Egypt until the khedive's authority was placed on a safe footing throughout the land. … {767} What should be done with Arabi was the question of paramount interest, when once the khedive's authority was re-established and recognized. Tewfik and his ministers, if left to themselves, would unquestionably have taken his life. … But England was determined that Arabi should have a fair trial. … It was decided that the rebel leaders should appear before a military tribunal, and they were given English counsel to plead their cause. … The trial was a farce. Everything was 'cut and dried' beforehand. It was arranged that Arabi was to plead guilty to rebellion, that he was forthwith to be condemned to death by the court, and that the khedive was immediately to commute the sentence to perpetual exile. In fact, the necessary papers were drawn up and signed before the court met for Arabi's trial on December 3. … On the 26th of December Arabi and his six companions … upon whom the same sentence had been passed, left Cairo for the Island of Ceylon, there to spend their life of perpetual exile. … Lord Dufferin … had been sent from Constantinople to Cairo, early in November, with the special mission of bringing order out of governmental chaos. In two months he had prepared a scheme of legislative reorganization. This was, however, somewhat altered; so that it was not until May, 1883, that the plan in its improved form was accepted by the decree of the khedive. The new constitution provided for three classes of assemblies: the 'Legislative' Council,' the 'General Assembly,' and the 'Provincial Councils,' of which there were to be fourteen, one for each province. … Every Egyptian man, over twenty years of age, was to vote (by ballot) for an 'elector-delegate' from the village in the neighborhood of which he lived, and the 'electors-delegate' from all the villages in a province were to form the constituency that should elect the provincial council. … The scheme for reorganization was carried forward to the extent of electing the 'electors-delegate' in September; but by that time Egypt was again in a state of such disquietude that the British advisers of the khedive considered it unwise to put the new institutions into operation. In place of legislative council and general assembly, the khedive appointed a council of state, consisting of eleven Egyptians, two Armenians, and ten Europeans. The reforms were set aside for the time being in view of impending troubles and dangers in the Sudan."

      ALSO IN:
      Colonel J. F. Maurice,
      Military History of the Campaign of 1882 in Egypt.

EGYPT: A. D. 1884-1885.
   General Gordon's Mission to Khartoum.
   The town beleaguered by the Mahdists.
   English rescue expedition.
   The energy that was too late.

"The abandonment of the Soudan being decided upon, the British Government confided to General Gordon the task of extricating the Egyptian garrisons scattered throughout the country. … Gordon's original instructions were dated the 18th January, 1884. He was to proceed at once to Egypt, to report on the military situation in the Soudan, and on the measures which it might be advisable to take for the security of the Egyptian garrisons and for the safety of the European population in Khartoum. … He was to be accompanied by Colonel Stewart. … Gordon's final instructions were given him by the Egyptian Government in a firman appointing him Governor-General. … Gordon arrived at Khartoum on the 18th February. … While Gordon was sending almost daily expressions of his view as to the only way of carrying out the policy of eventual evacuation, it was also becoming clear to him that he would very soon be cut off from the rest of Egypt. His first remark on this subject was to express 'the conviction that I shall be caught in Khartoum'; and he wrote,—'Even if I was mean enough to escape I have no power to do so.' The accuracy of this forecast was speedily demonstrated. Within a few days communications with Khartoum were interrupted, and although subsequently restored for a time, the rising of the riparian tribes rendered the receipt and despatch of messages exceedingly uncertain. … Long before the summer of 1884, it was evident that the position of Gordon at Khartoum had become so critical, that if he were to be rescued at all, it could only be by the despatch of a British force. … Early in May, war preparations were commenced in England, and on the 10th of the month the military authorities in Cairo received instructions to prepare for the despatch in October of an expedition for the relief of the Soudanese capital. 12,000 camels were ordered to be purchased and held in readiness for a forward march in the autumn. On the 16th May a half-battalion of English troops was moved up the Nile to Wady Halfa. A few weeks later some other positions on the Nile were occupied by portions of the Army of Occupation. Naval officers were also sent up the river to examine and report upon the cataracts and other impediments to navigation. Still it was not till the 5th August that Mr. Gladstone rose in the House of Commons to move a vote of credit of £300,000 to enable the Government to undertake operations for the relief of Gordon. … It was agreed that there were but two routes by which Khartoum could be approached by an expedition. One by way of the Nile, and the other via Souakim and Berber. … The Nile route having been decided on, preparations on a large scale were begun. … It was at first arranged that not more than 5,000 men should form the Expedition, but later on the number was raised to 7,000. … The instructions given to Lord Wolseley stated that the primary object of the Expedition was to bring away Gordon and Stewart from Khartoum; and when that purpose should be effected, no further offensive operations of any kind were to be undertaken."

   "First, it was said that our troops would be before the gates
   of Khartoum on January 14th; next it was the middle of
   February; and then the time stretched out to the middle of
   March. … Lord Wolseley offered a hundred pounds to the
   regiment covering the distance from Sarras to Debbeh most
   expeditiously and with least damage to boats. … He also
   dispatched Sir Herbert Stewart on the immortal march to
   Gakdul. Stewart's force, composed principally of the Mounted
   Infantry and Camel Corps, and led by a troop of the 19th
   Hussars, acting as scouts—numbering about 1,100 in all—set
   out from Korti on December 30th. Its destination was about 100
   miles from headquarters, and about 80 from the Nile at Shendy.
{768}
   The enterprise, difficult and desperate as it was, was
   achieved with perfect success. … On the 17th January Sir
   Herbert Stewart engaged the enemy on the road to Metemneh, and
   after defeating some 10,000 Arabs—collected from Berber,
   Metemneh, and Omdurman—pushed forward to the Abu Klea Wells.
   His tactics were much the same as those of General Graham at
   Elteb, and those of the Mahdi's men—of attacking when thirst
   and fatigue had well-nigh prostrated the force—were at all
   points similar to those adopted against Hicks. Our losses were
   65 non-commissioned officers and men killed and 85 wounded,
   with 9 officers killed—among them Colonel Burnaby—and 9
   wounded. Stewart at once pushed on for Metemneh and the Nile.
   He left the Wells on the 18th January to occupy Metemneh, if
   possible, but, failing that, to make for the Nile and entrench
   himself. After a night's march, some five miles south of
   Metemneh, the column found itself in presence of an enemy said
   to have been about 18,000 strong. Stewart halted and formed a
   zareba under a deadly fire. He himself was mortally hurt in
   the groin, and Mr. Cameron, of the Standard, and Mr. Herbert,
   of the Morning Post, were killed. The zareba completed, the
   column advanced in square, and the Arabs, profiting by Abu
   Klea, moved forward in echelon, apparently with the purpose of
   charging. At thirty yards or so they were brought to bay, so
   terrific was the fire from the square, and so splendidly
   served was Norton's artillery. For two hours the battle raged;
   and then the Arabs, 'mown down in heaps,' gave way. Meantime
   Sir Charles Wilson had made a dash for the Nile, where he
   found steamers and reinforcements from Gordon, and the laconic
   message, 'An right at Khartoum. Can hold out for years.' …
   In the joy at the good news, none had stopped to consider the
   true meaning of the message, 'All right. Can hold out for
   years,' for none was aware that nearly two months before
   Gordon had said he had just provisions enough for 40 days, and
   that what he really meant was that he had come to his last
   biscuit. The message—which was written for the enemy—was
   dated December 20, and Sir Charles Wilson would reach Khartoum on
   January 28, just a month after its despatch. … The public,
   carefully kept in ignorance … and hopeful beyond their wont,
   were simply stupefied to hear, on February 5, that Khartoum was in
   the hands of the Mahdi and Gordon captured or dead."

      H. W. Gordon,
      Events in the Life of Charles George Gordon,
      chapters 14-20.

Mohamed Tewfik died in January, 1802 and was succeeded by his
son Abbas, born in 1874.

EGYPTIAN EDUCATION.

EGYPTIAN TALENT.

EIDGENOSSEN.

The German word Eidgenossen, signifying "confederates," is often used in a special sense, historically, as applied to the members of the Swiss Confederation/

The name of the Huguenots is believed by some writers to be a corruption of the same term.

EIRE.

EKKLESIA.

ELAM.

"Genesis calls a tribe dwelling on the Lower Tigris, between the river and the mountains of Iran, the Elamites, the oldest son of Shem. Among the Greeks the land of the Elamites was known as Kissia [Cissia], and afterwards as Susiana, from the name of the capital. It was also called Elymais."

About 2300 B. C. Chaldea, or Babylonia, was overwhelmed by an Elamite invasion—an invasion recorded by king Asshurbanipal, and which is stated to have laid waste the land of Accad and desecrated its temples. "Nor was this a passing inroad or raid of booty-seeking mountaineers. It was a real conquest. Khudur-Nankhundi and his successors remained in Southern Chaldea. … This is the first time we meet authentic monumental records of a country which was destined through the next sixteen centuries to be in continual contact, mostly hostile, with both Babylonia and her northern rival, Assyria, until its final annihilation by the latter [B. C. 649, under Asshurbanipal, the Sardanapulus of the Greeks, who reduced the whole country to a wilderness]. Its capital was Shushan (afterwards pronounced by foreigners Susa), and its own original name Shushinak. Its people were of Turanian stock, its language was nearly akin to that of Shumir and Accad. … Elam, the name under which the country is best known, both from the Bible and later monuments, is a Turanian word, which means, like 'Accad,' 'Highlands.' … One of Khudur-Nankhundi's next successors, Khudur-Lagamar, was not content with the addition of Chaldea to his kingdom of Elam. He had the ambition of a born conqueror, and the generalship of one. The Chapter xiv, of Genesis—which calls him Chedorlaomer—is the only document we have descriptive of this king's warlike career, and a very striking picture it gives of it, … Khudur-Lagamar … lived, according to the most probable calculations, about 2200 B. C."

It is among the discoveries of recent times, derived from the records in clay unearthed in Babylonia, that Cyrus the Great was originally king of Elam, and acquired Persia, as he acquired his later dominions, by conquest.

APPENDIX A.

NOTES TO ETHNOGRAPHICAL MAP, PLACED AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS VOLUME.

To the eye of modern scholarship "language" forms the basis of every ethnic distinction. Physical and exterior features like the stature, the color of the skin, the diversity of habits and customs, the distinctions which once formed in great part the basis of ethnic research have all in our own day been relegated to a subordinate place.

The "language" test is of course subject to very serious limitations. The intermingling of different peoples, more general to be sure in our own day than in past ages, has nevertheless been sufficiently great in every age to make the tracing of linguistic forms a task of great difficulty. In special cases where both the civilization and language of one people have become lost in that of another the test must of course fail utterly.

With all these restrictions however the adoption of the linguistic method by modern criticism has been practically universal. Its defence, if it requires any, is apparent. It is the only method of ethnic study the deductions of which, where successful at all, approach anything like certainty. The points wherein linguistic criticism has failed have been freely admitted; on the other hand the facts which it has established are unassailable by any other school of criticism.

Taking language then as the only tangible working basis the subject resolves itself from the start into a two-fold division: the debatable and the certain. It is the purpose to indicate in the course of these notes, what is merely conjecture and what may be safely accepted as fact.

The ethnology of Europe, studied on this basis, has for its central feature the Indo-Germanic (Indo-European) or Aryan race. The distinction between the races clearly Aryan and those doubtful or non-Aryan forms the primary division of the subject. As the map is intended to deal only with the Europe of the present, a historical distinction must be made at the outset between the doubtful or non-Aryan peoples who preceded the Aryans and the non-Aryan peoples who have appeared in Europe in comparatively recent times. The simple formula, pre-Aryan, Aryan, non-Aryan, affords the key to the historical development of European ethnology.

PRE-ARYAN PEOPLES.

Of the presumably pre-Aryan peoples of western Europe the Iberians occupy easily the first place. The seat of this people at the dawn of history was in Spain and southern France; their ethnology belongs entirely to the realm of conjecture. They are of much darker complexion than the Aryans and their racial characteristic is conservatism even to stubbornness, which places them in marked contrast to their immediate Aryan neighbors, the volatile Celts. Among the speculations concerning the origin of the Iberians a plausible one is that of Dr. Bodichon, who assigns to them an African origin making them, indeed, cognate with the modern Berbers (see R. H. Patterson's "Ethnology of Europe" in "Lectures on History and Art"). This generalization is made to include also the Bretons of the north west. It is clear however that the population of modern Brittany is purely Celtic: made up largely from the immigrations from the British Isles during the fifth century.

To the stubbornness with which the Iberians resisted every foreign aggression and refused intermingling with surrounding races is due the survival to the present day of their descendants, the Basques.

The mountain ranges of northern Spain, the Cantabrians and Eastern Pyrenees have formed the very donjon-keep of this people in every age. Here the Cantabri successfully resisted the Roman arms for more than a century after the subjugation of the remainder of Spain, the final conquest not occurring until the last years of Augustus. While the Iberian race as a whole has become lost in the greater mass of Celtic and Latin intruders, it has remained almost pure in this quarter. The present seat of the Basques is in the Spanish provinces of Viscaya, Alava, Guipuzcoa, and Navarre and in the French department of Basses Pyrénées. The Ivernians of Ireland, now lost in the Celtic population, and the Ligurians along the shores of the Genoese gulf, later absorbed by the Romans, both belong likewise to this pre-Aryan class. (Modern research concerning these pre-Aryan peoples has in large part taken its inspiration from the "Untersuchungen" of Humboldt, whose view concerning the connection between the Basques and Iberians is substantially the one stated.)

Another early non-Aryan race now extinct were the Etruscans of Italy. Their origin was manifestly different from that of the pre-Aryan peoples just mentioned. By many they have been regarded as a branch of the great Ural-Altaic family. This again is conjecture.

ARYAN PEOPLES.

In beginning the survey of the Aryan peoples it is necessary to mention the principal divisions of the race. As generally enumerated there are seven of these, viz., the Sanskrit (Hindoo), Zend (Persian), Greek, Latin, Celtic, Germanic and Slavic. To these may be added two others not definitely classified, the Albanian and the Lithuanian. These bear the closest affinity respectively to the Latin and the Slavic.

Speculation concerning the origin of the Aryans need not concern us. It belongs as yet entirely to the arena of controversy. The vital question which divides the opposing schools is concerning their European or Asiatic origin. Of the numerous writers on this subject the two who perhaps afford the reader of English the best view of the opposing opinions are, on the Asiatic side, Dr. Max Müller (Lectures on the Science of Language); on the other, Professor A. H. Sayce (Introduction to the Science of Language).

Of the divisions of the Aryan race above enumerated the first two do not appear in European ethnology. Of the other branches, the Latin, Germanic and Slavic form by great odds the bulk of the European population.

THE LATIN BRANCH.

The Latin countries are France, Spain, Portugal, Italy and the territory north of the Danube, between the Dniester and the Theiss. In the strictest ethnic sense however the term Latin can be applied only to Italy and then only to the central part. As Italy first appears in history it is inhabited by a number of different races: the Iapygians and Oenotrians of the south who were thrown in direct contact with the Greek settlers; the Umbrians, Sabines, Latins, Volscians and Oscans in the centre; the Etruscans on the west shore north of the Tiber; while in the north we find the Gauls in the valley of the Po, with the Ligurians and Venetians respectively on the west and east coasts. Of this motley collection the central group bore a close affinity to the Latin, yet all alike received the Latin stamp with the growing power of Rome.

The ethnic complexion of Italy thus formed was hardly modified by the great Germanic invasions which followed with the fall of the West-Roman Empire.

This observation applies with more or less truth to all the Latin countries, the Germanic conquerors becoming everywhere merged and finally lost in the greater mass of the conquered. Only in Lombardy where a more enduring Germanic kingdom existed for over two centuries (568-774), has the Germanic made any impression, and this indeed a slight one, on the distinctly Latin character of the Italian peninsula.

In Spain an interval between the Iberian period and the Roman conquest appears to have existed, during which the population is best described as Celt-Iberian. Upon this population the Latin stamp was placed by the long and toilsome, but for that reason more thorough, Roman conquest. The ethnic character of Spain thus formed has passed without material change through the ordeal both of Germanic and Saracenic conquest. The Gothic kingdom of Spain (418-714) and the Suevic kingdom of northern Portugal (406-584) have left behind them scarcely a trace. The effects of the great Mohammedan invasion cannot be dismissed so lightly.

Conquered entirely by the Arabs and Moors in 714, the entire country was not freed from the invader for nearly eight centuries. In the south (Granada) where the Moors clung longest their influence has been greatest. Here their impress on the pure Aryan stock has never been effaced.

The opening phrase of Cæsar's Gallic war, "all Gaul is divided into three parts," states a fact as truly ethnic as it is geographical or historical. In the south (Aquitania) we find the Celtic blending with the Iberian; in the northeast the Cimbrian Belgae, the last comers of the Celtic family, are strongly marked by the characteristics of the Germans; while in the vast central territory the people "calling themselves Galli" are of pure Celtic race. This brief statement of Caesar, allowing for the subsequent influx of the German, is no mean description of the ethnic divisions of France as they exist at the present day, and is an evidence of the remarkable continuity of ethnological as opposed to mere political conditions.

The four and a half centuries of Roman rule placed the Latin stamp on the Gallic nation, a preparation for the most determined siege of Germanic race influence which any Latin nation was fated to undergo.

In Italy and Spain the exotic kingdoms were quickly overthrown; the Frankish kingdom in northern Gaul was in strictness never overthrown at all.

In addition we soon have in the extreme north a second Germanic element in the Scandinavian Norman. Over all these outside elements, however, the Latin influence eventually triumphed. While the Franks have imposed their name upon the natives, the latter have imposed their language and civilization on the invaders.

The result of this clashing of influences is seen, however, in the present linguistic division of the old Gallic lands. The line running east and west through the centre of France marks the division between the French and the Provençal dialects, the langued'oil and the langued'oc. It is south of this line in the country of the langued'oc that the Latin or Romance influence reigns most absolute in the native speech.

In the northeast, on the other hand, in the Walloon provinces of Belgium, we have, as with the Belgae of classic times, the near approach of the Gallic to the Germanic stems.

Our survey of the Latin peoples must close with a short notice of its outlying members in the Balkan and Danubian lands. The Albanians (Skipetars) and the Roumans (Vlachs or Wallachs) represent as nearly as ethnology can determine the ancient populations respectively of Illyricum and Thrace. The ethnology of the Albanians is entirely uncertain. Their present location, considerably to the south of their supposed pristine seat in Illyricum, indicates some southern migration of the race. This migration occurred at an entirely unknown time, though it is generally believed to have been contemporary with the great southward movement of the Slavic races in the seventh century.

The Albanian migrations of the time penetrated Attica, Aetolia and the entire Peloponnesus; with the Slavs and Vlachs they formed indeed a great part of the population of Greece during the Middle Ages. While the Slavic stems have since been merged in the native Greek population, and the Vlachs have almost entirely disappeared from these southern lands, the Albanians in Greece have shown a greater tenacity. Their part in later Greek history has been a prominent one and they form to-day a great part of the population of Attica and Argolis.

The Roumans or Vlachs, the supposed native population of Thrace, are more closely identified than the Albanians with the other Latin peoples. They occupy at present the vast country north of the Danube, their boundary extending on the east to the Dniester, on the west almost to the Theiss.

Historically these people form a perplexing yet interesting study. The theory once general that they represented a continuous Latin civilization north of the Danube, connecting the classic Dacia by an unbroken chain to the present, has now been generally abandoned. (See Roesler's "Romänische Studien" or Freeman's "Historical Geography of Europe," page 435.)

The present geographical location of the Vlach peoples is probably the result of a migration from the Thracian lands south of the Danube, which occurred for unexplained causes in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. The kernel of the race at the present day is the separate state of Roumania; in the East and West they come under the respective rules of Russia and Hungary.

In mediaeval times the part played by them south of the Balkans was an important one, and to this day they still linger in considerable numbers on either side of the range of Pindus. (For a short dissertation on the Vlach peoples, see Finlay, "History of Greece," volume 3, pages 224-230.)

THE GERMANIC BRANCH.

The Germanic nations of modern Europe are England,
Germany, Holland, Denmark, Norway and Sweden. The
Germanic races also form the major part of the population of
Switzerland, the Cis-Leithan division of the Austrian Empire, and
appear in isolated settlements throughout Hungary and Russia.

Of the earlier Germanic nations who overthrew the Roman Empire of the West scarcely a trace remains.

The population of the British Isles at the dawn of history furnishes a close parallel to that of Gaul. The pre-Aryan Ivernians (the possible Iberians of the British Isles) had been forced back into the recesses of Scotland and Ireland; next to them came the Celts, like those of Gaul, in two divisions, the Goidels or Gaels and the Britons.

In Britain, contrary to the usual rule, the Roman domination did not give the perpetual Latin stamp to the island; it is in fact the only country save the Pannonian and Rhaetian lands south of the upper Danube, once a Roman possession, where the Germanic element has since gained a complete mastery. The invasion of the Germanic races, the Angles, Saxons and Jutes, from the sixth to the eighth centuries, were practically wars of extermination. The Celtic race is to-day represented on the British Isles only in Wales and the western portions of Scotland and Ireland. The invasions of the Danes, and later the Norman conquest, bringing with them only slight infusions of kindred Germanic nations, have produced in England no marked modification of the Saxon stock.

The German Empire, with the smaller adjoining realms,
Holland and Switzerland and the Austrian provinces of Austria,
Styria, Carinthia, Salzburg and Tyrol, contain the great mass of
the Germanic peoples of the continent.

During the confusion following the overthrow of the West-Roman Empire the Germanic peoples were grouped much further westward than they are at present; the eastward reaction involving the dispossession of the Slavic peoples on the Elbe and Oder, has been going on ever since the days of Charlemagne. Germany like France possesses a linguistic division, Low German (Nieder-Deutsche) being generally spoken in the lands north of the cross line, High German (Hoch-Deutsche) from which the written language is derived, to the south of it, Holland uses the Flemish, a form of the Nieder-Deutsche; Belgium is about equally divided between the Flemish and the Walloon. Switzerland, though predominantly German, is encroached upon by the French in the western cantons, while in the southeast is used the Italian and a form allied to the same, the Romance speech of the Rhaetian (Tyrolese) Alps. This form also prevails in Friuli and some mountainous parts of northern Italy.

The present population of the German Empire is almost exclusively Germanic, the exceptions being the Slavic Poles of Posen, Pomerellen, southeastern Prussia and eastern Silesia, the remnant of the Wends of Lusatia and the French element in the recently acquired Imperial lands of Alsace and Lorraine. Beyond the Empire we find a German population in the Austrian territories already noted, in the border lands of Bohemia, and in isolated settlements further east. The great settlement in the Siebenbürgen was made by German emigrants in the eleventh century and similar settlements dot the map both of Hungary and Russia. On the Volga indeed exists the greatest of them all.

Denmark, Norway and Sweden are peopled by the Scandinavian branch of the Germanic race. Only in the extreme north do we find another and non-Aryan race, the Lapps. On the other hand a remnant of the Swedes still retain a precarious hold on the coast line of their former possession, the Russian Finland.

THE SLAVIC BRANCH.

The Slavs, though the last of the Aryan nations to appear in history, form numerically by far the greatest branch of the Indo-European family. Their present number in Europe is computed at nearly one hundred million souls.

At the time of the great migrations they extended over nearly all modern Germany; their slow dispossession by the Germanic peoples, beginning in the eighth century, has already been noticed. In the course of this dispossession the most westerly Slavic group, the Polabic, between the Elbe and the Oder, were merged in the German, and, barring the remnant of Wends in Lusatia (the Sorabi or Northern Serbs), have disappeared entirely from ethnic geography.

The great Slavic nation of the present day is Russia, but the great number of Slavic peoples who are not Russian and the considerable Russian population which is not Slavic renders impossible the study of this race on strictly national lines.

The Slavic peoples are separated, partly by geographical conditions, into three great divisions: the Eastern, the Western and the Southern. The greatest of these divisions, the Eastern, lies entirely within the boundaries of the Russian Empire. The sub-divisions of the Eastern group are as follows: The Great Russians occupying the vast inland territory and numbering alone between forty and fifty millions, the Little Russians inhabiting the entire south of Russia from Poland to the Caspian, and the White Russians, the least numerous of this division, in Smolensk, Wilna, and Minsk, the west provinces bordering on the Lithuanians and Poles.

The West Slavic group, omitting names of peoples now extinct, are the Poles, Slovaks, Czechs and the remnants of the Lusatian Wends. The Poles, excepting those already mentioned as within the German empire, and the Austrian Poles of Cracow, are all under the domination of Russia. Under the sovereignty of Austria are the Slovaks, Moravians and Czechs of Bohemia, the latter the most westerly as well as historically the oldest of the surviving Slavic peoples, having appeared in their present seats in the last years of the fifth century.

In connection with this West Slavic group we should also refer to the Lithuanians whose history, despite the racial difference, is so closely allied with that of Poland. Their present location in the Russian provinces of Kowno, Kurland and Livland has been practically the same since the dawn of history.

The South Slavic peoples were isolated from their northern kinsmen by the great Finno-Tatar invasions.

The invasion of Europe by the Avars in the sixth century clove like a wedge the two great divisions of the Slavic race, the southernmost being forced upon the confines of the East-Roman Empire. Though less imposing as conquests than the Germanic invasions of the Western Empire, the racial importance of these Slavic movements is far greater since they constitute, in connection with the Finno-Tatar invasions which caused them, the most important and clearly defined series of ethnic changes which Europe has experienced during the Christian Era. During the sixth and seventh centuries these Slavic emigrants spread over almost the entire Balkan peninsula, including Epirus and the Peloponnesus. In Greece they afterwards disappeared as a separate people, but in the region between the Danube, the Save and the Balkans they immediately developed separate states (Servia in 641, Bulgaria in 678). As they exist at present they may be classed in three divisions. The Bulgarians, so called from the Finno-Tatar people whom they absorbed while accepting their name, occupy the district included in the separate state of Bulgaria and Eastern Roumelia, with a considerable territory to the south of it in Macedonia and Thrace. It was this last named territory or one very nearly corresponding to it that was actually ceded to Bulgaria by the peace of San Stefano, though she unfortunately lost it by the subsequent compromise effected at the Congress of Berlin. The second division includes the Servians, Montenegrans, Bosnians and Croatians, the last two under Austrian control; the third and smallest are the Slovenes of Carniola, likewise under Austrian sovereignty. (Schafarik's "Slawische Alterthümer" is the greatest single authority on the early history and also comparative ethnology of the Slavs.)

The territory occupied by the Greek speaking people is clearly shown on the accompanying map. As in all history, it is the coast lands where they seem to have formed the strongest hold. In free Greece itself and in the Turkish territories immediately adjoining, the Greek population overwhelmingly preponderates.

Nevertheless there is still a considerable Albanian element in Attica and Argolis, a Vlach element in Epirus while the Turk himself still lingers in certain quarters of Thessaly. All these are remnants left over from the successive migrations of the Middle Ages. The Slavs, who also figured most prominently in these migrations, have disappeared in Greece as a distinct race. The question as to the degree of Slavic admixture among the modern Greeks is however another fruitful source of ethnic controversy. The general features of the question are most compactly stated in Finlay, volume 4, pages 1-37.

NON-ARYAN PEOPLES.

The Non-Aryan peoples on the soil of modern Europe, excepting the Jews and also probably excepting those already placed in the unsolved class of pre-Aryan, all belong to the Finno-Tatar or Ural-Altaic family, and all, possibly excepting the Finns, date their arrival in Europe from comparatively recent and historic times. The four principal divisions of this race, the Ugric, Finnic, Turkic and Mongolic, all have their European representatives.

Of the first the only representatives are the Hungarians (Magyars). The rift between the North and South Slavic peoples opened by the Huns in the fifth century, reopened and enlarged by the Avars in the sixth, was finally occupied by their kinsmen the Magyars in the ninth. The receding of this wave of Asiatic invasion left the Magyars in utter isolation among their Aryan neighbors. It follows as a natural consequence that they have been the only one of the Ural-Altaic peoples to accept the religion and civilization of the West. Since the conversion of their king St. Stephen in the year 1000, their geographical position has not altered. Roughly speaking, it comprises the western half of Hungary, with an outlying branch in the Carpathians.

More closely allied to the Magyars than to their more immediate neighbors of the same race are the Finnic stems of the extreme north. Stretching originally over nearly the whole northern half of Scandinavia and Russia they have been gradually displaced, in the one case by their Germanic, in the other by their Slavic neighbors. Their present representatives are the Ehsts and Tschudes of Ehstland, the Finns and Karelians of Finland, the Tscheremissians of the upper Volga, the Siryenians in the basin of the Petchora and the Lapps in northern Scandinavia and along the shores of the Arctic ocean.

East of the Lapps, also bordering the Arctic ocean, lie the Samojedes, a people forming a distinct branch of the Ural-Altaic family though most closely allied to the Finnic peoples. The great division of the Ural-Altaic family known indifferently as Tatar (Tartar) or Turk, has, like the Aryan Slavs, through the accidents of historical geography rather than race divergence been separated into two great divisions: the northern or Russian division commonly comprised under the specific name of Tartar; and the southern, the Turk.

These are the latest additions to the European family of races. The Mongol-Tatar invasion of Russia occurred as late as the thirteenth century, while the Turks did not gain their first foothold in Europe through the gates of Gallipoli until 1353. The bulk of the Turks of the present day are congregated in Asia-Minor.

Barring the Armenians, the Georgians of the northeast, the Greeks of the seacoast and the scattered Circassians, the whole peninsula is substantially Turkish.

In Europe proper the Turks as a distinct people never cut a great figure. Even in the grandest days of Osmanli conquest they were always outnumbered by the conquered nations whose land they occupied, and with the decline of their power this numerical inferiority has become more and more marked. At the present day there are very few portions of the Balkan peninsula where the Turkish population actually predominates; their general distribution is clearly shown on the map.

The Tartars or Russian Turks represent the siftings of the Asiatic invasions of the thirteenth century.

Their number has been steadily dwindling until they now count scarcely three millions, a mere handful in the mass of their former Slavic subjects.

The survivors are scattered in irregular and isolated groups over the south and east. Prominent among them are the Crim Tartars, the kindred Nogais of the west shores of the Caspian, the Kirghis of the north shore and Ural valley, and the Bashkirs between the upper Ural and the Volga, with an isolated branch of Tartars in the valley of the Araxes south of the Caucasus.

The great Asiatic irruption of the thirteenth century has been commonly known as the Mongol invasion. Such it was in leadership, though the residuum which it has left behind in European Russia proves that the rank and file were mostly Tartars. One Mongol people however, the Kalmucks, did make their way into Europe and still exist in the steppes between the lower Don and the lower Volga.

The ethnology of the Caucasian peoples is the most difficult part of the entire subject. On the steppes of the Black and Caspian seas up to the very limit of the Caucasus we have two races between whom the ethnic distinction is clearly defined, the Mongol-Tartar and the Slav. Entering the Caucasus however we find a vast number of races differing alike from these and from each other.

To enumerate all the different divisions of these races, whose ethnology is so very uncertain, would be useless. Grouped in three general divisions however they are as follows: the so-called Circassians who formerly occupied the whole western Caucasus with the adjoining Black sea coast but who, since the Russian conquest of 1864, have for the most part emigrated to different quarters of the Turkish Empire; the Lesghians, under which general name are included the motley crowd of peoples inhabiting the eastern Caucasus; and the Georgians, the supposed descendants of the ancient Iberians of the Caucasus, who inhabit the southern slope, including all the Tiflis province and the Trapezuntine lands on the southeast coast of the Black sea.

The Tartars are hardly found in the Caucasus though they reappear immediately south of it in the lower basin of the Kura and the Araxes. Here also appear the various Iranian stems of the Asiatic Aryans, the Armenians, the Persians and the Kurds.

R. H. Latham's works on "European Ethnology" are the best general authority in English. Of more recent German guides, map and otherwise, the following are noteworthy: Bastain's "Ethnologisches Bilderbuch," "Das Beständige in den Menschenrassen," "Allgemeine Grundzüge der Ethnologie," Kiepert's "Ethnographische Uebersichtskarte des Europäischen Orients," Menke's "Europa nach seinen Ethnologischen Verhältnissen in der Mitte des 19. Jahrhundert," Rittich's "Ethnographie des europäischen Russland," Sax's "Ethnographische Karte der europäischen Turkei," Berghaus's "Ethnographische Karte vom österreichischen Kaiserstaat," Wendt's "Bilder Atlas der Länder und Völkerkunde," Andree's "Allgemeiner Hand-atlas (Ethnographischen Karten)," Gerland's "Atlas der Ethnographie."

APPENDIX B.

NOTES TO FOUR MAPS OF THE BALKAN PENINSULA. (TWELFTH TO THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY.)

There exists to-day upon the map of Europe no section whose historical geography has a greater present interest than the Danubian, Balkan and Levantine states. It is these and the Austro-Hungarian lands immediately adjoining which have formed one of the great fulcrums for those national movements which constitute the prime feature of the historical geography of the present age.

Upon the present map of Europe in this quarter we discover a number of separate and diminutive national entities, the Roumanian, Bulgarian, Servian and Montenegrin, the Greek and Albanian, all struggling desperately to establish themselves on the debris of the crumbling Turkish Empire.

What the issue will be of these numerous and mutually conflicting struggles for separate national existence it is out of our province to forecast.

It is only intended in this map series to throw all possible light on their true character from the lessons and analogies of the past. At first sight the period treated in the four Levantine maps (from the last of the twelfth to the middle of the fifteenth century) must appear the most intricate and the most obscure in the entire history of this region. The most intricate it certainly is, and possibly the most obscure, though the obscurity arises largely from neglect. Its importance, however, arises from the fact that it is the only past period of Levantine history which presents a clear analogy to the present, not alone in its purely transitionary character, but also from the several national movements which during this time were diligently at work.

During the Roman and the earlier Byzantine periods, which from their continuity may be taken as one, any special tendency was of course stifled under the preponderant rule of a single great empire.

The same was equally true at a later time, when all of these regions passed under the rule of the Turk. These four maps treat of that most interesting period intervening between the crumbling of the Byzantine power and the Turkish conquest. That in our own day the crumbling in turn of the Turkish power has repeated, in its general features, the same historical situation, is the point upon which the interest must inevitably centre.

What the outcome will be in modern times forms the most interesting of political studies. Whether the native races of the Danube, the Balkans and the southern peninsula are to work out their full national development, either federately or independently, or whether they are destined to pass again, as is threatened, under the domination of another and greater empire, is one of the most important of the questions which agitates the mind of the modern European statesman. That the latter outcome is now the less likely is due to the great unfolding of separate national spirit which marks so strongly the age in which we live. The reason why the previous age treated in this map series ended in nothing better than foreign and Mohammedan conquest may perhaps be sought in the imperfect development of this same national spirit.

THE BYZANTINE EMPIRE.

The first map (Asia Minor and the Balkans near the close of the twelfth century) is intended to show the geographical situation as it existed immediately prior to the dismemberment of the Byzantine Empire. The Byzantine Empire of this period is in itself an important study. It must be regarded more as the offspring than the direct continuation of the great East-Roman Empire of Arcadius and Justinian; for with the centuries which had intervened the great changes in polity, internal geography, external neighbors and lastly the continual geographical contraction, present us with an entirely new series of relations. It is this geographical contraction which concerns us most vitally, for with it the frontiers of the empire conform more and more closely to the ethnic limits of the Greek nation. The later Byzantine Empire was, therefore, essentially a Greek Empire, and as such it appeals most vividly to the national consciousness of the Greek of our own time. The restoration of this empire, with the little kingdom of free Greece as the nucleus, is the vision which inspires the more aggressive and venturesome school of modern Greek politicians. In the twelfth century the bulk of Asia Minor had been wrested from the Byzantine Empire by the Turks, but it was the Crusaders, not the Turks, who overthrew the first empire. In one view this fact is fortunate, otherwise there would have been no transition period whose study would be productive of such fruitful results.

Owing to the artful policy of the Comnenian emperors, the Byzantine Empire actually profited by the early crusades and was enabled through them to recover a considerable part of Asia Minor from the Turks. This apparent success, however, was only the prelude to final disaster.

Isolated from western Christendom by the schism, the Greeks were an object of suspicion and hatred to the Latin Crusaders and it only required a slight abatement of the original crusading spirit for their warlike ardor to be diverted from Jerusalem to Constantinople. Cyprus was torn away from the Greek Empire and created a separate kingdom under Latin rule, in 1191. Finally, the so-called Fourth Crusade, controlled by Venetian intrigue, ended in the complete dismemberment of the Byzantine Empire (1204).

This nefarious enterprise forms a dark spot in history: it also ushers in the greatest period of geographical intricacy in Levantine annals, the geography which immediately resulted from it is not directly shown in this Levantine map series, but can be seen on the general map of Europe at the opening of the thirteenth century. Briefly stated, it represented the establishment of a fragmentary and disjointed Latin Empire in the place of the former Greek Empire of Constantinople. Known as the Latin Empire of Romania, this new creation included the Empire of Constantinople proper and its feudal dependencies, the kingdom of Thessalonica, the duchy of Athens, and the principality of Achaia.

Three orphan Greek states survived the fall of the parent power: in Europe, the despotat of Epirus, and in Asia, the empires of Nicæa and Trebizond.

The Latin states of the East are scarcely worthy the historian's notice. They have no place whatever in the natural development, either political or geographical, of the Levantine states. They were not only forced by foreign lances upon an unwilling population, but were clumsy feudalisms, established among a people to whom the feudal idea was unintelligible and barbarous. Like their prototypes, the Crusading states of Syria, they resembled artificial encroachments upon the sea, standing for a time, but with the ordinary course of nature the ocean reclaims its own.

Even the weak little Greek states were strong in comparison and immediately began to recover ground at their expense. The kingdom of Thessalonica was overthrown by the despot of Epirus in 1222; the Latin Empire of Constantinople itself fell before the Greek Emperor of Nicæa in 1261; while the last of the barons of the principality of Achaia submitted to the Byzantine despots of the Morea in 1430.

The duchy of Athens alone of all these Latin states survived long enough to fall at last before the Turkish conquest. The Levantine possessions won by Venice at this and later times were destined, partly from their insular or maritime location, and partly from the greater vitality of trade relations, to enjoy a somewhat longer life.

To the Nicæan emperors of the house of Paleologus belongs the achievement of having restored the Byzantine Empire in the event of 1261. The expression Restored Byzantine Empire has been employed, since it has the sanction of usage, though a complete restoration never occurred. The geography of the Restored Empire as shown on the second map (1265 A. D.) fails to include the greater part of what we may term the cradle of the Greek race. The only subsequent extension was over the balance of the Morea. In every other quarter the frontiers of the Restored Empire soon began to recede until it included only the city of Constantinople and an ever decreasing portion of Thrace. With the commencement of the fourteenth century the Turks, having thrown off the Mongol-Tartar dominion, began under the house of Osmanlis their final career of conquest. This, of course, was the beginning of the end. Their first foothold in Europe was gained in 1353, but over a century was destined to elapse before the completion of their sovereignty in all the lands south of the Danube. There remains, therefore, a considerable period during which whatever separate national tendencies existed had full opportunity to work.

THE FIRST AND SECOND BULGARIAN KINGDOMS.

It was this age which saw not only the highest point in the national greatness of Bulgaria and Servia, but also witnessed the evolution of the Wallachian principalities in the lands north of the Danube.

The separate states of Bulgaria and Servia, born in the seventh century of the great southward migration of the Slavic peoples, had in after times risen or fallen according to the strength or weakness of the Byzantine Empire. Bulgaria had hitherto shown the greatest power. At several different periods, notably under Simeon (883-927), and again under Samuel (976-1014), it developed a strength which fairly overawed the Empire itself. These Slavic states had, however, been subjected by the Byzantine Empire in the first half of the eleventh century, and, though Servia enjoyed another period of independence (1040-1148), it was not until the final crumbling of the Byzantine Empire, the premonition of the event of 1204, that their expansion recommences. The Wallachian, or Second Bulgarian kingdom, which came into existence in 1187 in the lands between the Balkans and the Danube, has been the subject of an ethnic discussion which need not detain us. That it was not purely Slavic is well established, for the great and singular revival of the Vlach or Rouman peoples and their movement from the lands south of Haemus to their present seats north of the Danube, which is one of the great features of this age, had already begun. (The country between the Danube and the Balkans, the seat of the Second Bulgarian kingdom, appears as Aspro or White-Wallachia in some Byzantine writings. So also north of the Danube the later Moldavia and Great Wallachia are known respectively as Mavro [Black] and Hungarowallachia. Still the fact of a continuous Roumnn civilization north of the Danube is not established. The theory of a great northward movement of the Vlach peoples is the one now generally accepted and is ably advocated in Roesler's "Romänische Studien.")

At the present day this movement has been so long completed that scarcely the trace of Vlach population remains in the lands south of the Danube. These emigrants appear, as it were, in passing, to have shared with the native Bulgarians in the creation of this Second Bulgarian kingdom. This realm achieved a momentary greatness under its rulers of the house of Asau. The dismemberment of the Byzantine Empire in 1204 enabled them to make great encroachments to the south, and it seemed for a time that to the Bulgarian, not the Greek, would fall the task of overthrowing the Latin Empire of Roumania (see general map of Europe at the opening of the thirteenth century). With the reëstablishment, however, of the Greek Empire of Constantinople, in 1261, the Bulgarian kingdom began to lose much of its importance, and its power was finally broken in 1285 by the Mongols.

SERVIA.

In the following century it was the turn of Servia to enjoy a period of preeminent greatness. The latter kingdom had recovered its independence under the house of Nemanja in 1183.

Under the great giant conqueror Stephen Dushan (1321-1355) it enjoyed a period of greater power than has ever before or since fallen to the lot of a single Balkan state. The Restored Byzantine Empire had sustained no permanent loss from the period of Bulgarian greatness: it was by the sudden Servian conquest that it was deprived forever of nearly all its European possessions (see Balkan map III). A Byzantine reaction might have come under other conditions, but already another and greater enemy was at her gates. Dushan died in 1355; and already, in 1353, two years before, the Turk at Gallipoli had made his entrance into Europe. From this time every Christian state of the East grew steadily weaker until Bulgaria, Servia, the Greek Empire, and finally even Hungary, had passed under the Turkish dominion.

THE VLACHS.

Passing on from these Slavic peoples, another national manifestation of the greatest importance belonging to this period, one which, unlike the Greek and Slavic, may be said in one sense to have originated in the period, was that of the Vlachs. This Latin population, which ethnologists have attempted to identify with the ancient Thracians, was, previous to the twelfth century, scattered in irregular groups throughout the entire Balkan peninsula. During the twelfth century their great northward migration began. A single result of this movement has already been noticed in the rise of the Second Bulgarian kingdom. South of the Danube, however, their influence was transitory. It was north of the river that the evolution of the two principalities, Great Wallachia (Roumania) and Moldavia, and the growth of a Vlach population in the Transylvanian lands of Eastern Hungary, has yielded the ethnic and in great part the political geography of the present day.

The process of this evolution may be understood from a comparative study of the four Balkan maps. Upon the first map the Cumanians, a Finno-Tatar people, who in the twelfth century had displaced a kindred race, the Patzinaks or Petschenegs, occupy the whole country between the Danube and the Transylvanian Alps. These were in turn swept forever from the map of Europe by the Mongols (1224). With the receding of this exterminating wave of Asiatic conquest the great wilderness was thrown open to new settlers. The settlements of the Vlachs north of the Danube and east of the Aluta became the principality of Great Wallachia, the nucleus of the modern Roumania. West of the Aluta the district of Little Wallachia was incorporated for a long period, as the banat of Severin, in the Hungarian kingdom.

Finally, the principality of Moldavia came into existence in 1341, in land previously won by the Hungarians from the Mongols, between the Dniester and the Carpathians. Both the principalities of Great Wallachia and Moldavia were in the fourteenth century dependencies of Hungary. The grasp of Hungary was loosened, however, towards the close of the century and after a period of shifting dependence, now on Hungary, now on Turkey, and for a time, in the case of Moldavia, on Poland, we come to the period of permanent Turkish supremacy.

With the presence and influence of the Vlachs south of the Balkans, during this period, we are less interested, since their subsequent disappearance has removed the subject from any direct connection with modern politics. The only quarter where they still linger and where this influence led to the founding of an independent state, was in the country east of the range of Pindus, the Great Wallachia of the Byzantines. Here the principality of Wallachian Thessaly appeared as an offshoot of the Greek despotat of Epirus in 1259 (see map II).

This state retained its independent existence until 1308, when it was divided between the Catalan dukes of Athens and the Byzantine Empire.

ALBANIANS.

The Skipetars (Albanians) during this period appear to have been the slowest to grasp out for a separate national existence. The southern section of Albania formed, after the fall of Constantinople, a part of the despotat of Epirus, and whatever independence existed in the northern section was lost in the revival, first of the Byzantine, then, in the ensuing century, of the Servian power. It was not until 1444 that a certain George Castriot, known to the Turks as Iskander-i-beg, or Scanderbeg, created a Christian principality in the mountain fastnesses of Albania. This little realm stretched along the Adriatic from Butrinto almost to Antivari, embracing, further inland, Kroja and the basin of the Drin (see map IV).

It was not until after Scanderbeg's death that Ottoman control was confirmed over this spirited Albanian population.

THE TURKISH CONQUEST.

The reign of Mohammed II. (1451-1481) witnessed the final conquest of the entire country south of the Danube and the Save. The extent of the Turkish Empire at his accession is shown on map IV. The acquisitions of territory during his reign included in Asia Minor the old Greek Empire of Trebizond (1461) and the Turkish dynasty of Karaman; in Europe, Constantinople, whose fall brought the Byzantine Empire to a close in 1453, the duchy of Athens (1456), the despotats of Patras and Misithra (1460), Servia (1458), Bosnia (1463), Albania (1468), Epirus and Acarnania, the continental dominion of the Counts of Cephalonia (1479), and Herzegovina (1481). In the mountainous district immediately south of Herzegovina, the principality of Montenegro, situated in lands which had formed the southern part of the first Servian kingdom, alone preserved its independence, even at the height of the Turkish domination.

The chronicle of Turkish history thereafter records only conquest after conquest. The islands of the Ægean were many of them won during Mohammed's own reign, the acquisition of the remainder ensued shortly after. Venice was hunted step by step out of all her Levantine possessions save the Ionian Islands; the superiority over the Crim Tartars, Wallachia, Moldavia and Jedisan followed, finally, the defeat at Mohacs (1526), and the subsequent internal anarchy left nearly all Hungary at the mercy of the Ottoman conqueror.

The geographical homogeneity thus restored by the Turkish conquest was not again disturbed until the present century. The repetition of almost the same conditions in our own time, though with the process reversed, has been referred to in the sketch of Balkan geography of the present day. The extreme importance of the period just described, for the purposes of minute historical analogy, will be apparent at once wherever comparison is attempted.

The thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth centuries were of course periods of far greater geographical intricacy, but the purpose has been rather to indicate the nature of this intricacy than to describe it in detail. The principal feature, namely, the national movements, wherever they have manifested themselves, have been more carefully dwelt upon. The object has been simply to show that the four separate national movements, the Greek, the Slavic, the Rouman, and the Albanian, which may be said to have created the present Levantine problem, were all present, and in the case of the two last may even be said to have had their inception, in the period just traversed.

In the present century the unfolding of national spirit has been so much greater and far-reaching that a different outcome may be looked for. It is sufficient for the present that the incipient existence of these same movements has been shown to have existed in a previous age. The best general text authority in English for the geography of this period is George Finlay's "History of Greece," volumes. III. and IV.; a more exhaustive guide in German is Hopf's "Geschichte Griechenlands." For the purely geographical works see the general bibliography of historical geography.

APPENDIX C.

NOTES TO THE MAP OF THE BALKAN PENINSULA. (PRESENT CENTURY.)

The present century has been a remarkable one for the settlement of great political and geographical questions. These questions resolve themselves into two great classes, which indicate the political forces of the present age,—the first, represented in the growth of democratic thought, and the second arising from the awakening of national spirit. The first of these concerns historical geography only incidentally, but the second has already done much to reconstruct the political geography of our time.

RECENT NATIONAL MOVEMENTS.

Within a little over thirty years it has changed the map of central Europe from a medley of small states into a united Italy and a united Germany; it has also led to a reconstruction of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, In Italy, Germany and Austria-Hungary, the national questions may, however, be regarded as settled; and if, in the case of Austria-Hungary, owing to exactly reverse conditions, the settlement has been a tentative one, it has at least removed the question from the more immediate concern of the present. In a different quarter of Europe, however, the rise of the national movements has led to a question, infinitely more complicated than the others, and which, so far from being settled, is becoming ever more pressing year by year. This reference is to the great Balkan problem. That this question has been delayed in its solution for over four centuries, is due, no doubt, to the conquests of the Turk, and it is still complicated by his presence. In the notes to the four previous Balkan maps (1191-1451), attention was especially directed to the national movements, so far as they had opportunity to develop themselves during this period. These movements, feeble in their character, were all smothered by the Turkish conquest. With the decline of this power in the present century these forces once more have opportunity for reappearance. In this regard the history of the Balkans during the nineteenth century is simply the history of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries read backwards.

The Turkish Empire had suffered terrible reverses during the eighteenth century. Hungary (1699), the Crim Tartars (1774), Bukovina (1777), Jedisan (1792), Bessarabia and Eastern Moldavia (1812) were all successively wrested from the Ottomans, while Egypt on one side and Moldavia and Wallachia on another recovered practical autonomy, the one under the restored rule of the Mamelukes (1766), the other under native hospodars.

THE SERVIAN AND GREEK REVOLTS.

All of these losses, though greatly weakening the Ottoman power, did not destroy its geographical integrity. It was with the Servian revolt of 1804 that the series of events pointing to the actual disruption of the Turkish Empire may be said to have begun. The first period of dissolution was measured by the reign of Mahmoud II. (1808-1839), at once the greatest and the most unfortunate of all the later Turkish sultans. Servia, first under Kara Georg, then under Milosch Obrenovitch, the founder of the present dynasty, maintained a struggle which led to the recognition of Servian local autonomy in 1817. The second step in the process of dissolution was the tragic Greek revolution (1821-1828). The Sultan, after a terrible war of extermination, had practically reduced Greece to subjection, when all his work was undone by the intervention of the great powers.

The Turkish fleet was destroyed by the combined squadrons of England, France and Russia at Navarin, October 20, 1827, and in the campaign of the ensuing year the Moscovite arms for the first time in history penetrated south of the Balkans. The treaty of Adrianople, between Russia and Turkey (September 14, 1829), gave to the Czar the protectorate over Moldavia and Wallachia. By the treaty of London earlier in this year Greece was made autonomous under the suzerainty of the Sultan, and the protocol of March 22, 1829, drew her northern frontier in a line between the gulfs of Arta and Volo. The titular sovereignty of the Sultan over Greece was annulled later in the year at the peace of Adrianople, though the northern boundary of the Hellenic kingdom was then curtailed to a line drawn from the mouth of the Achelous to the gulf of Lamia. With the accession of the Bavarian king Otho, in 1833, after the failure of the republic, the northern boundary was again adjusted, returning to about the limits laid down in the March protocol of 1829. Greece then remained for over fifty years bounded on the north by Mount Othrys, the Pindus range and the gulf of Arta. In 1863, on the accession of the Danish king George I., the Ionian Isles, which had been under English administration since the Napoleonic wars, were ceded to the Greek kingdom, and in May, 1881, almost the last change in European geography to the present day was accomplished in the cession, by the Sultan, of Thessaly and a small part of Epirus. The agitation in 1886 for a further extension of Greek territory was unsuccessful.

THE TREATY OF UNKIAR SKELESSI.

A series of still greater reverses brought the reign of the Sultan Mahmoud to a close. The chief of these were the defeats sustained at the hands of his rebellious vassal Mehemet Ali, pacha of Egypt, a man who takes rank even before the Sultan himself as the greatest figure in the Mohammedan world during the present century. The immediate issue of this struggle was the practical independence of Egypt, where the descendants of Mehemet still rule, their title having been changed in 1867 from viceroy to that of khedive. An event incidental to the strife between Mehemet Ali and the Sultan is of far greater importance in the history of European Turkey. {xi} Mahmoud in his distress looked for aid to the great powers, and the final issue of the rival interests struggling at Constantinople was the memorable treaty of Unkiar Skelessi (July, 1833) by which the Sultan resigned himself completely to the interests of his former implacable foe, the Czar of Russia. In outward appearance this treaty was an offensive and defensive alliance; in practical results it gave the Moscovite, in exchange for armed assistance, when needed, the practical control of the Dardanelles. It is no extravagance of statement to say that this treaty forms absolutely the high watermark of Russian predominance in the affairs of the Levant. During the subsequent sixty years, this influence, taken as a whole, strange paradox as it may seem, has rather receded than advanced. The utter prostration of the Turkish Empire on the death of Mahmoud (1839) compelled Russia to recede from the conditions of Unkiar Skelessi while a concert of the European powers undertook the task of rehabilitating the prostrate power; the Crimean war (1854-1855) struck a more damaging blow at the Russian power, and the events of 1878, though they again shattered the Turkish Empire, did not, as will be shown, lead to corresponding return of the Czar's ascendency.

THE CRIMEAN WAR AND TREATY OF PARIS.

The Crimean War was brought on by the attempt of the Czar to dictate concerning the internal affairs of the Ottoman Empire—a policy which culminated in the occupation of Moldavia and Wallachia (1853). All Europe became arrayed against Russia on this question,—Prussia and Austria in tacit opposition, while England, France, and afterwards Piedmont, drifted into war with the northern power.

By the treaty of Paris (1856), which terminated the sanguinary struggle, the Danube, closed since the peace of Adrianople (1829), was reopened; the southern part of Bessarabia was taken from Russia and added to the principality of Moldavia; the treaty powers renounced all right to interfere in the internal affairs of the Porte; and, lastly, the Black Sea, which twenty years before, by the treaty of Unkiar Skelessi, had become a private Russian pond, was swept of the Russian fleets and converted into a neutral sea. The latter condition however was abrogated by the powers (March 13, 1871).

Despite the defeat of Russia, the settlement effected at the congress of Paris was but tentative. The most that the allied powers could possibly have hoped for, was so far to cripple Russia as to render her no longer a menace to the Ottoman Empire. They succeeded only in so far as to defer the recurrence of a Turkish crisis for another twenty years.

The chief event of importance during this interval was the birth of the united Roumania. In 1857 the representative councils of both Moldavia and Wallachia voted for their union under this name. This personal union was accomplished by the choice of a common ruler, John Cuza (1859), whose election was confirmed by a new conference at Paris in 1861. A single ministry and single assembly were formed at Bucharest in 1862. Prince Karl of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen was elected hospodar in 1866, and finally crowned as king in 1881.

THE REVIVED EASTERN QUESTION OF 1875-78.

The Eastern question was reopened with all its perplexities in the Herzegovinian and Bosnian revolt of August, 1875. These provinces, almost cut off from the Turkish Empire by Montenegro and Servia, occupied a position which rendered their subjugation almost a hopeless task. Preparations were already under way for a settlement by joint action of the powers, when a wave of fanatical fury sweeping over the Ottoman Empire rendered all these efforts abortive. Another Christian insurrection in Bulgaria was suppressed in a series of wholesale and atrocious massacres. Servia and Montenegro in a ferment declared war on Turkey (July 2, 1876). The Turkish arms, however, were easily victorious, and Russia only saved the Servian capital by compelling an armistice (October 30). A conference of the representatives of the powers was then held at Constantinople in a final effort to arrange for a reorganization of the Empire, which should include the granting of autonomy to Bosnia, Herzegovina and Bulgaria. These conditions, though subsequently embodied in a general ultimatum, the London protocol of March 31, 1877, were rejected by the Porte, and Russia, who had determined to proceed alone in the event of this rejection, immediately declared war (April 24). Into this war, owing to the horror excited in England by the Bulgarian massacres, and the altered policy of France, the Turk was compelled to go without allies, and thus unassisted his defeat was assured. Then followed the sanguinary campaigns in Bulgaria, the memories of which are still recent and unobscured. Plevna, the central point of the Turkish resistance, fell on December 10th; Adrianople was occupied by the Russians on January 20th, 1878; and on January 31st., an armistice was granted.

Great Britain now seemed roused to a sense of the danger to herself in the Russian approach to Constantinople, and public opinion at last permitted Lord Beaconsfield to send a fleet to the Bosporus.

By the Russo-Turkish peace of San Stephano (March 3, 1878) Turkey recognized the complete independence of Servia, Roumania and Montenegro, while Bulgaria became what Servia and Roumania had just ceased to be, an autonomous principality under nominal Turkish sovereignty. Russia received the Dobrutcha in Europe, which was to be given by the Czar to Roumania in exchange for the portion of Bessarabia lost in 1856. Servia and Montenegro received accessions of territory, the latter securing Antivari on the coast, but the greatest geographical change was the frontier assigned to the new Bulgaria, which was to include all the territory bounded by an irregular line beginning at Midia on the Black Sea and running north of Adrianople, and, in addition, a vast realm in Macedonia, bounded on the west only by Albania, approaching Salonica, and touching the Ægean on either side of the Chalcidice.

It was evident that the terms of this treaty involved the interests of other powers, especially of Great Britain. An ultimate settlement which involved as parties only the conqueror and conquered was therefore impossible. A general congress of the Powers was seen to be the only solvent of the difficulty; but before such a congress was possible it was necessary for Great Britain and Russia to find at least a tangible basis of negotiation for the adjustment of their differences.

By the secret agreement of May 30th, Russia agreed to abandon the disputed points—chief among these the creation of a Bulgarian seaboard on the Ægean—and the congress of Berlin then assembled (June 13-July 13, 1878).

ARRANGEMENTS OF THE TREATY OF BERLIN.

Great Britain was represented at the congress by the Marquis of Salisbury and the premier, the Earl of Beaconsfield. The treaty of Berlin modified the conditions of San Stephano by reducing the Russian acquisitions in Asia Minor and also by curtailing the cessions of territory to Servia and Montenegro. A recommendation was also made to the Porte to cede Thessaly and a part of Epirus to Greece, a transfer which was accomplished in 1881. A more important provision was the transfer of the administrative control of the provinces of Bosnia and Herzegovina to Austria. This cession was the outcome of the secret agreement between Russia and Austria at Reichstadt, in July of the previous year, by which the former had secured from her rival a free hand in the Turkish war. These districts were at once occupied by Austria, despite the resistance of the Mohammedan population, and the sanjak of Novibazar, the military occupation of which was agreed to by the Porte, was also entered by Austrian troops in September of the following year. England secured as her share of the spoil the control of the island of Cyprus.

The greatest work accomplished at Berlin, however, was the complete readjustment of the boundaries of the new Bulgarian principality. This result was achieved through the agency of Great Britain. The great Bulgarian domain, which by the treaty of San Stephano would have conformed almost to the limits of the Bulgarian Empire of the tenth century, was, with the exception of a small western strip including the capital, Sofia, pushed entirely north of the Balkans. This new principality was to enjoy local autonomy; and immediately south of the Balkans was formed a new province, Eastern Roumelia, also with local autonomy, although under the military authority of the Sultan.

The result of the Berlin Congress was the apparent triumph of the Beaconsfield policy. It is doubtful, however, if the idea of this triumph has been fully sustained by the course of subsequent events. The idea of Beaconsfield appears to have been that the new Bulgaria could not become other than a virtual dependency of Russia, and that in curtailing its boundaries he was checking by so much the growth of Russian influence. If he could have foreseen, however, the unexpected spirit with which the Bulgarians have defended their autonomy, not from Turkish but from Russian aggression, it is doubtful if he would have lent himself with such vigor to that portion of his policy which had for its result the weakening of this "buffer" state. The determination to resist Russian aggression in the Balkans continues to form the purpose of English politicians of nearly all schools; but the idea that this policy is best served by maintaining the integrity of the Ottoman Empire in Europe has been steadily losing adherents since Beaconsfield's day. The one event of importance in Balkan history since 1878 has served well to illustrate this fact.

LATER CHANGES.

In September, 1885, the revolt of Eastern Roumelia partially undid the work of the Berlin treaty. After the usual negotiations between the Powers, the question at issue was settled by a conference of ambassadors at Constantinople in November, by which Eastern Roumelia was placed under the rule of the Bulgarian prince as vassal of the Sultan. This result was achieved through the agency of England, and against the opposition of Russia and other continental powers. England and Russia had in fact exchanged policies since 1878, now that the real temper of the Bulgarian people was more generally understood.

The governments of Greece and Servia, alarmed at the predominance thus given to Bulgaria among the liberated states, sought similar compensation, but were both foiled.

Servia, which sought this direct from Bulgaria, was worsted in a short war (Nov.-December 1885), and Greece was checked in her aspiration for further territorial aggrandizement at the expense of Turkey by the combined blockade of the Powers in the spring of 1886.

Since then, no geographical change has taken place in the old lands of European Turkey. Prince Alexander of Bulgaria was forced to abdicate by Russian intrigue in September 1886; but under his successor, Prince Ferdinand of Saxe-Coburg (crowned in 1887), und his able minister Stambouloff, Bulgaria has successfully preserved its autonomy.

THE PRESENT-DAY PROBLEM.

A general statement of the Balkan problem as it exists to-day may be briefly given. The non-Turkish populations of European Turkey, for the most part Christian, are divided ethnically into four groups: the Roumans or Vlachs, the Greeks, the Albanians and the Slavs. The process of liberation, as it has proceeded during the present century, has given among these people the following separate states. The Vlachs are represented in the present kingdom of Roumania ruled by a Hohenzollern prince; the Greeks are represented in the little kingdom of Greece ruled by a prince of the house of Denmark; while the Slavs are represented by three autonomous realms: Bulgaria under Ferdinand of Saxe-Coburg, Servia under the native dynasty of Obrenovitch, and the little principality of Montenegro, the only one of all which had never yielded to Turkish supremacy, under the Petrovic house, which is likewise native.

The Albanians alone of the four races, owing in part, perhaps, to their more or less general acceptance of Mohammedanism, have not as yet made a determined effort for separate national existence.

To these peoples, under any normal process of development, belongs the inheritance of the Turkish Empire in Europe. The time has long passed when any such process can be effectually hindered on the Turkish side. It will be hindered, if at all, either by the aggressive and rival ambitions of their two great neighbors, Austria and Russia, or by the mutual jealousies and opposing claims of the peoples themselves. The unfortunate part which these jealousies are likely to play in the history of the future was dimly foreshadowed in the events of 1885.

It is indeed these rival aspirations, rather than the collapse of the Turkish power, which are most likely to afford Russia and even Austria the opportunity for territorial extension over the Balkan lands. A confederation, or even a tacit understanding between the Balkan states, would do much to provide against this danger; but the idea of a confederation, though often suggested and even planned, belongs at present only to the realm of possibilities. On the one hand Servia, menaced by the proximity of Austria, leans upon Russian support; on the other, Bulgaria, under exactly reverse conditions, yields to the influence of Austria. It will be seen at once that these are unfavorable conditions on which to build up any federative action. If at the next crisis, however, the liberated states are fated to act independently, it will be seen at once that Greece and Bulgaria possess the better chance. Not only are they the most remote from any of the great powers, but they alone possess a geography which is entirely open on the Turkish side. Moreover, what is of still greater consequence, it is they who, from an ethnic standpoint, have the most legitimate interest in the still unliberated population of European Turkey. The unliberated Greek population predominates in southern Macedonia, the Chalcidian peninsula and along almost the entire seaboard, both of Thrace and Asia Minor; on the other hand the ethnographical limits of the Bulgarian people conform almost exactly to the boundaries of Bulgaria as provided for at San Stephano. The creation of a political Bulgaria to correspond to the ethnic Bulgaria was indeed the purpose of the Russian government in 1878, though with the repetition of the same conditions it would hardly be its purpose again. Barring, therefore, the Albanians of the west, who as yet have asserted no clearly defined national claim, the Greeks and the Bulgarians are the logical heirs to what remains of European Turkey.

These observations are not intended as a fore-cast; they merely indicate what would be an inevitable outcome, were the question permitted a natural settlement.

Concerning the Turks themselves a popular fallacy has ever been to consider their destiny as a whole. But here again an important division of the subject intrudes itself.

In Asia Minor, where the Turkish population overwhelmingly preponderates, the question of their destiny, barring the ever threatened Russian interference, ought not to arouse great concern in the present. But in European Turkey the utter lack of this predominance seems to deprive the Ottoman of his only legitimate title. The Turkish population in Thrace and the Balkans never did in fact constitute a majority; and with its continual decline, measured indeed by the decline of the Ottoman Empire itself, the greatest of all obstacles to an equitable and final settlement has been removed. (See the ethnic map of Europe at the present day.)

The historical geography of the Balkans during the present century is not so intricate that it may not be understood even from the current literature of the subject. The best purely geographical authority is E. Hertslet's "Map of Europe by Treaty." Of text works A. C. Fyffe's. "History of Modern Europe," and J. H. Rose's "A Century of Continental History" afford excellent general views. The facts concerning the settlement of the first northern boundary of free Greece are given in Finlay's "History of Greece," Volume VII. Of excellent works dealing more or less directly with present Balkan politics there is hardly an end. It is necessary to mention but a few: E. de Laveleye's "The Balkan Peninsula," E. A. Freeman's "The Ottoman Power in Europe," the Duke of Argyll's "The Eastern Question," and James Baker's "Turkey." See also the general bibliography of historical geography.

APPENDIX D.

NOTES TO THE DEVELOPMENT MAP OF CHRISTIANITY.

The subject matter contained in this map is of a character so distinct from that of the other maps of this series that the reader must expect a corresponding modification in the method of treatment.

The use of historical maps is confined, for the most part, to the statement of purely political conditions.

This is in fact almost the only field which admits of exact portrayal, within the limits of historical knowledge, by this method. Any other phase of human life, whether religious or social, which concerns the belief or the thought of the people rather than the exact extent of their race or their government, must remain, so far as the limitations of cartography is concerned, comparatively intangible.

Again, it should be noted that, even in the map treatment of a subject as comparatively exact as political geography, it is one condition of exactness that this treatment should be specific in its relation to a date, or at least to a limited period.

The map which treats a subject in its historical development has the undoubted merit of greater comprehensiveness; but this advantage cannot be gained without a certain loss of relation and proportion. Between the "development" map and the "date" map there is this difference: In the one, the whole subject passes before the eye in a sort of moving panorama, the salient points evident, but with their relation to external facts often obscured: in the other, the subject stands still at one particular point and permits itself to be photographed. A progressive series of such photographs, each forming a perfect picture by itself, yet each showing the clear relation with what precedes and follows, affords the method which all must regard as the most logical and the most exact. But from the very intangible nature of the subject treated in this map, the date method, with its demand for exactness, becomes impracticable. These observations are necessary in explaining the limitations of cartography in dealing with a subject of this nature. The notes that follow are intended as a simple elucidation of the plan of treatment.

The central feature in the early development of Christianity is soon stated. The new faith spread by churches from city to city until it became the religion of the Roman Empire; afterwards this spread was continued from people to people until it became the religion of Europe. The statement of the general fact in this crude and untempered form might in an ordinary case provoke criticism, and its invariable historic truth with reference to the second period be open to some question; but within the limits of map presentation it is substantially accurate. It forms, indeed, the key upon which the entire map is constructed.

THE ANTE-NICENE CHURCHES.

During the first three centuries of the Christian era, up to the Constantinian or Nicene period, there is no country, state or province which can be safely described as Christian; yet as early as the second century there is hardly a portion of the Empire which does not number some Christians in its population. The subject of the historical geography of the Christian church during the ante-Nicene period is confined, therefore, to the locating of these Christian bodies wherever they are to be found. On this portion of the subject the map makes its own statement. It is possible merely to elucidate this statement, with the suggestion, in addition, of a few points which the map does not and cannot contain.

Concerning the ante-Nicene churches there is only one division attempted. This division, into the "Apostolic" and "post-Apostolic," concerns merely the period of their foundation. Concerning the churches founded in the Apostolic period (33-100), our knowledge is practically limited to the facts culled from the Acts, the Epistles and the Apocalypse. The churches of the post-Apostolic period afford a much wider field for research, although the materials for study bearing upon them are almost as inadequate. According to the estimate of the late Professor R. D. Hitchcock, there were in the Roman Empire at the close of the persecutions about 1,800 churches, 1,000 in the East and 800 in the West. Of this total, the cities in which churches have been definitely located number only 525. They are distributed as follows: Europe 188, Asia 214, Africa 123 (see volume I, page 443). Through the labors of Professor Henry W. Hulbert, the locations of these 525 cities, so far as established, have been cast in available cartographic form.

It is much to be regretted that, despite the sanction of the author, it has been found impossible, owing to the limitations of space, to locate all of these cities in the present map. The attempt has been limited therefore to the placing of only the more prominent cities, or those whose location is subject to the least dispute.

The Apostolic and post-Apostolic churches, as they appear upon the map, are distinguished by underlines in separate colors. A special feature has been the insertion of double underlines to mark the greater centres of diffusion, so far as their special activity in this respect can be safely assumed. In this class we have as centres in Apostolic times Jerusalem, Antioch, Ephesus, Philippi, Thessalonica and Corinth; in post-Apostolic times, when the widening of the field necessitates special and limited notices, we may name Alexandria, Edessa, Rome and Carthage.

The city of Rome contains a Christian community in Apostolic times, but its activity as a great diffusion centre, prior to early post-Apostolic times, is a point of considerable historical controversy. In this respect it occupies a peculiar position, which is suggested by the special underlines in the map.

CONVERSION OF THE EMPIRE.

The above method of treatment carries us in safety up to the accession in the West of the first Christian Emperor (311). The attempt, however, to pursue the same method beyond that period would involve us at once in insurmountable difficulties.

The exact time of the advent of the Christian-Roman world it is indeed impossible to define with precision. The Empire after the time of Constantine was predominantly Christian, yet paganism still lingered in formidable though declining strength. A map of religions designed to explain this period, even with unlimited historical material, could hardly be executed by any system, for the result could be little better than a chaos, the fragments of the old religion everywhere disappearing or blending with the new. The further treatment of the growth of Christianity by cities or churches is now impossible; for the rapid increase of the latter has carried the subject into details and intricacies where it cannot be followed: on the other hand, to describe the Roman world in the fourth century as a Christian world would be taking an unwarranted liberty with the plain facts of history.

The last feeble remnants of paganism were in fact burned away in the fierce heat of the barbaric invasions of the fifth century. After that time we can safely designate the former limits of the Roman Empire as the Christian world. From this point we can resume the subject of church expansion by the "second method" indicated at the head of this article. But concerning the transition period of the fourth and fifth centuries, from the time Christianity is predominant in the Roman world until it becomes the sole religion of the Roman world, both methods fail us and the map can tell us practically nothing.

BARBARIANS OF THE INVASION.

Another source of intricacy occurring at this point should not escape notice. It was in the fourth century that Christianity began its spread among the barbarian Teutonic nations north of the Danube. The Goths, located on the Danube, between the Theiss and the Euxine, were converted to Christianity, in the form known as Arianism, by the missionary bishop Ulphilas, and the faith extended in the succeeding century to many other confederations of the Germanic race. This fact represented, for a time, the Christianization, whole or partial, of some peoples beyond the borders of the Empire. With the migrations of the fifth and sixth centuries, however, these converts, without exception, carried their new faith with them into the Empire, and their deserted homes, left open to new and pagan settlers, simply became the field for the renewed missionary effort of a later age. It is a historical fact, from a cartographic standpoint a fortunate one, that, with all the geographic oscillations of this period between Christianity and paganism, the Christian world finally emerged with its boundaries conforming, with only a few exceptions, to the former frontiers of the Roman Empire.

Whether or not this is a historical accident it nevertheless gives technical accuracy from the geographic standpoint to the statement that Christianity first made the conquest of the Roman world; from thence it went out to complete the conquest of Europe.

CONVERSION OF EUROPE.

With the view, as afforded on the map, of the extent of Christianity at the commencement of the seventh century, we have entered definitely upon the "second method." Indeed, in Ireland, Wales and Scotland, where the Celtic church has already put forth its missionary effort, the method has, in point of date, been anticipated; but this fact need cause no confusion in treatment. Henceforth the spread of Christianity is noted as it made its way from "people to people." At this point, however, occurs the greatest intangibility of the subject. The dates given under each country represent, as stated in the key to the map, "the approximate periods of conversion." It is not to be inferred, however, that Christianity was completely unknown in any of these countries prior to the periods given, or that the work of conversion was in each case entirely completed within the time specified. But it is an absolute necessity to give some definiteness to these "periods of conversion"; to assign with all distinctness possible the time when each land passed from the list of pagan to the list of Christian nations. The dates marking the limits to these periods are perhaps chosen by an arbitrary method. The basis of their selection, however, has been almost invariably some salient point, first in the introduction and finally in the general acceptance of the Christian faith. In order that the reader may possess the easy means of independent opinion or critical judgment, the explanation is appended of the dates thus used, concerning which a question might legitimately arise.

These dates cover the period of the ministry of Ulphilas, whose efforts resulted in the conversion of the great body of the Danubian Goths. He received his ordination and entered upon his work in 341, and died at Constantinople in 381. (See C. A. A. Scott's "Ulfilas.")

These people, like the Goths, passed from paganism through the medium of Arian Christianity to final Orthodoxy. Concerning the first process, it is possible to establish nothing, save that these Teutonic peoples appeared in the Empire in the fifth century as professors of the Arian faith. The exact time of the acceptance of this faith is of less consequence. The second transition from Arianism to Orthodoxy occurred at a different time in each case. The Suevi embraced the Catholic faith in 550; the Visigoths, through their Catholic king Reccared, were brought within the church at the third council of Toledo (589). Further north the Burgundians embraced Catholicism through their king Sigismond in 517, and, finally, the Lombards, the last of the Arians, accepted Orthodoxy in the beginning of the seventh century. The Vandals, another Arian German nation of this period, figured in Africa in the fourth century.

They were destroyed, however, by the arms of Belisarius in 534, and their early disappearance renders unnecessary their representation on the present map.

This is the date of the historic conversion of Clovis and his warriors on the battlefield of Tolbiac. The Franks were the first of the Germanic peoples to pass, as a nation, to orthodoxy direct from paganism, and their conversion, as we have seen, was soon followed by the progress from Arianism to Orthodoxy of the other Germanic nations within the borders of the Empire.

   St. Patrick entered upon his missionary work in Ireland in
   440; he died on the scene of his labors in 493. This period
   witnessed the conversion of the bulk of the Irish nation.

These dates cover the period of St. Columba's ministry. The work of St. Ninian, the "apostle of the Lowlands" in the previous century, left very few enduring results. The period from 563, the date of the founding of the famous Celtic monastery of Iona, to the death of Columba in 597, witnessed, however, the conversion of the great mass of the Pictish nation.

These dates, like the two preceding, cover the period of the ministry of a single man, Kentigern, the "apostle of Strathclyde." The date marking the commencement of Kentigern's labors is approximate. He died in 603.

The Celtic church had been uprooted in England by the Anglo-Saxon invasions of the fifth and sixth centuries. While its missionary efforts were now being expended on Scotland, Strathclyde, and Cornwall, its pristine seat had thus fallen away to complete paganism. The Christianization of England was the work of the seventh century, and in this work the Celtic church, though expending great effort, was anticipated and ultimately outstripped by the church of Rome.

These dates cover the ministry of St. Augustine, the apostle of Kent. This was the first foothold gained by the Roman church on the soil of Britain.

Edwin (Eadwine), king of Northumbria, received baptism from the Kentish missionary Paulinus on Easter Eve, 627.

The process of conversion was continued by the Celtic missionary, Aidin, who died in 651. The Christianity of Northumbria had begun before the latter date, however, to influence the surrounding states.

East Anglia had one Christian king prior to this period; but it was only with the accession of Sigebert (630) that great progress was made in the conversion of the people. The reign of king Anna witnesses the practical completion of this work. In 647 the efforts of this sovereign led to the baptism of Cenwalch, king of the West Saxons.

   The conversion of the West Saxons was begun by the missionary
   Birinus in 634. The year 648 witnessed the restoration of the
   Christian king Cenwalch.

Mercia was one of the last of the great English kingdoms to accept the faith. Their king, Penda, was indeed the most formidable foe the church encountered in the British Isles. The conversion of Penda's son Peada admitted the gospel to the Middle Angles, who accepted Christianity in 653. The East Saxons embraced the faith at about the same time. Finally in 654 the defeat and death of Penda at the hand of Oswy, the Christian king of Northumbria, opened the doors of Mercia as well. The conversion of the realm was practically accomplished during the next few years.

The leaders of the South Saxons received baptism at the hands of the apostle Wilfred in 681. Sussex was the last retreat of paganism on the English mainland, and five years later the conversion of the inhabitants of the Isle of Wight completed the spread of Christianity over every portion of the British Isles.

The work of St. Willibrord among the Frisians was one of many manifestations of the missionary activity of the Celtic church. Willibrord introduced Christianity among these people during the years of his ministry, but to judge by the subsequent martyrdom of Boniface in Friesland (755) the work of conversion was not fully completed in all quarters until a later time.

The object of the map is not merely to locate the mission field of the great "apostle of Germany," but also to give the location and date of the various bishoprics which owed their foundation to his missionary efforts.

Of all the nations converted to Christianity up to this time the Saxons were the first conquest of the sword. The two most powerful Saxon chiefs were baptized in 787; but it was not until their complete defeat and subjugation by Charlemagne in 805 that the work of conversion showed a degree of completeness. With the Christianization of the Saxons the cordon of the church was completed around the Germanic nations.

St. Cyrillus, the "apostle of the Slavs," entered upon his mission in Moravia in 863. The political Moravia of the ninth century, under Rastislav and Sviatopluk, exceeded greatly the limits of the modern province; but the missionary labor of the brothers Cyrillus and Methodius seems to have produced its principal results in the modern Moravian territory, as indicated on the map. Methodius, the survivor of the brothers, died about 900. In the tenth century Moravia figures as Christian.

The door to Bohemia was first opened from Moravia in the time of Sviatopluk. The reactions in favor of paganism were, however, unusually prolonged and violent. Severus, Archbishop of Prague, finally succeeded in enforcing the various rules of the Christian cultus (1039).

The Polish duke Mieczyslav was baptized in 966. Mieczyslav II. died in 1034. These dates cover the active missionary time when, indeed, the efforts of the clergy were backed by the strong arm of the sovereign. Poland did not, however, become completely Christian until a somewhat later period.

The Bulgarian prince Bogoris was baptized in 863. Again, as in so many other cases, the faith was compelled to pass to the people through the medium of the sovereign. The second date is arbitrary, although Bulgaria appears definitely as a Christian country at the commencement of the tenth century.

The coronation of St. Stephen, the "apostolic king," (1000) marked the real triumph of Christianity in Hungary. A number of pagan reactions occurred, however, in the eleventh century, so that it is impossible to place the conversion of the Magyars at an earlier date than the last one assigned.

The Russian grand-duke Vladimir was baptized on the occasion of his marriage to the princess Anne, sister of the Byzantine Emperor, in 988. Before his death in 1015 Christianity had through his efforts become the accepted religion of his people.

The Danes had been visited by missionaries prior to the ninth century, but their work had left no permanent result. The arrival of Ansgar, the "apostle of the North" (827), marks the real beginning of the period of conversion. This period in Denmark was an unusually long one. It was not fully complete until the reign of Canute the Great (1019-1035).

Swedes (Gothia).
Christianity introduced by Ansgar and his successors, 829-1000.

Ansgar made his first visit to Sweden in 829, two years after his arrival in Denmark. The period of conversion, as in Denmark, was a long one; but by the year 1000 the southern section, Gothia or Gothland, had become Christian. The conversion of the northern Swedes was not completed for another century.

The period of conversion in Norway began with the reign of the Christian king Hakon the Good. The faith made slow progress, however, until the reign of Olaf Trygveson, who ascended the throne near the end of the tenth century. The work of conversion was completed in the reign of Olaf the Saint (1014-1030).

The attempt of the Poles to convert the Pomeranians by the sword prior to these dates had proven unavailing, and missionaries had been driven from the country. Within the short space of four years, however, Otho of Bamberg succeeded in bringing the great mass of the people within the pale of the church.

The conversion of these people was clearly the work of the sword. It was accomplished within the time specified by Albert the Bear, first margrave of Brandenburg, and Henry the Lion, duke of Saxony. The last heathen king became the first Christian duke of Mecklenburg in 1162. Further south the kindred Wend nations between the Elbe and the Oder had been the object of German effort, both missionary and military, for over two centuries, but had generally come within the church before this time.

Lives and Prussians. Christianity introduced by the Sword Brothers, 1202-1236, and by the Teutonic Knights, 1230-1289.

These conversions, the work of the transplanted military orders of Palestine, were direct conquests of the sword, and as such possess a definiteness which is so unfortunately lacking in so many other cases.

So much for the character and the purpose of the dates which appear on this map. In the employment of the colors, the periods covered are longer, and as a consequence the general results are somewhat more definite. The use of a color system directly over a date system is intended to afford an immediate though general view, From this to the special aspects presented by the date features is a simple step in the development of the subject.

Another feature of the map which may not escape notice is the different systems used, respectively, in the Roman and Mediæval period for the spelling of urban names. A development map covering a long period of history cannot be entirely free from anachronisms of this nature; but a method has nevertheless been followed in the spelling of these place names:—to give in each case the spelling current at the period of conversion. The fact that the labors of the Christian missionaries were confined mostly to the Roman world in the Roman period, and did not extend to non-Roman lands until the Middle Ages, enables us to limit our spelling of civic names to a double system. The cities of the Roman and of the Mediæval period are shown on the map and in the key in two different styles of type. Only in the cases of cities like Rome, Constantinople and Antioch, where the current form has the absolute sanction of usage even for classic times, has there been any deviation from the strict line of this method.

In conclusion, the general features of the subject present themselves as follows: Had the advance of Christianity, like Mohammedanism, been by conquest, had the bounds of the Christian faith been thus rendered ever conterminous with the limits of a people or an empire, then, indeed, the subject of church expansion would possess a tangibility and coherency concerning which exact statement would be possible. The historical geography of the Christian church would then partake of some of the precision of political division. But the non-political element in the Christian cultus deprives us, in the study of the subject, of this invaluable aid. At a later time, when the conquests of the soul were backed by the strong arm of power, and when the new faith, as often happened, passed to the people from the sovereign, a measure of this exactness is perhaps possible.

We have witnessed an indication of these tendencies in many cases, as we approached the termination of the period covered by this map. But the fact remains that the fundamental character of the Christian faith precludes, in the main, the possibility of its growth being measured by the rules which govern ordinary political expansion.

This being then a subject on which definiteness is well nigh impossible, it has been treated by a method correspondingly elastic. A working basis for the study of the subject is, however, afforded by this system. This basis secured, the student may then systematically pursue his theme.

BIBLIOGRAPHY.

The historical geography of the Christian church, if studied only within narrow limits, can be culled from the pages of general church history. All of these accounts, however, are brief—those in the smaller histories extremely so. If studied thus, the reader will derive the most help from:

Neander's "History of the Christian Religion and Church," volume I, pages 68-86. volume II, pages 1-84, 93-129;

Schaff's "History of the Christian Church," volume I, pages 224-406, volume II, pages 13-84, volume III, pages 10-71, volume IV, pages 17-142,

These works may be supplemented by a vast number of books treating of special phases of church history, though the number in English dealing specifically with geographical expansion is very small.

The most recent, dealing with the ante-Nicene period, is Ramsey's "Church in the Roman Empire before A. D. 170," to which the same author's "Historical Geography of Asia Minor" forms a most indispensible prelude.

Entering the mediæval period, the best general guides are the little books of G. F. Maclear, entitled respectively the conversion of the Celts, English, Continental Teutons, Northmen and Slavs. These works may be supplemented by Thomas Smith's "Mediæval Missions," and for special subjects by G. T. Stokes' "Ireland and the Celtic Church," W. F. Skene's "Celtic Scotland" (volume II), and S. Baring Gould's "The Church in Germany."

The texts of the Councils as contained in Harduin, Labbe, and Mansi are indispensible original aids in the study of church geography.

Of German Works, J. E. T. Wiltsch's "Atlas Sacer," and the same author's "Church Geography and Statistics," translated by John Leitch, have long remained the standard guides for a study of the historical geography of the church. The Atlas Sacer, containing five large plates, is the only pure atlas guide to the subject. The "Church Geography and Statistics," being an ecclesiastical work, dwells with great fulness on the internal facts of church geography, but the outward expansion, barring the early growth of the church, is not so concisely treated. For the history of mediæval missions the reader will be better served elsewhere. To the reader using German, C. G. Blumhardt's "Die Missionsgeschichte der Kirche Christi" (3 volumes, 1828-1837), and a later work, "Handbuch der Missionsgeschichte und Missionsgeographie" (2 volumes, 1863), may be noted.

For modern missions there is a very full literature. Comprehensive works on this subject are Grundemann's "Allgemeine Missions Atlas," Burkhardt and Grundemann's "Les Missions Evangéliques" (4 vols.), and in English the "Encyclopædia of Missions." Several articles in the "Encyclopædia of Missions" should not escape notice. Among them are "Mediæval Missions," and the "Historical Geography of Missions," the latter by Dr. Henry W. Hulbert. The writer is glad at this point to return his thanks to Dr. Hulbert for the valued aid extended in the location of the Church of the ante-Nicene period.

APPENDIX E.

THE FOLLOWING NOTES AND CORRECTIONS TO MATTER RELATING TO AMERICAN ABORIGINES.

(PP. 76-108) HAVE BEEN KINDLY MADE BY MAJOR J. W. POWELL AND MR. J. OWEN DORSEY, OF THE BUREAU OF ETHNOLOGY.

This tribe, formerly classed as a distinct family—the Adaizan—is now regarded by the Bureau of Ethnology as but a part of the Caddoan or Pawnee.

   Indians of different families are here mentioned together:
   (A) the Comanches, etc., of the Shoshonean Family;
   (B) the Apaches (including the Chiricaguis, or Chiri cahua,
   Coyoteros, etc., but excluding the Tejuas who are Tañoan) of
   the Athapascan Family, the Navajos of the same family; and
   (C) the Yuman Family, including the Cosninos, who are not
   Apache (Athapascan stock).

Not an exact synonym of "Chippewyans, Tinneh and Sarcees." The whole family is sometimes known as Tinneh, though that appellation is more frequently limited to part of the Northern group, the Chippewyans. The Surcees are an offshoot of the Beaver tribe, which latter form part of one of the subdivisions of the Northern group of the Athapascan Family. The Sarcees are now with the Blackfeet.

The Atsinas are not a Caddoan people, but they are Algonquian, as are the Blackfeet (Sik-sik-a). The Atsinas are the "Fall Indians," "Minnetarees of the Plains," or "Gros Ventres of the Plains," as distinguished from the Hidatsa, who are sometimes called the "Minnetarees of the Missouri," "Gros Ventres of the Missouri."

The Sarcee are a Tinneh or Athapascan tribe, but they are not the Tinneh (see above). The "Atsina" are not a Caddo tribe (see above).

These people are now included in the Iroquoian Family. See
Powell, in Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology, page 79.

The "Cherakis," though included among the Flatheads by Force, are of the Iroquoian Family. The "Chicachas" or Chickasaws, are not Salishan, but Muskhogean. See Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology, page 95. The Totiris of Force, are the Tutelos, a tribe of the Siouan Family. See Powell, Seventh, Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology, page 116. The Cathlamahs, Killmucks (i. e., Tillamooks), Clatsops, Chinooks and Chilts are of the Chinookan Family. See Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology, pages 65, 66.

There are two distinct tribes which are often confounded, both being known as the Gros Ventres or Minnetarees. 1. The Atsina or Fall Indians, an Algonquian tribe, the "Gros Ventres of the Plains," or the "Minnetarees of the Plains." 2. The Hidatsa, a Siouan tribe, the "Gros Ventres of the Missouri," or the "Minnetarees of the Missouri." The former, the Atsina, have been wrongly styled "Caddoes" on page 81.

Often confounded with the Atsina, who belong to the Algonquian Family, the Hidatsa being a tribe of the Siouan Family. The Hidatsa have been called Gros Ventres, "Big Paunches," but this nickname could have no reference to any personal peculiarities of the Hidatsa. It seems to have originated in a quarrel between some Indians over the big paunch of a buffalo, resulting in the separation of the people into the present tribes of Hidatsas and Absarokas or Crows, the latter of whom now call the Hidatsa, "Ki-kha-tsa," from ki-kha, a paunch.

They belong to the Athapascan Family: the reference to the
Modocs is misleading.

These were not identical, the Tutelos being a Siouan tribe,
the Meherrins being now identified with the Susquehannocks.

The Kenai are an Athapascan people inhabiting the shores of Cook's Inlet and the Kenai Peninsula, Southern Alaska; while the Blood Indians are a division of the Blackfeet (Siksika), an Algonquian tribe, in Montana.

   The villages of this family were on Coos River and Bay, and on
   both sides of Coquille River, near the mouth. See Powell,
   Seventh, Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology, page 80.

      ALSO IN:
      J. Owen Dorsey, The Gentile System of the
      Siletz Tribes, in Journal American Folk-Lore,
      July-Sept., 1890, page 231.

   The Klamaths and Modocs are of the Lutuamian Family; the
   Shastas of the Sastean; the Pit River Indians of the
   Palaihnihan; the Eurocs of the Weitspekan; the Cahrocs of the
   Quoratean; the Hoopahs, Tolewas, and the lower Rogue River
   Indians of the Athapascan; the upper Rogue River Indians of
   the Takilman.

The Biloxi tribe is not Muskhogean but Siouan. See Dorsey (James Owen), "The Biloxi Indians of Louisiana," reprinted from volume 42, Proc. American Association Advancement of Science., Madison meeting, 1893.

   This includes tribes of various families: the upper Rogue
   River Indians being the Takelma, who are assigned to a special
   family, the Takilman; and the lower Rogue River Indians, who
   are Athapascan tribes.

      See Dorsey (J. Owen),
      "The Gentile System of the Siletz Tribes,"
      in Journal of American Folk-Lore,
      July-September, 1890, pages 228, 232-236.

Two divisions of the Siouan Family are known by this name: 1. The I san-ya-ti or Dwellers on Knife Lake, Minnesota, identical with the Mdewakantonwan Dakota. These figured in the Minnesota outbreak of 1862. The survivors are in Knox County, Nebraska, on what was once the Santee reservation, and near Flandreau, South Dakota. 2. The Santees of South Carolina were part of the Catawba confederacy. The Santee river is named after them.

These are not all of the Tinneh, nor are they really Blackfeet, though living with them. The Sarcees are an offshoot of the Beaver Indians, a tribe of one of the divisions of the Northern group of the Athapascan Family.

All the tribes of this family do not speak the Sioux language, as is wrongly stated on page 103. Those who speak the "Sioux" language are the Dakota proper, nicknamed Sioux, and the Assiniboin. There are, or have been, nine other groups of Indians in this family: to the Cegiha or Dhegiha group belong the Omahas, Ponkas, Osages, Kansas or Kaws, and Kwapas or Quapaws; to the Tchiwere group belong the Iowas, Otos, and Missouris; the Winnebago or Hochangara constitute another group; the fifth group consists of the survivors of the Mandan nation; to the sixth group belong the Hidatsa and the Absarokas or Crows; the Tutelos, Keyauwees, Aconeechis, etc., constituted the seventh group; the tribes of the Catawba confederacy, the eighth; the Biloxis, the ninth; and certain Virginia tribes the tenth group. The Winnebagos call themselves Hochangara, or First Speech (not "Trout Nation"), they are not called Horoje ("fish-eaters") by the Omahas, but Hu-tan-ga, Big Voices, a mistranslation of Hochangara. The Dakotas proper sometimes speak of themselves as the "O-che-ti sha-ko-win," or the Seven Council-fires. Their Algonquian foes called them Nadowe-ssi-wak, the Snake-like ones, from nadowe, a snake; this was corrupted by the Canadian French to Nadouessioux, of which the last syllable is Sioux. The seven primary divisions of the Dakota are as follow: Mdewakantonwan, Wakhpekute, Sisitonwan or Sisseton, Wakhpetonwan or Warpeton, Ihanktonwan or Yankton, Ihanktonwanna or Yanktonnai, and Titonwan or Teton.

The Sheyennes or Cheyennes, mentioned in connection with the Sioux by Gallatin and Carver, are an Algonquian people. Gallatin styles the "Mandanes" a Minnetaree tribe; but as has just been stated, the survivors of the Mandan nation, a people that formerly inhabited many villages (according to Dr. Washington Matthews and others) belong to a distinct group of the Siouan Family, and the Hidatsa (including the Amakhami or "Annahawas" of Gallatin) and the Absaroka, Upsaroka or Crows constitute the sixth group of that family. The "Quappas or Arkansas" of Gallatin are the Kwapas or Quapaws of recent times. The Osages call themselves, not "Wausashe," but Wa-sha-she.

"The Takilma formerly dwelt in villages along upper Rogue River, Oregon, all the latter, with one exception, being on the south side, from Illinois River on the southwest, to Deep Rock, which was nearer the head of the stream. They are now included among the 'Rogue River Indians,' and they reside on the Siletz Reservation, Tillamook County, Oregon, where Dorsey found them in 1884."

[Transcriber's note: The internet links listed were active at the time of this production in 2021. The link may be to a different edition than listed. Most are to archive.org or gutenberg.org, both excellent repositories of free books. An internet search (duckduckgo, google, bing, …) will provide links to many other sources. These were produced by entering the author and title, as shown in the list, eg.,

Without the site restriction (site:archive.org) the search results are flooded with links to commercial sites, hiding the actual targets.

Results can be extended by noting the sequence number in a link such as:
(Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/historyofuniteds04banciala
(Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/historyofuniteds05banciala
Try modifying the number for adjacent volumes of the same title.]

APPENDIX F. BIBLIOGRAPHY.

THE BETTER LITERATURE OF HISTORY IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE ON SUBJECTS NAMED BELOW.

In the following Classified List, the date of the first appearance of each one among the older works is given in parentheses, if ascertained. The period covered by the several memoirs, and other works limited in time, is stated in brackets.

AMERICA. DISCOVERY. EXPLORATION. SETTLEMENT. ARCHÆOLOGY. ETHNOLOGY.

GENERAL.

BANCROFT, GEORGE.
   History of the United States of America, part 1.
   (Author's last revision.)
   New York: D. Appleton & Company 1883-5. 6 volumes.
   https://archive.org/details/historyoftheunit037605mbp
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyofusa01bancrich
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyofunited32banc
   (Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/historyofusa03bancrich
   (Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/historyofuniteds04banciala
   (Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/historyofuniteds05banciala
   (Volume 6) https://archive.org/details/historyofuniteds06banciala
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyoftheunit037606mbp
   (Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/historyofuniteds0004banc/page/n7/mode/2up

BANCROFT, HUBERT HOWE.
   History of the Pacific States of North America:
   Central America, volumes 1-2;
   Mexico, volumes 1-2.
   San Francisco: A. L. Bancroft & Company 1882-3.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics11bategoog
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics15bategoog
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics16bategoog
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics26bategoog
   (Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics24bategoog
   (Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics13bategoog
   (Volume 6) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics30bategoog
   (Volume 7) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics02bategoog
   (Volume 7) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics23bategoog
   (Volume 8) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics04bategoog
   (Volume 8) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics29bategoog
   (Volume 9) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics03bategoog
   (Volume 10) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics06bategoog
   (Volume 11) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics07bategoog
   (Volume 12) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics05bategoog
   (Volume 13) https://archive.org/details/historyofpacific13bancrich
   (Volume 14) https://archive.org/details/historyofpacific14bancrich
   (Volume 14) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics09bategoog
   (Volume 15) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics01bategoog
   (Volume 16) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics10bategoog
   (Volume 17) https://archive.org/details/historyofpacific17bancrich
   (Volume 17) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics22bategoog
   (Volume 18) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics08bategoog
   (Volume 19) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics20bategoog
   (Volume 19) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics27bategoog
   (Volume 20) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics31bategoog
   (Volume 21) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics17bategoog
   (Volume 22) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics18bategoog
   (Volume 23) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics28bategoog
   (Volume 24) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics19bategoog
   (Volume 25) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics26bategoog
   (Volume 26) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics12bategoog
   (Volume 27) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics21bategoog
   (Volume 31) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics25bategoog
   (Volume 32) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics15bategoog
   (Volume 33) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics14bategoog

BANVARD, REVEREND JOSEPH.
   Novelties of the new world.
   Boston: Gould & Lincoln. 1851.
   https://archive.org/details/noveltiesofnew00banv

BELKNAP, JEREMY.
   American biography, volume 1. (1794-8.)
   New York: Harper & Brothers. 3 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/americanbiograph185101belk
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/cihm_48978
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/cihm_37965

BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY.
Notes of Americana.
(Bulletins, volume 3. pages 205-209.)

BROWNELL, HENRY.
   North and South America Illustrated, from its first discovery.
   Hartford: Hurlbut, Kellogg & Company 1800. 2 volumes.
   https://archive.org/details/northsouthameric11brow
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/northsouthamill01browrich
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/northandsoutham00browgoog

BRYANT, WILLIAM CULLEN, and SIDNEY H. GAY.
   Popular history of the United States, volume 1.
   New York: Scribner, Armstrong & Co. 1870-81. 4 volumes.
   https://archive.org/details/3704730.1-4

BUMP, C. W.
   Bibliographies of America. Baltimore. 1892.
   (Johns Hopkins University studies in historical
   and political science. 10th series, nos. 10-11. appendix)

CARVER, ELVIRA, and MARA L. PRATT.
   Our fatherland. [Juvenile.]
   Boston: Educational Publication Company. 1890. volume 1-.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/ourfatherland00carv
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/ourfatherlandvol01carvuoft

FISKE, JOHN.
   The discovery of America: with some account of
   ancient America and the Spanish conquest.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Company. 1892. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/discoveryamerica01fisk
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/discoveryofameri02fisk

GORDON, THOMAS F.
   History of America, volumes. 1-2;
   containing the history of the Spanish discoveries
   prior to 1520. Philadelphia. 1832. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyamericab00gordgoog

HAKLUYT, RICHARD. collection
   Divers voyages touching the discovery of America and
   the Islands adjacent (1582); with notes by John W. Jones.
   London: Hakluyt Society. 1850.
   https://archive.org/details/diversvoyagesto00thorgoog

HARRISSE, HENRY.
   The discovery of North America: a critical, documentary,
   and historic investigation.
   London: H. Stevens & Son. 1892.

HIGGINSON, THOMAS WENTWORTH.
A book of American explorers.
Boston: Lee & Shepard. 1877.

Larger history of the United States of America, chapters 1-5.
New York: Harper & Brothers. 1880.

HOLMES, ABIEL.
   The annals of America, 1492-1826 (1805); 2d edition.
   Cambridge: Hilliard & Brown. 1829. 2 volumes.
   https://archive.org/details/annalsamer00holmrich
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/annalsamerica02holmgoog
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/cihm_47269
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/americanannals00unkngoog

HUMBOLDT, ALEXANDER VON.
   Cosmos (1845-58), translated by E. C. Otté,
   part 2, section 6 (volume 2).
   London: H. Bohn. 1847-58. 5 volumes
   (Audio) https://archive.org/details/cosmos_1603_librivox
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/cosmosasketchap00dallgoog
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/cosmossketchofph0002humb/page/n5/mode/2up
   (Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/cosmosofph03humbrich
   (Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/sketchofphcosmos04humbrich

New York: Harper & Brothers 1850-. 5 volumes.
https://archive.org/details/cosmos01humbgoog

KERR, ROBERT, ed.
   General history and collection of voyages and travels (1811-1824).
   volumes 1-6.
   Edinburgh: W. Blackwood. 18 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/ageneralhistory06kerrgoog
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/generalhistoryco02kerrrich
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/ageneralhistory02kerrgoog
   (Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_zb46AAAAIAAJ
   (Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/ageneralhistory07kerrgoog
   (Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/ageneralhistory08kerrgoog
   (Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/generalhistoryco05kerrrich
   (Volume 6) https://archive.org/details/ageneralhistory15kerrgoog
   (Volume 7) https://archive.org/details/ageneralhistory10kerrgoog
   (Volume 8) https://archive.org/details/ageneralhistory12kerrgoog
   (Volume 9) https://archive.org/details/ageneralhistory09kerrgoog
   (Volume 10) https://archive.org/details/ageneralhistory11kerrgoog
   (Volume 11) https://archive.org/details/ageneralhistory04kerrgoog
   (Volume 11) https://archive.org/details/dli.granth.18187
   (Volume 12) https://archive.org/details/ageneralhistory14kerrgoog
   (Volume 13) https://archive.org/details/ageneralhistory05kerrgoog
   (Volume 15) https://archive.org/details/ageneralhistory13kerrgoog
   (Volume 18) https://archive.org/details/ageneralhistory10unkngoog/page/n5/mode/2up
   (Volume 18) https://archive.org/details/ageneralhistory03kerrgoog

KINGSLEY, CHARLES. The first discovery of America. (Lectures delivered in America in 1874. London: Longmans, Green & Company. 1875. Philadelphia: Porter & Coates. 1875.) https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/1360 https://archive.org/details/lecturesdelivere00king

LODGE, H. C.
Gravier's Découverte de l'Amérique.
(North American Review 119: 166. 1874.)

MACGREGOR, JOHN.
   Progress in America.
   London: Whittaker & Company. 1847. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/progressofameric01macguoft
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/progressamerica02macggoog

MACKENZIE, ROBERT.
   America; a history.
   London: Nelson & Sons. 1882.
   https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.87679

MAVOR, WILLIAM.
   Historical account of the most celebrated voyages.
   volumes 1 and 17.
   London: 1790-7. 20 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historicalaccou01conggoog/page/n9/mode/2up
   (Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/historicalaccou02conggoog/page/n6/mode/2up
   (Volume 6) https://archive.org/details/historicalaccou13conggoog
   (Volume 7) https://archive.org/details/cihm_37601
   (Volume 10) https://archive.org/details/cihm_37604
   (Volume 10) https://archive.org/details/anhistoricalacc03mavogoog
   (Volume 13) https://archive.org/details/historicalaccou11conggoog
   (Volume 16) https://archive.org/details/historicalaccou09conggoog
   (Volume 17) https://archive.org/details/historicalaccou17mavogoog
   (Volume 19) https://archive.org/details/historicalaccou09mavogoog
   (Volume 20) https://archive.org/details/cihm_37614
   (Volume 21) https://archive.org/details/cihm_37615
   (Volume 22) https://archive.org/details/anhistoricalacc10mavogoog
   (Volume 23) https://archive.org/details/cihm_37617
   (Volume 24) https://archive.org/details/historicalaccou08mavogoog/page/n8/mode/2up
   (Volume 24) https://archive.org/details/cihm_37618

PALFREY, JOHN G.
   History of New England, volume 1, chapter 2.
   Boston: Little, Brown & Company. 1858-90.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historynewengla23palfgoog
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyofnewengl02palf
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyofnewengl0002palf/page/n5/mode/2up
   (Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/historyofnewengl00palf

PAYNE, EDWARD JOHN.
   History of the new world called America.
   Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1892-. volume 1-.
   New York: Macmillan & Company. 1892-. volume 1-.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/histnewworld01paynrich
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/histnewworld02paynrich

PINKERTON, JOHN, ed.
   General collection of the best and most interesting
   voyages and travels, volume 14.
   London: Longman. 1808-14. 17 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/cihm_18698
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/generalcollectio01pink
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/generalcollectio02pink
   (Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/generalcollectio04pink
   (Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/generalcollectio04pinkuoft
   (Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/ageneralcollect05pinkgoog/page/n15/mode/2up
   (Volume 6) https://archive.org/details/cihm_18703
   (Volume 7) https://archive.org/details/generalcollectio07pink
   (Volume 8) https://archive.org/details/ageneralcollect03unkngoog/page/n11/mode/2up
   (Volume 9) https://archive.org/details/generalcollectio09pink
   (Volume 10) https://archive.org/details/generalcollectio10pink
   (Volume 11) https://archive.org/details/generalcollectio11pink
   (Volume 13) https://archive.org/details/generalcollectio12pink
   (Volume 14) https://archive.org/details/generalcollectio14pink
   (Volume 16) https://archive.org/details/dli.bengal.10689.5489
   (Volume 17) https://archive.org/details/dli.bengal.10689.1668

ROBERTSON, WILLIAM.
   History of America (1777-96).
   (Works, volumes 6-8.
   Oxford: Talboys & Wheeler. 1825.)
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyamerica12robegoog
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/americarobertson00willrich/page/n3/mode/2up
   (Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/historyamericab00robegoog
   (Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/historyofamerica03robe
   (Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/historyamerica01unkngoog

SCAIFE, WALTER B.
   America, its geographical history, 1492-1892.
   (Johns Hopkins University studies in historical and
   political science, extra volume 13.) Baltimore. 1892.
   https://archive.org/details/americaitsgeogra00scairich

SNOWDEN, RICHARD.
   History of North and South America, from its discovery
   to the death of General Washington. (1806.)
   Philadelphia: B. Warner. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1, 2) /phttps://archive.org/details/historynorthand00snowgoog

STEVENS, HENRY.
   Historical and geographical notes on the earliest
   discoveries in America, 1453-1530.
   London: Henry Stevens. 1869.
   New Haven: American Journal of Science. 1869.
   https://archive.org/details/historicalandge00stevgoog

WILLSON, MARCIUS.
   American history.
   New York: Mark H. Newman & Company. 1847.
   https://archive.org/details/americanhistory00will

WINSOR, JUSTIN.
   Harrisse's Discovery of North America
   Nation, 55: 244. 264.
   https://archive.org/details/jstor-196715/page/n11/mode/2up

   Editor, Narrative and critical history of America
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Company 1886. 8 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica01wins/page/n11/mode/2up
   (Volume 1, 1)https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica51wins
   (Volume 1, 2) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica12wins
   (Volume 2 )https://archive.org/details/narrcrithistamerica02winsrich
   (Volume 2, 1) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica21wins
   (Volume 2, 2) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica22wins
   (Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica0003wins/page/n7/mode/2up
   (Volume 3, 1) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica31wins
   (Volume 3, 2) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica32wins
   (Volume 4 ) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica04wins
   (Volume 4, 1) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica41wins
   (Volume 4, 2) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica42wins
   (Volume 5 ) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica0005wins/page/n7/mode/2up
   (Volume 5, 2) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica52wins
   (Volume 6, 1) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica61wins
   (Volume 6, 2) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica62wins/page/n7/mode/2up
   (Volume 7) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica0007wins/page/n5/mode/2up
   (Volume 7, 2) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica72wins
   (Volume 8) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica0008wins/page/n7/mode/2up
   (Volume 8, 2) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica82wins

YATES, JOHN V. N., and MOULTON, JOS. W.
   History of the state of New York, volume 1, part 1.
   New York: A. T. Goodrich. 1924-6. 2 volumes.
   (Volume1, 1)https://archive.org/details/historyofstateof12moul_0
   (Part 2)https://archive.org/details/historyofstateof02moul/page/n3/mode/2up

PRE-COLUMBIAN DISCOVERIES.

ANDERSON, RASMUS B.
   America not discovered by Columbus.
   Chicago: S. C. Griggs & Company. 1874.
   https://archive.org/details/americanotdiscov00andeiala

BEAMISH, NORTH LUDLOW.
   The discovery of America by the Northmen in the 10th century.
   London: T. & W. Boone 1841.
   https://archive.org/details/discoveryameric00beamgoog

BOWEN, Reverend BENJ. F.
   America discovered by the Welsh in 1170. A. D.
   Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Company. 1876.
   https://archive.org/details/americadiscovere00boweuoft

DAVIS, ASAHEL.
   Discovery of America by the Northmen.
   Rochester: D. Hoyt. 1839.
   https://archive.org/details/lectureondiscove00davi

DE COSTA, Reverend BENJAMIN FRANKLIN, editor. The pre-Columbian discovery of America by the Northmen, illustrated by translations from the Icelandic sagas. Albany: Joel Munsell. 1868. https://archive.org/details/precolumbiandisc00deco https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/41221

DIMAN, J. L. De Costa's Pre-Columbian discovery of America, (North American Review, 109: 205. 1869.) https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/41221

DU BOIS, B. H.
Did the Norse discover America?
(Magazines of American History, 27: 369. 1892.)

ELLIOTT, CHARLES W.
   The New England history, chapter 1.
   New York: Charles Scribner. 1857. 2 volumes.
   https://archive.org/details/newenglandhisto04elligoog

EVERETT, EDWARD.
Discovery of America by the Northmen.
(North American Review, 46: 161. 1838.)

FISKE, JOHN.
How America came to be discovered.
(Harper's Magazine, 64: 111. 1881.)

HIGGINSON, THOMAS W.
The visit of the Vikings,
(Harper's Magazine, 65: 515. 1882.)

HORSFORD, EBEN NORTON.
   The problem of the Northmen.
   Cambridge: J. Wilson & Son. 1889.
   https://archive.org/details/problemofnorthme00hors

LELAND, CHARLES GODFREY.
The ante-Norse discoverers of America
(Continental Monthly, 1: 389,530. 1862)

   Fusang: or the discovery of America by Chinese Buddhist
   priests in the 5th century.
   London: Trübner. 1875.
   New York: J. W. Bouton, 1875.
   http://link.archive.org/portal/Fusang-or-The-discovery-of-America-by-Chinese/ZD2URRe5Nbs/

MacLEAN, J. P. Pre-Columbian discovery of America
(American Antiquarian, 14, 1892)

MAJOR, RICHARD HENRY.
   The life of prince Henry of Portugal,
   surnamed the navigator, and its results.
   London: A. Asher & Company, 1868.
   https://archive.org/details/lifeofprincehenr00majo

On the voyages of the Venetian brothers Zeno.
(Massachusetts History Society Proceedings, 1873-75.)

   Translator and editor.
   Voyages of the Venetian brothers, Nicolò and Antonio Zeno,
   to the northern seas, in the 14th century.
   London: Hakluyt Society. 1873.
   https://archive.org/details/voyagesofvenetia00zenorich

ONDERDONK, J. L.
   Pre-Columbian discoveries of America,
   (National Quarterly Review, 33: 1. 1876.)
   https://archive.org/details/precolumbiandis00ondegoog/page/n4/mode/2up

PILON, M. R.
   Visits of Europeans to America
   in the 10th and 11th centuries.
   (Potter's American Monthly, 5: 903. 1875.)

RANKING, JOHN,
   Historical researches on the conquest of Peru, Mexico, etc.,
   in the 13th century, by the Mongols.
   London: Longman. 1827.
   https://archive.org/details/historicalresear00rank

REEVES, ARTHUR MIDDLETON.
   The finding of Wineland the good.
   London: Henry Frowde. 1890.
   https://archive.org/details/winelandthegood00reevrich

ROPES, A. R.
Early explorations of America, real and imaginary.
(English Historical Review, 2: 78. 1887.)

SLAFTER, Rev. EDMUND F.
   The discovery of America by the Northmen 985-1015:
   a discourse delivered before the New Hampshire
   Historical Society, April 24, 1888.
   https://archive.org/details/winelandthegood00reevrich

   Editor.
   Voyages of the Northmen to America; including extracts from
   the Icelandic sagas in an English translation by N. L. Beamish,
   opinion of Professor Rafn, etc.
   Boston: Prince Society. 1877.
   https://archive.org/details/voyagesofnorthme00slafiala

SMITH, JOSHUA TOULMIN.
   The discovery of America by the Northmen In the 10th century;
   comprising translations of all the most important original
   narratives (1839). 2d edition.
   London: William S. Orr & Company 1842.
   https://archive.org/details/discoveryofameri00smit

SOUTHEY, ROBERT.
   Madoc (1805).
   London: Longmans.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Company
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/madoc03soutgoog/page/n11/mode/2up
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/madoc00soutgoog/page/n6/mode/2up

STEPHENS, THOMAS.
   Madoc; an essay on the discovery of America by
   Madoc ap Owen Gwynedd in the 12th century.
   London: Longmans, Green & Company. 1893.
   https://archive.org/details/madocessayondisc00stepuoft

VINING, EDWARD P.
   An inglorious Columbus; or, evidence that Hwui Shán
   and a party of Buddhist monks from Afghanistan discovered
   America in the 5th century.
   New York: D. Appleton & Company. 1885.
   https://archive.org/details/ingloriouscolumb00vini

VOYAGES TO VINLAND, THE; from the saga of Eric the red.
   Boston: D. C. Heath & Company.
   (Old South leaflets, general series, No.31.)
   https://archive.org/details/cihm_07112/page/n5/mode/2up

WATSON, PAUL B.
Bibliography of the pre-Columbian discoveries of America.
(Library Journal, 6: 227. 1881.)

WINSOR, JUSTIN.
   America prefigured: an address at Harvard, October 21, 1892.
   Cambridge. 1893.
   https://archive.org/details/prefiguredamerica00winsrich/page/4/mode/2up

COLUMBUS

ADAMS, CHARLES KENDALL. Christopher Columbus, his life and work. ("Makers of America.") New York: Dodd, Mead & Company. 1892. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/54929 https://archive.org/details/christophercolum00adamrich

Some recent discoveries concerning Columbus.
(Magazine of American History, 27: 161, 1892.)

ADAMS, HERBERT B., and HENRY WOOD.
   Columbus and his discovery of America.
   (Johns Hopkins University studies in historical and political
   science, 10th series, Numbers 10-11,)
   Baltimore, October-November, 1892.
   https://archive.org/details/columbusandhisd00woodgoog

BLIND, K.
The forerunners of Columbus.
(New Review, 7: 346, Living Age, 195: 387. 1892.)

CASTELAR, EMILIO.
   Christopher Columbus.
   (Century, 22: 123-921. 1892.)
   https://archive.org/details/centuryillustrat44newyuoft

COLUMBUS, CHRISTOPHER.
   Journal, 1492-3; and documents relating to the voyages of John
   [and Sebastian] Cabot and Gaspar Corte Real; translated by
   C. R. Markham.
   London: Hakluyt Society. 1893.
   https://archive.org/details/cihm_05312

   The letter on the discovery of America; a facsimile
   of the pictorial edition, with a new and literal translation.
   Printed by the Lenox Library. New York. 1882.
   https://archive.org/details/letterofcolumbus00colum

   Letter to Gabriel Sanchez, 1493.
   Boston: D. C. Heath & Company.
   (Old South leaflets, general series, No. 33.)
   https://archive.org/details/spanishletterco00kerngoog

   Select letters, with other original documents; translated
   and edited by R. H. Major.
   London: Hakluyt Society. 1847.

   Writings descriptive of the discovery and occupation
   of the new world; edited by Paul Leicester Ford.
   New York: C. L. Webster & Company. 1892.

COLUMBUS, FERDINAND.
   The discovery of America; from the life of Columbus.
   Boston: D. C. Heath & Company.
   (Old South leaflets, general series, No. 29.)

ELTON, CHARLES.
   The career of Columbus.
   New York: Cassell Publishing Company. 1892.
   https://archive.org/details/careercolumbus00eltogoog

GOODRICH, AARON.
   History of the character and achievements of the
   so-called Christopher Columbus.
   New York: D. Appleton & Company, 1874.
   https://archive.org/details/historyofcharact00good

HELPS, Sir ARTHUR, and H. P. Thomas. Life of Columbus. London: Bell & Daldy. 1869. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/15336

IRVING, WASHINGTON. Life and voyages of Christopher Columbus (1828); to which are added those of his companions (1831). New York: G. P. Putnam. 3 volumes. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/8519 (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyoflifeand01irviiala (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyoflifeand02irviiala (Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/historyoflifeand03irviiala (Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/lifeandvoyagesc05irvigoog

LORGUES, ROSELLY DE.
   Life of Christopher Columbus, from Spanish and Italian
   documents; comp. from the French by J. J. Barry.
   Boston: P. Donahoe. 1870.
   https://archive.org/details/lifeofchristophe00rose

MACKIE, CHARLES PAUL.
   The last voyages of the Admiral of the Ocean Sea,
   as related by himself and his companions.
   Chicago: A. C. McClurg & Company. 1892.
   https://archive.org/details/lastvoyagesadmi00paulgoog

MACKINTOSH, J.
   The discovery of America by Columbus and the
   origin of the North American Indians.
   Toronto. 1836.
   https://archive.org/details/discoveryameric00mcingoog

MARKHAM, CLEMENTS R.
   Life of Christopher Columbus.
   London: George Philip & Son. 1892.
   https://archive.org/details/cu31924020393413

MAURY, M.
An examination of the claims of Columbus.
(Harper's Magazines, 42: 425, 527. 1871.)

OBER, FREDERICK A.
   In the wake of Columbus; adventures of the special
   commissioner sent by the World's Columbian Exposition
   to the West Indies.
   Boston: D. Lothrop Company. 1893.
   https://archive.org/details/inwakecolumbusa00obergoog

SEELYE, ELIZABETH EGGLESTON.
   The story of Columbus; with introduction by Edward Eggleston.
   New York: D. Appleton & Company. 1892.
   https://archive.org/details/storyofcolumbus00seel

TARDUCCI, FRANCESCO.
   The life of Christopher Columbus;
   translated from the Italian by H. F. Brownson.
   Detroit: H. F. Brownson. 1890. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/lifechriscolum01tardrich
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/lifechristopher00browgoog

WINSOR, JUSTIN.
   Christopher Columbus, and how he received and imparted
   the spirit of discovery.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Company. 1891.
   https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.158654

POST-COLUMBIAN DISCOVERIES.

ARBER, EDWARD. editor.
   The first three English books on America (?1511)-1555 A. D.;
   being chiefly translations, compilations, &c., by
   Richard Eden, from the writings of Pietro Martire,
   Sebastian Münster, Sebastian Cabot.
   Birmingham. 1885.
   https://archive.org/details/firstthreeenglis00arberich

ASHER, G. M., editor
   Henry Hudson the navigator: original documents in which
   his career is recorded.
   London: Hakluyt Society. 1860.
   https://archive.org/details/henryhudsonnavig27ashe

BIDDLE, RICHARD.
   Memoir of Sebastian Cabot.
   Philadelphia: Carey & Lea. 1831.
   https://archive.org/details/sebastiancabot00biddrich

BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY.
America in the 16th century
(bibliographical note in Bulletins, volume 3, pages 130-141).

Early English explorations in America
(bibliographical note in Bulletins, volume 3, pages 241-244).

Early explorations in America
(bibliographical note in Bulletins, volume 3, pages 103-100).

BREVOORT, J. C.
   Verrazano the navigator [from report of the American
   Geographical Society of New York for 1873].
   New York. 1874.
   https://archive.org/details/verrazanonavigator00brevrich

CHAMPLAIN, SAMUEL DE.
   Voyages (1603-1610): translated Charles P. Otis, [editor]
   with memoir by E. F. Slafter.
   Boston: Prince Society. 1878-82. 3 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/cihm_26911
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/voyagessamuelde00massgoog
   (Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/voyagessamuelde00unkngoog

DE VRIES. D. P.
   Extracts from the voyages; translated from a
   Dutch ms. in the Philadelphia Library, by Dr. G.
   Troost. (Collections of the New York Historical Society.,
   2d series, volume 1.
   New York. 1841.)

   Voyages from Holland to America, 1632-1644;
   translated by H. C. Murphy. (Collections of the New
   York Historical Society, 2d series, volume 3.
   New York. 1857.)
   https://archive.org/details/cu31924028729402/page/n25/mode/2up

FISKE, JOHN.
The romance of the Spanish and French explorers.
(Harper's Magazines, 64: 438. 1882.)

FORCE, M. F.
   Some observations on the letters of Amerigo Vespucci (1879).
   Cincinnati: Robert Clarke & Company 1885.
   https://archive.org/details/someobservation01forcgoog

HAKLUYT, RICHARD, editor. The principal navigations, voyages, traffiques and discoveries of the English nation (1589); edited by E. Goldsmid. volume 12-15. Edinburgh: E. & G. Goldsmid. 1889-90. (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.178849 (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/principalnavigat02hakluoft (Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/principalnaviga00haklgoog (Volume 6) https://archive.org/details/principalnaviga06hakl (Volume 8) https://archive.org/details/principalnaviga00unkngoog (Volume 9) https://archive.org/details/cihm_33125 (Volume 10) https://archive.org/details/principalnavigat10hakl (Volume 11) https://archive.org/details/principalnavigat11hakl (Volume 12) https://archive.org/details/principalnavigat12hakl (Volume 13) https://archive.org/details/theprincipalnavi25645gut (Volume 13) https://www.gutenberg.org/files/25645/ (Volume 16) https://archive.org/details/cihm_33132

HUDSON, HENRY.
   Divers voyages and northern discoveries.
   (Purchas his pilgrimes, volume 3.
   Collections of the New York Historical Society, volume 1.
   New York. 1811.)

JUET, ROBERT.
   Extract from the journal of the voyage
   of the Half-Moon, Henry Hudson, master, 1609.
   (Collections of the New York Historical Society,
   2d series, volume 1.
   New York. 1841.)
   http://halfmoon.mus.ny.us/Juets-journal.pdf

KOHL, J. G.
   History of the discovery of Maine; with
   an appendix on the voyages of the Cabots.
   (Collections of the Maine Historical Society.,
   2d series, volume 1.
   Portland: 1869.)
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyofdiscove00kohl

LESTER, C. EDWARDS, and A. FOSTER.
   Life and voyages of Americus Vespucius.
   New York: Baker & Scribner. 1846.
   https://archive.org/details/lifeandvoyages00lestrich/page/n3/mode/2up
   https://archive.org/details/lifevoyagesofame00lestiala
   https://archive.org/details/cu31924020421867

NICHOLLS, J. F.
   Remarkable life, adventures and discoveries of Sebastian Cabot.
   London: Sampson Low, Son & Marston. 1869.
   https://archive.org/details/remarkablelifead00nich

PARKMAN, FRANCIS.
   Pioneers of France in the New World.
   Boston: Little. Brown & Company. 1865.
   https://archive.org/details/pioneers_of_france_in_new_world_0908_librivox1

PAYNE, EDWARD JAMES.
   Voyages of the Elizabethan seamen to America;
   13 original narratives from the collection of Hakluyt.
   London: Thomas de la Rue & Company. 1880.
   https://archive.org/details/voyagesofelizabe02hakluoft

READ, JOHN MEREDITH, Jr.
   Historical inquiry concerning Henry Hudson.
   Albany: J. Munsell. 1866.
   https://archive.org/details/historicalinquir00readuoft

SANTAREM, Viscount. Researches respecting Americus
   Vespucius and his voyages (1842); translated by E. V. Childe.
   Boston: C. C. Little & Jas. Brown. 1850.
   https://archive.org/details/researchesrespe02conggoog

STANLEY OF ALDERLEY. Lord.
   The first voyage round the world, by Magellan; translated from
   the accounts of Pigafetta and other contemporary writers; with
   documents, notes, etc.
   London: Hakluyt Society. 1874.
   https://archive.org/details/firstvoyageround00piga

TARDUCCI, FRANCESCO.
   John and Sebastian Cabot, biographical notice, with documents;
   translated from the Italian by Henry F. Brownson.
   Detroit: H. F. Brownson. 1893.
   https://archive.org/details/johnsebast00tardrich

TOWLE, GEORGE M.
   Magellan.
   Boston: Lee & Shepard. 1880.
   https://archive.org/details/magellan00towl/page/n5/mode/2up

VERRAZANO, JOHN DE. The relation of.
(Collections of the New York Historical Society., volume 1.
New York. 1811.)

   The same: a new translation, by J. G. Cogswell.
   (Collections of the New York Historical Society,
   2d series, volume 1.
   New York. 1841.)

   Voyage, 1524.
   (Old South leaflets, general series, No. 17.)
   Boston: D. C. Heath & Company.

VESPUCCI, AMERIGO.
   Account of his first voyage; letter to Pier Soderini.
   (Old South leaflets, general series, No. 34.)
   Boston: D. C. Heath & Company.

   The first four voyages; reprinted in facsimile and
   translated from the rare original edition. (1505-6).
   London: Bernard Quaritch. 1893.

https://archive.org/details/lettersofamerigo00vesp
https://archive.org/details/lettersofamerigo00vesprich

VOYAGES OF THE CABOTS, THE.
   From Hakluyt's "Principal navigations."
   Boston: D. C. Heath & Company.
   (Old South leaflets, general series, No. 37.)

SPANISH AND PORTUGUESE CONQUEST AND OCCUPATION.

ANDAGOYA, PASCUAL DE. Narrative of the proceedings of Pedrarias Davila [1514-1541]; translated and edited by C. R. Markham. London: Hakluyt Society. 1865. https://archive.org/details/narrativeofproce00anda

BANDELIER, ADOLF F. A.
Discovery of New Mexico [Cibola] by Fray Marcos of Nizza.
(Magazine of Western History, 4: 659. 1886.)

BENZONI, GIROLAMO.
   History of the new world, shewing his travels in America,
   1541-1556; translated and edited by W. H. Smyth.
   London: Hakluyt Society. 1857.
   https://archive.org/details/historynewworld00smytgoog/page/n10/mode/2up

BLACKMAR, FRANK W.
   Spanish Institutions of the southwest.
   Baltimore. 1801. (Johns Hopkins University studies in
   history and political science. Extra volume 10.)
   https://archive.org/details/spanishinstituti00blac

CHARLEVOIX, Father F. P. X. DE.
   History of Paraguay (1756);
   [translated from the French].
   London: L. Davis. 1769. 2 volumes.
   (French) https://archive.org/details/histoireduparag04chargoog
   (English) https://books.google.com/books?id=40sIAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

CHEVALIER, MICHEL.
   Mexico, ancient and modern; translated by T. Alpass.
   London: J. Maxwell & Company. 1864. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/gri_33125000251625/page/n3/mode/2up
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/mexicoancientan01alpagoog

CIEZA DE LEON, PEDRO DE.
   Travels, A. D. 1532-50, contained in the first and
   second parts of his Chronicle of Peru (1553-):
   translated an edited by C. R. Markham.
   London: Hakluyt Society 1864-83.
   https://archive.org/details/travelsofpedrode33ciez/page/n31/mode/2up

CLAVIGERO, Abbé D. FRANCESCO SAVERIO.
   History of Mexico, collected from Spanish and Mexican
   historians, from MSS. and ancient paintings of the Indians;
   translated from the Italian by Charles Cullen.
   Philadelphia: Thomas Dobson. 1804. 3 volumes.
   https://archive.org/details/historyofmexicoc03clav

CORTEZ, HERNANDO.
   Despatches addressed to the emperor Charles V. during
   the conquest: translated from the Spanish, with
   introduction and notes by George Folsom.
   New York: Wiley & Putnam. 1843.
   https://archive.org/details/despatchesofhern0cort

DIAZ DEL CASTILLO, BERNAL.
   Memoirs, containing a true and full account of the
   discovery and conquest of Mexico and New Spain (1612):
   translated from the Spanish by John I. Lockhart.
   London: J. Hatchard & Son. 1844. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/memoirsofconquis01dauoft
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/memoirsconquist01lockgoog
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/dli.granth.40349/page/n3/mode/2up
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/memoirsofconquis02di

DISCOVERY and conquest of Terra Florida, by Don Fernando de Solo;
   written by a gentleman of Elvas (1557), and translated out of
   Portuguese by Richard Hakluyt: edited by W. B. Rye.
   London: Hakluyt Society 1851.
   https://archive.org/details/discoveryandcon00haklgoog

FANCOURT, CHARLES. ST. J.
   History of Yucatan.
   London: J. Murray. 1854.
   https://archive.org/details/historyofyucatan00fanc

HELPS, Sir ARTHUR.
   Life of Hernando Cortes.
   London: Bell & Son. 1871. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/lifehernandocor00goog/page/n9/mode/2up
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/dli.granth.85399/page/ii/mode/2up
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/lifeofhernandoco01helpuoft
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/lifeofhernandoco02helpuoft
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/dli.granth.86033

   Life of Las Casas.
   London: Bell & Son. 1868.
   https://archive.org/details/lifeoflascasasth00help/page/n7/mode/2up

   Life of Pizarro.
   London: Bell & Son. 1869.
   https://archive.org/details/lifeofpizarrowit00help

   The Spanish conquest In America.
   London: Parker & Son. (1855-61.)
   New York: Harper & Brothers. 1867. 4 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/spanishconquesti01helpuoft
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/spanishconquest00conggoog
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/spanishconquest06oppegoog
   (Volume 3) https://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/moa/agf7071.0003.001
   (Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/spanish_conquest_in_america_vol4/page/n3/mode/2up

IRVING, THEODORE.
   History of De Soto's conquest of Florida (1835).
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/conquestflorida01irvirich/page/n5/mode/2up
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/conquestflorida01irvigoog

MARKHAM, CLEMENTS R.
   History of Peru, chapters 1-4.
   Chicago: C. H. Sergel & Co. 1892.
   https://archive.org/details/ahistoryperu01markgoog

   Edited and translated.
   Reports on the discovery of Peru.
   London: Hakluyt Society 1872.
   https://archive.org/details/reportsondiscove04mark

MAYER, BRANTZ.
   Mexico, Aztec, Spanish and republican, book. 1.
   Hartford: S. Drake & Company. 1851. 2 volumes.
   https://books.google.com/books/about/Mexico_Aztec_Spanish_and_republican.html?id=4QNQAQAAIAAJ
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/mexicoaztecspan01mayegoog
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/mexicoaztecspani02maye

RESCOTT, WILLIAM H.
   History of the conquest of Mexico (1843);
   edited by J. F. Kirk.
   Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Company. 3 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/conquestofmexico01presrich
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/conquestmexico02presuoft
   (Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/historyconmex03pres
   (Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/historyofconques04pres

   History of the conquest of Peru (1847);
   edited by J. F. Kirk.
   Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Company. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyofconques01presiala
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyofconques02presiala
   (Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/historyofconques03presiala

RAYNAL, Abbé.
   A philosophical and political history of the settlements and
   trade of the Europeans in the east and west Indies (1770);
   translated from the French by J. O. Justamond.
   London. 1788. 8 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/philosophicalpol01rayn
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/philosophicalpol02rayn
   (Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/philosophicalpol03rayn
   (Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/philosophicalpol04rayn
   (Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/philosophicalpol06rayn
   (Volume 6) https://archive.org/details/philosophicalpol05rayn
   (Volume 7) https://archive.org/details/philosophicalpol07rayn
   (Volume 8) https://archive.org/details/philosophicalpol08rayn/

RIVERO, M. E., and TSCHUDI, J. J. VON.
   Peruvian antiquities:
   translated from the Spanish by F. L. Hawks.
   New York: G. P. Putnam & Company. 1853.
   https://archive.org/details/peruvianantiqui01tschgoog/page/n10/mode/2up

SIMPSON, J. H.
   Coronado's march in search of the "Seven cities of Cibola."
   Washington. 1871.
   https://archive.org/details/coronadosmarchin00simprich/page/n11/mode/2up

SOLIS, Don ANTONIO DE
   History of the conquest of Mexico by the Spaniards (1684);
   translated from the Spanish by T. Townsend,
   revised and corrected by N. Hook.
   London: T. Woodward. 1738. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://books.google.com/books/about/The_History_of_the_Conquest_of_Mexico.html?id=ejQVAAAAQAAJ

SOUTHEY, ROBERT.
   History of Brazil, volume 1.
   London: Longman. 1810-19. 3 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyofbrazil01sout
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyofbrazil02sout
   (Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/historyofbrazil03sout

SOUTHEY, THOMAS.
   Chronological history of the West Indies, volume 1.
   London: Longman. 1827. 3 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/chronologicalhis01sout
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/chronologicalhis02sout
   (Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/chronologicalhis03sout

TOWLE, GEORGE M.
   Pizarro.
   Boston: Lee & Shepard. 1879.
   https://archive.org/details/pizarrohisadvent00towlrich/page/n5/mode/2up

TYLOR, EDWARD B.
   Anahuac; or Mexico and the Mexicans, ancient and modern.
   London: Longman, Green & Company. 1861.
   https://archive.org/details/b24883360

WASHBURN, CHARLES A.
   History of Paraguay, chapters 1-4.
   Boston: Lee & Shepard. 1871. 2 volumes.
   (volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyofparagua01washuoft/page/n3/mode/2up
   (volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyofparagua02wash

WATSON, ROBERT G. The Spanish and Portuguese in South America during the colonial period, volume 1. London: Trübner & Company. 1884. 2 volumes. (volume 1) https://archive.org/details/spanishportugues01watsuoft (volume 1) https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/50990 (volume 2) https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/52252

WILSON, ROBERT A.
   A new history of the conquest of Mexico, in which
   Las Casas' denunciations of the popular historians
   of that war are vindicated.
   Philadelphia: Jas. Challen & Son. 1859.
   https://archive.org/details/anewhistoryconq00goog

ENGLISH AND FRENCH COLONIZATION.

ACRELIUS, ISRAEL.
   History of New Sweden. (Memoirs of the Pennsylvania
   Historical Society, volume 11.
   Philadelphia. 1876.)
   https://archive.org/details/historyofnewswed11acre
   https://archive.org/details/historyofnewswed00acre
   https://archive.org/details/cihm_12822/page/n5/mode/2up

ADAMS, CHARLES FRANCIS.
   Three episodes of Massachusetts history.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Company. 1892 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/threeepisodesofm01adamuoft
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/threeepisodesofm02adam

BAYLIES, FRANCIS.
   Historical memoir of the colony of New Plymouth (1830).
   Boston: Wiggin & Lunt. 1866. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historicalmemoir11bayl
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historicalmemoir02bayl

BEVERLEY, ROBERT.
   History of Virginia (1705).
   Richmond: J. W. Randolph. 1855.
   https://archive.org/details/historyvirginia00campgoog

BOZMAN, JOHN LEEDS
   History of Maryland, 1633-1660.
   Baltimore: Lucas & Deaver. 1837 (introduction 1811.)
   Baltimore: John Murphy & Co.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyofmarylan00bozm
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historymaryland02bozmgoog

BRADFORD, WILLIAM.
   History of Plymouth Plantation.
   (Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society,
   4th series, volume 3. Boston. 1856.)
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyofplymout1162brad
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historymaryland02bozmgoog

BRIDGES, GEORGE W.
   Annals of Jamaica, volume 1.
   London: J. Murray. 1827. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/annalsofjamaica01briduoft
   (Volume 2 )https://archive.org/details/annalsjamaica05bridgoog

BRODHEAD, JOHN R., editor
   Documents relating to the colonial history
   of the state of New York.
   Albany. 1856-87. 14 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ01brod
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ02brod/page/n9/mode/2up
   (Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ03brod/page/n7/mode/2up
   (Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ04brod/page/n7/mode/2up
   (Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ05brod/page/n9/mode/2up
   (Volume 6) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ06brod/page/n7/mode/2up
   (Volume 7) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ07brod/page/n9/mode/2up
   (Volume 8) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ08brod/page/n5/mode/2up
   (Volume 9) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ09brod/page/n7/mode/2up
   (Volume 10) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ10brod/page/n7/mode/2up

   History of the state of New York, volume 1.
   New York: Harper & Brothers. 1853. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ01brod
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ02brod
   (Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ03brod
   (Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ04b/page/n7/mode/2up
   (Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ05brod/
   (Volume 6) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ06brod/
   (Volume 7) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ07brod/
   (Volume 8) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ08brod/
   (Volume 9) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ09brod/
   (Volume 10) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ10brod/
   (Index) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ11brod/page/n7/mode/2up

BROWN, ALEXANDER editor
   The genesis of the United States [a collection of
   historical mss. and tracts, with notes, etc.].
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Company. 1890. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/genesisofuniteds01brow
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/genesisofuniteds02brow

BROWN, WILLIAM HAND, editor.
   Archives of Maryland.
   Baltimore. 1883-.
   https://msa.maryland.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000021/html/am21p—1.html
   Has links to other volumes.

BURKE, EDMUND.
   An account of the European settlements in America.
   London: R. & J. Dodsley. 1757. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/accountofeuropea01burk
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/accountofeuropea02burk

BURY, Viscount.
   Exodus of the western nations.
   London: Richard Bentley. 1865. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/exodusofwesternn01albeuoft
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/exodusofwesternn02albeuoft
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.82499

CAMPBELL, CHARLES. Introduction to the history of the colony and ancient dominion of Virginia. Richmond: D. B. Minor. 1847. https://archive.org/details/introductiontohi00campb

   History of the colony and ancient dominion of Virginia.
   Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Company.
   https://archive.org/details/historyofcolonya00camp

CAMPBELL, DOUGLAS.
   The Puritan in Holland, England and America.
   New York: Harper & Brothers. 1892. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/puritaninholland01camp
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/puritaninholland02camp

CARROLL, B. R., editor.
   Historical collections of South Carolina.
   New York: Harper & Brothers. 1836. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historicalcolle00carrgoog/page/n9/mode/2up
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historicalcolle02carrgoog/page/n6/mode/2up

CHARLEVOIX, Father PIERRE F. X. DE.
   History and general description of New France (1744):
   translated, with notes, by John G. Shea.
   New York: J. G. Shea. 1866-7.2. 6 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/cihm_32251
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/cihm_32765
   (Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/historygeneralde03char
   (Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/historygeneralde04char
   (Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/historygenerald05achar
   (Volume 6) https://archive.org/details/historygeneralde06char

CHEEVER, GEORGE B., editor
   Journal of the Pilgrims at Plymouth in 1620.
   New York: J. Wiley. 1848.
   https://archive.org/details/journalofpilgrim00mouruoft

DALTON, HENRY G.
   History of British Guiana, chapter 2.
   London: Longmans. 1855. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historybritishg01daltgoog
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historybritishg02daltgoog
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historybritishg03daltgoog
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historybritishg00daltgoog/page/n10/mode/2up

DOUGLASS, WILLIAM.
   Summary, historical and political, of the British settlements
   in North America.
   London: R. Baldwin. 1755. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/summaryhistorica01doug/page/n7/mode/2up
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/McGillLibrary-rbsc_lc_summary-historical-political_Lande00193_v2-15869

DOYLE, JOHN A.
The American colonies (Arnold prize essay).
London: Rivingtons. 1869.

   The English In America: Virginia.
   Maryland and the Carolinas (1882).
   The Puritan colonies (1887), 2 volumes.
   London: Longmans, Green & Company.
   New York: Henry Holt & Co.

   https://archive.org/details/englishcoloniesi01doyl
   (Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/englishcoloniesi03doyl
   (Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/englishcoloniesi04doyl/page/n7/mode/2up/page/n7/mode/2up

DRAKE, SAMUEL ADAMS.
   The making of New England, 1580-1643.
   New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. 1886.
   https://archive.org/details/makingofnewengla00drakrich

   The making of Virginia and the middle colonies.
   New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. 1893.
   https://archive.org/details/makingofvirginia00drak

DRAKE, SAMUEL G.
   History and antiquities of Boston, 1630-1770.
   Boston: L. Stevens. 1856.
   https://archive.org/details/historyantiquiti00dra

EDWARDS, BRYAN.
   History, civil and commercial, of the British colonies
   in the West Indies. [Caribs, etc.]
   London: J. Stockdale. 1793-1801. 3 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/cihm_44458
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historycivilcomm04edwa
   https://archive.org/details/historycivilcomm06edwa/page/n5/mode/2up

FERRIS, BENJAMIN.
   History of the original settlements on the Delaware.
   Wilmington: Wilson & Heald. 1846.
   https://archive.org/details/historyoforigina00ferr

FISHER. GEORGE P.
   The colonial era (American History series).
   New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. 1892.
   (1906) https://archive.org/details/colonialera00fishuoft
   (1910) https://archive.org/details/colonialerabygeo00fish

FISKE, JOHN.
   The beginnings of New England.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Company. 1889.
   (1897) https://archive.org/details/beginningsofne00fisk

FORCE, PETER. editor.
   Tracts and other papers relating principally to the origin,
   settlement and progress of the colonies in North America.
   Washington. 1886-47. 4 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/tractsotherpaper01forc
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/tractsotherpaper02forc
   (Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/tractsotherpaper1844forc
   (Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/tractsotherpaper04forc

GAYARRÉ, CHARLES.
   History of Louisiana; the French domination (1851-4).
   New York: William J. Widdleton. 1861.
   (1867) https://archive.org/details/historyoflouisia03gaya

GOODWIN, JOHN A.
   The pilgrim republic.
   Boston: Ticknor & Company. 1888.
   https://archive.org/details/pilgrimrepublich00good/page/n11/mode/2up

GRAHAME, JAMES.
   History of the rise and progress of the United States
   of North America. till 1688, volume 1.
   London: Longman. 1827. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyofrisepro01grah/page/n5/mode/2up
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyofrisepro02grah/page/n5/mode/2up
   (Volume 4, 1836) https://archive.org/details/historyriseandp01grahgoog/page/n8/mode/2up

   The same, enlarged [to 1776] and amended [edited by
   Josiah Quincy, and published under the title of
   "History of the United States"].
   Philadelphia: Lea & Blanchard. 1846.

HAWKS, FRANCIS L.
   History of North Carolina [to 1729] (1857-60).
   Fayetteville: Hale & Son. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/cu31924028788374
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historynorthcar00lillgoog
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historynorthcar00pittgoog
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historynorthcar00unkngoog
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_MzgTAAAAYAAJ/page/n3/mode/2up

HUBBARD, Rev. WILLIAM.
   General history of New England, to 1680 (1815).
   (Collections of the Massachusetts History Society,
   2d series, volumes 5-11. Boston. 1848.)
   https://archive.org/details/generalhistoryof00hubb

HUTCHINSON, THOMAS.
   History of the colony [and province] of Massachusetts-Bay
   [to 1749].
   Boston: T. & J. Fleet. 1764-7. 2 volumes.
   https://archive.org/details/historyofcolonyo00hutc

LAMBRECHTSEN, N. C.
   Short description of the discovery and subsequent history
   of the New Netherlands (1818): [translated from the Dutch].
   (Collections of the New York Historical Society,
   2d series, volume 1. New York. 1841.)

LODGE, HENRY CABOT.
   Short history of the English colonies in America.
   New York: Harper & Brothers. 1881.
   https://archive.org/details/histenglishcolonies00lodgrich

MARSHALL, JOHN.
   History of the colonies planted by the English on the continent
   of North America.
   Philadelphia: A. Small. 1824.
   https://archive.org/details/plantedcolonies00marsrich

MOORE, N.
   Pilgrims and Puritans: the story of the planting of Plymouth
   and Boston.
   Boston: Ginn & Co. 1888.
   https://archive.org/details/pilgrimspuritans00tiff

MOURT, GEORGE.
   Relation, or journal of the plantation at Plymouth (1622);
   with introduction and notes by H. M. Dexter.
   Boston: J. K. Wiggin. 1865.
   https://archive.org/details/mourtsrelationo00dextgoog

NEILL, EDWARD D.
   English colonization of America during the 17th century.
   London: Strahan & Company. 1871.
   https://archive.org/details/cu31924032746145

   History of the Virginia Company of London.
   Albany: J. Munsell. 1869.
   https://archive.org/details/cu31924028784738

   Virginia vetusta [Supplement to above].
   Albany: J. Munsell's Sons. 1885.
   https://archive.org/details/virginiavetusta00neilgoog

O'CALLAGHAN, E. B.
   Register of New Netherland, 1626-1674.
   Albany: J. Munsell. 1865.
   https://archive.org/details/registerofnewnet00ocal

PALFREY, JOHN G.
   History of New England during the Stuart dynasty.
   Boston: Little, Brown & Company. 1858-1864. 3 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyofnewengl01bost
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historynewengla19palfgoog
   (Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/historynewengla18palfgoog/page/n6/mode/2up

PRINCE, THOMAS.
   Chronological history of New England [to 1633] (1736-55).
   Boston: Cummings, Hilliard & Company. 1826.
   https://archive.org/details/achronologicalh00halegoog/page/n6/mode/2up

SAINSBURY, W. N. editor.
   Calendar of state papers: colonial series
   [America and the West Indies].
   London: Longman. 1860-89. 3 volumes. 1860-84. 6 volumes.
   (1675-1676) https://archive.org/details/calendarstatepa19offigoog
   (1677-1680) https://archive.org/details/calendarstatepa08offigoog/page/n11/mode/2up
   (1685-1688) https://archive.org/details/calendarstatepa18offigoog/page/n9/mode/2up
   (1689-1692) https://archive.org/details/calendarstatepa14offigoog
   (1696-1697) https://archive.org/details/cu31924087794685
   (1719-1720) https://archive.org/details/colonialrecordsc31greauoft/page/n3/mode/2up
   (1699) https://archive.org/details/calendarstatepa15offigoog

SHURTLEFF, N. B., editor.
   Records of the governor and Company of the Massachusetts Bay,
   1628-86. Printed by order of the Legislature.
   Boston. 1853-4; 5 volumes in 6.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/recordsofgoverno01mass
   (Volume 4, Part 1) https://archive.org/details/cu31924091024590
   (Volume 4, Part 2) https://archive.org/details/recordsofgoverno42mass

SHURTLEFF, N. B., and D. PULSIFER. editors.
   Records of the colony of New Plymouth.
   Printed by order of the Legislature.
   Boston. 1855-61. 12 volumes. in 10.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/recordsofcolonyo0102newp/page/n5/mode/2up
   (Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/recordsofcolonyo05newp
   https://www.plymouthcolony.net/resources/pcr.html#pcrarchive

STITH, WILLIAM.
   History of the first discovery and settlement of Virginia (1747).
   New York: Reprinted for Jos. Sabin. 1865.
   https://archive.org/details/101292821.nlm.nih.gov/page/n3/mode/2up

TARBOX, Rev. INCREASE N.
   Sir Walter Raleigh and his colony in America.
   Boston: Prince Society. 1884.
   https://archive.org/details/sirwalterralegh00lanegoog

TRUMBULL, BENJAMIN.
   General history of the United States of America to 1792.
   Boston: Farrand, Mallory & Company. 1810. volume 1.
   https://archive.org/details/generalhistoryof03trum
   (Volume 1 of 3) https://archive.org/details/ageneralhistory01trumgoog/page/n8/mode/2up
   https://archive.org/details/generalhistoryof03trum/page/n13/mode/2up

TYTLER, PATRICK F.
   Historical view of the progress of discovery on the
   more northern coasts of America; with natural history,
   by Jas. Wilson.
   Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd. 1832.
   New York: Harper Brothers.
   https://archive.org/details/historicalviewp00goog

WHITEFIELD, WILLIAM A., editor.
   Documents relating to the colonial history of the state of New
   Jersey.
   Newark. 1880-. 11 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelati01socigoog/page/n10/mode/2up
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelati04socigoog/page/n12/mode/2up
   (Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelati05socigoog/page/n6/mode/2up

   (William Nelson)
   (Volume 10) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelati03socigoog/page/n10/mode/2up
   (Volume 19) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelati02socigoog/page/n4/mode/2up
   (Volume 22) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelati00socigoog/page/n10/mode/2up

WILSON, JAMES GRANT, editor
   Memorial history of the city of New York, volume 1.
   New York: History Co. 1892. 4 volumes.
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/cu31924024757290
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/memorialhistoryo01wilsuoft
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/memorialhistoryo02wilsuoft/page/n9/mode/2up
   (Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/memorialhistoryo03wilsuoft/page/n7/mode/2up
   (Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/memorialhistoryo04wilsuoft/page/n13/mode/2up

WINTHROP, JOHN.
   History of New England, 1630-1649 (1825-6). New edition.
   Boston: Little, Brown & Company. 1853. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/winthropsjournal00wint/page/n11/mode/2up
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/winthropsjournal02wint

YOUNG, ALEXANDER.
   Chronicles of the first planters of the colony of
   Massachusetts Bay, 1623-1636.
   Boston: Little & Brown. 1846.
   https://archive.org/details/chroniclesoffirs00younuoft
   https://archive.org/details/chroniclesoffirs00youn
   https://archive.org/details/chroniclesoffirs00youn_0

   Chronicles of the pilgrim fathers, 1602-1625.
   Boston: Little & Brown. 1841.
   https://archive.org/details/chroniclesofpilg00youn

AMERICAN ARCHÆOLOGY.

ABBOTT, CHARLES. C.
   Primitive Industry; or illustrations of the handiwork, in
   stone, bone and clay, of the native races of the northern
   Atlantic seaboard of America.
   Salem: G. A. Bates. 1881.
   https://archive.org/details/primitiveindustry00abborich

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ARCHÆOLOGY.
Baltimore. 1885-7.
Boston: Ginn & Company. 1888-.

ANTHROPOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF WASHINGTON.
   Proceedings (1879-).
   (Smithsonian miscellaneous collections, volume 25-.
   Washington. 1882-.)

ATWATER, CALEB.
   Description of the antiquities discovered in Ohio and other
   western states.
   (Archæologia Americana, volume 1.
   Worcester: American Antiquities Society. 1820.)
   https://archive.org/details/descriptionofant0000atwa/page/n3/mode/2up

BACON, A. T.
Ruins of the Colorado valley.
(Lippincott's Magazine, 20: 521. 1880.)

BAILEY, Rev. JACOB.
   Observations and conjectures on the antiquities of America.
   (Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society.,
   volume 4. Boston. 1795.)

BALDWIN, JOHN D.
   Ancient America.
   New York: Harper & Brothers. 1872.
   https://archive.org/details/ancientamericain00bald/page/n7/mode/2up

   Pre-historic nations.
   New York: Harper & Brothers. 1869.
   https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.115963

BANDELIER, ADOLF
   A historical introduction to studies among the sedentary Indians
   of New Mexico. Report on the ruins of the Pueblo of Pecos.
   Boston: A. Williams & Company. 1881.
   (Papers Archæological Institute of America.)
   https://archive.org/details/historicalintrod00bandrich/page/n7/mode/2up

   Report of an archæological tour in Mexico, in 1881.
   Boston: Cupples, Upham & Company. 1884.
   https://archive.org/details/archaeologmexico02bandrich/page/n5/mode/2up

BARBER, EDWIN A.
   Ancient pueblos, Rio San Juan.
   (American Naturalist, 12: 526, 606. 1878.)
   https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdfplus/10.1086/272184

Rock inscriptions of the "ancient pueblos."
(American Naturalist, 10: 716. 1876.)

BAXTER, SYLVESTER.
The father of the pueblos [Zuni].
(Harper's Magazine, 65: 72. 1882.)

BEAUCHAMP, W. M.
   Indian occupation of New York.
   (Science, 19: 76. 1892.)
   https://archive.org/details/aboriginaloccupa00beau
   https://archive.org/details/aboriginaloccupa00beau_0

BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY.
America before Columbus.
(Bibliographical note in Bulletins, volume 3, pages 65-71.)

BOSTON SOCIETY OF NATURAL HISTORY.
   Palæolithic implements of the valley of the Delaware;
   by C. C. Abbott and others (from Proceedings, volume 21).
   Cambridge. 1881.

BRINTON, DANIEL G.
   The books of Chilan Balam, the prophetic and historic records
   of the Mayas of Yucatan.
   Philadelphia: Edw. Stern & Company. 1882.
   https://archive.org/details/bookschilanbala00bringoog/page/n6/mode/2up
   https://archive.org/details/cu31924020440115

   Essays of an Americanist.
   Philadelphia: Porter & Coates. 1890.
   https://archive.org/details/essaysofamerican00brin/page/n5/mode/2up

BRYANT, W. C.
Interesting archæological studies in and about Buffalo.
[Buffalo. 1890.]

BRYCE, GEORGE.
   The mound builders.
   Winnipeg Historical Society. 1884-5.
   https://archive.org/details/moundbuilders00bryc

CARR, LUCIEN.
   The mounds of the Mississippi valley, historically considered.
   Cincinnati: Robert Clarke & Company. 1883.
   https://archive.org/details/cu31924104076934

CHARNAY, DÉSIRÉ.
   Ancient cities of the new world, being voyages and
   explorations in Mexico and Central America, 1857-82;
   translated from the French by J. Gonino and H. S. Conant.
   New York: Harper & Brothers. 1887.
   https://archive.org/details/ancientcitiesofn00char_1

CONANT, A. J.
   Footprints of vanished races in the Mississippi valley.
   St. Louis: C. R. Barns. 1879.
   https://archive.org/details/footprintsvanrace00conarich

CUSHING, FRANK H.
The nation of the willows [Zunis].
(Atlantic Monthly, 50: 362,541. 1882.)

Zuni social, mythic and religious systems.
(Popular Science Monthly, 21: 186. 1882.)

DALL, W. H.
   On the remains of later pre-historic man obtained from caves
   in the Catherina Archipelago, Alaska (1876).
   (Smithsonian contributions to knowledge, volume 22.
   Washington. 1880.)
   https://archive.org/details/cu31924104074822/page/n3/mode/2up
   https://archive.org/details/ontheremains00dallrich/page/n5/mode/2up

EVERETT, J. T.
   The earliest American people.
   (Magazine of American History, 22: 114. 1889.)
   https://archive.org/details/magazineamerica05stevgoog
   https://archive.org/stream/magazineamerica05stevgoog/magazineamerica05stevgoog_djvu.txt

FISKE, JOHN.
   The discovery of America.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Company 1892. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/discoveryamerica01fisk
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/discoveryofameri02fisk

FORCE, M. F.
   Some early notices of the Indians of Ohio;
   to what race did the mound builders belong.
   Cincinnati: Robert Clarke & Company. 1879.
   https://archive.org/details/someearlynotice00ohiogoog

FOSTER, J. W.
   Prehistoric races of the United States of America:
   Chicago: S. C. Griggs & Company. 1873.
   https://archive.org/details/prehistoricraces00fostiala/page/n5/mode/2up

GANNETT, HENRY.
Prehistoric ruins in southern Colorado.
(Popular Science Monthly, 16: 666. 1880.)

HABEL, S.
   The sculptures of Santa Lucia Cosumalwhuapa in Guatemala (1878).
   (Smithsonian contributions to knowledge, volume 22.
   Washington. 1880.)
   (French) https://archive.org/details/sculpturesdesant00habe

HALE, HORATIO.
   Indian migrations, as evidenced by language; comprising the
   Huron-Cherokee stock, Dakota, Algonkins, Chahta-Muskoki,
   mound-builders, Iberians.
   Chicago. 1883.
   (American Association for the Advancement of Science., 1882,
   American Antiquarian, January, April, 1883.)
   https://archive.org/details/indianmigrations00halerich

HARVARD UNIVERSITY.
Peabody Museum of American archæology and ethnology. Reports.
Cambridge. 1868-.

HAVEN, SAMUEL F.
   Archæology of the United States. (1855).
   (Smithsonian contributions to knowledge, volume 8.
   Washington. 1856.)
   https://archive.org/details/archologyunited00havegoog/page/n5/mode/2up
   https://archive.org/details/archaeologyus00haverich

HUMBOLDT, ALEXANDER von.
   Researches concerning the Institutions and monuments of the
   ancient inhabitants of America;
   translated by Helen M. Williams.
   London: Longman 1814. 2 volumes.
   https://archive.org/details/researchesconcer01humb

JACKSON, W. H.
Ancient ruins in southwestern Colorado.
(American Naturalist, 10: 31. 1876.)

JONES, CHARLES C. Jr.
   Antiquities of the southern Indians, particularly of the
   Georgia tribes.
   New York: D. Appleton & Company. 1873.
   https://archive.org/details/antiquitiesofsou00jone_0/antiquitiesofsou00jone_0?view=theater

   Monumental remains of Georgia, part 1.
   Savannah: J. M. Cooper & Company. 1861.
   https://archive.org/details/monumentalremain01jone

JONES, JOSEPH
   Explorations of the aboriginal remains of Tennessee (1876).
   (Smithsonian contributions to knowledge, volume 22.
   Washington. 1880.)

JOURNAL OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY AND ARCHÆOLOGY.
Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1891-.

KINGSBOROUGH, Lord.
   Antiquities of Mexico: comprising fac-similes of ancient
   Mexican paintings and hieroglyphics, etc., illustrated by many
   valuable inedited mss.
   London. R. Havell. 1830-48. 9 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/AntiquitiesMexi1King
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/AntiquitiesMexiv2King
   (Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/AntiquitiesMexiv3King
   (Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/AntiquitiesMexi4King
   (Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/AntiquitiesMexi5King
   (Volume 6) https://archive.org/details/AntiquitiesMexi6King
   (Volume 7) https://archive.org/details/AntiquitiesMexi7King
   (Volume 8) https://archive.org/details/AntiquitiesMexiv8King
   (Volume 9) https://archive.org/details/AntiquitiesMexiv9King

LAPHAM, I. A.
   The antiquities of Wisconsin (1853),
   (Smithsonian contributions to knowledge, volume 7.
   Washington 1855.)
   https://archive.org/details/antiquitiesofwis00laph

MacLEAN, J. P.
   The mound builders.
   Cincinnati: Robert Clarke & Company. 1879.
   https://archive.org/details/moundbuilders00maclgoog/page/n10/mode/2up

MINDELEFF, V. Origin of pueblo architecture. (Science, 9: 593. 1887.) https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/19856/pg19856-images.html

MITCHILL, Dr. SAMUEL.
   Communications [on American antiquities, ethnology, etc.].
   (Archæologia Americana, volume 1.
   Worcester: American Antiquarian Society, 1820.)

MOOREHEAD, WARREN K.
   Fort Ancient, the great prehistoric earthwork of Warren
   County, Ohio; compiled from a careful survey.
   Cincinnati: Robert Clarke & Company. 1890.
   https://archive.org/details/fortancientgrea00moorgoog

NADAILLAC, Marquis de.
   Prehistoric America (1882);
   translated by N. d'Anvers.
   edited by W. H. Dall.
   New York: G. W. Putnam's Sons. 1884.
   https://archive.org/details/cihm_52727/page/n7/mode/2up

NEWBERRY, JOHN S.
Ancient civilizations of America.
(Popular Science Monthly, 41: 187. 1892.)

OHIO STATE ARCHÆOLOGICAL SOCIETY.
   Report on the antiquities of Ohio.
   (Final report of the Ohio State board of Centennial managers.
   Columbus. 1877.)

PEET, Reverend STEPHEN D.
   Prehistoric America.
   Chicago: American Antiquarian Office. 1890-. 5 volumes. volume 1.
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/cu31924088416932

The mound builders, volume 2. Emblematic mounds and animal effigies. (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/prehistoricameri01peetuoft/page/n7/mode/2up (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/prehistoricameri02peet https://archive.org/details/prehistoricameri04peet/page/n7/mode/2up https://archive.org/details/prehistoricameri03peet https://archive.org/details/prehistoricameri05peet https://archive.org/details/cu31924088416932 https://archive.org/details/cu31924088416924/page/n7/mode/2up

POWELL, J. W. Annual reports of the Bureau of Ethnology. Washington. (1) https://archive.org/details/rosettaproject_dak_vertxt-1/page/n3/mode/2up (7) https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/26568/pg26568-images.html

(1st) https://archive.org/details/rosettaproject_dak_vertxt-1/page/n3/mode/2up (10th) https://archive.org/details/annualreportofbu108889smit (11th)https://archive.org/details/eleventhannualre1889powe (12th) https://archive.org/details/annualreportofbu1218901891smit (Pubs) https://ia902705.us.archive.org/26/items/listofpubethno00smitrich/listofpubethno00smitrich.pdf

PRIEST, JOSIAH.
   American antiquities and discoveries in the west, 2d edition,
   revised.
   Albany: Hoffman 1835
   https://archive.org/details/americanantiqui05priegoog

QUATREFAGES, A. DE.
The peopling of America.
(Popular Science Monthly, 38: 305. 1891.)

RAU, CHARLES.
   The archæological collection of the United States National
   Museum (1876).
   (Smithsonian contributions to knowledge, volume 22.
   Washington. 1880.)
   https://archive.org/details/archaeologicalc00raugoog

The Palenque tablet in the United States National Museum (1879). (Smithsonian contributions to knowledge, volume 22. Washington. 1880.) https://archive.org/details/palenquetabletin00rauc

READ, Matthew Canield
   Archæology of Ohio.
   Cleveland: Western Reserve History Society. [1888.]
   https://archive.org/details/archaeologyohio00readrich

REISS, W., and A. STÜBEL.
   The necropolis of Ancon in Peru.
   Berlin: A. Asher & Company. 1880-7. 8 volumes.
   https://archive.org/details/gri_33125012875635

RIO, Don ANTONIO DEL.
   Description of the ruins of an ancient city, discovered near
   Palengue, Guatemala (1787); translated: [also] Teatro Critico
   Americano, by Dr. Paul Felix Cabrera.
   London: Henry Berthoud. 1822.
   https://archive.org/details/descriptionofrui00roan_0

RIVERO, MARIANO EDW., and JOHN JAMES VON TSCHUDI.
   Peruvian antiquities: translated from the Spanish by
   Francis L. Hawks.
   New York: G. P. Putnam. 1853.
   https://archive.org/details/peruvianantiqui01tschgoog

ST. LOUIS ACADEMY OF SCIENCE.
Contributions to the archæology of Missouri, part 1: Pottery.
Salem: George A. Bates. 1880.

SHORT, JOHN T.
   The North Americans of antiquity; their origin, migrations and
   type of civilization considered.
   New York: Harper & Brothers. 1880.
   https://archive.org/details/northamericansof00shorrich

STEPHENS, JOHN L.
   Incidents of travel in Central America, Chiapas, and Yucatan.
   New York: Harper & Brothers. 1843. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/incidentsoftrave11841step
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/incidentstravel07stepgoog
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/b2935030x_0001
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/b2935030x_0002

   Incidents of travel In Yucatan.
   New York: Harper & Brothers. 1843. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/travelinyucatan01step
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/incidentsoftrave01step_1
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/travelyucatan02step
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/incidentsoftrave21843step

SQUIER E. G.
   Aboriginal monuments of New York. (1849).
   (Smithsonian contributions to knowledge, volume 2.
   Washington. 1851.)
   https://archive.org/details/aboriginalmonume0000squi/page/n5/mode/2up

   Antiquities of the state of New York; with a
   supplement on the antiquities of the west.
   Buffalo: G. H. Derby & Company. 1851.
   https://archive.org/details/antiquitiesofsta00squirich

   Nicaragua: its people, scenery, monuments.
   New York: D. Appleton & Company. 1852. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/gri_nicaraguaits01squi
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/nicaraguaitspeo05squigoog/page/n8/mode/2up

SQUIER E. G., and E. H. DAVIS.
   Ancient monuments of the Mississippi valley (1847).
   (Smithsonian contributions to knowledge, volume 1.
   Washington. 1848.)
   https://archive.org/details/ancientmonuments00squi

THOMAS, CYRUS.
   Catalogue of prehistoric works east of the Rocky Mountains.
   Washington. 1891.
   (Smithsonian Institute Bureau of Ethnology.)
   https://archive.org/details/catalogueprehis01thomgoog

   The Cherokees In pre-Columbian times.
   New York: N. D. C. Hodges. 1800.
   https://archive.org/details/cherokeesinpreco00thom

   The circular, square, and octagonal earthworks of Ohio.
   Washington. 1889. (Smithsonian Institute Bureau of Ethnology.)
   https://archive.org/details/b30477633

   The problem of the Ohio mounds.
   Washington. 1889.
   (Smithsonian Institute Bureau of Ethnology.)
   https://archive.org/details/problemofohiomou01thom

   A study of the Manuscript Troano.
   (United States geography and geological survey.
   Contributions to North American ethnology, volume 5.
   Washington. 1882.)
   https://archive.org/details/studyofmanuscrip00thom_0/page/n5/mode/2up

THRUSTON, GATES P.
   The antiquities of Tennessee and the adjacent states, and the
   state of aboriginal society in the scale of civilization
   represented by them.
   Cincinnati: Robert Clarke & Company. 1890.
   https://archive.org/details/antiquitiestenn00thurrich

UNITED STATES.
   Bureau of Ethnology, John W. Powell, director.
   Annual reports. Washington.
   See POWELL, J. W.

WALLACE, A. R.
American museums, of American pre-historic archæology.
(Fortnightly Review, 48: 665. 1887.)

WHITTLESEY, CHARLES.
   Description of ancient works in Ohio (1850).
   (Smithsonian contributions to knowledge, volume 3.
   Washington. 1852.)
   https://archive.org/details/descriptionsofan00whit

WINSOR, JUSTIN, editor.
   Narrative and critical history of America, volume 1.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Company. 1886. 8 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica01wins
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica02wins
   (Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica03wins
   (Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica04wins
   (Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica05wins
   (Volume 6) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica06wins
   (Volume 7) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica07wins
   (Volume 8) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica08wins

AMERICAN ABORIGINES.

ADAIR, JAMES.
   The history of the American Indians, particularly those
   nations adjoining to the Mississippi, East and West Florida,
   Georgia, South and North Carolina, and Virginia.
   London: E. & C. Dilly. 1775.
   https://archive.org/details/historyofamerica00adairich

ALLEN, PAUL.
   History of the expedition under the command of Lewis and
   Clarke, to the Pacific Ocean, 1804-6.
   Philadelphia. Dublin: J. Christie. 1817. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyexpediti01allegoog/page/n12/mode/2up
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyexpediti04allegoog/page/n6/mode/2up
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyexpediti02allegoog/page/n6/mode/2up
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyexpediti03allegoog/page/n15/mode/2up

AMERICAN STATE PAPERS:
   Indian affairs, 1789-1827.
   Washington: 1852-4. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/americanstatepap_c11unit

ATWATER, CALEB.
   Remarks made on a tour to Prairie du Chien in 1829.
   Columbus, Ohio: I. N. Whiting. 1831.
   https://archive.org/details/remarksmadeontou00atwa

BANCROFT, GEORGE.
   History of the United States of America; the authors's last
   revision, volume 2.
   New York: D. Appleton & Company. 1883-5. 6 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyoftheunit037605mbp
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyofunited32banc/page/n3/mode/2up
   (Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.506697
   (Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/historyofusa03bancrich
   (Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/historyofuniteds0004banc/page/n7/mode/2up
   (Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/historyofuniteds05banciala

BANCROFT, HUBERT HOWE.
   The native races of the Pacific States of North America.
   New York: D. Appleton & Company. 1874-6. 5 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/nativeraces01bancrich
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/nativeracespaci03bancgoog
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/nativeracespaci02bancgoog
   (Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/nativeracespaci01bancgoog
   (Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/nativeracespaci00bancgoog
   https://archive.org/details/nativeracespaci04bancgoog/page/n18/mode/2up

BARROWS, William.
   The Indian's side of the Indian question.
   Boston: D. Lothrop & Company. 1887.
   https://archive.org/details/cihm_03383

BEACH, W. W., editor.
   The Indian miscellany.
   Albany: J. Munsell. 1877.
   https://archive.org/details/rsindianmiscella00beacuoft

BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY.
The Indian question (list in Bulletins,
volume 4, pages 68-70).

BRINTON, DANIEL G. The American race; a linguistic classification and ethnographic description of the native tribes of North and South America. New York: N. D. C. Hodges. 1891. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/55096

Races and peoples: lectures on the science of ethnography. New York: N. D. C. Hodges. 1890. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/57315 https://archive.org/details/racesandpeoplesl57315gut

BROOKS, ELBRIDGE S. The story of the American Indian, his origin, development, decline and destiny. Boston: D. Lothrop & Co. 1887. https://archive.org/details/storyofamericani00broo/page/n5/mode/2up

BROWN, ROBERT.
   The races of mankind, volume 1.
   London: Cassell, Petter & Galpin. 1873-6: 4 volumes.
   https://archive.org/details/racesofmankindbe01browuoft

BROWNELL, CHARLES DE WOLF.
   The Indian races of North and South America.
   New York: American Subscription House. 1857.
   https://archive.org/details/indianracesofnor00brow

CATLIN, GEORGE.
   Illustrations of the manners, customs and condition of the
   North American Indians (1841).
   London: Henry G. Bohn. 1861. 2 volumes.
   Chatto & Windus. 1876. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/illustrationsofm01catl
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/illustrationsofm02catl

   North American portfolio of hunting scenes, etc.
   London: H. Bohn. 1844.
   https://archive.org/details/Ayer_250_45_C2_1844_Catlin/page/n27/mode/2up

CHARLEVOIX, Father.
   Letters to the Dutchess of Lesdiguieres [containing account of
   the North American tribes, 1720-22; translated]
   London. 1763.
   https://archive.org/details/letterstodutche00char

COLDEN, CADWALLADER.
   History of the five Indian nations of Canada, which are
   dependent on the province of New York in America.
   New York. 1727.
   [Enlarged edition].
   London. 1747.
   https://archive.org/details/McGillLibrary-131832-5200

COLTON, C.
   Tour of the American lakes in 1830.
   London: F. Westley & A. H. Davis. 1833. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/tourofamericanla0000colt/page/n1/mode/2up
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/touramericanlak00coltgoog
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/touramericanlak01coltgoog

CRAIG, NEVILLE B., editor.
   The olden time.
   Pittsburg. 1846-8.
   Cincinnati: Robert Clarke & Company. 1876. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/GR_3089-1/page/n5/mode/2up
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/oldentimeamonth00craigoog

DODGE, Colonel RICHARD I.
   Our wild Indians: thirty-three years' personal experience
   among the red men of the great west; with an introduction by
   General Sherman.
   Hartford: A. D. Worthington & Company. 1882.
   https://archive.org/details/ourwildindiansth00dodgrich

DOMENECH, Abbé EM.
   Seven years' residence in the great deserts of North America.
   London: Longman, Green & Company. 1860. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/sevenyearsreside01domeuoft
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/sevenyearsresid00domegoog

DONALDSON, THOMAS
   The George Catlin Indian gallery, United States National
   Museum, Washington.
   (Report of the Smithsonian Institute, 1885, part 2.)

DRAKE, FRANCIS S.
   Indian history for young folks.
   New York: Harper & Brothers. 1885.
   https://archive.org/details/indianhistoryfo00dowdgoog/page/n12/mode/2up

DRAKE, SAMUEL G.
   The aboriginal races of North America, 15th edition.
   Philadelphia: C. Desilver & Sons. 1859.
   https://archive.org/details/aboriginalraceso01drak

   Biography and history of the Indians of North America.
   (1841), 11th edition.
   Boston: B. B. Mussey & Company. 1851.
   (Edition 8) https://archive.org/details/cihm_34854
   (Edition 9) https://archive.org/details/cihm_37353

   The old Indian chronicle; being a collection of exceeding rare
   tracts written and published in the time of king Philip's war.
   Boston: Antiquarian Institute. 1836.
   https://archive.org/details/oldindianchroni00lithgoog

ELLIS, GEORGE E.
   The red man and the white man in North America.
   Boston: Little, Brown & Company. 1882.
   https://archive.org/details/cu31924028719007
   https://archive.org/details/redmanwhitemanin00ellirich

FIELD, THOMAS. W.
   An essay towards an Indian bibliography.
   New York: Scribner, Armstrong & Company. 1873.
   https://archive.org/details/essaytowardsindi00fielrich

FLETCHER, ALICE C.
   Indian education and civilization; a report.
   Washington. 1888.
   https://archive.org/details/indianeducationa00unitrich

GALLATIN, ALBERT.
   A synopsis of the Indian tribes of North America.
   (Archæologia Americana, volume 2.
   Cambridge: American Antiquarian Society. 1836.)
   Writings; edited by H. Adams. Lippincott. 1879. 3 volumes.
   https://archive.org/details/synopsisofindian01gall/page/n3/mode/2up

HOLMES, Reverend ABIEL.
   Annals of America, 1492-1826 (1895).
   Cambridge: Hilliard & Brown. 1829. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1, 1826) https://archive.org/details/cihm_47268/page/n3/mode/2up
   (Volume 1, 1826) https://archive.org/details/annalsamer00holmrich
   (Volume 2, 1826) https://archive.org/details/cihm_47269

HUMBOLDT ALEXANDER VON.
   Personal narrative of travels to the equinoctial regions of
   the new continent, 1799-1804, by Alexander de Humboldt and
   Aimé Bonpland;
   translated by Helen Maria Williams, volume 5, pages 315-334.
   London: Longman. 1826. 7 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/personalnarrati00humbgoog/page/n6/mode/2up
   (Volume 1, 2) https://archive.org/details/personalnarrati01humbgoog/page/n10/mode/2up

INDIAN RIGHTS ASSOCIATION.
   Annual reports of the executive committee.
   Philadelphia.
   ( 6th, 1888) https://archive.org/details/annualreportexe00assogoog/page/n10/mode/2up
   (30th, 1912) https://archive.org/details/annualreportexe02commgoog
   (31st, 1913) https://archive.org/details/annualreportexe00assogoog/page/n10/mode/2up

JACKSON. Mrs. HELEN HUNT.
   A century of dishonor (1881). New edition, with appendix.
   Boston: Roberts Brothers, 1885.
   https://archive.org/details/centuryofdishono005246mbp/page/n23/mode/2up

KINGSLEY, JOHN STERLING, editor.
   The standard natural history, volume 6.
   Boston: S. E. Cassino & Company. 1885. 6 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/standardnaturalh01king
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/standardnaturalh02king
   (Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/cu31924003839358/page/n11/mode/2up
   (Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/standardnaturalh03king
   (Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/standardnaturalh04king/page/n9/mode/2up
   (Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/standardnaturalh05king/page/n11/mode/2up
   (Volume 6) https://archive.org/details/standardnaturalh06king/page/n11/mode/2up

KIP, Reverend WILLIAM INGRAHAM.
   The early Jesuit, missions in North America; composed and
   translated from the letters of the French Jesuits.
   New York: Wiley & Putnam. 1846. 2 volumes.
   https://archive.org/details/earlyjesuitmissi00kip/page/n7/mode/2up
   (Part 1) https://archive.org/details/earlyjesuitmissi00kipw_0
   (Part 1) https://archive.org/details/earlyjesuitmissi02kipw

LAHONTAN, Baron.
   New voyages to North America, containing an account of the
   several nations of that vast continent, 1683-1694 (1703):
   [translated from the French.] 2d edition.
   London. 1735. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1, 1905) https://archive.org/details/newvoyagestonort01laho
   (Volume 2, 1905) https://archive.org/details/newvoyagestonort02laho/page/n7/mode/2up

LAKE MOHONK annual conference of friends of the Indian.
   Proceedings. Philadelphia.
   https://www.maquah.net/Historical/Mohonk.html
   (17th, 1890)https://archive.org/details/proceedingsannu00unkngoog
   (1896) https://archive.org/details/proceedingsannu01unkngoog/page/n6/mode/2up
   (17th, 1899) https://archive.org/details/proceedingsannu39unkngoog

McKENNEY, THOMAS L., and JAMES HALL.
   History of the Indian tribes of North America, with 120
   portraits from the Indian gallery at Washington (1838-44).
   Philadelphia: D. Rice & A. N. Hart. 1854. 3 volumes.
   (Volume 1, 1872) https://archive.org/details/historyofindiant01mckerich/page/n7/mode/2up
   (Volume 2, 1872) https://archive.org/details/historyofindiant02mckerich/page/n7/mode/2up

MANYPENNY, GEORGE W.
   Our Indian wards.
   Cincinnati: Robert Clarke & Company. 1880.
   https://archive.org/details/Ayer_155_M25_1880

MASON, Professor OTIS T., editor.
   Miscellaneous papers relating to anthropology, from the
   Smithsonian report for 1881.
   Washington. 1883.

MASSACHUSETTS.
   The Indian question; report of the committee appointed by
   Governor Long.
   Boston. 1880.

MORGAN, LEWIS H.
   Houses and house-life of the American aborigines.
   Washington. 1881.
   (U. S. geographic and geological survey,
   Contributions to North American ethnology, volume 4.)
   https://archive.org/details/houseshouselifeo00morg_0

   Systems of consanguinity and affinity of the human family
   (1868). (Smithsonian contributions to knowledge, volume 17.
   Washington. 1871.)
   https://archive.org/details/systemsofconsang00morgrich/page/n21/mode/2up

MORSE, Reverend JEDIDIAH.
   A report to the secretary of war of the United States, on
   Indian affairs, comprising a narrative of a tour in 1820.
   New Haven: S. Converse. 1822.
   https://archive.org/details/reporttosecretar00mors

MORTON, SAMUEL G.
   Crania Americana; or a comparative view of the skulls of
   various aboriginal nations of North and South America.
   Philadelphia: J. Penington. 1839.
   https://archive.org/details/Craniaamericana00Mort

NOTT, J. C., GEORGE. R. GLIDDON, and others.
   Indigenous races of the earth.
   Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Co. 1857.
   https://archive.org/details/indigenousraceso01nott

OTIS, ELWELL S.
   The Indian question.
   New York: Sheldon & Company. 1878.
   https://archive.org/details/indianquestion00otisrich

PARKMAN, FRANCIS. History of the conspiracy of Pontiac (1851). Boston: Little, Brown & Company. 1888. 2 volumes. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/39253

The Jesuits in North America. Boston: Little, Brown & Company. 1867. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/6933

PESCHEL, OSCAR.
   The races of man and their geographical distribution;
   from the German. (1874).
   New York: D. Appleton & Company. 1876.
   (1876) https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.501969
   (1888) https://archive.org/details/racesofmantheirg00pescuoft

PRICHARD, JAMES C.
   Researches into the physical history of mankind (1813). 2d ed.
   London: J. & A. Arch. 1826. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1, 1841) https://archive.org/details/researchesintop08pricgoog
   (Volume 1, 1851) https://archive.org/details/researchesintop03pricgoog
   (Volume 1, 1836) https://archive.org/details/researchesintop06pricgoog/page/n8/mode/2up
   (Volume 2, 1837) https://archive.org/details/researchesintop02pricgoog
   (Volume 2, 1851) https://archive.org/details/researchesintop04pricgoog
   (Volume 3, 1811) https://archive.org/details/researchesintop09pricgoog
   (Volume 3, 1841) https://archive.org/details/researchesintop10pricgoog
   (Volume 3, 1841) https://archive.org/details/researchesintop05pricgoog/page/n8/mode/2up
   (Volume 4, 1844) https://archive.org/details/researchesintop01pricgoog
   (Volume 5, 1847) https://archive.org/details/researchesintop07pricgoog

RADISSON, PETER ESPRIT.
   Voyages, being an account of his travels and experiences among
   the North American Indians, 1652-1684; with historical
   illustrations and an introduction by Gideon D. Scull.
   Boston: Prince Society. 1885.
   https://archive.org/details/voyagespeteresp00sculgoog/page/n14/mode/2up

RAWLE, WILLIAM.
   A vindication of Heckewelder's "History of the Indian
   nations." (Memoirs of the Pennsylvania Historical Society,
   volume 1.
   Philadelphia. 1826.
   J. B. Lippincott & Co. 1864.)
   https://archive.org/details/5f1b0c76-4bcd-4e48-b937-081944dc88aa/mode/2up

ROGERS, Major ROBERT.
   A concise account of North America.
   London. 1765.
   https://archive.org/details/aconciseaccount00rogeuoft/page/n5/mode/2up

SCHOOLCRAFT, HENRY R.
   Historical and statistical information respecting the history,
   condition and prospects of the Indian tribes; prepared under
   the direction of the Bureau of Indian affairs.
   Philadelphia: Lippincott, Grambo & Company. 1851-5. 5 volumes.
   (Part 1) https://archive.org/details/cu31924032190161
   (Part 2) https://archive.org/details/historicalstatis02scho
   (Part 3) https://archive.org/details/cu31924091889976
   (Part 4) https://archive.org/details/historicalstatipt4scho
   (Part 5) https://archive.org/details/historicalstatis05scho
   (Part 5) https://archive.org/details/historicalstati00schoa
   (Part 6) https://archive.org/details/historicalstatis06scho/page/n7/mode/2up

SHALER, NATHANIEL S.
   Nature and man in America.
   New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. 1891.
   (1891) https://archive.org/details/natureandmanina00shalgoog
   (1924) https://archive.org/details/naturemaninameri00

STANFORD'S COMPENDIUM OF GEOGRAPHY AND TRAVEL:
   North America; edited and enlarged by Professor F. V. Hayden
   and Professor A. R. C. Selwyn.
   London: E. Stanford. 1883.
   https://archive.org/details/dli.granth.86162

STANLEY'S PORTRAITS OF NORTH AMERICAN INDIANS IN SMITHSONIAN
INSTITUTION.
   Catalogue (1852).
   (Smithsonian miscellaneous collections, volume 2. Washington. 1862.)
   https://archive.org/details/portraitsnaindians00stanrich

THATCHER, B. B. Indian biography. New York: J. & J. Harper. 1832. 2 volumes. (Volume 1) https://www.gutenberg.org/files/54898 (Volume 2) https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/54072

UNITED STATES.
   Board of Indian Commissioners. Annual reports. Washington.
   (2nd, 1870) https://archive.org/details/annualreportofbo02unitrich/page/n5/mode/2up
   (3rd, 1871) https://archive.org/details/annualreportofbo03unitrich/page/n5/mode/2up
   (4th, 1872) https://archive.org/details/annualreportofbo04unitrich/page/n3/mode/2up
   (5th, 1873) https://archive.org/details/annualreportofbo05unitrich/page/n5/mode/2up
   (6th, 1874) https://archive.org/details/annualreportofbo06unitrich/page/n5/mode/2up
   (7th, 1875) https://archive.org/details/annualreportofbo07unitrich/page/n5/mode/2up
   (8th, 1876) https://archive.org/details/annualreportofbo08unitrich/page/n3/mode/2up
   (17th, 1885) https://archive.org/details/annualreportofbo17unitrich
   (20th, 1888) https://archive.org/details/20annualreport00unitrich
   (1928) https://archive.org/details/annualreportofbo00unitrich/page/n3/mode/2up

WALKER, FRANCIS A.
   The Indian question.
   Boston: J. R. Osgood & Company. 1874.
   https://archive.org/details/indianquestion00walk

AMERICAN ABORIGINES.

SPECIAL TRIBES, GROUPS AND REGIONS.

AB-SA-RA-KA, HOME OF THE CROWS.
Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Company. 1868.
https://archive.org/details/absarakahomeofcr00carr/page/n5/mode/2up

BANDELIER, ADOLF F.
   The delight makers.
   New York: Dodd, Mead & Company. 1890.
   https://archive.org/details/delightmakers00bandrich

   The gilded man (El Dorado).
   New York: D. Appleton & Company. 1893.
   https://archive.org/details/gildedmaneldorad00bandrich/page/n7/mode/2up

BARTRAM, WILLIAM.
   Travels through North and South Carolina, Georgia, etc.
   [1773-8]. [Creeks, Cherokees and Choctaws.]
   Philadelphia. 1791.
   https://archive.org/details/travelsthroughno00bart

BEAUCHAMP, William Martin
   The Iroquois trail; in which are included David Cusick's
   sketches of ancient history of the six nations.
   Fayetteville, New York: H. C. Beauchamp. 1892.
   https://archive.org/details/cihm_04555

BECKWOURTH, JAMES P., Chief of the Crows.
   Life and adventures (1856).
   New York: Harper & Brothers. 1858.
   https://archive.org/details/lifeadventuresof00beckrich

BENSON, HENRY C.
   Life among the Choctaw Indians.
   Cincinnati: L. Swormstedt & A. Poe. 1860.
   https://archive.org/details/lifeamongchoctaw00bens

BIART, LUCIEN.
   The Aztecs, their history, manners and customs (1885);
   translated from the French, by J. L. Garner.
   Chicago: A. C. McClurg & Co. 1887.
   (1919) https://archive.org/details/aztecstheirhist01garngoog

BLACKBIRD, ANDREW J. (MACK-AW-DE-BE-NESSY).
   History of the Ottawa and Chippewa Indians of Michigan, a
   grammar of their language, etc.
   Ypsilanti, Michigan. 1887.
   https://archive.org/details/completebothearl01blac

BRETT, Reverend W. H.
   The Indian tribes of Guiana.
   London: Bell & Daldy. 1868.
   https://archive.org/details/indiantribesofgu00bret

BRINTON, DANIEL G., editor. The annals of the Cakchiquels; the original text, with a translation, notes and introduction. Philadelphia. 1885. https://archive.org/details/bp_684862

The Lenâpé and their legends, with the complete text and symbols of the Walam Olum. Philadelphia. 1885. https://archive.org/details/lenptheirleg00brin

Editor. The Maya chronicles. Philadelphia: D. G. Brinton. 1882. https://archive.org/details/mayachronicles00briniala

   Notes on the Floridian peninsula.
   Philadelphia: Jos. Sabin. 1859.
   https://archive.org/details/notesonfloridia01bringoog

The Shawnees and their migrations.
(Historical magazine, volume. 10, January, 1866.)

BRODHEAD, JOHN Romeyn
   History of the state of New York., volume 1.
   New York: Harper & Brothers. 1853-71. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyofstateof01brod_0
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ01brod
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ02brod
   (Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ03brod
   (Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ04brod
   (Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ05brod
   (Volume 6) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ06brod
   (Volume 7) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ07brod
   (Volume 8) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ08brod
   (Volume 9) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ09brod

CASWELL, Mrs. HARRIET S.
   Our life among the Iroquois Indians.
   Boston: Congregational Sunday School and Publishing Society. 1892.
   https://archive.org/details/ourlifeamongiroq00caswiala

CATON, JOHN D.
   The last of the Illinois, and a sketch of the Pottawatomies
   (1870).
   (Fergus historical series.)
   Chicago: Fergus Printing Company. 1876.
   https://archive.org/details/cihm_04014

CLAIBORNE, J. F. H.
   Mississippi, as a province, territory and state.
   Jackson, Mississippi: Power & Barksdale. 1880. volume 1.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/cu31924028795405

CLARKE, PETER D.
   Origin and traditional history of the Wyandotts, etc.
   Toronto: Hunter, Rose & Company. 1870.
   https://archive.org/details/origintraditiona00clar

COPWAY, GEORGE (KAH-GE-GA-GAH-BOWH), Chief.
   Traditional history and characteristic sketches of the Ojibway
   nation.
   London: C. Gilpin. 1850.
   https://archive.org/details/traditionalhist00bookgoog

COX, ROSS.
   Adventures on the Columbia River.
   London. 2 volumes.
   New York: J. & J. Harper. 1832.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/adventuresoncolu00coxr
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/dli.bengal.10689.7215
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/cihm_33605

COZZENS, SAMUEL W.
   The marvellous country; or, three years in Arizona and New
   Mexico, the Apaches' home (1873).
   Boston: Lee & Shepard.
   https://archive.org/details/marvellouscountry00cozzrich/page/n9/mode/2up
   https://archive.org/details/marvellouscountr00cozz_0
   https://archive.org/details/marvellouscountr00cozzrich

CRANTZ, DAVID.
   History of Greenland, book 4 (volume 1).
   London: 1767. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyofgree01cran
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyofgreen02cran

CRUISE OF THE REVENUE-STEAMER CORWIN IN ALASKA AND THE North West
ARCTIC OCEAN IN 1881.
   Washington. 1883. (H. of Rep's, 47th congress, 2d session.
   Ex. doc. 105.)
   https://archive.org/details/cruiseofrevenues00muir

CUSHING, FRANK HAMILTON. My adventures in Zuni. (Century, volumes 3-4, December, 1882, February, May, 1883.) https://archive.org/details/zunifolktales00cushrich https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/48342 (Volume 8) https://archive.org/details/zuibreadstuff00cush/page/n3/mode/2up https://archive.org/details/zuifetiches00cush/page/n3/mode/2up https://archive.org/details/cu31924104094010

CUSTER, General. G. A.
   My life on the plains.
   New York: Sheldon & Co. 1874.
   https://archive.org/details/mylifeonplainsor00cust

DALL, WILLIAM. H.
   Tribes of the extreme northwest.
   (United States geography and geology survey.
   Contributions to North American ethnology, volume 1.
   Washington. 1877.)
   https://archive.org/details/tribesextremeno01dallgoog/page/n8/mode/2up

DALTON, HENRY G.
   History of British Guiana, volume 1.
   London: Longman. 1855. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historybritishg02daltgoog
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historybritishg03daltgoog
   https://archive.org/details/historybritishg01daltgoog/mode/2up

DEFOREST, JOHN W.
   History of the Indians of Connecticut (1853).
   Albany: J. Munsell. 1871.
   (1851) https://archive.org/details/historyindiansc00darlgoog
   (1851) https://archive.org/details/historyindiansc01darlgoog

DENTON, DANIEL.
   A brief description of New York; likewise a brief relation of
   the customs of the Indians there (1670).
   New York: William Gowans. 1845.
   https://archive.org/details/briefdescription11dent/page/n13/mode/2up

DOBRIZHOFFER, MARTIN An account of the Abipones, an equestrian people of Paraguay (1784); from the Latin. London: John Murray. 1822. 3 volumes. (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/accountofabipone04dobr (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/accountofabipone05dobr (Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/accountofabiponex03dobr (Volume 1) https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/50629 (Volume 2) https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/50621 (Volume 3) https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/50623

DODGE. J. R.
   Red men of the Ohio valley, 1650-1795.
   Springfield, Ohio: Ruralist Publishing Company. 1860.
   https://archive.org/details/redmenofohiovall00dodg

DORSEY, JAMES OWEN.
   The Biloxi Indians of Louisiana.
   Salem. 1893.
   https://archive.org/details/dictionaryofbilo0047dors/page/n5/mode/2up
   https://archive.org/details/jstor-534279/page/n1/mode/2up

The gentile system of the Siletz tribes.
https://archive.org/details/jstor-532806/page/n1/mode/2up

   Migrations of Siouan tribes.
   (American Naturalist, volume 20, March, 1886.)
   https://archive.org/details/jstor-2449921/page/n1/mode/2up

DUNBAR, J. B.
The Pawnee Indians.
(Magazine of American History, volume 4, April, 1880.)

EASTMAN, Mrs. MARY.
   Dahcotah; or life and legends of the Sioux around Fort
   Snelling.
   New York: John Wiley. 1849.
   https://archive.org/details/cihm_35037

EELLS, MYRON.
Indians of Puget Sound.
(American Antiquarian, 9: 1,271. 10: 26, 174. 1887-8.)

EGGLESTON, EDWARD, and LILLIE E. SEELYE.
   Pocahontas.
   New York: Dodd, Mead & Company. [1879.]
   https://archive.org/details/pocahontas00seel

GATSCHET, ALBERT S.
   The Klamath Indians of southwestern Oregon.
   Washington. 1890. 2 volumes.
   (United States geographical and geological survey.
   Contributions to North American ethnology, volume 2.)
   https://archive.org/details/klamathindiansof02gatsuoft
   https://archive.org/details/cihm_52744/page/n7/mode/2up

A migration legend of the Creek Indians, with a linguistic, historic and ethnographic introduction. Philadelphia: D. G. Brinton. 1884. volume 1. (Volume 1) https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/49031 (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/cu31924096785484 (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/migrationcreek00gatsrich

GIBBS, GEORGE.
   Tribes of western Washington and northwestern Oregon.
   (United States geographical and geological survey.
   Contributions to North American ethnology, volume 1.
   Washington. 1877.)
   https://archive.org/details/cihm_14847/page/n9/mode/2up
   https://archive.org/details/tribesextremeno00dallgoog/page/n8/mode/2up

GOOKIN, DANIEL.
   Historical account of the doings and sufferings of the
   Christian Indians of New England.
   (Archæologia Americana, volume 2.
   Cambridge: American Antiquarian Society. 1886.)
   https://books.google.com/books/about/Historical_Account_of_the_Doings_and_Suf.html?id=Qmhumu27RG0C

   Historical collections of the Indians in New England.
   (Collections of the Mass. Historical Society, volume 1.
   Boston. 1792.)

GRANT, Mrs. ANNE (of Laggan).
   Memoirs of an American lady [Mrs. Philip Schuyler] (1808).
   (Mohawks.) New York.
   https://archive.org/details/memoirsanameric03grangoog

GRINNELL, GEORGE BIRD.
   Pawnee hero stories and folk-tales, with notes on the origin,
   customs and character of the Pawnee people.
   New York: Forest and Stream Pub. Company, 1889.
   (1893) https://archive.org/details/pawneeherostorie00grinrich/page/n3/mode/2up

HALE, HORATIO, editor.
   The Iroquois book of rites.
   Philadelphia: D. G. Brinton. 1883.
   https://archive.org/details/cu31924099385514

HAUGHTON, JAMES
   Additional memoir of the Moheagans.
   (Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society, volume 9.
   Boston. 1804.)
   https://archive.org/details/memoirjameshaug00hauggoog

HEALY, Capt. M. A.
   Report of the cruise of the revenue marine steamer Corwin in
   the Arctic Ocean in 1885.
   Washington. 1887. (House of Representatives,
   49th congress, 1st session. Ex. doc. 153.)
   https://archive.org/details/cihm_04426

HEARNE, SAMUEL. A journey from Hudson's Bay to the Northern Ocean, 1769-72. London: A. Strahan & T. Cadell. 1795. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/38404 https://archive.org/details/journeyfromprin00hear

HECKEWELDER, Reverend JOHN.
   History of the manners and customs of the Indian nations
   who once inhabited Pennsylvania, etc. (1818; new edition,
   with introduction by Reverend William C. Reichel.
   Memoirs of the Pennsylvania Historical Society, volume 12.
   Philadelphia. 1876).
   https://archive.org/details/histmannerscust00heckrich

   Narrative of the mission of the United Brethren among
   the Delaware and Mohegan Indians, 1740-1808.
   Philadelphia: M'Carthy & Davis. 1820.
   https://archive.org/details/narrativeofmissi00heck

HENRY, ALEXANDER
   Travels and adventures in Canada and the Indian territories,
   1760-76.
   New York: I. Riley. 1809.
   (1809) https://archive.org/details/travelsandadven00henrgoog/page/n8/mode/2up
   (1901) https://archive.org/details/travelsadventur00henr
   (1901) https://archive.org/details/travelsadventure00henr/page/n7/mode/2up

HILLARD, G. S.
   Life of captain John Smith.
   (Library of American biography: conducted by Jared Sparks. 1884.
   New York: Harper & Brothers. 10 volumes.)
   https://archive.org/details/lifeofcaptainjoh00simms
   https://archive.org/details/lifecaptainsmith00simmrich

HIND, HENRY YOULE.
   Explorations in the interior of the Labrador peninsula; the
   country of the Montagnais and Nasquapee Indians.
   London: Longman, Green & Company. 1863. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/cihm_42676
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/explorationsinin021863hind
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/cihm_42677

   Narrative of the Canadian Red River exploring expedition of
   1857, and of the Assinniboine and Saskatchewan expedition of 1858.
   London: Longman, Green & Company. 1860. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/cihm_35699
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/narrativeofcanad02hind

HOWARD, OLIVER OTIS.
   Nez Percé Joseph; an account of his ancestors, his lands, etc.
   Boston: Lee & Shepard. 1881.
   https://archive.org/details/nezpercejoseph01howa
   https://archive.org/details/nezpercejosepha01howagoog

HUBBARD, J. NILES. An account of Sa·go-ye-wat·ha, or Red Jacket and his people, 1750-1830. Albany: Joel Munsell's Sons. 1886. https://archive.org/details/accountofsagoyew00hubbuoft https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/7339

HUNTER, JOHN D. Manners and customs of several Indian tribes located west of the Mississippi. Philadelphia. 1823. https://archive.org/details/mannerscustoms00huntrich

Memoirs of a captivity among the Indians. London: Longman. 1824. https://archive.org/details/memoirsacaptivi01huntgoog https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.82979

HURT, Dr. GARLAND.
Indians of Utah. (Simpson's Report of explorations, 1850.
Washington. 1876.)

HUTCHINSON, THOMAS. J.
   The Parana.
   London: Edward Stanford. 1868.
   https://archive.org/details/paranwithincide00hutcgoog

IM THURN, EVERARD FERDINAND.
   Among the Indians of Guiana.
   London: Kegan Paul, Trench & Company. 1883.
   https://archive.org/details/amongindiansgui00thurgoog

IRVING, JOHN TREAT.
   Indian sketches taken during a United States expedition to
   make treaties with the Pawnee and other tribes of Indians in
   1833 (1833).
   New York. G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1888.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/indiansketchest01irvigoog
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/GR_2157-2
   https://archive.org/details/indiansketchesta00irvirich/page/ii/mode/2up

JAMES, EDWIN, comp.
   Account of an expedition from Pittsburgh to the Rocky
   Mountains., 1819-20, under command of Major Long.
   Philadelphia: Carey & Lea. 1823. 2 volumes, with atlas.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/accountofexpedit01jame
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/account02ofexpeditjame

JEWITT, JOHN R.
   Narrative of adventures and sufferings among the Indians of
   Nootka Sound.
   Ithaca, New York: Andrus, Gauntlett & Company. 1851.
   https://archive.org/details/narrativeofadven00jewi

JOGUES PAPERS, THE (1642-6);
   translated, with a memoir, by J. G. Shea.
   (Collections of the New York Historical Society,
   2d series, volume 3. New York, 1857.)

JOHNSON, ELIAS, Tuscarora chief.
   Legends, traditions and laws of the Iroquois or six
   nations, and history of the Tuscarora Indians.
   Lockport. 1881.
   https://archive.org/details/cihm_24792
   https://archive.org/details/bp_583763/page/3/mode/2up

JONES, Reverend PETER (KAHKEWAQUONABY).
   History of the Ojebway Indians.
   London: A. W. Bennett. 1861.
   https://archive.org/details/historyofojebway00jone

KEATING, WILLIAM H., comp.
   Narrative of an expedition to the source of St. Peter's River,
   Lake Winnepeek, &c., in 1823, under command of Major Long.
   Philadelphia: Carey & Lea. 1824. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/narrativeofexped01keat
   https://archive.org/details/narrativeofanexp010860mbp/page/n7/mode/2up

KETCHUM, WILLIAM.
   Authentic and comprehensive history of Buffalo, with some
   account of its early inhabitants; comprising historic notices
   of the six nations [Senecas, chiefly].
   Buffalo: Rockwell, Baker & Hill. 1864. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/anauthenticandc01ketcgoog
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/anauthenticandc00ketcgoog
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/authenticcompreh02ketc

KIDDER, FREDERIC. The Abenaki Indians. (Collections of the Main Historical Society., volume 6. Portland: 1859.) https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25416 https://archive.org/details/abenakiindiansw00kiddgoog https://archive.org/details/cihm_36479

KIP, Reverend. WILLIAM INGRAHAM, compo. and translator. The early Jesuit missions in North America; from the letters of the Fr. Jesuits, with notes. New York: Wiley & Putnam. 1846. 2 volumes. Albany: J. Munsell. 1873. https://archive.org/details/earlyjesuitmissi00kip https://archive.org/details/earlyjesuitmissi00kipwrich

KOHL, J. G.
   Kitchi-gami; wanderings round Lake Superior [translated from
   the German]. [Ojibbewas.] London: Chapman & Hall. 1860.
   https://archive.org/details/kitchigamiwander00kohl/page/n7/mode/2up

LA ROCHEFOUCAULT LIANCOURT, Duc de.
   Travels through the United States, the country of the Iroquois
   and upper Canada, 1795-7.
   London. 1799.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/travelsthroughun01larorich

LE CLERCQ, Father CHRISTIAN.
   First establishment of the faith in New France (1691); now
   first translation, with notes, by John G. Shea.
   New York: J. G. Shea. 1881. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/firstestablishme01lecl
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/firstestablishme02lecl

LEWIS AND CLARKE.
   Journal to the Rocky Mountains., 1804-6, as related by Patrick
   Gass (1807).
   Dayton: Ells, Claflin & Company. 1847.
   https://archive.org/details/lewisclarksjourn00gassrich

LORD, JOHN K.
   The naturalist in Vancouver's Island and British Columbia,
   volume 2.
   London: Richard Bentley. 1866. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/naturalistinvanc01lord
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/naturalistinvanc00lord

LOSKIEL, GEORGE HENRY.
   History of the mission of the United Brethren among the Indians
   of North America; translated from the German by C. I. La Trobe.
   London 1794.
   https://archive.org/details/historyofmiss00losk
   https://archive.org/details/historyofmission01losk

LUMMIS, CHARLES. F.
   The land of poco tiempo [New Mexico].
   New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. 1893.
   https://archive.org/details/cu31924028915036

McKENNEY, THOMAS. L.
   Sketches of a tour to the lakes [1826],
   the Chippeway Indians, etc.
   Baltimore: F. Lucas, Jr. 1827.
   https://archive.org/details/sketchesatourto01mckegoog

MARCY, Colonel R. B.
   Thirty years of army life on the border.
   New York: Harper & Brothers. 1866.
   https://archive.org/details/thirtyyearsofarm01marc

MARCY, Colonel. R. B., and GEORGE. D. McCLELLAN.
   Exploration of the Red River of Louisiana In 1852.
   [Comanches and Kiowas.]
   Washington. 1854. (House of Representatives, 33d congress,
   1st session Ex. doc)
   https://archive.org/details/explorationredr00mcclgoog

MARSHALL, ORSAMUS H.
   Historical writings relating to the early history of the west;
   with introduction by William L. Stone.
   Albany: Joel Munsell's Sons. 1887.
   https://archive.org/details/historicalwritin01mars
   https://archive.org/details/historicalwriti00marsgoog/page/n21/mode/2up
   https://archive.org/details/cihm_09926

   The Niagara frontier; read before the Buffalo Historical Club.
   February 27, 1865. [Buffalo: The author.]
   https://archive.org/details/niagarafrontiere00mars/page/n5/mode/2up
   https://archive.org/details/cihm_40160

MATTHEWS, WASHINGTON.
   Ethnography and philology of the Hidatsa Indians.
   Washington. 1877.
   (United States geographical and geological survey.
   F. V. Hayden in charge: miscellaneous publications. No.7.)
   https://archive.org/details/ethnographyandp00mattgoog
   https://archive.org/details/ethnographyandp01mattgoog
   https://archive.org/details/ethnographyphilo00mattrich
   https://archive.org/details/rosettaproject_hid_morsyn-2

MEGAPOLENSIS, J., Jr.
   Short sketch of the Mohawk Indians in New Netherland (1644);
   translated, revised, with an introduction, by J. H. Brodhead.
   (Collections of the New York Historical Society. 2d series,
   volume 3.
   New York. 1857.)

MEMOIR OF THE PEQUOTS, etc.
(Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society.,
volume 10. Boston. 1800.)

MILLER, JOAQUIN.
   Unwritten history; life amongst the Modocs.
   Hartford: American Pub. Company. 1874.
   https://archive.org/details/amongstthemodocs00millrichs://archive.org/details/unwrittenhist00millrich
   https://archive.org/details/unwrittenhist00millrich

MILLER. WILLIAM. J.
   Notes concerning the Wampanoag tribe of Indians.
   Providence: S. S. Rider. 1880.
   https://archive.org/details/notesconcerningw00mill/page/n5/mode/2up

MINER, LEWIS H.
   The valley of Wyoming.
   New York: Robert H. Johnston & Company. 1866.
   https://archive.org/details/valleywyomingro00minegoog
   https://archive.org/details/valleyofwyomingr00mine

MÖLLHAUSEN, BALDWIN.
   Diary of a journey from the Mississippi to the coasts of the
   Pacific, with a United States government expedition [1853-4];
   translated by Mrs. Percy Sinnett.
   London: Longman. 1858. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/diaryajourneyfr00sinngoog/page/n10/mode/2up
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/Diaryjourneyfro11Moll

MORELET, ARTHUR.
   Travels in Central America; translated from the French by
   Mrs. M. F. Squier; introduction by M. G. Squier.
   London: Trübner & Company. 1871.
   New York: Henry Holt & Company. 1871.
   https://archive.org/details/travelsincentra00moregoog

MORGAN, LEWIS H.
   League of the Ho-dé-no-sau-nee, or Iroquois.
   Rochester: Sage & Brother. 1851.
   https://archive.org/details/leagueofhodnos00inmorg
   (2 volumes, 1922) https://archive.org/details/hodenosaunee00morgrich
   https://archive.org/details/leagueofhodnos00inmorg

   Report on the fabrics, inventions, implements and utensils of
   the Iroquois, made to the regents of the university [of New
   York.], 1851.

NEW YORK STATE.
   Commissioners of Indian affairs, for the extinguishment of
   Indian titles. Proceedings, with introduction and notes by
   F. B. Hough.
   Albany: Joel Munsell. 1861. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/proceedingsofcom01newy
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/proceedingsofcom01newy_0
   https://archive.org/details/bp_616923/page/n3/mode/2up

   Regents of the university. Annual reports on the condition of
   the state cabinet of natural history and the historical and
   antiquarian collection.
   Albany.

NORMAN, B. M. Rambles in Yucatan; including a visit to the remarkable ruins of Chi-Chen, Kabah, Zayi, and Uxmal. New York: J. & H. G. Langley. 1842. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/57074 https://archive.org/details/ramblesinyucatan00norm

NUTTALL, THOMAS.
   Journal of travels into the Arkansa territory, 1819.
   Philadelphia. T. H. Palmer. 1821.
   https://archive.org/details/journaloftravels00nutt
   https://archive.org/details/journaloftravels00nutt_0

PALFREY, JOHN GORHAM.
   Compendious history of New England. 1494-1775 (1884). volume 1.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Company. 4 volumes.
   https://archive.org/details/historynewengla23palfgoog
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/compendioushisto01palfuoft
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/compendioushisto02palfuoft
   (Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/compendioushisto03palfuoft
   (Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/compendioushisto04palfuoft

PIDGEON, WILLIAM.
   Traditions of De-coo-dah, comprising extensive explorations,
   surveys and excavations of the remains of the mound builders in
   America. (1853).
   New York: Horace Thayer. 1858.
   https://archive.org/details/traditionsofdeco00inpidg

POWERS, STEPHEN.
   Tribes of California.
   Washington. 1877.
   (United States geographical and geological survey,
   Contributions to North American ethnology, volume 3.)
   https://archive.org/details/tribescaliforni00powegoog/page/n9/mode/2up

RAE, J.
Indians of Hudson's Bay territories.
(Journal of the Society of Arts, 30: 483. 1882.)

REPORT OF THE INTERNATIONAL POLAR EXPEDITION TO POINT BARROW,
ALASKA [1881-2].
   Washington. 1885. (House of Representatives, 48th congress,
   2d session Ex. doc. 44.)
   https://archive.org/details/reportofpolar00inteuoft

RIGGS, Reverend Dr. STEPHEN R.
   Mary and I; forty years with the Sioux.
   Chicago: W. G. Holmes. 1880.
   https://archive.org/details/maryandifortyyea00riggrich

RINK, Dr. HENRY.
   The Eskimo tribes; their distribution and characteristics,
   with a comparative vocabulary (volume 11 of the "Middelelser
   om Gronland").
   Copenhagen: C. A. Reitzel.
   London: Williams & Norgate. 1887.
   https://archive.org/details/eskimotribesthei00rinkrich

   Tales and traditions of the Eskimo, with a sketch of their
   habits, religions, language, etc. (1866-71); translated from
   the Danish by the author, edited by Dr. R. Brown.
   Edinburgh: William Blackwood & Sons. 1875.
   https://archive.org/details/talestraditionso01rink

RONAN, PETER.
   Historical sketch of the Flathead Indian nation, 1813-1890.
   Helena: Journal Publishing Company. 1800.
   https://archive.org/details/historicalsketch00ronarich

RONDTHALER, Reverend EDWARD.
   Life of John Heckewelder;
   edited by B. H. Coates.
   Philadelphia: T. Ward. 1847.
   https://archive.org/details/lifeofjohnheckew00rondt

RUTTENBER. E. M.
   History of the Indian tribes of Hudson's River: their origin,
   manners, etc.
   Albany: J. Munsell. 1872.
   https://archive.org/details/ruttenberindians00ruttrich

SCHERMERHORN, J. F. Report, on the western Indians. (Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society., 2d series, volume 2. Boston. 1814.) https://archive.org/details/correctviewoftha00sche

SCHOOLCRAFT, HENRY R. Notes on the Iroquois. Albany: E. H. Pease & Company. 1847. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/50053

   Personal memoirs of a residence of thirty years with
   the Indian tribes on the American frontiers, 1-12-1842 (1831).
   Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Company.
   http://www.fullbooks.com/Personal-Memoirs-Of-A-Residence-Of-Thirty.html

SCHWEINITZ, EDMUND DE.
   Life and times of David Zeisberger, apostle of the Indians.
   Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Company. 1870.
   https://archive.org/details/cihm_26078

SEAVER, JAS. E.
   Life of Mary Jemison: Deh-he-wä-mis (1842).
   New York: Miller, Orton & Mulligan. 1856.
   (1918) https://archive.org/details/narrativeoflifeo00seavuoft

SHEA, J. G.
   Inquiries respecting the lost neutral nation.
   (Schoolcraft's Information respecting the Indian tribes, part. 4.)
   See SCHOOLCRAFT, HENRY R.

SHELDON, WILLIAM.
   Account of the Caraibs.
   (Archæologia Americana, volume 1.
   Worcester: American Antiquarian Society. 1820.)

SIMPSON, JAMES H.
   Journal of a military reconnoissance from Santa Fe to the
   Navajo country, 1840. [Navajos and Pueblos.]
   Philadelphia: Lippincott, Grambo & Company. 1852.
   https://archive.org/details/journalamilitar00simpgoog

   The shortest route to California, with some account
   of the Indian tribes [of Utah].
   Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Company. 1860.
   https://archive.org/details/shortestroutetoc00simp

SITGREAVES, Capt. L.
   Report of an expedition down the Zuni and Colorado rivers.
   Washington, 1854.
   (Senate ex. doc's, 33d congress, 1st session.)
   https://archive.org/details/reportanexpidit00sitggoog
   https://archive.org/details/reportanexpedit00engigoog

SKENANDOAH.
   Letters on the Iroquois; addressed to Albert Gallatin.
   (Reprinted in volume 2 of Craig's "The olden time."
   Pittsburgh: Wright & Charlton. 1848. 2 volumes.)

SMET, Father P. J. DE. Letters and sketches, with a narrative of a year's residence among the Indian tribes of the Rocky Mountains. Philadelphia: M. Fithian. 1843. https://archive.org/details/letterssketchesw00smet

Oregon missions and travels over the Rocky Mountains. 1845-6. New York: Edward Dunigan. 1847. https://archive.org/details/cihm_40687

Western missions and missionaries. New York: T. W. Strong. 1859. https://archive.org/details/westernmissionsm01smet/page/n7/mode/2up https://archive.org/details/westernmissionsm0000smet/page/n3/mode/2up https://archive.org/details/westernmissionsa00smetrich

SMITH, Capt. JOHN.
Description of Virginia. General historie of Virginia. (Works,
1608-1631); edited by E. Arber, Birmingham. 1884.

SPRAGUE, JOHN T.
   The origin, progress, and conclusion of the Florida war.
   New York: D. Appleton & Company. 1843.
   https://archive.org/details/originprogressa03spragoog

   Historical and mythological traditions of the Algonquins, with
   a translation of the "Walumolum."
   (New York Historical Society.)

STONE, WILLIAM L.
   Life and times of Sa-go-ye-wat-ha, or Red Jacket (1841).
   Albany: J. Munsell. 1866.
   https://archive.org/details/lifeandtimessag01stongoog

   Life of Joseph Brant—Thayendanegea (1838).
   Albany: J. Munsell. 1865. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/lifeofjosephbran01ston
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/lifejosephbrant03stongoog

STRACHEY, WILLIAM.
   Historie of travaile into Virginia Britannia. (1618?).
   London: Hakluyt Society. 1849.
   https://archive.org/details/historietravail00majogoog

SWAN, JAMES G.
   The Haidah Indians of Queen Charlotte's Islands (1874).
   (Smithsonian contributions to knowledge, volume 21.
   Washington. 1876.)
   https://archive.org/details/haidahindians00swanrich
   https://archive.org/details/cihm_23957

   The Indians of Cape Flattery, Washington Territory. (1868).
   (Smithsonian contributions to knowledge, volume 16.
   Washington. 1870.)
   https://archive.org/details/indianscapeflatt00swanrich
   https://archive.org/details/b21914084

   The northwest coast;
   or three years [1852-5] in Washington Territory.
   New York: Harper & Brothers. 1857.
   https://archive.org/details/northwestcoastor00swan

SULLIVAN, Honorable JAMES.
   History of the Penobscott Indians.
   (Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society.,
   volume 9. Boston. 1804.)

VETROMILE, EUGENE.
   The Abnaki Indians.
   (Collections of the Maine Historical Society., volume 6.
   Portland. 1859.)
   https://archive.org/details/abnakisandtheir00vetrgoog

   The Abnakis and their history.
   New York: J. B. Kirker. 1866.
   https://archive.org/details/abnakistheirhist00vetr

WILLIAMSON, WILLIAM. D.
   Indian tribes in New England (1839)
   (Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society.,
   3d series, volume 9. 1846.)

WILLIS, WILLIAM.
   The language of the Abnaquies or eastern Indians: appendix by
   C. E. Potter. (Collections of the Maine Historical Society,
   volume 4.
   Portland. 1856.)

WILSON, DANIEL.
   The Huron-Iroquois of Canada.
   (Translation Royal Society, Canada. 1884.)
   https://archive.org/details/cihm_29131/page/n5/mode/2up

ZEISBERGER, DAVID, Moravian Missionary, Ohio.
   Diary [1781-1798]; translated from the German and
   edited by E. F. Bliss.
   Cincinnati: Robert Clarke & Company. 1885. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/diaryofdavid01zeisrich
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/diaryofdavid02zeisrich

ZYLYFF.
   The Ponca chiefs, an Indian's attempt to appeal from the
   tomahawk to the courts; with introduction by Inshtatheamba
   (Bright Eyes), and dedication by Wendell Phillips.
   Boston: Lockwood, Brooks & Company. 1880.
   https://archive.org/details/poncachiefsanin01tibbgoog

AUSTRIA.

GENERAL.

BRYCE, JAMES. The holy Roman empire (1864). London: Macmillan & Company. (1871) https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/44101 (1915) https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.213191

COXE, WILLIAM.
   History of the house of Austria, 1218-1792 (1807).
   London: H. G. Bohn. 3 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyofhouseof01coxeuoft
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyofhouseof02coxeiala
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyofhouseof02coxeuoft
   (Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/historyofhouseof03coxeuoft
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.458810

DUNHAM, S. A.
   History of the Germanic empire.
   London: Longman. 1834. 3 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyofgermani01dunhiala/page/n5/mode/2up
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyofgermani02dunhiala/page/n9/mode/2up
   (Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/historyofgermani03dunhiala/page/n7/mode/2up

DYER, THOMAS HENRY.
   History of modern Europe, 1453-1857.
   London: John Murray, 4 volumes; George Bell & Sons. 4 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyofmodern01dyer
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.40858

FREEMAN, EDWARD A.
   The historical geography of Europe.
   London: Longmans, Green & Company. 1881. 2 volumes.
   https://archive.org/details/b31349638
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historicalgeog01free
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historicalgeogra01freeuoft
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historicalgeogra01free
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historicalgeogra02freeuoft

GOULD, S. BARING.
GOULD, S. BARING-GOULD.
   The story of Germany (Story of the nations).
   London: T. F. Unwin.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1886.
   https://archive.org/details/storyofgermany00bari/page/n11/mode/2up

HEEREN, A. H. L.
   A manual of the history of the political system of Europe and
   its colonies (1809); translated from the German.
   London: H. G. Bohn.
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.501449/page/n1/mode/2up
   https://archive.org/details/manualofhistoryo00heerrich
   https://archive.org/details/manual00ofhistoryoheerrich

KOCH, CHRISTOPHER WILLIAM. The revolutions of Europe (1771); from the French. London: Whittaker & Company. 1839. https://archive.org/details/revolutionseurop00koch

KOHLRAUSCH, FRIEDRICH. History of Germany (1816); [translated by J. D. Haas]. London: Chapman & Hall. 1844. https://archive.org/details/ahistorygermany00haasgoog New York: Appleton. 1845. https://archive.org/details/ahistorygermany00haasgoog

LATHAM, ROBERT. G.
   Ethnology of Europe.
   London: J. Van Voorst. 1852.
   https://archive.org/details/ethnologyofeurop00lathuoft/page/n5/mode/2up

   The nationalities of Europe. volume 2.
   London: W. H. Allen & Company. 1863. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.31028

LAVISSE, ERNEST.
   General view of the political history of Europe;
   translated by Charles Gross.
   London: Longmans, Green & Company. 1891.
   https://archive.org/details/generalviewofpol00laviiala
   https://archive.org/details/generalviewofpol00lavi
   https://archive.org/details/generalviewpoli01grosgoog

LEGER, LOUIS.
   History of Austro-Hungary (1666; 2d edition., 1878-88);
   translated by Mrs. Birkbeck Hill.
   London: Rivingtons.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons.
   https://archive.org/details/historyofaustroh00lege
   https://archive.org/details/ahistoryaustroh00hillgoog

LEWIS, CHARLTON T.
   History of Germany.
   New York: Harper & Brothers. 1874.
   https://archive.org/details/historyofgermany00lewi
   https://archive.org/details/ahistorygermany00unkngoog

LODGE, RICHARD.
   History of modern Europe, 1453-1878.
   London: J. Murray. 1885.
   New York: Harper Brothers.
   https://archive.org/details/historyofmoderne00lodguoft
   https://archive.org/details/historyofmoderne017244mbp
   https://archive.org/details/cu31924027987092

MALLESON, G. B.
Lost opportunities of the house of Austria
(Royal Historical Society Papers, volume 12, page 225).

MENZEL, WOLFGANG.
   History of Germany (1824-5);
   translated from 4th German edition by Mrs. G. Horrocks.
   London: H. G. Bohn. 1848. 3 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyofgermany01menzuoft
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyofgermany02menzuoft
   (Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/historyofgermany03menzuoft
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historygermanyf00menzgoog

MICHELET, JULES.
   A summary of modern history (1827);
   translated and continued by M. C. M. Simpson.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1875.
   https://archive.org/details/asummarymodernh00michgoog
   https://archive.org/details/summaryofmodernh00michuoft

RUSSELL, WILLIAM.
   History of modern Europe (1779).
   London: George Routledge & Sons. 4 volumes.
   Whittaker & Company. 4 volume
   New York: Harper Brothers. 3 volumes.
   (Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/historymoderneu01jonegoog

(Epitomized) https://archive.org/details/russellshistory00russgoog/page/n6/mode/2up

SIME, JAMES.
   History of Germany.
   London: Macmillan & Company. 1874.
   New York: Henry Holt & Co. 1874.
   https://archive.org/details/historyofgermany00simerich
   https://archive.org/details/historygermany00simegoog
   https://archive.org/details/historyofgermany0000unse_n7z0/page/n7/mode/2up
   https://archive.org/details/historyofgermany00sime
   https://archive.org/details/historyofgermany00simeuoft

SMYTH, WILLIAM.
   Lectures on modern history (1840).
   London: H. G. Bohn. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/dli.bengal.10689.3073
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/dli.bengal.10689.2173

TURNER, SAMUEL EPES.
   Sketch of the Germanic constitution from early times to the
   dissolution of the empire.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1888.
   https://archive.org/details/asketchgermanic01turngoog

VOLTAIRE, F. M. AROUET DE.
   Annals of the empire, from the time of Charlemagne
   (Works, translated by Smollett and others, 1761, volumes 20-22).
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/annalsoftheempir01voltuoft

MEDIÆVAL.

BUSK, Mrs. WILLIAM.
   Mediæval popes, emperors, kings and crusaders.
   London: Hookham & Sons. 1854-6. 4 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/medivalpopesem01buskuoft
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/medivalpopesemp01buskgoog
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/medivalpopesem02buskuoft
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/MediaevalPopesEmperorsKingsCrusadersV2
   (Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/medivalpopesemp00buskgoog
   (Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/medivalpopesem03buskuoft
   (Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/medivalpopesem04buskuoft
   (Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/MediaevalPopesEmperorsKingsCrusadersV4

COMYN, Sir ROBERT.
   History of the western empire, from Charlemagne to Charles V.
   [800-1520],
   London: W. H. Allen & Company. 1841. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historywesterne01unkngoog
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historywesterne02unkngoog/page/n7/mode/2up

DURUY, VICTOR.
   The history of the middle ages (1839);
   translated by E. H. and M. D. Whitney, with notes and
   revisions by G. B. Adams.
   New York: Henry Holt & Company. 1891.
   https://archive.org/details/historyofmiddlea00dur
   https://archive.org/details/historyofmiddlea00duru
   https://archive.org/details/historyofmiddlea00duruuoft
   https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.169467

HALLAM, HENRY. View of the state of Europe during the middle ages. London: J. Murray. 3 volumes. New York: W. J. Widdleton. 3 volumes. (Volume 3) https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/33540 (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/viewofstateofe01hall (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/viewofstateofeur01hall (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/viewofstateofeur02hall (Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/viewofstateofeur03hall https://archive.org/details/cu31924027794654/page/n3/mode/2up

HENDERSON, ERNEST F.,
   Select historical documents of the middle ages.
   London: George Bell & Sons. 1892.
   New York: Macmillan & Company.
   https://archive.org/details/selecthistorical00hendiala
   https://archive.org/details/ErnestF.HendersonSelectHistoricalDocumentsOfTheMiddleAges
   https://archive.org/details/cu31924014186161
   https://archive.org/details/selectdocuments00hend
   https://archive.org/details/cu31924014186526

STUBBS, WILLIAM.
   Seventeen lectures on the study of medieval and modern history.
   Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1886.
   New York: MacMillan & Company. 1887.
   https://archive.org/details/seventeenlecture00stub
   https://archive.org/details/cu31924027811011

The Constitutional History of England in Its Origin and Development
https://archive.org/details/constitutionalh04stubgoog

16TH-17TH CENTURIES. REFORMATION. THIRTY YEARS WAR.

CUST, Sir EDWARD,
   Lives of the warriors of the thirty years' war.
   London: John Murray. 1865. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/livesofwarriorspt1custuoft/page/n3/mode/2up
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/livesofwarriorspt2custuoft

GARDINER, SAMUEL R. The thirty years' war, 1618-1648 (Epochs of history). London: Longmans, Green & Company. 1874. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/40082 https://archive.org/details/gardinersamuel00rawsrich https://archive.org/details/thirtyyearswar00gardgoog https://archive.org/details/thirtyyearswar1600gard https://archive.org/details/thirtyyearswar1600

GINDELY, ANTON.
   History of the thirty years' war (1869-80):
   translated by A. Ten Brook.
   London: Richard Bentley & Son.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1884. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historythirtyye01broogoog

MALDEN, HENRY E. Vienna, 1683. London: Kegan Paul & Company. 1883. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/56023

MARTIN, HENRI.
   History of France: age of Louis XIV.(1860);
   translated by Mrs. Booth.
   Boston: Walker, Wise & Company. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_nW0PAAAAYAAJ
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_T30PAAAAYAAJ

MAXWELL, Sir WILLIAM STIRLING.
   Don John of Austria, 1547-78.
   London: Longmans, Green & Company. 1883. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/donjohnofaustria01stiriala
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/donjohnofaustria02stiruoft

MITCHELL, Lieut.-Colonel J.
   Life of Wallenstein.
   London: Jas. Fraser. 1837.
   https://archive.org/details/dli.granth.94161

PRAET, JULES VAN.
   Essays on the political history of the 15th, 16th and 17th
   centuries; [translated] edited by Sir Edmund Head.
   London: Richard Bentley. 1868.
   https://archive.org/details/dli.granth.77834

RANKE, LEOPOLD VON.
   Ferdinand I. and Maximilian II. of Austria (1832);
   translated by Lady Duff Gordon.
   London: Longman.
   (1853) https://archive.org/details/FerdinandIAndMaximilianIIOfAustria/page/n5/mode/2up

History of the Latin and Teutonic nations, 1494-1514 (1824); translated from the German by Philip A. Ashworth. London: George Bell & Sons. 1887. (1887) https://archive.org/details/historyoflatinte01rank (1909) https://archive.org/details/historyoflatinte00rankiala (1915) https://archive.org/details/historyoflatinte00rankrich

History of the reformation in Germany (1839-43); translated by Sarah Austin. London: Longman. 1845-7. 3 volumes. (1905) https://archive.org/details/historyreformat02rankgoog/page/n6/mode/2up

ROBERTSON, WILLIAM.
   History of the reign of the emperor Charles V. (1769); with
   life of the emperor after his abdication, by W. H. Prescott
   (1857).
   London: George Routledge & Sons. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1)https://archive.org/details/historyreignemp42robegoog
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyofreign01robe
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/reignofemperorch02robe
   https://archive.org/details/historyreignemp27robegoog/page/n10/mode/2up

   Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Co. 3 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyofreignof1864robe
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyofreignof02robe
   (Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/historyofreignof03robe

   New York: Hopkins & Seymore
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyofreignof01robguat/page/n11/mode/2up
   (Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/historyofreignof03roguat/page/n11/mode/2up
   https://archive.org/details/historyreignemp32robegoog/page/n6/mode/2up
   (Complete) https://archive.org/details/historyofreignof00roberich

TRENCH, RICHARD C.
   Gustavus Adolphus in Germany.
   London: Macmillan & Company, 2d edition. 1872.
   (Volume 1)https://archive.org/details/historyreignemp27robegoog/page/n10/mode/2up

18TH CENTURY.

BRACKENBURY. Colonel. C. B.
   Frederick the great.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1884.
   https://archive.org/details/frederickgreat00bracrich

BROGLIE, Duc de.
   Frederick the great and Maria Theresa (1882);
   translated by Mrs. Hoey and J. Lillie.
   London: Low, Marston & Company. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/frederickgreatma01brogiala
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/frederickgreatma02brogiala

CARLYLE, THOMAS.
History of Friedrich II. of Prussia, called Frederick the
great (1858).

   London: Chapman & Hall.
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyfriedric37carlgoog
   (Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/historyfriedric27carlgoog
   (Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/historyfriedric47carlgoog
   (Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/historyfriedric57carlgoog

New York: Harper & Brothers. (Books 1-19) https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/2102 (Books 1-21) https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25808 (Books 1-5) https://archive.org/details/historyoffriedri01carl (Books 8-10) https://archive.org/details/friedrichiiofpru03carl (Books 15-17) https://archive.org/details/historyfriedric47carlgoog

   New York: Dana Estes and Charles E. Lauriat
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyoffriedri01carl/page/n7/mode/2up
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyoffriedri02carl
   (Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/historyoffriedri03carl
   (Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/historyoffriedri04carl
   (Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/historyoffriedri05carl
   (Volume 6) https://archive.org/details/historyoffriedri06carl

   New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons
   (Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/historyfriedric54carlgoog/page/n12/mode/2up
   (Volume 7) https://archive.org/details/historyfriedric51carlgoog/page/n8/mode/2up

Leipzig: Bernard Tauchnitz
(Volume 8) https://archive.org/details/historyfriedric10carlgoog

CUST, Sir Edward.
   Annals of the wars of the eighteenth century.
   London: John Murray. 1862. 5 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/annalswarseight05custgoog
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/annalswarseight00custgoog/page/n4/mode/2up
   (Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/annalswarseight03custgoog
   (Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/annalswarseight04custgoog
   (Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/dli.granth.106238/page/n1/mode/2up

DOVER, Lord.
   Life of Frederick II., King of Prussia.
   London: Longman. 1831.
   New York: Harper & Brothers. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/lifeoffredericse01doveuoft
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/lifefredericsec08dovegoog/page/n8/mode/2up

FREDERICK II. (called the great).
   History of my own times [1740-1745].
   (Posthumous works; translated by Thomas Holcroft. Volume 1.
   London. 1789. 13 volumes.)
   (Part 1) https://archive.org/details/vol2historyofmyo00fred
   (Part 2) https://archive.org/details/vol3historyofmyo00fred

GERARD, JAMES W.
   The peace of Utrecht, 1713-14.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1885.
   https://archive.org/details/cu31924027872021
   https://archive.org/details/peaceutrechtahi00geragoog

KUGLER, FRANCIS.
   Pictorial history of Germany during the reign of Frederick the
   great (1842); [translated from the German.].
   London: H. G. Bohn.
   https://archive.org/details/pictorialhistor00menzgoog

LECKY, WILLIAM EDWARD HARTPOLE
   History of England in the 18th century.
   London: Longmans, Green & Company. 1878-90. 8 volumes.
   New York: D. Appleton & Company. 1878-90. 8 volumes.
   https://archive.org/details/historyofengland06leck/page/n7/mode/2up

LONGMAN, F. W.
   Frederick the great and the seven years' war.
   London: Longmans, Green & Company. 1881.
   New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.
   https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.41356
   https://archive.org/details/frederickgreatse01long

MACAULAY, Lord.
   Essays: Frederick the great (1842).
   London: Longmans, Green & Company.
   Boston: Estes & Lauriat. 3 volumes.
   New York: Maynard, Merrill, &: Co.
  https://archive.org/details/essayonfredericg00maca/page/n5/mode/2up

MALLESON, Colonel. G. B.
Loudon [Austrian fieldmarshal, 1743-1790].
London: Chapman & Hall. 1884.

MALLET, CHARLES EDWARD.
   The French revolution.
   New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. 1893.
   (1897) https://archive.org/details/frenchrevolution00malluoft
   (1893) https://archive.org/details/frenchrevolution00mallrich
   (1893) https://archive.org/details/cu31924031498128/page/n9/mode/2up

MIGNET, FRANÇOIS A. M.
   History of the French revolution, 1789-1814 (1824);
   translated from the French.
   London: George Bell & Sons.
   https://archive.org/details/historyoffrenchr00migniala
   https://archive.org/details/historyfrenchre03conggoog

RAUMER, FREDERICK VON.
   Contributions to modern history: Frederick II. and his times.
   London: Charles Knight & Company. 1837.
   https://archive.org/details/dli.granth.91064

SCHLOSSER, F. C.
   History of the eighteenth century, etc.;
   translated by D. Davison.
   London: Chapman & Hall. 1843-52. 8 volumes.
   (Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/historyeighteen03schlgoog
   (Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/historyeighteen08schlgoog
   (Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/historyeighteen01schlgoog/page/n6/mode/2up
   (Volume 6) https://archive.org/details/historyeighteen02schlgoog/page/n5/mode/2up

STANHOPE, Earl (Lord Mahon).
   History of England 1713-1783 (1836-53).
   London: John Murray. 7 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyofengland01stan
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyofengland02stan
   (Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/historyofengland03stan/page/n5/mode/2up
   (Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/historyofengland04stan
   (Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/historyofengland05stan/page/n7/mode/2up
   (Volume 7) https://archive.org/details/historyofengland07stan/page/n5/mode/2up

Leipzig: Bernhard Tauchnitz 1853
(Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_4CFTAAAAcAAJ

STEPHENS, H. MORSE.
   History of the French revolution. Volumes 1-2.
   London: Rivingtons. 1880.
   New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. 1886-91.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyoffrenchr01stepiala
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/cu31924024309480

THIERS, LOUIS ADOLPHE.
   History of the French revolution (1827);
   translated by F. Shoberl (1854).
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 4 volumes.
   London: Richard Bentley & Son. 5 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyoffrench01thieuoft
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyoffrench02thieuoft
   (Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/v3a4historyoffren03thieuoft
   (Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/historyoffrench04thieuoft
   (Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/historyoffrench05thieuoft

19TH CENTURY: EARLY AND GENERAL.

ADAMS, Major CHARLES. Great campaigns in Europe from 1796 to 1870; edited by C. C. King. Edinburgh: William Blackwood & Sons. 1877. https://archive.org/details/greatcampaignssu00adam

ALISON, Sir ARCHIBALD.
History of Europe, 1789-1815 (1842). 10 volumes.
(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/historyeuropefr04alisgoog/page/n8/mode/2up
https://archive.org/details/historyeuropefr37alisgoog

   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyofeurope701alisuoft
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyofeuropef02alis
   (Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/historyofeurope703alisuoft
   (Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/historyofeuropefc04alis
   (Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/historyofeurope705alisuoft
   (Volume 6) https://archive.org/details/historyofeurope706alisuoft
   (Volume 7) https://archive.org/details/historyofeurope707alisuoft
   (Volume 8) https://archive.org/details/historyofeuropef08alisuoft
   (Volume 9) https://archive.org/details/historyofeuropef09alisuoft
   (Volume 9) https://archive.org/details/historyofeuropef09alis
   (Volume 11) https://archive.org/details/historyofeuropef11alisiala
   (Volume 12) https://archive.org/details/historyofeuropef12alisuoft
   (Volume 13) https://archive.org/details/historyofeuropef13alisuoft
   (Volume 14) https://archive.org/details/historyofeuropef14alisuoft
   (Volume 15) https://archive.org/details/historyofeuropef15alisuoft
   (Volume 16) https://archive.org/details/historyofeuropef16alisuoft
   (Volume 17) https://archive.org/details/historyofeuropef17alisuoft
   (Volume 20) https://archive.org/details/historyofeuropef00alisuoft

AUSTRIAN NATIONALITIES AND AUSTRIAN POLICY:
by J. W. W. (Fraser's Magazine., 52: 163. 1855).

DUFF, MOUNTSTUART E. GRANT-.
   Studies in European politics.
   Edinburgh: Edmonston &: Douglas. 1866.
   https://archive.org/details/studiesineurope01duffgoog
   https://archive.org/details/studiesineurope00duffgoog
   https://archive.org/details/cu31924027804248
   https://archive.org/details/studiesineuropea00granrich

FYFFE, C. A. History of modern Europe. [1792-1878]. London: Cassell. 1880-1889. 3 volumes. New York: Henry Holt & Company. 1881-90. 3 volumes. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/6589 (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.172930/page/n1/mode/2up https://archive.org/details/historyofmoderne00fyffuoft

JOURNAL OF A NOBLEMAN:
his residence at Vienna during the congress.
London. Philadelphia. 1833.

KELLY, WALTER K.
   History of the house of Austria [1792-1848]. And
   Genesis or the late Austrian revolution: by an officer of
   state [Count Hartig]: translated from the German.
   London: H. G. Bohn. 1853.
   https://archive.org/details/historyofhouseof00kell

KOHL, J. G.
   Austria.
   London: Chapman & Hall. 1844.
   https://archive.org/details/austriaviennapr00kohlgoog

LANFREY, P.
   History of Napoleon I. [translated from the French.].
   London: Macmillan & Company. 1871-1879. 4 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyofnapoleo01lanfuoft
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyofnapole02lanf
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/cu31924024344834
   (Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/historyofnapoleo03lanfuoft
   (Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/cu31924024344842
   (Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/historyofnapoleo04lanfuoft

MALLESON, Colonel George Bruce
   Life of Prince Metternich (Statesmen series).
   London: W. H. Allen & Company. 1888.
   Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott &: Co.
   https://archive.org/details/lifeofprincemett00mall
   https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.181131/page/n3/mode/2up
   https://archive.org/details/lifeofprincemet00mall
   https://archive.org/details/lifeofprincemett00malluoft
   (Audio) https://archive.org/details/life_of_prince_metternich_1611_librivox/lifeofprincemetternich_01_malleson_128kb.mp3

METTERNICH, Prince.
   Memoirs [1773-1835]: translated by Mrs. Alexander Napier.
   London: Bentley & Son. 1880.
   New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.
   https://archive.org/details/memoirsofprincem02mettuoft/page/n5/mode/2up
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/dli.granth.85236/page/ii/mode/2up

MICHIELS, ALFRED, compiler.
   Secret history of the Austrian government.
   London: Chapman & Hall. 1859.
   https://archive.org/details/secrethistoryau00michgoog

MÜLLER, W.
   Political history of recent times, 1816-1875:
   translated [and continued to 1881] by John P. Peters.
   New York: Harper & Brothers. 1882.
   https://archive.org/details/politicalhistory00mulliala
   https://archive.org/details/politicalhistory00mluoft
   https://archive.org/details/politicalhistory00ml
   https://archive.org/details/politicalhistor00mlgoog
   https://archive.org/details/politicalhistor00petegoog

ROSE, J. H.
   A century of continental history, 1780-1880.
   London: Edward Stanford. 1889.
   https://archive.org/details/cu31924031187804

STEPHENS, H. MORSE.
   Europe, 1789-1815.
   London: Macmillan &: Company. 1893.
   https://archive.org/details/europestephens00step

THIERS, ADOLPH.
   History of the consulate and the empire of France under
   Napoleon (1845-62); translated by D. F. Campbell and H. W. Herbert.
   London: George Bell & Sons (Bohn).
   Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Company. 5 volumes.

   Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Company. 1894. 12 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/consulateempire01thieiala
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyconsulate02thieiala
   (Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/consulateempire03thieiala
   (Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/consulateempire04thieiala
   (Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/historyofconsula05thieiala
   (Volume 6) https://archive.org/details/consulateempire06thieiala
   (Volume 7) https://archive.org/details/consulateempire07thieiala
   (Volume 8) https://archive.org/details/consulateempire08thieiala
   (Volume 9) https://archive.org/details/historyofconsula09thieiala
   (Volume 10) https://archive.org/details/consulateempire10thieiala
   (Volume 11) https://archive.org/details/consulateempire11thieiala
   (Volume 12) https://archive.org/details/consulateempire12thieiala

TURNBULL, PETER EVAN
   Austria, volume 2.
   London: J. Murray. 1840. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/austria01turngoog/page/n10/mode/2up
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/austria02turngoog/page/n8/mode/2up
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/austria03turngoog/page/n6/mode/2up

VEHSE, E.
   Memoirs of the court, aristocracy and diplomacy of Austria;
   translated by Franz Demmler.
   London: Longmans, Green & Company. 1856. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/memoirsofcourtof01vehs
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/memoirsofcourtar02vehs
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/memoirscourtari00vehsgoog
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/cu31924088019769

WEIR, ARCHIBALD.
   The historical basis of modern Europe, 1760-1815.
   London: Swan Sonnenschein & Company. 1886.
   https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.501799
   https://archive.org/details/cu31924027892375/page/n7/mode/2up

WHITMAN, SIDNEY.
   The realm of the Habsburgs.
   London: William Heinemann. 1893.
   https://archive.org/details/realmofhabsburgs00whituoft
   https://archive.org/details/realmofhabsburgs00whit/page/n9/mode/2up

AUSTRIA, HUNGARY, AND THE LESSER PROVINCES.

BONER, CHARLES.
   Transylvania.
   London: Longmans. 1865.
   https://archive.org/details/transylvaniaits00bonegoog

BRACE, CHARLES LORING.
   Hungary in 1851.
   New York: Charles Scribner. 1852.
   https://archive.org/details/hungaryin1851wit01brac
   https://archive.org/details/hungaryinwithan00bracgoog

FELBERMANN, LOUIS.
   Hungary and its people.
   London: Griffith, Farran & Company. 1892.
   https://archive.org/details/hungaryitspeople00felb

FORSTER, FLORENCE A.
   Francis Deak, Hungarian statesman: a memoir, with a preface by
   M. E. Grant Duff.
   London: Macmillan & Company. 1880.
   https://archive.org/details/francisdekhung00arnoiala
   https://archive.org/details/francisdekhunga00forgoog

GERARD, E. The land beyond the forest [Transylvania]. Edinburgh: William Blackwood & Sons. 1888. 2 volumes. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/57168 https://archive.org/details/cu31924011921420

GODKIN, EDWIN LAWRENCE
   History of Hungary and the Magyars.
   London: Cassell & Company. 1858.
   https://archive.org/details/historyofhungary00godkiala/page/n5/mode/2up
   https://archive.org/details/historyhungarya00godkgoog

GÖRGEI, ARTHUR.
   My life and acts in Hungary, 1848-9 (1851); translated.
   London: D. Bogue.
   New York: Harper & Brothers.
   https://archive.org/details/mylifeactsinhung00grrich

HOFER, ANDREW,
   Memoirs of the life of: containing an account of the
   transactions in the Tyrol, 1809: [translated] from the German,
   by C. H. Hall.
   London: John Murray. 1820.
   https://archive.org/details/memoirslifeandr00unkngoog

KAY, DAVID.
   Home rule in Austria-Hungary.
   (Nineteenth Century, 19: 41. 1886.)
   https://archive.org/details/austriahungary00kayd

KLAPKA, General GEORGE.
   Memoirs of the war of independence in Hungary:
   translated by O. Wenckstern.
   London: C. Gilpin. 1850. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/memoirswarindep00wencgoog
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/memoirswarindep01klapgoog

MAURICE, C. EDMUND. Revolutionary movement of 1848-9 in Italy, Austria-Hungary, and Germany. London: George Bell & Sons. 1887. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/39540 https://archive.org/details/revolutionarymo00maurgoog/page/n16/mode/2up https://archive.org/details/revolutionarymo00unkngoog https://archive.org/details/therevolutionary39540gut https://archive.org/details/revolutionarymov00maur

PAGET, JOHN.
   Travels in Hungary and Transylvania (1839).
   London: John Murray.
   Philadelphia: Lea &: Blanchard. 1850. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/dli.granth.36331/page/n5/mode/2up
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/agw0321.0001.001.umich.edu/page/II/mode/2up
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/hungarytransylva02pageuoft/page/n7/mode/2up
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/agw0321.0002.001.umich.edu/page/n9/mode/2up

PARDOE, Miss JULIA.
   The city of the Magyar, or Hungary and her institutions in 1839-40.
   London: G. Virtue. 1840. 3 volumes.
   https://books.google.com/books/about/The_City_of_the_Magyar.html?id=S-gDAAAAQAAJ

PATON, A. A.
   Highlands and islands of the Adriatic.
   London: Chapman & Hall. 1849. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/highlandsislands00pato/page/n7/mode/2up
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_dzbNcsnbcOYC

PATTERSON, ARTHUR J.
   The Magyars: their country and institutions.
   London: Smith, Elder & Company. 1869. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/magyarstheircou06johngoog
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/magyarstheircou01pattgoog/page/n6/mode/2up

PLANTA, JOSEPH.
   History of the Helvetic confederacy.
   London. 1800. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyofhelveti01planuoft
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyhelvetic02plangoog
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyhelvetic00plangoog

STILES, WILLIAM. H.
   Austria in 1848-49.
   New York: Harper & Brothers. 1852-3. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/cu31924088020130
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/cu31924088020148

SZABAD, EMERIC.
   Hungary, past and present.
   Edinburgh: A. & C. Black. 1854.
   https://archive.org/details/hungarypastandp00szabgoog/page/n4/mode/2up

VÁMBÉRY, ARMINIUS, and LOUIS HEILPRIN. The story of Hungary (Story of the nations). New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1886. London: T. F. Unwin. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/50038 https://archive.org/details/storyhungary00vmgoog

AUSTRIA AND ITALY.

ARRIVABENE, Count CHARLES.
   Italy under Victor Emmanuel.
   London: Hurst & Blackett. 1862. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/italyundervicto02arrigoog
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/italyundervicto01arrigoog

GARIBALDI, GIUSEPPE.
   Autobiography: translated by A. Werner,
   with a supplement by Jessie White Mario.
   London: Walter Smith & Innes. 1889. 3 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/autobiography01gariuoft
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/autobiographygi00garigoog
   (Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/autobiographygi02garigoog

MAZADE, CHARLES DE.
   Life of Count Cavour.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1877.
   https://archive.org/details/lifeofcountcavou00mazarich

O'CLERY, PATRICK KEYES (The Chevalier O'Clery).
   The history of the Italian revolution: 1st period, 1796-1849.
   London: R. Washbourne. 1875.
   https://archive.org/details/historyitalianr00oclgoog/page/n8/mode/2up

   The making of Italy.
   London: Kegan, Paul, Trench &: Company. 1892.
   https://archive.org/details/makingofitaly18500oclerich
   https://archive.org/details/makingitaly00oclgoog
   https://archive.org/details/makingofitaly0000ocle/page/n5/mode/2up
   https://archive.org/details/makingitaly01oclgoog

PROBYN, JOHN W.
   Italy, 1815-1890.
   London: Cassell & Company. 1891.
   https://archive.org/details/italyfromfallofn00probuoft
   https://archive.org/details/italyfromfallna00probgoog
   https://archive.org/details/italyfromfallna01probgoog/italyfromfallna01probgoog

THAYER, WILLIAM ROSCOE.
   The dawn of Italian Independence, 1814-1849.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Company. 1893. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/dawnofitalianind01thayiala
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/dawnofitalianind02thayuoft
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/cu31924082152400

WRIGHTSON, RICHARD HEBER A history of modern Italy [1800-50]. London: Richard Bentley. 1855. https://archive.org/details/dli.ministry.14113 https://archive.org/details/ahistorymoderni00wriggoog

AUSTRIA AND GERMANY.

CHESNEY, C. C.
The campaign [of 1866] in western Germany.
(Blackwood's Magazine, 101: 68. 1867.)

DICEY, EDWARD.
   The battlefields of 1866.
   London: Tinsley Brothers. 1866.
   https://archive.org/details/battlefields00dicegoog

DICEY, EDWARD T.
The campaign [of 1866] in Italy.
(Macmillan's Magazine, 14: 241. 1866.)

GERMANIC CONFEDERATION and the Austrian empire, The.
(Quarterly Review, 84: 425. 1849.)

HOZIER, H. M.
   The seven weeks' war [1866].
   London: Macmillan & Company. 1867. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.238477
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.45879

LOWE, CHARLES.
   Prince Bismarck; an historical biography.
   London: Cassell & Company. 1885. 2 volumes.
   https://archive.org/details/princebismarkhis00lowe
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/princebismarckhi01loweiala
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/princebismarcka01lowegoog
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/princebismarcka02lowegoog

MALET, Sir ALEXANDER.
   The overthrow of the Germanic confederation. 1866.
   London: Longmans, Green & Company. 1870.
   https://archive.org/details/dli.granth.77288/page/iii/mode/2up

MALLESON, Colonel. G. B.
   Battle-fields of Germany.
   London: W. H. Allen & Company. 1884.
   https://archive.org/details/battlefieldsofge00malluoft

   The refounding of the German empire. 1848-71.
   London: Seeley & Company. 1893.
   https://archive.org/details/refoundingofgerm00mall

SIMON, EDOUARD.
   The emperor William and his reign:
   from the French.
   London: Remington & Company. 1886. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/emperorwilliama00simogoog
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/emperorwilliama01simogoog

SYBEL, HEINRICH VON.
   The founding of the German empire by William I.;
   based chiefly upon Prussian state documents:
   translated by M. L. Perrin and G. Bradford, Jr.
   New York: T. Y. Crowell & Company. 1890-1. 5 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/foundingofgerman01sybe
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/foundingofgerman02sybe
   (Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/foundingofgerman03sybe
   (Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/foundingofgerman04sybe
   (Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/foundingofgerman05sybe
   (Volume 6) https://archive.org/details/foundingofgerman06sybe

AUSTRIA AND THE SOUTHEASTERN STATES.

BOURCHIER, John David
The sentinel of the Balkans.
(Fortnightly Review., 52: 806. 1889.)

CAILLARD, VINCENT.
The Bulgarian imbroglio.
(Fortnightly Review, 44: 740. 1885.)

FREEMAN; EDWARD A.
The house of Habsburg in south-eastern Europe.
(Fortnightly Review., 51: 839. 1889.)

The position of the Austrian power in south-eastern Europe.
(Contemporary Review., 41: 727. 1882.)

THE RECONSTRUCTED EMPIRE: ITS REFORMS AND POLICY.

BEUST, FRIEDRICH F. Count VON.
   Memoirs [1830-1885].
   London: Remington & Company. 2 volumes.
   (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.92139
   (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/memoirsfriedric00beusgoog

BOURCHIER, J. D.
The heritage of the Hapsburgs.
(Fortnightly Review, 51: 377. 1889.)

DILKE, Sir CHARLES W.
   Position of European politics, 1887.
   London: Chapman & Hall. 1887.
   https://archive.org/details/dli.granth.91722

FOREIGN POLICY AND INTERNAL ADMINISTRATION OF THE AUSTRIAN
EMPIRE.
(Foreign Quarterly Review, 18: 257. 1837.)

LIST OF MAPS.

Maps of Germany, A. D. 1815 and 1866;
of the Netherlands, 1880-1889; and of the Zollverein,
To follow page 1540

LOGICAL OUTLINES, IN COLORS.

CHRONOLOGICAL TABLES.

"When the Spaniards had conquered and pillaged the civilized empires on the table lands of Mexico, Bogota, and Peru, they began to look round for new scenes of conquest, new sources of wealth; the wildest rumours were received as facts, and the forests and savannas, extending for thousands of square miles to the eastward of the cordilleras of the Andes, were covered, in imagination, with populous kingdoms, and cities filled with gold. The story of El Dorado, of a priest or king smeared with oil and then coated with gold dust, probably originated in a custom which prevailed among the civilized Indians of the plateau of Bogota; but El Dorado was placed, by the credulous adventurers, in a golden city amidst the impenetrable forests of the centre of South America, and, as search after search failed, his position was moved further and further to the eastward, in the direction of Guiana. El Dorado, the phantom god of gold and silver, appeared in many forms. … The settlers at Quito and in Northern Peru talked of the golden empire of the Omaguas, while those in Cuzco and Charcas dreamt of the wealthy cities of Paytiti and Enim, on the banks of a lake far away, to the eastward of the Andes. These romantic fables, so firmly believed in those old days led to the exploration of vast tracts of country, by the fearless adventurers of the sixteenth century, portions of which have never been traversed since, even to this day. The most famous searches after El Dorado were undertaken from the coast of Venezuela, and the most daring leaders of these wild adventures were German knights."

      C. R. Markham,
      Introduction to Simon's Account of the
      Expedition of Ursua and Aguirre
      (Hakluyt Society 1861).

"There were, along the whole coast of the Spanish Main, rumours of an inland country which abounded with gold. These rumours undoubtedly related to the kingdoms of Bogota and Tunja, now the Nuevo Reyno de Granada. Belalcazar, who was in quest of this country from Quito, Federman, who came from Venezuela, and Gonzalo Ximenez de Quesada, who sought it by way of the River Madalena, and who effected its conquest, met here. But in these countries also there were rumours of a rich land at a distance; similar accounts prevailed in Peru; in Peru they related to the Nuevo Reyno, there they related to Peru; and thus adventurers from both sides were allured to continue the pursuit after the game was taken. An imaginary kingdom was soon shaped out as the object of their quest, and stories concerning it were not more easily invented than believed. It was said that a younger brother of Atabalipa fled, after the destruction of the Incas, took with him the main part of their treasures, and founded a greater empire than that of which his family had been deprived. Sometimes the imaginary Emperor was called the Great Paytite, sometimes the Great Moxo, sometimes the Enim or Great Paru. An impostor at Lima affirmed that he had been in his capital, the city of Manoa, where not fewer than 3,000 workmen were employed in the silversmiths' street; he even produced a map of the country, in which he had marked a hill of gold, another of silver, and a third of salt. … This imaginary kingdom obtained the name of El Dorado from the fashion of its Lord, which has the merit of being in savage costume. His body was anointed every morning with a certain fragrant gum of great price, and gold dust was then blown upon him, through a tube, till he was covered with it: the whole was washed off at night. This the barbarian thought a more magnificent and costly attire than could be afforded by any other potentate in the world, and hence the Spaniards called him El Dorado, or the Gilded One. A history of all the expeditions which were undertaken for the conquest of his kingdom would form a volume not less interesting than extraordinary."

The most tragical and thrilling of the stories of the seekers after El Dorado is that which Mr. Markham introduces in the quotation above, and which Southey has told with full details in The Expedition of Orsua; and the Crimes of Aguirre. The most famous of the expeditions were those in which Sir Walter Raleigh engaged, and two of which he personally led—in 1595, and in 1617-18. Released from his long imprisonment in the Tower to undertake the latter, he returned from it, broken and shamed, to be sent to the scaffold as a victim sacrificed to the malignant resentment of Spain. How far Raleigh shared in the delusion of his age respecting El Dorado, and how far he made use of it merely to promote a great scheme for the "expansion of England," are questions that will probably remain forever in dispute.

      Sir Walter Raleigh,
      Discoverie of the Large, Rich and
      Beautiful Empire of Guiana
      (Hakluyt Society 1848).

ELECTORAL COLLEGE, The Germanic:
Its rise and constitution.
Its secularization and extinction.

ELECTRICAL DISCOVERY AND INVENTION.

   "Electricity, through its etymology at least, traces its
   lineage back to Homeric times. In the Odyssey reference is
   made to the 'necklace hung with bits of amber' presented by
   the Phœnician traders to the Queen of Syra. Amber was highly
   prized by the ancients, having been extensively used as an
   ornamental gem, and many curious theories were suggested as to
   its origin. Some of these, although mythical, were singularly
   near the truth, and it is an interesting coincidence that in
   the well-known myth concerning the ill-fated and rash youth
   who so narrowly escaped wrecking the solar chariot and the
   terrestrial sphere, amber, the first known source of
   electricity, and the thunder-bolts of Jupiter are linked
   together. It is not unlikely that this substance was indebted,
   for some of the romance that clung to it through ages, to the
   fact that when rubbed it attracts light bodies. This property
   it was known to possess in the earliest times: it is the one
   single experiment in electricity which has come down to us
   from the remotest antiquity. … The power of certain fishes,
   notably what is known as the 'torpedo,' to produce
   electricity, was known at an early period, and was commented
   on by Pliny and Aristotle.
{770}
   … Up to the sixteenth [century] there seems to have been no
   attempt to study electrical phenomena in a really scientific
   manner. Isolated facts which almost thrust themselves upon
   observers, were noted, and, in common with a host of other
   natural phenomena, were permitted to stand alone, with no
   attempt at classification, generalization, or examination
   through experiment. … Dr. Gilbert can justly be called the
   creator of the science of electricity and magnetism. His
   experiments were prodigious in number, and many of his
   conclusions were correct and lasting. To him we are indebted
   for the name 'electricity,' which he bestowed upon the power
   or property which amber exhibited in attracting light bodies,
   borrowing the name from the substance itself, in order to
   define one of its attributes. … This application of
   experiment to the study of electricity, begun by Gilbert three
   hundred years ago, was industriously pursued by those who came
   after him, and the next two centuries witnessed a rapid
   development of science. Among the earlier students of this
   period were the English philosopher, Robert Boyle, and the
   celebrated burgomaster of Magdeburg, Otto von Guericke. The
   latter first noted the sound and light accompanying electrical
   excitation. These were afterwards independently discovered by
   Dr. Wall, an Englishman, who made the somewhat prophetic
   observation, 'This light and crackling seems in some degree to
   represent thunder and lightning.' Sir Isaac Newton made a few
   experiments in electricity, which he exhibited to the Royal
   Society. … Francis Hawksbee was an active and useful
   contributor to experimental investigation, and he also called
   attention to the resemblance between the electric spark and
   lightning. The most ardent student of electricity in the early
   years of the eighteenth century was Stephen Gray. He performed
   a multitude of experiments, nearly all of which added
   something to the rapidly accumulating stock of knowledge, but
   doubtless his most important contribution was his discovery of
   the distinction between conductors and non-conductors. …
   Some of Gray's papers fell into the hands of Dufay, an officer
   of the French army, who, after several years' service, had
   resigned his post to devote himself to scientific pursuits.
   … His most important discovery was the existence of two
   distinct species of electricity, which he named 'vitreous' and
   'resinous.' … A very important advance was made in 1745 in
   the invention of the Leyden jar or phial. As has so many times
   happened in the history of scientific discovery, it seems
   tolerably certain that this interesting device was hit upon by
   at least three persons, working independently of each other.
   One Cuneus, a monk named Kleist, and Professor Muschenbroeck,
   of Leyden, are all accredited with the discovery. … Sir
   William Watson perfected it by adding the outside metallic
   coating, and was by its aid enabled to fire gunpowder and
   other inflammables."

ELECTRICITY: A. D. 1745-1747.
Franklin's identification of Electricity with Lightning.

"In 1745 Mr. Peter Collinson of the Royal Society sent a [Leyden] jar to the Library Society of Philadelphia, with instructions how to use it. This fell into the hands of Benjamin Franklin, who at once began a series of electrical experiments. On March 28, 1747, Franklin began his famous letters to Collinson. … In these letters he propounded the single-fluid theory of electricity, and referred all electric phenomena to its accumulation in bodies in quantities more than their natural share, or to its being withdrawn from them so as to leave them minus their proper portion." Meantime, numerous experiments with the Leyden jar had convinced Franklin of the identity of lightning and electricity, and he set about the demonstration of the fact. "The account given by Dr. Stuber of Philadelphia, an intimate personal friend of Franklin, and published in one of the earliest editions of the works of the great philosopher, is as follows:—'The plan which he had originally proposed was to erect on some high tower, or other elevated place, a sentry-box, from which should rise a pointed iron rod, insulated by being fixed in a cake of resin. Electrified clouds passing over this would, he conceived, impart to it a portion of their electricity, which would be rendered evident to the senses by sparks being emitted when a key, a knuckle, or other conductor was presented to it. Philadelphia at this time offered no opportunity of trying an experiment of this kind. Whilst Franklin was waiting for the erection of a spire, it occurred to him that he might have more ready access to the region of clouds by means of a common kite. He prepared one by attaching two cross-sticks to a silk handkerchief, which would not suffer so much from the rain as paper. To his upright stick was fixed an iron point. The string was, as usual, of hemp, except the lower end, which was silk. Where the hempen string terminated, a key was fastened. With this apparatus, on the appearance of a thunder-gust approaching, he went into the common, accompanied by his son, to whom alone he communicated his intentions, well knowing the ridicule which, too generally for the interest of science, awaits unsuccessful experiments in philosophy. He placed himself under a shed to avoid the rain. His kite was raised. A thunder-cloud passed over it. No signs of electricity appeared. He almost despaired of success, when suddenly he observed the loose fibres of his string move toward an erect position. He now pressed his knuckle to the key, and received a strong spark. How exquisite must his sensations have been at this moment! On his experiment depended the fate of his theory. Doubt and despair had begun to prevail, when the fact was ascertained in so clear a manner, that even the most incredulous could no longer withhold their assent. Repeated sparks were drawn from the key, a phial was charged, a shock given, and all the experiments made which are usually performed with electricity.' And thus the identity of lightning and electricity was proved. … Franklin's proposition to erect lightning rods which would convey the lightning to the ground, and so protect the buildings to which they were attached, found abundant opponents. … Nevertheless, public opinion became settled … that they did protect buildings. … Then the philosophers raised a new controversy as to whether the conductors should be blunt or pointed; Franklin, Cavendish, and Watson advocating points, and Wilson blunt ends. … The logic of experiment, however, showed the advantage of pointed conductors; and people persisted then in preferring them, as they have done ever since."

"The first actual suggestion of an electric telegraph was made in an anonymous letter published in the Scots Magazine at Edinburgh, February 17th, 1753. The letter is initialed 'C. M.,' and many attempts have been made to discover the author's identity. … The suggestions made in this letter were that a set of twenty-six wires should be stretched upon insulated supports between the two places which it was desired to put in connection, and at each end of every wire a metallic ball was to be suspended, having under it a letter of the alphabet inscribed upon a piece of paper. … The message was to be read off at the receiving station by observing the letters which were successively attracted by their corresponding balls, as soon as the wires attached to the latter received a charge from the distant conductor. In 1787 Monsieur Lomond, of Paris, made the very important step of reducing the twenty-six wires to one, and indicating the different letters by various combinations of simple movements of an indicator, consisting of a pith-ball suspended by means of a thread from a conductor in contact with the wire. … In the year 1790 Chappe, the inventor of the semaphore, or optico-mechanical telegraph, which was in practical use previous to the introduction of the electric telegraph, devised a means of communication, consisting of two clocks regulated so that the second hands moved in unison, and pointed at the same instant to the same figures. … In the early form of the apparatus, the exact moment at which the observer at the receiving station should read off the figure to which the hand pointed was indicated by means of a sound signal produced by the primitive method of striking a copper stew pan, but the inventor soon adopted the plan of giving electrical signals instead of sound signals. … In 1795 Don Francisco Salva … suggested … that instead of twenty-six wires being used, one for each letter, six or eight wires only should be employed, each charged by a Leyden jar, and that different letters should be formed by means of various combinations of signals from these. … Mr. (afterwards Sir Francis) Ronalds … took up the subject of telegraphy in the year 1816, and published an account of his experiments in 1823," based on the same idea as that of Chappe. … "Ronalds drew up a sort of telegraphic code by which words, and sometimes even complete sentences, could be transmitted by only three discharges. … Ronalds completely proved the practicability of his plan, not only on [a] short underground line, …. but also upon an overhead line some eight miles in length, constructed by carrying a telegraph wire backwards and forwards over a wooden frame-work erected in his garden at Hammersmith. … The first attempt to employ voltaic electricity in telegraphy was made by Don Francisco Salva, whose frictional telegraph has already been referred to. On the 14th of May, 1800, Salva read a paper on 'Galvanism and its application to Telegraphy' before the Academy of Sciences at Barcelona, in which he described a number of experiments which he had made in telegraphing over a line some 310 metres in length. … A few years later he applied the then recent discovery of the Voltaic pile to the same purpose, the liberation of bubbles of gas by the decomposition of water at the receiving station being the method adopted for indicating the passage of the signals. A telegraph of a very similar character was devised by Sömmering, and described in a paper communicated by the inventor to the Munich Academy of Sciences in 1809. Sömmering used a set of thirty-five wires corresponding to the twenty-five letters of the German alphabet and the ten numerals. … Oersted's discovery of the action of the electric current upon a suspended magnetic needle provided a new and much more hopeful method of applying the electric current to telegraphy. The great French astronomer Laplace appears to have been the first to suggest this application of Oersted's discovery, and he was followed shortly afterwards by Ampere, who in the year 1820 read a paper before the Paris Academy of Sciences."

"The fundamental experiment which led to the discovery of dynamical electricity [1786] is due to Galvani, professor of anatomy in Bologna. Occupied with investigations on the influence of electricity on the nervous excitability of animals, and especially of the frog, he observed that when the lumbar nerves of a dead frog were connected with the crural muscles by a metallic circuit, the latter became briskly contracted. … Galvani had some time before observed that the electricity of machines produced in dead frogs analogous contractions, and he attributed the phenomena first described to an electricity inherent in the animal. He assumed that this electricity, which he called vital fluid, passed from the nerves to the muscles by the metallic arc, and was thus the cause of contraction. This theory met with great support, especially among physiologists, but it was not without opponents. The most considerable of these was Alexander Volta, professor of physics in Pavia. Galvani's attention had been exclusively devoted to the nerves and muscles of the frog; Volta's was directed upon the connecting metal. Resting on the observation, which Galvani had also made, that the contraction is more energetic when the connecting arc is composed of two metals than where there is only one, Volta attributed to the metals the active part in the phenomenon of contraction. He assumed that the disengagement of electricity was due to their contact, and that the animal parts only officiated as conductors, and at the same time as a very sensitive electroscope. By means of the then recently invented electroscope, Volta devised several modes of showing the disengagement of electricity on the contact of metals. … A memorable controversy arose between Galvani and Volta. The latter was led to give greater extension to his contact theory, and propounded the principle that when two heterogeneous substances are placed in contact, one of them always assumes the positive and the other the negative electrical condition. In this form Volta's theory obtained the assent of the principal philosophers of his time."

A. Ganot, Elementary Treatise on Physics; translated by Atkinson, book 10, chapter 1.

Volta's theory, however, though somewhat misleading, did not prevent his making what was probably the greatest step in the science up to this time, in the invention (about 1800) of the Voltaic pile, the first generator of electrical energy by chemical means, and the forerunner of the vast number of types of the modern "battery."

"The earliest instance of applying Electricity to the production of light was in 1810, by Sir Humphrey Davy, who found that when the points of two carbon rods whose other ends were connected by wires with a powerful primary battery were brought into contact, and then drawn a little way apart, the Electric current still continued to jump across the gap, forming what is now termed an Electric Arc. … Various contrivances have been devised for automatically regulating the position of the two carbons. As early as 1847, a lamp was patented by Staite, in which the carbon rods were fed together by clockwork. … Similar devices were produced by Foucault and others, but the first really successful arc lamp was Serrin's, patented in 1857, which has not only itself survived until the present day, but has had its main features reproduced in many other lamps. … The Jablochkoff Candle (1876), in which the arc was formed between the ends of a pair of carbon rods placed side by side, and separated by a layer of insulating material, which slowly consumed as the carbons burnt down, did good service in accustoming the public to the new illuminant. Since then the inventions by Brush, Thomson-Houston, and others have done much to bring about its adoption for lighting large rooms, streets, and spaces out of doors."

J. B. Verity, Electricity up to Date for Light, Power, and Traction, chapter 3.

ELECTRICITY: A. D. 1820-1825.
Oersted, Ampere, and the discovery of the Electro-Magnet.

"There is little chance … that the discoverer of the magnet, or the discoverer and inventor of the magnetic needle, will ever be known by name, or that even the locality and date of the discovery will ever be determined [see COMPASS]. … The magnet and magnetism received their first scientific treatment at the hands of Dr. Gilbert. During the two centuries succeeding the publication of his work, the science of magnetism was much cultivated. … The development of the science went along parallel with that of the science of electricity … although the latter was more fruitful in novel discoveries and unexpected applications than the former. It is not to be imagined that the many close resemblances of the two classes of phenomena were allowed to pass unnoticed. … There was enough resemblance to suggest an intimate relation; and the connecting link was sought for by many eminent philosophers during the last years of the eighteenth and the earlier years of the present century."

"The effect which an electric current, flowing in a wire, can exercise upon a neighbouring compass needle was discovered by Oersted in 1820. This first announcement of the possession of magnetic properties by an electric current was followed speedily by the researches of Ampere, Arago, Davy, and by the devices of several other experimenters, including De la Rive's floating battery and coil, Schweigger's multiplier, Cumming's galvanometer, Faraday's apparatus for rotation of a permanent magnet, Marsh's vibrating pendulum and Barlow's rotating star-wheel. But it was not until 1825 that the electromagnet was invented. Arago announced, on 25th September 1820, that a copper wire uniting the poles of a voltaic cell, and consequently traversed by an electric current, could attract iron filings to itself laterally. In the same communication he described how he had succeeded in communicating permanent magnetism to steel needles laid at right angles to the copper wire, and how, on showing this experiment to Ampere, the latter had suggested that the magnetizing action would be more intense if for the straight copper wire there were substituted one wrapped in a helix, in the centre of which the steel needle might be placed. This suggestion was at once carried out by the two philosophers. 'A copper wire wound in a helix was terminated by two rectilinear portions which could be adapted, at will, to the opposite poles of a powerful horizontal voltaic pile; a steel needle wrapped up in paper was introduced into the helix.' 'Now, after some minutes' sojourn in the helix, the steel needle had received a sufficiently strong dose of magnetism.' Arago then wound upon a little glass tube some short helices, each about 2¼ inches long, coiled alternately right-handedly and left-handedly, and found that on introducing into the glass tube a steel wire, he was able to produce 'consequent poles' at the places where the winding was reversed. Ampère, on October 23rd, 1820, read a memoir, claiming that these facts confirmed his theory of magnetic actions. Davy had, also, in 1820, surrounded with temporary coils of wire the steel needles upon which he was experimenting, and had shown that the flow of electricity around the coil could confer magnetic power upon the steel needles. … The electromagnet, in the form which can first claim recognition … was devised by William Sturgeon, and is described by him in the paper which he contributed to the Society of Arts in 1825."

   "The European philosophers kept on groping. At the end of five
   years [after Oersted's discovery], one of them reached an
   obstacle which he made up his mind was so entirely
   insurmountable, that it rendered the electric telegraph an
   impossibility for all future time. This was [1825] Mr. Peter
   Barlow, fellow of the Royal Society, who had encountered the
   question whether the lengthening of the conducting wire would
   produce any effect in diminishing the energy of the current
   transmitted, and had undertaken to resolve the problem. … 'I
   found [he said] such a considerable diminution with only 200
   feet of wire as at once to convince me of the impracticability
   of the scheme.' … The year following the announcement of
   Barlow's conclusions, a young graduate of the Albany (N. Y.)
   Academy—by name Joseph Henry—was appointed to the
   professorship of mathematics in that institution. Henry there
   began the series of scientific investigations which is now
   historic. … Up to that time, electro-magnets had been made
   with a single coil of naked wire wound spirally around the
   core, with large intervals between the strands. The core was
   insulated as a whole: the wire was not insulated at all.
   Professor Schweigger, who had previously invented the
   multiplying galvanometer, had covered his wires with silk.
   Henry followed this idea, and, instead of a single coil of
   wire, used several. … Barlow had said that the gentle
   current of the galvanic battery became so weakened, after
   traversing 200 feet of wire, that it was idle to consider the
   possibility of making it pass over even a mile of conductor
   and then affect a magnet.
{773}
   Henry's reply was to point out that the trouble lay in the way
   Barlow's magnet was made. … Make the magnet so that the
   diminished current will exercise its full effect. Instead of
   using one short coil, through which the current can easily
   slip, and do nothing, make a coil of many turns; that
   increases the magnetic field: make it of fine wire, and of
   higher resistance. And then, to prove the truth of his
   discovery, Henry put up the first electro-magnetic telegraph
   ever constructed. In the academy at Albany, in 1831, he
   suspended 1,060 feet of bell-wire, with a battery at one end
   and one of his magnets at the other; and he made the magnet
   attract and release its armature. The armature struck a bell,
   and so made the signals. Annihilating distance in this way was
   only one part of Henry's discovery. He had also found, that,
   to obtain the greatest dynamic effect close at hand, the
   battery should be composed of a very few cells of large
   surface, combined with a coil or coils of short coarse wire
   around the magnet,—conditions just the reverse of those
   necessary when the magnet was to be worked at a distance. Now,
   he argued, suppose the magnet with the coarse short coil, and
   the large-surface battery, be put at the receiving station;
   and the current coming over the line be used simply to make
   and break the circuit of that local battery. … This is the
   principle of the telegraphic 'relay.' In 1835 Henry worked a
   telegraph-line in that way at Princeton. And thus the
   electro-magnetic telegraph was completely invented and
   demonstrated. There was nothing left to do, but to put up the
   posts, string the lines, and attach the instruments."

"At last we leave the territory of theory and experiment and come to that of practice. 'The merit of inventing the modern telegraph, and applying it on a large scale for public use, is, beyond all question, due to Professor Morse of the United States.' So writes Sir David Brewster, and the best authorities on the question substantially agree with him. … Leaving for future consideration Morse's telegraph, which was not introduced until five years after the time when he was impressed with the notion of its feasibility, we may mention the telegraph of Gauss and Weber of Göttingen. In 1833, they erected a telegraphic wire between the Astronomical and Magnetical Observatory of Göttingen, and the Physical Cabinet of the University, for the purpose of carrying intelligence from the one locality to the other. To these great philosophers, however, rather the theory than the practice of Electric Telegraphy was indebted. Their apparatus was so improved as to be almost a new invention by Steinheil of Munich, who, in 1837 … succeeded in sending a current from one end to the other of a wire 36,000 feet in length, the action of which caused two needles to vibrate from side to side, and strike a bell at each movement. To Steinheil the honour is due of having discovered the important and extraordinary fact that the earth might be used as a part of the circuit of an electric current. The introduction of the Electric Telegraph into England dates from the same year as that in which Steinheil's experiments took place. William Fothergill Cooke, a gentleman who held a commission in the Indian army, returned from India on leave of absence, and afterwards, because of his bad health, resigned his commission, and went to Heidelberg to study anatomy. In 1836, Professor Mönke, of Heidelberg, exhibited an electro-telegraphic experiment, 'in which electric currents, passing along a conducting wire, conveyed signals to a distant station by the deflexion of a magnetic needle enclosed in Schweigger's galvanometer or multiplier.' … Cooke was so struck with this experiment, that he immediately resolved to apply it to purposes of higher utility than the illustration of a lecture. … In a short time he produced two telegraphs of different construction. When his plans were completed, he came to England, and in February, 1837, having consulted Faraday and Dr. Roget on the construction of the electric-magnet employed in a part of his apparatus, the latter gentleman advised him to apply to Professor Wheatstone. … The result of the meeting of Cooke and Wheatstone was that they resolved to unite their several discoveries; and in the month of May 1837, they took out their first patent 'for improvements in giving signals and sounding alarms in distant places by means of electric currents transmitted through metallic circuits.' … By-and-by, as might probably have been anticipated, difficulties arose between Cooke and Wheatstone, as to whom the main credit of introducing the Electric Telegraph into England was due. Mr. Cooke accused Wheatstone (with a certain amount of justice, it should seem) of entirely ignoring his claims; and in doing so Mr. Cooke appears to have rather exaggerated his own services. Most will readily agree to the wise words of Mr. Sabine: "It was once a popular fallacy in England that Messrs. Cooke and Wheatstone were the original inventors of the Electric Telegraph. The Electric Telegraph had, properly speaking, no inventor; it grew up as we have seen little by little."

   "In the latter part of the year 1832, Samuel F. B. Morse, an
   American artist, while on a voyage from France to the United
   States, conceived the idea of an electromagnetic telegraph
   which should consist of the following parts, viz: A single
   circuit of conductors from some suitable generator of
   electricity; a system of signs, consisting of dots or points
   and spaces to represent numerals; a method of causing the
   electricity to mark or imprint these signs upon a strip or
   ribbon of paper by the mechanical action of an electro-magnet
   operating upon the paper by means of a lever, armed at one end
   with a pen or pencil; and a method of moving the paper ribbon
   at a uniform rate by means of clock-work to receive the
   characters. … In the autumn of the year 1835 he constructed
   the first rude working model of his invention. … The first
   public exhibition … was on the 2d of September, 1837, on
   which occasion the marking was successfully effected through
   one third of a mile of wire. Immediately afterwards a
   recording instrument was constructed … which was
   subsequently employed upon the first experimental line between
   Washington and Baltimore. This line was constructed in 1843-44
   under an appropriation by Congress, and was completed by May
   of the latter year. On the 27th of that month the first
   despatch was transmitted from Washington to Baltimore. … The
   experimental line was originally constructed with two wires,
   as Morse was not at that time acquainted with the discovery of
   Steinheil, that the earth might be used to complete the circuit.
{774}
   Accident, however, soon demonstrated this fact. … The
   following year (1845) telegraph lines began to be built over
   other routes. … In October, 1851, a convention of deputies
   from the German States of Austria, Prussia, Bavaria,
   Würtemberg and Saxony, met at Vienna, for the purpose of
   establishing a common and uniform telegraphic system, under
   the name of the German-Austrian Telegraph Union. The various
   systems of telegraphy then in use were subjected to the most
   thorough examination and discussion. The convention decided
   with great unanimity that the Morse system was practically far
   superior to all others, and it was accordingly adopted. Prof.
   Steinheil, although himself … the inventor of a telegraphic
   system, with a magnanimity that does him high honor, strongly
   urged upon the convention the adoption of the American
   system." … The first of the printing telegraphs was patented
   in the United States by Royal E. House, in 1846. The Hughes
   printing telegraph, a remarkable piece of mechanism, was
   patented by David E. Hughes, of Kentucky, in 1855. A system
   known as the automatic method, in which the signals
   representing letters are transmitted over the line through the
   instrumentality of mechanism, was originated by Alexander Bain
   of Edinburgh, whose first patents were taken out in 1846. An
   autographic telegraph, transmitting despatches in the
   reproduced hand-writing of the sender, was brought out in
   1850, by F. C. Bakewell, of London. The same result was
   afterwards accomplished with variations of method by Charles
   Cros, of Paris, Abbé Caseli, of Florence, and others; but none
   of these inventions has been extensively used. "The
   possibility of making use of a single wire for the
   simultaneous transmission of two or more communications seems
   to have first suggested itself to Moses G. Farmer, of Boston,
   about the year 1852." The problem was first solved with
   partial success by Dr. Gintl, on the line between Prague and
   Vienna, in 1853, but more perfectly by Carl Frischen, of
   Hanover, in the following year. Other inventors followed in
   the same field, among them Thomas A. Edison, of New Jersey,
   who was led by his experiments finally, in 1874 to devise a
   system "which was destined to furnish the basis of the first
   practical solution of the curious and interesting problem of
   quadruplex telegraphy."

      G. B. Prescott,
      Electricity and the Electric Telegraph,
      chapter 29-40.

"The discovery of induction by Faraday, in 1831, gave rise to the construction of magneto-electro machines. The first of such machines that was ever made was probably a machine that never came into practical use, the description of which was given in a letter, signed 'P. M.,' and directed to Faraday, published in the Philosophical Magazine of 2nd August, 1832. We learn from this description that the essential parts of this machine were six horse-shoe magnets attached to a disc, which rotated in front of six coils of wire wound on bobbins." Sept. 3rd, 1832, Pixii constructed a machine in which a single horse-shoe magnet was made to rotate before two soft iron cores, wound with wire. In this machine he introduced the commutator, an essential element in all modern continuous current machines. "Almost at the same time, Ritchie, Saxton, and Clarke constructed similar machines. Clarke's is the best known, and is still popular in the small and portable 'medical' machines so commonly sold. … A larger machine [was] constructed by Stöhrer (1843), on the same plan as Clarke's, but with six coils instead of two, and three compound magnets instead of one. … The machines, constructed by Nollet (1849) and Shepard (1856) had still more magnets and coils. Shepard's machine was modified by Van Malderen, and was called the Alliance machine. … Dr. Werner Siemens, while considering how the inducing effect of the magnet can be most thoroughly utilised, and how to arrange the coils in the most efficient manner for this purpose, was led in 1857 to devise the cylindrical armature. … Sinsteden in 1851 pointed out that the current of the generator may itself be utilised to excite the magnetism of the field magnets. … Wilde [in 1863] carried out this suggestion by using a small steel permanent magnet and larger electro magnets. … The next great improvement of these machines arose from the discovery of what may be called the dynamo-electric principle. This principle may be stated as follows:—For the generation of currents by magneto-electric induction it is not necessary that the machine should be furnished with permanent magnets; the residual or temporary magnetism of soft iron quickly rotating is sufficient for the purpose. … In 1867 the principle was clearly enunciated and used simultaneously, but independently, by Siemens and by Wheatstone. … It was in February, 1867, that Dr. C. W. Siemens' classical paper on the conversion of dynamical into electrical energy without the aid of permanent magnetism was read before the Royal Society. Strangely enough, the discovery of the same principle was enunciated at the same meeting of the Society by Sir Charles Wheatstone. … The starting-point of a great improvement in dynamo-electric machines, was the discovery by Pacinotti of the ring armature … in 1860. … Gramme, in 1871, modified the ring armature, and constructed the first machine, in which he made use of the Gramme ring and the dynamic principle. In 1872, Hefner-Alteneck, of the firm of Siemens and Halske, constructed a machine in which the Gramme ring is replaced by a drum armature, that is to say, by a cylinder round which wire is wound. … Either the Pacinotti-Gramme ring armature, or the Hefner-Alteneck drum armature, is now adopted by nearly all constructors of dynamo-electric machines, the parts varying of course in minor details." The history of the dynamo since has been one of a gradual perfection of parts, resulting in the production of a great number of types, which can not here even be mentioned.

   It has been known for forty years that every form of electric
   motor which operated on the principle of mutual mechanical
   force between a magnet and a conducting wire or coil could
   also be made to act as a generator of induced currents by the
   reverse operation of producing the motion mechanically. And
   when, starting from the researches of Siemens, Wilde, Nollet,
   Holmes and Gramme, the modern forms of magneto-electric and
   dynamo-electric machines began to come into commercial use, it
   was discovered that any one of the modern machines designed as
   a generator of currents constituted a far more efficient
   electric motor than any of the previous forms which had been
   designed specially as motors.
{775}
   It required no new discovery of the law of reversibility to
   enable the electrician to understand this; but to convince the
   world required actual experiment."

      A. Guillemin,
      Electricity and Magnetism,
      part 2, chapter 10, section 3.

"Thomas Davenport, a poor blacksmith of Brandon, Vt., constructed what might be termed the first electric railway. The invention was crude and of little practical value, but the idea was there. In 1835 he exhibited in Springfield, Massachusetts, a small model electric engine running upon a circular track, the circuit being furnished by primary batteries carried in the car. Three years later, Robert Davidson, of Aberdeen, Scotland, began his experiments in this direction. … He constructed quite a powerful motor, which was mounted upon a truck. Forty battery cells, carried on the car, furnished power to propel the motor. The battery elements were composed of amalgamated zinc and iron plates, the exciting liquid being dilute sulphuric acid. This locomotive was run successfully on several steam railroads in Scotland, the speed attained was four miles an hour, but this machine was afterwards destroyed by some malicious person or persons while it was being taken home to Aberdeen. In 1849 Moses Farmer exhibited an electric engine which drew a small car containing two persons. In 1851, Dr. Charles Grafton Page, of Salem, Massachusetts, perfected an electric engine of considerable power. On April 29 of that year the engine was attached to a car and a trip was made from Washington to Bladensburg, over the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad track. The highest speed attained was nineteen miles an hour. The electric power was furnished by one hundred Grove cells carried on the engine. … The same year, Thomas Hall, of Boston, Mass., built a small electric locomotive called the Volta. The current was furnished by two Grove battery cells which were conducted to the rails, thence through the wheels of the locomotive to the motor. This was the first instance of the current being supplied to the motor on a locomotive from a stationary source. It was exhibited at the Charitable Mechanics fair by him in 1860. … In 1879, Messrs. Siemen and Halske, of Berlin, constructed and operated an electric railway at the Industrial Exposition. A third rail placed in the centre of the two outer rails, supplied the current, which was taken up into the motor through a sliding contact under the locomotive. … In 1880 Thomas A. Edison constructed an experimental road near his laboratory in Menlo Park, N. J. The power from the locomotive was transferred to the car by belts running to and from the shafts of each. The current was taken from and returned through the rails. Early in the year of 1881 the Lichterfelde, Germany, electric railway was put into operation. It is a third rail system and is still running at the present time. This may be said to be the first commercial electric railway constructed. In 1883 the Daft Electric Company equipped and operated quite successfully an electric system on the Saratoga & Mt. McGregor Railroad, at Saratoga, N. Y." During the next five or six years numerous electric railroads, more or less experimental, were built." October 31, 1888, the Council Bluffs & Omaha Railway and Bridge Company was first operated by electricity, they using the Thomson-Houston system. The same year the Thomson-Houston Co. equipped the Highland Division of the Lynn & Boston Horse Railway at Lynn, Massachusetts. Horse railways now began to be equipped with electricity all over the world, and especially in the United States. In February, 1889, the Thomson-Houston Electric Co. had equipped the line from Bowdoin Square, Boston, to Harvard Square, Cambridge, of the West End Railway with electricity and operated twenty cars, since which time it has increased its electrical apparatus, until now it is the largest electric railway line in the world."

"While the arc lamp is well adapted for lighting large areas requiring a powerful, diffused light, similar to sunlight, and hence is suitable for outdoor illumination, and for workshops, stores, public buildings, and factories, especially those where colored fabrics are produced, its use in ordinary dwellings, or for a desk light in offices, is impractical, a softer, steadier, and more economical light being required. Various attempts to modify the arc-light by combining it with the incandescent were made in the earlier stages of electric lighting. … The first strictly incandescent lamp was invented in 1841 by Frederick de Molyens of Cheltenham, England, and was constructed on the simple principle of the incandescence produced by the high resistance of a platinum wire to the passage of the electric current. In 1849 Petrie employed iridium for the same purpose, also alloys of iridium and platinum, and iridium and carbon. In 1845 J. W. Starr of Cincinnati first proposed the use of carbon, and, associated with King, his English agent, produced, through the financial aid of the philanthropist Peabody, an incandescent lamp. … In all these early experiments, the battery was the source of electric supply; and the comparatively small current required for the incandescent light as compared with that required for the arc light, was an argument in favor of the former. … Still, no substantial progress was made with either system till the invention of the dynamo resulted in the practical development of both systems, that of the incandescent following that of the arc. Among the first to make incandescent lighting a practical success were Sawyer and Man of New York, and Edison. For a long time, Edison experimented with platinum, using fine platinum wire coiled into a spiral, so as to concentrate the heat, and produce incandescence; the same current producing only a red heat when the wire, whether of platinum or other metal, is stretched out. … Failing to obtain satisfactory results from platinum, Edison turned his attention to carbon, the superiority of which as an incandescent illuminant had already been demonstrated; but its rapid consumption, as shown by the Reynier and similar lamps, being unfavorable to its use as compared with the durability of platinum and iridium, the problem was, to secure the superior illumination of the carbon, and reduce or prevent its consumption. As this consumption was due chiefly to oxidation, it was questionable whether the superior illumination were not due to the same cause, and whether, if the carbon were inclosed in a glass globe, from which oxygen was eliminated, the same illumination could be obtained. {776} Another difficulty of equal magnitude was to obtain a sufficiently perfect vacuum, and maintain it in a hermetically sealed globe inclosing the carbon, and at the same time maintain electric connection with the generator through the glass by a metal conductor, subject to expansion and contraction different from that of the glass, by the change of temperature due to the passage of the electric current. Sawyer and Man attempted to solve this problem by filling the globe with nitrogen, thus preventing combustion by eliminating the oxygen. … The results obtained by this method, which at one time attracted a great deal of attention, were not sufficiently satisfactory to become practical; and Edison and others gave their preference to the vacuum method, and sought to overcome the difficulties connected with it. The invention of the mercurial air pump, with its subsequent improvements, made it possible to obtain a sufficiently perfect vacuum, and the difficulty of introducing the current into the interior of the globe was overcome by imbedding a fine platinum wire in the glass, connecting the inclosed carbon with the external circuit; the expansion and contraction of the platinum not differing sufficiently from that of the glass, in so fine a wire, as to impair the vacuum. … The carbons made by Edison under his first patent in 1879, were obtained from brown paper or cardboard. … They were very fragile and short-lived, and consequently were soon abandoned. In 1880 he patented the process which, with some modifications, he still adheres to. In this process he uses filaments of bamboo, which are taken from the interior, fibrous portion of the plant."

"Cyrus Field … established a company in America (in 1854), which … obtained the right of landing cables in Newfoundland for fifty years. Soundings were made in 1856 between Ireland and Newfoundland, showing a maximum depth of 4,400 metres. Having succeeded after several attempts in laying a cable between Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, Field founded the Atlantic Telegraph Company in England. … The length of the … cable [used] was 4,000 kilometres, and was carried by the two ships Agamemnon and Niagara. The distance between the two stations on the coasts was 2,640 kilometres. The laying of the cable commenced on the 7th of August, 1857, at Valentia (Ireland); on the third day the cable broke at a depth of 3,660 metres, and the expedition had to return. A second expedition was sent in 1858; the two ships met each other half-way, the ends of the cable were joined, and the lowering of it commenced in both directions; 149 kilometres were thus lowered, when a fault in the cable was discovered. It had, therefore, to be brought on board again, and was broken during the process. After it had been repaired, and when 476 kilometres had been already laid, another fault was discovered, which caused another breakage; this time it was impossible to repair it, and the expedition was again unsuccessful, and had to return. In spite of the repeated failures, two ships were again sent out in the same year, and this time one end of the cable was landed in Ireland, and the other at Newfoundland. The length of the sunk cable was 3,745 kilometres. Field's first telegram was sent on the 7th of August, from America to Ireland. The insulation of the cable, however, became more defective every day, and failed altogether on the 1st of September. From the experience obtained, it was concluded that it was possible to lay a trans-Atlantic cable, and the company, after consulting a number of professional men, again set to work. … The Great Eastern was employed in laying this cable. This ship, which is 211 metres long, 25 metres broad, and 16 metres in height, carried a crew of 500 men, of which 120 were electricians and engineers, 179 mechanics and stokers, and 115 sailors. The management of all affairs relating to the laying of the cable was entrusted to Canning. The coast cable was laid on the 21st of July, and the end of it was connected with the Atlantic cable on the 23rd. After 1,326 kilometres had been laid, a fault was discovered, an iron wire was found stuck right across the cable, and Canning considered the mischief to have been done with a malevolent purpose. On the 2nd of August, 2,196 kilometres of cable were sunk, when another fault was discovered. While the cable was being repaired it broke, and attempts to recover it at the time were all unsuccessful; in consequence of this the Great Eastern had to return without having completed the task. A new company, the Anglo-American Telegraph Company, was formed in 1866, and at once entrusted Messrs. Glass, Elliott and Company with the construction of a new cable of 3,000 kilometres. Different arrangements were made for the outer envelope of the cable, and the Great Eastern was once more equipped to give effect to the experiments which had just been made. The new expedition was not only to lay a new cable, but also to take up the end of the old one, and join it to a new piece, and thus obtain a second telegraph line. The sinking again commenced in Ireland on the 13th of July, 1866, and it was finished on the 27th. On the 4th of August, 1866, the Trans-Atlantic Telegraph Line was declared open."

   "The first and simplest of all magnetic telephones is the Bell
   Telephone." In "the first form of this instrument, constructed
   by Professor Graham Bell, in 1876 … a harp of steel rods was
   attached to the poles of a permanent magnet. … When we sing
   into a piano, certain of the strings of the instrument are set
   in vibration sympathetically by the action of the voice with
   different degrees of amplitude, and a sound, which is an
   approximation to the vowel uttered, is produced from the
   piano. Theory shows that, had the piano a much larger number
   of strings to the octave, the vowel sounds would be perfectly
   reproduced. It was upon this principle that Bell constructed
   his first telephone. The expense of constructing such an
   apparatus, however, deterred Bell from making the attempt, and
   he sought to simplify the apparatus before proceeding further in
   this direction. After many experiments with more, or less
   unsatisfactory results, he constructed the instrument …
   which he exhibited at Philadelphia in 1876. In this apparatus,
   the transmitter was formed by an electro-magnet, through which
   a current flowed, and a membrane, made of gold-beater's skin,
   on which was placed as a sort of armature, a piece of soft
   iron, which thus vibrated in front of the electro-magnet when
   the membrane was thrown into sonorous vibration.
{777}
   … It is quite clear that when we speak into a Bell
   transmitter only a small fraction of the energy of the
   sonorous vibrations of the voice can be converted into
   electric currents, and that these currents must be extremely
   weak. Edison applied himself to discover some means by which
   he could increase the strength of these currents. Elisha Gray
   had proposed to use the variation of resistance of a fine
   platinum wire attached to a diaphragm dipping into water, and
   hoped that the variation of extent of surface in contact would
   so vary the strength of current as to reproduce sonorous
   vibrations; but there is no record of this experiment having
   been tried. Edison proposed to utilise the fact that the
   resistance of carbon varied under pressure. He had
   independently discovered this peculiarity of carbon, but it
   had been previously described by Du Moncel. … The first
   carbon transmitter was constructed in 1878 by Edison."

   In a pamphlet distributed at the Columbian Exposition,
   Chicago, 1893, entitled "Exhibit of the American Bell
   Telephone Co.," the following statements are made: "At the
   Centennial Exposition, in Philadelphia, in 1876, was given the
   first general public exhibition of the telephone by its
   inventor, Alexander Graham Bell. To-day, seventeen years
   later, more than half a million instruments are in daily use
   in the United States alone, six hundred million talks by
   telephone are held every year, and the human voice is carried
   over a distance of twelve hundred miles without loss of sound
   or syllable. The first use of the telephone for business
   purposes was over a single wire connecting only two
   telephones. At once the need of general inter-communication
   made itself felt. In the cities and larger towns exchanges
   were established and all the subscribers to any one exchange
   were enabled to talk to one another through a central office.
   Means were then devised to connect two or more exchanges by
   trunk lines, thus affording means of communication between all
   the subscribers of all the exchanges so connected. This work
   has been pushed forward until now have been gathered into what
   may be termed one great exchange all the important cities from
   Augusta on the east to Milwaukee on the west, and from
   Burlington and Buffalo on the north to Washington on the
   south, bringing more than one half the people of this country
   and a much larger proportion of the business interests, within
   talking distance of one another. … The lines which connect
   Chicago with Boston, via New York, are of copper wire of extra
   size. It is about one sixth of an inch in diameter, and weighs
   435 pounds to the mile. Hence each circuit contains 1,044,000
   pounds of copper. … In the United States there are over a
   quarter of a million exchange subscribers, and … these make
   use of the telephone to carry on 600,000,000 conversations
   annually. There is hardly a city or town of 5,000 inhabitants
   that has not its Telephone Exchange, and these are so knit
   together by connecting lines that intercommunication is
   constant." The number of telephones in use in the United
   States, on the 20th of December in each year since the first
   introduction, is given as follows;
      1877, 5,187;
      1878, 17,567;
      1879, 52,517;
      1880, 123,380;
      1881, 180,592;
      1882, 237,728;
      1883, 298,580;
      1884, 325,574;
      1885, 330,040;
      1886, 353,518;
      1887, 380,277;
      1888, 411,511;
      1889, 444,861;
      1890, 483,790;
      1891, 512,407;
      1892, 552,720.

ELEPHANTINE.

Among the ancient Greeks, "the mysteries were a source of faith and hope to the initiated, as are the churches of modern times. Secret doctrines, regarded as holy, and to be kept with inviolable fidelity, were handed down in these brotherhoods, and no doubt were fondly believed to contain a saving grace by those who were admitted, amidst solemn and imposing rites, under the veil of midnight, to hear the tenets of the ancient faith, and the promises of blessings to come to those who, with sincerity of heart and pious trust, took the obligations upon them. The Eleusinian mysteries were the most imposing and venerable. Their origin extended back into a mythical antiquity, and they were among the few forms of Greek worship which were under the superintendence of hereditary priesthoods. Thirlwall thinks that 'they were the remains of a worship which preceded the rise of the Hellenic mythology and its attendant rites, grounded on a view of Nature less fanciful, more earnest, and better fitted to awaken both philosophical thought and religious feeling.' This conclusion is still further confirmed by the moral and religious tone of the poets,—such as Æschylus,—whose ideas on justice, sin and retribution are as solemn and elevated as those of a Hebrew prophet. The secrets, whatever they were, were never revealed in express terms; but Isocrates uses some remarkable expressions, when speaking of their importance to the condition of man. 'Those who are initiated,' says he 'entertain sweeter hopes of eternal life'; and how could this be the case, unless there were imparted at Eleusis the doctrine of eternal life, and some idea of its state and circumstances more compatible with an elevated conception of the Deity and of the human soul than the vague and shadowy images which haunted the popular mind. The Eleusinian communion embraced the most eminent men from every part of Greece,—statesmen, poets, philosophers, and generals; and when Greece became a part of the Roman Empire, the greatest minds of Rome drew instruction and consolation from its doctrines. The ceremonies of initiation—which took place every year in the early autumn, a beautiful season in Attica—were a splendid ritual, attracting visitors from every part of the world. The processions moving from Athens to Eleusis over the Sacred Way, sometimes numbered twenty or thirty thousand people, and the exciting scenes were well calculated to leave a durable impression on susceptible minds. … The formula of the dismissal, after the initiation was over, consisted in the mysterious words 'konx,' 'ompax'; and this is the only Eleusinian secret that has illuminated the world from the recesses of the temple of Demeter and Persephone. But it is a striking illustration of the value attached to these rites and doctrines, that, in moments of extremest peril—as of impending shipwreck, or massacre by a victorious enemy,—men asked one another, 'Are you initiated?' as if this were the anchor of their hopes for another life."

"The Eleusinian mysteries continued to be celebrated during the whole of the second half of the fourth century, till they were put an end to by the destruction of the temple at Eleusis, and by the devastation of Greece in the invasion of the Goths under Alaric in 395."

      W. Smith,
      Note to Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 25.

ELEUSIS.

Eleusis was originally one of the twelve confederate townships into which Attica was said to have been divided before the time of Theseus. It "was advantageously situated [about fourteen miles Northwest of Athens] on a height, at a small distance from the shore of an extensive bay, to which there is access only through narrow channels, at the two extremities of the island of Salamis: its position was important, as commanding the shortest and most level route by land from Athens to the Isthmus by the pass which leads at the foot of Mount Cerata along the shore to Megara. … Eleusis was built at the eastern end of a low rocky hill, which lies parallel to the sea-shore. … The eastern extremity of the hill was levelled artificially for the reception of the Hierum of Ceres and the other sacred buildings. Above these are the traces of an Acropolis. A triangular space of about 500 yards each side, lying between the hill and the shore, was occupied by the town of Eleusis. … To those who approached Eleusis from Athens, the sacred buildings standing on the eastern extremity of the height concealed the greater part of the town, and on a nearer approach presented a succession of magnificent objects, well calculated to heighten the solemn grandeur of the ceremonies and the awe and reverence of the Mystæ in their initiation. … In the plurality of enclosures, in the magnificence of the pylæ or gateways, in the absence of any general symmetry of plan, in the small auxiliary temples, we recognize a great resemblance between the sacred buildings of Eleusis and the Egyptian Hiera of Thebes and Philæ. And this resemblance is the more remarkable, as the Demeter of Attica was the Isis of Egypt. We cannot suppose, however, that the plan of all these buildings was even thought of when the worship of Ceres was established at Eleusis. They were the progressive creation of successive ages. … Under the Roman Empire … it was fashionable among the higher order of Romans to pass some time at Athens in the study of philosophy and to be initiated in the Eleusinian mysteries. Hence Eleusis became at that time one of the most frequented places in Greece; and perhaps it was never so populous as under the emperors of the first two centuries of our æra. During the two following centuries, its mysteries were the chief support of declining polytheism, and almost the only remaining bond of national union among the Greeks; but at length the destructive visit of the Goths in the year 396, the extinction of paganism and the ruin of maritime commerce, left Eleusis deprived of every source of prosperity, except those which are inseparable from its fertile plain, its noble bay, and its position on the road from Attica to the Isthmus. … The village still preserves the ancient name, no further altered than is customary in Romaic conversions."

ELIS.

Elis was an ancient Greek state, occupying the country on the western coast of Peloponnesus, adjoining Arcadia, and between Messenia at the south and Achaia on the north. It was noted for the fertility of its soil and the rich yield of its fisheries. But Elis owed greater importance to the inclusion within its territory of the sacred ground of Olympia, where the celebration of the most famous festival of Zeus came to be established at an early time. The Elians had acquired Olympia by conquest of the city and territory of Pisa, to which it originally belonged, and the presidency of the Olympic games was always disputed with them by the latter. Elis was the close ally of Sparta down to the year B. C. 421, when a bitter quarrel arose between them, and Elis suffered heavily in the wars which ensued. It was afterwards at war with the Arcadians, and joined the Ætolian League against the Achaian League. The city of Elis was one of the most splendid in Greece; but little now remains, even of ruins, to indicate its departed glories.

Decisive victory of Ecgberht, the West Saxon king, over the
Mercians, A. D. 823.

ELMET.

   A small kingdom of the Britons which was swallowed up in the
   English kingdom of Northumbria early in the seventh century.
   It answered, roughly speaking, to the present West-Riding of
   Yorkshire. … Leeds "preserves the name of Loidis, by which
   Elmet seems also to have been known."

ELSASS.

A victory won by the Assyrian, Sennacherib, over the Egyptians, before the disaster befell his army which is related in 2 Kings xix. 35. Sennacherib's own account of the battle has been found among the Assyrian records.

ELYMAIS.

ELYMEIA.

ELYSIAN FIELDS.

ELZEVIRS.

EMERITA AUGUSTA.

A colony of Roman veterans settled in Spain, B. C. 27, by the emperor Augustus. It is identified with modern Merida, in Estremadura.

ÉMIGRÉS OF THE FRENCH REVOLUTION.

EMPEROR.

ENCOMIENDAS.

"French literature had never been so brilliant as in the second half of the 18th century. Buffon, Diderot, D'Alembert, Rousseau, Duclos, Condillac, Helvetius, Holbach, Raynal, Condorcet, Mably, and many others adorned it, and the 'Encyclopædia,' which was begun in 1751 under the direction of Diderot, became the focus of an intellectual influence which has rarely been equalled. The name and idea were taken from a work published by Ephraim Chambers in Dublin, in 1728. A noble preliminary discourse was written by D'Alembert; and all the best pens in France were enlisted in the enterprise, which was constantly encouraged and largely assisted by Voltaire. Twice it was suppressed by authority, but the interdict was again raised. Popular favour now ran with an irresistible force in favour of the philosophers, and the work was brought to its conclusion in 1771."

ENGLAND: A. D.449-547.
The three tribes of the English conquest.
The naming of the country.

"It was by … three tribes [from Northwestern Germany], the Saxons, the Angles, and the Jutes, that southern Britain was conquered and colonized in the fifth and sixth centuries, according to the most ancient testimony. … Of the three, the Angli almost if not altogether pass away into the migration: the Jutes and the Saxons, although migrating in great numbers, had yet a great part to play in their own homes and in other regions besides Britain; the former at a later period in the train and under the name of the Danes; the latter in German history from the eighth century to the present day."

   "Among the Teutonic settlers in Britain some tribes stand out
   conspicuously; Angles, Saxons, and Jutes stand out
   conspicuously above all. The Jutes led the way; from the
   Angles the land and the united nation took their name; the
   Saxons gave us the name by which our Celtic neighbours have
   ever known us. But there is no reason to confine the area from
   which our forefathers came to the space which we should mark
   on the map as the land of the continental Angles, Saxons, and
   Jutes. So great a migration is always likely to be swollen by
   some who are quite alien to the leading tribe; it is always
   certain to be swollen by many who are of stocks akin to the
   leading tribe, but who do not actually belong to it.
{780}
   As we in Britain are those who stayed behind at the time of
   the second great migration of our people [to America], so I
   venture to look on all our Low-Dutch kinsfolk on the continent
   of Europe as those who stayed behind at the time of the first
   great migration of our people. Our special hearth and cradle
   is doubtless to be found in the immediate marchland of Germany
   and Denmark, but the great common home of our people is to be
   looked on as stretching along the whole of that long coast
   where various dialects of the Low-Dutch tongue are spoken. If
   Angles and Saxons came, we know that Frisians came also, and
   with Frisians as an element among us, it is hardly too bold to
   claim the whole Netherlands as in the widest sense Old
   England, as the land of one part of the kinsfolk who stayed
   behind. Through that whole region, from the special Anglian
   corner far into what is now northern France, the true tongue
   of the people, sometimes overshadowed by other tongues, is
   some dialect or other of that branch of the great Teutonic
   family which is essentially the same as our own speech. From
   Flanders to Sleswick the natural tongue is one which differs
   from English only as the historical events of fourteen hundred
   years of separation have inevitably made the two tongues—two
   dialects, I should rather say, of the same tongue—to differ.
   From these lands we came as a people. That was our first
   historical migration. Our remote forefathers must have made
   endless earlier migrations as parts of the great Aryan body,
   as parts of the smaller Teutonic body. But our voyage from the
   Low-Dutch mainland to the isle of Britain was our first
   migration as a people. … Among the Teutonic tribes which
   settled in Britain, two, the Angles and the Saxons, stood out
   foremost. These two between them occupied by far the greater
   part of the land that was occupied at all. Each of these two
   gave its name to the united nation, but each gave it on
   different lips. The Saxons were the earlier invaders; they had
   more to do with the Celtic remnant which abode in the land. On
   the lips then of the Celtic inhabitants of Britain, the whole
   of the Teutonic inhabitants of Britain were known from the
   beginning, and are known still, as Saxons. But, as the various
   Teutonic settlements drew together, as they began to have
   common national feelings and to feel the need of a common
   national name, the name which they chose was not the same as
   that by which their Celtic neighbours called them. They did
   not call themselves Saxons and their land Saxony; they called
   themselves English and their land England. I used the word
   Saxony in all seriousness; it is a real name for the Teutonic
   part of Britain, and it is an older name than the name
   England. But it is a name used only from the outside by Celtic
   neighbours and enemies; it was not used from the inside by the
   Teutonic people themselves. In their mouths, as soon as they
   took to themselves a common name, that name was English; as
   soon as they gave their land a common name, that name was
   England. … And this is the more remarkable, because the age
   when English was fully established as the name of the people,
   and England as the name of the land, was an age of Saxon
   supremacy, an age when a Saxon state held the headship of
   England and of Britain, when Saxon kings grew step by step to
   be kings of the English and lords of the whole British island.
   In common use then, the men of the tenth and eleventh
   centuries knew themselves by no name but English."

E. A. Freeman, The English People in its Three Homes (Lectures to American Audiences, pages 30-31, and 45-47).

ENGLAND: A. D. 449-473.
The Beginning of English history.
The conquest of Kent by the Jutes.

   "In the year 449 or 450 a band of warriors was drawn to the
   shores of Britain by the usual pledges of land and pay. The
   warriors were Jutes, men of a tribe which has left its name to
   Jutland, at the extremity of the peninsula that projects from
   the shores of North-Germany, but who were probably akin to the
   race that was fringing the opposite coast of Scandinavia and
   settling in the Danish Isles. In three 'keels'—so ran the
   legend of their conquest—and with their Ealdormen, Hengest
   and Horsa, at their head, these Jutes landed at Ebbsfleet in
   the Isle of Thanet. With the landing of Hengest and his
   war-band English history begins. … In the first years that
   followed after their landing, Jute and Briton fought side by
   side; and the Picts are said to have been scattered to the
   winds in a great battle on the eastern coast of Britain. But
   danger from the Pict was hardly over when danger came from the
   Jutes themselves. Their numbers probably grew fast as the news
   of their settlement in Thanet spread among their fellow
   pirates who were haunting the channel; and with the increase
   of their number must have grown the difficulty of supplying
   them with rations and pay. The dispute which rose over these
   questions was at last closed by Hengest's men with a threat of
   war." The threat was soon executed; the forces of the Jutes
   were successfully transferred from their island camp to the
   main shore, and the town of Durovernum (occupying the site of
   modern Canterbury) was the first to experience their rage.
   "The town was left in blackened and solitary ruin as the
   invaders pushed along the road to London. No obstacle seems to
   have checked their march from the Stour to the Medway." At
   Aylesford (A. D. 455), the lowest ford crossing the Medway,
   "the British leaders must have taken post for the defence of
   West Kent; but the Chronicle of the conquering people tells
   … only that Horsa fell in the moment of victory; and the
   flint-heap of Horsted which has long preserved his name …
   was held in aftertime to mark his grave. … The victory of
   Aylesford was followed by a political change among the
   assailants, whose loose organization around ealdormen was
   exchanged for a stricter union. Aylesford, we are told, was no
   sooner won than 'Hengest took to the kingdom, and Ælle, his
   son.' … The two kings pushed forward in 457 from the Medway
   to the conquest of West Kent." Another battle at the passage
   of the Cray was another victory for the invaders, and, "as the
   Chronicle of their conquerors tells us, the Britons' forsook
   Kent-land and fled with much fear to London.' … If we trust
   British tradition, the battle at Crayford was followed by a
   political revolution in Britain itself. … It would seem …
   that the Romanized Britons rose in revolt under Aurelius
   Ambrosianus, a descendant of the last Roman general who
   claimed the purple as an Emperor in Britain. … The
   revolution revived for a while the energy of the province."
   The Jutes were driven back into the Isle of Thanet, and held
   there, apparently, for some years, with the help of the strong
   fortresses of Richborough and Reculver, guarding the two
   mouths of the inlet which then parted Thanet from the
   mainland.
{781}
   "In 465 however the petty conflicts which had gone on along
   the shores of the Wantsum made way for a decisive struggle.
   … The overthrow of the Britons at Wipped'sfleet was so
   terrible that all hope of preserving the bulk of Kent seems
   from this moment to have been abandoned; and … no further
   struggle disturbed the Jutes in its conquest and settlement.
   It was only along its southern shore that the Britons now held
   their ground. … A final victory of the Jutes in 473 may mark
   the moment when they reached the rich pastures which the Roman
   engineers had reclaimed from Romney Marsh. … With this
   advance to the mouth of the Weald the work of Hengest's men
   came to an end; nor did the Jutes from this time play any
   important part in the attack on the island, for their
   after-gains were limited to the Isle of Wight and a few
   districts on the Southampton Water."

      ALSO IN:
      J. M. Lappenberg,
      History of England under the Anglo-Saxon Kings,
      volume 1, pages 67-101.

—————————————————————————————-

IN WHICH THE DOMINANT CONDITIONS AND INFLUENCES ARE DISTINGUISHED BY COLORS.

   Physical or material (Orange).
   Ethnological (Dark Blue).
   Social and political (Green).
   Intellectual, moral and religious (Tan).
   Foreign (Black).

The Island of Britain, separated from the Continent of Europe by a narrow breadth of sea, which makes friendly commerce easy and hostile invasion difficult;—its soil in great part excellent; its northern climate tempered by the humid warmth of the Gulf Stream; its conditions good for breeding a robust population, strongly fed upon corn and meats; holding, moreover, in store, for later times, a rare deposit of iron and coal, of tin and potter's clay, and other minerals of like utility; was occupied and possessed by tribes from Northern Europe, of the strongest race in history; already schooled in courage and trained to enterprise by generations of sea-faring adventure; uncorrupted by any mercenary contact with the decaying civilization of Rome, but ready for the knowledge it could give.

Fused, after much warring with one another and with their Danish kin, into a nation of Englishmen, they lived, for five centuries, an isolated life, until their insular and independent character had become deeply ingrained, and the primitive system of their social and political organization—their Townships, their Hundreds, their Shires, and the popular Moots, or courts, which determined and administered law in each—was rooted fast; though their king's power waxed and the nobles and the common people drew farther apart.

Then they were mastered (in the last successful invasion that their Island ever knew) by another people, sprung from their own stock, but whose blood had been warmed and whose wit had been quickened by Latin and Gallic influences in the country of the Franks.

A new social and political system now formed itself in England as the result:—Feudalism modified by the essential democracy inherent in Old English institutions—producing a stout commonality to daunt the lords, and a strong aristocracy to curb the king.

English royalty soon weakened itself yet more by ambitious strivings to maintain and extend a wide dominion over-sea, in Normandy and Aquitaine; and was helpless to resist when barons and commons came together to demand the signing and sealing of the Great Charter of Englishmen's rights.

Out of the conditions which gave birth to Magna Charta there followed, soon, the development of the English Parliament as a representative legislature, from the Curia Regis of the Normans and the Witenagemot of the older English time.

From the woful wars of a hundred years with France, which another century brought upon it, the nation, as a whole, suffered detriment, no doubt, and it progress was hindered in many ways; but politically the people took some good from the troubled times, because their kings were more dependant on them for money and men.

So likewise, they were bettered in some ways by the dreadful civil Wars of the Roses, which distracted England for thirty years. The nobles well-nigh perished, as an order, in these wars, while the middle-class people at large suffered relatively little, in numbers or estate.

But, previously, the great Plague, by diminishing the ranks of the laboring class, had raised wages and the standard of living among them, and had helped, with other causes, to multiply the small landowners and tenant farmers of the country, increasing the independent common class.

Moreover, from the time of Edward III., who encouraged Flemish weavers to settle in England and to teach their art to his people, manufactures began to thrive; trade extended; towns grew in population and wealth, and the great burgher middle-class rose rapidly to importance and weight in the land.

But the commons of England were not prepared to make use of the actual power which they held. The nobles had led them in the past; it needed time to raise leaders among themselves, and time to organize their ranks. Hence no new checks on royalty were ready to replace those constraints which had been broken by the ruin of great houses in the civil wars, and the crown made haste to improve its opportunity for grasping power. There followed, under the Tudors, a period of absolutism greater than England had known before.

But this endured only for the time of the education of the commons, who conned the lessons of the age with eagerness and with understanding. The new learning from Greece and Rome; the new world knowledge that had been found in the West; the new ideas which the new art of the printer had furnished with wings,—all these had now gained their most fertile planting in the English mind. Their flower was the splendid literature of the Elizabethan age; they ripened fruits more substantial at a later day.

The intellectual development of the nation tended first toward a religious independence, which produced two successive revolts—from Roman Papacy and from the Anglican Episcopacy that succeeded it.

This religious new departure of the English people gave direction to a vast expansion of their energies in the outside world. It led them into war with Spain, and sent forth Drake and Hawkins and the Buccaneers, to train the sailors and pilot the merchant adventurers who would soon make England mistress of all the wide seas.

A. D. 1608-1688.
   The Stuarts.
   The Civil War.
   The Commonwealth.
   The Revolution.

Then, when these people, strong, prosperous and intelligent, had come to be ripely sufficient for self-government, there fell to them a foolish race of kings, who challenged them to a struggle which stripped royalty of all but its fictions, and established the sovereignty of England in its House of Commons for all time.

18th-19th Centuries.
   Science
   Invention.
   Material progress.
   Economic enlightenment.

Unassailable in its island,—taking part in the great wars of the 18th century by its fleets and its subsidies chiefly,—busy with its undisturbed labors at home,—vigorous in its conquests, its settlements and its trade, which it pushed into the farthest parts of the earth,—creating wealth and protecting it from spoliation and from waste,—the English nation now became the industrial and economic school of the age. It produced the mechanical inventions which first opened a new era in the life of mankind on the material side; it attained to the splendid enlightenment of freedom in trade; it made England the workshop and mart of the world, and it spread her Empire to every Continent, through all the seas.

————- End: A Logical Outline of English History ——————————

ENGLAND: A. D. 477-527.
The conquests of the Saxons.
The founding of the kingdoms of Sussex, Wessex and Essex.

"Whilst the Jutes were conquering Kent, their kindred took part in the war. Ship after ship sailed from the North Sea, filled with eager warriors. The Saxons now arrived—Ella and his three sons landed in the ancient territory of the Regni (A. D. 477-491). The Britons were defeated with great slaughter, and driven into the forest of Andreade, whose extent is faintly indicated by the wastes and commons of the Weald. A general confederacy of the Kings and 'Tyrants' of the Britons was formed against the invaders, but fresh reinforcements arrived from Germany; the city of Andreades-Ceastre was taken by storm, all its inhabitants were slain and the buildings razed to the ground, so that its site is now entirely unknown. From this period the kingdom of the South Saxons was established in the person of Ella; and though ruling only over the narrow boundary of modern Sussex, he was accepted as the first of the Saxon Bretwaldas, or Emperors of the Isle of Britain. Encouraged, perhaps, by the good tidings received from Ella, another band of Saxons, commanded by Cerdic and his son Cynric, landed on the neighbouring shore, in the modern Hampshire (A. D. 494). At first they made but little progress. They were opposed by the Britons; but Geraint, whom the Saxon Chroniclers celebrate for his nobility, and the British Bards extol for his beauty and valour, was slain (A. D. 501). The death of the Prince of the 'Woodlands of Dyfnaint,' or Damnonia, may have been avenged, but the power of the Saxons overwhelmed all opposition; and Cerdic, associating his son Cynric in the dignity, became the King of the territory which he gained. Under Cynric and his son Ceaulin, the Saxons slowly, yet steadily, gained ground. The utmost extent of their dominions towards the North cannot be ascertained; but they had conquered the town of Bedford; and it was probably in consequence of their geographical position (A. D. 571) with respect to the countries of the Middle and East Saxons, that the name of the West Saxons was given to this colony. The tract north of the Thames was soon lost; but on the south of that river and of the Severn, the successors of Cerdic, Kings of Wessex, continued to extend their dominions. The Hampshire Avon, which retains its old Celtic name, signifying 'the Water,' seems at first to have been their boundary. Beyond this river, the British princes of Damnonia retained their power; and it was long before the country as far as the Exe became a Saxon March-land, or border. About the time that the Saxons under Cerdic and Cynric were successfully warring against the Britons, another colony was seen to establish itself in the territory or kingdom which, from its geographical position, obtained the name of East Saxony; but whereof the district of the Middle Saxons, now Middlesex, formed a part. London, as you well know, is locally included in Middle Saxony; and the Kings of Essex, and the other sovereigns who afterwards acquired the country, certainly possessed many extensive rights of sovereignty in the city. Yet, I doubt much whether London was ever incorporated in any Anglo-Saxon kingdom; and I think we must view it as a weak, tributary, vassal state, not very well able to resist the usurpations of the supreme Lord or Suzerain, Æscwin, or Ercenwine, who was the first King of the East Saxons (A. D. 527). His son Sleda was married to Ricola, daughter to Ethelbert of Kent, who afterwards appears as the superior, or sovereign of the country; and though Sleda was King, yet Ethelbert joined in all important acts of government. This was the fate of Essex—it is styled a kingdom, but it never enjoyed any political independence, being always subject to the adjoining kings."

"The descents of [the West Saxons], Cerdic and Cynric, in 495 at the mouth of the Itchen, and a fresh descent on Portchester in 501, can have been little more than plunder raids; and though in 508 a far more serious conflict ended in the fall of 5,000 Britons and their chief, it was not till 514 that the tribe whose older name seems to have been that of the Gewissas, but who were to be more widely known as the West Saxons, actually landed with a view to definite conquest."

"The greatness of Sussex did not last beyond the days of its founder Ælle, the first Bretwalda. Whatever importance Essex, or its offshoot, Middlesex, could claim as containing the great city of London was of no long duration. We soon find London fluctuating between the condition of an independent commonwealth, and that of a dependency of the Mercian Kings. Very different was the destiny of the third Saxon Kingdom. Wessex has grown into England, England into Great Britain, Great Britain into the United Kingdom, the United Kingdom into the British Empire. Every prince who has ruled England before and since the eleventh century [the interval of the Danish kings, Harold, son of Godwine, and William the Conqueror, who were not of the West Saxon house] has had the blood of Cerdic the West Saxon in his veins. At the close of the sixth century Wessex had risen to high importance among the English Kingdoms, though the days of its permanent supremacy were still far distant."

E. A. Freeman, History of the Norman Conquest of England, chapter 2, section 1.

ENGLAND: A. D. 547-633.
The conquests of the Angles.
The founding of their kingdoms.

Northwards of the East Saxons was established the kingdom of the East Angles, in which a northern and a southern people (Northfolc and Suthfolc) were distinguished. It is probable that, even during the last period of the Roman sway, Germans were settled in this part of Britain; a supposition that gains probability from several old Saxon sagas, which have reference to East Anglia at a period anterior to the coming of Hengest and Horsa. The land of the Gyrwas, containing 1,200 hides … comprised the neighbouring marsh districts of Ely and Huntingdonshire, almost as far as Lincoln. Of the East Angles Wehwa, or Wewa, or more commonly his son Uffa, or Wuffa, from whom his race derived their patronymic of Uffings or Wuffings, is recorded as the first king. The neighbouring states of Mercia originated in the marsh districts of the Lindisware, or inhabitants of Lindsey (Lindesig), the northern part of Lincolnshire. With these were united the Middle Angles. This kingdom, divided by the Trent into a northern and a southern portion, gradually extended itself to the borders of Wales. Among the states which it comprised was the little Kingdom of the Hwiccas, conterminous with the later diocese of Worcester, or the counties of Gloucester, Worcester, and a part of Warwick. This state, together with that of the Hecanas, bore the common Germanic appellation of the land of the Magesætas. … The country to the north of the Humber had suffered the most severely from the inroads of the Picts and Scots. It became at an early period separated into two British states, the names of which were retained for some centuries, viz.: Deifyr (Deora rice), afterwards Latinized into Deira, extending from the Humber to the Tyne, and Berneich (Beorna rice), afterwards Bernicia, from the Tyne to the Clyde. Here also the settlements of the German races appear anterior to the date given in the common accounts of the first Anglian kings of those territories, in the middle of the sixth century."

J. M. Lappenberg, History of England under the Anglo-Saxon Kings (Thorpe), volume 1, pages 112-117.

The three Anglian kingdoms of Northumberland, Mercia and East Anglia, "are altogether much larger than the Saxon and Jutish Kingdoms, so you see very well why the land was called 'England' and not 'Saxony.' … 'Saxonia' does occur now and then, and it was really an older name than 'Anglia,' but it soon went quite out of use. … But some say that there were either Jutes or Saxons in the North of England as soon or sooner than there were in the south. If so, there is another reason why the Scotch Celts as well as the Welsh, call us Saxons. It is not unlikely that there may have been some small Saxon or Jutish settlements there very early, but the great Kingdom of Northumberland was certainly founded by Ida the Angle in 547. It is more likely that there were some Teutonic settlements there before him, because the Chronicle does not say of him, as it does of Hengest, Cissa and Cerdie, that he came into the land by the sea, but only that he began the Kingdom. … You must fully understand that in the old times Northumberland meant the whole land north of the Humber, reaching as far as the Firth of Forth. It thus takes in part of what is now Scotland, including the city of Edinburgh, that is Eadwinesburh, the town of the great Northumbrian King Eadwine, or Edwin [Edwin of Deira, A. D. 617-633]. … You must not forget that Lothian and all that part of Scotland was part of Northumberland, and that the people there are really English, and still speak a tongue which has changed less from the Old-English than the tongue of any other part of England. And the real Scots, the Gael in the Highlands, call the Lowland Scots 'Saxons,' just as much as they do the people of England itself. This Northumbrian Kingdom was one of the greatest Kingdoms in England, but it was often divided into two, Beornicia [or Bernicia] and Deira, the latter of which answered pretty nearly to Yorkshire. The chief city was the old Roman town of Eboracum, which in Old-English is Eoforwic, and which we cut short into York. York was for a long time the greatest town in the North of England. There are now many others much larger, but York is still the second city in England in rank, and it gives its chief magistrate the title of Lord-Mayor, as London· does, while in other cities and towns the chief magistrate is merely the Mayor, without any Lord. … The great Anglian Kingdom of the Mercians, that is the Marchmen, the people on the march or frontier, seems to have been the youngest of all, and to have grown up gradually by joining together several smaller states, including all the land which the West Saxons had held north of the Thames. Such little tribes or states were the Lindesfaras and the Gainas in Lincolnshire, the Magesætas in Herefordshire, the Hwiccas in Gloucester, Worcester, and part of Warwick, and several others. … When Mercia was fully joined under one King, it made one of the greatest states in England, and some of the Mercian Kings were very powerful princes. It was chiefly an Anglian Kingdom; and the Kings were of an Anglian stock, but among the Hwiccas and in some of the other shires in southern and western Mercia, most of the people must really have been Saxons."

ENGLAND: A. D. 560.

ENGLAND: A. D. 593.

"It happened that certain Saxon children were to be sold for slaves at the marketplace at Rome; when Divine Providence, the great clock-keeper of time, ordering not only hours, but even instants (Luke ii. 38), to his own honour, so disposed it, that Gregory, afterwards first bishop of Rome of that name, was present to behold them. It grieved the good man to see the disproportion betwixt the faces and fortunes, the complexions and conditions, of these children, condemned to a servile estate, though carrying liberal looks, so legible was ingenuity in their faces. It added more to his sorrow, when he conceived that those youths were twice vassals, bought by their masters, and 'sold under sin' (Romans vii. 14), servants in their bodies, and slaves in their souls to Satan; which occasioned the good man to enter into further inquiry with the merchants (which set them to sale) what they were and whence they came, according to this ensuing dialogue:

   Gregory.—'Whence come these captives?'
   Merchants.—'From the isle of Britain.'
   Gregory.—'Are those islanders Christians?'
   Merchants.—'O no, they are Pagans.'
   Gregory.—'It is sad that the author of darkness should
   possess men with so bright faces. But what is the name of
   their particular nation?'
   Merchants.—'They are called Angli.'
   Gregory.—'And well may, for their "angel like faces"; it
   becometh such to be coheirs with the angels in heaven. In what
   province of England did they live?'
   Merchants.—'In Deira.'
   Gregory.—'They are to be freed de Dei irâ, "from the anger of
   God." How call ye the king of that country?'
   Merchants.—'Ella.'
   Gregory.—'Surely hallelujah ought to be sung in his kingdom
   to the praise of that God who created all things.'

Thus Gregory's gracious heart set the sound of every word to the time of spiritual goodness. Nor can his words be justly censured for levity, if we consider how, in that age, the elegance of poetry consisted in rhythm, and the eloquence of prose in allusions. And which was the main, where his pleasant conceits did end, there his pious endeavours began; which did not terminate in a verbal jest, but produce real effects, which ensued hereupon."

In 590 the good Gregory became Bishop of Rome, or Pope, and six years later, still retaining the interest awakened in him by the captive English youth, he dispatched a band of missionary monks to Britain, with their prior, Augustine, at their head. Once they turned back, affrighted by what they heard of the ferocity of the new heathen possessors of the once-Christian island of Britain; but Gregory laid his commands upon them again, and in the spring of 597 they crossed the channel from Gaul, landing at Ebbsfleet, in the Isle of Thanet, where the Jutish invaders had made their first landing, a century and a half before. They found Ethelbert of Kent, the most powerful of the English kings at that time, already prepared to receive them with tolerance, if not with favor, through the influence of a Christian wife—queen Bertha, of the royal family of the Franks. The conversion and baptism of the Kentish king and court, and the acceptance of the new faith by great numbers of the people followed quickly. In November of the same year, 597, Augustine returned to Gaul to receive his consecration as "Archbishop of the English," establishing the See of Canterbury, with the primacy which has remained in it to the present day. The East Saxons were the next to bow to the cross and in 604 a bishop, Mellitus, was sent to London. This ended Augustine's work—and Gregory's— for both died that year. Then followed an interval of little progress in the work of the mission, and, afterwards, a reaction towards idolatry which threatened to destroy it altogether. But just at this time of discouragement in the south, a great triumph of Christianity was brought about in Northumberland, and due, there, as in Kent, to the influence of a Christian queen. Edwin, the king, with many of his nobles and his people, were baptised on Easter Eve, A. D. 627, and a new center of missionary work was established at York. There, too, an appalling reverse occurred, when Northumberland was overrun, in 633, by Penda, the heathen king of Mercia; but the kingdom rallied, and the Christian Church was reestablished, not wholly, as before, under the patronage and rule of Rome, but partly by a mission from the ancient Celtic Church, which did not acknowledge the supremacy of Rome. In the end, however, the Roman forms of Christianity prevailed, throughout Britain, as elsewhere in western Europe. Before the end of the 7th century the religion of the Cross was established firmly in all parts of the island, the South Saxons being the latest to receive it. In the 8th century English missionaries were laboring zealously for the conversion of their Saxon and Frisian brethren on the continent.

ENGLAND:
   End of the 6th. Century.
   The extent, the limits and the character
   of the Teutonic conquest.

"Before the end of the 6th century the Teutonic dominion stretched from the German ocean to the Severn, and from the English Channel to the Firth of Forth. The northern part of the island was still held by Picts and Scots, Celtic tribes, whose exact ethnical relation to each other hardly concerns us. And the whole west side of the island, including not only modern Wales, but the great Kingdom of Strathclyde, stretching from Dumbarton to Chester, and the great peninsula containing Cornwall, Devon and part of Somerset, was still in the hands of independent Britons. The struggle had been a long and severe one, and the natives often retained possession of a defensible district long after the surrounding country had been occupied by the invaders. It is therefore probable that, at the end of the 6th century and even later, there may have been within the English frontier inaccessible points where detached bodies of Welshmen still retained a precarious independence. It is probable also that, within the same frontier, there still were Roman towns, tributary to the conquerors rather than occupied by them. But by the end of the 6th century even these exceptions must have been few. The work of the Conquest, as a whole, was accomplished. The Teutonic settlers had occupied by far the greater part of the territory which they ever were, in the strictest sense, to occupy. The complete supremacy of the island was yet to be won; but that was to be won, when it was won, by quite another process. The English Conquest of Britain differed in several important respects from every other settlement of a Teutonic people within the limits of the Roman Empire. … Though the literal extirpation of a nation is an impossibility, there is every reason to believe that the Celtic inhabitants of those parts of Britain which had become English at the 6th century had been as nearly extirpated as a nation can be. The women would doubtless be largely spared, but as far as the male sex is concerned, we may feel sure that death, emigration or personal slavery were the only alternatives which the vanquished found at the hands of our fathers. The nature of the small Celtic element in our language would of itself prove the fact. Nearly every Welsh word which has found its way into English expresses some small domestic matter, such as women and slaves would be concerned with."

E. A. Freeman, History of the Norman Conquest of England, chapter 2, section 1.

"A glance at the map shows that the mass of the local nomenclature of England begins with the Teutonic conquest, while the mass of the local nomenclature of France is older than the Teutonic conquest. And, if we turn from the names on the map to the living speech of men, there is the most obvious, but the most important, of all facts, the fact that Englishmen speak English and that Frenchmen speak French.

That is to say, in Gaul the speech of Rome lived through the Teutonic conquest, while in Britain it perished in the Teutonic conquest, if it had not passed away before. And behind this is the fact, very much less obvious, a good deal less important, but still very important, that in Gaul tongues older than Latin live on only in corners as mere survivals, while in Britain, while Latin has utterly vanished, a tongue older than Latin still lives on as the common speech of an appreciable part of the land. Here then is the final result open to our own eyes. And it is a final result which could not have come to pass unless the Teutonic conquest of Britain had been something of an utterly different character from the Teutonic conquest of Gaul—unless the amount of change, of destruction, of havoc of every kind, above all, of slaughter and driving out of the existing inhabitants, had been far greater in Britain than it was in Gaul. If the Angles and Saxons in Britain had been only as the Goths in Spain, or even as the Franks in Gaul, it is inconceivable that the final results should have been so utterly different in the two cases. There is the plain fact: Gaul remained a Latin-speaking land; England became a Teutonic-speaking land. The obvious inference is that, while in Gaul the Teutonic conquest led to no general displacement of the inhabitants, in England it did lead to such a general displacement. In Gaul the Franks simply settled among a subject people, among whom they themselves were gradually merged; in Britain the Angles and Saxons slew or drove out the people whom they found in the land, and settled it again as a new people."

E. A. Freeman, The English People in its Three Homes (Lectures to American Audiences), pages 114-115.

"Almost to the close of the 6th century the English conquest of Britain was a sheer dispossession of the conquered people; and, so far as the English sword in these earlier days reached, Britain became England, a land, that is, not of Britons, but of Englishmen. There is no need to believe that the clearing of the land meant the general slaughter of the men who held it, or to account for such a slaughter by supposed differences between the temper of the English and those of other conquerors. … The displacement of the conquered people was only made possible by their own stubborn resistance, and by the slow progress of the conquerors in the teeth of it. Slaughter no doubt there was on the battlefield or in towns like Anderida, whose long defence woke wrath in their besiegers. But for the most part the Britons cannot have been slaughtered; they were simply defeated and drew back."

The view strongly stated above, as to the completeness of the erasure of Romano-British society and influence from the whole of England except its southwestern and north· western counties, by the English conquest, is combated as strongly by another less prominent school of recent historians, represented, for example, by Mr. Henry C. Coote (The Romans of Britain) and by Mr. Charles H. Pearson, who says: "We know that fugitives from Britain settled largely during the 5th century in Armorica and in Ireland; and we may perhaps accept the legend of St. Ursula as proof that the flight, in some instances, was directed to the more civilized parts of the continent. But even the pious story of the 11,000 virgins is sober and credible by the side of that history which assumes that some million men and women were slaughtered or made homeless by a few ship-loads of conquerors."

C. H. Pearson, History of England during the Early and Middle Ages, volume 1, chapter 6.

The opinion maintained by Prof. Freeman and Mr. Green (and, no
less, by Dr. Stubbs) is the now generally accepted one.

"The old notion of an Heptarchy, of a regular system of seven Kingdoms, united under the regular supremacy of a single over-lord, is a dream which has passed away before the light of historic criticism. The English Kingdoms in Britain were ever fluctuating, alike in their number and in their relations to one another. The number of perfectly independent states was sometimes greater and sometimes less than the mystical seven, and, till the beginning of the ninth century, the whole nation did not admit the regular supremacy of any fixed and permanent over-lord. Yet it is no less certain that, among the mass of smaller and more obscure principalities, seven Kingdoms do stand out in a marked way, seven Kingdoms of which it is possible to recover something like a continuous history, seven Kingdoms which alone supplied candidates for the dominion of the whole island." These seven kingdoms were Kent, Sussex, Essex, Wessex, East Anglia, Northumberland and Mercia.

"After the territorial boundaries had become more settled, there appeared at the commencement of the seventh century seven or eight greater and smaller kingdoms. … Historians have described this condition of things as the Heptarchy, disregarding the early disappearance of Sussex, and the existence of still smaller kingdoms. But this grouping was neither based upon equality, nor destined to last for any length of time. It was the common interest of these smaller states to withstand the sudden and often dangerous invasions of their western and northern neighbours; and, accordingly, whichever king was capable of successfully combating the common foe, acquired for the time a certain superior rank, which some historians denote by the title of Bretwalda. By this name can only be understood an actual and recognized temporary superiority; first ascribed to Ælla of Sussex, and later passing to Northumbria, until Wessex finally attains a real and lasting supremacy. It was geographical position which determined these relations of superiority. The small kingdoms in the west were shielded by the greater ones of Northumberland, Mercia and Wessex, as though by crescent-shaped forelands—which in their struggles with the Welsh kingdoms, with Strathclyde and Cumbria, with Picts and Scots, were continually in a state of martial activity. And so the smaller western kingdoms followed the three warlike ones; and round these Anglo-Saxon history revolved for two whole centuries, until in Wessex we find a combination of most of the conditions which are necessary to the existence of a great State."

ENGLAND: A. D. 800-836.
The supremacy of Wessex.
The first king of all the English.

"And now I have come to the reign of Ecgberht, the great Bretwalda. He was an Ætheling of the blood of Cerdic, and he is said to have been the son of Ealhmund, and Ealhmund is said to have been an Under-king of Kent. For the old line of the Kings of Kent had come to an end and Kent was now sometimes under Wessex and sometimes under Mercia. … When Beorhtric died in 800, he [Ecgberht] was chosen King of the West-Saxons. He reigned until 836, and in that time he brought all the English Kingdoms, and the greater part of Britain, more or less under his power. The southern part of the island, all Kent, Sussex, and Essex, he joined on to his own Kingdom, and set his sons or other Æthelings to reign over them as his Under-kings. But Northumberland, Mercia, and East-Anglia were not brought so completely under his power as this. Their Kings submitted to Ecgberht and acknowledged him as their over-lord, but they went on reigning in their own Kingdoms, and assembling their own Wise Men, just as they did before. They became what in after times was called his 'vassals,' what in English was called being his 'men.' … Besides the English Kings, Ecgberht brought the Welsh, both in Wales and in Cornwall, more completely under his power. … So King Ecgberht was Lord from the Irish Sea to the German Ocean, and from the English Channel to the Firth of Forth. So it is not wonderful if, in his charters, he not only called himself King of the West-Saxons or King of the West-Saxons and Kentishmen, but sometimes 'Rex Anglorum,' or 'King of the English.' But amidst all this glory there were signs of great evils at hand. The Danes came several times."

ENGLAND: A. D. 855-880.
   Conquests and settlements of the Danes.
   The heroic struggle of Alfred the Great.
   The "Peace of Wedmore" and the "Danelaw."
   King Alfred's character and reign.

   "The Danish invasions of England … fall naturally into three
   periods, each of which finds its parallel in the course of the
   English Conquest of Britain. … We first find a period in
   which the object of the invaders seems to be simple plunder.
   They land, they harry the country, they fight, if need be, to
   secure their booty, but whether defeated or victorious, they
   equally return to their ships, and sail away with what they
   have gathered. This period includes the time from the first
   recorded invasion [A. D. 787] till the latter half of the
   ninth century. Next comes a time in which the object of the
   Northmen is clearly no longer mere plunder, but settlement.
   … In the reign of Æthelwulf the son of Ecgberht it is
   recorded that the heathen men wintered for the first time in
   the Isle of Sheppey [A. D. 855]. This marks the transition
   from the first to the second period of their invasions. … It
   was not however till about eleven years from this time that
   the settlement actually began. Meanwhile the sceptre of the
   West-Saxons passed from one hand to another. … Four sons of
   Æthelwulf reigned in succession, and the reigns of the first
   three among them [Ethelbald, A. D. 858, Ethelberht, 860,
   Ethelred, 866] make up together only thirteen years. In the
   reign of the third of these princes, Æthelred I., the second
   period of the invasions fairly begins. Five years were spent
   by the Northmen in ravaging and conquering the tributary
   Kingdoms. Northumberland, still disputed between rival Kings,
   fell an easy prey [867-869], and one or two puppet princes did
   not scruple to receive a tributary crown at the hands of the
   heathen invaders. They next entered Mercia [868], they seized
   Nottingham, and the West-Saxon King hastening to the relief of
   his vassals, was unable to dislodge them from that stronghold.
   East Anglia was completely conquered [866-870] and its King
   Eadmund died a martyr. At last the full storm of invasion
   burst upon Wessex itself [871]. King Æthelred, the first of a
   long line of West-Saxon hero-Kings, supported by his greater
   brother Ælfred [Alfred the Great] met the invaders in battle
   after battle with varied success. He died and Ælfred
   succeeded, in the thick of the struggle. In this year [871],
   the last of Æthelred and the first of Ælfred, nine pitched
   battles, besides smaller engagements, were fought with the
   heathens on West-Saxon ground. At last peace was made; the
   Northmen retreated to London, within the Mercian frontier;
   Wessex was for the moment delivered, but the supremacy won by
   Ecgberht was lost. For a few years Wessex was subjected to
   nothing more than temporary incursions, but Northumberland and
   part of Mercia were systematically occupied by the Northmen,
   and the land was divided among them. … At last the Northmen,
   now settled in a large part of the island, made a second
   attempt to add Wessex itself to their possessions [878]. For a
   moment the land seemed conquered; Ælfred himself lay hid in the
   marshes of Somersetshire; men might well deem that the Empire
   of Ecgberht and the Kingdom of Cerdic itself, had vanished for
   ever. But the strong heart of the most renowned of Englishmen,
   the saint, the scholar, the hero, and the lawgiver, carried
   his people safely through this most terrible of dangers.
   Within the same year the Dragon of Wessex was again victorious
   [at the battle of Ethandun, or Edington], and the Northmen
   were driven to conclude a peace which Englishmen, fifty years
   sooner, would have deemed the lowest depth of degradation, but
   which might now be fairly looked upon as honourable and even
   as triumphant. By the terms of the Peace of Wedmore the
   Northmen were to evacuate Wessex and the part of Mercia
   south-west of Watling-Street; they, or at least their chiefs,
   were to submit to baptism, and they were to receive the whole
   land beyond Watling-Street as vassals of the West-Saxon King.
   … The exact boundary started from the Thames, along the Lea
   to its source, then right to Bedford and along the Ouse till
   it meets Watling-Street, then along Watling-Street to the
   Welsh border. See Ælfred and Guthrum's Peace,' Thorpe's 'Laws
   and Institutes,' i. 152. This frontier gives London to the
   English; but it seems that Ælfred did not obtain full
   possession of London till 886."
{786}
   The territory thus conceded to the Danes, which included all
   northeastern England from the Thames to the Tyne, was
   thenceforth known by the name of the Danelagh or Danelaw,
   signifying the country subject to the law of the Danes. The
   Peace of Wedmore ended the second period of the Danish
   invasions. The third period, which was not opened until a full
   century later, embraced the actual conquest of the whole of
   England by a Danish king and its temporary annexation to the
   dominions of the Danish crown.

E. A. Freeman, History of the Norman Conquest of England, chapter 2, with foot-note.

"Now that peace was restored, and the Danes driven out of his domains, it remained to be seen whether Alfred was as good a ruler as he was a soldier. … What did he see? The towns, even London itself, pillaged, ruined, or burnt down; the monasteries destroyed; the people wild and lawless; ignorance, roughness, insecurity everywhere. It is almost incredible with what a brave heart he set himself to repair all this; how his great and noble aims were still before him; how hard he strove, and how much he achieved. First of all he seems to have sought for helpers. Like most clever men, he was good at reading characters. He soon saw who would be true, brave, wise friends, and he collected these around him. Some of them he fetched from over the sea, from France and Germany; our friend Asser from Wales, or, as he calls his country, 'Western Britain,' while England, he calls 'Saxony.' He says he first saw Alfred 'in a royal vill, which is called Dene' in Sussex. 'He received me with kindness, and asked me eagerly to devote myself to his service, and become his friend; to leave everything which I possessed on the left or western bank of the Severn, and promised that he would give more than an equivalent for it in his own dominions. I replied that I could not rashly and incautiously promise such things; for it seemed to be unjust that I should leave those sacred places in which I had been bred, educated, crowned, and ordained for the sake of any earthly honour and power, unless upon compulsion. Upon this he said, "If you cannot accede to this, at least let me have your service in part; spend six months of the year with me here, and the other six months in Britain."' And to this after a time Asser consented. What were the principal things he turned his mind to after providing for the defence of his kingdom, and collecting his friends and counsellors about him? Law—justice—religion—education. He collected and studied the old laws of his nation; what he thought good he kept, what he disapproved he left out. He added others, especially the ten commandments and some other parts of the law of Moses. Then he laid them all before his Witan, or wise men, and with their approval published them. … The state of justice in England was dreadful at this time. … Alfred's way of curing this was by inquiring into all cases, as far as he possibly could, himself; and Asser says he did this 'especially for the sake of the poor, to whose interest, day and night, he ever was wonderfully attentive; for in the whole kingdom the poor, besides him, had few or no protectors.' … When he found that the judges had made mistakes through ignorance, he rebuked them, and told them they must either grow wiser or give up their posts; and soon the old earls and other judges, who had been unlearned from their cradles, began to study diligently. … For reviving and spreading religion among his people he used the best means that he knew of; that is, he founded new monasteries and restored old ones, and did his utmost to get good bishops and clergymen. For his own part, he strove to practise in all ways what he taught to others. … Education was in a still worse condition than everything else. … All the schools had been broken up. Alfred says that when he began to reign there were very few clergymen south of the Humber who could even understand the Prayer-book. (That was still in Latin, as the Roman missionaries had brought it.) And south of the Thames he could not remember one. His first care was to get better-educated clergy and bishops. And next to get the laymen taught also. … He founded monasteries and schools, and restored the old ones which had been ruined. He had a school in his court for his own children and the children of his nobles. But at the very outset a most serious difficulty confronted Alfred. Where was he to get books? At this time, as far as we can judge, there can only have been one, or at most two books in the English language—the long poem of Cædmon about the creation of the world, &c., and the poem of Beowulf about warriors and fiery dragons. There were many English ballads and songs, but whether these were written down I do not know. There was no book of history, not even English history; no book of geography, no religious books, no philosophy. Bede, who had written so many books, had written them all in Latin. … So when they had a time of 'stillness' the king and his learned friends set to work and translated books into English; and Alfred, who was as modest and candid as he was wise, put into the preface of one of his translations that he hoped, if anyone knew Latin better than he did, that he would not blame him, for he could but do according to his ability. … Beside all this, he had a great many other occupations. Asser, who often lived with him for months at a time, gives us an account of his busy life. Notwithstanding his infirmities and other hindrances, 'he continued to carry on the government, and to exercise hunting in all its branches; to teach his workers in gold and artificers of all kinds, his falconers, hawkers, and dog-keepers; to build houses, majestic and good, beyond all the precedents of his ancestors, by his new mechanical inventions; to recite the Saxon books (Asser, being a Welshman, always calls the English, Saxon), and especially to learn by heart the Saxon poems, and to make others learn them; he never desisted from studying most diligently to the best of his ability; he attended the mass and other daily services of religion; he was frequent in psalm-singing and prayer; … he bestowed alms and largesses on both natives and foreigners of all countries; he was affable and pleasant to all, and curiously eager to investigate things unknown.'"

"It is no easy task for anyone who has been studying his [Alfred's] life and works to set reasonable bounds to their reverence, and enthusiasm, for the man. Lest the reader should think my estimate tainted with the proverbial weakness of biographers for their heroes; let them turn to the words in which the earliest, and the last of the English historians of that time, sum up the character of Alfred. {787} Florence of Worcester, writing in the century after his death, speaks of him as 'that famous, warlike, victorious king; the zealous protector of widows, scholars, orphans and the poor; skilled in the Saxon poets; affable and liberal to all; endowed with prudence, fortitude, justice, and temperance; most patient under the infirmity which he daily suffered; a most stern inquisitor in executing justice; vigilant and devoted in the service of God.' Mr. Freeman, in his 'History of the Norman Conquest,' has laid down the portrait in bold and lasting colours, in a passage as truthful as it is eloquent, which those who are familiar with it will be glad to meet again, while those who do not know it will be grateful to me for substituting for any poor words of my own. 'Alfred, the unwilling author of these great changes, is the most perfect character in history. He is a singular instance of a prince who has become a hero of romance, who, as such, has had countless imaginary exploits attributed to him, but to whose character romance has done no more than justice, and who appears in exactly the same light in history and in fable. No other man on record has ever so thoroughly united all the virtues both of the ruler and of the private man. In no other man on record were so many virtues disfigured by so little alloy. A saint without superstition, a scholar without ostentation, a warrior all whose wars were fought in the defence of his country, a conqueror whose laurels were never stained by cruelty, a prince never cast down by adversity, never lifted up to insolence in the day of triumph—there is no other name in history to compare with his. Saint Lewis comes nearest to him in the union of a more than monastic piety with the highest civil, military, and domestic virtues. Both of them stand forth in honourable contrast to the abject superstition of some other royal saints, who were so selfishly engaged in the care of their own souls that they refused either to raise up heirs for their throne, or to strike a blow on behalf of their people. But even in Saint Lewis we see a disposition to forsake an immediate sphere of duty for the sake of distant and unprofitable, however pious and glorious, undertakings. The true duties of the King of the French clearly lay in France, and not in Egypt or Tunis. No such charge lies at the door of the great King of the West Saxons. With an inquiring spirit which took in the whole world, for purposes alike of scientific inquiry and of Christian benevolence, Alfred never forgot that his first duty was to his own people. He forestalled our own age in sending expeditions to explore the Northern Ocean, and in sending alms to the distant Churches of India; but he neither forsook his crown, like some of his predecessors, nor neglected his duties, like some of his successors. The virtue of Alfred, like the virtue of Washington, consisted in no marvellous displays of super-human genius, but in the simple, straightforward discharge of the duty of the moment. But Washington, soldier, statesman, and patriot, like Alfred, has no claim to Alfred's further characters of saint and scholar. William the Silent, too, has nothing to set against Alfred's literary merits; and in his career, glorious as it is, there is an element of intrigue and chicanery utterly alien to the noble simplicity of both Alfred and Washington. The same union of zeal for religion and learning with the highest gifts of the warrior and the statesman is found, on a wider field of action, in Charles the Great. But even Charles cannot aspire to the pure glory of Alfred. Amidst all the splendour of conquest and legislation, we cannot be blind to an alloy of personal ambition, of personal vice, to occasional unjust aggressions and occasional acts of cruelty. Among our own later princes, the great Edward alone can bear for a moment the comparison with his glorious ancestor. And, when tried by such a standard, even the great Edward fails. Even in him we do not see the same wonderful union of gifts and virtues which so seldom meet together; we cannot acquit Edward of occasional acts of violence, of occasional recklessness as to means; we cannot attribute to him the pure, simple, almost childlike disinterestedness which marks the character of Alfred.' Let Wordsworth, on behalf of the poets of England, complete the picture:

      'Behold a pupil of the monkish gown,
      The pious Alfred, king to justice dear!
      Lord of the harp and liberating spear;
      Mirror of princes! Indigent renown
      Might range the starry ether for a crown
      Equal to his deserts, who, like the year,
      Pours forth his bounty, like the day doth cheer,
      And awes like night, with mercy-tempered frown.
      Ease from this noble miser of his time
      No moment steals; pain narrows not his cares—
      Though small his kingdom as a spark or gem,
      Of Alfred boasts remote Jerusalem,
      And Christian India, through her widespread clime,
      In sacred converse gifts with Alfred shares.'"

Alfred the Great, dying in 901, was succeeded by his son, Edward, and Edward, in turn, was followed, A. D. 925, by his son Athelstane, or Æthalsten. In the reign of Athelstane a great league was formed against him by the Northumbrian Danes with the Scots, with the Danes of Dublin and with the Britons of Strathclyde and Cumbria. Athelstane defeated the confederates in a mighty battle, celebrated in one of the finest of Old-English war-songs, and also in one of the Sagas of the Norse tongue, as the Battle of Brunnaburgh or Brunanburh, but the site of which is unknown. "Five Kings and seven northern Iarls or earls fell in the strife. … Constantine the Scot fled to the north, mourning his fair-haired son, who perished in the slaughter. Anlaf [or Olaf, the leader of the Danes or Ostmen of Dublin], with a sad and scattered remnant of his forces, escaped to Ireland. … The victory was so decisive that, during the remainder of the reign of Athelstane, no enemy dared to rise up against him; his supremacy was acknowledged without contest, and his glory extended to distant realms."

Mr. Skene is of opinion that the battle of Brunnaburgh was fought at Aldborough, near York.

ENGLAND: A. D. 958.
   Completed union of the realm.
   Increase of kingly authority.
   Approach towards feudalism.
   Rise of the Witenagemot.
   Decline of the Freemen.

"Before Alfred's son Edward died, the whole of Mercia was incorporated with his immediate dominions. The way in which the thing was done was more remarkable than the thing itself. Like the Romans, he made the fortified towns the means of upholding his power. But unlike the Romans, he did not garrison them with colonists from amongst his own immediate dependents. He filled them, as Henry the Fowler did afterwards in Saxony, with free townsmen, whose hearts were at one with their fellow countrymen around. Before he died in 924, the Danish chiefs in the land beyond the Humber had acknowledged his overlordship, and even the Celts of Wales and Scotland had given in their submission in some form which they were not likely to interpret too strictly. His son and his two grandsons, Athelstan, Edmund, and Edred completed the work, and when after the short and troubled interval of Edwy's rule in Wessex, Edgar united the undivided realm under his sway in 958, he had no internal enemies to suppress. He allowed the Celtic Scottish King who had succeeded to the inheritance of the Pictish race to possess the old Northumbrian land north of the Tweed, where they and their descendants learned the habits and speech of Englishmen. But he treated him and the other Celtic kings distinctly as his inferiors, though it was perhaps well for him that he did not attempt to impose upon them any very tangible tokens of his supremacy. The story of his being rowed by eight kings on the Dee is doubtless only a legend by which the peaceful king was glorified in the troubled times which followed. Such a struggle, so successfully conducted, could not fail to be accompanied by a vast increase of that kingly authority which had been on the growth from the time of its first establishment. The hereditary ealdormen, the representatives of the old kingly houses, had passed away. The old tribes, or—where their limitations had been obliterated by the tide of Danish conquest, as was the case in central and northern England—the new artificial divisions which had taken their place, were now known as shires, and the very name testified that they were regarded only as parts of a greater whole. The shire mote still continued the tradition of the old popular assemblies. At its head as presidents of its deliberations were the ealdorman and the bishop, each of them owing their appointment to the king, and it was summoned by the shire-reeve or sheriff, himself even more directly an officer of the king, whose business it was to see that all the royal dues were paid within the shire. In the more general concerns of the kingdom, the king consulted with his Witan, whose meetings were called the Witenagemot, a body, which, at least for all ordinary purposes, was composed not of any representatives of the shire-motes, but of his own dependents, the ealdormen, the bishops, and a certain number of thegns whose name, meaning 'servants', implied at least at first, that they either were or had at one time been in some way in the employment of the king. … The necessities of war … combined with the sluggishness of the mass of the population to favour the growth of a military force, which would leave the tillers of the soil to their own peaceful occupations. As the conditions which make a standing army possible on a large scale did not yet exist, such a force must be afforded by a special class, and that class must be composed of those who either had too much land to till themselves, or, having no land at all, were released from the bonds which tied the cultivator to the soil, in other words, it must be composed of a landed aristocracy and its dependents. In working out this change, England was only aiming at the results which similar conditions were producing on the Continent. But just as the homogeneousness of the population drew even the foreign element of the church into harmony with the established institutions, so it was with the military aristocracy. It grouped itself round the king, and it supplemented, instead of overthrowing, the old popular assemblies. Two classes of men, the eorls and the gesiths, had been marked out from their fellows at the time of the conquest. The thegn of Edgar's day differed from both, but he had some of the distinguishing marks of either. He was not like the gesith, a mere personal follower of the king. He did not, like the eorl, owe his position to his birth. Yet his relation to the king was a close one, and he had a hold upon the land as firm as that of the older eorl. He may, perhaps, best be described as a gesith, who had acquired the position of an eorl without entirely throwing off his own characteristics. … There can be little doubt that the change began in the practice of granting special estates in the folkland, or common undivided land, to special persons. At first this land was doubtless held to be the property of the tribe. [This is now questioned by Vinogradoff and others. See FOLCLAND.] … When the king rose above the tribes, he granted it himself with the consent of his Witan. A large portion was granted to churches and monasteries. But a large portion went in privates estates, or book land, as it was called, from the book or charter which conveyed them to the king's own gesiths, or to members of his own family. The gesith thus ceased to be a mere member of the king's military household. He became a landowner as well, with special duties. to perform to the king. … He had special jurisdiction given him over his tenants and serfs, exempting him and them from the authority of the hundred mote, though they still remained, except in very exceptional cases, under the authority of the shire mote. … Even up to the Norman conquest this change was still going on. To the end, indeed, the old constitutional forms were not broken down. The hundred mote was not abandoned, where freemen enough remained to fill it. Even where all the land of a hundred had passed under the protection of a lord there was little outward change. … There was thus no actual breach of continuity in the nation. The thegnhood pushed its roots down, as it were, amongst the free classes. Nevertheless there was a danger of such a breach of continuity coming about. The freemen entered more and more largely into a condition of' dependence, and there was a great risk lest such a condition of dependence should become a condition of servitude. Here and there, by some extraordinary stroke of luck, a freeman might rise to be a thegn. But the condition of the class to which he belonged was deteriorating every day. {789} The downward progress to serfdom was too easy to take, and by large masses of the population it was already taken. Below the increasing numbers of the serfs was to be found the lower class of slaves, who were actually the property of their masters. The Witenagemot was in reality a select body of thegns, if the bishops, who held their lands in much the same way, be regarded as thegns. In was rather an inchoate House of Lords, than an inchoate Parliament, after our modern ideas. It was natural that a body of men which united a great part of the wealth with almost all the influence in the kingdom should be possessed of high constitutional powers. The Witenagemot elected the king, though as yet they always chose him out of the royal family, which was held to have sprung from the god Woden. There were even cases in which they deposed unworthy kings."

S. R. Gardiner and J. B. Mullinger, Introduction to the Study of English History, part 1, chapter 2, section 16-21.

ENGLAND: A. D. 979.
Accession of the West Saxon king Ethelred, called The Unready.

"Then [A. D. 979] commenced one of the longest and most disastrous reigns of the Saxon kings, with the accession of Ethelred II., justly styled Ethelred the Unready. The Northmen now renewed their plundering and conquering expeditions against England; while England had a worthless waverer for her ruler, and many of her chief men turned traitors to their king and country. Always a laggart in open war, Ethelred tried in 1001 the cowardly and foolish policy of buying off the enemies whom he dared not encounter. The tax called Dane-gelt was then levied to provide 'a tribute for the Danish men on account of the great terror which they caused.' To pay money thus was in effect to hire the enemy to renew the war. In 1002 Ethelred tried the still more weak and wicked measure of ridding himself of his enemies by treacherous massacre. Great numbers of Danes were now living in England, intermixed with the Anglo-Saxon population. Ethelred resolved to relieve himself from all real or supposed danger of these Scandinavian settlers taking part with their invading kinsmen, by sending secret orders throughout his dominions for the putting to death of every Dane, man, woman, and child, on St. Brice's Day, Nov. 13. This atrocious order was executed only in Southern England, that is, in the West-Saxon territories; but large numbers of the Danish race were murdered there while dwelling in full security among their Saxon neighbours. … Among the victims was a royal Danish lady, named Gunhilde, who was sister of Sweyn, king of Denmark, and who had married and settled in England. … The news of the massacre of St. Brice soon spread over the Continent, exciting the deepest indignation against the English and their king. Sweyn collected in Denmark a larger fleet and army than the north had ever before sent forth, and solemnly vowed to conquer England or perish in the attempt. He landed on the south coast of Devon, obtained possession of Exeter by the treachery of its governor, and then marched through western and southern England, marking every shire with fire, famine and slaughter; but he was unable to take London, which was defended against the repeated attacks of the Danes with strong courage and patriotism, such as seemed to have died out in the rest of Saxon England. In 1013, the wretched king Ethelred fled the realm and sought shelter in Normandy. Sweyn was acknowledged king in all the northern and western shires, but he died in 1014, while his vow of conquest was only partly accomplished. The English now sent for Ethelred back from Normandy, promising loyalty to him as their lawful king, 'provided he would rule over them more justly than he had done before.' Ethelred willingly promised amendment, and returned to reign amidst strife and misery for two years more. His implacable enemy, Sweyn, was indeed dead; but the Danish host which Sweyn had led thither was still in England, under the command of Sweyn's son, Canute [or Cnut], a prince equal in military prowess to his father, and far superior to him and to all other princes of the time in statesmanship and general ability. Ethelred died in 1016, while the war with Canute was yet raging. Ethelred's son, Edmund, surnamed Ironside, was chosen king by the great council then assembled in London, but great numbers of the Saxons made their submission to Canute. The remarkable personal valour of Edmund, strongly aided by the bravery of his faithful Londoners, maintained the war for nearly a year, when Canute agreed to a compromise, by which he and Edmund divided the land between them. But within a few months after this, the royal Ironside died by the hand of an assassin, and Canute obtained the whole realm of the English race. A Danish dynasty was now [A. D. 1016] established in England for three reigns."

ALSO IN: J. M. Lappenberg, England under the Anglo-Saxon Kings, volume 2, pages 151-233.

"Cnut's rule was not as terrible as might have been feared. He was perfectly unscrupulous in striking down the treacherous and mischievous chieftains who had made a trade of Ethelred's weakness and the country's divisions. But he was wise and strong enough to rule, not by increasing but by allaying those divisions. Resting his power upon his Scandinavian kingdoms beyond the sea, upon his Danish countrymen in England, and his Danish huscarles, or specially trained soldiers in his service, he was able, without even the appearance of weakness, to do what in him lay to bind Dane and Englishman together as common instruments of his power. Fidelity counted more with him than birth. To bring England itself into unity was beyond his power. The device which he hit upon was operative only in hands as strong as his own. There were to be four great earls, deriving their name from the Danish word jarl, centralizing the forces of government in Wessex, in Mercia, in East Anglia, and in Northumberland. With Cnut the four were officials of the highest class. They were there because he placed them there. They would cease to be there if he so willed it. But it could hardly be that it would always be so. Some day or another, unless a great catastrophe swept away Cnut and his creation, the earldoms would pass into territorial sovereignties and the divisions of England would be made evident openly."

S. R. Gardiner and J. B. Mullinger, Introduction to the Study of English History, chapter 2, section 25.

"He [Canute] ruled nominally at least, a larger European dominion than any English sovereign has ever done; and perhaps also a more homogeneous one. No potentate of the time came near him except the king of Germany, the emperor, with whom he was allied as an equal. The king of the Norwegians, the Danes, and a great part of the Swedes, was in a position to found a Scandinavian empire with Britain annexed. Canute's division of his dominions on his death-bed, showed that he saw this to be impossible; Norway, for a century and a half after his strong hand was removed, was broken up amongst an anarchical crew of piratic and blood-thirsty princes, nor could Denmark be regarded as likely to continue united with England. The English nation was too much divided and demoralised to retain hold on Scandinavia, even if the condition of the latter had allowed it. Hence Canute determined that during his life, as after his death, the nations should be governed on their own principles. … The four nations of the English, Northumbrians, East Angles, Mercians and West Saxons, might, each under their own national leader, obey a sovereign who was strong enough to enforce peace amongst them. The great earldoms of Canute's reign were perhaps a nearer approach to a feudal division of England than anything which followed the Norman Conquest. … And the extent to which this creation of the four earldoms affected the history of the next half-century cannot be exaggerated. The certain tendency of such an arrangement to become hereditary, and the certain tendency of the hereditary occupation of great fiefs ultimately to overwhelm the royal power, are well exemplified. … The Norman Conquest restored national unity at a tremendous temporary sacrifice, just as the Danish Conquest in other ways, and by a reverse process, had helped to create it."

Canute died in 1035. He was succeeded by his two sons, Harold Harefoot (1035-1040) and Harthacnute or Hardicanute (1040-1042), after which the Saxon line of kings was momentarily restored.

"The love which Canute had inspired by his wise and conciliatory rule was dissipated by the bad government of his sons, Harold and Harthacnut, who ruled in turn. After seven years of misgovernment, or rather anarchy, England, freed from the hated rule of Harthacnut by his death, returned to its old line of kings, and 'all folk chose Edward [surnamed The Confessor, son of Ethelred the Unready] to king,' as was his right by birth. Not that he was, according to our ideas, the direct heir, since Edward, the son of Edmund Ironside, still lived, an exile in Hungary. But the Saxons, by choosing Edward the Confessor, reasserted for the last time their right to elect that one of the hereditary line who was most available. With the reign of Edward the Confessor the Norman Conquest really began. We have seen the connection between England and Normandy begun by the marriage of Ethelred the Unready to Emma the daughter of Richard the Fearless, and cemented by the refuge offered to the English exiles in the court of the Norman duke. Edward had long found a home there in Canute's time. … Brought up under Norman influence, Edward had contracted the ideas and sympathies of his adopted home. On his election to the English throne the French tongue became the language of the court, Norman favourites followed in his train, to be foisted into important offices of State and Church, and thus inaugurate that Normanizing policy which was to draw on the Norman Conquest. Had it not been for this, William would never have had any claim on England." The Normanizing policy of king Edward roused the opposition of a strong English party, headed by the great West-Saxon Earl Godwine, who had been lifted from an obscure origin to vast power in England by the favor of Canute, and whose son Harold held the earldom of East Anglia. "Edward, raised to the throne chiefly through the influence of Godwine, shortly married his daughter, and at first ruled England leaning on the assistance, and almost overshadowed by the power of the great earl." But Edward was Norman at heart and Godwine was thoroughly English; whence quarrels were not long in arising. They came to the crisis in 1051, by reason of a bloody tumult at Dover, provoked by insolent conduct on the part of a train of French visitors returning home from Edward's Court. Godwine was commanded to punish the townsmen of Dover and refused, whereupon the king obtained a sentence of outlawry, not only against the earl, but against his sons. "Godwine, obliged to bow before the united power of his enemies, was forced to fly the land. He went to Flanders with his son Swegen, while Harold and Leofwine went to Ireland, to be well received by Dermot king of Leinster. Many Englishmen seem to have followed him in his exile: for a year the foreign party was triumphant, and the first stage of the Norman Conquest complete. It was at this important crisis that William [Duke of Normandy], secure at home, visited his cousin Edward. … Friendly relations we may be sure had existed between, the two cousins, and if, as is not improbable, William had begun to hope that he might some day succeed to the English throne, what more favourable opportunity for a visit could have been found? Edward had lost all hopes of ever having any children. … William came, and it would seem, gained all that he desired. For this most probably was the date of some promise on Edward's part that William should succeed him on his death. The whole question is beset with difficulties. The Norman chroniclers alone mention it, and give no dates. Edward had no right to will away his crown, the disposition of which lay with King and Witenagemot (or assembly of Wise Men, the grandees of the country), and his last act was to reverse the promise, if ever given, in favour of Harold, Godwine's son. But were it not for some such promise, it is hard to see how William could have subsequently made the Normans and the world believe in the sacredness of his claim. … William returned to Normandy; but next year Edward was forced to change his policy." Godwine and his sons returned to England, with a fleet at their backs; London declared for them, and the king submitted himself to a reconciliation. {791} "The party of Godwine once more ruled supreme, and no mention was made of the gift of the crown to William. Godwine, indeed, did not long survive his restoration, but dying the year after, 1053, left his son Harold Earl of the West-Saxons and the most important man in England." King Edward the Confessor lived yet thirteen years after this time, during which period Earl Harold grew continually in influence and conspicuous headship of the English party. In 1062 it was Harold's misfortune to be shipwrecked on the coast of France, and he was made captive. Duke William of Normandy intervened in his behalf and obtained his release; and "then, as the price of his assistance, extorted an oath from Harold, soon to be used against him. Harold, it is said, became his man, promised to marry 'William's daughter Adela, to place Dover at once in William's hands, and support his claim to the English throne on Edward's death. By a stratagem of William's the oath was unwittingly taken on holy relics, hidden by the duke under the table on which Harold laid hands to swear, whereby, according to the notions of those days, the oath was rendered more binding." But two years later, when Edward the Confessor died, the English Witenagemot chose Harold to be king, disregarding Edward's promise and Harold's oath to the Duke of Normandy.

ALSO IN: E. A. Freeman, History of the Norman Conquest of England, chapters 7-10.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1066 (spring and summer).
Preparations of Duke William to enforce his claim to the
English crown.

On receiving news of Edward's death and of Harold's acceptance of the crown, Duke William of Normandy lost no time in demanding from Harold the performance of the engagements to which he had pledged himself by his oath. Harold answered that the oath had no binding effect, by reason of the compulsion under which it was given; that the crown of England was not his to bestow, and that, being the chosen king, he could not marry without consent of the Witenagemot. When the Duke had this reply he proceeded with vigor to secure from his own knights and barons the support he would need for the enforcing of his rights, as he deemed them, to the sovereignty of the English realm. A great parliament of the Norman barons was held at Lillebonne, for the consideration of the matter. "In this memorable meeting there was much diversity of opinion. The Duke could not command his vassals to cross the sea; their tenures did not compel them to such service. William could only request their aid to fight his battles in England: many refused to engage in this dangerous expedition, and great debates arose. …William, who could not restore order, withdrew into another apartment: and, calling the barons to him one by one, he argued and reasoned with each of these sturdy vassals separately, and apart from the others. He exhausted all the arts of persuasion;—their present courtesy, he engaged, should not be tamed into a precedent, … and the fertile fields of England should be the recompense of their fidelity. Upon this prospect of remuneration, the barons assented. … William did not confine himself to his own subjects. All the adventurers and adventurous spirits of the neighbouring states were invited to join his standard. … To all, such promises were made as should best incite them to the enterprise—lands,—liveries,—money,—according to their rank and degree; and the port of St. Pierre-sur-Dive was appointed as the place where all the forces should assemble. William had discovered four most valid reasons for the prosecution of his offensive warfare against a neighbouring people:—the bequest made by his cousin;—the perjury of Harold;—the expulsion of the Normans, at the instigation, as he alleged, of Godwin;—and, lastly, the massacre of the Danes by Ethelred on St. Brice's Day. The alleged perjury of Harold enabled William to obtain the sanction of the Papal See. Alexander, the Roman Pontiff, allowed, nay, even urged him to punish the crime, provided England, when conquered, should be held as the fief of St. Peter. … Hildebrand, Archdeacon of the Church of Rome, afterwards the celebrated Pope Gregory VII., greatly assisted by the support which he gave to the decree. As a visible token of protection, the Pope transmitted to William the consecrated banner, the Gonfanon of St. Peter, and a precious ring, in which a relic of the chief of the Apostles was enclosed."

"William convinced, or seemed to convince, all men out of England and Scandinavia that his claim to the English crown was just and holy, and that it was a good work to help him to assert it in arms. … William himself doubtless thought his own claim the better; he deluded himself as he deluded others. But we are more concerned with William as a statesman; and if it be statesmanship to adapt means to ends, whatever the ends may be, if it be statesmanship to make men believe the worse cause is the better, then no man ever showed higher statesmanship than William showed in his great pleading before all Western Christendom. … Others had claimed crowns; none had taken such pains to convince all mankind that the claim was a good one. Such an appeal to public opinion marks on one side a great advance."

ENGLAND: A. D. 1066 (September).
The invasion of Tostig and Harold Hardrada and their
overthrow at Stamford Bridge.

   "Harold [the English king], as one of his misfortunes, had to
   face two powerful armies, in distant parts of the kingdom,
   almost at the same time. Rumours concerning the intentions and
   preparations of the Duke of Normandy soon reached England.
   During the greater part of the summer, Harold, at the head of
   a large naval and military force, had been on the watch along
   the English coast. But months passed away and no enemy became
   visible. William, it was said, had been apprised of the
   measures which had been taken to meet him. … Many supposed
   that, on various grounds, the enterprise had been abandoned.
   Provisions also, for so great an army, became scarce. The men
   began to disperse; and Harold, disbanding the remainder,
   returned to London. But the news now came that Harold
   Hardrada, king of Norway, had landed in the north, and was
   ravaging the country in conjunction with Tostig, Harold's
   elder brother. This event came from one of those domestic
   feuds which did so much at this juncture to weaken the power
   of the English.
{792}
   Tostig had exercised his authority in Northumbria [as earl] in
   the most arbitrary manner, and had perpetrated atrocious
   crimes in furtherance of his objects. The result was an amount
   of disaffection which seems to have put it out of the power of
   his friends to sustain him. He had married a daughter of
   Baldwin, count of Flanders, and so became brother-in-law to
   the duke of Normandy. His brother Harold, as he affirmed, had
   not done a brother's part towards him, and he was more
   disposed, in consequence, to side with the Norman than with
   the Saxon in the approaching struggle. The army with which he
   now appeared consisted mostly of Norwegians and Flemings, and
   their avowed object was to divide not less than half the
   kingdom between them. … [The young Mercian earls Edwin and
   Morcar] summoned their forces … to repel the invasion under
   Tostig. Before Harold could reach the north, they hazarded an
   engagement at a place named Fulford, on the Ouse, not far from
   Bishopstoke. Their measures, however, were not wisely taken.
   They were defeated with great loss. The invaders seem to have
   regarded this victory as deciding the fate of that part of the
   kingdom. They obtained hostages at York, and then moved to
   Stamford Bridge, where they began the work of dividing the
   northern parts of England between them. But in the midst of
   these proceedings clouds of dust were seen in the distance.
   The first thought was, that the multitude which seemed to be
   approaching must be friends. But the illusion was soon at an
   end. The dust raised was by the march of an army of West
   Saxons under the command of Harold."

"Of the details of that awful day [Sept. 25, 1066] we have no authentic record. We have indeed a glorious description [in the Heimskringla of Snorro Sturleson], conceived in the highest spirit of the warlike poetry of the North; but it is a description which, when critically examined, proves to be hardly more worthy of belief than a battle-piece in the Iliad. … At least we know that the long struggle of that day was crowned by complete victory on the side of England. The leaders of the invading host lay each man ready for all that England had to give him, his seven feet of English ground. There Harold of Norway, the last of the ancient Sea-Kings, yielded up that fiery soul which had braved death in so many forms and in so many lands. … There Tostig, the son of Godwine, an exile and a traitor, ended, in crime and sorrow a life which had begun with promises not less bright than that of his royal brother. … The whole strength of the Northern army was broken; a few only escaped by flight, and found means to reach the ships at Riccall."

E. A. Freeman, History of the Norman Conquest of England, chapter 14, section. 4.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1066 (October).
The Norman invasion and battle of Senlac or Hastings.

The battle of Stamford-bridge was fought on Monday, September 25, A. D. 1066. Three days later, on the Thursday, September 28, William of Normandy landed his more formidable army of invasion at Pevensey, on the extreme southeastern coast. The news of William's landing reached Harold, at York, on the following Sunday, it is thought, and his victorious but worn and wasted army was led instantly back, by forced marches, over the route it had traversed no longer than the week before. Waiting at London a few days for fresh musters to join him, the English king set out from that city October 12, and arrived on the following day at a point seven miles from the camp which his antagonist had entrenched at Hastings. Meantime the Normans had been cruelly ravaging the coast country, by way of provoking attack. Harold felt himself driven by the devastation they committed to face the issue of battle without waiting for a stronger rally. "Advancing near enough to the coast to check William's ravages, he intrenched himself on the hill of Senlac, a low spur of the Sussex Downs, near Hastings, in a position which covered London, and forced the Norman army to concentrate. With a host subsisting by pillage, to concentrate is to starve, and no alternative was left to William but a decisive victory or ruin. Along the higher ground that leads from Hastings the Duke led his men in the dim dawn of an October morning to the mound of Telham. It was from this point, that the Normans saw the host of the English gathered thickly behind a rough trench and a stockade on the height of Senlac. Marshy ground covered their right. … A general charge of the Norman foot opened the battle; in front rode the minstrel Taillefer, tossing his sword in the air and catching it again while he chanted the song of Roland. He was the first of the host who struck a blow, and he was the first to fall. The charge broke vainly on the stout stockade behind which the English warriors plied axe and javelin with fierce cries of 'Out, Out,' and the repulse of the Norman footmen was followed by the repulse of the Norman horse. Again and again the Duke rallied and led them to the fatal stockade. … His Breton troops, entangled in the marshy ground on his left, broke in disorder, and a cry arose, as the panic spread through the army, that the Duke was slain. 'I live,' shouted William as he tore off his helmet, 'and by God's help will conquer yet.' Maddened by repulse, the Duke spurred right at the standard; unhorsed, his terrible mace struck down Gyrth, the King's brother, and stretched Leofwine, a second of Godwine's sons, beside him; again dismounted, a blow from his hand hurled to the ground an unmannerly rider who would not lend him his steed. Amid the roar and tumult of the battle he turned the flight he had arrested into the means of victory. Broken as the stockade was by his desperate onset, the shield-wall of the warriors behind it still held the Normans at bay, when William by a feint of flight drew a part of the English force from their post of vantage. Turning on his disorderly pursuers, the Duke cut them to pieces, broke through the abandoned line, and was master of the central plateau, while French and Bretons made good their ascent on either flank. At three the hill seemed won, at six the fight still raged around the standard, where Harold's hus-carls stood stubbornly at bay on the spot marked afterward by the high altar of Battle Abbey. An order from the Duke at last brought his archers to the front, and their arrow-flight told heavily on the dense masses crowded around the King. As the sun went down, a shaft pierced Harold's right eye; he fell between the royal ensigns, and the battle closed with a desperate mélée over his corpse."

ALSO IN: E. A. Freeman, History of the Norman Conquest of England, chapter 15, section 4.

"It must be well understood that this great victory [of Senlac] did not make Duke William King nor put him in possession of the whole land. He still held only part of Sussex, and the people of the rest of the kingdom showed as yet no mind to submit to him. If England had had a leader left like Harold or Gyrth, William might have had to fight as many battles as Cnut had, and that with much less chance of winning in the end. For a large part of England fought willingly on Cnut's side, while William had no friends in England at all, except a few Norman settlers. William did not call himself King till he was regularly crowned more than two months later, and even then he had real possession only of about a third of the kingdom. It was more than three years before he had full possession of all. Still the great fight on Senlac none the less settled the fate of England. For after that fight William never met with any general resistance. … During the year 1067 William made no further conquests; all western and northern England remained unsubdued; but, except in Kent and Herefordshire, there was no fighting in any part of the land which had really submitted. The next two years were the time in which all England was really conquered. The former part of 1068 gave him the West. The latter part of that year gave him central and northern England as far as Yorkshire, the extreme north and northwest being still unsubdued. The attempt to win Durham in the beginning of 1069 led to two revolts at York. Later in the year all the north and west was again in arms, and the Danish fleet [of King Swegen, in league with the English patriots] came. But the revolts were put down one by one, and the great winter campaign of 1069-1070 conquered the still unsubdued parts, ending with the taking of Chester. Early in 1070 the whole land was for the first time in Williams's possession; there was no more fighting, and he was able to give his mind to the more peaceful part of his schemes, what we may call the conquest of the native Church by the appointment of foreign bishops. But in the summer of 1070 began the revolt of the Fenland, and the defence of Ely, which lasted till the autumn of 1071. After that William was full King everywhere without dispute. There was no more national resistance; there was no revolt of any large part of the country. … The conquest of the land, as far as fighting goes, was now finished."

E. A. Freeman, Short History of the Norman Conquest of England, chapter 8, section 9; chapter 10, section 16.

"The Norman army … remained concentrated around London [in the winter of 1067], and upon the southern and eastern coasts nearest Gaul. The partition of the wealth of the invaded territory now almost solely occupied them. Commissioners went over the whole extent of country in which the army had left garrisons; they took an exact inventory of property of every kind, public and private, carefully registering every particular. … A close inquiry was made into the names of all the English partisans of Harold, who had either died in battle, or survived the defeat, or by involuntary delays had been prevented from joining the royal standard. All the property of these three classes of men, lands, revenues, furniture, houses, were confiscated; the children of the first class were declared forever disinherited; the second class, were, in like manner, wholly dispossessed of their estates and property of every kind, and, says one of the Norman writers, were only too grateful for being allowed to retain their lives. Lastly, those who had not taken up arms were also despoiled of all they possessed, for having had the intention of taking up arms; but, by special grace, they were allowed to entertain the hope that after many long years of obedience and devotion to the foreign power, not they, indeed, but their sons, might perhaps obtain from their new masters some portion of their paternal heritage. Such was the law of the conquest, according to the unsuspected testimony of a man nearly contemporary with and of the race of the conquerors [Richard Lenoir or Noirot, bishop of Ely in the 12th century]. The immense product of this universal spoliation became the pay of those adventurers of every nation who had enrolled under the banner of the duke of Normandy. … Some received their pay in money, others had stipulated that they should have a Saxon wife, and William, says the Norman chronicle, gave them in marriage noble dames, great heiresses, whose husbands had fallen in the battle. One, only, among the knights who had accompanied the conqueror, claimed neither lands, gold, nor wife, and would accept none of the spoils of the conquered. His name was Guilbert Fitz-Richard: he said that he had accompanied his lord to England because such was his duty, but that stolen goods had no attraction for him."

      A. Thierry,
      History of the Conquest of England by the Normans,
      book 4.

   "Though many confiscations took place, in order to gratify the
   Norman army, yet the mass of property was left in the hands of
   its former possessors. Offices of high trust were bestowed
   upon Englishmen, even upon those whose family renown might
   have raised the most aspiring thoughts. But, partly through
   the insolence and injustice of William's Norman vassals,
   partly through the suspiciousness natural to a man conscious
   of having overturned the national government, his yoke soon
   became more heavy. The English were oppressed; they rebelled,
   were subdued, and oppressed again. … An extensive spoliation
   of property accompanied these revolutions. It appears by the
   great national survey of Domesday Book, completed near the
   close of the Conqueror's reign, that the tenants in capite of
   the crown were generally foreigners. … But inferior
   freeholders were much less disturbed in their estates than the
   higher. … The valuable labours of Sir Henry Ellis, in
   presenting us with a complete analysis of Domesday Book,
   afford an opportunity, by his list of mesne tenants at the
   time of the survey, to form some approximation to the relative
   numbers of English and foreigners holding manors under the
   immediate vassals of the crown. … Though I will not now
   affirm or deny that they were a majority, they [the English]
   form a large proportion of nearly 8,000 mesne tenants, who are
   summed up by the diligence of Sir Henry Ellis. …
{794}
   This might induce us to suspect that, great as the spoliation
   must appear in modern times, and almost completely as the
   nation was excluded from civil power in the commonwealth,
   there is some exaggeration in the language of those writers
   who represent them as universal reduced to a state of penury
   and servitude. And this suspicion may be in some degree just.
   Yet those writers, and especial the most English in feeling of
   them all, M. Thierry, are warranted by the language of
   contemporary authorities."

"By right of conquest William claimed nothing. He had come to take his crown, and he had unluckily met with some opposition in taking it. The crown-lands of King Edward passed of course to his successor. As for the lands of other men, in William's theory all was forfeited to the crown. The lawful heir had been driven to seek his kingdom in arms; no Englishman had helped him; many Englishmen had fought against him. All then were directly or indirectly traitors. The King might lawfully deal with the lands of all as his own. … After the general redemption of lands, gradually carried out as William's power advanced, no general blow was dealt at Englishmen as such. … Though the land had never seen so great a confiscation, or one so largely for the behoof of foreigners, yet there was nothing new in the thing itself. … Confiscation of land was the every-day punishment for various public and private crimes. … Once granting the original wrong of his coming at all and bringing a host of strangers with him, there is singularly little to blame in the acts of the Conqueror."

"After each effort [of revolt] the royal hand was laid on more heavily: more and more land changed owners, and with the change of owners the title changed. The complicated and unintelligible irregularities of the Anglo-Saxon tenures were exchanged for the simple and uniform feudal theory. … It was not the change from alodial to feudal so much as from confusion to order. The actual amount of dispossession was no doubt greatest in the higher ranks."

"In the northern part of Cambridgeshire there is a vast extent of low and marshy land, intersected in every direction by rivers. All the waters from the centre of England which do not flow into the Thames or the Trent, empty themselves into these marshes, which in the latter end of autumn overflow, cover the land, and are charged with fogs and vapours. A portion of this damp and swampy country was then, as now, called the Isle of Ely; another the Isle of Thorney, a third the Isle of Croyland. This district, almost a moving bog, impracticable for cavalry and for soldiers heavily armed, had more than once served as a refuge for the Saxons in the time of the Danish conquest; towards the close of the year 1069 it became the rendezvous of several bands of patriots from various quarters, assembling against the Normans. Former chieftains, now dispossessed of their lands, successively repaired hither with their clients, some by land, others by water, by the mouths of the rivers. They here constructed entrenchments of earth and wood, and established an extensive armed station, which took the name of the Camp of Refuge. The foreigners at first hesitated to attack them amidst their rushes and willows, and thus gave them time to transmit messages in every direction, at home and abroad, to the friends of old England. Become powerful, they undertook a partisan war by land and by sea, or, as the conquerors called it, robbery and piracy."

      A. Thierry,
      History of the Conquest of England by the Normans,
      book 4.

"Against the new tyranny the free men of the Danelagh and of Northumbria rose. If Edward the descendant of Cerdic had been little to them, William the descendant of Rollo was still less. … So they rose, and fought; too late, it may be, and without unity or purpose; and they were worsted by an enemy who had both unity and purpose; whom superstition, greed, and feudal discipline kept together, at least in England, in one compact body of unscrupulous and terrible confederates. And theirs was a land worth fighting for—a good land and large: from Humber mouth inland to the Trent and merry Sherwood, across to Chester and the Dee, round by Leicester and the five burghs of the Danes; eastward again to Huntingdon and Cambridge (then a poor village on the site of an old Roman town); and then northward again into the wide fens, the land of the Girvii, where the great central plateau of England slides into the sea, to form, from the rain and river washings of eight shires, lowlands of a fertility inexhaustible, because ever-growing to this day. Into those fens, as into a natural fortress, the Anglo-Danish noblemen crowded down instinctively from the inland to make their last stand against the French. … Most gallant of them all, and their leader in the fatal struggle against William, was Hereward the Wake, Lord of Bourne and ancestor of that family of Wake, the arms of whom appear on the cover of this book."

The defence of the Camp of Refuge was maintained until October, 1071, when the stronghold is said to have been betrayed by the monks of Ely, who grew tired of the disturbance of their peace. But Hereward did not submit. He made his escape and various accounts are given of his subsequent career and his fate.

E. A. Freeman, History of the Norman Conquest of England, chapter 20, section 1.

"The distinctive characteristic of the Norman kings [of England] was their exceeding greed, and the administrative system was so directed as to insure the exaction of the highest possible imposts. From this bent originated the great registration that William [the Conqueror] caused to be taken of all lands, whether holden in fee or at rent; as well as the census of the entire population. The respective registers were preserved in the Cathedral of Winchester, and by the Norman were designated 'Ie grand rôle,' 'Ie rôle royal,' 'Ie rôle de Winchester'; but by the Saxons were termed 'the Book of the Last Judgment,' 'Doomesdaege Boc,' 'Doomsday Book.'"

   For a different statement see the following: "The recently
   attempted invasion from Denmark seems to have impressed the
   king with the desirability of· an accurate knowledge of his
   resources, military and fiscal, both of which were based upon
   the land. The survey was completed in the remarkably short
   space of a single year [1085-1086]. In each shire the
   commissioners made their inquiries by the oaths of the
   sheriffs, the barons and their Norman retainers, the parish
   priests, the reeves and six ceorls of each township.
{795}
   The result of their labours was a minute description of all
   the lands of the kingdom, with the exception of the four
   northern counties of Northumberland, Cumberland, Westmoreland
   and Durham, and part of what is now Lancashire. It enumerates
   the tenants-in-chief, under tenants, freeholders, villeins,
   and serfs, describes the nature and obligations of the
   tenures, the value in the time of King Eadward, at the
   conquest, and at the date of the survey, and, which gives the
   key to the whole inquiry, informs the king whether any advance
   in the valuation could be made. … The returns were
   transmitted to Winchester, digested, and recorded in two
   volumes which have descended to posterity under the name of
   Domesday Book. The name itself is probably derived from Domus
   Dei, the appellation of a chapel or vault of the cathedral at
   Winchester in which the survey was at first deposited."

"Of the motives which induced the Conqueror and his council to undertake the Survey we have very little reliable information, and much that has been written on the subject savours more of a deduction from the result than of a knowledge of the immediate facts. We have the statement from the Chartulary of St. Mary's, Worcester, of the appointment of the Commissioners by the king himself to make the Survey. We have also the heading of the 'Inquisitio Eliensis' which purports to give, and probably does truly give, the items of the articles of inquiry, which sets forth as follows:

   I. What is the manor called?
   II. Who held it in the time of King Edward?
   III. Who now holds it?
   IV. How many hides?
   V. What teams are there in demesne?
   VI. What teams of the men?
   VII. What villans?
   VIII. What cottagers?
   IX. What bondmen?
   X. What freemen and what sokemen?
   XI. What woods?
   XII. What meadow?
   XIII. What pastures?
   XIV. What mills?
   XV. What fisheries?
   XVI. What is added or taken away?
   XVII. What the whole was worth together, and what now?
   XVIII. How much each freeman or sokeman had or has?

All this to be estimated three times, viz. in the time of King Edward, and when King William gave it, and how it is now, and if more can be had for it than has been had. This document is, I think, the best evidence we have of the form of the inquiry, and it tallies strictly with the form of the various returns as we now have them. … An external evidence failing, we are driven back to the Record itself for evidence of the Conqueror's intention in framing it, and anyone who carefully studies it will be driven to the inevitable conclusion that it was framed and designed in the spirit of perfect equity. Long before the Conquest, in the period between the death of Alfred and that of Edward the Confessor, the kingdom had been rapidly declining into a state of disorganisation and decay. The defence of the kingdom and the administration of justice and keeping of the peace could not be maintained by the king's revenues. The tax of Danegeld, instituted by Ethelred at first to buy peace of the Danes, and afterwards to maintain the defence of the kingdom, had more and more come to be levied unequally and unfairly. The Church had obtained enormous remissions of its liability, and its possessions were constantly increasing. Powerful subjects had obtained further remission, and the tax had come to be irregularly collected and was burdensome upon the smaller holders and their poor tenants, while the nobility and the Church escaped with a small share in the burden. In short the tax had come to be collected upon an old and uncorrected assessment. It had probably dwindled in amount, and at last had been ultimately remitted by Edward the Confessor. Anarchy and confusion appears to have reigned throughout the realm. The Conqueror was threatened with foreign invasion, and pressed on all sides by complaints of unfair taxation on the part of his subjects. Estates had been divided and subdivided, and the incidence of the tax was unequal and unjust. He had to face the difficulties before him and to count the resources of his kingdom for its defence, and the means of doing so were not at hand. In this situation his masterly and order-loving Norman mind instituted this great inquiry, but ordered it to be taken (as I maintain the study of the Book will show) in the most public and open manner, and with the utmost impartiality, with the view of levying the taxes of the kingdom equally and fairly upon all. The articles of his inquiry show that he was prepared to study the resources of his kingdom and consider the liability of his subjects from every possible point of view."

"Domesday Book is a vast mine of materials for the social and economical history of our country, a mine almost inexhaustible, and to a great extent as yet unworked. Among national documents it is unique. There is nothing that approaches it in interest and value except the Landnámabók, which records the names of the original settlers in Iceland and the designations they bestowed upon the places where they settled, and tells us how the island was taken up and apportioned among them. Such a document for England, describing the way in which our forefathers divided the territory they conquered, and how 'they called the lands after their own names,' would indeed be priceless. But the Domesday Book does, indirectly, supply materials for the history of the English as well as of the Norman Conquest, for it records not only how the lands of England were divided among the Norman host which conquered at Senlac, but it gives us also the names of the Saxon and Danish holders who possessed the lands before the great battle which changed all the future history of England, and enables us to trace the extent of the transfer of the land from Englishmen to Normans; it shows how far the earlier owners were reduced to tenants, and by its enumeration of the classes of population—freemen, sokemen, villans, cottiers, and slaves—it indicates the nature and extent of the earlier conquests. Thus we learn that in the West of England slaves were numerous, while in the East they were almost unknown, and hence we gather that in the districts first subdued the British population was exterminated or driven off, while in the West it was reduced to servitude."

ALSO IN: E. A. Freeman, History of the Norman Conquest, chapters 21-22 and appendix A in volume 5.

William the Conqueror, when he died, left Normandy and Maine to his elder son Robert, the English crown to his stronger son, William, called Rufus, or the Red, and only a legacy of £5,000 to his third son, Henry, called Beauclerc, or The Scholar. The Conqueror's half-brother, Odo, soon began to persuade the Norman barons in England to displace William Rufus and plant Robert on the English throne. "The claim of Robert to succeed his father in England, was supported by the respected rights of primogeniture. But the Anglo-Saxon crown had always been elective. … Primogeniture … gave at that time no right to the crown of England, independent of the election of its parliamentary assembly. Having secured this title, the power of Rufus rested on the foundation most congenial with the feelings and institutions of the nation, and from their partiality received a popular support, which was soon experienced to be impregnable. The danger compelled the king to court his people by promises to diminish their grievances; which drew 30,000 knights spontaneously to his banners, happy to have got a sovereign distinct from hated Normandy. The invasion of Robert, thus resisted by the English people, effected nothing but some temporary devastations. … The state of Normandy, under Robert's administration, for some time furnished an ample field for his ambitious uncle's activity. It continued to exhibit a negligent government in its most vicious form. … Odo's politics only facilitated the Reannexation of Normandy to England. But this event was not completed in William's reign. When he retorted the attempt of Robert, by an invasion of Normandy, the great barons of both countries found themselves endangered by the conflict, and combined their interest to persuade their respective sovereigns to a fraternal pacification. The most important article of their reconciliation provided, that if either should die without issue, the survivor should inherit his dominions. Hostilities were then abandoned; mutual courtesies ensued; and Robert visited England as his brother's guest. The mind of William the Red King, was cast in no common mould. It had all the greatness and the defects of the chivalric character, in its strong but rudest state. Impetuous, daring, original, magnanimous, and munificent; it was also harsh, tyrannical, and selfish; conceited of its own powers, loose in its moral principles, and disdaining consequences. … While Lanfranc lived, William had a counsellor whom he respected, and whose good opinion he was careful to preserve. … The death of Lanfranc removed the only man whose wisdom and influence could have meliorated the king's ardent, but undisciplined temper. It was his misfortune, on this event, to choose for his favourite minister, an able, but an unprincipled man. … The minister advised the king, on the death of every prelate, to seize all his temporal possessions. … The great revenues obtained from this violent innovation, tempted both the king and his minister to increase its productiveness, by deferring the nomination of every new prelate for an indefinite period. Thus he kept many bishoprics, and among them the see of Canterbury, vacant for some years; till a severe illness alarming his conscience, he suddenly appointed Anselm to the dignity; … His disagreement with Anselm soon began. The prelate injudiciously began the battle by asking the king to restore, not only the possessions of his see, which were enjoyed by Lanfranc—a fair request—but also the lands which had before that time belonged to it; a demand that, after so many years alteration of property, could not be complied with without great disturbance of other persons. Anselm also exacted of the king that in all things which concerned the church, his counsels should be taken in preference to every other. … Though Anselm, as a literary man, was an honour and a benefit to his age, yet his monastic and studious habits prevented him from having that social wisdom, that knowledge of human nature, that discreet use of his own virtuous firmness, and that mild management of turbulent power, which might have enabled him to have exerted much of the influence of Lanfranc over the mind of his sovereign. … Anselm, seeing the churches and abbeys oppressed in their property, by the royal orders, resolved to visit Rome, and to concert with the pope the measures most adapted to overawe the king. … William threatened, that if he did go to Rome, he would seize all the possessions of the archbishopric. Anselm declared, that he would rather travel naked and on foot, than desist from his resolution; and he went to Dover with his pilgrim's staff and wallet. He was searched before his departure, that he might carry away no money, and was at last allowed to sail. But the king immediately executed his threat, and sequestered all his lands and property. This was about three years before the end of the reign. … Anselm continued in Italy till William's death. The possession of Normandy was a leading object of William's ambition, and he gradually attained a preponderance in it. His first invasion compelled Robert to make some cessions; these were increased on his next attack: and when Robert determined to join the Crusaders, he mortgaged the whole of Normandy to William for three years, for 10,000 marks. He obtained the usual success of a powerful invasion in Wales. The natives were overpowered on the plains, but annoyed the invaders in their mountains. He marched an army against Malcolm, king of Scotland, to punish his incursions. Robert advised the Scottish king to conciliate William; Malcolm yielded to his counsel and accompanied Robert to the English court, but on his return, was treacherously attacked by Mowbray, the earl of Northumbria, and killed. William regretted the perfidious cruelty of the action. … The government of William appears to have been beneficial, both to England and Normandy. To the church it was oppressive. … He had scarcely reigned twelve years, when he fell by a violent death." He was hunting with a few attendants in the New Forest. "It happened that, his friends dispersing in pursuit of game, he was left alone, as some authorities intimate, with Walter Tyrrel, a noble knight, whom he had brought out of France, and admitted to his table, and to whom he was much attached. As the sun was about to set, a stag passed before the king, who discharged an arrow at it. … At the same moment, another stag crossing, Walter Tyrrel discharged an arrow at it. At this precise juncture, a shaft struck the king, and buried itself in his breast. He fell, without a word, upon the arrow, and expired on the spot. … It seems to be a questionable point, whether Walter Tyrrel actually shot the king. That opinion was certainly the most prevalent at the time, both here and in France. … {797} None of the authorities intimate a belief of a purposed assassination; and, therefore, it would be unjust now to impute it to anyone. … Henry was hunting in a different part of the New Forest when Rufus fell. … He left the body to the casual charity of the passing rustic, and rode precipitately to Winchester, to seize the royal treasure. … He obtained the treasure, and proceeding hastily to London, was on the following Sunday, the third day after William's death, elected king, and crowned. … He began his reign by removing the unpopular agents of his unfortunate brother. He recalled Anselm, and conciliated the clergy. He gratified the nation, by abolishing the oppressive exactions of the previous reign. He assured many benefits to the barons, and by a charter, signed on the day of his coronation, restored to the people their Anglo-Saxon laws and privileges, as amended by his father; a measure which ended the pecuniary oppressions of his brother, and which favoured the growing liberties of the nation. The Conqueror had noticed Henry's expanding intellect very early; had given him the best education which the age could supply. … He became the most learned monarch of his day, and acquired and deserved the surname of Beauclerc, or fine scholar. No wars, no cares of state, could afterwards deprive him of his love of literature. The nation soon felt the impulse and the benefit of their sovereign's intellectual taste. He acceded at the age of 32, and gratified the nation by marrying and crowning Mathilda, daughter of the sister of Edgar Etheling by Malcolm the king of Scotland, who had been waylaid and killed."

The Norman lords, hating the "English ways" of Henry, were soon in rebellion, undertaking to put Robert of Normandy (who had returned from the Crusade) in his place. The quarrel went on till the battle of Tenchebray, 1106, in which Robert was defeated and taken prisoner. He was imprisoned for life. The duchy and the kingdom were again united. The war in Normandy led to a war with Louis king of France, who had espoused Robert's cause. It was ended by the battle of Brêmule, 1119, where the French suffered a bad defeat. In Henry's reign all south Wales was conquered; but the north Welsh princes held out. Another expedition against them was preparing, when, in 1135, Henry fell ill at the Castle of Lions in Normandy, and died.

      ALSO IN:
      Sir F. Palgrave,
      History of Normandy and England,
      volume 4.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1135-1154.
   The miserable reign of Stephen.
   Civil war, anarchy and wretchedness in England.
   The transition to hereditary monarchy.

After the death of William the Conqueror, the English throne was occupied in succession by two of his sons, William II., or William Rufus (1087-1100), and Henry I., or Henry Beauclerk (1100-1135). The latter outlived his one legitimate son, and bequeathed the crown at his death to his daughter, Matilda, widow of the Emperor Henry V. of Germany and now wife of Geoffrey, Count of Anjou. This latter marriage had been very unpopular, both in England and Normandy, and a strong party refused to recognize the Empress Matilda, as she was commonly called. This party maintained the superior claims of the family of Adela, daughter of William the Conqueror, who had married the Earl of Blois. Naturally their choice would have fallen upon Theobald of Blois, the eldest of Adela's sons; but his more enterprising younger brother Stephen supplanted him. Hastening to England, and winning the favour of the citizens of London, Stephen secured the royal treasure and persuaded a council of peers to elect him king. A most grievous civil war ensued, which lasted for nineteen terrible years, during which long period there was anarchy and great wretchedness in England. "The land was filled with castles, and the castles with armed banditti, who seem to have carried on their extortions under colour of the military commands bestowed by Stephen on every petty castellan. Often the very belfries of churches were fortified. On the poor lay the burden of building these strongholds; the rich suffered in their donjeons. Many were starved to death, and these were the happiest. Others were flung into cellars filled with reptiles, or hung up by the thumbs till they told where their treasures were concealed, or crippled in frames which did not suffer them to move, or held just resting on the ground by sharp iron collars round the neck. The Earl of Essex used to send out spies who begged from door to door, and then reported in what houses wealth was still left; the alms-givers were presently seized and imprisoned. The towns that could no longer pay the blackmail demanded from them were burned. … Sometimes the peasants, maddened by misery, crowded to the roads that led from a field of battle, and smote down the fugitives without any distinction of sides. The bishops cursed vainly, when the very churches were burned and monks robbed. 'To till the ground was to plough the sea; the earth bare no corn, for the land was all laid waste by such deeds, and men said openly that Christ slept, and his saints. Such things, and more than we can say, suffered we nineteen winters for our sins' (A. S. Chronicle). … Many soldiers, sickened with the unnatural war, put on the white cross and sailed for a nobler battle-field in the East." As Matilda's son Henry—afterwards Henry II.—grew to manhood, the feeling in his favor gained strength and his party made head against the weak and incompetent Stephen. Finally, in 1153, peace was brought about under an agreement "that Stephen should wear the crown till his death, and Henry receive the homage of the lords and towns of the realm as heir apparent." Stephen died the next year and Henry came to the throne with little further dispute.

C. H. Pearson, History of England During the Early and Middle Ages, chapter 28.

"Stephen, as a king, was an admitted failure. I cannot, however, but view with suspicion the causes assigned to his failure by often unfriendly chroniclers. That their criticisms had some foundation it would not be possible to deny. But in the first place, had he enjoyed better fortune, we should have heard less of his incapacity, and in the second, these writers, not enjoying the same stand-point as ourselves, were, I think, somewhat inclined to mistake effects for causes. … His weakness throughout his reign … was due to two causes, each supplementing the other. {798} These were—(1) the essentially unsatisfactory character of his position, as resting, virtually, on a compact that he should be king so long only as he gave satisfaction to those who had placed him on the throne; (2) the existence of a rival claim, hanging over him from the first, like the sword of Damocles, and affording a lever by which the malcontents could compel him to adhere to the original understanding, or even to submit to further demands. … The position of his opponents throughout his reign would seem to have rested on two assumptions. The first, that a breach, on his part, of the 'contract' justified ipso facto revolt on theirs; the second, that their allegiance to the king was a purely feudal relation, and, as such, could be thrown off at any moment by performing the famous diffidatio. This essential feature of continental feudalism had been rigidly excluded by the Conqueror. He had taken advantage, as is well known, of his position as an English king, to extort an allegiance from his Norman followers more absolute than he could have claimed as their feudal lord. It was to Stephen's peculiar position that was due the introduction for a time of this pernicious principle into England. … Passing now to the other point, the existence of a rival claim, we approach a subject of great interest, the theory of the succession to the English Crown at what may be termed the crisis of transition from the principle of election (within the royal house) to that of hereditary right according to feudal rules. For the right view on this subject, we turn, as ever, to Dr. Stubbs, who, with his usual sound judgment, writes thus of the Norman period:—'The crown then continued to be elective. … But whilst the elective principle was maintained in its fulness where it was necessary or possible to maintain it, it is quite certain that the right of inheritance, and inheritance as primogeniture, was recognized as coordinate. … The measures taken by Henry I. for securing the crown to his own children, whilst they prove the acceptance of the hereditary principle, prove also the importance of strengthening it by the recognition of the elective theory.' Mr. Freeman, though writing with a strong bias in favour of the elective theory, is fully justified in his main argument, namely, that Stephen 'was no usurper in the sense in which the word is vulgarly used.' He urges, apparently with perfect truth, that Stephen's offence, in the eyes of his contemporaries, lay in his breaking his solemn oath, and not in his supplanting a rightful heir. And he aptly suggests that the wretchedness of his reign may have hastened the growth of that new belief in the divine right of the heir to the throne, which first appears under Henry II., and in the pages of William of Newburgh. So far as Stephen is concerned the case is clear enough. But we have also to consider the Empress. On what did she base her claim? I think that, as implied in Dr. Stubbs' words, she based it on a double, not a single, ground. She claimed the kingdom as King Henry's daughter ('regis Henrici filia '), but she claimed it further because the succession had been assured to her by oath ('sibi juratum') as such. It is important to observe that the oath in question can in no way be regarded in the light of an election. … The Empress and her partisans must have largely, to say the least, based their claim on her right to the throne as her father's heir, and … she and they appealed to the oath as the admission and recognition of that right, rather than as partaking in any way whatever of the character of a free election. … The sex of the Empress was the drawback to her claim. Had her brother lived, there can be little question that he would, as a matter of course, have succeeded his father at his death. Or again, had Henry II. been old enough to succeed his grandfather, he would, we may be sure, have done so. … Broadly speaking, to sum up the evidence here collected, it tends to the belief that the obsolescence of the right of election to the English crown presents considerable analogy to that of canonical election in the case of English bishoprics. In both cases a free election degenerated into a mere assent to a choice already made. We see the process of change already in full operation when Henry I. endeavours to extort beforehand from the magnates their assent to his daughter's succession, and when they subsequently complain of this attempt to dictate to them on the subject. We catch sight of it again when his daughter bases her claim to the crown, not on any free election, but on her rights as her father's heir, confirmed by the above assent. We see it, lastly, when Stephen, though owing his crown to election, claims to rule by Divine right ('Dei gratia'), and attempts to reduce that election to nothing more than a national 'assent' to his succession. Obviously, the whole question turned on whether the election was to be held first, or was to be a mere ratification of a choice already made. … In comparing Stephen with his successor the difference between their circumstances has been insufficiently allowed for. At Stephen's accession, thirty years of legal and financial oppression had rendered unpopular the power of the Crown, and had led to an impatience of official restraint which opened the path to a feudal reaction: at the accession of Henry, on the contrary, the evils of an enfeebled administration and of feudalism run mad had made all men eager for the advent of a strong king, and had prepared them to welcome the introduction of his centralizing administrative reforms. He anticipated the position of the house of Tudor at the close of the Wars of the Roses, and combined with it the advantages which Charles II. derived from the Puritan tyranny. Again, Stephen was hampered from the first by his weak position as a king on sufferance, whereas Henry came to his work unhampered by compact or concession. Lastly, Stephen was confronted throughout by a rival claimant, who formed a splendid rallying-point for all the discontent in his realm: but Henry reigned for as long as Stephen without a rival to trouble him; and when he found at length a rival in his own son, a claim far weaker than that which had threatened his predecessor seemed likely for a time to break his power as effectually as the followers of the Empress had broken that of Stephen. He may only, indeed, have owed his escape to that efficient administration which years of strength and safety had given him the time to construct. It in no way follows from these considerations that Henry was not superior to Stephen; but it does, surely, suggest itself that Stephen's disadvantages were great, and that had he enjoyed better fortune, we might have heard less of his defects."

ENGLAND: A. D. 1154-1189. Henry II., the first of the Angevin kings (Plantagenets) and his empire.

Henry II., who came to the English throne on Stephen's death, was already, by the death of his father, Geoffrey, Count of Anjou, the head of the great house of Anjou, in France. From his father he inherited Anjou, Touraine and Maine; through his mother, Matilda, daughter of Henry I., he received the dukedom of Normandy as well as the kingdom of England; by marriage with Eleanor, of Aquitaine, or Guienne, he added to his empire the princely domain which included Gascony, Poitou, Saintonge, Perigord, Limousin, Angoumois, with claims of suzerainty over Auvergne and Toulouse. "Henry found himself at twenty-one ruler of dominions such as no king before him had ever dreamed of uniting. He was master of both sides of the English Channel, and by his alliance with his uncle, the Count of Flanders, he had command of the French coast from the Scheldt to the Pyrenees, while his claims on Toulouse would carry him to the shores of the Mediterranean. His subjects told with pride how 'his empire reached from the Arctic Ocean to the Pyrenees'; there was no monarch save the Emperor himself who ruled over such vast domains. … His aim [a few years Inter] seems to have been to rival in some sort the Empire of the West, and to reign as an over-king, with sub-kings of his various provinces, and England as one of them, around him. He was connected with all the great ruling houses. … England was forced out of her old isolation; her interest in the world without was suddenly awakened. English scholars thronged the foreign universities; English chroniclers questioned travellers, scholars, ambassadors, as to what was passing abroad.' The influence of English learning and English statecraft made itself felt all over Europe. Never, perhaps, in all the history of England was there a time when Englishmen played so great a part abroad." The king who gathered this wide, incongruous empire under his sceptre, by mere circumstances of birth and marriage, proved strangely equal, in many respects, to its greatness. "He was a foreign king who never spoke the English tongue, who lived and moved for the most part in a foreign camp, surrounded with a motley host of Brabançons and hirelings. … It was under the rule of a foreigner such as this, however, that the races of conquerors and conquered in England first learnt to feel that they were one. It was by his power that England, Scotland and Ireland were brought to some vague acknowledgement of a common suzerain lord, and the foundations laid of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. It was he who abolished feudalism as a system of government, and left it little more than a system of land tenure. It was he who defined the relations established between Church and State, and decreed that in England churchman as well as baron was to be held under the Common Law. … His reforms established the judicial system whose main outlines have been preserved to our own day. It was through his 'Constitutions' and his 'Assizes' that it came to pass that over all the world the English-speaking races are governed by English and not by Roman law. It was by his genius for government that the servants of the royal household became transformed into Ministers of State. It was he who gave England a foreign policy which decided our continental relations for seven hundred years. The impress which the personality of Henry II. left upon his time meets us wherever we turn."

Henry II. and his two sons, Richard I. (Cœur de Lion), and John, are distinguished, sometimes, as the Angevin kings, or kings of the House of Anjou, and sometimes as the Plantagenets, the latter name being derived from a boyish habit ascribed to Henry's father, Count Geoffrey, of "adorning his cap with a sprig of 'plantagenista,' the broom which in early summer makes the open country of Anjou and Maine a blaze of living gold." Richard retained and ruled the great realm of his father; but John lost most of his foreign inheritance, including Normandy, and became the unwilling benefactor of England by stripping her kings of alien interests and alien powers and bending their necks to Magna Charta.

      See, also,
      AQUITAINE (GUIENNE): A. D. 1137-1152;
      IRELAND: A. D. 1169-1175.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1162-1170.
   Conflict of King and Church.
   The Constitutions of Clarendon.
   Murder of Archbishop Becket.

"Archbishop Theobald was at first the King's chief favourite and adviser, but his health and his influence declining, Becket [the Archdeacon of Canterbury] was found apt for business as well as amusement, and gradually became intrusted with the exercise of all the powers of the crown. … The exact time of his appointment as Chancellor has not been ascertained, the records of the transfer of the Great Seal not beginning till a subsequent reign, and old biographers being always quite careless about dates. But he certainly had this dignity soon after Henry's accession. … Becket continued Chancellor till the year 1162, without any abatement in his favour with the King, or in the power which he possessed, or in the energy he displayed, or in the splendour of his career. … In April, 1161, Archbishop Theobald died. Henry declared that Becket should succeed,—no doubt counting upon his co-operation in carrying on the policy hitherto pursued in checking the encroachments of the clergy and of the see of Rome. … The same opinion of Becket's probable conduct was generally entertained, and a cry was raised that 'the Church was in danger.' The English bishops sent a representation to Henry against the appointment, and the electors long refused to obey his mandate, saying that 'it was indecent that a man who was rather a soldier than a priest, and who had devoted himself to hunting and falconry instead of the study of the Holy Scriptures, should be placed in the chair of St. Augustine.' … The universal expectation was, that Becket would now attempt the part so successfully played by Cardinal Wolsey in a succeeding age; that, Chancellor and Archbishop, he would continue the minister and personal friend of the King; that he would study to support and extend all the prerogatives of the Crown, which he himself was to exercise; and that in the palaces of which he was now master he would live with increased magnificence and luxury. … Never was there so wonderful a transformation. Whether from a predetermined purpose, or from a sudden change of inclination, he immediately became in every respect an altered man. {800} Instead of the stately and fastidious courtier, was seen the humble and squalid penitent. Next [to] his skin he wore hair-cloth, populous with vermin; he lived upon roots, and his drink was water, rendered nauseous by an infusion of fennel. By way of further penance and mortification, he frequently inflicted stripes on his naked back. … He sent the Great Seal to Henry, in Normandy, with this short message, 'I desire that you will provide yourself with another Chancellor, as I find myself hardly sufficient for the duties of one office, and much less of two.' The fond patron, who had been so eager for his elevation, was now grievously disappointed and alarmed. … He at once saw that he had been deceived in his choice. … The grand struggle which the Church was then making was, that all churchmen should be entirely exempted from the jurisdiction of the secular courts, whatever crime they might have committed. … Henry, thinking that he had a favourable opportunity for bringing the dispute to a crisis, summoned an assembly of all the prelates at Westminster, and himself put to them this plain question: 'Whether they were willing to submit to the ancient laws and customs of the kingdom?' Their reply, framed by Becket, was: 'We are willing, saving our own order.' … The King, seeing what was comprehended in the reservation, retired with evident marks of displeasure, deprived Becket of the government of Eye and Berkhamstead, and all the appointments which he held at the pleasure of the Crown, and uttered threats as to seizing the temporalities of all the bishops, since they would not acknowledge their allegiance to him as the head of the state. The legate of Pope Alexander, dreading a breach with so powerful a prince at so unseasonable a juncture, advised Becket to submit for the moment; and he with his brethren, retracting the saving clause, absolutely promised 'to observe the laws and customs of the kingdom.' To avoid all future dispute, Henry resolved to follow up his victory by having these laws and customs, as far as the Church was concerned, reduced into a code, to be sanctioned by the legislature, and to be specifically acknowledged by all the bishops. This was the origin of the famous 'Constitutions of Clarendon.''' Becket left the kingdom (1164). Several years later he made peace with Henry and returned to Canterbury; but soon he again displeased the King, who cried in a rage, 'Who will rid me of this turbulent priest?' Four knights who were present immediately went to Canterbury, where they slew the Archbishop in the cathedral (December 29, 1170). "The government tried to justify or palliate the murder. The Archbishop of York likened Thomas à Becket to Pharaoh, who died by the Divine vengeance, as a punishment for his hardness of heart; and a proclamation was issued, forbidding anyone to speak of Thomas of Canterbury as a martyr: but the feelings of men were too strong to be checked by authority; pieces of linen which had been dipped in his blood were preserved as relics; from the time of his death it was believed that miracles were worked at his tomb; thither flocked hundreds of thousands, in spite of the most violent threats of punishment; at the end of two years he was canonised at Rome; and, till the breaking out of the Reformation, St. Thomas of Canterbury, for pilgrimages and prayers, was the most distinguished Saint in England."

"What did Henry II. propose to do with a clerk who was accused of a crime? … Without doing much violence to the text, it is possible to put two different interpretations upon that famous clause in the Constitutions of Clarendon which deals with criminous clerks. … According to what seems to be the commonest opinion, we might comment upon this clause in some such words as these:—Offences of which a clerk may be accused are of two kinds. They are temporal or they are ecclesiastical. Under the former head fall murder, robbery, larceny, rape, and the like; under the latter, incontinence, heresy, disobedience to superiors, breach of rules relating to the conduct of divine service, and so forth. If charged with an offence of the temporal kind, the clerk must stand his trial in the king's court; his trial, his sentence, will be like that of a layman. For an ecclesiastical offence, on the other hand, he will be tried in the court Christian. The king reserves to his court the right to decide what offences are temporal, what ecclesiastical; also he asserts the right to send delegates to supervise the proceedings of the spiritual tribunals. … Let us attempt a rival commentary. The author of this clause is not thinking of two different classes of offences. The purely ecclesiastical offences are not in debate. No one doubts that for these a man will be tried in and punished by the spiritual court. He is thinking of the grave crimes, of murder and the like. Now every such crime is a breach of temporal law, and it is also a breach of canon law. The clerk who commits murder breaks the king's peace, but he also infringes the divine law, and—no canonist will doubt this—ought to be degraded. Very well. A clerk is accused of such a crime. He is summoned before the king's court, and he is to answer there—let us mark this word respondere—for what he ought to answer for there. What ought he to answer for there? The breach of the king's peace and the felony. When he has answered, … then, without any trial, he is to be sent to the ecclesiastical court. In that court he will have to answer as an ordained clerk accused of homicide, and in that court there will be a trial (res ibi tractabitur). If the spiritual court convicts him it will degrade him, and thenceforth the church must no longer protect him. He will be brought back into the king's court, … and having been brought back, no longer a clerk but a mere layman, he will be sentenced (probably without any further trial) to the layman's punishment, death or mutilation. The scheme is this: accusation and plea in the temporal court; trial, conviction, degradation, in the ecclesiastical court; sentence in the temporal court to the layman's punishment. This I believe to be the meaning of the clause."

F. W. Maitland, Henry II. and the Criminous Clerks (English Historical Review, April, 1892), pages 224-226.

The Assize of Clarendon, sometimes confused with the Constitutions of Clarendon, was an important decree approved two years later. It laid down the principles on which the administration of justice was to be carried out, in twenty-two articles drawn up for the use of the judges.

"It may not be without instruction to remember that the Constitutions of Clarendon, which Becket spent his life in opposing, and of which his death procured the suspension, are now incorporated in the English law, and are regarded, without a dissentient voice, as among the wisest and most necessary of English institutions; that the especial point for which he surrendered his life was not the independence of the clergy from the encroachments of the Crown, but the personal and now forgotten question of the superiority of the see of Canterbury to the see of York."

ALSO IN: W. Stubbs, Constitutional History of England, chapter 12, sections 139-141.

      R. H. Froude,
      History of the Contest between Archbishop
      Thomas à Becket and Henry II.
      (Remains, part 2, volume 2).

      C. H. Pearson,
      History of England during the Early and Middle Ages,
      volume 1, chapter 29.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1189-1199.
Reign of Richard Cœur de Lion.
His Crusade and campaigns in France.

"The Third Crusade [see CRUSADES: A. D. 1188-1192], undertaken for the deliverance of Palestine from the disasters brought upon the Crusaders' Kingdom by Saladin, was the first to be popular in England. … Richard joined the Crusade in the very first year of his reign, and every portion of his subsequent career was concerned with its consequences. Neither in the time of William Rufus nor of Stephen had the First or Second Crusades found England sufficiently settled for such expeditions. … But the patronage of the Crusades was a hereditary distinction in the Angevin family now reigning in England: they had founded the kingdom of Palestine; Henry II. himself had often prepared to set out; and Richard was confidently expected by the great body of his subjects to redeem the family pledge. … Wholly inferior in statesmanlike qualities to his father as he was, the generosity, munificence, and easy confidence of his character made him an almost perfect representative of the chivalry of that age. He was scarcely at all in England, but his fine exploits both by land and sea have made him deservedly a favourite. The depreciation of him which is to be found in certain modern books must in all fairness be considered a little mawkish. A King who leaves behind him such an example of apparently reckless, but really prudent valour, of patience under jealous ill-treatment, and perseverance in the face of extreme difficulties, shining out as the head of the manhood of his day, far above the common race of kings and emperors,—such a man leaves a heritage of example as well as glory, and incites posterity to noble deeds. His great moral fault was his conduct to Henry, and for this he was sufficiently punished; but his parents must each bear their share of the blame. … The interest of English affairs during Richard's absence languishes under the excitement which attends his almost continuous campaigns. … Both on the Crusade and in France Richard was fighting the battle of the House which the English had very deliberately placed upon its throne; and if the war was kept off its shores, if the troubles of Stephen's reign were not allowed to recur, the country had no right to complain of a taxation or a royal ransom which times of peace enabled it, after all, to bear tolerably well. … The great maritime position of the Plantagenets made these sovereigns take to the sea."

Richard "was a bad king; his great exploits, his military skill, his splendour and extravagance, his poetical tastes, his adventurous spirit, do not serve to cloak his entire want of sympathy, or even consideration for his people. He was no Englishman. … His ambition was that of a mere warrior."

In 1202 Philip Augustus, king of France, summoned John of England, as Duke of Normandy (therefore the feudal vassal of the French crown) to appear for trial on certain grave charges before the august court of the Peers of France. John refused to obey the summons; his French fiefs were declared forfeited, and the armies of the French king took possession of them (see FRANCE: A. D. 1180-1224). This proved to be a lasting separation of Normandy from England,—except as it was recovered momentarily long afterwards in the conquests of Henry V. "The Norman barons had had no choice but between John and Philip. For the first time since the Conquest there was no competitor, son, brother, or more distant kinsman, for their allegiance. John could neither rule nor defend them. Bishops and barons alike welcomed or speedily accepted their new lord. The families that had estates on both sides of the Channel divided into two branches, each of which made terms for itself; or having balanced their interests in the two kingdoms, threw in their lot with one or other, and renounced what they could not save. Almost immediately Normandy settles down into a quiet province of France. … For England the result of the separation was more important still. Even within the reign of John it became clear that the release of the barons from their connexion with the continent was all that was wanted to make them Englishmen. With the last vestiges of the Norman inheritances vanished the last idea of making England a feudal kingdom. The Great Charter was won by men who were maintaining, not the cause of a class, as had been the case in every civil war since 1070, but the cause of a nation. From the year 1203 the king stood before the English people face to face."

   On the death, in 1205, of Archbishop Hubert, of Canterbury,
   who had long been chief minister of the crown, a complicated
   quarrel over the appointment to the vacant see arose between
   the monks of the cathedral, the suffragan bishops of the
   province, King John, and the powerful Pope Innocent III. Pope
   Innocent put forward as his candidate the afterwards famous
   Stephen Langton, secured his election in a somewhat irregular
   way (A. D. 1207), and consecrated him with his own hands. King
   John, bent on filling the primacy with a creature of his own,
   resisted the papal action with more fury than discretion, and
   proceeded to open war with the whole Church.
{802}
   "The monks of Canterbury were driven from their monastery, and
   when, in the following year, an interdict which the Pope had
   intrusted to the Bishops of London, Ely and Worcester, was
   published, his hostility to the Church became so extreme that
   almost all the bishops fled; the Bishops of Winchester,
   Durham, and Norwich, two of whom belonged to the ministerial
   body, being the only prelates left in England. The interdict
   was of the severest form; all services of the Church, with the
   exception of baptism and extreme unction, being forbidden,
   while the burial of the dead was allowed only in unconsecrated
   ground; its effect was however, weakened by the conduct of
   some of the monastic orders, who claimed exemption from its
   operation, and continued their services. The king's anger knew
   no bounds. The clergy were put beyond the protection of the
   law; orders were issued to drive them from their benefices,
   and lawless acts committed at their expense met with no
   punishment. … Though acting thus violently, John showed the
   weakness of his character by continued communication with the
   Pope, and occasional fitful acts of favour to the Church; so
   much so, that, in the following year, Langton prepared to come
   over to England, and, upon the continued obstinacy of the
   king, Innocent, feeling sure of his final victory, did not
   shrink from issuing his threatened excommunication. John had
   hoped to be able to exclude the knowledge of this step from
   the island … ; but the rumour of it soon got abroad, and its
   effect was great. … In a state of nervous excitement, and
   mistrusting his nobles, the king himself perpetually moved to
   and fro in his kingdom, seldom staying more than a few days in
   one place. None the less did he continue his old line of policy.
   … In 1211 a league of excommunicated leaders was formed,
   including all the princes of the North of Europe; Ferrand of
   Flanders, the Duke of Brabant, John, and Otho [John's Guelphic
   Saxon nephew, who was one of two contestants for the imperial
   crown in Germany], were all members of it, and it was chiefly
   organized by the activity of Reinald of Dammartin, Count of
   Boulogne. The chief enemy of these confederates was Philip of
   France; and John thought he saw in this league the means of
   revenge against his old enemy. To complete the line of
   demarcation between the two parties, Innocent, who was greatly
   moved by the description of the disorders and persecutions in
   England, declared John's crown forfeited, and intrusted the
   carrying out of the sentence to Philip. In 1213 armies were
   collected on both sides. Philip was already on the Channel,
   and John had assembled a large army on Barhamdown, not far
   from Canterbury." But, at the last moment, when the French
   king was on the eve of embarking his forces for the invasion
   of England, John submitted himself abjectly to Pandulf, the
   legate of the Pope. He not only surrendered to all that he had
   contended against, but went further, to the most shameful
   extreme. "On the 15th of May, at Dover, he formally resigned
   the crowns of England and Ireland into the hands of Pandulf,
   and received them again as the Pope's feudatory."

      J. F. Bright,
      History of England (3d edition),
      volume 1, pages 130-134.

      ALSO IN:
      C. H. Pearson,
      History of England during the Early and Middle Ages,
      volume 2, chapter 2.

      E. F. Henderson,
      Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages,
      Book 4, number 5.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1206-1230.
Attempts of John and Henry III. to recover Anjou and Maine.

"It is to the victory of Bouvines that England owes her Great Charter [see BOUVINES]. … John sailed for Poitou with the dream of a great victory which should lay Philip [of France] and the barons alike at his feet. He returned from his defeat to find the nobles no longer banded together in secret conspiracies, but openly united in a definite claim of liberty and law. The author of this great change was the new Archbishop [Langton] whom Innocent had set on the throne of Canterbury. … In a private meeting of the barons at St. Paul's, he produced the Charter of Henry I., and the enthusiasm with which it was welcomed showed the sagacity with which the Primate had chosen his ground for the coming struggle. All hope, however, hung on the fortunes of the French campaign; it was the victory at Bouvines that broke the spell of terror, and within a few days of the king's landing the barons again met at St. Edmundsbury. … At Christmas they presented themselves in arms before the king and preferred their claim. The few months that followed showed John that he stood alone in the land. … At Easter the barons again gathered in arms at Brackley and renewed their claim. 'Why do they not ask for my kingdom?' cried John in a burst of passion; but the whole country rose as one man at his refusal. London threw open her gates to the army of the barons, now organized under Robert Fitz-Walter, 'the marshal of the army of God and the holy Church.' The example of the capital was at once followed by Exeter and Lincoln; promises of aid came from Scotland and Wales; the northern nobles marched hastily to join their comrades in London. With seven horsemen in his train John found himself face to face with a nation in arms. … Nursing wrath in his heart the tyrant bowed to necessity, and summoned the barons to a conference at Runnymede. An island in the Thames between Staines and Windsor had been chosen as the place of conference: the king encamped on one bank, while the barons covered the marshy flat, still known by the name of Runnymede, on the other. Their delegates met in the island between them. … The Great Charter was discussed, agreed to, and signed in a single day [June 15, A. D. 1215]. One copy of it still remains in the British Museum, injured by age and fire, but with the royal seal still hanging from the brown, shriveled parchment."

   "As this was the first effort towards a legal government, so
   is it beyond comparison the most important event in our
   history, except that, Revolution without which its benefits
   would have been rapidly annihilated. The constitution of
   England has indeed no single date from which its duration is
   to be reckoned. The institutions of positive law, the far more
   important changes which time has wrought in the order of
   society, during six hundred years subsequent to the Great
   Charter, have undoubtedly lessened its direct application to
   our present circumstances. But it is still the key-stone of
   English liberty. All that has since been obtained is little
   more than as confirmation or commentary. … The essential
   clauses of Magna Charta are those which protect the personal
   liberty and property of all freemen, by giving security from
   arbitrary imprisonment and arbitrary spoliation.
{803}
   'No freeman (says the 29th chapter of Henry III.'s charter,
   which, as the existing law, I quote in preference to that of
   John, the variations not being very material) shall be taken
   or imprisoned, or be disseised of his freehold, or liberties,
   or free customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any otherwise
   destroyed; nor will we pass upon him, nor send upon, but by
   lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land. We
   will sell to no man, we will not deny or delay to any man,
   justice or right.' It is obvious that these words, interpreted
   by any honest court of law, convey an ample security for the
   two main rights of civil society."

"The Great Charter, although drawn up in the form of a royal grant, was really a treaty between the king and his subjects. … It is the collective people who really form the other high contracting party in the great capitulation,—the three estates of the realm, not, it is true, arranged in order according to their profession or rank, but not the less certainly combined in one national purpose, and securing by one bond the interests and rights of each other, severally and all together. … The barons maintain and secure the right of the whole people as against themselves as well as against their master. Clause by clause the rights of the commons are provided for as well as the rights of the nobles. … The knight is protected against the compulsory exaction of his services, and the horse and cart of the freeman against the irregular requisition even of the sheriff. … The Great Charter is the first great public act of the nation, after it has realised its own identity. … The whole of the constitutional history of England is little more than a commentary on Magna Carta."

"John, by the Grace of God, King of England, Lord of Ireland, Duke of Normandy, Aquitaine, and Count of Anjou, to his Archbishops, Bishops, Abbots, Earls, Barons, Justiciaries, Foresters, Sheriffs, Governors, Officers, and to all Bailiffs, and his faithful subjects, greeting. Know ye, that we, in the presence of God, and for the salvation of our soul, and the souls of all our ancestors and heirs, and unto the honour of God and the advancement of Holy Church, and amendment of our Realm, by advice of our venerable Fathers, Stephen, Archbishop of Canterbury, Primate of all England and Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church; Henry, Archbishop of Dublin; William, of London; Peter, of Winchester; Jocelin, of Bath and Glastonbury; Hugh, of Lincoln; Walter, of Worcester; William, of Coventry; Benedict, of Rochester—Bishops; of Master Pandulph, Sub-Deacon and Familiar of our Lord the Pope; Brother Aymeric, Master of the Knights-Templars in England; and of the noble Persons, William Marescall, Earl of Pembroke; William, Earl of Salisbury; William, Earl of Warren; William, Earl of Arundel; Alan de Galloway, Constable of Scotland; Warin FitzGerald, Peter FitzHerbert, and Hubert de Burgh, Seneschal of Poitou; Hugh de Neville, Matthew FitzHerbert, Thomas Basset, Alan Basset, Philip of Albiney, Robert de Roppell, John Mareschal, John FitzHugh, and others, our liegemen, have, in the first place, granted to God, and by this our present Charter confirmed, for us and our heirs forever;

1. That the Church of England shall be free, and have her whole rights, and her liberties inviolable; and we will have them so observed, that it may appear thence that the freedom of elections, which is reckoned chief and indispensable to the English Church, and which we granted and confirmed by our Charter, and obtained the confirmation of the same from our Lord the Pope Innocent III., before the discord between us and our barons, was granted of mere free will; which Charter we shall observe, and we do will it to be faithfully observed by our heirs for ever.

2. We also have granted to all the freemen of our kingdom, for us and for our heirs for ever, all the underwritten liberties, to be had and holden by them and their heirs, of us and our heirs for ever; If any of our earls, or barons, or others, who hold of us in chief by military service, shall die, and at the time of his death his heir shall be of full age, and owe a relief, he shall have his inheritance by the ancient relief—that is to say, the heir or heirs of an earl, for a whole earldom, by a hundred pounds; the heir or heirs of a baron, for a whole barony, by a hundred pounds; the heir or heirs of a knight, for a whole knight's fee, by a hundred shillings at most; and whoever oweth less shall give less, according to the ancient custom of fees.

3. But if the heir of any such shall be under age, and shall be in ward, when he comes of age he shall have his inheritance without relief and without fine.

4. The keeper of the land of such an heir being under age, shall take of the land of the heir none but reasonable issues, reasonable customs, and reasonable services, and that without destruction and waste of his men and his goods; and if we commit the custody of any such lands to the sheriff, or any other who is answerable to us for the issues of the land, and he shall make destruction and waste of the lands which he hath in custody, we will take of him amends, and the land shall be committed to two lawful and discreet men of that fee, who shall answer for the issues to us, or to him to whom we shall assign them; and if we sell or give to anyone the custody of any such lands, and he therein make destruction or waste, he shall lose the same custody, which shall be committed to two lawful and discreet men of that fee, who shall in like manner answer to us as aforesaid.

5. But the keeper, so long as he shall have the custody of the land, shall keep up the houses, parks, warrens, ponds, mills, and other things pertaining to the land, out of the issues of the same land; and shall deliver to the heir, when he comes of full age, his whole land, stocked with ploughs and carriages, according as the time of wainage shall require, and the issues of the land can reasonably bear.

6. Heirs shall be married without disparagement, and so that before matrimony shall be contracted, those who are near in blood to the heir shall have notice.

7. A widow, after the death of her husband, shall forthwith and without difficulty have her marriage and inheritance; nor shall she give anything for her dower, or her marriage, of her inheritance, which her husband and she held at the day of his death; and she may remain in the mansion house of her husband forty days after his death, within which time her dower shall be assigned.

8. No widow shall be distrained to marry herself, so long as she has a mind to live without a husband; but yet she shall give security that she will not marry without our assent, if she hold of us; or without the consent of the lord of whom she holds, if she hold of another.

9. Neither we nor our bailiffs shall seize any land or rent for any debt so long as the chattels of the debtor are sufficient to pay the debt; nor shall the sureties of the debtor be distrained so long as the principal debtor has sufficient to pay the debt; and if the principal debtor shall fail in the payment of the debt, not having wherewithal to pay it, then the sureties shall answer the debt; and if they will they shall have the lands and rents of the debtor, until they shall be satisfied for the debt which they paid for him, unless the principal debtor can show himself acquitted thereof against the said sureties.

10. If anyone have borrowed anything of the Jews, more or less, and die before the debt be satisfied, there shall be no interest paid for that debt, so long as the heir is under age, of whomsoever he may hold; and if the debt falls into our hands, we will only take the chattel mentioned in the deed.

11. And if anyone shall die indebted to the Jews, his wife shall have her dower and pay nothing of that debt; and if the deceased left children under age, they shall have necessaries provided for them, according to the tenement of the deceased; and out of the residue the debt shall be paid, saving, however, the service due to the lords, and in like manner shall it be done touching debts due to others than the Jews.

12. No scutage or aid shall be imposed in our kingdom, unless by the general council of our kingdom; except for ransoming our person, making our eldest son a knight, and once for marrying our eldest daughter; and for these there shall be paid no more than a reasonable aid. In like manner it shall be concerning the aids of the City of London.

13. And the City of London shall have all its ancient liberties and free customs, as well by land as by water: furthermore, we will and grant that all other cities and boroughs, and towns and ports, shall have all their liberties and free customs.

14. And for holding the general council of the kingdom concerning the assessment of aids, except in the three cases aforesaid, and for the assessing of scutages, we shall cause to be summoned the archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls, and greater barons of the realm, singly by our letters. And furthermore, we shall cause to be summoned generally, by our sheriffs and bailiffs, all others who hold of us in chief, for a certain day, that is to say, forty days before their meeting at least, and to a certain place; and in all letters of such summons we will declare the cause of such summons. And summons being thus made, the business shall proceed on the day appointed, according to the advice of such as shall be present, although all that were summoned come not.

15. We will not for the future grant to anyone that he may take aid of his own free tenants, unless to ransom his body, and to make his eldest son a knight, and once to marry his eldest daughter; and for this there shall be only paid a reasonable aid.

16. No man shall be distrained to perform more service for a knight's fee, or other free tenement, than is due from thence.

17. Common pleas shall not follow our court, but shall be holden in some place certain.

18. Trials upon the Writs of Novel Disseisin, and of Mort d'ancestor, and of Darrein Presentment, shall not be taken but in their proper counties, and after this manner: We, or if we should be out of the realm, our chief justiciary, will send two justiciaries through every county four times a year, who, with four knights of each county, chosen by the county, shall hold the said assizes in the county, on the day, and at the place appointed.

19. And if any matters cannot be determined on the day appointed for holding the assizes in each county, so many of the knights and freeholders as have been at the assizes aforesaid shall stay to decide them as is necessary, according as there is more or less business.

20. A freeman shall not be amerced for a small offence, but only according to the degree of the offence; and for a great crime according to the heinousness of it, saving to him his contenement; and after the same manner a merchant, saving to him his merchandise. And a villein shall be amerced after the same manner, saving to him his wainage, if he falls under our mercy; and none of the aforesaid amerciaments shall be assessed but by the oath of honest men in the neighbourhood.

21. Earls and barons shall not be amerced but by their peers, and after the degree of the offence.

22. No ecclesiastical person shall be amerced for his lay tenement, but according to the proportion of the others aforesaid, and not according to the value of his ecclesiastical benefice.

23. Neither a town nor any tenant shall be distrained to make bridges or embankments, unless that anciently and of right they are bound to do it.

24. No sheriff, constable, coroner, or other our bailiffs, shall hold "Pleas of the Crown."

25. All counties, hundreds, wapentakes, and trethings, shall stand at the old rents, without any increase, except in our demesne manors.

26. If anyone holding of us a lay fee die, and the sheriff, or our bailiffs, show our letters patent of summons for debt which the dead man did owe to us, it shall be lawful for the sheriff or our bailiff to attach and register the chattels of the dead, found upon his lay fee, to the amount of the debt, by the view of lawful men, so as nothing be removed until our whole clear debt be paid; and the rest shall be left to the executors to fulfil the testament of the dead; and if there be nothing due from him to us, all the chattels shall go to the use of the dead, saving to his wife and children their reasonable shares.

27. If any freeman shall die intestate, his chattels shall be distributed by the hands of his nearest relations and friends, by view of the Church, saving to everyone his debts which the deceased owed to him.

28. No constable or bailiff of ours shall take corn or other chattels of any man unless he presently give him money for it, or hath respite of payment by the good-will of the seller.

29. No constable shall distrain any knight to give money for castle-guard, if he himself will do it in his person, or by another able man, in case he cannot do it through any reasonable cause. And if we have carried or sent him into the army, he shall be free from such guard for the time he shall be in the army by our command.

30. No sheriff or bailiff of ours, or any other, shall take horses or carts of any freeman for carriage, without the assent of the said freeman.

   31. Neither shall we nor our bailiffs take any man's timber
   for our castles or other uses, unless by the consent of the
   owner of the timber.

   32. We will retain the lands of those convicted of felony only
   one year and a day, and then they shall be delivered to the
   lord of the fee.

33. All kydells (wears) for the time to come shall be put down in the rivers of Thames and Medway, and throughout all England, except upon the seacoast.

34. The writ which is called prœcipe, for the future, shall not be made out to anyone, of any tenement, whereby a freeman may lose his court.

35. There shall be one measure of wine and one of ale through our whole realm; and one measure of corn, that is to say, the London quarter; and one breadth of dyed cloth, and russets, and haberjeets, that is to say, two ells within the lists; and it shall be of weights as it is of measures.

36. Nothing from henceforth shall be given or taken for a writ of inquisition of life or limb, but it shall be granted freely, and not denied.

37. If any do hold of us by fee-farm, or by socage, or by burgage, and he hold also lands of any other by knight's service, we will not have the custody of the heir or land, which is holden of another man's fee by reason of that fee-farm, socage, or burgage; neither will we have the custody of the fee-farm, or socage, or burgage, unless knight's service was due to us out of the same fee-farm. We will not have the custody of an heir, nor of any land which he holds of another by knight's service, by reason of any petty serjeanty by which he holds of us, by the service of paying a knife, an arrow, or the like.

38. No bailiff from henceforth shall put any man to his law upon his own bare saying, without credible witnesses to prove it.

39. No freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or disseised, or outlawed, or banished, or any ways destroyed, nor will we pass upon him, nor will we send upon him, unless by the lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land.

40. We will sell to no man, we will not deny to any man, either justice or right.

41. All merchants shall have safe and secure conduct, to go out of, and to come into England, and to stay there and to pass as well by land as by water, for buying and selling by the ancient and allowed customs, without any unjust tolls; except in time of war, or when they are of any nation at war with us. And if there be found any such in our land, in the beginning of the war, they shall be attached, without damage to their bodies or goods, until it be known unto us, or our chief justiciary, how our merchants be treated in the nation at war with us; and if ours be safe there, the others shall be safe in our dominions.

42. It shall be lawful, for the time to come, for anyone to go out of our kingdom, and return safely and securely by land or by water, saving his allegiance to us; unless in time of war, by some short space, for the common benefit of the realm, except prisoners and outlaws, according to the law of the land, and people in war with us, and merchants who shall be treated as is above mentioned.

43. If any man hold of any escheat, as of the honour of Wallingford, Nottingham, Boulogne, Lancaster, or of other escheats which be in our hands, and are baronies, and die, his heir shall give no other relief, and perform no other service to us than he would to the baron, if it were in the baron's hand; and we will hold it after the same manner as the baron held it.

44. Those men who dwell without the forest from henceforth shall not come before our justiciaries of the forest, upon common summons, but such as are impleaded, or are sureties for any that are attached for something concerning the forest.

45. We will not make any justices, constables, sheriffs, or bailiffs, but of such as know the law of the realm and mean duly to observe it.

   46. All barons who have founded abbeys, which they hold by
   charter from the kings of England, or by ancient tenure, shall
   have the keeping of them, when vacant, as they ought to have.

47. All forests that have been made forests in our time shall forthwith be disforested; and the same shall be done with the water-banks that have been fenced in by us in our time.

48. All evil customs concerning forests, warrens, foresters, and warreners, sheriffs and their officers, water-banks and their keepers, shall forthwith be inquired into in each county, by twelve sworn knights of the same county, chosen by creditable persons of the same county; and within forty days after the said inquest be utterly abolished, so as never to be restored: so as we are first acquainted therewith, or our justiciary, if we should not be in England.

49. We will immediately give up all hostages and charters delivered unto us by our English subjects, as securities for their keeping the peace, and yielding us faithful service.

50. We will entirely remove from their bailiwicks the relations of Gerard de Atheyes, so that for the future they shall have no bailiwick in England; we will also remove Engelard de Cygony, Andrew, Peter, and Gyon, from the Chancery; Gyon de Cygony, Geoffrey de Martyn, and his brothers; Philip Mark, and his brothers, and his nephew, Geoffrey, and their whole retinue.

51. As soon as peace is restored, we will send out of the kingdom all foreign knights, cross-bowmen, and stipendiaries, who are come with horses and arms to the molestation of our people.

52. If anyone has been dispossessed or deprived by us, without the lawful judgment of his peers, of his lands, castles, liberties, or right, we will forthwith restore them to him; and if any dispute arise upon this head, let the matter be decided by the five-and-twenty barons hereafter mentioned, for the preservation of the peace. And for all those things of which any person has, without the lawful judgment of his peers, been dispossessed or deprived, either by our father King Henry, or our brother King Richard, and which we have in our hands, or are possessed by others, and we are bound to warrant and make good, we shall have a respite till the term usually allowed the crusaders; excepting those things about which there is a plea depending, or whereof an inquest hath been made, by our order before we undertook the crusade; but as soon as we return from our expedition, or if perchance we tarry at home and do not make our expedition, we will immediately cause full justice to be administered therein.

53. The same respite we shall have, and in the same manner, about administering justice, disafforesting or letting continue the forests, which Henry our father, and our brother Richard, have afforested; and the same concerning the wardship of the lands which are in another's fee, but the wardship of which we have hitherto had, by reason of a fee held of us by knight's service; and for the abbeys founded in any other fee than our own, in which the lord of the fee says he has a right; and when we return from our expedition, or if we tarry at home, and do not make our expedition, we will immediately do full justice to all the complainants in this behalf.

54. No man shall be taken or imprisoned upon the appeal of a woman, for the death of any other than her husband.

55. All unjust and illegal fines made by us, and all amerciaments imposed unjustly and contrary to the law of the land, shall be entirely given up, or else be left to the decision of the five-and-twenty barons hereafter mentioned for the preservation of the peace, or of the major part of them, together with the aforesaid Stephen, Archbishop of Canterbury, if he can be present, and others whom he shall think fit to invite; and if he cannot be present, the business shall notwithstanding go on without him; but so that if one or more of the aforesaid five-and-twenty barons be plaintiffs in the same cause, they shall be set aside as to what concerns this particular affair, and others be chosen in their room, out of the said five-and-twenty, and sworn by the rest to decide the matter.

56. If we have disseised or dispossessed the Welsh of any lands, liberties, or other things, without the legal judgment of their peers, either in England or in Wales, they shall be immediately restored to them; and if any dispute arise upon this head, the matter shall be determined in the Marches by the judgment of their peers; for tenements in England according to the law of England, for tenements in Wales according to the law of Wales, for tenements of the Marches according to the law of the Marches: the same shall the Welsh do to us and our subjects.

57. As for all those things of which a Welshman hath, without the lawful judgment of his peers, been disseised or deprived of by King Henry our father, or our brother King Richard, and which we either have in our hands or others are possessed of, and we are obliged to warrant it, we shall have a respite till the time generally allowed the crusaders; excepting those things about which a suit is depending, or whereof an inquest has been made by our order, before we undertook the crusade: but when we return, or if we stay at home without performing our expedition, we will immediately do them full justice, according to the laws of the Welsh and of the parts before mentioned.

58. We will without delay dismiss the son of Llewellin, and all the Welsh hostages, and release them from the engagements they have entered into with us for the preservation of the peace.

59. We will treat with Alexander, King of Scots, concerning the restoring his sisters and hostages, and his right and liberties, in the same form and manner as we shall do to the rest of our barons of England; unless by the charters which we have from his father, William, late King of Scots, it ought to be otherwise; and this shall be left to the determination of his peers in our court.

60. All the aforesaid customs and liberties, which we have granted to be holden in our kingdom, as much as it belongs to us, all people of our kingdom, as well clergy as laity, shall observe, as far as they are concerned, towards their dependents.

61. And whereas, for the honour of God and the amendment of our kingdom, and for the better quieting the discord that has arisen between us and our barons, we have granted all these things aforesaid; willing to render them firm and lasting, we do give and grant our subjects the underwritten security, namely that the barons may choose five-and-twenty barons of the kingdom, whom they think convenient; who shall take care, with all their might, to hold and observe, and cause to be observed, the peace and liberties we have granted them, and by this our present Charter confirmed in this manner; that is to say, that if we, our justiciary, our bailiffs, or any of our officers, shall in any circumstance have failed in the performance of them towards any person, or shall have broken through any of these articles of peace and security, and the offence be notified to four barons chosen out of the five-and-twenty before mentioned, the said four barons shall repair to us, or our justiciary, if we are out of the realm, and, laying open the grievance, shall petition to have it redressed without delay: and if it be not redressed by us, or if we should chance to be out of the realm, if it should not be redressed by our justiciary within forty days, reckoning from the time it has been notified to us, or to our justiciary (if we should be out of the realm), the four barons aforesaid shall lay the cause before the rest of the five-and-twenty barons; and the said five-and-twenty barons, together with the community of the whole kingdom, shall distrain and distress us in all the ways in which they shall be able, by seizing our castles, lands, possessions, and in any other manner they can, till the grievance is redressed, according to their pleasure; saving harmless our own person, and the persons of our Queen and children; and when it is redressed, they shall behave to us as before. And any person whatsoever in the kingdom may swear that he will obey the orders of the five-and-twenty barons aforesaid in the execution of the premises, and will distress us, jointly with them, to the utmost of his power; and we give public and free liberty to anyone that shall please to swear to this, and never will hinder any person from taking the same oath.

62. As for all those of our subjects who will not, of their own accord, swear to join the five-and-twenty barons in distraining and distressing us, we will issue orders to make them take the same oath as aforesaid. And if anyone of the five-and-twenty barons dies, or goes out of the kingdom, or is hindered any other way from carrying the things aforesaid into execution, the rest of the said five-and-twenty barons may choose another in his room, at their discretion, who shall be sworn in like manner as the rest. In all things that are committed to the execution of these five-and-twenty barons, if, when they are all assembled together, they should happen to disagree about any matter, and some of them, when summoned, will not or cannot come, whatever is agreed upon, or enjoined, by the major part of those that are present shall be reputed as firm and valid as if all the five-and-twenty had given their consent; and the aforesaid five-and-twenty shall swear that all the premises they shall faithfully observe, and cause with all their power to be observed. And we will procure nothing from anyone, by ourselves nor by another, whereby any of these concessions and liberties may be revoked or lessened; and if any such thing shall have been obtained, let it be null and void; neither will we ever make use of it either by ourselves or any other. And all the ill-will, indignations, and rancours that have arisen between us and our subjects, of the clergy and laity, from the first breaking out of the dissensions between us, we do fully remit and forgive: moreover, all trespasses occasioned by the said dissensions, from Easter in the sixteenth year of our reign till the restoration of peace and tranquillity, we hereby entirely remit to all, both clergy and laity, and as far as in us lies do fully forgive. We have, moreover, caused to be made for them the letters patent testimonial of Stephen, Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, Henry, Lord Archbishop of Dublin, and the bishops aforesaid, as also of Master Pandulph, for the security and concessions aforesaid.

63. Wherefore we will and firmly enjoin, that the Church of England be free, and that all men in our kingdom have and hold all the aforesaid liberties, rights, and concessions, truly and peaceably, freely and quietly, fully and wholly to themselves and their heirs, of us and our heirs, in all things and places, for ever, as is aforesaid. It is also sworn, as well on our part as on the part of the barons, that all the things aforesaid shall be observed in good faith, and without evil subtilty. Given under our hand, in the presence of the witnesses above named, and many others, in the meadow called Runingmede, between Windsor and Staines, the 15th day of June, in the 17th year of our reign."

      Also IN:
      E. F. Henderson,
      Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages,
      book 1, number 7.

      C. H. Pearson,
      History of England during the Early and Middle Ages,
      volume 2, chapter 3.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1216-1274.
   Character and reign of Henry III.
   The Barons' War.
   Simon de Montfort and the evolution of the English Parliament.

King John died October 17, 1216. "His legitimate successor was a child of nine years of age. For the first time since the Conquest the personal government was in the hands of a minor. In that stormy time the great Earl of Pembroke undertook the government, as Protector. … At the Council of Bristol, with general approbation and even with that of the papal legate, Magna Charta was confirmed, though with the omission of certain articles. … After some degree of tranquillity had been restored, a second confirmation of the Great Charter took place in the autumn of 1217, with the omission of the clauses referring to the estates, but with the grant of a new charta de foresta, introducing a vigorous administration of the forest laws. In 9 Henry III. Magna Charta was again confirmed, and this is the form in which it afterwards took its place among the statutes of the realm. Two years later, Henry III. personally assumes the reins of government at the Parliament of Oxford (1227), and begins his rule without confirming the two charters. At first the tutorial government still continues, which had meanwhile, even after the death of the great Earl of Pembroke (1219), remained in a fairly orderly condition. The first epoch of sixteen years of this reign must therefore be regarded purely as a government by the nobility under the name of Henry III. The regency had succeeded in removing the dominant influence of the Roman Curia by the recall of the papal legate, Pandulf, to Rome (1221), and in getting rid of the dangerous foreign mercenary soldiery (1224). … With the disgraceful dismissal of the chief justiciary, Hubert de Burgh, there begins a second epoch of a personal rule of Henry III. (1232-1252), which for twenty continuous years, presents the picture of a confused and undecided struggle between the king and his foreign favourites and personal adherents on the one side, and the great barons, and with them soon the prelates, on the other. … In 21 Henry III. the King finds himself, in consequence of pressing money embarrassments, again compelled to make a solemn confirmation of the charter, in which once more the clauses relating to the estates are omitted. Shortly afterwards, as had happened just one hundred years previously in France, the name 'parliamentum' occurs for the first time (Chron. Dunst., 1244; Matth. Paris, 1246), and curiously enough, Henry III. himself, in a writ addressed to the Sheriff of Northampton, designates with this term the assembly which originated the Magna Charta. … The name 'parliament,' now occurs more frequently, but does not supplant the more definite terms concilium, colloquium, etc. In the meanwhile the relations with the Continent became complicated, in consequence of the family connections of the mother and wife of the King, and the greed of the papal envoys. … From the year 1244 onwards, neither a chief justice nor a chancellor, nor even a treasurer, is appointed, but the administration of the country is conducted at the Court by the clerks of the offices."

"Nothing is so hard to realise as chaos; and nothing nearer to chaos can be conceived than the government of Henry III. Henry was, like all the Plantagenets, clever; like very few of them, he was devout; and if the power of conceiving a great policy would constitute a great King, he would certainly have been one. … He aimed at making the Crown virtually independent of the barons. … His connexion with Louis IX., whose brother-in-law he became, was certainly a misfortune to him. In France the royal power had during the last fifty years been steadily on the advance; in England it had as steadily receded; and Henry was ever hearing from the other side of the Channel maxims of government and ideas of royal authority which were utterly inapplicable to the actual state of his own kingdom. This, like a premature Stuart, Henry was incapable of perceiving; a King he was, and a King he would be, in his own sense of the word. It is evident that with such a task before him, he needed for the most shadowy chance of success, an iron strength of will, singular self-control, great forethought and care in collecting and husbanding his resources, a rare talent for administration, the sagacity to choose and the self-reliance to trust his counsellors. And not one of these various qualities did Henry possess. … Henry had imbibed from the events and the tutors of his early childhood two maxims of state, and two alone: to trust Rome, and to distrust the barons of England. … He filled the places of trust and power about himself with aliens, to whom the maintenance of Papal influence was like an instinct of self-preservation. Thus were definitely formed the two great parties out of whose antagonism the War of the Barons arose, under whose influence the relations between the crown and people of England were remodelled, and out of whose enduring conflict rose, indirectly, the political principles which contributed so largely to bring about the Reformation of the English Church. The few years which followed the fall of Hubert de Burgh were the heyday of Papal triumph. And no triumph could have been worse used. … Thus was the whole country lying a prey to the ecclesiastical aliens maintained by the Pope, and to the lay aliens maintained by the King, … when Simon de Montfort became … inseparably intermixed with the course of our history. … In the year 1258 opened the first act of the great drama which has made the name of Simon de Montfort immortal. … The Barons of England, at Leicester's suggestion, had leagued for the defence of their rights. They appeared armed at the Great Council. … {808} They required as the condition of their assistance that the general reformation of the realm should be entrusted to a Commission of twenty-four members, half to be chosen by the crown, and half by themselves. For the election of this body, primarily, and for a more explicit statement of grievances, the Great Council was to meet again at Oxford on the 11th of June, 1258. When the Barons came, they appeared at the head of their retainers. The invasion of the Welsh was the plea; but the real danger was nearer home. They seized on the Cinque Ports; the unrenewed truce with France was the excuse; they remembered too vividly King John and his foreign mercenaries. They then presented their petition. This was directed to the redress of various abuses. … To each and every clause the King gave his inevitable assent. One more remarkable encroachment was made upon the royal prerogative; the election in Parliament of a chief justiciar. … The chief justiciar was the first officer of the Crown. He was not a mere chief justice, after the fashion of the present day, but the representative of the Crown in its high character of the fountain of justice. … But the point upon which the barons laid the greatest stress, from the beginning to the end of their struggle, was the question of the employment of aliens. That the strongest castles and the fairest lands of England should be in the hands of foreigners, was an insult to the national spirit which no free people could fail to resent. … England for the English, the great war cry of the barons, went home to the heart of the humblest. … The great question of the constitution of Parliament was not heard at Oxford; it emerged into importance when the struggle grew fiercer, and the barons found it necessary to gather allies round them. … One other measure completed the programme of the barons; namely, the appointment, already referred to, of a committee of twenty-four. … It amounted to placing the crown under the control of a temporary Council of Regency [see OXFORD, PROVISIONS OF]. … Part of the barons' work was simple enough. The justiciar was named, and the committee of twenty-four. To expel the foreigners was less easy. Simon de Montfort, himself an alien by birth, resigned the two castles which he held, and called upon the rest to follow. They simply refused. … But the barons were in arms, and prepared to use them. The aliens, with their few English supporters, fled to Winchester, where the castle was in the hands of the foreign bishop Aymer. They were besieged, brought to terms, and exiled. The barons were now masters of the situation. … Among the prerogatives of the crown which passed to the Oxford Commission not the least valuable, for the hold which it gave on the general government of the country, was the right to nominate the sheriffs. In 1261 the King, who had procured a Papal bull to abrogate the Provisions of Oxford, and an army of mercenaries to give the bull effect, proceeded to expel the sheriffs who had been placed in office by the barons. The reply of the barons was most memorable; it was a direct appeal to the order below their own. They summoned three knights elected from each county in England to meet them at St. Albans to discuss the state of the realm. It was clear that the day of the House of Commons could not be far distant, when at such a crisis an appeal to the knights of the shire could be made, and evidently made with success. For a moment, in this great move, the whole strength of the barons was united; but differences soon returned, and against divided counsels the crown steadily prevailed. In June, 1262, we find peace restored. The more moderate of the barons had acquiesced in the terms offered by Henry; Montfort, who refused them, was abroad in voluntary exile. … Suddenly, in July, the Earl of Gloucester died, and the sole leadership of the barons passed into the hands of Montfort. With this critical event opens the last act in the career of the great Earl. In October he returns privately to England. The whole winter is passed in the patient reorganising of the party, and the preparation for a decisive struggle. Montfort, fervent, eloquent, and devoted, swayed with despotic influence the hearts of the younger nobles (and few in those days lived to be grey), and taught them to feel that the Provisions of Oxford were to them what the Great Charter had been to their fathers. They were drawn together with an unanimity unknown before. … They demanded the restoration of the Great Provisions. The King refused, and in May, 1263, the barons appealed to arms. … Henry, with a reluctant hand, subscribed once more to the Provisions of Oxford, with a saving clause, however, that they should be revised in the coming Parliament. On the 9th of September, accordingly, Parliament was assembled. … The King and the barons agreed to submit their differences to the arbitration of Louis of France. … Louis IX. had done more than any one king of France to enlarge the royal prerogative; and Louis was the brother-in-law of Henry. His award, given at Amiens on the 23d of January, 1264. was, as we should have expected, absolutely in favour of the King. The whole Provisions of Oxford were, in his view, an invasion of the royal power. … The barons were astounded. … They at once said that the question of the employment of aliens was never meant to be included. … The appeal was made once again to the sword. Success for a moment inclined to the royal side, but it was only for a moment; and on the memorable field of Lewes the genius of Leicester prevailed. … With the two kings of England and of the Romans prisoners in his hands, Montfort dictated the terms of the so-called Mise of Lewes. … Subject to the approval of Parliament, all differences were to be submitted once more to French arbitration. … On the 23d of June the Parliament met. It was no longer a Great Council, after the fashion of previous assemblies; it included four knights, elected by each English county. This Parliament gave such sanction as it was able to the exceptional authority of Montfort, and ordered that until the proposed arbitration could be carried out, the King's council should consist of nine persons, to be named by the Bishop of Chichester, and the Earls of Gloucester and Leicester. The effect was to give Simon for the time despotic power. … It was at length agreed that all questions whatever, the employment of aliens alone excepted, should be referred to the Bishop of London, the justiciar Hugh le Despenser, Charles of Anjou, and the Abbot of Bec. If on any point they could not agree, the Archbishop of Rouen was to act as referee. … It was … not simply the expedient of a revolutionary chief in difficulties, but the expression of a settled and matured policy, when, in December 1264, [Montfort] issued in the King's name the ever-memorable writs which summoned the first complete Parliament which ever met in England. {809} The earls, barons, and bishops received their summons as of course; and with them the deans of cathedral churches, an unprecedented number of abbots and priors, two knights from every shire, and two citizens or burgesses from every city or borough in England. Of their proceedings we know but little; but they appear to have appointed Simon de Montfort to the office of Justiciar of England, and to have thus made him in rank, what he had before been in power, the first subject in the realm. … Montfort … had now gone so far, he had exercised such extraordinary powers, he had done so many things which could never really be pardoned, that perhaps his only chance of safety lay in the possession of some such office as this. It is certain, moreover, that something which passed in this Parliament, or almost exactly at the time of its meeting, did cause deep offence to a considerable section of the barons. … Difficulties were visibly gathering thicker around him, and he was evidently conscious that disaffection was spreading fast. … Negotiations went forward, not very smoothly, for the release of Prince Edward. They were terminated in May by his escape. It was the signal for a royalist rising. Edward took the command of the Welsh border; before the middle of June he had made the border his own. On the 29th Gloucester opened its gates to him. He had many secret friends. He pushed fearlessly eastward, and surprised the garrison of Kenilworth, commanded by Simon, the Earl's second son. The Earl himself lay at Evesham, awaiting the troops which his son was to bring up from Kenilworth. … On the fatal field of Evesham, fighting side by side to the last, fell the Earl himself, his eldest son Henry, Despenser the late Justiciar, Lord Basset of Drayton, one of his firmest friends, and a host of minor name. With them, to all appearance, fell the cause for which they had fought."

"Important as this assembly [the Parliament of 1264] is in the history of the constitution, it was not primarily and essentially a constitutional assembly. It was not a general convention of the tenants in chief or of the three estates, but a parliamentary assembly of the supporters of the existing government."

W. Stubbs, Constitutional History of England, chapter 14, section 177 (volume 2).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1275-1295.
Development of Parliamentary representation under Edward 1.

"Happily, Earl Simon [de Montfort] found a successor, and more than a successor, in the king's [Henry III.'s] son. … Edward I. stood on the vantage ground of the throne. … He could do that easily and without effort which Simon could only do laboriously, and with the certainty of rousing opposition. Especially was this the case with the encouragement given by the two men to the growing aspirations after parliamentary representation. Earl Simon's assemblies were instruments of warfare. Edward's assemblies were invitations to peace. … Barons and prelates, knights and townsmen, came together only to support a king who took the initiative so wisely, and who, knowing what was best for all, sought the good of his kingdom without thought of his own ease. Yet even so, Edward was too prudent at once to gather together such a body as that which Earl Simon had planned. He summoned, indeed, all the constituent parts of Simon's parliament, but he seldom summoned them to meet in one place or at one time. Sometimes the barons and prelates met apart from the townsmen or the knights, sometimes one or the other class met entirely alone. … In this way, during the first twenty years of Edward's reign, the nation rapidly grew in that consciousness of national unity which would one day transfer the function of regulation from the crown to the representatives of the people."

S. R. Gardiner and J. B. Mullinger, Introduction to the Study of English History, chapter 4, section 17.

   "In 1264 Simon de Montfort had called up from both shires and
   boroughs representatives to aid him in the new work of
   government. That part of Earl Simon's work had not been
   lasting. The task was left for Edward I. to be advanced by
   gradual safe steps, but to be thoroughly completed, as a part
   of a definite and orderly arrangement, according to which the
   English parliament was to be the perfect representation of the
   Three Estates of the Realm, assembled for purposes of
   taxation, legislation and united political action. …
   Edward's first parliament, in 1275, enabled him to pass a
   great statute of legal reform, called the Statute of
   Westminster the First, and to exact the new custom on wool;
   another assembly, the same year, granted him a fifteenth. …
   There is no evidence that the commons of either town or county
   were represented. … In 1282, when the expenses of the Welsh
   war were becoming heavy, Edward again tried the plan of
   obtaining money from the towns and counties by separate
   negotiation; but as that did not provide him with funds
   sufficient for his purpose, he called together, early in 1283,
   two great assemblies, one at York and another at Northampton,
   in which four knights from each shire and four members from
   each city and borough were ordered to attend; the cathedral
   and conventual clergy also of the two provinces were
   represented at the same places by their elected proctors. At
   these assemblies there was no attendance of the barons; they
   were with the king in Wales; but the commons made a grant of
   one-thirtieth on the understanding that the lords should do
   the same. Another assembly was held at Shrewsbury the same
   year, 1283, to witness the trial of David of Wales; to this
   the bishops and clergy were not called, but twenty towns and
   all the counties were ordered to send representatives. Another
   step was taken in 1290: knights of the shire were again
   summoned; but still much remained to be done before a perfect
   parliament was constituted. Counsel was wanted for
   legislation, consent was wanted for taxation. The lords were
   summoned in May, and did their work in June and July, granting
   a feudal aid and passing the statute 'Quia Emptores,' but the
   knights only came to vote or to promise a tax, after a law had
   been passed; and the towns were again taxed by special
   commissions. In 1294, … under the alarm of war with France,
   an alarm which led Edward into several breaches of
   constitutional law, he went still further, assembling the
   clergy by their representatives in August, and the shires by
   their representative knights in October.
{810}
   The next year, 1295, witnessed the first summons of a perfect
   and model parliament; the clergy represented by their bishops,
   deans, archdeacons, and elected proctors; the barons summoned
   severally in person by the king's special writ, and the
   commons summoned by writs addressed to the sheriffs, directing
   them to send up two elected knights from each shire, two
   elected citizens from each city, and two elected burghers from
   each borough. The writ by which the prelates were called to
   this parliament contained a famous sentence taken from the
   Roman law, 'That which touches all should be approved by all,'
   a maxim which might serve as a motto for Edward's
   constitutional scheme, however slowly it grew upon him, now
   permanently and consistently completed."

"Comparing the history of the following ages with that of the past, we can scarcely doubt that Edward had a definite idea of government before his eyes, or that that idea was successful because it approved itself to the genius and grew out of the habits of the people. Edward saw, in fact, what the nation was capable of, and adapted his constitutional reforms to that capacity. But although we may not refuse him the credit of design, it may still be questioned whether the design was altogether voluntary, whether it was not forced upon him by circumstances and developed by a series of careful experiments. … The design, as interpreted by the result, was the creation of a national parliament, composed of the three estates. … This design was perfected in 1295. It was not the result of compulsion, but the consummation of a growing policy. … But the close union of 1295 was followed by the compulsion of 1297: out of the organic completeness of the constitution sprang the power of resistance, and out of the resistance the victory of the principles, which Edward might guide, but which he failed to coerce."

W. Stubbs, Constitutional History of England, chapter 15, section 244 and chapter 14, section 180-182.

"The 13th century was above all things the age of the lawyer and the legislator. The revived study of Roman law had been one of the greatest results of the intellectual renaissance of the twelfth century. The enormous growth of the universities in the early part of the thirteenth century was in no small measure due to the zeal, ardour and success of their legal faculties. From Bologna there flowed all over Europe a great impulse towards the systematic and scientific study of the Civil Law of Rome. … The northern lawyers were inspired by their emulation of the civilians and canonists to look at the rude chaos of feudal custom with more critical eyes. They sought to give it more system and method, to elicit its leading principles, and to coordinate its clashing rules into a harmonious body of doctrine worthy to be put side by side with the more pretentious edifices of the Civil and Canon Law. In this spirit Henry de Bracton wrote the first systematic exposition of English law in the reign of Henry III. The judges and lawyers of the reign of Edward sought to put the principles of Bracton into practice. Edward himself strove with no small success to carry on the same great work by new legislation. … His well-known title of the 'English Justinian' is not so absurd as it appears at first sight. He did not merely resemble Justinian in being a great legislator. Like the famous codifier of the Roman law, Edward stood at the end of a long period of legal development, and sought to arrange and systematise what had gone before him. Some of his great laws are almost in form attempts at the systematic codification of various branches of feudal custom. … Edward was greedy for power, and a constant object of his legislation was the exaltation of the royal prerogative. But he nearly always took a broad and comprehensive view of his authority, and thoroughly grasped the truth that the best interests of king and kingdom were identical. He wished to rule the state, but was willing to take his subjects into partnership with him, if they in return recognised his royal rights. … The same principles which influenced Edward as a lawgiver stand out clearly in his relations to every class of his subjects. … It was the greatest work of Edward's life to make a permanent and ordinary part of the machinery of English government, what in his father's time had been but the temporary expedient of a needy taxgatherer or the last despairing effort of a revolutionary partisan. Edward I. is—so much as one man can be—the creator of the historical English constitution. It is true that the materials were ready to his hand. But before he came to the throne the parts of the constitution, though already roughly worked out, were ill-defined and ill-understood. Before his death the national council was no longer regarded as complete unless it contained a systematic representation of the three estates. All over Europe the thirteenth century saw the establishment of a system of estates. The various classes of the community, which had a separate social status and a common political interest, became organised communities, and sent their representatives to swell the council of the nation. By Edward's time there had already grown up in England some rough anticipation of the three estates of later history. … It was with no intention of diminishing his power, but rather with the object of enlarging it, that Edward called the nation into some sort of partnership with him. The special clue to this aspect of his policy is his constant financial embarrassment. He found that he could get larger and more cheerful subsidies if he laid his financial condition before the representatives of his people. … The really important thing was that Edward, like Montfort, brought shire and borough representatives together in a single estate, and so taught the country gentry, the lesser landowners, who, in a time when direct participation in politics was impossible for a lower class, were the real constituencies of the shire members, to look upon their interests as more in common with the traders of lower social status than with the greater landlords with whom in most continental countries the lesser gentry were forced to associate their lot. The result strengthened the union of classes, prevented the growth of the abnormally numerous privileged nobility of most foreign countries, and broadened and deepened the main current of the national life."

"There was nothing in England which answered to the 'third estate' in France—a class, that is to say, both isolated and close, composed exclusively of townspeople, enjoying no commerce with the rural population (except such as consisted in the reception of fugitives), and at once detesting and dreading the nobility by whom it was surrounded. In England the contrary was the case. The townsfolk and the other classes in each county were thrown together upon numberless occasions; a long period of common activity created a cordial understanding between the burghers on the one hand and their neighbours the knights and landowners on the other, and finally prepared the way for the fusion of the two classes."

"For many years past, the great danger to the balance of power appeared to come from the regular clergy, who, favoured by the success of the mendicant orders, were adding house to house and field to field. Never dying out like families, and rarely losing by forfeitures, the monasteries might well nigh calculate the time, when all the soil of England should be their own. … Accordingly, one of the first acts of the barons under Henry III. had been to enact, that no fees should be aliened to religious persons or corporations. Edward re-enacted and strengthened this by various provisions in the famous Statute of Mortmain. The fee illegally aliened was now to be forfeited to the chief lord under the King; and if, by collusion or neglect, the lord omitted to claim his right, the crown might enter upon it. Never was statute more unpopular with the class at whom it was aimed, more ceaselessly eluded, or more effectual. … Once the clergy seem to have meditated open resistance, for, in 1281, we find the king warning the bishops, who were then in convocation at Lambeth, as they loved their baronies, to discuss nothing that appertained to the crown, or the king's person, or his council. The warning appears to have proved effectual, and the clergy found less dangerous employment in elaborating subtle evasions of the obnoxious law. At first fictitious recoveries were practised; an abbey bringing a suit against a would-be donor, who permitted judgment against him to go by default. When this was prohibited, special charters of exemption were procured. Once an attempt was made to smuggle a dispensing bill through parliament. One politic abbot in the 15th century encouraged his friends to make bequests of land, suffered them to escheat, and then begged them back of the crown, playing on the religious feelings of Henry VI. Yet it is strong proof of the salutary terror which the Statute of Mortmain inspired that even then the abbot was not quieted, and procured an Act of Parliament to purge him from any consequences of his illegal practices. In fact, the fear, lest astute crown lawyers should involve a rich foundation in wholesale forfeitures, seems sometimes to have hampered its members in the exercise of their undoubted rights as citizens."

C. H. Pearson, History of England during the Early and Middle Ages, volume 2, chapter 9.

ENGLAND: 14th Century.
Immigration of Flemish artisans.
The founding of English manufactures.

"For one hundred and fifty years succeeding the Conquest, the right of nominating the archbishops, bishops, and mitred abbots had been claimed and exercised by the king. This right had been specially confirmed by the Constitutions of Clarendon, which also provided that the revenues of vacant sees should belong to the Crown. But John admitted all the Papal claims, surrendering even his kingdom to the Pope, and receiving it back as a fief of the Holy See. By the Great Charter the Church recovered its liberties; the right of free election being specially conceded to the cathedral chapters and the religious houses. Every election was, however, subject to the approval of the Pope, who also claimed a right of veto on institutions to the smaller church benefices. … Under Henry III. the power thus vested in the Pope and foreign superiors of the monastic orders was greatly abused, and soon degenerated into a mere channel for draining money into the Roman exchequer. Edward I. firmly withstood the exactions of the Pope, and reasserted the independence of both Church and Crown. … In the reign of the great Edward began a series of statutes passed to check the aggressions of the Pope and restore the independence of the national church. The first of the series was passed in 1306-7. … This statute was confirmed under Edward III. in the 4th, and again in the 5th year of his reign; and in the 25th of his reign [A. D. 1351], roused 'by the grievous complaints of all the commons of his realm,' the King and Parliament passed the famous Statute of Provisors, aimed directly at the Pope, and emphatically forbidding his nominations to English benefices. … Three years afterwards it was found necessary to pass a statute forbidding citations to the court of Rome—[the prelude to the Statute of Præmunire, described below]. … In 1389, there was an expectation that the Pope was about to attempt to enforce his claims, by excommunicating those who rejected them. … The Parliament at once passed a highly penal statute. … Matters were shortly afterwards brought to a crisis by Boniface IX., who after declaring the statutes enacted by the English Parliament null and void, granted to an Italian cardinal a prebendal stall at Wells, to which the king had already presented. Cross suits were at once instituted by the two claimants in the Papal and English courts. A decision was given by the latter, in favour of the king's nominee, and the bishops, having agreed to support the Crown, were forthwith excommunicated by the Pope. The Commons were now roused to the highest pitch of indignation,"—and the final great Statute of Præmunire was passed, A. D. 1393. "The firm and resolute attitude assumed by the country caused Boniface to yield; 'and for the moment,' observes Mr. Froude, 'and indeed for ever under this especial form, the wave of papal encroachment was rolled back.'"

   "The great Statute of Provisors, passed in 1351, was a very
   solemn expression of the National determination not to give
   way to the pope's usurpation of patronage. … All persons
   procuring or accepting papal promotions were to be arrested.
   … In 1352 the purchasers of Provisions were declared
   outlaws; in 1365 another act repeated the prohibitions and
   penalties; and in 1390 the parliament of Richard II. rehearsed
   and confirmed the statute. By this act, forfeiture and
   banishment were decreed against future transgressors."
{812}
   The Statute of Præmunire as enacted finally in 1393, provided
   that "all persons procuring in the court of Rome or elsewhere
   such translations, processes, sentences of excommunication,
   bulls, instruments or other things which touch the king, his
   crown, regality or realm, should suffer the penalties of
   præmunire"—which included imprisonment and forfeiture of
   goods. "The name præmunire which marks this form of
   legislation is taken from the opening word of the writ by
   which the sheriff is charged to summon the delinquent."

      W. Stubbs,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 19, section 715-716.

"At the parliament which met in March 1310 [reign of Edward II.] a new scheme of reform was promulgated, which was framed on the model of that of 1258 and the Provisions of Oxford. It was determined that the task of regulating the affairs of the realm and of the king's household should be committed to an elected body of twenty-one members, or Ordainers, the chief of whom was Archbishop Winchelsey. … The Ordainers were empowered to remain in office until Michaelmas 1311, and to make ordinances for the good of the realm, agreeable to the tenour of the king's coronation oath. The whole administration of the kingdom thus passed into their hands. … The Ordainers immediately on their appointment issued six articles directing the observance of the charters, the careful collection of the customs, and the arrest of the foreign merchants; but the great body of the ordinances was reserved for the parliament which met in August 1311. The famous document or statute known as the Ordinances of 1311 contained forty-one clauses, all aimed at existing abuses."

ENGLAND: A. D. 1314-1328.
Bannockburn and the recovery of Scottish independence.

"A period of great wars is generally favourable to the growth of a nobility. Men who equipped large bodies of troops for the Scotch or French wars, or who had served with distinction in them, naturally had a claim for reward at the hands of their sovereign. … The 13th century had broken up estates all over England and multiplied families of the upper class; the 14th century was consolidating properties again, and establishing a broad division between a few powerful nobles and the mass of the community. But if the gentry, as an order, lost a little in relative importance by the formation of a class of great nobles, more distinct than had existed before, the middle classes of England, its merchants and yeomen, gained very much in importance by the war. Under the firm rule of the 'King of the Sea,' as his subjects lovingly called Edward III., our commerce expanded. Englishmen rose to an equality with the merchants of the Hanse Towns, the Genoese, or the Lombards, and England for a time overflowed with treasure. The first period of war, ending with the capture of Calais, secured our coasts; the second, terminated by the peace of Brétigny, brought the plunder of half [of] France into the English markets; and even when Edward's reign had closed on defeat and bankruptcy, and our own shores were ravaged by hostile fleets, it was still possible for private adventurers to retaliate invasion upon the enemy. … The romance of foreign conquest, of fortunes lightly gained and lightly lost, influenced English enterprise for many years to come. … The change to the lower orders during the reign arose rather from the frequent pestilences, which reduced the number of working men and made labour valuable, than from any immediate participation in the war. In fact, English serfs, as a rule, did not serve in Edward's armies. They could not be men-at-arms or archers for want of training and equipment; and for the work of light-armed troops and foragers, the Irish and Welsh seem to have been preferred. The opportunity of the serfs came with the Black Death, while districts were depopulated, and everywhere there was a want of hands to till the fields and get in the crops. The immediate effect was unfortunate. … The indifference of late years, when men were careless if their villans stayed on the property or emigrated, was succeeded by a sharp inquisition after fugitive serfs, and constant legislation to bring them back to their masters. … The leading idea of the legislator was that the labourer, whose work had doubled or trebled in value, was to receive the same wages as in years past; and it was enacted that he might be paid in kind, and, at last, that in all cases of contumacy he should be imprisoned without the option of a fine. … The French war contributed in many ways to heighten the feeling of English nationality. Our trade, our language and our Church received a new and powerful influence. In the early years of Edward III.'s reign, Italian merchants were the great financiers of England, farming the taxes and advancing loans to the Crown. Gradually the instinct of race, the influence of the Pope, and geographical position, contributed, with the mistakes of Edward's policy, to make France the head, as it were, of a confederation of Latin nations. Genoese ships served in the French fleet, Genoese bowmen fought at Crécy, and English privateers retorted on Genoese commerce throughout the course of the reign. In 1376 the Commons petitioned that all Lombards might be expelled [from] the kingdom, bringing amongst other charges against them that they were French spies. The Florentines do not seem to have been equally odious, but the failure of the great firm of the Bardi in 1345, chiefly through its English engagements, obliged Edward to seek assistance elsewhere; and he transferred the privilege of lending to the crown to the merchants of the rising Hanse Towns."

   "We may trace the destructive nature of the war with France in
   the notices of adjoining parishes thrown into one for want of
   sufficient inhabitants, 'of people impoverished by frequent
   taxation of our lord the king,' until they had fled, of
   churches allowed to fall into ruin because there were none to
   worship within their walls, and of religious houses
   extinguished because the monks and nuns had died, and none bad
   been found to supply their places. …
{813}
   To the poverty of the country and the consequent inability of
   the nation to maintain the costly wars of Edward III., are
   attributed the enactments of sumptuary laws, which were passed
   because men who spent much on their table and dress were
   unable 'to help their liege lord' in the battle field."

"The plague of 1349 … produced in every country some marked social changes. … In England the effects of the plague are historically prominent chiefly among the lower classes of society. The population was diminished to an extent to which it is impossible now even to approximate, but which bewildered and appalled the writers of the time; whole districts were thrown out of cultivation, whole parishes depopulated, the number of labourers was so much diminished that on the one hand the survivors demanded an extravagant rate of wages, and even combined to enforce it, whilst on the other hand the landowners had to resort to every antiquated claim of service to get their estates cultivated at all; the whole system of farming was changed in consequence, the great landlords and the monastic corporations ceased to manage their estates by farming stewards, and after a short interval, during which the lands with the stock on them were let to the cultivator on short leases, the modern system of letting was introduced, and the permanent distinction between the farmer and the labourer established."

"On the first of August 1348 the disease appeared in the seaport towns of Dorsetshire, and travelled slowly westwards and northwards, through Devonshire and Somersetshire to Bristol. In order, if possible, to arrest its progress, all intercourse with the citizens of Bristol was prohibited by the authorities of the county of Gloucester. These precautions were however taken in vain; the Plague continued to Oxford, and, travelling slowly in the same measured way, reached London by the first of November. It appeared in Norwich on the first of January, and thence spread northwards. … The mortality was enormous. Perhaps from one-third to one-half the population fell victims to the disease. Adam of Monmouth says that only a tenth of the population survived. Similar amplifications are found in all the chroniclers. We are told that 60,000 persons perished in Norwich between January and July 1349. No doubt Norwich was at that time the second city in the kingdom, but the number is impossible. … It is stated that in England the weight of the calamity fell on the poor, and that the higher classes were less severely affected. But Edward's daughter Joan fell a victim to it and three archbishops of Canterbury perished in the same year. … All contemporary writers inform us that the immediate consequence of the Plague was a dearth of labour, and excessive enhancement of wages, and thereupon a serious loss to the landowners. To meet this scarcity the king issued a proclamation directed to the sheriffs of the several counties, which forbad the payment of higher than the customary wages, under the penalties of amercement. But the king's mandate was every where disobeyed. … Many of the labourers were thrown into prison; many to avoid punishment fled to the forests, but were occasionally captured and fined; and all were constrained to disavow under oath that they would take higher than customary wages for the future."

J. E. T. Rogers, History of Agriculture and Prices in England, volume 1, chapter 15.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1350-1400.
Chaucer and his relations to English language and literature.

   "At the time when the conflict between church and state was
   most violent, and when Wyclif was beginning to draw upon
   himself the eyes of patriots, there was considerable talk at
   the English court about a young man named Geoffrey Chaucer,
   who belonged to the king's household, and who both by his
   personality and his connections enjoyed the favor of the royal
   family. … On many occasions, even thus early, he had
   appeared as a miracle of learning to those about him—he read
   Latin as easily as French; he spoke a more select English than
   others; and it was known that he had composed, or, as the
   expression then was, 'made,' many beautiful English verses.
   The young poet belonged to a well-to-do middle-class family
   who had many far-reaching connections, and even some influence
   with the court. … Even as a boy he may have heard his
   father, John Chaucer, the vintner of Thames Street, London,
   telling of the marvelous voyage he had made to Antwerp and
   Cologne in the brilliant suite of Edward III. in 1338. When a
   youth of sixteen or seventeen, Geoffrey served as a page or
   squire to Elizabeth, duchess of Ulster, first wife of Lionel,
   duke of Clarence, and daughter-in-law of the king. He bore
   arms when about nineteen years of age, and went to France in
   1359, in the army commanded by Edward III. … This epoch
   formed a sort of 'Indian summer' to the age of chivalry, and
   its spirit found expression in great deeds of war as well as
   in the festivals and manners of the court. The ideal which men
   strove to realize did not quite correspond to the spirit of
   the former age. On the whole, people had become more worldly
   and practical, and were generally anxious to protect the real
   interests of life from the unwarranted interference of
   romantic aspirations. The spirit of chivalry no longer formed
   a fundamental element, but only an ornament of life—an
   ornament, indeed, which was made much of, and which was looked
   upon with a sentiment partaking of enthusiasm. … In the
   midst of this outside world of motley pomp and throbbing life
   Geoffrey could observe the doings of high and low in various
   situations. He was early initiated into court intrigues, and
   even into many political secrets, and found opportunities of
   studying the human type in numerous individuals and according
   to the varieties developed by rank in life, education, age,
   and sex. … Nothing has been preserved from his early
   writings. … The fact is very remarkable that from the first,
   or at least from a very early period, Chaucer wrote in the
   English language—however natural this may seem to succeeding
   ages in 'The Father of English Poetry.' The court of Edward
   III. favored the language as well as the literature of France;
   a considerable number of French poets and 'menestrels' were in
   the service and pay of the English king.
{814}
   Queen Philippa, in particular, showing herself in this a true
   daughter of her native Hainault, formed the centre of a
   society cultivating the French language and poetry. She had in
   her personal service Jean Froissart, one of the most eminent
   representatives of that language and poetry; like herself he
   belonged to one of the most northern districts of the
   French-speaking territory; he had made himself a great name,
   as a prolific and clever writer of erotic and allegoric
   trifles, before he sketched out in his famous chronicle the
   motley-colored, vivid picture of that eventful age. We also
   see in this period young Englishmen of rank and education
   trying their flight on the French Parnassus. … To these
   Anglo-French poets there belonged also a Kentishman of noble
   family, named John Gower. Though some ten years the senior of
   Chaucer, he had probably met him about this time. They were
   certainly afterwards very intimately acquainted. Gower … had
   received a very careful education, and loved to devote the
   time he could spare from the management of his estates to
   study and poetry. His learning was in many respects greater
   than Chaucer's. He had studied the Latin poets so diligently
   that he could easily express himself in their language, and he
   was equally good at writing French verses, which were able to
   pass muster, at least in England. … But, Chaucer did not let
   himself be led astray by examples such as these. It is
   possible that he would have found writing in French no easy
   task, even if he had attempted it. At any rate his bourgeois
   origin, and the seriousness of his vocation as poet, threw a
   determining weight into the scale and secured his fidelity to
   the English language with a commendable consistency."

B. Ten Brink, History of English Literature, book 4, chapter 4 (volume 2, part 1).

"English was not taught in the schools, but French only, until after the accession of Richard II., or possibly the latter years of Edward III., and Latin was always studied through the French. Up to this period, then, as there were no standards of literary authority, and probably no written collections of established forms, or other grammatical essays, the language had no fixedness or uniformity, and hardly deserved to be called a written speech. … From this Babylonish confusion of speech, the influence and example of Chaucer did more to rescue his native tongue than any other single cause; and if we compare his dialect with that of any writer of an earlier date, we shall find that in compass, flexibility, expressiveness, grace, and all the higher qualities of poetical diction, he gave it at once the utmost perfection which the materials at his hand would permit of. The English writers of the fourteenth century had an advantage which was altogether peculiar to their age and country. At all previous periods, the two languages had co-existed, in a great degree independently of each other, with little tendency to intermix; but in the earlier part of that century, they began to coalesce, and this process was going on with a rapidity that threatened a predominance of the French, if not a total extinction of the Saxon element. … When the national spirit was aroused, and impelled to the creation of a national literature, the poet or prose writer, in selecting his diction, had almost two whole vocabularies before him. That the syntax should be English, national feeling demanded; but French was so familiar and habitual to all who were able to read, that probably the scholarship of the day would scarcely have been able to determine, with respect to a large proportion of the words in common use, from which of the two great wells of speech they had proceeded. Happily, a great arbiter arose at the critical moment of severance of the two peoples and dialects, to preside over the division of the common property, and to determine what share of the contributions of France should be permanently annexed to the linguistic inheritance of Englishmen. Chaucer did not introduce into the English language words which it had rejected as aliens before, but out of those which had been already received, he invested the better portion with the rights of citizenship, and stamped them with the mint-mark of English coinage. In this way, he formed a vocabulary, which, with few exceptions, the taste and opinion of succeeding generations has approved; and a literary diction was thus established, which, in all the qualities required for the poetic art, had at that time no superior in the languages of modern Europe. The soundness of Chaucer's judgment, the nicety of his philological appreciation, and the delicacy of his sense of adaptation to the actual wants of the English people, are sufficiently proved by the fact that, of the Romance words found in his writings, not much above one hundred have been suffered to become obsolete, while a much larger number of Anglo-Saxon words employed by him have passed altogether out of use. … In the three centuries which elapsed between the Conquest and the noon-tide of Chaucer's life, a large proportion of the Anglo-Saxon dialect of religion, of moral and intellectual discourse, and of taste, had become utterly obsolete, and unknown. The place of the lost words had been partly supplied by the importation of Continental terms; but the new words came without the organic power of composition and derivation which belonged to those they had supplanted. Consequently, they were incapable of those modifications of form and extensions of meaning which the Anglo-Saxon roots could so easily assume, and which fitted them for the expression of the new shades of thought and of sentiment born of every hour in a mind and an age like those of Chaucer."

"The Lollards were the earliest 'Protestants' of England. They were the followers of John Wyclif, but before his time the nickname of Lollard had been known on the continent. A little brotherhood of pious people had sprung up in Holland, about the year 1300, who lived in a half-monastic fashion and devoted themselves to helping the poor in the burial of their dead; and, from the low chants they sang at the funerals—lollen being the old word for such singing—they were called Lollards. The priests and friars hated them and accused them of heresy, and a Walter Lollard, probably one of them, was burnt in 1322 at Cologne as a heretic, and gradually the name became a nickname for such people. So when Wyclif's simple priests' were preaching the new doctrines, the name already familiar in Holland and Germany, was given to them, and gradually became the name for that whole movement of religious reformation which grew up from the seed Wyclif sowed."

"A turning point arrived in the history of the reforming party at the accession of the house of Lancaster. King Henry the Fourth was not only a devoted son of the Church, but he owed his success in no slight measure to the assistance of the Churchmen, and above all to that of Archbishop Arundel. It was felt that the new dynasty and the hierarchy stood or fell together. A mixture of religious and political motives led to the passing of the well-known statute 'De hæretico comburendo' in 1401 and thenceforward Lollardy was a capital offence."

"The abortive insurrection of the Lollards at the commencement of Henry V. 's reign, under the leadership of Sir John Oldcastle, had the effect of adding to the penal laws already in existence against the sect." This gave to Lollardy a political character and made the Lollards enemies against the State, as is evident from the king's proclamation in which it was asserted "that the insurgents intended to 'destroy him, his brothers and several of the spiritual and temporal lords, to confiscate the possessions of the Church, to secularize the religious orders, to divide the realm into confederate districts, and to appoint Sir John Oldcastle president of the commonwealth.'"

T. P. Taswell-Langmead, English Constitutional History (4th edition), chapter 11.

"The early life of Wycliffe is obscure. … He emerges into distinct notice in 1360, ten years subsequent to the passing of the first Statute of Provisors, having then acquired a great Oxford reputation as a lecturer in divinity. … He was a man of most simple life; austere in appearance; with bare feet and russet mantle. As a soldier of Christ, he saw in his Great Master and his Apostles the patterns whom he was bound to imitate. By the contagion of example he gathered about him other men who thought as he did; and gradually, under his captaincy, these 'poor priests' as they were called—vowed to poverty because Christ was poor—vowed to accept no benefice … spread out over the country as an army of missionaries, to preach the faith which they found in the Bible—to preach, not of relics and of indulgences, but of repentance and of the grace of God. They carried with them copies of the Bible which Wycliffe had translated, … and they refused to recognize the authority of the bishops, or their right to silence them. If this had been all, and perhaps if Edward III. had been succeeded by a prince less miserably incapable than his grandson Richard, Wycliffe might have made good his ground; the movement of the parliament against the pope might have united in a common stream with the spiritual move against the church at home, and the Reformation have been antedated by a century. He was summoned to answer for himself before the Archbishop of Canterbury in 1377. He appeared in court supported by the presence of John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, the eldest of Edward's surviving sons, and the authorities were unable to strike him behind so powerful a shield. But the 'poor priests' had other doctrines. … His [Wycliffe's] theory of property, and his study of the character of Christ, had led him to the near confines of Anabaptism." The rebellion of Wat Tyler, which occurred in 1381, cast odium upon all such opinions. "So long as Wycliffe lived, his own lofty character was a guarantee for the conduct of his immediate disciples; and although his favour had far declined, a party in the state remained attached to him, with sufficient influence to prevent the adoption of extreme measures against the 'poor priests.' … They were left unmolested for the next twenty years. … On the settlement of the country under Henry IV. they fell under the general ban which struck down all parties who had shared in the late disturbances."

"Wycliffe's translation of the Bible itself created a new era, and gave birth to what may be said never to have existed till then—a popular theology. … It is difficult in our day to imagine the impression such a book must have produced in an age which had scarcely anything in the way of popular literature, and which had been accustomed to regard the Scriptures as the special property of the learned. It was welcomed with an enthusiasm which could not be restrained, and read with avidity both by priests and laymen. … The homely wisdom, blended with eternal truth, which has long since enriched our vernacular speech with a multitude of proverbs, could not thenceforth be restrained in its circulation by mere pious awe or time-honoured prejudice. Divinity was discussed in ale-houses. Popular preachers made war upon old prejudices. and did much to shock that sense of reverence which belonged to an earlier generation. A new school had arisen with a theology of its own, warning the people against the delusive preaching of the friars, and asserting loudly its own claims to be true and evangelical, on the ground that it possessed the gospel in the English tongue. Appealing to such an authority in their favour, the eloquence of the new teachers made a marvellous impression. Their followers increased with extraordinary rapidity. By the estimate of an opponent they soon numbered half the population, and you could hardly see two persons in the street but one of them was a Wycliffite. … They were supported by the powerful influence of John of Gaunt, who shielded not only Wycliffe himself, but even the most violent of the fanatics. And, certainly, whatever might have been Wycliffe's own view, doctrines were promulgated by his reputed followers that were distinctly subversive of authority. John Ball fomented the insurrection of Wat Tyler, by preaching the natural equality of men. … But the popularity of Lollardy was short-lived. The extravagance to which it led soon alienated the sympathies of the people, and the sect fell off in numbers almost as rapidly as it had risen."

   "Wyclif … was not without numerous followers, and the
   Lollardism which sprang out of his teaching was a living force
   in England for some time to come. But it was weak through its
   connection with subversive social doctrines. He himself stood
   aloof from such doctrines, but he could not prevent his
   followers from mingling in the social fray. It was perhaps
   their merit that they did so. The established constitutional
   order was but another name for oppression and wrong to the
   lower classes. But as yet the lower classes were not
   sufficiently advanced in moral and political training to make
   it safe to entrust them with the task of righting their own
   wrongs as they would have attempted to right them if they had
   gained the mastery. It had nevertheless become impossible to
   leave the peasants to be once more goaded by suffering into
   rebellion. The attempt, if it had been made, to enforce
   absolute labour-rents was tacitly abandoned, and gradually
   during the next century the mass of the villeins passed into
   the position of freemen.
{816}
   For the moment, nobles and prelates, landowners and clergy,
   banded themselves together to form one great party of
   resistance. The church came to be but an outwork of the
   baronage."

      S. R. Gardiner and J. B. Mullinger,
      Introduction to the Study of English History,
      part 1, chapter 5, sections 14-15.

"Richard II. was a far superior man to many of the weaker kings of England; but being self-willed and unwarlike, he was unfitted for the work which the times required. Yet, on a closer inspection than the traditional view of the reign has generally encouraged, we cannot but observe that the finer qualities which came out in certain crises of his reign appear to have frequently influenced his conduct: we know that he was not an immoral man, that he was an excellent husband to an excellent wife, and that he had devoted friends, willing to lay down their lives for him when there was nothing whatever left for them to gain. … Richard, who had been brought up in the purple quite as much as Edward II., was kept under restraint by his uncles, and not being judiciously guided in the arts of government, fell, like his prototype, into the hands of favourites. His brilliant behaviour in the insurrection of 1381 indicated much more than mere possession of the Plantagenet courage and presence of mind. He showed a real sympathy with the villeins who had undeniable grievances. … His instincts were undoubtedly for freedom and forgiveness, and there is no proof, nor even probability, that he intended to use the villeins against his enemies. His early and happy marriage with Anne of Bohemia ought, one might think, to have saved him from the vice of favouritism; but he was at least more fortunate than Edward II. in not being cast under the spell of a Gaveston. When we consider the effect of such a galling government as that of his uncle Gloucester, and his cousin Derby, afterwards Henry IV., who seems to have been pushing Gloucester on from the first, we can hardly be surprised that he should require some friend to lean upon. The reign is, in short, from one, and perhaps the truest, point of view, a long duel between the son of the Black Prince and the son of John of Gaunt. One or other of them must inevitably perish. A handsome and cultivated youth, who showed himself at fifteen every inch a king, who was married at sixteen, and led his own army to Scotland at eighteen, required a different treatment from that which he received. He was a man, and should have been dealt with as such. His lavish and reprehensible grants to his favourites were made the excuse for Gloucester's violent interference in 1386, but there is good ground for believing that the movement was encouraged by the anti-Wicliffite party, which had taken alarm at the sympathy with the Reformers shown at this time by Richard and Anne."

ALSO IN: J. R. Green, History of the English People, book 4, chapter 4 (volume 1).

"In June 1381 there broke out in England the formidable insurrection known as Wat Tyler's Rebellion. The movement seems to have begun among the bondmen of Essex and of Kent; but it spread at once to the counties of Sussex Hertford, Cambridge, Suffolk and Norfolk. The peasantry, armed with bludgeons and rusty swords, first occupied the roads by which pilgrims went to Canterbury, and made everyone swear that he would be true to king Richard and not accept a king named John. This, of course, was aimed at the government of John of Gaunt [Duke of Lancaster], … to whom the people attributed every grievance they had to complain of. The principal, or at least the immediate cause of offence arose out of a poll-tax which had been voted in the preceding year."

The leaders of the insurgents were Wat the Tyler, who had been a soldier, John Ball, a priest and preacher of democratic and socialistic doctrines, and one known as Jack Straw. They made their way to London. "It ought to have been easy to keep them out of the city, as the only approach to it was by London Bridge, and the mayor and chief citizens proposed to defend it. But the Londoners generally, and even three of the aldermen, were well inclined to the rebels, and declared that they would not let the gates be shut against their friends and neighbours, and would kill the mayor himself if he attempted to do it. So on the evening of Wednesday, June 13, the insurgents began to stream in across the bridge, and next morning marched their whole body across the river, and proceeded at once to the Savoy, the splendid palace of the Duke of Lancaster. Proclamation was made that any one found stealing the smallest article would be beheaded; and the place was then wrecked and burned with all the formalities of a solemn act of justice. Gold and silver plate was shattered with battle-axes and thrown into the Thames; rings and smaller jewels were brayed in mortars; silk and embroidered dresses were trampled under feet and torn up. Then the Temple was burned with all its muniments. The poet Gower was among the lawyers who had to save their lives by flight, and he passed several nights in the woods of Essex, covered with grass and leaves and living on acorns. Then the great house of the Hospitallers at Clerkenwell was destroyed, taking seven days to burn." The young king (Richard II.) and his court and council had taken refuge in the Tower. The insurgents now threatened to storm their stronghold if the king did not come out and speak to them. The king consented and appointed a rendezvous at Mile End. He kept the appointment and met his turbulent subjects with so much courage and tact and so many promises, that he persuaded a great number to disperse to their homes. But while this pacific interview took place, Wat Tyler, John Ball, and some 400 of their followers burst into the Tower, determined to find the archbishop of Canterbury and the Lord Treasurer, Sir Robert de Hales, who were the most obnoxious ministers. "So great was the general consternation that the soldiers dared not raise a hand while these ruffians searched the different rooms, not sparing even the king's bedroom, running spears into the beds, asked the king's mother to kiss them, and played insolent jokes on the chief officers. {817} Unhappily they were not long in finding the archbishop, who had said mass in the chapel, and was kneeling at the altar in expectation of their approach." The Lord Treasurer was also found, and both he and the archbishop were summarily beheaded by the mob. "Murder now became the order of the day, and foreigners were among the chief victims; thirteen Flemings were dragged out of one church and beheaded, seventeen out of another, and altogether it is said 400 perished. Many private enmities were revenged by the London rabble on this day." On the next day, June 15, the king, with an armed escort, went to the camp of the insurgents, at Smithfield, and opened negotiations with Tyler, offering successively three forms of a new charter of popular rights and liberties, all of which were rejected. Finally, Tyler was invited to a personal conference, and there, in the midst of the king's party, on some provocation or pretended provocation in his words or bearing, the popular leader was struck from his horse and killed. King Richard immediately rode out before the ranks of the rebels, while they were still dazed by the suddenness and audacity of the treacherous blow, crying "I will be your leader; follow me." The thoughtless mob followed and soon found itself surrounded by bodies of troops whose courage had revived. The king now commanded the trembling peasants "to fall on their knees, cut the strings of their bows, and leave the city and its neighbourhood, under pain of death, before nightfall. This command was instantly obeyed." Meantime and afterwards there were many lesser risings in various parts of the country, all of which were suppressed, with such rigorous prosecutions in the courts that 1,500 persons are said to have suffered judicially.

The Wat Tyler insurrection proved disastrous in its effect on the work of Church reform which Wyclif was then pursuing. "Not only was the power of the Lancastrian party, on which Wyclif had relied, for the moment annihilated, but the quarrel between the Baronage and Church, on which his action had hitherto been grounded, was hushed in the presence of a common danger. Much of the odium of the outbreak, too, fell on the Reformer. … John Ball, who had figured in the front rank of the revolt, was claimed as one of his adherents. … Whatever belief such charges might gain, it is certain that from this moment all plans for the reorganization of the Church were confounded in the general odium which attached to the projects of the socialist peasant leaders."

"When Parliament assembled it proved itself as hostile as the crown to the conceding any of the demands of the people; both were faithful to all the records of history in similar cases; they would have belied all experience if, being victorious, they had consented to the least concession to the vanquished. The upper classes repudiated the recognition of the rights of the poor to a degree, which in our time would be considered sheer insanity. The king had annulled, by proclamation to the sheriffs, the charters of manumission which he had granted to the insurgents, and this revocation was warmly approved by both Lords and Commons, who, not satisfied with saying that such enfranchisement could not be made without their consent, added, that they would never give that consent, even to save themselves from perishing altogether in one day. There was, it is true, a vague rumour about the propriety and wisdom of abolishing villanage; but the notion was scouted, and the owners of serfs showed that they neither doubted the right by which they held their fellow-creatures in a state of slavery, nor would hesitate to increase the severity of the laws affecting them. They now passed a law by which 'all riots and rumours, and other such things were turned into high treason'; this law was most vaguely expressed, and would probably involve those who made it in inextricable difficulties. It was self-apparent, that this Parliament acted under the impulses of panic, and of revenge for recent injuries. … It might be said that the citizens of the municipalities wrote their charters of enfranchisement with the very blood of their lords and bishops; yet, during the worst days of oppression, the serfs of the cities had never suffered the cruel excesses of tyranny endured by the country people till the middle of the fifteenth century. And, nevertheless, the long struggles of the townships, despite the bloodshed and cruelties of the citizens, are ever considered and narrated as glorious revolutions, whilst the brief efforts of the peasants for vengeance, which were drowned in their own blood, have remained as a stigma flung in the face of the country populations whenever they utter a word claiming some amelioration in their condition. Whence the injustice? The bourgeoisie was victorious and successful. The rural populations were vanquished and trampled upon. The bourgeoisie, therefore, has had its poets, historians, and flatterers, whilst the poor peasant, rude, untutored, and ignorant, never had a lyre nor a voice to bewail his lamentable sorrows and sufferings."

Prof. De Vericour, Wat Tyler (Royal Historical Society, Transactions, number 8, volume 2).

This name is given in English history to the family which became royal in the person of Henry of Bolingbroke, Duke of Lancaster, who deposed his cousin, Richard II., or forced him to abdicate the throne, and who was crowned king (Henry IV.), Oct. 11, 1399, with what seemed to be the consent of the nation. He not only claimed to be the next in succession to Richard, but he put forward a claim of descent through his mother, more direct than Richard's had been, from Henry III. "In point of fact Henry was not the next in succession. His father, John of Gaunt [or John of Ghent, in which city he was born], was the fourth son of Edward III., and there were descendants of that king's third son, Lionel Duke of Clarence, living. … At one time Richard himself had designated as his successor the nobleman who really stood next to him in the line of descent. This was Roger Mortimer, Earl of March, the same who was killed by the rebels in Ireland. This Roger had left a son Edmund to inherit his title, but Edmund was a mere child, and the inconvenience of another minority could not have been endured."

As for Henry's pretensions through his mother, they were founded upon what Mr. Gairdner calls an "idle story," that "the eldest son of Henry III. was not king Edward, but his brother Edmund Crouchback, Earl of Lancaster, who was commonly reputed the second son; and that this Edmund had been purposely set aside on account of his personal deformity. The plain fact of the matter was that Edmund Crouchback was six years younger than his brother Edward I.; and that his surname Crouchback had not the smallest reference to personal deformity, but only implied that he wore the cross upon his back as a crusader." Mr. Wylie (History of England under Henry IV., volume 1, chapter 1) represents that this latter claim was put forward under the advice of the leading jurists of the time, to give the appearance of a legitimate succession; whereas Henry took his real title from the will and assent of the nation. Henry IV. was succeeded by his vigorous son, Henry V. and he in turn by a feeble son, Henry VI., during whose reign England was torn by intrigues and factions, ending in the lamentable civil wars known as the "Wars of the Roses," the deposition of Henry VI. and the acquisition of the throne by the "House of York," in the persons of Edward IV. and Richard III. It was a branch of the House of Lancaster that reappeared, after the death of Richard III. in the royal family better known as the Tudors.

The earl of Northumberland and his son, Henry Percy, called "Hotspur," had performed great services for Henry IV., in establishing and maintaining him upon the throne. "At the outset of his reign their opposition would have been fatal to him; their adhesion ensured his victory. He had rewarded them with territory and high offices of trust, and they had by faithful services ever since increased their claims to gratitude and consideration. … Both father and son were high-spirited, passionate, suspicious men, who entertained an exalted sense of their own services and could not endure the shadow of a slight. Up to this time [early in 1403] not a doubt had been cast on their fidelity. Northumberland was still the king's chief agent in Parliament, his most valued commander in the field, his Mattathias. It has been thought that Hotspur's grudge against the king began with the notion that the release of his brother-in-law, Edmund Mortimer [taken prisoner, the year before, by the Welsh], had been neglected by the king, or was caused by Henry's claim to deal with the prisoners taken at Homildon; the defenders of the Percies alleged that they had been deceived by Henry in the first instance, and only needed to be persuaded that Richard lived in order to desert the king. It is more probable that they suspected Henry's friendship, and were exasperated by his compulsory economies. … Yet Henry seems to have conceived no suspicion. … Northumberland and Hotspur were writing for increased forces [for the war with Scotland]. … On the 10th of July Henry had reached Northamptonshire on his way northwards; on the 17th he heard that Hotspur with his uncle the earl of Worcester were in arms in Shropshire. They raised no cry of private wrongs, but proclaimed themselves the vindicators of national right: their object was to correct the evils of the administration, to enforce the employment of wise counsellors, and the proper expenditure of public money. … The report ran like wildfire through the west that Richard was alive, and at Chester. Hotspur's army rose to 14,000 men, and not suspecting the strength and promptness of the king, he sat down with his uncle and his prisoner, the earl of Douglas, before Shrewsbury. Henry showed himself equal to the need. From Burton-on-Trent, where on July 17 he summoned the forces of the shires to join him, he marched into Shropshire, and offered to parley with the insurgents. The earl of Worcester went between the camps, but he was either an impolitic or a treacherous envoy, and the negotiations ended in mutual exasperation. On the 21st the battle of Shrewsbury was fought; Hotspur was slain; Worcester was taken and beheaded two days after. The old earl, who may or may not have been cognizant of his son's intentions from the first, was now marching to his succour. The earl of Westmoreland, his brother-in-law, met him and drove him back to Warkworth. But all danger was over. On the 11th of August he met the king at York, and submitted to him."

ALSO IN: J. H. Wylie, History of England under Henry IV., volume 1, chapter 25.

"What the sword had won the sword should keep, said Henry V. on his accession; but what was meant by the saying has its comment in the fact that, in the year which witnessed his victory at Agincourt, he yielded to the House of Commons the most liberal measure of legislation which until then it had obtained. The dazzling splendour of his conquests in France had for the time cast into the shade every doubt or question of his title, but the very extent of those gains upon the French soil established more decisively the worse than uselessness of such acquisitions to the English throne. The distinction of Henry's reign in constitutional history will always be, that from it dates that power, indispensable to a free and limited monarchy, called Privilege of Parliament; the shield and buckler under which all the battles of liberty and good government were fought in the after time. Not only were its leading safeguards now obtained, but at once so firmly established, that against the shock of incessant resistance in later years they stood perfectly unmoved. Of the awful right of impeachment, too, the same is to be said. It was won in the same reign, and was never afterwards lost."

A formidable rebellion broke out in Kent, under the leadership of one Jack Cade, A. D. 1450. Overtaxation, the bad management of the council, the extortion of the subordinate officers, the injustice of the king's bench, the abuse of the right of purveyance, the "enquestes" and amercements, and the illegitimate control of elections were the chief causes of the rising of 1450. "The rising was mainly political, only one complaint was economical, not a single one was religious. We find not a single demand for new legislation. … The movement was by no means of a distinctly plebeian or disorderly character, but was a general and organized rising of the people at large. It was a political upheaval. We find no trace of socialism or of democracy. … The commons in 1450 arose against Lancaster and in favor of York. Their rising was the first great struggle in the Wars of the Roses."

Cade and his rebels took possession of London; but they were beaten in a battle and forced to quit the city. Cade and some followers continued to be turbulent and soon afterwards he was killed.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1455.
Demoralized state of the nation.
Effects of the wars in France.

"The whole picture of the times is very depressing on the moral if not on the material side. There are few more pitiful episodes in history than the whole tale of the reign of Henry VI., the most unselfish and well-intentioned king that ever sat upon the English throne—a man of whom not even his enemies and oppressors could find an evil word to say; the troubles came, as they confessed, 'all because of his false lords, and never of him.' We feel that there must have been something wrong with the heart of a nation that could see unmoved the meek and holy king torn from wife and child, sent to wander in disguise up and down the kingdom for which he had done his poor best, and finally doomed to pine for five years a prisoner in the fortress where he had so long held his royal Court. Nor is our first impression concerning the demoralisation of England wrong. Every line that we read bears home to us more and more the fact that the nation had fallen on evil times. First and foremost among the causes of its moral deterioration was the wretched French War, a war begun in the pure spirit of greed and ambition,—there was not even the poor excuse that had existed in the time of Edward III.—carried on by the aid of hordes of debauched foreign mercenaries … and persisted in long after it had become hopeless, partly from misplaced national pride, partly because of the personal interests of the ruling classes. Thirty-five years of a war that was as unjust as it was unfortunate had both soured and demoralised the nation. … When the final catastrophe came and the fights of Formigny [or Fourmigny] and Chatillon [Castillon] ended the chapter of our disasters, the nation began to cast about for a scapegoat on whom to lay the burden of its failures. … At first the unfortunate Suffolk and Somerset had the responsibility laid upon them. A little later the outcry became more bold and fixed upon the Lancastrian dynasty itself as being to blame not only for disaster abroad, but for want of governance at home. If King Henry had understood the charge, and possessed the wit to answer it, he might fairly have replied that his subjects must fit the burden upon their own backs, not upon his. The war had been weakly conducted, it was true; but weakly because the men and money for it were grudged. … At home, the bulwarks of social order seemed crumbling away. Private wars, riot, open highway robbery, murder, abduction, armed resistance to the law, prevailed on a scale that had been unknown since the troublous times of Edward II.—we might almost say since the evil days of Stephen. But it was not the Crown alone that should have been blamed for the state of the realm. The nation had chosen to impose over-stringent constitutional checks on the kingly power before it was ripe for self-government, and the Lancastrian house sat on the throne because it had agreed to submit to those checks. If the result of the experiment was disastrous, both parties to the contract had to bear their share of the responsibility. But a nation seldom allows that it has been wrong; and Henry of Windsor had to serve as a scapegoat for all the misfortunes of the realm, because Henry of Bolingbroke had committed his descendants to the unhappy compact. Want of a strong central government was undoubtedly the complaint under which England was labouring in the middle of the 15th century, and all the grievances against which outcry was made were but symptoms of one latent disease. … All these public troubles would have been of comparatively small importance if the heart of the nation had been sound. The phenomenon which makes the time so depressing is the terrible decay in private morals since the previous century. … There is no class or caste in England which comes well out of the scrutiny. The Church, which had served as the conscience of the nation in better times, had become dead to spiritual things. It no longer produced either men of saintly life or learned theologians or patriotic statesmen. … The baronage of England had often been unruly, but it had never before developed the two vices which distinguished it in the times of the Two Roses—a taste for indiscriminate bloodshed and a turn for political apostacy. … Twenty years spent in contact with French factions, and in command of the godless mercenaries who formed the bulk of the English armies, had taught our nobles lessons of cruelty and faithlessness such as they had not before imbibed. … The knights and squires showed on a smaller scale all the vices of the nobility. Instead of holding together and maintaining a united loyalty to the Crown, they bound themselves by solemn sealed bonds and the reception of 'liveries' each to the baron whom he preferred. This fatal system, by which the smaller landholder agreed on behalf of himself and his tenants to follow his greater neighbour in peace and war, had ruined the military system of England, and was quite as dangerous as the ancient feudalism. … If the gentry constituted themselves the voluntary followers of the baronage, and aided their employers to keep England unhappy, the class of citizens and burgesses took a very different line of conduct. If not actively mischievous, they were solidly inert. They refused to entangle themselves in politics at all. They submitted impassively to each ruler in turn, when they had ascertained that their own persons and property were not endangered by so doing. A town, it has been remarked, seldom or never stood a siege during the Wars of the Roses, for no town ever refused to open its gates to any commander with an adequate force who asked for entrance."

Beginning with a battle fought at St. Albans on the 23d of May, 1455, England was kept in a pitiable state of civil war, with short intervals of troubled peace, during thirty years. The immediate cause of trouble was in the feebleness of King Henry VI., who succeeded to the throne while an infant, and whose mind, never strong, gave way under the trials of his position when he came to manhood. The control of the government, thus weakly commanded, became a subject of strife between successive factions. The final leaders in such contests were Queen Margaret of Anjou, the energetic consort of the helpless king (with the king himself sometimes in a condition of mind to cooperate with her), on one side, and, on the other side, the Duke of York, who traced his lineage to Edward III., and who had strong claims to the throne if Henry should leave no heir. The battle at St. Albans was a victory for the Yorkists and placed them in power for the next two years, the Duke of York being named Protector. In 1456 the king recovered so far as to resume the reigns of government, and in 1459 there was a new rupture between the factions. The queen's adherents were beaten in the battle of Bloreheath, September 23d of that year; but defections in the ranks of the Yorkists soon obliged the latter to disperse and their leaders, York, Warwick and Salisbury, fled to Ireland and to Calais. In June, 1460, the earls of Warwick, Salisbury and March (the latter being the eldest son of the Duke of York) returned to England and gathered an army speedily, the city of London opening its gates to them. The king's forces were defeated at Northampton (July 10) and the king taken prisoner. A parliament was summoned and assembled in October. Then the Duke of York came over from Ireland, took possession of the royal palace and laid before parliament a solemn claim to the crown. After much discussion a compromise was agreed upon, under which Henry VI. should reign undisturbed during his life and the Duke of York should be his undisputed successor. This was embodied in an act of parliament and received the assent of the king; but queen Margaret who had retired into the north, refused to surrender the rights of her infant son, and a strong party sustained her. The Duke of York attacked these Lancastrian forces rashly, at Wakefield, December 30, 1460, and was slain on the field of a disastrous defeat. The queen's army, then, marching towards London, defeated the Earl of Warwick at St. Albans, February 17, 1461 (the second battle of the war at that place), and recovered possession of the person of the king. But Edward, Earl of March (now become Duke of York, by the death of his father), who had just routed a Lancastrian force at Mortimer's Cross, in Wales, joined his forces with those of Warwick and succeeded in occupying London, which steadily favored his cause. Calling together a council of lords, Edward persuaded them to declare King Henry deposed, on the ground that he had broken the agreement made with the late Duke of York. The next step was to elect Edward king, and he assumed the royal title and state at once. The new king lost no time in marching northwards against the army of the deposed sovereign, which lay near York. On the 27th of March the advanced division of the Lancastrians was defeated at Ferrybridge, and, two days later, their main body was almost destroyed in the fearful battle of Towton,—said to have been the bloodiest encounter that ever took place on English soil. King Henry took refuge in Scotland and Queen Margaret repaired to France. In 1464 Henry reappeared in the north with a body of Scots and refugees and there were risings in his favor in Northumberland, which the Yorkists crushed in the successive battles of Hedgeley Moor and Hexham. The Yorkist king (Edward IV.) now reigned without much disturbance ntil 1470, when he quarreled with the powerful Earl of Warwick— the "king-maker," whose strong hand had placed him on the throne. Warwick then passed to the other side, offering his services to Queen Margaret and leading an expedition which sailed from Harfleur in September, convoyed by a French fleet. Edward found himself unprepared to resist the Yorkist risings which welcomed Warwick and he fled to Holland, seeking aid from his brother-in-law, the Duke of Burgundy. For nearly six months, the kingdom was in the hands of Warwick and the Lancastrians; the unfortunate Henry VI., released from captivity in the Tower, was once more seated on the throne. But on the 14th of March, 1471, Edward reappeared in England, landing at Ravenspur, professing that he came only to recover his dukedom of York. As he moved southwards he gathered a large force of supporters and soon reassumed the royal title and pretensions. London opened its gates to him, and, on the 14th of April—exactly one month after his landing—he defeated his opponents at Barnet, where Warwick, "the king-maker"—the last of the great feudal barons—was slain. Henry, again a captive, was sent back to the Tower. But Henry's dauntless queen, who landed at Weymouth, with a body of French allies on the very day of the disastrous Barnet fight, refused to submit. Cornwall and Devon were true to her cause and gave her an army with which she fought the last battle of the war at Tewksbury on the 4th of May. Defeated and taken prisoner, her young son slain—whether in the battle or after it is unknown—the long contention of Margaret of Anjou ended on that bloody field. A few days later, when the triumphant Yorkist King Edward entered London, his poor, demented Lancastrian rival died suddenly and suspiciously in the Tower. The two parties in the long contention had each assumed the badge of a rose—the Yorkists a white rose, the Lancastrians a red one. Hence the name of the Wars of the Roses. "As early as the time of John of Ghent, the rose was used as an heraldic emblem, and when he married Blanche, the daughter of the Duke of Lancaster, he used the red rose for a device. Edmund of Langley, his brother, the fifth son of Edward III., adopted the white rose in opposition to him; and their followers afterwards maintained these distinctions in the bloody wars of the fifteenth century. There is, however, no authentic account of the precise period when these badges were first adopted."

"It is astonishing to observe the rapidity with which it [the English nation] had settled down to order in the reign of Henry VII. after so many years of civil dissension. It would lead us to infer that those wars were the wars of a class, and not of the nation; and that the effects of them have been greatly exaggerated. With the single exception of Cade's rebellion, they had nothing in common with the revolutions of later or earlier times. They were not wars against classes, against forms of government, against the order or the institutions of the nation. It was the rivalry of two aristocratic factions struggling for superiority, neither of them hoping or desiring, whichever obtained the upper hand, to introduce momentous changes in the State or its administration. The main body of the people took little interest in the struggle; in the towns at least there was no intermission of employment. The war passed over the nation, ruffling the surface, toppling down high cliffs here and there, washing away ancient landmarks, attracting the imagination of the spectator by the mightiness of its waves, and the noise of its thunders; but the great body below the surface remained unmoved. No famines, no plagues, consequent on the intermittance of labour caused by civil war, are recorded; even the prices of land and provisions scarcely varied more than they have been known to do in times of profoundest peace. But the indirect and silent operation of these conflicts was much more remarkable. It reft into fragments the confederated ranks of a powerful territorial aristocracy, which had hitherto bid defiance to the King, however popular, however energetic. Henceforth the position of the Sovereign in the time of the Tudors, in relation to all classes of the people, became very different from what it had been; the royal supremacy was no longer a theory; but a fact. Another class had sprung up on the decay of the ancient nobility. The great towns had enjoyed uninterrupted tranquility, and even flourished, under the storm that was scourging the aristocracy and the rural districts. Their population had increased by numbers whom fear or the horrors of war had induced to find shelter behind stone walls. The diminution of agricultural labourers converted into soldiers by the folly of their lords had turned corn-lands into pasture, requiring less skill, less capital, and less labour."

"Those who would estimate the condition of England aright should remember that the War of the Roses was only a repetition on a large scale of those private wars which distracted almost every county, and, indeed, by taking away all sense of security, disturbed almost every manor and every class of society during the same century. … The lawless condition of English society in the 15th century resembled that of Ireland in as recent a date as the beginning of the 19th century. … In both countries women were carried off, sometimes at night; they were first violated, then dragged to the altar in their night-dress and compelled to marry their captors. … Children were seized and thrown into a dungeon until ransomed by their parents."

"The Wars of the Roses which filled the second half of the 15th century furnished the barons with an arena in which their instincts of violence had freer play than ever; it was they who, under the pretext of dynastic interests which had ceased to exist, of their own free choice prolonged the struggle. Altogether unlike the Italian condottieri, the English barons showed no mercy to their own order; they massacred and exterminated each other freely, while they were careful to spare the commonalty. Whole families were extinguished or submerged in the nameless mass of the nation, and their estates by confiscation or escheat helped to swell the royal domain. When Henry VII. had stifled the last movements of rebellion and had punished, through the Star Chamber, those nobles who were still suspected of maintaining armed bands, the baronage was reduced to a very low ebb; not more than twenty-nine lay peers were summoned by the king to his first Parliament. The old Norman feudal nobility existed no longer; the heroic barons of the great charter barely survived in the persons of a few doubtful descendants; their estates were split up or had been forfeited to the Crown. A new class came forward to fill the gap, that rural middle class which was formed … by the fusion of the knights with the free landowners. It had already taken the lead in the House of Commons, and it was from its ranks that Henry VII. chose nearly all the new peers. A peerage renewed almost throughout, ignorant of the habits and traditions of the earlier nobility, created in large batches, closely dependent on the monarch who had raised it from little or nothing and who had endowed it with his bounty—this is the phenomenon which confronts us at the end of the fifteenth century."

   The House of York, which triumphed in the Wars of the Roses,
   attaining the throne in the person of Edward IV. (A. D. 1461),
   derived its claim to the crown through descent, in the female
   line, from Lionel, Duke of Clarence, the third son of Edward
   III. (the second son who lived to manhood and left children);
   while the House of Lancaster traced its lineage to John of
   Gaunt, a younger son of the same king Edward III., but the
   line of Lancastrian succession was through males. "Had the
   crown followed the course of hereditary succession, it would
   have devolved on the posterity of Lionel. … By the decease
   of that prince without male issue, his possessions and
   pretensions fell to his daughter Philippa, who by a singular
   combination of circumstances had married Roger Mortimer earl
   of March, the male representative of the powerful baron who
   was attainted and executed for the murder of Edward II., the
   grandfather of the duke of Clarence. The son of that potent
   delinquent had been restored to his honours and estates at an
   advanced period in the reign of Edward III. … Edmund, his
   grandson, had espoused Philippa of Clarence. Roger Mortimer,
   the fourth in descent from the regicide, was lord lieutenant
   of Ireland and was considered, or, according to some writers,
   declared to be heir of the crown in the early part of
   Richard's reign. Edmund Mortimer, earl of March, in whom the
   hereditary claim to the crown was vested at the deposition of
   Richard, was then only an infant of ten years of age. …
{822}
   Dying without issue, the pretensions to the crown, which he
   inherited through the duke of Clarence, devolved on his sister
   Anne Mortimer, who espoused Richard of York earl of Cambridge,
   the grandson of Edward III. by his fourth [fifth] son Edmund
   of Langley duke of York." Edward IV. was the grandson of this
   Anne Mortimer and Richard of York.

The House of York occupied the throne but twenty-four years. On the death of Edward IV., in 1483, the crown was secured by his brother, Richard, duke of Gloucester, who caused Edward's two sons to be murdered in the Tower. The elder of these murdered princes is named in the list of English kings as Edward V.; but he cannot be said to have reigned. Richard III. was overthrown and slain on Bosworth field in 1485.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1471-1485.
   The New Monarchy.
   The rise of Absolutism and the decline of Parliamentary
   government.

"If we use the name of the New Monarchy to express the character of the English sovereignty from the time of Edward IV. to the time of Elizabeth, it is because the character of the monarchy during this period was something wholly new in our history. There is no kind of sibilantly between the kingship of the Old English, of the Norman, the Angevin, or the Plantagenet sovereigns, and the kingship of the Tudors. … What the Great Rebellion in its final result actually did was to wipe away every trace of the New Monarchy, and to take up again the thread of our political development just where it had been snapped by the Wars of the Roses. … The founder of the New Monarchy was Edward IV. … While jesting with aldermen, or dallying with his mistresses, or idling over the new pages from the printing press [Caxton's] at Westminster, Edward was silently laying the foundations of an absolute rule which Henry VII. did little more than develop and consolidate. The almost total discontinuance of Parliamentary life was in itself a revolution. Up to this moment the two Houses had played a part which became more and more prominent in the government of the realm. … Under Henry VI. an important step in constitutional progress had been made by abandoning the old form of presenting the requests of the Parliament in the form of petitions which were subsequently moulded into statutes by the Royal Councils; the statute itself, in its final form, was now presented for the royal assent, and the Crown was deprived of its former privilege of modifying it. Not only does this progress cease, but the legislative activity of Parliament itself comes abruptly to an end. … The necessity for summoning the two Houses had, in fact, been removed by the enormous tide of wealth which the confiscation of the civil war poured into the royal treasury. … It was said that nearly a fifth of the land had passed into the royal possession at one period or another of the civil war. Edward added to his resources by trading on a vast scale. … The enterprises he had planned against France … enabled Edward not only to increase his hoard, but to deal a deadly blow at liberty. Setting aside the usage of loans sanctioned by the authority of Parliament, Edward called before him the merchants of the city and requested from each a present or benevolence in proportion to the need. Their compliance with his prayer was probably aided by his popularity with the merchant class; but the system of benevolence was soon to be developed into the forced loans of Wolsey and the ship-money of Charles I."

ALSO IN: W. Stubbs, Constitutional History of England, chapter 18, section 696.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1483-1485.
   Murder of the young king, Edward V.
   Accession of Richard III.
   The battle of Bosworth and the fall of the House of York.

On the death of Edward IV., in 1483, his crafty and unscrupulous brother, Richard, Duke of Gloucester, gathered quickly into his hands the reins of power, proceeding with consummate audacity and ruthlessness to sweep every strong rival out of his path. Contenting himself for a few weeks, only, with the title of Protector, he soon disputed the validity of his brother Edward's marriage, caused an obsequious Parliament to set aside the young sons whom the latter had left, declaring them to be illegitimate, and placed the crown on his own head. The little princes (King Edward V., and Richard, Duke of York), immured in the Tower, were murdered presently at their uncle's command, and Richard III. appeared, for the time, to have triumphed in his ambitious villainy. But, popular as he made himself in many cunning ways, his deeds excited a horror which united Lancastrians with the party of York in a common detestation. Friends of Henry, Earl of Richmond, then in exile, were not slow to take advantage of this feeling. Henry could claim descent from the same John of Gaunt, son of Edward III., to whom the House of Lancaster traced its lineage; but his family—the Beauforts—sprang from the mistress, not the wife, of the great Duke of Lancaster, and had only been legitimated by act of Parliament. The Lancastrians, however, were satisfied with the royalty of his blood, and the Yorkists were made content by his promise to marry a daughter of Edward IV. On this understanding being arranged, Henry came over from Brittany to England, landing at Milford Haven on the 7th or 8th of August, 1485, and advancing through Wales, being joined by great numbers as he moved. Richard, who had no lack of courage, marched quickly to meet him, and the two forces joined battle on Bosworth Field, in Leicestershire, on Sunday, August 21. At the outset of the fighting Richard was deserted by a large division of his army and saw that his fate was sealed. He plunged, with despairing rage, into the thickest of the struggle and was slain. His crowned helmet, which he had worn, was found by Sir Reginald Bray, battered and broken, under a hawthorn bush, and placed on the head of his rival, who soon attained a more solemn coronation, as Henry VII.

   "I must record my impression that a minute study of the facts
   of Richard's life has tended more and more to convince me of
   the general fidelity of the portrait with which we have been
   made familiar by Shakespeare and Sir Thomas More. I feel quite
   ashamed, at this day, to think how I mused over this subject
   long ago, wasting a great deal of time, ink and paper, in
   fruitless efforts to satisfy even my own mind that traditional
   black was real historical white, or at worst a kind of grey.
   …
{823}
   Both the character and personal appearance of Richard III.
   have furnished matter of controversy. But with regard to the
   former the day has now gone by when it was possible to doubt
   the evidence at least of his principal crime; and that he was
   regarded as a tyrant by his subjects seems almost equally
   indisputable. At the same time he was not destitute of better
   qualities. … As king he seems really to have studied his
   country's welfare, passed good laws, endeavoured to put an end
   to extortion, declined the free gifts offered to him by
   several towns, and declared he would rather have the hearts of
   his subjects than their money. His munificence was especially
   shown in religious foundations. … His hypocrisy was not of
   the vulgar kind which seeks to screen habitual baseness of
   motive by habitual affectation of virtue. His best and his
   worst deeds were alike too well known to be either concealed
   or magnified; at least, soon after he became king, all doubt
   upon the subject must have been removed. … His ingratiating
   manners, together with the liberality of his disposition, seem
   really to have mitigated to a considerable extent the alarms
   created by his fitful deeds of violence. The reader will not
   require to be reminded of Shakespeare's portrait of a murderer
   who could cajole the woman whom he had most exasperated and
   made a widow into marrying himself. That Richard's ingenuity
   was equal to this extraordinary feat we do not venture to
   assert; but that he had a wonderful power of reassuring those
   whom he had most intimidated and deceiving those who knew him
   best there can be very little doubt. … His taste in building
   was magnificent and princely. … There is scarcely any
   evidence of Richard's [alleged] deformity to be derived from
   original portraits. The number of portraits of Richard which
   seem to be contemporary is greater than might have been
   expected. … The face in all the portraits is a remarkable
   one, full of energy and decision, yet gentle and sad-looking,
   suggesting the idea not so much of a tyrant as of a mind
   accustomed to unpleasant thoughts. Nowhere do we find depicted
   the warlike hard-favoured visage attributed to him by Sir
   Thomas More. … With such a one did the long reign of the
   Plantagenets terminate. The fierce spirit and the valour of
   the race never showed more strongly than at the close. The
   Middle Ages, too, as far as England was concerned, may be said
   to have passed away with Richard III."

      J. Gairdner,
      History of the Life, and Reign of Richard The Third,
      introduction and chapter 6.

The Tudor family, which occupied the English throne from the accession of Henry VII., 1485, until the death of Elizabeth, 1603, took its name, but not its royal lineage, from Sir Owen Tudor, a handsome Welsh chieftain, who won the heart and the hand of the young widow of Henry V., Catherine of France. The eldest son of that marriage, made Earl of Richmond, married in his turn Margaret Beaufort, great-granddaughter to John of Gaunt, or Ghent, who was one of the sons of Edward III. From this latter union came Henry of Richmond, as he was known, who disputed the crown with Richard III. and made his claim good on Bosworth Field, where the hated Richard was killed. Henry's pretensions were based on the royal descent of his mother—derived, however, through John of Gaunt's mistress— and the dynasty which he founded was closely related in origin to the Lancastrian line. Henry of Richmond strengthened his hold upon the crown, though not his title to it, by marrying Elizabeth, daughter of Edward IV., thus joining the white rose to the red. He ascended the throne as Henry VII., A. D. 1485; was succeeded by his son, Henry VIII., in 1509, and the latter by his three children, in order as follows: Edward VI., 1547; Mary, 1553; Elizabeth, 1558. The Tudor family became extinct on the death of Queen Elizabeth, in 1603. "They [the Tudors] reigned in England, without a successful rising against them, for upwards of a hundred years; but not more by a studied avoidance of what might so provoke the country, than by the most resolute repression of every effort, on the part of what remained of the peerage and great families, to make head against the throne. They gave free indulgence to their tyranny only within the circle of the court, while they unceasingly watched and conciliated the temper of the people. The work they had to do, and which by more scrupulous means was not possible to be done, was one of paramount necessity; the dynasty uninterruptedly endured for only so long as was requisite to its thorough completion; and to each individual sovereign the particular task might seem to have been specially assigned. It was Henry's to spurn, renounce and utterly cast off, the Pope's authority, without too suddenly revolting the people's usages and habits; to arrive at blessed results by ways that a better man might have held to be accursed; during the momentous change in progress to keep in necessary check both the parties it affected; to persecute with an equal hand the Romanist and the Lutheran; to send the Protestant to the stake for resisting Popery, and the Roman Catholic to the scaffold for not admitting himself to be Pope; while he meantime plundered the monasteries, hunted down and rooted out the priests, alienated the abbey lands, and glutted himself and his creatures with that enormous spoil. It was Edward's to become the ready and undoubting instrument of Cranmer's design, and, with all the inexperience and more than the obstinacy of youth, so to force upon the people his compromise of doctrine and observance, as to render possible, even perhaps unavoidable, his elder sister's reign. It was Mary's to undo the effect of that precipitate eagerness of the Reformers, by lighting the fires of Smithfield; and opportunely to arrest the waverers from Protestantism, by exhibiting in their excess the very worst vices, the cruel bigotry, the hateful intolerance, the spiritual slavery, of Rome. It was Elizabeth's finally and forever to uproot that slavery from amongst us, to champion all over the world a new and nobler faith, and immovably to establish in England the Protestant religion."

      ALSO IN:
      S. R. Gardiner and J. B. Mullinger,
      Introduction to the Study of English History,
      chapter 6.

Although Henry VII., soon after he attained the throne, married Elizabeth of York, daughter of Edward IV., and thus united the two rival houses, the Yorkists were discontented with his rule. "With the help of Margaret of Burgundy, Edward IV. 's sister, and James IV. of Scotland, they actually set up two impostors, one after the other, to claim the throne. There was a real heir of the House of York still alive—young Edward, Earl of Warwick [son of the Duke of Clarence, brother to Edward IV.], … and Henry had taken the precaution to keep him in the Tower. But in 1487 a sham Earl of Warwick appeared in Ireland, and being supported by the Earl of Kildare, was actually crowned in Dublin Cathedral. Henry soon put down the imposture by showing the real earl to the people of London, and defeating the army of the pretended earl at Stoke, near Newark, June, 1487. He proved to be a lad named Lambert Simnel, the son of a joiner at Oxford, and he became a scullion in the king's kitchen." In 1492 another pretender of like character was brought forward. "A young man, called Perkin Warbeck, who proved afterwards to be a native of Tournay, pretended that he was Richard, Duke of York, the younger of the two little princes in the Tower, and that he had escaped when his brother Edward V. was murdered. He persuaded the king of France and Margaret of Burgundy to acknowledge him, and was not only received at the foreign courts, but, after failing in Ireland, he went to Scotland, where James IV. married him to his own cousin Catharine Gordon, and helped him to invade England in 1496. The invasion was defeated however, by the Earl of Surrey, and then Perkin went back to Ireland, where the people had revolted against the heavy taxes. There he raised an army and marched to Exeter, but meeting the king's troops at Taunton, he lost courage, and fled to the Abbey of Beaulieu, where he was taken prisoner, and sent to the Tower in 1497." In 1501 both Perkin Warbeck and the young Earl of Warwick were executed.

ALSO IN: J. Gairdner, Story of Perkin Warbeck (appendix to Life of Richard III.).

ENGLAND: 15th-16th Centuries.
   The Renaissance.
   Life in "Merry England."
   Preludes to the Elizabethan Age of literature.

"Toward the close of the fifteenth century … commerce and the woollen trade made a sudden advance, and such an enormous one that corn-fields were changed into pasture-lands, 'whereby the inhabitants of the said town (Manchester) have gotten and come into riches and wealthy livings,' so that in 1553, 40,000 pieces of cloth were exported in English ships. It was already the England which we see to-day, a land of meadows, green, intersected by hedgerows, crowded with cattle, abounding in ships, a manufacturing, opulent land, with a people of beef-eating toilers, who enrich it while they enrich themselves. They improved agriculture to such an extent, that in half a century the produce of an acre was doubled. They grew so rich, that at the beginning of the reign of Charles I. the Commons represented three times the wealth of the Upper House. The ruin of Antwerp by the Duke of Parma sent to England 'the third part of the merchants and manufacturers, who made silk, damask, stockings, taffetas, and serges.' The defeat of the Armada and the decadence of Spain opened the seas to their merchants. The toiling hive, who would dare, attempt, explore, act in unison, and always with profit, was about to reap its advantages and set out on its voyages, buzzing over the universe. At the base and on the summit of society, in all ranks of life, in all grades of human condition, this new welfare became visible. … It is not when all is good, but when all is better, that they see the bright side of life, and are tempted to make a holiday of it. This is why at this period they did make a holiday of it, a splendid show, so like a picture that it fostered painting in Italy, so like a representation, that it produced the drama in England. Now that the battle-axe and sword of the civil wars had beaten down the independent nobility, and the abolition of the law of maintenance had destroyed the petty royalty of each great feudal baron, the lords quitted their sombre castles, battlemented fortresses, surrounded by stagnant water, pierced with narrow windows, a sort of stone breast-plates of no use but to preserve the life of their masters. They flock into new palaces, with vaulted roofs and turrets, covered with fantastic and manifold ornaments, adorned with terraces and vast staircases, with gardens, fountains, statues, such as were the palaces of Henry VIII. and Elizabeth, half Gothic and half Italian, whose convenience, grandeur, and beauty announced already habits of society and the taste for pleasure. They came to court and abandoned their old manners; the four meals which scarcely sufficed their former voracity were reduced to two; gentlemen soon became refined, placing their glory in the elegance and singularity of their amusements and their clothes. … To vent the feelings, to satisfy the heart and eyes, to set free boldly on all the roads of existence the pack of appetites and instincts, this was the craving which the manners of the time betrayed. It was 'merry England,' as they called it then. It was not yet stern and constrained. It expanded widely, freely, and rejoiced to find itself so expanded. No longer at court only was the drama found but in the village. Strolling companies betook themselves thither, and the country folk supplied any deficiencies when necessary. Shakspeare saw, before he depicted them, stupid fellows, carpenters, joiners, bellow-menders, play Pyramus and Thisbe, represent the lion roaring as gently as possible, and the wall, by stretching out their hands. Every holiday was a pageant, in which townspeople, workmen, and children bore their parts. … A few sectarians, chiefly in the towns and of the people, clung gloomily to the Bible. But the court and the men of the world sought their teachers and their heroes from pagan Greece and Rome. About 1490 they began to read the classics; one after the other they translated them; it was soon the fashion to read them in the original. Elizabeth, Jane Grey, the Duchess of Norfolk, the Countess of Arundel, many other ladies, were conversant with Plato, Xenophon, and Cicero in the original, and appreciated them. Gradually, by an insensible change, men were raised to the level of the great and healthy minds who had freely handled ideas of all kinds fifteen centuries ago. They comprehended not only their language, but their thought; they did not repeat lessons from, but held conversations with them; they were their equals, and found in them intellects as manly as their own. … {825} Across the train of hooded school men and sordid cavillers the two adult and thinking ages were united, and the moderns, silencing the infantine or snuffling voices of the middle-age, condescended only to converse with the noble ancients. They accepted their gods, at least they understand them, and keep them by their side. In poems, festivals, tapestries, almost all ceremonies they appear, not restored by pedantry merely, but kept alive by sympathy, and glorified by the arts of an age as flourishing and almost as profound as that of their earliest birth. After the terrible night of the middle-age, and the dolorous legends of spirits and the damned, it was a delight to see again Olympus shining upon us from Greece; its heroic and beautiful deities once more ravishing the heart of men, they raised and instructed this young world by speaking to it the language of passion and genius; and the age of strong deeds, free sensuality, bold invention, had only to follow its own bent, in order to discover in them the eternal promoters of liberty and beauty. Nearer still was another paganism, that of Italy; the more seductive because more modern, and because it circulates fresh sap in an ancient stock; the more attractive, because more sensuous and present, with its worship of force and genius, of pleasure and voluptuousness. … At that time Italy clearly led in every thing, and civilisation was to be drawn thence as from its spring. What is this civilisation which is thus imposed on the whole of Europe, whence every science and every elegance comes, whose laws are obeyed in every court, in which Surrey, Sidney, Spenser, Shakspeare sought their models and their materials? It was pagan in its elements and its birth; in its language, which is but slightly different from Latin; in its Latin traditions and recollections, which no gap has come to interrupt; in its constitution, whose old municipal life first led and absorbed the feudal life; in the genius of its race, in which energy and enjoyment always abounded."

"The intellectual movement, to which we give the name of Renaissance, expressed itself in England mainly through the Drama. Other races in that era of quickened activity, when modern man regained the consciousness of his own strength and goodliness after centuries of mental stagnation and social depression, threw their energies into the plastic arts and scholarship. The English found a similar outlet for their pent-up forces in the Drama. The arts and literature of Greece and Rome had been revealed by Italy to Europe. Humanism had placed the present once more in a vital relation to the past. The navies of Portugal and Spain had discovered new continents beyond the ocean; the merchants of Venice and Genoa had explored the farthest East. Copernicus had revolutionised astronomy, and the telescope was revealing fresh worlds beyond the sun. The Bible had been rescued from the mortmain of the Church; scholars studied it in the language of its authors, and the people read it in their own tongue. In this rapid development of art, literature, science, and discovery, the English had hitherto taken but little part. But they were ready to reap what other men had sown. Unfatigued by the labours of the pioneer, unsophisticated by the pedantries and sophistries of the schools, in the freshness of their youth and vigour, they surveyed the world unfolded to them. For more than half a century they freely enjoyed the splendour of this spectacle, until the struggle for political and religious liberty replunged them in the hard realities of life. During that eventful period of spiritual disengagement from absorbing cares, the race was fully conscious of its national importance. It had shaken off the shackles of oppressive feudalism, the trammels of ecclesiastical tyranny. It had not yet passed under the Puritan yoke, or felt the encroachments of despotic monarchy. It was justly proud of the Virgin Queen, with whose idealised personality the people identified their newly acquired sense of greatness. … What in those fifty years they saw with the clairvoyant eyes of artists, the poets wrote. And what they wrote, remains imperishable. It is the portrait of their age, the portrait of an age in which humanity stood self-revealed, a miracle and marvel to its own admiring curiosity. England was in a state of transition when the Drama came to perfection. That was one of those rare periods when the past and the future are both coloured by imagination, and both shed a glory on the present. The medieval order was in dissolution; the modern order was in process of formation. Yet the old state of things had not faded from memory and usage; the new had not assumed despotic sway. Men stood then, as it were, between two dreams—a dream of the past, thronged with sinister and splendid reminiscences; a dream of the future, bright with unlimited aspirations and indefinite hopes. Neither the retreating forces of the Middle Ages nor the advancing forces of the modern era pressed upon them with the iron weight of actuality. The brutalities of feudalism had been softened; but the chivalrous sentiment remained to inspire the Surreys and the Sidneys of a milder epoch. … What distinguished the English at this epoch from the nations of the South was not refinement of manners, sobriety, or self-control. On the contrary they retained an unenviable character for more than common savagery. … Erasmus describes the filth of their houses, and the sicknesses engendered in their cities by bad ventilation. What rendered the people superior to Italians and Spaniards was the firmness of their moral fibre, the sweetness of their humanity, a more masculine temper, less vitiated instincts and sophisticated intellects, a law-abiding and religious conscience, contempt for treachery and baseness, intolerance of political or ecclesiastical despotism combined with fervent love of home and country. They were coarse, but not vicious; pleasure-loving, but not licentious; violent, but not cruel; luxurious but not effeminate. Machiavelli was a name of loathing to them. Sidney, Essex, Raleigh, More, and Drake were popular heroes; and whatever may be thought of these men, they certainly counted no Marquis of Pescara, no Duke of Valentino, no Malatesta Baglioni, no Cosimo de' Medici among them. The Southern European type betrayed itself but faintly in politicians like Richard Cromwell and Robert Dudley. … Affectations of foreign vices were only a varnish on the surface of society. The core of the nation remained sound and wholesome. Nor was the culture which the English borrowed from less unsophisticated nations, more than superficial. The incidents of Court gossip show how savage was the life beneath. {826} Queen Elizabeth spat, in the presence of her nobles, at a gentleman who had displeased her; struck Essex on the cheek; drove Burleigh blubbering from her apartment. Laws in merry England were executed with uncompromising severity. Every township had its gallows; every village its stocks, whipping-post and pillory. Here and there, heretics were burned upon the market-place; and the block upon Tower Hill was seldom dry. … Men and women who read Plato, or discussed the elegancies of Petrarch, suffered brutal practical jokes, relished the obscenities of jesters, used the grossest language of the people. Carrying farms and acres on their backs in the shape of costly silks and laces, they lay upon rushes filthy with the vomit of old banquets. Glittering in suits of gilt and jewelled mail, they jostled with town-porters in the stench of the bear-gardens, or the bloody bull-pit. The church itself was not respected. The nave of old S. Paul's became a rendezvous for thieves and prostitutes. … It is difficult, even by noting an infinity of such characteristics, to paint the many-coloured incongruities of England at that epoch. Yet in the midst of this confusion rose cavaliers like Sidney, philosophers like Bacon, poets like Spenser; men in whom all that is pure, elevated, subtle, tender, strong, wise, delicate and learned in our modern civilisation displayed itself. And the masses of the people were still in harmony with these high strains. They formed the audience of Shakspere. They wept for Desdemona, adored Imogen, listened with Jessica to music in the moon-light at Belmont, wandered with Rosalind through woodland glades of Arden. Such was the society of which our theatre became the mirror."

J. A. Symonds, Shakspere's Predecessors in the English Drama, chapter 2, section 1, 2, and 5.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1498.
Voyage and discoveries of Sebastian Cabot.
Ground of English claims in the New World.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1502.
The marriage which brought the Stuarts to the English throne.

"As a king, Bacon tells us that he was 'a wonder for wise men.' Few indeed were the councillors that shared his confidence, but the wise men, competent to form an estimate of his statesmanship, had but one opinion of his consummate wisdom. Foreigners were greatly struck with the success that attended his policy. Ambassadors were astonished at the intimate knowledge he displayed of the affairs of their own countries. From the most unpropitious beginnings, a proscribed man and an exile, he had won his way in evil times to a throne beset with dangers; he had pacified his own country, cherished commerce, formed strong alliances over Europe, and made his personal influence felt by the rulers of France, Spain, Italy, and the Netherlands as that of a man who could turn the scale in matters of the highest importance to their own domestic welfare. … From first to last his policy was essentially his own; for though he knew well how to choose the ablest councillors, he asked or took their advice only to such an extent as he himself deemed expedient. … No one can understand his reign, or that of his son, or, we might add, of his granddaughter Queen Elizabeth, without appreciating the fact that, however well served with councillors, the sovereign was in those days always his own Prime Minister. … Even the legislation of the reign must be regarded as in large measure due to Henry himself. We have no means, it is true, of knowing how much of it originated in his own mind; but that it was all discussed with him in Council and approved before it was passed we have every reason to believe. For he never appears to have put the royal veto upon any Bill, as constitutional usage both before and after his days allowed. He gave his assent to all the enactments sent up to him for approval, though he sometimes added to them provisos of his own. And Bacon, who knew the traditions of those times, distinctly attributes the good legislation of his days to the king himself. 'In that part, both of justice and policy, which is the most durable part, and cut, as it were, in brass or marble, the making of good laws, he did excel.' This statement, with but slight variations in the wording, appears again and again throughout the History; and elsewhere it is said that he was the best lawgiver to this nation after Edward I. … The parliaments, indeed, that Henry summoned were only seven in number, and seldom did anyone of them last over a year, so that during a reign of nearly twenty-four years many years passed away without a Parliament at all. But even in those scanty sittings many Acts were passed to meet evils that were general subjects of complaint. … He could scarcely be called a learned man, yet he was a lover of learning, and gave his children an excellent education. His Court was open to scholars. … He was certainly religious after the fashion of his day. … His religious foundations and bequests perhaps do not necessarily imply anything more than conventional feeling. But we must not overlook the curious circumstance that he once argued with a heretic at the stake at Canterbury and got him to renounce his heresy. It is melancholy to add that he did not thereupon release him from the punishment to which he had been sentenced; but the fact seems to show that he was afraid of encouraging insincere conversions by such leniency. During the last two or three years of the 15th century there was a good deal of procedure against heretics, but on the whole, we are told, rather by penances than by fire. Henry had no desire to see the old foundations of the faith disturbed. His zeal for the Church was recognised by no less than three Popes in his time, who each sent him a sword and a cap of maintenance. … To commerce and adventure he was always a good friend. By his encouragement Sebastian Cabot sailed from Bristol and discovered Newfoundland—The New Isle, as it at first was called. Four years earlier Columbus had first set foot on the great western continent, and had not his brother been taken by pirates at sea, it is supposed that he too might have made his great discovery under Henry's patronage."

ENGLAND: A. D. 1151-1513.
Enlisted In the Holy League of Pope Julius II. against France.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1513.
Henry's invasion of France.
The victory of the Battle of the Spurs.

From 1513 to 1529, Thomas Wolsey, who became Archbishop of York in 1514, and Cardinal in 1515, was the minister who guided the policy of Henry VIII., so far as that head-strong and absolute monarch could be guided at all. "England was going through a crisis, politically, socially, and intellectually, when Wolsey undertook the management of affairs. … We must regret that he put foreign policy in the first place, and reserved his constructive measures for domestic affairs. … Yet even here we may doubt if the measures of the English Reformation would have been possible if Wolsey's mind had not inspired the king and the nation with a heightened consciousness of England's power and dignity. Wolsey's diplomacy at least tore away all illusions about Pope and Emperor, and the opinion of Europe, and taught Henry VIII. the measure of his own strength. It was impossible that Wolsey's powerful hand should not leave its impression upon everything which it touched. If Henry VIII. inherited a strong monarchy, Wolsey made the basis of monarchical power still stronger. … Wolsey saw in the royal power the only possible means of holding England together and guiding it through the dangers of impending change. … Wolsey was in no sense a constitutional minister, nor did he pay much heed to constitutional forms. Parliament was only summoned once during the time that he was in office, and then he tried to browbeat Parliament and set aside its privileges. In his view the only function of Parliament was to grant money for the king's needs. The king should say how much he needed, and Parliament ought only to advise how this sum might be most conveniently raised. … He was unwise in his attempt to force the king's will upon Parliament as an unchangeable law of its action. Henry VIII. looked and learned from Wolsey's failure, and when he took the management of Parliament into his own hands he showed himself a consummate master of that craft. … He was so skilful that Parliament at last gave him even the power over the purse, and Henry, without raising a murmur, imposed taxes which Wolsey would not have dared to suggest. … Where Wolsey would have made the Crown independent of Parliament, Henry VIII. reduced Parliament to be a willing instrument of the royal will. … Henry … clothed his despotism with the appearance of paternal solicitude. He made the people think that he lived for them, and that their interests were his, whereas Wolsey endeavoured to convince the people that the king alone could guard their interests, and that their only course was to put entire confidence in him. Henry saw that men were easier to cajole than to convince. … In spite of the disadvantage of a royal education, Henry was a more thorough Englishman than Wolsey, though Wolsey sprang from the people. It was Wolsey's teaching, however, that prepared Henry for his task. The king who could use a minister like Wolsey and then throw him away when he was no longer useful, felt that there was no limitation to his self-sufficiency. … For politics in the largest sense, comprising all the relations of the nation at home and abroad, Wolsey had a capacity which amounted to genius, and it is doubtful if this can be said of any other Englishman. … Taking England as he found her, he aimed at developing all her latent possibilities, and leading Europe to follow in her train. … He made England for a time the centre of European politics, and gave her an influence far higher than she could claim on material grounds. … He was indeed a political artist, who worked with a free hand and a certain touch. … He was, though he knew it not, fitted to serve England, but not to serve the English king. He had the aims of a national statesman, not of a royal servant. Wolsey's misfortune was that his lot was cast on days when the career of a statesman was not distinct from that of a royal servant."

      J. A. Froude,
      History of England from the Fall of Wolsey,
      chapters 1-2.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1520-1521. Rivalry of the Emperor and the French King for the English alliance.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1525.
The king changes sides in European politics and breaks his
alliance with the Emperor.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1527.
   New alliance with France and Venice against Charles V.
   Formal renunciation of the claim of the English kings to the
   crown of France.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1527-1534.
Henry VIII. and the Divorce question.
The rupture with Rome.

Henry VIII. owed his crown to the early death of his brother Arthur, whose widow, Catharine of Aragon, the daughter of Ferdinand, and consequently the aunt of Charles V. [emperor], Henry was enabled to marry through a dispensation obtained by Henry VII. from Pope Julius II.,—marriage with the wife of a deceased brother being forbidden by the laws of the Church. Henry was in his twelfth year when the marriage was concluded, but it was not consummated until the death of his father. … The question of Henry's divorce from Catharine soon became a subject of discussion, and the effort to procure the annulling of the marriage from the pope was prosecuted for a number of years. Henry professed, and perhaps with sincerity, that he had long been troubled with doubts of the validity of the marriage, as being contrary to the divine law, and therefore not within the limit of the pope's dispensing power. The death of a number of his children, leaving only a single daughter, Mary, had been interpreted by some as a mark of the displeasure of God. At the same time the English people, in the fresh recollection of the long dynastic struggle, were anxious on account of the lack of a male heir to the throne. On the queen's side it was asserted that it was competent for the pope to authorize a marriage with a brother's widow, and that no doubt could possibly exist in the present case, since, according to her testimony, her marriage with Arthur had never been completed. The eagerness of Henry to procure the divorce increased with his growing passion for Anne Boleyn. The negotiations with Rome dragged slowly on. Catharine was six years older than himself, and had lost her charms. {828} He was enamored of this young English girl, fresh from the court of France. He resolved to break the marriage bond with the Spanish princess who had been his faithful wife for nearly twenty years. It was not without reason that the king became more and more incensed at the dilatory and vacillating course of the pope. … Henry determined to lay the question of the validity of his marriage before the universities of Europe, and this he did, making a free use of bribery abroad and of menaces at home. Meantime, he took measures to cripple the authority of the pope and of the clergy in England. In these proceedings he was sustained by a popular feeling, the growth of centuries, against foreign ecclesiastical interference and clerical control in civil affairs. The fall of Wolsey was the effect of his failure to procure the divorce, and of the enmity of Anne Boleyn and her family. … In order to convict of treason this minister, whom he had raised to the highest pinnacle of power, the king did not scruple to avail himself of the ancient statute of præmunire, which Wolsey was accused of having transgressed by acting as the pope's legate in England—it was dishonestly alleged, without the royal license. Early in 1531 the king charged the whole body of the clergy with having incurred the penalties of the same law by submitting to Wolsey in his legatine character. Assembled in convocation, they were obliged to implore his pardon, and obtained it only in return for a large sum of money. In their petition he was styled, in obedience to his dictation, 'The Protector and Supreme Head of the Church and Clergy of England,' to which was added, after long debate, at the suggestion of Archbishop Warham—'as far as is permitted by the law of Christ.' The Church, prostrate though it was at the feet of the despotic king, showed some degree of self-respect in inserting this amendment. Parliament forbade the introduction of papal bulls into England. The king was authorized if he saw fit, to withdraw the annats—first-fruits of benefices—from the pope. Appeals to Rome were forbidden. The retaliatory measures of Henry did not move the pope to recede from his position. On or about January 25, 1533, the king was privately married to Anne Boleyn. … In 1534 Henry was conditionally excommunicated by Clement VII. The papal decree deposing him from the throne, and absolving his subjects from their allegiance, did not follow until 1538, and was issued by Paul III. Clement's bull was sent forth on the 23 of March. On the 23 of November Parliament passed the Act of Supremacy, without the qualifying clause which the clergy had attached to their vote. The king was, moreover, clothed with full power and authority to repress and amend all such errors, heresies, and abuses as 'by any manner of spiritual authority or jurisdiction ought or may lawfully be reformed.' Thus a visitatorial function of vast extent was recognized as belonging to him. In 1532 convocation was driven to engage not 'to enact or promulge or put in execution' any measures without the royal license, and to promise to change or to abrogate any of the 'provincial constitutions' which he should judge inconsistent with his prerogative. The clergy were thus stripped of all power to make laws. A mixed commission, which Parliament ordained for the revision of the whole canon law, was not appointed in this reign. The dissolution of the king's marriage thus dissolved the union of England with the papacy."

ALSO IN:

      S. H. Burke,
      Historical Portraits of the Tudor Dynasty,
      volume 1, chapters 8-25.

On the 25th of October, 1529, the king, by delivering the great seal to Sir Thomas More, constituted him Lord Chancellor. In making this appointment, Henry "hoped to dispose his chancellor to lend his authority to the projects of divorce and second marriage, which now agitated the king's mind, and were the main objects of his policy. … To pursue this subject through the long negotiations and discussions which it occasioned during six years, would be to lead us far from the life of Sir Thomas More. … All these proceedings terminated in the sentence of nullity in the case of Henry's marriage with Catherine, pronounced by Cranmer, the espousal of Anne Boleyn by the king, and the rejection of the papal jurisdiction by the kingdom, which still, however, adhered to the doctrines of the Roman catholic church. The situation of More during a great part of these memorable events was embarrassing. The great offices to which he was raised by the king, the personal favour hitherto constantly shown to him, and the natural tendency of his gentle and quiet disposition, combined to disincline him to resistance against the wishes of his friendly master. On the other hand, his growing dread and horror of heresy, with its train of disorders; his belief that universal anarchy would be the inevitable result of religious dissension, and the operation of seven years' controversy for the Catholic church, in heating his mind on all subjects involving the extent of her authority, made him recoil from designs which were visibly tending towards disunion with the Roman pontiff. … Henry used every means of procuring an opinion favourable to his wishes from his chancellor, who excused himself as unmeet for such matters, having never professed the study of divinity. … But when the progress towards the marriage was so far advanced that he saw how soon the active co-operation of a chancellor must be required, he made suit to 'his singular dear friend,' the duke of Norfolk, to procure his discharge from this office. The duke, often solicited by More, then obtained, by importunate suit, a clear discharge for the chancellor. … The king directed Norfolk, when he installed his successor, to declare publicly, that his majesty had with pain yielded to the prayers of sir Thomas More, by the removal of such a magistrate. …. It must be owned that Henry felt the weight of this great man's opinion, and tried every possible means to obtain at least the appearance of his spontaneous approbation. … The king … sent the archbishop of Canterbury, the chancellor, the duke of Norfolk, and Cromwell, to attempt the conversion of More. Audley reminded More of the king's special favour and many benefits. More admitted them; but modestly added, that his highness had most graciously declared that on this matter More should be molested no more. {829} When in the end they saw that no persuasion could move him, they then said, 'that the king's highness had given them in commandment, if they could by no gentleness win him, in the king's name with ingratitude to charge him, that never was servant to his master so villainous, nor subject to his prince so traitorous as he.'. . . By a tyrannical edict, mis-called a law, in the same session of 1533-4, it was made high treason, after the 1st of May, 1534, by writing, print, deed, or act, to do or to procure, or cause to be done or procured, anything to the prejudice, slander, disturbance, or derogation of the king's lawful matrimony with queen Anne. If the same offences were committed by words, they were only misprision. The same act enjoined all persons to take an oath to maintain the whole contents of the statute, and an obstinate refusal to make such oath was subjected to the penalties of misprision. … Sir T. More was summoned to appear before these commissioners at Lambeth, on Monday the 13th of April, 1534. … After having read the statute and the form of the oath, he declared his readiness to swear that he would maintain and defend the order of succession to the crown as established by parliament. He disclaimed all censure of those who had imposed, or on those who had taken, the oath, but declared it to be impossible that he should swear to the whole contents of it, without offending against his own conscience. … He never more returned to his house, being committed to the custody of the abbot of Westminster, in which he continued four days; and at the end of that time he was conveyed to the Tower on Friday the 17th of April, 1534. … On the 6th of May, 1535, almost immediately after the defeat of every attempt to practise on his firmness, More was brought to trial at Westminster, and it will scarcely be doubted, that no such culprit stood at any European bar for a thousand years. … It is lamentable that the records of the proceedings against such a man should be scanty. We do not certainly know the specific offence of which he was convicted. … On Tuesday, the 6th of July (St. Thomas's eve), 1535, sir Thomas Pope, 'his singular good friend,' came to him early with a message from the king and council, to say that he should die before nine o'clock of the same morning. … The lieutenant brought him to the scaffold, which was so weak that it was ready to fall, on which he said, merrily, 'Master Lieutenant, I pray you see me safe up, and for my coming down let me shift for myself.' When he laid his head on the block he desired the executioner to wait till he had removed his beard, for that had never offended his highness."

      Sir J. Mackintosh,
      Sir Thomas More
      (Cabinet Cyclopedia:
      Eminent British Statesmen, volume 1).

      ALSO IN:
      S. R. Gardiner,
      Historical Biographies,
      chapter 3.

      T. E. Bridgett,
      Life and Writings of Sir Thomas More,
      chapters 12-24.

      S. H. Burke,
      Historical Portraits of the Tudor Dynasty,
      volume 1, chapter 29.

"Henry VIII. attempted to constitute an Anglican Church differing from the Roman Catholic Church on the point of the supremacy, and on that point alone. His success in this attempt was extraordinary. The force of his character, the singularly favorable situation in which he stood with respect to foreign powers, the immense wealth which the spoliation of the ah beys placed at his disposal, and the support of that class which still halted between two opinions, enabled him to bid defiance to both the extreme parties, to burn as heretics those who avowed the tenets of the Reformers, and to hang as traitors those who owned the authority of the Pope. But Henry's system died with him. Had his life been prolonged, he would have found it difficult to maintain a position assailed with equal fury by all who were zealous either for the new or for the old opinions. The ministers who held the royal prerogatives in trust for his infant son could not venture to persist in so hazardous a policy; nor could Elizabeth venture to return to it. It was necessary to make a choice. The government must either submit to Rome, or must obtain the aid of the Protestants. The government and the Protestants had only one thing in common, hatred of the Papal power. The English reformers were eager to go as far as their brethren on the Continent. They unanimously condemned as Antichristian numerous dogmas and practices to which Henry had stubbornly adhered, and which Elizabeth reluctantly abandoned. Many felt a strong repugnance even to things indifferent which had formed part of the polity or ritual of the mystical Babylon. Thus Bishop Hooper, who died manfully at Gloucester for his religion, long refused to wear the episcopal vestments. Bishop Ridley, a martyr of still greater renown, pulled down the ancient altars of his diocese, and ordered the Eucharist to be administered in the middle of churches, at tables which the Papists irreverently termed oyster boards. Bishop Jewel pronounced the clerical garb to be a stage dress, a fool's coat, a relique of the Amorites, and promised that he would spare no labour to extirpate such degrading absurdities. Archbishop Grindal long hesitated about accepting a mitre from dislike of what he regarded as the mummery of consecration. Bishop Parkhurst uttered a fervent prayer that the Church of England would propose to herself the Church of Zurich as the absolute pattern of a Christian community. Bishop Ponet was of opinion that the word Bishop should be abandoned to the Papist, and that the chief officers of the purified church should be called Superintendents. When it is considered that none of these prelates belonged to the extreme section of the Protestant party, it cannot be doubted that, if the general sense of that party had been followed, the work of reform would have been carried on as unsparingly in England as in Scotland. But, as the government needed the support of the Protestants, so the Protestants needed the protection of the government. Much was therefore given up on both sides: an union was effected; and the fruit of that union was the Church of England."

   "The Reformation in England was, singular amongst the great
   religious movements of the sixteenth century. It was the least
   heroic of them all—the least swayed by religious passion, or
   moulded and governed by spiritual and theological necessities.
   From a general point of view, it looks at first little more
   than a great political change. The exigencies of royal
   passion, and the dubious impulses of statecraft, seem its
   moving and really powerful springs. But, regarded more
   closely, we recognise a significant train both of religious
   and critical forces at work. The lust and avarice of Henry,
   the policy of Cromwell, and the vacillations of the leading
   clergy, attract prominent notice; but there may be traced
   beneath the surface a wide-spread evangelical fervour amongst
   the people, and, above all, a genuine spiritual earnestness
   and excitement of thought at the universities.
{830}
   These higher influences preside at the first birth of the
   movement. They are seen in active operation long before the
   reforming task was taken up by the Court and the bishops."

J. Tulloch, Rational Theology and Christian Philosophy in England in the 17th Century, volume 1, chapter 2.

"The miserable fate of Anne Boleyn wins our compassion, and the greatness to which her daughter attained has been in some degree reflected back upon herself. Had she died a natural death, and had she not been the mother of Queen Elizabeth, we should have estimated her character at a very low value indeed. Protestantism might still, with its usual unhistorical partizanship, have gilded over her immoralities; but the Church of England must ever look upon Anne Boleyn with downcast eyes full of sorrow and shame. By the influence of her charms, Henry was induced to take those steps which ended in setting the Church of England free from an uncatholic yoke: but that such a result should be produced by such an influence is a fact which must constrain us to think that the land was guilty of many sins, and that it was these national sins which prevented better instruments from being raised up for so righteous an object."

"Cranmer's work might never have been carried out, there might have been no English Bible, no Ten Articles or 'Institution,' no reforming Primers, nor Proclamations against Ceremonies, had it not been for the tact, boldness and skill of Thomas Crumwell, who influenced the King more directly and constantly than Cranmer, and who knew how to make his influence acceptable by an unprincipled confiscation and an absurd exaggeration of the royal supremacy. Crumwell knew that in his master's heart there was a dislike and contempt of the clergy. … It is probable that Crumwell's policy was simply irreligious, and only directed towards preserving his influence with the King; but as the support of the reforming part of the nation was a useful factor in it, he was thus led to push forward religious information in conjunction with Cranmer. It has been before said that purity and disinterestedness are not to be looked for in all the actors in the English Reformation. To this it may be added that neither in the movement itself nor in those who took part in it is to be found complete consistency. This, indeed, is not to be wondered at. Men were feeling their way along untrodden paths, without any very clear perception of the end at which they were aiming, or any perfect understanding of the situation. The King had altogether misapprehended the meaning of his supremacy. A host of divines whose views as to the distinction between the secular and the spiritual had been confused by the action of the Popes, helped to mislead him. The clergy, accustomed to be crushed and humiliated by the Popes, submitted to be crushed and humiliated by the King; and as the tide of his autocratic temper ebbed and flowed, yielded to each change. Hence there was action and reaction throughout the reign. But in this there were obvious advantages for the Church. The gradual process accustomed men's thoughts to a reformation which should not be drastic or iconoclastic, but rather conservative and deliberate."

"With regard to the Church of England, its foundations rest upon the rock of Scripture, not upon the character of the King by whom they were laid. This, however, must be affirmed in justice to Henry, that mixed as the motives were which first induced him to disclaim the Pope's authority, in all the subsequent measures he acted sincerely, knowing the importance of the work in which he had engaged, and prosecuting it sedulously and conscientiously, even when most erroneous. That religion should have had so little influence upon his moral conduct will not appear strange, if we consider what the religion was wherein he was trained up;—nor if we look at the generality of men even now, under circumstances immeasurably more fortunate than those in which he was placed. Undeniable proofs remain of the learning, ability, and diligence, with which he applied himself to the great business of weeding out superstition, and yet preserving what he believed to be the essentials of Christianity untouched. This praise (and it is no light one) is his due: and it is our part to be thankful to that all-ruling Providence, which rendered even his passions and his vices subservient to this important end."

   "The enormous, and in a great measure ill-gotten, opulence of
   the regular clergy had long since excited jealousy in every
   part of Europe. … A writer much inclined to partiality
   towards the monasteries says that they held [in England]
   one-fifth part of the kingdom; no insignificant patrimony. …
   As they were in general exempted from episcopal visitation,
   and intrusted with the care of their own discipline, such
   abuses had gradually prevailed and gained strength by
   connivance as we may naturally expect in corporate bodies of
   men leading almost of necessity useless and indolent lives,
   and in whom very indistinct views of moral obligations were
   combined with a great facility of violating them. The vices
   that for many ages had been supposed to haunt the monasteries,
   had certainly not left their precincts in that of Henry VIII.
   Wolsey, as papal legate, at the instigation of Fox, bishop of
   Hereford, a favourer of the Reformation, commenced a
   visitation of the professed as well as secular clergy in 1523,
   in consequence of the general complaint against their manners.
   … Full of anxious zeal for promoting education, the noblest
   part of his character, he obtained bulls from Rome suppressing
   many convents (among which was that of St. Frideswide at
   Oxford), in order to erect and endow a new college in that
   university, his favourite work, which after his fall was more
   completely established by the name of Christ Church. A few
   more were afterwards extinguished through his instigation; and
   thus the prejudice against interference with this species of
   property was somewhat worn off, and men's minds gradually
   prepared for the sweeping confiscations of Cromwell [Thomas
   Cromwell, who succeeded Wolsey as chief minister of Henry
   VIII.]. The king indeed was abundantly willing to replenish
   his exchequer by violent means, and to avenge himself on those
   who gainsayed his supremacy; but it was this able statesman
   who, prompted both by the natural appetite of ministers for
   the subjects' money and by a secret partiality towards the
   Reformation, devised and
   carried on with complete success, if not with the utmost
   prudence, a measure of no inconsiderable hazard and
   difficulty. …
{831}
   It was necessary, by exposing the gross corruptions of
   monasteries, both to intimidate the regular clergy, and to
   excite popular indignation against them. It is not to be
   doubted that in the visitation of these foundations, under the
   direction of Cromwell, as lord vice-gerent of the king's
   ecclesiastical supremacy, many things were done in an
   arbitrary manner, and much was unfairly represented. Yet the
   reports of these visitors are so minute and specific that it
   is rather a preposterous degree of incredulity to reject their
   testimony whenever it bears hard on the regulars. … The
   dread of these visitors soon induced a number of abbots to
   make surrenders to the king; a step of very questionable
   legality. But in the next session the smaller convents, whose
   revenues were less than £200 a year, were suppressed by act of
   parliament, to the number of 376, and their estates vested in
   the crown. This summary spoliation led to the great northern
   rebellion soon afterwards," headed by Robert Ask, a gentleman
   of Yorkshire, and assuming the title of a Pilgrimage of Grace.

"Far from benefiting the cause of the monastic houses, the immediate effect of the Pilgrimage of Grace was to bring ruin on those monasteries which had as yet been spared. For their complicity or alleged complicity in it, twelve abbots were hanged, drawn and quartered, and their houses were seized by the Crown. Every means was employed by a new set of Commissioners to bring about the surrender of others of the greater abbeys. The houses were visited, and their pretended relics and various tricks to encourage the devotion of the people were exposed. Surrenders went rapidly on during the years 1537 and 1538, and it became necessary to obtain a new Act of Parliament to vest the property of the later surrenders in the Crown. … Nothing, indeed, can be more tragical than the way in which the greater abbeys were destroyed on manufactured charges and for imaginary crimes. These houses had been described in the first Act of Parliament as 'great and honourable,' wherein 'religion was right well kept and observed.' Yet now they were pitilessly destroyed. A revenue of about £131,607 is computed to have thus come to the Crown, while the movables are valued at £400,000. How was this vast sum of money expended?

(1) By the Act for the suppression of the greater monasteries the King was empowered to erect six new sees, with their deans and chapters, namely, Westminster, Oxford, Chester, Gloucester, Bristol and Peterborough. …

(2) Some monasteries were turned into collegiate churches, and many of the abbey churches … were assigned as parish churches.

(4) A considerable sum is said to have been spent in making roads and in fortifying the coasts of the Channel.

(5) But by far the greater part of the monastic property passed into the hands of the nobility and gentry, either by purchase at very easy rates, or by direct gift from the Crown. …

The monks and nuns ejected from the monasteries had small pensions assigned to them, which are said to have been regularly paid; but to many of them the sudden return into a world with which they had become utterly unacquainted, and in which they had no part to play, was a terrible hardship, … greatly increased by the Six Article Law, which … made the marriage of the secularized 'religious' illegal under heavy penalties."

"The religious bodies, instead of uniting in their common defence, seem to have awaited singly their fate with the apathy of despair. A few houses only, through the agency of their friends, sought to purchase the royal favour with offers of money and lands; but the rapacity of the king refused to accept a part when the whole was at his mercy."

Some of the social results of the suppression "may be summed up in a few words. The creation of a large class of poor to whose poverty was attached the stigma of crime; the division of class from class, the rich mounting up to place and power, the poor sinking to lower depths; destruction of custom as a check upon the exactions of landlords; the loss by the poor of those foundations at schools and universities intended for their children, and the passing away of ecclesiastical tithes into the hands of lay owners."

      F. A. Gasquet,
      Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries,
      volume 2, page 523.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1536-1543.
Trial and execution of Anne Boleyn.
Her successors, the later wives of Henry VIII.

   Anne Boleyn had been secretly married to the king in January,
   1533, and had been crowned on Whitsunday of that year. "The
   princess Elizabeth, the only surviving child, was born on the
   7th of September following. … The death of Catherine, which
   happened at Kimbolton on the 29th of January, 1536, seemed to
   leave queen Anne in undisturbed possession of her splendid
   seat." But the fickle king had now "cast his affections on
   Jane Seymour, the daughter of Sir John Seymour, a young lady
   then of the Queen's bed-chamber, as Anne herself had been in
   that of Catherine." Having lost her charms in the eyes of the
   lustful despot who had wedded her, her influence was gone—
   and her safety. Charges were soon brought against the
   unfortunate woman, a commission (her own father included in
   it) appointed to inquire into her alleged misdeeds, and "on
   the 10th of May an indictment for high treason was found by
   the grand jury of Westminster against the Lady Anne, Queen of
   England; Henry Norris, groom of the stole; Sir Francis Weston
   and William Brereton, gentlemen of the privy chamber; and Mark
   Smeaton, a performer on musical instruments, and a person 'of
   low degree,' promoted to be a groom of the chamber for his
   skill in the fine art which he professed. It charges the queen
   with having, by all sorts of bribes, gifts, caresses, and
   impure blandishments, which are described with unblushing
   coarseness in the barbarous Latinity of the indictment,
   allured these members of the royal household into a course of
   criminal connection with her, which had been carried on for
   three years. It included also George Boleyn viscount Rochford,
   the brother of Anne, as enticed by the same lures and snares
   with the rest of the accused, so as to have become the
   accomplice of his sister, by sharing her treachery and
   infidelity to the king. It is hard to believe that Anne could
   have dared to lead a life so unnaturally dissolute, without
   such vices being more early and very generally known in a
   watchful and adverse court.
{832}
   It is still more improbable that she should in every instance
   be the seducer. … Norris, Weston, Brereton, and Smeaton were
   tried before a commission of oyer and terminer at Westminster,
   on the 12th of May, two days after the bill against them was
   found. They all, except Smeaton, firmly denied their guilt to
   the last moment. On Smeaton's confession it must be observed
   that we know not how it was obtained, how far it extended, or
   what were the conditions of it. … On the 12th of May, the
   four commoners were condemned to die. Their sentence was
   carried into effect amidst the plaints of the bystanders. …
   On the 15th of May, queen Anne and her brother Rochford were
   tried." The place of trial was in the Tower, "which concealed
   from the public eye whatever might be wanting in justice."
   Condemnation duly followed, and the unhappy queen was executed
   May 19, 1536. The king lost little time in wedding Jane
   Seymour. "She died in childbed of Edward VI. on the 13th of
   October, 1537. The next choice made by or for Henry, who
   remained a widower for the period of more than two years," was
   the "princess Anne, sister of the duke of Cleves, a
   considerable prince on the lower Rhine. … The pencil of
   Holbein was employed to paint this lady for the king, who,
   pleased by the execution, gave the flattering artist credit
   for a faithful likeness. He met her at Dover, and almost
   immediately betrayed his disappointment. Without descending
   into disgusting particulars, it is necessary to state that,
   though the marriage was solemnised, the king treated the
   princess of Cleves as a friend." At length, by common action
   of an obsequious parliament and a more obsequious convocation
   of the church, the marriage was declared to be annulled, for
   reasons not specified. The consent of the repudiated wife was
   "insured by a liberal income of £3,000 a year, and she lived
   for 16 years in England with the title of princess Anne of
   Cleves. … This annulment once more displayed the triumph of
   an English lady over a foreign princess." The lady who now
   captivated the brutally amorous monarch was lady Catherine
   Howard, niece to the duke of Norfolk, who became queen on the
   8th of August, 1540. In the following November, the king
   received such information of lady Catherine's dissolute life
   before marriage "as immediately caused a rigid inquiry into
   her behaviour. … The confessions of Catherine and of lady
   Rochford, upon which they were attainted in parliament, and
   executed in the Tower on the 14th of February, are not said to
   have been at any time questioned. … On the 10th of July,
   1543, Henry wedded Catherine Parr, the widow of Lord Latimer,
   a lady of mature age," who survived him.

      Sir J. Mackintosh,
      History of England (L. L. C.),
      volume 2, chapters 7-8.

"Yielding to the pressure of circumstances, he [Henry VIII.] had allowed the Reformers to go further than he really approved. The separation from the Church of Rome, the absorption by the Crown of the powers of the Papacy, the unity of authority over both Church and State centred in himself, had been his objects. In doctrinal matters he clung to the Church of which he had once been the champion. He had gained his objects because he had the feeling of the nation with him. In his eagerness he had even countenanced some steps of doctrinal reform. But circumstances had changed. … Without detriment to his position he could follow his natural inclinations. He listened, therefore, to the advice of the reactionary party, of which Norfolk was the head. They were full of bitterness against the upstart Cromwell, and longed to overthrow him as they had overthrown Wolsey. The first step in their triumph was the bill of the Six Articles, carried in the Parliament of 1539. These laid down and fenced round with extraordinary severity the chief points of the Catholic religion at that time questioned by the Protestants. The bill enacted, first, 'that the natural body and blood of Jesus Christ were present in the Blessed Sacrament,' and that 'after consecration there remained no substance of bread and wine, nor any other but the substance of Christ'; whoever, by word or writing, denied this article was a heretic, and to be burned. Secondly, the Communion in both kinds was not necessary, both body and blood being present in each element; thirdly, priests might not marry; fourthly, vows of chastity by man or woman ought to be observed; fifthly, private masses ought to be continued; sixthly, auricular confession must be retained. Whoever wrote or spoke against these … Articles, on the first offence his property was forfeited; on the second offence he was a felon, and was put to death. Under this 'whip with six strings' the kingdom continued for the rest of the reign. The Bishops at first made wild work with it. Five hundred persons are said to have been arrested in a fortnight; the king had twice to interfere and grant pardons. It is believed that only twenty-eight persons actually suffered death under it."

ALSO IN: J. H. Blunt, Reformation of the Church of England, volume 1, chapter 8-9.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1542-1547.
   Alliance with Charles V. against Francis I.
   Capture and restoration of Boulogne.
   Treaty of Guines.

   Henry VIII., dying on the 28th of January, 1547, was succeeded
   by his son Edward,—child of Jane Seymour,—then only nine
   years old. By the will of his father, the young king (Edward
   VI.) was to attain his majority at eighteen, and the
   government of his kingdom, in the meantime, was entrusted to a
   body of sixteen executors, with a second body of twelve
   councillors to assist with their advice. "But the first act of
   the executors and counsellors was to depart from the
   destination of the late king in a material article. No sooner
   were they met, than it was suggested that the government would
   lose its dignity for want of some head who might represent the
   royal majesty." The suggestion was opposed by none except the
   chancellor, Wriothesley,—soon afterwards raised to the
   peerage as Earl of Southampton. "It being therefore agreed to
   name a protector, the choice fell of course on the Earl of
   Hertford [afterwards Duke of Somerset], who, as he was the
   king's maternal uncle, was strongly interested in his safety."
{833}
   The protector soon manifested an ambition to exercise his
   almost royal authority without any constraint, and, having
   found means to remove his principal opponent, Southampton,
   from the chancellorship, and to send him into disgrace, he
   procured a patent from the infant king which gave him
   unbounded power. With this power in his hand he speedily
   undertook to carry the work of church reform far beyond the
   intentions of Henry VIII. "The extensive authority and
   imperious character of Henry had retained the partisans of
   both religions in subjection; but upon his demise, the hopes
   of the Protestants, and the fears of the Catholics began to
   revive, and the zeal of these parties produced every where
   disputes and animosities, the usual preludes to more fatal
   divisions. The protector had long been regarded as a secret
   partisan of the reformers; and being now freed from restraint,
   he scrupled not to discover his intention of correcting all
   abuses in the ancient religion, and of adopting still more of
   the Protestant innovations. He took care that all persons
   intrusted with the king's education should be attached to the
   same principles; and as the young prince discovered a zeal for
   every kind of literature, especially the theological, far
   beyond his tender years, all men foresaw, in the course of his
   reign, the total abolition of the Catholic faith in England;
   and they early began to declare themselves in favour of those
   tenets which were likely to become in the end entirely
   prevalent. After Southhampton's fall, few members of the
   council seemed to retain any attachment to the Romish
   communion; and most of the counsellors appeared even sanguine
   in forwarding the progress of the reformation. The riches
   which most of them had acquired from the spoils of the clergy,
   induced them to widen the breach between England and Rome; and by
   establishing a contrariety of speculative tenets, as well as
   of discipline and worship, to render a coalition with the
   mother church altogether impracticable. Their rapacity, also,
   the chief source of their reforming spirit, was excited by the
   prospect of pillaging the secular, as they had already done
   the regular clergy; and they knew, that while any share of the
   old principles remained, or any regard to the ecclesiastics,
   they could never hope to succeed in that enterprise. The
   numerous and burdensome superstitions with which the Romish
   church was loaded had thrown many of the reformers, by the
   spirit of opposition, into an enthusiastic strain of devotion;
   and all rites, ceremonies, pomp, order, and extreme
   observances were zealously proscribed by them, as hindrances
   to their spiritual contemplations, and obstructions to their
   immediate converse with heaven."

"'This year' [1547] says a contemporary, 'the Archbishop of Canterbury [Cranmer] did eat meat openly in Lent in the hall of Lambeth, the like of which was never seen since England was a Christian country.' This significant act was followed by a rapid succession of sweeping changes. The legal prohibitions of Lollardry were removed; the Six Articles were repealed; a royal injunction removed all pictures and images from the churches; priests were permitted to marry; the new communion which had taken the place of the mass was ordered to be administered in both kinds, and in the English tongue; an English Book of Common Prayer, the Liturgy, which with slight alterations is still used in the Church of England, replaced the missal and breviary, from which its contents are mainly drawn; a new catechism embodied the doctrines of Cranmer and his friends; and a Book of Homilies compiled in the same sense was appointed to be read in churches. … The power of preaching was restricted by the issue of licenses only to the friends of the Primate. … The assent of the nobles about the Court was won by the suppression of chantries and religious guilds, and by glutting their greed with the last spoils of the Church. German and Italian mercenaries were introduced to stamp out the wider popular discontent which broke out in the East, in the West, and in the Midland counties. … The rule of the upstart nobles who formed the Council of Regency became simply a rule of terror. 'The greater part of the people,' one of their creatures, Cecil, avowed, 'is not in favour of defending this cause, but of aiding its adversaries, the greater part of the nobles who absent themselves from court, all the bishops save three or four, almost all the judges and lawyers, almost all the justices of the peace, the priests who can move their flocks any way; for the whole of the commonalty is in such a state of irritation that it will easily follow any stir towards change.' But with their triumph over the revolt, Cranmer and his colleagues advanced yet more boldly in the career of innovation. … The Forty-two Articles of Religion, which were now [1552] introduced, though since reduced by omissions to thirty-nine, have remained to this day the formal standard of doctrine in the English Church."

      G. Burnet,
      History of the Reformation of Church of England,
      volume 2, book 1.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1553.
The right of succession to the throne,
on the death of Edward VI.

   "If Henry VII. be considered as the stock of a new dynasty, it
   is clear that on mere principles of hereditary right, the
   crown would descend, first, to the issue of Henry VIII.;
   secondly, to those of [his elder sister] Margaret Tudor, queen
   of Scots; thirdly, to those of [his younger sister] Mary
   Tudor, queen of France. The title of Edward was on all
   principles equally undisputed; but Mary and Elizabeth might be
   considered as excluded by the sentence of nullity, which had
   been pronounced in the case of Catharine and in that of Anne
   Boleyn, both which sentences had been confirmed in parliament.
   They had been expressly pronounced to be illegitimate
   children. Their hereditary right of succession seemed thus to
   be taken away, and their pretensions rested solely on the
   conditional settlement of the crown on them, made by their
   father's will, in pursuance of authority granted to him by act
   of parliament. After Elizabeth Henry had placed the
   descendants of Mary, queen of France, passing by the progeny
   of his eldest sister Margaret. Mary of France, by her second
   marriage with Charles Brandon, duke of Suffolk, had two
   daughters,—lady Frances, who wedded Henry Grey, marquis of
   Dorset, created duke of Suffolk; and lady Elinor, who espoused
   Henry Clifford, earl of Cumberland.
{834}
   Henry afterwards settled the crown by his will on the heirs of
   these two ladies successively, passing over his nieces
   themselves in silence. Northumberland obtained the hand of
   lady Jane Grey, the eldest daughter of Grey duke of Suffolk,
   by lady Frances Brandon, for lord Guilford Dudley, the
   admiral's son. The marriage was solemnised in May, 1553, and
   the fatal right of succession claimed by the house of Suffolk
   devolved on the excellent and unfortunate lady Jane."

"Great as was the number of those whom conviction or self interest enlisted under the Protestant banner, it appears plain that the Reformation moved on with too precipitate a step for the majority. The new doctrines prevailed in London, in many large towns, and in the eastern counties. But in the north and west of England, the body of the people were strictly Catholics. The clergy, though not very scrupulous about conforming to the innovations, were generally averse to most of them. And, in spite of the church lands, I imagine that most of the nobility, if not the gentry, inclined to the same persuasion. … An historian, whose bias was certainly not unfavourable to Protestantism [Burnet, iii. 190, 196] confesses that all endeavours were too weak to overcome the aversion of the people towards reformation, and even intimates that German troops were sent for from Calais on account of the bigotry with which the bulk of the nation adhered to the old superstition. This is somewhat an humiliating admission, that the protestant faith was imposed upon our ancestors by a foreign army. … It is certain that the re-establishment of popery on Mary's accession must have been acceptable to a large part, or perhaps to the majority, of the nation."

"Eight weeks and upwards passed between the proclaiming of Mary queen and the Parliament by her assembled; during which time two religions were together set on foot, Protestantism and Popery; the former hoping to be continued, the latter labouring to be restored. … No small justling was there betwixt the zealous promoters of these contrary religions. The Protestants had possession on their side, and the protection of the laws lately made by King Edward, and still standing in free and full force unrepealed. … The Papists put their ceremonies in execution, presuming on the queen's private practice and public countenance. … Many which were neuters before, conceiving to which side the queen inclined, would not expect, but prevent her authority in alteration: so that superstition generally got ground in the kingdom. Thus it is in the evening twilight, wherein light and darkness at first may seem very equally matched, but the latter within little time doth solely prevail."

      T. Fuller,
      Church History of Britain,
      book 8, section 1, ¶ 5.

      ALSO IN:
      J. II. Blunt, Reformation of the Church of England,
      volume 1; chapters 8-9.

Queen Mary's marriage with Philip of Spain was opposed with great bitterness of popular feeling, especially in London and its neighborhood. Risings were undertaken in Kent, Devonshire, and the Midland counties, intended for the frustration of the marriage scheme; but they were ill-planned and soon suppressed. That in Kent, led by Sir Thomas Wyat, threatened to be formidable at first, and the Queen's troops retreated before it. Wyat, however, lost his opportunity for securing London, by delays, and his followers dispersed. He was taken prisoner and executed. "Four hundred persons are said to have suffered for this rebellion."

ENGLAND: A. D. 1555-1558.
The restoration of Romanism.
The persecution of Protestants by Queen Mary.

   "An attempt was made, by authority of King Edward's will, to
   set aside both his sisters from the succession, and raise Lady
   Jane Grey to the throne, who had lately been married to one of
   Northumberland's sons. This was Northumberland's doing; he was
   actuated by ambition, and the other members of the government
   assented to it, believing, like the late young King, that it
   was necessary for the preservation of the Protestant faith.
   Cranmer opposed the measure, but yielded. … But the
   principles of succession were in fact well ascertained at that
   time, and, what was of more consequence, they were established
   in public opinion. Nor could the intended change be supported
   on the ground of religion, for popular feeling was decidedly
   against the Reformation. Queen Mary obtained possession of her
   rightful throne without the loss of a single life, so
   completely did the nation acknowledge her claim; and an after
   insurrection, rashly planned and worse conducted, served only
   to hasten the destruction of the Lady Jane and her husband.
   … If any person may be excused for hating the Reformation,
   it was Mary. She regarded it as having arisen in this country
   from her mother's wrongs, and enabled the King to complete an
   iniquitous and cruel divorce. It had exposed her to
   inconvenience, and even danger, under her father's reign, to
   vexation and restraint under her brother; and, after having
   been bastardized in consequence of it, … an attempt had been
   made to deprive her of the inheritance, because she continued
   to profess the Roman Catholic faith. … Had the religion of
   the country been settled, she might have proved a good and
   beneficent, as well as conscientious, queen. But she delivered
   her conscience to the direction of cruel men; and, believing
   it her duty to act up to the worst principles of a persecuting
   Church, boasted that she was a virgin sent by God to ride and
   tame the people of England. … The people did not wait till
   the laws of King Edward were repealed; the Romish doctrines
   were preached, and in some places the Romish clergy took
   possession of the churches, turned out the incumbents, and
   performed mass in jubilant anticipation of their approaching
   triumph. What course the new Queen would pursue had never been
   doubtful; and as one of her first acts had been to make
   Gardiner Chancellor, it was evident that a fiery persecution
   was at hand. Many who were obnoxious withdrew in time, some
   into Scotland, and more into Switzerland and the Protestant
   parts of Germany. Cranmer advised others to fly; but when his
   friends entreated him to preserve himself by the like
   precaution, he replied, that it was not fitting for him to
   desert his post. … The Protestant Bishops were soon
   dispossessed of their sees; the marriages which the Clergy and
   Religioners had contracted were declared unlawful, and their
   children bastardized.
{835}
   The heads of the reformed Clergy, having been brought forth to
   hold disputations, for the purpose rather of intimidating than
   of convincing them, had been committed to different prisons,
   and after these preparatories the fiery process began."

"The total number of those who suffered in this persecution, from the martyrdom of Rogers, in February, 1555, to September, 1558, when its last ravages were felt, is variously related, in a manner sufficiently different to assure us that the relaters were independent witnesses, who did not borrow from each other, and yet sufficiently near to attest the general accuracy of their distinct statements. By Cooper they are estimated at about 290. According to Burnet they were 284. Speed calculates them at 274. The most accurate account is probably that of Lord Burleigh, who, in his treatise called 'The Execution of Justice in England,' reckons the number of those who died in that reign by imprisonment, torments, famine and fire, to be near 400, of which those who were burnt alive amounted to 290. From Burnet's Tables of the separate years, it is apparent that the persecution reached its full force in its earliest year."

"Though Pole and Mary could have laid their hands on earl and baron, knight and gentleman, whose heresy was notorious, although, in the queen's own guard, there were many who never listened to a mass, they durst not strike where there was danger that they would be struck in return. … They took the weaver from his loom, the carpenter from his workshop, the husbandman from his plough; they laid hands on maidens and boys 'who had never heard of any other religion than that which they were called on to abjure'; old men tottering into the grave, and children whose lips could but just lisp the articles of their creed; and of these they made their burnt-offerings; with these they crowded their prisons, and when filth and famine killed them, they flung them out to rot."

Queen Mary's marriage with Philip of Spain and his arbitrary disposition, "while it thoroughly alienated the kingdom from Mary, created a prejudice against the religion which the Spanish court so steadily favoured. … Many are said to have become Protestants under Mary who, at her coming to the throne, had retained the contrary persuasion."

ENGLAND: A. D. 1557-1559.
Involved by the Spanish husband of Queen Mary in war with France.
Loss of Calais.

   "The education of Elizabeth, as well as her interest, led her
   to favour the reformation; and she remained not long in
   suspense with regard to the party which she should embrace.
   But though determined in her own mind, she resolved to proceed
   by gradual and secure steps, and not to imitate the example of
   Mary, in encouraging the bigots of her party to make
   immediately a violent invasion on the established religion.
   She thought it requisite, however, to discover such symptoms
   of her intentions as might give encouragement to the
   Protestants, so much depressed by the late violent
   persecutions. She immediately recalled all the exiles, and
   gave liberty to the prisoners who were confined on account of
   religion. … Elizabeth also proceeded to exert, in favour of
   the reformers, some acts of power, which were authorized by
   the extent of royal prerogative during that age. Finding that
   the Protestant teachers, irritated by persecution, broke out
   in a furious attack on the ancient superstition, and that the
   Romanists replied with no less zeal and acrimony, she
   published a proclamation, by which she inhibited all preaching
   without a special licence; and though she dispensed with these
   orders in favour of some preachers of her own sect, she took
   care that they should be the most calm and moderate of the
   party. She also suspended the laws, so far as to order a great
   part of the service, the litany, the Lord's prayer, the creed,
   and the gospels, to be read in English. And, having first
   published injunctions that all churches should conform
   themselves to the practice of her own chapel, she forbad the
   host to be any more elevated in her presence: an innovation
   which, however frivolous it may appear, implied the most
   material consequences. These declarations of her intentions,
   concurring with preceding suspicions, made the bishops
   foresee, with certainty, a revolution in religion. They
   therefore refused to officiate at her coronation; and it was
   with some difficulty that the Bishop of Carlisle was at last
   prevailed on to perform the ceremony. … Elizabeth, though
   she threw out such hints as encouraged the Protestants,
   delayed the entire change of religion till the meeting of the
   Parliament, which was summoned to assemble. The elections had
   gone entirely against the Catholics, who seem not indeed to
   have made any great struggle for the superiority; and the
   Houses met, in a disposition of gratifying the queen in every
   particular which she could desire of them. … The first bill
   brought into Parliament, with a view of trying their
   disposition on the head of religion, was that for suppressing
   the monasteries lately erected, and for restoring the tenths
   and first-fruits to the queen. This point being gained without
   much difficulty, a bill was next introduced, annexing the
   supremacy to the crown; and though the queen was there
   denominated governess, not head, of the church, it conveyed
   the same extensive power, which, under the latter title, had
   been exercised by her father and brother. … By this act, the
   crown, without the concurrence either of the Parliament or
   even of the convocation, was vested with the whole spiritual
   power; might repress all heresies, might establish or repeal
   all canons, might alter every point of discipline, and might
   ordain or abolish any religious rite or ceremony. … A law
   was passed, confirming all the statutes enacted in King
   Edward's time with regard to religion; the nomination of
   bishops was given to the crown without any election of the
   chapters. … A solemn and public disputation was held during
   this session, in presence of Lord Keeper Bacon, between the
   divines of the Protestant and those of the Catholic communion.
   The champions appointed to defend the religion of the
   sovereign were, as in all former instances, entirely
   triumphant; and the popish disputants, being pronounced
   refractory and obstinate, were even punished by imprisonment.
{836}
   Emboldened by this victory, the Protestants ventured on the
   last and most important step, and brought into Parliament a
   bill for abolishing the mass, and re-establishing the liturgy
   of King Edward. Penalties were enacted as well against those
   who departed from this mode of worship, as against those who
   absented themselves from the church and the sacraments. And
   thus, in one session, without any violence, tumult, or
   clamour, was the whole system of religion altered, on the very
   commencement of a reign, and by the will of a young woman,
   whose title to the crown was by many thought liable to great
   objections."

"Elizabeth ascended the throne much more in the character of a Protestant champion than her own convictions and inclinations would have dictated. She was, indeed, the daughter of Ann Boleyn, whom by this time the Protestants were beginning to regard as a martyr of the faith; but she was also the child of Henry VIII., and the heiress of his imperious will. Soon, however, she found herself Protestant almost in her own despite. The Papacy, in the first pride of successful reaction, offered her only the alternative of submission or excommunication, and she did not for a moment hesitate to choose the latter. Then commenced that long and close alliance between Catholicism and domestic treason which is so differently judged as it is approached from the religious or the political side. These seminary priests, who in every various disguise come to England, moving secretly about from manor-house to manor-house, celebrating the rites of the Church, confirming the wavering, consoling the dying, winning back the lapsed to the fold, too well acquainted with Elizabeth's prisons, and often finding their way to her scaffolds,—what are they but the intrepid missionaries, the self-devoted heroes, of a proscribed faith? On the other hand, the Queen is excommunicate, an evil woman, with whom it is not necessary to keep faith, to depose whom would be the triumph of the Church, whose death, however compassed, its occasion: how easy to weave plots under the cloak of religious intercourse, and to make the unity of the faith a conspiracy of rebellion! The next heir to the throne, Mary of Scotland, was a Catholic, and, as long as she lived, a perpetual centre of domestic and European intrigue: plot succeeded plot, in which the traitorous subtlety was all Catholic—the keenness of discovery, the watchfulness of defence, all Protestant. Then, too, the shadow of Spanish supremacy began to cast itself broadly over Europe: the unequal struggle with Holland was still prolonged: it was known that Philip's dearest wish was to recover to his empire and the Church the island kingdom which had once unwillingly accepted his rule. It was thus the instinct of self-defence which placed Elizabeth at the head of the Protestant interest in Europe: she sent Philip Sidney to die at Zutphen: her sailor buccaneers, whether there were peace at home or not, bit and tore at everything Spanish upon the southern main: till at last, 1588, Philip gathered up all his naval strength and hurled the Armada at our shores. 'Afflavit Deus, et dissipati sunt.' The valour of England did much; the storms of heaven the rest. Mary of Scotland had gone to her death the year before, and her son had been trained to hate his mother's faith. There could be no question any more of the fixed Protestantism of the English people."

"Sir William Cecil, afterwards Lord Burleigh, already officially experienced during three reigns, though still young, was the queen's chief adviser from first to last—that is to say, till he died in 1598. Philip II., who also died in that year, was thus his exact contemporary; for he mounted the Spanish throne just when Elizabeth and her minister began their work together. He was not long in discovering that there was one man, possessed of the most balanced judgment ever brought to the head of English affairs, who was capable of unwinding all his most secret intrigues; and, in fact, the two arch-enemies, the one in London and the other in Madrid, were pitted against each other for forty years. Elizabeth had also the good sense to select the wisest and most learned ecclesiastic of his day, Matthew Parker, for her Primate and chief adviser in Church affairs. It should be noted that both of these sages, as well as the queen herself, had been Conformists to the Papal obedience under Mary—a position far from heroic, but not for a moment to be confused with that of men whose philosophical indifference to the questions which exercised all the highest minds enabled them to join in the persecution of Romanists and Anglicans at different times with a sublime impartiality. … It was under the advice of Cecil and Parker that Elizabeth, on coming to the throne, made her famous settlement or Establishment of religion."

   "The house of Commons, upon a review of Elizabeth's reign, was
   very far, on the one hand, from exercising those
   constitutional rights which have long since belonged to it, or
   even those which by ancient precedent they might have claimed
   as their own; yet, on the other hand, was not quite so servile
   and submissive an assembly as an artful historian has
   represented it. If many of its members were but creatures of
   power, … there was still a considerable party, sometimes
   carrying the house along with them, who with patient
   resolution and inflexible aim recurred in every session to the
   assertion of that one great privilege which their sovereign
   contested, the right of parliament to inquire into and suggest
   a remedy for every public mischief or danger. It may be
   remarked that the ministers, such as Knollys, Hatton, and
   Robert Cecil, not only sat among the commons, but took a very
   leading part in their discussions; a proof that the influence
   of argument could no more be dispensed with than that of
   power. This, as I conceive, will never be the case in any
   kingdom where the assembly of the estates is quite subservient
   to the crown. Nor should we put out of consideration the
   manner in which the commons were composed. Sixty-two members
   were added at different times by Elizabeth to the
   representation; as well from places which had in earlier times
   discontinued their franchise, as from those to which it was
   first granted; a very large proportion of them petty boroughs,
   evidently under the influence of the crown or peerage. The
   ministry took much pains with ejections, of which many proofs,
   remain.
{837}
   The house accordingly was filled with placemen, civilians, and
   common lawyers grasping at preferment. The slavish tone of
   these persons, as we collect from the minutes of D'Ewes, is
   strikingly contrasted by the manliness of independent
   gentlemen. And as the house was by no means very fully
   attended, the divisions, a few of which are recorded, running
   from 200 to 250 in the aggregate, it may be perceived that the
   court, whose followers were at hand, would maintain a
   formidable influence. But this influence, however pernicious
   to the integrity of parliament, is distinguishable from that
   exertion of almost absolute prerogative which Hume has assumed
   as the sole spring of Elizabeth's government, and would never
   be employed till some deficiency of strength was experienced
   in the other."

"The age of Elizabeth was distinguished beyond, perhaps, any other in our history by a number of great men, famous in different ways, and whose names have come down to us with unblemished honours: statesmen, warriors, divines, scholars, poets, and philosophers; Raleigh, Drake, Coke, Hooker, and—high and more sounding still, and still more frequent in our mouths—Shakespear, Spenser, Sidney, Bacon, Jonson, Beaumont, and Fletcher, men whom fame has eternised in her long and lasting scroll, and who, by their words and acts, were benefactors of their country, and ornaments of human nature. Their attainments of different kinds bore the same general stamp, and it was sterling; what they did had the mark of their age and country upon it. Perhaps the genius of Great Britain (if I may so speak without offence or flattery) never shone out fuller or brighter, or looked more like itself, than at this period. Our writers and great men had something in them that savoured of the soil from which they grew: they were not French; they were not Dutch, or German, or Greek, or Latin; they were truly English. They did not look out of themselves to see what they should be; they sought for truth and nature, and found it in themselves. There was no tinsel, and but little art; they were not the spoilt children of affectation and refinement, but a bold, vigorous, independent race of thinkers, with prodigious strength and energy, with none but natural grace, and heartfelt, unobtrusive delicacy. … For such an extraordinary combination and development of fancy and genius many causes may be assigned; and we may seek for the chief of them in religion, in politics, in the circumstances of the time, the recent diffusion of letters, in local situation, and in the character of the men who adorned that period, and availed themselves so nobly of the advantages placed within their reach. … The first cause I shall mention, as contributing to this general effect, was the Reformation, which had just then taken place. This event gave a mighty impulse and increased activity to thought and inquiry, and agitated the inert mass of accumulated prejudices throughout Europe. … The translation of the Bible was the chief engine in the great work. It threw open, by a secret spring, the rich treasures of religion and morality, which had been there locked up as in a shrine. It revealed the visions of the prophets, and conveyed the lessons of inspired teachers (such they were thought) to the meanest of the people. It gave them a common interest in the common cause. Their hearts burnt within them as they read. It gave a mind to the people, by giving them common subjects of thought and feeling. … The immediate use or application that was made of religion to subjects of imagination and fiction was not (from an obvious ground of separation) so direct or frequent as that which was made of the classical and romantic literature. For much about the same time, the rich and fascinating stores of the Greek and Roman mythology, and those of the romantic poetry of Spain and Italy, were eagerly explored by the curious, and thrown open in translations to the admiring gaze of the vulgar. … What also gave an unusual impetus to the mind of man at this period, was the discovery of the New World, and the reading of voyages and travels. Green islands and golden sands seemed to arise, as by enchantment, out of the bosom of the watery waste, and invite the cupidity, or wing the imagination of the dreaming speculator. Fairyland was realised in new and unknown worlds. … Again, the heroic and martial spirit which breathes in our elder writers, was yet in considerable activity in the reign of Elizabeth. The age of chivalry was not then quite gone, nor the glory of Europe extinguished forever. … Lastly, to conclude this account: What gave a unity and common direction to all these causes, was the natural genius of the country, which was strong in these writers in proportion to their strength. We are a nation of islanders, and we cannot help it, nor mend ourselves if we would. We are something in ourselves, nothing when we try to ape others. Music and painting are not our forte: for what we have done in that way has been little, and that borrowed from others with great difficulty. But we may boast of our poets and philosophers. That's something. We have had strong heads and sound hearts among us. Thrown on one side of the world, and left to bustle for ourselves, we have fought out many a battle for truth and freedom. That is our natural style; and it were to be wished we had in no instance departed from it. Our situation has given us a certain cast of thought and character; and our liberty has enabled us to make the most of it. We are of a stiff clay, not moulded into every fashion, with stubborn joints not easily bent. We are slow to think, and therefore impressions do not work upon us till they act in masses. … We may be accused of grossness, but not of flimsiness; of extravagance, but not of affectation; of want of art and refinement, but not of a want of truth and nature. Our literature, in a word, is Gothic and grotesque; unequal and irregular; not cast in a previous mould, nor of one uniform texture, but of great weight in the whole, and of incomparable value in the best parts. It aims at an excess of beauty or power, hits or misses, and is either very good indeed, or absolutely good for nothing. This character applies in particular to our literature in the age of Elizabeth, which is its best period, before the introduction of a rage for French rules and French models."

      W. Hazlitt,
      Lectures on the Literature of the Age of Elizabeth,
      lecture 1.

"Humanism, before it moulded the mind of the English, had already permeated Italian and French literature. Classical erudition had been adapted to the needs of modern thought. Antique authors had been collected, printed, annotated, and translated. They were fairly mastered in the south, and assimilated to the style of the vernacular. By these means much of the learning popularised by our poets, essayists, and dramatists came to us at second-hand, and bore the stamp of contemporary genius. In like manner, the best works of Italian, French, Spanish, and German literature were introduced into Great Britain together with the classics. The age favoured translation, and English readers before the close of the sixteenth century, were in possession of a cosmopolitan library in their mother tongue, including choice specimens of ancient and modern masterpieces. These circumstances sufficiently account for the richness and variety of Elizabethan literature. They also help to explain two points which must strike every student of that literature—its native freshness, and its marked unity of style. Elizabethan literature was fresh and native, because it was the utterance of a youthful race, aroused to vigorous self-consciousness under conditions which did not depress or exhaust its energies. The English opened frank eyes upon the discovery of the world and man, which had been effected by the Renaissance. They were not wearied with collecting, collating, correcting, transmitting to the press. All the hard work of assimilating the humanities had been done for them. They had only to survey and to enjoy, to feel and to express, to lay themselves open to delightful influences, to con the noble lessons of the past, to thrill beneath the beauty and the awe of an authentic revelation. Criticism had not laid its cold, dry finger on the blossoms of the fancy. The new learning was still young enough to be a thing of wonder and entrancing joy."

      J. A. Symonds,
      A Comparison of Elizabethan with Victorian Poetry
      (Fortnightly Rev., volume 45, page 56).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1559.
The Act of Supremacy, the Act of Uniformity, and the Court of
High Commission.

"When Elizabeth's first Parliament met in January 1559, Convocation, of course, met too. It at once claimed that the clergy alone had authority in matters of faith, and proceeded to pass resolutions in favour of Transubstantiation, the Mass, and the Papal Supremacy. The bishops and the Universities signed a formal agreement to this effect. That in the constitution of the English Church, Convocation, as Convocation, has no such power as this, was proved by the steps now taken. The Crown, advised by the Council and Parliament, took the matter in hand. As every element, except the Roman, had been excluded from the clerical bodies, a consultation was ordered between the representatives of both sides, and all preaching was suspended till a settlement had been arrived at between the queen and the Three Estates of the realm. The consultation broke upon the refusal of the Romanist champions to keep to the terms agreed upon; but even before it took place Parliament restored the Royal Supremacy, repealed the laws of Mary affecting religion, and gave the queen by her own desire, not the title of 'Supreme Head,' but 'Supreme Governor,' of the Church of England."

This first Parliament of Elizabeth passed two memorable acts of great importance in English history,—the Act of Supremacy and the Act of Uniformity of Common Prayer. "The former is entitled 'An act for restoring to the crown the ancient jurisdiction over the State Ecclesiastical and Spiritual; and for abolishing foreign power.' It is the same for substance with the 25th of Henry VIII. … but the commons incorporated several other bills into it; for besides the title of 'Supreme Governor in all causes Ecclesiastical and Temporal,' which is restored to the Queen, the act revives those laws of King Henry VIII. and King Edward VI. which had been repealed in the late reign. It forbids all appeals to Rome, and exonerates the subjects from all exactions and impositions heretofore paid to that court; and as it revives King Edward's laws, it repeals a severe act made in the late reign for punishing heresy. … 'Moreover, all persons in any public employs, whether civil or ecclesiastical, are obliged to take an oath in recognition of the Queen's right to the crown, and of her supremacy in all causes ecclesiastical and civil, on penalty of forfeiting all their promotions in the church, and of being declared incapable of holding any public office.' … Further, 'The act forbids all writing, printing, teaching, or preaching, and all other deeds or acts whereby any foreign jurisdiction over these realms is defended, upon pain that they and their abettors, being thereof convicted, shall for the first offence forfeit their goods and chattels; … spiritual persons shall lose their benefices, and all ecclesiastical preferments; for the second offence they shall incur the penalties of a præmunire; and the third offence shall be deemed high treason.' There is a remarkable clause in this act, which gave rise to a new court, called 'The Court of High Commission.' The words are these, 'The Queen and her successors shall have power, by their letters patent under the great seal, to assign, name, and authorize, as often as they shall think meet, and for as long a time as they shall please, persons being natural-born subjects, to use, occupy, and exercise, under her and them, all manner of jurisdiction, privileges, and preeminences, touching any spiritual or ecclesiastical jurisdiction within the realms of England and Ireland, &c., to visit, reform, redress, order, correct and amend all errors, heresies, schisms, abuses, contempts, offences and enormities whatsoever. Provided, that they have no power to determine anything to be heresy, but what has been adjudged to be so by the authority of the canonical scripture, or by the first four general councils, or any of them; or by any other general council wherein the same was declared heresy by the express and plain words of canonical scripture; or such as shall hereafter be declared to be heresy by the high court of parliament, with the assent of the clergy in convocation.' Upon the authority of this clause the Queen appointed a certain number of 'Commissioners' for ecclesiastical causes, who exercised the same power that had been lodged in the hands of one vicegerent in the reign of King Henry VIII. And how sadly they abused their power in this and the two next reigns will appear in the sequel of this history. They did not trouble themselves much with the express words of scripture, or the four first general councils, but entangled their prisoners with oaths ex-officio, and the inextricable mazes of the popish canon law. … The papists being vanquished, the next point was to unite the reformed among themselves. … Though all the reformers were of one faith, yet they were far from agreeing about discipline and ceremonies, each party being for settling the church according to their own model. … {839} The Queen … therefore appointed a committee of divines to review King Edward's liturgy, and to see if in any particular it was fit to be changed; their names were Dr. Parker, Grindal, Cox, Pilkington, May, Bill, Whitehead, and Sir Thomas Smith, doctor of the civil law. Their instructions were, to strike out all offensive passages against the pope, and to make people easy about the belief of the corporal presence of Christ in the sacraments; but not a word in favour of the stricter protestants. Her Majesty was afraid of reforming too far; she was desirous to retain images in churches, crucifixes and crosses, vocal and instrumental music, with all the old popish garments; it is not therefore to be wondered, that in reviewing the liturgy of King Edward, no alterations were made in favour of those who now began to be called Puritans, from their attempting a purer form of worship and discipline than had yet been established. … The book was presented to the two houses and passed into a law. … The title of the act is 'An act for the Uniformity of Common Prayer and Service in the Church, and administration of the Sacraments.' It was brought into the House of Commons April 18th, and was read a third time April 20th. It passed the House of Lords April 28th, and took place from the 24th of June 1559."

      ALSO IN:
      G. Burnet,
      History of the Reformation of the Church of England.,
      volume 2, book 3.

"The Church of England was a latitudinarian experiment, a contrivance to enable men of opposing creeds to live together without shedding each others' blood. It was not intended, and it was not possible, that Catholics or Protestants should find in its formulas all that they required. The services were deliberately made elastic; comprehending in the form of positive statement only what all Christians agreed in believing, while opportunities were left open by the rubric to vary the ceremonial according to the taste of the congregations. The management lay with the local authorities in town or parish: where the people were Catholics the Catholic aspect could be made prominent; where Popery was a bugbear, the people were not disturbed by the obtrusion of doctrines which they had outgrown. In itself it pleased no party or section. To the heated controversialist its chief merit was its chief defect. … Where the tendencies to Rome were strongest, there the extreme Reformers considered themselves bound to exhibit in the most marked contrast the unloveliness of the purer creed. It was they who furnished the noble element in the Church of England. It was they who had been its martyrs; they who, in their scorn of the world, in their passionate desire to consociate themselves in life and death to the Almighty, were able to rival in self-devotion the Catholic Saints. But they had not the wisdom of the serpent, and certainly not the harmlessness of the dove. Had they been let alone—had they been unharassed by perpetual threats of revolution and a return of the persecutions—they, too, were not disinclined to reason and good sense. A remarkable specimen survives, in an account of the Church of Northampton, of what English Protestantism could become under favouring conditions. … The fury of the times unhappily forbade the maintenance of this wise and prudent spirit. As the power of evil gathered to destroy the Church of England, a fiercer temper was required to combat with them, and Protestantism became impatient, like David, of the uniform in which it was sent to the battle. It would have fared ill with England had there been no hotter blood there than filtered in the sluggish veins of the officials of the Establishment. There needed an enthusiasm fiercer far to encounter the revival of Catholic fanaticism; and if the young Puritans, in the heat and glow of their convictions, snapped their traces and flung off their harness, it was they, after all, who saved the Church which attempted to disown them, and with the Church saved also the stolid mediocrity to which the fates then and ever committed and commit the government of it."

   "The compromise arranged by Cranmer had from the first been
   considered by a large body of Protestants as a scheme for
   serving two masters, as an attempt to unite the worship of the
   Lord with the worship of Baal. In the days of Edward VI. the
   scruples of this party had repeatedly thrown great
   difficulties in the way of the government. When Elizabeth came
   to the throne, those difficulties were much increased.
   Violence naturally engenders violence. The spirit of
   Protestantism was therefore far fiercer and more intolerant
   after the cruelties of Mary than before them. Many persons who
   were warmly attached to the new opinions had, during the evil
   days, taken refuge in Switzerland and Germany. They had been
   hospitably received by their brethren in the faith, had sate
   at the feet of the great doctors of Strasburg, Zurich and
   Geneva, and had been, during some years, accustomed to a more
   simple worship, and to a more democratical form of church
   government, than England had yet seen. These men returned to
   their country, convinced that the reform which had been
   effected under King Edward had been far less searching and
   extensive than the interests of pure religion required. But it
   was in vain that they attempted to obtain any concession from
   Elizabeth. Indeed, her system, wherever it differed from her
   brother's, seemed to them to differ for the worse. They were
   little disposed to submit, in matters of faith, to any human
   authority. … Since these men could not be convinced, it was
   determined that they should be persecuted. Persecution
   produced its natural effect on them. It found them a sect: it
   made them a faction. … The power of the discontented
   sectaries was great. They were found in every rank; but they
   were strongest among the mercantile classes in the towns, and
   among the small proprietors in the country. Early in the reign
   of Elizabeth they began to return a majority of the House of
   Commons. And doubtless, had our ancestors been then at liberty
   to fix their attention entirely on domestic questions, the
   strife between the crown and the Parliament would instantly
   have commenced. But that was no season for internal
   dissensions. … Roman Catholic Europe and reformed Europe
   were struggling for death or life. … Whatever might be the
   faults of Elizabeth, it was plain that, to speak humanly, the
   fate of the realm and of all reformed churches was staked on
   the security of her person and on the success of her
   administration. …
{840}
   The Puritans, even in the depths of the prisons to which she
   had sent them, prayed, and with no simulated fervour, that she
   might be kept from the dagger of the assassin, that rebellion
   might be put down under her feet, and that her arms might be
   victorious by sea and land."

"Two parties quickly evolved themselves out of the mass of Englishmen who held Calvinistic opinions; namely those who were willing to conform to the requirements of the Queen, and those who were not. To both is often given indiscriminately by historians the name of Puritan; but it seems more correct, and certainly is more convenient, to restrict the use of the name to those who are sometimes called conforming Puritans. … To the other party fitly belongs the name of Nonconformist. … It was against the Nonconformist organization that Elizabeth's efforts were chiefly directed. … The war began in the enforcement by Archbishop Parker in 1565 of the Advertisements as containing the minimum of ceremonial that would be tolerated. In 1566 the clergy of London were required to make the declaration of Conformity which was appended to the Advertisements, and thirty-seven were suspended or deprived for refusal. Some of the deprived ministers continued to conduct services and preach in spite of their deprivation, and so were formed the first bodies of Nonconformists, organized in England."

      D. Campbell,
      The Puritan in Holland, England, and America,
      chapters 8-10 (volume 1).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1562-1567.
Hawkins' slave-trading voyages to America.
First English enterprise in the New World.

"The English bishops, conceiving themselves empowered by their canons, began to show their authority in urging the clergy of their dioceses to subscribe to the Liturgy, ceremonies and discipline of the Church; and such as refused the same were branded with the odious name of Puritans. A name which in this notion first began in this year [A. D. 1564]; and the grief had not been great if it had ended in the same. The philosopher banisheth the term, (which is Polysæmon), that is subject to several senses, out of the predicaments, as affording too much covert for cavil by the latitude thereof. On the same account could I wish that the word Puritan were banished common discourse, because so various in the acceptations thereof. We need not speak of the ancient Cathari or primitive Puritans, sufficiently known by their heretical opinions. Puritan here was taken for the opposers of the hierarchy and church service, as resenting of superstition. But profane mouths quickly improved this nickname, therewith on every occasion to abuse pious people; some of them so far from opposing the Liturgy, that they endeavoured (according to the instructions thereof in the preparative to the Confession) 'to accompany the minister with a pure heart,' and laboured (as it is in the Absolution) 'for a life pure and holy.' We will, therefore, decline the word to prevent exceptions; which, if casually slipping from our pen, the reader knoweth that only nonconformists are thereby intended."

"For in this year [1565] it was that the Zuinglian or Calvinian faction began to be first known by the name of Puritans, if Genebrard, Gualter, and Spondanus (being all of them right good chronologers) be not mistaken in the time. Which name hath ever since been appropriate to them, because of their pretending to a greater purity in the service of God than was held forth unto them (as they gave out) in the Common Prayer Book; and to a greater opposition to the rites and usages of the Church of Rome than was agreeable to the constitution of the Church of England."

ENGLAND: A. D. 1572-1580.
Drake's piratical warfare with Spain and his famous voyage.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1572-1603.
Queen Elizabeth's treatment of the Roman Catholics.
Persecution of the Seminary Priests and the Jesuits.

"Camden and many others have asserted that by systematic connivance the Roman Catholics enjoyed a pretty free use of their religion for the first fourteen years of Elizabeth's reign. But this is not reconcilable to many passages in Strype's collections. We find abundance of persons harassed for recusancy, that is, for not attending the protestant church, and driven to insincere promises of conformity. Others were dragged before ecclesiastical commissions for harbouring priests, or for sending money to those who had fled beyond sea. … A great majority both of clergy and laity yielded to the times; and of these temporizing conformists it cannot be doubted that many lost by degrees all thought of returning to their ancient fold. But others, while they complied with exterior ceremonies, retained in their private devotions their accustomed mode of worship. … Priests … travelled the country in various disguises, to keep alive a flame which the practice of outward conformity was calculated to extinguish. There was not a county throughout England, says a Catholic historian, where several of Mary's clergy did not reside, and were commonly called the old priests. They served as chaplains in private families. By stealth, at the dead of night, in private chambers, in the secret lurking places of an ill-peopled country, with all the mystery that subdues the imagination, with all the mutual trust that invigorates constancy, these proscribed ecclesiastics celebrated their solemn rites, more impressive in such concealment than if surrounded by all their former splendour. … It is my thorough conviction that the persecution, for it can obtain no better name, carried on against the English Catholics, however it might serve to delude the government by producing an apparent conformity, could not but excite a spirit of disloyalty in many adherents of that faith. Nor would it be safe to assert that a more conciliating policy would have altogether disarmed their hostility, much less laid at rest those busy hopes of the future, which the peculiar circumstances of Elizabeth's reign had a tendency to produce."

"The more vehement Catholics had withdrawn from the country, on account of the dangers which there beset them. They had taken refuge in the Low Countries, and there Allen, one of the chief among them, had established a seminary at Douay, for the purpose of keeping up a supply of priests in England. To Douay numbers of young Englishmen from Oxford continually flocked. The establishment had been broken up by Requescens, and removed to Rheims, and a second college of the same description was established at Rome. From these two centres of intrigue numerous enthusiastic young men constantly repaired to England, and in the disguise of laymen carried on their priestly work and attempted to revive the Romanist religion. But abler and better disciplined workmen were now wanted. Allen and his friends therefore opened negotiations with Mercuriano, the head of the Jesuit order, in which many Englishmen had enrolled themselves. In 1580, as part of a great combined Catholic effort, a regular Jesuit mission, under two priests, Campion and Parsons, was despatched to England. … The new missionaries were allowed to say that that part of the Bull [of excommunication issued against Elizabeth] which pronounced censures upon those who clung to their allegiance applied to heretics only, that Catholics might profess themselves loyal until the time arrived for carrying the Bull into execution; in other words, they were permitted to be traitors at heart while declaring themselves loyal subjects. This explanation of the Bull was of itself sufficient to justify severity on the part of the government. It was impossible henceforward to separate Roman Catholicism from disloyalty. Proclamations were issued requiring English parents to summon their children from abroad, and declaring that to harbour Jesuit priests was to support rebels. … Early in December several priests were apprehended and closely examined, torture being occasionally used for the purpose. In view of the danger which these examinations disclosed, stringent measures were taken. Attendance at church was rendered peremptorily necessary. Parliament was summoned in the beginning of 1581 and laws passed against the action of the Jesuits. … Had Elizabeth been conscious of the full extent of the plot against her, had she known the intention of the Guises [then dominant in France] to make a descent upon England in co-operation with Spain, and the many ramifications of the plot in her own country, it is reasonable to suppose that she would have been forced at length to take decided measures. But in ignorance of the abyss opening before her feet, she continued for some time longer her old temporizing policy." At last, in November, 1583, the discovery of a plot for the assassination of the queen, and the arrest of one Throgmorton, whose papers and whose confession were of startling import, brought to light the whole plan and extent of the conspiracy. "Some of her Council urged her at once to take a straightforward step, to make common cause with the Protestants of Scotland and the Netherlands, and to bid defiance to Spain. To this honest step, she as usual could not bring herself, but strong measures were taken in England. Great numbers of Jesuits and seminary priests were apprehended and executed, suspected magistrates removed, and those Catholic Lords whose treachery might have been fatal to her ejected from their places of authority and deprived of influence."

"That the conspiracy with which these men were charged was a fiction cannot be doubted. They had come to England under a prohibition to take any part in secular concerns, and with the sole view of exercising the spiritual functions of the priesthood. … At the same time it must be owned that the answers which six of them gave to the queries were far from satisfactory. Their hesitation to deny the opposing power (a power then indeed maintained by the greater number of divines in Catholic kingdoms) rendered their loyalty very problematical, in case of an attempt to enforce the bull by any foreign prince. It furnished sufficient reason to watch their conduct with an eye of jealousy … but could not justify their execution for an imaginary offence."

"It is probable that not many more than 200 Catholics were executed, as such, in Elizabeth's reign, and this was ten score too many. … 'Dod reckons them at 191; Milner has raised the list to 204. Fifteen of these, according to him, suffered for denying the Queen's supremacy, 126 for exercising their ministry, and the rest for being reconciled to the Romish church. Many others died of hardships in prison, and many were deprived of their property. There seems, nevertheless [says Hallam], to be good reason for doubting whether anyone who was executed might not have saved his life by explicitly denying the Pope's power to depose the Queen.'"

      ALSO IN:
      J. Foley,
      Records of the English Province of the Society of
      Jesus.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1574.
Emancipation of villeins on the royal domains.
Practical end of serfdom.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1575.
Sovereignty of Holland and Zealand offered to Queen Elizabeth,
and declined.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1581.
Marriage proposals of the Duke of Anjou declined by Queen
Elizabeth.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1583.
The expedition of Sir Humphrey Gilbert.
Formal possession taken of Newfoundland.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1585-1586.
   Leicester in the Low Countries.
   Queen Elizabeth's treacherous dealing with the
   struggling Netherlanders.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1585-1587.
Mary Queen of Scots and the Catholic conspiracies.
Her trial and execution.

   "Maddened by persecution, by the hopelessness of rebellion
   within or deliverance from without, the fiercer Catholics
   listened to schemes of assassination, to which the murder of
   William of Orange lent at the moment a terrible significance.
   The detection of Somerville, a fanatic who had received the
   host before setting out for London 'to shoot the Queen with
   his dagg,' was followed by measures of natural severity, by
   the flight and arrest of Catholic gentry, by a vigourous
   purification of the Inns of Court, where a few Catholics
   lingered, and by the dispatch of fresh batches of priests to
   the block. The trial and death of Parry, a member of the House
   of Commons who had served in the Queen's household, on a
   similar charge, brought the Parliament together in a transport
   of horror and loyalty.
{842}
   All Jesuits and seminary priests were banished from the realm
   on pain of death. A bill for the security of the Queen
   disqualified any claimant of the succession who had instigated
   subjects to rebellion or hurt to the Queen's person from ever
   succeeding to the crown. The threat was aimed at Mary Stuart.
   Weary of her long restraint, of her failure to rouse Philip or
   Scotland to aid her, of the baffled revolt of the English
   Catholics and the baffled intrigues of the Jesuits, she bent
   for a moment to submission. 'Let me go,' she wrote to
   Elizabeth; 'let me retire from this island to some solitude
   where I may prepare my soul to die. Grant this and I will sign
   away every right which either I or mine can claim.' But the
   cry was useless, and her despair found a new and more terrible
   hope in the plots against Elizabeth's life. She knew and
   approved the vow of Anthony Babington and a band of young
   Catholics, for the most part connected with the royal
   household, to kill the Queen; but plot and approval alike
   passed through Walsingham's hands, and the seizure of Mary's
   correspondence revealed her guilt. In spite of her protests, a
   commission of peers sat as her judges at Fotheringay Castle;
   and their verdict of 'guilty' annihilated, under the
   provisions of the recent statute, her claim to the crown. The
   streets of London blazed with bonfires, and peals rang out
   from steeple to steeple, at the news of her condemnation; but,
   in spite of the prayer of Parliament for her execution, and
   the pressure of the Council, Elizabeth shrank from her death.
   The force of public opinion, however, was now carrying all
   before it, and the unanimous demand of her people wrested at
   last a sullen consent from the Queen. She flung the warrant
   signed upon the floor, and the Council took on themselves the
   responsibility of executing it. Mary died [February 8, 1587]
   on a scaffold which was erected in the castle hall at
   Fotheringay, as dauntlessly as she had lived. 'Do not weep,'
   she said to her ladies, 'I have given my word for you.' 'Tell
   my friends,' she charged Melville, 'that I die a good
   Catholic.'"

"'Who now doubts,' writes an eloquent modern writer, 'that it would have been wiser in Elizabeth to spare her life?' Rather, the political wisdom of a critical and difficult act has never in the world's history been more signally justified. It cut away the only interest on which the Scotch and English Catholics could possibly have combined. It determined Philip upon the undisguised pursuit of the English throne, and it enlisted against him and his projects the passionate patriotism of the English nobility."

England: A. D. 1587-1588.
The wrath of Catholic Europe.
Spanish vengeance and ambition astir.

"The death of Mary [Queen of Scots] may have preserved England from the religious struggle which would have ensued upon her accession to the throne, but it delivered Elizabeth from only one, and that the weakest of her enemies; and it exposed her to a charge of injustice and cruelty, which, being itself well founded, obtained belief for any other accusation, however extravagantly false. It was not Philip [of Spain] alone who prepared for making war upon her with a feeling of personal hatred: throughout Romish Christendom she was represented as a monster of iniquity; that representation was assiduously set forth, not in ephemeral libels, but in histories, in dramas, in poems, and in hawker's pamphlets; and when the king of Spain equipped an armament for the invasion of England, volunteers entered it with a passionate persuasion that they were about to bear a part in a holy war against the wickedest and most inhuman of tyrants. The Pope exhorted Philip to engage in this great enterprize for the sake of the Roman Catholic and apostolic church, which could not be more effectually nor more meritoriously extended than by the conquest of England; so should he avenge his own private and public wrongs; so should he indeed prove himself most worthy of the glorious title of Most Catholic King. And he promised, as soon as his troops should have set foot in that island, to supply him with a million of crowns of gold towards the expenses of the expedition. … Such exhortations accorded with the ambition, the passions, and the rooted principles of the king of Spain. The undertaking was resolved."

"The succours which Elizabeth had from time to time afforded to the insurgents of the Netherlands was not the only cause of Philip's resentment and of his desire for revenge. She had fomented the disturbances in Portugal, … and her captains, among whom Sir Francis Drake was the most active, had for many years committed unjustifiable depredations on the Spanish possessions of South America, and more than once on the coasts of the Peninsula itself. … By Spanish historians, these hostilities are represented as unprovoked in their origin, and as barbarous in their execution, and candor must allow that there is but too much justice in the complaint."

"Perhaps in the history of mankind there has never been a vast project of conquest conceived and matured in so protracted and yet so desultory a manner, as was this famous Spanish invasion. … At last, on the 28th, 29th and 30th May, 1588, the fleet, which had been waiting at Lisbon more than a month for favourable weather, set sail from that port, after having been duly blessed by the Cardinal Archduke Albert, viceroy of Portugal. There were rather more than 130 ships in all, divided into 10 squadrons. … The total tonnage of the fleet was 59,120: the number of guns was 3,165. Of Spanish troops there were 19,295 on board: there were 8,252 sailors and 2,088 galley-slaves. Besides these, there was a force of noble volunteers, belonging to the most illustrious houses of Spain, with their attendants, amounting to nearly 2,000 in all. … The size of the ships ranged from 1,200 tons to 300. The galleons, of which there were about 60, were huge round-stemmed clumsy vessels, with bulwarks three or four feet thick, and built up at stem and stern, like castles. {843} The galeasses—of which there were four—were a third larger than the ordinary galley, and were rowed each by 300 galley-slaves. They consisted of an enormous towering fortress at the stern, a castellated structure almost equally massive in front, with seats for the rowers amidships. At stem and stern and between each of the slaves' benches were heavy cannon. These galeasses were floating edifices, very wonderful to contemplate. They were gorgeously decorated. There were splendid state-apartments, cabins, chapels, and pulpits in each, and they were amply provided with awnings, cushions, streamers, standards, gilded saints and bands of music. To take part in an ostentatious pageant, nothing could be better devised. To fulfil the great objects of a war-vessel—to sail and to fight—they were the worst machines ever launched upon the ocean. The four galleys were similar to the galeasses in every respect except that of size, in which they were by one-third inferior. All the ships of the fleet—galeasses, galleys, galleons, and hulks—were so encumbered with top-hamper, so over-weighted in proportion to their draught of water, that they could bear but little canvas, even with smooth seas and light and favourable winds. … Such was the machinery which Philip had at last set afloat, for the purpose of dethroning Elizabeth and establishing the inquisition in England. One hundred and forty ships, 11,000 Spanish veterans, as many more recruits, partly Spanish, partly Portuguese, 2,000 grandees, as many galley slaves, and 300 barefooted friars and inquisitors. The plan was simple. Medina Sidonia [the captain-general of the Armada] was to proceed straight from Lisbon to Calais roads: there he was to wait for the Duke of Parma [Spanish commander in the Netherlands], who was to come forth from Newport, Sluys, and Dunkirk, bringing with him his 17,000 veterans, and to assume the chief command of the whole expedition. They were then to cross the channel to Dover, land the army of Parma, reinforced with 6,000 Spaniards from the fleet, and with these 23,000 men Alexander was to march at once upon London. Medina Sidonia was to seize and fortify the Isle of Wight, guard the entrance of the harbours against any interference from the Dutch and English fleets, and—so soon as the conquest of England had been effected—he was to proceed to Ireland. … A strange omission had however been made in the plan from first to last. The commander of the whole expedition was the Duke of Parma: on his head was the whole responsibility. Not a gun was to be fired—if it could be avoided—until he had come forth with his veterans to make his junction with the Invincible Armada off Calais. Yet there was no arrangement whatever to enable him to come forth—not the slightest provision to effect that junction. … Medina could not go to Farnese [Alexander Farnese, Duke of Parma], nor could Farnese come to Medina. The junction was likely to be difficult, and yet it had never once entered the heads of Philip or his counsellors to provide for that difficulty. … With as much sluggishness as might have been expected from their clumsy architecture, the ships of the Armada consumed nearly three weeks in sailing from Lisbon to the neighbourhood of Cape Finisterre. Here they were overtaken by a tempest. … Of the squadron of galleys, one was already sunk in the sea, and two of the others had been conquered by their own slaves. The fourth rode out the gale with difficulty, and joined the rest of the fleet, which ultimately reassembled at Coruña; the ships having, in distress, put in first at Vivera, Ribadeo, Gijon, and other northern ports of Spain. At the Groyne—as the English of that day were accustomed to call Coruña—they remained a month, repairing damages and recruiting; and on the 22d of July (N. S.) the Armada set sail. Six days later, the Spaniards took soundings, thirty leagues from the Scilly Islands, and on Friday, the 29th of July, off the Lizard, they had the first glimpse of the land of promise presented them by Sixtus V. of which they had at last come to take possession. On the same day and night the blaze and smoke of ten thousand beacon-fires from the Land's End to Margate, and from the Isle of Wight to Cumberland, gave warning to every Englishman that the enemy was at last upon them."

      C. M. Yonge,
      Cameos from English History,
      5th series, chapter 27.

"The great number of the English, the whole able-bodied population being drilled, counterbalanced the advantage possessed, from their universal use of firearms, by the invaders. In all the towns there were trained bands (a civic militia); and, either in regular service or as volunteers, thousands of all ranks had received a military training on the continent. The musters represented 100,000 men as ready to assemble at their head-quarters at a day's notice. It was, as nearly always, in its military administration that the vulnerable point of England lay. The fitting-out and victualling of the navy was disgraceful; and it is scarcely an excuse for the councillors that they were powerless against the parsimony of the Queen. The Government maintained its hereditary character from the days of Ethelred the Unready, and the arrangements for assembling the defensive forces were not really completed by them until after the Armada was destroyed. The defeat of the invaders, if they had landed, must have been accomplished by the people. The flame of patriotism never burnt purer: all Englishmen alike, Romanists, Protestant Episcopalians, and Puritans, were banded together to resist the invader. Every hamlet was on the alert for the beacon-signal. Some 15,000 men were already under arms in London; the compact Tilbury Fort was full, and a bridge of boats from Tilbury to Gravesend blocked the Thames. Philip's preparations had been commensurate with the grandeur of his scheme. The dockyards in his ports in the Low Countries, the rivers, the canals, and the harbours of Spain, Portugal, Naples, and Italy, echoed the clang of the shipwrights' hammers. A vast armament, named, as if to provoke Nemesis, the 'Invincible Armada,' on which for three years the treasures of the American mines had been lavished, at length rode the seas, blessed with Papal benedictions and under the patronage of the saints. It comprised 65 huge galleons, of from 700 to 1,300 tons, with sides of enormous thickness, and built high like castles; four great galleys, each carrying 50 guns and 450 men, and rowed by 300 slaves; 56 armed merchantmen, and 20 pinnaces. These 129 vessels were armed with 2,430 brass and iron guns of the best manufacture, but each gun was furnished only with 50 rounds. {844} They carried 5,000 seamen: Parma's army amounted to 30,000 men—Spaniards, Germans, Italians and Walloons; and 19,000 Castilians and Portuguese, with 1,000 gentlemen volunteers, were coming to join him. To maintain this army after it had effected a landing, a great store of provisions—sufficient for 40,000 men for six months—was placed on board. The overthrow of this armament was effected by the navy and the elements. From the Queen's parsimony the State had only 36 ships in the fleet; but the City of London furnished 33 vessels; 18 were supplied by the liberality of private individuals; and nearly 100 smaller ships were obtained on hire; so that the fleet was eventually brought up to nearly 30,000 tons, carrying 16,000 men, and equipped with 837 guns. But there was sufficient ammunition for only a single day's fighting. Fortunately for Elizabeth's Government, the Spaniards, having been long driven from the channel by privateers, were now unacquainted with its currents; and they could procure, as the Dutch were in revolt, only two or three competent pilots. The Spanish commander was the Duke of Medina-Sidonia, an incapable man, but he had under him some of the ablest of Philip's officers. When the ships set out from the Tagus, on the 29th May, 1588, a storm came on, and the Armada had to put into Coruña to refit. From that port the Armada set out at the beginning of July, in lovely weather, with just enough wind to wave from the mastheads the red crosses which they bore as symbols of their crusade. The Duke of Medina entered the Channel on the 18th July, and the rear of his fleet was immediately harassed by a cannonade from the puny ships of England, commanded by Lord Howard of Effingham (Lord High Admiral), with Drake, Hawkins, Frobisher, Winter, Fenner, and other famous captains. With the loss of three galleons from fire or boarding, the Spanish commander, who was making for Flanders to embark Parma's army, anchored in Calais roads. In the night fire-ships—an ancient mode of warfare which had just been reintroduced by the Dutch—passed in among the Armada, a fierce gale completed their work, and morning revealed the remnant of the Invincible Armada scattered along the coast from Calais to Ostend. Eighty vessels remained to Medina, and with these he sailed up the North Sea, to round the British Isles. But the treacherous currents of the Orkneys and the Hebrides were unknown to his officers, and only a few ships escaped the tempests of the late autumn. More than two-thirds of the expedition perished, and of the remnant that again viewed the hills of Spain all but a few hundreds returned only to die."

In the fighting on the 23d of July, "the Spaniards' shot flew for the most part over the heads of the English, without doing execution, Cock being the only Englishman that died bravely in the midst of his enemies in a ship of his own. The reason of this was, that the English ships, being far less than the enemy's, made the attack with more quickness and agility; and when they had given a broadside, they presently sheered off to a convenient distance, and levelled their shot so directly at the bigger and more unwieldy ships of the Spaniards, as seldom to miss their aim; though the Lord Admiral did not think it safe or proper to grapple with them, as some advised, with much more heat than discretion, because that the enemy's fleet carried a considerable army within their sides, whereas ours had no such advantage. Besides their ships far exceeded ours in number and bulk, and were much stronger and higher built; insomuch that their men, having the opportunity to ply us from such lofty hatches, must inevitably destroy those that were obliged, as it were, to fight beneath them. … On the 24th day of the month there was a cessation on both sides, and the Lord Admiral sent some of his smaller vessels to the nearest of the English harbours, to fetch a supply of powder and ammunition; then he divided the fleet into four squadrons, the first of which he commanded himself, the second he committed to Drake, the third to Hawkins, and the fourth to Frobisher. He likewise singled out of the main fleet some smaller vessels to begin the attack on all sides at once, in the very dead of the night; but a calm happening spoiled his design." On the 26th "the Spanish fleet sailed forward with a fair and soft gale at southwest and by south; and the English chased them close at the heels; but so far was this Invincible Armada from alarming the sea-coasts with any frightful apprehensions, that the English gentry of the younger sort entered themselves volunteers, and taking leave of their parents, wives, and children, did, with incredible cheerfulness, hire ships at their own charge; and, in pure love to their country, joined the grand fleet in vast numbers. … On the 27th of this month the Spanish Fleet came to an anchor before Calais, their pilots having acquainted them that if they ventured any farther there was some danger that the force of the current might drive them away into the Northern Channel. Not far from them came likewise the English Admiral to an anchor, and lay within shot of their ships. The English fleet consisted by this time of 140 sail; all of them ships of force, and very tight and nimble sailors, and easily manageable upon a tack. But, however, the main brunt of the engagement lay not upon more than 15 or 16 of them. … The Lord Admiral got ready eight of his worst ships the very day after the Spaniards came to an anchor; and having bestowed upon them a good plenty of pitch, tar, and rosin, and lined them well with brimstone and other combustible matter, they sent them before the wind, in the dead time of the night, under the conduct of Young and Prowse, into the midst of the Spanish fleet. … The Spaniards reported that the duke, upon the approach of the fire-ships, ordered the whole fleet to weigh anchor and stand to sea, but that when the danger was over every ship should return to her station. This is what he did himself, and he likewise discharged a great gun as a signal to the rest to do as he did; the report, however, was heard but by very few, by reason their fears had dispersed them at that rate that some of them ventured out of the main ocean, and others sailed up the shallows of Flanders. In the meantime Drake and Fenner played briskly with their cannon upon the Spanish fleet, as it was rendezvousing over against Graveling. … On the last day of the month the wind blew hard at north-west early in the morning, and the Spanish fleet attempting to get back again to the Straits of Calais, was driven toward Zealand. {845} The English then gave over the chase, because, in the Spaniards' opinion, they perceived them making haste enough to their own destruction. For the wind, lying at the W. N. W. point, could not choose but force them on the shoals and sands on the coast of Zealand. But the wind happening to come about in a little time to Southwest and by West they went before the wind. … Being now, therefore, clear of danger in the main ocean, they steered northward, and the English fleet renewed the chase after them. … The Spaniards having now laid aside all the thoughts and hopes of returning to attempt the English, and perceiving their main safety lay in their flight, made no stay or stop at any port whatever. And thus this mighty armada, which had been three whole years fitting out, and at a vast expense, met in one month's time with several attacks, and was at last routed, with a vast slaughter on their side, and but a very few of the English missing, and not one ship lost, except that small vessel of Cock's. … When, therefore, the Spanish fleet had taken a large compass round Britain, by the coasts of Scotland, the Orcades, and Ireland, and had weathered many storms, and suffered as many wrecks and blows, and all the inconveniences of war and weather, it made a shift to get home again, laden with nothing but shame and dishonour. … Certain it is that several of their ships perished in their flight, being cast away on the coasts of Scotland and Ireland, and that above 700 soldiers were cast on shore in Scotland. … As for those who had the ill fortune to be drove upon the Irish shore, they met with the most barbarous treatment; for some of them were butchered by the wild Irish, and the rest put to the sword by the Lord Deputy."

      R. Hakluyt,
      Principal Navigations, &C.
      (E. Goldsmid's ed.), volume 7.

On the death of Queen Elizabeth, in 1603, James VI. of Scotland became also the accepted king of England (under the title of James I.), by virtue of his descent from that daughter of Henry VII. and sister of Henry VIII., Margaret Tudor, who married James IV. king of Scots. His grandfather was James V.; his mother was Marie Stuart, or Mary, Queen of Scots, born of her marriage with Lord Darnley. He was the ninth in the line of the Scottish dynasty of the Stuarts, or Stewarts, for an account of the origin of which see SCOTLAND: A. D. 1370. He had been carefully alienated from the religion of his mother and reared in Protestantism, to make him an acceptable heir to the English throne. He came to it at a time when the autocratic spirit of the Tudors, making use of the peculiar circumstances of their time, had raised the royal power and prerogative to their most exalted pitch; and he united the two kingdoms of Scotland and England under one sovereignty. "The noble inheritance fell to a race who, comprehending not one of the conditions by which alone it was possible to be retained, profligately misused until they lost it utterly. The calamity was in no respect foreseen by the statesman, Cecil, to whose exertion it was mainly due that James was seated on the throne: yet in regard to it he cannot be held blameless. He was doubtless right in the course he took, in so far as he thereby satisfied a national desire, and brought under one crown two kingdoms that with advantage to either could not separately exist; but it remains a reproach to his name that he let slip the occasion of obtaining for the people some ascertained and settled guarantees which could not then have been refused, and which might have saved half a century of bloodshed. None such were proposed to James. He was allowed to seize a prerogative, which for upwards of fifty years had been strained to a higher pitch than at any previous period of the English history; and his clumsy grasp closed on it without a sign of question or remonstrance from the leading statesmen of England. 'Do I mak the judges? Do I mak the bishops?' he exclaimed, as the powers of his new dominion dawned on his delighted sense: 'Then, God's wauns! I mak what likes me, law and gospel!' It was even so. And this license to make gospel and law was given, with other far more questionable powers, to a man whose personal appearance and qualities were as suggestive of contempt, as his public acts were provocative of rebellion. It is necessary to dwell upon this part of the subject; for it is only just to his not more culpable but far less fortunate successor to say, that in it lies the source and explanation of not a little for which the penalty was paid by him. What is called the Great Rebellion can have no comment so pregnant as that which is suggested by the character and previous career of the first of the Stuart kings."

   James I. "was not long seated on the English throne, when a
   conference was held at Hampton Court, to hear the complaints
   of the puritans, as those good men were called who scrupled to
   conform to the ceremonies, and sought a reformation of the
   abuses of the church of England. On this occasion, surrounded
   with his deans, bishops, and archbishops, who breathed into
   his ears the music of flattery, and worshipped him as an
   oracle, James, like king Solomon, to whom he was fond of being
   compared, appeared in all his glory, giving his judgment on
   every question, and displaying before the astonished prelates,
   who kneeled every time they addressed him, his polemic powers and
   theological learning. Contrasting his present honours with the
   scenes from which he had just escaped in his native country,
   he began by congratulating himself that, 'by the blessing of
   Providence, he was brought into the promised land, where
   religion was professed in its purity; where he sat among
   grave, learned, and reverend men; and that now he was not, as
   formerly, a king without state and honour, nor in a place
   where order was banished, and beardless boys would brave him
   to his face.'
{846}
   After long conferences, during which the king gave the most
   extraordinary exhibitions of his learning, drollery, and
   profaneness, he was completely thrown off his guard by the
   word presbytery, which Dr. Reynolds, a representative of the
   puritans, had unfortunately employed. Thinking that he aimed
   at a 'Scotch presbytery,' James rose into a towering passion,
   declaring that presbytery agreed as well with monarchy as God
   and the devil. 'Then,' said he, 'Jack and Tom, and Will and
   Dick, shall meet, and at their pleasures censure me and my
   council, and all our proceedings. Then Will shall stand up and
   say, It must be thus: Then Dick shall reply, and say, Nay
   marry, but we will have it thus. And, therefore, here I must
   once reiterate my former speech, Le Roy s'avisera (the king
   will look after it). Stay, I pray you, for one seven years
   before you demand that of me; and if you then find me pursy
   and fat, and my wind-pipes stuffed, I will perhaps hearken to
   you; for let that government be once up, I am sure I shall be
   kept in breath; then we shall all of us have work enough, both
   our hands full. But, Dr. Reynolds, till you find that I grow
   lazy, let that alone." Then, putting his hand to his hat, 'My
   lords the bishops,' said his majesty, 'I may thank you that
   these men plead for my supremacy; they think they can't make
   their party good against you, but by appealing unto it. But if
   once you are out, and they in place, I know what would become
   of my supremacy; for no bishop, no king, as I said before.'
   Then rising from his chair, he concluded the conference with,
   'If this be all they have to say, I'll make them conform, or
   I'll harry them out of this land, or else do worse.' The
   English lords and prelates were so filled with admiration at
   the quickness of apprehension and dexterity in controversy
   shown by the king, that, as Dr. Barlow informs us, 'one of
   them said his majesty spoke by the instinct of the Spirit of
   God; and the lord chancellor, as he went out, said to the dean
   of Chester, I have often heard that Rex est mixta persona cum
   sacerdote (that a king is partly a priest), but I never saw
   the truth thereof till this day!' In these circumstances,
   buoyed up with flattery by his English clergy, and placed
   beyond the reach of the faithful admonitions of the Scottish
   ministry, we need not wonder to find James prosecuting, with
   redoubled ardour, his scheme of reducing the church of
   Scotland to the English model."

      ALSO IN:
      S. R. Gardiner,
      The First Two Stuarts and the Puritan Revolution,
      chapter 1, sections 3.

      G. G. Perry,
      History of the Church of England,
      volume 1, chapter 2.

      T. Fuller,
      Church History of Britain,
      book 10, section 1 (volume 3).

"The Roman Catholics had expected great favour and indulgence on the accession of James, both as he was descended from Mary, whose life they believed to have been sacrificed to their cause, and as he himself, in his early youth, was imagined to have shown some partiality towards them. … Very soon they discovered their mistake; and were at once surprised and enraged to find James, on all occasions, express his intention of strictly executing the laws enacted against them, and of persevering in all the rigorous measures of Elizabeth. Catesby, a gentleman of good parts and of an ancient family, first thought of a most extraordinary method of revenge; and he opened his intention to Piercy, a descendant of the illustrious house of Northumberland. In vain, said he, would you put an end to the king's life: he has children. … To serve any good purpose, we must destroy, at one blow, the king, the royal family, the Lords, the Commons, and bury all our enemies in one common ruin. Happily, they are all assembled on the first meeting of Parliament, and afford us the opportunity of glorious and useful vengeance. Great preparations will not be requisite. A few of us, combining, may run a mine below the hall in which they meet, and choosing the very moment when the king harangues both Houses, consign over to destruction these determined foes to all piety and religion. … Piercy was charmed with this project of Catesby; and they agreed to communicate the matter to a few more, and among the rest to Thomas Winter, whom they sent over to Flanders, in quest of Fawkes, an officer in the Spanish service, with whose zeal and courage they were all thoroughly acquainted. … All this passed in the spring and summer of the year 1604; when the conspirators also hired a house in Piercy's name, adjoining to that in which the Parliament was to assemble. Towards the end of that year they began their operations. … They soon pierced the wall, though three yards in thickness; but on approaching the other side they were somewhat startled at hearing a noise which they knew not how to account for. Upon inquiry, they found that it came from the vault below the House of Lords; that a magazine of coals had been kept there; and that, as the coals were selling off, the vault would be let to the highest bidder. The opportunity was immediately seized; the place hired by Piercy; thirty-six barrels of powder lodged in it; the whole covered up with faggots and billets; the doors of the cellar boldly flung open, and everybody admitted, as if it contained nothing dangerous. … The day [November 5, 1605], so long wished for, now approached, on which the Parliament was appointed to assemble. The dreadful secret, though communicated to above twenty persons, had been religiously kept, during the space of near a year and a half. No remorse, no pity, no fear of punishment, no hope of reward, had as yet induced any one conspirator, either to abandon the enterprise or make a discovery of it." But the betrayal was unwittingly made, after all, by one in the plot, who tried to deter Lord Monteagle from attending the opening session of Parliament, by sending him a mysterious message of warning. Lord Monteagle showed the letter to Lord Salisbury, secretary of state, who attached little importance to it, but who laid it before the king. The Scottish Solomon read it with more anxiety and was shrewdly led by some expressions in the missive to order an inspection of the vaults underneath the parliamentary houses. The gunpowder was discovered and Guy Fawkes was found in the place, with matches for the firing of it on his person. Being put to the rack he disclosed the names of his accomplices. They were seized, tried and executed, or killed while resisting arrest.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1606.
The chartering of the Virginia Company, with its London and
Plymouth branches.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1620.
The exodus of the Pilgrims and the planting of their colony at
New Plymouth.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1621.
Claims in North America conflicting with France.
Grant of Nova Scotia to Sir William Alexander.

"The commons had now been engaged [at the end of the reign of James I.], for more than twenty years, in a struggle to restore and to fortify their own and their fellow subjects' liberties. They had obtained in this period but one legislative measure of importance, the late declaratory act against monopolies. But they had rescued from disuse their ancient right of impeachment. They had placed on record a protestation of their claim to debate all matters of public concern. They had remonstrated against the usurped prerogatives of binding the subject by proclamation, and of levying customs at the out-ports. They had secured beyond controversy their exclusive privilege of determining contested elections of their members. They had maintained, and carried indeed to an unwarrantable extent, their power of judging and inflicting punishment, even for offences not committed against their house. Of these advantages some were evidently incomplete; and it would require the most vigorous exertions of future parliaments to realize them. But such exertions the increased energy of the nation gave abundant cause to anticipate. A deep and lasting love of freedom had taken hold of every class except perhaps the clergy; from which, when viewed together with the rash pride of the court, and the uncertainty of constitutional principles and precedents, collected through our long and various history, a calm by-stander might presage that the ensuing reign would not pass without disturbance, nor perhaps end without confusion."

ENGLAND: A. D. 1625-1628.
The accession of Charles I.
Beginning of the struggle of King and Parliament.

"The political and religious schism which had originated in the 16th century was, during the first quarter of the 17th century, constantly widening. Theories tending to Turkish despotism were in fashion at Whitehall. Theories tending to republicanism were in favour with a large portion of the House of Commons. … While the minds of men were in this state, the country, after a peace of many years, at length engaged in a war [with Spain, and with Austria and the Emperor in the Palatinate] which required strenuous exertions. This war hastened the approach of the great constitutional crisis. It was necessary that the king should have a large military force. He could not have such a force without money. He could not legally raise money without the consent of Parliament. It followed, therefore, that he either must administer the government in conformity with the sense of the House of Commons, or must venture on such a violation of the fundamental laws of the land as had been unknown during several centuries. … Just at this conjuncture James died [March 27, 1625]. Charles I. succeeded to the throne. He had received from nature a far better understanding, a far stronger will, and a far keener and firmer temper than his father's. He had inherited his father's political theories, and was much more disposed than his father to carry them into practice. … His taste in literature and art was excellent, his manner dignified though not gracious, his domestic life without blemish. Faithlessness was the chief cause of his disasters, and is the chief stain on his memory. He was, in truth, impelled by an incurable propensity to dark and crooked ways. … He seems to have learned from the theologians whom he most esteemed that between him and his subjects there could be nothing of the nature of mutual contract; that he could not, even if he would, divest himself of his despotic authority; and that, in every promise which he made, there was an implied reservation that such promise might be broken in case of necessity, and that of the necessity he was the sole judge. And now began that hazardous game on which were staked the destinies of the English people. It was played on the side of the House of Commons with keenness, but with admirable dexterity, coolness and perseverance. Great statesmen who looked far behind them and far before them were at the head of that assembly. They were resolved to place the king in such a situation that he must either conduct the administration in conformity with the wishes of his Parliament, or make outrageous attacks on the most sacred principles of the constitution. They accordingly doled out supplies to him very sparingly. He found that he must govern either in harmony with the House of Commons, or in defiance of all law. His choice was soon made. He dissolved his first Parliament, and levied taxes by his own authority. He convoked a second Parliament [1626] and found it more intractable than the first. He again resorted to the expedient of dissolution, raised fresh taxes without any show of legal right, and threw the chiefs of the opposition into prison. At the same time a new grievance, which the peculiar feelings and habits of the English nation made insupportably painful, and which seemed to all discerning men to be of fearful augury, excited general discontent and alarm. Companies of soldiers were billeted on the people; and martial law was, in some places, substituted for the ancient jurisprudence of the realm. The king called a third Parliament [1628], and soon perceived that the opposition was stronger and fiercer than ever. He now determined on a change of tactics. Instead of opposing an inflexible resistance to the demands of the commons, he, after much altercation and many evasions, agreed to a compromise which, if he had faithfully adhered to it, would have averted a long series of calamities. The Parliament granted an ample supply. The King ratified, in the most solemn manner, that celebrated law which is known by the name of the Petition of Right, and which is the second Great Charter of the liberties of England."

ALSO IN: J. R. Green, History of the English People, book 7, chapter 5 (volume 3).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1627-1628.
Buckingham's war with France and expedition to La Rochelle.

"Charles had recourse to many subterfuges in hopes to elude the passing of this law; rather perhaps through wounded pride, as we may judge from his subsequent conduct, than much apprehension that it would create a serious impediment to his despotic schemes. He tried to persuade them to acquiesce in his royal promise not to arrest anyone without just cause, or in a simple confirmation of the Great Charter and other statutes in favour of liberty. The peers, too pliant in this instance to his wishes, and half receding from the patriot banner they had lately joined, lent him their aid by proposing amendments (insidious in those who suggested them, though not in the body of the house) which the commons firmly rejected. Even when the bill was tendered to him for that assent which it had been necessary, for the last two centuries, that the king should grant or refuse in a word, he returned a long and equivocal answer, from which it could only be collected that he did not intend to remit any portion of what he had claimed as his prerogative. But on an address from both houses for a more explicit answer, he thought fit to consent to the bill in the usual form. The commons, of whose harshness towards Charles his advocates have said so much, immediately passed a bill for granting five subsidies, about £350,000; a sum not too great for the wealth of the kingdom or for his exigencies, but considerable according to the precedents of former times, to which men naturally look. … The Petition of Right, … this statute is still called, from its not being drawn in the common form of an act of parliament." Although the king had been defeated in his attempt to qualify his assent to the Petition of Right, and had been forced to accede to it unequivocally, yet "he had the absurd and audacious insincerity (for we can use no milder epithets), to circulate 1,500 copies of it through the country, after the prorogation, with his first answer annexed; an attempt to deceive without the possibility of success. But instances of such ill-faith, accumulated as they are through the life of Charles, render the assertion of his sincerity a proof either of historical ignorance or of a want of moral delicacy."

"To the King's Most Excellent Majesty. Humbly show unto our Sovereign Lord the King, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons in Parliament assembled, that whereas it is declared and enacted by a statute made in the time of the reign of King Edward the First, commonly called, 'Statutum de Tallagio non concedendo,' that no tallage or aid shall be laid or levied by the King or his heirs in this realm, without the goodwill and assent of the Archbishops, Bishops, Earls, Barons, Knights, Burgesses, and other the freemen of the commonalty of this realm: and by authority of Parliament holden in the five and twentieth year of the reign of King Edward the Third, it is declared and enacted, that from thenceforth no person shall be compelled to make any loans to the King against his will, because such loans were against reason and the franchise of the land; and by other laws of this realm it is provided, that none should be charged by any charge or imposition, called a Benevolence, or by such like charge, by which the statutes before-mentioned, and other the good laws and statutes of this realm, your subjects have inherited this freedom, that they should not be compelled to contribute to any tax, tallage, aid, or other like charge, not set by common consent in Parliament: Yet nevertheless, of late divers commissions directed to sundry Commissioners in several counties with instructions have issued, by means whereof your people have been in divers places assembled, and required to lend certain sums of money unto your Majesty, and many of them upon their refusal so to do, have had an oath administered unto them, not warrantable by the laws or statutes of this realm, and have been constrained to become bound to make appearance and give attendance before your Privy Council, and in other places, and others of them have been therefore imprisoned, confined, and sundry other ways molested and disquieted: and divers other charges have been laid and levied upon your people in several counties, by Lords Lieutenants, Deputy Lieutenants, Commissioners for Musters, Justices of Peace and others, by command or direction from your Majesty or your Privy Council, against the laws and free customs of this realm: And where also by the statute called, 'The Great Charter of the Liberties of England,' it is declared and enacted, that no freeman may be taken or imprisoned or be disseised of his freeholds or liberties, or his free customs, or be outlawed or exiled; or in any manner destroyed, but by the lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land: And in the eight and twentieth year of the reign of King Edward the Third, it was declared and enacted by authority of Parliament, that no man of what estate or condition that he be, should be put out of his lands or tenements, nor taken, nor imprisoned, nor disherited, nor put to death, without being brought to answer by due process of law: Nevertheless, against the tenor of the said statutes, and other the good laws and statutes of your realm, to that end provided, divers of your subjects have of late been imprisoned without any cause showed, and when for their deliverance they were brought before your Justices, by your Majesty's writs of Habeas Corpus, there to undergo and receive as the Court should order, and their keepers commanded to certify the causes of their detainer; no cause was certified, but that they were detained by your Majesty's special command, signified by the Lords of your Privy Council, and yet were returned back to several prisons, without being charged with anything to which they might make answer according to the law: And whereas of late great companies of soldiers and mariners have been dispersed into divers counties of the realm, and the inhabitants against their wills have been compelled to receive them into their houses, and there to suffer them to sojourn, against the laws and customs of this realm, and to the great grievance and vexation of the people: And whereas also by authority of Parliament, in the 25th year of the reign of King Edward the Third, it is declared and enacted, that no man shall be forejudged of life or limb against the form of the Great Charter, and the law of the land: {849} and by the said Great Charter and other the laws and statutes of this your realm, no man ought to be adjudged to death; but by the laws established in this your realm, either by the customs of the same realm or by Acts of Parliament: and whereas no offender of what kind soever is exempted from the proceedings to be used, and punishments to be inflicted by the laws and statutes of this your realm: nevertheless of late divers commissions under your Majesty's Great Seal have issued forth, by which certain persons have been assigned and appointed Commissioners with power and authority to proceed within the land, according to the justice of martial law against such soldiers and mariners, or other dissolute persons joining with them, as should commit any murder, robbery, felony, mutiny, or other outrage or misdemeanour whatsoever, and by such summary course and order, as is agreeable to martial law, and is used in armies in time of war, to proceed to the trial and condemnation of such offenders, and them to cause to be executed and put to death, according to the law martial: By pretext whereof, some of your Majesty's subjects have been by some of the said Commissioners put to death, when and where, if by the laws and statutes of the land they had deserved death, by the same laws and statutes also they might, and by no other ought to have been, adjudged and executed: And also sundry grievous offenders by colour thereof, claiming an exemption, have escaped the punishments due to them by the laws and statutes of this your realm, by reason that divers of your officers and ministers of justice have unjustly refused, or forborne to proceed against such offenders according to the same laws and statutes, upon pretence that the said offenders were punishable only by martial law, and by authority of such commissions as aforesaid, which commissions, and all other of like nature, are wholly and directly contrary to the said laws and statutes of this your realm: They do therefore humbly pray your Most Excellent Majesty, that no man hereafter be compelled to make or yield any gift, loan, benevolence, tax, or such like charge, without common consent by Act of Parliament; and that none be called to make answer, or take such oath, or to give attendance, or be confined, or otherwise molested or disquieted concerning the same, or for refusal thereof; and that no freeman, in any such manner as is before-mentioned, be imprisoned or detained; and that your Majesty will be pleased to remove the said soldiers and mariners, and that your people may not be so burdened in time to come; and that the foresaid commissions for proceeding by martial law, may be revoked and annulled; and that hereafter no commissions of like nature may issue forth to any person or persons whatsoever, to be executed as aforesaid, lest by colour of them any of your Majesty's subjects be destroyed or put to death, contrary to the laws and franchise of the land. All which they most humbly pray of your Most Excellent Majesty, as their rights and liberties according to the laws and statutes of this realm: and that your Majesty would also vouchsafe to declare, that the awards, doings, and proceedings to the prejudice of your people, in any of the premises, shall not be drawn hereafter into consequence or example: and that your Majesty would be also graciously pleased, for the further comfort and safety of your people, to declare your royal will and pleasure, that in the things aforesaid all your officers and ministers shall serve you, according to the laws and statutes of this realm, as they tender the honour of your Majesty, and the prosperity of this kingdom. [Which Petition being read the 2nd of June 1628, the King's answer was thus delivered unto it. The King willeth that right be done according to the laws and customs of the realm; and that the statutes be put in due execution, that his subjects may have no cause to complain of any wrong or oppressions, contrary to their just rights and liberties, to the preservation whereof he holds himself as well obliged as of his prerogative. On June 7 the answer was given in the accustomed form, 'Soit droit fait comme il est désiré.']"

      J. L. De Lolme,
      The English Constitution,
      chapter 7 (volume 1).

"While the struggle [over the Petition of Right] was going on, the popular hatred of Buckingham [the King's favourite, whose influence at court was supreme] showed itself in a brutal manner. In the streets of London, the Duke's physician, Dr. Lambe, was set upon by the mob, called witch, devil, and the Duke's conjuror, and absolutely beaten to death. The Council set inquiries on foot, but no individual was brought before it, and the rhyme went from mouth to mouth—'Let Charles and George do what they can, The Duke shall die like Doctor Lambe.' … Charles, shocked and grieved, took his friend in his own coach through London to see the ten ships which were being prepared at Deptford for the relief of Rochelle. It was reported that he was heard to say, 'George, there are some that wish that both these and thou might perish. But care not thou for them. We will both perish together if thou dost.' There must have been something strangely attractive about the man who won and kept the hearts of four personages so dissimilar as James and Charles of England, Anne of Austria, and William Laud. … In the meantime Rochelle held out." One attempt to relieve the beleaguered town had failed. Buckingham was to command in person the armament now in preparation for another attempt. "The fleet was at Portsmouth, and Buckingham went down thither in high spirits to take the command. The King came down to Sir Daniel Norton's house at Southwick. On the 23d of August Buckingham rose and 'cut a caper or two' before the barber dealt with his moustache and lovelocks. Then he was about to sit down to breakfast with a number of captains, and as he rose he received letters which made him believe that Rochelle had been relieved. He said he must tell the King instantly, but Soubise and the other refugees did not believe a word of it, and there was a good deal of disputing and gesticulation between them. He crossed a lobby, followed by the eager Frenchmen, and halted to take leave of an officer, Sir Thomas Fryar. Over the shoulder of this gentleman, as he bowed, a knife was thrust into Buckingham's breast. There was an effort to withdraw it; a cry 'The Villain!' and the great Duke, at 36 years old, was dead. The attendants at first thought the blow came from one of the noisy Frenchmen, and were falling on them." But a servant had seen the deed committed, and ran after the assassin, who was arrested and proved to be one John Felton, a soldier and a man of good family. He had suffered wrongs which apparently unhinged his mind.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1628-1632.
Conquest and brief occupation of Canada and Nova Scotia.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1629.
The royal charter granted to the Governor and Company of
Massachusetts Bay.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1629.
Tonnage and Poundage.
The tumult in Parliament and the dissolution.

Charles' third Parliament, prorogued on the 26th of June, 1628, reassembled on the 20th of January, 1629. "The Parliament Session proved very brief; but very energetic, very extraordinary. Tonnage and Poundage, what we now call Customhouse duties, a constant subject of quarrel between Charles and his Parliaments hitherto, had again been levied without Parliamentary consent; in the teeth of old 'Tallagio non concedendo,' nay even of the late solemnly confirmed Petition of Right; and naturally gave rise to Parliamentary consideration. Merchants had been imprisoned for refusing to pay it; Members of Parliament themselves had been 'supoena'd': there was a very ravelled coil to deal with in regard to Tonnage and Poundage. Nay the Petition of Right itself had been altered in the Printing; a very ugly business too. In regard to Religion also, matters looked equally ill. Sycophant Mainwaring, just censured in Parliament, had been promoted to a fatter living. Sycophant Montague, in the like circumstances, to a Bishopric: Laud was in the act of consecrating him at Croydon, when the news of Buckingham's death came thither. There needed to be a Committee of Religion. The House resolved itself into a Grand Committee of Religion; and did not want for matter. Bishop Neile of Winchester, Bishop Laud now of London, were a frightfully ceremonial pair of Bishops; the fountain they of innumerable tendencies to Papistry and the old clothes of Babylon. It was in this Committee of Religion, on the 11th day of February, 1628-9, that Mr. Cromwell, Member for Huntingdon, stood up and made his first speech, a fragment of which has found its way into History. … A new Remonstrance behoves to be resolved upon; Bishops Neile and Laud are even to be 'named' there. Whereupon, before they could get well 'named' … the King hastily interfered. This Parliament, in a fortnight more, was dissolved; and that under circumstances of the most unparalleled sort. For Speaker Finch, as we have seen, was a Courtier, in constant communication with the King: one day, while these high matters were astir, Speaker Finch refused to 'put the question' when ordered by the House! He said he had orders to the contrary; persisted in that;—and at last took to weeping. What was the House to do? Adjourn for two days; and consider what to do! On the second day, which was Wednesday, Speaker Finch signified that by his Majesty's command they were again adjourned till Monday next. On Monday next, Speaker Finch, still recusant, would not put the former nor indeed any question, having the King's order to adjourn again instantly. He refused; was reprimanded, menaced; once more took to weeping; then started up to go his ways. But young Mr. Holles, Denzil Holles, the Earl of Clare's second son, he and certain other honourable members were prepared for that movement: they seized Speaker Finch, set him down in his chair, and by main force held him there! A scene of such agitation as was never seen in Parliament before. 'The House was much troubled.' 'Let him go,' cried certain Privy Councillors, Majesty's Ministers as we should now call them, who in those days sat in front of the Speaker, 'Let Mr. Speaker go!' cried they imploringly. 'No!' answered Holles; 'God's wounds, he shall sit there till it please the House to rise!' The House in a decisive though almost distracted manner, with their Speaker thus held down for them, locked their doors; redacted Three emphatic Resolutions, their Protest against Arminianism, Papistry, and illegal Tonnage and Poundage; and passed the same by acclamation; letting no man out, refusing to let even the King's Usher in; then swiftly vanishing so soon as the resolutions were passed, for they understood the soldiery was coming. For which surprising procedure, vindicated by Necessity the mother of Invention, and supreme of Lawgivers, certain honourable gentlemen, Denzil Holles, Sir John Eliot, William Strode, John Selden, and others less known to us, suffered fine, imprisonment, and much legal tribulation: nay Sir John Eliot, refusing to submit, was kept in the Tower till he died. This scene fell out on Monday, 2d of March, 1629."

      T. Carlyle,
      Introduction to Oliver Cromwell's Letters and Speeches,
      chapter 4.

      ALSO IN:
      J. Forster,
      Sir John Eliot: a Biography,
      book 10, section 6-8 (volume 2).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1630.
Emigration of the Governor and Company of Massachusetts Bay,
with their royal charter.

"When Charles, having quarreled with his parliament, stood alone in the midst of his kingdom, seeking on all sides the means of governing, the Anglican clergy believed this day [for establishing the independent and uncontrolled power of their church] was come. They had again got immense wealth, and enjoyed it without dispute. The papists no longer inspired them with alarm. The primate of the church, Laud, possessed the entire confidence of the king and alone directed all ecclesiastical affairs. Among the other ministers, none professed, like lord Burleigh under Elizabeth, to fear and struggle against the encroachments of the clergy. The courtiers were indifferent, or secret papists. Learned men threw lustre over the church. The universities, that of Oxford more especially, were devoted to her maxims. Only one adversary remained—the people, each day more discontented with uncompleted reform, and more eager fully to accomplish it. But this adversary was also the adversary of the throne; it claimed at the same time, the one to secure the other, evangelical faith and civil liberty. {851} The same peril threatened the sovereignty of the crown and of episcopacy. The king, sincerely pious, seemed disposed to believe that he was not the only one who held his authority from God, and that the power of the bishops was neither of less high origin, nor of less sacred character. Never had so many favourable circumstances seemed combined to enable the clergy to achieve independence of the crown, dominion over the people. Laud set himself to work with his accustomed vehemence. First, it was essential that all dissensions in the bosom of the church itself should cease, and that the strictest uniformity should infuse strength into its doctrines, its discipline, its worship. He applied himself to this task with the most unhesitating and unscrupulous resolution. Power was exclusively concentrated into the hands of the bishops. The court of high commission, where they took cognizance of and decided everything relating to religious matters, became day by day more arbitrary, more harsh in its jurisdiction, its forms and its penalties. The complete adoption of the Anglican canons, the minute observance of the liturgy, and the rites enforced in cathedrals, were rigorously exacted on the part of the whole ecclesiastical body. A great many livings were in the hands of nonconformists; they were withdrawn from them. The people crowded to their sermons; they were forbidden to preach. … Persecution followed and reached them everywhere. … Meantime, the pomp of catholic worship speedily took possession of the churches deprived of their pastors; while persecution kept away the faithful, magnificence adorned the walls. They were consecrated amid great display, and it was then necessary to employ force to collect a congregation. Laud was fond of prescribing minutely the details of new ceremonies—sometimes borrowed from Rome, sometimes the production of his own imagination, at once ostentatious and austere. On the part of the nonconformists, every innovation, the least derogation from the canons or the liturgy, was punished as a crime; yet Laud innovated without consulting anybody, looking to nothing beyond the king's consent, and sometimes acting entirely upon his own authority. … And all these changes had, if not the aim, at all events the result, of rendering the Anglican church more and more like that of Rome. … Books were published to prove that the doctrine of the English bishops might very well adapt itself to that of Rome; and these books, though not regularly licensed, were dedicated to the king or to Laud, and openly tolerated. … The splendour and exclusive dominion of episcopacy thus established, at least so he flattered himself, Laud proceeded to secure its independence. … The divine right of bishops became, in a short time, the official doctrine, not only of the upper clergy, but of the king himself. … By the time things had come to this pass, the people were not alone in their anger. The high nobility, part of them at least, took the alarm. They saw in the progress of the church far more than mere tyranny; it was a regular revolution, which, not satisfied with crushing popular reforms, disfigured and endangered the first reformation; that which kings had made and the aristocracy adopted."

      G. G. Perry,
      History of the Church of England,
      chapters 13-16 (volume l).

      P. Bayne,
      The Chief Actors of the Puritan Revolution,
      chapter 3.

"The aspect of public affairs grew darker and darker. … All the promises of the king were violated without scruple or shame. The Petition of Right, to which he had, in consideration of moneys duly numbered, given a solemn assent, was set at naught. Taxes were raised by the royal authority. Patents of monopoly were granted. The old usages of feudal times were made pretexts for harassing the people with exactions unknown during many years. The Puritans were persecuted with cruelty worthy of the Holy Office. They were forced to fly from the country. They were imprisoned. They were whipped. Their ears were cut off. Their noses were slit. Their cheeks were branded with red-hot iron. But the cruelty of the oppressor could not tire out the fortitude of the victims. … The hardy sect grew up and flourished, in spite of everything that seemed likely to stunt it, struck its roots deep into a. barren soil, and spread its branches wide to an inclement sky. … For the misgovernment of this disastrous period, Charles himself is principally responsible. After the death of Buckingham, he seemed to have been his own prime minister. He had, however, two counsellors who seconded him, or went beyond him, in intolerance and lawless violence; the one a superstitious driveller, as honest as a vile temper would suffer him to be; the other a man of great valour and capacity, but licentious, faithless, corrupt, and cruel. Never were faces more strikingly characteristic of the individuals to whom they belonged than those of Laud and Strafford, as they still remain portrayed by the most skilful hand of that age. The mean forehead, the pinched features, the peering eyes of the prelate suit admirably with his disposition. They mark him out as a lower kind of Saint Dominic. … But Wentworth—whoever names him without thinking of those harsh dark features, ennobled by their expression into more than the majesty of an antique Jupiter! … Among the humbler tools of Charles were Chief-Justice Finch, and Noy, the attorney-general. Noy had, like Wentworth, supported the cause of liberty in Parliament, and had, like Wentworth, abandoned that cause for the sake of office. He devised, in conjunction with Finch, a scheme of exaction which made the alienation of the people from the throne complete. A writ was issued by the king, commanding the city of London to equip and man ships of war for his service. Similar writs were sent to the towns along the coast. These measures, though they were direct violations of the Petition of Right, had at least some show of precedent in their favour. But, after a time, the government took a step for which no precedent could be pleaded, and sent writs of ship-money to the inland counties. This was a stretch of power on which Elizabeth herself had not ventured, even at a time when all laws might with propriety have been made to bend to that highest law, the safety of the state. The inland counties had not been required to furnish ships, or money in the room of ships, even when the Armada was approaching our shores. {852} It seemed intolerable that a prince, who, by assenting to the Petition of Right, had relinquished the power of levying ship-money even in the outports, should be the first to levy it on parts of the kingdom where it had been unknown, under the most absolute of his predecessors. Clarendon distinctly admits that this tax was intended, not only for the support of the navy, but 'for a spring and magazine that should have no bottom, and for an everlasting supply on all occasions.' The nation well understood this; and from one end of England to the other, the public mind was strongly excited. Buckinghamshire was assessed at a ship of 450 tons, or a sum of £4,500. The share of the tax which fell to Hampden was very small [twenty shillings]; so small, indeed, that the sheriff was blamed for setting so wealthy a man at so low a rate. But, though the sum demanded was a trifle, the principle of the demand was despotism. Hampden, after consulting the most eminent constitutional lawyers of the time, refused to pay the few shillings at which he was assessed; and determined to incur all the certain expense and the probable danger of bringing to a solemn hearing this great controversy between the people and the crown. … Towards the close of the year 1636, this great cause came on in the Exchequer Chamber before all the judges of England. The leading counsel against the writ was the celebrated Oliver St. John; a man whose temper was melancholy, whose manners were reserved, and who was as yet little known in Westminster Hall; but whose great talents had not escaped the penetrating eye of Hampden. The arguments of the counsel occupied many days; and the Exchequer Chamber took a considerable time for deliberation. The opinion of the bench was divided. So clearly was the law in favour of Hampden, that though the judges held their situations only during the royal pleasure, the majority against him was the least possible. Four of the twelve pronounced decidedly in his favour; a fifth took a middle course. The remaining seven gave their voices in favour of the writ. The only effect of this decision was to make the public indignation stronger and deeper. 'The judgment,' says Clarendon, 'proved of more advantage and credit to the gentleman condemned than to the king's service.' The courage which Hampden had shown on this occasion, as the same historian tells us, 'raised his reputation to a great height generally throughout the kingdom.'"

S. R. Gardiner, History of England, 1603-1642, chapter 74 (volume 7), and chapters 77 and 82 (volume 8);

ALSO

ENGLAND: A. D. 1638-1640.
Presbyterianism of the Puritan party.
Rise of the independents.

"It is the artifice of the favourers of the Catholic and of the prelatical party to call all who are sticklers for the constitution in church or state, or would square their actions by any rule, human or divine, Puritans."

"These men [the Puritan party], at the commencement of the civil war, were presbyterians: and such had at that time been the great majority of the serious, the sober, and the conscientious people of England. There was a sort of imputation of laxness of principles, and of a tendency to immorality of conduct, upon the adherents of the establishment, which was infinitely injurious to the episcopal church. But these persons, whose hearts were in entire opposition to the hierarchy, had for the most part no difference of opinion among themselves, and therefore no thought of toleration for difference of opinion in others. Their desire was to abolish episcopacy and set up presbytery. They thought and talked much of the unity of the church of God, and of the cordial consent and agreement of its members, and considered all sects and varieties of sentiment as a blemish and scandal upon their holy religion. They would put down popery and episcopacy with the strong hand of the law, and were disposed to employ the same instrument to suppress all who should venture to think the presbyterian church itself not yet sufficiently spiritual and pure. Against this party, which lorded it for a time almost without contradiction, gradually arose the party of the independents. … Before the end of the civil war they became almost as strong as the party of the presbyterians, and greatly surpassed them in abilities, intellectual, military and civil."

      See, also,
      INDEPENDENTS; ENGLAND:
      A. D. 1643 (JULY) and (JULY-SEPTEMBER),
      A. D. 1646 (MARCH),
      A. D. 1647 (APRIL-AUGUST),
      and A. D. 1648 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1640.
The Short Parliament and the Second Bishops' War.
The Scots Army in England.

   "His Majesty having burnt Scotch paper Declarations 'by the
   hands of the common hangman,' and almost cut the Scotch
   Chancellor Loudon's head off, and being again resolute to
   chastise the rebel Scots with an Army, decides on summoning a
   Parliament for that end, there being no money attainable
   otherwise. To the great and glad astonishment of England;
   which, at one time, thought never to have seen another
   Parliament! Oliver Cromwell sat in this Parliament for
   Cambridge; recommended by Hampden, say some; not needing any
   recommendation in those Fen-countries, think others. Oliver's
   Colleague was a Thomas Meautys, Esq. This Parliament met, 13th
   April, 1640: it was by no means prompt enough with supplies
   against the rebel Scots; the king dismissed it in a huff, 5th
   May; after a Session of three weeks: Historians call it the
   Short Parliament. His Majesty decides on raising money and an
   Army 'by other methods': to which end Wentworth, now Earl
   Strafford and Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, who had advised that
   course in the Council, did himself subscribe £20,000.
   Archbishop Laud had long ago seen 'a cloud rising' against the
   Four surplices at Allhallowtide; and now it is covering the
   whole sky in a most dismal and really thundery-looking manner.
   His Majesty by 'other methods,' commission of array, benevolence,
   forced loan, or how he could, got a kind of Army on foot, and
   set it marching out of the several Counties in the South
   towards the Scotch Border; but it was a most hopeless Army.
   The soldiers called the affair a Bishops' War; they mutinied
   against their officers, shot some of their officers: in
   various Towns on their march, if the Clergyman were reputed
   Puritan, they went and gave him three cheers; if of
   Surplice-tendency, they sometimes threw his furniture out of
   the window.
{853}
   No fighting against poor Scotch Gospellers was to be hoped for
   from these men. Meanwhile the Scots, not to be behindhand, had
   raised a good Army of their own; and decided on going into
   England with it, this time, 'to present their grievances to
   the King's Majesty.' On the 20th of August, 1640, they cross
   the Tweed at Coldstream; Montrose wading in the van of them
   all. They wore uniform of hodden gray, with blue caps; and
   each man had a moderate haversack of oatmeal on his back.
   August 28th, the Scots force their way across the Tyne, at
   Newburn, some miles above Newcastle; the King's Army making
   small fight, most of them no fight; hurrying from Newcastle,
   and all town and country quarters, towards York again, where
   his Majesty and Strafford were. The Bishops' War was at an
   end. The Scots, striving to be gentle as doves in their
   behaviour, and publishing boundless brotherly Declarations to
   all the brethren that loved Christ's Gospel and God's Justice
   in England,—took possession of Newcastle next day; took
   possession gradually of all Northumberland and Durham,—and
   stayed there, in various towns and villages, about a year. The
   whole body of English Puritans looked upon them as their
   saviours. … His Majesty and Strafford, in a fine frenzy at
   the turn of affairs, found no refuge, except to summon a
   'Council of Peers,' to enter upon a 'Treaty' with the Scots;
   and alas, at last, summon a New Parliament. Not to be helped
   in any way. … A Parliament was appointed for the 3d of
   November next;—whereupon London cheerfully lent £200,000; and
   the Treaty with the Scots at Ripon, 1st October, 1640, by and
   by transferred to London, went peaceably on at a very
   leisurely pace. The Scotch Army lay quartered at Newcastle,
   and over Northumberland and Durham, on an allowance of £850 a
   day; an Army indispensable for Puritan objects; no haste in
   finishing its Treaty. The English army lay across in
   Yorkshire; without allowance except from the casualties of the
   King's Exchequer; in a dissatisfied manner, and occasionally
   getting into 'Army-Plots.' This Parliament, which met on the
   3d of November; 1640, has become very celebrated in History by
   the name of the 'Long Parliament.'"

      ALSO IN:
      J. Forster,
      Statesmen of the Commonwealth: Strafford.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1640-1641.
The Long Parliament and the beginning of its work.
Impeachment and Execution of Strafford.

"The game of tyranny was now up. Charles had risked and lost his last stake. It is impossible to trace the mortifications and humiliations which this bad man now had to endure without a feeling of vindictive pleasure. His army was mutinous; his treasury was empty; his people clamoured for a Parliament; addresses and petitions against the government were presented. Strafford was for shooting those who presented them by martial law, but the king could not trust the soldiers. A great council of Peers was called at York, but the king would not trust even the Peers. He struggled, he evaded, he hesitated, he tried every shift rather than again face the representatives of his injured people. At length no shift was left. He made a truce with the Scots, and summoned a Parliament. … On the 3d of November, 1640—a day to be long remembered—met that great Parliament, destined to every extreme of fortune—to empire and to servitude, to glory and to contempt;—at one time the sovereign of its sovereign, at another time the servant of its servants, and the tool of its tools. From the first day of its meeting the attendance was great, and the aspect of the members was that of men not disposed to do the work negligently. The dissolution of the late Parliament had convinced most of them that half measures would no longer suffice. Clarendon tells us that 'the same men who, six months before, were observed to be of very moderate tempers, and to wish that gentle remedies might be applied, talked now in another dialect both of kings and persons; and said that they must now be of another temper than they were the last Parliament.' The debt of vengeance was swollen by all the usury which had been accumulating during many years; and payment was made to the full. This memorable crisis called forth parliamentary abilities, such as England had never before seen. Among the most distinguished members of the House of Commons were Falkland, Hyde, Digby, Young, Harry Vane, Oliver St. John, Denzil Hollis, Nathaniel Fiennes. But two men exercised a paramount influence over the legislature and the country—Pym and Hampden; and, by the universal consent of friends and enemies, the first place belonged to Hampden."

      Lord Macaulay,
      Nugent's Memorials of Hampden
      (Critical and Miscellaneous Essays, volume 2).

   "The resolute looks of the members as they gathered at
   Westminster contrasted with the hesitating words of the king,
   and each brought from borough or county a petition of
   grievances. Fresh petitions were brought every day by bands of
   citizens or farmers. Forty committees were appointed to
   examine and report on them, and their reports formed the
   grounds on which the Commons acted. One by one the illegal
   acts of the Tyranny were annulled. Prynne and his fellow
   'martyrs' recalled from their prisons, entered London in
   triumph, amid the shouts of a great multitude who strewed
   laurel in their path. The civil and criminal jurisdiction of
   the Privy Council, the Star Chamber, the Court of High
   Commission, the irregular jurisdictions of the Council of the
   North, of the Duchy of Lancaster, the County of Chester, and a
   crowd of lesser tribunals, were summarily abolished.
   Ship-money was declared illegal, and the judgment in Hampden's
   case annulled. A statute declaring 'the ancient right of the
   subjects of this kingdom that no subsidy, custom, impost, or
   any charge whatsoever, ought or may be laid or imposed upon
   any merchandize exported or imported by subjects, denizens or
   allies, without common consent of Parliament,' put an end
   forever to all pretensions to a right of arbitrary taxation on
   the part of the crown. A Triennial Bill enforced the Assembly
   of the Houses every three years, and bound the sheriff and
   citizens to proceed to election if the Royal writ failed to
   summon them. Charles protested, but gave way. He was forced to
   look helplessly on at the wreck of his Tyranny, for the Scotch
   army was still encamped in the north. … Meanwhile the
   Commons were dealing roughly with the agents of the Royal
   system. …
{854}
   Windebank, the Secretary of State, with the Chancellor, Finch,
   fled in terror over sea. Laud himself was flung into prison.
   … But even Laud, hateful as he was to all but the poor
   neighbours whose prayers his alms had won, was not the centre
   of so great and universal a hatred as the Earl of Strafford.
   Strafford's guilt was more than the guilt of a servile
   instrument of tyranny—it was the guilt of 'that grand
   apostate to the Commonwealth who,' in the terrible words which
   closed Lord Digby's invective, 'must not expect to be pardoned
   in this world till he be dispatched to the other.' He was
   conscious of his danger, but Charles forced him to attend the
   Court.' He came to London with the solemn assurance of his
   master that, "while there was a king in England, not a hair of
   Strafford's head should be touched by the Parliament."
   Immediately impeached of high treason by the Commons, and sent
   to the Tower, he received from the king a second and more
   solemn pledge, by letter, that, "upon the word of a king, you
   shall not suffer in life, honour or fortune." But the "word of
   a king" like Charles Stuart, had neither honor nor gratitude, nor
   a decent self respect behind it. He could be false to a friend
   as easily as to an enemy. When the Commons, fearing failure on
   the trial of their impeachment, resorted to a bill of
   attainder, Charles signed it with a little resistance, and
   Strafford went bravely and manfully to the block. "As the axe
   fell, the silence of the great multitude was broken by a
   universal shout of joy. The streets blazed with bonfires. The
   bells clashed out from every steeple."

The king "was as deeply pledged to Strafford as one man could be to another; he was as vitally concerned in saving the life and prolonging the service of incomparably his ablest servant as was ever any sovereign in the case of any minister; yet it is clear that for some days past, probably ever since the first signs of popular tumult began to manifest themselves, he had been wavering. Four days before the Bill passed the Lords, Strafford as is well known, entreated the king to assent to it. There is no reason to doubt the absolute sincerity with which, at the moment of its conception, the prisoner penned his famous letter from the Tower. That passionate chivalry of loyalty, which has never animated any human heart in equal intensity since Strafford's ceased to beat, inspires every line. … Charles turned distractedly from one adviser to another, not so much for counsel as for excuse. He did not want his judgment guided, but his conscience quieted; and his counsellors knew it. They had other reasons, too, for urging him to his dishonour. Panic seems to have seized upon them all. The only man who would not have quailed before the fury of the populace was the man himself whose life was trembling in the balance. The judges were summoned to declare their opinion, and replied, with an admirable choice of non-committing terms, that 'upon all that which their Lordships have voted to be proved the Earl of Strafford doth deserve to undergo the pains and forfeitures of high treason.' Charles sent for the bishops, and the bishops, with the honourable exception of Juxon, informed him that he had two consciences,—a public and a private conscience,—and that 'his public conscience as a king might not only dispense with, but oblige him to do, that which was against his conscience as a man.' What passed between these two tenants in common of the royal breast during the whole of Sunday, May 9th, 1641, is within no earthly knowledge; but at some time on that day Charles's public conscience got the better of its private rival. He signed a commission for giving the royal assent to the Bill, and on Monday, May 10th, in the presence of a House scarcely able to credit the act of betrayal which was taking place before them, the Commissioners pronounced the fatal Le roi le veult over the enactment which condemned his Minister to the block. Charles, of course, might still have reprieved him by an exercise of the prerogative, but the fears which made him acquiesce in the sentence availed to prevent him from arresting its execution."

   "It is a sorry office to plant the foot on a worm so crushed
   and writhing as the wretched king … [who abandoned
   Strafford] for it was one of the few crimes of which he was in
   the event thoroughly sensible, and friend has for once
   cooperated with foe in the steady application to it of the
   branding iron. There is in truth hardly any way of relieving
   the 'damned spot' of its intensity of hue even by distributing
   the concentrated infamy over other portions of Charles's
   character. … When we have convinced ourselves that this
   'unthankful king' never really loved Strafford; that, as much
   as in him lay, he kept the dead Buckingham in his old
   privilege of mischief, by adopting his aversions and abiding
   by his spleenful purposes; that, in his refusals to award
   those increased honours for which his minister was a
   petitioner, on the avowed ground of the royal interest, may be
   discerned the petty triumph of one who dares not dispense with
   the services thrust upon him, but revenges himself by
   withholding their well-earned reward;—still does the
   blackness accumulate to baffle our efforts. The paltry tears
   he is said to have shed only burn that blackness in. If his
   after conduct indeed had been different, he might have availed
   himself of one excuse,—but that the man, who, in a few short
   months, proved that he could make so resolute a stand
   somewhere, should have judged this event no occasion for
   attempting it, is either a crowning infamy or an infinite
   consolation, according as we may judge wickedness or weakness
   to have preponderated in the constitution of Charles I. … As
   to Strafford's death, the remark that the people had no
   alternative, includes all that it is necessary to urge. The
   king's assurances of his intention to afford him no further
   opportunity of crime, could surely weigh nothing with men who
   had observed how an infinitely more disgusting minister of his
   will had only seemed to rise the higher in his master's
   estimation for the accumulated curses of the nation. Nothing
   but the knife of Felton could sever in that case the weak head
   and the wicked instrument, and it is to the honour of the
   adversaries of Strafford that they were earnest that their
   cause should vindicate itself completely, and look for no
   adventitious redress. Strafford had outraged the people—this
   was not denied. He was defended on the ground of those
   outrages not amounting to a treason against the king. For my
   own part, this defence appears to me decisive, looking at it
   in a technical view, and with our present settlement of
   evidence and treason.
{855}
   But to concede that point, after the advances they had made,
   would have been in that day to concede all. It was to be shown
   that another power had claim to the loyalty and the service of
   Strafford—and if a claim, then a vengeance to exact for its
   neglect. And this was done. … One momentary emotion …
   escaped … [Strafford] when he was told to prepare for death.
   He asked if the king had indeed assented to the bill.
   Secretary Carleton answered in the affirmative; and Strafford,
   laying his hand on his heart, and raising his eyes to heaven,
   uttered the memorable words,—'Put not your trust in princes,
   nor in the sons of men, for in them there is no salvation.'
   Charles's conduct was indeed incredibly monstrous."

      R. Browning,
      Thomas Wentworth, Earl of Strafford
      (Eminent British Statesmen, by John Forster, volume 2,
      pages 403-406).

      ALSO IN:
      J. Forster,
      Statesmen of the Commonwealth: Strafford; Pym.

      Earl of Clarendon,
      History of the Rebellion,
      book 3 (volume 1).

The following are the Articles of Impeachment under which
Strafford was tried and condemned:

   "Articles of the Commons, assembled in Parliament, against
   Thomas Earl of Strafford, in Maintenance of their Accusation,
   whereby he stands charged with High Treason.

I. That he the said Thomas earl of Strafford hath traiterously endeavoured to subvert the fundamental laws and government of the realms of England and Ireland, and, instead thereof, to introduce an arbitrary and tyrannical government, against law, which he hath declared by traiterous words, counsels, and actions, and by giving his majesty advice, by force of arms, to compel his loyal subjects to submit thereunto.

II. That he hath traiterously assumed to himself regal power over the lives, liberties of persons, lands, and goods of his majesty's subjects, in England and Ireland, and hath exercised the same tyrannically, to the subversion and undoing of many, both peers and others, of his majesty's liege people.

III. The better to inrich, and enable himself to go through with his traiterous designs, he hath detained a great part of his majesty's revenue, without giving any legal accounts; and hath taken great sums of money out of the exchequer, converting them to his own use, when his majesty was necessitated for his own urgent occasions, and his army had been a long time unpaid.

IV. That he hath traiterously abused the power and authority of his government, to the increasing, countenancing, and encouraging of Papists, that so he might settle a mutual dependence and confidence betwixt himself and that party, and by their help prosecute and accomplish his malicious and tyrannical designs.

V. That he hath maliciously endeavoured to stir up enmity and hostility between his majesty's subjects of England and those of Scotland.

VI. That he hath traiterously broken the great trust reposed in him by his majesty, of lieutenant general of his Army, by wilfully betraying divers of his majesty's subjects to death, his majesty's Army to a dishonourable defeat by the Scots at Newborne, and the town of Newcastle into their hands, to the end that, by effusion of blood, by dishonour, by so great a loss as of Newcastle, his majesty's realm of England might be engaged in a national and irreconcilable quarrel with the Scots.

VII. That, to preserve himself from being questioned for these and other his traiterous courses, he laboured to subvert the right of parliaments, and the ancient course of parliamentary proceedings, and, by false and malicious slanders, to incense his maj. against parliaments.—By which words, counsels, and actions, he hath traiterously, and contrary to his allegiance, laboured to alienate the hearts of the king's liege people from his maj. to set a division between them, and to ruin and destroy his majesty's kingdoms, for which they do impeach him of High Treason against our sovereign lord the king, his crown and dignity. And he the said earl of Strafford was lord deputy of Ireland, or lord lieutenant of Ireland, and lieutenant general of the Army there, under his majesty, and a sworn privy counsellor to his maj. for his kingdoms both of England and Ireland, and lord president of the North, during the time that all and every of the crimes and offences before set forth were done and committed; and he the said earl was lieutenant general of his majesty's Army in the North parts of England, during the time that the crimes and offences in the 5th and 6th Articles set forth were done and committed.—And the said commons, by protestation, saving to themselves the liberty of exhibiting at any time hereafter any other Accusation or Impeachment against the said earl, and also of replying to the Answer that he the said earl shall make unto the said Articles, or to any of them, and of offering proof also of the premises, or any of them, or of any other Accusation or Impeachment that shall be by them exhibited, as the case shall, according to the course of parliaments, require; and do pray that the said earl may be put to answer to all and every the premises; and that such proceedings, examination, trial, and judgment, may be upon every of them had and used, as is agreeable to law and justice."

"A bill was brought in [March, 1641], known as the Restraining Bill, to deprive Bishops of their rights of voting in the House of Lords. The opposition it encountered in that House induced the Commons to follow it up [May 27] with a more vehement measure, 'for the utter abolition of Archbishops, Bishops. Deans, Archdeacons, Prebendaries and Canons,' a measure known by the title of the Root and Branch Bill. By the skill of the royal partisans, this bill was long delayed in Committee."

ENGLAND: A. D. 1641 (October).
Roundheads and Cavaliers.
The birth of English parties.

   "After ten months of assiduous toil, the Houses, in September,
   1641, adjourned for a short vacation and the king visited
   Scotland. He with difficulty pacified that kingdom, by
   consenting not only to relinquish his plans of ecclesiastical
   reform, but even to pass, with a very bad grace, an act
   declaring that episcopacy was contrary to the word of God. The
   recess of the English Parliament lasted six weeks. The day on
   which the houses met again is one of the most remarkable
   epochs in our history. From that day dates the corporate
   existence of the two great parties which have ever since
   alternately governed the country. …
{856}
   During the first months of the Long Parliament, the
   indignation excited by many years of lawless oppression was so
   strong and general that the House of Commons acted as one man.
   Abuse after abuse disappeared without a struggle. If a small
   minority of the representative body wished to retain the Star
   Chamber and the High Commission, that minority, overawed by
   the enthusiasm and by the numerical superiority of the
   reformers, contented itself with secretly regretting
   institutions which could not, with any hope of success, be
   openly defended. At a later period the Royalists found it
   convenient to antedate the separation between themselves and
   their opponents, and to attribute the Act which restrained the
   king from dissolving or proroguing the Parliament, the
   Triennial Act, the impeachment of the ministers, and the
   attainder of Strafford, to the faction which afterwards made
   war on the king. But no artifice could be more disingenuous.
   Everyone of those strong measures was actively promoted by the
   men who were afterwards foremost among the Cavaliers. No
   republican spoke of the long misgovernment of Charles more
   severely than Colepepper. The most remarkable speech in favour
   of the Triennial Bill was made by Digby. The impeachment of
   the Lord Keeper was moved by Falkland. The demand that the
   Lord Lieutenant should be kept close prisoner was made at the
   bar of the Lords by Hyde. Not till the law attainting
   Strafford was proposed did the signs of serious disunion
   become visible. Even against that law, a law which nothing but
   extreme necessity could justify, only about sixty members of
   the House of Commons voted. It is certain that Hyde was not in
   the minority, and that Falkland not only voted with the
   majority, but spoke strongly for the bill. Even the few who
   entertained a scruple about inflicting death by a
   retrospective enactment thought it necessary to express the
   utmost abhorrence of Strafford's character and administration.
   But under this apparent concord a great schism was latent; and
   when, in October 1641, the Parliament reassembled after a
   short recess, two hostile parties, essentially the same with
   those which, under different names, have ever since contended,
   and are still contending, for the direction of public affairs,
   appeared confronting each other. During some years they were
   designated as Cavaliers and Roundheads. They were subsequently
   called Tories and Whigs; nor does it seem that these
   appellations are likely soon to become obsolete."

   It was not until some months later, however, that the name of
   Roundheads was applied to the defenders of popular rights by
   their royalist adversaries.

Early in November, 1641, the king being in Scotland, and news of the insurrection in Ireland having just reached London, the party of Pym, Hampden, and Cromwell "resolved on a great pitched battle between them and the opposition, which should try their relative strengths before the king's return; and they chose to fight this battle over a vast document, which they entitled 'A Declaration and Remonstrance of the State of the Kingdom,' but which has come to be known since as The Grand Remonstrance. … The notion of a great general document which, under the name of 'A Remonstrance,' should present to the king in one view a survey of the principal evils that had crept into the kingdom in his own and preceding reigns, with a detection of their causes, and a specification of the remedies, had more than once been before the Commons. It had been first mooted by Lord Digby while the Parliament was not a week old. Again and again set aside for more immediate work, it had recurred to the leaders of the Movement party, just before the king's departure for Scotland, as likely to afford the broad battle-ground with the opposition then becoming desirable. 'A Remonstrance to be made, how we found the Kingdom and the Church, and how the state of it now stands,' such was the description of the then intended document (August 7). The document had doubtless been in rehearsal through the Recess, for on the 8th of November the rough draft of it was presented to the House and read at the clerk's table. When we say that the document in its final form occupies thirteen folio pages of rather close print in Rushworth, and consists of a preamble followed by 206 articles or paragraphs duly numbered, one can conceive what a task the reading of even the first draft of it must have been, and through what a storm of successive debates over proposed amendments and additions it reached completeness. There had been no such debates yet in the Parliament."

"It [The Grand Remonstrance] embodies the case of the Parliament against the Ministers of the king. It is the most authentic statement ever put forth of the wrongs endured by all classes of the English people, during the first fifteen years of the reign of Charles I.; and, for that reason, the most complete justification upon record of the Great Rebellion." The debates on The Grand Remonstrance were begun November 9 and ended November 22, when the vote was taken: Ayes, 159.—Noes, 148.—So evenly were the parties in the great struggle then divided.

J. Forster, History and Biographical Essays, volume 1: Debates on the Grand Remonstrance.

The following is the text of "The Grand Remonstrance," with
that of the Petition preceding it:

   "Most Gracious Sovereign: Your Majesty's most humble and
   faithful subjects the Commons in this present Parliament
   assembled, do with much thankfulness and joy acknowledge the
   great mercy and favour of God, in giving your Majesty a safe
   and peaceable return out of Scotland into your kingdom of
   England, where the pressing dangers and distempers of the
   State have caused us with much earnestness to desire the
   comfort of your gracious presence, and likewise the unity and
   justice of your royal authority, to give more life and power
   to the dutiful and loyal counsels and endeavours of your
   Parliament, for the prevention of that eminent ruin and
   destruction wherein your kingdoms of England and Scotland are
   threatened. The duty which we owe to your Majesty and our
   country, cannot but make us very sensible and apprehensive,
   that the multiplicity, sharpness and malignity of those evils
   under which we have now many years suffered, are fomented and
   cherished by a corrupt and ill-affected party, who amongst
   other their mischievous devices for the alteration of religion
   and government, have sought by many false scandals and
   imputations, cunningly insinuated and dispersed amongst the
   people, to blemish and disgrace our proceedings in this
   Parliament, and to get themselves a party and faction amongst
   your subjects, for the better strengthening themselves in
   their wicked courses; and hindering those provisions and
   remedies which might, by the wisdom of your Majesty and
   counsel of your Parliament, be opposed against them.
{857}
   For preventing whereof, and the better information of your
   Majesty, your Peers and all other your loyal subjects, we have
   been necessitated to make a declaration of the state of the
   kingdom, both before and since the assembly of this
   Parliament, unto this time, which we do humbly present to your
   Majesty, without the least intention to lay any blemish upon
   your royal person, but only to represent how your royal
   authority and trust have been abused, to the great prejudice
   and danger of your Majesty, and of all your good subjects. And
   because we have reason to believe that those malignant
   parties, whose proceedings evidently appear to be mainly for
   the advantage and increase of Popery, is composed, set up, and
   acted by the subtile practice of the Jesuits and other
   engineers and factors for Rome, and to the great danger of
   this kingdom, and most grievous affliction of your loyal
   subjects, have so far prevailed as to corrupt divers of your
   Bishops and others in prime places of the Church, and also to
   bring divers of these instruments to be of your Privy Council,
   and other employments of trust and nearness about your
   Majesty, the Prince, and the rest of your royal children. And
   by this means have had such an operation in your counsel and
   the most important affairs and proceedings of your government,
   that a most dangerous division and chargeable preparation for
   war betwixt your kingdoms of England and Scotland, the
   increase of jealousies betwixt your Majesty and your most
   obedient subjects, the violent distraction and interruption of
   this Parliament, the insurrection of the Papists in your
   kingdom of Ireland, and bloody massacre of your people, have
   been not only endeavoured and attempted, but in a great
   measure compassed and effected. For preventing the final
   accomplishment whereof, your poor subjects are enforced to
   engage their persons and estates to the maintaining of a very
   expensive and dangerous war, notwithstanding they have already
   since the beginning of this Parliament undergone the charge of
   £150,000 sterling, or thereabouts, for the necessary support
   and supply of your Majesty in these present and perilous
   designs. And because all our most faithful endeavours and
   engagements will be ineffectual for the peace, safety and
   preservation of your Majesty and your people, if some present,
   real and effectual course be not taken for suppressing this
   wicked and malignant party:—We, your most humble and obedient
   subjects, do with all faithfulness and humility beseech your
   Majesty,

1. That you will be graciously pleased to concur with the humble desires of your people in a parliamentary way, for the preserving the peace and safety of the kingdom from the malicious designs of the Popish party:

For depriving the Bishops of their votes in Parliament, and abridging their immoderate power usurped over the Clergy, and other your good subjects, which they have perniciously abused to the hazard of religion, and great prejudice and oppression of the laws of the kingdom, and just liberty of your people:

For the taking away such oppressions in religion, Church government and discipline, as have been brought in and fomented by them;

For uniting all such your loyal subjects together as join in the same fundamental truths against the Papists, by removing some oppressions and unnecessary ceremonies by which divers weak consciences have been scrupled, and seem to be divided from the rest, and for the due execution of those good laws which have been made for securing the liberty of your subjects.

2. That your Majesty will likewise be pleased to remove from your council all such as persist to favour and promote any of those pressures and corruptions wherewith your people have been grieved, and that for the future your Majesty will vouchsafe to employ such persons in your great and public affairs, and to take such to be near you in places of trust, as your Parliament may have cause to confide in; that in your princely goodness to your people you will reject and refuse all mediation and solicitation to the contrary, how powerful and near soever.

3. That you will be pleased to forbear to alienate any of the forfeited and escheated lands in Ireland which shall accrue to your Crown by reason of this rebellion, that out of them the Crown may be the better supported, and some satisfaction made to your subjects of this kingdom for the great expenses they are like to undergo [in] this war. Which humble desires of ours being graciously fulfilled by your Majesty, we will, by the blessing and favour of God, most cheerfully undergo the hazard and expenses of this war, and apply ourselves to such other courses and counsels as may support your real estate with honour and plenty at home, with power and reputation abroad, and by our loyal affections, obedience and service, lay a sure and lasting foundation of the greatness and prosperity of your Majesty, and your royal prosperity in future times.

   The Commons in this present Parliament assembled, having with
   much earnestness and faithfulness of affection and zeal to the
   public good of this kingdom, and His Majesty's honour and
   service for the space of twelve months, wrestled with great
   dangers and fears, the pressing miseries and calamities, the
   various distempers and disorders which had not only assaulted,
   but even overwhelmed and extinguished the liberty, peace and
   prosperity of this kingdom, the comfort and hopes of all His
   Majesty's good subjects, and exceedingly weakened and
   undermined the foundation and strength of his own royal
   throne, do yet find an abounding malignity and opposition in
   those parties and factions who have been the cause of those
   evils, and do still labour to cast aspersions upon that which
   hath been done, and to raise many difficulties for the
   hindrance of that which remains yet undone, and to foment
   jealousies between the King and Parliament, that so they may
   deprive him and his people of the fruit of his own gracious
   intentions, and their humble desires of procuring the public
   peace, safety and happiness of this realm. For the preventing
   of those miserable effects which such malicious endeavours may
   produce, we have thought good to declare the root and the
   growth of these mischievous designs: the maturity and ripeness
   to which they have attained before the beginning of the
   Parliament: the effectual means which have been used for the
   extirpation of those dangerous evils, and the progress which
   hath therein been made by His Majesty's goodness and the
   wisdom of the Parliament: the ways of obstruction and
   opposition by which that progress hath been interrupted: the
   courses to be taken for the removing those obstacles, and for
   the accomplishing of our most dutiful and faithful intentions
   and endeavours of restoring and establishing the ancient
   honour, greatness and security of this Crown and nation.
{858}
   The root of all this mischief we find to be a malignant and
   pernicious design of subverting the fundamental laws and
   principles of government, upon which the religion and justice
   of this kingdom are firmly established. The actors and
   promoters hereof have been:

1. The Jesuited Papists, who hate the laws, as the obstacles of that change and subversion of religion which they so much long for.

2. The Bishops, and the corrupt part of the Clergy, who cherish formality and superstition as the natural effects and more probable supports of their own ecclesiastical tyranny and usurpation.

3. Such Councillors and Courtiers as for private ends have engaged themselves to further the interests of some foreign princes or states to the prejudice of His Majesty and the State at home. The common principles by which they moulded and governed all their particular counsels and actions were these: First, to maintain continual differences and discontents between the King and the people, upon questions of prerogative and liberty, that so they might have the advantage of siding with him, and under the notions of men addicted to his service, gain to themselves and their parties the places of greatest trust and power in the kingdom. A second, to suppress the purity and power of religion, and such persons as were best affected to it, as being contrary to their own ends, and the greatest impediment to that change which they thought to introduce. A third, to conjoin those parties of the kingdom which were most propitious to their own ends, and to divide those who were most opposite, which consisted in many particular observations. To cherish the Arminian part in those points wherein they agree with the Papists, to multiply and enlarge the difference between the common Protestants and those whom they call Puritans, to introduce and countenance such opinions and ceremonies as are fittest for accommodation with Popery, to increase and maintain ignorance, looseness and profaneness in the people; that of those three parties, Papists, Arminians and Libertines, they might compose a body fit to act such counsels and resolutions as were most conducible to their own ends. A fourth, to disaffect the King to Parliaments by slander and false imputations, and by putting him upon other ways of supply, which in show and appearance were fuller of advantage than the ordinary course of subsidies, though in truth they brought more loss than gain both to the King and people, and have caused the great distractions under which we both suffer. As in all compounded bodies the operations are qualified according to the predominant element, so in this mixed party, the Jesuited counsels, being most active and prevailing, may easily be discovered to have had the greatest sway in all their determinations, and if they be not prevented, are likely to devour the rest, or to turn them into their own nature. In the beginning of His Majesty's reign the party began to revive and flourish again, having been somewhat damped by the breach with Spain in the last year of King James, and by His Majesty's marriage with France; the interests and counsels of that State being not so contrary to the good of religion and the prosperity of this kingdom as those of Spain; and the Papists of England, having been ever more addicted to Spain than France, yet they still retained a purpose and resolution to weaken the Protestant parties in all parts, and even in France, whereby to make way for the change of religion which they intended at home.

1. The first effect and evidence of their recovery and strength was the dissolution of the Parliament at Oxford, after there had been given two subsidies to His Majesty, and before they received relief in any one grievance many other more miserable effects followed.

2. The loss of the Rochel fleet, by the help of our shipping, set forth and delivered over to the French in opposition to the advice of Parliament, which left that town without defence by sea, and made way, not only to the loss of that important place, but likewise to the loss of all the strength and security of the Protestant religion in France.

3. The diverting of His Majesty's course of wars from the West Indies, which was the most facile and hopeful way for this kingdom to prevail against the Spaniard, to an expenseful and successless attempt upon Cadiz, which was so ordered as if it had rather been intended to make us weary of war than to prosper in it.

4. The precipitate breach with France, by taking their ships to a great value without making recompense to the English, whose goods were thereupon imbarred and confiscated in that kingdom.

5. The peace with Spain without consent of Parliament, contrary to the promise of King James to both Houses, whereby the Palatine's cause was deserted and left to chargeable and hopeless treaties, which for the most part were managed by those who might justly be suspected to be no friends to that cause.

6. The charging of the kingdom with billeted soldiers in all parts of it, and the concomitant design of German horse, that the land might either submit with fear or be enforced with rigour to such arbitrary contributions as should be required of them.

7. The dissolving of the Parliament in the second year of His Majesty's reign, after a declaration of their intent to grant five subsidies.

8. The exacting of the like proportion of five subsidies, after the Parliament dissolved, by commission of loan, and divers gentlemen and others imprisoned for not yielding to pay that loan, whereby many of them contracted such sicknesses as cost them their lives.

10. An unjust and pernicious attempt to extort great payments from the subject by way of excise, and a commission issued under the seal to that purpose.

11. The Petition of Right, which was granted in full Parliament, blasted, with an illegal declaration to make it destructive to itself, to the power of Parliament, to the liberty of the subject, and to that purpose printed with it, and the Petition made of no use but to show the bold and presumptuous injustice of such ministers as durst break the laws and suppress the liberties of the kingdom, after they had been so solemnly and evidently declared.

12. Another Parliament dissolved 4 Car., the privilege of Parliament broken, by imprisoning divers members of the House, detaining them close prisoners for many months together, without the liberty of using books, pen, ink or paper; denying them all the comforts of life, all means of preservation of health, not permitting their wives to come unto them even in the time of their sickness.

13. And for the completing of that cruelty, after years spent in such miserable durance, depriving them of the necessary means of spiritual consolation, not suffering them to go abroad to enjoy God's ordinances in God's House, or God's ministers to come to them to minister comfort to them in their private chambers.

14. And to keep them still in this oppressed condition, not admitting them to be bailed according to law, yet vexing them with informations in inferior courts, sentencing and fining some of them for matters done in Parliament; and extorting the payments of those fines from them, enforcing others to put in security of good behaviour before they could be released.

15. The imprisonment of the rest, which refused to be bound, still continued, which might have been perpetual if necessity had not the last year brought another Parliament to relieve them, of whom one died [Sir John Eliot] by the cruelty and harshness of his imprisonment, which would admit of no relaxation, notwithstanding the imminent danger of his life, did sufficiently appear by the declaration of his physician, and his release, or at least his refreshment, was sought by many humble petitions, and his blood still cries either for vengeance or repentance of those Ministers of State, who have at once obstructed the course both of His Majesty's justice and mercy.

16. Upon the dissolution of both these Parliaments, untrue and scandalous declarations were published to asperse their proceedings, and some of their members unjustly; to make them odious, and colour the violence which was used against them; proclamations set out to the same purpose; and to the great dejecting of the hearts of the people, forbidding them even to speak of Parliaments.

17. After the breach of the Parliament in the fourth of His Majesty, injustice, oppression and violence broke in upon us without any restraint or moderation, and yet the first project was the great sums exacted through the whole kingdom for default of knighthood, which seemed to have some colour and shadow of a law, yet if it be rightly examined by that obsolete law which was pretended for it, it will be found to be against all the rules of justice, both in respect of the persons charged, the proportion of the fines demanded, and the absurd and unreasonable manner of their proceedings.

18. Tonnage and Poundage hath been received without colour or pretence of law; many other heavy impositions continued against law, and some so unreasonable that the sum of the charge exceeds the value of the goods.

19. The Book of Rates lately enhanced to a high proportion, and such merchants that would not submit to their illegal and unreasonable payments, were vexed and oppressed above measure; and the ordinary course of justice, the common birthright of the subject of England, wholly obstructed unto them.

20. And although all this was taken upon pretence of guarding the seas, yet a new unheard-of tax of ship-money was devised, and upon the same pretence, by both which there was charged upon the subject near £700,000 some years, and yet the merchants have been left so naked to the violence of the Turkish pirates, that many great ships of value and thousands of His Majesty's subjects have been taken by them, and do still remain in miserable slavery.

21. The enlargements of forests, contrary to 'Carta de
Foresta,' and the composition thereupon.

24. The desperate design of engrossing all the gunpowder into one hand, keeping it in the Tower of London, and setting so high a rate upon it that the poorer sort were not able to buy it, nor could any have it without licence, thereby to leave the several parts of the kingdom destitute of their necessary defence, and by selling so dear that which was sold to make an unlawful advantage of it, to the great charge and detriment of the subject.

25. The general destruction of the King's timber, especially that in the Forest of Deane, sold to Papists, which was the best store-house of this kingdom for the maintenance of our shipping.

26. The taking away of men's right, under the colour of the
King's title to land, between high and low water marks.

27. The monopolies of soap, salt, wine, leather, sea-coal, and
in a manner of all things of most common and necessary use.

28. The restraint of the liberties of the subjects in their
habitation, trades and other interests.

29. Their vexation and oppression by purveyors, clerks of the
market and saltpetre men.

   31. Conversion of arable into pasture, continuance of pasture,
   under the name of depopulation, have driven many millions out
   of the subjects' purses, without any considerable profit to
   His Majesty.

   32. Large quantities of common and several grounds hath been
   taken from the subject by colour of the Statute of
   Improvement, and by abuse of the Commission of Sewers, without
   their consent, and against it.

33. And not only private interest, but also public faith, have been broken in seizing of the money and bullion in the mint, and the whole kingdom like to be robbed at once in that abominable project of brass money.

34. Great numbers of His Majesty's subjects for refusing those unlawful charges, have been vexed with long and expensive suits, some fined and censured, others committed to long and hard imprisonments and confinements, to the loss of health in many, of life in some, and others have had their houses broken up, their goods seized, some have been restrained from their lawful callings.

35. Ships have been interrupted in their voyages, surprised at sea in a hostile manner by projectors, as by a common enemy.

36. Merchants prohibited to unlade their goods in such ports as were for their own advantage, and forced to bring them to those places which were much for the advantage of the monopolisers and projectors.

37. The Court of Star Chamber hath abounded in extravagant censures, not only for the maintenance and improvement of monopolies and other unlawful taxes, but for divers other causes where there hath been no offence, or very small; whereby His Majesty's subjects have been oppressed by grievous fines, imprisonments, stigmatisings, mutilations, whippings, pillories, gags, confinements, banishments; after so rigid a manner as hath not only deprived men of the society of their friends, exercise of their professions, comfort of books, use of paper or ink, but even violated that near union which God hath established between men and their wives, by forced and constrained separation, whereby they have been bereaved of the comfort and conversation one of another for many years together, without hope of relief, if God had not by His overruling providence given some interruption to the prevailing power, and counsel of those who were the authors and promoters of such peremptory and heady courses.

38. Judges have been put out of their places for refusing to do against their oaths and consciences; others have been so awed that they durst not do their duties, and the better to hold a rod over them, the clause 'Quam diu se bene gesserit' was left out of their patents, and a new clause 'Durante bene placito' inserted.

39. Lawyers have been checked for being faithful to their clients; solicitors and attorneys have been threatened, and some punished, for following lawful suits. And by this means all the approaches to justice were interrupted and forecluded.

41. New judicatories erected without law. The Council Table have by their orders offered to bind the subjects in their freeholds, estates, suits and actions.

42. The pretended Court of the Earl Marshal was arbitrary and illegal in its being and proceedings.

43. The Chancery, Exchequer Chamber, Court of Wards, and other English Courts, have been grievous in exceeding their jurisdiction.

44. The estate of many families weakened, and some ruined by excessive fines, exacted from them for compositions of wardships.

45. All leases of above a hundred years made to draw on wardship contrary to law.

46. Undue proceedings used in the finding of offices to make the jury find for the King.

47. The Common Law Courts, feeling all men more inclined to seek justice there, where it may be fitted to their own desire, are known frequently to forsake the rules of the Common Law, and straying beyond their bounds, under pretence of equity, to do injustice.

48. Titles of honour, judicial places, sergeantships at law, and other offices have been sold for great sums of money, whereby the common justice of the kingdom hath been much endangered, not only by opening a way of employment in places of great trust, and advantage to men of weak parts, but also by giving occasion to bribery, extortion, partiality, it seldom happening that places ill-gotton are well used.

49. Commissions have been granted for examining the excess of fees, and when great exactions have been discovered, compositions have been made with delinquents, not only for the time past, but likewise for immunity and security in offending for the time to come, which under colour of remedy hath but confirmed and increased the grievance to the subject.

50. The usual course of pricking Sheriffs not observed, but many times Sheriffs made in an extraordinary way, sometimes as a punishment and charge unto them; sometimes such were pricked out as would be instruments to execute whatsoever they would have to be done.

51. The Bishops and the rest of the Clergy did triumph in the suspensions, ex-communications, deprivations, and degradations of divers painful, learned and pious ministers, in the vexation and grievous oppression of great numbers of His Majesty's good subjects.

52. The High Commission grew to such excess of sharpness and severity as was not much less than the Romish Inquisition, and yet in many cases by the Archbishop's power was made much more heavy, being assisted and strengthened by authority of the Council Table.

53. The Bishops and their Courts were as eager in the country; although their jurisdiction could not reach so high in rigour and extremity of punishment, yet were they no less grievous in respect of the generality and multiplicity of vexations, which lighting upon the meaner sort of tradesmen and artificers did impoverish many thousands.

54. And so afflict and trouble others, that great numbers to avoid their miseries departed out of the kingdom, some into New England and other parts of America, others into Holland.

55. Where they have transported their manufactures of cloth, which is not only a loss by diminishing the present stock of the kingdom, but a great mischief by impairing and endangering the loss of that particular trade of clothing, which hath been a plentiful fountain of wealth and honour to this nation.

56. Those were fittest for ecclesiastical preferment, and soonest obtained it, who were most officious in promoting superstition, most virulent in railing against godliness and honesty.

57. The most public and solemn sermons before His Majesty were either to advance prerogative above law, and decry the property of the subject, or full of such kind of invectives.

58. Whereby they might make those odious who sought to maintain the religion, laws and liberties of the kingdom, and such men were sure to be weeded out of the commission of the peace, and out of all other employments of power in the government of the country.

59. Many noble personages were councillors in name, but the power and authority remained in a few of such as were most addicted to this party, whose resolutions and determinations were brought to the table for countenance and execution, and not for debate and deliberation, and no man could offer to oppose them without disgrace and hazard to himself.

60. Nay, all those that did not wholly concur and actively contribute to the furtherance of their designs, though otherwise persons of never so great honour and abilities, were so far from being employed in any place of trust and power, that they were neglected, discountenanced, and upon all occasions injured and oppressed.

61. This faction was grown to that height and entireness of power, that now they began to think of finishing their work, which consisted of these three parts.

62. I. The government must be set free from all restraint of laws concerning our persons and estates.

63. II. There must be a conjunction between Papists and Protestants in doctrine, discipline and ceremonies; only it must not yet be called Popery.

64. III. The Puritans, under which name they include all those that desire to preserve the laws and liberties of the kingdom, and to maintain religion in the power of it, must be either rooted out of the kingdom with force, or driven out with fear.

65. For the effecting of this it was thought necessary to reduce Scotland to such Popish superstitions and innovations as might make them apt to join with England in that great change which was intended.

66. Whereupon new canons and a new liturgy were pressed upon them, and when they refused to admit of them, an army was raised to force them to it, towards which the Clergy and the Papists were very forward in their contribution.

68. And when both armies were come together, and ready for a bloody encounter, His Majesty's own gracious disposition, and the counsel of the English nobility and dutiful submission of the Scots, did so far prevail against the evil counsel of others, that a pacification was made, and His Majesty returned with peace and much honour to London.

69. The unexpected reconciliation was most acceptable to all the kingdom, except to the malignant party; whereof the Archbishop and the Earl of Strafford being heads, they and their faction begun to inveigh against the peace, and to aggravate the proceedings of the states, which so increased [incensed?] His Majesty, that he forthwith prepared again for war.

70. And such was their confidence, that having corrupted and distempered the whole frame and government of the kingdom, they did now hope to corrupt that which was the only means to restore all to a right frame and temper again.

71. To which end they persuaded His Majesty to call a Parliament, not to seek counsel and advice of them, but to draw countenance and supply from them, and to engage the whole kingdom in their quarrel.

72. And in the meantime continued all their unjust levies of money, resolving either to make the Parliament pliant to their will, and to establish mischief by a law, or else to break it, and with more colour to go on by violence to take what they could not obtain by consent. The ground alleged for the justification of this war was this,

73. That the undutiful demands of the Parliaments in Scotland was a sufficient reason for His Majesty to take arms against them, without hearing the reason of those demands, and thereupon a new army was prepared against them, their ships were seized in all ports both of England and Ireland, and at sea, their petitions rejected, their commissioners refused audience.

74. The whole kingdom most miserably distempered with levies of men and money, and imprisonments of those who denied to submit to those levies.

75. The Earl of Strafford passed into Ireland, caused the Parliament there to declare against the Scots, to give four subsidies towards that war, and to engage themselves, their lives and fortunes, for the prosecution of it, and gave directions for an army of eight thousand foot and one thousand horse to be levied there, which were for the most part Papists.

76. The Parliament met upon the 13th of April, 1640. The Earl of Strafford and Archbishop of Canterbury, with their party, so prevailed with His Majesty, that the House of Commons was pressed to yield a supply for maintenance of the war with Scotland, before they had provided any relief for the great and pressing grievances of the people, which being against the fundamental privilege and proceeding of Parliament, was yet in humble respect to His Majesty, so far admitted as that they agreed to take the matter of supply into consideration, and two several days it was debated.

77. Twelve subsidies were demanded for the release of ship-money alone, a third day was appointed for conclusion, when the heads of that party begun to fear the people might close with the King, in falsifying his desires of money; but that withal they were like to blast their malicious designs against Scotland, finding them very much indisposed to give any countenance to that war.

78. Thereupon they wickedly advised the King to break off the Parliament and to return to the ways of confusion, in which their own evil intentions were most likely to prosper and succeed.

79. After the Parliament ended the 5th of May, 1640, this party grew so bold as to counsel the King to supply himself out of his subjects' estates by his own power, at his own will, without their consent.

80. The very next day some members of both Houses had their studies and cabinets, yea, their pockets searched: another of them not long after was committed close prisoner for not delivering some petitions which he received by authority of that House.

81. And if harsher courses were intended (as was reported) it is very probable that the sickness of the Earl of Strafford, and the tumultuous rising in Southwark and about Lambeth were the causes that such violent intentions were not brought to execution.

82. A false and scandalous Declaration against the House of Commons was published in His Majesty's name, which yet wrought little effect with the people, but only to manifest the impudence of those who were authors of it.

84. The Lord Mayor and Aldermen in their several wards, enjoined to bring in a list of the names of such persons as they judged fit to lend, and of the sums they should lend. And such Aldermen as refused to do so were committed to prison.

85. The Archbishop and the other Bishops and Clergy continued the Convocation, and by a new commission turned it into a provincial Synod, in which, by an unheard-of presumption, they made canons that contain in them many matters contrary to the King's prerogative, to the fundamental laws and statutes of the realm, to the right of Parliaments, to the property and liberty of the subject, and matters tending to sedition and of dangerous consequence, thereby establishing their own usurpations, justifying their altar-worship, and those other superstitious innovations which they formerly introduced without warrant of law.

86. They imposed a new oath upon divers of His Majesty's subjects, both ecclesiastical and lay, for maintenance of their own tyranny, and laid a great tax on the Clergy, for supply of His Majesty, and generally they showed themselves very affectionate to the war with Scotland, which was by some of them styled 'Bellum Episeopale,' and a prayer composed and enjoined to be read in all churches, calling the Scots rebels, to put the two nations in blood and make them irreconcilable.

87. All those pretended canons and constitutions were armed with the several censures of suspension, excommunication, deprivation, by which they would have thrust out all the good ministers, and most of the well-affected people of the kingdom, and left an easy passage to their own design of reconciliation with Rome.

88. The Popish party enjoyed such exemptions from penal laws as amounted to a toleration, besides many other encouragements and Court favours.

89. They had a Secretary of State, Sir Francis Windebanck, a powerful agent for speeding all their desires.

90. A Pope's Nuncio residing here, to act and govern them according to such influences as he received from Rome, and to intercede for them with the most powerful concurrence of the foreign princes of that religion.

91. By his authority the Papists of all sorts, nobility, gentry, and clergy were convocated after the manner of a Parliament.

92. New jurisdictions were erected of Romish Archbishops, taxes levied, another state moulded within this state independent in government, contrary in interest and affection, secretly corrupting the ignorant or negligent professors of our religion, and closely uniting and combining themselves against such as were found in this posture, waiting for an opportunity by force to destroy those whom they could not hope to seduce.

93. For the effecting whereof they were strengthened with arms and munitions, encouraged by superstitious prayers, enjoined by the Nuncio to be weekly made for the prosperity of some great design.

94. And such power had they at Court, that secretly a commission was issued out, or intended to be issued to some great men of that profession, for the levying of soldiers, and to command and employ them according to private instructions, which we doubt were framed for the advantage of those who were the contrivers of them.

97. Multitudes were called to the Council Table, who were tired with long attendances there for refusing illegal payments.

98. The prisons were filled with their commitments; many of the Sheriffs summoned into the Star Chamber, and some imprisoned for not being quick enough in levying the ship-money; the people languished under grief and fear, no visible hope being left but in desperation.

99. The nobility began to weary of their silence and patience, and sensible of the duty and trust which belongs to them: and thereupon some of the most ancient of them did petition His Majesty at such a time, when evil counsels were so strong, that they had occasion to expect more hazard to themselves, than redress of those public evils for which they interceded.

100. Whilst the kingdom was in this agitation and distemper, the Scots, restrained in their trades, impoverished by the loss of many of their ships, bereaved of all possibility of satisfying His Majesty by any naked supplication, entered with a powerful army into the kingdom, and without any hostile act or spoil in the country they passed, more than forcing a passage over the Tyne at Newburn, near Newcastle, possessed themselves of Newcastle, and had a fair opportunity to press on further upon the King's army.

101. But duty and reverence to His Majesty, and brotherly love to the English nation, made them stay there, whereby the King had leisure to entertain better counsels.

102. Wherein God so blessed and directed him that he summoned the Great Council of Peers to meet at York upon the 24th of September, and there declared a Parliament to begin the 3d of November then following.

103. The Scots, the first day of the Great Council, presented an humble Petition to His Majesty, whereupon the Treaty was appointed at Ripon.

104. A present cessation of arms agreed upon, and the full conclusion of all differences referred to the wisdom and care of the Parliament.

105. At our first meeting, all oppositions seemed to vanish, the mischiefs were so evident which those evil counsellors produced, that no man durst stand up to defend them: yet the work itself afforded difficulty enough.

106. The multiplied evils and corruption of fifteen years, strengthened by custom and authority, and the concurrent interest of many powerful delinquents, were now to be brought to judgment and reformation.

107. The King's household was to be provided for:—they had brought him to that want, that he could not supply his ordinary and necessary expenses without the assistance of his people.

108. Two armies were to be paid, which amounted very near to eighty thousand pounds a month.

109. The people were to be tenderly charged, having been formerly exhausted with many burdensome projects.

110. The difficulties seemed to be insuperable, which by the Divine Providence we have overcome. The contrarieties incompatible, which yet in a great measure we have reconciled.

111. Six subsidies have been granted and a Bill of poll-money, which if it be duly levied, may equal six subsidies more, in all £600,000.

112. Besides we have contracted a debt to the Scots of £220,000, yet God hath so blessed the endeavours of this Parliament, that the kingdom is a great gainer by all these charges.

113. The ship-money is abolished, which cost the kingdom about £200,000 a year.

114. The coat and conduct-money, and other military charges are taken away, which in many countries amounted to little less than the ship-money.

115. The monopolies are all suppressed, whereof some few did prejudice the subject, above £1,000,000 yearly.

119. Besides the inferior monopolies, which, if they could be exactly computed, would make up a great sum.

120. That which is more beneficial than all this is, that the root of these evils is taken away, which was the arbitrary power pretended to be in His Majesty of taxing the subject, or charging their estates without consent in Parliament, which is now declared to be against law by the judgment of both Houses, and likewise by an Act of Parliament.

121. Another step of great advantage is this, the living grievances, the evil counsellors and actors of these mischiefs have been so quelled.

122. By the justice done upon the Earl of Strafford, the flight of the Lord Finch and Secretary Windebank.

123. The accusation and imprisonment of the Archbishop of
Canterbury, of Judge Berkeley; and

124. The impeachment of divers other Bishops and Judges, that it is like not only to be an ease to the present times, but a preservation to the future.

125. The discontinuance of Parliaments is prevented by the Bill for a triennial Parliament, and the abrupt dissolution of this Parliament by another Bill, by which it is provided it shall not be dissolved or adjourned without the consent of both Houses.

126. Which two laws well considered may be thought more advantageous than all the former, because they secure a full operation of the present remedy, and afford a perpetual spring of remedies for the future.

129. The Courts of the President and Council in the North were so many forges of misery, oppression and violence, and are all taken away, whereby men are more secured in their persons, liberties and estates, than they could be by any law or example for the regulation of those Courts or terror of the Judges.

130. The immoderate power of the Council Table, and the excessive abuse of that power is so ordered and restrained, that we may well hope that no such things as were frequently done by them, to the prejudice of the public liberty, will appear in future times but only in stories, to give us and our posterity more occasion to praise God for His Majesty's goodness, and the faithful endeavours of this Parliament.

131. The canons and power of canon-making are blasted by the votes of both Houses.

132. The exorbitant power of Bishops and their courts are much abated, by some provisions in the Bill against the High Commission Court, the authors of the many innovations in doctrine and ceremonies.

133. The ministers that have been scandalous in their lives, have been so terrified in just complaints and accusations, that we may well hope they will be more modest for the time to come; either inwardly convicted by the sight of their own folly, or outwardly restrained by the fear of punishment.

135. The encroachments and oppressions of the Stannary Courts, the extortions of the clerk of the market.

136. And the compulsion of the subject to receive the Order of Knighthood against his will, paying of fines for not receiving it, and the vexatious proceedings thereupon for levying of those fines, are by other beneficial laws reformed and prevented.

137. Many excellent laws and provisions are in preparation for removing the inordinate power, vexation and usurpation of Bishops, for reforming the pride and idleness of many of the clergy, for easing the people of unnecessary ceremonies in religion, for censuring and removing unworthy and unprofitable ministers, and for maintaining godly and diligent preachers through the kingdom.

138. Other things of main importance for the good of this kingdom are in proposition, though little could hitherto be done in regard of the many other more pressing businesses, which yet before the end of this Session we hope may receive some progress and perfection.

139. The establishing and ordering the King's revenue, that so the abuse of officers and superfluity of expenses may be cut off, and the necessary disbursements for His Majesty's honour, the defence and government of the kingdom, may be more certainly provided for.

140. The regulating of courts of justice, and abridging both the delays and charges of lawsuits.

141. The settling of some good courses for preventing the exportation of gold and silver, and the inequality of exchanges between us and other nations, for the advancing of native commodities, increase of our manufactures, and well balancing of trade, whereby the stock of the kingdom may be increased, or at least kept from impairing, as through neglect hereof it hath done for many years last past.

142. Improving the herring-fishing upon our coasts, which will be of mighty use in the employment of the poor, and a plentiful nursery of mariners for enabling the kingdom in any great action.

143. The oppositions, obstructions and other difficulties wherewith we have been encountered, and which still lie in our way with some strength and much obstinacy, are these: the malignant party whom we have formerly described to be the actors and promoters of all our misery, they have taken heart again.

144. They have been able to prefer some of their own factors and agents to degrees of honour, to places of trust and employment, even during the Parliament.

145. They have endeavoured to work in His Majesty ill impressions and opinions of our proceedings, as if we had altogether done our own work, and not his; and had obtained from him many things very prejudicial to the Crown, both in respect of prerogative and profit.

146. To wipe out this slander we think good only to say thus much: that all that we have done is for His Majesty, his greatness, honour and support, when we yield to give £25,000 a month for the relief of the Northern Counties; this was given to the King, for he was bound to protect his subjects.

147. They were His Majesty's evil counsellors, and their ill instruments that were actors in those grievances which brought in the Scots.

148. And if His Majesty please to force those who were the authors of this war to make satisfaction, as he might justly and easily do, it seems very reasonable that the people might well be excused from taking upon them this burden, being altogether innocent and free from being any cause of it.

149. When we undertook the charge of the army, which cost above £50,000 a month, was not this given to the King? Was it not His Majesty's army? Were not all the commanders under contract with His Majesty, at higher rates and greater wages than ordinary?

150. And have not we taken upon us to discharge all the brotherly assistance of £300,000, which we gave the Scots? Was it not toward repair of those damages and losses which they received from the King's ships and from his ministers?

152. Besides, His Majesty hath received by impositions upon merchandise at least £400,000.

153. So that His Majesty hath had out of the subjects' purse since the Parliament began, £1,500,000 and yet these men can be so impudent as to tell His Majesty that we have done nothing for him.

154. As to the second branch of this slander, we acknowledge with much thankfulness that His Majesty hath passed more good Bills to the advantage of the subjects than have been in many ages.

155. But withal we cannot forget that these venomous councils did manifest themselves in some endeavours to hinder these good acts.

156. And for both Houses of Parliament we may with truth and modesty say thus much: that we have ever been careful not to desire anything that should weaken the Crown either in just profit or useful power.

157. The triennial Parliament for the matter of it, doth not extend to so much as by law we ought to have required (there being two statutes still in force for a Parliament to be once a year), and for the manner of it, it is in the King's power that it shall never take effect, if he by a timely summons shall prevent any other way of assembling.

158. In the Bill for continuance of this present Parliament, there seems to be some restraint of the royal power in dissolving of Parliaments, not to take it out of the Crown, but to suspend the execution of it for this time and occasion only: which was so necessary for the King's own security and the public peace, that without it we could not have undertaken any of these great charges, but must have left both the armies to disorder and confusion, and the whole kingdom to blood and rapine.

159. The Star Chamber was much more fruitful in oppression than in profit, the great fines being for the most part given away, and the rest stalled at long times.

160. The fines of the High Commission were in themselves unjust, and seldom or never came into the King's purse. These four Bills are particularly and more specially instanced.

161. In the rest there will not be found so much as a shadow of prejudice to the Crown.

162. They have sought to diminish our reputation with the
people, and to bring them out of love with Parliaments.

164. That we have spent much time and done little, especially in those grievances which concern religion.

165. That the Parliament is a burden to the kingdom by the abundance of protections which hinder justice and trade; and by many subsidies granted much more heavy than any formerly endured.

166. To which there is a ready answer; if the time spent in this Parliament be considered in relation backward to the long growth and deep root of those grievances, which we have removed, to the powerful supports of those delinquents, which we have pursued, to the great necessities and other charges of the commonwealth for which we have provided.

167. Or if it be considered in relation forward to many advantages, which not only the present but future ages are like to reap by the good laws and other proceedings in this Parliament, we doubt not but it will be thought by all indifferent judgments, that our time hath been much better employed than in a far greater proportion of time in many former Parliaments put together; and the charges which have been laid upon the subject, and the other inconveniences which they have borne, will seem very light in respect of the benefit they have and may receive.

168. And for the matter of protections, the Parliament is so sensible of it that therein they intended to give them whatsoever ease may stand with honour and justice, and are in a way of passing a Bill to give them satisfaction.

169. They have sought by many subtle practices to cause jealousies and divisions betwixt us and our brethren of Scotland, by slandering their proceedings and intentions towards us, and by secret endeavours to instigate and incense them and us one against another.

170. They have had such a party of Bishops and Popish lords in the House of Peers, as hath caused much opposition and delay in the prosecution of delinquents, hindered the proceedings of divers good Bills passed in the Commons' House, concerning the reformation of sundry great abuses and corruptions both in Church and State.

171. They have laboured to seduce and corrupt some of the Commons' House to draw them into conspiracies and combinations against the liberty of the Parliament.

172. And by their instruments and agents they have attempted to disaffect and discontent His Majesty's army, and to engage it for the maintenance of their wicked and traitorous designs; the keeping up of Bishops in votes and functions, and by force to compel the Parliament to order, limit and dispose their proceedings in such manner as might best concur with the intentions of this dangerous and potent faction.

173. And when one mischievous design and attempt of theirs to bring on the army against the Parliament and the City of London, hath been discovered and prevented;

174. They presently undertook another of the same damnable nature, with this addition to it, to endeavour to make the Scottish army neutral, whilst the English army, which they had laboured to corrupt and envenom against us by their false and slanderous suggestions, should execute their malice to the subversion of our religion and the dissolution of our government.

175. Thus they have been continually practising to disturb the peace, and plotting the destruction even of all the King's dominions; and have employed their emissaries and agents in them, all for the promoting their devilish designs, which the vigilancy of those who were well affected hath still discovered and defeated before they were ripe for execution in England and Scotland.

176. Only in Ireland, which was farther off, they have had time and opportunity to mould and prepare their work, and had brought it to that perfection that they had possessed themselves of that whole kingdom, totally subverted the government of it, routed out religion, and destroyed all the Protestants whom the conscience of their duty to God, their King and country, would not have permitted to join with them, if by God's wonderful providence their main enterprise upon the city and castle of Dublin, had not been detected and prevented upon the very eve before it should have been executed.

177. Notwithstanding they have in other parts of that kingdom broken out into open rebellion, surprising towns and castles, committed murders, rapes and other villainies, and shaken off all bonds of obedience to His Majesty and the laws of the realm.

178. And in general have kindled such a fire, as nothing but God's infinite blessing upon the wisdom and endeavours of this State will be able to quench it.

179. And certainly had not God in His great mercy unto this land discovered and confounded their former designs, we had been the prologue to this tragedy in Ireland, and had by this been made the lamentable spectacle of misery and confusion.

180. And now what hope have we but in God, when as the only means of our subsistence and power of reformation is under Him in the Parliament?

181. But what can we the Commons, without the conjunction of the House of Lords, and what conjunction can we expect there, when the Bishops and recusant lords are so numerous and prevalent that they are able to cross and interrupt our best endeavours for reformation, and by that means give advantage to this malignant party to traduce our proceedings?

182. They infuse into the people that we mean to abolish all Church government, and leave every man to his own fancy for the service and worship of God, absolving him of that obedience which he owes under God unto His Majesty, whom we know to be entrusted with the ecclesiastical law as well as with the temporal, to regulate all the members of the Church of England, by such rules of order and discipline as are established by Parliament, which is his great council in all affairs both in Church and State.

183. We confess our intention is, and our endeavours have been, to reduce within bounds that exorbitant power which the prelates have assumed unto themselves, so contrary both to the Word of God and to the laws of the land, to which end we passed the Bill for the removing them from their temporal power and employments, that so the better they might with meekness apply themselves to the discharge of their functions, which Bill themselves opposed, and were the principal instruments of crossing it.

184. And we do here declare that it is far from our purpose or desire to let loose the golden reins of discipline and government in the Church, to leave private persons or particular congregations to take up what form of Divine Service they please, for we hold it requisite that there should be throughout the whole realm a conformity to that order which the laws enjoin according to the Word of God. And we desire to unburden the consciences of men of needless and superstitious ceremonies, suppress innovations, and take away the monuments of idolatry.

185. And the better to effect the intended reformation, we desire there may be a general synod of the most grave, pious, learned and judicious divines of this island; assisted with some from foreign parts, professing the same religion with us, who may consider of all things necessary for the peace and good government of the Church, and represent the results of their consultations unto the Parliament, to be there allowed of and confirmed, and receive the stamp of authority, thereby to find passage and obedience throughout the kingdom.

186. They have maliciously charged us that we intend to destroy and discourage learning, whereas it is our chiefest care and desire to advance it, and to provide a competent maintenance for conscionable and preaching ministers throughout the kingdom, which will be a great encouragement to scholars, and a certain means whereby the want, meanness and ignorance, to which a great part of the clergy is now subject, will be prevented.

187. And we intended likewise to reform and purge the fountains of learning, the two Universities, that the streams flowing from thence may be clear and pure, and an honour and comfort to the whole land.

188. They have strained to blast our proceedings in Parliament, by wresting the interpretations of our orders from their genuine intention.

189. They tell the people that our meddling with the power of episcopacy hath caused sectaries and conventicles, when idolatrous and Popish ceremonies, introduced into the Church by the command of the Bishops have not only debarred the people from thence, but expelled them from the kingdom.

190. Thus with Elijah, we are called by this malignant party the troublers of the State, and still, while we endeavour to reform their abuses, they make us the authors of those mischiefs we study to prevent.

191. For the perfecting of the work begun, and removing all future impediments, we conceive these courses will be very effectual, seeing the religion of the Papists hath such principles as do certainly tend to the destruction and extirpation of all Protestants, when they shall have opportunity to effect it.

192. It is necessary in the first place to keep them in such condition as that they may not be able to do us any hurt, and for avoiding of such connivance and favour as hath heretofore been shown unto them.

193. That His Majesty be pleased to grant a standing Commission to some choice men named in Parliament, who may take notice of their increase, their counsels and proceedings, and use all due means by execution of the laws to prevent all mischievous designs against the peace and safety of this kingdom.

194. Thus some good course be taken to discover the counterfeit and false conformity of Papists to the Church, by colour whereof persons very much disaffected to the true religion have been admitted into place of greatest authority and trust in the kingdom.

195. For the better preservation of the laws and liberties of the kingdom, that all illegal grievances and exactions be presented and punished at the sessions and assizes.

196. And that Judges and Justices be very careful to give this in charge to the grand jury, and both the Sheriff and Justices to be sworn to the due execution of the Petition of Right and other laws.

197. That His Majesty be humbly petitioned by both Houses to employ such counsellors, ambassadors and other ministers, in managing his business at home and abroad as the Parliament may have cause to confide in, without which we cannot give His Majesty such supplies for support of his own estate, nor such assistance to the Protestant party beyond the sea, as is desired.

198. It may often fall out that the Commons may have just cause to take exceptions at some men for being councillors, and yet not charge those men with crimes, for there be grounds of diffidence which lie not in proof.

199. There are others, which though they may be proved, yet are not legally criminal.

200. To be a known favourer of Papists, or to have been very forward in defending or countenancing some great offenders questioned in Parliament; or to speak contemptuously of either Houses of Parliament or Parliamentary proceedings.

201. Or such as are factors or agents for any foreign prince of another religion; such are justly suspected to get councillors' places, or any other of trust concerning public employment for money; for all these and divers others we may have great reason to be earnest with His Majesty, not to put his great affairs into such hands, though we may be unwilling to proceed against them in any legal way of charge or impeachment.

202. That all Councillors of State may be sworn to observe those laws which concern the subject in his liberty, that they may likewise take an oath not to receive or give reward or pension from any foreign prince, but such as they shall within some reasonable time discover to the Lords of His Majesty's Council.

203. And although they should wickedly forswear themselves, yet it may herein do good to make them known to be false and perjured to those who employ them, and thereby bring them into as little credit with them as with us.

204. That His Majesty may have cause to be in love with good counsel and good men, by shewing him in an humble and dutiful manner how full of advantage it would be to himself, to see his own estate settled in a plentiful condition to support his honour; to see his people united in ways of duty to him, and endeavours of the public good; to see happiness, wealth, peace and safety derived to his own kingdom, and procured to his allies by the influence of his own power and government."

On the 3d of January, "the king was betrayed into … an indiscretion to which all the ensuing disorders and civil wars ought immediately and directly to be ascribed. This was the impeachment of Lord Kimbolton and the five members. … Herbert, attorney-general, appeared in the House of Peers, and, in his majesty's name, entered an accusation of high treason against Lord Kimbolton and five commoners, Hollis, Sir Arthur Hazlerig, Hambden, Pym, and Strode. The articles were, That they had traitorously endeavoured to subvert the fundamental laws and government of the kingdom, to deprive the king of his regal power, and to impose on his subjects an arbitrary and tyrannical authority; that they had endeavoured, by many foul aspersions on his majesty and his government, to alienate the affections of his people, and make him odious to them; that they had attempted to draw his late army to disobedience of his royal commands, and to side with them in their traitorous designs; that they had invited and encouraged a foreign power to invade the kingdom; that they had aimed at subverting the rights and very being of Parliament; that, in order to complete their traitorous designs, they had endeavoured, as far as in them lay, by force and terror, to compel the Parliament to join with them, and to that end had actually raised and countenanced tumults against the king and Parliament; and that they had traitorously conspired to levy, and actually had levied, war against the king. The whole world stood amazed at this important accusation, so suddenly entered upon, without concert, deliberation or reflection. … But men had not leisure to wonder at the indiscretion of this measure: their astonishment was excited by new attempts, still more precipitate and imprudent. A sergeant at arms, in the king's name, demanded of the House the five members, and was sent back without any positive answer. Messengers were employed to search for them and arrest them. Their trunks, chambers, and studies, were sealed and locked. The House voted all these acts of violence to be breaches of privilege, and commanded everyone to defend the liberty of the members. The king, irritated by all this opposition, resolved next day to come in person to the House, with an intention to demand, perhaps seize, in their presence, the persons whom he had accused. This resolution was discovered to the Countess of Carlisle, sister to Northumberland, a lady of spirit, wit, and intrigue. She privately sent intelligence to the five members; and they had time to withdraw, a moment before the king entered. He was accompanied by his ordinary retinue, to the number of above two hundred, armed as usual, some with halberts, some with walking swords. The king left them at the door, and he himself advanced alone through the hall, while all the members rose to receive him. The speaker withdrew from his chair, and the king took possession of it. The speech which he made was as follows: 'Gentlemen, I am sorry for this occasion of coming to you. Yesterday, I sent a sergeant at arms, to demand some, who, by my order, were accused of high treason. Instead of obedience, I received a message. … Therefore am I come to tell you, that I must have these men wheresoever I can find them. Well, since I see all the birds are flown, I do expect that you will send them to me as soon as they return. But I assure you, on the word of a king, I never did intend any force, but shall proceed against them in a fair and legal way, for I never meant any other.' … When the king was looking around for the accused members, he asked the speaker, who stood below, whether any of these persons were in the House? The speaker, falling on his knee, prudently replied: 'I have, sir, neither eyes to see, nor tongue to speak, in this place, but as the House is pleased to direct me, whose servant I am. {867} And I humbly ask pardon, that I cannot give any other answer to what your majesty is pleased to demand of me.' The Commons were in the utmost disorder; and when the king was departing, some members cried aloud so as he might hear them, Privilege! Privilege! and the House immediately adjourned till next day. That evening, the accused members, to show the greater apprehension, removed into the city, which was their fortress. The citizens were the whole night in arms. … When the House of Commons met, they affected the greatest dismay; and adjourning themselves for some days, ordered a committee to sit in Merchant-Tailors' hall in the city. … The House again met, and after confirming the votes of their committee, instantly adjourned, as if exposed to the most imminent perils from the violence of their enemies. This practice they continued for some time. When the people, by these affected panics, were wrought up to a sufficient degree of rage and terror, it was thought proper, that the accused members should, with a triumphant and military procession, take their seats in the House. The river was covered with boats, and other vessels, laden with small pieces of ordnance, and prepared for fight. Skippon, whom the Parliament had appointed, by their own authority, major-general of the city militia, conducted the members, at the head of this tumultuary army, to Westminster-hall. And when the populace, by land and by water, passed Whitehall, they still asked, with insulting shouts, What has become of the king and his cavaliers? And whither are they fled? The king, apprehensive of danger from the enraged multitude, had retired to Hampton-court, deserted by all the world, and overwhelmed with grief, shame, and remorse for the fatal measures into which he had been hurried."

      ALSO IN:
      S. R. Gardiner,
      The First Two Stuarts and the Puritan Revolution,
      chapter 6, section 5.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1642 (JANUARY-AUGUST).
   Preparations for war.
   The marshalling of forces.
   The raising of the King's standard.

   "January 10th. The King with his Court quits Whitehall; the
   Five Members and Parliament proposing to return tomorrow, with
   the whole City in arms round them. He left Whitehall; never
   saw it again till he came to lay down his head there.

March 9th. The King has sent away his Queen from Dover, 'to be in a place of safety,'—and also to pawn the Crown-jewels in Holland, and get him arms. He returns Northward again, avoiding London. Many messages between the Houses of Parliament and him: 'Will your Majesty grant us Power of the Militia; accept this list of Lord-Lieutenants?' On the 9th of March, still advancing Northward without affirmative response, he has got to Newmarket; where another Message overtakes him, earnestly urges itself upon him: 'Could not your Majesty please to grant us Power of the Militia for a limited time?' 'No, by God!' answers his Majesty, 'not for an hour.'

On the 19th of March he is at York; where his Hull Magazine, gathered for service against the Scots, is lying near; where a great Earl of Newcastle, and other Northern potentates, will help him; where at least London and its Puritanism, now grown so fierce, is far off. There we will leave him; attempting Hull Magazine, in vain; exchanging messages with his Parliament; messages, missives, printed and written Papers without limit: Law-pleadings of both parties before the great tribunal of the English Nation, each party striving to prove itself right and within the verge of Law: preserved still in acres of typography, once thrillingly alive in every fibre of them; now a mere torpor, readable by few creatures, not rememberable by any."

   "As early as June 2 a ship had arrived on the North English
   coast, bringing the King arms and ammunition from Holland,
   purchased by the sale of the crown-jewels which the Queen had
   taken abroad. On the 22d of the same month more than forty of
   the nobles and others in attendance on the King at York had
   put down their names for the numbers of armed horse they would
   furnish respectively for his service. Requisitions in the
   King's name were also out for supplies of money; and the two
   Universities, and the Colleges in each, were invited to send
   in their plate. On the other hand, the Parliament had not been
   more negligent. There had been contributions or promises from
   all the chief Parliamentarian nobles and others; there was a
   large loan from the city; and hundreds of thousands, on a
   smaller scale, were willing to subscribe. And already, through
   all the shires, the two opposed powers were grappling and
   jostling with each other in raising levies. On the King's side
   there were what were called Commissions of Array, or powers
   granted to certain nobles and others by name to raise troops
   for the King. On the side of Parliament, in addition to the
   Volunteering which had been going on in many places (as, for
   example, in Cambridgeshire, where Oliver Cromwell was forming
   a troop of Volunteer horse … ), there was the Militia
   Ordinance available wherever the persons named in that
   ordinance were really zealous for Parliament, and able to act
   personally in the districts assigned them. And so on the 12th
   of July the Parliament had passed the necessary vote for
   supplying an army, and had appointed the Earl of Essex to be
   its commander-in-chief, and the Earl of Bedford to be its
   second in command as general of horse. It was known, on the
   other side, that the Earl of Lindsey, in consideration of his
   past experience of service both on sea and land, was to have
   the command of the King's army, and that his master of horse
   was to be the King's nephew, young Prince Rupert, who was
   expected from the Continent on purpose. Despite all these
   preparations, however, it was probably not till August had
   begun that the certainty of Civil War was universally
   acknowledged. It was on the 9th of that month that the King
   issued his proclamation 'for suppressing the present Rebellion
   under the command of Robert, Earl of Essex,' offering pardon
   to him and others if within six days they made their
   submission. The Parliamentary answer to this was on the 11th;
   on which day the Commons resolved, each man separately rising
   in his place and giving his word, that they would stand by the
   Earl of Essex with their lives and fortunes to the end. Still,
   even after that, there were trembling souls here and there who
   hoped for a reconciliation.
{868}
   Monday the 22d of August put an end to all such fluttering:
   —On that day, the King, who had meanwhile left York, and come
   about a hundred miles farther south, into the very heart of
   England, … made a backward movement as far as the town of
   Nottingham, where preparations had been made for the great
   scene that was to follow. … This consisted in bringing out
   the royal standard and setting it up in due form. It was about
   six o'clock in the evening when it was done. … A herald read
   a proclamation, declaring the cause why the standard had been
   set up, and summoning all the lieges to assist his Majesty.
   Those who were present cheered and threw up their hats, and,
   with a beating of drums and a sounding of trumpets, the
   ceremony ended. … From that evening of the 22d of August,
   1642, the Civil War had begun."

      ALSO IN:
      John Forster,
      Statesmen of the Commonwealth: Pym; Hampden.

      S. R. Gardiner,
      History of England, 1603-1642,
      chapters 104-105 (volume 10).

"In wealth, in numbers, and in cohesion the Parliament was stronger than the king. To him there had rallied most of the greater nobles, many of the lesser gentry, some proportion of the richer citizens, the townsmen of the west, and the rural population generally of the west and north of England. For the Parliament stood a strong section of the peers and greater gentry, the great bulk of the lesser gentry, the townsmen of the richer parts of England, the whole eastern and home counties, and lastly, the city of London. But as the Civil War did not sharply divide classes, so neither did it geographically bisect England. Roughly speaking, aristocracy and peasantry, the Church, universities, the world of culture, fashion, and pleasure were loyal: the gentry, the yeomanry, trade, commerce, morality, and law inclined to the Parliament. Broadly divided, the north and west went for the king; the south and east for the Houses; but the lines of demarcation were never exact: cities, castles, and manor-houses long held out in an enemy's county. There is only one permanent limitation. Draw a line from the Wash to the Solent. East of that line the country never yielded to the king; from first to last it never failed the Parliament. Within it are enclosed Norfolk, Suffolk, Essex, Cambridge, Huntingdon, Bedford, Bucks, Herts, Middlesex, Surrey, Kent, Sussex. This was the wealthiest, the most populous, and the most advanced portion of England. With Gloucester, Reading, Bristol, Leicester, and Northampton, it formed the natural home of Puritanism."

ENGLAND: A. D. 1642 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).
Edgehill—the opening battle of the war.
The Eastern Association.

Immediately after the raising of his standard at Nottingham, the King, "aware at last that he could not rely on the inhabitants of Yorkshire, moved to Shrewsbury, at once to collect the Catholic gentry of Lancashire and Cheshire, to receive the Royalist levies of Wales, and to secure the valley of the Severn. The movement was successful. In a few days his little army was increased fourfold, and he felt himself strong enough to make a direct march towards the capital. Essex had garrisoned Northampton, Coventry and Warwick, and lay himself at Worcester; but the King, waiting for no sieges, left the garrisoned towns unmolested and passed on towards London, and Essex received peremptory orders to pursue and interpose if possible between the King and London. On the 22nd of October he was close upon the King's rear at Keynton, between Stratford and Banbury. But his army was by no means at its full strength; some regiments had been left to garrison the West, others, under Hampden had not yet joined him. But delay was impossible, and the first battle of the war was fought on the plain at the foot of the north-west slope of Edgehill, over which the royal army descended, turning back on its course to meet Essex. Both parties claimed the victory. In fact it was with the King. The Parliamentary cavalry found themselves wholly unable to withstand the charge of Rupert's cavaliers. Whole regiments turned and fled without striking a blow; but, as usual, want of discipline ruined the royal cause. Rupert's men fell to plundering the Parliamentary baggage, and returned to the field only in time to find that the infantry, under the personal leading of Essex, had reestablished the fight. Night closed the battle [which is sometimes named from Edgehill and sometimes from Keynton]. The King's army withdrew to the vantage-ground of the hills, and Essex, reinforced by Hampden, passed the night upon the field. But the Royalist army was neither beaten nor checked in its advance, while the rottenness of the Parliamentary troops had been disclosed." Some attempts at peace-making followed this doubtful first collision; but their only effect was to embitter the passions on both sides. The King advanced, threatening London, but the citizens of the capital turned out valiantly to oppose him, and he "fell back upon Oxford, which henceforward became the centre of their operations. … War was again the only resource, and speedily became universal. … There was local fighting over the whole of England. … The headquarters of the King were constantly at Oxford, from which, as from a centre, Rupert would suddenly make rapid raids, now in one direction, now in another. Between him and London, about Reading, Aylesbury, and Thame, lay what may be spoken of as the main army of Parliament, under the command of Lord-General Essex. … The other two chief scenes of the war were Yorkshire and the West. In Yorkshire the Fairfaxes, Ferdinando Lord Fairfax and his son Sir Thomas, made what head they could against what was known as the Popish army under the command of the Earl, subsequently Marquis of Newcastle, which consisted mainly of the troops of the Northern counties, which had become associated under Newcastle in favour of Charles. Newark, in Nottinghamshire, was early made a royal garrison, and formed the link of connection between the operations in Yorkshire and at Oxford. In the extreme South-west, Lord Stamford, the Parliamentary General, was making a somewhat unsuccessful resistance against Sir Ralph, afterwards Lord Hopton. Wales was wholly Royalist, and one of the chief objects of Charles's generals was to secure the Severn valley, and thus connect the war in Devonshire with the central operations at Oxford. In the Eastern counties matters assumed rather a different form. The principle of forming several counties into an association … was adopted by the Parliament, and several such associations were formed, but none of these came to much except that of the Eastern counties, which was known by way of preeminence as 'The Association.' Its object was to keep the war entirely beyond the borders of the counties of which it consisted. The reason of its success was the genius and energy of Cromwell."

"This winter there arise among certain Counties 'Associations' for mutual defence, against Royalism and plunderous Rupertism; a measure cherished by the Parliament, condemned as treasonable by the King. Of which 'Associations,' countable to the number of five or six, we name only one, that of Norfolk, Suffolk, Essex, Cambridge, Herts; with Lord Gray of Wark for Commander; where and under whom Oliver was now serving. This 'Eastern Association' is alone worth naming. All the other Associations, no man of emphasis being in the midst of them, fell in a few months to pieces; only this of Cromwell subsisted, enlarged itself, grew famous;—and kept its own borders clear of invasion during the whole course of the War."

ALSO IN: S. R. Gardiner, History of the Great Civil War, chapters 2-4 (volume l).

"It was … probably, a little before Edgehill, that there took place between Cromwell and Hampden the memorable conversation which fifteen years afterwards the Protector related in a speech to his second Parliament. It is a piece of autobiography so instructive and pathetic that it must be set forth in full in the words of Cromwell himself:

'I was a person who, from my first employment, was suddenly preferred and lifted up from lesser trusts to greater; from my first being Captain of a Troop of Horse. … I had a very worthy friend then; and he was a very noble person, and I know his memory was very grateful to all,—Mr. John Hampden. At my first going out into this engagement, I saw our men were beaten at every hand. … Your troops, said I, are most of them old decayed serving-men, and tapsters, and such kind of fellows; and, said I, their troops are gentlemen's sons, younger sons and persons of quality: do you think that the spirits of such base mean fellows will ever be able to encounter gentlemen, that have honour and courage and resolution in them? Truly I did represent to him in this manner conscientiously; and truly I did tell him: You must get men of a spirit: and take it not ill what I say,—I know you will not,—of a spirit that is likely to go on as far as gentlemen will go: or else you will be beaten still. I told him so; I did truly. He was a wise and worthy person; and he did think that I talked a good notion, but an impracticable one. … I raised such men as had the fear of God before them, as made some conscience of what they did; and from that day forward, I must say to you, they were never beaten, and wherever they were engaged against the enemy they beat continually.' … The issue of the whole war lay in that word. It lay with 'such men as had some conscience in what they did.' 'From that day forward they were never beaten.' … As for Colonel Cromwell,' writes a news-letter of May, 1643, 'he hath 2,000 brave men, well disciplined; no man swears but he pays his twelve-pence; if he be drunk, he is set in the stocks, or worse; if one calls the other roundhead he is cashiered: insomuch that the countries where they come leap for joy of them, and come in and join with them. How happy were it if all the forces were thus disciplined!' These were the men who ultimately decided the war, and established the Commonwealth. On the field of Marston, Rupert gave Cromwell the name of Ironside, and from thence this famous name passed to his troopers. There are two features in their history which we need to note. They were indeed 'such men as had some conscience in their work'; but they were also much more. They were disciplined and trained soldiers. They were the only body of 'regulars' on either side. The instinctive genius of Cromwell from the very first created the strong nucleus of a regular army, which at last in discipline, in skill, in valour, reached the highest perfection ever attained by soldiers either in ancient or modern times. The fervour of Cromwell is continually pressing towards the extension of this 'regular' force. Through all the early disasters, this body of Ironsides kept the cause alive: at Marston it overwhelmed the king: as soon as, by the New Model, this system was extended to the whole army, the Civil War was at an end."

   "To balance the accession of power which the alliance with
   Scotland brought to the Parliament, Charles was so unwise, men
   then said so guilty, as to conclude a peace with the Irish
   rebels, with the intent that thus those of his forces which
   had been employed against them, might be set free to join his
   army in England. No act of the King, not the levying of
   ship-money, not the crowd of monopolies which enriched the
   court and impoverished the people, neither the extravagance of
Buckingham, the tyranny of Strafford nor the prelacy of Laud, not
   even the attempted arrest of the five members, raised such a
   storm of indignation and hatred throughout the kingdom, as did
   this determination of the King to withdraw (as men said), for
   the purpose of subduing his subjects, the force which had been
   raised to avenge the blood of 100,000 Protestant martyrs. …
   To the England of the time this act was nauseous, was
   exasperating to the highest degree, while to the cause of the
   King it was fatal; for, from this moment, the condition of the
   Parliamentary party began to mend."

"None of the king's schemes proved so fatal to his cause as these. On their discovery, officer after officer in his own army flung down their commissions, the peers who had fled to Oxford fled back again to London, and the Royalist reaction in the Parliament itself came utterly to an end."

ALSO IN: S. R. Gardiner, History of the Great Civil War, chapter 11 (volume 1).

   At the beginning of July, 1643, "London was astir with a new
   event of great consequence in the course of the national
   revolution. This was the meeting of the famous Westminster
   Assembly. The necessity of an ecclesiastical Synod or
   Convocation, to cooperate with the Parliament, had been long
   felt.
{870}
   Among the articles of the Grand Remonstrance of December 1641
   had been one desiring a convention of 'a General Synod of the
   most grave, pious, learned, and judicious divines of this
   island, assisted by some from foreign parts,' to consider of
   all things relating to the Church and report thereon to
   Parliament. It is clear from the wording of this article that
   it was contemplated that the Synod should contain
   representatives from the Presbyterian Church of Scotland.
   Indeed, by that time, the establishment of a uniformity of
   Doctrine, Discipline, and Worship between the Churches of
   England and Scotland was the fixed idea of those who chiefly
   desired a Synod. … In April, 1642 … it was ordered by the
   House, in pursuance of previous resolutions on the subject,
   'that the names of such divines as shall be thought fit to be
   consulted with concerning the matter of the Church be brought
   in tomorrow morning,' the understood rule being that the
   knights and burgesses of each English county should name to
   the House two divines, and those of each Welsh county one
   divine, for approval. Accordingly, on the 20th, the names were
   given in. … By the stress of the war the Assembly was
   postponed. At last, hopeless of a bill that should pass in the
   regular way by the King's consent, the Houses resorted, in
   this as in other things, to their peremptory plan of Ordinance
   by their own authority. On the 13th of May, 1643, an Ordinance
   for calling an Assembly was introduced in the Commons; which
   Ordinance, after due going and coming between the two Houses,
   came to maturity June 12, when it was entered at full length
   in the Lords' Journals. 'Whereas, amongst the infinite
   blessings of Almighty God upon this nation,'—so runs the
   preamble of the Ordinance,—'none is, or can be, more dear to
   us than the purity of our religion; and for as much as many
   things yet remain in the discipline, liturgy and government of
   the Church which necessarily require a more perfect
   reformation: and whereas it has been declared and resolved, by
   the Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament, that the
   present Church Government by Archbishops, Bishops, their
   Chancellors, Commissaries, Deans, Deans and Chapters,
   Archdeacons, and other ecclesiastical officers depending on
   the hierarchy, is evil and justly offensive and burdensome to
   the kingdom, and a great impediment to reformation and growth
   of religion, and very prejudicial to the state and government
   of this kingdom, and that therefore they are resolved the same
   shall be taken away, and that such a government shall be
   settled in the Church as may be agreeable to God's Holy Word,
   and most apt to procure and preserve the peace of the Church
   at home, and nearer agreement with the Church of Scotland, and
   other reformed Churches abroad. … Be it therefore ordained,
   &c.' What is ordained is that 149 persons, enumerated by name
   in the Ordinance … shall meet on the 1st of July next in
   King Henry VII.'s Chapel at Westminster; … 'to confer and
   treat among themselves of such matters and things, concerning
   the liturgy, discipline and government of the Church of
   England … as shall be proposed by either or both Houses of
   Parliament, and no other.' … Notwithstanding a Royal
   Proclamation from Oxford, dated June 22, forbidding the
   Assembly and threatening consequences, the first meeting duly
   took place on the day appointed—Saturday, July 1, 1643; and
   from that day till the 22d of February, 1648-9, or for more
   than five years and a half, the Westminster Assembly is to be
   borne in mind as a power or institution in the English realm,
   existing side by side with the Long Parliament, and in
   constant conference and cooperation with it. The number of its
   sittings during these five years and a half was 1,163 in all;
   which is at the rate of about four sittings every week for the
   whole time. The earliest years of the Assembly were the most
   important."

ENGLAND: A. D. 1643 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).
The Solemn League and Covenant with the Scottish nation.

   "Scotland had been hitherto kept aloof from the English
   quarrel. … Up to this time the pride and delicacy of the
   English patriots withheld them, for obvious reasons, from
   claiming her assistance. Had it been possible, they would
   still have desired to engage no distant party in this great
   domestic struggle; but when the present unexpected crisis
   arrived … these considerations were laid aside, and the
   chief leaders of the Parliament resolved upon an embassy to
   the North, to bring the Scottish nation into the field. The
   conduct of this embassy was a matter of the highest difficulty
   and danger. The Scots were known to be bigoted to their own
   persuasions of narrow and exclusive church government, while
   the greatest men of the English Parliament had proclaimed the
   sacred maxim that every man who worshipped God according to
   the dictates of his conscience was entitled to the protection
   of the State. But these men, Vane, Cromwell, Marten and St.
   John, though the difficulties of the common cause had brought
   them into the acknowledged position of leaders and directors
   of affairs, were in a minority in the House of Commons, and
   the party who were their superiors in numbers were as bigoted
   to the most exclusive principles of Presbyterianism as the
   Scots themselves. Denzil Holies stood at the head of this
   inferior class of patriots. … The most eminent of the
   Parliamentary nobility, particularly Northumberland, Essex and
   Manchester belonged also to this body; while the London
   clergy, and the metropolis itself, were almost entirely
   Presbyterian. These things considered, there was indeed great
   reason to apprehend that this party, backed by the Scots, and
   supported with a Scottish army, would be strong enough to
   overpower the advocates of free conscience, and 'set up a
   tyranny not less to be deplored than that of Laud and his
   hierarchy, which had proved one of the main occasions of
   bringing on the war.' Yet, opposing to all this danger only
   their own high purposes and dauntless courage, the smaller
   party of more consummate statesmen were the first to propose
   the embassy to Scotland. … On the 20th of July, 1643, the
   commissioners set out from London. They were four; and the man
   principally confided in among them was Vane [Sir Henry, the
   younger]. He, indeed, was the individual best qualified to
   succeed Hampden as a counsellor in the arduous struggle in
   which the nation was at this time engaged. … Immediately on
   his arrival in Edinburgh the negotiation commenced, and what
   Vane seems to have anticipated at once occurred. The Scots
   offered their assistance heartily on the sole condition of an
   adhesion to the Scottish religious system on the part of
   England.
{871}
   After many long and very warm debates, in which Vane held to
   one firm policy from the first, a solemn covenant was
   proposed, which Vane insisted should be named a solemn league
   and covenant, while certain words were inserted in it on his
   subsequent motion, to which he also adhered with immovable
   constancy, and which had the effect of leaving open to the
   great party in England, to whose interests he was devoted,
   that last liberty of conscience which man should never
   surrender. … The famous article respecting religion ran in
   these words;

'That we shall sincerely, really, and constantly, through the grace of God, endeavour, in our several places and callings, the preservation of the Reformed religion in the Church of Scotland, in doctrine, worship, discipline and government, against our common enemies; the reformation of religion in the kingdoms of England and Ireland, in doctrine, worship, discipline, and government, according to the Word of God, and the example of the best Reformed churches; and we shall endeavour to bring the churches of God in the three kingdoms to the nearest conjunction and uniformity in religion, confessing of faith, form of church government directory for worship and catechizing; that we and our posterity after us, may as brethren live in faith and love, and the Lord may delight to dwell in the midst of us. That we shall in like manner, without respect of persons, endeavour the extirpation of popery, prelacy (that is, church government by archbishops, bishops, their chancellors and commissaries, deans, deans and chapters, archdeacons, and all other ecclesiastical officers depending on that hierarchy).' Vane, by this introduction of 'according to the Word of God,' left the interpretation of that word to the free conscience of every man. On the 17th of August, the solemn league and covenant was voted by the Legislature and the Assembly of the Church at Edinburgh. The king in desperate alarm, sent his commands to the Scotch people not to take such a covenant. In reply, they 'humbly advised his majesty to take the covenant himself.' The surpassing service rendered by Vane on this great occasion to the Parliamentary cause, exposed him to a more violent hatred from the Royalists than he had yet experienced, and Clarendon has used every artifice to depreciate his motives and his sincerity. … The solemn league and covenant remained to be adopted in England. The Scottish form of giving it authority was followed as far as possible. It was referred by the two Houses to the Assembly of Divines, which had commenced its sittings on the 1st of the preceding July, being called together to be consulted with by the Parliament for the purpose of settling the government and form of worship of the Church of England. This assembly already referred to, consisted of 121 of the clergy; and a number of lay assessors were joined with them, consisting of ten peers, and twenty members of the House of Commons. All these persons were named by the ordinance of the two Houses of Parliament which gave birth to the assembly. The public taking of the Covenant was solemnized on the 25th of September, each member of either House attesting his adherence by oath first, and then by subscribing his name. The name of Vane, subscribed immediately on his return, appears upon the list next to that of Cromwell."

"A solemn league and covenant for Reformation and defence of religion, the honour and happiness of the King, and the peace and safety of the three kingdoms of England, Scotland and Ireland. We noblemen, barons, knights, gentlemen, citizens, burgesses, ministers of the Gospel, and commons of all sorts in the kingdoms of England, Scotland and Ireland, by the providence of God living under one King, and being of one reformed religion; having before our eyes the glory of God, and the advancement of the kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, the honour and happiness of the King's Majesty and his posterity, and the true public liberty, safety and peace of the kingdoms, wherein everyone's private condition is included; and calling to mind the treacherous and bloody plots, conspiracies, attempts and practices of the enemies of God against the true religion and professors thereof in all places, especially in these three kingdoms, ever since the reformation of religion; and how much their rage, power and presumption are of late, and at this time increased and exercised, whereof the deplorable estate of the Church and kingdom of Ireland, the distressed estate of the Church and kingdom of England, and the dangerous estate of the Church and kingdom of Scotland, are present and public testimonies: we have (now at last) after other means of supplication, remonstrance, protestations and sufferings, for the preservation of ourselves and our religion from utter ruin and destruction, according to the commendable practice of these kingdoms in former times, and the example of God's people in other nations, after mature deliberation, resolved and determined to enter into a mutual and solemn league and covenant, wherein we all subscribe, and each one of us for himself, with our hands lifted up to the most high God, do swear,

I. That we shall sincerely, really and constantly, through the grace of God, endeavour in our several places and callings, the preservation of the reformed religion in the Church of Scotland, in doctrine, worship, discipline and government, against our common enemies; the reformation of religion in the kingdoms of England and Ireland, in doctrine, worship, discipline and government, according to the Word of God, and the example of the best reformed Churches; and we shall endeavour to bring the Churches of God in the three kingdoms to the nearest conjunction and uniformity in religion, confession of faith, form of Church government, directory for worship and catechising, that we, and our posterity after us, may, as brethren, live in faith and love, and the Lord may delight to dwell in the midst of us.

II. That we shall in like manner, without respect of persons, endeavour the extirpation of Popery, prelacy (that is, Church government by Archbishops, Bishops, their Chancellors and Commissaries, Deans, Deans and Chapters, Archdeacons, and all other ecclesiastical officers depending on that hierarchy), superstition, heresy, schism, profaneness and whatsoever shall be found to be contrary to sound doctrine and the power of godliness lest we partake in other men's sins, and thereby be in danger to receive of their plagues; and that the Lord may be one, and His name one in the three kingdoms.

III. We shall with the same sincerity, reality and constancy, in our several vocations, endeavour with our estates and lives mutually to preserve the rights and privileges of the Parliaments, and the liberties of the kingdoms, and to preserve and defend the King's Majesty's person and authority, in the preservation and defence of the true religion and liberties of the kingdoms, that the world may bear witness with our consciences of our loyalty, and that we have no thoughts or intentions to diminish His Majesty's just power and greatness.

IV. We shall also with all faithfulness endeavour the discovery of all such as have been or shall be incendiaries, malignants or evil instruments, by hindering the reformation of religion, dividing the King from his people, or one of the kingdoms from another, or making any faction or parties amongst the people, contrary to the league and covenant, that they may be brought to public trial and receive condign punishment, as the degree of their offences shall require or deserve, or the supreme judicatories of both kingdoms respectively, or others having power from them for that effect, shall judge convenient.

V. And whereas the happiness of a blessed peace between these kingdoms, denied in former times to our progenitors, is by the good providence of God granted to us, and hath been lately concluded and settled by both Parliaments: we shall each one of us, according to our places and interest, endeavour that they may remain conjoined in a firm peace and union to all posterity, and that justice may be done upon the wilful opposers thereof, in manner expressed in the precedent articles.

VI. We shall also, according to our places and callings, in this common cause of religion, liberty and peace of the kingdom, assist and defend all those that enter into this league and covenant, in the maintaining and pursuing thereof; and shall not suffer ourselves, directly or indirectly, by whatsoever combination, persuasion or terror, to be divided and withdrawn from this blessed union and conjunction, whether to make defection to the contrary part, or give ourselves to a detestable indifferency or neutrality in this cause, which so much concerneth the glory of God, the good of the kingdoms, and the honour of the King; but shall all the days of our lives zealously and constantly continue therein, against all opposition, and promote the same according to our power, against all lets and impediments whatsoever; and what we are not able ourselves to suppress or overcome we shall reveal and make known, that it may be timely prevented or removed: all which we shall do as in the sight of God. And because these kingdoms are guilty of many sins and provocations against God, and His Son Jesus Christ, as is too manifest by our present distresses and dangers, the fruits thereof: we profess and declare, before God and the world, our unfeigned desire to be humbled for our own sins, and for the sins of these kingdoms; especially that we have not as we ought valued the inestimable benefit of the Gospel; that we have not laboured for the purity and power thereof; and that we have not endeavoured to receive Christ in our hearts, nor to walk worthy of Him in our lives, which are the causes of other sins and transgressions so much abounding amongst us, and our true and unfeigned purpose, desire and endeavour, for ourselves and all others under our power and charge, both in public and in private, in all duties we owe to God and man, to amend our lives, and each one to go before another in the example of a real reformation, that the Lord may turn away His wrath and heavy indignation, and establish these Churches and kingdoms in truth and peace. And this covenant we make in the presence of Almighty God, the Searcher of all hearts, with a true intention to perform the same, as we shall answer at that Great Day when the secrets of all hearts shall be disclosed: most humbly beseeching the Lord to strengthen us by His Holy Spirit for this end, and to bless our desires and Proceedings with such success as may be a deliverance and safety to His people, and encouragement to the Christian Churches groaning under or in danger of the yoke of Anti-Christian tyranny, to join in the same or like association and covenant, to the glory of God, the enlargement of the kingdom of Jesus Christ, and the peace and tranquility of Christian kingdoms and commonwealths."

ENGLAND: A. D. 1643 (August-September).
Siege of Gloucester and first Battle of Newbury.

"When the war had lasted a year, the advantage was decidedly with the Royalists. They were victorious, both in the western and in the northern counties. They had wrested Bristol, the second city in the kingdom, from the Parliament. They had won several battles, and had not sustained a single serious or ignominious defeat. Among the Roundheads, adversity had begun to produce dissension and discontent. The Parliament was kept in alarm, sometimes by plots and sometimes by riots. It was thought necessary to fortify London against the royal army, and to hang some disaffected citizens at their own doors. Several of the most distinguished peers who had hitherto remained at Westminster fled to the court at Oxford; nor can it be doubted that, if the operations of the Cavaliers had, at this season, been directed by a sagacious and powerful mind, Charles would soon have marched in triumph to Whitehall. But the King suffered the auspicious moment to pass away; and it never returned. In August, 1643, he sate down before the city of Gloucester. That city was defended by the inhabitants and by the garrison, with a determination such as had not, since the commencement of the war, been shown by the adherents of the Parliament. The emulation of London was excited. The trainbands of the City volunteered to march wherever their services might be required. A great force was speedily collected, and began to move westward. The siege of Gloucester was raised. The Royalists in every part of the kingdom were disheartened; the spirit of the parliamentary party revived; and the apostate Lords, who had lately fled from Westminster to Oxford, hastened back from Oxford to Westminster."

After accomplishing the relief of Gloucester, the Parliamentary army, marching back to London, was intercepted at Newbury by the army of the king, and forced to fight a battle, September 20, 1643, in which both parties, as at Edgehill, claimed the victory. The Royalists, however, failed to bar the road to London, as they had undertaken to do, and Essex resumed his march on the following morning.

"In this unhappy battle was slain the lord viscount Falkland; a person of such prodigious parts of learning and knowledge, of that inimitable sweetness and delight in conversation, of so flowing and obliging a humanity and goodness to mankind, and of that primitive sincerity and integrity of life, that if there were no other brand upon this odious and accursed war than that single loss, it must be most infamous and execrable to all posterity."

This lamented death on the royal side nearly evened, so to speak, the great, unmeasured calamity which had befallen the better cause three months before, when the high-souled patriot Hampden was slain in a paltry skirmish with Rupert's horse, at Chalgrove Field, not far from the borders of Oxfordshire. Soon after the fight at Newbury, Charles, having occupied Reading, withdrew his army to Oxford and went into winter quarters.

The Irish army brought over by King Charles and landed in Flintshire, in November, 1643, under the command of Lord Byron, invaded Cheshire and laid siege to Nantwich, which was the headquarters of the Parliamentary cause in that region. Young Sir Thomas Fairfax was ordered to collect forces and relieve the town. With great difficulty he succeeded, near the end of January, 1644, in leading 2,500 foot-soldiers and twenty-eight troops of horse, against the besieging army, which numbered 3,000 foot and 1,800 horse. On the 28th of January he attacked and routed the Irish royalists completely. "All the Royalist Colonels, including the subsequently notorious Monk, 1,500 soldiers, six pieces of ordnance, and quantities of arms, were captured." Having accomplished this most important service, Sir Thomas, "to his great annoyance," received orders to lay siege to Lathom House, one of the country seats of the Earl of Derby, which had been fortified and secretly garrisoned, with 300 soldiers. It was held by the high-spirited and dauntless Countess of Derby, in the absence of her husband, who was in the Isle of Man. Sir Thomas Fairfax soon escaped from this ignoble enterprise and left it to be carried on, first, by his cousin, Sir William Fairfax, and afterwards by Colonel Rigby. The Countess defended her house for three months, until the approach of Prince Rupert forced the raising of the siege in the following spring. Lathom House was not finally surrendered to the Roundheads until December 6, 1645, when it was demolished.

      ALSO IN:
      Mrs. Thompson,
      Recollections of Literary Characters and Celebrated Places,
      volume 2, chapter 2.

      E. Warburton,
      Memoirs of Prince Rupert and the Cavaliers,
      page 2, chapter 4.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1644 (January-July).
The Scots in England.
The Battle of Marston Moor.

"On the 19th of January, 1644, the Scottish army entered England. Lesley, now earl of Leven, commanded them. … In the meantime, the parliament at Westminster formed a council under the title of 'The Committee of the Two Kingdoms,' consisting of seven Lords, fourteen members of the Commons, and four Scottish Commissioners. Whatever belongs to the executive power as distinguished from the legislative devolved upon this Committee. In the spring of 1644 the parliament had five armies in the field, paid by general or local taxation, and by voluntary contributions. Including the Scottish army there were altogether 56,000 men under arms; the English forces being commanded, as separate armies, by Essex, Waller, Manchester, and Fairfax. Essex and Waller advanced to blockade Oxford. The queen went to Exeter in April, and never saw Charles again. The blockading forces around Oxford had become so strong that resistance appeared to be hopeless. On the night of the 3d of June the king secretly left the city and passed safely between the two hostile armies. There had again been jealousies and disagreements between Essex and Waller. Essex, supported by the council of war, but in opposition to the committee of the two kingdoms, had marched to the west. Waller, meanwhile, went in pursuit of the king into Worcestershire, Charles suddenly returned to Oxford; and then at Copredy Bridge, near Banbury, defeated Waller, who had hastened back to encounter him. Essex was before the walls of Exeter, in which city the queen had given birth to a princess. The king hastened to the west. He was strong enough to meet either of the parliamentary armies thus separated. Meanwhile the combined English and Scottish armies were besieging York. Rupert had just accomplished the relief of Lathom House, which had been defended by the heroic countess of Derby for eighteen weeks, against a detachment of the army of Fairfax. He then marched towards York with 20,000 men. The allied English and Scots retired from Hessey Moor, near York, to Tadcaster. Rupert entered York with 2,000 cavalry. The Earl of Newcastle was in command there. He counselled a prudent delay. The impetuous Rupert said he had the orders of the king for his guidance, and he was resolved to fight. On the 2nd of July, having rested two days in and near York, and enabled the city to be newly provisioned, the royalist army went forth to engage. They met their enemy on Marston Moor. The issue of the encounter would have been more than doubtful, but for Cromwell, who for the first time had headed his Ironsides in a great pitched battle. The right wing of the parliamentary army was scattered. Rupert was chasing and slaying the Scottish cavalry. … The charges of Fairfax and Cromwell decided the day. The victory of the parliamentary forces was so complete that the Earl of Newcastle left York, and embarked at Scarborough for the continent. Rupert marched away also, with the wreck of his army, to Chester. Fifteen hundred prisoners, all the artillery, more than 100 banners, remained with the victors; 4,150 bodies lay dead on the plain."

ALSO IN: T. Carlyle, Oliver Cromwell's Letters and Speeches, part 2, letter 8.

      W. Godwin,
      History of the Commonwealth,
      chapter 12, (volume 1).

      E. Warburton,
      Memoirs of Prince Rupert and the Cavaliers,
      volume 2, chapter 4.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1644 (August-September).
Essex's surrender.
The second Battle of Newbury.

"The great success at Marston, which had given the north to the Parliament, was all undone in the south and west through feebleness and jealousies in the leaders and the wretched policy that directed the war. Detached armies, consisting of a local militia, were aimlessly ordered about by a committee of civilians in London. Disaster followed on disaster. Essex, Waller, and Manchester would neither agree amongst themselves nor obey orders. Essex and Waller had parted before Marston was fought; Manchester had returned from York to protect his own eastern counties. Waller, after his defeat at Copredy, did nothing, and naturally found his army melting away. Essex, perversely advancing into the west, was out-manœuvred by Charles, and ended a campaign of blunders by the surrender of all his infantry [at Fowey, in Cornwall, September 2, 1644]. By September 1644 throughout the whole south-west the Parliament had not an army in the field. But the Committee of the Houses still toiled on with honourable spirit, and at last brought together near Newbury a united army nearly double the strength of the King's. On Sunday, the 29th of October, was fought the second battle of Newbury, as usual in these ill-ordered campaigns, late in the afternoon. An arduous day ended without victory, in spite of the greater numbers of the Parliament's army, though the men fought well, and their officers led them with skill and energy. At night the King was suffered to withdraw his army without loss, and later to carry off his guns and train. The urgent appeals of Cromwell and his officers could not infuse into Manchester energy to win the day, or spirit to pursue the retreating foe."

ALSO IN: B. M. Cordery and J. S. Phillpotts, King and Commonwealth, chapters 7.

"Cromwell had shown his capacity for organization in the creation of the Ironsides; his military genius had displayed itself at Marston Moor. Newbury first raised him into a political leader. 'Without a more speedy, vigorous and effective prosecution of the war,' he said to the Commons after his quarrel with Manchester, 'casting off all lingering proceedings, like those of soldiers of fortune beyond sea to spin out a war, we shall make the kingdom weary of us, and hate the name of a Parliament.' But under the leaders who at present conducted it a vigorous conduct of the war was hopeless. They were, in Cromwell's plain words, 'afraid to conquer.' They desired not to crush Charles, but to force him back, with as much of his old strength remaining as might be, to the position of a constitutional King. … The army, too, as he long ago urged at Edgehill, was not an army to conquer with. Now, as then, he urged that till the whole force was new modeled, and placed under a stricter discipline, 'they must not expect any notable success in anything they went about.' But the first step in such a reorganization must be a change of officers. The army was led and officered by members of the two Houses, and the Self-renouncing [or Self-denying] Ordinance, which was introduced by Cromwell and Vane, declared the tenure of civil or military offices incompatible with a seat in either. In spite of a long and bitter resistance, which was justified at a later time by the political results which followed this rupture of the tie which had hitherto bound the army to the Parliament, the drift of public opinion was too strong to be withstood. The passage of the Ordinance brought about the retirement of Essex, Manchester, and Waller; and the new organization of the army went rapidly on under a new commander-in-chief, Sir Thomas Fairfax, the hero of the long contest in Yorkshire, and who had been raised into fame by his victory at Nantwich and his bravery at Marston Moor."

A futile negotiation between the king and Parliament was opened at Uxbridge in January, 1645. "But neither the king nor his advisers entered on it with minds sincerely bent on peace; they, on the one hand, resolute not to swerve from the utmost rigour of a conqueror's terms, without having conquered; and he though more secretly, cherishing illusive hopes of a more triumphant restoration to power than any treaty could be expected to effect. The three leading topics of discussion among the negotiators at Uxbridge were, the church, the militia, and the state of Ireland. Bound by their unhappy covenant, and watched by their Scots colleagues, the English commissioners on the parliament's side demanded the complete establishment of a presbyterian polity, and the substitution of what was called the directory for the Anglican liturgy. Upon this head there was little prospect of a union."

ALSO IN: Earl of Clarendon, History of the Rebellion, book 8, sections 209-252 (volume 3).

   The passage of the Self-denying Ordinance was followed, or
   accompanied, by the adoption of the scheme for the so-called
   New Model of the army. "The New Model was organised as
   follows:
   10 Regiments of Cavalry of 600 men, 6,000;
   10 Companies of Dragoons of 100 men, 1,000;
   10 Regiments of Infantry of 1,400 men, 14,000:
   Total, 21,000 men.

All officers were to be nominated by Sir Thomas Fairfax, the new General, and (as was insisted upon by the Lords, with the object of excluding the more fanatical Independents) every officer was to sign the covenant within twenty days of his appointment. The cost of this force was estimated at £539,460 per annum, about £1,600,000 of our money. … Sir Thomas Fairfax having been appointed Commander-in-Chief by a vote of both Houses on the 1st of April [A. D. 1645], Essex, Manchester and others of the Lords resigned their commissions on the 2nd. … The name of Cromwell was of course, with those of other members of the Commons, omitted from the original list of the New Model army; but with a significance which could not have escaped remark, the appointment of lieutenant-general was left vacant, while none doubted by whom that vacancy would be filled."

ALSO IN: Sir E. Cust, Lives of the Warriors of the Civil Wars, part. 2: Fairfax.

"Early in April, Fairfax with his new army advanced westward to raise the siege of Taunton, which city Goring was besieging. Before that task was completed he received orders to enter on the siege of Oxford. This did not suit his own views or those of the Independents. They had joined their new army upon the implied condition that decisive battles should be fought. It was therefore with great joy that Fairfax received orders to proceed in pursuit of the royal forces, which, having left Worcester, were marching apparently against the Eastern Association, and had just taken Leicester on their way. Before entering on this active service, Fairfax demanded and obtained leave for Cromwell to serve at least for one battle more in the capacity of Lieutenant-General. He came up with the king in the neighbourhood of Harborough. Charles turned back to meet him, and just by the village of Naseby the great battle known by that name was fought. Cromwell had joined the army, amid the rejoicing shouts of the troops, two days before, with the Association horse. Again the victory seems to have been chiefly due to his skill. In detail it is almost a repetition of the battle of Marston Moor."

"The old Hamlet of Naseby stands yet, on its old hill-top, very much as it did in Saxon days, on the Northwestern border of Northamptonshire; nearly on a line, and nearly midway, between that Town and Daventry. A peaceable old Hamlet, of perhaps five hundred souls; clay cottages for laborers, but neatly thatched and swept; smith's shop, saddler's shop, beer-shop all in order; forming a kind of square, which leads off, North and South, into two long streets; the old Church with its graves, stands in the centre, the truncated spire finishing itself with a strange old Ball, held up by rods; a 'hollow copper Ball, which came from Boulogne in Henry the Eighth's time,'—which has, like Hudibras's breeches, 'been at the Siege of Bullen.' The ground is upland, moorland, though now growing corn; was not enclosed till the last generation, and is still somewhat bare of wood. It stands nearly in the heart of England; gentle Dullness, taking a turn at etymology, sometimes derives it from 'Navel'; 'Navesby, quasi Navelsby, from being, &c.' … It was on this high moor-ground, in the centre of England, that King Charles, on the 14th of June, 1645, fought his last Battle; dashed fiercely against the New-Model Army which he had despised till then: and saw himself shivered utterly to ruin thereby. 'Prince Rupert, on the King's right wing, charged up the hill, and carried all before him'; but Lieutenant-General Cromwell charged down hill on the other wing, likewise carrying all before him,—and did not gallop off the field to plunder, he. Cromwell, ordered thither by the Parliament, had arrived from the Association two days before, 'amid shouts from the whole Army': he had the ordering of the Horse this morning. Prince Rupert, on returning from his plunder, finds the King's Infantry a ruin; prepares to charge again with the rallied Cavalry; but the Cavalry too, when it came to the point, 'broke all asunder,'—never to reassemble more. … There were taken here a good few 'ladies of quality in carriages';—and above a hundred Irish ladies not of quality, tattery camp-followers 'with long skean-knives about a foot in length,' which they well knew how to use; upon whom I fear the Ordinance against Papists pressed hard this day. The King's Carriage was also taken, with a Cabinet and many Royal Autographs in it, which when printed made a sad impression against his Majesty,—gave in fact a most melancholy view of the veracity of his Majesty, 'On the word of a King.' All was lost!"

ALSO IN: Earl of Clarendon, History of the Rebellion, book 9, sections 30-42 (volume 4).

E. Warburton, Memoirs of Prince Rupert and the Cavaliers, volume 3, chapter 1.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1645 (JUNE-DECEMBER).
Glamorgan's Commissions, and other perfidies of the King
disclosed.

"At the battle of Naseby, copies of some letters to the queen, chiefly written about the time of the treaty of Uxbridge, and strangely preserved, fell into the hands of the enemy and were instantly published. No other losses of that fatal day were more injurious to [the king's] cause. … He gave her [the queen] power to treat with the English catholics, promising to take away all penal laws against them as soon as God should enable him to do so, in consideration of such powerful assistance as might deserve so great a favour, and enable him to affect it. … Suspicions were much aggravated by a second discovery that took place soon afterwards, of a secret treaty between the earl of Glamorgan and the confederate Irish catholics, not merely promising the repeal of the penal laws, but the establishment of their religion in far the greater part of Ireland. The marquis of Ormond, as well as lord Digby, who happened to be at Dublin, loudly exclaimed against Glamorgan's presumption in concluding such a treaty, and committed him to prison on a charge of treason. He produced two commissions from the king, secretly granted without any seal or the knowledge of any minister, containing the fullest powers to treat with the Irish, and promising to fulfil any conditions into which he should enter. The king, informed of this, disavowed Glamorgan. … Glamorgan, however, was soon released, and lost no portion of the king's or his family's favour. This transaction has been the subject of much historical controversy. The enemies of Charles, both in his own and later ages, have considered it as a proof of his indifference, at least, to the protestant religion, and of his readiness to accept the assistance of Irish rebels on any conditions. His advocates for a long time denied the authenticity of Glamorgan's commissions. But Dr. Birch demonstrated that they were genuine; and, if his dissertation could have left any doubt, later evidence might be adduced in confirmation."

ALSO IN: S. R. Gardiner, History of the Great Civil War, chapters 39 and 44 (volume 2).

"When Fairfax and Cromwell marched into the west [after Naseby fight], they found that in these counties the country-people had begun to assemble in bodies, sometimes 5,000 strong, to resist their oppressors, whether they fought in the name of King or Parliament. They were called clubmen from their arms, and carried banners, with the motto—'If you offer to plunder our cattle, Be assured we will give you battle.' The clubmen, however, could not hope to control the movements of the disciplined troops who now appeared against them. After a few fruitless attempts at resistance they dispersed."

"The inexpugnable Sir Lewis Dives (a thrasonical person known to the readers of Evelyn), after due battering, was now soon stormed; whereupon, by Letters found on him it became apparent how deeply Royalist this scheme of Clubmen had been: 'Commissions for raising Regiments of Clubmen'; the design to be extended over England at large, 'yea into the Associated Counties': however, it has now come to nothing."

"The continuance of the civil war for a whole year after the decisive battle of Naseby is a proof of the King's selfishness, and of his utter indifference to the sufferings of the people. All rational hope was gone, and even Rupert advised his uncle to make terms with the Parliament. Yet Charles, while incessantly vacillating as to his plans, persisted in retaining his garrisons, and required his adherents to sacrifice all they possessed in order to prolong a useless struggle for a few months. Bristol, therefore, was to stand a siege, and Charles expected the garrison to hold out, without an object, to the last extremity, entailing misery and ruin on the second commercial city in the kingdom. Rupert was sent to take the command there, and when the army of Sir Thomas Fairfax approached, towards the end of August, he had completed his preparations." Fairfax had marched promptly and rapidly westward, after the battle of Naseby. He had driven Goring from the siege of Taunton, had defeated him in a sharp battle at Langport, taking 1,400 prisoners, and had carried Bridgewater by storm, July 21, capturing 2,000 prisoners, with 36 pieces of artillery and 5,000 stand of arms. On the 21st of August he arrived before Bristol, which Prince Rupert had strongly fortified, and which he held with an effective garrison of 2,300 men. On the morning of the 10th of September it was entered by storm, and on the following day Rupert, who still occupied the most defensible forts, surrendered the whole place. This surrender so enraged the King that he deprived his nephew of all his commissions and sent him a pass to quit the kingdom. But Rupert understood, as the King would not, that fighting was useless—that the royal cause was lost.

      E. Warburton,
      Memoirs of Prince Rupert and the Cavaliers,
      volume 3, chapter 1.

"For the last three years the Assembly of Divines had been sitting almost daily in the Jerusalem Chamber of Westminster Abbey. … They were preparing a new Prayer-book, a form of Church Government, a Confession of Faith, and a Catechism; but the real questions at issue were the establishment of the Presbyterian Church and the toleration of sectarians. The Presbyterians, as we know, desired to establish their own form of Church government by assemblies and synods, without any toleration for non-conformists, whether Catholics, Episcopalians, or sectarians. But though they formed a large majority in the assembly, there was a well-organized opposition of Independents and Erastians, whose union made it no easy matter for the Presbyterians to carry every vote their own way. … After the Assembly had sat a year and a half, the Parliament passed an ordinance for putting a directory, prepared by the divines, into force, and taking away the Common Prayer-book (3rd January, 1645). The sign of the cross in baptism, the ring in marriage, the wearing of vestments, the keeping of saints' days, were discontinued. The communion table was ordered to be set in the body of the church, about which the people were to stand or sit; the passages of Scripture to be read were left to the minister's choice; no forms of prayer were prescribed. The same year a new directory for ordination of ministers was passed into an ordinance. The Presbyterian assemblies, called presbyteries, were empowered to ordain, and none were allowed to enter the ministry without first taking the covenant (8th November, 1645). This was followed by a third ordinance for establishing the Presbyterian system of Church government in England by way of trial for three years. As originally introduced into the House, this ordinance met with great opposition, because it gave power to ministers of refusing the sacrament and turning men out of the Church for scandalous offences. Now, in what, argued the Erastians, did scandalous offences consist? … A modified ordinance accordingly was passed; scandalous offences, for which ministers might refuse the sacrament and excommunicate, were specified; assemblies were declared subject to Parliament, and leave was granted to those who thought themselves unjustly sentenced, to appeal right up from one Church assembly after another to the civil power—the Parliament (16th March, 1646). Presbyterians, both in England and Scotland, felt deeply mortified. After all these years' contending, then, just when they thought they were entering on the fruits of their labours, to see the Church still left under the power of the State—the disappointment was intense to a degree we cannot estimate. They looked on the Independents as the enemies of God; this 'lame Erastian Presbytery' as hardly worth the having. … The Assembly of Divines practically came to an end in 1649, when it was changed into a committee for examining candidates for the Presbyterian ministry. It finally broke up without any formal dismissal on the dispersion of the Rump Parliament in March, 1653."

ALSO IN: S. R. Gardiner, History of the Great Civil War. chapter 40 (volume 2).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1646-1647.
   The King in the hands of the Scots.
   His duplicity and his intrigues.
   The Scots surrender him.

"On the morning of May 6th authentic news came that the King had ridden into the Scottish army, and had entrusted to his northern subjects the guardianship of his royal person. Thereupon the English Parliament at once asserted their right to dispose of their King so long as he was on English soil; and for the present ordered that he be sent to Warwick Castle, an order, however, which had no effect. Newark, impregnable even to Ironsides, was surrendered at last by royal order; and the Scots retreated northwards to Newcastle, carrying their sovereign with them. … Meantime the City Presbyterians were petitioning the House to quicken the establishment of the godly and thorough reformation so long promised; and they were supported by letters from the Scottish Parliament, which, in the month of February, 1646, almost peremptorily required that the Solemn League and Covenant should be carried out in the Scottish sense of it. … The question as to the disposal of the King's person became accidentally involved in the issues between Presbyterianism and the sects. For if the King had been a man to be trusted, and if he had frankly accepted the army programme of free religion, a free Parliament, and responsible advisers, there is little doubt that he might have kept his crown and his Anglican ritual—at least for his own worship—and might yet have concluded his reign prosperously as the first constitutional King of England. Instead of this, he angered the army by making their most sacred purposes mere cards in a game, to be played or held as he thought most to his own advantage in dealing with the Presbyterian Parliament. On July 11th, 1646, Commissioners from both Houses were appointed to lay certain propositions for peace before the King at Newcastle. These of course involved everything for which the Parliament had contended, and in a form developed and exaggerated by the altered position of affairs. All armed forces were to be absolutely under the control of Parliament for a period of 20 years. Speaking generally, all public acts done by Parliament, or by its authority, were to be confirmed; and all public acts done by the King or his Oxford anti-Parliament, without due authorisation from Westminster, were to be void. … On August 10th the Commissioners who had been sent to the King returned to Westminster. … The King had given no distinct answer. It was a suspicious circumstance that the Duke of Hamilton had gone into Scotland, especially as Cromwell learned that, in spite of an ostensible order from the King, Montrose's force had not been disbanded. The labyrinthine web of royal intrigue in Ireland was beginning to be discovered. … The death of the Earl of Essex on September 14th increased the growing danger of a fatal schism in the victorious party. The Presbyterians had hoped to restore him to the head of the army, and so sheathe or blunt the terrible weapon they had forged and could not wield. They were now left without a man to rival in military authority the commanders whose exploits overwhelmed their employers with a too complete success. Not only were the political and religious opinions of the soldiers a cause of anxiety, but the burden of their sustenance and pay was pressing heavily on the country. … No wonder that the City of London, always sensitive as to public security, began to urge upon the Parliament the necessity for diminishing or disbanding the army in England. … The Parliament, however, could not deal with the army, for two reasons; First, the negotiations with the Scotch lingered; and next, they could not pay the men. The first difficulty was overcome, at least for the time, by the middle of January, 1647, when a train of wagons carried £200,000 to Newcastle in discharge of the English debt to the Scottish army. But the successful accomplishment of this only increased the remaining difficulty of the Parliament—that of paying their own soldiers. We need not notice the charge made against the Scotch of selling their King further than to say, that it is unfairly based upon only one subordinate feature of a very complicated negotiation. If the King would have taken the Covenant, and guaranteed to them their precious Presbyterian system, his Scottish subjects would have fought for him almost to the last man. The firmness of Charles in declining the Covenant for himself is, no doubt, the most creditable point in his resistance. But his obstinacy in disputing the right of two nations, in their political establishment of religion, to override his convictions by their own, illustrates his entire incapacity to comprehend the new light dawning on the relations of sovereign and people. The Scots did their best for him. They petitioned him, they knelt to him, they preached to him. … But to have carried with them an intractable man to form a wedge of division amongst themselves, at the same time that he brought against them the whole power of England, would have been sheer insanity. Accordingly, they made the best bargain they could both for him and themselves; and, taking their wages, they left him with his English subjects, who conducted him to Holdenby House, in Northamptonshire, on the 6th of February, 1647."

      ALSO IN:
      S. R. Gardiner,
      The First two Stuarts and the Puritan Revolution,
      chapter 7, section 4.

W. Godwin, History of the Commonwealth, book 1, chapters 24-27, and book 2, chapter 1-6 (volume 2).

      Earl of Clarendon,
      History of chapter Rebellion,
      book 9, section 161-178,
      and book 10 (volume 3).

   The King was surrendered to Parliament, and all now looking
   toward peace, the Presbyterians were uppermost, discredit
   falling upon the Army and its favorers. Many of the Recruiters
   [i. e., the new members, elected to fill vacancies in the
   Parliament], who at first had acted with the Independents,
   inclined now to their opponents. The Presbyterians, feeling
   that none would dare to question the authority of Parliament,
   pushed energetically their policy as regards the Army, of
   sending to Ireland, disbanding, neglecting the payment of
   arrears, and displacing the old officers. But suddenly there
   came for them a rude awakening. On April 30, 1647, Skippon,
   whom all liked, whom the Presbyterians indeed claimed, but who
   at the same time kept on good terms with the Army and
   Independents, rose in his place in St. Stephens and produced a
   letter, brought to him the day before by three private
   soldiers, in which eight regiments of horse expressly refused
   to serve in Ireland, declaring that it was a perfidious design
   to separate the soldiers from the officers whom they
   loved,—framed by men who, having tasted of power, were
   degenerating into tyrants. Holles and the Presbyterians were
   thunder-struck, and laying aside all other business summoned
   the three soldiers to appear at once. …
{878}
   A violent tumult arose in the House. The Presbyterians
   declared that the three sturdy Ironsides standing there, with
   their buff stained from their corselets, ought to be at once
   committed; to which it was answered, that if there were to be
   commitment, it should be to the best London tavern, and sack
   and sugar provided. Cromwell, leaning over toward Ludlow, who
   sat next to him, and pointing to the Presbyterians, said that
   those fellows would never leave till the Army pulled them out
   by the ears. That day it became known that there existed an
   organization, a sort of Parliament, in the Army, the officers
   forming an upper council and the representatives of the rank
   and file a lower council. Two such representatives stood in
   the lower council for each squadron or troop, known as
   'Adjutators,' aiders, or 'Agitators.' This organization had
   taken upon itself to see that the Army had its rights. … At
   the end of a month, there was still greater occasion for
   astonishment. Seven hundred horse suddenly left the camp, and
   appearing without warning, June 2, at Holmby House, where
   Charles was kept, in charge of Parliamentary commissioners,
   proposed to assume the custody of the King. A cool, quiet
   fellow, of rank no higher than that of cornet, led them and
   was their spokesman, Joyce. 'What is your authority?' asked
   the King. The cornet simply pointed to the mass of troopers at
   his back. … So bold a step as the seizure of the King made
   necessary other bold steps on the part of the Army. Scarcely a
   fortnight had passed, when a demand was made for the exclusion
   from Parliament of eleven Presbyterians, the men most
   conspicuous for extreme views. The Army meanwhile hovered,
   ever ominously, close at hand, to the north and east of the
   city, paying slight regard to the Parliamentary prohibition to
   remain at a distance. The eleven members withdrew. … But if
   Parliament was willing to yield, Presbyterian London and the
   country round about were not, and in July broke out into sheer
   rebellion. … The Speakers of the Lords and Commons, at the
   head of the strength of the Parliament, fourteen Peers and one
   hundred Commoners, betook themselves to Fairfax, and on August
   2 they threw themselves into the protection of the Army at
   Hounslow Heath, ten miles distant. A grand review took place.
   The consummate soldier, Fairfax, had his troops in perfect
   condition, and they were drawn out 20,000 strong to receive
   the seceding Parliament. The soldiers rent the air with shouts
   in their behalf, and all was made ready for a most impressive
   demonstration. On the 6th of August, Fairfax marched his
   troops in full array through the city, from Hammersmith to
   Westminster. Each man had in his hat a wreath of laurel. The
   Lords and Commons who had taken flight were escorted in the
   midst of the column; the city officials joined the train. At
   Westminster the Speakers were ceremoniously reinstalled, and
   the Houses again put to work, the first business being to
   thank the General and the veterans who had reconstituted them.
   The next day, with Skippon in the centre and Cromwell in the
   rear, the Army marched through the city itself, a heavy tramp
   of battle-seasoned platoons, at the mere sound of which the
   war-like ardor of the turbulent youths of the work-shops and
   the rough watermen was completely squelched. Yet the soldiers
   looked neither to the right nor left; nor by act, word, or
   gesture was any offence given."

ENGLAND: A. D. 1647 (AUGUST-DECEMBER).
The King's "Game" with Cromwell and the army,
and the ending of it.

After reinstating the Parliament at Westminster, "the army leaders resumed negotiations with the King. The indignation of the soldiers at his delays and intrigues made the task hourly more difficult; but Cromwell … clung to the hope of accommodation with a passionate tenacity. His mind, conservative by tradition, and above all practical in temper, saw the political difficulties which would follow on the abolition of Royalty, and in spite of the King's evasions, he persisted in negotiating with him. But Cromwell stood almost alone; the Parliament refused to accept Ireton's proposals as a basis of peace, Charles still evaded, and the army then grew restless and suspicious. There were cries for a wide reform, for the abolition of the House of Peers, for a new House of Commons, and the Adjutators called on the Council of Officers to discuss the question of abolishing Royalty itself. Cromwell was never braver than when he faced the gathering storm, forbade the discussion, adjourned the Council, and sent the officers to their regiments. But the strain was too great to last long, and Charles was still resolute to 'play his game.' He was, in fact, so far from being in earnest in his negotiations with Cromwell and Ireton, that at the moment they were risking their lives for him he was conducting another and equally delusive negotiation with the Parliament. … In the midst of his hopes of an accommodation, Cromwell found with astonishment that he had been duped throughout, and that the King had fled [November 11, 1647]. … Even Cromwell was powerless to break the spirit which now pervaded the soldiers, and the King's perfidy left him without resource. 'The King is a man of great parts and great understanding,' he said at last, 'but so great a dissembler and so false a man that he is not to be trusted.' By a strange error, Charles had made his way from Hampton Court to the Isle of Wight, perhaps with some hope from the sympathy of Colonel Hammond, the Governor of Carisbrooke Castle, and again found himself a prisoner. Foiled in his effort to put himself at the head of the new civil war, he set himself to organize it from his prison; and while again opening delusive negotiations with the Parliament, he signed a secret treaty with the Scots for the invasion of the realm. The rise of Independency, and the practical suspension of the Covenant, had produced a violent reaction in his favour north of the Tweed. … In England the whole of the conservative party, with many of the most conspicuous members of the Long Parliament at its head, was drifting, in its horror of the religious and political changes which seemed impending, toward the King; and the news from Scotland gave the signal for fitful insurrections in almost every quarter."

      G. Hillier,
      Narrative of attempted Escapes of Charles I. from
      Carisbrooke Castle, &c.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1648 (April-August).
The Second Civil War.
Defeat of the Scots at Preston.

"The Second Civil War broke out in April, and proved to be a short but formidable affair. The whole of Wales was speedily in insurrection; a strong force of cavaliers were mustering in the north of England; in Essex, Surrey, and the southern counties various outbreaks arose; Berwick, Carlisle, Chester, Pembroke, Colchester, were held for the king; the fleet revolted; and 40,000 men were ordered by the Parliament of Scotland to invade England. Lambert was sent to the north; Fairfax to take Colchester; and Cromwell into Wales, and thence to join Lambert and meet the Scotch. On the 24th of May Cromwell reached Pembroke, but being short of guns, he did not take it till 11th July. The rising in Wales crushed, Cromwell turned northwards, where the northwest was already in revolt, and 20,000 Scots, under the Duke of Hamilton, were advancing into the country. Want of supplies and shoes, and sickness, detained him with his army, some 7,000 strong, 'so extremely harassed with hard service and long marches, that they seemed rather fit for a hospital than a battle.' Having joined Lambert in Yorkshire he fought the battle of Preston on 17th of August. The battle of Preston was one of the most decisive and important victories ever gained by Cromwell, over the most numerous enemy he ever encountered, and the first in which he was in supreme command. … Early on the morning of the 17th August, Cromwell, with some 9,000 men, fell upon the army of the Duke of Hamilton unawares, as it proceeded southwards in a long, straggling, unprotected line. The invaders consisted of 17,000 Scots and 7,000 good men from northern counties. The long ill-ordered line was cut In half and rolled back northward and southward, before they even knew that Cromwell was upon them. The great host, cut into sections, fought with desperation from town to town. But for three days it was one long chase and carnage, which ended only with the exhaustion of the victors and their horses. Ten thousand prisoners were taken. 'We have killed we know not what,' writes Cromwell, 'but a very great number; having done execution upon them above thirty miles together, besides what we killed in the two great fights.' His own loss was small, and but one superior officer. … The Scottish invaders dispersed, Cromwell hastened to recover Berwick and Carlisle, and to restore the Presbyterian or Whig party in Scotland."

"The unfortunate issue of the Scots expedition under the duke of Hamilton, and of the various insurrections throughout England, quelled by the vigilance and good conduct of Fairfax and Cromwell, is well known. But these formidable manifestations of the public sentiment in favour of peace with the king on honourable conditions, wherein the city of London, ruled by the presbyterian ministers, took a share, compelled the house of commons to retract its measures. They came to a vote, by 165 to 90, that they would not alter the fundamental government by king, lords, and commons; they abandoned their impeachment against seven peers, the most moderate of the upper house and the most obnoxious to the army: they restored the eleven members to their seats; they revoked their resolutions against a personal treaty with the king, and even that which required his assent by certain preliminary articles. In a word the party for distinction's sake called presbyterian, but now rather to be denominated constitutional, regained its ascendancy. This change in the counsels of parliament brought on the treaty of Newport. The treaty of Newport was set on foot and managed by those politicians of the house of lords, who, having long suspected no danger to themselves but from the power of the king, had discovered, somewhat of the latest, that the crown itself was at stake, and that their own privileges were set on the same cast. Nothing was more remote from the intentions of the earl of Northumberland, or lord Say, than to see themselves pushed from their seats by such upstarts as Ireton and Harrison; and their present mortification afforded a proof how men reckoned wise in their generation become the dupes of their own selfish, crafty, and pusillanimous policy. They now grew anxious to see a treaty concluded with the king. Sensible that it was necessary to anticipate, if possible, the return of Cromwell from the north, they implored him to comply at once with all the propositions of parliament, or at least to yield in the first instance as far as he meant to go. They had not, however, mitigated in any degree the rigorous conditions so often proposed; nor did the king during this treaty obtain any reciprocal concession worth mentioning in return for his surrender of almost all that could be demanded."

The utter faithlessness with which Charles carried on these negotiations, as on all former occasions, was shown at a later day when his correspondence came to light. "After having solemnly promised that all hostilities in Ireland should cease, he secretly wrote to Ormond (October 10): 'Obey my wife's orders, not mine, until I shall let you know I am free from all restraint; nor trouble yourself about my concessions as to Ireland; they will not lead to anything;' and the day on which he had consented to transfer to parliament for twenty years the command of the army (October 9), he wrote to sir William Hopkins: 'To tell you the truth, my great concession this morning was made only with a view to facilitate my approaching escape; without that hope, I should never have yielded in this manner. If I had refused, I could, without much sorrow, have returned to my prison; but as it is, I own it would break my heart, for I have done that which my escape alone can justify.' The parliament, though without any exact information, suspected all this perfidy; even the friends of peace, the men most affected by the king's condition, and most earnest to save him, replied but hesitatingly to the charges of the independents."

ALSO IN: Earl of Clarendon, History of the Rebellion, book 11, sections 153-190 (volume 4).

I. Disraeli, Commentaries on the Life and Reign of Charles I., volume 2, chapters 39-40.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1648 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER).
The Grand Army Remonstrance and Pride's Purge.
The Long Parliament cut down to the Rump.

On the 20th of November, 1648, Colonel Ewer and other officers presented to the house of commons a remonstrance from the Army against the negotiations and proposed treaty with the king. This was accompanied by a letter from Fairfax, stating that it had been voted unanimously in the council of officers, and entreating for it the consideration of parliament. The remonstrance recommended an immediate ending of the treaty conferences at Newport, demanded that the king be brought to justice, as the capital source of all grievances, and called upon parliament to enact its own dissolution, with provision for the electing and convening of future annual or biennial parliaments. Ten days passed without attention being given to this army manifesto, the house having twice adjourned its consideration of the document. On the first of December there appeared at Newport a party of horse which quietly took possession of the person of the king, and conveyed him to Hurst Castle, "a fortress in Hampshire, situated at the extreme point of a neck of land, which shoots into the sea towards the isle of Wight." The same day on which this was done, "the commissioners who had treated with the king at Newport made their appearance in the two houses of parliament; and the two following days were occupied by the house of commons in an earnest debate as to the state of the negotiation. Vane was one of the principal speakers against the treaty; and Fiennes, who had hitherto ranked among the independents, spoke for it. At length, after the house had sat all night, it was put and carried, at five in the morning of the 5th, by a majority of 129 to 83, that the king's answers to the propositions of both houses were a ground for them to proceed upon, to the settlement of the peace of the kingdom. On the same day this vote received the concurrence of the house of lords." Meantime, on the 30th of November, the council of the army had voted a second declaration more fully expressive of its views and announcing its intention to draw near to London, for the accomplishment of the purposes of the remonstrance. "On the 2d of December Fairfax marched to London, and quartered his army at Whitehall, St. James's, the Mews, and the villages near the metropolis. … On the 5th of December three officers of the army held a meeting with three members of parliament, to arrange the plan by which the sound members might best be separated from those by whom their measures were thwarted, and might peaceably be put in possession of the legislative authority. The next morning a regiment of horse, and another of foot were placed as a guard upon the two houses, Skippon, who commanded the city-militia, having agreed with the council of the army to keep back the guard under his authority which usually performed that duty. A part of the foot were ranged in the Court of Requests, upon the stairs, and in the lobby leading to the house of commons. Colonel Pride was stationed near the door, with a list in his hand of the persons he was commissioned to arrest; and sometimes one of the door-keepers, and at others Lord Grey of Groby, pointed them out to him, as they came up with an intention of passing into the house. Forty-one members were thus arrested. … On the following day more members were secured, or denied entrance, amounting, with those of the day before, to about one hundred. At the same time Cromwell took his seat; and Henry Marten moved that the speaker should return him thanks for his great and eminent services performed in the course of the campaign. The day after, the two houses adjourned to the 12th. During the adjournment many of the members who had been taken into custody by the military were liberated. … Besides those who were absolutely secured, or shut out from their seats by the power of the army, there were other members that looked with dislike on the present proceedings, or that considered parliament as being under force, and not free in their deliberations, who voluntarily abstained from being present at their sittings and debates."

"The famous Pride's Purge was accomplished. By military force the Long Parliament was cut down to a fraction of its number, and the career begins of the mighty 'Rump,' so called in the coarse wit of the time because it was 'the sitting part.'"

   "This name [the Rump] was first given to them by Walker, the
   author of the History of Independency, by way of derision, in
   allusion to a fowl all devoured but the rump."

"During the month in which Charles had remained at Windsor [whither he had been brought from Hurst Castle on the 17th of December], there had been proceedings in Parliament of which he was imperfectly informed. On the day he arrived there, it was resolved by the Commons that he should be brought to trial. On the 2nd of January, 1649, it was voted that, in making war against the Parliament, he had been guilty of treason; and a High Court was appointed to try him. One hundred and fifty commissioners were to compose the Court,— peers, members of the Commons, aldermen of London. The ordinance was sent to the Upper House, and was rejected. On the 6th, a fresh ordinance, declaring that the people being, after God, the source of all just power, the representatives of the people are the supreme power in the nation; and that whatsoever is enacted or declared for law by the Commons in Parliament hath the force of a law, and the people are concluded thereby, though the consent of King or Peers be not had thereto. Asserting this power, so utterly opposed either to the ancient constitution of the monarchy, or to the possible working of a republic, there was no hesitation in constituting the High Court of Justice in the name of the Commons alone. The number of members of the Court was now reduced to 135. They had seven preparatory meetings, at which only 58 members attended. 'All men,' says Mrs. Hutchinson, 'were left to their free liberty of acting, neither persuaded nor compelled; and as there were some nominated in the commission who never sat, and others who sat at first but durst not hold on, so all the rest might have declined it if they would, when it is apparent they should have suffered nothing by so doing.' … On the 19th of January, major Harrison appeared … at Windsor with his troop. There was a coach with six horses in the court-yard, in which the King took his seat; and, once more, he entered London, and was lodged at St. James's palace. {881} The next day, the High Court of Justice was opened in Westminster-hall. … After the names of the members of the court had been called, 69 being present, Bradshaw, the president, ordered the serjeant to bring in the prisoner. Silently the King sat down in the chair prepared for him. He moved not his hat, as he looked sternly and contemptuously around. The sixty-nine rose not from their seats, and remained covered. … The clerk reads the charge, and when he is accused therein of being tyrant and traitor, he laughs in the face of the Court. 'Though his tongue usually hesitated, yet it was very free at this time, for he was never discomposed in mind,' writes Warwick. … Again and again contending against the authority of the Court, the King was removed, and the sitting was adjourned to the 22nd. On that day the same scene was renewed; and again on the 23rd. A growing sympathy for the monarch became apparent. The cries of 'Justice, justice,' which were heard at first, were now mingled with 'God save the King.' He had refused to plead; but the Court nevertheless employed the 24th and 25th of January in collecting evidence to prove the charge of his levying war against the Parliament. Coke, the solicitor-general, then demanded whether the Court would proceed to pronouncing sentence; and the members adjourned to the Painted Chamber. On the 27th the public sitting was resumed. … The Court, Bradshaw then stated, had agreed upon the sentence. Ludlow records that the King' desired to make one proposition before they proceeded to sentence; which he earnestly pressing, as that which he thought would lead to the reconciling of all parties, and to the peace of the three kingdoms, they permitted him to offer it; the effect of which was, that he might meet the two Houses in the Painted Chamber, to whom he doubted not to offer that which should satisfy and secure all interests.' Ludlow goes on to say, 'Designing, as I have since been informed, to propose his own resignation, and the admission of his son to the throne upon such terms as should have been agreed upon.' The commissioners retired to deliberate, 'and being satisfied, upon debate, that nothing but loss of time would be the consequence of it, they returned into the Court with a negative to his demand.' Bradshaw then delivered a solemn speech to the King. … The clerk was lastly commanded to read the sentence, that his head should be severed from his body; 'and the commissioners,' says Ludlow, 'testified their unanimous assent by standing up.' The King attempted to speak; 'but being accounted dead in law, was not permitted.' On the 29th of January, the Court met to sign the sentence of execution, addressed to 'colonel Francis Hacker, colonel Huncks, and lieutenant-colonel Phayr, and to every one of them.' … There were some attempts to save him. The Dutch ambassador made vigorous efforts to procure a reprieve, whilst the French and Spanish ambassadors were inert. The ambassadors from the States nevertheless persevered; and early in the day of the 30th obtained some glimmering of hope from Fairfax. 'But we found,' they say in their despatch, 'in front of the house in which we had just spoken with the general, about 200 horsemen; and we learned, as well as on our way as on reaching home, that all the streets, passages, and squares of London were occupied by troops, so that no one could pass, and that the approaches of the city were covered with cavalry, so as to prevent anyone from coming in or going out; … The same day, between two and three o'clock, the King was taken to a scaffold covered with black, erected before Whitehall.' To that scaffold before Whitehall, Charles walked, surrounded by soldiers, through the leafless avenues of St. James's Park. It was a bitterly cold morning. … His purposed address to the people was delivered only to the hearing of those upon the scaffold, but its purport was that the people mistook the nature of government; for people are free under a government, not by being sharers in it, but by due administration of the laws of it.' His theory of government was a consistent one. He had the misfortune not to understand that the time had been fast passing away for its assertion. The headsman did his office; and a deep groan went up from the surrounding multitude."

"In the death-warrant of 29th January 1649, next after the President and Lord Grey, stands the name of Oliver Cromwell. He accepted the responsibility of it, justified, defended it to his dying day. No man in England was more entirely answerable for the deed than he, 'I tell you,' he said to Algernon Sidney, 'we will cut off his head with the crown upon it.' … Slowly he had come to know—not only that the man, Charles Stuart, was incurably treacherous, but that any settlement of Parliament with the old Feudal Monarchy was impossible. As the head of the king rolled on the scaffold the old Feudal Monarchy expired for ever. In January 1649 a great mark was set in the course of the national life—the Old Rule behind it, the New Rule before it. Parliamentary government, the consent of the nation, equality of rights, and equity in the law—all date from this great New Departure. The Stuarts indeed returned for one generation, but with the sting of the Old Monarchy gone, and only to disappear almost without a blow. The Church of England returned; but not the Church of Laud or of Charles. The peers returned, but as a meek House of Lords, with their castles razed, their feudal rights and their political power extinct. It is said that the regicides killed Charles I. only to make Charles II. king. It is not so, They killed the Old Monarchy; and the restored monarch was by no means its heir, but a royal Stadtholder or Hereditary President."

   "Respecting the death of Charles it has been pronounced by
   Fox, that 'it is much to be doubted whether his trial and
   execution have not, as much as any other circumstance, served
   to raise the character of the English nation in the opinion of
   Europe in general.' And he goes on to speak with considerable
   favour of the authors of that event. One of the great
   authorities of the age having so pronounced, an hundred and
   fifty years after the deed, it may be proper to consider for a
   little the real merits of the actors, and the act. It is not
   easy to imagine a greater criminal than the individual against
   whom the sentence was awarded. … Liberty is one of the
   greatest negative advantages that can fall to the lot of a
   man; without it we cannot possess any high degree of
   happiness, or exercise any considerable virtue. Now Charles,
   to a degree which can scarcely be exceeded, conspired against
   the liberty of his country, to assert his own authority
   without limitation, was the object of all his desires and all
   his actions, so far as the public was concerned.
{882}
   To accomplish this object he laid aside the use of a
   parliament. When he was compelled once more to have recourse
   to this assembly, and found it retrograde to his purposes, he
   determined to bring up the army, and by that means to put an
   end to its sittings. Both in Scotland and England, the scheme
   that he formed for setting aside all opposition, was by force
   of arms. For that purpose he commenced war against the English
   parliament, and continued it by every expedient in his power
   for four years. Conquered, and driven out of the field, he did
   not for that, for a moment lose sight of his object and his
   resolution. He sought in every quarter for the materials of a
   new war; and, after an interval of twenty months, and from the
   depths of his prison, he found them. To this must be added the
   most consummate insincerity and duplicity. He could never be
   reconciled; he could never be disarmed; he could never be
   convinced. His was a war to the death, and therefore had the
   utmost aggravation that can belong to a war against the
   liberty of a nation. … The proper lesson taught by the act
   of the thirtieth of January, was that no person, however high
   in station, however protected by the prejudices of his
   contemporaries, must expect to be criminal against the welfare
   of the state and community, without retribution and
   punishment. The event however sufficiently proved that the
   condemnation and execution of Charles did not answer the
   purposes intended by its authors. It did not conciliate the
   English nation to republican ideas. It shocked all those
   persons in the country who did not adhere to the ruling party.
   This was in some degree owing to the decency with which
   Charles met his fate. He had always been in manners, formal,
   sober and specious. … The notion was every where prevalent,
   that a sovereign could not be called to account, could not be
   arraigned at the bar of his subjects. And the violation of
   this prejudice, instead of breaking down the wall which
   separated him from others, gave to his person a sacredness
   which never before appertained to it. Among his own partisans
   the death of Charles was treated, and was spoken of, as a sort
   of deicide. And it may be admitted for a universal rule, that
   the abrupt violation of a deep-rooted maxim and persuasion of
   the human mind, produces a reaction, and urges men to hug the
   maxim closer than ever. I am afraid, that the day that saw
   Charles perish on the scaffold, rendered the restoration of
   his family certain."

W. Godwin, History of the Commonwealth of England to the Restoration of Charles II., book 2, chapter 26 (volume 2).

"The situation, complicated enough already, had been still further complicated by Charles's duplicity. Men who would have been willing to come to terms with him, despaired of any constitutional arrangement in which he was to be a factor; and men who had long been alienated from him were irritated into active hostility. By these he was regarded with increasing intensity as the one disturbing force with which no understanding was possible and no settled order consistent. To remove him out of the way appeared, even to those who had no thought of punishing him for past offences, to be the only possible road to peace for the troubled nation. It seemed that so long as Charles lived deluded nations and deluded parties would be stirred up, by promises never intended to be fulfilled, to fling themselves, as they had flung themselves in the Second Civil War, against the new order of things which was struggling to establish itself in England."

S. R. Gardiner, History of the Great Civil War, 1642-1649, chapter 71 (volume 3).

      ALSO IN:
      John Forster,
      Statesmen of the Commonwealth: Henry Marten.

      S. R. Gardiner,
      Constitutional Documents of the Puritan Revolution,
      pages 268-290.

The following is the text of the Act which arraigned the King
and constituted the Court by which he was tried:

   "Whereas it is notorious that Charles Stuart, the now king of
   England, not content with the many encroachments which his
   predecessors had made upon the people in their rights and
   freedom, hath had a wicked design totally to subvert the
   antient and fundamental laws and liberties of this nation, and
   in their place to introduce an arbitrary and tyrannical
   government; and that, besides all other evil ways and means to
   bring his design to pass, he hath prosecuted it with fire and
   sword, levied and maintained a civil war in the land, against
   the parliament and kingdom; whereby this country hath been
   miserably wasted, the public treasure exhausted, trade
   decayed, thousands of people murdered, and infinite other
   mischiefs committed; for all which high and treasonable
   offences the said Charles Stuart might long since have justly
   been brought to exemplary and condign punishment: whereas also
   the parliament, well hoping that the restraint and imprisonment
   of his person after it had pleased God to deliver him into
   their hands, would have quieted the distempers of the kingdom,
   did forbear to proceed judicially against him; but found, by
   sad experience, that such their remissness served only to
   encourage him and his accomplices in the continuance of their
   evil practices and in raising new commotions, rebellions, and
   invasions: for prevention therefore of the like or greater
   inconveniences, and to the end no other chief officer or
   magistrate whatsoever may hereafter presume, traiterously and
   maliciously, to imagine or contrive the enslaving or
   destroying of the English nation, and to expect impunity for
   so doing; be it enacted and ordained by the [Lords] and
   commons in Parliament assembled, and it is hereby enacted and
   ordained by the authority thereof, That the earls of Kent,
   Nottingham, Pembroke, Denbigh, and Mulgrave; the lord Grey of
   Warke; lord chief justice Rolle of the king's bench, lord
   chief justice St. John of the common Pleas, and lord chief
   baron Wylde; the lord Fairfax, lieutenant general Cromwell,
   &c. [in all about 150,] shall be, and are hereby appointed and
   required to be Commissioners and Judges, for the Hearing,
   Trying, and Judging of the said Charles Stuart; and the said
   Commissioners, or any 20 or more of them, shall be, and are
   hereby authorized and constituted an High Court of Justice, to
   meet and sit at such convenient times and place as by the said
   commissioners, or the major part, or 20 or more of them, under
   their hands and seals, shall be appointed and notified by
   public Proclamation in the Great Hall, or Palace Yard of
   Westminster; and to adjourn from time to time, and from place
   to place, as the said High Court, or the major part thereof,
   at meeting, shall hold fit; and to take order for the charging
   of him, the said Charles Stuart, with the Crimes and Treasons
   above-mentioned, and for receiving his personal Answer
   thereunto, and for examination of witnesses upon oath, (which
   the court hath hereby authority to administer) or otherwise,
   and taking any other Evidence concerning the same; and
   thereupon, or in default of such Answer, to proceed to final
   Sentence according to justice and the merit of the cause; and
   such final Sentence to execute, or cause to be executed,
   speedily and impartially.
{883}
   And the said court is hereby and required to chuse and
   appoint all such officers, attendants, and other circumstances
   as they, or the major part of them, shall in any sort judge
   necessary or useful for the orderly and good managing of the
   premises; and Thomas lord Fairfax the General, and all
   officers and soldiers, under his command, and all officers of
   justice, and other well-affected persons, are hereby
   authorized and required to be aiding and assisting unto the
   said court in the due execution of the trust hereby committed
   unto them; provided that this act, and the authority hereby
   granted, do continue in force for the space of one month from
   the date of the making hereof, and no longer."

"England was now a Republic. The change had been virtually made on Thursday, January 4, 1648-9, when the Commons passed their three great Resolutions, declaring

(1) that the People of England were, under God, the original of all just power in the State,

(2) that the Commons, in Parliament assembled, having been chosen by the People, and representing the People, possessed the supreme power in their name, and

(3) that whatever the Commons enacted should have the force of a law, without needing the consent of either King or House of Peers.

On Tuesday, the 30th of January, the theory of these Resolutions became more visibly a fact. On the afternoon of that day, while the crowd that had seen the execution in front of Whitehall were still lingering round the scaffold, the Commons passed an Act 'prohibiting the proclaiming of any person to be King of England or Ireland, or the dominions thereof.' It was thus declared that Kingship in England had died with Charles. But what of the House of Peers? It was significant that on the same fatal day the Commons revived their three theoretical resolutions of the 4th, and ordered them to be printed. The wretched little rag of a House might then have known its doom. But it took a week more to convince them." On the 6th of February it was resolved by the House of Commons, "'That the House of Peers in Parliament is useless and dangerous, and ought to be abolished, and that an Act be brought in to that purpose.' Next day, February 7, after another long debate, it was further resolved 'That it hath been found by experience, and this House doth declare, that the office of a King in this realm, and to have the power thereof in any single person, is unnecessary, burdensome, and dangerous to the liberty, safety, and public interest of the People of this nation, and therefore ought to be abolished, and that an Act be brought in to that purpose.' Not till after some weeks were these Acts deliberately passed after the customary three readings. The delay, however, was matter of mere Parliamentary form. Theoretically a Republic since January 4, 1648-9, and visibly a Republic from the day of Charles's death, England was a Republic absolutely and in every sense from February 7, 1648-9." For the administration of the government of the republican Commonwealth, the Commons resolved, on the 7th of February, that a Council of State be erected; to consist of not more than forty persons. On the 13th, Instructions to the intended Council of State were reported and agreed to, "these Instructions conferring almost plenary powers, but limiting the duration of the Council to one year." On the 14th and 15th forty-one persons were appointed to be members of the Council, Fairfax, Cromwell, Vane, St. John, Whitlocke, Henry Marten, and Colonels Hutchinson and Ludlow being in the number; nine to constitute a quorum, and no permanent President to be chosen.

   "A book, published with great secrecy, and in very mysterious
   circumstances, February 9, 1648-9, exactly ten days after the
   late King's death, had done much to increase the Royalist
   enthusiasm.

   'Eikon Basilike: The True Portraicture of His Sacred Majestie
   in his Solitudes and Sufferings.—Romans viii. More than
   conquerour, &c.—Bona agere et mala pati Regium est.
   MDCXLVIII':
   such was the title-page of this volume (of 269 pages of text,
   in small octavo), destined by fate, rather than by merit, to
   be one of the most famous books of the world. … The book, so
   elaborately prepared and heralded, consists of twenty-eight
   successive chapters, purporting to have been written by the
   late King, and to be the essence of his spiritual
   autobiography in the last years of his life. Each chapter,
   with scarcely an exception, begins with a little narrative, or
   generally rather with reflections and meditations on some
   passage of the King's life the narrative of which is supposed
   to be unnecessary, and ends with a prayer in italics
   appropriate to the circumstances remembered. … Save for a
   few … passages … , the pathos of which lies in the
   situation they represent, the Eikon Basilike is a rather dull
   performance, in third-rate rhetoric, modulated after the
   Liturgy; and without incision, point, or the least shred of
   real information as to facts. But O what a reception it had!
   Copies of it ran about instantaneously, and were read with
   sobs and tears. It was in vain that Parliament, March 16, gave
   orders for seizing the book. It was reprinted at once in
   various forms, to supply the constant demand—which was not
   satisfied, it is said, with less than fifty editions within a
   single year; it became a very Bible in English Royalist
   households. … By means of this book, in fact, acting on the
   state of sentiment which it fitted, there was established,
   within a few weeks after the death of Charles I., that
   marvellous worship of his memory, that passionate recollection
   of him as the perfect man and the perfect king, the saint, the
   martyr, the all but Christ on earth again, which persisted
   till the other day as a positive religious cultus of the
   English mind, and still lingers in certain quarters."

"I struggled through the Eikon Basilike yesterday; one of the paltriest pieces of vapid, shovel-hatted, clear-starched, immaculate falsity and cant I have ever read. It is to me an amazement how any mortal could ever have taken that for a genuine book of King Charles's. Nothing but a surpliced Pharisee, sitting at his ease afar off, could have got up such a set of meditations. It got Parson Gauden [John Gauden, Bishop of Exeter and Worcester, successively, after the Restoration, and who is believed to have been the author of the Eikon Basilike] a bishopric."

T. Carlyle, History of his Life in London, by Froude, volume 1, chapter 7, November 26, 1840.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1650 (SEPTEMBER).
War with the Scots and Cromwell's victory at Dunbar.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1651 (SEPTEMBER).
The Scots and Charles II. overthrown at Worcester.

"'Now that the King is dead and his son defeated,' Cromwell said gravely to the Parliament, 'I think it necessary to come to a settlement.' But the settlement which had been promised after Naseby was still as distant as ever after Worcester. The bill for dissolving the present Parliament, though Cromwell pressed it in person, was only passed, after bitter opposition, by a majority of two; and even this success had been purchased by a compromise which permitted the House to sit for three years more. Internal affairs were simply at a dead lock. … The one remedy for all this was, as the army saw, the assembly of a new and complete Parliament in place of the mere 'rump' of the old; but this was the one measure which the House was resolute to avert. Vane spurred it to a new activity. … But it was necessary for Vane's purposes not only to show the energy of the Parliament, but to free it from the control of the army. His aim was to raise in the navy a force devoted to the House, and to eclipse the glories of Dunbar and Worcester by yet greater triumphs at sea. With this view the quarrel with Holland had been carefully nursed. … The army hardly needed the warning conveyed by the introduction of a bill for its disbanding to understand the new policy of the Parliament. … The army petitioned not only for reform in Church and State, but for an explicit declaration that the House would bring its proceedings to a close. The Petition forced the House to discuss a bill for 'a New Representative,' but the discussion soon brought out the resolve of the sitting members to continue as a part of the coming Parliament without re-election. The officers, irritated by such a claim, demanded in conference after conference an immediate dissolution, and the House as resolutely refused. In ominous words Cromwell supported the demands of the army. 'As for the members of this Parliament, the army begins to take them in disgust. I would it did so with less reason.' … Not only were the existing members to continue as members of the New Parliament, depriving the places they represented of their right of choosing representatives, but they were to constitute a Committee of Revision, to determine the validity of each election, and the fitness of the members returned. A conference took place [April 19, 1653] between the leaders of the Commons and the officers of the army. … The conference was adjourned till the next morning, on an understanding that no decisive step should be taken; but it had no sooner reassembled, than the absence of the leading members confirmed the news that Vane was fast pressing the bill for a new Representative through the House. 'It is contrary to common honesty,' Cromwell angrily broke out; and, quitting Whitehall, he summoned a company of musketeers to follow him as far as the door of the House of Commons."

"After the death of William, Prince of Orange, which was attended with the depression of his party and the triumph of the Dutch republicans [see NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1647-1650], the Parliament thought that the time was now favourable for cementing a closer confederacy with the states. St. John, chief justice, who was sent over to the Hague, had entertained the idea of forming a kind of coalition between the two republics, which would have rendered their interests totally inseparable; … but the states, who were unwilling to form a nearer confederacy with a government whose measures were so obnoxious, and whose situation seemed so precarious, offered only to renew 'the former alliances with England; and the haughty St. John, disgusted with this disappointment, as well as incensed at many affronts which had been offered him, with impunity, by the retainers of the Palatine and Orange families, and indeed by the populace in general, returned into England and endeavoured to foment a quarrel between the republics. …. There were several motives which at this time induced the English Parliament to embrace hostile measures. Many of the members thought that a foreign war would serve as a pretence for continuing the same Parliament, and delaying the new model of a representative, with which the nation had so long been flattered. Others hoped that the war would furnish a reason for maintaining, some time longer, that numerous standing army which was so much complained of. On the other hand, some, who dreaded the increasing power of Cromwell, expected that the great expense of naval armaments would prove a motive for diminishing the military establishment. To divert the attention of the public from domestic quarrels towards foreign transactions, seemed, in the present disposition of men's minds, to be good policy. … All these views, enforced by the violent spirit of St. John, who had great influence over Cromwell, determined the Parliament to change the purposed alliance into a furious war against the United Provinces. To cover these hostile intentions, the Parliament, under pretence of providing for the interests of commerce, embraced such measures as they knew would give disgust to the states. They framed the famous act of navigation, which prohibited all nations from importing into England in their bottoms any commodity which was not the growth and manufacture of their own country. … The minds of men in both states were every day more irritated against each other; and it was not long before these humours broke forth into action."

"The negotiations … were still pending when Blake, meeting Van Tromp's fleet in the Downs, in vain summoned the Dutch Admiral to lower his flag. A battle was the consequence, which led to a declaration of war on the 8th of July (1652). The maritime success of England was chiefly due to the genius of Blake, who having hitherto served upon shore, now turned his whole attention to the navy. A series of bloody fights took place between the two nations. For some time the fortunes of the war seemed undecided. Van Tromp, defeated by Blake, had to yield the command to De Ruyter. De Ruyter in his turn was displaced to give way again to his greater rival. Van Tromp was reinstated in command. A victory over Blake off the Naze (November 28) enabled him to cruise in the Channel with a broom at his mast-head, implying that he had swept the English from the seas. But the year 1653 again saw Blake able to fight a drawn battle of two days' duration between Portland and La Hogue; while at length, on the 2d and 3d of June, a decisive engagement was fought off the North Foreland, in which Monk and Deane, supported by Blake, completely defeated the Dutch Admiral, who, as a last resource, tried in vain to blow up his own ship, and then retreated to the Dutch coast, leaving eleven ships in the hands of the English. In the next month, another victory on the part of Blake, accompanied by the death of the great Dutch Admiral, completed the ruin of the naval power of Holland. The States were driven to treat. In 1654 the treaty was signed, in which Denmark, the Hanseatic towns, and the Swiss provinces were included. … The Dutch acknowledged the supremacy of the English flag in the British seas; they consented to the Navigation Act."

      J. Campbell,
      Naval History of Great Britain,
      chapter 15 (volume 2).

      J. Geddes,
      History of the Administration of John De Witt,
      volume 1, books 4-5.

   "In plain black clothes and gray worsted stockings, the
   Lord-General came in quietly and took his seat [April 20], as
   Vane was pressing the House to pass the dissolution Bill
   without delay and without the customary forms. He beckoned to
   Harrison and told him that the Parliament was ripe for
   dissolution, and he must do it. 'Sir,' said Harrison, 'the
   work is very great and dangerous.'—'You say well,' said the
   general, and thereupon sat still for about a quarter of an
   hour. Vane sat down, and the Speaker was putting the question
   for passing the Bill. Then said Cromwell to Harrison again,
   'This is the time; I must do it.' He rose up, put off his hat,
   and spoke. Beginning moderately and respectfully, he presently
   changed his style, told them of their injustice, delays of
   justice, self interest, and other faults; charging them not to
   have a heart to do anything for the public good, to have
   espoused the corrupt interest of Presbytery and the lawyers,
   who were the supporters of tyranny and oppression, accusing
   them of an intention to perpetuate themselves in power. And
   rising into passion, 'as if he were distracted,' he told them
   that the Lord had done with them, and had chosen other
   instruments for the carrying on His work that were worthy. Sir
   Peter Wentworth rose to complain of such language in
   Parliament, coming from their own trusted servant. Roused to
   fury by the interruption, Cromwell left his seat, clapped on
   his hat, walked up and down the floor of the House, stamping
   with his feet, and cried out, 'You are no Parliament, I say
   you are no Parliament. Come, come, we have had enough of this;
   I will put an end to your prating. Call them in!' Twenty or
   thirty musketeers under Colonel Worsley marched in onto the
   floor of the House. The rest of the guard were placed at the
   door and in the lobby. Vane from his place cried out, 'This is
   not honest, yea, it is against morality and common honesty.'
   Cromwell, who evidently regarded Vane as the breaker of the
   supposed agreement, turned on him with a loud voice, crying,
   'O Sir Henry Vane, Sir Henry Vane, the Lord deliver me from
   Sir Henry Vane.' Then looking upon one of the members, he
   said, 'There sits a drunkard;' to another he said, 'Some of
   you are unjust, corrupt persons, and scandalous to the
   profession of the Gospel.' 'Some are whoremasters,' he said,
   looking at Wentworth and Marten. Going up to the table, he
   said, 'What shall we do with this Bauble? Here, take it away!'
   and gave it to a musketeer. 'Fetch him down,' he cried to
   Harrison, pointing to the Speaker. Lenthall sat still, and
   refused to come down unless by force. 'Sir,' said Harrison, 'I
   will lend you my hand,' and putting his hand within his, the
   Speaker came down. Algernon Sidney sat still in his place.
   'Put him out,' said Cromwell. And Harrison and Worsley put
   their hands on his shoulders, and he rose and went out. The
   members went out, fifty-three in all, Cromwell still calling
   aloud. To Vane he said that he might have prevented this; but
   that he was a juggler and had not common honesty. 'It is you,'
   he said, as they passed him, 'that have forced me to do this,
   for I have sought the Lord night and day, that He would rather
   slay me than put me on the doing of this work.' He snatched
   the Bill of dissolution from the hand of the clerk, put it
   under his cloak, seized on the records, ordered the guard to
   clear the House of all members, and to have the door locked,
   and went away to Whitehall. Such is one of the most famous
   scenes in our history, that which of all other things has most
   heavily weighed on the fame of Cromwell. In truth it is a
   matter of no small complexity, which neither constitutional
   eloquence nor boisterous sarcasm has quite adequately
   unravelled. … In strict constitutional right the House was
   no more the Parliament than Cromwell was the king. A House of
   Commons, which had executed the king, abolished the Lords,
   approved the 'coup d'état' of Pride, and by successive
   proscriptions had reduced itself to a few score of extreme
   partisans, had no legal title to the name of Parliament. The
   junto which held to Vane was not more numerous than the junto
   which held to Cromwell; they had far less public support; nor
   had their services to the Cause been so great.
{886}
   In closing the House, the Lord-General had used his office of
   Commander-in-Chief to anticipate one 'coup d'état' by another.
   Had he been ten minutes late, Vane would himself have
   dissolved the House; snapping a vote which would give his
   faction a legal ascendancy. Yet, after all, the fact remains
   that Vane and the remnant of the famous Long Parliament had
   that 'scintilla juris,' as lawyers call it, that semblance of
   legal right, which counts for so much in things political."

      L. von Ranke,
      History of England, 17th century,
      book 11, chapter 5 (volume 3).

      W. Godwin,
      History of the Commonwealth,
      volume 3, chapters 27-29.

Six weeks after the expulsion of the Rump, Cromwell, in his own name, and upon his own authority, as "Captain-General and Commander-in-Chief," issued (June 6) a summons to one hundred and forty "persons fearing God and of approved fidelity and honesty," chosen and "nominated" by himself, with the advice of his council of officers, requiring them to be and appear at the Council Chamber of Whitehall on the following fourth day of July, to take upon themselves "the great charge and trust" of providing for "the peace, safety, and good government" of the Commonwealth, and to serve, each, "as a Member for the county" from which he was called. "Of all the Parties so summoned, 'only two' did not attend. Disconsolate Bulstrode says: 'Many of this Assembly being persons of fortune and knowledge, it was much wondered by some that they would at this summons, and from such hands, take upon them the Supreme Authority of this Nation; considering how little right Cromwell and his Officers had to give it, or those Gentlemen to take it.' My disconsolate friend, it is a sign that Puritan England in general accepts this action of Cromwell and his Officers, and thanks them for it, in such a case of extremity; saying as audibly as the means permitted: Yea, we did wish it so. Rather mournful to the disconsolate official mind. … The undeniable fact is, these men were, as Whitlocke intimates, a quite reputable Assembly; got together by anxious 'consultation of the godly Clergy' and chief Puritan lights in their respective Counties; not without much earnest revision, and solemn consideration in all kinds, on the part of men adequate enough for such a work, and desirous enough to do it well. The List of the Assembly exists; not yet entirely gone dark for mankind. A fair proportion of them still recognizable to mankind. Actual Peers one or two: founders of Peerage Families, two or three, which still exist among us,—Colonel Edward Montague, Colonel Charles Howard, Anthony Ashley Cooper. And better than King's Peers, certain Peers of Nature; whom if not the King and his pasteboard Norroys have had the luck to make Peers of, the living heart of England has since raised to the Peerage and means to keep there,—Colonel Robert Blake the Sea-King, for one. 'Known persons,' I do think; 'of approved integrity, men fearing God'; and perhaps not entirely destitute of sense anyone of them! Truly it seems rather a distinguished Parliament,—even though Mr. Praisegod Barbone, 'the Leather merchant in Fleet-street,' be, as all mortals must admit, a member of it. The fault, I hope, is forgivable. Praisegod, though he deals in leather, and has a name which can be misspelt, one discerns to be the son of pious parents; to be himself a man of piety, of understanding and weight,—and even of considerable private capital, my witty flunkey friends! We will leave Praisegod to do the best he can, I think. … In fact, a real Assembly of the Notables in Puritan England; a Parliament, Parliamentum, or Speaking-Apparatus for the now dominant Interest in England, as exact as could well be got,—much more exact, I suppose, than any ballot-box, free hustings or ale-barrel election usually yields. Such is the Assembly called the Little Parliament, and wittily Bare-bone's Parliament; which meets on the 4th of July. Their witty name survives; but their history is gone all dark."

The "assembly of godly persons" proved, however, to be quite an unmanageable body, containing so large a number of erratic and impracticable reformers that everything substantial among English institutions was threatened with overthrow at their hands. After five months of busy session, Cromwell was happily able to bring about a dissolution of his parliament, by the action of a majority, surrendering back their powers into his hands,—which was done on the 10th of December, 1653.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1653 (December).
The Establishment and Constitution of the Protectorate.
The Instrument of Government.

"What followed the dissolution of the Little Parliament is soon told. The Council of Officers having been summoned by Cromwell as the only power de facto, there were dialogues and deliberations, ending in the clear conclusion that the method of headship in a 'Single Person' for his whole life must now be tried in the Government of the Commonwealth, and that Cromwell must be that 'Single Person.' The title of King was actually proposed; but, as there were objections to that, Protector was chosen as a title familiar in English History and of venerable associations. Accordingly, Cromwell having consented, and all preparations having been made, he was, on Friday, December 16, in a great assembly of civic, judicial and military dignities, solemnly sworn and installed in the Chancery Court, Westminster Hall, as Lord Protector of the Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland. There were some of his adherents hitherto who did not like this new elevation of their hero, and forsook him in consequence, regarding any experiment of the Single Person method in Government 'as a treason to true Republicanism, and Cromwell's assent to it as unworthy of him. Among these was Harrison. Lambert, on the other hand, had been the main agent in the change, and took a conspicuous part in the installation-ceremony. In fact, pretty generally throughout the country and even among the Presbyterians, the elevation of Cromwell to some kind of sovereignty had come to be regarded as an inevitable necessity of the time, the only possible salvation of the Commonwealth from the anarchy, or wild and experimental idealism, in matters civil and religious, which had been the visible drift at last of the Barebones or Daft Little Parliament. … The powers and duties of the Protectorate had been defined, rather elaborately, in a Constitutional Instrument of forty-two Articles, called 'The Government of the Commonwealth' [more commonly known as The Instrument of Government] to which Cromwell had sworn fidelity at his installation."

      L. von Ranke,
      History of England, 17th Century,
      book 12, chapter 1 (volume 3).

      S. R. Gardiner,
      Constitutional Documents of the Puritan Revolution,
      introduction, section 4 and pages 314-324.

The government of the Commonwealth of England, Scotland, and
Ireland, and the dominions thereunto belonging.

I. That the supreme legislative authority of the Commonwealth of England, Scotland, and Ireland, and the dominions thereunto belonging, shall be and reside in one person, and the people assembled in Parliament; the style of which person shall be the Lord Protector of the Commonwealth of England, Scotland, and Ireland.

II. That the exercise of the chief magistracy and the administration of the government over the said countries and dominions, and the people thereof, shall be in the Lord Protector, assisted with a council, the number whereof shall not exceed twenty-one, nor be less than thirteen.

III. That all writs, processes, commissions, patents, grants, and other things, which now run in the name and style of the keepers of the liberty of England by authority of Parliament, shall run in the name and style of the Lord Protector, from whom, for the future, shall be derived all magistracy and honours in these three nations; and have the power of pardons (except in case of murders and treason) and benefit of all forfeitures for the public use; and shall govern the said countries and dominions in all things by the advice of the council, and according to these presents and the laws.

IV. That the Lord Protector, the Parliament sitting, shall dispose and order the militia and forces, both by sea and land, for the peace and good of the three nations, by consent of Parliament; and that the Lord Protector, with the advice and consent of the major part of the council, shall dispose and order the militia for the ends aforesaid in the intervals of Parliament."

V. That the Lord Protector, by the advice aforesaid, shall direct in all things concerning the keeping and holding of a good correspondency with foreign kings, princes, and states; and also, with the consent of the major part of the council, have the power of war and peace.

   VI. That the laws shall not be altered, suspended, abrogated,
   or repealed, nor any new law made, nor any tax, charge, or
   imposition laid upon the people, but by common consent in
   Parliament, save only as is expressed in the thirtieth
   article.

VII. That there shall be a Parliament summoned to meet at Westminster upon the third day of September, 1654, and that successively a Parliament shall be summoned once in every third year, to be accounted from the dissolution of the present Parliament.

VIII. That neither the Parliament to be next summoned, nor any successive Parliaments, shall, during the time of five months, to be accounted from the day of their first meeting, be adjourned, prorogued, or dissolved, without their own consent.

IX. That as well the next as all other successive Parliaments, shall be summoned and elected in manner hereafter expressed; that is to say, the persons to be chosen within England, Wales, the Isles of Jersey, Guernsey, and the town of Berwick-upon-Tweed, to sit and serve in Parliament, shall be, and not exceed, the number of four hundred. The persons to be chosen within Scotland, to sit and serve in Parliament, shall be, and not exceed, the number of thirty; and the persons to be chosen to sit in Parliament for Ireland shall be, and not exceed, the number of thirty.

X. That the persons to be elected to sit in Parliament from time to time, for the several counties of England, Wales, the Isles of Jersey and Guernsey, and the town of Berwick-upon-Tweed, and all places within the same respectively, shall be according to the proportions and numbers hereafter expressed: that is to say,

      Bedfordshire, 5;
      Bedford Town, 1;
      Berkshire, 5;
      Abingdon, 1;
      Reading, 1;
      Buckinghamshire, 5;
      Buckingham Town, 1;
      Aylesbury, 1;
      Wycomb, 1;
      Cambridgeshire, 4;
      Cambridge Town, 1;
      Cambridge University, 1;
      Isle of Ely, 2;
      Cheshire, 4;
      Chester, 1;
      Cornwall, 8;
      Launceston, 1;
      Truro, 1;
      Penryn, 1;
      East Looe and West Looe, 1;
      Cumberland, 2;
      Carlisle, 1;
      Derbyshire, 4;
      Derby Town, 1;
      Devonshire, 11;
      Exeter, 2;
      Plymouth, 2
      Clifton, Dartmouth, Hardness, 1;
      Totnes, 1;
      Barnstable, 1;
      Tiverton, 1;
      Honiton, 1;
      Dorsetshire, 6;
      Dorchester, 1;
      Weymouth and Melcomb-Regis, 1;
      Lyme-Regis, 1;
      Poole, 1;
      Durham, 2;
      City of Durham, 1;
      Essex, 13;
      Malden, 1;
      Colchester, 2;
      Gloucestershire, 5;
      Gloucester, 2;
      Tewkesbury, 1;
      Cirencester, 1;
      Herefordshire, 4;
      Hereford, 1;
      Leominster, 1;
      Hertfordshire, 5;
      St. Alban's, 1:
      Hertford, 1;
      Huntingdonshire, 3;
      Huntingdon, 1;
      Kent, 11;
      Canterbury, 2;
      Rochester, 1
      Maidstone, 1;
      Dover, 1;
      Sandwich, 1;
      Queenborough, 1;
      Lancashire, 4;
      Preston, 1;
      Lancaster, 1;
      Liverpool, 1;
      Manchester, 1;
      Leicestershire, 4
      Leicester, 2;
      Lincolnshire, 10;
      Lincoln, 2;
      Boston, 1;
      Grantham, 1;
      Stamford, 1;
      Great Grimsby, 1;
      Middlesex, 4;
      London, 6;
      Westminster, 2;
      Monmouthshire, 3;
      Norfolk 10;
      Norwich, 2;
      Lynn-Regis, 2
      Great Yarmouth, 2
      Northamptonshire, 6;
      Peterborough, 1;
      Northampton, 1;
      Nottinghamshire, 4;
      Nottingham, 2;
      Northumberland, 3;
      Newcastle-upon-Tyne, 1;
      Berwick, 1;
      Oxfordshire, 5;
      Oxford City, 1;
      Oxford University, 1;
      Woodstock, 1;
      Rutlandshire, 2;
      Shropshire, 4;
      Shrewsbury, 2;
      Bridgnorth, 1;
      Ludlow, 1;
      Staffordshire, 3;
      Lichfield, 1;
      Stafford, 1;
      Newcastle-under-Lyne, 1;
      Somersetshire, 11;
      Bristol, 2;
      Taunton, 2;
      Bath, 1;
      Wells, 1;
      Bridgwater, 1;
      Southamptonshire, 8;
      Winchester, 1;
      Southampton, 1
      Portsmouth, 1;
      Isle of Wight, 2;
      Andover, 1;
      Suffolk, 10;
      Ipswich, 2;
      Bury St. Edmunds, 2;
      Dunwich, 1;
      Sudbury, 1;
      Surrey, 6;
      Southwark, 2;
      Guildford, 1;
      Reigate, 1;
      Sussex, 9;
      Chichester, 1;
      Lewes, 1;
      East Grinstead, 1;
      Arundel, 1;
      Rye, 1;
      Westmoreland, 2;
      Warwickshire, 4;
      Coventry, 2;
      Warwick, 1;
      Wiltshire, 10;
      New Sarum, 2;
      Marlborough, 1;
      Devizes, 1;
      Worcestershire, 5;
      Worcester, 2.

   YORKSHIRE.
      West Riding, 6;
      East Riding, 4;
      North Riding, 4;
      City of York, 2
      Kingston-upon-Hull, 1;
      Beverley, 1;
      Scarborough, 1;
      Richmond, 1;
      Leeds, 1;
      Halifax, 1.

   WALES.
      Anglesey, 2:
      Brecknoekshire, 2;
      Cardiganshire, 2;
      Carmarthenshire, 2;
      Carnarvonshire, 2;
      Denbighshire, 2;
      Flintshire, 2;
      Glamorganshire, 2;
      Cardiff, 1;
      Merionethshire, 1;
      Montgomeryshire, 2;
      Pembrokeshire, 2;
      Haverfordwest, 1;
      Radnorshire, 2.

The distribution of the persons to be chosen for Scotland and Ireland, and the several counties, cities, and places therein, shall be according to such proportions and number as shall be agreed upon and declared by the Lord Protector and the major part of the council, before the sending forth writs of summons for the next Parliament.

XI. That the summons to Parliament shall be by writ under the Great Seal of England, directed to the sheriffs of the several and respective counties, with such alteration as may suit with the present government to be made by the Lord Protector and his council, which the Chancellor, Keeper, or Commissioners of the Great Seal shall seal, issue, and send abroad by warrant from the Lord Protector. If the Lord Protector shall not give warrant for issuing of writs of summons for the next Parliament, before the first of June, 1654, or for the Triennial Parliaments, before the first day of August in every third year, to be accounted as aforesaid; that then the Chancellor, Keeper, or Commissioners of the Great Seal for the time being, shall, without any warrant or direction, within seven days after the said first day of June, 1654, seal, issue, and send abroad writs of summons (changing therein what is to be changed as aforesaid) to the several and respective sheriffs of England, Scotland, and Ireland, for summoning the Parliament to meet at Westminster, the third day of September next; and shall likewise, within seven days after the said first day of August, in every third year, to be accounted from the dissolution of the precedent Parliament, seal, issue, and send forth abroad several writs of summons (changing therein what is to be changed) as aforesaid, for summoning the Parliament to meet at Westminster the sixth of November in that third year. That the said several and respective sheriffs, shall, within ten days after the receipt of such writ as aforesaid, cause the same to be proclaimed and published in every market-town within his county upon the market-days thereof, between twelve and three of the clock; and shall then also publish and declare the certain day of the week and month, for choosing members to serve in Parliament for the body of the said county, according to the tenor of the said writ, which shall be upon Wednesday five weeks after the date of the writ; and shall likewise declare the place where the election shall be made: for which purpose he shall appoint the most convenient place for the whole county to meet in; and shall send precepts for elections to be made in all and every city, town, borough, or place within his county, where elections are to be made by virtue of these presents, to the Mayor, Sheriff, or other head officer of such city, town, borough, or place, within three days after the receipt of such writ and writs; which the said Mayors, Sheriffs, and officers respectively are to make publication of, and of the certain day for such elections to be made in the said city, town, or place aforesaid, and to cause elections to be made accordingly.

XII. That at the day and place of elections, the Sheriff of each county, and the said Mayors, Sheriffs, Bailiffs, and other head officers within their cities, towns, boroughs, and places respectively, shall take view of the said elections, and shall make return into the chancery within twenty days after the said elections, of the persons elected by the greater number of electors, under their hands and seals, between him on the one part, and the electors on the other part; wherein shall be contained, that the persons elected shall not have power to alter the government as it is hereby settled in one single person and a Parliament.

XIII. That the Sheriff, who shall wittingly and willingly make any false return, or neglect his duty, shall incur the penalty of 2,000 marks of lawful English money; the one moiety to the Lord Protector, and the other moiety to such person as will sue for the same.

XIV. That all and every person and persons, who have aided, advised, assisted, or abetted in any war against the Parliament, since the first day of January 1641 (unless they have been since in the service of the Parliament, and given signal testimony of their good affection thereunto) shall be disabled and incapable to be elected, or to give any vote in the election of any members to serve in the next Parliament, or in the three succeeding Triennial Parliaments.

XV. That all such, who have advised, assisted, or abetted the rebellion of Ireland, shall be disabled and incapable for ever to be elected, or give any vote in the election of any member to serve in Parliament; as also all such who do or shall profess the Roman Catholic religion.

XVI. That all votes and elections given or made contrary, or not according to these qualifications, shall be null and void; and if any person, who is hereby made incapable, shall give his vote for election of members to serve in Parliament, such person shall lose and forfeit one full year's value of his real estate, and one full third part of his personal estate; one moiety thereof to the Lord Protector, and the other moiety to him or them who shall sue for the same.

XVII. That the persons who shall be elected to serve in Parliament, shall be such (and no other than such) as are persons of known integrity, fearing God, and of good conversation, and being of the age of twenty-one years.

XVIII. That all and every person and persons seised or possessed to his own use, of any estate, real or personal, to the value of £200, and not within the aforesaid exceptions, shall be capable to elect members to serve in Parliament for counties.

XIX. That the Chancellor, Keeper, or Commissioners of the Great Seal, shall be sworn before they enter into their offices, truly and faithfully to issue forth, and send abroad, writs of summons to Parliament, at the times and in the manner before expressed: and in case of neglect or failure to issue and send abroad writs accordingly, he or they shall for every such offence be guilty of high treason, and suffer the pains and penalties thereof.

XX. That in case writs be not issued out, as is before expressed, but that there be a neglect therein, fifteen days after the time wherein the same ought to be issued out by the Chancellor, Keeper, or Commissioners of the Great Seal; that then the Parliament shall, as often as such failure shall happen, assemble and be held at Westminster, in the usual place, at the times prefixed, in manner and by the means hereafter expressed; that is to say, that the sheriffs of the several and respective counties, sheriffdoms, cities, boroughs, and places aforesaid, within England, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland, the Chancellor, Masters, and Scholars of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, and the Mayor and Bailiffs of the borough of Berwick-upon-Tweed, and other places aforesaid respectively, shall at the several courts and places to be appointed as aforesaid, within thirty days after the said fifteen days, cause such members to be chosen for their said several and respective counties, sheriffdoms, universities, cities, boroughs, and places aforesaid, by such persons, and in such manner, as if several and respective writs of summons to Parliament under the Great Seal had issued and been awarded according to the tenor aforesaid: that if the sheriff, or other persons authorized, shall neglect his or their duty herein, that all and every such sheriff and person authorized as aforesaid, so neglecting his or their duty, shall, for every such offence, be guilty of high treason, and shall suffer the pains and penalties thereof.

XXI. That the clerk, called the clerk of the Commonwealth in Chancery for the time being, and all others, who shall afterwards execute that office, to whom the returns shall be made, shall for the next Parliament, and the two succeeding Triennial Parliaments, the next day after such return, certify the names of the several persons so returned, and of the places for which he and they were chosen respectively, unto the Council; who shall peruse the said returns, and examine whether the persons so elected and returned be such as is agreeable to the qualifications, and not disabled to be elected: and that every person and persons being so duly elected, and being approved of by the major part of the Council to be persons not disabled, but qualified as aforesaid, shall be esteemed a member of Parliament, and be admitted to sit in Parliament, and not otherwise.

XXII. That the persons so chosen and assembled in manner aforesaid, or any sixty of them, shall be, and be deemed the Parliament of England, Scotland, and Ireland; and the supreme legislative power to be and reside in the Lord Protector and such Parliament, in manner herein expressed.

XXIII. That the Lord Protector, with the advice of the major part of the Council, shall at any other time than is before expressed, when the necessities of the State shall require it, summon Parliaments in manner before expressed, which shall not be adjourned, prorogued, or dissolved without their own consent, during the first three months of their sitting. And in case of future war with any foreign State, a Parliament shall be forthwith summoned for their advice concerning the same.

XXIV. That all Bills agreed unto by the Parliament, shall be presented to the Lord Protector for his consent; and in case he shall not give his consent thereto within twenty days after they shall be presented to him, or give satisfaction to the Parliament within the time limited, that then, upon declaration of the Parliament that the Lord Protector hath not consented nor given satisfaction, such Bills shall pass into and become laws, although he shall not give his consent thereunto; provided such Bills contain nothing in them contrary to the matters contained in these presents.

XXV. That [Henry Lawrence, esq.; Philip lord vise. Lisle; the majors general Lambert, Desborough, and Skippon; lieutenant general Fleetwood; the colonels Edward Montagu, Philip Jones, and Wm. Sydenham; sir Gilbert Pickering, sir Ch. Wolseley, and sir Anth. Ashley Cooper, Barts., Francis Rouse, esq., Speaker of the late Convention, Walter Strickland, and Rd. Major, esqrs.]—or any seven of them, shall be a Council for the purposes expressed in this writing; and upon the death or other removal of any of them, the Parliament shall nominate six persons of ability, integrity, and fearing God, for everyone that is dead or removed; out of which the major part of the Council shall elect two, and present them to the Lord Protector, of which he shall elect one; and in case the Parliament shall not nominate within twenty days after notice given unto them thereof, the major part of the Council shall nominate three as aforesaid to the Lord Protector, who out of them shall supply the vacancy; and until this choice be made, the remaining part of the Council shall execute as fully in all things, as if their number were full. And in case of corruption, or other miscarriage in any of the Council in their trust, the Parliament shall appoint seven of their number, and the Council six, who, together with the Lord Chancellor, Lord Keeper, or Commissioners of the Great Seal for the time being, shall have power to hear and determine such corruption and miscarriage, and to award and inflict punishment, as the nature of the offence shall deserve, which punishment shall not be pardoned or remitted by the Lord Protector; and, in the interval of Parliaments, the major part of the Council, with the consent of the Lord Protector, may, for corruption or other miscarriage as aforesaid, suspend any of their number from the exercise of their trust, if they shall find it just, until the matter shall be heard and examined as aforesaid.

XXVI. That the Lord Protector and the major part of the Council aforesaid may, at any time before the meeting of the next Parliament, add to the Council such persons as they shall think fit, provided the number of the Council be not made thereby to exceed twenty-one, and the quorum to be proportioned accordingly by the Lord Protector and the major part of the Council.

XXVII. That a constant yearly revenue shall be raised, settled, and established for maintaining of 10,000 horse and dragoons, and 20,000 foot, in England, Scotland and Ireland, for the defence and security thereof, and also for a convenient number of ships for guarding of the seas; besides £200,000 per annum for defraying the other necessary charges of administration of justice, and other expenses of the Government, which revenue shall be raised by the customs, and such other ways and means as shall be agreed upon by the Lord Protector and the Council, and shall not be taken away or diminished, nor the way agreed upon for raising the same altered, but by the consent of the Lord Protector and the Parliament.

XXVIII. That the said yearly revenue shall be paid into the public treasury, and shall be issued out for the uses aforesaid.

XXIX. That in case there shall not be cause hereafter to keep up so great a defence both at land or sea, but that there be an abatement made thereof, the money which will be saved thereby shall remain in bank for the public service, and not be employed to any other use but by consent of Parliament, or, in the intervals of Parliament, by the Lord Protector and major part of the Council.

XXX. That the raising of money for defraying the charge of the present extraordinary forces, both at sea and land, in respect of the present wars, shall be by consent of Parliament, and not otherwise: save only that the Lord Protector, with the consent of the major part of the Council, for preventing the disorders and dangers which might otherwise fall out both by sea and land, shall have power, until the meeting of the first Parliament, to raise money for the purposes aforesaid; and also to make laws and ordinances for the peace and welfare of these nations where it shall be necessary, which shall be binding and in force, until order shall be taken in Parliament concerning the same.

XXXI. That the lands, tenements, rents, royalties, jurisdictions and hereditaments which remain yet unsold or undisposed of, by Act or Ordinance of Parliament, belonging to the Commonwealth (except the forests and chases, and the honours and manors belonging to the same; the lands of the rebels in Ireland, lying in the four counties of Dublin, Cork, Kildare, and Carlow; the lands forfeited by the people of Scotland in the late wars, and also the lands of Papists and delinquents in England who have not yet compounded), shall be vested in the Lord Protector, to hold, to him and his successors, Lords Protectors of these nations, and shall not be alienated but by consent in Parliament. And all debts, fines, issues, amercements, penalties and profits, certain and casual, due to the Keepers of the liberties of England by authority of Parliament, shall be due to the Lord Protector, and be payable into his public receipt, and shall be recovered and prosecuted in his name.

XXXII. That the office of Lord Protector over these nations shall be elective and not hereditary; and upon the death of the Lord Protector, another fit person shall be forthwith elected to succeed him in the Government; which election shall be by the Council, who, immediately upon the death of the Lord Protector, shall assemble in the Chamber where they usually sit in Council; and, having given notice to an their members of the cause of their assembling, shall, being thirteen at least present, proceed to the election; and, before they depart the said Chamber, shall elect a fit person to succeed in the Government, and forthwith cause proclamation thereof to be made in an the three nations as shall be requisite; and the person that they, or the major part of them, shall elect as aforesaid, shall be, and shall be taken to be, Lord Protector over these nations of England, Scotland and Ireland, and the dominions thereto belonging. Provided that none of the children of the late King, nor any of his line or family, be elected to be Lord Protector or other Chief Magistrate over these nations, or any the dominions thereto belonging. And until the aforesaid election be past, the Council shall take care of the Government, and administer in an things as fully as the Lord Protector, or the Lord Protector and Council are enabled to do.

XXXIII. That Oliver Cromwell, Captain-General of the forces of England, Scotland and Ireland, shall be, and is hereby declared to be, Lord Protector of the Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland, and the dominions thereto belonging, for his life.

XXXIV. That the Chancellor, Keeper or Commissioners of the Great Seal, the Treasurer, Admiral, Chief Governors of Ireland and Scotland, and the Chief Justices of both the Benches, shall be chosen by the approbation of Parliament; and, in the intervals of Parliament, by the approbation of the major part of the Council, to be afterwards approved by the Parliament.

XXXV. That the Christian religion, as contained in the Scriptures, be held forth and recommended as the public profession of these nations; and that, as soon as may be, a provision, less subject to scruple and contention, and more certain than the present, be made for the encouragement and maintenance of able and painful teachers, for the instructing the people, and for discovery and confutation of error, hereby, and whatever is contrary to sound doctrine; and until such provision be made, the present maintenance shall not be taken away or impeached.

XXXVI. That to the public profession held forth none shall be compened by penalties or otherwise; but that endeavours be used to win them by sound doctrine and the example of a good conversation.

XXXVII. That such as profess faith in God by Jesus Christ (though differing in judgment from the doctrine, worship or discipline publicly held forth) shall not be restrained from, but shall be protected in, the profession of the faith and exercise of their religion; so as they abuse not this liberty to the civil injury of others and to the actual disturbance of the public peace on their parts: provided this liberty be not extended to Popery or Prelacy, nor to such as, under the profession of Christ, hold forth and practice licentiousness.

XXXVIII. That all laws, statutes and ordinances, and clauses in any law, statute or ordinance to the contrary of the aforesaid liberty, shall be esteemed as null and void.

XXXIX. That the Acts and Ordinances of Parliament made for the sale or other disposition of the lands, rents and hereditaments of the late King, Queen, and Prince, of Archbishops and Bishops, &c., Deans and Chapters, the lands of delinquents and forest-lands, or any of them, or of any other lands, tenements, rents and hereditaments belonging to the Commonwealth, shall nowise be impeached or made invalid, but shall remain good and firm; and that the securities given by Act and Ordinance of Parliament for any sum or sums of money, by any of the said lands, the excise, or any other public revenue; and also the securities given by the public faith of the nation, and the engagement of the public faith for satisfaction of debts and damages, shall remain firm and good, and not be made void and invalid upon any pretence whatsoever.

XL. That the Articles given to or made with the enemy, and afterwards confirmed by Parliament, shall be performed and made good to the persons concerned therein; and that such appeals as were depending in the last Parliament for relief concerning bills of sale of delinquent's estates, may be heard and determined the next Parliament, anything in this writing or otherwise to the contrary notwithstanding.

XLI. That every successive Lord Protector over these nations shall take and subscribe a solemn oath, in the presence of the Council, and such others as they shall call to them, that he will seek the peace, quiet and welfare of these nations, cause law and justice to be equally administered; and that he will not violate or infringe the matters and things contained in this writing, and in all other things will, to his power and to the best of his understanding, govern these nations according to the laws, statutes and customs thereof.

XLII. That each person of the Council shall, before they enter upon their trust, take and subscribe an oath, that they will be true and faithful in their trust, according to the best of their knowledge; and that in the election of every successive Lord Protector they shall proceed therein impartially, and do nothing therein for any promise, fear, favour or reward.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1654-1658.
   The Protector, his Parliaments and his Major-Generals.
   The Humble Petition and Advice.
   Differing views of the Cromwellian autocracy.

"Oliver addressed his first Protectorate Parliament on Sunday, the 3d of September. … Immediately, under the leadership of old Parliamentarians, Haslerig, Scott, Bradshaw, and many other republicans, the House proceeded to debate the Instrument of Government, the constitutional basis of the existing system. By five votes, it decided to discuss 'whether the House should approve of government by a Single Person and a Parliament.' This was of course to set up the principle of making the Executive dependent on the House; a principle, in Oliver's mind, fatal to settlement and order. He acted at once. Calling on the Lord Mayor to secure the city, and disposing his own guard round Westminster Hall, he summoned the House again on the 9th day. … Members were called on to sign a declaration, 'not to alter the government as settled in a Single Person and a Parliament.' Some, 300 signed; the minority—about a fourth—refused and retired. … The Parliament, in spite of the declaration, set itself from the first to discuss the constitution, to punish heretics, suppress blasphemy, revise the Ordinances of the Council; and they deliberately withheld all supplies for the services and the government. At last they passed an Act for revising the constitution de novo. Not a single bill had been sent up to the Protector for his assent. Oliver, as usual, acted at once. On the expiration of their five lunar months, 22d January 1655, he summoned the House and dissolved it, with a speech full of reproaches."

"In 1656, the Protector called a second Parliament. By excluding from it about a hundred members whom he judged to be hostile to his government, he found himself on amicable terms with the new assembly. It presented to him a Humble Petition and Advice, asking that certain changes of the Constitution might be agreed to by mutual consent, and that he should assume the title of King. This title he rejected, and the Humble Petition and Advice was passed in an amended form on May 25, 1657, and at once received the assent of the Protector. On June 26, it was modified in some details by the Additional Petition and Advice. Taking the two together, the result was to enlarge the power of Parliament and to diminish that of the Council. The Protector, in turn, received the right of appointing his successor, and to name the life-members of 'the other House,' which was now to take the place of the House of Lords. … In accordance with the Additional Petition and Advice, the Protector summoned 'certain persons to sit in the other House.' A quarrel between the two Houses broke out, and the Protector [February 4, 1658] dissolved the Parliament in anger."

S. R. Gardiner, Constitutional Documents of the Puritan Revolution, pages lxiii-lxiv., and 334-350.

"To govern according to law may sometimes be an usurper's wish, but can seldom be in his power. The protector [in 1655] abandoned all thought of it. Dividing the kingdom into districts, he placed at the head of each a major-general as a sort of military magistrate, responsible for the subjection of his prefecture. These were eleven in number, men bitterly hostile to the royalist party, and insolent towards all civil authority. They were employed to secure the payment of a tax of 10 per cent., imposed by Cromwell's arbitrary will on those who had ever sided with the king during the late wars, where their estates exceeded £100 per annum. The major-generals, in their correspondence printed among Thurloe's papers, display a rapacity and oppression beyond their master's. … All illusion was now gone as to the pretended benefits of the civil war. It had ended in a despotism, compared to which all the illegal practices of former kings, all that had cost Charles his life and crown, appeared as dust in the balance. For what was ship-money, a general burthen, by the side of the present decimation of a single class, whose offence had long been expiated by a composition and effaced by an act of indemnity? or were the excessive punishments of the star-chamber so odious as the capital executions inflicted without trial by peers, whenever it suited the usurper to erect his high court of justice? … I cannot … agree in the praises which have been showered upon Cromwell for the just administration of the laws under his dominion. That, between party and party, the ordinary civil rights of men were fairly dealt with, is no extraordinary praise; and it may be admitted that he filled the benches of justice with able lawyers, though not so considerable as those of the reign of Charles II.; but it is manifest that, so far as his own authority was concerned, no hereditary despot, proud in the crimes of a hundred ancestors, could more have spurned at every limitation than this soldier of a commonwealth."

"Cromwell was, and felt himself to be, a dictator called in by the winning cause in a revolution to restore confidence and secure peace. He was, as he said frequently, 'the Constable set to keep order in the Parish.' Nor was he in any sense a military despot. … Never did a ruler invested with absolute power and overwhelming military force more obstinately strive to surround his authority with legal limits and Parliamentary control."

"To this condition, then, England was now reduced. After the gallantest fight for liberty that had ever been fought by any nation in the world, she found herself trampled under foot by a military despot. All the vices of old kingly rule were nothing to what was now imposed upon her."

"His [Cromwell's] wish seems to have been to govern constitutionally, and to substitute the empire of the laws for that of the sword. But he soon found that, hated as he was, both by Royalists and Presbyterians, he could be safe only by being absolute. … Those soldiers who would not suffer him to assume the kingly title, stood by him when he ventured on acts of power as high as any English king has ever attempted. The government, therefore, though in form a republic, was in truth a despotism, moderated only by the wisdom, the sobriety and the magnanimity of the despot."

England: A. D. 1655-1658.
War with Spain, alliance with France.
Acquisition of Dunkirk.

"Though the German war ['the Thirty Years' War,' concluded in 1648 by the Treaty of Westphalia] was over, the struggle between France and Spain was continued with great animosity, each country striving to crush her rival and become the first power in Europe. Both Louis XIV. and Philip IV. of Spain were bidding for the protector's support. Spain offered the possession of Calais, when taken from France; France the possession of Dunkirk when taken from Spain (1655). Cromwell determined to ally himself with France against Spain. … It was in the West Indies that the obstructive policy of Spain came most into collision with the interests of England. Her kings based their claims to the possession of two continents on the bull of Pope Alexander VI., who in 1493 had granted them all lands they should discover from pole to pole, at the distance of 100 leagues west from the Azores and Cape Verd Islands. On the strength of this bull they held that the discovery of an island gave them the right to the group, the discovery of a headland the right to a continent. Though this monstrous claim had quite broken down as far as the North American continent was concerned, the Spaniards, still recognizing 'no peace beyond the line,' endeavoured to shut all Europeans but themselves out of any share in the trade or colonization of at least the southern half of the New World. … While war was now proclaimed with Spain, a treaty of peace was signed between France and England, Louis XIV. agreeing to banish Charles Stuart and his brothers from French territory (October 24, 1655). This treaty was afterwards changed into a league, offensive and defensive (March 23, 1657), Cromwell undertaking to assist Louis with 6,000 men in besieging Gravelines, Mardyke, and Dunkirk, on condition of receiving the two latter towns when reduced by the allied armies. By the occupation of these towns Cromwell intended to control the trade of the Channel, to hold the Dutch in check, who were then but unwilling friends, and to lessen the danger of invasion from any union of Royalists and Spaniards. The war opened in the year 1657 [Jamaica, however, had already been taken from the Spaniards and St. Domingo attacked], with another triumph by sea." This was Blake's last exploit. He attacked and destroyed the Spanish bullion fleet, from Mexico, in the harbor of Santa Cruz, island of Teneriffe, and silenced the forts which guarded it. The great sea-captain died on his voyage home, after striking this blow. The next spring "the siege of Dunkirk was commenced (May, 1658). The Spaniards tried to relieve the town, but were completely defeated in an engagement called the Battle of the Dunes from the sand hills among which it was fought; the defeat was mainly owing to the courage and discipline of Oliver's troops, who won for themselves the name of 'the Immortal Six Thousand.' … Ten days after the battle Dunkirk surrendered, and the French had no choice but to give over to the English ambassador the keys of a town they thought 'unsi bon morceau' ['a good …'] (June 25)."

ALSO IN: T. Carlyle, Oliver Cromwell's Letters and Speeches, book 9, speech 5 and book 10, letters 152-157.

      J. Campbell,
      Naval History of Great Britain,
      chapter 15 (volume 2).

      J. Waylen,
      The House of Cromwell and the Story of Dunkirk,
      pages 173-272.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1658-1660.
The fall of the Protectorate and Restoration of the Stuarts.
King Charles II.

   When Oliver Cromwell died, on the 3d day of September,
   1658—the anniversary of his victories at Dunbar and at
   Worcester—his eldest son Richard, whom he had nominated, it
   was said, on his death-bed, was proclaimed Protector, and
   succeeded him "as quietly as any King had ever been succeeded
   by any Prince of Wales. During five months, the administration
   of Richard Cromwell went on so tranquilly and regularly that
   all Europe believed him to be firmly established on the chair
   of state." But Richard had none of his father's genius or
   personal power, and the discontents and jealousies which the
   former had rigorously suppressed soon tossed the latter from
   his unstable throne by their fierce upheaval. He summoned a
   new Parliament (January 27, 1659), which recognized and
   confirmed his authority, though containing a powerful
   opposition, of uncompromising republicans and secret
   royalists. But the army, which the great Protector had tamed
   to submissive obedience, was now stirred into mischievous
   action once more as a political power in the state,
   subservient to the ambition of Fleetwood and other commanders.
   Richard Cromwell could not make himself the master of his
   father's battalions. "He was used by the army as an instrument
   for the purpose of dissolving the Parliament [April 22], and
   was then contemptuously thrown aside. The officers gratified
   their republican allies by declaring that the expulsion of the
   Rump had been illegal, and by inviting that assembly to resume
   its functions. The old Speaker and a quorum of the old members
   came together [May 9] and were proclaimed, amidst the scarcely
   stifled derision and execration of the whole nation, the
   supreme power in the Commonwealth. It was at the same time
   expressly declared that there should be no first magistrate
   and no House of Lords. But this state of things could not
   last. On the day on which the Long Parliament revived, revived
   also its old quarrel with the army. Again the Rump forgot that
   it owed its existence to the pleasure of the soldiers, and
   began to treat them as subjects. Again the doors of the House
   of Commons were closed by military violence [October 13]; and
   a provisional government, named by the officers, assumed the
   direction of affairs." The troops stationed in Scotland, under
   Monk, had not been consulted, however, in these transactions,
   and were evidently out of sympathy with their comrades in
   England. Monk, who had never meddled with politics before, was
   now induced to interfere.
{893}
   He refused to acknowledge the military provisional government,
   declared himself the champion of the civil power, and marched
   into England at the head of his 7,000 veterans. His movement
   was everywhere welcomed and encouraged by popular
   demonstrations of delight. The army in England lost courage
   and lost unity, awed and paralyzed by the public feeling at
   last set free. Monk reached London without opposition, and was
   the recognized master of the realm. Nobody knew his
   intentions—himself, perhaps, as little as any—and it was
   not until after a period of protracted suspense that he
   declared himself for the convening of a new and free
   Parliament, in the place of the Rump—which had again resumed
   its sittings—for the settlement of the state. "The result of
   the elections was such as might have been expected from the
   temper of the nation. The new House of Commons consisted, with
   few exceptions, of persons friendly to the royal family. The
   Presbyterians formed the majority. … The new Parliament,
   which, having been called without the royal writ, is more
   accurately described as a Convention, met at Westminster
   [April 26, 1660]. The Lords repaired to the hall, from which
   they had, during more than eleven years, been excluded by
   force. Both Houses instantly invited the King to return to his
   country. He was proclaimed with pomp never before known. A
   gallant fleet convoyed him from Holland to the coast of Kent.
   When he landed [May 25, 1660], the cliffs of Dover were
   covered by thousands of gazers, among whom scarcely one could
   be found who was not weeping with delight. The journey to
   London was a continued triumph."

The only guarantee with which the careless nation took back their ejected kings of the faithless race of Stuarts was embodied in a Declaration which Charles sent over from "Our Court at Breda" in April, and which was read in Parliament with an effusive display of respect and thankfulness. In this Declaration from Breda, "a general amnesty and liberty of conscience were promised, with such exceptions and limitations only as the Parliament should think fit to make. All delicate questions, among others the proprietorship of confiscated estates, were in like manner referred to the decision of Parliament, thus leaving the King his liberty while diminishing his responsibility; and though fully asserting the ancient rights of the Crown, he announced his intention to associate the two Houses with himself in all great affairs of State."

F. P. Guizot, History of Richard Cromwell and the Restoration, book 4 (volume 2).

   "There never were such profligate times in England as under
   Charles the Second. Whenever you see his portrait, with his
   swarthy ill-looking face and great nose, you may fancy him in
   his Court at Whitehall, surrounded by some of the very worst
   vagabonds in the kingdom (though they were lords and ladies),
   drinking, gambling, indulging in vicious conversation, and
   committing every kind of profligate excess. It has been a
   fashion to call Charles the Second 'The Merry Monarch.' Let me
   try to give you a general idea of some of the merry things
   that were done, in the merry days when this merry gentleman
   sat upon his merry throne, in merry England. The first merry
   proceeding was—of course—to declare that he was one of the
   greatest, the wisest, and the noblest kings that ever shone,
   like the blessed sun itself, on this benighted earth. The next
   merry and pleasant piece of business was, for the Parliament,
   in the humblest manner, to give him one million two hundred
   thousand pounds a year, and to settle upon him for life that
   old disputed 'tonnage and poundage' which had been so bravely
   fought for. Then, General Monk, being made Earl of Albemarle,
   and a few other Royalists similarly rewarded, the law went to
   work to see what was to be done to those persons (they were
   called Regicides) who had been concerned in making a martyr of
   the late King. Ten of these were merrily executed; that is to
   say, six of the judges, one of the council, Colonel Hacker and
   another officer who had commanded the Guards, and Hugh Peters,
   a preacher who had preached against the martyr with all his
   heart. These executions were so extremely merry, that every
   horrible circumstance which Cromwell had abandoned was revived
   with appalling cruelty. … Sir Harry Vane, who had furnished
   the evidence against Stratford, and was one of the most
   staunch of the Republicans, was also tried, found guilty, and
   ordered for execution. … These merry scenes were succeeded
   by another, perhaps even merrier. On the anniversary of the
   late King's death, the bodies of Oliver Cromwell, Ireton, and
   Bradshaw, "Were torn out of their graves in 'Westminster
   Abbey, dragged to Tyburn, hanged there on a gallows all day
   long, and then beheaded. Imagine the head of Oliver Cromwell
   set upon a pole to be stared at by a brutal crowd, not one of
   whom would have dared to look the living Oliver in the face
   for half a moment! Think, after you have read this reign, what
   England was under Oliver Cromwell who was torn out of his
   grave, and what it was under this merry monarch who sold it,
   like a merry Judas, over and over again. Of course, the
   remains of Oliver's wife and daughter were not to be spared,
   either, though they had been most excellent women. The base
   clergy of that time gave up their bodies, which had been
   buried in the Abbey, and—to the eternal disgrace of
   England—they were thrown into a pit, together with the
   mouldering bones of Pym, and of the brave and bold old Admiral
   Blake. … The whole Court was a great flaunting crowd of
   debauched men and shameless women; and Catherine's merry
   husband insulted and outraged her in every possible way, until
   she consented to receive those worthless creatures as her very
   good friends, and to degrade herself by their companionship. A
   Mrs. Palmer, whom the King made Lady Castlemaine, and
   afterwards Duchess of Cleveland, was one of the most powerful
   of the bad women about the Court, and had great influence with
   the King nearly all through his reign. Another merry lady
   named Moll Davies, a dancer at the theatre, was afterwards her
   rival. So was Nell Gwyn, first an orange girl and then an
   actress, who really had good in her, and of whom one of the
   worst things I know is, that actually she does seem to have
   been fond of the King. The first Duke of St. Albans was this
   orange girl's child. In like manner the son of a merry
   waiting-lady, whom the King created Duchess of Portsmouth,
   became the Duke of Richmond.
{894}
   Upon the whole it is not so bad a thing to be a commoner. The
   Merry Monarch was so exceedingly merry among these merry
   ladies, and some equally merry (and equally infamous) lords
   and gentlemen, that he soon got through his hundred thousand
   pounds, and then, by way of raising a little pocket-money,
   made a merry bargain. He sold Dunkirk to the French King for
   five millions of livres. When I think of the dignity to which
   Oliver Cromwell raised England in the eyes of foreign powers,
   and when I think of the manner in which he gained for England
   this very Dunkirk, I am much inclined to consider that if the
   Merry Monarch had been made to follow his father for this
   action, he would have received his just deserts."

"The Restoration had been the joint work of Episcopalian and Presbyterian; would it be possible to reconcile them on this question too [i. e., of the settlement of Church government]? The Presbyterian indeed was willing enough for a compromise, for he had an uneasy feeling that the ground was slipping from beneath his feet. Of Charles's intentions he was still in doubt; but he knew that Clarendon was the sworn friend of the Church. The Churchman on the other hand was eagerly expecting the approaching hour of triumph. It soon appeared that as King and Parliament, so King and Church were inseparable in the English mind; that indeed the return of the King was the restoration of the Church even more than it was the restoration of Parliament. In the face of the present Presbyterian majority however it was necessary to temporise. The former incumbents of Church livings were restored, and the Commons took the Communion according to the rites of the Church; but in other respects the Presbyterians were carefully kept in play; Charles taking his part in the elaborate farce by appointing ten of their leading ministers royal chaplains, and even attending, their sermons." In October, 1660, Charles "took the matter more completely into his own hands by issuing a Declaration. Refusing, on the ground of constraint, to admit the validity of the oaths imposed upon him in Scotland, by which he was bound to uphold the Covenant, and not concealing his preference for the Anglican Church, as 'the best fence God hath yet raised against popery in the world,' he asserted that nevertheless, to his own knowledge, the Presbyterians were not enemies to Episcopacy or a set liturgy, and were opposed to the alienation of Church revenues. The Declaration then went on to limit the power of bishops and archdeacons in a degree sufficient to satisfy many of the leading Presbyterians, one of whom, Reynolds, accepted a bishopric. Charles then proposed to choose an equal number of learned divines of both persuasions to discuss alterations in the liturgy; meanwhile no one was to be troubled regarding differences of practice. The majority in the Commons at first welcomed the Declaration, … and a bill was accordingly introduced by Sir Matthew Hale to turn the Declaration into a law. But Clarendon at any rate had no intention of thus baulking the Church of her revenge. Anticipating Hale's action, he had in the interval been busy in securing a majority against any compromise. The Declaration had done its work in gaining time, and when the bill was brought in it was rejected by 183 to 157 votes. Parliament was at once (December 24) dissolved. The way was now open for the riot of the Anglican triumph. Even before the new House met the mask was thrown off by the issuing of an order to the justices to restore the full liturgy. The conference indeed took place in the Savoy Palace. It failed, like the Hampton Court Conference of James I., because it was intended to fail. Upon the two important points, the authority of bishops and the liturgy, the Anglicans would not give way an inch. Both parties informed the King that, anxious as they were for agreement, they saw no chance of it. This last attempt at union having fallen through, the Government had their hands free; and their intentions were speedily made plain."

"The Royal Commission [for the Savoy Conference] bore date the 25th of March. It gave the Commissioners authority to review the Book of Common Prayer, to compare it with the most ancient Liturgies, to take into consideration all things which it contained, to consult respecting the exceptions against it, and by agreement to make such necessary alterations as should afford satisfaction to tender consciences, and restore to the Church unity and peace; the instrument appointed 'the Master's lodgings in the Savoy' as the place of meeting. … The Commissioners were summoned to meet upon the 15th of April. … The Bill of Uniformity, hereafter to be described, actually passed the House of Commons on the 9th of July, about a fortnight before the Conference broke up. The proceedings of a Royal Commission to review the Prayer Book, and make alterations for the satisfaction of tender consciences were, by this premature act, really treated with mockery, a circumstance which could not but exceedingly offend and annoy the Puritan members, and serve to embitter the language of Baxter as the end of these fruitless sittings approached."

"Unable to confine himself within the narrow limits of his civil list, with his favorites and mistresses, he [Charles II.] would have sought even in the infernal regions the gold which his subjects measured out to him with too parsimonious a hand. … [He] proposed to sell to France Dunkirk and its dependencies, which, he said, cost him too much to keep up. He asked twelve million francs; he fell at last to five millions, and the treaty was signed October 27, 1662. It was time; the Lord Mayor and Aldermen of London, informed of the negotiation, had determined to offer Charles II. whatever he wished in behalf of their city not to alienate Dunkirk. Charles dared not retract his word, which would have been, as D'Estrades told him, to break forever with Louis XIV., and on the 2d of December Louis joyfully made his entry into his good city, reconquered by gold instead of the sword."

H. Martin, History of France: Age of Louis XIV., translated by M. L. Booth, chapter 4 (volume 1).

England: A. D. 1662-1665.
The Act of Uniformity and persecution of the Nonconformists.

The failure of the Savoy Conference "was the conclusion which had been expected and desired. Charles had already summoned the Convocation, and to that assembly was assigned the task which had failed in the hands of the commissioners at the Savoy. … The act of uniformity followed [passed by the Commons July 9, 1661; by the Lords May 8, 1662; receiving the royal assent May 19, 1662], by which it was enacted that the revised Book of Common Prayer, and of Ordination of Ministers, and no other, should be used in all places of public worship; and that all beneficed clergymen should read the service from it within a given time, and, at the close, profess in a set form of words, their 'unfeigned assent and consent to everything contained and prescribed in it.' … The act of uniformity may have been necessary for the restoration of the church to its former discipline and doctrine; but if such was the intention of those who framed the declaration from Breda, they were guilty of infidelity to the king and of fraud to the people, by putting into his mouth language which, with the aid of equivocation, they might explain away, and by raising in them expectations which it was never meant to fulfil."

"This rigorous act when it passed, gave the ministers, who could not conform, no longer time than till Bartholomewday, August 24th, 1662, when they were all cast out. … This was an action without a precedent: The like to this the Reformed church, nay the Christian world, never saw before. Historians relate, with tragical exclamations, that between three and four score bishops were driven at once into the island of Sardinia by the African vandals; that 200 ministers were banished by Ferdinand, king of Bohemia; and that great havock was, a few years after, made among the ministers of Germany by the Imperial Interim. But these all together fall short of the number ejected by the act of uniformity, which was not less than 2,000. The succeeding hardships of the latter were also by far the greatest. They were not only silenced, but had no room left for any sort of usefulness, and were in a manner buried alive. Far greater tenderness was used towards the Popish clergy ejected at the Reformation. They were suffered to live quietly; but these were oppressed to the utmost, and that even by their brethren who professed the same faith themselves: not only excluded preferments, but turned out into the wide world without any visible way of subsistence. Not so much as a poor vicarage, not an obscure chapel, not a school was left them. Nay, though they offered, as some of them did, to preach gratis, it must not be allowed them. … The ejected ministers continued for ten years in a state of silence and obscurity. … The act of uniformity took place August the 24th, 1662. On the 26th of December following, the king published a Declaration, expressing his purpose to grant some indulgence or liberty in religion. Some of the Nonconformists were hereupon much encouraged, and waiting privately on the king, had their hopes confirmed, and would have persuaded their brethren to have thanked him for his declaration; but they refused, lest they should make way for the toleration of the Papists, whom they understood the king intended to include in it. … Instead of indulgence or comprehension, on the 30th of June, an act against private meetings, called the Conventicle Act, passed the House of Commons, and soon after was made a law, viz.: 'That every person above sixteen years of age, present at any meeting, under pretence of any exercise of religion, in other manner than is the practice of the church of England, where there are five persons more than the household, shall for the first offence, by a justice of peace be recorded, and sent to gaol three months, till he pay £5, and for the second offence six months, till he pay £10, and the third time being convicted by a jury, shall be banished to some of the American plantations, excepting New England or Virginia." … In the year 1665 the plague broke out"—and the ejected ministers boldly took possession for the time of the deserted London pulpits. "While God was consuming the people by this judgment, and the Nonconformists were labouring to save their souls, the parliament, which sat at Oxford, was busy in making an act [called the Five Mile Act] to render their case incomparably harder than it was before, by putting upon them a certain oath ['that it is not lawful, upon any pretence whatsoever, to take arms against the king,' &c.], which, if they refused, they must not come (unless upon the road) within five miles of any city or corporation, any place that sent burgesses to parliament, any place where they had been ministers, or had preached after the act of oblivion. … When this act came out, those ministers who had any maintenance of their own, found out some place of residence in obscure villages, or market-towns, that were not corporations."

ALSO IN: J. Stoughton, History of Religion in England, volume 3, chapters 6-9.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1663.
The grant of the Carolinas to Monk, Clarendon, Shaftesbury,
and others.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1665-1666.
War with Holland renewed.
The Dutch fleet in the Thames.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1668.
The Triple Alliance with Holland and Sweden against Louis XIV.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1668-1670.
   The secret Catholicism and the perfidy of the King.
   His begging of bribes from Louis XIV.
   His betrayal of Holland.
   His breaking of the Triple Alliance.

   In 1668, the royal treasury being greatly embarrassed by the
   king's extravagances, an attempt was made "to reduce the
   annual expenditure below the amount of the royal income. …
   But this plan of economy accorded not with the royal
   disposition, nor did it offer any prospect of extinguishing
   the debt. Charles remembered the promise of pecuniary
   assistance from France in the beginning of his reign; and,
   though his previous efforts to cultivate the friendship of
   Louis had been defeated by an unpropitious course of events,
   he resolved to renew the experiment.
{896}
   Immediately after the peace of Aix-la-Chapelle, Buckingham
   opened a negotiation with the duchess of Orleans, the king's
   sister, in France, and Charles, in his conversations with the
   French resident, apologised for his conduct in forming the
   triple alliance, and openly expressed his wish to enter into a
   closer union, a more intimate friendship, with Louis. …
   About the end of the year the communications between the two
   princes became more open and confidential; French money, or
   the promise of French money, was received by the English
   ministers; the negotiation began to assume a more regular
   form, and the most solemn assurances of secrecy were given,
   that their real object might be withheld from the knowledge,
   or even the suspicion, of the States. In this stage of the
   proceedings Charles received an important communication from
   his brother James. Hitherto that prince had been an obedient
   and zealous son of the Church of England; but Dr. Heylin's
   History of the Reformation had shaken his religious credulity,
   and the result of the inquiry was a conviction that it became
   his duty to reconcile himself with the Church of Rome. He was
   not blind to the dangers to which such a change would expose
   him; and he therefore purposed to continue outwardly in
   communion with the established church, while he attended at
   the Catholic service in private. But, to his surprise, he
   learned from Symonds, a Jesuit missionary, that no
   dispensation could authorise such duplicity of conduct: a
   similar answer was returned to the same question from the
   pope; and James immediately took his resolution. He
   communicated to the king in private that he was determined to
   embrace the Catholic faith; and Charles without hesitation
   replied that he was of the same mind, and would consult with
   the duke on the subject in the presence of lord Arundell, lord
   Arlington, and Arlington's confidential friend, sir Thomas
   Clifford. … The meeting was held in the duke's closet.
   Charles, with tears in his eyes, lamented the hardship of
   being compelled to profess a religion which he did not
   approve, declared his determination to emancipate himself from
   this restraint, and requested the opinion of those present, as
   to the most eligible means of effecting his purpose with
   safety and success. They advised him to communicate his
   intention to Louis, and to solicit the powerful aid of that
   monarch. Here occurs a very interesting question,—was Charles
   sincere or not? … He was the most accomplished dissembler in
   his dominions; nor will it be any injustice to his character
   to suspect that his real object was to deceive both his
   brother and the king of France. … Now, however, the secret
   negotiation proceeded with greater activity; and lord
   Arundell, accompanied by sir Richard Bellings, hastened to the
   French court. He solicited from Louis the present of a
   considerable sum, to enable the king to suppress any
   insurrection which might be provoked by his intended
   conversion, and offered the co-operation of England in the
   projected invasion of Holland, on the condition of an annual
   subsidy during the continuation of hostilities." On the advice
   of Louis, Charles postponed, for the time being, his intention
   to enter publicly the Romish church and thus provoke a
   national revolt; but his proposals were otherwise accepted,
   and a secret treaty was concluded at Dover, in May, 1670,
   through the agency of Charles' sister, Henrietta, the duchess
   of Orleans, who came over for that purpose. "Of this treaty,
   … though much was afterwards said, little was certainly
   known. All the parties concerned, both the sovereigns and the
   negotiators, observed an impenetrable secrecy. What became of
   the copy transmitted to France is unknown; its counterpart was
   confided to the custody of sir Thomas Clifford, and is still
   in the keeping of his descendant, the lord Clifford of
   Chudleigh. The principal articles were:

1. That the king of England should publicly profess himself a Catholic at such time as should appear to him most expedient, and subsequently to that profession should join with Louis in a war against the Dutch republic at such time as the most Christian king should judge proper.

2. That to enable the king of England to suppress any insurrection which might be occasioned by his conversion, the king of France should grant him an aid of 2,000,000 of livres, by two payments, one at the expiration of three months, the other of six months, after the ratification of the treaty, and should also assist him with an armed force of 6,000 men, if … necessary. …

4. That if, eventually, any new rights on the Spanish monarchy should accrue to the king of France, the king of England should aid him with all his power in the acquisition of those rights. 5. That both princes should make war on the united provinces, and that neither should conclude peace or truce with them without the advice and consent of his ally.".

"It was remarked that the committee of council, established for foreign affairs, was entirely changed; and that Prince Rupert, the Duke of Ormond, Secretary Trevor, and Lord-keeper Bridgeman, men in whose honour the nation had great confidence, were never called to any deliberations. The whole secret was intrusted to five persons, Clifford, Ashley [afterwards Earl of Shaftesbury], Buckingham, Arlington, and Lauderdale. These men were known by the appellation of the Cabal, a word which the initial letters of their names happened to compose. Never was there a more dangerous ministry in England, nor one more noted for pernicious counsels."

   "It would have been impossible to obtain the consent of the
   party in the Royal Council which represented the old
   Presbyterians, of Ashley or Lauderdale or the Duke of
   Buckingham, to the Treaty of Dover. But it was possible to
   trick them into approval of a war with Holland by playing on
   their desire for a toleration of the Nonconformists. The
   announcement of the King's Catholicism was therefore deferred.
   … His ministers outwitted, it only remained for Charles to
   outwit his Parliament. A large subsidy was demanded for the
   fleet, under the pretext of upholding the Triple Alliance, and
   the subsidy was no sooner granted than the two Houses were
   adjourned.
{897}
   Fresh supplies were obtained by closing the Exchequer, and
   suspending—under Clifford's advice—the payment of either
   principal or interest on loans advanced to the public
   treasury. The measure spread bankruptcy among half the
   goldsmiths of London; but it was followed in 1672 by one yet
   more startling—the Declaration of Indulgence. By virtue of
   his ecclesiastical powers, the King ordered 'that all manner
   of penal laws on matters ecclesiastical against whatever sort
   of Nonconformists or recusants should be from that day
   suspended,' and gave liberty of public worship to all
   dissidents save Catholics, who were allowed to practice their
   religion only in private houses. … The Declaration of
   Indulgence was at once followed by a declaration of war
   against the Dutch on the part of both England and France. …
   It was necessary in 1673 to appeal to the Commons [for war
   supplies], but the Commons met in a mood of angry distrust.
   … There was a general suspicion that a plot was on foot for
   the establishment of Catholicism and despotism, and that the
   war and the Indulgence were parts of the plot. The change of
   temper in the Commons was marked by the appearance of what was
   from that time called the Country party, with Lords Russell
   and Cavendish and Sir William Coventry at its head—a party
   which sympathized with the Nonconformists, but looked on it as
   its first duty to guard against the designs of the Court. As to
   the Declaration of Indulgence, however, all parties in the
   House were at one. The Commons resolved 'that penal statutes
   in matters ecclesiastical cannot be suspended but by consent
   of Parliament,' and refused supplies till the Declaration was
   recalled. The King yielded; but the Declaration was no sooner
   recalled than a Test Act was passed through both Houses
   without opposition, which required from everyone in the civil
   and military employment of the State the oaths of allegiance
   and supremacy, a declaration against transubstantiation, and a
   reception of the sacrament according to the rites of the
   Church of England. Clifford at once counseled resistance, and
   Buckingham talked flightily about bringing the army to London,
   but Arlington saw that all hope of carrying the 'great plan'
   through was at an end, and pressed Charles to yield. …
   Charles sullenly gave way. No measure has ever brought about
   more startling results. The Duke of York owned himself a
   Catholic, and resigned his office as Lord High Admiral. …
   Clifford, too, … owned to being a Catholic, and … laid
   down his staff of office. Their resignation was followed by
   that of hundreds of others in the army and the civil service
   of the Crown. … The resignations were held to have proved
   the existence of the dangers which the Test Act had been
   passed to meet. From this moment all trust in Charles was at
   an end."

"It is very true that the [Test Act] pointed only at Catholics, that it really proposed an anti-Popish test, yet the construction of it, although it did not exclude from office such Dissenters as could occasionally conform, did effectually exclude all who scrupled to do so. Aimed at the Romanists, it struck the Presbyterians. It is clear that, had the Nonconformists and the Catholics joined their forces with those of the Court, in opposing the measure, they might have defeated it; but the first of these classes for the present submitted to the inconvenience, from the horror which they entertained of Popery, hoping, at the same time, that some relief would be afforded for this personal sacrifice in the cause of a common Protestantism. Thus the passing of an Act, which, until a late period, inflicted a social wrong upon two large sections of the community, is to be attributed to the course pursued by the very parties whose successors became the sufferers."

ALSO IN: D. Neal, History of the Puritans, volume 4, chapter 8, and volume 5, chapter 1.

J. Collier, Ecclesiastical History of Great Britain, part 2, book 9 (volume 8).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1672-1674.
Alliance with Louis XIV. of France in war with Holland.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1674.
   Peace with the Dutch.
   Treaty of Westminster.
   Recovery of New York.

"There was an uneasy feeling in the nation that it was being betrayed, and just then [August, 1678] a strange story caused a panic throughout all England. A preacher of low character, named Titus Oates, who had gone over to the Jesuits, declared that he knew of a plot among the Catholics to kill the king and set up a Catholic Government. He brought his tale to a magistrate, named Sir Edmund Bury Godfrey, and shortly afterwards [October 17] Godfrey was found murdered in a ditch near St. Pancras Church. The people thought that the Catholics had murdered him to hush up the 'Popish plot,' and when Parliament met a committee was appointed to examine into the matter. Some papers belonging to a Jesuit named Coleman alarmed them, and so great was the panic that an Act was passed shutting out all Catholics, except the Duke of York, from Parliament. After this no Catholic sat in either House for a hundred and fifty years. But worse followed. Oates became popular, and finding tale-bearing successful, he and other informers went on to swear away the lives of a great number of innocent Catholics. The most noted of these was Lord Stafford, an upright and honest peer, who was executed in 1681, declaring his innocence. Charles laughed among his friends at the whole matter, but let it go on, and Shaftesbury, who wished to turn out Lord Danby, did all he could to fan the flame."

"The capital and the whole nation went mad with hatred and fear. The penal laws, which had begun to lose something of their edge, were sharpened anew. Everywhere justices were busied in searching houses and seizing papers. All the gaols were filled with Papists. London had the aspect of a city in a state of siege. The train bands were under arms all night. Preparations were made for barricading the great thoroughfares. Patroles marched up and down the streets. Cannon were planted round Whitehall. No citizen thought himself safe unless he carried under his coat a small flail loaded with lead to brain the Popish assassins."

"It being expected that printed Bibles would soon become rare, or locked up in an unknown tongue, many honest people, struck with the alarm, employed themselves in copying the Bible into short-hand that they might not be destitute of its consolations in the hour of calamity. … It was about the year 1679 that the famous King's Head Club was formed, so named from its being held at the King's Head Tavern in Fleet Street. … They were terrorists and spread alarm with great effect. It was at this club that silk armour, pistol proof, was recommended as a security against assassination at the hands of the Papists; and the particular kind of life-preserver of that day, called a Protestant flail, was introduced."

"And now commenced, before the courts of justice and the upper house, a sombre prosecution of the catholic lords Arundel, Petre, Stafford, Powis, Bellasis, the Jesuits Coleman, Ireland, Grieve, Pickering, and, in succession, all who were implicated by the indefatigable denunciations of Titus Oates and Bedloe. Unhappily, these courts of justice, desiring, in common with the whole nation, to condemn rather than to examine, wanted neither elements which might, if strictly acted upon, establish legal proof of conspiracy against some of the accused, nor terrible laws to destroy them when found guilty. And it was here that a spectacle, at first imposing, became horrible. No friendly voice arose to save those men who were guilty only of impracticable wishes, of extravagant conceptions. The king, the duke of York, the French ambassador, thoroughly acquainted as they were with the real nature of these imputed crimes, remained silent; they were thoroughly cowed."

"Although, … upon a review of this truly shocking transaction, we may be fairly justified … in imputing to the greater part of those concerned in it, rather an extraordinary degree of blind credulity than the deliberate wickedness of planning and assisting in the perpetration of legal murders; yet the proceedings on the popish plot must always be considered as an indelible disgrace upon the English nation, in which king, parliament, judges, juries, witnesses, prosecutors, have all their respective, though certainly not equal, shares."

      C. J. Fox,
      History of the Early Part of the Reign of James II.,
      introduction, ch.

"In this dreadful scene of wickedness, it is difficult not to assign the pre-eminence of guilt to Anthony Ashley Cooper, earl of Shaftesbury. If he did not first contrive, he certainly availed himself of the revelations of Oates, to work up the nation to the fury which produced the subsequent horrors. … In extenuation of the delusion of the populace, something may be offered. The defamation of half a century had made the catholics the objects of protestant odium and distrust: and these had been increased by the accusation, artfully and assiduously fomented, of their having been the authors of the fire of the city of London. The publication, too, of Coleman's letters, certainly announced a considerable activity in the catholics to promote the catholic religion; and contained expressions, easily distorted to the sense, in which the favourers of the belief of the plot wished them to be understood. Danby's correspondence, likewise, which had long been generally known, and was about this time made public, had discovered that Charles was in the pay of France. These, with several other circumstances, had inflamed the imaginations of the public to the very highest pitch. A dreadful something (and not the less dreadful because its precise nature was altogether unknown), was generally apprehended. … For their supposed part in the plot, ten laymen and seven priests, one of whom was seventy, another eighty, years of age, were executed. Seventeen others were condemned, but not executed. Some died in prison, and some were pardoned. On the whole body of catholics the laws were executed with horrible severity."

C. Butler, Historical Memoirs of the English Catholics, chapter 32, section 3 (volume 2).

"Arbitrary imprisonment is a grievance which, in some degree, has place in almost every government, except in that of Great Britain; and our absolute security from it we owe chiefly to the present Parliament; a merit which makes some atonement for the faction and violence into which their prejudices had, in other particulars, betrayed them. The great charter had laid the foundation of this valuable part of liberty; the petition of right had renewed and extended it; but some provisions were still wanting to render it complete, and prevent all evasion or delay from ministers and judges. The act of habeas corpus, which passed this session, served these purposes. By this act it was prohibited to send anyone to a prison beyond sea. No judge, under severe penalties, must refuse to any prisoner a writ of habeas corpus, by which the gaoler was directed to produce in court the body of the prisoner (whence the writ has its name), and to certify the cause of his detainer and imprisonment. If the gaol lie within twenty miles of the judge, the writ must be obeyed in three days; and so proportionably for greater distances; every prisoner must be indicted the first term after his commitment, and brought to trial in the subsequent term. And no man, after being enlarged by order of court, can be recommitted for the same offence."

"The older remedies serving as a safeguard against unlawful imprisonment, were—

1. The writ of Mainprise, ensuring the delivery of the accused to a friend of the same, who gave security to answer for his appearance before the court when required, and in token of such undertaking he held him by the hand ('le prit par le main').

2. The writ 'De odio et atiâ,' i. e., of hatred and malice, which, though not abolished, has long since been antiquated. … It directed the sheriff to make inquisition in the county court whether the imprisonment proceeded from malice or not. …

3. The writ 'De homine replegiando,' or replevying a man, that is, delivering him out on security to answer what may be objected against him.

   A writ is, originally, a royal writing,
   either an open patent addressed to all to whom it may come,
   and issued under the great seal; or, 'litteræ clausæ,' a
   sealed letter addressed to a particular person; such writs
   were prepared in the royal courts or in the Court of Chancery.
   The most usual instrument of protection, however, against
   arbitrary imprisonment is the writ of 'Habeas corpus,' so
   called from its beginning with the words, 'Habeas corpus ad
   subjiciendum,' which, on account of its universal application
   and the security it affords, has, insensibly, taken precedence
   of all others.
{899}
   This is an old writ of the common law, and must be prayed for
   in any of the Superior courts of common law. … But this writ
   … proved but a feeble, or rather wholly ineffectual
   protection against the arbitrary power of the sovereign. The
   right of an English subject to a writ of habeas corpus, and to
   a release from imprisonment unless sufficient cause be shown
   for his detention, was fully canvassed in the first years of
   the reign of Charles I. … The parliament endeavoured to
   prevent such arbitrary imprisonment by passing the 'Petition
   of Right,' which enacted that no freeman, in any such manner
   … should be imprisoned or detained. Even this act was found
   unavailing against the malevolent interpretations put by the
   judges; hence the 16 Charles I., c. 10, was passed, which
   enacts, that when any person is restrained of his liberty by
   the king in person, or by the Privy Council, or any member
   thereof, he shall, on demand of his counsel, have a writ of
   habeas corpus, and, three days after the writ, shall be
   brought before the court to determine whether there is ground
   for further imprisonment, for bail, or for his release.
   Notwithstanding these provisions, the immunity of English
   subjects from arbitrary detention was not ultimately
   established in full practical efficiency until the passing of
   the statute of Charles II., commonly called the 'Habeas Corpus
   Act.'"

ALSO IN: Sir W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, book 3, chapter 8.

I. Whereas great Delays have been used by Sheriffs, Gaolers and other Officers, to whose Custody any of the King's Subjects have been committed, for criminal or supposed criminal Matters, in making Returns of Writs of Habeas Corpus to them directed, by standing out an Alias and Pluries Habeas Corpus, and sometimes more, and by other Shifts, to avoid their yielding Obedience to such Writs, contrary to their Duty, and the known Laws of the Land, whereby many of the King's Subjects have been, and hereafter may be long detained in Prison, in such cases where by Law they are bailable, to their great Charges and Vexation.

II. For the Prevention whereof, and the more speedy Relief of all Persons imprisoned for any such Criminal, or supposed Criminal Matters: (2.) Be it Enacted by the King's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons in this present Parliament assembled, and by the Authority thereof, that whensoever any Person or Persons shall bring any Habeas Corpus directed unto any Sheriff, or Sheriffs, Gaoler, Minister, or other Person whatsoever, for any Person in his or their Custody, and the said Writ shall be served upon the said Officer, or left at the Gaol or Prison, with any of the under Officers, under Keepers, or Deputy of the said Officers or Keepers, that the said Officer or Officers, his or their Under Officers, Under Keepers or Deputies, shall within three Days after the Service thereof, as aforesaid (unless the Commitment aforesaid were for Treason or Felony, plainly and specially expressed in the Warrant of Commitment), upon Payment or Tender of the Charges of bringing the said Prisoner, to be ascertained by the Judge or Court that awarded the same, and endorsed upon the said Writ, not exceeding Twelve-pence per Mile, and upon Security given by his own Bond, to pay the Charges of carrying back the Prisoner, if he shall be remanded by the Court or Judge, to which he shall be brought, according to the true Intent of this present Act, and that he will not make any Escape by the way, make Return of such Writ. (3.) And bring or cause to be brought the Body of the Party so committed or restrained, unto or before the Lord Chancellor, or Lord Keeper of the Great Seal of England for the time being, or the Judges or Barons of the said Court from whence the said Writ shall Issue, or unto and before such other Person or Persons before whom the said Writ is made returnable, according to the Command thereof. (4.) And shall then likewise certifie the true causes of his Detainer, or Imprisonment, unless the commitment of the said party be in any place beyond the Distance of twenty Miles from the Place or Places where such Court or Person is, or shall be residing; and if beyond the Distance of twenty Miles, and not above One Hundred Miles, then within the Space of Ten Days, and if beyond the Distance of One Hundred Miles, then within the space of Twenty Days, after such Delivery aforesaid, and not longer.

   III. And to the Intent that no Sheriff, Gaoler or other
   Officer may pretend Ignorance of the Import of any such Writ,
   (2.) Be it enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That all such
   Writs shall be marked in this manner, Per Statutum Tricesimo
   Primo Caroli Secundi Regis, and shall be signed by the Person
   that awards the same. (3.) And if any Person or Persons shall
   be or stand committed or detained, as aforesaid, for any
   Crime, unless for Felony or Treason, plainly expressed in the
   Warrant of Commitment, in the Vacation-time, and out of Term,
   it shall and may be lawful to and for the Person or Persons so
   committed or detained (other than Persons convict, or in
   Execution by legal Process) or anyone on his or their Behalf,
   to appeal, or complain to the Lord Chancellor, or Lord Keeper,
   or anyone of His Majesty's Justices, either of the one Bench,
   or of the other, or the Barons of the Exchequer of the Degree
   of the Coif. (4.) And the said Lord Chancellor, Lord Keeper,
   Justices, or Barons, or any of them, upon View of the Copy or
   Copies of the Warrant or Warrants of Commitment and Detainer,
   or otherwise upon Oath made, that such Copy or Copies were
   denied to be given by such Person or Persons in whose custody
   the Prisoner or Prisoners is or are detained, are hereby
   authorized and required, upon Request made in Writing by such
   Person or Persons, or any on his, her, or their Behalf,
   attested and subscribed by two Witnesses, who were present at
   the Delivery of the same, to award and grant an Habeas Corpus
   under the Seal of such Court, whereof he shall then be one of
   the Judges, (5.) to be directed to the Officer or Officers in
   whose Custody the Party so committed or detained shall be,
   returnable immediate before the said Lord Chancellor, or Lord
   Keeper, or such Justice, Baron, or any other Justice or Baron,
   of the Degree of the Coif, of any of the said Courts. (6.) And
   upon Service thereof as aforesaid, the Officer or Officers,
   his or their under Officer or under Officers, under Keeper or
   under Keepers, or their Deputy, in whose Custody the Party is
   so committed or detained, shall within the times respectively
   before limited, bring such Prisoner or Prisoners before the
   said Lord Chancellor or Lord Keeper, or such Justices, Barons,
   or one of them, before whom the said Writ is made returnable,
   and in case of his Absence, before any of them, with the
   Return of such Writ, and the true Causes of the Commitment and
   Detainer.
{900}
   (7.) And thereupon within two Days after the Party shall be
   brought before them the said Lord Chancellor, or Lord Keeper,
   or such Justice or Baron, before whom the Prisoner shall be
   brought as aforesaid, shall discharge the said Prisoner from
   his Imprisonment, taking his or their Recognizance, with one
   or more Surety or Sureties, in any Sum, according to their
   Discretions, having regard to the Quality of the Prisoner, and
   Nature of the Offence, for his or their Appearance in the
   Court of King's Bench the Term following, or at the next
   Assizes, Sessions, or general Gaol-Delivery, of and for such
   County, City or Place, where the Commitment was, or where the
   Offence was committed, or in such other Court where the said
   Offence is properly cognizable, as the Case shall require, and
   then shall certify the said Writ with the Return thereof, and
   the said Recognizance or Recognizances into the said Court,
   where such Appearance is to be made. (8.) Unless it shall
   appear unto the said Lord Chancellor, or Lord Keeper, or
   Justice, or Justices, or Baron or Barons, that the Party so
   committed is detained upon a legal Process, Order, or Warrant
   out of some Court that hath Jurisdiction of Criminal Matters,
   or by some Warrant signed and sealed with the Hand and Seal of
   any of the said Justices or Barons, or some Justice or
   Justices of the Peace, for such Matters or Offences, for the
   which by the Law, the Prisoner is not bailable.

IV. Provided always, and be it enacted, That if any Person shall have wilfully neglected by the Space of two whole Terms after his Imprisonment to pray a Habeas Corpus for his Enlargement, such Person so wilfully neglecting, shall not have any Habeas Corpus to be granted in Vacation-time in Pursuance of this Act.

V. And be it further enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That if any Officer or Officers, his or their under Officer, or under Officers, under Keeper or under Keepers, or Deputy, shall neglect or refuse to make the Returns aforesaid, or to bring the Body or Bodies of the Prisoner or Prisoners, according to the Command of the said Writ, within the respective times aforesaid, or upon Demand made by the Prisoner, or Person in his Behalf, shall refuse to deliver, or within the Space of six Hours after Demand shall not deliver, to the Person so demanding, a true Copy of the Warrant or Warrants of Commitment and Detainer of such Prisoner, which he and they are hereby required to deliver accordingly; all and every the Head Gaolers and Keepers of such Prisons, and such other Person, in whose Custody the Prisoner shall be detained, shall for the first Offence, forfeit to the Prisoner, or Party grieved, the Sum of One Hundred Pounds. (2.) And for the second Offence, the Sum of Two Hundred Pounds, and shall and is hereby made incapable to hold or execute his said Office. (3.) The said Penalties to be recovered by the Prisoner or Party grieved, his Executors or Administrators, against such Offender, his Executors or Administrators, by any Action of Debt, Suit, Bill, Plaint or Information, in any of the King's Courts at Westminster, wherein no Essoin, Protection, Priviledge, Injunction, Wager of Law, or stay of Prosecution, by Non vult ulterius prosequi, or otherwise, shall be admitted or allowed, or any more than one Imparlance. (4.) And any Recovery or Judgment at the Suit of any Party grieved, shall be a sufficient Conviction for the first Offence; and any after Recovery or Judgment at the Suit of a Party grieved, for any Offence after the first Judgment, shall be a sufficient Conviction to bring the Officers or Person within the said Penalty for the Second Offence.

VI. And for the Prevention of unjust Vexation, by reiterated Commitments for the same offence; (2.) Be it enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That no Person or Persons, which shall be delivered or set at large upon any Habeas Corpus, shall at any time hereafter be again imprisoned or committed for the same Offence, by any Person or Persons whatsoever, other than by the legal Order and Process of such Court wherein he or they shall be bound by Recognizance to appear, or other Court having Jurisdiction of the Cause. (3.) And if any other Person or Persons shall knowingly, contrary to this Act, recommit or imprison, or knowingly procure or cause to be recommitted or imprisoned for the same Offence, or pretended Offence, any Person or Persons delivered or set at large as aforesaid, or be knowingly aiding or assisting therein, then he or they shall forfeit to the Prisoner or Party grieved, the Sum of Five Hundred Pounds; any colourable Pretence or Variation in the Warrant or Warrants of Commitment notwithstanding, to be recovered as aforesaid.

VII. Provided always, and be it further enacted, That if any Person or Persons shall be committed for High Treason or Felony, plainly and specially expressed in the Warrant of Commitment, upon his Prayer or Petition in open Court the first Week of the Term, or first Day of the Sessions of Oyer and Terminer, or general Gaol Delivery, to be brought to his Tryal, shall not be indicted sometime in the next Term, Sessions of Oyer and Terminer, or general Gaol-Delivery after such Commitment, it shall and may be lawful to and for the Judges of the Court of King's Bench, and Justices of Oyer and Terminer, or general Gaol-Delivery, and they are hereby required, upon Motion to them made in open Court the last Day of the Term, Sessions or Gaol-Delivery, either by the Prisoner, or anyone in his Behalf, to set at Liberty the Prisoner upon Bail, unless it appear to the Judges and Justices upon Oath made, that the Witnesses for the King could not be produced the same Term, Sessions, or general Gaol-Delivery. (2.) And if any Person or Persons committed as aforesaid, upon his Prayer or Petition in open Court, the first Week of the Term, or first Day of the Sessions of Oyer and Terminer, and general Gaol-Delivery, to be brought to his Tryal, shall not be indicted and tryed the second Term, Sessions of Oyer and Terminer, or general Gaol-Delivery, after his Commitment, or upon his Tryal shall be acquitted, he shall be discharged from his Imprisonment.

VIII. Provided always, that nothing in this Act shall extend to discharge out of Prison, any Person charged in Debt, or other Action, or with Process in any Civil Cause, but that after he shall be discharged of his Imprisonment for such his criminal Offence, he shall be kept in Custody, according to the Law for such other Suit.

IX. Provided always, and be it enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That if any Person or Persons, Subjects of this Realm, shall be committed to any Prison, or in Custody of any Officer or Officers whatsoever, for any Criminal or supposed Criminal Matter, that the said Person shall not be removed from the said Prison and Custody, into the Custody of any other Officer or Officers. (2.) Unless it be by Habeas Corpus, or some other legal Writ; or where the Prisoner is delivered to the Constable or other inferiour Officer, to carry such Prisoner to some common Gaol. (3.) Or where any Person is sent by Order of any Judge of Assize, or Justice of the Peace, to any common Workhouse, or House of Correction. (4.) Or where the Prisoner is removed from one Prison or Place to another within the same County, in order to his or her Tryal or Discharge in due Course of Law. (5.) Or in case of sudden Fire, or Infection, or other Necessity. (6.) And if any Person or Persons shall after such Commitment aforesaid, make out and sign, or countersign, any Warrant or Warrants for such Removal aforesaid, contrary to this Act, as well he that makes or signs, or countersigns, such Warrant or Warrants, as the Officer or Officers, that obey or execute the same, shall suffer & incur the Pains & Forfeitures in this Act before-mentioned, both for the 1st & 2nd Offence, respectively, to be recover'd in manner aforesaid, by the Party grieved.

X. Provided also, and be it further enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That it shall and may be lawful to and for any Prisoner & Prisoners as aforesaid, to move, and obtain his or their Habeas Corpus, as well out of the High Court of Chancery, or Court of Exchequer, as out of the Courts of King's Bench, or Common Pleas, or either of them. (2.) And if the said Lord Chancellor or Lord Keeper, or any Judge or Judges, Baron or Barons for the time being, of the Degree of the Coif, of any of the Courts aforesaid, in the Vacation time, upon view of the Copy or Copies of the Warrant or Warrants of Commitment or Detainer, or upon Oath made that such Copy or Copies were denied as aforesaid, shall deny any Writ of Habeas Corpus by this Act required to be granted, being moved for as aforesaid, they shall severally forfeit to the Prisoner or Party grieved, the Sum of Five Hundred Pounds, to be recovered in manner aforesaid.

XI. And be it declared and enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That an Habeas Corpus according to the true Intent and meaning of this Act, may be directed, and run into any County Palatine, the Cinque Ports, or other priviledged Places, within the Kingdom of England, Dominion of Wales, or Town of Berwick upon Tweed, and the Isles of Jersey or Guernsey, any Law or Usage to the contrary notwithstanding.

XII. And for preventing illegal Imprisonments in Prisons beyond the Seas; (2.) Be it further enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That no Subject of this Realm that now is, or hereafter shall be, an Inhabitant or Resiant of this Kingdom of England, Dominion of Wales, or Town of Berwick upon Tweed, shall or may be sent Prisoner into Scotland, Ireland, Jersey, Guernsey, Tangier, or into Parts, Garrisons, Islands, or Places beyond the Seas, which are, or at any time hereafter shall be within or without the Dominions of his Majesty, his Heirs or Successors. (3.) And that every such Imprisonment is hereby enacted and adjudged to be illegal. (4.) And that if any of the said Subjects now is, or hereafter shall be so imprisoned, every such Person and Persons so imprisoned, shall and may for every such Imprisonment, maintain by Virtue of this Act, an Action or Actions of False Imprisonment, in any of his Majesty's Courts of Record, against the Person or Persons by whom he or she shall be so committed, detained, imprisoned, sent Prisoner or transported, contrary to the true meaning of this Act, and against all or any Person or Persons, that shall frame, contrive, write, seal or countersign any Warrant or Writing for such Commitment, Detainer, Imprisonment or Transportation, or shall be advising, aiding or assisting in the same, or any of them. (5.) And the Plaintiff in every such Action, shall have judgment to recover his treble Costs, besides Damages; which Damages so to be given, shall not be less than Five Hundred Pounds. (6.) In which Action, no Delay, Stay, or Stop of Proceeding, by Rule, Order or Command, nor no Injunction, Protection, or Priviledge whatsoever, nor any more than one Imparlance shall be allowed, excepting such Rule of the Court wherein the Action shall depend, made in open Court, as shall be thought in justice necessary, for special Cause to be expressed in the said Rule. (7.) And the Person or Persons who shall knowingly frame, contrive, write, seal or countersign any Warrant for such Commitment, Detainer, or Transportation, or shall so commit, detain, imprison, or transport any Person or Persons contrary to this Act, or be any ways advising, aiding or assisting therein, being lawfully convicted thereof, shall be disabled from thenceforth to bear any Office of Trust or Profit within the said Realm of England, Dominion of Wales, or Town of Berwick upon Tweed, or any of the Islands, Territories or Dominions thereunto belonging. (8.) And shall incur and sustain the Pains, Penalties, and Forfeitures, limited, ordained, and Provided in and by the Statute of Provision and Premunire made in the Sixteenth Year of King Richard the Second. (9.) And be incapable of any Pardon from the King, his Heirs or Successors, of the said Forfeitures, Losses, or Disabilities, or any of them.

XIII. Provided always, That nothing in this Act shall extend to give Benefit to any Person who shall by Contract in Writing, agree with any Merchant or Owner, of any Plantation, or other Person whatsoever, to be transported to any part beyond the Seas, and receive Earnest upon such Agreement, altho' that afterwards such Person shall renounce such Contract.

XIV. Provided always, and be it enacted, That if any Person or Persons, lawfully convicted of any Felony, shall in open Court pray to be transported beyond the Seas, and the Court shall think fit to leave him or them in Prison for that Purpose, such Person or Persons may be transported into any Parts beyond the Seas; This Act, or any thing therein contained to the contrary notwithstanding.

XV. Provided also, and be it enacted, That nothing herein contained, shall be deemed, construed, or taken to extend to the Imprisonment of any Person before the first Day of June, One Thousand Six Hundred Seventy and Nine, or to any thing advised, procured, or otherwise done, relating to such Imprisonment; Any thing herein contained to the contrary notwithstanding.

XVI. Provided also, That if any Person or Persons, at any time resiant in this Realm, shall have committed any Capital Offence in Scotland or Ireland, or any of the Islands, or foreign Plantations of the King, his Heirs or Successors, where he or she ought to be tryed for such Offence, such Person or Persons may be sent to such Place, there to receive such Tryal, in such manner as the same might have been used before the making this Act; Any thing herein contained to the contrary notwithstanding.

XVII. Provided also, and be it enacted, That no Person or Persons, shall be sued, impleaded, molested or troubled for any Offence against this Act, unless the Party offending be sued or impleaded for the same within two Years at the most after such time wherein the Offence shall be committed, in Case the Party grieved shall not be then in Prison; and if he shall be in Prison, then within the space of two Years after the Decease of the Person imprisoned, or his, or her Delivery out of Prison, which shall first happen.

XVIII. And to the Intent no Person may avoid his Tryal at the Assizes, or general Gaol Delivery, by procuring his Removal before the Assizes at such time as he cannot be brought back to receive his Tryal there; (2.) Be it enacted, That after the Assizes proclaimed for that County where the Prisoner is detained, no Person shall be removed from the Common Gaol upon any Habeas Corpus granted in pursuance of this Act, but upon any such Habeas Corpus shall be brought before the Judge of Assize in open Court, who is thereupon to do what to Justice shall appertain.

XIX. Provided nevertheless, That after the Assizes are ended, any Person or Persons detained may have his or her Habeas Corpus, according to the Direction and Intention of this Act.

XX. And be it also enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That if any Information, Suit or Action, shall be brought or exhibited against any Person or Persons, for any Offence committed or to be committed against the Form of this Law, it shall be lawful for such Defendants to plead the general Issue, that they are not guilty, or that they owe nothing, and to give such special Matter in Evidence to the Jury, that shall try the same, which Matter being pleaded, had been good and sufficient matter in Law to have discharged the said Defendant or Defendants against the said Information, Suit or Action, and the said Matter shall be then as available to him or them, to all Intents and Purposes, as if he or they had sufficiently pleaded, set forth, or alleged the same Matter in Bar, or Discharge of such Information, Suit or Action.

XXI. And because many times Persons charged with Petty-Treason or Felony, or as Accessaries thereunto, are committed upon Suspicion only, whereupon they are bailable or not, according as the Circumstances making out that Suspicion are more or less weighty, which are best known to the Justices of Peace that committed the Persons, and have the Examinations before them, or to other Justices of the Peace in the County; (2.) Be it therefore enacted, That where any Person shall appear to be committed by any Judge, or Justice of the Peace, and charged as necessary before the Fact, to any Petty-Treason or Felony, or upon Suspicion thereof, or with Suspicion of Petty-Treason or Felony, which Petty-Treason or Felony, shall be plainly and specially expressed in the Warrant of Commitment, that such Person shall not be removed or bailed by Virtue of this Act, or in any other manner than they might have been before the making of this Act.

"Dangerfield, a subtle and dexterous man, who had gone through all the shapes and practices of roguery, and in particular was a false coiner, undertook now to coin a plot for the ends of the papists. He … got into all companies, and mixed with the hottest men of the town, and studied to engage others with himself to swear that they had been invited to accept of commissions, and that a new form of government was to be set up, and that the king and the royal family were to be sent away. He was carried with this story, first to the duke, and then to the king, and had a weekly allowance of money, and was very kindly used by many of that side; so that a whisper run about town, that some extraordinary thing would quickly break out: and he having some correspondence with one colonel Mansel, he made up a bundle of seditious but ill contrived letters, and laid them in a dark corner of his room: and then some searchers were sent from the custom house to look for some forbidden goods, which they heard were in Mansel's chamber. There were no goods found: but as it was laid, they found that bundle of letters: and upon that a great noise was made of a discovery: but upon inquiry it appeared the letters were counterfeited, and the forger of them was suspected; so they searched into all Dangerfield's haunts, and in one of them they found a paper that contained the scheme of this whole fiction, which, because it was found in a meal-tub, came to be called the meal-tub plot. … This was a great disgrace to the popish party, and the king suffered much by the countenance he had given him."

"Though the duke of York was not charged with participation in the darkest schemes of the popish conspirators, it was evident that his succession was the great aim of their endeavours, and evident also that he had been engaged in the more real and undeniable intrigues of Coleman. His accession to the throne, long viewed with just apprehension, now seemed to threaten such perils to every part of the constitution as ought not supinely to be waited for, if any means could be devised to obviate them. This gave rise to the bold measure of the exclusion bill, too bold, indeed, for the spirit of the country, and the rock on which English liberty was nearly shipwrecked. In the long parliament, full as it was of pensioners and creatures of court influence, nothing so vigorous would have been successful. … But the zeal they showed against Danby induced the king to put an end [January 24, 1679] to this parliament of seventeen years' duration; an event long ardently desired by the popular party, who foresaw their ascendancy in the new elections. The next house of commons accordingly came together with an ardour not yet quenched by corruption; and after reviving the impeachments commenced by their predecessors, and carrying a measure long in agitation, a test which shut the catholic peers out of parliament, went upon the exclusion bill [the second reading of which was carried, May 21, 1679, by 207 to 128].

Their dissolution put a stop to this; and in the next parliament the lords rejected it [after the commons had passed the bill, without a division, October, 1680]. … The bill of exclusion … provided that the imperial crown of England should descend to and be enjoyed by such person or persons successively during the life of the duke of York as would have inherited or enjoyed the same in case he were naturally dead. … But a large part of the opposition had unfortunately other objects in view." Under the contaminating influence of the earl of Shaftesbury, "they broke away more and more from the line of national opinion, till a fatal reaction involved themselves in ruin, and exposed the cause of public liberty to its most imminent peril. The countenance and support of Shaftesbury brought forward that unconstitutional and most impolitic scheme of the duke of Monmouth's succession. [James, duke of Monmouth, was the acknowledged natural son of king Charles, by Lucy Walters, his mistress while in exile at the Hague.] There could hardly be a greater insult to a nation used to respect its hereditary line of kings, than to set up the bastard of a prostitute, without the least pretence of personal excellence or public services, against a princess of known virtue and attachment to the protestant religion. And the effrontery of this attempt was aggravated by the libels eagerly circulated to dupe the credulous populace into a belief of Monmouth's legitimacy."

ALSO IN: A. Carrel, History of the Counter-Revolution in England, part 2, chapter 1.

"Factions indeed were at this time [A. D. 1680] extremely animated against each other. The very names by which each party denominated its antagonist discover the virulence and rancour which prevailed. For besides petitioner and abhorrer, appellations which were soon forgotten, this year is remarkable for being the epoch of the well-known epithets of Whig and Tory, by which, and sometimes without any material difference, this island has been so long divided. The court party reproached their antagonists with their affinity to the fanatical conventiclers in Scotland, who were known by the name of Whigs: the country party found a resemblance between the courtiers and the popish banditti in Ireland, to whom the appellation of Tory was affixed: and after this manner these foolish terms of reproach came into public and general use."

   "The definition of the nickname Tory, as it originally arose,
   is given in 'A New Ballad' (Narcissus Luttrell's
   Collection):—

      The word Tory's of Irish Extraction,
      'Tis a Legacy that they have left here
         They came here in their brogues,
         And have acted like Rogues,
      In endeavouring to learn us to swear."

ENGLAND: A. D. 1681-1683.
The Tory reaction and the downfall of the Whigs.
The Rye-house Plot.

"Shaftesbury's course rested wholly on the belief that the penury of the Treasury left Charles at his mercy, and that a refusal of supplies must wring from the King his assent to the exclusion. But the gold of France had freed the King from his thraldom. He had used the Parliament [of 1681] simply to exhibit himself as a sovereign whose patience and conciliatory temper was rewarded with insult and violence; and now that he saw his end accomplished, he suddenly dissolved the Houses in April, and appealed in a Royal declaration to the justice of the nation at large. The appeal was met by an almost universal burst of loyalty. The Church rallied to the King; his declaration was read from every pulpit; and the Universities solemnly decided that 'no religion, no law, no fault, no forfeiture' could avail to bar the sacred right of hereditary succession. … The Duke of York returned in triumph to St. James's. … Monmouth, who had resumed his progresses through the country as a means of checking the tide of reaction, was at once arrested. … Shaftesbury, alive to the new danger, plunged desperately into conspiracies with a handful of adventurers as desperate as himself, hid himself in the City, where he boasted that ten thousand 'brisk boys' were ready to appear at his call, and urged his friends to rise in arms. But their delays drove him to flight. … The flight of Shaftesbury proclaimed the triumph of the King. His wonderful sagacity had told him when the struggle was over and further resistance useless. But the Whig leaders, who had delayed to answer the Earl's call, still nursed projects of rising in arms, and the more desperate spirits who had clustered around him as he lay hidden in the City took refuge in plots of assassination, and in a plan for murdering Charles and his brother as they passed the Rye-house [a Hertfordshire farm house, so-called] on their road from London to Newmarket. Both the conspiracies were betrayed, and, though they were wholly distinct from one another, the cruel ingenuity of the Crown lawyers blended them into one. Lord Essex, the last of an ill-fated race, saved himself from a traitor's death by suicide in the Tower. Lord Russell, convicted on a charge of sharing in the Rye-house Plot, was beheaded in Lincoln Inn Fields. The same fate awaited Algernon Sidney. Monmouth fled in terror over sea, and his flight was followed by a series of prosecutions for sedition directed against his followers. In 1683 the Constitutional opposition which had held Charles so long in check lay crushed at his feet. … On the very day when the crowd around Russell's scaffold were dipping their handkerchiefs in his blood, as in the blood of a martyr, the University of Oxford solemnly declared that the doctrine of passive obedience, even to the worst of rulers, was a part of religion." During the brief remainder of his reign Charles was a prudently absolute monarch, governing without a Parliament, coolly ignoring the Triennial Act, and treating on occasions the Test Act, as well as other laws obnoxious to him, with contempt. He died unexpectedly, early in February, 1685, and his brother, the Duke of York, succeeded to the throne, as James II., with no resistance, but with much feeling opposed to him.

"The King [James II.] early put the loyalty of his Protestant friends to the proof. While he was a subject, he had been in the habit of hearing mass with closed doors in a small oratory which had been fitted up for his wife. He now ordered the doors to be thrown open, in order that all who came to pay their duty to him might see the ceremony. When the host was elevated there was a strange confusion in the antechamber. The Roman Catholics fell on their knees: the Protestants hurried out of the room. Soon a new pulpit was erected in the palace; and, during Lent, a series of sermons was preached there by Popish divines."

"The Parliament which assembled on the 22nd of May … was almost entirely Tory. The failure of the Rye-House Plot had produced a reaction, which for a time entirely annihilated the Whig influence. … The apparent triumph of the King and the Tory party was completed by the disastrous failure of the insurrection planned by their adversaries. A knot of exiled malcontents, some Scotch, some English, had collected in Holland. Among them was Monmouth and the Earl of Argyle, son of that Marquis of Argyle who had taken so prominent a part on the Presbyterian side in the Scotch troubles of Charles I.'s reign. Monmouth had kept aloof from politics till, on the accession of James, he was induced to join the exiles at Amsterdam, whither Argyle, a strong Presbyterian, but a man of lofty and moderate views, also repaired. National jealousy prevented any union between the exiles, and two expeditions were determined on,—the one under Argyle, who hoped to find an army ready to his hand among his clansmen in the West of Scotland, the other under Monmouth in the West of England. Argyle's expedition set sail on the 2nd of May [1685]. … Argyle's invasion was ruined by the limited authority intrusted to him, and by the jealousy and insubordination of his fellow leaders. … His army disbanded. He was himself taken in Renfrewshire, and, after an exhibition of admirable constancy, was beheaded. … A week before the final dispersion of Argyle's troops, Monmouth had landed in England [at Lyme, June 11]. He was well received in the West. He had not been twenty-four hours in England before he found himself at the head of 1,500 men; but though popular among the common people, he received no support from the upper classes. Even the strongest Whigs disbelieved the story of his legitimacy, and thought his attempt ill-timed and fraught with danger. … Meanwhile Monmouth had advanced to Taunton, had been there received with enthusiasm, and, vainly thinking to attract the nobility, had assumed the title of King. Nor was his reception at Bridgewater less flattering. But difficulties already began to gather round him; he was in such want of arms, that, although rustic implements were converted into pikes, he was still obliged to send away many volunteers; the militia were closing in upon him in all directions; Bristol had been seized by the Duke of Beaufort, and the regular army under Feversham and Churchill were approaching." After feebly attempting several movements, against Bristol and into Wiltshire, Monmouth lost heart and fell back to Bridgewater. "The Royalist army was close behind him, and on the fifth of July encamped about three miles from Bridgewater, on the plain of Sedgemoor." Monmouth was advised to undertake a night surprise, and did so in the early morning of the 6th. "The night was not unfitting for such an enterprise, for the mist was so thick that at a few paces nothing could be seen. Three great ditches by which the moor was drained lay between the armies; of the third of these, strangely enough, Monmouth knew nothing." The unexpected discovery of this third ditch, known as "the Bussex Rhine," which his cavalry could not cross, and behind which the enemy rallied, was the ruin of the enterprise. "Monmouth saw that the day was lost, and with the love of life which was one of the characteristics of his soft nature, he turned and fled. Even after his flight the battle was kept up bravely. At length the arrival of the King's artillery put an end to any further struggle. The defeat was followed by all the terrible scenes which mark a suppressed insurrection. … Monmouth and Grey pursued their flight into the New Forest, and were there apprehended in the neighbourhood of Ringwood." Monmouth petitioned abjectly for his life, but in vain. He was executed on the 15th of July. "The failure of this insurrection was followed by the most terrible cruelties. Feversham returned to London, to be flattered by the King and laughed at by the Court for his military exploits. He left Colonel Kirke in command at Bridgewater. This man had learned, as commander at Tangier, all the worst arts of cruel despotism. His soldiery in bitter pleasantry were called Kirke's 'Lambs,' from the emblem of their regiment. It is impossible to say how many suffered at the hands of this man and his brutal troops; 100 captives are said by some to have been put to death the week after the battle. But this military revenge did not satisfy the Court."

The number of Monmouth's men killed is computed by some at 2,000, by others at 300; a disparity, however, which may be easily reconciled by supposing that the one account takes in those who were killed in battle, while the other comprehends the wretched fugitives who were massacred in ditches, cornfields, and other hiding places, the following day."

      C. J. Fox,
      History of the Early Part of the Reign of James II.,
      chapter 3.

      ALSO IN:
      G. Roberts,
      Life of Monmouth,
      chapters 13-28 (volumes 1-2).

   "Early in September, Jeffreys [Sir George Jeffreys, Chief
   Justice of the Court of King's Bench], accompanied by four
   other judges, set out on that circuit of which the memory will
   last as long as our race and language. … At Winchester the
   Chief Justice first opened his commission. Hampshire had not
   been the theatre of war; but many of the vanquished rebels
   had, like their leader, fled thither." Two among these had
   been found concealed in the house of Lady Alice Lisle, a widow
   of eminent nobility of character, and Jeffreys' first proceeding
   was to arraign Lady Alice for the technical reason of the
   concealment.
{905}
   She was tried with extraordinary brutality of manner on the
   part of the judge; the jury was bullied into a verdict of
   guilty, and the innocent woman was condemned by the fiend on
   the bench to be burned alive. By great exertion of many
   people, the sentence was commuted from burning to beheading.
   No mercy beyond this could be obtained from Jeffreys or his
   fit master, the king. "In Hampshire Alice Lisle was the only
   victim: but, on the day following her execution, Jeffreys
   reached Dorchester, the principal town of the county in which
   Monmouth had landed, and the judicial massacre began. The
   court was hung, by order of the Chief Justice, with scarlet;
   and this innovation seemed to the multitude to indicate a
   bloody purpose. … More than 300 prisoners were to be tried.
   The work seemed heavy; but Jeffreys had a contrivance for
   making it light. He let it be understood that the only chance
   of obtaining pardon or respite was to plead guilty.
   Twenty-nine persons, who put themselves on their country and
   were convicted, were ordered to be tied up without delay. The
   remaining prisoners pleaded guilty by scores. Two hundred and
   ninety-two received sentence of death. The whole number hanged
   in Dorsetshire amounted to seventy-four. From Dorchester
   Jeffreys proceeded to Exeter. The civil war had barely grazed
   the frontier of Devonshire. Here, therefore, comparatively few
   persons were capitally punished. Somersetshire, the chief seat
   of the rebellion, had been reserved for the last and most
   fearful vengeance. In this county two hundred and thirty-three
   prisoners were in a few days hanged, drawn and quartered. At
   every spot where two roads met, on every market place, on the
   green of every large village which had furnished Monmouth with
   soldiers, ironed corpses clattering in the wind, or heads and
   quarters stuck on poles, poisoned the air, and made the
   traveller sick with horror. … The Chief Justice was all
   himself. His spirits rose higher and higher as the work went
   on. He laughed, shouted, joked, and swore in such a way that
   many thought him drunk from morning to night. … Jeffreys
   boasted that he had hanged more traitors than all his
   predecessors together since the Conquest. … Yet those rebels
   who were doomed to death were less to be pitied than some of
   the survivors. Several prisoners to whom Jeffreys was unable
   to bring home the charge of high treason were convicted of
   misdemeanours and were sentenced to scourging not less
   terrible than that which Oates had undergone. … The number
   of prisoners whom Jeffreys transported was eight hundred and
   forty-one. These men, more wretched than their associates who
   suffered death, were distributed into gangs, and bestowed on
   persons who enjoyed favour at court. The conditions of the
   gift were that the convicts should be carried beyond sea as
   slaves, that they should not be emancipated for ten years, and
   that the place of their banishment should be some West Indian
   island. … It was estimated by Jeffreys that, on an average,
   each of them, after all charges were paid, would be worth from
   ten to fifteen pounds. There was therefore much angry
   competition for grants. … And now Jeffreys had done his
   work, and returned to claim his reward. He arrived at Windsor
   from the West, leaving carnage, mourning and terror behind
   him. The hatred with which he was regarded by the people of
   Somersetshire has no parallel in our history. … But at the
   court Jeffreys was cordially welcomed. He was a judge after
   his master's own heart. James had watched the circuit with
   interest and delight. … At a later period, when all men of
   all parties spoke with horror of the Bloody Assizes, the
   wicked Judge and the wicked King attempted to vindicate
   themselves by throwing the blame on each other."

ALSO IN: Sir James Mackintosh, History of the Revolution in England, chapter 1.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1685-1686. Faithless and tyrannical measures against the New England colonies.

"James conceived the design of employing his authority as head of the Church of England as a means of subjecting that church to his pleasure, if not of finally destroying it. It is hard to conceive how he could reconcile to his religion the exercise of supremacy in an heretical sect, and thus sanction by his example the usurpations of the Tudors on the rights of the Catholic Church. … He, indeed, considered the ecclesiastical supremacy as placed in his hands by Providence to enable him to betray the Protestant establishment. 'God,' said he to Barillon, 'has permitted that all the laws made to establish Protestantism now serve as a foundation for my measures to re-establish true religion, and give me a right to exercise a more extensive power than other Catholic princes possess in the ecclesiastical affairs of their dominions.' He found legal advisers ready with paltry expedients for evading the two statutes of 1641 and 1660 [abolishing, and re-affirming the abolition of the Court of High Commission], under the futile pretext that they forbade only a court vested with such powers of corporal punishment as had been exercised by the old Court of High Commission; and in conformity to their pernicious counsel, he issued, in July, a commission to certain ministers, prelates, and judges, to act as a Court of Commissioners in Ecclesiastical Causes. The first purpose of this court was to enforce directions to preachers, issued by the King, enjoining them to abstain from preaching on controverted questions."

ENGLAND: A. D. 1686.
The consolidation of New England under a royal
Governor-General.

   "The abolition of the tests was a thing resolved upon in the
   catholic council, and for this a sanction of some kind or
   other was required, as they dared not yet proceed upon the
   royal will alone. Chance, or the machinations of the
   catholics, created an affair which brought the question of the
   tests under another form before the court of king's bench.
{906}
   This court had not the power to abolish the Test Act, but it
   might consider whether the king had the right of exempting
   particular subjects from the formalities. … The king …
   closeted himself with the judges one by one, dismissed some,
   and got those who replaced them, 'ignorant men,' says an
   historian, 'and scandalously incompetent,' to acknowledge his
   dispensing power. … The judges of the king's bench, after a
   trial, … declared, almost in the very language used by the
   crown counsel:

3. That therefore it is an inseparable prerogative in the kings of England to dispense with penal laws in particular cases, and upon particular necessary reasons;

4. That of those reasons, and those necessities, the king himself is sole judge; and finally, which is consequent upon all,

5. That this is not a trust invested in, or granted to the king by the people, but the ancient remains of the sovereign power and prerogative of the kings of England, which never yet was taken from them, nor can be.

The case thus decided, the king thought he might rely upon the respect always felt by the English people for the decisions of the higher courts, to exempt all his catholic subjects from the obligations of the test. And upon this, it became no longer a question merely of preserving in their commissions and offices those whose dismissal had been demanded by parliament. … To obtain or to retain certain employments, it was necessary to be of the same religion with the king. Papists replaced in the army and in the administration all those who had pronounced at all energetically for the maintenance of the tests. Abjurations, somewhat out of credit during the last session of parliament, again resumed favour."

ENGLAND: A. D. 1687-1688.
Declarations of Indulgence.
Trial of the Seven Bishops.

"Under pretence of toleration for Dissenters, James endeavoured, under another form, to remove obstacles from Romanists. He announced an Indulgence. He began in Scotland by issuing on the 12th of February, 1687, in Edinburgh, a Proclamation granting relief to scrupulous consciences. Hereby he professed to relieve the Presbyterians, but the relief of them amounted to nothing; to the Romanists it was complete. … On the 18th of March, 1687, he announced to the English Privy Council his intention to prorogue Parliament, and to grant upon his own authority entire liberty of conscience to all his subjects. Accordingly on the 4th of April he published his Indulgence, declaring his desire to see all his subjects become members of the Church of Rome, and his resolution (since that was impracticable) to protect them in the free exercise of their religion; also promising to protect the Established Church: then he annulled a number of Acts of Parliament, suspended all penal laws against Nonconformists, authorised Roman Catholics and Protestant Dissenters to perform worship publicly, and abrogated all Acts of Parliament imposing any religious test for civil or military offices. This declaration was then notoriously illegal and unconstitutional. James now issued a second and third declaration for Scotland, and courted the Dissenters in England, but with small encouragement. … On the 27th of April, 1688, James issued a second Declaration of Indulgence for England. … On the 4th of May, by an order in Council, he directed his Declaration of the 27th of April to be publicly read during divine service in all Churches and Chapels, by the officiating ministers, on two successive Sundays—namely, on the 20th and 27th of May in London, and on the 3d and 10th of June in the country; and desired the Bishops to circulate this Declaration through their dioceses. Hitherto the Bishops and Clergy had held the doctrine of passive obedience to the sovereign, however bad in character or in his measures—now they were placed by the King himself in a dilemma. Here was a violation of existing law, and an intentional injury to their Church, if not a plan for the substitution of another. The Nonconformists, whom James pretended to serve, coincided with and supported the Church. A decided course must be taken. The London Clergy met and resolved not to read the Declaration. On the 12th of May, at Lambeth Palace, the Archbishop of Canterbury and other Prelates assembled. They resolved that the Declaration ought not to be read. On Friday, the 18th of May, a second meeting of the Prelates and eminent divines was held at Lambeth Palace. A petition to the King was drawn up by the Archbishop of Canterbury in his own handwriting, disclaiming all disloyalty and all intolerance, … but stating that Parliament had decided that the King could not dispense with Statutes in matters ecclesiastical—that the Declaration was therefore illegal—and could not be solemnly published by the petitioners in the House of God and during divine service. This paper was signed by Sancroft, Archbishop of Canterbury, Lloyd, Bishop of St. Asaph, Turner of Ely, Lake of Chichester, Ken of Bath and Wells, White of Peterborough, and Trelawny of Bristol. It was approved by Compton, Bishop of London, but not signed, because he was under suspension. The Archbishop had long been forbidden to appear at Court, therefore could not present it. On Friday evening the six Bishops who had signed were introduced by Sunderland to the King, who read the document and pronounced it libellous [and seditious and rebellious], and the Bishops retired. On Sunday, the 20th of May, the first day appointed, the Declaration was read in London only in four Churches out of one hundred. The Dissenters and Church Laymen sided with the Clergy. On the following Sunday the Declaration was treated in the same manner in London, and on Sunday, the 3d of June, was disregarded by Bishops and Clergy in all parts of England. James, by the advice of Jeffreys, ordered the Archbishop and Bishops to be indicted for a seditious libel. They were, on the 8th of June, conveyed to the Tower amidst the most enthusiastic demonstrations of respect and affection from all classes. The same night the Queen was said to have given birth to a son; but the national opinion was that some trick had been played. On the 29th of June the trial of the seven Bishops came on before the Court of King's Bench. … The Jury, who, after remaining together all night (one being stubborn) pronounced a verdict of not guilty on the morning of the 30th June, 1688."

"The court met at nine o'clock. The nobility and gentry covered the benches, and an immense concourse of people filled the Hall, and blocked up the adjoining streets. Sir Robert Langley, the foreman of the jury, being, according to established form, asked whether the accused were guilty or not guilty, pronounced the verdict 'Not guilty.' No sooner were these words uttered than a loud huzza arose from the audience in the court. It was instantly echoed from without by a shout of joy, which sounded like a crack of the ancient and massy roof of Westminster Hall. It passed with electrical rapidity from voice to voice along the infinite multitude who waited in the streets. It reached the Temple in a few minutes. … 'The acclamations,' says Sir John Reresby, 'were a very rebellion in noise.' In no long time they ran to the camp at Hounslow, and were repeated with an ominous voice by the soldiers in the hearing of the King, who, on being told that they were for the acquittal of the bishops, said, with an ambiguity probably arising from confusion, 'So much the worse for them.'"

      G. G. Perry,
      History of the Church of England,
      chapter 30 (volume 2).

"The wiser among English statesmen had fixed their hopes steadily on the succession of Mary, the elder daughter and heiress of James. The tyranny of her father's reign made this succession the hope of the people at large. But to Europe the importance of the change, whenever it should come about, lay not so much in the succession of Mary as in the new power which such an event would give to her husband, William, Prince of Orange. We have come, in fact, to a moment when the struggle of England against the aggression of its King blends with the larger struggle of Europe against the aggression of Lewis XIV."

"William of Nassau, Prince of Orange, Stadtholder of the republic of the United Provinces, was, before the birth of the Prince of Wales, first prince of the blood royal of England [as son of Princess Mary, daughter of Charles I., and, therefore, nephew as well as son-in-law of James II.]; and his consort, the Lady Mary, the eldest daughter of the King, was, at that period, presumptive heiress to the crown."

ENGLAND: A. D. 1688 (JULY-NOVEMBER).
Invitation to William of Orange and his acceptance of it.

"In July, in almost exact coincidence of time with the Queen's accouchement [generally doubted and suspected], came the memorable trial of the Seven Bishops, which gave the first demonstration of the full force of that popular animosity which James's rule had provoked. Some months before, however, Edward Russell, nephew of the Earl of Bedford, and cousin of Algernon Sidney's fellow-victim, had sought the Hague with proposals to William [prince of Orange] to make an armed descent upon England, as vindicator of English liberties and the Protestant religion. William had cautiously required a signed invitation from at least a few representative statesmen before committing himself to such an enterprise, and on the day of the acquittal of the Seven Bishops a paper, signed in cipher by Lords Shrewsbury, Devonshire, Danby, and Lumley, by Compton, Bishop of Northampton, by Edward Russell, and by Henry Sidney, brother of Algernon, was conveyed by Admiral Herbert to the Hague. William was now furnished with the required security for English assistance in the projected undertaking, but the task before him was still one of extreme difficulty. … On the 10th of October, matters now being ripe for such a step, William, in conjunction with some of his English advisers, put forth his famous declaration. Starting with a preamble to the effect that the observance of laws is necessary to the happiness of states, the instrument proceeds to enumerate fifteen particulars in which the laws of England had been set at naught. The most important of these were—

(3) the violation of the test laws by the appointment of papists to offices (particularly judicial and military offices, and the administration of Ireland), and generally the arbitrary and illegal measures resorted to by James for the propagation of the Catholic religion;

(5) the infringement of some municipal charters, and the procuring of the surrender of others;

(6) interference with elections by turning out of all employment such as refused to vote as they were required; and

(7) the grave suspicion which had arisen that the Prince of Wales was not born of the Queen, which as yet nothing had been done to remove.

Having set forth these grievances, the Prince's manifesto went on to recite the close interest which he and his consort had in this matter as next in succession to the crown, and the earnest solicitations which had been made to him by many lords spiritual and temporal, and other English subjects of all ranks, to interpose, and concluded by affirming in a very distinct and solemn manner that the sole object of the expedition then preparing was to obtain the assembling of a free and lawful Parliament, to which the Prince pledged himself to refer all questions concerning the due execution of the laws, and the maintenance of the Protestant religion, and the conclusion of an agreement between the Church of England and the Dissenters, as also the inquiry into the birth of the 'pretended Prince of Wales'; and that this object being attained, the Prince would, as soon as the state of the nation should permit of it, send home his foreign forces. About a week after, on the 16th of October, all things being now in readiness, the Prince took solemn leave of the States-General. … On the 19th William and his armament set sail from Helvoetsluys, but was met on the following day by a violent storm which forced him to put back on the 21st. On the 1st of November the fleet put to sea a second time. … By noon of the 5th of November, the Prince's fleet was wafted safely into Torbay."

L. von Ranke, History of England, 17th Century, book 18, chapters 1-4 (volume 4).

      Lord Campbell,
      Lives of the Lord Chancellors,
      chapters 106-107: Somers (volume 4).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1688 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER).
The Revolution.
Ignominious flight of James.

"The declaration published by the prince [on landing] consisted of sixteen articles. It enumerated those proceedings of the government since the accession of the king, which were regarded as in the greatest degree opposed to the liberty of the subject and to the safety of the Protestant religion. … To provide some effectual remedy against these and similar evils, was the only design of the enterprise in which the prince, in compliance with earnest solicitations from many lords, both spiritual and temporal, from numbers among the gentry and all ranks of people, had now embarked. … Addresses were also published to the army and navy. … The immediate effect of these appeals did not correspond with the expectations of William and his followers. On the 8th of November the people of Exeter received the prince with quiet submission. The memory of Monmouth's expedition was still fresh and terrible through the west. On the 12th, lord Cornbury, son of the earl of Clarendon, went over, with some officers, and about a hundred of his regiment, to the prince; and most of the officers, with a larger body of the privates belonging to the regiment commanded by the duke of St. Alban's, followed their example. Of three regiments, however, quartered near Salisbury, the majority could not be induced to desert the service of the king. … Every day now brought with it new accessions to the standard of the prince, and tidings of movements in different parts of the kingdom in his favour; while James was as constantly reminded, by one desertion after another, that he lived in an atmosphere of treachery, with scarcely a man or woman about him to be trusted. The defection of the lords Churchill and Drumlaneric, and of the dukes of Grafton and Ormond, was followed by that of prince George and the princess Anne. Prince George joined the invader at Sherburne; the princess made her escape from Whitehall at night, under the guardianship of the bishop of London, and found an asylum among the adherents of the prince of Orange who were in arms in Northamptonshire. By this time Bristol and Plymouth, Hull, York, and Newcastle, were among the places of strength which had been seized by the partisans of the prince. His standard had also been unfurled with success in the counties of Derby, Nottingham, York, and Cheshire. … Even in Oxford, several of the heads of colleges concurred in sending Dr. Finch, warden of All Souls' College, to invite the prince from Dorsetshire to their city, assuring him of their willingness to receive him, and to melt down their plate for his service, if it should be needed. So desperate had the affairs of James now become, that some of his advisers urged his leaving the kingdom, and negotiating with safety to his person from a distance; but from that course he was dissuaded by Halifax and Godolphin. In compliance with the advice of an assembly of peers, James issued a proclamation on the 13th of November, stating that writs had been signed to convene a parliament on the 15th of January; that a pardon of all offences should previously pass the great seal; and that commissioners should proceed immediately to the head-quarters of the prince of Orange, to negotiate on the present state of affairs. The commissioners chosen by the king were Halifax, Nottingham, and Godolphin; but William evaded for some days the conference which they solicited. In the meantime a forged proclamation in the name of the prince was made public in London, denouncing the Catholics of the metropolis as plotting the destruction of life and property on the largest possible scale. … No one doubted the authenticity of this document, and the ferment and disorder which it spread through the city filled the king with the greatest apprehension for the safety of himself and family. On the morning of the 9th of December, the queen and the infant prince of Wales were lodged on board a yacht at Gravesend, and commenced a safe voyage to Calais. James pledged himself to follow within 24 hours. In the course of that day the royal commissioners sent a report of their proceedings to Whitehall. The demands of the prince were, that a parliament should be assembled; that all persons holding public trusts in violation of the Test-laws should relinquish them; that the city should have command of the Tower; that the fleet, and the places of strength through the kingdom should be placed in the hands of Protestants; that the expense of the Dutch armament should be defrayed, in part, from the English Treasury; and that the king and the prince, and their respective forces, should remain at an equal distance from London during the sitting of parliament. James read these articles with some surprise, observing that they were much more moderate than he had expected. But his pledge had been given to the queen; the city was still in great agitation; and private letters, intimating that his person was not beyond the reach of danger, suggested that his interests might possibly be better served by his absence than by his presence. Hence his purpose to leave the kingdom remained unaltered. At three o'clock on the following morning the king left Whitehall with sir Edward Hales, disguising himself as an attendant. The vessel provided to convey him to France was a miserable fishing-boat. It descended the river without interruption until it came near to Feversham, where some fishermen, suspecting Hales and the king to be Catholics, probably priests endeavouring to make their escape in disguise, took them from the vessel. … The arrest of the monarch at Feversham on Wednesday was followed by an order of the privy council, commanding that his carriage and the royal guards should be sent to reconduct him to the capital. … After some consultation the king was informed that the public interests required his immediate withdrawment to some distance from Westminster, and Hampton Court was named. James expressed a preference for Rochester, and his wishes in that respect were complied with. The day on which the king withdrew to Rochester William took up his residence in St. James's. The king chose his retreat, deeming it probable that it might be expedient for him to make a second effort to reach the continent. … His guards left him so much at liberty, that no impediment to his departure was likely to arise; and on the last day of this memorable year—only a week after his removal from Whitehall, James embarked secretly at Rochester, and with a favourable breeze safely reached the French coast."

R. Vaughan, History of England under the House of Stuart, volume 2, pages 914-918.

      Continuation of Sir J. Mackintosh's
      History of the Revolution in 1688,
      chapters 16-17.

Sir J. Dalrymple, Memoirs of Great Britain and Ireland, part 1, books 6-7 (volume 2).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1689 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY).
The settlement of the Crown on William and Mary.
The Declaration of Rights.

"The convention met on the 22nd of January. Their first care was to address the prince to take the administration of affairs and disposal of the revenue into his hands, in order to give a kind of parliamentary sanction to the power he already exercised. On the 28th of January the commons, after a debate in which the friends of the late king made but a faint opposition, came to their great vote: That king James II., having endeavoured to subvert the constitution of this kingdom, by breaking the original contract between king and people, and by the advice of Jesuits and other wicked persons having violated the fundamental laws, and having withdrawn himself out of the kingdom, has abdicated the government, and that the throne is thereby vacant. They resolved unanimously the next day, That it hath been found by experience inconsistent with the safety and welfare of this protestant kingdom to be governed by a popish prince. This vote was a remarkable triumph of the Whig party, who had contended for the exclusion bill. … The lords agreed with equal unanimity to this vote; which, though it was expressed only as an abstract proposition, led by a practical inference to the whole change that the whigs had in view. But upon the former resolution several important divisions took place." The lords were unwilling to commit themselves to the two propositions, that James had "abdicated" the government by his desertion of it, and that the throne had thereby become "vacant." They yielded at length, however, and adopted the resolution as the commons had passed it. They "followed this up by a resolution, that the prince and princess of Orange shall be declared king and queen of England, and all the dominions thereunto belonging. But the commons, with a noble patriotism, delayed to concur in this hasty settlement of the crown, till they should have completed the declaration of those fundamental rights and liberties for the sake of which alone they had gone forward with this great revolution. That declaration, being at once an exposition of the mis-government which had compelled them to dethrone the late king, and of the conditions upon which they elected his successors, was incorporated in the final resolution to which both houses came on the 13th of February, extending the limitation of the crown as far as the state of affairs required: That William and Mary, prince and princess of Orange, be, and be declared, king and queen of England, France and Ireland, and the dominions thereunto belonging, to hold the crown and dignity of the said kingdoms and dominions to them, the said prince and princess, during their lives, and the life of the survivor of them; and that the sole and full exercise of the regal power be only in, and executed by, the said prince of Orange, in the names of the said prince and princess, during their joint lives; and after their decease the said crown and royal dignity of the said kingdoms and dominions to be to the heirs of the body of the said princess; for default of such issue, to the princess Anne of Denmark [younger daughter of James II.], and the heirs of her body; and for default of such issue, to the heirs of the body of the said prince of Orange. … The Declaration of Rights presented to the prince of Orange by the marquis of Halifax, as speaker of the lords, in the presence of both houses, on the 18th of February, consists of three parts: a recital of the illegal and arbitrary acts committed by the late king, and of their consequent vote of abdication; a declaration, nearly following the words of the former part, that such enumerated acts are illegal; and a resolution, that the throne shall be filled by the prince and princess of Orange, according to the limitations mentioned. … This declaration was, some months afterwards [in October], confirmed by a regular act of the legislature in the bill of rights."

L. von Ranke, History of England, 17th Century, book 19, chapters 2-3 (volume 4).

      R. Gneist,
      History of English Constitution,
      chapter 42 (volume 2).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1689 (APRIL-AUGUST).
   The Church and the Revolution.
   The Toleration Act.
   The Non-Jurors.

"The men who had been most helpful in bringing about the late changes were not all of the same way of thinking in religion; many of them belonged to the Church of England; many were Dissenters. It seemed, therefore, a fitting time to grant the Dissenters some relief from the harsh laws passed against them in Charles II.'s reign. Protestant Dissenters, save those who denied the Trinity, were no longer forbidden to have places of worship and services of their own, if they would only swear to be loyal to the king, and that his power was as lawful in Church as in State matters. The law that gave them this is called the Toleration Act. Men's notions were still, however, very narrow; care was taken that the Roman Catholics should get no benefit from this law. Even a Protestant Dissenter might not yet lawfully be a member of either House of Parliament, or take a post in the king's service; for the Test Acts were left untouched. King William, who was a Presbyterian in his own land, wanted very much to see the Dissenters won back to the Church of England. To bring this about, he wished the Church to alter those things in the Prayer Book which kept Dissenters from joining with her. But most of the clergy would not have any change; and because these were the stronger party in Convocation—as the Parliament of the Church is called—William could get nothing done. At the same time a rent, which at first seemed likely to be serious, was made in the Church itself. There was a strong feeling among the clergy in favour of the banished king. So a law was made by which every man who held a preferment in the Church, or either of the Universities, had to swear to be true to King William and Queen Mary, or had to give up his preferment. Most of the clergy were very unwilling to obey this law; but only 400 were found stout-hearted enough to give up their livings rather than do what they thought to be a wicked thing. These were called 'non-jurors,' or men who would not swear. Among them were five out of the seven Bishops who had withstood James II. only a year before. The sect of non-jurors, who looked upon themselves as the only true Churchmen, did not spread. But it did not die out altogether until seventy years ago [i. e., early in the 19th century]. It was at this time that the names High-Church and Low-Church first came into use."

ALSO IN: J. Stoughton, History of Religion in England, volume 5, chapters 4-11.

The following is the text of the Bill of Rights, passed by
Parliament at its sitting in October, 1689:

Whereas the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, assembled at Westminster, lawfully, fully, and freely representing all the estates of the people of this realm, did upon the Thirteenth day of February, in the year of our Lord One Thousand Six Hundred Eighty-eight [o. s.], present unto their Majesties, then called and known by the names and style of William and Mary, Prince and Princess of Orange, being present in their proper persons, a certain Declaration in writing, made by the said Lords and Commons, in the words following, viz.:

"Whereas the late King James II., by the assistance of divers evil counsellors, judges, and ministers employed by him, did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant religion, and the laws and liberties of this kingdom:

1. By assuming and exercising a power of dispensing with and suspending of laws, and the execution of laws, without consent of Parliament.

      2. By committing and prosecuting divers worthy prelates for
      humbly petitioning to be excused from concurring to the
      said assumed power.

      3. By issuing and causing to be executed a commission under
      the Great Seal for erecting a court, called the Court of
      Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes.

      4. By levying money for and to the use of the Crown by
      pretence of prerogative, for other time and in other manner
      than the same was granted by Parliament.

      5. By raising and keeping a standing army within this
      kingdom in time of peace, without consent of Parliament,
      and quartering soldiers contrary to law.

6. By causing several good subjects, being Protestants, to be disarmed, at the same time when Papists were both armed and employed contrary to law.

8. By prosecutions in the Court of King's Bench for matters and causes cognisable only in Parliament, and by divers other arbitrary and illegal causes.

9. And whereas of late years, partial, corrupt, and unqualified persons have been returned, and served on juries in trials, and particularly divers jurors in trials for high treason, which were not freeholders.

10. And excessive bail hath been required of persons committed in criminal cases, to elude the benefit of the laws made for the liberty of the subjects.

11. And excessive fines have been imposed; and illegal and cruel punishments inflicted.

12. And several grants and promises made of fines and forfeitures before any conviction or judgment against the persons upon whom the same were to be levied.

All which are utterly and directly contrary to the known laws and statutes, and freedom of this realm. And whereas the said late King James II. having abdicated the government, and the throne being thereby vacant, his Highness the Prince of Orange (whom it hath pleased Almighty God to make the glorious instrument of delivering this kingdom from Popery and arbitrary power) did (by the advice of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and divers principal persons of the Commons) cause letters to be written to the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, being Protestants, and other letters to the several counties, cities, universities, boroughs, and Cinque ports, for the choosing of such persons to represent them as were of right to be sent to Parliament, to meet and sit at Westminster upon the two-and-twentieth day of January, in this year One Thousand Six Hundred Eighty and Eight, in order to such an establishment, as that their religion, laws, and liberties might not again be in danger of being subverted; upon which letters elections have been accordingly made. And thereupon the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, pursuant to their respective letters and elections, being now assembled in a full and free representation of this nation, taking into their most serious consideration the best means for attaining the ends aforesaid, do in the first place (as their ancestors in like case have usually done) for the vindicating and asserting their ancient rights and liberties, declare:

1. That the pretended power of suspending of laws, or the execution of laws, by regal authority, without consent of Parliament, is illegal.

2. That the pretended power of dispensing with laws, or the execution of laws by regal authority, as it hath been assumed and exercised of late, is illegal.

3. That the commission for erecting the late Court of Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes, and all other commissions and courts of like nature, are illegal and pernicious.

4. That levying money for or to the use of the Crown by pretence and prerogative, without grant of Parliament, for longer time or in other manner than the same is or shall be granted, is illegal.

5. That it is the right of the subjects to petition the King, and all commitments and prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal.

      6. That the raising or keeping a standing army within the
      kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with consent of
      Parliament, is against law.

7. That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions, and as allowed by law.

9. That the freedom of speech, and debates or proceedings in Parliament, ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament.

      10. That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor
      excessive fines imposed; nor cruel and unusual punishments
      inflicted.

      11. That jurors ought to be duly impanelled and returned,
      and jurors which pass upon men in trials for high treason
      ought to be freeholders.

      12. That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures
      of particular persons before conviction are illegal and
      void.

13. And that for redress of all grievances, and for the amending, strengthening, and preserving of the laws, Parliament ought to be held frequently.

And they do claim, demand, and insist upon all and singular the premises, as their undoubted rights and liberties; and that no declarations, judgments, doings or proceedings, to the prejudice of the people in any of the said premises, ought in any wise to be drawn hereafter into consequence or example. To which demand of their rights they are particularly encouraged by the declaration of his Highness the Prince of Orange, as being the only means for obtaining a full redress and remedy therein. Having therefore an entire confidence that his said Highness the Prince of Orange will perfect the deliverance so far advanced by him, and will still preserve them from the violation of their rights, which they have here asserted, and from all other attempts upon their religion, rights, and liberties:

II. The said Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, assembled at Westminster, do resolve, that William and Mary, Prince and Princess of Orange, be, and be declared, King and Queen of England, France, and Ireland, and the dominions thereunto belonging, to hold the crown and royal dignity of the said kingdoms and dominions to them the said Prince and Princess during their lives, and the life of the survivor of them; and that the sole and full exercise of the regal power be only in, and executed by, the said Prince of Orange, in the names of the said Prince and Princess, during their joint lives; and after their deceases, the said crown and royal dignity of the said kingdoms and dominions to be to the heirs of the body of the said Princess; and for default of such issue to the Princess Anne of Denmark, and the heirs of her body; and for default of such issue to the heirs of the body of the said Prince of Orange. And the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, do pray the said Prince and Princess to accept the same accordingly.

III. And that the oaths hereafter mentioned be taken by all persons of whom the oaths of allegiance and supremacy might be required by law instead of them; and that the said oaths of allegiance and supremacy be abrogated. 'I, A. B., do sincerely promise and swear, That I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to their Majesties King William and Queen Mary: So help me God.' 'I, A. B., do swear, That I do from my heart abhor, detest, and abjure as impious and heretical that damnable doctrine and position, that princes excommunicated or deprived by the Pope, or any authority of the See of Rome, may be deposed or murdered by their subjects, or any other whatsoever. And I do declare, that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate hath, or ought to have, any jurisdiction, power, superiority, preeminence, or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm: So help me God.'"

IV. Upon which their said Majesties did accept the crown and royal dignity of the kingdoms of England, France, and Ireland, and the dominions thereunto belonging, according to the resolution and desire of the said Lords and Commons contained in the said declaration.

V. And thereupon their Majesties were pleased, that the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, being the two Houses of Parliament, should continue to sit, and with their Majesties' royal concurrence make effectual provision for the settlement of the religion, laws and liberties of this kingdom, so that the same for the future might not be in danger again of being subverted; to which the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, did agree and proceed to act accordingly.

VI. Now in pursuance of the premises, the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in Parliament assembled, for the ratifying, confirming, and establishing the said declaration, and the articles, clauses, matters, and things therein contained, by the force of a law made in due form by authority of Parliament, do pray that it may be declared and enacted, That all and singular the rights and liberties asserted and claimed in the said declaration are the true, ancient, and indubitable rights and liberties of the people of this kingdom, and so shall be esteemed, allowed, adjudged, deemed, and taken to be, and that all and every the particulars aforesaid shall be firmly and strictly holden and observed, as they are expressed in the said declaration; and all officers and ministers whatsoever shall serve their Majesties and their successors according to the same in all times to come.

VII. And the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, seriously considering how it hath pleased Almighty God, in his marvellous providence, and merciful goodness to this nation, to provide and preserve their said Majesties' royal persons most happily to reign over us upon the throne of their ancestors, for which they render unto Him from the bottom of their hearts their humblest thanks and praises, do truly, firmly, assuredly, and in the sincerity of their hearts, think, and do hereby recognise, acknowledge, and declare, that King James II. having abdicated the Government, and their Majesties having accepted the Crown and royal dignity as aforesaid, their said Majesties did become, were, are, and of right ought to be, by the laws of this realm, our sovereign liege Lord and Lady, King and Queen of England, France, and Ireland, and the dominions thereunto belonging, in and to whose princely persons the royal state, crown, and dignity of the said realms, with all honours, styles, titles, regalities, prerogatives, powers, jurisdictions, and authorities to the same belonging and appertaining, are most fully, rightfully, and entirely invested and incorporated, united, and annexed.

VIII. And for preventing all questions and divisions in this realm, by reason of any pretended titles to the Crown, and for preserving a certainty in the succession thereof, in and upon which the unity, peace, tranquillity, and safety of this nation doth, under God, wholly consist and depend, the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, do beseech their Majesties that it may be enacted, established, and declared, that the Crown and regal government of the said kingdoms and dominions, with all and singular the premises thereunto belonging and appertaining, shall be and continue to their said Majesties, and the survivor of them, during their lives, and the life of the survivor of them. And that the entire, perfect, and full exercise of the regal power and government be only in, and executed by, his Majesty, in the names of both their Majesties, during their joint lives; and after their deceases the said Crown and premises shall be and remain to the heirs of the body of her Majesty: and for default of such issue, to her Royal Highness the Princess Anne of Denmark, and the heirs of her body; and for default of such issue, to the heirs of the body of his said Majesty: And thereunto the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, do, in the name of all the people aforesaid, most humbly and faithfully submit themselves, their heirs and posterities, for ever: and do faithfully promise, that they will stand to, maintain, and defend their said Majesties, and also the limitation and succession of the Crown herein specified and contained, to the utmost of their powers, with their lives and estates, against all persons whatsoever that shall attempt anything to the contrary.

IX. And whereas it hath been found by experience, that it is inconsistent with the safety and welfare of this Protestant kingdom to be governed by a Popish prince, or by any king or queen marrying a Papist, the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, do further pray that it may be enacted, That all and every person and persons that is, are, or shall be reconciled to, or shall hold communion with, the See or Church of Rome, or shall profess the Popish religion, or shall marry a Papist, shall be excluded, and be for ever incapable to inherit, possess, or enjoy the Crown and Government of this realm, and Ireland, and the dominions thereunto belonging, or any part of the same, or to have, use, or exercise, any regal power, authority, or jurisdiction within the same; and in all and every such case or cases the people of these realms shall be and are hereby absolved of their allegiance, and the said Crown and government shall from time to time descend to, and be enjoyed by, such person or persons, being Protestants, as should have inherited and enjoyed the same, in case the said person or persons so reconciled, holding communion, or professing, or marrying, as aforesaid, were naturally dead.

X. And that every King and Queen of this realm, who at any time hereafter shall come to and succeed in the Imperial Crown of this kingdom, shall, on the first day of the meeting of the first Parliament, next after his or her coming to the Crown, sitting in his or her throne in the House of Peers, in the presence of the Lords and Commons therein assembled, or at his or her coronation, before such person or persons who shall administer the coronation oath to him or her, at the time of his or her taking the said oath (which shall first happen), make, subscribe, and audibly repeat the declaration mentioned in the statute made in the thirteenth year of the reign of King Charles II., intituled "An Act for the more effectual preserving the King's person and Government, by disabling Papists from sitting in either House of Parliament." But if it shall happen that such King or Queen, upon his or her succession to the Crown of this realm, shall be under the age of twelve years, then every such King or Queen shall make, subscribe, and audibly repeat the said declaration at his or her coronation, or the first day of meeting of the first Parliament as aforesaid, which shall first happen after such King or Queen shall have attained the said age of twelve years.

XI. All which their Majesties are contented and pleased shall be declared, enacted, and established by authority of this present Parliament, and shall stand, remain, and be the law of this realm for ever; and the same are by their said Majesties, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, declared, enacted, or established accordingly.

XII. And be it further declared and enacted by the authority aforesaid, That from and after this present session of Parliament, no dispensation by "non obstante" of or to any statute, or any part thereof, shall be allowed, but that the same shall be held void and of no effect, except a dispensation be allowed of in such statute, and except in such cases as shall be specially provided for by one or more bill or bills to be passed during this present session of Parliament.

XIII. Provided that no charter, or grant, or pardon granted before the three-and-twentieth day of October, in the year of our Lord One thousand six hundred eighty-nine, shall be any ways impeached or invalidated by this Act, but that the same shall be and remain of the same force and effect in law, and no other, than as if this Act had never been made.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1689-1696.
   The war of the League of Augsburg, or the Grand Alliance
   against Louis XIV. (called in American history "King William's
   War ").

ENGLAND: A. D. 1690 (JUNE).
The Battle of Beachy Head.
The great peril of the kingdom.

"In June, 1690, whilst William was in Ireland, the French sent a fleet, under Tourville, to threaten England. He left Brest and entered the British Channel. Herbert (then Earl of Torrington) commanded the English fleet lying in the Downs, and sailed to Saint Helens, where he was joined by the Dutch fleet under Evertsen. On the 26th of June the English and French fleets were close to each other, and an important engagement was expected, when unexpectedly Torrington abandoned the Isle of Wight and retreated towards the Straits of Dover. … The Queen and her Council, receiving this intelligence, sent to Torrington peremptory orders to fight. Torrington received these orders on the 29th June. Next day he bore down on the French fleet in order of battle. He had less than 60 ships of the line, whilst the French had 80. He placed the Dutch in the van, and during the whole fight rendered them little or no assistance. He gave the signal to engage, which was immediately obeyed by Evertsen, who fought with the most splendid courage, but at length, being unsupported, his second in command and many other officers of high rank having fallen, and his ships being fearfully shattered, Evertsen was obliged to draw off his contingent from the unequal battle. Torrington destroyed some of these injured ships, took the remainder in tow, and sailed along the coast of Kent for the Thames. When in that river he pulled up all the buoys to prevent pursuit. … Upon his return to London he was sent to the Tower, and in December was tried at Sheerness by court-martial, and on the third day was acquitted; but William refused to see him, and ordered him to be dismissed from the navy."

"There has scarcely ever been so sad a day in London as that on which the news of the Battle of Beachy Head arrived. The shame was insupportable; the peril was imminent. … At any moment London might be appalled by news that 20,000 French veterans were in Kent. It was notorious that, in every part of the kingdom, the Jacobites had been, during some months, making preparations for a rising. All the regular troops who could be assembled for the defence of the island did not amount to more than 10,000 men. It may be doubted whether our country has ever passed through a more alarming crisis than that of the first week of July 1690."

"The diversion in Ireland having failed, Louis wished to make an effort to attack England without and within. James II., who had turned to so little advantage the first aid granted by the King of France saw therefore in preparation a much more powerful assistance, and obtained what had been refused him after the days of the Boyne and Beachy-Head,—an army to invade England. News received from that country explained this change in the conduct of Louis. The opinion of James at Versailles was no better than in the past; but England was believed to be on the eve of counter-revolution, which it would be sufficient to aid with a vigorous and sudden blow. … Many eminent personages, among the Whigs as well as among the Tories, among others the Duke of Marlborough (Churchill), had opened a secret correspondence with the royal exile at Saint-Germain. James had secret adherents in the English fleet which he had so long commanded before reigning, and believed himself able to count on Rear-Admiral Carter, and even on Admiral Russell. Louis gave himself up to excessive confidence in the result of these plots, and arranged his plan of naval operations accordingly. An army of 30,000 men, with 500 transports, was assembled on the coast of Normandy, the greater part at La Hogue and Cherbourg, the rest at Havre: this was composed of all the Irish troops, a number of Anglo-Scotch refugees, and a corps of French troops. Marshal de Bellefonds commanded under King James. Tourville was to set ut from Brest in the middle of April with fifty ships of the line, enter the Channel, attack the English fleet before it could be reinforced by the Dutch, and thus secure the invasion. Express orders were sent to him to engage the enemy 'whatever might be his numbers.' It was believed that half of the English fleet would go over to the side of the allies of its king. The landing effected, Tourville was to return to Brest, to rally there the squadron of Toulon, sixteen vessels strong, and the rest of our large ships, then to hold the Channel during the whole campaign. They had reckoned without the elements, which, hitherto hostile to the enemies of France, this time turned against her." The French fleets were detained by contrary winds and by incomplete preparations. Tourville was not reinforced, as he expected to be, by the squadrons of Toulon and Rochefort. Before he found it possible to sail from Brest, the Jacobite plot had been discovered in England, the government was on its guard, and the Dutch and English fleets had made their junction. Still, the French admiral was under orders which left him no discretion, and he went out to seek the enemy. "May 29, at daybreak, between the Capes of La Hogue and Barfleur, Tourville found himself in presence of the allied fleet, the most powerful that had ever appeared on the sea. He had been joined by seven ships from the squadron of Rochefort, and numbered 44 vessels against 99, 78 of which carried over 50 guns, and, for the most part, were much larger than a majority of the French. The English had 63 ships and [4,540] guns; the Dutch, 36 ships and 2,614 guns; in all, 7,154 guns; the French counted only 3,114. The allied fleet numbered nearly 42,000 men; the French fleet less than 20,000." Notwithstanding this great inferiority of numbers and strength, it was the French fleet which made the attack, bearing down under full sail "on the immense mass of the enemy." The attempt was almost hopeless; and yet, when night fell, after a day of tremendous battle, Tourville had not yet lost a ship; but his line of battle had been broken, and no chance of success remained. "May 30, at break of day, Tourville rallied around him 35 vessels. The other nine had strayed, five towards La Hogue, four towards the English coast, whence they regained Brest. If there had been a naval port at La Hogue or at Cherbourg, as Colbert and Vauban had desired, the French fleet would have preserved its laurels! There was no place of retreat on all that coast. The fleet of the enemy advanced in full force. It was impossible to renew the prodigious effort of the day before." In this emergency, Tourville made a daring attempt to escape with his fleet through the dangerous channel called the Race of Alderney, which separates the Channel Islands from the Normandy coast. Twenty-two vessels made the passage safely and found a place of refuge at St. Malo; thirteen were too late for the tide and failed. Most of these were destroyed, during the next few days, by the English and Dutch at Cherbourg and in the bay of La Hogue,—in the presence and under the guns of King James' army of invasion. "James II. had reason to say that 'his unlucky star' everywhere shed a malign influence around him; but this influence was only that of his blindness and incapacity. Such was that disaster of La Hogue, which has left among us such a fatal renown, and the name of which resounds in our history like another Agincourt or Cressy. Historians have gone so far as to ascribe to this the destruction of the French navy. … La Hogue was only a reprisal for Beachy-Head. The French did not lose in it a vessel more than the allies had lost two years before, and the 15 vessels destroyed were soon replaced."

H. Martin, History of France: Age of Louis XIV: (translated by M. L. Booth), volume 2, chapter 2.'

L. von Ranke, History of England, 17th Century, book 20, chapter 4 (volume 5).

      Sir J. Dalrymple,
      Memoirs of Great Britain and Ireland,
      part 2, book 7 (volume 3).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1695.
Expiration of censorship law.
Appearance of first newspapers.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1696-1749. Measures of commercial and industrial restriction in the American colonies.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1697.
The Peace of Ryswick.
Recognition of William III. by France.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1698-1700.
   The question of the Spanish Succession.
   The Treaties of Partition.
   The Spanish king's will.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1701.
   The Act of Settlement.
   The source of the sovereignty of the
   House of Hanover or Brunswick.

"William and Mary had no children; and in 1700 the young Duke of Gloucester, the only child of Anne that lived beyond infancy, died. There was now no hope of there being anyone to inherit the crown by the Bill of Rights after the death of William and of Anne. In 1701, therefore, Parliament settled the crown on the Electress Sophia of Hanover, and her heirs. Sophia was one of the children of that Elizabeth, daughter of James I., who in 1613 had married the Palsgrave Frederick. She was chosen to come after William and Anne because she was the nearest to the Stuart line who was a Protestant. The law that did this is called the Act of Settlement; it gives Queen Victoria her title to the throne. Parliament in passing it tried to make the nation's liberties still safer. It was now made impossible (1) for any foreigner to sit in Parliament or to hold an office under the Crown; (2). for the king to go to war in defence of countries that did not belong to England, unless Parliament gave him leave; or (3) to pardon anyone so that the Commons might not be able to impeach him."

"Though the choice was truly free in the hands of parliament, and no pretext of absolute right could be advanced on any side, there was no question that the princess Sophia was the fittest object of the nation's preference. She was indeed very far removed from any hereditary title. Besides the pretended prince of Wales, and his sister, whose legitimacy no one disputed, there stood in her way the duchess of Savoy, daughter of Henrietta duchess of Orleans, and several of the Palatine family. These last had abjured the reformed faith, of which their ancestors had been the strenuous assertors; but it seemed not improbable that some one might return to it. … According to the tenor and intention of the act of settlement, all prior claims of inheritance, save that of the issue of king William and the princess Anne, being set aside and annulled, the princess Sophia became the source of a new royal line. The throne of England and Ireland, by virtue of the paramount will of parliament, stands entailed upon the heirs of her body, being protestants. In them the right is as truly hereditary as it ever was in the Plantagenets or the Tudors. But they derive it not from those ancient families. The blood indeed of Cerdic and of the Conqueror flows in the veins of his present majesty [George IV.]. Our Edwards and Henries illustrate the almost unrivalled splendour and antiquity of the house of Brunswic. But they have transmitted no more right to the allegiance of England than Boniface of Este or Henry the Lion. That rests wholly on the act of settlement, and resolves itself into the sovereignty of the legislature.

When Louis XIV. procured and accepted for his grandson the bequest of the Spanish crown, throwing over the Partition Treaty, "William had the intolerable chagrin of discovering not only that he had been befooled, but that his English subjects had no sympathy with him or animosity against the royal swindler who had tricked him. 'The blindness of the people here,' he writes sadly to the Pensionary Heinsius, 'is incredible. For though the affair is not public, yet it was no sooner said that the King of Spain's will was in favour of the Duke of Anjou, that it was the general opinion that it was better for England that France should accept the will than fulfil the Treaty of Partition.' … William dreaded the idea of a Bourbon reigning at Madrid, but he saw no very grave objection, as the two treaties showed, to Naples and Sicily passing into French hands. With his English subjects the exact converse was the case. They strongly deprecated the assignment of the Mediterranean possessions of the Spaniard to the Dauphin; but they were undisturbed by the sight of the Duke of Anjou seating himself on the Spanish throne. … But just as, under a discharge from an electric battery, two repugnant chemical compounds will sometimes rush into sudden combination, so at this juncture the King and the nation were instantaneously united by the shock of a gross affront. The hand that liberated the uniting fluid was that of the Christian king. On the 16th of September 1701 James II. breathed his last at St. Germains, and, obedient to one of those impulses, half-chivalrous, half-arrogant, which so often determined his policy, Louis XIV. declared his recognition of the Prince of Wales as de jure King of England. No more timely and effective assistance to the policy of its de facto king could possibly have been rendered. Its effect upon English public opinion was instantaneous; and when William returned from Holland on the 4th of November, he found the country in the temper in which he could most have wished it to be." Dissolving the Parliament in which his plans had long been factiously opposed, he summoned a new one, which met on the last day of the year 1701. "Opposition in Parliament—in the country it was already inaudible—was completely silenced. The two Houses sent up addresses assuring the King of their firm resolve to defend the succession against the pretended Prince of Wales and all other pretenders whatsoever. … Nor did the goodwill of Parliament expend itself in words. The Commons accepted without a word of protest the four treaties constituting the new Grand Alliance. … The votes of supply were passed unanimously." But scarcely had the nation and the King arrived at this agreement with one another than the latter was snatched from his labors. On the 21st of February, 1702, William received an injury, through the stumbling of his horse, which his frail and diseased body could not bear. His death would not have been long delayed in any event, but it was hastened by this accident, and occurred on the 8th of March following. He was succeeded by Anne, the sister of his deceased queen, Mary, and second daughter of the deposed Stuart king, James II.

ALSO IN: L. von Ranke, History of England, 17th Century, book 21, chapters 7-10 (volume 5).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1702.
   The War of the Spanish Succession.
   Failure at Cadiz.
   The treasure ships in Vigo Bay.
   Marlborough's first campaigns.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1702-1711.
The War of the Spanish Succession in America
(called "Queen Anne's War").

"That which was once called the Augustan age of English literature was specially marked by the growing development of a distinct literary class. It was a period of transition from the early system of the patronage of authors to the later system of their professional independence. Patronage was being changed into influence. The system of subscription, by which Pope made his fortune, was a kind of joint-stock patronage. The noble did not support the poet, but induced his friends to subscribe. The noble, moreover, made another discovery. He found that he could dispense a cheaper and more effective patronage than of old by patronising at the public expense. During the reign of Queen Anne, the author of a successful poem or an effective pamphlet might look forward to a comfortable place. The author had not to wear the livery, but to become the political follower, of the great man. Gradually a separation took place. The minister found it better to have a regular corps of politicians and scribblers in his pay than occasionally to recruit his ranks by enlisting men of literary taste. And, on the other hand, authors, by slow degrees, struggled into a more independent position as their public increased. In the earlier part of the century, however, we find a class of fairly cultivated people, sufficiently numerous to form a literary audience, and yet not so numerous as to split into entirely distinct fractions. The old religious and political warfare has softened; the statesman loses his place, but not his head; and though there is plenty of bitterness, there is little violence. We have thus a brilliant society of statesmen, authors, clergymen, and lawyers, forming social clubs, meeting at coffee-houses, talking scandal and politics, and intensely interested in the new social phenomena which emerge as the old order decays; more excitable, perhaps, than their fathers, but less desperately in earnest, and waging a constant pamphleteering warfare upon politics, literature, and theology, which is yet consistent with a certain degree of friendly intercourse. The essayist, the critic, and the novelist appear for the first time in their modern shape; and the journalist is slowly gaining some authority as the wielder of a political force. The whole character of contemporary literature, in short, is moulded by the social conditions of the class for which and by which it was written, still more distinctly than by the ideas current in contemporary speculation. … Pope is the typical representative of the poetical spirit of the day. He may or may not be regarded as the intellectual superior of Swift or Addison; and the most widely differing opinions may be formed of the intrinsic merits of his poetry. The mere fact, however, that his poetical dynasty was supreme to the end of the century proved that, in some sense, he is a most characteristic product. Nor is it hard to see the main sources of his power. Pope had at least two great poetical qualities. He was amongst the most keenly sensitive of men, and he had an almost unique felicity of expression, which has enabled him to coin more proverbs than any writer since Shakespeare. Sensitive, it may be said, is a polite word for morbid, and his felicity of phrase was more adapted to coin epigrams than poetry. The controversy is here irrelevant. Pope, whether, as I should say, a true poet, or, as some have said, only the most sparkling of rhymesters, reflects the thoughts of his day with a curious completeness. … There is, however, another wide province of literature in which writers of the eighteenth century did work original in character and of permanent value. If the seventeenth century is the great age of dramatists and theologians, the eighteenth century was the age in which the critic, the essayist, the satirist, the novelist, and the moralist first appeared, or reached the highest mark. Criticism, though still in its infancy, first became an independent art with Addison. Addison and his various colleagues set the first example of that kind of social essay which is still popular. Satire had been practised in the preceding century, and in the hands of Dryden had become a formidable political weapon; but the social satire of which Pope was, and remains, the chief master, began with the century, and may be said to have expired with it, in spite of the efforts of Byron and Gifford. De Foe, Richardson, Fielding, and Smollett developed the modern novel out of very crude rudiments; and two of the greatest men of the century, Swift and Johnson, may be best described as practical moralists in a vein peculiar to the time. … The English novel, as the word is now understood, begins with De Foe. Though, like all other products of mind or body, it was developed out of previously existing material, and is related to the great family of stories with which men have amused themselves in all ages, it is, perhaps, as nearly an original creation as anything can be. The legends of saints which amused the middle ages, or the chivalrous romances which were popular throughout the seventeenth century, had become too unreal to amuse living human beings. De Foe made the discovery that a history might be equally interesting if the recorded events had never happened."

      L. Stephen,
      History of English Thought in the Eighteenth Century,
      chapter 12, sections 23-56 (volume 2).

"This so-called classic age of ours has long ceased to be regarded with that complacency which led the most flourishing part of it to adopt the epithet 'Augustan.' It will scarcely be denied by its greatest admirer, if he be a man of wide reading, that it cannot be ranked with the poorest of the five great ages of literature. Deficient in the highest intellectual beauty, in the qualities which awaken the fullest critical enthusiasm, the eighteenth century will be enjoyed more thoroughly by those who make it their special study than by those who skim the entire surface of literature. It has, although on the grand scale condemned as second-rate, a remarkable fulness and sustained richness which endear it to specialists. If it be compared, for instance, with the real Augustan age in Rome, or with the Spanish period of literary supremacy, it may claim to hold its own against these rivals in spite of their superior rank, because of its more copious interest. If it has neither a Horace nor a Calderon, it has a great extent and variety of writers just below these in merit, and far more numerous than what Rome or Spain can show during those blossoming periods. It is, moreover, fertile at far more points than either of these schools. This sustained and variegated success, at a comparatively low level of effort, strikes one as characteristic of an age more remarkable for persistent vitality than for rapid and brilliant growth. The Elizabethan vivida vis is absent, the Georgian glow has not yet dawned, but there is a suffused prosaic light of intelligence, of cultivated form, over the whole picture, and during the first half of the period, at least, this is bright enough to be very attractive. Perhaps, in closing, the distinguishing mark of eighteenth-century literature may be indicated as its mastery of prose as a vehicle for general thought."

      E. Gosse,
      The Study of Eighteenth-Century Literature
      (New Princeton Rev., July, 1888, page 21).

"Ashby, a burgess of Aylesbury, sued the returning officer for maliciously refusing his vote. Three judges of the King's Bench decided, against the opinion of Chief Justice Holt, that the verdict which a jury had given in favor of Ashby must be set aside, as the action was not maintainable. The plaintiff went to the House of Lords upon a writ of error, and there the judgment was reversed by a large majority of Peers. The Lower House maintained that 'the qualification of an elector is not cognizable elsewhere than before the Commons of England'; that Ashby was guilty of a breach of privilege; and that all persons who should in future commence such an action, and all attorneys and counsel conducting the same, are also guilty of a high breach of privilege. The Lords, led by Somers, then came to counter-resolutions. … The prorogation of Parliament put an end to the quarrel in that Session; but in the next it was renewed with increased violence. The judgment against the Returning Officer was followed up by Ashby levying his damages. Other Aylesbury men brought new actions. The Commons imprisoned the Aylesbury electors. The Lords took strong measures that affected, or appeared to affect, the privileges of the Commons. The Queen finally stopped the contest by a prorogation; and the quarrel expired when the Parliament expired under the Triennial Act. Lord Somers 'established the doctrine which has been acted on ever since, that an action lies against a Returning Officer for maliciously refusing the vote of an elector.'"

ALSO IN: Lord Campbell, Lives of the Lord Chancellors: Somers, chapter. 110 (volume 4).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1704-1707.
Marlborough's campaigns in the War of the Spanish Succession.
Campaigns in Spain.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1704;
      SPAIN: A. D. 1703-1704, to 1707;
      NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1705, and 1706-1707.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1707-1708.
Hostility to the Union in Scotland.
Spread of Jacobitism.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1708-1709.
The War of the Spanish Succession:
Oudenarde and Malplaquet.

"The influence of the Whig party in the affairs of government in England, always irksome to the Queen, had now began visibly to decline; and the partiality she was suspected of entertaining for her brother, with her known dislike of the house of Hanover, inspired them with alarm, lest the Tories might seek still further to propitiate her favour, by altering, in his favour, the line of succession, as at present established. They had, accordingly, made it one of the preliminaries of the proposed treaty of peace, that the Protestant succession, in England, should be secured by a general guarantee, and now sought to repair, as far as possible, the failure caused by the unsuccessful termination of the conferences, by entering into a treaty to that effect with the States. The Marquis Townshend, accordingly, repaired for this purpose to the Hague, when the States consented to enter into an engagement to maintain the present succession to the crown, with their whole force, and to make the recognition of that succession, and the expulsion of the Pretender from France, an indispensable preliminary to any peace with that kingdom. In return for this important guarantee, England was to secure to the States a barrier, formed of the towns of Nieuport, Furnes and the fort of Knokke, Menin, Lille, Ryssel, Tournay, Conde, and Valenciennes, Maubeuge, Charleroi, Namur, Lier, Halle, and some forts, besides the citadels of Ghent and Dendermonde. It was afterwards asserted, in excuse for the dereliction from that treaty on the part of England, that Townshend had gone beyond his instructions; but it is quite certain that it was ratified without hesitation by the queen, whatever may have been her secret feelings regarding it."

      C. M. Davies,
      History of Holland,
      part 3, chapter 11 (volume 3 ).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1710-1712.
   Opposition to the war.
   Trial of Sacheverell.
   Fall of the Whigs and Marlborough.

"A 'deluge of blood' such as that of Malplaquet increased the growing weariness of the war, and the rejection of the French offers was unjustly attributed to a desire on the part of Marlborough of lengthening out a contest which brought him profit and power. The expulsion of Harley and St. John [Bolingbroke] from the Ministry had given the Tories leaders of a more vigorous stamp, and St. John brought into play a new engine of political attack whose powers soon made themselves felt. In the Examiner, and in a crowd of pamphlets and periodicals which followed in its train, the humor of Prior, the bitter irony of Swift, and St. John's own brilliant sophistry spent themselves on the abuse of the war and of its general. … A sudden storm of popular passion showed the way in which public opinion responded to these efforts. A High-Church divine, Dr. Sacheverell, maintained the doctrine of non-resistance [the doctrine, that is, of passive obedience and non-resistance to government, implying a condemnation of the Revolution of 1688 and of the Revolution settlement], in a sermon at St. Paul's, with a boldness which deserved prosecution; but in spite of the warning of Marlborough and of Somers the Whig Ministers resolved on his impeachment. His trial in 1710 at once widened into a great party struggle, and the popular enthusiasm in Sacheverell's favor showed the gathering hatred of the Whigs and the war. … A small majority of the peers found him guilty, but the light sentence they inflicted was in effect an acquittal, and bonfires and illuminations over the whole country welcomed it as a Tory triumph. The turn of popular feeling freed Anne at once from the pressure beneath which she had bent; and the skill of Harley, whose cousin, Mrs. Masham, had succeeded the Duchess of Marlborough in the Queen's favor, was employed in bringing about the fall both of Marlborough and the Whig Ministers. … The return of a Tory House of Commons sealed his [Marlborough's] fate. His wife was dismissed from court. A masterly plan for a march into the heart of France in the opening of 1711 was foiled by the withdrawal of a part of his forces, and the negotiations which had for some time been conducted between the French and English Ministers without his knowledge marched rapidly to a close. … At the opening of 1712 the Whig majority of the House of Lords was swamped by the creation of twelve Tory peers. Marlborough was dismissed from his command, charged with peculation, and condemned as guilty by a vote of the House of Commons. He at once withdrew from England, and with his withdrawal all opposition to the peace was at an end."

Added to other reasons for opposition to the war, the death of the Emperor Joseph I., which occurred in April, 1711, had entirely reversed the situation in Europe out of which the war proceeded. The Archduke Charles, whom the allies had been striving to place on the Spanish throne, was now certain to be elected Emperor. He received the imperial crown, in fact, in December, 1711. By this change of fortune, therefore, he became a more objectionable claimant of the Spanish crown than Louis XIV. 's grandson had been.

"Round the fall of Marlborough has gathered the interest attaching to the earliest political crisis at all resembling those of quite recent times. It is at this moment that Party Government in the modern sense actually commenced. William the Third with military instinct had always been reluctant to govern by means of a party. Bound as he was, closely, to the Whigs, he employed Tory Ministers. … The new idea of a homogeneous government was working itself into shape under the mild direction of Lord Somers; but the form finally taken under Sir Robert Walpole, which has continued to the present time, was as yet some way off. Marlborough's notions were those of the late King. Both abroad and at home he carried out the policy of William. He refused to rely wholly upon the Whigs, and the extreme Tories were not given employment. The Ministry of Godolphin was a composite administration, containing at one time, in 1705, Tories like Harley and St. John as well as Whigs such as Sunderland and Halifax. … Lord Somers was a type of statesman of a novel order at that time. … In the beginning of the eighteenth century it was rare to find a man attaining the highest political rank who was unconnected by birth or training or marriage with any of the great 'governing families,' as they have been called. Lord Somers was the son of a Worcester attorney. … It was fortunate for England that Lord Somers should have been the foremost man of the Whig party at the time when constitutional government, as we now call it, was in course of construction. By his prudent counsel the Whigs were guided through the difficult years at the end of Queen Anne's reign; and from the ordeal of seeing their rivals in power they certainly managed, as a party, to emerge on the whole with credit. Although he was not nominally their leader, the paramount influence in the Tory party was Bolingbroke's; and that the Tories suffered from the defects of his great qualities, no unprejudiced critic can doubt. Between the two parties, and at the head of the Treasury through the earlier years of the reign, stood Godolphin, without whose masterly knowledge of finance and careful attention to the details of administration Marlborough's policy would have been baffled and his campaigns remained unfought. To Godolphin, more than to any other one man, is due the preponderance of the Treasury control in public affairs. It was his administration, during the absence of Marlborough on the Continent, which created for the office of Lord Treasurer its paramount importance, and paved the way for Sir Robert Walpole's government of England under the title of First Lord of the Treasury. … Marlborough saw and always admitted that his victories were due in large measure to the financial skill of Godolphin. To this statesman's lasting credit it must be remembered that in a venal age, when the standards of public honesty were so different from those which now prevail, Godolphin died a poor man. … Bolingbroke is interesting to us as the most striking figure among the originators of the new parliamentary system. With Marlborough disappeared the type of Tudor statesmen modified by contact with the Stuarts. He was the last of the Imperial Chancellors. Bolingbroke and his successor Walpole were the earlier types of constitutional statesmen among whom Mr. Pitt and, later, Mr. Gladstone stand pre-eminent. … He and his friends, opponents of Marlborough, and contributors to his fall, are interesting to us mainly as furnishing the first examples of 'Her Majesty's Opposition,' as the authors of party government and the prototypes of cabinet ministers of to-day. Their ways of thought, their style of speech and of writing, may be dissimilar to those now in vogue, but they show greater resemblance to those of modern politicians than to those of the Ministers of William or of the Stuarts. Bolingbroke may have appeared a strange product of the eighteenth century to his contemporaries, but he would not have appeared peculiarly misplaced among the colleagues of Lord Randolph Churchill or Mr. Chamberlain."

   "The Test Act, making the reception of the Anglican Sacrament
   a necessary qualification for becoming a member of
   corporations, and for the enjoyment of most civil offices, was
   very efficacious in excluding Catholics, but was altogether
   insufficient to exclude moderate Dissenters. … Such men,
   while habitually attending their own places of worship, had no
   scruple about occasionally entering an Anglican church, or
   receiving the sacrament from an Anglican clergyman. The
   Independents, it is true, and some of the Baptists, censured
   this practice, and Defoe wrote vehemently against it, but it
   was very general, and was supported by a long list of imposing
   authorities. … In 1702, in 1703, and in 1704, measures for
   suppressing occasional conformity were carried through the
   Commons, but on each occasion they were defeated by the Whig
   preponderance in the Lords." In 1711, the Whigs formed a
   coalition with one section of the Tories to defeat the
   negotiations which led to the Peace of Utrecht; but the Tories
   "made it the condition of alliance that the Occasional
   Conformity Bill should be accepted by the Whigs.
{918}
   The bargain was made; the Dissenters were abandoned, and, on
   the motion of Nottingham, a measure was carried providing that
   all persons in places of profit or trust, and all common
   councilmen in corporations, who, while holding office, were
   proved to have attended any Nonconformist place of worship,
   should forfeit the place, and should continue incapable of
   public employment till they should depose that for a whole
   year they had not attended a conventicle. The House of Commons
   added a fine of £40, which was to be paid to the informer, and
   with this addition the Bill became a law. Its effects during
   the few years it continued in force were very inconsiderable,
   for the great majority of conspicuous Dissenters remained in
   office, abstaining from public worship in conventicles, but
   having Dissenting ministers as private chaplains in their
   houses. … The object of the Occasional Conformity Bill was
   to exclude the Dissenters from all Government positions of
   power, dignity or profit. It was followed in 1714 by the
   Schism Act, which was intended to crush their seminaries and
   deprive them of the means of educating their children in their
   faith. … As carried through the House of Commons, it
   provided that no one, under pain of three months'
   imprisonment, should keep either a public or a private school,
   or should even act as tutor or usher, unless he had obtained a
   licence from the Bishop, had engaged to conform to the
   Anglican liturgy, and had received the sacrament in some
   Anglican church within the year. In order to prevent
   occasional conformity it was further provided that if a
   teacher so qualified were present at any other form of worship
   he should at once become liable to three months' imprisonment,
   and should be incapacitated for the rest of his life from
   acting as schoolmaster or tutor. … Some important clauses,
   however, were introduced by the Whig party qualifying its
   severity. They provided that Dissenters might have
   school-mistresses to teach their children to read; that the
   Act should not extend to any person instructing youth in
   reading, writing, or arithmetic, in any part of mathematics
   relating to navigation, or in any mechanical art only. … The
   facility with which this atrocious Act was carried, abundantly
   shows the danger in which religious liberty was placed in the
   latter years of the reign of Queen Anne."

The Schism Act was repealed in 1719, during the administration
of Lord Stanhope.

      ALSO IN:
      J. Stoughton,
      History of Religion in England,
      volume 5, chapters 14-16.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1713.
   Ending of the War of the Spanish Succession.
   The Peace of Utrecht.
   Acquisitions from Spain and France.

      See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714;
      CANADA: A. D. 1711-1713;
      also, NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1713;
      and SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1698-1776.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1714.
The end of the Stuart line and the beginning of the
Hanoverians.

Queen Anne died, after a short illness, on the morning of August 1, 1714. The Tories, who had just gained control of the ministry, were wholly unprepared for this emergency. They assembled in Privy Council, on the 29th of July, when the probably fatal issue of the Queen's illness became apparent, and "a strange scene is said to have occurred. Argyle and Somerset, though they had contributed largely by their defection to the downfall of the Whig ministry of Godolphin, were now again in opposition to the Tories, and had recently been dismissed from their posts. Availing themselves of their rank of Privy Councillors, they appeared unsummoned in the council room, pleading the greatness of the emergency. Shrewsbury, who had probably concocted the scene, rose and warmly thanked them for their offer of assistance; and these three men appear to have guided the course of events. … Shrewsbury, who was already Chamberlain and Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, became Lord Treasurer, and assumed the authority of Prime Minister. Summons were at once sent to all Privy Councillors, irrespective of party, to attend; and Somers and several other of the Whig leaders were speedily at their post. They had the great advantage of knowing clearly the policy they should pursue, and their measures were taken with admirable promptitude and energy. The guards of the Tower were at once doubled. Four regiments were ordered to march from the country to London, and all seamen to repair to their vessels. An embargo was laid on all shipping. The fleet was equipped, and speedy measures were taken to protect the seaports and to secure tranquility in Scotland and Ireland. At the same time despatches were sent to the Netherlands ordering seven of the ten British battalions to embark without delay; to Lord Strafford, the ambassador at the Hague, desiring the States-General to fulfil their guarantee of the Protestant succession in England; to the Elector, urging him to hasten to Holland, where, on the death of the Queen, he would be met by a British squadron, and escorted to his new kingdom." When the Queen's death occurred, "the new King was at once proclaimed, and it is a striking proof of the danger of the crisis that the funds, which had fallen on a false rumour of the Queen's recovery, rose at once when she died. Atterbury is said to have urged Bolingbroke to proclaim James III. at Charing Cross, and to have offered to head the procession in his lawn sleeves, but the counsel was mere madness, and Bolingbroke saw clearly that any attempt to overthrow the Act of Settlement would be now worse than useless. … The more violent spirits among the Jacobites now looked eagerly for a French invasion, but the calmer members of the party perceived that such an invasion was impossible. … The Regency Act of 1705 came at once into operation. The Hanoverian minister produced the sealed list of the names of those to whom the Elector entrusted the government before his arrival, and it was found to consist of eighteen names taken from the leaders of the Whig party. … Parliament, in accordance with the provisions of the Bill, was at once summoned, and it was soon evident that there was nothing to fear. The moment for a restoration was passed."

"George I., whom circumstances and the Act of Settlement had thus called to be King of Great Britain and Ireland, had been a sovereign prince for sixteen years, during which time he had been Elector of Brunswick-Lüneburg. He was the second who ever bore that title. By right of his father he was Elector; it was by right of his mother that he now became ruler of the United Kingdom. The father was Ernest Augustus, Sovereign Bishop of Osnaburg, who, by the death of his elder brothers, had become Duke of Hanover, and then Duke of Brunswick and Lüneburg. In 1692 he was raised by the Emperor to the dignity of Elector. … The mother of George I. was Sophia, usually known as the Electress Sophia. The title was merely one of honour, and only meant wife of an Elector. … The Electress Sophia was the daughter of Elizabeth, daughter of King James I., and Frederick, the Elector Palatine [whose election to the throne of Bohemia and subsequent expulsion from that kingdom and from his Palatine dominions were the first acts in the Thirty Years' War]. … The new royal house in England is sometimes called the House of Hanover, sometimes the House of Brunswick. It will be found that the latter name is more generally used in histories written during the last century, the former in books written in the present day. If the names were equally applicable, the modern use is the more convenient, because there is another, and in some respects well known, branch of the House of Brunswick; but no other has a right to the name of Hanover. It is, however, quite certain that, whatever the English use may be, Hanover is properly the name of a town and of a duchy, but that the electorate was Brunswick-Lüneburg. … The House of Brunswick was of noble origin, tracing itself back to a certain Guelph d'Este, nicknamed 'the Robust,' son of an Italian nobleman, who had been seeking his fortunes in Germany. Guelph married Judith, widow of the English King, Harold, who fell on the hill of Senlac. … One of Guelph's descendants, later, married Maud, the daughter of King Henry II., probably the most powerful king in Europe of his day, at whose persuasion the Emperor conferred on the Guelphs the duchy of Brunswick."

      A. W. Ward,
      The Electress Sophia and the Hanoverian Succession (English
      History Review, volume 1).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1714-1721.
   First years of George I.
   The rise of Walpole to power and the founding of Parliamentary
   Government.

"The accession of the house of Hanover in the person of the great-grandson of James I. was once called by a Whig of this generation the greatest miracle in our history. It took place without domestic or foreign disturbance. … Within our own borders a short lull followed the sharp agitations of the last six months. The new king appointed an exclusively Whig Ministry. The office of Lord Treasurer was not revived, and the title disappears from political history. Lord Townshend was made principal Secretary of State, and assumed the part of first Minister. Mr. Walpole [Sir Robert] took the subaltern office of paymaster of the forces, holding along with it the paymastership of Chelsea Hospital. Although he had at first no seat in the inner Council or Cabinet, which seems to have consisted of eight members, only one of them a commoner, it is evident that from the outset his influence was hardly second to that of Townshend himself. In little more than a year (October 1715) he had made himself so prominent and valuable in the House of Commons, that the opportunity of a vacancy was taken to appoint him to be First Commissioner of the Treasury and Chancellor of the Exchequer. … Besides excluding their opponents from power, the Whigs instantly took more positive measures. The new Parliament was strongly Whig. A secret committee was at once appointed to inquire into the negotiations for the Peace. Walpole was chairman, took the lead in its proceedings, and drew the report." On Walpole's report, the House "directed the impeachment of Oxford, Bolingbroke, and Ormond for high treason, and other high crimes and misdemeanours mainly relating to the Peace of Utrecht. … The proceedings against Oxford and Bolingbroke are the last instance in our history of a political impeachment. They are the last ministers who were ever made personally responsible for giving bad advice and pursuing a discredited policy, and since then a political mistake has ceased to be a crime. … The affair came to an abortive end. … The opening years of the new reign mark one of the least attractive periods in political history. George I. … cared very little for his new kingdom, and knew very little about its people or its institutions. … His expeditions to Hanover threw the management of all domestic affairs almost without control into the hands of his English ministers. If the two first Hanoverian kings had been Englishmen instead of Germans, if they had been men of talent and ambition, or even men of strong and commanding will without much talent, Walpole would never have been able to lay the foundations of government by the House of Commons and by Cabinet so firmly that even the obdurate will of George III. was unable to overthrow it

Happily for the system now established, circumstances compelled the first two sovereigns of the Hanoverian line to strike a bargain with the English Whigs, and it was faithfully kept until the accession of the third George. The king was to manage the affairs of Hanover, and the Whigs were to govern England. It was an excellent bargain for England. Smooth as this operation may seem in historic description, Walpole found its early stages rough and thorny." The king was not easily brought to understand that England would not make war for Hanoverian objects, nor allow her foreign policy to be shaped by the ambitions of the Electorate. Differences arose which drove Townshend from the Cabinet, and divided the Whig party. Walpole retired from the government with Townshend, and was in opposition for three years, while Lord Stanhope and the Earl of Sunderland controlled the administration. The Whig schism came to an end in 1720, and Townshend and Walpole rejoined the administration, the latter as Paymaster of the Forces without a seat in the Cabinet. "His opposition was at an end, but he took no part in the active work of government. … Before many months had passed the country was overtaken by the memorable disasters of the South Sea Bubble.

   All eyes were turned to Walpole. Though he had privately
   dabbled in South Sea stock on his own account, his public
   predictions came back to men's minds; they remembered that he
   had been called the best man for figures in the House, and the
   disgrace of' his most important colleagues only made his
   sagacity the more prominent. … He returned to his old posts,
   and once more became First Lord of the Treasury and Chancellor
   of the Exchequer (April 1721), while Townshend was again
   Secretary of State. Walpole held his offices practically
   without a break for twenty-one years. The younger Pitt had an
   almost equal span of unbroken supremacy, but with that
   exception there is no parallel to Walpole's long tenure of
   power. To estimate aright the vast significance of this
   extraordinary stability, we must remember that the country had
   just passed through eighty years of revolution. A man of 80 in
1721 could recall the execution of Charles I., the protectorate
   of Oliver, the fall of Richard Cromwell, the restoration of
   Charles II., the exile of James II., the change of the order
   of succession to William of Orange, the reactionary ministry
   of Anne, and finally the second change to the House of
   Hanover. The interposition, after so long a series of violent
   perturbations as this, of twenty years of settled system and
   continuous order under one man, makes Walpole's government of
   capital and decisive importance in our history, and
   constitutes not an artificial division like the reign of a
   king, but a true and definite period, with a beginning, an
   end, a significance, and a unity of its own."

      ALSO IN:
      W. Coxe,
      Memoirs of Sir Robert Walpole,
      chapters 9-21 (volume 1).

The easy suppression of the Jacobite rebellion was far from putting an end to the fears of the loyal supporters of the Hanoverian dynasty. They regarded with especial anxiety the approaching Parliamentary elections. "As, by the existing statute of 6 William and Mary [the Triennial Act, of 1694], Parliament would be dissolved at the close of the year, and a new election held in the spring of 1717, there seemed great probability of a renewal of the contest, or at least of very serious riots during the election time. With this in view, the ministers proposed that the existing Parliament should be continued for a term of seven instead of three years. This, which was meant for a temporary measure, has never been repealed, and is still the law under which Parliaments are held. It has been often objected to this action of Parliament, that it was acting arbitrarily in thus increasing its own duration. 'It was a direct usurpation,' it has been said, 'of the rights of the people, analogous to the act of the Long Parliament in declaring itself indestructible.' It has been regarded rather as a party measure than as a forward step in liberal government. We must seek its vindication in the peculiar conditions of the time. It was useless to look to the constituencies for the support of the popular liberty. The return of members in the smaller boroughs was in the hands of corrupt or corruptible freemen; in the counties, of great landowners; in the larger towns, of small place-holders under Government. A general election in fact only gave fresh occasion for the exercise of the influence of the Crown and of the House of Lords—freedom and independence in the presence of these two permanent powers could be secured only by the greater permanence of the third element of the Legislature, the House of Commons. It was thus that, though no doubt in some degree a party measure for securing a more lengthened tenure of office to the Whigs, the Septennial Act received, upon good constitutional grounds, the support and approbation of the best statesmen of the time."

      ALSO IN:
      Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
      History of England, 1713-1783,
      volume 1, chapter 6.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1717-1719.
   The Triple Alliance.
   The Quadruple Alliance.
   War with Spain.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1721-1742.
Development of the Cabinet System of ministerial government.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1726-1731.
   Fresh differences with Spain.
   Gibraltar besieged.
   The Treaty of Seville.
   The Second Treaty of Vienna.

   "The management of public affairs during the six years of
   George the First's reign in which Walpole was Prime Minister,
   was easy. … His political fortunes seemed to be ruined by
   George the First's death [1727]. That King's successor had
   ransacked a very copious vocabulary of abuse, in order to
   stigmatise the minister and his associates. Rogue and rascal,
   scoundrel and fool, were his commonest utterances when Robert
   Walpole's name was mentioned. … Walpole bowed meekly to the
   coming storm," and an attempt was made to put Sir Spencer
   Compton in his place. But Compton himself, as well as the king
   and his sagacious queen, soon saw the futility of it, and the
   old ministry was retained. "At first, Walpole was associated
   with his brother-in-law, Townsend. But they soon disagreed,
   and the rupture was total after the death of Walpole's sister,
   Townsend's wife. … After Townsend's dismissal, Walpole
   reigned alone, if, indeed, he could be said to exercise sole
   functions while Newcastle was tied to him. Long before he was
   betrayed by this person, of whom he justly said that his name
   was perfidy, he knew how dangerous was the association. But
   Newcastle was the largest proprietor of rotten boroughs in the
   kingdom, and, fool and knave as he was, he had wit enough to
   guess at his own importance, and knavery enough to make his
   market. Walpole's chief business lay in managing the King, the
   Queen, the Church, the House of Commons, and perhaps the
   people. I have already said, that before his accession George
   hated Walpole. But there are hatreds and hatreds, equal in
   fervency while they last, but different in duration. The King
   hated Walpole because he had served his father well. But one
   George was gone, and another George was in possession. Then
   came before the man in possession the clear vision of
   Walpole's consummate usefulness. The vision was made clearer
   by the sagacious hints of the Queen. It became clear as
   noonday when Walpole contrived to add £115,000 to the civil
   list. … Besides, Walpole was sincerely determined to support
   the Hanoverian succession. He constantly insisted to George
   that the final settlement of his House on the throne would be
   fought out in England. … Hence he was able to check one of
   the King's ruling passions, a longing to engage in war. …
{921}
   It is generally understood that Walpole managed the House of
   Commons by bribery; that the secret service money was thus
   employed: and that this minister was the father of that
   corruption which was reported to have disgraced the House
   during the first half of the last century. I suspect that
   these influences have been exaggerated. It is a stock story
   that Walpole said he knew every man's price. It might have
   been generally true, but the foundation of this apothegm is,
   in all likelihood, a recorded saying of his about certain
   members of the opposition. … Walpole has been designated,
   and with justice, as emphatically a peace minister. He held
   'that the most pernicious circumstances in which this country
   can be, are those of war, as we must be great losers while the
   war lasts, and cannot be great gainers when it ends.' He kept
   George the Second at peace, as well as he could, by insisting
   on it that the safety of his dynasty lay in avoiding foreign
   embroilments. He strove in vain against the war which broke
   out in 1739. … I do not intend to disparage Walpole's
   administrative ability when I say that the country prospered
   independently of any financial policy which he adopted or
   carried out. … Walpole let matters take their course, for he
   understood that the highest merit of a minister consists in
   his doing no mischief. But Walpole's praise lies in the fact,
   that, with this evident growth of material prosperity, he
   steadily set his face against gambling with it. He resolved,
   as far as lay in his power, to keep the peace of Europe; and
   he was seconded in his efforts by Cardinal Fleury. He
   contrived to smooth away the difficulties which arose in 1727;
   and on January 13, 1730, negotiated the treaty of Seville [see
   SPAIN: A. D. 1726-1731], the benefits of which lasted through
   ten years of peace, and under which he reduced the army to
   5,000 men." But the opposition to Walpole's peace policy
   became a growing passion, which overcame him in 1741 and
   forced him to resign. On his resignation he was raised to the
   peerage, with the title of Earl of Orford, and defeated,
   though with great difficulty, the determination of his enemies
   to impeach him.

"It is impossible, I think, to consider his [Walpole's] career with adequate attention without recognising in him a great minister, although the merits of his administration were often rather negative than positive, and although it exhibits few of those dramatic incidents, and is but little susceptible of that rhetorical colouring, on which the reputation of statesmen largely depends. … He was eminently true to the character of his countrymen. He discerned with a rare sagacity the lines of policy most suited to their genius and to their needs, and he had a sufficient ascendancy in English politics to form its traditions, to give a character and a bias to its institutions. The Whig party, under his guidance, retained, though with diminished energy, its old love of civil and of religious liberty, but it lost its foreign sympathies, its tendency to extravagance, its military restlessness. The landed gentry, and in a great degree the Church, were reconciled to the new dynasty. The dangerous fissures which divided the English nation were filled up. Parliamentary government lost its old violence, it entered into a period of normal and pacific action, and the habits of compromise, of moderation, and of practical good sense, which are most essential to its success, were greatly strengthened. These were the great merits of Walpole. His faults were very manifest, and are to be attributed in part to his own character, but in a great degree to the moral atmosphere of his time. He was an honest man in the sense of desiring sincerely the welfare of his country and serving his sovereign with fidelity; but he was intensely wedded to power, exceedingly unscrupulous about the means of grasping or retaining it, and entirely destitute of that delicacy of honour which marks a high-minded man. … His estimate of political integrity was very similar to his estimate of female virtue. He governed by means of an assembly which was saturated with corruption, and he fully acquiesced in its conditions and resisted every attempt to improve it. … It is necessary to speak with much caution on this matter, remembering that no statesman can emancipate himself from the conditions of his time. … The systematic corruption of Members of Parliament is said to have begun under Charles II., in whose reign it was practised to the largest extent. It was continued under his successor, and the number of scandals rather increased than diminished after the Revolution. … And if corruption did not begin with Walpole, it is equally certain that it did not end with him. His expenditure of secret service money, large as it was, never equalled in an equal space of time the expenditure of Bute. … The real charge against him is that in a period of profound peace, when he exercised an almost unexampled ascendancy in politics, and when public opinion was strongly in favour of the diminution of corrupt influence in Parliament, he steadily and successfully resisted every attempt at reform. … It was his settled policy to maintain his Parliamentary majority, not by attracting to his ministry great orators, great writers, great financiers, or great statesmen, … but simply by engrossing borough influence and extending the patronage of the Crown."

W. E. H. Lecky, History of England in the 18th Century, chapter. 3 (volume 1).

"But for Sir Robert Walpole, we should have had the Pretender back again. But for his obstinate love of peace, we should have had wars, which the nation was not strong enough nor united enough to endure. But for his resolute counsels and good-humoured resistance, we might have had German despots attempting a Hanoverian regimen over us: we should have had revolt, commotion, want, and tyrannous misrule, in place of a quarter of a century of peace, freedom and material prosperity, such as the country never enjoyed, until that corrupter of parliaments, that dissolute tipsy cynic, that courageous lover of peace and liberty, that great citizen, patriot and statesman governed it. … In private life the old pagan revelled in the lowest pleasures: he passed his Sundays tippling at Richmond; and his holidays bawling after dogs, or boozing at Houghton with Boors over beef and punch. He cared for letters no more than his master did: he judged human nature so meanly that one is ashamed to have to own that he was right, and that men could be corrupted by means so base. But, with his hireling House of Commons, he defended liberty for us; with his incredulity he kept Church-craft down. … He gave Englishmen no conquests, but he gave them peace, and ease, and freedom; the Three per Cents. nearly at par; and wheat at five and six and twenty shillings a quarter."

Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope), History of England, 1713-1783, chapters 15-23 (volumes 2-3).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1731-1740.
The question of the Austrian Succession.
Guarantee of the Pragmatic Sanction.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1733.
The first Bourbon Family Compact.
Its hostility to Great Britain.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1733-1787
The great inventions which built up the
Cotton Manufacture.

"In spite of Walpole's love of peace, and determined efforts to preserve it, in the year 1739 a war broke out with Spain, which is an illustration of the saying that the occasion of a war may be trifling, though its real cause be very serious. The war is often called the War of Jenkins' Ear. The story ran that eight years before (1731) a certain Captain Jenkins, skipper of the ship 'Rebecca,' of London, had been maltreated by the Spaniards. His ship was sailing from Jamaica, and hanging about the entrance of the Gulf of Florida, when it was boarded by the Spanish coast guard. The Spaniards could find no proof that Jenkins was smuggling, though they searched narrowly, and being angry at their ill-success they hanged him to the yardarm, lowering him just in time to save his life. At length they pulled off his ear and told him to take it to his king. … Seven years later Captain Jenkins was examined by the House of Commons, on which occasion some member asked him how he felt when being maltreated, and Jenkins answered, 'I recommended my soul to God and my cause to my country.' The answer, whether made at the time or prepared for use in the House of Commons, touched a chord of sympathy, and soon was circulated through the country. 'No need of allies now,' said one politician; 'the story of Jenkins will raise us volunteers.' The truth of the matter is that this story from its somewhat ridiculous aspect has remained in the minds of men, but that it is only a specimen of many stories then afloat, all pointing to insolence of Spaniards in insisting upon what was after all strictly within their rights. But the legal treaty rights of Spain were growing intolerable to Englishmen, though not necessarily to the English Government; and traders and sailors were breaking the international laws which practically stopped the expansion of England in the New World. The war arose out of a question of trade, in this as in so many other cases the English being prepared to fight in order to force an entrance for their trade, which the Spaniards wished to shut out from Spanish America. This question found a place amongst the other matters arranged by the treaty of Utrecht, when the English obtained almost as their sole return for their victories what was known as the Assiento. This is a Spanish word meaning contract, but its use had been for some time confined to the disgraceful privilege of providing Spanish America with negroes kidnapped from their homes in Africa. The Flemings, the Genoese, the Portuguese, and the French Guinea Company received in turn from Spanish kings the monopoly in this shameful traffic, which at the treaty of Utrecht was passed on for a period of thirty years to England, now becoming mistress of the seas, and with her numerous merchant ships better able than others to carry on the business. The English Government committed the contract to the South Sea Company, and the number of negroes to be supplied annually was no less than 4,800 'sound, healthy, merchantable negroes, two-thirds to be male, none under ten or over forty years old.' In the Assiento Treaty there was also a provision for the trading of one English ship each year with Spanish America; but in order to prevent too great advantage therefrom it was carefully stipulated that the ship should not exceed 600 tons burden. There is no doubt that this stipulation was regularly violated by the English sending a ship of the required number of tons, but with it numerous tenders and smaller craft. Moreover smuggling, being very profitable, became common; it was of this smuggling that Captain Jenkins was accused. … Walpole, always anxious for peace, by argument, by negotiation, by delays, resisted the growing desire for war; at length he could resist no longer. For the sake of his reputation he should have resigned office, but he had enjoyed power too long to be ready to yield it, and most unwisely he allowed himself to be forced into a declaration of war October 19, 1739. The news was received throughout England with a perfect frenzy of delight. … A year and a day after this declaration of war an event occurred—the death of the Emperor—which helped to swell the volume of this war until it was merged into the European war, called the War of the Austrian Succession, which includes within itself the First and Second Silesian Wars, between Austria and Frederick the Great of Prussia. The European war went on until the general pacification in the treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle, 1748. Within another ten years war broke out again on somewhat similar grounds, but on a much wider scale and with the combatants differently arranged, under the title 'Seven Years' War.' The events of this year, whilst the war was only between Spain and England, were the attacks on Spanish settlements in America, the capture of Porto Bello, and the failure before Cartagena, which led to Anson's famous voyage."

"Admiral Vernon, setting sail with the English fleet from Jamaica, captured Porto Bello, on the Isthmus of Darien, December 1st—an exploit for which he received the thanks of both Houses of Parliament. His attempt on Carthagena, in the spring of 1741, proved, however, a complete failure through his dissensions, it is said, with General Wentworth, the commander of the land forces. A squadron, under Commodore Anson, despatched to the South Sea for the purpose of annoying the Spanish colonies of Peru and Chili, destroyed the Peruvian town of Paita, and made several prizes; the most important of which was one of the great Spanish galleons trading between Acapulco and Manilla, having a large treasure on board. It was on this occasion that Anson circumnavigated the globe, having sailed from England in 1740 and returned to Spithead in 1744."

      W. Coxe,
      Memoirs of the Bourbon Kings of Spain,
      chapter 43 (volume 3).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1742-1745.
Ministries of Carteret and the Pelhams,
Pitt's admission to the Cabinet.

"Walpole resigned in the beginning of February, 1742; but his retirement did not bring Pitt into office. The King had conceived a violent prejudice against him, not only on account of the prominent and effective part he had taken in the general assault upon the late administration, but more especially in consequence of the strong opinions he had expressed on the subject of Hanover, and respecting the public mischiefs arising from George the Second's partiality to the interests of the Electorate. Lord Wilmington was the nominal head of the new administration, which was looked on as little more than a weak continuation of Walpole's. The same character was generally given to Pelham's ministry, (Pelham succeeded Wilmington as Premier, on the death of the latter in 1743,) and Pitt soon appeared in renewed opposition to the Court. It was about this time that he received a creditable and convenient addition to his private fortune, which also attested his celebrity. In 1744, the celebrated Duchess of Marlborough died, leaving him a legacy' of 10,000 l. on account of his merit in the noble defence he has made of the laws of England, to prevent the ruin of his country.' Pitt was now at the head of a small but determined band of Opposition statesmen, with whom he was also connected by intermarriages between members of their respective families and his own. These were Lord Cobham, the Grenvilles, and his schoolfellow Lord Lyttelton. The genius of Pitt had made the opposition of this party so embarrassing to the minister, that Mr. Pelham, the leader of the House of Commons, and his brother, the Duke of Newcastle, found it necessary to get rid of Lord Carteret, who was personally most obnoxious to the attacks of Pitt, on account of his supposed zeal in favour of the King's Hanoverian policy. Pitt's friends, Lyttelton and Grenville, were taken into the ministry [called the Broad-bottomed Administration], and the undoubted wish of the Pelhams was to enlist Pitt also among their colleagues. But 'The great Mr. Pitt,' says old Horace Walpole—using in derision an epithet soon confirmed by the serious voice of the country—'the great Mr. Pitt insisted on being Secretary at War';—but it was found that the King's aversion to him was insurmountable; and after much reluctance and difficulty, his friends were persuaded to accept office without him, under an assurance from the Duke of Newcastle that 'he should at no distant day be able to remove this prejudice from his Majesty's mind.' Pitt concurred in the new arrangement, and promised to give his support to the remodelled administration. … On the breaking out of the rebellion of 1745, Pitt energetically supported the ministry in their measures to protect the established government. George the Second's prejudices against him, were, however, as strong as ever. At last a sort of compromise was effected. Pitt waived for a time his demand of the War Secretaryship, and on the 22nd of February, 1746, he was appointed one of the joint Vice-treasurers for Ireland; and on the 6th of May following he was promoted to the more lucrative office of Paymaster-General of the Forces. … In his office of Paymaster of the Forces Pitt set an example then rare among statesmen, of personal disinterestedness. He held what had hitherto been an exceedingly lucrative situation: for the Paymaster seldom had less than 100,000 l. in his hands, and was allowed to appropriate the interest of what funds he held to his own use. In addition to this it had been customary for foreign princes in the pay of England to allow the Paymaster of the Forces a per-centage on their subsidies. Pitt nobly declined to avail himself of these advantages, and would accept of nothing beyond his legal salary."

"From Walpole's death in 1745, when the star of the Stuarts set for ever among the clouds of Culloden, to 1754, when Henry Pelham followed his old chief, public life in England was singularly calm and languid. The temperate and peaceful disposition of the Minister seemed to pervade Parliament. At his death the King exclaimed: 'Now I shall have no more peace'; and the words proved to be prophetic. Both in Parliament and in the country, as well as beyond its shores, the elements of discord were swiftly at war. Out of conflicting ambitions and widely divergent interests a new type of statesman, very different from Walpole, or from Bolingbroke, or from Pelham, or from the 'hubble-bubble Newcastle,' was destined to arise. And along with the new statesman a new force, of which he was in part the representative, in part the creator, was to be introduced into political life. This new force was the unrepresented voice of the people. The new statesman was an ex-cornet of horse, William Pitt, better known as Lord Chatham. The characteristics of William Pitt which mainly influenced his career were his ambition and his ill-health. Power, and that conspicuous form of egotism called personal glory, were the objects of his life. He pursued them with all the ardour of a strong-willed purpose; but the flesh was in his case painfully weak. Gout had declared itself his foe while he was still an Eton boy. His failures, and prolonged withdrawal at intervals from public affairs, were due to the inroads of this fatal enemy, from whom he was destined to receive his death-blow. Walpole had not been slow to recognise the quality of this 'terrible cornet of horse,' as he called him."

ALSO IN: Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope), History of England, 1713-1783, chapters 24-28 (volume 3).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1743-1752.
Struggle of French and English for supremacy in India.
The founding of British empire by Clive.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1744-1745.
War of the Austrian Succession:
Hostilities in America.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1745 (MAY).
War of the Austrian Succession in the Netherlands.
Fontenoy.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1745-1746.
The Young Pretender's invasion.
Last rising of the Jacobites.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1745-1747.
   War of the Austrian Succession
   British incapacity.
   Final successes at Sea.

"The extraordinary incapacity of English commanders, both by land and sea, is one of the most striking facts in the war we are considering. … Mismanagement and languor were general. The battle of Dettingen was truly described as a happy escape rather than a great victory; the army in Flanders can hardly be said to have exhibited any military quality except courage, and the British navy, though it gained some successes, added little to its reputation. The one brilliant exception was the expedition of Anson round Cape Horn, for the purpose of plundering the Spanish merchandise and settlements in the Pacific. It lasted for nearly four years. … The overwhelming superiority of England upon the sea began, however, gradually to influence the war. The island of Cape Breton, which commanded the mouth of Gulf St. Lawrence, and protected the Newfoundland fisheries, was captured in the June of 1745. In 1747 a French squadron was destroyed by a very superior English fleet off Cape Finisterre. Another was defeated near Belleisle, and in the same year as many as 644 prizes were taken. The war on the part of the English, however, was most efficiently conducted by means of subsidies, which were enormously multiplied."

      W. E. H. Lecky,
      History of England, 18th Century,
      chapter 3 (volume 1).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1746-1747.
War of the Austrian Succession in Italy.
Siege of Genoa.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1748 (OCTOBER).
End and results of the War of the Austrian Succession.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1748-1754.
First movements to dispute possession of the Ohio Valley with
the French.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1749-1755.
Unsettled boundary disputes with France in America.
Preludes of the final contest.

      See NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1749-1755;
      CANADA: A. D. 1750-1753;
      and OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1754.

   "The seven years that succeeded the Peace of Aix-la-Chapelle
   are described by Voltaire as among the happiest that Europe
   ever enjoyed. Commerce revived, the fine arts flourished, and
   the European nations resembled, it is said, one large family
   that had been reunited after its dissensions. Unfortunately,
   however, the peace had not exterminated all the elements of
   discord. Scarcely had Europe begun to breathe again when new
   disputes arose, and the seven years of peace and prosperity
   were succeeded by another seven of misery and war. The ancient
   rivalry between France and England, which had formerly vented
   itself in continental struggles, had, by the progress of
   maritime discovery and colonisation, been extended to all the
   quarters of the globe. The interests of the two nations came
   into collision in India, Africa and America, and a dispute
   about boundaries in this last quarter again plunged them into
   a war. By the 9th article of the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle,
   France and England were mutually to restore their conquests in
   such state as they were before the war. This clause became a
   copious source of quarrel. The principal dispute regarded the
   limits of Acadia, or Nova Scotia, which province had, by the
   12th article of the Treaty of Utrecht, been ceded to England
   'conformably to its ancient boundaries'; but what these were
   had never been accurately determined, and each Power fixed
   them according to its convenience. Thus, while the French
   pretended that Nova Scotia embraced only the peninsula
   extending from Cape St. Mary to Cape Canseau, the English
   further included in it that part of the American continent
   which extends to Pentagoet on the west, and to the river St.
   Lawrence on the north, comprising all the province of New
   Brunswick. Another dispute regarded the western limits of the
   British North American settlements. The English claimed the
   banks of the Ohio as belonging to Virginia, the French as
   forming part of Louisiana; and they attempted to confine the
   British colonies by a chain of forts stretching from Louisiana
   to Canada. Commissaries were appointed to settle these
   questions, who held their conferences at Paris between the
   years 1750 and 1755. Disputes also arose respecting the
   occupation by the French of the islands of St. Lucia,
   Dominica, St. Vincent, and Tobago, which had been declared
   neutral by former treaties. Before the Commissaries could
   terminate their labours, mutual aggressions had rendered a war
   inevitable. As is usual in such cases, it is difficult to say
   who was the first aggressor. Each nation laid the blame on the
   other. Some French writers assert that the English resorted to
   hostilities out of jealousy at the increase of the French
   navy. According to the plans of Rouillé, the French Minister
   of Marine, 111 ships of the line, 54 frigates, and smaller
   vessels in proportion, were to be built in the course of ten
   years. The question of boundaries was, however, undoubtedly
   the occasion, if not also the true cause, of the war. A series
   of desultory conflicts had taken place along the Ohio, and on
   the frontiers of Nova Scotia, in 1754, without being avowed by
   the mother countries. A French writer, who flourished about
   this time, the Abbé Raynal, ascribes "this clandestine warfare
   to the policy of the Court of Versailles, which was seeking
   gradually to recover what it had lost by treaties. Orders were
   now issued to the English fleet to attack French vessels
   wherever found. … It being known that a considerable French
   fleet was preparing to sail from Brest and Rochefort for
   America, Admiral Boscawen was despatched thither, and captured
   two French men-of-war off Cape Race in Newfoundland, June 1755.
   Hostilities were also transferred to the shores of Europe. …
   A naval war between England and France was now unavoidable;
   but, as in the case of the Austrian Succession, this was also
   to be mixed up with a European war.
{925}
   The complicated relations of the European system again caused
   these two wars to run into one, though their origin had
   nothing in common. France and England, whose quarrel lay in
   the New World, appeared as the leading Powers in a European
   contest in which they had only a secondary interest, and
   decided the fate of Canada on the plains of Germany. The war
   in Europe, commonly called the Seven Years' War, was chiefly
   caused by the pride of one Empress [Maria Theresa], the vanity
   of another [Elizabeth of Russia], and the subserviency of a
   royal courtezan [Madame Pompadour], who became the tool of
   these passions."

"The Seven Years' War was in its origin not an European war at all; it was a war between England and France on Colonial questions with which the rest of Europe had nothing to do; but the alliances and enmities of England and France in Europe, joined with the fact that the King of England was also Elector of Hanover, made it almost certain that a war between England and France must spread to the Continent. I am far from charging on the English Government of the time—for it was they, and not the French, who forced on the war—as Macaulay might do, the blood of the Austrians who perished at Leuthen, of the Russians sabred at Zorndorf, and the Prussians mown down at Kunersdorf. The States of the Continent had many old enmities not either appeased or fought out to a result; and these would probably have given rise to a war some day, even if no black men, to adapt Macaulay again, had been previously fighting on the coast of Coromandel, nor red men scalping each other by the great lakes of North America. Still, it is to be remembered that it was the work of England that the war took place then and on those lines; and in view of the enormous suffering and slaughter of that war, and of the violent and arbitrary proceedings by which it was forced on, we may well question whether English writers have any right to reprobate Frederick's seizure of Silesia as something specially immoral in itself and disastrous to the world. If the Prussians were highway robbers, the English were pirates. … The origin of the war between England and France, if a struggle which had hardly been interrupted since the nominal peace could be said to have an origin, was the struggle for America."

A. R. Ropes, The Causes of the Seven Years' War (Royal Historical Society, Transactions, new series, volume 4).

ALSO IN: Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope), History of England, 1713-1783, chapters 31-32 (volume 4).

      See, also, GERMANY: A. D. 1755-1756;
      CANADA: A. D. 1750-1753;
      and OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1755 (APRIL).
Demand of the royal governors in America for taxation of the
colonies by act of Parliament.

"In 1754 Henry Pelham died. The important consequence of his death was the fact that it gave Pitt at last an opportunity of coming to the front. The Duke of Newcastle, Henry Pelham's brother, became leader of the administration, with Henry Fox for Secretary at War, Pitt for Paymaster-general of the Forces, and Murray, afterwards to be famous as Lord Mansfield, for Attorney-general. There was some difficulty about the leadership of the House of Commons. Pitt was still too much disliked by the King, to be available for the position. Fox for a while refused to accept it, and Murray was unwilling to do anything which might be likely to withdraw him from the professional path along which he was to move to such distinction. An attempt was made to get on with a Sir Thomas Robinson, a man of no capacity for such a position, and the attempt was soon an evident failure. Then Fox consented to take the position on Newcastle's own terms, which were those of absolute submission to the dictates of Newcastle. Later still he was content to descend to a subordinate office which did not even give him a place in the Cabinet. Fox never recovered the damage which his reputation and his influence suffered by this amazing act. … The Duke of Newcastle's Ministry soon fell. Newcastle was not a man who had the slightest capacity for controlling or directing a policy of war; and the great struggle known as the Seven Years' War had now broken out. One lamentable event in the war has to be recorded, although it was but of minor importance. This was the capture of Minorca by the French under the romantic, gallant, and profligate Duc de Richelieu. The event is memorable chiefly, or only, because it was followed by the trial and execution [March 14, 1757] of the unfortunate Admiral Byng.

The Duke of Newcastle resigned office, and for a short time the Duke of Devonshire was at the head of a coalition Ministry which included Pitt. The King, however, did not stand this long, and one day suddenly turned them all out of office. Then a coalition of another kind was formed, which included Newcastle and Pitt, with Henry Fox in the subordinate position of paymaster. Pitt now for the first time had it all his own way. He ruled everything in the House of Commons. He flung himself with passionate and patriotic energy into the alliance with that great Frederick whose genius and daring were like his own."

"Newcastle took the Treasury. Pitt was Secretary of State, with the lead in the House of Commons, and with the supreme direction of the war and of foreign affairs. Fox, the only man who could have given much annoyance to the new Government, was silenced with the office of Paymaster, which, during the continuance of that war, was probably the most lucrative place in the whole Government. He was poor, and the situation was tempting. … The first acts of the new administration were characterized rather by vigour than by judgment. Expeditions were sent against different parts of the French coast with little success. … But soon conquests of a very different kind filled the kingdom with pride and rejoicing. A succession of victories undoubtedly brilliant, and, as it was thought, not barren, raised to the highest point the fame of the minister to whom the conduct of the war had been intrusted. {926} In July, 1758, Louisburg fell. The whole island of Cape Breton was reduced. The fleet to which the Court of Versailles had confided the defence of French America was destroyed. The captured standards were borne in triumph from Kensington Palace to the city, and were suspended in St. Paul's Church, amidst the roar of guns and kettle-drums, and the shouts of an immense multitude. Addresses of congratulation came in from all the great towns of England. Parliament met only to decree thanks and monuments, and to bestow, without one murmur, supplies more than double of those which had been given during the war of the Grand Alliance. The year 1759 opened with the conquest of Goree. Next fell Guadaloupe; then Ticonderoga; then Niagara. The Toulon squadron was completely defeated by Boscawen off Cape Lagos. But the greatest exploit of the year was the achievement of Wolfe on the heights of Abraham. The news of his glorious death and of the fall of Quebec reached London in the very week in which the Houses met. All was joy and triumph. Envy and faction were forced to join in the general applause. Whigs and Tories vied with each other in extolling the genius and energy of Pitt. His colleagues were never talked of or thought of. The House of Commons, the nation, the colonies, our allies, our enemies, had their eyes fixed on him alone. Scarcely had Parliament voted a monument to Wolfe when another great event called for fresh rejoicings. The Brest fleet, under the command of Conflans, had put out to sea. It was overtaken by an English squadron under Hawke. Conflans attempted to take shelter close under the French coast. The shore was rocky: the night was black: the wind was furious: the waves of the Bay of Biscay ran high. But Pitt had infused into every branch of the service a spirit which had long been unknown. No British seaman was disposed to err on the same side with Byng. The pilot told Hawke that the attack could not be made without the greatest danger. 'You have done your duty in remonstrating,' answered Hawke; 'I will answer for everything. I command you to lay me alongside the French admiral.' Two French ships of the line struck. Four were destroyed. The rest hid themselves in the rivers of Brittany. The year 1760 came; and still triumph followed triumph. Montreal was taken; the whole Province of Canada was subjugated; the French fleets underwent a succession of disasters in the seas of Europe and America. In the meantime conquests equalling in rapidity, and far surpassing in magnitude, those of Cortes and Pizarro, had been achieved in the East. In the space of three years the English had founded a mighty empire. The French had been defeated in every part of India. Chandernagore had surrendered to Clive, Pondicherry to Coote. Throughout Bengal, Bahar, Orissa and the Carnatic, the authority of the East India Company was more absolute than that of Acbar or Aurungzebe had ever been. On the continent of Europe the odds were against England. We had but one important ally, the King of Prussia; and he was attacked, not only by France, but also by Russia and Austria. Yet even on the Continent, the energy of Pitt triumphed over all difficulties. Vehemently as he had condemned the practice of subsidising foreign princes, he now carried that practice farther than Carteret himself would have ventured to do. The active and able Sovereign of Prussia received such pecuniary assistance as enabled him to maintain the conflict on equal terms against his powerful enemies. On no subject had Pitt ever spoken with so much eloquence and ardour as on the mischiefs of the Hanoverian connection. He now declared, not without much show of reason, that it would be unworthy of the English people to suffer their King to be deprived of his electoral dominions in an English quarrel. He assured his countrymen that they should be no losers, and that he would conquer America for them in Germany. By taking this line he conciliated the King, and lost no part of his influence with the nation. In Parliament, such was the ascendeney which his eloquence, his success, his high situation, his pride, and his intrepidity had obtained for him, that he took liberties with the House of which there had been no example, and which have never since been imitated. … The face of affairs was speedily changed. The invaders [of Hanover] were driven out. … In the meantime, the nation exhibited all the signs of wealth and prosperity. … The success of our arms was perhaps owing less to the skill of his [Pitt's] dispositions than to the national resources and the national spirit. But that the national spirit rose to the emergency, that the national resources were contributed with unexampled cheerfulness, this was undoubtedly his work. The ardour of his soul had set the whole kingdom on fire. … The situation which Pitt occupied at the close of the reign of George the Second was the most enviable ever occupied by any public man in English history. He had conciliated the King; he domineered over the House of Commons; he was adored by the people; he was admired by all Europe. He was the first Englishman of his time; and he had made England the first country in the world. The Great Commoner, the name by which he was often designated, might look down with scorn on coronets and garters. The nation was drunk with joy and pride."

Lord Macaulay, First Essay on William Pitt, Earl of Chatham (Essays, volume 3).

ALSO IN: Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope), History of England, 1713-1783, chapters 33-36 (volume 4).

England: A. D. 1758 (JUNE-AUGUST).
The Seven Years War.
Abortive expeditions against the coast of France.

Early in 1758 there was sent out "one of those joint military and naval expeditions which Pitt seems at first to have thought the proper means by which England should assist in a continental war. Like all such isolated expeditions, it was of little value. St. Malo, against which it was directed, was found too strong to be taken, but a large quantity of shipping and naval stores was destroyed. The fleet also approached Cherbourg, but although the troops were actually in their boats ready to land, they were ordered to re-embark, and the fleet came home. Another somewhat similar expedition was sent out later in the year. In July General Bligh and Commodore Howe took and destroyed Cherbourg, but on attempting a similar assault on St. Malo they found it too strong for them. The army had been landed in the Bay of St. Cast, and, while engaged in re-embarkation, it was attacked by some French troops which had been hastily collected, and severely handled."

ENGLAND: A. D. 1758 (JULY-NOVEMBER).
   The Seven Years War in America: Final capture of Louisbourg
   and recovery of Fort Duquesne.
   Bloody defeat at Ticonderoga.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1759.
Great victories in America.
Niagara, Ticonderoga, Crown Point, Quebec.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1759 (AUGUST-NOVEMBER).
British naval supremacy established.
Victories off Lagos and in Quiberon Bay.

"Early in the year [1759] the French had begun to make preparations for an invasion of the British Isles on a large scale. Flat-bottomed boats were built at Havre and other places along the coasts of Normandy and Brittany, and large fleets were collected at Brest and Toulon, besides a small squadron at Dunkirk. A considerable force was assembled at Vannes in the south of Brittany, under the command of the Duc d'Aiguillon, which was to be convoyed to the Irish coasts by the combined fleets of Brest and Toulon, while the flat-bottomed boats transported a second army across the channel under cover of a dark night. The Dunkirk squadron, under Admiral Thurot, a celebrated privateer, was to create a diversion by attacking some part of the Scotch coast. The design was bold and well contrived, and would not improbably have succeeded three or even two years before, but the opportunity was gone. England was no longer in 'that enervate state in which 20,000 men from France could shake her.' Had a landing been effected, the regular troops in the country, with the support of the newly created militia, would probably have been equal to the emergency; but a more effectual bulwark was found in the fleet, which watched the whole French coast, ready to engage the enemy as soon as he ventured out of his ports. The first attempt to break through the cordon was made by M. de la Clue from Toulon. The English Mediterranean fleet, under Admiral Boscawen, cruising before that port, was compelled early in July to retire to Gibraltar to take in water and provisions and to refit some of' the ships. Hereupon M. de la Clue put to sea, and hugging the African coast, passed the straits without molestation. Boscawen, however, though his ships were not yet refitted, at once gave chase, and came up with the enemy off [Lagos, on] the coast of Portugal, where an engagement took place [August 18], in which three French ships were taken and two driven on shore and burnt. The remainder took refuge in Cadiz, where they were blockaded till the winter, when, the English fleet being driven off the coast by a storm, they managed to get back to Toulon. The discomfiture of the Brest fleet, under M. de Conflans, was even more complete. On November 9 Admiral Sir Edward Hawke, who had blockaded Brest all the summer and autumn, was driven from his post by a violent gale, and on the 14th, Conflans put to sea with 21 sail of the line and 4 frigates. On the same day, Hawke, with 22 sail of the line, stood out from Torbay, where he had taken shelter, and made sail for Quiberon Bay, judging that Conflans would steer thither to liberate a fleet of transports which were blocked up in the river Morbihan, by a small squadron of frigates under Commodore Duff. On the morning of the 20th, he sighted the French fleet chasing Duff in Quiberon Bay. Conflans, when he discerned the English, recalled his chasing ships and prepared for action; but on their nearer approach changed his mind, and ran for shelter among the shoals and rocks of the coast. The sea was running mountains high and the coast was very dangerous and little known to the English, who had no pilots; but Hawke, whom no peril could daunt, never hesitated a moment, but crowded all sail after them. Without regard to lines of battle, every ship was directed to make the best of her way towards the enemy, the admiral telling his officers he was for the old way of fighting, to make downright work with them. In consequence many of the English ships never got into action at all; but the short winter day was wearing away, and all haste was needed if the enemy were not to escape. … As long as daylight lasted the battle raged with great fury, so near the coast that '10,000 persons on the shore were the sad spectators of the white flag's disgrace.' … By nightfall two French ships, the Thésée 74, and Superb 70, were sunk, and two, the Formidable 80, and the Héros 74, had struck. The Soleil Royal afterwards went aground, but her crew escaped, as did that of the Héros, whose captain dishonourably ran her ashore in the night. Of the remainder, seven ships of the line and four frigates threw their guns overboard, and escaped up the river Vilaine, where most of them bumped their bottoms out in the shallow water; the rest got away and took shelter in the Charente, all but one, which was wrecked, but very few ever got out again. With two hours more of daylight Hawke thought he could have taken or destroyed all, as he was almost up with the French van when night overtook him. Two English ships, the Essex 64, and the Resolution 74, went ashore in the night and could not be got off, but the crews were saved, and the victory was won with the loss of 40 killed and 200 wounded. The great invasion scheme was completely wrecked. Thurot had succeeded in getting out from Dunkirk, and for some months was a terror to the northern coast-towns, but early in the following year an end was put to his career. For the rest of the war the French never ventured to meet the English in battle on the high seas, and could only look on helplessly while their colonies and commerce fell into the hands of their rivals. From the day of the fight in Quiberon Bay, the naval and commercial supremacy of England was assured."

F. W. Longman, Frederick the Great and the Seven Years War, chapter 12, section 3.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1760.
Completed conquest of Canada.
Successes of the Prussians and their allies.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1760-1763.
   Accession of George III.
   His ignorance and his despotic notions of kingship.
   Retirement of the elder Pitt.
   Rise and fall of Bute.
   The Grenville Ministry.

"When George III. came to the throne, in 1760, England had been governed for more than half a century by the great Whig families which had been brought into the foreground by the revolution of 1688. … Under Walpole's wise and powerful sway, the first two Georges had possessed scarcely more than the shadow of sovereignty. It was the third George's ambition to become a real king, like the king of France or the king of Spain. From earliest babyhood, his mother had forever been impressing upon him the precept, 'George be king!' and this simple lesson had constituted pretty much the whole of his education. Popular tradition regards him as the most ignorant king that ever sat upon the English throne; and so far as general culture is concerned, this opinion is undoubtedly correct. … Nevertheless … George III. was not destitute of a certain kind of ability, which often gets highly rated in this not too clear-sighted world. He could see an immediate end very distinctly, and acquired considerable power from the dogged industry with which he pursued it. In an age where some of the noblest English statesmen drank their gallon of strong wine daily, or sat late at the gambling-table, or lived in scarcely hidden concubinage, George III. was decorous in personal habits and pure in domestic relations, and no banker's clerk in London applied himself to the details of business more industriously than he. He had a genuine talent for administration, and he devoted this talent most assiduously to selfish ends. Scantily endowed with human sympathy, and almost boorishly stiff in his ordinary unstudied manner, he could be smooth as oil whenever he liked. He was an adept in gaining men's confidence by a show of interest, and securing their aid by dint of fair promises; and when he found them of no further use, he could turn them adrift with wanton insult. Anyone who dared to disagree with him upon even the slightest point of policy he straightway regarded as a natural enemy, and pursued him ever afterward with vindictive hatred. As a natural consequence, he surrounded himself with weak and short-sighted advisers, and toward all statesmen of broad views and independent character he nursed the bitterest rancour. … Such was the man who, on coming to the throne in 1760, had it for his first and chiefest thought to break down the growing system of cabinet government in England."

"The dissolution of Parliament, shortly after his accession, afforded an opportunity of strengthening the parliamentary connection of the king's friends. Parliament was kept sitting while the king and Lord Bute were making out lists of the court candidates, and using every exertion to secure their return. The king not only wrested government boroughs from the ministers, in order to nominate his own friends, but even encouraged opposition to such ministers as he conceived not to be in his interest. … Lord Bute, the originator of the new policy, was not personally well qualified for its successful promotion. He was not connected with the great families who had acquired a preponderance of political influence; he was no parliamentary debater: his manners were unpopular: he was a courtier rather than a politician: his intimate relations with the Princess of Wales were an object of scandal; and, above all, he was a Scotchman. … Immediately after the king's accession he had been made a privy councillor, and admitted into the cabinet. An arrangement was soon afterwards concerted, by which Lord Holdernesse retired from office with a pension, and Lord Bute succeeded him as Secretary of State. It was now the object of the court to break up the existing ministry, and to replace it with another, formed from among the king's friends. Had the ministry been united, and had the chiefs reposed confidence in one another, it would have been difficult to overthrow them. But there were already jealousies amongst them, which the court lost no opportunity of fomenting. A breach soon arose between Mr. Pitt, the most powerful and popular of the ministers, and his colleagues. He desired to strike a sudden blow against Spain, which had concluded a secret treaty of alliance with France, then at war with this country.

   Though war minister he was opposed by all his colleagues
   except Lord Temple. He bore himself haughtily at the council,
   —declared that he had been called to the ministry by the
   voice of the people, and that he could not be responsible for
   measures which he was no longer allowed to guide. Being met
   with equal loftiness in the cabinet, he was forced to tender
   his resignation. The king overpowered the retiring minister
   with kindness and condescension. He offered the barony of
   Chatham to his wife, and to himself an annuity of £3,000 a
   year for three lives. The minister had deserved these royal
   favours, and he accepted them, but at the cost of his
   popularity. … The same Gazette which announced his
   resignation, also trumpeted forth the peerage and the pension,
   and was the signal for clamors against the public favourite.
   On the retirement of Mr. Pitt, Lord Bute became the most
   influential of the ministers. He undertook the chief
   management of public affairs in the cabinet, and the sole
   direction of the House of Lords. … His ascendency provoked
   the jealousy and resentment of the king's veteran minister,
   the Duke of Newcastle: who had hitherto distributed all the
   patronage of the Crown, but now was never consulted. … At
   length, in May 1762, his grace, after frequent disagreements
   in the cabinet and numerous affronts, was obliged to resign.
   And now, the object of the court being at length attained,
   Lord Bute was immediately placed at the head of affairs, as
   First Lord of the Treasury. … The king and his minister were
   resolved to carry matters with a high hand, and their
   arbitrary attempts to coerce and intimidate opponents
   disclosed their imperious views of the prerogative.
   Preliminaries of a treaty of peace with France having been
   agreed upon, against which a strong popular feeling was
   aroused, the king's vengeance was directed against all who
   ventured to disapprove them. The Duke of Devonshire having
   declined to attend the council summoned to decide upon the
   peace, was insulted by the king, and forced to resign his
   office of Lord Chamberlain. A few days afterwards the king,
   with his own hand, struck his grace's name from the list of
   privy councillors. … No sooner had Lord Rockingham heard of
   the treatment of the Duke of Devonshire than he … resigned
   his place in the household. A more general proscription of the
   Whig nobles soon followed. The Dukes of Newcastle and Grafton,
   and the Marquess of Rockingham, having presumed, as peers of
   Parliament, to express their disapprobation of the peace, were
   dismissed from the lord-lieutenancies of their counties. …
   Nor was the vengeance of the court confined to the heads of
   the Whig party.
{929}
   All placemen, who had voted against the preliminaries of
   peace, were dismissed. … The preliminaries of peace were
   approved by Parliament; and the Princess of Wales, exulting in
   the success of the court, exclaimed, 'Now my son is king of
   England.' But her exultation was premature. … These
   stretches of prerogative served to unite the Whigs into an
   organised opposition. … The fall of the king's favoured
   minister was even more sudden than his rise. … Afraid, as he
   confessed, 'not only of falling himself, but of involving his
   royal master in his ruin,' he resigned suddenly [April 7,
   1763],—to the surprise of all parties, and even of the king
   himself,—before he had held office for eleven months. … He
   retreated to the interior cabinet, whence he could direct more
   securely the measures of the court; having previously negotiated
   the appointment of Mr. George Grenville as his successor, and
   arranged with him the nomination of the cabinet. The ministry
   of Mr. Grenville was constituted in a manner favourable to the
   king's personal views, and was expected to be under the
   control of himself and his favorite."

ALSO IN: J. H. Jesse, Memoirs of the Life and Reign of George III., chapter 1-10 (volume 1).

      G. O. Trevelyan,
      Early History of Charles James Fox,
      chapter 4.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1760-1775.
Crown, Parliament and Colonies.
The conflicting theories of their relations.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1761-1762.
The third Family Compact of the Bourbon kings.
War with Spain.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1762-1764.
"The North Briton," No. 45, and the prosecution of Wilkes.

"The popular dislike to the new system of Government by courtiers had found vent in a scurrilous press, the annoyance of which continued unabated by the sham retirement of the minister whose ascendancy had provoked this grievous kind of opposition. The leader of the host of libellers was John Wilkes, a man of that audacity and self-possession which are indispensable to success in the most disreputable line of political adventure. But Wilkes had qualities which placed him far above the level of a vulgar demagogue. Great sense and shrewdness, brilliant wit, extensive knowledge of the world, with the manners of a gentleman, were among the accomplishments which he brought to a vocation, but rarely illustrated by the talents of a Catiline. Long before he engaged in public life, Wilkes had become infamous for his debaucheries, and, with a few other men of fashion, had tested the toleration of public opinion by a series of outrages upon religion and decency. Profligacy of morals, however, has not in any age or country proved a bar to the character of a patriot. … Wilkes' journal, which originated with the administration of Lord Bute [first issued June 5, 1762], was happily entitled 'The North Briton,' and from its boldness and personality soon obtained a large circulation. It is surpassed in ability though not often equalled in virulence by the political press of the present day; but at a time when the characters of public men deservedly stood lowest in public estimation, they were protected, not unadvisedly perhaps, from the assaults of the press by a stringent law of libel. … It had been the practice since the Revolution, and it is now acknowledged as an important constitutional right, to treat the Speech from the Throne, on the opening of Parliament, as the manifesto of the minister; and in that point of view, it had from time to time been censured by Pitt, and other leaders of party, with the ordinary license of debate. But when Wilkes presumed to use this freedom in his paper, though in a degree which would have seemed temperate and even tame had he spoken to the same purport in his place in Parliament, it was thought necessary to repress such insolence with the whole weight of the law. A warrant was issued from the office of the Secretary of State to seize—not any person named—but 'the authors, printers, and publishers of the seditious libel, entitled the North Briton, No. 45.' Under this warrant, forty-nine persons were arrested and detained in custody for several days; but as it was found that none of them could be brought within the description in the warrant, they were discharged. Several of the individuals who had been so seized, brought actions for false imprisonment against the messengers; and in one of these actions, in which a verdict was entered for the plaintiff under the direction of the Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, the two important questions as to the claim of a Secretary of State to the protection given by statute to justices of the peace acting in that capacity, and as to the legality of a warrant which did not specify any individual by name, were raised by a Bill of Exceptions to the ruling of the presiding judge, and thus came upon appeal before the Court of King's Bench. … The Court of King's Bench … intimated a strong opinion against the Crown upon the important constitutional questions which had been raised, and directed the case to stand over for further argument; but when the case came on again, the Attorney-General Yorke prudently declined any further agitation of the questions. … These proceedings were not brought to a close until the end of the year 1765, long after the administration under which they were instituted had ceased to exist. … The prosecution of Wilkes himself was pressed with the like indiscreet vigour. The privilege of Parliament, which extends to every case except treason, felony, and breach of the peace, presented an obstacle to the vengeance of the Court. But the Crown lawyers, with a servility which belonged to the worst times of prerogative, advised that a libel came within the purview of the exception, as having a tendency to a breach of the peace; and upon this perversion of plain law, Wilkes was arrested, and brought before Lord Halifax for examination. The cool and wary demagogue, however, was more than a match for the Secretary of State; but his authorship of the alleged libel having been proved by the printer, he was committed close prisoner to the Tower. In a few days, having sued out writs of habeas, he was brought up before the Court of Common Pleas. … The argument which would confound the commission of a crime with conduct which had no more than a tendency to provoke it, was at once rejected by an independent court of justice; and the result was the liberation of Wilkes from custody. {930} But the vengeance of the Court was not turned aside by this disappointment. An ex-officio prosecution for libel was immediately instituted against the member for Aylesbury; he was deprived of his commission as colonel of the Buckinghamshire militia; his patron, Earl Temple, who provided the funds for his defence, was at the same time dismissed from the lord-lieutenancy of the same county, and from the Privy Council. When Parliament assembled in the autumn, the first business brought forward by the Government was this contemptible affair—a proceeding not merely foolish and undignified, but a flagrant violation of common justice and decency. Having elected to prosecute Wilkes for this alleged libel before the ordinary tribunals of the country, it is manifest that the Government should have left the law to take its course unprejudiced. But the House of Commons was now required to pronounce upon the very subject-matter of inquiry which had been referred to the decision of a court of law; and this degenerate assembly, at the bidding of the minister, readily condemned the indicted paper in terms of extravagant and fulsome censure, and ordered that it should be burned by the hands of the common hangman. Lord North, on the part of the Government, then pressed for an immediate decision on the question of privilege; but Pitt, in his most solemn manner, insisting on an adjournment, the House yielded this point. On the following day, Wilkes, being dangerously wounded in a duel with Martin, one of the joint Secretaries to the Treasury, who had grossly insulted him in the House, for the purpose of provoking a quarrel, was disabled from attending in his place; but the House, nevertheless, refused to postpone the question of privilege beyond the 24th of the month. On that day, they resolved 'that the privilege of Parliament does not extend to the case of writing and publishing seditious libels, nor ought to be allowed to obstruct the ordinary course of the laws in the speedy and effectual prosecution of so heinous and dangerous an offence.' Whatever may be thought of the public spirit or prudence of a House of Commons which could thus officiously define its privilege, the vote was practically futile, since a court of justice had already decided in this very case, as a matter of strict law, that the person of a member of Parliament was protected from arrest on a charge of this description. The conduct of Pitt on this occasion was consistent with the loftiness of his character. … The conduct of the Lords was in harmony with that of the Lower House. … The session was principally occupied by the proceedings against this worthless demagogue, whom the unworthy hostility of the Crown and both Houses of Parliament had elevated into a person of the first importance. His name was coupled with that of Liberty; and when the executioner appeared to carry into effect the sentence of Parliament upon 'The North Briton,' he was driven away by the populace, who rescued the obnoxious paper from the flames, and evinced their hatred and contempt for the Court faction by 'burning in its stead the jack-boot and the petticoat, the vulgar emblems which they employed to designate John Earl of Bute and his supposed royal patroness. … Wilkes himself, however, was forced to yield to the storm. Beset by the spies of Government, and harassed by its prosecutions, which he had not the means of resisting, he withdrew to Paris. Failing to attend in his place in the House of Commons on the first day after the Christmas recess, according to order, his excuse was eagerly declared invalid; a vote of expulsion immediately followed [January 19, 1764], and a new writ was ordered for Aylesbury."

Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope), History of England, 1713-1783, chapters 41-42 (volume 5).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1763.
   The end and results of the Seven Years War:
   The Peace of Paris and Peace of Hubertsburg.
   America to be English, not French.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1763-1764.
Determination to tax the American colonies.
The Sugar (or Molasses) Act.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1764. The climax of the mercantile colonial policy and its consequences.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1765-1768.
   Grenville dismissed.
   The Rockingham and the Grafton-Chatham Ministries.
   Repeal of the Stamp Act.
   Fresh trouble in the American colonies.

"Hitherto the Ministry had only excited the indignation of the people and the colonies. Not satisfied with the number of their enemies, they now proceeded to quarrel openly with the king. In 1765 the first signs of the illness, to which George afterwards fell a victim, appeared; and as soon as he recovered he proposed, with wonderful firmness, that a Regency Bill should be brought in, limiting the king's choice of a Regent to the members of the Royal Family. The Ministers, however, in alarm at the prospect of a new Bute Ministry, persuaded the king that there was no hope of the Princess's name being accepted, and that it had better be left out of the Bill. The king unwisely consented to this unparalleled insult on his parent, apparently through lack of consideration. Parliament, however, insisted on inserting the Princess's name by a large majority, and thus exposed the trick of his Ministers. This the king never forgave. They had been for some time obnoxious to him, and now he determined to get rid of them. With this view he induced the Duke of Cumberland to make overtures to Chatham [Pitt, not yet titled], offering almost any terms." But no arrangement was practicable, and the king was left quite at the mercy of the Ministers be detested. "He was obliged to consent to dismiss Bute and all Bute's following. He was obliged to promise that he would use no underhand influence for the future. Life, in fact, became a burden to him under George Grenville's domination, and he determined to dismiss him, even at the cost of accepting the Whig Houses, whom he had pledged himself never to employ again. Pitt and Temple still proving obdurate, Cumberland opened negotiations with the Rockingham Whigs, and the Grenville Ministry was at an end [July, 1765]. … The new Ministry was composed as follows: Rockingham became First Lord of the Treasury; Dowdeswell, Chancellor of the Exchequer; Newcastle, Privy Seal; Northington, Lord Chancellor. … {931} Their leader Rockingham was a man of sound sense, but no power of language or government. … He was totally free from any suspicion of corruption. In fact there was more honesty than talent in the Ministry altogether. … The back-bone of the party was removed by the refusal of Pitt to co-operate. Burke was undoubtedly the ablest man among them, but his time was not yet come. Such a Ministry, it was recognized even by its own members, could not last long. However, it had come in to effect certain necessary legislation, and it certainly so far accomplished the end of its being. It repealed the Stamp Act [see UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1766], which had caused so much indignation among the Americans; and at the same time passed a law securing the dependence of the colonies. … The king, however, made no secret of his hostility to his Ministers. … The conduct of Pitt in refusing to join them was a decided mistake, and more. He was really at one with them on most points. Most of their acts were in accordance with his views. But he was determined not to join a purely party Ministry, though he could have done so practically on whatever terms he pleased. In 1766, however, he consented to form a coalition, in which were included men of the most opposite views—'King's Friends,' Rockingham Whigs, and the few personal followers of Pitt. Rockingham refused to take any office, and retired to the more congenial occupation of following the hounds. The nominal Prime Minister of this Cabinet was the Duke of Grafton, for Pitt refused the leadership, and retired to the House of Lords as Lord Chatham. Charles Townshend became Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Lord North, the leader of the 'King's Friends,' was Pay-master. The Ministry included Shelburne, Barré, Conway, Northington, Barrington, Camden, Granby—all men of the most opposite views. … This second Ministry of Pitt was a mistake from the very first. He lost all his popularity by taking a peerage. … As a peer and Lord Privy Seal he found himself in an uncongenial atmosphere. … His name, too, had lost a great deal of its power abroad. 'Pitt' had, indeed, been a word to conjure with; but there were no associations of defeat and humiliation connected with the name of 'Chatham.' … There were other difficulties, however, as well. His arrogance had increased, and it was so much intensified by irritating gout, that it became almost impossible to serve with him. His disease later almost approached madness. … The Ministry drifted helplessly about at the mercy of each wind and wave of opinion like a water-logged ship; and it was only the utter want of union among the Opposition which prevented its sinking entirely. As it was, they contrived to renew the breach with America, which had been almost entirely healed by Rockingham's repeal of the Stamp Act. Charles Townshend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, was by far the ablest man left in the Cabinet, and he rapidly assumed the most prominent position. He had always been in favour of taxing America. He now brought forward a plan for raising a revenue from tea, glass, and paper [see UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1766-1767, and 1767-1768], by way of import duty at the American ports. … This wild measure was followed shortly by the death of its author, in September; and then the weakness of the Ministry became so obvious that, as Chatham still continued incapable, some fresh reinforcement was absolutely necessary. A coalition was effected with the Bloomsbury Gang; and, in consequence, Lords Gower, Weymouth, and Sandwich joined the Ministry. Lord Northington and General Conway retired. North succeeded Townshend at the Exchequer. Lord Hillsborough became the first Secretary of State for the Colonies, thus raising the number of Secretaries to three. This Ministry was probably the worst that had governed England since the days of the Cabal; and the short period of its existence was marked by a succession of arbitrary and foolish acts. On every important question that it had to deal with, it pursued a course diametrically opposed to Chatham's views; and yet with singular irony his nominal connection with it was not severed for some time"—that is, not until the following year, 1768.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1768-1770.
The quartering of troops in Boston and Its ill consequences.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1768-1774.
John Wilkes and the King and Parliament again.
The Middlesex elections.

In March, 1768, Wilkes, though outlawed by the court, returned to London from Paris and solicited a pardon from the king; but his petition was unnoticed. Parliament being then dissolved and writs issued for a new election, he offered himself as a candidate to represent the City of London. "He polled 1,247 votes, but was unsuccessful. On the day following this decision he issued an address to the freeholders of Middlesex. The election took place at Brentford, on the 28th of March. At the close of the poll the numbers were—Mr. Wilkes, 1,292; Mr. Cooke, 827; Sir W. B. Proctor, 807. This was a victory which astonished the public and terrified the ministry. The mob was in ecstasies. The citizens of London were compelled to illuminate their houses and to shout for 'Wilkes and liberty.' It was the earnest desire of the ministry to pardon the man whom they had persecuted, but the king remained inexorable. … A month after the election he wrote to Lord North: 'Though relying entirely on your attachment to my person as well as in your hatred of any lawless proceeding, yet I think it highly expedient to apprise you that the expulsion of Mr. Wilkes appears to be very essential, and must be effected.' What the sovereign counselled was duly accomplished. Before his expulsion, Wilkes was a prisoner in the King's Bench. Having surrendered, it was determined that his outlawry was informal; consequently it was reversed, and sentence was passed for the offences whereof he had been convicted. He was fined £1,000, and imprisoned for twenty-two months. On his way to prison he was rescued by the mob; but as soon as he could escape out of the hands of his boisterous friends he went and gave himself into the custody of the Marshal of the King's Bench. Parliament met on the 10th of April, and it was thought that he would be released in order to take his seat. A dense multitude assembled before the prison, but, balked in its purpose of escorting the popular favourite to the House, became furious, and commenced a riot. {932} Soldiers were at hand prepared for this outbreak. They fired, wounding and slaughtering several persons; among others, they butchered a young man whom they found in a neighbouring house, and who was mistaken for a rioter they had pursued. At the inquest the jury brought in a verdict of wilful murder against the magistrate who ordered the firing, and the soldier who did the deed. The magistrate was tried and acquitted. The soldier was dismissed the service, but received in compensation, as a reward for his services, a pension of one shilling a day. A general order sent from the War Office by Lord Barrington conveyed his Majesty's express thanks to the troops employed, assuring them 'that every possible regard shall be shown to them; their zeal and good behaviour on this occasion deserve it; and in case any disagreeable circumstance should happen in the execution of their duty, they shall have every defence and protection that the law can authorise and this office can give.' This approbation of what the troops had done was the necessary supplement to a despatch from Lord Weymouth sent before the riot, and intimating that force was to be used without scruple. Wilkes commented on both documents. His observations on the latter drew a complaint from Lord Weymouth of breach of privilege. This was made an additional pretext for his expulsion from the House of Commons. Ten days afterwards he was re-elected, his opponent receiving five votes only. On the following day the House resolved 'that John Wilkes, Esquire, having been in this session of Parliament expelled this House, was and is incapable of being elected a member to serve in this present Parliament'; and his election was declared void. Again the freeholders of Middlesex returned him, and the House re-affirmed the above resolution. At another election he was opposed by Colonel Luttrell, a Court tool, when he polled 1,143 votes against 296 cast for Luttrell. It was declared, however, that the latter had been elected. Now began a struggle between the country, which had been outraged in the persons of the Middlesex electors, and a subservient majority in the House of Commons that did not hesitate to become instrumental in gratifying the personal resentment of a revengeful and obstinate king. The cry of 'Wilkes and liberty' was raised in quarters where the very name of the popular idol had been proscribed. It was evident that not the law only had been violated in his person, but that the Constitution itself had sustained a deadly wound. Wilkes was overwhelmed with substantial marks of sympathy. In the course of a few weeks £20,000 were subscribed to pay his debts. He could boast, too, that the courts of law had at length done what was right between him and one of the Secretaries of State who had signed the General Warrant, the other having been removed by death beyond the reach of justice. Lord Halifax was sentenced to pay £4,000 damages. These damages, and the costs of the proceedings, were defrayed out of the public purse. Lord North admitted that the outlay had exceeded £100,000. Thus the nation was doubly insulted by the ministers, who first violated the law, and then paid the costs of the proceedings out of the national taxes. On the 17th of April, 1770, Wilkes left the prison, to be elected in rapid succession to the offices—then much sought after, because held in high honour—of Alderman, Sheriff, and Lord Mayor of London. In 1774 he was permitted to take his seat as Member for Middlesex. After several failures, he succeeded in getting the resolutions of his incapacity to sit in the House formally expunged from its journals. He was elected Chamberlain of the City in 1779, and filled that lucrative and responsible post till his death, in 1797, at the age of seventy. Although the latter portion of his career as Member of Parliament has generally been considered a blank, yet it was marked by several incidents worthy of attention. He was a consistent and energetic opponent of the war with America."

"One of the newspapers in London at this period was the 'Public Advertiser,' printed and directed by Mr. Henry Sampson Woodfall. His politics were those of the Opposition of the day; and he readily received any contributions of a like tendency from unknown correspondents. Among others was a writer whose letters beginning at the latest in April, 1767, continued frequent through that and the ensuing year. It was the pleasure of this writer to assume a great variety of signatures in his communications, as Mnemon, Atticus, and Brutus. It does not appear, however, that these letters (excepting only some with the signature of Lucius which were published in the autumn of 1768) attracted the public attention to any unusual extent, though by no means wanting in ability, or still less in acrimony. … Such was the state of these publications, not much rising in interest above the common level of many such at other times, when on the 21st of January 1769 there came forth another letter from the same hand with the novel signature of Junius. It did not differ greatly from its predecessors either in superior merit or superior moderation; it contained, on the contrary, a fierce and indiscriminate attack on most men in high places, including the Commander-in-Chief, Lord Granby. But, unlike its predecessors, it roused to controversy a well-known and respectable opponent. Sir William Draper, General in the army and Knight of the Bath, undertook to meet and parry the blows which it had aimed at his Noble friend. In an evil hour for himself he sent to the Public Advertiser a letter subscribed with his own name, and defending the character and conduct of Lord Granby. An answer from Junius soon appeared, urging anew his original charge, and adding some thrusts at Sir William himself on the sale of a regiment, and on the nonpayment of the Manilla ransom. Wincing at the blow, Sir William more than once replied; more than once did the keen pen of Junius lay him prostrate in the dust. The discomfiture of poor Sir William was indeed complete. Even his most partial friends could not deny that so far as wit and eloquence were concerned the man in the mask had far, very far, the better in the controversy. … These victories over a man of rank and station such as Draper's gave importance to the name of Junius. Henceforth letters with that signature were eagerly expected by the public, and carefully prepared by the author. {933} He did not indeed altogether cease to write under other names; sometimes especially adopting the part of a bystander, and the signature of Philo-Junius; but it was as Junius that his main and most elaborate attacks were made. Nor was it long before he swooped at far higher game than Sir William. First came a series of most bitter pasquinades against the Duke of Grafton. Dr. Blackstone was then assailed for the unpopular vote which he gave in the case of Wilkes. In September was published a false and malignant attack upon the Duke of Bedford,—an attack, however, of which the sting is felt by his descendants to this day. In December the acme of audacity was reached by the celebrated letter to the King. All this while conjecture was busy as to the secret author. Names of well-known statesmen or well-known writers—Burke or Dunning, Boyd or Dyer, George Sackville or Gerard Hamilton—flew from mouth to mouth. Such guesses were for the most part made at mere hap-hazard, and destitute of any plausible ground. Nevertheless the stir and talk which they created added not a little to the natural effects of the writer's wit and eloquence. 'The most important secret of our times!' cries Wilkes. Junius himself took care to enhance his own importance by arrogant, nay even impious, boasts of it. In one letter of August 1771 he goes so far as to declare that 'the Bible and Junius will be read when the commentaries of the Jesuits are forgotten!' Mystery, as I have said, was one ingredient to the popularity of Junius. Another not less efficacious was supplied by persecution. In the course of 1770 Mr. Woodfall was indicted for publishing, and Mr. Almon with several others for reprinting, the letter from Junius to the King. The verdict in Woodfall's case was: Guilty of printing and publishing only. It led to repeated discussions and to ulterior proceedings. But in the temper of the public at that period such measures could end only in virtual defeat to the Government, in augmented reputation to the libeller. During the years 1770 and 1771 the letters of Junius were continued with little abatement of spirit. He renewed invectives against the Duke of Grafton; he began them against Lord Mansfield, who had presided at the trials of the printers; he plunged into the full tide of City politics; and he engaged in a keen controversy with the Rev. John Horne, afterwards Horne Tooke. The whole series of letters from January 1769, when it commences, until January 1772, when it terminates, amounts to 69, including those with the signature of Philo-Junius, those of Sir William Draper, and those of Mr. Horne. … Besides the letters which Junius designed for the press, there were many others which he wrote and sent to various persons, intending them for those persons only. Two addressed to Lord Chatham appear in Lord Chatham's correspondence. Three addressed to Mr. George Grenville have until now remained in manuscript among the papers at Wotton, or Stowe; all three were written in the same year, 1768, and the two first signed with the same initial C. Several others addressed to Wilkes were first made known through the son of Mr. Woodfall. But the most important of all, perhaps, are the private notes addressed to Mr. Woodfall himself. Of these there are upwards of sixty, signed in general with the letter C.; some only a few lines in length; but many of great value towards deciding the question of authorship. It seems that the packets containing the letters of Junius for Mr. Woodfall or the Public Advertiser were sometimes brought to the office-door, and thrown in, by an unknown gentleman, probably Junius himself; more commonly they were conveyed by a porter or other messenger hired in the streets. When some communication from Mr. Woodfall in reply was deemed desirable, Junius directed it to be addressed to him under some feigned name, and to be left till called for at the bar of some coffee-house. … It may be doubted whether Junius had any confidant or trusted friend. … When dedicating his collected letters to the English people, he declares: 'I am the sole depository of my own secret, and it shall perish with me.'"

The following list of fifty-one names of persons to whom the letters of Junius have been attributed at different times by different writers is given in Cushing's "Initials and Pseudonyms":

   James Adair, M. P.;
   Captain Allen;
   Lieutenant-Colonel Isaac Barre, M. P.;
   William Henry Cavendish Bentinck;
   Mr. Bickerton;
   Hugh M'Aulay Boyd;
   Edmund Burke;
   William Burke;
   John Butler, Bishop of Hereford;
   Lord Camden;
   John Lewis De Lolme;
   John Dunning, afterwards Lord Ashburton;
   Samuel Dyer;
   Henry Flood;
   Sir Philip Francis;
   George III.;
   Edward Gibbon;
   Richard Glover;
   Henry Grattan;
   William Greatrakes;
   George Grenville;
   James Grenville;
   William Gerard Hamilton;
   James Hollis;
   Thomas Hollis;
   Sir George Jackson;
   Sir William Jones;
   John Kent;
   Major-General Charles Lee;
   Charles Lloyd;
   Thomas Lyttleton;
   Laughlin Maclean;
   Rev. Edmund Marshall;
   Thomas Paine;
   William Pitt, Earl of Chatham;
   the Duke of Portland;
   Thomas Pownall;
   Lieutenant-Colonel Sir Robert Rich;
   John Roberts;
   Rev. Philip Rosenhagen;
   George, Viscount Sackville;
   the Earl of Shelburne;
   Philip Dormer Stanhope, Earl of Chesterfield;
   Richard Suett;
   Earl Temple;
   John Horne Tooke;
   Horace Walpole;
   Alexander Wedderburn, Lord Loughborough;
   John Wilkes;
   James Wilmot, D. D.;
   Daniel Wray.

      A. Bisset,
      Short History of the English Parliament,
      chapter 7.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1770.
Fall of the Grafton Ministry.
Beginning of the administration of Lord North.

"The incompetency of the ministry was … becoming obvious. In the first place it was divided within itself. The Prime Minister, with the Chancellor and some others, were remnants of the Chatham ministry and admirers of Chatham's policy. The rest of the Cabinet were either men who represented Bedford's party, or members of that class whose views are sufficiently explained by their name, 'the King's friends.' Grafton, fonder of hunting and the turf than of politics, had by his indolence suffered himself to fall under the influence of the last-named party, and unconstitutional action had been the result which had brought discontent in England to the verge of open outbreak. Hillsborough, under the same influence, was hurrying along the road which led to the loss of America. On this point the Prime Minister had found himself in a minority in his own Cabinet. {934} France too, under Choiseul, in alliance with Spain, was beginning to think of revenge for the losses of the Seven Years' War. A crisis was evidently approaching, and the Opposition began to close their ranks. Chatham, yielding again to the necessities of party, made a public profession of friendship with Temple and George Grenville; and though there was no cordial connection, there was external alliance between the brothers and the old Whigs under Rockingham. In the first session of 1770 the storm broke. Notwithstanding the state of public affairs, the chief topic of the King's speech was the murrain among 'horned beasts,'—a speech not of a king, but, said Junius, of 'a ruined grazier.' Chatham at once moved an amendment when the address in answer to this speech was proposed. He deplored the want of all European alliances, the fruit of our desertion of our allies at the Peace of Paris; he blamed the conduct of the ministry with regard to America, which, he thought, needed much gentle handling, inveighed strongly against the action of the Lower House in the case of Wilkes, and ended by moving that that action should at once be taken into consideration. At the sound of their old leader's voice his followers in the Cabinet could no longer be silent. Camden declared he had been a most unwilling party to the persecution of Wilkes, and though retaining the Seals attacked and voted against the ministry. In the Lower House, Granby, one of the most popular men in England, followed the same course. James Grenville and Dunning, the Solicitor-General, also resigned. Chatham's motion was lost but was followed up by Rockingham, who asked for a night to consider the state of the nation. … Grafton thus found himself in no state to meet the Opposition, and in his heart still admiring Chatham, and much disliking business, he suddenly and unexpectedly gave in his resignation the very day fixed for Rockingham's motion. The Opposition seemed to have everything in their own hands, but there was no real cordiality between the two sections. … The King with much quickness and decision, took advantage of this disunion. To him it was of paramount importance to retain his friends in office, and to avoid a new Parliament elected in the present excited state of the nation. There was only one of the late ministry capable of assuming the position of Prime Minister. This was Lord North, Chancellor of the Exchequer, and to him the King immediately and successfully applied, so that while the different sections of the Opposition were still unable to decide on any united action they were astonished to find the old ministry reconstituted and their opportunity gone. The new Prime Minister … had great capacity for business and administration, and much sound sense; he was a first-rate debater, and gifted with a wonderful sweetness of temper, which enabled him to listen unmoved, or even to sleep, during the most violent attacks upon himself, and to turn aside the bitterest invectives with a happy joke. With his accession to the Premiership the unstable character of the Government ceased. Resting on the King, making himself no more than an instrument of the King's will, and thus commanding the support of all royal influence from whatever source derived, North was able to bid defiance to all enemies, till the ill effects of such a system of government, and of the King's policy, became so evident that the clamour for a really responsible minister grew too loud to be disregarded. Thus is closed the great constitutional struggle of the early part of the reign—the struggle of the King, supported by the unrepresented masses, and the more liberal and independent of those who were represented, against the domination of the House of Commons. It was an attempt to break those trammels which, under the guise of liberty, the upper classes, the great lords and landed aristocracy, had succeeded after the Revolution in laying on both Crown and people. In that struggle the King had been victorious. But he did not recognize the alliance which had enabled him to succeed. He did not understand that the people had other objects much beyond his own."

      ALSO IN:
      Correspondence of George III. with Lord North,
      volume 1.

      W. Massey,
      History of England: Reign of George III.,
      chapters 10-13 (volume 1).

      J. Adolphus,
      History of England: Reign of George III.,
      chapter 17 (volume 1).

      E. Burke,
      Thoughts on the Present Discontents
      (Works, volume 1).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1770-1773.
Repeal of the Townshend duties, except on tea.
The tea-ships and the Boston Tea-party.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1770,
and 1772-1773; and BOSTON: A. D. 1773.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1771.
Last contention of Parliament against the Press.
Freedom of reporting secured.

   "The session of 1771 commenced with a new quarrel between the
   House of Commons and the country. The standing order for the
   exclusion of strangers, which had long existed (and which
   still exists), was seldom enforced, except when it was thought
   desirable that a question should be debated with closed doors.
   It was now attempted, by means of this order, to prevent the
   publication of the debates and proceedings of the House. It
   had long been the practice of the newspapers, and other
   periodical journals, to publish the debates of Parliament,
   under various thin disguises, and with more or less fulness
   and accuracy, from speeches furnished at length by the
   speakers themselves, to loose and meagre notes of more or less
   authenticity. One of the most attractive features of the
   'Gentleman's Magazine,' a monthly publication of
   respectability, which has survived to the present day, was an
   article which purported to be a report of the debates in
   Parliament. This report was, for nearly three years, prepared
   by Dr. Johnson, who never attended the galleries himself, and
   derived his information from persons who could seldom give him
   more than the names of the speakers, and the side which each
   of them took in the debate. The speeches were, therefore, the
   composition of Johnson himself; and some of the most admired
   oratory of the period was avowedly the product of his genius.
   Attempts were made from time to time, both within and without
   the walls of Parliament, to abolish, or at least to modify,
   the standing order for the exclusion of strangers, by means of
   which the license of reporting had been restricted; for there was
   no order of either House specifically prohibiting the
   publication of its debates. But such proposals had always been
   resisted by the leaders of parties, who thought that the
   privilege was one which might be evaded, but could not safely
   be formally relinquished. The practice of reporting,
   therefore, was tolerated on the understanding, that a decent
   disguise should be observed; and that no publication of the
   proceedings of Parliament should take place during the
   session.
{935}
   There can be little doubt, however, that the public journals
   would have gone on, with the tacit connivance of the
   parliamentary chiefs, until they had practically established a
   right of reporting regularly the proceedings of both Houses,
   had not the presumptuous folly of inferior members provoked a
   conflict with the press upon this ground of privilege, and, in
   the result, driven Parliament reluctantly to yield what they
   would otherwise have quietly conceded. It was Colonel Onslow,
   member for Guildford, who rudely agitated a question which
   wiser men had been content to leave unvexed; and by his rash
   meddling, precipitated the very result which he thought he
   could prevent. He complained that the proceedings of the House
   had been inaccurately reported; and that the newspapers had
   even presumed to reflect on the public conduct of honourable
   members."

"Certain printers were in consequence ordered to attend the bar of the House. Some appeared and were discharged, after receiving, on their knees, a reprimand from the Speaker. Others evaded compliance; and one of them, John Miller, who failed to appear, was arrested by its messenger, but instead of submitting, sent for a constable and gave the messenger into custody for an assault and false imprisonment. They were both taken before the Lord Mayor (Mr. Brass Crosby), Mr. Alderman Oliver, and the notorious John Wilkes, who had recently been invested with the aldermanic gown. These civic magistrates, on the ground that the messenger was neither a peace-officer nor a constable, and that his warrant was not backed by a city magistrate, discharged the printer from custody, and committed the messenger to prison for an unlawful arrest. Two other printers, for whose apprehension a reward had been offered by a Government proclamation, were collusively apprehended by friends, and taken before Aldermen Wilkes and Oliver, who discharged the prisoners as 'not being accused of having committed any crime.' These proceedings at once brought the House into conflict with the Lord Mayor and Aldermen of London. The Lord Mayor and Alderman Oliver, who were both members of Parliament, were ordered by the House to attend in their places, and were subsequently committed to the Tower. Their imprisonment, instead of being a punishment, was one long-continued popular ovation, and from the date of their release, at the prorogation of Parliament shortly afterwards, the publication of debates has been pursued without any interference or restraint. Though still in theory a breach of privilege, reporting is now encouraged by Parliament as one of the main sources of its influence—its censure being reserved for wilful misrepresentation only. But reporters long continued beset with many difficulties. The taking of notes was prohibited, no places were reserved for reporters, and the power of a single member of either House to require the exclusion of strangers was frequently and capriciously employed. By the ancient usage of the House of Commons [until 1875] any one member by merely 'spying' strangers present could compel the Speaker to order their withdrawal."

ALSO IN:

      T. E. May,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 7 (volume 1).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1774.
The Boston Port Bill, the Massachusetts Act and the Quebec Act.
The First Continental Congress in America.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1774. Advent in English industries of the Steam-Engine as made efficient by James Watt.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1775.
   The beginning of the War of the American Revolution.
   Lexington.
   Concord.
   The colonies in arms and Boston beleaguered.
   Ticonderoga.
   Bunker Hill.
   The Second Continental Congress.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1775-1776.
Successful defence of Canada against American invasion.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1776.
War measures against the colonies.
The drift toward American independence.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1776-1778.
The People, the Parties, the King, and Lord North, in their
relations to the American War.

   "The undoubted popularity of the war [in America] in its first
   stage had for some time continued to increase, and in the
   latter part of 1776 and 1777 it had probably attained its
   maximum. … The Whigs at this time very fully admitted that
   the genuine opinion of the country was with the Government and
   with the King. … The Declaration of Independence, and the
   known overtures of the Americans to France, were deemed the
   climax of insolence and ingratitude. The damage done to
   English commerce, not only in the West Indies but even around
   the English and Irish coast, excited a widespread bitterness.
   … In every stage of the contest the influence of the
   Opposition was employed to trammel the Government. … The
   statement of Wraxall that the Whig colours of buff and blue
   were first adopted by Fox in imitation of the uniform of
   Washington's troops, is, I believe, corroborated by no other
   writer; but there is no reason to question his assertion that
   the members of the Whig party in society and in both Houses of
   Parliament during the whole course of the war wished success
   to the American cause and rejoiced in the American triumphs.
   … While the Opposition needlessly and heedlessly intensified
   the national feeling against them, the King, on his side, did
   the utmost in his power to embitter the contest. It is only by
   examining his correspondence with Lord North that we fully
   realise how completely at this time he assumed the position
   not only of a prime minister but of a Cabinet, superintending,
   directing, and prescribing, in all its parts, the policy of
   the Government. … 'Every means of distressing America,'
   wrote the King, 'must meet with my concurrence.' He strongly
   supported the employment of Indians. … It was the King's
   friends who were most active in promoting all measures of
   violence. … The war was commonly called the 'King's war,'
   and its opponents were looked upon as opponents of the King.
   The person, however, who in the eye of history appears most
   culpable in this matter, was Lord North. …
{936}
   The publication of the correspondence of George III. …
   supplies one of the most striking and melancholy examples of
   the relation of the King to his Tory ministers. It appears
   from this correspondence that for the space of about five
   years North, at the entreaty of the King, carried on a bloody,
   costly, and disastrous war in direct opposition to his own
   judgment and to his own wishes. … Again and again he
   entreated that his resignation might be accepted, but again
   and again he yielded to the request of the King, who
   threatened, if his minister resigned, to abdicate the throne.
   … The King was determined, under no circumstances, to treat
   with the Americans on the basis of the recognition of their
   independence; but he acknowledged, after the surrender of
   Burgoyne, and as soon as the French war had become inevitable,
   that unconditional submission could no longer be hoped for.
   … He consented, too, though apparently with extreme
   reluctance, and in consequence of the unanimous vote of the
   Cabinet, that new propositions should be made to the
   Americans." These overtures, conveyed to America by three
   Commissioners, were rejected, and the colonies concluded, in
   the spring of 1778, their alliance with France. "The moment
   was one of the most terrible in English history. England had
   not an ally in the world. … England, already exhausted by a
   war which its distance made peculiarly terrible, had to
   confront the whole force of France, and was certain in a few
   months to have to encounter the whole force of Spain. …
   There was one man to whom, in this hour of panic and
   consternation, the eyes of all patriotic Englishmen were
   turned. … If any statesman could, at the last moment,
   conciliate [the Americans], dissolve the new alliance, and
   kindle into a flame the loyalist feeling which undoubtedly
   existed largely in America, it was Chatham. If, on the other
   hand, conciliation proved impossible, no statesman could for a
   moment be compared to him in the management of a war. Lord
   North implored the King to accept his resignation, and to send
   for Chatham. Bute, the old Tory favourite, breaking his long
   silence, spoke of Chatham as now indispensable. Lord
   Mansfield, the bitterest and ablest rival of Chatham, said,
   with tears in his eyes, that unless the King sent for Chatham
   the ship would assuredly go down. … The King was unmoved. He
   consented indeed—and he actually authorised Lord North to make
   the astounding proposition—to receive Chatham as a
   subordinate minister to North. … This episode appears to me
   the most criminal in the whole reign of George III., and in my
   own judgment it is as criminal as any of those acts which led
   Charles I. to the scaffold."

W. E. H. Lecky, History of England in the 18th Century, chapter 14 (volume 4).

"George III. and Lord North have been made scapegoats for sins which were not exclusively their own. The minister, indeed, was only the vizier, who hated his work, but still did not shrink from it, out of a sentiment that is sometimes admired under the name of loyalty, but which in such a case it is difficult to distinguish from base servility. The impenetrable mind of the King was, in the case of the American war, the natural organ and representative of all the lurking ignorance and arbitrary humours of the entire community. It is totally unjust and inadequate to lay upon him the entire burden."

"No sane person in Great Britain now approves of the attempt to tax the colonies. No sane person does otherwise than rejoice that the colonies became free and independent. But let us in common fairness say a word for King George. In all that he did he was backed by the great mass of the British nation. And let us even say a word for the British nation also. Had the King and the nation been really wise, they would have let the colonies go without striking a blow. But then no king and no nation ever was really wise after that fashion. King George and the British nation were simply not wiser than other people. I believe that you may turn the pages of history from the earliest to the latest times, without finding a time when any king or any commonwealth, freely and willingly, without compulsion or equivalent, gave up power or dominion, or even mere extent of territory on the map, when there was no real power or dominion. Remember that seventeen years after the acknowledgment of American independence, King George still called himself King of France. Remember that, when the title was given up, some people thought it unwise to give it up. Remember that some people in our own day regretted the separation between the crowns of Great Britain and Hanover. If they lived to see the year 1866, perhaps they grew wiser."

E. A. Freeman, The English People in its Three Homes (Lectures to American Audiences), pages 183-184.

      T. Macknight,
      History of the Life and Times of Edmund Burke,
      chapters 22-26 (volume 2).

ENGLAND: A.D. 1778-1780.
Repeal of Catholic penal laws.
The Gordon No-Popery Riots.

"The Quebec Act of 1774 [see CANADA: A. D. 1763-1774], establishing Catholicism in Canada, would a generation earlier have been impossible, and it was justly considered a remarkable sign of the altered condition of opinion that such a law should be enacted by a British Parliament, and should have created no serious disturbances in the country. … The success of the Quebec Act led Parliament, a few years later, to undertake the relief of the Catholics at home from some part of the atrocious penal laws to which they were still subject. … The Act still subsisted which gave a reward of £100 to any informer who procured the conviction of a Catholic priest performing his functions in England, and there were occasional prosecutions, though the judges strained the law to the utmost in order to defeat them. … The worst part of the persecution of Catholics was based upon a law of William III., and in 1778 Sir George Savile introduced a bill to repeal those portions of this Act which related to the apprehending of Popish bishops, priests, and Jesuits, which subjected these and also Papists keeping a school to perpetual imprisonment, and which disabled all Papists from inheriting or purchasing land. … It is an honourable fact that this Relief Bill was carried without a division in either House, without any serious opposition from the bench of bishops, and with the concurrence of both parties in the State. The law applied to England only, but the Lord Advocate promised, in the ensuing session, to introduce a similar measure for Scotland. {937} It was hoped that a measure which was so manifestly moderate and equitable, and which was carried with such unanimity through Parliament, would have passed almost unnoticed in the country; but fiercer elements of fanaticism than politicians perceived were still smouldering in the nation. The first signs of the coming storm were seen among the Presbyterians of Scotland. The General Assembly of the Scotch Established Church was sitting when the English Relief Bill was pending, and it rejected by a large majority a motion for a remonstrance to Parliament against it. But in a few months an agitation of the most dangerous description spread swiftly through the Lowlands. It was stimulated by many incendiary resolutions of provincial synods, by pamphlets, hand-bills, newspapers, and sermons, and a 'Committee for the Protestant Interests' was formed at Edinburgh to direct it. … Furious riots broke out in January, 1779, both in Edinburgh and Glasgow. Several houses in which Catholics lived, or the Catholic worship was celebrated, were burnt to the ground. The shops of Catholic tradesmen were wrecked, and their goods scattered, plundered, or destroyed. Catholic ladies were compelled to take refuge in Edinburgh Castle. The houses of many Protestants who were believed to sympathise with the Relief Bill were attacked, and among the number was that of Robertson the historian. The troops were called out to suppress the riot, but they were resisted and pelted, and not suffered to fire in their defence. … The flame soon spread southwards. For some years letters on the increase of Popery had been frequently appearing in the London newspapers. Many murmurs had been heard at the enactment of the Quebec Act, and many striking instances in the last ten years had shown how easily the spirit of riot could be aroused, and how impotent the ordinary watchmen were to cope with it. … The fanatical party had unfortunately acquired an unscrupulous leader in the person of Lord George Gordon, whose name now attained a melancholy celebrity. He was a young man of thirty, of very ordinary talents, and with nothing to recommend him but his connection with the ducal house of Gordon. … A 'Protestant Association,' consisting of the worst agitators and fanatics, was formed, and at a great meeting held on May 29, 1780, and presided over by Lord George Gordon, it was determined that 20,000 men should march to the Parliament House to present a petition for the repeal of the Relief Act. It was about half-past two on the afternoon of Friday, June 2, that three great bodies, consisting of many thousands of men, wearing blue cockades, and carrying a petition which was said to have been signed by near 120,000 persons, arrived by different roads at the Parliament House. Their first design appears to have been only to intimidate, but they very soon proceeded to actual violence. The two Houses were just meeting, and the scene that ensued resembled on a large scale and in an aggravated form the great riot which had taken place around the Parliament House in Dublin during the administration of the Duke of Bedford. The members were seized, insulted, compelled to put blue cockades in their hats, to shout 'No Popery!' and to swear that they would vote for the repeal; and many of them, but especially the members of the House of Lords, were exposed to the grossest indignities. … In the Commons Lord George Gordon presented the petition, and demanded its instant consideration. The House behaved with much courage, and after a hurried debate it was decided by 192 to 7 to adjourn its consideration till the 6th. Lord George Gordon several times appeared on the stairs of the gallery, and addressed the crowd, denouncing by name those who opposed him, and especially Burke and North; but Conway rebuked him in the sight and hearing of the mob, and Colonel Gordon, one of his own relatives, declared that the moment the first man of the mob entered the House he would plunge his sword into the body of Lord George. The doors were locked. The strangers' gallery was empty, but only a few doorkeepers and a few other ordinary officials protected the House, while the mob is said at first to have numbered not less than 60,000 men. Lord North succeeded in sending a messenger for the guards, but many anxious hours passed before they arrived. Twice attempts were made to force the doors. … At last about nine o'clock the troops appeared, and the crowd, without resisting, agreed to disperse. A great part of them, however, were bent on further outrages. They attacked the Sardinian Minister's chapel in Duke Street, Lincoln's Inn Fields. They broke it open, carried away the silver lamps and other furniture, burnt the benches in the street, and flung the burning brands into the chapel. The Bavarian Minister's chapel in Warwick Street Golden Square was next attacked, plundered, and burnt before the soldiers could intervene. They at last appeared upon the scene, and some slight scuffling ensued, and thirteen of the rioters were captured. It was hoped that the riot had expended its force, for Saturday and the greater part of Sunday passed with little disturbance, but on Sunday afternoon new outrages began in Moorfields, where a considerable Catholic population resided. Several houses were attacked and plundered, and the chapels utterly ruined."

W. E. H. Lecky, History of English in the 18th Century, chapter 13 (volume 3).

   "On Monday the rioters continued their outrages. …
   Notwithstanding, however, that the town might now be said to
   have been in the possession of the rioters for more than three
   days, it does not appear that any more decided measures were
   adopted to put them down. Their audacity and violence, as
   might have been expected, increased under this treatment. On
   Tuesday afternoon and evening the most terrible excesses were
   perpetrated. Notwithstanding that a considerable military
   force was stationed around and on the way to the Houses of
   Parliament, several of the members were again insulted and
   maltreated in the grossest manner. Indeed, the mob by this
   time seem to have got over all apprehensions of the
   interference of the soldiers." The principal event of the day
   was the attack on Newgate prison, which was destroyed and the
   prisoners released. "The New Prison, Clerkenwell, was also
   broken open … and all the prisoners set at large. Attacks
   were likewise made upon several … private houses. … But
   the most lamentable of all the acts of destruction yet
   perpetrated by these infuriated ruffians was that with which
   they closed the day of madness and crime—the entire
   demolition of the residence of Lord Mansfield, the venerable
   Lord Chief Justice, in Bloomsbury Square. …
{938}
   The scenes that took place on Wednesday were still more
   dreadful than those by which Tuesday had been marked. The town
   indeed was now in a state of complete insurrection: and it was
   felt by all that the mob must be put down at any cost, if it
   was intended to save the metropolis of the kingdom from utter
   destruction. This day, accordingly, the military were out in
   all quarters, and were everywhere employed against the
   infuriated multitudes who braved their power. … The King's
   Bench Prison, the New Gaol, the Borough Clink, the Surrey
   Bridewell, were all burned today. … The Mansion House, the
   Museum, the Exchange, the Tower, and the Bank, were all, it is
   understood, marked for destruction. Lists of these and the
   other buildings which it was intended to attack were
   circulated among the mob. The bank was actually twice
   assaulted; but a powerful body of soldiers by whom it was
   guarded on both occasions drove off the crowd, though not
   without great slaughter. At some places the rioters returned
   the fire of the military. … Among other houses which were
   set on fire in Holborn were the extensive premises of Mr.
   Langdale, the distiller, who was a Catholic. … The worst
   consequence of this outrage, however, was the additional
   excitement which the frenzy of the mob received from the
   quantities of spirits with which they were here supplied. Many
   indeed drank themselves literally dead; and many more, who had
   rendered themselves unable to move, perished in the midst of
   the flames. Six and thirty fires, it is stated, were this
   night to be seen, from one spot, blazing at the same time in
   different quarters of the town. … By Thursday morning …
   the exertions of Government, now thoroughly alarmed, had
   succeeded in bringing up from different parts so large a force
   of regular troops and of militia as to make it certain that
   the rioters would be speedily overpowered. … The soldiers
   attacked the mob in various places, and everywhere with
   complete success. … On Friday the courts of justice were
   again opened for business, and the House of Commons met in the
   evening. … On this first day after the close of the riots,
   'the metropolis,' says the Annual Register, 'presented in many
   places the image of a city recently stormed and sacked.' …
   Of the persons apprehended and brought to trial, 59 were
   capitally convicted; and of these more than 20 were executed;
   the others were sent to expiate their offences by passing the
   remainder of their days in hard labour and bondage in a
   distant land. … Lord George Gordon, in consequence of the
   part he had borne in the measures which led to these riots,
   was sent to the Tower, and some time afterwards brought to
   trial on a charge of high treason," but was acquitted.

ALSO IN: J. H. Jesse, Memoirs of the Life and Reign of George III., chapter 34 (volume 2).

      W. J. Amherst,
      History of Catholic Emancipation,
      volume 1, chapters 1-5.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1780-1782.
   Declining strength of the government.
   Rodney's great naval victory.
   The siege of Gibraltar.

"The fall of Lord North's ministry, and with it the overthrow of the personal government of George III., was now close at hand. For a long time the government had been losing favour. In the summer of 1780, the British victories in South Carolina had done something to strengthen, yet when, in the autumn of that year, Parliament was dissolved, although the king complained that his expenses for purposes of corruption had been twice as great as ever before, the new Parliament was scarcely more favourable to the ministry than the old one. Misfortunes and perplexities crowded in the path of Lord North and his colleagues. The example of American resistance had told upon Ireland. … For more than a year there had been war in India, where Hyder Ali, for the moment, was carrying everything before him. France, eager to regain her lost foothold upon Hindustan, sent a strong armament thither, and insisted that England must give up all her Indian conquests except Bengal. For a moment England's great Eastern empire tottered, and was saved only by the superhuman efforts of Warren Hastings, aided by the wonderful military genius of Sir Eyre Coote. In May, 1781, the Spaniards had taken Pensacola, thus driving the British from their last position in Florida. In February, 1782, the Spanish fleet captured Minorca, and the siege of Gibraltar, which had been kept up for nearly three years, was pressed with redoubled energy. During the winter the French recaptured St. Eustatius, and handed it over to Holland; and Grasse's great fleet swept away all the British possessions in the West Indies, except Jamaica, Barbadoes, and Antigua. All this time the Northern League kept up its jealous watch upon British cruisers in the narrow seas, and among all the powers of Europe the government of George could not find a single friend. The maritime supremacy of England was, however, impaired but for a moment. Rodney was sent back to the West Indies, and on the 12th of April, 1782, his fleet of 36 ships encountered the French near the island of Sainte-Marie-Galante. The battle of eleven hours which ensued, and in which 5,000 men were killed or wounded, was one of the most tremendous contests ever witnessed upon the ocean before the time of Nelson. The French were totally defeated, and Grasse was taken prisoner,—the first French commander-in-chief, by sea or land, who had fallen into an enemy's hands since Marshal Tallard gave up his sword to Marlborough, on the terrible day of Blenheim. France could do nothing to repair this crushing disaster. Her naval power was eliminated from the situation at a single blow; and in the course of the summer the English achieved another great success by overthrowing the Spaniards at Gibraltar, after a struggle which, for dogged tenacity, is scarcely paralleled in modern warfare. By the autumn of 1782, England, defeated in the United States, remained victorious and defiant as regarded the other parties to the war."

"Gibraltar … had been closely invested for nearly three years. At first, the Spanish had endeavoured to starve the place; but their blockade having been on two occasions forced by the British fleet, they relinquished that plan, and commenced a regular siege. During the spring and summer of 1781, the fortress was bombarded, but with little success; in the month of November, the enemy were driven from their approaches, and the works themselves were almost destroyed by a sally from the garrison. Early in the year, however, the fall of Minorca enabled the Spanish to reform the siege of Gibraltar. {939} De Grillon himself, the hero of Minorca, superseding Alvarez, assumed the chief command. … The garrison of Gibraltar comprised no more than 7,000 men; while the force of the allied monarchies amounted to 33,000 soldiers, with an immense train of artillery. De Grillon, however, who was well acquainted with the fortress, had little hope of taking it from the land side, but relied with confidence on the formidable preparations which he had made for bombarding it from the sea. Huge floating batteries, bomb-proof and shot-proof, were constructed; and it was calculated that the action of these tremendous engines alone would be sufficient to destroy the works. Besides the battering ships, of which ten were provided, a large armament of vessels of all rates was equipped; and a grand attack was to take place, both from sea and land, with 400 pieces of artillery. Six months were consumed in these formidable preparations; and it was not until September that they were completed. A partial cannonade took place on the 9th and three following days; but the great attack, which was to decide the fate of the beleaguered fortress, was commenced on the 13th of September. On that day, the combined fleets of France and Spain, consisting of 47 sail of the line, besides numerous ships of inferior rate, were drawn out in order of battle before Gibraltar. Numerous bomb ketches, gun and mortar boats, dropped their anchors within close range; while the ten floating batteries were moored with strong iron chains within half gun-shot of the walls. On the land 170 guns were prepared to open fire simultaneously with the ships; and 40,000 troops were held in readiness to rush in at the first practicable breach. … The grand attack was commenced at ten o'clock in the forenoon, by the fire of 400 pieces of artillery. The great floating batteries, securely anchored within 600 yards of the walls, poured in an incessant storm, from 142 guns. Elliot had less than 100 guns to reply to the cannonade both from sea and land; and of these he made the most judicious use. Disregarding the attack from every other quarter, he concentrated the whole of his ordnance on the floating batteries in front of him; for unless these were silenced, their force would prove irresistible. But for a long time the thunder of 80 guns made no impression on the enormous masses of wood and iron. The largest shells glanced harmless from their sloping roofs; the heaviest shot could not penetrate their hulls seven feet in thickness. Nevertheless, the artillery of the garrison was still unceasingly directed against these terrible engines of destruction. A storm of red-hot balls was poured down upon them; and about midday it was observed that the combustion caused by these missiles, which had hitherto been promptly extinguished, was beginning to take effect. Soon after, the partial cessation of the guns from the battering ships, and the volumes of smoke which issued from their decks, made it manifest they were on fire, and that all the efforts of the crews were required to subdue the conflagration. Towards evening, their guns became silent; and before midnight, the flames burst forth from the principal floating battery, which carried the Admiral's flag. … Eight of the 10 floating batteries were on fire during the night; and the only care of the besieged was to save from the flames and from the waters, the wretched survivors of that terrible flotilla, which had so recently menaced them with annihilation. … The loss of the enemy was computed at 2,000; that of the garrison, in killed and wounded, amounted to no more than 84. The labour of a few hours sufficed to repair the damage sustained by the works. The French and Spanish fleets remained in the Straits, expecting the appearance of the British squadron under Lord Howe; and relying on their superiority in ships and weight of metal, they still hoped that the result of an action at sea might enable them to resume the siege of Gibraltar. Howe, having been delayed by contrary winds, did not reach the Straits until the 9th of October; and, notwithstanding the superior array which the enemy presented, he was prepared to risk an engagement. But at this juncture, a storm having scattered the combined fleet, the British Admiral was enabled to land his stores and reinforcements without opposition. Having performed this duty, he set sail for England; nor did the Spanish Admiral, though still superior by eight sail of the line, venture to dispute his passage. Such was the close of the great siege of Gibraltar; an undertaking which had been regarded by Spain as the chief object of the war, which she had prosecuted for three years, and which, at the last, had been pressed by the whole force of the allied monarchies. After this event, the war itself was virtually at an end."

ALSO IN: Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope), History of England, 1713-1783, chapters 62-66 (volume 7).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1782-1783.
   Fall of Lord North.
   The second Rockingham Ministry.
   Fox, Shelburne, and the American peace negotiations.
   The Shelburne Ministry.
   Coalition of Fox and North.

"There comes a point when even the most servile majority of an unrepresentative Parliament finds the strain of party allegiance too severe, and that point was reached when the surrender of Cornwallis at Yorktown became known in November, 1781. 'O God, it is all over!' cried Lord North, wringing his hands, when he heard of it. … On February 7, a vote of censure, moved by Fox, upon Lord Sandwich, was negatived by a majority of only twenty-two. On the 22nd, General Conway lost a motion in favour of putting an end to the war by only one vote. On the 27th, the motion was renewed in the form of a resolution and carried by a majority of nineteen.

Still the King would not give his consent to Lord North's resignation. Rather than commit himself to the opposition, he seriously thought of abdicating his crown and retiring to Hanover. … Indeed, if it had not been for his large family, and the character of the Prince of Wales, already too well known, it is far from improbable that he would have carried this idea into execution, and retired from a Government of which he was no longer master. {940} By the 20th [of March], however, even George III. saw that the game could not be kept up any longer. He gave permission to Lord North to announce his resignation, and parted with him with the characteristic words: 'Remember, my Lord, it is you who desert me, not I who desert you.' … Even when the long-deferred blow fell, and Lord North's Ministry was no more, the King refused to send for Lord Rockingham. He still flattered himself that he might get together a Ministry from among the followers of Chatham and of Lord North, which would be able to restore peace without granting independence, and Shelburne was the politician whom he fixed upon to aid him in this scheme. … Shelburne, however, was too clever to fall into the trap. A Ministry which had against it the influence of the Rockingham connection and the talents of Charles Fox, and would not receive the hearty support of Lord North's phalanx of placemen, was foredoomed to failure. The pear was not yet ripe. He saw clearly enough that his best chance of permanent success lay in becoming the successor, not the supplanter, of Rockingham. … His game was to wait. He respectfully declined to act without Rockingham. … Before Rockingham consented to take office, he procured a distinct pledge from the King that he would not put a veto upon American independence, if the Ministers recommended it; and on the 27th of March the triumph of the Opposition was completed by the formation of a Ministry, mainly representative of the old Whig families, pledged to a policy of economical reform, and of peace with America on the basis of the acknowledgment of independence. Fox received the reward of his services by being appointed Foreign Secretary, and Lord Shelburne took charge of the Home and Colonial Department. Rockingham himself went to the Treasury, Lord John Cavendish became Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lord Keppel First Lord of the Admiralty, Lord Camden President of the Council. Burke was made Paymaster of the Forces, and Sheridan Under-Secretary to his friend Fox. At the King's special request, Thurlow was allowed to remain as Chancellor. … The Cabinet no sooner met than it divided into the parties of Shelburne and of Fox, while Rockingham, Conway, and Cavendish tried to hold the balance between them, and Thurlow artfully fomented the dissensions. … Few Administrations have done so much in a short time as did the Rockingham Ministry during the three months of its existence, and it so happened that the lion's share of the work fell to Fox. Upon his appointment to office his friends noticed a change in habits and manner of life, as complete as that ascribed to Henry V. on his accession to the throne. He is said never to have touched a card during either of his three short terms of office. … By the division of work among the two Secretaries of State, all matters which related to the colonies were under the control of Shelburne, while those relating to foreign Governments belonged to the department of Fox. Consequently it became exceedingly important to these two Ministers whether independence was to be granted to the American colonies by the Crown of its own accord, or should be reserved in order to form part of the general treaty of peace. According to Fox's plan, independence was to be offered at once fully and freely to the Americans. They would thus gain at a blow all that they wanted. Their jealousy of French and Spanish interests in America would at once assert itself, and England would have no difficulty in bringing them over to her side in the negotiations with France. Such was Fox's scheme, but unfortunately, directly America became independent, she ceased to be in any way subject to Shelburne's management, and the negotiations for peace would pass wholly out of his control into the hands of Fox. … Shelburne at once threw his whole weight into the opposite scale. He urged with great effect that to give independence at once was to throw away the trump card. It was the chief concession which England would be required to make, the only one which she was, prepared to make; and to make it at once, before she was even asked, was wilfully to deprive herself of her best weapon. The King and the Cabinet adopted Shelburne's view. Fox's scheme for the isolation of France failed, and a double negotiation for peace was set on foot. Shelburne and Franklin took charge of the treaty with America [see UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1782 (SEPTEMBER)], Fox and M. de Vergennes that with France and Spain and Holland. An arrangement of this sort could hardly have succeeded had the two Secretaries been the firmest of friends; since they were rivals and enemies it was foredoomed to failure." Fox found occasion very soon to complain that important matters in Shelburne's negotiation with Franklin were kept from his knowledge, and once more he proposed to the Cabinet an immediate concession of independence to the Americans. Again he was outvoted, and, "defeated and despairing, only refrained from resigning there and then because he would not embitter Rockingham's last moments upon earth." This was on the 30th of June. "On the 1st of, July Rockingham died, and on the 2nd Shelburne accepted from the King the task of forming a Ministry." Fox, of course, declined to enter it, and suffered in influence because he could not make public the reasons for his inability to act with Lord Shelburne. "Only Lord Cavendish, Burke, and the Solicitor-General, Lee, left office with Portland and Fox, and the gap was more than supplied by the entrance of William Pitt [Lord Chatham's son, who had entered Parliament in 1780] into the Cabinet as Chancellor of the Exchequer. Fortune seemed to smile on Shelburne. He … might well look forward to a long and unclouded tenure of political power. His Administration lasted not quite seven months." It was weakened by distrust and dissatisfaction among its members, and overturned in February, 1783, by a vote of censure on the peace which it had concluded with France, Spain and the American States. It was succeeded in the Government by the famous Coalition Ministry formed under Fox and Lord North. "The Duke of Portland succeeded Shelburne at the Treasury. Lord North and Fox became the Secretaries of State. Lord John Cavendish returned to the Exchequer, Keppel to the Admiralty, and Burke to the Paymastership, the followers of Lord North … were rewarded with the lower offices. Few combinations in the history of political parties have been received by historians and posterity with more unqualified condemnation than the coalition of 1783. … There is no evidence to show that at the time it struck politicians in general as being specially heinous."

Lord E. Fitzmaurice, Life of William, Earl of Shelburne, volume 3, chapters 3-6.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1783.
The definitive Treaty of Peace with the United States of
America signed at Paris.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1783-1787.
   Fall of the Coalition.
   Ascendancy of the younger Pitt.
   His extraordinary grasp of power.
   His attempted measures of reform.

"Parliament met on the 11th of November; on the 18th Fox asked for leave to introduce a Bill for the Better Government of India. That day month[?] the Government had ceased to exist. Into the merits of the Bill it is not now necessary to enter. … It was clear that it furnished an admirable weapon against an unpopular Coalition which had resisted economical reform, demanded a great income for a debauched prince, and now aimed at securing a monopoly of the vast patronage of India,—patronage which, genially exercised by Dundas, was soon to secure Scotland for Pitt. In the House of Commons the majority for the Bill was over 100; the loftiest eloquence of Burke was exerted in its favour; and Fox was, as ever, dauntless and crushing in debate. But outside Parliament the King schemed, and controversy raged. … When the Bill arrived at the House of Lords, the undertakers were ready. The King had seen Temple, and empowered him to communicate to all whom it might concern his august disapprobation. The uneasy whisper circulated, and the joints of the lords became as water. The peers who yearned for lieutenancies or regiments, for stars or strawberry leaves; the prelates, who sought a larger sphere of usefulness; the minions of the bedchamber and the janissaries of the closet; all, temporal or spiritual, whose convictions were unequal to their appetite, rallied to the royal nod. … The result was overwhelming. The triumphant Coalition was paralysed by the rejection of their Bill. They rightly refused to resign, but the King could not sleep until he had resumed the seals. Late at night he sent for them. The messenger found North and Fox gaily seated at supper with their followers. At first he was not believed. 'The King would not dare do it,' exclaimed Fox. But the under Secretary charged with the message soon convinced them of its authenticity, and the seals were delivered with a light heart. In such dramatic fashion, and the springtide of its youth, fell that famous government, unhonoured and unwept. 'England,' once said Mr. Disraeli, 'does not love coalitions.' She certainly did not love this one. On this occasion there was neither hesitation nor delay; the moment had come, and the man. Within 12 hours of the King's receiving the seals, Pitt had accepted the First Lordship of the Treasury and the Chancellorship of the Exchequer. That afternoon his writ was moved amid universal derision. And so commenced a supreme and unbroken Ministry of 17 years. Those who laughed were hardly blamable, for the difficulties were tremendous. … The composition of the Government was … the least of Pitt's embarrassments. The majority against him in the House of Commons was not less than 40 or 50, containing, with the exception of Pitt himself and Dundas, every debater of eminence; while he had, before the meeting of Parliament, to prepare and to obtain the approval of the East India Company to a scheme which should take the place of Burke's. The Coalition Ministers were only dismissed on the 18th of December, 1783; but, when the House of Commons met on the 12th of January, 1784, all this had been done. The narrative of the next three months is stirring to read, but would require too much detail for our limits. … On the day of the meeting of Parliament, Pitt was defeated in two pitched divisions, the majorities against him being 39 and 54. His government seemed still-born. His colleagues were dismayed. The King came up from Windsor to support him. But in truth he needed no support. He had inherited from his father that confidence which made Chatham once say, 'I am sure that I can save this country, and that nobody else can'; which made himself say later, 'I place much dependence on my new colleagues; I place still more dependence on myself.' He had refused, in spite of the King's insistance, to dissolve; for he felt that the country required time. … The Clerkship of the Pells, a sinecure office worth not less than £3,000 a year, fell vacant the very day that Parliament met. It was universally expected that Pitt would take it as of right, and so acquire an independence, which would enable him to devote his life to politics, without care for the morrow. He had not £300 a year; his position was to the last degree precarious. … Pitt disappointed his friends and amazed his enemies. He gave the place to Barré. … To a nation inured to jobs this came as a revelation. … Above and beyond all was the fact that Pitt, young, unaided, and alone, held his own with the great leaders allied against him. … In face of so resolute a resistance, the assailants began to melt away. Their divisions, though they always showed a superiority to the Government, betrayed notable diminution. … On the 25th of March Parliament was dissolved, the announcement being retarded by the unexplained theft of the Great Seal. When the elections were over, the party of Fox, it was found, had shared the fate of the host of Sennacherib. The number of Fox's martyrs—of Fox's followers who had earned that nickname by losing their seats—was 160. … The King and Pitt were supported on the tidal wave of one of those great convulsions of feeling, which in Great Britain relieve and express pent-up national sentiment, and which in other nations produce revolutions."

   "Three subjects then needed the attention of a great
   statesman, though none of them were so pressing as to force
   themselves on the attention of a little statesman. These were,
   our economical and financial legislation, the imperfection of
   our parliamentary representation, and the unhappy' condition
   of Ireland. Pitt dealt with all three. … He brought in a
   series of resolutions consolidating our customs laws, of which
   the inevitable complexity may be estimated by their number.
   They amounted to 133, and the number of Acts of Parliament
   which they restrained or completed was much greater. He
   attempted, and successfully, to apply the principles of Free
   Trade, the principles which he was the first of English
   statesmen to learn from Adam Smith, to the actual commerce of
   the country. … The financial reputation of Pitt has greatly
   suffered from the absurd praise which was once lavished on the
   worst part of it.
{942}
   The dread of national ruin from the augmentation of the
   national debt was a sort of nightmare in that age. … Mr.
   Pitt sympathised with the general apprehension and created the
   well-known 'Sinking Fund.' He proposed to apply annually a
   certain fixed sum to the payment of the debt, which was in
   itself excellent, but he omitted to provide real money to be
   so paid. … He proposed to borrow the money to payoff the
   debt, and fancied that he thus diminished it. … The exposure
   of this financial juggle, for though not intended to be so,
   such in fact it was, has reacted very unfavourably upon Mr.
   Pitt's deserved fame. … The subject of parliamentary reform
   is the one with which, in Mr. Pitt's early days, the public
   most connected his name, and is also that with which we are
   now least apt to connect it. … He proposed the abolition of
   the worst of the rotten boroughs fifty years before Lord Grey
   accomplished it. … If the strong counteracting influence of
   the French Revolution had not changed the national opinion, he
   would unquestionably have amended our parliamentary
   representation. … The state of Ireland was a more pressing
   difficulty than our financial confusion, our economical
   errors, or our parliamentary corruption. … He proposed at
   once to remedy the national danger of having two Parliaments,
   and to remove the incredible corruption of the old Irish
   Parliament, by uniting the three kingdoms in a single
   representative system, of which the Parliament should sit in
   England. … Of these great reforms he was only permitted to
   carry a few into execution. His power, as we have described
   it, was great when his reign commenced, and very great it
   continued to be for very many years; but the time became
   unfavourable for all forward-looking statesmanship."

The king's second derangement, which began to show itself in the summer of 1788, was more serious and of longer duration than the first. "He was able … to sign a warrant for the further prorogation of Parliament by commission, from the 25th September to the 20th November. But, in the interval, the king's malady increased: he was wholly deprived of reason, and placed under restraint; and for several days his life was in danger. As no authority could be obtained from him for a further prorogation, both Houses assembled on the 20th November. … According to long established law, Parliament, without being opened by the Crown, had no authority to proceed to any business whatever: but the necessity of an occasion, for which the law had made no provision, was now superior to the law; and Parliament accordingly proceeded to deliberate upon the momentous questions to which the king's illness had given rise." By Mr. Fox it was maintained that "the Prince of Wales had as clear a right to exercise the power of sovereignty during the king's incapacity as if the king were actually dead; and that it was merely for the two Houses of Parliament to pronounce at what time he should commence, the exercise of his right. … Mr. Pitt, on the other hand, maintained that as no legal provision had been made for carrying on the government, it belonged to the Houses of Parliament to make such provision." The discussion to which these differences, and many obstructing circumstances in the situation of affairs, gave rise, was so prolonged, that the king recovered his faculties (February, 1789) before the Regency Bill, framed by Mr. Pitt, had been passed.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1793.
The Coalition against Revolutionary France.
Unsuccessful siege of Dunkirk.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1793-1796.
   Popular feeling towards the French Revolution.
   Small number of the English Jacobins.
   Pitt forced into war.
   Tory panic and reign of terror.
   Violence of government measures.

   "That the war [of Revolutionary France] with Germany would
   widen into a vast European struggle, a struggle in which the
   peoples would rise against their oppressors, and the freedom
   which France had won diffuse itself over the world, no French
   revolutionist doubted for an hour. Nor did they doubt that in
   this struggle England would join them. It was from England
   that they had drawn those principles of political and social
   liberty which they believed themselves to be putting into
   practice. It was to England that they looked above all for
   approbation and sympathy. … To the revolutionists at Paris
   the attitude of England remained unintelligible and
   irritating. Instead of the aid they had counted on, they found
   but a cold neutrality. … But that this attitude was that of the
   English people as a whole was incredible to the French
   enthusiasts. … Their first work therefore they held to be
   the bringing about a revolution in England. … They strove,
   through a number of associations which had formed themselves
   under the name of Constitutional Clubs, to rouse the same
   spirit which they had roused in France; and the French envoy,
   Chauvelin, protested warmly against a proclamation which
   denounced this correspondence as seditious. … Burke was
   still working hard in writings whose extravagance of style was
   forgotten in their intensity of feeling to spread alarm
   throughout Europe. He had from the first encouraged the
   emigrant princes to take arms, and sent his son to join them
   at Coblentz. 'Be alarmists,' he wrote to them; 'diffuse
   terror!' But the royalist terror which he sowed would have
   been of little moment had it not roused a revolutionary terror
   in France. … In November the Convention decreed that France
   offered the aid of her soldiers to all nations who would
   strive for freedom. … In the teeth of treaties signed only
   two years before, and of the stipulation made by England when
   it pledged itself to neutrality, the French Government
   resolved to attack Holland, and ordered its generals to
   enforce by arms the opening of the Scheldt [see FRANCE: A.
   D.1792-1793 (DECEMBER-FEBRUARY)]. To do this was to force
   England into war. Public opinion was already pressing every
   day harder upon Pitt. … But even while withdrawing our
   Minister from Paris on the imprisonment of the King, to whose
   Court he had been commissioned, Pitt clung stubbornly to a
   policy of peace. …
{943}
   No hour of Pitt's life is so great as the hour when he stood
   lonely and passionless before the growth of national passion,
   and refused to bow to the gathering cry for war. … But
   desperately as Pitt struggled for peace, his struggle was in
   vain. … Both sides ceased from diplomatic communications,
   and in February 1793 France issued her Declaration of War.
   From that moment Pitt's power was at an end. His pride, his
   immovable firmness, and the general confidence of the nation,
   still kept him at the head of affairs; but he could do little
   save drift along with a tide of popular feeling which he never
   fully understood. Around him the country broke out in a fit of
   passion and panic which rivalled the passion and panic
   oversea. … The partisans of Republicanism were in reality
   but a few handfuls of men. … But in the mass of Englishmen
   the dread of these revolutionists passed for the hour into
   sheer panic. Even the bulk of the Whig party believed property
   and the constitution to be in peril, and forsook Fox when he
   still proclaimed his faith in France and the Revolution."

"Burke himself said that not one man in a hundred was a Revolutionist. Fox's revolutionary sentiments met with no response, but with general reprobation, and caused even his friends to shrink from his side. Of the so-called Jacobin Societies, the Society for Constitutional Information numbered only a few hundred members, who, though they held extreme opinions, were headed by men of character, and were quite incapable of treason or violence. The Corresponding Society was of a more sinister character; but its numbers were computed only at 6,000, and it was swallowed up in the loyal masses of the people. … It is sad to say it, but when Pitt had once left the path of right, he fell headlong into evil. To gratify the ignoble fears and passions of his party, he commenced a series of attacks on English liberty of speaking and writing which Mr. Massey, a strong anti-revolutionist, characterizes as unparalleled since the time of Charles I. The country was filled with spies. A band of the most infamous informers was called into activity by the government. … There was a Tory reign of terror, to which a slight increase of the panic among the upper classes would probably have lent a redder hue. Among other measures of repression the Habeas Corpus Act was suspended; and the liberties of all men were thus placed at the mercy of the party in power. … In Scotland the Tory reign of terror was worse than in England."

"The gaols were filled with political delinquents, and no man who professed himself a reformer could say, that the morrow might not see him a prisoner upon a charge of high treason. … But the rush towards despotism against which the Whigs could not stand, was arrested by the people. Although the Habeas Corpus had fallen, the Trial by Jury remained, and now, as it had done before, when the alarm of fictitious plots had disposed the nation to acquiesce in the surrender of its liberties, it opposed a barrier which Toryism could not pass." The trials which excited most interest were those of Hardy, who organized the Corresponding Society, and Horne Tooke. But no unlawful conduct or treasonable designs could be proved against them by creditable witnesses, and both were acquitted." The public joy was very general at these acquittals. … The war lost its popularity; bread grew scarce; commerce was crippled; … the easy success that had been anticipated was replaced by reverses. The people clamoured and threw stones at the king, and Pitt eagerly took advantage of their violence to tear away the few shreds of the constitution which yet covered them. He brought forward the Seditious Meetings bill, and the Treasonable Practices bill. Bills which, among other provisions, placed the conduct of every political meeting under the protection of a magistrate, and rendered disobedience to his command a felony."

ALSO IN: J. Adolphus, History of England: Reign of George III., chapters 81-89 and 95 (volumes 5-6).

J. Gifford, History of the Political Life of William Pitt, chapters 23-24, and 28-29 (volumes 3-4).

W. Massey, History of England: Reign of George III., chapters 32-36 (volumes 3-4).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1794.
   Campaigns of the Coalition against France.
   French successes in the Netherlands and on the Rhine.
   Conquest of Corsica.
   Naval victory of Lord Howe.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1794-1795.
   Withdrawal of troops from the Netherlands.
   French conquest of Holland.
   Establishment of the Batavian Republic.
   Crumbling of the European Coalition.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1796 (OCTOBER).
Unsuccessful peace negotiations with the French Directory.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1796-1798.
Attempted French invasions of Ireland.
Irish Insurrection.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1797.
   Monetary panic and suspension of specie payments.
   Defeat of the first Reform movement.
   Mutiny of the Fleet.
   Naval victories of Cape St. Vincent and Camperdown.

"The aspect of affairs in Britain had never been so clouded during the 18th century as at the beginning of the year 1797. The failure of Lord Malmesbury's mission to Paris had closed every hope of an honourable termination to the war, while of all her original allies, Austria alone remained; the national burdens were continually increasing, and the three-per-cents had fallen to fifty-one; while party spirit raged with uncommon violence, and Ireland was in a state of partial insurrection. A still greater disaster resulted from the panic arising from the dread of invasion, and which produced such a run on all the banks, that the Bank of England itself was reduced to payment in sixpences, and an Order in Council appeared (February 26) for the suspension of all cash payments. This measure, at first only temporary, was prolonged from time to time by parliamentary enactments, making bank-notes a legal-tender; and it was not till 1819, after the conclusion of peace, that the recurrence to metallic currency took place. {944} The Opposition deemed this a favourable opportunity to renew their cherished project of parliamentary reform; and on 26th May, Mr. (afterwards Lord) Grey brought forward a plan chiefly remarkable for containing the outlines of that subsequently carried into effect in 1831. It was negatived, however, after violent debates, by a majority of 258 against 93. After a similar strife of parties, the motion for the continuance of the war was carried by a great majority in both houses; and the requisite supplies were voted. … Unknown to the government, great discontent had for a long time prevailed in the navy. The exciting causes were principality the low rate of pay (which had not been raised since the time of Charles II.), the unequal distribution of prize-money, and undue severity in the maintenance of discipline. These grounds of complaint, with others not less well founded, gave rise to a general conspiracy, which broke out (April 15) in the Channel fleet under Lord Bridport. All the ships fell under the power of the insurgents; but they maintained perfect order, and memorialised the Admiralty and the Commons on their grievances: their demands being examined by government, and found to be reasonable, were granted; and on the 7th of May the fleet returned to its duty. But scarcely was the spirit of disaffection quelled in this quarter, when it broke out in a more alarming form (May 22) among the squadron at the Nore, which was soon after (June 6) joined by the force which had been cruising off the Texel under Lord Duncan. The mutineers appointed a seaman named Parker to the command; and, blockading the mouth of the Thames, announced their demands in such a tone of menacing audacity as insured their instant rejection by the government. This second mutiny caused dreadful consternation in London; but the firmness of the King remained unshaken, and he was nobly seconded by the parliament. A bill was passed, prohibiting all communication with the mutineers under pain of death. Sheerness and Tilbury Fort were armed and garrisoned for the defence of the Thames; and the sailors, finding the national feelings strongly arrayed against them, became gradually sensible that their enterprise was desperate. One by one the ships returned to their duty; and on 15th June all had submitted. Parker and several other ringleaders suffered death; but clemency was extended to the multitude. … Notwithstanding all these dissensions, the British navy was never more terrible to its enemies than during this eventful year. On the 14th of February, the Spanish fleet of 27 sail of the line and 12 frigates, which had put to sea for the purpose of raising the blockade of the French harbours, was encountered off Cape St. Vincent by Sir John Jarvis, who had only 15 ships and 6 frigates. By the old manœuvre of breaking the line, 9 of the Spanish ships were cut off from the rest; and the admiral, while attempting to regain them by wearing round the rear of the British line, was boldly assailed by Nelson and Collingwood,—the former of whom, in the Captain, of 74 guns, engaged at once two of the enemy's gigantic vessels, the Santissima Trinidad of 136 guns, and the San Josef of 112; while the Salvador del Mundo, also of 112 guns, struck in a quarter of an hour to Collingwood. Nelson at length carried the San Josef by boarding, and received the Spanish admiral's sword on his own quarterdeck. The Santissima Trinidad—an enormous four-decker—though her colours were twice struck, escaped in the confusion; but the San Josef and the Salvador, with two 74-gun ships, remained in the hands of the British; and the Spanish armament, thus routed by little more than half its own force, retired in the deepest dejection to Cadiz, which was shortly after insulted by a bombardment from the gallant Nelson. A more important victory than that of Sir John Jarvis (created in consequence Earl St. Vincent) was never gained at sea, from the evident superiority of skill and seamanship which it demonstrated in the British navy. The battle of St. Vincent disconcerted the plans of Truguet for the naval campaign; but later in the season a second attempt to reach Brest was made by a Dutch fleet of 15 sail of the line and 11 frigates, under the command of De Winter, a man of tried courage and experience. The British blockading fleet, under Admiral Duncan, consisted of 16 ships and 3 frigates; and the battle was fought (October 16) off Camperdown, about nine miles from the shore of Holland. The manœuvres of the British Admiral were directed to cut off the enemy's retreat to his own shores; and this having been accomplished, the action commenced yard-arm to yard-arm, and continued with the utmost fury for more than three hours. The Dutch sailors fought with the most admirable skill and courage, and proved themselves worthy descendants of Van Tromp and De Ruyter; but the prowess of the British was irresistible. 12 sail of the line, including the flagship, two 56-gun ships, and 2 frigates, struck their colours; but the nearness of the shore enabled two of the prizes to escape, and one 74-gun ship foundered. The obstinacy of the conflict was evidenced by the nearly equal number of killed and wounded, which amounted to 1,040 English, and 1,160 Dutch. … The only remaining operations of the year were the capture of Trinidad in February, by a force which soon after was repulsed from before Porto Rico; and an abortive attempt at a descent in Pembroke Bay by about 1,400 French."

Epitome of Alison's History of Europe, sections 190-196 (chapter 22, volume 5 of complete work).

ALSO IN: J. Adolphus, History of England: Reign of George III., chapters 100-103 (volume 6).

Captain A. T. Mahan, Influence of Sea Power on the French Revolution and Empire, chapters 8 and 11 (volume 1).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1799 (AUGUST-OCTOBER).
   Expedition against Holland.
   Seizure of the Dutch fleet.
   Ignominious ending of the enterprise.
   Capitulation of the Duke of York.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1800.
Legislative union of Ireland with Great Britain.
Creation of the "United Kingdom."

ENGLAND: A. D. 1801-1802.
   Import of the Treaty of Luneville.
   Bonaparte's preparations for conflict with Great Britain alone.
   Retirement of Pitt.
   The Northern Maritime League and its summary annihilation at
   Copenhagen.
   Expulsion of the French from Egypt.
   The Peace of Amiens.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1801-1806.
   Pitt's promise to the Irish Catholics broken by the King.
   His resignation.
   The Addington Ministry.
   The Peace of Amiens.
   War resumed.
   Pitt at the helm again.
   His death.
   The Ministry of "All the Talents."

"The union with Ireland introduced a new topic of party discussion, which quickly became only second to that of parliamentary reform. In transplanting the parliament of College Green to St. Stephen's, Pitt had transplanted the questions which were there debated; and, of these, none had been more important than the demand of the Catholics to be admitted to the common rights of citizens. Pitt, whose Toryism was rather the imperiousness of a haughty master, than the cautious cowardice of the miser of power, thought their complaints were just. In his private negotiations with the Irish popular leaders he probably promised that emancipation should be the sequel to the union. In his place in parliament he certainly gave an intimation, which from the mouth of a minister could receive no second interpretation. Pitt was not a minister who governed by petty stratagems, by ambiguous professions, and by skilful shuffles: he was at least an honourable enemy. He prepared to fulfil the pledge he had given, and to admit the Catholics within the pale of the constitution. It had been better for the character of George III. had he imitated the candour of his minister; had he told him that he had made a promise he would not be suffered to fulfil, before he had obtained the advantage to gain which that promise had been made. When Pitt proposed Catholic emancipation as one of the topics of the king's speech, for the session of 1801, the royal negative was at once interposed, and when Dundas persisted in his attempt to overcome his master's objections, the king abruptly terminated the conference, saying, 'Scotch metaphysics cannot destroy religious obligations.' Pitt immediately tendered his resignation. … All that was brilliant in Toryism passed from the cabinet with the late minister: When Pitt and Canning were withdrawn, with their satellites, nothing remained of the Tory party but the mere courtiers who lived upon the favour of the king, and the insipid lees of the party; men who voted upon every subject in accordance with their one ruling idea—the certain ruin, which must follow the first particle of innovation. Yet from these relicts the king was obliged to form a new cabinet, for application to the Whigs was out of the question. These were more strenuous for emancipation than Pitt. Henry Addington, Pitt's speaker of the house of commons, was the person upon whom the king's choice fell; and he succeeded, with the assistance of the late premier, in filling up the offices at his disposal. … The peace of Amiens was the great work of this feeble administration [see FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802], and formed a severe commentary upon the boastings of the Tories. 'Unless the monarchy of France be restored,' Pitt had said, eight years before, 'the monarchy of England is lost forever.' Eight years of warfare had succeeded, yet the monarchy of France was not restored, and the crusade was stayed. England had surrendered her conquests, France retained hers; the landmarks of Europe had been in some degree restored; England, alone, remained burdened with the enduring consequences of the ruinous and useless strife. The peace was approved by the Whigs, who were glad of any respite from such a war, and by Pitt, who gave his support to the Addington administration. But he could not control his adherents. … As the instability of the peace grew manifest, the incompetency of the administration became generally acknowledged: with Pitt sometimes chiding, Windham and Canning, and Lords Spencer and Grenville continually attacking, and Fox and the Whigs only refraining from violent opposition from a knowledge that if Addington went out Pitt would be his successor, the conduct of the government was by no means an easy or a grateful task to a man destitute of commanding talents. When to these parliamentary difficulties were added a recommencement of the war, and a popular panic at Bonaparte's threatened invasion, Addington's embarrassments became inextricable. He had performed the business which Pitt had assigned him; he had made an experimental peace, and had saved Pitt's honour with the Roman Catholics. The object of his appointment he had unconsciously completed, and no sooner did his predecessor manifest an intention of returning to office, than the ministerial majorities began to diminish, and Addington found himself without support. On the 12th of April it was announced that Mr. Addington had resigned, and Pitt appeared to resume his station as a matter of course. During his temporary retirement, Pitt had, however, lost one section of his supporters. The Grenville party and the Whigs had gradually approximated, and the former now refused to come into the new arrangements unless Fox was introduced into the cabinet. To this Pitt offered no objection, but the king was firm—or obstinate. … In the following year, Addington himself, now created Viscount Sidmouth, returned to office with the subordinate appointment of president of the council. The conflagration had again spread through Europe. … Pitt had the mortification to see his grand continental coalition, the produce of such immense expense and the object of such hope, shattered in one campaign. At home, Lord Melville, his most faithful political supporter, was attacked by a charge from which he could not defend him, and underwent the impeachment of the commons for malpractices in his office as treasurer of the navy. Lord Sidmouth and several others seceded from the cabinet, and Pitt, broken in health, and dispirited by reverses, had lost much of his wonted energy. Thus passed away the year 1805. On the 23d of January, 1806, Pitt expired. … The death of Pitt was the dissolution of his administration. The Tory party was scattered in divisions and subdivisions innumerable. Canning now recognised no political leader, but retained his old contempt for Sidmouth and his friends, and his hostility to the Grenvilles for their breach with Pitt. Castlereagh, William Dundas, Hawkesbury, or Barham, although sufficiently effective when Pitt was present to direct and to defend, would have made a hopeless figure without him in face of such an opposition as the house of commons now afforded. {946} The administration, which was ironically designated by its opponents as 'All the Talents,' succeeded. Lord Grenville was first lord of the treasury. Fox chose the office of secretary for foreign affairs with the hope of putting an end to the war. Windham was colonial secretary. Earl Spencer had the seals of the home department. Erskine was lord chancellor. Mr. Grey was first lord of the admiralty. Sheridan, treasurer of the navy. Lord Sidmouth was privy seal. Lord Henry Petty, who, although now only in his 26th year, had already acquired considerable distinction as an eloquent Whig speaker, was advanced to the post of chancellor of the exchequer, the vacant chair of Pitt. Such were the men who now assumed the reins under circumstances of unparalleled difficulty."

ALSO IN: Earl Stanhope (Lord Mahon), Life of Pitt, chapters 29-44 (volumes 3-4).

G. Pellew, Life and Correspondence of Henry Addington, 1st Viscount Sidmouth, chapters 10-26 (volumes 1-2).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1802 (OCTOBER).
Protest against Bonaparte's interference in Switzerland.
His extraordinary reply.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1802-1803.
   Bonaparte's complaints and demands.
   The Peltier trial.
   The First Consul's rage.
   Declaration of war.
   Napoleon's seizure of Hanover.
   Cruel detention of all English people in France, Italy,
   Switzerland and the Netherlands.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1804-1809.
   Difficulties with the United States.
   Questions of neutral rights.
   Right of Search and Impressment.
   The American Embargo.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1805.
   Napoleon's threatened invasion.
   Nelson's long pursuit of the French fleet.
   His victory and death at Trafalgar.
   The crushing of the Coalition at Austerlitz.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1806.
Cession of Hanover to Prussia by Napoleon.
War with Prussia.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1806.
Attempted reinstatement of the dethroned King of Naples.
The Battle of Maida.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1806-1810.
   Commercial warfare with Napoleon.
   Orders in Council.
   Berlin and Milan Decrees.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1806-1812.
   The ministry of "All the Talents."
   Abolition of the Slave Trade.
   The Portland and the Perceval ministries.
   Confirmed insanity of George III.
   Beginning of the regency of the Prince of Wales.
   Assassination of Mr. Perceval.

   The "Ministry of All the Talents" is "remarkable solely for
   its mistakes, and is to be remembered chiefly for the death of
   Fox [September 13, 1806] and the abolition of the slave-trade.
   Fox was now destined at the close of his career to be
   disillusioned with regard to Napoleon. He at last thoroughly
   realized the insincerity of his hero. … The second great
   object of Fox's life he succeeded in attaining before his
   death;—this was the abolition of the slave-trade. For more
   than thirty years the question had been before the country,
   and a vigorous agitation had been conducted by Clarkson,
   Wilberforce, and Fox. . Pitt was quite at one with them on
   this question, and had brought forward motions on the subject.
   The House of Lords, however, rejected all measures of this
   description during the Revolutionary War, under the influence
   of the Anti-Jacobin feeling. It was reserved for Fox to
   succeed in carrying a Bill inflicting heavy pecuniary
   punishments on the traffic in slaves. And yet this
   measure—the sole fruit of Fox's statesmanship—was wholly
   inadequate; nor was it till the slave-trade was made felony in
   1811 that its final extinction was secured. The remaining acts
   of the Ministry were blunders. … Their financial system was
   a failure. They carried on the war so as to alienate their
   allies and to cover themselves with humiliation. Finally, they
   insisted on bringing forward a measure for the relief of the
   Catholics, though there was not the slightest hope of carrying
   it, and it could only cause a disruption of the Government.
   … The king and the Pittites were determined to oppose it,
   and so the Ministry agreed to drop the question under protest.
   George insisted on their withdrawing the protest, and as this was
   refused he dismissed them. … This then was the final triumph
   of George III. He had successfully dismissed this Ministry; he
   had maintained the principle that every Ministry is bound to
   withdraw any project displeasing to the king. These principles
   were totally inconsistent with Constitutional Government, and
   they indirectly precipitated Reform by rendering it absolutely
   necessary in order to curb the royal influence. … The Duke
   of Portland's sole claims to form a Ministry were his high
   rank, and the length of his previous services. His talents
   were never very great, and they were weakened by age and
   disease. The real leader was Mr. Perceval, the Chancellor of
   the Exchequer, a dexterous debater and a patriotic statesman.
   This Government, being formed on the closest Tory basis and on
   the king's influence, was pledged to pursue a retrograde
   policy and to oppose all measures of Reform. The one really
   high-minded statesman in the Cabinet was Canning, the Foreign
   Minister. His advanced views, however, continually brought him
   into collision with Castlereagh, the War Minister, a man of
   much inferior talents and the narrowest Tory views. Quarrels
   inevitably arose between the two, and there was no real Prime
   Minister to hold them strongly under control. … At last the
   ill-feeling ended in a duel, which was followed by a mutual
   resignation on the ground that neither could serve with the
   other. This was followed by the resignation of Portland, who
   felt himself wholly unequal to the arduous task of managing
   the Ministry any longer.
{947}
   The leadership now devolved on Perceval, who found himself in
   an apparently hopeless condition. His only supporters were
   Lords Liverpool, Eldon, Palmerston, and Wellesley. Neither
   Canning, Castlereagh, nor Sidmouth (Addington) would join him.
   The miserable expedition to Walcheren had just ended in
   ignominy. The campaign in the Peninsula was regarded as a
   chimerical enterprise, got up mainly for the benefit of a Tory
   commander. Certainly the most capable man in the Cabinet was
   Lord Wellesley, the Foreign Minister, but he was continually
   thwarted by the incapable men he had to deal with. However, as
   long as he remained at the Foreign Office, he supported the
   Peninsular War with vigour, and enabled his brother to carry
   out more effectually his plans with regard to the defence of
   Portugal. In November, 1810, the king was again seized with
   insanity, nor did he ever recover the use of his faculties
   during the rest of his life. The Ministry determined to bring
   forward Pitt's old Bill of 1788 in a somewhat more modified
   form, February, 1811. The Prince of Wales requested Grey and
   Grenville to criticize this, but, regarding their reply as
   lukewarm, he began to entertain an ill-will for them. At this
   moment the judicious flattery of his family brought him over
   from the Whigs, and he decided to continue Perceval in office.
   Wellesley, however, took the opportunity to resign, and was
   succeeded by Castlereagh, February, 1812. In May Perceval was
   assassinated by Mr. Bellingham, a lunatic, and his Ministry at
   once fell to pieces."

      R. I. and S. Wilberforce,
      Life of William Wilberforce,
      chapter 20 (volume 3).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1807 (FEBRUARY-SEPTEMBER).
   Operations in support of the Russians against the Turks and
   French.
   Bold naval attack on Constantinople and humiliating failure.
   Disastrous expedition to Egypt.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1807 (JUNE-JULY).
Alliance formed at Tilsit between Napoleon and Alexander I. of
Russia.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1807 (AUGUST-NOVEMBER).
Bombardment of Copenhagen and seizure of the Danish fleet.
War with Russia and Denmark.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1807 (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER).
Submission of Portugal to Napoleon under English advice.
Flight of the house of Braganza to Brazil.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1808 (MAY).
Ineffectual attempt to aid Sweden.
Expedition of Sir John Moore.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1808 (JULY).
   Peace and alliance with the Spanish people against the new
   Napoleonic monarchy.
   Opening of the Peninsular War.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1808-1809.
   Wellington's first campaign in the Peninsula.
   Convention of Cintra.
   Evacuation of Portugal by the French.
   Sir John Moore's advance into Spain and his retreat.
   His death at Corunna.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1809 (FEBRUARY-JULY).
Wellington sent to the Peninsula.
The passage of the Douro and the Battle of Talavera.

"Three times before, during the war, it had occurred to one or another, connected with the government, that it would be a good thing to hold Antwerp, and command the Scheldt, seize the French ships in the river, and get possession of their arsenals and dockyards. On each occasion, men of military science and experience had been consulted; and invariably they had pronounced against the scheme. Now, however, what Mr. Pitt had considered impracticable, Lord Castlereagh, with the rashness of incapacity, resolved should be done: and, in order not to be hindered, he avoided consulting with those who would have objected to the enterprise. Though the scene of action was to be the swamps at the mouths of the Scheldt, he consulted no physician. Having himself neither naval, military, nor medical knowledge, he assumed the responsibility—except such as the King and the Duke of York chose to share. … It was May, 1809, before any stir was apparent which could lead men outside the Cabinet to infer that an expedition for the Scheldt was in contemplation; but so early as the beginning of April (it is now known), Mr. Canning signified that he could not share in the responsibility of an enterprise which must so involve his own office. … The fleet that rode in the channel consisted of 39 ships of the line, and 36 frigates, and a due proportion of small vessels: in all, 245 vessels of war: and 400 transports carried 40,000 soldiers. Only one hospital ship was provided for the whole expedition, though the Surgeon General implored the grant of two more. He gave his reasons, but was refused. … The naval commander was Sir Richard J. Strachan, whose title to the responsibility no one could perceive, while many who had more experience were unemployed. The military command was given (as the selection of the present Cabinet bad been) to Lord Chatham, for no better reason than that he was a favourite with the King and Queen, who liked his gentle and courtly manners, and his easy and amiable temper. … The fatal mistake was made of not defining the respective authorities of the two commanders; and both being inexperienced or apathetic, each relied upon the other first, and cast the blame of failure upon him afterwards. In the autumn, an epigram of unknown origin was in every body's mouth, all over England:

      'Lord Chatham, with his sword undrawn,
      Stood waiting for Sir Richard Strachan;
      Sir Richard, longing to be at 'em,
      Stood waiting for the Earl of Chatham.'

   The fleet set sail on the 28th of July, and was on the coast
   of Holland the next day. The first discovery was that there
   were not boats enough to land the troops and the ordnance. The
   next was that no plan had been formed about how to proceed.
   The most experienced officers were for pushing on to Antwerp,
   45 miles off, and taking it before it could be prepared for
   defence; but the commanders determined to take Flushing first.
   They set about it so slowly that a fortnight was consumed in
   preparations.
{948}
   In two days more, the 15th of August, Flushing was taken.
   After this, Lord Chatham paused to consider what he should do
   next; and it was the 21st before be began to propose to go on
   to Antwerp. Then came the next discovery, that, by this time
   two intermediate places had been so strengthened that there
   must be some fighting on the way. So he did nothing more but
   take possession of two small islands near Flushing. Not
   another blow was struck; not another league was traversed by
   this magnificent expedition. But the most important discovery
   of all now disclosed itself. The army had been brought into
   the swamps at the beginning of the sickly season. Fever sprang
   up under their feet, and 3,000 men were in hospital in a few
   days, just when it became necessary to reduce the rations,
   because provisions were falling short. On the 27th of August,
   Lord Chatham led a council of war to resolve that 'it was not
   advisable to pursue further operations.' But, if they could
   not proceed, neither could they remain where they were. The
   enemy had more spirit than their invaders. On the 30th and
   31st, such a fire was opened from both banks of the river,
   that the ships were obliged to retire. Flushing was given up,
   and everything else except the island of Walcheren, which it
   was fatal to hold at this season. On the 4th of September,
   most of the ships were at home again; and Lord Chatham
   appeared on the 14th. Eleven thousand men were by that time in
   the fever, and he brought home as many as he could. Sir Eyre
   Coote, whom he left in command, was dismayed to see all the
   rest sinking down in disease at the rate of hundreds in a day.
   Though the men had been working in the swamps, up to the waist
   in marsh water, and the roofs of their sleeping places had
   been carried off by bombardment, so that they slept under a
   canopy of autumn fog, it was supposed that a supply of Thames
   water to drink would stop the sickness; and a supply of 500
   tons per week was transmitted. At last, at the end of October,
   a hundred English bricklayers, with tools, bricks, and mortar,
   were sent over to mend the roofs; but they immediately dropped
   into the hospitals. Then the patients were to be accommodated
   in the towns; but to spare the inhabitants, the soldiers were
   laid down in damp churches; and their bedding had from the
   beginning been insufficient for their need. At last,
   government desired the chief officers of the army Medical
   Board to repair to Walcheren, and see what was the precise
   nature of the fever, and what could be done. The
   Surgeon-General and the Physician-General threw the duty upon
   each other. Government appointed it to the Physician-General,
   Sir Lucas Pepys; but he refused to go. Both officers were
   dismissed, and the medical department of the army was
   reorganized and greatly improved. The deaths were at this time
   from 200 to 300 a week. When Walcheren was evacuated, on the
   23rd of December, nearly half the force sent out five months
   before were dead or missing; and of those who returned, 35,000
   were admitted into the hospitals of England before the next 1st
   of June. Twenty millions sterling were spent on this
   expedition. It was the purchase money of tens of thousands of
   deaths, and of ineffaceable national disgrace."

ENGLAND: A. D. 1809 (AUGUST-DECEMBER).
Difficulties of Wellington's campaign in the Peninsula.
His retreat into Portugal.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1810-1812.
   The War in the Peninsula.
   Wellington's Lines of Torres Vedras.
   French recoil from them.
   English advance into Spain.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1811-1812.
Desertion of Napoleon's Continental System by Russia and Sweden.
Reopening of their ports to British commerce.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-AUGUST).
The Peninsular War.
Wellington's victory at Salamanca and advance to Madrid.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1812-1813.
   The Liverpool Ministry.
   Business depression and bad harvests.
   Distress and rioting.
   The Luddites.

   "Again there was much negotiation, and an attempt to introduce
   Lord Wellesley and Mr. Canning to the ministry. Of course they
   could not serve with Castlereagh; they were then asked to form
   a ministry with Grenville and Grey, but these Lords objected
   to the Peninsular War, to which Wellesley was pledged.
   Grenville and Grey then attempted a ministry of their own but
   quarrelled with Lord Moira on the appointments to the
   Household; and as an American war was threatening, and the
   ministry had already given up their Orders in Council (one of
   the chief causes of their unpopularity), the Regent rather
   than remain longer without a ministry, intrusted Lord
   Liverpool with the Premiership, with Castlereagh as his
   Foreign Secretary, and the old ministry remained in office.
   Before the day of triumph of this ministry arrived, while
   Napoleon was still at the height of his power, and the success
   of Wellington as yet uncertain, England had drifted into war
   with America. It is difficult to believe that this useless war
   might not have been avoided had the ministers been men of
   ability. It arose from the obstinate manner in which the
   Government clung to the execution of their retaliatory
   measures against France, regardless of the practical injury
   they were inflicting upon all neutrals. … The same motive of
   class aggrandizement which detracts from the virtue of the
   foreign policy of this ministry underlay the whole
   administration of home affairs. There was an incapacity to
   look at public affairs from any but a class or aristocratic
   point of view. The natural consequence was a constantly
   increasing mass of discontent among the lower orders, only
   kept in restraint by an overmastering fear felt by all those
   higher in rank of the possible revolutionary tendencies of any
   attempt at change. Much of the discontent was of course the
   inevitable consequence of the circumstances in which England
   was placed, and for which the Government was only answerable
   in so far as it created those circumstances. At the same time
   it is impossible not to blame the complacent manner in which
   the misery was ignored and the occasional success of
   individual merchants and contractors regarded as evidences of
   national prosperity. …
{949}
   A plentiful harvest in 1813, and the opening of many
   continental ports, did much to revive both trade and
   manufactures; but it was accompanied by a fall in the price of
   corn from 171s. to 75s. The consequence was widespread
   distress among the agriculturists, which involved the country
   banks, so that in the two following years 240 of them stopped
   payment. So great a crash could not fail to affect the
   manufacturing interest also; apparently, for the instant, the
   very restoration of peace brought widespread ruin. … Before
   the end of the year 1811, wages had sunk to 7s. 6d. a week.
   The manufacturing operatives were therefore in a state of
   absolute misery. Petitions signed by 40,000 or 50,000 men
   urged upon Parliament that they were starving; but there was
   another class which fared still worse. Machinery had by no
   means superseded hand-work. In thousands of hamlets and
   cottages handlooms still existed. The work was neither so good
   nor so rapid as work done by machinery; even at the best of
   times used chiefly as an auxiliary to agriculture, this hand
   labour could now scarcely find employment at all. Not
   unnaturally, without work and without food, these hand workers
   were very ready to believe that it was the machinery which
   caused their ruin, and so in fact it was; the change, though
   on the whole beneficial, had brought much individual misery.
   The people were not wise enough to see this. They rose in
   riots in many parts of England, chiefly about Nottingham,
   calling themselves Luddites (from the name of a certain idiot
   lad who some 30 years before, had broken stocking-frames),
   gathered round them many of the disbanded soldiery with whom
   the country was thronged, and with a very perfect secret
   organization, carried out their object of machine-breaking.
   The unexpected thronging of the village at nightfall, a crowd
   of men with blackened faces, armed sentinels holding every
   approach, silence on all sides, the village inhabitants
   cowering behind closed doors, an hour or two's work of
   smashing and burning, and the disappearance of the crowd as
   rapidly as it had arrived—such were the incidents of the
   night riots."

Pictorial History of England, volume 8, chapter 4 (Reign of George III., volume 4).

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1809;
1808; and 1810-1812, to 1815 (JANUARY).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1813 (JUNE).
Joined with the new European Coalition against Napoleon.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1813-1814. Wellington's victorious and final campaigns in the Peninsular War.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1814.
The allies in France and in possession of Paris.
Fall of Napoleon.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1814 (May-June).
   Treaty of Paris.
   Acquisition of Malta, the Isle of France
   and the Cape of Good Hope.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1814 (DECEMBER).
The Treaty of Ghent, terminating war with the United States.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1814-1815.
The Congress of Vienna and its revision of the map of Europe.

INDONESIA: A. D. 1815 (APRIL).
Eruption of Mount Tambora precipitating the "Year without a
Summer" and widespread famine.

"Low temperatures and heavy rains resulted in failed harvests in Britain and Ireland. … With the cause of the problems unknown, hungry people demonstrated in front of grain markets and bakeries. Later riots, arson, and looting took place in many European cities. On some occasions, rioters carried flags reading "Bread or Blood". Though riots were common during times of hunger, the food riots of 1816 and 1817 were the highest levels of violence since the French Revolution. It was the worst famine of 19th-century mainland Europe.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1815 (JUNE).
The Waterloo campaign.
Defeat and final Overthrow of Napoleon.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1815 (JULY-AUGUST).
Surrender of Napoleon.
His confinement on the Island of St. Helena.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1815 (JULY-NOVEMBER).
Wellington's army in Paris.
The Second Treaty.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1816-1820.
   Agitation for Parliamentary Reform.
   Hampden Clubs.
   Spencean philanthropists.
   Trials of William Hone.
   The Spa-fields meeting and riot.
   March of the Blanketeers.
   Massacre of Peterloo.
   The Six Acts.
   Death of George III.
   Accession of George IV.

"From this time the name of Parliamentary Reform became, for the most part, a name of terror to the Government. … It passed away from the patronage of a few aristocratic lovers of popularity, to be advocated by writers of 'two-penny trash,' and to be discussed and organized by 'Hampden Clubs' of hungering philanthropists and unemployed 'weaver-boys.' Samuel Bamford, who thought it no disgrace to call himself 'a Radical' … says, 'at this time (1816) the writings of William Cobbett suddenly became of great authority; they were read on nearly every cottage hearth in the manufacturing districts of South Lancashire, in those of Leicester, Derby, and Nottingham; also in many of the Scottish manufacturing towns. Their influence was speedily visible.' Cobbett advocated Parliamentary Reform as the corrective of whatever miseries the lower classes suffered. A new order of politicians was called into action: 'The Sunday-schools of the preceding thirty years had produced many working men of sufficient talent to become readers, writers, and speakers in the village meetings for Parliamentary Reform; some also were found to possess a rude poetic talent, which rendered their effusions popular, and bestowed an additional charm on their assemblages; and by such various means, anxious listeners at first, and then zealous proselytes, were drawn from the cottages of quiet nooks and dingles to the weekly readings and discussions of the Hampden Clubs.' … In a Report of the Secret Committee of the House of Commons, presented on the 19th of February, 1817, the Hampden Clubs are described as 'associated professedly for the purpose of Parliamentary Reform, upon the most extended principle of universal suffrage and annual parliaments'; but that 'in far the greater number of them … nothing short of a Revolution is the object expected and avowed.' The testimony of Samuel Bamford shows that, in this early period of their history, the Hampden Clubs limited their object to the attainment of Parliamentary Reform. … Bamford, at the beginning of 1817, came to London as a delegate from the Middleton Club, to attend a great meeting of delegates to be assembled in London. … {950} The Middleton delegate was introduced, amidst the reeking tobacco-fog of a low tavern, to the leading members of a society called the 'Spencean Philanthropists.' They derived their name from that of a Mr. Spence, a school-master in Yorkshire, who had conceived a plan for making the nation happy, by causing all the lands of the country to become the property of the State, which State should divide all the produce for the support of the people. … The Committee of the Spenceans openly meddled with sundry grave questions besides that of a community in land; and, amongst other notable projects, petitioned Parliament to do away with machinery. Amongst these fanatics some dangerous men had established themselves, such as Thistlewood, who subsequently paid the penalty of five years of maniacal plotting." A meeting held at Spa-fields on the 2d of December, 1816, in the interest of the Spencean Philanthropists, terminated in a senseless outbreak of riot, led by a young fanatic named Watson. The mob plundered some gunsmiths' shops, shot one gentleman who remonstrated, and set out to seize the Tower; but was dispersed by a few resolute magistrates and constables. "It is difficult to imagine a more degraded and dangerous position than that in which every political writer was placed during the year 1817. In the first place, he was subject, by a Secretary of State's warrant, to be imprisoned upon suspicion, under the Suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act. Secondly, he was open to an ex-officio information, under which he would be compelled to find bail, or be imprisoned. The power of ex-officio information had been extended so as to compel bail, by an Act of 1808; but from 1808 to 1811, during which three years forty such informations were laid, only one person was held to bail. In 1817 numerous ex-officio informations were filed, and the almost invariable practice then was to hold the alleged offender to bail, or, in default, to commit to prison. Under this Act Mr. Hone and others were committed to prison during this year. … The entire course of these proceedings was a signal failure. There was only one solitary instance of success—William Cobbett ran away. On the 28th of March he fled to America, suspending the publication of his 'Register' for four months. On the 12th of May earl Grey mentioned in the House of Lords that a Mr. Hone was proceeded against for publishing some blasphemous parody; but he had read one of the same nature, written, printed, and published, some years ago, by other people, without any notice having been officially taken of it. The parody to which earl Grey alluded, and a portion of which he recited, was Canning's famous parody, 'Praise Lepaux'; and he asked whether the authors, be they in the cabinet or in any other place, would also be found out and visited with the penalties of the law? This hint to the obscure publisher against whom these ex-officio informations had been filed for blasphemous and seditious parodies, was effectually worked out by him in the solitude of his prison, and in the poor dwelling where he had surrounded himself, as he had done from his earliest years, with a collection of odd and curious books. From these he had gathered an abundance of knowledge that was destined to perplex the technical acquirements of the Attorney-General, to whom the sword and buckler of his precedents would be wholly useless, and to change the determination of the boldest judge in the land [Lord Ellenborough] to convict at any rate, into the prostration of helpless despair. Altogether, the three trials of William Hone are amongst the most remarkable in our constitutional history. They produced more distinct effects upon the temper of the country than any public proceedings of that time. They taught the Government a lesson which has never been forgotten, and to which, as much as to any other cause, we owe the prodigious improvement as to the law of libel itself, and the use of the law, in our own day,—an improvement which leaves what is dangerous in the press to be corrected by the remedial power of the press itself; and which, instead of lamenting over the newly-acquired ability of the masses to read seditious and irreligious works, depends upon the general diffusion of this ability as the surest corrective of the evils that are incident even to the best gift of heaven,—that of knowledge."

In 1817 "there was widespread distress. There were riots in the counties of England arising out of the distress. There were riots in various parts of London. Secret Committees were appointed by both Houses of the Legislature to inquire into the alleged disaffection of part of the people. The Habeas Corpus Act was suspended. The march of the Blanketeers from Manchester [March, 1817] caused panic and consternation through various circles in London. The march of the Blanketeers was a very simple and harmless project. A large number of the working-men in Manchester conceived the idea of walking to London to lay an account of their distress before the heads of the Government, and to ask that some remedy might be found, and also to appeal for the granting of Parliamentary reform. It was part of their arrangement that each man should carry a blanket with him, as they would, necessarily, have to sleep at many places along the way, and they were not exactly in funds to pay for first-class hotel accommodation. The nickname of Blanketeers was given to them because of their portable sleeping-arrangements. The whole project was simple, was touching in its simplicity. Even at this distance of time one cannot read about it without being moved by its pathetic childishness. These poor men thought they had nothing to do but to walk to London, and get to speech of Lord Liverpool, and justice would be done to them and their claims. The Government of Lord Liverpool dealt very roundly, and in a very different way, with the Blanketeers. If the poor men had been marching on London with pikes, muskets and swords, they could not have created a greater fury of panic and of passion in official circles. The Government, availing itself of the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, had the leaders of the movement captured and sent to prison, stopped the march by military force, and dispersed those who were taking part in it. … The 'Massacre of Peterloo,' as it is not inappropriately called, took place not long after. A great public meeting was held [August 16, 1819] at St. Peter's Field, then on the outskirts of Manchester, now the site of the Free Trade Hall, which many years later rang so often to the thrilling tones of John Bright. The meeting was called to petition for Parliamentary reform. It should be remembered that in those days Manchester, Birmingham, and other great cities were without any manner of representation in Parliament. {951} It was a vast meeting—some 80,000 men and women are stated to have been present. The yeomanry [a mounted militia force], for some reason impossible to understand, endeavoured to disperse the meeting, and actually dashed in upon the crowd, spurring their horses and flourishing their sabres. Eleven persons were killed, and several hundreds were wounded. The Government brought in, as their panacea for popular trouble and discontent, the famous Six Acts. These Acts were simply measures to render it more easy for the authorities to put down or disperse meetings which they considered objectionable, and to suppress any manner of publication which they chose to call seditious. But among them were some Bills to prevent training and drilling, and the collection and use of arms. These measures show what the panic of the Government was. It was the conviction of the ruling classes that the poor and the working-classes of England were preparing a revolution. … During all this time, the few genuine Radicals in the House of Commons were bringing on motion after motion for Parliamentary reform, just as Grattan and his friends were bringing forward motion after motion for Catholic Emancipation. In 1818, a motion by Sir Francis Burdett for annual Parliaments and universal suffrage was lost by a majority of 106 to nobody. … The motion had only two supporters—Burdett himself, and his colleague, Lord Cochrane. … The forms of the House require two tellers on either side, and a compliance with this inevitable rule took up the whole strength of Burdett's party. … On January 29, 1820, the long reign of George III. came to an end. The life of the King closed in darkness of eyes and mind. Stone-blind, stone-deaf, and, except for rare lucid intervals, wholly out of his senses, the poor old King wandered from room to room of his palace, a touching picture, with his long, white, flowing beard, now repeating to himself the awful words of Milton—the 'dark, dark, dark, amid the blaze of noon—irrecoverably dark'—now, in a happier mood, announcing himself to be in the companionship of angels. George, the Prince Regent, succeeded, of course, to the throne; and George IV. at once announced his willingness to retain the services of the Ministry of Lord Liverpool. The Whigs had at one time expected much from the coming of George IV. to the throne, but their hopes had begun to be chilled of late."

ALSO IN: J. Routledge, Chapters in the History of Popular Progress, chapters 12-19.

H. Martineau, History of the Thirty Years' Peace, book 1, chapters 5-17 (volume 1).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1818.
Convention with the United States relating to Fisheries, etc.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1820-1822.
   Congresses of Troppau, Laybach and Verona.
   Projects of the Holy Alliance.
   English protests.
   Canning's policy towards Spain and the Spanish American
   colonies.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1820-1827.
   The Cato Street Conspiracy.
   Trial of Queen Caroline.
   Canning in the Foreign Office.
   Commercial Crisis of 1825.
   Canning as Premier.
   His death.

"Riot and social misery had, during the Regency, heralded the Reign. They did not cease to afflict the country. At once we are plunged into the wretched details of a conspiracy. Secret intelligence reached the Home Office to the effect that a man named Thistlewood, who had been a year in jail for challenging Lord Sidmouth, had with several accomplices laid a plot to murder the Ministers during a Cabinet dinner, which was to come off at Lord Harrowby's. The guests did not go, and the police pounced on the gang, arming themselves in a stable in Cato Street, off the Edgeware Road. Thistlewood blew out the candle, having first stabbed a policeman to the heart. For that night he got off; but, being taken next day, he was soon hanged, with his four leading associates. This is called the Cato Street Conspiracy. … George IV., almost as soon as the crown became his own, began to stir in the matter of getting a divorce from his wife. He had married this poor Princess Caroline of Brunswick in 1795, merely for the purpose of getting his debts paid. Their first interview disappointed both. After some time of semi-banishment to Blackheath she had gone abroad to live chiefly in Italy, and had been made the subject of more than one 'delicate investigation' for the purpose of procuring evidence of infidelity against her. She now came to England (June 6, 1820), and passed from Dover to London through joyous and sympathizing crowds. The King sent a royal message to the Lords, asking for an inquiry into her conduct. Lord Liverpool and Lord Castlereagh laid before the Lords and Commons a green bag, stuffed with indecent and disgusting accusations against the Queen. Happily for her she had two champions, whose names shall not readily lose the lustre gained in her defence—Henry Brougham and Thomas Denman, her Attorney-General and Solicitor-General. After the failure of a negotiation, in which the Queen demanded two things that the Ministers refused—the insertion of her name in the Liturgy, and a proper reception at some foreign court—Lord Liverpool brought into the Upper House a 'Bill of Pains and Penalties,' which aimed at her degradation from the throne and the dissolution of her marriage. Through the fever-heat of a scorching summer the case went on, counsel and witnesses playing their respective parts before the Lords. … At length the Bill, carried on its third reading by a majority of only nine, was abandoned by the Ministry (November 10). And the country broke out into cheers and flaming windows. Had she rested content with the vindication of her fair fame, it would have been better for her own peace. But she went in public procession to St. Paul's to return thanks for her victory. And more rashly still in the following year she tried to force her way into Westminster Abbey during the Coronation of her husband (July 19, 1821). But mercy came a few days later from the King of kings. The people, true to her even in death, insisted that the hearse containing her remains should pass through the city; and in spite of bullets from the carbines of dragoons they gained their point, the Lord Mayor heading the procession till it had cleared the streets. … George Canning had resigned his office rather than take any part with the Liverpool Cabinet in supporting the 'Bill of Pains and Penalties,' and had gone to the Continent for the summer of the trial year.

Early in 1822 Lord Sidmouth … resigned the Home Office. He was succeeded by Robert Peel, a statesman destined to achieve eminence. Canning about the same time was offered the post of Governor-General of India," and accepted it; but this arrangement was suddenly changed by the death of Castlereagh, who committed suicide in August. Canning then became Foreign Secretary. "The spirit of Canning's foreign policy was diametrically opposed to that of Londonderry [Castlereagh]. … Refusing to interfere in Spanish affairs, he yet acknowledged the new-won freedom of the South American States, which had lately shaken off the Spanish yoke. To preserve peace and yet cut England loose from the Holy Alliance were the conflicting aims, which the genius of Canning enabled him to reconcile [see VERONA, CONGRESS OF]. … During the years 1824-25, the country, drunk with unusual prosperity, took that speculation fever which has afflicted her more than once during the last century and a half. … A crop of fungus companies sprang up temptingly from the heated soil of the Stock Exchange. … Shares were bought and gambled in. The winter passed; but spring shone on glutted markets. depreciated stock, no buyers, and no returns from the shadowy and distant investments in South America, which had absorbed so much capital. Then the crashing began—the weak broke first, the strong next, until banks went down by dozens, and commerce for the time was paralyzed. By causing the issue of one and two pound notes, by coining in great haste a new supply of sovereigns, and by inducing the Bank of England to lend money upon the security of goods—in fact to begin the pawnbroking business—the Government met the crisis, allayed the panic, and to some extent restored commercial credit. Apoplexy having struck down Lord Liverpool early in 1827, it became necessary to select a new Premier. Canning was the chosen man." He formed a Cabinet with difficulty in April, Wellington, Peel, Eldon, and others of his former colleagues refusing to take office with him. His administration was brought abruptly to an end in August by his sudden death.

ALSO IN: Lord Brougham, Life and Times, by Himself, chapters 12-18 (volume 2).

      A. G. Stapleton,
      Some Official Correspondence of George Canning,
      2 volumes

ENGLAND: A. D. 1827-1828.
Removal of Disabilities from the Dissenters.
Repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts.

"Early in 1827 a private member, of little influence, unexpectedly raised a dormant question. For the best part of a century the Dissenters had passively submitted to the anomalous position in which they had been placed by the Legislature [see above: A. D. 1662-1665; 1672-1673; 1711-1714]. Nominally unable to hold any office under the Crown, they were annually 'whitewashed' for their infringement of the law by the passage of an Indemnity Act. The Dissenters had hitherto been assenting parties to this policy. They fancied that the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts would logically lead to the emancipation of the Roman Catholics, and they preferred remaining under a disability themselves to running the risk of conceding relief to others. The tacit understanding, which thus existed between the Church on one side and Dissent on the other, was maintained unbroken and almost unchallenged till 1827. It was challenged in that year by William Smith, the member for Norwich. Smith was a London banker; he was a Dissenter; and he felt keenly the hard, unjust, and unnecessary' law which disabled him from holding, any office, however insignificant, under the Crown,' and from sitting 'as a magistrate in any corporation without violating his conscience.' Smith took the opportunity which the annual Indemnity Act afforded him of stating these views in the House of Commons. As he spoke the scales fell from the eyes of the Liberal members. The moment he sat down Harvey, the member for Colchester, twitted the Opposition with disregarding 'the substantial claims of the Dissenters,' while those of the Catholics were urged year after year' with the vehemence of party,' and supported by 'the mightiest powers of energy and eloquence.' The taunt called up Lord John Russell, and elicited from him the declaration that he would bring forward a motion on the Test and Corporation Acts, 'if the Protestant Dissenters should think it to their interest that he should do so.' A year afterwards—on the 26th of February, 1828—Lord John Russell rose to redeem the promise which he thus gave." His motion "was carried by 237 votes to 193. The Ministry had sustained a crushing and unexpected reverse. For the moment it was doubtful whether it could continue in office. It was saved from the necessity of resigning by the moderation and dexterity of Peel. Peel considered that nothing could be more unfortunate for the Church than to involve the House of Commons in a conflict with the House of Lords on a religious question. … On his advice the Bishops consented to substitute a formal declaration for the test hitherto in force. The declaration, which contained a promise that the maker of it would 'never exert any power or any influence to injure or subvert the Protestant' Established Church, was to be taken by the members of every corporation, and, at the pleasure of the Crown, by the holder of every office. Russell, though he disliked the declaration, assented to it for the sake of securing the success of his measure." The bill was modified accordingly and passed both Houses, though strenuously resisted by all the Tories of the old school.

ALSO IN: J. Stoughton, Religion in England from 1800 to 1850, volume 1, chapter 2.

      H. S. Skeats,
      History of the Free Churches of England,
      chapter 9.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1827-1828.
The administration of Lord Goderich.
Advent of the Wellington Ministry.

   "The death of Mr. Canning placed Lord Goderich at the head of
   the government. The composition of the Cabinet was slightly
   altered. Mr. Huskisson became Colonial Secretary, Mr. Herries
   Chancellor of the Exchequer. The government was generally
   considered to be weak, and not calculated for a long
   endurance. … The differences upon financial measures between
   Mr. Herries … and Mr. Huskisson … could not be reconciled
   by Lord Goderich, and he therefore tendered his resignation to
   the king on the 9th of January, 1828.
{953}
   His majesty immediately sent to lord Lyndhurst to desire that
   he and the duke of Wellington should come to Windsor. The king
   told the duke that he wished him to form a government of which
   he should be the head. … It was understood that lord
   Lyndhurst was to continue in office. The duke of Wellington
   immediately applied to Mr. Peel, who, returning to his post of
Secretary of State for the Home Department, saw the impossibility
   of re-uniting in this administration those who had formed the
   Cabinet of lord Liverpool. He desired to strengthen the
   government of the duke of Wellington by the introduction of
   some of the more important of Mr. Canning's friends into the
   Cabinet and to fill some of the lesser offices. The earl of
   Dudley, Mr. Huskisson, lord Palmerston, and Mr. Charles Grant,
   became members of the new administration. Mr. William Lamb,
   afterwards lord Melbourne, was appointed Chief Secretary for
   Ireland. The ultra-Tories were greatly indignant at these
   arrangements. They groaned and reviled as if the world was
   unchanged."

      W. M. Torrens,
      Life of Viscount Melbourne,
      volume 1, chapter 15.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1830.
   The state of the Parliamentary representation before Reform.
   Death of George IV.
   Accession of William IV.
   Fall of the Wellington Ministry.

"Down to the year 1800, when the Union between Great Britain and Ireland was effected, the House consisted of 558 members; after 1800, it consisted of 658 members. In the earlier days of George III., it was elected by 160,000 voters, out of a population of a little more than eight millions; in the later days of that monarch, it was elected by about 440,000 voters, out of a population of twenty-two millions. … But the inadequacy of the representation will be even more striking if we consider the manner in which the electors were broken up into constituencies. The constituencies consisted either of counties, or of cities or boroughs. Generally speaking, the counties of England and Wales (and of Ireland, after the Union) were represented by two members, and the counties of Scotland by one member; and the voters were the forty-shilling freeholders. The number of cities and boroughs which returned members varied; but, from the date of the Union, there were about 217 in England and Wales, 14 in Scotland, and 39 in Ireland,—all the English and Welsh boroughs (with a few exceptions) returning two members, and the Scotch and Irish boroughs one member. How the particular places came to be Parliamentary boroughs is a question of much historic interest, which cannot be dealt with here in detail. Originally, the places to which writs were issued seem to have been chosen by the Crown, or, not unfrequently, by the Sheriffs of the counties. Probably, in the first instance, the more important places were selected; though other considerations, such as the political opinions of the owners of the soil, and the desire to recognise services (often of a very questionable character) rendered by such owners to the King, no doubt had their weight. In the time of Cromwell, some important changes were made. In 1654, he disfranchised many small boroughs, increased the number of county members, and enfranchised Manchester, Leeds, and Halifax. All these reforms were cancelled after the Restoration; and from that time very few changes were made. … In the hundred and fifty years which followed the Restoration, however, there were changes in the condition of the country, altogether beyond the control of either kings or parliaments. Old towns disappeared or decayed, and new ones sprang up. Manchester, Birmingham, and Leeds were remarkable examples of the latter,—Old Sarum was an example of the former. … At one time a place of some importance, it declined from the springing up of New Sarum (Salisbury); and, even so far back as the reign of Henry VII., it existed as a town only in imagination, and in the roll of the Parliamentary boroughs. … Many other places might be named [known as Rotten Boroughs and Pocket Boroughs]—such as Gatton in Surrey, and Ludgershall in Wiltshire—which represented only their owners. In fact, the representation of owners, and of owners only, was a very prominent feature of the electoral system now under consideration. Thus, the Duke of Norfolk was represented by eleven members, who sat for places forming a part of his estates; similarly, Lord Lonsdale was represented by nine members, Lord Darlington by seven, the Duke of Rutland and several other peers by six each; and it is stated by one authority that the Duke of Newcastle, at one time, returned one third of all the members for the boroughs, while, up to 1780, the members for the county of York—the largest and most influential of the counties—were always elected in Lord Rockingham's dining-room. But these are only selected instances. Many others might be cited. According to a statement made by the Duke of Richmond in 1780, 6,000 persons returned a clear majority of the House of Commons. In 1793, the Society of the Friends of the People asserted, and declared that they were able to prove, that 84 individuals returned 157 members; that 70 individuals returned 150 members; and that of the 154 individuals who thus returned 307 members—the majority of the House before the Union with Ireland—no fewer than 40 were peers. The same Society asserted in the same year, and declared that they were able to prove, that 70 members were returned by 35 places, in which there were scarcely any electors; that 90 members were returned by 46 places, in which there were fewer than 50 electors; that 37 members were returned by 19 places, with not more than 100 electors; and that 52 members were returned by 26 places, with not more than 200 electors: all these in England alone. Even in the towns which had a real claim to representation, the franchise rested upon no uniform basis. … In some cases the suffrage was practically household suffrage; in other cases the suffrage was extremely restricted. But they all returned their two members equally; it made no difference whether the voters numbered 3,000 or only three or four. Such being the state of the representation, corruption was inevitable. Bribery was practised to an inconceivable extent. Many of the smaller boroughs had a fixed price, and it was by no means uncommon to see a borough advertised for sale in the newspapers. … {954} As an example of cost in contesting a county election, it is on record that the joint expenses of Lord Milton and Mr. Lascelles, in contesting the county of York in 1807, were £200,000. … It is not to be supposed that a condition of things which appears to us so intolerable attracted no attention before what may be called the Reform era. So far back as 1745, Sir Francis Dashwood (afterwards Lord de Spencer) moved an amendment to the Address in favour of Reform; Lord Chatham himself, in 1766 and 1770, spoke of the borough representation as 'the rotten part of the constitution,' and likened it to a 'mortified limb'; the Duke of Richmond of that day, in 1780, introduced a bill into the House of Lords which would have given manhood suffrage and annual parliaments; and three times in succession, in 1782, 1783, and 1785, Mr. Pitt proposed resolutions in favour of Reform. … After Mr. Pitt had abandoned the cause, Mr. (afterwards Earl) Grey took up the subject. First, in 1792, he presented that famous petition from the Society of the Friends of the People, to which allusion has been already made, and founded a resolution upon it. He made further efforts in 1793, 1795, and 1797, but was on every occasion defeated by large majorities. … From the beginning of the 19th century to the year 1815—with the exception of a few months after the Peace of Amiens in 1802—England was at war. During that time Reform dropped out of notice. … In 1817, and again in 1818 and 1819, Sir Francis Burdett, who was at that time member for Westminster and a leading Reformer, brought the question of Reform before the House of Commons. On each occasion he was defeated by a tremendous majority. … The next ten years were comparatively uneventful, so far as the subject of this history is concerned. … Two events made the year 1830 particularly opportune for raising the question of Parliamentary Reform. The first of these events was the death of George IV. [June 26],—the second, the deposition of Charles X. of France. … For the deposition of Charles—followed as it was very soon by a successful insurrection in Belgium—produced an immense impression upon the Liberals of this country, and upon the people generally. In a few days or weeks there had been secured in two continental countries what the people of England had been asking for in vain for years. … We must not omit to notice one other circumstance that favoured the cause of Reform. This was the popular distress. Distress always favours agitation. The distress in 1830 was described in the House of Lords at the time as 'unparalleled in any previous part of our history.' Probably this was an exaggeration. But there can be no doubt that the distress was general, and that it was acute. … By the law as it stood when George IV. died, the demise of the Crown involved a dissolution of Parliament. The Parliament which was in existence in 1830 had been elected in 1826. Since the beginning o£ 1828 the Duke of Wellington had been Prime Minister, with Mr. (soon after Sir Robert) Peel as Home Secretary, and Leader of the House of Commons. They decided to dissolve at once. … In the Parliament thus dissolved, and especially in the session just brought to a close, the question of Reform had held a prominent place. At the very beginning of the session, in the first week of February, the Marquis of Blandford (afterwards Duke of Marlborough) moved an amendment to the Address, in which, though a Tory, he affirmed the conviction 'that the State is at this moment in the most imminent danger, and that no effectual measures of salvation will or can be adopted until the people shall be restored to their rightful share in the legislation of the country.' … He was supported on very different grounds by Mr. O'Connell, but was defeated by a vote of 96 to 11. A few days later he introduced a specific plan of Reform—a very Radical plan indeed—but was again ignominiously defeated; then, on the 23d of February, Lord John Russell … asked for leave to bring in a bill for conferring the franchise upon Leeds, Manchester, and Birmingham, as the three largest unrepresented towns in the kingdom, but was defeated by 188 votes to 140; and finally, on the 28th of May—scarcely two months before the dissolution—Mr. O'Connell brought in a bill to establish universal suffrage, vote by ballot, and triennial parliaments, but found only 13 members to support him in a House of 332. … Thus, the question of Reform was now before the country, not merely as a popular but as a Parliamentary question. It is not too much to say that, when the dissolution occurred, it occupied all minds. … The whole of August and a considerable part of September, therefore, were occupied with the elections, which were attended by an unparalleled degree of excite merit. … When all was over, and the results were reckoned up, it was found that, of the 28 members who represented the thirteen greatest cities in England (to say nothing of Wales, Scotland, or Ireland), only 3 were Minsterialists. … Of the 236 men who were returned by elections, more or less popular, in England, only 79 were Ministerialists. … The first Parliament of William IV. met on the 26th of October, but the session was not really opened till the 2d of November, when the King came down and delivered his Speech. … The occasion was made memorable, however, not by the King's Speech, but by a speech by the Duke of Wellington, who was then Prime Minister. … 'The noble Earl [Grey],' said the Duke, 'has alluded to something in the shape of a Parliamentary Reform, but he has been candid enough to acknowledge that he is not prepared with any measure of Reform; and I have as little scruple to say that his Majesty's Government is as totally unprepared as the noble lord. Nay, on my own part, I will go further, and say, that I have never read or heard of any measure, up to the present moment, which could in any degree satisfy my mind that the state of the representation could be improved, or be rendered more satisfactory to the country at large than at the present moment. … I am not only not prepared to bring forward any measure of this nature, but I will at once declare that, as far as I am concerned, as long as I hold any station in the government of the country, I shall always feel it my duty to resist such measures when proposed by others.' Exactly fourteen days after the delivery of this speech, the Duke's career' as Prime Minister came for the time to a close. On the 16th of November he came down to Westminster, and announced that he had resigned office. In the meantime, there had been something like a panic in the city, because Ministers, apprehending disturbance, had advised the King and Queen to abandon an engagement to dine, on the 9th, with the Lord Mayor at the Guildhall. {955} On the 15th, too, the Government had sustained a defeat in the House of Commons, on a motion proposed by Sir Henry Parnell on the part of the Opposition, having reference to the civil list. This defeat was made the pretext for resignation. But it was only a pretext. After the Duke's declaration in regard to Reform, and in view of his daily increasing unpopularity, his continuance in office was impossible."

      E. A. Freeman,
      Decayed Boroughs
      (Historical Essays, 4th series).

England: A. D. 1830-1832.
The great Reform of Representation in Parliament, under the
Ministry of Earl Grey.

"Earl Grey was the new Minister; and Mr. Brougham his Lord Chancellor. The first announcement of the premier was that the government would 'take into immediate consideration the state of the representation, with a view to the correction of those defects which have been occasioned in it, by the operation of time; and with a view to the reestablishment of that confidence upon the part of the people, which he was afraid Parliament did not at present enjoy, to the full extent that is essential for the welfare and safety of the country, and the preservation of the government.' The government were now pledged to a measure of parliamentary reform; and during the Christmas recess were occupied in preparing it. Meanwhile, the cause was eagerly supported by the people. … So great were the difficulties with which the government had to contend, that they needed all the encouragement that the people could give. They had to encounter the reluctance of the king,—the interests of the proprietors of boroughs, which Mr. Pitt, unable to overcome, had sought to purchase,—the opposition of two thirds of the House of Lords; and perhaps of a majority of the House of Commons,—and above all, the strong Tory spirit of the country. … On the 3d February, when Parliament reassembled, Lord Grey announced that the government had succeeded in framing 'a measure which would be effective, without exceeding the bounds of a just and well-advised moderation,' and which 'had received the unanimous consent of the whole government.' … On the 1st March, this measure was brought forward in the House of Commons by Lord John Russell, to whom,—though not in the cabinet,—this honorable duty had been justly confided. … On the 22d March, the second reading of the bill was carried by a majority of one only, in a House of 608,—probably the greatest number which, up to that time, had ever been assembled at a division. On the 19th of April, on going into committee, ministers found themselves in a minority of eight, on a resolution proposed by General Gascoyne, that the number of members returned for England ought not to be diminished. On the 21st, ministers announced that it was not their intention to proceed with the bill. On that same night, they were again defeated on a question of adjournment, by a majority of twenty-two. This last vote was decisive. The very next day, Parliament was prorogued by the king in person, 'with a view to its immediate dissolution.' It was one of the most critical days in the history of our country. … The people were now to decide the question;—and they decided it. A triumphant body of reformers was returned, pledged to carry the reform bill; and on the 6th July, the second reading of the renewed measure was agreed to, by a majority of 136. The most tedious and irritating discussions ensued in committee,—night after night; and the bill was not disposed of until the 21st September, when it was passed by a majority of 109. That the peers were still adverse to the bill was certain; but whether, at such a crisis, they would venture to oppose the national will, was doubtful. On the 7th October, after a debate of five nights,—one of the most memorable by which that House has ever been distinguished, and itself a great event in history,—the bill was rejected on the second reading, by a majority of forty-one. The battle was to be fought again. Ministers were too far pledged to the people to think of resigning; and on the motion of Lord Ebrington, they were immediately supported by a vote of confidence from the House of Commons. On the 20th October, Parliament was prorogued; and after a short interval of excitement, turbulence, and danger [see BRISTOL: A. D. 1831], met again on the 6th December. A third reform bill was immediately brought in,—changed in many respects,—and much improved by reason of the recent census, and other statistical investigations. Amongst other changes, the total number of members was no longer proposed to be reduced. This bill was read a second time on Sunday morning, the 18th of December, by a majority of 162. On the 23d March, it was passed by the House of Commons, and once more was before the House of Lords. Here the peril of again rejecting it could not be concealed,—the courage of some was shaken,—the patriotism of others aroused; and after a debate of four nights, the second reading was affirmed by the narrow majority of nine. But danger still awaited it. The peers who would no longer venture to reject such a bill, were preparing to change its essential character by amendments. Meanwhile the agitation of the people was becoming dangerous. … The time had come, when either the Lords must be coerced; or the ministers must resign. This alternative was submitted to the king. He refused to create peers: the ministers resigned, and their resignation was accepted. Again the Commons came to the rescue of the bill and the reform ministry. On the motion of Lord Ebrington, an address was immediately voted by them, renewing their expressions of unaltered confidence in the late ministers, and imploring his Majesty 'to call to his councils such persons only as will carry into effect, unimpaired in all its essential provisions, that bill for reforming the representation of the people, which has recently passed this House.' … The public excitement was greater than ever; and the government and the people were in imminent danger of a bloody collision, when Earl Grey was recalled to the councils of his sovereign. The bill was now secure. The peers averted the threatened addition to their numbers by abstaining from further opposition; and the bill,—the Great Charter of 1832,—at length received the Royal Assent. It is now time to advert to the provisions of this famous statute; and to inquire how far it corrected the faults of a system, which had been complained of for more than half a century. {956} The main evil had been the number of nomination, or rotten boroughs enjoying the franchise. Fifty-six of these,—having less than 2,000 inhabitants, and returning 111 members,—were swept away. Thirty boroughs, having less than 4,000 inhabitants, lost each a member. Weymouth and Melcombe Regis lost two. This disfranchisement extended to 143 members. The next evil had been, that large populations were unrepresented; and this was now redressed. Twenty-two large towns, including metropolitan districts, received the privilege of returning two members; and 20 more of returning one. The large county populations were also regarded in the distribution of seats,—the number of county members being increased from 94 to 159. The larger counties were divided; and the number of members adjusted with reference to the importance of the constituencies. Another evil was the restricted and unequal franchise. This too was corrected. All narrow rights of election were set aside in Boroughs; and a £10 household franchise was established. The freemen of corporate towns were the only class of electors whose rights were reserved; but residence within the borough was attached as a condition to their right of voting. … The county constituency was enlarged by the addition of copyholders and leaseholders, for terms of years, and of tenants-at-will paying a rent of £50 a year. … The defects of the Scotch representation, being even more flagrant and indefensible than those of England, were not likely to be omitted from Lord Grey's general scheme of reform. … The entire representation was remodelled. Forty-five members had been assigned to Scotland at the Union: this number was now increased to 53 of whom 30 were allotted to counties, and 23 to cities and burghs. The county franchise was extended to all owners of property of £10 a year, and to certain classes of leaseholders; and the burgh franchise to all £10 householders. The representation of Ireland had many of the defects of the English system. … The right of election was taken away from the corporations, and vested in £10 householders; and large additions were made to the county constituency. The number of members in Ireland, which the Act of Union had settled at 100, was now increased to 105."

T. E. May, Constitutional History of England, 1760-1860, chapter 6 (volume 1).

      ALSO IN:
      W. N. Molesworth,
      History of the Reform Bill of 1832.

      S. Walpole,
      History of England from 1815,
      chapter 11 (volume 2).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1831-1832.
   Intervention in the Netherlands.
   Creation of the kingdom of Belgium.
   War with Holland.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1832-1833.
   Abolition of Slavery in the West Indies.
   Trade monopoly of the East India Company withdrawn.
   Factory Bill.
   Irish tithes.

"The period which succeeded the passing of the Reform Bill was one of immense activity and earnestness in legislation. … The first great reform was the complete abolition of the system of slavery in the British colonies. The slave trade had itself been suppressed so far as we could suppress it long before that time, but now the whole system of West Indian slavery was brought to an end [see SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1834-1838]. … A long agitation of the small but energetic anti-slavery party brought about this practical result in 1833. … Granville Sharpe, Zachary Macaulay, father of the historian and statesman, Thomas Fowell Buxton, Wilberforce, Brougham, and many others, had for a long time been striving hard to rouse up public opinion to the abolition of the slave system." The bill which passed Parliament gave immediate freedom to all children subsequently born, and to all those who were then under six years of age; while it determined for all other slaves a period of apprenticeship, lasting five years in one class and seven years in another, after which they attained absolute freedom. It appropriated £20,000,000 for the compensation of the slave-owners. "Another reform of no small importance was accomplished when the charter of the East India Company came to be renewed in 1833. The clause giving them a commercial monopoly of the trade of the East was abolished, and the trade thrown open to the merchants of the world [see INDIA: A. D. 1823-1833]. There were other slaves in those days as well as the negro. There were slaves at home, slaves to all intents and purposes, who were condemned to a servitude as rigorous as that of the negro, and who, as far as personal treatment went, suffered more severely than negroes in the better class plantations. We speak now of the workers in the great mines and factories. No law up to this time regulated with anything like reasonable stringency the hours of labour in factories. … A commission was appointed to investigate the condition of those who worked in the factories. Lord Ashley, since everywhere known as the Earl of Shaftesbury, … brought forward the motion which ended in the appointment of the commission. The commission quickly brought together an immense amount of evidence to show the terrible effect, moral and physical, of the over-working of women and children, and an agitation set in for the purpose of limiting by law the duration of the hours of labour. … The principle of legislative interference to protect children working in factories was established by an Act passed in 1833, limiting the work of children to eight hours a day, and that of young persons under eighteen to 69 hours a week [see FACTORY LEGISLATION]. The agitation then set on foot and led by Lord Ashley was engaged for years after in endeavouring to give that principle a more extended application. … Irish tithes were one of the grievances which came under the energetic action of this period of reform. The people of Ireland complained with justice of having to pay tithes for the maintenance of the church establishment in which they did not believe, and under whose roofs they never bent in worship." In 1832, committees of both Houses of Parliament reported in favor of the extinction of tithes; but the Government undertook temporarily a scheme whereby it made advances to the Irish clergy and assumed the collection of tithes among its own functions. It only succeeded in making matters worse, and several years passed before the adoption (in 1838) of a bill which "converted the tithe composition into a rent charge."

H. Martineau, History of the Thirty Years' Peace, book 4, chapters 6-9 (volumes 2-3).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1833-1840.
   Turko-Egyptian question and its settlement.
   The capture of Acre.
   Bombardment of Alexandria.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1834-1837.
   Resignation of Lord Grey and the Reform Ministry.
   The first Melbourne Administration.
   Peel's first Ministry and Melbourne's second.
   Death of William IV.
   Accession of Queen Victoria.

"On May 27th, Mr. Ward, member of St. Albans, brought forward … resolutions, that the Protestant Episcopal Church of Ireland much exceeded the spiritual wants of the Protestant population; that it was the right of the State, and of Parliament, to distribute church property, and that the temporal possessions of the Irish church ought to be reduced. The ministers determined to adopt a middle course and appoint a commission of inquiry; they hoped thereby to induce Mr. Ward to withdraw his motion, because the question was already in government hands. While the negotiations were going on, news was received of the resignation of four of the most conservative members of the Cabinet, who regarded any interference with church property with abhorrence; they were Mr. Stanley, Sir James Graham, the Duke of Richmond, and the Earl of Ripon. … Owing to the difference of opinion in the Cabinet on the Irish coercion bill, on July 9, 1834, Earl Grey placed his resignation as Prime Minister in the hands of the king. On the 10th the House of Commons adjourned for four days. On the 14th, Viscount Melbourne stated in the House of Lords that his Majesty had honored him with his commands for the formation of a ministry. He had undertaken the task, but it was not yet completed. There was very little change in the Cabinet; Lord Melbourne's place in the Home Department was filled by Lord Duncannon; Sir John Cam Hobhouse obtained a seat as First Commissioner of Woods and Forests, and Lord Carlisle surrendered the Privy Seal to Lord Mulgrave. The Irish Church Bill was again brought forward, and although it passed the Commons, was defeated in the Lords, August 1st. The king much disliked the church policy of the Whigs, and dreaded reform. He was eager to prevent the meeting of the House, and circumstances favored him. Before the session Lord Spencer died, and Lord Althorpe, his son, was thus removed to the upper House. There was no reason why this should have broken up the ministry, but the king seized the opportunity, sent for Lord Melbourne, asserted that the ministry depended chiefly on the personal influence of Lord Althorpe in the Commons, declared that, deprived of it as it now was, the government could not go on, and dismissed his ministers, instructing Melbourne at once to send for the Duke of Wellington. The sensation in London was great; the dismissal of the ministry was considered unconstitutional; the act of the king was wholly without precedent. … The Duke of Wellington, from November 15th to December 9th, was the First Lord of the Treasury, and the sole Secretary of State, having only one colleague, Lord Lyndhurst, who held the great seal, while at the same time he sat as Chief Baron of the Court of Exchequer. This temporary government was called a dictatorship. … On Sir Robert Peel's return from Italy, whence he had been called, he waited upon the king and accepted the office of First Lord of the Treasury and Chancellor of the Exchequer. With the king's permission, he applied to Lord Stanley and Sir James Graham, entreating them to give him the benefit of their co-operation as colleagues in the Cabinet. They both declined. Prevented from forming a moderate Conservative ministry, he was reduced to fill his places with men of more pronounced opinions, which promised ill for any advance in reform. … The Foreign, Home, War, and Colonial offices were filled by Wellington, Goulburn, Herries, and Aberdeen; Lord Lyndhurst was Lord Chancellor; Harding, Secretary for Ireland; and Lord Wharncliffe, Privy Seal. With this ministry Peel had to meet a hostile House of Commons. … The Prime Minister therefore thought it necessary to dissolve Parliament, and took the opportunity [in what was called 'the Tamworth manifesto'] of declaring his policy. He declared his acceptance of the Reform Bill as a final settlement of the question. … The elections, though they returned a House, as is generally the case, more favorable to the existing government than that which had been dissolved, still gave a considerable majority to the Liberals. … Lord John Russell, on April 7th, proposed the resolution, 'That it is the opinion of this House that no measure upon the subject of the tithes in Ireland can lead to satisfactory and final adjustment which does not embody the temporalities of the Church in Ireland.' This was adopted by a majority of 27, and that majority was fatal to the ministry. On the following day the Duke of Wellington, in the House of Lords, stated that in consequence of the resolution in the House of Commons, the ministry had tendered their resignation. Sir Robert made a similar explanation in the Commons. Ten days later, Viscount Melbourne, in moving the adjournment of the House of Lords, stated that the king had been pleased to appoint him First Lord of the Treasury. … On June 9, 1837, a bulletin issued from Windsor Castle informing a loyal and really affectionate people that the king was ill. From the 12th they were regularly issued until the 19th, when the malady, inflammation of the lungs, had greatly increased. … On Tuesday, June 20th, the last of these official documents was issued. His Majesty had expired that morning at 2 o'clock. William died in the seventy-second year of his age and seventh year of his reign, leaving no legitimate issue. He was succeeded by his niece, Alexandrina Victoria."

ALSO IN: W. C. Taylor, Life and Times of Sir Robert Peel, volume 2, chapters 10-12.

      J. W. Croker,
      Correspondence and Diaries,
      chapters 18-20 (volume 2).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1837-1839.
   Opening of the reign of Queen Victoria.
   End of personal rule.
   Beginning of purely constitutional government.
   Peel and the Bedchamber Question.

"The Duke of Wellington thought the accession of a woman to the sovereign's place would be fatal to the present hopes of the Tories [who were then expecting a turn of events in their favor, as against the Whig administration of Lord Melbourne]. 'Peel,' he said, 'has no manners, and I have no small talk.' He seemed to take it for granted that the new sovereign would choose her Ministers as a school-girl chooses her companions. He did not know, did not foresee, that with the accession of Queen Victoria the real reign of constitutional government in these islands was to begin. The late King had advanced somewhat on the ways of his predecessors, but his rule was still, to all intents and purposes, a personal rule. With the accession of Victoria the system of personal rule came to an end. The elections which at that time were necessary on the coming of a new sovereign went slightly in favour of the Tories. The Whigs had many troubles. They were not reformers enough for the great body of their supporters. … The Radicals had split off from them. They could not manage O'Connell. The Chartist fire was already burning. There was many a serious crisis in foreign policy—in China and in Egypt, for example. The Canadian Rebellion and the mission of Lord Durham involved the Whigs in fresh anxieties, and laid them open to new attacks from their enemies. On the top of all came some disturbances, of a legislative rather than an insurrectionary kind, in Jamaica, and the Government felt called upon to bring in a Bill to suspend for five years the Constitution of the island. A Liberal and reforming Ministry bringing in a Bill to suspend a Constitution is in a highly awkward and dangerous position. Peel saw his opportunity, and opposed the Bill. The Government won by a majority of only 5. Lord Melbourne accepted the situation, and resigned [May 7, 1839]. The Queen sent for the Duke of Wellington, and he, of course, advised her to send for Peel. When Peel came, the young Queen told him with all the frankness of a girl that she was sorry to part with her late Ministers, and that she did not disapprove of their conduct, but that she felt bound to act in accordance with constitutional usages; Peel accepted the task of forming an Administration. And then came the famous dispute known as the 'Bedchamber Question'—the 'question de jupons.' The Queen wished to retain her ladies-in-waiting; Peel insisted that there must be some change. Two of these ladies were closely related to Whig statesmen whose policy was diametrically opposed to that of Peel on no less important a question than the Government of Ireland. Peel insisted that he could not undertake to govern under such conditions. The Queen, acting on the advice of her late Ministers, would not give way. The whole dispute created immense excitement at the time. There was a good deal of misunderstanding on both sides. It was quietly settled, soon after, by a compromise which the late Prince Consort suggested, and which admitted that Peel had been in the right. … Its importance to us now is that, as Peel would not give way, the Whigs had to come back again, and they came back discredited and damaged, having, as Mr. Molesworth puts it, got back 'behind the petticoats of the ladies-in-waiting.'"

ALSO IN: W. N. Molesworth, History of England, 1830-1874, volume 2, chapter 1.

"It may perhaps be assumed without any undue amount of speculative venturesomeness that the age of Queen Victoria will stand out in history as the period of a literature as distinct from others as the age of Elizabeth or Anne, although not perhaps equal in greatness to the latter, and far indeed below the former. At the opening of Queen Victoria's reign a great race of literary men had come to a close. It is curious to note how sharply and completely the literature of Victoria separates itself from that of the era whose heroes were Scott, Byron, and Wordsworth: Before Queen Victoria came to the throne, Scott, Byron, Coleridge, and Keats were dead. Wordsworth lived, indeed, for many years after; so did Southey and Moore; and Savage Landor died much later still. But Wordsworth, Southey, Moore, and Landor had completed their literary work before Victoria came to the throne. Not one of them added a cubit or an inch to his intellectual stature from that time; some of them even did work which distinctly proved that their day was done. A new and fresh breath was soon after breathed into literature. Nothing, perhaps, is more remarkable about the better literature of the age of Queen Victoria than its complete severance from the leadership of that which had gone before it, and its evidence of a fresh and genuine inspiration. It is a somewhat curious fact, too, very convenient for the purposes of this history, that the literature of Queen Victoria's time thus far divides itself clearly enough into two parts. The poets, novelists, and historians who were making their fame with the beginning of the reign had done all their best work and made their mark before these later years, and were followed by a new and different school, drawing inspiration from wholly different sources, and challenging comparison as antagonists rather than disciples. We speak now only of literature. In science the most remarkable developments were reserved for the later years of the reign."

      J. McCarthy,
      The Literature of the Victorian Reign
      (Appletons' Journal, January, 1879, page 498).

   "The age of Queen Victoria is as justly entitled to give name
   to a literary epoch as any of those periods on which this
   distinction has been conferred by posterity. A new tone of
   thought and a new colour of style are discernible from about
   the date of the Queen's accession, and, even should these
   characteristics continue for generations without apparent
   break, it will be remembered that the Elizabethan age did not
   terminate with Elizabeth. In one important respect, however,
   it differs from most of those epochs which derive their
   appellation from a sovereign. The names of Augustus, Lorenzo,
   Louis XIV., Anne, are associated with a literary advance, a
   claim to have bequeathed models for imitation to succeeding
   ages. This claim is not preferred on behalf of the age of
   Victoria. It represents the fusion of two currents which had
   alternately prevailed in successive periods. Delight and
   Utility met, Truth and Imagination kissed each other.
   Practical reform awoke the enthusiasm of genius, and genius
   put poetry to new use, or made a new path for itself in prose.
   The result has been much gain, some loss, and an originality
   of aspect which would alone render our Queen's reign
   intellectually memorable.
{959}
   Looking back to the 18th century in England, we see the spirit
   of utility entirely in the ascendant. Intellectual power is as
   great as ever, immortal books are written as of old, but there
   is a general incapacity not only for the production, but for
   the comprehension of works of the imagination. Minds as robust
   as Johnson's, as acute as Hume's, display neither strength nor
   intelligence in their criticism of the Elizabethan writers,
   and their professed regard for even the masterpieces of
   antiquity is evidently in the main conventional. Conversely,
   when the spell is broken and the capacity for imaginative
   composition returns, the half-century immediately preceding
   her Majesty's accession does not, outside the domain of the
   ideal, produce a single work of the first class. Hallam, the
   elder Mill, and others compose, indeed, books of great value,
   but not great books. In poetry and romantic fiction, on the
   other hand, the genius of that age reaches a height unattained
   since Milton, and probably not destined to be rivalled for
   many generations. In the age of Victoria we witness the fusion
   of its predecessors."

R. Garnett, Literature (The Reign of Queen Victoria, edited by T. H. Ward, volume 2, pages 445-446).

"The most conspicuous of the substantial distinctions between the literature of the present day and that of the first quarter or third of the century may be described as consisting in the different relative positions at the two dates of Prose and Verse. In the Georgian era verse was in the ascendant; in the Victorian era the supremacy has passed to prose. It is not easy for anyone who has grown up in the latter to estimate aright the universal excitement which used to be produced in the former by a new poem of Scott's, or Byron's, or Moore's, or Campbell's, or Crabbe's, or the equally fervid interest that was taken throughout a more limited circle in one by Wordsworth, or Southey, or Shelley. There may have been a power in the spirit of poetry which that of prose would in vain aspire to. Probably all the verse ages would be found to have been of higher glow than the prose ones. The age in question, at any rate, will hardly be denied by anyone who remembers it to have been in these centuries, perhaps from the mightier character of the events and circumstances in the midst of which we were then placed, an age in which the national heart beat more strongly than it does at present in regard to other things as well as this. Its reception of the great poems that succeeded one another so rapidly from the first appearance of Scott till the death of Byron was like its reception of the succession of great victories that, ever thickening, and almost unbroken by a single defeat, filled up the greater part of the ten years from Trafalgar to Waterloo—from the last fight of Nelson to the last of Wellington. No such huzzas, making the welkin ring with the one voice of a whole people, and ascending alike from every city and town and humblest village in the land, have been heard since then. … Of course, there was plenty of prose also written throughout the verse era; but no book in prose that was then produced greatly excited the public mind, or drew any considerable amount of attention, till the Waverley novels began to appear; and even that remarkable series of works did not succeed in at once reducing poetry to the second place, however chief a share it may have had in hastening that result. Of the other prose writing that then went on what was most effective was that of the periodical press,—of the Edinburgh Review and Cobbett's Register, and, at a later date, of Blackwood's Magazine and the London Magazine (the latter with Charles Lamb and De Quincey among its contributors),—much of it owing more or less of its power to its vehement political partisanship. A descent from poetry to prose is the most familiar of all phenomena in the history of literature. Call it natural decay or degeneracy, or only a relaxation which the spirit of a people requires after having been for a certain time on the wing or on the stretch, it is what a period of more than ordinary poetical productiveness always ends in."

G. L. Craik, Compendious History of English Literature, volume 2, pages 553-555.

   "What … are the specific channels of Victorian utterance in
   verse? To define them is difficult, because they are so subtly
   varied and so inextricably interwoven. Yet I think they may be
   superficially described as the idyll and the lyric. Under the
   idyll I should class all narrative and descriptive poetry, of
   which this age has been extraordinarily prolific; sometimes
   assuming the form of minstrelsy, as in the lays of Scott;
   sometimes approaching to the classic style, as in the
   Hellenics of Landor; sometimes rivalling the novellette, as in
   the work of Tennyson; sometimes aiming at psychological
   analysis, as in the portraits drawn by Robert Browning;
   sometimes confining art to bare history, as in Crabbe;
   sometimes indulging flights of pure artistic fancy, as in
   Keats' "Endymion" and "Lamia." Under its many metamorphoses
   the narrative and descriptive poetry of our century bears the
   stamp of the idyll, because it is fragmentary and because it
   results in a picture. … No literature and no age has been
   more fertile of lyric poetry than English literature in the
   age of Victoria. The fact is apparent. I should superfluously
   burden my readers if I were to prove the point by reference to
   Byron, Coleridge, Shelley, Keats, Wordsworth, Rossetti,
   Clough, Swinburne, Arnold, Tennyson, and I do not know how
   many of less illustrious but splendid names, in detail. The
   causes are not far to seek. Without a comprehensive vehicle
   like the epic, which belongs to the first period of national
   life, or the drama, which belongs to its secondary period, our
   poets of a later day have had to sing from their inner selves,
   subjectively, introspectively, obeying impulses from nature
   and the world, which touched them not as they were Englishmen,
   but as they were this man or that woman. … When they sang,
   they sang with their particular voice; and the lyric is the
   natural channel for such song. But what a complex thing is
   this Victorian lyric! It includes Wordsworth's sonnets and
   Rossetti's ballads, Coleridge's' Ancient Mariner' and Keats'
   odes, Clough's 'Easter day' and Tennyson's 'Maud,' Swinburne's
   'Songs before Sunrise' and Browning's 'Dramatis Personæ,'
   Thomson's 'City of Dreadful Night' and Mary Robinson's
   'Handful of Honeysuckles,' Andrew Lang's Ballades and Sharp's
   'Weird of Michael Scot,' Dobson's dealings with the eighteenth
   century and Noel's 'Child's Garland,' Barnes's Dorsetshire
   Poems and Buchanan's London Lyrics, the songs from Empedocles
   on Etna and Ebenezer Jones's 'Pagan's Drinking Chant,'
   Shelley's Ode to the West Wind and Mrs. Browning's 'Pan is
   Dead,' Newman's hymns and Gosse's Chant Royal.
{960}
   The kaleidoscope presented by this lyric is so inexhaustible
   that any man with the fragment of a memory might pair off
   scores of poems by admired authors, and yet not fall upon the
   same parallels as those which I have made. The genius of our
   century, debarred from epic, debarred from drama, falls back
   upon idyllic and lyrical expression. In the idyll it satisfies
   its objective craving after art. In the lyric it pours forth
   personality. It would be wrong, however, to limit the wealth
   of our poetry to these two branches. Such poems as
   Wordsworth's 'Excursion,' Byron's 'Don Juan' and 'Childe
   Harold,' Mrs. Browning's 'Aurora Leigh,' William Morris's
   'Earthly Paradise,' Clough's 'Amours de Voyage,' are not to be
   classified in either species. They are partly
   autobiographical, and in part the influence of the tale makes
   itself distinctly felt in them. Nor again can we omit the
   translations, of which so many have been made; some of them
   real masterpieces and additions to our literature."

J. A. Symonds, A Comparison of Elizabethan with Victorian Poetry (Fortnightly Review, January 1, 1889, pages 62-64).

The difference between the drama and the novel "is one of perspective; and it is this which in a wide sense distinguishes the Elizabethan and the Victorian views of life, and thence of art. … It is … the present aim of art to throw on life all manner of side-lights, such as the stage can hardly contrive, but which the novel professes to manage for those who can read. The round unvarnished tale of the early novelists has been dead for over a century, and in its place we have fiction that seeks to be as complete as life itself. … There is, then, in each of these periods an excellence and a relative defect: in the Elizabethan, roundness and balance, but, to us, a want of fulness; in the Victorian, amplified knowledge, but a falling short of comprehensiveness. And adapted to each respectively, the drama and the novel are its most expressive literary form. The limitations and scope of the drama are those of its time, and so of the novel. Even as the Elizabethan lived with all his might and was not troubled about many things, his art was intense and round, but restricted; and as the Victorian commonly views life by the light of a patent reading-lamp, and so, sitting apart, sees much to perplex, the novel gives a more complex treatment of life, with rarer success in harmony. This rareness is not, however, due to the novel itself, but to the minds of its makers. In possibility it is indeed the greater of the two, being more epical; for it is as capable of grandeur, and is ampler. This largeness in Victorian life and art argues in the great novelists a quality of spirit which it is difficult to name without being misunderstood, and which is peculiarly non-Elizabethan. It argues what Burns would call a castigated pulse, a supremacy over passion. Yet they are not Lucretian gods, however calm their atmosphere; their minds are not built above humanity, but, being rooted deep in it, rise high. … Both periods are at heart earnest, and the stamp on the great literature of each is that of reality, heightened and made powerful by romance. Nor is their agreement herein greatly shaken by the novel laying considerable stress on the outside of life, while the drama is almost heedless of it; for they both seek to break into the kernel, their variance being chiefly one of method, dictated by difference of knowledge, taste, and perception."

      T. D. Robb,
      The Elizabethan Drama and the Victorian Novel
      (Lippincott's Monthly Magazine, April, 1891,
      pages 520-522).

"When the Parliament was opened by the Queen on the 5th of February, 1839, a passage in the Royal Speech had reference to a state of domestic affairs which presented an unhappy contrast to the universal loyalty which marked the period of the Coronation. Her Majesty said: 'I have observed with pain the persevering efforts which have been made in some parts of the country to excite my subjects to disobedience and resistance to the law, and to recommend dangerous and illegal practices.' Chartism, which for ten subsequent years occasionally agitated the country, had then begun to take root. On the previous 12th of December a proclamation had been issued against illegal Chartist assemblies, several of which had been held, says the proclamation, 'after sunset by torchlight.' The persons attending these meetings were armed with guns and pikes; and demagogues, such as Feargus O'Connor and the Rev. Mr. Stephens at Bury, addressed the people in the most inflammatory language. … The document called 'The People's Charter,' which was embodied in the form of a bill in 1838, comprised six points:—universal suffrage, excluding, however, women; division of the United Kingdom into equal electoral districts; vote by ballot; annual parliaments; no property qualification for members; and a payment to every member for his legislative services. These principles so quickly recommended themselves to the working-classes that in the session of 1839 the number of signatures to a petition presented to Parliament was upwards of a million and a quarter. The middle classes almost universally looked with extreme jealousy and apprehension upon any attempt for an extension of the franchise. The upper classes for the most part regarded the proceedings of the Chartists with a contempt which scarcely concealed their fears. This large section of the working population very soon became divided into what were called physical-force Chartists and moral-force Chartists. As a natural consequence, the principles and acts of the physical-force Chartists disgusted every supporter of order and of the rights of property."

"Nothing can be more unjust than to represent the leaders and promoters of the movement as mere factious and self-seeking demagogues. Some of them were men of great ability and eloquence; some were impassioned young poets, drawn from the class whom Kingsley has described in his 'Alton Locke'; some were men of education; many were earnest and devoted fanatics; and, so far as we can judge, all, or nearly all, were sincere. Even the man who did the movement most harm, and who made himself most odious to all reasonable outsiders, the once famous, now forgotten, Feargus O'Connor, appears to have been sincere, and to have personally lost more than he gained by his Chartism. … He was of commanding presence, great stature, and almost gigantic strength. He had education; he had mixed in good society; he belonged to an old family. … There were many men in the movement of a nobler moral nature than poor, huge, wild Feargus O'Connor. There were men like Thomas Cooper, … devoted, impassioned, full of poetic aspiration, and no scant measure of poetic inspiration as well. Henry Vincent was a man of unimpeachable character. … {961} Ernest Jones was as sincere and self-sacrificing a man as ever joined a sinking cause. … It is necessary to read such a book as Thomas Cooper's Autobiography to understand how genuine was the poetic and political enthusiasm which was at the heart of the Chartist movement, and how bitter was the suffering which drove into its ranks so many thousands of stout working men who, in a country like England, might well have expected to be able to live by the hard work they were only too willing to do. One must read the Anti-Corn-Law Rhymes of Ebenezer Elliott to understand how the 'bread tax' became identified in the minds of the very best of the working class, and identified justly, with the system of political and economical legislation which was undoubtedly kept up, although not of conscious purpose, for the benefit of a class. … A whole literature of Chartist newspapers sprang up to advocate the cause. The 'Northern Star,' owned and conducted by Feargus O'Connor, was the most popular and influential of them; but every great town had its Chartist press. Meetings were held at which sometimes very violent language was employed. … A formidable riot took place in Birmingham, where the authorities endeavoured to put down a Chartist meeting. … Efforts were made at times to bring about a compromise with the middle-class Liberals and the Anti-Corn-Law leaders; but all such attempts proved failures. The Chartists would not give up their Charter; many of them would not renounce the hope of seeing it carried by force. The Government began to prosecute some of the orators and leaders of the Charter movement; and some of these were convicted, imprisoned and treated with great severity. Henry Vincent's imprisonment at Newport, in Wales, was the occasion of an attempt at rescue [November 4, 1839] which bore a very close resemblance indeed to a scheme of organised and armed rebellion." A conflict occurred in which ten of the Chartists were killed, and some 50 were wounded. Three of the leaders, named Frost, Williams, and Jones, were tried and convicted on the charge of high treason, and were sentenced to death; but the sentence was commuted to one of transportation. "The trial and conviction of Frost, Williams, and Jones, did not put a stop to the Chartist agitation. On the contrary, that agitation seemed rather to wax and strengthen and grow broader because of the attempt at Newport and its consequences. … There was no lack of what were called energetic measures on the part of the Government. The leading Chartists all over the country were prosecuted and tried, literally by hundreds. In most cases they were convicted and sentenced to terms of imprisonment. … The working classes grew more and more bitter against the Whigs, who they said had professed Liberalism only to gain their own ends. … There was a profound distrust of the middle class and their leaders," and it was for that reason that the Chartists would not join hands with the Anti-Corn-Law movement, then in full progress. "It is clear that at that time the Chartists, who represented the bulk of the artisan class in most of the large towns, did in their very hearts believe that England was ruled for the benefit of aristocrats and millionaires who were absolutely indifferent to the sufferings of the poor. It is equally clear that most of what are called the ruling class did really believe the English working men who joined the Chartist movement to be a race of fierce, unmanageable, and selfish communists, who, if they were allowed their own way for a moment, would prove themselves determined to overthrow throne, altar, and all established securities of society."

Among the measures of coercion advocated in the councils of the Chartists was that of appointing and observing what was to be called a "'sacred month,' during which the working classes throughout the whole kingdom were to abstain from every kind of labour, in the hope of compelling the governing classes to concede the charter."

      H. Jephson,
      The Platform,
      part 4, chapters 17 and 19 (volume 2).

"In 1837 Mr. Rowland Hill had published his plan of a cheap and uniform postage. A Committee of the House of Commons was appointed in 1837, which continued its inquiries throughout the session of 1838, and arrived at the conviction that the plan was feasible, and deserving of a trial under legislative sanction. After much discussion, and the experiment of a varying charge, the uniform rate for a letter not weighing more than half an ounce became, by order of the Treasury, one penny. This great reform came into operation on the 10th of January, 1840. Its final accomplishment is mainly due to the sagacity and perseverance of the man who first conceived the scheme."

"Up to this time the rates of postage on letters were very heavy, and varied according to the distance. For instance, a single letter conveyed from one part of a town to another cost 2d.; a letter from Reading, to London 7d.; from Brighton, 8d.; from Aberdeen, 1s. 3½d.; from Belfast, 1s. 4d. If the letter was written on more than a single sheet, the rate of postage was much higher."

   "On January 16, 1840, the Queen, opening Parliament in person,
   announced her intention to marry her cousin, Prince Albert of
   Saxe Coburg-Gotha—a step which she trusted would be
   'conducive to the interests of my people as well as to my own
   domestic happiness.' … It was indeed a marriage founded on
   affection. … The Queen had for a long time loved her cousin.
   He was nearly her own age, the Queen being the elder by three
   months and two or three days. Francis Charles Augustus Albert
   Emmanuel was the full name of the young Prince. He was the
   second son of Ernest, Duke of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld, and of his
   wife Louisa, daughter of Augustus, Duke of
   Saxe-Gotha-Altenberg. Prince Albert was born at the Rosenau,
   one of his father's residences, near Coburg, on August 26,
   1819. … A marriage between the Princess Victoria and Prince
   Albert had been thought of as desirable among the families on
   both sides, but it was always wisely resolved that nothing
   should be said to the young Princess on the subject unless she
   herself showed a distinct liking for her cousin.
{962}
   In 1836, Prince Albert was brought by his father to England,
   and made the personal acquaintance of the Princess, and she
   seems at once to have been drawn toward him in the manner
   which her family and friends would most have desired. … The
   marriage of the Queen and the Prince took place on February
   10, 1840."

ENGLAND: A. D. 1841-1842.
Fall of the Melbourne Ministry.
Opening of the second administration of Sir Robert Peel.

In 1841, the Whig Ministry (Melbourne's) determined "to do something for freedom of trade. … Colonial timber and sugar were charged with a duty lighter than was imposed on foreign timber and sugar; and foreign sugar paid a lighter or a heavier duty according as it was imported from countries of slave labour or countries of free labour. It was resolved to raise the duty on colonial timber, but to lower the duty on foreign timber and foreign sugar, and at the same time to replace the sliding scale of the Corn Laws then in force [see TARIFF LEGISLATION (ENGLAND): A. D. 1815-1828] with a fixed duty of 8s. per quarter. … The concessions offered by the Ministry, too small to excite the enthusiasm of the free traders, were enough to rally all the threatened interests around Peel. Baring's revision of the sugar duties was rejected by a majority of 36. Everybody expected the Ministers to resign upon this defeat; but they merely announced the continuance of the former duties. Then Peel gave notice of a vote of want of confidence, and carried it on the 4th of June by a single vote in a House of 623 members. Instead of resigning, the Ministers appealed to the country. The elections went on through the last days of June and the whole of July. When the new Parliament was complete, it appeared that the Conservatives could count upon 367 votes in the House of Commons. The Ministry met Parliament on the 24th of August. Peel in the House of Commons and Ripon in the House of Lords moved amendments to the Address, which were carried by majorities of 91 and 72 respectively." The Ministry resigned and a Conservative Government was formed, with Peel at its head, as First Lord of the Treasury. "Wellington entered the Cabinet without office, and Lyndhurst assumed for the third time the honours of Lord Chancellor." Among the lesser members of the Administration—not in the Cabinet—was Mr. Gladstone, who became Vice-President of the Board of Trade. "This time Peel experienced no difficulty with regard to the Queen's Household. It had been previously arranged that in the case of Lord Melbourne's resignation three Whig Ladies, the Duchess of Bedford, the Duchess of Sutherland, and Lady Normanby, should resign of their own accord. One or two other changes in the Household contented Peel, and these the Queen accorded with a frankness which placed him entirely at his ease. … During the recess Peel took a wide survey of the ills affecting the commonwealth, and of the possible remedies. To supply the deficiency in the revenue without laying new burthens upon the humbler class; to revive our fainting manufactures by encouraging the importation of raw material; to assuage distress by making the price of provisions lower and more regular, without taking away that protection which he still believed essential to British agriculture: these were the tasks which Peel now bent his mind to compass. … Having solved [the problems] to his own satisfaction, he had to persuade his colleagues that they were right. Only one proved obstinate. The Duke of Buckingham would hear of no change in the degree of protection afforded to agriculture. He surrendered the Privy Seal, which was given to the Duke of Buccleugh. … The Queen's Speech recommended Parliament to consider the state of the laws affecting the importation of corn and other commodities. It announced the beginning of a revolution which few persons in England thought possible, although it was to be completed in little more than ten years."

      J. W. Croker,
      Correspondence and Diaries,
      chapter 22 (volume 2).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1845-1846.
Repeal of the Corn Laws and dissolution of the League.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1846.
Settlement of the Oregon Boundary Question with the United
States.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1846.
   The vengeance of the Tory-Protectionists.
   Overthrow of Peel.
   Advent of Disraeli.
   Ministry of Lord John Russell.

"Strange to say, the day when the Bill [extinguishing the duties on corn] was read in the House of Lords for the third time [June 25] saw the fall of Peel's Ministry. The fall was due to the state of Ireland. The Government had been bringing in a Coercion Bill for Ireland. It was introduced while the Corn Bill was yet passing through the House of Commons. The situation was critical. All the Irish followers of Mr. O'Connell would be sure to oppose the Coercion Bill. The Liberal party, at least when out of office, had usually made it their principle to oppose Coercion Bills, if they were not attended with some promises of legislative reform. The English Radical members, led by Mr. Cobden and Mr. Bright, were certain to oppose coercion. If the protectionists should join with these other opponents of the Coercion Bill, the fate of the measure was assured, and with it the fate of the Government. This was exactly what happened. Eighty Protectionists followed Lord George Bentinck into the lobby against the Bill, in combination with the Free Traders, the Whigs, and the Irish Catholic and national members. The division took place on the second reading of the Bill on Thursday, June 25, and there was a majority of 73 against the Ministry."

The revengeful Tory-Protectionist attack on Peel was led by Sir George Bentinck and Benjamin Disraeli, then just making himself felt in the House of Commons. It was distinctly grounded upon no objection in principle to the Irish Coercion Bill, but on the declaration that they could "no longer trust Peel, and, must therefore refuse to give him unconstitutional powers.' … He had twice betrayed the party who had trusted his promises. … 'The gentlemen of England,' of whom it had once been Sir Robert's proudest boast to be the leader, declared against him. He was beaten by an overpowering majority, and his career as an English Minister was closed. Disraeli's had been the hand which dethroned him, and to Disraeli himself, after three years of anarchy and uncertainty, descended the task of again building together the shattered ruins of the Conservative party. Very unwillingly they submitted to the unwelcome necessity. Canning and the elder Pitt had both been called adventurers, but they had birth and connection, and they were at least Englishmen. Disraeli had risen out of a despised race; he had never sued for their favours; he had voted and spoken as he pleased, whether they liked it or not. … He was without Court favour, and had hardly a powerful friend except Lord Lyndhurst. He had never been tried on the lower steps of the official ladder. He was young, too—only 42—after all the stir that he had made. There was no example of a rise so sudden under such conditions. But the Tory party had accepted and cheered his services, and he stood out alone among them as a debater of superior power. Their own trained men had all deserted them. Lord George remained for a year or two as nominal chief: but Lord George died; the conservatives could only consolidate themselves under a real leader, and Disraeli was the single person that they had who was equal to the situation. … He had overthrown Peel and succeeded to Peel's honours."

   Although the Tory-Protectionists had accomplished the
   overthrow of Peel, they were not prepared to take the
   Government into their own hands. The new Ministry was formed
   under Lord John Russell, as First Lord of the Treasury, with
   Lord Palmerston in the Foreign Office, Sir George Grey in the
   Home Department, Earl Grey Colonial Secretary, Sir C. Wood
   Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Macaulay
   Paymaster-General.

The most important enactment of the Coercion Bill "(which subsequently gave it the name of the Curfew Act) was that which conferred on the executive Government the power in proclaimed districts of forbidding persons to be out of their dwellings between sunset and sunrise. The right of proclaiming a district as a disturbed district was placed in the hands of the Lord-Lieutenant, who might station additional constabulary there, the whole expense of which was to be borne by the district."

"The more violent Chartists had broken from the Radical reformers, and had themselves divided into two sections; for their nominal leader, Feargus O'Connor, was at bitter enmity with more thoroughgoing and earnest leaders such as O'Brien and Cooper. O'Connor had not proved a very efficient guide. He had entered into a land scheme of a somewhat doubtful character. … He had also injudiciously taken up a position of active hostility to the free-traders, and while thus appearing as the champion of a falling cause had alienated many of his supporters. Yet the Parliament elected in 1846 contained several representatives of the Chartist principles, and O'Connor himself had been returned for Nottingham by a large majority over Hobhouse, a member of the new Ministry. The revolution in France gave a sudden and enormous impulse to the agitation. The country was filled with meetings at which violent speeches were uttered and hints, not obscure, dropped of the forcible establishment of a republic in England. A new Convention was summoned for the 6th of April, a vast petition was prepared, and a meeting, at which it was believed that half a million of people would have been present, was summoned to meet on Kennington Common on the 10th of April for the purpose of carrying the petition to the House in procession. The alarm felt in London was very great. It was thought necessary to swear in special constables, and the wealthier classes came forward in vast numbers to be enrolled. There are said to have been no less than 170,000 special constables. The military arrangements were entrusted to the Duke of Wellington; the public offices were guarded and fortified; public vehicles were forbidden to pass the streets lest they should be employed for barricades; and measures were taken to prevent the procession from crossing the bridges. … Such a display of determination seemed almost ridiculous when compared with what actually occurred. But it was in fact the cause of the harmless nature of the meeting. Instead of half a million, about 30,000 men assembled on Kennington Common. Feargus O'Connor was there; Mr. Maine, the Commissioner of Police, called him aside, told him he might hold his meeting, but that the procession would be stopped, and that he would be held personally responsible for any disorder that might occur. His heart had already begun to fail him, and he … used all his influence to put an end to the procession. His prudent advice was followed, and no disturbance of any importance took place. … The air of ridicule thrown over the Chartist movement by the abortive close of a demonstration which had been heralded with so much violent talk was increased by the disclosures attending the presentation of the petition." There were found to be only 2,000,000 names appended to the document, instead of 5,000,000 as claimed, and great numbers of them were manifestly spurious. "This failure proved a deathblow to Chartism."

ENGLAND: A. D. 1848-1849.
Second war with the Sikhs.
Conquest and annexation of the Punjab.

   The little difficulty with Greece which came to a crisis in
   the last weeks of 1849 and the first, of 1850 (see GREECE: A.
   D. 1846-1850), and which was commonly called the Don Pacifico
   Affair, gave occasion for a memorable speech in Parliament by
   Lord Palmerston, defending his foreign policy against attacks.
{964}
   The speech (June 24, 1850), which occupied five hours, "from
   the dusk of one day till the dawn of another," was greatly
   admired, and proved immensely effective in raising the
   speaker's reputation. "The Don Pacifico debate was
   unquestionably an important landmark in the life of Lord
   Palmerston. Hitherto his merits had been known only to a
   select few; for the British public does not read Blue Books,
   and as a rule troubles itself very little about foreign
   politics at all. … But the Pacifico speech caught the ear of
   the nation, and was received with a universal verdict of
   approval. From that hour Lord Palmerston became the man of the
   people, and his rise to the premiership only a question of
   time."

ENGLAND: A. D. 1850.
   The so-called Clayton-Bulwer Treaty with the United States,
   establishing a joint protectorate over the projected Nicaragua
   Canal.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1850.
Restoration of the Roman Episcopate.
The Ecclesiastical Titles Bill.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1850-1852.
The London protocol and treaty on the Schleswig-Holstein
Question.

"The first of May, 1851, will always be memorable as the day on which the Great Exhibition was opened in Hyde Park. … Many exhibitions of a similar kind have taken place since. Some of these far surpassed that of Hyde Park in the splendour and variety of the collections brought together. Two of them at least—those of Paris in 1867 and 1878—were infinitely superior in the array and display of the products, the dresses, the inhabitants of far-divided countries. But the impression which the Hyde Park Exhibition made upon the ordinary mind was like that of the boy's first visit to the play—an impression never to be equalled. … It was the first organised to gather all the representatives of the world's industry into one great fair. … The Hyde Park Exhibition was often described as the festival to open the long reign of Peace. It might, as a mere matter of chronology, be called without any impropriety the festival to celebrate the close of the short reign of Peace. From that year, 1851, it may be said fairly enough that the world has hardly known a week of peace. … The first idea of the Exhibition was conceived by Prince Albert; and it was his energy and influence which succeeded in carrying the idea into practical execution. … Many persons were disposed to sneer at it; many were sceptical about its doing any good; not a few still regarded Prince Albert as a foreigner and a pedant, and were slow to believe that anything really practical was likely to be developed under his impulse and protection. … There was a great deal of difficulty in selecting a plan for the building. … Happily, a sudden inspiration struck Mr. (afterward Sir Joseph) Paxton, who was then in charge of the Duke of Devonshire's superb grounds at Chatsworth. Why not try glass and iron? he asked himself. … Mr. Paxton sketched out his plan hastily, and the idea was eagerly accepted by the Royal Commissioners. He made many improvements afterwards in his design; but the palace of glass and iron arose within the specified time on the green turf of Hyde Park."

ALSO IN: T. Martin, Life of the Prince Consort, chapters 33-36, 39, 42-43 (volume 2).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1851-1852.
   The Coup d'Etat in France and Lord Palmerston's dismissal from
   the Cabinet.
   Defeat and resignation of Lord John Russell.
   The first Derby
   Disraeli Ministry and the Aberdeen coalition Ministry.

The "coup d'etat" of December 2nd, 1851, by which Louis Napoleon made himself master of France (see FRANCE: A. D. 1851) brought about the dismissal of Lord Palmerston from the British Ministry, followed quickly by the overthrow of the Ministry which expelled him. "Lord Palmerston not only expressed privately to Count Walewski [the French ambassador] his approval of the 'coup d'etat,' but on the 16th of December wrote a despatch to Lord Normanby, our representative in Paris, expressing in strong terms his satisfaction at the success of the French President's arbitrary action. This despatch was not submitted either to the Prime Minister or to the Queen, and of course the offence was of too serious a character to be passed over. A great deal of correspondence ensued, and as Palmerston's explanations were not deemed satisfactory, and he had clearly broken the undertaking he gave some time previously, he was dismissed from office. … There were some who thought him irretrievably crushed from this time forward; but a very short time only elapsed before he retrieved his fortunes and was as powerful as ever. In February 1852 Lord John Russell brought in a Militia Bill which was intended to develop a local militia for the defence of the country. Lord Palmerston strongly disapproved of the scope of the measure, and in committee moved an amendment to omit the word 'local,' so as to constitute a regular militia, which should be legally transportable all over the kingdom, and thus be always ready for any emergency. The Government were defeated by eleven votes, and as the Administration had been very weak for some time, Lord John resigned. Lord Derby formed a Ministry, and invited the cooperation of Palmerston, but the offer was declined, as the two statesmen differed on the question of imposing a duty on the importation of corn, and other matters.'

   "The new Ministry [in which Mr. Disraeli became Chancellor of
   the Exchequer] took their seats on the 27th of February, but
   it was understood that a dissolution of Parliament would take
   place in the summer, by which the fate of the new Government
   would be decided, and that in the meantime the Opposition
   should hold its hand. The raw troops [of the Tory Party in the
   House of Commons], notwithstanding their inexperience,
   acquitted themselves with credit, and some good Bills were
   passed, the Militia Bill among the number, while a
   considerable addition to the strength of the Navy was effected
   by the Duke of Northumberland. No doubt, when the general
   election began, the party had raised itself considerably in
   public estimation. But for one consideration the country would
   probably have been quite willing to entrust its destinies to
   their hands.
{965}
   But that one consideration was all important. … The
   Government was obliged to go to the country, to some extent,
   on Protectionist principles. It was known that a Derbyite
   majority meant a moderate import duty; and the consequence was
   that Lord Derby just lost the battle, though by a very narrow
   majority. When Parliament met in November, Lord Derby and Mr.
   Disraeli had a very difficult game to play. … Negotiations
   were again opened with Palmerston and the Peelites, and on
   this occasion Gladstone and Mr. Sidney Herbert were willing to
   join if Lord Palmerston might lead in the House of Commons.
   But the Queen put her veto on this arrangement, which
   accordingly fell to the ground; and Lord Derby had to meet the
   Opposition attack without any reinforcements. … On the 16th
   of December, … being defeated on the Budget by a majority of
   19, Lord Derby at once resigned."

"The new Government [which succeeded that of Derby] was a coalition of Whigs and Peelites, with Sir William Molesworth thrown in to represent the Radicals. Lord Aberdeen became Prime Minister, and Mr. Gladstone Chancellor of the Exchequer. The other Peelites in the Cabinet were the Duke of Newcastle, Sir James Graham, and Mr. Sidney Herbert."

      G. W. E. Russell,
      The Rt. Hon. William Ewart Gladstone,
      chapter 5.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1852-1853.
Abandonment of Protection by the Conservatives.
Further progress in Free Trade.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1855.
   Popular discontent with the management of the war.
   Fall of the Aberdeen Ministry.
   Palmerston's first premiership.
   A brightening of prospects.

"Our army system entirely broke down [in the Crimea], and Lord Aberdeen and the Duke of Newcastle were made the scapegoats of the popular indignation. … But England was not only suffering from unpreparedness and want of administrative power in the War department; there were dissensions in the Cabinet. … Lord John Russell gave so much trouble, that Lord Aberdeen, after one of the numerous quarrels and reconciliations which occurred at this juncture, wrote to the Queen that nothing but a sense of public duty and the necessity for avoiding the scandal of a rupture kept him at his post. … At a little later stage … the difficulties were renewed. Mr. Roebuck gave notice of his motion for the appointment of a select committee to inquire into the condition of the army before Sebastopol, and Lord John definitively resigned. The Ministry remained in office to await the fate of Mr. Roebuck's motion, which was carried against them by the very large majority of 157. Lord Aberdeen now placed the resignation of the Cabinet in the hands of the Queen [January 31, 1855]. … Thus fell the Coalition Cabinet of Lord Aberdeen. In talent and parliamentary influence it was apparently one of the strongest Governments ever seen, but it suffered from a fatal want of cohesion."

"Lord Palmerston had passed his 70th year when the Premiership came to him for the first time. On the fall of the Coalition Government the Queen sent for Lord Derby, and upon his failure for Lord John Russell. Palmerston was willing at the express request of her Majesty to serve once more under his old chief, but Clarendon and many of the Whigs not unnaturally positively refused to do so. Palmerston finally undertook and successfully achieved the task of forming a Government out of the somewhat heterogeneous elements at his command. Lord Clarendon continued at the Foreign Office, and Gladstone was still Chancellor of the Exchequer. The War Department was reorganised, the office of Secretary at War disappearing, and being finally merged in that of Secretary of State for War. Although Palmerston objected to Roebuck's Committee, he was practically compelled to accept it, and this led to the resignation of Gladstone, Graham and Herbert; their places being taken by Sir G. C. Lewis, Sir Charles Wood, and Lord John Russell."

"It was a dark hour in the history of the nation when Lord Palmerston essayed the task which had been abandoned by the tried wisdom of Derby, Lansdowne, and John Russell. Far away in the Crimea the war was dragging on without much hope of a creditable solution, though the winter of discontent and mismanagement was happily over. The existence of the European concert was merely nominal. The Allies had discovered, many months previously, that, though Austria was staunch, Prussia was a faithless friend. … Between the belligerent powers the cloud of suspicion and distrust grew thicker; for Abd-el-Medjid was known to be freely squandering his war loans on seraglios and palaces while Kars was starving; and though there was no reason for distrusting the present good faith of the Emperor of the French, his policy was straight-forward only as long as he kept himself free from the influence of the gang of stock-jobbers and adventurers who composed his Ministry. Nor was the horizon much brighter on the side of England. A series of weak cabinets, and the absence of questions of organic reform, had completely relaxed the bonds of Party. If there was no regular Opposition, still less was there a regular majority. … And the hand that was to restore order out of chaos was not so steady as of yore. … Lord Palmerston was not himself during the first weeks of his leadership. But the prospect speedily brightened. Though Palmerston was considerably over seventy, he still retained a wonderful vigour of constitution. He was soon restored to health, and was always to be found at his post. … His generalship secured ample majorities for the Government in every division during the session. Of the energy which Lord Palmerston inspired into the operations against Sebastopol, there can hardly be two opinions."

ENGLAND: A. D. 1856-1860.
   War with China.
   French alliance in the war.
   Capture of Canton.
   Entrance into Pekin.
   Destruction of the Summer Palace.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1858.
Assumption of the government of India by the Crown.
End of the rule of the East India Co.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1858-1859.
   The Conspiracy Bill.
   Fall of Palmerston's government.
   Second Ministry of Derby and Disraeli.
   Lord Palmerston again Premier.

"On January 14, 1858, an attempt was made to assassinate Napoleon III. by a gang of desperadoes, headed by Orsini, whose head-quarters had previously been in London. Not without some reason it was felt in France that such men ought not to be able to find shelter in this country, and the French Minister was ordered to make representations to that effect. Lord Palmerston, always anxious to cultivate the good feeling of the French nation, desired to pass a measure which should give to the British Government the power to banish from England any foreigner conspiring in Britain against the life of a foreign sovereign. … An unfortunate outburst of vituperation against England in the French press, and the repetition of such language by officers of the French army who were received by the Emperor when they waited on him as a deputation, aroused very angry English feeling. Lord Palmerston had already introduced the Bill he desired to pass, and it had been read the first time by a majority of 200. But the foolish action of the French papers changed entirely the current of popular opinion. Lord Derby saw his advantage. An amendment to the second reading, which was practically a vote of censure, was carried against Lord Palmerston, and to his own surprise no less than to that of the country, he was obliged to resign. Lord Derby succeeded to Palmerston's vacant office. … Lord Derby's second Ministry was wrecked upon the fatal rock of Reform early in 1859, and at once appealed to the country. … The election of 1859 failed to give the Conservatives a majority, and soon after the opening of the session they were defeated upon a vote of want of confidence moved by Lord Hartington. Earl Granville was commissioned by the Queen to form a Ministry, because her Majesty felt that 'to make so marked a distinction as is implied in the choice of one or other as Prime Minister of two statesmen so full of years and honour as Lord Palmerston and Lord John Russell would be a very invidious and unwelcome task.' Each of these veterans was willing to serve under the other, but neither would follow the lead of a third. And so Granville failed, and to Palmerston was entrusted the task. He succeeded in forming what was considered the strongest Ministry of modern times, so far as the individual ability of its members was concerned. Russell went to the Foreign Office and Gladstone to the Exchequer."

ALSO IN: T. Martin, Life of the Prince Consort, chapters 82-84, 91-92, and 94 (volume 4).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1861 (May). The Queen's Proclamation of Neutrality with reference to the American Civil War.

"Upon a population, containing half a million of cotton operatives, in a career of rapid prosperity, the profits of 1860 reaching in some instances from 30 to 40 per cent upon the capital engaged; and with wages also at the highest point which they had ever touched, came the news of the American war, with the probable stoppage of 85 per cent of the raw material of their manufacture. A few wise heads hung despondently down, or shook with fear for the fate of 'the freest nation under heaven,' but the great mass of traders refused to credit a report which neither suited their opinions nor their interests. … There was a four months' supply held on this side the water at Christmas (1860), and there had been three months' imports at the usual rate since that time, and there would be the usual twelve months' supply from other sources; and by the time this was consumed, and the five months' stock of goods held by merchants sold, all would be right again. That this was the current opinion was proved by the most delicate of all barometers, the scale of prices; for during the greater part of the year 1861 the market was dull, and prices scarcely moved upwards. But towards the end of the year the aspect of affairs began to change. … The Federals had declared a blockade of the Southern ports, and, although as yet it was pretty much a 'paper blockade,' yet the newly established Confederate government was doing its best to render it effective. They believed that cotton was king in England, and that the old country could not do without it, and would be forced, in order to secure its release, to side with those who kept it prisoner. Mills began to run short time or to close in the month of October, but no noise was made about it; and the only evidence of anything unusual was at the boards of guardians, where the applications had reached the mid-winter height three months earlier than usual. The poor-law guardians in the various unions were aware that the increase was not of the usual character—it was too early for out-door labourers to present themselves; still the difference was not of serious amount, being only about 3,000 in the whole twenty-eight unions. In November, 7,000 more presented themselves, and in December the increase was again 7,000; so that the recipients of relief were at this time 12,000 (or about 25 per cent) more than in the January previous. And now serious thoughts began to agitate many minds; cotton was very largely held by speculators for a rise, the arrivals were meagre in quantity, and the rates of insurance began to show that, notwithstanding the large profits on imports, the blockade was no longer on paper alone. January, 1862, added 16,000 more to the recipients of relief, who were now 70 per cent above the usual number for the same period of the year. But from the facts as afterwards revealed, the statistics of boards of guardians were evidently no real measure of the distress prevailing. … The month of February usually lessens the dependents on the poor-rates, for out-door labour begins again as soon as the signs of spring appear; but in 1862 it added nearly 9,000 to the already large number of extra cases, the recipients being now 105 per cent above the average for the same period of the year. {967} But this average gives no idea of the pressure in particular localities. … The cotton operatives were now, if left to themselves, like a ship's crew upon short provisions, and those very unequally distributed, and without chart or compass, and no prospect of getting to land. In Ashton there were 3,197; in Stockport, 8,588; and in Preston, 9,488 persons absolutely foodless; and who nevertheless declined to go to the guardians. To have forced the high-minded heads of these families to hang about the work-house lobbies in company with the idle, the improvident, the dirty, the diseased, and the vicious, would have been to break their heaving hearts, and to hurl them headlong into despair. Happily there is spirit enough in this country to appreciate nobility, even when dressed in fustian, and pride and sympathy enough to spare even the poorest from unnecessary humiliation; and organisations spring up for any important work so soon as the necessity of the case becomes urgent in any locality. Committees arose almost simultaneously in Ashton, Stockport, and Preston; and in April, Blackburn followed in the train, and the guardians and the relief committees of these several places divided an extra 6,000 dependents between them. The month of May, which usually reduces pauperism to almost its lowest ebb, added 6,000 more to the recipients from the guardians, and 5,000 to the dependents on the relief committees, which were now six in number, Oldham and Prestwich (a part of Manchester) being added to the list. … The month of June sent 6,000 more applicants to sue for bread to the boards of guardians, and 5,000 additional to the six relief committees; and these six committees had now as many dependents as the whole of the boards of guardians in the twenty-eight unions supported in ordinary years. … In the month of July, when all unemployed operatives would ordinarily be lending a hand in the hay harvest, and picking up the means of living whilst improving in health and enjoying the glories of a summer in the country, the distress increased like a flood, 13,000 additional applicants being forced to appeal for poor-law relief; whilst 11,000 others were adopted by the seven relief committees. … In August the flood had become a deluge, at which the stoutest heart might stand appalled. The increased recipients of poor-law relief were in a single month, 33,000, being nearly as many as the total number chargeable in the same month of the previous year, whilst a further addition of more than 34,000 became chargeable to the relief committees. … Most of the cotton on hand at this period was of Indian growth, and needed alterations of machinery to make it workable at all, and in good times an employer might as well shut up his mill as try to get it spun or manufactured. But oh! how glad would the tens of thousands of unwilling idlers have been now, to have had a chance even of working at Surats, although they knew that it required much harder work for one-third less than normal wages. … Another month is past, and October has added to the number under the guardians no less than 55,000, and to the charge of the relief committees 39,000 more. … And now dread winter approaches, and the authorities have to deal not only with hundreds of thousands who are compulsorily idle, and consequently foodless, but who are wholly unprepared for the inclemencies of the season; who have no means of procuring needful clothing, nor even of making a show of cheerfulness upon the hearth by means of the fire, which is almost as useful as food. … The total number of persons chargeable at the end of November, 1862, was, under boards of guardians, 258,357, and on relief committees, 200,084; total 458,441. … There were not wanting men who saw, or thought they saw, a short way out of the difficulty, viz., by a recognition on the part of the English government of the Southern confederacy in America. And meetings were called in various places to memorialise the government to this effect. Such meetings were always balanced by counter meetings, at which it was shown that simple recognition would be waste of words; that it would not bring to our shores a single shipload of cotton, unless followed up by an armed force to break the blockade, which course if adopted would be war; war in favour of the slave confederacy of the South, and against the free North and North-west, whence comes a large proportion of our imported corn. In addition to the folly of interfering in the affairs of a nation 3,000 miles away, the cotton, if we succeeded in getting it, would be stained with blood and cursed with the support of slavery, and would also prevent our getting the food which we needed from the North equally as much as the cotton from the South. … These meetings and counter meetings perhaps helped to steady the action of the government (notwithstanding the sympathy of some of its members towards the South), to confirm them in the policy of the royal proclamation, and to determine them to enforce the provisions of the Foreign Enlistment Act against all offenders. … The maximum pressure upon the relief committees was reached early in December, 1862, but, as the tide had turned before the end of the month, the highest number chargeable at any one time is nowhere shown. The highest number exhibited in the returns is for the last week in the year 1862, viz.: 485,434 persons; but in the previous weeks of the same month some thousands more were relieved."

ENGLAND: A. D. 1862 (JULY).
The fitting out of the Confederate cruiser Alabama
at Liverpool.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1865-1868.
   Death of Palmerston.
   Ministry of Lord John Russell.
   Its unsatisfactory Reform Bill and its resignation.
   Triumph of the Adullamites.
   Third administration of Derby and Disraeli,
   and its Reform Bills.

   "On the death of Lord Palmerston [which occurred October 18,
   1865], the premiership was intrusted for the second time to
   Earl Russell, with Mr. Gladstone as leader in the House of
   Commons. The queen opened her seventh parliament (February 6,
   1866), in person, for the first time since the prince
   consort's death. On March 12th Mr. Gladstone brought forward
   his scheme of reform, proposing to extend the franchise in
   counties and boroughs, but the opposition of the moderate
   Liberals, and their joining the Conservatives, proved fatal to
   the measure, and in consequence the ministry of Earl Russell
   resigned.
{968}
   The government had been personally weakened by the successive
   deaths of Mr. Sidney Herbert, Sir George Cornewall Lewis, the
   Duke of Newcastle, Earl of Elgin, and Lord Palmerston. The
   queen sent for the Earl of Derby to form a Cabinet, who,
   although the Conservative party was in the minority in the
   House of Commons, accepted the responsibility of undertaking
   the management of the government: he as Premier and First Lord
   of the Treasury; Mr. Disraeli, Chancellor of the Exchequer."

"The measure, in fact, was too evidently a compromise. The Russell and Gladstone section of the Cabinet wanted reform: the remnants of Palmerston's followers still thought it unnecessary. The result was this wretched, tinkering measure, which satisfied nobody, and disappointed the expectation of all earnest Reformers. … The principal opposition came not from the Conservatives, as might have been expected, but from Mr. Horsman and Mr. Robert Lowe, both members of the Liberal party, who from the very first declared they would have none of it. … Mr. Bright denounced them furiously as 'Adullamites'; all who were in distress, all who were discontented, had gathered themselves together in the political cave of Adullam for the attack on the Government. But Mr. Lowe, all unabashed by denunciation or sarcasm, carried the war straight into the enemy's camp in a swift succession of speeches of extraordinary brilliance and power. … The party of two, which in its origin reminded Mr. Bright of 'the Scotch terrier which was so covered with hair that you could not tell which was the head and which was the tail of it,' was gradually reinforced by deserters from the ranks of the Government until at last the Adullamites were strong enough to turn the scale of a division. Then one wild night, after a hot and furious debate, the combined armies of the Adullamites and Conservatives carried triumphantly an amendment brought forward by one of the Adullamite chiefs, Lord Dunkellin, to the effect that a rating be substituted for a rental qualification; and the Government was at an end. … The failure of the bill brought Lord Russell's official career to its close. He formally handed over the leadership of the party to Mr. Gladstone, and from this time took but little part in politics. Lord Derby, his opponent, was soon to follow his example, and then the long-standing duel between Gladstone and Disraeli would be pushed up to the very front of the parliamentary stage, right in the full glare of the footlights. Meanwhile, however, Lord Derby had taken office [July 9, 1866]. Disraeli and Gladstone were changing weapons and crossing the stage. … The exasperated Liberals, however, were rousing a widespread agitation throughout the country in favour of Reform: monster meetings were held in Hyde Park; the Park railings were pulled down and trampled on by an excited mob, and the police regulations proved as unable to bear the unusual strain as police regulations usually do on such occasions. The result was that Mr. Disraeli became convinced that a Reform Bill of some kind or other was inevitable, and Mr. Disraeli's opinion naturally carried the day. The Government, however, did not go straight to the point at once. They began by proposing a number of resolutions on the subject, which were very soon laughed out of existence. Then they brought a bill founded on them, which, however, was very shortly afterwards withdrawn after a very discouraging reception. Finally, the Ministry, lightened by the loss of three of its members—the Earl of Carnarvon, Viscount Cranborne, and General Peel—announced their intention of bringing in a comprehensive measure. The measure in question proposed household suffrage in the boroughs subject to the payment of rates, and occupation franchise for the counties subject to the same limitation, and a variety of fanciful clauses, which would have admitted members of the liberal professions, graduates of the universities, and a number of other classes to the franchise. The most novel feature was a clause which permitted a man to acquire two votes if he possessed a double qualification by rating and by profession. The great objection to the bill was that it excluded the compound householder.' The compound householder is now as extinct an animal as the potwalloper found in earlier parliamentary strata, but he was the hero of the Reform debates of 1867, and as such deserves more than a passing reference. He was, in fact, an occupier of a small house who did not pay his rates directly and in person, but paid them through his landlord. Now the occupiers of these very small houses were naturally by far the most numerous class of occupiers in the boroughs, and the omission of them implied a large exclusion from the franchise. The Liberal party, therefore, rose in defence of the compound householder, and the struggle became fierce and hot. It must be remembered, however, that neither Mr. Gladstone nor Mr. Bright wished to lower the franchise beyond a certain point, and a meeting was held in consequence, in which it was agreed that the programme brought forward in committee should begin by an alteration of the rating laws, so that the compound householder above a certain level should pay his own rates and be given a vote, and that all occupiers below the level should be excluded from the rates and the franchise alike. On what may be described roughly as 'the great drawing-the-line question,' however, the Liberal party once more split up. The advanced section were determined that all occupiers should be admitted, and they would have no 'drawing the line.' Some fifty or sixty of them held a meeting in the tea-room of the House of Commons and decided on this course of action: in consequence they acquired the name of the 'Tea-Room Party.' The communication of their views to Mr. Gladstone made him excessively indignant. He denounced them in violent language, and his passion was emulated by Mr. Bright. … Mr. Gladstone had to give in, and his surrender was followed by that of Mr. Disraeli. The Tea-Room Party, in fact, were masters of the day, and were able to bring sufficient pressure to bear on the Government to induce them to admit the principle of household suffrage pure and simple, and to abolish all distinctions of rating. … Not only was the household suffrage clause considerably extended, the dual vote abolished, and most of the fancy franchises swept away, but there were numerous additions which completely altered the character of the bill, and transformed it from a balanced attempt to enlarge the franchise without shifting the balance of power to a sweeping measure of reform."

The Reform Bill for England "was followed in 1868 by measures for Scotland and Ireland. By these Acts the county franchise in England was extended to all occupiers of lands or houses of the yearly value of £12, and in Scotland to all £5 property owners and £14 property occupiers; while that in Ireland was not altered. The borough franchise in England and Scotland was given to all ratepaying householders and to lodgers occupying lodgings of the annual value of £10; and in Ireland to all ratepaying £4 occupiers. Thus the House of Commons was made nearly representative of all taxpaying commoners, except agricultural labourers and women."

D. W. Rannie, Historical Outline of the English Constitution, chapter 12, section 4.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1865-1869.
Discussion of the Alabama Claims of the United States.
The Johnson-Clarendon Treaty and its rejection.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1868-1870.
   Disestablishment of the Irish Church.
   Retirement of the Derby-Disraeli Ministry.
   Mr. Gladstone in power.
   His Irish Land Bill.

"On March 16, 1868, a remarkable debate took place in the House of Commons. It had for its subject the condition of Ireland, and it was introduced by a series of resolutions which Mr. John Francis Maguire, an Irish member, proposed. … It was on the fourth night of the debate that the importance of the occasion became fully manifest. Then it was that Mr. Gladstone spoke, and declared that in his opinion the time had come when the Irish Church as a State institution must cease to exist. Then every man in the House knew that the end was near. Mr. Maguire withdrew his resolutions. The cause he had to serve was now in the hands of one who, though not surely more earnest for its success, had incomparably greater power to serve it. There was probably not a single Englishman capable of forming an opinion who did not know that from the moment when Mr. Gladstone made his declaration, the fall of the Irish State Church had become merely a question of time. Men only waited to see how Mr. Gladstone would proceed to procure its fall. Public expectation was not long kept in suspense. A few days after the debate on Mr. Maguire's motion, Mr. Gladstone gave notice of three resolutions on the subject of the Irish State Church. The first declared that in the opinion of the House of Commons it was necessary that the Established Church of Ireland should cease to exist as an Establishment, due regard being had to all personal interests and to all individual rights of property. The second resolution pronounced it expedient to prevent the creation of new personal interests by the exercise of any public patronage; and the third asked for an address to the Queen, praying that Her Majesty would place at the disposal of Parliament her interest in the temporalities of the Irish Church. The object of these resolutions was simply to prepare for the actual disestablishment of the Church, by providing that no further appointments should be made, and that the action of patronage should be stayed, until Parliament should decide the fate of the whole institution. On March 30, 1868, Mr. Gladstone proposed his resolutions. Not many persons could have had much doubt as to the result of the debate. But if there were any such, their doubts must have begun to vanish when they read the notice of amendment to the resolutions which was given by Lord Stanley. The amendment proclaimed even more surely than the resolutions the impending fall of the Irish Church. Lord Stanley must have been supposed to speak in the name of the Government and the Conservative party; and his amendment merely declared that the House, while admitting that considerable modifications in the temporalities of the Church in Ireland might appear to be expedient, was of opinion 'that any proposition tending to the disestablishment or disendowment of the Church ought to be reserved for the decision of the new Parliament.' Lord Stanley's amendment asked only for delay. … The debate was one of great power and interest. … When the division was called there were 270 votes for the amendment, and 331 against it. The doom of the Irish Church was pronounced by a majority of 61. An interval was afforded for agitation on both sides. … Mr. Gladstone's first resolution came to a division about a month after the defeat of Lord Stanley's amendment. It was carried by a majority somewhat larger than that which had rejected the amendment—330 votes were given for the resolution; 265 against it. The majority for the resolution was therefore 65. Mr. Disraeli quietly observed that the Government must take some decisive step in consequence of that vote; and a few days afterwards it was announced that as soon as the necessary business could be got through, Parliament would be dissolved and an appeal made to the country. On the last day of July the dissolution took place, and the elections came on in November. Not for many years had there been so important a general election. The keenest anxiety prevailed as to its results. The new constituencies created by the Reform Bill were to give their votes for the first time. The question at issue was not merely the existence of the Irish State Church. It was a general struggle of advanced Liberalism against Toryism. … The new Parliament was to all appearance less marked in its Liberalism than that which had gone before it. But so far as mere numbers went the Liberal party was much stronger than it had been. In the new House of Commons it could count upon a majority of about 120, whereas in the late Parliament it had but 60. Mr. Gladstone it was clear would now have everything in his own hands, and the country might look for a career of energetic reform. … Mr. Disraeli did not meet the new Parliament as Prime Minister. He decided very properly that it would be a mere waste of public time to wait for the formal vote of the House of Commons, which would inevitably command him to surrender. He at once resigned his office, and Mr. Gladstone was immediately sent for by the Queen, and invited to form an Administration. Mr. Gladstone, it would seem, was only beginning his career. He was nearly sixty years of age, but there were scarcely any evidences of advancing years to be seen on his face. … The Government he formed was one of remarkable strength. … Mr. Gladstone went to work at once with his Irish policy. {970} On March 1, 1869, the Prime Minister introduced his measure for the disestablishment and partial disendowment of the Irish State Church. The proposals of the Government were, that the Irish Church should almost at once cease to exist as a State Establishment, and should pass into the condition of a free Episcopal Church. As a matter of course the Irish bishops were to lose their seats in the House of Lords. A synodal, or governing body, was to be elected from the clergy and laity of the Church and was to be recognised by the Government, and duly incorporated. The union between the Churches of England and Ireland was to be dissolved, and the Irish Ecclesiastical Courts were to be abolished. There were various and complicated arrangements for the protection of the life interests of those already holding positions in the Irish Church, and for the appropriation of the fund which would return to the possession of the State when all these interests had been fairly considered and dealt with. … Many amendments were introduced and discussed; and some of these led to a controversy between the two Houses of Parliament; but the controversy ended in compromise. On July 26, 1869, the measure for the disestablishment of the Irish Church received the royal assent. Lord Derby did not long survive the passing of the measure which he had opposed with such fervour and so much pathetic dignity. Be died before the Irish State Church had ceased to live. … When the Irish Church had been disposed of, Mr. Gladstone at once directed his energies to the Irish land system. … In a speech delivered by him during his electioneering campaign in Lancashire, he had declared that the Irish upas-tree had three great branches: the State Church, the Land Tenure System, and the System of Education, and that he meant to hew them all down if he could. On February 15, 1870, Mr. Gladstone introduced his Irish Land Bill into the House of Commons. … It recognised a certain property or partnership of the tenant in the land which he tilled. Mr. Gladstone took the Ulster tenant-right as he found it, and made it a legal institution. In places where the Ulster practice, or something analogous to it, did not exist, he threw upon the landlord the burden of proof as regarded the right of eviction. The tenant disturbed in the possession of his land could claim compensation for improvements, and the bill reversed the existing assumption of the law by presuming all improvements to be the property of the tenant, and leaving it to the landlord, if he could, to prove the contrary. The bill established a special judiciary machinery for carrying out its provisions. … It put an end to the reign of the landlord's absolute power; it reduced the landlord to the level of every other proprietor, of every other man in the country who had anything to sell or hire. … The bill passed without substantial alteration. On August 1, 1870, the bill received the Royal assent. The second branch of the upas-tree had been hewn down. … Mr. Gladstone had dealt with Church and land; he had yet to deal with university education. He had gone with Irish ideas thus far."

ALSO IN: W. N. Molesworth, History of England, 1830-1874, volume 3, chapter 6.

Annual Register, 1869, part 1: English History, chapters 2-3, and 1870, chapters 1-2.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1871.
Abolition of Army Purchase and University Religious Tests.
Defeat of the Ballot Bill.

"The great measure of the Session [of 1871] was of course the Army Bill, which was introduced by Mr. Cardwell, on the 16th of February. It abolished the system by which rich men obtained by purchase commissions and promotion in the army, and provided £8,000,000 to buy all commissions, as they fell in, at their regulation and over-regulation value [the regulation value being a legal price, fixed by a Royal Warrant, but which in practice was never regarded]. In future, commissions were to be awarded either to those who won them by open competition, or who had served as subalterns in the Militia, or to deserving non-commissioned officers. … The debate, which seemed interminable, ended in an anti-climax that astonished the Tory Opposition. Mr. Disraeli threw over the advocates of Purchase, evidently dreading an appeal to the country. … The Army Regulation Bill thus passed the Second Reading without a division," and finally, with some amendments passed the House. "In the House of Lords the Bill was again obstructed. … Mr. Gladstone met them with a bold stroke. By statute it was enacted that only such terms of Purchase could exist as her Majesty chose to permit by Royal Warrant. The Queen, therefore, acting on Mr. Gladstone's advice, cancelled her warrant permitting Purchase, and thus the opposition of the Peers was crushed by what Mr. Disraeli indignantly termed 'the high-handed though not illegal' exercise of the Royal Prerogative. The rage of the Tory Peers knew no bounds." They "carried a vote of censure on the Government, who ignored it, and then their Lordships passed the Army Regulation Bill without any alterations. … The Session of 1871 was also made memorable by the struggle over the Ballot Bill, in the course of which nearly all the devices of factious obstruction were exhausted. … When the Bill reached the House of Lords, the real motive which dictated the … obstruction of the Conservative Opposition in the House of Commons was quickly revealed. The Lords rejected the Bill on the 18th of August, not merely because they disliked and dreaded it, but because it had come to them too late for proper consideration. Ministers were more successful with some other measures. In spite of much conservative opposition they passed a Bill abolishing religious tests in the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, and throwing open all academic distinctions and privileges except Divinity Degrees and Clerical Fellowships to students of all creeds and faiths."

ENGLAND: A. D. 1871-1872.
Renewed negotiations with the United States.
The Treaty of Washington and the Geneva Award.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1873-1879. Rise of the Irish Home Rule Party and organization of the Land League.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1873-1880.
   Decline and fall of the Gladstone government.
   Disraeli's Ministry.
   His rise to the peerage, as Earl of Beaconsfield.
   The Eastern Question.
   Overthrow of the administration.
   The Second Gladstone Ministry.

"One of the little wars in which we had to engage broke out with the Ashantees, a misunderstanding resulting from our purchase of the Dutch possessions (1873) in their neighbourhood. Troops and marines under Wolseley … were sent out to West Africa. Crossing the Prah River, January 20th, 1874, he defeated the Ashantees on the last day of that month at a place called Amoaful, entered and burnt their capital, Coomassie, and made a treaty with their King, Koffee, by which he withdrew all claims of sovereignty over the tribes under our protection. The many Liberal measures carried by the Ministry caused moderate men to wish for a halt. Some restrictions on the licensed vintners turned that powerful body against the Administration, which, on attempting to carry an Irish University Bill in 1873, became suddenly aware of its unpopularity, as the second reading was only carried by a majority of three. Resignation followed. The erratic, but astute, Disraeli declined to undertake the responsibility of governing the country with the House of Commons then existing, consequently Mr. Gladstone resumed office; yet Conservative reaction progressed. He in September became Chancellor of the Exchequer (still holding the Premiership) and 23rd January, 1874, he suddenly dissolved Parliament, promising in a letter to the electors of Greenwich the final abolition of the income tax, and a reduction in some other 'imposts.' The elections went against him. The 'harassed' interests overturned the Ministry (17th February, 1874). … On the accession of the Conservative Government under Mr. Disraeli (February, 1874), the budget showed a balance of six millions in favour of the reduction of taxation. Consequently the sugar duties were abolished and the income tax reduced to 2d. in the pound. This, the ninth Parliament of Queen Victoria, sat for a little over six years. … Mr. Disraeli, now the Earl of Beaconsfield, was fond of giving the country surprises. One of these consisted in the purchase of the interest of the Khedive of Egypt in the Suez Canal for four millions sterling (February, 1876). Another was the acquisition of the Turkish Island of Cyprus, handed over for the guarantee to Turkey of her Asiatic provinces in the event of any future Russian encroachments. … As war had broken out in several of the Turkish provinces (1876), and as Russia had entered the lists for the insurgents against the Sultan, whom England was bound to support by solemn treaties, we were treated to a third surprise by the conveyance, in anticipation of a breach with Russia, of 7,000 troops from India to Malta. The Earl of Derby, looking upon this manœuvre as a menace to that Power, resigned his office, which was filled by Lord Salisbury (1878). … The war proving disastrous to Turkey, the treaty of St. Stephano (February, 1878), was concluded with Russia, by which the latter acquired additional territory in Asia Minor in violation of the treaty of Paris (1856). Our Government strongly remonstrated, and war seemed imminent. Through the intercession, however, of Bismarck, the German Chancellor, war was averted, and a congress soon met in Berlin, at which Britain was represented by Lords Salisbury and Beaconsfield; the result being the sanction of the treaty already made, with the exception that the town of Erzeroum was handed back to Turkey. Our ambassadors returned home rather pompously, the Prime Minister loftily declaring, that they had brought back 'peace with honour.' … Our expenses had rapidly increased, the wealthy commercial people began to distrust a Prime Minister who had brought us to the brink of war, the Irish debates, Irish poverty, and Irish outrages had brought with them more or less discredit on the Ministry. … The Parliament was dissolved March 24th, but the elections went so decisively in favour of the Liberals that Beaconsfield resigned (April 23rd). Early in the following year he appeared in his place in the House of Peers, but died April 19th. Though Mr. Gladstone had in 1875 relinquished the political leadership in favour of Lord Hartington yet the 'Bulgarian Atrocities' and other writings brought him again so prominent before the public that his leadership was universally acknowledged by the party. … He now resumed office, taking the two posts so frequently held before by Prime Ministers since the days of William Pitt, who also held them. … The result of the general election of 1880 was the return of more Liberals to Parliament than Conservatives and Home Rulers together. The farming interest continued depressed both in Great Britain and Ireland, resulting in thousands of acres being thrown on the landlords' hands in the former country, and numerous harsh evictions in the latter for non-payment of rent. Mr. Gladstone determined to legislate anew on the Irish Land Question: and (1881) carried through both Houses that admirable measure known as the Irish Land Act, which for the first time in the history of that country secured to the tenant remuneration for his own industry. A Land Commission Court was established to fix Fair Rents for a period of 15 years. After a time leaseholders were included in this beneficent legislation."

ENGLAND: A. D. 1877-1878.
   The Eastern Question again.
   Bulgarian atrocities.
   Excitement over the Russian successes in Turkey.
   War-clamor of "the Jingoes."
   The fleet sent through the Dardanelles.
   Arrangement of the Berlin Congress.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1878.
The Congress of Berlin.
Acquisition of the control of Cyprus.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1882.
   War in Egypt.
   Bombardment of Alexandria.
   Battle of Tel-el-Kebir.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1883.
The Act for Prevention of Corrupt and Illegal Practices at
Parliamentary Elections.

"Prior to the General Election of 1880 there were those who hoped and believed that Corrupt Practices at Elections were decreasing. These hopes were based upon the growth of the constituencies and their increased political intelligence, and also upon the operation of the Ballot Act. The disclosures following the General Election proved to the most sanguine that this belief was an error. Corrupt practices were found to be more prevalent than ever. If in olden times larger aggregate sums were expended in bribery and treating, never probably had so many persons been bribed and treated as at the General Election of 1880. After that election nineteen petitions against returns on the ground of corrupt practices were presented. In eight instances the Judges reported that those practices had extensively prevailed, and in respect of seven of these the reports of the Commissioners appointed under the Act of 1852 demonstrated the alarming extent to which corruption of all kinds had grown. … A most serious feature in the Commissioners' Reports was the proof they afforded that bribery was regarded as a meritorious not as a disgraceful act. Thirty magistrates were reported as guilty of corrupt practices and removed from the Commission of the Peace by the Lord Chancellor. Mayors, aldermen, town-councillors, solicitors, the agents of the candidates, and others of a like class were found to have dealt with bribery as if it were a part of the necessary machinery for conducting an election. Worst of all, some of these persons had actually attained municipal honours, not only after they had committed these practices, but even after their misdeeds had been exposed by public inquiry. The Reports also showed, and a Parliamentary Return furnished still more conclusive proof, that election expenses were extravagant even to absurdity, and moreover were on the increase. The lowest estimate of the expenditure during the General Election of 1880 amounts to the enormous sum of two and a half millions. With another Reform Bill in view, the prospects of future elections were indeed alarming. … The necessity for some change was self-evident. Public opinion insisted that the subject should be dealt with, and the evil encountered. … The Queen's Speech of the 6th of January, 1881, announced that a measure 'for the repression of corrupt practices' would be submitted to Parliament, and on the following day the Attorney-General (Sir Henry James), in forcible and eloquent terms, moved for leave to introduce his Bill. His proposals (severe as they seemed) were received with general approval and sympathy, both inside and outside the House of Commons, at a time when members and constituents alike were ashamed of the excesses so recently brought to light. It is true that the two and a half years' delay that intervened between the introduction of the Bill and its finally becoming law (a delay caused by the necessities of Irish legislation), sufficed very considerably to cool the enthusiasm of Parliament and the public. Yet enough desire for reform remained to carry in July 1883 the Bill of January 1881, modified indeed in detail, but with its principles intact and its main provisions unaltered. The measure which has now become the Parliamentary Elections Act of 1883, was in its conception pervaded by two principles. The first was to strike hard and home at corrupt practices; the second was to prohibit by positive legislation any expenditure in the conduct of an election which was not absolutely necessary. Bribery, undue influence, and personation, had long been crimes for which a man could be fined and imprisoned. Treating was now added to the same class of offences, and the punishment for all rendered more deterrent by a liability to hard labour. … Besides punishment on conviction, incapacities of a serious character are to result from a person being reported guilty of corrupt practices by Election Judges or Election Commissioners. … A candidate reported personally guilty of corrupt practices can never sit again for the same constituency, and is rendered incapable of being a member of the House of Commons for seven years. All persons, whether candidates or not, are, on being reported, rendered incapable of holding any public office or exercising any franchise for the same period. Moreover, if any persons so found guilty are magistrates, barristers, solicitors, or members of other honourable professions, they are to be reported to the Lord Chancellor, Inns of Court, High Court of Justice, or other authority controlling their profession, and dealt with as in the case of professional misconduct. Licensed victuallers are, in a similar manner, to be reported to the licensing justices, who may on the next occasion refuse to renew their licenses. … The employment of all paid assistants except a very limited number is forbidden; no conveyances are to be paid for, and only a restricted number of committee rooms are to be engaged. Unnecessary payments for the exhibition of bills and addresses, and for flags, bands, torches, and the like are declared illegal. But these prohibitions of specific objects were not considered sufficient. Had these alone been enacted, the money of wealthy and reckless candidates would have found other channels in which to flow. … And thus it was that the 'maximum scale' was adopted as at once the most direct and the most efficacious means of limiting expenditure. Whether by himself or his agents, by direct payment or by contract, the candidate is forbidden to spend more in 'the conduct and management of an election' than the sums permitted by the Act, sums which depend in each case on the numerical extent of the constituency."

      H. Hobhouse,
      The Parliamentary Elections
      (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Act, 1883,
      pages 1-8.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1884-1885.
   The Third Reform Bill and the Redistribution Bill.
   The existing qualifications and disqualifications
   of the Suffrage.

   "Soon after Mr. Gladstone came into power in 1880, Mr.
   Trevelyan became a member of his Administration. Already the
   Premier had secured the co-operation of two other men new to
   office—Mr. Chamberlain and Sir Charles Dilke. … Their
   presence in the Administration was looked upon as a good
   augury by the Radicals, and the augury was not destined to
   prove misleading. It was understood from the first that, with
   such men as his coadjutors, Mr. Gladstone was pledged to a
   still further Reform. He was pledged already, in fact, by his
   speeches in Midlothian. … On the 17th of October, 1883, a
   great Conference was held at Leeds, for the purpose of
   considering the Liberal programme for the ensuing season. The
   Conference was attended by no fewer than 2,000 delegates, who
   represented upwards of 500 Liberal Associations.
{973}
   It was presided over by Mr. John Morley. … To a man the
   delegates agreed as to the imperative necessity of household
   suffrage being extended to the counties; and almost to a man
   they agreed also as to the necessity of the measure being no
   longer delayed. … When Parliament met on the 5th of the
   following February … a measure for 'the enlargement of the
   occupation franchise in Parliamentary Elections throughout the
   United Kingdom' was distinctly promised in the Royal Speech;
   and the same evening Mr. Gladstone gave notice that 'on the
   first available day,' he would move for leave to bring in the
   bill. So much was the House of Commons occupied with affairs
   in Egypt and the Soudan, however, that it was not till the
   29th of February that the Premier was able to fulfil his
   pledge." Four months were occupied in the passage of the bill
   through the House of Commons, and when it reached the Lords it
   was rejected. This roused "an intense feeling throughout the
   country. On the 21st of July, a great meeting was held in Hyde
   Park, attended, it was believed, by upwards of 100,000
   persons. … On the 30th of July, a great meeting of delegates
   was held in St. James's Hall, London. … Mr. John Morley, who
   presided, used some words respecting the House that had
   rejected the bill which were instantly caught up by Reformers
   everywhere. 'Be sure,' he said, 'that no power on earth can
   separate henceforth the question of mending the House of
   Commons from the question of mending, or ending, the House of
   Lords.' On the 4th of August, Mr. Bright, speaking at
   Birmingham, referred to the Lords as 'many of them the spawn
   of the plunder and the wars and the corruption of the dark
   ages of our country'; and his colleague, Mr. Chamberlain, used
   even bolder words: 'During the last one hundred years the
   House of Lords has never contributed one iota to popular
   liberties or popular freedom, or done anything to advance the
   common weal; and during that time it has protected every abuse
   and sheltered every privilege. … It is irresponsible without
   independence, obstinate without courage, arbitrary without
   judgment, and arrogant without knowledge.' … In very many
   instances, a strong disposition was manifested to drop the
   agitation for the Reform of the House of Commons for a time,
   and to concentrate the whole strength of the Liberal party on
   one final struggle for the Reform (or, preferably, the
   extinction) of the Upper House." But Mr. Gladstone gave no
   encouragement to this inclination of his party. The outcome of
   the agitation was the passage of the Franchise Bill a second time
   in the House of Commons, in November, 1884, and by the Lords
   soon afterwards. A concession was made to the latter by
   previously satisfying them with regard to the contemplated
   redistribution of seats in the House of Commons, for which a
   separate bill was framed and introduced while the Franchise
   Bill was yet pending. The Redistribution Bill passed the
   Commons in May and the Lords in June, 1885.

"In regard to electoral districts, the equalization, in other words, the radical refashioning of electoral districts, having about the same number of inhabitants, is carried out. For this purpose, 79 towns, having less than 15,000 inhabitants, are divested of the right of electing a separate member; 36 towns, with less than 50,000, return only one member; 14 large towns obtain an increase of the number of the members in proportion to the population; 35 towns, of nearly 50,000, obtain a new franchise. The counties are throughout parcelled-out into 'electoral districts' of about the like population, to elect one member each. This single-seat system is, regularly, carried out in towns, with the exception of 28 middle-sized towns, which have been left with two members. The County of York forms, for example, 26 electoral districts; Liverpool 9. To sum up, the result stands thus:—the counties choose 253 members (formerly 187), the towns 237 (formerly 297). The average population of the county electoral districts is now 52,800 (formerly 70,800); the average number of the town electoral districts 52,700 (formerly 41,200). … The number of the newly-enfranchised is supposed, according to an average estimate, to be 2,000,000."

ALSO IN: J. Murdoch, History of Constitutional Reform in Great Britain and Ireland, pages 277-398.

The following is the text of the "Third Reform Act," which is
entitled "The Representation of the People Act, 1884":

An Act to amend the Law relating to the Representation of
the People of the United Kingdom. [6th December, 1884.]

Be it enacted by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:

2. A uniform household franchise and a uniform lodger franchise at elections shall be established in all counties and boroughs throughout the United Kingdom, and every man possessed of a household qualification or a lodger qualification shall, if the qualifying premises be situate in a county in England or Scotland, be entitled to be registered as a voter, and when registered to vote at an election for such county, and if the qualifying premises be situate in a county or borough in Ireland, be entitled to be registered as a voter, and when registered to vote at an election for such county or borough.

3. Where a man himself inhabits any dwelling-house by virtue of any office, service, or employment, and the dwelling-house is not inhabited by any person under whom such man serves in such office, service, or employment, he shall be deemed for the purposes of this Act and of the Representation of the People Acts to be an inhabitant occupier of such dwelling-house as a tenant.

4. Subject to the saving in this Act for existing voters, the following provisions shall have effect with reference to elections:

(1.) A man shall not be entitled to be registered as a voter in respect of the ownership of any rentcharge except the owner of the whole of the tithe rentcharge of a rectory, vicarage, chapelry, or benefice to which an apportionment of tithe rentcharge shall have been made in respect of any portion of tithes.

      (2.) Where two or more men are owners either as joint
      tenants or as tenants in common of an estate in any land or
      tenement, one of such men, but not more than one, shall, if
      his interest is sufficient to confer a qualification as a
      voter in respect of the ownership of such estate, be
      entitled (in the like cases and subject to the like
      conditions as if he were the sole owner) to be registered
      as a voter, and when registered to vote at an election.
{974}
      Provided that where such owners have derived their interest
      by descent, succession, marriage, marriage settlement, or
      will, or where they occupy the land or tenement, and are
      bonâ fide engaged as partners carrying on trade or business
      thereon, each of such owners whose interest is sufficient
      to confer on him a qualification as a voter shall be
      entitled (in the like cases and subject to the like
      conditions as if he were sole owner) to be registered as a
      voter in respect of such ownership, and when registered to
      vote at an election, and the value of the interest of each
      such owner where not otherwise legally defined shall be
      ascertained by the division of the total value of the land
      or tenement equally among the whole of such owners.

5. Every man occupying any land or tenement in a county or borough in the United Kingdom of a clear yearly value of not less than ten pounds shall be entitled to be registered as a voter and when registered to vote at an election for such county or borough in respect of such occupation subject to the like conditions respectively as a man is, at the passing of this Act, entitled to be registered as a voter and to vote at an election for such county in respect of the county occupation franchise, and at an election for such borough in respect of the borough occupation franchise.

6. A man shall not by virtue of this Act be entitled to be registered as a voter or to vote at any election for a county in respect of the occupation of any dwelling-house, lodgings, land, or tenement, situate in a borough.

7. (1.) In this Act the expression "a household qualification" means, as respects England and Ireland, the qualification enacted by the third section of the Representation of the People Act, 1867 [see comments appended to this text], and the enactments amending or affecting the same, and the said section and enactments so far as they are consistent with this Act, shall extend to counties in England and to counties and boroughs in Ireland.

(2.) In the construction of the said enactments, as amended and applied to Ireland, the following dates shall be substituted for the dates therein mentioned, that is to say, the twentieth day of July for the fifteenth day of July, the first day of July for the twentieth day of July, and the first day of January for the fifth day of January.

(3.) The expression "a lodger qualification" means the qualification enacted, as respects England, by the fourth section of the Representation of the People Act, 1867 [see comments appended to this text], and the enactments amending or affecting the same, and as respects Ireland, by the fourth section of the Representation of the People (Ireland) Act, 1868, and the enactments amending or affecting the same, and the said section of the English Act of 1867, and the enactments amending or affecting the same, shall, so far as they are consistent with this Act, extend to counties in England, and the said section of the Irish Act of 1868, and the enactments amending or affecting the same, shall, so far as they are consistent with this Act, extend to counties in Ireland; and sections five and six and twenty-two and twenty-three of the Parliamentary and Municipal Registration Act, 1878, so far as they relate to lodgings, shall apply to Ireland, and for the purpose of such application the reference in the said section six to the Representation of the People Act, 1867, shall be deemed to be made to the Representation of the People (Ireland) Act, 1868, and in the said section twenty-two of the Parliamentary and Municipal Registration Act, 1878, the reference to section thirteen of the Parliamentary Registration Act, 1843, shall be construed to refer to the enactments of the Registration Acts in Ireland relating to the making out, signing, publishing, and otherwise dealing with the lists of voters, and the reference to the Parliamentary Registration Acts shall be construed to refer to the Registration Acts in Ireland, and the following dates shall be substituted in Ireland for the dates in that section mentioned, that is to say, the twentieth day of July for the last day of July, and the fourteenth day of July for the twenty-fifth day of July, and the word "overseers" shall be construed to refer in a county to the clerk of the peace, and in a borough to the town clerk.

(4.) The expression "a household qualification" means, as respects Scotland, the qualification enacted by the third section of the Representation of the People (Scotland) Act, 1868, and the enactments amending or affecting the same, and the said section and enactments shall, so far as they are consistent with this Act, extend to counties in Scotland, and for the purpose of the said section and enactments the expression "dwelling-house" in Scotland means any house or part of a house occupied as a separate dwelling, and this definition of a dwelling-house shall be substituted for the definition contained in section fifty-nine of the Representation of the People (Scotland) Act, 1868.

(5.) The expression "a lodger qualification" means, as respects Scotland, the qualification enacted by the fourth section of the Representation of the People (Scotland) Act, 1868, and the enactments amending or affecting the same, and the said section and enactments, so far as they are consistent with this Act, shall extend to counties in Scotland.

(6.) The expression "county occupation franchise" means, as respects England, the franchise enacted by the sixth section of the Representation of the People Act, 1867 [see comments appended to this text]; and, as respects Scotland, the franchise enacted by the sixth section of the Representation of the People (Scotland) Act, 1868; and, as respects Ireland, the franchise enacted by the first section of the Act of the session of the thirteenth and fourteenth years of the reign of Her present Majesty, chapter sixty-nine.

(7.) The expression "borough occupation franchise" means, as respects England, the franchise enacted by the twenty-seventh section of the Act of the session of the second and third years of the reign of King William the Fourth, chapter forty-five [see comments appended to this text]; and as respects Scotland, the franchise enacted by the eleventh section of the Act of the session of the second and third years of the reign of King William the Fourth, chapter sixty-five; and as respects Ireland the franchise enacted by section five of the Act of the session of the thirteenth and fourteenth years of the reign of Her present Majesty, chapter sixty-nine, and the third section of the Representation of the People (Ireland) Act, 1868.

(8.) Any enactments amending or relating to the county occupation franchise or 'borough occupation franchise other than the sections in this Act in that behalf mentioned shall be deemed to be referred to in the definition of the county occupation franchise and the borough occupation franchise in this Act mentioned.

8. (1.) In this Act the expression "the Representation of the People Acts" means the enactments for the time being in force in England, Scotland, and Ireland respectively relating to the representation of the people, inclusive of the Registration Acts as defined by this Act.

(2.) The expression "the Registration Acts" means the enactments for the time being in force in England, Scotland, and Ireland respectively, relating to the registration of persons entitled to vote at elections for counties and boroughs, inclusive of the Rating Acts as defined by this Act.

(3.) The expressions "the Representation of the People Acts" and "the Registration Acts" respectively, where used in this Act, shall be read distributively in reference to the three parts of the United Kingdom as meaning in the case of each part the enactments for the time being in force in that part.

(4.) All enactments of the Registration Acts which relate to the registration of persons entitled to vote in boroughs in England in respect of a household or a lodger qualification, and in boroughs in Ireland in respect of a lodger qualification, shall, with the necessary variations and with the necessary alterations of precepts, notices, lists, and other forms, extend to counties as well as to boroughs.

(5.) All enactments of the Registration Acts which relate to the registration in counties and boroughs in Ireland of persons entitled to vote in respect of the county occupation franchise and the borough occupation franchise respectively, shall, with the necessary variations and with the necessary alterations of precepts, notices, lists, and other forms, extend respectively to the registration in counties and boroughs in Ireland of persons entitled to vote in respect of the household qualification conferred by this Act.

(6.) In Scotland all enactments of the Registration Acts which relate to the registration of persons entitled to vote in burghs, including the provisions relating to dates, shall, with the necessary variations, and with the necessary alterations of notices and other forms, extend and apply to counties as well as to burghs; and the enactments of the said Acts which relate to the registration of persons entitled to vote in counties shall, so far as inconsistent with the enactments so applied, be repealed: Provided that in counties the valuation rolls, registers, and lists shall continue to be arranged in parishes as heretofore.

9. (1.) In this Act the expression "the Rating Acts" means the enactments for the time being in force in England, Scotland, and Ireland respectively, relating to the placing of the names of occupiers on the rate book, or other enactments relating to rating in so far as they are auxiliary to or deal with the registration of persons entitled to vote at elections; and the expression "the Rating Acts" where used in this Act shall be read distributively in reference to the three parts of the United Kingdom as meaning in the case of each part the Acts for the time being in force in that part.

(2.) In every part of the United Kingdom it shall be the duty of the overseers annually, in the months of April and May, or one of them, to inquire or ascertain with respect to every hereditament which comprises any dwelling-house or dwelling-houses within the meaning of the Representation of the People Acts, whether any man, other than the owner or other person rated or liable to be rated in respect of such hereditament, is entitled to be registered as a voter in respect of his being an inhabitant occupier of any such dwelling-house, and to enter in the rate book the name of every man so entitled, and the situation or description of the dwelling-house in respect of which he is entitled, and for the purposes of such entry a separate column shall be added to the rate book.

(3.) For the purpose of the execution of such duty the overseers may serve on the person who is the occupier or rated or liable to be rated in respect of such hereditament, or on some agent of such person concerned in the management of such hereditament, the requisition specified in the Third Schedule of this Act requiring that the form in that notice be accurately filled up and returned to the overseers within twenty-one days after such service; and if any such person or agent on whom such requisition is served fails to comply therewith, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding forty shillings, and any overseer who fails to perform his duty under this section shall be deemed guilty of a breach of duty in the execution of the Registration Acts, and shall be liable to be fined accordingly a sum not exceeding forty shillings for each default.

(4.) The notice under this section may be served in manner provided by the Representation of the People Acts with respect to the service on occupiers of notice of non-payment of rates, and, where a body of persons, corporate or unincorporate, is rated, shall be served on the secretary or agent of such body of persons; and where the hereditament by reason of belonging to the Crown or otherwise is not rated, shall be served on the chief local officer having the superintendence or control of such hereditament.

(5.) In the application of this section to Scotland the expression rate book means the valuation roll, and where a man entered on the valuation roll by virtue of this section inhabits a dwelling-house by virtue of any office, service, or employment, there shall not be entered in the valuation roll any rent or value against the name of such man as applicable to such dwelling-house, nor shall any such man by reason of such entry become liable to be rated in respect of such dwelling-house.

(6.) The proviso in section two of the Act for the valuation of lands and heritages in Scotland passed in the session of the seventeenth and eighteenth years of the reign of Her present Majesty chapter ninety-one, and section fifteen of the Representation of the People (Scotland) Act, 1868, shall be repealed: Provided that in any county in Scotland the commissioners of supply, or the parochial board of any parish, or any other rating authority entitled to impose assessments according to the valuation roll, may, if they think fit, levy such assessments in respect of lands and heritages separately let for a shorter period than one year or at a rent not amounting to four pounds per annum in the same manner and from the same persons as if the names of the tenants and occupiers of such lands and heritages were not inserted in the valuation roll.

(7.) In Ireland where the owner of a dwelling-house is rated instead of the occupier, the occupier shall nevertheless be entitled to be registered as a voter, and to vote under the same conditions under which an occupier of a dwelling-house in England is entitled in pursuance of the Poor Rate Assessment and Collection Act, 1869, and the Acts amending the same, to be registered as a voter, and to vote where the owner is rated, and the enactments referred to in the First Schedule to this Act shall apply to Ireland accordingly, with the modifications in that schedule mentioned.

(8.) Both in England and Ireland where a man inhabits any dwelling-house by virtue of any office, service, or employment, and is deemed for the purposes of this Act and of the Representation of the People Acts to be an inhabitant occupier of such dwelling-house as a tenant, and another person is rated or liable to be rated for such dwelling-house, the rating of such other person shall for the purposes of this Act and of the Representation of the People Acts be deemed to be that of the inhabitant occupier; and the several enactments of the Poor Rate Assessment and Collection Act, 1869, and other Acts amending the same referred to in the First Schedule to this Act shall for those purposes apply to such inhabitant occupier, and in the construction of those enactments the word "owner" shall be deemed to include a person actually rated or liable to be rated as aforesaid.

(9.) In any part of the United Kingdom where a man inhabits a dwelling-house in respect of which no person is rated by reason of such dwelling-house belonging to or being occupied on behalf of the Crown, or by reason of any other ground of exemption, such person shall not be disentitled to be registered as a voter, and to vote by reason only that no one is rated in respect of such dwelling-house, and that no rates are paid in respect of the same, and it shall be the duty of the persons making out the rate book or valuation roll to enter any such dwelling-house as last aforesaid in the rate book or valuation roll, together with the name of the inhabitant occupier thereof.

10. Nothing in this Act shall deprive any person (who at the date of the passing of this Act is registered in respect of any qualification to vote for any county or borough), of his right to be from time to time registered and to vote for such county or borough in respect of such qualification in like manner as if this Act had not passed. Provided that where a man is so registered in respect of the county or borough occupation franchise by virtue of a qualification which also qualifies him for the franchise under this Act, he shall be entitled to be registered in respect of such latter franchise only. Nothing in this Act shall confer on any man who is subject to any legal incapacity to be registered as a voter or to vote, any right to be registered as a voter or to vote.

11. This Act, so far as may be consistently with the tenor thereof, shall be construed as one with the Representation of the People Acts as defined by this Act; and the expressions "election," "county," and "borough," and other expressions in this Act and in the enactments applied by this Act, shall have the same meaning as in the said Acts. Provided that in this Act and the said enactments—The expression "overseers" includes assessors, guardians, clerks of unions, or other persons by whatever name known, who perform duties in relation to rating or to the registration of voters similar to those performed in relation to such matters by overseers in England. The expression "rentcharge" includes a fee farm rent, a feu duty in Scotland, a rent seck, a chief rent, a rent of assize, and any rent or annuity granted out of land. The expression "land or tenement" includes any part of a house separately occupied for the purpose of any trade, business, or profession, and that expression, and also the expression "hereditament" when used in this Act, in Scotland includes "lands and heritages." The expressions "joint tenants" and "tenants in common" shall include "pro indiviso proprietors." The expression "clear yearly value" as applied to any land or tenement means in Scotland the annual value as appearing in the valuation roll, and in Ireland the net annual value at which the occupier of such land or tenement was rated under the last rate for the time being, under the Act of the session of the first and second years of the reign of Her present Majesty, chapter fifty-six, or any Acts amending the same.

12. Whereas the franchises conferred by this Act are in substitution for the franchises conferred by the enactments mentioned in the first and second parts of the Second Schedule hereto, be it enacted that the Acts mentioned in the first part of the said Second Schedule shall be repealed to the extent in the third column of that part of the said schedule mentioned except in so far as relates to the rights of persons saved by this Act; and the Acts mentioned in the second part of the said Second Schedule shall be repealed to the extent in the third column of that part of the said schedule mentioned, except in so far as relates to the rights of persons saved by this Act and except in so far as the enactments so repealed contain conditions made applicable by this Act to any franchise enacted by this Act.

13. This Act shall commence and come into operation on the first day of January one thousand eight hundred and eighty-five: Provided that the register of voters in any county or borough in Scotland made in the last-mentioned year shall not come into force until the first day of January one thousand eight hundred and eighty-six, and until that day the previous register of voters shall continue in force.

The following comments upon the foregoing act afford explanations which are needed for the understanding of some of its provisions:

"The introduction of the household franchise into counties is the main work of the Representation of the People Act, 1884. … The county household franchise is … made identical with the borough franchise created by the Reform Act of 1867 (30 & 31 Vict., c. 102), to which we must, therefore, turn for the definition of the one household franchise now established in both counties and boroughs throughout the United Kingdom. The third section of the Act in question provides that 'Every man shall in and after the year 1868 be entitled to be registered as a voter, and when registered to vote, for a member or members to serve in Parliament for a borough [we must now add "or for a county or division of a county"] who is qualified as follows:

(2.) Is on the last day of July [now July 15th] in any year, and has during the whole of the preceding twelve calendar months been an inhabitant occupier as owner or tenant of any dwelling house within the borough [or within a county or division of a county];

(3.) Has during the time of such occupation been rated as an ordinary occupier in respect of the premises so occupied by him within the borough to all rates (if any) made for the relief of the poor in respect of such premises; and,

(4.) Has on or before the 20th day of July in the same year bona fide paid an equal amount in the pound to that payable by other ordinary occupiers in respect of all poor rates that have been payable by him in respect of the said premises up to the preceding 5th day of January: Provided that no man shall under this section be entitled to be registered as a voter by reason of his being a joint occupier of any dwelling house. … The lodger franchise was the creation of the Reform Act of 1867 (30 & 31 Vict., c. 102), the 4th section of which conferred the suffrage upon lodgers who, being of full age and not subject to any legal incapacity, have occupied in the same borough lodgings 'of a clear yearly value, if let unfurnished, of £10 or upwards' for twelve months preceding the last day of July, and have claimed to be registered as voters at the next ensuing registration of voters. By this clause certain limitations or restrictions were imposed on the lodger franchise; but these were swept away by the 41 & 42 Vict., c. 26, the 6th section of which considerably enlarged the franchise by enacting that:

(1.) Lodgings occupied by a person in any year or two successive years shall not be deemed to be different lodgings by reason only that in that year or either of those years he has occupied some other rooms or place in addition to his original lodgings.

(2.) For the purpose of qualifying a lodger to vote the occupation in immediate succession of different lodgings of the requisite value in the same house shall have the same effect as continued occupation of the same lodgings.

(3.) Where lodgings are jointly occupied by more than one lodger, and the clear yearly value of the lodgings if let unfurnished is of an amount which, when divided by the number of the lodgers, gives a sum of not less than £10 for each lodger, then each lodger (if otherwise qualified and subject to the conditions of the Representation of the People Act, 1867) shall be entitled to be registered and when registered to vote as a lodger, provided that not more than two persons being such joint lodgers shall be entitled to be registered in respect of such lodgings. … Until the passing of the Representation of the People Act, 1884, no householder was qualified to vote unless he not only occupied a dwelling house, but occupied it either as owner or as the tenant of the owner. And where residence in an official or other house was necessary, or conducive to the efficient discharge of a man's duty or service, and was either expressly or impliedly made a part of such duty or service then the relation of landlord or tenant was held not to be created. The consequence was that a large number of persons who as officials, as employes, or as servants are required to reside in public buildings, on the premises of their employers or in houses assigned to them by their masters were held not to be entitled to the franchise. In future such persons will … be entitled to vote as inhabitant occupiers and tenants (under Section 3 of the recent Act), notwithstanding that they occupy their dwelling houses 'by virtue of any office, service or employment.' But this is subject to the condition that a subordinate cannot qualify or obtain a vote in respect of a dwelling house which is also inhabited by any person under whom 'such man serves in such office, service or employment.' … Persons seised of (i. e., owning) an estate of inheritance (i. e., in fee simple or fee-tail) of freehold tenure, in lands or tenements, of the value of 40s. per annum, are entitled to a vote for the county or division of the county in which the estate is situated. This is the class of electors generally known as 'forty shilling freeholders.' Originally all freeholders were entitled to county votes, but by the 8 Henry VI., c. 7, it was provided that no freehold of a less annual value than 40s. should confer the franchise. Until the Reform Act of 1832, 40s. freeholders, whether their estate was one of inheritance or one for life or lives, were entitled to county votes. That Act, however, restricted the county freehold franchise by drawing a distinction between (1) freeholds of inheritance, and (2) freeholds not of inheritance. While the owners of the first class of freeholds were left in possession of their former rights (except when the property is situated within a Parliamentary borough), the owners of the latter were subjected to a variety of conditions and restrictions. … Before the passing of the Representation of the People Act, 1884, any number of persons might qualify and obtain county votes as joint owners of a freehold of inheritance, provided that it was of an annual value sufficient to give 40s. for each owner. But … this right is materially qualified by Section 4 of the recent Act. … Persons seised of an estate for life or lives of freehold tenure of the annual value of 40s., but of less than £5, are entitled to a county vote, provided that they

(2) were seised of the property at the time of the passing of the 2 Will. IV., c. 45 (June 7th, 1832), or

(3) have acquired the property after the date by marriage, marriage settlement, devise, or promotion to a benefice or office. … Persons seised of an estate for life or lives or of any larger estate in lands or tenements of any tenure whatever of the yearly value of £5 or upwards: This qualification is not confined to the ownership of freehold lands. Under the words 'of any tenure whatever' (30 & 31 Vict., c. 102, s. 5) copyholders have county votes if their property is of the annual value of £5. … The electoral qualifications in Scotland are defined by the 2 & 3 Will. IV., c. 65, the 31 & 32 Vict., c. 48, and the Representation of the People Act, 1884 (48 Vict., c. 3). The effect of the three Acts taken together is that the County franchises are as follows:

1. Owners of Land, &c., of the annual value of £5, after deducting feu duty, ground annual, or other considerations which an owner may be bound to pay or to give an account for as a condition of his right.

2. Leaseholders under a lease of not less than 57 years or for the life of the tenant of the clear yearly value of £10, or for a period of not less than 19 years when the clear yearly value is not less than £50, or the tenant is in actual personal occupancy of the land.

Borough franchises. 1. Occupiers of land or tenements of the annual value of £10. 2. Householders. 3. Lodgers. 4. The service franchise.

The qualification for these franchises is in all material respects the same as for the corresponding franchises in the Scotch counties, and in the counties and boroughs of England and Wales. … The Acts relating to the franchise in Ireland are 2 & 3 Will. IV., c. 88, 13 & 14 Vict., c. 69, the representation of the People (Ireland) Act, 1868, and the Representation of the People Act, 1884. Read together they give the following qualifications:

1. Owners of freeholds of inheritance or of freeholds for lives renewable for ever rated to the poor at the annual value of £5.

All the franchises we have described … are subject to this condition, that no one, however qualified, can be registered or vote in respect of them if he is subjected to any legal incapacity to become or act as elector. … No alien unless certificated or naturalised, no minor, no lunatic or idiot, nor any person in such a state of drunkenness as to be incapable—is entitled to vote. Police magistrates in London and Dublin, and police officers throughout the country, including the members of the Royal Irish Constabulary, are disqualified from voting either generally or for constituencies within which their duties lie. In the case of the police the disqualification continues for six months after an officer has left the force. … Persons are disqualified who are convicted of treason or treason-felony, for which the sentence is death or penal servitude, or any term of imprisonment with hard labour or exceeding twelve months, until they have suffered their punishment (or such as may be substituted by competent authority), or until they receive a free pardon. Peers are disqualified from voting at the election of any member to serve in Parliament. A returning officer may not vote at any election for which he acts, unless the numbers are equal, when he may give a casting vote. No person is entitled to be registered in any year as a voter for any county or borough who has within twelve calendar months next previous to the last day of July in such year received parochial relief or other alms which by the law of Parliament disqualify from voting. Persons employed at an election for reward or payment are disqualified from voting thereat although they may be on the register. … The Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict., c. 51), disqualifies a variety of offenders [see above, A. D. 1883] against its provisions from being registered or voting."

ENGLAND: A. D. 1881-1885.
Campaign in the Soudan for the relief of General Gordon.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1885.
The fall of the Gladstone government.
The brief first Ministry of Lord Salisbury.

"Almost simultaneously with the assembling of Parliament [February 19, 1885] had come the news of the fall of Khartoum and the death of General Gordon [see EGYPT: A. D. 1884-1885]. These terrible events sent a thrill of horror and indignation throughout the country, and the Government was severely condemned in many quarters for its procrastination. Mr. Gladstone, who was strongly moved by Gordon's death, rose to the situation, and announced that it was necessary to overthrow the Mahdi at Khartoum, to renew operations against Osman Digma, and to construct a railway from Suakim to Berber with a view to a campaign in the autumn. A royal proclamation was issued calling out the reserves. Sir Stafford Northcote initiated a debate on the Soudan question with a motion affirming that the risks and sacrifices which the Government appeared to be ready to encounter could only be justified by a distinct recognition of our responsibility for Egypt, and those portions of the Soudan which are necessary to its security. Mr. John Morley introduced an amendment to the motion, waiving any judgment on the policy of the Minister, but expressing regret at its decision to continue the conflict with the Mahdl. Mr. Gladstone skilfully dealt with both motion and amendment. Observing that it was impossible to give rigid pledges as to the future, he appealed to the Liberal party, if they had not made up their minds to condemn and punish the Government, to strengthen their hands by an unmistakable vote of confidence. The Government obtained a majority of 14, the votes being 302 in their favour with 288 against; but many of those who supported the Government had also voted for the amendment by Mr. Morley. … Financial questions were extremely embarrassing to the Government, and it was not until the 30th of April that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was ready with his financial statement. He was called upon to deal with a deficit of upwards of a million, with a greatly depressed revenue, and with an estimated expenditure for the current year—including the vote of credit—of no less than £100,000,000. Amongst Mr. Childers's proposals was one to levy upon land an amount of taxation proportioned to that levied on personal property. There was also an augmentation of the spirit duties and of the beer duty. The country members were dissatisfied and demanded that no new charges should be thrown on the land till the promised relief of local taxation had been carried out. The agricultural and the liquor interests were discontented, as well as the Scotch and Irish members with the whiskey duty. The Chancellor made some concessions, but they were not regarded as sufficient, and on the Monday after the Whitsun holidays, the Opposition joined battle on a motion by Sir M. Hicks Beach. … Mr. Gladstone stated at the close of the debate that the Government would resign if defeated. The amendment was carried against them by 264 to 252, and the Ministry went out. … Lord Salisbury became Premier. … The general election … [was] fixed for November 1885."

ENGLAND: A. D. 1885-1886.
   Mr. Gladstone's return to power.
   His Home Rule Bill for Ireland and his Irish Land Bill.
   Their defeat.
   Division of the Liberal Party.
   Lord Salisbury's Ministry.

"The House of Commons which had been elected in November and December, 1885, was the first House of Commons which represented the whole body of the householders and lodgers of the United Kingdom. The result of the appeal to new constituencies and an enlarged electorate had taken all parties by surprise. The Tories found themselves, by the help of their Irish allies, successful in the towns beyond all their hopes; the Liberals, disappointed in the boroughs, had found compensation in unexpected successes in the counties; and the Irish Nationalists had almost swept the board. … The English representation—exclusive of one Irish Nationalist for Liverpool—gave a liberal majority of 28 in the English constituencies; which Wales and Scotland swelled to 106. The Irish representation had undergone a still more remarkable change. Of 103 members for the sister island, 85 were Home Rulers and only 18 were Tories. … The new House of Commons was exactly divided between the Liberals on one side and the Tories with their Irish allies on the other. Of its 670 members just one-half, or 335, were Liberals, 249 were Tories, and 86 were Irish Nationalists [or Home Rulers]. … It was soon clear enough that the alliance between the Tory Ministers and the Irish Nationalists was at an end." On the 25th of January 1886, the Government was defeated on an amendment to the address, and on the 28th it resigned. Mr. Gladstone was invited to form a Ministry and did so with Lord Herschell for Lord Chancellor, Sir William Harcourt for Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Childers for Home Secretary, Lord Granville for Secretary for the Colonies, Mr. John Morley for Chief Secretary for Ireland, and Mr. Chamberlain for President of the Local Government Board. On the 29th of March "Mr. Gladstone announced in the House of Commons that on the 8th of April he would ask for leave to bring in a bill 'to amend the provision for the future government of Ireland'; and that on the 15th he would ask leave to bring in a measure 'to make amended provision for the sale and purchase of land in Ireland.'" The same day Mr. Chamberlain and Mr. Trevelyan (Secretary for Ireland) resigned their seats in the Cabinet, and it was generally understood that differences of opinion on the Irish bills had arisen. On the 8th of April the House of Commons was densely crowded when Mr. Gladstone introduced his measure for giving Home Rule to Ireland. In a speech which lasted three hours and a half he set forth the details of his plan and the reasons on which they were based. The essential conditions observed in the framing of the measure, as he defined them, were these: "The unity of the Empire must not be placed in jeopardy; the minority must be protected; the political equality of the three countries must be maintained, and there must be an equitable distribution of Imperial burdens. He then discussed some proposals which had been made for the special treatment of Ulster—its exclusion from the bill, its separate autonomy or the reservation of certain matters, such as education, for Provincial Councils; all of which he rejected. The establishment of an Irish legislature involved the removal of Irish peers from the House of Lords and the Irish representatives from the House of Commons. But if Ireland was not represented at Westminster, how was it to be taxed? The English people would never force on Ireland taxation without representation. The taxing power would be in the hands of the Irish legislature, but Customs and Excise duties connected with Customs would be solely in the control of the Imperial Parliament, Ireland's share in these being reserved for Ireland's use. Ireland must have security against her Magna Charta being tampered with; the provision of the Act would therefore only be capable of modification with the concurrence of the Irish legislature, or after the recall of the Irish members to the two Houses of Parliament. The Irish legislature would have all the powers which were not specially reserved from it in the Act. It was to consist of two orders, though not two Houses. It would be subject to all the prerogatives of the Crown; it would have nothing to do with Army or Navy, or with Foreign or Colonial relations; nor could it modify the Act on which its own authority was based. Contracts, charters, questions of education, religious endowments and establishments, would be beyond its authority. Trade and navigation, coinage, currency, weights and measures, copyright, census, quarantine laws, and some other matters, were not to be within the powers of the Irish Parliament. The composition of the legislature was to be first, the 103 members now representing Ireland with 101, elected by the same constituencies, with the exception of the University, with power to the Irish legislature to give two members to the Royal University if it chose; then the present Irish members of the House of Lords, with 75 elected by the Irish people under a property qualification. The Viceroyalty was to be left, but the Viceroy was not to quit office with an outgoing government, and no religious disability was to affect his appointment. He would have a Privy Council, and the executive would remain as at present, but might be changed by the action of the legislative body. The present judges would preserve their lien on the Consolidated Fund of Great Britain, and the Queen would be empowered to antedate their pensions if it was seen to be desirable. Future judges, with the exception of two in the Court of Exchequer, would be appointed by the Irish government, and, like English judges, would hold their office during good behaviour. The Constabulary would remain under its present administration, Great Britain paying all charges over a million. Eventually, however, the whole police of Ireland would be under the Irish government. The civil servants would have two years' grace, with a choice of retirement on pension before passing under the Irish executive. Of the financial arrangements Mr. Gladstone spoke in careful and minute detail. He fixed the proportion of Imperial charges Ireland should pay at one-fifteenth, or in other words she would pay one part and Great Britain fourteen parts. More than a million of duty is paid on spirits in Ireland which come to Great Britain, and this would be practically a contribution towards the Irish revenue. So with Irish porter and with the tobacco manufactured in Ireland and sold here. Altogether the British taxpayers would contribute in this way £1,400,000 a year to the Irish Exchequer; reducing the actual payment of Ireland itself for Imperial affairs to one-twenty-sixth." On the 16th of April Mr. Gladstone introduced his Irish Land Bill, connecting it with the Home Rule Bill as forming part of one great measure for the pacification of Ireland. In the meantime the opposition to his policy within the ranks of the Liberal party had been rapidly taking form. It Mr. Trevelyan, Sir Henry James, Sir John Lubbock, Mr. Goschen, and Mr. Courtney. It soon received the support of Mr. John Bright. The debate in the House, which lasted until the 3rd of June, was passionate and bitter. {980} It ended in the defeat of the Government by a majority of 30 against the bill. The division was the largest which had ever been taken in the House of Commons, 657 members being present. The majority was made up of 249 Conservatives and 94 Liberals. The minority consisted of 228 Liberals and 85 Nationalists. Mr. Gladstone appealed to the country by a dissolution of Parliament. The elections were adverse to him, resulting in the return to Parliament of members representing the several parties and sections of parties as follows:

Home Rule Liberals, or Gladstonians, 194, Irish Nationalists 85 total 279; seceding Liberals 75, Conservatives 316 total 391.

Mr. Gladstone and his colleagues resigned and a new Ministry was formed under Lord Salisbury. The Liberals, in alliance with the Conservatives and giving their support to Lord Salisbury's Government, became organized as a distinct party under the leadership of Lord Hartington, and took the name of Liberal Unionists.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1885-1888.
   Termination of the Fishery Articles of the Treaty of
   Washington.
   Renewed controversies with the United States.
   The rejected Treaty.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1886.
Defeat of Mr. Parnell's Tenants' Relief Bill.
The plan of campaign in Ireland.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1890.
Settlement of African questions with Germany.
Cession of Heligoland.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1892-1893.
   The fourth Gladstone Ministry.
   Passage of the Irish Home Rule Bill by the House of Commons.
   Its defeat by the Lords.

On the 28th of June, 1892, Parliament was dissolved, having been in existence since 1886, and a new Parliament was summoned to meet on the 4th of August. Great excitement prevailed in the ensuing elections, which turned almost entirely on the question of Home Rule for Ireland. The Liberal or Gladstonian party, favoring Home Rule, won a majority of 42 in the House of Commons; but in the representation of England alone there was a majority of 70 returned against it. In Ireland, the representation returned was 103 for Home Rule, and 23 against; in Scotland, 51 for and 21 against; in Wales, 28 for and 2 against. Conservatives and Liberal Unionists (opposing Home Rule) lost little ground in the boroughs, as compared with the previous Parliament, but largely in the counties. As the result of the election, Lord Salisbury and his Ministry resigned August 12, and Mr. Gladstone was summoned to form a Government. In the new Cabinet, which was announced four days later, Earl Rosebery became Foreign Secretary; Baron Herschell, Lord Chancellor; Sir William Vernon Harcourt, Chancellor of the Exchequer; Mr. Herbert H. Asquith, Home Secretary; and Mr. John Morley, Chief Secretary for Ireland. Although the new Parliament assembled in August, 1892, it was not until the 13th of February following that Mr. Gladstone introduced his bill to establish Home Rule in Ireland. The bill was under debate in the House of Commons until the night of September 1, 1893, when it passed that body by a vote of 301 to 267. "The bill provides for a Legislature for Ireland, consisting of the Queen and of two Houses—the Legislative Council and the Legislative Assembly. This Legislature, with certain restrictions, is authorized to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of Ireland in respect of matters exclusively relating to Ireland or some part thereof. The bill says that the powers of the Irish Legislature shall not extend to the making of any law respecting the establishment or endowment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or imposing any disability or conferring any privilege on account of religious belief, or whereby any person may be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or whereby private property may be taken without just compensation. According to the bill the executive power in Ireland shall continue vested in her Majesty the Queen, and the Lord Lieutenant, on behalf of her Majesty, shall exercise any prerogatives or other executive power of the Queen the exercise of which may be delegated to him by her Majesty, and shall in the Queen's name summon, prorogue, and dissolve the Legislature. An Executive Committee of the Privy Council of Ireland is provided for, which 'shall aid and advise in the government of Ireland.' The Lord Lieutenant, with the advice and consent of the Executive Council, is authorized to give or withhold the assent of her Majesty to bills passed by the houses of the Legislature. The Legislative Council by the terms of the bill shall consist of forty-eight Councilors. Every man shall be entitled to vote for a Councilor who owns or occupies any land or tenement of a ratable value of £20. The term of office of the Councilors is to be for eight years, which is not to be affected by dissolution, but one-half of the Councilors shall retire in every fourth year and their seats be filled by a new election. The Legislative Assembly is to consist of 103 members returned by the Parliamentary constituencies existing at present in Ireland. This Assembly, unless sooner dissolved, may exist for five years. The bill also provides for 80 Irish members in the House of Commons. In regard to finance, the bill provides that for the purposes of this act the public revenue shall be divided into general revenue and special revenue, and general revenue shall consist of the gross revenue collected in Ireland from taxes; the portion due to Ireland of the hereditary revenues of the crown which are managed by the Commissioners of Woods, an annual sum for the customs and excise duties collected in Great Britain on articles consumed in Ireland, provided that an annual sum of the customs and excise duties collected in Ireland on articles consumed in Great Britain shall be deducted from the revenue collected in Ireland and treated as revenue collected in Great Britain; these annual sums to be determined by a committee appointed jointly by the Irish Government and the Imperial Treasury. It is also provided that one-third of the general revenue of Ireland and also that portion of any imperial miscellaneous revenue to which Ireland may claim to be entitled shall be paid into the Treasury of the United Kingdom as the contribution of Ireland to imperial liabilities and expenditures; this plan to continue for a term of six years, at the end of which time a new scheme of tax division shall be devised. {981} The Legislature, in order to meet expenses of the public service, is authorized to impose taxes other than those now existing in Ireland. Ireland should also have charged up against her and be compelled to pay out of her own Treasury all salaries and pensions of Judges and liabilities of all kinds which Great Britain has assumed for her benefit. The bill further provides that appeal from courts in Ireland to the House of Lords shall cease and that all persons having the right of appeal shall have a like right to appeal to the Queen in council. The term of office of the Lord Lieutenant is fixed at six years. Ultimately the Royal Irish Constabulary shall cease to exist and no force other than the ordinary civil police shall be permitted to be formed. The Irish Legislature shall be summoned to meet on the first Tuesday in September, 1894, and the first election for members shall be held at such time before that day as may be fixed by her Majesty in council." In the House of Lords, the bill was defeated on the 8th of September—the second reading postponed to a day six months from that date—by the overwhelming vote of 419 to 41.

ENGLE. ENGLISH.

ENGLISHRY.

To check the assassination of his tyrannical Norman followers by the exasperated English, William the Conqueror ordained that the whole Hundred within which one was slain should pay a heavy penalty. "In connexion with this enactment there grew up the famous law of 'Englishry,' by which every murdered man was presumed to be a Norman, unless proofs of 'Englishry' were made by the four nearest relatives of the deceased. 'Presentments of Englishry,' as they were technically termed, are recorded in the reign of Richard I., but not later."

In the Spartan military organization the enômoty "was a small company of men, the number of whom was variable, being given differently at 25, 32, or 36 men,—drilled and practised together in military evolutions, and bound to each other by a common oath. Each Enômoty had a separate captain or enomotarch, the strongest and ablest soldier of the company."

ENRIQUE.

EORL AND CEORL.

"The modern English forms of these words have completely lost their ancient meaning. The word 'Earl,' after several fluctuations, has settled down as the title of one rank in the Peerage; the word 'Churl' has come to be a word of moral reprobation, irrespective of the rank of the person who is guilty of the offence. But in the primary meaning of the words, 'Eorl' and 'Ceorl'—words whose happy jingle causes them to be constantly opposed to each other—form an exhaustive division of the free members of the state. The distinction in modern language is most nearly expressed br the words 'Gentle' and 'Simple.' The 'Ceorl' is the simple freeman, the mere unit in the army or in the assembly, whom no distinction of birth or office marks out from his fellows."

E. A. Freeman, History of the Norman Conquest of England, chapter 3, section 2.

EORMEN STREET.

EPEIROS.

"The ephah, or bath, was the unit of measures of capacity for both liquids and grain [among the ancient Jews]. The ephah is considered by Queipo to have been the measure of water contained in the ancient Egyptian cubic foot, and thus equivalent to 29.376 litres, or 6.468 imperial gallons, and to have been nearly identical with the ancient Egyptian artaba and the Greek metretes. For liquids, the ephah was divided into six hin, and the twelfth part of the hin was the log. As a grain measure, the ephah was divided into ten omers, or gomers. The omer measure of manna gathered by the Israelites in the desert as a day's food for each adult person was thus equal to 2.6 imperial quarts. The largest measure of capacity both for liquids and dry commodities was the cor of twelve ephahs."

The battle which followed David's encounter with Goliath, the gigantic Philistine.

"The ancient city of Ephesus was situated on the river Cayster, which falls into the Bay of Scala Nova, on the western coast of Asia Minor. Of the origin and foundation of Ephesus we have no historical record. Stories were told which ascribed the settlement of the place to Androklos, the son of the Athenian king, Codrus. … With other Ionian cities of Asia Minor, Ephesus fell into the hands of Crœsus, the last of the kings of Lydia, and, on the overthrow of Crœsus by Cyrus, it passed under the heavier yoke of the Persian despot. Although from that time, during a period of at least five centuries, to the conquest by the Romans, the city underwent great changes of fortune, it never lost its grandeur and importance. The Temple of Artemis (Diana), whose splendour has almost become proverbial, tended chiefly to make Ephesus the most attractive and notable of all the cities of Asia Minor. Its magnificent harbour was filled with Greek and Phenician merchantmen, and multitudes flocked from all parts to profit by its commerce and to worship at the shrine of its tutelary goddess. The City Port was fully four miles from the sea, which has not, as has been supposed, receded far. … During the generations which immediately followed the conquest of Lydia and the rest of Asia Minor by the Persian kings, the arts of Greece attained their highest perfection, and it was within this short period of little more than two centuries that the great Temple of Artemis was three times built upon the same site, and, as recent researches have found, each time on the same grand scale."

The excavations which were carried on at Ephesus by Mr. Wood, for the British Museum, during eleven years, from 1863 until 1874, resulted in the uncovering of a large part of the site of the great Temple and the determining of its architectural features, besides bringing to light many inscriptions and much valuable sculpture. The account given in the work named above is exceedingly interesting.

"The spot on the Asiatic coast which corresponded most nearly with Corinth on the European, was Ephesus, a city which, in the time of Herodotus, had been the starting point of caravans for Upper Asia, but which, under the change of dynasties and ruin of empires, had dwindled into a mere provincial town. The mild sway of Augustus restored it to wealth and eminence, and as the official capital of the province of Asia, it was reputed to be the metropolis of no less than 500 cities."

   A board of fifty-one judges instituted by the legislation of
   Draco, at Athens, for the trial of crimes of bloodshed upon
   the Areopagus.

EPHORS.

"Magistrates, called by the name of Ephors, existed in many Dorian as well as in other States [of ancient Greece], although our knowledge with regard to them extends no further than to the fact of their existence; while the name, which signifies quite generally 'overseers,' affords room for no conclusion as to their political position or importance. In Sparta, however, the Board of Five Ephors became, in the course of time, a magistracy of such dignity and influence that no other can be found in any free State with which it can be compared. Concerning its first institution nothing certain can be ascertained. … The following appears to be a probable account:—The Ephors were originally magistrates appointed by the kings, partly to render them special assistance in the judicial decision of private disputes,—a function which they continued to exercise in later times,—partly to undertake, as lieutenants of the kings, other of their functions, during their absence in military service, or through some other cause. … When the monarchy and the Gerousia wished to re-establish their ancient influence in opposition to the popular assembly, they were obliged to agree to a concession which should give some security to the people that this power should not be abused to their detriment. This concession consisted in the fact that the Ephors were independently authorized to exercise control over the kings themselves. … The Ephors were enabled to interfere in every department of the administration, and to remove or punish whatever they found to be contrary to the laws or adverse to the public interest."

G. F. Schömann, Antiquities of Greece: The State, part 3, chapter 1, section 8.

EPIDAMNUS.

EPIGAMIA.

EPIPOLÆ.

"The temporary greatness of the Molossian kingdom [of Epeiros, or Epirus] under Alexander and Pyrrhus is matter of general history. Our immediate business is with the republican government which succeeded on the bloody extinction of royalty and the royal line [which occurred B. C. 239]. Epeiros now became a republic; of the details of its constitution we know nothing, but its form can hardly fail to have been federal. The Epeirots formed one political body; Polybios always speaks of them, like the Achaians and Akarnanians, as one people acting with one will. Decrees are passed, ambassadors are sent and received, in the name of the whole Epeirot people, and Epeiros had, like Akarnania, a federal coinage bearing the common name of the whole nation."

EPIRUS. THE EPIROTS.

"Passing over the borders of Akarnania [in ancient western Greece] we find small nations or tribes not considered as Greeks, but known, from the fourth century B. C. downwards, under the common name of Epirots. This word signifies, properly, inhabitants of a continent, as opposed to those of an island or a peninsula. It came only gradually to be applied by the Greeks as their comprehensive denomination to designate all those diverse tribes, between the Ambrakian Gulf on the south and west, Pindus on the east, and the Illyrians and Macedonians to the north and north-east. Of these Epirots the principal were—the Chaonians, Thesprotians, Kassopians, and Molossians, who occupied the country inland as well as maritime along the Ionian Sea, from the Akrokeraunian mountains to the borders of Ambrakia in the interior of the Ambrakian Gulf. … Among these various tribes it is difficult to discriminate the semi-Hellenic from the non-Hellenic; for Herodotus considers both Molossians and Thesprotians as Hellenic,—and the oracle of Dôdôna, as well as the Nekyomanteion (or holy cavern for evoking the dead) of Acheron, were both in the territory of the Thesprotians, and both (in the time of the historian) Hellenic. Thucydides, on the other hand, treats both Molossians and Thesprotians as barbaric. … Epirus is essentially a pastoral country: its cattle as well as its shepherds and shepherds' dogs were celebrated throughout all antiquity; and its population then, as now, found divided village residence the most suitable to their means and occupations. … Both the Chaonians and Thesprotians appear, in the time of Thucydides, as having no kings: there was a privileged kingly race, but the presiding chief was changed from year to year. The Molossians, however, had a line of kings, succeeding from father to son, which professed to trace its descent through fifteen generations downward from Achilles and Neoptolemus to Tharypas about the year 400 B. C."

The Molossian kings subsequently extended their sovereignty over the whole country and styled themselves kings of Epirus. Pyrrhus, whose war with Rome (see ROME: B. C. 282-275) is one of the well known episodes of history, was the most ambitious and energetic of the dynasty (see MACEDONIA: B. C. 297-280); Hannibal reckoned him among the greatest of soldiers. In the next century Epirus fell under the dominion of Rome. Subsequently it formed part of the Byzantine empire; then became a separate principality, ruled by a branch of the imperial Comnenian family; was conquered by the Turks in 1466 and is now represented by the southern half of the province of Turkey, called Albania.

From the ruins of the Byzantine empire, overthrown by the Crusaders and the Venetians in 1204, "that portion … situated to the west of the range of Pindus was saved from feudal domination by Michael, a natural son of Constantine Angelos, the uncle of the Emperors Isaac II. and Alexius III. After the conquest of Constantinople, he escaped into Epirus, where his marriage with a lady of the country gave him some influence; and assuming the direction of the administration of the whole country from Dyrrachium to Naupactus, he collected a considerable military force, and established the seat of his authority generally at Ioannina or Arta. … History has unfortunately preserved very little information concerning the organisation and social condition of the different classes and races which inhabited the dominions of the princes of Epirus. Almost the only facts that have been preserved relate to the wars and alliances of the despots and their families with the Byzantine emperors and the Latin princes. … They all assumed the name of Angelos Komnenos Dukas; and the title of despot, by which they are generally distinguished, was a Byzantine honorary distinction, never borne by the earlier members of the family until it had been conferred on them by the Greek emperor. Michael I, the founder of the despotat, distinguished himself by his talents as a soldier and a negotiator. He extended his authority over all Epirus, Acarnania and Etolia, and a part of Macedonia and Thessaly. Though virtually independent, he acknowledged Theodore I. (Laskaris), [at Nicæa] as the lawful emperor of the East." The able and unscrupulous brother of Michael, Theodore, who became his successor in 1214, extinguished by conquest the Lombard kingdom of Saloniki, in Macedonia (A. D. 1222), and assumed the title of emperor, in rivalry with the Greek emperor at Nicæa, establishing his capital at Thessalonica. The empire of Thessalonica was short lived. Its capital was taken by the emperor of Nicæa, in 1234, and Michael's son John, then reigning, was forced to resign the imperial title. The despotat of Epirus survived for another century, much torn and distracted by wars and domestic conflicts. In 1350 its remaining territory was occupied by the king of Servia, and finally it was swallowed up in the conquests of the Turks.

      G. Finlay,
      History of Greece from its Conquest by the Crusader,
      chapter 6.

EPISCOPALIAN CHURCH.

EPISTATES.

EPONYM. EPONYMUS.

The name-giver,—the name-giving hero of primitive myths, in which tribes and races of people set before themselves, partly by tradition, partly by imagination, an heroic personage who is supposed to be their common progenitor and the source of their name.

EPONYM CANON OF ASSYRIA.

EPPING FOREST.

Once so extensive that it covered the whole county of Essex, England, and was called the Forest of Essex. Subsequently, when diminished in size, it was called Waltham Forest. Still later, when further retrenched, it took the name of Epping, from a town that is embraced in it. It is still quite large, and within recent years it has been formally declared by the Queen "a people's park."

"The epulones [at Rome] formed a college for the administration of the sacred festivals."

EQUADOR.

EQUAL RIGHTS PARTY.

"The selection of the burgess cavalry was vested in the censors. It was, no doubt, the duty of these to make the selection on purely military grounds, and at their musters to insist that all horsemen incapacitated by age or otherwise, or at all unserviceable, should surrender their public horse; but it was not easy to hinder them from looking to noble birth more than to capacity, and from allowing men of standing, who were once admitted, senators particularly, to retain their horse beyond the proper time. Accordingly it became the practical rule for the senators to vote in the eighteen equestrian centuries, and the other places in these were assigned chiefly to the younger men of the nobility. The military system, of course, suffered from this, not so much through the unfitness for effective service of no small part of the legionary cavalry, as through the destruction of military equality to which the change gave rise; the noble youth more and more withdrew from serving in the infantry, and the legionary cavalry became a close aristocratic corps."

"The eighteen centuries, therefore, in course of time … lost their original military character and remained only as a voting body. It was by the transformation thus effected in the character of the eighteen centuries of knights, whilst the cavalry service passed over to the richer citizens not included in the senatorial families, that a new class of Roman citizens began gradually to be formed, distinct from the nobility proper and from the mass of the people, and designated as the equestrian order."

The equestrian order became a legally constituted class under the judicial law of Caius Gracchus, B. C. 123, which fixed its membership by a census, and transferred to it the judicial functions previously exercised by the senators only. It formed a kind of monetary aristocracy, as a counterweight to the nobility.

"Unfortunately for ancient Chronology, there was no one fixed or universally established Era. Different countries reckoned by different eras, whose number is embarrassing, and their commencements not always easily to be adjusted or reconciled to each other; and it was not until A. D. 532 that the Christian Era was invented by Dionysius Exiguus, a Scythian by birth, and a Roman Abbot, who flourished in the reign of Justinian. … Dionysius began his era with the year of our Lord's incarnation and nativity, in U. C. 753, of the Varronian Computation, or the 45th of the Julian Era. And at an earlier period, Panodorus, an Egyptian monk, who flourished under the Emperor Arcadius, A. D. 395, had dated the incarnation in the same year. But by some mistake, or misconception of his meaning, Bede, who lived in the next century after Dionysius, adopted his year of the Nativity, U. C. 753, yet began the Vulgar Era, which he first introduced, the year after, and made it commence January 1, U. C. 754, which was an alteration for the worse, as making the Christian Era recede a year further from the true year of the Nativity. The Vulgar Era began to prevail in the West about the time of Charles Martel and Pope Gregory II. A. D. 730. … But it was not established till the time of Pope Eugenius IV. A. D. 1431, who ordered this era to be used in the public Registers. … Dionysius was led to date the year of the Nativity, U. C. 753, from the Evangelist Luke's account that John the Baptist began his ministry 'in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Cæsar'; and that Jesus, at his baptism, 'was beginning to be about 30 years of age.' Luke iii. 1-23. … But this date of the Nativity is at variance with Matthew's account, that Christ was born before Herod's death; which followed shortly after his massacre of the infants at Bethlehem. … Christ's birth, therefore, could not have been earlier than U. C. 748, nor later than U. C. 749. And if we assume the latter year, as most conformable to the whole tenor of Sacred History, with Chrysostom, Petavius, Prideaux, Playfair, &c., this would give Christ's age at his baptism, about 34 years; contrary to Luke's account."

In a subsequent table, Mr. Hales gives the results of the computations made by different chronologists, ancient and modern, to fix the true year of the Nativity, as accommodated to what is called "the vulgar," or popularly accepted, Christian Era. The range is through no less than ten years, from B. C. 7 to A. D. 3. His own conclusion, supported by Prideaux and Playfair, is in favor of the year B. C. 5. Somewhat more commonly at the present time, it is put at B. C. 4.

"The epoch of the Era of the Hegira is, according to the civil calculation, Friday, the 16th of July, A. D. 622, the day of the flight of Mahomet from Mecca to Medina, which is the date of the Mahometans; but astronomers and some historians assign it to the preceding day, viz., Thursday, the 15th of July; an important fact to be borne in mind when perusing Arabian writers. The years of the Hegira are lunar years, and contain twelve months, each commencing with the new moon; a practice which necessarily leads to great confusion and uncertainty, inasmuch as every year must begin considerably earlier in the season than the preceding. In chronology and history, however, and in dating their public instruments, the Turks use months which contain alternately thirty and twenty-nine days, excepting the last month, which, in intercalary years, contains thirty days. … The years of the Hegira are divided into cycles of thirty years, nineteen of which are termed common years, of 354 days each; and the eleven others intercalary, or abundant, from their consisting of one day more: these are the 2d, 5th, 7th, 10th, 13th, 16th, 18th, 21st, 24th, 26th and 29th. To ascertain whether any given year be intercalary or not divide it by 30; and if either of the above numbers remain, the year is one of 355 days."

"The Spanish era dates from 38 B. C. (A. U. 716) and is supposed to mark some important epoch in the organization of the province by the Romans. It may coincide with the campaign of Calvinus, which is only known to us from a notice in the Fasti Triumphales. … The Spanish era was preserved in Aragon till 1358, in Castile till 1383, and in Portugal till 1415."

ERA OF GOOD FEELING.

ERA OF THE FOUNDATION OF ROME.

ERA OF THE OLYMPIADS.

ERANI.

Associations existing in ancient Athens which resembled the mutual benefit or friendly-aid societies of modern times.

ERASTIANISM.

A doctrine which "received its name from Thomas Erastus, a German physician of the 16th century, contemporary with Luther. The work in which he delivered his theory and reasonings on the subject is entitled 'De Excommunicatione Ecclesiastica.' … The Erastians … held that religion is an affair between man and his creator, in which no other man or society of men was entitled to interpose. … Proceeding on this ground, they maintained that every man calling himself a Christian has a right to make resort to any Christian place of worship, and partake in all its ordinances. Simple as this idea is, it strikes at the root of all priestcraft."

EREMITES OF ST. FRANCIS.

ERETRIA.

ERFURT, IMPERIAL CONFERENCE AND TREATY OF.

"At a very early period there was, opposite the long northern side of the Parthenon, a temple which, according to Herodot, was dedicated jointly to Athene Polias and the Attic hero, Erectheus. … This temple was destroyed by fire while the Persians held the city. Not unlikely the rebuilding of the Erectheion was begun by Perikles together with that of the other destroyed temples of the Akropolis; but as it was not finished by him, it is generally not mentioned amongst his works. … This temple was renowned amongst the ancients as one of the most beautiful and perfect in existence, and seems to have remained almost intact down to the time of the Turks. The siege of Athens by the Venetians in 1687 seems to have been fatal to the Erectheion, as it was to the Parthenon."

ERIC,
   King of Denmark, Sweden and Norway, A. D. 1412-1439.
   Eric Blodaexe, King of Norway, A. D. 934-940.
   Eric I., King of Denmark, A. D: 850-854.
   Eric I. (called Saint), King of Sweden, A. D. 1155-1161.
   Eric II., King of Denmark, A. D. 854-883.
   Eric II., King of·Norway, A. D. 1280-1299.
   Eric II. (Knutsson), King of Sweden, A. D. 1210-1216.
   Eric III., King of Denmark, A. D. 1095-1103.
   Eric III. (called The Stammerer), King of Sweden, A. D. 1222-1250.
   Eric IV., King of Denmark, A. D. 1134-1137.
   Eric V., King of Denmark, A. D. 1137-1147.
   Eric VI., King of Denmark, A. D. 1241-1250.
   Eric VII., King of Denmark, A. D. 1259-1286.
   Eric VIII., King of Denmark, A. D. 1286-1319.
   Eric XIV., King of Sweden, A. D. 1560-1568.

Four years after the British conquest of Canada, in 1764, Colonel John Bradstreet built a blockhouse and stockade near the site of the later Fort Erie, which was not constructed until 1791. When war with the United States broke out, in 1812, the British considered the new fort untenable, or unnecessary, and evacuated and partly destroyed it, in May, 1813.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: HURONS, &c., and IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY: THEIR CONQUESTS.

ERIN.

ERMYN STREET.

   A corruption of Eormen street, the Saxon name of one of the
   great Roman roads in Britain, which ran from London to
   Lincoln. Some writers trace it northwards through York to the
   Scottish border and southward to Pevensey.

ERNESTINE LINE OF SAXONY.

ERYTHRÆ.-ERYTHRÆAN SIBYL.

Erythræ was an ancient Ionian city on the Lydian coast of Asia Minor, opposite the island of Chios or Scio. It was chiefly famous as the home or seat of one of the most venerated of the sibyls—prophetic women—of antiquity. The collection of Sibylline oracles which was sacredly preserved at Rome appears to have been largely derived from Erythræ. The Cumæan Sibyl is sometimes identified with her Erythræan sister, who is said to have passed into Europe.

The Erythræan Sea, in the widest sense of the term, as used by the ancients, comprised "the Arabian Gulf (or what we now call the Red Sea), the coasts of Africa outside the straits of Bab el Mandeb as far as they had then been explored, as well as those of Arabia and India down to the extremity of the Malabar coast." The Periplus of the Erythræan Sea is a geographical treatise of great importance which we owe to some unknown Greek writer supposed to be nearly contemporary with Pliny. It is "a kind of manual for the instruction of navigators and traders in the Erythræan Sea."

"The Erythrêam Sea is an appellation … in all appearance deduced [by the ancients] from their entrance into it by the straits of the Red Sea, styled Erythra by the Greeks, and not excluding the gulph of Persia, to which the fabulous history of a king Erythras is more peculiarly appropriate."

ERYX. ERCTE.

A town originally Phoœnician or Carthaginian on the northwestern coast of Sicily. It stood on the slope of a mountain which was crowned with an ancient temple of Aphrodite, and which gave the name Erycina to the goddess when her worship was introduced at Rome.

ESCOMBOLI.

ESCUYER. ESQUIRE.

ESNE.

ESQUIRE. ESCUYER. SQUIRE.

ESSEX.

Originally the kingdom formed by that body of the Saxon conquerors of Britain, in the fifth and sixth centuries, who acquired, from their geographical position in the island, the name of the East Saxons. It covered the present county of Essex and also included London and Middlesex.

In the Massachusetts election of 1781, "the representatives of the State in Congress, and some of the more moderate leaders at home, opposed Governor Hancock, the popular candidate, and supported James Bowdoin, who was thought to represent the more conservative elements. … It was at this time that Hancock is said to have bestowed on his opponents the title of the 'Essex Junto,' and this is the first appearance of the name in American politics. … The 'Junto' was generally supposed to be composed of such men as Theophilus Parsons, George Cabot, Fisher Ames, Stephen Higginson, the Lowells, Timothy Pickering, &c., and took its name from the county to which most of its reputed members originally belonged. … The reputed members of the 'Junto' held political power in Massachusetts [as leaders of the Federalist party] for more than a quarter of a century." According to Chief Justice Parsons, as quoted by Colonel Pickering in his Diary, the term 'Essex Junto' was applied by one of the Massachusetts royal governors, before the Revolution, to certain gentlemen of Essex county who opposed his measures. Hancock, therefore, only revived the title and gave it currency, with a new application.

A Gallic tribe established anciently in the modern French department of the Orne.

"An assembly of estates is an organised collection, made by representation or otherwise, of the several orders, states or conditions of men, who are recognised as possessing political power. A national council of clergy and barons is not an assembly of estates, because it does not include the body of the people, the plebs, the simple freemen or commons."

"The arrangement of the political factors in three estates is common, with some minor variations, to all the European constitutions, and depends on a principle of almost universal acceptance. This classification differs from the system of caste and from all divisions based on differences of blood or religion, historical or prehistorical. … In Christendom it has always taken the form of a distinction between clergy and laity, the latter being subdivided according to national custom into noble and non-noble, patrician and plebeian, warriors and traders, landowners and craftsmen. … The Aragonese cortes contained four brazos or arms, the clergy, the great barons or ricos hombres, the minor barons, knights or infanzones, and the towns. The Germanic diet comprised three colleges, the electors, the princes and the cities, the two former being arranged in distinct benches, lay and clerical. … The Castilian cortes arranged the clergy, the ricos hombres and the communidades, in three estates. The Swedish diet was composed of clergy, barons, burghers and peasants. … In France, both in the States General and in the provincial estates, the division is into gentz de l'eglise, nobles, and gentz des bonnes villes. In England, after a transitional stage, in which the clergy, the greater and smaller barons, and the cities and boroughs, seemed likely to adopt the system used in Aragon and Scotland, and another in which the county and borough communities continued to assert an essential difference, the three estates of clergy, lords and commons, finally emerge as the political constituents of the nation, or, in their parliamentary form, as the lords spiritual and temporal and the commons. This familiar formula in either shape bears the impress of history. The term commons is not in itself an appropriate expression for the third estate; it does not signify primarily the simple freemen, the plebs, but the plebs organised and combined in corporate communities, in a particular way for particular purposes. The commons are the communitates or universitates, the organised bodies of freemen of the shires and towns. … The third estate in England differs from the same estate in the continental constitutions, by including the landowners under baronial rank. In most of those systems it contains the representatives of the towns or chartered communities only."

"The words 'gens de tiers et commun état' are found in many acts [France] of the 15th century. The expressions 'tiers état,' 'commun état,' and 'le commun' are used indifferently, … This name of 'Tiers État, when used in its ordinary sense, properly comprises only the population of the privileged cities; but in effect it extends much beyond this; it includes not only the cities, but the villages and hamlets—not only the free commonalty, but all those for whom civil liberty is a privilege still to come."

      A. Thierry,
      Formation and Progress of the Tiers État in France,
      volume 1, pages 61 and 60.

ESTATES GENERAL.

   "Descended from one of the northern families which settled in
   Italy during the darkest period of the middle ages, the Este
   traced their lineal descent up to the times of Charlemagne.
   They had taken advantage of the frequent dissensions between
   the popes and the German emperors of the houses of Saxony and
   Swabia, and acquired wide dominions in Lunigiana, and the
   March of Treviso, where the castle of Este, their family
   residence, was situated. Towards the middle of the 11th
   century, that family had been connected by marriages with the
   Guelphs of Bavaria, and one of the name of Este was eventually
   to become the common source from which sprung the illustrious
   houses of Brunswick and Hanover. The Este had warmly espoused
   the Guelph party [see GUELFS], during the wars of the Lombard
   League. …
{987}
   Towards the year 1200, Azzo V., Marquis of Este, married
   Marchesella degli Adelardi, daughter of one of the most
   conspicuous Guelphs at Ferrara, where the influence of the
   House of Este was thus first established."

The Marquesses of Este became, "after some of the usual fluctuations, permanent lords of the cities of Ferrara [1264] and Modena [1288]. About the same time they lost their original holding of Este, which passed to Padua, and with Padua to Venice. Thus the nominal marquess of Este and real lord of Ferrara was not uncommonly spoken of as Marquess of Ferrara. In the 15th century these princes rose to ducal rank; but by that time the new doctrine of the temporal dominion of the Popes had made great advances. Modena, no man doubted, was a city of the Empire; but Ferrara was now held to be under the supremacy of the Pope. The Marquess Borso had thus to seek his elevation to ducal rank from two separate lords. He was created Duke of Modena [1453] and Reggio by the Emperor, and afterwards Duke of Ferrara [1471] by the Pope. This difference of holding … led to the destruction of the power of the house of Este. In the times in which we are now concerned, their dominions lay in two masses. To the west lay the duchy of Modena and Reggio; apart from it to the east lay the duchy of Ferrara. Not long after its creation, this last duchy was cut short by the surrender of the border-district of Rovigo to Venice. … Modena and Ferrara remained united, till Ferrara was annexed [1598] as an escheated fief to the dominions of its spiritual overlord. But the house of Este still reigned over Modena with Reggio and Mirandola, while its dominions were extended to the sea by the addition of Massa and other small possessions between Lucca and Genoa. The duchy in the end passed by female succession to the House of Austria [1771-1803]."

"The government of the family of Este at Ferrara, Modena, and Reggio displays curious contrasts of violence and popularity. Within the palace frightful deeds were perpetrated; a princess was beheaded [1425] for alleged adultery with a stepson; legitimate and illegitimate children fled from the court, and even abroad their lives were threatened by assassins sent in pursuit of them (1471). Plots from without were incessant; the bastard of a bastard tried to wrest the crown from the lawful heir, Hercules I.: this latter is said afterwards (1493) to have poisoned his wife on discovering that she, at the instigation of her brother, Ferrante of Naples, was going to poison him. This list of tragedies is closed by the plot of two bastards against their brothers; the ruling Duke Alfonso I. and the Cardinal Ippolito (1506), which was discovered in time, and punished with imprisonment for life. … It is undeniable that the dangers to which these princes were constantly exposed developed in them capacities of a remarkable kind."

      J. Burckhardt,
      The Civilization of the Period of the Renaissance in Italy,
      part 1, chapter 5.

ETHEL, ETHELINGS, OR ÆTHELINGS.

"The sons and brothers of the king [of the English] were distinguished by the title of Æthelings. The word Ætheling, like eorl, originally denoted noble birth simply; but as the royal house of Wessex rose to pre-eminence and the other royal houses and the nobles generally were thereby reduced to a relatively lower grade, it became restricted to the near kindred of the national king."

"It has been sometimes held that the only nobility of blood recognized in England before the Norman Conquest was that of the king's kin. The statement may be regarded as deficient in authority, and as the result of a too hasty generalization from the fact that only the sons and brothers of the kings bear the name of ætheling. On the other hand must be alleged the existence of a noble (edhiling) class among the continental Saxons who had no kings at all. … The laws of Ethelbert prove the existence of a class bearing the name of eorl of which no other interpretation can be given. That these, eorlas and æthel, were the descendants of the primitive nobles of the first settlement, who, on the institution of royalty, sank one step in dignity from the ancient state of rude independence, in which they had elected their own chiefs and ruled their own dependents, may be very reasonably conjectured. … The ancient name of eorl, like that of ætheling, changed its application, and, under the influence, perhaps, of Danish association, was given like that of jarl to the official ealdorman. Henceforth the thegn takes the place of the æthel, and the class of thegns probably embraces all the remaining families of noble blood. The change may have been very gradual; the 'north people's law' of the tenth or early eleventh century still distinguishes the eorl and ætheling with a wergild nearly double that of the ealdorman and seven times that of the thegn; but the north people's law was penetrated with Danish influence, and the eorl probably represents the jarl rather than the ealdorman, the great eorl of the fourth part of England as it was divided by Canute. … The word eorl is said to be the same as the Norse jarl and another form of ealdor (?); whilst the ceorl answers to the Norse Karl; the original meaning of the two being old man and young man."

W. Stubbs, Constitutional History of England, chapter 6, section 64, and note.

ETHELBALD,
King of Mercia, A. D. 716-755.
Ethelbald, King of Wessex, A. D. 858-860.

ETHELBERT,
King of Kent, A. D. 565-616.
Ethelbert, King of Wessex, A. D. 860-866.

ETHELRED,
King of Wessex, A. D. 866-871.
Ethelred, called the Unready, King of Wessex, A. D. 979-1016.

ETHIOPIA.

The Ethiopia of the ancients, "in the ordinary and vague sense of the term, was a vast tract extending in length above a thousand miles, from the 9th to the 24th degree of north latitude, and in breadth almost 900 miles, from the shores of the Red Sea and Indian Ocean to the desert of the Sahara. This tract was inhabited for the most part by wild and barbarous tribes—herdsmen, hunters, or fishermen—who grew no corn, were unacquainted with bread, and subsisted on the milk and flesh of their cattle, or on game, turtle, and fish, salted or raw. The tribes had their own separate chiefs, and acknowledged no single head, but on the contrary were frequently at war one with the other, and sold their prisoners for slaves. Such was Ethiopia in the common vague sense; but from this must be distinguished another narrower Ethiopia, known sometimes as 'Ethiopia Proper' or 'Ethiopia above Egypt,' the limits of which were, towards the south, the junction of the White and Blue Niles, and towards the north the Third Cataract. Into this tract, called sometimes 'the kingdom of Meroë,' Egyptian civilisation had, long before the eighth century [B. C.], deeply penetrated. Temples of the Egyptian type, stone pyramids, avenues of sphinxes, had been erected; a priesthood had been set up, which was regarded as derived from the Egyptian priesthood; monarchical institutions had been adopted; the whole tract formed ordinarily one kingdom, and the natives were not very much behind the Egyptians in arts or arms, or very different from them in manners, customs, and mode of life. Even in race the difference was not great. The Ethiopians were darker in complexion than the Egyptians, and possessed probably a greater infusion of Nigritic blood; but there was a common stock at the root of the two races—Cush and Mizraim were brethren. In the region of Ethiopia Proper a very important position was occupied in the eighth century [B. C.] by Napata. Napata was situated midway in the great bend of the Nile, between latitude 18° and 19°. … It occupied the left bank of the river in the near vicinity of the modern Gebel Berkal. . . Here, when the decline of Egypt enabled the Ethiopians to reclaim their ancient limits, the capital was fixed of that kingdom, which shortly became a rival of the old empire of the Pharaohs, and aspired to take its place. … The kingdom of Meroë, whereof it was the capital, reached southward as far as the modern Khartoum, and eastward stretched up to the Abyssinian highlands, including the valleys of the Atbara and its tributaries, together with most of the tract between the Atbara and the Blue Nile. … Napata continued down to Roman times a place of importance, and only sank to ruin in consequence of the campaigns of Petronius against Candacé in the first century after our era."

      ALSO IN:
      A. H. L. Heeren,
      Historical Researches, Carthaginians,
      Ethiopians, &c., pages 143-249.

ETON SCHOOL.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1801-1803; also PORTUGAL: A. D. 1807; and FRANCE: A. D. 1807-1808(NOVEMBER-FEBRUARY).

"At the time when Roman history begins, we find that a powerful and warlike race, far superior to the Latins in civilisation and in the arts of life, hemmed in the rising Roman dominion in the north. The Greeks called them Turrhenoi, the Romans called them Etrusci, they called themselves the Rasenna. Who they were and whence they came has ever been regarded as one of the most doubtful and difficult problems in ethnology. One conclusion only can be said to have been universally accepted both in ancient and in modern times. It is agreed on every hand that in all essential points, in language, in religion, in customs, and in appearance, the Etruscans were a race wholly different from the Latins. There is also an absolute agreement of all ancient tradition to the effect that the Etruscans were not the original inhabitants of Etruria, but that they were an intrusive race of conquerors. … It has been usually supposed that the Rasenna made their appearance in Italy some ten or twelve centuries before the Christian era. … For some six or seven centuries, the Etruscan power and territory continued steadily to increase, and ultimately stretched far south of the Tiber, Rome itself being included in the Etruscan dominion, and being ruled by an Etruscan dynasty. The early history of Rome is to a great extent the history of the uprising of the Latin race, and its long struggle for Italian supremacy with its Etruscan foe. It took Rome some six centuries of conflict to break through the obstinate barrier of the Etruscan power. The final conquest of Etruria by Rome was effected in the year 281 B. C. … The Rasennic people were collected mainly in the twelve great cities of Etruria proper, between the Arno and the Tiber. [Modern Tuscany takes its name from the ancient Etruscan inhabitants of the region.] This region was the real seat of the Etruscan power. … From the 'Shah-nameh,' the great Persian epic, we learn that the Aryan Persians called their nearest non-Aryan neighbours—the Turkic or Turcoman tribes to the north of them—by the name Turan, a word from which we derive the familiar ethnologic term Turanian. The Aryan Greeks, on the other hand, called the Turkic tribe of the Rasenna, the nearest non-Aryan race, by the name of Turrhenoi. The argument of this book is to prove that the Tyrrhenians of Italy were of kindred race with the Turanians of Turkestan. Is it too much to conjecture that the Greek form Turrhene may be identically the same word as the Persian form Turan?"

"The utmost we can say is that several traces, apparently reliable, point to the conclusion that the Etruscans may be on the whole included among the Indo-Germans. … But even granting those points of connection, the Etruscan people appears withal scarcely less isolated. 'The Etruscans,' Dionysius said long ago, 'are like no other nation in language and manners'; and we have nothing to add to his statement. … Reliable traces of any advance of the Etruscans beyond the Tiber, by land, are altogether wanting. … South of the Tiber no Etruscan settlement can be pointed out as having owed its origin to founders who came by land; and that no indication whatever is discernible of any serious pressure by the Etruscans upon the Latin nation."

EUBŒA.

"The island of Eubœa, long and narrow like Krête, and exhibiting a continuous backbone of lofty mountains from northwest to southeast, is separated from Bœotia at one point by a strait so narrow (celebrated in antiquity under the name of the Eurīpus) that the two were connected by a bridge for a large portion of the historical period of Greece, erected during the later times of the Peloponnesian war by the inhabitants of Chalkis [Chalcis]. Its general want of breadth leaves little room for plains. The area of the island consists principally of mountain, rock, dell, and ravine, suited in many parts for pasture, but rarely convenient for grain-culture or town habitations. Some plains there were, however, of great fertility, especially that of Lelantum, bordering on the sea near Chalkis, and continuing from that city in a southerly direction towards Eretria. Chalkis and Eretria, both situated on the western coast, and both occupying parts of this fertile plain, were the two principal places in the island: the domain of each seems to have extended across the island from sea to sea. … Both were in early times governed by an oligarchy, which among the Chalcidians was called the Hippobotæ, or Horse feeders,— proprietors probably of most part of the plain called Lelantum."

EUBOIC TALENT.

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1699-1718;
      GERMANY: A. D. 1704;
      ITALY (SAVOY AND PIEDMONT): A. D. 1701-1713;
      NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1708-1709, and 1710-1712.

EUGENE I., Pope, A. D. 655-657.
   Eugene II., Pope, A. D. 824-827.
   Eugene III., Pope, A. D. 1145-1153.
   Eugene IV., Pope, A. D. 1431-1447.

"The Eupatridæ [in ancient Athens] are the wealthy and powerful men, belonging to the most distinguished families in all the various gentes, and principally living in the city of Athens, after the consolidation of Attica: from them are distinguished the middling and lower people, roughly classified into husbandmen and artisans. To the Eupatridæ is ascribed a religious as well as a political and social ascendency. They are represented as the source of all authority on matters both sacred and profane,"

EUROKS, OR YUROKS.

EUROPE.

A HISTORICAL SKETCH.

A general sketch of the history of Europe at large cannot, for obvious reasons, be constructed of quotations from the historians, on the plan followed in other parts of this work. The editor has found it necessary, therefore, to introduce here an essay of his own.

The first inhabitants of the continent of Europe have left no trace of their existence on the surface of the land. The little that we know of them has been learned by the discovery of deeply buried remains, including a few bones and skulls, many weapons and tools which they had fashioned out of stone and bone, and some other rude marks of their hands which time has not destroyed. The places in which these remains are found—under deposits that formed slowly in ancient river beds and in caves—have convinced geologists that the people whose existence they reveal lived many thousands of years ago, and that the continent of Europe in their time was very different from the Europe of the present day, in its climate, in its aspect, and in its form. They find reason to suppose that the peninsula of Italy, as well as that of Spain, was then an isthmus which joined Europe to Africa; and this helps to explain the fact that remains of such animals as the elephant, the lion, the rhinoceros, the hippopotamus, and the hyena, as well as the mammoth, are found with the remains of these early men. They all seem to have belonged, together, to a state of things, on the surface of the earth, which was greatly changed before the men and the animals that we have historical knowledge of appeared.

These primitive Europeans were evidently quite at the bottom of the savage state. They had learned no use of metals, since every relic of their workmanship that can be found is of stone, or bone, or wood. It is thought possible that they shaped rough vessels out of unbaked clay; but that is uncertain. There is nothing to show that they had domesticated any animals. It is plain that they dwelt in caves, wherever nature provided such dwellings; but what shelters they may have built elsewhere for themselves is unknown.

In one direction, only, did these ancient people exhibit a faculty finer than we see in the lowest savages of the present day: they were artists, in a way. They have left carvings and drawings of animals—the latter etched with a sharp point on horns, bones, and stones—which are remarkable for uncultured men.

   The period in man's life on the earth at which these people
   lived—the period before metals were known—has been named by
   archæologists the Stone Age. But the Stone Age covers two
   stages of human culture—one in which stone implements were
   fashioned unskilfully, and a second in which they were
   finished with expert and careful hands. The first is called
   the Palæolithic or Old Stone Age, the second the Neolithic or
   New Stone Age. Between the two periods in Europe there seems
   to have been a long interval of time, and a considerable
   change in the condition of the country, as well as in that of
   its people.
{990}
   In fact, the Europe of the Neolithic Age was probably not very
   different in form and climate from the Europe of our own day.
   Relics of the human life of that time are abundantly scattered
   over the face of the continent. There are notable deposits of
   them in the so-called "kitchen-middens" of Denmark, which are
   great mounds of shells,—shells of oysters and other
   molluscs,—which these ancient fishermen had opened and
   emptied, and then cast upon a refuse heap. Buried in those
   mounds, many bits of their workmanship have been preserved,
   and many hints of their manner of life are gleaned from the
   signs and tokens which these afford. They had evidently risen
   some degrees above the state of the men of the Palæolithic or
   Old Stone Age; but they were inferior in art.

The discovery and use of copper—the metal most easily worked, and most frequently found in the metallic state—is the event by which archæologists mark the beginning of a second state in early civilizations. The period during which copper, and copper hardened by an alloy of tin, are the only metals found in use, they call the Bronze Age. There is no line of positive division between this and the Neolithic period which it followed. The same races appear to have advanced from the one stage to the other, and probably some were in possession of tools and weapons of bronze, while others were still contenting themselves with implements of stone.

In many parts of Europe, especially in Switzerland and northern Italy, plain traces of some curious habitations of people who lived through the later Stone Age into the Bronze Age, and even after it, have been brought to light. These are the "lake dwellings," or "lacustrine habitations," as they have been called, which have excited interest in late years. They were generally built on piles, driven into a lake-bottom, at such distance from shore as would make them easy of defence against enemies. The foundations of whole villages of these dwellings have been found in the Swiss and North Italian lakes, and less numerously elsewhere. From the lake-mud under and around them, a great quantity of relics of the lake-dwellers have been taken, and many facts about their arts and mode of life have been learned. It is known that, even before a single metal had come into their hands, they had begun to cultivate the earth; had raised wheat and barley and flax; had domesticated the horse, the ox, the sheep, the goat, the pig and the dog; had become fairly skilful in weaving, in rope-making, and in the art of the potter, but without the potter's wheel.

Gradually copper and bronze made their appearance among the implements of these people, as modern search discovers them imbedded, layer upon layer, in the old ooze of the lake-beds where they were dropped. In time, iron, too, reveals itself among their possessions, showing that they lived in their lake-villages from the later Stone Age into that third period of the early process of civilization which is named the Iron Age—when men first acquired the use of the most useful of all the metals. It appears, in fact, that the lake-dwellings were occupied even down to Roman times, since articles of Roman make have been found in the ruins of them.

In nearly all parts of Europe there are found burial mounds, called barrows, which contain buried relics of people who lived at one or the other of the three periods named. For the most part, they represent inhabitants of the Neolithic and of the Bronze Ages. In Great Britain some of these barrows are long, some are round; and the skulls found in the long barrows are different in shape from those in the round ones, showing a difference of race. The people to whom the first belonged are called "long-headed," or "dolichocephalic"; the others are called "broad-headed," or "brachycephalic." In the opinion of some ethnologists, who study this subject of the distinctions of race in the human family, the broad-headed people were ancestors of the Celtic or Keltic tribes, whom the Romans subdued in Gaul and Britain; while the long-headed men were of a preceding race, which the Celts, when they came, either drove out of all parts of Europe, except two or three mountainous corners, or else absorbed by intermarriage. The Basques of northwestern Spain, and some of their neighbors on the French side of the Pyrenees, are supposed to be survivals of this very ancient people; and there are suspected to be traces of their existence seen in the dark-haired and dark-skinned people of parts of Wales, Ireland, Corsica, North Africa, and elsewhere.

At least one part of this conjecture has much to rest upon. The inhabitants of western Europe when our historical knowledge of them—that is, our recorded and reported knowledge of them—begins, were, certainly, for the most part, Celtic peoples, and it is extremely probable that they had been occupying the country as long as the period represented by the round barrows. It is no less probable that they were the lake-dwellers of Switzerland, North Italy, and other regions; and that they did, in fact, displace some earlier people in most parts of Western Europe.

   The Celts—whose nearly pure descendants are found now in the
   Bretons of France, the Welsh, the Highland Scotch and the
   Celtic Irish, and who formed the main stock of the larger part
   of the French nation—were one branch of the great family of
   nations called Aryan or Indo-European. The Aryan peoples are
   assumed to be akin to one another—shoots from one
   stem—because their languages are alike in grammatical
   structure and contain great numbers of words that are
   manifestly formed from the same original "root"; and because
   they differ in these respects from all other languages. The
   nations thus identified as Aryan are the nations that have
   acted the most important parts in all human history except the
   history of extremely ancient times. Besides the Celtic peoples
   already mentioned, they include the English, the Dutch, the
   Germans, and the Scandinavians, forming the Teutonic race; the
   Russians, Poles, and others of the Slavonic group; the ancient
   Greeks and Romans, with their modern representatives, and the
   Persians and Hindus in Asia. According to the evidence of
   their languages, there must have been a time and a place, in
   the remote past, when and where a primitive Aryan race, which
   was ancestral to all these nations, lived and multiplied until
   it outgrew its original country and began to send forth
   successive "swarms," or migrating hordes, as many unsettled
   races have been seen to do within the historic age.
{991}
   It is hopeless, perhaps, to think of determining the time when
   such a dispersion of the Aryan peoples began; but many
   scholars believe it possible to trace, by various marks and
   indications, in language and elsewhere, the lines of movement
   in the migration, so far as to guess with some assurance the
   region of the primitive Aryan home; but thus far there are
   great disagreements in the guessing. Until recent years, the
   prevailing judgment pointed to that highland district in
   Central Asia which lies north of the Hindoo-Koosh range of
   mountains, and between the upper waters of the Oxus and
   Jaxartes. But later studies have discredited this first theory
   and started many opposing ones. The strong tendency now is to
   believe that the cradle of all the peoples of Aryan speech was
   somewhere in Europe, rather than in Asia, and in the north of
   Europe rather than in the center or the south. At the same
   time, there seems to be a growing opinion that the language of
   the Aryans was communicated to conquered peoples so
   extensively that its spread is not a true measure of the
   existing diffusion of the race.

Whatever may have been the starting-point of the Aryan migrations, it is supposed that the branch now distinguished as Celtic was the first to separate from the parent stem and to acquire for itself a new domain. It occupied southwestern Europe, from northern Spain to the Rhine, and across the Channel to the British islands, extending eastward into Switzerland, North It&ly and the Tyrol. But little of what the tribes and nations forming this Celtic race did is known, until the time when another Aryan people, better civilized, came into collision with them, and drew them into the written history of the world by conquering them and making them its subjects.

The people who did this were the Romans, and the Romans and the Greeks are believed to have been carried into the two peninsulas which they inhabited, respectively, by one and the same movement in the Aryan dispersion. Their languages show more affinity to one another than to the other Aryan tongues, and there are other evidences of a near relationship between them; though they separated, it is quite certain, long before the appearance of either in history.

The Greeks, or Hellenes, as they called themselves, were the first among the Aryan peoples in Europe to make themselves historically known, and the first to write the record which transmits history from generation to generation. The peninsula in which they settled themselves is a very peculiar one in its formation. It is crossed in different directions by mountain ranges, which divide the land into parts naturally separated from one another, and which form barriers easily defended against invading foes. Between the mountains lie numerous fertile valleys. The coast is ragged with gulfs and bays, which notch it deeply on all sides, making the whole main peninsula a cluster of minor peninsulas, and supplying the people with harbors which invite them to a life of seafaring and trade. It is surrounded, moreover, with islands, which repeat the invitation.

Almost necessarily, in a country marked with such features so strongly, the Greeks became divided politically into small independent states—city-states they have been named—and those on the sea-coast became engaged very early in trade with other countries of the Mediterranean Sea. Every city of importance in Greece was entirely sovereign in the government of itself and of the surrounding territory which formed its domain. The stronger among them extended their dominion over some of the weaker or less valiant ones; but even then the subject cities kept a considerable measure of independence. There was no organization of national government to embrace the whole, nor any large part, of Greece. Certain among the states were sometimes united in temporary leagues, or confederacies, for common action in war; but these were unstable alliances, rather than political unions. In their earliest form, the Greek city-states were governed by kings, whose power appears to have been quite limited, and who were leaders rather than sovereigns. But kingship disappeared from most of the states in Greece proper before they reached the period of distinct and accepted history. The kings were first displaced by aristocracies—ruling families, which took all political rights and privileges to themselves, and allowed their fellows (whom they usually oppressed) no part or voice in public affairs. In most instances these aristocracies, or oligarchies, were overthrown, after a time, by bold agitators who stirred up a revolution, and then contrived, while confusion prevailed, to gather power into their own hands. Almost every Greek city had its time of being ruled by one or more of these Tyrants, as they were called. Some of them, like Pisistratus of Athens, ruled wisely and justly for the most part, and were not "tyrants" in the modern sense of the term; but all who gained and held a princely power unlawfully were so named by the Greeks. The reign of the Tyrants was nowhere lasting. They were driven out of one city after another until they disappeared. Then the old aristocracies came uppermost again in some cities, and ruled as before. But some, like Athens, had trained the whole body of their citizens to such intelligence and spirit that neither kingship nor oligarchy would be endured any longer, and the people undertook to govern themselves. These were the first democracies—the first experiments in popular government—that history gives any account of. "The little commonwealths of Greece," says a great historian, "were the first states at once free and civilized which the world ever saw. They were the first states which gave birth to great statesmen, orators, and generals who did great deeds, and to great historians who set down those great deeds in writing. It was in the Greek commonwealths, in short, that the political and intellectual life of the world began."

In the belief of the Greeks, or of most men among them, their early history was embodied with truth in the numerous legends and ancient poems which they religiously preserved; but people in modern times look differently upon those wonderful myths and epics, studying them with deep interest, but under more critical views. They throw much light on the primitive life of the Hellenes, and more light upon the development of the remarkable genius and spirit of those thoughtful and imaginative people; but of actual history there are only glimpses and guesses to be got from them.

The Homeric poems, the "Iliad" and the "Odyssey," describe a condition of things in which the ruling state of Peloponnesus (the southern peninsula of Greece) was a kingdom of the Achaians, having its capital at Mycenæ, in Argolis,—the realm of King Agamemnon,—and in which Athens is unknown to the poet. Within recent years, Dr. Schliemann has excavated the ruins of Mycenæ, and has found evidence that it really must have been, in very early times, the seat of a strong and rich monarchy. But the Achaian kingdom had entirely disappeared, and the Achaian people had shrunk to an insignificant community, on the Gulf of Corinth, when the first assured views of Greek history open to us.

It seems to be a fact that the Achaians had been overwhelmed by a great invasion of more barbarous Greek tribes from the North, very much as the Roman Empire, in later times, was buried under an avalanche of barbarism from Germany. The invaders were a tribe or league of tribes called Dorians, who had been driven from their own previous home on the slopes of the Pindus mountain range. Their movement southward was part, as appears, of an extensive shifting of place, or migration, that occurred at that time (not long, it is probable, before the beginning of the historic period) among the tribes of Hellas. The Dorians claimed that in conquering Peloponnesus they were recovering a heritage from which their chiefs had been anciently expelled, and their legends were shaped accordingly. The Dorian chiefs appeared in these legends as descendants of Hercules, and the tradition of the conquest became a story of "The Return of the Heraclids."

The principal states founded or possessed and controlled by the Dorians in Peloponnesus, after their conquest, were Sparta, or Lacedæmon, Argos, and Corinth. The Spartans were the most warlike of the Greeks,—the most resolute and energetic,—and their leadership in practical affairs common to the whole came to be generally acknowledged. At the same time they had little of the intellectual superiority which distinguished some of their Hellenic kindred in so remarkable a degree. Their state was organized on military principles; its constitution (the body of famous ordinances ascribed to Lycurgus) was a code of rigid discipline, which dealt with the citizen as a soldier always under training for war, and demanded from him the utmost simplicity of life. Their form of government combined a peculiar monarchy (having two royal families and two kings) with an aristocratic senate (the Gerousia), and a democratic assembly (which voted on matters only as submitted to it by the senate), with an irresponsible executive over the whole, consisting of five men called the Ephors. This singular government, essentially aristocratic or oligarchical, was maintained, with little disturbance or change, through the whole independent history of Sparta. In all respects, the Spartans were the most conservative and the least progressive among the politically important Greeks.

At the beginning of the domination of the Dorians in Peloponnesus, their city of Argos took the lead, and was the head of a league which included Corinth and other city-states. But Sparta soon rose to rivalry with Argos; then reduced it to a secondary place, and finally subjugated it completely.

The extensive shifting of population which had produced its most important result in the invasion of Peloponnesus by the Dorians, must have caused great commotions and changes throughout the whole Greek peninsula; and quite as much north of the Corinthian isthmus as south of it. But in the part which lies nearest to the isthmus—the branch peninsula of Attica—the old inhabitants appear to have held their ground, repelling invaders, and their country was affected only by an influx of fugitives, flying from the conquered Peloponnesus. The Attic people were more nearly akin to the expelled Achaians and Ionians than to the conquering Dorians, although a common brotherhood in the Hellenic race was recognized by all of them. Whatever distinction there may have been before between Achaians and Ionians now practically disappeared, and the Ionic name became common to the whole branch of the Greek people which derived itself from them. The important division of the race through all its subsequent history was between Dorians and Ionians. The Æolians constituted a third division, of minor importance and of far less significance. The distinction between Ionians and Dorians was a very real one, in character no less than in traditions and name. The Ionians were the superior Greeks on the intellectual side. It was among them that the wonderful genius resided which produced the greater marvels of art, literature and philosophy in Greek civilization. It was among them, too, that the institutions of political freedom were carried to their highest attainment. Their chief city was Athens, and the splendor of its history bears testimony to their unexampled genius. On the other hand, the Dorians were less thoughtful, less imaginative, less broad in judgment or feeling—less susceptible, it would seem, of a high refinement of culture; but no less capable in practical pursuits, no less vigorous in effective action, and sounder, perhaps, in their moral constitution. Sparta, which stood at the head of the Doric states, contributed almost nothing to Greek literature, Greek thought, Greek art, or Greek commerce, but exercised a great influence on Greek political history. Other Doric states, especially Corinth, were foremost in commercial and colonizing enterprise, and attained some brilliancy of artistic civilization, but with moderate originality.

   It was natural, as noted above, that the Greeks should be
   induced at an early day to navigate the surrounding seas, and
   to engage in trade with neighboring nations. They were not
   original, it is supposed, in these ventures, but learned more
   or less of ship-building and the art of navigation from an
   older people, the Phœnicians, who dwelt on the coast of Syria
   and Palestine, and whose chief cities were Sidon and Tyre. The
   Phœnicians had extended their commerce widely through the
   Mediterranean before the Greeks came into rivalry with them.
   Their ships, and their merchants, and the wares they bartered,
   were familiar in the Ægean when the Homeric poems were
   composed.
{993}
   They seem to have been the teachers of the early Greeks in
   many things. They gave them, with little doubt, the invention
   of the alphabet, which they themselves had borrowed from
   Egypt. They conveyed hints of art, which bore astonishing
   fruits when planted in the fertile Hellenic imagination. They
   carried from the East strange stories of gods and demigods,
   which were woven into the mythology of the Greeks. They gave,
   in fact, to Greek civilization, at its beginning, the greatest
   impulse it received. But all that Hellas took from the outer
   world it wrought into a new character, and put upon it the
   stamp of its own unmistakable genius. In navigation and
   commerce the Greeks of the coast-cities and the islands were
   able, ere long, to compete on even terms with the Phœnicians,
   and it happened, in no great space of time, that they had
   driven the latter entirely from the Ægean and the Euxine seas.

They had now occupied with colonies the coast of Asia Minor and the islands on both their own coasts. The Ionian Greeks were the principal colonizers of the Asiatic shore and of the Cyclades. On the former and near it they founded twelve towns of note, including Samos, Miletus, Ephesus, Chios, and Phocæa, which are among the more famous cities of ancient times. Their important island settlements in the Cyclades were Naxos, Delos, Melos, and Paros. They possessed, likewise, the great island of Eubœa, with its two wealthy cities of Chalcis and Eretria. These, with Attica, constituted, in the main, the Ionic portion of Hellas.

The Dorians occupied the islands of Rhodes and Cos, and founded on the coast of Asia Minor the cities of Halicarnassus and Cnidus. The important Æolian colonies in Asia were Smyrna (acquired later by the Ionians), Temnos, Larissa, and Cyme. Of the islands they occupied Lesbos and Tenedos.

From these settlements on neighboring coasts and islands the vigorous Greeks pushed on to more distant fields. It is probable that their colonies were in Cyprus and Crete before the eighth century, B. C. In the seventh century B. C., during a time of confusion and weakness in Egypt, they had entered that country as allies or as mercenaries of the kings, and had founded a city, Naucratis, which became an important agent in the exchange of arts and ideas, as well as of merchandise, between the Nile and the Ægean. Within a few years past the site of Naucratis has been uncovered by explorers, and much has been brought to light that was obscure in Greek and Egyptian history before. Within the same seventh century, Cyrene and Barca had been built on the African coast, farther west. Even a century before that time, the Corinthians had taken possession of Corcyra (modern Corfu), and they, with the men of Chalcis and Megara, had been actively founding cities that grew great and rich, in Sicily and in southern Italy, which latter acquired the name of "Magna Græcia" (Great Greece). At a not much later time they had pressed northwards to the Euxine or Black Sea, and had scattered settlements along the Thracian and Macedonian coast, including one (Byzantium) on the Bosphorus, which became, after a thousand years had passed, the imperial city of Constantinople. About 597 B. C., the Phocæans had planted a colony at Massalia, in southern Gaul, from which sprang the great city known in modern times as Marseilles. And much of all this had been done, by Ionians and Dorians together, before Athens (in which Attica now centered itself, and which loomed finally greater in glory than the whole Hellenic world besides) had made a known mark in history.

At first there had been kings in Athens, and legends had gathered about their names which give modern historians a ground-work for critical guessing, and scarcely more. Then the king disappeared and a magistrate called Archon took his place, who held office for only ten years. The archons are believed to have been chosen first from the old royal family alone; but after a time the office was thrown open to all noble families. This was the aristocratic stage of political evolution in the city-state. The next step was taken in 683 B. C. (which is said to be the beginning of authentic Athenian chronology) when nine archons were created, in place of the one, and their term of office was reduced to a single year.

Fifty years later, about 621 B. C., the people of Athens obtained their first code of written law, ascribed to one Draco, and described as a code of much severity. But it gave certainty to law, for the first time, and was the first great protective measure secured by the people. In 612 B. C. a noble named Kylon attempted to overthrow the aristocratic government and establish a tyranny under himself, but he failed.

Then there came forward in public life another noble, who was one of the wisest men and purest patriots of any country or age, and who made an attempt of quite another kind. This was Solon, the famous lawgiver, who became archon in 594 B. C. The political state of Athens at that time has been described for us in an ancient Greek treatise lately discovered, and which is believed to be one of the hitherto lost writings of Aristotle. "Not only," says the author of this treatise, "was the constitution at this time oligarchical in every respect, but the poorer classes, men, women, and children, were in absolute slavery to the rich. … The whole country was in the hands of a few persons, and if the tenants failed to pay their rent, they were liable to be haled into slavery, and their children with them. Their persons were mortgaged to their creditors." Solon saw that this was a state of things not to be endured by such a people as the Athenians, and he exerted himself to change it. He obtained authority to frame a new constitution and a new code of laws for the state. In the latter, he provided measures for relieving the oppressed class of debtors. In the former, he did not create a democratic government, but he greatly increased the political powers of the people. He classified them according to their wealth, defining four classes, the citizens in each of which had certain political duties and privileges measured to them by the extent of their property and income. But the whole body of citizens, in their general assembly (the Ecclesia), were given the important right of choosing the annual archons, whom they must select, however, from the ranks of the wealthiest class. At the same time, Solon enlarged the powers of the old aristocratic senate—the Areopagus—giving it a supervision of the execution of the laws and a censorship of the morals of the people.

"These changes did not constitute Democracy,—a form of government then unknown, and for which there was as yet no word in the Greek language. But they initiated the democratic spirit. … Athens, thus fairly started on her way,—emancipated from the discipline of aristocratic school-masters, and growing into an age of manly liberty and self-restraint,—came eventually nearer to the ideal of 'the good life' [Aristotle's phrase] than any other State in Hellas."

But before the Athenians reached their nearness to this "good life," they had to pass under the yoke of a "tyrant," Pisistratus, who won the favor of the poorer people, and, with their help, established himself in the Acropolis (560 B. C.) with a foreign guard to maintain his power. Twice driven out, he was twice restored, and reigned quite justly and prudently, on the whole, until his death in 527 B. C. He was succeeded by his two sons, Hippias and Hipparchus; but the latter was killed in 514, and Hippias was expelled by the Spartans in 510 B. C.; after which there was no tyranny in Athens.

On the fall of the Pisistratidæ, a majority of the noble or privileged class struggled hard to regain their old ascendancy; but one of their number, Cleisthenes, took the side of the people and helped them to establish a democratic constitution. He caused the ancient tribal division of the citizens to be abolished, and substituted a division which mixed the members of clans and broke up or weakened the clannish influence in politics. He enlarged Solon's senate or council and divided it into committees, and he brought the "ecclesia," or popular assembly, into a more active exercise of its powers. He also introduced the custom of ostracism, which permitted the citizens of Athens to banish by their vote any man whom they thought dangerous to the state. The constitution of Cleisthenes was the final foundation of the Athenian democratic republic. Monarchical and aristocratic Sparta resented the popular change, and undertook to restore the oligarchy by force of arms; but the roused democracy of Athens defended its newly won liberties with vigor and success.

Not Athens only, but all Greece, was now about to be put to a test which proved the remarkable quality of both, and formed the beginning of their great career. The Ionian cities of Asia Minor had recently been twice conquered, first by Crœsus, King of Lydia, and then by Cyrus the Great, founder of the Persian empire, who had overthrown Crœsus (B. C. 547), and taken his dominions. The Persians oppressed them, and in 500 B. C. they rose in revolt. Athens and Eretria sent help to them, while Sparta refused. The revolt was suppressed, and Darius, the king of Persia, planned vengeance upon the Athenians and Eretrians for the aid they had given to it. He sent an expedition against them in 493 B. C., which was mostly destroyed by a storm. In 490 B. C. he sent a second powerful army and fleet, which took Eretria and razed it to the ground. The great Persian army then marched upon Athens, and was met at Marathon by a small Athenian force of 9,000 men. The little city of Platæa sent 1,000 more to stand with them in the desperate encounter. They had no other aid in the fight, and the Persians were a great unnumbered host. But Miltiades, the Greek general that day, planned his battle-charge so well that he routed the Asiatic host and lost but 192 men. The Persians abandoned their attempt and returned to their wrathful king. One citizen of Athens, Themistocles, had sagacity enough to foresee that the "Great King," as he was known, would not rest submissive under his defeat; and with difficulty he persuaded his fellow citizens to prepare themselves for future conflicts by building a fleet and by fortifying their harbors, thus making themselves powerful at sea. The wisdom of his counsels was proved in 480 B. C., when Xerxes, the successor of Darius, led an army of prodigious size into Greece, crossing the Hellespont by a bridge of boats. This time, Sparta, Corinth, and several of the lesser states, rallied with Athens to the defence of the common country; but Thebes and Argos showed friendship to the Persians, and none of the important island-colonies contributed any help. Athens was the brain and right arm of the war, notwithstanding the accustomed leadership of Sparta in military affairs.

The first encounter was at Thermopylæ, where Leonidas and his 300 Spartans defended the narrow pass, and died in their place when the Persians found a way across the mountain to surround them. But on that same day the Persian fleet was beaten at Artemisium. Xerxes marched on Athens, however, found the city deserted, and destroyed it. His fleet had followed him, and was still stronger than the naval force of the Greeks. Themistocles forced a battle, against the will of the Peloponnesian captains, and practically destroyed the Persian fleet. This most memorable battle of Salamis was decisive of the war, and decisive of the independence of Greece. Xerxes, in a panic, hastened back into Asia, leaving one of his generals, Mardonius, with 300,000 men, to pursue the war. But Mardonius was routed and his host annihilated, at Platæa, the next year, while the Persian fleet was again defeated on the same day at Mycale.

The war had been glorious for the Athenians, and all could see that Greece had been saved by their spirit and their intelligence much more than by the valor of Sparta and the other states. But they were in a woful condition, with their city destroyed and their families without homes. Wasting no time in lamentations, they rebuilt the town, stretched its walls to a wider circuit, and fortified it more strongly than before, under the lead of the sagacious Themistocles. Their neighbors were meanly jealous, and Sparta made attempts to interfere with the building of the walls; but Themistocles baffled them cunningly, and the new Athens rose proudly out of the ashes of the old.

The Ionian islands and towns of Asia Minor (which had broken the Persian yoke) now recognized the superiority and leadership of Athens, and a league was formed among them, which held the meetings of its deputies and kept its treasury in the temple of Apollo on the sacred island of Delos; for which reason it was called the Confederacy of Delos, or the Delian League. The Peloponnesian states formed a looser rival league under the headship of Sparta. The Confederacy of Delos was in sympathy with popular governments and popular parties everywhere, while the Spartans and their following favored oligarchies and aristocratic parties. There were many occasions for hostility between the two.

The Athenians, at the head of their Confederacy, were strong, until they impaired their power by using it in tyrannical ways. Many lesser states in the league were foolish enough to commute in money payments the contribution of ships and men which they had pledged themselves to make to the common naval force. This gave Athens the power to use that force despotically, as her own, and she did not scruple to exercise the power. The Confederacy was soon a name; the states forming it were no longer allies of Athens, but her subjects; she ruled them as the sovereign of an Empire, and her rule was neither generous nor just. Thereby the double tie of kinship and of interest which might have bound the whole circle of Ionian states to her fortunes and herself was destroyed by her own acts. Provoking the hatred of her allies and challenging the jealous fear of her rivals, Athens had many enemies.

At the same time, a dangerous change in the character of her democratic institutions was begun, produced especially by the institution of popular jury-courts, before which prosecutions of every kind were tried, the citizens who constituted the courts acting as jury and judge at once. This gave them a valuable training, without doubt, and helped greatly to raise the common standard of intelligence among the Athenians so high; but it did unquestionably tend also to demoralizations that were ruinous in the end. The jury service, which was slightly paid, fell more and more to an unworthy class, made up of idlers or intriguers. Party feeling and popular passions gained an increasing influence over the juries, and demagogues acquired an increasing skill in making use of them.

But these evils were scarcely more than in their seed during the great period of "Athenian Empire," as it is sometimes called, and everything within its bounds was suffused with the shining splendor of that matchless half-century. The genius of this little Ionic state was stimulated to amazing achievements in every intellectual field. Æschylus, Sophocles, Euripides, Aristophanes, within a single generation, crowded Athenian literature with the masterpieces of classic drama. Pheidias and his companions crowned the Acropolis and filled the city with works that have been the models in art for all ages since. Socrates began the quizzing which turned philosophy into honest truth-seeking paths, and Plato listened to him and was instructed for his mission. Thucydides watched events with sagacious young eyes, and prepared his pen for the chronicling of them; while Herodotus, pausing at Athens from his wide travels, matured the knowledge he had gathered up and perfected it for his final work. Over all of them came Pericles to preside and rule, not as a master, or "tyrant," but as leader, guide, patron, princely republican,—statesman and politician in one.

The period of the ascendancy of Pericles was the "golden age" of Athenian prosperity and power, both material and intellectual. The beginning of the end of it was reached a little before he died, when the long-threatened war between Athens and the Peloponnesian league, led by Sparta, broke out (B. C. 431). If Athens had then possessed the good will of the cities of her own league, and if her citizens had retained their old sobriety and intelligence, she might have triumphed in the war; for she was all powerful at sea and fortified almost invincibly against attacks by land. But the subject states, called allies, were hostile, for the most part, and helped the enemy by their revolts, while the death of Pericles (B. C. 429) let loose on the people a swarm of demagogues who flattered and deluded them, and baffled the wiser and more honest, whose counsels and leadership might have given her success.

The fatal folly of the long war was an expedition against the distant city of Syracuse (B. C. 415-413), into which the Athenians were enticed by the restless and unscrupulous ambition of Alcibiades. The entire force sent to Sicily perished there, and the strength and spirit of Athens were ruinously sapped by the fearful calamity. She maintained the war, however, until 404 B. C., when, having lost her fleet in the decisive battle of Ægospotami, and being helplessly blockaded by sea and land, the city was surrendered to the Spartan general Lysander. Her walls and fortifications were then destroyed and her democratic government was overthrown, giving place to an oligarchy known as the "thirty tyrants." The democracy soon suppressed the thirty tyrants and regained control, and Athens, in time, rose somewhat from her deep humiliation, but never again to much political power in Greece. In intellect and cultivation, the superiority of the Attic state was still maintained, and its greatest productions in philosophy and eloquence were yet to be given to the world.

After the fall of Athens, Sparta was dominant in the whole of Greece for thirty years and more, exercising her power more oppressively than Athens had done. Then Thebes, which had been treacherously seized and garrisoned by the Spartans, threw off their yoke (B. C. 379) and led a rising, under her great and high-souled citizen, Epaminondas, which resulted in bringing Thebes to the head of Greek affairs. But the Theban ascendancy was short-lived, and ended with the death of Epaminondas in 362 B. C.

Meantime, while the city-states of Hellas proper had been wounding and weakening one another by their jealousies and wars, the semi-Greek kingdom of Macedonia, to the north of them, in their own peninsula, had been acquiring their civilization and growing strong. And now there appeared upon its throne a very able king, Philip, who took advantage of their divisions, interfered in their affairs, and finally made a practical conquest of the whole peninsula, by his victory at the battle of Chæronea (B. C. 338). At Athens, the great orator Demosthenes had exerted himself for years to rouse resistance to Philip. If his eloquence failed then, it has served the world immortally since, by delighting and instructing mankind.

King Philip was succeeded by his famous son, Alexander the Great, who led an army of Macedonians and Greeks into Asia (B. C. 334), overthrew the already crumbling Persian power, pursued his conquests through Afghanistan to India, and won a great empire which he did not live to rule. When he died (B. C. 323), his generals divided the empire among them and fought with one another for many years. But the general result was the spreading of the civilization and language of the Greeks, and the establishing of their intellectual influence, in Egypt, in Syria, in Asia Minor, and beyond.

In Greece itself, a state of disturbance and of political confusion and weakness prevailed for another century. There was promise of something better, in the formation, by several of the Peloponnesian states, of a confederacy called the Achaian League, which might possibly have federated and nationalized the whole of Hellas in the end; but the Romans, at this juncture, turned their conquering arms eastward, and in three successive wars, between 211 and 146 B. C., they extinguished the Macedonian kingdom, and annexed it, with the whole peninsula, to the dominions of their wonderful republic.

The Romans, as stated already, are believed to have been originally near kindred to the Greeks. The same movement, it is supposed, in the successive outswarmings of Aryan peoples, deposited in one peninsula the Italian tribes, and in the next peninsula, eastward, the tribes of the Hellenes. Among the Italian tribes were Latins, Umbrians, Sabines, Samnites, etc., occupying the middle and much of the southern parts of the peninsula, while a mysterious alien people, the Etruscans, whose origin is not known, possessed the country north of them between the Arno and the Tiber. In the extreme south were remnants of a primitive race, the Iapygian, and Greek colonies were scattered there around the coasts. From the Latins sprang the Romans, at the beginning of their separate existence; but there seems to have been a very early union of these Romans of the primitive tradition with a Sabine community, whereby was formed the Roman city-state of historical times. That union came about through the settlement of the two communities, Latin and Sabine, on two neighboring hills, near the mouth of the river Tiber, on its southern bank. In the view of some historians, it is the geographical position of those hills, hardly less than the masterful temper and capacity of the race seated on them, which determined the marvellous career of the city founded on that site. Says Professor Freeman: "The whole history of the world has been determined by the geological fact that at a point a little below the junction of the Tiber and the Anio the isolated hills stand nearer to one another than most of the other hills of Latium. On a site marked out above all other sites for dominion, the centre of Italy, the centre of Europe, as Europe then was, a site at the junction of three of the great nations of Italy, and which had the great river as its highway to lands beyond the bounds of Italy, stood two low hills, the hill which bore the name of Latin Saturn, and the hill at the meaning of whose name of Palatine scholars will perhaps guess for ever. These two hills, occupied by men of two of the nations of Italy, stood so near to one another that a strait choice indeed was laid on those who dwelled on them. They must either join together on terms closer than those which commonly united Italian leagues, or they must live a life of border warfare more ceaseless, more bitter, than the ordinary warfare of Italian enemies. Legend, with all likelihood, tells us that warfare was tried; history, with all certainty, tells us that the final choice was union. The two hills were fenced with a single wall; the men who dwelled on them changed from wholly separate communities into tribes of a single city."

   The followers of Romulus occupied the Palatine Mount, and the
   Sabines were settled on the Quirinal. At subsequent times, the
   Cœlian, the Capitoline, the Aventine, the Esquiline and the
   Viminal hills were embraced in the circumvallation, and the
   city on the seven hills thus acquired that name.

If modern students and thinkers, throwing light on the puzzling legends and traditions of early Rome from many sources, in language and archæology, have construed their meaning lightly, then great importance attaches to those first unions or incorporations of distinct settlements in the forming of the original city-state. For it was the beginning of a process which went on until the whole of Latium, and then the whole of Italy, and, finally, the whole Mediterranean world, were joined to the seven hills of Rome. "The whole history of Rome is a history of incorporation"; and it is reasonable to believe that the primal spring of Roman greatness is found in that early adoption and persistent practice of the policy of political absorption, which gave conquest a character it had never borne before. At the same time, this view of the creation of the Roman state contributes to an understanding of its early constitutional history. It supposes that the union of the first three tribes which coalesced—those of the Palatine, the Quirinal and Capitoline (both occupied by the Sabines) and the Cœlian hills—ended the process of incorporation on equal terms. These formed the original Roman people—the "fathers," the "patres," whose descendants appear in later times as a distinct class or order, the "patricians"—holding and struggling to maintain exclusive political rights, and exclusive ownership of the public domain, the "ager publicus," which became a subject of bitter contention for four centuries. Around these heirs of the "fathers" of Rome arose another class of Romans, brought into the community by later incorporations, and not on equal terms. If the first class were "fathers," these were children, in a political sense, adopted into the Roman family, but without a voice in general affairs, or a share in the public lands, or eligibility to the higher offices of the state. These were the "plebeians" or "plebs" of Rome, whose long struggle with the patricians for political and agrarian rights is the more interesting side of Roman history throughout nearly the whole of the prosperous age of the republic.

At Rome, as at Athens, there was a period of early kingship, the legends of which are as familiar to us all as the stories of the Bible, but the real facts of which are almost totally unknown. It is surmised that the later kings—the well known Tarquins of the classical tale—were Etruscan princes (it is certain that they were Etruscans), who had broken for a time the independence of the Romans and extended their sovereignty over them. It is suspected, too, that this period of Etruscan domination was one in which Roman civilization made a great advance, under the tuition of a more cultivated people. But if Rome in its infancy did know a time of subjugation, the endurance was not long. It ended, according to Roman chronology, in the 245th year of the city, or 509 B.C., by the expulsion of Tarquin the Proud, the last of the kings.

The Republic was then founded; but it was an aristocratic and not a democratic republic. The consuls, who replaced the kings, were required to be patricians, and they were chosen by the landholders of the state. The senate was patrician; all the important powers of government were in patrician hands, and the plebs suffered grievous oppression in consequence. They were not of a tamely submissive race. They demanded powers for their own protection, and by slow degrees they won them—strong as the patricians were in their wealth and their trained political skill.

Precisely as in Athens, the first great effort among the common people was to obtain relief from crushing burdens of debt, which had been laid upon them in precisely the same way—by loss of harvests while in military service, and by the hardness of the laws which creditors alone had framed. An army of plebs, just home from war, marched out of the city and refused to return until magistrates of their own choosing had been conceded to them. The patricians could not afford to lose the bone and sinew of their state, and they yielded the point in demand (B. C. 494). This first "secession of the plebs" brought about the first great democratic change in the Roman constitution, by calling into existence a powerful magistracy—the Tribunes of the Plebs—who henceforth stood between the consuls and the common people, for the protection of the latter.

From this first success the plebeian order went forward, step by step, to the attainment of equal political rights in the commonwealth, and equal participation in the lands which Roman conquest was continually adding to the public domain. In 450 B. C., after ten years of struggle, they secured the appointment of a commission which framed the famous Twelve Tables of the Law, and so established a written and certain code. Five years later, the caste exclusiveness of the patricians was broken down by a law which permitted marriages between the orders. In 367 B. C. the patrician monopoly of the consular office was extinguished, by the notable Licinian Laws, which also limited the extent of land that any citizen might occupy, and forbade the exclusive employment of slave labor on any estate. One by one, after that, other magistracies were opened to the plebs; and in 287 B. C. by the Lex Hortensia, the plebeian concilium, or assembly, was made independent of the senate and its acts declared to be valid and binding. The democratic commonwealth was now completely formed.

While these changes in the constitution of their Republic were in progress, the Romans had been making great advances toward supremacy in the peninsula. First they had been in league with their Latin neighbors, for war with the Æquians, the Volscians, and the Etruscans. The Volscian war extended over forty years, and ended about 450 B. C. in the practical disappearance of the Volscians from history. Of war with the Æquians, nothing is heard after 458 B. C., when, as the tale is told, Cincinnatus left his plow to lead the Romans against them. The war with the Etruscans of the near city of Veii had been more stubborn. Suspended by a truce between 474 and 438 B. C., it was then renewed, and ended in 396 B. C., when the Etruscan city was taken and destroyed. At the same time the power of the Etruscans was being shattered at sea by the Greeks of Tarentum and Syracuse, while at home they were attacked from the north by the barbarous Gauls or Celts.

These last named people, having crossed the Alps from Gaul and Switzerland and occupied northern Italy, were now pressing upon the more civilized nations to the south of the Po. The Etruscans were first to suffer, and their despair became so great that they appealed to Rome for help. The Romans gave little aid to them in their extremity; but enough to provoke the wrath of Brennus, the savage leader of the Gauls. He quitted Etruria and marched to Rome, defeating an army which opposed him on the Allia, pillaging and burning the city (B. C. 390) and slaying the senators, who had refused to take refuge, with other inhabitants, in the capitol. The defenders of the capitol held it for seven months; Rome was rebuilt, when the Gauls withdrew, and soon took up her war again with the Etruscan cities. By the middle of the same century she was mistress of southern Etruria, though her territories had been ravaged twice again by renewed incursions of the Gauls. In a few years more, when her allies of Latium complained of their meager share of the fruits of these common wars, and demanded Roman citizenship and equal rights, she fought them fiercely and humbled them to submissiveness (B. C. 339-338), reducing their cities to the status of provincial towns.

And now, having awed or subdued her rivals, her friends, and her enemies, near at hand, the young Republic swung into the career of rapid conquest which subdued to her will, within three-fourths of a century, the whole of Italy below the mouth of the Arno.

In 343 B. C. the Roman arms had been turned against the Samnites at the south, and they had been driven from the Campania. In 327 B. C. the same dangerous rivals were again assailed, with less impunity. At the Caudine Forks, in 321 B. C., the Samnites inflicted both disaster and shame upon their indomitable foes; but the end of the war (B. C. 304) found Rome advanced and Samnium fallen back. A third contest ended the question of supremacy; but the Samnites (B. C. 290) submitted to become allies and not subjects of the Roman state.

In this last struggle the Samnites had summoned Gauls and Etruscans to join them against the common enemy, and Rome had overcome their united forces in a great fight at Sentinum. This was in 295 B. C. Ten years later she annihilated the Senonian Gauls, annexed their territory and planted a colony at Sena on the coast. In two years more she had paralyzed the Boian Gauls by a terrible chastisement, and had nothing more to fear from the northward side of her realm. Then she turned back to finish her work in the south.

The Greek cities of the southern coast were harassed by various marauding neighbors, and most of them solicited the protection of Rome, which involved, of course, some surrender of their independence. But one great city, Tarentum, the most powerful of their number, refused these terms, and hazarded a war with the terrible republic, expecting support from the ambitious Pyrrhus, king of Epirus, on the Greek coast opposite their own. Pyrrhus came readily at their call, with dreams of an Italian kingdom more agreeable than his own. Assisted in the undertaking by his royal kinsmen of Macedonia and Syria, he brought an army of 25,000 men, with 20 elephants—which Roman eyes had never seen before. In two bloody fights (B. C. 280-279), Pyrrhus was victorious; but the cost of victory was so great that he dared not follow it up. He went over to Sicily, instead, and waged war for three years (B. C. 278-276) with the Carthaginians, who had subjugated most of the island. The Epirot king brought timely aid to the Sicilian Greeks, and drove their Punic enemies into the western border of the island; but he claimed sovereignty over all that his arms delivered, and was not successful in enforcing the claim. He returned to Italy and found the Romans better prepared than before to face his phalanx and his elephants. They routed him at Beneventum, in the spring of 275 B. C. and he went back to Epirus, with his dreams dispelled. Tarentum fell, and Southern Italy was added to the dominion of Rome.

During her war with Pyrrhus, the Republic had formed an alliance with Carthage, the powerful maritime Phœnician city on the African coast. But friendship between these two cities was impossible. The ambition of both was too boundless and too fierce. They were necessarily competitors for supremacy in the Mediterranean world, from the moment that a narrow strait between Italy and Sicily was all that held them apart. Rome challenged her rival to the duel in 264 B. C., when she sent help to the Mamertines, a band of brigands who had seized the Sicilian city of Messina, and who were being attacked by both Carthaginians and Syracusan Greeks. The "First Punic War," then begun, lasted twenty-four years, and resulted in the withdrawal of the Carthaginians from Sicily, and in their payment of an enormous war indemnity to Rome. The latter assumed a protectorate over the island, and the kingdom of Hiero of Syracuse preserved its nominal independence for the time; but Sicily, as a matter of fact, might already be looked upon as the first of those provinces, beyond Italy, which Rome bound to herself, one by one, until she had compassed the Mediterranean with her dominion and gathered to it all the islands of that sea.

The "Second Punic war," called sometimes the "Hannibalic war," was fought with a great Carthaginian, rather than with Carthage herself. Hamilcar Barca had been the last and ablest of the Punic generals in the contest for Sicily. Afterwards he undertook the conquest of Spain, where his arms had such success that he established a very considerable power, more than half independent of the parent state. He nursed an unquenchable hatred of Rome, and transmitted it to his son Hannibal, who solemnly dedicated his life to warfare with the Latin city. Hamilcar died, and in due time Hannibal found himself prepared to make good his oath. He provoked a declaration of war (B. C. 218) by attacking Saguntum, on the eastern Spanish coast—a town which the Romans "protected." The latter expected to encounter him in Spain; but before the fleet bearing their legions to that country had reached Massilia, he had already passed the Pyrenees and the Rhone, with nearly 100,000 men, and was crossing the Alps, to assail his astounded foes on their own soil. The terrific barrier was surmounted with such suffering and loss that only 20,000 foot and 6,000 horse, of the great army which left Spain, could be mustered for the clearing of the last Alpine pass. With this small following, by sheer energy, rapidity and precision of movement—by force, in other words, of a military genius never surpassed in the world—he defeated the armies of Rome again and again, and so crushingly in the awful battle of Cannæ (B. C. 216) that the proud republic was staggered, but never despaired. For fifteen years the great Carthaginian held his ground in southern Italy; but his expectation of being joined by discontented subjects of Rome in the peninsula was very slightly realized, and his own country gave him little encouragement or help. His brother Hasdrubal, marching to his relief in 207 B. C., was defeated on the river Metaurus and slain. The arms of Rome had prospered meantime in Sicily and in Spain, even while beaten at home, and her Punic rival had been driven from both. In 204 B. C. the final field of battle was shifted to Carthaginian territory by Scipio, of famous memory, thereafter styled Africanus, because he "carried the war into Africa." Hannibal abandoned Italy to confront him, and at Zama, in the autumn of 202 B. C., the long contention ended, and the career of Carthage as a Power in the ancient world was forever closed. Existing by Roman sufferance for another half century, she then gave her implacable conquerors another pretext for war, and they ruthlessly destroyed her (B.C. 146).

In that same year of the destruction of Carthage, the conquest of Greece was finished. The first war of the Romans on that side of the Adriatic had taken place during the Second Punic war, and had been caused by an alliance formed between Hannibal and King Philip of Macedonia (B. C. 214). They pursued it then no further than to frustrate Philip's designs against themselves; but they formed alliances with the Greek states oppressed or menaced by the Macedonian, and these drew them into a second war, just as the century closed. On Cynoscephalæ, Philip was overthrown (B. C. 197), his kingdom reduced to vassalage, and the freedom of all Greece was solemnly proclaimed by the Roman Consul Flaminius.

And now, for the first time, Rome came into conflict with an Asiatic power. The throne of the Syrian monarchy, founded by one of the generals of Alexander the Great, was occupied by a king more ambitious than capable, who had acquired a large and loosely jointed dominion in the East, and who bore the sounding name of Antiochus the Great. This vainglorious King, having a huge army and many elephants at his disposal, was eager to try a passage at arms with the redoubtable men of Rome. He was encouraged in his desire by the Ætolians in Greece, who bore ill-will to Rome. Under this encouragement, and having Hannibal—then a fugitive at his court—to give him counsel, which he lacked intelligence to use, Antiochus crossed the Ægean and invaded Greece (B. C. 192). The Romans met him at the pass of Thermopylæ; drove him back to the shores from which he came; pursued him thither; crushed and humbled him on the field of Magnesia, and took the kingdoms and cities of Asia Minor under their protection, as the allies (soon to be subjects) of Rome.

Twenty years passed with little change in the outward situation of affairs among the Greeks. But discontent with the harshness and haughtiness of Roman "protection" changed from sullenness to heat, and Perseus, son of Philip of Macedonia, fanned it steadily, with the hope of bringing it to a flame. Rome watched him with keen vigilance, and before his plans were ripe her legions were upon him. He battled with them obstinately for three years (B. C. 171-168); but his fate was sealed at Pydna. He went as a prisoner to Rome; his kingdom was broken into four small republics; the Achæan League was stricken by the captivity of a thousand of its chief men; the whole of Greece was humbled to submissiveness, though not yet formally reduced to the state of a Roman province. That followed some years later, when risings in Macedonia and Achaia were punished by the extinction of the last semblance of political independence in both (B. C. 148-146).

Rome now gripped the Mediterranean (the ocean of the then civilized world) as with four fingers of a powerful hand: one laid on Italy and all its islands, one on Macedonia and Greece, one on Carthage, one on Spain, and the little finger of her "protection" reaching over to the Lesser Asia. Little more than half a century, since the day that Hannibal threatened her own city gates, had sufficed to win this vast dominion. But the losses of the Republic had been greater, after all, than the gains; for the best energies of its political constitution had been expended in the acquisition, and the nobler qualities in its character had been touched with the incurable taints of a licentious prosperity.

A century and a half had passed since the practical ending of the struggle of plebeians with patricians for political and agrarian rights. In theory and in form, the constitution remained as democratic as it was made by the Licinian Laws of 367 B. C., and by the finishing touch of the Hortensian Law of 287 B. C. But in practical working it had reverted to the aristocratic mode. A new aristocracy had risen out of the plebeian ranks to reinforce the old patrician order. It was composed of the families of men who had been raised to distinction and ennobled by the holding of eminent offices, and its spirit was no less jealous and exclusive than that of the older high caste.

Thus strengthened, the aristocracy had recovered its ascendancy in Rome, and the Senate, which it controlled, had become the supreme power in government. The amazing success of the Republic during the last century just reviewed—its successes in war, in diplomacy, and in all the sagacious measures of policy by which its great dominion had been won—are reasonably ascribed to this fact. For the Senate had wielded the power of the state, in most emergencies, with passionless deliberation and with unity and fixity of aim.

But it maintained its ascendancy by an increasing employment of means which debased and corrupted all orders alike. The people held powers which might paralyze the Senate at any moment, if they chose to exercise them, through their assemblies and their tribunes. They had seldom brought those powers into play thus far, to interfere with the senatorial government of the Republic, simply because they had been bribed to abstain. The art of the politician in Rome, as distinguished from the statesman, had already become demagoguery. This could not well have been otherwise under the peculiar constitution of the Roman citizenship. Of the thirty-five tribes who made up the Roman people, legally qualified to vote, only four were within the city. The remaining thirty-one were "plebs urbana." There was no delegated representation of this country populace—citizens beyond the walls. To exercise their right of suffrage they must be personally present at the meetings of the "comitia tributa"—the tribal assemblies; and those of any tribe who chanced to be in attendance at such a meeting might give a vote which carried with it the weight of their whole tribe. For questions were decided by the majority of tribal, not individual, votes; and a very few members of a tribe might act for and be the tribe, for all purposes of voting, on occasions of the greatest possible importance. It is quite evident that a democratic system of this nature gave wide opportunity for corrupt "politics." There must have been, always, an attraction for the baser sort among the rural plebs, drawing them into the city, to enjoy the excitement of political contests, and to partake of the flatteries and largesses which began early to go with these. And circumstances had tended strongly to increase this sinister sifting into Rome of the most vagrant and least responsible of her citizens, to make them practically the deputies and representatives of that mighty sovereign which had risen in the world—the "Populus Romanus." For there was no longer either thrift or dignity possible in the pursuits of husbandry. The long Hannibalic War had ruined the farming class in Italy by its ravages; but the extensive conquests that followed it had been still more ruinous to that class by several effects combined. Corn supplies from the conquered provinces were poured into Rome at cheapened prices; enormous fortunes, gathered in the same provinces by officials, by farmers of taxes, by money-lenders, and by traders, were largely invested in great estates, absorbing the small farms of olden time; and, finally, free-labor in agriculture was supplanted, more and more, by the labor of slaves, which war and increasing wealth combined to multiply in numbers. Thus the "plebs urbana" of Rome were a depressed and, therefore, a degenerating class, and the same circumstances that made them so impelled them towards the city, to swell the mob which held its mighty sovereignty in their hands.

So far, a lavish amusement of this mob with free games, and liberal bribes, had kept it generally submissive to the senatorial government. But the more it was debased by such methods, and its vagrancy encouraged, the more extravagant gratuities of like kind it claimed. Hence a time could never be far away when the aristocracy and the senate would lose their control of the popular vote on which they had built their governing power.

But they invited the quicker coming of that time by their own greediness in the employment of their power for selfish and dishonest ends. They had practically recovered their monopoly of the use of the public lands. The Licinian law, which forbade any one person to occupy more than five hundred jugera (about three hundred acres) of the public lands, had been made a dead letter. The great tracts acquired in the Samnite wars, and since, had remained undistributed, while the use and profit of them were enjoyed, under one form of authority or another, by rich capitalists and powerful nobles.

This evil, among many that waxed greater each year, caused the deepest discontent, and provoked movements of reform which soon passed by rapid stages into a revolution, and ended in the fall of the Republic. The leader of the movement at its beginning was Tiberius Gracchus, grandson of Scipio Africanus on the side of his mother, Cornelia. Elected tribune in 133 B. C., he set himself to the dangerous task of rousing the people against senatorial usurpations, especially in the matter of the public domain. He only drew upon himself the hatred of the senate and its selfish supporters; he failed to rally a popular party that was strong enough for his protection, and his enemies slew him in the very midst of a meeting of the tribes. His brother Caius took up the perilous cause and won the office of tribune (B. C. 123) in avowed hostility to the senatorial government. He was driven to bid high for popular help, even when the measures which he strove to carry were most plainly for the welfare of the common people, and he may seem to modern eyes to have played the demagogue with some extravagance. But statesmanship and patriotism without demagoguery for their instrument or their weapon were hardly practicable, perhaps, in the Rome of those days, and it is not easy to find them clean-handed in any political leader of the last century of the Republic. The fall of Caius Gracchus was hastened by his attempt to extend the Roman franchise beyond the "populus Romanus," to all the freemen of Italy. The mob in Rome was not pleased with such political generosity, and cooled in its admiration for the large-minded tribune. He lost his office and the personal protection it threw over him, and then he, like his brother, was slain (B. C. 121) in a melee.

For ten years the senate, the nobility, and the capitalists (now beginning to take the name of the equestrian order), had mostly their own way again, and effaced the work of the Gracchi as completely as they could. Then came disgraceful troubles in Numidia which enraged the people and moved them to a new assertion of themselves. The Numidian king who helped Scipio to pull Carthage down had been a ward of Rome since that time. When he died, he left his kingdom to be governed jointly by two young sons and an older nephew. The latter, Jugurtha, put his cousins out of the way, took the kingdom to himself, and baffled attempts at Rome to call him to account, by heavy bribes. The corruption in the case became so flagrant that even the corrupted Roman populace revolted against it, and took the Numidian business into its own hands. War was declared against Jugurtha by popular vote, and, despite opposing action in the Senate, one Marius, an experienced soldier of humble birth, was elected consul and sent out to take command. Marius distinguished himself in the war much less than did one of his officers, Cornelius Sulla; but he bore the lion's share of glory when Jugurtha was taken captive and conveyed to Rome (B. C. 104). Marius was now the great hero of the hour, and events were preparing to lift him to the giddiest heights of popularity.

Hitherto, the barbarians of wild Europe whom the Romans had met were either the Aryan Celts, or the non-Aryan tribes found in northern Italy, Spain and Gaul. Now, for the first time, the armies of Rome were challenged by tribes of another grand division of the Aryan stock, coming out of the farther North. These were the Cimbri and the Teutones, wandering hordes of the great Teutonic or Germanic race which has occupied Western Europe north of the Rhine since the beginning of historic time. So far as we can know, these two were the first of the Germanic nations to migrate to the South. They came into collision with Rome in 113 B. C., when they were in Noricum, threatening the frontiers of her Italian dominion. Four years later they were in southern Gaul, where the Romans were now settling colonies and subduing the native Celts. Twice they had beaten the armies opposed to them; two years later they added a third to their victories; and in 105 B. C. they threw Rome into consternation by destroying two great armies on the Rhone. Italy seemed helpless against the invasion for which these terrible barbarians were now preparing, when Marius went against them. In the summer of 102 B. C. he annihilated the Teutones, near Aquæ Sextiæ (modern Aix), and in the following year he destroyed the invading Cimbri, on a bloody field in northern Italy, near modern Vercellæ.

From these great victories, Marius went back to Rome, doubly and terribly clothed with power, by the devotion of a reckless army and the hero-worship of an unthinking mob. The state was at his mercy. A strong man in his place might have crushed the class-factions and accomplished the settlement which Cæsar made after half a century more of turbulence and shame. But Marius was ignorant, he was weak, and he became a mere blood-stained figure in the ruinous anarchy of his time.

The social and political state of the capital had grown rapidly worse. A middle-class in Roman society had practically disappeared. The two contending parties or factions, which had taken new names—"optimates" and "populares"—were now divided almost solely by the line which separates rich from poor. "If we said that 'optimates' signified the men who bribed and abused office under the banner of the Senate and its connections, and that 'populares' meant men who bribed and abused office with the interests of the people outside the Senatorial pale upon their lips, we might do injustice to many good men on both sides, but should hardly be slandering the parties" (Beesly). There was a desperate conflict between the two in the year 100, B. C. and the Senate once more recovered its power for a brief term of years.

The enfranchisement of the so-called "allies"—the Latin and other subjects of Rome who were not citizens—was the burning question of the time. The attempt of Caius Gracchus to extend rights of citizenship to them had been renewed again and again, without success, and each failure had increased the bitter discontent of the Italian people. In 90 B. C. they drew together in a formidable confederation and rose in revolt. In the face of this great danger Rome sobered herself to action with old time wisdom and vigor. She yielded her full citizenship to all Italian freemen who had not taken arms, and then offered it to those who would lay their arms down. At the same time, she fought the insurrection with every army she could put into the field, and in two years it was at an end. Marius and his old lieutenant, Sulla, had been the principal commanders in this "Social War," as it was named, and Sulla had distinguished himself most. The latter had now an army at his back and was a power in the state, and between the two military champions there arose a rivalry which produced the first of the Roman Civil Wars.

A troublesome war in the East had been forced upon the Romans by aggressions of Mithridates, King of Pontus. Both Marius and Sulla aspired to the command. Sulla obtained election to the consulship in 88 B. C. and was named for the coveted place. But Marius succeeded in getting the appointment annulled by a popular assembly and himself chosen instead for the Eastern command. Sulla, personally imperilled by popular tumults, fled to his legions, put himself at their head, and marched back to Rome—the first among her generals to turn her arms against herself. There was no effective resistance; Marius fled; both Senate and people were submissive to the dictates of the consul who had become master of the city. He "made the tribes decree their own political extinction, resuscitating the comitia centuriata; he reorganized the Senate by adding three hundred to its members and vindicating the right to sanction legislation; conducted the consular elections, exacting from L. Cornelius Cinna, the newly elected consul, a solemn oath that he would observe the new regulations, and securing the election of Cn. Octavius in his own interest, and then, like 'a countryman who had just shaken the lice off his coat,' to use his own figure, he turned to do his great work in the East."

Sulla went to Greece, which was in revolt and in alliance with Mithridates, and conducted there a brilliant, ruthless campaign for three years (B. C. 87-84), until he had restored Roman authority in the peninsula, and forced the King of Pontus to surrender all his conquests in Asia Minor. Until this task was finished, he gave no heed to what his enemies did at Rome; though the struggle there between "Sullans" and "Marians" had gone fiercely and bloodily on, and his own partisans had been beaten in the fight. The consul Octavius, who was in Bulla's interest, had first driven the consul Cinna out of the city, after slaying 10,000 of his faction. Cinna's cause was taken up by the new Italian citizens; he was joined by the exiled Marius, and these two returned together, with an army which the Senate and the party of Sulla were unable to resist. Marius came back with a burning heart and with savage intentions of revenge. A horrible massacre of his opponents ensued, which went on unchecked for five days, and was continued more deliberately for several months, until Marius died, at the beginning of the year 86 B. C. Then Cinna ruled absolutely at Rome for three years, supported in the main by the newly-made citizens; while the provinces generally remained under the control of the party of the optimates. In 83 B. C. Sulla, having finished with carefulness his work in the East, came back into Italy, with 40,000 veterans to attend his steps. He had been outlawed and deprived of his command, by the faction governing at the capital; but its decrees had no effect and troubled him little. Cinna had been killed by his own troops, even before Bulla's landing at Brundisium. Several important leaders and soldiers on the Marian side, such as Pompeius, then a young general, and Crassus, the millionaire, went over to Sulla's camp. One of the consuls of the year saw his troops follow their example, in a body; the other consul was beaten and driven into Capua. Sulla wintered in Campania, and the next spring he pressed forward to Rome, fighting a decisive battle with Marius the younger on the way, and took possession of the city; but not in time to prevent a massacre of senators by the resentful mob.

Before that year closed, the whole of Italy had been subdued, the final battle being fought with the Marians and Italians at the Colline Gate, and Sulla again possessed power supreme. He placed it beyond dispute by a deliberate extermination of his opponents, more merciless than the Marian massacre had been. They were proscribed by name, in placarded lists, and rewards paid to those who killed them; while their property was confiscated, and became the source of vast fortunes to Sulla's supporters, and of lands for distribution to his veterans.

When this terror had paralyzed all resistance to his rule, the Dictator (for he had taken that title) undertook a complete reconstruction of the constitution, aiming at a permanent restoration of senatorial ascendancy and a curbing of the powers which the people, in their assemblies, and the magistrates who especially represented them, had gained during the preceding century. He remodelled, moreover, the judicial system, and some of his reforms were undoubtedly good, though they did not prove enduring. When he had fashioned the state to his liking, this extraordinary usurper quietly abdicated his dictatorial office (B. C. 80) and retired to private life, undisturbed until his death (B. C. 78).

The system he had established did not save Rome from renewed distractions and disorder after Sulla died. There was no longer a practical question between Senate and people—between the few and the many in government. The question now, since the legionaries held their swords prepared to be flung into the scale, was what one should again gather the powers of government into his hands, as Sulla had done.

The history of the next thirty years—the last generation of republican Rome—is a sad and sinister but thrilling chronicle of the strifes and intrigues, the machinations and corruptions, of a stupendous and wicked game in politics that was played, against one another and against the Republic, by a few daring, unscrupulous players, with the empire of the civilized world for the stake between them. There were more than a few who aspired; there were only three players who entered really as principals into the game. These were Pompeius, called "the Great," since he extinguished the Marian faction in Sicily and in Spain; Crassus, whose wealth gave him power, and who acquired some military pretensions besides, by taking the field against a formidable insurrection of slaves (B. C. 73-71); and Julius Cæsar, a young patrician, but nephew of Marius by marriage, who assiduously strengthened that connection with the party of the people, and who began, very soon after Sulla's death, to draw attention to himself as a rising power in the politics of the day. There were two other men, Cicero and the younger Cato, who bore a nobler and greater because less selfish part in the contest of that fateful time. Both were blind to the impossibility of restoring the old order of things, with a dominant Senate, a free but well guided populace, and a simply ordered social state; but their blindness was heroic and high-souled.

Of the three strong rivals for the vacant dictatorial chair which waited to be filled, Pompeius held by far the greater advantages. His fame as a soldier was already won; he had been a favorite of Fortune from the beginning of his career; everything had succeeded with him; everything was expected for him and expected from him. Even while the issues of the great struggle were pending, a wonderful opportunity for increasing his renown was opened to him. The disorders of the civil war had licensed a swarm of pirates, who fairly possessed the eastern Mediterranean and had nearly extirpated the maritime trade. Pompeius was sent against them (B. C. 67), with a commission that gave him almost unlimited powers, and within ninety days he had driven them from the sea. Then, before he had returned from this exploit, he was invested with supreme command in the entire East, where another troublesome war with Mithridates was going on. He harvested there all the laurels which belonged by better right to his predecessor, Lucullus, finding the power of Mithridates already broken down. From Pontus he passed into Armenia, and thence into Syria, easily subjugating both, and extinguishing the monarchy of the Seleucids. The Jews resisted him and he humbled them by the siege and conquest of their sacred city. Egypt was now the only Mediterranean state left outside the all-absorbing dominion of Rome; and even Egypt, by bequest of its late king, belonged to the Republic, though not yet claimed.

Pompeius came back to Rome in the spring of 61 B. C. so glorified by his successes that he might have seemed to be irresistible, whatever he should undertake. But, either through an honest patriotism or an overweening confidence, he had disbanded his army when he reached Italy, and he had committed himself to no party. He stood alone and aloof, with a great prestige, great ambitions, and no ability to use the one or realize the other. Before another year passed, he was glad to accept offers of a helping hand in politics from Cæsar, who had climbed the ladder of office rapidly within four or five years, spending vast sums of borrowed money to amuse the people with games, and distinguishing himself as a democratic champion. Cæsar, the far seeing calculator, discerned the enormous advantages that he might gain for himself by massing together the prestige of Pompeius, the wealth of Crassus and his own invincible genius, which was sure to be the master element in the combination. He brought the coalition about through a bargain which created what is known in history as the First Triumvirate, or supremacy of three.

Under the terms of the bargain, Cæsar was chosen consul for 59 B. C., and at the end of his term was given the governorship of Cisalpine and Transalpine Gaul, with command of three legions there, for five years. His grand aim was a military command—the leadership of an army—the prestige of a successful soldier. No sooner had he secured the command than fortune gave him opportunities for its use in the most striking way and with the most impressive results. The Celtic tribes of Gaul, north of the two small provinces which the Romans had already acquired on the Mediterranean coast, gave him pretexts or provocations (it mattered little to Cæsar which) for war with them, and in a series of remarkable campaigns, which all soldiers since have admired, he pushed the frontiers of the dominion of Rome to the ocean and the Rhine, and threatened the nations of Germany on the farther banks of that stream. "The conquest of Gaul by Cæsar," says Mr. Freeman, "is one of the most important events in the history of the world. It is in some sort the beginning of modern history, as it brought the old world of southern Europe, of which Rome was the head, into contact with the lands and nations which were to play the greatest part in later times—with Gaul, Germany, and Britain." From Gaul Cæsar crossed the channel to Britain in 55 B. C. and again in the following year, exacting tribute from the Celtic natives, but attempting no lodgment in the island.

Meantime, while pursuing a career of conquest which excited the Roman world, Cæsar never lost touch with the capital and its seething politics. Each winter he repaired to Lucca, the point in his province which was nearest to Rome, and conferred there with his friends, who flocked to the rendezvous. He secured an extension of his term, to enable him to complete his plans, and year by year he grew more independent of the support of his colleagues in the triumvirate, while they weakened one another by their jealousies, and the Roman state was more hopelessly distracted by factious strife.

The year after Cæsar's second invasion of Britain, Crassus, who had obtained the government of Syria, perished in a disastrous war with the Parthians, and the triumvirate was at an end. Disorder in Rome increased and Pompeius lacked energy or boldness to deal with it, though he seemed to be the one man present who might do so. He was made sole consul in 52 B. C.; he might have seized the dictatorship, with approval of many, but he waited for it to be offered to him, and the offer never came. He drew at last into close alliance with the party of the Optimates, and left the Populares to be won entirely to Cæsar's side.

Matters came to a crisis in 50 B. C., when the Senate passed an order removing Cæsar from his command and discharging his soldiers who had served their term. He came to Ravenna with a single legion and concerted measures with his friends. The issue involved is supposed to have been one of life or death to him, as well as of triumph or failure in his ambitions; for his enemies were malignant. His friends demanded that he be made consul, for his protection, before laying down his arms. The Senate answered by proclaiming him a public enemy if he failed to disband his troops with no delay. It was a declaration of war, and Cæsar accepted it. He marched his single legion across the Rubicon, which was the boundary of his province, and advanced towards Rome.

Pompeius, with the forces he had gathered, retreated southward, and consuls, senators and nobles generally streamed after him. Cæsar followed them—turning aside from the city—and his force gathered numbers as he advanced. The Pompeians continued their flight and abandoned Italy, withdrawing to Epirus, planning to gather there the forces of the East and return with them. Cæsar now took possession of Rome and secured the islands of Sicily and Sardinia, from which it drew its supply of food. This done, he proceeded without delay to Spain, where seven legions strongly devoted to Pompeius were stationed. He overcame them in a single campaign, enlisted most of the veterans in his own service, and acquired a store of treasure. Before the year ended he was again in Rome, where the citizens had proclaimed him dictator. He held the dictatorship for eleven days, only, to legalize an election which made him consul, with a pliant associate. He reorganized the government, complete in all its branches, including a senate, partly composed of former members of the body who had remained or returned. Then (B. C. 48.—January) he took up the pursuit of Pompeius and the Optimates. Crossing to Epirus, after some months of changeful fortune, he fought and won the decisive battle of Pharsalia. Pompeius, flying to Egypt, was murdered there. Cæsar, following, with a small force, was placed in great peril by a rising at Alexandria, but held his ground until assistance came. He then garrisoned Egypt with Roman troops and made the princess Cleopatra, who had captivated him by her charms, joint occupant of the throne with her younger brother. During his absence, affairs at Rome were again disturbed, and he was once more appointed dictator, as well as tribune for life. His presence restored order at once, and he was soon in readiness to attack the party of his enemies who had taken refuge in Africa. The battle of Thapsus, followed by the suicide of Cato and the surrender of Utica, practically finished the contest, though one more campaign was fought in Spain the following year.

Cæsar was now master of the dominions of Rome, and as entirely a monarch as anyone of his imperial successors, who took his name, with the power which he caused it to symbolize, and called themselves "Cæsars," and "Imperators," as though the two titles were equivalent. "Imperator" was the title under which he chose to exercise his sovereignty. Other Roman generals had been Imperators before, but he was the first to be named Imperator for life, and the word (changed in our tongue to Emperor) took a meaning from that day more regal than Rex or King. That Cæsar, the Imperator, first of all Emperors, ever coveted the crown and title of an older-fashioned royalty, is not an easy thing to believe.

Having settled his authority firmly, he gave his attention to the organization of the Empire (still Republic in name) and to the reforming of the evils which afflicted it. That he did this work with consummate judgment and success is the opinion of all who study his time. He gratified no resentments, executed no revenges, proscribed no enemies. All who submitted to his rule were safe; and it seems to be clear that the people in general were glad to be rescued by his rule from the old oligarchical and anarchical state. But some of Cæsar's own partisans were dissatisfied with the autocracy which they helped to create, or with the slenderness of their own parts in it. They conspired with surviving leaders of the Optimates, and Cæsar was assassinated by them, in the Senate chamber, on the 15th of March, B. C. 44.

Professor Mommsen has expressed the estimate of Cæsar which many thoughtful historians have formed, in the following strong words: "In the character of Cæsar the great contrasts of existence meet and balance each other. He was of the mightiest creative power, and yet of the most penetrating judgment; of the highest energy of will and the highest capacity of execution; filled with republican ideals, and at the same time born to be king. He was 'the entire perfect man'; and he was this because he was the entire and perfect Roman." This may be nearly true if we ignore the moral side of Cæsar's character. He was of too large a nature to do evil things unnecessarily, and so he shines even morally in comparison with many of his kind; but he had no scruples.

The murderers of Cæsar were not accepted by the people as the patriots and "liberators" which they claimed to be, and they were soon in flight from the city. Marcus Antonius, who had been Cæsar's associate in the consulship, now naturally and skilfully assumed the direction of affairs, and aspired to gather the reins of imperial power into his own hands. But rivals were ready to dispute with him the great prize of ambition. Among them, it is probable that Antony gave little heed at first to the young man, Caius Octavius, or Octavianus, who was Cæsar's nephew, adopted son and heir; for Octavius was less than nineteen years old, he was absent in Apollonia, and he was little known. But the young Cæsar, coming boldly though quietly to Rome, began to push his hereditary claims with a patient craftiness and dexterity that were marvellous in one so young.

The contestants soon resorted to arms. The result of their first indecisive encounter was a compromise and the formation of a triumvirate, like that of Cæsar, Pompeius and Crassus. This second triumvirate was made up of Antonius, Octavius, and Lepidus, lately master of the horse in Cæsar's army. Unlike the earlier coalition, it was vengeful and bloody-minded. Its first act was a proscription, in the terrible manner of Sulla, which filled Rome and Italy with murders, and with terror and mourning. Cicero, the patriot and great orator, was among the victims cut down.

After this general slaughter of their enemies at home, Antonius and Octavius proceeded against Brutus and Cassius, two of the assassins of Cæsar, who had gathered a large force in Greece. They defeated them at Philippi, and both "liberators" perished by their own hands. The triumvirs now divided the empire between them, Antonius ruling the East, Octavius the West, and Lepidus taking Africa—that is, the Carthaginian province, which included neither Egypt nor Numidia. Unhappily for Antonius, the queen of Egypt was among his vassals, and she ensnared him. He gave himself up to voluptuous dalliance with Cleopatra at Alexandria, while the cool intriguer, Octavius, at Rome, worked unceasingly to solidify and increase his power. After six years had passed, the young Cæsar was ready to put Lepidus out of his way, which he did mercifully, by sending him into exile. After five years more, he launched his legions and his war galleys against Antonius, with the full sanction of the Roman senate and people. The sea-fight at Actium (B. C. 31) gave Octavius the whole empire, and both Antonius and Cleopatra committed suicide after flying to Egypt. The kingdom of the Ptolemies was now extinguished and became a Roman province in due form.

Octavius was now more securely absolute as the ruler of Rome and its great empire than Sulla or Julius Cæsar had been, and he maintained that sovereignty without challenge for forty-five years, until his death. He received from the Senate the honorary title of "Augustus," by which he is most commonly known. For official titles, he took none but those which had belonged to the institutions of the Republic, and were familiarly known. He was Imperator, as his uncle had been. He was Princeps, or head of the Senate; he was Censor; he was Tribune; he was Supreme Pontiff. All the great offices of the Republic he kept alive, and ingeniously constructed his sovereignty by uniting their powers in himself.

The historical position of Augustus, as the real founder of the Roman Empire, is unique in its grandeur; and yet History has dealt contemptuously, for the most part, with his name. His character has been looked upon, to use the language of De Quincey, as "positively repulsive, in the very highest degree." "A cool head," wrote Gibbon of him, "an unfeeling heart, and a cowardly disposition, prompted him, at the age of nineteen, to assume the mask of hypocrisy, which he never afterwards laid aside." And again: "His virtues, and even his vices, were artificial; and according to the various dictates of his interest, he was at first the enemy, and at last the father, of the Roman world." Yet, how can we deny surpassing high qualities of some description to a man who set the shattered Roman Republic, with all its democratic bases broken up, on a new—an imperial—foundation, so gently that it suffered no further shock, and so solidly that it endured, in whole or in part, for a millennium and a half?

In the reign of Augustus the Empire was consolidated and organized; it was not much extended. The frontiers were carried to the Danube, throughout, and the subjugation of Spain was made complete. Augustus generally discouraged wars of conquest. His ambitious stepsons, Drusus and Tiberius, persuaded him into several expeditions beyond the Rhine, against the restless German nations, which perpetually menaced the borders of Gaul; but these gained no permanent footing in the Teutonic territory. They led, on the contrary, to a fearful disaster (A. D. 9), near the close of the reign of Augustus, when three legions, under Varus, were destroyed in the Teutoburg Forest by a great combination of the tribes, planned and conducted by a young chieftain named Hermann, or Arminius, who is the national hero of Germany to this day.

The policy of Drusus in strongly fortifying the northern frontier against the Germans left marks which are conspicuously visible at the present day. From the fifty fortresses which he is said to have built along the line sprang many important modern cities,—Basel, Strasburg, Worms, Mainz, Bingen, Coblenz, Bonn, Cologne, and Leyden, among the number. From similar forts on the Danubian frontier rose Vienna, Regensburg and Passau.

   Augustus died A. D. 11, and was succeeded in his honors, his
   offices, and his powers, by his step-son, Tiberius Claudius
   Nero, whom he had adopted. Tiberius, during most of his reign,
   was a vigorous ruler, but a detestable man, unless his
   subjects belied him, which some historians suspect. Another
   attempt at the conquest of Germany was made by his nephew
   Germanicus, son of Drusus; but the jealousy of the emperor
   checked it, and Germanicus died soon after, believing that he
   had been poisoned. A son of Germanicus, Caius, better known by
   his nick-name of Caligula, succeeded to the throne on the
   death of Tiberius (A. D. 37), and was the first of many
   emperors to be crazed and made beast-like, in lust, cruelty
   and senselessness, by the awful, unbounded power which passed
   into their hands.
{1005}
   The Empire bore his madness for three years, and then he was
   murdered by his own guards. The Senate had thoughts now of
   restoring the commonwealth, and debated the question for a
   day; but the soldiers of the prætorian guard took it out of
   their hands, and decided it, by proclaiming Tiberius Claudius
   (A. D. 41), a brother of Germanicus, and uncle of the emperor
   just slain. Claudius was weak of body and mind, but not
   vicious, and his reign was distinctly one of improvement and
   advance in the Empire. He began the conquest of Britain, which
   the Romans had neglected since Cæsar's time, and he opened the
   Senate to the provincials of Gaul. He had two wives of
   infamous character, and the later one of these, Agrippina,
   brought him a son, not his own, whom he adopted, and who
   succeeded him (A.D. 54). This was Nero, of foul memory, who
   was madman and monster in as sinister a combination as history
   can show. During the reign of Nero, the spread of
   Christianity, which had been silently making its way from
   Judæa into all parts of the Empire, began to attract the
   attention of men in public place, and the first persecution of
   its disciples took place (A. D. 64). A great fire occurred in
   Rome, which the hated emperor was believed to have caused; but
   he found it convenient to accuse the Christians of the deed,
   and large numbers of them were put to death in horrible ways.

Nero was tolerated for fourteen years, until the soldiers in the provinces rose against him, and he committed suicide (A. D. 68) to escape a worse death. Then followed a year of civil war between rival emperors—Galba, Otho, Vitellius, and Vespasian—proclaimed by different bodies of soldiers in various parts of the Empire. The struggle ended in favor of Vespasian, a rude, strong soldier, who purged the government, disciplined the army, and brought society back toward simpler and more decent ways. The great revolt of the Jews (A. D. 66-70) had broken out before he received the purple, and he was commanding in Judæa when Nero fell. The siege, capture and destruction of Jerusalem was accomplished by his son Titus. A more formidable revolt in the West (A. D. 69) was begun the Batavians, a German tribe which occupied part of the Netherland territory, near the mouth of the Rhine. They were joined by neighboring Gauls and by disaffected Roman legionaries, and they received help from their German kindred on the northern side of the Rhine. The revolt, led by a chieftain named Civilis, who had served in the Roman army, was overcome with extreme difficulty.

Vespasian was more than worthily succeeded (A. D. 79) by his elder son, Titus, whose subjects so admired his many virtues that he was called "the delight of the human race." His short reign, however, was one of calamities: fire at Rome, a great pestilence, and the frightful eruption of Vesuvius which destroyed Herculaneum and Pompeii. After Titus came his younger brother Domitian (A. D. 81), who proved to be another creature of the monstrous species that appeared so often in the series of Roman emperors. The conquest of southern Britain (modern England) was completed in his reign by an able soldier, Agricola, who fought the Caledonians of the North, but was recalled before subduing them. Domitian was murdered by his own servants (A. D. 96), after a reign of fifteen years.

Rome and the Empire were happy at last in the choice that was made of a sovereign to succeed the hateful son of Vespasian. Not the soldiery, but the Senate, made the choice, and it fell on one of their number, Cocceius Nerva, who was already an aged man. He wore the purple but sixteen months, and his single great distinction in Roman history is, that he introduced to the imperial succession a line of the noblest men who ever sat in the seat of the Cæsars. The first of these was the soldier Trajan, whom Nerva adopted and associated with himself in authority. When Nerva died (A. D. 97), his son by adoption ascended the throne with no opposition. The new Emperor was simple and plain in his habits and manners of life; he was honest and open in all his dealings with men; he was void of suspicion, and of malice and jealousy no less. He gave careful attention to the business of state and was wise in his administration of affairs, improving roads, encouraging trade, helping agriculture, and developing the resources of the Empire in very prudent and practical ways. But he was a soldier, fond of war, and he unwisely reopened the career of conquest which had been almost closed for the Empire since Pompeius came back from the East. A threatening kingdom having risen among the Dacians, in the country north of the lower Danube—the Transylvania and Roumania of the present day—he attacked and crushed it, in a series of vigorous campaigns (A. D. 101-106), and annexed the whole territory to the dominion of Rome. He then garrisoned and colonized the country, and Romanized it so completely that it keeps the Roman name, and its language to this day is of the Latin stock, though Goths, Huns, Bulgarians and Slavs have swept it in successive invasions, and held it among their conquests for centuries at a time. In the East, he ravaged the territory of the Parthian king, entered his capital and added Mesopotamia, Armenia, and Arabia Petræa to the list of Roman provinces. But he died (A. D. 117) little satisfied with the results of his eastern campaigns.

His successor abandoned them, and none have doubted that he did well; because the Empire was weakened by the new frontier in Asia which Trajan gave it to defend. His Dacian conquests were kept, but all beyond the Euphrates in the East were given up. The successor who did this was Hadrian, a kinsman, whom the Emperor adopted in his last hours. Until near the close of his life, Hadrian ranked among the best of the emperors. Rome saw little of him, and resented his incessant travels through every part of his great realm. His manifest preference for Athens, where he lingered longest, and which flourished anew under his patronage, was still more displeasing to the ancient capital. For the Emperor was a man of cultivation, fond of literature, philosophy and art, though busy with the cares of State. In his later years he was afflicted with a disease which poisoned his nature by its torments, filled his mind with dark suspicions, and made him fitfully tyrannical and cruel. The event most notable in his generally peaceful and prosperous reign was the renewed and final revolt of the Jews, under Barchochebas, which resulted in their total expulsion from Jerusalem, and its conversion into a heathen city, with a Roman name.

Hadrian had adopted before his death (A. D. 138) a man of blameless character, Titus Aurelius Antoninus, who received from his subjects, when he became Emperor, the appellation "Pius," to signify the dutiful reverence and kindliness of his disposition. He justified the name of Antoninus Pius, by which he is historically known, and his reign, though disturbed by some troubles on the distant borders of the Empire, was happy for his subjects in nearly all respects. "No great deeds are told of him, save this, perhaps the greatest, that he secured the love and happiness of those he ruled" (Capes).

Like so many of the emperors, Antoninus had no son of his own; but even before he came to the throne, and at the request of Hadrian, he had adopted a young lad who won the heart of the late Emperor while still a child. The family name of this son by adoption was Verus, and he was of Spanish descent; the name which he took, in his new relationship, was Marcus Aurelius Antoninus. It is unquestionably the most illustrious name in the whole imperial line, from Augustus to the last Constantine, and made so, not so much by deeds as by character. He gave the world the solitary example of a philosopher upon the throne. There have been a few—a very few—surpassingly good men in kingly places; but there has never been another whose soul was lifted to so serene a height above the sovereignty of his station. Unlimited power tempted no form of selfishness in him; he saw nothing in his imperial exaltation but the duties which it imposed. His mind was meditative, and inclined him to the studious life; but he compelled himself to be a man of vigor and activity in affairs. He disliked war; but he spent years of his life in camp on the frontiers; because it fell to his lot to encounter the first great onset of the barbarian nations of the north, which never ceased from that time to beat against the barriers of the Empire until they had broken them down. His struggle was on the line of the Danube, with the tribes of the Marcomanni, the Quadi, the Vandals, and others of less formidable power. He held them back, but the resources of the Empire were overstrained and weakened lastingly by the effort. For the first time, too, there were colonies of barbarians brought into the Empire, from beyond its lines, to be settled for the supply of soldiers to the armies of Rome: It was a dangerous sign of Roman decay and a fatal policy to begin. The decline of the great world-power was, in truth, already well advanced, and the century of good emperors which ended when Marcus Aurelius died (A. D. 180), only retarded, and did not arrest, the progress of mortal maladies in the state.

The best of emperors was followed on the throne by a son, Commodus, who went mad, like Nero and Caligula, with the drunkenness of power, and who was killed (A. D. 192) by his own servants, after a reign of twelve years. The soldiers of the prætorian guard now took upon themselves the making of emperors, and placed two upon the throne—first, Pertinax, an aged senator, whom they murdered the next year, and then Didius Julianus, likewise a senator, to whom, as the highest bidder, they sold the purple. Again, as after Nero's death, the armies on the frontiers put forward, each, a rival claimant, and there was war between the competitors. The victor who became sovereign was Septimius Severus (A. D. 194-211), who had been in command on the Danube. He was an able soldier, and waged war with success against the Parthians in the East, and with the Caledonians in Britain, which latter he could not subdue. Of his two sons, the elder, nicknamed Caracalla (A. D. 211-217), killed his brother with his own hands, and tortured the Roman world with his brutalities for six years, when he fell under the stroke of an assassin. The reign of this foul beast brought one striking change to the Empire. An imperial edict wiped away the last distinction between Romans and Provincials, giving citizenship to every free inhabitant of the Empire. "Rome from this date became constitutionally an empire, and ceased to be merely a municipality. The city had become the world, or, viewed from the other side, the world had become 'the City'" (Merivale).

The period of sixty-seven years from the murder of Caracalla to the accession of Diocletian—when a great constitutional change occurred—demands little space in a sketch like this. The weakening of the Empire by causes inherent in its social and political structure,—the chief among which were the deadly influence of its system of slavery and the paralyzing effects of its autocracy,—went on at an increasing rate, while disorder grew nearly to the pitch of anarchy, complete. There were twenty-two emperors in the term, which scarcely exceeded that of two generations of men. Nineteen of these were taken from the throne by violent deaths, through mutiny or murder, while one fell in battle, and another was held captive in Persia till he died. Only five among these twenty-two ephemeral lords of the world,—namely Alexander Severus, Decius (who was a vigorous soldier and ruler, but who persecuted the Christians with exceptional cruelty), Claudius, Aurelian, and Probus,—can be credited with any personal weight or worth in the history of the time; and they held power too briefly to make any notable mark.

The distractions of the time were made worse by a great number of local "tyrants," as they were called—military adventurers who rose in different parts of the Empire and established themselves for a time in authority over some district, large or small. In the reign of Gallienus (A. D. 260-268) there were nineteen of these petty "imperators," and they were spoken of as the "thirty tyrants." The more important of the "provincial empires" thus created were those of Postumus, in Gaul, and of Odenatus of Palmyra. The latter, under Zenobia; queen and successor of Odenatus, became a really imposing monarchy, until it was overthrown by Aurelian, A. D. 273.

The Germanic nations beyond the Rhine and the Danube had, by this time, improved their organization, and many of the tribes formerly separated and independent were now gathered into powerful confederations. The most formidable of these leagues in the West was that which acquired the common name of the Franks, or Freemen, and which was made up of the peoples occupying territory along the course of the Lower Rhine. Another of nearly equal power, dominating the German side of the Upper Rhine and the headwaters of the Danube, is believed to have absorbed the tribes which had been known in the previous century as Boii, Marcomanni, Quadi, and others. The general name it received was that of the Alemanni. The Alemanni were in intimate association with the Suevi, and little is known of the distinction that existed between the two. They had now begun to make incursions across the Rhine, but were driven back in 238. Farther to the East, on the Lower Danube, a still more dangerous horde was now threatening the flanks of the Empire in its European domain. These were Goths, a people akin, without doubt, to the Swedes, Norsemen and Danes; but whence and when they made their way to the neighborhood of the Black Sea is a question in dispute. It was in the reign of Caracalla that the Romans became first aware of their presence in the country since known as the Ukraine. A few years later, when Alexander Severus was on the throne, they began to make incursions into Dacia. During the reign of Philip the Arabian (A. D. 244-249) they passed through Dacia, crossed the Danube, and invaded Mœsia (modern Bulgaria). In their next invasion (A. D. 251) they passed the Balkans, defeated the Romans in two terrible battles, the last of which cost the reigning Emperor, Decius, his life, and destroyed the city of Philippopolis, with 100,000 of its people. But when, a few years later, they attempted to take possession of even Thrace and Macedonia, they were crushingly defeated by the Emperor Claudius, whose successor Aurelian made peace by surrendering to them the whole province of Dacia (A. D. 270), where they settled, giving the Empire no disturbance for nearly a hundred years. Before this occurred, the Goths, having acquired the little kingdom of Bosporus (the modern Crimea) had begun to launch a piratical navy, which plundered the coast cities of Asia Minor and Greece, including Athens itself.

On the Asiatic side of the Empire a new power, a revived and regenerated Persian monarchy, had risen out of the ruins of the Parthian kingdom, which it overthrew, and had begun without delay to contest the rule of Rome in the East.

Briefly described, this was the state and situation of the Roman Empire when Diocletian, an able Illyrian soldier, came to the throne (A. D. 284). His accession marks a new epoch. "From this time," says Dean Merivale, "the old names of the Republic, the consuls, the tribunes, and the Senate itself, cease, even if still existing, to have any political significance." "The empire of Rome is henceforth an Oriental sovereignty." But the changes which Diocletian made in the organization and administration of the Empire, if they did weigh it down with a yet more crushing autocracy and contribute to its exhaustion in the end, did also, for the time, stop the wasting of its last energies, and gather them in hand for potent use. It can hardly be doubted that he lengthened the term of its career.

Finding that one man in the exercise of supreme sovereignty, as absolute as he wished to make it, could not give sufficient care to every part of the vast realm, he first associated one Maximian with himself, on equal terms, as Emperor, or Augustus, and six years later (A. D. 292) he selected two others from among his generals and invested them with a subordinate sovereignty, giving them the title of "Cæsars." The arrangement appears to have worked satisfactorily while Diocletian remained at the head of his imperial college. But in 305 he wearied of the splendid burden that he bore, and abdicated the throne, unwillingly followed by his associate, Maximian. The two Cæsars, Constantius and Galerius, were then advanced to the imperial rank, and two new Cæsars were named.

Jealousies, quarrels, and civil war were soon rending the
Empire again. The details are unimportant.

After nine years of struggle, two competitors emerged (A. D. 314) alone, and divided the Empire between them. They were Constantine, son of Constantius, the Cæsar, and one Licinius. After nine years more, Licinius had disappeared, defeated and put to death, and Constantine (A. D. 323) shared the sovereignty of Rome with none. In its final stages, the contest had become, practically, a trial of strength between expiring Paganism in the Roman world and militant Christianity, now grown to great strength. The shrewd adventurer Constantine saw the political importance to which the Christian Church had risen, and identified himself with it by a "conversion" which has glorified his name most undeservedly. If to be a Christian with sincerity is to be a good man, then Constantine was none; for his life was full of evil deeds, after he professed the religion of Christ, even more than before. "He poured out the best and noblest blood in torrents, more especially of those nearly connected with himself. … In a palace which he had made a desert, the murderer of his father-in-law, his brothers-in-law, his sister, his wife, his son, and his nephew, must have felt the stings of remorse, if hypocritical priests and courtier bishops had not lulled his conscience to rest" (Sismondi).

But the so-called "conversion" of Constantine was an event of vast import in history. It changed immensely, and with suddenness, the position, the state, the influence, and very considerably the character and spirit of the Christian Church. The hierarchy of the Church became, almost at once, the greatest power in the Empire, next to the Emperor himself, and its political associations, which were dangerous from the beginning, soon proved nearly fatal to its spiritual integrity. "Both the purity and the freedom of the Church were in danger of being lost. State and Church were beginning an amalgamation fraught with peril. The State was becoming a kind of Church, and the Church a kind of State. The Emperor preached and summoned councils, called himself, though half in jest, a 'bishop,' and the bishops had become State officials, who, like the high dignitaries of the Empire, travelled by the imperial courier-service, and frequented the ante-chambers of the palaces in Constantinople." "The Emperor determined what doctrines were to prevail in the Church, and banished Arius to-day and Athanasius to-morrow." "The Church was surfeited with property and privileges. The Emperor, a poor financier, impoverished the Empire to enrich" it (Uhlhorn). That Christianity had shared the gain of the Christian Church from these great changes, is very questionable.

By another event of his reign, Constantine marked it in history with lasting effect. He rebuilt with magnificence the Greek city of Byzantium on the Bosphorus, transferred to it his imperial residence, and raised it to a nominal equality with Rome, but to official find practical superiority, as the capital of the Empire. The old Rome dwindled in rank and prestige from that day; the new Rome—the city of Constantine, or Constantinople—rose to the supreme place in the eyes and the imaginations of men.

That Constantine added the abilities of a statesman to the unscrupulous cleverness of an adventurer is not to be disputed; but he failed to give proof of this when he divided the Empire between his three sons at his death (A. D. 337). The inevitable civil wars ensued, until, after sixteen years, one survivor gathered the whole realm under his scepter again. He (Constantius), who debased and disgraced the Church more than his father had done, was succeeded (A. D. 361) by his cousin, Julian, an honest, thoughtful, strong man, who, not unnaturally, preferred the old pagan Greek philosophy to the kind of Christianity which he had seen flourishing at the Byzantine court. He publicly restored the worship of the ancient gods of Greece and Rome; he excluded Christians from the schools, and bestowed his favor on those who scorned the Church; but he entered on no violent persecution. His reign was brief, lasting only two years. He perished in a hapless expedition against the Persians, by whom the Empire was now almost incessantly harassed.

His successor, Jovian, whom the army elected, died in seven months; but Valentinian, another soldier, raised by his comrades to the throne, reigned vigorously for eleven years. He associated his brother, Valens, with him in the sovereignty, assigning the latter to the East, while he took the administration of the West.

Until the death of Valentinian, in 375, the northern frontiers of the Empire, along the Rhine and the Danube, were well defended. Julian had commanded in Gaul, with Paris for his capital, six years before he became Emperor, and had organized its defence most effectively. Valentinian maintained the line with success against the Alemanni; while his lieutenant, Theodosius, delivered Roman Britain from the ruinous attacks of the Scots and Picts of its northern region. On the Danube, there continued to be peace with the Goths, who held back all other barbarians from that northeastern border.

But the death of Valentinian was the beginning of fatal calamities. His brother, Valens, had none of his capability or his vigor, and was unequal to such a crisis as now occurred. The terrible nation of the Huns had entered Europe from the Asiatic steppes, and the Western Goths, or Visigoths, fled before them. These fugitives begged to be permitted to cross the Danube and settle on vacant lands in Mœsia and Thrace. Valens consented, and the whole Visigothic nation, 200,000 warriors, with their women and children, passed the river (A. D. 376). It is possible that they might, by fair treatment, have been converted into loyal citizens, and useful defenders of the land. But the corrupt officials of the court took advantage of their dependent state, and wrung extortionate prices from them for disgusting food, until they rose in desperation and wasted Thrace with fire and sword. Fresh bodies of Ostrogoths (Eastern Goths) and other barbarians came over to join them (A. D. 378); the Roman armies were beaten in two great battles, and Valens, the Emperor, was slain. The victorious Goths swept on to the very walls of Constantinople, which they could not surmount, and the whole open country, from the Black Sea to the Adriatic, was ravaged by them at will.

In the meantime, the western division of the Empire had passed, on the death of Valentinian, under the nominal rule of his two young sons, Gratian, aged sixteen, and Valentinian II., aged four. Gratian had made an attempt to bring help to his uncle Valens; but the latter fought his fatal battle while the boy emperor was on the way, and the latter, upon hearing of it, turned back. Then Gratian performed his one great act. He sought a colleague, and called to the throne the most promising young soldier of the day. This was Theodosius, whose father, Count Theodosius, the deliverer of Britain, had been put to death by Valens, on some jealous accusation, only three years before. The new Emperor took the East for his realm, having Gratian and Valentinian II. for colleagues in the West. He speedily checked the ravages of the Goths and restored the confidence of the Roman soldiers. Then he brought diplomacy to bear upon the dangerous situation, and succeeded in arranging a peace with the Gothic chieftains, which enlisted them in the imperial service with forty thousand of their men. But they retained their distinctive organization, under their own chiefs, and were called "fœderati," or allies. This concession of a semi-independence to so great a body of armed barbarians in the heart of the Empire was a fatal mistake, as was proved before many years.

For the time being it secured peace, and gave Theodosius opportunity to attend to other things. The controversies of the Church were among the subjects of his consideration, and by taking the side of the Athanasians, whom his predecessor had persecuted, he gave a final victory to Trinitarianism, in the Roman world. His reign was signalized, moreover, by the formal, official abolition of paganism at Rome.

The weak but amiable Gratian, reigning at Paris, lost his throne and his life, in 383, as the consequence of a revolt which began in Britain and spread to Gaul. The successful rebel and usurper, Maximus, seemed so strong that Theodosius made terms with him, and acknowledged his sovereignty for a number of years. But, not content with a dominion which embraced Britain, Gaul and Spain, Maximus sought, after a time, to add Italy, where the youth, Valentinian II., was still enthroned (at Milan, not Rome), under the tutelage of his mother. Valentinian fled to Theodosius; the Eastern Emperor adopted his cause, and restored him to his throne, defeating the usurper and putting him to death (A. D. 388). Four years later Valentinian II. died; another usurper arose, and again Theodosius (A. D. 394) recovered the throne.

Theodosius was now alone in the sovereignty. The Empire was once more, and for the last time, in its full extent, united under a single lord. It remained so for but a few months. At the beginning of the year 395, Theodosius died, and his two weak sons, Arcadius and Honorius, divided the perishing Empire between them, only to augment, in its more venerable seat, the distress of the impending fall.

Arcadius, at the age of eighteen, took the government of the East; Hononus, a child of eleven, gave his name to the administration of the West. Each emperor was under the guardianship of a minister chosen by Theodosius before he died. Rufinus, who held authority at Constantinople, was worthless in all ways; Stilicho, who held the reins at Milan, was a Vandal by birth, a soldier and a statesman of vigorous powers.

The West seemed more fortunate than the East, in this division; yet the evil days now fast coming near fell crushingly on the older Rome, while the New Rome lived through them, and endured for a thousand years. No doubt the Empire had weakened more on its elder side; had suffered more exhaustion of vital powers. It had little organic vitality now left in it. If no swarms of barbaric invaders had been waiting and watching at its doors, and pressing upon it from every point with increasing fierceness, it seems probable that it would have gone to pieces ere long through mere decay. And if, on the other hand, it could have kept the vigorous life of its best republican days, it might have defied Teuton and Slav forever. But all the diseases, political and social, which the Republic engendered in itself, had been steadily consuming the state, with their virulence even increased, since it took on the imperial constitution. All that imperialism did was to gather waning energies in hand, and make the most of them for external use. It stopped no decay. The industrial palsy, induced by an ever-widening system of slave-labor, continued to spread. Production decreased; the sum of wealth shrunk in the hands of each succeeding generation; and yet the great fortunes and great estates grew bigger from age to age. The gulf between rich and poor opened deeper and wider, and the bridges once built across it by middle-class thrift were fallen down. The burden of imperial government had become an unendurable weight; the provincial municipalities, which had once been healthy centers of a local political life, were strangled by the nets of taxation flung over them. Men sought refuge even in death from the magistracies which made them responsible to the imperial treasury for revenues which they could not collect. Population dwindled, year by year. Recruiting from the body of citizens for the common needs of the army became more impossible. The state was fully dependent, at last, on barbaric mercenaries of one tribe for its defence against barbaric invaders of another; and it was no longer able, as of old, to impress its savage servitors with awe of its majesty and its name.

Stilicho, for a time, stoutly breasted the rising flood of disaster. He checked the Picts and Scots of Northern Britain, and the Alemanni and their allies on the frontiers of Gaul. But now there arose again the more dreadful barbarian host which had footing in the Empire itself, and which Theodosius had taken into pay. The Visigoths elected a king (A. D. 395), and were persuaded with ease to carve a kingdom for him out of the domain which seemed waiting to be snatched from one or both of the feeble monarchs, who sat in mockery of state at Constantinople and Milan. Alaric, the new Gothic king, moved first against the capital on the Bosphorus; but Rufinus persuaded him to pass on into Greece, where he went pillaging and destroying for a year. Stilicho, the one manly defender of the Empire, came over from Italy with an army to oppose him; but he was stopped on the eve of battle by orders from the Eastern Court, which sent him back, as an officious meddler. This act of mischief and malice was the last that Rufinus could do. He was murdered, soon afterwards, and Arcadius, being free from his influence, then called upon Stilicho for help. The latter came once more to deliver Greece, and did so with success. But Alaric, though expelled from the peninsula, was neither crushed nor disarmed, and the Eastern Court had still to make terms with him. It did so for the moment by conferring on him the government of that part of Illyricum which the Servia and Bosnia of the present day coincide with, very nearly. He rested there in peace for four years, and then (A. D. 400) he called his people to arms again, and led the whole nation, men, women and children, into Italy. The Emperor, Honorius, fled from Milan to Ravenna, which, being a safe shelter behind marshes and streams, became the seat of the court for years thereafter. Stilicho, stripping Britain and Gaul of troops, gathered forces with which, at Eastertide in the year 402, and again in the following year, he defeated the Goths, and forced them to retreat.

He had scarcely rested from these exertions, when the valiant Stilicho was called upon to confront a more savage leader, Radagaisus by name, who came from beyond the lines (A. D. 405), with a vast swarm of mixed warriors from many tribes pouring after him across the Alps. Again Stilicho, by superior skill, worsted the invaders, entrapping them in the mountains near Fiesole (modern Florence), and starving them there till they yielded themselves to slavery and their chieftain to death.

This was the last great service to the dying Roman state which Stilicho was permitted to do. Undermined by the jealousies of the cowardly court at Ravenna, he seems to have lost suddenly the power by which he held himself so high. He was accused of treasonable designs and was seized and instantly executed, by the Emperor's command.

Stilicho dead, there was no one in Italy for Alaric to fear, and he promptly returned across the Alps, with the nation of the Visigoths behind him. There was no resistance to his march, and he advanced straight upon Rome. He did not assail the walls, but sat down before the gates (A. D. 408), until the starving citizens paid him a great ransom in silver and gold and precious spices and silken robes. With this booty he retired for the winter into Tuscany, where his army was swelled by thousands of fugitive barbarian slaves, and by reinforcements of Goths and Huns. From his camp he opened negotiations with Honorius, demanding the government of Dalmatia, Venetia and Noricum, with certain subsidies of money and corn. The contemptible court, skulking at Ravenna, could neither make war nor make concessions, and it soon exhausted the patience of the barbarian by its puerilities. He marched again to Rome (A. D. 409), seized the port of Ostia, with its supplies of grain, and forced the helpless capital to join him in proclaiming a rival emperor. The prefect of the city, one Attalus, accepted the purple at his hands, and played the puppet for a few months in imperial robes. But the scheme proved unprofitable, Attalus was deposed, and negotiations were reopened with Honorius. Their only result was a fresh provocation which sent Alaric once more against Rome, and this time with wrath and vengeance in his heart. Then the great, august capital of the world was entered, through treachery or by surprise, on the night of the 24th of August, 410, and suffered all that the lust, the ferocity and the greed of a barbarous army let loose could inflict on an unresisting city. It was her first experience of that supreme catastrophe of war, since Brennus and the Gauls came in; but it was not to be the last.

From the sack of Rome, Alaric moved southward, intending to conquer Sicily; but a sudden illness brought his career to an end.

The Empire was now like a dying quarry, pulled down by fierce hunting packs and torn on every side. The Goths were at its throat; the tribes of Germany—Sueves, Vandals, Burgundians, Alans—had leaped the Rhine (A. D. 406) and swarmed upon its flanks, throughout Gaul and Spain. The inrush began after Stilicho, to defend Italy against Alaric and Radagaisus, had stripped the frontiers of troops. Sueves, Vandals, and Alans passed slowly through the provinces, devouring their wealth and making havoc of their civilization as they went. After three years, they had reached and surmounted the Pyrenees, and were spreading the same destruction through Spain.

The confederated tribes of the Franks had already been admitted as allies into northwestern Gaul, and were settled there in peace. At first, they stood faithful to the Roman alliance, and valiantly resisted the new invasion; but its numbers overpowered them, and their fidelity gave way when they saw the pillage of the doomed provinces going on. They presently joined the barbarous mob, and with an energy which secured the lion's share of plunder and domain.

The Burgundians did not follow the Vandals and Sueves to the southwest, but took possession of the left bank of the middle Rhine, whence they gradually spread into western Switzerland and Savoy, and down the valleys of the Rhone and Saone, establishing in time an important kingdom, to which they gave their name.

No help from Ravenna or Rome came to the perishing provincials of Gaul in the extremity of their distress; but a pretender arose in Britain, who assumed the imperial title and promised deliverance. He crossed over to Gaul in 407 and was welcomed with eagerness, both there and in Spain, to which he advanced. He gained some success, partly by enlisting and partly by resisting the invaders; but his career was brief. Other pretenders appeared in various provinces, of the West; but the anarchy of the time was too great for any authority, legitimate or revolutionary, to establish itself.

And, now, into the tempting country of the afflicted Gauls, already crowded with rapacious freebooters, the Visigoths made their way. Their new king, Ataulph, or Adolphus, who succeeded Alaric, passed into Gaul, but not commissioned, as sometimes stated, to restore the imperial sovereignty there. He moved with his nation, as Alaric had moved, and Italy, by his departure, was relieved; but Narbonne, Toulouse, Bordeaux, and the Aquitainian country at large, was soon subject to his command (A. D. 412-419). He passed the Pyrenees and entered Spain, where an assassin took his life. His successor, Wallia, drove the Sueves into the mountains and the Vandals into the South; but did not take possession of the country until a later time. The Visigoths, returning to Aquitaine, found there, at last, the kingdom which Alaric set out from the Danube to seek, and they were established in it with the Roman Emperor's consent. It was known as the kingdom of Gothia, or Septimania, but is more commonly called, from its capital, the kingdom of Toulouse.

Affairs in the Eastern Empire had never arrived at so desperate a state as in the West. With the departure of Alaric, it had been relieved from its most dangerous immediate foe. There had been tumults, disorders, assassinations, court conspiracies, fierce religious strifes, and every evidence of a government with no settled authority and no title to respect; but yet the Empire stood and was not yet seriously shaken. In 408 Arcadius died. His death was no loss, though he left an infant son to take his place; for he also left a daughter, Pulcheria, who proved to be a woman of rare virtue and talents, and who reigned in her brother's name.

   The imbecile Honorius, with whose name the failing sovereignty
   of Rome had been so disastrously linked for eight and twenty
   rears, died in 423. An infant nephew was his heir, and
   Placidia, the mother, ruled at Ravenna for a fourth of a
   century, in the name of her child. Her reign was far stronger
   than her wretched brother's had been, because she gave loyal
   support to a valiant and able man, who stood at her side.
   Aetius, her minister, did all, perhaps, that man could do to
   hold some parts of Gaul, and to play barbarian against
   barbarian—Hun against Goth and Frank—in skilful diplomacy
   and courageous war. But nothing that he won was any lasting
   gain. In his youth, Aetius had been a hostage in the camps of
   both the Goths and the Huns, and had made acquaintances among
   the chieftains of both which served his policy many times.
{1011}
   He had employed the terrible Huns in the early years of his
   ministry, and perhaps they had learned too much of the
   weakness of the Roman State. These most fearful of all the
   barbarian peoples then surging in Europe had been settled, for
   some years, in the region since called Hungary, under Attila,
   their most formidable king. He terrorized all the surrounding
   lands and exercised a lordship from the Caspian to the Baltic
   and the Rhine. The imperial court at the East stooped to pay
   him annual tribute for abstaining from the invasion of its
   domain. But in 450, when the regent Pulcheria became Empress
   of the East, by her brother's death, and married a brave old
   soldier, Marcian, in order to give him the governing power, a
   new tone was heard in the voice from Constantinople which
   answered Attila's demands.

The Hun then appears to have seen that the sinking Empire of the West offered a more certain victim to his terrors and his arms, and he turned them to that side. First forming an alliance with the Vandals (who had crossed from Spain to Africa in 429, had ravaged and subdued the Roman provinces, and had established a kingdom on the Carthaginian ground, with a naval power in the Carthaginian Sea), Attila led his huge army into suffering Gaul. There were Ostrogoths, and warriors from many German tribes, as well as Huns, in the terrific host; for Attila's arm stretched far, and his subjects were forced to follow when he led. His coming into Gaul affrighted Romans and barbarians alike, and united them in a common defense. Aetius formed an alliance with Theodoric, the Visigothic king, and their forces were joined by Burgundians and Franks. They met Attila near Chalons, and there, on a day in June, A. D. 451, upon the Catalaunian fields, was fought a battle that is always counted among the few which gave shape to all subsequent history. The Huns were beaten back, and Europe was saved from the hopeless night that must have followed a Tartar conquest in that age.

Attila retreated to Germany, foiled but not daunted. The next year (A. D. 452) he invaded Italy and laid siege to Aquileia, an important city which stood in his path. It resisted for three months and was then utterly destroyed. The few inhabitants who escaped, with fugitives from neighboring ports, found a refuge in some islands of the Adriatic coast, and formed there a sheltered settlement which grew into the great city and republican state of Venice. Aetius made strenuous exertions to gather forces for another battle with the Huns; but the resources of the Empire had sunk very low. While he labored to collect troops, the effect of a pacific embassy was despairingly tried, and it went forth to the camp of Attila, led by the venerable bishop of Rome—the first powerful Pope—Leo I., called the Great. The impression which Leo made on the Hunnish king, by his venerable presence, and by the persuasiveness of his words, appears to have been extraordinary. At all events, Attila consented to postpone his designs on Rome; though he demanded and received promise of an annual tribute. The next winter he died, and Rome was troubled by him no more.

But another enemy came, who rivalled Attila in ruthlessness, and who gave a name to barbarity which it has kept to this day. The Vandal king, Genseric, who now swept the Mediterranean with a piratical fleet, made his appearance in the Tiber (A. D. 455) and found the Roman capital powerless to resist his attack. The venerable Pope Leo again interceded for the city, and obtained a promise that captives should not be tortured nor buildings burned,—which was the utmost stretch of mercy that the Vandal could afford. Once more, then, was Rome given up, for fourteen days and nights, to pillage and the horrors of barbaric debauch. "Whatever had survived the former sack,—whatever the luxury of the Roman Patriciate, during the intervening forty-five years, had accumulated in reparation of their loss,—the treasures of the imperial palace, the gold and silver vessels employed in the churches, the statues of pagan divinities and men of Roman renown, the gilded roof of the temple of Capitolian Jove, the plate and ornaments of private individuals, were leisurely conveyed to the Vandal fleet and shipped off to Africa" (Sheppard).

The Vandal invasion had been preceded, in the same year, by a palace revolution which brought the dynasty of Theodosius to an end. Placidia was dead, and her unworthy son, Valentinian III., provoked assassination by dishonoring the wife of a wealthy senator, Maximus, who mounted to his place. Maximus was slain by a mob at Rome, just before the Vandals entered the city. The Empire was now without a head, and the throne without an heir. In former times, the Senate or the army would have filled the vacant imperial seat; now, it was a barbarian monarch, Theodoric, the Visigothic king, who made choice of a successor to the Cæsars. He named a Gallic noble, Avitus by name, who had won his esteem, and the nomination was confirmed by Marcian, Emperor of the East.

But the influence of Theodoric in Roman affairs was soon rivalled by that of Count Ricimer, another Goth, or Sueve, who held high command in the imperial army, and who resented the elevation of Avitus. The latter was deposed, after reigning a single year; and Majorian, a soldier of really noble and heroic character, was promoted to the throne. He was too great and too sincere a man to be Ricimer's tool, and the same hand which raised him threw him down, after he had reigned four years (A. D. 457-461). He was in the midst of a powerful undertaking against the Vandals when he perished. Majorian was the last Emperor in the Western line who deserves to be named.

   Ricimer ruled Italy, with the rigor of a despot, under the
   modest title of Patrician, until 472. His death was soon
   followed by the rise of another general of the barbarian
   troops, Orestes, to like autocracy, and he, in turn, gave way
   to a third, Odoacer, who slew him and took his place. The
   creatures, half a dozen in number, who put on and put off the
   purple robe, at the command of these adventurers, who played
   with the majesty of Rome, need no further mention.
{1012}
   The last of them was Romulus Augustulus, son of Orestes, who
   escaped his father's fate by formally resigning the throne. He
   was the last Roman Emperor in the West, until Charlemagne
   revived the title, three centuries and a quarter later. "The
   succession of the Western Emperors came to an end, and the way
   in which it came to an end marks the way in which the names
   and titles of Rome were kept on, while all power was passing
   into the hands of the barbarians. The Roman Senate voted that
   one Emperor was enough, and that the Eastern Emperor, Zeno,
   should reign over the whole Empire. But at the same time Zeno
   was made to entrust the government of Italy, with the title of
   Patrician, to Odoacer. … Thus the Roman Empire went on at
   Constantinople, or New Rome, while Italy and the Old Rome
   itself passed into the power of the Barbarians. Still the
   Roman laws and names went on, and we may be sure that any man
   in Italy would have been much surprised if he had been told
   that the Roman Empire had come to an end" (Freeman).

The government of Odoacer, who ruled with the authority of a king, though pretending to kingship only in his own nation, was firm and strong. Italy was better protected from its lawless neighbors than it had been for nearly a century before. But nothing could arrest the decay of its population—the blight that had fallen upon its prosperity. Nor could that turbulent age afford any term of peace that would be long enough for even the beginning of the cure of such maladies and such wounds as had brought Italy low. For fourteen years Odoacer ruled; and then he was overthrown by a new kingdom-seeking barbarian, who came, like Alaric, out of the Gothic swarm.

The Ostrogoths had now escaped, since Attila died, from the yoke of the Huns, and were prepared, under an able and ambitious young king, Theodoric, who had been reared as a hostage at Constantinople, to imitate the career of their cousins, the Visigoths. Having troubled the Eastern Court until it stood in fear of him, Theodoric asked for a commission to overthrow Odoacer, in Italy, and received it from the Emperor's hand. Thus empowered by one still recognized as lawful lord on both sides of the Adriatic, Theodoric crossed the Julian Alps (A. D. 489) with the families of his nation and their household goods. Three battles made him master of the peninsula and decided the fate of his rival. Odoacer held out in Ravenna for two years and a half, and surrendered on a promise of equal sovereignty with the Ostrogothic king. But Theodoric did not scruple to kill him with his own sword, at the first opportunity which came. In that act, the native savagery in him broke loose; but through most of his life he kept his passions decently tamed, and acted the barbarian less frequently than the civilized statesman and king. He gave Italy peace, security, and substantial justice for thirty years. With little war, he extended his sovereignty over Illyrium, Pannonia, Noricum, Rhætia and Provence, in south-eastern Gaul. If the extensive kingdom which he formed—with more enlightenment than any other among those who divided the heritage of Rome—could have endured, the parts of Europe which it covered might have fared better in after times than they did. "Italy might have been spared six hundred years of gloom and degradation." But powerful influences were against it from the first, and they were influences which proceeded mischievously from the Christian Church. Had the Goths been pagans, the Church might have turned a kindly face to them, and wooed them to conversion as she wooed the Franks. But they were Christians, of a heretic stamp, and the orthodox Christianity of Rome held them in deadly loathing. While still beyond the Danube, they had received the faith from an Arian apostle, at the time of the great conflict of Athanasius against Arius, and were stubborn in the rejection of Trinitarian dogma. Hence the Church in the West was never reconciled to the monarchy of Theodoric in Italy, nor to that of the Visigoths at Toulouse; and its hostility was the ultimate cause of the failure of both.

To understand the events which immediately caused the fall of the Ostrogothic power, we must turn back for a moment to the Empire in the East. Marcian, whom Pulcheria, the wise daughter of Arcadius, made Emperor by marrying him, died in 457, and Aspar, the barbarian who commanded the mercenaries, selected his successor. He chose his own steward, one Leo, who proved to have more independence than his patron expected, and who succeeded in destroying the latter. After Leo I. came (474) his infant grandson; Leo II., whose father, an Isaurian chieftain, took his place when he died, within the year. The Isaurian assumed a Greek name, Zeno, and occupied the throne—with one interval of flight and exile for twenty months—during seven years. When he died, his widow gave her hand in marriage to an excellent officer of the palace, Anastasius by name, and he was sovereign of the Empire for twenty-seven years.

   After Anastasius, came Justin I., born a peasant in Dacia
   (modern Roumania), but advanced as a soldier to the command of
   the imperial guards, and thence to the throne. He had already
   adopted and educated his nephew, Justinian, and before dying,
   in 527, he invested him with sovereignty as a colleague. The
   reign of Justinian was the most remarkable in the whole
   history of the Empire in the East. Without breadth of
   understanding, or notable talents of any kind: without
   courage; without the least nobility of character; without even
   the virtue of fidelity to his ministers and friends,—this
   remarkable monarch contrived to be splendidly served by an
   extraordinary generation of great soldiers, great jurists,
   great statesmen, who gave a brilliance to his reign that was
   never rivalled while the Byzantine seat of Empire stood. It
   owes, in modern esteem, its greatest fame to the noble
   collection of Roman laws which was made, in the Pandects and
   the Code, under the direction of the wise and learned
   Tribonian. Transiently it was glorified by conquests that bore
   a likeness to the march of the resistless legions of ancient
   Rome; and the laurelled names of Belisarius and Narses claimed
   a place on the columns of victory with the names of Cæsar and
   Pompeius.
{1013}
   But the splendors of the reign were much more than offset by
   miseries and calamities of the darkest kind. "The reign of
   Justinian, from its length, its glory and its disasters, may
   be compared to the reign of Louis XIV., which exceeded it in
   length, and equalled it in glory and disaster. … He extended
   the limits of his empire; but he was unable to defend the
   territory he had received from his predecessors. Everyone of
   the thirty-eight years of his reign was marked by an invasion
   of the barbarians; and it has been said that, reckoning those
   who fell by the sword, who perished from want, or were led
   into captivity, each invasion cost 200,000 subjects to the
   empire. Calamities which human prudence is unable to resist
   seemed to combine against the Romans, as if to compel them to
   expiate their ancient glory. … So that the very period which
   gave birth to so many monuments of greatness, may be looked
   back upon with horror, as that of the widest desolation and
   the most terrific mortality" (Sismondi). The first and longest
   of the wars of Justinian was the Persian war, which he inherited
   from his predecessors, and which scarcely ceased while the
   Persian monarchy endured. It was in these Asiatic campaigns
   that Belisarius began his career. But his first great
   achievement was the overthrow and extinction of the Vandal
   power in Africa, and the restoration of Roman authority (the
   empire of the new Rome) in the old Carthaginian province (A.
   D. 533-534). He accomplished this with a force of but 10,000
   foot and 5,000 horse, and was hastily recalled by his jealous
   lord on the instant of his success.

But the ambition of Justinian was whetted by this marvellous conquest, and he promptly projected an expedition against the kingdom of the Eastern Goths. The death of Theodoric had occurred in 526. His successor was a child of ten years, his grandson, whose mother exercised the regency. Amalsuentha, the queen-regent, was a woman of highly cultivated mind, and she offended her subjects by too marked a Romanization of her ideas. Her son died in his eighteenth year, and she associated with herself on the throne the next heir to it, a worthless nephew of Theodoric, who was able, in a few weeks, to strip all her power from her and consign her to a distant prison, where she was soon put to death (A. D. 535). She had previously opened negotiations with Justinian for the restoration of his supremacy in Italy, and the ambitious Emperor assumed with eagerness a right to avenge her deposition and death. The fate of Amalsuentha was his excuse, the discontent of Roman orthodoxy with the rule of the heretic Goths was his encouragement, to send an army into Italy with Belisarius at its head. First taking possession of Sicily, Belisarius landed in Italy in 536, took Naples and advanced on Rome. An able soldier, Vitiges, had been raised to the Gothic throne, and he evacuated Rome in December; but he returned the following March and laid siege to the ancient capital, which Belisarius had occupied with a moderate force. It was defended against him for an entire year, and the strength of the Gothic nation was consumed on the outer side of the walls, while the inhabitants within were wasted by famine and disease. The Goths invoked the aid of the Franks in Gaul, and those fierce warriors, crossing the Alps (A. D. 538), assailed both Goths and Greeks, with indiscriminate hostility, destroyed Milan and Genoa, and mostly perished of hunger themselves before they retreated from the wasted Cisalpine country.

Released from Rome, Belisarius advanced in his turn against Ravenna, and took the Gothic capital, making Vitiges a prisoner (A. D. 539). His reward for these successes was a recall from command. The jealous Emperor could not afford his generals too much glory at a single winning. As a consequence of his folly, the Goths, under a new king, Totila, were allowed to recover so much ground in the next four years that, when, in 544, Belisarius was sent back, almost without an army, the work of conquest had to be done anew. Rome was still being held against Totila, who besieged it, and the great general went by sea to its relief. He forced the passage of the Tiber, but failed through the misconduct of the commander in the city to accomplish an entry, and once more the great capital was entered and yielded to angry Goths (A. D. 546). They spared the lives of the few people they found, and the chastity of the women; but they plundered without restraint.

Totila commanded the total destruction of the city; but his ruthless hand was stayed by the remonstrances of Belisarius. After demolishing a third of the walls, he withdrew towards the South, dragging the few inhabitants with him, and, during forty days, Rome is said to have been an unpeopled solitude. The scene which this offers to the imagination comes near to being the most impressive in history. At the end of that period it was entered by Belisarius, who hastily repaired the walls, collected his forces, and was prepared to defend himself when Totila came back by rapid marches from Apulia. The Goths made three assaults and were bloodily repulsed.

But again Belisarius was recalled by a mean and jealous court, and again the Gothic cause was reanimated and restored. Rome was taken again from its feeble garrison (A. D. 549), and this time it was treated with respect. Most of Italy and Sicily, with Corsica and Sardinia, were subdued by Totila's arms, and that king, now successful, appealed to Justinian for peace. It was refused, and in 552 a vigorous prosecution of the war resumed, under a new commander—the remarkable eunuch Narses, who proved himself to be one of the great masters of war. Totila was defeated and slain in the first battle of the campaign; Rome was again beleaguered and taken; and the last blow needed to extinguish the Gothic kingdom in Italy was given the following year (A. D. 553), when Totila's successor, Teia, ended his life on another disastrous field of battle.

Italy was restored for the moment to the Empire, and was placed under the government of an imperial viceroy, called Exarch, which high office the valiant Narses was the first to fill. His successors, known in history as the Exarchs of Ravenna, resided in that capital for a long period, while the arm of their authority was steadily shortened by the conquests of new invaders, whose story is yet to be told.

Leaving Italy and Rome, once more in the imperial fold, but mere provinces now of a distant and alienated sovereignty, it is necessary to turn back to the West, and glance over the regions in which, when we looked at them last, the institutions of Roman government and society were being dissolved and broken up by flood upon flood of barbaric invasion from the Teutonic North.

If we begin at the farthest West which the Roman dominion reached, we shall find that the island of Britain was abandoned, practically, by the imperial government earlier than the year 410, when Rome was sinking under the blows of Alaric. From that time the inhabitants were left to their own government and their own defense. To the inroads of the savage Caledonian Picts and Irish Scots, there were added, now, the coast ravages of a swarm of ruthless pirates, which the tribes of northwestern Europe had begun to launch upon the German or North Sea. The most cruel and terrible of these ocean freebooters were the Saxons, of the Elbe, and they gave their name for a time to the whole. Their destructive raids upon the coasts of Britain and Gaul had commenced more than a century before the Romans withdrew their legions, and that part of the British coast most exposed to their ravages was known as the Saxon Shore. For about thirty years after the Roman and Romanized inhabitants of Britain had been left to defend themselves, they held their ground with good courage, as appears; but the incessant attacks of the Picts wore out, at last, their confidence in themselves, and they were fatally led to seek help from their other enemies, who scourged them from the sea. Their invitation was given, not to the Saxons, but to a band of Jutes—warriors from that Danish peninsula in which they have left their name. The Jutes landed at Ebbsfleet, in the Isle of Thanet (A. D. 449 or 450), with two chiefs, Hengest and Horsa, at their head. They came as allies, and fought by the side of the Britons against the Picts with excellent success. Then came quarrels, and presently, in 455, the arms of Hengest and Horsa were turned against their employers. Ten years later the Jutes had secure possession of the part of Britain now called Kent, and Hengest was their king, Horsa having fallen in the war. This was the beginning of the transformation of Roman-Celtic Britain into the Teutonic England of later history. The success of the Jutes drew their cousins and piratical comrades, the Saxons and the Angles, to seek kingdoms in the same rich island. The Saxons came first, landing near Selsey, in 477, and taking gradual possession of a district which became known as the kingdom of the South Saxons, or Sussex. The next invasion was by Saxons under Cerdic, and Jutes, who joined to form the kingdom of the West Saxons, or Wessex, covering about the territory of modern Hampshire. So much of their conquest was complete by the year 519. At about the same time, other colonies were established and gave their names, as East Saxons and Middle Saxons, to the Essex and Middlesex of modern English geography. A third tribe from the German shore, the Angles, now came (A. D. 547) to take their part in the conquest of the island, and these laid their hands upon kingdoms in the East and North of England, so much larger than the modest Jute and Saxon realms in the south that their name fixed itself, at last, upon the whole country, when it lost the name of Britain. Northumberland, which stretched from the Humber to the Firth of Forth, Mercia, which covered at one time the whole middle region of England, and East Anglia, which became divided into the two English counties of Norfolk (North-folk) and Suffolk (South-folk), were the three great kingdoms of the Angles.

Before the end of the sixth century, almost the whole of modern England, and part of Scotland, on its eastern side, as far to the north as Edinburgh, was in possession of the German invaders. They had not merely subdued the former possessors—Britons and Roman provincials (if Romans remained in the island after their domination ceased),—but, in the judgment of the best investigators of the subject, they had practically swept them from all the parts of the island in which their own settlements were established. That is to say, the prior population was either exterminated by the merciless swords of these Saxon and English pagans, or was driven into the mountains of Wales, into the peninsula of Cornwall and Devon, or into the Strathclyde corner of Scottish territory,—in all which regions the ancient British race has maintained itself to this day. Scarcely a vestige of its existence remains elsewhere in England,—neither in language, nor in local names, nor in institutions, nor in survivals of any other kind; which shows that the inhabitants were effaced by the conquest, as the inhabitants of Gaul, of Spain, and of Italy, for example, were not.

The new society and the new states which now arose on the soil of Britain, and began to shape themselves into the England of the future, were as purely Germanic as if they had grown up in the Jutish peninsula or on the Elbe. The institutions, political and social, of the immigrant nations, had been modified by changed circumstances, but they had incorporated almost nothing from the institutions which they found existing in their new home and which they supplanted. Broadly speaking, nothing Roman and nothing Celtic entered into them. They were constructed on German lines throughout.

   The barbarism of the Saxons and their kin when they entered
   Britain was far more unmitigated than that of most of the
   Teutonic tribes which overwhelmed the continental provinces of
   Rome had been. The Goths had been influenced to some extent
   and for quite a period by Roman civilization, and had
   nominally accepted Christian precepts and beliefs, before they
   took arms against the Empire. The Franks had been allies of
   Rome and in contact with the refinements of Roman Gaul, for a
   century or two before they became masters in that province.
   Most of the other nations which transplanted themselves in the
   fifth century from beyond the Rhine to new homes in the
   provinces of Rome, had been living for generations on the
   borders of the Empire, or near; had acquired some
   acquaintance, at least, with the civilization which they did
   not share, and conceded to it a certain respect; while some of
   them had borne arms for the Emperor and taken his pay. But the
   Saxons, Angles and Jutes had thus far been remote from every
   influence or experience of the kind.
{1015}
   They knew the Romans only as rich strangers to be plundered
   and foes to be fought. Christianity represented nothing to
   them but an insult to their gods. There seems to be little
   doubt, therefore, that the civilizing work which Rome had done
   in western Europe was obliterated nowhere else so ruthlessly
   and so wantonly as in Britain. Christianity, still sheltered
   and strong in Ireland, was wholly extinguished in England for
   a century and more, until the memorable mission of Augustine,
   sent by Pope Gregory the Great (A. D. 597), began the
   conversion of the savage islanders.

In Gaul, meanwhile, and in southwestern Germany, the Franks had become the dominant power. They had moved tardily to the conquest, but when they moved it was with rapid strides. While they dwelt along the Lower Rhine, they were in two divisions: the Salian Franks, who occupied, first, the country near the mouth of the river, and then spread southwards, to the Somme, or beyond; and the Ripuarians, who lived farther up the Rhine, in the neighborhood of Cologne, advancing thence to the Moselle. In the later part of the fifth century a Roman Patrician, Syagrius, still exercised some kind of authority in northern Gaul; but in 486 he was defeated and overthrown by Chlodvig, or Clovis, the chief of the Salian Franks. Ten years later, Clovis, leading both the Salian and the Ripuarian Franks in an attack upon the German Alemanni, beyond the Upper Rhine, subdued that people completely, and took their country. Their name survived, and adhered to the whole people of Germany, whom the Franks and their successors the French have called Allemands to this day. After his conquest of the Alemanni, Clovis, who had married a Christian wife, accepted her faith and was baptized, with three thousand of his chief men. The professed conversion was as fortunate politically for him as it had been for Constantine. He adopted the Christianity which was that of the Roman Church—the Catholic Christianity of the Athanasian creed—and he stood forth at once as the champion of orthodoxy against the heretic Goths and Burgundians, whose religion had been poisoned by the condemned doctrines of Arius. The blessings, and the more substantial endeavors, of the Roman Church were, therefore, on his side, when he attacked the Burgundians and made them tributary, and when, a few years later, he expelled the Goths from Aquitaine and drove them into Spain (A.D. 500-508). Beginning, apparently, as one of several chiefs among the Salian Franks, he ended his career (510) as sole king of the whole Frank nation, and master of all Gaul except a Gothic corner of Provence, with a considerable dominion beyond the Rhine.

But Clovis left his realm to four sons, who divided it into as many kingdoms, with capitals at Metz, Orleans, Paris, and Soissons. There was strife and war between them, until one of the brothers, Lothaire, united again the whole kingdom, which, meantime, had been enlarged by the conquest of Thuringia and Provence, and by the extinction of the tributary Burgundian kings. When he died, his sons rent the kingdom again, and warred with one another, and once more it was brought together. Says Hallam: "It is a weary and unprofitable task to follow these changes in detail, through scenes of tumult and bloodshed, in which the eye meets with no sunshine, nor can rest upon any interesting spot. It would be difficult, as Gibbon has justly observed, to find anywhere more vice or less virtue." But, as Dean Church has remarked, the Franks were maintained in their ascendancy by the favor of the clergy and the circumstances of their position, despite their divisions and the worthless and detestable character of their kings, after Clovis. "They occupied a land of great natural wealth, and great geographical advantages, which had been prepared for them by Latin culture; they inherited great cities which they had not built, and fields and vineyards which they had not planted; and they had the wisdom, not to destroy, but to use their conquest. They were able with singular ease and confidence to employ and trust the services, civil and military, of the Latin population. … The bond between the Franks and the native races was the clergy. … The forces of the whole nation were at the disposal of the ruling race; and under Frank chiefs, the Latins and Gauls learned once more to be warriors." This no doubt suggests a quite true explanation of the success of the Franks; but too much may easily be inferred from it. It will not be safe to conclude that the Franks were protectors of civilization in Gaul, and did not lay destroying hands upon it. We shall presently see that it sank to a very darkened state under their rule, though the eclipse may have been less complete than in some other of the barbarized provinces of Rome.

   The division in the Frankish dominion which finally marked
   itself deeply and became permanent was that which separated
   the East Kingdom, or Austrasia, from the West Kingdom, or
   Neustria. In Austrasia, the Germanic element prevailed; in
   Neustria, the Roman and Gallic survivals entered most largely
   into the new society. Austrasia widened into the Germany of
   later history; Neustria into France. In both these kingdoms,
   the Frankish kings sank lower and lower in character, until
   their name (of Merwings or Merovingians, from an ancestor of
   Clovis) became a byword for sloth and worthlessness. In each
   kingdom there arose, beside the nominal monarch, a strong
   minister, called the Major Domus, or Mayor of the Palace, who
   exercised the real power and governed in the king's name.
   During the last half of the seventh century, the Austrasian
   Mayor, Pippin of Heristal, and the Neustrian Mayor, Ebroin,
   converted the old antagonism of the two kingdoms into a
   personal rivalry and struggle for supremacy. Ebroin was
   murdered, and Pippin was the final victor, in a decisive
   battle at Testry (687), which made him virtual master of the
   whole Frank realm, although the idle Merwings still sat on
   their thrones. Pippin's son, Charles Martel, strengthened and
   extended the domination which his father had acquired. He
   drove back the Saxons and subdued the Frisians in the North,
   and, in the great and famous battle of Tours (732) he
   repelled, once for all, the attempt of the Arab and Moorish
   followers of Mahomet, already lodged in Spain, to push their
   conquests beyond the Pyrenees.
{1016}
   The next of the family, Pippin the Short, son of Charles
   Martel, put an end to the pretence of governing in the name of
   a puppet-king. The last of the Merovingians was quietly
   deposed—lacking even importance enough to be put to death—
   and Pippin received the crown at the hands of Pope Zachary (A.
   D. 751). He died in 768, and the reign of his son, who
   succeeded him—the Great Charles—the Charlemagne of mediæval
   history—is the introduction to so new an era, and so changed
   an order of circumstances in the European world, that it will
   be best to finish with all that lies behind it in our hasty
   survey before we take it up.

Outside of Europe, a new and strange power had now risen, and had spread its forces with extraordinary rapidity around the southern and eastern circuit of the Mediterranean, until it troubled both extremities of the northern shore. This was the power of Islam—the proselyting, war-waging religion of Mahomet, the Arabian prophet. At the death of Mahomet, in 632, he was lord of Arabia, and his armies had just crossed the border, to attack the Syrian possessions of the Eastern Roman Empire. In seven years from that time, the whole of Palestine and Syria had been overrun, Jerusalem, Damascus, Antioch, and all the strong cities taken, and Roman authority expelled. In two years more, they had dealt the last blow to the Sassanian monarchy in Persia and shattered it forever. At the same time they were besieging Alexandria and adding Egypt to their conquests. In 668, only thirty-six years after the death of the Prophet, they were at the gates of Constantinople, making the first of their many attempts to gain possession of the New Rome. In 698 they had taken Carthage, had occupied all North Africa to the Atlantic coast, had converted the Mauretanians, or Moors, and absorbed them into their body politic as well as into their communion. In 711 the commingled Arabs and Moors crossed the Straits and entered Spain, and the overthrow of the Christian kingdom of the Visigoths was practically accomplished in a single battle that same year. Within two years more, the Moors (as they came to be most commonly called) were in possession of the whole southern, central, and eastern parts of the Spanish peninsula, treating the inhabitants who had not fled with a more generous toleration than differing Christians were wont to offer to one another. The Spaniards (a mixed population of Roman, Suevic, Gothic, and aboriginal descent) who did, not submit, took refuge in the mountainous region of the Asturias and Galicia, where they maintained their independence, and, in due time, became aggressive, until, after eight centuries, they recovered their whole land.

At the East, as we have seen, the struggle of the Empire with the Arabs began at the first moment of their career of foreign conquest. They came upon it when it was weak from many wounds, and exhausted by conflict with many foes. Before the death of Justinian (565), the transient glories of his reign had been waning fast. His immediate successor saw the work of Belisarius and Narses undone, for the most part, and the Italian peninsula overrun by a new horde of barbarians, more rapacious and more savage than the Goths. At the same time, the Persian war broke out again, and drained the imperial resources to pay for victories that had no fruit. Two better and stronger emperors—Tiberius and Maurice—who came after him, only made an honorable struggle, without leaving the Empire in a better state. Then a brutal creature—Phocas—held the throne for eight years (602-610) and sunk it very low by his crimes. The hero, Heraclius, who was now raised to power, came too late. Assailed suddenly, at the very beginning of his reign, by a fierce Persian onset, he was powerless to resist. Syria, Egypt and Asia Minor were successively ravaged and conquered by the Persian arms. They came even to the Bosphorus, and for ten years they held its eastern shore and maintained a camp within sight of Constantinople itself; while the wild Tartar nation of the Avars raged, at the same time, through the northern and western provinces of the Empire, and threatened the capital on its landward sides. The Roman Empire was reduced, for a time, to "the walls of Constantinople, with the remnant of Greece, Italy, and Africa, and some maritime cities, from Tyre to Trebizond, of the Asiatic coast." But in 622 Heraclius turned the tide of disaster and rolled it back upon his enemies. Despite an alliance of the Persians with the Avars, and their combined assault upon Constantinople in 626, he repelled the latter, and wrested from the former, in a series of remarkable campaigns, all the territory they had seized. He had but just accomplished this great deliverance of his dominions, when the Arabs came upon him, as stated above. There was no strength left in the Empire to resist the terrible prowess of these warriors of the desert. They extinguished its authority in Syria and Egypt, as we have seen, in the first years of their career; but then turned their arms to the East and the West, and were slow in disputing Asia Minor with its Christian lords. "From the time of Heraclius the Byzantine theatre is contracted and darkened: the line of empire which had been defined by the laws of Justinian and the arms of Belisarius recedes on all sides from our view" (Gibbon). There was neither vigor nor virtue in the descendants of Heraclius; and when the last of them was destroyed by a popular rising against his vicious tyranny (711), revolution followed revolution so quickly that three reigns were begun and ended in six years.

Then came to the throne a man of strong character, who redeemed it at least from contempt; who introduced a dynasty which endured for a century, and whose reign is the beginning of a new era in the history of the Eastern Empire, so marked that the Empire has taken from that time, in the common usage, a changed name, and is known thenceforth as the Byzantine, rather than the Eastern or the Greek. This was Leo the Isaurian, who saved Constantinople from a second desperate Moslem siege; who checked for a considerable period the Mahometan advance in the East; who reorganized the imperial administration on lasting lines; and whose suppression of image-worship in the Christian churches of his empire led to a rupture with the Roman Church in the West,—to the breaking of all relations of dependence in Rome and Italy upon the Empire in the East, and to the creating of a new imperial sovereignty in Western Europe which claimed succession to that of Rome.

On the conquest of Italy by Belisarius and Narses, for Justinian, the eunuch Narses, as related before, was made governor, residing at Ravenna, and bearing the title of Exarch. In a few years he was displaced, through the influence of a palace intrigue at Constantinople. To be revenged, it is said that he persuaded the Lombards, a German tribe lately become threatening on the Upper Danube, to enter Italy. They came, under their leader Alboin, and almost the whole northern and middle parts of the peninsula submitted to them with no resistance. Pavia stood a siege for three years before it surrendered to become the Lombard capital; Venice received an added population of fugitives, and was safe in her lagoons—like Ravenna, where the new Exarch watched the march of Lombard conquest, and scarcely opposed it. Rome was preserved, with part of southern Italy and with Sicily; but no more than a shadow of the sovereignty of the Empire now stretched westward beyond the Adriatic.

The city of Rome, and the territory surrounding it, still owned a nominal allegiance to the Emperor at Constantinople; but their immediate and real ruler was the Bishop of Rome, who had already acquired, in a special way, the fatherly name of "Papa" or Pope. Many circumstances had combined to place both spiritual and temporal power in the hands of these Christian pontiffs of Rome. They may have been originally, in the constitution of the Church, on an equal footing of ecclesiastical authority with the four other chiefs of the hierarchy—the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem; but the great name of Rome gave them prestige and weight of superior influence to begin with. Then, they stood, geographically and sympathetically, in nearest relations with that massive Latin side of Christendom, in western Europe, which was never much disturbed by the raging dogmatic controversies that tore and divided the Church on its Eastern, Greek side. It was inevitable that the Western Church should yield homage to one head—to one bishopric above all other bishoprics; and it was more inevitable that the See of Rome should be that one. So the spiritual supremacy to which the Popes arrived is easily enough explained. The temporal authority which they acquired is accounted for as obviously. Even before the interruption of the line of emperors in the West, the removal of the imperial residence for long periods from Rome, to Constantinople, to Milan, to Ravenna, left the Pope the most impressive and influential personage in the ancient capital. Political functions were forced on him, whether he desired to exercise them or not. It was Pope Leo who headed the embassy to Attila, and saved the city from the Huns. It was the same Pope who pleaded for it with the Vandal king, Genseric. And still more and more, after the imperial voice which uttered occasional commands to his Roman subjects was heard from a distant palace in Constantinople, and in accents that had become wholly Greek, the chair of St. Peter grew throne-like,—the respect paid to the Pope in civil matters took on the spirit of obedience, and his aspect before the people became that of a temporal prince.

This process of the political elevation of the Papacy was completed by the Lombard conquest of Italy. The Lombard kings were bent upon the acquisition of Rome; the Popes were resolute and successful in holding it against them. At last the Papacy made its memorable and momentous alliance with the Carolingian chiefs of the Franks. It assumed the tremendous super-imperial right and power to dispose of crowns, by taking that of the kingdom of the Franks from Childeric and giving it to Pippin (751); and this was the first assumption of that right by the chief priest of Western Christendom. In return, Pippin led an army twice to Italy (754-755), humbled the Lombards, took from them the exarchate of Ravenna and the Pentapolis (a district east of the Appenines, between Ancona and Ferrara), and transferred this whole territory as a conqueror's "donation" to the Apostolic See. The temporal sovereignty of the Popes now rested on a base as political and as substantial as that of the most worldly and vulgar potentates around them.

Pippin's greater son, Charlemagne, renewed the alliance of his house with the Papacy, and strengthened it by completing the conquest of the Lombards, extinguishing their kingdom (774), and confirming his father's donation of the States of the Church. Charlemagne was now supreme in Italy, and the Pope became the representative of his sovereignty at Rome,—a position which lastingly enhanced the political importance of the Roman See in the peninsula. But while Pope and King stood related, in one view, as agent and principal, or subject and sovereign, another very different relationship slowly shaped itself in the thoughts of one, if not of both. The Western Church had broken entirely with the Eastern, on the question of image-worship; the titular sovereignty of the Eastern Emperor in the ancient Roman capital was a worn-out fiction; the reign of a female usurper, Irene, at Constantinople afforded a good occasion for renouncing and discarding it. But a Roman Emperor there must be, somewhere, for lesser princes and sovereigns to do homage to; the political habit and feeling of the European world, shaped and fixed by the long domination of Rome, still called for it. "Nor could the spiritual head of Christendom dispense with the temporal; without the Roman Empire there could not be," according to the feeling of the ninth century, "a Roman, nor by necessary consequence a Catholic and Apostolic Church." For "men could not separate in fact what was indissoluble in thought: Christianity must stand or fall along with the great Christian state: they were but two names for one and the same thing" (Bryce). Therefore the head of the Church, boldly enlarging the assumption of his predecessor who bestowed the crown of the Merovingians upon Pippin, now took it upon himself to set the diadem of the Cæsars on the head of Charlemagne. On the Christmas Day, in the year 800, in the basilica of St. Peter, at Rome, the solemn act of coronation was performed by Pope Leo III.; the Roman Empire lived again, in the estimation of that age, and Charles the Great reopened the interrupted line of successors to Augustus.

Before this imperial coronation of Charlemagne occurred, he had already made his dominion imperial in extent, by the magnitude of his conquests. North, south, east, and west, his armies had been everywhere victorious. In eighteen campaigns against the fierce and troublesome Saxons, he subdued those stubborn pagans and forced them to submit to a Christian baptism—with how much of immediate religious effect may be easily surmised. But by opening a way for the more Christ-like missionaries of the cross, who followed him, this missionary of the battle-ax did, no doubt, a very real apostolic work. He checked the ravages of the piratical Danes. He crushed the Avars and took their country, which comprised parts of the Austria and Hungary of the present day. He occupied Bavaria, on the one hand, and Brittany on the other. He crossed the Pyrenees to measure swords with the Saracens, and drove them from the north of Spain, as far as the Ebro. His lordship in Italy has been noticed already. He was unquestionably one of the greatest monarchs of any age, and deserves the title Magnus, affixed to his name, if that title ever has been deserved by the kings who were flattered with it. There was much more in his character than the mere aggressive energy which subjugated so wide a realm. He was a man of enlightenment far beyond his time; a man who strove after order, in that disorderly age, and who felt oppressed by the ignorance into which the world had sunk. He was a seeker after learning, and the friend and patron of all in his day who groped in the darkness and felt their way towards the light. He organized his Empire with a sense of political system which was new among the Teutonic masters of Western Europe (except as shown by Theodoric in Italy); but there were not years enough in his own life for the organism to mature, and his sons brought back chaos again.

Before Charlemagne died (814) he saw the western coasts and river valleys of his Empire harried by a fresh outpouring of sea-rovers from the far North, and it is said that he had sad forebodings of the affliction they would become to his people thereafter. These new pirates of the North Sea, who took up, after several centuries, the abandoned trade of their kinsmen, the Saxons (now retired from their wild courses and respectably settled on one side of the water, while subdued and kept in order on the other), were of the bold and rugged Scandinavian race, which inhabited the countries since known as Denmark, Sweden and Norway. They are more or less confused under the general name of Northmen, or Norsemen—men of the North; but that term appears to have been applied more especially to the freebooters from the Norwegian coast, as distinguished from the "Danes" of the lesser peninsula. It is convenient, in so general a sketch as this, to ignore the distinction, and to speak of the Northmen as inclusive, for that age, of the whole Scandinavian race.

Their visitations began to terrify the coasts of England, France and Germany, and the lower valleys of the rivers which they found it possible to ascend, some time in the later half of the eighth century. It is probable that their appearance on the sea at this time, and not before, was due to a revolution which united Norway under a single king and a stronger government, and which, by suppressing independence and disorder among the petty chiefs, drove many of them to their ships and sent them abroad, to lead a life of lawlessness more agreeable to their tastes. It is also probable that the northern countries had become populated beyond their resources, as seemed to have happened before, when the Goths swarmed out, and that the outlet by sea was necessarily and deliberately opened. Whatever the cause, these Norse adventurers, in fleets of long boats, issued with some suddenness from their "vics," or fiords (whence the name "viking"), and began an extraordinary career. For more than half a century their raids had no object but plunder, and what they took they carried home to enjoy. First to the Frisian coast, then to the Rhine—the Seine—the Loire,—they came again and again to pillage and destroy; crossing at the same time to the shores of their nearest kinsmen—but heeding no kinship in their savage and relentless forays along the English coasts—and around to Ireland and the Scottish islands, where their earliest lodgments were made.

About the middle of the ninth century they began to seize tracts of land in England and to settle themselves there in permanent homes. The Angles in the northern and eastern parts and the Saxons in the southern part of England had weakened themselves and one another by rivalry and war between their divided kingdoms. There had been for three centuries an unceasing struggle among them for supremacy. At the time of the coming of the Danes (who were prominent in the English invasion and gave their name to it), the West Saxon kings had won a decided ascendancy. The Danes, by degrees, stripped them of what they had gained. Northumberland, Mercia and East Anglia were occupied in succession, and Wessex itself was attacked. King Alfred, the great and admirable hero of early English history, who came to the throne in 871, spent the first eight years of his reign in a deadly struggle with the invaders. He was obliged in the end to concede to them the whole northeastern part of England, from the Thames to the Tyne, which was known thereafter as "the Danelaw"; but they became his vassals, and submitted to Christian baptism. A century later, the Norse rovers resumed their attacks upon England, and a cowardly English king, distrusting the now settled and peaceful Danes, ordered an extensive massacre of them (1002). The rage which this provoked in Denmark led to a great invasion of the country. England was completely conquered, and remained subject to the Danish kings until 1042, when its throne was recovered for a brief space of time by the English line.

Meanwhile the Northmen had gained a much firmer and more important footing in the territory of the Western Franks—which had not yet acquired the name of France. The Seine and its valley attracted them again and again, and after repeated expeditions up the river, even to the city of Paris, which they besieged several times, one of their chiefs, Rolf or Rollo, got possession of Rouen and began a permanent settlement in the country. The Frank King, Charles the Simple, now made terms with Rollo and granted him a district at the mouth of the Seine, (912), the latter acknowledging the suzerainty or feudal superiority of Charles, and accepting at the same time the doubly new character of a baptised Christian and a Frankish Duke. The Northmen on the Seine were known thenceforth as Normans, their dukedom as Normandy, and they played a great part in European history during the next two centuries.

The northern sea-rovers who had settled neither in Ireland, England, nor Frankland, went farther afield into the West and North and had wonderful adventures there. They took possession of the Orkneys, the Shetlands, the Hebrides, and other islands in those seas, including Man, and founded a powerful island-kingdom, which they held for a long period. Thence they passed on to Faroë and Iceland, and in Iceland, where they lived peaceful and quiet lives of necessity, they founded an interesting republic, and developed a very remarkable civilization, adorned by a literature which the world is learning more and more to admire. From Iceland, it was a natural step to the discovery of Greenland, and from Greenland, there is now little doubt that they sailed southwards and saw and touched the continent of America, five centuries before Columbus made his voyage.

While the Northmen of the ninth and tenth centuries were exciting and disturbing all Western Europe by their naval exploits, other adventurers from the Swedish side of the Scandinavian country were sallying eastwards under different names. Both as warriors and as merchants, they made their way from the Baltic to the Black Sea and the Bosphorus, and bands of them entered the service of the Eastern Emperor, at Constantinople, where they received the name of Varangians, from the oath by which they bound themselves. One of the Swedish chiefs, Rurik by name, was chosen by certain tribes of the country now called Russia, to be their prince. Rurik's capital was Novgorod, where he formed the nucleus of a kingdom which grew, through many vicissitudes, into the modern empire of Russia. His successors transferred their capital to Kief, and ultimately it was shifted again to Moscow, where the Muscovite princes acquired the title, the power, and the great dominion of the Czars of all the Russias.

The Russian sovereigns were thus of Swedish origin; but their subjects were of another race. They belonged to a branch of the great Aryan stock, called the Slavic or Slavonic, which was the last to become historically known. The Slavonians bore no important part in events that we have knowledge of until several centuries of the Christian era had passed. They were the obscure inhabitants in that period of a wide region in Eastern Europe, between the Vistula and the Caspian. In the sixth century, pressed by the Avars, they crossed the Vistula, moving westwards, along the Baltic; and, about the same time they moved southwards, across the Danube, and established the settlements which formed the existing Slavonic states in South-eastern Europe—Servia, Croatia and their lesser neighbors. But the principal seat of the Slavonic race within historic times has always been in the region still occupied by its principal representatives, the Russians and the Poles.

We have now come to a period in European history—the middle period of the Middle Ages—when it is appropriate to consider the peculiar state of society which had resulted from the transplanting of the Germanic nations of the North to the provinces of the Roman Empire, and from placing the well civilized surviving inhabitants of the latter in subjection to and in association with masters so vigorous, so capable and so barbarous. In Gaul, the conquerors, unused to town-life, not attracted to town pursuits, and eager for the possession of land, had generally spread themselves over the country and left the cities more undisturbed, except as they pillaged them or extorted ransom from them. The Roman-Gallic population of the country had sought refuge, no doubt, to a large extent, in the cities; the agricultural laborers were already, for the most part, slaves or half-slaves—the coloni of the Roman system—and remained in their servitude; while some of the poorer class of freemen may have sunk to the same condition.

How far the new masters of the country had taken possession of its land by actual seizure, ousting the former owners, and under what rules, if any, it was divided among them, are questions involved in great obscurity. In the time of Charlemagne, there seems to have been a large number of small landowners who cultivated their own holdings, which they owned, not conditionally, but absolutely, by the tenure called allodial. But alongside of these peasant proprietors there was another landed class whose estates were held on very different terms, and this latter class, at the time now spoken of, was rapidly absorbing the former. It was a class which had not existed before, neither among the Germans nor among the Romans, and the system of land tenure on which it rested was equally new to both, although both seem to have contributed something to the origin of it. This was the Feudal System, which may be described, in the words of Bishop Stubbs, as being "a complete organization of society through the medium of land tenure, in which, from the king down to the landowner, all are bound together by obligation of service and defence: the lord to protect his vassal, the vassal to do service to his lord; the defence and service being based on, and regulated by, the nature and extent of the land held by the one of the other." Of course, the service exacted was, in the main, military, and the system grew up as a military system, expanding into a general governing system, during a time of loose and ineffective administration. That it was a thing of gradual growth is now fairly well settled, although little is clearly known of the process of growth. It came to its perfection in the tenth century, by which time most other tenures of land had disappeared. The allodial tenure gave way before it, because, in those disorderly times, men of small or moderate property in land were in need of the protection which a powerful lord, who had many retainers at his back, or a strong monastery, could give, and were induced to surrender, to one or the other, their free ownership of the land they held, receiving it back as tenants, in order to establish the relation which secured a protector.

In its final organization, the feudal system, as stated before, embraced the whole society of the kingdom. Theoretically, the king was the pinnacle of the system. In the political view of the time—so far as a political view existed—he was the over-lord of the realm rather by reason of being its ultimate land-lord, than by being the center of authority and the guardian of law. The greater subordinate lordships of the kingdom—the dukedoms and counties—were held as huge estates, called fiefs, derived originally by grant from the king, subject to the obligation of military service, and to certain acts of homage, acknowledging the dependent relationship. The greater feudatories, or vassals, holding immediately from the king, were lords in their turn of a second order of feudatories, who held lands under them; and they again might divide their territories among vassals of a third degree; for the process of sub-infeudation went on until it reached the cultivator of the soil, who bore the whole social structure of society on his bent back.

But the feudal system would have wrought few of the effects which it did if it had involved nothing but land tenure and military service. It became, however, as before intimated, a system of government, and one which inevitably produced a disintegration of society and a destruction of national bonds. A grant of territory generally carried with it almost a grant of sovereignty over the inhabitants of the territory, limited only by certain rights and powers reserved to the king, which he found extreme difficulty in exercising. The system was one "in which every lord judged, taxed, and commanded the class next below him, in which abject slavery formed the lowest and irresponsible tyranny the highest grade, in which private war, private coinage, private prisons, took the place of the imperial institutions of government" (Stubbs). This was the singular system which had its original and special growth among the Franks, in the Middle Ages, and which spread from them, under the generally similar conditions of the age, to other countries, with various degrees of modification and limitation. Its influence was obviously opposed to political unity and social order, and to the development of institutions favorable to the people.

But an opposing influence had kept life in one part of society which feudalism was not able to envelope. That was in cities. The cities, as before stated, had been the refuge of a large and perhaps a better part of the Roman-Gallic free population which survived the barbarian conquest. They, in conjunction with the Church, preserved, without doubt, so much of the plant of Roman civilization as escaped destruction. They certainly suffered heavily, and languished for several centuries; but a slow revival of industries and arts went on in them,—trade crept again into its old channels, or found new ones,—and wealth began to be accumulated anew. With the consciousness of wealth came feelings of independence; and such towns were now beginning to acquire the spirit which made them, a little later, important instruments in the weakening and breaking of the feudal system.

During the period between the death of Charlemagne and the settlement of the Normans in the Carlovingian Empire, that Empire had become permanently divided. The final separation had taken place (887) between the kingdom of the East Franks, or Germany, and the kingdom of the West Franks, which presently became France. Between them stretched a region in dispute called Lotharingia, out of which came the duchy of Lorraine. The kingdom of Burgundy (sometimes cut into two) and the kingdom of Italy, had regained a separate existence; and the Empire which Charlemagne had revived was nothing but a name. The last of the Carlovingian emperors was Arnulf, who died in 899. The imperial title was borne afterwards by a number of petty Italian potentates, but lost all imperial significance for two-thirds of a century, until it was restored to some grandeur again and to a lasting influence in history, by another German king.

Before this occurred, the Carlovingian race of kings had disappeared from both the Frank kingdoms. During the last hundred years of their reign in the West kingdom, the throne had been disputed with them two or three times by members of a rising family, the Counts of Paris and Orleans, who were also called Dukes of the French, and whose duchy gave its name to the kingdom which they finally made their own. The kings of the old race held their capital at Laon, with little power and a small dominion, until 987, when the last one died. The then Count of Paris and Duke of the French, Hugh, called Capet, became king of the French, by election; Paris became the capital of the kingdom, and the France of modern times had its birth, though very far from its full growth.

The royal power had now declined to extreme weakness. The development of feudalism had undermined all central authority, and Hugh Capet as king had scarcely more power than he drew from his own large fief. "At first he was by no means acknowledged in the kingdom; but … the chief vassals ultimately gave at least a tacit consent to the usurpation, and permitted the royal name to descend undisputed upon his posterity. But this was almost the sole attribute of sovereignty which the first kings of the third dynasty enjoyed. For a long period before and after the accession of that family France has, properly speaking, no national history" (Hallam).

When the royal power began to gain ascendancy, it seems to have been largely in consequence of a tacitly formed alliance between the kings and the commons or burghers of the towns. The latter, as noted before, were acquiring a spirit of independence, born of increased prosperity, and were converting their guilds or trades unions into crude forms of municipal organization, as "communes" or commons. Sometimes by purchase and sometimes by force, they were ridding themselves of the feudal pretensions which neighboring lords held over them, and were obtaining charters which defined and guaranteed municipal freedom to them. One or two kings of the time happened to be wise enough to give encouragement to this movement towards the enfranchisement of the communes, and it proved to have an important influence in weakening feudalism and strengthening royalty.

In the German kingdom, much the same processes of disintegration had produced much the same results as in France. The great fiefs into which it was divided—the duchies of Saxony, Franconia, Swabia and Bavaria—were even more powerful than the great fiefs of France. When the Carlovingian dynasty came to an end, in 911, the nobles made choice of a king, electing Conrad of Franconia, and, after him (919), Henry the Fowler, Duke of Saxony. The monarchy continued thereafter to be elective, actually as well as in theory, for a long period. Three times the crown was kept in the same family during several successive generations: in the House of Saxony from 919 to 1024; in the House of Franconia from 1024 to 1137; in the House of the Hohenstaufens, of Swabia, from 1137 to 1254: but it never became an acknowledged heritage until long after the Hapsburgs won possession of it; and even to the end the forms of election were preserved.

The second king of the Saxon dynasty, Otho I., called the Great, recovered the imperial title, which had become extinct again in the West, added the crown of Lombardy to the crown of Germany, and founded anew the Germanic Roman Empire, which Charlemagne had failed to establish enduringly, but which now became one of the conspicuous facts of European history for more than eight hundred years, although seldom more than a shadow and a name. But the shadow and the name were those of the great Rome of antiquity, and the mighty memory it had left in the world gave a superior dignity and rank to these German emperors, even while it diminished their actual power as kings of Germany. It conferred upon them, indeed, more than rank and dignity; it bestowed an "office" which the ideas and feelings of that age could not suffer to remain vacant. The Imperial office seemed to be required, in matters temporal, to balance and to be the complement of the Papal office in matters spiritual. "In nature and compass the government of these two potentates is the same, differing only in the sphere of its working; and it matters not whether we call the Pope a spiritual Emperor, or the Emperor a secular Pope." "Thus the Holy Roman Church and the Holy Roman Empire are one and the same thing, in two aspects; and Catholicism, the principle of the universal Christian society, is also Romanism; that is, rests upon Rome as the origin and type of its universality" (Bryce). These mediæval ideas of the "Holy Roman Empire," as it came to be called (not immediately, but after a time), gave importance to the imperial coronation thenceforth claimed by the German kings. It was a factitious importance, so far as concerned the immediate realm of those kings. In Germany, while it brought no increase to their material power, it tended to alarm feudal jealousies; it tended to draw the kings away from their natural identification with their own country; it tended to distract them from an effective royal policy at home, by foreign ambitions and aims; and altogether it interfered seriously with the nationalization of Germany, and gave a longer play to the disrupting influences of feudalism in that country than in any other.

Otto I. had won Italy and the Imperial crown (962) very easily. For more than half a century the peninsula had been in a deplorable state. The elective Lombard crown, quarreled over by the ducal houses of Friuli, Spoleto, Ivrea, Provence, and others, settled nowhere with any sureness, and lost all dignity and strength, though several of the petty kings who wore it had been crowned emperors by the Pope. At Rome, all legitimate government, civil or ecclesiastical, had disappeared. The city and the Church had been for years under the rule of a family of courtesans, who made popes of their lovers and their sons. Southern Italy was being ravaged by the Saracens, who occupied Sicily, and Northern Italy was desolated by the Hungarians. Under these circumstances, Otto I., the German king, listened to an appeal from an oppressed queen, Adelaide, widow of a murdered king, and crossed, the Alps (951), like a gallant knight, to her relief. He chastised and humbled the oppressor, rescued the queen, and married her. A few years later, on further provocation, he entered Italy again, deposed the troublesome King Berengar, caused himself to be crowned King of Italy, and received the imperial crown at Rome (962) from one of the vilest of a vile brood of popes, John XII. Soon afterwards, he was impelled to convoke a synod which deposed this disgraceful pope and elected in his place Leo VIII., who had been Otto's chief secretary. The citizens now conceded to the Emperor an absolute veto on papal elections, and the new pope confirmed their act. The German sovereigns, from that time, for many years, asserted their right to control the filling of the chair of St. Peter, and exercised the right on many occasions, though always with difficulty.

Nominally they were sovereigns of Rome and Italy; but during their long absences from the country they scarcely made a show of administrative government in it, and their visits were generally of the nature of expeditions for a reconquest of the land. Their claims of sovereignty were resisted more and more, politically throughout Italy and ecclesiastically at Rome. The Papacy emancipated itself from their control and acquired a natural leadership of Italian opposition to German imperial pretensions. The conflict between these two forces became, as will be seen later on, one of the dominating facts of European history for four centuries—from the eleventh to the fourteenth.

The disorder that had been scarcely checked in Italy since the Goths came into it,—the practical extinction of central authority after Charlemagne dropped his sceptre, and the increasing conflicts of the nobles among themselves,—had one consequence of remarkable importance in Italian history. It opened opportunities to many cities in the northern parts of the peninsula for acquiring municipal freedom, which they did not lack spirit to improve. They led the movement and set the example which created, a little later, so many vigorous communes in Flanders and France, and imperial free cities in Germany at a still later day. They were earlier in winning their liberties, and they pushed them farther,—to the point in many cases of creating, as at Pisa, Genoa, Florence, and Venice, a republican city state. Venice, growing up in the security of her lagoons, from a cluster of fishing villages to a great city of palaces, had been independent from the beginning, except as she acknowledged for a time the nominal supremacy of the Eastern Emperor. Others won their way to independence through struggles that are now obscure, and developed, before these dark centuries reached their close, an energy of life and a splendor of genius that come near to comparison with the power and the genius of the Greeks. But, like the city-republics of Greece, they were perpetually at strife with one another, and sacrificed to their mutual jealousies, in the end, the precious liberty which made them great, and which they might, by a well settled union, have preserved.

Such were the conditions existing or taking shape in Italy when the Empire of the West—the Holy Roman Empire of later times—was founded anew by Otho the Great. Territorially, the Empire as he left it covered Germany to its full extent, and two-thirds of Italy, with the Emperor's superiority acknowledged by the subject states of Burgundy, Bohemia, Moravia, Poland, Denmark, and Hungary—the last named with more dispute.

Otho the Great died in 972. His two immediate successors, Otho II. (973-983) and Otho III. (983-1002) accomplished little, though the latter had great ambitions, planning to raise Rome to her old place as the capital of the world; but he died in his youth in Italy, and was succeeded by a cousin, Henry II., whose election was contested by rivals in Germany, and repudiated in Italy. In the latter country the great nobles placed Ardoin, marquis of Ivrea, on the Lombard throne; but the factions among them soon caused his overthrow, and, Henry, crossing the Alps, reclaimed the crown.

Henry II. was the last of the Saxon line, and upon his death, in 1024, the House of Franconia came to the throne, by the election of Conrad II., called "the Salic." Under Conrad, the kingdom of Burgundy, afterwards called the kingdom of Arles (which is to be distinguished from the French Duchy of Burgundy—the northwestern part of the old kingdom), was reunited to the Empire, by the bequest of its last king, Rudolph III. Conrad's son, grandson, and great grandson succeeded him in due order; Henry III. from 1039 to 1056; Henry IV. from 1056 to 1106; Henry V. from 1106 to 1125. Under Henry III. the Empire was at the summit of its power. Henry II., exercising the imperial prerogative, had raised the Duke of Hungary to royal rank, giving him the title of king. Henry III. now forced the Hungarian king to acknowledge the imperial supremacy and pay tribute. The German kingdom was ruled with a strong hand and peace among its members compelled. "In Rome, no German sovereign had ever been so absolute. A disgraceful contest between three claimants of the papal chair had shocked even the reckless apathy of Italy. Henry deposed them all and appointed their successor." "The synod passed a decree granting to Henry the right of nominating the supreme pontiff; and the Roman priesthood, who had forfeited the respect of the world even more by habitual simony than by the flagrant corruption of their manners, were forced to receive German after German as their bishop, at the bidding of a ruler so powerful, so severe, and so pious. But Henry's encroachments alarmed his own nobles no less than the Italians, and the reaction, which might have been dangerous to himself, was fatal to his successor. A mere chance, as some might call it, determined the course of history. The great Emperor died suddenly in A. D. 1056, and a child was left at the helm, while storms were gathering that might have demanded the wisest hand" (Bryce).

The child was Henry IV., of unfortunate memory; the storms which beset him blew from Rome. The Papacy, lifted from its degradation by Henry's father and grandfather, had recovered its boldness of tone and enlarged its pretensions and claims. It had come under the influence of an extraordinary man, the monk Hildebrand, who swayed the councils of four popes before he became pope himself (1073), and whose pontifical reign as Gregory VII. is the epoch of greatest importance in the history of the Roman Church. The overmastering ascendancy of the popes, in the Church and over all who acknowledge its communion, really began when this invincible monk was raised to the papal throne. He broke the priesthood and the whole hierarchy of the West to blind obedience by his relentless discipline. He isolated them, as an order apart, by enforcing celibacy upon them; and he extinguished the corrupting practices of simony. Then, when he had marshalled the forces of the Church, he proclaimed its independence and its supremacy in absolute terms. In the growth of feudalism throughout Europe, the Church had become compromised in many ways with the civil powers. Its bishoprics and abbeys had acquired extensively the nature of fiefs, and bishops and abbots were required to do homage to a secular lord before they could receive an "investiture" of the rich estates which had become attached by a feudal tenure to their sees. The ceremony of investiture, moreover, included delivery of the crozier and the pastoral ring, which were the very symbols of their spiritual office. Against this dependence of the Church upon temporal powers, Gregory now arrayed it in revolt, and began the "War of Investitures," which lasted for half a century. The great battle ground was Germany; the Emperor, of necessity, was the chief opponent; and Henry IV., whose youth had been badly trained, and whose authority had been weakened by a long, ill-guardianed minority, was at a disadvantage in the contest. His humiliation at Canossa (1077), when he stood through three winter days, a suppliant before the door of the castle which lodged his haughty enemy, praying to be released from the dread penalties of excommunication, is one of the familiar tableaux of history. He had a poor revenge seven years later, when he took Rome, drove Gregory into the castle St. Angelo, and seated an anti-pope in the Vatican. But his triumph was brief. There came to the rescue of the beleaguered Pope certain new actors in Italian history, whom it is now necessary to introduce.

The settlement of predatory Northmen on the Seine, which took the name of Normandy and the constitution of a ducal fief of France, had long since grown into an important half-independent state. Its people—now called Normans in the smoother speech of the South—had lost something of their early rudeness, and had fallen a little under the spell of the rising chivalry of the age; but the goad of a warlike temper which drove their fathers out of Norway still pricked the sons and sent them abroad, in restless search of adventures and gain. Some found their way into the south of Italy, where Greeks, Lombards and Saracens were fighting merrily, and where a good sword and a tough lance were tools of the only industry well-paid. Presently there was banded among them there a little army, which found itself a match for any force that Greek or Lombard, or other opponent, could bring against it, and which proceeded accordingly to work its own will in the land. It seized Apulia (1042) and divided it into twelve countships, as an aristocratic republic. Pope Leo IX. led an army against it and was beaten and taken prisoner (1053). To release himself he was compelled to grant the duchy they had taken to them, as a fief of the Church, and to extend his grant to whatever they might succeed in taking, beyond it. The chiefs of the Normans thus far had been, in succession, three sons of a poor gentleman in the Cotentin, Tancred by name, who now sent a fourth son to the scene. This new comer was Robert, having the surname of Guiscard, who became the fourth leader of the Norman troop (1057), and who, in a few years, assumed the title of Duke of Calabria and Apulia. His duchies comprised, substantially, the territory of the later kingdom of Naples. A fifth brother, Roger, had meantime crossed to Sicily, with a small following of his countrymen; and, between 1060 and 1090, had expelled the Saracens from that island, and possessed it as a fief of his brother's duchy. But in the next generation these relations between the two conquests were practically reversed. The son of Roger received the title of King of Sicily from the Pope, and Calabria and Apulia were annexed to his kingdom, through the extinction of Robert's family.

These Normans of Southern Italy were the allies who came to the rescue of Pope Gregory, when the Emperor, Henry IV., besieged him in Castle St. Angelo. He summoned Robert Guiscard as a vassal of the Church, and the response was prompt. Henry and his Germans retreated when the Normans came near, and the latter entered Rome (1084). Accustomed to pillage, they began, soon, to treat the city as a captured place, and the Romans rose against them. They retaliated with torch and sword, and once more Rome suffered from the destroying rage of a barbarous soldiery let loose. "Neither Goth nor Vandal, neither Greek nor German, brought such desolation on the city as this capture by the Normans" (Milman). Duke Robert made no attempt to hold the ruined capital, but withdrew to his own dominions. The Pope went with him, and died soon afterwards (1085), unable to return to Rome. But the imperious temper he had imparted to the Church was lastingly fixed in it, and his lofty pretensions were even surpassed by the pontiffs who succeeded him. He spoke for the Papacy the first syllables of that awful proclamation that was sounded in its finality, after eight hundred years, when the dogma of infallibility was put forth.

The Normans in Italy established no durable power. In another quarter they were more fortunate. Their kinsmen, the Danes, who subjugated England and annexed it to their own kingdom in 1016, had lost it again in 1042, when the old line of kings was restored, in the person of Edward, called the Confessor. But William, Duke of Normandy, had acquired, in the course of these shiftings of the English crown, certain claims which he put forth when Edward died, and when Harold, son of the great Earl Godwine, was elected king to succeed him, in 1066. To enforce his claim, Duke William, commissioned by the Pope, invaded England, in the early autumn of that year, and won the kingdom in the great and decisive battle of Senlac, or Hastings, where Harold was slain. On Christmas Day he was crowned, and a few years sufficed to end all resistance to his authority. He established on the English throne a dynasty which, though shifting sometimes to collateral lines, has held it to the present day.

The Norman Conquest, as estimated by its greatest historian, Professor Freeman, wrought more good effects than ill to the English people. It did not sweep away their laws, customs or language, but it modified them all, and not unfavorably; while "it aroused the old national spirit to fresh life, and gave the conquered people fellow-workers in their conquerors." The monarchy was strengthened by William's advantages as a conqueror, used with the wisdom and moderation of a statesman. Feudalism came into England stripped of its disrupting forces; and the possible alternative of absolutism was hindered by potent checks. At the same time, the Conquest brought England into relations with the Continent which might otherwise have arisen very slowly, and thus gave an early importance to the nation in European history.

   At the period now reached in our survey, all Europe was on the
   eve of a profounder excitement and commotion than it had ever
   before known—one which stirred it for the first time with a
   common feeling and with common thoughts. A great cry ran
   through it, for help to deliver the holy places of the
   Christian faith from the infidels who possessed them. The
   pious and the adventurous, the fanatical and the vagrant, rose
   up in one motley and tumultuous response to the appeal, and
   mobs and armies (hardly distinguishable) of Crusaders—
   warriors of the Cross—began to whiten the highways into Asia
   with their bones. The first movement, in 1096, swept 300,000
   men, women and children, under Peter the Hermit, to their
   death, with no other result; but nearly at the same time there
   went an army, French and Norman for the most part, which made its
   way to Jerusalem, took the city by assault (1099) and founded
   a kingdom there, which defended itself for almost a hundred
   years. Long before it fell, it was pressed sorely by the
   surrounding Moslems and cried to Europe for help.
{1024}
   A Second Crusade, in 1147, accomplished nothing for its
   relief, but spent vast multitudes of lives; and when the
   feeble kingdom disappeared, in 1187, and the Sepulchre of the
   Saviour was defiled again by unbelievers, Christendom grew
   wild, once more, with passion, and a Third Crusade was led by
   the redoubtable Emperor Frederick Barbarossa, of Germany, King
   Richard Cœur de Lion, of England, and King Philip Augustus of
   France. The Emperor perished miserably on the way and his army
   was wasted in its march; the French and English exhausted
   themselves in sieges which won nothing of durable advantage to
   the Christian world; the Sultan Saladin gathered most of the
   laurels of the war.

The armies of Islam which the Crusaders encountered in Asia Minor and the Holy Land were no longer, in their leadership, of the race of Mahomet. The religion of the Prophet was still triumphant in the East, but his nation had lost its lordship, and Western Asia had submitted to new masters. These were the Turks—Turks of the House of Seljuk—first comers of their swarm from the great Aral basin. First they had been disciples, won by the early armed missionaries of the Crescent; then servants and mercenaries, hired to fight its battles and guard its princes, when the vigor of the Arab conquerors began to be sapped, and their character to be corrupted by luxury and pride; then, at last, they were masters. About the middle of the ninth century, the Caliph at Bagdad became a puppet in their hands, and the Moslem Empire in Asia (Africa and Spain being divided between rival Caliphs) soon passed under their control.

These were the possessors of Jerusalem and its sacred shrines, whose grievous and insulting treatment of Christian pilgrims, in the last years of the eleventh century, had stirred Europe to wrath and provoked the great movement of the Crusades. The movement had important consequences, both immediate and remote; but its first effects were small in moment compared with those which lagged after. To understand either, it will be necessary to glance back at the later course of events in the Eastern or Byzantine Empire.

The fortunes of the Empire, since it gave up Syria and Egypt to the Saracens, had been, on the whole, less unhappy than the dark prospect at that time. It had checked the onrush of Arabs at the Taurus mountain range, and retained Asia Minor; it had held Constantinople against them through two terrible sieges; it had fought for three centuries, and finally subdued, a new Turanian enemy, the Bulgarians, who had established a kingdom south of the Danube, where their name remains to the present day. The history of its court, during much of the period, had been a black and disgusting record of conspiracies, treacheries, murders, mutilations, usurpations and foul vices of every description; with now and then a manly figure climbing to the throne and doing heroic things, for the most part uselessly; but the system of governmental administration seems to have been so well constructed that it worked with a certain independence of its vile or imbecile heads, and the country was probably better and better governed than its court.

At Constantinople, notwithstanding frequent tumults and revolutions, there had been material prosperity and a great gathering of wealth. The Saracen conquests, by closing other avenues of trade between the East and the West, had concentrated that most profitable commerce in the Byzantine capital. The rising commercial cities of Italy—Amalphi, Venice, Genoa, Pisa—seated their enterprises there. Art and literature, which had decayed, began then to revive, and Byzantine culture, on its surface, took more of superiority to that of Teutonic Europe.

The conquests of the Seljuk Turks gave a serious check to this improvement of the circumstances of the Empire. Momentarily, by dividing the Moslem power in Asia, they had opened an opportunity to an energetic Emperor, Nicephorus Phocas, to recover northern Syria and Cilicia (961-969). But when, in the next century, they had won a complete mastery of the dominions of the Caliphate of Bagdad, they speedily swept back the Byzantines, and overran and occupied the most of Asia Minor and Armenia. A decisive victory at Manzikert, in 1071, when the emperor of the moment was taken prisoner and his army annihilated, gave them well nigh the whole territory to the Hellespont. The Empire was nearly reduced to its European domain, and suffered ten years of civil war between rivals for the throne.

At the end of that time it acquired a ruler, in the person of Alexius Comnenus, who is the generally best known of all the Byzantine line, because he figures notably in the stories of the First Crusade. He was a man of crafty abilities and complete unscrupulousness. He took the Empire at its lowest state of abasement and demoralization. In the first year of his reign he had to face a new enemy. Robert Guiscard, the Norman, who had conquered a dukedom in Southern Italy, thought the situation favorable for an attack on the Eastern Empire, and for winning the imperial crown. Twice he invaded the Greek peninsula (1081-1084) and defeated the forces brought against him by Alexius; but troubles in Italy recalled him on the first occasion, and his death brought the second expedition to naught.

Such was the situation of the Byzantines when the waves of the First Crusade, rolling Asia-ward, surged up to the gates of Constantinople. It was a visitation that might well appall them,—these hosts of knights and vagabonds, fanatics and freebooters, who claimed and proffered help in a common Christian war with the infidels, and who, nevertheless, had no Christian communion with them—schismatics as they were, outside the fold of the Roman shepherd. There is not a doubt that they feared the crusading Franks more than they feared the Turks. They knew them less, and the little hearsay knowledge they had was of a lawless, barbarous, fighting feudalism in the countries of the West,—more rough and uncouth, at least, than their own defter methods of murdering and mutilating one another. They received their dangerous visitors with nervousness and suspicion; but Alexius Comnenus proved equal to the delicate position in which he found himself placed. He burdened his soul with lies and perfidies; but he managed affairs so wonderfully that the Empire plucked the best fruits of the first Crusades, by recovering a great part of Asia Minor, with all the coasts of the Euxine and the Ægean, from the weakened Turks. The latter were so far shaken and depressed by the hard blows of the Crusaders that they troubled the Byzantines very little in the century to come.

But against this immediate gain to the Eastern Empire from the early Crusades, there were serious later offsets. The commerce of Constantinople declined rapidly, as soon as the Moslem blockade of the Syrian coast line was broken. It lost its monopoly. Trade ran back again into other reopened channels. The Venetians and Genoese became more independent. Formerly, they had received privileges in the Empire as a gracious concession. Now they dictated the terms of their commercial treaties and their naval alliances. Their rivalries with one another involved the Empire in quarrels with both, and a state of things was brought about which had much to do with the catastrophe of 1204, when the fourth Crusade was diverted to the conquest of Constantinople, and a Latin Empire supplanted the Empire of the Roman-Greeks.

Briefly noted, these were the consequences of the early Crusades in the East. In western Europe they had slower, but deeper and more lasting effects. They weakened feudalism, by sending abroad so many of the feudal lords, and by impoverishing so many more; whereby the towns gained more opportunity for enfranchisement, and the crown, in France particularly, acquired more power. They checked smaller wars and private quarrels for a time, and gave in many countries unwonted seasons of peace, during which the thoughts and feelings of men were acted on by more civilizing influences. They brought men into fellowship who were only accustomed to fight one another, and thus softened their provincial and national antipathies. They expanded the knowledge—the experience—the ideas—of the whole body of those who visited the East and who survived the adventurous expedition; made them acquainted with civilizations at least more polished than their own; taught them many things which they could only learn in those days by actual sight, and sent them back to their homes throughout Europe, to be instructors and missionaries, who did much to prepare Western Christendom for the Renaissance or new birth of a later time. The twelfth century—the century of the great Crusades—saw the gray day-break in Europe after the long night of darkness which settled down upon it in the fifth. In the thirteenth it reached the brightening dawn, and in the fifteenth it stood in the full morning of the modern day. Among all the movements by which it was pushed out of darkness into light, that of the Crusades would appear to have been the most important; important in itself, as a social and political movement of great change, and important in the seeds that it scattered for a future harvest of effects.

In both the Byzantine and Arabian civilizations of the East there was much for western Europe to learn. Perhaps there was more in the last named than in the first; for the Arabs, when they came out from behind their deserts, and exchanged the nomadic life for the life of cities, had shown an amazing avidity for the lingering science of old Greece, which they encountered in Egypt and Syria. They had preserved far more of it, and more of the old fineness of feeling that went with it, than had survived in Greece itself, or in any part of the Teutonized empire of Rome. The Crusaders got glimpses of its influence, at least, and a curiosity was wakened, which sent students into Moorish Spain, and opened scholarly interchanges which greatly advanced learning in Europe.

Not the least important effect of the Crusades was the atmosphere of religion which they caused to envelope the great affairs of the time, and which they made common in politics and society. The influence of the Church was increased by this; and its organization was powerfully strengthened by the great monastic revival that followed presently: the rise of purer and more strictly disciplined orders of the "regular" (that is the secluded or monastic) clergy—Cistercians, Benedictines, Franciscans, Dominicans, etc.; as well as the creation of the great military-religious orders—Knights Templars, Knights of the Hospital of St. John, Teutonic Knights, and others, which were immediately connected with the Crusades.

To say that the Church gained influence is to say that the clergy gained it, and that the chief of the clergy, the Pope, concentrated the gain in himself. The whole clerical body was making encroachments in every field of politics upon the domain of the civil authority, using shrewdly the advantages of superior learning, and busying itself more and more in temporal affairs. The popes after Gregory VII. maintained his high pretensions and pursued his audacious course. In most countries they encountered resistance from the Crown; but the brunt of the conflict still fell upon the emperors, who, in some respects, were the most poorly armed for it.

Henry IV., who outlived his struggle with Gregory, was beaten down at last—dethroned by a graceless son, excommunicated by a relentless Church and denied burial when he died (1106) by its clergy. The rebellious son, Henry V., in his turn fought the same battle over for ten years, and forced a compromise which saved about half the rights of investiture that his father had claimed. His death (1125) ended the Franconian line, and the imperial crown returned for a few years to the House of Saxony, by the election of the Duke Lothaire. But the estates of the Franconian family had passed, by his mother, to Frederick of Hohenstaufen, duke of Swabia; and now a bitter feud arose between the House of Saxony and the House of Hohenstaufen or Swabia,—a feud that was the most memorable and, the longest lasting in history, if measured by the duration of party strifes which began in it and which took their names from it. For the raging factions of Guelfs and Ghibellines which divided Italy for two centuries had their beginning in this Swabian-Saxon feud, among the Germans. The Guelfs were the partisans of the House of Saxony; the Ghibellines were the party of the Hohenstaufens. The Hohenstaufens triumphed when Lothaire died (1138), and made Conrad of their House Emperor. They held the crown, moreover, in their family for four generations, extending through more than a century; and so it happened that the German name of the German party of the Hohenstaufens came to be identified in Italy with the party or faction in that country which supported imperial interests and claims in the free cities and against the popes. Whereupon the opposed party name was borrowed from Germany likewise and applied to the Italian faction which took ground against the Emperors—although these Italian Guelfs had no objects in common with the partisans of Saxony.

The first Hohenstaufen emperor was succeeded (1152) by his nephew Frederick I., called Barbarossa, because of his red beard. The long reign of Frederick, until 1190, was mainly filled with wars and contentions in Italy, where he pushed the old quarrel of the Empire with the Papacy, and where, furthermore, he resolutely undertook to check the growing independence of the Lombard cities. Five times during his reign he led a great army into the peninsula, like a hostile invader, and his destroying marches through the country, of which he claimed to be sovereign, were like those of the barbarians who came out of the North seven centuries before. The more powerful cities, like Milan, were undoubtedly oppressing their weaker neighbors, and Barbarossa assumed to be the champion of the latter. But he smote impartially the weak and the strong, the village and the town, which provoked his arrogant temper in the slightest degree. Milan escaped his wrath on the first visitation, but went down before it when he came again (1158), and was totally destroyed, the inhabitants being scattered in other towns. Even the enemies of Milan were moved to compassion by the savageness of this punishment, and joined, a few years later, in rebuilding the prostrate walls and founding Milan anew. A great "League of Lombardy" was formed by all the northern towns, to defend their freedom against the hated Emperor, and the party of the Ghibellines was reduced for the time to a feeble minority. Meantime Barbarossa had forced his way into Rome, stormed the very Church of St. Peter, and seated an anti-pope on the throne. But a sudden pestilence fell upon his army, and he fled before it, out of Italy, almost alone. Yet he never relaxed his determination to bend both the Papacy and the Lombard republics to his will. After seven years he returned, for the fifth time, and it proved to be the last. The League met him at Legnano (1176) and administered to him an overwhelming defeat. Even his obstinacy was then overcome, and after a truce of six years he made peace with the League and the Pope, on terms which conceded most of the liberties that the cities claimed. It was in the reign of Frederick that the name "Holy Roman Empire" began, it seems, to be used.

Frederick died while on a crusade and was succeeded (1190) by his son, Henry VI., who had married the daughter and heiress of the King of Sicily and who acquired that kingdom in her right. His short reign was occupied mostly in subduing the Sicilian possession. When he died (1197) his son Frederick was a child. Frederick succeeded to the crown of Sicily, but his rights in Germany (where his father had already caused him to be crowned "King of the Romans"—the step preliminary to an imperial election) were entirely ignored. The German crown was disputed between a Swabian and a Saxon claimant, and the Saxon, Otho, was King and Emperor in name, until 1218, when he died. But he, too, quarreled with a pope, about the lands of the Countess Matilda, which she gave to the Church; and his quarrel was with Innocent III., a pope who realized the autocracy which Hildebrand had looked forward to, and who lifted the Papacy to the greatest height of power it ever attained. To cast down Otho, Innocent took up the cause of Frederick, who received the royal crown a second time, at Aix-la-Chapelle (1215) and the imperial crown at Rome (1220). Frederick II. (his designation) was one of the few men of actual genius who have ever sprung from the sovereign families of the world; a man so far in advance of his time that he appears like a modern among his mediæval contemporaries. He was superior to the superstitions of his age,—superior to its bigotries and its provincialisms. His large sympathies and cosmopolitan frame of mind were acted upon by all the new impulses of the epoch of the crusades, and made him reflect, in his brilliant character, as in a mirror, the civilizing processes that were working on his generation.

Between such an emperor as Frederick II. and such popes as Innocent III. and his immediate successors, there could not fail to be collision and strife. The man who might, perhaps, under other circumstances, have given some quicker movement to the hands which measure human, progress on the dial of time, spent his life in barely proving his ability to live and reign under the anathemas and proscriptions of the Church. But he fought a losing fight, even when he seemed to be winning victories in northern Italy, over the Guelf cities of Lombardy, and when the party of the Ghibellines appeared to be ascendant throughout the peninsula. His death (1250) was the end of the Hohenstaufens as an imperial family. His son, Conrad, who survived him four years, was king of Sicily and had been crowned king of Germany; but he never wore the crown imperial. Conrad's illegitimate brother, Manfred, succeeded on the Sicilian throne; but the implacable Papacy gave his kingdom to Charles of Anjou, brother of King Louis IX. of France, and invited a crusade for the conquest of it. Manfred was slain in battle, Conrad's young son, Conradin, perished on the scaffold, and the Hohenstaufens disappeared from history. Their rights, or claims, in Sicily and Naples, passed to the Spanish House of Aragon, by the marriage of Manfred's daughter to the Aragonese king; whence long strife between the House of Anjou and the House of Aragon, and a troubled history for the Neapolitans and the Sicilians during some centuries. In the end, Anjou kept Naples, while Aragon won Sicily; the kings in both lines called themselves Kings of Sicily, and a subsequent re-union of the two crowns created a very queerly named "Kingdom of the Two Sicilies."

After the death of Frederick II., the German kings, while maintaining the imperial title, practically abandoned their serious attempts to enforce an actual sovereignty in Italy. The Holy Roman Empire, as a political factor comprehending more than Germany, now ceased in reality to exist. The name lived on, but only to represent a flattering fiction for magnifying the rank and importance of the German kings. In Italy, the conflict, as between Papacy and Empire, or between Lombard republican cities and Empire, was at an end. No further occasion existed for an imperial party, or an anti-imperial party. The Guelf and Ghibelline names and divisions had no more the little meaning that first belonged to them. But Guelfs and Ghibellines raged against one another, more furiously than before, and generations passed before their feud died out.

While the long, profitless Italian conflict of the Emperors went on, their kingship in Germany suffered sorely. As they grasped at a shadowy imperial title, the substance of royal authority slipped from them. Their frequent prolonged absence in Italy gave opportunities for enlarged independence to the German princes and feudal lords; their difficulties beyond the Alps forced them to buy support from their vassals at home by fatal concessions and grants; their neglect of German affairs weakened the ties of loyalty, and provoked revolts. The result might have been a dissolution of Germany so complete as to give rise to two or three strong states, if another potent influence had not worked injury in a different way. This came from the custom of equalized inheritance which prevailed among the Germans. The law of primogeniture, which already governed hereditary transmissions of territorial sovereignty in many countries, even where it did not give an undivided private estate, as in England, to the eldest son of a family, got footing in Germany very late and very slowly. At the time now described, it was the quite common practice to divide principalities between all the sons surviving a deceased duke or margrave. It was this practice which gave rise to the astonishing number of petty states into which Germany came to be divided, and the forms of which are still intact. It was this, in the main, which prevented the growth of any states to a power that would absorb the rest. On the other hand, the flimsy, half fictitious general constitution which the Empire substituted for such an one as the Kingdom of Germany would naturally have grown into, made an effective centralization of sovereignty—easy as the conditions seemed to be prepared for it—quite impossible.

One happy consequence of this state of things was the enfranchisement, either wholly or nearly so, of many thriving cities. The growth of cities, as centers of industry and commerce, and the development of municipal freedom among them, was considerably later in Germany than in Italy, France and the Netherlands; but the independence gained by some among them was more entire than in the Low Countries or in France, and more lasting than in Italy.

Most of the free cities of Germany were directly or immediately subject to the Emperor, and wholly independent of the princes whose territories surrounded them; whence they were called "imperial cities." This relationship bound them to the Empire by strong ties; they had less to fear from it than from the nearer small potentates of their country; and it probably drew a considerable part of such strength as it possessed, in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, from their support. Their own power was being augmented at this period by the formation of extensive Leagues among them, for common defense, and for the protection, regulation and extension of their trade. In that age of lawless violence, there was so little force in government, everywhere, and so entire a want of co-operation between governments, that the operations of trade were exposed to piracy, robbery, and black-mail, on every sea and in every land. By the organization of their Leagues, the energetic merchants of north-western Europe did for themselves what their half-civilized governments failed to do for them. They not only created effective agencies for the protection of their trade, but they legislated, nationally and internationally, for themselves, establishing codes and regulations, negotiating commercial treaties, making war, and exercising many functions and powers that seem strange to modern times. The great Hansa, or Hanseatic League, which rose to importance in the thirteenth century among the cities in the north of Germany, was the most extensive, the longest lasting and the most formidable of these confederations. It controlled the trade between Germany, England, Russia, the Scandinavian countries, and the Netherlands, and through the latter it made exchanges with southern Europe and the East. It waged successful war with Denmark, Sweden and Norway combined, in defiance of the opposition of the Emperor and the Pope. But the growth of its power engendered an arrogance which provoked enmity in all countries, while the slow crystalizing of nationalities in Europe, with national sentiments and ambitions, worked in all directions against the commercial monopoly of the Hansa towns. By the end of the fifteenth century their league had begun to break up and its power to decline. The lesser associations of similar character—such as the Rhenish and the Swabian—had been shorter-lived.

These city-confederations represented in their time the only movement of concentration that appeared in Germany. Every other activity seemed tending toward dissolution. Headship there was none for a quarter of a century after Frederick II. died. The election of the Kings, who took rank and title as Emperors when crowned by the Pope, had now become the exclusive privilege of three prince-bishops and four temporal princes, who acquired the title of Electors. Jealous of one another, and of all the greater lords outside their electoral college, it was against their policy to confer the scepter on any man who seemed likely to wield it with a strong hand. For twenty years—a period in German history known as the Great Interregnum—they kept the throne practically vacant. Part of the Electors were bribed to choose Richard, Earl of Cornwall, brother of the English King Henry III., and the other part gave their votes to Alfonso, King of Castile. Alfonso never came to be crowned, either as King or Emperor; Richard was crowned King, but exercised no power and lived mostly in his own country. The Empire was virtually extinct; the Kingdom hardly less so. Burgundy fell away from the imperial jurisdiction even more than Italy did. Considerable parts of it passed to France.

At last, in 1273, the interregnum was ended by the election of a German noble to be King of Germany. This was Rodolph, Count of Hapsburg,—lord of a small domain and of little importance from his own possessions, which explains, without doubt, his selection. But Rodolph proved to be a vigorous king, and he founded a family of such lasting stamina and such self-seeking capability that it secured in time permanent possession of the German crown, and acquired, outside of Germany, a great dominion of its own. He began the aggrandizement of his House by taking the fine duchy of Austria from the kingdom of Bohemia and bestowing it upon his sons. He was energetic in improving opportunities like this, and energetic, too, in destroying the castles of robber-knights and hanging the robbers on their own battlements; but of substantial authority or power he had little enough. He never went to Rome for the imperial crown; nor troubled himself much with Italian affairs.

On Rodolph's death (1291), his son Albert of Austria was a candidate for the crown. The Electors rejected him and ejected another poor noble, Adolphus of Nassau; but Adolphus displeased them after a few years, and they decreed his deposition, electing Albert in his place. War followed and Adolphus was killed. Albert's reign was one of vigor, but he accomplished little of permanent effect. He planted one of his sons on the throne of Bohemia, where the reigning family had become extinct; but the new king died in a few months, much hated, and the Bohemians resisted an Austrian successor. In 1308, Albert was assassinated, and the electors raised Count Henry of Luxemburg to the throne, as Henry VII. Henry VII. was the first king of Germany since the Hohenstaufens who went to Italy (1310) for the crown of Lombardy and the crown of the Cæsars, both of which he received. The Ghibelline party was still strong among the Italians. In the distracted state of that country there were many patriots—the poet Dante prominent among them—who hoped great things from the reappearance of an emperor; but the enthusiastic welcome he received was mainly from those furious partisans who looked for a party triumph to be won under the new emperor's lead. When they found that he would not let himself be made an instrument of faction in the unhappy country, they turned against him. His undertakings in Italy promised nothing but failure, when he died suddenly (1313), from poison, as the Germans believed. His successor in Germany, chosen by the majority of the electors, was Lewis of Bavaria; but Frederick the Fair of Austria, supported by a minority, disputed the election, and there was civil war for twelve years, until Frederick, a prisoner, so won the heart of Lewis that the latter divided the throne with him and the two reigned together.

While Germany and the fictitious Empire linked with it were thus dropping from the foremost place in western Europe into the background, several kingdoms were slowly emerging out of the anarchy of feudalism, and acquiring the organization of authority and law which creates stable and substantial power. France for two centuries, under the first three Capetian kings, had made little progress to that end. At the accession (1103) of the fourth of those kings, namely, Louis VI., it is estimated that the actual possessions of the Crown, over which it exercised sovereignty direct, equalled no more than about five of the modern departments of France; while twenty-nine were in the great fiefs of Flanders, Burgundy, Champagne, Normandy, Brittany, Anjou, Vermandois, and Boulogne, where the royal authority was but nominal; thirty-three, south of the Loire, were hardly connected with the Crown, and twenty-one were then dependent on the Empire. The actual "France," as a kingdom, at that time, was very small. "The real domain of Louis VI. was almost confined to the five towns of Paris, Orleans, Estampes, Melun, and Compiegne, and to estates in their neighbourhood." But the strengthening of the Crown was slightly begun in the reign of this king, by his wise policy of encouraging the enfranchisement of the communes, as noted before, which introduced a helpful alliance between the monarchy and the burgher-class, or third estate, as it came to be called, of the cities, against the feudal aristocracy.

But progress in that direction was slight at first and slowly made. Louis VII., who came to the throne in 1137, acquired momentarily the great duchy of Aquitaine, or Guienne, by his marriage with Eleanor, who inherited it; but he divorced her, and she married Henry Plantagenet, who became Henry II., King of England, being at the same time Duke of Normandy, by inheritance from his mother, and succeeding his father in Anjou, Maine and Touraine. Eleanor having carried to him the great Aquitanian domain of her family, he was sovereign of a larger part of modern France than owned allegiance to the French king.

But the next king in France, Philip, called Augustus (1180), who was the son of Louis VII., wrought a change of these circumstances. He was a prince of remarkable vigor, and he rallied with rare ability all the forces that the Crown could command. He wrested Vermandois from the Count of Flanders, and extorted submission from the rebellious Duke of Burgundy. Suspending his projects at home for a time, to go crusading to the Holy Land in company with King Richard of England, he resumed them with fresh energy after Richard's death. The latter was succeeded by his mean brother John, who seems to have been hated with unanimity. John was accused of the murder of his young nephew, Arthur of Brittany, who disputed the inheritance from Richard. As Duke of Normandy and Anjou, John, though King of England, was nevertheless a vassal of the King of France. Philip summoned him, on charges, to be tried by his peers. John failed to answer the summons, and the forfeiture of his fiefs was promptly declared. The French king stood well prepared to make the confiscation effective, while John, in serious trouble with his English subjects, could offer little resistance. Thus the Norman realm of the English kings—their original dominion—was lost beyond recovery, and with it Anjou and Maine. They held Guienne and Poitou for some years; but the bases of the French monarchy were broadened immensely from the day when the great Norman and Angevin fiefs became royal domain.

Events in the south of France, during Philip's reign, prepared the way for a further aggrandisement of the Crown. Ancient Latin civilization had lingered longer there, in spirit, at least, than in the central and northern districts of the kingdom, and the state of society intellectually was both livelier and more refined. It was the region of Europe where thought first showed signs of independence, and where the spiritual despotism of Rome was disputed first. A sect arose in Languedoc which took its name from the district of Albi, and which offended the Church perhaps more by the freedom of opinion that it claimed than by the heresy of the opinions themselves. These Albigeois, or Albigenses, had been at issue with the clergy of their country and with the Papacy for some years before Innocent III., the pontifical autocrat of his age, proclaimed a crusade against them (1208), and launched his sentence of excommunication against Raymond, Count of Toulouse, who gave them countenance if not sympathy. The fanatical Simon de Montfort, father of the great noble of like name who figures more grandly in English history, took the lead of the Crusade, to which bigots and brutal adventurers flocked together. Languedoc was wasted with fire and sword, and after twenty years of intermittent war, in which Peter of Aragon took part, assisting the Albigeois, the Count of Toulouse purchased peace for his ruined land by ceding part of it to the king of France, and giving his daughter in marriage to the king's brother Alphonso,—by which marriage the remainder of the country was transferred, a few years later, to the French crown.

Philip Augustus, in whose reign this brutal crushing of Provençal France began, took little part in it, but he saw with no unwillingness another too powerful vassal brought low. The next blow of like kind he struck with his own hand. John of England had quarreled with the mighty Pope Innocent III.; his kingdom had been placed under interdict and his subjects absolved from their allegiance. Philip of France eagerly offered to become the executor of the papal decree, and gathered an army for the invasion of England, to oust John from his throne. But John hastened now to make peace with the Church, submitting himself, surrendering his kingdom to the Pope, and receiving it back as a papal fief. This accomplished, the all-powerful pontiff persuaded the French king to turn his army against the Count of Flanders, who had never been reduced to a proper degree of submission to his feudal sovereign. He seems to have become the recognized head of a body of nobles who showed alarm and resentment at the growing power of the Crown, and the war which ensued was quite extraordinary in its political importance. King John of England came personally to the assistance of the Flemish Count, because of the hatred he felt towards Philip of France. Otho, Emperor of Germany, who had been excommunicated and deposed by the Pope, and who was struggling for his crown with the young Hohenstaufen, Frederick II., took part in the melee, because John was his uncle, and because the Pope was for Philip, and because Germany dreaded the rising power of France. So the war, which seemed at first to be a trifling affair in a corner, became in fact a grand clearing storm, for the settlement of many large issues, important to all Europe. The settlement was accomplished by a single decisive battle, fought at Bouvines (1214), not far from Tournay. It established effectively in France the feudal superiority and actual sovereignty of the king. It evoked a national spirit among the French people, having been their first national victory, won under the banners of a definite kingdom, over foreign foes. It was a triumph for the Papacy and the Church and a crushing blow to those who dared resist the mandates of Rome. It sent King John back to England so humbled and weakened that he had little stomach for the contest which awaited him there, and the grand event of the signing of Magna Charta next year was more easily brought about. It settled the fate of Otho of Germany, and cleared the bright opening of the stormy career of Frederick II., his successor. Thus the battle of Bouvines, which is not a famous field in common knowledge, must really be numbered among the great and important battles of the world.

When Philip Augustus died in 1223, the regality which he bequeathed to his son, Louis VIII., was something vastly greater than that which came to him from his predecessors. He had enhanced both the dignity and the power, both the authority and the prestige, of the Crown, and made a substantial kingdom of France. Louis VIII. enlarged his dominions by the conquest of Lower Poitou and the taking of Rochelle from the English; but he sowed the seeds of future weakness in the monarchy by creating great duchies for his children, which became as troublesome to later kings as Normandy and Anjou had been to those before him.

   Louis IX.—Saint Louis in the calendar of the Catholic
   Church—who came to the throne in 1226, while a child of
   eleven years, was a king of so noble a type that he stands
   nearly alone in history. Marcus Aurelius, the Emperor, and
   King Alfred of England, are the only sovereigns who seem
   worthy to be compared with him; and even the purity of those
   rare souls is not quite so simple and so selfless, perhaps, as
   that which shines in the beautiful character of this most
   Christian king. His goodness was of that quality which rises
   to greatness—above all other measures of greatness in the
   distinction of men. It was of that quality which even a wicked
   world is compelled to feel and to bend to as a power, much
   exceeding the power of state-craft or of the sword. Of all the
   kings of his line, this Saint Louis was probably the one who
   had least thought of a royal interest in France distinct from
   the interest of the people of France; and the one who
   consciously did least to aggrandize the monarchy and enlarge
   its powers; but no king before him or after him was so much
   the true architect of the foundations of the absolute French
   monarchy of later times. His constant purpose was to give
   peace to his kingdom and justice to his people; to end
   violence and wrong-doing.
{1030}
   In pursuing this purpose, he gave a new character and a new
   influence to the royal courts,—established them in public
   confidence,—accustomed his subjects to appeal to them; he
   denounced the brutal senselessness of trials by combat, and
   commanded their abolition; he gave encouragement to the study
   and the introduction of Roman law, and so helped to dispel the
   crude political as well as legal ideas that feudalism rested
   on. His measures in these directions all tended to the
   undermining of the feudal system and to the breaking down of
   the independence of the great vassals who divided sovereignty
   with the king. At the same time the upright soul of King
   Louis, devotedly pious son of the Church as he was, yielded
   his conscience to it, and the just ordinances of his kingdom,
   no more than he yielded to the haughty turbulence of the great
   vassals of the crown.

The great misfortunes of the reign of Saint Louis were the two calamitous Crusades in which he engaged (1248-1254, and 1270), and in the last of which he died. They were futile in every way—as unwisely conducted as they were unwisely conceived; but they count among the few errors of a noble, great life. Regarded altogether, in the light which after-history throws back upon it, the reign of Louis IX. is more loftily distinguished than any other in the annals of France.

There is little to distinguish the reign of St. Louis' son, Philip III., "le Hardi," "the Rash" (1270-1285), though the remains of the great fief of Toulouse were added in his time to the royal domain; but under the grandson of St. Louis, the fourth Philip, surnamed "le Bel," there was a season of storms in France. This Philip was unquestionably a man of clear, cold intellect, and of powerful, unbending will. There was nothing of the soldier in him, much of the lawyer-like mind and disposition. The men of the gown were his counsellors; he advanced their influence, and promoted the acceptance in France of the principles of the Roman or civil law, which were antagonistic to feudal ideas. In his attitude towards the Papacy—which had declined greatly in character and power within the century past—he was extraordinarily bold. His famous quarrel with Pope Boniface VIII. resulted in humiliations to the head of the Church from which, in some respects, there was no recovery. The quarrel arose on questions connected chiefly with the taxing of the clergy. The Pope launched one angry Bull after another against the audacious king, and the latter retorted with Ordinances which were as effective as the Bulls. Excommunication was defied; the Inquisition was suppressed in France; appeal taken to a General Council of the Church. At last Boniface suffered personal violence at the hands of a party of hired ruffians, in French pay, who attacked him at his country residence, and received such indignities that he expired soon after of shame and rage. The pope immediately succeeding died a few months later, and dark suspicions as to the cause of his death were entertained; for he gave place (1305) to one, Clement V., who was the tool of the French king, bound to him by pledges and guarantees before his election. This Pope Clement removed the papal residence from Rome to Avignon, and for a long period—the period known as "the Babylonish Captivity"—the Holy See was subservient to the monarchy of France.

In this contest with the Papacy, Philip threw himself on the support of the whole body of his people, convoking (1302) the first meeting of the Three Estates—the first of the few general Parliaments—ever assembled in France.

A more sinister event in the reign of Philip IV. was his prosecution and destruction of the famous Order of the Knights Templars. The dark, dramatic story has been told many times, and its incidents are familiar. Perhaps there will never be agreement as to the bottom of truth that might exist in the charges brought against the Order; but few question the fact that its blackest guilt in the eyes of the French King was its wealth, which he coveted and which he was resolved to find reasons for taking to himself. The knights were accused of infidelity, blasphemy, and abominable vices. They were tried, tortured, tempted to confessions, burned at the stake, and their lands and goods were divided between the Crown and the Knights of St. John.

The wilful king had little mercy in his cold heart and few scruples in his calculating brain. His character was not admirable; but the ends which he compassed were mostly good for the strength and independence of the monarchy of France, and, on the whole, for the welfare of the people subject to it. Even the disasters of his reign had sometimes their good effect: as in the case of his failure to subjugate the great county of Flanders. Originally a fief of the Kings of France, it had been growing apart from the French monarchy, through the independent interests and feelings that rose in it with the increase of wealth among its singularly industrious and thrifty people. The Low Countries, or Netherlands, on both sides of the Rhine, had been the first in western Europe to develop industrial arts and the trade that goes with them in a thoroughly intelligent and systematic way. The Flemings were leaders in this industrial development. Their country was full of busy cities,—communes, with large liberties in possession,—where prosperous artisans, pursuing many crafts, were organized in gilds and felt strong for the defense of their chartered rights. Ghent exceeded Paris in riches and population at the end of the thirteenth century. Bruges was nearly its equal; and there were many of less note. The country was already a prize to be coveted by kings; and the kings of France, who claimed the rights of feudal superiority over its count, had long been seeking to make their sovereignty direct, while the spirit of the Flemings carried them more and more toward independence.

In 1294, Philip IV. became involved in war with Edward I. of England over Guienne. Flanders, which traded largely with England and was in close friendship with the English king and people, took sides with the latter, and was basely abandoned when Philip and Edward made peace, in 1302. The French king then seized his opportunity to subjugate the Flemings, which he practically accomplished for a time, mastering all of their cities except Ghent. His need and his greed made the burden of taxes which he now laid on these new subjects very heavy and they were soon in revolt. By accident, and the folly of the French, they won a fearfully decisive victory at Courtray, where some thousands of the nobles and knights of France charged blindly into a canal, and were drowned, suffocated and slaughtered in heaps. The carnage was so great that it broke the strength of the feudal chivalry of France, and the French crown, while it lost Flanders, yet gained power from the very disaster.

In 1314, Philip IV. died, leaving three sons, who occupied the throne for brief terms in succession: Louis X, surnamed Hutin (disorder), who survived his father little more than a year; Philip V., called "the Long" (1316-1322), and Charles IV., known as "the Fair" (1322-1328). With the death of Charles the Fair, the direct line of the Capetian Kings came to an end, and Philip, Count of Valois, first cousin of the late kings, and grandson of Philip III., came to the throne, as Philip VI.—introducing the Valois line of kings.

The so-called Salic law, excluding females, in France, from the throne, had now, in the arrangement of these recent successions, been affirmed and enforced. It was promptly disputed by King Edward III. of England, who claimed the French crown by right of his mother, daughter of Philip IV. and sister of the last three kings. His attempt to enforce this claim was the beginning of the wicked, desolating "Hundred Years War" between England and France, which well-nigh ruined the latter, while it contributed in the former to the advancement of the commons in political power.

The England of the reign of Edward III., when the Hundred Years War began, was a country quite different in condition from that which our narrative left, at the time it had yielded (about 1071) to William the Norman conqueror. The English people were brought low by that subjugation, and the yoke which the Normans laid upon them was heavy indeed. They were stripped of their lands by confiscation; they were disarmed and disorganized; every attempt at rebellion failed miserably, and every failure brought wider confiscations. The old nobility suffered most and its ranks were thinned. England became Norman in its aristocracy and remained English in its commons and its villeinage.

Before the Conquest, feudalism had crept into its southern parts and was working a slow change of its old free Germanic institutions. But the Normans quickened the change and widened it. At the same time they controlled it in certain ways, favorably both to the monarchy and the people. They established a feudal system, but it was a system different from that which broke up the unity of both kingdoms of the Franks. William, shrewd statesman that he was, took care that no dangerous great fiefs should be created; and he took care, too, that every landlord in England should swear fealty direct to the king,—thus placing the Crown in immediate relations with all its subjects, permitting no intermediary lord to take their first allegiance to himself and pass it on at second hand to a mere crowned overlord.

The effect of this diluted organization of feudalism in England was to make the monarchy so strong, from the beginning, that both aristocracy and commons were naturally put on their defence against it, and acquired a feeling of association, a sense of common interest, a habit of alliance, which became very important influences in the political history of the nation. In France, as we have seen, there had been nothing of this. There, at the beginning, the feudal aristocracy was dominant, and held itself so haughtily above the commons, or Third Estate, that no political cooperation between the two orders could be thought of when circumstances called for it. The kings slowly undermined the aristocratic power, using the communes in the process; and when, at last, the power of the monarchy had become threatening to both orders in the state, they were separated by too great an alienation of feeling and habit to act well together.

It was the great good fortune of England that feudalism was curbed by a strong monarchy. It was the greater good fortune of the English people that their primitive Germanic institutions—their folk-moots, and their whole simple popular system of local government—should have had so long and sturdy a growth before the feudal scheme of society began seriously to intrude upon them. The Norman conqueror did no violence to those institutions. He claimed to be a lawful English king, respecting English laws. The laws, the customs, the organization of government, were, indeed, greatly modified in time; but the modification was slow, and the base of the whole political structure that rose in the Anglo-Norman kingdom remained wholly English.

The Normans brought with them into England a more active, enterprising, enquiring spirit than had animated the land before. They brought an increase of learning and of the appetite for knowledge. They brought a more educated taste in art, to improve the building of the country and its workmanship in general. They brought a wider acquaintance with the affairs of the outside world, and drew England into political relations with her continental neighbors, which were not happy for her in the end, but which may have contributed for a time to her development. They brought, also, a more powerful organization of the Church, which gave England trouble in later days.

When the Conqueror died (1087), his eldest son Robert succeeded him in Normandy, but he wished the crown of England to go to his son William, called Rufus, or "the Red." He could not settle the succession by his will, because in theory the succession was subject to the choice or assent of the nobles of the realm. But, in fact, William Rufus became king through mere tardiness of opposition; and when, a few months after his coronation, a formidable rebellion broke out among the Normans in England, who preferred his wayward brother Robert, it was the native English who sustained him and established him on the throne. The same thing occurred again after William Rufus died (1100). The Norman English tried again to bring in Duke Robert, while the native English preferred the younger brother, Henry, who was born among them. They won the day. Henry I., called Beauclerc, the Scholar, was seated on the throne. Unlike William Rufus, who had no gratitude for the support the English gave him, and ruled them harshly, Henry showed favor to his English subjects, and, during his reign of thirty-five years, the two races were so effectually reconciled and drawn together that little distinction between them appears thereafter.

Henry acquired Normandy, as well as England, uniting again the two sovereignties of his father. His thriftless brother, Robert, had pledged the dukedom to William Rufus, who lent him money for a crusading expedition. Returning penniless, Robert tried to recover his heritage; but Henry claimed it and made good the claim.

At Henry's death, the succession fell into dispute. He had lost his only son. His daughter, Matilda, first married to the Emperor Henry V., had subsequently wedded Count Geoffrey of Anjou, by whom she had a son. Henry strove, during his life, to bind his nobles by oath to accept Matilda and her son as his successors. But on his death (1135) their promises were broken. They gave the crown to Stephen of Blois, whose mother was Henry's sister; whereupon there ensued the most dreadful period of civil war and anarchy that England ever knew. Stephen, at his coronation, swore to promises which he did not keep, losing many of his supporters for that reason; the Empress Matilda and her young son Henry had numerous partisans; and each side was able to destroy effectually the authority of the other. "The price of the support given to both was the same—absolute licence to build castles, to practise private war, to hang their private enemies, to plunder their neighbours, to coin their money, to exercise their petty tyrannies as they pleased." "Castles innumerable sprang up, and as fast as they were built they were filled with devils; each lord judged and taxed and coined. The feudal spirit of disintegration had for once its full play. Even party union was at an end, and every baron fought on his own behalf. Feudalism had its day, and the completeness of its triumph ensured its fall" (Stubbs).

At length, in 1153, peace was made by a treaty which left Stephen in possession of the throne during his life, but made Henry, already recognized as Duke of Normandy, his heir. Stephen died the following year, and Henry II., now twenty-one years old, came quietly into his kingdom, beginning a new royal line, called the Angevin kings, because of their descent from Geoffrey of Anjou; also taking the name Plantagenets from Geoffrey's fashion of wearing a bit of broom, Planta Genista, in his hat.

Henry II. proved, happily, to be a king of the strong character that was needed in the England of that wretched time. He was bold and energetic, yet sagacious, prudent, politic. He loved power and he used it with an unsparing hand; but he used it with wise judgment, and England was the better for it. He struck hard and persistently at the lawlessness of feudalism, and practically ended it forever as a menace to order and unity of government in England. He destroyed hundreds of the castles which had sprung up throughout the land in Stephen's time, to be nests of robbers and strongholds of rebellion. He humbled the turbulent barons. He did in England, for the promotion of justice, and for the enforcement of the royal authority, what Louis IX. did a little later in France: that is, he reorganized and strengthened the king's courts, creating a judicial system which, in its most essential features, has existed to the present time. His organizing hand brought system and efficiency into every department of the government. He demanded of the Church that its clergy should be subject to the common laws of the kingdom, in matters of crime, and to trial before the ordinary courts; and it was this most just reform of a crying abuse—the exemption of clerics from the jurisdiction of secular courts—which brought about the memorable collision of King Henry with Thomas Becket, the inflexible archbishop of Canterbury. Becket's tragical death made a martyr of him, and placed Henry in a penitential position which checked his great works of reform; but, on the whole, his reign was one of splendid success, and shines among the epochs that throw light on the great after-career of the English nation.

Aside from his importance as an English statesman, Henry II. figured largely, in his time, among the most powerful of the monarchs of Europe. His dominions on the continent embraced much more of the territory of modern France than was ruled directly by the contemporary French king, though nominally he held them as a vassal of the latter. Normandy came to him from his grandfather; from his father he inherited the large possessions of the House of Anjou; by his marriage with Eleanor of Aquitaine (divorced by Louis VII. of France, as mentioned already) he acquired her wide and rich domain. On the continent, therefore, he ruled Normandy, Maine, Touraine, Anjou, Guienne, Poitou and Gascony. He may be said to have added Ireland to his English kingdom, for he began the conquest. He held a great place, in his century, and historically he is a notable figure in the time.

His rebellious, undutiful son Richard, Cœur de Lion, the Crusader, the hard fighter, the knight of many rude adventures, who succeeded Henry II. in 1189, is popularly better known than he; but Richard's noisy brief career shows poorly when compared with his father's life of thoughtful statesmanship. It does not show meanly, however, like that of the younger son, John, who came to the throne in 1199. The story of John's probable murder of his young nephew, Arthur, of Brittany, and of his consequent loss of all the Angevin lands, and of Normandy (excepting only the Norman islands, the Jerseys, which have remained English to our own day) has been briefly told heretofore, when the reign of Philip Augustus of France was under review.

The whole reign of John was ignominious. He quarreled with the Pope—with the inflexible Innocent III., who humbled many kings—over a nomination to the Archbishopric of Canterbury (1205); his kingdom was put under interdict (1208); he was threatened with deposition; and when, in affright, he surrendered, it was so abjectly done that he swore fealty to the Pope, as a vassal to his suzerain, consenting to hold his kingdom as a fief of the Apostolic See. The triumph of the Papacy in this dispute brought one great good to England. It made Stephen Langton Archbishop of Canterbury, and thereby gave a wise and righteous leader to the opponents of the king's oppressive rule. Lords and commons, laity and clergy, were all alike sufferers from John's greed, his perfidy, his mean devices and his contempt of law. Langton rallied them to a sober, stern, united demonstration, which awed King John, and compelled him to put his seal to Magna Charta—the grand Charter of English liberties (1215). A few weeks later he tried to annul what he had done, with encouragement from the Pope, who anathematized the Charter and all who had to do with it. Then certain of the barons, in their rage, offered the English crown to the heir of France, afterwards Louis VIII.; and the French prince actually came to England (1216) with an army to secure it. But before the forces gathered on each side were brought to any decisive battle, John died. Louis' partisans then dropped away from him and the next year, after a defeat at sea, he returned to France.

John left a son, a lad of nine years, who grew to be a better man than himself, though not a good king, for he was weak and untruthful in character, though amiable and probably well-meaning. He held the throne for fifty-six years, during which long time, after his minority was passed, no minister of ability and honorable character could get and keep office in the royal service. He was jealous of ministers, preferring mere administrative clerks; while he was docile to favorites, and picked them for the most part from a swarm of foreign adventurers whom the nation detested. The Great Charter of his father had been reaffirmed in his name soon after he received the crown, and in 1225 he was required to issue it a third time, as the condition of a grant of money; but he would not rule honestly in compliance with its provisions, and sought continually to lay and collect heavy taxes in unlawful ways. He spent money extravagantly, and was foolish and reckless in foreign undertakings, accepting, for example, the Kingdom of Sicily, offered to his son Edmund by the Pope, whose gift could only be made good by force of arms. At the same time he was servile to the popes, whose increasing demands for money from England were rousing even the clergy to resistance. So the causes of discontent grew abundantly until they brought it to a serious head. All classes of the people were drawn together again, as they had been to resist the aggressions of John. The great councils of the kingdom, or assemblies of barons and bishops (which had taken the place of the witenagemot of the old English time, and which now began to be called Parliaments), became more and more united against the king. At last the discontent found a leader of high capacity and of heroic if not blameless character, in Simon de Montfort, Earl of Leicester. Simon de Montfort was of foreign birth,—son of that fanatical crusader of the same name, who spread ruin over the fair country of the Albigeois. The English earldom of Leicester had passed to his family, and the younger Simon, receiving it, came to England and became an Englishman. After some years he threw himself into the struggle with the Crown, and his leadership was soon recognized. In 1258, a parliament held at London compelled the king to consent to the appointment of an extraordinary commission of twenty-four barons, clothed with full power to reform the government. The commission was named at a subsequent meeting of parliament, the same year, at Oxford, where the grievances to be redressed were set forth in a paper known as the Provisions of Oxford. From the twenty-four commissioners there were chosen fifteen to be the King's Council. This was really the creation of a new constitution for the kingdom, and Henry swore to observe it. But ere long he procured a bull from the Pope, absolving him from his oath, and he began to prepare for throwing off the restraints that had been put upon him. The other side took up arms, under Simon's lead; but peace was preserved for a time by referring all questions in dispute to the arbitration of Louis IX. of France. The arbiter decided against the barons (1264) and Montfort's party refused to abide by the award. Then followed the civil conflict known as the Barons' War. The king was defeated and taken prisoner, and was obliged to submit to conditions which practically transferred the administration of the government to three counsellors, of whom Simon de Montfort was the chief.

   In January, 1265, a memorable parliament was called together.
   It was the first national assembly in which the larger element
   of the English Commons made its appearance; for Montfort had
   summoned to it certain representatives of borough towns, along
   with the barons, the bishops and the abbots, and along,
   moreover, with representative knights, who had been gaining
   admittance of late years to what now became a convocation of
   the Three Estates. The parliamentary model thus roughly shaped
   by the great Earl of Leicester was not continuously followed
   until another generation came; but it is his glory,
   nevertheless, to have given to England the norm and principle
   on which its unexampled parliament was framed. By dissensions
   among themselves, Simon de Montfort and his party soon lost
   the great advantage they had won, and on another appeal to
   arms they were defeated (1265) by the king's valiant and able
   son, afterwards King Edward I., and Montfort was slain. It was
   seven years after this before Edward succeeded his father, and
   nine before he came to the throne, because he was absent on a
   Crusade; but when he did, it was to prove himself, not merely
   one of the few statesmen-kings of England, but one large
   enough in mind to take lessons from the vanquished enemies of
   the Crown. He, in reality, took up the half-planned
   constitutional work of Simon de Montfort, in the development
   of the English Parliament as a body representative of all
   orders in the nation, and carried it forward to substantial
   completion. He did it because he had wit to see that the
   people he ruled could be led more easily than they could be
   driven, and that their free-giving of supplies to the Crown
   would be more open-handed than their giving under compulsion.
   The year 1295 "witnessed the first summons of a perfect and
   model parliament; the clergy represented by their bishops,
   deans, archdeacons, and elected proctors; the barons summoned
   severally in person by the king's special writ, and the
   commons summoned by writs addressed to the sheriffs, directing
   them to send up two elected knights from each shire, two
   elected citizens from each city, and two elected burghers from
   each borough" (Stubbs).
{1034}
   Two years later, the very fundamental principle of the English
   Constitution was established, by a Confirmation of the
   Charters, conceded in Edward's absence by his son, but
   afterwards assented to by him, which definitely renounced the
   right of the king to tax the nation without its consent. Thus
   the reign of Edward I. was really the most important in the
   constitutional history of England. It was scarcely less
   important in the history of English jurisprudence; for Edward
   was in full sympathy with the spirit of an age in which the
   study and reform of the law were wonderfully awakened
   throughout Europe. The great statutes of his reign are among
   the monuments of Edward's statesmanship, and not the least
   important of them are those by which he checked the
   encroachments of the Church and its dangerous acquisition of
   wealth.

At the same time, the temper of this vigorous king was warlike and aggressive. He subdued the Welsh and annexed Wales as a principality to England. He enforced the feudal supremacy which the English kings claimed over Scotland, and, upon the Scottish throne becoming vacant, in 1290, seated John Baliol, as a vassal who did homage to him. The war of Scottish Independence then ensued, of which William Wallace and Robert Bruce were the heroes. Wallace perished on an English scaffold in 1305; Bruce, the next year, secured the Scottish crown, and eventually broke the bonds in which his country was held.

Edward I. died in 1307, and his kingly capability died with him. He transmitted neither spirit nor wisdom to his son, the second Edward, who gave himself and his kingdom up to foreign favorites, as his grandfather had done. His angry subjects practically took the government out of his hands (1310), and confided it to a body of twenty-one members, called Ordainers. His reign of twenty years was one of protracted strife and disorder; but the constitutional power of Parliament made gains. In outward appearance, however, there was nothing to redeem the wretchedness of the time. The struggle of factions was pushed to civil war; while Scotland, by the great blow struck at Bannockburn (1314), made her independence complete. In 1322, Thomas, Earl of Lancaster, whose descent was as royal as the king's, but who headed the opponents of Edward and Edward's unworthy favorites, was defeated in battle, taken prisoner, and brought to the block. This martyrdom, as it was called, embalmed Lancaster's memory in the hearts of the people.

The queen of Edward II., Isabella of France, daughter of Philip the Fair, made, at last, common cause with his enemies. In January, 1327, he was forced to formally resign the crown, and in September of the same year he was murdered, the queen, with little doubt, assenting to the deed. His son, Edward III., who now came to the throne, founded claims to the crown of France upon the rights of his mother, whose three brothers, as we have seen, had been crowned in succession and had died, bringing the direct line of royalty in France to an end. By this claim the two countries were plunged into the miseries of the dreadful Hundred Years War, and the progress of civilization in Europe was seriously checked.

Before entering that dark century of war, it will be necessary to go back a little in time, and carry our survey farther afield, in the countries of Europe more remote from the center of the events we have already scanned. In Spain, for example, there should be noticed, very briefly, the turning movement of the tide of Mahometan conquest which drove the Spanish Christians into the mountains of the North. In the eighth century, their little principality of Asturia had widened into the small kingdom of Leon, and the eastern county of Leon had taken the name of Castella (Castile) from the number of forts or castles with which it bristled, on the Moorish border. East of Leon, in the Pyrenees, there grew up about the same time the kingdom of Navarre, which became important in the eleventh century, under an enterprising king, Sancho the Great, who seized Castile and made a separate kingdom of it, which he bequeathed to his son. The same Navarrese king extended his dominion over a considerable part of the Spanish March, which Charlemagne had wrested from the Moors in the ninth century, and out of this territory the kingdom of Aragon was presently formed. These four kingdoms, of Leon, Navarre, Castile, and Aragon, were shuffled together and divided again, in changing combinations, many times during the next century or two; but Castile and Leon were permanently united in 1230. Meantime Portugal, wrested from the Moors, became a distinct kingdom; while Navarre was reduced in size and importance. Castile, Aragon, and Portugal are from that time the Christian Powers in the Peninsula which carried on the unending war with their Moslem neighbors. By the end of the thirteenth century they had driven the Moors into the extreme south of the peninsula, where the latter, thenceforth, held little beyond the small kingdom of Granada, which defended itself for two centuries more.

The Christians were winners and the Moslems were losers in this long battle, because adversity had disciplined the one and prosperity had relaxed and vitiated the other. Success bred disunion, and the spoils of victory engendered corruption, among the followers of Mahomet, very quickly in their career. The middle of the eighth century was hardly passed when the huge empire they had conquered broke in twain, and two Caliphates on one side of the Mediterranean, imitated the two Roman Empires on the other. We have seen how the Caliphate of the East, with its seat at Bagdad, went steadily to wreck; but fresh converts of Islam, out of deserts at the North, were in readiness, there, to gather the fragments and construct a new Mahometan power. In the West, where the Caliphs held their court at Cordova, the same crumbling of their power befell them, through feuds and jealousies and the decay of a sensuous race; but there were none to rebuild it in the Prophet's name. The Moor gave way to the Castilian in Spain for reasons not differing very much from the reasons which explain the supplanting of the Arab by the Turk in the East.

While its grandeur lasted in Spain,—from the eighth to the eleventh centuries—the empire of the Saracens, or Moors, was the most splendid of its age. It developed a civilization which must have been far finer, in the superficial showing, and in much of its spirit as well, than anything found in Christian Europe at that time. Its religious temper was less fierce and intolerant. Its intellectual disposition was towards broader thinking and freer inquiry. Its artistic feeling was truer and more instinctive. It took lessons from classic learning and philosophy before Germanized Europe had become aware of the existence of either, and it gave the lessons at second hand to its Christian neighbors. Its industries were conducted with a knowledge and a skill that could be found among no other people. Says Dr. Draper: "Europe at the present day does not offer more taste, more refinement, more elegance, than might have been seen, at the epoch of which we are speaking, in the capitals of the Spanish Arabs. Their streets were lighted and solidly paved. Their houses were frescoed and carpeted; they were warmed in winter by furnaces, and cooled in summer with perfumed air brought by underground pipes from flower beds. They had baths, and libraries, and dining halls, fountains of quicksilver and water. City and country were full of conviviality, and of dancing to lute and mandolin. Instead of the drunken and gluttonous wassail orgies of their northern neighbors, the feasts of the Saracens were marked with sobriety."

The brilliancy of the Moorish civilization seems like that of some short-lived flower, which may spring from a thin soil of no lasting fertility. The qualities which yielded it had their season of ascendancy over the deeper-lying forces that worked in the Gothic mind of Christian Spain; but time exhausted the one, while it matured the other.

There seems to be no doubt that the long conflict of races and religions in the peninsula affected the character of the Spanish Christians more profoundly, both for good and for ill, than it affected the people with whom they strove. It hardened and energized them, preparing them for the bold adventures they were soon to pursue in a new-found world, and for a lordly career in all parts of the rounded globe. It embittered and gave fierceness to a sentiment among them which bore some likeness to religion, but which was, in reality, the partisanship of a church, and not the devotion of a faith. It tended to put bigotry in the place of piety—religious rancor in the place of charity—priests and images in the place of Christ—much more among the Spaniards than among other peoples; for they, alone, were Crusaders against the Moslem for eight hundred years.

The political effects of those centuries of struggle in the peninsula were also remarkable and strangely mixed. In all the earlier stages of the national development, until the close of the mediæval period, there seems to have been as promising a growth of popular institutions, in most directions, as can be found in England itself. Apparently, there was more good feeling between classes than elsewhere in Europe. Nobles, knights and commons fought side by side in so continuous a battle that they were more friendly and familiar in acquaintance with one another. Moreover, the ennobled and the knighted were greatly more numerous in Spain than in the neighboring countries. The kings were lavish of such honors in rewarding valor, on every battlefield and after every campaign. It was impossible, therefore, for so great a distance to widen between the grandee and the peasant or the burgher as that which separated the lord and the citizen in Germany or France. The division of Christian Spain into several petty kingdoms, and the circumstances under which they were placed, retarded the growth of monarchical power, and yet did not tend to a feudal disintegration of society; because the pressure of its perpetual war with the infidels forced the preservation of a certain degree of unity, sufficient to be a saving influence. At the same time, the Spanish cities became prosperous, and naturally, in the circumstances of the country, acquired much freedom and many privileges. The inhabitants of some cities in Aragon enjoyed the privileges of nobility as a body; the magistrates of other cities were ennobled. Both in Aragon and Castile, the towns had deputies in the Cortes before any representatives of boroughs sat in the English Parliament; and the Cortes seems to have been, in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, a more potent factor in government than any assembly of estates in any other part of Europe.

But something was wanting in Spain that was not wanting in England and in the Netherlands, for example, to complete the evolution of a popular government from this hopeful beginning. And the primary want, it would seem, was a political sense or faculty in the people. To illustrate this in one particular: the Castilian Commons did not grasp the strings of the national purse when they had it in their hands, as the practical Englishmen did. They allowed the election of deputies from the towns to slip out of their hands and to become an official function of the municipalities, where it was corrupted and controlled by the Crown. In Aragon, the popular rights were more efficiently maintained, perhaps; but even there the political faculty of the people must have been defective, as compared with that of the nations in the North which developed free government from less promising germs. And, yet, it is possible that the whole subsequent failure of Spain may be fully explained by the ruinous prosperity of her career in the sixteenth century,—by the fatal gold it gave her from America, and the independent power it put into the hands of her kings.

While the Spaniards in their southern peninsula were wrestling with the infidel Moor, their Gothic kindred of Sweden, and the other Norse nations of that opposite extremity of Europe, had been casting off paganism and emerging from the barbarism of their piratical age, very slowly. It was not until the tenth and eleventh centuries that Christianity got footing among them. It was not until the thirteenth century that unity and order, the fruits of firm government, began to be really fixed in any part of the Scandinavian peninsulas.

The same is substantially true of the greater Slavic states on the eastern side of Europe. The Poles had accepted Christianity in the tenth century, and their dukes, in the same century, had assumed the title of kings. In the twelfth century they had acquired a large dominion and exercised great power; but the kingdom was divided, was brought into collision with the Teutonic Knights, who conquered Prussia, and it fell into a disordered state. The Russians had been Christianized in the same missionary century—the tenth; but civilization made slow progress among them, and their nation was being divided and re-divided in shifting principalities by contending families and lords. In the thirteenth century they were overwhelmed by the fearful calamity of a conquest by Mongol or Tartar hordes, and fell under the brutal domination of the successors of Genghis Khan.

At Constantinople, the old Greek-Roman Empire of the East had been passing through singular changes since we noticed it last. The dread with which Alexius Comnenius saw the coming of the Crusaders in 1097 was justified by the experience of his successors, after little more than a hundred years. In 1204, a crusade, which is sometimes numbered as the fourth and sometimes as the fifth in the crusading series, was diverted by Venetian influence from the rescue of Jerusalem to the conquest of Constantinople, ostensibly in the interest of a claimant of the Imperial throne. The city was taken and pillaged, and the Greek line of Emperors was supplanted by a Frank or Latin line, of which Baldwin, Count of Flanders, was the first. But this Latin Empire was reduced to a fraction of the conquered dominion, the remainder being divided among several partners in the conquest; while two Greek princes of the fallen house saved fragments of the ancient realm in Asia, and throned themselves as emperors at Trebizond and Nicæa. The Latin Empire was maintained, feebly and without dignity, a little more than half a century; and then (1261) it was extinguished by the sovereign of its Nicæan rival, Michael Palæologus, who took Constantinople by a night surprise, helped by treachery within. Thus the Greek or Byzantine Empire was restored, but much shorn of its former European possessions, and much weakened by loss of commerce and wealth. It was soon involved in a fresh struggle for life with the Turks.

We have now, in our general survey of European history, just passed beyond the thirteenth century, and it will be instructive to pause here a moment and glance back over the movements and events which distinguish that remarkable age. For the thirteenth century, while it belongs chronologically to mediæval times, seems nearer in spirit to the Renaissance—shows more of the travail of the birth of our modern mind and life—than the fourteenth, and even more than the greater part of the years of the fifteenth century.

For England, it was the century in which the enduring bases of constitutional government were laid down; within which Magna Charta and its Confirmations were signed; within which the Parliament of Simon de Montfort and the Parliaments of Edward I. gave a representative form and a controlling power to the wonderful legislature of the English nation. In France, it was the century of the Albigenses; of Saint Louis and his judicial reforms; and it stretched within two years of the first meeting of the States-General of the kingdom. In Switzerland, it was the century which began the union of the three forest cantons. In Spain, it was the century which gave Aragon the "General Privilege" of Peter III.; in Hungary, it was the century of its Golden Bull. In Italy it was the century of Frederick II.,—the man of modern spirit set in mediæval circumstances; and it was the century, too, which moulded the city-republics that resisted and defeated his despotic pretensions. Everywhere, it was an age of impulses toward freedom, and of mighty upward strivings out of the chaos and darkness of the feudal state. It was an age of vast energies, directed with practical judgment and power. It organized the great league of the Hansa Towns, which surpassed, as an enterprise of combination in commercial affairs, the most stupendous undertakings of the present time. It put the weavers and traders of Flanders on a footing with knights and princes. In Venice and Genoa it crowned the merchant like a king. It sent Marco Polo to Cathay, and inoculated men with the itch of exploration from which they find no ease to this day. It was the century which saw painting revived as a living art in the world by Cimabue and Giotto, and sculpture restored by Niccola Pisano. It was the age of great church-building in Italy, in Germany and in France. It was the century of St. Francis of Assisi, and of the creation of the mendicant orders in the Church,—a true religious reformation in its spirit, however unhappy in effect it may have been. It was the time of the high tide of mediæval learning; the epoch of Aquinas, of Duns Scotus, of Roger Bacon; the true birth-time of the Universities of Paris and Oxford. It was the century which educated Dante for his immortal work.

The century which followed was a period of many wars—of ruinous and deadly wars, and miserable demoralizations and disorders, which depressed all Europe by their effects. In the front of them all was the wicked Hundred Years War, forced on France by the ambition of an English king to wear two crowns; while with it came the bloody insurrection of the Jacquerie, the ravages of the free companies, and ruinous anarchy everywhere. Then, in Italy, there was a duel to the death between Venice and Genoa; and a long, wasting contest of rivals for the possession of Naples. In Germany, a contested imperial election, and the struggle of the Swiss against the Austrian Dukes. In Flanders, repeated revolts under the two Artevelds. In the East, the terrible fight of Christendom with the advancing Turk. And while men were everywhere so busily slaying one another, there came the great pestilence which they called the Black Death, to help them in the grim work, and Europe was half depopulated by it. At the same time, the Church, which might have kindled some beacon lights of faith and hope in the midst of all this darkness and terror, was sinking to its lowest state, and Rome had become an unruled robbers' den.

There were a few voices heard, above the wailing and the battle-din of the afflicted age, which charmed and comforted it; voices which preached the pure gospel of Wycliffe and Huss,—which recited the great epic of Dante,—which syllabled the melodious verse of Petrarch and Chaucer,—which told the gay tales of Boccaccio; but the pauses of peace in which men might listen to such messages and give themselves to such delights were neither many nor long.

The conflict between England and France began in Flanders, then connected with the English very closely in trade. Philip VI. of France forced the Count of Flanders to expel English merchants from his territory. Edward III. retaliated (1336) by forbidding the exportation of wool to Flanders, and this speedily reduced the Flemish weavers to idleness. They rose in revolt, drove out their count, and formed an alliance with England, under the lead of Jacob van Arteveld, a brewer, of Ghent. The next year (1337) Edward joined the Flemings with an army and entered France; but made no successful advance, although his fleet won a victory, in a sea-fight off Sluys, and hostilities were soon suspended by a truce. In 1341 they were renewed in Brittany, over a disputed succession to the dukedom, and the scattered sieges and chivalric combats which made up the war in that region for two years are described with minuteness by Froissart, the gossipy chronicler of the time. After a second truce, the grimly serious stage of the war was reached in 1346. It was in that year that the English won the victory at Crécy, which was the pride and boast of their nation for centuries; and the next season they took Calais, which they held for more than two hundred years.

Philip died in 1350 and was succeeded by his son John. In 1355, Edward of England repeated his invasion, ravaging Artois, while his son, the Black Prince, from Guienne (which the English had held since the Angevin time), devastated Languedoc. The next year, this last named prince made another sally from Bordeaux, northwards, towards the Loire, and was encountered by the French king, with a splendid army, at Poitiers. The victory of the English in this case was more overwhelming than at Crécy, although they were greatly outnumbered. King John was taken prisoner and conveyed to London. His kingdom was in confusion. The dauphin called together the States-General of France, and that body, in which the commons, or third estate, attained to a majority in numbers, assumed powers and compelled assent to reforms which seemed likely to place it on a footing of equal importance with the Parliament of England. The leader of the third estate in these measures was Etienne or Stephen Marcel, provost of Paris, a man of commanding energy and courage. The dauphin, under orders from his captive father, attempted to nullify the ordinances of the States-General. Paris rose at the call of Marcel and the frightened prince became submissive; but the nobles of the provinces resented these high-handed proceedings of the Parisians and civil war ensued. The peasants, who were in great misery, took advantage of the situation to rise in support of the Paris burgesses, and for the redressing of their own wrongs. This insurrection of the Jacquerie, as it is known, produced horrible deeds of outrage and massacre on both sides, and seems to have had no other result. Paris, meantime (1358), was besieged and hard pressed; Marcel, suspected of an intended treachery, was killed, and with his death the whole attempt to assert popular rights fell to the ground.

The state of France at this time was one of measureless misery. It was overrun with freebooters—discharged soldiers, desperate homeless and idle men, and the ruffians who always bestir themselves when authority disappears. They roamed the country in bands, large and small, stripped it of what war had spared, and left famine behind them.

At length, in 1360, terms of peace were agreed upon, in a treaty signed at Bretigny, and fighting ceased, except in Brittany, where the war went on for four years more. By the treaty, all French claims upon Aquitaine and the dependencies were given up, and Edward acquired full sovereignty there, no longer owing homage, as a vassal, to the king of France. Calais, too, was ceded to England, and so heavy a ransom was exacted from the captive King John that he failed to collect money for the payment of it and died in London (1364).

Charles V., who now ruled independently, as he had ruled for some years in his father's name, proved to be a more prudent and capable prince, and his counsellors and captains were wisely chosen. He was a man of studious tastes and of considerable learning for that age, with intelligence to see and understand the greater sources of evil in his kingdom. Above all, he had patience enough to plant better things in the seed and wait for them to grow, which is one of the grander secrets of statesmanship. By careful, judicious measures, he and those who shared the task of government with him slowly improved the discipline and condition of their armies. The "great companies" of freebooters, too strong to be put down, were lured out of the kingdom by an expedition into Spain, which the famous warrior Du Guesclin commanded, and which was sent against the detestable Pedro, called the Cruel, of Castile, whom the English supported. A stringent economy in public expenditure was introduced, and the management of the finances was improved. The towns were encouraged to strengthen their fortifications, and the state and feeling of the whole country were slowly lifted from the gloomy depth to which the war had depressed them.

At length, in 1369, Charles felt prepared to challenge another encounter with the English, by repudiating the ignominious terms of the treaty of Bretigny. Before the year closed, Edward's armies were in the country again, but accomplished nothing beyond the havoc which they wrought as they marched. The French avoided battles, and their cities were well defended. Next year the English returned, and the Black Prince earned infamy by a ferocious massacre of three thousand men, women, and children, in the city of Limoges, when he had taken it by storm. It was his last campaign. Already suffering from a mortal disease, he returned to England, and died a few years later. The war went on, with no decisive results, until 1375, when it was suspended by a truce. In 1377, Edward III. died, and the French king began war again with great success. Within three years he expelled the English from every part of France except Bayonne, Bordeaux, Brest, Cherbourg and Calais.

If he had lived a little longer, there might soon have been an end of the war. But he died in 1380, and fresh calamities fell upon unhappy France.

The son who succeeded him, Charles VI., was an epileptic boy of twelve years, who had three greedy and selfish uncles to quarrel over the control of him, and to plunder the Crown of territory and treasures. One of these was the Duke of Burgundy, the first prince of a new great house which King John had foolishly created. Just before that fatuous king died, the old line of Burgundian dukes came to an end, and he had the opportunity, which wise kings before him would have improved very eagerly, to annex that fief to the crown. Instead of doing so, he gave it as an appanage to his son Philip, called "the Bold," and thus rooted a new plant of feudalism in France which was destined to cause much trouble. Another of the uncles was Louis, Duke of Anjou, heir to the crown of Naples under a will of the lately murdered Queen Joanna, and who was preparing for an expedition to enforce his claim. The third was Duke of Berry, upon whom his father, King John, had conferred another great appanage, including Berry, Poitou and Auvergne.

The pillage and misgovernment of the realm under these rapacious guardians of the young king was so great that desperate risings were provoked, the most formidable of which broke out in Paris. They were all suppressed, and with merciless severity. At the same time, the Flemings, who had again submitted to their count, revolted once more, under the lead of Philip van Arteveld, son of their former leader. The French moved an army to the assistance of the Count of Flanders, and the sturdy men of Ghent, who confronted it almost alone, suffered a crushing defeat at Roosebeke (1382). Philip van Arteveld fell in the battle, with twenty-six thousand of his men. Two years later, the Count of Flanders died, and the Duke of Burgundy, who had married his daughter, acquired that rich and noble possession. This beginning of the union of Burgundy and the Netherlands, creating a power by the side of the throne of France which threatened to overshadow it, and having for its ultimate consequence the casting of the wealth of the Low Countries into the lap of the House of Austria and into the coffers of Spain, is an event of large importance in European history.

When Charles VI. came of age, he took the government into his own hands, and for some years it was administered by capable men. But in 1392 the king's mind gave way, and his uncles regained control of affairs. Philip of Burgundy maintained the ascendancy until his death, in 1404. Then the controlling influence passed to the king's brother, the Duke of Orleans, between whom and the new Duke of Burgundy, John, called the Fearless, a bitter feud arose. John, who was unscrupulous, employed assassins to waylay and murder the Duke of Orleans, which they did in November, 1407. This foul deed gave rise to two parties in France. Those who sought vengeance ranged themselves under the leadership of the Count of Armagnac, and were called by his name. The Burgundians, who sustained Duke John, were in the main a party of the people; for the Duke had cultivated popularity, especially in Paris, by advocating liberal measures and extending the rights and privileges of the citizens.

The kingdom was kept in turmoil and terror for years by the war of these factions, especially in and about Paris, where the guild of the butchers took a prominent part in affairs, on the Burgundian side, arming a riotous body of men who were called Cabochiens, from their leader's name. In 1413 the Armagnacs succeeded in recovering possession of the capital and the Cabochiens were suppressed.

Meantime, Henry V. of England, the ambitious young Lancastrian king who came to the throne of that country in 1413, saw a favorable opportunity, in the distracted state of France, to reopen the questions left unsettled by the breaking of the treaty of Bretigny. He invaded France in 1415, as the rightful king coming to dethrone a usurper, and began by taking Harfleur at the mouth of the Seine, after a siege which cost him so heavily that he found it prudent to retreat towards Calais. The French intercepted him at Agincourt and forced him to give them battle. He had only twenty thousand men, but they formed a well disciplined and well ordered army. The French had gathered eighty thousand men, but they were a feudal mob. The battle ended, like those of Crécy and Poitiers, in the routing and slaughter of the French, with small loss to Henry's force. His army remained too weak in numbers, however, for operations in a hostile country, and the English king returned home, with a great train of captive princes and lords.

He left the Armagnacs and Burgundians still fighting one another, and disabling France as effectually as he could do if he stayed to ravage the land. In 1417 he came back and began to attack the strong cities of Normandy, one by one, taking Caen first. In the next year, by a horrible massacre, the Burgundian mob in Paris overcame the Armagnacs there, and reinstated Duke John of Burgundy in possession of the capital. The latter was already in negotiation with the English king, and evidently prepared to sacrifice the kingdom for whatever might seem advantageous to himself. But in 1419 Henry V. took Rouen, and, when all of Normandy submitted with its capital, he demanded nothing less than that great province, with Brittany, Guienne, Maine, Anjou and Touraine in addition,—or, substantially, the western half of France.

Parleyings were brought to an end in September of that year by the treacherous murder of Duke John. The Armagnacs slew him foully, at an interview to which he had been enticed, on the bridge of Montereau. His son, Duke Philip of Burgundy, now reopened negotiations with the invader, in conjunction with Queen Isabella (wife of the demented king), who had played an evil part in all the factious troubles of the time. These two, having control of the king's person, concluded a treaty with Henry V. at Troyes, according to the terms of which Henry should marry the king's daughter Catherine; should be administrator of the kingdom of France while Charles VI. lived, and should receive the crown when the latter died. The marriage took place at once, and almost the whole of France north of the Loire seemed submissive to the arrangement. The States-General and the Parliament of Paris gave official recognition to it; the disinherited dauphin of France, whose own mother had signed away his regal heritage, retired, with his Armagnac supporters, to the country south of the Loire, and had little apparent prospect of holding even that.

But a mortal malady had already stricken King Henry V., and he died in August, 1422. The unfortunate, rarely conscious French king, whose crown Henry had waited for, died seven weeks later. Each left an heir who was proclaimed king of France. The English pretender (Henry VI. in England, Henry II. in France) was an innocent infant, ten months old; but his court was in Paris, his accession was proclaimed with due ceremony at St. Denis, his sovereignty was recognized by the Parliament and the University of that city, and the half of France appeared resigned to the lapse of nationality which its acceptance of him signified. The true heir of the royal house of France (Charles VII.) was a young man of nearly mature age and of fairly promising character; but he was proclaimed in a little town of Berry, by a small following of lords and knights, and the nation for which he stood hardly seemed to exist.

The English supporters of the English king of France were too arrogant and overbearing to retain very long the good will of their allies among the French people. Something like a national feeling in northern France was aroused by the hostility they provoked, and the strength of the position in which Henry V. left them was steadily but slowly lost. Charles proved incapable, however, of using any advantages which opened to him, or of giving his better counsellors an opportunity to serve him with good effect, and no important change took place in the situation of affairs until the English laid siege, in 1428, to the city of Orleans, which was the stronghold of the French cause.

Then occurred one of the most extraordinary episodes in history; the appearance of the young peasant girl of Lorraine, Jeanne d'Arc, whose coming upon the scene of war was like the descent of an angel out of Heaven, sent with a Divine commission to rescue France. Belief in the inspiration of this simple maiden, who had faith in her own visions and voices, was easier for that age than belief in a rational rally of public energies, and it worked like a miracle on the spirit of the nation. But it could not have done so with effect if the untaught country girl of Domremy had not been endowed in a wonderful way, with a wise mind, as well as with an imaginative one, and with courage as well as with faith. When the belief in her inspired mission gave her power to lead the foolish king, and authority to command his disorderly troops, she acted almost invariably with understanding, with good sense, with a clear, unclouded judgment, with straightforward singleness of purpose, and with absolute personal fearlessness. She saw the necessity for saving Orleans; and when that had been done under her own captaincy (1429), she saw how greatly King Charles would gain in prestige if he made his way to Rheims, and received, like his predecessors, a solemn coronation and consecration in the cathedral of that city. It was by force of her gentle obstinacy of determination that this was done, and the effect vindicated the sagacity of the Maid. Then she looked upon her mission as accomplished, and would have gone quietly home to her village; for she seems to have remained as simple in feeling as when she left her father's house, and was innocent to the end of any selfish pleasure in the fame she had won and the importance she had acquired. But those she had helped would not let her go; and yet they would not be guided by her without wrangle and resistance. She wished to move the army straight from Rheims to Paris, and enter that city before it had time to recover from the consternation it was in. But other counsellors retarded the march, by stopping to capture small towns on the way, until the opportunity for taking Paris was lost. The king, who had been braced up to a little energy by her influence, sank back into his indolent pleasures, and faction and frivolity possessed the court again. Jeanne strove with high courage against malignant opposition and many disheartenments, in the siege of Paris and after, exposing herself in battle with the bravery of a seasoned warrior; and her reward was to find herself abandoned at last, in a cowardly way, to the enemy, when she had led a sortie from the town of Compiegne, to drive back the Duke of Burgundy, who was besieging it. Taken prisoner, she was given up to the Duke, and sold by him to the English at Rouen.

That the Maid acted with supernatural powers was believed by the English as firmly as by the French; but those powers, in their belief, came, not from Heaven, but from Hell. In their view she was not a saint, but a sorceress. They paid a high price to the Duke of Burgundy for his captive, in order to put her on trial for the witchcraft which they held she had practised against them, and to destroy her mischievous power. No consideration for her sex, or her youth, or for the beauty and purity of character that is revealed in all the accounts of her trial, moved her judges to compassion. They condemned her remorselessly to the stake, and she was burned on the 31st of May, 1431, with no effort put forth on the part of the French or their ungrateful king to save her from that horrible fate.

After this, things went badly with the English, though some years passed before Charles VII. was roused again to any display of capable powers. At last, in 1435, a general conference of all parties in the war was brought about at Arras. The English were offered Normandy and Aquitaine in full sovereignty, but they refused it, and withdrew from the conference when greater concessions were denied to them. The Duke of Burgundy then made terms with King Charles, abandoning the English alliance, and obtaining satisfaction for the murder of his father. Charles was now able, for the first time in his reign, to enter the capital of his kingdom (May, 1436), and it is said that he found it so wasted by a pestilence and so ruined and deserted, that wolves came into the city, and that forty persons were devoured by them in a single week, some two years later.

Charles now began to show better qualities than had appeared in his character before. He adopted strong measures to suppress the bands of marauders who harassed and wasted the country, and to bring all armed forces in the kingdom under the control and command of the Crown. He began the creation of a disciplined and regulated militia in France. He called into his service the greatest French merchant of the day, Jacques Cœur, who successfully reorganized the finances of the state, and whose reward, after a few years, was to be prosecuted and plundered by malignant courtiers, while the king looked passively on, as he had looked on at the trial and execution of Jeanne d'Arc.

In 1449, a fresh attack upon the English in Normandy was begun; and as civil war—the War of the Roses—was then at the point of outbreak in England, they could make no effective resistance. Within a year, the whole of Normandy had become obedient again to the rule of the king of France. In two years more Guienne had been recovered, and when, in October, 1453, the French king entered Bordeaux, the English had been finally expelled from every foot of the realm except Calais and its near neighborhood. The Hundred Years War was at an end.

The century of the Hundred Years War had been, in England, one of few conspicuous events; and when the romantic tale of that war—the last sanguinary romance of expiring Chivalry—is taken out of the English annals of the time, there is not much left that looks interesting on the surface of things. Below the surface there are movements of no little importance to be found.

When Edward III. put forward his claim to the crown of France, and prepared to make it good by force of arms, the English nation had absolutely no interest of its own in the enterprise, from which it could derive no possible advantage, but which did, on the contrary, promise harm to it, very plainly, whatever might be the result. If the king succeeded, his English realm would become a mere minor appendage to a far more imposing continental dominion, and he and his successors might easily acquire a power independent and absolute, over their subjects. If he failed, the humiliation of failure would wound the pride and the prestige of the nation, while its resources would have been drained for naught. But these rational considerations did not suffice to breed any discoverable opposition to King Edward's ambitious undertaking. The Parliament gave sanction to it; most probably the people at large approved, with exultant expectations of national glory; and when Crécy and Poitiers, with victories over the hostile Scots, filled the measure of England's glory to overflowing, they were intoxicated by it, and had little thought then of the cost or the consequences.

But long before Edward's reign came to an end, the splendid pageantries of the war had passed out of sight, and a new generation was looking at, and was suffering from, the miseries and mortifications that came in its train. The attempt to conquer France had failed; the fruits of the victories of Crécy and Poitiers had been lost; even Guienne, which had been English ground since the days of Henry II., was mostly given up. And England was weak from the drain of money and men which the war had caused. The awful plague of the 14th century, the Black Death, had smitten her people hard and left diminished numbers to bear the burden. There had been famine in the land, and grievous distress, and much sorrow.

But the calamities of this bitter time wrought beneficent effects, which no man then living is likely to have clearly understood. By plague, famine and battle, labor was made scarce, wages were raised, the half-enslaved laborer was speedily emancipated, despite the efforts of Parliament to keep him in bonds, and land-owners were forced to let their lands to tenant-farmers, who strengthened the English middle-class. By the demands of the war for money and men, the king was held more in dependence on Parliament than he might otherwise have been, and the plant of constitutional government, which began its growth in the previous century, took deeper root.

In the last years of his life Edward III. lost all of his vigor, and fell under the influence of a woman, Alice Perrers, who wronged and scandalized the nation. The king's eldest son, the Black Prince, was slowly dying of an incurable disease, and took little part in affairs; when he interfered, it seems to have been with some leanings to the popular side. The next in age of the living sons of Edward was a turbulent, proud, self-seeking prince, who gave England much trouble and was hated profoundly. This was John, Duke of Lancaster, called John of Gaunt, or Ghent, because of his birth in that city.

   The Black Prince, dying in 1376, left a young son, Richard,
   then ten years old, who was immediately recognized as the heir
   to the throne, and who succeeded to it in the following year,
   when Edward III. died. The Duke of Lancaster had been
   suspected of a design to set Richard aside and claim the crown
   for himself. But he did not venture the attempt; nor was he
   able to secure even the regency of the kingdom during the
   young king's minority. The distrust of him was so general that
   Parliament and the lords preferred to invest Richard with full
   sovereignty even in his boyhood. But John of Gaunt,
   notwithstanding these endeavors to exclude him from any place
   of authority, contrived to attain a substantial mastery of the
   government, managing the war in France and the expenditure of
   public moneys in his own way, and managing them very badly. At
   least, he was held chiefly responsible for what was bad, and
   his name was heard oftenest in the mutterings of popular
   discontent. The peasants were now growing very impatient of
   the last fetters of villeinage which they wore, and very
   conscious of their right to complete freedom. Those feelings
   were strongly stirred in them by a heavy poll-tax which
   Parliament levied in 1381. The consequence was an outbreak of
   insurrection, led by one Wat the Tyler, which became
   formidable and dangerous. The insurgents began by making
   everybody they encountered swear to be true to King Richard,
   and to submit to no king named John, meaning John of Gaunt.
   They increased in numbers and boldness until they entered and
   took possession of the city of London, where they beheaded the
   Archbishop of Canterbury, and other obnoxious persons; but
   permitted no thieving to be done.
{1041}
   The day after this occurred, Wat Tyler met the young king at
   Smithfield, for a conference, and was suddenly killed by one
   of those who attended the king. The excuse made for the deed
   was some word of insolence on the part of the insurgent
   leader; but there is every appearance of a foul act of
   treachery in the affair. Richard on this occasion behaved
   boldly and with much presence of mind, acquiring by his
   courage and readiness a command over the angry rebels, which
   resulted in their dispersion.

The Wat Tyler rebellion appears to have manifested a more radically democratic state of thinking and feeling among the common people than existed again in England before the seventeenth century. John Ball, a priest, and others who were associated with Wat Tyler in the leadership, preached doctrines of social equality that would nearly have satisfied a Jacobin of the French Revolution.

This temper of political radicalism had no apparent connection with the remarkable religious feeling of the time, which the great reformer, Wyclif, had aroused; yet the two movements of the English mind were undoubtedly started by one and the same revolutionary shock, which it took from the grave alarms and anxieties of the age, and for which it had been prepared by the awakening of the previous century. Wyclif was the first English Puritan, and more of the spirit of the reformation of religion which he sought, than the spirit of Luther's reformation, went into the Protestantism that ultimately took form in England. The movement he stirred was a more wonderful anticipation of the religious revolt of the sixteenth century than any other which occurred in Europe; for that of Huss in Bohemia took its impulse from Wyclif and the English Lollards, as Wyclif's followers were called.

Richard was a weak but wilful king, and the kingdom was kept in trouble by his fitful attempts at independence and arbitrary rule. He made enemies of most of the great lords, and lost the good will and confidence of Parliament. He did what was looked upon as a great wrong to Henry of Bolingbroke, son of John of Gaunt, by banishing both him and the Duke of Norfolk from the kingdom, when he should have judged between them; and he made the wrong greater by seizing the lands of the Lancastrian house when John of Gaunt died. This caused his ruin. Henry of Bolingbroke, now Duke of Lancaster, came back to England (1399), encouraged by the discontent in the kingdom, and was immediately joined by so many adherents that Richard could offer little resistance. He was deposed by act of Parliament, and the Duke of Lancaster (a grandson of Edward III., as Richard was), was elected to the throne, which he ascended as Henry IV. By judgment of King and Parliament, Richard was presently condemned to imprisonment for life in Pomfret Castle; and, early in the following year, after a conspiracy in his favor had been discovered, he died mysteriously in his prison.

The reign of Henry IV., which lasted a little more than thirteen years, was troubled by risings and conspiracies, all originating among the nobles, out of causes purely personal or factious, and having no real political significance. But no events in English history are more commonly familiar, or seem to be invested with a higher importance, than the rebellions of Owen Glendower and the Percys,—Northumberland and Harry Hotspur,—simply because Shakespeare has laid his magic upon what otherwise would be a story of little note. Wars with the always hostile Scots supplied other stirring incidents to the record Of the time; but these came to a summary end in 1405, when the crown prince, James, of Scotland, voyaging to France, was driven by foul winds to the English coast and taken prisoner. The prince's father, King Robert, died on hearing the news, and James, the captive, was now entitled to be king. But the English held him for eighteen years, treating him as a guest at their court, rather than as a prisoner, and educating him with care, but withholding him from his kingdom.

To strengthen his precarious seat upon the throne, Henry cultivated the friendship of the Church, and seems to have found this course expedient, even at considerable cost to his popularity. For the attitude of the commons towards the Church during his reign was anything but friendly. They went so far as to pass a bill for the confiscation of Church property, which the Lords rejected; and they seem to have repented of an Act passed early in his reign, under which a cruel persecution of the Lollards was begun. The clergy and the Lords, with the favor of the king, maintained the barbarous law, and England for the first time saw men burned at the stake for heresy.

Henry IV. died in 1413, and was succeeded by his spirited and able, but too ambitious son, Henry V., the Prince Hal of Shakespeare, who gave up riotous living when called to the grave duties of government and showed himself to be a man of no common mould. The war in France, which he renewed, and the chief events of which have been sketched already, filled up most of his brief reign of nine years. His early death (1422) left two crowns to an infant nine months old. The English crown was not disputed. The French crown, though practically won by conquest, was not permanently secured, but was still to be fought for; and in the end, as we have seen, it was lost. No more need be said of the incidents of the war which had that result.

The infant king was represented in France by his elder uncle, the Duke of Bedford. In England, the government was carried on for him during his minority by a council, in which his younger uncle, Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, occupied the chief place, but with powers that were jealously restricted. While the war in France lasted, or during most of the thirty-one years through which it was protracted after Henry V.'s death, it engrossed the English mind and overshadowed domestic interests, so that the time has a meagre history.

Soon after he came of age, Henry VI. married (1444) Margaret of Anjou, daughter of René, Duke of Anjou, who claimed to be King of Naples and Jerusalem. The marriage, which aimed at peace with France, and which had been brought about by the cession to that country of Maine and Anjou, was unpopular in England. Discontent with the feeble management of the war, and with the general weakness and incapability of the government, grew apace, and showed itself, among other exhibitions, in a rebellion (1450) known as Jack Cade's, from the name of an Irishman who got the lead of it. Jack Cade and his followers took possession of London and held it for three days, only yielding at last to an offer of general pardon, after they had beheaded Lord Say, the most obnoxious adviser of the king. A previous mob had taken the head of the Earl of Suffolk, who was detested still more as the contriver of the king's marriage and of the humiliating policy in France.

At length, the Duke of York, representing an elder line of royal descent from Edward III., took the lead of the discontented in the nation, and civil war was imminent in 1452; but pacific counsels prevailed for the moment. The king, who had always been weak-minded, and entirely under the influence of the queen, now sank for a time into a state of complete stupor, and was incapable of any act. The Lords in Parliament thereupon appointed the Duke of York Protector of England, and the government was vigorously conducted by him for a few months, until the king recovered. The queen, and the councillors she favored, now regained their control of affairs, and the opposition took arms.

The long series of fierce struggles between these two parties, which is commonly called the Wars of the Roses, began on the 22d of May, 1455, with a battle at St. Albans—the first of two that were fought on the same ground. At the beginning, it was a contest for the possession of the unfortunate, irresponsible king, and of the royal authority which resided nominally in his person. But it became, ere long, a contest for the crown which Henry wore, and to which the Duke of York denied his right. The Duke traced his ancestry to one son of Edward III., and King Henry to another son. But the Duke's forefather, Lionel, was prior in birth to the King's forefather, John of Gaunt, and, as an original proposition, the House of York was clearly nearer than the House of Lancaster to the royal line which had been interrupted when Richard II. was deposed. The rights of the latter House were such as it had gained prescriptively by half a century of possession.

At one time it was decided by the Lords that Henry should be king until he died, and that the Duke of York and his heirs should succeed him. But Queen Margaret would not yield the rights of her son, and renewed the war. The Duke of York was killed in the next battle fought. His son, Edward, continued the contest, and early in 1461, having taken possession of London, he was declared king by a council of Lords, which formally deposed Henry. The Lancastrians were driven from the kingdom, and Edward held the government with little disturbance for eight years. Then a rupture occurred between him and his most powerful supporter, the Earl of Warwick. Warwick put himself at the head of a rebellion which failed in the first instance, but which finally, when Warwick had joined forces with Queen Margaret, drove Edward to flight. The latter took refuge in the Netherlands (1470), where he received protection and assistance from the Duke of Burgundy, who was his brother-in-law. Henry VI. was now restored to the throne; but for no longer a time than six months. At the end of that period Edward landed again in England, with a small force, professing that he came only to demand his dukedom. As soon as he found himself well received and strongly supported, he threw off the mask, resumed the title of king, and advanced to London, where the citizens gave him welcome. A few days later (April 14, 1471) he went out to meet Warwick and defeated and slew him in the fierce battle of Barnet. One more fight at Tewkesbury, where Queen Margaret was taken prisoner, ended the war. King Henry died, suspiciously, in the Tower, on the very night of his victorious rival's return to London, and Edward IV. had all his enemies under his feet.

For a few years England enjoyed peace within her borders, and the material effects of the protracted civil wars were rapidly effaced. Indeed, the greater part of England appears to have been lightly touched by those effects. The people at large had taken little part in the conflict, and had been less disturbed by it, in their industries and in their commerce, than might have been expected. It had been a strife among the great families, enlisting the gentry to a large extent, no doubt, but not the middle class. Hence its chief consequence had been the thinning and weakening of the aristocratic order, which relatively enhanced the political importance of the commons. But the commons were not yet trained to act independently in political affairs. Their rise in power had been through joint action of lords and commons against the Crown, with the former in the lead; they were accustomed to depend on aristocratic guidance, and to lean on aristocratic support. For this reason, they were not only unprepared to take advantage of the great opportunity which now opened to them, for decisively grasping the control of government, but they were unfitted to hold what they had previously won, without the help of the class above them. As a consequence, it was the king who profited by the decimation and impoverishment of the nobles, grasping not only the power which they lost, but the power which the commons lacked skill to use. For a century and a half following the Wars of the Roses, the English monarchy approached more nearly to absolutism than at any other period before or after.

The unsparing confiscations by which Edward IV. and his triumphant party crushed their opponents enriched the Crown for a time and made it independent of parliamentary subsidies. When supply from that source began to fall short, the king invented another. He demeaned himself so far as to solicit gifts from the wealthy merchants of the kingdom, to which he gave the name of "benevolences," and he practiced this system of royal beggary so persistently and effectually that he had no need to call Parliament together. He thus began, in a manner hardly perceived or resisted, the arbitrary and unconstitutional mode of government which his successors carried further, until the nation roused itself and took back its stolen liberties with vengeance and wrath.

Edward IV. died in 1483, leaving two young sons, the elder not yet thirteen. Edward's brother, Richard, contrived with amazing ability and unscrupulousness to acquire control of the government, first as Protector, and presently as King. The young princes, confined in the Tower, were murdered there, and Richard III. might have seemed to be secure on his wickedly won throne; for he did not lack popularity, notwithstanding his crimes. But an avenger soon came, in the person of Henry, Earl of Richmond, who claimed the Crown. Henry's claim was not a strong one. Through his mother, he traced his lineage to John of Gaunt, as the Lancastrians had done; but it was the mistress and not the wife of that prince who bore Henry's ancestor. His grandfather was a Welsh chieftain, Sir Owen Tudor, who won the heart of the widowed queen of Henry V., Catherine of France, and married her. But the claim of Henry of Richmond, if a weak one genealogically, sufficed for the overthrow of the red-handed usurper, Richard. Henry, who had been in exile, landed in England in August, 1485, and was quickly joined by large numbers of supporters. Richard hastened to attack them, and was defeated and slain on Bosworth Field. With no more opposition, Henry won the kingdom, and founded, as Henry VII., the Tudor dynasty which held the throne until the death of Elizabeth.

Under that dynasty, the history of England took on a new character, disclosing new tendencies, new impulses, new currents of influence, new promises of the future. We will not enter upon it until we have looked at some prior events in other regions.

If we return now to Germany, we take up the thread of events at an interesting point. We parted from the affairs of that troubled country while two rival Emperors, Louis IV., or Ludwig, of Bavaria, and Frederick of Austria, were endeavoring (1325) to settle their dispute in a friendly way, by sharing the throne together. Before noting the result of that chivalric and remarkable compromise, let us glance backward for a moment at the most memorable and important incident of the civil war which led to it.

The three cantons of Switzerland which are known distinctively as the Forest Cantons, namely, Schwytz (which gave its name in time to the whole country), Uri, and Unterwalden, had stood in peculiar relations to the Hapsburg family since long before Rudolph became Emperor and his house became the House of Austria. In those cantons, the territorial rights were held mostly by great monasteries, and the counts of Hapsburg for generations past had served the abbots and abbesses in the capacity of advocates, or champions, to rule their vassals for them and to defend their rights. Authority of their own in the cantons they had none. At the same time, the functions they performed so continually developed ideas in their minds, without doubt, which grew naturally into pretensions that were offensive to the bold mountaineers. On the other hand, the circumstances of the situation were calculated to breed notions and feelings of independence among the men of the mountains. They gave their allegiance to the Emperor—to the high sovereign who ruled over all, in the name of Rome—and they opposed what came between them and him. It is manifest that a threatening complication for them arose when the Count of Hapsburg became Emperor, which occurred in 1273. They had no serious difficulty with Rudolph, in his time; but they wisely prepared themselves for what might come, by forming, or by renewing, in 1291, a league of the three cantons,—the beginning and nucleus of the Swiss Confederation, which has maintained its independence and its freedom from that day to this. The league of 1291 had existed something more than twenty years when the confederated cantons were first called upon to stand together in resistance to the Austrian pretensions. This occurred in 1315, during the war between Louis and Frederick, when Leopold, Duke of Austria, invaded the Forest Cantons and was disastrously beaten in a fight at the pass of Morgarten. The victory of the confederates and the independence secured by it gave them so much prestige that neighboring cities and cantons sought admission to their league. In 1332 Luzern was received as a member; in 1351, 1352, and 1353, Zurich, Glarus, Zug, and Bern came in, increasing the membership to eight. It took the name of the Old League of High Germany, and its members were known as Eidgenossen, or Confederates.

Such, in brief, are the ascertained facts of the origin of the Swiss Confederacy. There is nothing found in authentic history to substantiate the popular legend of William Tell.

The questions between the league and the Austrian princes, which continued to be troublesome for two generations, were practically ended by the two battles of Sempach and Naefels, fought in 1386 and 1388, in both of which the Austrians were overthrown.

   While the Swiss were gaining the freedom which they never
   lost, Germany at large was making little progress in any
   satisfactory direction. Peace had not been restored by the
   friendly agreement of 1325 between Ludwig and Frederick. The
   partisans of neither were contented with it. Frederick was
   broken in health and soon retired from the government; in 1330
   he died. The Austrian house persisted in hostility to Louis;
   but his more formidable enemies were the Pope and the King of
   France. The period was that known in papal history as "the
   Babylonish Captivity," when the popes resided at Avignon and
   were generally creatures of the French court and subservient
   to its ambitions or its animosities. Philip of Valois, who now
   reigned in France, aspired to the imperial crown, which the head
   of the Church had conferred on the German kings, and which the
   same supreme pontiff might claim authority to transfer to the
   sovereigns of France. This is supposed to have been the secret
   of the relentless hostility with which Louis was pursued by
   the Papacy—himself excommunicated, his kingdom placed under
   interdict, and every effort made to bring about his deposition
   by the princes of Germany. But divided and depressed as the
   Germans were, they revolted against these malevolent
   pretensions of the popes, and in 1338 the electoral princes
   issued a bold declaration, asserting the sufficiency of the
   act of election to confer imperial dignity and power, and
   denying the necessity for any papal confirmation whatever. Had
   Louis been a commanding leader, and independent of the Papacy in
   his own feelings, he could probably have rallied a national
   sentiment on this issue that would have powerfully affected
   the future of German history.
{1044}
   But he lacked the needful character, and his troubles
   continued until he died (1347). A year before his death, his
   opponents had elected and put forward a rival emperor,
   Charles, the son of King John of Bohemia. Charles (IV.) was
   subsequently recognized as king without dispute, and secured
   the imperial crown. "It may be affirmed with truth that the
   genuine ancient Empire, which contained a German kingdom, came
   to an end with the Emperor Ludwig the Bavarian. None strove
   again after his death to restore the imperial power. The
   golden bull of his successor Charles IV. sealed the fate of
   the old Empire. Through it, and indeed through the entire
   conduct of Charles IV., King of Bohemia as he really was, and
   emperor scarcely more than in name, the imperial government
   passed more and more into the hands of the prince-electors,
   who came to regard the emperor no longer as their master, but
   as the president of an assembly in which he shared the power
   with themselves." "From the time of Charles IV. the main
   object and chief occupation of the emperors was not the
   Empire, but the aggrandisement and security of their own
   house. The Empire served only as the means and instrument of
   their purpose" (Dollinger).

The Golden Bull referred to by Dr. Dollinger was an instrument which became the constitution, so to speak, of the Holy Roman or Germanic Empire. It prescribed the mode of the election of the King, and definitively named the seven Electors. It also conferred certain special powers and privileges on these seven princes, which raised them much above their fellows and gave them an independence that may be said to have destroyed every hope of Germanic unity. This was the one mark which the reign of Charles IV. left upon the Empire. His exertions as Emperor were all directed to the aggrandizement of his own family, and with not much lasting result. In his own kingdom of Bohemia he ruled with better effect. He made its capital, Prague, an important city, adorning it with noble buildings and founding in it the most ancient of German universities. This University of Prague soon sowed seeds from which sprang the first movement of religious reformation in Germany.

Charles IV., dying in 1378, was succeeded by his son Wenzel, or Wenceslaus, on the imperial throne as well as the Bohemian. Wenceslaus neglected both the Empire and the Kingdom, and the confusion of things in Germany grew worse. Some of the principal cities continued to secure considerable freedom and prosperity for themselves, by the combined efforts of their leagues; but everywhere else great disorder and oppression prevailed. It was at this time that the Swabian towns, to the number of forty-one, formed a union and waged unsuccessful war with a league which the nobles entered into against them. They were defeated, and crushingly dealt with by the Emperor.

In 1400 Wenceslaus was deposed and Rupert of the Palatinate was elected, producing another civil war, and reducing the imperial government to a complete nullity. Rupert died in 1410, and, after some contention, Sigmund, or Sigismund, brother of Wenceslaus, was raised to the throne. He was Margrave of Brandenburg and King of Hungary, and would become King of Bohemia when Wenceslaus died.

Bohemia was about to become the scene of an extraordinary religious agitation, which John Huss, teacher and preacher in the new but already famous University of Prague, was beginning to stir. Huss, who drew more or less of his inspiration from Wyclif, anticipated Luther in the boldness of his attacks upon iniquities in the Church. In his case as in Luther's, the abomination which he could not endure was the sale of papal indulgences; and it was by his denunciation of that impious fraud that he drew on himself the deadly wrath of the Roman hierarchy. He was summoned before the great Council of the Church which opened at Constance in 1414. He obeyed the summons and went to the Council, bearing a safe-conduct from the Emperor which pledged protection to him until he returned. Notwithstanding this imperial pledge, he was imprisoned for seven months at Constance, and was then impatiently listened to and condemned to the stake. On the 6th of July, 1415, he was burned. In the following May, his friend and disciple, Jerome of Prague, suffered the same martyrdom. The Emperor, Sigismund, blustered a little at the insolent violation of his safe-conduct; but dared do nothing to make it effective.

In Bohemia, the excitement produced by these outrages was universal. The whole nation seemed to rise, in the first wide-spread aggressive popular revolt that the Church of Rome had yet been called upon to encounter. In 1419 there was an armed assembly of 40,000 men, on a mountain which they called Tabor, who placed themselves under the leadership of John Ziska, a nobleman, one of Huss' friends. The followers of Ziska soon displayed a violence of temper and a radicalism which repelled the more moderate Hussites, or Reformers, and two parties appeared, one known as the Taborites, the other as the Calixtines, or Utraquists. The former insisted on entire separation from the Church of Rome; the latter confined their demands to four reforms, namely: Free preaching of the Word of God; the giving of the Eucharistic cup to the laity; the taking of secular powers and of worldly goods from the clergy; the enforcing of Christian discipline by all authorities. So much stress was laid by the Calixtines on their claim to the chalice or cup (communion in both kinds) that it gave them their name. The breach between these parties widened until they were as hostile to each other as to the Catholics, and the Bohemian reform movement was ruined in the end by their division.

In 1419, the deposed Emperor Wenceslaus, who had still retained his kingdom of Bohemia, was murdered in his palace, at Prague. His brother, the Emperor Sigismund, was his heir; but the Hussites refused the crown to him, and resisted his pretensions with arms. This added a political conflict to the religious one, and Bohemia was afflicted with a frightful civil war for fifteen years. Ziska fortified mount Tabor and took possession of Prague. The Emperor and the Pope allied themselves, to crush an insurrection which was aimed against both. They summoned Christendom to a new crusade, and Sigismund led 100,000 men against Prague, in 1420. Ziska met him and defeated him, and drove him, with his crusaders, from the country. The Taborites were now maddened by their success, and raged over the land, destroying convents and burning priests. Their doctrines, moreover, began to take on a socialistic and republican character, threatening property in general and questioning monarchy, too. The well-to-do and conservative classes were more and more repelled from them.

In 1421 a second crusading army, 200,000 strong, invaded Bohemia and was scattered like chaff by Ziska (now blind) and his peasant soldiery. The next year they defeated the Emperor again; but in 1424 Ziska died, and a priest called Procopius the Great took his place. Under their new leader, the fierce Taborites were as invincible as they had been under Ziska. They routed an imperial army in 1426, and then carried the war into Austria and Silesia, committing fearful ravages. Still another crusade was set in motion against them by the Pope, and still another disastrous failure was made of it. Then Germany again suffered a more frightful visitation from the vengeful Hussites than before. Towns and villages were destroyed by hundreds, and wide tracks of ruin and death were marked on the face of the land, to its very center. Once more, and for the last time, in 1431, the Germans rallied a great force to retaliate these attacks, and they met defeat, as in all previous encounters, but more completely than ever before. Then the Pope and the Emperor gave up hope of putting down the indomitable revolutionists by force, and opened parleyings. The Pope called a council at Basel for the discussion of questions with the Hussites, and, finally, in 1433, their moderate party was prevailed upon to accept a compromise which really conceded nothing to them except the use of the cup in the communion. The Taborites refused the terms, and the two parties grappled each other in a fierce struggle for the control of the state. But the extremists had lost much of their old strength, and the Utraquists vanquished them in a decisive battle at Lipan, in May, 1434. Two years later Sigismund was formally acknowledged King of Bohemia and received in Prague. In 1437 he died. His son-in-law, Albert of Austria, who succeeded him, lived but two years, and the heir to the throne then was a son, Ladislaus, born after his father's death. This left Bohemia in a state of great confusion and disorder for several years, until a strong man, George Podiebrad, acquired the control of affairs.

Meantime, the Utraquists had organized a National Church of Bohemia, considerably divergent from Rome. It failed to satisfy the deeper religious feelings that were widely current among the Bohemians in that age, and there grew up a sect which took the name of "Unitas Fratrum," or "Unity of the Brethren," but which afterwards became incorrectly known as the Moravian Brethren. This sect, still existing, has borne an important part in the missionary history of the Christian world.

The Papacy, at the time of its conflict with the Hussites, in Bohemia, was rapidly sinking to that lowest level of debasement which it reached in the later part of the fifteenth century. Its state was not yet so abhorrent as it came to be under the Borgias; but it had been brought even more into contempt, perhaps, by the divisions and contentions of "the Great Schism." The so-called "Babylonish Captivity" of the series of popes who resided for seventy years at Avignon (1305-1376), and who were under French influence, had been humiliating to the Church; but the schism which immediately followed (1378-1417), when a succession of rival popes, or popes and antipopes, thundered anathemas and excommunications at one another, from Rome and from Avignon, was even more scandalous and shameful. Christendom was divided by the quarrel. France, Spain, Scotland, and some lesser states, gave their allegiance to the pope at Avignon; England, Germany and the northern kingdoms adhered to the pope at Rome. In 1402, an attempt to heal the schism was made by a general Council of the Church convened at Pisa. It decreed the deposition of both the contending pontiffs, and elected a third; but its authority was not recognized, and the confusion of the Church was only made worse by bringing three popes into the quarrel, instead of two. Twelve years later, another Council, held at Constance,—the same which burned Huss,—had more success. Europe had now grown so tired of the scandal, and so disgusted with the three pretenders to spiritual supremacy, that the action of the Council was backed by public opinion, and they were suppressed. A fourth pope, Martin V., whom the Council then seated in the chair of St. Peter (1417), was universally acknowledged, and the Great Schism was at an end.

But other scandals and abuses in the Church, which public opinion in Europe had already begun to cry loudly against, were untouched by these Councils. A subsequent Council at Basel, which met in 1431, attempted some restraints upon papal extortion (ignoring the more serious moral evils that claimed attention); but was utterly beaten in the conflict with Pope Eugenius IV., which this action brought on, and its decrees lost all effect. So the religious autocracy at Rome, sinking stage by stage below the foulest secular courts of the time, continued without check to insult and outrage, more and more, the piety, the common sense, and the decent feeling of Christendom, until the habit of reverence was quite worn out in the minds of men throughout the better half of Europe.

The city of Rome had fallen from all greatness of its own when it came to be dependent on the fortunes of the popes. Their departure to Avignon had reduced it to a lamentable state. They took with them, in reality, the sustenance of the city; for it lived, in the main, on the revenues of the Papacy, and knew little of commerce beyond the profitable traffic in indulgences, absolutions, benefices, relics and papal blessings, which went to Avignon with the head of the Church. Authority, too, departed with the Pope, and the wretched city was given up to anarchy almost uncontrolled. A number of powerful families—the Colonna, the Orsini, and others—perpetually at strife with one another, fought out their feuds in the streets, and abused and oppressed their neighbors with impunity. Their houses were impregnable castles, and their retainers were a formidable army.

It was while this state of things was at its worst that the famous Cola di Rienzi, "last of the Tribunes," accomplished a revolution which was short-lived but extraordinary. He roused the people to action against their oppressors and the disturbers of their peace. He appealed to them to restore the republican institutions of ancient Rome, and when they responded, in 1347, by conferring on him the title and authority of a Tribune, he actually succeeded in expelling the turbulent nobles, or reducing them to submission, and established in Rome, for a little time, what he called "the Good Estate." But his head was quickly turned by his success; he was inflated with conceit and vanity; he became arrogant and despotic; the people tired of him, and after a few months of rule he was driven from Rome. In 1354 he came back as a Senator, appointed by the Pope, who thought to use him for the restoration of papal authority; but his influence was gone, and he was slain by a-riotous mob.

The return of the Pope to Rome in 1376 was an event so long and ardently desired by the Roman people that they submitted themselves eagerly to his government. But his sovereignty over the States of the Church was substantially lost, and the regaining of it was the principal object of the exertions of the popes for a long subsequent period.

In Southern Italy and Sicily, since the fall of the Hohenstaufens (1268), the times had been continuously evil. The rule of the French conqueror, Charles of Anjou, was hard and unmerciful, and the power he established became threatening to the Papacy, which gave the kingdom to him. In 1282, Sicily freed itself, by the savage massacre of Frenchmen which bears the name of the Sicilian Vespers. The King of Aragon, Peter III., whose queen was the Hohenstaufen heiress, supported the insurrection promptly and vigorously, took possession of the island, and was recognized by the people as their king. A war of twenty years' duration ensued. Both Charles and Peter died and their sons continued the battle. In the end, the Angevin house held the mainland, as a separate kingdom, with Naples for its capital, and a younger branch of the royal family of Aragon reigned in the island. But both sovereigns called themselves Kings of Sicily, so that History, ever since, has been forced to speak puzzlingly of "Two Sicilies." For convenience it seems best to distinguish them by calling one the kingdom of Naples and the other the kingdom of Sicily. On the Neapolitan throne there came one estimable prince, in Robert, who reigned from 1309 to 1343, and who was a friend of peace and a patron of arts and letters. But after him the throne was befouled by crimes and vices, and the kingdom was made miserable by civil wars. His grand-daughter Joanna, or Jane, succeeded him. Robert's elder brother Caribert had become King of Hungary, and Joanna now married one of that king's sons—her cousin Andrew. At the end of two years he was murdered (1345) and the queen, a notoriously vicious woman, was accused of the crime. Andrew's brother, Louis, who had succeeded to the throne in Hungary, invaded Naples to avenge his death, and Joanna was driven to flight. The country then suffered from the worst form of civil war—a war carried on by the hireling ruffians of the "free companies" who roamed about Italy in that age, selling their swords to the highest bidders. In 1351 a peace was brought about which restored Joanna to the throne. The Hungarian King's son, known as Charles of Durazzo, was her recognized heir, but she saw fit to disinherit him and adopt Louis, of the Second House of Anjou, brother of Charles V. in France. Charles of Durazzo invaded Naples, took the queen prisoner and put her to death. Louis of Anjou attempted to displace him, but failed. In 1383 Louis died, leaving his claims to his son. Charles of Durazzo was called to Hungary, after a time, to take the crown of that kingdom, and left his young son, Ladislaus, on the Neapolitan throne. The Angevin claimant, Louis II., was then called in by his partisans, and civil war was renewed for years. When Ladislaus reached manhood he succeeded in expelling Louis, and he held the kingdom until his death, in 1414. He was succeeded by his sister, Joanna II., who proved to be as wicked and dissolute a woman as her predecessor of the same name. She incurred the enmity of the Pope, who persuaded Louis III., son of Louis II., to renew the claims of his house. The most renowned "condottiere" (or military contractor, as the term might be translated), of the day, Atteridolo Sforza, was engaged to make war on Queen Joanna in the interest of Louis. On her side she obtained a champion by promising her dominions to Alfonso V., of Aragon and Sicily. The struggle went on for years, with varying fortunes. The fickle and treacherous Joanna revoked her adoption of Alfonso, after a time, and made Louis her heir. When Louis died, she bequeathed her crown to his brother René, Duke of Lorraine. Her death occurred in 1435, but still the war continued, and nearly all Italy was involved in it, taking one side or the other. Alfonso succeeded at last (1442) in establishing himself at Naples, and René practically gave up the contest, although he kept the title of King of Naples. He was the father of the famous English Queen Margaret of Anjou, who fought for her weak-minded husband and her son in the Wars of the Roses.

While the Neapolitan kingdom was passing through these endless miseries of anarchy, civil war, and evil government, the Sicilian kingdom enjoyed a more peaceful and prosperous existence. The crown, briefly held by a cadet branch of the House of Aragon, was soon reunited to that of Aragon; and under Alfonso, as we have seen, it was once more joined with that of Naples, in a "Kingdom of the Two Sicilies." But both these unions were dissolved on the death of Alfonso, who bequeathed Aragon and Sicily to his legitimate heir, and Naples to a bastard son.

In Northern Italy a great change in the political state of many among the formerly free commonwealths had been going on since the thirteenth century. The experience of the Greek city-republics had been repeated in them. In one way and another, they had fallen under the domination of powerful families, who had established a despotic rule over them, sometimes gathering several cities and their surrounding territory into a considerable dominion, and obtaining from the Emperor or the Pope a formally conferred and hereditary title. Thus the Visconti had established themselves at Milan, and had become a ducal house. After a few generations they gave way to the military adventurer, Francesco Sforza, son of the Sforza who made war for Louis III. of Anjou on Joanna II. of Naples. In Verona, the Della Scala family reigned for a time, until Venice overcame them; at Modena and Ferrara, the Estes; at Mantua, the Gonzagas; at Padua, the Carraras.

In other cities, the political changes were of a different character. Venice, which grew rich and powerful with extraordinary rapidity, was tyrannically governed by a haughty and exclusive aristocracy. In commerce and in wealth she surpassed all her rivals, and her affairs were more shrewdly conducted. She held large possessions in the East, and she was acquiring an extensive dominion on the Italian mainland. The Genoese, who were the most formidable competitors of Venice in commerce, preserved their democracy, but at some serious expense to the administrative efficiency of their government. They were troubled by a nobility which could only be turbulent and could not control. They fought a desperate but losing fight with the Venetians, and were several times in subjection to the dukes of Milan and the kings of France. Pisa, which had led both Venice and Genoa in the commercial race at the beginning, was ruined by her wars with the latter, and with Florence, and sank, in the fourteenth century, under the rule of the Visconti, who sold their rights to the Florentines.

The wonderful Florentine republic was the one which preserved its independence under popular institutions the longest, and in which they bore the most splendid fruit. For a period that began in the later part of the thirteenth century, the government of Florence was so radically democratic that the nobles (grandi) were made ineligible to office, and could only qualify themselves for election to any place in the magistracy by abandoning their order and engaging in the labor of some craft or art. The vocations of skilled industry were all organized in gilds, called Arti, and were divided into two classes, one representing what were recognized as the superior arts (Arti Major, embracing professional and mercantile callings, with some others); the other including the commoner industries, known as the Arti Minori. From the heads, or Priors, of the Arti were chosen a Signory, changed every two months, which was entrusted with the government of the republic. This popular constitution was maintained in its essential features through the better part of a century, but with continual resistance and disturbance from the excluded nobles, on one side, and from the common laboring people, on the other, who belonged to no art-gild and who, therefore, were excluded likewise from participation in political affairs. Between these two upper and lower discontents, the bourgeois constitution gave way at last. The mob got control for a time; but only, as always happens, to bring about a reactionary revolution, which placed an oligarchy in power; and the oligarchy made smooth the way for a single family of great wealth and popular gifts and graces to rise to supremacy in the state. This was the renowned family which began to rule in Florence in 1435, when Cosimo de' Medici entered on the office of Gonfaloniere. The Medici were not despots, of the class of the Visconti, or the Sforzas, or the Estes. They governed under the old constitutional forms, with not much violation of anything except the spirit of them. They acquired no princely title, until the late, declining days of the house. Their power rested on influence and prestige, at first, and finally on habit. They developed, and enlisted in their own support, as something reflected from themselves, the pride of the city in itself,—in its magnificence,—in its great and liberal wealth,—in its patronage of letters and art,—in its fame abroad and the admiration with which men looked upon it.

Through all the political changes in Florence there ran an unending war of factions, the bitterest and most inveterate in history. The control of the city belonged naturally to the Guelfs, for it was the head and front of the Guelfic party in Italy. "Without Florence," says one historian, "there would have been no Guelfs." But neither party scrupled to call armed help from the outside into its quarrels, and the Ghibellines were able, nearly as often as the Guelfs, to drive their opponents from the city. For the ascendancy of one faction meant commonly the flight or expulsion of every man in the other who had importance enough to be noticed. It was thus that Dante, an ardent Ghibelline, became an exile from his beloved Florence during the later years of his life. But the strife of Guelfs with Ghibellines did not suffice for the partisan rancor of the Florentines, and they complicated it with another split of factions, which bore the names of the Bianchi and the Neri, 01' the Whites and the Blacks.

For two or three centuries the annals of Florence are naught, one thinks in reading them, but an unbroken tale of strife within, or war without—of tumult, riot, revolution, disorder. And yet, underneath, there is an amazing story to be found, of thrift, industry, commerce, prosperity, wealth, on one side, and of the sublimest genius, on another, giving itself, in pure devotion, to poetry and art. The contradiction of circumstances seems irreconcilable to our modern experience, and we have to seek an explanation of it in the very different conditions of mediæval life. It is with certainty a fact that Florence, in its democratic time, was phenomenal in genius, and in richness of life,—in prosperity both material and intellectual; and it is reasonable to credit to that time the planting and the growing of fruits which ripened surpassingly in the Medicean age.

So little occasion has arisen for any mention of the lingering Eastern Empire, since Michael Palæologus, the Greek, recovered Constantinople from the Franks (1261), that its existence might easily be forgotten. It had no importance until it fell, and then it loomed large again, in history, not only by the tragic impression of its fall upon the imaginations of men, but by the potent consequences of it.

For nearly two hundred years, the successors of Palæologus, still calling themselves "Emperors of the Romans," and ruling a little Thracian and Macedonian corner of the old dominion of the Eastern Cæsars, struggled with a new race of Turks, who had followed the Seljuk horde out of the same Central Asian region. One of the first known leaders of this tribe was Osman, or Othman, after whom they are sometimes called Osmanlis, but more frequently Ottoman Turks. They appeared in Asia Minor about the middle of the thirteenth century, attacking both Christian and Mahometan states, and gradually extending their conquest over the whole. About the end of the first century of their career, they passed the straits and won a footing in Europe. In 1361, they took Hadrianople and made it their capital. Their sultan at this time was Amurath.

As yet, they did not attack Constantinople. The city itself was too strong in its fortifications; but beyond the walls of the capital there was no strength in the little fragment of Empire that remained. It appealed vainly to Western Europe for help. It sought to make terms with the Church of Rome. Nothing saved it for the moment but the evident disposition of the Turk to regard it as fruit which would drop to his hand in due time, and which he might safely leave waiting while he turned his arms against its more formidable neighbors. He contented himself with exacting tribute from the emperors, and humiliating them by commands which they dared not disobey. In the Servians, the Bosnians, and the Bulgarians, Amurath found worthier foes. He took Sophia, their principal city, from the latter, in 1382; in 1389 he defeated the two former nations in the great battle of Kossova. At the moment of victory he was assassinated, and his son Bajazet mounted the Ottoman throne. The latter, at Nicopolis (1396), overwhelmed and destroyed the one army which Western Europe sent to oppose the conquering march of his terrible race. Six years later, he himself was vanquished and taken prisoner in Asia by a still more terrible conqueror,—the fiendish Timour or Tamerlane, then scourging the eastern Continent. For some years the Turks were paralyzed by a disputed succession; but under Amurath II., who came to the throne in 1421, their advance was resumed, and in a few years more their long combat with the Hungarians began.

The original line of kings of Hungary having died out in 1301, the influence of the Pope, who claimed the kingdom as a fief of the papal see, secured the election to the throne of Charles Robert, or Caribert, of the Naples branch of the House of Anjou. He and his son Louis, called the Great, raised the kingdom to notable importance and power. Louis added the crown of Poland to that of Hungary, and on his death, leaving two daughters, the Polish crown passed to the husband of one and the Hungarian crown to the husband of the other. This latter was Sigismund of Luxemburg, who afterwards became Emperor, and also King of Bohemia. Under Sigismund, Hungary was threatened on one side by the Turks, and ravaged on the other by the Hussites of Bohemia. He was succeeded (1437) by his son-in-law, Albert of Austria, who lived only two years, and the latter was followed by Wladislaus, King of Poland; who again united the two crowns, though at the cost of a distracting civil war with partisans of the infant son of Albert. It was in the reign of this prince that the Turks began their obstinate attacks on Hungary, and thenceforth, for two centuries and more, that afflicted country served Christendom as a battered bulwark which the new warriors of Islam could beat and disfigure but could not break down. The hero of these first Hungarian wars with the Turks was John Huniades, or Hunyady, a Wallachian, who fought them with success until a peace was concluded in 1444. But King Wladislaus was persuaded the same year by a papal agent to break the treaty and to lead an expedition against the enemy's lines. The result was a calamitous defeat, the death of the king, and the almost total destruction of his army. Huniades now became regent of the kingdom, during the minority of the late King Albert's young son, Ladislaus.

He suffered one serious defeat at the hands of the Turks, but avenged it again and again, with help from an army of volunteers raised in all parts of Europe by the exertions of a zealous monk named Capistrano. When Huniades died, in 1456, his enemies already controlled the worthless young king, Ladislaus, and the latter pursued him in his grave with denunciations as a traitor and a villain. In 1458, Ladislaus died, and Mathias, a son of Huniades, was elected king. After he had settled himself securely upon the throne, Mathias turned his arms, not against the Turks, but against the Hussites of Bohemia, in an attempt to wrest the crown of that kingdom from George Podiebrad.

Meantime, the Turkish Sultan, Mohammed II., had accomplished the capture of Constantinople and brought the venerable Empire of the East—Roman, Greek, or Byzantine, as we choose to name it—to an end. He was challenged to the undertaking by the folly of the last Emperor, Constantine Palæologus, who threatened to support a pretender to Mohammed's throne. The latter began serious preparations at once for a siege of the long coveted city, and opened his attack in April, 1453. The Greeks, even in that hour of common danger, were too hotly engaged in a religious quarrel to act defensively together. Their last preceding emperor had gone personally to the Council of the Western Church, at Florence, in 1439, with some of the bishops of the Greek Church, and had arranged for the submission of the latter to Rome, as a means of procuring help from Catholic Europe against the Turks. His successor, Constantine, adhered to this engagement, professed the Catholic faith and observed the Catholic ritual. His subjects in general repudiated the imperial contract with scorn, and avowedly preferred a Turkish master to a Roman shepherd. Hence they took little part in the defense of the city. Constantine, with the small force at his command, fought the host of besiegers with noble courage and obstinacy for seven weeks, receiving a little succor from the Genoese, but from no other quarter. On the 29th of May the walls were carried by storm; the Emperor fell, fighting bravely to the last; and the Turks became masters of the city of Constantine. There was no extensive massacre of the inhabitants; the city was given up to pillage, but not to destruction, for the conqueror intended to make it his capital. A number of fugitives had escaped, before, or during the siege, and made their way into Italy and other parts of Europe, carrying an influence which was importantly felt, as we shall presently see; but 60,000 captives, men, women and children, were sold into slavery and scattered throughout the Ottoman Empire.

Greece and most of the islands of the Ægean soon shared the fate of Constantinople, and the subjugation of Servia and Bosnia was made complete. Mohammed was even threatening Italy when he died, in 1481.

We have now come, in our hasty survey of European history, to the stretch of time within which historians have quite generally agreed to place the ending of the state of things characteristic of the Middle Ages, and the beginning of the changed conditions and the different spirit that belong to the modern life of the civilized world. The transition in European society from mediæval to modern ways, feelings, and thoughts has been called Renaissance, or new birth; but the figure under which this places the conception before one's mind does not seem to be really a happy one. There was no birth of anything new in the nature of the generations of men who passed through that change, nor in the societies which they formed. What occurred to make changes in both was an expansion, a liberation, an enlightenment—an opening of eyes, and of ears, and of inner senses and sensibilities. There was no time and no place that can be marked at which this began; and there is no cause nor chain of causes to which it can be traced. We have found signs of its coming, here and there, in one token of movement and another, all the way through later mediæval times—at least since the first Crusades. In the thirteenth century there was a wonderful quickening of all the many processes which made it up. In the fourteenth century they were checked; but still they went on. In the fifteenth they revived with greater energy than before; and in the sixteenth they rose to their climax in intensity and effect. That which took place in European society was not a re-naissance so much as the re-wakening of men to a day-light existence, after a thousand years of sunless night,—moonlighted at the best. The truest descriptive figure is that which represents these preludes to our modern age as a morning dawn and daybreak.

Probably foremost among the causes of the change in Western Europe from the mediæval to the modern state, we must place those influences that extinguished the disorganizing forces in feudalism. Habits and forms of the feudal arrangement remained troublesome in society, as they do in some measure to the present day; but feudalism as a system of social disorder and disintegration was by this time cleared away. We have noted in passing some of the undermining agencies by which it was destroyed: the crusading movements; the growth and enfranchisement of cities; the spread of commerce; the rise of a middle class; the study of Roman law; the consequent increase of royal authority in France,—all these were among the causes of its decline. But possibly none among them wrought such quick and deadly harm to feudalism as the introduction of gunpowder and fire-arms in war, which occurred in the fourteenth century. When his new weapons placed the foot-soldier on a fairly even footing in battle with the mailed and mounted knight, the feudal military organization of society was ruined beyond remedy. The changed conditions of warfare made trained armies, and therefore standing armies, a necessity; standing armies implied centralized authority; with centralized authority the feudal condition disappeared.

If these agencies in the generating of the new movement of civilization which we call Modern are placed before the subtler and more powerful influence of the printing press, it is because they had to do a certain work in the world before the printing press could be an efficient educator. Some beginning of a public, in our modern sense, required to be created, for letters to act upon. Until that came about, the copyists of the monasteries and of the few palace libraries existing were more than sufficient to satisfy all demands for the multiplication of ancient writings or the publication of new ones. The printer, if he had existed, would have starved for want of employment. He would have lacked material, moreover, to work upon; for it was the rediscovery of a great ancient literature which made him busy when he came.

The preparation of Europe for an effective use of the art of printing may be said to have begun in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, when the great universities of Paris, Bologna, Naples, Padua, Modena, and others, came into existence, to be centers of intellectual irritation—disputation—challenge—groping inquiry. But it was not until the fourteenth century, when the labors and the influence of Petrarch and other scholars and men of genius roused interest in the forgotten literature of ancient Rome and Greece, that the craving and seeking for books grew considerable. Scholars and pretended scholars from the Greek Empire then began to find employment, in Italy more especially, as teachers of the Greek language, and a market was opened for manuscripts of the older Greek writings, which brought many precious ones to light, after long burial, and multiplied copies of them. From Italy, this revival of classic learning crept westward and northward somewhat slowly, but it went steadily on, and the book as a commodity in the commerce of the world rose year by year in importance, until the printer came forward, about the middle of the fifteenth century, to make it abundant and cheap.

Whether John Gutenberg, at Mentz, in 1454, or Laurent Coster, at Haarlem, twenty years earlier, executed the first printing with movable types, is a question of small importance, except as a question of justice between the two possible inventors, in awarding a great fame which belongs to one or both. The grand fact is, that thought and knowledge took wings from that sublime invention, and ideas were spread among men with a swift diffusion that the world had never dreamed of before. The slow wakening that had gone on for two centuries became suddenly so quick that scarcely more than fifty years, from the printing of the first Bible, sufficed to inoculate half of Europe with the independent thinking of a few boldly enlightened men.

If Gutenberg's printing of Pope Nicholas' letter of indulgence, in 1454, was really the first achievement of the new-born art, then it followed by a single year the event commonly fixed upon for the dating of our Modern Era, and it derived much of its earliest importance indirectly from that event. For the fall of Constantinople, in 1453, was preceded and followed by a flight of Greeks to Western Europe, bearing such treasures as they could save from the Turks. Happily those treasures included precious manuscripts; and among the fugitives was no small number of educated Greeks, who became teachers of their language in the West. Thus teaching and text were offered at the moment when the printing press stood ready to make a common gift of them to every hungering student. This opened the second of the three stages which the late John Addington Symonds defined in the history of scholarship during the Renaissance: "The first is the age of passionate desire; Petrarch poring over a Homer he could not understand, and Boccaccio in his maturity learning Greek, in order that he might drink from the well-head of poetic inspiration, are the heroes of this period. They inspired the Italians with a thirst for antique culture. Next comes the age of acquisition and of libraries. Nicholas V., who founded the Vatican Library in 1453, Cosmo de' Medici, who began the Medicean Collection a little earlier, and Poggio Bracciolani, who ransacked all the cities and convents of Europe for manuscripts, together with the teachers of Greek, who in the first half of the fifteenth century escaped from Constantinople with precious freights of classic literature, are the heroes of this second period." "Then came the third age of scholarship—the age of the critics, philologers, and printers. … Florence, Venice, Basle, and Paris groaned with printing presses. The Aldi, the Stephani, and Froben, toiled by night and day, employing scores of scholars, men of supreme devotion and of mighty brain, whose work it was to ascertain the right reading of sentences, to accentuate, to punctuate, to commit to the press, and to place beyond the reach of monkish hatred or of envious time, that everlasting solace of humanity which exists in the classics. All subsequent achievements in the field of scholarship sink into insignificance beside the labours of these men, who needed genius, enthusiasm, and the sympathy of Europe for the accomplishment of their titanic task. Virgil was printed in 1470, Homer in 1488, Aristotle in 1498, Plato in 1512. They then became the inalienable heritage of mankind. … This third age in the history of the Renaissance Scholarship may be said to have reached its climax in Erasmus [1465-1536]; for by this time Italy had handed on the torch of learning to the northern nations" (Symonds).

Art had already had its new birth in Italy; but it shared with everything spiritual and intellectual the wonderful quickening of the age, and produced the great masters of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries: Michael Angelo, Leonardo da Vinci, Raphael, Titian, in Italy, the Brothers Van Eyck in Flanders, Holbein and Dürer, in Germany, and the host of their compeers in that astonishing age of artistic genius.

A ruder and more practical direction in which the spirit of the age manifested itself conspicuously and with prodigious results was that of exploring navigation, to penetrate the unknown regions of the globe and find their secrets out. But, strangely, it was none of the older maritime and commercial peoples who led the way in this: neither the Venetians, nor the Genoese, nor the Catalans, nor the Flemings, nor the Hansa Leaguers, nor the English, were early in the search for new countries and new routes of trade. The grand exploit of "business enterprise" in the fifteenth century, which changed the face of commerce throughout the world, was left to be performed by the Portuguese, whose prior commercial experience was as slight as that of any people in Europe. And it was one great man among them, a younger son in their royal family, Prince Henry, known to later times as "the Navigator," who woke the spirit of exploration in them and pushed them to the achievement which placed Portugal, for a time, at the head of the maritime states. Beginning in 1434, Prince Henry sent expedition following expedition down the western coast of Africa, searching for the southern extremity of the continent, and a way round it to the eastward—to the Indies, the goal of commercial ambition then and long after. In our own day it seems an easy thing to sail down the African coast to the Cape; but it was not easy in the middle of the fifteenth century; and when Prince Henry died, in 1460, his ships had only reached the mouth of the Gambia, or a little way beyond it. His countrymen had grown interested, however, in the pursuit which he began, and expeditions were continued, not eagerly but at intervals, until Bartolomew Diaz, in 1486, rounded the southern point of the continent without knowing it, and Vasco da Gama, in 1497, passed beyond, and sailed to the coast of India.

Five years before this, Columbus, in the service of Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain, had made the more venturesome voyage westward, and had found the New World of America. That the fruits of that surpassing discovery fell to Spain, is one of the happenings of history which one need not try to explain; since (if we except the Catalans among them) there were no people in Europe less inclined to ocean adventure than the Spaniards. But they had just finished the conquest of the Moors; their energies, long exercised in that struggle, demanded some new outlet, and the Genoese navigator, seeking money and ships, and baffled in all more promising lands, came to them at the right moment for a favorable hearing. So Castile won the amazing prize of adventure, which seems to have belonged by more natural right to Genoa, or Venice, or Bruges, or Lubeck, or Bristol.

The immediate material effects of the finding of the new way to the Asiatic side of the world were far more important than the effects of the discovery of America, and they were promptly felt. No sooner had the Portuguese secured their footing in the eastern seas, and on the route thither, which they proceeded vigorously to do, than the commerce of Europe with that rich region of spices and silks, and curious luxuries which Europe loved, abandoned its ancient channels and ran quickly into the new one. There were several strong reasons for this: (1) the carriage of goods by the longer ocean route was cheaper than by caravan routes to the Mediterranean; (2) the pestilent Moorish pirates of the Barbary Coast were escaped; (3) European merchants found heavy advantages in dealing directly with the East instead of trading at second hand through Arabs and Turks. So the commerce of the Indies fled suddenly away from the Mediterranean to the Atlantic; fled from Venice, from Genoa, from Marseilles, from Barcelona, from Constantinople, from Alexandria; fled, too, from many cities of the arrogant Hanse league in the North, which had learned the old ways of traffic and were slow to catch the idea of a possible change. At the outset of the rearrangement of trade, the Portuguese won and held, for a time, the first handling of East Indian commodities, while Dutch, English and German traders—especially the first named—met them at Lisbon and took their wares for distribution through central and northern Europe. But, in no long time, the Dutch and English went to India on their own account, and ousted the Portuguese from their profitable monopoly.

Commercially, the discovery of America had little effect on Europe for a century or two. Politically, it had vast consequences in the sixteenth century, which came, in the main, from the power and prestige that accrued to Spain. But perhaps its most important effects were those moral and intellectual ones which may be attributed to the sudden, surprising enlargement of the geographical horizon of men. The lifting of the curtain of mystery which had hung so long between two halves of the world must have compelled every man, who thought at all, to suspect that other curtains of mystery might be hiding facts as simple and substantial, waiting for their Columbus to disclose them; and so the bondage of the mediæval mind to that cowardice of superstition which fears inquiry, must surely have been greatly loosened by the startling event. But the Spaniards, who rushed to the possession of the new-found world, showed small signs of any such effect upon their minds; and perhaps it was the greedy thought of their possession which excluded it.

The Spaniards were one of half-a-dozen peoples in Western Europe who had just arrived, in this fifteenth century, at a fairly consolidated nationality, and were prepared, for the first time in their history, to act with something like organic unity in the affairs of the world. It was one of the singular birth-marks of the new era in history, that so many nations passed from the inchoate to the definite form at so nearly the same time. The marriage of Isabella of Castile to Ferdinand of Aragon, in 1469, effected a permanent union of the two crowns, and a substantial incorporation of the greater part of the Spanish peninsula into a single strong kingdom, made yet stronger in 1491 by the conquest of Grenada and subjugation of the last of the Spanish Moors.

The nationalizing of France had been a simultaneous but quite different process. From the miserably downfallen and divided state in which it was left by the Hundred Years War, it was raised by a singular king, who employed strange, ignoble methods, but employed them with remarkable success. This was Louis XI., who owes to Sir Walter Scott's romance of "Quentin Durward" an introduction to common fame which he could hardly have secured otherwise; since popular attention is not often drawn to the kind of cunning and hidden work in politics which he did.

Louis XI., on coming to the throne in 1461, found himself surrounded by a state of things which seemed much like a revival of the feudal state at its worst, when Philip Augustus and Louis IX. had to deal with great vassals who rivalled or overtopped them in power. The reckless granting of appanages to children of the royal family had raised up a new group of nobles, too powerful and too proud to be loyal and obedient subjects of the monarchy. At the head of them was the Duke of Burgundy, whose splendid dominion, extended by marriage over most of the Netherlands, raised him to a place among the greater princes of Europe, and who quite outshone the King of France in everything but the royal title. It was impossible, under the circumstances, for the crown to establish its supremacy over these powerful lords by means direct and open. The craft and dishonesty of Louis found methods more effectual. He cajoled, beguiled, betrayed and cheated his antagonists, one by one. He played the selfishness and ambitions of each against the others, and he skilfully evoked something like a public opinion in his kingdom against the whole. At the outset of his reign the nobles formed a combination against him which they called the League of the Public Weal, but which aimed at nothing but fresh gains to the privileged class and advantages to its chiefs. Of alliance with the people against the crown, as in England, there was no thought. Louis yielded to the League in appearance, and cunningly went beyond its demands in his concessions, making it odious to the kingdom at large, and securing to himself the strong support of the States-General of France, when he appealed to it.

The tortuous policy of Louis was aided by many favoring circumstances and happenings. It was favored not least, perhaps, by the hot-headed character of Charles the Bold, who succeeded his father, Philip, in the Duchy of Burgundy, in 1467. Charles was inspired with a great and not unreasonable ambition, to make his realm a kingdom, holding a middle place between France and Germany. He had abilities, but he was of a passionate and haughty temper, and no match for the cool, perfidious, plotting King of France. The latter, by skilful intrigue, involved him in a war with the Swiss, which he conducted imprudently, and in which he was defeated and killed (1477). His death cleared Louis' path to complete mastery in France, and he made the most of his opportunity. Charles left only a daughter, Mary of Burgundy, and her situation was helpless. Louis lost no time in seizing the Duchy of Burgundy, as a fief of France, and in the pretended exercise of his rights as godfather of the Duchess Mary. He also took possession of Franche Comté, which was a fief of the Empire, and he put forward claims in Flanders, Artois, and elsewhere. But the Netherlanders, while they took advantage of the young duchess' situation, and exacted large concessions of chartered privileges from her, yet maintained her rights; and before the first year of her orphanage closed, she obtained a champion by marriage with the Archduke Maximilian of Austria, son of the Emperor, Frederick III. Maximilian was successful in war with Louis; but the latter succeeded, after all, in holding Burgundy, which was thenceforth absorbed in the royal domain of France and gave no further trouble to the monarchy, while he won some important extensions of the northwestern frontiers of his kingdom.

Before the death of Louis XI. the French crown regained Anjou, Maine, and Provence, by inheritance from the last representative of the great second House of Anjou. Thus the kingdom which he left to his son, Charles VIII. (1483), was a consolidated nation, containing in its centralized government the germs of the absolute monarchy of a later day.

Charles VIII. was a loutish and uneducated boy of eight years when his father died. His capable sister Anne carried on the government for some years, and continued her father's work by defeating a revolt of the nobles, and by marrying the young king to the heiress of Brittany—thereby uniting to the crown the last of the great semi-independent fiefs. When Charles came of age, he conceived the idea of recovering the kingdom of Naples, which the House of Anjou claimed, and which he looked upon as part of his inheritance from that House. He was incited to the enterprise, moreover, by Ludovico il Moro, or Louis the Moor, an intriguing uncle of the young Duke of Milan, who conspired to displace his nephew. In 1494 Charles crossed the Alps with a large and well-disciplined army, and met with no effectual opposition. The Medici of Florence and the Pope had agreed together to resist this French intrusion, which they feared; but the invading force proved too formidable, and the Florentines, then under the influence of Savonarola, looked to it for their liberation from the Medicean rule, already oppressive. Accordingly Charles marched triumphantly through the peninsula, making some stay at Rome. On his approach to Naples, the Aragonese King, Alfonso, abdicated in favor of his son, Ferdinand II., and died soon after. Ferdinand, shut out of Naples by an insurrection, fled to Sicily, and Charles entered the city, where the populace welcomed him with warmth. Most of the kingdom submitted within a few weeks, and the conquest seemed complete, as it had been easy.

But what they had won so easily the French held with a careless hand, and they lost it with equal ease. While they revelled and caroused in Naples, abusing the hospitality of their new subjects, and gathering plunder with reckless greed, a dangerous combination was formed against them, throughout the peninsula. Before they were aware, it had put them in peril, and Charles was forced to retreat with haste, in the spring of 1495, leaving an inadequate garrison to hold the Neapolitan capital. In Lombardy, he had to fight with the Venetians, and with his protege, Louis the Moor, now Duke of Milan. He defeated them, and regained France in November. Long before that time, the small force he left at Naples had been overcome, and Ferdinand had recovered his kingdom.

In one sense, the French had nothing to show for this their first expedition of conquest. In another sense they had much to show and their gain was great. They had made their first acquaintance with the superior culture of Italy. They had breathed the air beyond the Alps, which was then surcharged with the inspirations of the Renaissance. Both the ideas and the spoil they brought back were of more value to France than can be easily estimated. They had returned laden with booty, and much of it was in treasures of art, every sight of which was a lesson to the sense of beauty and the taste of the people among whom they were shown. The experience and the influence of the Italian expedition were undoubtedly very great, and the Renaissance in France, as an artistic and a literary birth, is reasonably dated from it.

Charles VIII. died suddenly in 1498 and was succeeded by his cousin, of the Orleans branch of the Valois family, Louis XII. The new king was weak in character, but not wicked. His first thought on mounting the throne was of the claims of his family to other thrones, in Italy. Besides the standing Angevin claim to the kingdom of Naples, he asserted rights of his own to the duchy of Milan, as a descendant of Valentina Visconti, heiress of the ducal house which the Sforzas supplanted. In 1499 he sent an army against Louis the Moor, and the latter fled from Milan without an attempt at resistance. Louis took possession of the duchy with the greatest good will of the people; but, before half a year had passed, French taxes, French government, and French manners had disgusted them, and they made an attempt to restore their former tyrant. The attempt failed, and Louis the Moor was imprisoned in France for the remainder of his life.

Milan secured, Louis XII. began preparations to repeat the undertaking of Charles VIII. against Naples. The Neapolitan crown had now passed to an able and popular king, Frederick, and Frederick had every reason to suppose that he would be supported and helped by his kinsman, Ferdinand of Aragon, the well-known consort of Isabella of Castile. Ferdinand had the power to hold the French king in check; but instead of using it for the defense of the Neapolitan branch of his house, he secretly and treacherously agreed with Louis to divide the kingdom of Naples with him. Under these circumstances, the conquest was easily accomplished (1501). The betrayed Frederick surrendered to Louis, and lived as a pensionary in France until his death. The Neapolitan branch of the House of Aragon came to an end.

Louis and Ferdinand speedily quarreled over the division of their joint conquest. The treacherous Spaniard cheated the French king in treaty negotiations, gaining time to send forces into Italy which expelled the French. It was in this war that the Spanish general, Gonsalvo di Cordova, won the reputation which gave him the name of "the Great Captain"; and it was likewise in this war that the chivalric French knight, Bayard, began the winning of his fame.

   Naples had again slipped from the grasp of France, and this
   time it had passed to Spain. Louis XII. abandoned the tempting
   kingdom to his rival, and applied himself to the establishing
   of his sovereignty over Milan and its domain. Some territory
   formerly belonging to the Milaness had been ceded to Venice by
   the Sforzas. He himself had ceded another district or two to
   the republic in payment for services rendered. Ferdinand of
   Spain had made payments in the same kind of coin, from his
   Neapolitan realm, for Venetian help to secure it.
{1053}
   The warlike Pope Julius II. saw Rimini and other towns
   formerly belonging to the States of the Church now counted
   among the possessions of the proud mistress of the Adriatic.
   All of these disputants in Italy resented the gains which
   Venice had gathered at their expense, and envied and feared
   her somewhat insolent prosperity. They accordingly suspended
   their quarrels with one another, to form a league for breaking
   her down and for despoiling her. The Emperor Maximilian, who had
   grievances of his own against the Venetians, joined the
   combination, and Florence was bribed to become a party to it
   by the betrayal of Pisa into her hands. Thus was formed the
   shameful League of Cambrai (1508). The French did most of the
   fighting in the war that ensued, though Pope Julius, who took
   the field in person, easily proved himself a better soldier
   than priest. The Venetians were driven for a time from the
   greater part of the dominion they had acquired on the
   mainland, and were sorely pressed. But they made terms with
   the Pope, and it then became his interest, not merely to stop
   the conquests of his allies, but to press them out of Italy,
   if possible. He began accordingly to intrigue against the
   French, and presently had a new league in operation, making
   war upon them. It was called a Holy League, because the head
   of the Church was its promoter, and it embraced the Emperor,
   King Ferdinand of Spain, King Henry VIII. of England, and the
   Republic of Venice. As the result of the ruthless and
   destructive war which they waged, Louis XII., before he died,
   in 1515, saw all that he had won in Lombardy stripped from him
   and restored to the Sforzas—the old family of the Dukes of
   Milan; Venice recovered most of her possessions, but never
   regained her former power, since the discovery of the ocean
   route to India, round the Cape of Good Hope, was now turning
   the rich trade of the East, the great source of her wealth,
   into the hands of the Portuguese; the temporal dominion of the
   Popes was enlarged by the recovery of Bologna and Perugia and by
   the addition of Parma and Piacenza; and Florence, which had
   been a republic since the death of Savonarola, was forced to
   submit anew to the Medici.

The fighting Pope, Julius II., who made war and led armies, while professing to be the vicar of Him who brought the message of good-will and peace to mankind, was very far from being the worst of the popes of his age. He was only worldly, thinking much of his political place as a temporal sovereign in Italy, and little of his spiritual office as the head of the Church of Christ. As the sovereign of Rome and the Papal States, Julius II. ran a brilliant career, and is one of the splendid figures of the Italian renaissance. Patron of Michael Angelo and Raphael, projector of St. Peter's, there is a certain grandeur in his character to be admired, if we could forget the pretended apostolic robe which he smirched with perfidious politics and stained with blood.

But the immediate predecessors of Julius II., Sixtus IV. and Alexander VI., had had nothing in their characters to lure attention from the hideous examples of bestial wickedness which they set before the world. Alexander, especially, the infamous Borgia,—systematic murderer and robber, liar and libertine,—accomplished practitioner of every crime and every vice that was known to the worst society of a depraved generation, and shamelessly open in the foulest of his doings,—there is scarcely a pagan monster of antiquity that is not whitened by comparison with him. Yet he sat in the supposed seat of St. Peter for eleven years, to be venerated as the Vicar of Christ, the "Holy Father" of the Christian Church; his declarations and decrees in matters of faith to be accepted as infallible inspirations; his absolution to be craved as a passport to Heaven; his anathema to be dreaded as a condemnation to Hell!

This evil and malignant being died in 1503. poisoned by one of his own cups, which he had brewed for another. Julius II. reigned until 1513; and after him came the Medicean Pope, Leo X., son of Lorenzo the Magnificent,—princely and worldly as Julius, but in gentler fashion; loving ease, pleasure, luxury, art, and careless of all that belonged to religion beyond its ceremonies and its comfortable establishment of clerical estates. Is it strange that Christendom was prepared to give ear to Luther?

When Luther raised his voice, he did but renew a protest which many pure and pious and courageous men before him had uttered, against evils in the Church and falsities and impostures in the Papacy. But some of them, like Arnold of Brescia, like Peter Waldo, and the Albigenses, had been too far in advance of their time, and their revolt was hopeless from the beginning. Wyclif's movement had been timed unfortunately in an age of great commotions, which swallowed it up. That of Huss had roused an ignorant peasantry, too uncivilized to represent a reformed Christianity, and had been ruined by the fierceness of their misguided zeal. The Reformation of Savonarola, at Florence, had been nobly begun, but not wisely led, and it had spent its influence at the end on aims less religious than political.

But there occurred a combination, when Luther arose, of character in himself, of circumstances in his country, and of temper in his generation, which made his protest more lastingly effective. He had high courage, without rashness. He had earnestness and ardor, without fanaticism. He had the plain good sense and sound judgment which win public confidence. His substantial learning put him on terms with the scholars of his day, and he was not so much refined by it as to lose touch with the common people. A certain coarseness in his nature was not offensive to the time in which he lived, but rather belonged among the elements of power in him. His spirituality was not fine, but it was strong. He was sincere, and men believed in him. He was open, straightforward, manly, commanding respect. His qualities showed themselves in his speech, which went straight to its mark, in the simplest words, moulding the forms and phrases of the German language with more lasting effect than the speech of any other man who ever used it. Not many have lived in any age or any country who possessed the gift of so persuasive a tongue, with so powerful a character to command the hearing for it.

And the generation to which Luther spoke really waited for a bold voice to break into the secret of its thoughts concerning the Church. It had inherited a century of alienation from quarreling popes and greedy, corrupted priests and now there had been added in its feeling the deep abhorrence roused by such villains as the Borgia in the papal chair, and by their creatures and minions in the priesthood of the Church. If it is crediting too much to the common multitude of the time to suppose them greatly sickened by the vices and corruptions of their priests, we may be sure, at least, that they were wearied and angered by the exactions from them, which a vicious hierarchy continually increased. The extravagance of the Papacy kept pace with its degradation, and Christendom groaned under the burden of the taxes that were wrung from it in the name of the lowly Saviour of mankind.

Nowhere in Europe were the extortions of the Church felt more severely than in Germany, where the serfdom of the peasants was still real and hard, and where the depressing weight of the feudal system had scarcely been lifted from society at all. Feudalism had given way in that country less than in any other. Central authority remained as weak, and national solidification as far away, as ever. Of organic unity in the heterogeneous bundle of electoral principalities, duchies, margravates and free cities which made up the nominal realm of the King of the Romans, there was no more at the beginning of the sixteenth century than there had been in the twelfth. But that very brokenness and division in the political state of Germany proved to be one of the circumstances which favored the Protestant Reformation of the Church. Had monarchical authority established itself there as in France, then the Austro-Spanish family which wielded it, with the concentrated bigotry of their narrow-minded race, would have crushed the religious revolt as completely in Saxony as they did in Austria and Bohemia.

The main events of the Reformation in Germany are so commonly known that no more than the slightest sketching of them is needed here. Letters of indulgence, purporting to grant a remission of the temporal and purgatorial penalties of sin, had been sold by the Church for centuries; but none before Pope Leo X. had made merchandize of them in so peddlar-like and shameful a fashion as that which scandalized the intelligent piety of Europe in 1517. Luther, then a professor in the new University of Wittenberg, Saxony, could not hide his indignation, as most men did. He stood forth boldly and challenged the impious fraud, in a series of propositions or theses, which, after the manner of the time, he nailed to the door of Wittenberg Church. Just that bold action was needed to let loose the pent-up feeling of the German people. The ninety-five theses were printed and went broadcast through the land, to be read and to be listened to, and to stir every class with independent ideas. It was the first great appeal made to the public opinion of the world, after the invention of printing had put a trumpet to the mouths of eloquent men, and the effect was too amazing to be believed by the careless Pope and his courtiers.

But more than possibly—probably, indeed—the popular feeling stirred up would never have accomplished the rupture with Rome and the religious independence to which North Germany attained in the end, if political motives had not coincided with religious feelings to bring certain princes and great nobles into sympathy with the Monk of Wittenberg. The Elector of Saxony, Luther's immediate sovereign, had long been in opposition to the Papacy on the subject of its enormous collections of money from his subjects, and he was well pleased to have the hawking of indulgences checked in his dominions. Partly for this reason, partly because of the pride and interest with which he cherished his new University, partly from personal liking and admiration of Luther, and partly, too, no doubt, in recognition of the need of Church reforms, he gave Luther a quiet protection and a concealed support. He was the strongest and most influential of the princes of the Empire, and his obvious favor to the movement advanced it powerfully and rapidly.

At first, there was no intention to break with the Papacy and the Papal Church,—certainly none in Luther's mind. His attitude towards both was conciliatory in every way, except as concerned the falsities and iniquities which he had protested against. It was not until the Pope, in June, 1520, launched against him the famous Bull, "Exurge Domine," which left no alternative between abject submission and open war, that Luther and his followers cast off the authority of the Roman Church and its head, and grounded their faith upon Holy Scripture alone. By formally burning the Bull, Luther accepted the papal challenge, and those who believed with him were ready for the contest.

In 1521, the reformer was summoned before a Diet of the Empire, at Worms, where a hearing was given him. The influence of the Church, and of the young Austro-Spanish Emperor, Charles V., who adhered to it, was still great enough to procure his condemnation; but they did not dare to deal with him as Huss had been dealt with. He was suffered to depart safely, pursued by an imperial edict which placed the ban of the Empire on all who should give him countenance or support. His friends among the nobles spirited him away and concealed him in a castle, the Wartburg, where he remained for several months, employed in making his translation of the Bible. Meantime, the Emperor had been called away from Germany by his multifarious affairs, in the Netherlands and Spain, and had little attention to give to Luther and the questions of religion for half-a-dozen years. He was represented in Germany by a Council of Regency, with the Elector of Saxony at the head of, it; and the movement of reformation, if not encouraged in his absence, was at least considerably protected. It soon showed threatening signs of wildness and fanaticism in many quarters; but Luther proved himself as powerful in leadership as he had been in agitation, and the religious passion of the time was controlled effectively, on the whole.

Before the close of the year 1521, Pope Leo X. died, and his successor, Adrian, while insisting upon the enforcement of the Edict of Worms against Luther and his supporters, yet acknowledged the corruptions of the Church and promised a reformation of them. His promises came too late; his confessions only gave testimony to the independent reformers which their opponents could not impeach. There was no longer any thought of cleansing the Church of Rome, to abide in it. A separated—a restored Church—was clearly determined on, and Luther framed a system of faith and discipline which was adopted in Saxony, and then accepted very generally by the reformed Churches throughout Germany. In 1525, the Elector Frederick of Saxony died. He had quietly befriended the Lutherans and tolerated the reform, but never identified himself with them. His brother, John, who succeeded him, made public profession of his belief in the Lutheran doctrines, and authoritatively established the church system which Luther had introduced. The Landgrave of Hesse Cassel, the Margrave of Brandenburg, and the Dukes of Mecklenburg, Pomerania and Zell, followed his example; while the imperial cities of Frankfort, Nuremberg, Bremen, Strasburg, Brunswick, Nordhausen, and others, formally ranged themselves on the same side. By the year 1526, when a diet at Spires declared the freedom of each state in the Empire to deal with the religious reform according to its own will, the Reformation in Germany was a solidly organized fact. But those of the reform had not yet received their name, of "Protestants." That came to them three years later, when the Roman party had rallied its forces in a new diet at Spires, to undo the declaration of 1526, and the leaders of the Lutheran party recorded their solemn protest.

To understand the situation politically, during the period of struggle for and against the Reformation, it will be necessary to turn back a little, for the noting of important occurrences which have not been mentioned.

When Albert II., who was King of Hungary and Bohemia, as well as King of the Romans (Emperor-elect, as the title came to be, soon afterwards), died, in 1439, he was succeeded by his second cousin Frederick III., Duke of Styria, and from that time the Roman or imperial crown was held continuously in the Austrian family, becoming practically hereditary. But Frederick did not succeed to the duchy of Austria, and he failed of election to the throne in Hungary and Bohemia. Hence his position as Emperor was peculiarly weak and greatly impoverished, through want of revenue from any considerable possessions of his own. During his whole long reign, of nearly fifty-four years, Frederick was humiliated and hampered by his poverty; the imperial authority was brought very low, and Germany was in a greatly disordered state. There were frequent wars between its members, and between Austria and Bohemia, with rebellions in Vienna and elsewhere; while the Hungarians were left to contend with the aggressive Turks, almost unhelped.

But in 1477 a remarkable change in the circumstances and prospects of the family of the Emperor Frederick III. was made by the marriage of his son and heir, Maximilian, to Mary, the daughter and heiress of the wealthy and powerful Duke of Burgundy, Charles the Bold. The bridegroom was so poor that the bride is said to have loaned him the money which enabled him to make a fit appearance at the wedding. She had lost, as we saw, the duchy of Burgundy, but the valiant arm of Maximilian enabled her to hold the Burgundian county, Franche Comté, and the rich provinces of the Netherlands, which formed at that time, perhaps, the most valuable principality in Europe. The Duchess Mary lived only five years after her marriage; but she left a son, Philip, who inherited the Netherlands and Franche Comté, and Maximilian ruled them as his guardian.

In 1493, the Emperor Frederick died, and Maximilian, who had been elected King of the Romans some years before, succeeded him in the imperial office. He was never crowned at Rome, and he took the title, not used before, of King of Germany and Emperor-elect. He was Archduke of Austria, Duke of Styria, Carinthia and Carniola, and Count of Tyrol; and, with his guardianship in the Low Countries, he rose greatly in importance and power above his father. But he accomplished less than might possibly have been done by a ruler of more sureness of judgment and fixity in purpose. His plans were generally beyond his means, and the failures in his undertakings were numerous. He was eager to interfere with the doings of Charles VIII. and Louis XIII. in Italy; but the Germanic diet gave him so little support that he could do nothing effective. He joined the League of Cambrai against Venice, and the Holy League against France, but bore no important part in either. His reign was signalized in Germany by the division of the nation into six administrative "Circles," afterwards increased to ten, and by the creation of a supreme court of appeal, called the Imperial Chamber,—both of which measures did something towards the diminution of private wars and disorders.

   But Maximilian figures most conspicuously in history as the
   immediate ancestor of the two great sovereign dynasties—the
   Austrian and the Austro-Spanish—which sprang from his
   marriage with Mary of Burgundy and which dominated Europe for
   a century after his death. His son Philip, heir to the
   Burgundian sovereignty of the Netherlands, married (1496)
   Joanna, daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain. Two
   children, Charles and Ferdinand, were the fruit of this
   marriage. Charles, the elder, inherited more crowns and
   coronets than were ever gathered, in reality, by one
   sovereign, before or since. Ferdinand and Isabella had united
   by their marriage the kingdoms of Aragon and Castile, and, by
   the conquest of Granada and the partial conquest of Navarre,
   the entire peninsula, except Portugal, was subsequently added
   to their joint dominion. Joanna inherited the whole, on the
   death of Isabella, in 1504, and the death of Ferdinand, in
   1516. She also inherited from her father, Ferdinand, the
   kingdom of the Two Sicilies—which he had reunited—and the
   island of Sardinia. Philip, on his side, already in possession
   of the Netherlands and Franche Comté, was heir to the domain of
   the House of Austria. Both of these great inheritances
   descended in due course to Charles, and he had not long to
   wait for them. His father, Philip, died in 1506, and his
   mother, Joanna, lost her mind, through grief at that event.
   The death of his Spanish grandfather, Ferdinand, occurred in
   1516, and that of his Austrian grandfather, the Emperor
   Maximilian, followed three years later.
{1056}
   At the age of twenty years (representing his mother in her
   incapacity) Charles found himself sovereign of Spain, and
   America, of Sicily, Naples, Sardinia, the Low Countries,
   Franche Comté, Austria, and the duchies associated with it.
   The same year (1519) he was chosen King of Germany and
   Emperor-elect, after a keen contest over the imperial crown,
   in which Francis I. of France and Henry VIII. of England were
   his competitors. On attaining this dignity, he conferred the
   Austrian possessions on his brother Ferdinand. But he remained
   the most potent and imposing monarch that Europe had seen
   since Charlemagne. He came upon the stage just as Luther had
   marshalled, in Germany, the reforming forces of the new era,
   against intolerable iniquities in the Papal Church.
   Unfortunately, he came, with his vast armament of powers, to
   resist the demands of his age, and to be the champion of old
   falsities and wrongs, both in Church and State. There was
   nothing in the nature of the man, nor in his education, nor in
   the influences which bore upon him, from either the Spanish or
   the Austrian side of his family, to put him in sympathy with
   lifting movements or with liberal ideas. He never formed a
   conception of the world in which it looked larger to his eyes,
   or signified more to him, than the globe upon his scepter. So,
   naturally enough, this Cæsar of the Renaissance (Charles V. in
   Germany and Charles I. in Spain) did his utmost, from the day
   he climbed the throne, to thrust Europe back into the murk of
   the fourteenth century, which he found it pretty nearly
   escaped from. He did not succeed; but he gave years of misery
   to several countries by his exertions, and he resigned the
   task to a successor whom the world is never likely to tire of
   abhorring and despising.

The affairs which called Charles V. away from Germany, after launching his ineffectual edict of Worms against Luther and Luther's supporters, grew in part out of disturbances in his kingdom of Spain. His election to the imperial office had not been pleasing to the Spaniards, who anticipated the complications they would be dragged into by it, the foreign character which their sovereign (already foreign in mind by his education in the Netherlands) would be confirmed in, and the indifference with which their grievances would be regarded. For their grievances against the monarchy had been growing serious in the last years of Ferdinand, and since his death. The crown had gained power in the process of political centralization, and its aggrandizement from the possession of America began to loom startlingly in the light of the conquest of Mexico, just achieved. During the absence of Charles in Germany, his former preceptor, Cardinal Adrian, of Utrecht, being in charge of the government as regent, a revolt broke out at Toledo which spread widely and became alarming. The insurgents organized their movement under the name of the Santa Junta, or Holy League, and having obtained possession of the demented Queen, Joanna, they assumed to act for her and with her authority. This rebellion was suppressed with difficulty; but the suppression was accomplished (1521-1522), and it proved to be the last struggle for popular freedom in Spain. The government used its victory with an unsparing determination to establish absolute powers, and it succeeded. The conditions needed for absolutism were already created, in fact, by the deadly blight which the Inquisition had been casting upon Spain for forty years. Since the beginning of the frightful work of Torquemada, in 1483, it had been diligently searching out and destroying every germ of free thought and manly character that gave the smallest sign of fruitfulness in the kingdom; and the crushing of the Santa Junta may be said to have left few in Spain who deserved a better fate than the political, the religious and the intellectual servitude under which the nation sank.

Charles, whose mind was dense in its bigotry, urged on the Inquisition, and pointed its dreadful engines of destruction against the unfortunate Moriscoes, or Moors, who had been forced to submit to Christian baptism after their subjugation. Many of these followers of Mahomet had afterwards taken up again the prayers and practices of their own faith, either secretly or in quiet ways, and their relapse appears to have been winked at, more or less. For they were a most useful people, far surpassing the Spaniards in industry, in thrift and knowledge of agriculture, and in mechanical skill. Many of the arts and manufactures of the kingdom were entirely in their hands. It was ruinous to interfere with their peaceful labors. But Charles, as heathenish as the Grand Turk when it suited his ends to be so, could look on these well-behaved and useful Moors with no eyes but the eyes of an orthodox piety, and could take account of nothing but their infidel faith. He began, therefore, in 1524, the heartless, senseless and suicidal persecution of the Moriscoes which exterminated them or drove them from the land, and which contributed signally to the making of Spain an exemplary pauper among the nations.

   In his provinces of the Low Countries, Charles found more than
   in Spain to provoke his despotic bigotry. The Flemings and the
   Dutch had been tasting of freedom too much for his liking, in
   recent years, and ideas, both political and religious, had
   been spreading among them, which were not the ideas of his
   august mind, and must therefore, of necessity, be false. They
   had already become infected with the rebellious anti-papal
   doctrines of Luther. Indeed, they had been even riper than
   Luther's countrymen for a religious revolution, when he
   sounded the signal note which echoed through all northern
   Europe. In Germany, the elected emperor could fulminate an
   edict against the audacious reformers, but he had small power
   to give force to it. In the Netherlands, he possessed a
   sovereignty more potent, and he took instant measures to
   exercise the utmost arbitrariness of which he could make it
   capable. The Duchess Margaret, his aunt, who had been
   governess of the provinces, was confirmed by him in that
   office, and he enlarged the powers in her commission. His
   commands practically superseded the regular courts, and
   subjected the whole administration of justice to his arbitrary
   will and that of his representative. At the same time they
   stripped the States of their legislative functions and reduced
   them to insignificance.
{1057}
   Having thus trampled on the civil liberties of the provinces,
   he borrowed the infernal enginery of the Inquisition, and
   introduced it for the destruction of religious freedom. Its
   first victims were two Augustine monks, convicted of
   Lutheranism, who were burned at Brussels, in July, 1523. The
   first martyr in Holland was a priest who suffered impalement
   as well as burning, at the Hague, in 1525. From these
   beginnings the persecution grew crueler as the alienation of
   the stubborn Netherlanders from the Church of Rome widened;
   and Charles did not cease to fan its fires with successive
   proclamations or "placards," which denounced and forbade every
   reading of Scripture, every act of devotion, every
   conversation of religion, in public or private, which the
   priests of the Church did not conduct. "The number of
   Netherlanders who were burned, strangled, beheaded, or buried
   alive, in obedience to his edicts, … have been placed as
   high as 100,000 by distinguished authorities, and have never
   been put at a lower mark than 50,000."

These exercises of an autocratic piety in Spain and the Low Countries may be counted, perhaps, among the pleasures of the young Emperor during the earlier years of his reign. His more serious affairs were connected mainly with his interests or ambitions in Italy, which seemed to be threatened by the King of France. The throne in that country was now occupied by Francis I., a cousin of Louis XII., who had succeeded the latter in 1515, and who had taken up anew the Italian projects in which Louis failed. In the first year of his reign, he crossed the Alps with an army, defeated the Swiss whom the Duke of Milan employed against him, and won the whole duchy by that single fight. This re-establishment of the French at Milan was regarded with exceeding jealousy by the Austrian interest, and by the Pope. Maximilian, shortly before his death, had made a futile effort to dislodge them, and Charles V., on coming to the throne, lost no time in organizing plans to the same end. He entered into an alliance with Pope Leo X., by a treaty which bears the same date as the Edict of Worms against Luther, and there can be little doubt that the two instruments were part of one understanding. Both parties courted the friendship of Henry VIII. of England, whose power and importance had risen to a high mark, and Henry's able minister, Cardinal Wolsey, figured notably in the diplomatic intrigues which went on during many years.

War began in 1521, and in three months the French were expelled from nearly every part of the Milanese territory. Pope Leo X. lived just long enough to receive the news. His successor was Adrian VI., former tutor of the Emperor, who made vain attempts to arrange a peace. Wolsey had brought Henry VIII. of England into the alliance against Francis, expecting to win the papal tiara through the Emperor's influence; but he was disappointed.

Francis made an effort in 1523 to recover Milan; but was crippled at the moment of sending his expedition across the Alps by the treason of the most powerful noble of France, the Constable, Charles, Duke of Bourbon. The Constable had been wronged and affronted by the King's mother, and by intriguers at court, and he revenged himself basely by going over to the enemies of his country. In the campaigns which followed (1523-1524), the French had ill-success, and lost their chivalrous and famous knight, Bayard, in one of the last skirmishes of their retreat. Another change now occurred in the occupancy of the papal throne, and Wolsey's ambitious schemes were foiled again. The new Pope was Giulio de'Medici, who took the name of Clement VII.

Once more the King of France, in October, 1524, led his forces personally into Italy and laid siege to Pavia. It was a ruinous undertaking. He was defeated overwhelmingly in a battle fought before Pavia (February 24, 1525) and taken prisoner. After a captivity in Spain of nearly a year, he regained his freedom disgracefully, by signing and solemnly swearing to a treaty which he never intended to observe. By this treaty he not only renounced all claims to Milan, Naples, Genoa, and other Italian territory, but he gave up the duchy of Burgundy. Released in good faith on these terms, in the early part of 1526, he perfidiously repudiated the treaty, and began fresh preparations for war. He found the Italians now as ready to oust the Spaniards from their peninsula with French help, as they had been ready before to expel the French with help from Spain. The papal interest was in great alarm at the power acquired by the Emperor, and Venice and Milan shared the feeling. A new "Holy Alliance" was accordingly formed, with the Pope at its head, and with Henry VIII. of England for its "Protector." But before this League took the field with its forces, Rome and Italy were stricken and trampled, as though by a fresh invasion of Goths.

The imperial army, quartered in the duchy of Milan, under the command of the Constable Bourbon, was scantily paid and fed. The soldiers were forced to plunder the city and country for their subsistence, and, of course, under those circumstances, there was little discipline among them. The region which they terrorized was soon exhausted, by their robberies and by the stoppage of industries and trade. It then became necessary for the Constable to lead them to new fields, and he moved southwards. His forces were made up in part of Spaniards and in part of Germans—the latter under a Lutheran commander, and enlisted for war with the Pope and for pillage in Italy. He directed the march to Rome, constrained, perhaps, by the demands of his soldiery, but expecting, likewise, to crush the League by seizing its apostolic head. On the 5th of May, 1527, his 40,000 brigands arrived before the city. At daybreak, the next morning, they assaulted the walls irresistibly and swarmed over them. Bourbon was killed in the assault, and his men were left uncontrolled masters of the venerable capital of the world. They held it for seven months, pillaging and destroying, committing every possible excess and every imaginable sacrilege. Rome is believed to have suffered at their hands more lasting defacement and loss of the splendors of its art than from the sacking of Vandals or Goths.

The Pope held out in Castle St. Angelo for a month and then surrendered. The hypocritical Charles V., when he learned what his imperially commissioned bandits had done, made haste to express horror and grief, but did not hasten to check or repair the outrage in the least. Pope Clement was not released from captivity until a great money-payment had been extorted from him, with the promise of a general council of the Church to reform abuses and to eradicate Lutheranism.

Europe was shocked by the barbarity of the capture of Rome, and the enemies leagued against Charles were stimulated to more vigorous exertions. Assisted with money from England, Francis sent another army into Italy, which took Genoa and Pavia and marched to Naples, blockading the city by sea and land. But the siege proved fatal to the French army. So many perished of disease that the survivors were left at the mercy of the enemy, and capitulated in September, 1528.

The great Genoese Admiral, Andrea Doria, had been offended, meantime, by King Francis, and had excited his fellow citizens to a revolution, which made Genoa, once more, an independent republic, with Doria at its head. Shortly before this occurred, Florence had expelled the Medici and reorganized her government upon the old republican basis. But the defeat of the French before Naples ended all hope of Italian liberty; since the Pope resigned himself after that event to the will of the Emperor, and the papal and imperial despotisms became united as one, to exterminate freedom from the peninsula. Florence was the first victim of the combination. The city was besieged and taken by the Emperor's troops, in compliance with the wishes of the Pope, and the Medici, his relatives, were restored. Francis continued war feebly until 1529, when a peace called the "Ladies Peace" was brought about, by negotiations between the French King's mother and the Emperor's aunt. This was practically the end of the long French wars in Italy.

Such were the events which, in different quarters of the world, diverted the attention of the Emperor during several years from Luther and the Reformation in Germany. The religious movement in those years had been making a steady advance. Yet its enemies gained control of another Diet held at Spires in 1529 and reversed the ordinance of the Diet of 1526, by which each state had been left free to deal in its own manner with the edict of Worms. Against this action of the Diet, the Lutheran princes and the representatives of the Lutheran towns entered their solemn protest, and so acquired the name, "Protestants," which became in time the accepted and adopted name of all, in most parts of the world, who withdrew from the Roman communion.

Before this time, the Reform had passed through serious trials, coming from excesses in the very spirit out of which itself had risen and to which it gave encouragement. The long suffering, much oppressed peasantry of Germany, who had found bishops as pitiless extortioners as lords, caught eagerly at a hope of relief from the overthrow of the ancient Church. Several times within the preceding half-century they had risen in formidable revolts, with a peasants' clog, or bundschuh for their banner. In 1525 fresh risings occurred in Swabia, Franconia, Alsace, Lorraine, Bavaria, Thuringia and elsewhere, and a great Peasants' War raged for months, with ferocity and brutality on both sides. The number who perished in the war is estimated at 100,000. The demands made by the peasants were for measures of the simplest justice—for the poorest rights and privileges in life. But their cause was taken up by half-crazed religious fanatics, who became in some parts their leaders, and such a character was given to it that reasonable reformers were justified, perhaps, in setting themselves sternly against it. The wildest prophet of the outbreak was one Thomas Münzer, a precursor of the frenzied sect of the Anabaptists. Münzer perished in the wreck of the peasants' revolt; but some of his disciples, who fled into Westphalia and the Netherlands, made converts so rapidly in the town of Münster that in 1535 they controlled the city, expelled every inhabitant who would not join their communion, elected and crowned a king, and exhibited a madness in their proceedings that is hardly equalled in history. The experience at Münster may reasonably be thought to have proved the soundness of Luther's judgment in refusing countenance to the cause of the oppressed peasants when they rebelled.

At all events, his opposition to them was hard and bitter. And it has been remarked that what may be called Luther's political position in Germany had become by this time quite changed. "Instead of the man of the people, Luther became the man of the princes; the mutual confidence between him and the masses, which had supported the first faltering steps of the movement, was broken; the democratic element was supplanted by the aristocratic; and the Reformation, which at first had promised to lead to a great national democracy, ended in establishing the territorial supremacy of the German princes. … The Reformation was gradually assuming a more secular character, and leading to great political combinations" (Dyer).

By the year 1530, the Emperor Charles was prepared to give more attention to affairs in Germany and to gratify his animosity towards the movement of Reformation. He had effectually beaten his rival, the King of France, had established his supremacy in Italy, had humbled the Pope, and was quite willing to be the zealous champion of a submissive Church. His brother Ferdinand, the Archduke of Austria, had secured, against much opposition, both the Hungarian and the Bohemian crowns, and so firmly that neither was ever again wrested from his family, though they continued for some time to be nominally elective. The dominions of Ferdinand had suffered a great Turkish invasion, in 1529, under the Sultan Solyman, who penetrated even to Vienna and besieged the city, but without success, losing heavily in his retreat.

   In May, 1530, Charles re-entered Germany from Italy. The
   following month he opened the sitting of the Diet, which had
   been convened at Augsburg. His first act at Augsburg was to
   summon the protesting princes, of Saxony, Hesse, Brandenburg,
   and other states, before him and to signify to them his
   imperial command that the toleration of Lutheranism in their
   dominions must cease. He expected the mandate to suffice; when
   he found it ineffectual, he required an abstract of the new
   religions doctrines to be laid before him. This was prepared
   by Melancthon, and, afterwards known as the Confession of
   Augsburg, became the Lutheran standard of faith.
{1059}
   The Catholic theologians prepared a reply to it, and both were
   submitted to the Emperor. He made some attempt to bring about
   a compromise of the differences, but he demanded of the
   Protestants that they should submit themselves to the Pope,
   pending the final decisions of a proposed general Council of
   the Church. When this was refused, the Diet formally condemned
   their doctrines and required them to reunite themselves with
   the Catholic Church before the 15th of April following. The
   Emperor, in November, issued a decree accordingly, renewing
   the Edict of Worms and commanding its enforcement.

The Protestant princes, thus threatened, assembled in conference at Schmalkald at Christmas, 1530, and there organized their famous armed league. But fresh preparations for war by the Turk now compelled Charles to make terms with his Lutheran subjects. They refused to give any assistance to Austria or Hungary against the Sultan, while threatened by the Augsburg decree. The gravity of the danger forced a concession to them, and by the Peace of Nuremberg (1532) it was agreed that the Protestants should have freedom of worship until the next Diet should meet, or a General Council should be held. This peace was several times renewed, and there were ten years of quiet under it, in Germany, during which time the cause of Protestantism made rapid advances. By the year 1540, it had established an ascendancy in Würtemberg, among the states of the South, and in the imperial cities of Nuremberg, Augsburg, Ulm, Constance, and Strasburg. Its doctrines had been adopted by "the whole of central Germany, Thuringia, Saxony, Hesse, part of Brunswick, and the territory of the Guelphs; in the north by the bishoprics of Magdeburg, Halberstadt, and Naumburg … ; by East Friesland, the Hanse Towns, Holstein and Schleswig, Pomerania, Mecklenburg, Anhalt, Silesia, the Saxon states, Brandenburg, and Prussia. Of the larger states that were closed against it there remained only Austria, Bavaria, the Palatinate and the Rhenish Electorates" (Hausser). In 1542, Duke Henry of Brunswick, the last of the North German princes who adhered to the Papal Church, was expelled from his duchy and Protestantism established. About the same time the Archbishop-Elector of Cologne announced his conviction of the truth of the Protestant doctrines.

Charles was still too much involved in foreign wars to venture upon a struggle with the Lutherans; but a few years more sufficed to free his hands. The Treaty of Crespy, in 1544, ended his last conflict with Francis I. In the same year, Pope Paul III. summoned the long promised General Council of the Church to meet at Trent the following spring—by which appointment a term was put to the toleration conceded in the Peace of Nuremberg. The Protestants, though greatly increased in numbers, were now less united than at the time of the formation of the Schmalkaldic League. There was much division among the leading princes. They yielded no longer to the influence of their wisest and ablest chief, Philip of Hesse. Luther, whose counsels had always been for peace, approached his end, and died in 1546. The circumstances were favorable to the Emperor, when he determined to put a stop to the Reformation by force. He secured an important ally in the very heart of Protestant Germany, winning over to his side the selfish schemer, Duke Maurice of Saxony—now the head of the Albertine branch of the Saxon house. In 1546 he felt prepared and war began. The successes were all on the imperial side. There was no energy, no unity, no forethoughtfulness of plan, among the Lutherans. The Elector, John Frederick, of Saxony, and Philip of Hesse, both fell into the Emperor's hands and were barbarously imprisoned. The former was compelled to resign his Electorate, and it was conferred upon the renegade Duke Maurice. Philip was kept in vile places of confinement and inhumanly treated for years. The Protestants of Germany were entirely beaten down, for the time being, and the Emperor imposed upon them in 1548 a confession of faith called "the Interim," the chief missionaries of which were the Spanish soldiers whom he had brought into the country. But if the Lutherans had suffered themselves to be overcome, they were not ready to be trodden upon in so despotic a manner. Even Maurice, now Elector of Saxony, recoiled from the tyranny which Charles sought to establish, while he resented the inhuman treatment of Philip of Hesse, who was his father-in-law. He headed a new league, therefore, which was formed against the Emperor, and which entered into a secret alliance with Henry II. of France (Francis I. having died in 1547). Charles was taken by surprise when the revolt broke out, in 1552, and barely escaped capture. The operations of Maurice were vigorous and ably conducted, and in a few weeks the Protestants had recovered all the ground lost in 1546-7; while the French had improved the opportunity to seize the three bishoprics of Metz, Toul and Verdun. The ultimate result was the so-called "Religious Peace of Augsburg," concluded in 1555, which gave religious freedom to the ruling princes of Germany, but none whatever to the people. It put the two religions on the same footing, but it was simply a footing of equal intolerance. Each ruler had the right to choose his own creed, and to impose it arbitrarily upon his subjects if he saw fit to do so. As a practical consequence, the final division of Germany between Protestantism and Catholicism was substantially determined by the princes and not by the people.

The humiliating failure of Charles V. to crush the Reformation in Germany was no doubt prominent among the experiences which sickened him of the imperial office and determined him to abdicate the throne, which he did in the autumn of 1556.

   A generation had now passed since the Lutheran movement of
   Reformation was begun in Germany, and, within that time, not
   only had the wave of influence from Wittenberg swept over all
   western Europe, but other reformers had risen independently
   and contemporaneously, or nearly so, in other countries, and
   had co-operated powerfully in making the movement general. The
   earliest of these was the Swiss reformer, Ulrich Zwingli, who
   began preaching against indulgences and other flagrant abuses
   in the Church, at Zurich, in 1519, the same year in which
   Luther opened his attack. The effect of his preaching was so
   great that Zurich, four years later, had practically separated
   itself from the Roman Church.
{1060}
   From that beginning the Reformation spread so rapidly that in
   half-a-dozen years it had mastered most of the Cantons of
   Switzerland outside of the five Forest Cantons, where
   Catholicism held its ground with stubbornness. The two
   religions were then represented by two parties, which absorbed
   in themselves all the political as well as the religious
   questions of the day, and which speedily came to blows. The
   Catholics allied themselves with Ferdinand of Austria, and the
   Protestants with several of the imperial cities of Germany.
   But such an union between the Swiss and the German Protestants
   as seemed plainly desirable was prevented; mainly, by the
   dictatorial obstinacy of Luther. Zwingli's reforming ideas
   were broader, and at the same time more radical, than
   Luther's, and the latter opposed them with irreconcilable
   hostility. He still held with the Catholics to the doctrine of
   transubstantiation, which the Swiss reformer rejected. Hence
   Zwingli was no less a heretic in Luther's eyes than in the
   eyes of the pope, and the anathemas launched against him from
   Wittenberg were hardly less thunderous than those from Rome.
   So the two contemporaneous reformation movements, German and
   Swiss, were held apart from one another, and went on side by
   side, with little help or sympathy from one another. In 1531
   the Forest Cantons attacked and defeated the men of Zurich,
   and Zwingli was slain in the battle. Peace was then concluded
   on terms which left each canton free to establish its own
   creed, and each congregation free to do the same in the common
   territories of the confederation.

In France, the freer ideas of Christianity—the ideas less servile to tradition and to Rome—that were in the upper air of European culture when the sixteenth century began, had found some expression even before Luther spoke. The influence of the new classical learning, and of the "humanists" who imbibed its spirit, tended to that liberation of the mind, and was felt in the greatest center of the learning of the time, the University of Paris. But not sufficiently to overcome the conservatism of the Sorbonne—the theological faculty of the University; for Luther's writings were solemnly condemned and burned by it in 1521, and a persecution of those inclined toward the new doctrines was early begun. Francis I., in whose careless and coarse nature there was some taste for letters and learning, as well as for art, and who patronized in an idle way the Renaissance movements of his reign, seemed disposed at the beginning to be friendly to the religious Reformers. But he was too shallow a creature, and too profoundly unprincipled and false, to stand firmly in any cause of righteousness, and face such a power as that of Rome. His nobler sister, Margaret of Angoulême, who embraced the reformed doctrines with conviction, exerted a strong influence upon the king in their favor while she was by his side; but after her marriage to Henry d'Albret, King of Navarre, and after Francis had suffered defeat and shame in his war with Charles V., he was ready to make himself the servant of the Papacy for whatever it willed against his Protestant subjects, in order to have its alliance and support. So the persecution grew steadily more fierce, more systematic, and more determined, as the spirit of the Reformation spread more widely through the kingdom.

One of the consequences of the persecution was the flight from France, in 1534, of John Calvin, who subsequently became the founder and the exponent of a system of Protestant theology which obtained wider acceptance in Europe than that of Luther. All minor differences were practically merged in the great division between these two theologies—the Lutheran and the Calvinistic—which split the Reformation in twain. After two years of wandering, Calvin settled in the free city of Geneva, where his influence very soon rose to so extraordinary a height that he transformed the commonwealth and ruled it, unselfishly, and in perfect piety, but with iron-handed despotism, for a quarter of a century.

The reign of Francis I. has one other mark in history, besides that of his persecution of the Reformers, his careless patronage of arts and letters, and his unsuccessful wars with the Emperor. He gave to the French Court—at least more than his predecessors had done—the character which made it in later French history so evil and mischievous a center of dissoluteness, of base intrigue, of national demoralization. It was invested in his time with the fascinations which drew into it the nobles of France and its men of genius, to corrupt them and to destroy their independence. It was in his time that the Court began to seem to be, in its own eyes, a kind of self-centered society, containing all of the French nation which needed or deserved consideration, and holding its place in the order of things quite apart from the kingdom which it helped its royal master to rule. Not to be of the Court was to be non-existent in its view; and thus every ambition in France was invited to push at its fatal doors.

Francis I. died in 1547, and was followed on the throne by his son Henry II., whose marriage to Catherine de' Medici, of the renowned Florentine family, was the most important personal act of his life. It was important in the malign fruits which it bore; since Catherine, after his death, gave an evil Italian bend-sinister to French politics, which had no lack of crookedness before. Henry continued the war with Charles V., and was afterwards at war with Philip II., Charles' son, and with England, the latter country losing Calais in the contest,—its last French possession. Peace was made in 1559, and celebrated with splendid tournaments, at one of which the French king received a wound that caused his death.

   He left three sons, all weaklings in body and character, who
   reigned successively. The elder, Francis II., died the year
   following his accession. Although aged but seventeen when he
   died, he had been married some two years to Mary Stuart, the
   young queen of Scots. This marriage had helped to raise to
   great power in the kingdom a family known as the Guises. They
   were a branch of the ducal House of Lorraine, whose duchy was
   at that time independent of France, and, although the father
   of the family, made Duke of Guise by Francis I., had become
   naturalized in France in 1505, his sons were looked upon as
   foreigners by the jealous Frenchmen whom they supplanted at
   Court.
{1061}
   Of the six sons, there were two of eminence, one (the second
   duke of Guise) a famous general in his day, the other a
   powerful cardinal. Five sisters completed the family in its
   second generation. The elder of these, Mary, had married James
   V. of Scotland (whose mother was the English princess,
   Margaret, sister of Henry VIII.), and Mary Stuart, queen of
   Scots, born of that marriage, was therefore a niece of the
   Guises. They had brought about her marriage to Francis II.,
   while he was dauphin, and they mounted with her to supreme
   influence in the kingdom when she ascended the throne with her
   husband. The queen-mother, Catherine de' Medici, was as eager
   as the Guises to control the government, in what appeared to
   her eyes the interest of her children; but during the short
   reign of Francis II. she was quite thrust aside, and the
   queen's uncles ruled the state.

The death of Francis II. (1560) brought a change, and with the accession of Charles IX., a boy of ten years, there began a bitter contest for ascendancy between Catherine and the Guises; and this struggle became mixed and strangely complicated with a deadly conflict of religions, which the steady advance of the Reformation in France had brought at this time to a crisis.

Under the powerful leadership which Calvin assumed, at Geneva, the reformed religion in France had acquired an organized firmness and strength which not only resisted the most cruel persecution, but made rapid headway against it. "Protestantism had become a party which did not, like Lutheranism in Germany, spring up from the depths." "It numbered its chief adherents among the middle and upper grades of society, spread its roots rather among the nobles than the citizens, and among learned men and families of distinction rather than among the people." "Some of the highest aristocracy, who were discontented, and submitted unwillingly to the supremacy of the Guises, had joined the Calvinistic opposition—some undoubtedly from policy, others from conviction. The Turennes, the Rohans, and Soubises, pure nobles, who addressed the king as 'mon cousin,' especially the Bourbons, the agnates of the royal house, had adopted the new faith" (Hausser). One branch of the Bourbons had lately acquired the crown of Navarre. The Spanish part of the old Navarrese kingdom had been subjugated and absorbed by Ferdinand of Aragon; but its territory on the French side of the Pyrenees—Béarn and other counties—still maintained a half independent national existence, with the dignity of a regal government. When Margaret of Angoulême, sister of Francis I., married Henry d'Albret, King of Navarre, as mentioned before, she carried to that small court an earnest inclination towards the doctrines of the Reform. Under her protection Navarre became largely Protestant, and a place of refuge for the persecuted of France. Margaret's daughter, the famous Jeanne d'Albret, espoused the reformed faith fully, and her husband, Antoine de Bourbon, as well as Antoine's brother, Louis de Condé, found it politic to profess the same belief. For the Protestants (who were now acquiring, in some unknown way, the name of Huguenots) had become so numerous and so compactly organized as to form a party capable of being wielded with great effect, in the strife of court factions which the rivalry of Catherine and the Guises produced. Hence politics and religion were inextricably confused in the civil wars which broke out shortly after the death of Francis II. (1560), and the accession of the boy king, Charles IX. These wars belong to a different movement in the general current of European events, and we will return to them after a glance at the religious Reformation, and at the political circumstances connected with it, in England and elsewhere.

Henry Tudor, Earl of Richmond, made king of England by his victory at Bosworth, established himself so firmly in the seat of power that three successive rebellions failed to disturb him. In one of these (1487) a pretender, Lambert Simnel, was put forward, who claimed to be the Earl of Warwick. In another (1491-1497) a second pretender, Perkin Warbeck, personated one of the young princes whom Richard III. had caused to be murdered in the tower. Neither of the impostures had much success in the kingdom. Henry VII. was not a popular king, but he was able and strong, and he solidified all the bases of monarchical independence which circumstances had enabled Edward IV. to begin laying down.

It was in the reign of Henry that America was discovered, and he might have been the patron of Columbus, the beneficiary of the great voyage, and the proprietor and lord of the grand realm which Isabella and Ferdinand secured. But he lacked the funds or the faith—apparently both—and put aside his unequaled opportunity. When the field of westward exploration had been opened, however, he was early in entering it, and sent the Cabots upon those voyages which gave England her claim to the North American coasts.

During the reign of Henry VII. there were two quiet marriages in his family which strangely influenced subsequent history. One was the marriage, in 1501, of the king's eldest son, Arthur, to Catherine of Aragon, youngest daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella. The other, in 1503, united the king's daughter, Margaret, to James IV., King of Scotland. It was through this latter marriage that the inheritance of the English crown passed to the Scottish House of Stuart, exactly one hundred years later, upon the failure of the direct line of descent in the Tudor family. The first marriage, of Prince Arthur to Catherine of Aragon, was soon dissolved by the death of the prince, in 1502. Seven years afterwards the widowed Catherine married her late husband's brother, just after he became Henry VIII., King of England, upon the death of his father, in 1509. Whence followed notable consequences which will presently appear.

It was the ambition of Henry VIII. to play a conspicuous part in European affairs; and as England was rich and strong, and as the king had obtained nearly the absoluteness of the crown in France, the parties to the great contests then going on were all eagerly courting his alliance. His ambitions ran parallel, too, with those of the able minister, Thomas Wolsey, who rose to high influence at his side soon after his reign began. Wolsey aspired to the Papal crown, with the cardinal's cap as a preparatory adornment, and he drew England, as we have seen, into the stormy politics of the sixteenth century in Europe, with no gain, of glory or otherwise, to the nation, and not much result of any kind. When the Emperor Maximilian died, in 1519, Henry entered the lists against Maximilian's grandson, Charles of Spain, and Francis I. of France, as a candidate for the imperial crown. In the subsequent wars which broke out between his two rivals, he took the side of the successful Charles, now Emperor, and helped him to climb to supremacy in Europe over the prostrate French king. He had dreams of conquering France again, and casting the glories of Henry V. in the shade; but he carried his enterprise little beyond the dreaming. When it was too late to check the growth of Charles' overshadowing power, he changed his side and took Francis into alliance.

But Henry's motives were always selfish and personal—never political; and the personal motives had now taken on a most despicable character. He had tired of his wife, the Spanish Catherine, who was six years older than himself. He had two pretexts for discontent with his marriage: 1, that his queen had borne him only a daughter, whereas England needed a male heir to the throne; 2, that he was troubled with scruples as to the lawfulness of wedlock with his brother's widow. On this latter ground he began intrigues to win from the Pope, not a divorce in the ordinary sense of the term, but a declaration of the nullity of his marriage. This challenged the opposition of the Emperor, Catherine's nephew, and Henry's alliances were naturally changed.

The Pope, Clement VII., refused to annul the marriage, and Henry turned his unreasoning wrath upon Cardinal Wolsey, who had conducted negotiations with the Pope and failed in them. Wolsey was driven from the Court in disgrace and died soon afterwards. He was succeeded in the king's favor by a more unscrupulous man, Thomas Cromwell. Henry had not yet despaired of bringing the Pope to compliance with his wishes; and he began attacks upon the Church and upon the papal revenues which might shake, as he hoped, the firmness of the powers at Rome. With the help of a pliant minister and a subservient Parliament, he forced the clergy (1531-1532) in Convocation to acknowledge him to be the Supreme Head of the English Church, and to submit themselves entirely to his authority. At the same time he grasped the "annates," or first year's income of bishoprics, which had been the richest perquisite of the papal treasury. In all these proceedings, the English king was acting on a line parallel to that of the continental rising against Rome; but it was not in friendliness toward it nor in sympathy with it that he did so. He had been among the bitterest enemies of the Reformation, and he never ceased to be so. He had won from the Pope the empty title of "Defender of the Faith," by a foolish book against Luther, and the faith which he defended in 1521 was the faith in which he died. But when he found that the influence of Charles V. at Rome was too great to be overcome, and that the Pope could be neither bribed, persuaded nor coerced to sanction the putting away of his wife, he resolved to make the English Church sufficient in authority to satisfy his demand, by establishing its ecclesiastical independence, with a pontiff of its own, in himself. He purposed nothing more than this. He contemplated no change of doctrine, no cleansing of abuses. He permitted no one whose services he commanded in the undertaking to bring such changes into contemplation. So far as concerned Henry's initiative, there was absolutely nothing of religious Reformation in the movement which separated the Church of England from the Church of Rome. It accomplished its sole original end when it gave finality to the decree of an English ecclesiastical court, on the question of the king's marriage, and barred queen Catherine's appeal from it. It was the intention of Henry VIII. that the Church under his papacy should remain precisely what it had been under the Pope at Rome, and he spared neither stake nor gibbet in his persecuting zeal against impudent reformers.

But the spirit of Reformation which was in the atmosphere of that time lent itself, nevertheless, to King Henry's project, and made that practicable which could hardly have been so a generation before. The influence of Wyclif had never wholly died out; the new learning was making its way in England and broadening men's minds; the voice of Luther and his fellow workers on the continent had been heard, and not vainly. England was ripe for the religious revolution, and her king promoted it, without intention. But while his reign lasted, and his despotism was heavy on the land, there was nothing accomplished but the breaking of the old Church fetters, and the binding of the nation anew with green withes, which, presently, it would burst asunder.

The conspicuous events of Henry's reign are familiarly known. Most of them bear the stamp of his monstrous egotism and selfishness. He was the incomparable tyrant of English history. The monarch who repudiated two wives, sent two to the block, and shared his bed with yet two more; who made a whole national church the servant of his lusts, and who took the lives of the purest men of his kingdom when they would not bend their consciences to say that he did well—has a pedestal quite his own in the gallery of infamous kings.

Dying in 1547, Henry left three children: Mary, daughter of Catherine of Aragon, Elizabeth, daughter of Anne Boleyn, and Edward, son of Jane Seymour. The latter, in his tenth year, became King (Edward VI.), and his uncle, the Duke of Somerset, acquired the control of the government, with the title of Protector. Somerset headed a party which had begun before the death of the king to press for more changes in the character of the new Church of England and less adherence to the pattern of Rome. There seems to be little reason to suppose that the court leaders of this party were much moved in the matter by any interest of a religious kind; but the growth of thinking and feeling in England tended that way, and the side of Reformation had become the stronger. They simply gave way to it, and, abandoned the repression which Henry had persisted in. At the same time, their new policy gave them more freedom to grasp the spoils of the old Church, which Henry VIII. had begun to lay hands on, by suppression of monasteries and confiscation of their estates. The wealth thus sequestered went largely into private hands.

It was in the short reign of Edward VI. that the Church of England really took on its organic form as one of the Churches of the Reformation, by the composition of its first prayer-books, and by the framing of a definite creed.

In 1553, the young king died. Somerset had fallen from power the previous year and had suffered death. He had been supplanted by Dudley, Earl of Warwick and Duke of Northumberland, and that minister had persuaded Edward to bequeath his crown to Lady Jane Grey, grand-daughter of the younger sister of Henry VIII. But Northumberland was hated by the people, and few could recognize the right of a boy on the throne to change the order of regal succession by his will. Parliament had formally legitimated both Catherine's daughter, Mary, and Anne Boleyn's daughter, Elizabeth, and had placed them in the line of inheritance. Mary's legal title to the crown was clear. She had adhered with her mother to the Roman Church, and her advent upon the throne would mean the subjection of the English Church to the Papacy anew; since the constitution of the Church armed the sovereign with supreme and indisputable power over it. The Protestants of the kingdom knew what to expect, and were in great fear; but they submitted. Lady Jane Grey was recommended to them by her Protestant belief, and by her beautiful character; but her title was too defective and her supporters too much distrusted. There were few to stand by the poor young girl when Northumberland proclaimed her queen, and she was easily dethroned by the partisans of Mary. A year later she was sent to the block.

Catholicism was now ascendant again, and England was brought to share in the great reaction against the Reformation which prevailed generally through Europe and which we shall presently consider. Before doing so, let us glance briefly at the religious state of some other countries not yet touched upon.

In Scotland, a deep undercurrent of feeling against the corruptions of the Church had been repressed by resolute persecutions, until after the middle of the sixteenth century. Wars with England, and the close connection of the Scottish Court with the Guises of France, had both tended to retard the progress of a reform sentiment, or to delay the manifestation of it. But when the pent-up feeling began to respond to the voice of the great Calvinistic evangelist and organizer, John Knox, it swept the nation like a storm. Knox's first preaching, after his captivity in France and exile to Geneva, was in 1555. In 1560, the authority of the Pope was renounced, the mass prohibited, and the Geneva confession of faith adopted, by the Scottish Estates. After that time the Reformed Church in Scotland—the Church of Presbyterianism—had only to resist the futile hostility of Mary Stuart for a few years, until it came to its great struggle against English Episcopacy, under Mary's son and grandson, James and Charles.

In the three Scandinavian nations the ideas of the Reformation, diffused from Germany, had won early favor, both from kings and people, and had soon secured an enduring foothold. They owed their reception quite as much, perhaps, to the political situation as to the religious feeling of the northern peoples.

When the ferment of the Reformation movement began, the three crowns were worn by one king, as they had been since the "Union of Calmar," in 1397, and the King of Denmark was the sovereign of the Union. His actual power in Sweden and Norway was slight; his theoretical authority was sufficient to irritate both. In Sweden, especially, the nobles chafed under the yoke of the profitless federation. Christian II., the last Danish king of the three kingdoms, crushed their disaffection by a harsh conquest of the country (1520), and by savage executions, so perfidious and so numerous that they are known in Swedish history as the Massacre of Stockholm. But this brutal and faithless king became so hateful in his own proper kingdom that the Danish nobles rose against him in 1523 and he was driven from the land. The crown was given to his uncle, Frederick, Duke of Schleswig-Holstein. In that German Duchy, Lutheranism had already made its way, and Frederick was in accord with it. On coming to the throne of Denmark, where Catholicism still prevailed, he pledged himself to attempt no interference with it; but he felt no obligation, on the other hand, to protect it. He demanded and established a toleration for both doctrines, and gave to the reformers a freedom of opportunity which speedily undermined the old faith and overthrew it.

In the meantime, Sweden had undergone the important revolution of her history, which placed the national hero, Gustavus Vasa, on the throne. Gustavus was a young noble whose title to the crown was not derived from his lineage, but from his genius. After Christian II. had bloodily exterminated the elder leaders of the Swedish state, this young lord, then a hostage and prisoner in the tyrant's hands, made his escape and took upon himself the mission of setting his country free. For three years Gustavus lived a life like that of Alfred the Great in England, when he, too, struggled with the Danes. His heroic adventures were crowned with success, and Sweden, led to independence by its natural king, bestowed the regal title upon him (1523) and seated him upon its ancient throne. The new Danish king, Frederick, acknowledged the revolution, and the Union of Calmar was dissolved. Sweden under Gustavus Vasa recovered from the state of great disorder into which it had fallen, and grew to be a nation of important strength. As a measure of policy, he encouraged the introduction of Lutheranism and promoted the spread of it, in order to break the power of the Catholic clergy, and also, in order, without doubt, to obtain possession of the property of the Church, which secured to the Crown the substantial revenues it required.

In Italy, the reformed doctrines obtained no popular footing at any time, though many among the cultivated people regarded them with favor, and would gladly have witnessed, not only a practical purging of the Church, but a revision of those Catholic dogmas most offensive to a rational mind. But such little movement as stirred in that direction was soon stopped by the success of the Emperor, Charles V., in his Italian wars with Francis I., and by the Spanish domination in the peninsula which ensued thereon. The Spain of that age was like the bloodless octopus which paralyzes the victim in its clutch, and Italy, gripped in half of its many principalities by the deadly tentacles thrust out from Madrid, showed no consciousness for the next two centuries.

The long demanded, long promised General Council, for considering the alleged abuses in the Church and the alleged falsities in its doctrine, and generally for discussion and action upon the questions raised by the Reformation, assembled at Trent in December, 1545. The Emperor seems to have desired with sincerity that the Council might be one which the Protestants would have confidence in, and in which they might be represented, for a full discussion of their differences with Rome. But this was made impossible from the beginning. The Protestants demanded that "final appeal on all debated points should be made to the sole authority of Holy Scripture," and this being refused by the Pope (Paul III.), there remained no ground on which the two parties could meet. The Italian prelates who composed the majority of the Council made haste, it would seem, to take action which closed the doors of conciliation against the Reformers. "First, they declared that divine revelation was continuous in the Church of which the Pope was the head; and that the chief written depository of this revelation—namely, the Scriptures—had no authority except in the version of the Vulgate. Secondly, they condemned the doctrine of justification by Faith. … Thirdly, they confirmed the efficacy and the binding authority of the Seven Sacraments." "The Council terminated in December [1563] with an act of submission, which placed all its decrees at the pleasure of the Papal sanction. Pius [Pius IV. became Pope in 1560] was wise enough to pass and ratify the decrees of the Tridentine fathers by a Bull dated on December 26, 1563, reserving to the Papal sovereign the sole right of interpreting them in doubtful or disputed cases. This he could well afford to do; for not an article had been penned without his concurrence, and not a stipulation had been made without a previous understanding with the Catholic powers. The very terms, moreover, by which his ratification was conveyed, secured his supremacy, and conferred upon his successors and himself the privileges of a court of ultimate appeal. At no previous period in the history of the Church had so wide, so undefined, and so unlimited an authority been accorded to the See of Rome" (Symonds).

Some practical reforms in the Church were wrought by the Council of Trent, but its disciplinary decrees were less important than the dogmatic. From beginning to end of its sessions, which, broken by many suspensions and adjournments, dragged through eighteen years, it addressed itself to the task of solidifying the Church of Rome, as left by the Protestant schism,—not of healing the schism itself or of removing the provocations to it. The work which the Council did in that direction was of vast importance, and profoundly affected the future of the Papacy and of its spiritual realm. It gave a firm dogmatic footing to the great reactionary new forces which now came into play, with aggressive enthusiasm and zeal, to arrest the advance of the Reformation and roll it back.

The extraordinary revival of Catholicism and thrusting back of Protestantism which occurred in the later half of the sixteenth century had several causes behind it and within it.

1. The spiritual impulse from which the Reformation started had considerably spent itself, or had become debased by a gross admixture of political and mercenary aims. In Germany, the spoils derived from the suppressing of monastic establishments and the secularizing of ecclesiastical fiefs and estates, appeared very early among the potent inducements by which mercenary princes were drawn to the side of the Lutheran reform. Later, as the opposing leagues, Protestant and Catholic, settled into chronic opposition and hostility, the struggle between them took on more and more the character of a great political game, and lost more and more the spirit of a battle for free conscience and a free mind. In France, as we have noticed, the political entanglements of the Huguenot party were such, by this time, that it could not fail to be lowered by them in its religious tone. In England, every breath of spirituality in the movement had so far (to the death of Henry VIII.) been stifled, and it showed nothing but a brazen political front to the world. In the Netherlands, the struggle for religious freedom was about to merge itself in a fight of forty years for self-government, and the fortitude and valor of the citizen were more surely developed in that long war than the faith and fervor of the Christian. And so, generally throughout Europe, Protestantism, in its conflict with the powers of the ancient Church, had descended, ere the sixteenth century ran far into its second half, to a distinctly lower plane than it occupied at first. On that lower plane Rome fronted it more formidably, with stronger arms, than on the higher.

2. Broadly stating the fact, it may be said that Protestantism made all its great inroads upon the Church of Rome before partisanship came to the rescue of the latter, and closed the open mind with which Luther, and Zwingli, and Farel, and Calvin were listened to at first. It happens always, when new ideas, combative of old ones, whether religious or political, are first put forward in the world, they are listened to for a time with a certain disinterestedness of attention—a certain native candor in the mind—which gives them a fair hearing. If they seem reasonable, they obtain ready acceptance, and spread rapidly,—until the conservatism of the beliefs assailed takes serious alarm, and the radicalism of the innovating beliefs becomes ambitious and rampant; until the for and the against stiffen themselves in opposing ranks, and the voice of argument is drowned by the cries of party. That ends all shifting of masses from the old to the new ground. That ends conversion as an epidemic and dwindles it to the sporadic character.

3. Protestantism became bitterly divided within itself at an early stage of its career by doctrinal differences, first between Zwinglians and Lutherans, and then between Lutherans and Calvinists, while Catholicism, under attack, settled into more unity and solidity than before.

4. The tremendous power in Europe to which the Spanish monarchy, with its subject dominions, and its dynastic relations, had now risen, passed, in 1556, to a dull-brained and soulless bigot, who saw but one use for it, namely, the extinction of all dissent from his own beliefs, and all opposition to his own will. Philip II. differed from his father, Charles V., not in the enormity of his bigoted egotism—they were equals, perhaps, in that—but in the exclusiveness of it. There was something else in Charles, something sometimes faintly admirable. He did have some interests in life that were not purely malignant. But his horrid vampire of a son, the most repulsive creature of his kind in all history, had nothing in him that was not as deadly to mankind as the venom secreted behind the fang of a cobra. It was a frightful day for the world when a despotism which shadowed Spain, Sicily, Italy and the Low Countries, and which had begun to drag unbounded treasure from America, fell to the possession of such a being as this. Nothing substantial was taken away from the potent malevolence of Philip by his failure of election in Germany to the Imperial throne. On the contrary, he was the stronger for it, because all his dominion was real and all his authority might assume to be absolute. His father had been more handicapped than helped by his German responsibilities and embarrassments, which Philip escaped. It is not strange that his concentration of the vast enginery under his hands to one limited aim, of exterminating what his dull and ignorant mind conceived to be irreligion and treason, had its large measure of success. The stranger thing is, that there was fortitude and courage to resist such power, in even one corner of his realm.

5. The Papacy was restored at this time to the purer and higher character of its best ages, by well-guided elections, which raised in succession to the throne a number of men, very different in ability, and quite different, too, in the spirit of their piety, but generally alike in dignity and decency of life, and in qualities which command respect. The fiery Neapolitan zealot, Caraffa, who became Pope in 1555 as Paul IV.; his cool-tempered diplomatic successor, Pius IV., who manipulated the closing labors of the Council of Trent; the austere inquisitor, Pius V.; the more commonplace Gregory XIII., and the powerful Sixtus V., were pontiffs who gave new strength to Catholicism, in their different ways, both by what they did and by what they were.

6. The revival of zeal in the Roman Church, naturally following the attacks upon it, gave rise to many new religious organizations within its elastic fold, some reformatory, some missionary and militant, but all bringing an effectual reinforcement to it, at the time when its assailants began to show faltering signs. Among these was one—Loyola's Society of Jesus—which marched promptly to the front of the battle, and which contributed more than any other single force in the field to the rallying of the Church, to the stopping of retreat, and to the facing of its stubborn columns forward for a fresh advance. The Jesuits took such a lead and accomplished such results by virtue of the military precision of discipline under which they had been placed and to which they were singularly trained by the rules of the founder; and also by effect of a certain subtle sophistry that runs through their ethical maxims and their counsels of piety. They fought for their faith with a sublime courage, with a devotion almost unparalleled, with an earnestness of belief that cannot be questioned; but they used weapons and modes of warfare which the higher moral feeling of civilized mankind, whether Christian or Pagan, has always condemned. It is not Protestant enemies alone who say this. It is the accusation that has been brought against them again and again in their own Church, and which has expelled them from Catholic countries, again and again. In the first century or more of their career, this plastic conscience, moulded by a passionate zeal, and surrendered, with every gift of mind and body, to a service of obedience which tolerated no evasion on one side nor bending on the other, made the Jesuits the most invincible and dangerous body of men that was ever organized for defense and aggression in any cause.

The order was founded in 1540, by a bull of Pope Paul III. At the time of Loyola's death, in 1556, it numbered about one thousand members, and under Lainez, the second general of the order, who succeeded Loyola at the head, it advanced rapidly, in numbers, in efficiency of organization, and in wide-spread influence.

Briefly stated, these are the incidents and circumstances which help to explain—not fully, perhaps, but almost sufficiently—the check to Protestantism and the restored energy and aggressiveness of the Catholic Church, in the later half of the sixteenth century.

In his kingdoms of Spain, Philip II. may be said to have finished the work of death which his father and his father's grand-parents committed to him. They began it, and appointed the lines on which it was to be done. The Spain of their day had the fairest opportunity of any nation in Europe for a great and noble career. The golden gates of her opportunity were unlocked and opened by good Queen Isabella; but the pure hands of the same pious queen threw over the neck of her country the noose of a strangler, and tightened it prayerfully. Her grandson, who was neither pious nor good, flung his vast weight of power upon it. But the strangling halter of the Spanish Inquisition did not extinguish signs of life in his kingdom fast enough to satisfy his royal impatience, and he tightened other cords upon the suffering body and all its limbs. Philip, when he came to take up the murderous task, found every equipment for it that he could desire. He had only to gather the strands of the infernal mesh into his hands, and bring the strain of his awful sovereignty to bear upon them: then sit and watch the palsy of death creep over his dominions.

   Of political life, Charles really left nothing for his son to
   kill. Of positive religious life, there can have been no
   important survival, for he and his Inquisition had been keenly
   vigilant; but Philip made much of the little he could
   discover. As to the industrial life of Spain, father and son
   were alike active in the murdering of it, and alike ingenious.
   They paralyzed manufactures, in the first instance, by
   persecuting and expelling the thrifty and skilful Moriscoes;
   then they made their work complete by heavy duties on raw
   materials. To extinguish the agricultural industries of the
   kingdom, they had happy inspirations.
{1066}
   They prohibited the exportation of one commodity after
   another—corn, cattle, wool, cloth, leather, and the
   like—until they had brought Spain practically to the point of
   being dependent on other countries for many products of skill,
   and yet of having nothing to offer in exchange, except the
   treasure of precious metals which she drew from America. Hence
   it happened that the silver and gold of the Peruvian and
   Mexican mines ran like quicksand through her fingers, into the
   coffers of the merchants of the Low Countries and of England;
   and, probably, no other country in Europe saw so little of
   them, had so little of benefit from them, as the country they
   were supposed to enrich.

If the killing of Spain needed to be made complete by anything more, Philip supplied the need, in the deadliness of his taxation. Spending vast sums in his attempt to repeat upon the Netherlands the work of national murder he had accomplished in Spain; losing, by the same act, the rich revenues of the thrifty provinces; launching into new expenditures as he pursued, by clumsy warfare, his mission of death into fresh fields, aiming now at the life of France, and now at the life of England,—he squeezed the cost of his armies and armadas from a country in which he had strangled production already, and made poverty the common estate. It was the last draining of the life-blood of a nation which ought to have been strong and great, but which suffered murder most foul and unnatural.

We hardly exaggerate even in figure when we say that Spain was a dead nation whim Philip quitted the scene of his arduous labors. It is true that his successors still found something for their hands to do, in the ways that were pleasant to their race, and burned and bled and crushed the unhappy kingdom with indefatigable persistency; but it was really the corpse of a nation which they practised on. The life of Spain, as a breathing, sentient state, came to an end under the hands of Philip II., first of the Thugs.

The hand of Charles V. had been heavy on the Netherlands; but resistance to such a power as that of Spain in his day was hardly dreamed of. It was not easy for Philip to outdo his father's despotism; less easy to drive the laborious Hollanders and Flemings to desperation and force them into rebellious war. But he accomplished it. He filled the country with Spanish troops. He reorganized and stimulated the Inquisition. He multiplied bishoprics in the Provinces, against the wish of even the Catholic population. He scorned the counsels of the great nobles, and gave foreign advisers to the Regent, his half-sister, Margaret of Parma, illegitimate daughter of Charles V., whom he placed at the head of the government. His oppressions were endured, with increasing signs of hidden passion, for ten years. Then, in 1566, the first movement of patriotic combination appeared. It was a league among certain of the nobles; its objects were peaceful, its plans were legal; but it was not countenanced by the wiser of the patriots, who saw that events were not ripe. The members of the league went in solemn procession to the Regent with a petition; whereupon one of her councillors denounced them as "a troop of beggars." They promptly seized the epithet and appropriated it. A beggar's wallet became their emblem; the idea was caught up and carried through the country, and a visible party rose quickly into existence.

The religious feeling now gained boldness. Enormous field-meetings began to be held, under arms, in every part of the open country, defying edicts and Inquisition. There followed a little later some fanatical and riotous outbreaks in several cities, breaking images and desecrating churches. Upon these occurrences, Philip despatched to the Netherlands, in the summer of 1567, a fresh army of Spanish troops, commanded by a man who was after his own heart—as mean, as false, as merciless, as little in soul and mind, as himself,—the Duke of Alva. Alva brought with him authority which practically superseded that of the Regent, and secret instructions which doomed every man of worth in the Provinces.

At the head of the nobility of the country; by eminence of character, no less than by precedence in rank, stood William of Nassau, Prince of Orange, who derived his higher title from a petty and remote principality, but whose large family possessions were in Flanders, Brabant, Holland and Luxemburg. Associated closely with him, in friendship and in political action, were Count Egmont, and the Admiral Count Horn, the latter of a family related to the Montmorencies of France. These three conspicuous nobles Philip had marked with special malice for the headsman, though their solitary crime had been the giving of advice against his tyrannies. William of Orange-"the Silent," as he came to be known—far-seeing in his wisdom, and well-advised by trusty agents in Spain, withdrew into Germany before Alva arrived. He warned his friends of their danger and implored them to save themselves; but they were blinded and would not listen. The perfidious Spaniard lured them with flatteries to Brussels and thrust them into prison. They were to be the first victims of the appalling sacrifice required to appease the dull rage of the king. Within three months they had eighteen hundred companions, condemned like themselves to the scaffold, by a council in which Alva presided and which the people called "the Council of Blood." In June, 1568, they were brought to the block.

Meantime Prince William and his brother, Louis of Nassau, had raised forces in Germany and attempted the rescue of the terrorized Provinces; but their troops were ill-paid and mutinous and they suffered defeat. For the time being, the Netherlands were crushed. As many of the people as could escape had fled; commerce was at a standstill; workshops were idle; the cities, once so wealthy, were impoverished; death, mourning, and terror, were everywhere. Alva had done very perfectly what he was sent to do.

The first break in the blackness of the clouds appeared in April, 1572, when a fleet, manned by refugee adventurers who called themselves Sea-Beggars, attacked and captured the town of Brill. From that day the revolt had its right footing, on the decks of the ships of the best sailors in the world. It faced Philip from that day as a maritime power, which would grow by the very feeding of its war with him, until it had consumed everything Spanish within its reach. The taking of Brill soon gave the patriots control of so many places in Holland and Zealand that a meeting of deputies was held at Dort, in July, 1572, which declared William of Orange to be "the King's legal Stadtholder in Holland, Zealand, Friesland and Utrecht," and recommended to the other Provinces that he be appointed Protector of all the Netherlands during the King's absence.

Alva's reign of terror had failed so signally that even he was discouraged and asked to be recalled. It was his boast when he retired that he had put eighteen thousand and six hundred of the Netherlanders to death since they were delivered into his hands, above and beyond the horrible massacres by which he had half depopulated every captured town. Under Alva's successor, Don Louis de Requesens, a man of more justice and humanity, the struggle went on, adversely, upon the whole, to the patriots, though they triumphed gloriously in the famous defense of Leyden. To win help from England, they offered the sovereignty of their country to Queen Elizabeth; but in vain. They made no headway in the southern provinces, where Catholicism prevailed, and where the religious difference drew people more to the Spanish side. But when Requesens died suddenly, in the spring of 1576, and the Spanish soldiery broke into a furious mutiny, sacking Antwerp and other cities, then the nobles of Flanders and Brabant applied to the northern provinces for help. The result was a treaty, called the Pacification of Ghent, which contemplated a general effort to drive the Spaniards from the whole land. But not much came of this confederacy; the Catholic provinces never co-operated with the Protestant provinces, and the latter went their own way to freedom and prosperity, while the former sank back, submissive, to their chains.

For a short time after the death of Requesens, Philip was represented in the Netherlands by his illegitimate half-brother, Don John of Austria; but Don John died in October, 1578, and then came the great general, Alexander Farnese, Prince of Parma, who was to try the patriots sorely by his military skill. In 1579, the Prince of Orange drew them more closely together, in the Union of Utrecht, which Holland, Zealand, Gelderland, Zutphen, Utrecht, Overyssel, and Groningen, subscribed, and which was practically the foundation of the Dutch republic, though allegiance to Philip was not yet renounced. This followed two years later, in July, 1581, when the States General, assembled at the Hague, passed a solemn Act of Abjuration, which deposed Philip from his sovereignty and transferred it to the Duke of Anjou, a prince of the royal family of France, who did nothing for the Provinces, and who died soon after. At the same time, the immediate sovereignty of Holland and Zealand was conferred on the Prince of Orange.

In March, 1582, Philip made his first deliberate attempt to procure the assassination of the Prince. He had entered into a contract for the purpose, and signed it with his own hand. The assassin employed failed only because the savage pistol wound he inflicted, in the neck and jaw of his victim, did not kill. The master-murderer, at Madrid, was not discouraged. He launched his assassins, one following the other, until six had made their trial in two years. The sixth, one Balthazar Gerard, accomplished that for which he was sent, and William the Silent, wise statesman and admirable patriot, fell under his hand (July 10, 1584). Philip was so immeasurably delighted at this success that he conferred three lordships on the parents of the murderer.

William's son, Maurice, though but eighteen years old, was immediately chosen Stadtholder of Holland, Zealand and Utrecht, and High Admiral of the Union. In the subsequent years of the war, he proved himself a general of great capacity. Of the details of the war it is impossible to speak. Its most notable event was the siege of Antwerp, whose citizens defended themselves against the Duke of Parma, with astonishing courage and obstinacy, for many months. They capitulated in the end on honorable terms; but the prosperity of their city had received a blow from which it never revived.

Once more the sovereignty of the Provinces was offered to Queen Elizabeth of England, and once more declined; but the queen sent her favorite, the Earl of Leicester, with a few thousand men, to help the struggling Hollanders (1585). This was done, not in sympathy with them or their cause, but purely as a self-defensive measure against Spain. The niggardliness and the vacillations of Elizabeth, combined with the incompetency of Leicester, caused troubles to the Provinces nearly equal to the benefit of the forces lent them. Philip of Spain was now involved in his undertakings with the Guises and the League in France, and in his plans against England, and was weakened in the Netherlands for some years. Parma died in 1592, and Count Mansfield took his place, succeeded in his turn by the Marquis Spinola. The latter, at last, made an honest report, that the subjugation of the United Provinces was impracticable, and, Philip II. being now dead, the Spanish government was induced in 1607 to agree to a suspension of arms. A truce for twelve years was arranged; practically it was the termination of the war of independence, and practically it placed the United Provinces among the nations, although the formal acknowledgment of their independence was not yielded by Spain until 1648.

While the Netherlands had offered to Philip of Spain a special field for his malice, there were others thrown open to him which he did not neglect. He may be said, in fact, to have whetted his appetite for blood and for burned human flesh in England, whither he went, as a young prince, in 1554, to marry his elderly second cousin, Queen Mary. We may be sure that he did not check the ardor of his consort, when she hastened to re-establish the supremacy of the Pope, and to rekindle the fires of religious persecution. The two-hundred and seventy-seven heretics whom she is reckoned to have burned may have seemed to him, even then, an insignificant handful. He quickly tired of her, if not of her congenial work, and left her in 1555. In 1558 she died, and the Church of Rome fell once more, never to regain its old footing of authority.

Elizabeth, daughter of Anne Boleyn, who now came to the throne, was Protestant by the necessities of her position, whether doctrinally convinced or no. The Catholics denied her legitimacy of birth, and disputed, therefore, her right to the crown. She depended upon the Protestants for her support, and Protestantism, either active or passive, had become, without doubt, the dominant faith of the nation. But the mild schism which formerly took most of its direction from Luther, had now been powerfully acted upon by the influence of Calvin. Geneva had been the refuge of many ministers and teachers who fled from Mary's fires, and they returned to spread and deepen in England the stern, strong, formidable piety which Calvin evoked. These Calvinistic Protestants now made themselves felt as a party in the state, and were known ere long by that name which the next century rendered famous in English and American history—the great name of the Puritans. They were not satisfied with the stately, decorous, ceremonious Church which Elizabeth reconstructed on the pattern of the Church of Edward VI. At the same time, no party could be counted on more surely for the support of the queen, since the hope of Protestantism in England depended upon her, even as she was dependent upon it.

The Catholics, denying legitimacy to Elizabeth, recognized Mary Queen of Scots as the lawful sovereign of England. And Mary was, in fact, the next in succession, tracing her lineage, as stated before, to the elder sister of Henry VIII. If Elizabeth had been willing to frankly acknowledge Mary's heirship, failing heirs of her own body, it seems probable that the partisans of the Scottish queen would have been quieted, to a great extent. But Mary had angered her by assuming, while in France, the arms and style of Queen of England. She distrusted and disliked her Stuart cousin, and, moreover, the whole idea of a settlement of the succession was repugnant to her mind. At the same time, she could not be brought to marry, as her Protestant subjects wished. She coquetted with the notion of marriage through half her reign, but never to any purpose.

Such were the elements of agitation and trouble in England under Elizabeth. The history of well-nigh half-a-century was shaped in almost all its events by the threatening attitude of Catholicism and its supporters, domestic and foreign, toward the English queen. She was supported by the majority of her subjects with staunch loyalty and fidelity, even though she treated them none too well, and troubled them in their very defense of her by her whims and caprices. They identified her cause with themselves, and took such pride in her courage that they shut their eyes to the many weaknesses that went with it. She never grasped the affairs she dealt with in a broadly capable way. She never acted on them with well considered judgment. Her ministers, it is clear, were never able to depend upon a reasonable action of her mind. Her vanity or her jealousy might put reason in eclipse at any moment, and a skilful flatterer could make the queen as foolish as a milkmaid. But she had a royal courage and a royal pride of country, and she did make the good and glory of England her aim. So she won the affection of all Englishmen whose hearts were not in the keeping of the Pope, and no monarch so arbitrary was ever more ardently admired.

In 1567, Mary Stuart was deposed by her own subjects, or forced to abdicate in favor of her infant son, James. She had alienated the Scottish people, first by her religion, and then by her suspected personal crimes. Having married her second cousin, Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley, she was accused of being false to him. Darnley revenged his supposed wrongs as a husband by murdering her secretary, David Rizzio. In the next year (1567) Darnley was killed; the hand of the Earl of Bothwell appeared quite plainly in the crime, and the queen's complicity was believed. She confirmed the suspicions against herself by marrying Bothwell soon afterwards. Then her subjects rose against her, imprisoned her in Loch Leven Castle, and made the Earl of Murray regent of the Kingdom. In 1568 Mary escaped from her Scottish prison and entered England. From that time until her death, in 1587, she was a captive in the hands of her rival, Queen Elizabeth, and was treated with slender magnanimity. More than before, she became the focus of intrigues and conspiracies which threatened both the throne and the life of Elizabeth, and a growing feeling of hostility to the wretched woman was inevitable.

In 1570, Pope Pius V. issued against Elizabeth his formal bull of excommunication, absolving her subjects from their allegiance. This quickened, of course, the activity of the plotters against the queen and set treason astir. Priests from the English Catholic Seminary at Douai, afterwards at Rheims, began to make their appearance in the country; a few Jesuits came over; and both were active agents of the schemes on foot which contemplated the seating of Mary Stuart on the throne of Elizabeth Tudor. Some of these emissaries were executed, and they are counted among the martyrs of the Catholic Church, which is a serious mistake. The Protestantism of the sixteenth century was quite capable of religious persecution, even to death; but it has no responsibilities of that nature in these Elizabethan cases. As a matter of fact, the religion of the Jesuit sufferers in the reign of Elizabeth was a mere incident attaching itself to a high political crime, which no nation has ever forgiven.

The plotting went on for twenty years, keeping the nation in unrest; while beyond it there were thickening signs of a great project of invasion in the sinister mind of Philip II. At last, in 1586, the coolest councillors of Elizabeth persuaded her to bring Mary Stuart to trial for alleged complicity in a conspiracy of assassination which had lately come to light. Convicted, and condemned to death, Mary ended her sad life on the scaffold, at Fotheringay, on the 8th of February, 1587. Whether guilty or guiltless of any knowledge of what had been done in her name, against the peace of England and against the life of the English queen, it cannot be thought strange that Protestant England took her life.

A great burst of wrath in Catholic Europe was caused by the execution of Mary, and Philip of Spain hastened forward his vast preparations for the invasion and conquest of England. In 1588, the "invincible armada," as it was believed to be, sailed out of the harbors of Portugal and Spain, and wrecked itself with clumsy imbecility on the British and Irish coasts. It scarcely did more than give sport to the eager English sailors who scattered its helpless ships and hunted them down. Philip troubled England no more, and conspiracy ceased.

But the undeclared, half-piratical warfare which private adventurers had been carrying on against Spanish commerce for many years now acquired fresh energy. Drake, Hawkins, Frobisher, Grenvil, Raleigh, were the heroic spirits of this enterprising warfare; but they had many fellows. It was the school of the future navy of England, and the foundations of the British Empire were laid down by those who carried it on.

Otherwise, Elizabeth had little war upon her hands, except in Ireland, where the state of misery and disorder had already been long chronic. The first really complete conquest of the island was accomplished by Lord Mountjoy between 1600 and 1603.

But neither the political troubles nor the naval and military triumphs of England during the reign of Elizabeth are of much importance, after all, compared with the wonderful flowering of the genius of the nation which took place in that age. Shakespeare, Spenser, Bacon, Ben Jonson, Marlowe, Hooker, Raleigh, Sidney, are the great facts of Elizabeth's time, and it shines with the luster of their names, the period most glorious in English history.

Wherever the stealthy arm of the influence of Philip II. of Spain could reach, there the Catholic reaction of his time took on a malignant form. In France, it is quite probable that the Catholics and the Huguenots, if left to themselves, would have come to blows; but it is certain that the meddling fingers of the Spanish king put fierceness and fury into the wars of religion, which raged from 1562 to 1596, and that they were prolonged by his encouragement and help.

Catherine de' Medici, to strengthen herself against the Guises, after the death of Francis II., offered attentions for a time to the Huguenot nobles, and encouraged them to expect a large and lasting measure of toleration. She went so far that the Huguenot influence at court, surrounding the young king, became very seriously alarming to Catholic onlookers, both at home and abroad. Among the many remonstrances addressed to the queen-regent, the one which appears to have been decisive in its effect came from Philip. He coldly sent her word that he intended to interfere in France and to establish the supremacy of the Catholic Church; that he should give his support for that purpose to any true friend of the Church who might request it. Whether Catherine had entertained an honest purpose or not, in her dealing with the Huguenots, this threat, with what lay behind it, put an end to the hope of justice for them. It is true that an assembly of notables, in January, 1562, did propose a law which the queen put forth, in what is known as the "Edict of January," whereby the Huguenots were given, for the first time, a legal recognition, ceasing to be outlaws, and were permitted to hold meetings, in the daytime, in open places, outside of walled cities; but their churches were taken away from them, they were forbidden to build more, and they could hold no meetings in walled towns. It was a measure of toleration very different from that which they had been led to expect; and even the little meted out by this Edict of January was soon shown to have no guarantee. Within three months, the Duke of Guise had found an opportunity for exhibiting his contempt of the new law, by ordering his armed followers to attack a congregation at Vassy, killing fifty and wounding two hundred of the peaceful worshippers. This outrage drove the Huguenots to arms and the civil wars began.

The frivolous Anthony, King of Navarre, had been won back to the Catholic side. His staunch wife, Jeanne d'Albret, with her young son, the future Henry IV., and his brother, Louis, Prince of Condé, remained true to their faith. Condé was the chief of the party. Next to him in rank, and first in real worth and weight, was the noble Admiral Coligny. The first war was brief, though long enough to end the careers of Anthony of Navarre, killed in battle, and the Duke of Guise, assassinated. Peace was made in 1563 through a compromise, which conceded certain places to the Huguenots, wherein they might worship God in their own way. But it was a hollow peace, and the malicious finger of the great master of assassins at Madrid never ceased picking at it. In 1566, civil war broke out a second time, continuing until 1570. Its principal battles were that of Jarnac, in which Condé was taken prisoner and basely assassinated by his captors, and that of Moncontour. The Huguenots were defeated in both. After the death of Condé, young Henry of Navarre, who had reached his fifteenth year, was chosen to be the chief of the party, with Coligny for his instructor in war.

Again peace was made, on a basis of slight concessions. Henry of Navarre married the King's sister, Margaret of Valois; prior to which he and his mother took up their residence with the court, at Paris, where Jeanne d'Albret soon sickened and died. The Admiral Coligny acquired, apparently, a marked influence over the mind of the young king; and once more there seemed to be a smiling future for the Reformed. But damnable treacheries were hidden underneath this fair showing. The most hideous conspiracy of modern times was being planned, at the very moment of the ostentatious peace-marriage of the King of Navarre, and the chief parties to it were Catherine de' Medici and the Guises, whose evil inclinations in common had brought them together at last. On the 22d of August, 1572, Coligny was wounded by an assassin, employed by the widow and son of the late Duke of Guise, whose death they charged against him, notwithstanding his protestations of innocence. Two days later, the monstrous and almost incredible massacre of St. Bartholomew's Day was begun. Paris was full of Huguenots—the heads of the party—its men of weight and influence—who had been drawn to the capital by the King of Navarre's marriage and by the supposed new era of favor in which they stood. To cut these off was to decapitate Protestantism in France, and that was the purpose of the infernal scheme. The weak-minded young king was not an original party to the plot. When everything had been planned, he was easily excited by a tale of pretended Huguenot conspiracies, and his assent to summary measures of prevention was secured. A little after midnight, on the morning of Sunday, August 24, the signal was given, by Catherine's order, which let loose a waiting swarm of assassins, throughout Paris, on the victims who had been marked for them. The Huguenots had had no warning; they were taken everywhere by surprise, and they were easily murdered in their beds, or hunted down in their hopeless flight.

The noble Coligny, prostrated by the wound he had received two days before, was killed in his chamber, and his body flung out of the window. The young Duke of Guise stood waiting in the court below, to gloat on the corpse and to basely spurn it with his foot.

The massacre in Paris was carried on through two nights and two days; and, for more than a month following, the example of the capital was imitated in other cities of France, as the news of what were called "the Paris Matins" reached them. The total number of victims in the kingdom is estimated variously to have been between twenty thousand and one hundred thousand. Henry of Navarre and the young Prince of Condé escaped the massacre, but they saved their lives by a hypocritical abjuration of their religion.

The strongest town in the possession of the Huguenots was La Rochelle, and great numbers of their ministers and people of mark who survived the massacre now took refuge in that city, with a considerable body of armed men. The royal forces laid siege to the city, but made no impression on its defences. Peace was conceded in the end on terms which again promised the Huguenots some liberty of worship. But there was no sincerity in it.

In 1574, Charles IX. died, and his brother, the Duke of Anjou, who had lately been elected King of Poland, ran away from his Polish capital with disgraceful haste and secrecy, to secure the French crown. He was the most worthless of the Valois-Medicean brood, and the French court in his reign attained its lowest depth of degradation. The contending religions were soon at war again, with the accustomed result, in 1576, of another short-lived peace. The Catholics were divided into two factions, one fanatical, following the Guises, the other composed of moderate men, calling themselves the Politiques, who hated the Spanish influence under which the Guises were always acting, and who were willing to make terms with the Huguenots. The Guises and the ultra-Catholics now organized throughout France a great oath-bound "Holy League", which became so formidable in power that the king took fright, put himself at the head of it, and reopened war with the Reformed.

More and more, the conflict of religions became confused with questions of politics and mixed with personal quarrels. At one time, the king's younger brother, the Duke of Alençon, had gone over to the Huguenot side; but stayed only long enough to extort from the court some appointments which he desired. The king, more despised by his subjects than any king of France before him had ever been, grew increasingly jealous and afraid of the popularity and strength of the Duke of Guise, who was proving to be a man quite superior to his father in capability. Guise, on his side, was made arrogant by his sense of power, and his ambition soared high. There were reasons for believing that he did not look upon the throne itself as beyond his reach.

After 1584, when the Duke of Alençon (Duke of Anjou under his later title) died, a new political question, vastly disturbing, was brought into affairs. That death left no heir to the crown in the Valois line, and the King of Navarre, of the House of Bourbon, was now nearer in birth to the throne than any other living person. Henry had, long ere this, retracted his abjuration of 1572, had rejoined the Huguenots and taken his place as their chief. The head of the Huguenots was now the heir presumptive to the crown, and the wretched, incapable king was being impelled by his fear of Guise to look to his Huguenot heir for support. It was a strange situation. In 1588 it underwent a sinister change. Guise and his brother, the Cardinal, were both assassinated by the king's body-guard, acting under the king's orders, in the royal residence at the Castle of Blois. When the murder had been done, the cowardly king spurned his dead enemy with his foot, as Guise, sixteen years before, had spurned the murdered Coligny, and said "I am King at last." He was mistaken. His authority vanished with the vile deed by which he expected to reinvigorate it. Paris broke into open rebellion. The League renewed its activity throughout France. The king, abandoned and cursed on all sides, had now no course open to him but an alliance with Henry of Navarre and the Huguenots. The alliance was effected, and the two Henrys joined forces to subdue insurgent Paris. While the siege of the city was in progress (1589), Henry III. fell a victim, in his turn, to the murderous mania of his depraved age and court. He was assassinated by a fanatical monk.

Henry of Navarre now steps into the foreground of French history, as Henry IV., lawful King of France as well as of Navarre, and ready to prove his royal title by a more useful reign than the French nation had known since it buried St. Louis, his last ancestor on the throne. But his title was recognized at first by few outside the party of the Huguenots. The League went openly into alliance with Philip of Spain, who even half-stopped his war in the Netherlands to send money and troops into France. The energies of his insignificant soul were all concentrated on the desire to keep the heretical Béarnese from the throne of France. But happily his powers were no longer equal to his malice; he was still staggering under the blow which destroyed his great Armada.

Henry received some help in money from Queen Elizabeth, and 5,000 English and Scotch came over to join his army. He was an abler general than any among his opponents, and he made headway against them. His splendid victory at Ivry, on the 14th of March, 1590, inspirited his followers and took heart from the League. He was driven from his subsequent siege of Paris by a Spanish army, under the Duke of Parma; but the very interference of the Spanish king helped to turn French feeling in Henry's favor. On the 25th of July, 1593, he practically extinguished the opposition to himself by his final submission to the Church of Rome. It was an easy thing for him to do. His religion sat lightly on him. He had accepted it from his mother; he had adhered to it—not faithfully—as the creed of a party. He could give it up, in exchange for the crown of France, and feel no trouble of conscience. But the Reformed religion in France was really benefited by his apostacy. Peace came to the kingdom, as the consequence,—a peace of many years,—and the Huguenots were sheltered in considerable religious freedom by the peace. Henry secured it to them in 1598 by the famous Edict of Nantes, which remained in force for nearly a hundred years.

The reign of Henry IV. was one of the satisfactory periods in the life of France, so far as concerns the material prosperity of the nation. He was a man of strong, keen intellect, with firmness of will and elasticity of temper, but weak on the moral side. He was of those who win admiration and friendship easily, and he remains traditionally the most popular of French kings. He had the genius for government which so rarely coincides with royal birth. A wise minister, the Duke of Sully, gave stability to his measures, and between them they succeeded in remarkably improving and promoting the agricultural and the manufacturing industries of France, effacing the destructive effects of the long civil wars, and bringing economy and order into the finances of the overburdened nation. His useful career was ended by an assassin in 1610.

The reactionary wars of religion in Germany came half-a-century later than in France. While the latter country was being torn by the long civil conflicts which Henry IV. brought to an end, the former was as nearly in the enjoyment of religious peace as the miserable contentions in the bosom of Protestantism, between Lutherans and Calvinists (the latter more commonly called "the Reformed"), would permit. On the abdication of Charles V., in 1556, he had fortunately failed to bring about the election of his son Philip to the imperial throne. His brother Ferdinand, Archduke of Austria and King of Bohemia and Hungary, was chosen Emperor, and that sovereign had too many troubles in his immediate dominions to be willing to invite a collision with the Protestant princes of Germany at large. The Turks had overrun Hungary and established themselves in possession of considerable parts of the country. Ferdinand obtained peace with the redoubtable Sultan Suleiman, but only by payments of money which bore a strong likeness to tribute. He succeeded, through his prudent and skilful policy, in making both the Hungarian and the Bohemian crowns practically hereditary in the House of Austria.

Dying in 1564, Ferdinand transmitted both those kingdoms, with the Austrian Archduchy and the imperial office, to his son, Maximilian II., the broadest and most liberal minded of his race. Though educated in Spain, and in companionship with his cousin, Philip II., Maximilian exhibited the most tolerant spirit that appears anywhere in his age. Perhaps it was the hatefulness of orthodox zeal as exemplified in Philip which drove the more generous nature of Maximilian to revolt. He adhered to the Roman communion; but he manifested so much respect for the doctrines of the Lutheran that his father felt called upon at one time to make apologies for him to the Pope. Throughout his reign he held himself aloof from religious disputes, setting an example of tolerance and spiritual intelligence to all his subjects, Lutherans, Calvinists and Catholics alike, which ought to have influenced them more for their good than it did. Under the shelter of the toleration which Maximilian gave it, Protestantism spread quickly over Austria, where it had had no opportunity before; revived the old Hussite reform in Bohemia; made great gains in Hungary, and advanced in all parts of his dominions except the Tyrol. The time permitted to it for this progress was short, since Maximilian reigned but twelve years. He died in 1576, and his son Rudolph, who followed him, brought evil changes upon the country in all things. He, too, had been educated in Spain, but with a very different result. He came back a creature of the Jesuits; but so weakly wilful a creature that even they could do little with him. Authority of government went to pieces in his incompetent hands, and at last, in 1606, a family conclave of princes of the Austrian house began measures which aimed at dispossessing Rudolph of his various sovereignties, so far as possible, in favor of his brother Matthias. Rudolph resisted with some effect, and in the contests which ensued the Protestants of Austria and Bohemia improved their opportunity for securing an enlargement of their rights. Matthias made the concession of complete toleration in Austria, while Rudolph, in Bohemia, granted the celebrated charter, called the Letter of Majesty (1609), which gave entire religious liberty to all sects.

These concessions were offensive to two princes, the Archduke Ferdinand of Styria, and Duke Maximilian of Bavaria, who had already taken the lead in a vigorous movement of Catholic reaction. Some proceedings on the part of Maximilian, which the Emperor sanctioned, against the Protestant free city of Donauwörth, had caused certain Protestant princes and cities, in 1608, to form a defensive Union. But the Elector Palatine, who attached himself to the Reformed or Calvinist Church, was at the head of this Union, and the bigoted Lutherans, especially the Elector of Saxony, looked with coldness upon it. On the other hand, the Catholic states formed a counter-organization—a Holy League—which was more compact and effective. The two parties being thus set in array, there rose suddenly between them a political question of the most disturbing character. It related to the right of succession to an important duchy, that of Juliers, Clèves, and Berg. There were several powerful claimants, in both of the Saxon families, and including also the Elector of Brandenburg and the Palsgrave of Neuberg, two members of the Union. As usual, the political question took possession of the religious issue and used it for its own purposes. The Protestant Union opened negotiations with Henry IV. of France, who saw an opportunity to weaken the House of Austria and to make some gains for France at the expense of Germany. A treaty was concluded, and Henry began active preparations for campaigns in both Germany and Italy, with serious intent to humble and diminish the Austrian power. The Dutch came into the alliance, likewise, and James I. of England promised his co-operation. The combination was formidable, and might have changed very extensively the course of events that awaited unhappy Germany, if the whole plan had not been frustrated by the assassination of Henry IV., in 1610. All the parties to the alliance drew back after that event, and both sides waited.

In 1611, Rudolph was deposed in Bohemia, and the following year he died. Matthias, already King of Hungary, succeeded Rudolph in Bohemia and in the Empire. But Matthias was scarcely stronger in mind or body than his brother, and the same family pressure which had pushed Rudolph aside now forced Matthias to accept a coadjutor, in the person of the vigorous Ferdinand, Archduke of Styria. For the remainder of his reign Matthias was a cipher, and all power in the government was exercised by Ferdinand. His bitter opposition to the tolerant policy which had prevailed generally for half-a-century was well understood. Hence, his rise to supremacy in the Empire gave notice that the days of religious peace were ended. The outbreak of civil war was not long in coming.

It began in Bohemia. A violation of the Protestant rights guaranteed by the Letter of Majesty provoked a rising under Count Thurn. Two of the king's councilors, with their secretary, were flung from a high window of the royal castle, and this act of violence was followed by more revolutionary measures. A provisional government of thirty Directors was set up and the king's authority set wholly aside. The Protestant Union gave prompt support to the Bohemian insurrection and sent Count Mansfield with three thousand soldiers to its aid. The Thirty Years War was begun (1618).

Early in these disturbances, Matthias died (1619). Ferdinand had already made his succession secure, in Austria, Bohemia and Hungary, and the imperial crown was presently conferred on him. But the Bohemians repudiated his kingship and offered their crown to Frederick, the Elector Palatine, lately married to the Princess Elizabeth, daughter of James I. of England. The Elector, persuaded, it is said, by his ambitious young wife, unwisely accepted the tempting bauble, and went to Prague to receive it. But he had neither prudence nor energy to justify his bold undertaking. Instead of strengthening himself for his contest with Ferdinand, he began immediately to enrage his new subjects by pressing Calvinistic forms and doctrines upon them, and by arrogantly interfering with their modes of worship. His reign was so brief that he is known in Bohemian annals as "the winter king." A single battle, won by Count Tilly, in the service of the Catholic League and of its chief, Maximilian, Duke of Bavaria, ended his sovereignty. He lost his Electorate as well as his kingdom, and was a wandering fugitive for the remainder of his life. Bohemia was mercilessly dealt with by the victorious Ferdinand. Not only was Protestantism crushed, and Catholicism established as the exclusive religion, but the very life of the country, intellectually and materially, was extinguished; so that Bohemia never again stood related to the civilization of Europe as it had stood before, when Prague was an important center of learning and thought. To a less extent, Austria suffered the same repression, and its Protestantism was uprooted.

In this sketch it is unnecessary to follow the details of the frightful Thirty Years War, which began as here described. During the first years it was carried on mainly by the troops of the Catholic League, under Tilly, acting against Protestant forces which had very little coherence or unity, and which were led by Count Mansfield, Christian of Anhalt, and other nobles, in considerable independence of one another. In 1625 the first intervention from outside occurred. Christian IV. of Denmark took up the cause of threatened Protestantism. As Duke of Schleswig-Holstein, he was a prince of the Empire, and he joined with other Protestant princes in condemning the deposition of the Elector-Palatine, whose electorate had been conferred on Maximilian of Bavaria. King Christian entered into an alliance with England and Holland, which powers promised help for the reinstatement of the Elector. But the aid given was trifling, and slight successes which Christian and his German allies obtained against Tilly were soon changed to serious reverses.

For the first time during the war, the Emperor now brought into the field an army acting in his own name, and not in that of the League. It was done in a singular manner—by contract, so to speak, with a great soldier and wealthy nobleman, the famous Wallenstein. Wallenstein offered to the Emperor the services of an army of 50,000 men, which he would raise and equip at his own expense, and which should be maintained without public cost—that is, by plunder. His proposal was accepted, and the formidable body of trained and powerfully handled brigands was launched upon Germany, for the torture and destruction of every region in which it moved. It was the last appearance in European warfare of the "condottiere" of the Middle Ages. Wallenstein and Tilly swept all before them. The former failed only before the stubborn town of Stralsund, which defied his siege. Mansfield and Christian of Anhalt both died in 1627. Peace was forced upon the Danish king. The Protestant cause was prostrate, and the Emperor despised its weakness so far that he issued an "Edict of Restitution," commanding the surrender of certain bishoprics and ecclesiastical estates which had fallen into Protestant hands since the Treaty of Passau. At the same time, he yielded to the jealousy which Wallenstein's power had excited, by dismissing that commander from his service.

The time was an unfavorable one for such an experiment. A new and redoubtable champion of Protestantism had just appeared on the scene and was about to revive the war. This was Gustavus Adolphus, King of Sweden, who had ambitions, grievances and religious sympathies, all urging him to rescue the Protestant states of Germany from the Austrian-Catholic despotism which seemed to be impending over them. His interference was jealously resented at first by the greater Protestant princes. The Elector of Brandenburg submitted to an alliance with him only under compulsion. The Elector of Saxony did not join the Swedish king until (1631) Tilly had ravaged his territories with ferocity, burning 200 villages. When Gustavus had made his footing in the country secure, he quickly proved himself the greatest soldier of his age. Tilly was overwhelmed in a battle fought on the Breitenfeld, at Leipsic. The following spring he was again beaten, on the Lech, in Bavaria, and died of wounds received in the battle. Meantime, the greater part of Germany was at the feet of the Swedish king; and a sincere co-operation between him and the German princes would probably have ended the war. But small confidence existed between these allies, and Richelieu, the shrewd Cardinal who was ruling France, had begun intrigues which made the Thirty Years War profitable in the end to France. The victories of Gustavus seemed to bear little fruit. Wallenstein was summoned once more to save the Emperor's cause, and reappeared in the field with 40,000 men. The heroic Swede fought him at Lützen, on the 16th of November, 1632, and routed him, but fell in the battle among the slain.

With the death of Gustavus Adolphus, the possibility of a satisfactory conclusion of the war vanished. The Swedish army remained in Germany, under the military command of Duke Bernhard of Saxe Weimar and General Horn, but under the political direction of Axel Oxenstiern, the able Swedish Chancellor. On the Imperial side, Wallenstein again incurred distrust and suspicion. His power was so formidable that his enemies were afraid to let him live. They plotted his death by assassination, and he was murdered on the 25th of February, 1634. The Emperor's son Ferdinand now took the command of the Imperial forces, and, a few months later, having received reinforcements from Spain, he had the good fortune to defeat the Swedes at Nördlingen.

The Elector of Saxony, and other Protestant princes, then made peace with the Emperor, and the war was only prolonged by the intrigues of Richelieu and for the aggrandizement of France. In this final stage of it, when the original elements of contention, and most of the original contestants, had disappeared, it lasted for yet fourteen years. Ferdinand II. died in 1637, and was succeeded by his son Ferdinand III. Duke Bernhard died in 1639. In the later years of the war, Piccolomini on the Imperial side, Baner, Torstenson and Wrangel at the head of the Swedes, and Turenne and Condé in command of the French, were the soldiers who made great names.

In 1648, the long suffering of Germany was eased by the Peace of Westphalia. Years of quiet, and of order fairly restored, would be needed to heal the bleeding wounds of the country and revive its strength. From end to end, it had been trampled upon for a generation by armies which plundered and destroyed as they passed. There is nothing more sickening in the annals of war than the descriptions which eye-witnesses have left of the misery, the horror, the desolation of that frightful period in German history. "Especially in the south and west, Germany was a wilderness of ruins; places that were formerly the seats of prosperity were the haunts of wolves and robbers for many a long year. It is estimated that the population was diminished by twenty, by some even by fifty, per cent. The population of Augsburg was reduced from 80,000 to 18,000; of Frankenthal, from 18,000 to 324 inhabitants. In Würtemberg, in 1641, of 400,000 inhabitants, 48,000 remained; in the Palatinate, in 1636, there were 201 peasant farmers; and in 1648, but a fiftieth part of the population remained" (Häusser).

By the treaties of Westphalia, the religious question was settled with finality. Catholics, Lutherans, and the Reformed (Calvinists), were put on an equal footing of religious liberty. Politically, the effects of the Peace were radical and lasting in their injury to the German people. The few bonds of Germanic unity which had survived the reign of feudalism were dissolved. The last vestige of authority in the Empire was destroyed. "From this time Germany long remained a mere lax confederation of petty despotisms and oligarchies with hardly any national feeling. Its boundaries too were cut short in various ways. The independence of the two free Confederations at the two ends of the Empire, those of Switzerland and the United Provinces, which had long been practically cut off from the Empire, was now formally acknowledged. And, what was far more important, the two foreign kingdoms which had had the chief share in the war, France and Sweden, obtained possessions within the Empire, and moreover, as guarantors or sureties of the peace, they obtained a general right of meddling in its affairs." "The right of France to the 'Three Lotharingian Bishoprics,' which had been seized nearly a hundred years before, was now formally acknowledged, and, besides this, the possessions and rights of the House of Austria in Elsass, the German land between the Rhine and the Vosges, called in France Alsace, were given to France. The free city of Strasburg and other places in Elsass still remained independent, but the whole of South Germany now lay open to France. This was the greatest advance that France had yet made at the expense of the Empire. Within Germany itself the Elector of Brandenburg also received a large increase of territory" (Freeman).

Among the treaties which made up the Peace of Westphalia was one signed by Spain, acknowledging the independence of the United Provinces, and renouncing all claims to them.

The great gains of France from the Thirty Years War were part of the fruit of bold and cunning statesmanship which Richelieu had ripened and plucked for that now rising nation. For a time after the death of Henry IV., chaos had seemed likely to return again in France. His son, Louis XIII., was but nine years old. The mother, Marie de' Medici, who secured the regency, was a foolish woman, ruled by Italian favorites, who made themselves odious to the French people. As soon as the young king approached manhood, he put himself in opposition to his mother and her favorites, under the influence of a set of rivals no more worthy, and France was carried to the verge of civil war by their puerile hostilities. Happily there was something in the weak character of Louis XIII. which bent him under the influence of a really great mind when circumstances had brought him within its reach. Richelieu entered the King's council in 1624. The king was soon an instrument in his hands, and he ruled France, as though the scepter was his own, for eighteen years. He was as pitiless a despot as ever set heel on a nation's neck; but the power which he grasped with what seemed to be a miserly and commonplace greed, was all gathered for the aggrandizement of the monarchy that he served. He believed that the nation needed to have one master, sole and unquestioned in his sovereignty. That he enjoyed being that one master, in reality, while he lived, is hardly doubtful; but his whole ambition is not so explained. He wrought according to his belief for France, and the king, in his eyes, was the embodiment of France. He erected the pedestal on which "the grand monarch" of the next generation posed with theatrical effect.

1. He enforced the royal authority, with inexorable rigor, against the great families and personages, who had not learned, even under Henry IV., that they were subjects in the absolute sense.

2. He struck the Huguenots, not as a religious sect, but as a political party, and peremptorily stopped their growth of strength in that character, which had clearly become threatening to the state.

3. He organized hostility in Europe to the overbearing and dangerous Austro-Spanish power, put France at the head of it, and took for her the lion's share of the conquests by which the Hapsburgs were reduced.

The great Cardinal died near the close of the year 1642; and Louis XIII. followed him to the grave in the succeeding May, leaving a son, Louis XIV., not yet five years of age, under the regency of his mother, Anne of Austria. The minister, Cardinal Mazarin, who enjoyed the confidence of the queen-regent, and who was supposed to enjoy her affections as well, had been Richelieu's disciple, and took the helm of government on Richelieu's recommendation. He was an adroit politician, with some statesmanlike sagacity, but he lacked the potent spirit by which his master had awed and ruled every circle into which he came, great or small. Mazarin had the Thirty Years War to bring to a close, and he managed the difficult business with success, wasting nothing of the effect of the brilliant victories of Condé and Turenne. But the war had been very costly. Mazarin was no better financier than Richelieu had been before him, and the burdens of taxation were greater than wise management would have made them. There was inevitable discontent, and Mazarin, as a foreigner, was inevitably unpopular. With public feeling in this state, the Court involved itself in a foolish conflict with the Parliament of Paris, and presently there was a Paris revolution and a civil war afoot (1649). It was a strange affair of froth and empty rages—this war of "The Fronde," as it was called—having no depth of earnestness in it and no honesty of purpose anywhere visible in its complications. The men and women who sprang to a lead in it—the women more actively and rancorously than the men—were mere actors of parts in a great play of court intrigue, for the performance of which unhappy France had lent its grand stage. There seems to have been never, in any other civil conflict which history describes, so extraordinary a mixture of treason and libertinism, of political and amorous intrigue, of heartlessness and frivolity, of hot passion and cool selfishness. The people who fought most and suffered most hardly appear as noticeable factors in the contest. The court performers amused themselves with the stratagems and bloody doings of the war as they might have done with the tricks of a masquerade.

It was in keeping with the character of the Frondeurs that they went into alliance, at last, with Spain, and that, even after peace within the nation had been restored, "the Great Condé" remained in the Spanish service and fought against his own countrymen. Mazarin regained control of affairs, and managed them on the whole ably and well. He brought about an alliance with England, under Cromwell, and humbled Spain to the acceptance of a treaty which considerably raised the position of France among the European Powers. By this Treaty of the Pyrenees (1659), the northwestern frontier of the kingdom was both strengthened and advanced; Lorraine was shorn of some of its territory and prepared for the absorption which followed after no long time; there were gains made on the side of the Pyrenees; and, finally, Louis XIV. was wedded to the infanta of Spain, with solemn renunciations on her part, for herself and her descendants, of all claims upon the Spanish crown, or upon Flanders, or Burgundy, or Charolais. Not a claim was extinguished by these solemn renunciations, and the Treaty of the Pyrenees is made remarkable by the number of serious wars and important events to which it gave rise.

Cardinal Mazarin died in 1661 and the government was assumed personally by Louis XIV., then twenty-three years old.

While Germany and France had, each in turn, been disordered by extremely unlike civil wars, one to the unmitigated devastation and prostration of the land, the other to the plain putting in proof of the nothingness of the nation at large, as against its monarchy and court, the domestic peace of England had been ruffled in a very different way, and with very different effects.

The death of Queen Elizabeth united the crown of England with that of Scotland, on the head of James, son of the unhappy Mary Stuart. In England he was James I., in Scotland James VI. His character combined shrewdness in some directions with the most foolish simplicity in others. He was not vicious, he was not in any particular a bad man; but he was exasperating in his opinionated self-conceit, and in his gaucheries of mind and body. The Englishmen of those days did not love the Scots; and, all things considered, we may wonder, perhaps, that James got on so well as he did with his English subjects. He had high notions of kingship, and a superlative opinion of his own king-craft, as he termed the art of government. He scarcely deviated from the arbitrary lines which Elizabeth had laid down, though he had nothing of Elizabeth's popularity. He offended the nation by truckling to its old enemy, the King of Spain, and pressing almost shamefully for a marriage of his elder son to the Spanish infanta. The favorites he enriched and lavished honors upon were insolent upstarts. His treatment of the growing Puritanism in English religious feeling was contemptuous. There was scarcely a point on which any considerable number of his subjects could feel in agreement with him, or entertain towards him a cordial sentiment of loyalty or respect. Yet his reign of twenty-two years was disturbed by nothing more serious than the fatuous "gunpowder plot" (1605) of a few discontented Catholics. But his son had to suffer the retarded consequences of a loyalty growing weak, on one side, while royalty strained its prerogatives on the other.

The reign of James I. witnessed the effective beginnings of English colonization in America,—the planting of a durable settlement in Virginia and the migration of the Pilgrim Fathers to New England. The latter movement (1620) was one of voluntary exile, produced by the hard treatment inflicted on those "Separatists" or "Independents" who could not reconcile themselves to a state-established Church. Ten years later, the Pilgrim movement, of Independents, was followed by the greater migration of Puritans—quite different in class, in character and in spirit.

James died in 1625, and the troubled reign of his son, Charles I., began. Charles took over from his father a full measure of popular discontent, along with numerous active springs in operation for increasing it. The most productive of these was the favorite, Buckingham, who continued to be the sole counselor and minister of the young king, as he had been of the older one, and who was utterly hateful to England, for good reasons of incapacity and general worthlessness. In the king himself, though he had virtues, there was a coldness and a falsity of nature which were sure to widen the breach between him and his people.

Failing the Spanish marriage, Charles had wedded (1624) a French princess, Henrietta Maria, sister of Louis XIII. The previous subserviency to Spain had then been followed by a war with that country, which came to Charles among his inheritances, and which Buckingham mismanaged, to the shame of England. In 1627 another war began, but this time with France, on account of the Huguenots besieged at La Rochelle. Again the meddlesome hand of Buckingham wrought disaster and national disgrace, and public indignation was greatly stirred. When Parliament endeavored to call the incapable minister to account, and to obtain some security for a better management of affairs, the king dissolved it. Twice was this done, and Charles and his favorite employed every arbitrary and questionable device that could be contrived for them, to raise money without need of the representatives of the people. At length, in 1628, they were driven to face a third Parliament, in order to obtain supplies. By this time the Commons of England were wrought up to a high and determined assertion of their rights, as against the Crown, and the Puritans had gained a majority in the popular representation. In the lower House of Parliament, therefore, the demands of the king for money were met by a counter-demand for guarantees to protect the people from royal encroachments on their liberties. The Commons were resolute, and Charles gave way to them, signing with much reluctance the famous instrument known as the "Petition of Right," which pledged the Crown to abstain in future from forced loans, from taxes imposed without Parliamentary grant, from arbitrary imprisonments, without cause shown, and from other despotic proceedings. In return for his signature to the Petition of Right, Charles received a grant of money; but the Commons refused to authorize his collection of certain customs duties, called Tonnage and Poundage, beyond a single year, and it began attacks on Buckingham,—whereupon the king prorogued it. Shortly afterwards Buckingham was assassinated; a second expedition to relieve Rochelle failed miserably; and early in 1629 Parliament was assembled again. This time the Puritan temper of the House began to show itself in measures to put a stop to some revivals of ancient ceremony which had appeared in certain churches. At the same time officers of the king, who had seized goods belonging to a member of the House, for non-payment of Tonnage and Poundage, were summoned to the bar to answer for it. The king protected them, and a direct conflict of authority arose. On the 2d of March, the king sent an order to the Speaker of the House of Commons for adjournment; but the Speaker was forcibly held in his chair, and not permitted to announce the adjournment, until three resolutions had been read and adopted, denouncing as an enemy to the kingdom every person who brought in innovations in religion, or who advised the levying of Tonnage and Poundage without parliamentary grant, or who voluntarily paid such duties, so levied. This done, the members dispersed; the king dissolved Parliament immediately, and his resolution was taken to govern England thenceforth on his own authority, with no assembly of the representatives of the people to question or criticise him. He held to that determination for eleven years, during which long time no Parliament sat in England, and the Constitution was practically obliterated.

The leaders of the Commons in their recent proceedings were arrested and imprisoned. Sir John Eliot, the foremost of them, died in harsh confinement within the Tower, and others were held in long custody, refusing to recognize the jurisdiction of the king's judges over things done in Parliament.

One man, of great ability, who had stood at the beginning with Sir John Eliot, and acted with the party which opposed the king, now went over to the side of the latter and rose high in royal favor, until he came in the end to be held chiefly responsible for the extreme absolutism to which the government of Charles was pushed. This was Sir Thomas Wentworth, made Earl of Strafford at a later day, in the tardy rewarding of his services. But William Laud, Bishop of London, and afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury, was the evil counselor of the king, much more than Wentworth, in the earlier years of the decade of tyranny. It was Laud's part to organize the system of despotic monarchy on its ecclesiastical side; to uproot Puritanism and all dissent, and to cast religion for England and for Scotland in one mould, as rigid as that of Rome.

   For some years, the English nation seemed terrorized or
   stupefied by the audacity of the complete overthrow of its
   Constitution. The king and his servants might easily imagine
   that the day of troublesome Parliaments and of inconvenient
   laws was passed. At least in those early years of their
   success, it can scarcely have occurred to their minds that a
   time of accounting for broken laws, and for the violated
   pledges of the Petition of Right, might come at the end. At
   all events they went their way with seeming satisfaction, and
   tested, year by year, the patient endurance of a people which
   has always been slow to move. Their courts of Star Chamber and
   of High Commission, finding a paramount law in the will and
   pleasure of the king, imprisoned, fined, pilloried, flogged
   and mutilated in quite the spirit of the Spanish Inquisition,
   though they did not burn.
{1076}
   They collected Tonnage and Poundage without parliamentary
   consent, and servile judges enforced the payment. They
   invented a claim for "ship-money" (in commutation of an
   ancient demand for ships to serve in the King's navy) from
   inland towns and counties, as well as from the commercial
   ports; and when John Hampden, a squire in Buckinghamshire,
   refused payment of the unlawful tax, their obedient judges
   gave judgment against him. And still the people endured; but
   they were laying up in memory many things, and gathering a
   store of reasons for the action that would by and by begin.

At last, it was Scotland, not England, that moved to rebel. Laud and the king had determined to break down Presbyterianism in the northern kingdom and to force a Prayer Book on the Scottish Church. There was a consequent riot at St. Giles, in Edinburgh (1637); Jenny Geddes threw her stool at the bishop, and Scotland presently was in revolt, signing a National Covenant and defying the king. Charles, attempting to frighten the resolute Scots with an army which he could not pay, was soon driven to a treaty with them (1639) which he had not honesty enough to keep. Wentworth, who had been Lord Deputy of Ireland since 1632, and who had framed a model of absolutism in that island, for the admiration of his colleagues in England, now returned to the king's side and became his chief adviser. He counselled the calling of a Parliament, as the only means by which English help could be got for the restoring of royal authority in Scotland. The Parliament was summoned and met in April, 1640. At once, it showed a temper which alarmed the king and he dissolved it in three weeks. Again Charles made the attempt to put down his Scottish subjects without help from an English Parliament, and again the attempt failed.

Then the desperate king summoned another Parliament, which concentrated in itself, when it came together, the suppressed rebellion that had been in the heart of England for ten years, and which broke his flimsy fabric of absolutism, almost at a single blow. It was the famous Long Parliament of English history, which met in November, 1640, and which ruled England for a dozen years, until it gave way to the Cromwellian dictatorship. It sent Laud and Strafford to the Tower, impeached the latter and brought him to the block, within six months from the beginning of its session; and the king gave up his minister to the vengeance of the angry Commons with hardly one honest attempt to protect him. Laud waited in prison five years before he suffered the same fate. The Parliament declared itself to be indissoluble by any royal command; and the king assented. It abolished the Star Chamber and the Court of High Commission; and the king approved. It swept ship-money, and forest claims, and all of Charles' lawless money-getting devices into the limbo; and he put his signature to its bills. But all the time he was intriguing with the Scots for armed help to overthrow his masterful English Parliament, and he was listening to Irish emissaries who offered an army for the same purpose, on condition that Ireland' should be surrendered to the Catholics.

Charles had arranged nothing on either of these treacherous plans, nor had he gained anything yet from the division between radicals and moderates that was beginning to show itself in the popular party, when he suddenly brought the strained situation to a crisis, in January, 1642, by his most foolish and arrogant act. He invaded the House of Commons in person, with a large body of armed men, for the purpose of arresting five members—Pym, Hampden, Holles, Hazlerigg and Strode—whom he accused of having negotiated treasonably with the Scots in 1640. The five members escaped; the House appealed to the citizens of London for protection; king and Parliament began immediately to raise troops; the nation divided and arrayed itself on the two sides,—most of the gentry, the Cavaliers, supporting the king, and most of the Puritan middle-class, wearing close-cut hair and receiving the name Roundheads, being ranged in the party of Parliament. They came to blows in October, when the first battle was fought, at Edgehill.

In the early period of the war, the parliamentary forces were commanded by the Earl of Essex; and Sir Thomas Fairfax was their general at a later stage; but the true leader on that side, for war and for politics alike, was soon found in Oliver Cromwell, a member of Parliament, whose extraordinary capacity was first shown in the military organization of the Eastern Counties, from which he came. After 1645, when the army was remodeled, with Cromwell as second in rank, his real chieftainship was scarcely disguised. The decisive battle of the war was fought that year at Naseby, where the king's cause suffered an irrecoverable defeat.

The Presbyterians of Scotland had now allied themselves with the English Roundheads, on condition that the Church of England should be remodeled in the Presbyterian form. The Puritan majority in Parliament being favorable to that form, a Solemn League and Covenant between the two nations had been entered into, in 1643, and an Assembly of Divines was convened at Westminster to frame the contemplated system of the Church. But the Independents, who disliked Presbyterianism, and who were more tolerantly inclined in their views, had greatly increased in numbers, and some of the stronger men on the Parliament side, including Cromwell, the strongest of all, were among them. This difference brought about a sharp struggle within the popular party for the control of the fruits of the triumph now beginning to seem secure. Under Cromwell, the Army became a powerful organization of religious Independency, while Parliament sustained Presbyterianism, and the two stood against each other as rival powers in the state.

At the beginning of the year 1646 the fortunes of Charles had fallen very low. His partisan, Montrose, in Scotland, had been beaten; his intrigues in Ireland, for the raising of a Catholic army, had only alarmed and disgusted his English friends; he was at the end of his resources, and he gave himself up to the Scots. The latter, in conjunction with the Presbyterian majority in Parliament, were willing to make terms with him, and restore him to his throne; on conditions which included the signing of the Covenant and the establishing of Presbyterianism in the Churches of both kingdoms. He refused the proposal, being deluded by a belief that the quarrel of Independents and Presbyterians would open his way to the recovery of power without any concessions at all. The Scots then surrendered him to the English, and he was held in confinement by the latter for the next two years, scheming and pursuing intrigues in many directions, and convincing all who dealt with him that his purposes were never straightforward—that he was faithless and false to the core.

Ill-will and suspicion, meanwhile, were widening the breach between Parliament and the Army. Political and religious agitators were gaining influence in the latter and republican ideas were spreading fast. At length (December, 1648), the Army took matters into its own hands; expelled from Parliament those members who favored a reconciliation with the king, on the basis of a Presbyterian establishment of the Church, and England passed under military rule. The "purged" Parliament (or rather the purged House of Commons, which now set the House of Lords aside, declaring itself to be the sole and supreme power in the state) brought King Charles to trial in the following month, before a High Court of Justice created for the occasion. He was convicted of treason, in making war upon his subjects, and was beheaded on the 30th of January, 1649.

The king being thus disposed of, the House of Commons proclaimed England a Commonwealth, "without a King or House of Lords," took to itself the name of Parliament, and appointed an executive Council of State, forty-one in number. The new government, in its first year, had a rebellion in Ireland to deal with, and sent Cromwell to the scene. He crushed it with a merciless hand. The next year Scotland was in arms, for the late king's son, now called Charles II., who had entered the country, accepted Presbyterianism, and signed the Covenant. Again Cromwell was the man for the occasion, and in a campaign of two months he ended the Scottish war, with such decision that he had no more fighting to do on English or Scottish soil while he lived. There was war with the Dutch in 1652, 1653 and 1654, over questions of trade, and the long roll of English naval victories was opened by the great soldier-seaman, Robert Blake.

But the power which upheld and carried forward all things at this time was the power of Oliver Cromwell, master of the Army, and, therefore, master of the Commonwealth. The surviving fragment of the Long Parliament was an anomaly, a fiction; men called it "the Rump." In April, 1653, Cromwell drove the members of it from their chamber and formally took to himself the reins of government which in fact he had been holding before. A few months later he received from his immediate supporters the title of Lord Protector, and an Instrument of Government was framed, which served as a constitution during the next three years. Cromwell was as unwilling as Charles had been to share the government with a freely elected and representative Parliament. The first House which he called together was dissolved at the end of five months (1655), because it persisted in discussing a revision of the constitution. His second Parliament, which he summoned the following year, required to be purged by the arbitrary exclusion of about a hundred members before it could be brought to due submission. This tractable body then made certain important changes in the constitution, by an enactment called the "Humble Petition and Advice." It created a second house, to take the place of the House of Lords, and gave to the Lord Protector the naming of persons to be life-members of such upper house. It also gave to the Protector the right of appointing his own successor, a right which Cromwell exercised on his death-bed, in 1658, by designating his son Richard.

The responsible rule of Cromwell, from the expulsion of the Rump and his assumption of the dignity of Lord Protector, covered only the period of five years. But in that brief time he made the world respect the power of England as it had never been respected before. His government at home was as absolute and arbitrary as the government of the Stuarts, but it was infinitely wiser and more just. Cromwell was a statesman of the higher order; a man of vast power, in intellect and will. That he did not belong to the yet higher order of commanding men, whose statesmanship is pure in patriotism and uncolored by selfish aims, is proved by his failure to even plan a more promising settlement of the government of England than that which left it, an anomalous Protectorate, to a man without governing qualities, who happened to be his son.

Richard Cromwell was brushed aside after eight months of an absurd attempt to play the part of Lord Protector. The officers of the Army and the resuscitated Rump Parliament, between them, managed affairs, in a fashion, for almost a year, and then they too were pushed out of the way by the army which had been stationed in Scotland, under General George Monk. By the action of Monk, with the consent, and with more than the consent, of England at large, the Stuart monarchy was restored. Charles II. was invited to return, and in May, 1660, he took his seat on the re-erected throne.

   The nation, speaking generally, was tired of a military
   despotism; tired of Puritan austerity; tired of revolution and
   political uncertainty;—so tired that it threw itself down at
   the feet of the most worthless member of the most worthless
   royal family in its history, and gave itself up to him without
   a condition or a guarantee. For twenty-five years it endured
   both oppression and disgrace at his hands. It suffered him to
   make a brothel of his Court; to empty the national purse into
   the pockets of his shameless mistresses and debauched
   companions; to revive the ecclesiastical tyranny of Laud; to
   make a crime of the religious creeds and the worship of more
   than half his subjects; to sell himself and sell the honor of
   England to the king of France for a secret pension, and to be
   in every possible way as ignoble and despicable as his father
   had been arrogant and false. When he died, in 1685, the
   prospects of the English nation were not improved by the
   accession of his brother, the Duke of York, who became James
   II.
{1078}
   James had more honesty than his brother or his father; but the
   narrowness and meanness of the Stuart race were in his blood.
   He had made himself intolerable; to his subjects, both English
   and Scotch, by entering the Catholic Church, openly, while
   Charles was believed to have done the same in secret. His
   religion was necessarily bigotry, because of the smallness of
   his nature, and he opposed it to the Protestantism of the
   kingdom with a kind of brutal aggressiveness. In the first
   year of his reign there was a rebellion undertaken, in the
   interest of a bastard son of Charles II., called Duke of
   Monmouth; but it was savagely put down, first by force of
   arms, at Sedgemoor, and afterwards by the "bloody assizes" of
   the ruthless Judge Jeffreys. Encouraged by this success
   against his enemies James began to ignore the "Test Act,"
   which excluded Catholics from office, and to surround himself
   by men of his own religion. The Test Act was an unrighteous
   law, and the "Declaration of Indulgence" which James issued,
   for the toleration of Catholics and Dissenters, was just in
   principle, according to the ideas of later times; but the
   action of the king with respect to both was, nevertheless, a
   gross and threatening violation of law. England had submitted
   to worse conduct from Charles II., but its Protestant temper
   was now roused, and the loyalty of the subject was consumed by
   the fierceness of the Churchman's wrath. James' daughter,
   Mary, and her husband, William, Prince of Orange, were invited
   from Holland to come over and displace the obnoxious father
   from his throne. They accepted the invitation, November, 1688;
   the nation rose to welcome them; James fled,—and the great
   Revolution, which ended arbitrary monarchy in England forever,
   and established constitutional government on clearly defined
   and lasting bases, was accomplished without the shedding of a
   drop of blood.

William of Orange, who thus acquired a place in the line of English kings, held, at the same time, the nearly regal office of Stadtholder of Holland; but the office had not remained continuously in his family since William the Silent, whose great-grandson he was. Maurice, the son of the murdered William the Silent, had been chosen to the stadtholdership after his father's death, and had carried forward his father's work with success, so far as concerned the liberation of the United Provinces from the Spanish yoke. He was an abler soldier than William, but not his equal as a statesman, nor as a man. The greater statesman of the period was John of Barneveldt, between whom and the Stadtholder an opposition grew up which produced jealousy and hostility, more especially on the part of the latter. A shameful religious conflict had arisen at this time between the Calvinists, who numbered most of the clergy in their ranks, and a dissenting body, led by Jacob Hermann, or Arminius, which protested against the doctrine of predestination. Barneveldt favored the Arminians. The Stadtholder, Maurice, without any apparent theological conviction in the matter, threw his whole weight of influence on the side of the Calvinists; and was able, with the help of the Calvinist preachers, to carry the greater part of the common people into that faction. The Arminians were everywhere put down as heretics, barred from preaching or teaching, and otherwise silenced and ill treated. It is a singular fact that, at the very time of this outburst of Calvinistic fury, the Dutch were exhibiting otherwise a far more tolerant temper in religion than any other people in Europe, and had thrown open their country as a place of shelter for the persecuted of other lands,—both Christian sectaries and Jews. We infer, necessarily, that the bitterness of the Calvinists against the Arminians was more political than religious in its source, and that the source is really traceable to the fierce ambition of Prince Maurice, and the passion of the party which supported his suspicious political aims.

Barneveldt lost influence as the consequence of the Calvinistic triumph, and was exposed helplessly to the vindictive hatred of Prince Maurice, who did not scruple to cause his arrest, his trial and execution (1619), on charges which none believed. Maurice, whose memory is blackened by this great crime, died in 1625, and was succeeded by his half-brother, Frederic Henry. The war with Spain had been renewed in 1621, at the end of the twelve years truce, and more than willingly renewed; for the merchant class, and the maritime interest in the cities which felt secure, preferred war to peace. Under a hostile flag they pushed their commerce into Spanish and Portuguese seas from which a treaty of peace would undoubtedly exclude them; and, so long as Spanish American silver fleets were afloat, the spoils of ocean war were vastly enriching. It was during these years of war that the Dutch got their footing on the farther sides of the world, and nearly won the mastery of the sea which their slower but stronger English rivals wrested from them in the end. Not until the general Peace of Westphalia, in 1648, was a final settlement of issues between Spain and the United Provinces brought about. The freedom and independence of the Provinces, as sovereign states, was then acknowledged by the humbled Spaniard, and favorable arrangements of trade were conceded to them. The southern, Catholic Provinces, which Spain had held, were retained in their subjection to her.

   Frederic Henry, the third Stadtholder, was succeeded in 1647
   by his son, William II. The latter wasted his short career of
   less than four years in foolish plotting to revolutionize the
   government and transform the stadtholdership into a monarchy,
   supported by France, for the help of which country he seemed
   willing to pay any base and treasonable price. Dying suddenly
   in the midst of his scheming, he left an unborn son—the
   future William III. of England—who came into the world a week
   after his father had left it. Under these circumstances the
   stadtholdership was suspended, with strong feelings against
   the revival of it, resulting from the conduct of William II.
   The lesser provinces then fell under the domination of
   Holland—so much so that the name of Holland began soon to be
   applied to the confederation at large, and is very commonly
   used with that meaning for a long subsequent time. The chief
   minister of the Estates of Holland, known as the Grand
   Pensionary, became the practical head of the federal
   government. After 1653 the office of Grand Pensionary was
   filled by a statesman of high ability, John de Witt, the chief
   end of whose policy appears to have been the prevention of the
   return of the House of Orange to power. The government thus
   administered, and controlled by the commercial class, was
   successful in promoting the general prosperity of the
   provinces, and in advancing their maritime importance and
   power.
{1079}
   It conducted two wars with England—one with the Commonwealth
   and one with the restored monarchy—and could claim at least
   an equal share of the naval glory won in each. But it
   neglected the land defense of the country, and was found
   shamefully unprepared in 1672, when the Provinces were
   attacked by a villainous combination, formed between Louis
   XIV. of France and his servile pensioner, Charles II. of
   England. The republic, humbled and distressed by the rushing
   conquests of the French, fixed its hopes upon the young Prince
   of Orange, heir to the prestige of a great historic name, and
   turned its wrath against the party of De Witt. The Prince was
   made Stadtholder, despite the opposition of John de Witt, and
   the latter, with his brother Cornelius, was murdered by a mob
   at Amsterdam. William of Orange proved both wise and heroic as
   a leader, and the people were roused to a new energy of
   resistance by his appeals and his example. They cut their
   dykes and flooded the land, subjecting themselves to
   unmeasured loss and distress, but peremptorily stopping the
   French advance, until time was gained for awakening public
   feeling in Europe against the aggressions of the unscrupulous
   French king. Then William of Orange began that which was to be
   his great and important mission in life,—the organizing of
   resistance to Louis XIV. Without the foresight and penetration
   of French designs which he evinced,—without his unflagging
   exertions for the next thirty years,—without his diplomatic
   tact, his skill of management, his patience in war, his
   obstinate perseverance,—it seems to be a certainty that the
   ambitious "grand monarch," concentrating the whole power of
   France in himself, would have been able to break the
   surrounding nations one by one, and they would not have
   combined their strength for an effective self-protection. The
   revolution of 1688-9 in England, which gave the crown of that
   kingdom to William, and his wife Mary, contributed greatly to
   his success, and was an event nearly as important in European
   politics at large as it was in the constitutional history of
   Great Britain.

In a natural order of things, Germany should have supplied the main resistance to Louis XIV. and held his unscrupulous ambition in check. But Germany had fallen to its lowest state of political demoralization and disorder. The very idea of nationality had disappeared. The Empire, even collapsed to the Germanic sense, and even reduced to a frame and a form, had almost vanished from practical affairs. The numerous petty states which divided the German people stood apart from one another, in substantial independence, and were sundered by small jealousies and distrusts. Little absolute principalities they were, each having its little court, which aped, in a little way, the grand court of the grand monarch of France—central object of the admiration and the envy of all small souls in its time. Half of them were ready to bow down to the splendid being at Versailles, and to be his creatures, if he condescended to bestow a nod of patronage and attention upon them. The French king had more influence among them than their nominal Emperor. More and more distinctly the latter drew apart in his immediate dominions as an Austrian sovereign; and more and more completely Austrian interests and Austrian policy became removed and estranged from the interests of the Germanic people. The ambitions and the cares of the House of Hapsburg were increasingly in directions most opposite to the German side of its relations, tending towards Italy and the southeast; while, at the same time, the narrow church influence which depressed the Austrian states widened a hopeless intellectual difference between them and the northern German people.

The most notable movements in dull German affairs after the Peace of Westphalia were those which connected themselves with the settling and centering in Brandenburg of a nucleus of growing power, around which the nationalizing of Germany has been a crystalizing process ever since. The Mark of Brandenburg was one of the earliest conquests (tenth century) of the Germans from the Wends. Prussia, afterwards united with Brandenburg, was a later conquest (thirteenth century) from Wendish or Slavonic and other pagan inhabitants, and its subjugation was a missionary enterprise, accomplished by the crusading Order of Teutonic Knights, under the authority and direction of the Pope. The Order, which held the country for more than two centuries, and ruled it badly, became degenerate, and about the middle of the fifteenth century it was overcome in war by Casimir IV. of Poland, who took away from it the western part of its territory, and forced it to do homage to him for the eastern part, as a fief of the Polish crown. Sixty years later, the Reformation movement in Germany brought about the extinguishment of the Teutonic Order as a political power. The Grand Master of the Order at that time was Albert, a Hohenzollern prince, belonging to a younger branch of the Brandenburg family. He became a Lutheran, and succeeded in persuading the Polish king, Sigismund I., to transfer the sovereignty of the East Prussian fief to him personally, as a duchy. He transmitted it to his descendants, who held it for a few generations; but the line became extinct in 1618, and the Duchy of Prussia then passed to the elder branch of the family and was united with Brandenburg. The Mark of Brandenburg had been raised to the rank of an Electorate in 1356 and had been acquired by the Hohenzollern family in 1417. The superior weight of the Brandenburg electors in northern Germany may be dated from their acquisition of the important Duchy of Prussia; but they made no mark on affairs until the time of Frederick William I., called the Great Elector, who succeeded to the Electorate in 1640, near the close of the Thirty Years War. In the arrangements of the Peace of Westphalia he secured East Pomerania and other considerable additions of territory. In 1657 he made his Duchy of Prussia independent of Poland, by treaty with the Polish king. In 1672 and 1674 he had the courage and the independence to join the allies against Louis XIV., and when the Swedes, in alliance with Louis, invaded his dominions, he defeated and humbled them at Fehrbellen, and took from them the greater part of their Pomeranian territory. When the Great Elector died, in 1688, Brandenburg was the commanding North-German power, and the Hohenzollern family had fully entered on the great career it has since pursued.

Frederick William's son Frederick, with none of his father's talent, had a pushing but shallow ambition. He aspired to be a king, and circumstances made his friendship so important to the Emperor Leopold I. that the latter, exercising the theoretical super-sovereignty of the Cæsars, endowed him with the regal title. He was made King of Prussia, not of Brandenburg, because Brandenburg stood in vassalage to the Empire, while Prussia was an independent state.

When Brandenburg and Prussia united began to rise to importance, the neighboring kingdom of Poland had already passed the climax of its career. Under the Jagellon dynasty, sprung from the Duke Jagellon of Lithuania, who married Hedwig, Queen of Poland, in 1386, and united the two states, Poland was a great power for two centuries, and seemed more likely than Russia to dominate the Slavonic peoples of Europe. The Russians at that time were under the feet of the Mongols or Tartars, whose terrific sweep westwards, from the steppes of Asia, had overwhelmed them completely and seemed to bring their independent history to an end. Slowly a Russian duchy had emerged, having its seat of doubtful sovereignty at Moscow, and being subject quite humbly to the Mongol Khan. About 1477 the Muscovite duke of that time, Ivan Vasilovitch, broke the Tartar yoke and acquired independence. But his dominion was limited. The Poles and Lithuanians, now united, had taken possession of large and important territories formerly Russian, and the Muscovite state was entirely cut off from the Baltic. It began, however, in the next century, under Ivan the Terrible, first of the Czars, to make conquests southward and south-eastward, from the Tartars, until it had reached the Caspian Sea. The dominion of the Czar stretched northward, at the same time, to the White Sea, at the single port of which trade was opened with the Russian country by English merchant adventurers in the reign of Elizabeth. Late in the sixteenth century the old line of rulers, descended from the Scandinavian Ruric, came to an end, and after a few years Michael Romanoff established the dynasty which has reigned since his time.

As between the two principal Slavonic nations, Russia was now gaining stability and weight, while Poland had begun to lose both. It was a fatal day for the Poles when, in 1573, on the death of the last of the Jagellons, they made their monarchy purely elective, abolishing the restriction to one family which had previously prevailed. The election was by the suffrage of the nobles, not the people at large (who were generally serfs), and the government became an oligarchy of the most unregulated kind known in history. The crown was stripped of power, and the unwillingness of the nobility to submit to any national authority, even that of its own assembly, reached a point, about the middle of the seventeenth century, at which anarchy was virtually agreed upon as the desirable political state. The extraordinary "liberum veto," then made part of the Polish constitution, gave to each single member of the assemblies of the nobles, or of the deputies representing them, a right to forbid any enactment, or to arrest the whole proceedings of the body, by his unsupported negative. This amazing prerogative appears to have been exercised very rarely in its fullness; but its theoretical existence effectually extinguished public spirit and paralyzed all rational legislation. Linked with the singular feebleness of the monarchy, it leaves small room for surprise at the ultimate shipwreck of the Polish state.

The royal elections at Warsaw came to be prize contests at which all Europe assisted. Every Court set up its candidate for the paltry titular place; every candidate emptied his purse into the Polish capital, and bribed, intrigued, corrupted, to the best of his ability. Once, at least (1674), when the game was on, a sudden breeze of patriotic feeling swept the traffickers out of the diet, and inspired the election of a national hero, John Sobieski, to whom Europe owes much; for it was he who drove back the Turks, in 1683, when their last bold push into central Europe was made, and when they were storming at the gates of Vienna. But when Sobieski died, in 1696, the old scandalous vendue of a crown was re-opened, and the Elector of Saxony was the buyer. During most of the last two centuries of its history, Poland sold its throne to one alien after another, and allowed foreign states to mix and meddle with its affairs. Of real nationality there was not much left to extinguish when the time of extinction came. There were patriots, and very noble patriots, among the Poles, at all periods of their history; but it seems to have been the very hopelessness of the state into which their country had drifted which intensified their patriotic feeling.

Russia had acquired magnitude and strength as a barbaric power, in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries; but it was not until the reign of Peter the Great, which opened in 1682, that the great Slavonic empire began to take on a European character, with European interests and influences, and to assimilate the civilization of the West. Peter may be said to have knotted Russia to Europe at both extremities, by pushing his dominions to the Baltic on the north and to the Black Sea on the south, and by putting his own ships afloat in both. From his day, Russia has been steadily gathering weight in each of the two continents over which her vast bulk of empire is stretched, and moving to a mysterious great destiny in time to come.

The Turks, natural enemies of all the Christian races of eastern and southeastern Europe, came practically to the end of their threatening career of conquest about the middle of the sixteenth century, when Suleiman the Magnificent died (1566). He had occupied a great part of Hungary; seated a pasha in Buda; laid siege to Vienna; taken Rhodes from the Knights of St. John; attacked them in Malta; made an alliance with the King of France; brought a Turkish fleet into the western Mediterranean, and held Europe in positive terror of an Ottoman domination for half a century. His son Selim added Cyprus to the Turkish conquests; but was humbled in the Mediterranean by the great Christian victory of Lepanto, won by the combined fleets of Spain, Venice and the Pope, under Don John of Austria. After that time Europe had no great fear of the Turk; though he still fought hard with the Venetians, the Poles, the Russians, the Hungarians, and, once more, carried his arms even to Vienna. But, on the whole, it was a losing fight; the crescent was on the wane.

In the whole struggle with the Ottomans, through the fifteenth, sixteenth, and seventeenth centuries, the republic of Venice bore a noble part. She contested with them foot by foot the Greek islands, Peloponnesus, and the eastern shores of the Adriatic. Even after her commerce began to slip from her control, and the strength which came from it sank rapidly, she gave up her eastern possessions but slowly, one by one, and after stout resistance. Crete cost the Turks a war of twenty-four years (1645-1669). Fifteen years afterwards the Venetians gathered their energies afresh, assumed the aggressive, and conquered the whole Peloponnesus, which they held for a quarter of a century. Then it was lost again, and the Ionian Islands alone remained Venetian territory in the East.

Of Italy at large, in the seventeenth century, lying prostrate under the heavy hand of Spain, there is no history to claim attention in so brief a sketch as this. One sovereign family in the northwest, long balanced on the Alps, in uncertainty between a cis-Alpine and a trans-Alpine destiny, but now clearly committed to Italian fortunes, had begun to win its footing among the noticeable smaller powers of the day by sheer dexterity of trimming and shifting sides in the conflicts of the time. This was the House of Savoy, whose first possessions were gathered in the crumbling of the old kingdom of Burgundy, and lay on both slopes of the Alps, commanding several important passes. On the western and northern side, the counts, afterwards dukes, of Savoy had to contend, as time went on, with the expanding kingdom of France and with the stout-hearted communities which ultimately formed the Swiss Confederacy. They fell back before both. At one period, in the fifteenth century, their dominion had stretched to the Saone, and to the lake of Neufchatel, on both sides of it, surrounding the free city of Geneva, which they were never able to overcome, and the lake of Geneva entire. After that time, the Savoyards gradually lost territory on the Gallic side and won compensations on the Italian side, in Piedmont, and at the expense of Genoa and the duchy of Milan. The Duke Victor Amadeus II. was the most successful winner for his house, and he made his gains by remarkable manœuvering on both sides of the wars of Louis XIV. One of his acquisitions (1713) was the island kingdom of Sicily, which gave him a royal title. A few years later he exchanged it with Austria for the island kingdom of Sardinia—a realm more desirable to him for geographical reasons only. The dukes of Savoy and princes of Piedmont thus became kings of Sardinia, and the name of the kingdom was often applied to their whole dominion, down to the recent time when the House of Savoy attained the grander kingship of united Italy.

The wars of Louis XIV. gave little opportunity for western and central Europe to make any other history than that of struggle and battle, invasion and devastation, intrigue and faithless diplomacy, shifting of political landmarks and traffic in border populations, as though they were pastured cattle, for fifty years, in the last part of the seventeenth century and the first part of the eighteenth (1665-1715). It will be remembered that when this King of France married the Infanta of Spain, he joined in a solemn renunciation of all rights on her part and on that of her children to such dominions as she might otherwise inherit. But such a renunciation, with no sentiment of honor behind it, was worthless, of course, and Louis XIV., in his own esteem, stood on a height quite above the moral considerations that have force with common men. When Philip IV. of Spain died, in 1665, Louis promptly began to put forward the claims which he had pledged himself not to make. He demanded part of the Netherlands, and Franche Comté—the old county (not the duchy) of Burgundy—as belonging to his queen. It was his good fortune to be served by some of the greatest generals, military engineers and administrators of the day—by Turenne, Condé, Vauban, Louvois, and others—and when he sent his armies of invasion into Flanders and Franche Comté they carried all before them. Holland took alarm at these aggressions which came so near to her, and formed an alliance with England and Sweden to assist Spain. But the unprincipled English king, Charles II., was easily bribed to betray his ally; Sweden was bought over; Spain submitted to a treaty which gave the Burgundian county back to her, and surrendered an important part of the Spanish Netherlands to France. Louis' first exploit of national brigandage had thus been a glorious success, as glory is defined in the vocabulary of sovereigns of his class. He had stolen several valuable towns, killed some thousands of people, carried misery into the lives of some thousands more, and provoked the Dutch to a challenge of war that seemed promising of more glory of like kind.

In 1672 he prepared himself to chastise the Dutch, and his English pensioner, Charles II., with several German princes, joined him in the war. It was this war, as related already, which brought about the fall and the death of John de Witt, Grand Pensionary of Holland; which raised William of Orange to the restored stadtholdership, and which gave him a certain leadership of influence in Europe, as against the French king. It was this war, likewise, which gave the Hohenzollerns their first great battle-triumph, in the defeat of the Swedes, allies of the French, at Fehrbellin. For Frederick William, the Great Elector, had joined the Emperor Leopold and the King of Spain in another league with Holland to resist the aggressions of France; while Sweden now took sides with Louis. England was soon withdrawn from the contest, by the determined action of Parliament, which forced its king to make peace. Otherwise the war became general in western Europe and was frightful in the death and misery it cost. Generally the French had the most success. Turenne was killed in 1675 and Condé retired the same year; but able commanders were found in Luxemburg and Crequi to succeed them. In opposition to William of Orange, the Dutch made peace at Nimegueu, in 1678, and Spain was forced to give up Franche Comté, with another fraction of her Netherland territories; but Holland lost nothing. Again Louis XIV. had beaten and robbed his neighbors with success, and was at the pinnacle of his glory. France, it is true, was oppressed and exhausted, but her king was a "grand monarch," and she must needs be content.

For a few years the grand monarch contented himself with small filchings of territory, which kept his conscience supple and gave practice to his sleight-of-hand. On one pretext and another he seized town after town in Alsace, and, at last, 1681, surprised and captured the imperial free city of Strasburg, in a time of entire peace. He bombarded Genoa, took Avignon from the Pope, bullied and abused feeble Spain, made large claims on the Palatinate in the name of his sister-in-law, but against her will, and did nearly what he was pleased to do, without any effective resistance, until after William of Orange had been called to the English throne. That completed a great change in the European situation.

The change had already been more than half brought about by a foul and foolish measure which Louis had adopted in his domestic administration. Cursed by a tyrant's impatience at the idea of free thought and free opinion among his subjects, he had been persuaded by Catholic zealots near his person to revoke the Edict of Nantes and revive persecution of the Huguenots. This was done in 1685. The fatal effects within France resembled those which followed the persecution of the Moriscoes of Spain. The Huguenots formed a large proportion of the best middle class of the kingdom,—its manufacturers, its merchants, its skilled and thrifty artisans. Infamous efforts were made to detain them in the country and there force them to apostacy or hold them under punishment if they withstood. But there was not power enough in the monarchy, with all its absolutism, to enclose France in such a wall. Vast numbers escaped—half a million it is thought—carrying their skill, their knowledge, their industry and their energy into Holland, England, Switzerland, all parts of Protestant Germany, and across the ocean to America. France was half ruined by the loss.

At the same time, the Protestant allies in Germany and the North, whom Louis had held in subserviency to himself so long, were angered and alarmed by his act. They joined a new defensive league against him, formed at Augsburg, in 1686, which embraced the Emperor, Spain, Holland, and Sweden, at first, and afterwards took in Savoy and other Italian states, along with Germany almost entire. But the League was miserably unprepared for war, and hardly hindered the march of Louis' armies when he suddenly moved them into the Rhenish electorates in 1688. For the second time in his reign, and under his orders, the Palatinate was fearfully devastated with fire and sword. But this attack on Germany, occupying the arms of France, gave William of Orange his opportunity to enter England unopposed and take the English crown. That accomplished, he speedily brought England into the League, enlarging it to a "grand alliance" of all western Europe against the dangerous monarch of France, and inspiring it with some measure of his own energy and courage. France had now to deal with enemies on every side. They swarmed on all her frontiers, and the strength and valor with which she met them were amazing. For three years the French more than held their own, not only in land-fighting, but on the sea, where they seemed likely, for a time, to dispute the supremacy of the English and the Dutch with success. But the frightful draft made on the resources of the nation, and the strain on its spirit, were more than could be kept up. The obstinacy of the king, and his indifference to the sufferings of his people, prolonged the war until 1697, but with steady loss to the French of the advantages with which they began. Two years before the end, Louis had bought over the Duke of Savoy, by giving back to him all that France had taken from his Italian territories since Richelieu's time. When the final peace was settled, at Ryswick, like surrenders had to be made in the Netherlands, Lorraine, and beyond the Rhine; but Alsace, with Strasburg, was kept, to be a German graft on France, until the sharp Prussian pruning knife, in our own time, cut it away.

There were three years of peace after the treaty of Ryswick, an then a new war—longer, more bitter, and more destructive than those before it—arose out of questions connected with the succession to the crown of Spain. Charles II., last of the Austro-Spanish or Spanish-Hapsburg kings, died in 1700, leaving no heir. The nearest of his relatives to the throne were the descendants of his two sisters, one of whom had married Louis XIV. and the other the Emperor Leopold, of the Austrian House. Louis XIV., as we know, had renounced all the Spanish rights of his queen and her issue; but that renunciation had been shown already to be wasted paper. Leopold had renounced nothing; but he had required a renunciation of her Spanish claims from the one daughter, Maria, of his Spanish wife, and he put forward claims to the Spanish succession, on his own behalf, because his mother had been a princess of that nation, as well as his wife. He was willing, however, to transfer his own rights to a younger son, fruit of a second marriage, the Archduke Charles.

The question of the Spanish succession was one of European interest and importance, and attempts had been made to settle it two years before the death of the Spanish king, in 1698, by a treaty, or agreement, between France, England, and Holland. By that treaty these outside powers (consulting Spain not at all) undertook a partition of the Spanish monarchy, in what they assumed to be the interest of the European balance of power. They awarded Naples, Sicily, and some lesser Italian possessions to a grandson of Louis XIV., the Milanese territory to the Archduke Charles, and the rest of the Spanish dominions to an infant son of Maria, the Emperor's daughter, who was married to the elector of Bavaria. But the infant so selected to wear the crown of Spain died soon afterwards, and a second treaty of partition was framed. This gave the Milanese to the Duke of Lorraine, in exchange for his own duchy, which he promised to cede to France, and the whole remainder of the Spanish inheritance was conceded to the Austrian archduke, Charles. In Spain, these arrangements were naturally resented, by both people and king, and the latter was persuaded to set against them a will, bequeathing all that he ruled to the younger grandson of Louis XIV., Philip of Anjou, on condition that the latter renounce for himself and for his heirs all claims to the crown of France. The inducement to this bequest was the power which the King of France possessed to enforce it, and so to preserve the unity of the Spanish realm. That the argument and the persuasion came from Louis' own agents, while other agents amused England, Holland and Austria with treaties of partition, is tolerably clear.

Near the end of the year 1700, the King of Spain died; his will was disclosed; the treaties were as coolly ignored as the prior renunciation had been, and the young French prince was sent pompously into Spain to accept the proffered crown. For a time, there was indignation in Europe, but no more. William of Orange could persuade neither England nor Holland to war, and Austria could not venture hostilities without their help. But that submissiveness only drew from the grand monarch fresh displays of his dishonesty and his insolence. Philip of Anjou's renunciation of a possible succession to the French throne, while occupying that of Spain, was practically annulled: The government of Spain was guided from Paris like that of a dependency of France. Dutch and English commerce was injured by hostile measures. Movements alarming to Holland were made on the frontiers of the Spanish Netherlands. Finally, when the fugitive ex-king of England, James II., died at St. Germains, in September, 1701, Louis acknowledged James' son, the Pretender, as King of England. This insult roused the war spirit in England which King William had striven so hard to evoke. He had already arranged the terms of a new defensive Grand Alliance with Holland, Austria, and most of the German states. There was no difficulty now in making it an offensive combination.

But William, always weak in health, and worn by many cares and harassing troubles, died in March, 1702, before the war which he desired broke out. His death made no pause in the movement of events. Able statesmen, under Queen Anne, his successor, carried forward his policy and a great soldier was found, in the person of John Churchill, Duke of Marlborough, to command the armies of England and the Dutch. Another commander, of remarkable genius, Prince Eugene of Savoy, took service with the Emperor, and these two, acting cordially together, humbled the overweening pride of Louis XIV. in the later years of his reign. He had worn out France by his long exactions. His strong ministers, Colbert, Louvois and others, were dead, and he did not find successors for them. He had able generals, but none equal to Turenne, Condé or Luxemburg,—none to cope with Marlborough and Prince Eugene. The war was widespread, on a stupendous scale, and it lasted for twelve years. Its campaigns were fought in the Low Countries, in Germany, in Italy and in Spain. It glorified the reign of Anne, in English history, by the shining victories of Blenheim, Ramilies, Oudenarde and Malplaquet, and by the capture of Gibraltar, the padlock of the Mediterranean. The misery to which France was reduced in the later years of the war was probably the greatest that the much suffering nation ever knew.

Louis sought peace, and was willing to go far in surrenders to obtain it. But the allies pressed him too hard in their demands. They would have him not only abandon the Bourbon dynasty that he had set up in Spain, but join them in overthrowing it. He refused to negotiate on such terms, and Fortune approved his resolution, by giving decisive victories to his arms in Spain, while dealing, out disaster and defeat in every other field. England grew weary of the war when it came to appear endless, and Marlborough and the Whigs, who had carried it on, were ousted from power. The Tories, under Harley and Bolingbroke, came into office and negotiated the famous Peace of Utrecht (1713), to which all the belligerents in the war, save the Emperor, consented. The Emperor yielded to a supplementary treaty, signed at Rastadt the next year. These treaties left the Bourbon King of Spain, Philip V., on his throne, but bound him, by fresh renunciations, not to be likewise King of France. They gave to England Gibraltar and Minorca, at the expense of Spain, and Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Hudson's Bay at the expense of France. They took much more from Spain. They took Sicily, which they gave to the Duke of Savoy, with the title of King; they took Naples, Milan, Mantua and Sardinia, which they gave to Austria, or, more strictly speaking, to the Emperor; and they took the Spanish Netherlands, which they gave to Austria in the main, with some barrier towns to the Dutch. They took from France her conquests on the right bank of the Rhine; but they left her in possession of Alsace, with Strasburg and Landau. The great victim of the war was Spain.

Louis XIV. was near the end of his reign when this last of the fearful wars which he caused was brought to a close. He died in September, 1715, leaving a kingdom which had reasons to curse his memory in every particular of its state. He had foiled the exertions of as wise a minister, Jean Colbert, as ever strove to do good to France. He had dried the sources of national life as with a searching and monstrous sponge. He had repressed everything which he could not absorb in his flaunting court, in his destroying armies, and in himself. He had dealt with France as with a dumb beast that had been given him to bestride; to display himself upon, before the gaze of an envious world; to be bridled, and spurred at his pleasure, and whipped; to toil for him and bear burdens as he willed; to tread upon his enemies and trample his neighbors' fields. It was he, more than all others before or after, who made France that dumb creature which suffered and was still for a little longer time, and then began thinking and went mad.

While the Powers of western Europe were wrestling in the great war of the Spanish Succession, the nations of the North and East were tearing each other, at the same time, with equal stubbornness and ferocity. The beginning of their conflict was a wanton attack from Russia, Poland and Denmark, on the possessions of Sweden. Sweden, in the past century, had made extensive, conquests, and her territories, outside of the Scandinavian peninsula, were thrust provokingly into the sides of all these three neighbors. There had been three Charleses on the Swedish throne in succession, following Christina, the daughter of Gustavus Adolphus. Queen Christina, an eccentric character, had abdicated in 1654, in order to join the Catholic Church, and had been succeeded by her cousin, Charles X. The six years reign of this Charles was one of constant war with the Danes and the Poles, and almost uniformly he was the aggressor. His son and successor, Charles XI., suffered the great defeat at Fehrbellin which gave prestige to Brandenburg; but he was shielded by the puissant arm of Louis XIV., his ally, and lost no territory. More successful in his domestic policy than in his wars, he, both practically and formally, established absolutism in the monarchy. Inheriting from his father that absolute power, while inheriting at the same time the ruthless ambition of his grandfather, Charles XII. came to the throne in 1697.

In the first two years of his reign, this extraordinary young autocrat showed so little of his character that his royal neighbors thought him a weakling, and Peter the Great, of Russia, conspired with Augustus of Poland and Frederick IV. of Denmark to strip him of those parts of his dominion which they severally coveted. The result was like the rousing of a lion by hunters who went forth to pursue a hare. The young Swede, dropping, instantly and forever, all frivolities, sprang at his assailants before they dreamed of finding him awake, and the game was suddenly reversed. The hunters became the hunted, and they had no rest for nine years from the implacable pursuit of them which Charles kept up. He defeated the Danes and the Russians in the first year of the war (1700). In 1702 he invaded Poland and occupied Warsaw; in 1704 he forced the deposition of the Saxon King of Poland, Augustus, and the election of Stanislaus Leczinski. Not yet satisfied, he followed Augustus into his electorate of Saxony, and compelled him there to renounce the Polish crown and the Russian alliance. In 1708 he invaded Russia, marching on Moscow, but turning aside to meet an expected ally, Mazeppa the Cossack. It was the mistake which Napoleon repeated a century later. The Swedes exhausted themselves in the march, and the Russians bided their time. Peter the Czar had devoted eight years, since Charles defeated him at Narva, to making soldiers, well-trained, out of the mob which that fight scattered. When Charles had worn his army down to a slender and disheartened force, Peter struck and destroyed it at Pultowa. Charles escaped from the wreck and took refuge, with a few hundreds of is guards, in the Turkish province of Bessarabia, at Bender. In that shelter, which the Ottomans hospitably accorded to him, he remained for five years, intriguing to bring the Porte into war with his Muscovite enemy, while all the fruits of his nine years of conquest in the North were stripped from him by the old league revived. Augustus returned to Poland and recovered his crown. Peter took possession of Livonia, Ingria, and a great part of Finland. Frederick IV., of Denmark, attacked Sweden itself. The kingless kingdom made a valiant defense against the crowd of eager enemies; but Charles had used the best of its energies and its resources, and it was not strong.

Near the end of 1710, Charles succeeded in pushing the Sultan into war with the Czar, and the latter, advancing into Moldavia, rashly placed himself in a position of great peril, where the Turks had him really at their mercy. But Catherine, the Czarina, who was present, found means to bribe the Turkish vizier in command, and Peter escaped with no loss more serious than the surrender of Azov. That ended the war, and the hopes of the Swedish king. But still the stubborn Charles wearied the Porte with his importunities, until he was commanded to quit the country. Even then he refused to depart,—resisted when force was used to expel him, and did not take his leave until late in November, 1714, when he received intelligence that his subjects were preparing to appoint his sister regent of the kingdom and to make peace with the Czar. That news hurried him homeward; but only for continued war. He was about to make terms with Russia, and to secure her alliance against Denmark, Poland and Hanover, when he was killed during an invasion of Norway, in the siege of Friedrickshall (December, 1718). The crown of Sweden was then conferred upon his sister, but shorn of absolute powers, and practically dependent upon the nobles. All the wars in which Charles XII. had involved his kingdom were brought to an end by great sacrifices, and Russia rose to the place of Sweden as the chief power in the North. The Swedes paid heavily for the career of their "Northern Alexander."

Before the belligerents in the North had quieted themselves, those of the West were again in arms. Spain had fallen under the influence of two eager and restless ambitions, that of the queen, Elizabeth of Parma, and an Italian minister, Cardinal Alberoni; and the schemes into which these two drew the Bourbon king, Philip V., soon ruptured the close relations with France which Louis XIV. had ruined his kingdom to bring about. To check them, a triple alliance was formed (1717) between France, England and Holland,—enlarged the next year to a quadruple alliance by the adhesion of Austria. At the outset of the war, Spain made a conquest of Sardinia, and almost accomplished the same in Sicily; but the English crushed her navy and her rising commerce, while the French crossed the Pyrenees with an army which the Spaniards could not resist. A vast combination which Alberoni was weaving, and which took in Charles XII., Peter the Great, the Stuart pretender, the English Jacobites, and the opponents of the regency in France, fell to pieces when the Swedish king fell. Alberoni was driven from Spain and all his plans were given up. The Spanish king withdrew from Sicily and surrendered Sardinia. The Emperor and the Duke of Savoy exchanged islands, as stated before, and the former (holding Naples already) revived the old Kingdom of the Two Sicilies, while the latter became King of Sardinia.

These disturbances ended, there were a few years of rest in Europe, and then another war, of the character peculiar to the eighteenth century, broke out. It had its cause in the Polish election of a king to succeed Augustus II. As usual, the neighboring nations formed a betting ring of onlookers, so to speak, and "backed" their several candidates heavily. The deposed and exiled king, Stanislaus Leczinski, who received his crown from Charles XII. and lost it after Pultowa, was the French candidate; for he had married his daughter to Louis XV. Frederick Augustus of Saxony, son of the late King Augustus, was the Russian and Austrian candidate. The contest resulted in a double election (1733), and out of that came war. Spain and Sardinia joined France, and the Emperor had no allies. Hence the House of Austria suffered greatly in the war, losing the Two Sicilies, which went to Spain, and were conferred on a younger son of the king, creating a third Bourbon monarchy. Part of the duchy of Milan was also yielded by Austria to the King of Sardinia; and the Duke of Lorraine, husband of the Emperor's daughter, Maria Theresa, gave up his duchy to Stanislaus, who renounced therefor his claim on the crown of Poland. The Duke of Lorraine received as compensation a right of succession to the grand duchy of Tuscany, where the Medicean House was about to expire. These were the principal consequences, humiliating to Austria, of what is known as the First Family Compact of the French and Spanish Bourbons.

This alliance between the two courts gave encouragement to hostile demonstrations in the Spanish colonies against English traders, who were accused of extensive smuggling, and the outcome was a petty war (1739), called "the War of Jenkins' Ear."

Before these hostilities were ended, another "war of succession," more serious than any before it, was wickedly brought upon Europe. The Emperor, Charles VI., died in 1740, leaving no son, but transmitting his hereditary dominions to his eldest daughter, the celebrated Maria Theresa, married to the ex-Duke of Lorraine. Years before his death he had sought to provide against any possible disputing of the succession, by an instrument known as the Pragmatic Sanction, to which he obtained, first, the assent of the estates of all the provinces and kingdoms of the Austrian realm, and, secondly, the guaranty by solemn treaty of almost every European Power. He died in the belief that he had established his daughter securely, and left her to the enjoyment of a peaceful reign. It was a pitiful illusion. He was scarcely in his grave before half the guarantors of the Pragmatic Sanction were putting forward claims to this part and that part of the Austrian territories. The Elector of Bavaria, the Elector of Saxony (in his wife's name) and the King of Spain, claimed the whole succession; the two first mentioned on grounds of collateral lineage, the latter (a Bourbon cuckoo in the Spanish-Hapsburg nest) as being the heir of the Hapsburgs of Spain.

While these larger pretensions were still jostling each other in the diplomatic stage, a minor claimant, who said little but acted powerfully, sent his demands to the Court of Vienna with an army following close at their heels. This was Frederick II. of Prussia, presently known as Frederick the Great, who resuscitated an obsolete claim on Silesia and took possession of the province (1740-41) without waiting for debate. If, anywhere, there had been virtuous hesitations before, his bold stroke ended them. France could not see her old Austrian rival dismembered without hastening to grasp a share. She contracted with the Spanish king and the Elector of Bavaria to enforce the latter's claims, and to take the Austrian Netherlands in prospect for compensation, while Spain should find indemnity in the Austro-Italian states. Frederick of Prussia, having Silesia in hand, offered to join Maria Theresa in the defense of her remaining dominions; but his proposals were refused, and he entered the league against her. Saxony did the same. England and Sardinia were alone in befriending Austria, and England was only strong at sea. Maria Theresa found her heartiest support in Hungary, where she made a personal appeal to her subjects, and enlarged their constitutional privileges. In 1742 the Elector of Bavaria was elected Emperor, as Charles VII. In the same year, Maria Theresa, acting under pressure from England, gave up the greater part of Silesia to Frederick, by treaty, as a price paid, not for the help he had offered at first, but barely for his neutrality. He abandoned his allies and withdrew from the war. His retirement produced an immense difference in the conditions of the contest. Saxony made peace at the same time, and became an active ally on the Austrian side. So rapidly did the latter then recover their ground and the French slip back that Frederick, after two years of neutrality, became alarmed, and found a pretext to take up arms again. The scale was now tipped to the side on which he threw himself, but not immediately; and when, in 1745, the Emperor, Charles VII., died suddenly, Maria Theresa was able to secure the election of her husband, Francis of Lorraine (or Tuscany), which founded the Hapsburg-Lorraine dynasty on the imperial throne. This was in September. In the following December Frederick was in Dresden, and Saxony—the one effective ally left to the Austrians, since England had withdrawn from the war in the previous August—was at his feet. Maria Theresa, having the Spaniards and the French still to fight in Italy and the Netherlands, could do nothing but make terms with the terrible Prussian king. The treaty, signed at Dresden on Christmas Day, 1745, repeated the cession of Silesia to Frederick, with Glatz, and restored Saxony to the humbled Elector.

France and Spain, deserted the second time by their faithless Prussian ally, continued the war until 1748, when the influence of England and Holland brought about a treaty of peace signed at Aix-la-Chapelle. France gained nothing from the war, but had suffered a loss of prestige, distinctly. Austria, besides giving up Silesia to Frederick of Prussia, was required to surrender a bit of Lombardy to the King of Sardinia, and to make over Parma, Piacenza and Guastalla to Don Philip of Spain, for a hereditary principality. Under the circumstances, the result to Maria Theresa was a notable triumph, and she shared with her enemy, Frederick, the fruitage of fame harvested in the war. But antagonism between these two, and between the interests and ambitions which they respectively represented—dynastic on one side and national on the other—was henceforth settled and irreconcilable, and could leave in Germany no durable peace.

The peace was broken, not for Germany alone, but for Europe and for almost the world at large, in six years after the signing of the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle. The rupture occurred first very far from Europe—on the other sides of the globe, in America and Hindostan, where England and France were eager rivals in colonial conquest. In America, they had quarreled since the Treaty of Utrecht over the boundaries of Acadia, or Nova Scotia, which that treaty transferred to England. Latterly, they had come to a more serious collision in the interior of the continent. The English, rooting their possession of the Atlantic seaboard by strong and stable settlements, had been tardy explorers and slow in passing the Alleganies to the region inland. On the other hand, the French, nimble and enterprising in exploration, and in military occupation, but superficial and artificial in colonizing, had pushed their way by a long circuit from Canada, through the great lakes to the head waters of the Ohio, and were fortifying a line in the rear of the British colonies, from the valley of the St. Lawrence to the valley of the Mississippi, before the English were well aware of their intent. Then the colonists, Virginians and Pennsylvanians, took arms, and the career of George Washington was begun as leader of an expedition in 1754 to drive the French from the Ohio. It was not successful, and a strong force of regular troops was sent over next year by the British government, under Braddock, to repeat the attempt. A frightful catastrophe, worse than failure, came of this second undertaking, and open war between France and England, which had not yet been declared, followed soon. This colonial conflict of England and France fired the train, so to speak, which caused a great explosion of suppressed hostilities in Europe.

If the English crown had not been worn by a German king, having a German principality to defend, the French and English might have fought out their quarrel on the ocean, and in the wilderness of America, or on the plains of the Carnatic, without disturbing their continental neighbors. But England was now under a new, foreign-bred line of sovereigns, descended from that daughter of James I., the princess Elizabeth, who married the unfortunate Elector Palatine and was queen of Bohemia for a brief winter term. After William of Orange died, his wife, Queen Mary, having preceded him to the grave, and no children having been born to them, Anne, the sister of Mary, had been called to the throne. It was in her reign that the brilliant victories of Marlborough were won, and in her reign that the Union of Scotland with England, under one parliament as well as one sovereign, was brought about. On Anne's death (1714), her brother, the son of James II., called "the Pretender," was still excluded from the throne, because of his religion, and the next heir was sought and summoned, in the person of the Elector George, of Hanover, whose remote ancestress was Elizabeth Stuart. George I. had reigned thirteen years, and his son, George II., had been twenty-seven years on the throne, when these quarrels with France arose. Throughout the two reigns, until 1742, the English nation had been kept mostly at peace, by the potent influence of a great minister, Sir Robert Walpole, and had made a splendid advance in material prosperity and strength; while the system of ministerial government, responsible to Parliament and independent of the Crown, which has been in later times the peculiar feature of the British constitution, was taking shape. In 1742, Walpole fell from power, and the era of peace for England was ended. But her new dynasty had been firmly settled, and politically, industrially, and commercially, the nation was so sound in its condition as to be well prepared for the series of wars into which it plunged. In the War of the Austrian Succession England had taken a limited part, and with small results to herself. She was now about to enter, under the lead of the high spirited and ambitious Pitt, afterwards Earl of Chatham, the greatest career of conquest in her history.

   As before said, it was the anxiety of George II. for his
   electorate of Hanover which caused an explosion of hostilities
   in Europe to occur, as consequence of the remote fighting of
   French and English colonists in America. For the strengthening
   of Hanover against attacks from France, he sought an alliance
   with Frederick of Prussia. This broke the long-standing
   anti-French alliance of England with Austria, and Austria
   joined fortunes with her ancient Bourbon enemy, in order to be
   helped to the revenge which Maria Theresa now promised herself
   the pleasure of executing upon the Prussian king. As the
   combination finally shaped itself on the French side, it
   embraced France, Austria, Russia, Sweden, Poland, Saxony, and
   the Palatinate, and its inspiring purpose was to break Prussia
   down and partition her territories, rather than to support
   France against England. The agreements to this end were made
   in secret; but Frederick obtained knowledge of them, and
   learned that papers proving the conspiracy against him were in
   the archives of the Saxony government, at Dresden. His action was
   decided with that promptitude which so often disconcerted his
   enemies. He did not wait to be attacked by the tremendous
   league formed against him, nor waste time in efforts to
   dissolve it, but defiantly struck the first blow. He poured
   his army into Saxony (August, 1756), seized Dresden by
   surprise, captured the documents he desired, and published
   them to the world in vindication of his summary precipitation
   of war. Then, blockading the Saxon army in Pirna, he pressed
   rapidly into Bohemia, defeated the Austrians at Lowositz, and
   returned as rapidly, to receive the surrender of the Saxons
   and to enlist most of them in his own ranks. This was the
   European opening of the Seven Years War, which raged, first
   and last, in all quarters of the globe. In the second year of
   the war, Frederick gained an important victory at Prague and
   suffered a serious reverse at Kolin, which threw most of
   Silesia into the hands of the Austrians. Close following that
   defeat came crushing news from Hanover, where the incompetent
   Duke of Cumberland, commanding for his father, the English
   King George, had allowed the French to force him to an
   agreement which disbanded his army, and left Prussia alone in
   the terrific fight. Frederick's position seemed desperate; but
   his energy retrieved it.
{1087}
   He fought and defeated the French at Rossbach, near Lützen, on
   the 5th of November, and the Austrians, at Leuthen, near
   Breslau, exactly one month later. In the campaigns of 1758, he
   encountered the Russians at Zorndorf, winning a bloody
   triumph, and he sustained a defeat at Hochkirk, in battle with
   the Austrians. But England had repudiated Cumberland's
   convention and recalled him; English and Hanoverian forces
   were again put into the field, under the capable command of
   Prince Frederick of Brunswick, who turned the tide in that
   quarter against the French, and the results of the year were
   generally favorable to Frederick. In 1759, the Hanoverian
   army, under Prince Ferdinand, improved the situation on that
   side; but the prospects of the King of Prussia were clouded by
   heavy disasters. Attempting to push a victory over the
   Russians too far, at Kunersdorf, he was terribly beaten. He
   lost Dresden, and a great part of Saxony. In the next year he
   recovered all but Dresden, which he wantonly and inhumanly
   bombarded. The war was now being carried on with great
   difficulty by all the combatants. Prussia, France and Austria
   were suffering almost equally from exhaustion; the misery
   among their people was too great to be ignored; the armies of
   each had dwindled. The opponents of Pitt's war policy in
   England overcame him, in October, 1761, whereupon he resigned,
   and the English subsidy to Frederick was withdrawn. But that
   was soon made up to him by the withdrawal of Russia from the
   war, at the beginning of 1762, when Peter of Holstein, who
   admired Frederick, became Czar. Sweden made peace a little
   later. The remainder of the worn and wearied fighters went on
   striking at each other until near the end of the year.

Meantime, on the colonial and East Indian side of it, this prodigious Seven Years War, as a great struggle for world-empire between England and France, had been adding conquest to conquest and triumph to triumph for the former. In 1759, Wolfe had taken Quebec and died on the Heights of Abraham in the moment of victory. Another twelve months saw the whole of Canada clear of Frenchmen in arms. In the East, to use the language of Macaulay, "conquests equalling in rapidity and far surpassing in magnitude those of Cortes and Pizarro, had been achieved." "In the space of three years the English had founded a mighty empire. The French had been defeated in every part of India. Chandernagore had yielded to Clive, Pondicherry to Coote. Throughout Bengal, Bahar, Orissa, and the Carnatic, the authority of the East India Company was more absolute than that of Acbar or Aurungzebe had ever been."

In February, 1763, two treaties of peace were concluded, one at Paris, on the 10th, between England, France and Spain (the latter Power having joined France in the war as late as January, 1762); the other at Hubertsburg, on the 15th, between Prussia and Austria. France gave up to England all her possessions in North America, except Louisiana (which passed to Spain,), and yielded Minorca, but recovered the Philippines. She surrendered, moreover, considerable interests in the West Indies and in Africa. The colonial aspirations of the French were cast down by a blow that was lasting in its effect. As between Prussia and Austria, the triumphs of the peace and the glories of the war were won entirely by the former. Frederick came out of it, "Frederick the Great," the most famous man of his century, as warrior and as statesman, both. He had defended his little kingdom for seven years against three great Powers, and yielded not one acre of its territory. He had raised Prussia to the place in Germany from which her subsequent advance became easy and almost inevitable. But the great fame he earned is spotted with many falsities and much cynical indifference to the commonest ethics of civilization. His greatness is of that character which requires to be looked at from selected standpoints.

Another character, somewhat resembling that of Frederick, was now drawing attention on the eastern side of Europe. Since the death of Peter the Great, the interval in Russian history had been covered by six reigns, with a seventh just opening, and the four sovereigns who really exercised power were women. Peter's widow, Catherine I., had succeeded him (1725) for two years. His son, Alexis, he had put to death; but Alexis left a son, Peter, to whom Catherine bequeathed the crown. Peter II. died after a brief reign, in 1730; and the nearest heirs were two daughters of Peter the Great, Anne and Elizabeth. But they were set aside in favor of another Anne—Anne of Courland—daughter of Peter the Great's brother. Anne's reign of ten years was under the influence of German favorites and ministers, and nearly half of it was occupied with a Turkish War, in cooperation with Austria. For Austria the war had most humiliating results, costing her Belgrade, all of Servia, part of Bosnia and part of Wallachia. Russia won back Asov, with fortifications forbidden, and that was all. Anne willed her crown to an infant nephew, who appears in the Russian annals as Ivan VI.; but two regencies were overthrown by palace revolutions within little more than a year, and the second one carried to the throne that Princess Elizabeth, younger daughter of Peter the Great, who had been put aside eleven years before. Elizabeth, a woman openly licentious and intemperate, reigned for twenty-one years, during the whole important period of the War of the Austrian Succession, and almost to the end of the Seven Years War. She was bitterly hostile to Frederick the Great, whose sharp tongue had offended her, and she joined Maria Theresa with eagerness in the great effort of revenge, which failed. In the early part of her reign, war with Sweden had been more successful and had added South Finland to the Russian territories. It is claimed for her domestic government that the general prosperity of the country was advanced.

On the death of Elizabeth, near the end of the year 1761, the crown passed to her nephew, Peter of Holstein, son of her eldest sister, Anne, who had married the Duke of Holstein. This prince had been the recognized heir, living at the Russian court, during the whole of Elizabeth's reign. He was an ignorant boor, and he had become a besotted drunkard. Since 1744 he had been married to a young German princess, of the Anhalt Zerbst family, who took the baptismal name of Catherine when she entered the Greek Church. Catherine possessed a superior intellect and a strong character; but the vile court into which she came as a young girl, bound to a disgusting husband, had debauched her in morals and lowered her to its own vileness. She gained so great an ascendancy that the court was subservient to her, from the time that her incapable husband, Peter III., succeeded to the throne. He reigned by sufferance for a year and a half, and then (July, 1762) he was easily deposed and put to death. In the deposition, Catherine was the leading actor. Of the subsequent murder, some historians are disposed to acquit her. She did not scruple, at least, to accept the benefit of both deeds, which raised her, alone, to the throne of the Czars.

Peter III., in his short reign, had made one important change in Russian policy, by withdrawing from the league against Frederick of Prussia, whom he greatly admired. Catherine found reasons, quite aside from those of personal admiration, for cultivating the friendship of the King of Prussia, and a close understanding with that astute monarch was one of the earliest objects of her endeavor. She had determined to put an end to the independence of Poland. As she first entertained the design, there was probably no thought of the partitioning afterwards contrived. But her purpose was to keep the Polish kingdom in disorder and weakness, and to make Russian influence supreme in it, with views, no doubt, that looked ultimately to something more. On the death of the Saxon king of Poland, Augustus III., in 1763, Catherine put forward a native candidate for the vacant throne, in the person of Stanislaus Poniatowsky, a Russianized Pole and a former lover of her own. The King of Prussia supported her candidate, and Poniatowsky was duly elected, with 10,000 Russian troops in Warsaw to see that it was properly done. The Poles were submissive to the invasion of their political independence; but when Catherine, who sought to create a Russian party in Poland by protecting the members of the Greek Church and the Protestants, against the intolerance of the Polish Catholics, forced a concession of civil equality to the former (1768), there was a wide-spread Catholic revolt. In the fierce war which followed, a band of Poles was pursued across the Turkish border, and a Turkish town was burned by the Russian pursuers. The Sultan, who professed sympathy with the Poles, then declared war against Russia. The Russo-Turkish war, in turn, excited Austria, which feared Russian conquests from the Turks, and another wide disturbance of the peace of Europe seemed threatening. In the midst of the excitement there came a whispered suggestion, to the ear of the courts of Vienna and St. Petersburg, that they severally satisfy their territorial cravings and mutually assuage each other's jealousy, at the expense of the crumbling kingdom of Poland. The whisper may have come from Frederick II. of Prussia, or it may not. There are two opinions on the point. From whatever source it came, it found favorable consideration at Vienna and St. Petersburg, and between February and August, 1772, the details of the partition were worked out.

Poland was not yet extinguished. The kingdom was only shorn of some 160,000 square miles of territory, more than half of which went to Russia, a third to Austria, and the remainder, less than 10,000 square miles, to Prussia. This last mentioned annexation was the old district of West Prussia which the Polish king, Casimir IV., had wrested from the Teutonic Knights in 1466, before Brandenburg had aught to do with Prussian lands or name. After three centuries, Frederick reclaimed it.

The diminished kingdom of Poland showed more signs of a true national life, of an earnest national feeling, of a sobered and rational patriotism, than had appeared in its former history. The fatal powers monopolized by the nobles, the deadly "liberum veto," the corrupting elective kingship, were looked at in their true light, and in May, 1791, a new constitution was adopted which reformed those evils. But a few nobles opposed the reformation and appealed to Russia, supplying a pretext to Catherine on which she filled Poland with her troops. It was in vain that the patriot Kosciusko led the best of his countrymen in a brave struggle with the invader. They were overborne (1793-1794); the unhappy nation was put in fetters, while Catherine and a new King of Prussia, Frederick William II., arranged the terms of a second partition. This gave to Prussia an additional thousand square miles, including the important towns of Danzig and Thorn, while Russia took four times as much. A year later, the small remainder of Polish territory was dismembered and divided between Russia, Prussia and Austria, and thus Poland disappeared from the map of Europe as a state.

Meantime, in her conflicts with the Turks, Catherine was extending her vast empire to the Dneister and the Caucasus, and opening a passage for her fleets from the Black Sea to the Mediterranean. By treaty in 1774 she placed the Tartars of the Crimea in independence of the Turks, and so isolated them for easy conquest. In 1783 the conquest was made complete. By the same treaty she secured a right of remonstrance on behalf of the Christian subjects of the Sultan, in the Danubian principalities and in the Greek Church at Constantinople, which opened many pretexts for future interference and for war at Russian convenience. The aggressions of the strong-willed and powerful Czarina, and their dazzling success, filled her subjects with pride, and effaced all remembrance of her foreign origin and her want of right to the seat which she filled. She was ambitious to improve the empire, as well as to expand it; for her liberal mind took in the large ideas of that speculative age and was much moved by them. She attempted many reforms; but most things that she tried to do for the bettering of civilization and the lifting of the people were done imperiously, and spoiled by the autocratic method of the doing. In her later years, her inclination towards liberal ideas was checked, and the French Revolution put an end to it.

In tracing the destruction of Poland and the aggrandizement of Russia, we have passed the date of that great catastrophe in France which ended the old modern order of things, and introduced a new one, not for France only, but for Europe at large. It was a catastrophe toward which the abused French people had been slowly slipping for generations, pushed unrelentingly to it by blind rulers and a besotted aristocracy. By nature a people ardent and lively in temper, hopeful and brave in spirit, full of intelligence, they had been held down in dumb repression: silenced in voice, even for the uttering of their complaints; the national meeting of their representative States suppressed for nearly two centuries; taxes wrung from them on no measure save the will of a wanton-minded and ignorant king; their beliefs prescribed, their laws ordained, their courts of justice commanded, their industries directed, their trade hedged round, their rights and permissions in all particulars meted out to them by the same blundering and irresponsible autocracy. How long would they bear it? and would their deliverance come by the easing of their yoke, or by the breaking of it?—were the only questions.

Their state was probably at its worst in the later years of Louis XIV. That seems to be the conclusion which the deepest study has now reached, and the picture formerly drawn by historians, of a society continually sinking into lower miseries, is mostly put aside. The worst state, seemingly, was passed, or nearly so, when Louis XIV. died. It began to mend under his despicable successor, Louis XV. (1715-1774),— perhaps even during the regency of the profligate Orleans (1715-1723). Why it mended, no historian has clearly explained. The cause was not in better government; for the government grew worse. It did not come from any rise in character of the privileged classes; for the privileged classes abused their privileges with increasing selfishness. But general influences were at work in the world at large, stimulating activities of all kinds,—industry, trade, speculation, combination, invention, experiment, science, philosophy,—and whatever improvement occurred in the material condition and social state of the common people of France may find its explanation in these. There was an augmentation of life in the air of the eighteenth century, and France took some invigoration from it, despite the many maladies in its social system and the oppressions of government under which it bent.

But the difference between the France of Louis XIV. and the France of Louis XVI. was more in the people than in their state. If their misery was a little less, their patience was less, and by not a little. The stimulations of the age, which may have given more effectiveness to labor and more energy to trade, had likewise set thinking astir, on the same practical lines. Men whose minds in former centuries would have labored on riddles dialectical, metaphysical and theological, were now bent on the pressing problems of daily life. The mysteries of economic science began to challenge them. Every aspect of surrounding society thrust questions upon them, concerning its origin, its history, its inequalities, its laws and their principles, its government and the source of authority in it. The so-called "philosophers" of the age, Rousseau, Voltaire and the encyclopædists—were not the only questioners of the social world, nor did the questioning all come from what they taught. It was the intellectual epidemic of the time, carried into all countries, penetrating all classes, and nowhere with more diffusion than in France.

After the successful revolt of the English colonies in America, and the conspicuous blazoning of the doctrines of political equality and popular self-government in their declaration of independence and their republican constitution, the ferment of social free-thinking in France was naturally increased. The French had helped the colonists, fought side by side with them, watched their struggle with intense interest, and all the issues involved in the American revolution were discussed among them, with partiality to the republican side. Franklin, most republican representative of the young republic, came among them and captivated every class. He recommended to them the ideas for which he stood, perhaps more than we suspect.

And thus, by many influences, the French people of all classes except the privileged nobility, and even in that class to some small extent, were made increasingly impatient of their misgovernment and of the wrongs and miseries going with it. Louis XVI., who came to the throne in 1774, was the best in character of the Bourbon kings. He had no noxious vices and no baleful ambitions. If he had found right conditions prevailing in his kingdom he would have made the best of them. But he had no capacity for reforming the evils that he inherited, and no strength of will to sustain those who had. He accepted an earnest reforming minister with more than willingness, and approved the wise measures of economy, of equitable taxation, and of emancipation for manufactures and trade, which Turgot proposed. But when protected interests, and the privileged order which fattened on existing abuses, raised a storm of opposition, he weakly gave way to it, and dismissed the man (1776) who might possibly have made the inevitable revolution a peaceful one. Another minister, the Genevan banker, Necker, who aimed at less reform, but demanded economy, suffered the same overthrow (1781). The waste, the profligate expenditure, the jobbery, the leeching of the treasury by high-born pensioners and sinecure office-holders, went on, scarcely checked, until the beginnings of actual bankruptcy had appeared.

Then a cry, not much heeded before, for the convocation of the States-general of the kingdom—the ancient great legislature of France, extinct since the year 1614—became loud and general. The king yielded (1788). The States-general was called to meet on the 1st of May, 1789, and the royal summons decreed that the deputies chosen to it from the third estate—the common people—should be equal in number to the deputies of the nobility and the clergy together. So the dumb lips of France as a nation were opened, its tongue unloosed, its common public opinion, and public feeling made articulate, for the first time in one hundred and seventy-five years. And the word that it spoke was the mandate of Revolution.

The States-general assembled at Versailles on the 5th of May, and a conflict between the third estate and the nobles occurred at once on the question between three assemblies and one. Should the three orders deliberate and vote together as one body, or sit and act separately and apart. The commons demanded the single assembly. The nobles and most of the clergy refused the union, in which their votes would be overpowered.

After some weeks of dead-lock on this fundamental issue, the third estate brought it to a summary decision, by boldly asserting its own supremacy, as representative of the mass of the nation, and organizing itself in the character of the "National Assembly" of France. Under that name and character it was joined by a considerable part of the humbler clergy, and by some of the nobles,—additional to a few, like Mirabeau, who sat from the beginning with the third estate, as elected representatives of the people. The king made a weak attempt to annul this assumption of legislative sufficiency on the part of the third estate, and only hurried the exposure of his own powerlessness. Persuaded by his worst advisers to attempt a stronger demonstration of the royal authority, he filled Paris with troops, and inflamed the excitement, which had risen already to a passionate heat.

Necker, who had been recalled to the ministry when the meeting of the States-general was decided upon, now received his second dismissal (July 11), and the news of it acted on Paris like a signal of insurrection. The city next day was in tumult. On the 14th the Bastile was attacked and taken. The king's government vanished utterly. His troops fraternized with the riotous people. Citizens of Paris organized themselves as a National Guard, on which every hope of order depended, and Lafayette took command. The frightened nobility began flight, first from Paris, and then from the provinces, as mob violence spread over the kingdom from the capital. In October there were rumors that the king had planned to follow the "émigrés" and take refuge in Metz. Then occurred the famous rising of the women; their procession to Versailles; the crowd of men which followed, accompanied but not controlled by Lafayette and his National Guards; the conveyance of the king and royal family to Paris, where they remained during the subsequent year, practically in captivity, and at the mercy of the Parisian mob.

Meanwhile, the National Assembly, negligent of the dangers of the moment, while actual anarchy prevailed, busied itself with debates on constitutional theory, with enactments for the abolition of titles and privileges, and with the creating of an inconvertible paper money, based on confiscated church lands, to supply the needs of the national treasury. Meantime, too, the members of the Assembly and their supporters outside of it were breaking into parties and factions, divided by their different purposes, principles and aims, and forming clubs,—centers of agitation and discussion,—clubs of the Jacobins, the Cordeliers, the Feuillants and the like,—where fear, distrust and jealousy were soon engendering ferocious conflicts among the revolutionists themselves. And outside of France, on the border where the fugitive nobles lurked, intrigue was always active, striving to enlist foreign help for King Louis against his subjects.

In April, 1791, Mirabeau, whose influence had been a powerful restraint upon the Revolution, died. In June, the king made an attempt to escape from his durance in Paris, but was captured at Varennes and brought back. Angry demands for his deposition were now made, and a tumultuous republican demonstration occurred, on the Champ de Mars, which Lafayette and the mayor of Paris, Bailly, dispersed, with bloodshed. But republicanism had not yet got its footing. In the constitution, which the Assembly completed at this time, the throne was left undisturbed. The king accepted the instrument, and a constitutional monarchy appeared to have quietly taken the place of the absolute monarchy of the past.

It was an appearance not long delusive. The Constituent National Assembly being dissolved, gave way to a Legislative Assembly (October, 1791) elected under the new constitution. In the Legislative Assembly the republicans appeared with a strength which soon gave them control of it. They were divided into various groups; but the most eloquent and energetic of these, coming from Bordeaux and the department of the Gironde, fixed the name of Girondists upon the party to which they belonged. The king, as a constitutional sovereign, was forced presently to choose ministers from the ranks of the Girondists, and they controlled the government for several months in the spring of 1792. The earliest use they made of their control was to hurry the country into war with the German powers, which were accused of giving encouragement to the hostile plans of the émigrés on the border. It is now a well-determined fact that the Emperor Leopold was strongly opposed to war with France, and used all his influence for the preservation of peace. It was revolutionary France which opened the conflict, and it was the Girondists who led and shaped the policy of war.

   In the first encounters of the war, the undisciplined French
   troops were beaten, and Paris was in panic. Measures were
   adopted which the king refused to sanction, and he dismissed
   his Girondist ministers. Lafayette, who was commanding one
   division of the army in the field, approved the king's course,
   and wrote an unwise letter to the Assembly, intimating that
   the army would not submit to a violation of the constitution.
   The republicans were enraged. Everything seemed proof to them
   of a treasonable connivance with the enemies of France, to
   bring about the subjugation of the country, and a forcible
   restoration of the old regime, absolutism, aristocratic
   privilege and all. On the 20th of June there was another
   rising of the Paris mob, unchecked by those who could, as yet,
   have controlled it. The rioters broke into the Tuileries and
   humiliated the king and queen with insults, but did no
   violence. Lafayette came to Paris and attempted to reorganize
   his old National Guard, for the defense of the constitution
   and the preservation of order, but failed. The extremists then
   resolved to throw down the toppling monarchy at once, by a
   sudden blow. In the early morning of August 10, they expelled
   the Council-General of the Municipality of Paris from the
   Hotel de Ville, and placed the government of the city under
   the control of a provisional Commune, with Danton at its head.
{1091}
   At the same hour, the mob which these conspirators held in
   readiness, and which they directed, attacked the Tuileries and
   massacred the Swiss guard, while the king and the royal family
   escaped for refuge to the Chamber of the Legislative Assembly,
   near at hand. There, in the king's presence, on a formal
   demand made by the new self-constituted Municipality or
   Commune of Paris, the Assembly declared his suspension from
   executive functions, and invited the people to elect without
   delay a National Convention for the revising of the
   Constitution. Commissioners, hastily sent out to the provinces
   and the armies in the field, were received everywhere with
   submission to the change of government, except by Lafayette
   and his army, in and around Sedan. The Marquis placed them
   under arrest and took from his soldiers a new oath of fidelity
   to the constitution and the king. But he found himself
   unsupported, and, yielding to the sweep of events, he obeyed a
   dismissal by the new government from his command, and left
   France, to wait in exile for a time when he might serve his
   Country with a conscience more assured.

Pending the meeting of the Convention, the Paris Commune, increased in number to two hundred and eighty-eight, and dominated by Danton and Robespierre, became the governing power in France. The Legislative Assembly was subservient to it; the kingless Ministry, which had Danton in association with the restored Girondists, was no less so. It was the fierce vigor of the Commune which caused the king and the royal family to be imprisoned in the Temple; which instituted a special tribunal for the summary trial of political prisoners; which searched Paris for "suspects," on the night of August 29-30, gathered three thousand men and women into the prisons and convents of the city, planned and ordered the "September Massacres" of the following week, and thus thinned the whole number of these "suspects" by a half.

On the 22d of September the National Convention assembled. The Jacobins who controlled the Commune were found to have carried Paris overwhelmingly and all France largely with them, in the election of representatives. A furious, fanatical democracy, a bloodthirsty anarchism, was in the ascendant. The republican Girondists were now the conservative party in the Convention. They struggled to hold their ground, and very soon they were struggling for their lives. The Jacobin fury was tolerant of no opposition. What stood in its path, with no deadlier weapon than an argument or an appeal, must be, not merely overcome, but destroyed. The Girondists would have saved the king from the guillotine, but they dared not adopt his defense, and their own fate was sealed when they gave votes, under fear, which sent him in January to his death. Five months longer they contended irresolutely, as a failing faction, with their terrible adversaries, and then, in June, 1793, they were proscribed and their arrest decreed. Some escaped and raised futile insurrections in the provinces. Some stayed and faced the death which awaited them in the fast approaching "reign of terror."

The fall of the Girondists left the Jacobin "Mountain" (so-called from the elevation of the seats on which its deputies sat in the Convention) unopposed. Their power was not only absolute in fact, but unquestioned, and they inevitably ran to riot in the exercise of it. The same madness overcame them in the mass which overcame Nero, Caligula, Caracalla, as individuals; for it is no more strange that the unnatural and awful feeling of unlimited dominion over one's fellows should turn the brain of a suddenly triumphant faction, than that it should madden a single shallow-minded man. The men of "the Mountain" were not only masters of France—except in La Vendée and the neighboring region south of the Loire, where an obstinate insurrection had broken out—but the armies which obeyed them had driven back the invading Germans, had occupied the Austrian Netherlands and taken possession of Savoy and Nice. Intoxicated by these successes, the Convention had proclaimed a crusade against all monarchical government, offering the help of France to every people which would rise against existing authorities, and declaring enmity to those who refused alliance with the Revolution. Holland was attacked and England forced to war. The spring of 1793 found a great European coalition formed against revolutionary France, and justified by the aggressions of the Jacobinical government.

For effective exercise of the power of the Jacobins, the Convention as a whole proved too large a body, even when it had been purged of Girondist opposition. Its authority was now gathered into the hands of the famous Committee of Public Safety, which became, in fact, the Revolutionary Government, controlling the national armies, and the whole administration of domestic and foreign affairs. Its reign was the Reign of Terror, and the fearful Revolutionary Tribunal, which began its bloody work with the guillotine in October, 1793, was the chief instrument of its power. Robespierre, Barère, St. Just, Couthon, Billaud-Varennes, Collot d' Herbois and Carnot—the latter devoted to the business of the war—were the controlling members of the Committee. Danton withdrew from it, refusing to serve.

In September, the policy of terrorism was avowedly adopted, and, in the language of the Paris Commune, "the Reign of Terror" became "the order of the day." The arraignment of "suspects" before the Revolutionary Tribunal began. On the 14th of October Marie Antoinette was put on trial; on the 16th she met her death. On the 31st the twenty-one imprisoned Girondist deputies were sent to the guillotine; followed on the 10th of November by the remarkable woman, Madame Roland, who was looked upon as the real leader of their party. From that time until the mid-summer following, the blood-madness raged; not in Paris alone, but throughout France, at Lyons, Marseilles, Toulon, Bordeaux, Nantes, and wherever a show of insurrection and resistance had challenged the ferocity of the Commissioners of the Revolutionary Government, who had been sent into the provinces with unlimited death-dealing powers.

But when Jacobinism had destroyed all exterior opposition, it began very soon to break into factions within itself. There was a pitch in its excesses at which even Danton and Robespierre became conservatives, as against Hébert and the atheists of his faction. A brief struggle ensued, and the Hébertists, in March, 1794, passed under the knife of the guillotine. A month later Danton's enemies had rallied and he, with his followers, went down before their attack, and the sharp knife in the Place de la Revolution silenced his bold tongue. Robespierre remained dominant for a few weeks longer in the still reigning Committee of Public Safety; but his domination was already undermined by many fears, distrusts and jealousies among his colleagues and throughout his party. His downfall came suddenly on the 27th of July. On the morning of that day he was the dictator of the Convention and of its ruling committee; at night he was a headless corpse, and Paris was shouting with joy.

On the death of Robespierre the Reign of Terror came quickly to an end. The reaction was sudden and swift. The Committee of Public Safety was changed; of the old members only Carnot, indispensable organizer of war, remained. The Revolutionary Tribunal was remodeled. The Jacobin Club was broken up. The surviving Girondist deputies came back to the Convention. Prosecution of the Terrorists for their crimes began. A new struggle opened, between the lower elements in Parisian and French society, the sansculotte elements, which had controlled the Revolution thus far, and the middle class, the bourgeoisie, long cowed and suppressed, but now rallying to recover its share of power. Bourgeoisie triumphed in the contest. The Sansculottes made their last effort in a rising on the 1st Prairial (May 20, 1795) and were put down. A new constitution was framed which organized the government of the Republic under a legislature in two chambers,—a Council of Five Hundred and a Council of Ancients,—with an executive Directory of Five. But only one third of the legislature first assembled was to be freely elected by the people. The remaining two thirds were to be taken from the membership of the existing Convention. Paris rejected this last mentioned feature of the constitution, while France at large ratified it. The National Guard of Paris rose in insurrection on the 13th Vendémiare (October 5), and it was on this occasion that the young Corsican officer, Napoleon Bonaparte, got his foot on the first round of the ladder by which he climbed afterwards to so great a height. Put in command of the regular troops in Paris, which numbered only 5,000, against 30,000 of the National Guards, he crushed the latter in an action of an hour. That hour was the opening hour of his career.

The government of the Directory was instituted on the 27th of October following. Of its five members, Carnot and Barras were the only men of note, then or afterwards.

While France was cowering under "the Terror," its armies, under Jourdan, Hoche, and Pichegru, had withstood the great European combination with astonishing success. The allies were weakened by ill feeling between Prussia and Austria over the second partition of Poland, and generally by a want of concert and capable leadership in their action. On the other side, the democratic military system of the Republic, under Carnot's keen eyes, was continually bringing forward fresh soldierly talent to the front. The fall of the Jacobins made no change in that vital department of the administration, and the successes of the French were continued. In the summer of 1794 they carried the war into Germany, and expelled the allies from the Austrian Netherlands. Thence they invaded Holland, and before the end of January, 1795, they were masters of the country; the Stadtholder had fled to England, and a Batavian Republic had been organized. Spain had suffered losses in battle with them along the Pyrenees, and the King of Sardinia had yielded to them the passes of the Maritime Alps. In April the King of Prussia made peace with France. Before the close of the year 1795 the revolt in La Vendée was at an end; Spain had made peace; Pichegru had attempted a great betrayal of the armies on the Rhine, and had failed.

This in brief was the situation at the opening of the year 1796, when the "little Corsican officer," who won the confidence of the new government of the Directory by saving its constitution on the 13th Vendemiare, planned the campaign of the year, and received the command of the army sent to Italy. He attacked the Sardinians in April, and a single month sufficed to break the courage of their king and force him to a treaty of peace. On the 10th of May he defeated the Austrians at Lodi; on the 15th he was in Milan. Lombardy was abandoned to him; all central Italy was at his mercy, and he began to act the sovereign conqueror in the peninsula, with a contempt for the government at Paris which he hardly concealed. Two ephemeral republics were created under his direction, the Cisalpine, in Lombardy, and the Cispadane, embracing Modena, Ferrara and Bologna. The Papacy was shorn of part of its territories.

Every attempt made by the Austrians to shake the hold which Bonaparte had fastened on the peninsula only fixed it more firmly. In the spring he began movements beyond the Alps, in concert with Hoche on the Rhine, which threatened Vienna itself and frightened Austria into proposals of peace. Preliminaries, signed in April, foreshadowed the hard terms of the treaty concluded at Campo Formio in the following October. Austria gave up her Netherland provinces to France, and part of her Italian territories to the Cisalpine Republic; but received, in partial compensation, the city of Venice and a portion of the dominions of the Venetian state; for, between the armistice and the treaty, Bonaparte had attacked and overthrown the venerable republic, and now divided it with his humbled enemy.

   The masterful Corsican, who handled these great matters with
   the airs of a sovereign, may have known himself already to be
   the coming master of France. For the inevitable submission
   again of the many to one was growing plain to discerning eyes.
   The frightful school-teaching of the Revolution had not
   impressed practical lessons in politics on the mind of the
   untrained democracy, so much as suspicions, distrusts, and
   alarms. All the sobriety of temper, the confidence of feeling,
   the constraining habit of public order, without which the
   self-government of a people is impracticable, were yet to be
   acquired. French democracy was not more prepared for
   republican institutions in 1797 than it had been in 1789.
{1093}
   There was no more temperance in its factions, no more balance
   between parties, no more of a steadying potency in public
   opinion. But it had been brought to a state of feeling that
   would prefer the sinking of all factions under some vigorous
   autocracy, rather than another appeal of their quarrels to the
   guillotine. And events were moving fast to a point at which
   that choice would require to be made. The summer of 1797 found
   the members of the Directory in hopeless conflict with one
   another and with the legislative councils. On the 4th of
   September a "coup d' état," to which Bonaparte contributed
   some help, purged both the Directory and the Councils of men
   obnoxious to the violent faction, and exiled them to Guiana.
   Perhaps the moment was favorable then for a soldier, with the
   great prestige that Bonaparte had won, to mount to the seat of
   power; but he did not so judge.

He planned, instead, an expedition to Egypt, directed against the British power in the East,—an expedition that failed in every object it could have, except the absence in which it kept him from increasing political disorders at home. He was able to maintain some appearance of success, by his subjugation of Egypt and His invasion of Syria; but of harm done to England, or of gain to France in the Mediterranean, there was none; since Nelson, at the battle of the Nile, destroyed the French fleet, and Turkey was added to the Anglo-Austrian coalition. The blunder of the expedition, as proved by its whole results, was not seen by the French people so plainly, however, as they saw the growing hopelessness of their own political state, and the alarming reverses which their armies in Italy and on the Rhine had sustained since Bonaparte went away.

Continued aggressions on the part of the French had provoked a new European coalition, formed in 1798. In Switzerland they had overthrown the ancient constitution of the confederacy, organizing a new Helvetic Republic on the Gallic model, but taking Geneva to themselves. In Italy they had set up a third republic, the Roman, removing the Pope forcibly from his sovereignty and from Rome. Every state within reach had then taken fresh alarm, and even Russia, undisturbed in the distance, was now enlisted against the troublesome democracy of France.

The unwise King of Naples, entering rashly into the war before his allies could support him, and hastening to restore the Pope, had been driven (December, 1798) from his kingdom, which underwent transformation into a fourth Italian republic, the Parthenopeian. But this only stimulated the efforts of the Coalition, and in the course of the following year the French were expelled from all Italy, saving Genoa alone, and the ephemeral republics they had set up were extinguished. On the Rhine they had lost ground; but they had held their own in Switzerland, after a fierce struggle with the Russian forces of Suwarrow.

When news of these disasters, and of the ripeness of the situation at Paris for a new coup d' état, reached Bonaparte, in Egypt, he deserted his army there, leaving it, under Kléber, in a helpless situation, and made his way back to France. He landed at Fréjus on the 9th of October. Precisely a month later, by a combination with Sieyès, a veteran revolutionist and maker of constitutions, he accomplished the overthrow of the Directory. Before the year closed, a fresh constitution was in force, which vested substantially monarchical powers in an executive called the First Consul, and the chosen First Consul was Napoleon Bonaparte. Two associate Consuls, who sat with him, had no purpose but to conceal for a short time the real absoluteness of his rule.

From that time, for fifteen years, the history of France—it is almost possible to say the history of Europe—is the story of the career of the extraordinary Corsican adventurer who took possession of the French nation, with unparalleled audacity, and who used it, with all that pertained to it—lives, fortunes, talents, resources—in the most prodigious and the most ruthless undertakings of personal ambition that the modern world has ever seen. He was selfishness incarnate; and he was the incarnation of genius in all those modes of intellectual power which bear upon the mastery of momentary circumstances and the mastery of men. But of the higher genius that might have worthily employed such vast powers,—that might have enlightened and inspired a really great ambition in the man, to make himself an enduring builder of civilization in the world, he had no spark. The soul behind his genius was ignoble, the spirit was mean. And even on the intellectual side, his genius had its narrowness. His projects of selfishness were extraordinary, but never sagacious, never far-sighted, thoughtfully studied, wisely planned. There is no appearance in any part of his career of a pondered policy, guiding him to a well-determined end in what he did. The circumstances of any moment, whether on the battle-field or in the political arena, he could handle with a swift apprehension, a mastery and a power that may never have been surpassed. But much commoner men have apprehended and have commanded in a larger and more successful way the general sweep of circumstances in their lives. It is that fact which belittles Napoleon in the comparison often made between him and Cæsar. He was probably Cæsar's equal in war. But who can imagine Cæsar in Napoleon's place committing the blunders of blind arrogance which ruined the latter in Germany and Spain, or making his fatuous attempt to shut England, the great naval power, out of continental Europe?

   His domestic administration was beneficial to France in many
   ways. He restored order, and maintained it, with a powerful
   hand. He suppressed faction effectually, and eradicated for
   the time all the political insanities of the Revolution. He
   exploited the resources of the country with admirable success;
   for his discernment in such matters was keen and his practical
   judgment was generally sound. But he consumed the nation
   faster than he gave it growth. His wars—the wars in which
   Europe was almost unceasingly kept by the aggression of his
   insolence and his greed—were the most murderous, the most
   devouring, that any warrior among the civilized races of
   mankind has ever been chargeable with.
{1094}
   His blood-guiltiness in these wars is the one glaring fact
   which ought to be foremost in every thought of them. But it is
   not. There is a pitiable readiness in mankind to be dazzled
   and cheated by red battle-lights, when it looks into history
   for heroes; and few figures have been glorified more
   illusively in the world's eye than the marvelous warrior, the
   vulgar-minded adventurer, the prodigy of self-exalting genius,
   Napoleon Bonaparte.

In the first year of his Consulate, Bonaparte recovered Italy, by the extraordinary Marengo campaign, while Moreau won the victory of Hohenlinden, and the Treaty of Luneville was brought about. Austria obtained peace again by renewing the concessions of Campo Formio, and by taking part in a reconstruction of Germany, under Bonaparte's dictation, which secularized the ecclesiastical states, extinguished the freedom of most of the imperial cities, and aggrandized Bavaria, Würtemberg, Baden and Saxony, as protégés and dependencies of France. England was left alone in the war, with much hostile feeling raised against her in Europe and America by the arrogant use she had made of her mastery of the sea. The neutral powers had all been embittered by her maritime pretensions, and Bonaparte now brought about the organization among them of a Northern League of armed neutrality. England broke it with a single blow, by Nelson's bombardment of Copenhagen. Napoleon, however, had conceived the plan of starving English industries and ruining British trade by a "continental system" of blockade against them, which involved the compulsory exclusion of British ships and British goods from all European countries. This impossible project committed him to a desperate struggle for the subjugation of Europe. It was the fundamental cause of his ruin.

In 1802 the First Consul advanced his restoration of absolutism in France a second step, by securing the Consulate for life. A short interval of peace with England was arranged, but war broke out anew the following year, and the English for a time had no allies. The French occupied Hanover, and the Germans were quiescent. But in 1804, Bonaparte shocked Europe by the abduction and execution of the Bourbon prince, Duc d'Enghien, and began to challenge again the interference of the surrounding powers by a new series of aggressive measures. His ambition had thrown off all disguises; he had transformed the Republic of France into an Empire, so called, and himself, by title, into an Emperor, with an imposing crown. The Cisalpine or Italian Republic received soon afterwards the constitution of a kingdom, and he took the crown to himself as King of Italy. Genoa and surrounding territory (the Ligurian Republic) were annexed, at nearly the same time, to France; several duchies were declared to be dependencies, and an Italian principality was given to Napoleon's elder sister. The effect produced in Europe by such arbitrary and admonitory proceedings as these enabled Pitt, the younger, now at the head of the English government, to form an alliance (1805), first with Russia, afterwards with Austria, Sweden and Naples, and finally with Prussia, to break the yoke which the French Emperor had put upon Italy, Holland, Switzerland and Hanover, and to resist his further aggressions.

The amazing energy and military genius of Napoleon never had more astonishing proof than in the swift campaign which broke this coalition at Ulm and Austerlitz. Austria was forced to another humiliating treaty, which surrendered Venice and Venetia to the conqueror's new Kingdom of Italy; gave up Tyrol to Bavaria; yielded other territory to Würtemberg, and raised both electors to the rank of kings, while making Baden a grand duchy, territorially enlarged. Prussia was dragged by force into alliance with France, and took Hanover as pay. But England triumphed at the same time on her own element, and Napoleon's dream of carrying his legions across the Channel, as Cæsar did, was forever dispelled by Nelson's dying victory at Trafalgar. That battle, which destroyed the combined navies of France and Spain, ended hope of contending successfully with the relentless Britons at sea.

France was never permitted to learn the seriousness of Trafalgar, and it put no check on the vaulting ambition in Napoleon which now began to o'erleap itself. He gave free rein to his arrogance in all directions. The King of Naples was expelled from his kingdom and the crown conferred on Joseph Bonaparte. Louis Bonaparte was made King of Holland. Southern Germany was suddenly reconstructed again. The little kingdoms of Napoleon's creation and the small states surrounding them were declared to be separated from the ancient Empire, and were formed into a Confederation of the Rhine, under the protection of France. Warned by this rude announcement of the precarious tenure of his imperial title as the head of the Holy Roman Empire, Francis II. resigned it, and took to himself, instead, a title as meaningless as that which Napoleon had assumed,—the title of Emperor of Austria. The venerable fiction of the Holy Roman Empire disappeared from history on the 6th of August, 1806.

But while Austria had become submissive to the offensive measures of Napoleon, Prussia became now fired with unexpected, sudden wrath, and declared war in October, 1800. It was a rash explosion of national resentment, and the rashness was dearly paid for. At Jena and Auerstadt, Prussia sank under the feet of the merciless conqueror, as helplessly subjugated as a nation could be. Russia, attempting her rescue, was overcome at Eylau and Friedland; and both the vanquished powers came to terms with the victor at Tilsit (July, 1807). The King of Prussia gave up all his kingdom west of the Elbe, and all that it had acquired in the second and third partitions of Poland. A new German kingdom, of Westphalia, was constructed for Napoleon's youngest brother, Jerome. A free state of Danzig, dependent on France, and a Grand Duchy of Warsaw, were created. The Russian Czar, bribed by some pieces of Polish Prussia, and by prospective acquisitions from Turkey and Sweden, became an ally of Napoleon and an accomplice in his plans for the subjection of Europe. He enlisted his empire in the "continental system" against England, and agreed to the enforcement of the decree which Napoleon issued from Berlin, declaring the British islands in a state of blockade, and prohibiting trade with them. The British government retorted by its "orders in council," which blockaded in the like paper-fashion all ports of France and of the allies and dependencies of France. And so England and Napoleon fought one another for years in the peaceful arena of commerce, to the exasperation of neutral nations and the destruction of the legitimate trade of the world.

And now, having prostrated Germany, and captivated the Czar, Napoleon turned toward another field, which had scarcely felt, as yet, his intrusive hand. Spain had been in servile alliance with France for ten years, while Portugal adhered steadily to her friendship with Great Britain, and now refused to be obedient to the Berlin Decree. Napoleon took prompt measures for the punishment of so bold a defiance. A delusive treaty with the Spanish court, for the partition of the small kingdom of the Braganzas, won permission for an army under Junot to enter Portugal, through Spain. No resistance to it was made. The royal family of Portugal quitted Lisbon, setting sail for Brazil, and Junot took possession of the kingdom. But this accomplished only half of Napoleon's design. He meant to have Spain, as well; and he found, in the miserable state of the country, his opportunity to work out an ingenious, unscrupulous scheme for its acquisition. His agents set on foot a revolutionary movement, in favor of the worthless crown prince, Ferdinand, against his equally worthless father, Charles IV., and pretexts were obtained for an interference by French troops. Charles was first coerced into an abdication; then Ferdinand was lured to an interview with Napoleon, at Bayonne, was made prisoner there, and compelled in his turn to relinquish the crown. A vacancy on the Spanish throne having been thus created, the Emperor gathered at Bayonne a small assembly of Spanish notables, who offered the seat to Joseph Bonaparte, already King of Naples. Joseph, obedient to his imperial brother's wish, resigned the Neapolitan crown to Murat, his sister's husband, accepted the crown of Spain, and was established at Madrid with a French army at his back.

This was one of the two most ruinous of the political blunders of Napoleon's life. He had cheated and insulted the whole Spanish nation, in a way too contemptuous to be endured even by a people long cast down. There was a revolt which did not spring from any momentary passion, but which had an obstinacy of deep feeling behind that made effective suppression of it impossible. French armies could beat Spanish armies, and disperse them, but they could not keep them dispersed; and they could not break up the organization of a rebellion which organized itself in every province, and which went on, when necessary, without any organization at all. England sent forces to the peninsula, under Wellington, for the support of the insurgent Spaniards and Portuguese; and thenceforward, to the end of his career, the most inextricable difficulties of Napoleon were those in which he had entangled himself on the southern side of the Pyrenees.

The other cardinal blunder in Napoleon's conduct, which proved more destructive to him than the crime in Spain, was his exasperating treatment of Germany. There was neither magnanimity on the moral side of him nor real wisdom on the intellectual side, to restrain him from using his victory with immoderate insolence. He put as much shame as he could invent into the humiliations of the German people. He had Prussia under his heel, and he ground the heel upon her neck with the whole weight of his power. The consequence was a pain and a passion which wrought changes like a miracle in the temper and character of the abused nation. There were springs of feeling opened and currents of national life set in motion that might never have been otherwise discovered. Enlightened men and strong men from all parts of Germany found themselves called to Prussia and to the front of its affairs, and their way made easy for them in labors of restoration and reform. Stein and Hardenburg remodeled the administration of the kingdom, uprooted the remains of serfdom in it, and gave new freedom to its energies. Scharnhorst organized the military system on which rose in time the greatest of military powers. Humboldt planned the school system which educated Prussia beyond all her neighbors, in the succeeding generations. Even the philosophers came out of their closets and took part, as Fichte did, in the stirring and uplifting of the spirit of their countrymen. So it was that the outrages of Napoleon in Germany revenged themselves, by summoning into existence an unsuspected energy that would be turned against him to destroy him in the end.

But the time of destruction was not yet come. He had a few years of triumph still before him,—of triumph everywhere except in Portugal and Spain. Austria, resisting him once more (1809), was once more crushed at Wagram, and to such submissiveness that it gave a daughter of the imperial house in marriage to the parvenu sovereign of France, next year, when he divorced his wife Josephine. He was at the summit of his renown that year, but already declining from the greatest height of his power. In 1811 there was little to change the situation.

In 1812 the downfall of Napoleon was begun by his fatal expedition to Russia. The next year Prussia, half regenerated within the brief time since Jena and Tilsit, went into alliance with Russia, and the War of Liberation was begun. Austria soon joined the alliance; and at Leipzig (Oct. 18, 1813) the three nations shattered at last the yoke of oppression that had bound Europe so long. At the same time, the French armies in Spain were expelled, and Wellington entered France through the Pyrenees, to meet the allies who pursued Napoleon across the Rhine. Forced to abdicate and retire to the little island of Elba (the sovereignty of which was ceded to him), he remained there in quiet from May, 1814, until March, 1815, when he escaped and reappeared in France. Army and people welcomed him. The Bourbon monarchy, which had been restored by the allies, fell at his approach. The king, Louis XVIII., fled. Napoleon recovered his throne and occupied it for it few weeks. But the alliance which had expelled him from it refused to permit his recovery of power. The question was settled finally at Waterloo, on the 18th of June, when a British army under Wellington and a Prussian army under Blücher won a victory which left no hope to the beaten Emperor. He surrendered himself to the commander of a British vessel of war, and was sent to confinement for the remainder of his life on the remote island of St. Helena.

But Europe, delivered from one tyrannical master, was now given over to several of them, in a combination which oppressed it for a generation. The sovereigns who had united to dethrone Napoleon, with the two emperors, of Austria and Russia, at their head, and with the Austrian minister, Metternich, for their most trusted counselor, assumed first, in the Congress of Vienna, a general work of political rearrangement, to repair the Revolutionary and Napoleonic disturbances, and then, subsequently, an authoritative supervision of European politics which proved as meddlesome as Napoleon's had been. Their first act, as before stated, was to restore the Bourbon monarchy in France, indifferent to the wishes of the people. In Spain, Ferdinand had already taken the throne, when Joseph fled. In Italy, the King of Sardinia was restored and Genoa transferred to him; Lombardy and Venetia were given back to Austria; Tuscany, Modena and some minor duchies received Hapsburg princes; the Pope recovered his States, and the Bourbons returned to Naples and Sicily. In Germany, the Prussian kingdom was enlarged again by several absorptions, including part of Saxony, but some of its Polish territory was given to the Czar; Hanover became a kingdom; Austria resumed the provinces which Napoleon had conveyed to his Rhenish proteges; and, finally, a Germanic Confederation was formed, to take the place of the extinct Empire, and with no more efficiency in its constitution. In the Netherlands, a new kingdom was formed, to bear the Netherland name, and to embrace Holland and Belgium in union, with the House of Orange on the throne.

Between the Czar, the Emperor of Austria, and the King of Prussia, there was a personal agreement that went with these arrangements of the Congress of Vienna, and which was prolonged for a number of years. In the public understanding, this was associated, perhaps wrongly, with a written declaration, known as the Holy Alliance, in which the three sovereigns set forth their intention to regulate their foreign and domestic policy by the precepts of Christianity, and invited all princes to join their alliance for the maintenance of peace and the promotion of brotherly love. Whether identical as a fact with this Holy Alliance or secreted behind it, there was, and long continued to be, an undoubted league between these sovereigns and others, which had aims very different from the promotion of brotherly love. It was wholly reactionary, hostile to all political liberalism, and repressive of all movements in the interest of the people. Metternich was its skilful minister, and the deadly, soulless system of beaureaucratic absolutism which he organized in Austria was the model of government that it strove to introduce.

In Italy, the governments generally were reduced to the Austrian model, and the political state of the peninsula, for forty years, was scarcely better, if at all, than it had been under the Spanish rule in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.

Germany, as divided as ever, under a federal constitution which federated nothing else so much as the big and little courts and their reactionary ideas, was profoundly depressed in political spirit, while prospering materially and showing notable signs of intellectual life.

France was not slow in finding that the restored Bourbons and the restored émigrés had forgotten nothing and learned nothing, in the twenty-five years of their exile. They put all their strength into the turning back of the clock, trying to make it strike again the hours in which the Revolution and Napoleon had been so busy. It was futile work; but it sickened and angered the nation none the less. After all the stress and struggle it had gone through, there was a strong nation yet to resist the Bourbonism brought back to power. It recovered from the exhaustion of its wars with a marvellous quickness. The millions of peasant land-owners, who were the greatest creation of the Revolution, dug wealth from its soil with untiring free arms, and soon made it the most prosperous land in Europe. Through country and city, the ideas of the Revolution were in the brains of the common people, while its energies were in their brawn, and Bourbonism needed more wisdom than it ever possessed to reconcile them to its restoration.

It was not in France, however, but in Spain, that the first rising against the restored order of things occurred. Ferdinand VII., when released from his French imprisonment in 1814, was warmly received in Spain, and took the crown with quite general consent. He accepted the constitution under which the country had been governed since 1812, and made large lying promises of a liberal rule. But when seated on the throne, he suppressed the constitution, restored the Inquisition, revived the monasteries, called back the expelled Jesuits, and opened a deadly persecution of the liberals in Spanish politics. No effective resistance to him was organized until 1820, when a revolutionary movement took form which forced the king, in March, to reestablish the constitution and call different men to his council. Portugal, at the same time, adopted a similar constitution, and the exiled king, John VI., returning now from Brazil, accepted it.

The revolution in Spain set fire to the discontent that had smouldered in Italy. The latter broke forth, in the summer of 1820, at Naples, where the Bourbon king made no resistance to a sudden revolt of soldiers and citizens, but yielded the constitution they demanded at once. Sardinia followed, in the next spring, with a rising of the Piedmontese, requiring constitutional government. The king, Victor Emmanuel I., who was very old, resigned the crown to his brother, Charles Felix. The latter refused the demands of the constitutionalists and called upon Austria for help.

These outbreaks of the revolutionary spirit were alarming to the sovereigns of the Holy Alliance and excited them to a vigorous activity. They convened a Congress, first at Troppau, in October, 1820, afterwards at Laybach, and finally at Verona, to plan concerted action for the suppressing of the popular movements of the time. As the result of these conferences, the congenial duty of restoring absolutism in the Two Sicilies, and of helping the King of Sardinia against his subjects, was imposed upon Austria and willingly performed; while the Bourbon court of France was solicited to put an end to the bad example of constitutional government in Spain. Both commissions were executed with fidelity and zeal. Italy was flung down and fettered again; French troops occupied Spain from 1823 until 1827. England, alone, protested against this flagrant policing of Europe by the Holy Alliance. Canning, its spirited minister, "called in the New World," as he described his policy, "to redress the balance of the old," by recognizing the independence of the Spanish colonies in America, which, Cuba excepted, were now separated forever from the crown of Spain. Brazil in like manner was cut loose from the Portuguese crown, and assumed the constitution of an empire, under Dom Pedro, the eldest son of John VI.

These stifled revolutions in western Europe failed to discourage a more obstinate insurrection which began in the East, among the Christian subjects of the Turks, in 1821. The Ottoman government had been growing weaker and more vicious for many years. The corrupted and turbulent Janissaries were the masters of the empire, and a sultan who attempted, as Selim III. (1789-1807) had done, to introduce reforms, was put to death. Russia, under Alexander I., had been continuing to gain ground at the expense of the Turks, and assuming more and more of a patronage of the Christian subjects of the Porte. There seems to be little doubt that the rising begun in 1821, which had its start in Moldavia, and its first leader in a Greek, Ypsilanti, who had been an officer in the Russian service, received encouragement from the Czar. But Alexander turned his back on it when the Greeks sprang to arms and seriously appealed to Europe for help in a war of national independence. The Congress of Verona condemned the Greek rising, in common with that of Spain. Again, England alone showed sympathy, but did nothing as a government, and left the struggling Greeks to such help as they might win from individual friends. Lord Byron, with others, went to Greece, carrying money and arms; and, generally, these volunteers lost much of their ardor in the Greek cause when they came into close contact with its native supporters. But the Greeks, however lacking in high qualities, made an obstinate fight, and held their ground against the Turks, until the feeling of sympathy with them had grown too strong in England and in France for the governments of those countries to be heedless of it. Moreover, in Russia, Alexander I. had been succeeded (1825) by the aggressive Nicholas, who had not patience to wait for the slow crumbling of the Ottoman power, but was determined to break it as summarily as he could. He joined France and England, therefore, in an alliance and in a naval demonstration against the Turks (1827), which had its result in the battle of Navarino. The allies of Nicholas went no farther; but he pursued the undertaking, in a war which lasted until the autumn of 1829. Turkey at the end of it conceded the independence of Greece, and practically that of Wallachia and Moldavia. In 1830, a conference at London established the Greek kingdom, and in 1833 a Bavarian prince, Otho I., was settled on the throne.

Before this result was reached, revolution in western Europe, arrested in 1821-23, had broken out afresh. Bourbonism had become unendurable to France. Charles X., who succeeded his brother Louis XVIII; in 1824, showed not only a more arbitrary temper, but a disposition more deferential to the Church than his predecessor. He was fond of the Jesuits, whom his subjects very commonly distrusted and disliked. He attempted to put shackles on the press, and when elections to the chamber of deputies went repeatedly against the government, he undertook practically to alter the suffrage by ordinances of his own. A revolution seemed then to be the only remedy that was open to the nation, and it was adopted in July, 1830, the veteran Lafayette taking the lead. Charles X. was driven to abdication, and left France for England. The crown was transferred to Louis Philippe, of the Orleans branch of the Bourbon family,—son of the Philip Égalité who joined the Jacobins in the Revolution.

The July Revolution in France proved a signal for more outbreaks in other parts of Europe than had followed the Spanish rising of ten years before.

Belgium broke away from the union with Holland, which had never satisfied its people, and, after some struggle, won recognized independence, as a new kingdom, with Leopold of Saxe Coburg raised to the throne.

Russian Poland, bearing the name of a constitutional kingdom since 1815, but having the Czar for its king and the Czar's brother for viceroy, found no lighter oppression than before, and made a hopeless, brave attempt to escape from its bonds. The revolt was put down with unmerciful severity, and thousands of the hapless patriots went to exile in Siberia.

In Germany, there were numerous demonstrations in the smaller states, which succeeded more or less in extorting constitutional concessions; but there was no revolutionary movement on a larger scale.

Italy remained quiet in both the north and the south, where disturbances had arisen before; but commotions occurred in the Papal states, and in Modena and Parma, which required the arms of Austria to suppress.

In England, the agitations of the continent hastened forward a revolution which went far beyond all other popular movements of the time in the lasting importance of its effects, and which exhibited in their first great triumph the peaceful forces of the Platform and the Press.

But we have given little attention to affairs in Great Britain during the past half century or more, and need to glance backward.

Under the third of the Georges, there was distinctly a check given to the political progress which England had been making since the Revolution of 1688. The wilfulness of the king fairly broke down, for a considerable period, the system of responsible cabinet government which had been taking shape and root under the two earlier Hanoverians, and ministers became again, for a time, mere mouthpieces of the royal will. The rupture with the American colonies, and the unsuccessful war which ended in their independence, brought in another influence, adverse, for the time being, to popular claims in government. For it was not King George, alone, nor Lord North, nor any small Tory faction, that prosecuted and upheld the attempt to make the colonists in America submissive to "taxation without representation." The English nation at large approved the war; English national sentiment was hostile to the Americans in their independent attitude, and the Whigs—the liberals then in English politics—were a discredited and weakened party for many years because of their leaning to the American side of the questions in dispute. Following close upon the American war, came the French Revolution, which frightened into Toryism great numbers of people who did not by nature belong there. In England, as everywhere else, the reaction lasted long, and government was more arbitrary and repressive than it could possibly have continued to be under different circumstances.

Meantime extraordinary social changes had taken place, which tended to mark more strongly the petrifying of things in the political world. The great age of mechanical invention had been fully opened. Machines had begun to do the work of human hands in every industry, and steam had begun to move the machines. The organization of labor, too, had assumed a new phase. The factory system had arisen; and with it had appeared a new growth of cities and towns. Production was accelerated; wealth was accumulating more rapidly, and the distribution of wealth was following different lines. The English middle class was rising fast as a money-power and was gathering the increased energies of the kingdom into its hands.

But while the tendency of social changes had been to increase vastly the importance of this powerful middle class, the political conditions had actually diminished its weight in public affairs. In Parliament, it had no adequate representation. The old boroughs, which sent members to the House of Commons as they had sent them for generations before, no longer contained a respectable fraction of the "commons of England," supposed to be represented in the House, and those who voted in the boroughs were not at all the better class of the new England of the nineteenth century. Great numbers of the boroughs were mere private estates, and the few votes polled in them were cast by tenants who elected their landlords' nominees. On the other hand, the large cities and the numerous towns of recent growth had either no representation in Parliament, or they had equal representation with the "rotten boroughs" which cast two or three or half-a-dozen votes.

That the commons of England, with all the gain of substantial strength they had been making in the last half of the eighteenth century and the first quarter of the nineteenth, endured this travesty of popular representation so long as until 1832, is proof of the potency of the conservatism which the French Revolution induced. The subject of parliamentary reform had been now and then discussed since Chatham's time; but Toryism had always been able to thrust it aside and bring the discussion to naught. At last there came the day when the question would no longer be put down. The agitations of 1830, combined with a very serious depression of industry and trade, produced a state of feeling which could not be defied. King and Parliament yielded to the public demand, and the First Reform Bill was passed. It widened the suffrage and amended very considerably the inequities of the parliamentary representation; but both reforms have been carried much farther since, by two later bills.

The reform of Parliament soon brought a broader spirit into legislation. Its finest fruits began to ripen about 1838, when an agitation for the repeal of the foolish and wicked English "corn-laws" was opened by Cobden and Bright. In the day of the "rotten boroughs," when the landlords controlled Parliament, they imagined that they had "protected" the farming interest, and secured higher rents to themselves, by laying heavy duties on the importation of foreign bread-stuffs. A famous "sliding scale" of such duties had been invented, which raised the duties when prices in the home market dropped, and lowered them proportionately when home prices rose. Thus the consumers were always deprived, as much as possible, of any cheapening of their bread which bountiful Nature might offer, and paid a heavy tax to increase the gains of the owners and cultivators of land.

Now that other "interests" besides the agricultural had a voice in Parliament, and had become very strong, they began to cry out against this iniquity, and demand that the "corn laws" be done away with. The famous "anti-corn-law league," organized mainly by the exertions of Richard Cobden, conducted an agitation of the question which brought about the repeal of the laws in 1846.

But the effect of the agitation did not end there. So thorough and prolonged a discussion of the matter had enlightened the English people upon the whole question between "protection" and free trade. The manufacturers and mechanics, who had led the movement against protective duties on food-stuffs, were brought to see that they were handicapped more than protected by duties on imports in their own departments of production. So Cobden and his party continued their attacks on the theory of "protection" until every vestige of it was cleared from the English statute books.

Another year of revolutions throughout Europe came in 1848, and the starting point of excitement was not, this time, at Paris, but, strangely enough, in the Vatican, at Rome. Pius IX. had been elected to the papal chair in 1846, and had immediately rejoiced the hearts and raised the hopes of the patriots in misgoverned Italy by his liberal measures of reform and his promising words. The attitude of the Pope gave encouragement to popular demonstrations in various Italian states during the later part of 1847; and in January 1848 a formidable rising occurred in Sicily, followed in February by another in Naples. King Ferdinand II. was compelled to change his ministers and to concede a constitution, which he did not long respect.

Lombardy was slow this time in being kindled; but when the flame of revolution burst out it was very fierce. The Austrians were driven first from Milan (March, 1848), and then from city after city, until they seemed to be abandoning their Italian possessions altogether. Venice asserted its republican independence under the presidency of Daniel Manin. Charles Albert, King of Sardinia, thought the time favorable for recovering Lombardy to himself, and declared war against Austria. The expulsion of the Austrians became the demand of the entire peninsula, and even the Pope, the Grand Duke of Tuscany, and the King of Naples were forced to join the patriotic movement in appearance, though not with sincerity. But the King of Sardinia brought ruin on the whole undertaking, by sustaining a fatal defeat in battle at Custozza, in July, 1848.

France had been for some time well prepared for revolt, and was quick to be moved by the first whisper of it from Italy. The short-lived popularity of Louis Philippe was a thing of the past. There was widespread discontent with many things, and especially with the limited suffrage. The French people had the desire and the need of something like that grand measure of electoral reform which England secured so peacefully in 1832; but they could not reach it in the peaceful way. The aptitude and the habit of handling and directing the great forces of public opinion effectively in such a situation were alike wanting among them. There was a mixture, moreover, of social theories and dreams in their political undertaking, which heated the movement and made it more certainly explosive. The Parisian mob took arms and built barricades on the 23d of February. The next day Louis Philippe signed an abdication, and a week later he was an exile in England. For the remainder of the year France was strangely ruled: first by a self-constituted provisional government, Lamartine at its head, which opened national workshops, and attempted to give employment and pay to 125,000 enrolled citizens in need; afterwards by a Constituent National Assembly, and an Executive Commission, which found the national workshops a devouring monster, difficult to control and hard to destroy. Paris got rid of the shops in June, at the cost of a battle which lasted four days, and in which more than 8,000 people were wounded or slain. In November a republican constitution, framed by the Assembly, was adopted, and on the 10th of December Louis Napoleon Bonaparte, son of Louis Bonaparte, once King of Holland, and of Hortense Beauharnais, daughter of the Empress Josephine, was elected President of the Republic by an enormous popular vote.

The revolutionary shock of 1848 was felt in Germany soon after the fall of the monarchy in France. In March there was rioting in Berlin and a collision with the troops, which alarmed the king so seriously that he yielded promises to almost every demand. Similar risings in other capitals had about the same success. At Vienna, the outbreak was more violent and drove both Metternich and the Emperor from the city. In the first flush of these popular triumphs there came about a most hopeful-looking election of a Germanic National Assembly, representative of all Germany, and gathered at Frankfort, on the invitation of the Diet, for a revision of the constitution of the Confederation. But the Assembly contained more learned scholars than practical statesmen, and its constitutional work was wasted labor. A Constituent Assembly elected in Prussia accomplished no more, and was dispersed in the end without resistance; but the king granted a constitution of his own framing. The revolutionary movement in Germany left its effects, in a general loosening of the bonds of harsh government, a general broadening of political ideas, a final breaking of the Metternich influence, even in Austria; but it passed over the existing institutions of the much-divided country with a very light touch.

In Hungary the revolution, stimulated by the eloquence of Kossuth, was carried to the pitch of serious war. The Hungarians had resolved to be an independent nation, and in the struggle which ensued they approached very near the attainment of their desire; but Russia came to the help of the Hapsburgs, and the armies of the two despotisms combined were more than the Hungarians could resist. Their revolt was abandoned in August, 1849, and Kossuth, with other leaders, escaped through Turkish territory to other lands.

The suppression of the Hungarian revolt was followed by a complete restoration of the despotism and domination of the Austrians in Italy. Charles Albert, of Sardinia, had taken courage from the struggle in Hungary and had renewed hostilities in March, 1849. But, again, he was crushingly defeated, at Novara, and resigned, in despair, the crown to his son, Victor Emmanuel II. Venice, which had resisted a long siege with heroic constancy, capitulated in August of the same year. The whole of Lombardy and Venetia was bowed once more under the merciless tyranny of the Austrians, and savage revenges were taken upon the patriots who failed to escape. Rome, whence the Pope—no longer a patron of liberal politics—had fled, and where a republic had been once more set up, with Garibaldi and Mazzini in its constituent assembly, was besieged and taken, and the republic overturned, by troops sent from republican France. The Neapolitan king restored his atrocious absolutism without help, by measures of the greatest brutality.

A civil war in Switzerland, which occurred simultaneously with the political collisions in surrounding countries, is hardly to be classed with them. It was rather a religious conflict, between the Roman Catholics and their opponents. The Catholic cantons, united in a League, called the Sonderbund, were defeated in the war; the Jesuits were expelled from Switzerland in consequence, and, in September, 1848, a new constitution for the confederacy was adopted.

The election of Louis Napoleon to the Presidency of the French Republic was ominous of a disposition among the people to bring back a Napoleonic regime, with all the falsities that it might imply. He so construed the vote which elected him, and does not seem to have been mistaken. Having surrounded himself with unprincipled adventurers, and employed three years of his presidency in preparations for the attempt, he executed a coup d' état on the 2d of December, dispersing the National Assembly, arresting influential republicans, and submitting to popular vote a new constitution which prolonged his presidency to ten years. This was but the first step. A year later he secured a "plébiscite" which made him hereditary Emperor of the French. The new Empire—the Second Empire in France—was more vulgar, more false, more fraudulent, more swarmingly a nest of self-seeking and dishonest adventurers, than the First had been, and with nothing of the saving genius that was in the First. It rotted for eighteen years, and then it fell, France with it.

A certain respectability was lent to this second Napoleonic Empire by the alliance of England with it in 1854, against Russia. The Czar, Nicholas, had determined to defy resistance in Europe to his designs against the Turks. He first endeavored to persuade England to join him in dividing the possessions of "the sick man," as he described the Ottoman, and, that proposal being declined, he opened on his own account a quarrel with the Porte. France and England joined forces in assisting the Turks, and the little kingdom of Sardinia, from motives of far-seeing policy, came into the alliance. The principal campaign of the war was fought in the Crimea, and its notable incident was the long siege of Sebastopol, which the Russians defended until September, 1855. An armistice was concluded the following January, and the terms of peace were settled at a general conference of powers in Paris the next March. The results of the war were a check to Russia, but an improvement of the condition of the Sultan's Christian subjects. Moldavia and Wallachia were soon afterwards united under the name of Roumania, paying tribute to the Porte, but otherwise independent.

The part taken by Sardinia in the Crimean War gave that kingdom a standing in European politics which had never been recognized before. It was a measure of sagacious policy due to the able statesman, Count Cavour, who had become the trusted minister of Victor Emmanuel, the Sardinian king. The king and his minister were agreed in one aim—the unification of Italy under the headship of the House of Savoy. By her participation in the war with Russia, Sardinia won a position which enabled her to claim and secure admission to the Congress of Paris, among the greater powers. At that conference, Count Cavour found an opportunity to direct attention to the deplorable state of affairs in Italy, under the Austrian rule and influence. No action by the Congress was taken; but the Italian question was raised in importance at once by the discussion of it, and Italy was rallied to the side of Sardinia as the necessary head of any practicable movement toward liberation. More than that: France was moved to sympathy with the Italian cause, and Louis Napoleon was led to believe that his throne would be strengthened by espousing it. He encouraged Cavour and Victor Emmanuel, therefore, in an attitude toward Austria which resulted in war (1859), and when the Sardinians were attacked he went to their assistance with a powerful force. At Magenta and Solferino the Austrians were decisively beaten, and the French emperor then abruptly closed the war, making a treaty which ceded Lombardy alone to Sardinia, leaving Venetia still under the oppressor, and the remainder of Italy unchanged in its state. For payment of the service he had rendered, Louis Napoleon exacted Savoy and Nice, and Victor Emmanuel was compelled to part with the original seat of his House.

There was bitter disappointment among the Italian patriots over the meagerness of the fruit yielded by the splendid victories of Magenta and Solferino. Despite the treaty of Villafranca, they were determined to have more, and they did. Tuscany, Parma, Modena and Romagna demanded annexation to Sardinia, and, after a plébiscite, they were received (March, 1860) into the kingdom and represented in its parliament. In the Two Sicilies there was an intense longing for deliverance from the brutalities of the Neapolitan Bourbons. Victor Emmanuel could not venture an attack upon the rotten kingdom, for fear of resentments in France and elsewhere. But the adventurous soldier, Garibaldi, now took on himself the task of completing the liberation of Italy. With an army of volunteers, he first swept the Neapolitans out of Sicily, and then took Naples itself, within the space of four months, between May and September, 1860. The whole dominion was annexed to what now became the Kingdom of Italy, and which embraced the entire peninsula except Rome, garrisoned for the Pope by French troops, and Venetia, still held in the clutches of Austria. In 1862, Garibaldi raised volunteers for an attack on Rome; but the unwise movement was suppressed by Victor Emmanuel. Two years later, the King of Italy brought about an agreement with the French emperor to withdraw his garrison from Rome, and, after that had been done, the annexation of Rome to the Italian kingdom was a mere question of time. It came about in 1870, after the fall of Louis Napoleon, and Victor Emmanuel transferred his capital to the Eternal City. The Pope's domain was then limited to the precincts of the Vatican.

The unification of Italy was the first of a remarkable series of nationalizing movements which have been the most significant feature of the history of the last half of the nineteenth century. The next of these movements to begin was in Germany—the much divided country of one peculiarly homogeneous and identical race. Influences tending toward unification had been acting on the Germans since Prussia rose to superiority in the north. By the middle of the century, the educated, military Prussia that was founded after 1806 had become a power capable of great things in capable hands; and the capable hands received it. In 1861, William I. succeeded his brother as king; in 1862, Otto von Bismarck became his prime minister. It was a remarkable combination of qualities and talents, and remarkable results came from it.

In 1864, Prussia and Austria acted together in taking Schleswig and Holstein, as German states, from Denmark. The next year they quarreled over the administration of the duchies. In 1866, they fought, and Austria was entirely vanquished in a "seven weeks war." The superiority of Prussia, organized by her great military administrator and soldier, Moltke, was overpowering. Her rival was left completely at her mercy. But Bismarck and his king were wisely magnanimous. They refrained from inflicting on the Austrians a humiliation that would rankle and keep enmities alive. They foresaw the need of future friendship between the two powers of central Europe, as against Russia on the one side and France on the other, and they shaped their policy to secure it. It sufficed them to have put Austria out of the German circle, forever; to have ended the false relation in which the Hapsburgs—rulers of an essentially Slavonic and Magyar dominion—had stood towards Germany so long.

Prussia now dominated the surrounding German states so commandingly that the mode and the time of their unification may be said to have been within her own control. Hanover, Hesse-Cassel, Nassau, Schleswig-Holstein, and Frankfort were incorporated in the Prussian kingdom at once. Saxony and the other states of the north were enveloped in a North German Confederation, with the King of Prussia for its hereditary president and commander of its forces. The states of southern Germany were left unfederated for the time being, but bound themselves by treaty to put their armies at the disposal of Prussia. Thus Germany as a whole was already made practically one power, under the control of King William and his great minister.

The same war which unified Germany carried forward the nationalization of Italy another step. Victor Emmanuel had shrewdly entered into an alliance with Prussia before the war began, and attacked Austria in Venetia simultaneously with the German attack on the Bohemian side. The Italians were beaten at Custozza, and their navy was defeated in the Adriatic; but the victorious Prussians exacted Venetia for them in the settlement of peace, and Austria had no more footing in the peninsula.

It is greatly to the credit of Austria, long blinded and stupefied by the narcotic of absolutism, that the lessons of the war of 1866 sank deep into her mind and produced a very genuine enlightenment. The whole policy of the court of Vienna was changed, and with it the constitution of the Empire. The statesmen of Hungary were called into consultation with the statesmen of Austria, and the outcome of their discussions was an agreement which swept away the old Austria, holding Hungary in subjection, and created in its place a new power—a federal Austria-Hungary—equalized in its two principal parts, and united under the same sovereign with distinct constitutions.

The surprising triumph of Prussia in the Seven Weeks War stung Louis Napoleon with a jealousy which he could not conceal. He was incapable of perceiving what it signified,—of perfection in the organization of the Prussian kingdom and of power in its resources. He was under illusions as to the strength of his own Empire. It had been honeycombed by the rascalities that attended and surrounded him, and he did not know it. He imagined France to be capable of putting a check on Prussian aggrandizement; and he began very early after Sadowa to pursue King William with demands which were tolerably certain to end in war. When the war came, in July, 1870, it was by his own declaration; yet Prussia was prepared for it and France was not. In six weeks time from the declaration of war,—in one month from the first action,—Napoleon himself was a prisoner of war in the hands of the Germans, surrendered at Sedan, with the whole army which he personally commanded; the Empire was in collapse, and a provisional government had taken the direction of affairs. On the 20th of September Paris was invested; on the 28th of October Baznine, with an army of 150,000 men, capitulated at Metz. A hopeless attempt to rally the nation to fresh efforts of defence in the interior, on the Loire, was valiantly made under the lead of Gambetta; but it was too late. When the year closed, besieged Paris was at the verge of starvation and all attempts to relieve the city had failed. On the 28th of January, 1871, an armistice was sought and obtained; on the 30th, Paris was surrendered and the Germans entered it. The treaty of peace negotiated subsequently ceded Alsace to Germany, with a fifth of Lorraine, and bound France to pay a war indemnity of five milliards of francs.

In February, 1871, the provisional "Government of National Defense" gave way to a National Assembly, duly elected under the provisions of the armistice, and an executive was instituted at Bordeaux, under the presidency of M. Thiers. Early in March, the German forces were withdrawn from Paris, and control of the city was immediately seized by that dangerous element—Jacobinical, or Red Republican, or Communistic, as it may be variously described—which always shows itself with promptitude and power in the French capital, at disorderly times. The Commune was proclaimed, and the national government was defied. From the 2d of April until the 28th of May Paris was again under siege, this time by forces of the French government, fighting to overcome the revolutionists within. The proceedings of the latter were more wantonly destructive than those of the Terrorists of the Revolution, and scarcely less sanguinary. The Commune was suppressed in the end with great severity.

M. Thiers held the presidency of the Third Republic in France until 1873, when he resigned and was succeeded by Marshal MacMahon. In 1875 the constitution which has since remained, with some amendments, in force, was framed and adopted. In 1878 Marshal MacMahon gave place to M. Jules Grévy, and the latter to M. Sadi Carnot in 1887. Republican government seems to be firmly and permanently established in France at last. The country is in a prosperous state, and nothing but its passionate desire to recover Alsace and to avenge Sedan appears threatening to its future.

While the army of the Germans was still besieging Paris, and King William and Prince Bismarck were at Versailles, in January, 1871, the last act which completed the unification and nationalization of Germany was performed. This was the assumption of the title of Emperor by King William, in response to the prayer of the princes of Germany and of the North German Parliament. On the 16th of the following April, a constitution for the German Empire was proclaimed.

The long and extraordinary reign of the Emperor William I. was ended by his death in 1888. His son, Frederick III., was dying at the time of an incurable disease, and survived his father only three months. The son of Frederick III., William II., signalized the beginning of his reign by dismissing, after a few months, the great minister, Count Bismarck, on whom his strong grandfather had leaned, and who had wrought such marvels of statesmanship and diplomacy for the German race. What may lie at the end of the reign which had this self-sufficient beginning is not to be foretold.

Since the Franco-German War of 1870-1871, the peace of Europe has been broken but once by hostilities within the European boundary. In 1875 a rising against the unendurable misrule of the Turks began in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and was imitated the next year in Bulgaria. Servia and Montenegro declared war against Turkey and were overcome. Russia then espoused the cause of the struggling Slavs, and opened, in 1877, a most formidable new attempt to crush the Ottoman power, and to accomplish her coveted extension to the Mediterranean. From May until the following January the storm of war raged fiercely along the Balkans. The Turks fought stubbornly, but they were beaten back, and nothing but a dangerous opposition of feeling among the other powers in Europe stayed the hand of the Czar from being laid upon Constantinople. The powers required a settlement of the peace between Russia and Turkey to be made by a general Congress, and it was held at Berlin in June, 1878. Bulgaria was divided by the Congress into two states, one tributary to the Turk, but freely governed, the other subject to Turkey, but under a Christian governor. This arrangement was set aside seven years later by a bloodless revolution, which formed one Bulgaria in nominal relations of dependence upon the Porte. This was the third important nationalizing movement within a quarter of a century, and it is likely to go farther in southeastern Europe, until it settles, perhaps, "the Eastern question," so far as the European side of it is concerned.

Bosnia and Herzegovina were given to Austria by the Congress of Berlin; the independence of Roumania, Servia, and Montenegro was made more complete; the island of Cyprus was turned over to Great Britain for administration.

A few words will tell sufficiently the story of Spain since the successor of Joseph Bonaparte quitted the scene. Ferdinand VII. died in 1833, and his infant daughter was proclaimed queen, as Isabella II., with her mother, Christina, regent. Isabella's title was disputed by Don Carlos, the late king's brother, and a civil war between Carlists and Christinos went on for years. When Isabella came of age she proved to be a dissolute woman, with strong proclivities toward arbitrary government. A liberal party, and even a republican party, had been steadily gaining ground in Spain, and the queen placed herself in conflict with it. In 1868 a revolution drove her into France. The revolutionists offered the crown to a prince distantly related to the royal family of Prussia. It was this incident that gave Louis Napoleon a pretext for quarreling with the King of Prussia in 1870 and declaring war. Declined by the Hohenzollern prince, the Spanish crown was then offered to Amadeo, son of the King of Italy, who accepted it, but resigned it again in 1873, after a reign of two years, in disgust with the factions which troubled him. Castelar, the distinguished republican orator, then formed a republican government which held the reins for a few months, but could not establish order in the troubled land. The monarchy was restored in December, 1874, by the coronation of Alfonso XII., son of the exiled Isabella. Since that time Spain has preserved a tolerably peaceful and contented state.

In recent years, the part which Great Britain has taken in Continental affairs has been slight; and, indeed, there has been little in those affairs to bring about important international relations. In domestic politics, a single series of questions, concerning Ireland and the connection of Ireland with the British part of the United Kingdom, has mastered the field, overriding all others and compelling the statesmen of the day to take them in hand. The sudden imperiousness of these questions affords a peculiar manifestation of the political conscience in nations which the nineteenth century has wakened and set astir. Through all the prior centuries of their subjection, the treatment of the Irish people by the English was as cruel and as heedless of justice and right as the treatment of Poles by Russians or of Greeks by Turks. They were trebly oppressed: as conquered subjects of an alien race, as religious enemies, as possible rivals in production and trade. They were deprived of political and civil rights; they were denied the ministrations of their priests; the better employments and more honorable professions were closed to them; the industries which promised prosperity to their country were suppressed. A small minority of Protestant colonists became the recognized nation, so far as a nationality in Ireland was recognized at all. When Ireland was said to have a Parliament, it was the Parliament of the minority alone. No Catholic sat in it; no Catholic was represented in it. When Irishmen were permitted to bear arms, they were Protestant Irishmen only who formed the privileged militia. Seven-tenths of the inhabitants of the island were politically as non-existent as actual serfdom could have made them. For the most part they were peasants and their state as such scarcely above the condition of serfs. They owned no land; their leases were insecure; the laws protected them in the least possible degree; their landlords were mostly of the hostile creed and race. No country in Europe showed conditions better calculated to distress and degrade a people.

This was the state of things in Ireland until nearly the end of the eighteenth century. In 1782 legislative independence was conceded; but the independent legislature was still the Parliament in which Protestants sat alone. In 1793 Catholics were admitted to the franchise; but seats in Parliament were still denied to them and they must elect Protestants to represent them. In 1800 the Act of Union, creating the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, extinguished the Parliament at Dublin and provided for the introduction of Irish peers and members to represent Irish constituencies in the greater Parliament at London; but still no Catholic could take a seat in either House. Not until 1829, after eighteen years of the fierce agitation which Daniel O'Connell stirred up, were Catholic disabilities entirely removed and the people of that faith placed on an equal footing with Protestants in political and civil rights. O'Connell's agitation was not for Catholic emancipation alone, but for the repeal of the Act of Union and the restoration of legislative independence and national distinctness to Ireland. That desire has been hot in the Irish heart from the day the Union was accomplished. After O'Connell's death, there was quiet on the subject for a time. The fearful famine of 1845-7 deadened all political feeling. Then there was a recurrence of the passionate animosity to British rule which had kindled unfortunate rebellions in 1798 and 1803. It produced the Fenian conspiracies, which ran their course from about 1858 to 1867. But soon after that time Irish nationalism resumed a more politic temper, and doubled the energy of its efforts by confining them to peaceful and lawful ways. The Home Rule movement, which began in 1873, was aimed at the organization of a compact and well-guided Irish party in Parliament, to press the demand for legislative independence and to act with united weight on lines of Irish policy carefully laid down. This Home Rule party soon acquired a powerful leader in Mr. Charles Parnell, and was successful in carrying questions of reform in Ireland to the forefront of English politics.

Under the influence of its great leader, Mr. Gladstone, the Liberal party had already, before the Home Rule party came into the field, begun to adopt measures for the redress of Irish wrongs. In 1869, the Irish branch of the Church of England, calling itself the Church of Ireland, was disestablished. The membership of that church was reckoned to be one-tenth of the population; but it had been supported by the taxation of the whole. The Catholics, the Presbyterians and other dissenters were now released from this unjust burden. In 1870, a Land Bill—the first of several, which restrict the power of Irish landlords to oppress their tenants, and which protect the latter, while opening opportunities of land-ownership to them—was passed. The land question became for a time more prominent than the Home Rule question, and the party of Mr. Parnell was practically absorbed in an Irish National Land League, formed to force landlords to a reduction of rents. The methods of coercion adopted brought the League into collision with the Liberal Government, notwithstanding the general sympathy of the latter with Irish complaints. For a time the Irish Nationalists went into alliance with the English Conservatives; but in 1886 Mr. Gladstone became convinced, and convinced the majority of his party, that just and harmonious relations between Ireland and Great Britain could never be established without the concession of Home Rule to the former. A bill which he introduced to that end was defeated in the House of Commons and Mr. Gladstone resigned. In 1892 he was returned to power, and in September of the following year he carried in the House of Commons a bill for the transferring of Irish legislation to a distinct Parliament at Dublin. It was defeated, however, in the House of Lords, and the question now rests in an unsettled state. Mr. Gladstone's retirement from the premiership and from the leadership of his party, which occurred in March, 1894, may affect the prospects of the measure; but the English Liberals are committed to its principle, and it appears to be certain that the Irish question will attain some solution within no very long time.

The beginning of the year 1894, when this is written, finds Europe at peace, as it has been for a number of years. But the peace is not of friendship, nor of honorable confidence, nor of good will. The greater nations are lying on their arms, so to speak, watching one another with strained eyes and with jealous hearts. France, Germany, Italy, Austria, Russia, are marshaling armies in the season of peace that, not many years ago, would have seemed monstrous for war. Exactions of military service and taxation for military expenditure are pressed upon their people to the point of last endurance. The preparation for battle is so vast in its scale, so unceasing, so increasing, so far in the lead over all other efforts among men, that it seems like a new affirmation of belief that war is the natural order of the world.

And yet, the dread of war is greater in the civilized world than ever before. The interests and influences that work for peace are more powerful than at any former time. The wealth which war threatens, the commerce which it interrupts, the industry which it disturbs, the intelligence which it offends, the humanity which it shocks, the Christianity which it grieves, grow stronger to resist it, year by year. The statesman and the diplomatist are under checks of responsibility which a generation no older than Palmerston's never felt. The arbitrator and the tribunal of arbitration have become familiar within a quarter of a century. The spirit of the age opposes war with rising earnestness and increasing force; while the circumstance and fact of the time seem arranged for it as the chief business of mankind. It is a singular and a critical situation; the outcome from it is impenetrably hidden.

Within itself, too, each nation is troubled with hostilities that the world has not known before. Democracy in politics is bringing in, as was inevitable, democracy in the whole social system; and the period of adjustment to it, which we are passing through, could not fail to be a period of trial and of many dangers. The Anarchist, the Nihilist, the Socialist in his many variations—what are they going to do in the time that lies before us?

Europe, at the present stage of its history, is in the thick of many questions; and so we leave it.

EUSKALDUNAC.

EUTYCHIAN HERESY.

EVACUATION DAY.
The anniversary of the evacuation of New York by
the British, Nov. 25, 1783.

The battle which finished the civil war in England known as the Barons' War. It was fought Aug. 3, 1265, and Earl Simon de Montfort, the soul of the popular cause, was slain, with most of his followers. Prince Edward, afterwards Edward I., commanded the royal forces.

EXARCHS OF RAVENNA.

EXARCHS OF THE DIOCESE.

EXCHEQUER. EXCHEQUER ROLLS. EXCHEQUER TALLIES.

"The Exchequer of the Norman kings was the court in which the whole financial business of the country was transacted, and as the whole administration of justice, and even the military organisation, was dependent upon the fiscal officers, the whole framework of society may be said to have passed annually under its review. It derived its name from the chequered cloth which covered the table at which the accounts were taken, a name which suggested to the spectator the idea of a game at chess between the receiver and the payer, the treasurer and the sheriff. … The record of the business was preserved in three great rolls; one kept by the Treasurer, another by the Chancellor, and a third by an officer nominated by the king, who registered the matters of legal and special importance. The rolls of the Treasurer and Chancellor were duplicates; that of the former was called from its shape the great roll of the Pipe, and that of the latter the roll of the Chancery. These documents are mostly still in existence. The Pipe Rolls are complete from the second year of Henry II. and the Chancellor's Rolls nearly so. Of the preceding period only one roll, that of the thirty-first year of Henry I., is preserved, and this with Domesday book is the most valuable store of information which exists for the administrative history of the age. The financial reports were made to the barons by the sheriffs of the counties. At Easter and Michælmas each of these magistrates produced his own accounts and paid in to the Exchequer such an instalment or proffer as he could afford, retaining in hand sufficient money for current expenses. In token of receipt a tally was made; a long piece of wood in which a number of notches were cut, marking the pounds, shillings, and pence received; this stick was then split down the middle, each half contained exactly the same number of notches, and no alteration could of course be made without certain detection. … The fire which destroyed the old Houses of Parliament is said to have originated in the burning of the old Exchequer tallies."

"The wooden 'tallies' on which a large notch represented £1,000, and smaller notches other sums, while a halfpenny was denoted by a small round hole, were actually in use at the Exchequer until the year 1824."

      Sir J. Lubbock,
      Preface to Hall's "Antiquities and
      Curiosities of the Exchequer."

      ALSO IN: E. F. Henderson,
      Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages,
      book 1, number 5.

In the reign of Henry III., of England, "was created the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer, to whom the Exchequer seal was entrusted, and who with the Treasurer took part in the equitable jurisdiction of the Exchequer, although not in the common law jurisdiction of the barons, which extended itself as the legal fictions of pleading brought common pleas into this court."

EXCOMMUNICATIONS AND INTERDICTS.

   "Excommunication, whatever opinions may be entertained as to
   its religious efficacy, was originally nothing more in
   appearance than the exercise of a right which every society
   claims, the expulsion of refractory members from its body. No
   direct temporal disadvantages attended this penalty for
   several ages; but as it was the most severe of spiritual
   censures, and tended to exclude the object of it, not only
   from a participation in religious rites, but in a considerable
   degree from the intercourse of Christian society, it was used
   sparingly and upon the gravest occasions. Gradually, as the
   church became more powerful and more imperious,
   excommunications were issued upon every provocation, rather as
   a weapon of ecclesiastical warfare than with any regard to its
   original intention. … Princes who felt the inadequacy of
   their own laws to secure obedience called in the assistance of
   more formidable sanctions. Several capitularies of Charlemagne
   denounce the penalty of excommunication against incendiaries
   or deserters from the army. Charles the Bald procured similar
   censures against his revolted vassals. Thus the boundary
   between temporal and spiritual offences grew every day less
   distinct; and the clergy were encouraged to fresh
   encroachments, as they discovered the secret of rendering them
   successful. … The support due to church censures by temporal
   judges is vaguely declared in the capitularies of Pepin and
   Charlemagne. It became in later ages a more established
   principle in France and England, and, I presume, in other
   countries. By our common law an excommunicated person is
   incapable of being a witness or of bringing an action; and he
   may be detained in prison until he obtains absolution. By the
   Establishments of St. Louis, his estate or person might be
   attached by the magistrate. These actual penalties were
   attended by marks of abhorrence and ignominy still more
   calculated to make an impression on ordinary minds. They were
   to be shunned, like men infected with leprosy, by their
   servants, their friends, and their families. …
{1105}
   But as excommunication, which attacked only one and perhaps a
   hardened sinner, was not always efficacious, the church had
   recourse to a more comprehensive punishment. For the offence
   of a nobleman she put a county, for that of a prince his
   entire kingdom, under an interdict or suspension of religious
   offices. No stretch of her tyranny was perhaps so outrageous
   as this. During an interdict the churches were closed, the
   bells silent, the dead unburied, no rite but those of baptism
   and extreme unction performed. The penalty fell upon those who
   had neither partaken nor could have prevented the offence; and
   the offence was often but a private dispute, in which the
   pride of a pope or bishop had been wounded. Interdicts were so
   rare before the time of Gregory VII., that some have referred
   them to him as their author; instances may however be found of
   an earlier date."

ALSO IN: M. Gosselin, The Power of the Pope in the Middle Ages, part 2, chapter 1, article 3.

EXECUTIVE SESSIONS.

A board of three persons in ancient Athens "to whom application might be made in all matters relating to sacred law, and also, probably, with regard to the significance of the Diosemia, or celestial phenomena and other signs by which future events were foretold."

"Isca Damnoniorum, Caer Wisc, Exanceaster, Exeter, keeping essentially the same name under all changes, stands distinguished as the one great English city which has, in a more marked way than any other, kept its unbroken being and its unbroken position throughout all ages. The City on the Exe, in all ages and in all tongues keeping its name as the City on the Exe, allows of an easy definition. … It is the one city [of England] in which we can feel sure that human habitation and city life have never ceased from the days of the early Cæsars to our own." At the Norman conquest, Exeter did not submit to William until after a siege of 18 days, in 1068.

FABIAN POLICY.-FABIAN TACTICS.

The policy pursued by Q. Fabius Maximus, the Roman Dictator, called "the Cunctator" or Lingerer, in his campaigns against Hannibal.

"During the 17th and 18th centuries, when the skill of the workmen had greatly improved, and the productiveness of labour had increased, various methods were resorted to for the purpose of prolonging the working day. The noontide nap was first dispensed with, then other intervals of rest were curtailed, and ultimately artificial light was introduced, which had the effect of abolishing the difference between the short days of winter and the long days of summer, thus equalising, the working day throughout the year. The opening of the 19th century was signalised by a new cry, namely, for a reduction in the hours of labour; this was in consequence of the introduction of female and child labour into the factories, and the deterioration of the workers as a result of excessive overwork. … The overwork of the young, and particularly the excessive hours in the factories, became such crying evils that in 1801 the first Act was passed to restrict the hours of labour for apprentices, who were prohibited from working more than 12 hours a day, between six A. M. and nine P. M., and that provision should be made for teaching them to read and write, and other educational exercises. This Act further provided that the mills should be whitewashed at least once a year; and that doors and windows should be made to admit fresh air. This Act was followed by a series of commissions and committees of inquiry, the result being that it was several times amended. The details of the evidence given before the several commissions and committees of inquiry are sickening in the extreme; the medical testimony was unanimous in its verdict that the children were physically ruined by overwork; those who escaped with their lives were so crippled and maimed that they were unable to maintain themselves in after life, and became paupers. It was proven that out of 4,000 who entered the factory before they were 30 years of age, only 600 were to be found in the mills after that age. By Sir Robert Peel's Bill in 1819 it was proposed to limit the hours to 11 per day with one and a half for meals, for those under 16 years of age. But the mill-owners prophesied the ruin of the manufacturers of the country—they could not compete with the foreign markets, it was an interference with the freedom of labour, the spare time given would be spent in debauchery and riot, and that if passed, other trades would require the same provisions. The Bill was defeated, and the hours fixed at 72 per week; the justices, that is to say the manufacturers, were entrusted with the enforcement of the law. In 1825 a new law was passed defining the time when breakfast and dinner was to be taken, and fixing the time to half an hour for the first repast, and a full hour for dinner; the traditional term of apprentices was dropped and the modern classification of children and young persons was substituted, and children were once more prohibited from working more than 12 hours a day. But every means was adopted to evade the law. … After thousands of petitions, and numerous angry debates in Parliament, the Act of 1833 was passed, which limited the working hours of children to 48 hours per week, and provided that each child should have a certain amount of schooling, and with it factory inspectors were appointed to enforce the law. {1106} But the law was not to come into operation until March 1, 1836, during which time it had to be explained and defended in one session, amended in a second, and made binding in a third. After several Royal Commissions and inquiries by select committees, this Act has been eight times amended, until the working hours of children are now limited to six per day, and for young persons and women to 56 per week; these provisions with certain modifications are now extended to workshops, and the whole law is being consolidated and amended. … The whole series of the Factory Acts, dating from 42 George III., c. 73, to the 37 and 38 Victoria 1874, forms a code of legislation, in regard to working people, unexampled in any age and unequalled in any country in the world. … Outside Parliament efforts have been constantly made to further reduce the working hours."

"The continental governments, of course, have been obliged to make regulations covering kindred subjects, but rarely have they kept pace with English legislation. America has enacted progressive laws so far as the condition of factory workers has warranted. It should be remembered that the abuses which crept into the system in England never existed in this country in any such degree as we know they did in the old country. Yet there are few States in America where manufactures predominate or hold an important position in which law has not stepped in and restricted either the hours of labor, or the conditions of labor, and insisted upon the education of factory children, although the laws are usually silent as to children of agricultural laborers. It is is not wholly in the passage of purely factory acts that the factory system has influenced the legislation of the world. England may have suffered temporarily from the effects of some of her factory legislation, and the recent reduction of the hours of labor to nine and one-half per day, less than in any other country, has had the effect of placing her works at a disadvantage; but, in the long run, England will be the gainer on account of all the work she has done in the way of legislative restrictions upon labor. In this she has changed her whole policy. Formerly trade must be restricted and labor allowed to demoralize itself under the specious plea of being free; now, trade must be free and labor restricted in the interests of society, which means in the interest of good morals. The factory system has not only wrought this change, but has compelled the economists to recognize the distinction between commodities and services. There has been greater and greater freedom of contract in respect to commodities, but the contracts which involve labor have become more and more completely under the authority and supervision of the State. 'Seventy-five years ago scarcely a single law existed in any country for regulating the contract for services in the interest of the laboring classes. At the same time the contract for commodities was everywhere subject to minute and incessant regulations' [Hon. F. A. Walker]. Factory legislation in England, as elsewhere, has had for its chief object the regulation of the labor of children and women; but its scope has constantly increased by successive and progressive amendments until they have attempted to secure the physical and moral well-being of the working-man in all trades, and to give him every condition of salubrity and of personal safety in the workshops. The excellent effect of factory legislation has been made manifest throughout the whole of Great Britain. 'Physically, the factory child can bear fair comparison with the child brought up in the fields,' and, intellectually, progress is far greater with the former than with the latter. Public opinion, struck by these results, has demanded the extension of protective measures for children to every kind of industrial labor, until parliament has brought under the influence of these laws the most powerful industries. To carry the factory regulations and those relative to schooling into effect, England has an efficient corps of factory inspectors. The manufacturers of England are unanimous in acknowledging that to the activity, to the sense of impartiality, displayed by these inspectors, is due the fact that an entire application of the law has been possible without individual interests being thereby jeopardized to a very serious extent. … In no other country is there so elaborate a code of factory laws as the 'British factory and workshop act' of 1878 (41 Vict., chapter 16), it being an act consolidating all the factory acts since Sir Robert Peel's act of 1802."

      C. D. Wright,
      Factory Legislation
      (Tenth Census of the United States, volume 2).

      ALSO IN:
      First annual Report of the Factory Inspectors of
      the State of New York, 1886, appendix.

      C. Knight,
      Popular History of England,
      volume 8, chapters 22 and 27.

      H. Martineau,
      History of the Thirty Years' Peace,
      volume 2, pages 512-515.

Fought successfully by the Britons with the West Saxons, on the border of Cheshire, A. D. 583.

FÆSULÆ.

FAGGING.

FAINÉANT KINGS.

FAIRFAX AND THE PARLIAMENTARY ARMY.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1645 (JANUARY-APRIL), and (JUNE); 1647 (APRIL-AUGUST); 1648 (NOVEMBER); 1649 (FEBRUARY).

FALAISE.

"The Castle [in Normandy] where legend fixes the birth of William of Normandy, and where history fixes the famous homage of William of Scotland, is a vast donjon of the eleventh or twelfth century. One of the grandest of those massive square keeps which I have already spoken of as distinguishing the earliest military architecture of Normandy crowns the summit of a precipitous rock, fronted by another mass of rock, wilder still, on which the cannon of England were planted during Henry's siege. To these rocks, these 'felsen,' the spot owes its name of Falaise. … Between these two rugged heights lies a narrow dell. … The den is crowded with mills and tanneries, but the mills and tanneries of Falaise have their share in the historic interest of the place. … In every from which the story has taken in history or legend, the mother of the Conqueror appears as the daughter of a tanner of Falaise."

FAMILIA.

The slaves belonging to a master were collectively called familia among the Romans.

FAMILY COMPACT.

FANARIOTS.

FANEUIL HALL.

"The fame of Faneuil Hall [Boston, Mass.] is as wide as the country itself. It has been called the 'Cradle of Liberty,' because dedicated by that early apostle of freedom, James Otis, to the cause of liberty, in a speech delivered in the hall in March, 1763. … Its walls have echoed to the voices of the great departed in times gone by, and in every great public exigency the people, with one accord, assembled together to take counsel within its hallowed precincts. … The Old Market-house … existing in Dock Square in 1734, was demolished by a mob in 1736-37. There was contention among the people as to whether they would be served at their houses in the old way, or resort to fixed localities, and one set of disputants took this summary method of settling the question. … In 1740, the question of the Market-house being revived, Peter Faneuil proposed to build one at his own cost on the town's land in Dock Square, upon condition that the town should legally authorize it, enact proper regulations, and maintain it for the purpose named. Mr. Faneuil's noble offer was courteously received, but such was the division of opinion on the subject that it was accepted by a majority of only seven votes, out of 727 persons voting. The building was completed in September, 1742, and three days after, at a meeting of citizens, the hall was formally accepted and a vote of thanks passed to the donor. … The town voted that the hall should be called Faneuil Hall forever. … The original size of the building was 40 by 100 feet, just half the present width; the hall would contain 1,000 persons. At the fire of January 13, 1763, the whole interior was destroyed, but the town voted to rebuild in March, and the State authorized a lottery in aid of the design. The first meeting after the rebuilding was held on the 14th March, 1763, when James Otis delivered the dedicatory address. In 1806 the Hull was enlarged in width to 80 feet, and by the addition of a third story."

FARM.

FARMERS' ALLIANCE.

FASCES.

FASTI.

"Dies Fasti were the days upon which the Courts of Justice [in ancient Rome] were open, and legal business could be transacted before the Praetor; the Dies Nefasti were those upon which the Courts were closed. … All days consecrated to the worship of the Gods by sacrifices, feasts or games, were named Festi. … For nearly four centuries and a-half after the foundation of the city the knowledge of the Calendar was confined to the Pontifices alone. … These secrets which might be, and doubtless often were, employed for political ends, were at length divulged in the year B. C. 314, by Cn. Flavius, who drew up tables embracing all this carefully-treasured information, and hung them up in the Forum for the inspection of the public. From this time forward documents of this description were known by the name of Fasti. … These Fasti, in fact, corresponded very closely to a modern Almanac. … The Fasti just described have, to prevent confusion, been called Calendaria, or Fasti Calendares, and must be carefully distinguished from certain compositions also named Fasti by the ancients. These were regular chronicles in which were recorded each year the names of the Consuls and other magistrates, together with the remarkable events, and the days on which they occurred. The most important were the Annales Maximi, kept by the Pontifex Maximus."

FEAST OF LIBERTY.

FECIALES. FETIALES.

FEDELI.

FEDERAL CONSTITUTION OF SWITZERLAND.

FEDERAL CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. FEDERATIONS.

"Two requisites seem necessary to constitute a Federal Government in … its most perfect form. On the one hand, each of the members of the Union must be wholly independent in those matters which concern each member only. On the other hand, all must be subject to a common power in those matters which concern the whole body of members collectively. Thus each member will fix for itself the laws of its criminal jurisprudence, and even the details of its political constitution. And it will do this, not as a matter of privilege or concession from any higher power, but as a matter of absolute right, by virtue of its inherent powers as an independent commonwealth. But in all matters which concern the general body, the sovereignty of the several members will cease. Each member is perfectly independent within its own sphere; but there is another sphere in which its independence, or rather its separate existence, vanishes. It is invested with every right of sovereignty on one class of subjects, but there is another class of subjects on which it is as incapable of separate political action as any province or city of a monarchy or of an indivisible republic. … Four Federal Commonwealths … stand out, in four different ages of the world, as commanding, above all others, the attention of students of political history. Of these four, one belongs to what is usually known as 'ancient,' another to what is commonly called 'mediæval' history; a third arose in the period of transition between mediæval and modern history; the creation of the fourth may have been witnessed by some few of those who are still counted among living men, … These four Commonwealths are, First, the Achaian League [see GREECE: B. C. 280-146] in the later days of Ancient Greece, whose most flourishing period comes within the third century before our era. Second, the Confederation of the Swiss Cantons [see CONSTITUTION OF THE SWISS CONFEDERATION], which, with many changes in its extent and constitution, has lasted from the thirteenth century to our own day. Third, the Seven United Provinces of the Netherlands [see NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1577-1581, and after], whose Union arose in the War of Independence against Spain, and lasted, in a republican form, till the war of the French Revolution. Fourth, the United States of North America [see CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA], which formed a Federal Union after their revolt from the British Crown under George the Third, and whose destiny forms one of the most important, and certainly the most interesting, of the political problems of our own time. Of these four, three come sufficiently near to the full realization of the Federal idea to be entitled to rank among perfect Federal Governments. The Achaian League, and the United States since the adoption of the present Constitution, are indeed the most perfect developments of the Federal principle which the world has ever seen. The Swiss Confederation, in its origin a Union of the loosest kind, has gradually drawn the Federal bond tighter and tighter, till, within our own times, it has assumed a form which fairly entitles it to rank beside Achaia and America. The claim of the United Provinces is more doubtful; their union was at no period of their republican being so close as that of Achaia, America, and modern Switzerland."

"To the classification of federal governments publicists have given great attention with unsatisfactory results. History shows a great variety of forms, ranging from the lowest possible organization, like that of the Amphictyonic Council [see AMPHIKTYONIC COUNCIL] to the highly centralized and powerful German Empire. Many writers deny that any fixed boundaries can be described. The usual classification is, however, into three divisions,—the Staatenstaat, or state founded on states; the Staatenbund, or union of states—to which the term Confederacy nearly corresponds; and the Bundesstaat, or united state, which answers substantially to the term federation as usually employed. The Staatenstaat is defined to be a state in which the units are not individuals, but states, and which, therefore, has no operation directly on individuals, but deals with and legislates for its corporate members; they preserve undisturbed their powers of government over their own subjects. The usual example of a Staatenstaat is the Holy Roman Empire [see ROMAN EMPIRE, THE HOLY]. This conception … is, however, illogical in theory, and never has been carried out in practice. … Historically, also, the distinction is untenable. The Holy Roman Empire had courts, taxes, and even subjects not connected with the states. In theory it had superior claims upon all the individuals within the Empire; in practice it abandoned control over the states. The second category is better established. Jellinek says: "When states form a permanent political alliance, of which common defence is at the very least the purpose, with permanent federal organs, there arises a Staatenbund.' This form of government is distinguished from an alliance by the fact that it has permanent federal organs; from a commercial league by its political purpose; from a Bundesstaat by its limited purpose. In other words, under Staatenbund are included the weaker forms of true federal government, in which there is independence from other powers, and, within the purposes of the union, independence from the constituent states. … The Staatenbund form includes most of the federal governments which have existed. The Greek confederations (except perhaps the Lycian and Achæan) and all the mediæval leagues were of this type: even the strong modern unions of the United States, Germany, and Switzerland, have gone through the Staatenbund stage in their earlier history. Between the Staatenbund and the more highly developed form, the Bundesstaat, no writer has described an accurate boundary. There are certain governments, notably those of Canada, Germany, Switzerland, and the United States, in which is found an elaborate and powerful central organism, including federal courts; to this organism is assigned all or nearly all the common concerns of the nation; within its exclusive control are war, foreign affairs, commerce, colonies, and national finances; and there is an efficient power of enforcement against states. Such governments undoubtedly are Bundesstaaten."

      A. B. Hart,
      Introduction to the Study of Federal Government
      (Harvard Historical Monographs, number 2),
      chapter 1.

"Under the conditions of the Græco-Roman civic life there were but two practicable methods of forming a great state and diminishing the quantity of warfare. The one method was conquest with incorporation, the other method was federation. … Neither method was adopted by the Greeks in their day of greatness. The Spartan method of extending its power was conquest without incorporation: when Sparta conquered another Greek city, she sent a harmost to govern it like a tyrant; in other words she virtually enslaved the subject city. The efforts of Athens tended more in the direction of a peaceful federalism. In the great Delian confederacy [see GREECE: B. C. 478-477, and ATHENS: B. C. 466-454], which developed into the maritime empire of Athens, the Ægean cities were treated as allies rather than subjects. As regards their local affairs they were in no way interfered with, and could they have been represented in some kind of a federal council at Athens, the course of Grecian history might have been wonderfully altered. As it was, they were all deprived of one essential element of sovereignty,—the power of controlling their own military forces. … In the century following the death of Alexander, in the closing age of Hellenic independence, the federal idea appears in a much more advanced stage of elaboration, though in a part of Greece which had been held of little account in the great days of Athens and Sparta. Between the Achaian federation, framed in 274 B. C., and the United States of America, there are some interesting points of resemblance which have been elaborately discussed by Mr. Freeman, in his 'History of Federal Government.' About the same time the Ætolian League [see ÆTOLIAN LEAGUE] came into prominence in the north. Both these leagues were instances of true federal government, and were not mere confederations; that is, the central government acted directly upon all the citizens and not merely upon the local governments. Each of these leagues had for its chief executive officer a General elected for one year, with powers similar to those of an American President. In each the supreme assembly was a primary assembly at which every citizen from every city of the league had a right to be present, to speak, and to vote; but as a natural consequence these assemblies shrank into comparatively aristocratic bodies. In Ætolia, which was a group of mountain cantons similar to Switzerland, the federal union was more complete than in Achaia, which was a group of cities. … In so far as Greece contributed anything towards the formation of great and pacific political aggregates, she did it through attempts at federation. But in so low a state of political development as that which prevailed throughout the Mediterranean world in pre-Christian times, the more barbarous method of conquest with incorporation was more likely to be successful on a great scale. This was well illustrated in the history of Rome,—a civic community of the same generic type with Sparta and Athens, but presenting specific differences of the highest importance. … Rome early succeeded in freeing itself from that insuperable prejudice which elsewhere prevented the ancient city from admitting aliens to a share in its franchise. And in this victory over primeval political ideas lay the whole secret of Rome's mighty career."

"It is hardly too much to say that the Lombard League led naturally to the leagues of German cities. The exhausting efforts of the Hohenstaufen Emperors to secure dominion in Italy compelled them to grant privileges to the cities in Germany; the weaker emperors, who followed, bought support with new charters and privileges. The inability of the Empire to keep the peace or to protect commerce led speedily to the formation of great unions of cities, usually commercial in origin, but very soon becoming political forces of prime importance. The first of these was the Rhenish League, formed in 1254. The more important cities of the Rhine valley, from Basle to Cologne, were the original members; but it eventually had seventy members, including several princes and ruling prelates. The league had Colloquia, or assemblies, at stated intervals; but, beyond deciding upon a general policy, and the assignment of military quotas, it had no legislative powers. There was, however, a Kommission, or federal court, which acted as arbiter in disputes between the members. The chief political service of the league was to maintain peace during the interregnum in the Empire (1256-1273). During the fourteenth century it fell apart, and many of its members joined the Hansa or Suabian League. … In 1377 seventeen Suabian cities, which had been mortgaged by the Emperor, united to defend their liberties. They received many accessions of German and Swiss cities; but in 1388 they were overthrown by Leopold III. of Austria, and all combinations of cities were forbidden. A federal government they cannot be said to have possessed; but political, almost federal relations continued during the fifteenth century. The similar leagues of Frankfort and Wetterau were broken up about the same time. Other leagues of cities and cantons were in a like manner formed and dissolved,—among them the leagues of Hauenstein and Burgundy; and there was a confederation in Franche Comté, afterward French territory. All the mediæval leagues thus far mentioned were defensive, and had no extended relations beyond their own borders. The great Hanseatic League [see HANSA TOWNS], organized as a commercial union, developed into a political and international power, which negotiated and made war on its own account with foreign and German sovereigns; and which was for two centuries one of the leading powers of Europe."

      A. B. Hart,
      Introduction to the Study of Federal Government
      (Harvard Historical Monographs, number 2),
      chapter 3.

   When Frederick Barbarossa entered Italy for the fifth time in
   1163, to enforce the despotic sovereignty over that country
   which the German kings, as emperors, were then claiming (see
   ITALY: A. D. 961-1039), a league of the Lombard cities was
   formed to resist him. "Verona, Vicenza, Padua, and Treviso,
   the most powerful towns of the Veronese marches, assembled
   their consuls in congress, to consider of the means of putting
   an end to a tyranny which overwhelmed them. The consuls of
   these four towns pledged themselves by oath in the name of
   their cities to give mutual support to each other in the
   assertion of their former rights, and in the resolution to
   reduce the imperial prerogatives to the point at which they
   were fixed under the reign of Henry IV. Frederick, informed of
   this association; returned hastily into Northern Italy, to put it
   down … but he soon perceived that the spirit of liberty had
   made progress in the Ghibeline cities as well as in those of
   the Guelphs. …
{1110}
   Obliged to bend before a people which he considered only as
   revolted subjects, he soon renounced a contest so humiliating,
   and returned to Germany, to levy an army more submissive to
   him. Other and more pressing interests diverted his attention
   from this object till the autumn of 1166. … When Frederick,
   in the month of October, 1166, descended the mountains of the
   Grisons to enter Italy by the territory of Brescia, he marched
   his army directly to Lodi, without permitting any act of
   hostility on the way. At Lodi, he assembled, towards the end
   of November, a diet of the kingdom of Italy, at which he
   promised the Lombards to redress the grievances occasioned by
   the abuses of power by his podestas, and to respect their just
   liberties; … to give greater weight to his negotiation, he
   marched his army into Central Italy. … The towns of the
   Veronese marches, seeing the emperor and his army pass without
   daring to attack them, became bolder: they assembled a new
   diet, in the beginning of April, at the convent of Pontida,
   between Milan and Bergamo. The consuls of Cremona, of Bergamo,
   of Brescia, of Mantua and Ferrara met there, and joined those
   of the marches. The union of the Guelphs and Ghibelines, for
   the common liberty, was hailed with universal joy. The
   deputies of the Cremonese, who had lent their aid to the
   destruction of Milan, seconded those of the Milanese villages
   in imploring aid of the confederated towns to rebuild the city
   of Milan. This confederation was called the League of Lombardy.
   The consuls took the oath, and their constituents afterwards
   repeated it, that every Lombard should unite for the recovery
   of the common liberty; that the league for this purpose should
   last twenty years; and, finally, that they should aid each
   other in repairing in common any damage experienced in this
   sacred cause, by any one member of the confederation:
   extending even to the past this contract for reciprocal
   security, the league resolved to rebuild Milan. … Lodi was
   soon afterwards compelled, by force of arms, to take the oath
   to the league; while the towns of Venice, Placentia, Parma,
   Modena, and Bologna voluntarily and gladly joined the
   association."

"Milan and Bologna took the lead, and were followed by Piacenza, Verona, Brescia, Faenza, Mantua, Vercelli, Lodi, Bergamo, Turin, Alessandria, Vicenza, Padua, and Treviso. … Nothing could be more unlike, than the First and the Second Lombard Leagues, that of 1167, formed against Frederick the First after the most cruel provocation, was sanctioned by the Pope, and had for its end the deliverance of Lombardy. That of 1226, formed against Frederick the Second, after no provocation received, was discountenanced by the Pope, and resulted in the frustration of the Crusade and in sowing the germ of endless civil wars. This year is fixed upon by the Brescian Chronicler as the beginning of 'those plaguy factions of Guelf and Ghibelline, which were so engrained into the minds of our forefathers, that they have handed them down as an heir-loom to their posterity, never to come to an end.'"

"A remarkable phenomenon of the last hundred years is the impetus that has been given to the development of Federal institutions. There are to-day contemporaneously existing no less than eight distinct Federal Governments. First and foremost is the United States of America, where we have an example of the Federal Union in the most perfect form yet attained. Then comes Switzerland, of less importance than the United States of America, but most nearly approaching it in perfection. Again we have the German Empire [see CONSTITUTION OF GERMANY], that great factor in European politics, which is truly a Federal Union, but a cumbrous one and full of anomalies. Next in importance comes the Dominion of Canada [see CONSTITUTION OF CANADA], which is the only example of a country forming a Federal Union and at the same time a colony. Lastly come the Argentine Republic, Mexico, and the States of Colombia and Venezuela [see CONSTITUTIONS]. This is a very remarkable list when we consider that never before the present century did more than two Federal Unions ever coexist, and that very rarely, and that even those unions were far from satisfying the true requirements of Federation. Nor is this all. Throughout the last hundred years we can mark a growing tendency in countries that have adopted the Federal type of Government to perfect that Federal type and make it more truly Federal than before. In the United States of America, for instance, the Constitution of 1789 was more truly Federal than the Articles of Confederation, and certainly since the Civil War we hear less of State Rights, and more of Union. It has indeed been remarked that the citizens of the United States have become fond of applying the words 'Nation' and 'National' to themselves in a manner formerly unknown. We can mark the same progress in Switzerland. Before 1789, Switzerland formed a very loose system of Confederated States—in 1815, a constitution more truly Federal was devised; in 1848, the Federal Union was more firmly consolidated; and lastly, in 1874, such changes were made in the Constitution that Switzerland now presents a very fairly perfect example of Federal Government. In Germany we may trace a similar movement. In 1815, the Germanic Confederation was formed; but it was only a system of Confederated States, or what the Germans call Staatenbund; but after various changes, amongst others the exclusion of Austria in 1866, it became, in 1871, a composite State or, in German language, a Bundestaat. Beyond this, we have to note a further tendency to Federation. In the year 1886, a Bill passed the Imperial Parliament to permit of the formation of an Australasian Council for the purposes of forming the Australasian Colonies into a Federation. Then we hear of further aspirations for applying the Federal system, as though there were some peculiar virtue or talismanic effect about it which rendered it a panacea for all political troubles. There has, also, been much talk about Imperial Federation. Lastly, some people think they see a simple solution of the Irish Question in the application of Federation, particularly the Canadian form of it, to Ireland."

"The federal is one of the oldest forms of government known, and its adaptability to the largest as well as to the smallest states is shown in all political formations of late years. States in the New and in the Old World, all in their aggregation, alike show ever a stronger tendency to adopt it. Already all the central states of Europe are federal—Switzerland, Germany, Austria [see AUSTRIA: A. D. 1866-1867, and 1866-1887]; and if ever the various Sclav principalities in south-eastern Europe—the Serb, the Albanian, the Rouman, the Bulgar, and the Czech—are to combine, it will probably be (as Mr. Freeman so long ago as 1862 remarked) under a federal form,—though whether under Russian or Austrian auspices, or neither, remains to be seen. … In the German lands from early ages there has existed an aggregation of tribes and states, some of them even of non-German race, each of which preserved for domestic purposes its own arrangements and laws, but was united with the rest under one supreme head and central authority as regards its relation to all external powers. Since 1871 all the states of Germany 'form an eternal union for the protection of the realm and the care of the welfare of the German people.' For legislative purposes, under the Emperor as head, are the two Houses of Assembly; first, the Upper House of the Federated States, consisting of 62 members, who represent the individual States, and thus as the guardian of State rights, answers very closely to the Senate of the American Union, except that the number of members coming from each state is not uniform, but apportioned. … Each German state has its own local constitution and home rule for its internal affairs. Generally there are two chambers, except in some of the smallest states, the population of which does not much exceed in some cases that of our larger towns. … Since 1867 the Austro-Hungarian monarchy has been a political Siamese twin, of which Austria is the one body, and Hungary the other; the population of the Austrian half is 24 millions, and that of Hungary about 16 millions. Each of the two has its own parliament; the connecting link is the sovereign (whose civil list is raised half by one and half by the other) and a common army, navy, and diplomatic service, and another Over-parliament of 120 members, one-half chosen by the legislature of Hungary, and the other half by the legislature of Austria (the Upper House of each twin returns twenty, and the Lower of each forty delegates from their own number, who thus form a kind of Joint Committee of the Four Houses). The jurisdiction of this Over-parliament is limited to foreign affairs and war. … The western or Austrian part of the twin … is a federal government in itself. … Federated Austria consists of seventeen distinct states. The German element constitutes 36 per cent. of the inhabitants of these, and the Sclav 57 per cent. There are a few Magyars, Italians, and Roumanians. Each of these seventeen states has its own provincial parliament of one House, partly composed of ex-officio members (the bishops and archbishops of the Latin and Greek Churches, and the chancellors of the universities), but chiefly of representatives chosen by all the inhabitants who pay direct taxation. Some of these are elected by the landowners, others by the towns, others by the trade-guilds and boards of commerce; the representatives of the rural communes, however, are elected by delegates, as in Prussia. They legislate concerning all local matters, county taxation, land laws and farming, education, public worship, and public works. … Turning next to the oldest federation in Europe, that of Switzerland, which with various changes has survived from 1308, though its present constitution dates only from 1874, we find it now embraces three nationalities—German, French, Italian. The original nucleus of the State, however, was German, and even now three-fourths of the population are German. The twenty-two distinct states are federated under one president elected annually, and the Federal Assembly of two chambers. … Each of the cantons is sovereign and independent, and has its own local parliament, scarcely any two being the same, but all based on universal suffrage. Each canton has its own budget of revenue and expenditure, and its own public debt."

      J. N. Dalton,
      The Federal States of the World
      (Nineteenth Century, July, 1884).

"A convention of thirty-three representative men was held in the autumn of 1864 in the historic city of Quebec, and after a deliberation of several weeks the result was the unanimous adoption of a set of seventy-two resolutions embodying the terms and conditions on which the provinces through their delegates agreed to a federal union in many respects similar in its general features to that of the United States federation, and in accordance with the principles of the English constitution. These resolutions had to be laid before the various legislatures and adopted in the shape of addresses to the queen whose sanction was necessary to embody the wishes of the provinces in an imperial statute. … In the early part of 1867 the imperial parliament, without a division, passed the statute known as the 'British North America Act, 1867,' which united in the first instance the province of Canada, now divided into Ontario and Quebec, with Nova Scotia and New Brunswick and made provisions for the coming in of the other provinces of Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland, British Columbia, and the admission of Rupert's Land and the great North-west. Between 1867 and 1873 the provinces just named, with the exception of Newfoundland, which has persistently remained out of the federation, became parts of the Dominion and the vast Northwest Territory was at last acquired on terms eminently satisfactory to Canada and a new province of great promise formed out of that immense region, with a complete system of parliamentary government. … When the terms of the Union came to be arranged between the provinces in 1864, their conflicting interest had to be carefully considered and a system adopted which would always enable the Dominion to expand its limits and bring in new sections until it should embrace the northern half of the continent, which, as we have just shown, now constitutes the Dominion. It was soon found, after due deliberation, that the most feasible plan was a confederation resting on those principles which experience of the working of the federation of the United States showed was likely to give guarantees of elasticity and permanency. The maritime provinces had been in the enjoyment of an excellent system of laws and representative institutions for many years, and were not willing to yield their local autonomy in its entirety. The people of the province of Quebec, after experience of a union that lasted from 1841 to 1867, saw decidedly great advantages to themselves and their institutions in having a provincial government under their own control. The people of Ontario recognized equal advantages in having a measure of local government, apart from French Canadian influences and interference. The consequence was the adoption of the federal system, which now, after twenty-six years' experience, we can truly say appears on the whole well devised and equal to the local and national requirements of the people."

J. G. Bourinot, Federal Government in Canada (Johns Hopkins University Studies, 7th Series, numbers 10-13), lectures 1-2.

"The great change which has taken place in the public mind in recent years upon the importance to the Empire of maintaining the colonial connection found expression at a meeting held at the Westminster Palace Hotel in July 1884, under the guidance of the Right Hon. W. E. Forster, who occupied the chair. At that meeting—which was attended by a large number of members of Parliament of both parties, and representatives of the colonies—it was moved by the Right Hon. W. H. Smith: 'That, in order to secure the permanent unity of the Empire, some form of federation is essential.' That resolution was seconded by the Earl of Rosebery, and passed unanimously. In November of the same year the Imperial Federation League was formed to carry out the objects of that resolution; and the subject has received considerable attention since. … I believe all are agreed that the leading objects of the Imperial Federation League are to find means by which the colonies, the outlying portions of the Empire, may have a certain voice and weight and influence in reference to the foreign policy of this country, in which they are all deeply interested, and sometimes more deeply interested than the United Kingdom itself. In the next place, that measures may be taken by which all the power and weight and influence that these great British communities in Australasia, in South Africa, and in Canada possess shall be brought into operation for the strengthening and defence of the Empire. The discussion of these questions has led to a great deal of progress. We have got rid of a number of fallacies that obtained in the minds of a good many persons in relation to the means by which those objects are to be attained. Most people have come to the conclusion stated by Lord Rosebery at the Mansion House, that a Parliamentary Federation, if practicable, is so remote, that during the coming century it is not likely to make any very great advance. We have also got rid of the fallacy that it was practicable to have a common tariff throughout the Empire. It is not, in my opinion, consistent with the constitution either of England or of the autonomous colonies. The tariff of a country must rest of necessity mainly with the Government of the day, and involves such continual change and alteration as to make uniformity impracticable. … I regard the time as near at hand when the great provinces of Australasia will be confederated under one Government. … When that has been done it will be followed, I doubt not, at a very early day, by a similar course on the part of South Africa, and then we shall stand in the position of having three great dominions, commonwealths, or realms, or whatever name is found most desirable on the part of the people who adopt them—three great British communities, each under one central and strong Government. When that is accomplished, the measure which the Marquis of Lorne has suggested, of having the representatives of these colonies during the term of their office here in London, practically Cabinet Ministers, will give to the Government of England an opportunity of learning in the most direct and complete manner the views and sentiments of each of those great British communities in regard to all questions of foreign policy affecting the colonies. I would suggest that the representatives of those three great British communities here in London should be leading members of the Cabinet of the day of the country they represent, going out of office when their Government is changed. In that way they would always represent the country, and necessarily the views of the party in power in Canada, in Australasia, and in South Africa. That would involve no constitutional change; it would simply require that whoever represented those dominions in London should have a seat in their own Parliament, and be a member of the Administration."

"Recent expensive wars at the Cape, annexations of groups of islands in the neighbourhood of Australia, the Fishery and other questions that have arisen, and may arise, on the North American continent, have all compelled us to take a review of our responsibilities in connection with our Colonies and to consider how far, in the event of trouble, we may rely upon their assistance to adequately support the commercial interests of our scattered Empire. It is remarkable that, although the matters here indicated are slowly coming to the surface, and have provoked discussion, they have not been forced upon the public attention suddenly, or by any violent injury or catastrophe. The review men are taking of our position, and the debates as to how best we can make our relationships of standing value, have been the natural outcome of slowly developing causes and effects. Politicians belonging to both of the great parties in the State have joined the Federation League. The leaders have expressly declared that they do not desire at the present moment to propound any definite theories, or to push any premature scheme for closer union of the Empire. The society has been formed for the purpose of discussing any plans proposed for such objects. The suggestions actually made have varied in importance from comprehensive projects of universal commercial union and common contributions for a world-wide military and naval organization, to such a trivial proposal as the personal recognition of distinguished colonists by a nomination to the peerage."

"Many schemes of federation have been propounded, and many degrees of federal union are possible. Lord Rosebery has not gone further, as yet, than the enunciation of a general principle. 'The federation we aim at (he has said) is the closest possible union of the various self-governing States ruled by the British Crown, consistently with that free development which is the birthright of British subjects all over the world—the closest union in sympathy, in external action, and in defence.' … The representation of the Colonies in the Privy Council has been viewed with favour, both by statesmen and by theoretical writers. Earl Grey has proposed the appointment of a Federal Committee, selected from the Privy Council, to advise with the Secretary of State for the Colonies. The idea thus shadowed forth has been worked out with greater amplitude of detail by Mr. Creswell, in an essay to which the prize offered by the London Chamber of Commerce was awarded. 'The Imperial assembly which we want,' says Mr. Creswell, 'must be an independent body, constitutional in its origin, representative in its character, and supreme in its decisions. Such a body we have already in existence in the Privy Council. Its members are chosen, irrespective of party considerations, from among the most eminent of those who have done service to the State. To this body colonists of distinguished public service could be elected. In constituting the Imperial Committee of the Privy Council, representation might be given to every part of the empire, in proportion to the several contributions to expenditure for Imperial defence.' The constitution of a great Council of the Empire, with similar functions in relation to foreign affairs to those which are exercised in the United States by a Committee of the Senate, is a step for which public opinion is not yet prepared. In the meanwhile the utmost consideration is being paid at the Foreign Office to Colonial feelings and interests. No commitments or engagements are taken which would not be approved by Colonial opinion. Another proposal which has been warmly advocated, especially by the Protectionists, is that for a customs-union between the Mother-country and the Colonies. It cannot be said that at the present time proposals for a customs-union are ripe for settlement, or even for discussion, at a conference of representatives from all parts of the empire. The Mother-country has been committed for more than a generation to the principle of Free-trade. By our policy of free imports of food and raw materials we have so cheapened production that we are able to compete successfully with all comers in the neutral markets of the world. … It would be impossible to entertain the idea of a reversal of our fiscal policy, in however restricted a sense, without careful and exhaustive inquiry. … Lord Rosebery has recently declared that in his opinion it is impracticable to devise a scheme of representation for the Colonies in the House of Commons and House of Lords, or in the Privy Council. The scheme of an Imperial customs-union, ably put forward by Mr. Hoffmeyer at the last Colonial Conference, he equally rejects. Lord Rosebery would limit the direct action of the Imperial Government for the present to conferences, summoned at frequent intervals. Our first conference was summoned by the Government at the instance of the Imperial Federation League. It was attended by men of the highest distinction in the Colonies. Its deliberations were guided by Lord Knutsford with admirable tact and judgment; it considered many important questions of common interest to the different countries of the empire; it arrived at several important decisions, and it cleared the air of not a few doubts and delusions. The most tangible, the most important, and the most satisfactory result of that conference was the recognition by the Australian colonies of the necessity for making provision for the naval defence of their own waters by means of ships, provided by the Government of the United Kingdom, but maintained by the Australian Governments. Lord Rosebery holds that the question of Imperial Federation depends for the present on frequent conferences. In his speech at the Mansion House he laid down the conditions essential to the success of conferences in the future. They must be held periodically and at stated intervals. The Colonies must send the best men to represent them. The Government of the Mother-country must invest these periodical congresses with all the authority and splendour which it is in their power to give. The task to be accomplished will not be the production of statutes, but the production of recommendations. Those who think that a congress that only meets to report and recommend has but a neutral task before it, have a very inadequate idea of the influence which would be exercised by a conference representing a quarter of the human race, and the immeasurable opulence and power that have been garnered up by the past centuries of our history. If we have these conferences, if they are allowed to discuss, as they must be allowed to discuss, all topics which any parties to these conferences should recommend to be discussed, Lord Rosebery cannot apprehend that they would be wanting in authority or in weight. Lord Salisbury, in his speeches recently delivered in reply to the Earl of Dunraven in the House of Lords, and in reply to the deputation of the Imperial Federation League at the Foreign Office, has properly insisted on the chief practical obstacle to a policy of frequent conferences. Attendance at conferences involves grave inconvenience to Colonial statesmen. … In appealing to the Imperial Federation League for some practical suggestions as to the means by which the several parts of the British Empire may be more closely knit together, Lord Salisbury threw out some pregnant hints. To make a united empire both a Zollverein and a Kriegsverein must be formed. In the existing state of feeling in the Mother-country a Zollverein would be a serious difficulty. The reasons have been already stated. A Kriegsverein was, perhaps, more practicable, and certainly more, urgent. The space which separates the Colonies from possible enemies was becoming every year less and less a protection. We may take concerted action for defence without the necessity for constitutional changes which it would be difficult to carry out."

Lord Brassey, Imperial Federation: An English View (Nineteenth Century, September., 1891).

"The late Mr. Forster launched under the high-sounding title of the 'Imperial Federation League,' a scheme by which its authors proposed to solve all the problems attending the administration of our colonial empire. From first to last the authors of this scheme have never condescended on particulars. 'Imperial federation,' we were always told, was the only specific against the disintegration of the Empire, but as to what this specific really was, no information was vouchsafed. … It is very natural that the citizens of a vast but fragmentary empire, whose territorial atoms (instead of forming, like those of the United States, a 'ring-fence' domain) are scattered over the surface of the globe, should cast about for some artificial links to bind together the colonies we have planted, and 'the thousand tribes nourished on strange religions and lawless slaveries' which we have gathered under our rule. {1114} This anxiety has been naturally augmented by a chronic agitation for the abandonment of all colonies as expensive and useless. For though there may be little to boast of in the fact that Great Britain has in the course of less than three centuries contrived by war, diplomacy, and adventure, to annex about a fifth of the globe, it can hardly be expected that she should relinquish without an effort even the nominal sway she still holds over her colonial empire. Hence it comes to pass that any scheme which seems to supply the needed links is caught up by those who, possessing slight acquaintance with the past history or the present aspirations of our colonists, are simply looking out for some new contrivance by which they may hope that an enduring bond of union may be provided. 'Imperial federation' is the last new 'notion' which has cropped up in pursuance of this object. … Some clue … to its objects and aims may be gained by a reference to the earliest exposition by Mr. Forster of his motives contained in his answer five years ago to the question, 'Why was the League formed at all?' 'For this reason,' says Mr. Forster, 'because in giving self-government to our colonies we have introduced a principle which must eventually shake off from Great Britain, Greater Britain, and divide it into separate states, which must, in short, dissolve the union unless counteracting measures be taken to preserve it.' Believing, as we do, that it has only been by conceding to our larger groups of colonies absolute powers of self-government that we have retained them at all, and that the secret of our protracted empire lies in the fact of this abandonment of central arbitrary power, the retention of which has caused the collapse of all the European empires which preceded us in the path of colonisation, we are bound to enter our emphatic protest against an assumption so utterly erroneous as that propounded by Mr. Forster. So far from believing that the permanent union of the British Empire is to be secured by 'measures which may counteract the workings of colonial self-government,' we are convinced that the only safety for our Empire lies in the unfettered action of that self-government which we have ourselves granted to our colonies. It would almost seem that for Lord Rosebery and his fellow workers the history of the colonial empires of Portugal, Spain, Holland, and France had been written in vain. For if we ask why these colonial empires have dwindled and decayed, the answer is simply because that self-government which is the life of British colonies was never granted to their dependencies. There was a time when one hundred and fifty sovereign princes paid tribute to the treasury of Lisbon. For two hundred years, more than half the South American continent was an appanage of Spain. Ceylon, the Cape, Guiana, and a vast cluster of trade factories in the East were at the close of the seventeenth century colonies of Holland; while half North America, comprising the vast and fertile valleys of the St. Lawrence, the Mississippi, and the Ohio, obeyed, a little more than a century ago, the sceptre of France. Neither Portugal, nor Spain, nor Holland, nor France, has lacked able rulers or statesmen, but the colonial empire of all these states has crumbled and decayed. The exceptional position of Great Britain in this respect can only be ascribed to the relinquishment of all the advantages, political and commercial, ordinarily presumed to result to dominant states from the possession of dependencies. … The romantic dreams of the Imperial Federation League were in fact dissipated beforehand by the irrevocable grant of independent legislatures to all our most important colonies, and Lord Rosebery may rest assured that, charm he never so wisely, they will not listen to his blandishments at the cost of one iota of the political privileges already conferred on them."

"'Britannic Confederation' is defined to be an union of 'the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, British North America, 'British South Africa, and Australasia.' The West Indies and one or two other British Dependencies seem here to be shut out; but, at any rate, with this definition we at least know where we are. The terms of the union we are not told; but, as the word 'confederation' is used, I conceive that they are meant to be strictly federal. That is to say, first of all, the Parliament of the United Kingdom will give up its right to legislate for British North America, British South Africa, and Australasia. Then the United Kingdom, British North America, British South Africa and Australasia will enter into a federal relation with one another. They may enter either as single members (States or Cantons) 'or as groups of members. That is, Great Britain and Ireland might enter as a single State of the Confederation, or England, Scotland, Ireland, Wales—or possibly smaller divisions again—might enter as separate States. Or Great Britain, Australia, Canada, &c., might enter as themselves Leagues, members of a greater League, as in the old state of things in Graubünden. I am not arguing for or against any of these arrangements. I am only stating them as possible. But whatever the units are to be—Great Britain and Australia, England and Victoria, or anything larger or smaller—if the confederation is to be a real one, each State must keep some powers to itself, and must yield some powers to a central body. That Central body, in which all the States must be represented in some way or other, will naturally deal with all international matters, all matters that concern the Britannic Confederation as a whole. The legislatures of Great Britain and Australia, England and Victoria, or whatever the units fixed on may be, will deal only with the internal affairs of those several cantons. Now such a scheme as this is theoretically possible. That is, it involves no contradiction in terms, as the talk about Imperial Federation does. It is purely federal; there is nothing 'imperial' about it. It is simply applying to certain political communities a process which has been actually gone through by certain other political communities. It is proposing to reconstruct a certain political constitution after the model of certain other political constitutions which are in actual working. It is therefore something better than mere talk and theory. But, because it is theoretically possible, it does not follow that it is practically possible, that is, that it is possible in this particular case. … Of the federations existing at this time the two chief are Switzerland and the United States of America. They differ in this point, that one is very large and the other very small; they agree in this, that the territory of both is continuous. But the proposed Britannic Confederation will be scattered, scattered over every part of the world. {1115} I know of no example in any age of a scattered confederation, a scattered Bundesstaat. The Hanse Towns were not a Bundesstaat; they were hardly a Staatenbund. Of the probable working of such a body as that which is now proposed the experience of history can teach us nothing; we can only guess what may be likely. The Britannic Confederation will have its federal congress sitting somewhere, perhaps at Westminster, perhaps at Melbourne, perhaps at some Washington called specially into being at some point more central than either. … For a while their representatives will think it grand to sit at Westminster; presently, as the spirit of equality grows, they are not unlikely to ask for some more central place; they may even refuse to stir out of their own territory. That is to say, they will find that the sentiment of national unity, which they undoubtedly have in no small measure, needs some physical and some political basis to stand on. It is hard to believe that States which are united only by a sentiment, which have so much, both political and physical, to keep them asunder, will be kept together for ever by a sentiment only. And we must further remember that that sentiment is a sentiment for the mother-country, and not for one another. … Canada and Australia care a great deal for Great Britain; we may doubt whether, apart from Great Britain, Canada and Australia care very much for one another. There may be American States which care yet less for one another; but in their case mere continuity produces a crowd of interests and relations common to all. We may doubt whether the confederation of States so distant as the existing colonies of Great Britain, whether the bringing them into closer relations with one another as well as with Great Britain, will at all tend to the advance of a common national unity among them. We may doubt whether it will not be likely to bring out some hidden tendencies to disunion among them. … In the scattered confederation all questions and parties are likely to be local. It is hard to see what will be the materials for the formation of great national parties among such scattered elements."

E. A. Freeman, The Physical and Political Bases of National Unity (Britannic Confederation, edited by A. S. White).

"I have the greatest respect for the aspirations of the Imperial Federationists, and myself most earnestly desire the moral unity of our race and its partnership in achievement and grandeur. But an attempt at formal Federation, such as is now proposed, would in the first place exclude the people of the United States, who form the largest portion of the English-speaking race, and in the second place it would split us all to pieces. It would, I am persuaded, call into play centrifugal forces against which the centripetal forces could not contend for an hour. What interests of the class with which a Federal Parliament would deal have Australia and Canada in common? What enemy has either of them whom the other would be inclined to fight? Australia, it seems, looks forward to a struggle with the Chinese for ascendency in that quarter of the globe. Canada cares no more about a struggle between the Australians and the Chinese at the other extremity of the globe than the Australians would care about a dispute between Canada and her neighbours in the United States respecting Canadian boundaries or the Fisheries Question. The circumstances of the two groups of colonies, to which their policy must conform, are totally different. Australia lies in an ocean by herself: Canada is territorially interlocked and commercially bound up, as well as socially almost fused, with the great mass of English-speaking population which occupies the larger portion of her continent. Australia again is entirely British. Canada has in her midst a great block of French population, constituting a distinct nationality, which instead of being absorbed is daily growing in intensity; and she would practically be unable to take part in any enterprise or support any policy, especially any policy entailing an increase of taxation, to which the French Canadians were opposed. Of getting Canada to contribute out of her own resources to wars or to the maintenance of armaments, for the objects of British diplomacy in Europe or in the East, no one who knows the Canadians can imagine that there would be the slightest hope. The very suggestion, at the time of the Soudan Expedition, called forth emphatic protests on all sides. The only results of an experiment in formal Federation, I repeat, would be repudiation of Federal demands, estrangement and dissolution."

      Goldwin Smith,
      Straining the Silken Thread
      (Macmillan's Magazine. August, 1888).

"While it is obvious that Imperial Federation of the British Empire would cover many of the defects in our relationship with the colonies, it is equally apparent that it is open to the fatal objection of merely making us a more formidable factor in the field of international anarchy. Suppose the colonies undertook to share equitably the great cost of imperial defence in the present state of things throughout Europe—and that is a very large assumption—England would be entirely dependent, in case of war, for the supply of food on the fleet, any accident to which would place us at the enemy's mercy. Even without actual hostilities, however, our additional strength would cause another increase of foreign armaments to meet the case of war with us. This process has taken place invariably on the increase of armaments of any European state, and may be taken to be as certain as that the sun will rise to-morrow. But all the benefits accruing from Imperial Federation may be secured by European Federation, plus a reduction of military liability, which Imperial Federation would not only not reduce, but increase. There is nothing to prevent the self-governing colonies from joining in a European Federation, and thus enlarging the basis of that institution enormously, and cutting off in a corresponding degree the chance of an outbreak of violence in another direction, which could not fail to have serious consequences to the colonies at any rate."

C. D. Farquharson, Federation, the Polity of the Future (Westminster Review, December, 1891), pages 602-603.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1789-1792;
also 1812; and 1814 (DECEMBER): THE HARTFORD CONVENTION.

FEDS. CONFEDS.

FEE.

FEHDERECHT.

See BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1640-1688; and SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1644-1697.

FEIS OF TARA.

FELICIAN HERESY.

An Irish poem of the ninth century called the Duan Eireannach, or Poem of Ireland, preserves a mythical story of the origin of the Irish people, according to which they sprang from one Fenius Farsaidh who came out of Scythia. Nel, or Niul, the son of Fenius, travelled into Egypt and married Scota, a daughter of Forann (Pharaoh). "Niul had a son named Gaedhuil Glas, or Green Gael; and we are told that it is from him the Irish are called Gaedhil (Gael) or Gadelians, while from his mother is derived the name of Scoti, or Scots, and from Fenius that of Feni or Fenians."

From this legend was derived the name of the Fenian Brotherhood, organized in Ireland and America for the liberation of the former from British rule, and which played a disturbing but unsuccessful part in Irish affairs from about 1865 to 1871.

FEODORE.

FEODUM.

FEOF.

FEORM FULTUM.

   Ferdinand I.,
      Germanic Emperor, 1558-1564;
      Archduke of Austria,
      and King of Hungary and Bohemia, 1526-1564;
      King of the Romans, 1531-1558.

   Ferdinand I.,
      King of Castile, 1035-1065;
      King of Leon, 1037-1065.

   Ferdinand II.,
      King of Aragon, 1479-1516;
      V. of Castile (King-Consort of Isabella of Castile and
      Regent), 1474-1516;
      II. of Sicily, 1479-1516; and III. of Naples, 1503-1516.

   Ferdinand III.,
      King of Castile, 1217-1230;
      King of Leon and Castile, united, 1230-1252.

Ferdinand IV., King of Naples, and I. of the Two Sicilies, 1759-1806; and 1815-1825.

FERIÆ.

FERM. FIRMA. FARM.

"A sort of composition for all the profits arising to the king [in England, Norman period] from his ancient claims on the land and from the judicial proceedings of the shire-moot; the rent of detached pieces of demesne land, the remnants of the ancient folk-land; the payments due from corporate bodies and individuals for the primitive gifts, the offerings made in kind, or the hospitality—the feorm-fultum—which the kings had a right to exact from their subjects, and which were before the time of Domesday generally commuted for money; the fines, or a portion of the fines, paid in the ordinary process of the county courts, and other small miscellaneous incidents. These had been, soon after the composition of Domesday, estimated at a fixed sum, which was regarded as a sort of rent or composition at which the county was let to the sheriff and recorded in the 'Rotulus Exactorious'; for this, under the name of ferm, he answered annually; if his receipts were in excess, he retained the balance as his lawful profit, the wages of his service; if the proceeds fell below the ferm, he had to pay the difference from his own purse. … The farm, ferm, or firma, the rent or composition for the ancient feorm-fultum, or provision payable in kind to the Anglo-Saxon kings. The history of the word in its French form would be interesting. The use of the word for a pecuniary payment is traced long before the Norman Conquest."

W. Stubbs, Constitutional History of England, chapter 11, section 126, and note.

FERNANDO.

FERRARA: A. D. 1597.
   Annexation to the states of the Church.
   End of the house of Este.
   Decay of the city and duchy.

FETIALES. FECIALES.

"The duties of the feciales, or fetiales [among the Romans]. extended over every branch of international law. They gave advice on all matters of peace or war, and the conclusion of treaties and alliances. … They fulfilled the same functions as heralds, and, as such, were frequently entrusted with important communications. They were also sent on regular embassies. To them was entrusted the reception and entertainment of foreign envoys. They were required to decide on the justice of a war about to commence, and to proclaim and consecrate it according to certain established formalities. … The College of Feciales consisted of nearly twenty members, with a president, who was called Pater Patratus, because it was necessary that he should have both father and children living, that he might be supposed to take greater interest in the welfare of the State, and look backwards as well as forwards. … The name of Feciales … still existed under the emperors, as well as that of Pater Patratus, though only as a title of honour, while the institution itself was for ever annihilated; and, after the reign of Tiberius, we cannot find any trace of it."

FEUDAL TENURES.

"After the feudal system of tenure had been fully established, all lands were held subject to certain additional obligations, which were due either to the King (not as sovereign, but as feudal lord) from the original grantees, called tenants-in-chief (tenentes in capite), or to the tenants-in-chief themselves from their under tenants. Of these obligations the most honourable was that of knight-service. This was the tenure by which the King granted out fiefs to his followers, and by which they in turn provided for their own military retainers. The lands of the bishops and dignified ecclesiastics, and of most of the religious foundations, were also held by this tenure. A few exceptions only were made in favour of lands which had been immemorially held in frankalmoign, or free-alms. On the grant of a fief, the tenant was publicly invested with the land by a symbolical or actual delivery, termed livery of seisin. He then did homage, so called from the words used in the ceremony: 'Je deveigne votre homme' ['I become your man']. … In the case of a sub-tenant (vavassor), his oath of fealty was guarded by a reservation of the faith due to his sovereign lord the King. For every portion of land of the annual value of £20, which constituted a knight's fee [in England], the tenant was bound, whenever required, to render the services of a knight properly armed and accoutred, to serve in the field forty days at his own expense. … Tenure by knight-service was also subject to several other incidents of a burdensome character. … There was a species of tenancy in chief by Grand Serjeanty, … whereby the tenant was bound, instead of serving the King generally in his wars, to do some special service in his own proper person, as to carry the King's banner or lance, or to be his champion, butler, or other officer at his coronation. … Grants of land were also made by the King to his inferior followers and personal attendants, to be held by meaner services. … Hence, probably, arose tenure by Petit Serjeanty, though later on we find that term restricted to tenure 'in capite' by the service of rendering yearly some implement of war to the King. … Tenure in Free Socage (which still subsists under the modern denomination of Freehold, and may be regarded as the representative of the primitive alodial ownership) denotes, in its most general and extensive signification, a tenure by any certain and determinate service, as to pay a fixed money rent, or to plough the lord's land for a fixed number of days in the year. … Tenure in Burgage was a kind of town socage. It applied to tenements in any ancient borough, held by the burgesses, of the King or other lord, by fixed rents or services. … This tenure, which still subsists, is subject to a variety of local customs, the most remarkable of which is that of borough-English, by which the burgage tenement descends to the youngest instead of to the eldest son. Gavelkind is almost confined to the county of Kent. … The lands are held by suit of court and fealty, a service in its nature certain. The tenant in Gavelkind retained many of the properties of alodial ownership: his lands were devisable by will; in case of intestacy they descended to all his sons equally; they were not liable to escheat for felony … and they could be aliened by the tenant at the age of fifteen. Below Free Socage was the tenure in Villeinage, by which the agricultural labourers, both free and servile, held the land which was to them in lieu of money wages."

FEUDALISM.

   "Feudalism, the comprehensive idea which includes the whole
   governmental policy of the French kingdom, was of distinctly
   Frank growth. The principle which underlies it may be
   universal; but the historic development of it with which the
   constitutional history of Europe is concerned may be traced
   step by step under Frank influence, from its first appearance
   on the conquered soil of Roman Gaul to its full development in
   the jurisprudence of the Middle Ages. In the form which it has
   reached at the Norman Conquest, it may be described as a
   complete organisation of society through the medium of land
   tenure, in which from the king down to the lowest landowner
   all are bound together by obligation of service and defence:
   the lord to protect his vassal, the vassal to do service to
   his lord; the defence and service being based on and regulated
   by the nature and extent of the land held by the one of the
   other. In those states which have reached the territorial
   stage of development, the rights of defence and service are
   supplemented by the right of jurisdiction. The lord judges as
   well as defends his vassal; the vassal does suit as well as
   service to his lord. In states in which feudal government has
   reached its utmost growth, the political, financial, judicial,
   every branch of public administration, is regulated by the
   same conditions. The central authority is a mere shadow of a
   name. This institution had grown up from two great
   sources—the beneficium, and the practice of
   commendation,—and had been specially fostered on Gallic soil
   by the existence of a subject population which admitted of any
   amount of extension in the methods of dependence. The
   beneficiary system originated partly in gifts of land made by
   the kings out of their own estates to their kinsmen and
   servants, with a special undertaking to be faithful; partly in
   the surrender by landowners of their estates to churches or
   powerful men, to be received back again and held by them as
   tenants for rent or service. By the latter arrangement the
   weaker man obtained the protection of the stronger, and he who
   felt himself insecure placed his title under the defence of
   the church. By the practice of commendation, on the other
   hand, the inferior put himself under the personal care of a
   lord, but without altering his title or divesting himself of
   his right to his estate; he became a vassal and did homage.
   … The union of the beneficiary tie with that of commendation
   completed the idea of feudal obligation; the two-fold hold on
   the land, that of the lord and that of the vassal, was
   supplemented by the two-fold engagement, that of the lord to
   defend, and that of the vassal to be faithful. A third
   ingredient was supplied by the grants of immunity by which in
   the Frank empire, as in England, the possession of land was
   united with the right of judicature: the dwellers on a feudal
   property were placed under the tribunal of the lord, and the
   rights which had belonged to the nation or to its chosen head
   were devolved upon the receiver of a fief. The rapid spread of
   the system thus originated, and the assimilation of all other
   tenures to it, may be regarded as the work of the tenth
   century; but as early as A. D. 877 Charles the Bald recognised
   the hereditary character of all benefices; and from that year
   the growth of strictly feudal jurisprudence may be held to
   date. The system testifies to the country and causes of its
   birth.
{1118}
   The beneficium is partly of Roman, partly of German origin.
   … Commendation on the other hand may have had a Gallic or
   Celtic origin, and an analogy only with the Roman clientship.
   … The word feudum, fief, or fee, is derived from the German
   word for cattle (Gothic 'faihu'; Old High German 'fihu'; Old
   Saxon 'fehu'; Anglo-Saxon 'feoh'); the secondary meaning being
   goods, especially money: hence property in general. The letter
   d is perhaps a mere insertion for sound's sake; but it
   has been interpreted as part of a second root, od, also
   meaning property, in which case the first syllable has a third
   meaning, that of fee or reward, and the whole word means
   property given by way of reward for service. But this is
   improbable. … The word feodum is not found earlier than the
   close of the ninth century."

W. Stubbs, Constitutional History of England, chapter 9, section 93, and notes (volume 1).

"The regular machinery and systematic establishment of feuds, in fact, may be considered as almost confined to the dominions of Charlemagne, and to those countries which afterwards derived it from thence. In England it can hardly be thought to have existed in a complete state, before the Conquest. Scotland, it is supposed, borrowed it soon after from her neighbour. The Lombards of Benevento had introduced feudal customs into the Neapolitan provinces, which the Norman conquerors afterwards perfected. Feudal tenures were so general in the kingdom of Aragon, that I reckon it among the monarchies which were founded upon that basis. Charlemagne's empire, it must be remembered, extended as far as the Ebro. But in Castile and Portugal they were very rare, and certainly could produce no political effect. Benefices for life were sometimes granted in the kingdoms of Denmark and Bohemia. Neither of these, however, nor Sweden, nor Hungary, come under the description of countries influenced by the feudal system."

"Hardly any point in the whole history of European institutions has been the subject of so violent controversy as this of the origin of Feudalism. It was formerly supposed that Feudalism was only a somewhat more developed form of the ancient Germanic 'following' transplanted to Roman soil, but a more critical examination of the documents of the early period soon showed that there was more to it than this. It became evident that Feudalism was not so simple as had at first appeared. … When, however, scholars had come to see this, they then found themselves at variance upon the details of the process by which the popular monarchical arrangements of the early Franks were converted into the aristocratic forms of the later Feudalism. While they agreed upon the essential fact that the Germans, at the time of their emergence from their original seats and their occupation of the Roman lands, were not mere wandering groups of freebooters, as the earlier school had represented them, but well-organized nations, with a very distinct sense of political organization, they found themselves hopelessly divided on the question how this national life had, in the course of time, come to assume forms so very different from those of the primitive German. The first person to represent what we may call the modern view of the feudal system was Georg Waitz, in the first edition of his History of the German Constitution, in the years 1844-47. Waitz presented the thing as a gradual growth during several centuries, the various elements of which it was composed growing up side by side without definite chronological sequence. This view was met by Paul Roth in his History of the Institution of the Benefice, in the year 1850. He maintained that royal benefices were unknown to the Merovingian Franks, and that they were an innovation of the earliest Carolingians. They were, so he believed, made possible by a grand confiscation of the lands of the Church, not by Charles Martel, as the earlier writers had believed, but by his sons, Pippin and Karlmann. The first book of Roth was followed in the year 1863 by another on Feudalism and the Relation of the Subject to the State, (Feudalität und Unterthanenverband), in which he attempted to show that the direct subjection of the individual to the government was not a strange idea to the early German, but that it pervaded all forms of Germanic life down to the Carolingian times, and that therefore the feudal relation was a something entirely new, a break in the practice of the Germans. In the years 1880-1885 appeared a new edition of Waitz's History of the German Constitution, in which, after acknowledging the great services rendered by Roth to the cause of learning, he declares himself unable to give up his former point of view, and brings new evidence in support of it. Thus for more than thirty years this question has been before the world of scholars, and may be regarded as being quite as far from a settlement as ever."

E. Emerton, An Introduction to the Study of the Middle Ages, page 236 (foot-note).

      ALSO IN:
      F. P. Guizot,
      History of Civilization:
      Second Course, lecture 2.

FIANNA EIRINN.

FIDENÆ.

An ancient city on the left bank of the Tiber, only five miles from Rome, originally Latin, but afterwards containing a mixed Latin and Etruscan population. It was at war with Rome until the latter destroyed it, B. C. 426.

FIEFS.

Ludwig, or Louis, the Pious, son and successor of Charlemagne, was a man of gentle character, and good intentions—too amiable and too honest in his virtues for the commanding of a great empire in times so rude. He lost the control of his state, and his family, alike. His own sons headed a succession of revolts against his authority. The second of these insurrections occurred in the year 833. Father and sons confronted one another with hostile armies, on the plain of Rothfeld, not far from Colmar in Alsace. Intrigue instead of battle settled the controversy, for the time being. The adherents of the old emperor were all enticed away from him, and he found himself wholly deserted and alone. To signify the treacherous methods by which this defection was brought about, the "Rothfeld" (Red-field) on which it occurred received the name of "Lügenfeld," or Field of Lies.

J. C. L. de Sismondi, The French under the Carlovingians; translated by Bellingham, chapter 7.

The place of the famous meeting of Henry VIII. of England with Francis I. of France, which took place in the summer of 1520 [see FRANCE: A. D. 1520-1523], is notable in history, from the magnificence of the preparations made for it, as The Field of the Cloth of Gold. It was at Guisnes, or between Guisnes and Arde, near Calais (then English territory). "Guisnes and its castle offered little attraction, and if possible less accommodation, to the gay throng now to be gathered within its walls. … But on the castle green, within the limits of a few weeks, and in the face of great difficulties, the English artists of that day contrived a summer palace, more like a vision of romance, the creation of some fairy dream (if the accounts of eye-witnesses of all classes may be trusted), than the dull every-day reality of clay-born bricks and mortar. No 'palace of art' in these beclouded climates of the West ever so truly deserved its name. … The palace was an exact square of 328 feet. It was pierced on every side with oriel windows and clerestories curiously glazed, the mullions and posts of which were overlaid with gold. An embattled gate, ornamented on both sides with statues representing men in various attitudes of war, and flanked by an embattled tower, guarded the entrance. From this gate to the entrance of the palace arose in long ascent a sloping daïs or hall-pace, along which were grouped 'images of sore and terrible countenances,' in armour of argentine or bright metal. At the entrance, under an embowed landing place, facing the great doors, stood 'antique' (classical) figures girt with olive branches. The passages, the roofs of the galleries from place to place and from chamber to chamber, were ceiled and covered with white silk, fluted and embowed with silken hanging of divers colours and braided cloths, 'which showed like bullions of fine burnished gold.' The roofs of the chambers were studded with roses, set in lozenges, and diapered on a ground of fine gold. Panels enriched with antique carving and gilt bosses covered the spaces between the windows; whilst all along the corridors and from every window hung tapestry of silk and gold, embroidered with figures. … To the palace was attached a spacious chapel, still more sumptuously adorned. Its altars were hung with cloth of gold tissue embroidered with pearls; cloth of gold covered the walls and desks. … Outside the palace gate, on the greensward, stood a gilt fountain, of antique workmanship, with a statue of Bacchus 'birlying the wine.' Three runlets, fed by secret conduits hid beneath the earth, spouted claret, hypocras, and water into as many silver cups, to quench the thirst of all comers. … In long array, in the plain beyond, 2,800 tents stretched their white canvas before the eyes of the spectator, gay with the pennons, badges, and devices of the various occupants; whilst miscellaneous followers, in tens of thousands, attracted by profit or the novelty of the scene, camped on the grass and filled the surrounding slopes, in spite of the severity of provost-marshal and reiterated threats of mutilation and chastisement. … From the 4th of June, when Henry first entered Guisnes, the festivities continued with unabated splendour for twenty days. … The two kings parted on the best of terms, as the world thought."

ALSO IN: Lady Jackson, The Court of France in the 16th Century, volume 1, chapters 11-12.

FIESOLE.

FIFTH MONARCHY MEN.

One of the most extremely fanatical of the politico-religious sects or factions which rose in England during the commonwealth and the Protectoral reign of Cromwell, was that of the so-called Fifth Monarchy Men, of whom Major-General Harrison was the chief. Their belief is thus described by Carlyle: "The common mode of treating Universal History, … not yet entirely fallen obsolete in this country, though it has been abandoned with much ridicule everywhere else for half a century now, was to group the Aggregate Transactions of the Human Species into Four Monarchies: the Assyrian Monarchy of Nebuchadnezzar and Company; the Persian of Cyrus and ditto; the Greek of Alexander; and lastly the Roman. These I think were they; but am no great authority on the subject. Under the dregs of this last, or Roman Empire, which is maintained yet by express name in Germany, 'Das heilige Römische Reich,' we poor moderns still live. But now say Major-General Harrison and a number of men, founding on Bible Prophecies, Now shall be a Fifth Monarchy, by far the blessedest and the only real one,—the Monarchy of Jesus Christ, his Saints reigning for Him here on Earth,—if not He himself, which is probable or possible,—for a thousand years, &c., &c.—O Heavens, there are tears for human destiny; and immortal Hope itself is beautiful because it is steeped in Sorrow, and foolish Desire lies vanquished under its feet! They who merely laugh at Harrison take but a small portion of his meaning with them."

The Fifth Monarchy fanaticism, sternly repressed by Oliver Cromwell, gave some signs of turbulence during Richard Cromwell's protectorate, and broke out in a mad way the year after the Restoration. The attempted insurrection in London was headed by one Venner, and was called Venner's Insurrection. It was easily put down. "It came as the expiring flash of a fanatical creed, which had blended itself with Puritanism, greatly to the detriment of the latter; and, dying out rather slowly, it left behind the quiet element of Millenarianism."

"FIFTY-FOUR FORTY OR FIGHT."

FILI.

A class of poets among the early Irish, who practiced originally certain rites of incantation. Their art was called Filidecht. "The bards, who recited poems and stories, formed at first a distinct branch from the Fili. According as the true Filidecht fell into desuetude, and the Fili became simply a poet, the two orders practically coalesced and the names Fili and bard became synonymous. … In Pagan times and during the Middle Ages the Irish bards, like the Gaulish ones, accompanied their recitation of poems on a stringed instrument called a crut. … The bard was therefore to the Fili, or poet, what the Jogler was to the Troubadour."

FILIBUSTER.

"The difference between a filibuster and a freebooter is one of ends rather than of means. Some authorities say that the words have a common etymology; but others, including Charlevoix, maintain that the filibuster derived his name from his original occupation, that of a cruiser in a 'flibote,' or 'Vly-boat,' first used on the river Vly, in Holland. Yet another writer says that the name was first given to the gallant followers of Dominique de Gourgues, who sailed from Finisterre, or Finibuster, in France, on the famous expedition against Fort Caroline in 1567 [see FLORIDA: A. D. 1567-1568]. The name, whatever its origin, was long current in the Spanish as 'filibustero' before it became adopted into the English. So adopted, it has been used to describe a type of adventurer who occupied a curious place in American history during the decade from 1850 to 1860."

FILIBUSTERING EXPEDITIONS OF LOPEZ AND WALKER.

"The Council of Toledo, held under King Reccared, A. D. 589, at which the Visigothic Church of Spain formally abjured Arianism and adopted the orthodox faith, put forth a version of the great creed of Nicæa in which they had interpolated an additional clause, which stated that the Holy Ghost proceeded from the Father 'and from the Son' (Filioque). Under what influence the council took upon itself to make an addition to the creed of the universal Church is unknown. It is probable that the motive of the addition was to make a stronger protest against the Arian denial of the co-equal Godhead of the Son. The Spanish Church naturally took a special interest in the addition it had made to the symbol of Nicæa, and sustained it in subsequent councils. … The Frankish Church seems to have early adopted it from their Spanish neighbours. … The question was brought before a council held at Aix in A. D. 809. … The council formally approved of the addition to the creed, and Charles [Charlemagne] sent two bishops and the abbot of Corbie to Rome to request the pope's concurrence in the decision. Leo, at a conference with the envoys, expressed his agreement with the doctrine, but strongly opposed its insertion into the creed. … Notwithstanding the pope's protest, the addition was adopted throughout the Frankish Empire. When the Emperor Henry V. was crowned at Rome, A. D. 1014, he induced Pope Benedict VIII. to allow the creed with the filioque to be chanted after the Gospel at High Mass; so it came to be generally used in Rome; and at length Pope Nicholas I. insisted on its adoption throughout the West. At a later period the controversy was revived, and it became the ostensible ground of the final breach (A. D. 1054) between the Churches of the West and those of the East."

"The Filioque controversy relates to the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit, and is a continuation of the trinitarian controversies of the Nicene age. It marks the chief and almost the only important dogmatic difference between the Greek and Latin churches, … and has occasioned, deepened, and perpetuated the greatest schism in Christendom. The single word Filioque keeps the oldest, largest and most nearly related churches divided since the ninth century, and still forbids a reunion."

P. Schaff, History of the Christian Church, volume 4, chapter 11, section 107.

      ALSO IN:
      G. B. Howard,
      The Schism between the Oriental and Western Churches.

FILLMORE, Millard.
   Vice-Presidential Election.
   Succession to the Presidency.
   Administration.

FINGALL.

      See NORMANS.
      NORTHMEN: 8TH-9TH CENTURIES;
      also, IRELAND: 9TH-10TH CENTURIES.

FINLAND: A. D. 1808-1810.
   Conquest by and peculiar annexation to Russia.
   Constitutional independence of the Finnish grand
   duchy confirmed by the Czar.

FINN GALLS.

FINNS.

FIODH-INIS.

One of the races to which Irish legend ascribes the settlement
of Ireland; said to have come from Thrace.

FIRMA.

FIRST-FRUITS.

FISCALINI.

"The treasury of the senate [in the early period of the Roman empire] retained the old republican name of the ærarium; that of the emperor was denominated the fiscus, a term which ordinarily signified the private property of an individual. Hence the notion rapidly grew up, that the provincial resources constituted the emperor's private purse, and when in process of time the control of the senate over the taxes gave way to their direct administration by the emperor himself, the national treasury received the designation of fiscus, and the idea of the empire being nothing else than Cæsar's patrimony became fixed ineradicably in men's minds."

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864-1865
(DECEMBER-JANUARY: NORTH CAROLINA).

FISHERIES, North American: A. D. 1501-1578.
The Portuguese, Norman, Breton and Basque fishermen on the
Newfoundland Banks.

FISHERIES: A. D. 1713. Newfoundland relinquished to England, with fishing rights reserved to France, by the Treaty of Utrecht.

FISHERIES: A. D. 1720-1745.
French interests protected by the fortification of Louisbourg.

FISHERIES: A. D. 1748. St. Pierre and Michelon islands on the Newfoundland coast ceded to France.

FISHERIES: A. D. 1763.

Rights secured to France on the island of Newfoundland and in the Gulf of St. Lawrence by the Treaty of Paris.

Articles V. and VI. of the Treaty of Paris (1763), which transferred Canada and all its islands from France to England, are in the following language:

"The subjects of France shall have the liberty of fishing and drying, on a part of the coasts of the island of Newfoundland, such as it is specified in the 13th Article of the Treaty of Utrecht; which article is renewed and confirmed by the present treaty (except what relates to the island of Cape Breton, as well as to the other islands and coasts, in the mouth and in the gulph of St. Laurence): and his Britannic majesty consents to leave to the subjects of the most Christian king the liberty of fishing in the gulph of St. Laurence, on condition that the subjects of France do not exercise the said fishery, but at the distance of three leagues from all the coasts belonging to Great Britain, as well those of the continent, as those of the islands situated in the said gulph of St. Laurence. And as to what relates to the fishery on the coasts of the island of Cape Breton out of the said gulph, the subjects of the most Christian king shall not be permitted to exercise the said fishery, but at the distance of 15 leagues from the coasts of the island of Cape Breton; and the fishery on the coasts of Nova Scotia or Acadia, and everywhere else out of the said gulph, shall remain on the foot of former treaties.

Article VI. The King of Great Britain cedes the islands of St. Peter and Miquelon, in full right, to his most Christian majesty, to serve as a shelter to the French fishermen: and his said most Christian majesty engages not to fortify the said islands; to erect no buildings upon them, but merely for the convenience of the fishery; and to keep upon them a guard of 50 men only for the police."

FISHERIES: A. D. 1778. French fishery rights recognized in the treaty between France and the United States.

FISHERIES: A. D. 1783.
Rights secured to the United States by the Treaty of Paris.

FISHERIES: A. D. 1814-1818.
   Disputed rights of American fishermen after the War of 1812.
   Silence of the Treaty of Ghent.
   The Convention of 1818.

Under the Treaty of Paris (1783) "we claimed that the liberty which was secured to the inhabitants of the United States to take fish on the coasts of Newfoundland, under the limitation of not drying or curing the same on that island, and also on the other coasts, bays, and creeks, together with the limited rights of drying or curing fish on the coasts of Nova Scotia, Magdalen Islands, and Labrador, were not created or conferred by that treaty, but were simply recognized by it as already existing. They had been enjoyed before the Revolution by the Americans in common with other subjects of Great Britain, and had, indeed, been conquered, from the French chiefly, through the valor and sacrifices of the colonies of New England and New York. The treaty was therefore considered analogous to a deed of partition. It defined the boundaries between the two countries and all the rights and privileges belonging to them. We insisted that the article respecting fisheries was therefore to be regarded as identical with the possession of land or the demarcation of boundary. We also claimed that the treaty, being one that recognized independence, conceded territory, and defined boundaries, belonged to that class which is permanent in its nature and is not affected by subsequent suspension of friendly relations. The English, however, insisted that this treaty was not a unity; that while some of its provisions were permanent, other stipulations were temporary and could be abrogated, and that, in fact, they were abrogated by the war of 1812; that the very difference of the language used showed that while the rights of deep-sea fishing were permanent, the liberties of fishing were created and conferred by that treaty, and had therefore been taken away by the war. These were the two opposite views of the respective governments at the conferences which ended in the treaty of Ghent, of 1814." No compromise appearing to be practicable, the commissioners agreed, at length, to drop the subject from consideration. "For that reason the treaty of Ghent is entirely silent as to the fishery question.

   In consequence of conflicts arising between our fishermen and
   the British authorities, our point of view was very strongly
   maintained by Mr. Adams in his correspondence with the British
   Foreign Office, and finally, on October 20, 1818, Mr. Rush,
   then our minister at London, assisted by Mr. Gallatin,
   succeeded in signing a treaty, which among other things
   settled our rights and privileges by the first article, as
   follows: … 'It is agreed between the high contracting
   parties that the inhabitants of the said United States shall
   have forever, in common with the subjects of his Britannic
   Majesty, the liberty of taking fish of any kind on that part
   of the southern coast of Newfoundland which extends from Cape
   Ray to the Rameau Islands; on the western and northern coasts
   of Newfoundland from the said Cape Ray to the Qurpon Islands;
   on the shores of the Magdalen Islands, and also on the coasts,
   bays, harbors, and creeks from Mont Joly, on the southern
   coast of Labrador, to and through the straits of Belle Isle,
   and thence northwardly indefinitely along the coast. And that
   the American fishermen shall have liberty forever to dry and
   cure fish in any of the unsettled bays, harbors, and creeks in
   the southern part of Newfoundland herein-before described, and
   of the coasts of Labrador; but as soon as the same, or any
   portion thereof, shall be settled, it shall not be lawful for
   said fishermen to dry or cure fish at such portion, so
   settled, without previous agreement for such purpose with the
   inhabitants, proprietors, or possessors of the ground.
{1122}
   And the United States hereby renounces forever any liberty
   heretofore enjoyed, claimed by the inhabitants thereof to
   take, dry, or cure fish on or within three marine miles of any
   of the coasts, bays, creeks, or harbors of his Britannic
   Majesty's dominions in America not included in the
   above-mentioned limits. Provided, however, That the American
   fishermen shall be permitted to enter such bays or harbors for
   the purpose of shelter, of repairing damages therein, of
   purchasing wood, and obtaining water, and for no other purpose
   whatever. But they shall be under such restrictions as shall
   be necessary to prevent their taking, drying, or curing fish
   therein, or in any other manner whatever abusing the
   privileges hereby secured to them.' The American
   plenipotentiaries evidently labored to obtain as extensive a
   district of territory as possible for in-shore fishing, and
   were willing to give up privileges, then apparently of small
   amount, but now much more important, than of using other bays
   and harbors for shelter and kindred purposes. For that reason
   they acquiesced in omitting the word 'bait' in the first
   sentence of the proviso after water.' … The power of
   obtaining bait for use in the deep-sea fisheries is one which
   our fishermen were afterward very anxious to secure. But the
   mackerel fisheries in those waters did not begin until several
   years later. The only contention then was about the cod
   fisheries."

Treaties and Conventions between the United States
and other Powers (edition of 1889), pages 415-418.

FISHERIES: A. D. 1854-1866.
Privileges defined under the Canadian Reciprocity Treaty.

FISHERIES: A. D. 1871.
Reciprocal privileges adjusted between Great Britain and the
United States by the Treaty of Washington.

FISHERIES: A. D. 1877-1888.
   The Halifax award.
   Termination of the Fishery articles of the Treaty of
   Washington.
   The rejected Treaty of 1888.

In accordance with the terms of articles 22 and 23 of the Treaty of Washington (see ALABAMA CLAIMS: A. D. 1871), a Commission appointed to award compensation to Great Britain for the superior value of the fishery privileges conceded to the citizens of the United States by that treaty, met at Halifax on the 5th of June, 1877. The United States was represented on the Commission by Hon. E. H. Kellogg, of Massachusetts, and Great Britain by Sir Alexander F. Gault, of Canada. The two governments having failed to agree in the selection of the third Commissioner, the latter was named, as the Treaty provided, by the Austrian Ambassador at London, who designated M. Maurice Delfosse, Belgian Minister at Washington. The award was made November 27, 1877, when, "by a vote of two to one, the Commissioners decided that the United States was to pay $5,500,000 for the use of the fishing privileges for 12 years. The decision produced profound astonishment in the United States." Dissatisfaction with the Halifax award, and generally with the main provisions of the Treaty of Washington relating to the fisheries, was so great in the United States that, when, in 1878, Congress appropriated money for the payment of the award, it inserted in the bill a clause to the effect that "Articles 18 and 21 of the Treaty between the United States and Great Britain concluded on the 8th of May, 1871, ought to be terminated at the earliest period consistent with the provisions of Article 33 of the same Treaty." "It is a curious fact that during the time intervening between the signing of the treaty of Washington and the Halifax award an almost complete change took place in the character of the fisheries. The method of taking mackerel was completely revolutionized by the introduction of the purse-seine, by means of which vast quantities of the fish were captured far out in the open sea by enclosing them in huge nets. … This change in the method of fishing brought about a change in the fishing grounds. … The result of this change was very greatly to diminish the value of the North-eastern Fisheries to the United States fishermen." On the 1st of July, 1883, "in pursuance of instructions from Congress, the President gave the required notice of the desire of the United States to terminate the Fishery Articles of the Treaty of Washington, which consequently came to an end the 1st of July, 1885. The termination of the treaty fell in the midst of the fishing season, and, at the suggestion of the British Minister, Secretary Bayard entered into a temporary arrangement whereby the American fishermen were allowed the privileges of the treaty during the remainder of the season, with the understanding that the President should bring the question before Congress at its next session and recommend a joint Commission by the Governments of the United States and Great Britain." This was done; but Congress disapproved the recommendation. The question of rights under former treaties, especially that of 1818, remained open, and became a subject of much irritation between the United States and the neighboring British American provinces. The local regulations of the latter were enforced with stringency and harshness against American fishermen; the latter solicited and procured retaliatory legislation from Congress. To end this unsatisfactory state of affairs, a treaty was negotiated at Washington in February, 1888, by Thomas F. Bayard, Secretary of State, William L. Putnam and James B. Angell, plenipotentiaries on the part of the United States, and Joseph Chamberlain, M. P., Sir L. S. Sackville West and Sir Charles Tupper, plenipotentiaries on the part of Great Britain, which treaty was approved by the President and sent to the Senate, but rejected by that body on the 21st of August, by a negative vote of 30, against 27 in its favor.

C. B. Elliott, The United States and the North-eastern Fisheries, pages 79-100.

Correspondence relative to proposed Fisheries Treaty
(Senate Ex. Doc., Number 113, 50th Congress, 1st Session).

Documents and Proceedings of Halifax Commission (H. R. Ex.
Doc., Number 89, 45th. Congress, 2d Session).

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862
(JANUARY-FEBRUARY: KENTUCKY-TENNESSEE).

FITZGERALD'S (LORD THOMAS) REBELLION IN IRELAND.

A confederation of towns occupied by the Danes in England, including Derby, Lincoln, Leicester, Nottingham and Stamford, which played a part in the events of the tenth and eleventh centuries. It afterwards became Seven Boroughs by addition of York and Chester.

The five original tribes of the Iroquois Confederacy,—the Mohawks, Oneidas, Onondagas, Cayugas, and Senecas,—were commonly called by the English the Five Nations. Subsequently, in 1715, a sixth tribe, the Tuscaroras, belonging to the same stock, was admitted to the confederacy, and its members were then known as the Six Nations.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY, and IROQUOIS
TRIBES OF THE SOUTH.

   The hostilities between Athens and Sparta which preceded the
   Peloponnesian War, being opened by the battle of Tanagra, B.
   C. 457, were suspended B. C. 451, by a truce called the Five
   Years' Truce, arranged through the influence of the
   soldier-statesman Cimon.

FLAGELLANTS.

"Although the Church's forgiveness for sin might now [14th century] be easily obtained in other ways: Still Flagellation was not only greatly admired among the religious, but was also held in such high estimation by the common people, that in case of any calamity or plague, they thought they could propitiate the supposed wrath of God in no more effectual manner than by scourging, and processions of scourgers; just as though the Church's ordinary means of atonement were insufficient for extraordinary cases. A decided mistrust of the Church's intercession, and the clergy who dispensed it, prevailed among the societies of Flagellants; roused to action by the plague that past over from Asia into Europe in the year 1348, and spread devastation everywhere, ever since the beginning of the year 1349 they diffused themselves from the Hungarian frontier over the whole of Germany, and found entrance even into the neighbouring countries. … They practised this penance according to a fixed rule, without the co-operation of the clergy, under the guidance of Masters, Magistri, and made no secret of the fact, that they held the Church's way of salvation in much lower estimation than the penance by the scourge. Clement VI. put an end to the public processions of Flagellants, which were already widely prevalent: but penance by the scourge was only thus forced into concealment. In Thuringia, Conrad Schmidt, one of their masters, gave the form of a connected system of heretical doctrine to their dislike of the Church. … Thus there now rose heretical Flagellants, called also by the common name of Beghards; they existed down to the time of the Reformation, especially in Thuringia, as an heretical sect very dangerous to the Church. This warning example, as well as the mistrust natural to the Hierarchy of all spiritual impulses which did not originate from itself, decided the destiny of the later societies of Flagellants. When the Whitemen (Bianchi) [see WHITE PENITENTS], scourging themselves as they went, descended from the Alps into Italy, they were received almost everywhere with enthusiasm by the clergy and the people; but in the Papal territory death was prepared for their leader, and the rest accordingly dispersed themselves."

J. C. L. Gieseler, Compendium of Ecclesiastical History, section 123 (volume 4).

"Divided into companies of male and female devotees, under a leader and two masters, they stripped themselves naked to the waist, and publicly scourged themselves, or each other, till their shoulders were covered with blood. This expiatory ceremony was repeated every morning and afternoon for thirty-three days, equal in number to the years which Christ is thought to have lived upon earth; after which they returned to their former employments, cleansed from sin by the baptism of blood.' The flagellants appeared first in Hungary; but missionary societies were soon formed, and they hastened to impart the knowledge of the new gospel to foreign nations. They spread with rapidity over Poland, Germany and the Low Countries. From France they were excluded at the request of the pope, who had issued a severe constitution against them; but a colony reached England, and landed in London, to the number of 120 men and women. … The missionaries made not a single proselyte."

      G. Waddington,
      History of the Church,
      note appendix to chapter 23.

FLAMENS. FLAMINES.

"The pontifices, like several other priestly brotherhoods [of ancient Rome] … had sacrificial priests (flamines) attached to them, whose name was derived from 'flare' (to blow the fire). The number of flamines attached to the pontifices was fifteen, the three highest of whom, … viz., the Flamen Dialis, Martialis, and Quirinalis, were always chosen from old patrician families. … Free from all civil duties, the Flamen Dialis, with his wife and children, exclusively devoted himself to the service of the deity. His house … lay on the Palatine hill. His marriage was dissoluble by death only; he was not allowed to take an oath, mount a horse, or look at an army. He was forbidden to remain a night away from his house, and his hand touched nothing unclean, for which reason he never approached a corpse or a burial-place. … In the daytime the Flamen Dialis was not allowed to take off his head-dress, and he was obliged to resign his office in case it fell off by accident. In his belt he carried the sacrificial knife, and in his hand he held a rod, in order to keep off the people on his way to the sacrifice. For the same purpose he was preceded by a lictor, who compelled everybody on the way to lay down his work, the flamen not being allowed to see the business of daily life."

FLAMINIAN WAY.

Judith, daughter of Charles the Bald, of France (not yet called France), and a twice widowed queen of England, though hardly yet out of her girlhood (she had wedded Ethelwulf and Ethelbald, father and son, in succession), took a mate, at last, more to her liking, by a runaway match with one of her father's foresters, named Baudouin, or Baldwin, Bras-de-fer. This was in 862. King Charles, in his wrath, caused the impudent forester to be outlawed and excommunicated, both; but after a year of intercession and mediation he forgave the pair and established them in a suitable fief. Baudouin was made Count or Marquis of Flanders. "Previously to Baudouin's era, Flanders or 'Flandria' is a designation belonging, as learned men conjecture, to a Gau or Pagus, afterwards known as the Franc de Bruges, and noticed only in a single charter. Popularly, the name of Flanders had obtained with respect to a much larger surrounding Belgic country. … The name of 'Flanders' was thus given to the wide, and in a degree indefinite tract, of which the Forester Baudouin and his predecessors had the official range or care. According to the idiom of the Middle Ages, the term 'Forest' did not exactly convey the idea which the word now suggests, not being applied exclusively to wood-land, but to any wild and unreclaimed region. … Any etymology of the name of Flamingia, or Flanders, which we can guess at, seems intended to designate that the land was so called from being half-drowned. Thirty-five inundations, which afflicted the country at various intervals from the tenth to the sixteenth century, have entirely altered the coast-line; and the interior features of the country, though less affected, have been much changed by the diversions which the river-courses have sustained. … Whatever had been the original amplitude of the districts over which Baudouin had any control or authority, the boundaries were now enlarged and defined. Kneeling before Charles-le-Chauve, placing his hands between the hands of the Sovereign, he received his 'honour':—the Forester of Flanders was created Count or Marquis. All the countries between the Scheldt, the Somme and the sea, became his benefice; so that only a narrow and contested tract divided Baudouin's Flanders from Normandy. According to an antient nomenclature, ten counties, to wit, Theerenburch, Arras, Boulogne, Guisnes, Saint-Paul, Hesdin, Blandemont, Bruges, Harlebec, and Tournay, were comprehended in the noble grant which Baudouin obtained from his father-in-law."

FLANDERS: A. D. 1201-1204. The diverted Crusade of Count Baldwin and the imperial crown he won at Constantinople.

"In the 13th century, Flanders was the most populous and the richest country in Europe. She owed the fact to the briskness of her manufacturing and commercial undertakings, not only amongst her neighbours, but throughout Southern and Eastern Europe. … Cloth, and all manner of woolen stuffs, were the principal articles of Flemish production, and it was chiefly from England that Flanders drew her supply of wool, the raw material of her industry. Thence arose between the two countries commercial relations which could not fail to acquire political importance. As early as the middle of the 12th century, several Flemish towns formed a society for founding in England a commercial exchange, which obtained great privileges, and, under the name of the Flemish hanse of London, reached rapid development. The merchants of Bruges had taken the initiative in it; but soon all the towns of Flanders—and Flanders was covered with towns—Ghent, Lille, Ypres, Courtrai, Furnes, Alost, St. Omer, and Douai, entered the confederation, and made unity as well as extension of liberties in respect of Flemish commerce the object of their joint efforts. Their prosperity became celebrated; and its celebrity gave it increase. It was a burgher of Bruges who was governor of the hanse of London, and he was called the Count of the Hanse. The fair of Bruges, held in the month of May, brought together traders from the whole world. 'Thither came for exchange,' says the most modern and most enlightened historian of Flanders (Baron Kervyn de Lettenhove, 'Histoire de Flandre,' t. ii., page 300), 'the produce of the North and the South, the riches collected in the pilgrimages to Novgorod, and those brought over by the caravans from Samarcand and Bagdad, the pitch of Norway and the oils of Andalusia, the furs of Russia and the dates from the Atlas, the metals of Hungary and Bohemia, the figs of Granada, the honey of Portugal, the wax of Morocco, and the spice of Egypt; whereby, says an ancient manuscript, no land is to be compared in merchandise to the land of Flanders.' … So much prosperity made the Counts of Flanders very puissant lords. 'Marguerite II., called "the Black," Countess of Flanders and Hainault, from 1244 to 1280, was extremely rich,' says a chronicler, 'not only in lands, but in furniture, jewels, and money; … insomuch that she kept up the state of queen rather than countess.' Nearly all the Flemish towns were strongly organised communes, in which prosperity had won liberty, and which became before long small republics, sufficiently powerful not only for the defence of their municipal rights against the Counts of Flanders, their lords, but for offering an armed resistance to such of the sovereigns their neighbours as attempted to conquer them or to trammel them in their commercial relations, or to draw upon their wealth by forced contributions or by plunder."

As the Flemings advanced in wealth and consequence, the feudal dependence of their country upon the French crown grew increasingly irksome and oppressive to them, and their attitude towards France became one of confirmed hostility. At the same time, they were drawn to a friendly leaning towards England by common commercial interests. This showed itself decisively on the occasion of the quarrel that arose (A. D. 1295) between Philip IV., called the Fair, and Edward I. of England, concerning the rule of the latter in Aquitaine or Guienne. The French king found allies in Scotland; the English king found allies in Flanders. An alliance of marriage, in fact, had been arranged to take place between king Edward and the daughter of Guy de Dampierre, count of Flanders; but Philip contrived treacherously to get possession of the persons of the count and his daughter and imprisoned them both at Paris, declaring the states of the count to be forfeited. In 1299 the two kings settled their quarrel and abandoned their allies on both sides—Scotland to the tender mercies of Edward, and Flanders to the vengeance of the malignant king Philip the Fair. The territory of the Flemings was annexed to the crown of France, and Jacques de Châtillon, uncle of the queen, was appointed governor. Before two years had passed the impatient Flemings were in furious revolt. The insurrection began at Bruges, May 18, 1302, and more than 3,000 Frenchmen in that city were massacred in the first rage of the insurgents. This massacre was called the Bruges Matins. A French army entered Flanders to put down the rising and was confronted at Courtrai (July 11, A. D. 1302) by the Flemish militia. The latter were led by young Guy of Dampierre and, a few knights, who dismounted to fight on equal terms with their fellows. "About 20,000 militia, armed only with pikes, which they employed also as implements of husbandry, resolved to abide the onset of 8,000 Knights of gentle blood, 10,000 archers, and 30,000 foot-soldiers, animated by the presence and directed by the military skill of Robert Count of Artois, and of Raoul de Nesle, Constable of France. Courtrai was the object of attack, and the Flemings, anxious for its safety, arranged themselves on a plain before the town, covered in front by a canal." An altercation which occurred between the two French commanders led to the making of a blind and furious charge on the part of the French horsemen, ignorant and heedless of the canal, into which they plunged, horses and riders together, in one inextricable mass, and where, in their helplessness, they were slain without scruple by the Flemings. "Philip had lost his most experienced Generals, and the flower of his troops; but his obstinacy was unbending." In repeated campaigns during the next two years, Philip strove hard to retrieve the disaster of Courtrai. He succeeded, at last (A. D. 1304), in achieving, with the help of the Genoese, a naval victory in the Zuruck-Zee, followed by a victory, personally his own, at Mons-en-Puelle, in September of the same year. Then, finding the Flemings as dauntlessly ready as ever to renew the fight, he gave up to their obstinacy and acknowledged the independence of the county. A treaty was signed, in which "the independence of Flanders was acknowledged under its Count, Robert de Bethune (the eldest son of Guy de Dampierre), who, together with his brothers and all the other Flemish prisoners, was to be restored to liberty. The Flemings, on the other hand, consented to surrender those districts beyond the Lys in which the French language was vernacularly spoken; and to this territory were added the cities of Douai, Lille, and their dependencies. They engaged, moreover, to furnish by instalments 200,000 livres in order to cover the expenses which Philip had incurred by their invasion."

Philip was one of the most treacherous of princes, and his treaty with the Flemings did not secure them against him. "The Flemings, who had paid the whole of the money stipulated by the treaty of 1305, demanded the restitution of that part of Flanders which had been given up as a pledge; but Philippe refused to restore it on the plea that it had been given to him absolutely and not conditionally. He commenced hostilities [A. D. 1314] by seizing upon the counties of Nevers and Réthel, belonging to the count of Flanders and his eldest son, who replied by laying siege to Lille." Philippe was making great exertions to raise money for a vigorous prosecution of the war, when he died suddenly, Nov. 25, 1314, as the result of an accident in hunting.

The first act of Philip of Valois, King of France, after his coronation in 1328, was to take up the cause of his cousin, Louis de Nevers, Count of Flanders, who had been driven from his territories by the independent burghers of Bruges, Ypres, and other cities, and who had left to him no town save Ghent, in which he dared to appear. The French king "gathered a great host of feudal lords, who rejoiced in the thought of Flemish spoil, and marched to Arras, and thence onwards into Flanders. He pitched his tent under the hill of Cassel, 'with the fairest and greatest host in the world' around him. The Flemish, under Claus Dennequin, lay on the hill-top: thence they came down all unawares in three columns on the French camp in the evening, and surprised the King at supper and all but took him. The French soon recovered from the surprise; 'for God would not consent that lords should be discomfitted by such riffraff': they slew the Flemish Captain Dennequin, and of the rest but few escaped; 'for they deigned not to flee,' so stubborn were those despised weavers of Flanders. This little battle, with its great carnage of Flemish, sufficed to lay all Flanders at the feet of its count."

"Sixteen thousand Flemings had marched to the attack in three divisions. Three heaps of slain were counted on the morrow in the French lines, amounting altogether to 13,000 corpses; and it is said that Louis … inflicted death upon 10,000 more of the rebels."

FLANDERS: A. D. 1335-1337.
The revolt under Jacques Van Arteveld.
The alliance with England.

The most important measure by which Edward III. of England prepared himself for the invasion of France, as a claimant of the French crown [See FRANCE: A. D. 1328-1339] was the securing of an alliance with the Flemish burghers. This was made easy for him by his enemies. "The Flemings happened to have a count who was wholly French—Louis de Nevers—who was only count through the battle of Cassel and the humiliation of his country, and who resided at Paris, at the court of Philippe de Valois. Without consulting his subjects, he ordered a general arrest of all the English throughout Flanders; on which Edward had all the Flemings in England arrested. The commerce, which was the life-blood of each country, was thus suddenly broken off. To attack the English through Guyenne and Flanders was to wound them in their most sensible parts, to deprive them of cloth and wine. They sold their wool at Bruges, in order to buy wine at Bordeaux. On the other hand, without English wool, the Flemings were at a stand-still. Edward prohibited the exportation of wool, reduced Flanders to despair, and forced her to fling herself into his arms. At first, a crowd of Flemish workmen emigrated into England, whither they were allured at any cost, and by every kind of flattery and caress. … I take it that the English character has been seriously modified by these emigrations, which went on during the whole of the fourteenth century. Previously, we find no indications of that patient industry which now distinguishes the English. By endeavouring to separate Flanders and England the French king only stimulated Flemish emigration, and laid the foundation of England's manufactures. Meanwhile, Flanders did not resign herself. The towns burst into insurrection. They had long hated the count, either because he supported the country against the monopoly of the towns, or because he admitted the foreigners, the Frenchmen, to a share of their commerce. The men of Ghent, who undoubtedly repented of having withheld their aid from those of Ypres and of Bruges at the battle of Cassel, chose, in 1337, as their leader, the brewer, Jacquemart Artaveld. Supported by the guilds, and, in particular, by the fullers and clothiers, Artaveld organized a vigorous tyranny. He assembled at Ghent the men of the three great cities, 'and showed them that they could not live without the king of England; for all Flanders depended on cloth-making, and, without wool, one could not make cloth; therefore he recommended them to keep the English king their friend.'"

"Jacob von Artaveld, the citizen of Ghent that was so much attached to the king of England, still maintained the same despotic power over all Flanders. He had promised the king of England, that he would give him the inheritance of Flanders, invest his son the prince of Wales with it, and make it a duchy instead of an earldom. Upon which account the king was, at this period, about St. John the Baptist's day, 1345, come to Sluys, with a numerous attendance of barons and knights. He had brought the prince of Wales with him, in order that Jacob von Artaveld's promises might be realized. The king remained on board his fleet in the harbour of Sluys, where he kept his court. His friends in Flanders came thither to see and visit him; and there were many conferences between the king and Jacob Von Artaveld on one side, and the councils from the different capital towns on the other, relative to the agreement before mentioned. … When on his return he [Van Artaveld] came to Ghent about midday, the townsmen who were informed of the hour he was expected, had assembled in the street that he was to pass through; as soon as they saw him, they began to murmur, and put their heads close together, saying, 'Here comes one who is too much the master, and wants to order in Flanders according to his will and pleasure, which must not be longer borne.' With this they had also spread a rumour through the town, that Jacob von Artaveld had collected all the revenues of Flanders, for nine years and more. … Of this great treasure he had sent part into England. This information inflamed those of Ghent with rage; and, as he was riding up the streets, he perceived that there was something in agitation against him; for those who were wont to salute him very respectfully, now turned their backs, and went into their houses. He began therefore to suspect all was not as usual; and as soon as he had dismounted, and entered his hotel, he ordered the doors and windows to be shut and fastened. Scarcely had his servants done this, when the street which he inhabited was filled from one end to the other with all sorts of people, but especially by the lowest of the mechanics. His mansion was surrounded on every side, attacked and broken into by force. Those within did all they could to defend it, and killed and wounded many: but at last they could not hold out against such vigorous attacks, for three parts of the town were there. When Jacob von Artaveld saw what efforts were making, and how hardly he was pushed, he came to a window; and, with his head uncovered, began to use humble and fine language. … When Jacob von Artaveld saw that he could not appease or calm them, he shut the window, and intended getting out of his house the back way, to take shelter in a church adjoining; but his hotel was already broke into on that side, and upwards of four hundred were there calling out for him. At last he was seized by them, and slain without mercy: his death-stroke was given him by a sadler, called Thomas Denys. In this manner did Jacob von Artaveld end his days, who in his time had been complete master of Flanders. Poor men first raised him, and wicked men slew him."

"We will … speak of the war in Flanders, which began about this time [A. D. 1379]. The people were very murderous and cruel, and multitudes were slain or driven out of the country. The country itself was so much ruined, that it was said a hundred years would not restore it to the situation it was in before the war. Before the commencement of these wars in Flanders, the country was so fertile, and everything in such abundance, that it was marvellous to see; and the inhabitants of the principal towns lived in very grand state. You must know that this war originated in the pride and hatred that several of the chief towns bore to each other: those of Ghent against Bruges, and others, in like manner, vying with each other through envy. However, this could not have created a war without the consent of their lord, the earl of Flanders, who was so much loved and feared that no one dared anger him." It is in these words that the old court chronicler, Froissart, begins his fully detailed and graphic narrative of the miserable years, from 1379 to 1384, during which the communes of Flanders were at war with one another and at war with their worthless and oppressive count, Luis de Maele. The picturesque chronicle is colored with the prejudices of Froissart against the Flemish burghers and in favor of their lord; but no one can doubt that the always turbulent citizens were jealous of rights which the always rapacious lord never ceased to encroach upon. As Froissart tells the story, the outbreak of war began with an attempt on the part of the men of Bruges, to dig a canal which would divert the waters of the river Lys. When those of Ghent had news of this unfriendly undertaking, they took counsel of one John Yoens, or John Lyon, a burgher of much cunning, who had formerly been in favor with the count, but whom his enemies had supplanted. "When he [John Lyon] was prevailed on to speak, he said: 'Gentlemen, if you wish to risk this business, and put an end to it, you must renew an ancient custom that formerly subsisted in the town of Ghent: I mean, you must first put on white-hoods, and choose a leader, to whom everyone may look, and rally at his signal.' This harangue was eagerly listened to, and they all cried out, 'We will have it so, we will have it so! now let us put on white-hoods.' White-hoods were directly made, and given out to those among them who loved war better than peace, and had nothing to lose. John Lyon was elected chief of the White Hoods. He very willingly accepted of this office, to avenge himself on his enemies, to embroil the towns of Ghent and Bruges with each other and with the earl their lord. He was ordered, as their chief, to march against the pioneers and diggers from Bruges, and had with him 200 such people as preferred rioting to quiet."

When the White Hoods had driven the ditchers of Bruges from their canal, they returned to Ghent, but not to disband. Presently the jealous count required them to lay aside the peculiar badge of their association, which they declined to do. Then Count Louis sent his bailiff into Ghent with 200 horsemen, to arrest John Lyon, and some others of his band. The White Hoods rallied, slew the bailiff and drove his posse from the town; after which unmistakable deed Ghent and the count were distinctly at war. The city of the White Hoods took prompt measures to secure the alliance and support of its neighbors. Some nine or ten thousand of its citizens marched to Bruges, and partly by persuasion, partly by force, partly by the help of the popular party in the town, they effected a treaty of friendship and alliance—which did not endure, however, very long. Courtray, Damme, Ypres and other cities joined the league and it soon presented a formidable array. Oudenarde, strongly fortified, by the count, became the key of the situation, and was besieged by the citizen-militia. In the midst of the siege, the Duke of Burgundy, son-in-law of the count, made successful efforts to bring about a peace (December 1379). "The count promised to forget the past and return to his residence in Ghent. This peace, however, was of short duration; and the count, after passing only two or three days in Ghent, alleged some cause of dissatisfaction and returned to Lille, to recommence hostilities, in the course of which, with the assistance of the richer citizens, he made himself master of Bruges. Another peace was signed in the August of 1380, which was no more durable than the former, and the count reduced Ypres; and, at the head of an army of 60,000 men, laid siege to Ghent itself, the chief and soul of the popular confederacy, in the month of September. But the citizens of Ghent defended themselves so well that he was obliged to raise the siege in the middle of November, and agree to a truce. This truce also was broken by the count's party, the war renewed in the beginning of the year 1381, and the men of Ghent experienced a disastrous defeat in the battle of Nevelle towards the middle of May. It was a war of extermination, and was carried on with extreme ferocity. … Ghent itself, now closely blockaded by the count's troops, was only saved by the great qualities of Philip Van Artevelde [son of Jacques Van Arteveld, of the revolution of 1337], who, by a sort of peaceful revolution, was placed at the head of affairs [January 25, 1381]. The victory of Beverholt, in which the count was defeated with great slaughter, and only escaped with difficulty, made the town of Ghent again master of Flanders."

W. C. Taylor, Revolutions, Insurrections and Conspiracies of Europe, volume 2, chapters 7-9.

   By the marriage of Philip, Duke of Burgundy, to the daughter
   and heiress of the Count of Flanders, that powerful French
   prince had become interested in the suppression of the revolt
   of the Flemish burghers and the restoration of the count to
   his lordship. His nephew, the young king of France, Charles
   VI., was easily persuaded to undertake a campaign to that end,
   and an army of considerable magnitude was personally led
   northwards by the monarch of fourteen years. "The object of
   the expedition was not only to restore to the Count of
   Flanders his authority, but to punish the turbulent commons,
   who stirred up those of France to imitate their example.
   Froissart avows it to have been a war between the commons and
   the aristocracy. The Flemings were commanded by Artaveldt, son
   of the famous brewer, the ally of Edward III. The town of Ghent
   had been reduced to the extreme of distress and famine by the
   count and the people of Bruges, who supported him. Artaveldt
   led the people of Ghent in a forlorn hope against Bruges,
   defeated the army of the count, and broke into the rival town,
   which he took and plundered. After this disaster, the count
   had recourse to France. The passage of the river Lys, which
   defended Flanders, was courageously undertaken, and effected
   with some hazard by the French.
{1128}
   The Flemings were rather dispirited by this first success:
   nevertheless, they assembled their forces; and the two armies
   of French knights and Flemish citizens met at Rosebecque [or
   Roosebeck], between Ypres and Courtray. The 27th of November,
   1382, was the day of battle. Artaveldt had stationed his army
   on a height, to await the attack of the French, but their
   impatience forced him to commence. Forming his troops into one
   solid square, Artaveldt led them against the French centre.
   Froissart compares their charge to the headlong rush of a wild
   boar. It broke the opposite line, penetrating into its ranks:
   but the wings of the French turned upon the flank of the
   Flemings, which, not having the advantage of a charge or
   impulse, were beaten by the French men at arms. Pressed upon
   one another, the Flemings had not room to fight: they were
   hemmed in, surrounded, and slaughtered: no quarter was asked
   or given; nearly 30,000 perished. The 9,000 Ghentois that had
   marched under their banner were counted, to a man, amongst the
   slain: Artaveldt, their general, was among the foremost who
   had fallen. Charles ordered his body to be hung upon a tree.
   It was at Courtray, very near to the field where this battle
   was fought, that Robert of Artois, with a French army, had
   perished beneath the swords of the Flemings, nearly a century
   previous. The gilded spurs of the French knights still adorned
   the walls of the cathedral of Courtray. The victory of Rosebecque
   in the eyes of Charles had not sufficiently repaid the former
   defeat: the town of Courtray was pillaged and burnt; its
   famous clock was removed to Dijon, and formed the third wonder
   of this kind in France, Paris and Sens alone possessing
   similar ornaments. The battle of Rosebecque proved more
   unfortunate for the communes of France than for those of
   Flanders. Ghent, notwithstanding her loss of 9,000 slain, did
   not yield to the conqueror, but held out the war for two years
   longer; and did not finally submit until the Duke of Burgundy,
   at the death of their count, guaranteed to the burghers the
   full enjoyment of their privileges. The king avenged himself
   on the mutinous city of Paris; entered it as a conqueror; took
   the chains from the streets and unhinged the gates: one hundred
   of the citizens were sent to the scaffold; the property of the
   rich was confiscated; and all the ancient and most onerous
   taxes, the gabelle, the duty on sales, as well as that of
   entry, were declared by royal ordinance to be established
   anew. The principal towns of the kingdom were visited with the
   same punishments and exactions. The victory of Rosebecque
   overthrew the commons of France, which were crushed under the
   feet of the young monarch and his nobles."

      F. P. Guizot,
      Popular History of France,
      chapter 23 (volume 3).

The crushing defeat of the Flemings at Roosebeke produced alarm in England, where the triumph of the French was quickly felt to be threatening. "English merchants were expelled from Bruges, and their property was confiscated. Calais even was in danger. The French were at Dunkirk and Gravelines, and might by a sudden dash on Calais drive the English out." There had been aid from England promised to Van Artevelde, but the promise had only helped on the ruin of the Ghent patriot by misleading him. No help had come when he needed it. Now, when it was too late, the English bestirred themselves. For some months there had been on foot among them a Crusade, which Pope Urban VI. had proclaimed against the supporters of the rival Pope Clement VII.—the "Schismatics." France took the side of the latter and was counted among the Schismatics. Accordingly, Pope Urban's Crusade, so far as the English people could be moved to engage in it, was now directed against the French in Flanders. It was led by the Bishop of Norwich, who succeeded in rousing a very considerable degree of enthusiasm in the country for the movement, despite the earnest opposition of Wyclif and his followers. The crusading army assembled at Calais in the spring of 1383, professedly for a campaign in France; but the Bishop found excuses for leading it into Flanders. Gravelines was first attacked, carried by storm, and its male defenders slaughtered to a man. An army of French and Flemings, encountered near Dunkirk, was routed, with fearful carnage, and the whole coast, including Dunkirk, fell into the hands of the English. Then they laid siege to Ypres, and there their disasters began. The city held out with stubbornness from the 9th of June until the 10th of August, when the baffled besiegers—repulsed in a last desperate assault which they had made on the 8th—marched away. "Ypres might rejoice, but the disasters of the long siege proved final. Her stately faubourgs were not rebuilt, and she has never again taken her former rank among the cities of Flanders." In September a powerful French army entered Flanders, and the English crusaders could do nothing but retreat before it, giving up Cassel (which the French burned), then Bergues, then Bourbourg, after a siege, and, finally, setting fire to Gravelines and abandoning that place. "Gravelines was utterly destroyed, but the French soon began to rebuild it. It was repeopled from the surrounding country, and fortified strongly as a menace to Calais." The Crusaders returned to England "'dripping with blood and disgracing their country. Blessed be God who confounds the proud,' says one sharp critic, who appears to have been a monk of Canterbury."

ALSO IN Sir J. Froissart, (Johnes), Chronicles book 2, chapters 130-145 (volumes 1-2).

"Charles V. [of France] had formed the design of obtaining Flanders for his brother Philip, Duke of Burgundy, afterwards known as Philip the Bold—by marrying him to Margaret [daughter and heiress of Louis de Maele, count of Flanders]. To gain the good will of the Communes, he engaged to restore the three bailiwicks of Lille, Douai, and Orchies as a substitute for the 10,000 livres a year promised to Louis de Maele and his successors in 1351, as well as the towns of Peronne, Crèvecœur, Arleux and Château-Chinon, assigned to him in 1358. … On the 13th May, 1369, the 'Lion of Flanders' once more floated, after an interval of half a century, over the walls of Lille, Douai, and Orchies, and at the same time Flemish garrisons marched into St. Omer, Aire, Bethune and Hesdin. The marriage ceremony took place at Ghent on the 19th of June." The Duke of Burgundy waited fourteen years for the heritage of his wife. In January, 1383, Count Louis died, and Flanders was added to the great and growing dominion of the new Burgundian house.

FLANDERS: A. D. 1477.
   Severance from Burgundy.
   Transference to the Austrian House by marriage of Mary of
   Burgundy.

FLANDERS: A. D. 1494-1588.
The Austro-Spanish sovereignty and its oppressions.
The great revolt and its failure in the Flemish provinces.

FLAVIA CÆSARIENSIS.

"We have designated the second period of the [Roman] Empire by the name of the Flavian family—the family of Vespasian [Titus Flavius Vespasian]. The nine Emperors who were successively invested with the purple, in the space of the 123 years from his accession, were not all, however, of Flavian race, even by the rites of adoption, which in Rome was become a second nature; but the respect of the world for the virtues of Flavius Vespasian induced them all to assume his name, and most of them showed themselves worthy of such an affiliation. Vespasian had been invested with the purple at Alexandria, on the 1st of July, A. D. 69; he died in 79. His two sons reigned in succession after him; Titus, from 79 to 81; Domitian, from 81 to 96. The latter having been assassinated, Nerva, then an old man, was raised to the throne by the Senate (A. D. 96-98). He adopted Trajan (98-117); who adopted Adrian (117-138). Adrian adopted Antoninus Pius (138-161); who adopted Marcus Aurelius (161-180); and Commodus succeeded his father, Marcus Aurelius (180-192). No period in history presents such a succession of good and great men upon any throne: two monsters, Domitian and Commodus, interrupt and terminate it."

FLEMINGS. FLEMISH.

FLEMISH GUILDS.

"Fæsulre was situated on a hill above Florence. Florentine traditions call it the metropolis of Florence, which would accordingly be a colony of Fæsulre; but a statement in Machiavelli and others describes Florence as a colony of Sulla, and this statement must have been derived from some local chronicle. Fæsulre was no doubt an ancient Etruscan town, probably one of the twelve. It was taken in the war of Sulla [B. C. 82-81]. … My conjecture is, that Sulla not only built a strong fort on the top of the hill of Fæsulre, but also the new colony of Florentia below, and gave to it the 'ager Fæsulanus.'"

B. G. Niebuhr, Lectures on Ancient Ethnography and Geography. volume 2, page 228.

   "We can reasonably suppose that the ancient trading nations
   may have pushed their small craft up the Arno to the present
   site of Florence, and thus have gained a more immediate
   communication with the flourishing city of Fiesole than they
   could through other ports of Etruria, from whatever race its
   people might have sprung. Admitting the high antiquity of
   Fiesole, the imagined work of Atlas, and the tomb of his
   celestial daughter, we may easily believe that a market was
   from very early times established in the plain, where both by
   land and water the rural produce could be brought for sale
   without ascending the steep on which that city stood. Such
   arrangements would naturally result from the common course of
   events, and a more convenient spot could scarcely be found
   than the present site of Florence, to which the Arno is still
   navigable by boats from its mouth, and at that time perhaps by
   two branches. … 'There were,' says Villani, 'inhabitants
   round San Giovanni, because the people of Fiesole held their
   market there one day in the week, and it was called the Field
   of Mars, the ancient name: however it was always, from the
   first, the market of the Fiesolines, and thus it was called
   before Florence existed.'
{1130}
   And again: 'The Pæetor Florinus, with a Roman army, encamped
   beyond the Arno towards Fiesole and had two small villages
   there, … where the people of Fiesole one day in the week
   held a general market with the neighbouring towns and
   villages. … On the site of this camp, as we are also assured
   by Villani, was erected the city of Florence, after the
   capture of Fiesole by Pompey, Cæsar, and Martius; but Leonardo
   Aretino, following Malespini, asserts that it was the work of
   Sylla's legions, who were already in possession of Fiesole.
   … The variety of opinions almost equals the number of
   authors. … It may be reasonably concluded that Florence,
   springing originally from Fiesole, finally rose to the rank of
   a Roman colony and the seat of provincial government; a
   miniature of Rome, with its Campus Martius, its Capitol,
   Forum, temple of Mars, aqueducts, baths, theatre and
   amphitheatre, all erected in imitation of the 'Eternal City;'
   for vestiges of all these are still existing either in name or
   substance. The name of Florence is as dark as its origin, and
   a thousand derivations have confused the brains of
   antiquarians and their readers without much enlightening them,
   while the beautiful Giagiolo or Iris, the city's emblem, still
   clings to her old grey walls, as if to assert its right to be
   considered as the genuine source of her poetic appellation.
   From the profusion of these flowers that formerly decorated
   the meads between the rivers Mugnone and Arno, has sprung one
   of the most popular opinions on the subject; for a white plant
   of the same species having shown itself amongst the rising
   fabrics, the incident was poetically seized upon and the Lily
   then first assumed its station in the crimson banner of
   Florence."

"There is … an assertion by Villani, that Florence contained twenty-two thousand fighting men, without counting the old men and children,' about the middle of the sixth century; and modern statisticians have based on this statement an estimate which would make the population of the city at that period about sixty-one thousand. There are reasons too for believing that very little difference in the population took place during several centuries after that time. Then came the sudden increase arising from the destruction, more or less entire, of Fiesole, and the incorporation of its inhabitants with those of the newer city, which led to the building of the second walls. … An estimate taking the inhabitants of the city at something between seventy and eighty thousand at the period respecting which we are inquiring [beginning of the 12th century] would in all probability be not very wide of the mark. The government of the city was at that time lodged in the hands of magistrates exercising both legislative and administrative authority, called Consuls, assisted by a senate composed of a hundred citizens of worth—buoni uomini. These Consuls 'guided everything, and governed the city, and decided causes, and administered justice.' They remained in office for one year. How long this form of government had been established in Florence is uncertain. It was not in existence in the year 897; but it was in activity in 1102. From 1138 we have a nearly complete roll of the names of the consuls for each year down to 1219. … The first recorded deeds of the young community thus governed, and beginning to feel conscious and proud of its increasing strength, were characteristic enough of the tone of opinion and sentiment which prevailed within its walls, and of the career on which it was entering. 'In the year 1107,' says Malispini, 'the city of Florence being much increased, the Florentines, wishing to extend their territory, determined to make war against any castle or fortress which would not be obedient to them. And in that year they took by force Monte Orlando, which belonged to certain gentlemen who would not be obedient to the city. And they were defeated, and the castle was destroyed.' These 'gentlemen,' so styled by the civic historian who thus curtly records the destruction of their home, in contradistinction to the citizens who by no means considered themselves such, were the descendants or representatives of those knights and captains, mostly of German race, to whom the Emperors had made grants of the soil according to the feudal practice and system. They held directly of the Empire, and in no wise owed allegiance or obedience of any sort to the community of Florence. But they occupied almost all the country around the rising city; and the citizens' wanted to extend their territory.' Besides, these territorial lords were, as has been said, gentlemen, and lived as such, stopping wayfarers on the highways, levying tolls in the neighbourhood of their strongholds, and in many ways making themselves disagreeable neighbours to peaceable folks. … The next incident on the record, however, would seem to show that peaceful townsfolk as well as marauding nobles were liable to be overrun by the car of manifest destiny, if they came in the way of it. 'In the same year,' says the curt old historian, 'the men of Prato rebelled against the Florentines; wherefore they went out in battle against it, and took it by siege and destroyed it.' Prato rebelled against Florence! It is a very singular statement; for there is not the shadow of a pretence put forward, or the smallest ground for imagining that Florence had or could have claimed any sort of suzerainty over Prato. … The territorial nobles, however, who held castles in the district around Florence were the principal objects of the early prowess of the citizens; and of course offence against them was offence against the Emperor. … In 1113, accordingly, we find an Imperial vicar residing in Tuscany at St. Miniato; not the convent-topped hill of that name in the immediate neighbourhood of Florence, but a little mountain city of the same name, overlooking the lower Valdarno, about half way between Florence and Pisa. … There the Imperial Vicars perched themselves hawk-like, with their Imperial troops, and swooped down from time to time to chastise and bring back such cities of the plain as too audaciously set at naught the authority of the Emperor. And really these upstart Florentines were taking the bit between their teeth, and going on in a way that no Imperial Vicar could tolerate. … So the indignant cry of the harried Counts Cadolingi, and of several other nobles holding of the Empire, whose houses had been burned over their heads by these audacious citizens, went up to the ears of 'Messer Ruberto,' the Vicar, in San Miniato. {1131} Whereupon that noble knight, indignant at the wrong done to his fellow nobles, as well as at the offence against the authority of his master the Emperor, forthwith put lance in rest, called out his men, and descended from his mountain fortress to take summary vengeance on the audacious city. On his way thither he had to pass through that very gorge where the castle of Monte Orlando had stood, and under the ruins of the house from which the noble vassals of the Empire had been harried. … There were the leathern-jerkined citizens on the very scene of their late misdeed, come out to oppose the further progress of the Emperor's Vicar and his soldiers. And there, as the historian writes, with curiously impassible brevity, 'the said Messer Ruberto was discomfited and killed.' And nothing further is heard of him, or of any after consequences resulting from the deed. Learned legal antiquaries insist much on the fact, that the independence of Florence and the other Communes was never 'recognised' by the Emperors; and they are no doubt perfectly accurate in saying so. One would think, however, that that unlucky Vicar of theirs, Messer Ruberto, must have 'recognised' the fact, though somewhat tardily."

T. A. Trollope, History of the Commonwealth of Florence, book 1, chapter 1 (volume 1).

Countess Matilda, the famous friend of Pope Gregory VII., whose wide dominion included Tuscany, died in 1115, bequeathing her vast possessions to the Church.

"In reality she was only entitled thus to bequeath her allodial lands, the remainder being imperial fiefs. But as it was not always easy to distinguish between the two sorts, and the popes were naturally anxious to get as much as they could, a fresh source of contention was added to the constant quarrels between the Empire and the Church. 'Henry IV. immediately despatched a representative into Tuscany, who under the title of Marchio, Judex, or Praeses, was to govern the Marquisate in his name.' 'Nobody,' says Professor Villari, 'could legally dispute his right to do this: but the opposition of the Pope, the attitude of the towns which now considered themselves independent and the universal confusion rendered the Marquis's authority illusory. The imperial representatives had no choice but to put themselves at the head of the feudal nobility of the contado and unite it into a Germanic party hostile to the cities. In the documents of the period the members of this party are continually described as Teutonici.' By throwing herself in this juncture on the side of the Pope, and thus becoming the declared opponent of the empire and the feudal lords, Florence practically proclaimed her independence. The grandi, having the same interests with the working classes, identified themselves with these; became their leaders, their consuls in fact if not yet in name. Thus was the consular commune born, or, rather, thus did it recognize itself on reaching manhood; for born, in reality, it had already been for some time, only so quietly and unconsciously that nobody had marked its origin or, until now, its growth. The first direct consequence of this self-recognition was that the rulers were chosen out of a larger number of families. As long as Matilda had chosen the officers to whom the government of the town was entrusted, the Uberti and a few others who formed their clan, their kinsmen, and their connections had been selected, to the exclusion of the mass of the citizens. Now more people were admitted to a share in the administration: the offices were of shorter duration, and out of those selected to govern each family had its turn. But those who had formerly been privileged—the Uberti and others of the same tendencies and influence—were necessarily discontented with this state of things, and there are indications in Villani of burnings and of tumults such as later, when the era of faction fights had fairly begun, so often desolated the streets of Florence."

FLORENCE: A. D. 1215-1250.
The beginning, the causes and the meaning of the strife of the
Guelfs and Ghibellines.

Nearly from the beginning of the 13th century, all Italy, and Florence more than other Italian communities, became distracted and convulsed by a contest of raging factions. "The main distinction was that between Ghibellines and Guelphs—two names in their origin far removed from Italy. They were first heard in Germany in 1140, when at Winsberg in Suabia a battle was fought between two contending claimants of the Empire; the one, Conrad of Hohenstauffen, Duke of Franconia, chose for his battle-cry 'Waiblingen,' the name of his patrimonial castle in Würtemburg; the other, Henry the Lion, Duke of Saxony, chose his own family name of 'Welf,' or 'Wölf.' Conrad proved victorious, and his kindred to the fourth ensuing generation occupied the imperial throne; yet both war-cries survived the contest which gave them birth, lingering on in Germany as equivalents of Imperialist and anti-Imperialist. By a process perfectly clear to philologists, they were modified in Italy into the forms Ghibellino and Guelfo; and the Popes being there the great opponents of the Emperors, an Italian Guelph was a Papalist. The cities were mainly Guelph; the nobles most frequently Ghibelline. A private feud had been the means of involving Florence in the contest."

   "The Florentines kept themselves united till the year 1215,
   rendering obedience to the ruling power, and anxious only to
   preserve their own safety. But, as the diseases which attack
   our bodies are more dangerous and mortal in proportion as they
   are delayed, so Florence, though late to take part in the
   sects of Italy, was afterwards the more afflicted by them. The
   cause of her first division is well known, having been
   recorded by Dante and many other writers; I shall, however,
   briefly notice it. Amongst the most powerful families of
   Florence were the Buondelmonti and the Uberti; next to these
   were the Amidei and the Donati. Of the Donati family there was
   a rich widow who had a daughter of exquisite beauty, for whom, in
   her own mind, she had fixed upon Buondelmonti, a young
   gentleman, the head of the Buondelmonti family, as her
   husband; but either from negligence, or because she thought it
   might be accomplished at any time, she had not made known her
   intention, when it happened that the cavalier betrothed
   himself to a maiden of the Amidei family. This grieved the
   Donati widow exceedingly; but she hoped, with her daughter's
   beauty, to disturb the arrangement before the celebration of
   the marriage; and from an upper apartment, seeing Buondelmonti
   approach her house alone, she descended, and as he was passing
   she said to him, 'I am glad to learn you have chosen a wife,
   although I had reserved my daughter for you'; and, pushing the
   door open, presented her to his view.
{1132}
   The cavalier, seeing the beauty of the girl, … became
   inflamed with such an ardent desire to possess her, that, not
   thinking of the promise given, or the injury he committed in
   breaking it, or of the evils which his breach of faith might
   bring upon himself, said, 'Since you have reserved her for me,
   I should be very ungrateful indeed to refuse her, being yet at
   liberty to choose'; and without any delay married her. As soon
   as the fact became known, the Amidei and the Uberti, whose
   families were allied, were filled with rage," and some of
   them, lying in wait for him, assassinated him as he was riding
   through the streets. "This murder divided the whole city; one
   party espousing the cause of the Buondelmonti, the other that
   of the Uberti; and … they contended with each other for many
   years, without one being able to destroy the other. Florence
   continued in these troubles till the time of Frederick II.,
   who, being king of Naples, endeavoured to strengthen himself
   against the church; and, to give greater stability to his
   power in Tuscany, favoured the Uberti and their followers,
   who, with his assistance, expelled the Buondelmonti; thus our
   city, as all the rest of Italy had long time been, became
   divided into Guelphs and Ghibellines."

"Speaking generally, the Ghibellines were the party of the emperor, and the Guelphs the party of the Pope; the Ghibellines were on the side of authority, or sometimes of oppression, the Guelphs were on the side of liberty and self-government. Again, the Ghibellines were the supporters of an universal empire of which Italy was to be the head, the Guelphs were on the side of national life and national individuality. … If these definitions could be considered as exhaustive, there would be little doubt as to the side to which our sympathies should be given. … We should … expect all patriots to be Guelphs, and the Ghibelline party to be composed of men who were too spiritless to resist despotic power, or too selfish to surrender it. But, on the other hand, we must never forget that Dante was a Ghibelline."

FLORENCE: A. D. 1248-1278.
The wars of a generation of the Guelfs and Ghibellines.

In 1248, the Ghibellines, at the instigation of Frederick II., and with help from his German soldiery, expelled the Guelfs from the city, after desperate fighting for several days, and destroyed the mansions of their chiefs, to the number of 38. In 1250 there was a rising of the people—of the under-stratum which the cleavage of parties hardly penetrated—and a popular constitution of government was brought into force. At the same time, the high towers, which were the strongholds of the contending nobles, were thrown down. An attempt was then made by the leaders of the people to restore peace between the Ghibellines and the Guelfs, but the effort was vain; whereupon the Guelfs (in January, 1251) came back to the city, and the Ghibellines were either driven away or were shut up in their city castles, to which they had retired when the people rose. In 1258 the restless Ghibellines plotted with Manfred, King of the Two Sicilies, to regain possession of Florence. The plot was discovered, and the enraged people drove the last lingerers of the faction from their midst and pulled down their palaces. The great palace of the Uberti family, most obnoxious of all, was not only razed, but a decree was made that no building should ever stand again on its accursed site. The exiled Ghibellines took refuge at Siena, and there plotted again with King Manfred, who sent troops to aid them. The Florentines did not wait to be attacked, but marched out to meet them on Sienese territory, and suffered a terrible defeat at Montaperti (September 4, 1260), in the battle that Dante refers to, "which coloured the river Arbia red." "'On that day,' says Villani, … 'was broken and destroyed the old popular government of Florence, which had existed for ten years with so great power and dignity, and had won so many victories.' Few events have ever left a more endurable impression on the memory of a people than this great battle between two cities and parties animated both of them by the most unquenchable hatred. The memory of that day has lasted through 600 years, more freshly perhaps in Siena than in Florence." As a natural consequence of their defeat at Montaperti, the Guelfs were again forced to fly into exile from Florence, and this expatriation included a large number of even the commoner people. "So thorough had been the defeat, so complete the Ghibelline ascendency resulting from it, that in every city the same scene on a lesser scale was taking place. Many of the smaller towns, which had always been Guelph in their sympathies, were now subjected to Ghibelline despotism. One refuge alone remained in Tuscany—Lucca. … And thither the whole body of the expatriated Guelphs betook themselves. … The Ghibellines entered Florence in triumph on the 16th of September, three days after their enemies had left it. … The city seemed like a desert. The gates were standing open and unguarded; the streets were empty; the comparatively few inhabitants who remained, almost entirely of the lowest class of the populace, were shut up in their obscure dwellings, or were on their knees in the churches. And what was worse, the conquerors did not come back alone. They had invited a foreign despot to restore order;" and so King Manfred's general, Giordano da Anglona, established Count Guido Novello in Florence as Manfred's vicar. "All the constitutional authorities established by the people, and the whole frame-work of the former government, were destroyed, and the city was ruled entirely by direction transmitted from the King's Sicilian court." There were serious proposals, even, that Florence itself should be destroyed, and the saving of the noble city from that untimely fate is credited to one patriotic noble, of the Uberti family, who withstood the proposition, alone. "The Ghibelline army marched on Lucca, and had not much more difficulty in reducing that city. The government was put into Ghibelline hands, and Lucca became a Ghibelline city like all the rest of Tuscany. The Lucchese were not required by the victors to turn their own Guelphs out of the city. But it was imperatively insisted on that every Guelph not a native citizen should be thrust forth from the gates." The unfortunate Florentines, thus made homeless again, now found shelter at Bologna, and presently helped their friends at Modena and Reggio to overcome the Ghibellines in those cities and recover control. But for five years their condition was one of wretchedness. Then Charles of Anjou was brought into Italy (1265) by the Pope, to snatch the crown of the Two Sicilies from King Manfred, and succeeded in his undertaking.

The prop of the Ghibellines was broken. Guido Novello and his troopers rode away from Florence; 800 French horsemen, sent by the new Angevine king, under Guy de Montfort, took their places; the Guelfs swarmed in again—the Ghibellines swarmed out; the popular constitution was restored, with new features more popular than before. In 1273 there was a great attempt made by Pope Gregory X. in person, to reconcile the factions in Florence; but it had so little success that the Holy Father left the city in disgust and pronounced it under interdict for three years. In 1278 the attempt was renewed with somewhat better success. "'And now, says Villani, 'the Ghibellines were at liberty to return to Florence, they and their families. … And the said Ghibellines had back again their goods and possessions; except that certain of the leading families were ordered, for the safety of the city, to remain for a certain time beyond the boundaries of the Florentine territory.' In fact, little more is heard henceforward of the Ghibellines as a faction within the walls of Florence. The old name, as a rallying cry for the Tory or Imperialist party, was still raised here and there in Tuscany; and Pisa still called herself Ghibelline. But the stream of progress had run past them and left them stranded."

T. A. Trollope, History of the Commonwealth of Florence, book 1, chapters 4-5, and book 2, chapter 1 (volume 1).

FLORENCE: A. D. 1250-1293.
Development of the popular constitution of the Commonwealth.

When it became clear that the republic was to rule itself henceforth untrammelled by imperial interference, the people [in 1250] divided themselves into six districts, and chose for each district two Ancients, who administered the government in concert with the Potestà and the Captain of the People. The Ancients were a relic of the old Roman municipal organization. … The body of the citizens, or the popolo, were ultimately sovereigns in the State. Assembled under the banners of their several companies, they formed a parlamento for delegating their own power to each successive government. Their representatives, again, arranged in two councils, called the Council of the People and the Council of the Commune, under the presidency of the Captain of the People and the Potestà, ratified the measures which had previously been proposed and carried by the executive authority or signoria. Under this simple State system the Florentines placed themselves at the head of the Tuscan League, fought the battles of the Church, asserted their sovereignty by issuing the golden florin of the republic, and flourished until 1266. In that year an important change was effected in the Constitution. The whole population of Florence consisted, on the one hand, of nobles or Grandi, as they were called in Tuscany, and on the other hand of working people. The latter, divided into traders and handicraftsmen, were distributed in guilds called Arti; and at that time there were seven Greater and five Lesser Arti, the most influential of all being the Guild of the Wool Merchants. These guilds had their halls for meeting, their colleges of chief officers, their heads, called Consoli or Priors, and their flags. In 1266 it was decided that the administration of the commonwealth should be placed simply and wholly in the hands of the Arti, and the Priors of these industrial companies became the lords or Signory of Florence. No inhabitant of the city who had not enrolled himself as a craftsman in one of the guilds could exercise any function of burghership. To be scioperato, or without industry, was to be without power, without rank or place of honour in the State. The revolution which placed the Arts at the head of the republic had the practical effect of excluding the Grandi altogether from the government. … In 1293, after the Ghibellines had been defeated in the great battle of Campaldino, a series of severe enactments, called the Ordinances of Justice, were decreed against the unruly Grandi. All civic rights were taken from them; the severest penalties were attached to their slightest infringement of municipal law; their titles to land were limited; the privilege of living within the city walls was allowed them only under galling restrictions; and last not least, a supreme magistrate, named the Gonfalonier of Justice, was created for the special purpose of watching them and carrying out the penal code against them. Henceforward Florence was governed exclusively by merchants and artisans. The Grandi hastened to enroll themselves in the guilds, exchanging their former titles and dignities for the solid privilege of burghership. The exact parallel to this industrial constitution for a commonwealth, carrying on wars with emperors and princes, holding haughty captains in its pay, and dictating laws to subject cities, cannot, I think, be elsewhere found in history. It is as unique as the Florence of Dante and Giotto is unique."

J. A. Symonds, Florence and the Medici (Sketches and Studies in Italy, chapter 5).

FLORENCE: A. D. 1289.
The victory of Campaldino, and the jealousy among its heroes.

   In 1289 the Ghibellines of Arezzo having expelled the Guelfs
   from that city, the Florentines made war in the cause of the
   latter and won a great victory at Campaldino. This "raised the
   renown and the military spirit of the Guelf party, for the
   fame of the battle was very great; the hosts contained the
   choicest chivalry of either side, armed and appointed with
   emulous splendour. The fighting was hard, there was brilliant
   and conspicuous gallantry, and the victory was complete. It
   sealed Guelf ascendency. The Ghibelline warrior-bishop of
   Arezzo fell, with three of the Uberti, and other Ghibelline
   chiefs. … In this battle the Guelf leaders had won great
   glory. The hero of the day was the proudest, handsomest,
   craftiest, most winning, most ambitious, most unscrupulous
   Guelf noble in Florence—one of a family who inherited the
   spirit and recklessness of the proscribed Uberti, and did not
   refuse the popular epithet of 'Malefami'—Corso Donati.
{1134}
   He did not come back from the field of Campaldino, where he
   had won the battle by disobeying orders, with any increased
   disposition to yield to rivals, or court the populace, or
   respect other men's rights. Those rivals, too—and they also
   had fought gallantly in the post of honour at Campaldino—were
   such as he hated from his soul—rivals whom he despised, and
   who yet were too strong for him [the family of the Cerchi].
   His blood was ancient, they were upstarts; he was a soldier,
   they were traders; he was poor, they the richest men in
   Florence. … They had crossed him in marriages, bargains,
   inheritances. … The glories of Campaldino were not as oil on
   these troubled waters. The conquerors flouted each other all
   the more fiercely in the streets on their return, and
   ill-treated the lower people with less scruple."

FLORENCE: A. D. 1295-1300.
New factions in the city, and Dante's relations to them.
The Bianchi and the Neri (Whites and Blacks).

Among the Nobles "who resisted the oppression of the people, Corso Donati must have been the chief, but he did not at first come forward; with one of his usual stratagems, however, he was the cause of a new revolution [January, 1295], which drove Giano della Bella, the leader of the people, from the city. … Notwithstanding the fall of Giano, the Nobles did not return into power. He was succeeded as a popular leader by one much his inferior, one Pecora, surnamed, from his trade, the Butcher. New disputes arose between the nobles and the people, and between the upper and lower ranks of the people itself. Villani tells us that, in the year 1295, 'many families, who were neither tyrannical nor powerful, withdrew from the order of the nobles, and enrolled themselves among the people, diminishing the power of the nobles and increasing that of the people.' Dante must have been precisely one of those nobles 'who were neither tyrannical nor powerful;' and … it is certain that he was among those who passed over from their own order to that of the Popolani, by being matriculated in one of the Arts. In a register from 1297 to 1300, of the Art of the physicians and druggists, the fifth of the seven major Arts, he is found matriculated in these words: 'Dante d'Aldighiero degli Aldighieri poeta fiorentino.' … Dante, by this means, obtained office under the popular government. … The new factions that arose in Florence, in almost all Tuscany, and in some of the cities in other parts of Italy, were merely subdivisions of the Guelf party; merely what, in time, happens to every faction after a period of prosperity, a division of the ultras and of the moderates, or of those who hold more or less extravagant views. … All this happened to the Guelf party in a very few years, and the Neri and Bianchi, the names 'Of the two divisions of that party, which had arisen in 1300, were no longer mentioned ten years afterwards, but were again lost in the primitive appellations of Guelfs and Ghibellines. Thus this episode would possess little interest, and would be scarcely mentioned in the history of Italy, or even of Florence, had not the name of our sublime Poet been involved in it; and, after his love, it is the most important circumstance of his life, and the one to which he most frequently alludes in his Commedia. It thus becomes a subject worthy of history. … Florentine historians attribute Corso Donati's hatred towards Vieri de Cerchi to envy. … This envy arose to such a height between Dante's neighbours in Florence that he has rendered it immortal. 'Through envy,' says Villani, 'the citizens began to divide into factions, and one of the principal feuds began in the Sesto dello Scandalo, near the gate of St. Pietro, between the families of the Cerchi and the Donati [from which latter family came Dante's wife]. … Messer Vieri was the head of the House of the Cerchi, and he and his house were powerful in affairs, possessing a numerous kindred; they were very rich merchants, for their company was one of the greatest in the world.'" The state of animosity between these two families "was existing in Florence in the beginning of 1300, when it was increased by another rather similar family quarrel that had arisen in Pistoia. . . . 'There was in Pistoia a family which amounted to more than 100 men capable of bearing arms; it was not of great antiquity, but was powerful, wealthy, and numerous; it was descended from one Cancellieri Notaio, and from him they had preserved Cancellieri as their family name. From the children of the two wives of this man were descended the 107 men of arms that have been enumerated; one of the wives having been named Madonna Bianca, her descendants were called Cancellieri Bianchi (White Cancellieri); and the descendants of the other wife, in opposition, were called Cancellieri Neri (Black Cancellieri).'" Between these two branches of the family of the Cancellieri there arose, some time near the end of the thirteenth century, an implacable feud. "Florence … exercised a supremacy over Pistoia … and fearing that these internal dissensions might do injury to the Guelf party, she took upon herself the lordship or supremacy of that city. The principal Cancellieri, both Bianchi and Neri, were banished to Florence itself; 'the Neri took up their abode in the house of the Frescobaldi, beyond the Arno; the Bianchi at the house of the Cerchi, in the Garbo, from being connected with them by kindred. But as one sick sheep infects another, and is injurious to the flock, so this cursed seed of discord, that had departed from Pistoia and had now entered Florence, corrupted all the Florentines, and divided them into two parties.' … The Cerchi, formerly called the Forest party (parte selvaggia), now assumed the name of Bianchi; and those who followed the Donati were now called Neri. … 'There sided with [the Bianchi, says Villani] the families of the Popolani and petty artisans, and all the Ghibellines, whether Nobles or Popolani.' … Thus the usual position in which the two parties stood was altered; for hitherto the Nobles had almost always been Ghibellines, and the Popolani Guelfs; but now, if the Popolani were not Ghibellines, they were at least not such strong Guelfs as the nobles. Sometimes these parties are referred to as White Guelfs and Black Guelfs."

FLORENCE: A. D. 1301-1313.
   Triumph of the Neri.
   Banishment of Dante and his party.
   Downfall and death of Corso Donati.

"In the year 1301, a serious affray took place between the two parties [the Bianchi and the Neri]; the whole city was in arms; the law, and the authority of the Signoria, among whom was the poet Dante Alighieri, was set at naught by the great men of each side, while the best citizens looked on with fear and trembling. The Donati, fearing that unaided they would not be a match for their adversaries, proposed that they should put themselves under a ruler of the family of the king of France. Such a direct attack on the independence of the state was not to be borne by the Signoria, among whom the poet had great influence. At his instigation they armed the populace, and with their assistance compelled the heads of the contending parties to lay down their arms, and sent into exile Messer Donati and others who had proposed the calling in of foreigners. A sentence of banishment was also pronounced against the most violent men of the party of the Bianchi, most of whom, however, were allowed, under various pretences, to return to their country. The party of the Donati in their exile carried on those intrigues which they had commenced while at home. They derived considerable assistance from the king of France's brother, Charles of Valois, whom Pope Boniface had brought into Italy. That prince managed, by means of promises, which he subsequently violated, to get admission for himself, together with several of the Neri, and the legate of the pope, into Florence. He then produced letters, generally suspected to be forgeries, charging the leaders of the Bianchi with conspiracy. The popularity of the accused party had already been on the wane, and after a violent tumult, the chief men among them, including Dante, were obliged to leave the city; their goods were confiscated, and their houses destroyed. … From this time Corso Donati, the head of the faction of the Neri, became the chief man at Florence. The accounts of its state at this period, taken from the most credible historians, warrant us in thinking that the severe invectives of Dante are not to be ascribed merely to indignation or resentment at the harsh treatment he had received. … The city was rent by more violent dissensions than ever. There were now three distinct sources of contention—the jealousy between the people and the nobles, the disputes between the Bianchi and the Neri, and those between the Ghibellines and the Guelfs. It was in vain that the legate of Pope Benedict, a man of great piety, went thither for the sake of trying to restore order. The inhabitants showed how little they respected him by exhibiting a scandalous representation of hell on the river Arno; and, after renewing his efforts without success, he cursed the city and departed [1302]. The reign of Corso Donati ended like that of most of those who have succeeded to power by popular violence. Six years after the banishment of his adversaries he was suspected, not without reason, of endeavouring to make himself independent of constitutional restraints. The Signori declared him guilty of rebellion. After a protracted resistance he made his escape from the city, but was pursued and taken at Rovesca [1308]. When he was led captive by those among whom his authority had lately been paramount, he threw himself under his horse, and, after having been dragged some distance, he was dispatched by one of the captors. … The party that had been raised by Corso Donati continued to hold the chief power at Florence even after the death of their chief. The exiled faction, in the words of one of their leaders, … had not learned the art of returning to their country as well as their adversaries. Four years after the events alluded to, the Emperor, Henry VII., made some negotiations in their favour, which but imperfectly succeeded. The Florentines, however, were awed when he approached their city at the head of his army; and in the extremity of their danger they implored the assistance of King Robert of Naples, and made him Lord of their city for the space of five years. The Emperor's mysterious death [August 24, 1313], at Buonconvento freed them from their alarm."

W. P. Urquhart, Life and Times of Francesco Sforza, book 1, chapter 3 (volume 1).

FLORENCE: A. D. 1310-1313.
Resistance to the Emperor, Henry VII.
Siege by the imperial army.

FLORENCE: A. D. 1313-1328.
Wars with Pisa and with Castruccio Castracani, of Lucca.
Disastrous battles of Montecatini and Altopascio.

FLORENCE: A. D. 1341-1343.
Defeat by the Pisans before Lucca.
The brief tyranny of the Duke of Athens.

In 1341, Mastino della Scala, of Verona, who had become master of Lucca in 1335 by treachery, offered to sell that town to the Florentines. The bargain was concluded; "but it appeared to the Pisans the signal of their own servitude, for it cut off all communication between them and the Ghibelines of Lombardy. They immediately advanced their militia into the Lucchese states to prevent the Florentines from taking possession of the town; vanquished them in battle, on the 2d of October, 1341, under the walls of Lucca; and, on the 6th of July following, took possession of that city for themselves. The people of Florence attributed this train of disasters to the incapacity of their magistrates. … At this period, Gauttier [Walter] de Brienne, duke of Athens, a French noble, but born in Greece, passed through Florence on his way from Naples to France; The duchy of Athens had remained in his family from the conquest of Constantinople till it was taken from his father in 1312. … It was for this man the Florentines, after their defeat at Lucca, took a sudden fancy. … On the 1st of August, 1342, they obliged the signoria to confer on him the title of captain of justice, and to give him the command of their militia." A month later, the duke, by his arts, had worked such a ferment among the lower classes of the population that they "proclaimed him sovereign lord of Florence for his life, forced the public palace, drove from it the gonfalonier and the priori, and installed him there in their place. … Happily, Florence was not ripe for slavery: ten months sufficed for the duke of Athens to draw from it 400,000 golden florins, which he sent either to France or Naples; but ten months sufficed also to undeceive all parties who had placed any confidence in him," and by a universal rising, in July, 1343, he was driven from the city.

ALSO IN: T. A. Trollope, History of the Commonwealth of Florence, book 3, chapter 4 (volume 2).

"John Villani has given us an ample and precise account of the state of Florence in the earlier part of the 14th century. The revenue of the Republic amounted to 300,000 florins, a sum which, allowing for the depreciation of the precious metals, was at least equivalent to 600,000 pounds sterling; a larger sum than England and Ireland, two centuries ago, yielded annually to Elizabeth—a larger sum than, according to any computation which we have seen, the Grand Duke of Tuscany now derives from a territory of much greater extent. The manufacture of wool alone employed 200 factories and 30,000 workmen. The cloth annually produced sold, at an average, for 1,200,000 florins; a sum fairly equal, in exchangeable value, to two millions and a half of our money. Four hundred thousand florins were annually coined. Eighty banks conducted the commercial operations, not of Florence only, but of all Europe. The transactions of these establishments were sometimes of a magnitude which may surprise even the contemporaries of the Barings and the Rothschilds. Two houses advanced to Edward the Third of England upwards of 300,000 marks, at a time when the mark contained more silver than 50 shillings of the present day, and when the value of silver was more than quadruple of what it now is. The city and its environs contained 170,000 inhabitants. In the various schools about 10,000 children were taught to read; 1,200 studied arithmetic; 600 received a learned education. The progress of elegant literature and of the fine arts was proportioned to that of the public prosperity. … Early in the 14th century came forth the Divine Comedy, beyond comparison the greatest work of imagination which had appeared since the poems of Homer. The following generation produced indeed no second Dante: but it was eminently distinguished by general intellectual activity. The study of the Latin writers had never been wholly neglected in Italy. But Petrarch introduced a more profound, liberal, and elegant scholarship; and communicated to his countrymen that enthusiasm for the literature, the history, and the antiquities of Rome, which divided his own heart with a frigid mistress and a more frigid Muse. Boccaccio turned their attention to the more sublime and graceful models of Greece."

"In the year then of our Lord 1348, there happened at Florence, the finest city in all Italy, a most terrible plague; which, whether owing to the influence of the planets, or that it was sent from God as a just punishment for our sins, had broken out some years before in the Levant, and after passing from place to place, and making incredible havoc all the way, had now reached the west. There, spite of all the means that art and human foresight could suggest, such as keeping the city clear from filth, the exclusion of all suspected persons, and the publication of copious instructions for the preservation of health; and notwithstanding manifold humble supplications offered to God in processions and otherwise; it began to show itself in the spring of the aforesaid year, in a sad and wonderful manner. Unlike what had been seen in the east, where bleeding from the nose is the fatal prognostic, here there appeared certain tumours in the groin or under the armpits, some as big as a small apple, others as an egg; and afterwards purple spots in most parts of the body; in some cases large and but few in number, in others smaller and more numerous—both sorts the usual messengers of death. To the cure of this malady, neither medical knowledge nor the power of drugs was of any effect. … Nearly all died the third day from the first appearance of the symptoms, some sooner, some later, without any fever or other accessory symptoms. What gave the more virulence to this plague, was that, by being communicated from the sick to the hale, it spread daily, like fire when it comes in contact with large masses of combustibles. Nor was it caught only by conversing with, or coming near the sick, but even by touching their clothes, or anything that they had before touched. … These facts, and others of the like sort, occasioned various fears and devices amongst those who survived, all tending to the same uncharitable and cruel end; which was, to avoid the sick, and everything that had been near them, expecting by that means to save themselves. And some holding it best to live temperately, and to avoid excesses of all kinds, made parties, and shut themselves up from the rest of the world. … Others maintained free living to be a better preservative, and would baulk no passion or appetite they wished to gratify, drinking and revelling incessantly from tavern to tavern, or in private houses (which were frequently found deserted by the owners, and therefore common to everyone), yet strenuously avoiding, with all this brutal indulgence, to come near the infected. And such, at that time, was the public distress, that the laws, human and divine, were no more regarded; for the officers to put them in force being either dead, sick, or in want of persons to assist them, everyone did just as he pleased. … I pass over the little regard that citizens and relations showed to each other; for their terror was such that a brother even fled from a brother, a wife from her husband, and, what is more uncommon, a parent from his own child. … Such was the cruelty of Heaven, and perhaps of men, that between March and July following, according to authentic reckonings, upwards of 100,000 souls perished in the city only; whereas, before that calamity, it was not supposed to have continued so many inhabitants. What magnificent dwellings, what noble palaces, were then depopulated to the last inhabitant!"

   "The magistracy called the 'Capitani di Parte Guelfa,'—the
   Captains of the Guelph party,—was instituted in the year
   1267; and it was remarked, when the institution of it was
   recorded, that the conception of a magistracy avowedly formed
   to govern a community, not only by the authority of, but in
   the interest of one section only of its members, was an
   extraordinary proof of the unfitness of the Florentines for
   self-government, and a forewarning of the infallible certainty
   that the attempt to rule the Commonwealth on such principles
   would come to a bad ending. In the year 1358, a little less
   than a century after the first establishment of this strange
   magistracy, it began to develop the mischievous capabilities
   inherent in the nature of it, in a very alarming manner. …
{1137}
   In 1358 this magistracy consisted of four members. … These
   men, 'born,' says Ammirato, 'for the public ruin, under
   pretext of zeal for the Guelph cause' … caused a law to be
   passed, according to which any citizen or Florentine subject
   who had ever held, or should thereafter hold, any office in
   the Commonwealth, might be either openly or secretly accused
   before the tribunal of the Captains of the Guelph Party of
   being Ghibelline, or not genuine Guelph. If the accusation was
   supported by six witnesses worthy of belief, the accused might
   be condemned to death or to fine at the discretion of the
   Captains. … It will be readily conceived that the passing of
   such a law, in a city bristling with party hatreds and feuds,
   was the signal for the commencement of a reign of terror." The
   citizens proscribed were "said to be 'admonished'; and the
   condemnations were called 'admonitions'; and henceforward for
   many years the 'ammonizioni' [or 'ammoniti'] play a large part
   in the domestic history and political struggles of Florence."

T. A. Trollope, History of the Commonwealth of Florence, book 3, chapter 7 (volume 2).

FLORENCE: A. D. 1359-1391. The Free Company of Sir John Hawkwood and the wars with Pisa, with Milan, and with the Pope.

FLORENCE: A. D. 1375-1378.
   War with the Pope in support of the oppressed States of the
   Church.
   The Eight Saints of War.
   A terrible excommunication.

In 1375, the Florentines became engaged in war with Pope Gregory XI., supporting a revolt of the States of the Church, which were heavily oppressed by the representatives of their papal sovereign

"Nevertheless, so profoundly reverenced was the church that even the sound of war against a pope appeared to many little less than blasphemy: numbers opposed on this pretence, but really from party motives alone." But "a general council assembled and declared the cause of liberty paramount to every other consideration; the war was affirmed to be rather against the injustice and tyranny of foreign governors than the church itself. … All the ecclesiastical cities then groaning under French oppression were to be invited to revolt and boldly achieve their independence. These spirited resolutions were instantly executed, and on the 8th of August 1375 Alessandro de' Bardi [and seven other citizens] … were formed into a supreme council of war called 'Gli Otto della Guerra'; and afterwards, from their able conduct, 'Gli Otto Santi della Guerra' [The Eight Saints of War]; armed with the concentrated power of the whole Florentine nation in what regarded war." A terrible sentence of excommunication was launched against the Florentines by the Pope. "Their souls were solemnly condemned to the pains of hell; fire and water were interdicted; their persons and property outlawed in every Christian land, and they were finally declared lawful prey for all who chose to sell, plunder, or kill them as though they were mere slaves or infidels."

FLORENCE: A. D. 1378-1427.
   Complete democratizing of the commonwealth.
   The Tumult of the Ciompi.
   First appearance of the Medici in Florentine history.

Though the reign of the Duke of Athens lasted rather less than a year, "it bore important fruits; for the tyrant, seeking to support himself upon the favour of the common people, gave political power to the Lesser Arts at the expense of the Greater, and confused the old State-system by enlarging the democracy. The net result of these events for Florence was, first, that the city became habituated to rancorous party-strife, involving exiles and proscriptions, and, secondly, that it lost its primitive social hierarchy of classes. … Civil strife now declared itself as a conflict between labour and capital. The members of the Lesser Arts, craftsmen who plied trades subordinate to those of the Greater Arts, rose up against their social and political superiors, demanding a larger share in the government, a more equal distribution of profits, higher wages, and privileges that should place them on an absolute equality with the wealthy merchants. It was in the year 1378 that the proletariate broke out into rebellion. Previous events had prepared the way for this revolt. First of all, the republic had been democratised through the destruction of the Grandi and through the popular policy pursued to gain his own ends by the Duke of Athens. Secondly, society had been shaken to its very foundation by the great plague of 1348 … nor had 30 years sufficed to restore their relative position to grades and ranks confounded by an overwhelming calamity. … Rising in a mass to claim their privileges, the artisans ejected the Signory from the Public Palace, and for awhile Florence was at the mercy of the mob. It is worthy of notice that the Medici, whose name is scarcely known before this epoch, now come for one moment to the front. Salvestro de' Medici was Gonfalonier of Justice at the time when the tumult first broke out. He followed the faction of the handicraftsmen, and became the hero of the day. I cannot discover that he did more than extend a sort of passive protection to their cause. Yet there is no doubt that the attachment of the working classes to the house of Medici dates from this period. The rebellion of 1378 is known in Florentine history as the Tumult of the Ciompi. The name Ciompi strictly means the Wool-Carders. One set of operatives in the city, and that the largest, gave its title to the whole body of the labourers. For some months these craftsmen governed the republic, appointing their own Signory and passing laws in their own interest; but, as is usual, the proletariate found itself incapable of sustained government. The ambition and discontent of the Ciompi foamed themselves away, and industrious workingmen began to see that trade was languishing and credit on the wane. By their own act at last they restored the government to the Priors of the Greater Arti. Still the movement had not been without grave consequences. It completed the levelling of classes, which had been steadily advancing from the first in Florence. After the Ciompi riot there was no longer not only any distinction between noble and burgher, but the distinction between greater and lesser guilds was practically swept away. … The proper political conditions had been formed for unscrupulous adventurers. Florence had become a democracy without social organisation. … The time was come for the Albizzi to attempt an oligarchy, and for the Medici to begin the enslavement of the State. {1138} The Constitution of Florence offered many points of weakness to the attacks of such intriguers. In the first place it was in its origin not a political but an industrial organisation—a simple group of guilds invested with the sovereign authority. … It had no permanent head, like the Doge of Venice, no fixed senate like the Venetian Grand Council; its chief magistrates, the Signory, were elected for short periods of two months, and their mode of election was open to the gravest criticism. Supposed to be chosen by lot, they were really selected from lists drawn up by the factions in power from time to time. These factions contrived to exclude the names of all but their adherents from the bags, or 'borse,' in which the burghers eligible for election had to be inscribed. Furthermore, it was not possible for this shifting Signory to conduct affairs requiring sustained effort and secret deliberation; therefore recourse was being continually had to dictatorial Commissions. The people, summoned in parliament upon the Great Square, were asked to confer plenipotentiary authority upon a committee called Balia [see BALIA OF FLORENCE], who proceeded to do what they chose in the State; and who retained power after the emergency for which they were created passed away. … It was through these [and other specified] defects that the democracy merged gradually into a despotism. The art of the Medici consisted in a scientific comprehension of these very imperfections, a methodic use of them for their own purposes, and a steady opposition to any attempts made to substitute a stricter system. … Florence, in the middle of the 14th century, was a vast beehive of industry. Distinctions of rank among burghers, qualified to vote and hold office, were theoretically unknown. Highly educated men, of more than princely wealth, spent their time in shops and counting-houses, and trained their sons to follow trades. Military service at this period was abandoned by the citizens; they preferred to pay mercenary troops for the conduct of their wars. Nor was there, as in Venice, any outlet for their energies upon the seas. Florence had no navy, no great port—she only kept a small fleet for the protection of her commerce. Thus the vigour of the commonwealth was concentrated on itself; while the influence of citizens, through their affiliated trading-houses, correspondents, and agents, extended like a network over Europe. … Accordingly we find that out of the very bosom of the people a new plutocratic aristocracy begins to rise. … These nobles of the purse obtained the name of 'Popolani Nobili'; and it was they who now began to play at high stakes for the supreme power. … The opening of the second half of the 14th century had been signalised by the feuds of two great houses, both risen from the people. These were the Albizzi and the Ricci." The Albizzi triumphed, in the conflict of the two houses, and became all-powerful for a time in Florence; but the wars with the Visconti, of Milan, in which they engaged the city, made necessary a heavy burden of taxation, which they rendered more grievous by distributing it unfairly. "This imprudent financial policy began the ruin of the Albizzi. It caused a clamour in the city for a new system of more just taxation, which was too powerful to be resisted. The voice of the people made itself loudly heard; and with the people on this occasion sided Giovanni de' Medici. This was in 1427. It is here that the Medici appear upon that memorable scene where in the future they are to play the first part. Giovanni de' Medici did not belong to the same branch of his family as the Salvestro who favoured the people at the time of the Ciompi Tumult. But he adopted the same popular policy. To his sons Cosimo and Lorenzo he bequeathed on his death-bed the rule that they should invariably adhere to the cause of the multitude, found their influence on that, and avoid the arts of factious and ambitious leaders."

J. A. Symonds, Florence and the Medici (Sketches and Studies in Italy, chapter 5).

T. A. Trollope, History of the Commonwealth of Florence, books 4-5 (volume 2).

"Already in 1386, the growing power of Giangaleazzo Visconti, the tenth duke of Milan of that family, began to give umbrage, not only to all the sovereign princes: his neighbours, but also to Florence [see MILAN: A. D. 1277-1447]. … Florence … had cause enough to feel uneasy at the progress of such a man in his career of successful invasion and usurpation;—Florence, no more specially than other of the free towns around her, save that Florence seems always to have thought that she had more to lose from the loss of her liberty than any of the other cities … and felt always called upon to take upon herself the duty of standing forward as the champion and supporter of the principles of republicanism and free government. … The Pope, Urban VI., added another element of disturbance to the condition of Italy. For in his anxiety to recover sundry cities mainly in Umbria and Romagna … he was exceedingly unscrupulous of means, and might at any moment be found allying himself with the enemies of free government and of the old Guelph cause in Italy. Venice, also, having most improvidently and unwisely allied herself with Visconti, constituted another element of danger, and an additional cause of uneasiness and watchfulness to the Florentine government. In the spring of 1388, therefore, a board of ten, 'Dieci di Balia,' was elected for the general management of 'all those measures concerning war and peace which should be adopted by the entire Florentine people.'" The first war with Visconti was declared by the republic in May, 1390, and was so successfully conducted for the Florentines by Sir John Hawkwood that it terminated in a treaty signed January 26, 1392, which bound the Duke of Milan not to meddle in any way with the affairs of Tuscany. For ten years this agreement seems to have been tolerably well adhered to; but in 1402 the rapacious Duke entered upon new encroachments, which forced the Florentines to take up arms again. Their only allies were Bologna and Padua (or Francesco Carrara of Padua), and the armies of the three states were defeated in a terribly bloody battle fought near Bologna on the 26th of June. "Bologna fell into the hands of Visconti. Great was the dismay and terror in Florence when the news … reached the city. It was neither more nor less than the fall, as the historian says, of the fortress which was the bulwark of Florence. Now she lay absolutely open to the invader." But the invader did not come. He was stricken with the plague and died, in September, and Florence and Italy were saved from the tyranny which he had seemed able to extend over the whole.

T. A. Trollope, History of the Commonwealth of Florence, book 4, chapters 4-5 (volume 2).

FLORENCE: 14th-15th Centuries. Commercial enterprise, industrial energy, wealth and culture of the city.

"During the 14th and 15th centuries Florentine wealth increased in an extraordinary degree. Earlier generations had compelled the powerful barons of the district to live in the city; and even yet the exercise of the rights of citizenship was dependent on having a residence there. The influx of outsiders was, however, much more owing to the attractions offered by the city, whether in business, profession, or pleasure, than to compulsion. … The situation of the city is not favorable to the natural growth of commerce, especially under the conditions which preceded the building of railroads. At a considerable distance from the sea, on a river navigable only for very small craft, and surrounded by hills which rendered difficult the construction of good roads,—the fact that the city did prosper so marvellously is in itself proof of the remarkable energy and ability of its people. They needed above all things a sea-port, and to obtain a good one they waged some of their most exhausting wars. Their principal wealth, however, came through their financial operations, which extended throughout Europe, and penetrated even to Morocco and the Orient. Their manufactures also, especially of wool and silk, brought in enormous returns, and made not only the fortunes but also, in one famous case at least, the name of the families engaged in them. Their superiority over the rest of Christendom in these pursuits was but one side of that remarkable, universal talent which is the most astonishing feature of the Florentine life of that age. With the hardihood of youth, they were not only ready but eager to engage in new enterprises, whether at home or abroad. … As a result of their energy and ability, riches poured into their coffers,—a mighty stream of gold, in the use of which they showed so much judgment, that the after world has feasted to our day, and for centuries to come, will probably continue to feast without satiety on the good things which they caused to be made, and left behind them. Of all the legacies for which we have to thank Florence, none are so well known and so universally recognized as the treasures of art created by her sons, many of which yet remain within her walls, the marvel and delight of all who behold them. As the Florentines were ready to try experiments in politics, manufactures, and commerce, so also in all branches of the fine arts they tried experiments, left the old, beaten paths of their forefathers, and created something original, useful, and beautiful for themselves. Christian art from the time of the Roman Empire to Cimabue had made comparatively little progress; but a son of the Florentine fields was to start a revolution which should lead to the production of some of the most marvellous works which have proceeded from the hand of man. The idea that the fine arts are more successfully cultivated under the patronage of princes than under republican rule is very widespread, and is occasionally accepted almost as a dogma; but the history of Athens and of Florence teaches us without any doubt that the two most artistic epochs in the history of the world have had their rise in republics. … Some writers, dazzled by the splendors of the Medici, entirely lose sight of the fact that both Dante and Petrarch were dead before the Medici were even heard of, and that the greatest works, at least in architecture, were all begun long before they were leaders in Florentine affairs. That family did much, yes very much, for the advancement of art and letters; but they did not do all or nearly all that was done in Florence. … Though civil discord and foreign war were very frequent, Florentine life is nevertheless an illustration rather of what Herbert Spencer calls the commercial stage of civilization, than of the war-like period. Her citizens were above all things merchants, and were generally much more willing to pay to avoid a war than to conduct one. They strove for glory, not in feats of arms, but in literary contests and in peaceful emulation in the encouragement of learning and the fine arts."

FLORENCE: A. D. 1409-1411.
League against and war with Ladislas, King of Naples.

FLORENCE: A. D. 1423-1447.
War with the Duke of Milan.
League with Venice, Naples, and other States.

In 1433, Cosmo, or Cosimo de' Medici, the son of Giovanni de' Medici, was the recognized leader of the opposition to the oligarchy controlled by Rinaldo de' Albizzi. Cosmo inherited from his father a large fortune and a business as a merchant and banker which he maintained and increased. "He lived splendidly; he was a great supporter of all literary men, and spent and distributed his great wealth amongst his fellow citizens. He was courteous and liberal, and was looked upon with almost unbounded respect and affection by a large party in the state. Rinaldo was bent upon his ruin, and in 1433, when he had a Signoria devoted to his party, he cited Cosmo before the Council, and shut him up in a tower of the Public Palace. Great excitement was caused by this violent step, and two days after the Signoria held a parliament of the people. The great bell of the city was tolled, and the people gathered round the Palace. Then the gates of the Palace were thrown open, and the Signoria, the Colleges of Arts, and the Gonfaloniere came forth, and asked the people if they would have a Balia. So a Balia was appointed, the names being proposed by the Signoria, to decide on the fate of Cosmo. At first it was proposed to kill him, but he was only banished, much against the will of Rinaldo, who knew that, if he lived, he would some day come back again. The next year the Signoria was favourable to him; another Balia was appointed; the party of the Albizzi was banished, and Cosmo was recalled. He was received with a greeting such as men give to a conqueror, and was hailed as the 'Father of his Country.' This triumphant return gave the Medici a power in the Republic which they never afterwards lost. The banished party fled to the court of the Duke of Milan, and stirred him up to war against the city."

"Cosimo de' Medici did not content himself with rendering his old opponents harmless; he took care also that none of his adherents should become too powerful and dangerous to him. Therefore, remarks Francesco Guicciardini, he retained the Signoria, as well as the taxes, in his hand, in order to be able to promote or oppress individuals at will. In other things the citizens enjoyed greater freedom and acted more according to their own pleasure than later, in the days of his grandson, for he let the reins hang loose if he was only sure of his own position. It was just in this that his great art lay, to guide things according to his will, and yet to make his partisans believe that he shared his authority with them. … 'It is well known' remarks [Guicciardini] … 'how much nobility and wealth were destroyed by Cosimo and his descendants by taxation. The Medici never allowed a fixed method and legal distribution, but always reserved to themselves the power of bearing heavily upon individuals according to their pleasure. … He [Cosimo] maintained great reserve in his whole manner of life. For a quarter of a century he was the almost absolute director of the State, but he never assumed the show of his dignity. … The ruler of the Florentine State remained citizen, agriculturist, and merchant. In his appearance and bearing there was nothing which distinguished him from others. … He ruled the money market, not only in Italy, but throughout Europe. He had banks in all the western countries, and his experience and the excellent memory which never failed him, with his strong love of order, enabled him to guide everything from Florence, which he never quitted after 1438." The death of Cosimo occurred on the 1st day of August, 1464.

"The last troubled days of the Florentine democracy had not proved quite unproductive of art. It was the time of Giotto's undisputed sway. Many works of which the 15th century gets the glory because it finished them were ordered and begun amidst the confusion and terrible agitation of the demagogy. … Under the oligarchy, in the relative calm that came with oppression, a taste for art as well as for letters began to develop in Florence as elsewhere." But "Cosimo de' Medicis had rare good fortune. In his time, and under his rule, capricious chance united at Florence talents as numerous as they were diverse—the universal Brunelleschi, the polished and elegant Ghiberti, the rough and powerful Donatello, the suave Angelico, the masculine Masaccio. … Cosimo lived long enough to see the collapse of the admirable talent which flourished upon the banks of the Arno, and soon spread throughout Italy, and to feel the void left by it. It is true his grandson saw a new harvest, but as inferior to that which preceded it, as it was to that which followed it."

      F. T. Perrens,
      History of Florence, 1434-1531,
      book 1, chapter 6.

FLORENCE: A. D. 1450-1454.
Alliance with Francesco Sforza, of Milan, and war with
Venice, Naples, Savoy, and other States.

FLORENCE: A. D. 1458-1469.
Lucas Pitti, and the building of the Pitti Palace.
Piero de' Medici and the five agents of his tyranny.

Until 1455, Cosmo de' Medici shared the government of Florence in some degree with Neri Capponi, an able statesman, who had taken an eminent part in public affairs for many years—during the domination of the Albizzi, as well as afterwards.

"When Neri Capponi died, the council refused to call a new parliament to replace the balia, whose power expired on the 1st of July, 1455. … The election of the signoria was again made fairly by lot, … the contributions were again equitably apportioned,—the tribunals ceased to listen to the recommendations of those who, till then, had made a traffic of distributive justice." This recovery of freedom in Florence was enjoyed for about three years; but when, in 1458, Lucas Pitti, "rich, powerful, and bold," was named gonfalonier, Cosmo conspired with him to reimpose the yoke. "Pitti assembled the parliament; but not till he had filled all the avenues of the public square with soldiers or armed peasants. The people, menaced and trembling within this circle, consented to name a new balia, more violent and tyrannical than any of the preceding. It was composed of 352 persons, to whom was delegated all the power of the republic. They exiled a great number of the citizens who had shown the most attachment to liberty, and they even put some to death." When, in 1463, Cosmo's second son, Giovanni, on whom his hopes were centered, died, Lucas Pitti "looked on himself henceforth as the only chief of the state. It was about this time that he undertook the building of that magnificent palace which now [1832] forms the residence of the grand-dukes. The republican equality was not only offended by the splendour of this regal dwelling; but the construction of it afforded Pitti an occasion for marking his contempt of liberty and the laws. He made of this building an asylum for all fugitives from justice, whom no public officer dared pursue when once he [they?] took part in the labour. At the same time individuals, as well as communities, who would obtain some favour from the republic, knew that the only means of being heard was to offer Lucas Pitti some precious wood or marble to be employed in the construction of his palace. When Cosmo de' Medici died, at his country-house of Careggi, on the 1st of August, 1464, Lucas Pitti felt himself released from the control imposed by the virtue and moderation of that great citizen. … His [Cosmo's] son, Pietro de' Medici, then 48 years of age, supposed that he should succeed to the administration of the republic, as he had succeeded to the wealth of his father, by hereditary right: but the state of his health did not admit of his attending regularly to business, or of his inspiring his rivals with much fear. To diminish the weight of affairs which oppressed him, he resolved on withdrawing a part of his immense fortune from commerce; recalling all his loans made in partnership with other merchants; and laying out this money in land. But this unexpected demand of considerable capital occasioned a fatal shock to the commerce of Florence; at the same time that it alienated all the debtors of the house of Medici, and deprived it of much of its popularity. The death of Sforza, also, which took place on the 8th of March, 1466, deprived the Medicean party of its firmest support abroad. … The friends of liberty at Florence soon perceived that Lucas Pitti and Pietro de' Medici no longer agreed together; and they recovered courage when the latter proposed to the council the calling of a parliament, in order to renew the balia, the power of which expired on the 1st of September, 1465; his proposition was rejected. {1141} The magistracy began again to be drawn by lot from among the members of the party victorious in 1434. This return of liberty, however, was but of short duration. Pitti and Medici were reconciled: they agreed to call a parliament, and to direct it in concert; to intimidate it, they surrounded it with foreign troops. But Medici, on the nomination of the balia, on the 2d of September, 1466, found means of admitting his own partisans only, and excluding all those of Lucas Pitti. The citizens who had shown any zeal for liberty were all exiled. … Lucas Pitti ruined himself in building his palace. His talents were judged to bear no proportion to his ambition: the friends of liberty, as well as those of Medici, equally detested him; and he remained deprived of all power in a city which he had so largely contributed to enslave. Italy became filled with Florentine emigrants: every revolution, even every convocation of parliament, was followed by the exile of many citizens. … At Florence, the citizens who escaped proscription trembled to see despotism established in their republic; but the lower orders were in general contented, and made no attempt to second Bartolomeo Coleoni, when he entered Tuscany, in 1467, at the head of the Florentine emigrants, who had taken him into their pay. Commerce prospered; manufactures were carried on with great activity; high wages supported in comfort all who lived by their labour; and the Medici entertained them with shows and festivals, keeping them in a sort of perpetual carnival, amidst which the people soon lost all thought of liberty. Pietro de' Medici was always in too bad a state of health to exercise in person the sovereignty he had usurped over his country; he left it to five or six citizens, who reigned in his name. … They not only transacted all business, but appropriated to themselves all the profit; they sold their influence and credit; they gratified their cupidity or their vengeance; but they took care not to act in their own names, or to pledge their own responsibility; they left that to the house of Medici. Pietro, during the latter months of his life, perceived the disorder and corruption of his agents. He was afflicted to see his memory thus stained, and he addressed them the severest reprimands; he even entered into correspondence with the emigrants, whom he thought of recalling, when he died, on the 2d of December, 1469. His two sons, Lorenzo and Giuliano, the elder of whom was not 21 years of age, … given up to all the pleasures of their age, had yet no ambition. The power of the state remained in the hands of the five citizens who had exercised it under Pietro."

FLORENCE: A. D. 1469-1492.
   The conspiracy of the Pazzi.
   The government of Lorenzo the Magnificent.
   The death of liberty.
   The golden age of letters and art.

"Lorenzo inherited his grandfather's political sagacity and far surpassed him in talent and literary culture. In many respects too he was a very different man. Cosimo never left his business office; Lorenzo neglected it, and had so little commercial aptitude that he was obliged to retire from business, in order not to lose his abundant patrimony. Cosimo was frugal in his personal expenses and lent freely to others; Lorenzo loved splendid living, and thus gained the title of the Magnificent; he spent immoderately for the advancement of literary men; he gave himself up to dissipation which ruined his health and shortened his days. His manner of living reduced him to such straits, that he had to sell some of his possessions and obtain money from his friends. Nor did this suffice; for he even meddled with the public money, a thing that had never happened in Cosimo's time. Very often, in his greed of unlawful gain, he had the Florentine armies paid by his own bank; he also appropriated the sums collected in the Monte Comune or treasury of the public debt, and those in the Monte delle Fanciulle where were marriage portions accumulated by private savings—money hitherto held sacred by all. Stimulated by the same greed, he, in the year 1472 joined the Florentine contractors for the wealthy alum mines of Volterra, at the moment in which that city was on the verge of rebellion in order to free itself from a contract which it deemed unjust. And Lorenzo, with the weight of his authority, pushed matters to such a point that war broke out, soon to be followed by a most cruel sack of the unhappy city, a very unusual event in Tuscany. For all this he was universally blamed. But he was excessively haughty and cared for no man; he would tolerate no equals, would be first in everything—even in games. He interfered in all matters, even in private concerns and in marriages: nothing could take place without his consent. In overthrowing the powerful and exalting men of low condition, he showed none of the care and precaution so uniformly observed by Cosimo. It is not then surprising if his enemies increased so fast that the formidable conspiracy of the Pazzi broke out on the 26th April 1478. In this plot, hatched in the Vatican itself where Sixtus IV. was Lorenzo's determined enemy, many of the mightiest Florentine families took part. In the cathedral, at the moment of the elevation of the Host, the conspirators' daggers were unsheathed. Giuliano dei Medici was stabbed to death, but Lorenzo defended himself with his sword and saved his own life. The tumult was so great that it seemed as though the walls of the church were shaken. The populace rose to the cry of 'Palle! Palle!' the Medici watchword, and the enemies of the Medici were slaughtered in the streets or hung from the windows of the Palazzo Veechio. There, among others, were seen the dangling corpses of Archbishop Salviati and of Francesco Pazzi, who in their last struggles had gripped each other with their teeth and remained thus for some time. More than seventy persons perished on that day, and Lorenzo, taking advantage of the opportunity, pushed matters to extremity by his confiscations, banishments, and sentences of death. Thereby his power would have been infinitely increased if Pope Sixtus IV., blinded by rage, had not been induced to excommunicate Florence, and make war against it, in conjunction with Ferdinand of Aragon. On this Lorenzo, without losing a moment, went straight to Naples, and made the king understand how much better it served his interests that Florence should have but one ruler instead of a republican government, always liable to change and certainly never friendly to Naples. So he returned with peace re-established and boundless authority and popularity. Now indeed he might have called himself lord of the city, and it must have seemed easy to him to destroy the republican government altogether. {1142} With his pride and ambition it is certain that he had an intense desire to stand on the same level with the other princes and tyrants of Italy; the more so as at that moment success seemed entirely within his grasp. But Lorenzo showed that his political shrewdness was not to be blinded by prosperity, and knowing Florence well, he remained firm to the traditional policy of his house, that of dominating the Republic, while apparently respecting it. He was well determined to render his power solid and durable; but to that end he had recourse to a most ingenious reform, by means of which, without abandoning the old road, he thoroughly succeeded in his object. In place of the usual five-yearly Balia, he instituted, in 1480, the Council of Seventy, which renewed itself and was like a permanent Balia with still wider power. This, composed of men entirely devoted to his cause, secured the government to him forever. By this Council, say the chroniclers of the time, liberty was wholly buried and undone, but certainly the most important affairs of the State were carried on in it by intelligent and cultivated men, who largely promoted its material prosperity. Florence still called itself a republic, nominally the old institutions were still in existence, but all this seemed and was nothing but an empty mockery. Lorenzo, absolute lord of all, might certainly be called a tyrant, surrounded by lackeys and courtiers. … Yet he dazzled all men by the splendour of his rule, so that [Guicciardini] observes, that though Lorenzo was a tyrant, 'it would be impossible to imagine a better and more pleasing tyrant.' Industry, commerce, public works had all received a mighty impulse. In no city in the world had the civil equality of modern States reached the degree to which it had attained not merely in Florence itself, but in its whole territory and throughout all Tuscany. Administration and secular justice proceeded regularly enough in ordinary cases, crime was diminished, and, above all, literary culture had become a substantial element of the new State. Learned men were employed in public offices, and from Florence spread a light that illuminated the world. … But Lorenzo's policy could found nothing that was permanent. Unrivalled as a model of sagacity and prudence, it promoted in Florence the development of all the new elements of which modern society was to be the outcome, without succeeding in fusing them together; for his was a policy of equivocation and deceit, directed by a man of much genius, who had no higher aim than his own interest and that of his family, to which he never hesitated to sacrifice the interests of his people."

"The state of Florence at this period was very remarkable. The most independent and tumultuous of towns was spellbound under the sway of Lorenzo de' Medici, the grandson of Cosimo who built San Marco; and scarcely seemed even to recollect its freedom, so absorbed was it in the present advantages conferred by 'a strong government,' and solaced by shows, entertainments, festivals, pomp, and display of all kinds. It was the very height of that classic revival so famous in the later history of the world, and the higher classes of society, having shaken themselves apart with graceful contempt from the lower, had begun to frame their lives according to a pagan model, leaving the other and much bigger half of the world to pursue its superstitions undisturbed. Florence was as near a pagan city as it was possible for its rulers to make it. Its intellectual existence was entirely given up to the past; its days were spent in that worship of antiquity which has no power of discrimination, and deifies not only the wisdom but the trivialities of its golden epoch. Lorenzo reigned in the midst of a lettered crowd of classic parasites and flatterers, writing poems which his courtiers found better than Alighieri's, and surrounding himself with those eloquent slaves who make a prince's name more famous than arms or victories, and who have still left a prejudice in the minds of all literature-loving people in favour of their patron. A man of superb health and physical power, who can give himself up to debauch all night without interfering with his power of working all day, and whose mind is so versatile that he can sack a town one morning and discourse upon the beauties of Plato the next, and weave joyous ballads through both occupations—gives his flatterers reason when they applaud him. The few righteous men in the city, the citizens who still thought of Florence above all, kept apart, overwhelmed by the tide which ran in favour of that leading citizen of Florence, who had gained the control of the once high-spirited and freedom-loving people. Society had never been more dissolute, more selfish, or more utterly deprived of any higher aim. Barren scholarship, busy over grammatical questions, and elegant philosophy, snipping and piecing its logical systems, formed the top dressing to that half-brutal, half-superstitious ignorance which in such communities is the general portion of the poor. The dilettante world dreamed hazily of a restoration of the worship of the pagan gods; Cardinal Bembo bade his friend beware of reading St. Paul's epistles, lest their barbarous style should corrupt his taste; and even such a man as Pico della Mirandola declared the 'Divina Commedia' to be inferior to the 'Canti Carnascialeschi' of Lorenzo de' Medici. … Thus limited intellectually, the age of Lorenzo was still more hopeless morally, full of debauchery, cruelty, and corruption, violating oaths, betraying trusts, believing in nothing but Greek manuscripts, coins, and statues, caring for nothing but pleasure. This was the world in which Savonarola found himself."

"Terrible municipal enmities had produced so much evil as to relax ancient republican energy. After so much destruction repose was necessary. To antique sobriety and gravity succeed love of pleasure and the quest of luxury. The belligerent class of great nobles were expelled and the energetic class of artisans crushed. Bourgeois rulers were to rule, and to rule tranquilly. Like the Medicis, their chiefs, they manufacture, trade, bank and make fortunes in order to expend them in intellectual fashion. War no longer fastens its cares upon them, as formerly, with a bitter and tragic grasp; they manage it through the paid bands of condottieri, and these as cunning traffickers, reduce it to cavalcades; when they slaughter each other it is by mistake; historians cite battles in which three, and sometimes only one soldier remains on the field. Diplomacy takes the place of force, and the mind expands as character weakens. Through this mitigation of war and through the establishment of principalities or of local tyrannies, it seems that Italy, like the great European monarchies, had just attained to its equilibrium. {1143} Peace is partially established and the useful arts germinate in all directions upon an improved social soil like a good harvest on a cleared and well-ploughed field. The peasant is no longer a serf of the glebe, but a metayer; he nominates his own municipal magistrates, possesses arms and a communal treasury; he lives in enclosed bourgs, the houses of which, built of stone and cement, are large, convenient, and often elegant. Near Florence he erects walls, and near Lucca he constructs turf terraces in order to favor cultivation. Lombardy has its irrigations and rotation of crops; entire districts, now so many deserts around Lombardy and Rome, are still inhabited and richly productive. In the upper class the bourgeois and the noble labor since the chiefs of Florence are hereditary bankers and commercial interests are not endangered. Marble quarries are worked at Carrara, and foundry fires are lighted in the Maremmes. We find in the cities manufactories of silk, glass, paper, books, flax, wool and hemp; Italy alone produces as much as all Europe and furnishes to it all its luxuries. Thus diffused commerce and industry are not servile occupations tending to narrow or debase the mind. A great merchant is a pacific general, whose mind expands in contact with men and things. Like a military chieftain he organizes expeditions and enterprises and makes discoveries. … The Medicis possess sixteen banking-houses in Europe; they bind together through their business Russia and Spain, Scotland and Syria; they possess mines of alum throughout Italy, paying to the Pope for one of them a hundred thousand florins per annum; they entertain at their court representatives of all the powers of Europe and become the councillors and moderators of all Italy. In a small state like Florence, and in a country without a national army like Italy, such an influence becomes ascendant in and through itself; a control over private fortunes leads to a management of the public funds, and without striking a blow or using violence, a private individual finds himself director of the state. … These banking magistrates are liberal as well as capable. In thirty-seven years the ancestors of Lorenzo expend six hundred and sixty thousand florins in works of charity and of public utility. Lorenzo himself is a citizen of the antique stamp, almost a Pericles, capable of rushing into the arms of his enemy, the king of Naples, in order to avert, through personal seductions and eloquence, a war which menaces the safety of his country. His private fortune is a sort of public treasury, and his palace a second hotel-de-ville. He entertains the learned, aids them with his purse, makes friends of them, corresponds with them, defrays the expenses of editions of their works, purchases manuscripts, statues and medals, patronizes promising young artists, opens to them his gardens, his collections, his house and his table, and with that cordial familiarity and that openness, sincerity and simplicity of heart which place the protected on a footing of equality with the protector as man to man and not as an inferior in relation to a superior. This is the representative man whom his contemporaries all accept as the accomplished man of the century, no longer a Farinata or an Alighieri of ancient Florence, a spirit rigid, exalted and militant to its utmost capacity, but a balanced, moderate and cultivated genius, one who, through the genial sway of his serene and beneficent intellect, binds up into one sheaf all talents and all beauties. It is a pleasure to see them expanding around him. On the one hand writers are restoring and, on the other, constructing. From the time of Petrarch Greek and Latin manuscripts are sought for, and now they are to be exhumed in the convents of Italy, Switzerland, Germany and France. They are deciphered and restored with the aid of the savants of Constantinople. A decade of Livy or a treatise by Cicero, is a precious gift solicited by princes; some learned man passes ten years of travel in ransacking distant libraries in order to find a lost book of Tacitus, while the sixteen authors rescued from oblivion by the Poggios are counted as so many titles to immortal fame. … Style again becomes noble and at the same time clear, and the health, joy and serenity diffused through antique life re-enters the human mind with the harmonious proportions of language and the measured graces of diction. From refined language they pass to vulgar language, and the Italian is born by the side of the Latin. … Here in the restored paganism, shines out Epicurean gaiety, a determination to enjoy at any and all hours, and that instinct for pleasure which a grave philosophy and political sobriety had thus far tempered and restrained. With Pulci, Berni, Bibiena, Ariosto, Bandelli, Aretino, and so many others, we soon see the advent of voluptuous debauchery and open skepticism, and later a cynical unbounded licentiousness. These joyous and refined civilizations based on a worship of pleasure and intellectuality—Greece of the fourth century, Provence of the twelfth, and Italy of the sixteenth—were not enduring. Man in these lacks some checks. After sudden outbursts of genius and creativeness he wanders away in the direction of license and egotism; the degenerate artist and thinker makes room for the sophist and the dilettant. But in this transient brilliancy his beauty was charming. … It is in this world, again become pagan, that painting revives, and the new tastes she is to gratify show beforehand the road she is to follow; henceforth she is to decorate the houses of rich merchants who love antiquity and who desire to live daintily."

FLORENCE: A. D. 1490-1498. The preaching of Savonarola. The coming of Charles VII. of France, and expulsion of the Medici. The great religious revival and Christianization of the Commonwealth. Conflict with the Church and fall of Savonarola.

Girolamo, or Jerome Savonarola, a Dominican monk, born at Ferrara in 1452, educated to be a physician, but led by early disgust with the world to renounce his intended profession and give himself to the religious life, was sent to the convent of St. Mark, in Florence, in 1490, when he had reached the age of 37. "He began his career as a reader and lecturer, and his lectures, though only intended for novices, drew a large audience. He then lectured in the garden of the cloister, under a large rosebush, where many intellectual men came from the city to hear him. {1144} At length he began to preach in the Church of St. Mark's, and his subject was the Apocalypse, out of which he predicted the restoration of the Church in Italy, which he declared God would bring about by a severe visitation. Its influence upon his hearers was overpowering; there was no room in the church for the brethren; his fame spread abroad, and he was next appointed to preach the sermons in the cathedral. … Amid the luxurious, æsthetic, semi-pagan life of Florence, in the ears of the rich citizens, the licentious youth, the learned Platonists, he denounced the revival of paganism, the corruptions of the Church; the ignorance and consequent slavery of the people, and declared that God would visit Italy with some terrible punishment, and that it would soon come. He spoke severe words about the priests, declared to the people that the Scriptures were the only guides to salvation; that salvation did not come from external works, as the Church taught, but from faith in Christ, from giving up the heart to Him, and if He forgave sin, there was no need for any other absolution. Scarcely had he been a year in Florence when he was made prior of the monastery. There was a custom in vogue, a relic of the old times, for every new prior to go to the king or ruler and ask his favour. This homage was then due to Lorenzo di Medici, but Savonarola declared he would never submit to it, saying—'From whom have I received my office, from God or Lorenzo? Let us pray for grace to the Highest.' Lorenzo passed over this slight, being anxious to acquire the friendship of one whom he clearly saw would exert great influence over the Florentines. Burlamachi, his contemporary biographer, tells us that Lorenzo tried all kinds of plans to win the friendship of Savonarola: he attended the church of St. Mark; listened to his sermons; gave large sums of money to him for the poor; loitered in the garden to attract his attention—but with little success. Savonarola treated him with respect, gave his money away to the poor, but avoided him and denounced him. Another plan was tried: five distinguished men waited on Savonarola, and begged him to spare such elevated persons in his sermons, to treat more of generalities; and not to foretell the future. They received a prophetic answer: 'Go tell your master, Lorenzo, to repent of his sins, or God will punish him and his. Does he threaten me with banishment? Well, I am but a stranger, and he is the first citizen in Florence, but let him know that I shall remain and he must soon depart!' What happened shortly after caused the people to begin to regard Savonarola as a prophet, and won him that terrible fame which caused his downfall. … Lorenzo died on the 8th April, 1492, and from that time Savonarola becomes more prominent. He directed his exertions to the accomplishment of three objects—the reformation of his monastery, the reformation of the Florentine State, and the reformation of the Church. He changed the whole character of his monastery. … Then he proceeded to State matters, and in this step we come to the problem of his life—was he a prophet or a fanatic? Let the facts speak for themselves. Lorenzo was succeeded by his son Pietro, who was vastly inferior to his father in learning and statesmanship. His only idea appears to have been a desire to unite Florence and Naples into one principality; this created for him many enemies, and men began to fancy that the great house of Medici would terminate with him. So, it appears, thought Savonarola, and announced the fact at first privately amongst his friends; in a short time, however, he began to prophecy their downfall publicly. During the years 1492 and 1494, he was actively engaged in preaching. In Advent of the former year, he began his thirteen sermons upon Noah's Ark. In 1493 he preached the Lent sermons at Bologna, and upon his return he began preaching in the cathedral. In these sermons he predicted the approaching fall of the State to the astonishment of all his hearers, who had not the slightest apprehension of danger: 'The Lord has declared that His sword shall come upon the land swiftly and soon.' This was the burden of a sermon preached on Advent Sunday, 1492. At the close of 1493, and as the new year approached, he spoke out more plainly and definitely. He declared that one should come over the Alps who was called, like Cyrus, of whom Jeremiah wrote; and he should, sword in hand, wreak vengeance upon the tyrants of Italy. … His preaching had always exerted a marvellous influence upon people, as we shall hereafter note, but they could not understand the cause of these predictions. The city was at peace; gay and joyous as usual, and no fear was entertained; but towards the end of the year came the fulfilment. Charles VIII., King of France, called into Italy by Duke Ludovico of Milan, came over the Alps with an immense army, took Naples, and advanced on Florence. The expulsion of the Medici from Florence soon followed: Pietro, being captured, signed an agreement to deliver up all his strongholds to Charles VIII., and to pay him 200,000 ducats.

The utmost indignation seized the Florentines when they heard of this treaty. The Signori sent heralds to Charles, to negotiate for milder terms, and their chief was Savonarola, who addressed the King like a prophet, begged him to take pity on Italy, and save her. His words had the desired effect. Charles made more easy terms, and left it to the Florentine people to settle their own State. In the meantime Pietro returned, but he found Florence in the greatest excitement—the royal palace was closed; stones were thrown at him; he summoned his guards, but the people took to arms, and he was compelled to fly to his brothers Giovanni and Giuliano. The Signori declared them to be traitors, and set a price upon their heads. Their palace and its treasures fell into the hands of the people. The friends of the Medici, however, were not all extinct; and as a discussion arose which was likely to lead to a struggle, Savonarola summoned the people to meet under the dome of St. Mark. … In fact, the formation of the new State fell upon Savonarola, for the people looked up to him as an inspired prophet. He proposed that 3,200 citizens should form themselves into a general council. Then they drew lots for a third part, who for six months were to act together as an executive body and represent the general council, another one-third for the next three months, and so on; so that every citizen had his turn in the council every eighteen months. They ultimately found it convenient to reduce the number to 80—in fact, Savonarola's Democracy was rapidly becoming oligarchic. Each of these 80 representatives was to be 40 years of age; they voted with black and white beans, six being a legal majority. {1145} But the Chief of the State was to be Christ; He was to be the new monarch. His next step was to induce them to proclaim a general amnesty, in which he succeeded only through vigorously preaching to them that forgiveness was sweeter than vengeance—that freedom and peace were more loving than strife and hatred. … He was now at the height of his power; his voice ruled the State; he is the only instance in Europe of a monk openly leading a republic. The people regarded him as something more than human: they knew of his nights spent in prayer; of his long fasts; of his unbounded charity. … Few preachers ever exerted such influence upon the minds of crowds, such a vitalizing influence; he changed the whole character of Florentine society. Libertines abandoned their vices; the theatres and taverns were empty; there was no card playing, nor dice throwing; the love of fasting grew so general, that meat could not be sold; the city of Florence was God's city, and its government a Theocracy. There was a custom in Florence, during Carnival time, for the children to go from house to house and bid people give up their cherished pleasures; and so great was the enthusiasm at this period that people gave up their cards, their dice and backgammon boards, the ladies their perfumed waters, veils, paint-pots, false hair, musical instruments, harps, lutes, licentious tales, especially those of Boccaccio, dream books, romances, and popular songs. All this booty was gathered together in a heap in the market place, the people assembled, the Signori took their places, and children clothed in white, with olive branches on their heads, received from them the burning torches, and set fire to the pile amid the blast of trumpets and chant of psalms, which were continued till the whole was consumed. … His fame had now reached other countries; foreigners visited Florence solely for the purpose of seeing and hearing him. The Sultan of Turkey allowed his sermons to be translated and circulated in his dominions. But in the midst of his prosperity his enemies were not idle: as he progressed their jealousy increased: his preaching displeased them, terrified them, and amongst these the most bitter and virulent were the young sons of the upper classes: they called his followers 'howlers' (piagnoni), and so raged against him that they gained the name, now immortalised in history, of the Arrabiati (the furies): this party was increased by the old friends of the Medici, who called him a rebel and leader of the lower classes. Dolfo Spini, a young man of position and wealth, commanded this party, and used every effort to destroy the reputation of Savonarola, to incite the people against him, and to ruin him. They bore the name of 'Compagnacci'; they wrote satires about the Piagnoni; they circulated slanders about the monk who was making Florence the laughing stock of Europe: but Savonarola went on his way indifferent to the signs already manifesting themselves amongst his countrymen, ever most sensitive to ridicule. He also strove to reform the Church: he delineated the Apostolic Church as a model upon which he would build up that of Florence. … By this time, the intelligence of his doings, and the gist of his preaching and writing, which had been carefully transmitted to Rome by his enemies, began to attract the attention of the Pope, Alexander VI., who tried what had frequently proved an infallible remedy, and offered Savonarola a Cardinal's hat, which he at once refused. He was then invited to Rome, but thought it prudent to excuse himself. When the controversy between him and the Pope appeared to approach a crisis, Savonarola took a step which somewhat hurried the catastrophe. He wrote to the Kings of France and Spain, and the Emperor of Germany, to call a General Council to take into consideration the Reform of the Church. One of these letters reached the Pope, through a spy of Duke Ludovico Moro, of Milan, whom Savonarola had denounced. The result was the issue of a Breve (October, 1496), which forbade him to preach. The Pope then ordered the Congregation of St. Mark to be broken up and amalgamated with another. For a time Savonarola, at the advice of his friends, remained quiet; but at this last step, to break up the institution he had established, he was aroused to action. He denounced Rome as the source of all the poison which was undermining the constitution of the Church; declared that its evil fame stunk in men's nostrils. The Pope then applied to the Signori to deliver up this enemy of the Church, but to no purpose. The Franciscans were ordered to preach against him, but they made no impression. Then came the last thunderbolt: a Bann was issued (12th May, 1497), which was announced by the Franciscans. During the time of his suspension and his excommunication, many things happened which tended to his downfall, although his friends gathered round him, the rapid change of ministry brought in turn friends of the Medici to the helm; they introduced the young, Compagnacci into the Council, and gradually his enemies were increasing in the Government to a strong party." The fickle Florentine mob now took sides with them against the monk whom it had recently adored, and on the 7th of April, 1498, in the midst of a raging tumult, Savonarola was taken into custody by the Signori of the city. With the assent of the Pope, he was subjected seven times to torture upon the rack, to force from him a recantation of all that he had taught and preached, and on the 23d of May he was hanged and burned, in company with two of his disciples.

FLORENCE: A. D. 1494-1509.
The French deliverance of Pisa and the long war of reconquest.

FLORENCE: A. D. 1498-1500.
   Threatened by the Medici, on one side,
   and Cæsar Borgia on the other.
   A new division of parties.

   "After the death of Savonarola things changed with such a
   degree of rapidity that the Arrabbiati had not time to
   consider in what manner they could restrict the government;
   but they soon became convinced that the only salvation for the
   Republic was to adopt the course which had been recommended by
   the Friar. Piero and Giuliano dei Medici were in fact already
   in the neighbourhood of Florence, supported by a powerful
   Venetian army. It became, therefore, absolutely necessary for
   the Arrabbiati to unite with the Piagnoni, in order to defend
   themselves against so many dangers and so many enemies.
{1146}
   By great good fortune, the Duke of Milan, from jealousy of the
   Venetians, came to their assistance to ward off the danger;
   but who could trust to his friendship—who could place any
   reliance on his fidelity? As to Alexander Borgia, he who had
   held out such great hopes, and had made so many promises, in
   order to get Savonarola put to death, no sooner was his object
   attained than he gave full sway to his unbridled passions. It
   seemed as if the death of the poor Friar had released both the
   Pope and his son, Duke Valentino, from all restraints upon
   their lusts and ambition. The Pope formed intimate alliances
   with Turks and Jews, a thing hitherto unheard of. He, in one
   year, set up twelve cardinals' hats for sale. The history of
   the incests and murders of the family of Borgia is too well
   known to render it necessary for us to enter into any detailed
   account of them here. The great object of the Pope was to form
   a State for his son in the Romagna; and so great was the
   ambition of Duke Valentino, that he contemplated extending his
   power over the whole of Italy, Tuscany being the first part he
   meant to seize upon. With that view he was always endeavouring
   to create new dangers to the Republic; at one time he caused
   Arezzo to rise against it; at another time he threatened to
   bring back Piero de' Medici; and he was continually ravaging
   their territory. The consequence was, that the Florentines
   were obliged to grant him an annual subsidy of 36,000 ducats,
   under the name of condotta (military pay); but even that did
   not restrain him from every now and then, under various
   pretexts, overrunning and laying waste their territory. Thus
   did Alexander Borgia fulfil those promises to the Republic by
   which they had been induced to murder Savonarola. The
   Arrabbiati were at length convinced that to defend themselves
   against the Medici and Borgia, their only course was to
   cultivate the alliance with France, and unite in good faith
   with the Piagnoni. Thus they completely adopted the line of
   policy which Savonarola had advised; and the consequence was,
   that their affairs got order and their exertions were attended
   with a success far beyond what could have been anticipated."

"A new division of parties may be said to have taken place under the three denominations of 'Palleschi' [a name derived from the watchword of the Mediceans, 'palle, palle,' which alluded to the well-known balls in the coat of arms of the Medici family], 'Ottimati,' and 'Popolani.' The first … were for the Medici and themselves. … The 'Ottomati' were in eager search for a sort of visionary government where a few of the noblest blood, the most illustrious connexions and the greatest riches, were to rule Florence without any regard to the Medici. … The Popolani, who formed the great majority, loved civic liberty, therefore were constantly watching the Medici and other potent and ambitious men."

FLORENCE: A. D. 1502-1569.
   Ten years under Piero Soderini.
   Restoration of the Medici and their second expulsion.
   Siege of the city by the imperial army.
   Final surrender to Medicean tyranny.
   Creation of the Grand Duchy of Tuscany.

"In 1502, it was decreed that the Gonfalonier should hold office for life—should be in fact a Doge. To this important post of permanent president Piero Soderini was appointed; and in his hands were placed the chief affairs of the republic. … During the ten years which elapsed between 1502 and 1512, Piero Soderini administered Florence with an outward show of great prosperity. He regained Pisa, and maintained an honourable foreign policy in the midst of the wars stirred up by the League of Cambray. Meanwhile the young princes of the house of Medici had grown to manhood in exile. The Cardinal Giovanni was 37 in 1512. His brother Giuliano was 33. Both of these men were better fitted than their brother Piero to fight the battles of the family. Giovanni, in particular, had inherited no small portion of the Medicean craft. During the troubled reign of Julius II. he kept very quiet, cementing his connection with powerful men in Rome, but making no effort to regain his hold on Florence. Now the moment for striking a decisive blow had come. After the battle of Ravenna in 1512, the French were driven out of Italy, and the Sforzas returned to Milan [see ITALY: A. D. 1510-1513]; the Spanish troops, under the Viceroy Cardona, remained masters of the country. Following the camp of these Spaniards, Giovanni de' Medici entered Tuscany in August, and caused the restoration of the Medici to be announced in Florence. The people, assembled by Soderini, resolved to resist to the uttermost. … Yet their courage failed on August 29th, when news reached them of the capture and the sack of Prato. Prato is a sunny little city a few miles distant from the walls of Florence, famous for the beauty of its women, the richness of its gardens, and the grace of its buildings. Into this gem of cities the savage soldiery of Spain marched in the bright autumnal weather, and turned the paradise into a hell. It is even now impossible to read of what they did in Prato without shuddering. Cruelty and lust, sordid greed for gold, and cold delight in bloodshed, could go no further. Giovanni de' Medici, by nature mild and voluptuous, averse to violence of all kinds, had to smile approval, while the Spanish Viceroy knocked thus with mailed hand for him at the door of Florence. The Florentines were paralysed with terror. They deposed Soderini and received the Medici. Giovanni and Giuliano entered their devastated palace in the Via Larga, abolished the Grand Council, and dealt with the republic as they listed. … It is not likely that they would have succeeded in maintaining their authority—for they were poor and ill-supported by friends outside the city—except for one most lucky circumstance: that was the election of Giovanni de' Medici to the Papacy in 1513. The creation of Leo X. spread satisfaction throughout Italy. … Florence shared in the general rejoicing. … It seemed as though the Republic, swayed by him, might make herself the first city in Italy, and restore the glories of her Guelf ascendency upon the platform of Renaissance statecraft. There was now no overt opposition to the Medici in Florence. How to govern the city from Rome, and how to advance the fortunes of his brother Giuliano and his nephew Lorenzo (Piero's son, a young man of 21), occupied the Pope's most serious attention. For Lorenzo, Leo obtained the Duchy of Urbino and the hand of a French princess. Giuliano was named Gonfalonier of the Church. He also received the French title of Duke of Nemours and the hand of Filiberta, Princess of Savoy. … {1147} Giulio, the Pope's bastard cousin, was made cardinal. … To Lorenzo, Duke of Urbino, the titular head of the family, was committed the government of Florence. … Florence now for the first time saw a regular court established in her midst, with a prince, who, though he bore a foreign title, was in fact her master. The joyous days of Lorenzo the Magnificent returned. … But this prosperity was no less brief than it was brilliant. A few years sufficed to sweep off all the chiefs of the great house. Giuliano died in 1516, leaving only a bastard son, Ippolito. Lorenzo died in 1519, leaving a bastard son, Alessandro, and a daughter, six days old, who lived to be the Queen of France. Leo died in 1521. There remained now no legitimate male descendants from the stock of Cosimo. The honours and pretensions of the Medici devolved upon three bastards,—on the Cardinal Giulio, and the two boys, Alessandro and Ippolito. Of these, Alessandro was a mulatto, his mother having been a Moorish slave in the Palace of Urbino; and whether his father was Giulio, or Giuliano, or a base groom, was not known for certain. To such extremities were the Medici reduced. … Giulio de' Medici was left in 1521 to administer the State of Florence single-handed. He was archbishop, and he resided in the city, holding it with the grasp of an absolute ruler. … In 1523, the Pope, Adrian VI., expired after a short papacy, from which he gained no honour and Italy no profit. Giulio hurried to Rome, and, by the clever use of his large influence, caused himself to be elected with the title of Clement VII." Then followed the strife of France and Spain—of Francis I. and Charles V.—for the possession of Italy, and the barbarous sack of Rome in 1527.

"When the Florentines knew what was happening in Rome, they rose and forced the Cardinal Passerini [whom the Pope had appointed to act as his vicegerent in the government of Florence] to depart with the Medicean bastards from the city. … The whole male population was enrolled in a militia. The Grand Council was reformed, and the republic was restored upon the basis of 1495. Niccolo Capponi was elected Gonfalonier. The name of Christ was again registered as chief of the commonwealth—to such an extent did the memory of Savonarola still sway the popular imagination. The new State hastened to form an alliance with France, and Malatesta Baglioni was chosen as military Commander-in-Chief. Meanwhile the city armed itself for siege—Michel Angelo Buonarroti and Francesco da San Gallo undertaking the construction of new forts and ramparts. These measures were adopted with sudden decision, because it was soon known that Clement had made peace with the Emperor, and that the army which had sacked Rome was going to be marched on Florence. … On September 4 [1529], the Prince of Orange appeared before the walls, and opened the memorable siege. It lasted eight months, at the end of which time, betrayed by their generals, divided among themselves, and worn out with delays, the Florentines capitulated. … The long yoke of the Medici had undermined the character of the Florentines. This, their last glorious struggle for liberty, was but a flash in the pan—a final flare up of the dying lamp. … What remains of Florentine history may be briefly told. Clement, now the undisputed arbiter of power and honour in the city, chose Alessandro de' Medici to be prince. Alessandro was created Duke of Cività di Penna, and married to a natural daughter of Charles V. Ippolito was made a cardinal." Ippolito was subsequently poisoned by Alessandro, and Alessandro was murdered by another kinsman, who suffered assassination in his turn. "When Alessandro was killed in 1539, Clement had himself been dead five years. Thus the whole posterity of Cosimo de' Medici, with the exception of Catherine, Queen of France [daughter of Lorenzo, Duke of Urbino, the son of Piero de' Medici], was utterly extinguished. But the Medici had struck root so firmly in the State, and had so remodelled it upon the type of tyranny, that the Florentines were no longer able to do without them. The chiefs of the Ottimati selected Cosimo," a descendant from Lorenzo, brother of the Cosimo who founded the power of the House. "He it was who obtained [1569] the title of Grand Duke of Tuscany from the Pope—a title confirmed by the Emperor, fortified by Austrian alliances, and transmitted through his heirs to the present century."

J. A. Symonds, Sketches and studies in Italy, chapter 5 (Florence and the Medici).

T. A. Trollope, History of the Commonwealth of Florence, book 9, chapter 10, book 10 (volume 4).

      W. Roscoe,
      Life and Pontificate of Leo X,
      chapters 9-23 (volumes 1-2).

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: APALACHES;
MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY; SEMINOLES; TIMUQUANAN FAMILY.

FLORIDA: A. D. 1528-1542.
The expeditions of Narvaez and Hernando de Soto.
Wide Spanish application of the name Florida.

"The voyages of Garay [1519-1523] and Vasquez de Ayllon [1520-1526] threw new light on the discoveries of Ponce, and the general outline of the coasts of Florida became known to the Spaniards. Meanwhile, Cortes had conquered Mexico, and the fame of that iniquitous but magnificent exploit rang through all Spain. Many an impatient cavalier burned to achieve a kindred fortune. To the excited fancy of the Spaniards the unknown land of Florida seemed the seat of surpassing wealth, and Pamphilo de Narvaez essayed to possess himself of its fancied treasures. Landing on its shores [1528], and proclaiming destruction to the Indians unless they acknowledged the sovereignty of the Pope and the Emperor, he advanced into the forests with 300 men. Nothing could exceed their sufferings. Nowhere could they find the gold they came to seek. The village of Appalache, where they hoped to gain a rich booty, offered nothing but a few mean wigwams. The horses gave out and the famished soldiers fed upon their flesh. {1148} The men sickened, and the Indians unceasingly harassed their march. At length, after 280 leagues of wandering, they found themselves on the northern shore of the Gulf of Mexico, and desperately put to sea in such crazy boats as their skill and means could construct. Cold, disease, famine, thirst, and the fury of the waves, melted them away. Narvaez himself perished, and of his wretched followers no more than four escaped, reaching by land, after years of vicissitude, the Christian settlements of New Spain. … Cabeça de Vaca was one of the four who escaped, and, after living for years among the tribes of Mississippi, crossed the River Mississippi near Memphis, journeyed westward by the waters of the Arkansas and Red River to New Mexico and Chihuahua, thence to Cinaloa on the Gulf of California, and thence to Mexico. The narrative is one of the most remarkable of the early relations. … The interior of the vast country then comprehended under the name of Florida still remained unexplored. … Hernando de Soto … companion of Pizarro in the conquest of Peru … asked and obtained permission [1537] to conquer Florida. While this design was in agitation, Cabeça de Vaca, one of those who had survived the expedition of Narvaez, appeared in Spain, and for purposes of his own spread abroad the mischievous falsehood that Florida was the richest country yet discovered. De Soto's plans were embraced with enthusiasm. Nobles and gentlemen contended for the privilege of joining his standard; and, setting sail with an ample armament, he landed [May, 1539] at the Bay of Espiritu Santo, now Tampa Bay, in Florida, with 620 chosen men, a band as gallant and well appointed, as eager in purpose and audacious in hope, as ever trod the shores of the New World. … The adventurers began their march. Their story has been often told. For month after month and year after year, the procession of priests and cavaliers, cross-bowmen, arquebusiers, and Indian captives laden with the baggage, still wandered on through wild and boundless wastes, lured hither and thither by the ignis-fatuus of their hopes. They traversed great portions of Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi, everywhere inflicting and enduring misery, but never approaching their phantom El Dorado. At length, in the third year of their journeying, they reached the banks of the Mississippi, 132 years before its second [or third?] discovery by Marquette. … The Spaniards crossed over at a point above the mouth of the Arkansas. They advanced westward, but found no treasures,—nothing indeed but hardships, and an Indian enemy, furious, writes one of their officers, 'as mad dogs.' They heard of a country towards the north where maize could not be cultivated because the vast herds of wild cattle devoured it. They penetrated so far that they entered the range of the roving prairie-tribes. … Finding neither gold nor the South Sea, for both of which they had hoped, they returned to the banks of the Mississippi. De Soto … fell into deep dejection, followed by an attack of fever, and soon after died miserably [May 21, 1542]. To preserve his body from the Indians his followers sunk it at midnight in the river, and the sullen waters of the Mississippi buried his ambition and his hopes. The adventurers were now, with few exceptions, disgusted with the enterprise, and longed only to escape from the scene of their miseries. After a vain attempt to reach Mexico by land, they again turned back to the Mississippi, and labored, with all the resources which their desperate necessity could suggest, to construct vessels in which they might make their way to some Christian settlement. … Seven brigantines were finished and launched; and, trusting their lives on board these frail vessels, they descended the Mississippi, running the gauntlet between hostile tribes who fiercely attacked them. Reaching the Gulf, though not without the loss of eleven of their number, they made sail for the Spanish settlement on the River Panuco, where they arrived safely, and where the inhabitants met them with a cordial welcome. Three hundred and eleven men thus escaped with life, leaving behind them the bones of their comrades, strewn broadcast through the wilderness. De Soto's fate proved an insufficient warning, for those were still found who begged a fresh commission for the conquest of Florida; but the Emperor would not hear them. A more pacific enterprise was undertaken by Cancello [or Cancer], a Dominican monk, who with several brother-ecclesiastics undertook to convert the natives to the true faith, but was murdered in the attempt. … Not a Spaniard had yet gained foothold in Florida. That name, as the Spaniards of that day understood it, comprehended the whole country extending from the Atlantic on the east to the longitude of New Mexico on the west, and from the Gulf of Mexico and the River of Palms indefinitely northward towards the polar Sea. This vast territory was claimed by Spain in right of the discoveries of Columbus, the grant of the Pope, and the various expeditions mentioned above. England claimed it in light of the discoveries of Cabot, while France could advance no better title than might be derived from the voyage of Verrazano and vague traditions of earlier visits of Breton adventurers."

Discovery and Conquest of Terra Florida; written by a Gentleman of Elvas (Hakluyt Society).

J. W. Monette, Discovery and Settlement of the Mississippi Valley, chapters 1-4.

J. G. Shea, Ancient Florida (Narrative and Critical History of America, volume 2, chapter 4).

   About the middle of the 16th century, certain of the
   Protestants of France began to turn their thoughts to the New
   World as a possible place of refuge from the persecutions they
   were suffering at home. "Some of the French sea-ports became
   strong-holds of the Huguenots. Their most prominent supporter,
   Coligny, was high admiral of France. These Huguenots looked
   toward the new countries as the proper field in which to
   secure a retreat from persecution, and to found a new
   religious commonwealth. Probably many of the French
   'corsarios' following the track of the Portuguese and
   Spaniards to the West Indies and the coasts of Brazil, were
   Huguenots. … The first scheme for a Protestant colony in the
   new world was suggested by Admiral Coligny in 1554, and intended
   for the coast of Brazil, to which an expedition, under Durand
   de Villegagnon, was sent with ships and colonists. This
   expedition arrived at the Bay of Rio de Janeiro in 1555,
   and founded there the first European settlement.
{1149}
   It was followed the next year by another expedition. But the
   whole enterprise came to an end by divisions among the
   colonists, occasioned by the treacherous, despotic, and cruel
   proceedings of its commander, a reputed Catholic. The colony
   was finally subverted by the Portuguese, who, in 1560, sent
   out an armament against it, and took possession of the Bay of
   Rio de Janeiro. … After the unfortunate end of the French
   enterprise to South America, Admiral Coligny, who may be
   styled the Raleigh of France, turned his attention to the
   eastern shores of North America; the whole of which had become
   known in France from the voyage of Verrazano, and the French
   expeditions to Canada and the Banks of Newfoundland." In
   February, 1562, an expedition, fitted out by Coligny, sailed
   from Havre de Grace, under Jean Ribault, with Réné de
   Laudonnière forming one of the company. Ribault arrived on the
   Florida coast in the neighborhood of the present harbor of St.
   Augustine, and thence sailed north. "At last, in about 32° 30'
   North he found an excellent broad and deep harbor, which he
   named Port Royal, which probably is the present Broad River,
   or Port Royal entrance. … He found this port and the
   surrounding country so advantageous and of such 'singular
   beauty,' that he resolved to leave here a part of his men in a
   small fort. … A pillar with the arms of France was therefore
   erected, and a fort constructed, furnished with cannon,
   ammunition, and provisions, and named 'Charlesfort.' Thirty
   volunteers were placed in it, and it became the second
   European settlement ever attempted upon the east coast of the
   United States. Its position was probably not far from the site
   of the present town of Beaufort, on Port Royal River. Having
   accomplished this, and made a certain captain, Albert de la
   Pieria, 'a soldier of great experience,' commander of
   Charlesfort, he took leave of his countrymen, and left Port
   Royal on the 11th day of June," arriving in France on the 20th
   of July. "On his arrival in France, Ribault found the country
   in a state of great commotion. The civil war between the
   Huguenots and the Catholics was raging, and neither the king
   nor the admiral had time to listen to Ribault's solicitations,
   to send relief to the settlers left in 'French Florida.' Those
   colonists remained, therefore, during the remainder of 1562,
   and the following winter, without assistance from France; and
   after many trials and sufferings, they were at last forced, in
   1563, to abandon their settlement and the new country." Having
   constructed a ship, with great difficulty, they put to sea;
   but suffered horribly on the tedious voyage, from want of food
   and water, until they were rescued by an English vessel and
   taken to England.

      J_. G. Kohl,
      History of the Discovery of Maine
      (Maine Historical Society Collection,
      2d series, volume 1), chapter 11._

      ALSO IN:
      F. Parkman,
      Pioneers of France in the New World,
      chapter 3.

      Father Charlevoix,
      History of New France;
      translated by J. G. Shea,
      book 3 (volume 1).

      T. E. V. Smith,
      Villegaignon
      (American Society of Church History, volume 3).

FLORIDA: A. D. 1564-1565.
The second Huguenot colony, and the cry in Spain against it.

"After the treacherous peace between Charles IX. and the Huguenots, Coligny renewed his solicitations for the colonization of Florida. The king gave consent; in 1564 three ships were conceded for the service; and Laudonnière, who, in the former voyage, had been upon the American coast, a man of great intelligence, though a seaman rather than a soldier, was appointed to lead forth the colony. … A voyage of 60 days brought the fleet, by the way of the Canaries and the Antilles, to the shores of Florida in June. The harbor of Port Royal, rendered gloomy by recollections of misery, was avoided; and, after searching the coast, and discovering places which were so full of amenity that melancholy itself could not but change its humor as it gazed, the followers of Calvin planted themselves on the banks of the river May [now called the St. John's], near St. John's bluff. They sung a psalm of thanksgiving, and gathered courage from acts of devotion. The fort now erected was called Carolina. … The French were hospitably welcomed by the natives; a monument, bearing the arms of France, was crowned with laurels, and its base encircled with baskets of corn. What need is there of minutely relating the simple manners of the red men, the dissensions of rival tribes, the largesses offered to the strangers to secure their protection or their alliance, the improvident prodigality with which careless soldiers wasted the supplies of food; the certain approach of scarcity; the gifts and the tribute levied from the Indians by entreaty, menace or force? By degrees the confidence of the red men was exhausted; they had welcomed powerful guests, who promised to become their benefactors, and who now robbed their humble granaries. But the worst evil in the new settlement was the character of the emigrants. Though patriotism and religious enthusiasm had prompted the expedition, the inferior class of the colonists was a motley group of dissolute men. Mutinies were frequent. The men were mad with the passion for sudden wealth; and in December a party, under the pretence of desiring to escape from famine, compelled Laudonnière to sign an order permitting their embarkation for New Spain. No sooner were they possessed of this apparent sanction of the chief than they began a career of piracy against the Spaniards. The act of crime and temerity was soon avenged. The pirate vessel was taken, and most of the men disposed of as prisoners or slaves. The few that escaped in a boat sought shelter at Fort Carolina, where Laudonnière sentenced the ringleaders to death. During these events the scarcity became extreme; and the friendship of the natives was forfeited by unprofitable severity. March of 1565 was gone, and there were no supplies from France; April passed away, and the expected recruits had not arrived; May brought nothing to sustain the hopes of the exiles, and they resolved to attempt a return to Europe. In August, Sir John Hawkins, the slave merchant, arrived from the West Indies. He came fresh from the sale of a cargo of Africans, whom he had kidnapped with signal ruthlessness; and he now displayed the most generous sympathy, not only furnishing a liberal supply of provisions, but relinquishing a vessel from his own fleet. The colony was on the point of embarking when sails were descried. Ribault had arrived to assume the command, bringing with him supplies of every kind, emigrants with their families, garden-seeds, implements of husbandry, and the various kinds of domestic animals. The French, now wild with joy, seemed about to acquire a home, and Calvinism to become fixed in the inviting regions of Florida. {1150} But Spain had never abandoned her claim to that territory, where, if she had not planted colonies, she had buried many hundreds of her bravest sons. … There had appeared at the Spanish court a commander well fitted for reckless acts. Pedro Melendez [or Menendez] de Aviles … had acquired wealth in Spanish America, which was no school of benevolence, and his conduct there had provoked an inquiry, which, after a long arrest, ended in his conviction. … Philip II. suggested the conquest and colonization of Florida; and in May, 1565, a compact was framed and confirmed by which Melendez, who desired an opportunity to retrieve his honor, was constituted the hereditary governor of a territory of almost unlimited extent. On his part he stipulated, at his own cost, in the following May, to invade Florida with 500 men; to complete its conquest within three years; to explore its currents and channels, the dangers of its coasts, and the depth of its havens; to establish a colony of at least 500 persons, of whom 100 should be married men; with 12 ecclesiastics, besides four Jesuits. … Meantime, news arrived, as the French writers assert through the treachery of the court of France, that the Huguenots had made a plantation in Florida, and that Ribault was preparing to set sail with re-enforcements. The cry was raised that the heretics must be extirpated; and Melendez readily obtained the forces which he required."

G. Bancroft, History of the United States (author's last revision), part 1, chapter 4.

FLORIDA: A. D. 1565.
   The Spanish capture of Fort Caroline and
   massacre of the Huguenots.
   Founding of St. Augustine.

"The expedition under Menendez consisted of an army of 2,600 soldiers and officers. He sailed straight for Florida, intending to attack Fort Caroline with no delay. In fact he sighted the mouth of the port [Sept. 4, 1565] two months after starting; but, considering the position occupied by the French ships, he judged it prudent to defer the attack, and make it, if possible, from the land. A council of war was held in Fort Caroline, presided over by Ribaut. Laudonnière proposed that, while Ribaut held the fort with the ships, he, with his old soldiers, who knew the country well, aided by the Floridans as auxiliaries, should engage the Spaniards in the woods, and harass them by perpetual combats in labyrinths to which they were wholly unaccustomed. The advice was good, but it was not followed. Ribaut proposed to follow the Spanish fleet with his own—lighter and more easily handled—fall on the enemy when the soldiers were all disembarked, and, after taking and burning the ships, to attack the army. In the face of remonstrances from all the officers, he persisted in this project. Disaster followed the attempt. A violent gale arose. The French ships were wrecked upon the Floridan coast; the men lost their arms, their powder, and their clothes; they escaped with their bare lives. There was no longer the question of conquering the Spaniards, but of saving themselves. The garrison of Caroline consisted of 150 soldiers, of whom 40 were sick. The rest of the colony was composed of sick and wounded Protestant ministers, workmen, royal commissioners,' and so forth. Laudonnière was in command. They awaited the attack for several days, yet the Spaniards came not. They were wading miserably through the marshes in the forests, under tropical rains, discouraged, and out of heart." But when, at length, the exhausted and despairing Spaniards, toiling through the marshes, from St. Augustine, where they had landed and established their settlement, reached the French fort (Sept. 20), "there was actually no watch on the ramparts. Three companies of Spaniards simultaneously rushed from the forest, and attacked the fortress on the south, the west and the south-west. There was but little resistance from the surprised garrison. There was hardly time to grasp a sword. About 20 escaped by flight, including the Captain, Laudonnière; the rest were every one massacred. None were spared except women and children under fifteen; and, in the first rage of the onslaught, even these were murdered with the rest. There still lay in the port three ships, commanded by Jacques Ribaut, brother [son] of the unfortunate Governor. One of these was quickly sent to the bottom by the cannon of the fort; the other two cut their cables, and slipped out of reach into the roadstead, where they lay, waiting for a favourable wind, for three days. They picked up the fugitives who had been wandering half-starved in the woods, and then set sail from this unlucky land. … There remained, however, the little army, under Ribaut, which had lost most of its arms in the wreck, and was now wandering along the Floridan shore." When Ribaut and his men reached Fort Caroline and saw the Spanish flag flying, they turned and retreated southward. Not many days later, they were intercepted by Menendez, near St. Augustine, to which post he had returned. The first party of the French who came up, 200 in number, and who were in a starving state, surrendered to the Spaniard, and laid down their arms. "They were brought across the river in small companies, and their hands tied behind their backs. On landing, they were asked if they were Catholics. Eight out of the 200 professed allegiance to that religion; the rest were all Protestants.' Menendez traced out a line on the ground with his cane. The prisoners were marched up one by one to the line; on reaching it, they were stabbed. Next day, Ribaut arrived with the rest of the army. The same pourparlers began. But this time a blacker treachery was adopted." An officer, sent by Menendez, pledged his honor to the French that the lives of all should be spared if they laid down their arms. "It is not clear how many of the French accepted the conditions. A certain number refused them, and escaped into the woods. What is certain is, that Ribaut, with nearly all his men, were tied back to back, four together. Those who said they were Catholics, were set on one side; the rest were all massacred as they stood. … Outside the circle of the slaughtered and the slaughterers stood the priest, Mendoza, encouraging, approving, exhorting the butchers."

The long dispatch in which Menendez reported his fiendish work to the Spanish king has been brought to light in the archives at Seville, and there is this endorsement on it, in the hand-writing of Philip II.: "Say to him that, as to those he has killed, he has done well; and as to those he has saved, they shall be sent to the galleys."

   ALSO IN:
   C. W. Baird,
   History of the Huguenot Emigration to America,
   volume 1, introduction.

"As might have been expected, all attempts to rouse the French court into demanding redress were vain. Spain, above all other nations, knew the arts by which a corrupt court might be swayed, and the same intrigues which, fifty years later, sent Raleigh to the block and well-nigh ended the young colony of Virginia, now kept France quiet. But though the court refused to move, an avenger was not wanting. Dominic de Gourgues had already known as a prisoner of war the horrors of the Spanish galleys. Whether he was a Huguenot is uncertain. Happily in France, as the history of that and all later ages proved, the religion of the Catholic did not necessarily deaden the feelings of the patriot. Seldom has there been a deed of more reckless daring than that which Dominic de Gourgues now undertook. With the proceeds of his patrimony he bought three small ships, manned by eighty sailors and a hundred men-at-arms. He then obtained a commission as a slaver on the coast of Guinea, and in the summer of 1567 set sail. With these paltry resources he aimed at overthrowing a settlement which had already destroyed a force of twenty times his number, and which might have been strengthened in the interval. … To the mass of his followers he did not reveal the true secret of his voyage till he had reached the West Indies. Then he disclosed his real purpose. His men were of the same spirit as their leader. Desperate though the enterprise seemed, De Gourgues' only difficulty was to restrain his followers from undue haste. Happily for their attempt, they had allies on whom they had not reckoned. The fickle savages had at first welcomed the Spaniards, but the tyranny of the new comers soon wrought a change, and the Spaniards in Florida, like the Spaniards in every part of the New World, were looked on as hateful tyrants. So when De Gourgues landed he at once found a ready body of allies. … Three days were spent in making ready, and then De Gourgues, with a hundred and sixty of his own men and his Indian allies, marched against the enemy. In spite of the hostility of the Indians, the Spaniards seem to have taken no precaution against a sudden attack. Menendez himself had left the colony. The Spanish force was divided between three forts, and no proper precautions were taken for keeping up the communications between them. Each was successively seized, the garrison slain or made prisoners, and, as each fort fell, those in the next could only make vague guesses as to the extent of the danger. Even when divided into three the Spanish force outnumbered that of De Gourgues, and savages with bows and arrows would have counted for little against men with fire arms and behind walls. But after the downfall of the first fort a panic seemed to seize the Spaniards, and the French achieved an almost bloodless victory. After the death of Ribault and his followers nothing could be looked for but merciless retaliation, and De Gourgues copied the severity, though not the perfidy of his enemies. The very details of Menendez' act were imitated, and the trees on which the prisoners were hung bore the inscription: 'Not as Spaniards, but as traitors, robbers, and murderers.' Five weeks later De Gourgues anchored under the walls of Rochelle. … His attack did not wholly extirpate the Spanish power in Florida. Menendez received the blessing of the Pope as a chosen instrument for the conversion of the Indians, returned to America and restored his settlement. As before, he soon made the Indians his deadly enemies. The Spanish settlement held on, but it was not till two centuries later that its existence made itself remembered by one brief but glorious episode in the history of the English colonies."

FLORIDA: A. D. 1628. Claimed by France, and placed, with New France, under the control of the Company of the Hundred Associates.

FLORIDA: A. D. 1629.
Claimed in part by England and embraced in the Carolina grant
to Sir Robert Heath.

FLORIDA: A. D. 1702.
Adjustment of western boundary with the French of Louisiana.

FLORIDA: A. D. 1740.
Unsuccessful attack on St. Augustine by the English of Georgia
and Carolina.

FLORIDA: A. D. 1763 (February).
Ceded to Great Britain by Spain in the Treaty of Paris.

"When, in July [1763], possession was taken of Florida, its inhabitants, of every age and sex, men, women, children, and servants, numbered but 3,000; and, of these, the men were nearly all in the pay of the Catholic king. The possession of it had cost him nearly $230,000 annually; and now it was accepted by England as a compensation for Havana. Most of the people, receiving from the Spanish treasury indemnity for their losses, had migrated to Cuba, taking with them the bones of their saints and the ashes of their distinguished dead. The western province of Florida extended to the Mississippi, on the line of latitude of 31°. On the 20th of October, the French surrendered the post of Mobile, with its brick fort, which was fast crumbling to ruins. A month later, the slight stockade at Tombigbee, in the west of the Chocta country, was delivered up. In a congress of the Catawbas, Cherokees, Creeks, Chicasas, and Choctas, held on the 10th of November, at Augusta, the governors of Virginia and the colonies south of it were present, and the peace with the Indians of the South and South-west was ratified."

G. Bancroft, History of the United States (Author's last revision.), volume 3, page 64.

FLORIDA: A. D. 1763 (October).
English provinces, East and West, constituted by the King's
proclamation.

FLORIDA: A. D. 1779-1781.
Reconquest of West Florida by the Spanish commander at New
Orleans.

"In the summer of 1779 Spain had declared war against Great Britain. Galvez [the Spanish commander at New Orleans] discovered that the British were planning the surprise of New Orleans, and, under cover of preparations for defense, made haste to take the offensive. Four days before the time he had appointed to move, a hurricane destroyed a large number of houses in the town, and spread ruin to crops and, dwellings up and down the 'coast,' and sunk his gun flotilla. … Repairing his disasters as best he could, and hastening his ostensibly defensive preparations, he marched, on the 22d of August, 1779, against the British forts on the Mississippi. His … little army of 1,434 men was without tents, other military furniture, or a single engineer. The gun fleet followed in the river abreast of their line of march along its shores, carrying one 24-pounder, five 18-pounders, and four 4-pounders. With this force, in the space of about three weeks, Fort Bute on bayou Manchac, Baton Rouge and Fort Panmure. 8 vessels, 556 regulars, and a number of sailors, militia-men, and free blacks, fell into the hands of the Spaniards. The next year, 1780, re-enforced from Havana, Galvez again left New Orleans by way of the Balize with 2,000 men, regulars, militia, and free blacks, and on the 15th of March took Fort Charlotte on Mobile river. Galvez next conceived the much larger project of taking Pensacola. Failing to secure re-enforcements from Havana by writing for them, he sailed to that place in October, to make his application in person, intending to move with them directly on the enemy. After many delays and disappointments he succeeded, and early in March, 1781, appeared before Pensacola with a ship of the line, two frigates, and transports containing 1,400 soldiers well furnished with artillery and ammunition. Here he was joined by such troops as could be spared from Mobile, and by Don Estevan Mirò from New Orleans, at the head of the Louisiana forces, and on the afternoon of the 16th of March, though practically unsupported by the naval fleet, until dishonor was staring its jealous commanders in the face, moved under hot fire, through a passage of great peril, and took up a besieging position. … It is only necessary to state that, on the 9th of May, 1781, Pensacola, with a garrison of 800 men, and the whole of West Florida, were surrendered to Galvez. Louisiana had heretofore been included under one domination with Cuba, but now one of the several rewards bestowed upon her governor was the captain-generalship of Louisiana and West Florida."

G. E. Waring, Jr., and G. W. Cable, History of New Orleans (United States Tenth Census, volume 19).

FLORIDA: A. D. 1783-1787.
The question of boundaries between Spain and the United
States, and the question of the navigation of the Mississippi.

"By the treaty of 1783 between Great Britain on the one part and the United States and her allies, France and Spain, on the other, Great Britain acknowledged the independence of the colonies, and recognized as a part of their southern boundary a line drawn due east from a point in the Mississippi River, in latitude 31° north, to the middle of the Appalachicola; and at the same time she ceded to Spain by a separate agreement the two Floridas, but without defining their northern boundaries. This omission gave rise to a dispute between Spain and the United States as to their respective limits. On the part of Spain it was contended that by the act of Great Britain, of 1764, the northern boundary of West Florida had been fixed at the line running due east from the mouth of the Yazoo to the Chattahoochee, and that all south of that line had been ceded to her; whilst on the other hand, the United States as strenuously maintained that the act fixing and enlarging the limits of West Florida was superseded by the recent treaty, which extended their southern boundary to the 31st degree of north latitude, a hundred and ten miles further south than the line claimed by Spain. Spain, however, had possession of the disputed territory by right of conquest, and evidently had no intention of giving it up. She strengthened her garrisons at Baton Rouge and Natchez, and built a fort at Vicksburg, and subsequently one at New Madrid, on the Missouri side of the Mississippi, just below the mouth of the Ohio; and of the latter she made a port of entry where vessels from the Ohio were obliged to land and declare their cargoes. She even denied the right of the United States to the region between the Mississippi and the Alleghany Mountains, which had been ceded to them by Great Britain, on the ground that the conquests made by Governor Galvez, of West Florida, and by Don Eugenio Pierre, of Fort St. Joseph, 'near the sources of the Illinois,' had vested the title to all this country in her; and she insisted that what she did not own was possessed by the Indians, and could not therefore belong to the United States. Even as late as 1795, she claimed to have bought from the Chickasaws the bluffs which bear their name, and which are situated on the east bank of the Mississippi some distance north of the most northerly boundary ever assigned by Great Britain to West Florida. Here, then, was cause for 'a very pretty quarrel,' and to add to the ill feeling which grew out of it, Spain denied the right of the people of the United States to the 'free navigation of the Mississippi,'—a right which had been conceded to them by Great Britain with all the formalities with which she had received it from France. … What was needed to make the right of any value to the people of the Ohio valley was the additional right to take their produce into a Spanish port, New Orleans, and either sell it then and there, or else store it, subject to certain conditions, until such time as it suited them to transfer it to sea-going vessels. This right Spain would not concede; and as the people of the Ohio valley were determined to have it, cost what it might, it brought on a series of intrigues between the Spanish governors of Louisiana and certain influential citizens west of the Alleghanies which threatened the stability of the American Union almost before it was formed."

FLORIDA: A. D. 1810-1813.
   Continued occupation of West Florida by the Spaniards.
   Revolt of the inhabitants.
   Possession taken by the Americans from the Mississippi to the
   Perdido.

   "The success of the French in Spain, and the probability of
   that kingdom being obliged to succumb, had given occasion to
   revolutionary movements in several of the Spanish American
   provinces. This example … had been followed also in that
   portion of the Spanish province of West Florida bordering on
   the Mississippi. The inhabitants, most of whom were of British
   or American birth, had seized the fort at Baton Rouge, had met
   in convention, and had proclaimed themselves independent,
   adopting a single star for their flag, the same symbol
   afterward assumed by the republic of Texas.
{1153}
   Some struggles took place between the adherents of the Spanish
   connection and these revolutionists, who were also threatened
   with attack from Mobile, still held by a Spanish garrison. In
   this emergency they applied, through Holmes, governor of the
   Mississippi Territory, for aid and recognition by the United
   States. … The president, however, preferred to issue a
   proclamation, taking possession of the east bank of the
   Mississippi, occupation of which, under the Louisiana treaty,
   had been so long delayed, not, it was said, from any defect of
   title, but out of conciliatory views toward Spain. …
   Claiborne, governor of the Orleans Territory, then at
   Washington, was dispatched post-haste to take possession." The
   following January Congress passed an act in secret session
   "authorizing the president to take possession as well of East
   as of West Florida, under any arrangement which had been or
   might be entered into with the local authorities; or, in case
   of any attempted occupation by any foreign government, to take
   and to maintain possession by force. Previously to the passage
   of this act, the occupation of the east bank of the
   Mississippi had been already completed by Governor Claiborne;
   not, however, without some show of resistance. … Captain
   Gaines presently appeared before Mobile with a small
   detachment of American regulars, and demanded its surrender.
   Colonel Cushing soon arrived from New Orleans with several
   gun-boats, artillery, and a body of troops. The boats were
   permitted to ascend the river toward Fort Stoddard without
   opposition. But the Spanish commandant refused to give up
   Mobile, and no attempt was made to compel him." By an act of
   Congress passed in April, 1812, "that part of Florida recently
   taken possession of, as far east as Pearl River, was annexed to
   the new state [of Louisiana]. The remaining territory, as far
   as the Perdido, though Mobile still remained in the hands of
   the Spaniards, was annexed, by another act, to the Mississippi
   Territory." A year later, in April, 1813, General Wilkinson
   was instructed to take possession of Mobile, and to occupy all
   the territory claimed, to the Perdido, which he accordingly
   did, without bloodshed.

      R. Hildreth,
      History of the United States, 2d series,
      chapters 23, 24, 26 (volume 3).

FLORIDA: A. D. 1816-1818.
The fugitive negroes and the first Seminole War.
Jackson's campaign.

"The tranquillity of Monroe's administration was soon seriously threatened by the renewal of trouble with the Southern Indians [the Seminoles, and the refugee Creeks]. … The origin of the difficulty was twofold: first, the injustice which has always marked the treatment of Indian tribes whose lands were coveted by the whites; and secondly, the revival of the old grievance, that Florida was a refuge for the fugitive slaves of Georgia and South Carolina. … The Seminoles had never withheld a welcome to the Georgia negro who preferred their wild freedom to the lash of an overseer on a cotton or rice plantation. The Georgians could never forget that the grand-children of their grandfathers' fugitive slaves were roaming about the Everglades of Florida. … So long as there were Seminoles in Florida, and so long as Florida belonged to Spain, just so long would the negroes of Georgia find an asylum in Florida with the Seminoles. … A war with the Indians of Florida, therefore, was always literally and emphatically a slave-hunt. A reclamation for fugitives was always repulsed by the Seminoles and the Spaniards, and, as they could be redeemed in no other way, Georgia was always urging the Federal Government to war."

W. C. Bryant and S. H. Gay, Popular History of the United States, volume 4, chapter 10.

   During the War of 1812-14, the English, who were permitted by
   Spain to make use of Florida with considerable freedom, and
   who received no little assistance from the refugee negroes and
   Creek Indians, "had built a fort on the Appalachicola River,
   about 15 miles from its mouth, and had collected there an
   immense amount of arms and ammunition. … When the war ended,
   the English left the arms and ammunition in the fort. The
   negroes seized the fort, and it became known as the 'Negro
   Fort.' The authorities of the United States sent General
   Gaines to the Florida frontier with troops, to establish peace
   on the border. The Negro Fort was a source of anxiety both to
   the military authorities and to the slave-owners of Georgia,"
   and a pretext was soon found—whether valid or not seems
   uncertain—for attacking it. "A hot shot penetrated one of the
   magazines, and the whole fort was blown to pieces, July 27, 1816.
   There were 300 negro men, women and children, and 20 Choctaws
   in the fort; 270 were killed. Only three came out unhurt, and
   these were killed by the allied Indians. … During 1817 there
   were frequent collisions on the frontiers between Whites and
   Indians. … On the 20th of November, General Gaines sent a
   force of 250 men to Fowltown, the headquarters of the chief of
   the 'Redsticks,' or hostile Creeks. They approached the town
   in the early morning, and were fired on. An engagement
   followed. The town was taken and burned. … The Indians of
   that section, after this, began general hostilities, attacked
   the boats which were ascending the Appalachicola, and
   massacred the persons in them. … In December, on receipt of
   intelligence of the battle at Fowltown and the attack on the
   boats, Jackson was ordered to take command in Georgia. He
   wrote to President Monroe: 'Let it be signified to me through
   any channel (say Mr. J. Rhea) that the possession of the
   Floridas would be desirable to the United States, and in sixty
   days it will be accomplished.' Much was afterwards made to
   depend on this letter. Monroe was ill when it reached
   Washington, and he did not see or read it until a year
   afterwards, when some reference was made to it. Jackson
   construed the orders which he received from Calhoun with
   reference to this letter. … He certainly supposed, however,
   that he had the secret concurrence of the administration in
   conquering Florida. … He advanced through Georgia with great
   haste and was on the Florida frontier in March, 1818. He …
   immediately advanced to St. Mark's, which place he captured.
   On his way down the Appalachicola he found the Indians and
   negroes at work in the fields, and unconscious of any
   impending attack. Some of them fled to St. Mark's. His theory,
   in which he supposed that he was supported by the
   administration, was that he was to pursue the Indians until he
   caught them, wherever they might go; that he was to respect
   Spanish rights as far as he could consistently with that
   purpose; and that the excuse for his proceedings was that
   Spain could not police her own territory, or restrain the
   Indians.
{1154}
   Jackson's proceedings were based on two positive but arbitrary
   assumptions: (1) That the Indians got aid and encouragement
   from St. Mark's and Pensacola. (This the Spaniards always
   denied, but perhaps a third assumption of Jackson might be
   mentioned: that the word of a Spanish official was of no
   value.) (2) That Great Britain kept paid emissaries employed
   in Florida to stir up trouble for the United States. This
   latter assumption was a matter of profound belief generally in
   the United States." Acting upon it with no hesitation, Jackson
   caused a Scotch trader named Arbuthnot, whom he found at St.
   Mark's, and an English ex-lieutenant of marines, Ambrister by
   name, who was taken prisoner among the Seminoles, to be
   condemned by court martial and executed, although no
   substantial evidence of their being in any way answerable for
   Indian hostilities was adduced. "It was as a mere incident of
   his homeward march that Jackson turned aside and captured
   Pensacola, May 24, 1818, because he was told that some Indians
   had taken refuge there. He deposed the Spanish government, set
   up a new one, and established a garrison. He then continued
   his march homewards. "Jackson's performances in Florida were
   the cause of grave perplexities to his government, which
   finally determined "that Pensacola and St. Mark's should be
   restored to Spain, but that Jackson's course should be
   approved and defended on the grounds that he pursued his enemy
   to his refuge, and that Spain could not do the duty which
   devolved on her."

"Jackson's vigorous proceedings in Florida would seem not to have been without effect. Pending the discussion in Congress on his conduct, the Spanish minister, under new instructions from home, signed a treaty for the cession of Florida, in extinction of the various American claims, for the satisfaction of which the United States agreed to pay to the claimants $5,000,000. The Louisiana boundary, as fixed by this treaty, was a compromise between the respective offers heretofore made, though leaning a good deal to the American side: the Sabine to the 32d degree of north latitude; thence a north meridian line to the Red River; the course of that river to the 100th degree of longitude east [? west] from Greenwich; thence north by that meridian to the Arkansas; up that river to its head, and to the 42d degree of north latitude; and along that degree to the Pacific. This treaty was immediately ratified by the Senate," but it was not until February, 1821, that the ratification of the Spanish government was received.

R. Hildreth, History of the United States, 2d series, chapters 31-32 (volume 3).

Treaties and Conventions between the United States and
other countries (edition of 1880), pages 1016-1022.

"The conflict with the Seminoles was one of the legacies left by Jackson to Van Buren; it lasted as long as the Revolutionary War, cost thirty millions of dollars, and baffled the efforts of several generals and numerous troops, who had previously shown themselves equal to any in the world. … As is usually the case in Indian wars there had been wrong done by each side; but in this instance we were the more to blame, although the Indians themselves were far from being merely harmless and suffering innocents. The Seminoles were being deprived of their lands in pursuance of the general policy of removing all the Indians [to] west of the Mississippi. They had agreed to go, under pressure, and influenced, probably, by fraudulent representations; but they declined to fulfill their agreement. If they had been treated wisely and firmly they might probably have been allowed to remain without serious injury to the surrounding whites. But no such treatment was attempted, and as a result we were plunged in one of the most harassing Indian wars we ever waged. In their gloomy, tangled swamps, and among the unknown and untrodden recesses of the everglades, the Indians found a secure asylum; and they issued from their haunts to burn and ravage almost all the settled parts of Florida, fairly depopulating five counties. … The great Seminole leader, Osceola, was captured only by deliberate treachery and breach of faith on our part, and the Indians were worn out rather than conquered. This was partly owing to their remarkable capacities as bush-fighters, but infinitely more to the nature of their territory. Our troops generally fought with great bravery; but there is very little else in the struggle, either as regards its origin or the manner in which it was carried on, to which an American can look back with any satisfaction."

FLORIDA: A. D. 1862 (February-April).
Temporary Union conquests and occupation.
Discouragement of Unionists.

FLORIDA: A. D. 1864.
Unsuccessful National attempt to occupy the State.
Battle of Olustee.

FLORIDA: A. D. 1865 (JULY).
Provisional government set up under President Johnson's plan
of Reconstruction.

"The Republic of Florence, in the year 1252, coined its golden florin, of 24 carats fine, and of the weight of one drachm. It placed the value under the guarantee of publicity, and of commercial good faith; and that coin remained unaltered, as the standard for all other values, as long as the republic itself endured."

FODHLA.

FŒDERATI OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE.

The bodies of barbarians who were taken in the military service of the Roman empire, during the period of its decline, serving "under their hereditary chiefs, using the arms which were proper to them, from preserving their language, their manners and their customs, were designated by the name of frederati" (confederates or allies).

FOLCLAND. FOLKLAND.

Public land, among the early English. "It comprised the whole area that was not at the original allotment assigned to individuals or communities, and that was not subsequently divided into estates of bookland [bocland]. The folkland was the standing treasury of the country; no alienation of any part of it could be made without the consent of the national council; but it might be allowed to individuals to hold portions of it subject to rents and other services to the state."

The theory here stated is questioned by Prof. Vinogradoff, who says: "I venture to suggest that folkland need not mean the land owned by the people. Bookland is land that is held by bookright; folkland is land that is held by folkright. The folkland is what our scholars have called ethel, and alod, and family-land, and yrfeland; it is land held under the old restrictive common-law, the law which keeps land in families, as contrasted with land which is held under a book, under a 'privilegium,' modelled on Roman precedents, expressed in Latin words, armed with ecclesiastical sanctions, and making for free alienation and individualism."

FOLKLAND.

FOLKMOOT.

See HUNDRED: also SHIRE; also WITENAGEMOT; also TOWNSHIP AND TOWN-MEETING, THE NEW ENGLAND.

A people mentioned in Irish legends as sea-rovers. Mr. Sullivan, in his article on "Celtic Literature" in the Encyclopædia Britannica advances the opinion that the Romans were the people alluded to; but the general view is quite different.

In the civil war between the three grandsons of Charlemagne, which resulted in the partition of his empire and the definite separation of Germany and France, the decisive battle was fought, June 25, 841, at Fontenailles, or Fontenay (Fontanetum), near Auxerre. It was one of the fiercest and bloodiest fights of mediæval times, and 80,000 men are said to have died on the field.

"The unit of lineal measure [with the Romans] was the Pes, which occupied the same place in the Roman system as the Foot does in our own. According to the most accurate researches, the Pes was equal to, about 11.64 inches imperial measure, or .97 of an English foot. The Pes being supposed to represent the length of the foot in a well proportioned man, various divisions and multiples of the Pes were named after standards derived from the human frame. Thus: Pes=16 Digiti, i. e. finger-breadths, [or] 4 Palmi, i. e. hand-breadths; Sesquipes=l cubitus, i. e. length from elbow to extremity of middle finger. The Pes was also divided into 12 Pollices, i. e. thumb-joint-lengths, otherwise called Unciae (whence our word 'inch')."

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY: KENTUCKY-TENNESSEE);
      (MARCH-APRIL: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

FORMORIANS.

FORT EDWARD. FORT ERIE. FORT FISHER, ETC.

A Pictish people who figure in early Scottish history, and whom Mr. Rhys derives from the tribe known to the Romans as Verturiones. The western part of Fife was embraced in their kingdom.

FORTUNATE ISLANDS.

FORTY-SHILLING FREEHOLDERS.

"From the entrance of the Suburra branched out the long streets which penetrated the hollows between the Quirinal, Viminal, and Esquiline to the gates pierced in the mound of Servius. It was in this direction that Cæsar effected the first extension of the Forum, by converting the site of certain streets into an open space which he surrounded with arcades, and in the centre of which he erected his temple of Venus. By the side of the Julian Forum, or perhaps in its rear, Augustus constructed a still ampler inclosure, which he adorned with the temple of Mars the Avenger. Succeeding emperors … continued to work out the same idea, till the Argiletum on the one hand, and the saddle of the Capitoline and Quirinal, excavated for the purpose, on the other, were both occupied by these constructions, the dwellings of the populace being swept away before them; and a space running nearly parallel to the length of the Roman Forum, and exceeding it in size, was thus devoted to public use, extending from the pillar of Trajan to the basilica of Constantine."

"The Velabrum, the Forum Boarium, the Vicus Tuscus, and the Circus Maximus are names rich in reminiscences of the romantic youth and warlike manhood of the Roman people. The earliest dawn of Roman history begins with the union of the Capitoline and Palatine hills into one city. In those far-distant times, however, no population was settled in the Velabrum or Circus valley; for, as we have seen, until the drainage was permanently provided for by the cloacæ, these districts were uninhabited swamps; and the name Velabrum itself is said to have been derived from the boats used in crossing from one hill to the other. Perhaps such may not have been the case with the Forum Boarium, which lay between the Velabrum and the river. … The limits of the Forum Boarium can be clearly defined. It was separated from the Velabrum at the Arch of the Goldsmiths. … On the south-eastern side the Carceres of the Circus, and the adjoining temple on the site of S. Maria in Cosmedin, bounded the district, on the western the Tiber, and on the north western the wall of Servius. … The immediate neighbourhood of the river, the Forum, the Campus Martius, and the Palace of the Cæsars would naturally render this quarter one of the most crowded thoroughfares of Rome. … The Forum itself, which gave the name to the district, was probably an open space surrounded by shops and public buildings, like the Forum Romanum, but on a smaller scale. In the centre stood the bronze figure of a bull, brought from Ægina, either as a symbol of the trade in cattle to which the place owed its name, or, as Tacitus observes, to mark the supposed spot whence the plough of Romulus, drawn by a bull and a cow, first started in tracing out the Palatine pomœrium."

FORUM JULII.

A Roman colony and naval station (modern Frejus) founded on the Mediterranean coast of Gaul by Augustus.

"The older Forum, or Forum Romanum, as it was called, to distinguish it from the later Fora, which were named after their respective builders [Forum of Julius Cæsar, of Augustus, of Nerva, of Vespasian, of Trajan, etc.], was an open space of an oblong shape, which extended in a south-easterly direction from near the depression or intermontium between the two summits of the Capitoline hill to a point opposite the still extant temple of Antoninus and Faustina. … Round this confined space were grouped the most important buildings of Republican Rome."

"Forum, in the literal sense of the word merely a marketplace, derives its name 'á ferendo,' (from bringing, getting, purchasing). … Narrow is the arena on which so great a drama was enacted in the Republican and Imperial City! the ascertainable measurements of this region, according to good authorities, being 671 English feet in the extreme length; 202 in the extreme breadth, and 117 feet at the narrower, the south-eastern, side. A wildly picturesque marshy vale, overshadowed by primæval forests, and shut in by rugged heights, was that low ground between the Palatine and Capitoline hills when the 'Roma Quadrata,' ascribed to Romulus, was founded about seven centuries and a half before our era. After the wars and finally confirmed alliance between Romans and Sabines … the colonists agreed to unite under the same government, and to surround the two cities and two hills with a wider cincture of fortifying walls than those the still extant ruins of which are before us on the Palatine. Now was the swampy waste rendered serviceable for civic purposes; the forest was cut down; the stagnant marshes were drained, the clayey hollows filled up; the wild valley became the appointed arena for popular assemblage; though Dionysius tells us it was for some time on a spot sacred to Vulcan (the 'Vulcanale'), probably a terrace on the slope of the Palatine overlooking the Forum, that the people used to meet for political affairs, elections, etc. During many ages there were, it appears, no habitations save on the hills. … The Forum, as an enclosed public place amidst buildings, and surrounded by graceful porticos, may be said to have owed its origin to Tarquinius Priscus, between the years 616 and 578 B. C. That king (Livius tells us) was the first who erected porticos around this area, and also divided the ground into lots, where private citizens might build for their own uses. Booths, probably wooden (the 'tabernæ veteres'), were the first rude description of shops here seen. … Uncertain is the original place of the 'Rostra Veteres'—the ancient tribunal for orators. No permanent tribunal for such purpose is known to have been placed in the Forum till the year of the city 417. … In the year 336 B. C., the Romans having gained a naval victory over the citizens' of Antium, several of those enemies' ships were burnt, others transported to the Roman docks, and the bronzed prows of the latter were used to decorate a pulpit, now raised for public speaking, probably near the centre of the Forum."

FOSSA.

One of the great Roman roads in Britain, which ran from
Lincoln southwestwardly into Cornwall.

FOSTAT.

FOUR HUNDRED AND FIVE THOUSAND AT ATHENS.

Four Irish antiquaries of 17th century, who compiled the mixed collection of legend and history called the "Annals of the Kingdom of Ireland," are commonly known as the Four Masters. They were Michael O'Clery, a lay brother of the order of St. Francis; Conaire O'Clery, brother of Michael; Cucogry or Peregrine O'Clery, head of the Tirconnell sept of the O'Clerys, to which Michael and Conaire belonged; and Ferfeasa O'Mulconry, of whom nothing is known, except that he was a native of the county of Roscommon. The "Annals" of the Four Masters have been translated into English from the Irish tongue by John O'Donovan.

J. O'Donovan, Introduction to Annals of the Kingdom of Ireland by the Four Masters.

FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865-1866 (DECEMBER-APRIL); 1866 (JUNE); 1866-1867 (OCTOBER-MARCH).

FOURTH OF JULY.

At the time of the division of the empire of Charlemagne between his three grand-sons, which was made a definite and lasting political separation by the Treaty of Verdun, A. D. 843, "the people of the West [western Europe] had come to be divided, with more and more distinctness, into two classes, those composed of Franks and Germans, who still adhered to the Teutonic dialects, and those, composed of Franks, Gallo-Romans, and Aquitanians, who used the Romance dialects, or the patois which had grown out of a corrupted Latin. The former clung to the name of Germans, while the latter, not to lose all share in the glory of the Frankish name, began to call themselves Franci, and their country Francia Nova, or New France. … Francia was the Latin name of Frankenland, and had long before been applied to the dominions of the Franks on both sides of the Rhine. Their country was then divided into East and West Francia; but in the time of Karl the Great [Charlemagne] and Ludwig Pious, we find the monk of St. Gall using the terms Francia Nova, in opposition to the Francia, 'quæ dicitur antiqua.'"

"As for the mere name of Francia, like other names of the kind, it shifted its geographical use according to the wanderings of the people from whom it was derived. After many such changes of meaning, it gradually settled down as the name for those parts of Germany and Gaul where it still abides. There are the Teutonic or Austrian [or Austrasian] Francia, part of which still keeps the name of Franken or Franconia, and the Romance or Neustrian Francia, which by various annexations has grown into modern France."

"As late as the reign of Frederick Barbarossa, the name of Frank was still used, and used too with an air of triumph, as equivalent to the name of German. The Kings and kingdoms of this age had indeed no fixed titles, because all were still looked on as mere portions of the great Frankish realm. Another step has now been taken towards the creation of modern France; but the older state of things has not yet wholly passed away. Germany has no definite name; for a long time it is 'Francia Orientalis,' 'Francia Teutonica'; then it becomes 'Regnum Teutonicum,' 'Regnum Teutonicorum.' But it is equally clear that, within the limits of that Western or Latin France, Francia and Francus were fast getting their modern meanings of France and Frenchmen, as distinguished from Frank or German."

E. A. Freeman, The Franks and the Gauls (Historical Essays, 1st series, number 7).

The first actual kingdom of France (Francia Nova—Francia Occidentalis), was formed in the partition of the empire of Charlemagne between his three grandsons, by the Treaty of Verdun, A. D. 843. It was assigned to Charles, called "the Bald," and comprised the Neustria of the older Frank divisions, together with Aquitaine. It "had for its eastern boundary, the Meuse, the Saône and the Rhone; which, nevertheless, can only be understood of the Upper Meuse, since Brabant was certainly not comprised in it"; and it extended southwards beyond the Pyrenees to the Ebro.

"Charles and his successors have some claim to be accounted French. They rule over a large part of France, and are cut away from their older connexion with Germany. Still, in reality they are Germans and Franks. They speak German, they yearn after the old imperial name, they have no national feeling at all. On the other hand, the great lords of Neustria, as it used to be called, are ready to move in that direction, and to take the first steps towards a new national life. They cease to look back to the Rhine, and occupy themselves in a continual struggle with their kings. Feudal power is founded, and with it the claims of the bishops rise to their highest point. But we have not yet come to a kingdom of France. … It was no proper French kingdom; but a dying branch of the Empire of Charles the Great. … Charles the Bald, entering on his part of the Caroling Empire, found three large districts which refused to recognise him. These were Aquitaine, whose king was Pippin II.; Septimania, in the hands of Bernard; and Brittany under Nominoë. He attempted to reduce them; but Brittany and Septimania defied him, while over Aquitaine he was little more than a nominal suzerain."

   (Red) Physical or material.
   (Blue) Ethnologilcal.
   (Green) Social and political.
   (Brown) Intellectual, moral and religious.
   (Black) Foreign.

IN WHICH THE DOMINANT CONDITIONS AND INFLUENCES ARE DISTINGUISHED BY COLORS.

The country known anciently as Gaul, and in modern times as France, is distinguished by no physical characteristics that will go far towards explaining its history. Lying within the middle degrees of the northern temperate zone, greatly diversified in its superficial features, and varied in the qualities of its soil, it represents a fair average of the more favorable conditions of human life.

The inhabitants of the land when the Romans subdued it were a Celtic people, belonging to the race which has survived to the present day with least admixture or modification in the Bretons, the Welsh, the Celtic Irish and the Highland Scotch. The peculiar traits of the race in mind and temper are so visible in French history as to show that the nation has never ceased to be essentially Gallic in blood.

Under the control and the teaching of Rome for four centuries and a half, the Gauls were perfected in her civilization and corrupted by the vices of her decay.

When the invasion of Teutonic barbarism broke the barrier of the Rhine, they were easily but not quickly overwhelmed, and sank under a conquest more complete than that from Rome had been; since the whole body of the conquerors came to dwell within the land, and to be neighbors and masters, at once. For the most part, these invaders preferred country to town, and carved estates for themselves in all the districts that were fertile and fair. The Gallo-Romans, or Romanized Gauls, were left to more freedom in their cities than outside; but their cities were blighted in industry and in trade by the common ruin around them. In the rural districts, few liberties or rights were preserved for the subjugated race.

The form of society which the German conquerors brought with them into Gaul was broken by the change of circumstance, quite as much as the form of society which they overthrew. The camp gave place to the castle; the wandering war-chief acquired the firmer superiority of a great land-proprietor and lord; his warriors slipped in station from free followers to dependents, in divers degrees; the greater chiefs won the title of kings; the fiercer kings destroyed their rivals; and four or five centuries shaped, by slow processes that are traceable, indistinctly, the military structure of society called Feudal, which organized lawlessness with picturesque and destructive effects.

All authority withered, except the spiritual authority of the Church, which steadily grew. The royalty that had thrived for a time upon the distribution of lands, dignities and powers, lost prestige when it had expended the domains at its disposal, and when offices and estates were clutched in hereditary possession. Before it actually expired, there arose a family of remarkable men—great in four successive generations—who put its crown upon their own heads and made it powerful again. The last and greatest of these expanded the Frank kingdom into a new Roman Empire; but the energy of the achievement was wholly his own, and his empire fell to pieces when he died.

A. D. 987. Kingdom of Hugh Capet. 11th-12th centuries. Enfranchisement of the Communes.

In the part which became France, royalty dwindled once more; the great dukes and counts nominally subject to it, in the feudal sense, renewed and increased their power; until one of their number took the throne, and bequeathed it to his heirs.

This new line of kings won back by degrees the ascendancy of the crown. The small actual dominion, surrounding Paris, with which they began, was widened slowly by the strong, authoritative arm. They made themselves, in rude fashion, the champions of order and law. They took the people of the towns into alliance with them; for the towns were beginning to catch the spirit of the free cities of Italy, and the sturdy temper of the Flemish burghers, and to assume the name of "communes," or commons, casting off the feudal yoke that had been laid upon them. The kings lent their countenance to the communes, and the communes strengthened the hands of the kings. Between them and much helped by the stir of the Crusades, they loosened the roots of feudalism, until its decay set in. The king's courts and the king's officers pushed their jurisdiction into a widening realm, until the king's authority had become supreme, in fact as well as in name.

Even the measureless misery of a hundred years of war with English kings brought power, in the end, to the crown, by weakening the greater lords, and by bringing into existence a fixed military force.

Happy accidents, shrewd marriages, and cunning intrigues gathered the great dukedoms, one by one, into the royal domain, and the solidarity of modern France was attained.

But People and King stood no longer side by side. The league of King and Commons against the Lords had proved less happy than the alliance in England of Commons and Lords against the King. Royalty emerged from the patient struggle alone in possession of sovereign power. It had used the communes and then abused them, breaking their charters—their liberties—their courage—their hopes—and widening the distance between class and class. The "estates" of the realm became a memory and a name. During five hundred years, while the Parliament of England grew in majesty and might, the States-General of France were assembled but thirteen times.

When royalty, at last, invented the fatal enchantments of a "Court," then the blighting of all other powers was soon complete. It drew within its spell, from all the provinces of France, their nobles, their men of genius, their aspiring spirits, and assembled them to corrupt and debase them together—to make them its pensioners and hirelings, its sycophants, its jesters, its knaves.

Neither Renaissance nor Reformation could undo the spell. Ideas from the one and a great faith from the other joined in league for the liberty of both, and the thoughtful among the people were rallied to them with craving eagerness. But bigotry and frivolity ruled the Court, and the Court proved stronger than France. Freedom of conscience, and every species of freedom with it, were destroyed; by massacre, by civil war, by oppressive government, by banishment, by corrupting bribes.

And always the grandeur of the monarchy increased; its rule grew more absolute; its Court sucked the life-blood of the State more remorselessly. The People starved, that the King might be magnificent; they perished in a thousand battles, that his name might be "glorious;" they went into exile, carrying away the arts of France, that the piety of the King might not be shocked by their heresies. But always, too, there was growing in the world, around France and in France, a knowledge,—an understanding,—a modern spirit,—that rebelled against these infamies.

In due time there came an end. Court, and King, and Church, and all that even seemed to be a part of the evil old regime, were whirled into a red gulf of Revolution and disappeared. The people, unused to Liberty, were made drunken by it, and went mad. In breaking the gyves of feudalism they broke every other restraint, and wrecked society in all its forms. Then, in the stupor of their debauch, they gave themselves to a new despot—mean, conscienceless, detestable, but transcendent in the genius and the energy of his selfishness—who devoured them like a dragon, in the hunger of his insatiate ambition, and persuaded them to be proud of their fate.

A. D. 1815-1830. Bourbon Restoration.
A. D. 1830-1848. Louis Phillippe
A. D. 1848-1851. Second Republic.
A. D. 1852-1870. Second Empire.
A. D. 1870-. Third Republic.

Europe suppressed the intolerable adventurer, and France, for three-fourths of a century since, has been under an apprenticeship of experience, slowly learning the art of self-government by constitutional modes. Two monarchies, one republic, and a sham empire are the spoiled samples of her work. A third republic, now in hand, is promising better success. It rests with seeming stability on the support of the great class of peasant landowners, which the very miseries of her misgoverned past have created for France. Trained to pinching frugality by the hard conditions of the old regime; unspoiled by any ruinous philanthropy, like that of the English poor-laws; stimulated to land-buying by opportunities which came, first, from the impoverishment of extravagant nobles, and, later, from revolutionary confiscations; encouraged to the same acquisition by favorable laws of transfer and equal inheritance,—the landowning peasants of France constitute a Class powerful in numbers, invincible in conservatism, an profoundly interested in the preservation of social order.

In 861, Charles the Bald, king of that part of the dismembered empire of Charlemagne which grew into the kingdom of France, was struggling with many difficulties: defending himself against the hostile ambition of his brother, Louis the German; striving to establish his authority in Brittany and Aquitaine; harried and harassed by Norse pirates; surrounded by domestic treachery and feudal restiveness. All of his many foes were more or less in league against him, and the soul of their combination appears to have been a certain bold adventurer—a stranger of uncertain origin, a Saxon, as some say—who bore the name of Robert the Strong. In this alien enemy, King Charles, who never lacked shrewdness, discovered a possible friend. He opened negotiations with Robert the Strong, and a bargain was soon made which transferred the sword and the energy of the potent mercenary to the service of the king. "Soon after, a Placitum or Great Council was held at Compiègne. In this assembly, and by the assent of the Optimates, the Seine and its islands, and that most important island Paris, and all the country between Seine and Loire, were granted to Robert, the Duchy of France, though not yet so called, moreover the Angevine Marches, or County of Outre-Maine, all to be held by Robert-le-Fort as barriers against Northmen and Bretons, and by which cessions the realm was to be defended. Only a portion of this dominion owned the obedience of Charles: the Bretons were in their own country, the Northmen in the country they were making their own; the grant therefore was a license to Robert to win as much as he could, and to keep his acquisitions should he succeed. … Robert kept the Northmen in check, yet only by incessant exertion. He inured the future kings of France, his two young sons, Eudes and Robert, to the tug of war, making them his companions in his enterprises. The banks of the Loire were particularly guarded by him, for here the principal attacks were directed." Robert the Strong fought valiantly, as he had contracted to do, for five years, or more, and then, in an unlucky battle with the Danes, one summer day in 866, he fell. "Thus died the first of the Capets." All the honors and possessions which he had received from the king were then transferred, not to his sons, but to one Hugh, Count of Burgundy, who became also Duke or Marquis of France and Count of Anjou. Twenty years later, however, the older son of Robert, Eudes, turns up in history again as Count of Paris, and nothing is known of the means by which the family, soon to become royal, had recovered its footing and its importance.

      Sir F. Palgrave,
      History of Normandy and England,
      book 1, chapter 3 (volume 1).

FRANCE: A. D. 877-987.
The end of the Carolingian monarchy and the rise of the
Capetian.

   Charles the Bald died in 877 and was succeeded by his son
   Louis, called "the Stammerer," who reigned only two years. His
   two sons, Louis and Carloman, were joint kings for a short
   space, struggling with the Northmen and losing the provinces
   out of which Duke Boson of Provence, brother-in-law of Charles
   the Bald, formed the kingdom of Arles. Louis died in 882 and
   Carloman two years afterwards; thereupon Charles, surnamed
   "the Fat," king of Lombardy and Germany, and also emperor
   (nephew of Charles the Bald), became likewise king of France,
   and briefly reunited under his feebly handled sceptre the
   greater part of the old empire of Charlemagne: When he died,
   in 888, a party of the nobles, tired of his race, met and
   elected Count Eudes (or Odo), the valiant Count of Paris, who
   had just defended his city with obstinate courage against the
   Northmen, to be their king. The sovereignty of Eudes was not
   acknowledged by the nation at large. His opponents found a
   Carling to set up against him, in the person of the boy
   Charles,—youngest son of Louis "the Stammerer," born after
   his father's death,—who appears in history as Charles "the
   Simple." Eudes, after some years of war, gave up to Charles a
   small domain, between the Seine and the Meuse, acknowledged
   his feudal superiority and agreed that the whole kingdom
   should be surrendered to him on his (Eudes') death. In
   accordance with this agreement, Charles the Simple became sole
   king in 898, when Eudes died, and the country which
   acknowledged his nominal sovereignty fell into a more
   distracted state than ever. The Northmen established
   themselves in permanent occupation of the country on the lower
   Seine, and Charles, in 911, made a formal cession of it to
   their duke, Rollo, thus creating the great duchy of Normandy.
   In 922 the nobles grew once more disgusted with the feebleness
   of their king and crowned Duke Robert, brother of the late king
   Eudes, driving Charles into his stronghold of Laon. The
   Normans came to Charles' help and his rival Robert was killed
   in a battle.
{1159}
   But Charles was defeated, was inveigled into the hands of one
   of the rebel Lords.—Herbert of Venmandois—and kept a
   prisoner until he died, in 929. One Rodolf of Burgundy had
   been chosen king, meantime, and reigned until his death, in
   936. Then legitimacy triumphed again, and a young son of
   Charles the Simple, who had been reared in England, was sent
   for and crowned. This king—Louis IV.—his son, Lothair, and
   his grandson, Louis V., kept possession of the shaking throne
   for half-a-century; but their actual kingdom was much of the
   time reduced to little more than the royal city of Laon and
   its immediate territories. When Louis died, in 987, leaving no
   nearer heir than his uncle, Charles, Duke of Lorraine, there
   was no longer any serious attempt to keep up the Carolingian
   line. Hugh, Duke of France—whose grandfather Robert, and
   whose grand-uncle Eudes had been crowned kings, before him,
   and whose father, "Hugh the Great," had been the king-maker of
   the period since—was now called to the throne and settled
   himself firmly in the seat which a long line of his
   descendants would hold. He was known as Hugh Capet to his
   contemporaries, and it is thought that he got the name from
   his wearing of the hood, cap, or cape of St. Martin—he being
   the abbot of St. Martin at Tours, in addition to his other
   high dignities.

      G. W. Kitchin,
      History of France,
      volume 1, book 2, part 2, chapter 5;
      book 3, chapter 1.

ALSO IN: Sir F. Palgrave, History of Normandy and England, book 1, chapter 5 (volume l).

"On the accession of the third race [the Capetians], France, properly so called, only comprised the territory between the Somme and the Loire; it was bounded by the counties of Flanders and Vermandois on the north; by Normandy and Brittany on the west; by the Champagne on the east; by the duchy of Aquitaine on the south. The territory within these bounds was the duchy of France, the patrimonial possession of the Capets, and constituted the royal domain. The great fiefs of the crown, in addition to the duchy of France, were the duchy of Normandy, the duchy of Burgundy, nearly the whole of Flanders, formed into a county, the county of Champagne, the duchy of Aquitaine, and the county of Toulouse. … The sovereigns of these various states were the great vassals of the crown and peers of France; Lorraine and a portion of Flanders were dependent on the Germanic crown, while Brittany was a fief of the duchy of Normandy. … The county of Barcelona beyond the Alps was also one of the great fiefs of the crown of France."

"With the exception of the Spanish March and of part of Flanders, all these states have long been fully incorporated with the French monarchy. But we must remember that, under the earlier French Kings, the connexion of most of these provinces with their nominal suzerain was even looser than the connexion of the German princes after the Peace of Westphalia with the Viennese Emperors. A great French Duke was as independent within his own dominions as an Elector of Saxony or Bavaria, and there were no common institutions, no Diet or assembly of any kind, to bring him into contact either with his liege lord or with his fellow-vassals. Aquitaine and Toulouse … seem almost to have forgotten that there was any King of the French at all, or at all events that they had anything to do with him. They did not often even pay him the compliment of waging war upon him, a mode of recognition of his existence which was constantly indulged in by their brethren of Normandy and Flanders."

E. A. Freeman, The Franks and the Gauls (Historical Essays, 1st series, number 7).

"When France was detached from the Empire in the ninth century, of all three imperial regions she was the one which seemed least likely to form a nation. There was no unity in the country west of the Scheldt, the Meuse, and the Rhone. Various principalities, duchies, or counties were here formed, but each of them was divided into secular fiefs and ecclesiastical territories. Over these fiefs and territories the authority of the duke or the count, which was supposed to represent that of the king, was exercised only in case these seigneurs had sufficient power, derived from their own personal estates. Destitute of domains and almost starving, the king, in official documents, asked what means he might find on which to live with some degree of decency. From time to time, amid this chaos, he discussed the theory of his authority. He was a lean and solemn phantom, straying about among living men who were very rude and energetic. The phantom kept constantly growing leaner, but royalty did not vanish. People were accustomed to its existence, and the men of those days could not conceive of a revolution. By the election of Hugh Capet, in 987, royalty became a reality, because the king, as Duke of Francia, had lands, money, and followers. It would be out of place to seek a plan of conduct and a methodical line of policy in the actions of the Capetians, for they employed simultaneously every sort of expedient. During more than three centuries they had male offspring; thus the chief merit of the dynasty was that it endured. As always happens, out of the practice developed a law; and this happy accident produced a lawful hereditary succession, which was a great element of strength. Moreover the king had a whole arsenal of rights: old rights of Carolingian royalty, preserving, the remembrance of imperial power, which the study of the Roman law was soon to resuscitate, transforming these apparitions into formidable realities; old rights conferred by the coronation, which were impossible to define, and hence incontestable; and rights of suzerainty, newer and more real, which were definitely determined and codified as feudalism developed and which, joined to the other rights mentioned above, made the king proprietor of France. These are the elements that Capetian royalty contributed to the play of fortuitous circumstances."

"The period in the history of France, of which we are about to write, began with the consecration of Hugues Capet, at Reims, the 3rd of July, 987, but it is a period which would but improperly take its name from the Capetians; for throughout this time royalty was, as it were, annihilated in France; the social bond was broken, and the country which extends from the Rhine to the Pyrenees, and from the English Channel to the Gulf of Lyon, was governed by a confederation of princes rarely under the influence of a common will, and united only by the Feudal System. While France was confederated under feudal administration, the legislative power was suspended. Hugues Capet and his successors, until the accession of St. Louis, had not the right of making laws; the nation had no diet, no regularly constituted assemblies whose authority it acknowledged. The Feudal System, tacitly adopted, and developed by custom, was solely acknowledged by the numerous sovereigns who divided the provinces among themselves. It replaced the social bond, the monarch, and the legislator. … The period … is therefore like a long interregnum, during which the royal authority was suspended, although the name of king was always preserved. He who bore this title in the midst of a republic of princes was only distinguished from them by some honorary prerogative, and he exercised over them scarcely any authority. Until very near the end of the 11th century, these princes were scarcely less numerous than the castles which covered France. No authority was acknowledged at a distance, and every fortress gave its lord rank among the sovereigns. The conquest of England by the Normans broke the equilibrium between the feudal lords; one of the confederate princes, become a king in 1066, gradually extended, until 1179, his domination over more than half of France; and although it was not he who bore the title of king of the French, it may be imagined that in time the rest of the country would also pass under his yoke. Philip the August and his son, during the forty-six last years of the same period, reconquered almost all the fiefs which the English kings had united, brought the other great vassals back to obedience, and changed the feudal confederation which had ruled France into a monarchy, which incorporated the Feudal System in its constitution."

J. C. L. de Sismondi, France Under the Feudal System (translated by W. Bellingham), chapter 1.

"The feudal period, that is, the period when the feudal system was the dominant fact of our country, … is comprehended between Hugh Capet and Philippe de Valois, that is, it embraces the 11th, 12th and 13th centuries. … At the end of the 10th century, royalty and the commons were not visible, or at all events scarcely visible. At the commencement of the 14th century, royalty was the head of the state, the commons were the body of the nation. The two forces to which the feudal system was to succumb had then attained, not, indeed, their entire development, but a decided preponderance. … With the 14th century, the character of war changed. Then began the foreign wars; no longer a vassal against suzerain, or vassal against vassal, but nation against nation, government against government. On the accession of Philippe de Valois, the great wars between the French and the English broke out—the claims of the kings of England, not upon any particular fief, but upon the whole land, and upon the throne of France—and they continued up to Louis XI. They were no longer feudal, but national wars; a certain proof that the feudal period stopped at this limit, that another society had already commenced."

"The establishment of the commune of Mans, towards the year 1070, was not a fact, isolated, and without respect to what passed in the rest of France; it was, on the contrary, a symptom of the great revolution which was working in the opinions, the manners, and the condition of the mass of the people; a symptom which, bearing a certain date, must serve to establish the epoch of a crowd of analogous efforts made in the other towns of France. History has not preserved the memory of these different efforts, but it has shown us the results. During the two following centuries, the cities ceased not to obtain charters, to found or secure by legitimate authority, the immunities and franchises which constituted the communal rights. … All, or nearly all had, however, already conquered liberty; they had experienced how advantageous it was to be governed by themselves, and the high price which they put upon the favor they solicited, bears witness to their experience. The enfranchisement of the communes is almost universally reported in the … reign … of Louis the Fat; and the honor of this great revolution, which created the third estate [tiers-état], and liberty in France, has been given either to the generosity or the wise policy of that prince. There is doubtless some truth in this opinion, since we find in France no communal charter anterior to the reign of Louis VI., and he is also the first king who was seen to ally himself with the burgesses, to make war on the nobility. However, the idea which is formed of this event, when one attributes it to the act of the monarch's will, or the effect of his system, is completely erroneous. The French people owed whatever degree of liberty it enjoyed in the middle ages, to its own valor; it acquired it as liberty must always be acquired, at the sword's point; it profitted by the divisions, the imprudence, the weakness, or the crimes of its lords, lay or ecclesiastic, to seize it from and in spite of them. … The origin of every commune was, as indicated by the different names by which they are designated, a communion, a conjuration, or confederation, of the inhabitants of a town who were mutually engaged to defend each other. The first act of the commune was the occupation of a tower in which was set up a clock or belfry; and the first clause of the oath of all the communers, was to repair in arms, when the bell sounded, at the place assigned them, to defend each other. From this first engagement resulted that of submitting to magistrates named by the communers: it was the mayors, echevins, and juries, in northern France, and consuls or syndics in southern France, to whom the consent of all abandoned the sole right of directing the common efforts. Thus the militia was first created; the magistracy came afterwards. … The reign of Phillip I. had been but a long anarchy. During those forty-eight years the royal government had not existed, and no other had efficaciously taken its place. At the same time, greatly differing from the other feudal monarchies, all legislative power was suspended in France. There were no diets like those of the kingdoms of Germany and Italy, no parliament like that of England, no cortes like those of Spain, no field of March like that of the antient Frankish kings, no assemblages, in fine, which bound by their acts the great vassals and their subjects, and which could submit them to common laws. {1161} The French had not desired a participation in the sovereignty which they could only acquire by sacrificing their independence. Thus, two great vassals, or the subjects of two great vassals, could scarcely believe themselves compatriots. … The anarchy which was found in the great state of the French monarchy, because all the relations between the king and the count were relaxed, was found also in the petty state of the county of Paris, or of the duchy of France; for the lords and barons of the crown's domains no better obeyed or respected more the prerogatives of their lord, than the great vassals those of the suzerain. The anarchy was complete, the disorder seemed carried to its height, and never had the social bond in France been nearer to being broken: yet never had France made so real a progress as during these forty-eight years. Phillip, at his death, left his son quite another people to that which he had received from his father: the most active monarch would never have done so much for France as she had without him done for herself during his sleep. The towns were more numerous, more populous, more opulent, and more industrious; property had acquired a security unknown in the preceding centuries; justice was distributed between equals, and by equals; and the liberty of the burgesses, conquered by arms, was defended with energy."

"Liberty … was to have its beginning in the towns, in the towns of the centre of France, which were to be called privileged towns, or communes, and which would either receive or extort their franchises. … All coveted a few franchises or privileges, and offered to purchase them; for, needy and wretched as they were, poor artisans, smiths and weavers, suffered to cluster for shelter at the foot of a castle, or fugitive serfs crowding round a church, they could manage to find money; and men of this stamp were the founders of our liberties. They willingly starved themselves to procure the means of purchase; and king and barons rivalled each other in selling charters which fetched so high a price. This revolution took place all over the kingdom under a thousand different forms, and with but little disturbance; so that it has only attracted notice with regard to some towns of the Oise and the Somme, which, placed in less favorable circumstances, and belonging to two different lords, one a layman, the other ecclesiastical, resorted to the king for a solemn guarantee of concessions often violated, and maintained a precarious liberty at the cost of several centuries of civil war. To these towns the name of communes has been more particularly applied; and the wars they had to wage form a slight but dramatic incident in this great revolution, which was operating silently and under different forms in all the towns of the north of France. 'Twas in brave and choleric Picardy, whose commons had so soundly beaten the Normans—in the country of Calvin, and of so many other revolutionary spirits—that these explosions took place. Noyon, Beauvais, Laon, three ecclesiastical lordships, were the first communes; to these may be added St. Quentin. Here the Church had laid the foundations of a powerful democracy. … The king has been said to be the founder of the communes; but the reverse is rather the truth: it is the communes that established the king. Without them, he could not have beaten off the Normans; and these conquerors of England and the Two Sicilies would probably have conquered France. It was the communes, or, to use a more general and exact term, the bourgeoisies, which, under the banner of the saint of the parish, enforced the common peace between the Oise and the Loire; while the king, on horseback, bore in front the banner of the abbey of St. Denys."

The following comments on the passages quoted above are made by a good authority: "The general view taken of this subject of the enfranchisement of the communes by historians who wrote at the middle of the century is now being seriously modified. The studies of Luchaire have shown, I think, that such statements as Sismondi's, which attribute everything to the people, are exaggerations. 'Liberty,' as it existed in the communes, was only corporate or aristocratic privilege. As for the national assemblages, there were great councils held, such as those which existed under the Norman monarchs in England, and they issued the 'assizes,' which was a common form of legislation in the Middle Ages. It was not, of course, legislation, in its modern sense. Michelet is quite too flowery, poetical, democratic, to be safely followed."

"When Louis [VI.] was adopted by his father in 1100, the crown had as its own domain only the county of Paris, Hurepoix, the Gatinais, the Orléanis, half the county of Sens, the French Vexin, and Bourges, together with some ill-defined rights over the episcopal cities of Rheims, Beauvais, Laon, Noyon, Soissons, Amiens. And even within these narrow limits the royal power was but thinly spread over the surface. The barons in their castles were in fact independent, and oppressed the merchants and poor folk as they would. The king had also acknowledged rights of suzerainty over Champagne, Burgundy, Normandy, Brittany, Flanders, and Boulogne; but, in most cases, the only obedience the feudal lords stooped to was that of duly performing the act of homage to the king on first succession to a fief. He also claimed suzerainty, which was not conceded, over the South of France; over Provence and Lorraine he did not even put forth a claim of lordship."

FRANCE: A. D. 1108-1180.
   The reigns of Louis VI., Louis VII. and
   accession of Philip II.
   Gain and loss of Aquitaine.

"Louis VI., or 'the Fat' was the first able man whom the line of Hugh Capet had produced since it mounted the throne. He made the first attempt at curbing the nobles, assisted by Suger, the Abbot of St. Denys. The only possibility of doing this was to obtain the aid of one party of nobles against another; and when any unusually flagrant offence had been committed, Louis called together the nobles, bishops, and abbots of his domain, and obtained their consent and assistance in making war on the guilty man, and overthrowing his castle, thus, in some degree, lessening the sense of utter impunity which had caused so many violences and such savage recklessness. He also permitted a few of the cities to purchase the right of self-government. … The royal authority had begun to be respected by 1137, when Louis VI. died, having just effected the marriage of his son, Louis VII., with Eleanor, the heiress of the Dukes of Aquitaine—thus hoping to make the crown really more powerful than the great princes who owed it homage. At this time lived the great St. Bernard, Abbot of Clairvaux, who had a wonderful influence over men's minds. … Bernard roused the young king Louis VII., to go on the second crusade [see CRUSADES: A. D. 1147-1149], which was undertaken by the Emperor and the other princes of Europe to relieve the distress of the kingdom of Palestine. … Though Louis did reach Palestine, it was with weakened forces; he could effect nothing by his campaign, and Eleanor, who had accompanied him, seems to have been entirely corrupted by the evil habits of the Franks settled in the East. Soon after his return, Louis dissolved his marriage; and Eleanor became the wife of Henry, Count of Anjou, who soon after inherited the kingdom of England as our Henry II., as well as the duchy of Normandy, and betrothed his third son to the heiress of Brittany [see AQUITAINE: A. D. 1137-1152]. Eleanor's marriage seemed to undo all that Louis VI. had done in raising the royal power; for Henry completely overshadowed Louis, whose only resource was in feeble endeavours to take part against him in his many family quarrels. The whole reign of Louis the Young, the title that adhered to him on account of his simple, childish nature, is only a record of weakness and disaster, till he died in 1180. … Powerful in fact as Henry II. was, it was his gathering so large a part of France under his rule which was, in the end, to build up the greatness of the French kings. What had held them in check was the existence of the great fiefs or provinces, each with its own line of dukes or counts, and all practically independent of the king. But now nearly all the provinces of southern and western France were gathered into the hand of a single ruler; and though he was a Frenchman in blood, yet, as he was King of England, this ruler seemed to his French subjects no Frenchman, but a foreigner. They began therefore to look to the French king to free them from a foreign ruler; and the son of Louis VII., called Philip Augustus, was ready to take advantage of their disposition."

      C. M. Yonge,
      History of France
      (History Primers), chapter 1, sections 6-7.

FRANCE: A. D. 1180-1224.
The kingdom extended by Philip Augustus.
Normandy, Maine and Anjou recovered from the English kings.

"Louis VII. ascended the throne [A. D. 1137] with better prospects than his father. He had married Eleanor, heiress of the great duchy of Guienne [or Aquitaine]. But this union, which promised an immense accession of strength to the crown, was rendered unhappy by the levities of that princess. Repudiated by Louis, who felt rather as a husband than a king, Eleanor immediately married Henry II. of England, who, already inheriting Normandy from his mother and Anjou from Ins father, became possessed of more than one-half of France, and an over-match for Louis, even if the great vassals of the crown had been always ready to maintain its supremacy. One might venture perhaps to conjecture that the sceptre of France would eventually have passed from the Capets to the Plantagenets, if the vexatious quarrel with Becket at one time, and the successive rebellions fomented by Louis at a later period, had not embarrassed the great talents and ambitious spirit of Henry. But the scene quite changed when Philip Augustus, son of Louis VII., came upon the stage [A. D. 1180]. No prince comparable to him in systematic ambition and military enterprise had reigned in France since Charlemagne. From his reign the French monarchy dates the recovery of its lustre. He wrested from the count of Flanders the Vermandois (that part of Picardy which borders on the Isle of France and Champagne), and, subsequently, the County of Artois. But the most important conquests of Philip were obtained against the kings of England. Even Richard I., with all his prowess, lost ground in struggling against an adversary not less active, and more politic, than himself: But when John not only took possession of his brother's dominions, but confirmed his usurpation by the murder, as was very probably surmised, of the heir, Philip, artfully taking advantage of the general indignation, summoned him as his vassal to the court of his peers. John demanded a safe-conduct. Willingly, said Philip; let him come unmolested. And return? inquired the English envoy. If the judgment of his peers permit him, replied the king. By all the saints of France, he exclaimed, when further pressed, he shall not return unless acquitted. The bishop of Ely still remonstrated that the duke of Normandy could not come without the king of England; nor would the barons of that country permit their sovereign to run the risk of death or imprisonment. What of that, my lord bishop? cried Philip. It is well known that my vassal the duke of Normandy acquired England by force. But if a subject obtains any accession of dignity, shall his paramount lord therefore lose his rights? … John, not appearing at his summons, was declared guilty of felony, and his fiefs confiscated. The execution of this sentence was not intrusted to a dilatory arm. Philip poured his troops into Normandy, and took town after town, while the king of England, infatuated by his own wickedness and cowardice, made hardly an attempt at defence. In two years [A. D. 1203-1204] Normandy, Maine, and Anjou were irrecoverably lost. Poitou and Guienne resisted longer; but the conquest of the first was completed [A. D. 1224] by Louis VIII., successor of Philip."

FRANCE: A. D. 1201-1203.
The Fifth Crusade, and its diversion against Constantinople.

FRANCE: A. D. 1226-1270.
Reign and character of Louis IX. (Saint Louis).
His great civilizing work and influence.

"Of the forty-four years of St. Louis' reign, nearly fifteen, with a long interval of separation, pertained to the government of Queen Blanche of Castille, rather than that of the king her son. Louis, at his accession in 1226, was only eleven; and he remained a minor up to the age of twenty-one, in 1236, for the time of majority in the case of royalty was not yet specially and rigorously fixed. During those ten years Queen Blanche governed France; not at all, as is commonly asserted, with the official title of regent, but simply as guardian of the king her son. With a good sense really admirable in a person so proud and ambitious, she saw that official power was ill suited to her woman's condition, and would weaken rather than strengthen her; and she screened herself from view behind her son. He it was who, in [1236], wrote to the great vassals bidding them to his consecration; he it was who reigned and commanded; and his name alone appeared on royal decrees and on treaties. It was not until twenty-two years had passed, in 1248, that Louis, on starting for the crusade, officially delegated to his mother the kingly authority, and that Blanche, during her son's absence, really governed with the title of regent. … During the first period of his government, and so long as her son's minority lasted, Queen Blanche had to grapple with intrigues, plots, insurrections, and open war; and, what was still worse for her, with the insults and calumnies of the crown's great vassals, burning to seize once more, under a woman's government, the independence and power which had been effectually disputed with them by Philip Augustus. Blanche resisted their attempts, at one time with open and persevering energy, at another dexterously with all the tact, address, and allurements of a woman. Though she was now forty years of age she was beautiful, elegant, attractive, full of resources and of grace. … The malcontents spread the most odious scandals about her. … Neither in the events nor in the writings of the period is it easy to find anything which can authorize the accusations made by the foes of Queen Blanche. … She continued her resistance to the pretensions and machinations of the crown's great vassals, whether foes or lovers, and she carried forward, in the face and in the teeth of all, the extension of the domains and the power of the kingship. We observe in her no prompting of enthusiasm, of sympathetic charitableness, or of religious scrupulousness; that is, none of those grand moral impulses which are characteristic of Christian piety and which were predominant in St. Louis. Blanche was essentially politic and concerned with her temporal interests and successes; and it was not from her teaching or her example that her son imbibed those sublime and disinterested feelings which stamped him the most original and the rarest on the roll of glorious kings. What St. Louis really owed to his mother, and it was a great deal, was the steady triumph which, whether by arms or by negotiation, Blanche gained over the great vassals, and the preponderance which, amidst the struggles of the feudal system, she secured for the kingship of her son in his minority. … When Louis reached his majority, his entrance upon personal exercise of the kingly power produced no change in the conduct of public affairs. … The kingship of the son was a continuance of the mother's government. Louis persisted in struggling for the preponderance of the crown against the great vassals; succeeded in taming Peter Mauclerc, the turbulent count of Brittany; wrung from Theobald IV., count of Champagne, the rights of suzerainty in the countships of Chartres, Blois, and Sancerre, and the viscountship of Châteaudun; and purchased the fertile countship of Mâcon from its possessor. It was almost always by pacific procedure, by negotiations ably conducted, and conventions faithfully executed, that he accomplished these increments of the kingly domain; and when he made war on any of the great vassals, he engaged therein only on their provocation, to maintain the rights or honour of his crown, and he used victory with as much moderation as he had shown before entering upon the struggle. … When war was not either a necessity or a duty, this brave and brilliant knight, from sheer equity and goodness of heart, loved peace rather than war. The successes he had gained in his campaign of 1242 [against the count of La Marche and Henry III., of England, whose mother had become the wife of La Marche] were not for him the first step in an endless career of glory and conquest; he was anxious only to consolidate them whilst securing, in Western Europe, for the dominions of his adversaries as well as for his own, the benefits of peace. He entered into negotiations, successively, with the count of la Marche, the king of England, the count of Toulouse, the king of Aragon, and the various princes and great feudal lords who had been more or less engaged in the war; and in January, 1243, says the latest and most enlightened of his biographers [M. Felix Faure], 'the treaty of Lorris marked the end of feudal troubles for the whole duration of St. Louis' reign. He drew his sword no more, save only against the enemies of the Christian faith and Christian civilization, the Mussulmans.'"

   "St. Louis … by this war of 1242 finished those contests for
   the crown with its vassals which had been going on since the
   time of his ancestor, Louis the Fat. But it was not by warfare
   that he was to aid in breaking down the strongholds of
   feudalism. The vassals might have been beaten time and again,
   and yet the spirit of feudalism, still surviving, would have
   raised up new champions to contend against the crown. St.
   Louis struck at the spirit of the Middle Age, and therein
   insured the downfall of its forms and whole embodiment. He
   fought the last battles against feudalism, because, by a surer
   means than battling, he took, and unconsciously, the
   life-blood from the opposition to the royal authority.
   Unconsciously, we say; he did not look on the old order of
   things as evil, and try to introduce a better; he did not
   selfishly contend for the extension of his own power; he was
   neither a great reformer, nor a (so-called) wise king. He
   undermined feudalism, because he hated injustice; he warred
   with the Middle Age, because he could not tolerate its
   disregard of human rights; and he paved the way for
   Philip-le-bel's struggle with the papacy, because he looked
   upon religion and the church as instruments for man's
   salvation, not as tools for worldly aggrandizement.
{1164}
   He is, perhaps, the only monarch on record who failed in most
   of what he undertook of active enterprise, who was under the
   control of the prejudices of his age, who was a true
   conservative, who never dreamed of effecting great social
   changes,—and who yet, by his mere virtues, his sense of duty,
   his power of conscience, made the mightiest and most vital
   reforms. One of these reforms was the abolition of the trial
   by combat. … It is not our purpose to follow Louis either in
   his first or second crusade. If the great work of his life was
   not to be done by fighting at home, still less was it to be
   accomplished by battles in Egypt or Tunis. His mission was
   other and greater than he dreamed of, and his service to
   Christendom was wholly unlike that which he proposed to
   himself. … In November, 1244, he took the cross; but it was
   June of 1248 before he was able to leave Paris to embark upon
   his cherished undertaking. …

On the fifth of June, 1249, he landed in Egypt, which was to be conquered before Palestine could be safely attacked. On the seventh of June, Damietta was entered, and there the French slept and feasted, wasting time, strength, and money, until the twentieth of the following November. Then came the march southward; the encampment upon the Nile; the terrors of the Greek fire; the skirmishes which covered the plain with dead; the air heavy with putridity and pestilence; the putrid water; the fish fat with the flesh of the dead; sickness, weakness, retreat, defeat, captivity. On the sixth of April, 1250, Louis and his followers were prisoners to the Mussulmans; Louis might have saved himself, but would not quit his followers; he had been faithful thus far, and would be till death. … On the eighth of May, 1250, Louis was a freeman, and it was not until the twenty-fifth of April, 1254, that he set sail to return to his native shores, where Blanche, who had been regent during his absence, had some months since yielded up her breath. On the seventh of September, he entered Paris, sad and worn. … And scarce had he landed, before he began that course of legislation which continued until once more he embarked upon the crusade. … In his first legislative action, Louis proposed to himself these objects,—to put an end to judicial partiality, to prevent needless and oppressive imprisonment for debt, to stop unfounded criminal prosecutions, and to mitigate the horrors of legalized torture. In connection with these general topics, he made laws to bear oppressively upon the Jews, to punish prostitution and gambling, and to diminish intemperance. And it is worthy of remark, that this last point was to be attained by forbidding innkeepers to sell to any others than travellers,—a measure now (six hundred years later) under discussion in some parts of our Union, with a view to the same end. But the wish which this rare monarch had to recompense all who had been wronged by himself and forefathers was the uppermost wish of his soul. He felt that to do justice himself was the surest way to make others willing to do it. Commissioners were sent into every province of the kingdom to examine each alleged case of royal injustice, and with power in most instances to make instant restitution. He himself went forth to hear and judge in the neighborhood of his capital, and as far north as Normandy. … As he grew yet older, the spirit of generosity grew stronger daily in his bosom. He would have no hand in the affairs of Europe, save to act, wherever he could, as peacemaker. Many occasions occurred where all urged him to profit by power and a show of right, a naked legal title, to possess himself of valuable fiefs; but Louis shook his head sorrowfully and sternly, and did as his inmost soul told him the law of God directed. … There had been for some reigns back a growing disposition to refer certain questions to the king's tribunals, as being regal, not baronial, questions. Louis the Ninth gave to this disposition distinct form and value, and, under the influence of the baron-hating legists, he so ordained, in conformity with the Roman law, that, under given circumstances, almost any case might be referred to his tribunal. This, of course, gave to the king's judgment-seat and to him more of influence than any other step ever taken had done. It was, in substance, an appeal of the people from the nobles to the king, and it threw at once the balance of power into the royal hands. … It became necessary to make the occasional sitting of the king's council or parliament, which exercised certain judicial functions, permanent; and to change its composition, by diminishing the feudal and increasing the legal or legist element. Thus everywhere, in the barons' courts, the king's court, and the central parliament, the Roman, legal, organized element began to predominate over the German, feudal, barbaric tendencies, and the foundation-stones of modern society were laid. But the just soul of Louis and the prejudices of his Romanized counsellors were not arrayed against the old Teutonic barbarism alone, with its endless private wars and judicial duels; they stood equally opposed to the extravagant claims of the Roman hierarchy. … The first calm, deliberate, consistent opposition to the centralizing power of the great see was that offered by its truest friend and most honest ally, Louis of France. From 1260 to 1268, step by step was taken by the defender of the liberties of the Gallican church, until, in the year last named, he published his 'Pragmatic Sanction' [see below], his response, by advice of his wise men, to the voice of the nation, the Magna Charta of the freedom of the church of France, upon whose vague articles, the champions of that freedom could write commentaries, and found claims, innumerable. … But the legislation of Louis did not stop with antagonism to the feudal system and to the unauthorized claims of the church; it provided for another great grievance of the Middle Age, that lying and unequal system of coinage which was a poison to honest industry and commercial intercourse. … And now the great work of Louis was completed; the barons were conquered, the people protected, quiet prevailed through the kingdom, the national church was secured in her liberties. The invalid of Egypt, the sojourner of Syria, had realized his dreams and purposes of good to his own subjects, and once again the early vision of his manhood, the recovery of Palestine, haunted his slumbering and his waking hours. … On the sixteenth of March, 1270, he left Paris for the seashore; on the first of July, he sailed from France. The sad, sad story of this his last earthly doing need not be here repeated."

FRANCE: A. D. 1266.
Acquisition of the kingdom of Naples or the Two Sicilies by
Charles of Anjou, the king's brother.

FRANCE: A. D. 1268.
The Pragmatic Sanction of St. Louis.
Assertion of the rights of the Gallican Church.

"The continual usurpations of the popes produced the celebrated Pragmatic Sanction of St. Louis [about A. D. 1268]. This edict, the authority of which, though probably without cause, has been sometimes disputed, contains three important provisions; namely, that all prelates and other patrons shall enjoy their full rights as to the collation of benefices, according to the canons; that churches shall possess freely their rights of election; and that no tax or pecuniary exaction shall be levied by the pope, without consent of the king and of the national church. We do not find, however, that the French government acted up to the spirit of this ordinance."

"This Edict appeared either during the last year of Clement IV., … or during the vacancy in the Pontificate. … It became the barrier against which the encroachments of the ecclesiastical power were destined to break; nor was it swept away till a stronger barrier had arisen in the unlimited power of the French crown." It "became a great Charter of Independence to the Gallican Church."

      H. H. Milman,
      History of Latin Christianity,
      book 11, chapter 4 (volume 5).

FRANCE: A. D. 1270-1285.
The sons of St. Louis.
Origin of the Houses of Valois and Bourbon.

St. Louis left several sons, the elder of whom succeeded him as Philippe III., and his youngest son was Robert, Count of Clermont and Lord of Bourbon, the ancestor of all the branches of the House of Bourbon. Philippe III. died in 1285, when he was succeeded by his son, Philippe IV. A younger son, Charles, Count of Valois, was the ancestor of the Valois branch of the royal family.

FRANCE: A. D. 1285-1314.
   Reign of Philip IV.
   His conflict with the Pope and his destruction of the
   Templars.

Philippe IV., called "le Bel" (the Handsome), came to the throne on the death of his father, Philippe "le Hardi," in 1285. He was presently involved in war with Edward I. of England, who crossed to Flanders in 1297, intending to invade France, but was recalled by the revolt in Scotland, under Wallace, and peace was made in 1303. The Flemings, who had provoked Philippe by their alliance with the English, were thus left to suffer his resentment. They bore themselves valiantly in a war which lasted several years, and inflicted upon the knights of France a fearful defeat at Courtrai, in 1302. In the end, the French king substantially failed in his designs upon Flanders.

"It is probable that this long struggle would have been still protracted, but for a general quarrel which had sprung up some time before its close, between the French king and Pope Boniface VIII., concerning the [taxation of the clergy and the] right of nomination to vacant bishoprics within the dominions of Philippe. The latter, on seeing Bernard Saissetti thrust into the Bishopric of Pamiers by the pontiff's sole authority, caused the Bishop to be arrested by night, and, after subjecting him to various indignities, consigned him to prison on a charge of treason, heresy, and blasphemy. Boniface remonstrated against this outrage and violence in a bull known in history, by its opening words 'Ausculta, fili,' in which he asserted his power 'over nations and kingdoms, to root out and to pull down, to destroy and to throw down, to build and to plant,' and concluded by informing Philippe that he had summoned all the superior clergy of France to an assembly at Rome on the 1st of the following November, in order to deliberate on the remedies for such abuses as those of which the king had been guilty. Philippe, by no means intimidated by this measure, convoked a full and early assembly of the three estates of his kingdom, to decide upon the conduct of him whom the orthodox, up to that time, had been in the habit of deeming infallible. This (10th April 1302) was the first meeting of a Parliament, properly so called, in France. … The chambers unanimously approved and applauded the conduct of the king, and resolved to maintain the honour of the crown and the nation from foreign insult or domination; and to mark their decision more conclusively, they concurred with the sovereign in prohibiting the clergy from attending the Pope's summons to Rome. The papal bull was burned as publicly as possible. … The Pope, alarmed at these novel and bold proceedings, sought instantly to avert their consequences by soothing explanations; but Philippe would not now be turned aside from his course. He summoned a convocation of the Gallican prelates, in which by the mouth of William de Nogaret, his chancellor, he represented the occupier of St. Peter's chair as the father of lies and an evil-doer; and he demanded the seizure of this pseudo-pope, and his imprisonment until he could be brought before a legitimate tribunal to receive the punishment due to his numerous crimes. Boniface now declared that the French king was excommunicated, and cited him by his confessor to appear in the papal court at Rome within three months, to make submission and atonement for his contumacy. … While this unseemly quarrel … seemed to be growing interminable in its complexities, the daring of a few men opened a shorter path to its end than could have been anticipated. William of Nogaret associating to him Sciarra Colonna, a noble Roman, who, having been driven from his native city by Boniface and subjected to various hardships, had found refuge in Paris, passed, with a train of three hundred horsemen, and a much larger body of picked infantry, secretly into Italy, with the intention of surprising the Pope at his summer residence in his native town of Anagni. … The papal palace was captured after a feeble resistance, and the cardinals and personal attendants of the Pontiff fled for their lives. … The Condottieri … dragged the Pope from his throne, and conveying him into the street, mounted him upon a lean horse without saddle or bridle, with his head to the animal's tail, and thus conducted him in a sort of pilgrimage through the town. He was then consigned prisoner to one of the chambers of his palace and placed under guard; while the body of his captors dispersed themselves through the splendid apartments in eager pursuit of plunder. Three days were thus occupied; but at the end of that time the … people of Anagni … took arms in behalf of their fellow-townsman and spiritual father, and falling upon the French while still indulging in the licence of the sack, drove Nogaret and Colonna from their quarters, and either expelled or massacred the whole of their followers." {1166} The Pope returned to Rome in so great a rage that his reason gave way, and soon afterwards he was found dead in his bed. "The scandal of these proceedings throughout Christendom was immense; and Philippe adopted every precaution to avert evil consequences from himself by paying court to Benedict XI. who succeeded to the tiara. This Pope, however, though he for some time temporised, could not be long deaf to the loud voices of the clergy which called for punishment upon the oppressors of the church. Ere he had reigned nine months he found himself compelled to excommunicate the plunderers of Anagni; and a few days afterwards he perished, under circumstances which leave little doubt of his having been poisoned. … The king of France profitted largely by the crime; since, besides gaining time for the subsidence of excitement, he was subsequently enabled, by his intrigues, to procure the election of a person pledged not only to grant him absolution for all past offences, but to stigmatise the memory of Boniface, to restore the deposed Colonna to his honours and estates, to nominate several French ecclesiastics to the college of cardinals, and to grant to the king the tenths of the Gallican church for a term of five years. The pontiff who thus seems to have been the first of his race to lower the pretensions of his office, was Bertrand de Goth, originally a private gentleman of Bazadors, and subsequently promoted to the Archiepiscopal See of Bordeaux. He assumed the title of Clement V., and after receiving investiture at Lyons, fixed the apostolic residence at Avignon, where it continued, under successive occupants, for a period, the length of which caused it to be denominated by the Italians the Babylonian captivity. This quarrel settled, Philippe engaged in another undertaking, the safe-conduct of which required all his skill and unscrupulousness. This important enterprise was no less than the destruction and plunder of the military order of Knights Templars. … Public discontent … had, by a variety of circumstances, been excited throughout the realm. Among the number of exactions, the coin had been debased to meet the exigencies of the state, and this obstructing the operations of commerce, and inflicting wrongs to a greater or less extent upon all classes, everyone loudly complained of injustice, robbery and oppression, and in the end several tumults occurred, in which the residence of the king himself was attacked, and the whole population were with difficulty restrained from insurrection. In Burgundy, Champagne, Artois and Forez, indeed, the nobles, and burgess class having for the first time made common cause of their grievances, spoke openly of revolt against the royal authority, unless the administration should be reformed, and equity be substituted in the king's courts for the frauds, extortions and malversations, which prevailed. The sudden death of Philippe—owing to a fall from his horse while hunting the wild boar in the forest of Fontainebleau—on the 29th of November, 1314, delivered the people from their tyrant, and the crown from the consequences of a general rebellion. Pope Clement, the king's firm friend, had gone to his last account on the 20th of the preceding April. Louis X., le Hutin (the Quarrelsome), ascended the throne at the mature age of twenty-five."

Philip-le-Bel died in 1314. "With the accession of his son, Louis X., so well surnamed Hutin (disorder, tumult), comes a violent reaction of the feudal, local, provincial spirit, which seeks to dash in pieces the still feeble fabric of unity, demands dismemberment, and claims chaos. The Duke of Brittany arrogates the right of judgment without appeal; so does the exchequer of Rouen. Amiens will not have the king's sergeants subpœna before the barons, or his provosts remove any prisoner from the town's jurisdiction. Burgundy and Nevers require the king to respect the privileges of feudal justice. … The common demand of the barons is that the king shall renounce all intermeddling with their men. … The young monarch grants and signs all; there are only three points to which he demurs, and which he seeks to defer. The Burgundian barons contest with him the jurisdiction over the rivers, roads, and consecrated places. The nobles of Champagne doubt the king's right to lead them to war out of their own province. Those of Amiens, with true Picard impetuosity, require without any circumlocution, that all gentlemen may war upon each other, and not enter into securities, but ride, go, come, and be armed for war, and pay forfeit to one another. … The king's reply to these absurd and insolent demands is merely: 'We will order examination of the registers of my lord St. Louis, and give to the said nobles two trustworthy persons, to be nominated by our council, to verify and inquire diligently into the truth of the said article.' The reply was adroit enough. The general cry was for a return to the good customs of St. Louis: it being forgotten that St. Louis had done his utmost to put a stop to private wars. But by thus invoking the name of St. Louis, they meant to express their wish for the old feudal independence—for the opposite of the quasi-legal, the venal, and pettifogging government of Philippe-le-Bel. The barons set about destroying, bit by bit, all the changes introduced by the late king. But they could not believe him dead so long as there survived his Alter Ego, his mayor of the palace, Enguerrand de Marigny, who, in the latter years of his reign, had been coadjutor and rector of the kingdom, and who had allowed his statue to be raised in the palace by the side of the king's. His real name was Le Portier; but along with the estates he bought the name of Marigny. … It was in the Temple, in the very spot where Marigny had installed his master for the spoliation of the Templars, that the young king Louis repaired to hear the solemn accusation brought against him. His accuser was Philippe-le-Bel's brother, the violent Charles of Valois, a busy man, of mediocre abilities, who put himself at the head of the barons. … To effect his destruction, Charles of Valois had recourse to the grand accusation of the day, which none could surmount. {1167} It was discovered, or presumed, that Marigny's wife or sister, in order to effect his acquittal, or bewitch the king, had caused one Jacques de Lor to make certain small figures: 'The said Jacques, thrown into prison, hangs himself in despair, and then his wife, and Enguerrand's sisters are thrown into prison, and Enguerrand himself, condemned before the knights … is hung at Paris on the thieves' gibbet.' … Marigny's best vengeance was that the crown, so strong in his care, sank after him into the most deplorable weakness. Louis-le-Hutin, needing money for the Flemish war, treated as equal with equal, with the city of Paris. The nobles of Champagne and Picardy hastened to take advantage of the right of private war which they had just reacquired, and made war on the countess of Artois, without troubling themselves about the judgment rendered by the king, who had awarded this fief to her. All the barons had resumed the privilege of coining; Charles of Valois, the king's uncle, setting them the example. But instead of coining for their own domains only, conformably to the ordinances of Philippe-le-Hardi and Philippe-le-Bel, they minted coin by wholesale, and gave it currency throughout the kingdom. On this, the king had perforce to arouse himself, and return to the administration of Marigny and of Philippe-le-Bel. He denounced the coinage of the barons, (November the 19th, 1315;) ordained that it should pass current on their own lands only; and fixed the value of the royal coin relatively to thirteen different coinages, which thirty-one bishops or barons had the right of minting on their own territories. In St. Louis's time, eighty nobles had enjoyed this right. The young feudal king, humanized by the want of money, did not disdain to treat with serfs and with Jews. … It is curious to see the son of Philippe-le-Bel admitting serfs to liberty [see SLAVERY, MEDIÆVAL: FRANCE]; but it is trouble lost. The merchant vainly swells his voice and enlarges on the worth of his merchandise; the poor serfs will have none of it. Had they buried in the ground some bad piece of money, they took care not to dig it up to buy a bit of parchment. In vain does the king wax wroth at seeing them dull to the value of the boon offered. At last, he directs the commissioners deputed to superintend the enfranchisement, to value the property of such serfs as preferred 'remaining in the sorriness (chétiveté) of slavery,' and to tax them 'as sufficiently and to such extent as the condition and wealth of the individuals may conveniently allow, and as the necessity of our war requires.' But with all this it is a grand spectacle to see proclamation made from the throne itself of the imprescriptible right of every man to liberty. The serfs do not buy this right, but they will remember both the royal lesson, and the dangerous appeal to which it instigates against the barons. The short and obscure reign of Philippe-le-Long [Philip V., 1316-1322] is scarcely less important as regards the public law of France, than even that of Philippe-le-Bel. In the first place, his accession to the throne decides a great question. As Louis Hutin left his queen pregnant, his brother Philippe is regent and guardian of the future infant. This child dies soon after its birth, and Philippe proclaims himself king to the prejudice of a daughter of his brother's; a step which was the more surprising from the fact that Philippe-le-Bel had maintained the right of female succession in regard to Franche-Comté and Artois. The barons were desirous that daughters should be excluded from inheriting fiefs, but that they should succeed to the throne of France; and their chief, Charles of Valois, favored his grand-niece against his nephew Philippe. Philippe assembled the States, and gained his cause, which, at bottom, was good, by absurd reasons. He alleged in his favor the old German law of the Franks, which excluded daughters from the Salic land; and maintained that the crown of France was too noble a fief to fall into hands used to the distaff ('pour tomber en quenouille')—a feudal argument, the effect of which was to ruin feudality. … By thus rejecting the right of the daughters at the very moment it was gradually triumphing over the fiefs, the crown acquired its character of receiving always without ever giving; and a bold revocation, at this time, of an donations made since St. Louis's day, seems to contain the principle of the inalienableness of the royal domain. Unfortunately, the feudal spirit which resumed strength under the Valois in favor of private wars, led to fatal creations of appanages, and founded, to the advantage of the different branches of the royal family, a princely feudality as embarrassing to Charles VI. and Louis XI., as the other had been to Philippe-le-Bel. This contested succession and disaffection of the barons force Philippe-le-Long into the paths of Philippe-le-Bel. He flatters the cities, Paris, and, above all, the University,—the grand power of Paris. He causes his barons to take the oath of fidelity to him, in presence of the masters of the university, and with their approval. He wishes his good cities to be provided with armories; their citizens to keep their arms in a sure place; and appoints them a captain in each bailiwick or district, (March the 12th, 1316). … Praiseworthy beginnings of order and of government brought no relief to the sufferings of the people. During the reign of Louis Hutin, a horrible mortality had swept off, it was said, the third of the population of the North. The Flemish war had exhausted the last resources of the country. … Men's imaginations becoming excited, a great movement took place among the people. As in the days of St. Louis, a multitude of poor people, of peasants, of shepherds or pastoureaux, as they were called, flock together and say that they seek to go beyond the sea, that they are destined to recover the Holy Land. … They wended their way towards the South, everywhere massacring the Jews; whom the king's officers vainly tried to protect. At last, troops were got together at Toulouse, who fell upon the Pastoureaux, and hanging them up by twenties and thirties the rest dispersed. … Philippe-le-Long … was seized with fever in the course of the same year, (A. D. 1321,) in the month of August, without his physicians being able to guess its cause. He languished five months, and died. … His brother Charles [Charles IV., 1322-1328] succeeded him, without bestowing a thought more on the rights of Philippe's daughter; than Philippe had done to those of Louis's daughter. The period of Charles's reign is as barren of facts with regard to France, as it is rich in them respecting Germany, England, and Flanders. The Flemings imprison their count. The Germans are divided between Frederick of Austria and Lewis of Bavaria, who takes his rival prisoner at Muhldorf. In the midst of the universal divisions, France seems strong from the circumstance of its being one. Charles-le-Bel interferes in favor of the count of Flanders. {1168} He attempts, with the pope's aid, to make himself emperor; and his sister, Isabella, makes herself actual queen of England by the murder of Edward II. … Charles-le-Bel … died almost at the same time as Edward, leaving only a daughter; so that he was succeeded by a cousin of his. All that fine family of princes who had sat near their father at the Council of Vienne was extinct. In the popular belief, the curses of Boniface had taken effect. … This memorable epoch, which depresses England so low, and in proportion, raises France so high, presents, nevertheless, in the two countries two analogous events: In England, the barons have overthrown Edward II. In France, the feudal party places on the throne the feudal branch of the Valois."

FRANCE: A. D. 1314-1347. The king's control of the Papacy in its contest with the emperor.

FRANCE: A. D. 1328.
   The extent of the royal domain.
   The great vassals.
   The possessions of foreign princes in France.

On the accession of the House of Valois to the French throne, in the person of Philip VI. (A. D. 1328), the royal domain had acquired a great increase of extent. In the two centuries since Philip I. it had gained, "by conquest, by confiscation, or by inheritance, Berry, or the Viscounty of Bourges, Normandy, Maine, Anjou, Poitou, Valois, Vermandois, the counties of Auvergne, and Boulogne, a part of Champagne and Brie, Lyonnais, Angoumois, Marche, nearly the whole of Languedoc, and, lastly, the kingdom of Navarre, which belonging in her own right to queen Jeanne, mother of the last three Capetians [Jeanne, heiress of the kingdom of Navarre and of the counties of Champagne and Brie, was married to Philip IV., and was the mother of Louis X., Philip V. and Charles IV.], Charles IV. united with the crown. But the custom among the kings of giving apanages or estates to the princes of their house detached afresh from the domain a great part of the reunited territories, and created powerful princely houses, of which the chiefs often made themselves formidable to the monarchs. Among these great houses of the Capetian race, the most formidable were: the house of Burgundy, which traced back to king Robert; the house of Dreux, issue of a son of Louis the Big, and which added by a marriage the duchy of Brittany to the county of that name; the house of Anjou, issue of Charles, brother of Saint Louis, which was united in 1290 with that of Valois; the house of Bourbon, descending from Robert, Count of Clermont, sixth son of Saint Louis; and the house of Alençon, which traced back to Philip III., and possessed the duchy of Alençon and Perche. Besides these great princely houses of Capetian stock, which owed their grandeur and their origin to their apanages, there were many others which held considerable rank in France, and of which the possessions were transmissible to women; while the apanages were all masculine fiefs. The most powerful of these houses were those of Flanders, Penthièvre, Châtillon, Montmorency, Brienne, Coucy, Vendôme, Auvergne, Foix, and Armagnac. The vast possessions of the two last houses were in the country of the Langue d'Oc. The counts of Foix were also masters of Bearn, and those of Armagnac possessed Fezensac, Rouergue, and other large seigniories. Many foreign princes, besides, had possessions in France at the accession of the Valois. The king of England was lord of Ponthieu, of Aunis, of Saintonge, and of the duchy of Aquitaine; the king of Navarre was count of Evreux, and possessor of many other towns in Normandy; the king of Majorca was proprietor of the seigniory of Montpellier; the duke of Lorraine, vassal of the German empire, paid homage to the king of France for many fiefs that he held in Champagne; and, lastly, the Pope possessed the county Venaissin, detached from Provence."

FRANCE: A. D. 1328.
The splendor of the Monarchy on the eve of the calamitous
wars.

"Indisputably, the king of France [Philip VI., or Philip de Valois] was at this moment [A. D. 1328] a great king. He had just reinstated Flanders in its state of dependence on him. The king of England had done him homage for his French provinces. His cousins reigned at Naples and in Hungary. He was protector of the king of Scotland. He was surrounded by a court of kings—by those of Navarre, Majorca, Bohemia; and the Scottish monarch was often one of the circle. The famous John of Bohemia, of the house of Luxembourg, and father to the emperor Charles IV., declared that he could not live out of Paris, 'the most chivalrous residence in the world.' He fluttered over all Europe, but ever returned to the court of the great king of France—where was kept up one constant festival, where jousts and tournaments ever went on, and the romances of chivalry, king Arthur and the round table, were realized."

FRANCE: A. D. 1328-1339.
The claim of Edward III. of England to the French crown.

"History tells us that Philip, king of France, surnamed the Fair, had three sons, beside his beautiful daughter Isabella, married to the king of England [Edward II.]. These three sons were very handsome. The eldest, Lewis, king of Navarre during the lifetime of his father, was called Lewis Hutin [Louis X.]; the second was named Philip the Great, or the Long [Philip V.]; and the third, Charles [Charles IV.]. All these were kings of France, after their father Philip, by legitimate succession, one after the other, without having by marriage any male heirs; yet, on the death of the last king, Charles, the twelve peers and barons of France did not give the kingdom to Isabella, the sister, who was queen of England, because they said and maintained, and still do insist, that the kingdom of France is so noble that it ought not to go to a woman; consequently neither to Isabella, nor to her son, the king of England [Edward III.]; for they hold that the son of a woman cannot claim any right of succession, where that woman has none herself. For these reasons the twelve peers and barons of France unanimously gave the kingdom of France to the lord Philip of Valois, nephew to king Philip, and thus put aside the queen of England, who was sister to Charles, the late king of France, and her son. Thus, as it seemed to many people, the succession went out of the right line; which has been the occasion of the most destructive wars and devastations of countries, as well in France as elsewhere, as you will learn hereafter; the real object of this history being to relate the great enterprises and deeds of arms achieved in these wars, for from the time of good Charlemagne, king of France, never were such feats performed."

France in 1154 At the Accession of Henry II. (Anjou)
Showing how he Acquired his fiefs in France.

   France in 1180
   At The Accession Of Philip Augustus
   Showing The Lands Acquired By The Crown During His Reign.

"From the moment of Charles IV.'s death [A. D. 1328], Edward III. of England buoyed himself up with a notion of his title to the crown of France, in right of his mother Isabel, sister to the three last kings. We can have no hesitation in condemning the injustice of this pretension. Whether the Salic law were or were not valid, no advantage could be gained by Edward. Even if he could forget the express or tacit decision of all France, there stood in his way Jane, the daughter of Louis X., three [daughters] of Philip the Long, and one of Charles the Fair. Aware of this, Edward set up a distinction, that, although females were excluded from succession, the same rule did not apply to their male issue; and thus, though his mother Isabel could not herself become queen of France, she might transmit a title to him. But this was contrary to the commonest rules of inheritance; and if it could have been regarded at all, Jane had a son, afterwards the famous king of Navarre [Charles the Bad], who stood one degree nearer to the crown than Edward. It is asserted in some French authorities that Edward preferred a claim to the regency immediately after the decease of Charles the Fair, and that the States-General, or at least the peers of France, adjudged that dignity to Philip de Valois. Whether this be true or not, it is clear that he entertained projects of recovering his right as early, though his youth and the embarrassed circumstances of his government threw insuperable obstacles in the way of their execution. He did liege homage, therefore, to Philip for Guienne, and for several years, while the affairs of Scotland engrossed his attention, gave no signs of meditating a more magnificent enterprise. As he advanced in manhood, and felt the consciousness of his strength, his early designs grew mature, and produced a series of the most important and interesting revolutions in the fortunes of France."

It was not until 1337 that Edward III. felt prepared to assert formally his claim to the French crown and to assume the title of King of France. In July of the following year he began undertakings to enforce his pretended right, by crossing with a considerable force to the continent. He wintered at Antwerp, concerting measures with the Flemings, who had espoused his cause, and arranging an alliance with the emperor-king of Germany, whose name bore more weight than his arms. In 1339 a formal declaration of hostilities was made and the long war—the Hundred Years War, as it has been called—of English kings for the sovereignty of France, began. "This great war may well be divided into five periods. The first ends with the Peace of Bretigny in 1360 (A. D. 1337-1360), and includes the great days of Crécy [1346] and Poitiers [1356], as well as the taking of Calais: the second runs to the death of Charles the Wise in 1380; these are the days of Du Guesclin and the English reverses: the third begins with the renewal of the war under Henry V. of England, and ends with the Regency of the Duke of Bedford at Paris, including the field of Azincourt [1415] and the Treaty of Troyes (A. D. 1415-1422): the fourth is the epoch of Jeanne Darc and ends with the second establishment of the English at Paris (A. D. 1428-1431): and the fifth and last runs on to the final expulsion of the English after the Battle of Castillon in 1453. Thus, though it is not uncommonly called the Hundred Years War, the struggle really extended over a period of a hundred and sixteen years."

"No war had broken out in Europe, since the fall of the Roman Empire, so memorable as that of Edward III. and his successors against France, whether we consider its duration, its object, or the magnitude and variety of its events. It was a struggle of one hundred and twenty years, interrupted but once by a regular pacification, where the most ancient and extensive dominion in the civilised world was the prize, twice lost and twice recovered in the conflict. … There is, indeed, ample room for national exultation at the names of Crecy, Poitiers and Azincourt. So great was the disparity of numbers upon those famous days, that we cannot, with the French historians, attribute the discomfiture of their hosts merely to mistaken tactics and too impetuous valour. … These victories, and the qualities that secured them, must chiefly be ascribed to the freedom of our constitution, and to the superior condition of the people. Not the nobility of England, not the feudal tenants, won the battles of Crecy and Poitiers; for these were fully matched in the ranks of France; but the yeomen who drew the bow with strong and steady arms, accustomed to use it in their native fields, and rendered fearless by personal competence and civil freedom. … Yet the glorious termination to which Edward was enabled, at least for a time, to bring the contest, was rather the work of fortune than of valour and prudence. Until the battle of Poitiers [A. D. 1356] he had made no progress towards the conquest of France. That country was too vast, and his army too small, for such a revolution. The victory of Crecy gave him nothing but Calais. … But at Poitiers he obtained the greatest of prizes, by taking prisoner the king of France. Not only the love of freedom tempted that prince to ransom himself by the utmost sacrifices, but his captivity left France defenceless and seemed to annihilate the monarchy itself. … There is no affliction which did not fall upon France during this miserable period. … Subdued by these misfortunes, though Edward had made but slight progress towards the conquest of the country, the regent of France, afterwards Charles V., submitted to the peace of Bretigni [A. D. 1360]. By this treaty, not to mention less important articles, all Guienne, Gascony, Poitou, Saintonge, the Limousin, and the Angoumois, as well as Calais, and the county of Ponthieu, were ceded in full sovereignty to Edward; a price abundantly compensating his renunciation of the title of France, which was the sole concession stipulated in return."

ALSO IN: J. Froissart, Chronicles (Johnes' translation), book 1, chapters 1-212.

D. F. Jamison, Life and Times of Bertrand du Guesclin, volume 1, chapters 4-10.

"Epochs of moral depression are those, too, of great motality. … In the last years of Philippe de Valois' reign, the depopulation was rapid. The misery and physical suffering which prevailed were insufficient to account for it; for they had not reached the extreme at which they subsequently arrived. Yet, to adduce but one instance, the population of a single town, Narbonne, fell off in the space of four or five years from the year 1399, by 500 families. Upon this too tardy diminution of the human race followed extermination,—the great black plague, or pestilence, which at once heaped up mountains of dead throughout Christendom. It began in Provence, in the year 1347, on All Saints' Day, continued sixteen months, and carried off two-thirds of the inhabitants. The same wholesale destruction befell Languedoc. At Montpellier, out of twelve consuls, ten died. At Narbonne, 30,000 persons perished. In several places, there remained only a tithe of the inhabitants. All that the careless Froissart says of this fearful visitation, and that only incidentally, is—'For at this time there prevailed throughout the world generally a disease called epidemy, which destroyed a third of its inhabitants.' This pestilence did not break out in the north of the kingdom until August, 1348, where it first showed itself at Paris and St. Denys. So fearful were its ravages at Paris, that, according to some, 800, according to others, 500, daily sank under it. … As there was neither famine at the time nor want of food, but, on the contrary great abundance, this plague was said to proceed from infection of the air and of the springs. The Jews were again charged with this, and the people cruelly fell upon them."

"The disaster of Poitiers [1356] excited in the minds of the people a sentiment of national grief, mixed with indignation and scorn at the nobility who had fled before an army so inferior in number. Those nobles who passed through the cities and towns on their return from the battle were pursued with imprecations and outrages. The Parisian bourgeoisie, animated with enthusiasm and courage, took upon itself at all risks the charge of its own defense; whilst, the eldest son of the king, a youth of only nineteen, who had been one of the first to fly, assumed the government as lieutenant of his father. It was at the summons of this prince that the states assembled again at Paris before the time which they had appointed. The same deputies returned to the number of 800, of whom 400 were of the bourgeoisie; and the work of reform, rudely sketched in the preceding session, was resumed under the same influence, with an enthusiasm which partook of the character of revolutionary impulse. The assembly commenced by concentrating its action in a committee of twenty-four members, deliberating, as far as appears, without distinction of orders; it then intimated its resolutions under the form of petitions, which were as follow: The authority of the states declared supreme in all affairs of administration and finance, the impeachment of all the counsellors of the king, the dismissal in a body of the officers of justice, and the creation of a council of reformers taken from the three orders; lastly, the prohibition to conclude any truce without the assent of the three states, and the right on their part to re-assemble at their own will without a royal summons. The lieutenant of the king, Charles Duke of Normandy, exerted in vain the resources of a precocious ability to escape these imperious demands: he was compelled to yield everything. The States governed in his name; but dissension, springing from the mutual jealousy of the different orders, was soon introduced into their body. The preponderating influence of the bourgeois appeared intolerable to the nobles, who, in consequence, deserted the assembly and retired home. The deputies of the clergy remained longer at their posts, but they also withdrew at last; and, under the name of the States-General, none remained but the representatives of the cities, alone charged with all the responsibilities of the reform and the affairs of the kingdom. Bowing to a necessity of central action, they submitted of their own accord to the deputation of Paris; and soon, by the tendency of circumstances, and in consequence of the hostile attitude of the Regent, the question of supremacy of the states became a Parisian question, subject to the chances of a popular émeute and the guardianship of the municipal power. At this point appears a man whose character has grown into historical importance in our days from our greater facilities of understanding it, Etienne [Stephen] Marcel, 'prévôt des marchands'—that is to say, mayor of the municipality of Paris. This échevin of the 14th century, by a remarkable anticipation, designed and attempted things which seem to belong only to recent revolutions. Social unity, and administrative uniformity; political rights, co-extensive and equal with civil rights; the principle of public authority transferred from the crown to the nation; the States-General changed, under the influence of the third order, into a national representation; the will of the people admitted as sovereign in the presence of the depositary of the royal power; the influence of Paris over the provinces, as the head of opinion and centre of the general movement; the democratic dictatorship, and the influence of terror exercised in the name of the common weal; new colours assumed and carried as a sign of patriotic union and symbol of reform; the transference of royalty itself from one branch of the family to the other, with a view to the cause of reform and the interest of the people—such were the circumstances and the scenes which have given to our own as well as the preceding century their political character. It is strange to find the whole of it comprised in the three years over which the name of the Prévôt Marcel predominates. His short and stormy career was, as it were, a premature attempt at the grand designs of Providence, and the mirror of the bloody changes of fortune through which those designs were destined to advance to their accomplishment under the impulse of human passions. Marcel lived and died for an idea—that of hastening on, by the force of the masses, the work of gradual equalisation commenced by the kings themselves; but it was his misfortune and his crime to be unrelenting in carrying out his convictions. To the impetuosity of a tribune who did not shrink even from murder he added the talent of organization; he left in the grand city, which he had ruled with a stern and absolute sway, powerful institutions, noble works, and a name which two centuries afterwards his descendants bore with pride as a title of nobility."

"The miseries of France weighed more and more heavily on the peasantry; and none regarded them. They stood apart from the cities, knowing little of them; the nobles despised them and robbed them of their substance or their labour. … At last the peasantry (May, 1358), weary of their woes, rose up to work their own revenge and ruin. They began in the Beauvais country and there fell on the nobles, attacking and destroying castles, and slaying their inmates: it was the old unvarying story. They made themselves a kind of king, a man of Clermont in the Beauvoisin, named William Callet. Froissart imagines that the name 'Jacques Bonhomme' meant a particular person, a leader in these risings. Froissart however had no accurate knowledge of the peasant and his ways. Jacques Bonhomme was the common nickname, the 'Giles' or 'Hodge' of France, the name of the peasant generally; and from it such risings as this of 1358 came to be called the 'Jacquerie,' or the disturbances of the 'Jacques.' The nobles were soon out against them, and the whole land was full of anarchy. Princes and nobles, angry peasants with their 'iron shod sticks and knives,' free-lances, English bands of pillagers, all made up a scene of utter confusion: 'cultivation ceased, commerce ceased, security was at an end.' The burghers of Paris and Meaux sent a force to help the peasants, who were besieging the fortress at Meaux, held by the nobles; these were suddenly attacked and routed by the Captal de Buch and the Count de Foix, 'then on their return from Prussia.' The King of Navarre also fell on them, took by stratagem their leader Callet, tortured and hanged him. In six weeks the fire was quenched in blood."

"Froissard relates the horrible details of the Jacquerie with the same placid interest which characterises his descriptions of battles, tournaments, and the pageantry of chivalry. The charm and brilliancy of his narrative have long popularised his injustice and his errors, which are self-apparent when compared with the authors and chroniclers of his time. … The chronicles contemporary of the Jacquerie confine themselves to a few words on the subject, although, with the exception of the Continuator of Nangis, they were all hostile to the cause of the peasants. The private and local documents on the subject say very little more. The Continuator of Nangis has drawn his information from various sources. He takes care to state that he has witnessed almost all he relates. After describing the sufferings of the peasants, he adds that the laws of justice authorised them to rise in revolt against the nobles of France. His respected testimony reduces the insurrection to comparatively small proportions. The hundred thousand Jacques of Froissard are reduced to something like five or six thousand men, a number much more probable when it is considered that the insurrection remained a purely local one, and that, in consequence of the ravages we have mentioned, the whole open country had lost about two-thirds of its inhabitants. He states very clearly that the peasants killed indiscriminately, and without pity, men and children, but he does not say anything of those details of atrocity related by Froissard. He only alludes once to a report of some outrages offered to some noble ladies; he speaks of it as a vague rumour. He describes the insurgents, after the first explosion of their vindictive fury, as pausing—amazed at their own boldness, and terrified at their own crimes, and the nobles, recovering from their terror, taking immediate advantage of this sudden torpor and paralysis—assembling and slaughtering all, innocent and guilty, burning houses and villages. If we turn to other writers contemporary with the Jacquerie, we find that Louvet, author of the 'History of the District of Beauvais,' does not say much on the subject, and evinces also a sympathy for the peasants: the paucity of his remarks on a subject represented by Froissard as a gigantic, bloody tragedy, raises legitimate doubts as to the veracity of the latter. There is another authority on the events of that period, which may be considered as more weighty, in consequence of its ecclesiastical character; it is the 'cartulaire,' or journal of the Abbot of Beauvais. … There is no trace in it of the horror and indescribable terror … [the rising] must have inspired if the peasants had committed the atrocities attributed to them by the feudal historian, Froissard. On the contrary, the vengeance of the peasants falls into the shade, as it were, in contrast with the merciless reaction of the nobles, along with the sanguinary oppression of the English. The writer of the 'Abbey of Beauvais,' and the anonymous monk, 'Continuator of Nangis,' concur with each other in their account of the Jacquerie. Their judgments are similar, and they manifest the same moderation. Their opinions, moreover, are confirmed by a higher authority, a testimony that must be considered as indisputable, namely, the letters of amnesty of the Regent of France, which are all preserved; they bear the date of 10th August 1358, and refer to all the acts committed on the occasion of the Jacquerie. In these he proves himself more severe upon the reaction of the nobles than on the revolt of the peasants. … There is not the slightest allusion to the monstrosities related by Froissard, which the Regent could not have failed to stigmatise, as he is well known for having entertained an unscrupulous hatred to any popular movement, or any claims of the people. The manner, on the contrary, in which the Jacquerie are represented in this official document, is full of signification; it represents the men of the open country assembling spontaneously in various localities, in order to deliberate on the means of resisting the English, and suddenly, as with a mutual agreement, turning fiercely on the nobles, who were the real cause of their misery, and of the disgrace of France, on the days of Crecy and Poitiers. … It has also been forgotten that many citizens took an active part in the Jacquerie. The great chronicles of France state that the majority were peasants, labouring people, but that there were also among them citizens, and even gentlemen, who, no doubt, were impelled by personal hatred and vengeance. Many rich men joined the peasants, and became their leaders. The bourgeoisie, in its struggles with royalty, could not refuse to take advantage of such a diversion; and Beauvais, Senlis, Amiens, Paris, and Meaux accepted the Jacquerie. Moreover, almost all the poorer classes of the cities sympathised with the revolted peasants. {1172} The Jacquerie broke out on the 21st of May 1358, and not in November 1357, as erroneously stated by Froissard, in the districts around Beauvais and Clermont-sur-Oise. The peasants, merely armed with pikes, sticks, fragments of their ploughs, rushed on their masters, murdered their families, and burned down their castles. The country comprised between Beauvais and Melun was the principal scene of this war of extermination. … The Jacquerie had commenced on the 21st of May. On the 9th of June … it was already terminated. It was, therefore, in reality, an insurrection of less than three weeks' duration. The reprisals of the nobles had already commenced on the 9th of June, and continued through the whole of July, and the greater part of August. Froissard states that the Jacquerie lasted over six weeks, thus comprising in his reckoning three weeks of the ferocious vengeance of the nobles, and casting on Jacques Bonhomme the responsibility of the massacres of which he had been the victim, as well as those he had committed in his furious despair."

Prof. De Vericour, The Jacquerie (Royal Historical Society, Transactions, volume 1).

ALSO IN: Sir J. Froissart, Chronicles (Johnes' translation), book 1, chapter 181.

The Peace of Bretigny brought little peace to France or little diminution of the troubles of the kingdom. In some respects there was a change for the worse introduced. The armies which had ravaged the country dissolved into plundering bands which afflicted it even more. Great numbers of mercenaries from both sides were set free, who gathered into Free Companies, as they were called, under leaders of fit recklessness and valor, and swarmed over the land, warring on all prosperity and all the peaceful industries of the time, seeking booty wherever it might be found.

Civil war, too, was kept alive by the intrigues and conspiracies of the Navarrese king, Charles the Bad; and war in Brittany, over a disputed succession to the dukedom, was actually stipulated for, by French and English, in their treaty of general peace. But when the chivalric but hapless King John died, in 1364, the new king, Charles V., who had been regent during his captivity, developed an unexpected capacity for government. He brought to the front the famous Breton warrior Du Guesclin-rough, ignorant, unchivalric—but a fighter of the first order in his hard-fighting day. He contrived with adroitness to rid France, mostly, of the Free Companies, by sending them, with Du Guesclin at their head, into Spain, where they drove Peter the Cruel from the throne of Castile, and fought the English, who undertook, wickedly and foolishly, to sustain him. The Black Prince won a great battle, at Najara or Navarette (A. D. 1367), took Du Guesclin prisoner and restored the cruel Pedro to his throne. But it was a victory fatal to English interests in France. Half the army of the English prince perished of a pestilent fever before he led it back to Aquitaine, and he himself was marked for early death by the same malady. He had been made duke of Aquitaine, or Guienne, and held the government of the country. The war in Spain proved expensive; he taxed his Gascon and Aquitanian subjects heavily. He was ill, irritable, and treated them harshly. Discontent became widely spread, and the king of France subtly stirred it up until he felt prepared to make use of it in actual war. At last, in 1368, he challenged a rupture of the Peace of Bretigny by summoning King Edward, as his vassal, to answer complaints from Aquitaine. In April of the next year he formally declared war and opened hostilities the same day. His cunning policy was not to fight, but to waste and wear the enemy out. Its wisdom was well-proved by the result. Day by day the English lost ground; the footing they had gained in France was found to be everywhere insecure. The dying Black Prince achieved one hideous triumph at Limoges, where he fouled his brilliant fame by a monstrous massacre; and thence he was carried home to end his days in England. In 1376 he died, and one year later his father, King Edward, followed him to the grave, and a child of eleven (Richard II.) came to the English throne. But the same calamity befell France in 1380, when Charles the Wise died, leaving an heir to the throne only twelve years of age. In both kingdoms the minority of the sovereign gave rise to factious intrigues and distracting feuds. The war went on at intervals, with frequent truces and armistices, and with little result beyond the animosities which it kept alive. But the English possessions, by this time, had been reduced to Calais and Guines, with some small parts of Aquitaine adjoining the cities of Bordeaux and Bayonne. And thus, it may be said, the situation was prolonged through a generation, until Henry V. of England resumed afresh the undertaking of Edward III.

FRANCE: A. D. 1378.
Acquisitions in the Rhone valley legal conferred by the
Emperor.

FRANCE: A. D. 1380-1415.
The reign of the Dukes.
The civil war of Armagnacs and Burgundians.

   "Charles VI. had arrived at the age of eleven years and some
   months when his father died [A. D. 1380]. His three paternal
   uncles, the Dukes of Anjou, Berry, and Burgundy, and his
   maternal uncle, the Duke of Bourbon, disputed among themselves
   concerning his guardianship and the regency. They agreed to
   emancipate the young King immediately after his coronation,
   which was to take place during the year, and the regency was
   to remain until that period in the hands of the eldest, the
   Duke of Anjou." But the Duke of Anjou was soon afterwards
   lured into Italy by the fatal gift of a claim to the crown of
   Naples [see ITALY: A. D. 1343-1389.], and perished in striving
   to realize it. The surviving uncles misgoverned the country
   between them until 1389, when the young king was persuaded to
   throw off their yoke. The nation rejoiced for three years in
   the experience and the prospect of administrative reforms; but
   suddenly, in July, 1392, the young king became demented, and
   "then commenced the third and fatal epoch of that disastrous
   reign. The faction of the dukes again seized power," but only
   to waste and afflict the kingdom by dissensions among
   themselves.
{1173}
   The number of the rival dukes was now increased by the
   addition of the Duke of Orleans, brother of the king, who
   showed himself as ruthless and rapacious as any. "Charles was
   still considered to be reigning; each one sought in turn to
   get possession of him, and each one watched his lucid moments
   in order to stand well in power. His flashes of reason were
   still more melancholy than his fits of delirium. Incapable of
   attending to his affairs, or of having a will of his own,
   always subservient to the dominant party, he appeared to
   employ his few glimmerings of reason only in sanctioning the
   most tyrannical acts and the most odious abuses. It was in
   this manner that the kingdom of France was governed during
   twenty-eight years." In 1404, the Duke of Burgundy, Philip
   the Bold, having died, the Duke of Orleans acquired supreme
   authority and exercised it most oppressively. But the new Duke
   of Burgundy, John the Fearless, made his appearance on the
   scene ere long, arriving from his county of Flanders with an
   army and threatening civil war. Terms of peace, however, were
   arranged between the two dukes and an apparent reconciliation
   took place. On the very next day the Duke of Orleans was
   assassinated (A. D. 1407), and the Duke of Burgundy openly
   proclaimed his instigation of the deed. Out of that
   treacherous murder sprang a war of factions so deadly that
   France was delivered by it to foreign conquest, and destroyed,
   we may say, for the time being, as a nation. The elder of the
   young princes of Orleans, sons of the murdered duke, had
   married a daughter of Count Bernard of Armagnac, and Count
   Bernard became the leader of the party which supported them
   and sought to avenge them, as against the Duke of Burgundy and
   his party. Hence the former acquired the name of Armagnacs;
   the latter were called Burgundians. Armagnac led an army of
   Gascons [A. D. 1410] and threatened Paris, "where John the
   Fearless caressed the vilest populace. Burgundy relied on the
   name of the king, whom he held in his power, and armed in the
   capital a corps of one hundred young butchers or
   horse-knackers, who, from John Caboche, their chief, took the
   name of Cabochiens. A frightful war, interrupted by truces
   violated on both sides, commenced between the party of
   Armagnac and that of Burgundy. Both sides appealed to the
   English, and sold France to them. The Armagnacs pillaged and
   ravaged the environs of Paris with unheard of cruelties, while
   the Cabochiens caused the capital they defended to tremble.
   The States-General, convoked for the first time for thirty
   years, were dumb—without courage and without strength. The
   Parliament was silent, the university made itself the organ of
   the populace, and the butchers made the laws. They pillaged,
   imprisoned and slaughtered with impunity, according to their
   savage fury, and found judges to condemn their victims. …
   The reaction broke out at last. Tired of so many atrocities,
   the bourgeoisie took up arms, and shook off the yoke of the
   horse-knackers. The Dauphin was delivered by them. He mounted
   on horseback, and, at the head of the militia, went to the
   Hôtel de Ville, from which place he drove out Caboche and his
   brigands. The counter revolution was established. Burgundy
   departed, and the power passed to the Armagnacs. The princes
   re-entered Paris, and King Charles took up the oriflamme (the
   royal standard of France), to make war against John the
   Fearless, whose instrument he had been a short time before.
   His army was victorious. Burgundy submitted, and the treaty of
Arras [A. D. 1415] suspended the war, but not the executions and
   the ravages. Henry V., King of England, judged this a
   propitious moment to descend upon France, which had not a
   vessel to oppose the invaders."

ALSO IN: E. de Monstrelet, Chronicles (Johnes' translation), volume 1, book 1, chapters 1-140.

"When Henry V. resolved to recover what he claimed as the inheritance of his predecessors, he had to begin, it may be said, the work of conquest over again. Allies, however, he had, whose assistance he was to find very useful. The dynasty of De Montfort had been established in possession of the dukedom of Britanny in a great measure by English help, and though the relations between the two countries had not been invariably friendly since that time, the sense of this obligation, and, still more powerfully, a jealous fear of the French king, inclined Britanny to the English alliance. The Dukes of Burgundy, though they had no such motives of gratitude towards England, felt a far stronger hostility towards France. The feud between the rival factions which went by the names of Burgundians and Armagnacs had now been raging for several years; and though the attitude of the Burgundians varied—at the great struggle of Agincourt they were allies, though lukewarm and even doubtful allies, of the French—they ultimately ranked themselves decidedly on Henry's side. In 1414, then, Henry formally demanded, as the heir of Isabella, mother of his great-grandfather Edward, the crown of France. This claim the French princes wholly refused to consider. Henry then moderated his demands so far, at least, as to allow Charles to remain in nominal possession of his kingdom; but … France was to cede to England, no longer as a feudal superior making a grant to a vassal, but in full sovereignty, the provinces of Normandy, Maine, and Anjou, together with all that was comprised in the ancient duchy of Aquitaine. Half, too, of Provence was claimed, and the arrears of the ransom of King John, amounting to 1,200,000 crowns, were also to be paid. Finally, the French king was to give his youngest daughter, Katharine, in marriage to Henry, with a portion of 2,000,000 crowns. The French ministers offered, in answer, to yield the duchy of Aquitaine, comprising the provinces of Anjou, Gascony, Guienne, Poitou, and to give the hand of the princess Katharine with a dowry of 600,000 crowns. "Negotiations went on through several months, with small chance of success, while Henry prepared for war. His preparations were completed in the summer of 1415, and on the 11th of August in that year he set sail from Southampton, with an army of 6,000 men-at-arms and 24,000 archers, very completely equipped, and accompanied with cannon and other engines of war. {1174} Landing in the estuary of the Seine, the invaders first captured the important Norman seaport of Harfleur, after a siege of a month, and expelled the inhabitants from the town. It was an important acquisition; but it had cost the English heavily. They were ill-supplied with food; they had suffered from much rain; 2,000 had died of an epidemic of dysentery. The army was in no condition for a forward movement. "The safest course would now have been to return at once; and this seems to have been pressed upon the king by the majority of his counsellors. But this prudent advice did not approve itself to Henry's adventurous temper. … He determined … to make what may be called a military parade to Calais. This involved a march of not less than 150 miles through a hostile country, a dangerous, and, but that one who cherishes such designs as Henry's must make a reputation for daring, a useless operation; but the king's determined will overcame all opposition." Leaving a strong garrison at Harfleur, Henry set out upon his march. Arrived at the Somme, his further progress was disputed, and he was forced to make a long detour before he could effect a crossing of the river. On the 24th of October, he encountered the French army, strongly posted at the village of Azincour or Agincourt, barring the road to Calais; and there, on the morning of the 25th, after a night of drenching rain, the great battle, which shines with so dazzling a glory in English history, was fought. There seems to be no doubt that the English were greatly outnumbered by the French—according to Monstrelet they were but one to six; but the masses on the French side were unskilfully handled and no advantage was got from them. The deadly shafts of the terrible English archers built such a rampart of corpses in their front that it actually sheltered them from the charge of the French cavalry. "Everywhere the French were routed, slain, or taken. The victory of the English was complete. … The French loss was enormous. Monstrelet gives a long list of the chief princes and nobles who fell on that fatal field. … We are disposed to trust his estimate, which, including princes, knights and men-at-arms of every degree, he puts at 10,000. … Only 1,600 are said to have been 'of low degree.' … The number of knights and gentlemen taken prisoners was 1,500. Among them were Charles, Duke of Orleans, and the Duke of Bourbon, both princes of the blood-royal. … Brilliant as was the victory which Henry had won at Agincourt, it had, it may be said, no immediate results. … The army resumed its interrupted march to Calais, which was about forty miles distant. At Calais a council of war was held, and the resolution to return to England unanimously taken. A few days were allowed for refreshment, and about the middle of November the army embarked."

ALSO IN: E. de Monstrelet, Chronicles (Johnes' translation), volume 1, book 1, chapters 140-149.

      Lord Brougham,
      History of England and France
      under the House of Lancaster.

      C. M. Yonge,
      Cameos from English History:
      second series, chapters 24-26.

FRANCE: A. D. 1415-1419.
Massacre of Armagnacs.
The murder of the Duke of Burgundy.

   "The captivity of so many princes of the blood as had been
   taken prisoner at Agincourt might have seemed likely at least
   to remove some of the elements of discord; but it so happened
   that the captives were the most moderate and least ambitious
   men. The gentle, poetical Duke of Orleans, the good Duke of
   Bourbon, and the patriotic and gallant Arthur de Richemont,
   had been taken, while the savage Duke of Burgundy and the
   violent Gascon Count of Armagnac, Constable of France,
   remained at the head of their hostile factions. … The Count
   d'Armagnac now reigned supreme; no prince of the blood came to
   the councils, and the king and dauphin were absolutely in his
   hands. … The Duke of Burgundy was, however, advancing with
   his forces, and the Parisians were always far more inclined to
   him than to the other party. … For a whole day's ride round
   the environs of the city, every farmhouse had been sacked or
   burnt. Indeed, it was said in Paris a man had only to be
   called a Burgundian, or anywhere else in the Isle of France an
   Armagnac, to be instantly put to death. All the soldiers who
   had been posted to guard Normandy and Picardy against the
   English were recalled to defend Paris against the Duke of
   Burgundy; and Henry V. could have found no more favourable
   moment for a second expedition." The English king took
   advantage of his opportunity and landed in Normandy August 1,
   1417, finding nobody to oppose him in the field. The factions
   were employed too busily in cutting each other's throats,—
   especially after the Burgundians had regained possession of
   Paris, which they did in the following spring. Thereupon the
   Parisian mob rose and ferociously massacred all the partisans
   of Armagnac, while the Burgundians looked and approved. "The
   prison was forced; Armagnac himself was dragged out and slain
   in the court. … The court of each prison became a
   slaughter-house; the prisoners were called down one by one,
   and there murdered, till the assassins were up to their ankles
   in blood. The women were as savage as the men, and dragged the
   corpses about the streets in derision. The prison slaughter
   had but given a passion for further carnage; and the murderers
   broke open the houses in search of Armagnacs, killing not only
   men, but women, children, and even new-born babes, to whom in
   their diabolical frenzy they refused baptism, as being little
   Armagnacs. The massacre lasted from four o'clock on Sunday
   morning to ten o'clock on Monday. Some say that 3,000
   perished, others 1,600, and the Duke of Burgundy's servants
   reported the numbers as only 400." Meantime Henry V. was
   besieging Rouen, and starving Paris by cutting off the
   supplies for which it depended on the Seine. In August there
   was another rising of the Parisian mob and another massacre.
   In January, 1419, Rouen surrendered, and attempts at peace
   followed, both parties making a truce with the English
   invader. The imperious demands of King Henry finally impelled
   the two French factions to draw together and to make a common
   cause of the deliverance of the kingdom. At least that was the
   profession with which the Dauphin and the Duke of Burgundy
   met, in July, and went through the forms of a reconciliation.
   Perhaps there were treacherous intentions on both sides. On
   one side the treachery was consummated a month later
   (September 10, 1419), when, a second meeting between Duke John
   the Fearless and the Dauphin taking place at the Bridge of
   Montereau, the Duke was basely assassinated in the Dauphin's
   presence.
{1175}
   This murder, by which the Armagnacs, who controlled the young
   Dauphin, hoped to break their rivals down, only kindled afresh
   the passions which were destroying France and delivering it an
   easy prey to foreign conquest.

ALSO IN: E. de Monstrelet, Chronicles (Johnes' translation), volume 1, book 1, chapters 150-211.

FRANCE: A. D. 1417-1422.
   Burgundy's revenge.
   Henry the Fifth's triumph.
   Two kings in Paris.
   The Treaty of Troyes.
   Death of Henry.

"Whilst civil war was … penetrating to the very core of the kingship, foreign war was making its way again into the kingdom. Henry V., after the battle of Agincourt, had returned to London, and had left his army to repose and reorganize after its sufferings and its losses. It was not until eighteen months afterwards, on the 1st of August, 1417, that he landed at Touques, not far from Honfleur, with fresh troops, and resumed his campaign in France. Between 1417 and 1419 he successively laid siege to nearly all the towns of importance in Normandy, to Caen, Bayeux, Falaise, Evreux, Coutances, Laigle, St. Lô, Cherbourg, &c., &c. Some he occupied after a short resistance, others were sold to him by their governors; but when, in the month of July, 1418, he undertook the siege of Rouen, he encountered there a long and serious struggle. Rouen had at that time, it is said, a population of 150,000 souls, which was animated by ardent patriotism. The Rouennese, on the approach of the English, had repaired their gates, their ramparts, and their moats; had demanded reinforcements from the King of France and the Duke of Burgundy; and had ordered every person incapable of bearing arms or procuring provisions for ten months to leave the city. Twelve thousand old men, women and children were thus expelled, and died either round the place or whilst roving in misery over the neighbouring country. … Fifteen thousand men of city-militia, 4,000 regular soldiers, 300 spearmen and as many archers from Paris, and it is not quite known how many men-at-arms sent by the Duke of Burgundy, defended Rouen for more than five months amidst all the usual sufferings of strictly-besieged cities." On the 13th of January, 1419, the town was surrendered. "It was 215 years since Philip Augustus had won Rouen by conquest from John Lackland, King of England." After this great success there were truces brought about between all parties, and much negotiation, which came to nothing—except the treacherous murder of the Duke of Burgundy, as related above. Then the situation changed. The son and successor of the murdered duke, afterwards known as Philip the Good, took sides, at once, with the English king and committed himself to a war of revenge, indifferent to the fate of France. "On the 17th of October [1419] was opened at Arras a congress between the plenipotentiaries of England and those of Burgundy. On the 20th of November a special truce was granted to the Parisians, whilst Henry V., in concert with Duke Philip of Burgundy, was prosecuting the war against the dauphin. On the 2d of December the bases were laid of an agreement between the English and the Burgundians. The preliminaries of the treaty, which was drawn up in accordance with these bases, were signed on the 9th of April, 1420, by King Charles VI. [now controlled by the Burgundians], and on the 20th communicated at Paris by the chancellor of France to the parliament." On the 20th of May following, the treaty, definitive and complete, was signed by Henry V. and promulgated at Troyes. By this treaty of Troyes, Princess Catherine, daughter of the King of France, was given in marriage to King Henry; Charles VI. was guaranteed his possession of the French crown while he lived; on his death, "the crown and kingdom of France, with all their rights and appurtenances," were solemnly conveyed to Henry V. of England and his heirs, forever. "The revulsion against the treaty of Troyes was real and serious, even in the very heart of the party attached to the Duke of Burgundy. He was obliged to lay upon several of his servants formal injunctions to swear to this peace, which seemed to them treason. … In the duchy of Burgundy the majority of the towns refused to take the oath to the King of England. The most decisive and the most helpful proof of this awakening of national feeling was the ease experienced by the dauphin, who was one day to be Charles VII., in maintaining the war which, after the treaty of Troyes, was, in his father's and his mother's name, made upon him by the King of England and the Duke of Burgundy. This war lasted more than three years. Several towns, amongst others, Melun, Crotoy, Meaux, and St. Riquier, offered an obstinate resistance to the attacks of the English and Burgundians. … It was in Perche, Anjou, Maine, on the banks of the Loire, and in Southern France, that the dauphin found most of his enterprising and devoted partisans. The sojourn made by Henry V. at Paris, in December, 1420, with his wife, Queen Catherine, King Charles VI., Queen Isabel, and the Duke of Burgundy, was not, in spite of galas and acclamations, a substantial and durable success for him. … Towards the end of August, 1422, Henry V. fell ill; and, too stout-hearted to delude himself as to his condition, he … had himself removed to Vincennes, called his councillors about him, and gave them his last royal instructions. … He expired on the 31st of August, 1422, at the age of thirty-four."

At Paris, "the two sovereigns [Henry V. and Charles VI.] kept distinct courts. That of Henry was by far the most splendidly equipped and numerously attended of the two. He was the rising sun, and all men looked to him. All offices of trust and profit were at his disposal, and the nobles and gentlemen of France flocked into his ante-chambers."

ALSO IN: E. de Monstrelet, Chronicles (Johnes' translation), volume 1, book 1, chapters 171-264.

"France divided—two kings, two regencies, two armies, two governments, two nations, two nobilities, two systems of justice—met face to face: father, son, mother, uncles, nephews, citizens, and strangers, fought for the right, the soil, the throne, the cities, the spoil and the blood of the nation. The King of England died at Vincennes [August 31, 1422], and was shortly followed [October 22] by Charles VI., father of the twelve children of Isabel, leaving the kingdom to the stranger and to ruin. The Duke of Bedford insolently took possession of the Regency in the name of England, pursued the handful of nobles who wished to remain French with the dauphin, defeated them at the battle of Verneuil [August 17, 1424], and exiled the queen, who had become a burden to the government after having been an instrument of usurpation. He then concentrated the armies of England, France and Burgundy round Orleans, which was defended by some thousands of the partisans of the dauphin, and which comprised almost all that remained of the kingdom of France. The land was everywhere ravaged by the passing and repassing of these bands—sometimes friends, sometimes enemies—driving each other on, wave after wave, like the billows of the Atlantic; ravaging crops, burning towns, dispersing, robbing, and ill-treating the population. In this disorganization of the country, the young dauphin, sometimes awakened by the complaints of his people, at others absorbed in the pleasures natural to his age, was making love to Agnes Sorel in the castle of Loches. … Such was the state of the nation when Providence showed it a savior in a child." The child was Jeanne D'Arc, or Joan of Arc, better known in history as the Maid of Orleans,—daughter of a peasant who tilled his own few acres at the village of Domrémy, in Upper Lorraine. Of the visions of the pious young maiden—of the voices she heard—of the conviction which came upon her that she was called by God to deliver her country—and of the enthusiasm of faith with which she went about her mission until all people bent to her as the messenger and minister of God—the story is a familiar one to all. In April, 1429, Joan was sent by the king, from Blois, with 10,000 or 12,000 men, to the succour of Orleans, where Dunois, the Bastard of Orleans, was in command. She reformed the army, purged it of all vile followers, and raised its confidence to that frenzied pitch which nothing can resist. On the 8th of May the English abandoned the siege and Orleans was saved. "Joan wasted no time in vain triumphs. She brought back the victorious army to the dauphin, to assist him in reconquering city after city of his kingdom. The dauphin and the queens received her as the messenger of God, who had found and recovered the lost keys of the kingdom. 'I have only another year,' she remarked, with a sad presentiment, which seemed to indicate that her victory led to the scaffold; 'I must therefore set to work at once.' She begged the dauphin to go and be crowned at Rheims, although that city and the intermediate provinces were still in the power of the Burgundians, Flemings, and English." Counsellors and generals opposed; but the sublime faith of the Maid overcame all opposition and all difficulties. The king's route to Rheims was rapidly cleared of his enemies. At Patay (June 18, 1429) the English suffered a heavy defeat and their famous soldier, Lord Talbot, was taken prisoner. Troyes, Chalons and Rheims opened their gates. "The Duke of Bedford, the regent, remained trembling in Paris. 'All our misfortunes,' he wrote to the Cardinal of Winchester, 'are owing to a young witch, who, by her sorcery, has restored the courage of the French.' … The king was crowned [July 17, 1429], and Joan's mission was accomplished. 'Noble king,' said she, embracing his knees in the Cathedral after the coronation, 'now is accomplished the will of God, which commanded me to bring you to this city of Rheims to receive your holy unction—now that you at last are king, and that the kingdom of France is yours.' … From that moment a great depression, and a fatal hesitation seem to have come over her. The king, the people, and the army, to whom she had given victory, wished her to remain always their prophetess, their guide, and their enduring miracle. But she was now only a weak woman, lost amid courts and camps, and she felt her weakness beneath her armor. Her heart alone remained courageous, but had ceased to be inspired." She urged an attack on Paris (Sept. 8, 1429) and experienced her first failure, being grievously wounded in the assault. The following spring, Compiègne being besieged, she entered the town to take part in the defence. The same evening (May 24, 1430) she led a sortie which was repulsed, and she was taken prisoner in the retreat. Some think she was betrayed by the commandant of the town, who ordered the raising of the drawbridge just as her horse was being spurred upon it. Once in the hands of her enemies, the doom of the unfortunate Maid was sealed. Sir Lionel de Ligny, her captor, gave his prisoner to the count of Luxembourg, who yielded her to the Duke of Burgundy, who surrendered her to the English, who delivered her to the Inquisition, by which she was tried, condemned and burned to death, at Rouen, as a witch (May 30, 1431). "It was a complex crime, in which each party got rid of responsibility, but in which the accusation rests with Paris [the University of Paris was foremost among the pursuers of the wonderful Maid], the cowardice with Luxembourg, the sentence with the Inquisition, the blame and punishment with England, and the disgrace and ingratitude with France. This bartering about Joan by her enemies, of whom the fiercest were her countrymen, had lasted six months. … During these six months, the influence of this goddess of war upon the troops of Charles VII.—her spirit, which still guided the camp and council of the king—the patriotic, though superstitious, veneration of the people, which her captivity only doubled,—and, lastly, the absence of the Duke of Burgundy, … all these causes had brought reverse after reverse upon the English, and a series of successes to Charles VII. Joan, although absent, triumphed everywhere."

   "It seems natural to ask what steps the King of France had
   taken … to avert her doom. If ever there had been a
   sovereign indebted to a subject, that sovereign was Charles
   VII., that subject Joan of Arc. … Yet, no sooner was she
   captive than she seems forgotten. We hear nothing of any
   attempt at rescue, of any proposal for ransom; neither the
   most common protest against her trial, nor the faintest threat
   of reprisals; nay, not even after her death, one single
   expression of regret! Charles continued to slumber in his
   delicious retreats beyond the Loire, engrossed by dames of a
   very different character from Joan's, and careless of the
   heroine to whom his security in that indolence was due. Her
   memory on the other hand was long endeared to the French
   people, and long did they continue to cherish a romantic hope
   that she might still survive.
{1177}
   So strong was this feeling, that in the year 1436 advantage
   was taken of it by a female imposter, who pretended to be Joan
   of Arc escaped from her captivity. She fixed her abode at
   Metz, and soon afterwards married a knight of good family, the
   Sire des Armoises. Strange to say, it appears from a contemporary
   chronicle, that Joan's two surviving brothers acknowledged
   this woman as their sister. Stranger still, other records
   prove that she made two visits to Orleans, one before and one
   after her marriage, and on each occasion was hailed as the
   heroine returned. … The brothers of Joan of Arc might
   possibly have hopes of profit by the fraud; but how the people
   of Orleans, who had seen her so closely, who had fought side
   by side with her in the siege, could be deceived as to the
   person, we cannot understand, nor yet what motive they could
   have in deceiving. The interest which Joan of Arc inspires at
   the present day extends even to the house where she dwelt, and
   to the family from which she sprung. Her father died of grief
   at the tidings of her execution; her mother long survived it,
   but fell into great distress. Twenty years afterwards we find
   her in receipt of a pension from the city of Orleans; three
   francs a month; 'to help her to live.' Joan's brothers and
   their issue took, the name of Du Lis from the Lily of France,
   which the King had assigned as their arms. … It will be easy
   to trace the true character of Joan. … Nowhere do modern
   annals display a character more pure—more generous—more
   humble amidst fancied visions and undoubted victories—more
   free from all taint of selfishness—more akin to the champions
   and martyrs of old times. All this is no more than justice and
   love of truth would require us to say. But when we find some
   French historians, transported by an enthusiasm almost equal
   to that of Joan herself, represent her us filling the part of
   a general or statesman—as skilful in leading armies, or
   directing councils—we must withhold our faith. Such skill,
   indeed, from a country girl, without either education or
   experience, would be, had she really possessed it, scarcely
   less supernatural than the visions which she claimed. But the
   facts are far otherwise. In affairs of state, Joan's voice was
   never heard; in affairs of war, all her proposals will be
   found to resolve themselves into two—either to rush headlong
   upon the enemy, often in the very point where he was
   strongest, or to offer frequent and public prayers to the
   Almighty. We are not aware of any single instance in which her
   military suggestions were not these, or nearly akin to these.
   … Of Joan's person no authentic resemblance now remains. A
   statue to her memory had been raised upon the bridge at
   Orleans, at the sole charge … of the matrons and maids of
   that city: this probably preserved some degree of likeness,
   but unfortunately perished in the religious wars of the
   sixteenth century. There is no portrait extant; the two
   earliest engravings are of 1606 and 1612, and they greatly
   differ."

"A few days before her death, when urged to resume her woman's dress, she said: 'When I shall have accomplished that for which I was sent from God, I will take the dress of a woman.' Yet, in one sense her mission did end at Rheims. The faith of the people still followed her, but her enemies—not the English, but those in the heart of the court of Charles—began to be too powerful for her. We may, indeed, conceive what a hoard of envy and malice was gathering in the hearts of those hardened politicians at seeing themselves superseded by a peasant girl. They, accustomed to dark and tortuous ways, could not comprehend or coalesce with the divine simplicity of her designs and means. A successful intrigue was formed against her. It was resolved to keep her still in the camp as a name and a figure, but to take from her all power, all voice in the direction of affairs. So accordingly it was done. … Her ways and habits during the year she was in arms are attested by a multitude of witnesses. Dunois and the Duke of Alençon bear testimony to what they term her extraordinary talents for war, and to her perfect fearlessness in action; but in all other things she was the most simple of creatures. She wept when she first saw men slain in battle, to think that they should have died without confession. She wept at the abominable epithets which the English heaped upon her; but she was without a trace of vindictiveness. 'Ah, Glacidas, Glacidas!' she said to Sir William Glasdale at Orleans, 'you have called me foul names; but I have pity upon your soul and the souls of your men. Surrender to the King of Heaven!' And she was once seen, resting the head of a wounded Englishman on her lap, comforting and consoling him. In her diet she was abstemious in the extreme, rarely eating until evening, and then for the most part, only of bread and water sometimes mixed with wine. In the field she slept in her armour, but when she came into a city she always sought out some honourable matron, under whose protection she placed herself; and there is wonderful evidence of the atmosphere of purity which she diffused around her, her very presence banishing from men's hearts all evil thoughts and wishes. Her conversation, when it was not of the war, was entirely of religion. She confessed often, and received communion twice in the week. 'And it was her custom,' says Dunois, 'at twilight every day, to retire to the church and make the bells be rung for half an hour, and she gathered the mendicant religious who followed the King's army, and made them sing an antiphon of the Blessed Mother of God.' From presumption, as from superstition, she was entirely free. When women brought her crosses and chaplets to bless, she said: 'How can I bless them? Your own blessing would be as good as mine.'"

   "What is to be thought of her? What is to be thought of the
   poor shepherd girl from the hills and forests of Lorraine,
   that—like the Hebrew shepherd boy from the hills and forests
   of Judea—rose suddenly out of the quiet, out of the safety,
   out of the religious inspiration, rooted in deep pastoral
   solitudes, to a station in the van of armies, and to the more
   perilous station at the right hand of kings? The Hebrew boy
   inaugurated his patriotic mission by an act, by a victorious
   act, such as no man could deny. But so did the girl of
   Lorraine, if we read her story as it was read by those who saw
   her nearest. Adverse armies bore witness to the boy as no
   pretender; but so they did to the gentle girl. Judged by the
   voices of all who saw them from a station of good-will, both
   were found true and loyal to any promises involved in their
   first acts. Enemies it was that made the difference between
   their subsequent fortunes.
{1178}
   The boy rose to a splendour, and a noonday prosperity, both
   personal and public, that rang through the records of his
   people, and became a by-word amongst his posterity for a
   thousand years, until the sceptre was departing from Judah.
   The poor, forsaken girl, on the contrary, drank not herself
   from that cup of rest which she had secured for France. …
   This pure creature—pure from every suspicion of even a
   visionary self-interest, even as she was pure in senses more
   obvious—never once did this holy child, as regarded herself,
   relax from her belief in the darkness that was travelling to
   meet her. She might not prefigure the very manner of her
   death; she saw not in vision, perhaps, the aerial altitude of
   the fiery scaffold, the spectators without end on every road
   pouring into Rouen as to a coronation, the surging smoke, the
   volleying flames, the hostile faces all around, the pitying
   eye that lurked but here and there, until nature and
   imperishable truth broke loose from artificial
   restraints;—these might not be apparent through the mists of
   the hurrying future. But the voice that called her to death,
   that she heard for ever."

A discussion of doubts that have been raised concerning the
death of Joan at the stake will be found in

"In Joan of Arc the English certainly destroyed the cause of their late reverses. But the impulse had been given, and the crime of base vengeance could not stay it. Fortune declared every where and in every way against them. In vain was Henry VI. brought to Paris, crowned at Notre Dame, and made to exercise all the functions of royalty in court and parliament. The duke of Burgundy, disgusted with the English, became at last reconciled to Charles; who spared no sacrifice to win the support of so powerful a subject. The amplest possible amends were made for the murder of the late duke. The towns beyond the Somme were ceded to Burgundy, and the reigning duke [but not his successors] was exempted from all homage towards the king of France. Such was the famous treaty of Arras [September 21, 1435], which restored to Charles his throne, and deprived the English of all hopes of retaining their conquests in the kingdom. The crimes and misrule of the Orleans faction were forgotten; popularity ebbed in favour of Charles. … One of the gates of Paris was betrayed by the citizens to the constable and Dunois [April, 1436]. Willoughby, the governor, was obliged to shut himself up in the Bastile with his garrison, from whence they retired to Rouen. Charles VII. entered his capital, after twenty years' exclusion from it, in November, 1437. Thenceforward the war lost its serious character. Charles was gradually established on his throne, and the struggle between the two nations was feebly carried on, broken merely by a few sieges and enterprises, mostly to the disadvantage of the English. … There had been frequent endeavours and conferences towards a peace between the French and English. The demands on either side proved irreconcilable. A truce was however concluded, in 1444, which lasted four years; it was sealed by the marriage of Henry VI. with Margaret of Anjou, daughter of Réné, and granddaughter of Louis, who had perished while leading an army to the conquest of Naples. … In 1449 the truce was allowed to expire. The quarrels of York and Lancaster had commenced, and England was unable to defend her foreign possessions. Normandy was invaded. The gallant Talbot could not preserve Rouen with a disaffected population, and Charles recovered without loss of blood [1449] the second capital of his dominions. The only blow struck by the English for the preservation of Normandy was at Fourmigny near Bayeux. … Normandy was for ever lost to the English after this action or skirmish. The following year Guyenne was invaded by the count de Dunois. He met with no resistance. The great towns at that day had grown wealthy, and their maxim was to avoid a siege at all hazards." Lord Talbot was killed in an engagement at Castillon (1450), and "with that hero expired the last hopes of his country in regard to France. Guyenne was lost [A. D. 1453] as well as Normandy, and Calais remained to England the only fruit of so much blood spilt and so many victories achieved."

E. de Monstrelet, Chronicles (Johnes' translation), book 2, chapter 109, book 3, chapter 65.

FRANCE: A. D. 1438.
   Pragmatic Sanction of Charles VII.
   Reforming decrees of the Council of Basel adopted for the
   Gallican church.

After the rupture between the reforming Council of Basel and Pope Eugenius IV. (see PAPACY: A. D. 1431-1448), Charles VII. of France "determined to adopt in his own kingdom such of the decrees of the Council as were for his advantage, seeing that no opposition could be made by the Pope. Accordingly a Synod was summoned at Bourges on May 1, 1438. The embassadors of Pope and Council urged their respective causes. It was agreed that the King should write to Pope and Council to stay their hands in proceeding against one another; meanwhile, that the reformation be not lost, some of the Basel decrees should be maintained in France by royal authority. The results of the synod's deliberation were laid before the King, and on July 7 were made binding as a pragmatic sanction on the French Church. The Pragmatic Sanction enacted that General Councils were to be held every ten years, and recognised the authority of the Council of Basel. The Pope was no longer to reserve any of the greater ecclesiastical appointments, but elections were to be duly made by the rightful patrons. Grants to benefices in expectancy, 'whence all agree that many evils arise,' were to cease, as well as reservations. In all cathedral churches, one prebend was to be given to a theologian who had studied for ten years in a university, and who was to lecture or preach at least once a week. Benefices were to be conferred in future, one-third on graduates, two-thirds on deserving clergy. Appeals to Rome, except for important causes, were forbidden. The number of Cardinals was to be 24, each of the age of 30 at least. Annates and first-fruits were no longer to be paid to the Pope, but only the necessary legal fees on institution. Regulations were made for greater reverence in the conduct of Divine service; prayers were to be said by the priest in an audible voice; mummeries in churches were forbidden, and clerical concubinage was to be punished by suspension for three months. Such were the chief reforms of its own special grievances, which France wished to establish. It was the first step in the assertion of the rights of national Churches to arrange for themselves the details of their own ecclesiastical organisation."

      M. Creighton,
      History of the Papacy during the Period of the Reformation,
      book 3, chapter 9 (volume 2).

FRANCE: A. D. 1447.
Origin of the claims of the house of Orleans to the duchy of
Milan.

FRANCE: A. D. 1453-1461.
The reconstructed kingdom.
The new plant of Absolutism.

"At the expulsion of the English, France emerged from the chaos with an altered character and new features of government. The royal authority and supreme jurisdiction of the parliament were universally recognised. Yet there was a tendency towards insubordination left among the great nobility, arising in part from the remains of old feudal privileges, but still more from that lax administration which, in the convulsive struggles of the war, had been suffered to prevail. In the south were some considerable vassals, the houses of Foix, Albret, and Armagnac, who, on account of their distance from the seat of empire, had always maintained a very independent conduct. The dukes of Britany and Burgundy were of a more formidable character, and might rather be ranked among foreign powers than privileged subjects. The princes, too, of the royal blood, who, during the late reign, had learned to partake or contend for the management, were ill-inclined towards Charles VII., himself jealous, from old recollections of their ascendancy. They saw that the constitution was verging rapidly towards an absolute monarchy, from the direction of which they would studiously be excluded. This apprehension gave rise to several attempts at rebellion during the reign of Charles VII., and to the war, commonly entitled, for the Public Weal ('du bien public'), under Louis XI. Among the pretenses alleged by the revolters in each of these, the injuries of the people were not forgotten; but from the people they received small support. Weary of civil dissension, and anxious for a strong government to secure them from depredation, the French had no inducement to intrust even their real grievances to a few malcontent princes, whose regard for the common good they had much reason to distrust. Every circumstance favoured Charles VII. and his son in the attainment of arbitrary power. The country was pillaged by military ruffians. Some of these had been led by the dauphin to a war in Germany, but the remainder still infested the high roads and villages. Charles established his companies of ordonnance, the basis of the French regular army, in order to protect the country from such depredators. They consisted of about nine thousand soldiers, all cavalry, of whom fifteen hundred were heavy-armed; a force not very considerable, but the first, except mere body-guards, which had been raised in any part of Europe as a national standing army. These troops were paid out of the produce of a permanent tax, called the taille; an innovation still more important than the former. But the present benefit cheating the people, now prone to submissive habits, little or no opposition was made, except in Guienne, the inhabitants of which had speedy reason to regret the mild government of England, and vainly endeavoured to return to its protection. It was not long before the new despotism exhibited itself in its harshest character. Louis XI., son of Charles VII., who during his father's reign, had been connected with the discontented princes, came to the throne greatly endowed with those virtues and vices which conspire to the success of a king."

FRANCE: A. D. 1458-1461.
Renewed submission of Genoa to the King, and renewed revolt.

FRANCE: A. D. 1461.
Accession of King Louis XI.
Contemporary portrait of him by Commines.

"Of all the princes that I ever knew, the wisest and most dexterous to extricate himself out of any danger or difficulty in time of adversity, was our master King Louis XI. He was the humblest in his conversation and habit, and the most painful and indefatigable to win over any man to his side that he thought capable of doing him either mischief or service: though he was often refused, he would never give over a man that he wished to gain, but still pressed and continued his insinuations, promising him largely, and presenting him with such sums and honours as he knew would gratify his ambition; and for such as he had discarded in time of peace and prosperity, he paid dear (when he had occasion for them) to recover them again; but when he had once reconciled them, he retained no enmity towards them for what had passed, but employed them freely for the future. He was naturally kind and indulgent to persons of mean estate, and hostile to all great men who had no need of him. Never prince was so conversable, nor so inquisitive as he, for his desire was to know everybody he could; and indeed he knew all persons of any authority or worth in England, Spain, Portugal and Italy, in the territories of the Dukes of Burgundy and Bretagne, and among his own subjects; and by those qualities he preserved the crown upon his head, which was in much danger by the enemies he had created to himself upon his accession to the throne. But above all, his great bounty and liberality did him the greatest service: and yet, as he behaved himself wisely in time of distress, so when he thought himself a little out of danger, though it were but by a truce, he would disoblige the servants and officers of his court by mean and petty ways, which were little to his advantage; and as for peace, he could hardly endure the thoughts of it. He spoke slightingly of most people, and rather before their faces, than behind their backs, unless he was afraid of them, and of that sort there were a great many, for he was naturally somewhat timorous. When he had done himself any prejudice by his talk, or was apprehensive he should do so, and wished to make amends, he would say to the person whom he had disobliged, 'I am sensible my tongue has done me a great deal of mischief; but, on the other hand, it has sometimes done me much good; however, it is but reason I should make some reparation for the injury.' And he never used this kind of apologies to any person, but he granted some favour to the person to whom he made it, and it was always of considerable amount. It is certainly a great blessing from God upon any prince to have experienced adversity as well as prosperity, good as well as evil, and especially if the good outweighs the evil, as it did in the king our master. {1180} I am of opinion that the troubles he was involved in, in his youth, when he fled from his father, and resided six years together with Philip Duke of Burgundy, were of great service to him; for there he learned to be complaisant to such as he had occasion to use, which was no slight advantage of adversity. As soon as he found himself a powerful and crowned king, his mind was wholly bent upon revenge; but he quickly found the inconvenience of this, repented by degrees of his indiscretion, and made sufficient reparation for his folly and error, by regaining those he had injured, as shall be related hereafter. Besides, I am very confident that if his education had not been different from the usual education of such nobles as I have seen in France, he could not so easily have worked himself out of his troubles; for they are brought up to nothing but to make themselves ridiculous, both in their clothes and discourse; they have no knowledge of letters; no wise man is suffered to come near them, to improve their understandings; they have governors who manage their business, but they do nothing themselves."—Such is the account of Louis XI. which Philip de Commines gives in one of the early chapters of his delightful Memoirs. In a later chapter he tells naively of the king's suspicions and fears, and of what he suffered, at the end of his life, as the penalty of his cruel and crafty dealings with his subjects: "Some five or six months before his death, he began to suspect everybody, especially those who were most capable and deserving of the administration of affairs. He was afraid of his son, and caused him to be kept close, so that no man saw or discoursed with him, but by his special command. At last he grew suspicious of his daughter, and of his son-in-law the Duke of Bourbon, and required an account of what persons came to speak with them at Plessis, and broke up a council which the Duke of Bourbon was holding there, by his order. … Behold, then, if he had caused many to live under him in continual fear and apprehension, whether it was not returned to him again; for of whom could he be secure when he was afraid of his son-in-law, his daughter, and his own son? I speak this not only of him, but of all other princes who desire to be feared, that vengeance never falls on them till they grow old, and then, as a just penance, they are afraid of everybody themselves; and what grief must it have been to this poor King to be tormented with such terrors and passions? He was still attended by his physician, Master James Coctier, to whom in five months' time he had given fifty-four thousand crowns in ready money, besides the bishopric of Amiens for his nephew, and other great offices and estates for himself and his friends; yet this doctor used him very roughly indeed; one would not have given such outrageous language to one's servants as he gave the King, who stood in such awe of him, that he durst not forbid him his presence. It is true he complained of his impudence afterwards, but he durst not change him as he had done all the rest of his servants; because he had told him after a most audacious manner one day, 'I know well that some time or other you will dismiss me from court, as you have done the rest; but be sure (and he confirmed it with a great oath) you shall not live eight days after it'; with which expression the King was so terrified, that ever after he did nothing but flatter and bribe him, which must needs have been a great mortification to a prince who had been humbly obeyed all his life by so many good and brave men. The King had ordered several cruel prisons to be made; some were cages of iron, and some of wood, but all were covered with iron plates both within and without, with terrible locks, about eight feet wide and seven high; the first contriver of them was the Bishop of Verdun, who was immediately put in the first of them that was made, where he continued fourteen years. Many bitter curses he has had since for his invention, and some from me as I lay in one of them eight months together in the minority of our present King. He also ordered heavy and terrible fetters to be made in Germany, and particularly a certain ring for the feet, which was extremely hard to be opened, and fitted like an iron collar, with a thick weighty chain, and a great globe of iron at the end of it, most unreasonably heavy, which engines were called the King's Nets. … As in his time this barbarous variety of prisons was invented, so before he died he himself was in greater torment, and more terrible apprehension than those whom he had imprisoned; which I look upon as a great mercy towards him, and as it part of his purgatory; and I have mentioned it here to show that there is no person, of what station or dignity soever, but suffers some time or other, either publicly or privately, especially if he has caused other people to suffer. The King, towards the latter end of his days, caused his castle of Plessis-les-Tours to be encompassed with great bars of iron in the form of thick grating, and at the four corners of the house four sparrow-nests of iron, strong, massy, and thick, were built. The grates were without the wall on the other side of the ditch, and sank to the bottom. Several spikes of iron were fastened into the wall, set as thick by one another as was possible, and each furnished with three or four points. He likewise placed ten bow-men in the ditches, to shoot at any man that durst approach the castle before the opening of the gates; and he ordered they should lie in the ditches, but retire to the sparrow-nests upon occasion. He was sensible enough that this fortification was too weak to keep out an army, or any great body of men, but he had no fear of such an attack; his great apprehension was, that some of the nobility of his kingdom, having intelligence within, might attempt to make themselves masters of the castle by night. … Is it possible then to keep a prince (with any regard to his quality) in a closer prison than he kept himself? The cages which were made for other people were about eight feet square; and he (though so great a monarch) had but a small court of the castle to walk in, and seldom made use of that, but generally kept himself in the gallery, out of which he went into the chambers on his way to mass, but never passed through the court. … I have not recorded these things merely to represent our master as a suspicious and mistrustful prince; but to show, that by the patience which he expressed in his sufferings (like those which he inflicted on other people), they may be looked upon, in my judgment, as a punishment which our Lord inflicted upon him in this world, in order to deal more mercifully with him in the next, as well in regard to those things before-mentioned as to the distempers of his body, which were great and painful, and much dreaded by him before they came upon him; and, likewise, that those princes who may be his successors, may learn by his example to be more tender and indulgent to their subjects, and less severe in their punishments than our master had been: although I will not censure him, or say I ever saw a better prince; for though he oppressed his subjects himself he would never see them injured by anybody else."

FRANCE: A. D. 1461-1468.
The character and reign of Louis XI.
The League of the Public Weal.

"Except St. Louis, he [Louis XI.] was the first, as, indeed (with the solitary exception of Louis Philippe), he is still the only king of France whose mind was ever prepared for the duties of that high station by any course of severe and systematic study. Before he ascended the throne of his ancestors he had profoundly meditated the great Italian authors, and the institutions and maxims of the Italian republics. From those lessons he had derived a low esteem of his fellowmen, and especially of those among them upon whom wealth, and rank, and power had descended as an hereditary birthright. … He clearly understood, and pursued with inflexible steadfastness of purpose the elevation of his country and the grandeur of his own royal house and lineage; but he pursued them with a torpid imagination, a cold heart, and a ruthless will. He regarded mankind as a physiologist contemplates the living subjects of his science, or as a chess-player surveys the pieces on his board. … It has been said of Louis XI., that the appearance of the men of the Revolution of 1789 first made him intelligible. … Louis was the first of the terrible Ideologists of France—of that class of men who, to enthrone an idolized idea, will offer whole hecatombs of human sacrifices at the shrine of their idol. The Idea of Louis was that of levelling all powers in the state, in order that the administration of the affairs, the possession of the wealth, and the enjoyment of the honours of his kingdom might be grasped by himself and his successors as their solitary and unrivalled dominion. … Before his accession to the throne, all the great fiefs into which France had been divided under the earlier Capetian kings had, with the exception of Bretagne, been either annexed to the royal domain, or reduced to a state of dependence on the crown. But, under the name of Apanages, these ancient divisions of the kingdom into separate principalities had reappeared. The territorial feudalism of the Middle Ages seemed to be reviving in the persons of the younger branches of the royal house. The Dukes of Burgundy had thus become the rulers of a state [see BURGUNDY: A. D. 1467] which, under the government of more politic princes, might readily, in fulfillment of their desires, have attained the rank of an independent kingdom. The Duke of Bretagne, still asserting the peculiar privileges of his duchy, was rather an ally than a subject of the king of France. Charles, Duke of Berri, the brother of Louis, aspired to the possession of the same advantages. And these three great territorial potentates, in alliance with the Duc de Bourbon and the Comte de St. Pol, the brothers-in-law of Louis and of his queen, united together to form that confederacy against him to which they gave the very inappropriate title of La Ligue du Bien Public. It was, however, a title which recognized the growing strength of the Tiers Étât, and of that public opinion to which the Tiers Étât at once gave utterance and imparted authority. Selfish ambition was thus compelled to assume the mask of patriotism. The princes veiled their insatiable appetite for their own personal advantages under the popular and plausible demands of administrative reforms—of the reduction of imposts—of the government of the people by their representatives—and, consequently, of the convocation of the States-General. To these pretensions Louis was unable to make any effectual resistance." An indecisive but bloody battle was fought at Montlehery, near Paris (July 16, 1465), from which both armies retreated with every appearance of defeat. The capital was besieged ineffectually for some weeks by the League; then the king yielded, or seemed to do so, and the Treaty of Conflans was signed. "He assented, in terms at least, to all the demands of his antagonists. He granted to the Duke of Berri the duchy of Normandy as an apanage transmissible in perpetuity to his male heirs. … The confederates then laid down their arms. The wily monarch bided his time. He had bestowed on them advantages which he well knew would destroy their popularity and so subvert the basis of their power, and which he also knew the state of public opinion would not allow them to retain. To wrest those advantages from their hands, it was only necessary to comply with their last stipulation, and to convene the States-General. They met accordingly, at Tours, on the 6th of April, 1468." As Louis had anticipated—or, rather, as he had planned—the States-General cancelled the grant of Normandy to the Duke of Berri (which the king had been able already to recover possession of, owing to quarrels between the dukes of Berri and Brittany) and, generally, took away from the princes of the League nearly all that they had extorted in the Treaty of Conflans. On the express invitation of the king they appointed a commission to reform abuses in the government—which commission "attempted little and effected nothing"—and, then, having assisted the cunning king to overcome his threatening nobles, the States-General were dissolved, to meet no more while Louis XI. occupied the throne. In a desperate situation he had used the dangerous weapon against his enemies with effect; he was too prudent to draw it from the sheath a second time.

"The career of Louis XI. presents a curious problem. How could a ruler whose morality fell below that of Jonathan Wild yet achieve some of the greatest permanent results of patriotic statesmanship, and be esteemed not only by himself but by so calm an observer as Commines the model of kingly virtue? As to Louis's moral character and principles, or want of principle, not a doubt can be entertained. To say he committed the acts of a villain is to fall far short of the truth. … He possessed a kind of religious belief, but it was a species of religion which a respectable heathen would have scorned. He attempted to bribe heaven, or rather the saints, just as he attempted to win over his Swiss allies—that is, by gifts of money. … Yet this man, who was daunted by no cruelty, and who could be bound by no oath save one, did work which all statesmen must admire, and which French patriots must fervently approve. {1182} He was the creator of modern France. When he came to the throne it seemed more than likely that an utterly selfish and treacherous nobility would tear the country in pieces. The English still threatened to repeat the horrors of their invasions. The House of Burgundy overbalanced the power of the crown, and stimulated lawlessness throughout the whole country. The peasantry were miserably oppressed, and the middle classes could not prosper for want of that rule of law which is the first requisite for civilization. When Louis died, the existence of France and the power of the French crown was secured: 'He had extended the frontiers of his kingdom; Picardy, Provence, Burgundy, Anjou, Maine, Roussillon had been compelled to acknowledge the immediate authority of the crown.' He had crushed the feudal oligarchy; he had seen his most dangerous enemy destroyed by the resistance of the Swiss; he had baffled the attempt to construct a state which would have imperilled the national existence of France; he had put an end to all risk of English invasion; and he left France the most powerful country in Europe. Her internal government was no doubt oppressive, but, at any rate, it secured the rule of law; and his schemes for her benefit were still unfinished. He died regretting that he could not carry out his plans for the reform of the law and for the protection of commerce; and, in the opinion of Commines, if God had granted him the grace of living five or six years more, he would greatly have benefited his realm. He died commending his soul to the intercession of the Virgin, and the last words caught from his lips were: 'Lord, in thee have I trusted; let me never be confounded.' Nor should this be taken as the expression of hopeless self-delusion or gratuitous hypocrisy. In the opinion of Commines, uttered after the king's death, 'he was more wise, more liberal, and more virtuous in all things than any contemporary sovereign.' The expressions of Commines were, it may be said, but the echo of the low moral tone of the age. This, no doubt, is true; but the fact that the age did not condemn acts which, taken alone, seem to argue the utmost depravity, still needs explanation. The matter is the more worthy of consideration because Louis represents, though in an exaggerated form, the vices and virtues of a special body of rulers. He was the incarnation, so to speak, of kingcraft. The word and the idea it represents have now become out of date, but for about two centuries—say, roughly, from the middle of the seventeenth century—the idea of a great king was that of a monarch who ruled by means of cunning, intrigue, and disregard of ordinary moral rules. We here come across the fact which explains both the career and the reputation of Louis and of others, such as Henry VII. of England, who were masters of kingcraft. The universal feeling of the time, shared by subjects no less than by rulers, was that a king was not bound by the rules of morality, and especially by the rules of honesty, which bind other men. Until you realize this fact, nothing is more incomprehensible than the adulation lavished by men such as Bacon or Casaubon on a ruler such as James I. … The real puzzle is to ascertain how this feeling that kings were above the moral law came into existence. The facts of history afford the necessary explanation. When the modern European world was falling into shape the one thing required for national prosperity was the growth of a power which might check the disorders of the feudal nobility, and secure for the mass of the people the blessings of an orderly government. The only power which, in most cases, could achieve this end, was the crown. In England the monarchs put an end to the wars of the nobility. In France the growth of the monarchy secured not only internal quiet, but protection from external invasion. In these and in other cases the interest of the crown and the interest of the people became for a time identical. … Acts which would have seemed villainous when done to promote a purely private interest, became mere devices of statesmanship when performed in the interest of the public. The maxims that the king can do no wrong, and that the safety of the people is the highest law, blended together in the minds of ambitious rulers. The result was the production of men like Louis XI."

"A careful examination of the reign of Louis the Eleventh has particularly impressed upon me one fact, that the ends for which he toiled and sinned throughout his whole life were attained at last rather by circumstances than by his labours. The supreme object of all his schemes was to crush that most formidable of all his foes, Burgundy. And yet had Charles confined his ambition within reasonable limits, had he possessed an ordinary share of statecraft, and, above all, could he have controlled those fiery passions, which drove him to the verge of madness, he would have won the game quite easily. Louis lacked one of the essential qualities of statecraft—patience; and was wholly destitute of that necessity of ambition—boldness. An irritable restlessness was one of the salient points of his character. His courtiers and attendants were ever intriguing to embroil him in war, 'because,' says Comines, 'the nature of the King was such, that unless he was at war with some foreign prince, he would certainly find some quarrel or other at home with his servants, domestics, or officers, for his mind must be always working.' His mood was ever changing, and he was by turns confiding, suspicious, avaricious, prodigal, audacious, and timid. He frequently nullified his most crafty schemes by impatience for the result. He would sow the seed with the utmost care, but he could not wait for the fructification. In this he was false to the practice of those Italian statesmen who were avowedly his models. It was this irritable restlessness which brought down upon him the hatred of all classes, from the noble to the serf; for we find him at one time cunningly bidding for popularity, and immediately afterwards destroying all he had gained by some rash and inconsiderate act. His extreme timidity hampered the execution of all his plans. He had not even the boldness of the coward who will fight when all the strength is on his own side. Constantly at war, during a reign of twenty-two years there were fought but two battles, Montlehéry and Guingette, both of which, strange to say, were undecided, and both of which were fought against his will and counsel. … He left France larger by one-fourth than he had inherited it; but out of the five provinces which he acquired, Provence was bequeathed him, Roussillon was pawned to him by the usurping King of Navarre, and Burgundy was won for him by the Swiss. His triumphs were much more the result of fortune than the efforts of his own genius."

FRANCE: A. D. 1467-1477.
The troubles of Louis XI. with Charles the Bold, of Burgundy.
Death of the Duke and Louis' acquisition of Burgundy.

Louis XI., who died Aug. 30, A. D. 1483, "had joined to the crown Berry, the apanage of his brother, Provence, the duchy of Burgundy, Anjou, Maine, Ponthieu, the counties of Auxerre, of Mâcon, Charolais, the Free County, Artois, Marche, Armagnac, Cerdagne, and Roussilon. … The seven latter provinces did not yet remain irrevocably united with France: one part was given anew in apanage, and the other part restored to foreign sovereigns, and only returned one by one to the crown of France. … The principal work of Louis XI. was the abasement of the second feudality, which had raised itself on the ruins of the first, and which, without him, would have replunged France into anarchy. The chiefs of that feudality were, however, more formidable, since, for the most part, they belonged to the blood royal of France. Their powerful houses, which possessed at the accession of that prince a considerable part of the kingdom, were those of Orleans, Anjou, Burgundy, and Bourbon. They found themselves much weakened at his death, and dispossessed in great part, as we have seen in the history of the reign, by confiscations, treaties, gifts or heritages. By the side of these houses, which issued from that of France, there were others whose power extended still, at this period, in the limits of France proper, over vast domains. Those of Luxembourg and La Mark possessed great wealth upon the frontier of the north; that of Vaudemont had inherited Lorraine and the duchy of Bar; the house of La Tour was powerful in Auvergne; in the south the houses of Foix and Albert ruled, the first in the valley of Ariége, the second between the Adour and the Pyrenees. In the west the house of Brittany had guarded its independence; but the moment approached when this beautiful province was to be forever united with the crown. Lastly, two foreign sovereigns held possessions in France; the Pope had Avignon and the county Venaissin; and the Duke of Savoy possessed, between the Rhone and the Saône, Bugey and Valromey. The time was still distant when the royal authority would be seen freely exercised through every territory comprised in the natural limits of the kingdom. But Louis XI. did much to attain this aim, and after him no princely or vassal house was powerful enough to resist the crown by its own forces, and to put the throne in peril."

Charles VIII., son and successor of Louis XI., came to the throne at the age of thirteen, on the death of his father in 1483. His eldest sister, Anne, married to the Lord of Beaujeu, made herself practically regent of the kingdom, by sheer ability and force of character; and ruled during the minority, pursuing the lines of her father's policy. The princes of the blood-royal, with the Dukes of Orleans and Bourbon at their head, formed a league against her. They were supported by many nobles, including Philip de Commines, the Count of Dunois and the Prince of Orange. They also received aid from the Duke of Brittany, and from Maximilian of Austria, who now controlled the Netherlands. Anne's general, La Trémouille, defeated the league in a decisive battle (A. D. 1487) near St. Aubin du Cormier, where the Duke of Orleans, the Prince of Orange, and many nobles and knights were made prisoners. The Duke and the Prince were sent to Anne, who shut them up in strong places, while most of their companions were summarily executed.

FRANCE: A. D. 1491.
Brittany, the last of the great fiefs, united to the crown.
The end of the Feudal System.

FRANCE: A. D. 1492-1515.
   The reigns of Charles VIII. and Louis XII.
   Their Italian Expeditions and Wars.
   The effects on France.
   Beginning of the Renaissance.

   Louis XI. was succeeded by his son, Charles VIII., a boy of
   thirteen years, whose elder sister Anne governed the kingdom
   ably until he came of age. She dealt firmly with a rebellion
   of the nobles and suppressed it. She frustrated an intended
   marriage of Anne of Brittany with Maximilian of Austria, which
   would have drawn the last of the great semi-independent fiefs
   into a dangerous relationship, and she made Charles instead of
   his rival the husband of the Breton heiress. When Charles, who
   had little intelligence, assumed the government, he was
   excited with dreams of making good the pretensions of the
   Second House of Anjou to the Kingdom of Naples. Those
   pretensions, which had been bequeathed to Louis XI., and which
   Charles VIII. had now inherited, had the following origin: "In
   the eleventh century, Robert Guiscard, of the Norman family of
   Hauteville, at the head of a band of adventurers, took
   possession of Sicily and South Italy, then in a state of
   complete anarchy. Roger, the son of Robert, founded the
   Kingdom of the Two Sicilies under the Pope's suzerainty. In
   1189 the Guiscard family became extinct, whereupon the German
   Emperor laid claim to the kingdom in right of his wife
   Constance, daughter of one of the Norman kings. The Roman
   Pontiffs, dreading such powerful neighbours, were adverse to
   the arrangement, and in 1254 King Conrad, being succeeded by
   his son Conradin, still a minor, furnished a pretext for
   bestowing the crown of the Two Sicilies on Charles d' Anjou,
   brother of St. Louis. Manfred, guardian of the boy Conradin,
   and a natural son of the Emperor Frederick II., raised an army
   against Charles d' Anjou, but was defeated, and fell in the
   encounter of 1266. Two years later, Prince Conradin was
   cruelly beheaded in Naples. Before his death, however, he made
   a will, by which he invested Peter III. of Aragon, son-in-law
   of Manfred, with full power over the Two Sicilies, exhorting
   him to avenge his death [see ITALY: A. D. 1250-1268].
{1184}
   This bequest was the origin of the rivalry between the houses
   of Aragon and Anjou, a rivalry which developed into open
   antagonism when the island of Sicily was given up to Peter of
   Aragon and his descendants, while Charles d' Anjou still held
   Naples for himself and his heirs [see ITALY: A. D. 1282-1300].
   In 1435 Joan II., Queen of Naples, bequeathed her estates to
   Alfonso V. of Aragon, surnamed the Magnanimous, to the
   exclusion of Louis III. of Anjou. After a long and bloody
   struggle, Alfonso succeeded in driving the Anjou dynasty out
   of Naples [see ITALY: A. D. 1343-1389, and 1386-1414]. Louis
   III. was the last representative of this once-powerful family.
   He returned to France, survived his defeat two-and-twenty
   years, and by his will left all his rights to the Count of
   Maine, his nephew, who, on his death, transferred them to
   Louis XI. The wily Louis was not tempted to claim this
   worthless legacy. His successor, Charles VIII., less
   matter-of-fact, and more romantic, was beguiled into a series
   of brilliant, though sterile, expeditions, disastrous to
   national interests, neglecting the Flemish provinces, the
   liege vassals of France, and thoroughly French at heart.
   Charles VIII. put himself at the head of his nobles, made a
   triumphal entry into Naples and returned without having gained
   an inch of territory [see ITALY: A. D. 1492-1494, and 1494-1496].
   De Commines judges the whole affair a mystery; it was,
   in fact, one of those dazzling and chivalrous adventures with
   which the French delighted to astonish Europe. Louis XII.,
   like Charles VIII. [whom he succeeded in 1498], proclaimed his
   right to Naples, and also to the Duchy of Milan, inherited
   from his grandmother, Valentine de Visconti. These pretended
   rights were more than doubtful. The Emperor Wenceslas, on
   conferring the duchy on the Viscontis, excluded women from the
   inheritance, and both Louis XI. and Charles VIII. recognised
   the validity of the Salic law in Milan by concluding an
   alliance with the Sforzas. The seventeen years of Louis XII.'s
   reign was absorbed in these Italian wars, in which the French
   invariably began by victory, and as invariably ended in
   defeat. The League of Cambrai, the Battles of Agnadel,
   Ravenna, Novara, the Treaties of Grenada and Blois, are the
   principal episodes of this unlucky campaign."

"The warriors of France came back from Italy with the wonders of the South on their lips and her treasures in their hands. They brought with them books and paintings, they brought with them armour inlaid with gold and silver, tapestries enriched with precious metals, embroidered clothing, and even household furniture. Distributed by many hands in many different places, each precious thing became a separate centre of initiative power. The châteaux of the country nobles boasted the treasures which had fallen to the share of their lords at Genoa or at Naples; and the great women of the court were eager to divide the spoil. The contagion spread rapidly. Even in the most fantastic moment of Gothic inspiration, the French artist gave evidence that his right hand obeyed a national instinct for order, for balance, for completeness, and that his eye preferred, in obedience to a national predilection, the most refined harmonies of colour. Step by step he had been feeling his way; now, the broken link of tradition was again made fast; the workmen of Paris and the workmen of Athens joined hands, united by the genius of Italy. It must not, however, be supposed that no intercourse had previously existed between France and Italy. The roads by Narbonne and Lyons were worn by many feet. The artists of Tours and Poitiers, the artists of Paris and Dijon, were alike familiar with the path to Rome. But an intercourse, hitherto restricted, was rendered by the wars of Charles VIII. all but universal. … Cruelly as the Italians had suffered at the hands of Charles VIII. they still looked to France for help; they knew that though they had been injured they had not been betrayed. But the weak and generous impulses of Charles VIII. found no place in the councils of his successors. … The doom of Italy was pronounced. Substantially the compact was this. Aided by Borgia, the French were to destroy the free cities of the north, and in return France was to aid Borgia in breaking the power of the independent nobles who yet resisted Papal aggression in the south. In July 1499 the work began. At first the Italians failed to realise what had taken place. When the French army entered the Milanese territory the inhabitants fraternised with the troops, Milan, Genoa, Pavia opened their gates with joy. But in a few months the course of events, in the south, aroused a dread anxiety. There, Borgia, under the protection of the French king, and with the assistance of the French arms, was triumphantly glutting his brutal rage and lust, whilst Frenchmen were forced to look on helpless and indignant. Milan, justly terrified, made an attempt to throw herself on the mercy of her old ruler. To no purpose. Louis went back over the Alps, leaving a strong hand and a strong garrison in Milan, and dragging with him the unfortunate Louis Sforza, a miserable proof of the final destruction of the most brilliant court of Upper Italy. … By the campaign of 1507, the work, thus begun, was consummated. The ancient spirit of independence still lingered in Genoa, and Venice was not yet crushed. There were still fresh laurels to be won. In this Holy War the Pope and the Emperor willingly joined forces with France. … The deathblow was first given to Genoa. She was forced, Marot tells us, 'la corde au coul, la glaive sous la gorge, implorer la clémence de ce prince.' Venice was next traitorously surprised and irreparably injured. Having thus brilliantly achieved the task of first destroying the lettered courts, and next the free cities of Italy, Louis died, bequeathing to François I. the shame of fighting out a hopeless struggle for supremacy against allies who, no longer needing help, had combined to drive the French from the field. There was, indeed, one other duty to be performed. The shattered remains of Italian civilisation might be collected, and Paris might receive the men whom Italy could no longer employ. The French returned to France empty of honour, gorged with plunder, satiated with rape and rapine, boasting of cities sacked, and garrisons put to the sword. They had sucked the lifeblood of Italy, but her death brought new life to France. The impetus thus acquired by art and letters coincided with a change in political and social constitutions. The gradual process of centralisation which had begun with Louis XI. transformed the life of the whole nation. … The royal court began to take proportions hitherto unknown. {1185} It gradually became a centre which gathered together the rich, the learned, and the skilled. Artists, who had previously been limited in training, isolated in life, and narrowed in activity by the rigid conservative action of the great guilds and corporations, were thus brought into immediate contact with the best culture of their day. For the Humanists did not form a class apart, and their example incited those with whom they lived to effort after attainments as varied as their own, whilst the Court made a rallying point for all, which gave a sense of countenance and protection even to those who might never hope to enter it. … Emancipation of the individual is the watchword of the sixteenth century; to the artist it brought relief from the trammels of a caste thraldom, and the ceaseless efforts of the Humanists find an answer even in the new forms seen slowly breaking through the sheath of Gothic art."

"The first point of difference to be noted between the Renaissance in France and the Renaissance in Italy is one of time. Roughly speaking it may be said that France was a hundred years behind Italy. … But if the French Renaissance was a later and less rapid growth, it was infinitely hardier. The Renaissance literature in Italy was succeeded by a long period of darkness, which remained unbroken, save by fitful gleams of light, till the days of Alfieri. The Renaissance literature in France was the prelude to a literature, which, for vigour, variety, and average excellence, has in modern times rarely, if ever, been surpassed. The reason for this superiority on the part of France, for the fact that the Renaissance produced there more abiding and more far-reaching results, may be ascribed partly to the natural law that precocious and rapid growths are always less hardy than later and more gradual ones, partly to the character of the French nation, to its being at once more intellectual and less imaginative than the Italian, and therefore more influenced by the spirit of free inquiry than by the worship of beauty; partly to the greater unity and vitality of its political life, but in a large measure to the fact that in France the Renaissance came hand in hand with the Reformation. … We must look upon the Reformation as but a fresh development of the Renaissance movement, as the result of the spirit of free inquiry carried into theology, as a revolt against the authority of the Roman Church. Now the Renaissance in Italy preceded the Reformation by more than a century. There is no trace in it of any desire to criticise the received theology. … In France on the other hand the new learning and the new religion, Greek and heresy, became almost controvertible terms. Lefèvre d' Étaples, the doyen of French humanists, translated the New Testament into French in 1524: the Estiennes, the Hebrew scholar François Vatable, Turnèbe, Ramus, the great surgeon Ambroise Paré, the artists Bernard Palissy and Jean Goujon were all avowed protestants; while Clement Marot, Budé, and above all Rabelais, for a time at least, looked on the reformation with more or less favour. In fact so long as the movement appeared to them merely as a revolt against the narrowness and illiberality of monastic theology, as an assertion of the freedom of the human intellect, the men of letters and culture with hardly an exception joined hands with the reformers. It was only when they found that it implied a moral as well as an intellectual regeneration, that it began to wear for some of them a less congenial aspect. This close connexion between the Reformation and the revival of learning was, on the whole, a great gain to France. It was not as in Germany, where the stronger growth of the Reformation completely choked the other. In France they met on almost equal terms, and the result was that the whole movement was thereby strengthened and elevated both intellectually and morally. … French humanism can boast of a long roll of names honourable not only for their high attainments, but also for their integrity and purity of life. Robert Estienne, Turnèbe, Ramus, Cujas, the Chancellor de l'Hôpital, Estienne Pasquier, Thou, are men whom any country would be proud to claim for her sons. And as with the humanists, so it was with the Renaissance generally in France. On the whole it was a manly and intelligent movement. … The literature of the French Renaissance, though in point of form it is far below that of the Italian Renaissance, in manliness and vigour and hopefulness is far superior to it. It is in short a literature, not of maturity, but of promise. One has only to compare its greatest name, Rabelais, with the greatest name of the Italian Renaissance, Ariosto, to see the difference. How formless! how crude! how gross! how full of cumbersome details and wearisome repetitions is Rabelais! How limpid! how harmonious is Ariosto! what perfection of style, what delicacy of touch! He never wearies us, he never offends our taste. And yet one rises from the reading of Rabelais with a feeling of buoyant cheerfulness, while Ariosto in spite of his wit and gaiety is inexpressibly depressing. The reason is that the one bids us hope, the other bids us despair; the one believes in truth and goodness and in the future of the human race, the other believes in nothing but the pleasures of the senses, which come and go like many-coloured bubbles and leave behind them a boundless ennui. Rabelais and Ariosto are true types of the Renaissance as it appeared in their respective countries."

FRANCE: A. D. 1501-1504.
   Treaty of Louis XII. with Ferdinand of Aragon for the
   partition of Naples.
   French and Spanish conquest.
   Quarrel of the confederates, and war.
   The Spaniards in possession of the Neapolitan domain.

FRANCE: A. D. 1504-1506.
   The treaties of Blois, with Ferdinand and Maximilian, and the
   abrogation of them.
   Relinquishment of claims on Naples.

FRANCE: A. D. 1510-1513.
   The breaking up of the League of Cambrai.
   The Holy League formed by Pope Julius II. against Louis XII.
   The French expelled from Milan and all Italy.

FRANCE: A. D. 1513-1515.
   English invasion under Henry VIII.
   The Battle of the Spurs.
   Marriage of Louis XII. with Mary of England.
   The King's death.
   Accession of Francis I.

"The long preparations of Henry VIII. of England for the invasion of France [in pursuance of the 'Holy League' against Louis XII., formed by Pope Julius II. and renewed by Leo X.,—see ITALY: A. D. 1510-1513] being completed, that king, in the summer of 1513, landed at Calais, whither a great part of his army had already been transported. The offer of 100,000 golden crowns easily persuaded the Emperor to promise his assistance, at the head of a body of Swiss and Germans. But at the moment Henry was about to penetrate into France, he received the excuses of Maximilian, who, notwithstanding a large advance received from England, found himself unable to levy the promised succours. Nothing disheartened by this breach of faith, the King of England had already advanced into Artois; when the Emperor, attended by a few German nobles, appeared in the English camp, and was cordially welcomed by Henry, who duly appreciated his military skill and local knowledge. A valuable accession of strength was also obtained by the junction of a large body of Swiss, who, encouraged by the victory of Novara, had already crossed the Jura, and now marched to the seat of war. The poverty of the Emperor degraded him to the rank of a mercenary of England; and Henry consented to grant him the daily allowance of 100 crowns for his table. But humiliating as this compact was to Maximilian, the King of England reaped great benefit from his presence. A promiscuous multitude of Germans had flocked to the English camp, in hopes of partaking in the spoil; and the arrival of their valiant Emperor excited a burst of enthusiasm. The siege of Terouenne was formed: but the bravery of the besieged baffled the efforts of the allies; and a month elapsed, during which the English sustained severe loss from frequent and successful sorties. By the advice of the Emperor, Henry resolved to risk a battle with the French, and the plain of Guinegate was once more the field of conflict [August 18, 1513]. This spot, where Maximilian had formerly struck terror into the legions of Louis XI., now became the scene of a rapid and undisputed victory. The French were surprised by the allies, and gave way to a sudden panic; and the shameful flight of the cavalry abandoned the bravest of their leaders to the hands of their enemies. The Duke of Longueville, La Palisse, Imbercourt, and the renowned Chevalier Bayard, were made prisoners; and the ridicule of the conquerors commemorated the inglorious flight by designating the rout as the Battle of the Spurs. The capture of Terouenne immediately followed; and the fall of Tournay soon afterwards opened a splendid prospect to the King of England. Meanwhile the safety of France was threatened in another quarter. A large body of Swiss, levied in the name of Maximilian but paid with the gold of the Pope, burst into Burgundy; and Dijon was with difficulty saved from capture. From this danger, however, France was extricated by the dexterous negotiation of Trémouille; and the Swiss were induced to withdraw. … Louis now became seriously desirous of peace. He made overtures to the Pope, and was received into favour upon consenting to renounce the Council of Pisa. He conciliated the Kings of Aragon and England by proposals of marriage; he offered his second daughter Renée to the young Charles of Spain; and his second Queen, Anne of Bretainy, being now dead, he proposed to unite himself with Mary of England, the favourite sister of Henry. … But though peace was made upon this footing, the former of the projected marriages never took place: the latter; however, was magnificently solemnized, and proved fatal to Louis. The amorous King forgot his advanced age in the arms of his young and beautiful bride; his constitution gave way under the protracted festivities consequent on his nuptials; and on the 1st of January, 1515, Louis XII. was snatched from his adoring people, in his 53d year. He was succeeded by his kinsman and son-in-law, Francis, Count of Angoulême, who stood next in hereditary succession, and was reputed one of the most accomplished princes that ever mounted the throne of France."

      L. von Ranke,
      History of the Latin and Teutonic Nations
      from 1494 to 1514,
      book 2, chapter 4, sections 7-8.

FRANCE: A. D. 1515.
   Accession of Francis I.
   His invasion of Italy.
   The Battle of Marignano.

   "François I. was in his 21st year when he ascended the throne
   of France. His education in all manly accomplishments was
   perfect, and … he manifested … an intelligence which had
   been carefully cultivated. … Unfortunately his moral
   qualities had been profoundly corrupted by the example of his
   mother, Louise of Savoy, a clever and ambitious woman, but
   selfish, unscrupulous, and above all shamelessly licentious.
   Louise had been an object of jealousy to Anne of Britany, who
   had always kept her in the shade, and she now snatched eagerly
   at the prospect of enjoying power and perhaps of reigning in
   the name of her son, whose love for his mother led him to
   allow her to exercise an influence which was often fatal to
   the interests of his kingdom. … Charles duke of Bourbon, who
   was notoriously the favoured lover of Louise, was appointed to
   the office of constable, which had remained vacant since 1488;
   and one of her favourite ministers, Antoine Duprat, first
   president of the parliament of Paris, was entrusted with the
   seals. Both were men of great capacity; but the first was
   remarkable for his pride, and the latter for his moral
   depravity. The first cares of the new king of France were to
   prepare for war. … Unfortunately for his country, François
   I. shared in the infatuation which had dragged his
   predecessors into the wars in Italy; and all these warlike
   preparations were designed for the reconquest of Milan. He had
   already intimated his design by assuming at his coronation the
   titles of king of France and duke of Milan. … He entered
   into an alliance with Charles of Austria, prince of Castile,
   who had now reached his majority and assumed the government of
   the Netherlands. … A treaty between these two princes,
   concluded on the 24th of March, 1515, guaranteed to each party
   not only the estates they held or which might subsequently
   descend to them, but even their conquests. … The republic of
   Venice and the king of England renewed the alliances into
   which they had entered with the late king, but Ferdinand of
   Aragon refused even to prolong the truce unless the whole of
   Italy were included in it, and he entered into a separate
   alliance with the emperor, the duke of Milan, and the Swiss,
   to oppose the designs of the French king.
{1187}
   The efforts of François I. to gain over the Swiss had been
   defeated by the influence of the cardinal of Sion. Yet the
   pope, Leo X., hesitated, and avoided compromising himself with
   either party. In the course of the month of July [1515], the
   most formidable army which had yet been led from France into
   Italy was assembled in the district between Grenoble and
   Embrun, and the king, after entrusting the regency to his
   mother, Louise, with unlimited powers, proceeded to place
   himself at its head."

"The passes in Italy had already been occupied by the Swiss under their captain general Galeazzo Visconti. Galeazzo makes their number not more than 6,000. … They were posted at Susa, commanding the two roads from Mont Cenis and Geneva, by one of which the French must pass or abandon their artillery. In this perplexity it was proposed by Triulcio to force a lower passage across the Cottian Alps leading to Saluzzo. The attempt was attended with almost insurmountable difficulties. … But the French troops with wonderful spirits and alacrity … were not to be baffled. They dropped their artillery by cables from steep to steep; down one range of mountains and up another, until five days had been spent in this perilous enterprise, and they found themselves safe in the plains of Saluzzo. Happily the Swiss, secure in their position at Susa, had never dreamed of the possibility of such a passage. … Prosper Colonna, who commanded in Italy for the Pope, was sitting down to his comfortable dinner at Villa Franca, when a scout covered with dust dashed into his apartment announcing that the French had crossed the Alps. The next minute the town was filled with the advanced guard, under the Sieur d'Ymbercourt and the celebrated Bayard. The Swiss at Susa had still the advantage of position, and might have hindered the passage of the main body of the French; but they had no horse to transport their artillery, were badly led, and evidently divided in their councils. They retired upon Novara," and to Milan, intending to effect a junction with the viceroy of Naples, who advanced to Cremona. On the morning of the 13th of September, Cardinal Scheimer harangued the Swiss and urged them to attack the French in their camp, which was at Marignano, or Melignano, twelve miles away. His fatal advice was acted on with excitement and haste. "The day was hot and dusty. The advanced guard of the French was under the command of the Constable of Bourbon, whose vigilance defeated any advantage the Swiss might otherwise have gained by the suddenness and rapidity of their movements. At nine o'clock in the morning, as Bourbon was sitting down at table, a scout, dripping with water, made his appearance. He had left Milan only a few hours before, had waded the canals, and came to announce the approach of the enemy. … The Swiss came on apace; they had disencumbered themselves of their hats and caps, and thrown off their shoes, the better to fight without slipping. They made a dash at the French artillery, and were foiled after hard fighting. … It was an autumnal afternoon; the sun had gone down; dust and night-fall separated and confused the combatants. The French trumpets sounded a retreat; both, armies crouched down in the darkness within cast of a tennis-ball of each other. … Where they fought, there each man laid down to rest when darkness came on, within hand-grip of his foe." The next morning, "the autumnal mist crawled slowly away, and once more exposed the combatants to each other's view. The advantage of the ground was on the side of the French. They were drawn up in a valley protected by a ditch full of water. Though the Swiss had taken no refreshment that night, they renewed the fight with unimpaired animosity and vigour. … Francis, surrounded by a body of mounted gentlemen, performed prodigies of valour. The night had given him opportunity for the better arrangement of his troops; and as the day wore on, and the sun grew hot, the Swiss, though 'marvellously deliberate, brave, and obstinate,' began to give way. The arrival of the Venetian general, D'Alviano, with fresh troops, made the French victory complete. But the Swiss retreated inch by inch with the greatest deliberation, carrying off their great guns on their shoulders. … The French were too exhausted to follow. And their victory had cost them dear; for the Swiss, with peculiar hatred to the French gentry and the lance-knights, had shown no mercy. They spared none, and made no prisoners. The glory of the battle was great. … The Swiss, the best troops in Europe, and hitherto reckoned invincible … had been the terror and scourge of Italy, equally formidable to friend and foe, and now their prestige was extinguished. But it was not in these merely military aspects that the battle of Marignano was important. No one who reads the French chronicles of the times, can fail to perceive that it was a battle of opinions and of classes even more than of nations; of a fierce and rising democratical element, now rolled back for a short season, only to display itself in another form against royalty and nobility;—of the burgher classes against feudality. … The old romantic element, overlaid for a time by the political convulsions of the last century, had once more gained the ascendant. It was to blaze forth and revive, before it died out entirely, in the Sydneys and Raleighs of Queen Elizabeth's reign; it was to lighten up the glorious imagination of Spenser before it faded into the dull prose of Puritan divinity, and the cold grey dawn of inductive philosophy. But its last great battle was the battle of Marignano."

FRANCE: A. D. 1515-1518.
   Francis I. in possession of Milan.
   His treaties with the Swiss and the Pope.
   Nullification of the Pragmatic Sanction of Charles VII.
   The Concordat of Bologna.

"On the 15th of September, the day after the battle [of Marignano], the Swiss took the road back to their mountains. Francis I. entered Milan in triumph. Maximilian Sforza took refuge in the castle, and twenty days afterwards on the 4th of October, surrendered, consenting to retire to France, with a pension of 30,000 crowns, and the promise of being recommended for a cardinal's hat, and almost consoled for his downfall 'by the pleasure of being delivered from the insolence of the Swiss, the exactions of the Emperor Maximilian, and the rascalities of the Spaniards.' Fifteen years afterwards, in June, 1530, he died in oblivion at Paris. {1188} Francis I. regained possession of all Milaness, adding thereto, with the pope's consent, the duchies of Parma and Piacenza, which had been detached from it. … Two treaties, one of November 7, 1515, and the other of November 29, 1516, re-established not only peace, but perpetual alliance, between the King of France and the thirteen Swiss Cantons, with stipulated conditions in detail. Whilst these negotiations were in progress, Francis I. and Leo X., by a treaty published at Viterbo, on the 13th of October, proclaimed their hearty reconciliation. The pope guaranteed to Francis I. the duchy of Milan, restored to him those of Parma and Piacenza, and recalled his troops which were still serving against the Venetians." At the same time, arrangements were made for a personal meeting of the pope and the French king, which took place at Bologna in December, 1515. "Francis did not attempt to hide his design of reconquering the kingdom of Naples, which Ferdinand the Catholic had wrongfully usurped, and he demanded the pope's countenance. The pope did not care to refuse, but he pointed out to the king that everything foretold the very near death of King Ferdinand; and 'Your Majesty,' said he, 'will then have a natural opportunity for claiming your rights; and as for me, free, as I shall then be, from my engagements with the King of Arragon in respect of the crown of Naples, I shall find it easier to respond to your majesty's wish.' The pope merely wanted to gain time. Francis, putting aside for the moment the kingdom of Naples, spoke of Charles VII.'s Pragmatic Sanction [see above: A. D. 1438], and the necessity of putting an end to the difficulties which had arisen on this subject between the court of Rome and the Kings of France, his predecessors. 'As to that,' said the pope, 'I could not grant what your predecessors demanded; but be not uneasy; I have a compensation to propose to you which will prove to you how dear your interests are to me.' The two sovereigns had, without doubt, already come to an understanding on this point, when, after a three days' interview with Leo X., Francis I. returned to Milan, leaving at Bologna, for the purpose of treating in detail the affair of the Pragmatic Sanction, his chancellor, Duprat, who had accompanied him during all this campaign as his adviser and negotiator. … The popes … had all of them protested since the days of Charles VII. against the Pragmatic Sanction as an attack upon their rights, and had demanded its abolition. In 1461, Louis XI. … had yielded for a moment to the demand of Pope Pius II., whose countenance he desired to gain, and had abrogated the Pragmatic; but, not having obtained what he wanted thereby, and having met with strong opposition in the Parliament of Paris to his concession, he had let it drop without formally retracting it. … This important edict, then, was still vigorous in 1515, when Francis I., after his victory at Melegnano and his reconciliation with the pope, left Chancellor Duprat at Bologna to pursue the negotiation reopened on that subject. The 'compensation,' of which Leo X., on redemanding the abolition of the Pragmatic Sanction, had given a peep to Francis I., could not fail to have charms for a prince so little scrupulous, and for his still less scrupulous chancellor. The pope proposed that the Pragmatic, once for all abolished, should be replaced by a Concordat between the two sovereigns, and that this Concordat, whilst putting a stop to the election of the clergy by the faithful, should transfer to the king the right of nomination to bishoprics and other great ecclesiastical offices and benefices, reserving to the pope the right of presentation of prelates nominated by the king. This, considering the condition of society and government in the 16th century, in the absence of political and religious liberty, was to take away from the church her own existence, and divide her between two masters, without giving her, as regarded either of them, any other guarantee of independence than the mere chance of their dissensions and quarrels. … Francis I. and his chancellor saw in the proposed Concordat nothing but the great increment of influence it secured to them, by making all the dignitaries of the church suppliants at first and then clients of the kingship. After some difficulties as to points of detail, the Concordat was concluded and signed on the 18th of August, 1516. Five months afterwards, on the 5th of February, 1517, the king repaired in person to Parliament, to which he had summoned many prelates and doctors of the University. The Chancellor explained the points of the Concordat. … The king ordered its registration, 'for the good of his kingdom and for quittance of the promise he had given the pope.'" For more than a year the Parliament of Paris resisted the royal order, and it was not until the 22d of March, 1518, that it yielded to the king's threats and proceeded to registration of the Concordat, with forms and reservations "which were evidence of compulsion. The other Parliaments of France followed with more or less zeal … the example shown by that of Paris. The University was heartily disposed to push resistance farther than had been done by Parliament."

"The execution of the Concordat was vigorously contested for years afterwards. Cathedrals and monastic chapters proceeded to elect bishops and abbots under the provisions of the Pragmatic Sanction; and every such case became a fresh source of exasperation between the contending powers. … But the Parliament, though clamouring loudly for the 'Gallican liberties,' and making a gallant stand for national independence as against the usurpations of Rome, was unable to maintain its ground against the overpowering despotism of the Crown. The monarchical authority ultimately achieved a complete triumph. In 1527 a peremptory royal ordinance prohibited the courts of Parliament from taking further cognisance of causes affecting elections to consistorial benefices and conventual priories; and all such matters were transferred to the sole jurisdiction of the Council of State. After this the agitation against the Concordat gradually subsided. But although, in virtue of its compulsory registration by the Parliament, the Concordat became part of the law of the land, it is certain that the Gallican Church never accepted this flagrant invasion of its liberties."

"Francis I. instituted the Court, and this had a decisive influence upon the manners of the nobility. Those lords, whose respect royalty had difficulty in keeping when they were at their castles, having come to court, prostrated themselves before the throne, and yielded obedience with their whole hearts. A few words will describe this Court. The king lodged and fed in his own large palace, which was fitted for the purpose, the flower of the French nobility. Some of these lords were in his service, under the title of officers of his household—as chamberlains, purveyors, equerries, &c. Large numbers of domestic offices were created solely as an excuse for their presence. Others lived there, without duties, simply as guests. All these, besides lodging and food, had often a pension as well. A third class were given only a lodging, and provided their own table; but all were amused and entertained with various pleasures, at the expense of the king. Balls, carousals, stately ceremonials, grand dinners, theatricals, conversations inspired by the presence of fair women, constant intercourse of all kinds, where each could choose for himself, and where the refined and literary found a place as well as the vain and profligate,—such was court life, a truly different thing from the monotonous and brutal existence of the feudal lord at his castle in the depths of his province. So, from all sides, nobles flocked to court, to gratify both the most refined tastes and the most degraded passions. Some came hoping to make their fortune, a word from the king sufficing to enrich a man; others came to gain a rank in the army, a lucrative post in the finance department, an abbey, or a bishopric. From the time kings held court, it became almost a law, that nothing should be granted to a nobleman who lived beyond its pale. Those lords who persisted in staying on their own estates were supposed to rail against the administration, or, as we of the present would express it, to be in opposition. 'They must indeed be men of gross minds who are not tempted by the polish of the court; at all events it is very insolent in them to show so little wish to see their sovereign, and enjoy the honor of living under his roof.' Such was almost precisely the opinion of the king in regard to the provincial nobility. … Ambition drew the nobles to court; ambition, society, and dissipation kept them there. To incur the displeasure of their master, and be exiled from court was, first, to lose all hope of advancement, and then to fall from paradise into purgatory. It killed some people. But life was much more expensive at court than in the castles. As in all society where each is constantly in the presence of his neighbor, there was unbounded rivalry as to who should be most brilliant, most superb. The old revenues did not suffice, while, at the same time, the inevitable result of the absence of the lords was to decrease them. Whilst the expenses of the noblemen at Chambord or Versailles were steadily on the increase, his intendant, alone and unrestrained upon the estate, filled his own pockets, and sent less money every quarter, so that, to keep up the proper rank, the lord was forced to beg a pension from the king. Low indeed was the downfall of the old pride and feudal independence! The question was how to obtain these pensions, ranks, offices, and favors of all kinds. The virtues most prized and rewarded by the kings were not civic virtues,—capacity, and services of value for the public good; what pleased them was, naturally, devotion to their person, blind obedience, flattery, and subservience."

FRANCE: A. D. 1516-1517.
   Maximilian's attempt against Milan.
   Diplomatic intrigues.
   The Treaty of Noyon.

After Francis I. had taken possession of Milan, and while Pope Leo X. was making professions of friendship to him at Bologna, a scheme took shape among the French king's enemies for depriving him of his conquest, and the pope was privy to it. "Henry VIII. would not openly break the peace between England and France, but he offered to supply Maximilian with Swiss troops for an attack upon Milan. It was useless to send money to Maximilian, who would have spent it on himself"; but troops were hired for the emperor by the English agent, Pace, and "at the beginning of March [1516] the joint army of Maximilian and the Swiss assembled at Trent. On March 24 they were within a few miles of Milan, and their success seemed sure, when suddenly Maximilian found that his resources were exhausted and refused to proceed; next day he withdrew his troops and abandoned his allies. … The expedition was a total failure; yet English gold had not been spent in vain, as the Swiss were prevented from entirely joining the French, and Francis I. was reminded that his position in Italy was by no means secure. Leo X., meanwhile, in the words of Pace, 'had played marvellously with both hands in this enterprise.' … England was now the chief opponent of the ambitious schemes of France, and aimed at bringing about a league with Maximilian, Charles [who had just succeeded Ferdinand of Spain, deceased January 23, 1516], the Pope, and the Swiss. But Charles's ministers, chief of whom was Croy, lord of Chievres, had a care above all for the interests of Flanders, and so were greatly under the influence of France. … France and England entered into a diplomatic warfare over the alliance with Charles. First, England on April 19 recognised Charles as King of Spain, Navarre, and the Two Sicilies; then Wolsey strove to make peace between Venice and Maximilian as a first step towards detaching Venice from its French alliance." On the other hand, negotiations were secretly carried on and (August 13) "the treaty of Noyon was concluded between Francis I. and Charles. Charles was to marry Louise, the daughter of Francis I., an infant of one year old, and receive as her dower the French claims on Naples; Venice was to pay Maximilian 200,000 ducats for Brescia and Verona; in case he refused this offer and continued the war, Charles was at liberty to help his grandfather, and Francis I. to help the Venetians, without any breach of the peace now made between them. … In spite of the efforts of England, Francis I. was everywhere successful in settling his difficulties. On November 29 a perpetual peace was made at Friburg between France and the Swiss Cantons; on December 3 the treaty of Noyon was renewed, and Maximilian was included in its provisions. Peace was made between him and Venice by the provision that Maximilian was to hand over Verona to Charles, who in turn should give it up to the King of France, who delivered it to the Venetians; Maximilian in return received 100,000 ducats from Venice and as much from France. The compact was duly carried out: 'On February 8, 1517,' wrote the Cardinal of Sion, 'Verona belonged to the Emperor; on the 9th to the King Catholic; on the 15th to the French; on the 17th to the Venetians.' Such was the end of the wars that had arisen from the League of Cambrai. After a struggle of eight years the powers that had confederated to destroy Venice came together to restore her to her former place. Venice might well exult in this reward of her long constancy, her sacrifices and her disasters."

M. Creighton, History of the Papacy, during the Period of the Reformation, book 5, chapter 19 (volume 4).

FRANCE: A. D. 1520-1523.
   Rivalry of Francis I. and Charles V.
   The Emperor's successes in Italy and Navarre.
   Milan again taken from France.
   The wrongs and the treason of the Constable of Bourbon.

"With their candidature for the Imperial crown, burst forth the inextinguishable rivalry between Francis I. and Charles V. The former claimed Naples for himself and Navarre for Henry d'Albret: the Emperor demanded the Milanese as a fief of the Empire, and the Duchy of Burgundy. Their resources were about equal. If the empire of Charles were more extensive the kingdom of France was more compact. The Emperor's subjects were richer, but his authority more circumscribed. The reputation of the French cavalry was not inferior to that of the Spanish infantry. Victory would belong to the one who should win over the King of England to his side. … Both gave pensions to his Prime Minister, Cardinal Wolsey; they each asked the hand of his daughter Mary, one for the dauphin, the other for himself. Francis I. obtained from him an interview at Calais, and forgetting that he wished to gain his favour, eclipsed him by his elegance and magnificence [see FIELD OF THE CLOTH OF GOLD]. Charles V., more adroit, had anticipated this interview by visiting Henry VIII. in England. He had secured Wolsey by giving him hopes of the tiara. … Everything succeeded with the Emperor. He gained Leo X. to his side and thus obtained sufficient influence to raise his tutor, Adrian of Utrecht, to the papacy [on the death of Leo, December 1, 1521]. The French penetrated into Spain, but arrived too late to aid the rising there [in Navarre, 1521]. The governor of the Milanese, Lautrec, who is said to have exiled from Milan nearly half its inhabitants, was driven out of Lombardy [and the Pope retook Parma and Placentia]. He met with the same fate again in the following year: the Swiss, who were ill-paid, asked either for dismissal or battle, and allowed themselves to be beaten at La Bicoque [April 29, 1522]. The money intended for the troops had been used for other purposes by the Queen-mother, who hated Lautrec. At the moment when Francis I. was thinking of re-entering Italy, an internal enemy threw France into the utmost danger. Francis had given mortal offence to the Constable of Bourbon, one of those who had most contributed to the victory of Marignan. Charles, Count of Montpensier and Dauphin of Auvergne, held by virtue of his wife, a granddaughter of Louis XI., the Duchy of Bourbon, and the counties of Clermont, La Marche and other domains, which made him the first noble in the kingdom. On the death of his wife, the Queen-mother, Louise of Savoy, who had wanted to marry the Constable and had been refused by him, resolved to ruin him. She disputed with him this rich inheritance and obtained from her son that the property should be provisionally sequestered. Bourbon, exasperated, resolved to pass over to the Emperor (1523). Half a century earlier, revolt did not mean disloyalty. The most accomplished knights in France, Dunois and John of Calabria, had joined the 'League for the public weal.' … But now it was no question of a revolt against the king; such a thing was impossible in France at this time. It was a conspiracy against the very existence of France that Bourbon was plotting with foreigners. He promised Charles V. to attack Burgundy as soon as Francis I. had crossed the Alps, and to rouse into revolt five provinces of which he believed himself master; the kingdom of Provence was to be re-established in his favour, and France, partitioned between Spain and England, would have ceased to exist as a nation. He was soon able to enjoy the reverses of his country."

"Henry VIII. and Charles V. were both ready to secure the services of the ex-Constable. He decided in favour of Charles as the more powerful of the two. … These secret negotiations were carried on in the spring of 1523, while Francis I. (having sent a sufficient force to protect his northern frontier) was preparing to make Italy the seat of war. With this object the king ordered a rendezvous of the army at Lyons, in the beginning of September, and having arranged to pass through Moulins on his way to join the forces, called upon the Constable to meet him there and to proceed with him to Lyons. Already vague rumours of an understanding between the Emperor and Bourbon had reached Francis, who gave no credence to them; but on his way M. de Brézé, Seneschal of Normandy, attached to the Court of Louise of Savoy, sent such precise details of the affair by two Norman gentlemen in the Constable's service that doubt was no longer possible." Francis accordingly entered Moulins with a considerable force, and went straight to Bourbon, who feigned illness. The Constable stoutly denied to the king all the charges which the latter revealed to him, and Francis, who was strongly urged to order his arrest, refused to do so. But a few days later, when the king had gone forward to Lyons, Bourbon, pretending to follow him, rode away to his strong castle of Chantelles, from whence he wrote letters demanding the restitution of his estates. As soon as his flight was known, Francis sent forces to seize him; but the Constable, taking one companion with him, made his way out of the kingdom in disguise. Escaping to Italy, he was there placed in command of the imperial army.

ALSO IN: Miss Pardoe, The Court and Reign of Francis I., volume 1, chapters 14-19.

FRANCE: A. D. 1523-1524.
First undertakings in the New World.
Voyages of Verrazano.

FRANCE: A. D. 1523-1525.
   The death of Bayard.
   Second invasion of Italy by Francis I.
   His defeat and capture at Pavia.

"Bonnivet, the personal enemy of Bourbon, was now entrusted with the command of the French army. He marched without opposition into the Milanese, and might have taken the capital had he pushed on to its gates. Having by irresolution lost it, he retreated to winter quarters behind the Tesino. The operations of the English in Picardy, of the imperialists in Champagne, and of the Spaniards near the Pyrenees, were equally insignificant. The spring of 1524 brought on an action, if the attack of one point can be called such, which proved decisive for the time. Bonnivet advanced rashly beyond the Tesino. The imperialists, commanded by four able generals, Launoi, Pescara, Bourbon, and Sforza, succeeded in almost cutting off his retreat. They at the same time refused Bonnivet's offer to engage. They hoped to weaken him by famine. The Swiss first murmured against the distress occasioned by want of precaution. They deserted across the river; and Bonnivet, thus abandoned, was obliged to make a precipitate and perilous retreat. A bridge was hastily flung across the Sessia, near Romagnano; and Bonnivet, with his best knights and gensdarmerie, undertook to defend the passage of the rest of the army. The imperialists, led on by Bourbon, made a furious attack. Bonnivet was wounded, and he gave his place to Bayard, who, never entrusted with a high command, was always chosen for that of a forlorn hope. The brave Vandenesse was soon killed; and Bayard himself received a gun-shot through the reins. The gallant chevalier, feeling his wound mortal, caused himself to be placed in a sitting posture beneath a tree, his face to the enemy, and his sword fixed in guise of a cross before him. The constable Bourbon, who led the imperialists, soon came up to the dying Bayard, and expressed his compassion. 'Weep not for me,' said the chevalier, 'but for thyself. I die in performing my duty; thou art betraying thine.' Nothing marks more strongly the great rise, the sudden sacro-sanctity of the royal authority in those days, than the general horror which the treason of Bourbon excited. … The fact is, that this sudden horror of treason was owing, in a great measure, to the revived study of the classics, in which treason to one's country is universally mentioned as an impiety and a crime of the deepest dye. Feudality, with all its oaths, had no such horror of treason. … Bonnivet had evacuated Italy after this defeat at Romagnano. Bourbon's animosity stimulated him to push his advantage. He urged the emperor to invade France, and recommended the Bourbonnais and his own patrimonial provinces as those most advisable to invade. Bourbon wanted to raise his friends in insurrection against Francis; but Charles descried selfishness in this scheme of Bourbon, and directed Pescara to march with the constable into the south of France and lay siege to Marseilles. … Marseilles made an obstinate resistance," and the siege was ineffectual. "Francis, in the meantime, alarmed by the invasion, had assembled an army. He burned to employ it, and avenge the late affront. The king of England, occupied with the Scotch, gave him respite in the north; and he resolved to employ this by marching, late as the season was, into Italy. His generals, who by this time were sick of warring beyond the Alps, opposed the design; but not even the death of his queen, Claude, could stop Francis. He passed Mount Cenis; marched upon Milan, whose population was spiritless and broken by the plague, and took it without resistance. It was then mooted whether Lodi or Pavia should be besieged. The latter, imprudently, as it is said, was preferred. It was at this time that Pope Clement VII., of the house of Medici, who had lately succeeded Adrian, made the most zealous efforts to restore peace between the monarchies. He found Charles and his generals arrogant and unwilling to treat. The French, said they, must on no account be allowed a footing in Italy. Clement, impelled by pique towards the emperor, or generosity to Francis, at once abandoned the prudent policy of his predecessors, and formed a league with the French king, to whom, after all, he brought no accession of force. This step proved afterwards fatal to the city of Rome. The siege of Pavia was formed about the middle of October [1524]. Antonio de Leyva, an experienced officer, supported by veteran troops, commanded in the town. The fortifications were strong, and were likely to hold for a considerable time. By the month of January the French had made no progress; and the impatient Francis despatched a considerable portion of his army for the invasion of Naples, hearing that the country was drained of troops. This was a gross blunder, which Pescara observing, forbore to send any force to oppose the expedition. He knew that the fate of Italy would be decided before Pavia. Bourbon, in the mean time, disgusted with the jealousies and tardiness of the imperial generals, employed the winter in raising an army of lansquenets on his own account. From the duke of Savoy he procured funds; and early in the year 1525 the constable joined Pescara at Lodi with a fresh army of 12,000 mercenaries. They had, besides, some 7,000 foot, and not more than 1,500 horse. With these they marched to the relief of Pavia. Francis had a force to oppose to them, not only inferior in numbers, but so harassed with a winter's siege, that all the French generals of experience counselled a retreat. Bonnivet and his young troop of courtiers were for fighting; and the monarch hearkened to them. Pavia, to the north of the river, was covered in great part by the chateau and walled park of Mirabel. Adjoining this, and on a rising ground, was the French camp, extending to the Tesino. Through the camp, or through the park, lay the only ways by which the imperialists could reach Pavia. The camp was strongly entrenched and defended by artillery, except on the side of the park of Mirabel, with which it communicated." On the night of February 23, the imperialists made a breach in the park wall, through which they pressed next morning, but were driven back with heavy loss. "This was victory enough, could the French king have been contented with it. But the impatient Francis no sooner beheld his enemies in rout, than he was eager to chase them in person, and complete the victory with his good sword. He rushed forth from his entrenchments at the head of his gensdarmerie, flinging himself between the enemy and his own artillery, which was thus masked and rendered useless. The imperialists rallied as soon as they found themselves safe from the fire of the cannon," and the French were overwhelmed. "The king … behind a heap of slain, defended himself valiantly; so beaten and shattered, so begrimed with blood and dust, as to be scarcely distinguishable, notwithstanding his conspicuous armour. He had received several wounds, one in the forehead; and his horse, struck with a ball in the head, reared, fell back, and crushed him with his weight: still Francis rose, and laid prostrate several of the enemies that rushed upon him." But presently he was recognized and was persuaded to surrender his sword to Lannoi, the viceroy of Naples. "Such was the signal defeat that put an end to all French conquests and claims in Italy."

FRANCE: A. D. 1525-1526.
The captivity of Francis I. and his deliberate perfidy in the
Treaty of Madrid.

The captive king of France was lodged in the castle at Pizzighitone. "Instead of bearing his captivity with calmness and fortitude, he chafed and fretted under the loss of his wonted pleasures; at one moment he called for death to end his woes, while at another he was ready to sign disastrous terms of peace, meaning to break faith so soon as ever he might be free again. … France, at first stupefied by the mishap, soon began to recover hope. The Regent, for all her vices and faults, was proud and strong; she gathered what force she could at Lyons, and looked round for help. … Not only were there anxieties at home, but the frontiers were also threatened. On the side of Germany a popular movement ['the Peasant War'], closely connected with the religious excitement of the time, pushed a fierce and cruel rabble into Lorraine, whence they proposed to enter France. But they were met by the Duke of Guise and the Count of Vaudemont, his brother, at the head of the garrisons of Burgundy and Champagne, and were easily dispersed. It was thought that during these troubles Lannoy would march his army, flushed with victory, from the Po to the Rhone. … But Lannoy had no money to pay his men, and could not undertake so large a venture. Meanwhile negotiations began between Charles V. and the King; the Emperor demanding, as ransom, that Bourbon should be invested with Provence and Dauphiny, joined to his own lands in Auvergne, and should receive the title of king; and secondly that the Duchy of Burgundy should be given over to the Emperor as the inheritor of the lands and rights of Charles the Bold. But the King of France would not listen for a moment. And now the King of England and most of the Italian states, alarmed at the great power of the Emperor, began to change sides. Henry VIII. came first. He signed a treaty of neutrality with the Regent, in which it was agreed that not even for the sake of the King's deliverance should any part of France be torn from her. The Italians joined in a league to restore the King to liberty, and to secure the independence of Italy: and Turkey was called on for help. … The Emperor now felt that Francis was not in secure keeping at Pizzighitone. … He therefore gave orders that Francis should at once be removed to Spain." The captive king "was set ashore at Valencia, and received with wonderful welcome: dances, festivals, entertainments of every kind, served to relieve his captivity; it was like a restoration to life! But this did not suit the views of the Emperor, who wished to weary the King into giving up all thought of resistance: he trusted to his impatient and frivolous character; his mistake, as he found to his cost, lay in thinking that a man of such character would keep his word. He therefore had him removed from Valencia to Madrid, where he was kept in close and galling confinement, in a high, dreary chamber, where he could not even see out of the windows. This had the desired effect. The King talked of abdicating; he fell ill of ennui, and was like to die: but at last he could hold out no longer, and abandoning all thought of honourable action, agreed to shameful terms, consoling himself with a private protest against the validity of the deed, as having been done under compulsion."

"By the Treaty of Madrid, signed January 14th, 1526, Francis 'restored' to the Emperor the Duchy of Burgundy, the county of Charolais, and some other smaller fiefs, without reservation of any feudal suzerainty, which was also abandoned with regard to the counties of Flanders and Artois, the Emperor, however, resigning the towns on the Somme, which had been held by Charles the Bold. The French King also renounced his claims to the kingdom of Naples, the Duchy of Milan, the county of Asti, and the city of Genoa. He contracted an offensive and defensive alliance with Charles, undertaking to attend him with an army when he should repair to Rome to receive the Imperial crown, and to accompany him in person whenever he should march against the Turks or heretics. He withdrew his protection from the King of Navarre, the Duke of Gelderland, and the La Marcks; took upon himself the Emperor's debt to England, and agreed to give his two eldest sons as hostages for the execution of the treaty. Instead, however, of the independent kingdom which Bourbon had expected, all that was stipulated in his favour was a free pardon for him and his adherents, and their restoration in their forfeited domains. … The provisions of the above treaty Francis promised to execute on the word and honour of a king, and by an oath sworn with his hand upon the holy Gospels: yet only a few hours before he was to sign this solemn act, he had called his plenipotentiaries, together with some French nobles, secretaries, and notaries, into his chamber, where, after exacting from them an oath of secrecy, he entered into a long discourse touching the Emperor's harshness towards him, and signed a protest, declaring that, as the treaty he was about to enter into had been extorted from him by force, it was null and void from the beginning, and that he never intended to execute it: thus, as a French writer has observed, establishing by an authentic notarial act that he was going to commit a perjury." Treaties have often been shamefully violated, yet it would perhaps be impossible to parallel this gross and deliberate perjury. In March, Francis was conducted to the Spanish frontier, where, on a boat in mid-stream of the Bidassoa, "he was exchanged for his two sons, Francis and Henry, who were to remain in Spain, as hostages for the execution of the treaty. The tears started to his eyes as he embraced his children, but he consigned them without remorse to a long and dreary exile." As speedily as possible after regaining his liberty, Francis assembled the states of his kingdom and procured from them a decision "that the King could not alienate the patrimony of France, and that the oath which he had taken in his captivity did not abrogate the still more solemn one which had been administered to him at his coronation." After which he deemed himself discharged from the obligations of his treaty, and had no thought of surrendering himself again a prisoner, as he was honourably bound to do.

      W. Robertson,
      History of the Reign of Charles V.,
      book 4 (volume 2).

FRANCE: A. D. 1526-1527.
Holy League with Pope Clement VII. against Charles V.
Bourbon's attack on Rome.

FRANCE: A. D. 1527-1529.
   New alliance against Charles V.
   Early successes in Lombardy.
   Disaster at Naples.
   Genoa and all possessions in Italy lost.
   The humiliating Peace of Cambrai.

FRANCE: A. D. 1529-1535. Persecution of the Protestant Reformers and spread of their doctrines.

FRANCE: A. D. 1531.
Alliance with the Protestant princes of the German League of
Smalkalde.

FRANCE: A. D. 1532-1547.
   Treaty with the Pope.
   Marriage of Prince Henry with Catherine de' Medici.
   Renewed war with Charles V.
   Alliance with the Turks.
   Victory at Cerisoles.
   Treaty of Crespy.
   Increased persecution of Protestants.
   Massacre of Waldenses.
   War with England.
   Death of Francis I.

"The 'ladies' peace' … lasted up to 1536; incessantly troubled, however, by far from pacific symptoms, proceedings and preparations. In October, 1532, Francis I. had, at Calais, an interview with Henry VIII., at which they contracted a private alliance, and undertook 'to raise between them an army of 80,000 men to resist the Turk.'" But when, in 1535, Charles V. attacked the seat of the Barbary pirates, and took Tunis, Francis "entered into negotiations with Soliman II., and concluded a friendly treaty with him against what was called 'the common enemy.' Francis had been for some time preparing to resume his projects of conquest in Italy; he had effected an interview at Marseilles, in October, 1533, with Pope Clement VII., who was almost at the point of death, and it was there that the marriage of Prince Henry of France with Catherine de' Medici [daughter of Lorenzo, Duke of Urbino, and granddaughter of Piero de' Medici] was settled. Astonishment was expressed that the pope's niece had but a very moderate dowry. 'You don't see, then,' said Clement VII.'s ambassador, 'that she brings France three jewels of great price, Genoa, Milan and Naples?' When this language was reported at the court of Charles V., it caused great irritation there. In 1536 all these combustibles of war exploded; in the month of February, a French army entered Piedmont, and occupied Turin; and, in the month of July, Charles V. in person entered Provence at the head of 50,000 men. Anne de Montmorency, having received orders to defend southern France, began by laying it waste in order that the enemy might not be able to live in it. … Montmorency made up his mind to defend, on the whole coast of Provence, only Marseilles and Aries; he pulled down the ramparts of the other towns, which were left exposed to the enemy. For two months Charles V. prosecuted this campaign without a fight, marching through the whole of Provence an army which fatigue, shortness of provisions, sickness, and ambuscades were decimating ingloriously. At last he decided upon retreating. … On returning from his sorry expedition, Charles V. learned that those of his lieutenants whom he had charged with the conduct of a similar invasion in the north of France, in Picardy, had met with no greater success than he himself in Provence." A truce for three months was soon afterwards arranged, and in June, 1538, through the mediation of Pope Paul III., a treaty was signed at Nice which extended the truce to ten years. Next month the two sovereigns met at Aigues-Mortes and exchanged many assurances of friendship."

In August, 1539, a revolt at Ghent "called Charles V. into Flanders; he was then in Spain, and his shortest route was through France. He requested permission to cross the kingdom, and obtained it, after having promised the Constable Montmorency that he would give the investiture of Milan to the second son of the King. His sojourn in France was a time of expensive fêtes, and cost the treasury four millions; yet, in the midst of his pleasures, the Emperor was not without uneasiness. … Francis, however, respected the rights of hospitality; but Charles did not give to his son the investiture of Milan. The King, indignant, exiled the constable for having trusted the word of the Emperor without exacting his signature, and avenged himself by strengthening his alliance with the Turks, the most formidable enemies of the empire. … The hatred of the two monarchs was carried to its height by these last events; they mutually outraged each other by injurious libels, and submitted their differences to the Pope. Paul III. refused to decide between them, and they again took up arms [1542]. The King invaded Luxembourg, and the Dauphin Rousillon; and while a third army in concert with the Mussulmans besieged Nice [1542], the last asylum of the dukes of Savoy, by land, the terrible Barbarossa, admiral of Soliman, attacked it by sea. The town was taken, the castle alone resisted, and the siege of it was raised. Barbarossa consoled himself for this check by ravaging the coasts of Italy, where he made 10,000 captives. The horror which he inspired recoiled on Francis I., his ally, whose name became odious in Italy and Germany. He was declared the enemy of the empire, and the Diet raised against him an army of 24,000 men, at the head of which Charles V. penetrated into Champagne, while Henry VIII., coalescing with the Emperor, attacked Picardy with 10,000 English. The battle of Cerisoles, a complete victory, gained during the same year [April 14, 1544], in Piedmont, by Francis of Bourbon, Duke d'Enghien, against Gast, general of the Imperial troops, did not stop this double and formidable invasion. Charles V. advanced almost to Château-Thierry. But discord reigned in his army; he ran short of provisions, and could easily have been surrounded; he then again promised Milan to the Duke of Orleans, the second son of the King. This promise irritated the Dauphin Henry, who was afraid to see his brother become the head of a house as dangerous for France as had been that of Burgundy; he wished to reject the offer of the Emperor and to cut off his retreat. A rivalry among women, it is said, saved Charles V. … {1194} The war was terminated almost immediately afterwards [1544] by the treaty of Crespy in Valois. The Emperor promised his daughter to the Duke of Orleans, with the Low Countries and Franche-Comté, or one of his nieces, with Milan. Francis restored to the Duke of Savoy the greater part of the places that he held in Piedmont; he renounced all ulterior pretensions to the kingdom of Naples, the duchy of Milan, and likewise to the sovereignty of Flanders and Artois; Charles, on his part, gave up the duchy of Burgundy. This treaty put an end to the rivalry of the two sovereigns, which had ensanguined Europe for 25 years. The death of the Duke of Orleans freed the Emperor from dispossessing himself of Milan or the Low Countries; he refused all compensation to the King, but the peace was not broken. Francis I. profited by it to redouble his severity with regard to the Protestants. A population of many thousands of Waldenses, an unfortunate remnant from the religious persecutions of the 13th century, dwelt upon the confines of Provence, and the County Venaissin, and a short time back had entered into communion with the Calvinists. The King permitted John Mesnier, Baron d'Oppède, first president of the Parliament of Aix, to execute [1546] a sentence delivered against them five years previously by the Parliament. John d'Oppède himself directed this frightful execution. Twenty-two towns or villages were burned and sacked; the inhabitants, surprised during the night, were pursued among the rocks by the glare of the flames which devoured their houses. The men perished by executions, but the women were delivered over to terrible violences. At Cabrières, the principal town of the canton, 700 men were murdered in cold blood, and all the women were burnt; lastly, according to the tenor of the sentence, the houses were rased, the woods cut down, the trees in the gardens torn up, and in a short time this country, so fertile and so thickly peopled, became a desert and a waste. This dreadful massacre was one of the principal causes of the religious wars which desolated France for so long a time. … The war continued between [Henry VIII.] and Francis I. The English had taken Boulogne, and a French fleet ravaged the coasts of England, after taking possession of the Isle of Wight [1545]. Hostilities were terminated by the treaty of Guines [1547], which the two kings signed on the edge of their graves, and it was arranged that Boulogne should be restored for the sum of 2,000,000 of gold crowns. … Henry VIII. and Francis I. died in the same year [1547]."

ALSO IN: W. Robertson, History of the Reign of Charles V., book 6-9 (volume 2).

FRANCE: A. D. 1534-1535.
The voyages of Jacques Cartier and the taking
possession of Canada.

FRANCE: A. D. 1534-1560.
   Persecution of the Protestants.
   Their organization.
   Their numbers.

"Francis I. had long shrunk from persecution, but having once begun he showed no further hesitation. During the remainder of his reign and the whole of that of his son Henry II. (1534-1559) the cruelty of the sufferings inflicted on the Reformers increased with the number of the victims. At first they were strangled and burnt, then burnt alive, then hung in chains to roast over a slow fire. … The Edict of Chateaubriand (1551), taking away all right of appeal from those convicted of heresy, was followed by an attempt to introduce an Inquisition on the model of that of Spain, and when this failed owing to the opposition of the lawyers, the Edict of Compiègne (1557) denounced capital punishment against all who in public or private professed any heterodox doctrine. It is a commonplace that persecution avails nothing against the truth—that the true Church springs from the blood of martyrs. Yet the same cause which triumphed over persecution in France was crushed by it in Spain and in the Walloon Netherlands. Was it therefore not the truth? The fact would rather seem to be, that there is no creed, no sect which cannot be extirpated by force. But that it may prevail, persecution must be without respect of persons, universal, continuous, protracted. Not one of these conditions was fulfilled in France. The opinions of the greater nobles and princes, and of those who were their immediate followers, were not too narrowly scanned, nor was the persecution equally severe at all times and in all places. Some governors and judges and not a few of the higher clergy inclined to toleration. … The cheerful constancy of the French martyrs was admirable. Men, women and children walked to execution singing the psalms of Marot and the Song of Simeon. This boldness confounded their enemies. Hawkers distributed in every part of the country the books issued from the press of Geneva and which it was a capital offence even to possess. Preachers taught openly in the streets and market-places. … The increasing numbers of their converts and the high position of some among them gave confidence to the Protestants. Delegates from the reformed congregations of France were on their way to Paris to take part in the deliberations of the first national Synod on the very day (April 2, 1559) when the peace of Cateau Cambresis was signed, a peace which was to be the prelude to a vigorous and concerted effort to root out heresy on the part of the kings of France and Spain. The object of the meeting was twofold: first to draw up a detailed profession of faith, which was submitted to Calvin—there was, he said, little to add, less to correct—secondly to determine the 'ecclesiastical discipline' of the new Church. The ministers were to be chosen by the elders and deacons, but approved by the whole congregation. The affairs of each congregation were placed under the control of the Consistory, a court composed of the pastors, elders and deacons; more important matters were reserved for the decision of the provincial 'colloques' or synods, which were to meet twice a year, and in which each church was represented by its pastor and at least one elder. Above all was the national Synod also composed of the clergy and of representative laymen. This organisation was thoroughly representative and popular, the elected delegates of the congregations, the elders and deacons, preponderated in all the governing bodies, and all ministers and churches were declared equal. The Reformed churches, which, although most numerous in the South, spread over almost the whole country, are said at this time to have counted some 400,000 members (1559). These were of almost all classes, except perhaps the lowest, although even among the peasantry there were some martyrs for the faith." {1195} On the accession of Charles IX., in 1560, "a quarter of the inhabitants of France were, it was said, included in the 2,500 reformed congregations. This is certainly an exaggeration, but it is probable that the number of the Protestants was never greater than during the first years of the reign of Charles IX. … The most probable estimate is that at the beginning of the wars of religion the Huguenots with women and children amounted to some 1,500,000 souls out of a population of between fifteen and twenty millions. But in this minority were included about one-fourth of the lesser nobility, the country gentlemen, and a smaller proportion of the great nobles, the majority of the better sort of townspeople in many of the most important towns, such as Caen, Dieppe, Havre, Nantes, La Rochelle, Nimes, Montpellier, Montauban, Châlons, Mâcon, Lyons, Valence, Limoges and Grenoble, and an important minority in other places, such as Rouen, Orleans, Bordeaux and Toulouse. The Protestants were most numerous in the South-west, in Poitou, in the Marche, Limousin, Angoumois and Perigord, because in those districts, which were the seats of long-established and flourishing manufactures, the middle classes were most prosperous, intelligent and educated. It is doubtful whether the Catholics were not in a large majority, even where the superior position, intelligence and vigour of the Huguenots gave them the upper hand. Only in some parts of the South-west and of Dauphiny do the bulk of the population appear to have been decidedly hostile to the old religion. During the course of the Civil War the Protestants came to be more and more concentrated in certain parts of the country, as for instance between the Garonne and the Loire."

FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559.
   The rise of the Guises.
   Alliance with the German Protestants.
   Wars with the emperor, and with Spain and England.
   Acquisition of Les Trois Evêchés, and of Calais.
   Unsuccessful campaign in Italy.
   Battle and siege of St. Quentin.
   Treaty of Cateau-Cambresis.

"The son of Francis I., who in 1547 ascended the throne under the title of Henry II., was told by his dying father to beware of the Guises. … The Guises were a branch of the ducal House of Lorraine, which, although the dukedom was a fief of the German empire, had long stood in intimate relations with the court and nobility of France. The founder of the family was Claude, a younger son of René II., Duke of Lorraine, who, being naturalised in France in 1505, rendered himself conspicuous in the wars of Francis I., and was created first Duke of Guise. He died in 1550, leaving five daughters and six sons. His eldest daughter, Mary, became the wife of James V. of Scotland, and mother of Mary Queen of Scots. The sons were all men of extraordinary energy and ambition, and their united influence was, for a number of years, more than a match for that of the crown. Francis, second Duke of Guise, acquired, while still a young man, extraordinary renown as a military commander, by carrying out certain ambitious designs of France on a neighbouring territory. … As is well known, French statesmen have for many centuries cherished the idea that the natural boundary of France on the east is the Rhine, from its mouth to its source, and thence along the crest of the Alps to the Mediterranean. … To begin the realisation of the idea, advantage was taken of the war which broke out between the Emperor Charles V. and his Protestant subjects in North Germany [see GERMANY: A. D. 1546-1552]. Although the Protestants of France were persecuted to the death, Henry II., with furtively ambitious designs, offered to defend the Protestants of Germany against their own emperor; and entered into an alliance in 1551 with Maurice of Saxony and other princes, undertaking to send an army to their aid. As bases of his operations, it was agreed that he might take temporary military possession of Toul, Verdun, and Metz, three bishoprics [forming a district called the Trois Évêchés], each with a portion of territory lying within the area of the duchy of Lorraine, but held as distinct fiefs of the German empire— such, in fact, being fragments of Lothair's kingdom, which fell to Germany, and had in no shape been incorporated with France. It was stipulated that, in occupying these places, the French were not to interfere with their old connection with the empire. The confidence reposed in the French was grievously abused. All the stipulations went for nothing. In 1552, French troops took possession of Toul and Verdun, also of Nancy, the capital of Lorraine, treating the duchy, generally, as a conquered country. Seeing this, Metz shut her gates and trusted to her fortifications. To procure an entrance and secure possession, there was a resort to stratagems which afford a startling illustration of the tricks that French nobles at that time could be guilty of in order to gain their ends. The French commander, the Constable Montmorency, begged to be allowed to pass through the town with a few attendants, while his army made a wide circuit on its route. The too credulous custodiers of the city opened the gates, and, to their dismay, the whole French forces rushed in, and began to rule in true despotic fashion. … Thus was Metz secured for France in a way which modern Frenchmen, we should imagine, can hardly think of without shame. Germany, however, did not relinquish this important fortress without a struggle. Furious at its loss, the Emperor Charles V. proceeded to besiege it with a large army. The defence was undertaken by the Duke of Guise, assisted by a body of French nobility. After an investment of four months, and a loss of 30,000 men, Charles was forced to raise the siege, January 1, 1553, all his attempts at the capture of the place being effectually baffled."

"The war continued during the two following years; but both parties were now growing weary of a contest in which neither achieved any decisive superiority"; and the emperor, having negotiated an armistice, resigned all his crowns to his son, Philip II., and his brother Ferdinand (October, 1555). "Meantime Pope Paul IV., who detested the Spaniards and longed for the complete subversion of their power in the Peninsula, entered into a league with the French king against Philip; Francis of Guise was encouraged in his favorite project of effecting a restoration of the crown of Naples to his own family, as the descendants of René of Anjou; and in December, 1556, an army of 16,000 men, commanded by the Duke of Guise, crossed the Alps, and, marching direct to Rome, prepared to attack the Spanish viceroy of Naples, the celebrated Duke of Alva. In April, 1557, Guise advanced into the Abruzzi, and besieged Civitella; but here he encountered a determined resistance, and, after sacrificing a great part of his troops, found it necessary to abandon the attempt. He retreated toward Rome, closely pursued by the Duke of Alva; and the result was that the expedition totally failed. Before his army could recover from the fatigues and losses of their fruitless campaign, the French general was suddenly recalled by a dispatch containing tidings of urgent importance from the north of France. The Spanish army in the Netherlands, commanded by the Duke of Savoy, having been joined by a body of English auxiliaries under the Earl of Pembroke, had invaded France and laid siege to St. Quentin. This place was badly fortified, and defended by a feeble garrison under the Admiral de Coligny. Montmorency advanced with the main army to re-enforce it, and on the 10th of August rashly attacked the Spaniards, who outnumbered his own troops in the proportion of more than two to one, and inflicted on him a fatal and irretrievable defeat. The loss of the French amounted, according to most accounts, to 4,000 slain in the field, while at least an equal number remained prisoners, including the Constable himself. The road to Paris lay open to the victors. … The Duke of Savoy was eager to advance; but the cautious Philip, happily for France, rejected his advice, and ordered him to press the siege of St. Quentin. That town made a desperate resistance for more than a fortnight longer, and was captured by storm on the 27th of August [1557]. … Philip took possession of a few other neighbouring fortresses, but attempted no serious movement in prosecution of his victory. … The Duke of Guise arrived from Italy early in October, to the great joy of the king and the nation, and was immediately created lieutenant-general of the kingdom, with powers of almost unlimited extent. Be applied himself, with his utmost ability and perseverance, to repair the late disasters; and with such success, that in less than two months he was enabled to assemble a fresh and well-appointed army at Compiègne. Resolving to strike a vigorous blow before the enemy could reappear in the field, he detached a division of his army to make a feint in the direction of Luxemburg; and, rapidly marching westward with the remainder, presented himself on the 1st of January, 1558, before the walls of Calais. … The French attack was a complete surprise; the two advanced forts commanding the approaches to the town were bombarded, and surrendered on the 3d of January; three days later the castle was carried by assault; and on the 8th, the governor, Lord Wentworth, was forced to capitulate. … Guines, no longer tenable after the fall of Calais, shared the same fate on the 21st of January; and thus, within the short space of three weeks, were the last remnants of her ancient dominion on the Continent snatched from the grasp of England—possessions which she had held for upward of 200 years. … This remarkable exploit, so flattering to the national pride, created universal enthusiasm in France, and carried to the highest pitch the reputation and popularity of Guise. From this moment his influence became paramount; and the marriage of the dauphin to the Queen of Scots, which was solemnised on the 24th of April, 1558, seemed to exalt the house of Lorraine to a still more towering pinnacle of greatness. It was stipulated by a secret article of the marriage-contract that the sovereignty of Scotland should be transferred to France, and that the two crowns should remain united forever, in case of the decease of Mary without issue. Toward the end of the year negotiations were opened with a view to peace." They were interrupted, however, in November, 1558, by the death of Queen Mary of England, wife of Philip of Spain. "When the congress reassembled at Le Cateau-Cambresis, in February, 1559, the Spanish ministers no longer maintained the interests of England; and Elizabeth, thus abandoned, agreed to an arrangement which virtually ceded Calais to France, though with such nominal qualifications as satisfied the sensitiveness of the national honour. Calais was to be restored to the English at the end of eight years, with a penalty, in case of failure, of 500,000 crowns. At the same time, if any hostile proceedings should take place on the part of England against France within the period specified, the queen was to forego all claim to the fulfillment of the article." The treaty between France and England was signed April 2, 1559, and that between France and Spain the following day. By the latter, "the two monarchs mutually restored their conquests in Luxemburg, the Netherlands, Picardy, and Artois; France abandoned Savoy and Piedmont, with the exception of Turin and four other fortresses [restoring Philibert Emanuel, Duke of Savoy, to his dominions—see SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1559-1580]; she evacuated Tuscany, Corsica, and Montferrat, and yielded up no less than 189 towns or fortresses in various parts of Europe. By way of compensation, Henry preserved the district of the 'Trois Évêchés'—Toul, Metz, and Verdun—and made the all-important acquisition of Calais. This pacification was sealed, according to custom, by marriages"—Henry's daughter Elizabeth to Philip of Spain, and his sister Marguerite to the Duke of Savoy. In a tournament, at Paris, which celebrated these marriages, Henry received an injury from the lance of Montgomery, captain of his Scottish guards, which caused his death eleven days afterwards—July 10, 1559.

ALSO IN: J. L. Motley, The Rise of the Dutch Republic, part 1, chapters 2-3 (volume l).

Lady Jackson, The Court of France in the 16th Century, volume 2, chapters 9-20.

      L. von Ranke,
      Civil Wars and Monarchy in France,
      16th and 17th Centuries, chapter 6 (volume 1).

FRANCE: A. D. 1548.
Marriage of Antoine de Bourbon to Jeanne d'Albret, heiress of
Navarre.

FRANCE: A. D. 1554-1565. Huguenot attempts at colonization in Brazil and in Florida, and their fate.

FRANCE: A. D. 1559-1561.
   Francis II., Charles IX., the Guises and Catharine de' Medici.
   The Conspiracy of Amboise.
   Rapid spread and organization of Protestantism.
   Rise of the Huguenot party.
   Disputed origin of its name.

Henry II. "had been married from political motives to the niece of Clement VII., Catharine de Medici. This ambitious woman came to France conscious that the marriage was a political one, mentally a stranger to her husband; and such she always remained. This placed her from the first in a false position. The King was influenced by anyone rather than by his wife; and a by no means charming mistress, Diana of Poitiers, played her part by the side of and above the Queen. … Immediately after the death of her husband, in 1559, she [Catharine] greedily grasped at power. The young King, Francis II., was of age when he entered his fourteenth year. There could therefore be no legal regency, though there might be an actual one, for a weakly monarch of sixteen was still incompetent to govern. But she was thwarted in her first grasp at power. Under Francis I., a family [the Guises—see above] previously unknown in French history had begun to play a prominent part. … The brothers succeeded in bringing about a political marriage which promised to throw the King, who was mentally a child, entirely into their hands. Their sister Mary had been married to James V. of Scotland, whose crown was then rather an insignificant one, but was now beginning to gain importance. The issue of this marriage was a charming girl, who was destined for the King's wife. She was betrothed to him without his consent when still a child. The young Queen was Mary Stuart. Her misfortunes, her beauty, and her connection with European history, have made her a historical personage, more conspicuous indeed for what she suffered than for what she did; her real importance is not commensurate with the position she occupies. This, then, was the position of the brothers Guise at court. The King was the husband of their niece; both were children in age and mind, and therefore doubly required guidance. The brothers, Francis and Charles, had the government entirely in their hands; the Duke managed the army, the Cardinal the finances and foreign affairs. Two such leaders were the mayors of the palace. The whole constitution of the court reminds us of the 'rois fainéants' and the office of major-domo under the Carlovingians. Thus, just when Catharine was about to take advantage of a favourable moment, she saw herself once more eclipsed and thrust aside, and that by insolent upstarts of whom one thing only was certain, that they possessed unusual talents, and that their consciences were elastic in the choice of means. It was not only from Catharine that the supremacy of the Guises met with violent opposition, but also from Protestantism, the importance of which was greatly increasing in France. … In the time of Henry II., in spite of all the edicts and executions, Protestantism had made great progress. … In the spring of 1559, interdicted Protestantism had secretly reviewed its congregations, and at the first national synod drawn up a confession of faith and a constitution for the new Church. Preachers and elders had appeared from every part of France, and their eighty articles of 28th May, 1559, have become the code of laws of French Protestantism. The Calvinistic principle of the Congregational Church, with choice of its own minister, deacons, and elders; a consistory which maintained strict discipline in matters of faith and morals … was established upon French soil, and was afterwards publicly accepted by the whole party. The more adherents this party gained in the upper circles, the bolder was its attitude; there was, indeed, no end to the executions, or to the edicts against heresy, but a spirit of opposition, previously unknown, had gradually gained ground. Prisoners were set free, the condemned were rescued from the hands of the executioners on the way to the scaffold, and a plan was devised among the numerous fugitives in foreign lands for producing a turn in the course of events by violent means. La Rénaudie, a reformed nobleman from Perigord, who had sworn vengeance on the Guises for the execution of his brother, had, with a number of other persons of his own way of thinking, formed a plan for attacking the Guises, carrying off the King, and placing him under the guardianship of the Bourbon agnates. … The project was betrayed; the Guises succeeded in placing the King in security in the Castle of Amboise; a number of the conspirators were seized, another troop overpowered and dispersed on their attack upon the castle, on the 17th of March, 1560; some were killed, some taken prisoners and at once executed. It was then discovered, or pretended, that the youngest of the Bourbon princes [see BOURBON, HOUSE OF], Louis of Condé, was implicated in the conspiracy [known as the Conspiracy or Tumult of Amboise]. … The Guises now ventured, in contempt of French historical traditions, to imprison this prince of the blood, this agnate of the reigning house; to summon him before an arbitrary tribunal of partisans, and to condemn him to death. … This affair kept all France in suspense. All the nobles, although strongly infected with Huguenot ideas, were on Condé's side; even those who condemned his religious opinions made his cause their own. They justly thought that if he fell none of them would be safe. In the midst of this ferment, destiny interposed. On the 5th of December, 1560, Francis II. died suddenly, and a complete change took place. His death put an end to a net-work of intrigues, which aimed at knocking the rebellion, political and religious, on the head. … During this confusion one individual had been watching the course of events with the eagerness of a beast ready to seize on its prey. Catharine of Medici was convinced that the time of her dominion had at length arrived. … Francis II. was scarcely dead when she seized upon the person and the power of Charles IX. He was a boy of ten years old, not more promising than his eldest brother, sickly and weakly like all the sons of Henry II., more attached to his mother than the others, and he had been neglected by the Guises. … One of her first acts was to liberate Condé; this was a decided step towards reconciliation with the Bourbons and the Protestants. The whole situation was all at once changed. The court was ruled by Catharine; her feverish thirst for power was satisfied. The Guises and their adherents were, indeed, permitted to remain in their offices and posts of honour, in order not fatally to offend them; but their supremacy was destroyed, and the new power was based upon the Queen's understanding with the heads of the Huguenot party."

"The recent commotion had disclosed the existence of a body of malcontents, in part religious, in part also political, scattered over the whole kingdom and of unascertained numbers. To its adherents the name of Huguenots was now for the first time given. What the origin of this celebrated appellation was, it is now perhaps impossible to discover. … It has been traced back to the name of the Eidgenossen or 'confederates,' under which the party of freedom figured in Geneva when the authority of the bishop and duke was overthrown; or to the 'Roy Huguet,' or 'Huguon,' a hobgoblin supposed to haunt the vicinity of Tours, to whom the superstitious attributed the nocturnal assemblies of the Protestants; or to the gate 'du roy Huguon' of the same city, near which those gatherings were wont to be made. Some of their enemies maintained the former existence of a diminutive coin known as a 'huguenot,' and asserted that the appellation, as applied to the reformed, arose from their 'not being worth a huguenot,' or farthing; And some of their friends, with equal confidence and no less improbability, declared that it was invented because the adherents of the house of Guise secretly put forward claims upon the crown of France in behalf of that house as descended from Charlemagne, whereas the Protestants loyally upheld the rights of the Valois sprung from Hugh Capet. In the diversity of contradictory statements, we may perhaps be excused if we suspend our judgment. … Not a week had passed after the conspiracy of Amboise before the word was in everybody's mouth. Few knew or cared whence it arose. A powerful party, whatever name it might bear, had sprung up, as it were, in a night. … No feature of the rise of the Reformation in France is more remarkable than the sudden impulse which it received during the last year or two of Henry II.'s life, and especially within the brief limits of the reign of his eldest son. … There was not a corner of the kingdom where the number of incipient Protestant churches was not considerable. Provence alone contained 60, whose delegates this year met in a synod at the blood-stained village of Mérindol. In large tracts of country the Huguenots had become so numerous that they were no longer able or disposed to conceal their religious sentiments, nor content to celebrate their rites in private or nocturnal assemblies. This was particularly the case in Normandy, in Languedoc, and on the banks of the Rhone."

H. M. Baird, History of the Rise of the Huguenots, book 1, chapter 10 (volume 1).

FRANCE: A. D. 1560-1563.
   Changed policy of Catharine de' Medici.
   Delusive favors to the Huguenots.
   The Guises and the Catholics again ascendant.
   The massacre of Vassy.
   Outbreak of civil war.
   Battle of Dreux.
   Assassination of Guise.
   Peace and the Edict of Amboise.

"Catherine de Medici, now regent, thought it wisest to abandon the policy which had till then prevailed under the influence of the Guises, and while she confirmed the Lorraine princes in the important offices they held, she named, on the other hand, Antoine de Bourbon [king of Navarre] lieutenant-general of the kingdom, and took Michel de l'Hôpital as her chief adviser. … Chancellor de l'Hôpital, like the Regent, aimed at the destruction of the parties which were rending the kingdom asunder; but his political programme was that of an honest man and a true liberal. A wise system of religious toleration and of administrative reform would, he thought, restore peace and satisfy all true Frenchmen. 'Let us,' he said, 'do away with the diabolical party-names which cause so many seditions—Lutherans, Huguenots, and Papists; let us not alter the name of Christians.' … The edicts of Saint Germain and of January (1562) were favourable to the Huguenots. Religious meetings were allowed in rural districts; all penalties previously decreed against Dissenters were suspended on condition that the old faith should not be interfered with: finally, the Huguenot divines, with Theodore de Bèze at their head, were invited to meet the Roman Catholic prelates and theologians in a conference (colloque) at Poissy, near Paris. Theodore de Bèze, the faithful associate and coadjutor of Calvin in the great work of the Reformation, both at Geneva and in France, is justly and universally regarded as the historian of the early Huguenots. … The speech he delivered at the opening of the colloque is an eloquent plea for liberty and mutual forbearance. Unfortunately, the conciliatory measures he proposed satisfied no one."

"The edict of January … gave permission to Protestants to hold meetings for public worship outside the towns, and placed their meetings under the protection of the law. … The Parliament of Paris refused to register the edict until after repeated orders from the Queen-mother. The Parliament of Dijon refused to register it. … The Parliament of Aix refused. Next, Antoine de Navarre, bribed by a promise of the restoration of the Spanish part of his little kingdom, announced that the colloquy of Poissy had converted him, dismissed Beza and the reformed preachers, sent Jeanne back to Beárn, demanded the dismissal of the Chatillons from the court, and invited the Duke of Guise and his brother, the Cardinal, who were at their château of Joinville, to return to Paris. Then occurred—it was only six weeks after the Edict of January—the massacre of Vassy. Nine hundred out of 3,000—the population of that little town—were Protestants. Rejoicing in the permission granted them by the new law, they were assembled on the Sunday morning, in a barn outside the town, for the purpose of public service. The Duke of Guise and the Cardinal, with their armed escort of gentlemen and soldiers, riding on their way to Paris, heard the bells which summoned the people, and asked what they meant. Being told that it was a Huguenot 'prêche,' the Duke swore that he would Huguenot them to some purpose. He rode straight to the barn and entered the place, threatening to murder them all. The people relying on the law, barred the doors. Then the massacre began. The soldiers burst open the feeble barrier, and began to fire among the perfectly unarmed and inoffensive people. Sixty-four were killed—men, women, and children; 200 were wounded. This was the signal for war. Condé, on the intelligence, immediately retired from the court to Meaux, whence he issued a proclamation calling on all the Protestants of the country to take up arms. Coligny was at Chatillon, whither Catharine addressed him letter after letter, urging upon him, in ambiguous terms, the defence of the King. {1199} It seems, though this is obscure, that at one time Condé might have seized the royal family and held them. But if he had the opportunity, he neglected it, and the chance never came again. Henceforward, however, we hear no more talk about Catharine becoming a Protestant. That pretence will serve her no more. Before the clash of arms, there was silence for a space. Men waited till the last man in France who had not spoken should declare himself. The Huguenots looked to the Admiral, and not to Condé. It was on him that the real responsibility lay of declaring civil war. It was a responsibility from which the strongest man might shrink. … The Admiral having once made up his mind, hesitated no longer, and, with a heavy heart, set off the next day to join Condé. He wrote to Catharine that he took up arms, not against the King, but against those who held him captive. He wrote also to his old uncle, the Constable [Montmorency]. … The Constable replied. There was no bitterness between uncle and nephew. The former was fighting to prevent the 'universal ruin' of his country, and for his 'petits maitres,' the boys, the sons of his old friend, Henry II. Montmorency joined the Guises in perfect loyalty, and with the firm conviction that it was the right thing for him to do. The Chatillon fought in the name of law and justice, and to prevent the universal massacre of his people. … Then the first civil war began with a gallant exploit—the taking of Orleans [April 1562]. Condé rode into it at the head of 2,000 cavalry, all shouting like schoolboys, and racing for six miles who should get into the city first. They pillaged the churches, and turned out the Catholics. 'Those who were that day turned outside the city wept catholicly that they were dispossessed of the magazines of the finest wines in France.' Truly a dire misfortune, for the Catholics to lose all the best claret districts! Orleans taken, the Huguenots proceeded to issue protestations and manifestoes, in all of which the hand of the Admiral is visible. They are not fighting against the King, who is a prisoner; the war was begun by the Guises. … They might have added, truly enough, that Condé and the Admiral held in their hands letters from Catharine, urging them to carry on the contest for the sake of the young King. The fall of Orleans was quickly followed by that of Rouen, Tours, Blois, Bourges, Vienne, Valence, and Montauban. The civil war was fairly begun. The party was now well organized. Condé was commander-in-chief by right of his birth; Coligny was real leader by right of his reputation and wisdom. It was by him that a Solemn League and Covenant was drawn up, to be signed by everyone of the Calvinist chiefs. These were, besides Condé and the Chatillons, La Rochefoucauld, … Coligny's nephew and Condé's brother-in-law—he was the greatest seigneur in Poitou; Rohan, from Dauphine, who was Condé's cousin; the Prince of Porcian, who was the husband of Condé's niece. Each of these lords came with a following worthy of his name. Montgomery, who had slain Henry II., brought his Normans; Genlis, the Picards. … With Andelot came a troop of Bretons; with the Count de Grammont came 6,000 Gascons. Good news poured in every day. Not only Rouen, but Havre, Caen, and Dieppe submitted in the North. Angers and Nantes followed. The road was open in the end for bringing troops from Germany. The country in the southwest was altogether in their hands. Meantime, the enemy were not idle. They began with massacres. In Paris they murdered 800 Huguenots in that first summer of the war. From every side fugitives poured into Orleans, which became the city of refuge. There were massacres at Amiens, Senlis, Cahors, Toulouse, Angoulême—everywhere. Coligny advised a march upon Paris, where, he urged, the Guises had but a rabble at their command. His counsels when war was once commenced, were always for vigorous measures. Condé preferred to wait. Andelot was sent to Germany, where he raised 3,000 horse. Calvin despatched letters in every direction, urging on the churches and the Protestant princes to send help to France. Many of Coligny's old soldiers of St. Quentin came to fight under his banner. Elizabeth of England offered to send an army if Calais were restored; when she saw that no Frenchman would give up that place again, she still sent men and money, though with grudging spirit. At length both armies took the field. The Duke of Guise had under him 8,000 men; Condé 7,000. They advanced, and met at the little town of Vassodun, where a conference was held between the Queen-mother and Navarre on the one hand, and Condé and Coligny on the other. Catharine proposed that all the chiefs of both sides—Guise, the Cardinal de Lorraine, St. Andre, Montmorency, Navarre, Condé, and the Chatillon brothers—should all alike go into voluntary exile. Condé was nearly persuaded to accept this absurd proposal. Another conference was held at Taley. These conferences were only delays. An attempt was made by Catharine to entrap Condé, which was defeated by the Admiral's prompt rescue. The Parliament of Paris issued a decree commanding all Romanists in every parish to rise in arms at the sound of the bell and to slay every Huguenot. It was said that 50,000 were thus murdered. No doubt the numbers were grossly exaggerated. … These cruelties naturally provoked retaliation. … An English army occupied Havre. English troops set out for Rouen. Some few managed to get within the walls. The town was taken by the Catholics [October 25, 1562], and, for eight days, plundered. Needless to say that Guise hanged every Huguenot he could find. Here the King of Navarre was killed. The loss of Rouen, together with other disasters, greatly discouraged the Huguenots. Their spirits rose, however, when news came that Andelot, with 4,000 reiters, was on his way to join them. He brought them in safety across France, being himself carried in a litter, sick with ague and fever. The Huguenots advanced upon Paris, but did not attack the city. At Dreux [December 19, 1562], they met the army of Guise. Protestant historians endeavor to show that the battle was drawn. In fact both sides sustained immense losses. St. André was killed, Montmorency and Condé were taken prisoners. Yet Coligny had to retire from the field—his rival had outgeneralled him. It was characteristic of Coligny that he never lost heart. … With his German cavalry, a handful of his own infantry, and a small troop of English soldiers, Coligny swept over nearly the whole of Normandy. It is true that Guise was not there to oppose him. Every thing looked well. He was arranging for a 'splendid alliance' with England, when news came which stayed his hand. {1200} Guise marched southwards to Orleans. … There was in Orleans a young Huguenot soldier named Jean Poltrot de Méré. He was a fanatic. … He waited for an opportunity, worked himself into the good graces of the Duke, and then shot him with three balls, in the shoulder. Guise died three days later. … Then a peace was signed [and ratified by the Edict of Amboise, March 19, 1563]. Condé, won over and seduced by the sirens of the Court, signed it. It was a humiliating and disastrous peace. Huguenots were to be considered loyal subjects; foreign soldiers should be sent out of the country; churches and temples should be restored to their original uses; the suburbs of one town in every bailiwick, were to be used for Protestant worship (this was a great reduction on the Edict of January, which allowed the suburbs of every town); and the nobility and gentry were to hold worship in their own houses after their own opinions. The Admiral was furious at this weakness. 'You have ruined,' he said to Condé, 'more churches by one stroke of the pen than the enemy could have done in ten years of war.'"

ALSO IN: Duc d' Aumale, History of the Princes de Condé, book 1, chapter 3 (volume l).

FRANCE: A. D. 1563-1564.
Recovery of Havre from the English.
The Treaty of Troyes.

Under the terms on which the Huguenot leaders procured help from Elizabeth, the English queen held Havre, and refused to restore it until after the restoration of Calais to England, and the repayment of a loan of 140,000 crowns. The Huguenots, having now made peace with their Catholic fellow countrymen, were not prepared to fulfill the English contract, according to Elizabeth's claims, but demanded that Havre should be given up. The Queen refusing, both the parties, lately in arms against each other, joined forces, and laid siege to Havre so vigorously that it was surrendered to them on the 28th of July, 1563. Peace with England was concluded in the April following, by a treaty negotiated at Troyes, and the Queen lost all her rights over Calais.

ALSO IN: J. A. Froude, History of England: Reign of Elizabeth, chapters 6 and 8 (volume 1-2).

FRANCE: A. D. 1563-1570.
   The conference at Bayonne.
   Outbreak of the Second Civil War.
   Battle of St. Denis.
   Peace of Longjumeau.
   The Third Civil War.
   Huguenot rally at La Rochelle.
   Appearance of the Queen of Navarre.
   Battle of Jarnac.
   Death of Condé.
   Henry of Navarre chosen to command.
   Battle of Moncontour.
   Peace of St. Germain.

The religious peace established under the Edict of Amboise lasted four years. "Not that the Huguenots enjoyed during these years anything like security or repose. The repeated abridgment even of those narrow liberties conferred by the Edict of Amboise, and the frequent outbreaks of popular hatred in which numbers of them perished, kept them in perpetual alarm. Still more alarming was the meeting at Bayonne [of Catherine de' Medici, the young king, her son, and the Duke of Alva, representing Philip II. of Spain] in the summer of 1565. … Amid the Court festivities which took place, it was known that there had been many secret meetings between Alva, Catherine, and, Charles. The darkest suspicions as to their objects and results spread over France. It was generally believed—falsely, as from Alva's letters it now appears—that a simultaneous extermination of all heretics in the French and Spanish dominions had been agreed upon. To anticipate this stroke, Coligni proposed that the person of the King should be seized upon. The Court, but slenderly guarded, was then at Monceaux. The project had almost succeeded. Some time, however, was lost. The Court got warning and fled to Meaux. Six thousand Swiss arrived, and by a rapid march carried the King to Paris. After such a failure, nothing was left to the Huguenots but the chances of a second civil war. Condé entered boldly on the campaign. Though he had with him but 1,500 horse and 1,200 infantry, he marched to Paris, and offered battle to the royal troops beneath its walls. The Constable [Montmorency], who had 18,000 men at his command, accepted the challenge, and on the 10th of November 1567, the battle of St. Denis was fought. … Neither party could well claim the victory, as both retired from the field. The royal army had to mourn the loss that day of its aged and gallant commander, the Constable. Condé renewed next day the challenge, which was not accepted. The winter months were spent by the Huguenots in effecting a junction with some German auxiliaries, and in the spring they appeared in such force upon the field that, on the 23d March 1568, the Peace of Longjumeau was ratified, which re-established, free from all modifications and restrictions, the Edict of Amboise. It was evident from the first that this treaty was not intended to be kept; that it had been entered into by the government solely to gain time, and to scatter the ranks of the Huguenots. Coligni sought Condé at his château of Noyers in Burgundy. He had scarcely arrived when secret intelligence was given them of a plot upon their lives. They had barely time to fly, making many a singular escape by the way, and reaching Rochelle, which from this time became the head-quarters of the Huguenots, on the 15th September 1568. During the first two religious wars … the seat of war was so remote from her dominions that the Queen of Navarre [Jeanne d'Albret,—see NAVARRE: A.D. 1528-1563] had satisfied herself with opening her country as an asylum for those Huguenots driven thither out of the southern counties of France. But when she heard that Condé and Coligni … were on their way to Rochelle, to raise there once more the Protestant banner, convinced that the French Court meditated nothing short of the extermination of the Huguenots, she determined openly to cast in her lot with her co-religionists, and to give them all the help she could. Dexterously deceiving Montluc, who had received instructions to watch her movements, and to seize upon her person if she showed any intention of leaving her own dominions, after a flight as precipitous and almost as perilous as that of Condé and Coligni, she reached Rochelle on the 29th September, ten days after their arrival. This town, for nearly a century the citadel of Protestantism in France, having by its own unaided power freed itself from the English dominion [in the period between 1368 and 1380] had had extraordinary municipal privileges bestowed on it in return—among others, that of an entirely independent jurisdiction, both civil and military. {1201} Like so many of the great commercial marts of Europe, in which the spirit of freedom was cherished, it had early welcomed the teaching of the Reformers, and at the time now before us nearly the whole of its inhabitants were Huguenots. … About the very time that the Queen of Navarre entered Rochelle a royal edict appeared, prohibiting, under pain of death, the exercise of any other than the Roman Catholic religion in France, imposing upon all the observance of its rites and ceremonies; and banishing from the realm all preachers of the doctrine of Calvin, fifteen days only being allowed them to quit the kingdom. It was by the sword that this stern edict was to be enforced or rescinded. Two powerful armies of nearly equal strength mustered speedily. One was nominally under the command of the Duke of Anjou, but really led by Tavannes, Biron, Brissac, and the young Duke of Guise, the last burning to emulate the military glory of his father; the other under the command of Condé and Coligni. The two armies were close upon one another; their generals desired to bring them into action; they were more than once actually in each other's presence; but the unprecedented inclemency of the weather prevented an engagement, and at last, without coming into collision, both had to retire to winter quarters. The delay was fatal to the Huguenots." In the following spring (March 13, 1569), while their forces were still scattered and unprepared, they were forced into battle with the better-generaled Royalists, at Jarnac, and were grievously defeated. Condé, wounded and taken prisoner, was treated at first with respect by the officers who received his sword. But "Montesquiou, captain of the Swiss Guard of the Duke of Anjou, galloped up to the spot, and, hearing who the prisoner was, deliberately levelled his pistol at him and shot him through the head. The Duke passed no censure on his officer, and expressed no regret at his deed. The grossest indignities were afterwards, by his orders, heaped upon the dead body of the slain. The defeat of Jarnac, and still more the death of Condé, threw the Huguenot army into despair. … The utter dissolution of the army seemed at hand. The Admiral sent a messenger to the Queen of Navarre at Rochelle, entreating her to come to the camp. She was already on her way. On arrival, and after a short consultation with the Admiral, the army was drawn up to receive her. She rode along the ranks—her son Henry on one side, the son of the deceased Condé on the other." Then she addressed to the troops an inspiring speech, concluding with these heroic words: "Soldiers, I offer you everything I have to give,—my dominions, my treasures, my life, and, what is dearer to me than all, my children. I make here solemn oath before you all—I swear to defend to my last sigh the holy cause which now unites us." "The soldiers crowded around the Queen, and unanimously, as if by sudden impulse, hailed young Henry of Navarre as their future general. The Admiral and La Rochefoucauld were the first to swear fidelity to the Prince; then came the inferior officers and the whole assembled soldiery; and it was thus that, in his fifteenth year, the Prince of Béarn was inaugurated as general-in-chief of the army of the Huguenots." In June the Huguenot army effected a junction at St. Yriex with a division of German auxiliaries, led by the Duc de Deux-Ponts, and including among its chiefs the Prince of Orange and his brother Louis of Nassau. They attacked the Duke of Anjou at La Roche-Abeille and gained a slight advantage; but wasted their strength during the summer, contrary to the advice of the Admiral Coligny, in besieging Poitiers. The Duke of Anjou approached with a superior army, and, again in opposition to the judgment of Coligny, the Huguenots encountered him at Moncontour (October 3, 1569), where they suffered the worst of their defeats, leaving 5,000 dead and wounded on the field. Meanwhile a French army had entered Navarre, had taken the capital and spread destruction everywhere through the small kingdom; but the Queen sent Count de Montgomery to rally her people, and the invaders were driven out. Coligny and Prince Henry wintered their troops in the far south, then moved rapidly northwards in the spring, up the valley of the Rhone, across the Cevennes, through Burgundy, approaching the Loire, and were met by the Marshal de Cosse at Arnay-le-Duc, where Henry of Navarre won his first success in arms—Coligny being ill. Though it was but a partial victory it brought about a breathing time of peace. "This happened in the end of June, and on the 8th of August [1570] the Peace of St. Germain-en-Laye was signed, and France had two full years of quiet."

ALSO IN: Duc d'Aumale, History of the Princes de Condé, book 1, chapter 4-5 (volume 1-2).

      C. M. Yonge,
      Cameos of English History,
      5th series, chapter 8.

FRANCE: A. D. 1570-1572.
   Coligny at court and his influence with the King.
   Projected war with Spain.
   The desperate step of Catharine de' Medici, and its
   consequence in the plot of Massacre.

"After the Peace of 1570, it appeared as if a complete change of policy was about to take place. The Queen pretended to be friendly with the Protestants; her relations with the ambitious Guises were distant and cold, and the project of uniting the Houses of Bourbon and Valois by marriage [the marriage of Henry of Navarre with the king's sister, Marguerite] really looked as if she was in earnest. The most distinguished leader of the Huguenot party was the Admiral Caspar de Coligny. It is quite refreshing at this doleful period to meet with such a character. He was a nobleman of the old French school and of the best stamp; lived upon his estates with his family, his little court, his retainers and subjects, in ancient patriarchal style, and on the best terms, and regularly went with them to the Protestant worship and the communion; a man of unblemished morality and strict Calvinistic views of life. Whatever this man said or did was the result of his inmost convictions; his life was the impersonation of his views and thoughts. In the late turbulent times he had become an important person as leader and organizer of the Protestant armies. At his call, thousands of noblemen and soldiers took up arms, and they submitted under his command to very strict discipline. He could not boast of having won many battles, but he was famous for having kept his resources together after repeated defeats, and for rising up stronger than before after every lost engagement. … Now that peace was made, 'why,' he asked, 'excite further dissensions for the benefit of our common enemies? Let us direct our undivided forces against the real enemy of France—against Spain, who stirs up intrigues in our civil, wars. Let us crush this power, which condemns us to ignominious dependence.' {1202} The war against Spain was Coligny's project. It was the idea of a good Huguenot, for it was directed against the most blindly fanatical and dangerous foe of the new doctrines; but it was also that of a good Frenchman, for a victory over Spain would increase the power of France in the direction of Burgundy. … From September, 1571, Coligny was at court. On his first arrival he was heartily welcomed by the King, embraced by Catharine, and loaded with honours and favours by both. I am not of opinion that this was a deeply laid scheme to entrap the guileless hero, the more easily to ruin him. Catharine's ideas did not extend so far. Still less do I believe that the young King was trained to play the part of a hypocrite, and regarded Coligny as a victim to be cherished until the fête day. I think, rather, that Catharine, in her changeableness and hatred of the Guises, was now really disposed to make peace with the Protestants, and that the young King was for the time impressed by this superior personage. No youthful mind is so degraded as to be entirely inaccessible to such influence. … I believe that the first and only happy day in the life of this unfortunate monarch was when he met Coligny, who raised him above the degradation of vulgar life; and I believe further, that this relation was the main cause of the massacre of St. Bartholomew. A new influence was threatening to surround the King and to take deep root, which Catharine, her son Henry of Anjou, and the strict Catholic party, must do their utmost to avert; and it was quite in accordance with the King's weak character to allow the man to be murdered whom he had just called 'Father.' … It appears that about the middle of the year [1572] the matter [of war with Spain and help to the revolting Netherlands] was as good as decided. The King willingly acceded to Coligny's plan … [and] privately gave considerable sums for the support of the Flemish patriots, for the equipment of an army of 4,000 men, composed of Catholics and Protestants, who marched towards Mons, to succour Louis of Nassau. When in July this army was beaten, and the majority of the Huguenots were in despair, Coligny succeeded in persuading the King to equip a fresh and still larger army; but the opposition then bestirred itself. …The Queen … had been absent, with her married daughter in Lorraine, and on her return she found everything changed; the Guises without influence, herself thrust on one side. Under the impression of the latest events in Flanders, which made it likely that the war with Spain would be ruinous, she hastened to the King, told him with floods of tears that it would be his ruin; that the Huguenots, through Coligny, had stolen the King's confidence, unfortunately for himself and the country. She made some impression upon him, but it did not last long, and thoughts of war gained the upper hand again. The idea now (August, 1572), must have been matured in Catharine's mind of venturing on a desperate step, in order to save her supremacy and influence. … The idea ripened in her mind of getting rid of Coligny by assassination. … Entirely of one mind with her son Henry, she turned to the Guises, with whom she was at enmity when they were in power, but friendly when they were of no more consequence than herself. They breathed vengeance against the Calvinists, and were ready at once to avenge the murder of Francis of Guise by a murderous attack upon Coligny. An assassin was hired, and established in a house belonging to the Guises, near Coligny's dwelling, and as he came out of the palace, on the 22nd of August, a shot was fired at him, which wounded but did not kill him. Had Coligny died of his wound, Catharine would have been content. … But Coligny did not die; the Huguenots defiantly demanded vengeance on the well-known instigator of the deed; their threats reached the Queen and Prince Henry of Anjou, and the personal fascination which Coligny had exercised over King Charles appeared rather to increase than to diminish. Thus doubtless arose, during the anxious hours after the failure of the assassination, the idea of an act of violence on a large scale, which should strike a blow at Coligny and his friends before they had time for revenge. It certainly had not been in preparation for months, not even since the time that Coligny had been at Court; it was conceived in the agony of these hours."

ALSO IN: J. L. Motley, The Rise of the Dutch Republic, part 3, chapters 6-7 (volume 2).

"With some proofs, forged or real, in her hand that he was in personal danger, the Queen Mother [August 24] presented herself to her son. She told him that at the moment she was speaking the Huguenots were arming. Sixteen thousand of them intended to assemble in the morning, seize the palace, destroy herself, the Duke of Anjou, and the Catholic noblemen, and carry off Charles. The conspiracy, she said, extended through France. The chiefs of the congregations were waiting for a signal from Coligny to rise in every province and town. The Catholics had discovered the plot, and did not mean to sit still to be murdered. If the King refused to act with them, they would choose another leader; and whatever happened he would be himself destroyed. Unable to say that the story could not be true, Charles looked enquiringly at Tavannas and De Nevers, and they both confirmed the Queen Mother's words. Shaking his incredulity with reminders of Amboise and Meaux, Catherine went on to say that one man was the cause of all the troubles in the realm. The Admiral aspired to rule all France, and she—she admitted, with Anjou and the Guises, had conspired to kill him to save the King and the country. She dropped all disguise. The King, she said, must now assist them or all would be lost. … Charles was a weak, passionate boy, alone in the dark conclave of iniquity. He stormed, raved, wept, implored, spoke of his honour, his plighted word; swore at one moment that the Admiral should not be touched, then prayed them to try other means. But clear, cold and venomous, Catherine told him it was too late. If there was a judicial enquiry, the Guises would shield themselves by telling all that they knew. They would betray her; they would betray his brother; and, fairly or unfairly, they would not spare himself. … For an hour and a half the King continued to struggle. 'You refuse, then,' Catherine said at last. … 'Is it that you are afraid, Sire?' she hissed in his ear. 'By God's death,' he cried, springing to his feet, 'since you will kill the Admiral, kill them all. {1203} Kill all the Huguenots in France, that none may be left to reproach me. Mort Dieu! Kill them all.' He dashed out of the cabinet. A list of those who were to die was instantly drawn up. Navarre and Condé were first included; but Catherine prudently reflected that to kill the Bourbons would make the Guises too strong. Five or six names were added to the Admiral's, and these Catherine afterwards asserted were all that it was intended should suffer. … Night had now fallen. Guise and Aumale were still lurking in the city, and came with the Duke of Montpensier at Catherine's summons. The persons who were to be killed were in different parts of the town. Each took charge of a district. Montpensier promised to see to the Palace; Guise and his uncle undertook the Admiral; and below these, the word went out to the leaders of the already organised sections, who had been disappointed once, but whose hour was now come. The Catholics were to recognise one another in the confusion by a white handkerchief on the left arm and a white cross in their caps. The Royal Guard, Catholics to a man, were instruments ready made for the work. Guise assembled the officers: he told them that the Huguenots were preparing to rise, and that the King had ordered their instant punishment. The officers asked no questions, and desired no better service. The business was to begin at dawn. The signal would be the tolling of the great bell at the Palace of Justice, and the first death was to be Coligny's. The soldiers stole to their posts. Twelve hundred lay along the Seine, between the river and the Hotel de Ville; other companies watched at the Louvre. As the darkness waned, the Queen Mother went down to the gate. The stillness of the dawn was broken by an accidental pistol-shot. Her heart sank, and she sent off a messenger to tell Guise to pause. But it was too late. A minute later the bell boomed out, and the massacre of St. Bartholomew had commenced." The assassins broke into the Admiral's dwelling and killed him as he lay wounded in bed. "The window was open. 'Is it done?' cried Guise from the court below, 'is it done? Fling him out that we may see him.' Still breathing, the Admiral was hurled upon the pavement. The Bastard of Angoulême wiped the blood from his face to be sure of his identity, and then, kicking him as he lay, shouted, 'So far well. Courage, my brave boys! now for the rest.' One of the Duc de Nevers's people hacked off the head. A rope was knotted about the ankles, and the corpse was dragged out into the street amidst the howling crowd. Teligny, … Rochefoucault, and the rest of the Admiral's friends who lodged in the neighbourhood were disposed of in the same way, and so complete was the surprise that there was not the most faint attempt at resistance. Montpensier had been no less successful in the Louvre. The staircases were all beset. The retinues of the King of Navarre and the Prince had been lodged in the palace at Charles's particular desire. Their names were called over, and as they descended unarmed into the quadrangle they were hewn in pieces. There, in heaps, they fell below the Royal window, under the eyes of the miserable King, who was forced forward between his mother and his brother that he might be seen as the accomplice of the massacre. Most of the victims were killed upon the spot. Some fled wounded up the stairs, and were slaughtered in the presence of the Princesses. … By seven o'clock the work which Guise and his immediate friends had undertaken was finished with but one failure. The Count Montgomery and the Vidame of Chartres … escaped to England. The mob meanwhile was in full enjoyment. … While dukes and lords were killing at the Louvre, the bands of the sections imitated them with more than success; men, women, and even children, striving which should be the first in the pious work of murder. All Catholic Paris was at the business, and every Huguenot household had neighbours to know and denounce them. Through street and lane and quay and causeway, the air rang with yells and curses, pistol-shots and crashing windows; the roadways were strewed with mangled bodies, the doors were blocked by the dead and dying. From garret, closet, roof, or stable, crouching creatures were torn shrieking out, and stabbed and hacked at; boys practised their hands by strangling babies in their cradles, and headless bodies were trailed along the trottoirs. … Towards midday some of the quieter people attempted to restore order. A party of the town police made their way to the palace. Charles caught eagerly at their offers of service, and bade them do their utmost to put the people down; but it was all in vain. The soldiers, maddened with plunder and blood, could not be brought to assist, and without them nothing could be done. All that afternoon and night, and the next day and the day after, the horrible scenes continued, till the flames burnt down at last for want of fuel. The number who perished in Paris was computed variously from 2,000 to 10,000. In this, as in all such instances, the lowest estimate is probably the nearest to the truth. The massacre was completed—completed in Paris—only, as it proved, to be continued elsewhere. … On the 24th, while the havoc was at its height, circulars went round to the provinces that a quarrel had broken out between the Houses of Guise and Coligny; that the Admiral and many more had been unfortunately killed, and that the King himself had been in danger through his efforts to control the people. The governors of the different towns were commanded to repress at once any symptoms of disorder which might show themselves, and particularly to allow no injury to be done to the Huguenots." But Guise, when he learned of these circulars, which threw upon him the odium of the massacre, forced the King to recall them. "The story of the Huguenot conspiracy was revived. … The Protestants of the provinces, finding themselves denounced from the throne, were likely instantly to take arms to defend themselves. Couriers were therefore despatched with second orders that they should be dealt with as they had been dealt with at Paris; and at Lyons, Orleans, Rouen, Bordeaux, Toulon, Meaux, in half the towns and villages of France, the bloody drama was played once again. The King, thrown out into the hideous torrent of blood, became drunk with frenzy, and let slaughter have its way, till even Guise himself affected to be shocked, and interposed to put an end to it; not, however, till, according to the belief of the times, 100,000 men, women and children had been miserably murdered. … The number again may be hoped to have been prodigiously exaggerated; with all large figures, when unsupported by exact statistics, it is safe to divide at least by ten."

      G. P. Fisher,
      The Massacre of St. Bartholomew
      (New Englander, January, 1880).

FRANCE: A. D. 1572 (August-October).
   The king's avowal of responsibility for the Massacre, and
   celebration of his "victory."
   Rejoicings at Rome and Madrid.
   General horror of Europe.
   The effects in France.
   Changed character of the Protestant party.

"On the morning of the 26th of August, Charles IX. went to hold a 'bed of justice' in the parliament, carrying with him the king of Navarre, and he then openly avowed that the massacre had been perpetrated by his orders, made … excuse for it, grounded on a pretended conspiracy of the Huguenots against his person, and then directed the parliament to commence judicial proceedings against Coligni and his accomplices, dead or alive, on the charge of high treason. The parliament obeyed, and, after a process of two months, which was a mere tissue of falsehoods, they not only found all the dead guilty, but they included in the sentence two of the principal men who had escaped—the old captain Briquemaut, and Arnaud de Cavaignes. … Both were hanged at the Place de Grève, in the presence of the king, who compelled the king of Navarre also to be a witness of their execution. Having once assumed the responsibility of the massacre of the protestants, Charles IX. began to glory in the deed. On the 27th of August, he went with the whole court to Montfaucon, to contemplate the mutilated remains of the admiral. … Next day, a grand jubilee procession was headed by the king in celebration of his so-called victory. … The 'victory' was also celebrated by two medals. … Nevertheless, the minds of Charles and his mother were evidently ill at ease, and their misgivings as to the effect which would be produced at foreign courts by the news of these proceedings are very evident in the varying and often contradictory orders which they dispatched into the provinces. … The news of these terrible events caused an extreme agitation in all the courts throughout Christian Europe. Philip of Spain, informed of the massacres by a letter from the king and the queen-mother, written on the 29th of August, replied by warm congratulations and expressions of joy. The cardinal of Lorraine, who was … at Rome, gave a reward of 1,000 écus of gold to the courier who brought the despatches, and the news was celebrated at Rome by the firing of the cannons of the castle of St. Angelo, and by the lighting of bon-fires in the streets. The pope (Gregory XIII.) and the sacred college went in grand procession to the churches to offer their thanks to God. … Not content with these demonstrations, the pope caused a medal to be struck. … Gregory dispatched immediately to the court of France the legate Fabio d'Orsini, with a commission to congratulate the king and his mother for the vigour they had shown in the repression of heresy, to demand the reception in France of the council of Trent, and the establishment of the Inquisition. … But the papal legate found the court of France in a different temper from that which he anticipated. Catherine, alarmed at the effect which these great outrages had produced on the protestant sovereigns, found it necessary to give him private intimations that the congratulations of the pontiff were untimely, and could not be publicly accepted. … The policy of the French court at home was no less distasteful to the papal legate than its relations abroad. The old edicts against the public exercise of the protestant worship were gradually revived, and the Huguenots were deprived of the offices which they had obtained during the short period of toleration, but strict orders were sent round to forbid any further massacres, with threats of punishment against those who had already offended. On the 8th of October, the king published a declaration, inviting such of the protestants as had quitted the kingdom in consequence of the massacres to return, and promising them safety; but this was soon followed by letters to the governors of the provinces, directing them to exhort the Huguenot gentry and others to conform to the catholic faith, and declaring that he would tolerate only one religion in his kingdom. Many, believing that the protestant cause was entirely ruined in France, complied, and this defection was encouraged by the example of the two princes of Bourbon [Henry, now king of Navarre, his mother, Jeanne d'Albret, having died June 9, 1572, and Henry, the young prince of Condé], who, after some weeks of violent resistance, submitted at the end of September, and, at least in outward form, became catholics. It has been remarked that the massacre of St. Bartholomew's-day produced an entire change in the character of the protestant party in France. The Huguenots had hitherto been entirely ruled by their aristocracy, who took the lead and direction in every movement; but now the great mass of the protestant nobility had perished or deserted the cause, and from this moment the latter depended for support upon the inhabitants of some of the great towns and upon the un-noble class of the people; and with this change it took a more popular character, in some cases showing even a tendency to republicanism. In the towns where the protestants were strong enough to offer serious resistance, such as La Rochelle, Nimes, Sancerre, and Montauban, the richer burghers, and a part at least of the municipal officers, were in favour of submission, and they were restrained only by the resolution and devotion of the less wealthy portion of the population."

ALSO IN: H. M. Baird, History of the Rise of the Huguenots, chapter 19 (volume 2).

FRANCE: A. D. 1572-1573.
   The Fourth Religious War.
   Siege and successful defence of La Rochelle.
   A favorable peace.

"The two Reformer-princes, Henry of Navarre and Henry de Condé, attended mass on the 29th of September, and, on the 3d of October, wrote to the pope, deploring their errors and giving hopes of their conversion. Far away from Paris, in the mountains of the Pyrenees and of Languedoc, in the towns where the Reformers were numerous and confident … the spirit of resistance carried the day. An assembly, meeting at Milhau, drew up a provisional ordinance for the government of the Reformed church, 'until it please God, who has the hearts of kings in His keeping, to change that of King Charles IX. and restore the state of France to good order, or to raise up such neighboring prince as is manifest marked out, by his virtue and by distinguishing signs, for to be the liberator of this poor afflicted people.' In November, 1572, the fourth religious war broke out. The siege of La Rochelle was its only important event. Charles IX. and his councillors exerted themselves in vain to avoid it. There was everything to disquiet them in this enterprise: so sudden a revival of the religious war after the grand blow they had just struck, the passionate energy manifested by the Protestants in asylum at La Rochelle, and the help they had been led to hope for from Queen Elizabeth, whom England would never have forgiven for indifference in this cause. … The king heard that one of the bravest Protestant chiefs, La Noue, 'Ironarm,' had retired to Mons with Prince Louis of Nassau. The Duke of Longueville … induced him to go to Paris. The king received him with great favor … and pressed him to go to La Rochelle and prevail upon the inhabitants to keep the peace. … La Noue at last consented, and repaired, about the end of November, 1572, to a village close by La Rochelle, whither it was arranged that deputies from the town would come and confer with him. … After hearing him, the senate rejected the pacific overtures made to them by La Noue. 'We have no mind [they said] to treat specially and for ourselves alone; our cause is that of God and of all the churches of France; we will accept nothing but what shall seem proper to all our brethren.'" They then offered to trust themselves under La Noue's command, notwithstanding the commission by which he was acting for the king. "La Noue did not hesitate; he became, under the authority of the mayor, Jacques Henri, the military head of La Rochelle, whither Charles IX. had sent him to make peace. The king authorized him to accept this singular position. La Noue conducted himself so honorably in it, and everybody was so convinced of his good faith as well as bravery, that for three months he commanded inside La Rochelle, and superintended the preparations for defence, all the while trying to make the chances of peace prevail. At the end of February, 1573, he recognized the impossibility of his double commission, and he went away from La Rochelle, leaving the place in better condition than that in which he had found it, without either king or Rochellese considering that they had any right to complain of him. Biron first and then the Duke of Anjou in person took the command of the siege. They brought up, it is said, 40,000 men and 60 pieces of artillery. The Rochellese, for defensive strength, had but 22 companies of refugees or inhabitants, making in all 3,100 men. The siege lasted from the 26th of February to the 13th of June, 1573; six assaults were made on the place. … La Rochelle was saved. Charles IX. was more and more desirous of peace; his brother, the Duke of Anjou, had just been elected King of Poland; Charles IX. was anxious for him to leave France and go to take possession of his new kingdom. Thanks to these complications, the peace of La Rochelle was signed on the 6th of July, 1573. Liberty of creed and worship was recognized in the three towns of La Rochelle, Montauban, and Nimes. They were not obliged to receive any royal garrison, on condition of giving hostages to be kept by the king for two years. Liberty of worship throughout the extent of their jurisdiction continued to be recognized in the case of lords high-justiciary. Everywhere else the Reformers had promises of not being persecuted for their creed, under the obligation of never holding an assembly of more than ten persons at a time. These were the most favorable conditions they had yet obtained. Certainly this was not what Charles IX, had calculated upon when he consented to the massacre of the Protestants."

FRANCE: A. D. 1573-1576.
   Escape of Condé and Navarre.
   Death of Charles IX.
   Accession of Henry III.
   The Fifth Civil War.
   Navarre's repudiation of Catholicism.
   The Peace of Monseur.
   The King's mignons and the nation's disgust.

"Catherine … had the address to procure the crown of Poland for the son of her predilection, Henry duke of Anjou. She had lavished her wealth upon the electors for this purpose. No sooner was the point gained than she regretted it. The health of Charles was now manifestly on the decline, and Catherine would fain have retained Henry; but the jealousy of the king forbade. After conducting the duke on his way to Poland the court returned to St. Germain, and Charles sunk, without hope or consolation, on his couch of sickness. Even here he was not allowed to repose. The young king of Navarre formed a project of escape with the prince of Condé. The duc d' Alençon, youngest brother of the king, joined in it. … The vigilance of the queen-mother discovered the enterprise, which, for her own purposes, she magnified into a serious plot. Charles was informed that a huguenot army was coming to surprise him, and he was obliged to be removed into a litter, in order to escape. … Condé was the only prince that succeeded in making his escape. The king of Navarre and the duc d' Alençon were imprisoned." The young king of Navarre "had already succeeded by his address, his frankness, and high character, in rallying to his interests the most honourable of the noblesse, who dreaded at once the perfidious Catherine and her children; who had renounced their good opinion of young Guise after the day of St. Bartholomew; and who, at the same time professing Catholicism, were averse to huguenot principles and zeal. This party, called the Politiques, professed to follow the middle or neutral course, which at one time had been that of Catherine of Medicis; but she had long since deserted it, and had joined in all the sanguinary and extreme measures of her son and of the Guises. Hence she was especially odious to the new and moderate party of the Politiques, among whom the family of Montmorency held the lead. Catherine feared their interference at the moment of the king's death, whilst his successor was absent in a remote kingdom; and she swelled the project of the princes' escape into a serious conspiracy, in order to be mistress of those whom she feared. … In this state of the court Charles IX. expired on the 30th of May, 1574, after having nominated the queen-mother to be regent during his successor's absence. … The career of the new king [Henry III.], while duke of Anjou, had been glorious. Raised to the command of armies at the age of 15, he displayed extreme courage as well as generalship. {1206} He had defeated the veteran leader of the protestants at Jarnac and at Moncontour; and the fame of his exploits had contributed to place him on the elective throne of Poland, which he now occupied. Auguring from his past life, a brilliant epoch might be anticipated; and yet we enter upon the most contemptible reign, perhaps, in the annals of France. … Henry was obliged to run away by stealth from his Polish subjects [see POLAND: A. D. 1574-1590]. When overtaken by one of the nobles of that kingdom, the monarch, instead of pleading his natural anxiety to visit France and secure his inheritance, excused himself by drawing forth the portrait of his mistress, … and declared that it was love which hastened his return. At Vienna, however, Henry forgot both crown and mistress amidst the feasts that were given him; and he turned aside to Venice, to enjoy a similar reception from that rich republic. … The hostile parties were in the meantime arming. The Politiques, or neutral catholics, for the first time showed themselves in the field. They demanded the freedom of Cossé and of Montmorency, and at length formed a treaty of alliance with the Huguenots. Henry, after indulging in the ceremony of being crowned, was obliged to lead an army into the field. Sieges were undertaken on both sides, and what is called the fifth civil war raged openly. It became more serious when the king's brother joined it. This was the duke of Alençon, a vain and fickle personage, of whom it pleased the king to become jealous. Alençon fled and joined the malcontents. The reformers, however, waited but languidly. Both parties were without active and zealous leaders; and the only notable event of this war was a skirmish in Champagne [the battle of Dormans, in which both sides lost heavily], where the duke of Guise received a slight wound in the cheek. From hence came his surname of 'Le Balafré.'" In February, 1576, the king of Navarre made his escape from court. "He bent his course towards Guienne, and at Niort publicly avowed his adherence to the reformed religion, declaring that force alone had made him conform to the mass. It was about this time that the king, in lieu of leading an army against the malcontents, despatched the queen-mother, with her gay and licentious court, to win back his brother. She succeeded, though not without making large concessions [in a treaty called the 'Peace of Monsieur']. The duke of Alençon obtained Anjou, and other provinces in appanage, and henceforth was styled duke of Anjou. More favourable terms were granted to the Huguenots: they were allowed ten towns of surety in lieu of six, and the appointment of a certain number of judges in the parliament. Such weakness in Henry disgusted the body of the catholics; and the private habits of his life contributed still more, if possible, than his public measures, to render him contemptible. He was continually surrounded by a set of young and idle favourites, whose affectation it was to unite ferocity with frivolity. The king showed them such tender affection as he might evince towards woman; they even had the unblushing impudence to adopt feminine habits of dress; and the monarch passed his time in adorning them and himself with robes and ear-rings. … The indescribable tastes and amusements of Henry and his mignons, as his favourites were called, … raised up throughout the nation one universal cry of abhorrence and contempt."

FRANCE: A. D. 1576-1585.
   The rise of the League.
   Its secret objects and aims.
   Its alliance with Philip II. of Spain.
   The Pope's Bull against Navarre and Condé.

"The famous association known as the 'Catholic League' or 'Holy Union,' took its rise from the strangely indulgent terms granted to the Huguenots by the 'Peace of Monsieur,' in April, 1576. Four years had scarcely elapsed since the bloodstained Eve of St. Bartholomew. It had been hoped that by means of that execrable crime the Reformation would have been finally crushed and extinguished in France; but instead of this, a treaty was concluded with the heretics, which placed them in a more favourable situation than they had ever occupied before. … It was regarded by the majority of Catholics as a wicked and cowardly betrayal of their most sacred interests. They ascribed it to its true source, namely, the hopeless incapacity of the reigning monarch, Henry III.; a prince whose monstrous vices and gross misgovernment were destined to reduce France to a state of disorganization bordering on national ruin. The idea of a general confederation of Catholics for the defence of the Faith against the inroads of heresy had been suggested by the Cardinal of Lorraine during the Council of Trent, and had been favourably entertained at the Court of Rome. The Duke of Guise was to have been placed at the head of this alliance; but his sudden death changed the face of affairs, and the project fell into abeyance. The Cardinal of Lorraine was now no more; he died at Avignon, at the age of 50, in December, 1574. … Henry, the third Duke of Guise, inherited in their fullest extent the ambition, the religious ardour, the lofty political aspirations, the enterprising spirit, the personal popularity, of his predecessors. The League of 1576 was conceived entirely in his interest. He was the leader naturally pointed out for such a movement;—a movement which, although its ulterior objects were at first studiously concealed, aimed in reality at substituting the family of Lorraine for that of Valois on the throne of France. The designs of the confederates, as set forth in the original manifesto which was circulated for signature, seemed at first sight highly commendable, both with regard to religion and politics. According to this document, the Union was formed for three great purposes: to uphold the Catholic Church; to suppress heresy; and to maintain the honour, the authority and prerogatives of the Most Christian king and his successors. On closer examination, however, expressions were detected which hinted at less constitutional projects. … Their secret aims became incontestably manifest soon afterwards, when one of their confidential agents, an advocate named David, happened to die suddenly on his return from Rome, and his papers fell into the hands of the Huguenots, who immediately made them public. … A change of dynasty in France was the avowed object of the scheme thus disclosed. It set forth, in substance, that the Capetian monarchs were usurpers,—the throne belonging rightfully to the house of Lorraine as the lineal descendants of Charlemagne. … {1207} The Duke of Guise, with the advice and permission of the Pope, was to imprison Henry for the rest of his days in a monastery, after the example of his ancestor Pepin when he dethroned the Merovingian Childeric. Lastly, the heir of the Carlovingians was to be proclaimed King of France; and, on assuming the crown, was to make such arrangements with his Holiness as would secure the complete recognition of the sovereignty of the Vicar of Christ, by abrogating for ever the so-called 'liberties of the Gallican Church.' … This revolutionary plot … unhappily, was viewed with cordial sympathy, and supported with enthusiastic zeal, by many of the prelates, and a large majority of the parochial clergy, of France. … The death of the Duke of Anjou, presumptive heir to the throne, in 1584, determined the League to immediate action. In the event of the king's dying without issue, which was most probable,—the crown would now devolve upon Henry of Bourbon [the King of Navarre], the acknowledged leader of the Huguenots. … In January, 1585, the chiefs of the League signed a secret treaty at Joinville with the King of Spain, by which the contracting parties made common cause for the extirpation of all sects and heresies in France and the Netherlands, and for excluding from the French throne princes who were heretics, or who 'treated heretics with public impunity.' … Liberal supplies of men and money were to be furnished to the insurgents by Philip from the moment that war should break out. … The Leaguers lost no time in seeking for their enterprise the all-important sanction of the Holy See. For this purpose they despatched as their envoy to Rome a Jesuit named Claude Matthieu. … The Jesuit fraternity in France had embraced with passionate ardour the anti-royalist cause. … His Holiness [Gregory XIII.], however, was cautious and reserved. He expressed in general terms his consent to the project of taking up arms against the heretics, and granted a plenary indulgence to those who should aid in the holy work. But he declined to countenance the deposition of the king by violence. … At length, however [September 9, 1585], Sixtus was persuaded to fulminate a bull against the King of Navarre and the Prince of Condé, in which … both culprits, together with their heirs and posterity were pronounced for ever incapable of succeeding to the throne of France or any other dignity; their subjects and vassals were released from their oath of homage, and forbidden to obey them."

      ALSO IN:
      L. von Ranke,
      Civil Wars and Monarchy in France,
      chapter 21.

FRANCE: A. D. 1577-1578.
   Rapid spread of the League.
   The Sixth Civil War and the Peace of Bergerac.
   Anjou in the Netherlands.

The League "spread like lightning over the whole face of France; Condé could find no footing in Picardy or even in Poitou; Henry of Navarre was refused entrance into Bordeaux itself; the heads of the League, the family-party of the Dukes of Guise, Mayenne and Nemours, seemed to carry all before them; the weak King leant towards them; the Queen Mother, intriguing ever, succeeded in separating Anjou from the Politiques, and began to seduce Damville. She hoped once more to isolate the Huguenots and to use the League to weaken and depress them. … The Court and the League seemed to be in perfect harmony, the King … in a way, subscribed to the League, though the twelve articles were considerably modified before they were shown to him. … The Leaguers had succeeded in making war [called the Sixth Civil War—1577], and winning some successes: but on their heels came the Court with fresh negotiations for peace. The heart's desire of the King was to crush the stubborn Huguenots and to destroy the moderates, but he was afraid to act; and so it came about that, though Anjou was won away from them, and compromised on the other side, and though Damville also deserted them, and though the whole party was in the utmost disorder and seemed likely to disperse, still the Court offered them such terms that in the end they seemed to have even recovered ground. Under the walls of Montpellier, Damville, the King's general, and Chatillon, the Admiral's son, at the head of the Huguenots, were actually manœuvring to begin a battle, when La Noue came up bearing tidings of peace, and at the imminent risk of being shot placed himself between the two armies, and stayed their uplifted hands. It was the Peace of Bergerac [confirmed by the Edict of Poitiers—Sept. 17, 1577], another ineffectual truce, which once more granted in the main what that of Chastenoy [or the 'Peace of Monseur'] had already promised: it is needless to say that the League would have none of it; and partisan-warfare, almost objectless, however oppressive to the country, went on without a break: the land was overrun by adventurers and bandits, sure sign of political death. Nothing could be more brutalising or more brutal: but the savage traits of civil war are less revolting than the ghastly revelries of the Court. All the chiefs were alike—neither the King, nor Henry of Navarre, nor Anjou, nor even the strict Catholic Guise, disdained to wallow in debauch." Having quarreled with his brother, the King, "Anjou fled, in the beginning of 1578, to Angers, where, finding that there was a prospect of amusement in the Netherlands, he turned his back on the high Catholics, and renewed friendship with the Huguenot chiefs. He was invited to come to the rescue of the distressed Calvinists in their struggle against Philip, and appeared in the Netherlands in July 1578."

FRANCE: A. D. 1578-1580.
   Treaty of Nérac.
   The Seventh Civil War, known as the War of the Lovers.
   The Peace of Fleix.

   "The King, instead of availing himself of this interval of
   repose [after the Peace of Bergerac] to fortify himself
   against his enemies, only sank deeper and deeper into vice and
   infamy. … The court resembled at once a slaughter-house and
   a brothel, although, amid all this corruption, the King was
   the slave of monks and Jesuits whom he implicitly obeyed. It
   was about this time (December 1578) that he instituted the
   military order of the Holy Ghost, that of St. Michael having
   fallen into contempt through being prostituted to unworthy
   objects. Meanwhile the Guises were using every effort to
   rekindle the war, which Catherine, on the other hand, was
   endeavouring to prevent. With this view she travelled, in
   August, into the southern provinces, and had an interview with
   Henry of Navarre at Nérac, bringing with her Henry's wife, her
   daughter Margaret; a circumstance, however, which did not add
   to the pleasure of their meeting.
{1208}
   Henry received the ladies coldly, and they retired into
   Languedoc, where they passed the remainder of the year.
   Nevertheless the negotiations were sedulously pursued; for a
   peace with the Hugonots was, at this time, indispensable to
   the Court. … In February 1579, a secret treaty was signed at
   Nérac, by which the concessions granted to the Protestants by
   the peace of Bergerac were much extended. … Catherine spent
   nearly the whole of the year 1579 in the south, endeavouring
   to avert a renewal of the war by her intrigues, rather than by
   a faithful observance of the peace. But the King of Navarre
   saw through her Italian artifices, and was prepared to summon
   his friends and captains at the shortest notice. The
   hostilities which he foresaw were not long in breaking out,
   and in a way that would seem impossible in any other country
   than France. When the King of Navarre fled from Court in 1576,
   he expressed his indifference for two things he had left
   behind, the mass and his wife; Margaret, the heroine of a
   thousand amours, was equally indifferent, and though they now
   contrived to cohabit together, it was because each connived at
   the infidelities of the other. Henry was in love with
   Mademoiselle Fosseuse, a girl of fourteen, while Margaret had
   taken for her gallant the young Viscount of Turenne, who had
   lately turned Hugonot. … The Duke of Anjou being at this
   time disposed to renew his connection with the Hugonots,
   Margaret served as the medium of communication between her
   brother and her husband; while Henry III., with a view to
   interrupt this good understanding, wrote to the king of
   Navarre to acquaint him of the intrigues of his wife with
   Turenne. Henry was neither surprised nor afflicted at this
   intelligence; but he laid the letter before the guilty
   parties, who both denied the charge, and Henry affected to
   believe their protestations. The ladies of the Court of Nérac
   were indignant at this act of Henry III., 'the enemy of
   women'; they pressed their lovers to renew hostilities against
   that discourteous monarch; Anjou added his instances to those
   of the ladies; and in 1580 ensued the war called from its
   origin 'la guerre des amoureux,' or war of the lovers: the
   seventh of what are sometimes styled the wars of 'religion'!
   The Prince of Condé, who lived on bad terms with his cousin,
   had already taken the field on his own account, and in
   November 1579 had seized on the little town of La Fère in
   Picardy. In the spring of 1580 the Protestant chiefs in the
   south unfurled their banners. The King of Navarre laid the
   foundation of his military fame by the bravery he displayed at
   the capture of Cahors; but on the whole the movement proved a
   failure. Henry III. had no fewer than three armies in the
   field, which were generally victorious, and the King of
   Navarre found himself menaced in his capital of Nérac by
   Marshal Biron. But Henry III., for fear of the Guises, did not
   wish to press the Hugonots too hard, and at length accepted
   the proffered mediation of the Duke of Anjou, who was at this
   time anxious to enter on the protectorate offered to him by
   the Flemings. Anjou set off for the south, accompanied by his
   mother and her 'flying squadron' [of seductive nymphs];
   conferences were opened at the castle of Fleix in Périgord,
   and on November 26th 1580 a treaty was concluded which was
   almost a literal renewal of that of Bergerac. Thus an
   equivocal peace, or rather truce, was re-established, which
   proved of some duration."

ALSO IN: Duc d'Aumale, History of the Princes de Condé, book 2, chapter 1 (volume 2).

FRANCE: A. D. 1584-1589.
   Henry of Navarre heir apparent to the throne.
   Fresh hostility of the League.
   The Edict of Nemours.
   The Pope's Brutum Fulmen.
   War of the Three Henrys.
   Battle of Coutras.
   The Day of Barricades at Paris.
   Assassination of Guise.
   Assassination of Henry III.

   "The Duc d'Anjou … died in 1584; Henri III. was a worn-out
   and feeble invalid; the reports of the doctors and the known
   virtue of the Queen forbad the hope of direct heirs. The King
   of Navarre was the eldest of the legitimate male descendants
   of Hugues Capet and of Saint-Louis [see BOURBON, HOUSE OF].
   But on the one hand he was a relapsed heretic; on the other,
   his relationship to the King was so distant that he could
   never have been served heir to him in any civil suit. This
   last objection was of small account; the stringent rules which
   govern decisions in private affairs cannot be made applicable
   to matters affecting the tranquillity and well-being of
   nations. … His religion was the only pretext on which
   Navarre could be excluded. France was, and wished to remain,
   Catholic; she could not submit to a Protestant King. The
   managers of the League understood that this very wide-spread
   and even strongly cherished feeling might some day become a
   powerful lever, but that, in order to use it, it was very
   needful for them to avoid offending the national amour-propre;
   and they thought that they had succeeded in finding the means
   of effecting their object. Next to Navarre, the eldest of the
   Royal House was his uncle the Cardinal de Bourbon; the Guises
   acknowledged him as heir to the throne and first Prince of the
   Blood, under the protection of the Pope and of the King of
   Spain. … The feeble-minded old man, whom no one respected,
   was a mere phantom, and could offer no serious resistance,
   when it should be convenient to set him aside. … In every
   class throughout the nation the majority were anxious to
   maintain at once French unity and Catholic unity, disliking
   the Reformation, but equally opposed to ultramontane
   pretensions and to Spanish ambition. … But … this great
   party, already named the 'parti politique,' hung loosely
   together without a leader, and without a policy. For the
   present it was paralyzed by the contempt in which the King was
   held; while the dislike which was entertained for the
   religious opinions of the rightful heir to the throne seemed
   to deprive it of all hope for the future. Henry III. stood in
   need of the assistance of the King of Navarre; he would
   willingly have cleared away the obstacle which kept them
   apart, and he made an overture with a view to bring back that
   Prince to the Catholic religion. But these efforts could not
   be successful. The change of creed on the part of the Béarnais
   was to be a satisfaction offered to France, the pledge of a
   fresh agreement between the nation and his race, and not a
   concession to the threats of enemies. He was not an
   unbeliever; still less was he a hypocrite; but he was placed
   between two fanatical parties, and repelled by the excesses of
   both; so he doubted, honestly doubted, and as his religious
   indecision was no secret, his conversion at the time of which
   we are now speaking would have been ascribed to the worst
   motives."
{1209}
   As it was, he found it necessary to quiet disturbing rumors
   with regard to the proposals of the King by permitting a plain
   account of what had occurred to be made public. "Henry III.,
   having no other answer to make to this publication, which
   justified all the complaints of the Catholics, replied to it
   by the treaty of Nemours and by the edict of July [1585].
   These two acts annulled all the edicts in favour of
   toleration; and placed at the disposal of the League all the
   resources and all the forces of the monarchy." Soon afterwards
   the Pope issued against Navarre and Condé his bull of
   excommunication. By this "the Pontiff did not deprive the
   Bourbons of a single friend, and did not give the slightest
   fresh ardour to their opponents; but he produced a powerful
   reaction among a portion of the clergy, among the magistracy,
   among all the Royalists; wounded the national sensibility,
   consolidated that union between the two Princes which he
   wished to break off, and rallied the whole of the Reformed
   party round their leaders. The Protestant pamphleteers replied
   with no less vehemence, and gave to the Pontiff's bull that
   name of 'Brutum fulmen' by which it is still known. … Still
   the sentence launched from the Vatican had had one very
   decided result—it had fired the train of powder; war broke
   out at once."

"The war, called from the three leading actors in it [Henry of Valois, Henry of Navarre, and Henry of Guise] the War of the Three Henrys, now opened in earnest. Seven powerful armies were marshalled on the part of the King of France and the League. The Huguenots were weak in numbers, but strong in the quality of their troops. An immense body of German 'Reiter' had been enrolled to act as an auxiliary force, and for some time had been hovering on the frontiers. Hearing that at last they had entered France, Henry of Navarre set out from Rochelle to effect a junction with them. The Duke of Joyeuse, one of the French King's chief favourites, who had the charge of the army that occupied the midland counties, resolved to prevent their junction. By a rapid movement he succeeded in crossing the line of Henry's march and forcing him into action. The two armies came in front of each other on a plain near the village of Coutras, on the 19th of October, 1587. The Royalist army numbered from 10,000 to 12,000, the Huguenot from 6,000 to 7,000—the usual disparity in numbers; but Henry's skilful disposition did more than compensate for his numerical inferiority. … The struggle lasted but an hour, yet within that hour the Catholic army lost 3,000 men, more than 400 of whom were members of the first families in the kingdom; 3,000 men were made prisoners. Not more than a third part of their entire army escaped. The Huguenots lost only about 200 men. … Before night fell he [Navarre] wrote a few lines to the French King, which run thus: 'Sire, my Lord and Brother,—Thank God, I have beaten your enemies and your army.' It was but too true that the poor King's worst enemies were to be found in the very armies that were marshalled in his name."

"The victory [at Coutras] had only a moral effect. Henry lost time by going to lay at the feet of the Countess of Grammont the flags taken from the enemy. Meantime the Duke of Guise, north of the Loire, triumphed over the Germans under the Baron of Dohna at Vimory, near Montargis, and again near Auneau (1587). Henry III. was unskilful enough to leave to his rival the glory of driving them out of the country. Henry III. re-entered Paris. As he passed along, the populace cried out, 'Saul has killed his thousands, and David his ten thousands'; and a few days after, the Sorbonne decided that 'the government could be taken out of the hands of princes who were found incapable.' Henry III., alarmed, forbade the Duke of Guise to come to Paris, and quartered in the faubourgs 4,000 Swiss and several companies of the guards. The Sixteen [chiefs of sixteen sections of Paris, who controlled the League in that city] feared that all was over; they summoned the 'Balafré' and he came [May 9, 1588]. Cries of 'Hosannah to the Son of David!' resounded throughout Paris, and followed him to the Louvre. … The king and the chief of the League fortified themselves, one in the Louvre, the other in the Hotel Guise. Negotiations were carried on for two days. On the morning of the 11th the duke, well attended, returned to the Louvre, and in loud tones demanded of the king that he should send away his counsellors, establish the Inquisition, and push to the utmost the war against the heretics. That evening the king ordered the companies of the city guards to hold several positions, and the next morning he introduced into the city the Swiss and 2,000 men of the French guards. But the city guards failed him. In two hours all Paris was under arms, all the streets were rendered impassable, and the advancing barricades soon reached the positions occupied by the troops [whence the insurrection became known as 'the Day of Barricades']. At this juncture Guise came out of his hôtel, dressed in a white doublet, with a small cane in his hand; saved the Swiss, who were on the point of being massacred, sent them back to the king with insulting scorn, and quieted everything as if by magic. He demanded the office of lieutenant-general of the kingdom for himself, the convocation of the States at Paris, the forfeiture of the Bourbons, and, for his friends, provincial governments and all the other offices. The queen-mother debated these conditions for three hours. During this time the attack was suspended, and Henry III. was thus enabled to leave the Louvre and make his escape. The Duke of Guise had made a mistake; but if he did not have the king, he had Paris. There was now a king of Paris and a king of France; negotiations were carried on, and to the astonishment of all, Henry III. at length granted what two months before he had refused in front of the barricades. He swore that he would not lay down his arms until the heretics were entirely exterminated; declared that any non-Catholic prince forfeited his rights to the throne, appointed the Duke of Guise lieutenant-general, and convoked the States at Blois [October, 1588]. The States of Blois were composed entirely of Leaguers," and were wholly controlled by the Duke of Guise. The latter despised the king too much to give heed to repeated warnings which he received of a plot against his life. {1210} Summoned to a private interview in the royal cabinet, at an early hour on the morning of the 23d of December, he did not hesitate to present himself, boldly, alone, and was murdered as he entered, by eight of the king's body-guard, whom Henry III. had personally ordered to commit the crime. "Killing the Duke of Guise was not killing the League. At the news of his death Paris was stunned for a moment; then its fury broke forth. … The Sorbonne decreed 'that the French people were set free from the oath of allegiance taken to Henry III.' … Henry III. had gained nothing by the murder; … but he had helped the fortunes of the king of Navarre, into whose arms he was forced to cast himself. … The junction of the Protestant and the royal armies under the same standard completely changed the nature of the war. It was no longer feudal Protestantism, but the democratic League, which threatened royalty; monarchy entered into a struggle with the Catholic masses in revolt against it. Henry III. called together, at Tours, his useless Parliament, and issued a manifesto against Mayenne and the chiefs of the League. Henry of Navarre carried on the war energetically. In two months he was master of the territory between the Loire and the Seine, and 15,000 Swiss and lanzknechts joined him. On the evening of July 30th, 1589, the two kings, with 40,000 men, appeared before Paris. The Parisians could see the long line of the enemies' fires gleaming in a vast semi-circle on the left bank of the Seine. The king of Navarre established his headquarters at Meudon; Henry III. at Saint-Cloud. The great city was astounded; the people had lost energy; but the fury was concentrated in the hearts of the chiefs and in the depths of the cloisters. … The arm of a fanatic became the instrument of the general fury, and put into practice the doctrine of tyrannicide more than once asserted in the schools and the pulpit. The assault was to be made on August 2d. On the morning of the previous day a young friar from the convent of the Dominicans, Jacques Clément, came out from Paris," obtained access to the king by means of a forged letter, and stabbed him in the abdomen, being, himself, slain on the spot by the royal guards. Henry III. "died the same night, and with him the race of Valois became extinct. The aged Catherine de' Medici had died six months before."

ALSO IN: L. von Ranke, Civil Wars and Monarchy in France, 16th and 17th Centuries, chapters 22-25.

FRANCE: A. D. 1585.
Proffered sovereignty of the United Netherlands declined by
Henry III.

FRANCE: A. D. 1589-1590.
   Henry of Navarre as Henry IV. of France.
   His retreat to Normandy.
   The battles at Arques.
   Battle of Ivry.

"On being made aware that all hope was over, this King [Henry III.], whose life had been passed in folly, vanity and sensuality … prepared for death like a patriot king and a martyr. He summoned his nobles to his bedside, and told them that his only regret in dying was that he left the kingdom in disorder, and as the best mode of remedying the evil he recommended them to recognize the King of Navarre, to whom the kingdom belonged of right; making no account of the religious difference, because that king, with his sincere and earnest nature, must finally return to the bosom of the Church. Then turning to Henry, he solemnly warned him: 'Cousin,' he said, 'I assure you that you will never be King of France if you do not become Catholic, and if you do not make your peace with the Church.' Directly afterwards he breathed his last, reciting the 'Miserere.' This account is substantially confirmed by Perefixe. According to Sully, Henry, hearing that the King had been stabbed, started for St. Cloud, attended by Sully, but did not arrive till he was dead; and D'Aubigny says: 'When the King of Navarre entered the chamber where the body was lying, he saw amidst the howlings some pulling their hats down upon their brows, or throwing them on the ground, clenching their fists, plotting, clasping each other's hands, making vows and promises.' … Henry's situation was embarrassing in the extreme, for only a small number of the Catholic nobles gave in an unqualified adhesion: a powerful body met and dictated the conditions upon which alone they would consent to his being proclaimed King of France: the two first being that within six months he would cause himself to be instructed in the Holy Catholic Apostolic Faith; and that during this interval he would nominate no Huguenot to offices of State. He replied that he was no bigot, and would readily seek instruction in the tenets of the Romish faith, but declined pledging himself to any description of exclusion or intolerance. M. Guadet computes that nine-tenths of his French subjects were Catholic, and the temper of the majority may be inferred from what was taking place in Paris, where the news of the late King's death was the signal for the most unseemly rejoicing. … Far from being in a condition to reduce the refractory Parisians, Henry was obliged to abandon the siege, and retire towards Normandy, where the expected succours from England might most easily reach him. Sully says that this retreat was equally necessary for the safety of his person and the success of his affairs. He was temporarily abandoned by several of the Huguenot leaders, who, serving at their own expense, were obliged from time to time to go home to recruit their finances and their followers. Others were made lukewarm by the prospect of his becoming Catholic; so that he was no longer served with enthusiasm by either party; and when, after making the best arrangements in his power, he entered Normandy, he had with him only 3,000 French foot, two regiments of Swiss and 1,200 horse; with which, after being joined by the Due de Montpensier with 200 gentlemen and 1,500 foot, he drew near to Rouen, relying on a secret understanding within the walls which might give him possession of the place. Whilst preparations were making for the siege, sure intelligence was brought that the Duc de Mayenne was seeking him with an army exceeding 30,000; but, resolved to make head against them till the last extremity, Henry entrenched himself before Arques, which was only accessible by a causeway." A series of engagements ensued, beginning September 15, 1589; but finding that he could not dislodge his antagonist, Mayenne withdrew after some ten days of fighting, moving his army towards Picardy and leaving the road to Paris open. "Being too weak to recommence the siege or to occupy the city if taken by assault, Henry resolved to give the Parisians a sample of what they might expect if they persevered in their contumacy, and gave orders for attacking all the suburbs at once. {1211} They were taken and sacked. Davila states that the plunder was so abundant that the whole camp was wonderfully relieved and sustained." From this attack on the Parisian suburbs, Henry proceeded to Tours, where he held his court for a time. Early in March, 1590, he laid siege to Dreux. "The Duc de Mayenne, reinforced by Spanish troops from the Low Countries under Count Egmont, left Paris to effect a diversion, and somewhat unexpectedly found himself compelled to accept the battle which was eagerly pressed upon him. This was the renowned battle of Ivry. The armies presented much the same contrast as at Coutras. The numerical superiority on one side, the Catholic, was more than compensated by the quality of the troops on the other. Henry's soldiers, as described by De Thou, were armed to the teeth. 'They displayed neither scarf nor decoration, but their accoutrements inspired grim terror. The army of the Duc, on the contrary, was magnificent in equipment. The officers wore bright-coloured scarves, while gold glittered upon their helmets and lances.' The two armies were confronted on the 13th of March, 1590, but it was getting dark before the dispositions were completed, and the battle was deferred till the following morning. The King passed the night like Henry V. at Agincourt, and took only a short rest in the open air on the field. … At daybreak he mounted his horse, and rode from rank to rank, pausing from time to time to utter a brief exhortation or encouragement. Prayers were offered up by the Huguenot ministers at the head of each division, and the bishop [Perefixe] gives the concluding words of that in which Divine aid was invoked by the King: 'But, Lord, if it has pleased Thee to dispose otherwise, or Thou seest that I ought to be one of those kings whom Thou punishest in Thy wrath, grant that I may be this day the victim of Thy Holy will: so order it that my death may deliver France from the calamities of war, and that my blood be the last shed in this quarrel.' Then, putting on his helmet with the white plume, before closing the vizor, he addressed the collected leaders:—'My friends, if you share my fortune this day, I also share yours. I am resolved to conquer or to die with you. Keep your ranks firmly, I beg; if the heat of the combat compels you to quit them, think always of the rally; it is the gaining of the battle. You will make it between the three trees which you see there [pointing to three pear-trees on an eminence], and if you lose your ensigns, pennons and banners, do not lose sight of my white plume: you will find it always on the road of honour and victory.' It so chanced that his white plume was the actual rallying-point at the most critical moment. … His standard-bearer fell: a page bearing a white pennon was struck down at his side; and the rumour was beginning to spread that he himself was killed, when the sight of his bay horse and white plume, with the animating sound of his voice, gave fresh courage to all around and brought the bravest of his followers to the front. The result is told in one of his own missives. After stating that the battle began between 11 and 12, he continues: 'In less than an hour, after having discharged all their anger in two or three charges which they made and sustained, all their cavalry began to shift for themselves, abandoning their infantry, which was very numerous. Seeing which, their Swiss appealed to my pity and surrendered—colonels, captains, soldiers, and colours. The lansquenets and French had no time to form this resolution, for more than 1,200 were cut to pieces, and the rest dispersed into the woods at the mercy of the peasants.' He urged on the pursuers, crying 'Spare the French, and down with the foreigners.' … Instead of pushing on towards Paris, which it was thought would have opened its gates to a conqueror in the flush of victory, Henry lingered at Mantes, where he improvised a Court, which his female favourites were summoned to attend."

ALSO IN: H. M. Baird, The Huguenots and Henry of Navarre, chapter 11 (volume 2).

FRANCE: A. D. 1590.
   The siege of Paris and its horrors.
   Relief at the hands of the Spaniards under Parma.
   Readiness of the League to give the crown to Philip II.

"The king, yielding to the councils of Biron and other catholics, declined attacking the capital, and preferred waiting the slow, and in his circumstances eminently hazardous, operations of a regular siege. … Whatever may have been the cause of the delay, it is certain that the golden fruit of victory was not plucked, and that although the confederate army had rapidly dissolved, in consequence of their defeat, the king's own forces manifested as little cohesion. And now began that slow and painful siege, the details of which are as terrible, but as universally known, as those of any chapters in the blood-stained history of the century. Henry seized upon the towns guarding the rivers Seine and Marne, twin nurses of Paris. By controlling the course of those streams as well as that of the Yonne and Oise— especially by taking firm possession of Lagny on the Marne, whence a bridge led from the Isle of France to the Brie country—great thoroughfare of wine and corn—and of Corbeil at the junction of the little river Essonne with the Seine—it was easy in that age to stop the vital circulation of the imperial city. By midsummer, Paris, unquestionably the first city of Europe at that day, was in extremities. … Rarely have men at any epoch defended their fatherland against foreign oppression with more heroism than that which was manifested by the Parisians of 1590 in resisting religious toleration, and in obeying a foreign and priestly despotism. Men, women, and children cheerfully laid down their lives by thousands in order that the papal legate and the king of Spain might trample upon that legitimate sovereign of France who was one day to become the idol of Paris and of the whole kingdom. A census taken at the beginning of the siege had showed a population of 200,000 souls, with a sufficiency of provisions, it was thought, to last one month. But before the terrible summer was over—so completely had the city been invested—the bushel of wheat was worth 360 crowns. … The flesh of horses, asses, dogs, cats, rats, had become rare luxuries. There was nothing cheap, said a citizen bitterly, but sermons. And the priests and monks of every order went daily about the streets, preaching fortitude in that great resistance to heresy. … Trustworthy eye-witnesses of those dreadful days have placed the number of the dead during the summer at 30,000. … {1212} The hideous details of the most dreadful sieges recorded in ancient or modern times were now reproduced in Paris. … The priests … persuaded the populace that it was far more righteous to kill their own children, if they had no food to give them, than to obtain food by recognizing a heretic king. It was related, too, and believed, that in some instances mothers had salted the bodies of their dead children and fed upon them, day by day, until the hideous repast would no longer support their own life. … The bones of the dead were taken in considerable quantities from the cemeteries, ground into flour, baked into bread, and consumed. It was called Madame Montpensier's cake, because the duchess earnestly proclaimed its merits to the poor Parisians. 'She was never known to taste it herself, however,' bitterly observed one who lived in Paris through that horrible summer. She was right to abstain, for all who ate of it died. … Lansquenets and other soldiers, mad with hunger and rage, when they could no longer find dogs to feed on, chased children through the streets, and were known in several instances to kill and devour them on the spot. … Such then was the condition of Paris during that memorable summer of tortures. What now were its hopes of deliverance out of this Gehenna? The trust of Frenchmen was in Philip of Spain, whose legions, under command of the great Italian chieftain [Alexander Farnese, Duke of Parma, commander of the Spanish forces in the Netherlands], were daily longed for to save them from rendering obedience to their lawful prince. For even the king of straw—the imprisoned cardinal [Cardinal de Bourbon, whom the League had proclaimed king, under the title of Charles X., on the death of Henry III.]—was now dead, and there was not even the effigy of any other sovereign than Henry of Bourbon to claim authority in France. Mayenne, in the course of long interviews with the Duke of Parma at Condé and Brussels, had expressed his desire to see Philip king of France, and had promised his best efforts to bring about such a result." Parma, who was struggling hard with the obstinate revolt in the Netherlands, having few troops and little money to pay them with, received orders from his Spanish master to relieve Paris and conquer France. He obeyed the command to the best of his abilities. He left the Netherlands at the beginning of August, with 12,000 foot and 3,000 horse; effected a junction with Mayenne at Meaux, ten leagues from Paris, on the 22d, and the united armies—5,000 cavalry and 18,000 foot—arrived at Chelles on the last day of summer. "The two great captains of the age had at last met face to face. … The scientific duel which was now to take place was likely to task the genius and to bring into full display the peculiar powers and defects of the two." The winner in the duel was the Duke of Parma, who foiled Henry's attempts to bring him to battle, while he captured Lagny under the king's eyes. "The bridges of Charenton and St. Maur now fell into Farnese's hands without a contest. In an incredibly short space of time provisions and munitions were poured into the starving city, 2,000 boat-loads arriving in a single day. Paris was relieved. Alexander had made his demonstration and solved the problem. … The king was now in worse plight than ever. His army fliers, cheated of their battle, and having neither food nor forage, rode off by hundreds every day." He made one last attempt, by a midnight assault on the city, but it failed. Then he followed the Spaniards—whom Parma led back to the Netherlands early in November—but could not bring about a battle or gain any important advantage. But Paris, without the genius of Alexander Farnese in its defence, was soon reduced to as complete a blockade as before. Lagny was recovered by the besieging royalists, the Seine and the Marne were again fast-locked, and the rebellious capital deprived of supplies.

FRANCE: A. D. 1591-1593.
   The siege of Rouen and Parma's second interference.
   General advancement of Henry's cause.
   Restiveness of the Catholics.
   The King's abjuration of Protestantism.

"It seemed as if Henri IV. had undertaken the work of Penelope. After each success, fresh difficulties arose to render it fruitless. … Now it was the Swiss who refused to go on without their pay; or Elizabeth who exacted seaports in return for fresh supplies; or the Catholics who demanded the conversion of the King; or the Protestants who complained of not being protected. Depressed spirits had to be cheered, some to be satisfied, others to be reassured or restrained, allies to be managed, and all to be done with very little money and without any sacrifice of the national interests. Henri was equal to all, both to war and to diplomacy, to great concerns and to small. … His pen was as active as his sword. The collection of his letters is full of the most charming notes. … Public opinion, which was already influential and thirsting for news, was not neglected. Every two or three months a little publication entitled 'A Discourse,' or 'An Authentic Narrative,' or 'Account of all that has occurred in the King's Army,' was circulated widely. … Thus it was that by means of activity, patience, and tact, Henri V. was enabled to retrieve his fortunes and to rally his party; so that by the end of the year 1591, he found himself in a position to undertake an important operation. … The King laid siege to Rouen in December, 1591. He was at the head of the most splendid army he had ever commanded; it numbered upwards of 25,000 men. This was not too great a number; for the fortifications were strong, the garrison numerous, well commanded by Villars, and warmly supported by the townspeople. The siege had lasted for some months when the King learned that Mayenne had at last made the Duke of Parma to understand the necessity of saving Rouen at all hazards. Thirty thousand Spanish and French Leaguers had just arrived on the Somme. Rouen, however, was at the last gasp; Henri could not make up his mind to throw away the fruits of so much toil and trouble; he left all his infantry under the walls, under the command of Biron, and marched off with his splendid cavalry." He attacked the enemy imprudently, near Aumale, February 5, met with a repulse, was wounded and just missed being taken prisoner in a precipitate retreat. But both armies were half paralyzed at this time by dissensions among their chiefs. {1213} That of the Leaguers fell back to the Somme; but in April it approached Rouen again, and Parma was able, despite all Henri's efforts, to enter the town. This last check to the King "was the signal for a general desertion. Henri, left with only a small corps of regular troops and a few gentlemen, was obliged to retire rapidly upon Pont de l'Arche. The Duke of Parma did not follow him. Always vigilant, he wished before everything to establish himself on the Lower Seine, and laid siege to Caudebec, which was not likely to detain him long. But he received during that operation a severe wound, which compelled him to hand over the command to Mayenne." The incompetence of the latter soon lost all the advantages which Parma had gained. Henri's supporters rallied around him again almost as quickly as they had dispersed. "The Leaguers were pushed back upon the Seine and confined in the heart of the Pays de Caux. They were without provisions; Mayenne was at his wits' end; he had to resort for suggestions and for orders to the bed of suffering on which the Duke of Parma was held down by his wound." The great Italian soldier, dying though he was, as the event soon proved, directed operations which baffled the keen watchfulness and penetration of his antagonist, and extricated his army without giving to Henri the chance for battle which he sought. The Spanish army retired to Flemish territory. In the meantime, Henri's cause was being advanced in the northeast of his kingdom by the skill and valor of Turenne, then beginning his great career, and experiencing vicissitudes in the southeast, where Lesdiguières was contending with the mercenaries of the Pope and the Duke of Savoy, as well as with his countrymen of the League. He had defeated them with awful slaughter at Pontcharra, September 19, 1591, and he carried the war next year into the territories of the Duke of Savoy, seeking help from the Italian Waldenses which he does not seem to have obtained. "Nevertheless the king had still some formidable obstacles to overcome. Three years had run their course since he had promised to become instructed in the Catholic religion, and there were no signs as yet that he was preparing to fulfil this undertaking. The position in which he found himself, and the importance and activity of his military operations, had hitherto been a sufficient explanation of his delay. But the war had now changed its character. The King had gained brilliant successes. There was no longer any large army in the field against him. Nothing seemed to be now in the way to hinder him from fulfilling his promise. And yet he always evaded it. He had to keep on good terms with Elizabeth and the Protestants; he wished to make his abjuration the occasion for an agreement with the Court of Rome, which took no steps to smooth over his difficulties; and lastly, he shrank from taking a step which is always painful when it is not the fruit of honest conviction. This indecision doubled the ardour of his enemies, prevented fresh adhesions, discouraged and divided his old followers. … A third party, composed of bishops and Royalist noblemen, drew around the cousins of Henri IV., the Cardinal de Vendôme and the Comte de Soissons. … The avowed object of this third party was to raise one of these two Princes to the throne, if the Head of their House did not forthwith enter the bosom of the Catholic Church. And finally, the deputies of the cities and provinces who had been called to Paris by Mayenne were assembling there for the election of a king. 'The Satire of Ménippée' has handed down the States of the League to immortal ridicule; but however decried that assembly has been, and deserved to be, 'it decided the conversion of Henri IV.: he does not attempt in his despatches to deny this. … In order to take away every excuse for such an election, he entered at once into conference with the Catholic theologians. After some very serious discussion, much deeper than a certain saying which has become a proverb [that 'Paris is certainly worth a Mass'] would seem to imply, he abjured the Protestant religion on the 25th of July, 1593, before the Archbishop of Bourges. The League had received its death-blow."

"The news of the abjuration produced in the minds of honest men, far and near, the most painful impression. Politicians might applaud an act intended to conciliate the favor of the great majority of the nation, and extol the astuteness of the king in choosing the most opportune moment for his change of religion—the moment when he would secure the support of the Roman Catholics, fatigued by the length of the war and too eager for peace to question very closely the sincerity of the king's motives, without forfeiting the support of the Huguenots. But men of conscience, judging Henry's conduct by a standard of morality immutable and eternal, passed a severe sentence of condemnation upon the most flagrant instance of a betrayal of moral convictions which the age had known."

"What the future history of France would have been if Henry had clung to his integrity, is known only to the Omniscient; but, with the annals of France in our hands, we have no difficulty in perceiving that the day of his impious, because pretended conversion, was among the 'dies nefasti' of his country. It restored peace indeed to that bleeding land, and it gave to himself an undisputed reign of seventeen years; but he found them years replete with cares and terrors, and disgraced by many shameful vices, and at last abruptly terminated by the dagger of an assassin. It rescued France, indeed, from the evils of a disputed succession, but it consigned her to two centuries of despotism and misgovernment. It transmitted the crown, indeed, to seven in succession of the posterity of Henry; but of them one died on the scaffold, three were deposed by insurrections of their subjects, one has left a name pursued by unmitigated and undying infamy, and another lived and died in a monastic melancholy, the feeble slave of his own minister."

      ALSO IN:
      P. F. Willert,
      Henry of Navarre and the Huguenots of France,
      chapters 5-6.

FRANCE: A. D. 1593-1598.
   Henry's winning of Paris.
   The first attempt upon his life.
   Expulsion of Jesuits from Paris.
   War with Spain.
   The Peace of Vervins.

"A truce of three months had been agreed upon [August 1, 1593], during which many nobles and several important towns made their submissions to the King. Many, however, still held out for the League, and among them Paris, as well as Rheims, by ancient usage the city appropriated to the coronation of the kings of France. Henry IV. deemed that ceremony indispensable to sanctify his cause in the eyes of the people, and he therefore caused it to be performed at Chartres by the bishop of that place, February 27th 1594. But he could hardly look upon himself as King of France so long as Paris remained in the hands of a faction which disputed his right, and he therefore strained every nerve to get possession of that capital. … As he wished to get possession of the city without bloodshed, he determined to attempt it by corrupting the commandant. This was Charles de Cossé, Count of Brissac. … Henry promised Brissac, as the price of his admission into Paris, the sum of 200,000 crowns and an annual pension of 20,000, together with the governments of Corbeil and Mantes, and the continuance to him of his marshal's bâton. To the Parisians was offered an amnesty from which only criminals were to be excepted; the confirmation of all their privileges; and the prohibition of the Protestant worship within a radius of ten leagues. … Before daybreak on the morning of the 22nd March 1594 Brissac opened the gates of Paris to Henry's troops, who took possession of the city without resistance, except at one of the Spanish guard-houses, where a few soldiers were killed. When all appeared quiet, Henry himself entered, and was astonished at being greeted with joyous cheers. … He gave manifold proofs of forbearance and good temper, fulfilled all the conditions of his agreement, and allowed the Spaniards [4,000] to withdraw unmolested." In May, 1594, Henry laid siege to Laon, which surrendered in August. "Its' example was soon followed by Chateau Thierry, Amiens, Cambrai and Noyon. The success of the King induced the Duke of Lorraine and the Duke of Guise to make their peace with him." In November, an attempt to kill the King was made by a young man named Jean Chatel, who confessed that he attended the schools of the Jesuits. "All the members of that order were arrested, and their papers examined. One of them, named Jean Guignard, on whom was found a treatise approving the murder of Henry III., and maintaining that his successor deserved a like fate, was condemned to the gallows: and the remainder of the order were banished from Paris, January 8th 1595, as corrupters of youth and enemies of the state. This example, however, was followed only by a few of the provincial cities. The irritation caused by this event seems to have precipitated Henry IV. into a step which he had been some time meditating: a declaration of war against his ancient and most bitter enemy Philip II. (January 17th 1595). The King of Spain, whom the want of money had prevented from giving the League much assistance during the two preceding years, was stung into fury by this challenge; and he immediately ordered Don Fernando de Velasco, constable of Castile, to join Mayenne in Franche Comté with 10,000 men. Velasco, however, was no great captain, and little of importance was done. The only action worth mentioning is an affair of cavalry at Fontaine Française (June 6th 1595), in which Henry displayed his usual bravery, or rather rashness, but came off victorious. He then overran nearly all Franche Comté without meeting with any impediment from Velasco, but retired at the instance of the Swiss, who entreated him to respect the neutrality of that province. Meanwhile Henry had made advances to Mayenne, who was disgusted with Velasco and the Spaniards, and on the 25th September Mayenne, in the name of the League, signed with the King a truce of three months, with a view to regulate the conditions of future submission. An event had already occurred which placed Henry in a much more favourable position with his Roman Catholic subjects; he had succeeded [September, 1595] in effecting his reconciliation with the Pope. … The war on the northern frontiers had not been going on so favourably for the King." In January, 1595, "Philip II. ordered the Spaniard Fuentés, who, till the arrival of Albert [the Archduke], conducted the government of the Netherlands, to invade the north of France; and Fuentés … having left Mondragone with sufficient forces to keep Prince Maurice in check, set off with 15,000 men, with the design of recovering Cambrai. Catelet and Doullens yielded to his arms; Ham was betrayed to him by the treachery of the governor, and in August Fuentés sat down before Cambrai. … The Duke of Anjou had made over that place to his mother, Catherine de'Medici, who had appointed Balagni to be governor of it. During the civil wars of France, Balagni had established himself there as a little independent sovereign, and called himself Prince of Cambrai; but after the discomfiture of the League he had been compelled to declare himself, and had acknowledged his allegiance to the King of France. His extortion and tyranny having rendered him detested by the inhabitants, they … delivered Cambrai to the Spaniards, October 2nd. Fuentés then returned into the Netherlands. … The Cardinal Archduke Albert arrived at Brussels in February 1596, when Fuentés resigned his command. … Henry IV. had been engaged since the winter in the siege of La Fère, a little town in a strong situation at the junction of the Serre and Oise. He had received reinforcements from England as well as from Germany and Holland. … Albert marched to Valenciennes with about 20,000 men, with the avowed intention of relieving La Fère; but instead of attempting that enterprise, he despatched De Rosne, a French renegade … with the greater part of the forces, to surprise Calais; and that important place was taken by assault, April 17th, before Henry could arrive for its defence. La Fère surrendered May 22nd; and Henry then marched with his army towards the coast of Picardy, where he endeavoured, but in vain, to provoke the Spaniards to give him battle. After fortifying Calais and Ardres, Albert withdrew again into the Netherlands. … Elizabeth, alarmed at the occupation by the Spaniards of a port which afforded such facilities for the invasion of England, soon afterwards concluded another offensive and defensive alliance with Henry IV. (May 24th), in which the contracting parties pledged themselves to make no separate peace or truce with Philip II." The Dutch joined in this treaty; but the Protestant princes of Germany refused to become parties to it. "The treaty, however, had little effect." Early in 1597, the Spaniards dealt Henry an alarming blow, by surprising and capturing the city of Amiens, gaining access to it by an ingenious stratagem. But Henry recovered the place in September, after a vigorous siege. He also put down a rising, under the Duke de Mercœur, in Brittany, defeating the rebels at Dinan, while his lieutenant, Lesdiguières, in the southeast, invaded Savoy once more, taking Maurienne, and paralyzing the hostile designs of its Duke. {1215} The malignant Spanish king, suffering and near his end, discouraged and tired of the war, now sought to make peace. Both the Dutch and the English refused to treat with him; but Henry IV., notwithstanding the pledges given in 1596 to his allies, entered into negotiations which resulted in the Treaty of Vervins, signed May 2, 1598. "By the Peace of Vervins the Spaniards restored to France Calais, Ardres, Doullens, La Capelle, and Le Câtelet in Picardy, and Blavet (port Louis) in Brittany, of all their conquests retaining only the citadel of Cambrai. The rest of the conditions were referred to the treaty of Câteau-Cambresis, which Henry had stipulated should form the basis of the negotiations. The Duke of Savoy was included in the peace." While this important treaty was pending, in April, 1598, Henry quieted the anxieties of his Huguenot subjects by the famous Edict of Nantes.

ALSO IN: Lady Jackson, The First of the Bourbons, volume 1, chapters 14-18, and volume 2, chapters 1-7.

For the purpose of receiving the submission of the Duke of Mercœur and the Breton insurgents, the king proceeded down the Loire, and "reached the capital of Brittany, the commercial city of Nantes, on the 11th of April, 1598. Two days later he signed the edict which has come to be known as the Edict of Nantes [and which had been under discussion for some months with representatives of a Protestant assembly in session at Châtellerault]. … The Edict of Nantes is a long and somewhat complicated document. Besides the edict proper, contained in 95 public articles, there is a further series of 56 'secret' articles, and a 'brevet' or patent of the king, all of which were signed on the 13th of April; and these documents are supplemented by a second set of 23 'secret' articles, dated on the last day of the same month. The first of these four papers is expressly declared to be a 'perpetual and irrevocable edict.' … Our chief concern being with the fortunes of the Huguenots, the provisions for the re-establishment of the Roman Catholic worship, wherever in the course of the events of the last 30 years that worship had been interfered with or banished, need not claim our attention. For the benefit of the Protestants the cardinal concession was liberty to dwell anywhere in the royal dominions, without being subjected to inquiry, vexed, molested, or constrained to do anything contrary to their conscience. As respects public worship, while perfect equality was not established, the dispositions were such as to bring it within the power of a Protestant in any part of the kingdom to meet his fellow-believers for the holiest of acts, at least from time to time. To every Protestant nobleman enjoying that extensive authority known as 'haute justice,' and to noblemen in Normandy distinguished as possessors of 'fiefs de haubert,' the permission was granted to have religious services on all occasions and for all comers at their principal residence, as well as on other lands whenever they themselves were present. Noblemen of inferior jurisdiction were allowed to have worship on their estates, but only for themselves and their families. In addition to these seigniorial rights, the Protestant 'people' received considerable accessions to the cities where they might meet for public religious purposes. The exercise of their worship was authorized in all cities and places where such worship had been held on several occasions in the years 1596 and 1597, up to the month of August; and in all places in which worship had been, or ought to have been, established in accordance with the Edict of 1577 [the edict of Poitiers—see above: A. D. 1577-1578], as interpreted by the Conference of Nérac and the Peace of Fleix [see above: A. D. 1578-1580]. But in addition to these, a fresh gift of a second city in every bailiwick and sénéchaussée of the kingdom greatly increased the facilities enjoyed by the scattered Huguenots for reaching the assemblies of their fellow-believers. … Scholars of both religions were to be admitted without distinction of religion to all universities, colleges, and schools throughout France. The same impartiality was to extend to the reception of the sick in the hospitals, and to the poor in the provision made for their relief. More than this, the Protestants were permitted to establish schools of their own in all places where their worship was authorized. … The scandal and inhumanity exhibited in the refusal of burial to the Protestant dead, as well in the disinterment of such bodies as had been placed in consecrated ground, was henceforth precluded by the assignment of portions of the public cemeteries or of new cemeteries of their own to the Protestants. The civil equality of the Protestants was assured by an article which declared them to be admissible to all public positions, dignities, offices, and charges, and forbade any other examination into their qualifications, conduct, and morals than those to which their Roman Catholic brethren were subjected. … Provision was made for the establishment of a 'chamber of the edict,' as it was styled, in the Parliament of Paris, with six Protestants among its sixteen counsellors, to take cognizance of cases in which Protestants were concerned. A similar chamber was promised in each of the parliaments of Rouen and Rennes. In Southern France three 'chambres mi-parties' were either continued or created, with an equal number of Roman Catholic and Protestant judges." In the "brevet" or patent which accompanied the edict, the king made a secret provision of 45,000 crowns annually from the royal treasury, which was understood to be for the support of Protestant ministers, although that purpose was concealed. In the second series of secret articles, the Protestants were authorized to retain possession for eight years of the "cautionary cities" which they held under former treaties, and provision was made for paying the garrisons. "Such are the main features of a law whose enactment marks an important epoch in the history of jurisprudence. … The Edict of Nantes was not at once presented to the parliaments; nor was it, indeed, until early in the following year that the Parliament of Paris formally entered the document upon its registers. … There were obstacles from many different quarters to be overcome. The clergy, the parliaments, the university, raised up difficulty after difficulty." But the masterful will of the king bore down all opposition, and the Edict was finally accepted as the law of the land. "On the 17th of March [1599] Henry took steps for its complete execution throughout France, by the appointment of commissioners—a nobleman and a magistrate from each province —to attend to the work."

The full text of the Edict of Nantes will be found in the following named works:

      A. Maury,
      Memoirs of a Huguenot Family
      (J. Fontaine), appendix.

FRANCE: A. D. 1599-1610.
   Invasion of Savoy.
   Acquisition of the Department of Aisne.
   Ten years of peace and prosperity.
   The great works of Henry IV.
   His foreign policy.
   His assassination.

"One thing only the peace of Vervins left unsettled. In the preceding troubles a small Italian appanage, the Marquisate of Saluces, had been seized by Charles Emmanuel, Duke of Savoy, and remained still in his possession. The right of France to it was not disputed, did not admit indeed of dispute; but the Duke was unwilling to part with what constituted one of the keys of Italy. He came to Paris in December 1599 to negotiate the affair in person," but employed his opportunity to intrigue with certain disaffected nobles, including the Duke of Biron, marshal of France and governor of Burgundy. "Wearied with delays, whose object was transparent, Henry at last had recourse to arms. Savoy was speedily overrun with French troops, and its chief strongholds taken. Spain was not prepared to back her ally, and the affair terminated by Henry's accepting in lieu of the Marquisate that part of Savoy which now constitutes the Department of Aisne in France." Biron, whom the King tried hard to save by repeated warnings which were not heeded, paid the penalty of his treasonable schemes at last by losing his head. "The ten years from 1600 to 1610 were years of tranquillity, and gave to Henry the opportunity he had so ardently longed for of restoring and regenerating France." He applied his energies and his active mind to the reorganization of the disordered finances of the kingdom, to the improvement of agriculture, to the multiplication of industries, to the extending of commerce. He gave the first impulse to silk culture and silk manufacture in France; he founded the great Gobelin manufactory of tapestry at Paris; he built roads and bridges, and encouraged canal projects; he began the creation of a navy; he promoted the colonization of Canada. "It was, however, in the domain of foreign politics that Henry exhibited the acuteness and comprehensiveness of his genius, and his marvellous powers of contrivance, combination, execution. … The great political project, to the maturing of which Henry IV. devoted his untiring energies for the last years of his life, was the bringing of the … half of Europe into close political alliance, and arming it against the house of Austria, and striking when the fit time came, such a blow at the ambition and intolerance of that house that it might never be able to recover. After innumerable negotiations … he had succeeded in forming a coalition of twenty separate States, embracing England, the United Provinces, Denmark, Sweden, Northern Germany, Switzerland. At last the time for action came. The Duke of Cleves died, 25th March 1609. The succession was disputed. One of the claimants of the Dukedom was supported by the Emperor, another by the Protestant Princes of Germany [see GERMANY: A. D. 1608-1618]. The contest about a small German Duchy presented the opportunity for bringing into action that alliance which Henry had planned and perfected. In the great military movements that were projected he was himself to take the lead. Four French armies, numbering 100,000, were to be launched against the great enemy of European liberty. One of these Henry was to command; even our young Prince of Wales was to bring 6,000 English with him, and make his first essay in arms under the French King. By the end of April, 1610, 35,000 men and 50 pieces of cannon had assembled at Chalons. The 20th May was fixed as the day on which Henry was to place himself at its head." But on the 16th of May (1610) he was struck down by the hand of an assassin (François Ravaillac), and the whole combination fell to pieces.

"The Emperor, the King of Spain, the Queen of France, the Duke d'Epernon, the Jesuits, were all in turn suspected of having instigated the crime, because they all profited by it; but the assassin declared that he had no accomplices. … He believed that the King was at heart a Huguenot, and thought that in ridding France of this monarch he was rendering a great service to his country."

      Sir N. W. Wraxall,
      History of France, 1574-1610,
      volume 5, chapter 7-8, and volume 6.

FRANCE: A. D. 1605-1616.
Champlain's explorations and settlements in the Valley of the
St. Lawrence.

FRANCE: A. D. 1610-1619.
   The regency of Marie de Medicis.
   The reign of favorites and the riot of factions.
   Distractions of the kingdom.
   The rise of Richelieu.

"After the death of Henry IV. it was seen how much the power, credit, manners, and spirit of a nation frequently depend upon a single man. This prince had by a vigorous, yet gentle administration, kept all orders of the state in union, lulled all factions to sleep, maintained peace between the two religions, and kept his people in plenty. He held the balance of Europe in his hands by his alliance, his riches, and his arms. All these advantages were lost in the very first year of the regency of his widow, Mary of Medicis [whom Henry had married in 1600, the pope granting a divorce from his first wife, Margaret of Valois]. … Mary of Medicis … appointed regent [during the minority of her son, Louis XIII.], though not mistress of the kingdom, lavished in making of creatures all that Henry the Great had amassed to render his nation powerful. The army he had raised to carry the war into Germany was disbanded, the princes he had taken under his protection were abandoned. Charles Emanuel, duke of Savoy, the new ally of Henry IV., was obliged to ask pardon of Philip III. of Spain for having entered into a treaty with the French king, and sent his son to Madrid to implore the mercy of the Spanish court, and to humble himself as a subject in his father's name. {1217} The princes of Germany, whom Henry had protected with an army of 40,000 men, now found themselves almost without assistance. The state lost all its credit abroad, and was distracted at home. The princes of the blood and the great nobles filled France with factions, as in the times of Francis II., Charles IX. and Henry III., and as afterwards, during the minority of Lewis XIV. At length [1614] an assembly of the general estates was called at Paris, the last that was held in France [prior to the States General which assembled on the eve of the Revolution of 1789]. … The result of this assembly was the laying open all the grievances of the kingdom, without being able to redress one. France remained in confusion, and governed by one Concini, a Florentine, who rose to be marechal of France without ever having drawn a sword, and prime minister without knowing anything of the laws. It was sufficient that he was a foreigner for the princes to be displeased with him. Mary of Medicis was in a very unhappy situation, for she could not share her authority with the prince of Condé, chief of the malcontents, without being deprived of it altogether; nor trust it in the hands of Concini, without displeasing the whole kingdom. Henry prince of Condé, father of the great Condé, and son to him who had gained the battle of Coutras in conjunction with Henry IV., put himself at the head of a party, and took up arms. The court made a dissembled peace with him; and afterwards clapt him up in the Bastile. This had been the fate of his father and grandfather, and was afterwards that of his son. His confinement encreased the number of the male contents. The Guises, who had formerly been implacable enemies to the Condé family, now joined with them. The duke of Vendome, son to Henry IV., the duke of Nevers, of the house of Gonzaga, the marechal de Bouillon, and all the rest of the male contents, fortified themselves in the provinces, protesting that they continued true to their king, and made war only against the prime minister. Concini, marechal d'Anere, secure of the queen regent's protection, braved them all. He raised 7,000 men at his own expense, to support the royal authority. … A young man of whom he had not the least apprehension, and who was a stranger like himself, caused his ruin, and all the misfortunes of Mary of Medicis. Charles Albert of Luines, born in the county of Avignon, had, with his two brothers, been taken into the number of gentlemen in ordinary to the king, and the companions of his education. He had insinuated himself into the good graces and confidence of the young monarch, by his dexterity in bird-catching. It was never supposed that these childish amusements would end in a bloody revolution. The marechal d'Ancre had given him the government of Amboise, thinking by that to make him his creature; but this young man conceived the design of murdering his benefactor, banishing the queen, and governing himself; all which he accomplished without meeting with any obstacle. He soon found means of persuading the king that he was capable of reigning alone, though he was not then quite 17 years old, and told him that the queen-mother and Concini kept him in confinement. The young king, to whom in his childhood they had given the name of Just, consented to the murder of his prime minister; the marquis of Vitri, captain of the king's guards, du Hallier his brother, Persan, and others, were sent to dispatch him, who, finding him in the court of the Louvre, shot him dead with their pistols [April 24, 1617]: upon this they cried out, 'Vive le roi', as if they had gained a battle, and Lewis XIII., appearing at a window, cried out, 'Now I am king.' The queen-mother had her guards taken from her, and was confined to her own apartment, and afterwards banished to Blois. The place of marechal of France, held by Concini, was given to the marquis of Vitri, his murderer." Concini's wife, Eleanor Galigai, was tried on a charge of sorcery and burned, "and the king's favourite, Luines, had the confiscated estates. This unfortunate Galigai was the first promoter of cardinal Richelieu's fortune; while he was yet very young, and called the abbot of Chillon, she procured him the bishopric of Luçon, and at length got him made secretary of state in 1616. He was involved in the disgrace of his protectors, and … was now banished … to a little priory at the farther end of Anjou. … The duke of Epernon, who had caused the queen to be declared regent, went to the castle of Blois [February 22, 1619], whither she had been banished, and carried her to his estate in Angoulême, like a sovereign who rescues his ally. This was manifestly an act of high treason; but a crime that was approved by the whole kingdom." The king presently "sought an opportunity of reconciliation with his mother, and entered into a treaty with the duke of Epernon, as between prince and prince. … But the treaty of reconciliation was hardly signed when it was broken again; this was the true spirit of the times. New parties took up arms in favour of the queen, and always to oppose the duke of Luines, as before it had been to oppose the marechal d'Ancre, but never against the king. Every favourite at that time drew after him a civil war. Lewis and his mother in fact made war upon each other. Mary was in Anjou at the head of a small army against her son; they engaged each other on the bridge of Cé, and the kingdom was on the point of ruin. This confusion made the fortune of the famous Richelieu. He was comptroller of the queen-mother's household, and had supplanted all that princess's confidants, as he afterwards did all the king's ministers. His pliable temper and bold disposition must necessarily have acquired for him the first rank everywhere, or have proved his ruin. He brought about the accommodation between the mother and son; and a nomination to the purple, which the queen asked of the king for him, was the reward of his services. The duke of Epernon was the first to lay down arms without making any demands, whilst the rest made the king pay them for having taken up arms against him. The queen-mother and the king her son had an interview at Brisac, where they embraced with a flood of tears, only to quarrel again more violently than ever. The weakness, intrigues, and divisions of the court spread anarchy through the kingdom. All the internal defects with which the state had for a long time been attacked were now encreased, and those which Henry IV. had removed were revived anew."

Voltaire, Ancient and Modern History, chapter 145 (works translated by Smollett, volume 5).

      ALSO IN:
      C. D. Yonge,
      History of France under the Bourbons,
      volume 1, chapters 5-6.

      A. Thierry,
      Formation and Progress of the Tiers État in France,
      volume 1, chapter 7.

FRANCE: A. D. 1620-1622.
   Renewed jealousy of the Huguenots.
   Their formidable organization and its political pretensions.
   Restoration of Catholicism in Navarre and Béarn.
   Their incorporation with France.
   The Huguenot revolt.
   Treaty of Montpelier.

"The Huguenot question had become a very serious one, and the bigotry of some of the Catholics found its opportunity in the insubordination of many of the Protestants. The Huguenots had undoubtedly many minor causes for discontent. … But on the whole the government and the majority of the people were willing to carry out in good faith the provisions of the edict of Nantes. The Protestants, within the limits there laid down, could have worshipped after their own conscience, free from persecution and subject to little molestation. It was, perhaps, all that could be expected in a country where the mass of the population were Catholic, and where religious fanaticism had recently supported the League and fostered the wars of religion. But the Protestant party seem to have desired a separate political power, which almost justifies the charge made against them, that they sought to establish a state within a state, or even to form a separate republic. Their territorial position afforded a certain facility for such endeavors. In the northern provinces their numbers were insignificant. They were found chiefly in the southwestern provinces—Poitou, Saintonge, Guienne, Provence, and Languedoc,—while in Béarn and Navarre they constituted the great majority of the population, and they held for their protection a large number of strongly fortified cities. … Though there is nothing to show that a plan for a separate republic was seriously considered, the Huguenots had adopted an organization which naturally excited the jealousy and ill-will of the general government. They had long maintained a system of provincial and general synods for the regulation of their faith and discipline. … The assembly which met at Saumur immediately after Henry's death, had carried still further the organization of the members of their faith. From consistories composed of the pastors and certain of the laity, delegates were chosen who formed local consistories. These again chose delegates who met in provincial synods, and from them delegates were sent to the national synod, or general assembly of the church. Here not only matters of faith, but of state, were regulated, and the general assembly finally assumed to declare war, levy taxes, choose generals, and act both as a convocation and a parliament. The assembly of Saumur added a system of division into eight great circles, covering the territory where the Protestants were sufficiently numerous to be important. All but two of these were south of the Loire. They were subsequently organized as military departments, each under the command of some great nobleman. … The Huguenots had also shown a willingness to assist those who were in arms against the state, had joined Condé, and contemplated a union with Mary de Medici in the brief insurrection of 1620. A question had now arisen which was regarded by the majority of the party as one of vital importance. The edict of Nantes, which granted privileges to the Huguenots, had granted also to the Catholics the right to the public profession of their religion in all parts of France. This had formerly been prohibited in Navarre and Béarn, and the population of those provinces had become very largely Protestant. The Catholic clergy had long petitioned the king to enforce the rights which they claimed the edict gave them in Béarn, and to compel also a restitution of some portion of the property, formerly held by their church, which had been taken by Jeanne d'Albret, and the revenues of which the Huguenot clergy still assumed to appropriate entirely to themselves. On July 25, 1617, Louis finally issued an edict directing the free exercise of the Catholic worship in Béarn and the restitution to the clergy of the property that had been taken from them. The edict met with bitter opposition in Béarn and from all the Huguenot party. The Protestants were as unwilling to allow the rites of the Catholic Church in a province which they controlled, as the Catholics to suffer a Huguenot conventicle within the walls of Paris. The persecutions which the Huguenots suffered distressed them less than the toleration which they were obliged to grant. … In the wars of religion the Huguenots had been controlled, not always wisely or unselfishly, by the nobles who had espoused their faith, but these were slowly drifting back to Catholicism. … The Condés were already Catholics. Lesdiguières was only waiting till the bribe for his conversion should be sufficiently glittering. [He was received into the Church and was made Constable of France in July, 1622.] Bouillon's religion was but a catch-weight in his political intrigues. The grandson of Coligni was soon to receive a marshal's baton for consenting to a peace which was disastrous to his party. Sully, Rohan, Soubise, and La Force still remained; but La Force's zeal moderated when he also was made a marshal, and one hundred years later Rohans and the descendants of Sully wore cardinal's hats. The party, slowly deserted by the great nobles, came more under the leadership of the clergy … and under their guidance the party now assumed a political activity which brought on the siege of La Rochelle and which made possible the revocation of the edict of Nantes. Béarn was not only strongly Protestant, but it claimed, with Navarre, to form no part of France, and to be governed only by its own laws. Its States met and declared their local rights were violated by the king's edict; the Parliament of Pau refused to register it, and it was not enforced in the province. … The disturbances caused by Mary de Medici had delayed any steps for the enforcement of the edict, but these troubles were ended by the peace of Ponts-de-Cé in 1620. … In October, 1620, Louis led his army in Béarn, removed various Huguenot officials, and reëstablished the Catholic clergy. … On October 20th, an edict was issued by which Navarre and Béarn were declared to be united to France, and a parliament was established for the two provinces on the same model as the other parliaments of the kingdom. … A general assembly of Protestants, sympathizing with their brethren of these provinces, was called for November 26, 1620, at La Rochelle. The king declared those guilty of high treason who should join in that meeting. … The meeting was held in defiance of the prohibition, and it was there resolved to take up arms. … The assembly proceeded in all respects like the legislative body of a separate state. {1219} The king prepared for the war with vigor. … He now led his forces into southern France, and after some minor engagements he laid siege to Montauban. A three months' siege resulted disastrously; the campaign closed, and the king returned to Paris. The encouragement that the Huguenots drew from this success proved very brief. The king's armies proceeded again into the south of France in 1622, and met only an irregular and inefficient opposition. … Chatillon and La Force each made a separate peace, and each was rewarded by the baton of marshal from the king and by charges of treachery from his associates. … The siege of Montpelier led to the peace called by that name, but on terms that were unfavorable to the Huguenots. They abandoned all the fortified cities which they had held for their security except La Rochelle and Montauban; no assemblies could meet without permission of the king, except the local synods for ecclesiastical matters alone, and the interests of Béarn and Navarre were abandoned. In return the edict of Nantes was again confirmed, and their religious privileges left undisturbed. Rohan accepted 800,000 livres for his expenses and governments, and the king agreed that the Fort of St. Louis, which had been built to overawe the turbulence of La Rochelle, should be dismantled. La Rochelle, the great Huguenot stronghold, continued hostilities for some time longer, but at last it made terms. The party was fast losing its power and its overthrow could be easily foretold. La Rochelle was now the only place capable of making a formidable resistance. … In the meantime the career of Luines reached its end." He had taken the great office of Constable to himself, incurring much ridicule thereby. "The exposures of the campaign and its disasters had worn upon him; a fever attacked him at the little town of Monheur, and on December 14, 1621, he died."

J. B. Perkins, France under Mazarin, with a Review of the Administration of Richelieu, chapter 3 (volume 1).

      ALSO IN:
      W. S. Browning,
      History of the Huguenots,
      chapters 54-56.

FRANCE: A. D. 1624-1626.
   Richelieu in power.
   His combinations against the Austro-Spanish ascendancy.
   The Valtelline War.
   Huguenots again in revolt.
   The second Treaty of Montpelier.
   Treaty of Monzon with Spain.

"The King was once more without a guide, without a favourite, but his fate was upon him. A few months more of uncertain drifting and he will fall into the hands of the greatest politician France has ever seen, Cardinal Richelieu; under his hand the King will be effaced, his cold disposition and narrow intelligence will accept and be convinced by the grandeur of his master's views; convinced, he will obey, and we shall enter on the period in which the disruptive forces in France will be coerced, and the elements of freedom and constitutional life stamped down; while patriotism, and a firm belief in the destinies of the nation will be fostered and grow strong; France will assert her high place in Europe. Richelieu, who had already in 1622 received the Cardinal's hat, entered the King's Council on the 29th of April, 1624. …

[Transcriber's note: The date printed is "19/29th of April". Wikipedia gives the date as "appointed to the royal council of ministers on 29 April 1624, (Lodge & Ketcham, 1903, p. 85.)".]

La Vieuville, under whose patronage he had been brought forward, welcomed him into the Cabinet. … But La Vieuville was not fitted by nature for the chief place; he was rash, violent, unpopular and corrupt. He soon had to give place to Richelieu, henceforth the virtual head of the Council. La Vieuville, thus supplanted, had been the first to reverse the ruinous Spanish policy of the Court; … he had promised help to the Dutch, to Mansfield, to the Elector Frederick; in a word, his policy had been the forecast of that of the Cardinal, who owed his rise to him, and now stepped nimbly over his head into his place. England had declared war on Spain: France joined England in renewing the old offensive and defensive alliance with the Dutch, England promising men and France money. … The Austro-Spanish power had greatly increased during these years: its successes had enabled it to knit together all the provinces which owed it allegiance. The Palatinate and the Lower Rhine secured their connexion with the Spanish Netherlands, as we may now begin to call them, and threatened the very existence of the Dutch: the Valtelline forts [commanding the valley east of Lake Como, from which one pass communicates with the Engadine and the Grisons, and another with the Tyrol] … were the roadway between the Spanish power at Milan and the Austrians on the Danube and in the Tyrol. Richelieu now resolved to attack this threatening combination at both critical points. In the North he did not propose to interfere in arms: there others should fight, and France support them with quiet subsidies and good will. He pressed matters on with the English, the Dutch, the North German Princes; he negotiated with Maximilian of Bavaria and the League, hoping to keep the South German Princes clear of the Imperial policy. … The French ambassador at Copenhagen, well supported by the English envoy, Sir Robert Anstruther, at this time organised a Northern League, headed by Christian IV. of Denmark [see GERMANY: A. D. 1624-1626]. … The Lutheran Princes, alarmed at the threatening aspect of affairs, were beginning to think that they had made a mistake in leaving the Palatinate to be conquered; and turned a more willing ear to the French and English proposals for this Northern League. … By 1625 the Cardinal's plans in the North seemed to be going well: the North-Saxon Princes, though with little heart and much difference of opinion, specially in the cities, had accepted Christian IV. as their leader; and the progress of the Spaniards in the United Provinces was checked. In the other point to which Richelieu's attention was directed, matters had gone still better. [The inhabitants of the Valtelline were mostly Catholics and Italians. They had long been subject to the Protestant Grisons or Graubunden. In 1620 they had risen in revolt, massacred the Protestants of the valley, and formed an independent republic, supported by the Spaniards and Austrians. Spanish and German troops occupied the four strong Valtelline forts, and controlled the important passes above referred to. The Grisons resisted and secured the support of Savoy, Venice and finally France. In 1623 an agreement had been reached, to hand over the Valtelline forts to the pope, in deposit, until some terms could be settled. But in 1625 this agreement had not been carried out, and Richelieu took the affair in hand.] … {1220} Richelieu, never attacking in full face if he could carry his point by a side-attack, allied himself with Charles Emmanuel, Duke of Savoy, and with Venice; he easily persuaded the Savoyard to threaten Genoa, the port by which Spain could penetrate into Italy, and her financial mainstay. Meanwhile, the Marquis of Cœuvres had been sent to Switzerland, and, late in 1624, had persuaded the Cantons to arm for the recovery of the Valtelline; then, heading a small army of Swiss and French, he had marched into the Grisons. The upper districts held by the Austrians revolted: the three Leagues declared their freedom, the Austrian troops hastily withdrew. Cœuvres at once secured the Tyrolese passes, and descending from the Engadine by Poschiavo, entered the Valtelline: in a few weeks the Papal and Spanish troops were swept out of the whole valley, abandoning all their forts, though the French general had no siege-artillery with which to reduce them. … Early in 1625, the Valtelline being secured to the Grisons and French, the aged Lesdiguières was sent forward to undertake the rest of the plan, the reduction of Genoa. But just as things were going well for the party in Europe opposed to Spain and Austria, an unlucky outburst of Huguenot dissatisfaction marred all: Soubise in the heart of winter had seized the Isle of Ré, and had captured in Blavet harbour on the Breton coast six royal ships; he failed however to take the castle which commanded the place, and was himself blockaded, escaping only with heavy loss. Thence he seized the Isle of Oléron: in May the Huguenots were in revolt in Upper Languedoc, Querci, and the Cevennes, led by Rohan on land, and Soubise by sea. Their rash outbreak [provoked by alleged breaches of the treaty of Montpelier, especially in the failure of the king to demolish Fort Louis at La Rochelle] came opportunely to the aid of the distressed Austrian power, their true enemy. Although very many of the Huguenots stood aloof and refused to embarrass the government, still enough revolted to cause great uneasiness. The war in the Ligurian mountains was not pushed on with vigour; for Richelieu could not now think of carrying out the large plans which, by his own account, he had already formed, for the erection of an independent Italy. … He was for the present content to menace Genoa, without a serious siege. At this time James I. of England died, and the marriage of the young king [Charles I.] with Henriette Marie was pushed on. In May Buckingham went to Paris to carry her over to England; he tried in vain to persuade Richelieu to couple the Palatinate with the Valtelline question. … After this the tide of affairs turned sharply against the Cardinal; while Tilly with the troops of the Catholic League, and Wallenstein, the new general of the Emperor, who begins at this moment his brief and marvellous career, easily kept in check the Danes and their halfhearted German allies, Lesdiguières and the Duke of Savoy were forced by the Austrians and Spaniards to give up all thoughts of success in the Genoese country, and the French were even threatened in Piedmont and the Valtelline. But the old Constable of France was worthy of his ancient fame; he drove the Duke of Feria out of Piedmont, and in the Valtelline the Spaniards only succeeded in securing the fortress of Riva. Richelieu felt that the war was more than France could bear, harassed as she was within and without. … He was determined to free his hands in Italy, to leave the war to work itself out in Germany, and to bring the Huguenots to reason. … The joint fleets of, Soubise and of La Rochelle had driven back the king's ships, and had taken Ré and Oléron; but in their attempt to force an entrance into the harbour of La Rochelle they were defeated by Montmorency, who now commanded the royal fleet: the islands were retaken, and the Huguenots sued for peace. It must be remembered that the bulk of them did not agree with the Rochellois, and were quiet through this time. Early in 1626 the treaty of Montpellier granted a hollow peace on tolerable terms to the reformed churches; and soon after … peace was signed with Spain at Monzon in May, 1626. All was done so silently that the interested parties, Savoy, the Venetians, the Grisons, knew nothing of it till all was settled: on Buckingham … the news fell like a thunderclap. … The Valtelline remained under the Grisons, with guarantees for Catholic worship; France and Spain would jointly see that the inhabitants of the valleys were fairly treated: the Pope was entrusted with the duty of razing the fortresses: Genoa and Savoy were ordered to make peace. It was a treacherous affair; and Richelieu comes out of it but ill. We are bound, however, to remember … the desperate straits into which the Cardinal had come. … He did but fall back in order to make that wonderful leap forward which changed the whole face of European politics."

FRANCE: A. D. 1627-1628:
   War with England, and Huguenot revolt.
   Richelieu's siege and capture of La Rochelle.
   His great example of magnanimity and toleration.
   The end of political Huguenotism.

   "Richelieu now found himself dragged into a war against his
   will, and that with the very power with which, for the
   furtherance of his other designs, he most desired to continue
   at peace. James I. of England had been as unable to live
   except under the dominion of a favourite as Louis. Charles …
   had the same unfortunate weakness; and the Duke of Buckingham,
   who had long been paramount at the court of the father,
   retained the same mischievous influence at that of the son.
   … In passing through France in 1623 he [Buckingham] had been
   presented to the queen [Anne of Austria], and had presumed to
   address her in the language of love. When sent to Paris to
   conduct the young Princess Henrietta Maria to England, he had
   repeated this conduct. … There had been some little
   unpleasantness between the two Courts shortly after the
   marriage … owing to the imprudence of Henrietta," who
   paraded her Popery too much in the eyes of Protestant England;
   and there was talk of a renewed treaty, which Buckingham
   sought to make the pretext for another visit to Paris. But his
   motives were understood; Louis "refused to receive him as an
   ambassador, and Buckingham, full of disappointed rage,
   instigated the Duke de Soubise, who was still in London, to
   rouse the Huguenots to a fresh outbreak, promising to send an
   English fleet to Rochelle to assist them. Rochelle was at this
   time the general head-quarters not only of the Huguenots, but
   of all those who, on any account, were discontented with the
   Government. …
{1221}
   Soubise … embraced the duke's offer with eagerness; and in
   July, 1627, without any previous declaration of war, an
   English fleet, with 16,000 men on board, suddenly appeared off
   Rochelle, and prepared to attack the Isle of Rhé. The
   Rochellois were very unwilling to co-operate with it"; but
   they were persuaded, "against their judgment, to connect
   themselves with what each, individually, felt to be a
   desperate enterprise; and Richelieu, to whom the prospect thus
   afforded him of having a fair pretence for crushing the
   Huguenot party made amends for the disappointment of being
   wantonly dragged into a war with England, gladly received the
   intelligence that Rochelle was in rebellion. At first the Duke
   d'Anjou was sent down to command the army, Louis being
   detained in Paris by illness; but by October he had recovered,
   his fondness for military operations revived, and he hastened
   to the scene of action, accompanied by Richelieu, whose early
   education had been of a military kind. … He at once threw
   across reinforcements into the Isle of Rhé, where M. Thoiras
   was holding out a fort known as St. Martin with great
   resolution, though it was unfinished and incompletely armed.
   In the beginning of November, Buckingham raised the siege, and
   returned home, leaving guns, standards and prisoners behind
   him; and Richelieu, anticipating a renewal of the attack the
   next year … undertook a work designed at once to baffle
   foreign enemies and to place the city at his mercy. Along the
   whole front of the port he began to construct a vast wall …
   having only one small opening in the centre which was
   commanded by small batteries. The work was commenced in
   November, 1627; and, in spite of a rather severe winter, was
   carried on with such ceaseless diligence, under the
   superintending eye of the cardinal himself, that before the
   return of spring a great portion of it was completed. …
   When, in May, 1628, the British fleet, under Lord Denbigh, the
   brother-in-law of Buckingham, returned to the attack, they
   found it unassailable, and returned without striking a blow."

"Richelieu … was his own engineer, general, admiral, prime-minister. While he urged on the army to work upon the dike, he organized a French navy, and in due time brought it around to that coast and anchored it so as to guard the dike and be guarded by it. Yet, daring as all this work was, it was but the smallest part of his work. Richelieu found that his officers were cheating his soldiers in their pay and disheartening them; in face of the enemy he had to reorganize the army and to create a new military system. … He found, also, as he afterward said, that he had to conquer not only the Kings of England and Spain, but also the King of France. At the most critical moment of the siege Louis deserted him,—went back to Paris,—allowed courtiers to fill him with suspicions. Not only Richelieu's place, but his life, was in danger, and he well knew it; yet he never left his dike and siege-works, but wrought on steadily until they were done; and then the King, of his own will, in very shame, broke away from his courtiers, and went back to his master. And now a Royal Herald summoned the people of La Rochelle to surrender. But they were not yet half conquered. Even when they had seen two English fleets, sent to aid them, driven back from Richelieu's dike, they still held out manfully. … They were reduced to feed on their horses,—then on bits of filthy shell-fish,—then on stewed leather. They died in multitudes. Guiton, the Mayor, kept a dagger on the city council-table to stab any man who should speak of surrender. … But at last even Guiton had to yield. After the siege had lasted more than a year, after 5,000 were found remaining out of 15,000, after a mother had been seen to feed her child with her own blood, the Cardinal's policy became too strong for him. The people yielded [October 27, 1628], and Richelieu entered the city as master. And now the victorious statesman showed a greatness of soul to which all the rest of his life was as nothing. … All Europe … looked for a retribution more terrible than any in history. Richelieu allowed nothing of the sort. He destroyed the old franchises of the city, for they were incompatible with that royal authority which he so earnestly strove to build. But this was all. He took no vengeance,—he allowed the Protestants to worship as before,—he took many of them into the public service,—and to Guiton he showed marks of respect. He stretched forth that strong arm of his over the city, and warded off all harm. … For his leniency Richelieu received the titles of Pope of the Protestants and Patriarch of the Atheists. But he had gained the first great object of his policy, and he would not abuse it: he had crushed the political power of the Huguenots forever."

"Whatever the benefit to France of this great feat, the locality was permanently ruined. Two hundred and fifty years after the event the Poitevin peasant is fanatic and superstitious as the Bretons themselves. Catholic Rochelle is still to be seen, with almost one-third less inhabitants to-day than it had in 1627. The cardinal's dyke is still there, but the insects have seized on the city. A plague of white ants, imported from India, have fastened on its timbers."

      ALSO IN:
      S. R. Gardiner,
      History of England, 1603 to 1642,
      chapters 56, 59-60, and 65.

FRANCE: A. D. 1627-1631.
   War with Spain, Savoy and the Empire over the succession to
   the duchy of Mantua.
   Successes of Richelieu.

FRANCE: A. D. 1628.
New France placed under the Company of the Hundred Associates.

On the return of Richelieu and the king from their Italian expedition, in the beginning of August, 1630, "both the monarch and his minister had passed in safety through a whole tract infected with the plague; but, shortly after their arrival at Lyons, Louis XIII. fell ill, and in a few days his physicians pronounced his case hopeless. It was now that all the hatred which his power had caused to hide its head, rose up openly against Richelieu; and the two queens [Marie de Medicis, the queen-mother, and Anne of Austria, the king's wife], united only in their enmity towards the minister, never quitted the bedside of the king but to form and cement the party which was intended to work the cardinal's destruction as soon as the monarch should be no more. … {1222} The bold and the rash joined the faction of the queens; and the prudent waited with wise doubt till they saw the result they hoped for. Happy was it for those who did conceal their feelings; for suddenly the internal abscess, which had nearly reduced the king to the tomb, broke, passed away, and in a very few days he appeared perfectly convalescent. Richelieu might now have triumphed securely; … but he acted more prudently. He remembered that the queen-mother, the great mover of the cabal against him, had formerly been his benefactress; and though probably his gratitude was of no very sensitive nature, yet he was wise enough to affect a virtue that he did not possess, and to suffer the offence to be given by her. … At Paris [after the return of the court] … the queen-mother herself, unable to restrain any longer the violent passions that struggled in her bosom, seemed resolved to keep no terms with the cardinal." At an interview with him, in the king's presence, "the queen forgot the dignity of her station and the softness of her sex, and, in language more fit for the markets than the court, called him rogue, and traitor, and perturber of the public peace; and, turning to the king, she endeavoured to persuade him that Richelieu wished to take the crown from his head, in order to place it on that of the count de Soissons. Had Richelieu been as sure of the king's firmness as he was of his regard, this would have been exactly the conduct which he could have desired the queen to hold; but he knew Louis to be weak and timid, and easily ruled by those who took a tone of authority towards him; and when at length he retired at the command of the monarch … he seems to have been so uncertain how the whole would end, that he ordered his papers and most valuable effects to be secured, and preparations to be made for immediate departure. All these proceedings had been watched by the courtiers: Richelieu had been seen to quit the queen's cabinet troubled and gloomy, his niece in tears; and, some time after, the king himself followed in a state of excessive agitation, and … left Paris for Versailles without seeing his minister. The whole court thought the rule of Richelieu at an end, and the saloons of the Luxembourg were crowded with eager nobles ready to worship the rising authority of the queen-mother." But the king, when he reached Versailles, sent this message to his minister: "'Tell the cardinal de Richelieu that he has a good master, and bid him come hither to me without delay.' Richelieu felt that the real power of France was still in his hands; and setting off for Versailles, he found Louis full of expressions of regard and confidence. Rumours every moment reached Versailles of the immense concourse that was flocking to pay court to the queen-mother: the king found himself nearly deserted, and all that Richelieu had said of her ambition was confirmed in the monarch's mind; while his natural good sense told him that a minister who depended solely upon him, and who under him exercised the greatest power in the realm, was not likely to wish his fall. … In the mean time, the news of these … events spread to Paris: the halls of the Luxembourg, which the day before had been crowded to suffocation, were instantly deserted; and the queen-mother found herself abandoned by all those fawning sycophants whose confidence and disappointment procured for the day of St. Martin, 1630, the title in French history of The Day of Dupes."

The ultimate outcome of The Day of Dupes was the flight of Marie de Medicis, who spent the remainder of her life in the Netherlands and in England; the trial and execution of Marshal de Marillac; the imprisonment or exile and disgrace of Bassompierre and other nobles; a senseless revolt, headed by Gaston, Duke of Orleans, the king's brother, which was crushed in one battle at Castlenaudari, September 1, 1632, and which brought the Duke de Montmorency to the block.

      Miss Pardoe,
      Life of Marie de Medicis,
      book 3, chapters 7-13 (volume 3).

FRANCE: A. D. 1631.
Treaty and negotiations with Gustavus Adolphus in Germany.
Promotion of the Protestant Union.

FRANCE: A. D. 1632-1641.
War in Lorraine.
Occupation and possession of the duchy.

FRANCE: A. D. 1635-1638.
   Campaigns on the Flemish frontier.
   Invasion by the Spaniards.
   Paris in Peril.

FRANCE: A. D. 1635-1639.
   Active participation in the Thirty Years War.
   Treaties with the Germans, Swedes, and Dutch.
   Campaigns of Duke Bernhard in Lorraine, Alsace and
   Franche-Comté.
   The fruit gathered by Richelieu.
   Alsace secured.

FRANCE: A. D. 1637-1642.
   The war in Spain.
   Revolt of Catalonia.
   Siege and capture of Perpignan.
   Conquest of Roussillon.

FRANCE: A. D. 1641-1642.
The conspiracies of Count de Soissons and Cinq Mars.
Extinction of the Principality of Sedan.

   "There were revolts in various quarters to resist [the yoke of
   Richelieu], but they were quelled with uniform success. Once,
   and once only, the fate of the Cardinal seemed finally sealed.
   The Count de Soissons, a prince of the blood, headed the
   discontented gentry in open war in 1641, and established the
   headquarters of revolt in the town of Sedan. The Empire and
   Spain came to his support with promises and money. Twelve
   thousand men were under his orders, all influenced with rage
   against Richelieu, and determined to deliver the king from his
   degrading tutelage. Richelieu was taken unprepared; but delay
   would have been ruin. He sent the Marshal Chatillon to the
   borders of Sedan, to watch the proceedings of the
   confederates, and requested the king to summon fresh troops
   and go down to the scene of war. While his obedient Majesty
   was busied in the commission, Chatillon advanced too far.
   Soissons assaulted him near the banks of the Meuse, at a place
   called Marfée, and gave him a total and irremediable
   overthrow. The cavalry on the royalist side retreated at an
   early part of the fight, and forced their way through the
   infantry, not without strong suspicions of collusion with
   their opponents."
{1223}
   Paris itself was in dismay. The King and Cardinal expected to
   hear every hour of the advance of the rebels; but no step was
   taken. It was found, when the hurry of battle was over, that
   Soissons was among the slain. The force of the expedition was
   in that one man; and the defeat was as useful to the Cardinal
   as a victory would have been. The malcontents had no leaders
   of sufficient rank and authority to keep the inferiors in
   check; for the scaffold had thinned the ranks of the great
   hereditary chiefs, and no man could take his first open move
   against the Court without imminent risk to his head. Great
   men, indeed, were rising into fame, but of a totally different
   character from their predecessors. Their minds were cast in a
   monarchical mould from their earliest years. … From this
   time subserviency to the king became a sign of noble birth.
   … Richelieu has the boast, if boast it can be called, of
   having crushed out the last spark of popular independence and
   patrician pride. … One more effort was made [1642] to shake
   off the trammels of the hated Cardinal. A conspiracy was
   entered into to deliver the land by the old Roman method of
   putting the tyrant to death; and the curious part of the
   design is, that it was formed almost in presence of the king.
   His favourite friend, young Cinq Mars, son of the Marshal
   d'Effiat, his brother Gaston of Orleans, and his kinsman the
   Duke de Bouillon, who were round his person at all hours of
   the day, were the chief agents of the perilous undertaking.
   Others, and with them de Thou, the son of the great French
   historian, entered into the plan, but wished the assassination
   to be left out. They would arrest and imprison him; but this
   was evidently not enough. While Richelieu lived, no man could
   be safe, though the Cardinal were in the deepest dungeon of
   the Bastile. Death, however, was busy with their victim,
   without their aid. He was sinking under some deep but
   partially-concealed illness when the threads of the plot came
   into his skilful hands. He made the last use of his strength
   and intelligence in unravelling [it] and punishing the rebels,
   as he called them, against the king's authority. The paltry
   and perfidious Gaston was as usual penitent and pardoned, but
   on Cinq Mars and de Thou the vengeance of the law and the
   Cardinal had its full force. The triumphant but failing
   minister reclined in a state barge upon the Rhone, towing his
   prisoners behind him to certain death. On their arrival at
   Lyons the process was short and fatal. The young men were
   executed together, and the account of their behaviour at the
   block is one of the most affecting narratives in the annals of
   France."

The Duke de Bouillon, implicated in both these conspiracies—that of the Count de Soissons and that of Cinq Mars—saved his life on the latter occasion by surrendering to the crown the sovereignty of Sedan, which belonged to him, and which had been the headquarters of the Soissons revolt. This small independent principality—the town and a little territory around it—had formerly been in the possession of the powerful and troublesome family of La Marck, the last heiress of whom brought it, together with the Duchy of Bouillon, into the family of La Tour d'Auvergne. The Prince and Duke who lost it was the second of that family who bore the titles. He was the elder brother of the great soldier, Turenne. The Principality of Sedan was extinguished from that time.

      Miss Pardoe,
      Life of Marie de Medicis,
      book 3, chapter 13 (volume 3).

FRANCE: A. D. 1642-1643.
   The death of Richelieu and of Louis XIII.
   Regency of Anne of Austria.
   Cardinal Mazarin and the party of the Importants.
   The victory at Rocroi.

Cardinal Richelieu died on the 4th of December, 1642. "He was dead, but his work survived him. On the very evening of the 3d of December, Louis XIII. called to his council Cardinal Mazarin [whom Richelieu had commended to him]. … Scarcely had the most powerful kings yielded up their last breath when their wishes had been at once forgotten: Cardinal Richelieu still governed in his grave." But now, after two and a half centuries, "the castle of Richelieu is well-nigh destroyed; his family, after falling into poverty, is extinct; the Palais-Cardinal [his splendid residence, which he built, and which he gave to the crown] has assumed the name of the Palais-Royal; and pure monarchy, the aim of all his efforts and the work of his whole life, has been swept away by the blast of revolution. Of the cardinal there remains nothing but the great memory of his power and of the services he rendered his country. … Richelieu had no conception of that noblest ambition on which a human soul can feed, that of governing a free country, but he was one of the greatest, the most effective, and the boldest, as well as the most prudent servants that France ever had." Louis XIII. survived his great minister less than half a year, dying May 14, 1643. He had never had confidence in Anne of Austria, his wife, and had provided, by a declaration which she had signed and sworn to, for a council (which included Mazarin) to control the queen's regency during the minority of their son, Louis XIV. But the queen contrived very soon to break from this obligation, and she made Cardinal Mazarin her one counsellor and supreme minister. "Continuing to humor all parties, and displaying foresight and prudence, the new minister was even now master. Louis XIII., without any personal liking, had been faithful to Richelieu to the death. With different feelings, Anne of Austria was to testify the same constancy towards Mazarin. A stroke of fortune came at the very first to strengthen the regent's position. Since the death of Cardinal Richelieu, the Spaniards, but recently overwhelmed at the close of 1642, had recovered courage and boldness; new counsels prevailed at the court of Philip IV., who had dismissed Olivarez; the House of Austria vigorously resumed the offensive; at the moment of Louis XIII.'s death, Don Francisco de Mello, governor of the Low Countries, had just invaded French territory by way of the Ardennes, and laid siege to Rocroi, on the 12th of May [1643]. The French army was commanded by the young Duke of Enghien [afterwards known as the Great Condé], the prince of Condé's son, scarcely 22 years old; Louis XIII. had given him as his lieutenant and director the veteran Marshal de l'Hôpital; and the latter feared to give battle. {1224} The Duke of Enghien, who 'was dying with impatience to enter the enemy's country, resolved to accomplish by address what he could not carry by authority. He opened his heart to Gassion alone. As he [Gassion, one of the boldest of Condé's officers] was a man who saw nothing but what was easy even in the most dangerous deeds, he had very soon brought matters to the point that the prince desired. Marshal de l'Hôpital found himself imperceptibly so near the Spaniards that it was impossible for him any longer to hinder an engagement.' … The army was in front of Rocroi, and out of the dangerous defile which led to the place, without any idea on the part of the marshal and the army that Louis XIII. was dead. The Duke of Enghien, who had received the news, had kept it secret. He had merely said in the tone of a master 'that he meant to fight, and would answer for the issue.'" The battle, which was fought May 19, 1643, resulted in the destruction, almost total, of the Spanish army. Of 18,000 men who formed its infantry, nearly 9,000 were killed and 7,000 were made prisoners. The whole of the Spanish artillery and 300 of their standards fell into the hands of the victors, who lost, according to their own reports, only 2,000 men, killed and wounded. "'The prince was a born captain,' said Cardinal de Retz. And all France said so with him on hearing of the victory of Rocroi. The delight was all the keener in the queen's circle, because the house of Condé openly supported Cardinal Mazarin, bitterly attacked as he was by the Importants [a court faction or party so called, which was made up of 'those meddlers of the court at whose head marched the Duke of Beaufort, all puffed up with the confidence lately shown to him by her Majesty,' and all expecting to count importantly among the queen's favorites], who accused him of reviving the tyranny of Richelieu. … And, indeed, on pretext offered by a feminine quarrel [August, 1643] between the young Duchess of Longueville, daughter of the prince of Condé, and the Duchess of Montbazon, the Duke of Beaufort and some of his friends resolved to assassinate the cardinal. The attempt was a failure, but the Duke of Beaufort, who was arrested on the 2d of September, was taken to the castle of Vincennes. Madame de Chevreuse, recently returned [after being exiled by Richelieu] to court, where she would fain have exacted from the queen the reward for her services and her past sufferings, was sent into exile, as well as the Duke of Vendôme. Madame d'Hautefort, but lately summoned by Anne of Austria to be near her, was soon involved in the same disgrace. … The party of the Importants was dead, and the power of Cardinal Mazarin seemed to be firmly established. 'It was not the thing just then for any decent man to be on bad terms with the court,' says Cardinal de Retz."

"Cardinal Richelieu was not so much a minister, in the precise sense of the word, as a person invested with the whole power of the crown. His preponderating influence in the council suspended the exercise of the hereditary power, without which the monarchy must cease to exist; and it seems as if that may have taken place in order that the social progress, violently arrested since the last reign, might resume its course at the instigation of a kind of dictator, whose spirit was free from the influences which the interest of family and dynasty exercises over the characters of kings. By a strange concurrence of circumstances, it happened that the weak prince, whose destiny it was to lend his name to the reign of the great minister, had in his character, his instincts, his good or bad qualities, all that could supply the requirements of such a post. Louis XIII., who had a mind without energy but not without intelligence, could not live without a master; after having possessed and lost many, he took and kept the one, who he found was capable of conducting France to the point, which he himself had a faint glimpse of, and to which he vaguely aspired in his melancholy reveries. … In his attempts at innovation, Richelieu, as simple minister, much surpassed the great king who had preceded him, in boldness. He undertook to accelerate the movement towards civil unity and equality so much, and to carry it so far, that hereafter it should be impossible to recede. … The work of Louis XI. had been nearly lost in the depth of the troubles of the sixteenth century; and that of Henry IV. was compromised by fifteen years of disorder and weakness. To save it from perishing, three things were necessary: that the high nobility should be constrained to obedience to the king and to the law; that Protestantism should cease to be an armed party in the State; that France should be able to choose her allies freely in behalf of her own interest and in that of European independence. On this triple object the king-minister employed his powerful intellect, his indefatigable activity, ardent passions, and an heroic strength of mind. His daily life was a desperate struggle against the nobles, the royal family, the supreme courts, against all that existed of high institutions, and corporations established in the country. For the purpose of reducing all to the same level of submission and order, he raised the royal power above the ties of family and the tie of precedent; he isolated it in its sphere as a pure idea, the living idea of the public safety and the national interest. … He was as destitute of mercy as he was of fear, and trampled under foot the respect due to judicial forms and usages. He had sentences of death pronounced by commissioners of his own selection: at the very foot of the throne he struck the enemies of the public interest, and at the same time of his own fortune, and confounded his personal hatreds with the vengeance of the State. No one can say whether or not there was deceit in that assurance of conscience which he manifested in his last moments: God alone could look into the depth of his mind. We who have gathered the fruit of his labours and of his patriotic devotion at a distance of time—we can only bow, before that man of revolution, by whom the ways which led to our present state of society were prepared. But something sad is still attached to his glory: he sacrificed everything to the success of his undertaking; he stifled within himself and crushed down in some noble spirits the eternal principles of morality and humanity. When we look at the great things which he achieved, we admire him with gratitude; we would, but we cannot, love his character."

A. Thierry, Formation and Progress of the Tiers État or Third Estate in France, chapter 8.

ALSO IN: V. Cousin, Secret History of the French Court under Richelieu and Mazarin, chapters 3-4.

FRANCE: A. D. 1643.
Enghien's (Condé's) campaign on the Moselle.
Siege and capture of Thionville.

"On the 20th of May … Enghien made his triumphal entry into Rocroy. He allowed his troops to repose for two days, and then it was towards Guise that he directed his steps. He soon heard that Don Francisco de Melo had taken shelter at Phillipeville, that he was trying to rally his cavalry, but that of all his infantry not above 2,000 men remained to him, and they disarmed and nearly naked. No army any longer protected Flanders, and the youthful courage of Enghien already meditated its conquest. But the Court, which had expected to sustain war in its own provinces, was not prepared to carry it into foreign countries. It became necessary to give up all idea of an invasion of Maritime Flanders and the siege of Dunkirk, with which Enghien had at first flattered himself. Then finding that the Spaniards had drawn off their troops from the fortifications on the Moselle, Enghien proposed to march thither, and take possession of them. … Although this project was very inferior to his first, its greatness surprised the Council of Ministers: they at first refused their consent, but the Duke insisted—and what could they refuse to the victor of Rocroy? Thionville was at that time considered to be one of the best fortresses in Europe. On arriving before its walls, after a seven days' march, Enghien … established his lines, erected bridges, raised redoubts, and opened a double line of trenches on the 25th of June. The French were several times repulsed, but always rallied; and everywhere the presence of Enghien either prevented or repaired the disorder. … The obstinate resistance of the garrison obliged the French to have recourse to mines, which, by assiduous labor, they pushed forward under the interior of the town. Then Enghien, wishing to spare bloodshed, sent a flag of truce to the governor, and allowed him a safe conduct to visit the state of the works. This visit convinced the Spaniards of the impossibility of defending themselves any longer. … They evacuated the town on the 22d of August. Thionville was then little more than a heap of ruins and ashes. … By this conquest Enghien soon became master of the whole course of the Moselle down to the gates of Trèves. Sierch alone ventured to resist him, but was reduced in 24 hours. Then, disposing his army in autumn quarters, he set off for Paris."

FRANCE: A. D. 1645-1648.
   Campaigns in Flanders.
   Capture of Dunkirk.
   Loss of the Dutch alliance.
   Conde's victory at Lens.

FRANCE: A. D. 1646-1648.
The last campaigns of the Thirty Years War.
Turenne and the Swedes in Germany.

FRANCE: A. D. 1646-1654.
   Hostility to the Pope.
   Siege of Orbitello.
   Attempts to take advantage of the insurrection in Naples.

FRANCE: A. D. 1647-1648.
   Conflict between Court and Parliament.
   The question of the Paulette.
   Events leading to the First Fronde.

"The war was conducted with alternate success and failure, but with an unintermitted waste of the public revenue; and while Guébriant, Turenne, and Condé were maintaining the military renown of France, D'Emery, the superintendent of finance, was struggling with the far severer difficulty of raising her ways and means to the level of her expenditure. The internal history of the first five years of the regency is thenceforward a record of the contest between the court and the Parliament of Paris; between the court, promulgating edicts to replenish the exhausted treasury, and the Parliament, remonstrating in angry addresses against the acceptance of them." Of the four sovereign courts which had their seat at that time in the Palais de Justice of Paris, and of which the Parliament was the most considerable—the other three being the Chamber 'des Comptes,' the Cour des Aides, and the Grand Conseil—the counselors or stipendiary judges held their offices for life. "But, in virtue of the law called Paulette [named from Paulet, its originator, in the reign of Henry IV.] … they also held them as an inheritance transmissible to their descendants. The Paulette … was a royal ordinance which imposed an annual tax on the stipend of every judge. It was usually passed for a term of nine years only. If the judge died during that term, his heir was entitled to succeed to the vacant office. But if the death of the judge happened when the Paulette was not in force, his heir had no such right. Consequently, the renewal of the tax was always welcome to the stipendiary counselors of the sovereign courts; and, by refusing or delaying to renew it, the king could always exercise a powerful influence over them. In April, 1647, the Paulette had expired, and the queen-mother proposed the revival of it. But, to relieve the necessities of the treasury, she also proposed to increase the annual per centage which it imposed on the stipends of the counselors of the Chamber 'des Comptes,' of the Cour des Aides, and of the Grand Conseil. To concert measures of resistance to the contemplated innovation, those counselors held a meeting in the Great Hall of St. Louis; and at their request the Parliament, though not personally and directly interested in the change, joined their assembly." The queen sarcastically replied to their remonstrances that the "king would not only withdraw his proposal for an increase in the rate of the annual tax on their stipends, but would even graciously relieve them from that burden altogether. … Exasperated by the threatened loss of the heritable tenure of their offices, and still more offended by the sarcastic terms in which that menace was conveyed, the judges assembled in the hall of St. Louis with increased zeal, and harangued there with yet more indignant eloquence. Four different times the queen interdicted their meetings, and four different times they answered her by renewed resolutions for the continuance of them. She threatened severe punishments, and they replied by remonstrances. A direct collision of authority had thus occurred, and it behooved either party to look well to their steps." The queen began to adopt a conciliatory manner. "But the associated magistrates derived new boldness from the lowered tone and apparent fears of the government. {1226} Soaring at once above the humble topic on which they had hitherto been engaged into the region of general politics, they passed at a step from the question of the Paulette to a review of all the public grievances under which their fellow subjects were labouring. After having wrought during four successive days in this inexhaustible mine of eloquence, they at length, on the 30th of June, 1648, commenced the adoption of a series of resolutions, which, by the 24th of July, had amounted in number to 27, and which may be said to have laid the basis of a constitutional revolution. … Important as these resolutions were in themselves, they were still more important as the assertion, by the associated magistrates, of the right to originate laws affecting all the general interests of the commonwealth. In fact, a new power in the state had suddenly sprung into existence. … That was an age in which the minds of men, in every part of Europe, had been rudely awakened to the extent to which the unconstitutional encroachments of popular bodies might be carried. Charles I. was at that time a prisoner in the hands of the English Parliament. Louis XIV. was a boy, unripe for an encounter with any similar antagonists. … The queen-mother, therefore, resolved to spare no concessions by which the disaffected magistracy might be conciliated. D'Emery was sacrificed to their displeasure; the renewal of the Paulette on its ancient terms was offered to them; some of the grievances of which they complained were immediately redressed; and the young king appeared before them in person, to promise his assent to their other demands. In return, he stipulated only for the cessation of their combined meetings, and for their desisting from the further promulgation of arrêts, to which they ascribed the force and authority of law. But the authors of this hasty revolution were no longer masters of the spirits whom they had summoned to their aid. … With increasing audacity, therefore, they persevered in defying the royal power, and in requiring from all Frenchmen implicit submission to their own. Advancing from one step to another, they adopted, on the 28th of August, 1648, an arrêt in direct conflict with a recent proclamation of the king, and ordered the prosecution of three persons for the offense of presuming to lend him money. At that moment their debates were interrupted by shouts and discharges of cannon, announcing the great victory of Condé at Lens. During the four following days religious festivals and public rejoicings suspended their sittings. But in those four days, the court had arranged their measures for a coup d'état. As the Parliament retired from Notre Dame, where they had attended at a solemn thanksgiving for the triumph of the arms of France, they observed that the soldiery still stood to the posts which, in honour of that ceremonial, had been assigned to them in different quarters of the city. Under the protection of that force, one of the presidents of the Chamber 'des Enquêtes,' and De Broussel, the chief of the parliamentary agitators, were arrested and consigned to different prisons, while three of their colleagues were exiled to remote distances from the capital. At the tidings of this violence, the Parisian populace were seized with a characteristic paroxysm of fury. … In less than three hours, Paris had become an entrenched camp. … They dictated their own terms. The exiles were recalled and the prisoners released. … Then, at the bidding of the Parliament, the people laid aside their weapons, threw down the barricades, re-opened their shops, and resumed the common business of life as quietly as if nothing had occurred. … It was, however, a short-lived triumph. The queen, her son, and Mazarin effected their escape to St. Germains; and there, by the mediation of Condé and of Gaston, duke of Orleans, the uncle of the king, a peace was negotiated. The treaty of St. Germains was regarded by the court with shame, and by the Parliament with exultation." Fresh quarrels over it soon arose. "Condé was a great soldier, but an unskillful and impatient peacemaker. By his advice and aid, the queen-mother and the king once more retired to St. Germains, and commanded the immediate adjournment of the Parliament from Paris to Montargis. To their remonstrances against that order they could obtain no answer, except that if their obedience to it should be any longer deferred, an army of 25,000 men would immediately lay, siege to the city. War was thus declared."

FRANCE: A. D. 1649.
   The First Fronde.
   Doubtful origin of the name.
   Siege of Paris by Condé.
   Dishonorable conduct of Turenne.
   Deserted by his army.
   The Peace of Reuil.

"The very name of this movement is obscure, and it is only certain that it was adopted in jest, from a child's game. It was fitting that the struggle which became only a mischievous burlesque on a revolution should be named from the sport of gamins and school-boys. Fronde is the name of a sling, and the boys of the street used this weapon in their mimic contests. How it came to be applied to the opponents of the government is uncertain. Some claimed it was because the members of the Parliament, like the young frondeurs, hurled their weapons at Mazarin, but were ready to fly when the officers of the police appeared. Others said the term had been used by chance by some counsellor, and had been adopted by the writers of epigrams and mazarinades. However derived, it was not ill applied."

   "Paul de Gondi, Coadjutor of Paris [Coadjutor, that is, of the
   Archbishop of Paris, who was his uncle], famous afterwards
   under the name of Cardinal de Retz, placed himself at the head
   of the revolution. … The Prince of Conti, brother of Condé,
   the Duke of Longueville, the Duke of Beaufort, and the Duke of
   Bouillon adopted the party of the coadjutor and the
   parliament. Generals were chosen for an army with which to
   resist the court. Although taxes levied by Mazarin had been
   resisted, taxes were freely paid to raise troops—12,000 men
   were raised; Condé [commanding for the queen] had 8,000
   soldiers. These he threw around Paris, and invested 100,000
   burgesses, and threatened to starve the town. The citizens,
   adorned with feathers and ribbons, made sorties occasionally,
   but their manœuvres were the subject of scorn by the soldiers.
   … As Voltaire says, the tone of the civil discords which
   afflicted England at the same time mark well the difference
   between the national characters.
{1227}
   The English had thrown into their civil war a balanced fury
   and a mournful determination. … The French on the other hand
   threw themselves into their civil strife with caprice,
   laughter, dissolution and debauchery. Women were the leaders
   of factions—love made and broke cabals. The Duchess of
   Longueville urged Turenne, only a short time back appointed
   Marshal of France, to encourage his army to revolt, which he
   was commanding for his king. Nothing can justify Turenne's
   action in this matter. Had he laid down his command and taken
   the side of his brother [the Duke de Bouillon], on account of
   his family grievance [the loss of the principality of
   Sedan—see above, A. D. 1641-1642], the feudal spirit which in
   those days held affection for family higher than affection for
   country, might have excused him; but, while in the service of
   a sovereign and intrusted with the command of an army, to
   endeavour to lead his troops over to the enemy can be regarded
   as nothing short of the work of a traitor. He himself pleads
   as his apology that Condé was starving the population of Paris
   by the investment. … As it was he sacrificed his honour, and
   allowed his fair fame to be tarnished for the sake of a
   worthless woman who secretly jeered at his passion, and cared
   nothing for his heart, but merely for his sword for her own
   worldly advantage. As it was he endeavoured to persuade his
   army to declare for the parliament, and purposed taking it
   into Champagne, and marching for the relief of the capital;
   but the treachery of the marshal was no match for the subtlety
   of the cardinal. Before Turenne issued his declaration to his
   troops the colonels of his regiment had already been tampered
   with. The cardinal's emissaries had promised them pensions,
   and distributed £800,000 among the officers and soldiers. This
   was a decisive argument for mercenaries, who taught Turenne by
   forsaking him that mercenary services can only be commanded by
   money. D'Erlach had also stood firm. The regiments of Turenne,
   six German regiments, called by d'Erlach, marched one night to
   join him at Brisach. Three regiments of infantry threw
   themselves under the guns of Philipsburg. Only a small force
   was left to Turenne, who, finding the blow he intended
   hopeless, sent the troops still with him to join d'Erlach at
   Brisach, and retired himself with fifteen or twenty of his
   friends to Heilbron, thence to Holland, where he awaited the
   termination of the civil war. The news of the abandonment of
   Turenne was received with despair at Paris, with wild joy at
   St. Germain. His banishment, however, was not long. The
   leaders of the parliament became aware that the princes of the
   Fronde were trying to obtain foreign assistance to overturn
   the monarchy; that their generals were negotiating a treaty
   with Spain. They felt that order, peace, and the independence
   of parliament, which would in this case become dependent upon
   the nobility, was in danger. They took the patriotic
   resolution quickly to act of their own accord. A conference
   had been opened between the parliament and the Court. Peace
   was concluded at Reuil, which, notwithstanding the
   remonstrances of Conti [brother of Condé, the family being
   divided in the First Fronde], Bouillon, and the other nobles
   of the Fronde, was accepted by the whole parliament. Peace was
   proclaimed in Paris to the discontent of the populace. …
   Turenne, on the conclusion of the treaty of Reuil, embarked in
   Zeeland, landed at Dieppe, and posted to Paris."

"After the signing of the peace, the Château of St. Germain became the resort of many Frondeurs; the Duchess de Longueville, the Prince of Conti, and nearly all the other chiefs of the party, hastened to pay their respects to the Queen. She received everybody without bitterness, some even with friendship; and the Minister on his part affected much general good-will. … One of the first effects of the peace between the parties was a reconciliation in the House of Condé. The Princess Dowager employed herself with zeal and success in reestablishing harmony between her children. Condé, who despised his brother too much to hate him, readily agreed to a reconciliation with him. As to his sister, he had always felt for her great affection and confidence, and she no less for him: these sentiments were revived at their very first interview at Ruel, and he not only gave her back his friendship, but began to enter into her views, and even to be guided by her counsels. The Prince's policy was to make Royalty powerful and respected, but not absolute. He said publicly that he had done what he ought in upholding Mazarin, because he had promised to do so: but for the future, if things took a different line, he should not be bound by the past. … A prey to a thousand conflicting feelings, and discontented with everybody, and perhaps with himself, he took the resolution of retiring for several months to his government in Burgundy. On returning from Dijon in the month of August, the Prince found the Queen and the Cardinal at Compiègne, and very much dejected. … He … pressed her to return to Paris with her Minister, answering for Mazarin's safety, at the risk of his own head. … Their entry into Paris took place a few days after."

FRANCE: A. D. 1650-1651.
   The New Fronde, or the Petits Maitres.
   Its alliance with Spain and defeat at Rethel.
   Revolt, siege and reduction of Bordeaux.

"Faction, laid asleep for one night, woke again fresh and vigorous next morning. There was a Parliamentary party, a De Retz party, and a Condé party, and each party plotted and schemed unceasingly to discredit the others and to evoke popular feeling against all except itself. … Neither of the leaders, each pretending fear of assassination, ever stirred abroad unless in the company of 400 or 500 gentlemen, thus holding the city in hourly peril of an 'émeute.' Condé's arrogance and insolence becoming at last totally unbearable, the Court proceeded to the bold measure of arresting him. New combinations: De Retz and Orleans coalesce once more; De Retz coquets with Mazarin and is promised a cardinal's hat. Wily Mazarin strongly supports De Retz's nomination in public, and privately urges every member of the council to vote against it and to beseech the Queen to refuse the dignity. It was refused; upon which De Retz turned his energies upon a general union of parties for the purpose of effecting the release of Condé and the overthrow of the minister.'

Condé, his brother Conti, and his brother-in-law Longueville, were arrested and conducted to Vincennes on the 18th of January, 1650. "This was the second crisis of the sedition. The old Fronde had expired; its leaders had sold themselves to the Court; but in its place sprang up the New Fronde, called also, from the affected airs of its leaders, the Petits Maîtres. The beautiful Duchess of Longueville was the soul of it, aided by her admirer, Marsillac, afterwards Duke de la Rochefoucauld, and by the Duke of Bouillon. On the arrest of her husband and her brother, the duchess had fled to Holland, and afterwards to Stenai; where she and Bouillon's brother, Turenne, who styled himself the 'King's Lieutenant-General for the liberation of the Princes,' entered into negotiations with the Archduke Leopold. Bouillon himself had retired into Guienne, which province was alienated from the Court because Mazarine maintained as its governor the detested Epernon. In July Bouillon and his allies publicly received a Spanish envoy at Bordeaux. Condé's wife and infant son had been received in that city with enthusiasm. But on the approach of Mazarine with the royal army, the inhabitants of Guienne, alarmed for their vintage, now approaching maturity, showed signs of submission; after a short siege Bordeaux surrendered, on condition of an amnesty, in which Bouillon and La Rochefoucauld were included; and the Princess of Condé was permitted to retire (October 1st 1650). In the north, the Frondeurs, with their Spanish allies, seemed at first more successful. In the summer Leopold had entered Champagne, penetrated to Ferté Milon, and some of his marauding parties had even reached Dammartin. Turenne tried to persuade the Archduke to march to Vincennes and liberate the princes; but while he was hesitating, Gaston transferred the captives to Marcoussis, whence they were soon after conveyed to Havre. Leopold and Turenne, after a vain attempt to rouse the Parisians, retreated to the Meuse and laid siege to Mouzon. The Cardinal himself, like his master Richelieu, now assumed the character of a general. Uniting with his troops in the north the army of Guienne, he took up his quarters at Rethel, which had been captured by Du Plessis Praslin. Hence he ordered an attack to be made on the Spaniards. In the battle which ensued, these were entirely defeated, many of their principal officers were captured, and even Turenne himself narrowly escaped the same fate (December 15th 1650). The Cardinal's elation was unbounded. It was a great thing to have defeated Turenne, and though the victory was Du Plessis', Mazarine assumed all the credit of it. His head began to turn. He forgot that he owed his success to the leaders of the old Fronde, and especially to the Coadjutor; he neglected his promises to that intriguing prelate, though Gondi plainly declared that he must either be a prince of the Church or the head of a faction. Mazarine was also imprudent enough to offend the Parliament; and he compared them with that sitting at London—which indeed was doing them too much honour. The Coadjutor went over to the party of the princes, dragging with him the feeble-minded Orleans, who had himself been insulted by the Queen. Thus was produced a third phase of this singular sedition—the union of the old Fronde with the new. The Parliament now clamoured for the liberation of the princes. As the Queen hesitated, Gaston bluntly declared that the dismissal of Mazarine was necessary to the restoration of peace; while the Parliament added to their former demand another for the Cardinal's banishment. Mazarine saw his mistake and endeavoured to rectify it. He hastened to Havre in order to liberate the princes in person, and claim the merit of a spontaneous act. But it was too late; it was plain that he was acting only by constraint. The princes were conducted back in triumph to Paris by a large retinue sent to escort them. On February 25th 1651, their innocence was established by a royal declaration, and they were restored to all their dignities and charges. Mazarine, meanwhile, who saw that for the present the game was lost, retired into exile; first into Bouillon, and afterwards to Brühl on the Rhine, where the Elector of Cologne offered him an asylum. From this place he corresponded with the Queen, and continued to direct her counsels. The anarchy and confusion that had ensued in France were such as promised him a speedy return."

FRANCE: A. D. 1651-1653.
   The arrogance of Condé and his renewal of civil war.
   The King's majority proclaimed.
   General changing of sides.
   Battle of Porte St. Antoine and massacre of
   the Hôtel de Ville.
   End of the Fronde.
   Condé in the service of Spain.

"The liberated captives were received with every demonstration of joy by all Paris and the Frondeurs, including the Duke of Orleans. The Queen, melancholy, and perhaps really ill, lay in bed to receive their visit of cold ceremony; but the Duke of Orleans gave them a grand supper, and there was universal joy at being rid of Mazarin. … There was a promise to assemble the States General, while Condé thought himself governing the kingdom, and as usual his arrogance gave offence in various quarters. One article in the compact which had gained his liberty was that the Prince of Conti should marry Mademoiselle de Chevreuse, but this alliance offended the pride of the elder brother, and he broke the marriage off hastily and haughtily. Madame de Chevreuse, much offended, repented of the aid she had given, went over to the Queen's party, and took with her the coadjutor, who was devoted to the rejected daughter, and could always sway the mob of Paris. So many persons had thus come to desert the cause of the Prince that Anne of Austria thought of again arresting him." Condé, supposing himself in danger, fled from the city on the 6th of July, and "went to his château of St. Maur, where his family and friends joined him; and he held a kind of court. Queen and Parliament both sent entreaties to him to return, but he disdained them all, and made the condition of his return the dismissal of the secretaries whom Mazarin had left. The Queen, most unwillingly, made them retire, and Condé did return for a short time; but he was haughtier than ever, and openly complained of Mazarin's influence, making every preparation for a civil war. Strangely violent scenes took place," between the Prince and the Coadjutor and their respective adherents; and presently the Prince "quitted Paris, went to Chantilly, and decided on war. {1229} Mazarin wrote to the Queen that the most prudent course would be to ally herself with the Parliament to crush the Princes. After they should have been put down the Parliament would be easily dealt with. She acted on this advice. The elections for the States General were beginning, but in order to quash them, and cancel all her promises, the Queen decided on proclaiming the majority of the King, and thus the close of her own regency. It was of course a farce, since he had only just entered his fourteenth year, and his mother still conducted the Government; but it made a new beginning, and was an occasion for stirring up the loyalty of the people. … Condé was unwilling to begin a civil war, and was only driven into it by his sister's persuasions and those of his friends. 'Remember,' he said, 'if I once draw the sword, I shall be the last to return it to the scabbard.' On the other side, Anne of Austria said, 'Monsieur le Prince shall perish, or I will.' From Montrond, Condé directed his forces to take possession of the cities in Guyenne, and he afterwards proceeded to Bordeaux. On the other hand, Mazarin repaired to Sedan, and contrived to raise an army in the frontier cities, with which he marched to join the King and Queen at Poitiers. War was raging again, still as the Fronde, though there had been a general change of sides, the Parliament being now for the Court, and the Princes against it, the Duke of Orleans in a state of selfish agitation between the two. Learning that the royal army was advancing to his own appanage of Orleans, and fearing that the city might open its gates to them, he sent off his daughter, Mademoiselle [de Montpensier], to keep the citizens to what he called their duty to himself. She went with only two ladies and her servants … and found the gates closed against her." The persevering Mademoiselle succeeded, however, in gaining admission to the town, despite the orders of the magistrates, and she kept out of it the soldiers of both factions in the war. But her own inclinations were strongly towards Condé and his side. "She went out to a little inn to hold a council with the Dukes of Beaufort and Nemours, and had to mediate between them in a violent quarrel. … Indeed, Condé's party were ill-agreed; he had even quarreled with his sister, and she had broken with De la Rochefoucauld! The Duke de Bouillon and his brother Turenne were now on the Queen's side, and the command of the royal army was conferred on the Viscount. Condé, with only eight persons, dashed across France, to take the command of the army over which Beaufort and Nemours were disputing. The very morning after he arrived, Turenne saw by the disposition of the troops who must be opposed to him. 'M. le Prince is come,' he said. They were the two greatest captains of the age, and they fought almost in sight of the King and Queen at Bleneau. But though there were skirmishes [including, at the outset, the serious defeat of a division of the royal forces under Hocquincourt], no decisive engagement took place. It was a struggle of manœuvres, and in this Condé had the disadvantage. … Week after week the two armies … watched one another, till at last Condé was driven up to the walls of Paris, and there the gates were closed against both armies. Condé was at St. Cloud, whence, on the 2nd of July [1652], he endeavoured to lead his army round to Charenton at the confluence of the Seine and the Loire; but when he came in front of the Porte St. Antoine, he found that a battle was inevitable and that he was caught in a trap, where, unless he could escape through the city, his destruction was inevitable. He barricaded the three streets that met there, heaping up his baggage as a protection, and his friends within, many of them wives of gentlemen in his army, saw the situation with despair." The only one who had energy to act was Mademoiselle. She extorted from her hesitating father an order, by virtue of which she persuaded the magistrates of the city, not only to open the gates to Condé, but to send 2,000 men to the Faubourg St. Antoine. "Mademoiselle now repaired to the top of the great square tower of the Bastille, whence she could see the terrible conflict carried on in the three suburban streets which converged at the Porte St. Antoine." Seeing an opportunity to turn the cannon of the Bastille on the pursuing troops, she did so with effect. "Turenne was obliged to draw back, and at last Condé brought his army into the city, where they encamped in the open space of the Pré des Clercs. … Condé unworthily requited the hospitality wrung from the city. He was resolved to overcome the neutrality of the Parliament, and, in concert with Beaufort, instigated the mob to violence. Many soldiers were disguised as artizans, and mingled with the rabble, when, on the 4th of July, he went to the Hotel de Ville, ostensibly to thank, the magistrates, but really to demand their support against the Crown. These loyal men, however, by a majority of votes, decided on a petition to the King to return without Mazarin. On this Condé exclaimed publicly, 'These gentlemen will do nothing for us. They are Mazarinists. Treat them as you please.' Then he retired to the Luxembourg with Gaston, while Beaufort let loose the mob. The Hotel de Ville was stormed, the rabble poured in at doors and windows, while the disguised soldiers fired from the opposite houses, and the magistrates were threatened and pursued on all sides. They had one advantage, that they knew their way through the intricate passages and the mob did not. The first who got out rushed to the Luxembourg to entreat the Duke and Prince to stop the massacre; but Monsieur only whistled and beat his tattoo, and Condé said he knew nothing about sedition. Nor would Beaufort interfere till the disturbance had lasted many hours; but after all many more of the rabble were killed than of the magistrates. It was the last remarkable scene in the strange drama of the Fronde. The Parliament suspended its sittings, and the King transferred it to Pontoise, whither Molé and all the other Presidents proceeded, leaving Paris in disguise. This last ferocious proceeding of Condé's, though he tried to disavow it, had shocked and alienated everyone, and he soon after fell sick of a violent fever. Meanwhile, his castle of Montrond was taken after a year's siege, Nemours was killed in a duel by the Duke of Beaufort, and the party was falling to pieces. … Mazarin saw the opportunity, and again left the Court for the German frontier. This was all that was wanting to bring back the malcontents. Condé offered to make terms, but was haughtily answered that it was no time for negotiation, but for submission. Upon this, he proceeded to the Low Countries, and offered his sword to the Spaniards. {1230} The King entered Paris in state and held a bed of justice, in which he proclaimed an amnesty, excepting from it Condé and Conti, and some others of their party, and forbidding the Parliament to interfere in State affairs. The Coadjutor, who had become a Cardinal, was arrested, and imprisoned until he made his escape, dislocating his shoulder in his fall from the window, but finally reaching Rome, where he lived till the Fronde was forgotten, but never becoming Archbishop of Paris. … When all was quiet, Mazarin returned, in February, 1653, without the slightest opposition, and thus ended the Fronde, in the entire triumph of the Crown. … The misery, distress and disease caused by these wars of the Fronde were unspeakable. There was nothing to eat in the provinces where they had raged but roots, rotten fruit, and bread made of bran. … Le misère de la Fronde' was long a proverbial expression in France."

FRANCE: A. D. 1652.
Loss of Gravelines and Dunkirk.
Spanish invasion of Picardy.

"In the spring of 1652, the Spanish forces, under the command of the archduke had undertaken the siege of Gravelines, which was obliged to capitulate on the 18th of May. The archduke next undertook the siege of Dunkirk, but, at the earnest desire of the princes, he merely blockaded the place, and sent Fuensaldaña with about 14,000 men into Picardy to their assistance. … The court, in great alarm, sought first a retreat in Normandy, but the Duke of Longueville, who still held the government of that province, refused to receive Mazarin. The fears of the court were not lessened by this proceeding, and it was even proposed to carry the king to Lyons; but the wiser counsels of Turenne finally prevailed, and it was resolved to establish the army at Compiègne, and lodge the court at Pontoise. Fuensaldaña forced the passage of the Oise at Chauni, and then joined the duke of Lorraine at Fismes, on the 29th of July, when their joint forces amounted to full 20,000 men, while Turenne had not more than 11,000 to oppose to them. But the Spaniards were, as usual, only pursuing a selfish policy, and Fuensaldaña, in pursuance of the archduke's orders, left a body of 3,000 cavalry to reinforce the duke of Lorraine, and returned with the rest of his troops to assist in the siege of Dunkirk," which soon surrendered to his arms.

FRANCE: A. D. 1652-1653.
Last phase of the Fronde at Bordeaux.
Attempted revolution by the Society of the Ormée.

FRANCE: A. D. 1653-1656.
Condé's campaigns against his own country, in the service of
Spain.

"Condé, unfortunately for his fame, made no attempts at reconciliation, and retired to the Spaniards—an enemy of his country! He captured several small places on the [Flemish] frontier, and hoped to return in spring victorious. A few days after the entry into Paris, Turenne set out to oppose him; and, retaking some towns, had the satisfaction, of compelling him to seek winter quarters beyond the limits of France. … Condé persuaded the Spanish to bring 30,000 men into the field for the next campaign: Turenne and La Ferté had but 13,000. To paralyze the plans of the enemy, the Viscount proposed, and his proposal was allowed, to be always threatening their rear and communications; to occupy posts they would not dare to attack, and so to avoid fighting, at the same time hindering them from all important undertakings. He began by throwing himself between two corps of their army, at the point where they expected to effect a junction; and in the eight or nine days thus gained, he recovered Rhétel, without which it would have been, as he declares himself, impossible to defend Picardy and Champagne. Rhétel, so much an object of anxiety, was taken in three days. Baffled in their original purposes, and at a loss, the Spanish expected a large convoy from Cambray, escorted by 3,000 horse. Turenne got news of this, and, posting himself near Peronne to intercept it, drove it back to Cambray [August 11, 1653]. There Condé and Fuensaldaña turned upon him; but he took up a position, which they watched for three or four days, and there defied their attack. They refused the challenge. Thence the enemy drew off," with designs on Guise, which Turenne frustrated. "Condé then laid siege to Rocroi, where his own first glory had been gained; and this place is so hemmed in by woods and defiles, that the relief of it was impossible. But Turenne compensated for the loss of it by the equally valuable recapture, of Mouson. Thus the whole year was spent in marches and countermarches, in gains and losses, which had no influence on events. By this time the malcontents were so prostrate that Condé's brother, the Prince de Conti, and his sister, the Duchesse de Longueville, made their peace with the court. … The year 1654 opened with the siege of Stenay by the young king in person, who was carried thither by Mazarin, to overawe Condé's governor with the royal name and majesty. That officer was more true to his trust than to his allegiance, and Stenay cost a siege. … Condé could do no better than imitate Turenne's policy of the previous year, and besiege Arras as an equivalent for Stenay; to which end he mustered 32,000 men. Arras was a town of some value. Condé had caught it at disadvantage; the governor, Mondejeu … was put on his defence with 2,500 foot and 100 horse. To reinforce this slender garrison was the first care of Turenne. … Mazarin was anxious for Arras, and offered Turenne to break up the siege of Stenay, for the sake of reinforcing the army of relief. This proposal the Viscount declined. He must have been very confident of his own capacity; for he could collect only 14,000 men to hover around the enemy's camp. … He proposed no attempt upon the intrenchments till he had the aid of the troops from Stenay … ; but he disposed his parties around so as to prevent the enemy's convoys from reaching them." Stenay surrendered on the 6th of August, and Turenne, with reinforcements from its besiegers, attacked the Spanish lines at Arras on the night of the 24th, with complete success. The Spaniards raised the siege and retreated to Cambray, leaving 3,000 prisoners and 63 pieces of cannon in the hands of the French. "The capture of Quesnoy and Binches filled up the rest of the year; the places were weak and the garrisons feeble. {1231} Nor did the next season, 1655, offer anything of interest. Turenne reduced Landrecies, Condé, and Guislain, while his active opponent was sometimes foiled by his precautions, and sometimes baffled by the absurd behaviour of the Spanish authorities. … The great event of 1656 was the siege of Valenciennes. This place … was invested by Turenne about the middle of June: but hardly had his camp been intrenched before he repented of his undertaking. The Scheldt flows through the town, and by reservoirs and sluices was flooded at the will of the enemy. Turenne's camp was largely inundated. … He had overestimated his means: so great was the circle of his circumvallation that he had not men enough to guard it adequately, when Condé and the Spanish appeared with 20,000 men to the relief of the place." They broke through his lines and forced him to retreat, with a heavy loss of prisoners taken. "The Viscount retrieved his credit by the bold stand he made after the defeat."

FRANCE: A. D. 1655-1658.
   Alliance with the English Commonwealth against Spain.
   The taking of Dunkirk for England and Gravelines for France.
   End of the war.

"Mazarin was now bent upon an enterprise which, if successful, must finish the war. A deadly blow would be struck at the strength of Spain if Dunkirk, Mardyck, and Gravelines—the possession of which was of vital importance to her communication with Flanders, as well as enabling her to ruin French commerce on that coast—could be wrested from her. For this the cooperation of some maritime power was necessary, and Mazarin determined at all costs to secure England. With Cromwell, the only diplomatist by whose astuteness he confessed himself baffled, he had been negotiating since 1651. … At length on November 3, 1655, a treaty was signed at Westminster, based upon freedom of commerce and an engagement that neither country should assist the enemies or rebels of the other; Mazarin consented to expel Charles II., James, and twenty named royalists from France. Cromwell similarly agreed to dismiss from England the emissaries of Condé. But Mazarin was soon anxious for a more effectual bond. … Cromwell had equally good reasons for drawing closer to France, for Spain was preparing actively to assist Charles II. French and English interests thus coinciding, an alliance was signed at Paris on March 23, 1657

Gravelines and Dunkirk were to be at once besieged both by land and sea. England was to send 6,000 men to assist the French army. Gravelines was to become French and Dunkirk English; should the former fall first it was to be held by England until Dunkirk too was taken. … The alliance was not a moment too soon. The campaign of 1657 had opened disastrously. The tide was however turned by the arrival of the English contingent. Montmédy was immediately besieged, and capitulated on August 4. The effect was again to make Mazarin hang back from further effort, since it seemed possible now to make peace with Spain, and thereby avoid an English occupation of Dunkirk. But Cromwell would stand no trifling, and his threats were so clear that Mazarin determined to act loyally and without delay. On September 30, Turenne laid siege to Mardyck, which protected Dunkirk, and took it in four days. It was at once handed over to the English." In the spring of 1658 the siege of Dunkirk was begun. The Spaniards, under Don John of Austria and Condé, attempting to relieve the place, were defeated (June 13) in the battle of the Dunes, by Turenne and Cromwell's Ironsides (see ENGLAND: A. D.1655-1658). "Dunkirk immediately surrendered, and on the 25th was in Cromwell's possession. Two months later Gravelines also fell. A short and brilliant campaign followed, in which Don John and Condé, shut up in Brussels and Tournai respectively, were compelled to remain inactive while fortress after fortress fell into French hands. A few days after the fall of Gravelines Cromwell died; but Mazarin was now near his goal. Utterly defeated on her own soil, beaten, too, by the Portuguese at Elvas, and threatened in Milan, her army ruined, her treasury bankrupt, without a single ally in Europe, Spain stood at last powerless before him."

FRANCE: A. D. 1659-1661.
The treaty of the Pyrenees.
Marriage of Louis XIV. to the Spanish Infanta.

"The Spaniards could struggle no longer: they sued for peace. Things were prepared for it on every hand: Spain was desperate; matters far from settled or safe in France; in England the Protector's death had come very opportunely for Mazarin; the strong man was no longer there to hold the balance between the European powers. Questions as to a Spanish marriage and the Spanish succession had been before men since 1648; the Spaniards had disliked the match, thinking that in the end it must subject them to France. But things were changed; Philip IV. now had an heir, so that the nations might hope to remain under two distinct crowns; moreover, the needs of Spain were far greater than in 1648, while the demands of France were less. So negociation between Mazarin and Louis de Haro on the little Isle of Pheasants in the Bidassoa, under the very shadow of the Pyrenees, went on prosperously; even the proposal that Louis XIV. should espouse the Infanta of Spain, Maria Theresa, was at last agreed to at Madrid. The only remaining difficulty arose from" the fact that the young King, Louis XIV., had fallen in love with Maria Mancini, Cardinal Mazarin's niece, and wished to marry her. "The King at last abandoned his youthful and pure passion, and signed the Treaty of the Pyrenees [concluded November 7, 1659], condemning himself to a marriage of state, which exalted high the dignity of the French Crown, only to plunge it in the end into the troubles and disasters of the Succession War. The treaty of peace begins with articles on trade and navigation: then follow cessions, restitutions, and exchanges of territories.

1. On the Northern frontier Spain ceded all she had in Artois, with exception of Aire and S. Omer; in Flanders itself France got Gravelines and its outer defences. In Hainault she became mistress of the important towns, Landrecies, Quesnoy, and Avesnes, and also strengthened her position by some exchanges: in Luxemburg she retained Thionville, Montmédy, and several lesser places; so that over her whole northern border France advanced her frontier along a line answering to her old limits. … In return she restored to Spain several of her latest conquests in Flanders: Ypres, Oudenarde, Dixmüden, Furnes, and other cities. In Condé's country France recovered Rocroy, Le Câtelet and Linchamp, occupied by the Prince's soldiers; and so secured the safety and defences of Champagne and Paris.

2. More to the East, the Duke of Lorraine, having submitted with such good grace as might be, was reinstated in his Duchy. … But France received her price here also, the Duchy of Bar, the County of Clermont on the edge of Champagne, Stenay, Dun, Jametz, Moyenvic, became hers. The fortifications of Nancy were to be rased for ever; the Duke of Lorraine bound himself to peace, and agreed to give France free passage to the Bishopricks and Alsace. This was the more necessary, because Franche-Comté, the other highway into Alsace, was left to the Spaniards, and such places in it as were in the King's hands were restored to them. Far out in Germany Louis XIV. replaced Jülich in the hands of the Duke of Neuberg; and that element of controversy, the germ or pretext of these long wars, was extinct for ever. On the Savoyard border France retained Pinerolo, with all the means and temptations of offence which it involved: she restored to the Duke her other conquests within his territories, and to the Spaniards whatever she held in Lombardy; she also honourably obtained an amnesty for those subjects of Spain, Neapolitans or Catalans, who had sided with France. Lastly, the Pyrenees became the final, as it was the natural, boundary between the two Latin kingdoms. … Roussillon and Conflans became French: all French conquests to the south of the Pyrenees were restored to Spain. The Spanish King renounced all claims on Alsace or Breisach: on the other hand the submission of the great Condé was accepted; he was restored to all his domains; his son, the young Duke of Enghien, being made Grand Master of France, and he himself appointed Governor of Burgundy and Bresse: his friends and followers were included in the amnesty. Some lesser stipulations, with a view to the peace of Europe, for the settlement of the differences between Spain and Portugal, between the Dukes of Savoy and Mantua, between the Catholic and the Protestant Cantons of Switzerland, and an agreement to help forward peace between the Northern Courts, worthily close this great document, this weighty appendix to the Treaties of Westphalia. A separate act, as was fitting, regulated all questions bearing on the great marriage. It contains a solemn renunciation, intended to bar for ever the union of the two Crowns under one sceptre, or the absorption into France of Flanders, Burgundy, or Charolais. It was a renunciation which, as Mazarin foresaw long before, would never hold firm against the temptations and exigencies of time. The King's marriage with the Infanta Maria Theresa of Spain did not take place till the next year, by which time Mazarin's work in life seemed well nigh over; racked with gout, he had little enjoyment of his triumphs. … He betook himself to the arrangement of his own affairs: his physicians giving him, early in 1661, no hopes of recovery. … These things arranged, the Cardinal resigned himself to die 'with a serenity more philosophic than Christian'; and passed away on the 8th of March, 1661."

"The Treaty of the Pyrenees, which completed the great work of pacification that had commenced at Munster, is justly celebrated as having put an end to such bitter and useless animosities. But, it is more famous, as having introduced a new æra in European politics. In its provisions all the leading events of a century to come had their origin—the wars which terminated with the Treaties of Aix-la-Chapelle, Nimeguen, and Ryswick, and that concerning the Spanish succession. So great an epoch in history has the Pyrenean Treaty been accounted by politicians, that Lord Bolingbroke was of opinion, 'That the only part of history necessary to be thoroughly studied, goes no farther back than this treaty, since, from that period, a new set of motives and principles have prevailed all over Europe.'"

      J. Dunlop,
      Memoirs of Spain during the Reigns of
      Philip IV. and Charles II., volume 1.
      chapter 11.

FRANCE: A. D. 1661.
   Personal assumption of the government by Louis XIV.
   The extraordinary characteristics of the reign of the Grand
   Monarch, now begun.

On the death of Mazarin Louis XIV., then twenty-three years old, announced to his council his intention of taking the government solely upon himself. His ministers were henceforward to receive instructions from him in person; there was to be no premier at their head. The reign which then began "was the culminating epoch in the history of the French Monarchy. What the age of Pericles was in the history of the Athenian Democracy, what the age of the Scipios was in the history of the Roman Republic, that was the reign of Louis XIV. in the history of the old Monarchy of France. … It is not only the most conspicuous reign in the history of France—it is the most conspicuous reign in the history of Monarchy in general. Of the very many kings whom history mentions, who have striven to exalt the monarchical principle, none of them achieved a success remotely comparable to his. … They may have ruled over wider dominions, but they never attained the exceptional position of power and prestige which he enjoyed for more than half a century. They never were obeyed so submissively at home, nor so dreaded, and even respected, abroad. For Louis XIV. carried off that last reward of complete success, that he for a time silenced even envy, and turned it into admiration. We who can examine with cold scrutiny the make and composition of this Colossus of a French Monarchy; who can perceive how much the brass and clay in it exceeded the gold; who know how it afterwards fell with a resounding ruin, the last echoes of which have scarcely died away, have difficulty in realising the fascination it exercised upon contemporaries who witnessed its first setting up. Louis XIV.'s reign was the very triumph of commonplace greatness, of external magnificence and success, such as the vulgar among mankind can best and most sincerely appreciate. … His qualities were on the surface, visible and comprehensible to all. … {1233} He was indefatigably industrious: worked on an average eight hours a day for fifty-four years; had, great tenacity of will; that kind of solid judgment which comes of slowness of brain, and withal a most majestic port and great dignity of manners. He had also as much kindliness of nature as the very great can be expected to have. … He must have had great original fineness of tact, though it was in the end nearly extinguished by adulation and incense. His court was an extraordinary creation, and the greatest thing he achieved. He made it the microcosm of all that was most brilliant and prominent in France. Every order of merit was invited there, and received courteous welcome. To no circumstance did he so much owe his enduring popularity. By its means he impressed into his service that galaxy of great writers, the first and the last classic authors of France, whose calm and serene lustre will for ever illumine the epoch of his existence. It may even be admitted that his share in that lustre was not so accidental and undeserved as certain king-haters have supposed. That subtle critic, M. Ste. Beuve, thinks he can trace a marked rise even in Bossuet's style from the moment he became a courtier of Louis XIV. The king brought men together, placed them in a position where they were induced and urged to bring their talents to a focus. His Court was alternately a high-bred gala and a stately university. … But Louis XIV.'s reign has better titles than the adulations of courtiers and the eulogies of wits and poets to the attention of posterity. It marks one of the most memorable epochs in the annals of mankind. It stretches across history like a great mountain-range, separating ancient France from the France of modern times. On the farther slope are Catholicism and feudalism in their various stages of splendour and decay—the France of crusade and chivalry, of St. Louis and Bayard. On the hither side are free-thought, industry, and centralization—the France of Voltaire, Turgot and Condorcet. When Louis came to the throne, the Thirty Years' War still wanted six years of its end, and the heat of theological strife was at its intensest glow. When he died, the religious temperature had cooled nearly to freezing-point, and a new vegetation of science and positive inquiry was overspreading the world. This amounts to saying that his reign covers the greatest epoch of mental transition through which the human mind has hitherto passed, excepting the transition we are witnessing in the day which now is. We need but recall the names of the writers and thinkers who arose during Louis XIV.'s reign, and shed their seminal ideas broadcast upon the air, to realise how full a period it was, both of birth and decay; of the passing away of the old and the uprising of the new forms of thought. To mention only the greatest;—the following are among the chiefs who helped to transform the mental fabric of Europe in the age of Louis XIV.:—Descartes, Newton, Leibnitz, Locke, Boyle. … But the chief interest which the reign of Louis XIV. offers to the student of history has yet to be mentioned. It was the great turning-point in the history of the French people. The triumph, of the Monarchical principle was so complete under him, independence and self-reliance were so effectually crushed, both in localities and individuals, that a permanent bent was given to the national mind—a habit of looking to the Government for all action and initiative permanently established. Before the reign of Louis XIV. it was a question which might fairly be considered undecided, whether the country would be able or not, willing or not, to co-operate with its rulers in the work of the Government and the reform of abuses. On more than one occasion such co-operation did not seem entirely impossible or improbable. … After the reign of Louis' XIV. such co-operation of the ruler and the ruled became impossible. The Government of France had become a machine depending upon the action of a single spring. Spontaneity in the population at large was extinct, and whatever there was to do must be done by the central authority. As long as the Government could correct abuses it was well; if it ceased to be equal to this task they must go uncorrected. When at last the reform of secular and gigantic abuses presented itself with imperious urgency, the alternative before the Monarchy was either to carry the reform with a high hand, or perish in the failure to do so. We know how signal the failure was, and could not help being, under the circumstances; and through having placed the Monarchy between these alternatives, it is no paradox to say that Louis XIV. was one of the most direct ancestors of the Great Revolution."

      J. C. Morison,
      The Reign of Louis XIV.
      (Fortnightly Review, March, 1874).

      ALSO IN:
      J. I. von Döllinger,
      The Policy of Louis XIV.
      (Studies in European History, chapter 11).

   "One of the King's first acts, on assuming the supreme control
   of affairs at the death of Mazarin, was significant, of his
   future policy with regard to the Huguenots. Among the
   representatives of the various public bodies who came to
   tender him their congratulations, there appeared a deputation
   of Protestant ministers, headed by their president Vignole;
   but the King refused to receive them, and directed that they
   should be ordered to leave Paris forthwith. Louis was not slow
   to follow up this intimation by measures of a more positive
   kind, for he had been carefully taught to hate Protestantism;
   and, now that he possessed unrestrained power, he flattered
   himself with the idea of compelling the Huguenots to abandon
   their convictions and adopt his own. His minister Louvois
   wrote to the governors throughout the provinces that 'his
   majesty will not suffer any person in his kingdom but those
   who are of his religion.' … A series of edicts was
   accordingly published with the object of carrying the King's
   purposes into effect. The conferences of the Protestants were
   declared to be suppressed. Though worship was still permitted
   in their churches, the singing of psalms in private dwellings
   was declared to be forbidden. … Protestant children were
   invited to declare themselves against the religion of their
   parents. Boys of fourteen and girls of twelve years old might,
   on embracing Roman Catholicism, become enfranchised and
   entirely free from parental control. … The Huguenots were
   again debarred from holding public offices, though a few, such
   as Marshal Turenne and Admiral Duquesne, who were Protestants,
   broke through this barrier by the splendor of their services
   to the state. In some provinces, the exclusion was so severe
   that a profession of the Roman Catholic faith was required
   from simple artisans. …
{1234}
   Colbert, while, he lived, endeavored to restrain the King, and
   to abate these intolerable persecutions. … He took the
   opportunity of cautioning the King lest the measures he was
   enforcing might tend, if carried out, to the impoverishment of
   France and the aggrandizement of her rivals. … But all
   Colbert's expostulations were in vain; the Jesuits were
   stronger than he was, and the King was in their hands;
   besides, Colbert's power was on the decline. … In 1666 the
   queen-mother died, leaving to her son, as her last bequest,
   that he should suppress and exterminate heresy within his
   dominions. … The Bishop of Meaux exhorted him to press on in
   the path his sainted mother had pointed out to him. … The
   Huguenots had already taken alarm at the renewal of the
   persecution, and such of them as could readily dispose of
   their property and goods were beginning to leave the kingdom
   in considerable numbers for the purpose of establishing
   themselves in foreign countries. To prevent this, the King
   issued an edict forbidding French subjects from proceeding
   abroad without express permission, under penalty of
   confiscation of their goods and property. This was followed by
   a succession of severe measures for the conversion or
   extirpation of such of the Protestants—in numbers about a
   million and a half—as had not by this time contrived to make
   their escape from the kingdom. The kidnapping of Protestant
   children was actively set on foot by the agents of the Roman
   Catholic priests, and their parents were subjected to heavy
   penalties if they ventured to complain. Orders were issued to
   pull down the Protestant places of worship, and as many as
   eighty were shortly destroyed in one diocese. … Protestants
   were forbidden to print books without the authority of
   magistrates of the Romish communion. Protestant teachers were
   interdicted from teaching children any thing more than
   reading, writing, and arithmetic. … Protestants were only
   allowed to bury their dead at daybreak or at nightfall. They
   were prohibited from singing psalms on land or on water, in
   workshops or in dwellings. If a priestly procession passed one
   of their churches while the psalms were being sung, they must
   stop instantly on pain of the fine or imprisonment of the
   officiating minister. In short, from the pettiest annoyance to
   the most exasperating cruelty, nothing was wanting on the part
   of the 'Most Christian King' and his abettors."

FRANCE: A. D. 1661-1683.
The administration of Colbert.
His economic system and its results.

"With Colbert the spirit of the great Cardinal came back to power. Born at Reims on the 29th of August, 1619, Colbert was educated by the Jesuits, and at the early age of nineteen entered the War Office, in which department Le Tellier, a connection of his family by marriage, filled the post of Under-Secretary of State. From the first Colbert distinguished himself by his abnormal powers of work, by his extraordinary zeal in the public service, and by an equal devotion to his own interests. His Jesuit training showed fruit in his dealings with all those who, like Le Tellier or Mazarin, could be of use to him on his road to power, whilst the old tradition of his Scotch blood is favoured by a certain 'dourness' of character which rendered him in general difficult of access. His marvellous strength of brain, seconded by rare powers of endurance, enabled him to work habitually fourteen hours a day to enter into every detail of every branch of the administration, whilst at the same time he never lost sight of that noble project of universal reform which he had conceived, and which embraced both Church and State. … Qualified in every way for the work of administration, absolutely indifferent to popularity, Colbert seemed destined by nature to lead the final charge against the surviving forces of the feudal system. After the troubles of the Fronde had died away and the death of Mazarin had left Louis XIV. a king in deed as well as in name, these forces of the past were personified by Fouquet, and the duel between Fouquet and Colbert was the dramatic close of a struggle predestined to end in the complete triumph of absolutism. The magnificent and brilliant Fouquet, who for years past had taken advantage of his position as 'Surintendant des Finances' to lavish the resources of the State on his private pleasures, was plainly marked out as the object of Colbert's hostility. … On the losing side were ranged all the spendthrift princes and facile beauties of the Court, all the greedy recipients of Fouquet's ostentatious bounties. He had reckoned that the greatest names in France would be compromised by his fall, and that by their danger his own safety was assured. He had reckoned without Colbert; he had reckoned without that power which had been steadily growing throughout all vicissitudes of fate during the last two generations, and which was now centred in the King. No stranger turn of fortune can be pictured than that which, on the threshold of the modern era, linked the nobles of France in their last struggle for independence with the fortunes of a rapacious and fraudulent financier, nor can anything be more suggestive of the character of the coming epoch than the sight of this last battle fought, not in the field of arms, but before a court of law. To Colbert, the fall of Fouquet was but the necessary preliminary to that reform of every branch of the administration which had been ripening in his mind ever since he had entered the public service. To bring the financial situation into order, it was necessary first to call Fouquet to account. … The fall of the chief offender, Fouquet, having been brought about, it was easy to force all those who had been guilty of similar malversations on a minor scale to run the gauntlet of the High Commission. Restitution and confiscation became the order of the day, and when the Chamber of Justice was finally dissolved in 1669, far beyond any advantage which might be reckoned to the Treasury from these sources was the gain to the nation in the general sense of security and confidence. It was felt that the days of wholesale dishonesty and embezzlement were at an end. … Colbert went forward from this moment without hesitation, devoting his whole energies to the gigantic task of re-shaping the whole internal economy of France. … Backed by despotic power, his achievements in these directions have to an incredible extent determined the destinies of modern industry, and have given origin to the whole system of modern administration, not only in France, but throughout Europe. {1235} In the teeth of a lavish expenditure which he was utterly unable to check, once and again did Colbert succeed in establishing a financial equilibrium when the fortunes of France seemed desperate. … He aimed … at the fostering of home production by an elaborate system of protection, whilst at the same time the markets of other countries were to be forced open and flooded with French goods. Any attempt on the part of a weaker power to imitate his own policy, such for instance as that made in the papal states by Alexander VII. and Clement IX., was instantly repressed with a high hand. … His leading idea was to lower all export dues on national produce and manufactures, and, whilst diminishing import duties on such raw materials as were required for French manufactures, to raise them until they became prohibitive on all foreign goods.

The success of the tariff of 1664 misled Colbert. That tariff was a splendidly statesmanlike attempt to put an end to the conflict and confusion of the duties, dues, and customs then existing in the different provinces and ports of France, and it was in effect a tariff calculated for purely fiscal purposes. Far other were the considerations embodied in the tariff of 1667, which led to the Dutch and English wars, and which, having been enacted in the supposed interests of home industry, eventually stimulated production in other countries. … If, however, the industrial policy of Colbert cannot be said to have realised his expectations, since it neither brought about a great increase in the number of home manufactures nor succeeded in securing a larger share of foreign trade, there is not a doubt that, in spite even of the disastrous wars which it provoked, it powerfully contributed, on the whole, to place France in the front rank as a commercial nation. … The pitiless and despotic Louvois, who had succeeded his father, Colbert's old patron Le Tellier, as Secretary of State for War, played on the imperious vanity of King Louis, and engaged him in wars big and little, which in most cases wanted even the shade of a pretext. … All the zeal of the great Minister's strict economy could only stay for a while the sure approach of national distress. … When Colbert died, on 6th September, 1683, the misery of France, exhausted by oppressive taxation, and depopulated by armies kept constantly on foot, cried out against the Minister who, rather than fall from power, had lent himself to measures which he heartily condemned. For the moment men forgot how numerous were the benefits which he had conferred … and remembered only the harshness with which he had dealt justice and stinted mercy. Yet order reigned where, before his advent, all had been corruption and confusion; the navy of France had been created, her colonies fostered, her forests saved from destruction; justice and the authority of the law had been carried into the darkest corners of the land; religious toleration, socially if not politically, had been advocated; whilst the encroachments of the Church had been more or less steadfastly opposed. To the material prosperity of the nation—even after we have made all possible deductions for the evils arising from an exaggerated system of protection—an immense and enduring impulse had been given; and although it is true that, with the death of Colbert, many parts of his splendid scheme fell to the ground, yet it must be confessed that the spirit in which it was originated and improved still animates France."

ALSO IN: H. Martin, History of France: Age of Louis XIV., volume 1, chapters 1-7.

FRANCE: A. D. 1663-1674.
New France made a Royal Province.
The French West India Company.

FRANCE: A. D. 1664.
Aid given to Austria against the Turks.
The victory of St. Gothard.

FRANCE: A. D. 1664-1666.
   War with the piratical Barbary States.
   The Jijeli expedition.
   Treaties with Tunis and Algiers.

   "We must read the curious account of the Great Days of
   Auvergne, written by Fléchier in his youth, if we would form
   an idea of the barbarism in which certain provinces of France
   were still plunged, in the midst of the brilliant civilization
   of the 17th century, and would know how a large number of
   those seigniors, who showed themselves so gallant and tender
   in the boudoirs of Paris, lived on their estates, in the midst
   of their subjects: we might imagine ourselves in the midst of
   feudalism. A moment bewildered by the hammer of the great
   demolisher [Richelieu], which had battered down so many
   Chateaux, the mountain squires of Auvergne, Limousin, Marche
   and Forez had resumed their habits under the feeble government
   of Mazarin. Protected by their remoteness from Paris and the
   parliament, and by the nature of the country they inhabited,
   they intimidated or gained over the subaltern judges, and
   committed with impunity every species of violence and
   exaction. A single feature will enable us to comprehend the
   state of these provinces. There were still, in the remoter
   parts of Auvergne, seigniors who claimed to use the wedding
   right (droit de jambage), or, at the least, to sell exemption
   from this right at a high price to bridegrooms. Serfhood of
   the glebe still existed in some districts. August 31, 1665, a
   royal declaration, for which ample and noble reasons were
   given, ordered the holding of a jurisdiction or court
   'commonly called the Great Days,' in the city of Clermont, for
   Auvergne, Bourbonnais, Nivernais, Forez, Beaujolais, Lyonnais,
   Combrailles, Marche, and Berry. A president of parliament, a
   master of requests, sixteen councillors, an attorney-general,
   and a deputy procurator-general, were designated to hold these
   extraordinary assizes. Their powers were almost absolute. They
   were to judge without appeal all civil and criminal cases, to
   punish the 'abuses and delinquencies of officers of the said
   districts,' to reform bad usages, as well in the style of
   procedure as in the preparation and expedition of trials, and
   to try all criminal cases first. It was enjoined on bailiffs,
   seneschals, their lieutenants and all other judges, to give
   constant information of all kinds of crimes, in order to
   prepare matter for the Great Days. A second declaration
   ordered that a posse should be put into the houses of the
   contumacious, that the chateaux where the least resistance was
   made to the law should be razed; and forbade, under penalty of
   death, the contumacious to be received or assisted.
{1236}
   The publication of the royal edicts, and the prompt arrival of
   Messieurs of the Great Days at Clermont, produced an
   extraordinary commotion in all those regions. The people
   welcomed the Parisian magistrates as liberators, and a
   remarkable monument of their joy has been preserved, the
   popular song or Christmas hymn of the Great Days. Terror, on
   the contrary, hovered over the châteaux; a multitude of
   noblemen left the province, and France, or concealed
   themselves in the mountains; others endeavored to conciliate
   their peasants. … The Great Days at least did with vigor
   what it was their mission to do: neither dignities, nor
   titles, nor high connections preserved the guilty. … The
   Court of Great Days was not content with punishing evil; it
   undertook to prevent its return by wise regulations: first,
   against the abuses of seigniorial courts; second, against the
   vexations of seigniors on account of feudal service due them;
   third, concerning the mode and abbreviation of trials; and
   lastly, concerning the reformation of the clergy, who had no
   less need of being reformed than the nobility. The Great Days
   were brought to a close after three months of assizes (end of
   October, 1665—end of January, 1666), and their recollection
   was consecrated by a medal."

      H. Martin,
      History of France: The Age of Louis XIV:,
      volume 1, chapter 2.

FRANCE: A. D. 1667.
The War of the Queen's Rights.
Conquests in the Spanish Netherlands.

FRANCE: A. D. 1668.
The king's conquests in Flanders checked by the Triple
Alliance.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1672-1714;
      and NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1672-1674,
      and 1674-1678.

FRANCE: A. D. 1673-1682.
   Discovery and exploration of the Mississippi
   by Marquette and La Salle.
   Possession taken of Louisiana.

FRANCE: A. D. 1679-1681.
   Complete absorption of Les Trois-Evêchés and Alsace.
   Assumption of entire sovereignty by Louis XIV.
   Encroachments of the Chambers of Reannexation.
   The seizure of Strasburg.

"The Lorraine Trois-Evêchés, recovered by France from the Holy Roman Empire, had remained in an equivocal position, as to public law, during nearly a century, between their old and new ties: the treaty of Westphalia had cut the knot by the formal renunciation of the Empire to all rights over these countries; difficulties nevertheless still subsisted relative to the fiefs and the pendencies of Trois-Evêchés possessed by members of the Empire. Alsace, in its turn, from the treaty of Westphalia to the peace of Nimeguen, had offered analogous and still greater difficulties, this province of Teutonic tongue not having accepted the annexation to France as easily as the Walloon province of Trois-Evêchés, and the treaty of Westphalia presenting two contradictory clauses, one of which ceded to France all the rights of the Emperor and the Empire, and the other of which reserved the 'immediateness' of the lords and the ten cities of the prefecture of Alsace towards the Empire. …

At last, on the complaints carried to the Germanic Diet by the ten Alsacian cities, joined by the German feudatories of Trois-Evêchés, Louis, who was then very conciliatory towards the Diet, consented to take for arbiters the King of Sweden and some princes and towns of Germany (1665). The arbitration was protracted for more than six years. In the beginning of 1672, the arbiters rendered an ambiguous decision which decided nothing and satisfied no one. War with Holland broke out meanwhile and changed all the relations of France with Germany. … Louis XIV. disarmed or took military occupation of the ten cities and silenced all opposition. … In the conferences of Nimeguen, the representatives of the Emperor and the Empire endeavored to return to the 'immediateness,' but the King would not listen to a renewal of the arbitration, and declared all debate superfluous. 'Not only,' said the French plenipotentiaries, 'ought the King to exercise, as in fact he does exercise, sovereign domain over the ten cities, but he might also extend it over Strasburg, for the treaty of Münster furnishes to this city no special title guaranteeing its independence better than that of the other cities.' It was the first time that Louis had disclosed this bold claim, resting on an inaccurate assertion. The Imperialists, terrified, yielded as regarded the ten cities, and Alsace was not called in question in the treaty of Nimeguen. Only the Imperialists protested, by a separate act, against the conclusions which might be drawn from this omission. The ten cities submitted and took to the King an oath of fidelity, without reservation towards the Empire; their submission was celebrated by a medal bearing the device: 'Alsatia in provinciam reducta' (1680). The treaty of Nimeguen was followed by divers measures destined to win the Alsacian population. … This wise policy bore its fruits, and Alsace, tranquillized, gave no more cause of anxiety to the French government. France was thenceforth complete mistress of the possessions which had been ceded to her by the Empire; this was only the first part of the work; the point in question now was, to complete these possessions by joining to them their natural appendages which the Empire had not alienated. The boundaries of Lower Alsace and the Messin district were ill defined, encroached upon, entangled, on the Rhine, on the Sarre, and in the Vosges, by the fiefs of a host of petty princes and German nobles. This could not be called a frontier. Besides, in the very heart of Alsace, the great city of Strasburg preserved its independence towards France and its connection with the Empire. A pacific method was invented to proceed to aggrandizements which it would seem could only be demanded by arms; a pacific method, provided that France could count on the weakness and irresolution of her neighbors; this was to investigate and revendicate everything which, by any title and at any epoch whatsoever, had been dependent on Alsace and Trois-Evêchés. {1237} We may comprehend whither this would lead, thanks to the complications of the feudal epoch; and it was not even designed to stop at the feudal system, but to go back to the times of the Frankish kings! Chambers of 'reannexation' were therefore instituted, in 1679, in the Parliament of Metz, and in the sovereign council of Alsace, with a mission which their title sufficiently indicated. … Among the nobles summoned, figured the Elector of Treves, for Oberstein, Falkenburg, etc.; the Landgrave of Hesse, for divers fiefs; the Elector Palatine, for Seltz and the canton situated between the Lauter and the Keich (Hogenbach, Germersheim, etc.); another prince palatine for the county of Veldentz: the Bishop of Speyer, for a part of his bishopric; the city of Strasburg, for the domains which it possessed beyond the Rhine (Wasselonne and Marlenheim); lastly, the King of Sweden, for the duchy of Deux-Ponts or Zweibrücken, a territory of considerable extent and of irregular form, which intersected the cis-Rhenish Palatinate. … By divers decrees rendered in March, August, and October, 1680, the sovereign council of Alsace adjudged to the King the sovereignty of all the Alsacian seigniories. The nobles and inhabitants were summoned to swear fidelity to the King, and the nobles were required to recognize the sovereign council as judge in last resort. The chamber of Metz acted on a still larger scale than the chamber of Breisach. April 12, 1680, it united to Trois-Evêchés more than 80 fiefs, the Lorraine marquisate of Pont-à-Mousson, the principality of Salm, the counties of Saarbourg and Veldentz, the seigniories of Sarrebourg, Bitche, Homburg, etc. The foundation of the new town of Sarre-Louis and the fortification of Bitche consolidated this new frontier; and not only was the course of the Sarre secured to France, but France, crossing the Sarre, encroached deeply on the Palatinate and the Electorate of Treves, posted herself on the Nahe and the Blies, and threw, as an advance-guard, on a peninsula of the Moselle, the fortress of Mont-Royal, half-way from Treves to Coblentz, on the territories of the county of Veldentz. The parliament of Franche-Comté, newly French as it was, zealously followed the example of the two neighboring courts. There was also a frontier to round towards the Jura. … The Duke of Würtemberg was required to swear allegiance to the King for his county of Montbéliard. … The acquisitions made were trifling compared with those which remained to be made. He [Louis XIV.] was not sure of the Rhine, not sure of Alsace, so long as he had not Strasburg, the great city always ready to throw upon the French bank of the river the armies of the Empire. France had long aimed at this conquest. As soon as she possessed Metz she had dreamed of Strasburg. … Though the King and Louvois had prevented Créqui from besieging the place during the war, it was because they counted on surprising it after peace. This great enterprise was most ably manœuvred." The members of the regency of the city were gained over, one by one. "The Imperial troops had evacuated the city pursuant to the treaty of Nimeguen; the magistrates dismissed 1,200 Swiss which the city had in its pay; then, on the threatening demands of the French, they demolished anew Fort Kehl, which they had rebuilt since its destruction by Créqui. When the fruit seemed ripe, Louis stretched out his hand to gather it. In the latter part of September, 1681, the garrisons of Lorraine, Franche-Comté, and Alsace put themselves in motion. … The 28th, 35,000 men were found assembled before the city; Baron de Montclar, who commanded this army, informed the magistrates that 'the sovereign chamber of Breisach having adjudged to the king the sovereignty of all Alsace, of which Strasburg was a member, his Majesty desired that they should recognize him as their sovereign lord, and receive a garrison." On the 30th the capitulation of the city was signed; on the 23d of October the King entered Strasburg in person and was received as its sovereign.

FRANCE: A. D. 1681-1684.
   Threatening relations with the Turks.
   War with the Barbary States.
   Destructive bombardment of Algiers.

FRANCE: A. D. 1681-1698.
   Climax of the persecution of the Huguenots.
   The Dragonnades.
   The revocation of the Edict of Nantes.
   The great exodus of French Protestants and the consequent
   national loss.

"Love and war suspended for a considerable time" the ambition of the king to extinguish heresy in his dominions and establish uniformity of religious worship; "but when Louis became satiated at once with glory and pleasure, and when Madame de Maintenon, the Duke de Beauvilliers, the Duke de Montausier, Bossuet, the Archbishop of Rheims, the Chancellor Letellier, and all the religious portion of the court, began to direct his now unoccupied and scrupulous mind to the interests of religion, Louis XIV. returned to his plans with renewed ardor. From bribery they proceeded to compulsion. Missionaries, escorted by dragoons, spread themselves at the instigation of Bossuet, and even of Fénelon, over the western, southern and eastern provinces, and particularly in those districts throughout which Protestantism, more firmly rooted among a more tenacious people, had as yet resisted all attempts at conversion by preaching. … Children from above seven years of age were authorized to abjure legally the religion of their fathers. The houses of those parents who refused to deliver up their sons and daughters were invaded and laid under contributions by the royal troops. The expropriation of their homes, and the tearing asunder of families, compelled the people to fly from persecution. The king, uneasy at this growing depopulation, pronounced the punishment of the galleys against those who sought liberty in flight; he also ordered the confiscation of all the lands and houses which were sold by those proprietors who were preparing to quit the kingdom. … Very soon the proscription was organized en masse: all the cavalry in the kingdom, who, on account of the peace, were unemployed, were placed at the disposal of the preachers and bishops, to uphold their missions [known as the dragonnades] with the sabre. … Bossuet approved of these persecutions. Religious and political faith, in his eyes, justified their necessity. His correspondence is full of evidence, while his actions prove that he was an accomplice: even his eloquence … overflowed with approbation of, and enthusiasm for, these oppressions of the soul and terrors of heresy."

"The heroism of conviction, it has been truly said, was now displayed, not in resistance, but, if the paradox may be admitted, in flight. The outflow was for the moment arrested at the remonstrance of Colbert, now for the last time listened to in the royal councils, and by reason of the sympathy aroused by the fugitives in England: but not before 3,000 families had left the country. The retirement and death of the great minister were the signal for revived action, wherever an assembly of Huguenots larger than usual might warrant or colour a suspicion of rebellion. In such excuses, not as yet an avowed crusade, the troopers of the duke de Noailles were called in at Grenoble, Bourdeaux, and Nimes. Full forty churches were demolished in 1683, more than a hundred in 1684. But the system of military missions was not organized until in 1685 the defence of the Spanish frontier offered the opportunity for a final subjugation of the Huguenots of Bearn. The dragonnade passed through the land like a pestilence. From Guienne to Dauphine, from Poitou to Upper Languedoc, no place was spared. Then it pervaded the southeast country, about the Cevennes and Provence, and ravaged Lyons and the Pays de Gex. In the end, the whole of the north was assailed, and the failing edict of Nantes was annulled on the 1st of October. The sombre mind of Madame de Maintenon had postulated the Recall as a preliminary to the marriage which the king had already conceded. On the 21st of the month the great church at Charenton was doomed; and on the 22nd the 'unadvised and precipitate' Edict of Revocation was registered in the Chambre des Vacations. … The year 1685 is fitly identified with the depopulation of France. And yet, with a blindness that appears to us incredible, the government refused to believe in the desire or the possibility of escape. The penalties attached to capture on the road,—the galleys or the nunnery,—the vigilant watch at the frontier, the frigates cruising by every coast, all these difficulties seem to have persuaded Louvois that few would persist in risking flight. What these measures actually effected was doubtless to diminish the exodus, but in no marked degree. At length, it came to be thought that the emigration was due to its prohibition, as though the Huguenots must do a thing from mere perverseness. The watch was relaxed, and a result unlooked for issued. It was the signal of the greatest of the emigrations, that of 1688. … In the statistical question [as to the total number of the Huguenot exiles from France after the revocation of the edict of Nantes] it is impossible to arrive at a certain result; and the range which calculation or conjecture has allowed to successive historians may make one pause before attempting a dogmatic solution. Basnage, a year after the Recall, reckoned the emigrants above 150,000: next year Jurieu raised the total above 200,000. Writing later Basnage found between 300,000 and 400,000; and the estimate has been accepted by Sismondi. Lastly Voltaire, followed in our own day by Hase, counted 500,000. These are a few of the sober calculations, and their mean will perhaps supply the ultimate figure. I need only mention, among impossible guesses, that of Limiers, which raises the account to 800,000, because it has been taken up by the Prussian statesman Von Dohm. … The only historian who professes to have pursued the enquiry in exact detail is Capefigue; and from his minute scrutiny of the cartons des généralités, as prepared in the closing years of the 17th century, he obtains a computation of 225,000 or 230,000. Such a result must be accepted as the absolute minimum; for it was the plain interest of the intendants who drew up the returns, to put all the facts which revealed the folly of the king's action at the lowest cipher. And allowing the accuracy of Capefigue's work, there are other reasons for increasing his total. … We cannot set the emigration at a lower fraction than one-fifth of the total Huguenot society. If the body numbered two millions, the outflow will be 400,000. If this appear an extreme estimate, it must be remembered that one-fifth is also extreme on the other side. Reducing the former aggregate to 1,500,000, it will be clearly within the bounds of moderation to leave the total exodus a range between 300,000 and 350,000. How are we to distribute this immense aggregation? Holland certainly claims near 100,000; England, with Ireland and America, probably 80,000. Switzerland must have received 25,000; and Germany, including Brandenburg, thrice that number. The remainder will be made up from the north of Europe, and from the exiles whom commerce or other causes carried in isolated households elsewhere, and of whom no record is preserved to us. … The tale then of the emigrants was above 300,000. It follows to ask what was the material loss involved in their exodus. Caveirac is again the lowest in his estimate: he will not grant the export of more than 250,000 livres. He might have learnt from Count d'Avaux himself, that those least likely to magnify the sum confessed that by the very year of the Recall twenty million livres had gone out of the country; and it is certain that the wealthier merchants deferred their departure in order to carry as much as they could with them. Two hundred and fifty traders are said to have quitted Rouen in 1687 and 1688. Probably the actual amount was very far in excess of these twenty millions: and a calculation is cited by Macpherson which even affirms that every individual refugee in England brought with him on an average money or effects to the value of £60. … It will be needless to add many statistics of the injury caused by their withdrawal from France. Two great instances are typical of the rest. Lyons which had employed 18,000 silk-looms had but 4,000 remaining by the end of the century. Tours with the same interest had had 800 mills, 80,000 looms, and perhaps 4,000 work-people. Of its 3,000 ribbon-factories only sixty remained: Equally significant was the ruin of the woollen trade of Poitou. Little was left of the drugget-manufacture of Coulonges and Châtaigneraie, or of the industry in serges and bombazines at Thouars; and the export traffic between Châtaigneraie and Canada, by way of La Rochelle, was in the last year of the century absolutely extinct."

      N. Peyrat,
      The Pastors in the Wilderness,
      volume 1, chapters 5-7.

      A. Maury,
      Memoirs of a Huguenot Family
      (Fontaine), chapters 4-9.

      J. I. von Döllinger,
      Studies in European History,
      chapters 11-12.

      C. W. Baird,
      History of the Huguenot Emigration to America,
      chapters 4-8 (volumes 1-2).

FRANCE: A. D. 1686.
Claims upon the Palatinate.
Formation of the League of Augsburg.

FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1690.
War of the League of Augsburg.
The second devastation of the Palatinate.

"The interference of Lewis in Ireland on behalf of James [the Second, the dethroned Stuart king] caused William [prince of Orange, now King of England] to mature his plans for a great Continental confederacy against France. On May 12, 1689, William, as Stadtholder of the United Provinces, had entered into an offensive and defensive alliance with the Emperor against Lewis. On May 17, as King of England, he declared war against France; and on December 30 joined the alliance between the Emperor and the Dutch. His example was followed on June 6, 1690, by the King of Spain, and on October 20 of the same year by Victor Amadeus, Duke of Savoy. This confederation was called the 'Grand Alliance.' Its main object was declared to be to curb the power and ambition of Lewis XIV.; to force him to surrender his conquests, and to confine his territories to the limits agreed upon between him and the Emperor at the treaty of Westphalia (1648), and between France and Spain at the treaty of the Pyrenees (1659). The League of Augsburg, which William had with so much trouble brought about, had now successfully developed into the Grand Alliance."

      E. Hale,
      The Fall of the Stuarts and Western Europe,
      chapter 14, section 5.

"The work at which William had toiled indefatigably during many gloomy and anxious years was at length accomplished. The great coalition was formed. It was plain that a desperate conflict was at hand. The oppressor of Europe would have to defend himself against England allied with Charles the Second King of Spain, with the Emperor Leopold, and with the Germanic and Batavian federations, and was likely to have no ally except the Sultan, who was waging war against the House of Austria on the Danube. Lewis had, towards the close of the preceding year, taken his enemies at a disadvantage, and had struck the first blow before they were prepared to parry it. But that blow, though heavy, was not aimed at the part where it might have been mortal. Had hostilities been commenced on the Batavian frontier, William and his army would probably have been detained on the continent, and James might have continued to govern England. Happily, Lewis, under an infatuation which many pious Protestants confidently ascribed to the righteous judgment of God, had neglected the point on which the fate of the whole civilised world depended, and had made a great display of power, promptitude, and energy, in a quarter where the most splendid achievements could produce nothing more than an illumination and a Te Deum. A French army under the command of Marshal Duras had invaded the Palatinate and some of the neighbouring principalities. But this expedition, though it had been completely successful, and though the skill and vigour with which it had been conducted had excited general admiration, could not perceptibly affect the event of the tremendous struggle which was approaching. France would soon be attacked on every side. It would be impossible for Duras long to retain possession of the provinces which he had surprised and overrun. An atrocious thought rose in the mind of Louvois, who, in military affairs, had the chief sway at Versailles. … The ironhearted statesman submitted his plan, probably with much management and with some disguise, to Lewis; and Lewis, in an evil hour for his fame, assented. Duras received orders to turn one of the fairest regions of Europe into a wilderness. Fifteen years had elapsed since Turenne had ravaged part of that fine country. But the ravages committed by Turenne, though they have left a deep stain on his glory, were mere sport in comparison with the horrors of this second devastation. The French commander announced to near half a million of human beings that he granted them three days of grace, and that, within that time, they must shift for themselves. Soon the roads and fields, which then lay deep in snow, were blackened by innumerable multitudes of men, women, and children flying from their homes. Many died of cold and hunger: but enough survived to fill the streets of all the cities of Europe with lean and squalid beggars, who had once been thriving farmers and shopkeepers. Meanwhile the work of destruction began. The flames went up from every marketplace, every hamlet, every parish church, every country seat, within the devoted provinces. The fields where the corn had been sown were ploughed up. The orchards were hewn down. No promise of a harvest was left on the fertile plains near what had once been Frankenthal. Not a vine, not an almond tree, was to be seen on the slopes of the sunny hills round what had once been Heidelberg. No respect was shown to palaces, to temples, to monasteries, to infirmaries, to beautiful works of art, to monuments of the illustrious dead. The far-famed castle of the Elector Palatine was turned into a heap of ruins. The adjoining hospital was sacked. The provisions, the medicines, the pallets on which the sick lay, were destroyed. The very stones on which Manheim had been built were flung into the Rhine. The magnificent Cathedral of Spires perished, and with it the marble sepulchres of eight Cæsars. The coffins were broken open. The ashes were scattered to the winds. Treves, with its fair bridge, its Roman baths and amphitheatre, its venerable churches, convents, and colleges, was doomed to the same fate. But, before this last crime had been perpetrated, Lewis was recalled to a better mind by the execrations of all the neighbouring nations, by the silence and confusion of his flatterers, and by the expostulations of his wife. … He relented; and Treves was spared. In truth he could hardly fail to perceive that he had committed a great error. The devastation of the Palatinate, while it had not in any sensible degree lessened the power of his enemies, had inflamed their animosity, and had furnished them with inexhaustible matter for invective. The cry of vengeance rose on every side. Whatever scruple either branch of the House of Austria might have felt about coalescing with Protestants was completely removed."

ALSO IN: H. Martin, History of France: Age of Louis XIV. (translated by M. L. Booth), volume 2, chapter 2.

"Our limits will not permit us to describe at any length the war between Louis XIV. and the Grand Alliance, which lasted till the Peace of Ryswick, in 1697, but only to note some of the chief incidents of the different campaigns. The Imperialists had, in 1689, notwithstanding the efforts it was still necessary to make against the Turks, brought an army of 80,000 men into the field, which was divided into three bodies under the command of the Duke of Lorraine, the Elector of Bavaria, and the Elector of Brandenburg; while the Prince of Waldeck, in the Netherlands, was at the head of a large Dutch and Spanish force, composed, however, in great part of German mercenaries. In this quarter, Marshal d'Humières was opposed to Waldeck, while Duras commanded the French army on the Rhine. In the south, the Duke of Noailles maintained a French force in Catalonia. Nothing of much importance was done this year; but on the whole the war went in favour of the imperialists, who succeeded in recovering Mentz and Bonn.

1690: This year, Marshal d'Humières was superseded by the Duke of Luxembourg, who infused more vigour into the French operations. … Catinat was sent this year into Dauphiné to watch the movements of the Duke of Savoy, who was suspected by the French Court, and not without reason, of favouring the Grand Alliance. The extravagant demands of Louis, who required Victor Amadeus to unite his troops with the army of Catinat, and to admit a French garrison into Vercelli, Verrua, and even the citadel of Turin itself, till a general peace should be effected, caused the Duke to enter into treaties with Spain and the Emperor, June 3d and 4th; and on October 20th, he joined the Grand Alliance by a treaty concluded at the Hague with England and the States-General. This last step was taken by Victor Amadeus in consequence of his reverses. He had sustained from Catinat in the battle of Staffarda (August 17th) a defeat which only the skill of a youthful general, his cousin the Prince Eugene, had saved from becoming a total rout. As the fruits of this victory, Catinat occupied Saluzzo, Susa, and all the country from the Alps to the Tanaro. During these operations another French division had reduced, without much resistance, the whole of Savoy, except the fortress of Montmélian. The only other event of importance during this campaign was the decisive victory gained by Luxembourg over Prince Waldeck at Fleurus, July 1st. The captured standards, more than a hundred in number, which Luxembourg sent to Paris on this occasion, obtained for him the name of the 'Tapassier de Notre Dame.' Luxembourg was, however, prevented from following up his victory by the orders of Louvois, who forbade him to lay siege to Namur or Charleroi. Thus, in this campaign, France maintained her preponderance on land as well as at sea by the victory off Beachy Head. …

The Imperialists had this year lost one of their best leaders by the death of the Duke of Lorraine (April). He was succeeded as commander-in-chief by Maximilian Emanuel, Elector of Bavaria; but nothing of importance took place upon the Rhine.

1691: The campaign of this year was singularly barren of events, though both the French and English kings took a personal part in it. In March, Louis and Luxembourg, laid siege to Mons, the capital of Hainault, which surrendered in less than three weeks. King William, who was in the neighbourhood, could not muster sufficient troops to venture on its relief. Nothing further of importance was done in this quarter, and the campaign in Germany was equally a blank. On the side of Piedmont, Catinat took Nice, but, being confronted by superior numbers, was forced to evacuate Piedmont; though, by way of compensation, he completed the conquest of Savoy by the capture of Montmélian. Noailles gained some trifling successes in Spain; and the celebrated French corsair, Jean Bart, distinguished himself by his enterprises at sea. One of the most remarkable events of the year was a domestic occurrence, the death of Louvois."

FRANCE: A. D. 1692.
The taking of Namur and the victory of Steinkirk, or
Steenkerke.

Never perhaps in the whole course of his unresting life were the energies of William [of Orange] more severely taxed, and never did his great moral and intellectual qualities shine forth with a brighter lustre, than in the years 1692-93.

The great victory of La Hogue and the destruction of the flower of the French fleet did, it is true, relieve England of any immediate dread either of insurrection or invasion, and so far the prospect before him acquired a slight improvement towards the summer of 1692. But this was the only gleam of light in the horizon. … The great coalition of Powers which he had succeeded in forming to resist the ambition of Louis was never nearer dissolution than in the spring of 1692. The Scandinavian states, who had held aloof from it from the first, were now rapidly changing the benevolence of their neutrality into something not easily distinguishable from its reverse. The new Pope Innocent XII. showed himself far less amicably disposed towards William than his two predecessors. The decrepitude of Spain and the arrogant self-will of Austria were displaying themselves more conspicuously than ever. Savoy was ruled by a duke who was more than half suspected of being a traitor. … William did succeed in saving the league from dissolution, and in getting their armies once more into the field. But not, unfortunately, to any purpose. The campaign of the present year was destined to repeat the errors of the last, and these errors were to be paid for at a heavier cost. … The French king was bent upon the capture of the great stronghold of Namur, and the enemy, as in the case of Mons, were too slow in their movements and too ineffective in their dispositions to prevent it. Marching to the assault of the doomed city, with a magnificence of courtly pageantry which had never before been witnessed in warfare, Louis sat down before Namur, and in eight days its faint-hearted governor, the nominee of the Spanish viceroy of the Netherlands, surrendered at discretion. Having accomplished, or rather having graciously condescended to witness the accomplishment of this feat of arms, Louis returned to Versailles, leaving his army under the command of Luxembourg. The fall of Namur was a severe blow to the hopes of William, but yet worse disasters were in store for him. He was now pitted against one who enjoyed the reputation of the greatest general of the age, and William, a fair but by no means brilliant strategist, was unequal to the contest with his accomplished adversary. {1241} Luxembourg lay at Steinkirk, and William approaching him from a place named Lambeque, opened his attack upon him by a well-conceived surprise which promised at first to throw the French army into complete disorder. Luxembourg's resource and energy, however, were equal to the emergency. He rallied and steadied his troops with astonishing speed, and the nature of the ground preventing the allies from advancing as rapidly as they had expected, they found the enemy in a posture to receive them. The British forces were in the front, commanded by Count Solmes, the division of Mackay, a name now honourable for many generations in the annals of continental, no less than of Scottish, warfare, leading the way. These heroes, for so, though as yet untried soldiers, they approved themselves, were to have been supported by Count Solmes with a strong body of cavalry and infantry, but at the critical moment he failed them miserably, and his failure decided the fortunes of the day. … The division was practically annihilated. Its five regiments, 'Cutt's, Mackay's, Angus's, Graham's, and Leven's, all,' as Corporal Trim relates pathetically, cut to pieces, and so had the English Life-guards been too, had it not been for some regiments on the right, who marched up boldly to their relief, and, received the enemy's fire in their faces, before anyone of their own platoons discharged a musket.' Bitter was the resentment in the English army at the desertion of these gallant troops by Count de Solmes, and William gave vent to one of his rare outbursts of anger at the sight. We have it indeed on the authority above quoted—unimpeachable as first-hand tradition, for Sterne had heard the story of these wars at the knees of an eye-witness of and actor in them—that the King 'would not suffer the Count to come into his presence for many months after.' The destruction of Mackay's division had indeed decided the issue of the struggle. Luxembourg's army was being rapidly strengthened by reinforcements from that of Boufflers, and there was nothing for it but retreat. The loss on both sides had been great, but the moral effect of the victory was still greater. William's reputation for generalship, perhaps unduly raised by his recent exploits in Ireland, underwent a serious decline."

On the Rhine and on the Spanish frontier nothing of importance occurred during 1692. The Duke of Savoy gained some advantages on his side and invaded Dauphiny, without any material result. The invasion called into action a young heroine, Mademoiselle de La Tour-du-Pin, whose portrait has a place at Saint-Denis by the side of that of Jeanne D'Arc.

"Lewis had determined not to make any advance towards a reconciliation with the new government of England till the whole strength of his realm had been put forth in one more effort. A mighty effort in truth it was, but too exhausting to be repeated. He made an immense display of force at once on the Pyrenees and on the Alps, on the Rhine and on the Meuse, in the Atlantic and in the Mediterranean. That nothing might be wanting which could excite the martial ardour of a nation eminently high-spirited, he instituted, a few days before he left his palace for the camp, a new military order of knighthood, and placed it under the protection of his own sainted ancestor and patron. The cross of Saint Lewis shone on the breasts of the gentlemen who had been conspicuous in the trenches before Mons and Namur, and on the fields of Fleurus and Steinkirk. … On the 18th of May Lewis left Versailles. Early in June he was under the walls of Namur. The Princesses, who had accompanied him, held their court within the fortress. He took under his immediate command the army of Boufflers, which was encamped at Gembloux. Little more than a mile off lay the army of Luxemburg. The force collected in that neighbourhood under the French lilies did not amount to less than 120,000 men. Lewis had flattered himself that he should be able to repeat in 1693 the stratagem by which Mons had been taken in 1691 and Namur in 1692; and he had determined that either Liege or Brussels should be his prey. But William had this year been able to assemble in good time a force, inferior indeed to that which was opposed to him, but still formidable. With this force he took his post near Louvain, on the road between the two threatened cities, and watched every movement of the enemy. … Just at this conjuncture Lewis announced his intention to return instantly to Versailles, and to send the Dauphin and Boufflers, with part of the army which was assembled near Namur, to join Marshal Lorges who commanded in the Palatinate. Luxemburg was thunderstruck. He expostulated boldly and earnestly. Never, he said, was such an opportunity thrown away. … The Marshal reasoned: he implored: he went on his knees: but all was vain; and he quitted the royal presence in the deepest dejection. Lewis left the camp a week after he had joined it, and never afterwards made war in person. … Though the French army in the Netherlands had been weakened by the departure of the forces commanded by the Dauphin and Boufflers, and though the allied army was daily strengthened by the arrival of fresh troops, Luxemburg still had a superiority of force; and that superiority he increased by an adroit stratagem." He succeeded by a feint in inducing William to detach 20,000 men from his army and to send them to Liege. He then moved suddenly upon the camp of the allies, with 80,000 men, and found but 50,000 to oppose him. "It was still in the [English] King's power, by a hasty retreat, to put between his army and the enemy the narrow, but deep, waters of the Gette, which had lately been swollen by rains. But the site which he occupied was strong; and it could easily be made still stronger. He set all his troops to work. Ditches were dug, mounds thrown up, palisades fixed in the earth. In a few hours the ground wore a new aspect; and the King trusted that he should be able to repel the attack even of a force greatly outnumbering his own. … On the left flank, the village of Romsdorff rose close to the little stream of Landen, from which the English have named the disastrous day. On the right was the village of Neerwinden. Both villages were, after the fashion of the Low Countries, surrounded by moats and fences. "Notwithstanding the strength of the position held by the allies, and the valor with which they defended it, they were driven out of Neerwinden [July 29]—but only after the shattered village had been five times taken and retaken—and across the Gette, in confusion and with heavy loss. {1242} "The French were victorious: but they had bought their victory dear. More then 10,000 of the best troops of Lewis had fallen. Neerwinden was a spectacle at which the oldest soldiers stood aghast. The streets were piled breast high with corpses. Among the slain were some great lords and some renowned warriors. … The region, renowned as the battle field, through many ages, of the greatest powers of Europe, has seen only two more terrible days, the day of Malplaquet and the day of Waterloo. … There was no pursuit, though the sun was still high in the heaven when William crossed the Gette. The conquerors were so much exhausted by marching and fighting that they could scarcely move. … A very short delay was enough for William. … Three weeks after his defeat he held a review a few miles from Brussels. The number of men under arms was greater than on the morning of the bloody day of Landen: their appearance was soldierlike; and their spirit seemed unbroken. William now wrote to Heinsius that the worst was over. 'The crisis,' he said, 'has been a terrible one. Thank God that it has ended thus.' He did not, however, think it prudent to try at that time the event of another pitched field. He therefore suffered the French to besiege and take Charleroi; and this was the only advantage which they derived from the most sanguinary battle fought in Europe during the seventeenth century."

"The great efforts made by Louis in the north prevented him from strengthening the army of Catinat sufficiently to act with energy against the Savoyard prince, and it was determined to restrict the campaign of 1693 to the defensive on the part of France. The forces of the duke had in the meantime been reinforced from Germany, and he opened the campaign with a brilliant and successful movement against Pignerol. … He is said to have entertained hopes of carrying the war in that one campaign to the very gates of Lyons; but the successes which inspired him with such expectations alarmed the court of France, and Louis detached in haste a large body of cavalry to reinforce Catinat. That general marched at once to fight the Duke of Savoy, who, presuming on his strength, suffered the French to pour out from the valley of Suza into the plain of Piedmont, abandoned the heights, and was consequently defeated at Marsaglia on the 4th of October. Catinat, however, could not profit by his victory; he was too ill supplied in every respect to undertake the siege of Coni, and the state of the French armies at this time marks as plainly that Louvois was dead, as the state of the finances speaks the loss of Colbert."

      G. P. R. James,
      Life and Times of Louis XIV.,
      volume 2, chapter 11.

In 1694, King William was "in a position to keep an army afoot in the Netherlands stronger than any had hitherto been. It was reckoned at 31,800 horse, including a corps of dragoons, and 58,000 foot; so great a force had never been seen within the memory of man. All the best-known generals, who had hitherto taken part in the wars of western Europe, were gathered round him with their troops. The French army, with which the Dauphin, but not the King, was present, was not much smaller; it was once more led by Marshal Luxembourg. These two hosts lay over against one another in their camps for a couple of months; neither offered battle to the other. … This campaign is notable in the annals of the art of war for the skill with which each force pursued or evaded the other; but the results were limited to the recovery by the allies of that unimportant place, Huy. William had thought himself fortunate in having come out of the previous campaign without disaster: in this campaign the French were proud to have held their lines in presence of a superior force. On the coast also the French were successful in repelling a most vehement and perilous attack. They had been warned that the English were going to fall on Brest, and Vauban was sent down there in haste to organise the defence; and in this he was thoroughly successful. When the English landed on the coast in Camaret Bay (for the fort of that name had first to be taken) they were saluted by two batteries, which they had never detected, and which were so well placed that every shot told, and the grape-shot wounded almost every man who had ventured ashore. The gallant General, Talmash, was also hit, and ere long died of his wounds. The English fleet, which had come to bombard Brest, was itself bombarded from the walls. But though this great effort failed, the English fleet still held the mastery of the Channel: it also blockaded the northern coast of France. After Brest it attacked Dieppe, laying it almost entirely in ashes; thence it sailed to Havre, and St. Malo, to Calais, and Dunkirk. This was of great use in the conduct of the war. King William observes that had not the coasts been kept in a state of alarm, all the forces detained there for defensive purposes would have been thrown on the Netherlands. … But the most important result of the maritime war lay on another side. In May, 1694, Noailles pushed into Catalonia, supported by Tourville, who lay at anchor with the fleet in the Bay of Rosas. … It was of incalculable importance to Spain to be in alliance with the maritime powers. Strengthened by a Dutch fleet and some Spanish ships, Admiral Russell now appeared in the Mediterranean. He secured Barcelona from the French, who would never have been kept out of the city by the Spaniards alone. The approach of the English fleet had at this time the greatest influence in keeping the Duke of Savoy staunch to the confederation. In Germany the rise of the house of Hanover to the Electoral dignity had now caused most unpleasant complications. A shoal of German princes, headed by the King of Denmark, as a Prince of the Empire, and offended by the preference shown to Hanover, inclined, if not to alliance with France, at least to neutrality. … We can have no conception, and in this place we cannot possibly investigate, with what unbroken watchfulness King William, supported by Heinsius, looked after the German and the Northern courts, so as to keep their irritation from reacting on the course of the great war. … When the French, in June, 1694, crossed the Rhine, meaning, as they boasted with true Gallic arrogance, soon to dip their swords in the Danube, they found the Prince of Baden so well prepared, and posted so strongly near Wisloch, that they did not venture to attack him. … The general result is this: neither side was as yet really superior to the other: but the French power was everywhere checked and held within bounds by the arms and influence of William III."

L. von Ranke, History of England, 17th Century, book 20, chapter 6 (volume 5).

FRANCE: A. D. 1695-1696.
   The end of the War of the League of Augsburg.
   Loss of Namur.
   Terms with Savoy.
   The Peace of Ryswick.

"Military and naval efforts were relaxed on all sides: on the Rhine the Prince of Baden and the Marechal de Lorges, both ill in health, did little but observe each other; and though the Duke of Savoy made himself master of Casal on the 11th July, 1695, no other military event of any consequence took place on the side of Italy, where Louis entered into negotiations with the duke, and succeeded, in the following year, in detaching him from the league of Augsburg. As the price of his defection the whole of his territories were to be restored to him, with the exception of Suza, Nice, and Montmeillan, which were promised to be delivered also on the signature of a general peace. Money was added to render the consent of a needy prince more ready. … The duke promised to obtain from the emperor a pledge that Italy should be considered as neutral ground, and if the allies refused such a pledge, then to join the forces of Savoy to those of France, and give a free passage to the French through his dominions. In consequence of this treaty … he applied to the emperor for a recognition of the neutrality of Italy, and was refused. He then hastened, with a facility which distinguished him through life, to abandon his friends and join his enemies, and within one month was generalissimo for the emperor in Italy fighting against France, and generalissimo for the King of France in Italy fighting against the emperor. Previous to this change, however, the King of England opened the campaign of 1695 in the Netherlands by the siege of Namur. The death of Luxemburg had placed the French army of Flanders under the command of the incapable Marshal Villeroi: and William, feeling that his enemy was no longer to be much respected, assumed at once the offensive. He concealed his design upon Namur under a variety of manœuvres which kept the French generals in suspense; and, then leaving the Prince of Vaudemont to protect the principal Spanish towns in Flanders, he collected his troops suddenly; and while the Duke of Bavaria invested Namur, he covered the operations of the siege with a considerable force. Villeroi now determined to attack the Prince of Vaudemont, but twice suffered him to escape: and then, after having apparently hesitated for some time how to drive or draw the King of England from the attack upon Namur, he resolved to bombard the city of Brussels, never pretending to besiege it, but alleging as his motive for a proceeding which was merely destructive, the bombardment of the maritime towns of France by the English. During three days he continued to fire upon the city, ruining a great part thereof, and then withdrew to witness the surrender of the citadel of Namur on the 2nd September, the town itself having capitulated on the 4th of the preceding month. As some compensation, though but a poor one, for the loss of Namur, and the disgrace of the French arms in suffering such a city to be captured in the presence of 80,000 men, Montal took Dixmude and Deynse in the course of June. … The only after-event of any importance which occurred in Flanders during this war, was the capture of Ath by the French, in the year 1697, while negotiations for peace were going on with activity at Ryswick. … Regular communications regarding peace having been once established, Ryswick, near the Hague, was appointed for the meeting of plenipotentiaries; and Harlay, Torci, and Callières appeared at that place as representatives of Louis. The articles which had been formerly sketched out at Utrecht formed the base of the treaties now agreed upon; and Louis yielded far more than could have been expected from one so proud and so successful."

Sir J. Dalrymple, Memoirs of Great Britain and Ireland, part 3, book 4 (volume 3).

   "The Congress for the treaty or series of treaties that was to
   terminate the great European war, which had now lasted for
   upwards of nine years, was held at Ryswick, a château near the
   Hague. The conferences were opened in May, 1697. Among the
   countries represented were Sweden, Austria, France, Spain,
   England, Holland, Denmark and the various States of the German
   Empire. The treaties were signed, in severalty, between the
   different States, except Austria, in September and October,
   1697, and with the Emperor, in November. The principal
   features of the treaty were, as between France and Spain,
   that, the former country was to deliver to Spain Barcelona,
   and other places in Catalonia; also various places which
   France had taken in the Spanish Netherlands, during the war,
   including Luxembourg and its Duchy, Charleroi, Mons and
   Courtrai. Various others were excepted, to be retained by
   France, as dependencies of French possessions. The principal
   stipulations of the treaty, as between France and Great
   Britain, were that France formally recognized William III. as
   lawful king of Great Britain, and agreed not to trouble him in
   the possession of his dominions, and not to assist his
   enemies, directly or indirectly. This article had particular
   relation to the partisans of the exiled Stuart king, then
   living in France. By another article, all places taken by
   either country in America, during the war, were to be
   relinquished, and the Principality of Orange and its estates
   situated in the south of France were to be restored to
   William. In the treaty with Holland, certain possessions in
   the East Indies were to be restored to the Dutch East India
   Company: and important articles of commerce were appended,
   among which the principle was laid down that free ships should
   make free goods, not contraband of war. By the treaty with the
   Emperor and the German States, the Treaties of Westphalia and
   Nymeguen were recognized as the basis of the Treaty of
   Ryswick, with such exceptions only as were to be provided in
   the latter treaty. France also was to give up all territory
   she had occupied or controlled before or during the war under
   the name of 'reunions,' outside of Alsace, but the Roman
   Catholic religion was to be preserved in Alsace as it then
   existed.
{1244}
   This concession by France included among other places
   Freiburg, Brisach, and Treves; and certain restitutions were
   to be made by France, in favor of Spire, the Electors of
   Treves, and Brandenburg and the Palatinate; also, others in
   favor of certain of the smaller German Princes. The city of
   Strasburg, in return, was formally ceded to France, … and
   the important fort of Kehl was yielded to the Empire. The
   navigation of the Rhine was to be free to all persons. The
   Duke of Lorraine was to be restored to his possessions with
   such exceptions as were provided in the treaty. By the terms
   of this treaty, a more advantageous peace was given to Spain
   than she had any expectation of. … Not only were the places
   taken in Spain, including the numerous fortified places in
   Catalonia, yielded up, but also, with some exceptions, those
   in the Spanish Netherlands, and also the important territory
   of Luxembourg; some places were even yielded to Spain that
   France had gained under former treaties."

"The restitutions and cessions [from France to Germany] comprised Treves, Germersheim, Deux-Ponts, Veldentz, Montbéliard, Kehl, Freiburg, Breisach, Philippsburg, the Emperor and the Empire ceding in exchange Strasbourg to the King of France in complete sovereignty. … Louis XIV. had consented somewhat to relax the rigor of the treaty of Nimeguen towards the heir of the Duchy of Lorraine, nephew of the Emperor by his mother; he restored to the young Duke Leopold his inheritance in the condition in which Charles IV. had possessed it before the French conquest of 1670; that is to say, he restored Nancy, allowing only the ramparts of the Old Town to remain, and razing all the rest of the fortifications without the power of restoring them; he kept Marsal, an interior place calculated to hold Lorraine in check, and also Sarre-Louis, a frontier-place which separated Lorraine from the Germanic provinces; he restored Bitche and Homburg dismantled, without power to reestablish them, and kept Longwy in exchange for a domain of similar value in one of the Trois-Evêchés; finally, he no longer demanded, as at Nimeguen, four great strategic routes through Lorraine, and consented that the passage should always be open to his troops. The House of Lorraine was thus reestablished in its estates after twenty-seven years of exile."

ALSO IN: L. von Ranke, History of England, 17th Century, book 20, chapter 11 (volume 5).

FRANCE: A. D. 1698-1712.
The colonization of Louisiana.
Broad claims to the whole valley of the Mississippi.

FRANCE: A. D. 1701-1702. Provocation of the Second Grand Alliance and War of the Spanish Succession.

FRANCE: A. D. 1702-1710.
The Camisard rising of the French Protestant's in the
Cévennes.

"The movement known as the War of the Camisards is an episode of the history of Protestantism in France which, though rarely studied in detail and perhaps but partially understood, was not devoid of significance. When it occurred, in the summer of 1702, a period of little less than 17 years had elapsed since Louis XIV., by his edict of Fontainebleau, October, 1685, solemnly revoked the great and fundamental law enacted by his grandfather, Henry IV., for the protection of the adherents of the Reformed faith, known in history as the Edict of Nantes. During the whole of that period the Protestants had submitted, with scarcely an attempt at armed resistance, to the proscription of their tenets: … The majority, unable to escape from the land of oppression, remained at home … nearly all of them cherishing the confident hope that the king's delusion would be short-lived, and that the edict under which they and their ancestors had lived for three generations would, before long, be restored to them with the greater part, if not the whole, of its beneficent provisions. Meanwhile, all the Protestant ministers having been expelled from France by the same law that prohibited the expatriation of any of the laity, the people of the Reformed faith found themselves destitute of the spiritual food they craved. True, the new legislation affected to regard that faith as dead, and designated all the former adherents of Protestantism, without distinction, as the 'New Converts,' 'Nouveaux Convertis.' And, in point of fact, the great majority had so far yielded to the terrible pressure of the violent measures brought to bear upon them … that they had consented to sign a promise to be 're-united' to the Roman Catholic Church, or had gone at least once to mass. But they were still Protestants at heart. … Under these circumstances, feeling more than ever the need of religious comfort, now that remorse arose for a weak betrayal of conscientious conviction, the proscribed Protestants, especially in the south of France, began to meet clandestinely for divine worship in such retired places as seemed most likely to escape the notice of their vigilant enemies. … It was not strange that in so exceptional a situation, a phase of religious life and feeling equally exceptional should manifest itself. I refer to that appearance of prophetic inspiration which attracted to the province of Vivarais and to the Cévennes Mountains the attention of all Europe. … Historically … the influence of the prophets of the Cévennes was an important factor in the Protestant problem of the end of the 17th and the commencement of the 18th centuries. … Various methods were adopted to put an end to the prophets with their prophecies, which were for the most part denunciatory of Rome as Antichrist and foreshadowed the approaching fall of the papacy. But this form of enthusiasm had struck a deep root and it was hard to eradicate it. Imprisonment, in convent or jail, was the most common punishment, especially in the case of women. Not infrequently to imprisonment was, added corporal chastisement, and the prophets, male and female, were flogged until they might be regarded as fully cured of their delusion. … But no utterances of prophets, however fervid and impassioned, would have sufficed to occasion an uprising of the inhabitants of the Cévennes Mountains, had it not been for the virulent persecution to which the latter found themselves exposed at the hands of the provincial authorities directly instigated thereto by the clergy of the established church. {1245} For it must be noticed that a large part of the population of the Cévennes was still Protestant, and made no concealment of the fact, even though the king's ministers affected to call them 'New Catholics,' or 'New Converts.' The region over which the Camisard war extended with more or less violence comprised six episcopal dioceses, which, in 1698, had an aggregate population of about two-thirds of a million of souls. Of these souls, though Protestantism had been dead in the eye of the law for 13 years, fully one-fourth were still Protestant. … The war may be said to have begun on the 24th of July, 1702, when the Abbé du Chayla, a noted persecutor, was killed in his house, at Pont de Montvert, by a band of 40 or 50 of the 'Nouveaux Convertis,' whom he had driven to desperation by his cruelty to their fellow believers. If we regard its termination to be the submission of Jean Cavalier, the most picturesque, in the month of May, 1704, the war lasted a little less than two years. But, although the French government had succeeded, rather by craft than by force, in getting rid of the most formidable of its opponents … it was not until five or six years later—that is, until 1709 or 1710—that … comparative peace was finally restored. … During the first months of the insurrection the exploits of the malcontents were confined to deeds of destruction accomplished by companies of venturesome men, who almost everywhere eluded the pursuit of the enemy by their superior knowledge of the intricacies of the mountain woods and paths. The track of these companies could easily be made out; for it was marked by the destruction of vicarages and rectories, by the smoke of burned churches, too often by the corpses of slain priests. The perpetrators of these acts of violence soon won for themselves some special designations, to distinguish them from the more passive Protestants who remained in their homes, taking no open part in the struggle. … About the close of 1702, however, or the first months of 1703, a new word was coined for the fresh emergency, and the armed Protestants received the appellation under which they have passed into history—the Camisards. Passing by all the strange and fanciful derivations of the word which seem to have no claim upon our notice, unless it be their evident absurdity, we have no difficulty in connecting it with those nocturnal expeditions which were styled 'Camisades'; because the warriors who took advantage of the darkness of the night to ride out and explore or force the enemy's entrenchments, sometimes threw over their armor a shirt that might enable them to recognize each other. Others will have it that, though the name was derived from the same article of apparel—the 'camisa' or shirt—it was applied to the Cévenol bands for another reason, namely," that when they found opportunities, they carried off clean linen from the villages and left their soiled garments in exchange. The final overthrow of the Camisards "was not accomplished without the employment of 100,000 troops, certainly far more than ten times the total number ever brought into the field by the Camisards. … Not less than three officers of the highest grade in the service, marshals of France, were successively appointed to put down a revolt which it might have been expected a simple colonel could suffice to quell—M. de Broglie being succeeded by the Marshal de Montrevel, the Marshal de Montrevel by the Marshal de Villars, and the Marshal de Villars by the Marshal de Berwick."

H. M. Baird, The Camisard Uprising (Papers of the American Society of Church History, volume 2, pages 13-34).

      S. Smiles,
      The Huguenots in France after the Revocation of the Edict
      of Nantes, chapters 5-8.

FRANCE: A. D. 1702-1711.
The War of the Spanish Succession in America
(called Queen Anne's War).

      See
      ITALY: A. D. 1701-1713;
      SPAIN: A.D. 1702, to 1707-1710;
      GERMANY: A. D. 1702, to 1706-1711;
      NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1702-1704, to 1710-1712.

FRANCE: A. D. 1702-1715.
Renewed Jesuitical persecution of the Jansenists.
The odious Bull Unigenitus and its tyrannical enforcement.

A. D. 1710.
   The War of the Spanish Succession: Misery of the nation.
   Overtures for Peace.
   Conferences at Gertruydenberg.

"France was still reduced to extreme and abject wretchedness. Her finances were ruined. Her people were half starving. Marlborough declared that in the villages through which he passed in the summer of 1710, at least half the inhabitants had perished since the beginning of the preceding winter, and the rest looked as if they had come out of their graves. All the old dreams of French conquests in the Spanish Netherlands, in Italy, and in Germany were dispelled, and the French generals were now struggling desperately and skilfully to defend their own frontier. … In 1710, while the Whig ministry [in England] was still in power, but at a time when it was manifestly tottering to its fall, Lewis had made one more attempt to obtain peace by the most ample concessions. The conferences were held at the Dutch fortress of Gertruydenberg. Lewis declared himself ready to accept the conditions exacted as preliminaries of peace in the preceding year, with the exception of the article compelling Philip within two months to cede the Spanish throne. He consented, in the course of the negotiations, to grant to the Dutch nearly all the fortresses of the French and Spanish Netherlands, including among others Ypres, Tournay, Lille, Furnes, and even Valenciennes, to cede Alsace to the Duke of Lorraine, to destroy the fortifications of Dunkirk, and those on the Rhine from Bale to Philipsburg. The main difficulty was on the question of the Spanish succession. … The French troops had already been recalled from Spain, and Lewis consented to recognise the Archduke as the sovereign, to engage to give no more assistance to his grandchild, to place four cautionary towns in the hands of the Dutch as a pledge for the fulfilment of the treaty, and even to pay a subsidy to the allies for the continuance of the war against Philip. The allies, however, insisted that he should join with them in driving his grandson by force of arms from Spain, and on this article the negotiations were broken off."

FRANCE: A. D. 1713-1714.
Ending of the War of the Spanish Succession.
The Peace of Utrecht and the Treaty of Rastadt.

Louis XIV. died September 1, 1715, at the age of 77 years, having reigned 72 years. "Richelieu, and after him Mazarin, governing as if they had been dictators of a republic, had extinguished, if I may use the expression, their personality in the idea and service of the state. Possessing only the exercise of authority, they both conducted themselves as responsible agents towards the sovereign and before the judgment of the country; while Louis XIV., combining the exercise with the right, considered himself exempted from all rule but that of his own will, and acknowledged no responsibility for his actions except to his own conscience. It was this conviction of his universal power, a conviction genuine and sincere, excluding both scruples and remorse, which made him upset one after the other the twofold system founded by Henry IV., of religious liberty at home, and abroad of a national preponderance resting upon a generous protection of the independence of states and European civilisation. At the personal accession of Louis XIV., more than fifty years had passed since France had pursued the work of her policy in Europe, impartial towards the various communions of Christians, the different forms of governments, and the internal revolutions of the states. Although France was catholic and monarchical, her alliances were, in the first place, with the Protestant states of Germany and with republican Holland; she had even made friendly terms with regicide England. No other interest but that of the well-understood development of the national resources had weight in her councils, and directed the internal action of her government. But all was changed by Louis XIV., and special interests, the spawn of royal personality, of the principle of the hereditary monarchy, or that of the state religion, were admitted, soon to fly upward in the scale. Thence resulted the overthrow of the system of the balance of power in Europe, which might be justly called the French system, and the abandonment of it for dreams of an universal monarchy, revived after the example of Charles V. and Philip II. Thence a succession of enterprises, formed in opposition to the policy of the country, such as the war with Holland, the factions made with a view to the Imperial crown, the support given to James II. and the counter-revolution in England, the acceptance of the throne of Spain for a son of France, preserving his rights to the Crown. These causes of misfortune, under which the kingdom was obliged to succumb, all issued from the circumstance applauded by the nation and conformable to the spirit of its tendencies, which, after royalty had attained its highest degree of power under two ministers, delivered it unlimited into the hands of a prince endowed with qualities at once brilliant and solid, an object of enthusiastic affection and legitimate admiration. When the reign, which was to crown under such auspices the ascendant march of the French monarchy, had falsified the unbounded hopes which its commencement had excited; when in the midst of fruitless victories and continually increasing reverses, the people beheld progress in all the branches of public economy changed into distress,—the ruin of the finances, industry, and agriculture—the exhaustion of all the resources of the country,—the impoverishment of all classes of the nation, the dreadful misery of the population, they were seized with a bitter disappointment of spirit, which took the place of the enthusiasm of their confidence and love."

A. Thierry, Formation and Progress of the Tiers État or Third Estate in France, chapter 9.

FRANCE: A. D. 1715-1723.
State of the kingdom at the death of Louis XIV.
The minority of Louis XV. and Regency of the Duke of Orleans.

   "Louis XIV. … left France excessively exhausted. The State
   was ruined, and seemed to have no resource but bankruptcy.
   This trouble seemed especially imminent in 1715, after the
   war, during which the government had been obliged to borrow at
   400 per cent., to create new taxes, to spend in advance the
   revenue of two years, and to increase the public debt to 2,400
   millions. The acquisition of two provinces (Flanders,
   Franche-Comté) and a few cities (Strassburg, Landau, and
   Dunkirk) was no compensation for such terrible poverty.
   Succeeding generations have remembered only the numerous
   victories, Europe defied, France for twenty years
   preponderant, and the incomparable splendor of the court of
   Versailles, with its marvels of letters and arts, which have
   given to the 17th century the name of the age of Louis XIV. It
   is for history to show the price which France has paid for her
   king's vain attempts abroad to rule over Europe, and at home
   to enslave the wills and consciences of men. … The weight of
   the authority of Louis XIV. had been crushing during his last
   years. When the nation felt it lifted, it breathed more
   freely; the court and the city burst into disrespectful
   demonstrations of joy; the very coffin of the great king was
   insulted. The new king [Louis XV., great-grandson of Louis
   XIV.] was five years old. Who was to govern? Louis XIV. had
   indeed left a will, but he had not deceived himself with
   regard to the value of it. 'As soon as I am dead, it will be
   disregarded; I know too well what became of the will of the
   king, my father!' As after the death of Henry IV. and Louis
   XIII. there was a moment of feudal reaction; but the decline
   of the nobility may be measured by the successive weakening of
   its efforts in each case. Under Mary de'Medici it was still able
   to make a civil war; under Anne of Austria it produced the
   Fronde; after Louis XIV. it only produced memorials. The Duke
   of Saint-Simon desired that the first prince of the blood,
   Philip of Orleans, to whom the will left only a shadow of
   power, should demand the regency from the dukes and peers, as
   heirs and representatives of the ancient grand vassals. But
   the Duke of Orleans convoked Parliament in order to break down
   the posthumous despotism of the old king, feigning that the
   king had committed the government to his hands. The regency,
   with the right to appoint the council of regency as he would,
   was conferred upon him, and the command of the royal household
   was taken from the Duke of Maine [one of the bastard sons of
   Louis XIV.], who yielded this important prerogative only after
   a violent altercation.
{1247}
   As a reward for the services of his two allies, the Duke of
   Orleans called the high nobility into affairs, by substituting
   for the ministries six councils; in which they occupied almost
   all the places, and accorded to Parliament the right of
   remonstrance. But two years had hardly passed when the
   ministries were re-established, and the Parliament again
   condemned to silence. It was plain that neither nobility nor
   Parliament were to be the heirs of the absolute monarchy. …
   Debauchery had, until then, kept within certain limits;
   cynicism of manners as well as of thought was now adopted
   openly. The regent set the example. There had never been seen
   such frivolity of conduct nor such licentious wit as that
   exhibited in the wild meetings of the roués of the Duke of
   Orleans. There had been formerly but one salon in France, that
   of the king; a thousand were now open to a society which, no
   longer occupied with religious questions, or with war, or the
   grave futilities of etiquette, felt that pleasure and change
   were necessities. … Louis XV. attained his majority February
   13, 1723, being then 13 years old. This terminated the regency
   of the Duke of Orleans. But the king was still to remain a
   long time under tutelage; the duke, in order to retain the
   power after resigning the regency, had in advance given
   [Cardinal] Dubois the title of prime minister. At the death of
   the wretched Dubois he took the office himself, but held it
   only four months, dying of apoplexy in December, 1723."

ALSO IN: W. C. Taylor, Memoirs of the House of Orleans, volume 1, chapters 11-17, and volume 2, chapters 1-3.

      F. Rocquain,
      The Revolutionary Spirit preceding the French Revolution,
      chapter 1.

FRANCE: A. D. 1717-1719.
   The Triple Alliance.
   The Quadruple Alliance.
   War with Spain.

"When the Regent Orleans assumed the government of France, he found its affairs in frightful confusion. The public debt was three hundred millions; putting the debt on one side, the expenditure was only just covered by the revenue. St. Simon advised him to declare a national bankruptcy. De Noailles, less scrupulous, proposed to debase the coinage. … In such desperate circumstances, it was no wonder that the regent was ready to catch eagerly at any prospect of success. A remedy was proposed to him by the famous John Law of Lauriston. This new light of finance had gambled in, and been banished from, half the courts of Europe; he had figured in the English 'Hue and Cry,' as 'a very tall, black, lean man, well-shaped, above six feet high, large pock-holes in his face, big-nosed, speaks broad and loud.' He was a big, masterful, bullying man, one of keen intellect as well; the hero of a hundred romantic stories. … He studied finance at Amsterdam, then the great school of commerce, and offered his services and the 'system' which he had invented, first to Godolphin, when that nobleman was at the head of affairs in England, then to Victor Amadeus, duke of Savoy, then to Louis XIV., who, as the story goes, refused any credit to a heretic. He invented a new combination at cards, which became the despair of all the croupiers in Europe; so successful was this last invention, that he arrived for the second time at Versailles, in the early days of the regency, with upwards of £120,000 at his disposal, and a copy of his 'system' in his pocket. … There was a dash of daring in the scheme which suited well with the regent's peculiar turn of mind; it was gambling on a gigantic scale. … Besides, the scheme was plausible and to a certain point correct. The regent, with all his faults, was too clever a man not to recognize the genius which gleamed in Law's dark eyes. Law showed that the trade and commerce of every country was crippled by the want of a circulating medium; specie was not to be had in sufficient quantities; paper, backed by the credit of the state, was the grand secret. He adduced the examples of Great Britain, of Genoa, and of Amsterdam to prove the advantage of a paper currency; he proposed to institute a bank, to be called the 'Bank of France,' and to issue notes guaranteed by the government and secured on the crown lands, exchangeable at sight for specie, and receivable in payment of taxes; the bank was to be conducted in the king's name, and to be managed by commissioners appointed by the States-General. The scheme of Law was based on principles which are now admitted as economical axioms; the danger lay in the enormous extent to which it was intended to push the scheme. … While the bank was in the hands of Law himself, it appears to have been managed with consummate skill; the notes bore some proportion to the amount of available specie; they contained a promise to pay in silver of the same standard and weight as that which existed at the time. A large dividend was declared; then the regent stepped in. The name of the bank was changed to that of the Royal Bank of France, the promise to pay in silver of a certain weight and standard was dropped, and a promise substituted to pay 'in silver coin.' This omission, on the part of a prince who had already resorted to the expedient of debasing the currency, was ominous, and did much to shake public confidence; the intelligence that in the first year of the new bank 1,000,000,000 of livres were fabricated, was not calculated to restore it. But these trifles were forgotten in the mad excitement which followed. Law had long been elaborating a scheme which is for ever associated with his name, and beside which the Bank of France sank into insignificance. In 1717, the year before the bank had been adopted by the regent, the billets d'état of 500 livres each were worth about 160 livres in the market. Law, with the assent of the regent, proposed to establish a company which should engross all the trade of the kingdom, and all the revenues of the crown, should carry on the business of merchants in every part of the world, and monopolize the farming of the taxes and the coining of money; the stock was to be divided into 200,000 shares of 500 livres each. The regent nearly marred the scheme at starting by inserting a proviso that the depreciated billets d'état were to be received at par in payment for the new stock, on which four per cent. was guaranteed by the State." Law's company was formed, under the name of the Company of the West, and obtained for the basis of its operations a monopoly of the trade of that vast territory of France in the valley of the Mississippi which bore the name of Louisiana. The same monopoly had been held for five years by one Crozat, who now resigned it because he found it unprofitable; but the fact received little attention.

"Louisiana was described as a paradise. … Shareholders in the company were told that they would enjoy the monopoly of trade throughout French North America, and the produce of a country rich in every kind of mineral wealth. Billets d'état were restored to their nominal value; stock in the Mississippi scheme was sold at fabulous prices; ingots of gold, which were declared to have come from the mines of St. Barbe, were taken with great pomp to the mint; 6,000 of the poor of Paris were sent out as miners, and provided with tools to work in the new diggings. New issues of shares were made; first 50,000, then 50,000 more; both at an enormous premium. The jobbers of the rue Quincampoix found ordinary language inadequate to express their delight: they invented a new slang for the occasion, and called the new shares 'les filles,' and, 'les petites filles,' respectively. Paris was divided between the 'Anti-system' party who opposed Law, and the Mississippians who supported him. The State borrowed from the company fifteen hundred millions; government paid its creditors in warrants on the company. To meet them, Law issued 100,000 new shares; which came out at a premium of 1,000 per cent. The Mississippians went mad with joy—they invented another new slang phrase; the 'cinq cents' eclipsed the filles and the petites filles in favour. The gates of Law's hotel had to be guarded by a detachment of archers; the cashiers were mobbed in their bureaux; applicants for shares sat in the ante-rooms; a select body slept for several nights on the stairs; gentlemen disguised themselves in Law's livery to obtain access to the great man. … By this time the charter of the company of Senegal had been merged in the bank, which also became sole farmer of the tobacco duties; the East India Company had been abolished, and the exclusive privilege of trading to the East Indies, China, and the South Seas, together with all the possessions of Colbert's company were transferred to Law. The bank now assumed the style of the Company of the Indies. Before the year [1719] was out the regent had transferred to it the exclusive privilege of the mint, and the contract of all the great farms. Almost every branch of industry in France, its trade, its revenue, its police, were now in the hands of Law. Every fresh privilege was followed by a new issue of shares. … The shares of 500 franks were now worth 10,000. The rue Quincampoix became impassable, and an army of stockjobbers camped in tents in the Place Vendome. … The excitement spread to England [where the South Sea Bubble was inflated by the madness of the hour].

… Law's system and the South Sea scheme both went down together. Both were calculated to last so long, and so long only, as universal confidence existed; when it began to be whispered that those in the secret were realizing their profits and getting out of the impending ruin, the whole edifice came down with a crash. … No sooner was it evident that the system was about to break down, than Law, the only man who could at least have mitigated the blow, was banished."

ALSO IN: C. Mackay, Memoirs of Extraordinary Popular Delusions, volume 1, chapter 1.

      Duke de Saint-Simon,
      Memoirs:
      abridged translation by St. John, volume 3, chapter 25,
      and volume 4, chapters 4, and 13-15.

FRANCE: A. D. 1723-1774.
   Character and reign of Louis XV.
   The King's mistresses and their courtiers
   who conducted the government.
   State and feeling of the nation.

After the death of the Duke of Orleans, "a short period of about two years and a-half comprehends the administration of the Duke of Bourbon, or rather of his mistress, la Marquise de Prie. Fleury [Cardinal] then appears on the stage, and dies in 1743. He was, therefore, minister of France for seventeen years. On his death, the king (Louis XV.) undertook to be his own prime minister; an unpromising experiment for a country at any time. In this instance the result was only that the king's mistress, Madame de Chateauroux, became the ruler of France, and soon after Madame de Pompadour, another mistress, whose reign was prolonged from 1745 to 1768. Different courtiers and prelates were seen to hold the first offices of the state during this apparent premiership of the monarch. The ladies seem to have chosen or tolerated Cardinal Tençin, Argençon, Orsy, Mauripaux, and Amelot, who, with the Dukes Noailles and Richelieu, succeeded to Fleury. Afterwards, we have Argençon and Machault, and then come the most celebrated of the ministers or favourites of Madame de Pompadour, the Abbé de Bemis and the Duc de Choiseul. The last is the most distinguished minister after Fleury. He continued in favour from 1758, not only to 1763, when Madame de Pompadour died, but for a few years after. He was at length disgraced by la Comtesse Dubarri, who had become the king's mistress soon after the death of Madame de Pompadour, and remained so, nearly to the death of the monarch himself, in 1774."

      W. Smyth,
      Lectures on the History of the French Revolution,
      lecture 3.

"The regency of the Duke of Orleans lasted only eight years, but it was not without a considerable effect upon the destinies of the country. It was a break in the political and the religious traditions of the reign of Louis XIV. The new activity imparted to business during this period was an event of equal importance. Nothing is more erroneous than to suppose that constantly increasing misery at last excited revolt against the government and the institutions of the old regime. The Revolution in France at the close of the eighteenth century was possible, not because the condition of the people had grown worse, but because it had become better. The material development of that country, during the fifty years that preceded the convocation of the States General, had no parallel in its past history. Neither the weight of taxation, nor the extravagance of the court, nor the bankruptcy of the government, checked an increase in wealth that made France in 1789 seem like a different land from France in 1715. The lot of large classes was still miserable, the burden of taxation upon a large part of the population was still grievous, there were sections where Arthur Young could truly say that he found only poverty and privileges, but the country as a whole was more prosperous than Germany or Spain; it was far more prosperous than it had been under Louis XIV. … {1249} Such an improvement in material conditions necessitated both social and political changes. … But while social conditions had altered, political institutions remained unchanged. New wine had been poured in, but the old bottles were still used. Tailles and corvées were no more severe in the eighteenth than in the fifteenth century, but they were more odious. A feudal privilege, which had then been accepted as a part of the law of nature, was now regarded as contrary to nature. … A demand for social equality, for the abolition of privileges and immunities by which any class profited at the expense of others, was fostered by economical changes. It received an additional impetus from the writings of theorists, philosophers, and political reformers. The influence of literature in France during the eighteenth century was important, yet it is possible to overestimate it. The seed of political and social change was shown by the writers of the period, but the soil was already prepared to receive it. … The course of events, the conduct of their rulers, prepared the minds of the French people for political change, and accounted for the influence which literature acquired. The doctrines of philosophers found easy access to the hearts of a people with whom reverence for royalty and a tranquil acceptance of an established government had been succeeded by contempt for the king and hatred for the regime under which they lived. We can trace this change of sentiment during the reign of Louis XV. The popular affection which encircled his cradle accompanied him when he had grown to be a man. … Few events are more noticeable in the history of the age than the extraordinary expressions of grief and affection that were excited by the illness of Louis XV. in 1744. … A preacher hailed him as Louis the well beloved, and all the nation adopted the title. 'What have I done to be so loved?' the king himself asked. Certainly he had done nothing, but the explanation was correctly given. 'Louis XV. is dear to his people, without having done anything for them, because the French are, of all nations, most inclined to love their king.' This affection, the result of centuries of fidelity and zeal for monarchical institutions, and for the sovereigns by whom they were personified, was wholly destroyed by Louis's subsequent career. The vices to which he became addicted were those which arouse feelings not only of reprehension, but of loathing. They excited both aversion and contempt. The administration of the country was as despicable as the character of the sovereign. Under Louis XIV. there had been suffering and there had been disaster, but France had always preserved a commanding position in Europe. … But now defeat and dishonor were the fate of a people alike powerful and proud. … The low profligacy into which the king had sunk, the nullity of his character, the turpitude of his mistress, the weakness of his administration, the failure of all his plans, went far toward destroying the feelings of loyalty that had so long existed in the hearts of the French people. Some curious figures mark the decline in the estimation in which the king was held. In 1744, six thousand masses were said at Nôtre Dame for the restoration of Louis XV. to health; in 1757, after the attempted assassination by Damiens, there were six hundred; when the king actually lay dying, in 1774, there were only three. The fall from six thousand to three measures the decline in the affection and respect of the French people for their sovereign. It was with a public whose sentiments had thus altered that the new philosophy found acceptance."

      ALSO IN:
      F. Rocquain,
      The Revolutionary Spirit preceding the French Revolution,
      chapters 2-8.

FRANCE: A. D. 1727-1731.
   Ineffectual congress at Soissons.
   The Treaty of Seville, with Spain and England.
   The Second Treaty of Vienna.

FRANCE: A. D. 1733.
The First Family Compact of the Bourbons (France and Spain).

"The two lines of the house of Bourbon [in France and in Spain] once more became in the highest degree prominent. … As early as November 1733 a Family Compact (the first of the series) was concluded between them, in which they contemplated the possibility of a war against England, but without waiting for it entered into an agreement against the maritime supremacy of that power. … The commercial privileges granted to the English in the Peace of Utrecht seemed to both courts to be intolerable."

   "It is hardly too much to say that the Family Compact of 1733,
   though even yet not generally known to exist, is the most
   important document of the middle period of the 18th century
   and the most indispensable to history. If that period seems to
   us confused, if we lose ourselves in the medley of its
   wars—war of the Polish election, war of Jenkins's ears, war
   of the Austrian succession, colonial war of 1756—the simple
   reason is that we do not know this treaty, which furnishes the
   clue. From it we may learn that in this period, as in that of
   Louis XIV. and in that of Napoleon, Europe struggled against
   the ambitious and deliberately laid design of an ascendant
   power, with this difference, that those aggressors were
   manifest to all the world and their aims not difficult to
   understand, whereas this aggression proceeded by ambuscade,
   and, being the aggression not of a single state but of an
   alliance, and a secret alliance, did not become clearly
   manifest to Europe even when it had to a considerable extent
   attained its objects. … The first two articles define the
   nature of the alliance, that it involves a mutual guarantee of
   all possessions, and has for its object, first, the honour,
   glory, and interests of both powers, and, secondly, their
   defence against all damage, vexation, and prejudice that may
   threaten them." The first declared object of the Compact is to
   secure the position of Don Carlos, the Infant of Spain,
   afterwards Charles III., in Italy, and "to obtain for him the
   succession in Tuscany, protecting him against any attack that
   may be attempted by the Emperor or by England. Next, France
   undertakes to 'aid Spain with all her forces by land or sea,
   if Spain should suspend England's enjoyment of commerce and
   her other advantages, and England out of revenge should resort
   to hostilities and insults in the dominions and states of the
   crown of Spain, whether within or outside of Europe.'"
{1250}
   Further articles provide for the making of efforts to induce
   Great Britain to restore Gibraltar to Spain; set forth "that
   the foreign policy of both states is to be guided exclusively
   by the interests of the house"; denounce the Austrian
   Pragmatic as "opposed to the security of the house of
   Bourbon." "The King of France engages to send 32,000 infantry
   and 8,000 cavalry into Italy, and to maintain other armies on
   his other frontiers; also to have a squadron ready at Toulon,
   either to join the Spanish fleet or to act separately, and
   another squadron at Brest, 'to keep the English in fear and
   jealousy'; also, in case of war with England breaking out, to
   commission the largest possible number of privateers. Spain
   also promises a fixed number of troops. The 11th and 12th
   articles lay the foundation of a close commercial alliance to
   be formed between France and Spain. Article 13 runs as
   follows:—'His Catholic majesty, recognising all the abuses
   which have been introduced into commerce, chiefly by the
   British nation, in the eradication of which the French and
   Spanish nations are equally interested, has determined to
   bring everything back within rule and into agreement with the
   letter of treaties'"—to which end the two kings make common
   cause. "Finally the 14th article provides that the present
   treaty shall remain profoundly secret as long as the
   contracting parties shall judge it agreeable to their
   interests, and shall be regarded from this day as an eternal
   and irrevocable Family Compact. … Here is the explanation of
   the war which furnished the immediate occasion of the first
   Compact, a war most misleadingly named from the Polish
   election which afforded an ostensible pretext for it, and
   deserving better to be called the Bourbon invasion of Italy.
   Here too is sketched out the course which was afterwards taken
   by the Bourbon courts in the matter of the Pragmatic Sanction.
   Thirdly, here most manifestly is the explanation of that war
   of Jenkins's ears, which we have a habit of representing as
   forced upon Spain by English commercial cupidity, but which
   appears here as deliberately planned in concert by the Bourbon
   courts in order to eradicate the 'abuses which have been
   allowed to creep into trade.'"

      J. R. Seeley,
      The House of Bourbon
      (English History Review, January, 1886).

      ALSO IN:
      J. McCarthy,
      History of the Four Georges,
      chapter 22 (volume 2).

FRANCE: A. D. 1733-1735.
   War with Austria, in Germany and Italy.
   Final acquisition of Lorraine.
   Naples and Sicily transferred to Spain.

In the war with Austria which was brought about by the question of the Polish succession (see POLAND: A. D. 1732-1733), the French "struck at the Rhine and at Italy, while the other powers looked on unmoved; Spain watching her moment, at which she might safely interfere for her own interests in Italy. The army of the Rhine, which reached Strasburg in autumn 1733, was commanded by Marshal Berwick, who had been called away from eight years of happy and charming leisure at Fitz-James. With him served for the first time in the French army their one great general of the coming age, and he too a foreigner, Maurice, son of Augustus II. of Poland and the lovely Countess of Königsmark. … He is best known to us as Marshal Saxe. It was too late to accomplish much in 1733, and the French had to content themselves with the capture of Kehl: in the winter the Imperialists constructed strong lines at Ettlingen, a little place not far from Carlsruhe, between Kehl, which the French held, and Philipsburg, at which they were aiming. In the spring of 1734 French preparations were slow and feeble: a new power had sprung up at Paris in the person of Belle-Isle, Fouquet's grandson, who had much of the persuasive ambition of his grandfather. He was full of schemes, and induced the aged Fleury to believe him to be the coming genius of French generalship; the careful views of Marshal Berwick suited ill his soaring spirit; he wanted to march headlong into Saxony and Bohemia. Berwick would not allow so reckless a scheme to be adopted; still Belle-Isle, as lieutenant-general with an almost independent command, was sent to besiege Trarbach on the Moselle, an operation which delayed the French advance on the Rhine. At last, however, Berwick moved forwards. By skilful arrangements he neutralised the Ettlingen lines, and without a battle forced the Germans to abandon them. Their army withdrew to Heilbronn, where it was joined by Prince Eugene. Berwick, freed from their immediate presence, and having a great preponderance in force, at once sat down before Philipsburg. There, on the 12th of June, as he visited the trenches, he was struck by a ball and fell dead. So passed away the last but one of the great generals of Louis XIV.: France never again saw his like till the genius of the Revolution evoked a new race of heroes. It was thought at first that Berwick's death, like Turenne's, would end the campaign, and that the French army must get back across the Rhine. The position seemed critical, Philipsburg in front, and Prince Eugene watching without. The Princes of the Empire, however, had not put out any strength in this war, regarding it chiefly as an Austrian affair; and the Marquis d'Asfeld, who took the command of the French forces, was able to hold on, and in July to reduce the great fortress of Philipsburg. Therewith the campaign of the Rhine closed. In Italy things had been carried on with more vigour and variety. The veteran Villars, now 81 years old, was in command, under Charles-Emmanuel, King of Sardinia. … Villars found it quite easy to occupy all the Milanese: farther he could not go; for Charles-Emmanuel, after the manner of his family, at once began to deal behind his back with the Imperialists and the campaign dragged. The old Marshal, little brooking interference and delay, for he still was full of fire, threw up his command, and started for France: on the way he was seized with illness at Turin, and died there five days after Berwick had been killed at Philipsburg. With them the long series of the generals of Louis XIV. comes to an end. Coigny and the Duke de Broglie succeeded to the command. Not far from Parma they fought a murderous battle with the Austrians, hotly contested, and a Cadmean victory for the French: it arrested their forward movement, and two months were spent in enforced idleness. In September 1734 the Imperialists inflicted a heavy check on the French at the Secchia; afterwards however emboldened by this success, they fought a pitched battle at Guastalla, in which, after a fierce struggle, the French remained masters of the field. Their losses, the advanced time of the year, and the uncertainty as to the King of Sardinia's movements and intentions, rendered the rest of the campaign unimportant. {1251} As however the Imperialists, in order to make head against the French in the valley of the Po, had drawn all their available force out of the Neapolitan territory, the Spaniards were able to slip in behind them, and to secure that great prize. Don Carlos landed at Naples and was received with transports of joy: the Austrians were defeated at Bitonto; the Spaniards then crossed into Sicily, which also welcomed them gladly; the two kingdoms passed willingly under the rule of the Spaniards. In 1735 Austria made advances in the direction of peace; for the French had stirred up their old friend the Turk, who, in order to save Poland, proposed to invade Hungary. Fleury, no lover of war, and aware that England's neutrality could not last forever, was not unwilling to treat: a Congress at Vienna followed, and before the end of 1735 peace again reigned in Europe. The terms of the Treaty of Vienna (3 October 1735) were very favourable to France. Austria ceded Naples and Sicily, Elba, and the States degli Presidii to Spain, to be erected into a separate kingdom for Don Carlos: France obtained Lorraine and Bar, which were given to Stanislaus Leczinski on condition that he should renounce all claim to the Polish Crown; they were to be governed by him under French administration: Francis Stephen the former Duke obtained, as an indemnity, the reversion of Tuscany, which fell to him in the following year. Parma and Piacenza returned to the Emperor, who also obtained from France a guarantee of the Pragmatic Sanction. Thus France at last got firm hold of the much-desired Lorraine country, though it was not absolutely united to her till the death of Stanislaus in 1766."

FRANCE: A. D. 1738-1740.
The Question of the Austrian Succession.
Guarantee of the Pragmatic Sanction.

FRANCE: A. D. 1740-1741.
   Beginning of the War of the Austrian Succession.
   Seizure of Silesia by Frederick the Great.
   French responsibility for the war.

"France and Spain signed a secret treaty of perpetual alliance at Fontainebleau, October 25th, 1743. The treaty is remarkable as the precursor of the celebrated Family Compact between the French and Spanish Bourbons. The Spaniards, indeed, call it the Second Family Compact, the first being the Treaty of November 7th, 1733, of which, with regard to colonial affairs, it was a renewal. But this treaty had a more special reference to Italy. Louis XV. engaged to declare war against Sardinia, and to aid Spain in conquering the Milanese. Philip V. transferred his claims to that duchy to his son, the Infant Don Philip, who was also to be put in possession of Parma and Piacenza. All the possessions ceded by France to the King of Sardinia, by the Treaty of Utrecht, were to be again wrested from him. A public alliance was to be formed, to which the Emperor Charles VII. was to accede; whose states, and even something more, were to be recovered for him. Under certain circumstances war was to be declared against England; in which case France was to assist in the recovery of Gibraltar, and also, if possible, of Minorca. The new colony of Georgia was to be destroyed, the Asiento withdrawn from England, &c."

A. D. 1741-1747.
War of the Austrian Succession in Italy,
Germany and the Netherlands.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1744, to 1746-1747;
      AUSTRIA: A. D. 1743-1744;
      and NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1745, and 1746-1747.

FRANCE: A. D. 1748 (October).
Termination and results of the War of the Austrian Succession.

FRANCE: A. D. 1748-1754.
Active measures in America to fortify possession of the Ohio
valley and the West.

FRANCE: A. D. 1749-1755.
   Unsettled boundary disputes in America.
   Preludes of the last contest with England for dominion in the
   New World.

      See NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1749-1755;
      CANADA: A. D. 1750-1753;
      OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1754.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1750-1753, to 1760;
      NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1749-1755, and 1755;
      OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754, 1754, and 1755;
      CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1758-1760.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1757 (JULY-DECEMBER),
to 1759 (APRIL-AUGUST); 1760; and 1761-1762.

FRANCE: A. D. 1758-1761.
The Seven Years War: Loss of footing and influence in India.
Count Lally's failure.

   "On the 15th of August [1761] … Grimaldi [Spanish ambassador
   at the French court] and Choiseul [the ruling minister, at the
   time, in France] signed the celebrated Family Compact. By this
   treaty the Kings of France and Spain agreed for the future to
   consider every Power as their enemy which might become the
   enemy of either, and to guarantee the respective dominions in
   all parts of the world which they might possess at the next
   conclusion of peace. Mutual succours by sea and land were
   stipulated, and no proposal of peace to their common enemies
   was to be made, nor negotiation entered upon, unless by common
   consent. The subjects of each residing in the European
   dominions of the other were to enjoy the same commercial
   privileges as the natives.
{1252}
   Moreover, the King of Spain stipulated the accession of his
   son, the King of Naples, to this alliance; but it was agreed
   that no prince or potentate, except of the House of Bourbon,
   should ever be admitted to its participation. Besides this
   treaty, which in its words at least applied only to future and
   contingent wars, and which was intended to be ultimately
   published, there was also signed on the same day a special and
   secret convention. This imported, that in case England and
   France should still be engaged in hostilities on the 1st of
   May 1762 Spain should on that day declare war against England,
   and that France should at the same period restore Minorca to
   Spain. … Not only the terms but the existence of a Family
   Compact were for some time kept scrupulously secret. Mr.
   Stanley, however, gleaned some information from the scattered
   hints of the Duke de Choiseul, and these were confirmed to
   Pitt from several other quarters." As the result of the Family
   Compact, England declared war against Spain on the 4th of
   January, 1762. Pitt had gone out of office in October because
   his colleagues and the King would not then consent to a
   declaration of war against the Spanish Bourbons.

      Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
      History of England, 1713-1783,
      chapter 37 (volume 4).

FRANCE: A. D. 1761-1764.
Proceedings against the Jesuits.
Their expulsion from the kingdom.

FRANCE: A. D. 1763.
   The end and results of the Seven Years War.
   The Peace of Paris.
   America lost, nothing gained.

FRANCE: A. D. 1763.
Rights in the North American fisheries secured by the Treaty
of Paris.

FRANCE: A. D. 1774-1788.
   The Court and Government of Louis XV!., his inheritance of
   troubles, his vacillations, his helpless ministers.
   Turgot, Necker, Calonne, Brienne.
   Blind selfishness of the privileged orders.
   The Assembly of Notables.
   The Parliament of Paris.

"Louis XVI., an equitable prince, moderate in his propensities, carelessly educated, but naturally of a good disposition, ascended the throne [May 11, 1774] at a very early age. He called to his side an old courtier, and consigned to him the care of his kingdom; and divided his confidence between Maurepas and the Queen, an Austrian princess [Marie Antoinette], young, lively, and amiable, who possessed a complete ascendency over him. Maurepas and the Queen were not good friends. The King, sometimes giving way to his minister, at others to his consort, began at an early period the long career of his vacillations. … The public voice, which was loudly expressed, called for Turgot, one of the class of economists, an honest, virtuous man, endowed with firmness of character, a slow genius, but obstinate and profound. Convinced of his probity, delighted with his plans of reform, Louis XVI. frequently repeated: 'There are none besides myself and Turgot who are friends of the people.' Turgot's reforms were thwarted by the opposition of the highest orders in the state, who were interested in maintaining all kinds of abuses, which the austere minister proposed to suppress. Louis XVI. dismissed him [1776] with regret. During his whole life, which was only a long martyrdom, he had the mortification to discern what was right, to wish it sincerely, but to lack the energy requisite for carrying it into execution. The King, placed between the court, the parliaments, and the people, exposed to intrigues and to suggestions of all sorts, repeatedly changed his ministers. Yielding once more to the public voice, and to the necessity for reform, he summoned to the finance department Necker, a native of Geneva, who had amassed wealth as a banker, a partisan and disciple of Colbert, as Turgot was of Sully; an economical and upright financier, but a vain man, fond of setting himself up for arbitrator in everything. … Necker re-established order in the finances, and found means to defray the heavy expenses of the American war. … But it required something more than financial artifices to put an end to the embarrassments of the exchequer, and he had recourse to reform. He found the higher orders not less adverse to him than they had been to Turgot; the parliaments, apprised of his plans, combined against him, and obliged him to retire [1781]. The conviction of the existence of abuses was universal; everybody admitted it. … The courtiers, who derived advantage from these abuses, would have been glad to see an end put to the embarrassments of the exchequer, but without its costing them a single sacrifice. … The parliaments also talked of the interests of the people, loudly insisted on the sufferings of the poor, and yet opposed the equalization of the taxes, as well as the abolition of the remains of feudal barbarism. All talked of the public weal, few desired it; and the people, not yet knowing who were its true friends, applauded all those who resisted power, its most obvious enemy. By the removal of Turgot and Necker, the state of affairs was not changed: the distress of the treasury remained the same. … An intrigue brought forward M. de Calonne [in 1783, after brief careers in office of M. de Fleury and M. d'Ormesson]. … Calonne, clever, brilliant, fertile in resources, relied upon his genius, upon fortune, and upon men, and awaited the future with the most extraordinary apathy. … That future which had been counted upon now approached: it became necessary at length to adopt decisive measures. It was impossible to burden the people with fresh imposts, and yet the coffers were empty. There was but one remedy which could be applied; that was to reduce the expenses by the suppression of grants; and if this expedient should not suffice, to extend the taxes to a greater number of contributors, that is, to the nobility and clergy. These plans, attempted successively by Turgot and Necker, and resumed by Calonne, appeared to the latter not at all likely to succeed, unless the consent of the privileged classes themselves could be obtained. Calonne, therefore, proposed to collect them together in an assembly, to be called the Assembly of the Notables, in order to lay his plans before them, and to gain their consent either by address or by conviction. The assembly [which met February 22, 1787] was composed of distinguished members of the nobility, clergy, and magistracy, of a great number of masters of requests and some magistrates of the provinces. … Very warm discussions ensued." The Notables at length "promised to sanction the plans of Calonne, but on condition that a minister more moral and more deserving of confidence should be appointed to carry them into execution." {1253} Calonne, consequently, was dismissed, and replaced by M. de Brienne, Archbishop of Toulouse. "The Notables, bound by the promises which they had made, readily consented to all that they had at first refused: land-tax, stamp-duty, suppression of the gratuitous services of vassals ('corvées'), provincial assemblies, were all cheerfully granted. … Had M. de Brienne known how to profit by the advantages of his position; had he actively proceeded with the execution of the measures assented to by the Notables; had he submitted them all at once and without delay to the parliament, at the instant when the adhesion of the higher orders seemed to be wrung from them—all would probably have been over; the parliament, pressed on all sides, would have consented to everything. … Nothing of the kind, however, was done. By imprudent delays occasion was furnished for relapses; the edicts were submitted only one after another; the parliament had time to discuss, to gain courage, and to recover from the sort of surprise by which the Notables had been taken. It registered, after long discussions, the edict enacting the second abolition of the 'corvées,' and another permitting the free exportation of corn. Its animosity was particularly directed against the land-tax; but it feared lest by a refusal it should enlighten the public, and show that its opposition was entirely selfish. It hesitated, when it was spared this embarrassment by the simultaneous presentation of the edict on the stamp-duty and the land-tax, and especially by opening the deliberations with the former. The parliament had thus an opportunity of refusing the first without entering into explanations respecting the second; and, in attacking the stamp-duty, which affected the majority of the payers of taxes, it seemed to defend the interest of the public. At a sitting which was attended by the peers, it denounced the abuses, the profligacy, and the prodigality of the court, and demanded statements of expenditure. A councillor, punning upon the 'états' (statements) exclaimed … —'It is not statements, but States-General that we want.' … The utterance of a single word presented an unexpected direction to the public mind: it was repeated by every mouth, and States-General were loudly demanded."

A. Thiers, History of the French Revolution (American edition), volume 1, pages 17-21.

"There is no doubt that the French administrative body, at the time when Louis XVI. began to reign, was corrupt and self-seeking. In the management of the finances and of the army, illegitimate profits were made. But this was not the worst evil from which the public service was suffering. France was in fact governed by what in modern times is called 'a ring.' The members of such an organization pretend to serve the sovereign, or the public, and in some measure actually do so; but their rewards are determined by intrigue and favor, and are entirely disproportionate to their services. They generally prefer jobbery to direct stealing, and will spend a million of the state's money in a needless undertaking, in order to divert a few thousands into their own pockets. They hold together against all the world, while trying to circumvent each other. Such a ring in old France was the court. By such a ring will every country be governed, where the sovereign who possesses the political power is weak in moral character or careless of the public interest; whether that sovereign be a monarch, a chamber, or the mass of the people. Louis XVI., king of France and of Navarre, was more dull than stupid, and weaker in will than in intellect. … He was … thoroughly conscientious, and had a high sense of the responsibility of his great calling. He was not indolent, although heavy, and his courage, which was sorely tested, was never broken. With these virtues he might have made a good king, had he possessed firmness of will enough to support a good minister, or to adhere to a good policy. But such strength had not been given him. Totally incapable of standing by himself, he leant successively, or simultaneously, on his aunt, his wife, his ministers, his courtiers, as ready to change his policy as his adviser. Yet it was part of his weakness to be unwilling to believe himself under the guidance of any particular person; he set a high value on his own authority, and was inordinately jealous of it. No one, therefore, could acquire a permanent influence. Thus a well-meaning man became the worst of sovereigns. … Louis XV. had been led by his mistresses; Louis XVI. was turned about by the last person who happened to speak to him. The courtiers, in their turn, were swayed by their feelings, or their interests. They formed parties and combinations, and intrigued for or against each other. They made bargains, they gave and took bribes. In all these intrigues, bribes, and bargains, the court ladies had a great share. They were as corrupt as the men, and as frivolous. It is probable that in no government did women ever exercise so great an influence. The factions into which the court was divided tended to group themselves round certain rich and influential families. Such were the Noailles, an ambitious and powerful house, with which Lafayette was connected by marriage; the Broglies, one of whom had held the thread of the secret diplomacy which Louis XV. had carried on behind the backs of his acknowledged ministers; the Polignacs, new people, creatures of Queen Marie Antoinette; the Rohans, through the influence of whose great name an unworthy member of the family was to rise to high dignity in the church and the state, and then to cast a deep shadow on the darkening popularity of that ill-starred princess. Such families as these formed an upper class among nobles. … It is not easy, in looking at the French government in the eighteenth century, to decide where the working administration ended, and where the useless court that answered no real purpose began. … There was the department of hunting and that of buildings, a separate one for royal journeys, one for the guard, another for police, yet another for ceremonies. There were five hundred officers 'of the mouth,' table-bearers distinct from chair-bearers. There were tradesmen, from apothecaries and armorers at one end of the list to saddle-makers, tailors and violinists at the other. … The military and civil households of the king and of the royal family are said to have consisted of about fifteen thousand souls, and to have cost forty-five million francs per annum. The holders of many of the places served but three months apiece out of every year, so that four officers and four salaries were required, instead of one. With such a system as this we cannot wonder that the men who administered the French government were generally incapable and self-seeking. Most of them were politicians rather than administrators, and cared more for their places than for their country. Of the few conscientious and patriotic men who obtained power, the greater number lost it very speedily."

      ALSO IN:
      F. Rocquain,
      The Revolutionary Spirit preceding the French Revolution,
      chapters 9-11.

      Mme. de Stael,
      Considerations on the Principal Events
      of the French Revolution,
      chapters 3-10 (volume 1).

      J. Necker,
      On the French Revolution,
      part. 1, section 1 (volume 1).

FRANCE: A. D. 1782.
Disastrous naval defeat by Rodney.
Unsuccessful siege of Gibraltar.

FRANCE: A. D. 1782.
   The negotiation of Peace between Great Britain and the United
   States of America.
   Dissatisfaction of the French minister.

The chief actor in the affair of the diamond necklace, which caused a great scandal and smirched the queen's name, was an adventuress who called herself the Comtesse de Lamotte, and claimed descent from Henry II., but who had been half servant, half companion, to a lady of quality, and had picked up a useful acquaintance with the manners and the gossip of court society. "Madame de Lamotte's original patroness had a visiting acquaintance with the Cardinal Prince Louis de Rohan, and in her company her protégée learned to know him also. Prince Louis, who had helped to receive Marie Antoinette at Strasburg, had been the French ambassador at Vienna, where he had disgusted and incensed Maria Theresa by his worldliness, profligacy, and arrogance. She had at last procured his withdrawal, and her letters expressing a positive terror lest he should come near Marie Antoinette and acquire an influence over her, were not without their effect. He was not allowed to appear at Court, and for ten long years fretted and fumed under a sense of the royal displeasure. … He was now a man bordering on fifty, grey-headed, rosy, 'pursy,' with nothing save his blue blood and the great offices which he disgraced to recommend him. Madame de Lamotte, hovering about Paris and Versailles, where she had lodgings in La Belle Inage, tried to make her own of backstairs gossip, and picked up a hint or two. Suddenly a great idea struck her, founded on the history of a magnificent necklace dangled before bright eyes, over which many an excitable imagination gloated. The Queen had a court jeweller, Bœhmer, who had formerly been jeweller to the King of Saxony at Dresden. … For a period of years he had been collecting and assorting the stones which should form an incomparable necklace, in row upon row, pendants and tassels of lustrous diamonds, till the price reached the royal pitch of from eighty to ninety thousand pounds English money. This costly 'collar,' according to rumour, was … meant, in the beginning, for the Comtesse du Barry. In the end, it … was offered with confidence to the Queen. … She declined to buy—she had enough diamonds. … There was nothing for it but that Bœhmer should 'hawk' his necklace in every Court of Europe, without success, till the German declared himself ruined, and passionately protested that, if the Queen would not buy the diamonds, there was no resource for him save to throw himself into the Seine. But there was a resource, unhappily for Bœhmer, unhappily for all concerned, most so for the poor Queen. Madame de Lamotte, in keeping up her acquaintance with Prince Louis de Rohan, began to hint darkly that there might be ways of winning the royal favour. She threw out cunning words about the degree of importance and trust to which she had attained in the highest quarters at Versailles; about the emptiness of the Queen's exchequer, with consequent difficulties in the discharge of her charities; about the secret royal desire for the famous necklace, which the King would not enable Marie Antoinette to obtain. The blinded and besotted Cardinal drank in these insinuations. The black art was called in to deepen his convictions. In an age when many men, especially many churchmen, believed in nothing, in spite of their professions, naturally they were given over to believe a lie. Cagliostro, astrologer and modern magician, was flourishing in Paris, and by circles and signs he promised the priest, De Rohan, progress in the only suit he had at heart. Still the dupe was not so infatuated as to require no proof of the validity of these momentous implications, and proof was not wanting; notes were handed to him, to be afterwards shown to Bœhmer, graciously acknowledging his devotion, and authorising him to buy for the Queen the diamond necklace. These notes were apparently written in the Queen's hand (that school-girl's scrawl of which Maria Theresa was wont to complain); but they were signed 'Marie Antoinette de France,' a signature which so great a man as the Cardinal ought to have known was never employed by the Queen, for the very good reason that the termination 'de France' belonged to the children and not to the wife of the sovereign. Even a further assurance that all was right was granted. The Cardinal, trembling in a fever of hope and expectation, was told that a private interview with the Queen would be vouchsafed to him at midnight in the Park of Versailles. At the appointed hour, on the night of the 28th of July, 1784, De Rohan, in a blue greatcoat and slouched hat, was stationed, amidst shrouding, sultry darkness, in the neighbourhood of the palace. Madame de Lamotte, in a black domino, hovered near to give the signal of the Queen's approach. The whisper was given, 'In the Hornbeam Arbour,' and the Cardinal hurried to the spot, where he could dimly descry a tall lady in white, with chestnut hair, blue eyes, and a commanding air, if he could really have seen all these well-known attributes. He knelt, but before he could do more than mutter a word of homage and gratitude, the black domino was at his side again with another vehement whisper, 'On vient' (They come). {1255} The lady in white dropped a rose, with the significant words, 'Vous savez ce que cela veut dire' (You know what that means), and vanished before the 'Vite, vite' ('Quick, quick ') of the black domino, for the sound of approaching footsteps was supposed to indicate the approach of Madame and the Comtesse d'Artois, and the Cardinal, in his turn, had to flee from detection. What more could be required to convince a man of the good faith of the lady. … Bœhmer received a hint that he might sell his necklace, through the Prince Cardinal Louis de Rohan, to one of the great ones of the earth, who was to remain in obscurity. The jeweller drew out his terms—sixteen hundred thousand livres, to be paid in five equal instalments over a year and a-half—to which he and Prince Louis affixed their signatures. This paper Madame de Lamotte carried to Versailles, and brought it back with the words written on the margin, 'Bon Marie Antoinette de France.' In the meantime, Bœhmer, the better to keep the secret, gave out that he had sold the necklace to the Grand Turk for his favourite Sultana. The necklace was, in fact, delivered to Prince Louis and by him entrusted to Madame Lamotte, from whose hands it passed —not into the Queen's. Having been taken to pieces, it was sent in all haste out of the kingdom, while the Cardinal, according to his own account, was still played with. … It goes without saying that no payment, except a small offer of interest on the thirty thousand, was forthcoming. The Cardinal and Bœhmer were betrayed into wrath, dismay, and despair. Bœhmer took it upon him to apply, in respectful terms, to her Majesty for payment; and when she said the whole thing was a mistake, the man must be mad, and caused her words to be written to him, he sought an interview with Madame Campan, the first woman of the bedchamber, at her house at Crespy, where he had been dining, and in the gardens there, in the middle of a thunder-shower, astounded her with his version of the story. … The Cardinal was taken to the Bastille. More arrests followed, including those of Madame de Lamotte, staying quietly in her house at Bar-sur-Aube, and the girl Gay d'Oliva, an unhappy girl, tall and fair haired, taken from the streets of Paris, and brought to the park of Versailles to personate the Queen. It was said the Queen wept passionately over the scandal—well she might. The court in which the case was tried might prove the forgery, as in fact it did, though not in the way she expected; but every Court in Europe would ring with the story, and she had made deadly enemies, if not of the Church itself, of the great houses of De Rohan, De Soubise, De Guéménée, De Marsan, and their multitude of allies. The process lasted nine months, and every exertion was made for the deliverance of the princely culprit. … The result of the trial was that, though the Queen's signature was declared false, Madame de Lamotte was sentenced to be whipped, branded, and imprisoned for life, her husband was condemned to the galleys, and a man called Villette de Retaux, who was the actual fabricator of the Queen's handwriting, was sentenced to be banished for life. The Cardinal Prince Louis de Rohan was fully acquitted, with permission to publish what defence he chose to write of his conduct. When he left the court, he was escorted by great crowds, hurrahing over his acquittal, because it was supposed to cover the Court with mortification."

      ALSO IN:
      T. Carlyle,
      The Diamond Necklace
      (Critical and Miscellaneous Essays, volume 5).

FRANCE: A. D. 1787-1789.
   Struggle of the Crown with the Parliament of Paris.
   The demand for a meeting of the States-General yielded to.
   Double representation of the Third Estate conceded.
   The make-up of the States-General as elected by the three
   Estates.

Banished to Troyes (August, 1787), in consequence of its refusal to register two edicts relating to the stamp-duty and the land-tax, the Parliament of Paris "grew weary of exile, and the minister recalled it on condition that the two edicts should be passed. But this was only a suspension of hostilities; the necessities of the crown soon rendered the struggle more obstinate and violent. The minister had to make fresh applications for money; his existence depended on the issue of several successive loans to the amount of 440,000,000. It was necessary to obtain the enrolment of them. Brienne, expecting opposition from the parliament, procured the enrolment of this edict, by a 'bed of justice,' and to conciliate the magistracy and public opinion, the protestants were restored to their rights in the same sitting, and Louis XVI. promised an annual publication of the state of finances, and the convocation of the states-general before the end of five years. But these concessions were no longer sufficient: parliament refused the enrolment, and rose against the ministerial tyranny. Some of its members, among others the duke of Orleans, were banished. Parliament protested by a decree against 'lettres de cachet,' and required the recall of its members. This decree was annulled by the king, and confirmed by parliament. The warfare increased. The magistracy of Paris was supported by all the magistracy of France, and encouraged by public opinion. It proclaimed the rights of the nation, and its own incompetence in matters of taxation; and, become liberal from interest, and rendered generous by oppression, it exclaimed against arbitrary imprisonment, and demanded regularly convoked states-general. After this act of courage, it decreed the irremovability of its members, and the incompetence of any who might usurp their functions. This bold manifesto was followed by the arrest of two members, d'Eprémenil and Goislard, by the reform of the body, and the establishment of a plenary court. Brienne understood that the opposition of the parliament was systematic, that it would be renewed on every fresh demand for subsidies, or on the authorization of every loan. Exile was but a momentary remedy, which suspended opposition, without destroying it. He then projected the reduction of this body to judicial functions. … All the magistracy of France was exiled on the same day, in order that the new judicial organization might take place. The keeper of the seals deprived the Parliament of Paris of its political attributes, to invest with them a plenary court, ministerially composed, and reduced its judicial competence in favour of bailiwicks, the jurisdiction of which he extended. Public opinion was indignant; the Châtelet protested, the provinces rose, and the plenary court could neither be formed nor act. Disturbances broke out in Dauphiné, Brittany, Provence, Flanders, Languédoc, and Béarn; the ministry, instead of the regular opposition of parliament, had to encounter one much more animated and factious. {1256} The nobility, the third estate, the provincial states, and even the clergy, took part in it. Brienne, pressed for money, had called together an extraordinary assembly of the clergy, who immediately made an address to the king, demanding the abolition of his plenary court, and the recall of the states-general: they alone could thenceforth repair the disordered state of the finances, secure the national debt, and terminate these disputes for power. … Obtaining neither taxes nor loans, unable to make use of the plenary court, and not wishing to recall the parliaments, Brienne, as a last resource, promised the convocation of the states-general. By this means he hastened his ruin. … He succumbed on the 25th August, 1788. The cause of his fall was a suspension of the payment of the interest on the debt, which was the commencement of bankruptcy. This minister has been the most blamed because he came last. Inheriting the faults, the embarrassments of past times, he had to struggle with the difficulties of his position with inefficient means. He tried intrigue and oppression; he banished, suspended, disorganized parliament; everything was an obstacle to him, nothing aided him. After a long struggle, he sank under lassitude and weakness; I dare not say from incapacity, for had he been far stronger and more skilful, had he been a Richelieu or a Sully, he would still have fallen. It no longer appertained to anyone arbitrarily to raise money or to oppress the people. … The states-general had become the only means of government, and the last resource of the throne. They had been eagerly demanded by parliament and the peers of the kingdom, on the 13th of July, 1787; by the states of Dauphiné, in the assembly of Vizille; by the clergy in its assembly at Paris. The provincial states had prepared the public mind for them; and the notables were their precursors. The king after having, on the 18th of December, 1787, promised their convocation in five years, on the 8th of August, 1788, fixed the opening for the 1st of May, 1789. Necker was recalled, parliament re-established, the plenary court abolished, the bailiwicks destroyed, and the provinces satisfied; and the new minister prepared everything for the election of deputies and the holding of the states. At this epoch a great change took place in the opposition, which till then had been unanimous. Under Brienne, the ministry had encountered opposition from all the various bodies of the state, because it had sought to oppress them. Under Necker, it met with resistance from the same bodies, which desired power for themselves and oppression for the people. From being despotic, it had become national, and it still had them all equally against it. Parliament had maintained a struggle for authority, and not for the public welfare; and the nobility had united with the third estate, rather against the government than in favour of the people. Each of these bodies had demanded the states-general: the parliament, in the hope of ruling them as it had done in 1614; and the nobility, in the hope of regaining its lost influence. Accordingly, the magistracy proposed as a model for the states-general of 1789, the form of that of 1614, and public opinion abandoned it; the nobility refused its consent to the double representation of the third estate, and a division broke out between these two orders. This double representation was required by the intellect of the age, the necessity of reform, and by the importance which the third estate had acquired. It had already been admitted into the the provincial assemblies. … Opinion became daily more decided, and Necker wishing, yet fearing, to satisfy it, and desirous of conciliating all orders, of obtaining general approbation, convoked a second assembly of notables on the 6th of November, 1788, to deliberate on the composition of the states-general, and the election of its members. … Necker, having been unable to make the notables adopt the [double] representation of the third estate, caused it to be adopted by the council. The royal declaration of the 27th of November decreed, that the deputies in the states-general should amount to at least a thousand, and that the deputies of the third estate should be equal in number to the deputies of the nobility and clergy together. Necker moreover obtained the admission of the curés into the order of the clergy, and of protestants into that of the third estate. The district assemblies were convoked for the elections; every one exerted himself to secure the nomination of members of his own party, and to draw up manifestoes setting forth his views. Parliament had but little influence in the elections, and the court none at all. The nobility selected a few popular deputies, but for the most part devoted to the interests of their order, and as much opposed to the third estate as to the oligarchy of the great families of the court. The clergy nominated bishops and abbés attached to privilege, and cures favourable to the popular cause, which was their own; lastly, the third estate selected men enlightened, firm and unanimous in their wishes. The deputation of the nobility was comprised of 242 gentlemen, and 28 members of the parliament; that of the clergy, of 48 archbishops or bishops, 35 abbés or deans, and 208 curés; and that of the communes, of two ecclesiastics, 12 noblemen, 18 magistrates of towns, 200 county members, 212 barristers, 16 physicians, and 216 merchants and agriculturists. The opening of the states-general was fixed for the 5th of May, 1789."

      ALSO IN:
      W. Smyth,
      Lectures on the History of the French Revolution,
      lecture 6 (volume 1).

FRANCE: A. D. 1789.
   The condition of the people on the eve of the great
   Revolution.
   The sources and causes of its destructive fury.

"In 1789 three classes of persons, the Clergy, the Nobles, and the King occupied the most prominent position in the State, with all the advantages which it comports; namely, authority, property, honors, or, at the very least, privileges, immunities, favors, pensions, preferences, and the like. … The privileged classes number about 270,000 persons, comprising of the nobility 140,000 and of the clergy 130,000. This makes from 25,000 to 30,000 noble families; 23,000 monks in 2,500 monasteries, and 37,000 nuns in 1,500 convents, and 60,000 curates and vicars in as many churches and chapels. Should the reader desire a more distinct impression of them, he may imagine on each square league of territory, and to each thousand of inhabitants, one noble family in its weathercock mansion, in each village a curate and his church, and, every six or seven leagues, a conventual body of men or of women. … {1257} A fifth of the soil belongs to the crown and the communes, a fifth to the third estate, a fifth to the rural population, a fifth to the nobles and a fifth to the clergy. Accordingly, if we deduct the public lands, the privileged classes own one half of the kingdom. This large portion, moreover, is at the same time the richest, for it comprises almost all the large and handsome buildings, the palaces, castles, convents, and cathedrals, and almost all the valuable movable property. … Such is the total or partial exemption from taxation. The tax-collectors halt in their presence, because the king well knows that feudal property has the same origin as his own; if royalty is one privilege seigniory is another; the king himself is simply the most privileged among the privileged. … After the assaults of 450 years, taxation, the first of fiscal instrumentalities, the most burdensome of all, leaves feudal property almost intact. … The privileged person avoids or repels taxation, not merely because it despoils him, but because it belittles him; it is a mark of plebeian condition, that is to say, of former servitude, and he resists the fisc as much through pride as through interest. … La Bruyère wrote, just a century before 1789, 'Certain savage-looking beings, male and female, are seen in the country, black, livid and sunburnt, and belonging to the soil which they dig and grub with invincible stubbornness. They seem capable of articulation, and, when they stand erect they display human lineaments. They are, in fact, men. They retire at night into their dens, where they live on black bread, water and roots. They spare other human beings the trouble of sowing, ploughing and harvesting, and thus should not be in want of the bread they have planted.' They continue in want of it during 25 years after this, and die in herds. I estimate that in 1715 more than one-third of the population, six millions, perish with hunger and of destitution. The picture, accordingly, for the first quarter of the century preceding the Revolution, far from being overdrawn, is the reverse; we shall see that, during more than half a century, up to the death of Louis XV., it is exact; perhaps, instead of weakening any of its points, they should be strengthened. . . . Undoubtedly the government under Louis XVI. is milder; the intendants are more humane, the administration is less rigid, the 'taille' becomes less unequal, and the 'corvée' is less onerous through its transformation, in short, misery has diminished, and yet this is greater than human nature can bear. Examine administrative correspondence for the last thirty years preceding the Revolution. Countless statements reveal excessive suffering, even when not terminating in fury. Life to a man of the lower class, to an artisan, or workman, subsisting on the labor of his own hands, is evidently precarious; he obtains simply enough to keep him from starvation and he does not always get that. Here, in four districts, 'the inhabitants live only on buckwheat,' and for five years, the apple crop having failed, they drink only water. There, in a country of vineyards, 'the vine-dressers each year are reduced, for the most part, to begging their bread during the dull season.' … In a remote canton the peasants cut the grain still green and dry it in the oven, because they are too hungry to wait. … Between 1750 and 1760, the idlers who eat suppers begin to regard with compassion and alarm the laborers who go without dinners. Why are the latter so impoverished, and by what chance, on a soil as rich as that of France, do those lack bread who grow the grain? In the first place, many farms remain uncultivated, and, what is worse, many are deserted. According to the best observers 'one-quarter of the soil is absolutely lying waste. … Hundreds and hundreds of arpents of heath and moor form extensive deserts.' … This is not sterility but decadence. The régime invented by Louis XIV. has produced its effect; the soil for a century past is reverting back to a wild state. … In the second place, cultivation, when it does take place, is carried on according to mediæval modes. Arthur Young, in 1789, considers that French agriculture has not progressed beyond that of the 10th century. Except in Flanders and on the plains of Alsace, the fields lie fallow one year out of three and oftentimes one year out of two. The implements are poor; there are no ploughs made of iron; in many places the plough of Virgil's time is still in use. … Arthur Young shows that in France those who lived on field labor, and they constituted the great majority, are 76 per cent. less comfortable than the same laborers in England, while they are 76 per cent. less well fed and well clothed, besides being worse treated in sickness and in health. The result is that, in seven-eighths of the kingdom, there are no farmers but simply métayers. ['The poor people,' says Arthur Young, 'who cultivate the soil here are métayers, that is, men who hire the land without ability to stock it; the proprietor is forced to provide cattle and seed, and he and his tenants divide the product.'] … Misery begets bitterness in a man; but ownership coupled with misery renders him still more bitter"; and, strange as it appears, the acquisition of land by the French peasants, in small holdings, went on steadily during the 18th century, despite the want and suffering which were so universal. "The fact is almost incredible, but it is nevertheless true. We can only explain it by the character of the French peasant, by his sobriety, his tenacity, his rigor with himself, his dissimulation, his hereditary passion for property and especially for that of the soil. He had lived on privations and economized sou after sou. … Towards 1760, one-quarter of the soil is said to have already passed into the hands of agriculturists. … The small cultivator, however, in becoming a possessor of the soil assumed its charges. Simply as day-laborer, and with his arms alone, he was only partially affected by the taxes; 'where there is nothing the king loses his dues.' But now, vainly is he poor and declaring himself still poorer; the fisc has a hold on him and on every portion of his new possessions. … In 1715, the 'taille' [see TAILLE AND GABELLE] and the poll-tax, which he alone pays, or nearly alone, amounts to 66,000,000 livres, the amount is 93,000,000 in 1759 and 110,000,000 in 1789. … 'I am miserable because too much is taken from me. Too much is taken from me because not enough is taken from the privileged. Not only do the privileged force me to pay in their place, but, again, they previously deduct from my earnings their ecclesiastical and feudal dues. When, out of my income of 100 francs, I have parted with 53 francs, and more, to the collector, I am obliged again to give 14 francs to the seignior, also more than 14 for tithes, and, out of the remaining 18 or 19 francs, I have additionally to satisfy the excise-men. {1258} I alone, a poor man, pay two governments, one, the old government [the seigniorial government of the feudal regime], local and now absent, useless, inconvenient and humiliating, and active only through annoyances, exemptions and taxes; and the other [the royal government], recent, centralized, everywhere present, which, taking upon itself all functions, has vast needs and makes my meagre shoulders support its enormous weight.' These, in precise terms, are the vague ideas beginning to ferment in the popular brain and encountered on every page of the records of the States-General. … The privileged wrought their own destruction. … At their head, the king, creating France by devoting himself to her as if his own property, ended by sacrificing her as if his own property; the public purse is his private purse, while passions, vanities, personal weaknesses, luxurious habits, family solicitudes, the intrigues of a mistress and the caprices of a wife, govern a state of 26,000,000 men with an arbitrariness, a heedlessness, a prodigality, an unskilfulness, an absence of consistency, that would scarcely be overlooked in the management of a private domain. The king and the privileged excel in one direction, in good-breeding, in good taste, in fashion, in the talent for self-display and in entertaining, in the gift of graceful conversation, in finesse and in gayety, in the art of converting life into a brilliant and ingenious festivity. … Through the habit, perfection and sway of polished intercourse they stamped on the French intellect a classic form, which, combined with recent scientific acquisitions, produced the philosophy of the 18th century, the ill-repute of tradition, the ambition of recasting all human institutions according to the sole dictates of reason, the appliance of mathematical methods to politics and morals, the catechism of the rights of man, and other dogmas of anarchical and despotic character in the 'Contrat Social.'—Once this chimera is born they welcome it as a drawing-room fancy; they use the little monster as a plaything, as yet innocent and decked with ribbons like a pastoral lambkin; they never dream of it becoming a raging, formidable brute; they nourish it, and caress it, and then, opening their doors, they let it descend into the streets.—Here, amongst a middle class which the government has rendered ill-disposed by compromising its fortunes, which the privileged have offended by restricting its ambition, which is wounded by inequality through injured self-esteem, the revolutionary theory gains rapid accessions, a sudden asperity, and, in a few years, it finds itself undisputed master of public opinion.—At this moment, and at its summons, another colossal monster rises up, a monster with millions of heads, a blind, startled animal, an entire people pressed down, exasperated and suddenly loosed against the government whose exactions have despoiled it, against the privileged whose rights have reduced it to starvation."

H. A. Taine, The Ancient Régime, book 1, chapters 1, 2, and book 5, chapters 1, 2, 5.

"When the facts of history are fully and impartially set forth, the wonder is rather that sane men put up with the chaotic imbecility, the hideous injustices, the shameless scandals, of the 'Ancien Regime,' in the earlier half of the century, many years before the political 'Philosophes' wrote a line,—why the Revolution did not break out in 1754 or 1757, as it was on the brink of doing, instead of being delayed, by the patient endurance of the people, for another generation. It can hardly be doubted that the Revolution of '89 owed many of its worst features to the violence of a populace degraded to the level of the beasts by the effect of the institutions under which they herded together and starved; and that the work of reconstruction which it attempted was to carry into practice the speculations of Mably and of Rousseau. But, just as little, does it seem open to question that, neither the writhings of the dregs of the populace in their misery, nor the speculative demonstrations of the Philosophers, would have come to much, except for the revolutionary movement which had been going on ever since the beginning of the century. The deeper source of this lay in the just and profound griefs of at least 95 per cent. of the population, comprising all its most valuable elements, from the agricultural peasants to the merchants and the men of letters and science, against the system by which they were crushed, or annoyed, whichever way they turned. But the surface current was impelled by the official defenders of the 'Ancien Régime' themselves. It was the Court, the Church, the Parliaments, and, above all, the Jesuits, acting in the interests of the despotism of the Papacy, who, in the first half of the 18th century, effectually undermined all respect for authority, whether civil or religious, and justified the worst that was or could be said by the 'Philosophes' later on."

      See
      PORT ROYAL AND THE JANSENISTS: A. D. 1702-1715;
      and JESUITS: A.D. 1761-1767.

      Prof. T. H. Huxley,
      Introduction to F. Rocquain's
      "The Revolutionary Spirit preceding
      the French Revolution"

   "I took part in the opening of the States-General, and, in
   spite of the pomp with which the royal power was still
   surrounded, I there saw the passing away of the old regime.
   The regime which preceded '89, should, it seems to me, be
   considered from a two-fold aspect: the one, the general
   condition of the country, and the other, the relations
   existing between the government and the country. With regard
   to the former, I firmly believe that, from the earliest days
   of the monarchy, France had at no period been happier than she
   was then. She had not felt the effects of any great misfortune
   since the crash which followed Law's system. The long lasting
   ministry of Cardinal de Fleury, doubtless inglorious, but wise
   and circumspect, had made good the losses and lightened the
   burdens imposed at the end of the reign of Louis XV. If, since
   that time, several wars undertaken with little skill, and
   waged with still less, had compromised the honor of her arms
   and the reputation of her government; if they had even thrown
   her finances into a somewhat alarming state of disorder, it is
   but fair to say that the confusion resulting therefrom had
   merely affected the fortune of a few creditors, and had not
   tapped the sources of public prosperity; on the contrary, what
   is styled the public administration had made constant
   progress. If, on the one hand, the state had not been able to
   boast of any great ministers, on the other, the provinces
   could show many highly enlightened and clever intendants.
   Roads had been opened connecting numerous points, and had been
   greatly improved in all directions. It should not be forgotten
   that these benefits are principally due to the reign of Louis
   XV. Their most important result had been a progressive
   improvement in the condition of agriculture.
{1259}
   The reign of Louis XVI. had continued favoring this wise
   policy, which had not been interrupted by the maritime war
   undertaken on behalf of American independence. Many
   cotton-mills had sprung, up, while considerable progress had
   been made in the manufacture of printed cotton fabrics, and of
   steel, and in the preparing of skins. … I saw the splendors
   of the Empire. Since the Restoration I see daily new fortunes
   spring up and consolidate themselves; still nothing so far
   has, in my eyes, equalled the splendor of Paris during the
   years which elapsed between 1783 and 1789. … Far be it from
   me to shut my eyes to the reality of the public prosperity
   which we are now [1822] enjoying. I am cognizant of the
   improvement in the condition of the country districts, and I
   am aware of the fact that all that rests on this solid
   foundation, even though its appearance may be somewhat more
   humble, is much to be preferred to a grander exterior that
   might hide a less assured solidity. I do not seek to disparage
   the present time—far from it. I am ready to admit the
   advantages which have accrued, in many respects, as the
   results of the Revolution; as, for instance, the partition of
   landed property, so often assailed, and which, so long as it
   does not go beyond certain limits, tends to increase wealth,
   by introducing into many families a well-being hitherto
   unknown to them. But, nevertheless, when I question my reason
   and my conscience as to the possible future of the France of
   1789, if the Revolution had not burst, if the ten years of
   destruction to which it gave birth had not weighed heavily
   upon that beautiful country … I am convinced that France, at
   the time I am writing, would be richer and stronger than she
   is to-day."

"In the spring of 1789 who could have foreseen the bloody catastrophe? Everything was tinged with hopefulness; the world was dreaming of the Golden Age. … Despite the previous disorders, and seeds of discord contained in certain cahiers, the prevailing sentiment was confidence. … The people everywhere hailed with enthusiasm the new era which was dawning. With a firm king, with a statesman who knew what he wished, and was determined to accomplish it, this confidence would have been an incomparable force. With a feeble prince like Louis XVI., with an irresolute minister like Necker, it was an appalling danger. The public, inflamed by the anarchy that had preceded the convocation of the States, disposed, through its inexperience, to accept all Utopias, and impelled by its peculiar character to desire their immediate realization, naturally grew more exacting in proportion as they were promised more, and more impatient and irritable as their hopes became livelier and appeared better founded. In the midst of this general satisfaction there was but one dark spot,—the queen. The cheers which greeted the king were silent before his wife. Calumny had done its work; and all the nobles from the provinces, the country curates, the citizens of the small towns, came from the confines of France imbued with the most contemptible prejudices against this unfortunate princess. Pamphlets, poured out against her by malicious enemies; vague and mysterious rumours, circulated everywhere, repeated in whispers, without giving any clew to their source,—the more dangerous because indefinite, and the more readily believed because infamous and absurd,—had so often reiterated that the queen was author of all the evil, that the world had come to regard her as the cause of the deficit, and the only serious obstacle to certain efficacious reforms. 'The queen pillages on all sides; she even sends money, it is said, to her brother, the emperor,' wrote a priest of Maine, in his parochial register, in 1781; and he attributed the motive of the reunion of the Notables to these supposed depredations. If, in 1781, such reports had penetrated to the remotest parts of the country, and found credence with such enlightened men as the Curé Boucher, one can judge what it must have been two years later, when the convocation of the States-General had inflamed the minds of the people. If the States should encounter any inevitable obstacle in their path; if certain imprudent promises should be unfulfilled; if promised reforms should fail,—public resentment and ill-will, always on the alert, would be sure to blame Marie Antoinette; they would impute to her all the evil done, and all the good left undone. The symptoms of this distrust were manifest at the outset. 'The deputies of the Third Estate,' Madame Campan observes, 'arrived at Versailles with the strongest prejudice against the court. The evil sayings in Paris never failed to be spread through the provinces: they believed that the king indulged in the pleasures of the table to a most shameful excess; they were persuaded that the queen exhausted the State treasury to gratify her inordinate love of luxury; almost all wished to visit Little Trianon. As the extreme simplicity of this pleasure-house did not correspond with their ideas, they insisted on being shown even the smallest closets, saying that richly furnished apartments were being concealed from them. Finally they designated one, which according to their account was ornamented with diamonds, and twisted columns studded with sapphires and rubies. The queen was amused at these mad fancies, and told the king of them.'"

ALSO IN: A. de Tocqueville, On the State of Society in France before the Revolution.

FRANCE: A. D. 1789 (May).
   Meeting of the States-General.
   Conflict between the three Estates.
   The question of three Houses or one.

"The opening of the States-general was fixed for the 5th of May, 1789, and Versailles was chosen as the place of their meetings. On the 4th, half Paris poured into that town to see the court and the deputies marching in procession to the solemn religious ceremony, which was to inaugurate the important epoch. … On the following day, the States-general, to the number of 1,200 persons, assembled in the spacious and richly decorated 'salle des menus plaisirs.' The King appeared, surrounded by his family, with all the magnificence of the ancient court, and was greeted by the enthusiastic applause of the deputies and spectators." The king made a speech, followed by Barentin, the keeper of the great seal, and by Necker. The latter "could not prevail upon himself to avow to the Assembly the real state of affairs. He announced an annual deficit of 56,000,000 francs, and thereby confused the mind of the public, which, since the meeting of the Notables, had always been discussing a deficit of from 120,000,000 to 140,000,000. {1260} He was quite right in assuming that those 56,000,000 might be covered by economy in the expenditure; but it was both irritating and untrue, when he, on this ground, denied the necessity of summoning the States-general, and called their convocation a free act of royal favour. … The balance of income and expenditure might, indeed, easily be restored in the future, but the deficit of former years had been heedlessly allowed to accumulate, and by no one more than by Necker himself. A floating debt of 550,000,000 had to be faced—in other words, therefore, more than a whole year's income had been expended in advance. … The real deficit of the year, therefore, at the lowest calculation, amounted to more than 200,000,000, or nearly half the annual income. … These facts, then, were concealed, and thus the ministry was necessarily placed in a false position towards the States-general; the continuance of the former abuses was perpetuated, or a violent catastrophe made inevitable. … For the moment the matter was not discussed. Everything yielded to the importance of the constitutional question—whether the three orders should deliberate in common or apart—whether there should be one single representative body, or independent corporations. This point was mooted at once in its full extent on the question, whether the validity of the elections should be scrutinised by each order separately, or by the whole Assembly. We need not here enter into the question of right; but of this there can be no doubt, that the government, which virtually created the States-general afresh [since there had been no national meeting of the Estates since the States-general of 1614-see above: A. D. 1610-1619], had the formal right to convoke them either in one way or the other, as it thought fit. … They [the government] infinitely lowered their own influence and dignity by leaving a most important constitutional question to the decision and the wrangling of the three orders; and they frustrated their own practical objects, by not decidedly declaring for the union of the orders in one assembly. Every important measure of reform, which had in view the improvement of the material and financial condition of the country, would have been mutilated by the clergy and rejected by the nobles. This was sufficiently proved by the 'cahiers' of the electors ['written instructions given by the electors to the deputies']. The States themselves had to undertake what the government had neglected. That which the government might have freely and legally commanded, now led to violent revolution. But there was no choice left; the commons would not tolerate the continuance of the privileged orders; and the state could not tolerate them if it did not wish to perish. The commons, who on this point were unanimous, considered the system of a single Assembly as a matter of course. They took care not to constitute themselves as 'tiers état,' but remained passive, and declared that they would wait until the Assembly should be constituted as a whole. Thus slowly and cautiously did they enter on their career. … Indisputably the most important and influential among them was Count Mirabeau, the representative of the town of Aix in Provence, a violent opponent of feudalism, and a restless participator in all the recent popular commotions. He would have been better able than any man to stimulate the Assembly to vigorous action; but even he hesitated, and kept back his associates from taking any violent steps, because he feared that the inconsistency and inexperience of the majority would bring ruin on the state. … It was only very gradually that the 'tiers état' began to negotiate with the other orders. The nobles shewed themselves haughty, dogmatical, and aggressive; and the clergy cautious, unctuous, and tenacious. They tried the efficacy of general conferences; but as no progress was found to have been made after three weeks, they gave up their consultations on the 25th of May. The impatience of the public, and the necessities of the treasury, continually increased; the government, therefore, once more intervened, and Necker was called upon to propose a compromise," which was coldly rejected by the nobles, who "declared that they had long ago finished their scrutiny, and constituted themselves as a separate order. They thus spared the commons the dreaded honour of being the first to break with the crown. The conferences were again closed on the 9th of June. The leaders of the commons now saw that they must either succumb to the nobility, or force the other orders to submission."

H. von Sybel, History of the French Revolution., book 1, chapter 2 (volume 1).

      ALSO IN:
      W. Smyth,
      Lectures on the History of the French Revolution,
      lecture 8 (volume 1).

FRANCE: A. D. 1789 (June).
   The Third Estate seizes the reins, proclaims itself the
   National Assembly, and assumes sovereign powers.
   The passionate excitement of Paris.
   Dismissal of Necker.
   Rising of the mob.

"At last … on the proposal of Sieyès [the Abbé, deputy for Paris] and amid a storm of frantic excitement, the Third Estate alone voted themselves 'the National Assembly,' invited the other two orders to join them, and pushing their pretensions to sovereignty to the highest point, declared that the existing taxes, not having been consented to by the nation, were all illegal. The National Assembly, however, allowed them to be levied till its separation, after which they were to cease if not formally regranted. This great revolution was effected on June 17, and it at once placed the Third Order in a totally new relation both to the other orders and to the Crown. There were speedy signs of yielding among some members of the privileged orders, and a fierce wave of excitement supported the change. Malouet strongly urged that the proper course was to dissolve the Assembly and to appeal to the constituencies, but Necker declined, and a feeble and ineffectual effort of the King to accomplish a reunion, and at the same time to overawe the Third Order, precipitated the Revolution. The King announced his intention of holding a royal session on June 22, and he summoned the three orders to meet him. It was his design to direct them to unite in order to deliberate in common on matters of common interest, and to regain the royal initiative by laying down the lines of a new constitution. … On Saturday, the 20th, however, the course of events was interrupted by the famous scene in the tennis court. Troops had lately been pouring to an alarming extent into Paris, and exciting much suspicion in the popular party, and the Government very injudiciously selected for the royal session on the following Monday the hall in which the Third Order assembled. The hall was being prepared for the occasion, and therefore no meeting could be held. {1261} The members, ignorant of the fact, went to their chamber and were repelled by soldiers. Furious at the insult, they adjourned to the neighbouring tennis court [Jeu-de-Paume]. A suspicion that the King meant to dissolve them was abroad, and they resolved to resist such an attempt. With lifted hands and in a transport of genuine, if somewhat theatrical enthusiasm, they swore that they would never separate 'till the constitution of the kingdom and the regeneration of public order were established on a solid basis.' … One single member, Martin d'Auche, refused his assent. The Third Estate had thus virtually assumed the sole legislative authority in France, and like the Long Parliament in England had denied the King's power to dissolve them. … Owing to the dissension that had arisen, the royal session was postponed till the 23rd, but on the preceding day the National Assembly met in a church, and its session was a very important one, for on this occasion a great body of the clergy formally joined it. One hundred and forty-eight members of the clergy, of whom 134 were curés, had now given their adhesion. Two of the nobles, separating from their colleagues, took the same course. Next day the royal session was held. The project adopted in the council differed so much from that of Necker that this minister refused to give it the sanction of his presence. Instead of commanding the three orders to deliberate together in the common interest, it was determined in the revised project that the King should merely invite them to do so. … It was … determined to withdraw altogether from the common deliberation 'the form of the constitution to be given to the coming States-General,' and to recognise fully the essential distinction of the three orders as political bodies, though they might, with the approval of the Sovereign, deliberate in common. Necker had proposed … that the King should decisively, and of his own authority, abolish all privileges of taxation, but in the amended article the King only undertook to give his sanction to this measure on condition of the two orders renouncing their privileges. On the other hand, the King announced to the Assembly a long series of articles of reform which would have made France a thoroughly constitutional country, and have swept away nearly all the great abuses in its government. … He annulled the proceedings of June 17, by which the Third Estate alone declared itself the Legislature of France. He reminded the Assembly that none of its proceedings could acquire the force of law without his assent, and he asserted his sole right as French Sovereign to the command of the army and police. He concluded by directing the three orders to withdraw and to meet next day to consider his proposals. The King, with the nobles and the majority of the clergy, at once withdrew, but the Third Order defiantly remained. It was evident that the attempt to conciliate, and the attempt to assert the royal authority, had both failed. The Assembly proclaimed itself inviolable. It confirmed the decrees which the King had annulled. Sieyès declared, in words which excited a transport of enthusiasm, that what the Assembly was yesterday it still was to-day; and two days later, the triumph of the Assembly became still more evident by the adhesion of 47 of the nobility. After this defection the King saw the hopelessness of resistance, and on the 27th he ordered the remainder of the nobles to take the same course. … In the mean time the real rulers of the country were coming rapidly to the surface. … Groups of local agitators and of the scum of the Paris mob began to overawe the representatives of the nation, and to direct the course of its policy. Troops were poured into Paris, but their presence was an excitement without being a protection, for day after day it became more evident that their discipline was gone, and that they shared the sympathies and the passions of the mob. … At the same time famine grew daily more intense, and the mobs more passionate and more formidable. The dismissal of Necker on the evening of July 11 was the spark which produced the conflagration that had long been preparing. Next day Paris flew to arms. The troops with few exceptions abandoned the King."

W. E. H. Lecky, History of England in the 18th Century, chapter 20 (volume 5).

      ALSO IN:
      E. Dumont,
      Recollections of Mirabeau,
      chapters 4-5.

FRANCE: A. D. 1789 (July).
   The mob in arms.
   Anarchy in Paris.
   The taking of the Bastille.

"On the 12th of July, near noon, on the news of the dismissal of Necker, a cry of rage arises in the Palais-Royal; Camille Desmoulins, mounted on a table, announces that the Court meditates 'a St. Bartholomew of patriots.' The crowd embrace him, adopt the green cockade which he has proposed, and oblige the dancing-saloons and theatres to close in sign of mourning: they hurry off to the residence of Curtius [a plaster-cast master], and take the busts of the Duke of Orleans and of Necker and carry them about in triumph. Meanwhile, the dragoons of the Prince de Lambesc, drawn up on the Place Louis-Quinze, find a barricade of chairs at the entrance of the Tuilleries, and are greeted with a shower of stones and bottles. Elsewhere, on the Boulevard, before the Hôtel Montmorency, some of the French Guards, escaped from their barracks, fired on a loyal detachment of the 'Royal Allemand.' The tocsin is sounding on all sides, the shops where arms are sold are pillaged, and the Hôtel-de-Ville is invaded; 15 or 16 well-disposed electors, who meet there, order the districts to be assembled and armed.—The new sovereign, the people in arms and in the street, has declared himself. The dregs of society at once come to the surface. During the night between the 12th and 13th of July, 'all the barriers, from the Faubourg Saint-Antoine to the Faubourg Saint-Honoré, besides those of the Faubourgs Saint-Marcel and Saint-Jacques, are forced and set on fire.' There is no longer an 'octroi'; the city is without a revenue just at the moment when it is obliged to make the heaviest expenditures. … 'During this fearful night, the bourgeoisie kept themselves shut up, each trembling at home for himself and those belonging to him.' On the following day, the 13th, the capital appears to be given up to bandits and the lowest of the low. … During these two days and nights, says Bailly, 'Paris ran the risk of being pillaged, and was only saved from the marauders by the national guard.' … Fortunately the militia organized itself, and the principal inhabitants and gentlemen enrol themselves; 48,000 men are formed into battalions and companies; the bourgeoisie buy guns of the vagabonds for three livres apiece, and sabres or pistols for twelve sous. At last, some of the offenders are hung on the spot, and others disarmed, and the insurrection again becomes political. {1262} But, whatever its object, it remains always wild, because it is in the hands of the populace. … There is no leader, no management. The electors who have converted themselves into the representatives of Paris seem to command the crowd, but it is the crowd which commands them. One of them, Legrand, to save the Hôtel-de-Ville, has no other resource but to send for six barrels of gun-powder, and to declare to the assailants that he is about to blow everything into the air. The commandant whom they themselves have chosen, M. de Salles, has twenty bayonets at his breast during a quarter of an hour, and, more than once, the whole committee is near being massacred. Let the reader imagine, on the premises where the discussions are going on, and petitions are being made, 'a concourse of 1,500 men pressed by 100,000 others who are forcing an entrance,' the wainscoting cracking, the benches upset one over another … a tumult such as to bring to mind 'the day of judgment,' the death-shrieks, songs, yells, and 'people beside themselves, for the most part not knowing where they are nor what they want.' Each district is also a petty centre, while the Palais-Royal is the main centre. … One wave gathers here and another there, their strategy consists in pushing and in being pushed. Yet, their entrance is effected only because they are let in. If they get into the Invalides it is owing to the connivance of the soldiers.—At the Bastille, firearms are discharged from ten in the morning to five in the evening against walls 40 feet high and 30 feet thick, and it is by chance that one of their shots reaches an 'invalide' on the towers. They are treated the same as children whom one wishes to hurt as little as possible. The governor, on the first summons to surrender, orders the cannon to be withdrawn from the embrasures; he makes the garrison swear not to fire if it is not attacked; he invites the first of the deputations to lunch; he allows the messenger dispatched from the Hôtel-de-Ville to inspect the fortress; he receives several discharges without returning them, and lets the first bridge be carried without firing a shot. When, at length, he does fire, it is at the last extremity, to defend the second bridge, and after having notified the assailants that he is going to do so. … The people, in turn, are infatuated with the novel sensations of attack and resistance, with the smell of gunpowder, with the excitement of the contest; all they can think of doing is to rush against the mass of stone, their expedients being on a level with their tactics: A brewer fancies that he can set fire to this block of masonry by pumping over it spikenard and poppy-seed oil mixed with phosphorus. A young carpenter, who has some archæological notions, proposes to construct a catapult. Some of them think that they have seized the governor's daughter, and want to burn her in order to make the father surrender. Others set fire to a projecting mass of buildings filled with straw, and thus close up the passage. 'The Bastille was not taken by main force,' says the brave Elie, one of the combatants; 'it was surrendered before even it was attacked,' by capitulation, on the promise that no harm should be done to anybody. The garrison, being perfectly secure, had no longer the heart to fire on human beings while themselves risking nothing, and, on the other hand, they were unnerved by the sight of the immense crowd. Eight or nine hundred men only were concerned in the attack, most of them workmen or shopkeepers belonging to the faubourg, tailors, wheelwrights, mercers, and wine-dealers, mixed with the French Guards. The Place de la Bastille, however, and all the streets in the vicinity, were crowded with the curious who came to witness the sight; 'among them,' says a witness, 'were a number of fashionable women of very good appearance, who had left their carriages at some distance.' To the 120 men of the garrison, looking down from their parapets, it seemed as though all Paris had come out against them. It is they, also, who lower the drawbridge and introduce the enemy; everybody has lost his head, the besieged as well as the besiegers, the latter more completely because they are intoxicated with the sense of victory. Scarcely have they entered when they begin the work of destruction, and the latest arrivals shoot at random those that come earlier; 'each one fires without heeding where or on whom his shot tells.' Sudden omnipotence and the liberty to kill are a wine too strong for human nature. … Elie, who is the first to enter the fortress, Cholat, Hulin, the brave fellows who are in advance, the French Guards who are cognizant of the laws of war, try to keep their word of honour; but the crowd pressing on behind them know not whom to strike, and they strike at random. They spare the Swiss soldiers who have fired on them, and who, in their blue smocks, seem to them to be prisoners; on the other hand, by way of compensation, they fall furiously on the 'invalides' who opened the gates to them; the man who prevented the governor from blowing up the fortress has his wrist severed by the blow of a sabre, is twice pierced with a sword and is hung, and the hand which had saved one of the districts of Paris is promenaded through the streets in triumph. The officers are dragged along and five of them are killed, with three soldiers, on the spot, or on the way." M. de Launay, the governor, after receiving many wounds, while being dragged to the Hotel-de-Ville, was finally killed by bayonet thrusts, and his head, cut from his body, was placarded and borne through the streets upon a pitchfork.

"I was present at the taking of the Bastille. What has been styled the fight was not serious, for there was absolutely no resistance shown. Within the hold's walls were neither provisions nor ammunition. It was not even necessary to invest it. The regiment of gardes françaises which had led the attack, presented itself under the walls on the rue Saint Antoine side, opposite the main entrance, which was barred by a drawbridge. There was a discharge of a few musket shots, to which no reply was made, and then four or five discharges from the cannon. It has been claimed that the latter broke the chains of the drawbridge. I did not notice this, and yet I was standing close to the point of attack. What I did see plainly was the action of the soldiers, invalides, or others, grouped on the platform of the high tower, holding their muskets stock in the air, and expressing by all means employed under similar circumstances their desire of surrendering. The result of this so-called victory, which brought down so many favors on the heads of the so-called victors, is well-known. The truth is, that this great fight did not for a moment frighten the numerous spectators who had flocked to witness its result. Among them were many women of fashion, who, in order to be closer to the scene, had left their carriages some distance away."

FRANCE: A. D. 1789 (July).
   Practical surrender of authority by the king.
   Organization of the National Guard with Lafayette in command.
   Disorder and riot in the provinces.
   Hunger in the capital.
   The murder of Foulon and Berthier.

"The next morning the taking of the Bastille bore its intended fruit. Marshal de Broglie, who had found, instead of a loyal army, only disaffected regiments which had joined or were preparing to join the mob, sent in his resignation. … The king, deserted by his army, his authority now quite gone, had no means of restoring order except through the Assembly. He begged that body to undertake the work, promising to recall the dismissed ministers. … The power of the king had now passed from him to the National Assembly. But that numerous body of men, absorbed in interminable discussions on abstract ideas, was totally incapable of applying its power to the government of the country. The electors at the Hotel de Ville, on the 15th of July, resolved that there must be a mayor to direct the affairs of Paris, and a National Guard to preserve order. Dangers threatened from every quarter. When the question arose as to who should fill these offices, Moreau de Saint Méry, the president of the electors, pointed to the bust of Lafayette, which had been sent as a gift to the city of Paris by the State of Virginia, in 1784. The gesture was immediately understood, and Lafayette was chosen by acclamation. Not less unanimous was the choice of Bailly for mayor. Lafayette was now taken from the Assembly to assume the more active employment of commanding the National Guard. While the Assembly pursued the destruction of the old order and the erection of a new, Lafayette, at the age of 82, became the chief depositary of executive power. … Throughout France, the deepest interest was exhibited in passing events. … The victory of the Assembly over the king and aristocracy led the people of the provinces to believe that their cause was already won. A general demoralization ensued." After the taking of the Bastille, "the example of rebellion thus set was speedily followed. Rioting and lawlessness soon prevailed everywhere, increased and imbittered by the scarcity of food. In the towns, bread riots became continual, and the custom-houses, the means of collecting the exorbitant taxes, were destroyed. In the rural districts, châteaux were to be seen burning on all sides. The towers in which were preserved the titles and documents which gave to the nobleman his oppressive rights were carried by storm and their contents scattered. Law and authority were fast becoming synonymous with tyranny; the word 'liberty,' now in every mouth, had no other signification than license. Into Paris slunk hordes of gaunt foot-pads from all over France; attracted by the prospect of disorder and pillage. … From such circumstances naturally arose the National Guard. "The king had been asked, on the 13th, by a deputation from the Assembly, "to confide the care of the city to a militia," and had declined. The military organization of citizens was then undertaken by the electors at the Hotel de Ville, without his consent, and its commander designated without his appointment. "The king was obliged to confirm this choice, and he was thus deprived even of the merit of naming the chief officer of the guard whose existence had been forced upon him." On the 17th the king was persuaded to visit the city, for the effect which his personal presence would have, it was thought, upon the anxious and excited public mind. Lafayette had worked with energy to prepare his National Guard for the difficult duty of preserving order and protecting the royal visitor on the occasion. "So intense was the excitement and the insurrectionary spirit of the time, so uncertain were the boundaries between rascality and revolutionary zeal, that it was difficult to establish the fact that the new guard was created to preserve order and not to fight the king and pillage the aristocracy. The great armed mob, now in process of organization, had to be treated with great tact, lest it should refuse to submit to authority in any shape." But short as the time was, Lafayette succeeded in giving to the powerless monarch a safe and orderly reception. "The king made his will and took the sacraments before leaving Versailles, for … doubts were entertained that he would live to return." He was met at the gates of Paris by the new mayor, Bailly, and escorted through a double line of National Guards to the Hotel de Ville. There he was obliged to fix on his hat the national cockade, just brought into use, and to confirm the appointments of Lafayette and Bailly. "Louis XVI. then returned to Versailles, on the whole pleased, as the day had been less unpleasant than had been expected. But the compulsory acceptation of the cockade and the nominations meant nothing less than the extinction of his authority. … Lafayette recruited his army from the bourgeois class, for the good reason that, in the fever then raging for uncontrolled freedom, that class was the only one from which the proper material could be taken. The importance of order was impressed on the bourgeois by the fact that they had, shops and houses which they did not wish to see pillaged. … The necessity for strict police measures was soon to be terribly illustrated. For a week past a large crowd composed of starving workmen, country beggars, and army deserters, had thronged the streets, angrily demanding food. The city was extremely short of provisions, and it was impossible to satisfy the demands made upon it. … On July 22, an old man named Foulon, It member of the late ministry, who had long been the object of public dislike, and was now detested because it was rumored that he said that 'the people might eat' grass,' was arrested in the country, and brought to the Hotel de Ville, followed by a mob who demanded his immediate judgment." Lafayette exerted vainly his whole influence and his whole authority to protect the wretched old man until he could be lodged in prison. The mob tore its victim from his very hands and destroyed him on the spot. The next day, Foulon's son-in-law, Berthier, the Intendant of Paris, was arrested in the country, and the tragedy was re-enacted. "Shocked by these murders and disgusted by his own inability to prevent them, Lafayette sent his resignation to the electors, and for some time persisted in his refusal to resume his office. But no other man could be found in Paris equally fitted for the place; so that on the personal solicitation of the electors and a deputation from the 60 districts of the city, he again took command."

      ALSO IN:
      J. Michelet,
      Historical View of the French
      Revolution, book 2, chapters 1-2.

"Everything, or nearly everything, was done by the party opposed to the Revolution in the excitement of the moment; nothing was the result of reasoning. Who, for instance, reasoned out the emigration? It has oftentimes been asked how so extraordinary a resolution came to be taken; how it had entered the minds of men gifted with a certain amount of sense that there was any advantage to be derived from abandoning all the posts where they could still exercise power; of giving over to the enemy the regiments they commanded, the localities over which they had control; of delivering up completely to the teachings of the opposite party the peasantry, over whom, in a goodly number of provinces, a valuable influence might be exerted, and among whom they still had many friends; and all this, to return for the purpose of conquering, at the sword's point, positions, a number of which at least could be held without a fight. No doubt it has been offered as an objection, that the peasantry set fire to châteaux, that soldiers mutinied against their officers. This was not the case at the time of what has been called the first emigration, and, at any rate, such doings were not general; but does danger constitute sufficient cause for abandoning an important post? … What is the answer to all this? Merely what follows. The voluntary going into exile of nearly the whole nobility of France, of many magistrates who were never to unsheath a sword, and lastly, of a large number of women and children,—this resolve, without a precedent in history, was not conceived and determined upon as a State measure; chance brought it about. A few, in the first instance, followed the princes who had been obliged, on the 14th of July, to seek safety out of France, and others followed them. At first, it was merely in the nature of a pleasant excursion. Outside of France, they might freely enjoy saying and believing anything and everything. … The wealthiest were the first to incur the expense of this trip, and a few brilliant and amiable women of the Court circle did their share to render most attractive the sojourn in a number of foreign towns close to the frontier. Gradually the number of these small gatherings increased, and it was then that the idea arose of deriving advantage from them. It occurred to the minds of a few men in the entourage of the Comte d'Artois, and whose moving spirit was M. de Calonne, that it would be an easy matter for them to create a kingdom for their sovereign outside of France, and that if they could not in this fashion succeed in giving him provinces to reign over, he would at least reign over subjects, and that this would serve to give him a standing in the eyes of foreign powers, and determine them to espouse his cause. … Thus in '89, '90, and '91, there were a few who were compelled to fly from actual danger; a small number were led away by a genuine feeling of enthusiasm; many felt themselves bound to leave, owing to a point of honor which they obeyed without reasoning it out; the mass thought it was the fashion, and that it looked well; all, or almost all, were carried away by expectations encouraged by the wildest of letters, and by the plotting of a few ambitious folk, who were under the impression that they were building up their fortunes."

FRANCE: A. D. 1789 (August).
The Night of Sacrifices.
The sweeping out of Feudalism.

   "What was the Assembly doing at this period, when Paris was
   waiting in expectation, and the capture of the Bastille was
   being imitated all over France; when châteaux were burning,
   and nobles flying into exile; when there was positive civil
   war in many a district, and anarchy in every province? Why,
   the Assembly was discussing whether or not the new
   constitution of France should be prefaced by a Declaration of
   the Rights of Man. In the discussion of this extremely
   important question were wasted the precious days which
   followed July 17. … The complacency of these theorists was
   rudely shaken on August 4, when Salomon read to the Assembly
   the report of the Comité des Recherches, or Committee of
   Researches, on the state of France. A terrible report it was.
   Châteaux burning here and there; millers hung; tax-gatherers
   drowned; the warehouses and depots of the gabelle burnt;
   everywhere rioting, and nowhere peace. … Among those who
   listened to the clear and forcible report of Salomon were
   certain of the young liberal noblesse who had just been dining
   with the Duc de la Roehefoucauld-Liancourt, a wise and
   enlightened nobleman. At their head was the Vicomte de
   Noailles, a young man of thirty-three, who had distinguished
   himself at the head of his regiment under his cousin,
   Lafayette, in America. … The Vicomte de Noailles was the
   first to rush to the tribune. 'What is the cause of the evil
   which is agitating the provinces?' he cried; and then he
   showed that it arose from the uncertainty under which the
   people dwelt, as to whether or not the old feudal bonds under
   which they had so long lived and laboured were to be
   perpetuated or abolished, and concluded an impassioned speech
   by proposing to abolish them at once. One after another the
   young liberal noblemen, and then certain deputies of the tiers
   état, followed him with fresh sacrifices. First the old feudal
   rights were abolished; then the rights of the dovecote and the
   game laws; then the old copyhold services; then the tithes
   paid to the Church, in spite of a protest from Siéyès; then
   the rights of certain cities over their immediate suburbs and
   rural districts were sacrificed; and the contention during
   that feverish night was rather to remember something or other
   to sacrifice than to suggest the expediency of maintaining
   anything which was established. In its generosity the Assembly
   even gave away what did not belong to it. The old dues paid to
   the pope were abolished, and it was even declared that the
   territory of Avignon, which had belonged to the pope since the
   Middle Ages, should be united to France if it liked; and the
   sitting closed with a unanimous decree that a statue should be
   erected to Louis XVI., 'the restorer of French liberty.' Well
   might Mirabeau define the night of August 4 as a mere 'orgie.'
   … Noble indeed were the intentions of the deputies. …
{1265}
   Yet the results of this night of sacrifices were bad rather
   than good. As Mirabeau pointed out, the people of France were
   told that all the feudal rights, dues, and tithes had been
   abolished that evening, but they were not told at the same
   time that there must be taxes and other burdens to take their
   place. It was of no use to issue a provisional order that all
   rights, dues, and taxes remained in force for the present,
   because the poor peasant would refuse to pay what was illegal,
   and would not understand the political necessity of supporting
   the revenue. … This ill-considered mass of resolutions was
   what was thrown in the face of France in a state of anarchy to
   restore it to a state of order."

      H. M. Stephens,
      History of the French Revolution,
      volume 1, chapter 5.

      ALSO IN:
      A. Thiers, History of the French Revolution,
      (American edition), volume 1, pages 81-84.

FRANCE: A. D. 1789 (August-October).
   Constitution-making and the Rights of Man.
   The first emigration of nobles.
   Famine in Paris.
   Rumors of an intended flight of the King.

"One may look upon the peculiarity of the Assembly as being a singular faith in the power of ideas. That was its greatness. It firmly believed that truth shaped into laws would be invincible. Two months—such was the calculation—would suffice to construct the constitution. That constitution by its omnipotent virtue would convince all men and bend them to its authority, and the revolution would be completed. Such was the faith of the National Assembly. The attitude of the people was so menacing that many of the courtiers fled. Thus commenced the first emigration. … As if the minds of men were not sufficiently agitated, there now were heard cries of a great conspiracy of the aristocrats. The papers announced that a plot had been discovered which was to have delivered Brest to the English. Brest, the naval arsenal, wherein France for whole centuries had expended her millions and her labours: this given up to England! England would once more overrun France! … It was amidst these cries of alarm—with on one hand the emigration of the nobility, on the other the hunger of a maddened people; with here an irresolute aristocracy, startled at the audacity of the 'canaille,' and there a resolute Assembly, prepared, at the hazard of their lives, to work out the liberty of France; amidst reports of famine, of insurrections, and wild disorders of all sorts, that we find the National Assembly debating upon the rights of man, discussing every article with metaphysical quibbling and wearisome fluency, and, having finally settled each article, making their famous Declaration. This Declaration, which was solemnly adopted by the Assembly, on the 18th of August, was the product of a whole century of philosophical speculation, fixed and reduced to formulas, and bearing unmistakeable traces of Rousseau. It declared the original equality of mankind, and that the ends of social union are liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression. It declared that sovereignty resides in the nation, from whence all power emanates; that freedom consists in doing everything which does not injure another; that law is the expression of the general will; that public burdens should be borne by all the members of the state in proportion to their fortunes; that the elective franchise should be extended to all; that the exercise of natural rights has no other limit than their interference with the rights of others; that no man should be persecuted for his religious opinions, provided he conform to the laws and do not disturb the religion of the state; that all men have the right of quitting the state in which they were born, and of choosing another country, by renouncing their rights of citizenship; that the liberty of the press is the foremost support of public liberty, and the law should maintain it, at the same time punishing those who abuse it by distributing seditious discourses, or calumnies against individuals." Having adopted its Declaration of the rights of man, the Assembly proceeded to the drawing up of a constitution which should embody the principles of the Declaration, and soon found itself in passionate debate upon the relations to be established between the national legislature and the king. Should the king retain a veto upon legislation? Should he have any voice in the making of laws? "The lovers of England and the English constitution all voted in favour of the veto. Even Mirabeau was for it." Robespierre, just coming into notice, bore a prominent part in the opposition. "The majority of the Assembly shared Robespierre's views; and the King's counselors were at length forced to propose a compromise in the shape of a suspensive veto; namely, that the King should not have the absolute right of preventing any law, but only the right of suspending it for two, four, or six years. … It was carried by a large majority." Meantime, in Paris, "vast and incalculable was the misery: crowds of peruke-makers, tailors, and shoemakers, were wont to assemble at the Louvre and in the Champs Elysées, demanding things impossible to be granted; demanding that the old regulations should be maintained, and that new ones should be made; demanding that the rate of daily wages should be fixed; demanding … that all the Savoyards in the country should be sent away, and only Frenchmen employed. The bakers' shops were besieged, as early as five o'clock in the morning, by hungry crowds who had to stand 'en queue'; happy when they had money to purchase miserable bread, even in this uncomfortable manner. … Paris was living at the mercy of chance: its subsistence dependent on some arrival or other: dependent on a convoy from Beauce, or a boat from Corbeuil. The city, at immense sacrifices, was obliged to lower the price of bread: the consequence was that the population for more than ten leagues round came to procure provisions at Paris. The uncertainty of the morrow augmented the difficulties. Everybody stored up, and concealed provisions. The administration sent in every direction, and bought up flour, by fair means, or by foul. It often happened that at midnight there was but half the flour necessary for the morning market. Provisioning Paris was a kind of war. The National Guard was sent to protect each arrival; or to secure certain purchases by force of arms. Speculators were afraid; farmers would not thrash any longer; neither would the miller grind. 'I used to see,' says Bailly, 'good tradesmen, mercers and goldsmiths, praying to be admitted among the beggars employed at Montmartre, in digging the ground.' Then came fearful whispers of the King's intention to fly to Metz. What will become of us if the King should fly? He must not fly; we will have him here; here amongst us in Paris! This produced the famous insurrection of women … on the 5th October."

H. von Sybel, History of the French Revolution, book 1, chapters 3-4 (volume 1).

FRANCE: A. D. 1789 (October).
The Insurrection of Women.
Their march to Versailles.

"A thought, or dim raw-material of a thought, was fermenting all night [October 4-5], universally in the female head, and might explode. In squalid garret, on Monday morning Maternity awakes, to hear children weeping for bread. Maternity must forth to the streets, to the herb-markets and Bakers'-queues; meets there with hunger-stricken Maternity, sympathetic, exasperative. O we unhappy women! But, instead of Bakers'-queues, why not to Aristocrats' palaces, the root of the matter? Allons! Let us assemble. To the Hôtel-de-Ville; to Versailles; to the Lanterne! In one of the Guard houses of the Quartier Saint-Eustache, 'a young woman' seizes a drum,—for how shall National Guards give fire on women, on a young woman? The young woman seizes the drum; sets forth, beating it, 'uttering cries relative to the dearth of grains.' Descend, O mothers; descend, ye Judiths, to food and revenge!—All women gather and go; crowds storm all stairs, force out all women: the female Insurrectionary Force, according to Camille, resembles the English Naval one; there is a universal 'Press of women.' Robust Dames of the Halle, slim Mantua-makers, assiduous, risen with the dawn; ancient Virginity tripping to matins; the Housemaid, with early broom; all must go. Rouse ye, O, women; the laggard men will not act; they say, we ourselves may act! And so, like snowbreak from the mountains, for every staircase is a melted brook, it storms; tumultuous, wild-shrilling, towards the Hôtel-de-Ville. Tumultuous; with or without drum-music: for the Faubourg Saint-Antoine also has tucked-up its gown; and with besom-staves, fire-irons, and even rusty pistols (void of ammunition), is flowing on. Sound of it flies, with a velocity of sound, to the utmost Barriers. By seven o'clock, on this raw October morning, fifth of the month, the Townhall will see wonders. … Grand it was, says Camille, to see so many Judiths, from eight to ten thousand of them in all, rushing out to search into the root of the matter! Not unfrightful it must have been; ludicro-terrific, and most unmanageable. At such hour the overwatched Three Hundred are not yet stirring: none but some Clerks, a company of National Guards; and M. de Gouvion, the Major-general. Gouvion has fought in America for the cause of civil Liberty; a man of no inconsiderable heart, but deficient in head. He is, for the moment, in his back apartment; assuaging Usher Maillard, the Bastille-sergeant, who has come, as too many do, with 'representations.' The assuagement is still incomplete when our Judiths arrive. The National Guards form on the outer stairs, with levelled bayonets; the ten thousand Judiths press up, resistless; with obtestations, with outspread hands,—merely to speak to the Mayor. The rear forces them; nay from male hands in the rear, stones already fly: the National Guard must do one of two things; sweep the Place de Greve with cannon, or else open to right and left. They open: the living deluge rushes in. Through all rooms and cabinets, upwards to the topmost belfry: ravenous; seeking arms, seeking Mayors, seeking justice;— while, again, the better-dressed speak kindly to the Clerks; point out the misery of these poor women; also their ailments, some even of an interesting sort. Poor M. de Gouvion is shiftless in this extremity;—a man shiftless, perturbed: who will one day commit suicide. How happy for him that Usher Maillard the shifty was there, at the moment, though making representations! Fly back, thou shifty Maillard: seek the Bastille Company; and O return fast with it; above all, with thy own shifty head! For, behold, the Judiths can find no Mayor or Municipal; scarcely, in the topmost belfry, can they find poor Abbé Lefèvre the Powder-distributor. Him, for want of a better, they suspend there: in the pale morning light; over the top of all Paris, which swims in one's failing eyes:—a horrible end? Nay the rope broke, as French ropes often did; or else an Amazon cut it. Abbe Lefèvre falls, some twenty feet, rattling among the leads; and lives long years after, though always with 'a tremblement in the limbs.' And now doors fly under hatchets; the Judiths have broken the Armory; have seized guns and cannons, three money-bags, paper-heaps; torches flare: in few minutes, our brave Hôtel-de-Ville, which dates from the Fourth Henry, will, with all that it holds, be in flames! In flames, truly,—were it not that Usher Maillard, swift of foot, shifty of head, has returned! Maillard, of his own motion,—for Gouvion or the rest would not even sanction him,—snatches a drum: descends the Porch-stairs, ran-tan, beating sharp, with loud rolls, his Rogues'-march: To Versailles! Allons; à Versailles! As men beat on kettle or warming-pan, when angry she-bees, or say, flying desperate wasps, are to be hived; and the desperate insects hear it, and cluster round it,—simply as round a guidance, where there was none: so now these Menads round shifty Maillard, Riding-Usher of the Châtelet. The axe pauses uplifted; Abbé Lefèvre is left half-hanged: from the belfry downwards all vomits itself. What rub-a-dub is that? Stanislas Maillard, Bastille hero, will lead us to Versailles? Joy to thee, Maillard; blessed art thou above Riding-Ushers! Away, then, away! The seized cannon are yoked with seized cart-horses: brown-locked Demoiselle Théroigne, with pike and helmet, sits there as gunneress. … Maillard (for his drum still rolls) is, by heaven-rending acclamation, admitted General. Maillard hastens the languid march. … And now Maillard has his Menads in the Champs Elysées (Fields Tartarean rather); and the Hôtel-de-Ville has suffered comparatively nothing. … Great Maillard! A small nucleus of Order is round his drum; but his outskirts fluctuate like the mad Ocean: for Rascality male and female is flowing in on him, from the four winds: guidance there is none but in his single head and two drum-sticks. … On the Elysian Fields there is pause and fluctuation; but, for Maillard, no return. He persuades his Menads, clamorous for arms and the Arsenal, that no arms are in the Arsenal; that an unarmed attitude, and petition to a National Assembly, will be the best: he hastily nominates or sanctions generalesses, captains of tens and fifties;—and so, in loosest-flowing order, to the rhythm of some 'eight drums' (having laid aside his own), with the Bastille Volunteers bringing up his rear, once more takes the road. Chaillot, which will promptly yield baked loaves, is not plundered; nor are the Sèvres Potteries broken. … The press of women still continues, for it is the cause of all Eve's Daughters, mothers that are, or that ought to be. No carriage-lady, were it with never such hysterics, but must dismount, in the mud roads, in her silk shoes, and walk. In this manner, amid wild October weather, they, a wild unwinged stork-flight, through the astonished country wend their way."

FRANCE: A. D. 1789 (October).
   The mob of men at Versailles, with Lafayette
   and the National Guard.
   The king and royal family brought to Paris.

Before the memorable 5th day of October closed, the movement of the women upon Versailles was followed by an outpouring, in the same direction, of the masculine mob of Paris, headed by the National Guard. "The commander, Lafayette, opposed their departure a long time, but in vain; neither his efforts nor his popularity could overcome the obstinacy of the people. For seven hours he harangued and retained them. At length, impatient at this delay, rejecting his advice, they prepared to set forward without him; when, feeling that it was now his duty to conduct as it had previously been to restrain them, he obtained his authorisation from the corporation, and gave the word for departure about seven in the evening. "Meantime the army of the amazons had arrived at Versailles, and excited the terrors of the court. "The troops of Versailles flew to arms and surrounded the château, but the intentions of the women were not hostile. Maillard, their leader, had recommended them to appear as suppliants, and in that attitude they presented their complaints successively to the assembly and to the king. Accordingly, the first hours of this turbulent evening were sufficiently calm. Yet it was impossible but that causes of hostility should arise between an excited mob and the household troops, the objects of so much irritation. The latter were stationed in the court of the château opposite the national guard and the Flanders regiment. The space between was filled by women and volunteers of the Bastille. In the midst of the confusion, necessarily arising from such a juxtaposition, a scuffle arose; this was the signal for disorder and conflict. An officer of the guards struck a Parisian soldier with his sabre, and was in turn shot in the arm. The national guards sided against the household troops; the conflict became warm, and would have been sanguinary, but for the darkness, the bad weather, and the orders given to the household troops, first to cease firing and then to retire. … During this tumult, the court was in consternation; the flight of the king was suggested, and carriages prepared; a piquet of the national guard saw them at the gate of the orangery, and having made them go back, closed the gate: moreover, the king, either ignorant of the designs of the court, or conceiving them impracticable, refused to escape. Fears were mingled with his pacific intentions, when he hesitated to repel the aggression or to take flight. Conquered, he apprehended the fate of Charles I. of England; absent, he feared that the duke of Orleans would obtain the lieutenancy of the kingdom. But, in the meantime, the rain, fatigue, and the inaction of the household troops, lessened the fury of the multitude, and Lafayette arrived at the head of the Parisian army. His presence restored security to the court, and the replies of the king to the deputation from Paris satisfied the multitude and the army. In a short time, Lafayette's activity, the good sense and discipline of the Parisian guard, restored order everywhere. Tranquillity returned. The crowd of women and volunteers, overcome by fatigue, gradually dispersed, and some of the national guard were entrusted with the defence of the château, while others were lodged with their companions in arms at Versailles. The royal family, re-assured after the anxiety and fear of this painful night, retired to rest about two o'clock in the morning. Towards five, Lafayette, having visited the outposts which had been confided to his care, and finding the watch well kept, the town calm, and the crowds dispersed or sleeping, also took a few moments repose. About six, however, some men of the lower class, more enthusiastic than the rest, and awake sooner than they, prowled round the château. Finding a gate open, they informed their companions, and entered. Unfortunately, the interior posts had been entrusted to the household guards, and refused to the Parisian army. This fatal refusal caused all the misfortunes of the night. The interior guard had not even been increased; the gates scarcely visited, and the watch kept as negligently as on ordinary occasions. These men, excited by all the passions that had brought them to Versailles, perceiving one of the household troops at a window, began to insult him. He fired, and wounded one of them. They then rushed on the household troops, who defended the château breast to breast, and sacrificed themselves heroically. One of them had time to warn the queen, whom the assailants particularly threatened; and, half dressed, she ran for refuge to the king. The tumult and danger were extreme in the château. Lafayette, apprised of the invasion of the royal residence, mounted his horse, and rode hastily to the scene of danger. On the square he met some of the household troops surrounded by an infuriated mob, who were on the point of killing them. He threw himself among them, called some French guards who were near, and, having rescued the household troops and dispersed their assailants, he hurried to the château. He found it already secured by the grenadiers of the French guard, who, at the first noise of the tumult, had hastened and protected the household troops from the fury of the Parisians. But the scene was not over; the crowd assembled again in the marble court under the king's balcony, loudly called for him, and he appeared. They required his departure for Paris; he promised to repair thither with his family, and this promise was received with general applause. The queen was resolved, to accompany him; but the prejudice against her was so strong that the journey was not without danger; it was necessary to reconcile her with the multitude. Lafayette proposed to her to accompany him to the balcony; after some hesitation, she consented. They appeared on it together, and to communicate by a sign with the tumultuous crowd, to conquer its animosity, and awaken its enthusiasm, Lafayette respectfully kissed the queen's hand; the crowd responded with acclamations. It now remained to make peace between them and the household troops. Lafayette advanced with one of these, placed his own tricoloured cockade on his hat, and embraced him before the people, who shouted 'Vivent les gardes-du-corps!' Thus terminated this scene; the royal family set out for Paris, escorted by the army and its guards mixed with it."

FRANCE: A. D. 1789-1791.
   The new constitution.
   Appropriation and sale of Church property.
   Issue of Assignats.
   Abolition of titles of honor.
   Civil constitution of the clergy.
   The Feast of the Federation.
   The Émigrés on the border and their conduct.

"The king was henceforth at the mercy of the mob. Deprived of his guards, and at a distance from his army, he was in the centre of the revolution; and surrounded by an excited and hungry populace. He was followed to Paris by the Assembly; and, for the present, was protected from further outrages by Lafayette and the national guards. Mirabeau, who was now in secret communication with the court, warned the king of his danger, in the midst of the revolutionary capital. 'The mob of Paris,' he said, 'will scourge the corpses of the king and queen.' He saw no hope of safety for them, or for the State, but in their withdrawal from this pressing danger, to Fontainebleau or Rouen, and in a strong government, supported by the Assembly, pursuing liberal measures, and quelling anarchy. His counsels were frustrated by events; and the revolution had advanced too far to be controlled by this secret and suspected adviser of the king. Meanwhile, the Assembly was busy with further schemes of revolution and desperate finance. France was divided into departments: the property of the Church was appropriated to meet the urgent necessities of the State; the disastrous assignats were issued: the subjection of the clergy to the civil power was decreed: the Parliaments were superseded, and the judicature of the country was reconstituted, upon a popular basis: titles of honour, orders of knighthood, armorial bearings—even liveries—were abolished: the army was reorganised, and the privileges of birth were made to yield to service and seniority. All Frenchmen were henceforth equal, as 'citoyens': and their new privileges were wildly celebrated by the planting of trees of liberty. The monarchy was still recognised, but it stood alone, in the midst of revolution."

"The monarchy was continued and liberally endowed; but it was shorn of most of its ancient prerogatives, and reduced to a very feeble Executive; and while it obtained a perilous veto on the resolutions and acts of the Legislature, it was separated from that power, and placed in opposition to it, by the exclusion of the Ministers of the Crown from seats and votes in the National Assembly. The Legislature was composed of a Legislative Assembly, formed of a single Chamber alone, in theory supreme, and almost absolute; but, as we have seen, it was liable to come in conflict with the Crown, and it had less authority than might be supposed, for it was elected by a vote not truly popular, and subordinate powers were allowed to possess a very large part of the rights of Sovereignty which it ought to have divided with the King. This last portion of the scheme was very striking, and was the one, too, that most caused alarm among distant political observers. Too great centralization having been one of the chief complaints against the ancient Monarchy, this evil was met with a radical reform. … The towns received extraordinary powers; their municipalities had complete control over the National Guards to be elected in them, and possessed many other functions of Government; and Paris, by these means, became almost a separate Commonwealth, independent of the State, and directing a vast military force. The same system was applied to the country; every Department was formed into petty divisions, each with its National Guards, and a considerable share of what is usually the power of the government. … Burke's saying was strictly correct, 'that France was split into thousands of Republics, with Paris predominating and queen of all.' With respect to other institutions of the State, the appointment of nearly all civil functionaries, judicial and otherwise, was taken from the Crown, and abandoned to a like popular election; and the same principle was also applied to the great and venerable institution of the Church, already deprived of its vast estates, though the election of bishops and priests by their flocks interfered directly with Roman Catholic discipline, and probably, too, with religious dogma. … Notwithstanding the opposition of Necker, who, though hardly a statesman, understood finance, it was resolved to sell the lands of the Church to procure funds for the necessities of the State; and the deficit, which was increasing rapidly, was met by an inconvertible currency of paper, secured on the lands to be sold. This expedient … was carried out with injudicious recklessness. The Assignats, as the new notes were called, seemed a mine of inexhaustible wealth, and they were issued in quantities which, from the first moment, disturbed the relations of life and commerce, though they created a show of brisk trade for a time. In matters of taxation the Assembly, too, exceeded the bounds of reason and justice; exemptions previously enjoyed by the rich were now indirectly extended to the poor; wealthy owners of land were too heavily burdened, while the populace of the towns went scot free. … Very large sums, also, belonging to the State, were advanced to the Commune of Paris, now rising into formidable power. … The funds so obtained were lavishly squandered in giving relief to the poor of the capital in the most improvident ways—in buying bread dear and reselling it cheap, and in finding fanciful employment for artizans out of work. The result, of course, was to attract to Paris many thousands of the lowest class of rabble, and to add them to the scum of the city. … On the first anniversary [July 14, 1790] of the fall of the Bastille, and before the Constitution had been finished … a great national holiday [called the Feast of the Federation] was kept; and, amidst multitudes of applauding spectators, deputations from every Department in France, headed by the authorities of the thronging capital, defiled in procession to the broad space known as the Field of Mars, along the banks of the Seine. An immense amphitheatre had been constructed [converting the plain into a valley, by the labor of many thousands, in a single week], and decorated with extraordinary pomp; and here, in the presence of a splendid Court, of the National Assembly, and of the municipalities of the realm, and in the sight of a great assemblage surging to and fro with throbbing excitement, the King took an oath that he would faithfully respect the order of things that was being established, while incense streamed from high-raised altars, and the ranks of 70,000 National Guards burst into loud cheers and triumphant music; and even the Queen, sharing in the passion of the hour, and radiant with beauty, lifted up in her arms the young child who was to be the future chief of a disenthralled and regenerate people. … {1269} The following week was gay with those brilliant displays which Paris knows how to arrange so well; flowery arches covered the site of the Bastille, fountains ran wine, and the night blazed with fire; and the far-extending influence of France was attested by enthusiastic deputations of 'friends of liberty' from many parts of Europe, hailing the dawn of an era of freedom and peace. The work, however, of the National Assembly developed some of its effects ere long. The abolition of titles of honor filled up the measure of the anger of the Nobles; the confiscation of the property of the Church, above all, the law as to the election of priests, known as the Civil Constitution of the Clergy, shocked all religious or superstitious minds. … The emigration of the Nobles, which had become very general from the 5th and 6th of October, went on in daily augmenting numbers; and, in a short time, the frontiers were edged with bands of exiles breathing vengeance and hatred. In many districts the priests denounced as sacrilege, what had been done to the Church, divided the peasantry, and preached a crusade against what they called the atheist towns; and angry mutinies broke out in the Army, which left behind savage and relentless feelings. The relations between the King and the Assembly, too, became strained, if not hostile, at every turn of affairs, to the detriment of anything like good government; and while Louis sunk into a mere puppet, the Assembly, controlled in a great measure by demagogues and the pampered mobs of Paris, felt authority gradually slipping from it." To all the many destructive and revolutionary influences at work was now added "the pitiful conduct of those best known by the still dishonorable name of 'Émigrés.' In a few months the great majority of the aristocracy of France had fled the kingdom, abandoned the throne around which they had stood, breathing maledictions against a contemptuous Nation, as arrogant as ever in the impotence of want, and thinking only of a counter-revolution that would cover the natal soil with blood. … Their utter want of patriotism and of sound feeling made thousands believe that the state of society which had bred such creatures ought to be swept away."

ALSO IN: H. Van Sybel, History of the French Revolution, book 1, chapter 5, and book 2, chapters 3-5.

M'me de Stael, Considerations on the French Revolution, part 2, chapters 12-19 (volume l).

A. F. Bertrand de Moleville, Annals of the French Revolution, part 1, chapters 22-35 (volumes 2-3).

      W. H. Jervis,
      The Gallican Church and the Revolution.,
      chapters 1-4.

FRANCE: A. D. 1790.
   The rise of the Clubs.
   Jacobins, Cordeliers, Feuillants, Club Monarchique, and Club
   of '89.

"Every party sought to gain the people; it was courted as sovereign. After attempting to influence it by religion, another means was employed, that of the clubs. At that period, clubs were private assemblies, in which the measures of government, the business of the state, and the decrees of the assembly, were discussed; their deliberations had no authority, but they exercised a certain influence. The first club owed its origin to the Breton deputies, who already met together at Versailles to consider the course of proceeding they should take. When the national representatives were transferred from Versailles to Paris, the Breton deputies and those of the assembly who were of their views held their sittings in the old convent of the Jacobins, which subsequently gave its name to their meetings. It did not at first cease to be a preparatory assembly, but as all things increase in time, the Jacobin Club did not confine itself to influencing the assembly; it sought also to influence the municipality and the people, and received as associates members of the municipality and common citizens. Its organization became more regular, its action more powerful; its sittings were regularly reported in the papers; it created branch clubs in the provinces, and raised by the side of legal power another power which first counselled and then conducted it. The Jacobin Club, as it lost its primitive character and became a popular assembly, had been forsaken by part of its founders. The latter established another society on the plan of the old one, under the name of the Club of '89. Siéyes, Chapelier, Lafayette, La Rochefoucauld, directed it, as Lameth and Barnave directed that of the Jacobins. Mirabeau belonged to both, and by both was equally courted. These clubs, of which the one prevailed in the assembly, and the other amongst the people, were attached to the new order of things, though in different degrees. The aristocracy sought to attack the revolution with its own arms; it opened royalist clubs to oppose the popular clubs. That first established, under the name of the Club des Impartiaux, could not last because it addressed itself to no class opinion. Reappearing under the name of the Club Monarchique, it included among its members all those whose views it represented. It sought to render itself popular with the lower classes, and distributed bread; but, far from accepting its overtures, the people considered such establishments as a counter-revolutionary movement. It disturbed their sittings, and obliged them several times to change their place of meeting. At length, the municipal authority found itself obliged, in January, 1791, to close this club, which had been the cause of several riots."

"At the end of 1790 the number of Jacobin Clubs was 200, many of which—like the one in Marseilles—contained more than a thousand members. Their organization extended through the whole kingdom, and every impulse given at the centre in Paris was felt at the extremities. … It was far indeed from embracing the majority of adult Frenchmen, but even at that time it had undoubtedly become—by means of its strict unity—the greatest power in the kingdom."

"This Jacobin Club soon divided itself into three other clubs: first, that party which looked upon the Jacobins as lukewarm patriots left it, and constituted themselves into the Club of the Cordeliers, where Danton's voice of thunder made the halls ring; and Camille Desmoulins' light, glancing wit played with momentous subjects. The other party, which looked upon the Jacobins as too fierce, constituted itself into the 'Club of 1789; friends of the monarchic constitution;' and afterwards named Feuillant's Club, because it met in the Feuillant Convent. Lafayette was their chief; supported by the 'respectable' patriots. These clubs generated many others, and the provinces imitated them."

"The Cordeliers were a Parisian club; the Jacobins an immense association extending throughout France. But Paris would stir and rise at the fury of the Cordeliers; and Paris being once in motion, the political revolutionists were absolutely obliged to follow. Individuality was very powerful among the Cordeliers. Their journalists, Marat, Desmoulins, Fréron, Robert, Hébert and Fabre d'Églantine, wrote each for himself. Danton, the omnipotent orator, would never write; but, by way of compensation, Marat and Desmoulins, who stammered or lisped, used principally to write, and seldom spoke. … The Cordeliers formed a sort of tribe, all living in the neighbourhood of the club."

J. Michelet, Historical View of the French Revolution, book 4, chapters 7 and 5.

FRANCE: A. D. 1790-1791.
Revolution at Avignon.
Reunion of the old Papal province with France decreed.

"The old residence of the Popes [Avignon] remained until the year 1789 under the papal government, which, from its distance, exercised its authority with great mildness, and left the towns and villages of the country in the enjoyment of a great degree of independence. The general condition of the population was, however, much the same as in the neighbouring districts of France—agitation in the towns and misery in the country. It is not surprising, therefore, that the commotion of August 4th should extend itself among the subjects of the Holy see. Here, too, castles were burned, black mail levied on the monasteries, tithes and feudal rights abolished. The city of Avignon soon became the centre of a political agitation, whose first object was to throw off the papal yoke, and then to unite the country with France. … In June, 1790, the people of Avignon tore down the papal arms, and the Town Council sent a message to Paris, that Avignon wished to be united to France." Some French regiments were sent to the city to maintain order; but "the greater part of them deserted, and marched out with the Democrats of the town to take and sack the little town of Cavaillon, which remained faithful to the Pope. From this time forward civil war raged without intermission. … The Constituent Assembly, on the 14th of September, 1791, decreed the reunion of the country with France. Before the new government could assert its authority, fresh and more dreadful atrocities had taken place," ending with the fiendish massacre of 110 prisoners, held by a band of ruffians who had taken possession of the papal castle.

FRANCE: A. D. 1790-1791.
   The oath of the clergy.
   First movements toward the European coalition
   against French democracy.
   Death of Mirabeau.
   The King's flight and arrest at Varennes.
   Rise of a Republican Party.

"By a decree of November 27th, 1790, the Assembly required the clergy to take an oath of fidelity to the nation, the law and the king, and to maintain the constitution. This oath they were to take within a week, on pain of deprivation. The King, before assenting to this measure, wished to procure the consent of the Pope, but was persuaded not to wait for it, and gave his sanction, December 3rd. … Of 300 prelates and priests, who had seats in the Assembly, those who sat on the right unanimously refused to take the oath, while those who sat on the left anticipated the day appointed for that purpose. Out of 138 archbishops and bishops, only four consented to swear, Talleyrand, Loménie de Brienne (now Archbishop of Sens), the Bishop of Orleans, and the Bishop of Viviers. The oath was also refused by the great majority of the curés and vicars, amounting, it is said, to 50,000. Hence arose the distinction of 'prêtres sermentés' and 'insermentés,' or sworn and non-juring priests. The brief of Pius VI., forbidding the oath, was burnt at the Palais Royal, as well as a mannikin representing the Pope himself in his pontificals. Many of the deprived ecclesiastics refused to vacate their functions, declared their successors intruders and the sacraments they administered null, and excommunicated all who recognised and obeyed them. Louis XVI., whose religious feelings were very strong, was perhaps more hurt by these attacks upon the Church than even by those directed against his own prerogative. The death of Mirabeau, April 2nd 1791, was a great loss to the King, though it may well be doubted whether his exertions could have saved the monarchy. He fell a victim to his profligate habits, assisted probably by the violent exertions he had recently made in the Assembly. … He was honoured with a sumptuous funeral at the public expense, to which, says a contemporary historian, nothing but grief was wanting. In fact, to most of the members of the Assembly, eclipsed by his splendid talents and overawed by his reckless audacity, his death was a relief. … After Mirabeau's death, Duport, Barnave, and Lameth reigned supreme in the Assembly, and Robespierre became more prominent. The King had now begun to fix his hopes on foreign intervention. The injuries inflicted by the decrees of the Assembly on August 4th 1789, on several princes of the Empire, through their possessions in Alsace, Franche Comté, and Lorraine, might afford a pretext for a rupture between the German Confederation and France. … The German prelates, injured by the Civil Constitution of the clergy, were among the first to complain. By this act the Elector of Mentz was deprived of his metropolitan rights over the bishoprics of Strasburg and Spires; the Elector of Trèves of those over Metz, Toul, Verdun, Nanci and St. Diez. The Bishops of Strasburg and Bale lost their diocesan rights in Alsace. Some of these princes and nobles had called upon the Emperor and the German body in January 1790, for protection against the arbitrary acts of the National Assembly. This appeal had been favourably entertained, both by the Emperor Joseph II. and by the King of Prussia; and though the Assembly offered suitable indemnities, they were haughtily refused. … The Spanish and Italian Bourbons were naturally inclined to support their relative, Louis XVI. … The King of Sardinia, connected by intermarriages with the French Bourbons, had also family interests to maintain. Catherine II. of Russia had witnessed, with humiliation and alarm, the fruits of the philosophy which she had patronised, and was opposed to the new order of things in France. … {1271} All the materials existed for an extensive coalition against French democracy. In this posture of affairs the Count d'Artois, accompanied by Calonne, who served him as a sort of minister, and by the Count de Durfort, who had been despatched from the French Court, had a conference with the Emperor, now Leopold II., at Mantua, in May 1791, in which it was agreed that, towards the following July, Austria should march 35,000 men towards the frontiers of Flanders; the German Circles 15,000 towards Alsace; the Swiss 15,000 towards the Lyonnais; the King of Sardinia 15,000 towards Dauphiné; while Spain was to hold 20,000 in readiness in Catalonia. This agreement, for there was not, as some writers have supposed, any formal treaty, was drawn up by Calonne, and amended with the Emperor's own hand. But the large force to be thus assembled was intended only as a threatening demonstration, and hostilities were not to be actually commenced without the sanction of a congress. … The King's situation had now become intolerably irksome. He was, to all intents and purposes, a prisoner at Paris. A trip, which he wished to make to St. Cloud during the Easter of 1791, was denounced at the Jacobin Club as a pretext for flight; and when he attempted to leave the Tuileries, April 18th, the tocsin was rung, his carriage was surrounded by the mob, and he was compelled to return to the palace. … A few days after … the leaders of the Revolution, who appear to have suspected his negociations abroad, exacted that he should address a circular to his ambassadors at foreign courts, in which he entirely approved the Revolution, assumed the title of 'Restorer of French liberty,' and utterly repudiated the notion that he was not free and master of his actions." But the King immediately nullified the circular by despatching secret agents with letters "in which he notified that any sanction he might give to the decrees of the Assembly was to be reputed null; that his pretended approval of the constitution was to be interpreted in an opposite sense, and that the more strongly he should seem to adhere to it, the more he should desire to be liberated from the captivity in which he was held. Louis soon after resolved on his unfortunate flight to the army of the Marquis de Bouillé at Montmédy. … Having, after some hair-breadth escapes, succeeded in quitting Paris in a travelling berlin, June 20th, they [the King, Queen, and family] reached St. Menehould in safety. But here the King was recognised by Drouet, the son of the postmaster, who, mounting his horse, pursued the royal fugitives to Varennes, raised an alarm, and caused them to be captured when they already thought themselves out of danger. In consequence of their being rather later than was expected, the military preparations that had been made for their protection entirely failed. The news of the King's flight filled Paris with consternation. The Assembly assumed all the executive power of the Government, and when the news of the King's arrest arrived, they despatched Barnave, Latour, Maubourg and Pétion to conduct him and his family back to Paris. … Notices had been posted up in Paris, that those who applauded the King should be horsewhipped, and that those who insulted him should be hanged; hence he was received on entering the capital with a dead silence. The streets, however, were traversed without accident to the Tuileries, but as the royal party were alighting, a rush was made upon them by some ruffians, and they were with difficulty saved from injury. The King's brother, the count of Provence, who had fled at the same time by a different route, escaped safely to Brussels. This time the King's intention to fly could not be denied; he had, indeed, himself proclaimed it, by sending to the Assembly a manifest, in which he explained his reasons for it, declared that he did not intend to quit the kingdom, expressed his desire to restore liberty and establish a constitution, but annulled all that he had done during the last two years. … The King, after his return, was provisionally suspended from his functions by a decree of the Assembly, June 25th. Guards were placed over him and the Queen; the gardens of the Tuileries assumed the appearance of a camp; sentinels were stationed on the roof of the Palace, and even in the Queen's bedchamber. … From the period of the King's flight to Varennes must be dated the first decided appearance of a republican party in France. During his absence the Assembly had been virtually sovereign, and hence men took occasion to say, 'You see the public peace has been maintained, affairs have gone on, in the usual way in the King's absence.' The chief advocates of a republic were Brissot, Condorcet, and the recently-established club of the Cordeliers. … The arch-democrat, Thomas Payne, who was now at Paris, also endeavoured to excite the populace against the King. The Jacobin Club had not yet gone this length; they were for bringing Louis XVI. to trial and deposing him, but for maintaining the monarchy."

ALSO IN: J. Michelet, Historical View of the French Revolution, book 4, chapters 8-14.

      A. B. Cochrane,
      Francis I., and other Historical Studies,
      volume 2 (The Flight of Varennes).

FRANCE: A. D. 1791 (July-September).
   Attitude of Foreign Powers.
   Coolness of Austria towards the Émigrés.
   The Declaration of Pilnitz.
   Completion of the Constitution.
   Restoration of the King.
   Tumult in the Champs de Mars.
   Dissolution of the Constituent National Assembly.

   "On the 27th of July, Prince Reuss presented a memorial [from
   the Court of Austria] to the Court of Berlin, in which the
   Emperor explained at length his views of a European Concert.
   It was drawn up, throughout, in Leopold's usual cautious and
   circumspect manner. … In case an armed intervention should
   appear necessary—they would take into consideration the
   future constitution of France; but in doing so they were to
   renounce, in honour of the great cause in which they were
   engaged, all views of selfish aggrandizement. We see what a
   small part the desire for war played in the drawing up of this
   far-seeing plan. The document repeatedly urged that no step
   ought to be taken without the concurrence of all the Powers,
   and especially of England; and as England's decided aversion
   to every kind of interference was well known, this stipulation
   alone was sufficient to stamp upon the whole scheme, the
   character of a harmless demonstration."
{1272}
   At the same time Catharine II. of Russia, released from war
   with the Turks, and bent upon the destruction of Poland,
   desired "to implicate the Emperor as inextricably as possible
   in the French quarrel, in order to deprive Poland of its most
   powerful protector; she therefore entered with the greatest
   zeal into the negociations for the support of Louis XVI. Her
   old opponent, the brilliant King Gustavus of Sweden, declared
   his readiness—on receipt of a large subsidy from Russia—to
   conduct a Swedish army by sea to the coast of Flanders, and
   thence, under the guidance of Bouillé, against Paris. … But,
   of course, every word he uttered was only an additional
   warning to Leopold to keep the peace. … Under these
   circumstances he [the Emperor] was most disagreeably surprised
   on the 20th of August, a few days before his departure for
   Pillnitz, by the sudden and entirely unannounced and
   unexpected arrival in Vienna of the Count d'Artois. It was not
   possible to refuse to see him, but Leopold made no secret to
   him of the real position of affairs. … He asked permission
   to accompany the Emperor to Pillnitz, which the latter, with
   cool politeness, said that he had no scruple in granting, but
   that even there no change of policy would take place. …
   Filled with such sentiments, the Emperor Leopold set out for
   the conference with his new ally; and the King of Prussia came
   to meet him with entirely accordant views. … The
   representations of d'Artois, therefore, made just as little
   impression at Pillnitz, as they had done, a week before, at
   Vienna. … On the 27th, d'Artois received the joint answer of
   the two Sovereigns, the tone and purport of which clearly
   testified to the sentiments of its authors. … The Emperor
   and King gave their sanction to the peaceable residence of
   individual Émigrés in their States, but declared that no armed
   preparations would be allowed before the conclusion of an
   agreement between the European Powers. To this rejection the
   two Monarchs added a proposal of their own—contained in a
   joint declaration—in which they spoke of the restoration of
   order and monarchy in France as a question of the greatest
   importance to the whole of Europe. They signified their
   intention of inviting the coöperation of all the European
   Powers. … But as it was well ascertained that England would
   take no part, the expressions they chose were really
   equivalent to a declaration of non-intervention, and were
   evidently made use of by Leopold solely to intimidate the
   Parisian democrats. … Thus ended the conference of Pillnitz,
   after the two Monarchs had agreed to protect the constitution
   of the Empire, to encourage the Elector of Saxony to accept
   the crown of Poland, and to afford each other friendly aid in
   every quarter. The statement, therefore, which has been a
   thousand times repeated, that the first coalition for an
   attack on the French Revolution was formed on this occasion,
   has been shown to be utterly without foundation. As soon as
   the faintest gleam of a reconciliation between Louis and the
   National Assembly appeared, the cause of the Emigrés was
   abandoned by the German Courts."

H. Von Sybel, History of the French Revolution, book 2, chapter 6. (volume l).

At Paris, meantime, "the commissioners charged to make their report on the affair of Varennes presented it on the 16th of July. In the journey, they said, there was nothing culpable; and even if there were, the King was inviolable. Dethronement could not result from it, since the King had not staid away long enough, and had not resisted the summons of the legislative body. Robespierre, Buzot, and Pétion repeated all the well known arguments against the inviolability. Duport, Barnave, and Salles answered them, and it was at length resolved that the King could not be brought to trial on account of his flight. … No sooner was this resolution passed than Robespierre rose, and protested strongly against it, in the name of humanity. On the evening preceding this decision, a great tumult had taken place at the Jacobins. A petition to the Assembly was there drawn up, praying it to declare that the King was deposed as a perfidious traitor to his oaths, and that it would seek to supply his place by all the constitutional means. It was resolved that this petition should be carried on the following day to the Champ de Mars, where everyone might sign it on the altar of the country. Next day, it was accordingly carried to the place agreed upon, and the crowd of the seditious was reinforced by that of the curious, who wished to be spectators of the event. At this moment the decree was passed, so that it was now too late to petition. Lafayette arrived, broke down the barricades already erected, was threatened and even fired at, but … at length prevailed on the populace to retire. … But the tumult was soon renewed. Two invalids, who happened to be, nobody knows for what purpose, under the altar of the country, were murdered, and then the uproar became unbounded. The Assembly sent for the municipality, and charged it to preserve public order. Bailly repaired to the Champ de Mars, ordered the red flag to be unfurled, and, by virtue of martial law, summoned the seditious to retire. … Lafayette at first ordered a few shots to be fired in the air: the crowd quitted the altar of the country, but soon rallied. Thus driven to extremity, he gave the word, 'Fire!' The first discharge killed some of the rioters. Their number has been exaggerated. Some have reduced it to 30, others have raised it to 400, and others to several thousand. The last statement was believed at the moment, and the consternation became general. … Lafayette and Bailly were vehemently reproached for the proceedings in the Champ de Mars; but both of them, considering it their duty to observe the law, and to risk popularity and life in its execution, felt neither regret nor fear for what they had done. The factions were overawed by the energy which they displayed. … About this time the Assembly came to a determination which has since been censured, but the result of which did not prove so mischievous as it has been supposed. It decreed that none of its members should be re-elected. Robespierre was the proposer of this resolution, and it was attributed to the envy which he felt against his colleagues, among whom he had not shone. … The new Assembly was thus deprived of men whose enthusiasm was somewhat abated, and whose legislative science was matured by an experience of three years. … The constitution was … completed with some haste, and submitted to the King for his acceptance. From that moment his freedom was restored to him; or, if that expression be objected to, the strict watch kept over the palace ceased. … After a certain number of days he declared that he accepted the constitution. … He repaired to the Assembly, where he was received as in the most brilliant times. Lafayette, who never forgot to repair the inevitable evils of political troubles, proposed a general amnesty for all acts connected with the Revolution, which was proclaimed amidst shouts of joy, and the prisons were instantly thrown open. At length, on the 30th of September [1791], Thouret, the last president, declared that the Constituent Assembly had terminated its sittings."

A. Thiers, History of the French Revolution (American edition), volume 1, pages 186-193.

ALSO IN: M'me de Stael, Considerations on the French Revolution, part 2, chapters 22-23, and part 3, chapters 1-2.

FRANCE: A. D. 1791 (October).
   The meeting of the Legislative Assembly.
   Its party divisions.
   The Girondists and their leaders.
   The Mountain.

"The most glorious destiny was predicted for the Constitution, yet it did not live a twelve month; the Assembly that was to apply it was but a transition between the Constitutional Monarchy and the Republic. It was because the Revolution partook much more of a social than of a political overthrow. The Constitution had done all it could for the political part, but the social fabric remained to be reformed; the ancient privileged classes had been scotched, but not killed. … The new Legislative Assembly [which met October 1, its members having been elected before the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly] was composed of 745 deputies, mostly chosen from the middle classes and devoted to the Revolution; those of the Right and Extreme Right going by the name of Feuillants, those of the Left and Extreme Left by the name of Jacobins. The Right was composed of Constitutionalists, who counted on the support of the National Guard and departmental authorities. Their ideas of the Revolution were embodied in the Constitution. … They kept up some relations with the Court by means of Barnave and the Lameths, but their pillar outside the Assembly, their trusty counsellor, seems to have been Lafayette. … The Left was composed of men resolved at all risks to further the Revolution, even at the expense of the Constitution. They intended to go as far as a Republic, only they lacked common unity of views, and did not form a compact body. … They reckoned among their numbers Vergniaud, Guadet, and Gensonné, deputies of the Gironde [the Bordeaux region, on the Garonne], powerful and vehement orators, and from whom their party afterwards took the name of 'Girondins'; also Brissot [de Warville] (born 1754), a talented journalist, who had drawn up the petition for the King's deposition; and Condorcet (born 1743), an ultra-liberal, but a brilliant philosopher. Their leader outside the Assembly was Pétion (born 1753), a cold, calculating, and dissembling Republican, enjoying great popularity with the masses. The Extreme Left, occupying in small numbers the raised seats in the Assembly, from which circumstance they afterwards took the name of 'the Mountain,' were auxiliaries of the 'Girondins' in their attempts to further a Revolution which should be entirely in the interest of the people. Their inspirers outside the Assembly were Robespierre (born 1759), who controlled the club of the Jacobins by his dogmatic rigorism and fame for integrity; and Danton (born 1759), surnamed the Mirabeau of the 'Breechless' (Sansculottes), a bold and daring spirit, who swayed the new club of the Cordeliers. The Centre was composed of nonentities, their moderation was inspired by fear, hence they nearly always voted with the Left."

H. Van Laun, The French Revolutionary Epoch, book 1, chapter 2, section 3 (volume 1).

"The department of the Gironde had given birth to a new political party in the twelve citizens who formed its deputies. … The names (obscure and unknown up to this period), of Ducos, Guadet, Lafond-Ladebat, Grangeneuve, Gensonné, Vergniaud, were about to rise into notice and renown with the storms and disasters of their country; they were the men who were destined to give that impulse to the Revolution that had hitherto remained in doubt and indecision, before which it still trembled with apprehension, and which was to precipitate it into a republic. Why was this impulse fated to have birth in the department of the Gironde and not in Paris? Nought but conjectures can be offered on this subject. … Bordeaux was a commercial city, and commerce, which requires liberty through interest, at last desires it through a love of freedom. Bordeaux was the great commercial link between America and France, and their constant intercourse with America had communicated to the Gironde their love for free institutions. Moreover Bordeaux … was the birthplace of Montaigne and Montesquieu, those two great republicans of the French school."

   "In the new National Assembly there was only one powerful and
   active party—that of the Gironde. … When we use the term
   'parties' in reference to this Assembly, nothing more is meant
   by it than small groups of from 12 to 20 persons, who bore the
   sway in the rostra and in the Committees, and who alternately
   carried with them the aimless crowd of Deputies. It is true,
   indeed, that at the commencement of their session, 130
   Deputies entered their names among the Jacobins, and about 200
   among the Feuillants, but this had no lasting influence on the
   divisions, and the majority wavered under the influence of
   temporary motives. The party which was regarded as the 'Right'
   had no opportunity for action, but saw themselves, from the
   very first, obliged to assume an attitude of defence. …
   Outside the Chamber the beau ideal of this party,—General
   Lafayette,—declared himself in favour of an American Senate,
   but without any of the energy of real conviction. As he had
   defended the Monarchy solely from a sense of duty, while all
   the feelings of his heart were inclined towards a Republic, so
   now, though he acknowledged the necessity of an upper Chamber,
   the existing Constitution appeared to him to possess a more
   ideal beauty. He never attained, on this point, either to
   clear ideas or decided actions; and it was at this period that
   he resigned his command of the National guard in Paris, and
   retired for a while to his estate in Auvergne. … The
   Girondist Deputies … were distinguished among the new
   members of the Assembly by personal dignity, regular
   education, and natural ability; and were, moreover, as ardent
   in their radicalism as any Parisian demagogue. They
   consequently soon became the darlings of all those zealous
   patriots for whom the Cordeliers were too dirty and the
   Feuillants too luke warm.
{1274}
   External advantages are not without their weight, even in the
   most terrible political crises, and the Girondists owe to the
   magic of their eloquence, and especially to that of Vergniaud,
   an enduring fame, which neither their principles nor their
   deeds would have earned for them. … The representatives of
   Bordeaux had never occupied a leading position in the
   Girondist party, to which they had given its name. The real
   leadership of the Gironde fell singularly enough into the
   hands of an obscure writer, a political lady, and a priest who
   carried on his operations behind the scenes. It was their
   hands that overthrew the throne of the Capets, and spread
   revolution over Europe. … The writer in this trio was
   Brissot, who on the 16th of July had wished to proclaim the
   Republic, and who now represented the capital in the National
   Assembly, as a constitutional member. … While Brissot shaped
   the foreign policy of the Girondist party, its home affairs
   were directed by Marie Jeanne Roland, wife of the quondam
   Inspector of Factories at Lyons, with whom she had come the
   year before to Paris, and immediately thrown herself into the
   whirlpool of political life. As early as the year 1789, she
   had written to a friend, that the National Assembly must
   demand two illustrious heads, or all would be lost. … She
   was … 36 years old, not beautiful, but interesting,
   enthusiastic and indefatigable; with noble aims, but incapable
   of discerning the narrow line which separates right from
   wrong. … When warned by a friend of the unruly nature of the
   Parisian mob, she replied, that bloodhounds were after all
   indispensable for starting the game. … A less conspicuous,
   but not less important, part in this association, was played
   by the Abbé Sieyès. He did what neither Brissot nor Mad.
   Roland could have done by furnishing his party with a
   comprehensive and prospective plan of operations. … Their
   only clearly defined objects were to possess themselves of the
   reins of government, to carry on the Revolution, and to
   destroy the Monarchy by every weapon within their reach."

FRANCE: A. D. 1791-1792.
   Growth and spread of anarchy and civil war.
   Activity of the Emigrés and the ejected priests.
   Decrees against them vetoed by the King.
   The Girondists in control of the government.
   War with the German powers forced on by them.

"It was an ominous proof of the little confidence felt by serious men in the permanence of the new Constitution, that the funds fell when the King signed it. All the chief municipal posts in Paris were passing into the hands of Republicans, and when Bailly, in November, ceased to be Mayor of Paris, he was succeeded in that great office by Pétion, a vehement and intolerant Jacobin. Lafayette had resigned the command of the National Guard, which was then divided under six commanders, and it could no longer be counted on to support the cause of order. Over a great part of France there was a total insecurity of life and property, such as had perhaps never before existed in a civilised country, except in times of foreign invasion or successful rebellion. Almost all the towns in the south—Marseilles, Toulon, Nîmes, Arles, Avignon, Montpellier, Carpentras, Aix, Montauban—were centres of Republicanism, brigandage, or anarchy. The massacres of Jourdain at Avignon, in October, are conspicuous even among the horrors of the Revolution. Caen in the following month was convulsed by a savage and bloody civil war. The civil constitution of the clergy having been condemned by the Pope, produced an open schism, and crowds of ejected priests were exciting the religious fanaticism of the peasantry. In some districts in the south, the war between Catholic and Protestant was raging as fiercely as in the 17th century, while in Brittany, and especially in La Vendée, there were all the signs of a great popular insurrection against the new Government. Society seemed almost in dissolution, and there was scarcely a department in which law was observed and property secure. The price of corn, at the same time, was rising fast under the influence of a bad harvest in the south, aggravated by the want of specie, the depreciation of paper money, and the enormously increased difficulties of transport. The peasantry were combining to refuse the paper money. It was falling rapidly in value. … In the mean time the stream of emigrants continued unabated, and it included the great body of the officers of the army who had been driven from the regiments by their own soldiers. … At Brussels, Worms, and Coblentz, emigrants were forming armed organisations."

W. E. H. Lecky, History of England in the 18th century, chapter 21 (volume 5).

"The revolution was threatened by two dangerous enemies, the emigrants, who were urging on a foreign invasion, and the non-juring bishops and priests who were doing all in their power to excite domestic rebellion. The latter were really the more dangerous. … The Girondists clamoured for repressive measures. On the 30th of October it was decreed that the count of Provence, unless he returned within two months, should forfeit all rights to the regency. On the 9th of November an edict threatened the emigrants with confiscation and death unless they returned to their allegiance before the end of the year. On the 29th of November came the attack upon the non-jurors. They were called upon to take the oath within eight days, when lists were to be drawn up of those who refused; these were then to forfeit their pensions, and if any disturbance took place in their district they were to be removed from it, or if their complicity were proved they were to be imprisoned for two years. The king accepted the decree against his brother, but he opposed his veto to the other two. The Girondists and Jacobins eagerly seized the opportunity for a new attack upon the monarchy. … Throughout the winter attention was devoted almost exclusively to foreign affairs. It has been seen that the emperor was really eager for peace, and that as long as he remained in that mood there was little risk of any other prince taking the initiative. At the same time it must be acknowledged that Leopold's tone towards the French government was often too haughty and menacing to be conciliatory, and also that the open preparations of the emigrants in neighbouring states constituted an insult if not a danger to France. The Girondists, the most susceptible of men, only expressed the national sentiment in dwelling upon this with bitterness, and in calling for vengeance. At the same time they had conceived the definite idea that their own supremacy could best be obtained and secured by forcing on a foreign war. {1275} This was expressly avowed by Brissot, who took the lead of the party in this matter. Robespierre, on the other hand, partly through temperament and partly through jealousy of his brilliant rivals, was inclined to the maintenance of peace. But on this point the Feuillants were agreed with the Gironde, and so a vast majority was formed to force the unwilling king and ministers into war. The first great step was taken when Duportail, who had charge of military affairs, was replaced by Narbonne, a Feuillant. Louis XVI. was compelled to issue a note (14 December, 1791) to the emperor and to the archbishop of Trier to the effect that if the military force of the emigrants were not disbanded by the 15th of January hostilities would be commenced against the elector. The latter at once ordered the cessation of the military preparations, but the emigrants not only refused to obey but actually insulted the French envoy. Leopold expressed his desire for peace, but at the same time declared that any attack on the electorate of Trier would be regarded as an act of hostility to the empire. These answers were unsatisfactory, and Narbonne collected three armies on the frontiers, under the command of Rochambeau, Lafayette, and Luckner, and amounting together to about 150,000 men. On the 25th of January an explicit declaration was demanded from the emperor, with a threat that war would be declared unless a satisfactory answer was received by the 4th of March. Leopold II. saw all his hopes of maintaining peace in western Europe gradually disappearing, and was compelled to bestir himself. … On the 7th of February he finally concluded a treaty with the king of Prussia. … On the 1st of March, while still hoping to avoid a quarrel, Leopold II. died of a sudden illness, and with him perished the last possibility of peace. His son and successor, Francis II., who was now 24, had neither his father's ability nor his experience, and he was naturally more easily swayed by the anti-revolutionary spirit. … The Girondists combined all their efforts for an attack upon the minister of foreign affairs, Delessart, whom they accused of truckling to the enemies of the nation. Delessart was committed to prison, and his colleagues at once resigned. The Gironde now came into office. The ministry of home affairs was given to Roland; of war to Servan; of finance to Clavière. Dumouriez obtained the foreign department, Duranthon that of justice, and Lacoste the marine. Its enemies called it 'the ministry of the Sansculottes.' … On the 20th of April [1792] Louis XVI. appeared in the assembly and read with trembling voice a declaration of war against the king of Hungary and Bohemia."

The sincere desire of the Emperor Leopold II. to avoid war with France, and the restraining influence over the King of Prussia which he exercised up to the time when Catherine II. of Russia overcame it by the Polish temptation, are set forth by H. von Sybel in passages quoted elsewhere.

A. F. Bertrand de Moleville, Annals of the French Revolution, part 2. chapters 1-14 (volume 5-6).

      F. C. Schlosser,
      History of the Eighteenth Century,
      5th period, 2d division, chapter 1 (volume 6).

FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (April-July).
Opening of the war with Austria and Prussia.
French reverses.

"Hostilities followed close upon the declaration of war. At this time the forces destined to come into collision were posted as follows: Austria had 40,000 men in Belgium, and 25,000 on the Rhine. These numbers might easily have been increased to 80,000, but the Emperor of Austria did no more than collect 7,000 or 8,000 around Brisgau, and some 20,000 more around Rastadt. The Prussians, now bound into a close alliance with Austria, had still a great distance to traverse from their base to the theatre of war, and could not hope to undertake active operations for a long time to come. France, on the other hand, had already three strong armies in the field. The Army of the North, under General Rochambeau, nearly 50,000 strong, held the frontier from Philippeville to Dunkirk; General Lafayette commanded a second army of about the same strength in observation from Philippeville to the Lauter; and a third army of 40,000 men, under Marshal Luckner, watched the course of the Rhine from Lauterbourg to the confines of Switzerland. The French forces were strong, however, on paper only. The French army had been mined, as it seemed, by the Revolution, and had fallen almost to pieces. The wholesale emigration of the aristocrats had robbed it of its commissioned officers, the old experienced leaders whom the men were accustomed to follow and obey. Again, the passion for political discussion, and the new notions of universal equality had fostered a dangerous spirit of license in the ranks. … While the regular regiments of the old establishment were thus demoralised, the new levies were still but imperfectly organised, and the whole army was unfit to take the field. It was badly equipped, without transport, and without those useful administrative services which are indispensable for mobility and efficiency. Moreover, the prestige of the French arms was at its lowest ebb. A long and enervating peace had followed since the last great war, in which the French armies had endured only failure and ignominious defeat. It is not strange, then, that the foes whom France had so confidently challenged, counted upon an easy triumph over the revolutionary troops. The earliest operations fully confirmed these anticipations. … France after the declaration of war had at once assumed the initiative, and proceeded to invade Belgium. Here the Duke Albert of Saxe-Teschen, who commanded the Imperialist forces, held his forces concentrated in three principal corps: one covered the line from the sea to Tournay; the second was at Leuze; the third and weakest at Mons. The total of these troops rose to barely 40,000, and Mons, the most important point in the general line of defence, was the least strongly held. All able strategist gathering together 30,000 men from each of the French armies of the Centre and North, would have struck at Mons with all his strength, cut Duke Albert's communications with the Rhine, turned his inner flank, and rolled him up into the sea. But no great genius as yet directed the military energies of France. … By Dumouriez's advice, the French armies were ordered to advance against the Austrians by several lines. Four columns of invasion were to enter Belgium; one was to follow the sea coast, the second to march on Tournay, the third to move from Valenciennes on Mons, and the fourth, under Lafayette, on Givet or Namur. {1276} Each, according to the success it might achieve, was to reinforce the next nearest to it, and all, finally, were to converge on Brussels. At the very outset, however, the French encountered the most ludicrous reverses. Their columns fled in disorder directly they came within sight of the enemy. Lafayette alone continued his march boldly towards Namur; but he was soon compelled to retire by the news of the hasty flight of the columns north of him. The French troops had proved as worthless as their leaders were incapable; whole brigades turned tail, crying that they were betrayed, casting away their weapons as they ran, and displaying the most abject cowardice and terror. Not strangely, after this pitiful exhibition, the Austrians—all Europe, indeed—held the military power of France in the utmost contempt. … But now the national danger stirred France to its inmost depths. French spirit was thoroughly roused. The country rose as one man, determined to offer a steadfast, stubborn front to its foes. Stout-hearted leaders, full of boundless energy and enthusiasm, summoned all the resources of the nation to stem and roll back the tide of invasion. Immediate steps were taken to put the defeated and disgraced armies of the frontier upon a new footing. Lafayette replaced Rochambeau, with charge from Longwy to the sea, his main body about Sedan; Luckner took the line from the Moselle to the Swiss mountains, with head-quarters at Metz. A third general, destined to come speedily to the front, also joined the army as Lafayette's lieutenant. This was Dumouriez, who, wearied and baffled by Parisian politics, sought the freedom of the field."

FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (June-August).
   The King's dismissal of Girondist ministers.
   Mob demonstration of June 20.
   Lafayette in Paris.
   His failure.
   The Country declared to be in Danger.
   Gathering of volunteers in Paris.
   Brunswick's manifesto.
   Mob attack on the Tuileries, August 10.
   Massacre of the Swiss.

"Servan, the minister of war, proposed the formation of an armed camp for the protection of Paris. Much opposition was, however, raised to the project, and the Assembly decreed (June 6) that 20,000 volunteers, recruited in the departments, should meet at Paris to take part in the celebration of a federal festival on July 14, the third anniversary of the fall of the Bastille. The real object of those who supported the decree was to have a force at Paris with which to maintain mastery over the city should the Allies penetrate into the interior. Louis left the decree unsanctioned, as he had the one directed against nonjurors. The agitators of the sections sought to get up an armed demonstration against this exercise of the King's constitutional prerogative. Though armed demonstrations were illegal, the municipality offered but a perfunctory and half-hearted resistance. … Louis, irritated at the pressure put on him by Roland, Clavière, and Servan, to sanction the two decrees, dismissed the three ministers from office (June 13). Dumouriez, who had quarreled with his colleagues, supported the King in taking this step, but in face of the hostility of the Assembly himself resigned office (June 15). Three days later a letter from Lafayette was read in the Assembly. The general denounced the Jacobins as the authors of all disorders, called on the Assembly to maintain the prerogatives of the crown, and intimated that his army would not submit to see the constitution violated (June 18). Possibly the dismissal of the ministers and the writing of this letter were measures concerted between the King and Lafayette. In any case the King's motive was to excite division between the constitutionalists and the Girondists, so as to weaken the national defence. The dismissal of the ministers was, however, regarded by the Girondists as a proof of the truth of their worst suspicions, and no measures were taken to prevent an execution of the project of making an armed, and therefore illegal, demonstration against the royal policy. On June 20, thousands of persons, carrying pikes or whatever weapon came to hand, and accompanied by several battalions of the national guard, marched from St. Antoine to the hall of the Assembly. A deputation read an address demanding the recall of the ministers. Afterwards the whole of the procession, men, women and children, dancing, singing, and carrying emblems, defiled through the chamber. Instigated by their leaders they broke into the Tuileries. The King, who took his stand on a window seat, was mobbed for four hours. To please his unwelcome visitors, he put on his head a red cap, such as was now commonly worn at the Jacobins as an emblem of liberty, in imitation of that which was once worn by the emancipated Roman slave. He declared his intention to observe the constitution, but neither insult nor menace could prevail on him to promise his sanction to the two decrees. The Queen, separated from the King, sat behind a table on which she placed the Dauphin, exposed to the gaze and taunts of the crowds which slowly traversed the palace apartments. At last, but not before night, the mob left the Tuileries without doing further harm, and order was again restored. This insurrection and the slackness, if not connivance, of the municipal authorities, excited a widespread feeling of indignation amongst constitutionalists. Lafayette came to Paris, and at the bar of the Assembly demanded in person what he had before demanded by letter (June 28). With him, as with other former members of the constituent Assembly, it was a point of honour to shield the persons of the King and Queen from harm. Various projects for their removal from Paris were formed, but policy and sentiment alike forbade Marie Antoinette to take advantage of them. … The one gleam of light on the horizon of this unhappy Queen was the advance of the Allies. 'Better die,' she one day bitterly exclaimed, 'than be saved by Lafayette and the constitutionalists.' There was, no doubt, a possibility of the Allies reaching Paris that summer, but this enormously increased the danger of the internal situation. … To rouse the nation to a sense of peril the Assembly [July 11] caused public proclamation to be made in every municipality that the country was in danger. The appeal was responded to with enthusiasm, and within six weeks more than 60,000 volunteers enlisted. The Duke of Brunswick, the commander-in-chief of the allied forces, published a manifesto, drawn up by the emigrants. If the authors of this astounding proclamation had deliberately intended to serve the purpose of those Frenchmen who were bent on kindling zeal for the war, they could not have done anything more likely to serve their purpose. {1277} The powers required the country to submit unconditionally to Louis's mercy. All who offered resistance were to be treated as rebels to their King, and Paris was to suffer military execution if any harm befell the royal family. … Meanwhile, a second insurrection, which had for its object the King's deposition, was in preparation. The Assembly, after declaring the country in danger, had authorised the sections of Paris, as well as the administrative authorities throughout France, to meet at any moment. The sections had, in consequence, been able to render themselves entirely independent of the municipality. In each of the sectional or primary assemblies from 700 to 3,000 active citizens had the right to vote, but few cared to attend, and thus it constantly happened that a small active minority spoke and acted in the name of an apathetic constitutional majority. Thousands of volunteers passed through Paris on their way to the frontier, some of whom were purposely retained to take part in the insurrection. The municipality of Marseilles, at the request of Barbaroux, a young friend of the Rolands, sent up a band of 500 men, who first sung in Paris the verses celebrated as the 'Marseillaise' [see MARSEILLAISE]. The danger was the greater since every section had its own cannon and a special body of cannoneers, who nearly to a man were on the side of the revolutionists. The terrified and oscillating Assembly made no attempt to suppress agitation, but acquitted (August 8) Lafayette, by 406 against 280 votes, of a charge of treason made against him by the left, on the ground that he had sought to intimidate the Legislature. This vote was regarded as tantamount to a refusal to pass sentence of deposition on Louis. On the following night the insurrection began. Its centre was in the Faubourg of St. Antoine, and it was organised by but a small number of men. Mandat, the commander-in-chief of the national guard, was an energetic constitutionalist, who had taken well-concerted measures for the defence of the Tuileries. But the unscrupulousness of the conspirators was more than a match for his zeal. Soon after midnight commissioners from 28 sections met together at the Hotel de Ville, and forced the Council-General of the Municipality to summon Mandat before it, and to send out orders to the officers of the guard in contradiction to those previously given. Mandat, unaware of what was passing, obeyed the summons, and on his arrival was arrested and murdered. After this the commissioners dispersed the lawful council and usurped its place. At the Tuileries were about 950 Swiss and more than 4,000 national guards. Early in the morning the first bands of insurgents appeared. On the fidelity of the national guards it was impossible to rely; and the royal family, attended by a small escort, left the palace, and sought refuge with the Assembly [which held its sessions in the old Riding-School of the Tuileries, not far from the palace, at one side of the gardens]. Before their departure orders had been given to the Swiss to repel force by force, and soon the sound of firing spread alarm through Paris. The King sent the Swiss instructions to retire, which they punctually obeyed. One column, passing through the Tuileries gardens, was shot down almost to a man. The rest reached the Assembly in safety, but several were afterwards massacred on their way to prison. For 24 hours the most frightful anarchy prevailed. Numerous murders were committed in the streets. The assailants, some hundreds of whom had perished, sacked the palace, and killed all the men whom they found there."

"Terror and fury ruled the hour. The Swiss, pressed on from without, paralysed from within, have ceased to shoot; but not to be shot. What shall they do? Desperate is the moment. Shelter or instant death: yet How, Where? One party flies out by the Rue de l'Echelle; is destroyed utterly, 'en entier.' A second, by the other side, throws itself into the Garden; 'hurrying across a keen fusillade'; rushes suppliant into the National Assembly; finds pity and refuge in the back benches there. The third, and largest, darts out in column, 300 strong, towards the Champs Elysées: 'Ah, could we but reach Courbevoye, where other Swiss are!' Wo! see, in such fusillade the column 'soon breaks itself by diversity of opinion,' into distracted segments, this way and that;—to escape in holes, to die fighting from street to street. The firing and murdering will not cease: not yet for long. The red Porters of Hotels are shot at, be they 'Suisse' by nature, or Suisse only in name. The very Firemen, who pump and labour on that smoking Carrousel [which the mob had fired]; are shot at; why should the Carrousel not burn? Some Swiss take refuge in private houses; find that mercy too does still dwell in the heart of man. The brave Marseillese are merciful, late so wroth; and labour to save. … But the most are butchered, and even mangled. Fifty (some say Fourscore) were marched as prisoners, by National Guards, to the Hôtel-de-Ville: the ferocious people bursts through on them, in the Place-de-Greve; massacres them to the last man. 'O Peuple, envy of the universe!' Peuple, in mad Gaelic effervescence! Surely few things in the history of carnage are painfuler. What ineffaceable red streak, flickering so sad in the memory, is that, of this poor column of red Swiss, 'breaking itself in the confusion of opinions'; dispersing, into blackness and death! Honour to you, brave men; honourable pity, through long times! Not martyrs were ye; and yet almost more. He was no King of yours, this Louis; and he forsook you like a King of shreds and patches: ye were but sold to him for some poor sixpence a-day; yet would ye work for your wages, keep your plighted word: The work now was to die; and ye did it. Honour to you, O Kinsmen; and may the old Deutsch 'Biederkeit' and' Tapferkeit,' and Valour which is Worth and Truth, be they Swiss, be they Saxon, fail in no age!"

      ALSO IN:
      A. Thiers,
      History of the French Revolution
      (American edition), volume 1, pages 266-330.

      Madame Campan,
      Memoirs of Marie Antoinette,
      volume 2, chapters 9-10.

      J. Claretie,
      Camille Desmoulins and his Wife,
      chapter 3, sections 4-5.

      A. F. Bertrand de Moleville,
      Annals of the French Revolution,
      part 2, chapters 18-28 (volumes 6-7).

FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (August).
   Power seized by the insurrectionary Commune of Paris.
   Dethronement and imprisonment of the King.
   Conflict between the Girondins of the Assembly and the
   Jacobins of the Commune.
   Alarm at the advance of the Prussians.
   The searching of the city for suspects.
   Arrest of 3,000.

"While the Swiss were being murdered, the Legislative Assembly were informed that a deputation wished to enter. At the head of this deputation appeared Huguenin, who announced that a new municipality for Paris had been formed, and that the old one had resigned. This was, indeed, the fact. On the departure of Santerre the commissioners of the sections had given orders to the legitimate council-general of the municipality to resign, and the council-general, startled by the events which were passing, consented. The commissioners then called themselves the new municipality, and proceeded, as municipal officers, to send a deputation to the Assembly. The deputation almost ordered that the Assembly should immediately declare the king's dethronement, and, in the presence of the unfortunate monarch himself, Vergniaud mounted the tribune, and proposed, on behalf of the Committee of Twenty-one, that the French people should be invited to elect a National Convention to draw up a new Constitution, and that the chief of the executive power, as he called the king, should be provisionally suspended from his functions until the new Convention had pronounced what measures should be adopted to establish a new government and the reign of liberty and equality. The motion was carried, and was countersigned by one of the king's ministers, De Joly; and thus the old monarchy of the Bourbons in France came to an end. But the Assembly had not yet completed its work. The ministry was dismissed, as not having the confidence of the people, and the Minister of War, d'Abancourt, was ordered to be tried by the court at Orleans for treason, in having brought the Swiss Guards to Paris. The Assembly then prepared to elect new ministers. Roland, Clavière, and Servan were recalled by acclamation to their former posts. … Danton was elected Minister of Justice by 222 votes against 60; Gaspard Monge, the great mathematician, was elected Minister of Marine, on the nomination of Condorcet; and Lebrun-Tondu, a friend of Brissot and Dumouriez, and a former abbé, to the department of Foreign Affairs. At the bidding of the self-elected municipality of Paris the king had been suspended, and a new ministry inaugurated, and this new municipality, which, it must be remembered, only represented 28 sections of Paris, next proceeded to send its decrees all over France. It was joined on this very day by some of the extreme men who hoped through its means to force a republic on France—notably by Camille Desmoulins and Dubois-Dubais; and on the 11th it was still further reinforced by the presence of Robespierre, Billaud-Varenne, and Marat. The Legislative Assembly had become a mere instrument in the hands of the Committee of Twenty-one [a committee specially charged with watchfulness over the safety of the public, and which foreshadowed the later famous Committee of Public Safety]. The majority of the deputies either left Paris, or, if they belonged to the right, hid themselves, while those of the left had to obey every order of their leaders, and left the transaction of temporary business to the Committee of Twenty-one. This committee practically ruled France for forty days, until the meeting of the Convention; the Assembly always accepted its propositions and sent the deputies it nominated on important missions; its only rival was the insurrectionary commune, and the internecine warfare between the Jacobins and the Girondins was foreshadowed in the struggle between this Commune and the Committee of Twenty-one. For, while the extreme Jacobins filled the new Commune of Paris, the Committee of Twenty-one consisted of Girondins and Feuillants, Brissot was its president, Vergniaud its reporter, and Gensonné, Condorcet, Lasource, Guadet, Lacépède, Lacuèe, Pastoret, Muraire, Delmas, and Guyton-Morveau were amongst its members. On the evening of August 10 the Assembly decreed that the difference between active and passive citizens should be abolished, and that every Frenchman of the age of 25 should have a vote for the Convention. … The last sight the king might have seen on the night of August 10 was his palace of the Tuileries in flames, where, for mischief, fire had been set to the stables. It spread from building to building, and the Assembly only took steps to check it when it threatened to spread to the houses of the Rue Saint Honoré. … On the day after this terrible night the king was informed that rooms had been found for him in the Convent of the Feuillants; and to four monastic cells, which had not been inhabited since the dissolution of the monastery two years before, the royal family was led, and round them was placed a strong guard. Yet they were no more prisoners in the Convent of the Feuillants than they had been in the splendid palace of the Tuileries. … The king's nominal authority was annihilated; but though the course of events left him a prisoner, it cannot be said that his influence was diminished, for he had none left to diminish. It was to the Girondins, rather than to the king, that the results of August 10 brought unpleasant surprises. … The real power had gone to the Commune of Paris, and this was very clearly perceived by Robespierre and by Marat. … Though Marat was received with the loudest cheers by the insurrectionary commune, Robespierre was the man who really became its leader. He had long expected the shock which had just taken place, and had prepared himself for the crisis. The first requisition was, of course, for a Convention. This had been granted on the very first day. The second demand of the Commune was the safe custody of the king, so that he should not be able to escape to the army. This was conceded by the Assembly on August 12, when they ordered that the king and royal family should be taken to the old tower of the Temple, and there strictly guarded under the superintendence of the insurrectionary commune. Lafayette's sudden flight greatly strengthened the position of the Commune of Paris. … Relieved from the fear of Lafayette's turning against them, both the Girondins in the Legislative Assembly and the Jacobins in the insurrectionary commune turned to the pursuit of their own special plans, and naturally soon came into violent collision. … The Girondins were, above all things, men of ideas; the Jacobins, above all things, practical men: and of the issue of a struggle between them there could be little doubt, though, at this period the Girondins had the advantage of the best position. On August 15 the final blow was struck at the unfortunate Feuillants, or Constitutionalists. The last ministers of the king, as well Duport du Tertre, Bertrand de Moleville, and Duportail, were all ordered to be arrested, with Barnave and Charles de Lameth. The Assembly followed up this action by establishing the special tribunal of August 17, which held its first sitting on the same evening at the Hotel de Ville. {1279} Robespierre was elected president, and refused the office. … The new tribunal was too slow to satisfy the leaders of the Commune of Paris, for its first prisoner, Laporte, the old intendant of the civil list, was not judged until August 21, and then acquitted. This news made the Commune lose all patience, and they determined to urge the Assembly to more energetic measures. Under the pressure of the Commune the Assembly took vigorous measures indeed. All the leaders of the émigrés were sequestrated; all ecclesiastics who would not take the oath were to be transported to French Guiana, and it was decreed that the National Guard should enlist every man, whether an active or a passive citizen. Much of this vigour on the part of the Assembly was due, not only to the pressure of the Commune, but to the rapid advance of the Prussians. … The Assembly … decreed that an army of 30,000 men should be raised in Paris, and that every man who had a musket issued to him should be punished with death if he did not march at once. … On August 28, on the motion of Danton, now Minister of Justice, a general search for arms and suspects was ordered. The gates of the city were closed on August 30; every street was ordered to be illuminated; bodies of national guards entered each house and searched it from top to bottom. Barely 1,000 muskets were seized, but more than 8,000 prisoners were taken and shut up, not only in the prisons, but in all the largest convents of Paris, which were turned into houses of detention. Who should be arrested as a suspect depended entirely on the municipal officer who happened to examine the house, and these men acted under the orders of a special committee established by the Commune, at the head of which sat Marat. … The residents in Paris at the time of the Revolution seem to have been more struck by this house-to-house visitation than by many other events which were far more horrible."

      ALSO IN:
      Grace D. Elliot,
      Journal of My Life during the French Revolution,
      chapter 4.

      Gouverneur Morris,
      Life and Correspondence.,
      edited by Sparks, volume 2, pages 203-217.

FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (August).
Lafayette's unsuccessful resistance to the Jacobins.
His withdrawal from France.

"The news of the 10th of August was carried to Lafayette by one of his own officers who happened to be in Paris on business. He learned that the throne was overturned and the Assembly in subjection, but he could not believe that the cause of the constitutional monarchy was abandoned without a struggle. He announced to the army the events that had taken place, and conjured the men to remain true to the king and constitution. The commissioners despatched by the Commune of Paris to announce to the different armies the change of government and to exact oaths of fidelity to it soon arrived at Sedan within Lafayette's command. The general had them brought before the municipality of Sedan and interrogated regarding their mission. Convinced, from their own account, that they were the agents of a faction which had unlawfully seized upon power, he ordered their arrest and had them imprisoned. Lafayette's moral influence in the army and the country was still so great that the Jacobins knew that they must either destroy him or win him over to their side. The latter course was preferred. … The imprisoned commissioners, therefore, requested a private conference with Lafayette, and offered him, on the part of their superiors in Paris, whatever executive power he desired in the new government. It is needless to say that Lafayette, whose sole aim was to establish liberty in his country, refused to entertain the idea of associating himself with the despotism of the mob. He caused his own soldiers to renew their oath of fidelity to the king, and communicated with Luckner on the situation. … Meanwhile, emissaries from the Commune were sent to Sedan to influence the soldiers by bribes and threats to renounce their loyalty to their commander. All the other armies and provinces to which commissioners had been sent had received them and taken the new oaths. Lafayette found himself alone in his resistance. His attitude acquired, every day, more the appearance of rebellion against authorities recognized by the rest of France. New commissioners arrived, bringing with them his dismissal from command. The army was wavering between attachment to their general and obedience to government. On the 19th of August, the Jacobins, seeing that they could not win him over, caused the Assembly to declare him a traitor. Lafayette had now to take an immediate resolution. France had declared for the Paris Commune. The constitutional monarchy was irretrievably destroyed. For the general to dispute with his appointed successor the command of the army was to provoke further disorders in a cause that had ceased to be that of the nation and become only his own. Three possible courses remained open to him,—to accept the Jacobin overtures and become a part of their bloody despotism; to continue his resistance and give his head to the guillotine; to leave the country. He resolved to seek an asylum in a neutral territory with the hope, as he himself somewhat naively expressed it, 'some day to be again of service to liberty and to France.' Lafayette made every preparation for the safety of his troops, placing them under the orders of Luckner until the arrival of Dumouriez, the new general in command. He publicly acknowledged responsibility for the arrest of the commissioners and the defiance of Sedan to the Commune, in order that the municipal officers who had supported him might escape punishment. He included in his party his staff-officers, whose association with him would have subjected them to the fury of the Commune, and some others who had also been declared traitors on account of obedience to his orders. He then made his way to Bouillon, on the extreme frontier. There, dismissing the escort, and sending back final orders for the security of the army, he rode with his companions into a foreign land."

FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (August-September).
The September Massacres in the Paris prisons.

The house-to-house search for suspects was carried on during the night of August 29 and the following day. "The next morning, at daybreak, the Mairie, the sections, the ancient prisons of Paris, and the convents that had been converted into prisons, were crowded with prisoners. They were summarily interrogated, and half of them, the victims of error or precipitation, were set at liberty, or claimed by their sections. The remainder were distributed in the prisons of the Abbaye Saint Germain, the Conciergerie, the Châtelet, La Force, the Luxembourg, and the ancient monasteries of the Bernardins, Saint Firmin, and the Carmes; Bicêtre and the Salpêtrière also opened their gates to receive fresh inmates. The three days that followed this night were employed by the commissaries in making a selection of the prisoners. Already their death was projected. … "We must purge the prisons, and leave no traitors behind us when we hasten to the frontiers.' Such was the cry put into the mouth of the people by Marat and Danton. Such was the attitude of Danton on the brink of these crimes. As for the part of Robespierre, it was the same as in all these crises—on the debate concerning war, on the 20th of June, and on the 10th of August. He did not act, he blamed; but he left the event to itself, and when once accomplished he accepted it as a progressive step of the Revolution. … On Sunday, the 2d of September, at three o'clock in the afternoon, the signal for the massacre was given by one of those accidents that seem so perfectly the effect of chance. Five coaches, each containing six priests, started from the Hôtel-de-Ville to the prison of the Abbaye … escorted by weak detachments of Avignonnais and Marseillais, armed with pikes and sabers. … Groups of men, women and children insulted them as they passed, and their escort joined in the invective threats and outrages of the populace. … The émeute, increasing in number at every step across the Rue Dauphine, was met by another mob, that blocked up the Carrefour Bussy, where municipal officers received enrolments in the open air. The carriages stopped; and a man, forcing his way through the escort, sprung on the step of the first carriage, plunged his saber twice into the body of one of the priests, and displayed it reeking with blood: the people uttered a cry of horror. 'This frightens you, cowards!' said the assassin, with a smile of disdain; 'You must accustom yourselves to look on death.' With these [words] he again plunged his saber into the carriage and continued to strike. … The coaches slowly moved on, and the assassin, passing from one to the other, and clinging with one hand to the door, stabbed at random at all he could reach; while the assassins of Avignon, who formed part of their escort, plunged their bayonets into the interior; and the pikes, pointed against the windows, prevented any of the priests from leaping into the street. The long line of carriages moving slowly on, and leaving a bloody trace behind them, the despairing cries and gestures of the priests, the ferocious shouts of their butchers, the yells of applause of the populace, announced from a distance their arrival to the prisoners of the Abbaye. The cortège stopped at the door of the prison, and the soldiers of the escort dragged out by the feet eight dead bodies. The priests who had escaped, or who were only wounded, precipitated themselves into the prison; four of them were seized and massacred on the threshold. … The prisoners … cooped up in the Abbaye heard this prelude to murder at their gates. … The internal wickets were closed on them, and they received orders to return to their chambers, as if to answer the muster-roll. A fearful spectacle was visible in the outer court: the last wicket opening into it had been transformed into a tribunal; and around a large table—covered with papers, writing materials, the registers of the prisons, glasses, bottles, pistols, sabers, and pipes—were seated twelve judges, whose gloomy features and athletic proportions stamped them men of toil, debauch or blood. Their attire was that of the laboring classes. … Two or three of them attracted attention by the whiteness of their hands and the elegance of their shape; and that betrayed the presence of men of intellect, purposely mingled with these men of action to guide them. A man in a gray coat, a saber at his side, pen in his hand, and whose inflexible features seemed as though they were petrified, was seated at the center of the table, and presided over the tribunal. This was the Huissier Maillard, the idol of the mobs of the Faubourg Saint Marceau … an actor in the days of October, the 20th of June, and the 10th of August. … He had just returned from the Carmes, where he had organized the massacre. It was not chance that had brought him to the Abbaye at the precise moment of the arrival of the prisoners, and with the prison registers in his hand. He had received, the previous evening, the secret orders of Marat, through the members of the Comité de Surveillance. Danton had sent for the registers to the prison, and gone through them; and Maillard was shown those he was to acquit and condemn. If the prisoner was acquitted, Maillard said, 'Let this gentleman be set at liberty'; if condemned, a voice said, 'A la Force.' At these words the outer door opened, and the prisoner fell dead as he crossed the threshold. The massacre commenced with the Swiss, of whom there were 150 at the Abbaye, officers and soldiers. … They fell, one after another, like sheep in a slaughter-house. The tumbrils were not sufficient to carry away the corpses, and they were piled up on each side of the court to make room for the rest to die: their commander, Major Reding, was the last to fall. … After the Swiss, the king's guards, imprisoned in the Abbaye, were judged en masse. … Their massacre lasted a long time, for the people, excited by what they had drank—brandy mingled with gun-powder-and intoxicated by the sight of blood, prolonged their tortures. … The whole night was scarcely enough to slay and strip them."

"To moral intoxication is added physical intoxication, wine in profusion, bumpers at every pause, revelry over corpses. … They dance … and sing the 'carmagnole'; they arouse the people of the quarter 'to amuse them,' and that they may have their share of 'the fine fête.' Benches are arranged for 'gentlemen' and others for 'ladies': the latter, with greater curiosity, are additionally anxious to contemplate at their ease 'the aristocrats' already slain; consequently, lights are required, and one is placed on the breast of each corpse. Meanwhile, slaughter continues, and is carried to perfection. A butcher at the Abbaye complains that 'the aristocrats die too quick, and that those only who strike first have the pleasure of it'; henceforth they are to be struck with the backs of the swords only, and made to run between two rows of their butchers, like soldiers formerly running a gauntlet. … {1281} All the unfettered instincts that live in the lowest depths of the heart start from the human abyss at once, not alone the heinous instincts with their fangs, but likewise the foulest with their slaver, while both packs fall furiously on women whose noble or infamous repute brings them before the world; on Madame de Lamballe, the Queen's friend; on Madame Desrues, widow of the famous prisoner; on the flower-girl of the Palais-Royal, who, two years before, had mutilated her lover, a French guardsman, in a fit of jealousy. Ferocity here is associated with lubricity to add profanation to torture, while life is attacked through attacks on modesty. In Madame de Lamballe, killed too quickly, the libidinous butchers could only outrage a corpse, but for the widow, and especially the flower-girl, they imagine the same as a Nero the fire-circle of the Iroquois. … At La Force, Madame de Lamballe is cut to pieces. I cannot transcribe what Charlot, the hair-dresser, did with her head. I merely state that another wretch, in the Rue Saint-Antoine, bore off her heart and 'ate it.' They kill and they drink, and drink and kill again. … As the prisons are to be cleaned out, it is as well to clean them all out, and do it at once. After the Swiss, priests, the aristocrats, and the 'white-skin gentlemen,' there remain convicts and those confined through the ordinary channels of justice, robbers, assassins, and those sentenced to the galleys in the Conciergerie, in the Châtelet, and in the Tour St. Bernard, with branded women, vagabonds, old beggars and boys confined in Bicêtre and the Salpétrière. They are good for nothing, cost something to feed, and, probably, cherish evil designs. … This time, as the job is more foul, the broom is wielded by fouler hands. … At the Salpétrière, 'all the bullies of Paris, former spies, … libertines, the rascals of France and all Europe, prepare beforehand for the operation,' and rape alternates with massacre. … At Bicêtre, however, it is crude butchery, the carnivorous instinct alone satisfying itself. Among other prisoners are 43 youths of the lowest class, from 17 to 19 years of age, placed there for correction by their parents, or by those to whom they are bound. … These the band falls on, beating them to death with clubs. … There are six days and five nights of uninterrupted butchery, 171 murders at the Abbaye, 169 at La Force, 223 at the Châtelet, 328 at the Conciergerie, 73 at the Tour-Saint-Bernard, 120 at the Carmelites, 79 at Saint-Firmin, 170 at Bicêtre, 35 at the Salpétrière; among the dead, 250 priests, 3 bishops or archbishops, general officers, magistrates, one former minister, one royal princess, belonging to the best names in France, and, on the other side, one negro, several low class women, young scape-graces, convicts, and poor old men. … Fournier, Lazowski, and Bécard, the chiefs of robbers and assassins, return from Orleans with 1,500 cut-throats. On the way they kill M. de Brissac, M. de Lessart, and 42 others accused of 'lèse-nation,' whom they arrested from their judges' hands, and then, by way of surplus, 'following the example of Paris,' 21 prisoners taken from the Versailles prisons. At Paris the Minister of Justice thanks them, the Commune congratulates them, and the sections feast them and embrace them. … All the journals approve, palliate, or keep silent; nobody dares offer resistance. Property as well as lives belong to whoever wants to take them. … Like a man struck on the head with a mallet, Paris, felled to the ground, lets things go; the authors of the massacre have fully attained their ends. The faction has fast hold of power, and will maintain its hold. Neither in the Legislative Assembly nor in the Convention will the aims of the Girondists be successful against its tenacious usurpation. … The Jacobins, through sudden terror, have maintained their illegal authority; through a prolongation of terror they are going to establish their legal authority. A forced suffrage is going to put them in office at the Hotel-de-Ville, in the tribunals, in the National Guard, in the sections, and in the various administrations."

      ALSO IN:
      A. Thiers,
      History of the French Revolution,
      (American edition.), volume 1, pages 350-368.

      A. Dobson,
      The Princess de Lamballe
      ("Four Frenchwomen," chapter 3).

FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (September-November).
   Meeting of the National Convention.
   Abolition of royalty.
   Proclamation of the Republic.
   Adoption of the Era of the Republic.
   Establishment of absolute equality.
   The losing struggle of the Girondists with the Jacobins of the
   Mountain.

"It was in the midst of these horrors [of the September massacres] that the Legislative Assembly approached its termination. … The National Convention began [September 22] under darker auspices. … The great and inert mass of the people were disposed, as in all commotions, to range themselves on the victorious side. The sections of Paris, under the influence of Robespierre and Marat, returned the most revolutionary deputies; those of most other towns followed their example. The Jacobins, with their affiliated clubs, on this occasion exercised an overwhelming influence over all France. … At Paris, where the elections took place on the 2d September, amidst all the excitement and horrors of the massacres in the prisons, the violent leaders of the municipality, who had organized the revolt of August 10th, exercised an irresistible sway over the citizens. Robespierre and Danton were the first named, amidst unanimous shouts of applause; after them Camille Desmoulins, Tallien, Osselin, Freron, Anacharsis Clootz, Fabre d'Eglantine, David, the celebrated painter, Collot d'Herbois, Billaud Varennes, Legendre, Panis, Sergent, almost all implicated in the massacres in the prisons, were also chosen. To these was added the Duke of Orleans, who had abdicated his titles, and was called Philippe Égalité. … The most conservative part of the new Assembly were the Girondists who had overturned the throne. From the first opening of the Convention, the Girondists occupied the right, and the Jacobins the seats on the summit of the left; whence their designation of 'The Mountain' was derived. The former had the majority of votes, the greater part of the departments having returned men of comparatively moderate principles. But the latter possessed a great advantage, in having on their side all the members of the city of Paris, who ruled the mob, … and in being supported by the municipality, which had already grown into a ruling power in the state, and had become the great centre of the democratic party. {1282} A neutral body, composed of those members whose principles were not yet declared, was called the Plain, or, Marais; it ranged itself with the Girondists, until terror compelled its members to coalesce with the victorious side. … The two rival parties mutually indulged in recriminations, in order to influence the public mind. The Jacobins incessantly reproached the Girondists with desiring to dissolve the Republic; to establish three-and-twenty separate democratic states, held together, like the American provinces, by a mere federal union. … Nothing more was requisite to render them in the highest degree unpopular in Paris, the very existence of which depended on its remaining, through all the phases of government, the seat of the ruling power. The Girondists retorted upon their adversaries charges better founded, but not so likely to inflame the populace. They reproached them with endeavouring to establish in the municipality of Paris a power superior to the legislature of all France, with overawing the deliberations of the Convention by menacing petitions, or the open display of brute force; and secretly preparing for their favourite leaders, Danton, Robespierre, and Marat, a triumvirate of power, which would speedily extinguish all the freedom which had been acquired. The first part of the accusation was well-founded even then; of the last, time soon afforded an ample confirmation. The Convention met at first in one of the halls of the Tuileries, but immediately adjourned to the Salle du Ménage, where its subsequent sittings were held. Its first step was, on the motion of the Abbé Gregoire, and amidst unanimous transports, to declare Royalty abolished in France, and to proclaim a republic; and by another decree it was ordered, that the old calendar taken from the year of Christ's birth should be abandoned, and that all public acts should be dated from the first year of the French republic. This era began on the 22d September 1792. [See, also, below: A. D. 1793 (OCTOBER).] … A still more democratic constitution than that framed by the Constituent and Legislative Assemblies was at the same time established. All the requisites for election to any office whatever were, on the motion of the Duke of Orleans, abolished. It was no longer necessary to select judges from legal men, nor magistrates from the class of proprietors. All persons, in whatever rank, were declared eligible to every situation; and the right of voting in the primary assemblies was conferred on every man above the age of 21 years. Absolute equality, in its literal sense, was universally established. Universal suffrage was the basis on which government rested." The leaders of the Girondists soon opened attacks upon Robespierre and Marat, accusing the former of aspiring to a dictatorship, and also holding him responsible, with Marat and Danton, for the September massacres; but Louvet and others who made the attack were feebly supported by their party. Louvet "repeatedly appealed to Pétion, Vergniaud, and the other leaders, to support his statements; but they had not the firmness boldly to state the truth. Had they testified a fourth part of what they knew, the accusation must have been instantly voted, and the tyrant crushed at once. As it was, Robespierre, fearful of its effects, demanded eight days to prepare for his defence. In the interval, the whole machinery of terror was put in force. The Jacobins thundered out accusations against the intrepid accuser, and all the leaders of the Mountain were indefatigable in their efforts to strike fear into their opponents. … By degrees the impression cooled, fear resumed its sway, and the accused mounted the tribune at the end of the week with the air of a victor. … It was now evident that the Girondists were no match for their terrible adversaries. The men of action on their side, Louvet, Barbaroux, and Lanjuinais, in vain strove to rouse them to the necessity of vigorous measures in contending with such enemies. Their constant reply was, that they would not be the first to commence the shedding of blood. Their whole vigour manifested itself in declamation, their whole wisdom in abstract discussion. They had now become humane in intention, and moderate in counsel, though they were far from having been so in the earlier stages of the Revolution. … They were too honourable to believe in the wickedness of their opponents, too scrupulous to adopt the measures requisite to disarm, too destitute of moral courage to be able to crush them. … The Jacobins … while they were daily strengthening and increasing the armed force of the sections at the command of the municipality, … strenuously resisted the slightest approach towards the establishment of any guard or civic force for the defence of the Convention. … Aware of their weakness from this cause, the Girondists brought forward a proposal for an armed guard for the Convention. The populace was immediately put in motion," and the overawed Convention abandoned the measure. "In the midst of these vehement passions, laws still more stringent and sanguinary were passed against the priests and emigrants. … First, it was decreed that every Frenchman taken with arms in his hands against France should be punished with death; and soon after, that 'the French emigrants are forever banished from the territory of France, and those who return shall be punished with death.' A third decree directed that all their property, movable and immovable, should be confiscated to the service of the state. These decrees were rigidly executed: and though almost unnoticed amidst the bloody deeds which at the same period stained the Revolution, ultimately produced the most lasting and irremediable effects. At length the prostration of the Assembly before the armed sections of Paris had become so excessive, that Buzot and Barbaroux, the most intrepid of the Girondists, brought forward two measures which, if they could have been carried, would have emancipated the legislature from this odious thraldom. Buzot proposed to establish a guard, specially for the protection of the Convention, drawn from young men chosen from the different departments. Barbaroux at the same time brought forward four decrees. … By the first, the capital was to cease to be the seat of the legislature, when it lost its claim to their presence by failing to protect them from insult. By the second, the troops of the Fédérés and the national cavalry were to be charged, along with the armed sections, with the protection of the legislature. By the third, the Convention was to constitute itself into a court of justice, for the trial of all conspirators against its authority. By the fourth, the Convention suspended the municipality of Paris. … The Jacobins skilfully availed themselves of these impotent manifestations of distrust, to give additional currency to the report that the Girondists intended to transport the seat of government to the southern provinces. This rumour rapidly gained ground with the populace, and augmented their dislike at the ministry. … All these preliminary struggles were essays of strength by the two parties, prior to the grand question which was now destined to attract the eyes of Europe and the world. This was the trial of Louis XVI."

      C. D. Yonge,
      History of France under the Bourbons,
      chapter 43 (volume 4).

FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (September-December).
   The war on the northern frontier.
   Battle of Valmy.
   Retreat of the invading army.
   Custine in Germany and Dumouriez in the Netherlands.
   Annexation of Savoy and Nice.
   The Decree of December 15.
   Proclamation of a republican crusade.

"The defence of France rested on General Dumouriez. … Happily for France the slow advance of the Prussian general permitted Dumouriez to occupy the difficult country of the Argonnes, where, while waiting for his reinforcements, he was able for some time to hold the invaders in check. At length Brunswick made his way past the defile which Dumouriez had chosen for his first line of defence; but it was only to find the French posted in such strength on his flank that any further advance would imperil his own army. If the advance was to be continued, Dumouriez must be dislodged. Accordingly, on the 20th of September, Brunswick, facing half-round from his line of march, directed his artillery against the hills of Valmy, where Kellermann and the French left were encamped. The cannonade continued for some hours, but it was followed by no general attack. Already, before a blow had been struck, the German forces were wasting away with disease. … The King of Prussia began to listen to the proposals of peace which were sent to him by Dumouriez. A week spent in negotiations served only to strengthen the French and to aggravate the scarcity and sickness within the German camp. Dissensions broke out between the Prussian and Austrian commanders; a retreat was ordered; and, to the astonishment of Europe, the veteran forces of Brunswick fell back before the mutinous soldiery and unknown generals of the Revolution. … In the meantime the Legislative Assembly had decreed its own dissolution … and had ordered the election of representatives to frame a constitution for France. … The Girondins, who had been the party of extremes in the Legislative Assembly, were the party of moderation and order in the Convention. … Monarchy was abolished, and France declared a Republic (September 21). Office continued in the hands of the Gironde; but the vehement, uncompromising spirit of their rivals, the so-called party of the Mountain, quickly made itself felt in all the relations of France to foreign powers. The intention of conquest might still be as sincerely disavowed as it had been five months before; but were the converts to liberty to be denied the right of uniting themselves to the French people by their own free will? … The scruples which had lately condemned all annexation of territory vanished in that orgy of patriotism which followed the expulsion of the invader and the discovery that the Revolution was already a power in other lands than France. … Along the entire frontier, from Dunkirk to the Maritime Alps, France nowhere touched a strong united, and independent people; and along this entire frontier, except in the country opposite Alsace, the armed proselytism of the French Revolution proved a greater force than the influences on which the existing order of things depended. In the Low Countries, in the Principalities of the Rhine, in Switzerland, in Savoy, in Piedmont itself, the doctrines of the Revolution were welcomed by a more or less numerous class, and the armies of France appeared for a moment as the missionaries of liberty and right rather than as an invading enemy. No sooner had Brunswick been brought to a stand by Dumouriez at Valmy than a French division under Custine crossed the Alsatian frontier and advanced upon Spires, where Brunswick had left large stores of war. The garrison was defeated in an encounter outside the town; Spires and Worms surrendered to Custine. In the neighbouring fortress of Mainz, the key to western Germany, Custine's advance was watched with anxious satisfaction by a republican party among the inhabitants, from whom the French general learnt that he had only to appear before the city to become its master. … At the news of the capture of Spires, the Archbishop retired into the interior of Germany, leaving the administration to a board of ecclesiastics and officials, who published a manifesto calling upon their 'beloved brethren' the citizens to defend themselves to the last extremity, and then followed their master's example. A council of war declared the city to be untenable; and, before Custine had brought up a single siege-gun, the garrison capitulated, and the French were welcomed into Mainz by the partisans of the Republic (October 20). … Although the mass of the inhabitants held aloof, a Republic was finally proclaimed, and incorporated with the Republic of France. The success of Custine's raid into Germany did not divert the Convention from the design of attacking Austria in the Netherlands, which Dumouriez had from the first pressed upon the Government. It was not three years since the Netherlands had been in full revolt against the Emperor Joseph. … Thus the ground was everywhere prepared for a French occupation. Dumouriez crossed the frontier. The border fortresses no longer existed: and after a single battle won by the French at Jemappes on the 6th November, the Austrians, finding the population universally hostile, abandoned the Netherlands without a struggle. The victory of Jemappes, the first pitched battle won by the Republic, excited an outburst of revolutionary fervour in the Convention which deeply affected the relations of France to Great Britain, hitherto a neutral spectator of the war. A decree was passed for the publication of a manifesto in all languages, declaring that the French nation offered its alliance to all peoples who wished to recover their freedom, and charging the generals of the Republic to give their protection to all persons who had suffered or might suffer in the cause of liberty. (November 19.) A week later Savoy and Nice were annexed to France, the population of Savoy having almost unanimously declared in favour of France on the outbreak of war between France and Sardinia. {1284} On the 15th December the Convention proclaimed that a system of social and political revolution was henceforth to accompany every movement of its armies on foreign soil. 'In every country that shall be occupied by the armies of the French Republic'—such was the substance of the Decree of December 15th—'the generals shall announce the abolition of all existing authorities; of nobility, of serfage, of every feudal right and every monopoly; they shall proclaim the sovereignty of the people. … The French nation will treat as enemies any people which, refusing liberty and equality, desires to preserve its prince and privileged castes, or to make any accommodation with them.' This singular announcement of a new crusade caused the Government of Great Britain to arm."

ALSO IN: F. C. Schlosser, History of the 18th Century, volume 6, division 2, chapter 2, section 1.

E. Baines, History of the Wars of the French Revolution, book 1, chapters 3-5 (volume 1).

FRANCE: A.D. 1792 (November-December).
   Charges against the King.
   Jacobin clamor for his condemnation.
   The contest in Convention.

"There were, without a doubt, in this conjuncture, a great number of Mountaineers who, on this occasion, acted with the greatest sincerity, and only as republicans, in whose eyes Louis XVI. appeared guilty with respect to the revolution; and a dethroned king was dangerous to a young democracy. But this party would have been more clement, had it not had to ruin the Gironde at the same time with Louis XVI. … Party motives and popular animosities combined against this unfortunate prince. Those who, two months before, would have repelled the idea of exposing him to any other punishment than that of dethronement, were stupefied; so quickly does man lose in moments of crisis the right to defend his opinions! … After the 10th of August, there were found in the offices of the civil list documents which proved the secret correspondence of Louis XVI. with the discontented princes, with the emigration, and with Europe. In a report, drawn up at the command of the legislative assembly, he was accused of intending to betray the state and overthrow the revolution. He was accused of having written, on the 16th April, 1791, to the bishop of Clermont, that if he regained his power he would restore the former government, and the clergy to the state in which they previously were; of having afterwards proposed war, merely to hasten the approach of his deliverers; … of having been on terms with his brothers, whom his public measures had discountenanced; and, lastly, of having constantly opposed the revolution. Fresh documents were soon brought forward in support of this accusation. In the Tuileries, behind a panel in the wainscot, there was a hole wrought in the wall, and closed by an iron door. This secret closet was pointed out by the minister, Roland, and there were discovered proofs of all the conspiracies and intrigues of the court against the revolution; projects with the popular leaders to strengthen the constitutional power of the king, to restore the ancient regime and the aristocrats; the manœuvres of Talon, the arrangements with Mirabeau, the propositions accepted by Bouillé, under the constituent assembly, and some new plots under the legislative assembly. This discovery increased the exasperation against Louis XVI. Mirabeau's bust was broken by the Jacobins, and the convention covered the one which stood in the hall where it held its sittings. For some time there had been a question in the assembly as to the trial of this prince, who, having been dethroned, could no longer be proceeded against. There was no tribunal empowered to pronounce his sentence, no punishment which could be inflicted on him: accordingly, they plunged into false interpretations of the inviolability granted to Louis XVI., in order to condemn him legally. … The committee of legislation, commissioned to draw up a report on the question as to whether Louis XVI. could be tried, and whether he could be tried by the convention, decided in the affirmative. … The discussion commenced on the 13th of November, six days after the report of the committee. … This violent party [the Mountain], who wished to substitute a coup d'etat for a sentence, to follow no law, no form, but to strike Louis XVI. like a conquered prisoner, by making hostilities even survive victory, had but a very feeble majority in the convention; but without, it was strongly supported by the Jacobins and the commune. Notwithstanding the terror which it already inspired, its murderous suggestions were repelled by the convention; and the partisans of inviolability, in their turn, courageously asserted reasons of public interest at the same time as rules of justice and humanity. They maintained that the same men could not be judges and legislators, the jury and the accusers. … In a political view, they showed the consequences of the king's condemnation, as it would affect the anarchical party of the kingdom, rendering it still more insolent; and with regard to Europe, whose still neutral powers it would induce to join the coalition against the republic. But Robespierre, who during this long debate displayed a daring and perseverance that presaged his power, appeared at the tribune to support Saint Just, to reproach the convention with involving in doubt what the insurrection had decided, and with restoring, by sympathy and the publicity of a defence, the fallen royalist party. 'The assembly,' said Robespierre, 'has involuntarily been led far away from the real question. Here we have nothing to do with trial: Louis is not an accused man; you are not judges, you are, and can only be statesmen. You have no sentence to pronounce for or against a man, but you are called on to adopt a measure of public safety; to perform an act of national precaution. A dethroned king is only fit for two purposes, to disturb the tranquillity of the state, and shake its freedom, or to strengthen one or the other of them. Louis was king; the republic is founded; the famous question you are discussing is decided in these few words. Louis cannot be tried; he is already tried, he is condemned, or the republic is not absolved.' He required that the convention should declare Louis XVI. a traitor towards the French, criminal towards humanity, and sentence him at once to death, by virtue of the insurrection. The Mountaineers, by these extreme propositions, by the popularity they attained without, rendered condemnation in a measure inevitable. By gaining an extraordinary advance on the other parties, it obliged them to follow it, though at a distance. The majority of the convention, composed in a large part of Girondists, who dared not pronounce Louis XVI. inviolable, and of the Plain, decided, on Pétion's proposition, against the opinion of the fanatical Mountaineers and against that of the partisans of inviolability, that Louis XVI. should be tried by the convention. Robert Lindet then made, in the name of the commission of the twenty-one, his report respecting Louis XVI. The arraignment, setting forth the offences imputed to him, was drawn up, and the convention summoned the prisoner to its bar."

FRANCE: A. D. 1792-1793 (December-January).
The King's Trial and death sentence.

"On December 11, the ill-fated monarch, taken from his prison to his former palace, appeared at the bar of his republican judges, was received in silence and with covered heads, and answered interrogatories addressed to him as 'Louis Capet,' though with an air of deference. His passive constancy touched many hearts. … On the 26th the advocates of the King made an eloquent defence for their discrowned client, and Louis added, in a few simple words, that the 'blood of the 10th of August should not be laid to his charge.' The debates in the Assembly now began, and it soon became evident that the Jacobin faction were making the question the means to further their objects, and to hold up their opponents to popular hatred. They clamored for immediate vengeance on the tyrant, declared that the Republic could not be safe until the Court was smitten on its head, and a great example had been given to Europe, and denounced as reactionary and as concealed royalists all who resisted the demands of patriotism. These ferocious invectives were aided by the expedients so often employed with success, and the capital and its mobs were arrayed to intimidate any deputies who hesitated in the 'cause of the Nation.' The Moderates, on the other hand, were divided in mind; a majority, perhaps, condemning the King, but also wishing to spare his life: and the Gironde leaders, halting between their convictions, their feelings, their desires, and their fears, shrank from a courageous and resolute course. The result was such as usually follows when energy and will encounter indecision. On January 14 [the 15th, according to Thiers and others], 1793, the Convention declared Louis XVI. guilty, and on the following day [the speaking and voting lasted through the night of the 16th and the day after it] sentence of immediate death was pronounced by a majority of one [but the minority, in this view, included 26 votes that were cast for death but in favor of a postponement of the penalty, on grounds of political expediency], proposals for a respite and an appeal to the people having been rejected at the critical moment. The votes had been taken after a solemn call of the deputies at a sitting protracted for days; and the spectacle of the vast dim hall, of the shadowy figures of the awestruck judges meting out the fate of their former Sovereign, and tier upon tier of half-seen faces, looking, as in a theatre, on the drama below, and breaking out into discordant clamor, made a fearful impression on many eye-witnesses. One vote excited a sensation of disgust even among the most ruthless chiefs of the Mountain, though it was remarked that many of the abandoned women who crowded the galleries shrieked approbation. The Duke of Orleans, whose Jacobin professions had caused him to be returned for Paris, with a voice in which effrontery mingled with terror, pronounced for the immediate execution of his kinsman. The minister of justice—Danton had resigned—announced on the 20th the sentence to the King. The captive received the message calmly, asked for three days to get ready to die (a request, however, at once refused), and prayed that he might see his family and have a confessor."

      ALSO IN:
      A. Thiers,
      History of the French Revolution
      (American edition), volume 2, pages 44-72.

A. F. Bertrand de Moleville, Private Memoirs, relative to the last year of Louis XVI., chapters 39-40.

FRANCE: A. D. 1792-1793 (December-February).
   Determination to incorporate the Austrian Netherlands and to
   attack Holland.
   Pitt's unavailing struggle for peace.
   England driven to arms.
   War with the Maritime Powers declared by the French.

"Since the beginning of December, the French government had contracted their far-reaching schemes within definite limits. They were compelled to give up the hope of revolutionizing the German Empire and establishing a Republic in the British Islands; but they were all the more determined in the resolve to subject the countries which had hitherto been occupied in the name of freedom, to the rule of France. This object was more especially pursued in Belgium by Danton and three other deputies, who were sent as Commissioners of the Convention to that country on the 30th of November. They were directed to enquire into the condition of the Provinces, and to consider Dumouriez's complaints against Pache [the Minister at War] and the Committee formed to purchase supplies for the army." Danton became resolute in the determination to incorporate Belgium and pressed the project inexorably. "It was a matter of course that England would interpose both by word and deed directly France prepared to take possession of Belgium. … England had guaranteed the possession of Belgium to the Emperor in 1790—and the closing of the Scheldt to the Dutch, and its political position in Holland to the House of Orange in 1788. Under an imperative sense of her own interests, she had struggled to prevent the French from gaining a footing in Antwerp and Ostend. Prudence, fidelity to treaties, the retrospect of the past and the hopes of the future—all called loudly upon her not to allow the balance of Europe to be disturbed, and least of all in Belgium."

"The French Government resolved to attack Holland, and ordered its generals to enforce by arms the opening of the Scheldt. To do this was to force England into war. Public opinion was already pressing every day harder upon Pitt [see ENGLAND: A. D. 1793-1796]. … Across the Channel his moderation was only taken for fear. … The rejection of his last offers indeed made a contest inevitable. Both sides ceased from diplomatic communications, and in February 1793 France issued her Declaration of War."

ALSO IN: W. E. H. Lecky, History of England in the 18th Century, chapter 22 (volume 6).

"To this conclusion, then, hast thou come, O hapless Louis! The Son of Sixty Kings is to die on the Scaffold by form of Law. Under Sixty Kings this same form of law, form of Society, has been fashioning itself together these thousand years; and has become, one way and other, a most strange Machine. Surely, if needful, it is also frightful, this Machine: dead, blind: not what it should be: which with swift stroke, or by cold slow torture, has wasted the lives and souls of innumerable men. And behold now a King himself or say rather Kinghood in his person, is to expire here in cruel tortures;—like a Phalaris shut in the belly of his own red-heated Brazen Bull! It is ever so; and thou shouldst know it, O haughty tyrannous man: injustice breeds injustice: curses and falsehoods do verily return 'always home,' wide as they may wander. Innocent Louis bears the sins of many generations: he too experiences that man's tribunal is not in this Earth: that if he had no higher one, it were not well with him. A King dying by such violence appeals impressively to the imagination; as the like must do, and ought to do. And yet at bottom it is not the King dying, but the man! Kingship is a coat: the grand loss is of the skin. The man from whom you take his Life, to him can the whole combined world do more? … A Confessor has come; Abbé Edgeworth, of Irish extraction, whom the King knew by good report, has come promptly on this solemn mission. Leave the Earth alone, then, thou hapless King; it with its malice will go its way, thou also canst go thine. A hard scene yet remains: the parting with our loved ones. Kind hearts, environed in the same grim peril with us; to be left here! Let the reader look with the eyes of Valet Cléry through these glass-doors, where also the Municipality watches: and see the cruelest of scenes: 'At half-past eight, the door of the ante-room opened: the Queen appeared first, leading her Son by the hand: then Madame Royale and Madame Elizabeth: they all flung themselves into the arms of the King. Silence reigned for some minutes; interrupted only by sobs.' … For nearly two hours this agony lasts; then they tear themselves asunder. 'Promise that you will see us on the morrow.' He promises: —Ah yes, yes: yet once; and go now, ye loved ones: cry to God for yourselves and met!—It was a hard scene, but it is over. He will not see them on the morrow. The Queen in passing through the ante-room, glanced at the Cerberus Municipals; and, with woman's vehemence, said through her tears, 'Vous étes tous des scélérats.' King Louis slept sound, till five in the morning, when Cléry, as he had been ordered, awoke him. Cléry dressed his hair: while this went forward, Louis took a ring from his watch, and kept trying it on his finger: it was his wedding-ring, which he is now to return to the Queen as a mute farewell. At half-past six, he took the Sacrament, and continued in devotion, and conference with Abbé Edgeworth. He will not see his family: it were too hard to bear. At eight the Municipals enter: the King gives them his Will, and messages and effects; which they, at first, brutally refuse to take charge of: he gives them a roll of gold pieces, a hundred and twenty-five louis; these are to be returned to Malesherbes, who had lent them. At nine, Santerre says the hour is come. The King begs yet to retire for three minutes. At the end of three minutes, Santerre again says the hour is come. 'Stamping on the ground with his right-foot, Louis answers: Partons, Let us go.'—How the rolling of those drums comes in, through the Temple bastions and bulwarks, on the heart of a queenly wife; soon to be a widow! He is gone, then, and has not seen us? … At the Temple Gate were some faint cries, perhaps from voices of pitiful women: Grace! Grace! Through the rest of the streets there is silence as of the grave. No man not armed is allowed to be there: the armed, did any even pity, dare not express it, each man overawed by all his neighbours. All windows are down, none seen looking through them. All shops are shut. No wheel-carriage rolls, this morning, in these streets but one only. 80,000 armed men stand ranked, like armed statues of men; cannons bristle, cannoneers with match burning, but no word or movement: it is as a city enchanted into silence and stone: one carriage with its escort, slowly rumbling, is the only sound. Louis reads, in his Book of Devotion, the Prayers of the Dying: clatter of this death-march falls sharp on the ear, in the great silence; but the thought would fain struggle heavenward, and forget the Earth. As the clock strikes ten, behold the Place de la Revolution, once Place de Louis Quinze: the Guillotine, mounted near the old Pedestal where once stood the Statue of that Louis! Far round, all bristles with cannons and armed men: spectators crowding in the rear; D'Orléans Egalité there in cabriolet. … Heedless of all Louis reads his Prayers of the Dying; not till five minutes yet has he finished: then the Carriage opens. What temper he is in? Ten different witnesses will give ten different accounts of it. He is in the collision of all tempers; arrived now at the black Mahlstrom and descent of Death: in sorrow, in indignation, in resignation struggling to be resigned. 'Take care of M. Edgeworth,' he straitly charges the Lieutenant who is sitting with them: then they two descend. The drums are beating: 'Taisez-vous, Silence!' he cries 'in a terrible voice, d'une voix terrible.' He mounts the scaffold, not without delay; he is in puce coat, breeches of gray, white stockings. He strips off the coat; stands disclosed in a sleeve-waistcoat of white flannel. The executioners approach to bind him: he spurns, resists; Abbé Edgeworth has to remind him how the Saviour, in whom men trust, submitted to be bound. His hands are tied, his head bare; the fatal moment is come. He advances to the edge of the Scaffold, 'his face very red,' and says: 'Frenchmen, I die innocent: it is from the Scaffold and near appearing before God that I tell you so. I pardon my enemies; I desire that France—' A General on horseback, Santerre or another, prances out with uplifted hand: 'Tambours!' The drums drown the voice. 'Executioners, do your duty!' The Executioners, desperate lest themselves be murdered (for Santerre and his Armed Ranks will strike, if they do not), seize the hapless Louis: six of them desperate, him singly desperate, struggling there; and bind him to their plank. Abbé Edgeworth, stooping, bespeaks him: 'Son of Saint Louis, ascend to Heaven.' The Axe clanks down; a King's Life is shorn away. It is Monday the 21st of January 1793. He was aged 38 years four months and 28 days. {1287} Executioner Samson shows the Head: fierce shouts of Vive la République rises, and swells; caps raised on bayonets, hats waving: students of the College of Four Nations take it up, on the far Quais; fling it over Paris. D'Orléans drives off in his cabriolet: the Townhall Councillors rub their hands, saying, 'It is done, It is done.' … In the coffee-houses that evening, says Prudhomme, Patriot shook hands with Patriot in a more cordial manner than usual. Not till some days after, according to Mercier, did public men see what a grave thing it was. A grave thing it indisputably is; and will have consequences. … At home this Killing of a King has divided all friends; and abroad it has united all enemies. Fraternity of Peoples, Revolutionary Propagandism; Atheism, Regicide; total destruction of social order in this world! All Kings, and lovers of Kings, and haters of Anarchy, rank in coalition; as in a war for life."

FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (February-April).
   Increasing anarchy.
   Degradation of manners.
   Formation of the terrible Revolutionary Tribunal.
   Treacherous designs of Dumouriez.
   His invasion of Holland.
   His defeat at Neerwinden and retreat.
   His flight to the enemy.

"While the French were … throwing down the gauntlet to all Europe, their own country seemed sinking into anarchical dissolution. Paris was filled with tumult, insurrection and robbery. At the denunciations of Marat against 'forestallers,' the shops were entered by the mob, who carried off articles at their own prices, and sometimes without paying at all. The populace was agitated by the harangues of low itinerant demagogues. Rough and brutal manners were affected, and all the courtesies of life abolished. The revolutionary leaders adopted a dress called the 'carmagnole,' consisting of enormous black pantaloons, a short jacket, a three-coloured waistcoat, and a Jacobite wig of short black hair, a terrible moustache, the 'bonnet rouge,' and an enormous sabre. [The name Carmagnole was also given to a tune and a dance; it is supposed to have borne originally some reference not now understood to Carmagnola in Piedmont.] Moderate persons of no strong political opinions were denounced as 'suspected,' and their crime stigmatised by the newly coined word of 'moderantisme.' The variations of popular feeling were recorded like the heat of the weather, or the rising of a flood. The principal articles in the journals were entitled 'Thermometer of the Public Mind;' the Jacobins talked of … being 'up to the level.' Many of the provinces were in a disturbed state. A movement had been organising in Brittany ever since 1791, but the death of the Marquis de la Rouarie, its principal leader, had for the present suspended it. A more formidable insurrection was preparing in La Vendée. … It was in the midst of these disturbances, aggravated by a suspicion of General Dumouriez's treachery, which we shall presently have to relate, that the terrible court known as the Revolutionary Tribunal was established. It was first formally proposed in the Convention March 9th, by Carrier, the miscreant afterwards notorious by his massacres at Nantes, urged by Cambacérès on the 10th, and completed that very night at the instance of Danton, who rushed to the tribune, insisted that the Assembly should not separate, till the new Court had been organised. … The extraordinary tribunal of August 1792 had not been found to work fast enough, and it was now superseded by this new one, which became in fact only a method of massacring under the form of law. The Revolutionary Tribunal was designed to take cognisance of all counter-revolutionary attempts, of all attacks upon liberty, equality, the unity and indivisibility of the Republic, the internal and external safety of the State. A commission of six members of the Convention was to examine and report upon the cases to be brought before it, to draw up and present the acts of accusation. The tribunal was to be composed of a jury to decide upon the facts, five judges to apply the law, a public accuser, and two substitutes; from its sentence there was no appeal. Meanwhile Dumouriez had returned to the army, very dissatisfied that he had failed in his attempts to save the King and baffle the Jacobins. He had formed the design of invading Holland, dissolving the Revolutionary Committee in that country, annulling the decree of December 15th, offering neutrality to the English, a suspension of arms to the Austrians, reuniting the Belgian and Batavian republics, and proposing to France a re-union with them. In case of refusal, he designed to march upon Paris, dissolve the Convention, extinguish Jacobinism; in short, to play the part of Monk in England. This plan was confided to four persons only, among whom Danton is said to have been one. … Dumouriez, having directed General Miranda to lay siege to Maestricht, left Antwerp for Holland, February 22nd, and by March 4th had seized Breda, Klundert and Gertruydenberg. Austria, at the instance of England, had pushed forward 112,000 men under Prince Josias of Saxe-Coburg. Clairfait, with his army, at this time occupied Berghem, where he was separated from the French only by the little river Roer and the fortress of Juliers. Coburg, having joined Clairfait, March 1st, crossed the Roer, defeated the French under Dampierre at Altenhoven, and thus compelled Miranda to raise the siege of Maestricht, and retire towards Tongres. Aix-la-Chapelle was entered by the Austrians after a smart contest, and the French compelled to retreat upon Liege, while the divisions under Stengel and Neuilly, being cut off by this movement, were thrown back into Limburg. The Austrians then crossed the Meuse, and took Liege, March 6th. Dumouriez was now compelled to concentrate his forces at Louvain. From this place he wrote a threatening letter to the Convention, March 11th, denouncing the proceedings of the ministry, the acts of oppression committed in Belgium, and the decree of December 15th. This letter threw the Committee of General Defence into consternation. It was resolved to keep it secret, and Danton and Lacroix set off for Dumouriez's camp, to try what they could do with him, but found him inflexible. His proceedings had already unmasked his designs. At Antwerp he had ordered the Jacobin Club to be closed, and the members to be imprisoned, at Brussels he had dissolved the legion of 'sans-culottes.' Dumouriez was defeated by Prince Coburg at Neerwinden, March 18th, and again on the 22nd at Louvain. In a secret interview with the Austrian Colonel Mack, a day or two after, at Ath, he announced to that officer his intention to march on Paris and establish a constitutional monarchy, but nothing was said as to who was to wear the crown. {1288} The Austrians were to support Dumouriez's advance upon Paris, but not to show themselves except in case of need, and he was to have the command of what Austrian troops he might select. The French now continued their retreat, which, in consequence of these negociations, was unmolested. The Archduke Charles and Prince Coburg entered Brussels March 25th, and the Dutch towns were shortly after retaken. When Dumouriez arrived with his van at Courtrai, he was met by three emissaries of the Jacobins, sent apparently to sound him. He bluntly told them that his design was to save France, whether they called him Cæsar, Cromwell or Monk, denounced the Convention as an assembly of tyrants, said that he despised their decrees. … At St. Amand he was met by Beurnonville, then minister of war, who was to supersede him in the command, and by four commissaries despatched by the Convention." Dumouriez arrested these, delivered them to Clairfait, and they were sent to Maestricht. "The allies were so sanguine that Dumouriez's defection would put an end to the Revolution, that Lord Auckland and Count Stahremberg, the Austrian minister, looking upon the dissolution and flight of the Convention as certain, addressed a joint note to the States-General, requesting them not to shelter such members of it as had taken any part in the condemnation of Louis XVI. But Dumouriez's army was not with him. On the road to Condé he was fired on by a body of volunteers and compelled to fly for his life (April 4th)." The day following he abandoned his army and went over to the Austrian quarters at Tournay, with a few companions, thus ending his political and military career. "The situation of France at this time seemed almost desperate. The army of the North was completely disorganised through the treachery of Dumouriez; the armies of the Rhine and Moselle were retreating; those of the Alps and Italy were expecting an attack; on the eastern side of the Pyrenees the troops were without artillery, without generals, almost without bread, while on the western side the Spaniards were advancing towards Bayonne. Brest, Cherbourg, the coasts of Brittany, were threatened by the English. The ocean ports contained only six ships of the line ready for sea, and the Mediterranean fleet was being repaired at Toulon. But the energy of the revolutionary leaders was equal to the occasion."

F. C. Schlosser, History of the 18th Century, volume 6, division 2, chapter 2, section 1-2.

"Ever since the abolition of royalty and the constitution of 1790, that is, since the 10th of August, a condemnatory and threatening silence had prevailed in Normandy. Bretagne exhibited still more hostile sentiments, and the people there were engrossed by fondness for the priests and the gentry. Nearer to the banks of the Loire, this attachment amounted to insurrection; and lastly, on the left bank of that river, in the Bocage, Le Loroux, and La Vendée, the insurrection was complete, and large armies of ten and twenty thousand men were already in the field. … It was particularly on this left bank, in Anjou, and Upper and Lower Poitou, that the famous war of La Vendée had broken out. It was in this part of France that the influence of time was least felt, and that it had produced least change in the ancient manners. The feudal system had there acquired a truly patriarchal character; and the Revolution, instead of operating a beneficial reform in the country, had shocked the most kindly habits and been received as a persecution. The Bocage and the Marais constitute a singular country, which it is necessary to describe, in order to convey an idea of the manners of the population, and the kind of society that was formed there. Setting out from Nantes and Saumur and proceeding from the Loire to the sands of Olonne, Lucon, Fontenay, and Niort, you meet with an unequal undulating soil, intersected by ravines and crossed by a multitude of hedges, which serve to fence in each field, and which have on this account obtained for the country the name of the Bocage. As you approach the sea the ground declines, till it terminates in salt marshes, and is everywhere cut up by a multitude of small canals, which render access almost impossible. This is what is called the Marais. The only abundant produce in this country is pasturage, consequently cattle are plentiful. The peasants there grew only just sufficient corn for their own consumption, and employed the produce of their herds and flocks as a medium of exchange. It is well known that no people are more simple than those subsisting by this kind of industry. Few great towns had been built in these parts. They contained only large villages of two or three thousand souls. Between the two high-roads leading, the one from Tours to Poitiers, and the other from Nantes to La Rochelle, extended a tract thirty leagues in breadth, where there were none but cross-roads leading to villages and hamlets. The country was divided into a great number of small farms paying a rent of from five to six hundred francs, each let to a single family, which divided the produce of the cattle with the proprietor of the land. From this division of farms, the seigneurs had to treat with each family, and kept up a continual and easy intercourse with them. The simplest mode of life prevailed in the mansions of the gentry: they were fond of the chase, on account of the abundance of game; the gentry and the peasants hunted together, and they were all celebrated for their skill and vigour. The priests, men of extraordinary purity of character, exercised there a truly paternal ministry. … When the Revolution, so beneficent in other quarters, reached this country, with its iron level, it produced profound agitation. It had been well if it could have made an exception there, but that was impossible. … When the removal of the non-juring priests deprived the peasants of the ministers in whom they had confidence, they were vehemently exasperated, and, as in Bretagne, they ran into the woods and travelled to a considerable distance to attend the ceremonies of a worship, the only true one in their estimation. From that moment a violent hatred was kindled in their souls, and the priests neglected no means of fanning the flames. The 10th of August drove several Poitevin nobles back to their estates; the 21st of January estranged them, and they communicated their indignation to those about them. They did not conspire, however, as some have conceived. {1289} The known dispositions of the country had incited men who were strangers to it to frame plans of conspiracy. One had been hatched in Bretagne, but none was formed in the Bocage; there was no concerted plan there; the people suffered themselves to be driven to extremity. At length, the levy of 300,000 men excited in the month of March a general insurrection. … Obliged to take arms, they chose rather to fight against the republic than for it. Nearly about the same time, that is, at the beginning of March, the drawing was the occasion of an insurrection in the Upper Bocage and in the Marais. On the 10th of March, the drawing was to take place at St. Florent, near Ancenis, in Anjou. The young men refused to draw. The guard endeavoured to force them to comply. The military commandant ordered a piece of cannon to be pointed and fired at the mutineers. They dashed forward with their bludgeons, made themselves masters of the piece, disarmed the guard, and were, at the same time, not a little astonished at their own temerity. A carrier, named Cathelineau, a man highly esteemed in that part of the country, possessing great bravery and powers of persuasion, quitting his farm on hearing the tidings, hastened to join them, rallied them, roused their courage, and gave some consistency to the insurrection by his skill in keeping it up. The very same day he resolved to attack a republican post consisting of eighty men. The peasants followed him with their bludgeons and their muskets. After a first volley, every shot of which told, because they were excellent marksmen, they rushed upon the post, disarmed it, and made themselves master of the position. Next day, Cathelineau proceeded to Chemillé, which he likewise took, in spite of 200 republicans and three pieces of cannon. A gamekeeper at the château of Maulevrier, named Stofflet, and a young peasant of the village of Chanzeau, had on their part collected a band of peasants. These came and joined Cathelineau, who conceived the daring design of attacking Chollet, the most considerable town in the country, the chief place of a district, and guarded by 500 republicans. … The victorious band of Cathelineau entered Chollet, seized all the arms that it could find, and made cartridges out of the charges of the cannon. It was always in this manner that the Vendeans procured ammunition. … Another much more general revolt had broken out in the Marais and the department of La Vendée. At Machecoul and Challans, the recruiting was the occasion of a universal insurrection. … Three hundred republicans were shot by parties of 20 or 30. …In the department of La Vendée, that is, to the south of the theatre of this war, the insurrection assumed still more consistence. The national guards of Fontenay, having set out on their march for Chantonnay, were repulsed and beaten. Chantonnay was plundered. General Verteuil, who commanded the 11th military division, on receiving intelligence of this defeat, dispatched General Marcé with 1,200 men, partly troops of the line, and partly national guards. The rebels who were met at St. Vincent, were repulsed. General Marcé had time to add 1,200 more men and nine pieces of cannon to his little army. In marching upon St. Fulgent, he again fell in with the Vendeans in a valley and stopped to restore a bridge which they had destroyed. About four in the afternoon of the 18th of March, the Vendeans, taking the initiative, advanced and attacked him … and made themselves masters of the artillery, the ammunition, and the arms, which the soldiers threw away that they might be the lighter in their flight. These more important successes in the department of La Vendée properly so called, procured for the insurgents the name of Vendeans, which they afterwards retained, though the war was far more active out of La Vendée. The pillage committed by them in the Marais caused them to be called brigands, though the greater number did not deserve that appellation. The insurrection extended into the Marais from the environs of Nantes to Les Sables, and into Anjou and Poitou, as far as the environs of Vihiers and Parthenay. … Easter recalled all the insurgents to their homes, from which they never would stay away long. To them a war was a sort of sporting excursion of several days; they carried with them a sufficient quantity of bread for the time, and then returned to inflame their neighbours by the accounts which they gave. Places of meeting were appointed for the month of April. The insurrection was then general and extended over the whole surface of the country. It might be comprised in a line which, commencing at Nantes, would pass through Pornic, the Isle of Noirmoutiers, Les Sables, Luçon, Fontenay, Niort, and Parthenay, and return by Airvault, Thouar, Doué, and St. Florent, to the Loire. The insurrection, begun by men who were not superior to the peasants whom they commanded, excepting by their natural qualities, was soon continued by men of a higher rank. The peasants went to the mansions and forced the nobles to put themselves at their head. The whole Marais insisted on being commanded by Charette. … In the Bocage, the peasants applied to Messrs. de Bonchamps, d'Elbée, and de Laroche-Jacquelein, and forced them from their mansions to place them at their head." These gentlemen were afterwards joined by M. de Lescure, a cousin of Henri de Laroche-Jacquelin.

A. Thiers, History of the French Revolution (American edition), volume 2, pages 146-152.

Henri Larochejaquelein and the War in La Vendée,
(Chambers Miscellany, volume 2).

FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (March-June).
   Vigorous measures of the Revolutionary government.
   The Committee of Public Safety.
   The final struggle of Jacobins and Girondins.
   The fall of the Girondins.

The news of the defeat of Dumouriez at Neerwinden, which reached Paris on the 21st, "brought about two important measures. Jean Debry, on behalf of the Diplomatic Committee, proposed that all strangers should be expelled from France within eight days who could not give a good reason for their residence, and on the same evening the Committee of General Defence was reorganized and placed on another footing. This committee had come into existence in January, 1793. It originally consisted of 21 members, who were not directly elected by the Convention, but were chosen from the seven most important committees. {1290} But now, after the news of Neerwinden, a powerful committee was directly elected. It consisted of 24 members, and the first committee contained nine Girondins, nine deputies of the Plain, and six Jacobins, including every representative man in the Convention. … The new Committee was given the greatest powers, and after first proposing to the Convention that the penalty of death should be decreed against every emigre over fourteen, and to everyone who protected an emigre, it proposed that Dumouriez should be summoned to the bar of the Convention." Early in April, news of the desertion of Dumouriez and the retreat of Custine, "made the Convention decide on yet further measures to strengthen the executive. Marat, who, like Danton and Robespierre, was statesman enough to perceive the need of strengthening the executive, proposed that enlarged powers should be given to the committees; and Isnard, as the reporter of the Committee of General Defence, proposed the establishment of a smaller committee of nine, with supreme and unlimited executive powers—a proposal which was warmly supported by every statesman in the Convention. … It is noticeable that every measure which strengthened the terror when it was finally established was decreed while the Girondins could command a majority in: the Convention, and that it was a Girondin, Isnard, who proposed the immense powers of the Committee of Public Safety [Comité de Salut Public]. Upon April 6 Isnard brought up a decree defining the powers of the new committee. It was to consist of nine deputies; to confer in secret; to have supreme executive power, and authority to spend certain sums of' money without accounting for them, and it was to present a weekly report to the Convention. These immense powers were granted under the pressure of news from the frontier, and it was obvious that it would not be long before such a powerful executive could conquer the independence of the Convention. Isnard's proposals were opposed by Buzot, but decreed; and on April 7 the first Committee of Public Safety was elected. It consisted of the following members:—Barère, Delmas, Bréard, Cambon, Danton, Guyton-Morveau, Treilhard, Lacroix, and Robert Lindet. The very first proposal of the new committee was that it should appoint three representatives with every army from among the deputies of the Convention, with unlimited powers, who were to report to the committee itself. This motion was followed by a very statesmanlike one from Danton. He perceived the folly of the decree of November 18, which declared universal war against all kings. … On his proposition the fatal decree … was withdrawn, and it was made possible for France again to enter into the comity of European nations. It is very obvious that it was the foreign war which had developed the progress of the Revolution with such astonishing rapidity in France. It was Brunswick's manifesto which mainly caused the attack on the Tuileries on August 10; it was the surrender of Verdun which directly caused the massacres of September. It was the battle of Neerwinden which established the Revolutionary Tribunal, and that defeat and the desertion of Dumouriez which brought about the establishment of the Committee of Public Safety. The Girondins were chiefly responsible for the great war, and its first result was to destroy them as a party. … Their early influence over the deputies of the Plain rested on a belief in their statesmanlike powers, but as time went on that influence steadily diminished. It was in vain for Danton to attempt to make peace in the Convention; bitter words on both sides had left too strong an impression ever to be effaced. The Jacobin leaders despised the Girondins; the Girondins hated the Jacobins for having won away power from them. The Jacobins formed a small but very united body, of which every member knew its own mind; they were determined to carry on the Republic at all costs, and to destroy the Girondins as quickly as they could. … The desertion of Dumouriez had caused strong measures to be taken by the Convention, … and all parties had concurred. … But as soon as these important measures had been taken, which the majority of the Convention believed would enable France once more to free her frontiers from the invaders, the Girondins and Jacobins turned upon each other with redoubled ardour, and the death-struggle between them recommenced. The Girondins reopened the struggle with an attack upon Marat. Few steps could have been more foolish, for Marat, though in many ways a real statesman, had from the exaggeration of his language never obtained the influence in the Convention to which his abilities entitled him. … But he remained the idol of the people of Paris, and in attacking him the Girondins exasperated the people of Paris in the person of their beloved journalist. On April 11 Guadet read a placard in the Convention, which Marat had posted on the walls of Paris, full of his usual libellous abuse of the Girondins. It was referred to the Committee of Legislation with other writings of Marat," and two days later, on the report of the Committee, it was voted by the Convention (half of its members being absent), that Marat should be sent before the Tribunal for trial. This called out immediate demonstrations from Marat's Parisian admirers. "On April 15, in the name of 35 sections of Paris, Pache and Hébert demanded the expulsion from the Convention of 22 of the leading Girondists as 'disturbers of the public peace,' including Brissot, Guadet, Vergniaud, Gensonné, Buzot, Barbaroux, Louvet, Petion, and Lanjuinais. … On April 22 the trial of Marat took place. He was unanimously acquitted, although most of the judges of the Revolutionary Tribunal sympathized with the Girondins. … The acquittal of Marat was a fearful blow to the Girondin party; they had in no way discredited the Jacobins, and had only made themselves unpopular in Paris. … The Commune of Paris steadily organized the more advanced republicans of the city for an open attack upon the Girondins. … Throughout the month of May, preparations for the final struggle went on; it was recognized by both parties that they must appeal to force, and arrangements for appealing to force were made as openly for the coup d'état of May 31 as they had been for that of August 10. On the one side, the Commune of Paris steadily concentrated its armed strength and formed its plan of action; on the other, the leading Girondins met daily at the house of Valazé, and prepared to move decrees in the Convention.'" But the Girondins were still divided among themselves. {1291} Some wished to appeal to the provinces, against Paris, which meant civil war; others opposed this as unpatriotic. On the 31st of May, and on the two days following, the Commune of Paris called out its mob to execute the determined coup d'état. On the last of these three days (June 2), the Convention surrounded, imprisoned and terrorized by armed ruffians, led by Henriot, lately appointed Commander of the National Guard, submissively decreed that the proscribed Girondin deputies, with others, to the number altogether of 31, should be placed under arrest in their own houses. This "left the members of the Mountain predominant in the Convention. The deputies of the Marsh or Plain were now docile to the voice of the Jacobin leaders," whose supremacy was now without dispute. On the preceding day, an attempt had been made, on the order of the Commune, to arrest M. Roland and two others of the ministers. Roland escaped, but Madame Roland, the more important Girondist leader, was taken and consigned to the Abbaye.

      W. Smyth,
      Lectures on the History of the French Revolution,
      lecture 37 (volume 2).

      H. Von Sybel,
      History of the French Revolution,
      book 7, chapters 1-3 (volume 3).

FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (March-September).
   Formation of the great European Coalition against
   Revolutionary France.
   The seeds of dissension and weakness in it.

"The impression made at St. Petersburg by the execution of Louis was fully as vivid as at London: already it was evident that these two capitals were the centres of the great contest which was approaching. … An intimate and confidential correspondence immediately commenced between Count Woronzoff, the Russian ambassador at London, and Lord Grenville, the British secretary of state for foreign affairs, which terminated in a treaty between the powers, signed in London on the 25th of March. By this convention, which laid the basis of the grand alliance which afterwards brought the war to a glorious termination, it was provided that the two powers should 'employ their respective forces, as far as circumstances shall permit, in carrying on the just and necessary war in which they find themselves engaged against France; and they reciprocally engage not to lay down their arms without restitution of all the conquests which may have been made upon either of the respective powers, or upon such other states or allies to whom, by common consent, they shall extend the benefit of this treaty.' … Shortly after [April 25], a similar convention was entered into between Great Britain and Sardinia, by which the latter power was to receive an annual subsidy of £200,000 during the whole continuance of the war, and the former to keep on foot an army of 50,000 men; and the English government engaged to procure for it entire restitution of its dominions as they stood at the commencement of the war. By another convention, with the cabinet of Madrid, signed at Aranjuez on the 25th of May, they engaged not to make peace till they had obtained full restitution for the Spaniards 'of all places, towns, and territories which belonged to them at the commencement of the war, and which the enemy may have taken during its continuance.' A similar treaty was entered into with the court of the Two Sicilies, and with Prussia [July 12 and 14], in which the clauses, prohibiting all exportation to France, and preventing the trade of neutrals with it, were the same as in the Russian treaty. Treaties of the same tenor were concluded in the course of the summer with the Emperor of Germany [August 30], and the King of Portugal [September 26]. Thus was all Europe arrayed in a great league against Republican France, and thus did the regicides of that country, as the first fruits of their cruel triumph, find themselves excluded from the pale of civilized nations. … But while all Europe thus resounded with the note of military preparation against France, Russia had other and more interested designs in view. Amidst the general consternation at the triumphs of the French republicans, Catharine conceived that she would be permitted to pursue, without molestation, her ambitious designs against Poland [See POLAND: A. D. 1793-1796]. She constantly represented the disturbances in that kingdom as the fruit of revolutionary propagandism, which it was indispensable to crush in the first instance. … The ambitious views of Prussia were also … strongly turned in the same direction. … Nor was it only the ambitious projects of Russia and Prussia against the independence of Poland which already gave ground for gloomy augury as to the issue of the war. Its issue was more immediately affected by the jealousy of Austria and Prussia, which now broke out in the most undisguised manner, and occasioned such a division of the allied forces as effectually prevented any cordial or effective co-operation continuing to exist between them. The Prussian cabinet, mortified at the lead which the Imperial generals took in the common operations, insisted upon the formation of two independent German armies; one composed of Prussians, the other of Austrians, to one or other of which the forces of all the minor states should be joined: those of Saxony, Hanover, and Hesse being grouped around the standards of Prussia; those of Bavaria, Wirtemburg, Swabia, the Palatinate, and Franconia, following the double-headed eagles of Austria. By this means, all unity of action between the two grand allied armies was broken up. … Prince Cobourg was appointed generalissimo of the allied Armies from the Rhine to the German ocean." In April, a corps of 20,000 English had been landed in Holland, "under the command of the Duke of York, and being united to 10,000 Hanoverians and Hessians, formed a total of 30,000 men in British pay." Holland, as an ally of England, was already in the Coalition, the French having declared war, in February, against the two maritime powers, simultaneously.

ALSO IN F. C. Schlosser, History of the 18th Century, volume 6, division 2, chapter 2, section 3.

FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (April-August):
Minister Genet in America.
Washington's proclamation of neutrality.

FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (June).
   Flight of most of the Girondists.
   Their appeal to the country.
   Insurrection in the provinces.
   The rising at Lyons, Marseilles, Bordeaux, Toulon.
   Progress of the Vendean revolt.

"After this day [of the events which culminated on the 2d of June, but which are commonly referred to as being of 'the 31st of May,' when they began], when the people made no other use of their power than to display and to exercise the pressure of Paris over the representation, they separated without committing any excess. … La Montaigne caused the committees to be reinstated on the morrow, with the exception of that of public safety. They threw into the majority their most decided members. … They deposed those ministers suspected of attachment to the' conquered; sent commissioners into the doubtful departments; annulled the project of the constitution proposed by the Girondists; and charged the committee of safety to draw up in eight days a project for the constitution entirely democratical. They pressed forward the recruiting and armament of the revolutionary army—that levy of patriotism en masse. They decreed a forced loan of a million upon the rich. They sent one after the other, accused upon accused, to the revolutionary tribunal. Their sittings were no longer deliberation, but cursory motions, decreed on the instant by acclamation, and sent immediately to the different committees for execution. They stripped the executive power of the little independence and responsibility it heretofore retained. Continually called into the bosom of their committees, ministers became no more than the passive executors of the measures they decreed. From this day, also, discussion was at an end; action was all. The disappearance of the Girondists deprived the Revolution of its voice. Eloquence was proscribed with Vergniaud, with the exception of those few days when the great party chiefs, Danton and Robespierre, spoke, not to refute opinions, but to intimate their will, and promulgate their orders. The Assemblies became almost mute. A dead silence reigned henceforth in the Convention. In the meanwhile the 22 Girondists [excepting Vergniaud, Gensonné, Ducos, Tonfrède, and a few others, who remained under the decree of arrest, facing all consequences], the members of the Commission of Twelve, and a certain number of their friends, warned of their danger by this first blow of ostracism, fled into their departments, and hurried to protest against the mutilation of the country. … Robespierre, Danton, the Committee of Public Safety, and even the people themselves, seemed to shut their eyes to these evasions, as if desirous to be rid of victims whom it would pain them to strike. Buzot, Barbaroux, Guadet, Louvet, Salles, Pétion, Bergoing, Lesage, Cressy, Kervélégan and Lanjuinais, threw themselves into Normandy; and after having traversed it, inciting all the departments between Paris and the Ocean, established at Caen the focus and centre of insurrection against the tyranny of Paris. They gave themselves the name of the Central Assembly of Resistance to Oppression. Biroteau and Chasset had arrived at Lyons. The armed sections of this town were agitated with contrary and already bloody commotion [the Jacobin municipality having been overthrown, after hard fighting, and its chief, Chalier, put to death]. Brissot fled to Moulins, Robaut St. Etienne to Nismes. Grangeneuve, sent by Vergniaud, Tonfrède, and Ducos, to Bordeaux, raised troops ready to march upon the capital. Toulouse followed the same impulse of resistance to Paris. The departments of the west were on fire, and rejoiced to see the republic, torn into contending factions, offer them the aid of one of the two parties for the restoration of royalty. The mountainous centre of France … was agitated. … Marseilles enrolled 10,000 men at the voice of Rebecqui and the young friends of Barbaroux. They imprisoned the commissioners of the Convention, Roux and Antiboul. Royalty, always brooding in the south, insensibly transformed this movement of patriotism into a monarchical insurrection. Rebecqui, in despair … at seeing loyalty avail itself of the rising in the south, escaped remorse by suicide, throwing himself into the sea. Lyons and Bordeaux likewise imprisoned the envoys of the Convention as Maratists. The first columns of the combined army of the departments began to move in all directions; 6,000 Marseillais were already at Avignon, ready to reascend the Rhone, and form a junction with the insurgents of Nismes and of Lyons. Brittany and Normandy uniting, concentrated their first forces at Evreux."

The royalists of the west, "during this almost general rising of the departments, continued to extend their enterprises. After their first victories, the Vendeans seized on Bressure, Argenton, and Thouars. Entirely masters of their own country, they proposed getting possession of the frontiers, and opening the way to revolutionary France, as well as communications with England. On the 6th of June, the Vendean army, composed of 40,000 men, under Cathelineau, Lescure, Stofflet, and La Rochejacquelin, marched on Saumur, which it took by storm. It then prepared to attack and capture Nantes, to secure the possession of its own country, and become masters of the course of the Loire. Cathelineau, at the head of the Vendean troops, left a garrison in Saumur, took Angers, crossed the Loire, pretended to advance upon Tours and Lemans, and then rapidly threw himself upon Nantes, which he attacked on the right bank, while Charette was to attack it on the left."

FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (June-October).
   The new Jacobin Constitution postponed.
   Concentration of power in the Committee of Public Safety.
   The irresistible machine of revolutionary government.

   "It was while affairs were in this critical condition that the
   Mountain undertook the sole conduct of the government in
   France. They had hitherto resisted all attempts of the
   Girondists to establish a new constitution in place of that of
   1791. They now undertook the work themselves, and in four days
   drew up a constitution, as simple as it was democratic, which
   was issued on the 24th of June. Every citizen of the age of 21
   could vote directly in the election of deputies, who were
   chosen for a year at a time and were to sit in a single
   assembly. The assembly had the sole power of making laws, but
   a period was fixed during which the constituents could protest
   against its enactments. The executive power was entrusted to
   24 men, who were chosen by the assembly from candidates
   nominated by electors chosen by the original voters. Twelve
   out of the 24 were to be renewed every six months. But this
   constitution was intended merely to satisfy the departments,
   and was never put into practice. The condition of France
   required a greater concentration of power, and this was
   supplied by the Committee of Public Safety.
{1293}
   Ever since the 6th of April the original members of the
   Committee had been re-elected, but on the 10th of July its
   composition was changed. Danton ceased to be a member, and
   Barère was joined by Robespierre, St. Just, Couthon,
   Billaud-Varennes, Collot d'Herbois, and, in a short time,
   Carnot. These men became the absolute rulers of France. The
   Committee had no difficulty in carrying their measures in the
   Convention, from which the opposition party had disappeared.
   All the state obligations were rendered uniform and inscribed
   in 'the great book of the national debt.' The treasury was
   filled by a compulsory loan from the rich. Every income
   between 1,000 and 10,000 francs had to pay ten per cent., and
   every excess over 10,000 francs had to be contributed in its
   entirety for one year. To recruit the army a levee en masse
   was decreed. 'The young men shall go to war; the married men
   shall forge arms and transport supplies; the wives shall make
   tents and clothes and serve in the hospitals; the children
   shall tear old linen into lint; the aged shall resort to the
   public places to excite the courage of the warriors and hatred
   against kings.' Nor were measures neglected against domestic
   enemies. On the 6th of September a revolutionary army,
   consisting of 6,000 men and 1,200 artillery men, was placed at
   the disposal of the Committee to carry out its orders
   throughout France. On the 17th the famous 'law of the
   suspects' was carried. Under the term 'suspect' were included
   all those who by words, acts or writings had shown themselves
   in favour of monarchy or of federalism, the relatives of the
   emigrants, etc., and they were to be imprisoned until the
   peace. As the people were in danger of famine, a maximum
   price, already established for corn, was decreed for all
   necessaries; if a merchant gave up his trade he became a
   suspect, and the hoarding of provisions was punished by death.
   On the 10th of October the Convention definitely transferred
   its powers to the Committee, by subjecting all officials to
   its authority and by postponing the trial of the new
   constitution until the peace."

The Committee of Public Safety—the "Revolutionary Government," as Danton had named it, on the 2d of August, when he demanded the fearful powers that were given to it—"disposed of all the national forces; it appointed and dismissed the ministers, generals, Representatives on Mission, the judges and juries of the Revolutionary Tribunal. The latter instrument became its strong arm; it was, in fact, a court martial worked by civil magistrates. By its agents it directed the departments and armies, the political situation without and within, striking down at the same time the rebels within and the enemies without: for, together with the constitution were, of course, suspended the municipal laws and the political machinery of the communes; and thus cities and villages hitherto indifferent or opposed to the Revolution were republicanized. By the Tribunal it disposed of the persons of individuals; by requisition and the law of maximum (with which we are going to be better acquainted) it disposed of their fortunes. It can, indeed, be said that the whole of France was placed in a state of siege; but that was the price of its salvation. … But Danton has committed, a great mistake,—one that he and especially France, will come to rue. He has declined to become a member of the Revolutionary Government, which has been established on his motion. 'It is my firm resolve not to be a member of such a government,' he had said. In other words, he has declined re-election as a member of the Committee de Salut Public, now it has been erected into a dictatorship. He unfortunately lacked all ambition. … When afterwards, on September 8, one Gaston tells the Convention, 'Danton has a mighty revolutionary head. No one understands so well as he to execute what he himself proposes. I therefore move that he be added to the Revolutionary Government, in spite of his protest,' and it is so unanimously ordered, he again peremptorily declines. 'No, I will not be a member; but as a spy on it I intend to work.' A most fateful resignation! for while he still for a short time continues to exercise his old influence on the government, both from the outside, in his own person, and inside the Committee, in the person of Hérault de Sechelles, selected in his place, he very soon loses ground more and more,—so much so even that Hérault, his friend, is 'put in quarantine,' as was said in the Committee. And very natural. A statesman cannot have power when he shirks responsibility, and without power he soon loses all influence with the multitude. Those who now succeed him in power are Robespierre, Barère, Billaud-Varennes, and Carnot,—the two last very good working members, good men of the second rank, but after Danton not a single man is left fit to be leader."

      H. C. Lockwood,
      Constitutional History of France,
      chapter 1, and appendix 2.

   "Amongst those who had placed faith in the Girondists and
   their ideals was a young woman of Normandy, Charlotte Corday.
   … When the mob of Paris rose and drove with insult from the
   Convention those who in her eyes were the heroic defenders of
   the universal principles of truth and justice, she bitterly
   resented the wrong that had been done, not only to the men
   themselves, but to that France of which she regarded them as
   the true representatives. Owing to Marat's persistent cry for
   a dictatorship and for shedding of blood, it was he who, in
   the departments, was accounted especially responsible both for
   the expulsion of the Girondists and for the tyranny which now
   began to weigh as heavily upon the whole country as it had
   long weighed upon the capital. Incapable as all then were of
   comprehending the causes which had brought about the fall of
   the Girondists, Charlotte Corday imagined that by putting an
   end to this man's life, she could also put an end to the
   system of government which he advocated. Informing her friends
   that she wished to visit England, she left Caen and travelled
   in the diligence to Paris. On her arrival she purchased a
   knife, and afterwards obtained entrance into Marat's house on
   the pretext that she brought news which she desired to
   communicate to him. She knew that he would be eager to obtain
   intelligence of the movements of the Girondist deputies still
   in Normandy. Marat was ill at the time, and in a bath when
   Charlotte Corday was admitted.
{1294}
   She gave him the names of the deputies who were at Caen. 'In a
   few days,' he said, as he wrote them hastily down, 'I will
   have them all guillotined in Paris.' As she heard these words
   she plunged the knife into his body and killed him on the
   spot. The cry uttered by the murdered man was heard, and
   Charlotte, who did not attempt to escape, was captured and
   conveyed to prison amid the murmurs of an angry crowd. It had
   been from the first her intention to sacrifice her life for
   the cause of her country, and, glorying in her deed, she met
   death with stoical indifference. 'I killed one man,' she said,
   when brought before the revolutionary court, 'in order to save
   the lives of 100,000 others.' … His [Marat's] murder brought
   about contrary results to those which the woman who ignorantly
   and rashly had flung away her life hoped by the sacrifice to
   effect. … He was regarded as a martyr by no small portion of
   the working population of Paris. … His murder excited
   indignation beyond the comparatively narrow circle of those
   who took an active part in political life, while at the same
   time it added a new impulse to the growing cry for blood."

FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (July-December).
   The civil war.
   Sieges of Lyons and Toulon.
   Submission of Caen, Marseilles and Bordeaux.
   Crushing of the Vendeans.

"The insurgents in Calvados [Normandy] were easily suppressed; at the very first skirmish at Vernon [July 13], the insurgent troops fled. Wimpfen endeavoured to rally them in vain. The moderate class, those who had taken up the defence of the Girondists, displayed little ardour or activity. When the constitution was accepted by the other departments, it saw the opportunity for admitting that it had been in error, when it thought it was taking arms against a mere factious minority. This retractation was made at Caen, which had been the headquarters of the revolt. The Mountain commissioners did not sully this first victory with executions. General Carteaux on the other hand, marched at the head of some troops against the sectionary army of the south; he defeated its force, pursued it to Marseilles, entered the town [August 23] after it, and Provence would have been brought into subjection like Calvados, if the royalists, who had taken refuge at Toulon, after their defeat, had not called in the English to their aid, and placed in their hands this key to France. Admiral Hood entered the town in the name of Louis XVII., whom he proclaimed king, disarmed the fleet, sent for 8,000 Spaniards by sea, occupied the surrounding forts, and forced Carteaux, who was advancing against Toulon, to fall back on Marseilles. Notwithstanding this check, the conventionalists succeeded in isolating the insurrection, and this was a great point. The Mountain commissioners had made their entry into the rebel capitals; Robert Lindet into Caen; Tallien into Bordeaux; Barras and Fréron into Marseilles. Only two towns remained to be taken Toulon and Lyons. A simultaneous attack from the south, west, and centre was no longer apprehended, and in the interior the enemy was only on the defensive. Lyons was besieged by Kellermann, general of the army of the Alps; three corps pressed the town on all sides. The veteran soldiers of the Alps, the revolutionary battalions and the newly levied troops, reinforced the besiegers every day. The people of Lyons defended themselves with all the courage of despair. At first, they relied on the assistance of the insurgents of the south; but these having been repulsed by Carteaux, the Lyonnese placed their last hope in the army of Piedmont, which attempted a diversion in their favour, but was beaten by Kellermann. Pressed still more energetically, they saw their first position carried. Famine began to be felt, and courage forsook them. The royalist leaders, convinced of the inutility of longer resistance, left the town, and the republican army entered the walls [October 9], where they awaited the orders of the convention. A few months after, Toulon itself [in the siege of which Napoleon Bonaparte commanded the artillery], defended by veteran troops and formidable fortifications, fell into the power of the republicans. The battalions of the army of Italy, reinforced by those which the taking of Lyons left disposable, pressed the place closely. After repeated attacks and prodigies of skill and valour, they made themselves masters of it, and the capture of Toulon finished what that of Lyons had begun [December 19]. Everywhere the convention was victorious. The Vendeans had failed in their attempt upon Nantes, after having lost many men, and their general-in-chief, Cathelineau. This attack put an end to the aggressive and previously promising movement of the Vendean insurrection. The royalists repassed the Loire, abandoned Saumur, and resumed their former cantonments. They were, however, still formidable; and the republicans, who pursued them, were again beaten in La Vendée. General Biron, who had succeeded General Berruyer, unsuccessfully continued the war with small bodies of troops; his moderation and defective system of attack caused him to be replaced by Canclaux and Rossignol, who were not more fortunate than he. There were two leaders, two armies, and two centres of operation; … The committee of public safety soon remedied this, by appointing one sole general-in-chief, Lechelle, and by introducing war on a large scale into La Vendée. This new method, aided by the garrison of Mayence, consisting of 17,000 veterans, who, relieved from operations against the coalesced powers after the capitulation, were employed in the interior, entirely changed the face of the war. The royalists underwent four consecutive defeats, two at Châtillon, two at Cholet [the last being October 17]. Lescure, Bonchamps, and d'Elbée were mortally wounded: and the insurgents, completely beaten in Upper Vendée, and fearing that they should be exterminated if they took refuge in Lower Vendée, determined to leave their country to the number of 80,000 persons. This emigration through Brittany, which they hoped to arouse to insurrection, became fatal to them. Repulsed before Granville, utterly routed at Mons [Le Mans, December 12], they were destroyed at Savenay [December 23], and barely a few thousand men, the wreck of this vast emigration, returned to Vendée. These disasters, irreparable for the royalist cause, the taking of their land of Noir-moutiers from Charette, the dispersion of the troops of that leader, the death of Laroche jacquelin, rendered the republicans masters of the country. {1295} The committee of public safety, thinking, not without reason, that its enemies were beaten but not subjugated, adopted a terrible system of extermination to prevent them from rising again. General Thurreau surrounded Vendée with sixteen entrenched camps; twelve movable columns, called the infernal columns, overran the country in every direction, sword and fire in hand, scoured the woods, dispersed the assemblies, and diffused terror throughout this unhappy country."

      ALSO IN
      A. Thiers,
      History of the French Revolution
      (American edition), volume 2, pages 328-335,
      and 398-410.

FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (July-December).
   Progress of the war of the Coalition.
   Dissensions among the Allies.
   Unsuccessful siege of Dunkirk.
   French Victories of Hondschotten and Wattignies.
   Operations on the Rhine and elsewhere.

"The civil war in which France for a moment appeared engulfed was soon confined to a few narrowing centres. What, in the meantime, had been the achievements of the mighty Coalition of banded Europe? Success, that might have been great, was attained on the Alpine and Pyrenean frontiers; and had the Piedmontese and Spaniards been well led they could have overrun Provence and Rousillon, and made the insurrection of the South fatal. But here, as elsewhere, the Allies did little; and, though defeated in almost every encounter, the republican levies held their ground against enemies who nowhere advanced. It was, however, in the North and the North-east that the real prize of victory was placed; and no doubt can exist that had unanimity in the councils of the Coalition prevailed, or had a great commander been in its camp, Paris might have been captured without difficulty, and the Revolution been summarily put down. But the Austrians, the Prussians, and the English, were divided in mind; they had no General capable of rising above the most ordinary routine of war; and the result was that the allied armies advanced tardily on an immense front, each leader thinking of his own plans only, and no one venturing to press forward boldly, or to pass the fortresses on the hostile frontiers, though obstacles like these could be of little use without the aid of powerful forces in the field. In this manner half the summer was lost in besieging Mayence, Valenciennes, and Condé; and when, after the fall of these places [July-August], an attempt was made to invade Picardy, dissensions between the Allies broke out, and the British contingent was detached to besiege Dunkirk, while the Austrians lingered in French Flanders, intent on enlarging by conquest Belgium, at that period an Austrian Province. Time was thus gained for the French armies, which, though they had made an honorable resistance, had been obliged to fall back at all points, and were in no condition to oppose their enemy; and the French army in the North, though driven nearly to the Somme, within a few marches of the capital, was allowed an opportunity to recruit its strength, and was not, as it might have been easily, destroyed. A part of the hastily raised levies was now incorporated in its ranks; and as these were largely composed of seasoned men from the old army of the Bourbon Monarchy, and from the volunteers of Valmy and Jemmapes, a respectable force was before long mustered. At the peremptory command of the Jacobin Government, this was at once directed against the invaders, who did not know what an invasion meant. The Duke of York, assailed with vigor and skill, was compelled to raise the siege of Dunkirk [by the French victory at Hondschotten, September 8]; and, to the astonishment of Europe, the divided forces of the halting and irresolute Coalition began to recede before the enemies, who saw victory yielded to them, and who, feeble soldiers as they often were, were nevertheless fired by ardent patriotism. As the autumn closed the trembling balance of fortune inclined decidedly on the side of the Republic. The French recruits, hurried to the frontier in masses, became gradually better soldiers, under the influence of increasing success. Carnot, a man of great but overrated powers, took the general direction of military affairs; and though his strategy was not sound, it was much better than the imbecility of his foes. At the same time, the Generals of the fallen Monarchy having disappeared, or, for the most part, failed, brilliant names began to emerge from the ranks, and to lead the suddenly raised armies; and though worthless selections were not seldom made, more than one private and sergeant gave proof of capacity of no common order. Terror certainly added strength to patriotism, for thousands were driven to the camp by force, and death was the usual penalty of a defeated chief; but it was not the less a great national movement, and high honor is justly due to a people which, in a situation that might have seemed hopeless, made such heroic: and noble efforts, even though it triumphed through the weakness of its foe. Owing to a happy inspiration of Carnot, a detachment was rapidly marched from the Rhine, where the Prussians remained in complete inaction; and with this reinforcement Jourdan gained a victory at Wattignies [October 16] over the Austrians, and opened the way into the Low Countries. At the close of the year the youthful Hoche, once a corporal, but a man of genius, who had given studious hours to the theory of war, divided Brunswick from the Austrian Würmser by a daring and able march through the Vosges; and the baffled Allies were driven out of Alsace, the borders of which they had just invaded. By these operations the great Northern frontier, the really vulnerable part of France, was almost freed from the invaders' presence; and, though less was achieved on the Southern frontier, the enemies of the Republic began to lose courage."

   "The Prussians had remained wholly inactive for two months
   after the fall of Mayence, contenting themselves with watching
   the French in their lines at Weissenburg. Wearied at length by
   the torpor of his opponents, Moreau assumed the initiative,
   and attacked the Prussian corps at Pirmasens. This bold
   attempt was repulsed (September 14) with the loss of 4,000
   men; but it was not till a month later (October 13) that the
   Allies resumed the offensive, when the Weissenburg lines were
   stormed by a mixed force of Austrians and Prussians, and the
   French fled in confusion almost to Strasburg. But this
   important advantage led to no results, though the defeat of
   the Republican movement was hailed by a royalist movement in
   Alsace.
{1296}
   The Austrians, immovable in their plans of conquest, refused
   to occupy Strasburg in the name of Louis XVII.; and the
   unfortunate royalists, abandoned to Republican vengeance, were
   indiscriminately consigned to the guillotine by a decree of
   the Convention, while the confederate army was occupied in the
   siege of Landau. But the lukewarmness of the Prussians had now
   become so evident, that it was only by the most vehement
   remonstrances of the Austrian cabinet that they were prevented
   from seceding altogether from the league; and the Republicans,
   taking advantage of the disunion of their enemies, again
   attacked the Allies (December 26), who were routed and driven
   over the Rhine [abandoning the siege of Landau]; while the
   victors, following up their success, retook Spires, and
   advanced to the gates of Mannheim. The operations in the
   Pyrenees and on the side of Savoy, during this campaign, led
   to no important results. On the western extremity of the
   Pyrenees, the Spaniards [had] entered France in the middle of
   April, routed their opponents in several encounters, and drove
   them into St. Jean Pied-de-Poet. An invasion of Roussillon, at
   the same time, was equally successful; and the Spaniards
   maintained themselves in the province till the end of the
   year, taking the fortresses of Bellegarde and Collioure, and
   routing two armies which attempted to dislodge them, at Truellas
   (September 22) and Boulon (December 7). An attempt of the
   Sardinians to expel the French from their conquests in Savoy
   was less fortunate; and, at the close of the campaign, both
   parties remained in their former position."

      A. Alison,
      Epitome of History of Europe,
      pages 58-59 (chapter 13,
      volume 4 of complete work).

ALSO IN: H. Von Sybel, History of the French Revolution, book 8, chapter 2 (volume 3).

E. Baines, History of the Wars of the French Revolution, volume 1, chapters 9-11.

FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (September-December).
   The "Reign of Terror" becomes the "Order of the Day."
   Trial and execution of Marie Antoinette, Madame Roland, and
   the Girondists.

"On the 16th of September, the Faubourg Saint-Antoine surrounded the Hôtel de Ville, clamoring for 'Bread.' Hébert and Chaumette appeased the mob by vociferous harangues against rich men and monopolists, and by promising to raise a revolutionary army with orders to scour the country, empty the granaries, and put the grain within reach of the people. 'The next thing will he a guillotine for the monopolists,' added Hébert. This had been demanded by memorials from the most ultra provincial Jacobins. The next day the Convention witnessed the terrible reaction of this scene. At the opening of the session Merlin de Douai proposed and carried a vote for the division of the revolutionary tribunal into four sections, in order to remedy the dilatoriness complained of by Robespierre and the Jacobins. The municipality soon arrived, followed by a great crowd; Chaumette, in a furious harangue, demanded a revolutionary army with a travelling guillotine. The ferocious Billaud-Varennes declared that this was not enough, and that all suspected persons must be arrested immediately. Danton interposed with the powerful eloquence of his palmy days; he approved of an immediate decree for the formation of a revolutionary army, but made no mention of the guillotine. … Danton's words were impetuous, but his ideas were politic and deliberate. His motions were carried, amid general acclamation. But the violent propositions of Billaud-Varennes and others were also carried. The decree forbidding domiciliary visits and night arrests, which had been due to the Girondists, was revoked. A deputation from the Jacobins and the sections demanded the indictment of the 'monster' Brissot with his accomplices, Vergniaud, Gensonné, and other 'miscreants.' 'Lawgivers,' said the spokesman of the deputation, 'let the Reign of Terror be the order of the day!' Barère, in the name of the Committee of Public Safety, obtained the passage of a decree organizing an armed force to restrain counter-revolutionists and protect supplies. Fear led him to unite with the most violent, and to adopt the great motto of the Paris Commune, 'Let the Reign of Terror be the order of the day!' 'The royalists are conspiring,' he said; 'they want blood. Well they shall have that of the conspirators, of the Brissots and Marie Antoinettes!' The association of these two names shows what frenzy prevailed in the minds of the people. The next day September 6, two of the most formidable Jacobins, the cold, implacable Billaud-Varennes and the fiery Collot d'Herbois, were added to the Committee of Public Safety. Danton persisted in his refusal to return to it. This proves how mistaken the Girondists had been in accusing him of aspiring to the dictatorship. He kept aloof from the Committee chiefly because he knew that they were lost, and did not wish to contribute to their fall. Before leaving the ministry Garat had tried to prevent the Girondists from being brought to trial; upon making known his wish to Robespierre and Danton, he found Robespierre implacable, while Danton, with tears coursing down his rugged cheeks replied, 'I cannot save them!' … On the 10th of October Saint-Just, in the name of the Committee of Public Safety, read to the Assembly an important report upon the situation of the Republic. It was violent and menacing to others beside the enemies of the Mountain; Hébert and his gang might well tremble. He inveighed not only against those who were plundering the government, but against the whole administration. … Saint-Just's report had been preceded on the 3d of October by a report from the new Committee of Public Safety, concluding with the indictment of 40 deputies; 39 were Girondists or friends of the Gironde; the fortieth was the ex-Duke of Orleans. Twenty-one of these 39 were now in the hands of their enemies, and of these 21 only 9 belonged to the first deputies indicted on the 2d of June; the remainder had left Paris hoping to organize outside resistance, and had been declared outlawed. The deputies subsequently added to this number were members of the Right who had signed protests against the violation of the national representation on that fatal day. … It was decided at the same session to bring the 40 deputies, together with Marie Antoinette, to trial. The Jacobins and the commune had long been demanding the trial of the unhappy queen, and were raising loud clamors over the plots for her deliverance. {1297} She might perhaps have escaped from the Temple if she would have consented to leave her children. During July a sorrow equal to that of the 21st of January had been inflicted on her; she had been separated from her young son under the pretence that she treated him like a king, and was bringing him up to make 'a tyrant of him.' The child was placed in another part of the Temple, and his education was intrusted to a vulgar and brutal shoemaker, named Simon. Nevertheless the fate of Marie Antoinette at this epoch was still doubtful; neither the Committee of Public Safety nor the ministry desired her death. While Lebrun, the friend of the Girondists, was minister of foreign affairs, a project had been formed which would have saved her life. Danton knew of it and aided it. … This plan was a negotiation with Venice, Tuscany, and Naples, the three Italian States yet neutral, who were to pledge themselves to maintain their wavering neutrality, in consideration of a guaranty of the safety of Marie Antoinette and her family. Two diplomatic agents who afterwards held high posts in France, Marat and Sémonville, were intrusted with this affair. As they were crossing from Switzerland into Italy, they were arrested, in violation of the law of nations, upon the neutral territory of the Grisons by an Austrian detachment (July 25). … At tidings of the arrest of the French envoys, Marie Antoinette was separated from her daughter and sister-in-law Elizabeth, and transferred to the Conciergerie. On the 14th of October she appeared before the revolutionary tribunal. To the accusation of the public prosecutor, Fouquier-Tinville, made up of calumnies against her private life, and for the most part well-founded imputations against her political conduct, she opposed a plausible defence, which effaced as far as possible her part in the late government. … The following questions were put to the jurors: 'Has Marie Antoinette aided in movements designed to assist the foreign enemies of the Republic to open French territory to them and to facilitate the progress of their arms? Has she taken part in a conspiracy tending to incite civil war?' The answer was in the affirmative, and the sentence of death was passed on her. The decisive portions which we now possess of the queen's correspondence with Austria had not then been made public; but enough was known to leave no doubt of her guilt, which had the same moral excuses as that of her husband. … She met death [October 16] with courage and resignation. The populace who had hated her so much did not insult her last moments. … A week after the queen's death the Girondists were summoned before the revolutionary tribunal. Brissot and Lasource alone had tried to escape this bloody ordeal, and to stir up resistance against it in the South. Vergniaud, Gensonné, and Valazé remained unshaken in their resolve to await trial. Gensonné, who had been placed in the keeping of a Swiss whose life he had saved on the 10th of August, and who had become a gendarme, might have escaped, but he refused to profit by this man's gratitude. … The act of indictment drawn up by the ex-Feuillant Amar was only a repetition of the monstrous calumnies which had circulated through the clubs and the journals. Brissot was accused of having ruined the colonies by advocating the liberation of slaves, and of having drawn foreign arms upon France by declaring war on kings. The whole trial corresponded to this beginning. … On the 29th the Jacobins appeared at the bar of the Convention, and called for a decree giving the jurors of the revolutionary tribunal the right to bring the proceedings to a close as soon as they believed themselves sufficiently enlightened. Robespierre and Barère supported the Jacobin demand. Upon Robespierre's motion it was decreed that after three days' proceedings, the jurors might declare themselves ready to render their verdict. The next day the jurors availed themselves of their privilege, and declared themselves sufficiently informed, although they had not heard the evidence for acquittal, neither the accused nor their counsel having been allowed to plead their cause. Brissot, Vergniaud, Gensonné, Valazé, Bishop Fauchet, Ducos, Boyer-Fonfrède, Lasource, and their friends were declared guilty of having conspired against the unity and indivisibility of the Republic, and against the liberty and safety of the French people. … Danton, who had not been an accomplice in their death, had retired to his mother's home at Arcis-sur-Aube, that he might not be a witness thereof. The condemned were brought back to hear their sentence. The greater part of them rose up with a common impulse, and cried, 'We are innocent! People, they are deceiving you!' The crowd remained motionless and silent. … At midnight they partook of a last repast, passing the rest of the night in converse about their native land, their remnant of life being cheered by news of victory and pleasant sallies from young Ducos, who might have escaped, but preferred to share his friend Fonfréde's fate. Vergniaud had been given a subtle poison by Condorcet, but threw it away, choosing to die with his companions. One of his noble utterances gives us the key to his life. 'Others sought to consummate the Revolution by terror; I would accomplish it by love.' Next day, October 31, at noon, the prisoners were led forth, and as the five carts containing them left the Conciergerie, they struck up the national hymn … and shouts of 'Long live the Republic.' The sounds died away as their number decreased, but did not cease until the last of the 21 mounted the fatal platform. … The murderers of the Girondists were not likely to spare the illustrious woman who was at once the inspiration and the honor of that party, and the very same day Madame Roland who had been for five months a prisoner at St. Pelagie and the Abbaye, was transferred to the Conciergerie. Hébert and his followers had long clamored for her head. During her captivity she wrote her Memoirs, which unfortunately have not been preserved complete; no other souvenir of the Revolution equals this, although it is not always reliable, for Madame Roland had feminine weaknesses of intellect, despite her masculine strength of soul; she was prejudiced against all who disagreed with her, and regarded caution and compromise with a noble but impolitic scorn. … The 18th Brumaire (November 10), she was summoned before the revolutionary tribunal; when she left her cell, clad in white, her dark hair, floating loosely over her shoulders, a smile on her lips and her face sparkling with life and animation. … {1298} She was condemned in advance, not being allowed a word in her own defence, and was declared guilty of being an author or accomplice 'of a monstrous conspiracy against the unity and indivisibility of the Republic.' She heard her sentence calmly, saying to the judges: 'You deem me worthy the fate of the great men you have murdered. I will try to display the same courage on the scaffold.' She was taken directly to the Place de la Revolution, a man condemned for treason being placed in the same cart, who was overwhelmed with terror. She passed the mournful journey in soothing him, and on reaching the scaffold bid him mount first, that his sufferings might not be prolonged. As she took her place in turn, her eye fell on a colossal statue of Liberty, erected August 10, 1793. 'O Liberty,' she cried, 'what crimes are committed in thy name!' Some say that she said, 'O Liberty, how they have deceived thee!' Thus died the noblest woman in history since the incomparable Joan, who saved France! … The bloody tribunal never paused; famous men of every party succeeded each other at the fatal bar, the ex-Duke of Orleans among them, but four days earlier than Madame Roland. … The day after Madame Roland's trial began that of the venerable Bailli, ex-mayor of Paris and ex-president of the Constituent Assembly, a man who played a great part early in the Revolution, but faded out of sight with the constituent power."

ALSO IN A. de Lamartine, History of the Girondists, chapters 46-52 (volume 3).

      Madame Campan,
      Memoirs of the Private Life of Marie Antoinette,
      volume 2, conclusion.

FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (October).
   Life in Paris during the Reign of Terror.
   Gaiety in the Prisons.
   The Tricoteuses, or knitting women.
   Revolutionary costumes and modes of speech.
   The guillotine as plaything and ornament.

"By the end of October, 1793, the Committee of General Security had mastered Paris, and established the Reign of Terror there by means of the Revolutionary Tribunal, and could answer to the Great Committee of Public Safety for the tranquillity of the capital. There were no more riots; men were afraid even to express their opinions, much less to quarrel about them; the system of denunciation made Paris into a hive of unpaid spies, and ordinary crimes, pocket-picking and the like, vanished as if by magic. Yet it must not be supposed that Paris was gloomy or dull; on the contrary, the vast majority of citizens seemed glad to have an excuse to avoid politics, of which they had had a surfeit during the last four years, and to turn their thoughts to the literary side of their favourite journals, to the theatres, and to art. … The dull places of Paris were the Revolutionary Committees, the Jacobin Club, the Convention, the Hôtel de Brienne, where the Committee of General Security sat, and the Pavillon de l'Egalité, formerly the Pavillon de Flore, in the Tuileries, where the Great Committee of Public Safety laboured. … Elsewhere men were lighthearted and gay, following their usual avocations, and busy in their pursuit of pleasure or of gain. It is most essential to grasp the fact that there was no particular difference, for the vast majority of the population, in living in Paris during the Reign of Terror and at other times. The imagination of posterity, steeped in tales of the tumbrils bearing their burden to the guillotine, and of similar stories of horror, has conceived a ghastly picture of life at that extraordinary period, and it is only after living for months amongst the journals, memoirs, and letters of the time that one can realize the fact that to the average Parisian the necessity of getting his dinner or his evening's amusement remained the paramount thought of his daily life. … Strange to say, nowhere was life more happy and gay than in the prisons of Paris, where the inmates lived in the constant expectation that the haphazard chance of being brought before the Revolutionary Tribunal and condemned to death might befall them at any moment. … A little more must be said about the market-women, the tricoteuses, or knitting-women of infamous memory. These market-women had been treated as heroines ever since their march to Versailles in October, 1789. … They formed their societies after the fashion of the Jacobin Club, presided over by Renée Audu, Agnès Lefevre, Marie Louise Bouju, and Rose Lacombe, and went about the streets of Paris insulting respectably dressed people, and hounding on the sans-culottes to deeds of atrocity. These Mænads were encouraged by Marat, and played an important part in the street history of Paris, up to the Reign of Terror, when their power was suddenly taken from them. On May 21, 1793, they were excluded by a decree from the galleries of the Convention; on May 26 they were forbidden to form part of any political assembly; and when they appealed from the Convention to the Commune of Paris, Chaumette abruptly told them 'that the Republic had no need of Joans of Arc.' Thus deprived of active participation in politics, the market-women became the tricoteuses, or knitting-women, who used to take their seats in the Place de la Revolution, and watch the guillotine as they knitted. Their active power for good or harm was gone. … Life during the Terror in Paris … differed in little things, in little affectations of liberty and equality, which are amusing to study. The fashions of dress everywhere betrayed the new order of things. A few men, such as Robespierre, might still go about with powdered hair and in knee-breeches, but the ordinary male costume of the time was designed to contrast in every way with the costume of a dandy of the 'ancien régime.' Instead of breeches, the fashion was to wear trousers; instead of shoes, top-boots; and instead of shaving, the young Parisian prided himself on letting his moustache grow. In female costume a different motive was at work. Only David's art disciples ventured to imitate the male apparel of ancient Greece and Rome, but such imitation became the fashion among women. Waists disappeared; and instead of stiffened skirts and narrow bodices, women wore short loose robes, which they fancied resembled Greek chitons; sandals took the place of high-heeled shoes; and the hair, instead of being worked up into elaborate edifices, was allowed to flow down freely. For ornaments, gun-metal and steel took the place of gold, silver and precious stones. … The favourite design was the guillotine. {1299} Little guillotines were worn as brooches, as earrings and as clasps, and the women of the time simply followed the fashion without realizing what it meant. Indeed, the worship of the guillotine was one of the most curious features of the epoch. Children had toy guillotines given them; models were made to cut off imitation heads, when wine or sweet syrup flowed in place of blood; and hymns were written to La Sainte Guillotine, and jokes made upon it, as the 'national razor.' … It is well known that the desire to emphasize the abolition of titles was followed by the abolition of the terms 'Monsieur' and 'Madame,' and that their places were taken by 'Citizen' and 'Citizeness;' and also how the use of the second person plural was dropped, and it was considered a sign of a good republican to tutoyer everyone, that is, to call them 'thou' and 'thee.' … The Reign of Terror in Paris seems to us an age of unique experiences, a time unparalleled in the history of the world; yet to the great majority of contemporaries it did not appear so; they lived their ordinary lives, and it was only in exceptional cases that the serenity of their days was interrupted, or that their minds were exercised by anything more than the necessity of earning their daily bread."

"Before the year ended the legislators of Paris voted that there was no God, and destroyed or altered nearly everything that had any reference to Christianity. Robespierre, who would have stopped short at deism, and who would have preserved the external decencies, was overruled and intimidated by Hébert and his frowsy crew, who had either crept into the governing committees or had otherwise made themselves a power in the state. … All popular journalists, patriots, and public bodies, had begun dating 'First Year of Liberty,' or 'First Year of the Republic;' and the old calendar had come to be considered as superstitious and slavish, as an abomination in the highest degree disgraceful to free and enlightened Frenchmen. Various petitions for a change had been presented; and at length the Convention had employed the mathematicians Romme and Monge, and the astronomer Laplace, to make a new republican calendar for the new era. These three philosophers, aided by Fabre d'Eglantine, who, as a poet, furnished the names, soon finished their work, which was sanctioned by the Convention and decreed into universal use as early as the 5th of October. It divided the year into four equal seasons, and twelve equal months of 30 days each. The five odd days which remained were to be festivals, and to bear the name of 'Sansculottides.' … One of these five days was to be consecrated to Genius, one to Industry, the third to Fine Actions, the fourth to Rewards, the fifth to Opinion. … In leap-years, when there would be six days to dispose of, the last of those days or Sansculottides was to be consecrated to the Revolution, and to be observed in all times with all possible solemnity. The months were divided into three decades, or portions of ten days each, and, instead of the Christian sabbath, once in seven days, the décadi, or tenth day, was to be the day of rest. … The decimal method of calculation … was to preside over all divisions: thus, instead of our twenty-four hours to the day, and sixty minutes to the hour, the day was divided into ten parts, and the tenth was to be subdivided by tens and again by tens to the minutest division of time. New dials were ordered to mark the time in this new way, but, before they were finished, it was found that the people were puzzled and perplexed by this last alteration, and therefore this part of the calendar was adjourned for a year, and the hours, minutes and seconds were left as they were. As the republic commenced on the 21st of September close on the [autumnal] equinox, the republican year was made to commence at that season. The first month in the year (Fabre d'Eglantine being god-father to them all) was called Vendémiaire, or the vintage month, the second Brumaire, or the foggy month, the third Frimaire, or the frosty month. These were the three autumn months. Nivôse, Pluviôse, and Ventôse, or the snowy, rainy and windy, were the three winter months. Germinal, Floreal, and Prairial, or the bud month, the flower month, and the meadow month, formed the spring season. Messidor, Thermidor and Fructidor, or reaping month, heat month, and fruit month, made the summer, and completed the republican year. In more ways than one all this was calculated for the meridian of Paris, and could suit no other physical or moral climate. … But the strangest thing about this republican calendar was its duration. It lasted till the 1st of January, 1806."

The Republican Calendar for the Year Two of the Republic (September 22, 1793-Sept. 21, 1794) is synchronized with the Gregorian Calendar as follows: 1 Vendémiaire = September 22; 1 Brumaire = October 22; 1 Frimaire = November 21; 1 Nivôse = December 21; 1 Pluviôse = January 20; 1 Ventôse = February 19; 1 Germinal = March 21; 1 Floreal = April 20; 1 Prairial = May 20; 1 Messidor = June 19; 1 Thermidor = July 19; 1 Fructidor= August 18; 1st to 5th Sansculottides = September 17-21.

      ALSO IN
      A. Thiers,
      History of the French Revolution
      (American edition), volume 2, pages 364-365.

FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (November).
Abandonment of Christianity.
The Worship of Reason instituted.

   "The earliest steps towards a public abandonment of
   Christianity appear to have been taken by Fouché, the future
   minister of Police, and Duke of Otranto. … He published at
   Nevers (October 10, 1793) a decree" ordaining that "no forms
   of religious worship be practised except within their
   respective temples;" that "ministers of religion are
   forbidden, under pain of imprisonment, to wear their official
   costumes in any other places besides their temples;" and that
   the inscription, "Death is an eternal sleep," should be placed
   over the entrance to the cemetery. "This decree was reported
   to the municipality of Paris by Chaumette, the fanatical
   procureur of the Commune, and was warmly applauded. … The
   atheistical cabal of which he was the leader (his chief
   associates being the infamous Hébert, the Prussian baron
   Anacharsis Clootz, and Chabot, a renegade priest), now judged
   that public feeling was ripe for an avowed and combined
   onslaught on the profession of Christianity. … They decreed
   that on the 10th of November the 'Worship of Reason' should be
   inaugurated at Notre Dame.
{1300}
   On that day the venerable cathedral was profaned by a series
   of sacrilegious outrages unparalleled in the history of
   Christendom. A temple dedicated to 'Philosophy' was erected on
   a platform in the middle of the choir. A motley procession of
   citizens of both sexes, headed by the constituted authorities,
   advanced towards it; on their approach, the Goddess of Reason,
   impersonated by Mademoiselle Maillard, a well known figurante
   of the opera, took her seat upon a grassy throne in front of
   the temple; a hymn, composed in her honour by the poet
   Chenier, was sung by a body of young girls dressed in white
   and bedecked with flowers; and the multitude bowed the knee
   before her in profound adoration. It was the 'abomination of
   desolation sitting in the holy place.' At the close of this
   grotesque ceremony the whole cortège proceeded to the hall of
   the Convention, carrying with them their 'goddess,' who was
   borne aloft in a chair of state on the shoulders of four men.
   Having deposited her in front of the president, Chaumette
   harangued the Assembly. … He proceeded to demand that the
   ci-devant metropolitical church should henceforth be the
   temple of Reason and Liberty; which proposition was
   immediately adopted. The 'goddess' was then conducted to the
   president, and he and other officers of the House saluted her
   with the 'fraternal kiss,' amid thunders of applause. After
   this, upon the motion of Thuriot, the Convention in a body
   joined the mass of the people, and marched in their company to
   the temple of Reason, to witness a repetition of the impieties
   above described. These demonstrations were zealously imitated
   in the other churches of the capital. … The interior of St.
   Eustache was transformed into a 'guinguette,' or place of low
   public entertainment. … At St. Gervais a ball was given in
   the chapel of the Virgin. In other churches theatrical
   spectacles took place. … Representatives of the people
   thought it no shame to quit their curule chairs in order to
   dance the 'carmagnole' with abandoned women in the streets
   attired in sacerdotal garments. On Sunday, the 17th of
   November, all the parish churches of Paris were closed by
   authority, with three exceptions. … Chaumette, at a sitting
   of the Commune on the 26th of November, called for further
   measures for the extermination of every vestige of Christian
   worship;" and the Council of the Commune, on his demand,
   ordered the closing of all churches and temples, of every
   religious denomination; made priests and ministers of religion
   responsible for any troubles that might arise from religious
   opinions, and commanded the arrest as a "suspect" of any
   person who should ask for the reopening of a church. "The
   example set by Paris, at this melancholy period, was
   faithfully repeated, if not surpassed in atrocity, throughout
   the provinces. Religion was proscribed, churches closed,
   Christian ordinances interdicted; the dreary gloom of
   atheistical despotism overspread the land. … These infamies
   were too monstrous to be tolerated for any length of time. …
   Robespierre, who had marked the symptoms of a coming reaction,
   boldly seized the opportunity, and denounced without mercy the
   hypocritical faction which disputed his own march towards
   absolute dictatorship."

      E. de Pressense,
      Religion and the Reign of Terror,
      book 2, chapter 2.

FRANCE: A. D. 1793-1794 (October-April).
   The Terror in the Provinces.
   Republican vengeance at Lyons, Marseilles, Toulon,
   Bordeaux, Nantes.
   Fusillades and Noyades.

"The insurgents of Lyons, Marseilles, Toulon, and Bordeaux, were punished with pitiless severity. Lyons had revolted, and the convention decreed [October 12] the destruction of the city, the confiscation of the property of the rich, for the benefit of the patriots, and the punishment of the insurgents by martial law. Couthon, a commissioner well tried in cruelty, hesitated to carry into execution this monstrous decree, and was superseded by Collot d'Herbois and Fouché. Thousands of workmen were employed in the work of destruction: whole streets fell under their pickaxes: the prisons were gorged: the guillotine was too slow for revolutionary vengeance, and crowds of prisoners were shot, in murderous 'mitraillades.' … At Marseilles, 12,000 of the richest citizens fled from the vengeance of the revolutionists, and their property was confiscated, and plundered. When Toulon fell before the strategy of Bonaparte, the savage vengeance and cruelty of the conquerors were indulged without restraint. … The dockyard labourers were put to the sword: gangs of prisoners were brought out and executed by fusillades: the guillotine also claimed its victims: the sans-culottes rioted in confiscation and plunder. At Bordeaux, Tallien threw 15,000 citizens into prison. Hundreds fell under the guillotine; and the possessions and property of the rich were offered up to outrage and robbery. But all these atrocities were far surpassed in La Vendee. … The barbarities of warfare were yet surpassed by the vengeance of the conquerors, when the insurrection was, at last, overcome. At Nantes, the monster Carrier outstripped his rivals in cruelty and insatiable thirst for blood. Not contented with wholesale mitraillades, he designed that masterpiece of cruelty, the noyades; and thousands of men, women and children who escaped the muskets of the rabble soldiery were deliberately drowned in the waters of the Loire. In four months, his victims reached 15,000. At Angers, and other towns in La Vendee, these hideous noyades were added to the terrors of the guillotine and the fusillades."

   "One begins to be sick of 'death vomited in great floods.'
   Nevertheless, hearest thou not, O Reader (for the sound
   reaches through centuries), in the dead December and January
   nights, over Nantes Town,—confused noises, as of musketry and
   tumult, as of rage and lamentation; mingling with the
   everlasting moan of the Loire waters there? Nantes Town is
   sunk in sleep; but Représentant Carrier is not sleeping, the
   wool-capped Company of Marat is not sleeping. Why unmoors that
   flatbottomed craft, that 'gabarre'; about eleven at night;
   with Ninety Priests under hatches? They are going to Belle
   Isle? In the middle of the Loire stream, on signal given, the
   gabarre is scuttled; she sinks with all her cargo. 'Sentence
   of Deportation,' writes Carrier, 'was executed vertically.'
   The Ninety Priests, with their gabarre-coffin, lie deep! It is
   the first of the Noyades [November 16], what we may call
   'Drownages' of Carrier; which have become famous forever.
{1301}
   Guillotining there was at Nantes, till the Headsman sank worn
   out: then fusillading 'in the Plain of Saint-Mauve;' little
   children fusilladed, and women with children at the breast;
   children and women, by the hundred and twenty; and by the five
   hundred, so hot is La Véndee: till the very Jacobins grew
   sick, and all but the Company of Marat cried, Hold! Wherefore
   now we have got Noyading; and on the 24th night of Frostarious
   year 2, which is 14th of December 1793, we have a second
   Noyade; consisting of '138 persons.' Or why waste a gabarre,
   sinking it with them? Fling them out; fling them out, with
   their hands tied: pour a continual hail of lead over all the
   space, till the last struggler of them be sunk! Unsound
   sleepers of Nantes, and the Sea-Villages there-abouts, hear
   the musketry amid the night-winds; wonder what the meaning of
   it is. And women were in that gabarre; whom the Red Nightcaps
   were stripping naked; who begged, in their agony, that their
   smocks might not be stript from them. And young children were
   thrown in, their mothers vainly pleading: 'Wolflings,'
   answered the Company of Marat, 'who would grow to be wolves.'
   By degrees, daylight itself witnesses Noyades: women and men
   are tied together, feet and feet, hands and hands; and flung
   in: this they call Mariage Républicain, Republican Marriage.
   Cruel is the panther of the woods, the she-bear bereaved of
   her whelps: but there is in man a hatred crueler than that.
   Dumb, out of suffering now, as pale swollen corpses, the
   victims tumble confusedly seaward along the Loire stream; the
   tide rolling them back: clouds of ravens darken the River;
   wolves prowl on the shoal-places: Carrier writes, 'Quel
   torrent révolutionnaire, What a torrent of Revolution!' For
   the man is rabid; and the Time is rabid. These are the Noyades
   of Carrier; twenty-five by the tale, for what is done in
   darkness comes to be investigated in sunlight: not to be
   forgotten for centuries. … Men are all rabid; as the Time
   is. Representative Lebon, at Arras, dashes his sword into the
   blood flowing from the Guillotine; exclaims, 'How I like it!'
   Mothers, they say, by his orders, have to stand by while the
   Guillotine devours their children: a band of music is
   stationed near; and, at the fall of every head, strikes up its
   'Ça-ira.'"

ALSO IN H. M. Stephens, History of the French Revolution, volume 2, chapter 11.

      Horrors of the Prison of Arras
      ("The Reign of Terror: A Collection of Authentic
      Narratives," volume 2).

A. des Echerolles, Early Life, volume 1, chapters 7-13, and volume 2, chapter l.

FRANCE: A. D. 1793-1794 (November-June).
   The factions of the Mountain devour one another.
   Destruction of the Hebertists.
   Danton and his followers brought to the knife.
   Robespierre and the Committee of Public Safety.
   The Feast of the Supreme Being.

"Robespierre was unutterably outraged by the proceedings of the atheists. They perplexed him as a politician intent upon order, and they afflicted him sorely as an ardent disciple of the Savoyard Vicar. Hébert, however, was so strong that it needed some courage to attack him, nor did Robespierre dare to withstand him to the face. But he did not flinch from making an energetic assault upon atheism and the excesses of its partisans. His admirers usually count his speech of the 21st of November one of the most admirable of his oratorical successes. … 'Atheism [he said] is aristocratic. The idea of a great being who watches over oppressed innocence and punishes triumphant crime is essentially the idea of the people. This is the sentiment of Europe and the Universe; it is the sentiment of the French nation. That people is attached neither to priests, nor to superstitions, nor to ceremonies; it is attached only to worship in itself, or in other words to the idea of an incomprehensible Power, the terror of wrong-doers, the stay and comfort of virtue, to which it delights to render words of homage that are all so many anathemas against injustice and triumphant crime.' This is Robespierre's favourite attitude, the priest posing as statesman. … Danton followed practically the same line, though saying much less about it. 'If Greece,' he said in the Convention, 'had its Olympian games, France too shall solemnize her sans-culottid days. … If we have not honoured the priest of error and fanaticism, neither do we wish to honour the priest of incredulity: we wish to serve the people. I demand that there shall be an end of these anti-religious masquerades in the Convention.' There was an end of the masquerading, but the Hébertists still kept their ground. Danton, Robespierre, and the Committee were all equally impotent against them for some months longer. The revolutionary force had been too strong to be resisted by any government since the Paris insurgents had carried both king and assembly in triumph from Versailles in the October of 1789. It was now too strong for those who had begun to strive with all their might to build a new government out of the agencies that had shattered the old to pieces. For some months the battle which had been opened by Robespierre's remonstrance against atheistic intolerance, degenerated into a series of masked skirmishes. … Collot D'Herbois had come back in hot haste from Lyons. … Carrier was recalled from Nantes. … The presence of these men of blood gave new courage and resolution to the Hébertists. Though the alliance was informal, yet as against Danton, Camille Desmoulins, and the rest of the Indulgents, as well as against Robespierre, they made common cause. Camille Desmoulins attacked Hébert in successive numbers of a journal ['Le Vieux Cordelier'] that is perhaps the one truly literary monument of this stage of the revolution. Hébert retaliated by impugning the patriotism of Desmoulins in the Club, and the unfortunate wit, notwithstanding the efforts of Robespierre on his behalf, was for a while turned out of the sacred precincts. … Even Danton himself was attacked (December, 1793) and the integrity of his patriotism brought into question. Robespierre made an energetic defence of his great rival in the hierarchy of revolution. … Robespierre, in whom spasmodical courage and timidity ruled by rapid turns, began to suspect that he had been premature; and a convenient illness, which some supposed to have been feigned, excused his withdrawal for some weeks from a scene where he felt that he could no longer see clear. We cannot doubt that both he and Danton were perfectly assured that the anarchic party must unavoidably roll headlong into the abyss. {1302} But the hour of doom was uncertain. To make a mistake in the right moment, to hurry the crisis, was instant death. Robespierre was a more adroit calculator than Danton. … His absence during the final crisis of the anarchic party allowed events to ripen, without committing him to that initiative in dangerous action which he had dreaded on the 10th of August, as he dreaded it on every other decisive day of this burning time. The party of the Commune became more and more daring in their invectives against the Convention and the Committees. At length they proclaimed open insurrection. But Paris was cold, and opinion was divided. In the night of the 13th of March, Hébert, Chaumette, Clootz, were arrested. The next day Robespierre recovered sufficiently to appear at the Jacobin Club. He joined his colleagues of the Committee of Public Safety in striking the blow. On the 24th of March the Ultra-Revolutionist leaders were beheaded. The first bloody breach in the Jacobin ranks was speedily followed by the second. The Right wing of the opposition to the Committee soon followed the Left down the ways to dusty death, and the execution of the Anarchists only preceded by a week the arrest of the Moderates. When the seizure of Danton had once before been discussed in the Committee, Robespierre resisted the proposal violently. We have already seen how he defended Danton at the Jacobin Club. … What produced this sudden tack? … His acquiescence in the ruin of Danton is intelligible enough on the grounds of selfish policy. The Committee [of Public Safety] hated Danton for the good reason that he had openly attacked them, and his cry for clemency was an inflammatory and dangerous protest against their system. Now Robespierre, rightly or wrongly, had made up his mind that the Committee was the instrument by which, and which only, he could work out his own vague schemes of power and reconstruction. And, in any case, how could he resist the Committee? … All goes to show that Robespierre was really moved by nothing more than his invariable dread of being left behind, of finding himself on the weaker side, of not seeming practical and political enough. And having made up his mind that the stronger party was bent on the destruction of the Dantonists, he became fiercer than Billaud himself. … Danton had gone, as he often did, to his native village of Arcis-sur-Aube, to seek repose and a little clearness of sight in the night that wrapped him about. He was devoid of personal ambition; he never had any humour for mere factious struggles. … It is not clear that he could have done anything. The balance of force, after the suppression of the Hébertists, was irretrievably against him, as calculation had already revealed to Robespierre. … After the arrest, and on the proceedings to obtain the assent of the Convention to the trial of Danton and others of its members, one only of their friends had the courage to rise and demand that they should be heard at the bar. Robespierre burst out in cold rage; he asked whether they had undergone so many heroic sacrifices, counting among them these acts of 'painful severity,' only to fall under the yoke of a band of domineering intriguers; and he cried out impatiently that they would brook no claim of privilege, and suffer no rotten idol. The word was felicitously chosen, for the Convention dreaded to have its independence suspected, and it dreaded this all the more because at this time its independence did not really exist. The vote against Danton was unanimous, and the fact that it was so is the deepest stain on the fame of this assembly. On the afternoon of the 16th Germinal (April 5, 1794), Paris in amazement and some stupefaction saw the once dreaded Titan of the Mountain fast bound in the tumbril, and faring towards the sharp-clanging knife [with Camille Desmoulins and others]. 'I leave it all in a frightful welter,' Danton is reported to have said. 'Not a man of them has an idea of government. Robespierre will follow me; he is dragged down by me. Ah, better be a poor fisherman than meddle with the governing of men!' … After the fall of the anarchists and the death of Danton, the relations between Robespierre and the Committees underwent a change. He, who had hitherto been on the side of government, became in turn an agency of opposition. He did this in the interest of ultimate stability, but the difference between the new position and the old is that he now distinctly associated the idea of a stable republic with the ascendency of his own religious conceptions. … The base of Robespierre's scheme of social reconstruction now came clearly into view; and what a base! An official Supreme Being and a regulated Terror. … How can we speak with decent patience of a man who seriously thought that he should conciliate the conservative and theological elements of the society at his feet, by such an odious opera-piece as the Feast of the Supreme Being. This was designed as a triumphant ripost to the Feast of Reason, which Chaumette and his friends had celebrated in the winter. … Robespierre persuaded the Convention to decree an official recognition of the Supreme Being, and to attend a commemorative festival in honour of their mystic patron. He contrived to be chosen president for the decade in which the festival would fall. When the day came (20th Prairial, June 8, 1794), he clothed himself with more than even his usual care. As he looked out from the windows of the Tuileries upon the jubilant crowd in the gardens, he was intoxicated with enthusiasm. 'O Nature,' he cried, 'how sublime thy power, how full of delight! How tyrants must grow pale at the idea of such a festival as this!' In pontifical pride he walked at the head of the procession, with flowers and wheat-ears in his hand, to the sound of chants and symphonies and choruses of maidens. On the first of the great basins in the gardens, David, the artist, had devised an allegorical structure for which an inauspicious doom was prepared. Atheism, a statue of life size, was throned in the midst of an amiable group of human Vices, with Madness by her side, and Wisdom menacing them with lofty wrath. Great are the perils of symbolism. Robespierre applied a torch to Atheism, but alas, the wind was hostile, or else Atheism and Madness were damp. They obstinately resisted the torch, and it was hapless Wisdom who took fire. … The whole mummery was pagan. … It stands as the most disgusting and contemptible anachronism in history."

      L. Gronlund,
      Ça ira: or Danton in the French Revolution,
      chapter 6.

FRANCE: A. D. 1794 (March-July).
   Withdrawal of Prussia from the European Coalition as an ally,
   to become a mercenary.
   Successes of the Republic.
   Conquest of the Austrian Netherlands.
   Advance to the Rhine.
   Loss of Corsica.
   Naval defeat off Ushant.

"While the alliance of the Great Powers was on the point of dissolution from selfishness and jealousy, the French, with an energy and determination, which, considering their unparalleled difficulties, were truly heroic, had assembled armies numbering nearly a million of men. The aggregate of the allied forces did not much exceed 300,000. The campaign on the Dutch and Flemish frontiers of France was planned at Vienna, but had nearly been disconcerted at the outset by the refusal of the Duke of York to serve under General Clairfait. … The Emperor settled the difficulty by signifying his intention to take the command in person. Thus one incompetent prince who knew little, was to be commanded by another incompetent prince who knew nothing, about war; and the success of a great enterprise was made subservient to considerations of punctilio and etiquette. The main object of the Austrian plan was to complete the reduction of the frontier fortresses by the capture of Landrecy on the Sambre, and then to advance through the plains of Picardy on Paris;—a plan which might have been feasible the year before. … The King of Prussia formally withdrew from the alliance [March 13]; but condescended to assume the character of a mercenary. In the spring of the year, by a treaty with the English Government, his Prussian Majesty undertook to furnish 62,000 men for a year, in consideration of the sum of £1,800,000, of which Holland, by a separate convention, engaged to supply somewhat less than a fourth part. The organisation of the French army was effected under the direction of Carnot. … The policy of terror was nevertheless applied to the administration of the army. Custine and Houchard, who had commanded the last campaign, … were sent to the scaffold, because the arms of the republic had failed to achieve a complete triumph under their direction. … Pichegru, the officer now selected to lead the hosts of France, went forth to assume his command with the knife of the executioner suspended over his head. His orders were to expel the invaders from the soil and strongholds of the republic, and to reconquer Belgium. The first step towards the fulfilment of this commission was the recovery of the three great frontier towns, Condé, Valenciennes, and Quesnoy. The siege of Quesnoy was immediately formed; and Pichegru, informed of or anticipating the plans of the Allies, disposed a large force in front of Cambray, to intercept the operations of … the allied army upon Landrecy. … On the 17th [of April] a great action was fought in which the allies obtained a success, sufficient to enable them to press the siege of Landrecy. … Pichegru, a few days after [April 26, at the redoubts of Troisville] sustained a signal repulse from the British, in an attempt to raise the siege of Landrecy; but by a rapid and daring movement, he improved his defeat, and seized the important post of Moucron. The results were, that Clairfait was forced to fall back on Tournay; Courtray and Menin surrendered to the French; and thus the right flanks of the Allies were exposed. Landrecy, which, about the same time, fell into the hands of the Allies, was but a poor compensation for the reverses in West Flanders. The Duke of York, at the urgent instance of the Emperor, marched to the relief of Clairfait; but, in the meantime, the Austrian general, being hard pressed, was compelled to fall back upon a position which would enable him for a time to cover Bruges, Ghent, and Ostend. The English had also to sustain a vigorous attack near Tournay; but the enemy were defeated with the loss of 4,000 men. It now became necessary to risk a general action to save Flanders, by cutting off that division of the French army which had outflanked the Allies. By bad management and want of concert this movement, which had been contrived by Colonel Mack, the chief military adviser of the Emperor, was wholly defeated [at Tourcoign, May 18]. … The French took 1,500 prisoners and 60 pieces of cannon. A thousand English soldiers lay dead on the field, and the Duke [of York] himself escaped with difficulty. Four days after, Pichegru having collected a great force, amounting, it has been stated, to 100,000 men, made a grand attack upon the allied army [at Pont Achin]. … The battle raged from five in the morning until nine at night, and was at length determined by the bayonet. … In consequence of this check, Pichegru fell back upon Lisle." It was after this repulse that "the French executive, on the flimsy pretence of a supposed attempt to assassinate Robespierre, instigated by the British Government, procured a decree from the Convention, that no English or Hanoverian prisoners should be made. In reply to this atrocious edict, the Duke of York issued a general order, enjoining forbearance to the troops under his command. Most of the French generals … refused to become assassins. … The decree was carried into execution in a few instances only. … The Allies gained no military advantage by the action of Pont Achin on the 22nd of May. … The Emperor … abandoned the army and retired to Vienna. He left some orders and proclamations behind him, to which nobody thought it worth while to pay any attention. On the 5th of June, Pichegru invested Ypres, which Clairfait made two attempts to retain, but without success. The place surrendered on the 17th; Clairfait retreated to Ghent; Walmoden abandoned Bruges; and the Duke of York, forced to quit his position at Tournay, encamped near Oudenarde. It was now determined by the Prince of Coburg, who resumed the chief command after the departure of the Emperor, to risk the fate of Belgium on a general action, which was fought at Fleurus on the 26th of June. The Austrians, after a desperate struggle, were defeated at all points by the French army of the Sambre under Jourdan. Charleroi having surrendered to the French … and the Duke of York being forced to retreat, any further attempt to save the Netherlands was hopeless. Ostend and Mons, Ghent, Tournay, and Oudenarde, were successively evacuated; and the French were established at Brussels. When it was too late, the English army was reinforced. … It now only remained for the French to recapture the fortresses on their own frontier which had been taken from them in the last campaign. … {1304} Landrecy … fell without a struggle. Quesnoy … made a gallant [but vain] resistance. … Valenciennes and Condé … opened their gates. … The victorious armies of the Republic were thus prepared for the conquest of Holland. … The Prince of Orange made an appeal to the patriotism of his countrymen; but the republicans preferred the ascendancy of their faction to the liberties of their country. … The other military operation's of the year, in which England was engaged, do not require prolonged notice. The Corsicans, under the guidance of their veteran chief, Paoli, … sought the aid of England to throw off the French yoke, and offered in return allegiance of his countrymen to the British Crown. … A small force was despatched, and, after a series of petty operations, Corsica was occupied by British troops, and proclaimed a part of the British dominions. An expedition on a greater scale was sent to the West Indies. Martinique, St. Lucie and Guadaloupe were easily taken; but the large island of St. Domingo, relieved by a timely arrival of succours from France, offered a formidable [and successful] resistance. … The campaign on the Rhine was undertaken by the Allies under auspices ill calculated to inspire confidence, or even hope. The King of Prussia, not content with abandoning the cause, had done everything in his power to thwart and defeat the operations of the Allies. … On the 22d of May, the Austrians crossed the Rhine and attacked the French in their intrenchments without success. On the same day, the Prussians defeated a division of the Republican army [at Kaiserslautern], and advanced their head-quarters to Deux-Ponts. Content with this achievement, the German armies remained inactive for several weeks, when the French, having obtained reinforcements, attacked the whole line of the German posts. … Before the end of the year the Allies were in full retreat, and the Republicans in their turn had become the invaders of Germany. They occupied the Electorate of Treves, and they captured the important fort of Mannheim. Mentz also was placed under a close blockade. … At sea, England maintained her ancient reputation. The French had made great exertions to fit out a fleet, and 26 ships of the line were assembled in the port of Brest," for the protecting of a merchant fleet, laden with much needed food-supplies, expected from America. Lord Howe, with an English fleet of 25 ships of the line, was on the watch for the Brest fleet when it put to sea. On the 1st of June he sighted and attacked it off Ushant, performing the celebrated manœuvre of breaking the enemy's line. Seven of the French ships were taken, one was sunk during the battle, and 18, much crippled, escaped. The victory caused great exultation in England, but it was fruitless, for the American convoy was brought safely into Brest.

      W. Massey,
      History of England during the reign of George III.,
      chapter 35 (volume 3).

F. C. Schlosser, History of the 18th Century, volume 6, division 2, chapter 2, section 3.

      Capt. A. T. Mahan,
      Influence of Sea Power upon the French Revolution
      and Empire, chapter 8 (volume 1).

FRANCE: A. D. 1794 (June-July).
   The monstrous Law of the 22d Prairial.
   The climax of the Reign of Terror.
   A summary of its horrors.

   "On the day of the Feast of the Supreme Being, the guillotine
   was concealed in the folds of rich hangings. It was the 20th
   of Prairial. Two days later Couthon proposed to the Convention
   the memorable Law of the 22d Prairial [June 10]. Robespierre
   was the draftsman, and the text of it still remains in his own
   writing. This monstrous law is simply the complete abrogation
   of all law. Of all laws ever passed in the world it is the
   most nakedly iniquitous. … After the probity and good
   judgment of the tribunal, the two cardinal guarantees in state
   trials are accurate definition, and proof. The offence must be
   capable of precise description, and the proof against an
   offender must conform to strict rule. The Law of Prairial
   violently infringed all three of these essential conditions of
   judicial equity. First, the number of the jury who had power
   to convict was reduced. Second, treason was made to consist in
   such vague and infinitely elastic kinds of action as inspiring
   discouragement, misleading opinion, depraving manners,
   corrupting patriots, abusing the principles of the Revolution
   by perfidious applications. Third, proof was to lie in the
   conscience of the jury; there was an end of preliminary
   inquiry, of witnesses in defence, and of counsel for the
   accused. Any kind of testimony was evidence, whether material
   or moral, verbal or written, if it was of a kind 'likely to
   gain the assent of a man of reasonable mind.' Now, what was
   Robespierre's motive in devising this infernal instrument? …
   To us the answer seems clear. We know what was the general aim
   in Robespierre's mind at this point in the history of the
   Revolution. His brother Augustin was then the representative
   of the Convention with the army of Italy, and General
   Bonaparte was on terms of close intimacy with him. Bonaparte
   said long afterwards … that he saw long letters from
   Maximilian to Augustin Robespierre, all blaming the
   Conventional Commissioners [sent to the provinces]—Tallien,
   Fouché, Barras, Collot, and the rest—for the horrors they
   perpetrated, and accusing them of ruining the Revolution by
   their atrocities. Again, there is abundant testimony that
   Robespierre did his best to induce the Committee of Public
   Safety to bring those odious malefactors to justice. The text
   of the Law … discloses the same object. The vague phrases of
   depraving manners and applying revolutionary principles
   perfidiously, were exactly calculated to smite the band of
   violent men whose conduct was to Robespierre the scandal of
   the Revolution. And there was a curious clause in the law as
   originally presented, which deprived the Convention of the
   right of preventing measures against its own members.
   Robespierre's general design in short was to effect a further
   purgation of the Convention. … If Robespierre's design was
   what we believe it to have been, the result was a ghastly
   failure. The Committee of Public Safety would not consent to
   apply his law against the men for whom he had specially
   designed it. The frightful weapon which he had forged was
   seized by the Committee of General Security, and Paris was
   plunged into the fearful days of the Great Terror. The number
   of persons put to death by the Revolutionary Tribunal before
   the Law of Prairial had been comparatively moderate. From the
   creation of the Tribunal in April 1793, down to the execution
   of the Hébertists in March 1794, the number of persons
   condemned to death was 505.
{1305}
   From the death of the Hébertists down to the death of
   Robespierre, the number of the condemned was 2,158. One-half
   of the entire number of victims, namely, 1,356, were
   guillotined after the Law of Prairial. … A man was informed
   against; he was seized in his bed at five in the morning; at
   seven he was taken to the Conciergerie; at nine he received
   information of the charge against him; at ten he went into the
   dock; by two in the afternoon he was condemned; by four his
   head lay in the executioner's basket."

      J. Morley,
      Robespierre
      (Critical Miscellanies: Second Series).

"Single indictments comprehended 20 or 30 people taken promiscuously—great noblemen from Paris, day labourers from Marseilles, sailors from Brest, peasants from Alsace—who were accused of conspiring together to destroy the Republic. All examination, discussion, and evidence were dispensed with; the names of the victims were hardly read out to the jury, and it happened, more than once, that the son was mistaken for the father—an entirely innocent person for the one really charged—and sent to the guillotine. The judges urged the jury to pass sentences of death, with loud threats; members of the Government committees attended daily, and applauded the bloody verdicts with ribald jests. On this spot at least the strife of parties was hushed."

H. von Sybel, History of the French Revolution, book 10, chapter 1 (volume 4).

"The first murders committed in 1793 proceeded from a real irritation caused by danger. Such perils had now ceased; the republic was victorious; people now slaughtered not from indignation, but from the atrocious habit which they had contracted. … According to the law, the testimony of witnesses was to be dispensed with only when there existed material or moral proofs; nevertheless no witnesses were called, as it was alleged that proofs of this kind existed in every case. The jurors did not take the trouble to retire to the consultation room. They gave their opinions before the audience, and sentence was immediately pronounced. The accused had scarcely time to rise and to mention their names. One day, there was a prisoner whose name was not upon the list of the accused, and who said to the Court, 'I am not accused; my name is not on your list.' 'What signifies that?' said Fouquier, 'give it quick!' He gave it, and was sent to the scaffold like the others. … The most extraordinary blunders were committed. … More than once victims were called long after they had perished. There were hundreds of acts of accusation quite ready, to which there was nothing to add but the designation of the individuals. … The printing-office was contiguous to the hall of the tribunal: the forms were kept standing, the title, the motives, were ready composed; there was nothing but the names to be added. These were handed through a small loop-hole to the overseer. Thousands of copies were immediately worked off and plunged families into mourning and struck terror into the prisons. The hawkers came to sell the bulletin of the tribunal under the prisoners' windows, crying, 'Here are the names of those who have gained prizes in the lottery of St. Guillotine.' The accused were executed on the breaking up of the court, or at latest on the morrow, if the day was too far advanced. Ever since the passing of the Law of the 22d of Prairial, victims perished at the rate of 50 or 60 a day. 'That goes well,' said Fouquier-Tinville; 'heads fall like tiles:' and he added, 'It must go better still next decade; I must have 450 at least.'"

A. Thiers, History of the French Revolution (American edition), volume 3, pages 63-66.

"One hundred and seventy-eight tribunals, of which 40 are ambulatory, pronounce in every part of the territory sentences of death which are immediately executed on the spot. Between April 6, 1793, and Thermidor 9, year II. [July 27, 1794], that of Paris has 2,625 persons guillotined, while the provincial judges do as much work as the Paris judges. In the small town of Orange alone, they guillotine 331 persons. In the single town of Arras they have 299 men and 93 women guillotined. At Nantes, the revolutionary tribunals and military committees have, on the average, 100 persons a day guillotined, or shot, in all 1971. In the city of Lyons the revolutionary committee admit 1684 executions, while Cadillot, one of Robespierre's correspondents, advises him of 6,000.—The statement of these murders is not complete, but 17,000 have been enumerated. … Even excepting those who had died fighting or who, taken with arms in their hands, were shot down or sabred on the spot, there were 10,000 persons slaughtered without trial in the province of Anjou alone. … It is estimated that, in the eleven western departments, the dead of both sexes and of all ages exceeded 400,000.—Considering the programme and principles of the Jacobin sect, this is no great number; they might have killed a good many more. But time was wanting; during their short reign they did what they could with the instrument in their hands. Look at their machine. … Organised March 30 and April 6, 1793, the Revolutionary Committees and the Revolutionary Tribunal had but seventeen months in which to do their work. They did not drive ahead with all their might until after the fall of the Girondists, and especially after September, 1793, that is to say for a period of eleven months. Its loose wheels were not screwed up and the whole was not in running order under the impulse of the central motor until after December, 1793, that is to say during eight months. Perfected by the Law of Prairial 22, it works for the past two months faster and better than before. … Baudot and Jean Bon St. Andre, Carrier, Antonelle and Guffroy had already estimated the lives to be taken at several millions, and, according to Collot d'Herbois, who had a lively imagination, 'the political perspiration should go on freely, and not stop until from twelve to fifteen million Frenchmen had been destroyed.'"

      ALSO IN
      W. Smyth,
      Lectures on the History of the French Revolution,
      Lectures 39-42 (volume 2).

      J. Wilson,
      The Reign of Terror and its Secret Police
      (Studies in Modern Mind, etc.), chapter 7.

      The Reign of Terror:
      A collection of authentic narratives,
      2 volumes.

Robespierre "was already feeling himself unequal to the task laid upon him. He said himself on one occasion: 'I was not made to rule, I was made to combat the enemies of the Revolution;' and so the possession of supreme power produced in him no feeling of exultation. On the contrary, it preyed upon his spirits, and made him fancy himself the object of universal hatred. A guard now slept nightly at his house, and followed him in all his walks. Two pistols lay ever at his side. He would not eat food till some one else had tasted from the dish. His jealous fears were awakened by every sign of popularity in another. Even the successes of his generals filled him with anxiety, lest they should raise up dangerous rivals. He had, indeed … grounds enough for anxiety. In the Committee of Public Safety every member, except St. Just and Couthon, viewed him with hatred and suspicion. Carnot resented his interferences. The Terrorists were contemptuous of his religious festivals, and disliked his decided supremacy. The friends of Mercy saw with indignation that the number of victims was increasing. The friends of Disorder found themselves restrained, and were bored by his long speeches about virtue and simplicity of life. He was hated for what was good and for what was evil in his government; and meanwhile the national distress was growing, and the cry of starvation was heard louder than ever. Fortunately there was a splendid harvest in 1794; but before it was gathered in Robespierre had fallen. A somewhat frivolous incident did much to discredit him. A certain old woman named Catherine Théot, living in an obscure part of Paris, had taken to seeing visions. Some of the Terrorists produced a paper, purporting to be written by her, and declaring that Robespierre was the Messiah. The paper was a forgery, but it served to cover Robespierre with ridicule, and to rouse in him a fierce determination to suppress those whom he considered his enemies in the Committee and the Convention. For some time he had taken little part in the proceedings of either of these bodies. His reliance was chiefly on the Jacobin Club, the reorganized Commune, and the National Guards, still under the command of Henriot. But on July 26th [8th Thermidor] Robespierre came to the Convention and delivered one of his most elaborate speeches, maintaining that the affairs of France had been mismanaged; that the army had been allowed to become dangerously independent; that the Government must be strengthened and simplified; and that traitors must be punished. He made no definite proposals, and did not name his intended victims. The real meaning of the speech was evidently that he ought to be made Dictator, but that in order to obtain his end, it was necessary to conceal the use he meant to make of his power. The members of the Convention naturally felt that some of themselves were aimed at. Few felt themselves safe; but Robespierre's dominance had become so established that no one ventured at first to criticize. It was proposed, and carried unanimously, that the speech should be printed and circulated throughout France. Then at length a deputy named Cambon rose to answer Robespierre's attacks on the recent management of the finances. Finding himself favourably listened to, he went on to attack Robespierre himself. Other members of the hitherto docile Convention now took courage; and it was decided that the speech should be referred to the Committees before it was printed. The crisis was now at hand. Robespierre went down as usual to the Jacobin Club, where he was received with the usual enthusiasm. The members swore to die with their leader, or to suppress his enemies. On the following day [9th Thermidor] St. Just attacked Billaud and Collot. Billaud [followed and supported by Tallien] replied by asserting that on the previous night the Jacobins had pledged themselves to massacre the deputies. Then the storm burst. A cry of horror and indignation arose; and as Billaud proceeded to give details of the alleged conspiracy, shouts of 'Down with the tyrant!' began to rise from the benches. Robespierre vainly strove to obtain a hearing. He rushed about the chamber, appealing to the several groups. As he went up to the higher benches on the Left, he was met with the cry, 'Back, tyrant, the shade of Danton repels you!' and when he sought shelter among the deputies on the Right, and actually sat down in their midst, they indignantly exclaimed, 'Wretch, that was Vergniaud's seat!' Baited on all sides, his attempts to speak became shrieks, which were scarcely audible, however, amid the shouts and interruptions that rose from all the groups. His voice grew hoarser … till at length it failed him altogether. Then one of the Mountain cried, 'The blood of Danton chokes him!' Amid a scene of indescribable excitement and uproar, a decree was passed that Robespierre and some of his leading followers should be arrested. They were seized by the officers of the Convention, and hurried off to different prisons; so that, in case of a rescue, only one of them might be released. There was room enough for fear. The Commune organized an insurrection, as soon as they heard what the Convention had done; and by a sudden attack the prisoners were all delivered from the hands of their guards. Both parties now hastily gathered armed forces. Those of the municipality were by far the most numerous, and Henriot confidently ordered them to advance. But the men refused to obey. The Sections mostly declared for the Convention, and thus by an unexpected reaction the Robespierian leaders found themselves almost deserted. A detachment of soldiers forced their way into the room where the small band of fanatics were drawing up a Proclamation. A pistol was fired; and no one knows with certainty whether Robespierre attempted suicide, or was shot by one of his opponents. At any rate his jaw was fractured, and he was laid out, a ghastly spectacle, on an adjacent table. The room was soon crowded. Some spat at the prostrate form. Others stabbed him with their knives. Soon he was dragged [along with Couthon, St. Just, Henriot, and others] before the Tribunal which he himself had instituted. The necessary formalities were hurried through, and the mangled body was borne to the guillotine, where what remained to him of life was quickly extinguished. Then, from the crowd, a man stepped quickly up to the blood-stained corpse, and uttered over him the words, 'Yes, Robespierre, there is a God!'"

"Samson's work done, there bursts forth shout on shout of applause. Shout, which prolongs itself not only over Paris, but over France, but over Europe, and down to this generation. Deservedly, and also undeservedly. O unhappiest Advocate of Arras, wert thou worse than other Advocates? Stricter man, according to his Formula, to his Credo and his Cant, of probities, benevolences, pleasures-of-virtue, and suchlike, lived not in that age. A man fitted, in some luckier settled age, to have become one of those incorruptible barren Pattern-Figures, and have had marble-tablets and funeral-sermons. His poor landlord, the Cabinet-maker in the Rue Saint-Honorè, loved him; his Brother died for him. May God be merciful to him and to us! This is the end of the Reign of Terror; new glorious Revolution named 'of Thermidor'; of Thermidor 9th, year 2; which being interpreted into old slave-style means 27th of July, 1794."

"He [Robespierre] had qualities, it is true, which we must respect; he was honest, sincere, self-denying and consistent. But he was cowardly, relentless, pedantic, unloving, intensely vain and morbidly envious. … He has not left the legacy to mankind of one grand thought, nor the example of one generous and exalted action."

"The ninth of Thermidor is one of the great epochs in the history of Europe. It is true that the three members of the Committee of Public Safety [Billaud, Collot, and Barère], who triumphed were by no means better men than the three [Robespierre, Couthon, and St. Just], who fell. Indeed, we are inclined to think that of these six statesmen the least bad were Robespierre and St. Just, whose cruelty was the effect of sincere fanaticism operating on narrow understandings and acrimonious tempers. The worst of the six was, beyond all doubt, Barère, who had no faith in any part of the system which he upheld by persecution."

      J. W. Croker,
      Robespierre (Quarterly Review,
      September, 1835, volume 34).

FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1795 (July-April).
   Reaction against the Reign of Terror.
   The Thermidorians and the Jeunesse Doree.
   End of the Jacobin Club.
   Insurrection of Germinal 12.
   Fall of the Montagnards.
   The White Terror in the Provinces.

"On the morning of the 10th of Thermidor all the people who lived near the prisons of Paris crowded on the roofs of their houses and cried, 'All is over! Robespierre is dead!' The thousands of prisoners, who had believed themselves doomed to death, imagined themselves rescued from the tomb. Many were set free the same day, and all the rest regained hope and confidence. Their feeling of deliverance was shared throughout France. The Reign of Terror had become a sort of nightmare that stifled the nation, and the Reign of Terror and Robespierre were identical in the sight of the great majority. … The Convention presented a strange aspect. Party remnants were united in the coalition party called the 'Thermidorians.' Many of the Mountaineers and of those who had been fiercest in their missions presently took seats with the Right or Centre; and the periodic change of Committees, so long contested, was determined upon. Lots were drawn, and Barère, Lindet, and Prieur went out; Carnot, indispensable in the war, was re-elected until the coming spring; Billaud and Collot, feeling out of place in the new order of things, resigned. Danton's friends now prevailed; but, alas! the Dantonists were not Danton."

      H. Martin,
      Popular History of France from the First Revolution,
      chapter 22 (volume l).

"The Reign of Terror was practically over, but the ground-swell which follows a storm continued for some time longer. Twenty-one victims suffered on the same day with Robespierre, 70 on the next; altogether 114 were condemned and executed in the three days which followed his death. … A strong reaction against the 'Terreur' now set in. Upwards of 10,000 'suspects' were set free, and Robespierre's law of the 22 Prairial was abolished. Fréron, a leading Thermidorien, organized a band of young men who called themselves the Jeunesse Dorée [gilded youth], or Muscadins, and chiefly frequented the Palais Royal. They wore a ridiculous dress, 'a la Victime' [large cravat, black or green collar, and crape around the arm, signifying relationship to some of the victims of the revolutionary tribunal.—Thiers], and devoted themselves to punishing the Jacobins. They had their hymn, 'Le réveil du Peuple.' which they sang about the street, often coming into collision with the sans-culottes shouting the Marseillaise. On the 11th of November the Muscadins broke open the hall of the celebrated club, turned out the members, and shut it up for ever. … The committees of Salut Public and Sureté Générale were entirely remodelled and their powers much restrained; also the Revolutionary Tribunal was reorganized on the lines advocated by Camille Desmoulins in his proposal for a Comité de Clémence—which cost him his life. Carrier and Lebon suffered death for their atrocious conduct in La Vendée and [Arras]; 73 members who had protested against the arrest of the Girondins were recalled, and the survivors of the leading Girondists, Louvet, Lanjuinais, Isnard, Larévillière-Lépeaux and others, 22 in number, were restored to their seats in the Convention."

"Billaud, Collot, and other marked Terrorists, already denounced in the Convention by Danton's friends, felt that danger was every day drawing nearer to themselves. Their fate was to all appearance sealed by the readmission to the Convention (December 8) of the 73 deputies of the right, imprisoned in 1793 for signing protests against the expulsion of the Girondists. By the return of these deputies the complexion of the Assembly was entirely altered. … They now sought to undo the work of the Convention since the insurrection by which their party had been overwhelmed. They demanded that confiscated property should be restored to the relatives of persons condemned by the revolutionary courts; that emigrants who had fled in consequence of Terrorist persecutions should be allowed to return; that those deputies proscribed on June 2, 1793, who yet survived, should be recalled to their seats. The Mountain, as a body, violently opposed even the discussion of such questions. The Thermidorians split into two divisions. Some in alarm rejoined the Mountain; while others, headed by Tallien and Fréron, sought their safety by coalescing with the returned members of the right. A committee was appointed to report on accusations brought against Collot, Billaud, Barère, and Vadier (December 27, 1794). In a few weeks the survivors of the proscribed deputies entered the Convention amidst applause (March 8, 1795). … There was at this time great misery prevalent in Paris, and imminent peril of insurrection. {1308} After Robespierre's fall, maximum prices were no longer observed, and assignats were only accepted in payment of goods at their real value compared with coin. The result was a rapid rise in prices, so that in December prices were double what they had been in July, and were continuing to rise in proportion as assignats decreased in value. … The maximum laws, already a dead letter, were repealed (December 24). The abolition of maximum prices and requisitions increased the already lavish expenditure of the Government, which, to meet the deficit in its revenues, had no resource but to create more assignats, and the faster these were issued the faster they fell in value and the higher prices rose. In July 1794, they had been worth 34 per cent. of their nominal value. In December they were worth 22 per cent., and in May 1795 they were worth only 7 per cent. … At this time a pound of bread cost eight shillings, of rice thirteen, of sugar seventeen, and other articles were all proportionately dear. It is literally true that more than half the population of Paris was only kept alive by occasional distributions of meat and other articles at low prices, and the daily distribution of bread at three half-pence a pound. In February, however, this source of relief threatened to fail. … On April 1, or Germinal 12, bread riots, begun by women, broke out in every section. Bands collected and forced their way into the Convention, shouting for bread, but offering no violence to the deputies. … The crowd was already dispersing when forces arrived from the sections and cleared the House. The insurrection was a spontaneous rising for bread, without method or combination. The Terrorists had sought, but vainly, to obtain direction of it. Had they succeeded, the Mountain would have had an opportunity of proscribing the right. Their failure gave the right the opportunity of proscribing the left. The transportation to Cayenne of Billaud, Collot, Barère, and Vadier was decreed, and the arrest of fifteen other Montagnards, accused without proof, in several cases without probability, of having been accomplices of the insurgents. … The insurrection of Germinal 12 gave increased strength to the party of reaction. The Convention, in dread of the Terrorists, was compelled to look to it for support. … In the departments famine, disorder, and crime prevailed, as well as in Paris. … From the first the reaction proceeded in the departments with a more rapid step and in bolder form than in Paris. … In the departments of the south-east, where the Royalists had always possessed a strong following, emigrants of all descriptions readily made their way back; and here the opponents of the Republic, instigated by a desire for vengeance, or merely by party spirit, commenced a reaction stained by crimes as atrocious as any committed during the course of the revolution. Young men belonging to the upper and middle classes were organised in bands bearing the names of companies of Jesus and companies of the Sun, and first at Lyons, then at Aix, Toulon, Marseilles, and other towns, they broke into the prisons and murdered their inmates without distinction of age or sex. Besides the Terrorist and the Jacobin, neither the Republican nor the purchaser of State lands was safe from their knives; and in the country numerous isolated murders were committed. This lawless and brutal movement, called the White Terror in distinction to the Red Terror preceding Thermidor 9, was suffered for weeks to run its course unchecked, and counted its victims by many hundreds, spreading over the whole of Provence, besides the departments of Rhone, Gard, Loire, Ain, and Jura."

      ALSO IN
      A. Thiers,
      History of the French Revolution (American edition),
      volume 3, pages 109-136; 149-175; 193-225.

      H. von Sybel,
      History of the French Revolution,
      book 12, chapters 1-3.

      J. Mallet du Pan,
      Memoirs and Correspondence,
      volume 2, chapters 5.

FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1795 (October-May).
   Subjugation of Holland.
   Overthrow of the Stadtholdership.
   Establishment of the Batavian Republic.
   Peace of Basle with Prussia.
   Successes on the Spanish and Italian frontiers.
   Crumbling of the Coalition.

"Pichegru having taken Bois le Duc, October 9th, the Duke of York retreated to the Ar, and thence beyond the Waal. Venloo fell October 27th, Maestricht November 4th, and the capture of Nimeguen on the 9th, which the English abandoned after the fall of Maestricht, opened to the French the road into Holland. The Duke of York resigned the command to General Walmoden, December 2nd, and returned into England. His departure showed that the English government had abandoned all hope of saving Holland. It had, indeed, consented that the States-General should propose terms of accommodation to the French; and two Dutch envoys had been despatched to Paris to offer to the Committee of Public Welfare the recognition by their government of the French Republic, and the payment of 200,000,000 florins within a year. But the Committee, suspecting that these offers were made only with the view of gaining time, paid no attention to them. The French were repulsed in their first attempt to cross the Waal by General Duncan with 8,000 English; but a severe frost enabled them to pass over on the ice, January 11th, 1795. Nothing but a victory could now save Holland. But Walmoden, instead of concentrating his troops for the purpose of giving battle, retreated over the Yssel, and finally over the Ems into Westphalia, whence the troops were carried to England by sea from Bremen. … General Alvinzi, who held the Rhine between Emmerich and Arnheim, having retired upon Wesel, Pichegru had only to advance. On entering Holland, he called upon the patriots to rise, and his occupation of the Dutch towns was immediately followed by a revolution. The Prince of Orange, the hereditary Stadtholder, embarked for England, January 19th, on which day Pichegru's advanced columns entered Amsterdam. Next day the Dutch fleet, frozen up in the Texel, was captured by the French hussars. Before the end of January the reduction of Holland had been completed, and a provincial [provisional?] government established at the Hague. The States-General, assembled February 24th, 1795, having received, through French influence, a new infusion of the patriot party, pronounced the abolition of the Stadtholderate, proclaimed the sovereignty of the people and the establishment of the Batavian Republic. A treaty of Peace with France followed, May 16th, and an-offensive alliance against all enemies whatsoever till the end of the war, and against England for ever. {1309} The sea and land forces to be provided by the Dutch were to serve under French commanders. Thus the new republic became a mere dependency of France. Dutch Flanders, the district on the left bank of the Hondt, Maestricht, Venloo, were retained by the French as a just indemnity for the expenses of the war, on which account the Dutch were also to pay 100,000,000 florins; but they were to receive, at the general peace, an equivalent for the ceded territories. By secret articles, the Dutch were to lend the French seven ships of war, to support a French army of 25,000 men, &c. Over and above the requisitions of the treaty, they were also called upon to reclothe the French troops, and to furnish them with provisions. In short, though the Dutch patriots had 'fraternised' with the French, and received them with open arms, they were treated little better than a conquered people. Secret negotiations had been for some time going on between France and Prussia for a peace. … Frederick William II., … satisfied with his acquisitions in Poland, to which the English and Dutch subsidies had helped him, … abandoned himself to his voluptuous habits," and made overtures to the French. "Perhaps not the least influential among Frederick William's motives, was the refusal of the maritime Powers any longer to subsidise him for doing nothing. … The Peace of Basle, between the French Republic and the King of Prussia, was signed April 5th 1795. The French troops were allowed to continue the occupation of the Rhenish provinces on the left bank. An article, that neither party should permit troops of the enemies of either to pass over its territories, was calculated to embarrass the Austrians. France agreed to accept the mediation of Prussia for princes of the Empire. … Prussia should engage in no hostile enterprise against Holland, or any other country occupied by French troops; while the French agreed not to push their enterprises in Germany beyond a certain line of demarcation, including the Circles of Westphalia, Higher and Lower Saxony; Franconia, and that part of the two Circles of the Rhine situate on the right bank of the Main. … Thus the King of Prussia, originally the most ardent promoter of the Coalition, was one of the first to desert it. By signing the Peace of Basle, he sacrificed Holland, facilitated the invasion of the Empire by the French, and thus prepared the ruin of the ancient German constitution." In the meantime the French had been pushing war with success on their Spanish frontier, recovering the ground which they had lost in the early part of 1794. In the eastern Pyrenees, Dugommier "retook Bellegarde in September, the last position held by the Spaniards in France, and by the battle of the Montagne Noire, which lasted from November 17th to the 20th, opened the way into Catalonia. But at the beginning of this battle Dugommier was killed. Figuières surrendered November 24th, through the influence of the French democratic propaganda. On the west, Moncey captured St. Sebastian and Fuentarabia in August, and was preparing to attack Pampeluna, when terrible storms … compelled him to retreat on the Bidassoa, and closed the campaign in that quarter. On the side of Piedmont, the French, after some reverses, succeeded in making themselves masters of Mont Cenis and the passes of the Maritime Alps, thus holding the keys of Italy; but the Government, content with this success, ventured not at present to undertake the invasion of that country." The King of Sardinia, Victor Amadeus, remained faithful to his engagements with Austria, although the French tempted him with an offer of the Milanese, "and the exchange of the island of Sardinia for territory more conveniently situated. With the Grand Duke of Tuscany they were more successful. … On February 9th 1795, a treaty was signed by which the Grand Duke revoked his adhesion to the Coalition. … Thus Ferdinand was the first to desert the Emperor, his brother. The example of Tuscany was followed by the Regent of Sweden."

      L. P. Segur,
      History of the Reign of Frederick William II. of Prussia,
      volume 3.

FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1796.
   Brigandage in La Vendée.
   Chouannerie in Brittany.
   The Disastrous Quiberon expedition.
   End of the Vendean War.

"Since the defeat at Savenay, the Vendée was no longer the scene of grand operations, but of brigandage and atrocities without result. The peasants, though detesting the Revolution, were anxious for peace; but, as there were still two chiefs, Charette and Stoffiet, in the field, who hated each other, this wish could scarcely be gratified. General Thurieu, sent by the former Revolutionary Committee, had but increased this detestation by allowing pillage and incendiarism. After the death of Robespierre he was replaced by General Clancaux, who had orders to employ more conciliatory measures. The defeat of the rebel troops at Savenay, and their subsequent dispersion, had led to a kind of guerilla warfare throughout the whole of Brittany, known by the name of Chouannerie. ['A poor peasant, named Jean Cottereau, had distinguished himself in this movement above all his companions, and his family bore the name of Chouans (Chat-huans) or night-owls. … The name of Chouan passed from him to all the insurgents of Bretagne, although he himself never led more than a few hundred peasants, who obeyed him, as they said, out of friendship.']

The Chouans attacked the public conveyances, infested the high roads, murdered isolated bands of soldiers and functionaries. Their chiefs were Scepeaux, Bourmont, Cadoudal, but especially Puisaye … formerly general of the Girondins, and who wanted to raise a more formidable insurrection than had hitherto been organised. Against them was sent Hoche [September, 1794], who accustomed his soldiers to pacify rather than destroy, and taught them to respect the habits, but above all the religion, of the inhabitants. After some difficult negotiations with Charette peace was concluded (15th February), but the suppression of the Chouans was more difficult still, and Hoche … displayed in this ungrateful mission all the talents and humanity for which he was ever celebrated. Puisaye himself was in England, having obtained Pitt's promise of a fleet and an army, but his aide-de-camp concluded in his absence a treaty similar to that of Charette. … Stoffiet surrendered the last. {1310} Not much dependence could be placed on either of these pacifications, Charette himself having confessed in a letter to the Count de Provence that they were but a trap for the Republicans; but they proved useful, nevertheless, by accustoming the country to peace." This deceptive state of peace came to an end early in the summer of 1795. "The conspiracy organised in London by Puisaye, assisted and subsidised by Pitt, … fitted out a fleet, which harassed the French naval squadron, and then set sail for Brittany, where the expedition made itself master of the peninsula of Quiberon and the fort Penthièvre (27th June). The Brittany peasants, suspicious of the Vendeans and hating the English, did not respond to the call for revolt, and occasioned a loss of time to the invaders, of which Hoche took advantage to bring together his troops and to march on Quiberon, where he defeated the vanguard of the émigrés, and surrounded them in the peninsula. Puisaye [who had, it is said, about 10,000 men, émigrés and Chouans] attempted to crush Hoche by an attack in the rear, but was eventually out-manœuvred, Fort Penthièvre was scaled during the night, and the émigrés were routed; whilst the English squadron was caught in a hurricane and could not come to their assistance, save with one ship, which fired indiscriminately on friend and foe alike. Most of the Royalists rushed into the sea, where nearly all of them perished. Scarcely a thousand men remained, and these fought heroically. It is said that a promise was given to them that if they surrendered their lives should be spared, and, accordingly, 711 laid down their arms (21st July). By order of the Convention … these 711 émigrés were shot. … From his camp at Belleville, Charette, one of the insurgent generals, responded to this execution by the massacre of 2,000 Republican prisoners." In the following October another expedition of Royalists, fitted out in England under the auspices of Pitt, "landed at the Ile Dieu … a small island about eight miles from the mainland of Poitou, and was composed of 2,500 men, who were destined to be the nucleus of several regiments; it also had on board a large store of arms, ammunition, and the Count d'Artois. Charette, named general commander of the Catholic forces, was awaiting him with 10,000 men. The whole of the Vendée was ready to rise the moment the prince touched French soil, but frivolous and undecided, he waited six weeks in idleness, endeavouring to obtain from England his recall. Hoche, to whom the command of the Republican forces had been entrusted, took advantage of this delay to cut off Charette from his communications, while he held Stoffiet and the rest of the Brittany chiefs in check, and occupied the coast with 30,000 men. The Count d'Artois, whom Pitt would not recall, entreated the English commander to set sail for England (December 17th, 1795), and the latter, unable to manage his fleet on a coast without shelter, complied with his request, leaving the prince on his arrival to the deserved contempt of even his own partisans. Charette in despair attempted another rising, hoping to be seconded by Stofflet, but he was beaten on all sides by Hoche. This general, who combined the astuteness of the statesman with the valour of the soldier, succeeded in a short time in pacifying the country by his generous but firm behaviour towards the inhabitants. Charette, tracked from shelter to shelter, was finally compelled to surrender, brought to Nantes, and shot (March 24th). The same lot had befallen Stofflet a month before at Angers. After these events Hoche led his troops into Brittany, where he succeeded in putting an end to the 'Chouannerie.' The west returned to its normal condition."

H. Van Laun, The French Revolutionary Epoch, book 2, chapter 2, and book 3, chapter 1 (volume 1).

      ALSO IN:
      A. Thiers,
      History of the French Revolution
      (American edition), volume 3, pages 144-145; 188-193;
      230-240; 281-305; 343-345; 358-363; 384-389.

FRANCE: A. D. 1795 (April).
   The question of the Constitution.
   Insurrection of the 1st Prairial and its failure.
   Disarming of the Faubourgs.
   End of Sansculottism.
   Bourgeoisie dominant again.

"The events of the 12th of Germinal decided nothing. The faubourgs had been repulsed, but not conquered. … After so many questions decided against the democratists, there still remained one of the utmost importance—the constitution. On this depended the ascendancy of the multitude or of the bourgeoisie. The supporters of the revolutionary government then fell back on the democratic constitution of '93, which presented to them the means of resuming the authority they had lost. Their opponents, on the other hand, endeavoured to replace it by a constitution which would secure all the advantage to them, by concentrating the government a little more, and giving it to the middle class. For a month, both parties were preparing for this last contest. The constitution of 1793, having been sanctioned by the people, enjoyed a great prestige. It was accordingly attacked with infinite precaution. At first its assailants engaged to carry it into execution without restriction; next they appointed a commission of eleven members to prepare the 'lois organiques' which were to render it practicable; by and by, they ventured to suggest objections to it on the ground that it distributed power too loosely, and only recognised one assembly dependent on the people, even in its measures of legislation. At last, a sectionary deputation went so far as to term the constitution of '93 a decemviral constitution, dictated by terror. All its partisans, at once indignant and filled with fears, organized an insurrection to maintain it. … The conspirators, warned by the failure of the risings of the 1st and 12th Germinal, omitted nothing to make up for their want of direct object and of organization. On the 1st Prairial (20th of May) in the name of the people, insurgent for the purpose of obtaining bread and their rights, they decreed the abolition of the revolutionary government, the establishment of the democratic constitution of '93, the dismissal and arrest of the members of the existing government, the liberation of the patriots, the convocation of the primary assemblies on the 25th Prairial, the convocation of the legislative assembly, destined to replace the convention, on the 25th Messidor, and the suspension of all authority not emanating from the people. They determined on forming a new municipality, to serve as a common centre; to seize on the barriers, telegraph, cannon, tocsins, drums, and not to rest till they had secured repose, happiness, liberty, and means of subsistence for all the French nation. They invited the artillery, gendarmes, horse and foot soldiers, to join the banners of the people, and marched on the convention. Meantime, the latter was deliberating on the means of preventing the insurrection. … {1311} The committees came in all haste to apprise it of its danger; it immediately declared its sitting permanent, voted Paris responsible for the safety of the representatives of the republic, closed its doors, outlawed all the leaders of the mob, summoned the citizens of the sections to arms, and appointed as their leaders eight commissioners, among whom were Legendre, Henri la Riviere, Kervelegan, &c. These deputies had scarcely gone, when a loud noise was heard without. An outer door had been forced, and numbers of women rushed into the galleries, crying 'Bread and the constitution of '93!' … The galleries were … cleared; but the insurgents of the faubourgs soon reached the inner doors, and, finding them closed, forced them with hatchets and hammers, and then rushed in amidst the convention. The Hall now became a field of battle. The veterans and gendarmes, to whom the guard of the assembly was confided, cried 'To arms!' The deputy Auguis, sword in hand, headed them, and succeeded in repelling the assailants, and even made a few of them prisoners. But the insurgents, more numerous, returned to the charge, and again rushed into the house. The deputy Feraud entered precipitately, pursued by the insurgents, who fired some shots in the house. They took aim at Boissy d'Anglas, who was occupying the president's chair. … Feraud ran to the tribune, to shield him with his body; he was struck at with pikes and sabres, and fell dangerously wounded. The insurgents dragged him into the lobby, and, mistaking him for Freron, cut off his head and placed it on a pike. After this skirmish they became masters of the Hall. Most of the deputies had taken flight. There only remained the members of the Crête [the 'Crest'—a name now given to the remnant of the party of 'The Mountain'] and Boissy d'Anglas, who, calm, his hat on, heedless of threat and insult, protested in the name of the convention against this popular violence. They held out to him the bleeding head of Feraud; he bowed respectfully before it. They tried to force him, by placing pikes at his breast, to put the propositions of the insurgents to the vote; he steadily and courageously refused. But the Crêtois, who approved of the insurrection, took possession of the bureaux and of the tribune, and decreed, amidst the applause of the multitude, all the articles contained in the manifesto of the insurrection." Meantime "the commissioners despatched to the sections had quickly gathered them together. … The aspect of affairs then underwent a change; Legendre, Kervelagan, and Auguis besieged the insurgents, in their turn, at the head of the sectionaries," and drove them at last from the hall of the convention. "The assembly again became complete; the sections received a vote of thanks, and the deliberations were resumed. All the measures adopted in the interim were annulled, and fourteen representatives, to whom were afterwards joined fourteen others, were arrested, for organizing the insurrection or approving it in their speeches. It was then midnight; at five in the morning the prisoners were already six leagues from Paris. Despite this defeat, the Faubourgs did not consider themselves beaten; and the next day they advanced en masse with their cannon against the convention. The sections, on their side, marched for its defence." But a collision was averted by negotiations, and the insurgents withdrew, "after having received an assurance that the Convention would assiduously attend to the question of provisions, and would soon publish the organic laws of the constitution of '93. … Six democratic Mountaineers, Goujon, Bourbotte, Romme, Duroy, Duquesnoy, and Soubrany were brought before a military commission … and … condemned to death. They all stabbed themselves with the same knife, which was transferred from one to the other, exclaiming, 'Vive la République!' Romme, Goujon, and Duquesnoy were fortunate enough to wound themselves fatally; the other three were conducted to the scaffold in a dying state, but faced death with serene countenances. Meantime, the Faubourgs, though repelled on the 1st, and diverted from their object on the 2nd of Prairial, still had the means of rising," and the convention ordered them to be disarmed. "They were encompassed by all the interior sections. After attempting to resist, they yielded, giving up some of their leaders, their arms, and artillery. … The inferior class was entirely excluded from the government of the state; the revolutionary committees which formed its assemblies were destroyed; the cannoneers forming its armed force were disarmed; the constitution of '93, which was its code, was abolished; and here the rule of the multitude terminated. … From that period, the middle class resumed the management of the revolution without, and the assembly was as united under the Girondists as it had been, after the 2nd of June, under the Mountaineers."

FRANCE: A. D. 1795 (June-September).
   Framing and adoption of the Constitution of the Year III.
   Self-renewing decrees of the Convention.
   Hostility in Paris to them.
   Intrigues of the Royalists.

"The royalist party, beaten on the frontiers, and deserted by the court of Spain, on which it placed most reliance, was now obliged to confine itself to intrigues in the interior; and it must be confessed that, at this moment, Paris offered a wide field for such intrigues. The work of the constitution was advancing; the time when the Convention was to resign its powers, when France should meet to elect fresh representatives, when a new Assembly should succeed that which had so long reigned, was more favourable than any other for counter-revolutionary manœuvres. The most vehement passions were in agitation in the sections of Paris. The members of them were not royalists, but they served the cause of royalty without being aware of it. They had made a point of opposing the Terrorists; they had animated themselves by the conflict; they wished to persecute also; and they were exasperated against the Convention, which would not permit this persecution to be carried too far. They were always ready to remember that Terror had sprung from its bosom; they demanded of it a constitution and laws, and the end of the long dictatorship which it had exercised. … Behind this mass the royalists concealed themselves. … The constitution had been presented by the commission of eleven. It was discussed during the three months of Messidor, Thermidor, and Fructidor [June-August], and was successively decreed with very little alteration." {1312} The principal features of the constitution so framed, known as the Constitution of the Year III., were the following: "A Council, called 'The Council of the Five Hundred,' composed of 500 members, of, at least, thirty years of age, having exclusively the right of proposing laws, one-third to be renewed every year. A Council called 'The Council of the Ancients,' composed of 250 members, of, at least, forty years of age, all either widowers or married, having the sanction of the laws, to be renewed also by one-third. An executive Directory, composed of five members, deciding by a majority, to be renewed annually by one-fifth, having responsible ministers. … The mode of nominating these powers was the following: All the citizens of the age of twenty-one met of right in primary assembly on every first day of the month of Prairial, and nominated electoral assemblies. These electoral assemblies met every 20th of Prairial, and nominated the two Councils; and the two Councils nominated the Directory. … The judicial authority was committed to elective judges. … There were to be no communal assemblies, but municipal and departmental administrations, composed of three, five, or more members, according to the population: they were to be formed by way of election. … The press was entirely free. The emigrants were banished for ever from the territory of the republic; the national domains were irrevocably secured to the purchasers; all religions were declared free, but were neither acknowledged nor paid by the state. … One important question was started. The Constituent Assembly, from a parade of disinterestedness, had excluded itself from the new legislative body [the Legislative Assembly of 1791]; would the Convention do the same?" The members of the Convention decided this question in the negative, and "decreed, on the 5th of Fructidor (August 22d), that the new legislative body should be composed of two-thirds of the Convention, and that one new third only should be elected. The question to be decided was, whether the Convention should itself designate the two-thirds to be retained, or whether it should leave that duty to the electoral assemblies. After a tremendous dispute, it was agreed on the 13th of Fructidor (August 30), that this choice should be left to the electoral assemblies. It was decided that the primary assemblies should meet on the 20th of Fructidor (September 6th), to accept the constitution and the two decrees of the 5th and the 13th of Fructidor. It was likewise decided that, after giving their votes upon the constitution and the decrees, the primary assemblies should again meet and proceed forthwith, that is to say, in the year III. (1795), to the elections for the 1st of Prairial in the following year." The right of voting upon the constitution was extended, by another decree, to the armies in the field. "No sooner were these resolutions adopted, than the enemies of the Convention, so numerous and so diverse, were deeply mortified by them. … The Convention, they said, was determined to cling to power; … it wished to retain by force a majority composed of men who had covered France with scaffolds. … All the sections of Paris, excepting that of the Quinze-Vingts, accepted the Constitution and rejected the decrees. The result was not the same in the rest of France. … On the 1st of Vendémiaire, year IV. (September 23, 1795), the general result of the votes was proclaimed. The constitution was accepted almost unanimously, and the decrees by an immense majority of the voters." The Convention now decreed that the new legislative body should be elected in October and meet November 6.

A. Thiers, History of the French Revolution (American edition), volume 3, pages 305-315.

ALSO IN: H. Von Sybel, History of the French Revolution, book 12, chapter 4 (volume 4).

      J. Mallet du Pan,
      Memoirs and Correspondence,
      volume 2, chapter 8.

FRANCE: A. D. 1795 (June-December).
   Death of the late King's son (Louis XVII.)
   Treaty of Basle with Spain.
   Acquisition of Spanish San Domingo.
   Ineffectual campaign on the Rhine.
   Victory at Loano.

"The Committees had formed great plans for the campaign of 1795; meaning to invade the territories of the allies, take Mayence, and enter Southern Germany, go down into Italy, and reach the very heart of Spain. But Carnot, Lindet, and Prieur were no longer on the Committee, and their successors were not their equals; army discipline was relaxed; a vulgar reactionist had replaced Carnot in the war department and was working ruin. … The attack in Spain was to begin with the Lower Pyrenees, by the capture of Pampeluna and a march upon Castile, but famine and fever decimated the army of the Western Pyrenees, and General Moncey was forced to postpone all serious action till the summer. At the other end of the Pyrenees, the French and Spaniards were fighting aimlessly at the entry to Catalonia. The war was at a standstill; but the negotiations went on between the two countries. The king of Spain, as in honor bound, made the liberation of his young kinsman, the son of Louis XVI., a condition of peace. This the Republic would not grant, but the prisoner's death (June 8, 1795) removed the obstacle. The counter-revolutionists accused the Committees of poisoning the child styled by the royalist party Louis XVII. This charge was false; the poor little prisoner died of scrofula, developed by inaction, ennui, and the sufferings of a pitiless imprisonment, increased by the cruel treatment of his jailers, a cobbler named Simon and his wife. A rumor was also spread that the child was not dead, but had been taken away and an impostor substituted, who had died. Only one of the royal family now remained in the Temple, Louis XVI.'s daughter, afterwards the Duchesse d'Angoulême. Spain interceded for her, and she was exchanged. … Peace with Spain was also hastened by French successes beyond the Pyrenees; General Marceau, being reinforced, took Vittoria and Bilboa, and pushed on to the Ebro. On the 22d of July, Barthelémi, the able French diplomatist, signed a treaty of peace with Spain at Basle, restoring her Biscayan and Catalonian provinces, and accepting Spanish mediation in favor of the king of Naples, Duke of Parma, king of Portugal, and 'the other Italian powers,' including, though not mentioning, the Pope; and Spain yielded her share of San Domingo, which put a brighter face on French affairs in America. … Guadeloupe, Santa Lucia, and St. Eustache were restored to the French. … Spain soon made overtures for an alliance with France, wishing to put down the English desire to rule the seas; and, before the new treaty was signed, the army of the Eastern Pyrenees was sent to reinforce the armies of the Alps and Italy, who had only held their positions in the Apennines and on the Ligurian coast against the Austrians and Piedmontese by sheer force of will; but in the autumn of 1795 the face of affairs was changed. {1313} Now that Prussia had left the coalition, war on the Rhine went on between France and Austria, sustained by the South German States; France had to complete her mastery of the left bank by taking Mayence and Luxembourg; and Austria's aim was to dispute them with her. The French government charged Marceau to besiege Mayence during the winter of 1794-95, but did not furnish him the necessary resources, and, France not holding the right bank, Kléber could only partially invest the town, and both his soldiers and those blockading Luxembourg suffered greatly from cold and privation. Early in March, 1795, Pichegru was put in command of the armies of the Rhine and Moselle, and Jourdan was ordered to support him on the left (the Lower Rhine) with the army of Sambre-et-Meuse. Austria took no advantage of the feeble state of the French troops, and Luxembourg, one of the strongest posts in Europe, receiving no help, surrendered (June 24) with 800 cannon and huge store of provisions. The French now had the upper hand, Pichegru and Jourdan commanding 160,000 men on the Rhine. One of these men was upright and brave, but the other had treason in his soul; though everybody admired Pichegru, 'the conqueror of Holland.' … In August, 1795, an agent of the Prince of Condé, who was then at Brisgau, in the Black Forest, with his corps of emigrants, offered Pichegru, who was in Alsace, the title of Marshal of France and Governor of Alsace, the royal castle of Chambord, a million down, an annuity of 200,000 livres, and a house in Paris, in the 'king's' name, thus flattering at once his vanity and his greed. … He was checked by no scruples; utterly devoid of moral sense, he hoped to gain his army by money and wine, and had no discussion with the Prince of Condé save as to the manner of his treason." In the end, Pichegru was not able to make his treason as effective as he had bargained to do; but he succeeded in spoiling the campaign of 1795 on the Rhine. Jourdan crossed the river and took Dusseldorf, with 168 cannon, on the 6th of September, expecting a simultaneous movement on the part of Pichegru, to occupy the enemy in the latter's front. But Pichegru, though he took Mannheim, on the 18th of September, threw a corps of 10,000 men into the hands of the Austrians, by placing it where it could be easily overwhelmed, and permitted his opponent, Wurmser, to send reinforcements to Clairfait, who forced Jourdan, in October, to retreat across the Rhine. "Pichegru's perfidy had thwarted a campaign which must have been decisive, and Jourdan's retreat was followed by the enemy's offensive return to the left bank [retaking Mannheim and raising the siege of Mayence], and by reverses which would have been fatal had they coincided with the outburst of royalist and reactionary plots and insurrections in the West, and in Paris itself; but they had luckily been stifled some time since, and as the Convention concluded its career, the direction of the war returned to the hands which guided it so well in 1793 and 1794."

      H. Martin,
      Popular History of France from the First Revolution,
      chapter 24 (volume 1).

"The peace with Spain … enabled the government to detach the whole Pyrenean army to the support of General Scherer, who had succeeded Kellermann in the command of the army of Italy. On the 23d of November, the French attacked the Austrians in their position at Loano, and, after a conflict of two days, the enemy's centre was forced by Massena and Augereau, and the Imperialists fled with the loss of 7,000 men, 80 guns, and all their stores. But the season was too far advanced to prosecute this success, and the victors took up winter quarters on the ground they had occupied. … The capture of the Cape of Good Hope (September 16) by the British under Sir James Craig, was the only other important event of this year."

Epitome of Alison's History of Europe, sections 154 and 157 (chapter 18 of the complete work).

E. Baines, History of the Wars of the French Revolution, book. 1, chapters 19-20 (volume l).

FRANCE: A. D. 1795 (October-December).
   The Insurrection of the 13th Vendemiare, put down by
   Napoleon Bonaparte.
   Dissolution of the National Convention.
   Organization of the government of the Directory.
   Licentiousness of the time.

"The Parisians … proclaimed their hostility to the Convention and its designs. The National Guard, consisting of armed citizens, almost unanimously sided with the enemies of the Convention; and it was openly proposed to march to the Tuilleries, and compel a change of measures by force of arms. The Convention perceiving their unpopularity and danger, began to look about them anxiously for the means of defence. There were in and near Paris 5,000 regular troops, on whom they thought they might rely, and who of course contemned the National Guard as only half soldiers. They had besides some hundreds of artillery men; and they now organised what they called 'the Sacred Band,' a body of 1,500 ruffians, the most part of them old and tried instruments of Robespierre. With these means they prepared to arrange a plan of defence; and it was obvious that they did not want materials, provided they could find a skilful and determined head. The insurgent sections placed themselves under the command of Danican, an old general of no great skill or reputation. The Convention opposed to him Menou; and he marched at the head of a column into the section Le Pelletier to disarm the National Guard of that district—one of the wealthiest of the capital. The National Guard were found drawn up in readiness to receive him at the end of the Rue Vivienne; and Menou, becoming alarmed, and hampered by the presence of some of the' Representatives of the People,' entered into a parley, and retired without having struck a blow. The Convention judged that Menou was not master of nerves for such a crisis; and consulted eagerly about a successor to his command. Barras, one of their number, had happened to be present at Toulon and to have appreciated the character of Buonaparte. He had, probably, been applied to by Napoleon in his recent pursuit of employment. Deliberating with Tallien and Carnot, his colleagues, he suddenly said, 'I have the man whom you want; it is a little Corsican officer, who will not stand upon ceremony.' These words decided the fate of Napoleon and of France. Buonaparte had been in the Odeon Theatre when the affair of Le Pelletier occurred, had run out, and witnessed the result. He now happened to be in the gallery, and heard the discussion concerning the conduct of Menou. {1314} He was presently sent for, and asked his opinion as to that officer's retreat. He explained what had happened, and how the evil might have been avoided, in a manner which gave satisfaction. He was desired to assume the command, and arranged his plan of defence as well as the circumstances might permit; for it was already late at night, and the decisive assault on the Tuilleries was expected to take place next morning. Buonaparte stated that the failure of the march of Menou had been chiefly owing to the presence of the 'Representatives of the People,' and refused to accept the command unless he received it free from all such interference. They yielded: Barras was named commander-in-chief; and Buonaparte second, with the virtual control. His first care was to despatch Murat, then a major of chasseurs, to Sablons, five miles off, where fifty great guns were posted. The Sectionaries sent a stronger detachment for these cannon immediately afterwards; and Murat, who passed them in the dark, would have gone in vain had he received his orders but a few minutes later. On the 4th of October (called in the revolutionary almanac the 13th Vendemiaire) the affray accordingly occurred. Thirty thousand National Guards advanced about two P. M., by different streets, to the siege of the palace: but its defence was now in far other hands than those of Louis XVI. Buonaparte, having planted artillery on all the bridges, had effectually secured the command of the river, and the safety of the Tuilleries on one side. He had placed cannon also at all the crossings of the streets by which the National Guard could advance towards the other front; and having posted his battalions in the garden of the Tuilleries and Place du Carousel, he awaited the attack. The insurgents had no cannon; and they came along the narrow streets of Paris in close and heavy columns. When one party reached the church of St. Roche, in the Rue St. Honoré, they found a body of Buonaparte's troops drawn up there, with two cannons. It is disputed on which side the firing began; but in an instant the artillery swept the streets and lanes, scattering grape-shot among the National Guards, and producing such confusion that they were compelled to give way. The first shot was a signal for all the batteries which Buonaparte had established; the quays of the Seine, opposite to the Tuilleries, were commanded by his guns below the palace and on the bridges. In less than an hour the action was over. The insurgents fled in all directions, leaving the streets covered with dead and wounded; the troops of the Convention marched into the various sections, disarmed the terrified inhabitants, and before nightfall everything was quiet. This eminent service secured the triumph of the Conventionalists. … Within five days from the Day of the Sections Buonaparte was named second in command of the army of the interior; and shortly afterwards, Barras finding his duties as Director sufficient to occupy his time, gave up the command-in-chief of the same army to his 'little Corsican officer.'"

The victory of the 13th Vendemiaire "enabled the Convention immediately to devote its attention to the formation of the Councils proposed by it, two-thirds of which were to consist of its own members. The first third, which was freely elected, had already been nominated by the Reactionary party. The members of the Directory were chosen, and the deputies of the Convention, believing that for their own interests the regicides should be at the head of the Government, nominated La Réveillère-Lepeaux, Sièyes, Rewbel, Le Tourneur, and Barras. Sièyes refused to act, and Carnot was elected in his place. Immediately after this, the Convention declared its session at an end, after it had had three years of existence, from the 21st September, 1792, to the 28th October, 1795 (4th Brumaire, Year IV.). … The Directors were all, with the exception of Carnot, of moderate capacity, and concurred in rendering their own position the more difficult. At this period there was no element of order or good government in the Republic; anarchy and uneasiness everywhere prevailed, famine had become chronic, the troops were without clothes, provisions or horses; the Convention had spent an immense capital represented by assignats, and had sold almost half of the Republican territory, belonging to the proscribed classes …; the excessive degree of discredit to which paper money had fallen, after the issue of thirty-eight thousand millions, had destroyed all confidence and all legitimate commerce. … Such was the general poverty, that when the Directors entered the palace which had been assigned to them as a dwelling, they found no furniture there, and were compelled to borrow of the porter a few straw chairs and a wooden table, on the latter of which they drew up the decree by which they were appointed to office. Their first care was to establish their power, and they succeeded in doing this by frankly following at first the rules laid down by the Constitution. In a short time industry and commerce began to raise their heads, the supply of provisions became tolerably abundant, and the clubs were abandoned for the workshops and the fields. The Directory exerted itself to revive agriculture, industry, and the arts, re-established the public exhibitions, and founded primary, central, and normal schools. … This period was distinguished by a great licentiousness in manners. The wealthy classes, who had been so long forced into retirement by the Reign of Terror, now gave themselves up to the pursuit of pleasure without stint, and indulged in a course of unbridled luxury, which was outwardly displayed in balls, festivities, rich costumes and sumptuous equipages. Barras, who was a man of pleasure, favoured this dangerous sign of the reaction, and his palace soon became the rendezvous of the most frivolous and corrupt society. In spite of this, however, the wealthy classes were still the victims, under the government of the Directory, of violent and spoliative measures."

FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (April-October).
   Triple attack on Austria.
   Bonaparte's first campaign in Italy.
   Submission of Sardinia.
   Armistice with Naples and the Pope.
   Pillage of art treasures.
   Hostile designs upon Venice.
   Expulsion of the Austrians from Lombardy.
   Failure of the campaign beyond the Rhine.

"With the opening of the year 1796 the leading interest of European history passes to a new scene. … The Directory was now able … to throw its whole force into the struggle with Austria. By the advice of Bonaparte a threefold movement was undertaken against Vienna, by way of Lombardy, by the valley of the Danube, and by the valley of the Main. General Jourdan, in command of the army that had conquered the Netherlands, was ordered to enter Germany by Frankfort; Moreau, a Breton law-student in 1792, now one of the most skilful soldiers in Europe, crossed the Rhine at Strasburg; Bonaparte himself, drawing his scanty supplies along the coast-road from Nice, faced the allied forces of Austria and Sardinia upon the slopes of the Maritime Apennines, forty miles to the west of Genoa. … Bonaparte entered Italy proclaiming himself the restorer of Italian freedom, but with the deliberate purpose of using Italy as a means of recruiting the exhausted treasury of France. His correspondence with the Directory exposes with brazen frankness this well·considered system of plunder and deceit, in which the general and the Government were cordially at one. … The campaign of 1796 commenced in April, in the mountains above the coast-road connecting Nice and Genoa. … Bonaparte … for four days … reiterated his attacks at Montenotte and at Millesimo, until he had forced his own army into a position in the centre of the Allies [Austrians and Piedmontese]; then, leaving a small force to watch the Austrians, he threw the mass of his troops upon the Piedmontese, and drove them back to within thirty miles of Turin. The terror-stricken Government, anticipating an outbreak in the capital itself, accepted an armistice from Bonaparte at Cherasco (April 28). … The armistice, which was soon followed by a treaty of peace between France and Sardinia, ceding Savoy to the Republic, left him free to follow the Austrians, untroubled by the existence of some of the strongest fortresses of Europe behind him. In the negotiations with Sardinia, Bonaparte demanded the surrender of the town of Valenza, as necessary to secure his passage over the river Po. Having thus artfully led the Austrian Beaulieu to concentrate his forces at this point, he suddenly moved eastward along the southern bank of the river, and crossed at Piacenza, 50 miles below the spot where Beaulieu was awaiting him. … The Austrian general, taken in the rear, had no alternative but to abandon Milan and all the country west of it, and to fall back upon the line of the Adda. Bonaparte followed, and on the 10th of May attacked the Austrians at Lodi. He himself stormed the bridge of Lodi at the head of his Grenadiers. The battle was so disastrous to the Austrians that they could risk no second engagement, and retired upon Mantua and the line of the Mincio. Bonaparte now made his triumphal entry into Milan (May 15). … In return for the gift of liberty, the Milanese were invited to offer to their deliverers 20,000,000 francs, and a selection from the paintings in their churches and galleries. The Dukes of Parma and Modena, in return for an armistice, were required to hand over forty of their best pictures, and a sum of money proportioned to their revenues. The Dukes and the townspeople paid their contributions with a good grace: the peasantry of Lombardy, whose cattle were seized in order to supply an army that marched without any stores of its own, rose in arms, and threw themselves into Pavia, after killing all the French soldiers who fell in their way. The revolt was instantly suppressed, and the town of Pavia given up to pillage. … Instead of crossing the Apennines, Bonaparte advanced against the Austrian positions upon the Mincio. … A battle was fought and lost by the Austrians at Borghetto. … Beaulieu's strength was exhausted; he could meet the enemy no more in the field, and led his army out of Italy into the Tyrol, leaving Mantua to be invested by the French. The first care of the conqueror was to make Venice pay for the crime of possessing territory intervening between the eastern and western extremes of the Austrian district. Bonaparte affected to believe that the Venetians had permitted Beaulieu to occupy Peschiera before he seized upon Brescia himself. … 'I have purposely devised this rupture,' he wrote to the Directory (June 7th), 'in case you should wish to obtain five or six millions of francs from Venice. If you have more decided intentions, I think it would be well to keep up the quarrel.' The intention referred to was the disgraceful project of sacrificing Venice to Austria in return for the cession of the Netherlands. … The Austrians were fairly driven out of Lombardy, and Bonaparte was now free to deal with Southern Italy. He advanced into the States of the Church, and expelled the Papal Legate from Bologna. Ferdinand of Naples … asked for a suspension of hostilities against his own kingdom … and Bonaparte granted the king an armistice on easy terms. The Pope, in order to gain a few months' truce, had to permit the occupation of Ferrara, Ravenna, and Ancona, and to recognise the necessities, the learning, the taste, and the virtue of his conquerors by a gift of 20,000,000 francs, 500 manuscripts, 100 pictures, and the busts of Marcus and Lucius Brutus. … Tuscany had indeed made peace with the French Republic a year before, but … while Bonaparte paid a respectful visit to the Grand Duke at Florence, Murat descended upon Leghorn, and seized upon everything that was not removed before his approach. Once established in Leghorn, the French declined to quit it. Mantua was meanwhile invested, and thither Bonaparte returned. Towards the end of July an Austrian relieving army, nearly double the strength of Bonaparte's, descended from the Tyrol. It was divided into three corps: one, under Quasdanovich, advanced by the road on the west of Lake Garda; the others, under Wurmser, the commander-in-chief, by the roads between the lake and the river Adige. … Bonaparte … instantly broke up the siege of Mantua, and withdrew from every position east of the river. On the 30th July, Quasdanovich was attacked and checked at Lonato. … Wurmser, unaware of his colleague's repulse, entered Mantua in triumph, and then set out, expecting to envelop Bonaparte between two fires. But the French were ready for his approach. Wurmser was stopped and defeated at Castiglione (Aug. 3), while the western Austrian divisions were still held in check at Lonato. … In five days the skill of Bonaparte and the unsparing exertions of his soldiery had more than retrieved all that appeared to have been lost. The Austrians retired into the Tyrol, leaving 15,000 prisoners in the hands of the enemy. Bonaparte now prepared to force his way into Germany by the Adige, in fulfilment of the original plan of the campaign. In the first days of September he again routed the Austrians, and gained possession of Roveredo and Trent. {1316} Wurmser hereupon attempted to shut the French up in the mountains by a movement southwards; but, while he operated with insufficient forces between the Brenta and the Adige, with a view of cutting Bonaparte off from Italy, he was himself [defeated at Bassano, September 8, and] cut off from Germany, and only escaped capture by throwing himself into Mantua with the shattered remnant of his army. The road into Germany through the Tyrol now lay open; but in the midst of his victories Bonaparte learnt that the northern armies of Moreau and Jourdan, with which he had intended to co-operate in an attack upon Vienna, were in full retreat. Moreau's advance into the valley of the Danube had, during the months of July and August, been attended with unbroken military and political success. The Archduke Charles, who was entrusted with the defence of the Empire," fell back before Moreau, in order to unite his forces with those of Wartensleben, who commanded an army which confronted Jourdan. "The design of the Archduke succeeded in the end, but it opened Germany to the French for six weeks, and revealed how worthless was the military constitution of the Empire, and how little the Germans had to expect from one another. … At length the retreating movement of the Austrians stopped [and the Archduke fought an indecisive battle with Moreau at Neresheim, August 11]. Leaving 30,000 men on the Lech to disguise his motions from Moreau, Charles turned suddenly northwards from Neuberg on the 17th August, met Wartensleben at Amberg, and attacked Jourdan … with greatly superior numbers. Jourdan was defeated [September 3, at Würtzburg] and driven back in confusion towards the Rhine. The issue of the campaign was decided before Moreau heard of his colleague's danger. It only remained for him to save his own army by a skilful retreat," in the course of which he defeated the Austrian general Latour at Biberach, October 2, and fought two indecisive battles with the Archduke, at Emmendingen, October 19, and at Huningen on the 24th.

      E. Baines,
      History of the Wars of the French Revolution,
      book 1, chapter 22 (volume 1).

FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (September).
Evacuation of Corsica by the English.
Its reoccupation by the French.

"Corsica, which had been delivered to the English by Paoli, and occupied by them as a fourth kingdom annexed to the crown of the King of Great Britain, had just been evacuated by its new masters. They had never succeeded in subduing the interior of the island, frequent insurrections had kept them in continual alarm, and free communication between the various towns could only be effected by sea. The victories of the French army in Italy, under the command of one of their countrymen, had redoubled this internal ferment in Corsica, and the English had decided on entirely abandoning their conquest. In September 1796 they withdrew their troops, and also removed from Corsica their chief partisans, such as General Paoli, Pozzo di Borgo, Beraldi and others, who sought an asylum in England. On the first intelligence of the English preparations for evacuating the island, Buonaparte despatched General Gentili thither at the head of two or three hundred banished Corsicans, and with this little band Gentili took possession of the principal strongholds. … On the 5th Frimaire, year V. (November 25, 1796), I received a decree of the Executive Directory … appointing me Commissioner-Extraordinary of the Government in Corsica, and ordering me to proceed thither at once."

FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (October).
Failure of peace negotiations with England.
Treaties with Naples and Genoa.

"It was France itself, more even than Italy, which was succumbing under the victories in Italy, and was falling rapidly under the military despotism of Bonaparte; while what had begun as a mere war of defence was already becoming a war of aggression against everybody. … The more patriotic members of the legislative bodies were opposed to what they considered only a war of personal ambitions, and were desirous of peace, and a considerable peace party was forming throughout the country. The opportunity was taken by the English government for making proposals for peace, and a pass-port was obtained from the directory for lord Malmesbury, who was sent to Paris as the English plenipotentiary. Lord Malmesbury arrived in Paris on the 2nd of Brumaire (the 23rd of October, 1796), and next day had his first interview with the French minister Delacroix, who was chosen by the directory to act as their representative. There was from the first an evident want of cordiality and sincerity on the part of the French government in this negotiation; and the demands they made, and the political views entertained by them, were so unreasonable, that, after it had dragged on slowly for about a month, it ended without a result. The directory were secretly making great preparations for the invasion of Ireland, and they had hopes of making a separate and very advantageous peace with Austria. Bonaparte had, during this time, become uneasy on account of his position in Italy," and "urged the directory to enter into negotiations with the different Italian states in his rear, such as Naples, Rome, and Genoa, and to form an offensive and defensive alliance with the king of Sardinia, so that he might be able to raise reinforcements in Italy. For this purpose he asked for authority to proclaim the independence of Lombardy and of the states of Modena; so that, by forming both into republics, he might create a powerful French party, through which he might obtain both men and provisions. The directory was not unwilling to second the wishes of Bonaparte, and on the 19th of Vendemiaire (the 10th of October) a peace was signed with Naples, which was followed by a treaty with Genoa. This latter state paid two millions of francs as an indemnity for the acts of hostility formerly committed against France, and added two millions more as a loan." The negotiation for an offensive alliance with Sardinia failed, because the king demanded Lombardy.

ALSO IN: W. E. H. Lecky, History of England in the 18th Century, chapter 27 (volume 7).

FRANCE: A. D. 1796-1797 (October-April).
   Bonaparte's continued victories in Italy.
   His advance into Carinthia and the Tyrol.
   Peace preliminaries of Leoben.

"The failure of the French invasion of Germany … enabled the Austrians to make a fresh effort for the relief of [Würmser] in Mantua. 40,000 men under Alvinzi and 18,000 under Davidowich entered Italy from the Tyrol and marched by different routes towards Verona. Bonaparte had employed the recent interlude in consolidating French influence in Italy. Against the wishes of the Directors he dethroned the duke of Modena, and formed his territories into the Cispadane Republic. Then he tried to induce Piedmont and Venice to join France, but both states preferred to retain their neutral position. This was another of the charges which the general was preparing against Venice. On the news of the Austrian advance, Bonaparte marched against Alvinzi, and checked him at Carmignano (6 November). But meanwhile Davidowich had taken Trent and was approaching Rivoli. Bonaparte, in danger of being surrounded, was compelled to give way, and retreated to Verona, while Alvinzi followed him. Never was the French position more critical, and nothing but a very bold move could save them. With reckless courage Bonaparte attacked Alvinzi at Arcola, and after three days' hard fighting [November 15-17, on the dykes and causeways of a marshy region] won a complete victory. He then forced Davidowich to retreat to the Tyrol. The danger was averted, and the blockade of Mantua was continued. But Austria, as if its resources were inexhaustible, determined on a fourth effort in January, 1797. Alvinzi was again entrusted with the command, while another detachment under Provera advanced from Friuli. Bonaparte collected all his forces, marched against Alvinzi, and crushed him at Rivoli (15 January). But meanwhile Provera had reached Mantua, where Bonaparte, by a forced march, overtook him, and won another complete victory in the battle of La Favorita. The fate of Mantua was at last decided, and the city surrendered on the 2nd of February. With a generosity worthy of the glory which he had obtained, Bonaparte allowed Würmser and the garrison to march out with the honours of war. He now turned to Romagna, occupied Bologna and terrified the Pope into signing the treaty of Tolentino. The temporal power was allowed to exist, but within very curtailed limits. Not only Avignon, but the whole of Romagna, with Ancona, was surrendered to France. Even these terms, harsh as they were, were not so severe as the Directors had wished. But Bonaparte was beginning to play his own game; he saw that Catholicism was regaining ground in France, and he wished to make friends on what might prove after all the winning side. Affairs in Italy were now fairly settled: two republics, the Cisalpine in Lombardy, and the Cispadane, which included Modena, Ferrara, and Bologna, had been created to secure French influence in Italy. … The French had occupied the Venetian territory from Bergamo to Verona, and had established close relations with those classes who were dissatisfied with their exclusion from political power. When the republic armed against the danger of a revolt, Bonaparte treated it as another ground for that quarrel which he artfully fomented for his own purposes. But at present he had other objects more immediately pressing than the oppression of Venice. Jourdan's army on the Rhine had been entrusted to Hoche, whose ambition had long chafed at the want of an opportunity, and who was burning to acquire glory by retrieving the disasters of the last campaign. Bonaparte, on the other hand, was eager to anticipate a possible rival, and determined to hurry on his own invasion of Austria, in order to keep the war and the negotiations in his own hands. The task of meeting him was entrusted to the archduke Charles, who had won such a brilliant reputation in 1796, but who was placed at a great disadvantage to his opponent by having to obey instructions from Vienna. The French carried all before them, Joubert occupied Tyrol, Masséna forced the route to Carinthia, and Bonaparte himself, after defeating the archduke on the Tagliamento, occupied Trieste and Carniola. The French now marched over the Alps, driving the Austrians before them. At Leoben, which they reached on 7th April, they were less than eighty miles from Vienna. Here Austrian envoys arrived to open negotiations. They consented to surrender Belgium, Lombardy, and the Rhine frontier, but they demanded compensation in Bavaria. This demand Bonaparte refused, but offered to compensate Austria at the expense of a neutral state, Venice. The preliminaries of Leoben, signed on the 18th April, gave to Austria, Istria, Dalmatia, and the Venetian provinces between the Oglio, the Po, and the Adriatic. At this moment, Hoche and Moreau, after overcoming the obstacles interposed by a sluggish government, were crossing the Rhine to bring their armies to bear against Austria. They had already gained several successes when the unwelcome news reached them from Leoben, and they had to retreat. Bonaparte may have failed to extort the most extreme terms from Austria, but he had at any rate kept both power and fame to himself."

FRANCE: A. D. 1797 (February-October).
British naval victories of Cape St. Vincent and Camperdown.

When Napoleon, in March, entered upon his campaign against the Archduke Charles, "the animosity existing between France and Venice had … attained a height that threatened an open rupture between the two republics, and was, therefore, of some advantage to Austria. The Signoria saw plainly what its fate would be should the French prove victorious; but though they had 12,000 or 15,000 Slavonian troops ready at hand, and mostly assembled in the capital, they never ventured to use them till the moment for acting was past. On the Terra Firma, the citizens of Brescia and Bergamo had openly renounced the authority of St. Mark, and espoused the cause of France; the country people, on the other hand, were bitterly hostile to the new Republicans. Oppressed by requisitions, plundered and insulted by the troops, the peasants had slain straggling and marauding French soldiers; the comrades of the sufferers had retaliated, and an open revolt was more than once expected. General Battaglia, the Venetian providatore, remonstrated against the open violence practised on the subjects of Venice; Buonaparte replied by accusing the government of partiality for Austria, and went so far as to employ General Andrieux to instigate the people to rise against the senate. The Directory, however, desired him to pause, and not to 'drive the Venetians to extremity, till the opportunity, should have arrived for carrying into effect the future projects entertained against that state.' {1318} Both parties were watching their time, but the craven watches in vain, for he is struck down long before his time to strike arrives." A month later, when Napoleon was believed to be involved in difficulties in Carinthia and the Tyrol, Venice "had thrown off the mask of neutrality; the tocsin had sounded through the communes of the Terra Firma, and a body of troops had joined the insurgents in the attack on the citadel of Verona. Not only were the French assailed wherever they were found in arms, but the very sick were inhumanly slain in the hospitals by the infuriated peasantry; the principal massacre took place at Verona on Easter Monday [April 17], and cast a deep stain on the Venetian cause and character." But even while these sinister events were in progress, Bonaparte had made peace with the humiliated Austrians, and had signed the preliminary treaty of Leoben, which promised to give Venice to them in exchange for the Netherlands. And now, with all his forces set free, he was prepared to crush the venerable Republic, and make it subservient to his ambitious schemes. He "refused to hear of any accommodation: and, unfortunately, the base massacre of Verona blackened the Venetian cause so much as almost to gloss over the unprincipled violence of their adversaries. 'If you could offer me the treasures of Peru,' said Napoleon to the terrified deputies who came to sue for pardon and offer reparation, 'if you could cover your whole dominions with gold, the atonement would be insufficient. French blood has been treacherously shed, and the Lion of St. Mark must bite the dust.' On the 3d of May he declared war against the republic, and French troops immediately advanced to the shores of the lagunes. Here, however, the waves of the Adriatic arrested their progress, for they had not a single boat at command, whereas the Venetians had a good fleet in the harbour, and an army of 10,000 or 15,000 soldiers in the capital: they only wanted the courage to use them. Instead of fighting, however, they deliberated; and tried to purchase safety by gold, instead of maintaining it by arms. Finding the enemy relentless, the Great Council proposed to modify their government,—to render it more democratic, in order to please the French commander,—to lay their very institutions at the feet of the conqueror; and, strange to say, only 21 patricians out of 690 dissented from this act of national degradation. The democratic party, supported by the intrigues of Vittelan, the French secretary of legation, exerted themselves to the utmost. The Slavonian troops were disbanded, or embarked for Dalmatia; the fleet was dismantled, and the Senate were rapidly divesting themselves of every privilege, when, on the 31st of May, a popular tumult broke out in the capital. The Great Council were in deliberation when shots were fired beneath the windows of the ducal palace. The trembling senators thought that the rising was directed against them, and that their lives were in danger, and hastened to divest themselves of every remnant of power and authority at the very moment when the populace were taking arms in their favour. 'Long live St. Mark, and down with foreign dominion!' was the cry of the insurgents, but nothing could communicate one spark of gallant fire to the Venetian aristocracy. In the midst of the general confusion, while the adverse parties were firing on each other, and the disbanded Slavonians threatening to plunder the city, these unhappy legislators could only delegate their power to a hastily assembled provisional government, and then separate in shame and for ever. The democratic government commenced their career in a manner as dishonourable as that of the aristocracy had been closed." They "immediately despatched the flotilla to bring over the French troops. A brigade under Baraguai d'Hilliers soon landed [May 15] at the place of St. Mark; and Venice, which had braved the thunders of the Vatican, the power of the emperors, and the arms of the Othmans, … now sunk for ever, and without striking one manly blow or firing one single shot for honour and fame! Venice counted 1300 years of independence, centuries of power and renown, and many also of greatness and glory, but ended in a manner more dishonourable than any state of which history makes mention. The French went through the form of acknowledging the new democratic government, but retained the power in their own hands. Heavy contributions were levied, all the naval and military stores were taken possession of, and the fleet, having conveyed French troops to the Ionian islands, was sent to Toulon."

T. Mitchell, Principal Campaigns in the Rise of Napoleon, chapter 6 (Fraser's Magazine, April, 1846).

ALSO IN: E. Flagg, Venice: The City of the Sea, part 1, chapters 1-4 (volume 1).

FRANCE: A. D. 1797 (May-October).
   Napoleon's political work in Italy.
   Creation of the Ligurian and Cisalpine Republics.
   Dismemberment of the Graubunden.
   The Peace of Campo-Formio.
   Venice given over to Austria, and Lombardy and the Netherlands
   taken away.

"The revolution in Venice was soon followed by another in Genoa, also organised by the plots of the French minister there, Faypoult. The Genoese had in general shown themselves favourable to France; but there existed among the nobles an anti-French party; the Senate, like that of Venice, was too aristocratic to suit Bonaparte's or the Directory's notions; and it was considered that Genoa, under a democratic constitution, would be more subservient to French interests. An insurrection, prepared by Faypoult, of some 700 or 800 of the lowest class of Genoese, aided by Frenchmen and Lombards, broke out on May 22nd, but was put down by the great mass of the real Genoese people. Bonaparte, however, was determined to effect his object. He directed a force of 12,000 men on Genoa, and despatched Lavalette with a letter to the Doge. … Bonaparte's threats were attended by the same magical effects at Genoa as had followed them at Venice. The Senate immediately despatched three nobles to treat with him, and on June 6th was concluded the Treaty of Montebello. The Government of Genoa recognised by this treaty the sovereignty of the people, confided the legislative power to two Councils, one of 300, the other of 500 members, the executive power to a Senate of twelve, presided over by the Doge. Meanwhile a provisional government was to be established. By a secret article a contribution of four millions, disguised under the name of a loan, was imposed upon Genoa. {1319} Her obedience was recompensed with a considerable augmentation of territory, and the incorporation of the districts known as the 'imperial fiefs.' Such was the origin of the Ligurian Republic. Austrian Lombardy, after its conquest, had also been formed into the 'Lombard Republic'; but the Directory had not recognised it, awaiting a final settlement of Italy through a peace with Austria. Bonaparte, after taking possession of the Duchy of Modena and the Legations, had, at first, thought of erecting them into an independent state under the name of the 'Cispadane Republic'; but he afterwards changed his mind and united these states with Lombardy under the title of the Cisalpine Republic. He declared, in the name of the Directory, the independence of this new republic, June 29th 1797; reserving, however, the right of nominating, for the first time, the members of the Government and of the legislative body. The districts of the Valteline, Chiavenna, and Bormio, subject to the Grison League, in which discontent and disturbance had been excited by French agents, were united in October to the new state; whose constitution was modelled on that of the French Republic. Bonaparte was commissioned by the Directory to negociate a definitive peace with Austria, and conferences were opened for that purpose at Montebello, Bonaparte's residence near Milan. The negociations were chiefly managed by himself, and on the part of Austria by the Marquis di Gallo, the Neapolitan ambassador at Vienna, and Count Meerfeld. … The negociations were protracted six months, partly through Bonaparte's engagements in arranging the affairs of the new Italian republics, but more especially by divisions and feuds in the French Directory." The Peace of Campo Formio was concluded October 17. "It derived this name from its having been signed in a ruined castle situated in a small village of that name near Udine; a place selected on grounds of etiquette in preference to the residence of either of the negociators. By this treaty the Emperor ceded the Austrian Netherlands to France; abandoned to the Cisalpine Republic, which he recognised, Bergamo, Brescia, Crema, Peschiera, the town and fortress of Mantua with their territories, and all that part of the former Venetian possessions to the south and west of a line which, commencing in the Tyrol, traversed the Lago di Garda, the left bank of the Adige, but including Porto Legnago on the right bank, and thence along the left bank of the Po to its mouth. France was to possess the Ionian Islands, and all the Venetian settlements in Albania below the Gulf of Lodrino; the French Republic agreeing on its side that the Emperor should have Istria, Dalmatia, the Venetian isles in the Adriatic, the mouths of the Cattaro, the city of Venice, the Lagoons, and all the former Venetian terra firma to the line before described. The Emperor ceded the Breisgau to the Duke of Modena, to be held on the same conditions as he had held the Modenese. A congress composed of the plenipotentiaries of the German Federation was to assemble immediately, to treat of a peace between France and the Empire. To this patent treaty was added another secret one, by the principal article of which the Emperor consented that France should have the frontier of the Rhine, except the Prussian possessions, and stipulated that the Imperial troops should enter Venice on the same day that the French entered Mentz. He also promised to use his influence to obtain the accession of the Empire to this arrangement; and if that body withheld its consent, to give it no more assistance than his contingent. The navigation of the Rhine to be declared free. If, at the peace with the Empire, the French Republic should make any acquisitions in Germany, the Emperor was to obtain an equivalent there, and vice versa. The Dutch Stadtholder to have a territorial indemnity. To the King of Prussia were to be restored his possessions on the left bank of the Rhine, and he was consequently to have no new acquisitions in Germany. Princes and States of the Empire, damnified by this treaty, to obtain a suitable indemnity. … By the Treaty of Campo Formio was terminated not only the Italian campaign, but also the first continental war of the Revolution. The establishment of Bonaparte's prestige and power by the former was a result still more momentous in its consequences for Europe than the fall of Venice and the revolutionising of Northern Italy."

      ALSO IN:
      A. Thiers,
      History of the French Revolution
      (American edition), volume 4, pages 214-225.

FRANCE: A. D. 1797 (September).
   Conflict of the Directory and the two Councils.
   The Revolutionary Coup d'État of the 18th of Fructidor.
   Suppression of the Royalists and Moderates.
   Practical overthrow of the Constitution.

"The inevitable dissension between the executive power and the electoral power had already displayed itself at the conclusion of the elections of the Year V. The elections were made for the most part under the influence of the reactionary party, which, whilst it refrained from conspiring for the overthrow of the new Constitution, saw with terror that the executive power was in the hands of men who had taken part in the excesses and crimes of the Convention. Pichegru, whose intrigues with the princes of the House of Bourbon were not yet known, was enthusiastically made President of the Council of Five Hundred, and Barbé-Marbois was made President of the Ancients. Le Tourneur having become, by lot, the retiring member of the Directory, Barthélemy, an upright and moderate man, was chosen in his place. He, as well as his colleague, Carnot, were opposed to violent measures; but they only formed in the Directorate a minority which was powerless against the Triumvirs Barras, Rewbel, and La Réveillère, who soon entered upon a struggle with the two Councils. … There were, doubtless, amongst [their opponents] in the two Councils, some Royalists, and ardent reactionists, who desired with all their hearts the restoration of the Bourbons; but, according to the very best testimony, the majority of the names which were drawn from the electoral urn since the promulgation of the Constitution of the Year III. were strangers to the Royalist party. 'They did not desire,' to use the words of an eminent and impartial historian of our own day [De Barante, 'Life of Royer-Collard'], 'a counter-revolution, but the abolition of the revolutionary laws which were still in force. They wished for peace and true liberty, and the successive purification of a Directorate which was the direct heir of the Convention. … But the Directorate was as much opposed to the Moderates as to the Royalists.' {1320} It pretended to regard these two parties as one, and falsely represented them as conspiring in common for the overthrow of the Republic and the re-establishment of monarchy. … If there were few Royalists in the two Councils, there were also few men determined to provoke on the part of the Directors a recourse to violence against their colleagues. But as a great number of their members had sat in the Convention, they naturally feared a too complete reaction, and, affecting a great zeal for the Constitution, they founded at the Hotel Salm, under the name of the Constitutional Club, an association which was widely opposed in its spirit and tendency to that of the Hotel Clichy, in which were assembled the most ardent members of the reactionary party [and hence called Clichyans]. … The Council of Five Hundred, on the motion of a member of the Clichy Club, energetically demanded that the Legislative power should have a share in determining questions of peace or war. No general had exercised, in this respect, a more arbitrary power than had Bonaparte, who had negotiated of his own mere authority several treaties, and the preliminaries of the peace of Campo Formio. He was offended at these pretensions on the part of the Council of Five Hundred, and entreated the Government to look to the army for support against the Councils and the reactionary press. He even sent to Paris, as a support to the policy of the Directors, General Augereau, one of the bravest men of his army, but by no means scrupulous as to the employment of violent means, and disposed to regard the sword as the supreme argument in politics, whether at home or abroad. The Directory gave him the command of the military division of Paris. … Henceforth a coup d'état appeared inevitable. The Directors now marched some regiments upon the capital, in defiance of a clause of the Constitution which prohibited the presence of troops within a distance of twelve leagues of Paris, unless in accordance with a special law passed in or near Paris itself. The Councils burst forth into reproaches and threats against the Directors, to which the latter replied by fiery addresses to the armies, and to the Councils themselves. It was in vain that the Directors Carnot and Barthélemy endeavoured to quell the rising storm; their three colleagues refused to listen to them, and fixed the 18th Fructidor [September 4] for the execution of their criminal projects. During the night preceding that day, Augereau marched 12,000 men into Paris, and in the morning these troops, under his own command, supported by 40 pieces of cannon, surrounded the Tuileries, in which the Councils held their sittings. The grenadiers of the Councils' guard joined Augereau, who arrested with his own hand the brave Ramel, who commanded that guard, and General Pichegru, the President of the Council of Five Hundred. … The Directors … published a letter written by Moreau, which revealed Pichegru's treason; and at the same time nominated a Committee for the purpose of watching over the public safety. … Forty-two members of the Council of Five Hundred, eleven members of that of the Ancients, and two of the Directors, Carnot [who escaped, however, into Switzerland] and Barthélemy, were condemned to be transported to the fatal district of Sinnamari. … The Directors also made the editors of 35 journals the victims of their resentment. They had the laws passed in favour of the priests and emigrants reversed, and annulled the elections of 48 departments. Merlin de Douai and François de Neufchâteau were chosen as successors to Carnot and Barthélemy, who had been banished and proscribed by their colleagues. That which took place on the 18th Fructidor ruined the Constitutional and Moderate party, whilst it resuscitated that of the Revolution."

E. de Bonnechose, History of France, 4th period, book 2, chapter 4 (volume 2).

"During these two days, Paris continued perfectly quiet. The patriots of the fauxbourgs deemed the punishment of transportation too mild. … These groups, however, which were far from numerous, disturbed not in the least the peace of Paris. The sectionaries of Vendemiaire … had no longer sufficient energy to take up arms spontaneously. They suffered the stroke of policy to be carried into effect without opposition. For the rest, public opinion continued uncertain. The sincere republicans clearly perceived that the royalist faction had rendered an energetic measure inevitable, but they deplored the violation of the laws and the intervention of the military power. They almost doubted the culpability of the conspirators on seeing such a man as Carnot mingled in their ranks. They apprehended that hatred had too strongly influenced the determinations of the Directory. Lastly, even, though considering its determinations as necessary, they were sad, and not without reason: for it became evident that that constitution, on which they had placed all their hope, was not the termination of our troubles and our discord. The mass of the population submitted and detached itself much on that day from political events. … From that day, political zeal began to cool. Such were the consequences of the stroke of policy accomplished on the 18th of Fructidor. It has been asserted that it had become useless at the moment when it was executed; that the Directory, in frightening the royalist faction, had already succeeded in overawing it; that, by persisting in this stretch of power, it paved the way to military usurpation. … But … the royalist faction … on the junction of the new third … would infallibly have overturned everything, and mastered the Directory. Civil war would then have ensued between it and the armies. The Directory, in foreseeing this movement and timely repressing it, prevented a civil war; and, if it placed itself under the protection of the military, it submitted to a melancholy but inevitable necessity."

      A. Thiers,
      History of the French Revolution
      (American edition), volume 4, pages 205-206.

FRANCE: A. D. 1797-1798 (December-May).
   Revolutionary intrigues in Rome.
   French troops in possession of the city.
   Formation of the Roman Republic.
   Removal of the Pope.

   "At Rome a permanent conspiracy was established at the French
   Embassy, where Joseph Bonaparte, as the ambassador of the
   Republic, was the centre of a knot of conspirators. On the
   28th of December, 1797, came the first open attempt at
   insurrection. General Duphot, a hot-headed young man, one of
   the military attaches of the French Embassy, put himself at
   the head of a handful of the disaffected, and led them to the
   attack of one of the posts of the pontifical troops. In the
   ensuing skirmish a chance shot struck down the French general,
   and the rabble which followed him dispersed in all directions.
   It was just the opportunity for which the Directory had been
   waiting in order to break the treaty of Tolentino and seize
   upon Rome.
{1321}
   Joseph Bonaparte left the city the morning after the émeute,
   and a column of troops was immediately detached from his
   brother's army in the north of Italy and ordered to march on
   Rome. It consisted of General Berthier's division and 6,000
   Poles under Dombrowski, and it received the ominous title of
   l'armée vengeresse—the avenging army. As they advanced
   through the Papal territory they met with no sympathy, no
   assistance, from the inhabitants, who looked upon them as
   invaders rather than deliverers. 'The army,' Berthier wrote to
   Bonaparte, 'has met with nothing but the most profound
   consternation in this country, without seeing one glimpse of
   the spirit of independence; only one single patriot came to
   me, and offered to set at liberty 2,000 convicts.' This
   liberal offer of a re-inforcement of 2,000 scoundrels the
   French general thought it better to decline. … At length, on
   the 10th of February, Berthier appeared before Rome. …
   Wishing to avoid a useless effusion of blood, Pius VI. ordered
   the gates to be thrown open, contenting himself with
   addressing, through the commandant of St. Angelo, a protest to
   the French general, in which he declared that he yielded only
   to overwhelming force. A few days after, a self-elected
   deputation of Romans waited upon Berthier, to request him to
   proclaim Rome a republic, under the protection of France. As
   Berthier had been one of the most active agents in getting up
   this deputation, he, of course, immediately yielded to their
   request. The French general then demanded of the Pope that he
   should formally resign his temporal power, and accept the new
   order of things. His reply was the same as that of every Pope
   of whom such a demand has been made: 'We cannot—we will not!'
   In the midst of a violent thunder-storm he was torn from his
   palace, forced into a carriage, and carried away to Viterbo,
   and thence to Siena, where he was kept a prisoner for three
   months. Rome was ruled by the iron hand of a military
   governor. … Meanwhile, alarmed at the rising in Italy, the
   Directory were conveying the Pope to a French prison. …
   After a short stay at Grenoble he was transferred to the
   fortress of Valence, where, broken down by the fatigues of his
   journey, he died on August 19th, 1799, praying for his enemies
   with his last breath."

      J. E. Darras,
      History of the Catholic Church, 8th period,
      chapter 6 (volume 4).

FRANCE: A. D. 1797-1798 (December-September).
Invasion and subjugation of Switzerland.
Creation of the Helvetic Republic.

FRANCE: A. D. 1797-1799.
   Hostile attitude toward the United States.
   The X, Y, Z correspondence.
   Nearness of war.

FRANCE: A. D. 1798 (May-August).
   Bonaparte's expedition to Egypt.
   His seizure of Malta.
   Pursuit by the English fleet under Nelson.
   The Battle of the Nile.

"The treaty of Campo Formio, by which Austria obtained terms highly advantageous to her interests, dissolved the offensive and defensive alliance of the continental powers, and left England alone in arms. The humiliation of this country was to be the last and the greatest achievement of French ambition. … During the autumn and winter of this year [1797-8], preparations for a great armament were proceeding at Toulon, and other harbours in possession of the French. The army of Italy, clamorous for a promised donation of 1,000,000,000 francs, which the Directory were unable to pay, had been flattered by the title of the army of England, and appeased by the prospect of the plunder of this country. But whatever might be the view of the Directory, or the expectation of the army, Bonaparte had no intention of undertaking an enterprise so rash as a descent upon the coast of England, while the fleets of England kept possession of the seas. There was another quarter from which the British Empire might be menaced with a better chance of success. India could never be secure while Egypt and the great eastern port of the Mediterranean were in the possession of one of the great maritime powers. Egypt had been an object of French ambition since the time of Louis XIV. … It was for Egypt, therefore, that the great armament of Toulon was destined. The project was not indeed considered a very hopeful one at Paris; but such was the dread and hatred of the ruling faction for the great military genius which had sprung out of the anarchy of France, and of the 30,000 creditors whom they were unable to satisfy, that the issue of the expedition which they most desired was, that it might never return from the banks of the Nile. … The fleet, consisting of thirteen ships of the line, with several frigates, smaller vessels, and transports conveying 28,000 picked troops, with the full equipment for every kind of military service, set sail on the 14th of May. Attached to this singular expedition, destined for the invasion of a friendly country, and the destruction of an unoffending people, was a staff of professors, furnished with books, maps, and philosophical instruments for prosecuting scientific researches in a land which, to a Christian and a philosopher, was the most interesting portion of the globe. The great armament commenced its career of rapine by seizing on the important island of Malta. Under the shallow pretence of taking in water for a squadron which had left its anchorage only two days, a portion of the troops were landed, and, after a show of resistance, the degenerate knights, who had already been corrupted, surrendered Malta, Gozo, and Cumino, to the French Republic. A great amount of treasure and of munitions of war, besides the possession of the strongest place in the Mediterranean, were thus acquired without loss or delay. A conquest of such importance would have amply repaid and justified the expedition, if no ulterior object had been pursued. But Bonaparte suffered himself to be detained no more than twenty-four hours by this achievement; and having left a garrison of 4,000 men in the island, and established a form of civil government, after the French pattern, he shaped his course direct for Alexandria. On the 1st of July, the first division of the French troops were landed at Marabou, a few miles from the city. Aboukir and Rosetta, which commanded the mouths of the Nile, were occupied without difficulty. Alexandria itself was incapable of any effectual defence, and, after a few skirmishes with the handful of Janissaries which constituted the garrison, the French entered the place; and for several hours the inhabitants were given up to an indiscriminate massacre. {1322} Bonaparte pushed forward with his usual rapidity, undeterred by the horrors of the sandy desert, and the sufferings of his troops. After two victories over the Mamelukes, one of which was obtained within sight of the Pyramids [and called the Battle of the Pyramids], the French advanced to Cairo; and such was the terror which they had inspired, that the capital of Egypt was surrendered without a blow. Thus in three weeks the country had been overrun. The invaders had nothing to fear from the hostility of the people; a rich and fertile country, the frontier of Asia, was in their possession; but, in order to hold the possession secure, it was necessary to retain the command of the sea. The English Government, on their side, considered the capture of the Toulon armament an object of paramount importance; and Earl St. Vincent, who was still blockading the Spanish ports, was ordered to leave Cadiz, if necessary, with his whole fleet, in search of the French; but at all events, to detach a squadron, under Sir Horatio Nelson, on that service. … Nelson left Gibraltar on the 8th of May, with three ships of the line, four frigates, and a sloop. … He was reinforced, on the 5th of June, with ten sail of the line. His frigates had parted company with him on the 20th of May, and never returned." Suspecting that Egypt was Bonaparte's destination, he made sail for Alexandria, but passed the French expedition, at night, on the way, arrived in advance of it, and, thinking his surmise mistaken, steered away for the Morea and thence to Naples. It was not until the 1st of August that he reached the Egyptian coast a second time, and found the French fleet, of sixteen sail, "at anchor in line of battle, in the Bay of Aboukir. Nelson, having determined to fight whenever he came up with the enemy, whether by day or by night, immediately made the signal for action. Although the French fleet lay in an open roadstead, they had taken up a position so strong as to justify their belief that they could not be successfully attacked by a force less than double their own. They lay close in shore, with a large shoal in their rear; in the advance of their line was an island, on which a formidable battery had been erected; and their flanks were covered by numerous gun-boats. … The general action commenced at sunset, and continued throughout the night until six o'clock the following morning, a period of nearly twelve hours. But in less than two hours, five of the enemy's ships had struck; and, soon after nine o'clock, the sea and shore, for miles around, were illuminated by a fire which burst from the decks of the 'Orient,' the French flag-ship, of 120 guns. In about half an hour she blew up, with an explosion so appalling that for some minutes the action was suspended, as if by tacit consent. At this time the French Admiral Brueys was dead, … killed by a chain-shot before the ship took fire. Nelson also had been carried below, with a wound which was, at first, supposed to be mortal. He had been struck in the head with a fragment of langridge shot, which tore away a part of the scalp. … At three o'clock in the morning four more of the French ships were destroyed or taken. There was then an interval of two hours, during which hardly a shot was fired on either side. At ten minutes to seven another ship of the line, after a feeble attempt at resistance, hauled down her colours. The action was now over. Of the thirteen French ships of the line, nine had been taken, and two had been burnt." Two ships of the line and two frigates escaped. "The British killed and wounded were 895. The loss of the French, including prisoners, was 5,225. Such was the great battle of the Nile."

      W. Massey,
      History of England during the Reign of George III.,
      chapter 39 (volume 4).

ALSO IN: E. J. De La Gravière, Sketches of the Last Naval War, volume 1, part 3.

      A. T. Mahan,
      Influence of Sea Power upon the French Revolution and
      Empire,
      chapter 9 (volume 1).

FRANCE: A. D. 1798-1799 (August-April).
   Arming against the Second European Coalition.
   The conscription.
   Overthrow of the Neapolitan kingdom.
   Seizure of Piedmont.
   Campaigns in Switzerland, Italy, and on the upper Danube.
   Early successes and final reverses.

"The Porte declared war against the French, and, entered into an alliance with Russia and England (12th August). A Russian fleet sailed from Sebastopol, and blockaded the Ionian Islands; the English vessels found every Turkish port open to them, and gained possession of the Levant trade, to the detriment of France. Thus the failure of the Egyptian expedition delivered the Ottoman Empire into the hands of two Powers, the one intent upon its dismemberment, the other eager to make itself master of its commerce; it gave England the supremacy in the Mediterranean; it inaugurated the appearance of Russia in southern Europe; it was the signal for a second coalition." Russia, "under Catherine, had but taken a nominal part in the first coalition, being too much occupied with the annihilation of Poland. … But now Catherine was dead, Paul I., her son and successor, took the émigrés in his pay, offered the Pretender an asylum at Mittau, promised his protection to the Congress at Rastadt, and fitted out 100,000 troops. Naples had been in a great ferment since the creation of the Roman Republic. The nobles and middle classes, imbued with French ideas, detested a Court sold to the English, and presided over by the imbecile Ferdinand, who left the cares of his government to his dissolute Queen. She hated the French, and now solicited Tuscany and Piedmont to unite with her to deliver Italy from the sway of these Republicans. The Austrian Court, of which Bonaparte had been the conscious or unconscious dupe, instead of disarming after the Treaty of Campo-Formio, continued its armaments with redoubled vigour, and now demanded indemnities, on the pretext that it had suffered from the Republican system which the French introduced into Switzerland and Italy. The Directory very naturally refused to accede to this; and thereupon Austria prepared for war, and endeavoured to drag Prussia and the German Empire into it. … But Frederick William's successor and the princess of the empire declined to recommence hostilities with France, of which they had reason to fear the enmity, though at present she was scarcely able to resist a second coalition. The French nation, in fact, was sincerely eager for peace. … {1323} Nevertheless, and though there was little unity amongst them, the Councils and the Directory prepared their measures of defence; they increased the revenue, by creating a tax on doors and windows; they authorised the sale of national property to the amount of 125,000,000 francs; and finally, on the report of Jourdan, they passed the famous law of conscription (5th September), which compelled every Frenchman to serve in the army from the age of 20 to that of 25, the first immediate levy to consist of 200,000 troops. When the victory of the Nile became known at Naples the court was a prey to frenzied excitement. Taxes had already been doubled, a fifth of the population called to arms, the nobles and middle classes were tortured into submission. And when the report spread that the Russians were marching through Poland, it was resolved to commence hostilities by attacking the Roman Republic, and to rouse Piedmont and Tuscany to rebellion. Forty thousand Neapolitans, scarcely provided with arms, headed by the Austrian general Mack, made their way into the Roman states, guarded only by 18,000 French troops, dispersed between the two seas (12th November). Championnet, their commander, abandoned Rome, took up a position on the Tiber, near Civita-Castellana, and concentrated all his forces on that point. The King of Naples entered Rome, while Mack went to encounter Championnet. The latter beat him, routed or captured the best of his troops, and compelled him to retire in disorder to the Neapolitan territory. Championnet, now at the head of 25,000 men, returned to Rome, previous to marching on Naples, where the greatest disorder prevailed. At the news of his approach the Court armed the lazzaroni, and fled with its treasures to the English fleet, abandoning the town to pillage and anarchy (20th December, 1798). Mack, seeing his army deserting him, and his officers making common cause with the Republicans, concluded an armistice with Championnet, but his soldiers revolted and compelled him to seek safety in the French camp. On Championnet's appearance before Naples, which the lazzaroni defended with fury, a violent battle ensued, lasting for three days; however, some of the citizens delivered the fort of St. Elmo to the French, and then the mob laid down its arms (23rd January, 1799). The Parthenopeian Republic [so called from one of the ancient names of the city of Naples] was immediately proclaimed, a provisional government organised, the citizens formed themselves into a National Guard, and the kingdom accepted the Revolution. The demand of Championnet for a war contribution of 27,000,000 francs roused the Calabrians to revolt; anarchy prevailed everywhere; commissioners were sent by the Directory to re-establish order. The French general had them arrested, but he was deposed and succeeded by Macdonald. In commencing its aggression the court of Naples had counted on the aid of the King of Sardinia and the Grand Duke of Tuscany. But Piedmont, placed between three republics, was herself sharing the Revolutionary ferment; the King, who had concluded an alliance with Austria, proscribed the democrats, who, in their turn, declared war against him by means of the Ligurian Republic, whither they had fled. When Championnet was compelled to evacuate Rome, the Directory, afraid that Sardinia would harass the French rear, had ordered Joubert, commanding the army of Italy, to occupy Piedmont. The Piedmontese troops opened every place to the French, entered into their ranks, and the King [December 8, 1798] was forced to give up all claims to Piedmont, and to take refuge in Sardinia … [retaining the latter, but abdicating the sovereignty of Piedmont]. Tuscany being also occupied by the Republican troops, the moment war was declared against Austria, Italy was virtually under French dominion. These events but increased the enmity of the Coalition, which hurried its preparations, while the Directory, cheered by its successes, resolved to take the offensive on all points. … In the present struggle, however, the conditions of warfare were changed. The lines of invasion were no longer, as formerly, short and isolated, but stretched from the Zuyder Zee to the Gulf of Tarentum, open to be attacked in Holland from the rear, and at Naples by the English fleet. … Seventy thousand troops, under the Archduke Charles, occupied Bavaria; General Hotze occupied the Vorarlberg with 25,000 men; Bellegarde was with 45,000 in the Tyrol; and 70,000 guarded the line of the Adige, headed by Marshal Kray. Eighty thousand Russians, in two equal divisions, were on their way to join the Austrians. The division under Suwarroff was to operate with Kray, that one under Korsakoff with the Archduke. Finally, 40,000 English and Russians were to land in Holland, and 20,000 English and Sicilians in Naples. The Directory, instead of concentrating its forces on the Adige and near the sources of the Danube, divided them. Fifteen thousand troops were posted in Holland, under Brune; 8,000 at Mayence, under Bernadotte; 40,000 from Strasburg to Bâle, under Jourdan; 30,000 in Switzerland, under Masséna; 50,000 on the Adige, under Schérer; 30,000 at Naples, under Macdonald. These various divisions were in reality meant to form but one army, of which Massena was the centre, Jourdan and Schérer the wings, Brune and Macdonald the extremities. To Massena was confided the principal operation, namely, to possess himself of the central Alps, in order to isolate the two imperial armies of the Adige and Danube and to neutralise their efforts. The Coalition having hit upon the same plan as the Directory, ordered the Austrians under Bellegarde to invade the Grisons, while on the other side a division was to descend into the Valteline." Masséna's right wing, under Lecourbe, defeated Bellegarde, crossed the upper Rhine and made its way to the Inn. Schérer also advanced by the Valteline to the upper Adige and joined operations with Lecourbe. "While these two generals were spreading terror in the Tyrol, Masséna made himself master of the Rhine from its sources to the lake of Constance, receiving but one check in the fruitless siege of Feldkirch, a position he coveted in order to be able to support with his right wing the army of the Danube, or with his left that of Italy. This check compelled Lecourbe and Dessoles to slacken their progress, and the various events on the Danube and the Po necessitated their recall in a short time. Jourdan had crossed the Rhine at Kehl, Bâle, and Schaffhausen (1st March), penetrated into the defile of the upper Danube, and reached the village of Ostrach, where he was confronted by the Archduke Charles, who had passed the Iller, and who, after a sanguinary battle [March 21], compelled him to retreat upon Tutlingen. The tidings of Masséna's success having reached Jourdan, he wished to support it by marching to Stockach, the key to the roads of Switzerland and Germany; but he was once more defeated (25th March), and retreated, not into Switzerland, whence he could have joined Masséna, but to the Rhine, which he imagined to be threatened. … {1324} In Italy the Directory had given orders to Schérer to force the Adige, and to drive the Austrians over the Piave and the Brenta." He attacked and carried the Austrian camp of Pastrengo, near Rivoli, on the 25th of March, 1799, inflicting a loss of 8,000 on the enemy; but on the 5th of April, when moving to force the lower Adige, he was defeated by Kray at Magnano. "Schérer lost his head, fled precipitately, and did not stop until he had put a safe distance between himself and the enemy. … The army of Switzerland, under Masséna, dispersed in the mountains, with both its flanks threatened, had no other means of salvation than to fall back behind the Rhine."

H. Van Laun, The French Revolutionary Epoch, book 3, chapter 1, section 2 (volume 1).

      P. Colletta,
      History of the Kingdom of Naples,
      book 3, chapter 2; book 4, chapter 1 (volume 1).

FRANCE: A. D. 1798-1799 (August-August).
   Bonaparte's organization of government in Egypt.
   His advance into Syria and repulse at Acre.
   His victory at Aboukir and return to France.

"On hearing of the battle of Aboukir [better known as 'the battle of the Nile'], a solitary sigh escaped from Napoleon. 'To France,' said he, 'the fates have decreed the empire of the land—to England that of the sea.' He endured this great calamity with the equanimity of a masculine spirit. He gave orders that the seamen landed at Alexandria should be formed into a marine brigade, and thus gained a valuable addition to his army; and proceeded himself to organise a system of government, under which the great natural resources of the country might be turned to the best advantage. … He was careful to advance no claim to the sovereignty of Egypt, but asserted, that having rescued it from the Mameluke usurpation, it remained for him to administer law and justice, until the time should come for restoring the province to the dominion of the Grand Seignior. He then established two councils, consisting of natives, principally of Arab chiefs and Moslem of the church and the law, by whose advice all measures were, nominally, to be regulated. They formed of course a very subservient senate. … The virtuosi and artists in his train, meanwhile, pursued with indefatigable energy their scientific researches; they ransacked the monuments of Egypt, and laid the foundation, at least, of all the wonderful discoveries which have since been made concerning the knowledge, arts, polity (and even language), of the ancient nation. Nor were their objects merely those of curiosity. They, under the General's direction, examined into the long-smothered traces of many an ancient device for improving the agriculture of the country. Canals that had been shut up for centuries were reopened; the waters of the Nile flowed once more where they had been guided by the skill of the Pharaohs or the Ptolemies. Cultivation was extended; property secured; and it cannot be doubted that the signal improvements since introduced in Egypt, are attributable mainly to the wise example of the French administration. … In such labours Napoleon passed the autumn of 1798. … General Dessaix, meanwhile, had pursued Mourad Bey into Upper Egypt, where the Mamelukes hardly made a single stand against him, but contrived by the excellence of their horses, and their familiarity with the deserts, to avoid any total disruption of their forces. … The General, during this interval of repose, received no communication from the French Government; but rumours now began to reach his quarters which might well give him new anxieties. The report of another rupture with Austria gradually met with more credence; and it was before long placed beyond a doubt, that the Ottoman Porte, instead of being tempted into any recognition of the French establishment in Egypt, had declared war against the Republic, and summoned all the strength of her empire to pour in overwhelming numbers on the isolated army of Buonaparte. … The General despatched a trusty messenger into India, inviting Tippoo Saib to inform him exactly of the condition of the English army in that region, and signifying that Egypt was only the first post in a march destined to surpass that of Alexander! 'He spent whole days,' writes his secretary, 'in lying flat on the ground stretched upon maps of Asia.' At length the time for action came. Leaving 15,000 in and about Cairo, the division of Dessaix in Upper Egypt, and garrisons in the chief towns,—Buonaparte on the 11th of February 1799 marched for Syria at the head of 10,000 picked men, with the intention of crushing the Turkish armament in that quarter, before their chief force (which he now knew was assembling at Rhodes) should have time to reach Egypt by sea. Traversing the desert which divides Africa from Asia, he took possession of the fortress El-Arish (February 15), whose garrison, after a vigorous assault, capitulated on condition that they should be permitted to retreat into Syria, pledging their parole not to serve again during the war. Pursuing his march, he took Gazah (that ancient city of the Philistines) without opposition; but at Jaffa (the Joppa of holy writ), the Moslem made a resolute defence. The walls were carried by storm, 3,000 Turks died with arms in their hands, and the town was given up during three hours to the fury of the French soldiery—who never, as Napoleon confessed, availed themselves of the license of war more savagely than on this occasion. A party of the garrison—amounting, according to Buonaparte, to 1,200 men, but stated by others as nearly 3,000 in number—held out for some hours longer in the mosques and citadel; but at length, seeing no chance of rescue, grounded their arms on the 7th of March. … On the 10th—three days after their surrender—the prisoners were marched out of Jaffa, in the centre of a battalion under General Bon. When they had reached the sand-hills, at some distance from the town, they were divided into small parties, and shot or bayoneted to a man. They, like true fatalists, submitted in silence; and their bodies were gathered together into a pyramid, where, after the lapse of thirty years, their bones are still visible whitening the sand. Such was the massacre of Jaffa, which will ever form one of the darkest stains on the name of Napoleon. He admitted the fact himself;—and justified it on the double plea, that he could not afford soldiers to guard so many prisoners, and that he could not grant them the benefit of their parole, because they were the very men who had already been set free on such terms at' El-Arish. … {1325} Buonaparte had now ascertained that the Pacha of Syria, Achmet-Djezzar, was at St. Jean D'Acre (so renowned in the history of the crusades), and determined to defend that place to extremity, with the forces which had already been assembled for the invasion of Egypt. He in vain endeavoured to seduce this ferocious chief from his allegiance to the Porte, by holding out the hope of a separate independent government, under the protection of France. The first of Napoleon's messengers returned without an answer; the second was put to death; and the army moved on Acre in all the zeal of revenge, while the necessary apparatus of a siege was ordered to be sent round by sea from Alexandria. Sir Sidney Smith was then cruising in the Levant with two British ships of the line, the Tigre and the Theseus; and, being informed by the Pacha of the approaching storm, hastened to support him, in the defence of Acre. Napoleon's vessels, conveying guns and stores from Egypt, fell into his hands, and he appeared off the town two days before the French army came in view of it. He had on board his ship Colonel Philippeaux, a French royalist of great talents (formerly Buonaparte's school-fellow at Brienne); and the Pacha willingly permitted the English commodore and this skilful ally to regulate for him, as far as was possible, the plan of his defence. The loss of his own heavy artillery, and the presence of two English ships, were inauspicious omens; yet Buonaparte doubted not that the Turkish garrison would shrink before his onset, and he instantly commenced the siege. He opened his trenches on the 18th of March. 'On that little town' said he to one of his generals, as they were standing together on an eminence, which still bears the name of Richard Cœur-de-Lion—'on yonder little town depends the fate of the East. Behold the Key of Constantinople, or of India.' … Meanwhile a vast Mussulman army had been gathered among the mountains of Samaria, and was preparing to descend upon Acre, and attack the besiegers in concert with the garrison of Djezzar. Junot, with his division, marched to encounter them, and would have been overwhelmed by their numbers, had not Napoleon himself followed and rescued him (April 8) at Nazareth, where the splendid cavalry of the Orientals were, as usual, unable to resist the solid squares and well-directed musketry of the French. Kleber with another division, was in like manner endangered, and in like manner rescued by the general-in-chief at Mount Tabor (April 15). The Mussulmans dispersed on all hands; and Napoleon, returning to his siege, pressed it on with desperate assaults, day after day, in which his best soldiers were thinned, before the united efforts of Djezzar's gallantry, and the skill of his allies." On the 21st of May, when the siege had been prosecuted for more than two months, Napoleon commanded a final assault. "The plague had some time before this appeared in the camp; every day the ranks of his legions were thinned by this pestilence, as well as by the weapons of the defenders of Acre. The hearts of all men were quickly sinking. The Turkish fleet was at hand to reinforce Djezzar; and upon the utter failure of the attack of the 21st of May, Napoleon yielded to stern necessity, and began his retreat upon Jaffa. … The name of Jaffa was already sufficiently stained; but fame speedily represented Napoleon as having now made it the scene of another atrocity, not less shocking than that of the massacre of the Turkish prisoners. The accusation, which for many years made so much noise throughout Europe, amounts to this: that on the 27th of May, when it was necessary for Napoleon to pursue his march from Jaffa for Egypt, a certain number of the plague-patients in the hospital were found to be in a state that held out no hope whatever of their recovery; that the general, being unwilling to leave them to the tender mercies of the Turks, conceived the notion of administering opium, and so procuring for them at least a speedy and an easy death; and that a number of men were accordingly taken off in this method by his command. … Whether the opium was really administered or not—that the audacious proposal to that effect was made by Napoleon, we have his own admission; and every reader must form his opinion—as to the degree of guilt which attaches to the fact of having meditated and designed the deed. … The march onwards was a continued scene of misery; for the wounded and the sick were many, the heat oppressive, the thirst intolerable; and the ferocious Djezzar was hard behind, and the wild Arabs of the desert hovered round them on every side, so that he who fell behind his company was sure to be slain. … Having at length accomplished this perilous journey [June 14], Buonaparte repaired to his old head-quarters at Cairo, and re-entered on his great functions as the establisher of a new government in the state of Egypt. But he had not long occupied himself thus, ere new rumours concerning the beys on the Upper Nile, who seemed to have some strong and urgent motive for endeavouring to force a passage downwards, began to be mingled with, and by degrees explained by, tidings daily repeated of some grand disembarkation of the Ottomans, designed to have place in the neighbourhood of Alexandria. Leaving Dessaix, therefore, once more in command at Cairo, he himself descended the Nile, and travelled with all speed to Alexandria, where he found his presence most necessary. For, in effect, the great Turkish fleet had already run into the bay of Aboukir; and an army of 18,000, having gained the fortress, were there strengthening themselves, with the view of awaiting the promised descent and junction of the Mamelukes, and then, with overwhelming superiority of numbers, advancing to Alexandria, and completing the ruin of the French invaders. Buonaparte, reaching Alexandria on the evening of the 24th of July, found his army already posted in the neighbourhood of Aboukir, and prepared to anticipate the attack of the Turks on the morrow. … The Turkish outposts were assaulted early next morning, and driven in with great slaughter; but the French, when they advanced, came within the range of the batteries and also of the shipping that lay close by the shore, and were checked. Their retreat might have ended in a route, but for the undisciplined eagerness with which the Turks engaged in the task of spoiling and maiming those that fell before them—thus giving to Murat the opportunity of charging their main body in flank with his cavalry, at the moment when the French infantry, profiting by their disordered and scattered condition, and rallying under the eye of Napoleon, forced a passage to the entrenchments. From that moment the battle was a massacre. … Six thousand surrendered at discretion: 12,000 perished on the field or in the sea. … Napoleon once more returned to Cairo on the 9th of August; but it was only to make some parting arrangements as to the administration, civil and military; for, from the moment of his victory at Aboukir, he had resolved to entrust Egypt to other hands, and Admiral Gantheaume was already preparing in secret the means of his removal to France."

FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (April-September).
      Murder of the French envoys at Rastadt.
      Disasters in North Italy.
      Suwarroff's victories.
      Anglo-Russian invasion of Holland and
      capture of the Dutch Fleet.

"While the French armies were thus humiliated in the field, the representatives of the republic at the congress of Rastadt [where peace negotiations with the states of the empire had been in progress for months] became the victims of a sanguinary tragedy. As France had declared war against the emperor [as sovereign of Austria], and not against the empire, the congress had not necessarily been broken off; but the representatives of the German states were withdrawn one after another, until the successes of the Austrians rendered the position of the French ministers no longer secure. At length they received notice, from the nearest Austrian commander, to depart within twenty-four hours; and the French ministers—Jean Debry, Bonnier, and Roberjeot—left Rastadt with their families and attendants late in the evening of the 8th of Floréal (the 28th of April). The night was very dark, and they appear to have been apprehensive of danger. At a very short distance from Rastadt they were surrounded by a troop of Austrian hussars, who stopped the carriages, dragged the three ministers out, and massacred them in the presence of their wives and children. The hussars then plundered the carriages, and took away, especially, all the papers. Fortunately for Jean Debry, he had been stunned, but not mortally wounded; and after the murderers were gone the cold air of the night restored him to life. This crime was supposed to have been perpetrated at the instigation of the imperial court, for reasons which have not been very clearly explained; but the representatives of the German states proclaimed loudly their indignation. The reverses of the republican arms, and the tragedy of Rastadt, were eagerly embraced by the opposition in France as occasions for raising a violent outcry against the directory. … It was in the midst of this general unpopularity of the directors that the elections of the year VII. of the republic took place, and a great majority of the patriots obtained admission to the councils, and thus increased the numerical force of the opposition. … The directory had made great efforts to repair the reverses which had marked the opening of the campaign. Jourdain had been deprived of the command of the army of the Danube, which had been placed, along with that of Switzerland, under the orders of Masséna. The command of the army of Italy had been transferred from Scherer to Moreau; and Macdonald had received orders to withdraw his forces from Naples and the papal states, in order to unite them with the army in Upper Italy. The Russians under Suwarrow had now joined the Austrian army in Italy; and this chief, who was in the height of his reputation as a military leader, was made commander-in-chief of the combined Austro-Russian forces, Melas commanding the Austrians under him. Suwarrow advanced rapidly upon the Adda, which protected the French lines; and, on the 8th of Floreal (the 27th of April), forced the passage of that river in two places, at Brivio and Trezzo, above and below the position occupied by the division of Serrurier, which formed the French left, and which was thus cut off from the rest of the army. Moreau, who took the command of the French forces on the evening of the same day, made a vain attempt to drive the enemy back over the Adda at Trezzo, and thus recover his communication with Serrurier; and that division was surrounded, and, after a desperate resistance, obliged to lay down its arms, with the exception of a small number of men who made their way across the mountains into Piedmont. Victor's division effected its retreat without much loss, and Moreau concentrated his forces in the neighbourhood of Milan. This disastrous engagement, which took place on the 9th of Floreal, was known as the battle of Cassano. Moreau remained at Milan two days to give the members of the government of the Cisalpine republic, and all the Milanese families who were politically compromised, time to make their escape in his rear; after which he continued his retreat. … He was allowed to make this retreat without any serious interruption; for Suwarrow, instead of pursuing him actively, lost his time at Milan in celebrating the triumph of the anti-revolutionary party." Moreau first "established his army in a strong position at the confluence of the Tanaro and the Po, covered by both rivers, and commanding all the roads to Genoa; so that he could there, without great danger, wait the arrival of Macdonald." But soon, finding his position made critical by a general insurrection in Piedmont, he retired towards the mountains of Genoa. "On the 6th of Prairial (the 25th of May), Macdonald was at Florence; but he lost much time there; and it was only towards the end of the republican month (the middle of June), that he at length advanced into the plains of Piacenza to form his junction with Moreau." On the Trebbia he encountered Suwarrow's advance, under General Ott, and rashly attacked it. Having forced back Ott's advanced guard, the French suddenly found themselves confronted by Suwarrow himself and the main body of his army. "Macdonald now resolved to unite all his forces behind the Trebbia, and there risk a battle; but he was anticipated by Suwarrow, who attacked him next morning, and, after a very severe and sanguinary engagement, the French were driven over the Trebbia. The combat was continued next day, and ended again to the disadvantage of the French; and their position had become so critical, that Macdonald found it necessary to retreat upon the river Nura, and to make his way round the Apennines to Genoa. The French, closely pursued, experienced considerable loss in their retreat, until Suwarrow, hearing Moreau's cannon in his rear, discontinued the pursuit, in order to meet him." Moreau routed Bellegarde, in Suwarrow's rear, and took 3,000 prisoners; but no further collision of importance occurred during the next two months of the summer. {1327} "Suwarrow had been prevented by the orders of the Aulic Council from following up with vigour his victory on the Trebbia, and had been obliged to occupy himself with sieges which employed with little advantage valuable time. Recruits were reaching the French armies in Italy, and they were restored to a state of greater efficiency. It was already the month of Thermidor (the middle of July), and Moreau saw the necessity of assuming the offensive and attacking the Austro-Russians while they were occupied with the sieges; but he was restrained by the orders of the directory to wait the arrival of Joubert. The latter, who had just contracted an advantageous marriage, by which the moderate party had hoped to attach him to their cause, lost an entire month in the celebration of his nuptial festivities, and only reached the army of Italy in the middle of Thermidor (the beginning of August), where he immediately succeeded Moreau in the command; but he prevailed upon that able general to remain with him, at least until after his first battle. The French army had taken a good position in advance of Novi, and were preparing to act against the enemy while he was still occupied in the sieges, when news arrived that Alessandria and Mantua had surrendered, and that Suwarrow was preparing to unite against them the whole strength of his forces. Joubert immediately resolved to fall back upon the Apennines, and there act upon the defensive; but it was already too late, for Suwarrow had advanced with such rapidity that he was forced to accept battle in the position he occupied, which was a very strong one. The battle began early in the morning of the 28th of Thermidor (the 15th of August); and very early in the action Joubert received a mortal wound from a ball which struck him near the heart. The engagement continued with great fury during the greater part of the day, but ended in the entire defeat of the French, who retreated from the field of battle in great confusion. The French lost about 10,000 men in killed and wounded, and a great number of prisoners. The news of this reverse was soon followed by disastrous intelligence from another quarter. The English had prepared an expedition against Holland, which was to be assisted by a detachment of Russian troops. The English forces, under Abercromby, landed near the mouth of the Helder in North Holland, on the 10th of Fructidor (the 27th of August), and defeated the French and Dutch republican army, commanded by Brune, in a decisive engagement [at the English camp, established on a well-drained morass, called the Zyp] on the 22nd of Fructidor (the 8th of September). Brune retreated upon Amsterdam; and the Russian contingent was thus enabled to effect its junction with the English without opposition. As one of the first consequences of this invasion, the English obtained possession of the whole Dutch fleet, upon the assistance of which the French government had counted in its designs against England. This succession of ill news excited the revolutionary party to a most unusual degree of violence."

      E. Vehse,
      Memoirs of the Court of Austria,
      chapter 15, section 2 (volume 2).

      J. Adolphus,
      History of England: Reign of George III.,
      chapter 108 (volume 7).

      General Sir H. Bunbury,
      Narratives of the Great War with France,
      pages 1-58.

FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (August-December).
   Campaign in Switzerland.
   Battle of Zurich.
   Defeat of the Russians.
   Suwarroff's retreat across the Alps.
   Reverses in Italy, and on the Rhine.
   Fall of the Parthenopean and Roman Republics.

Since the retreat of Massena in June, the Archduke Charles had been watching the French on the Limmat and expecting the arrival of Russian reinforcements under Korsakoff; "but the Aulic Council, with unaccountable infatuation, ordered him at this important juncture to repair with the bulk of his army to the Rhine, leaving Switzerland to Korsakoff and the Russians. Before these injudicious orders, however, could be carried into effect, Massena had boldly assumed the offensive (August 14) by a false attack on Zurich, intended to mask the operations of his right wing, which meanwhile, under Lecourbe, was directed against the St. Gothard, in order to cut off the communication between the allied forces in Switzerland and in Italy. These attacks proved completely successful, … a French detachment … seizing the St. Gothard, and establishing itself at Airolo, on the southern declivity. Lecourbe's left had meanwhile cleared the banks of the lake of Zurich of the enemy, who were driven back into Glarus. To obtain these brilliant successes on the right, Massena had been obliged to weaken his left wing; and the Archduke, now reinforced by 20, 000 Russians, attempted to avail himself of this circumstance to force the passage of the Limmat, below Zurich (August 16 and 17); but this enterprise, the success of which might have altered the fate of the war, failed from the defective construction of the pontoons; and the positive orders of the Aulic Council forbade his remaining longer in Switzerland. Accordingly, leaving 25,000 men under Hotze to support Korsakoff, he marched for the Upper Rhine, where the French, at his approach, abandoned the siege of Philipsburg, and retired to Mannheim; but this important post, the defences of which were imperfectly restored, was carried by a coup-de-main (September 18), and the French driven with severe loss over the Rhine. But this success was dearly bought by the disasters in Switzerland, which followed the Archduke's departure. It had been arranged that Suwarroff was to move from Bellinzona (September 21), and after retaking the St. Gothard combine with Korsakoff in a front attack on Massena, while Hotze assailed him in flank. But Massena, who was now the superior in numbers, determined to anticipate the arrival of Suwarroff by striking a blow, for which the presumptuous confidence of Korsakoff gave him increased facility. On the evening of 24th September, the passage of the river was surprised below Zurich, and the heights of Closter-Fahr carried by storm; and, in the course of the next day, Korsakoff, with his main army, was completely hemmed in at Zurich by the superior generalship of the French commander, who summoned the Russians to surrender. But the bravery shown by Korsakoff in these desperate circumstances equalled his former arrogance: on the 28th the Russian columns, issuing from the town, forced their way with the courage of despair through the surrounding masses of French, while a slender rear-guard defended the ramparts of Zurich till the remainder had extricated themselves. {1328} The town was at length entered, and a frightful carnage ensued in the streets, in the midst of which the illustrious Lavater was barbarously shot by a French soldier: while Korsakoff, after losing 8,000 killed and wounded, 5,000 prisoners, 100 pieces of cannon, and all his ammunition, stores, and military chest, succeeded in reaching Schaffhausen. The attack of Soult above the lake (September 25) was equally triumphant. The gallant Hotze, who commanded in that quarter, was killed in the first encounter; and the Austrians, giving way in consternation, were driven over the Thur, and at length over the Rhine, with the loss of 20 guns and 3,000 prisoners. Suwarroff in the meantime was gallantly performing his part of the plan. On the 23d of September, the French posts at Airolo and St. Gothard were carried, after a desperate resistance, by the Russian main force, while their flank was turned by Rosenberg; and Lecourbe, hastily retreating, broke down the Devil's Bridge to check the advance of the enemy. A scene of useless butchery followed, the two parties firing on each other from the opposite brinks of the impassable abyss; but the flank of the French was at length turned, the bridge repaired, and the Russians, pressing on in triumph, joined the Austrian division of Auffenberg, at Wasen, and repulsed the French beyond Altdorf. But this was the limit of the old marshal's success. After effecting with severe loss the passage of the tremendous defiles and ridges of the Schachenthal, between Altdorf and Mutten, he found that Linken and Jellachich, who were to have moved from Coire to co-operate with him, had again retreated on learning the disaster at Zurich; and Suwarroff found himself in the midst of the enemy, with Massena on one side and Molitor on the other. With the utmost difficulty the veteran conqueror was prevailed upon, for the first time in his life, to order a retreat; which had become indispensable, and the heads of his columns were turned towards Glarus and the Grisons. But though the attack of Massena on their rear in the Muttenthal was repulsed with the loss of 2,000 men, their onward route was barred at Naefels by Molitor, who defied all the efforts of Prince Bagrathion to dislodge him; and in the midst of a heavy fall of snow, which obliterated the mountain paths, the Russian army wound its way (October 5) in single file over the rugged and sterile peaks of the Alps of Glarus. Numbers perished of cold, or fell over the precipices; but nothing could overcome the unconquerable spirit of the soldiers: without fire or stores, and compelled to bivouac on the snow, they still struggled on through incredible hardships, till the dreadful march terminated (October 10) at Ilantz. Such was the famous, passage of the Alps by Suwarroff. Korsakoff in the meanwhile (October 1-7) had maintained a desperate conflict near Constance, till the return of the Archduke checked the efforts of the French; and the Allies, abandoning the St. Gothard, and all the other posts they still held in Switzerland, concentrated their forces on the Rhine, which became the boundary of the two armies. … In Italy, after the disastrous battle of Novi, the Directory had given the leadership of the armies, both of Italy and Savoy, to the gallant Championnet, but he could muster only 54,000 troops and 6,000 raw conscripts to oppose Melas, who had succeeded Suwarroff in the command, and who had 68,000, besides his garrisons and detachments. The proposition of Championnet had been to fall back, with his army still entire, to the other side of the Alps: but his orders were positive to attempt the relief of Coni, then besieged by the Austrians; and after a desultory warfare for several weeks, he commenced a decisive movement for that purpose at the end of October, with 35,000 men. But before the different French columns could effect a junction, they were separately assailed by Melas: the divisions of Grenier and Victor were overwhelmed at Genola (November 4), and defeated with the loss of 7,000 men; and though St. Cyr repulsed the Imperialists (November 10) on the plateau of Novi, Coni was left to its fate, and surrendered with all its garrison (December 4). An epidemic disorder broke out in the French army, to which Championnet himself, and numerous soldiers, fell victims: the troops giving way to despair, abandoned their standards by hundreds and returned to France; and it was with difficulty that the eloquent exhortations of St. Cyr succeeded in keeping together a sufficient number to defend the Bochetta pass, in front of Genoa, the loss of which would have entailed destruction on the whole army. The discomfited Republicans were driven back on their own frontiers; and, excepting Genoa, the tricolor flag was everywhere expelled from Italy. At the same time the campaign on the Rhine was drawing to a close. The army of Massena was not strong enough to follow up the brilliant success at Zurich, and the jealousies of the Austrians and Russians, who mutually laid on each other the blame of the late disasters, prevented their acting cordially in concert against him. Suwarroff at length, in a fit of exasperation, drew off his troops to winter quarters in Bavaria, and took no further share in the war; and a fruitless attempt in November against Philipsburg, by Lecourbe, who had been transferred to the command on the lower Rhine, closed the operations in that quarter."

Epitome of Alison's History of Europe, sections 245-251 (chapter 28, volume 7 of complete work).

Meantime, the French had been entirely expelled from southern Italy. On the withdrawal of Macdonald, with most of his army, from Naples, "Cardinal Ruffo, a soldier, churchman, and politician, put himself at the head of a numerous body of insurgents, and commenced war against such French troops as had been left in the south and in the middle of Italy. This movement was actively supported by the British fleet. Lord Nelson recovered Naples; Rome surrendered to Commodore Trowbridge. Thus the Parthenopean and Roman republics were extinguished forever. The royal family returned to Naples, and that fine city and country were once more a kingdom. Rome, the capital of the world, was occupied by Neapolitan troops."

P. Colletta, History of the Kingdom of Naples, book 4, chapter 2 and book 5, chapters 1-2 (volume 1).

FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (September-October).
   Disastrous ending of the Anglo-Russian invasion of Holland.
   Capitulation of the Duke of York.
   Dissolution of the Dutch East India Company.

"It is very obvious that the Duke of York was selected in an unlucky hour to be the commander-in-chief of this Anglo-Russian expedition, when we compare the time in which Abercrombie was alone on the marshy promontory of the Helder … with the subsequent period. On the 10th of September Abercrombie successfully repulsed the attack of General Brune, who had come for the purpose from Haarlem to Alkmar; on the 19th the Duke of York landed, and soon ruined everything. The first division of the Russians had at length arrived on the 15th, under the command of General Herrmann, for whom it was originally destined, although unhappily it afterwards came into the hands of General Korsakoff. The duke therefore thought he might venture on a general attack on the 19th. In this attack Herrmann led the right wing, which was formed by the Russians, and Abercrombie, with whom was the Prince of Orange, the left, whilst the centre was left to the Duke of York, the commander-in-chief. This decisive battle was fought at Bergen, a place situated to the north of Alkmar. The combined army was victorious on both wings; and Horn, on the Zuyder Zee, was occupied; the Duke of York, who was only a general for parades and reviews, merely indulged the centre with a few manœuvres hither and thither. … The Russians, therefore, who were left alone in impassible marshes, traversed by ditches, and unknown to their officers, lost many men, and were at length surrounded, and even their general taken prisoner. The duke concerned himself very little about the Russians, and had long before prudently retired into his trenches; and, as the Russians were lost, Abercrombie and the Crown Prince were obliged to relinquish Horn." The incapacity of the commander-in-chief held the army paralyzed during the fortnight following, suffering from sickness and want, while it would still have been practicable to push forward to South Holland. "A series of bloody engagements took place from the 2nd till the 6th of October, and the object of the attack upon the whole line of the French and Batavian army would have been attained had Abercrombie alone commanded. The English and Russians, who call this the battle of Alkmar, were indisputably victorious in the engagements of the 2nd and 3rd of October. They even drove the enemy before them to the neighbourhood of Haarlem, after having taken possession of Alkmar; but on the 6th, Brune, who owes his otherwise very moderate military renown to this engagement alone, having received a reinforcement of some thousands on the 4th and 5th, renewed the battle. The fighting on this day took place at Castricum, on a narrow strip of land between the sea and the lake of Haarlem, a position favourable to the French. The French report is, as usual, full of the boasts of a splendid victory; the English, however, remained in possession of the field, and did not retire to their trenches behind Alkmar and to the marshes of Zyp till the 7th. … In not more than eight days afterwards, the want in the army and the anxiety of its incapable commander-in-chief became so great, the number of the sick increased so rapidly, and the fear of the difficulties of embarkation in winter so grew and spread, that the duke accepted the most shameful capitulation that had ever been offered to an English general, except at Saratoga. This capitulation, concluded on the 19th of October, was only granted because the English, by destroying the dykes, had it in their power to ruin the country."

"For the failure in accomplishing the great objects of emancipating Holland and restoring its legitimate ruler; for the clamorous joy with which her enemies, foreign and domestic, hailed the event; the government of Great Britain had many consolations. … The Dutch fleet, which, in the hands of an enterprising enemy, might have been so injuriously employed, was a capture of immense importance: if Holland was ever to become a friend and ally, we had abundant means of promoting her prosperity and re-establishing her greatness; if an enemy, her means of injury and hopes of rivalship were effectually suppressed. Her East-India Company, … long the rival of our own in power and prosperity, whose dividends in some years had risen to the amount of 40 per cent., now finally closed its career, making a paltry final payment in part of the arrears of dividends for the present and three preceding years."

J. Adolphus, History of England: Reign of George III., chapter 109 (volume 7).

      ALSO IN:
      G. R. Gleig,
      Life of General Sir R. Abercromby
      (Eminent British Military Commanders, volume 3).

FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (November).
   Return of Bonaparte from Egypt.
   The first Napoleonic Coup d'État.
   Revolution of the 18th Brumaire.
   End of the First Republic.
   Creation of the Consulate.

"When Bonaparte, by means of the bundle of papers which Sidney Smith caused to find their way through the French lines, learned the condition of affairs in Europe, there was but one course consistent with his character for him to pursue. There was nothing more to be done in Egypt; there was everything to be done in France. If he were to lead his army back, even in case he should, by some miracle, elude the eager eyes of Lord Nelson, the act would be generally regarded as a confession of disaster. If he were to remain with the army, he could, at best, do nothing but pursue a purely defensive policy; and if the army were to be overwhelmed, it was no part of Napoleonism to be involved in the disaster. … It would be far shrewder to throw the responsibility of the future of Egypt on another, and to transfer himself to the field that was fast ripening for the coveted harvest. Of course Bonaparte, under such circumstances, did not hesitate as to which course to pursue. Robbing the army of such good officers as survived, he left it in command of the only one who had dared to raise his voice in opposition to the work of the 18th Fructidor … the heroic but indignant Kléber. Was there ever a more exquisite revenge? … On the arrival of Bonaparte in Paris everything seemed ready to his hand. … The policy which, in the seizure of Switzerland and the Papal States, he had taken pains to inaugurate before his departure for Egypt had borne its natural fruit. As never before in the history of Europe, England, Holland, Russia, Austria, Naples, and even Turkey had joined hands in a common cause, and as a natural consequence the Directory had been defeated at every point. Nor was it unnatural for the people to attribute all these disasters to the inefficiency of the government. The Directory had really fallen into general contempt, and at the new election on the 30th Prairial it had been practically overthrown. {1330} Rewbell, who by his influence had stood at the head of affairs, had been obliged to give way," and Sieyès had been put in his place. "By the side of this fantastic statesman … Barras had been retained, probably for no other reason than that he was sure to be found with the majority, while the other members, Gohier, Moulins, and Roger-Ducos were men from whose supposed mediocrity no very decided opposition could be anticipated. Thus the popular party was not only revenged for the outrages of Fructidor, but it had also made up the new Directory of men who seemed likely to be nothing but clay in the hands of Bonaparte. … The manner in which the General was received can have left no possible doubt remaining in his mind as to the strength of his hold on the hearts of the people. It must have been apparent to all that he needed but to declare himself, in order to secure a well-nigh unanimous support and following of the masses. But with the political leaders the case, for obvious reasons, was far different. … His popularity was so overwhelming, that in his enmity the leaders could anticipate nothing but annihilation, in his friendship nothing but insignificance. … The member of the government who, at the time, wielded most influence, was Sieyès, a man to whom personally the General had so unconquerable an aversion, that Josephine was accustomed to refer to him as her husband's béte noir. It was evident that Sieyès was the most formidable obstacle to the General's advance." As a first movement, Bonaparte endeavored to bring about the removal of Sieyès from the Directory and his own election to the place. Failing this, his party attempted the immediate creation of a dictatorship. When that, too, was found impracticable, Sieyès was persuaded to a reconciliation and alliance with the ambitious soldier, and the two, at a meeting, planned the proceedings "which led to that dark day in French history known as the 18th Brumaire [November 9, 1799]. It remained only to get absolute control of the military forces, a task at that time in no way difficult. The officers who had returned with Bonaparte from Egypt were impatient to follow wherever their master might lead. Moreau, who, since the death of Hoche, was regarded as standing next to Bonaparte in military ability, was not reluctant to cast in his lot with the others, and Macdonald as well as Serurier soon followed his example. Bernadotte alone would yield to neither flattery nor intimidation. … While Bonaparte was thus marshalling his forces in the Rue de la Victoire, the way was opening in the Councils. A commission of the Ancients, made up of the leading conspirators, had worked all night drawing up the proposed articles, in order that in the morning the Council might have nothing to do but to vote them. The meeting was called for seven o'clock, and care was taken not to notify those members whose opposition there was reason to fear. … The articles were adopted without discussion. Those present voted, first, to remove the sessions of the Councils from Paris to Saint Cloud (a privilege which the constitution conferred upon the Ancients alone), thus putting them at once beyond the power of influencing the populace and of standing in the way of Bonaparte. They then passed a decree giving to Bonaparte the command of the military forces, at the same time inviting him to come to the Assembly for the purpose of taking the oath of allegiance to the Constitution." Bonaparte appeared, accordingly, before the Council; but instead of taking an oath of allegiance to the constitution, he made a speech which he closed by declaring: "We want a Republic founded on true liberty and national representation. We will have it, I swear; I swear it in my own name and that of my companions in arms." "Thus the mockery of the oath-taking in the Council of Ancients was accomplished. The General had now a more difficult part to perform in the Council of Five Hundred. As the meeting of the Assembly was not to occur until twelve o'clock of the following day, Bonaparte made use of the intervening time in posting his forces and in disposing of the Directory. … There was one locality in the city where it was probable aggressive force would be required. The Luxembourg was the seat of the Directory, and the Directory must at all hazards be crushed. … Bonaparte knew well how to turn all such ignominious service to account. In close imitation of that policy which had left Kleber in Egypt, he placed the Luxembourg in charge of the only man in the nation who could now be regarded as his rival for popular favor. Moreau fell into the snare, and by so doing lost a popularity which he was never afterwards able to regain. Having thus placed his military forces, Bonaparte turned his attention to the Directors. The resignations of Sieyès and of Roger-Ducos he already had upon his table. It remained only to procure the others. Barras, without warning, was confronted by Talleyrand and Bruix, who asked him without circumlocution to resign his office," which he did, after slight hesitation. Gohier and Moulins were addressed by Bonaparte in person, but firmly resisted his importunities and his threats. They were then made prisoners by Moreau. "The night of the 18th passed in comparative tranquillity. The fact that there was no organized resistance is accounted for by Lanfrey with a single mournful statement, that 'nothing of the kind could be expected of a nation that had been decapitated. All the men of rank in France for the previous ten years, either by character or genius or virtue, had been mown down, first by the scaffolds and proscriptions, next by war.'" On the morrow, the 19th of Brumaire (November 10) the sitting of the two councils began at two o'clock. In the Council of Five Hundred the partisans of Bonaparte were less numerous than in that of the Ancients, and a powerful indignation at the doings of the previous day began quickly to show itself. In the midst of a warm debate upon the resignation of Barras, which had just been received, "the door was opened, and Bonaparte, surrounded by his grenadiers, entered the hall. A burst of indignation at once arose. Every member sprang to his feet. 'What is this?' they cried, 'swords here! armed men! Away! we will have no dictator here.' Then some of the deputies, bolder than the others, surrounded Bonaparte and overwhelmed him with invectives. 'You are violating the sanctity of the laws; what are you doing, rash man?' exclaimed Bigonnet. 'Is it for this that you have conquered?' demanded Destrem, advancing towards him. Others seized him by the collar of his coat, and, shaking him violently, reproached him with treason. This reception, though the General had come with the purpose of intimidating the Assembly, fairly overwhelmed him. {1331} Eye-witnesses declare that he turned pale, and fell fainting into the arms of his soldiers, who drew him out of the hall." His brother Lucien, who was President of the Council, showed better nerve. By refusing to put motions that were made to vote, and finally by resigning his office and quitting the chair, he threw the Council into confusion. Then, appearing to the troops outside, who supposed him to be still President of the Council, he harangued them and summoned them to clear the chamber. "The grenadiers poured into the hall. A last cry of 'Vive la République' was raised, and a moment later the hall was empty. Thus the crime of the conspirators was consummated, and the First French Republic was at an end. After this action it remained only to put into the hands of Bonaparte the semblance of regular authority. … A phantom of the Council of Five Hundred—Cornet, one of them, says 30 members—met in the evening and voted the measures which had been previously agreed upon by the conspirators. Bonaparte, Sieyès, and Roger-Ducos were appointed provisional consuls; 57 members of the Council who had been most prominent in their opposition were excluded from their seats; a list of proscriptions was prepared; two commissioners chosen from the assemblies were appointed to assist the consuls in their work of organization; and, finally, … they adjourned the legislative body until the 20th of February."

      A. Thiers,
      History of the French Revolution
      (American edition), volume 4, pages 407-430.

      M. de Bourrienne,
      Private Memoirs of Napoleon,
      volume l, chapter 24-27.

FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (November-December).
The constitution of the consulate.
Bonaparte as First Consul.

"During the three months which followed the 18th Brumaire, approbation and expectation were general. A provisional government had been appointed, composed of three consuls, Bonaparte, Siéyes, and Roger-Ducos, with two legislative commissioners, entrusted to prepare the constitution and a definitive order of things. The consuls and the two commissioners were installed on the 21st Brumaire. This provisional government abolished the law respecting hostages and compulsory loans; it permitted the return of the priests proscribed since the 18th Fructidor; it released from prison and sent out of the republic the emigrants who had been ship-wrecked on the coast of Calais, and who for four years were captives in France, and were exposed to the heavy punishment of the emigrant army. All these measures were very favourably received. But public opinion revolted at a proscription put in force against the extreme republicans. Thirty-six of them were sentenced to transportation to Guiana, and twenty-one were put under serveillance in the department of Charante-Inférieure, merely by a decree of the consuls on the report of Fouché, minister of police. The public viewed unfavourably all who attacked the government, but at the same time it exclaimed against an act so arbitrary and unjust. The consuls, accordingly, recoiled before their own act; they first commuted transportation into surveillance, and soon withdrew surveillance itself. It was not long before a rupture broke out between the authors of the 18th Brumaire. During their provisional authority it did not create much noise, because it took place in the legislative commissions. The new constitution was the cause of it. Siéyes and Bonaparte could not agree on this subject: the former wished to institute France, the latter to govern it as a master. … Bonaparte took part in the deliberations of the constituent committee, with his instinct of power, he seized upon everything in the ideas of Siéyes which was calculated to serve his projects, and caused the rest to be rejected. … On the 24th of December, 1799 (Nivose, year VIII.), forty-five days after the 18th Brumaire, was published the constitution of the year VIII.; it was composed of the wrecks of that of Siéyes, now become a constitution of servitude."

"The new constitution was still republic in name and appearance, but monarchical in fact, the latter concealed, by the government being committed, not to the hand of one individual, but of three. The three persons so fixed upon were denominated consuls, and appointed for ten years;—one of them, however, was really ruler, although he only obtained the modest name of First Consul. The rights which Bonaparte caused to be given to himself made all the rest nothing more than mere deception. The First Consul was to invite the others merely to consultation on affairs of state, whilst he himself, either immediately or through the senate, was to appoint to all places of trust and authority, to decide absolutely upon questions of peace or war, and to be assisted by a council of state. … In order to cover and conceal the power of the First Consul, especially in reference to the appointment of persons to offices of trust and authority, a senate was created, which neither belonged to the people nor to the government, but immediately from the very beginning was an assembly of courtiers and placemen, and at a later period became the mere tool of every kind of despotism, by rendering it easy to dispense with the legislative body. The senate consisted of eighty members, a part of whom were to be immediately nominated from the lists of notability, and the senate to fill up its own body from persons submitted to them by the First Consul, the tribunate, and the legislative body. Each senator was to have a salary of 25,000 f.; their meetings were not public, and their business very small. From the national lists the senate was also to select consuls, legislators, tribunes, and judges of the Court of Cassation. Large lists were first presented to the communes, on which, according to Roederer, there stood some 500,000 names, out of which the communes selected 50,000 for the departmental lists, from which again 5,000 were to be chosen for the national list. From these 5,000 names, selected from the departmental list, or from what was termed the national list, the senate was afterwards to elect the members of the legislature and the high officers of government. The legislature was to consist of two chambers, the tribunate and the legislative body—the former composed of 100, and the latter of 300 members. The chambers had no power of taking the initiative, that is, they were obliged to wait till bills were submitted to them, and could of themselves originate nothing: they were, however, permitted to express wishes of all kinds to the government. Each bill (projet de loi) was introduced into the tribunate by three members of the council of state, and there defended by them, because the tribunate alone had the right of discussion, whilst the mere power of saying Yea or Nay was conferred upon the members of the legislative body. {1332} The tribunate, having accepted the bill, sent three of its members, accompanied by the members from the council of state, to defend the measure in the assembly of the legislative body. Every year one-fifth of the members of the legislative body was to retire from office, being, however, always re-eligible as long as their names remained on the national list. The sittings of the legislative body alone were public, because they were only permitted to be silent listeners to the addresses of the tribunes or councillors of state, and to assent to, or dissent from, the proposed law. Not above 100 persons were, however, allowed to be present as auditors; the sittings were not allowed to continue longer than four months; both chambers, however, might be summoned to an extraordinary sitting. … When the constitution was ready to be brought into operation, Sieyes terminated merely as he had begun, and Bonaparte saw with pleasure that he showed himself both contemptible and venal. He became a dumb senator, with a yearly income of 25,000 f.; and obtained 800,000 f. from the directorial treasury, whilst Roger Ducos was obliged to go away contented with a douceur of 120,000 f.; and, last of all, Sieyes condescended to accept from Bonaparte a present of the national domain of Crosne, which he afterwards exchanged for another estate. For colleagues in his new dignity Bonaparte selected very able and skilful men, but wholly destitute of all nobility of mind, and to whom it never once occurred to offer him any opposition; these were Cambacérès and Lebrun. The former, a celebrated lawyer, although formerly a vehement Jacobin, impatiently waited till Bonaparte brought forth again all the old plunder; and then, covered with orders, he strutted up and down the Palais Royal like a peacock, and exhibited himself as a show. Lebrun, who was afterwards created a duke, at a later period distinguished himself by being the first to revive the use of hair powder; in fact, he was completely a child and partisan of the olden times, although for a time he had played the part of a Girondist. … As early as the 25th and 26th of December the First Consul took up his abode in the Tuileries. There the name of citizen altogether disappeared, for the consul's wife caused herself again to be addressed as Madame. Everything which concerned the government now began to assume full activity, and the adjourned legislative councils were summoned for the 1st of January, in order that they might be dissolved."

      H. C. Lockwood,
      Constitutional History of France,
      chapter 2 and appendix 4.

FRANCE: A. D. 1800 (January-June).
   Affairs in Egypt.
   The repudiated Treaty of El Arish.
   Kléber's victory at Heliopolis.
   His assassination.

"Affairs in Egypt had been on the whole unfavourable to the French, since that army had lost the presence of the commander-in-chief. Kléber, on whom the command devolved, was discontented both at the unceremonious and sudden manner in which the duty had been imposed upon him, and with the scarcity of means left to support his defence. Perceiving himself threatened by a large Turkish force, which was collecting for the purpose of avenging the defeat of the vizier at Aboukir, he became desirous of giving up a settlement which he despaired of maintaining. He signed accordingly a convention with the Turkish plenipotentiaries, and Sir Sidney Smith on the part of the British [at El Arish, January 28, 1800], by which it was provided that the French should evacuate Egypt, and that Kléber and his army should be transported to France in safety, without being molested by the British fleet. When the British government received advice of this convention they refused to ratify it, on the ground that Sir Sidney Smith had exceeded his powers in entering into it. The Earl of Elgin having been sent out as plenipotentiary to the Porte, it was asserted that Sir Sidney's ministerial powers were superseded by his appointment. … The truth was that the arrival of Kléber and his army in the south of France, at the very moment when the successes of Suwarrow gave strong hopes of making some impression on her frontier, might have had a most material effect upon the events of the war. … The treaty of El Arish was in consequence broken off. Kléber, disappointed of this mode of extricating himself, had recourse to arms. The Vizier Jousseff Pacha, having crossed the Desert and entered Egypt, received a bloody and decisive defeat from the French general, near the ruins of the ancient city of Heliopolis, on the 20th of March, 1800 [following which Kléber crushed with great slaughter a revolt that had broken out in Cairo]. The measures which Kléber adopted after this victory were well calculated to maintain the possession of the country, and reconcile the inhabitants to the French government. … While busied in these measures, he was cut short by the blow of an assassin. A fanatic Turk, called Soliman Haleby, a native of Aleppo, imagined he was inspired by Heaven to slay the enemy of the Prophet and the Grand Seignior. He concealed himself in a cistern, and springing out on Kléber when there was only one man in company with him, stabbed him dead [June 14]. … The Baron Menou, on whom the command now devolved, was an inferior person to Kléber. … Menou altered for the worse several of the regulations of Kléber, and, carrying into literal execution what Buonaparte had only written and spoken of, he became an actual Mahommedan."

FRANCE: A. D. 1800-1801 (May-February).
   Bonaparte's second Italian campaign.
   The crossing of the Alps.
   The Battle of Marengo.
   Moreau in Germany.
   Hohenlinden.
   Austrian siege of Genoa.

"Preparations for the new campaign in spring were completed. Moreau was made commander-in-chief of the army of the Rhine, 150,000 strong. The plan of the campaign was concerted between the First Consul and Carnot, who had superseded Berthier as Minister at War. The operations were conducted with the utmost secrecy. Napoleon had determined to strike the decisive blow against Austria in Italy, and to command there in person. By an article in the Constitution the First Consul was forbidden to take command of an army. To this interdiction he cheerfully assented; but he evaded it, as soon as the occasion was ripe, by giving the nominal command of the army of Italy to Berthier. He began to collect troops at Dijon, which were, he publicly announced, intended to advance upon Italy. They consisted chiefly of conscripts and invalids, with a numerous staff, and were called 'the army of reserve.' Meantime, while caricatures of some ancient men with wooden legs and little boys of twelve years old, entitled 'Bonaparte's Army of Reserve,' were amusing the Austrian public, the real army of Italy was formed in the heart of France, and was marching by various roads towards Switzerland. … The artillery was sent piecemeal from different arsenals; the provisions necessary to an army about to cross barren mountains were forwarded to Geneva, embarked on the lake, and landed at Villeneuve, near the entrance to the valley of the Simplon. The situation of the French army in Italy had become critical. Massena had thrown himself into Genoa with 12,000 men, and was enduring all the rigours of a siege, pressed by 30,000 Austrians under General Ott, seconded by the British fleet. Suchet, with the remainder of the French army, about 10,000 strong, completely cut off from communication with Massena, had concentrated his forces on the Var, was maintaining an unequal contest with Melas, the Austrian commander-in-chief, and strenuously defending the French frontier. Napoleon's plan was to transport his army across the Alps, plant himself in the rear of the Austrians, intercept their communications, then manœuvre so as to place his own army and that of Massena on the Austrian right and left flanks respectively, cut off their retreat, and finally give them battle at the decisive moment. While all Europe imagined that the multifarious concerns of the Government held the First Consul at Paris, he was travelling at a rapid rate towards Geneva, accompanied only by his secretary. He left Paris on the 6th of May, at two in the morning, leaving Cambacérès to preside until his return, and ordering Fouché to announce that he was about to review the army at Dijon, and might possibly go as far as Geneva, but would return in a fortnight. 'Should anything happen,' he significantly added, 'I shall be back like a thunderbolt.' … On the 13th the First Consul reviewed the vanguard of his army, commanded by General Lannes, at Lausanne. The whole army consisted of nearly 70,000 men. Two columns, each of about 6,000 men, were put in motion, one under Tureau, the other under Chabran, to take the routes of Mont Cenis and the Little St. Bernard. A division consisting of 15,000 men, under Moncey, detached from the army of the Rhine, was to march by St. Gothard. Moreau kept the Austrian army of the Rhine, under General Kray, on the defensive before Ulm [to which he had forced his way in a series of important engagements, at Engen, May 2, at Moeskirch, May 4, at Biberach, May 9, and at Hochstadt, June 19], and held himself in readiness to cover the operations of the First Consul in Italy. The main body of the French army, in numbers about 40,000, nominally commanded by Berthier, but in fact by the First Consul himself, marched on the 15th from Lausanne to the village of St. Pierre, at the foot of the Great St. Bernard, at which all trace of a practicable road entirely ceased. General Marescot, the engineer who had been sent forward from Geneva to reconnoitre, reported the paths to be 'barely passable.' 'Set forward immediately!' wrote Napoleon. Field forges were established at St. Pierre to dismount the guns, the carriages and wheels were slung on poles, and the ammunition-boxes carried by mules. A number of trees were felled, then hollowed out, and the pieces, being jammed into these rough cases, 100 soldiers were attached to each and ordered to drag them up the steeps. … The whole army effected the passage of the Great St. Bernard in three days."

"From May 16 to May 19, the solitudes of the vast mountain track echoed to the din and tumult of war, as the French soldiery swept over its heights to reach the valley of the Po and the plains of Lombardy. A hill fort, for a time, stopped the daring invaders, but the obstacle was passed by an ingenious stratagem; and before long Bonaparte, exulting in hope, was marching from the verge of Piedmont on Milan, having made a demonstration against Turin, in order to hide his real purpose. By June 2 the whole French army, joined by the reinforcement sent by Moreau, was in possession of the Lombard capital, and threatened the line of its enemy's retreat, having successfully accomplished the first part of the brilliant design of its great leader. While Bonaparte was thus descending from the Alps, the Austrian commander had been pressing forward the siege of Genoa and his operations on the Var. Masséna, however, stubbornly held out in Genoa; and Suchet had defended the defiles of Provence with a weak force with such marked skill that his adversary had made little progress. When first informed of the terrible apparition of a hostile army gathering upon his rear, Melas disbelieved what he thought impossible; and when he could no longer discredit what he heard, the movements by Mont Cenis and against Turin, intended to perplex him, had made him hesitate. As soon, however, as the real design of the First Consul was fully revealed, the brave Austrian chief resolved to force his way to the Adige at any cost; and, directing Ott to raise the siege of Genoa, and leaving a subordinate to hold Suchet in check, he began to draw his divided army together, in order to make a desperate attack on the audacious foe upon his line of retreat. Ott, however, delayed some days to receive the keys of Genoa, which fell [June 4] after a defence memorable in the annals of war; and, as the Austrian forces had been widely scattered, it was June 12 [after a severe defeat at Montebello, on the 9th, by Lannes] before 50,000 men were assembled for an offensive movement round the well-known fortresses of Alessandria. Meanwhile, the First Consul had broken up from Milan; and, whether ill-informed of his enemy's operations, or apprehensive that, after the fall of Genoa, Melas would escape by a march southwards, he had advanced from a strong position he had taken between the Ticino, the Adda, and the Po, and had crossed the Scrivia into the plains of Marengo, with forces disseminated far too widely. Melas boldly seized the opportunity to escape from the weakened meshes of the net thrown round him; and attacked Bonaparte on the morning of June 14 with a vigor and energy which did him honor. {1334} The battle raged confusedly for several hours; but the French had begun to give way and fly, when the arrival of an isolated division on the field [that of Desaix, who had been sent southward by Bonaparte, and who turned back, on his own responsibility, when he heard the sounds of battle] and the unexpected charge of a small body of horsemen, suddenly changed defeat into a brilliant victory. The importance was then seen of the commanding position of Bonaparte on the rear of his foe; the Austrian army, its retreat cut off, was obliged to come to terms after a single reverse; and within a few days an armistice was signed by which Italy to the Mincio was restored to the French, and the disasters of 1799 were effaced. … While Italy had been regained at one stroke, the campaign in Germany had progressed slowly; and though Moreau was largely superior in force, he had met more than one check near Ulm, on the Danube. The stand, however, made ably by Kray, could not lessen the effects of Marengo; and Austria, after that terrible reverse, endeavored to negotiate with the dreaded conqueror. Bonaparte, however, following out a purpose which he had already made a maxim of policy, and resolved if possible to divide the Coalition, refused to treat with Austria jointly with England, except on conditions known to be futile; and after a pause of a few weeks hostilities were resumed with increased energy. By this time, however, the French armies had acquired largely preponderating strength; and while Brune advanced victoriously to the Adige—the First Consul had returned to the seat of government—Moreau in Bavaria marched on the rivers which, descending from the Alps to the Danube, form one of the bulwarks of the Austrian Monarchy. He was attacked incautiously by the Archduke John—the Archduke Charles, who ought to have been in command, was in temporary disgrace at the Court—and soon afterwards [December 3] he won a great battle at Hohenlinden, between the Iser and the Inn, the success of the French being complete and decisive, though the conduct of their chief has not escaped criticism. This last disaster proved overwhelming, and Austria and the States of the Empire were forced to submit to the terms of Bonaparte. After a brief delay peace was made at Luneville in February 1801."

      ALSO IN:
      C. Botta,
      Italy during the Consulate and Empire of Napoleon,
      chapters 1-2.

      C. Adams,
      Great Campaigns in Europe
      from 1796 to 1870, chapter 2.

FRANCE: A. D. 1800-1801 (June-February).
   The King of Naples spared at the intercession of the Russian
   Czar.
   The Czar won away from the Coalition.
   The Pope befriended.

"Replaced in his richest territories by the allies, the King of Naples was bound by every tie to assist them in the campaign of 1800. He accordingly sent an army into the march of Ancona, under the command of Count Roger de Damas. … Undeterred by the battle of Marengo, the Count de Damas marched against the French general Miollis, who commanded in Tuscany, and sustained a defeat by him near Sienna. Retreat became now necessary, the more especially as the armistice which was entered into by General Melas deprived the Neapolitans of any assistance from the Austrians, and rendered their whole expedition utterly hopeless. They were not even included by name in the armistice, and were thus left exposed to the whole vengeance of the French. … At this desperate crisis, the Queen of the Two Sicilies took a resolution which seemed almost as desperate, and could only have been adopted by a woman of a bold and decisive character. She resolved, notwithstanding the severity of the season, to repair in person to the court of the Emperor Paul, and implore his intercession with the First Consul, in behalf of her husband and his territories." The Russian autocrat was more than ready to accede to her request. Disgusted and enraged at the discomfiture of Suwarrow in Switzerland, dissatisfied with the conduct of Austria in that unfortunate campaign, and equally dissatisfied with England in the joint invasion of the Batavian republic, he made prompt preparations to quit the coalition and to ally himself with the First Consul of France. Bonaparte welcomed his overtures and gave them every flattering encouragement, conceding instantly the grace which he asked on behalf of the King and Queen of Naples. "The respect paid by the First Consul to the wishes of Paul saved for the present the royal family of Naples; but Murat [who commanded the army sent to central and southern Italy], nevertheless, made them experience a full portion of the bitter cup which the vanquished are generally doomed to swallow. General Damas was commanded in the haughtiest terms to evacuate the Roman States, and not to presume to claim any benefit from the armistice which had been extended to the Austrians. At the same time, while the Neapolitans were thus compelled hastily to evacuate the Roman territories, general surprise was exhibited when, instead of marching to Rome, and re-establishing the authority of the Roman Republic, Murat, according to the orders which he had received from the First Consul, carefully respected the territory of the Church, and reinstalled the officers of the Pope in what had been long termed the patrimony of St. Peter's. This unexpected turn of circumstances originated in high policy on the part of Buonaparte. … Besides evacuating the Ecclesiastical States, the Neapolitans were compelled by Murat to restore various paintings, statues, and other objects of art, which they had, in imitation of Buonaparte, taken forcibly from the Romans,—so captivating is the influence of bad example. A French army of about 18,000 men was to be quartered in Calabria. … The harbours of the Neapolitan dominions were of course to be closed against the English. A cession of part of the isle of Elba, and the relinquishment of all pretensions upon Tuscany, summed up the sacrifices of the King of Naples [stipulated in the treaty of Foligno, signed in February, 1801], who, considering how often he had braved Napoleon, had great reason to thank the Emperor of Russia for his effectual mediation."

FRANCE: A. D. 1801 (February).
The Peace of Luneville.
The Rhine boundary confirmed.

FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802.
   The import of the Peace of Luneville.
   Bonaparte's preparations for conflict with England.
   The Northern Maritime League.
   English bombardment of Copenhagen and
   summary crushing of the League.
   Murder of the Russian Czar.
   English expedition to Egypt.
   Surrender of the French army.
   Peace of Amiens.

"The treaty of Luneville was of far greater import than the treaties which had ended the struggle of the first coalition. … The significance then of the Peace of Luneville lay in this, not only that it was the close of the earlier revolutionary struggle for supremacy in Europe, the abandonment by France of her effort to 'liberate the peoples,' to force new institutions on the nations about her by sheer dint of arms; but that it marked the concentration of all her energies on a struggle with Britain for the supremacy of the world. For England herself the event which accompanied it, the sudden withdrawal of William Pitt from office, which took place in the very month of the treaty, was hardly less significant. … The bulk of the old Ministry returned in a few days to office with Mr. Addington at their head, and his administration received the support of the whole Tory party in Parliament. … It was with anxiety that England found itself guided by men like these. … The country stood utterly alone; while the peace of Luneville secured France from all hostility on the Continent. … To strike at England's wealth had been among the projects of the Directory: it was now the dream of the First Consul. It was in vain for England to produce, if he shut her out of every market. Her carrying-trade must be annihilated if he closed every port against her ships. It was this gigantic project of a 'Continental System' that revealed itself as soon as Buonaparte became finally master of France. From France itself and its dependencies in Holland and the Netherlands English trade was already excluded. But Italy also was shut against her after the Peace of Luneville [and the Treaty of Foligno with the King of Naples], and Spain not only closed her own ports but forced Portugal to break with her English ally. In the Baltic, Buonaparte was more active than even in the Mediterranean. In a treaty with America, which was destined to bring this power also in the end into his great attack, he had formally recognized the rights of neutral vessels which England was hourly disputing. … The only powers which now possessed naval resources were the powers of the North. … Both the Scandinavian states resented the severity with which Britain enforced that right of search which had brought about their armed neutrality at the close of the American war; while Denmark was besides an old ally of France; and her sympathies were still believed to be French. The First Consul therefore had little trouble in enlisting them in a league of Neutrals, which was in effect a declaration of war against England, and which Prussia as before showed herself ready to join. Russia indeed seemed harder to gain." But Paul, the Czar, afraid of the opposition of England to his designs upon Turkey, dissatisfied with the operations of the coalition, and flattered by Bonaparte, gave himself up to the influence of the latter. "It was to check the action of Britain in the East that the Czar now turned to the French Consul, and seconded his efforts for the formation of a naval confederacy in the North, while his minister, Rostopchin, planned a division of the Turkish Empire in Europe between Russia and her allies. … A squabble over Malta, which had been blockaded since its capture by Buonaparte, and which surrendered at last [September, 1800] to a British fleet, but whose possession the Czar claimed as his own on the ground of an alleged election as Grand Master of the Order of St. John, served as a pretext for a quarrel with England; and at the close of· 1800 Paul openly prepared for hostilities. … The Danes, who throughout the year had been struggling to evade the British right of search, at once joined this neutral league, and were followed by Sweden in their course. … But dexterous as the combination was, it was shattered at a blow. On the 1st of April, 1801, a British fleet of 18 men-of-war [under Sir Hyde Parker, with Nelson second in command] forced the passage of the Belt; appeared before Copenhagen, and at once attacked the city and its fleet. In spite of a brave resistance from the Danish batteries and gunboats six Danish ships were taken, and the Crown Prince was forced to conclude an armistice which enabled the English ships to enter the Baltic. … But their work was really over. The seizure of English goods and the declaration of war had bitterly irritated the Russian nobles, whose sole outlet for the sale of the produce of their vast estates was thus closed to them; and on the 24th of March, nine days before the battle of Copenhagen, Paul fell in a midnight attack by conspirators in his own palace. With Paul fell the Confederacy of the North. … At the very moment of the attack on Copenhagen, a stroke as effective wrecked his projects in the East. … In March, 1801, a force of 15,000 men under General Abercrombie anchored in Aboukir Bay. Deserted as they were by Buonaparte, the French had firmly maintained their hold on Egypt. … But their army was foolishly scattered, and Abercrombie was able to force a landing five days after his arrival on the coast. The French however rapidly concentrated; and on the 21st of March their general attacked the English army on the ground it had won, with a force equal to its own. The battle [known as the battle of Alexandria] was a stubborn one, and Abercrombie fell mortally wounded ere its close; but after six hours' fighting the French drew off with heavy loss; and their retreat was followed by the investment of Alexandria and Cairo. … At the close of June the capitulation of the 13,000 soldiers who remained closed the French rule over Egypt." Threatening preparations for an invasion of England were kept up, and gunboats and flatboats collected at Boulogne, which Nelson attacked unsuccessfully in August, 1801. "The First Consul opened negotiations for peace at the close of 1801. His offers were at once met by the English Government. … The negotiations which went on through the winter between England and the three allied Powers of France, Spain, and the Dutch, brought about in March, 1802, the Peace of Amiens." The treaty secured "a pledge on the part of France to withdraw its forces from Southern Italy, and to leave to themselves the republics it had set up along its border in Holland, Switzerland, and Piedmont. In exchange for this pledge, England recognized the French government, restored all the colonies which they had lost, save Ceylon and Trinidad, to France and its allies [including the restoration to Holland of the Cape of Good Hope and Dutch Guiana, and of Minorca and the citadel of Port Mahon to Spain, while Turkey regained possession of Egypt], acknowledged the Ionian Islands as a free republic, and engaged to restore Malta within three months to its old masters, the Knights of St. John."

      C. Joyneville,
      Life and Times of Alexander I.,
      volume 1, chapter 4.

      G. R. Gleig,
      Life of General Sir R. Abercromby
      (Eminent British Military Commanders, volume 3).

FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1803.
   Domestic measures of Bonaparte.
   His Legion of Honor.
   His wretched educational scheme.
   He is made First Consul for life.
   His whittling away of the Constitution.
   Revolutions instigated and dictated in the Dutch,
   Swiss, and Cisalpine Republics.
   Bonaparte president of the Italian Republic.

"The concordat was succeeded by the emigrants' recall, which resolution was presented and passed April 26. The irrevocability of the sale of national property was again established, and amnesty granted to all emigrants but the leaders of armed forces, and some few whose offences were specially grave. The property of emigrants remaining unsold was restored, excepting forests, which Bonaparte reserved to be gradually returned as bribes to great families. … Two important projects were presented to the Tribunal and Legislative Corps, the Legion of Honor, and free schools. The Convention awarded prizes to the troops for special acts of daring, and the First Consul increased and arranged the distribution, but that was not enough: he wanted a vast system of rewards, adapted to excite amour propre, repay service, and give him a new and potent means of influencing civilians as well as soldiers. He therefore conceived the idea of the Legion of Honor, embracing all kinds of service and title to public distinction. … But this plan for forming an order of chivalry was contested even by the Council of State as offensive to that equality which its members were to defend [under the oath prescribed to the Legion], and as a renewal of aristocracy. It only passed the Tribunal and Legislative Corps by a very small majority, and this after the removal of so many of the opposition party. The institution of the Legion of Honor was specious, and, despite the opposition it met within its early days, suits a people who love distinction, despite their passion for equality, provided it be not hereditary. As for the educational scheme, it was wretched, doing absolutely nothing for the primary schools. The state had no share in it. The Commune was to provide the buildings when the pupils could pay a teacher, thus forsaking the plans of the great assemblies. The wisest statesmen desired to sustain in an improved form the central schools founded by the Convention; but Bonaparte meant to substitute barracks to educate young men for his service. … He diminished scientific study; suppressed history and philosophy, which were incompatible with despotism; and completed his system of secondary instruction by creating 6,000 scholarships, to be used as means of influence, like the ribbon of the Legion of Honor. … All his measures succeeded, and yet he was not content: he wanted to extend his power. … Cambacérès … , when the Amiens treaty was presented to the Tribunal and Legislature, … proposed, through the president of the former, that the Senate should be invited to give the First Consul some token of national gratitude (May 6, 1802). … The Senate only voted to prolong the First Consul's power for ten years (May 8), with but one protesting voice, that of Lanjuinais, who denounced the flagrant usurpation that threatened the Republic. This was the last echo of the Gironde ringing through the tame assemblies of the Consulate. Bonaparte was very angry, having expected more; but Cambacérès' calmed him and suggested a mode of evading the question, namely, to reply that an extension of power could only be granted by the people, and then to make the Council of State dictate the formula to be submitted to the people, substituting a life consulate for ten years. This was accordingly done. … The Council of State even added the First Consul's right to name his successor. This he thought premature and likely to make trouble, and therefore erased it. … Registers were opened at the record offices and mayoralties to receive votes, and there were three million and a half votes in the affirmative; a few thousand only daring to refuse, and many abstaining from voting. La Fayette registered a 'no' … and sent the First Consul a noble letter. … La Fayette then ceased the relations he had hitherto maintained with the First Consul since his return to France. … The Senate counted the popular vote on the proposal they did not make, and carried the result to the Tuileries in a body, August 8, 1802; and the result was proclaimed in the form of a Senatus-Consultum, in these terms: 'The French people name and the Senate proclaim Napoleon Bonaparte First Consul for life.' This was the first official use of the prenomen Napoleon, which was soon, in conformity with royal custom, to be substituted for the family name of Bonaparte. … The next day various modifications of the Constitution were offered to the Council of State. … The Senate were given the right to interpret and complete the Constitution, to dissolve the Legislature and Tribunal, and, what was even more, to break the judgment of tribunals, thus subordinating justice to policy. But these extravagant prerogatives could only be used at the request of the government, The Senate was limited to 120 members, 40 of whom the First Consul was to elect. The Tribunal was reduced to 50 members, and condemned to discuss with closed doors, divided into sections. … Despotism concentrated more and more. Bonaparte took back his refusal to choose his successor, and now claimed that right. He also formed a civil list of six millions. … The Senate agreed to everything, and the Senatus-Consultum was published August 5. … The Republic was now but a name; … Early in 1808 things grew dark on the English shore," and "the loss of San Domingo [to which Bonaparte had sent an expedition at the beginning of 1801] seemed inevitable [see HAYTI: A. D. 1682-1808]. While making this expedition, doomed to so fatal an end, Bonaparte continued his haughty policy on the European continent. By article second of the Luneville treaty France and Austria mutually guaranteed the independence of the Dutch, Swiss, Cisalpine, and Ligurian republics, and their freedom in the adoption of whatever form of government they saw fit to choose. {1337} Bonaparte interpreted this article by substituting for independence his own more or less direct rule in those republics. … During the negotiations preceding the Amiens treaty he stirred up a revolution in Holland. That country had a Directory and two Chambers, as in the French Constitution of year III., and he wished to impose a new constitution on the Chambers, putting them more into his power; they refused, and he expelled them by means of the Directory, whom he had won over to his side. The Dutch Directory, in this imitation of November 9, was sustained by French troops, occupying Holland under Augereau, now reconciled to Bonaparte (September, 1801). The new Constitution was put to popular vote. A certain number voted against it. The majority did not vote. Silence was taken for consent, and the new Constitution was proclaimed October 17, 1801. … The English government protested, but did not resist. At the same time he [Bonaparte] imposed on the Cisalpine republic, but without conflict or opposition, a constitution even more anti-liberal than the French one of year VIII.; the president who there replaced the First Consul having supreme power. But who was to be that President? The Cisalpines for an instant were simple enough to think that they could choose an Italian: they decided on Count Melzi, well known in the Milanese. They were soon undeceived, when Bonaparte called Cisalpine delegates to Lyons in midwinter. These delegates were landowners, scholars, and merchants, some hundreds in number, and his agents explained to them that none but Bonaparte 'was worthy to govern their republic or able to maintain it.' They eagerly offered him the presidency, which he accepted in lofty terms, and took Melzi for vice-president (January 25, 1802). Italian patriots were consoled for this subjection by the change of name from Cisalpine to Italian Republic, which seemed to promise the unity of Italy. Bonaparte threw out this hope, never meaning to gratify it. … He acted as master in Switzerland as well as Italy and Holland. Since Switzerland had ceased to be the scene of war, she had been given over to agitation, fluctuating between revolutionary democracy and the old aristocracy joined to the retrograde democracy of the small Catholic cantons. Modern democracy was at strife with itself. … Bonaparte encouraged the strife, that Switzerland might call him in as arbiter. Suddenly, late in July, 1802, he withdrew his troops, which had occupied Switzerland ever since 1798. Civil war broke out at once; the smaller Catholic cantons and the aristocrats of Berne and Zurich overthrew the government established at Berne by the moderate democrats. The government retired to Lausanne, and the country was thus divided. Bonaparte then announced that he would not suffer a Swiss counter-revolution, and that if the parties could not agree he must mediate between them. He summoned the insurrectional powers of Berne to dissolve, and invited all citizens who had held office in the central Swiss government within three years, to meet at Paris and confer with him, announcing that 30,000 men under General Ney were ready to support his mediation. The democratic government at Lausanne were willing to receive the French; the aristocratic government at Berne, anxious to restore the Austrians, appealed to European powers, who replied by silence, England only protesting against French interference. … Bonaparte responded to the English protest by so extraordinary a letter that his charge d'Affaires at London dared not communicate it verbatim. It said that, if England succeeded in drawing the continental powers into her cause, the result would be to force France to 'conquer Europe! Who knows how long it would take the First-Consul to revive the Empire of the West?' (October 23, 1802). … There was slight resistance to Ney's troops in Switzerland. All the politicians of the new democracy and some of the aristocrats went to Paris at the First Consul's summons. He did not treat their country as he had Holland and Italy, but gave her, instead, a vain show of institutions, a constitution imposing on the different parties a specious compromise. … Switzerland was dependent on France in regard to general policy, and was bound to furnish her with troops; but, at least, she administered her own affairs (January, 1803)."

      H. Martin,
      Popular History of France from the First Revolution,
      volume 2, chapters 8-9.

ALSO IN: F. C. Schlosser, History of the 18th Century, volume 7, pages 286-302.

      Mrs. L. Hug and R. Stead,
      Story of Switzerland,
      chapters 30-31.

      C. Botta,
      Italy during the Consulate and Empire of Napoleon,
      chapter 3.

      M. Bourrienne,
      Private Memoirs of Napoleon,
      volume 2, chapters 20-26.

      Duchess D' Abrantes,
      Memoirs of Napoleon,
      volume 1, chapter 80.

   "Four years of peace separated the Treaty of Luneville from
   the next outbreak of war between France and any Continental
   Power. They were years of the extension of French influence in
   every neighbouring State; in France itself, years of the
   consolidation of Bonaparte's power, and of the decline of
   everything that checked his personal rule. … Among the
   institutions which date from this period, two, equally
   associated with the name of Napoleon, have taken a prominent
   place in history, the Civil Code and the Concordat. Since the
   middle of the 18th century the codification of law had been
   pursued with more or less success by almost every Government
   in the western continent. The Constituent Assembly of 1789 had
   ordered the statutes by which it superseded the variety of
   local customs in France to be thus cast into a systematic
   form. … Bonaparte instinctively threw himself into a task so
   congenial to his own systematizing spirit, and stimulated the
   efforts of the best jurists in France by his own personal
   interest and pride in the work of legislation. A Commission of
   lawyers, appointed by the First Consul, presented the
   successive chapters of a Civil Code to the Council of State.
   In the discussions in the Council of State Bonaparte himself
   took an active, though not always a beneficial, part. … In
   March, 1804, France received the Code which, with few
   alterations, has formed from that time to the present the
   basis of its civil rights. … It is probable that a majority
   of the inhabitants of Western Europe believe that Napoleon
   actually invented the laws which bear his name. As a matter of
   fact, the substance of these laws was fixed by the successive
   Assemblies of the Revolution; and, in the final revision which
   produced the Civil Code, Napoleon appears to have originated
   neither more nor less than several of the members of his
   Council whose names have long been forgotten.
{1338}
   He is unquestionably entitled to the honour of a great
   legislator, not, however, as one who, like Solon or like
   Mahomet, himself created a new body of law. … Four other
   Codes, appearing at intervals from the year 1804 to the year
   1810, embodied, in a corresponding form, the Law of Commerce,
   the Criminal Law, and the Rules of Civil and of Criminal
   Process. … Far more distinctively the work of Napoleon
   himself was the reconciliation with the Church of Rome
   effected by the Concordat [July, 1801]. It was a restoration
   of religion similar to that restoration of political order
   which made the public service the engine of a single will. The
   bishops and priests, whose appointment the Concordat
   transferred from their congregations to the Government, were
   as much instruments of the First Consul as his prefects and
   his gensdarmes. … An alliance with the Pope offered to
   Bonaparte the means of supplanting the popular organisation of
   the Constitutional Church by an imposing hierarchy, rigid in
   its orthodoxy and unquestioning in its devotion to himself. In
   return for the consecration of his own rule, Bonaparte did not
   shrink from inviting the Pope to an exercise of authority such
   as the Holy See had never even claimed in France. The whole of
   the existing French Bishops, both the exiled non-jurors and
   those of the Constitutional Church, were summoned to resign
   their sees into the hands of the Pope; against all who refused
   to do so sentence of deposition was pronounced by the Pontiff.
   … The sees were reorganised, and filled up by nominees of the
   First Consul. The position of the great body of the clergy was
   substantially altered in its relation to the Bishops.
   Episcopal power was made despotic, like all other powers in
   France. … In the greater cycle of religious change, the
   Concordat of Bonaparte appears in another light. … It
   converted the Catholicism of France from a faith already far
   more independent than that of Fénélon and Bossuet into the
   Catholicism which in our day has outstripped the bigotry of
   Spain and Austria in welcoming the dogma of Papal
   infallibility."

"It is … easy, from the official reports which have been preserved, to see what part the First Consul took in the framing of the Civil Code. While we recognise that his intervention was advantageous on some minor points, … we must say that his views on the subjects of legislation in which this intervention was most conspicuous, were most often inspired by suggestions of personal interest, or by political considerations which ought to have no weight with the legislator. … Bonaparte came by degrees to consider himself the principal creator of a collective work to which he contributed little more than his name, and which probably would have been much better if the suggestions of a man of action and executive authority had not been blended with the views, necessarily more disinterested, larger and more humane, of the eminent jurisconsults whose glory he tried to usurp."

ALSO IN: A. Thiers, History of the Consulate and the Empire, volume 1, books 12-14.

J. E. Darras, General History of the Catholic Church, volume 4, pages 547-554.

FRANCE: A. D. 1802 (August-September).
Annexation of Piedmont, Parma, and the Isle of Elba.

A "flagrant act of the First Consul's at this time was the seizure and annexation of Piedmont. Although that country was reconquered by the Austro-Russian army in 1799, the-King of Sardinia had not been restored when, by the battle of Marengo, it came again into the possession of the French. Bonaparte then united part of it to the Cisalpine Republic, and promised to erect the rest into a separate State; but he afterwards changed his mind; and by a decree of April 20th 1801, ordered that Piedmont should form a military division of France. … Charles Emanuel, disgusted with the injustice and insults to which he was exposed, having abdicated his throne in favour of his brother Victor Emanuel, Duke of Aosta, June 4th 1802, Bonaparte … caused that part of Piedmont which had not been united to the Italian Republic to be annexed to France, as the 27th Military Department, by a formal Senatus-Consulte of September 11th 1802. A little after, October 11th, on the death of Ferdinand de Bourbon, Duke of Parma, father of the King of Etruria, that duchy was also seized by the rapacious French Republic. The isle of Elba had also been united to France by a Senatus-Consulte of August 26th."

FRANCE: A. D. 1802-1803.
   Complaints against the English press.
   The Peltier trial.
   The First Consul's rage.
   War declared by Great Britain.
   Detention of all the English in France, Italy, Switzerland and
   the Netherlands.
   Occupation of Hanover.

"Mr. Addington was wont to say in after years that the ink was scarcely dry, after the signature of the treaty of Amiens, when discontents arose which perilled the new peace. On the 24th of May [1802], M. Otto told Lord Glenbervie that if the English press were not controlled from censuring Napoleon, there must be a war to the death: and in the course of the summer, six requisitions were formally made to the British government, the purport of which was that the press must be controlled; the royal emigrants sent to Warsaw; the island of Jersey cleared of persons disaffected to the French government; and all Frenchmen dismissed from Great Britain who wore the decorations of the old monarchy. The reply was, that the press was free in England; and that if any of the emigrants broke the laws, they should be punished; but that otherwise they could not be molested. The government, however, used its influence in remonstrance with the editors of newspapers which were abusive of the French. Cobbet was pointed out by name by Napoleon, as a libeller who must be punished; and Peltier, a royalist emigrant, who had published some incentives to the assassination of the French ruler, or prophecies which might at such a crisis be fairly regarded as incentives. M. Peltier's object was to use his knowledge of the tools of Napoleon, and his great political and literary experience, in laying bare the character and policy of Napoleon; and he began, in the summer of 1802, a journal, the first number of which occasioned the demand for his punishment. {1339} He was prosecuted by the Attorney-General, and defended by Sir James Mackintosh, in a speech which was translated into nearly all the languages of Europe, and universally considered one of the most prodigious efforts of oratory ever listened to in any age. The Attorney-General, Mr. Percival, declared in Court, that he could hardly hope for an impartial decision from a jury whose faculties had been so roused, dazzled and charmed. … M. Peltier was found guilty; but the Attorney-General did not call for judgment on the instant. War was then—at the close of February [1808]—imminent; and the matter was dropped. M: Peltier was regarded as a martyr, and, as far as public opinion went, was rather rewarded than punished in England. He was wont to say that he was tried in England and punished in France. His property was confiscated by the consular agents; and his only near relations, his aged father and his sister, died at Nantes, through terror at his trial. By this time the merchants of Great Britain were thoroughly disgusted with France. Not only had Napoleon prevented all commercial intercourse between the nations throughout the year, but he had begun to, confiscate English merchant vessels, driven by stress of weather into his ports. By this time, too, the Minister's mind was made up as to the impossibility of avoiding war. … Napoleon had published [January 30, 1803] a Report of an official agent of his, Sebastiani, who had explored the Levant, striving as he went to rouse the Mediterranean States to a desertion of England and an alliance with France. He, reported of the British force at Alexandria, and of the means of attack and defence there; and his employer put forth this statement in the 'Moniteur,' his own paper, while complaining of the insults of the English press towards himself. Our ambassador at Paris, Lord Whitworth, desired an explanation: and the reception of his demand by the First Consul … was characteristic. … He sent for Lord Whitworth to wait on him at nine in the morning of the 18th; made him sit down; and then poured out his wrath 'in the style of an Italian bully,' as the record has it: and the term is not too strong; for he would not allow Lord Whitworth to speak. The first impression was, that it was his design to terrify England: but Talleyrand's anxiety to smooth matters afterwards, and to explain away what his master had said, shows that the ebullition was one of mere temper. And this was presently confirmed by his behaviour to Lord Whitworth at a levee, when the saloon was crowded with foreign ambassadors and their suites, as well as with French courtiers. The whole scene was set forth in the newspapers of every country. Napoleon walked about, transported with passion: asked Lord Whitworth if he did not know that a terrible storm had arisen between the two governments; declared that England was a violator of treaties; took to witness the foreigners present that if England did not immediately surrender Malta, war was declared; and condescended to appeal to them whether the right was not on his side; and, when Lord Whitworth would have replied, silenced him by a gesture, and observed that, Lady Whitworth being out of health, her native air would be of service to her; and she should, have it, sooner than she expected.—After this, there could be little hope of peace in the most sanguine mind. … Lord Whitworth left Paris on the 12th of May; and at Dover met General Andreossi, on his way to Paris. On the 16th, it became publicly known that war was declared: and on the same day Admiral Cornwallis received telegraphic orders which caused him to appear before Brest on the 18th. On the 17th, an Order in Council, directing reprisals, was issued; and with it the proclamation of an embargo being laid on all French and Dutch ships in British ports. … On the next day, May 18th, 1803, the Declaration of War was laid before parliament, and the feverish state, called peace, which had lasted for one year and sixteen days, passed into one of open hostility. The reason why the vessels of the Dutch were to be seized with those of the French was that Napoleon had filled Holland with French troops, and was virtually master of the country. … In July, the militia force amounted to 173,000 men; and the deficiency was in officers to command them. The minister proposed, in addition to all the forces actually in existence, the formation of an army of reserve, amounting to 50,000 men: and this was presently agreed to. There was little that the parliament and people of England would not have agreed to at this moment, under the provocation of Napoleon's treatment of the English in France. His first act was to order the detention, as prisoners of war, of all the English then in the country, between the ages of 18 and 60. The exasperation caused by this cruel measure was all that he could have expected or desired. Many were the young men thus doomed to lose, in wearing expectation or despair, twelve of the best years of their lives, cut off from family, profession, marriage, citizenship—everything that young men most value. Many were the parents separated for twelve long years from the young creatures at home, whom they had left for a mere pleasure trip: and many were the grey-haired fathers and mothers at home who went down to the grave during those twelve years without another sight of the son or daughter who was pining in some small provincial town in France, without natural occupation, and well nigh without hope. In June, the English in Rouen were removed to the neighbourhood of Amiens; those in Calais to, Lisle; those at Brussels to Valenciennes. Before the month was out, all the English in Italy and Switzerland, in addition to those in Holland, were made prisoners. How many the whole amounted to does not appear to have been ascertained: but it was believed at the time that there were 11,000 in France, and 1,800 in Holland. The first pretence was that these travellers were detained as hostages for the prizes which Napoleon accused us of taking before the regular declaration of war; but when proposals were made for an exchange, he sent a savage answer that he would keep his prisoners till the end of the war. It is difficult to conceive how there could be two opinions about the nature of the man after this act. The naval captures of which Napoleon complained, as made prior to a declaration of war, were of two merchant Ships taken by English frigates: and we find notices of such being brought into port on the 25th of May. Whether they were captured before the 18th, there is no record that we can find. … On the sea, our successes seemed a matter of course; but meantime a blow was struck at Great Britain, and especially at her sovereign, which proved that the national exasperation against France was even yet capable of increase. {1340} On the breaking out of the war; George III. issued a proclamation, as Elector of Hanover, declaring to Germany that the Germanic states had nothing to fear in regard to the new hostilities, as he was entering into war as King of Great Britain, and not as Elector of Hanover. Whatever military preparations were going forward in Hanover were merely of a defensive character. Napoleon, however, set such defence at defiance. On the 13th of June, news arrived of the total surrender of Hanover to the French. … Government resolved to declare the Elbe and the Weser, and all the ports of Western Germany, in a state of blockade; as the French had now command over all the intermediate rivers. It was calculated that this would annoy and injure Napoleon effectually, as it would cause the ruin of foreign merchants trading from the whole series of ports. English merchants would suffer deeply; but it was calculated that English capital and stock would hold out longer than those of foreign merchants. Thus was the sickening process of private ruin, as a check to public aggression, entered upon, before war had been declared a month."

ALSO IN: M. de Bourrienne, Private Memoirs of Napoleon, volume 2, chapters 28-30.

      Sir J. Mackintosh,
      Speech in Defense of Jean Peltier
      (Miscellaneous Works).

      J. Ashton,
      English Caricature and Satire on Napoleon I.,
      volume 1, chapters 24-87.

FRANCE: A. D. 1803 (April-May).
Sale or Louisiana to the United States of America.

FRANCE: A. D. 1804-1805.
   Royalist plots and Bonaparte's use or them.
   The abduction and execution or the Duc d'Enghien.
   The First Consul becomes Emperor.
   His coronation by the Pope.
   His acceptance of the crown or Italy.
   Annexation of Genoa to France.

The rupture with England furnished Bonaparte "with the occasion of throwing off the last disguise and openly restoring monarchy. It was a step which required all his audacity and cunning. He had crushed Jacobinism, but two great parties remained. There was first the more moderate republicanism, which might be called Girondism, and was widely spread among all classes and particularly in the army. Secondly, there was the old royalism, which after many years of helpless weakness had revived since Brumaire. These two parties, though hostile to each other, were forced into a sort of alliance by the new attitude of Bonaparte, who was hurrying France at once into a new revolution at home and into an abyss of war abroad. England, too, after the rupture, favoured the efforts of these parties. Royalism from England began to open communications with moderate republicanism in France. Pichegru acted for the former, and the great representative of the latter was Moreau, who had helped to make Brumaire in the tacit expectation probably of rising to the consulate in due course when Bonaparte's term should have expired, and was therefore hurt in his personal claims as well as in his republican principles. Bonaparte watched the movement through his ubiquitous police, and with characteristic strategy determined not merely to defeat it but to make it his stepping-stone to monarchy. He would ruin Moreau by fastening on him the stigma of royalism; he would persuade France to make him emperor in order to keep out the Bourbons. He achieved this with the peculiar mastery which he always showed in villainous intrigue. … Pichegru [who had returned secretly to France from England some time in January, 1804] brought with him wilder partisans, such as Georges [Cadoudal] the Chouan. No doubt Moreau would gladly have seen and gladly have helped an insurrection against Bonaparte. … But Bonaparte succeeded in associating him with royalist schemes and with schemes of assassination. Controlling the Senate, he was able to suppress the jury; controlling every avenue of publicity, he was able to suppress opinion; and the army, Moreau's fortress, was won through its hatred of royalism. In this way Bonaparte's last personal rival was removed. There remained the royalists, and Bonaparte hoped to seize their leader, the Comte d'Artois, who was expected, as the police knew, soon to join Pichegru and Georges at Paris. What Bonaparte would have done with him we may judge from the course he took when the Comte did not come. On March 15, 1804, the Duc d'Enghien, grandson of the Prince de Condé, residing at Ettenheim in Baden, was seized at midnight by a party of dragoons, brought to Paris, where he arrived on the 20th, confined in the castle of Vincennes, brought before a military commission at two o'clock the next morning, asked whether he had not borne arms against the republic, which he acknowledged himself to have done, conducted to a staircase above the moat, and there shot and buried in the moat. … That the Due d'Enghien was innocent of the conspiracy, was nothing to the purpose; the act was political, not judicial; accordingly he was not even charged with complicity. That the execution would strike horror into the cabinets, and perhaps bring about a new Coalition, belonged to a class of considerations which at this time Bonaparte systematically disregarded. This affair led immediately to the thought of giving heredity to Bonaparte's power. The thought seems to have commended itself irresistibly even to strong republicans and to those who were most shocked by the murder. To make Bonaparte's position more secure seemed the only way of averting a new Reign of Terror or new convulsions. He himself felt some embarrassment. Like Cromwell, he was afraid of the republicanism of the army, and heredity pure and simple brought him face to face with the question of divorcing Josephine. To propitiate the army, he chose from the titles suggested to him—consul, stadtholder, &c.—that of emperor, undoubtedly the most accurate, and having a sufficiently military sound. The other difficulty after much furious dissension between the two families of Bonaparte and Beauharnais, was evaded by giving Napoleon himself (but none of his successors) a power of adoption, and fixing the succession, in default of a direct heir, natural or adoptive, first in Joseph and his descendants, then in Louis and his descendants. Except abstaining from the regal title, no attempt was made to conceal the abolition of republicanism. … The change was made by the constituent power of the Senate, and the Senatus-Consulte is dated May 18, 1804. The title of Emperor had an ulterior meaning. {1341} Adopted at the moment when Napoleon began to feel himself master both in Italy and Germany, it revived the memory of Charles the Great. To himself it was the more satisfactory on that account, and, strange to say, it gave satisfaction rather than offence to the Head of the Holy Roman Empire, Francis II. Since Joseph, the Habsburg Emperors had been tired of their title, which, being elective, was precarious. They were desirous of becoming hereditary emperors in Austria, and they now took this title (though without as yet giving up the other). Francis II. bartered his acknowledgement of Napoleon's new title against Napoleon's acknowledgement of his own. It required some impudence to condemn Moreau for royalism at the very moment that his rival was re-establishing monarchy. Yet his trial began on May 15th. The death of Pichegru, nominally by suicide, on April 6th, had already furnished the rising sultanism with its first dark mystery. Moreau was condemned to two years' imprisonment, but was allowed to retire to the United States."

Chancellor Pasquier, in his Memoirs, narrates the circumstances of the seizure of the Duc d'Enghien at considerable length, and says: "This is what really occurred, according to what I have been told by those better situated to know. A council was held on the 9th of March: It is almost certain that previous to this council, which was a kind of official affair, a more secret one had been held at the house of Joseph Bonaparte. At the first council, to which were convened only a few persons, all on a footing of family intimacy, it was discussed by order of the First Consul, what would be proper to do with a prince of the House of Bourbon, in case one should have him in one's power, and the decision reached was that if he was captured on French territory, one had the right to take his life, but not otherwise. At the council held on the 9th, and which was composed of the three Consuls, the Chief Justice, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and M. Fouché, although the latter had not then resumed the post of Minister of Police, the two men who expressed contrary opinions were M. de Talleyrand and M. de Cambacérès. M. de Talleyrand declared that the prince should be sent to his death. M. Lebrun, the Third Consul, contented himself with saying that such an event would have a terrible echo throughout the world. M. de Cambacérès contended earnestly that it would be sufficient to hold the prince as hostage for the safety of the First Consul. The latter sided with M. de Talleyrand, whose counsels then prevailed. The discussion was a heated one, and when the meeting of the council was over, M. de Cambacérès thought it his duty to make a last attempt, so he followed Bonaparte into his study, and laid before him with perhaps more strength than might be expected from his character, the consequences of the deed he was about to perpetrate, and the universal horror it would excite. … He spoke in vain. In the privacy of his study, Bonaparte expressed himself even with greater violence than he had done at the council. He answered that the death of the duke would seem to the world but a just reprisal for what was being attempted against him personally; that it was necessary to teach the House of Bourbon that the blows struck with its sanction were liable to recoil on its own head; that this was the only way of compelling it to abstain from its dastardly schemes, and lastly, that matters had gone too far to retrace one's steps. M. de Talleyrand supplied this last argument."

"Bonaparte's accession to the Empire was proclaimed with the greatest pomp, without waiting to inquire whether the people approved of his promotion or otherwise. The proclamation was coldly received, even by the populace, and excited little enthusiasm. … The Emperor was recognised by the soldiery with more warmth. He visited the encampments at Boulogne," and, afterwards, "accompanied with his Empress, who bore her honours both gracefully and meekly, visited Aix-la-Chapelle and the frontiers of Germany. They received the congratulations of all the powers of Europe, excepting England, Russia, and Sweden, upon their new exaltation. … But the most splendid and public recognition of his new rank was yet to be made, by the formal act of coronation, which, therefore, Napoleon determined should take place with circumstances of solemnity which had been beyond the reach of any temporal prince, however powerful, for many ages. … Though Charlemagne had repaired to Rome to receive inauguration from the hands of the Pontiff of that day, Napoleon resolved that he who now owned the proud, and in Protestant eyes profane, title of Vicar of Christ, should travel to France to perform the coronation. … The Pope, and the cardinals whom he consulted, implored the illumination of Heaven upon their councils; but it was the stern voice of necessity which assured them that, except at the risk of dividing the Church by a schism, they could not refuse to comply with Buonaparte's requisition. The Pope left Rome on the 5th November. … On the 2d December [1804] the coronation took place in the ancient cathedral of Notre Dame. … The crown having been blessed by the Pope, Napoleon took it from the altar with his own hands, and placed it on his brows. He then put the diadem on the head of his Empress, as if determined to show that his authority was the child of his own actions. … The northern states of Italy had followed the example of France through all her change of models. … The authorities of the Italian (late Cisalpine) Republic, had a prescient guess of what was expected of them. A deputation appeared at Paris to declare the absolute necessity which they felt, that their government should assume a monarchical and hereditary form. On the 17th March [1805], they obtained an audience of the Emperor, to whom they intimated the unanimous desire of their countrymen that Napoleon, founder of the Italian Republic, should be monarch of the Italian Kingdom. … Buonaparte granted the petition of the Italian States, and … upon the 11th April, … with his Empress, set off to go through the form of coronation as King of Italy. … The new kingdom was, in all respects, modeled on the same plan with the French Empire. An order, called 'of the Iron Crown,' was established on the footing of that of the Legion of Honour. A large French force was taken into Italian pay, and Eugene Beauharnais, the son of Josephine by her former marriage, who enjoyed and merited the confidence of his father-in-law, was created viceroy, and appointed to represent, in that character, the dignity of Napoleon. Napoleon did not leave Italy without further extension of his empire. Genoa, once the proud and the powerful, resigned her independence, and her Doge presented to the Emperor a request that the Ligurian Republic … should be considered in future as a part of the French nation."

"Genoa and the Ligurian Republic were incorporated with France, June 3d 1805. … The Duchies of Parma and Piacenza, which, together with Guastalla, had been already seized, were declared dependencies of the French Empire by an imperial decree of July 21st. The principality of Piombino was bestowed on Napoleon's sister Eliza, wife of the Senator Bacciocchi, but on conditions which retained it under the Emperor's suzerainty: and the little state was increased by the addition of the Republic of Lucca."

      ALSO IN:
      C. Botta,
      Italy during the Consulate and Empire of Napoleon,
      chapters 3-4.

      Memoirs dictated by Napoleon to his
      Generals at St. Helena,
      volume 6, pages 219-225.

      Madame de Rémusat,
      Memoirs,
      book 1, chapters 4-10 (volume 1).

      M. de Bourrienne,
      Private Memoirs of Napoleon,
      volume 3, chapters 1-12.

"In England Pitt returned to office in May, 1804, and this in itself was an evil omen for France. He enjoyed the confidence, not only of his own nation but of Europe, and he at once set to work to resume the threads of that coalition of which England had formerly directed the resources. Alexander I. of Russia had begun to see through the designs of Napoleon; he found that he had been duped in the joint mediation in Germany, he resented the occupation of Hanover and he ordered his court to put on mourning for the duke of Enghien. Before long he broke off diplomatic relations with France (September 1804), and a Russian war was now only a question of time. Austria was the power most closely affected by Napoleon's assumption of the imperial title. … While hastening to acknowledge Napoleon, Austria was busied in military preparations and began to resume its old connection with England. Prussia was the power on which France was accustomed to rely with implicit confidence. But the occupation of Hanover and the interference with the commerce of the Elbe had weakened Frederick William III.'s belief in the advantages of a neutral policy, and, though he could not make up his mind to definite action, he began to open negotiations with Russia in view of a rupture with France. The fluctuations of Prussian policy may be followed in the alternating influence of the two ministers of foreign affairs, Haugwitz and Hardenberg. Meanwhile Napoleon, ignorant or reckless of the growing hostility of the great powers, continued his aggressions at the expense of the lesser states. … These acts gave the final impulse to the hostile powers, and before Napoleon quitted Italy the Coalition had been formed. On the 11th of April, 1805, a final treaty was signed between Russia and England. The two powers pledged themselves to form an European league against France, to conclude no peace without mutual consent, to settle disputed points in a congress at the end of the war, and to form a federal tribunal for the maintenance of the system which should, then be established. The immediate objects of the allies were the abolition of French rule in Italy, Holland, Switzerland, and Hanover; the restoration of Piedmont to the king of Sardinia; the protection of Naples; and the erection of a permanent barrier against France by the union of Holland and Belgium under the House of Orange. The coalition was at once joined by Gustavus IV. of Sweden, who inherited his father's devotion to the cause of legitimate monarchy, and who hoped to recover power in Pomerania. Austria, terrified for its Italian possessions by Bonaparte's evident intention to subdue the whole peninsula, was driven into the league. Prussia, in spite of the attraction of recovering honour and independence, refused to listen to the solicitations of England and Russia, and adhered to its feeble neutrality. Of the other German states Bavaria, Baden, and Wurtemberg were allies of France. As far as effective operations were concerned, the coalition consisted only of Austria and Russia. Sweden and Naples, which had joined secretly, could not make efforts on a great scale, and England was as yet content with providing subsidies and the invaluable services of its fleet. It was arranged that, one Austrian army under the archduke Charles should invade Lombardy, while Mack, with a second army and the aid of Russia, should occupy Bavaria and advance upon the Rhine."

FRANCE: A. D. 1805 (March-December).
   Napoleon's plans and preparations for the invasion of England.
   Nelson's long pursuit of the French fleets.
   His victory and death at Trafalgar.
   Napoleon's rapid march to the Danube.
   Capitulation of Mack at Ulm.
   The French in Vienna.
   The great battle of Austerlitz.

"While the coalition was forming, and Napoleon seemed wantonly to be insulting Europe and ignoring the danger of exciting fresh enemies, he was in fact urging on with all rapidity his schemes for the invasion of England, which he probably hoped might be so successful as to paralyse all action on the part of the European powers. The constantly repeated representations of his naval officers had forced him, much against his will, to believe that his descent upon England would be impracticable unless secured by the presence of his fleet. In spite of the general voice of those who knew the condition of the French navy, he determined to act with his fleet on the same principles as he would have acted with his army; a gigantic combination of various squadrons was to be effected, and a fleet great enough to destroy all hope of opposition to sweep the Channel. For this purpose the 18 ships of the line at Brest under Admiral Gantheaume, the squadron at Rochefort under Villeneuve, and the Toulon fleet under Latouche-Tréville, were to unite. The last mentioned admiral was intrusted with the chief command. Sailing up the coast of France, he was to liberate from their blockade the squadrons of Rochefort and Brest, and with their combined fleets appear before Boulogne. But Latouche-Tréville died, and Napoleon intrusted his plans to Villeneuve. {1343} Those plans, all of them arranged without regard to the bad condition of the French ships, or to the uncertainty of the weather, were frequently changed; at one time Villeneuve from Toulon, and Missiessy, his successor, at Rochefort, were to proceed to the West Indies, drawing the English fleet thither; then Gantheaume was to appear from Brest, throw troops into Ireland, and thus cover the flotilla. At another time, all the fleets were to assemble at the West Indies, and, joining with the Spanish fleet at Ferrol, appear in the Straits of Calais. To complete this last measure Villeneuve set sail from Toulon on the 30th of March 1805, joined Gravina at Cadiz, and reached Martinique on the 13th of May with 20 ships of the line, and 7 frigates. His voyage was so slow that Missiessy had returned from the West Indies to France, and the junction failed. In hot pursuit of Villeneuve, Nelson, who had at length found out his destination, had hurried. At Martinique Gantheaume, with the Brest fleet, should have joined Villeneuve; unfortunately for him, Admiral Cornwallis blockaded his fleet. Villeneuve therefore had to return to Europe alone, sailing for Ferrol to pick up a squadron of 15 ships. He was then, at the head of 35 ships, ordered to appear before Brest, liberate Gantheaume, and appear in the Channel. Back again in pursuit of him Nelson sailed, but supposed that he would return to the Mediterranean and not to Ferrol; he therefore again missed him; but as he had found means to inform the English Government that Villeneuve was returning to Europe, Calder, with a fleet of 15 ships, was sent to intercept him. The fleets encountered off Cape Finisterre [Northwest corner of Spain]. The French had 27 vessels, Calder but 18, and after an indecisive battle, in which two Spanish ships were taken, he was afraid to renew the engagement; and Villeneuve was thus enabled to reach Ferrol in safety. However, all the operations towards concentration had led to absolutely nothing, and the English fleets, which the movements towards the West Indies were to have decoyed from the Channel, were either still off the coast of France or in immediate pursuit of the fleet of Villeneuve. Nelson returned to Gibralter, and as soon as he found out where Villeneuve was, he joined his fleet to that of Cornwallis before Brest, and himself returned to England. … Meanwhile Villeneuve had not been able to get ready for sea till the 11th of August. … He was afraid to venture northwards, and with the full approbation of his Spanish colleague Gravina, determined to avail himself of a last alternative which Napoleon had suggested, and sailed to Cadiz. This was a fatal blow to the gigantic schemes of Napoleon. Up till the 22nd of August he still believed that Villeneuve would make his appearance, and in fact wrote to him that day at Brest, closing his letter with the words, 'England is ours.' As the time for his great stroke drew near he grew nervously anxious, constantly watching the Channel for the approach of the fleet, and at last, when his Minister of Marine, Decrès, told him that the fleet had gone to Cadiz, he broke forth in bitter wrath against both his Minister and Villeneuve, whom he accused of the most shameful weakness. But Napoleon was not a man who let his success be staked upon one plan alone. Though studiously hiding from his people the existence of the coalition, and not scrupling to have recourse to forged letters and fabricated news for the purpose, he was fully aware of its existence. … Without much difficulty, therefore, he at once resigned his great plans upon England, and directed his army towards the eastern frontier."

"In the first days of September, 1805, Napoleon's great army was in full march across France and Germany, to attain the Danube. … The Allies … had projected four separate and ill-combined attacks; the first on Hanover and Holland by a Russian and British force; the second, on Lower Italy by a similar body; the third, by a great Austrian army on Upper Italy; and the fourth, by a United Austrian and Russian army, moving across Southern Germany to the Rhine. … By this time, the Austrian Mack had drawn close to the Inn, in order to compel Bavaria to join the Allies, and was even making his way to the Iller, but his army was far distant from that of the Russian chief, Kutusoff, and still further from that of Buxhöwden, the one in Galicia, the other in Poland. … Napoleon had seized this position of affairs, with the comprehensive knowledge of the theatre of war, and the skill of arranging armies upon it, in which he has no equals among modern captains. He opposed Masséna to the Archdukes, with a much weaker force, confident that his great lieutenant could hold them in check. He neglected the attacks from the North Sea, and the South; but he resolved to strike down Mack, in overwhelming strength, should he advance without his Russian supports. … The great mass of the Grand Army had reached the Main and Rhine by the last week of September. The left wing, joined by the Bavarian forces, and commanded by Bernadotte and Marmont, had marched from Hanover and Holland, and was around Würtzburg; the centre, the corps of Soult, and Davoust, moved from the channel, was at Spire and Mannheim, and the right wing, formed of the corps of Ney and Lannes, with the Imperial Guard, and the horse of Murat, filled the region between Carlsruhe and Strasburg, the extreme right under Augereau, which had advanced from Brittany, being still behind but drawing towards Huningen. By this time Mack was upon the Iller, holding the fortress of Ulm on the upper Danube, and extending his forces thence to Memmingen. … By the first days of October the great French masses … were in full march from the Rhine to the Main, across Würtemberg and the Franconian plains; and cavalry filled the approaches to the Black Forest, in order to deceive and perplex Mack. … The Danube ere long was reached and crossed, at Donauwörth, Ingolstadt, and other points; and Napoleon already stood on the rear of his enemy, interposing between him and Vienna, and cut him off from the Russians, even now distant. The net was quickly drawn round the ill-fated Mack. … By the third week of October, the Grand Army had encompassed the Austrians on every side, and Napoleon held his quarry in his grasp. Mack … had not the heart to strike a desperate stroke, and to risk a battle; and he capitulated at Ulm on the 19th of October. Two divisions of his army had contrived to break out; but one was pursued and nearly destroyed by Murat, and the other was compelled by Augereau to lay down its arms, as it was on its way to the hills of the Tyrol. An army of 85,000 men had thus, so to speak, been well-nigh effaced; and not 20,000 had effected their escape. France meanwhile had met a crushing disaster on the element which England had made her own. {1344} We have seen how Villeneuve had put into Cadiz, afraid to face the hostile fleets off Brest; and how this had baffled the project of the descent. Napoleon was indignant with his ill-fated admiral. … At a hint of disgrace the susceptible Frenchman made up his mind, at any risk, to fight. By this time Nelson had left England, and was off Cadiz with a powerful fleet; and he actually weakened his force by four sail-of-the-line, in order to lure his adversary out. On the 20th of October, 1805, the allied fleet was in the open sea; it had been declared at a council of war, that a lost battle was almost certain, so bad was the condition of many of the crews; but Villeneuve was bent on challenging Fate; and almost courted defeat, in his despair. … On the morning of the 21st, the allied fleet, 33 war ships, and a number of frigates, was off Cape Trafalgar [25 miles west of Gibraltar on the coast of Spain], making for the Straits. … Nelson advanced slowly against his doomed enemy, with 27 ships and their attendant frigates; the famous signal floated from his mast, 'England expects every man to do his duty'; and, at about noon, Collingwood pierced Villeneuve's centre; nearly destroying the Santa Anna with a single broadside. Ere long Nelson had, broken Villeneuve's line, with the Victory, causing frightful destruction; and as other British ships came up by degrees they relieved the leading ships from the pressure of their foes, and completed the ruin already begun. At about one, Nelson met his death wound, struck by a shot from the tops of the Redoutable. … Pierced through and through, the shattered allied centre was soon a collection of captured wrecks. … Only 11 ships out of 33 escaped; and the burning Achille, like the Orient at the Nile, added to the grandeur and horrors of an appalling scene. Villeneuve, who had fought most honourably in the Bucentaure, was compelled to strike his flag before the death of Nelson. The van of the allies that had fled at Trafalgar, was soon afterwards captured by a British squadron. Though dearly bought by the death of Nelson, the victory may be compared to Lepanto; and it blotted France out as a great Power on the ocean; Napoleon … never tried afterwards to meet England at sea. … His success, at this moment, had been so wonderful, that what he called 'the loss of a few ships at sea,' seemed a trifling and passing rebuff of fortune. … He had discomfitted the whole plan of the Allies; and the failure of the attack on the main scene of the theatre had caused all the secondary attacks to fail. … Napoleon, throwing out detachments to protect his flanks, had entered Vienna on the 14th of November. … The House of Hapsburg and its chief had fled. … Extraordinary as his success had been, the position of the Emperor had, in a few days, become grave. … Napoleon had not one hundred thousand men in hand—apart from the bodies that covered his flanks—to make head against his converging enemies. Always daring, however, he resolved to attack the Allies before they could receive aid from Prussia; and he marched from Vienna towards the close of November; having taken careful precautions to guard his rear. … By this time the Allies were around Olmütz, the Archdukes were not many marches away, and a Prussian army was nearly ready to move. Had the Russians and Austrians fallen back from Olmütz and effected their junction with the Archdukes, they could, therefore, have. opposed the French with a force more than two-fold in numbers. … But the folly and presumption which reigned among the young nobles surrounding the Czar—Alexander was now at the head of his army—brought on the Coalition deserved punishment, and pedantry had its part in an immense disaster. The force of Napoleon appeared small, his natural line of retreat was exposed, and a theorist in the Austrian camp persuaded the Czar and the Austrian Emperor, who was at the head of his troops at Olmütz, to consent to a magnificent plan of assailing Napoleon by the well-known method of Frederick the Great, in the Seven Years' War, of turning his right wing, by an attack made, in the oblique order, in great force, and of cutting him off from his base at Vienna, and driving him, routed, into, Bohemia. This grand project on paper, which involved a march across the front of the hostile army within reach of the greatest of masters of war, was hailed with exultation. … The Allies were soon in full march from Olmütz, and preparations were made for the decisive movement in the night of the 1st December, 1805. Napoleon had watched the reckless false step being made by his foes with unfeigned delight; 'that army is mine,' he proudly exclaimed. … The sun of Austerlitz rose on the 2nd, the light of victory often invoked by Napoleon. … The dawn of the winter's day revealed three large columns, succeeded by a fourth at no great distance, toiling through a tract of marshes and frozen lakes, to outflank Napoleon's right on the Goldbach, the allied centre, on the tableland of Prätzen, immediately before the French front, having been dangerously weakened by this great turning movement. The assailants were opposed by a small force only, under Davoust, one of the best of the marshals. … Ere long Napoleon, who, like a beast of prey, had reserved his strength until it was time to spring, launched Soult in force against the Russian and Austrian centre, enfeebled by the detachment against the French right and exposed to the whole weight of Napoleon's attacks; and Prätzen was stormed after a fierce struggle, in which Bernadotte gave the required aid to Soult. The allied centre was thus rent asunder. Lannes meanwhile had defeated the allied right. … Napoleon now turned with terrible energy and in overwhelming strength against the four columns, that had assailed his right, but had begun to retreat. His victorious centre was aided by his right, now set free; the Russians and Austrians were struck with panic, a horrible scene of destruction followed, the flying troops were slain or captured in thousands; and multitudes perished, engulfed in the lakes, the French artillery shattering their icy surface. The rout was decisive, complete, and appalling; about 80,000 of the Allies were engaged; they lost all their guns and nearly half their numbers, and the remains of their army were a worthless wreck. Napoleon had only 60,000 men in the fight. … The memorable campaign of 1805 is, perhaps, the grandest of Napoleon's exploits in war."

      W. C. Russell,
      Nelson and the Naval Supremacy of England,
      chapters 17-20.

      Capt. E. J. de la Gravière,
      Sketches of the last Naval War,
      part 6 (volume 2).

      C. Adams,
      Great Campaigns in Europe, from 1796 to 1870,
      chapter 3.

      A. T. Mahan,
      Influences of Sea Power upon the French Revolution,
      chapters 15-16 (volume 2).

FRANCE: A. D. 1805-1806 (December-August).
   The Peace of Presburg.
   Humiliation of Austria.
   Formation of the Confederation of the Rhine.
   Extinction of the Holy Roman Empire.
   The goading of Prussia to war.

FRANCE: A. D. 1805-1806 (December-September).
Dethronement of the dynasty of Naples.
Bestowal of the crown upon Joseph Bonaparte.

The treaty of Presburg was "immediately followed by a measure hitherto unprecedented in European history—the pronouncing a sentence of dethronement against an independent, sovereign, for no other cause than his having contemplated hostilities against the French Emperor; On the 26th December [1805] a menacing proclamation proceeded from Presburg … which evidently bore marks of Napoleon's composition, against the house of Naples. The conqueror announced that Marshal St. Cyr would advance by rapid strides to Naples, 'to punish the treason of a criminal queen, and precipitate her from the throne. We have pardoned that infatuated king, who thrice has done everything to ruin himself. Shall we pardon him a fourth time? … No! The dynasty of Naples has ceased to reign—its existence is incompatible with the repose of Europe and the honour of my crown.' … The ominous announcement, made from the depths of Moravia, that the dynasty of Naples had ceased to reign, was not long allowed to remain a dead letter. Massena was busily employed, in January, in collecting his forces in the centre of Italy, and before the end of that month 50,000 men, under the command of Joseph Buonaparte, had crossed the Pontifical States and entered the Neapolitan territory in three columns, which marched on Gaeta, Capua, and Itri. Resistance was impossible; the feeble Russian and English forces which had disembarked to support the Italian levies, finding the whole weight of the war likely to be directed against them, withdrew to Sicily; the court, thunderstruck by the menacing proclamation of 27th December, speedily followed their example. … In vain the intrepid Queen Caroline, who still remained at Naples, armed the lazzaroni, and sought to infuse into the troops a portion of her own indomitable courage; she was seconded by none; Capua opened its gates; Gaeta was invested; the Campagna filled with the invaders; she, vanquished but not subdued, compelled to yield to necessity, followed her timid consort to Sicily; and, on the 15th February, Naples beheld its future sovereign, Joseph Buonaparte, enter its walls. … During the first tumult of invasion, the peasantry of Calabria … submitted to the enemy. … But the protraction of the siege of Gaeta, which occupied Massena with the principal army of the French, gave them time to recover from their consternation. … A general insurrection took place in the beginning of March, and the peasants stood firm in more than one position; but they were unable to withstand the shock of the veterans of France, and in a decisive action in the plain of Campo-Tenese their tumultuary levies, though 15,000 strong, were entirely dispersed. The victorious Reynier penetrated even to Reggio, and the standards of Napoleon waved on its towers, in sight of the English videtts on the shores of Sicily. When hostilities had subsided, Joseph repaired in person to the theatre of war. … He received at Savigliano, the principal town of the province, the decree, by which Napoleon created him king of the two Sicilies. By so doing, however, he was declared not to lose his contingent right of succession to the throne of France; but the two crowns were never to be united."

Sir A. Alison, History of Europe, 1789-1815, chapter 40, section 150, and chapter 42, sections 21-23,(volume 9).

"Joseph's tenure of his new dominion was yet incomplete. The fortress of Gaeta still held out, … and the British in Sicily (who had already taken the Isle of Capri, close to the capital) sent 5,000 men to their aid under Sir John Stuart, who encountered at Maida (July 6) a French corps of 7.500, under Reynier. The battle presented one of the rare instances in which French and British troops have actually crossed bayonets; but French enthusiasm sank before British intrepidity, and the enemy were driven from the field with the loss of half their number. The victory of Maida had a prodigious moral effect in raising the spirits and self-confidence of the British soldiery; but its immediate results were less considerable. The French were indeed driven from Calabria, but the fall of Gaeta (July 18th), after the loss of its brave governor, the Prince of Hesse-Philipsthal, released the main army under Massena: the British exposed to be attacked by overwhelming numbers, re-embarked (September 5) for Palermo, and the Calabrian insurrection was suppressed with great bloodshed. But an amnesty was at length … published by Joseph, who devoted himself with great zeal and admirable judgment to heal the wounds of his distracted kingdom."

ALSO IN: P. Colletta, History of the Kingdom of Naples, book 5, chapter 4, and book 6, chapters 1-3.

      C. Botta,
      Italy during the Consulate and Empire of Napoleon,
      chapter 4.

FRANCE: A. D. 1806 (January-October).
   Napoleon's triumphant return to Paris.
   Death of Pitt.
   Peace negotiations with England.
   King making and prince making by the Corsican Cæsar.

   ON the 27th of December, the day after the signing of the
   Treaty of Presburg, Napoleon left Vienna for Paris. "En route
   for Paris he remained a week at Munich to be present at the
   marriage of Eugene Beauharnais to the Princess Augusta,
   daughter of the King of Bavaria. Josephine joined him, and the
   whole time was passed in fêtes and rejoicings. On this
   occasion he proclaimed Eugene his adopted son, and, in default
   of issue of his own, his successor in the kingdom of Italy.
   Accompanied by Josephine, Napoleon re-entered Paris on the
   26th of January, 1806, amidst the most enthusiastic
   acclamations. The national vanity was raised to the highest
   pitch by the glory and extent of territory he had acquired.
   The Senate at a solemn audience besought him to accept the
   title of 'the Great'; and public rejoicings lasting many days
   attested his popularity. An important political event in
   England opened new views of security and peace to the empire,
   William Pitt, the implacable enemy of the Revolution, had died
   on the 23rd of January, at the early age of 47; and the
   Government was entrusted to the hands of his great opponent,
   Charles James Fox.
{1346}
   The disastrous results of the war of which Pitt had been the
   mainstay probably hastened his death. After the capitulation
   of Ulm he never rallied. The well-known friendship of Fox for
   Napoleon, added to his avowed principles, afforded the
   strongest hopes that England and France were at length
   destined to cement the peace of the world by entering into
   friendly relations. Aided by Talleyrand, who earnestly
   counselled peace, Napoleon made overtures to the English
   Government through Lord Yarmouth, who was among the détenus.
   He offered to yield the long-contested point of
   Malta—consenting to the continued possession of that island,
   the Cape of Good Hope, and other conquests in the East and
   West Indies by Great Britain, and proposing generally that the
   treaty should be conducted on the uti possidetis principle:
   that is, allowing each party to retain whatever it had
   acquired in the course of the war. Turkey acknowledged
   Napoleon as Emperor and entered into amicable relations with
   the French nation; and what was still more important, Russia
   signed a treaty of peace in July, influenced by the pacific
   inclinations of the English Minister. Napoleon resolved to
   surround his throne with an order of nobles, and to place
   members of his family on the thrones of the conquered
   countries adjoining France in order that they might become
   parts of his system and co-operate in his plans. Two decrees
   of the 31st of March declared Joseph Bonaparte King of Naples,
   and Murat Grand Duke of Berg and Cleves. Louis Bonaparte was
   made King of Holland a few months afterwards, and Jerome King
   of Westphalia in the following year. The Princess Pauline
   received the principality of Guastalla, and Talleyrand,
   Bernadotte, and Berthier those of Benevento, Ponte-Corvo, and
   Neufchâtel. Fifteen dukedoms were created and bestowed on the
   most distinguished statesmen and generals of the empire, each
   with an income amounting to a fifteenth part of the revenue of
   the province attached to it. These became grand fiefs of the
   empire. Cambacérès and Lebrun were made Dukes of Parma and
   Placenza; Savary, Duke of Rovigo; Junot, of Abrantes; Lannes,
   of Montebello, &c. The manners of some of these Republican
   soldiers were ill adapted to courtly forms, and afforded
   amusement to the members of the ancient and legitimate order.
   … Napoleon's desire to conciliate and form alliances with
   the established dynasties and aristocracies of Europe kept
   pace with his daring encroachments on their hitherto exclusive
   dignity. Besides the marriage of Eugene Beauharnais to a
   Princess of Bavaria, an alliance was concluded between the
   hereditary Prince of Baden and Mademoiselle Stephanie
   Beauharnais, a niece of the Empress. The old French noblesse
   were also encouraged to appear at the Tuileries. During the
   Emperor's visit at Munich the Republican calendar was
   abolished and the usual mode of computing time restored in
   France. … The negotiations with England went on tardily, and
   the news of Fox's alarming state of health excited the gravest
   fears in the French Government. Lord Lauderdale arrived in
   Paris, on the part of England, in the month of August; but
   difficulties were continually started, and before anything was
   decided the death of Fox gave the finishing blow to all hope
   of peace. Lord Lauderdale demanded his passports and left
   Paris in October. Napoleon wished to add Sicily to his
   brother's new kingdom of Naples; but British ships were able
   to protect the King and Queen of Naples in that insular
   position, and the English Government refused to desert their
   allies on this occasion or to consent to any compensation or
   adjustment offered. On this point principally turned the
   failure of the attempt at peace as far as can be discovered
   from the account of the negotiations."

FRANCE: A. D. 1806-1807.
Napoleon's campaign against the Russians.
Eylau and Friedland.

FRANCE: A.D. 1806-1810.
   Commercial warfare with England.
   British Orders in Council and Napoleon's Berlin and Milan
   Decrees.
   The "Continental System."

   "As the war advanced, after the Peace of Amiens, the neutrals
   became bolder and more aggressive. "American ships were
   constantly arriving at Dutch and French ports with sugar,
   coffee, and other productions of the French and Spanish West
   Indies. And East India goods were imported by them into Spain,
   Holland, and France. … By the rivers and canals of Germany
   and Flanders goods were floated into the warehouses of the
   enemy, or circulated far the supply of his customers in
   neutral countries. … It was a general complaint, therefore,
   that the enemy carried on colonial commerce under the neutral
   flag, cheaply as well as safely; that he was enabled not only
   to elude British hostilities, but to rival British merchants
   and planters in the European markets; that by the same means
   the hostile treasuries were filled with a copious stream of
   revenue; and that by this licentious use of the neutral flag,
   the enemy was enabled to employ his whole military marine for
   purposes of offensive war, without being obliged to maintain a
   squadron or a ship for the defence of his colonial ports. …
   Such complaints made against neutral states found a powerful
   exposition in a work entitled 'War in Disguise and the Frauds
   of the Neutral Flag,' supposed to have been written by Mr.
   James Stephen, the real author of the orders in Council. The
   British Government did not see its way at once to proceed in
   the direction of prohibiting to neutral ships the colonial
   trade, which they had enjoyed for a considerable time; but the
   first step was taken to paralyse the resources of the enemy,
   and to restrict the trade of neutrals, by the issue of an
   order in Council in May 1806, declaring that all the coasts,
   ports, and rivers from the Elbe to Brest should be considered
   blockaded, though the only portion of those coasts rigorously
   blockaded was that included between the Ostend and the mouth
   of the Seine, in the ports of which preparations were made for
   the invasion of England. The northern ports of Germany and
   Holland were left partly open, and the navigation of the
   Baltic altogether free. Napoleon, then in the zenith of his
   power, saw, in this order in Council, a fresh act of
   wantonness, and he met it by the issue of the Berlin decree of
   November 21, 1806. In that document, remarkable for its
   boldness and vigour, Napoleon charged England with having set
   at nought the dictates of international law, with having made
   prisoners of war of private individuals, and with having taken
   the crews out of merchant ships.
{1347}
   He charged this country with having captured private property
   at sea extended to commercial parts the restrictions of
   blockade applicable only to fortified places, declared as
   blockaded places which were not invested by naval forces, and
   abused the right of blockade in order to benefit her own trade
   at the expense of the commerce of Continental states. He
   asserted the right of combating the enemy with the same arms
   used against himself, especially when such enemy ignored all
   ideas of justice and every liberal sentiment which
   civilisation imposes. He announced his resolution to apply to
   England the same usages which she had established in her
   maritime legislation. He laid dawn the principles which France
   was resolved to act upon until England should recognise that
   the rights of war are the same on land as on sea. … And upon
   these premises the decree ordered,

2nd, That all commerce and correspondence with the British islands should be prohibited; and that letters addressed to England or Englishmen, written in the English language, should be detained and taken.

3rd, That every British subject found in a country occupied by French troops, or by those of their allies, should be made a prisoner of war.

4th, That all merchandise and property belonging to British subjects should be deemed a good prize.

5th, That all commerce in English merchandise should be prohibited, and that all merchandise belonging to England or her colonies, and of British manufacture, should be deemed a good prize. And

6th, That no vessel coming direct from England or her colonies be allowed to enter any French port, or any port subject to French authority; and that every vessel which, by means of a false declaration, should evade such regulations, should at once be captured.

The British Government lost no time in retaliating against France far so bald a course; and, on January 7, 1807, an order in Council was issued, which, after reference to the orders issued by France, enjoined that no vessel should be allowed to trade from one enemy's port to another, or from one port to another of a French ally's coast shut against English vessels; and ordered the commanders of the ships of war and privateers to warn every neutral vessel coming from any such port, and destined to another such port, to discontinue her voyage, and that any vessel, after being so warned, which should be found proceeding to another such port should be captured and considered as lawful prize. This order in Council having reached Napoleon at Warsaw, he immediately ordered the confiscation of all English merchandise and colonial produce found in the Hanseatic Towns. … But Britain, in return, went a step further, and, by order in Council of November 11, 1807, declared all the ports and places of France, and those of her allies, and of all countries where the English flag was excluded, even though they were not at war with Britain, should be placed under the same restrictions for commerce and navigation as if they were blockaded, and consequently that ships destined to those ports should be liable to the visit of British cruisers at a British station, and there subjected to a tax to be imposed by the British Parliament. Napoleon was at Milan when this order in Council was issued, and forthwith, on December 17, the famous decree appeared, by which he imposed on neutrals just the contrary of what was prescribed to them by England, and further declared that every vessel, of whatever nation, that submitted to the order in Council of November 11, should by that very act become denationalised, considered as British property, and condemned as a good prize. The decree placed the British islands in a state of blockade, and ordered that every ship, of whatever nation, and with whatever cargo, proceeding from English ports or English colonies to countries occupied by English troops, or going to England, should be a good prize. This England answered by the order in Council of April 26, 1809, which revoked the order of 1807 as regards America, but confirmed the blockade of all the parts of France and Holland, their colonies and dependencies. And then France, still further incensed against England, issued the tariff of Trianon, dated August 5, 1810, completed by the decree of St. Cloud of September 12, and of Fontainebleau of October 19, which went the length of ordering the seizure and burning of all British goods found in France, Germany, Holland, Italy, Spain, and in every place occupied by French troops. … The princes of the Rhenish Confederation hastened to execute it, same for the purpose of enriching themselves by the wicked deed, same out of hatred towards the English, and some to show their devotion towards their master. From Carlsruhe to Munich, from Cassel to Dresden and Hamburg, everywhere, bonfires were made of English goods. And so exacting were the French that when Frankfort exhibited the least hesitation in carrying out the decree, French troops were sent to execute the order. By means such as these [known as the Continental System of Napoleon] the commerce of the world was greatly deranged, if not destroyed altogether, and none suffered more from them than England herself."

L. Levi, History of British Commerce, part 2, chapter 4 (with appended text of Orders and Decrees).

   "The object of the Orders in Council was … twofold: to
   embarrass France and Napoleon by the prohibition of direct
   import and export trade, of all external commerce, which for
   them could only be carried on by neutrals; and at the same
   time to force into the Continent all the British products or
   manufactures that it could take. … The whole system was
   then, and has since been, roundly abused as being in no sense
   a military measure, but merely a gigantic exhibition of
   commercial greed; but this simply begs the question. To win
   her fight Great Britain was obliged not only to weaken
   Napoleon, but to increase her own strength. The battle between
   the sea and the land was to be fought out on Commerce. England
   had no army wherewith to meet Napo lean; Napoleon had no navy
   to cope with that of his enemy. As in the case of an
   impregnable fortress, the only alternative for either of these
   contestants was to reduce the other by starvation. On the
   common frontier, the coast line, they met in a deadly strife
   in which no weapon was drawn. The imperial soldiers were
   turned into coast-guards-men to shut out Great Britain from
   her markets; the British ships became revenue cutters to
   prohibit the trade of France. The neutral carrier, pocketing
   his pride, offered his service to either for pay, and the
   other then regarded him as taking part in hostilities.
{1348}
   The ministry, in the exigencies of debate, betrayed some lack
   of definite conviction as to their precise aim. Sometimes the
   Orders were justified as a military measure of retaliation;
   sometimes the need of supporting British commerce as essential
   to her life and to her naval strength was alleged; and, their
   opponents in either case taunted them with inconsistency.
   Napoleon, with despotic simplicity, announced clearly his
   purpose of ruining England through her trade, and the ministry
   really needed no other arguments than his avowals. 'Salus
   civitatis suprema lex.' To call the measures of either not
   military, is as inaccurate as it would be to call the ancient
   practice of circumvallation, unmilitary, because the only
   weapon used for it was the spade. … The Orders in Council
   received various modifications, due largely to the importance
   to Great Britain of the American market, which absorbed a
   great part of her manufactures; but these modifications,
   though sensibly lightening the burden upon neutrals and
   introducing some changes of form, in no sense departed from
   the spirit of the originals. The entire series was finally
   withdrawn in June, 1812, but too late to avert the war with
   the United States, which was declared in the same month.
   Napoleon never revoked his Berlin and Milan decrees, although
   by a trick he induced an over-eager President of the United
   States to believe that he had done so. … The true function
   of Great Britain in this long struggle can scarcely be
   recognized unless there be a clear appreciation of the fact
   that a really great national movement, like the French
   Revolution, or a really great military power under an
   incomparable general, like the French Empire under Napoleon,
   is not to be brought to terms by ordinary military successes,
   which simply destroy the organized force opposed. … If the
   course of aggression which Bonaparte had inherited from the
   Revolution was to continue, there were needed, not the
   resources of the Continent only, but of the world. There was
   needed also a diminution of ultimate resistance below the
   stored-up aggressive strength of France; otherwise, however
   procrastinated, the time must come when the latter should
   fail. On both these points Great Britain withstood Napoleon.
   She shut him off from the world, and by the same act prolonged
   her own powers of endurance beyond his power of aggression.
   This in the retrospect of history was the function of Great
   Britain, in the Revolutionary and Napoleonic period; and that
   the successive ministries of Pitt and his followers pursued
   the course best fitted, upon the whole, to discharge that
   function, is their justification to posterity."

Capt. A. T. Mahan, The Influence of Sea Power upon the French Revolution and Empire, chapters 18-19 (volume 2).

ALSO IN: H. Adams, History of the United States, volume 3, chapters 4 and 16, and volume 4, chapter 4.

FRANCE: A. D. 1807 (February-September).
   The Turkish alliance.
   Ineffective attempts of England against Constantinople
   and in Egypt.

FRANCE: A. D. 1807 (June-July).
   The Treaties of Tilsit with Russia and Prussia.
   The latter shorn of half her territory.
   Formation of the kingdom of Westphalia.
   Secret understandings between Napoleon and the Czar.

FRANCE: A. D. 1807 (July-December).
The seeming power and real weakness of Napoleon's empire.

"The dangers … that lay hid under the new arrangement of the map of Europe [by, the Treaty of Tilsit], and in the results of French conquests, were as yet withdrawn from almost every eye; and the power of Napoleon was now at its height, though his empire was afterwards somewhat enlarged. … If England still stood in arms against it, she was without an avowed ally on the Continent; and, drawing to itself the great Power of the North, it appeared to threaten the civilized world with that universal and settled domination which had not been seen since the fall of Rome. The Sovereign of France from the Scheldt to the Pyrenees, and of Italy from the Alps to the Tiber, Napoleon held under his immediate sway the fairest and most favored part of the Continent; and yet this was only the seat and centre of that far-spreading and immense authority. One of his brothers, Louis, governed the Batavian Republic, converted into the kingdom of Holland; another, Joseph wore the old Crown of Naples; and a third, Jerome, sat on the new throne of Westphalia; and he had reduced Spain to a simple dependency, while, with Austria humbled and Prussia crushed, he was supreme in Germany from the Rhine to the Vistula, through his confederate, subject, or allied States. This enormous Empire, with its vassal appendages, rested on great and victorious armies in possession of every point of vantage from the Niemen to the Adige and the Garonne, and proved as yet to be irresistible; and as Germany, Holland, Poland, and Italy swelled the forces of France with large contingents, the whole fabric of conquest seemed firmly cemented. Nor was the Empire the mere creation of brute force and the spoil of the sword; its author endeavoured, in some measure, to consolidate it through better and more lasting influences. Napoleon, indeed, suppressed the ideas of 1789 everywhere, but he introduced his Code and large social reforms into most of the vassal or allied States; he completed the work of destroying Feudalism which the Revolution had daringly begun and he left a permanent mark on the face of Europe, far beyond the limit of Republican France, in innumerable monuments of material splendour. … Nor did the Empire at this time appear more firmly established abroad than within the limits of the dominant State which had become mistress of Continental Europe. The prosperity of the greater part of France was immense; the finances, fed by the contributions of war, seemed overflowing and on the increase; and if sounds of discontent were occasionally heard, they were lost in the universal acclaim which greeted the author of the national greatness, and the restorer of social order and welfare. … In the splendour and success of the Imperial era, the animosities and divisions of the past disappeared, and France seemed to form a united people. If, too, the cost of conquest was great, and exacted a tribute of French blood, the military power of the Empire shone with the brightest radiance of martial renown; Marengo, Austerlitz, Jena, and Friedland could in part console even thinned households. … {1349} The magnificent public works with which Napoleon adorned this part of his reign increased this sentiment of national grandeur; it was now that the Madeleine raised its front, and the Column, moulded from captured cannon; … and Paris, decked out with triumphal arches, with temples of glory, and with stately streets, put on the aspect of ancient Rome, gathering into her lap the gorgeous spoils of subjugated and dependent races. … Yet, notwithstanding its apparent strength, this structure of conquest and domination was essentially weak, and liable to decay. The work of the sword, and of new-made power, it was in opposition to the nature of things. … The material and even social benefits conferred by the Code, and reform of abuses, could not compensate vanquished but martial races for the misery and disgrace of subjection; and, apart from the commercial oppression [of the Continental System, which destroyed commerce in order to do injury to England], … the exasperating pressure of French officials, the exactions of the victorious French armies, and the severities of the conscription introduced among them, provoked discontent in the vassal States on which the yoke of the Empire weighed. … The prostration, too, of Austria and Prussia … had a direct tendency to make these powers forget their old discords in common suffering, and to bring to an end the internal divisions through which France had become supreme in Germany. … The triumphant policy of Tilsit contained the germs of a Coalition against France more formidable than she had yet experienced. At the same time, the real strength of the instrument by which Napoleon maintained his power was being gradually but surely impaired; the imperial armies were more and more filled with raw conscripts and ill-affected allies, as their size increased with the extension of his rule; and the French element in them, on which alone reliance could be placed in possible defeat, was being dissipated, exhausted, and wasted. … Nor was the Empire, within France itself, free from elements of instability and decline. The finances, well administered as they were, were so burdened by the charges of war that they were only sustained by conquest; and flourishing as their condition seemed, they had been often cruelly strained of late, and were unable to bear the shock of disaster. The seaports were beginning to suffer from the policy adopted to subdue England. … Meanwhile, the continual demands on the youth of the nation for never-ceasing wars were gradually telling on its military power; Napoleon, after Eylau, had had recourse to the ruinous expedient of taking beforehand the levies which the conscription raised; and though complaints were as yet rare, the anticipation of the resources of France, which filled the armies with feeble boys, unequal to the hardships of a rude campaign, had been noticed at home as well as abroad. Nor were the moral ills of this splendid despotism less certain than its bad material results. … The inevitable tendency of the Empire, even at the time of its highest glory, was to lessen manliness and self-reliance, to fetter and demoralize the human mind, and to weaken whatever public virtue and mental independence France possessed; and its authority had already begun to disclose some of the harsher features of Cæsarian despotism."

"Notwithstanding so many brilliant and specious appearances, France did not possess either true prosperity or true greatness. She was not really prosperous; for not only was there no feeling of security, a necessary condition for the welfare of nations, but all the evils produced by so many years of war still weighed heavily on her. … She was not really great, for all her great men had either been banished or put to silence. She could still point with pride to her generals and soldiers, although the army, which, if brave as ever, had gradually sunk from the worship of the country and liberty to that of glory, and from the worship of glory to that of riches, was corrupt and degenerate; but where were her great citizens? Where were her great orators, her great politicians, her great philosophers, her great writers of every kind? Where, at least, were their descendants? All who had shown a spark of genius or pride had been sacrificed for the benefit of a single man. They had disappeared; some crushed under the wheels of his chariot, others forced to live obscurely in some unknown retreat, and, what was graver still, their race seemed extinct. … France was imprisoned, as it were, in an iron net, and the issues were closed to all the generous and ardent youth that had either intellectual or moral activity."

      ALSO IN:
      H. A. Taine;
      The Modern Regime,
      book 1, chapter 2,
      and book 3, chapter 3 (volume 1).

FRANCE: A. D. 1807 (September-November).
   Forcible seizure of the Danish fleet by the English.
   Frustration of Napoleon's plans.
   Alliance with Denmark.
   War with Sweden.

FRANCE: A. D. 1807 (October-November).
   French invasion and occupation of Portugal.
   Flight of the royal family to Brazil.
   Delusive treaty of partition with Spain.

Charles Maurice Talleyrand de Perigord, made Bishop of Autun by King Louis XVI:, in 1789, and Prince of Benevento by Napoleon, in 1806, had made his first appearance in public life as one of the clerical deputies in the States-General of 1789, and had taken the popular side. He was the only bishop having a benefice in France who took the new oath required of the clergy, and he proposed the appropriation of church property to the wants of the public treasury. He subsequently consecrated the first French bishops appointed under the new constitution, and was excommunicated therefor by the Pope. On the approach of the Terror he escaped from France and took refuge first in England, afterwards in the United States. In 1795 he was permitted to return to Paris, and he took an important part in the revolution of the 18th Brumaire which overthrew the Directory and made Napoleon First Consul. In the new government he received the post of Minister of Foreign Affairs, which he retained under the Empire, until 1807, when he obtained permission to retire, with the title of "vice-grand electeur." "M. de Talleyrand, the Empire once established and fortunate, had attached himself to it with a sort of enthusiasm. The poesy of victory, and the eloquence of an exalted imagination, subdued for a time the usual nonchalance and moderation of his character. He entered into all Napoleon's plans for reconstituting an empire of the Francs, and reviving the system of fiefs and feudal dignitaries. … {1350} 'Any other system,' he said, 'but a military one, is in our circumstances at present impossible. I am, then, for making that system splendid, and compensating France for her liberty by her grandeur.' The principality he enjoyed, though it by no means satisfied him, was a link between him and the policy under which he held it. … But he had a strong instinct for the practical; all governments, according to his theory, might be made good, except an impossible one. A government depending on constant success in difficult undertakings, at home and abroad, was, according to his notions, impossible. This idea, after the Peace of Tilsit, more or less haunted him. It made him, in spite of himself, bitter against his chief—bitter at first, more because he liked him than because he disliked him. He would still have aided to save the Empire, but he was irritated because he thought he saw the Empire drifting into a system which would not admit of its being saved. A sentiment of this kind, however, is as little likely to be pardoned by one who is accustomed to consider that his will must be law, as a sentiment of a more hostile nature. Napoleon began little by little to hate the man for whom he had felt at one time a predilection, and if he disliked anyone, he did that which it is most dangerous to do, and most useless; that is, he wounded his pride without diminishing his importance. It is true that M. de Talleyrand never gave any visible sign of being irritated. But few, whatever the philosophy with which they forgive an injury, pardon an humiliation; and thus, stronger and stronger grew by degrees that mutual dissatisfaction which the one vented at times in furious reproaches, and the other disguised under a studiously respectful indifference. This carelessness as to the feelings of those whom it would have been wiser not to offend, was one of the most fatal errors of the conqueror. … He had become at this time equally indifferent to the hatred and affection of his adherents; and … fancied that everything depended on his own merits, and nothing on the merits of his agents. The victory of Wagram, and the marriage with Marie-Louise, commenced, indeed, a new era in his history. Fouché was dismissed, though not without meriting a reprimand for his intrigues; and Talleyrand fell into unequivocal disgrace, in some degree provoked by his witticisms; whilst round these two men gathered a quiet and observant opposition, descending with the clever adventurer to the lowest classes, and ascending with the dissatisfied noble to the highest. … M. de Talleyrand's house then (the only place, perhaps, open to all persons, where the government of the day was treated without reserve) became a sort of 'rendezvous' for a circle which replied to a victory by a bon mot, and confronted the borrowed ceremonies of a new court by the natural graces and acknowledged fashions of an old one."

Sir H. L. Bulwer, Historical Characters, volume 1: Talleyrand, part 4, sections 9-10.

FRANCE: A. D. 1807-1808.
   Napoleon's over-ingenious plottings in Spain
   for the theft of the crown.
   The popular rising.

FRANCE: A. D. 1807-1808 (November-February).
   Napoleon in Italy.
   His arbitrary changes in the Italian constitution.
   His annexation of Tuscany to France.
   His quarrel with the Pope and seizure of the Papal States.

   "Napoleon … set out for Italy, where great political changes
   were in progress. Destined, like all the subordinate thrones
   which surrounded the great nation, to share in the rapid
   mutations which its government underwent, the kingdom of Italy
   was soon called upon to accept a change in its constitution.
   Napoleon, in consequence, suppressed the legislative body, and
   substituted in its room a Senate, which was exclusively
   intrusted with the power of submitting observations to
   government on the public wants, and of superintending the
   budget and public expenditure. As the members of this Senate
   were nominated and paid by government; this last shadow of
   representative institutions became a perfect mockery.
   Nevertheless Napoleon was received with unbounded adulation by
   all the towns of Italy; their deputies, who waited upon him at
   Milan, vied with each other in elegant flattery. He was the
   Redeemer of France, but the Creator of Italy: they had
   supplicated heaven for his safety, for his victories; they
   offered him the tribute of their eternal love and fidelity.
   Napoleon received their adulation in the most gracious manner;
   but he was careful not to lose sight of the main object of his
   policy, the consolidation of his dominions, the rendering them
   all dependent on his imperial crown, and the fostering of a
   military spirit among his subjects. … From Milan the Emperor
   travelled by Verona and Padua to Venice; he there admired the
   marble palaces, varied scenery, and gorgeous architecture of
   the Queen of the Adriatic, which appeared to extraordinary
   advantage amidst illuminations, fireworks, and rejoicings; and
   returning to Milan, arranged, with an authoritative hand, all
   the affairs of the peninsula. The discontent of Melzi, who
   still retained a lingering partiality for the democratic
   institutions which he had vainly hoped to see established in
   his country, was stifled by the title of Duke of Lodi. Tuscany
   was taken from the King of Etruria, on whom Napoleon had
   settled it, and united to France by the title of the
   department of Taro; while magnificent public works were set on
   foot at Milan to dazzle the ardent imagination of the
   Italians, and console them for the entire loss of their
   national independence and civil liberty. The cathedral was
   daily adorned with fresh works of sculpture; its exterior
   decorated and restored to its original purity, while thousands
   of pinnacles and statues rose on all sides, glittering in
   spotless brilliancy in the blue vault of heaven. The Forum of
   Buonaparte was rapidly advancing; the beautiful basso-relievos
   of the arch of the Simplon already entranced the admiring gaze
   of thousands; the roads of the Simplon and Mount Cenis were
   kept in the finest order, and daily attracted fresh crowds of
   strangers to the Italian plains. But in the midst of all this
   external splendour, the remains of which still throw a halo
   round the recollection of the French domination in Italy, the
   finances of all the states were involved in hopeless
   embarrassment, and suffering of the most grinding kind
   pervaded all classes of the people. … The encroachments thus
   made on the Italian peninsula were not the only ones which
   Napoleon effected, in consequence of the liberty to dispose of
   western Europe acquired by him at the treaty of Tilsit. The
   territory of the great nation was rounded also on the side of
   Germany and Holland.
{1351}
   On the 11th of November, the important town and territory of
   Flushing were ceded to France by the King of Holland, who
   obtained, in return, merely an elusory equivalent in East
   Friesland. On the 21st of January following, a decree of the
   senate united to the French empire, besides these places, the
   important towns of Kehl Cassel, and Wesel, on the right bank
   of the Rhine. Shortly after, the French troops, who had
   already taken possession of the whole of Tuscany, in virtue of
   the resignation forced upon the Queen of Etruria, invaded the
   Roman territories, and made themselves masters of the ancient
   capital of the world. They immediately occupied the castle of
   St. Angelo, and the gates of the city, and entirely
   dispossessed the papal troops [see PAPACY: A. D. 1808-1814].
   … France now, without disguise, assumed the right of
   annexing neutral and independent states to its already
   extensive dominions, by no other authority than the decree of
   its own legislature."

      Sir A. Alison,
      History of Europe, 1789-1815,
      chapter 51, sections 51-53 (volume 11).

      ALSO IN:
      C. Botta,
      Italy during the Consulate and Empire of Napoleon,
      chapter 5.

FRANCE: A.D. 1808 (May-September).
   Bestowal of the Spanish crown on Joseph Bonaparte.
   The national revolt.
   French reverses.
   Flight of Joseph Bonaparte from Madrid.
   Landing of British forces in the Peninsula.

FRANCE: A. D. 1808 (September-October).
Imperial conference and Treaty of Erfurt.
The assemblage of kings.

"Napoleon's relations with the Court of Russia, at one time very formal, became far more amicable, according as Spanish affairs grew complicated. After the capitulation of Baylen they became positively affectionate. The Czar was too clear-sighted not to understand the meaning of this gradation. He quickly understood that the more difficulties Napoleon might create for himself in Spain, the more would he be forced to make concessions to Russia. … The Russian alliance, which at Tilsit had only been an arrangement to flatter Napoleon's ambition, had now become a necessity to him. Each side felt this; hence the two sovereigns were equally impatient to meet again; the one to strengthen an alliance so indispensable to the success of his plans, the other to derive from it all the promised advantages. It was settled, therefore, that the desired interview should take place at Erfurt towards the end of September, 1808. … The two Emperors met on the 27th of September, on the road between Weimar and Erfurt. They embraced each other with that air of perfect cordiality of which kings alone possess the secret, especially when their intention is rather to stifle than to embrace. They made their entry into the town on horseback together, amidst an immense concourse of people. Napoleon had wished by its magnificence to render the reception worthy of the illustrious guests who had agreed to meet at Erfurt. He had sent thither from the storehouses of the crown, bronzes, porcelain, the richest hangings, and the most sumptuous furniture. He desired that the Comédie-Française should heighten the brilliant effects of these fêtes by performing the chief masterpieces of our stage, from 'Cinna' down to 'La Mort de César,' before this royal audience. … All the natural adherents of Napoleon hastened to answer his appeal by flocking to Erfurt, for he did not lose sight of his principal object, and his desire was to appear before Europe surrounded by a court composed of kings. In this cortege were to be seen those of Bavaria, of Wurtemburg, of Saxony, of Westphalia, and Prince William of Prussia; and beside these stars of first magnitude twinkled the obscure Pleiades of the Rhenish Confederation. The reunion, almost exclusively German, was meant to prove to German idealists the vanity of their dreams. Were not all present who had any weight in Germany from their power, rank, or riches? Was it not even hinted that the Emperor of Austria had implored the favour, without being able to obtain it, of admission to the conferences of Erfurt? This report was most improbable. … The kings of intellect came in their turn to bow down before Cæsar. Goethe and Wieland were presented to Napoleon; they appeared at his court, and by their glory adorned his triumph. German patriotism was severely tried at Erfurt; but it may be said that of all its humiliations the one which the Germans most deeply resented was that of beholding their greatest literary genius decking himself out with Napoleon's favours [the decoration of the Legion of Honour, which Goethe accepted]. … The theatrical effect which Napoleon had in view in this solemn show at Erfurt having once been produced, his principal object was attained, for the political questions which remained for settlement with Alexander could not raise any serious difficulty. In view of the immediate and certain session of two such important provinces as those of Wallachia and Moldavia, the Czar, without much trouble, renounced that division of the Ottoman Empire with which he had been tantalised for more than a year. … He bound himself … by the Treaty of Erfurt to continue his co-operation with Napoleon in the war against England (Article 2), and, should it so befall, also against Austria (Article 10); but the affairs in Spain threw every attack upon England into the background. … The only very distinct engagement which the treaty imposed on Alexander was the recognition of the new order of things established by France in Spain.'"

FRANCE: A. D. 1808-1809.
   Reverses in Portugal.
   Napoleon in the field.
   French victories resumed.
   The check at Corunna.

FRANCE: A. D. 1809 (January-September).
   Reopened war with Austria.
   Napoleon's advance to Vienna.
   His defeat at Aspern and victory at Wagram.
   The Peace of Schönbrunn.
   Fresh acquisitions of territory.

FRANCE: A. D. 1809 (February-July).
   Wellington's check to the French in Spain and Portugal.
   His passage of the Douro.
   Battle of Talavera.

FRANCE: A. D. 1809 (May).
Annexation of the States of the Church.
Removal of the Pope to Savona.

FRANCE: A. D. 1809 (December).
Withdrawal of the English from Spain into Portugal.

FRANCE: A. D. 1810 (February-December).
   Annexations of territory to the empire.
   Holland, the Hanse Towns, and the Valais in Switzerland.
   Other reconstructions of the map of Germany.

"It was not till December 10th 1810 [after the abdication of King Louis—see NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1806-1810] that Holland was united to France by a formal senatus-consulte. By the first article of the same law, the Hanse Towns [Hamburg, Bremen, and Lubeck], the Duchy of Lauenburg, and the countries situated between the North Sea and a line drawn from the confluence of the Lippe with the Rhine to Halteren, from Halteren to the Ems above Telgte, from the Ems to the confluence of the Werra with the Weser, and from Stolzenau on that river to the Elbe, above the confluence of the Stecknitz, were at the same time incorporated with the French Empire. … The line described would include the northern part of Westphalia and Hanover, and the duchy of Oldenburg. … The Duke of Oldenburg having appealed to the Emperor of Russia, the head of his house, against this spoliation, Napoleon offered to compensate him with the town and territory of Erfurt and the lordship of Blankenheim, which had remained under French administration since the Peace of Tilsit. But this offer was at once rejected, and Alexander reserved, by a formal protest, the rights of his relative. This annexation was only the complement of other incorporations with the French Empire during the year 1810. Early in the year, the Electorate of Hanover had been annexed to the Kingdom of Westphalia. On February 16th Napoleon had erected the Grand Duchy of Frankfort, and presented it to the Prince Primate of the Confederation of the Rhine, with a reversal in favour of Eugene Beauharnais. On November 12th the Valais in Switzerland was also annexed to France, with the view of securing the road over the Simplon. Of all these annexations, that of the Hanse Towns and the districts on the North Sea was the most important, and one of the principal causes of the war that ensued between France and Russia. These annexations were made without the slightest negociation with any European cabinet, and it would be superfluous to add, without even a pretext of right, though the necessity of them from the war with England was alleged as the motive."

T. H. Dyer, History of Modern Europe, book 7, chapter 15, with foot-note (volume 4).

"'The English,' said Napoleon, 'have torn asunder the public rights of Europe; a new order of things governs the universe. Fresh guarantees having become necessary to me, the annexation of the mouths of the Scheldt, of the Meuse, of the Rhine, of the Ems, of the Weser, and of the Elbe to the Empire appears to me to be the first and the most important. … The annexation of the Valais is the anticipated result of the immense works that I have been making for the past ten years in that part of the Alps.' And this was all. To justify such violence he did not condescend to allege any pretext—to urge forward opportunities that were too long in developing, or to make trickery subserve the use of force—he consulted nothing but his policy; in other words, his good pleasure. To take possession of a country, it was sufficient that the country suited him: he said so openly, as the simplest thing in the world, and thought proper to add that these new usurpations were but a beginning, the first, according to his own expression, of those which seemed to him still necessary. And it was Europe, discontented, humbled, driven wild by the barbarous follies of the continental system, that he thus defied, as though he wished at any cost to convince every one that no amicable arrangement or conciliation was possible; and that there was but one course for governments or men of spirit to adopt, that of fighting unto death."

FRANCE: A. D. 1810-1812.
Continued hostile attitude towards
the United States of America.

FRANCE: A. D. 1810-1812.
   The War in the Peninsula.
   Wellington's Lines of Torres Vedras.
   French retreat from Portugal.
   English advance into Spain.

FRANCE: A. D. 1810-1812.
   Napoleon's divorce from Josephine and marriage to
   Marie-Louise of Austria.
   His rupture with the Czar and
   preparations for war with Russia.

   "Napoleon now revived the idea which he had often entertained
   before, of allying himself with one of the great ruling
   families. A compliant senate and a packed ecclesiastical
   council pronounced his separation from Josephine Beauharnais,
   who retired with a magnificent pension to Malmaison, where she
   died. As previous marriage proposals to the Russian court had
   not been cordially received, Napoleon now turned to Austria.
   The matter was speedily arranged with Metternich, and in
   March, 1810, the archduchess Maria Louisa arrived in France as
   the emperor's wife. The great importance of the marriage was
   that it broke the last links which bound Russia to France, and
   thus overthrew the alliance of Tilsit. Alexander had been
   exasperated by the addition of Western Galicia to the
   grand-duchy of Warsaw, which he regarded as a step towards the
   restoration of Poland, and therefore as a breach of the
   engagement made at Tilsit. The annexation of Oldenburg, whose
   duke was a relative of the Czar, was a distinct personal
   insult. Alexander showed his irritation by formally deserting
   the continental system, which was more ruinous to Russia than
   to almost any other country, and by throwing his ports open to
   British commerce (December 1810). … The chief grievance to
   Russia was the apparent intention of Napoleon to do something
   for the Poles. The increase of the grand-duchy of Warsaw by
   the treaty of Vienna was so annoying to Alexander, that he
   began to meditate on the possibility of restoring Poland
   himself, and making it a dependent kingdom for the Czar, in
   the same way as Napoleon had treated Italy. He even went so
   far as to sound the Poles on the subject; but he found that
   they had not forgotten the three partitions of their country,
   and that their sympathies were rather with France than with
   Russia. At the same time Napoleon was convinced that until
   Russia was subdued his empire was unsafe, and all hopes of
   avenging himself upon England were at an end. All through the
   year 1811 it was known that war was inevitable, but neither
   power was in a hurry to take the initiative. Meanwhile the
   various powers that retained nominal independence had to make
   up their minds as to the policy they would pursue. For no
   country was the decision harder than for Prussia. Neutrality
   was out of the question, as the Prussian territories, lying
   between the two combatants, must be occupied by one or the
   other.
{1353}
   The friends and former Colleagues of Stein were unanimous for
   a Russian alliance and a desperate struggle for liberty. But
   Hardenberg, who had become chancellor in 1810, was too prudent
   to embark in a contest, which at the time was hopeless. The
   Czar had not been so consistent in his policy as to be a very
   desirable ally; and, even with Russian assistance, it was
   certain that the Prussian frontiers could not be defended
   against the French, who had already garrisons in the chief
   fortresses. Hardenberg fully sympathised with the patriots,
   but he sacrificed enthusiasm to prudence, and offered the
   support of Prussia to France. The treaty was arranged on the
   24th of February, 1812. Frederick William gave the French a
   free passage through his territories, and undertook to furnish
   20,000 men for service in the field, and as many more for
   garrison duty. In return for this Napoleon guaranteed the
   security of the Prussian kingdom as it stood, and held out the
   prospect of additions to it. It was an unnatural and hollow
   alliance, and was understood to be so by the Czar.
   Scharnhorst, Gneisenau, and other friends of Stein resigned
   their posts, and many Prussian officers entered the service of
   the Czar. Austria, actuated by similar motives, adopted the same
   policy, but with less reluctance. After this example had been
   set by the two great powers, none of the lesser states of
   Germany dared to disobey the peremptory orders of Napoleon.
   But Turkey and Sweden, both of them old allies of France, were
   at this crisis in the opposition. … The Swedes were
   threatened with starvation by Napoleon's stern command to
   close their ports not only against English, but against all
   German vessels. Bernadotte, who had just been adopted as the
   heir of the childless Charles XIII.; determined to throw in
   his lot with his new country, rather than with his old
   commander. He had also hopes of compensating Sweden for the
   loss of Finland by wresting Norway from the Danes, and this
   would never be agreed to by France. Accordingly Sweden
   prepared to support the cause of Alexander."

"Napoleon's Russian expedition should not be regarded as an isolated freak of insane pride. He himself regarded it as the unfortunate effect of a fatality, and he betrayed throughout an unwonted reluctance and perplexity. 'The war must take place,' he said, 'it lies in the nature of things.' That is, it arose naturally, like the other Napoleonic wars, out of the quarrel with England. Upon the Continental system he had staked everything. He had united all Europe in the crusade against England, and no state, least of all such a state as Russia, could withdraw from the system without practically joining England. Nevertheless, we may wonder that, if he felt obliged to make war on Russia, he should have chosen to wage it in the manner he did, by an overwhelming invasion. For an ordinary war his resources were greatly superior to those of Russia. A campaign on the Lithuanian frontier would no doubt have been unfavourable to Alexander, and might have forced him to concede the points at issue. Napoleon had already experienced in Spain the danger of rousing national spirit. It seems, however, that this lesson had been lost on him."

"Warnings and cautions were not … wanting to him. He had been at several different times informed of the desperate plans of Russia and her savage resolve to destroy all around him, provided he could be involved in the destruction of the Empire. He was cautioned, with even more earnestness, of the German conspiracies. Alquier transmitted to him from Stockholm a significant remark of Alexander's: 'If the Emperor Napoleon should experience a reverse, the whole of Germany will rise to oppose his retreat, or to prevent the arrival of his reinforcements.' His brother Jerome, who was still better situated for knowing what was going on in Germany, informed him, in the month of January, 1811, of the proposal that had been made to him to enter into a secret league against France, but the only thanks he received from Napoleon was reproach for having encouraged such overtures by his equivocal conduct. … Marshal Davout and General Rapp transmitted him identically the same information from Hamburg and Dantzig. But far from encouraging such confidential communications, Napoleon was irritated by them. … 'I do not know why Rapp meddles in what does not concern him [he wrote]. … I beg you will not place such rhapsodies under my eyes. My time is too precious to waste on such twaddle.' … In presence of such hallucination, caused by pride and infatuation, we seem to hear Macbeth in his delirium insulting the messengers who announced to him the approach· of the enemy's armies."

"That period ought to have been esteemed the happiest of Napoleon's life. What more could the wildest ambition desire? … All obeyed him. Nothing was wanting to make him happy! Nothing, if he could be happy who possessed not a love of justice. … The being never existed who possessed ampler means for promoting the happiness of mankind. Nothing was required but justice and prudence. The nation expected these from him, and granted him that unlimited confidence which he afterwards so cruelly abused. … Instead of considering with calmness and moderation how he might best employ his vast resources, he ruminated on projects beyond the power of man to execute; forgetting what innumerable victims must be sacrificed in the vain attempt. … He aspired at universal despotism, for no other reason than because a nation, isolated from the continent and profiting by its happy situation, had refused to submit to his intolerable·yoke. … In the hope of conquering that invincible enemy, he vainly endeavoured to grasp the extremities of Europe. … Misled by his rash and hasty temper, he adopted a false line of politics, and converted in the north, as he had done before in the south, the most useful and powerful of his allies into a dangerous enemy."

      E. Labaume,
      Circumstantial Narrative of the Campaign in Russia,
      part 1, book 1.

FRANCE: A. D. 1812 (June-August).
Defeat by the English in Spain at Salamanca.
Abandonment of Madrid by King Joseph.

FRANCE: A. D. 1812 (June-December).
   Napoleon's Russian campaign.
   The advance to Moscow.
   The burning of the city.
   The retreat and its horrors.

FRANCE: A. D. 1812-1813 (December-March)
Napoleon's return from Russia.
His measures for creating a new army.

"Whilst Europe, agitated at once by hope, by fear, and by hatred, was inquiring what had become of Napoleon, whether he had perished or had been saved, he was crossing in a sledge—accompanied by the Duke of Vicenza, the Grand Marshal Duroc, Count Lobau, General Lefevre-Desnouettes, and the Mameluke Rustan—the vast, plains of Lithuania, of Poland, and of Saxony, concealed by thick furs; for if his name had been imprudently uttered, or his countenance recognised, a tragical catastrophe would have instantly ensued. The man who had so greatly excited the admiration of nations, who was the object of their … superstition, would not at that moment have escaped their fury. In two places only did he allow himself to be known, Warsaw and Dresden. … That he might not occasion too great surprise, he caused himself to be preceded by an officer with a few lines for the 'Moniteur,' saying that on December 5 he had assembled his generals at Smorgoni, had delegated the command to King Murat, only so long as military operations were interrupted by the cold, that he had traversed Warsaw and Dresden, and that he was about to arrive in Paris to take in hand the affairs of the Empire. … Napoleon followed close on the steps of the officer who was to announce his arrival. On December 18, at half-past 11 P. M., he entered the Tuileries. … On the next morning, the 19th, he received the ministers and grandees of the court … with extreme hauteur, maintaining a tranquil but severe aspect, appearing to expect explanations instead of affording them himself, treating foreign affairs as of minor consequence, and those of a domestic nature as of principal import, demanding some light upon these last,—in short, questioning others in order to avoid being questioned himself. … On Sunday, the 20th of December, the second day after his arrival, Napoleon received the Senate, the Council of State, and the principal branches of the administration," which severally addressed to him the most fulsome flatteries and assurances of support. "After an infuriated populace basely outraging vanquished princes, nothing can be seen more melancholy than these great bodies prostrating themselves at the feet of a power, bestowing upon it a degree of admiration which increases with its errors, speaking with ardour of their fidelity, already about to expire, and swearing to die in its cause when they are on the eve of hailing the accession of another. Happy are those countries whose established Constitutions spare them these humiliating spectacles!" As speedily as possible, Napoleon applied himself to the recreation of his lost army, by anticipating the conscription for 1814, and by making new calls upon the classes which had already furnished their contingents. All his measures were submissively sanctioned by the obsequious Senate; but many murmurs of discontent were heard among the people, and some movements of resistance needed to be put down. "However, when the enlightened classes of a country approve a measure, their support is extremely efficacious. In France, all those classes perceiving that it was necessary energetically to defend the country against a foreign enemy, though the Government had been still more in the wrong than they were, the levies were effected, and the high functionaries, sustained by a moral acquiescence which they had not always obtained, fulfilled their duty, though in heart full of sad and sinister forebodings."

FRANCE: A. D. 1812-1813.
   Germanic rising against Napoleon.
   War of Liberation.
   Lützen.
   Bautzen.
   Dresden.
   Leipsic.
   The retreat of the French from beyond the Rhine.

FRANCE: A. D. 1813 (February-March).
The new Concordat signed and retracted by the Pope.

FRANCE: A. D. 1813 (June-November).
Defeat at Vittoria and in the Pyrenees.
Retreat from Spain.

FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (January-March).
   The allied invasion.
   Napoleon's campaign of defense.
   His cause lost.
   Surrender of Paris.

"The battle of Leipzig was the overthrow of the French rule in Germany; there only remained, as evidence of what they had lost, 150,000 men, garrisons of the fortresses of the Vistula, the Oder, and the Elbe. Each success of the allies had been marked by the desertion of one of the peoples that had furnished its contingent to the Grand Army of 1812: after Prussia, Austria; at Leipzig the Saxons: the French had not been able to regain the Rhine except by passing over the bodies of the Bavarians at Hanau. Baden, Wurtemberg, Hesse, and Darmstadt declared their defection at nearly the same time; the sovereigns were still hesitating whether to separate themselves from Napoleon, when their people and regiments, worked upon by the German patriots, had already passed into the allied camp. Jerome Bonaparte had again quitted Cassel; Denmark found Itself forced to adhere to the Coalition. Napoleon had retired to the left bank of the Rhine. Would Alexander cross this natural frontier of revolutionary France? 'Convinced,' says M. Bogdanovitch, 'by the experience of many years, that neither losses inflicted on Napoleon, nor treaties concluded with him, could check his insatiable ambition, Alexander would not stop at setting free the involuntary allies of France, and resolved to pursue the war till he had overthrown his enemy.' The allied sovereigns found themselves reunited at Frankfort, and an immediate march to Paris was discussed. Alexander, Stein. Blücher, Gneisenau, and all the Prussians were on the side of decisive action. The Emperor Francis and Metternich only desired Napoleon to be weakened, as his downfall would expose Austria to another danger, the preponderance of Russia on the Continent. Bernadotte insisted on Napoleon's dethronement, with the ridiculous design of appropriating the crown of France, traitor as he was to her cause. England would have preferred a solid and immediate peace to a war which would exhaust her in subsidies, and augment her already enormous debt. These divergencies, these hesitations, gave Napoleon time to strengthen his position. {1355} After Hanau, in the opinion of Ney, 'the allies might have counted their stages to Paris.' Napoleon had re-opened the negotiations. The relinquishment of Italy (when Murat on his side negotiated the preservation of his kingdom of Naples), of Holland, of Germany, and of Spain, and the confinement of France between her natural boundaries of the Rhine and the Alps; such were the 'Conditions of Frankfort.' Napoleon sent an answer to Metternich, 'that he consented to the opening of a congress at Mannheim: that the conclusion of a peace which would insure the independence of all the nations of the earth had always been the aim of his policy.' This reply seems evasive, but could the proposals of the allies have been serious? Encouraged by disloyal Frenchmen, they published the declaration of Frankfort, by which they affirmed 'that they did not make war with France, but against the preponderance which Napoleon had long exercised beyond the limits of his empire.' Deceitful assurance, too obvious snare, which could only take in a nation weary of war, enervated by twenty-two years of sterile victories, and at the end of its resources! During this time Alexander, with the deputies of the Helvetian Diet summoned at Frankfort, discussed the basis of a new Swiss Confederation. Holland was already raised by the partisans of the house of Orange, and entered by the Prussians. The campaign of France began. Alexander issued at Freiburg a proclamation to his troops. … He refused to receive Caulaincourt at Freiburg, declaring that he would only treat in France. 'Let us spare the French negotiator the trouble of the journey,' he said to Metternich. 'It does not seem to me a matter of indifference to the allied sovereigns, whether the peace with France is signed on this side of the Rhine, or on the other, in the very heart of France. Such an historical event is well worth a change of quarters.' Without counting the armies of Italy and the Pyrenees, Napoleon had now a mere handful of troops, 80,000 men, spread from Nimeguen to Bâle, to resist 500,000 allies. The army of the North (Wintzingerode) invaded Holland, Belgium, and the Rhenish provinces; the army of Silesia (Blücher) crossed the Rhine between Mannheim and Coblentz and entered Nancy; the army of Bohemia (Schwartzenberg) passed through Switzerland, and advanced on Troyes, where the Royalists demanded the restoration of the Bourbons. Napoleon was still able to bar for some time the way to his capital. He first attacked the army of Silesia; he defeated the vanguard, the Russians of Sacken, at St. Didier, and Blücher at Brienne; but at La Rothière he encountered the formidable masses of the Silesian and Bohemian armies, and after a fierce battle (1st February, 1814) had to fall back on Troyes. After this victory had secured their junction, the two armies separated again, the one to go down the Marne, the other the Seine, with the intention of reuniting at Paris. Napoleon profited by this mistake. He threw himself on the left flank of the army of Silesia, near Champeaubert, where he dispersed the troops of Olsoufief and Poltaratski, inflicting on them a loss of 2,500 men, and took the generals prisoners. At Montmirail, in spite of the heroism of Zigrote and Lapoukhine, he defeated Sacken; the Russians alone lost 2,800 men and five guns (11th February). At Château Thierry, he defeated Sacken and York reunited, and again the Russians lost 1,500 men and five guns. At Vauchamp it was the turn of Blücher, who lost 2,000 Russians, 4,000 Prussians, and fifteen guns. The army of Silesia was in terrible disorder. 'The peasants, exasperated by the disorder inseparable from a retreat, and excited by exaggerated rumours of French successes, took up arms, and refused supplies. The soldiers suffered both from cold and hunger, Champagne affording no wood for bivouac fires. When the weather became milder, their shoes wore out, and the men, obliged to make forced marches with bare feet, were carried by hundreds into the hospitals of the country' (Bogdanovitch). Whilst the army of Silesia retreated in disorder on the army of the North, Napoleon, with 50,000 soldiers full of enthusiasm, turned on that of Bohemia, crushed the Bavarians and Russians at Mormans, the Wurtembergers at Montereau, the Prussians at Méry: these Prussians made part of the army of Blücher, who had detached a corps to hang on the rear of Napoleon. This campaign made a profound impression on the allies. Castlereagh expressed, in Alexander's presence, the opinion that peace should be made before they were driven across the Rhine. The military chiefs began to feel uneasy. Sesslavine sent news from Joigny that Napoleon had 180,000 men at Troyes. A general insurrection of the eastern provinces was expected in the rear of the allies. It was the firmness of Alexander which maintained the Coalition, it was the military energy of Blücher which saved it. Soon after his disasters he received reinforcements from the army of the North, and took the offensive against the marshals; then, hearing of the arrival of Napoleon at La Ferté Gaucher, he retreated in great haste, finding an unexpected refuge at Soissons, which had just been taken by the army of the North. At Craonne (March 7) and at Laon (10th to 12th March), with 100,000 men against 80,000, and with strong positions, he managed to repulse all the attacks of Napoleon. At Craonne, however, the Russian loss amounted to 5,000 men, the third of their effective force. The battle of Laon cost them 4,000 men. Meanwhile, De Saint Priest, a general in Alexander's service, had taken Rheims by assault, but was dislodged by Napoleon after a fierce struggle, where the émigré commander was badly wounded, and 4,000 of his men were killed (13th, March). The Congress of Châtillon-sur-Seine was opened on the 28th of February. Russia was represented by Razoumovski and Nesselrode, Napoleon by Caulaincourt, Austria by Stadion and Metternich. The conditions proposed to Napoleon were the reduction of France to its frontiers of 1792, and the right of the allies to dispose, without reference to him, of the reconquered countries. Germany was to be a confederation of independent States, Italy to be divided into free States, Spain to be restored to Ferdinand, and Holland to the house of Orange. Leave France smaller than I found her? Never!' said Napoleon. Alexander and the Prussians would not hear of a peace which left Napoleon on the throne. Still, however, they negotiated. Austria and England were both agreed not to push him to extremities, and many times proposed to treat. After Napoleon's great success against Blücher, Castlereagh declared for peace. 'It would not be a peace,' cried the Emperor of Russia; 'it would be a truce which would not allow us to disarm one moment. I cannot come 400 leagues every day to your assistance. {1356} No peace, as long as Napoleon is on the throne.' Napoleon, in his turn, intoxicated by his success, enjoined Caulaincourt only to treat on the basis of Frankfort—natural frontiers. … As fortune returned· to the allies, the congress was dissolved (19th of March). The Bourbon princes were already in France; Louis XVIII. was on the point of being proclaimed. Alexander, tired of seeing the armies of Bohemia and Silesia fly in turn before thirty or forty thousand French, caused the allies to adopt the fatal plan of a march on Paris, which was executed in eight days. Blücher and Schwartzenberg united, with 200,000 men, were to bear down all opposition on their passage. The first act in the drama was the battle of Arcissur-Aube, where the Russians took six guns from Napoleon. The latter conceived a bold scheme, which perhaps might have saved him if Paris could have resisted, but which was his ruin. He threw himself on the rear of the allied army, abandoning to them the route to Paris, but reckoning on raising Eastern France, and cutting off their retreat to the Rhine. The allies, uneasy for one moment, were reassured by an intercepted letter of Napoleon's, and by the letters of the Parisian royalists, which revealed to them the weakness of the capital. 'Dare all!' writes Talleyrand to them. They, in their turn, deceived Napoleon, by causing him to be followed by a troop of cavalry, continued their march, defeated Marmont and Mortier, crushed the National Guards of Pacthod (battle of La Fère-Champenoise); and arrived in sight of Paris. Barclay de Tolly, forming the centre, first attacked the plateau of Romainville, defended by Marmont; on his left, the Prince of Wurtemberg threatened Vincennes; and on his right, Blücher deployed before Montmartre, which was defended by Mortier. The heights of Chaumont and those of Montmartre were taken; Marmont and Mortier with Moncey were thrown back on the ramparts. Marmont obtained an armistice from Colonel Orlof, to treat for the capitulation of Paris. King Joseph, the Empress Marie-Louise, and all the Imperial Government had already fled to the Loire. Paris was recommended to the generosity of the allied monarchs'; the army could retire on the road to Orleans. Such was the battle of Paris; it had cost, according to M. Bogdanovitch, 8,400 men to the allies, and 4,000 to the French (30th March). … The allied troops maintained a strict discipline, and were not quartered on the inhabitants. Alexander had not come as a friend of the Bourbons—the fiercest enemy of Napoleon, was least bitter against the French; he intended leaving them the choice of their government. He had not favoured any of the intrigues of the émigrés, and had scornfully remarked to Jomini, 'What are the Bourbons to me?'"

      J. Philippart,
      Campaign in Germany and France, 1818,
      volume 1, pages 279 and after, and volume 2.

FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (January-May).
   Desertion of Napoleon by Murat.
   Murat's treaty with the allies.
   French evacuation of Italy.

FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (February-April).
Reverses in the south.
Wellington's invasion.

FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (March-April).
   Friendly reception of the Allies in Paris.
   Collapse of the empire.
   Abdication of Napoleon.
   Treaty of Fontainebleau.

"At an early hour in the morning [of the 31st of March], the Allied troops had taken possession of the barriers, and occupied the principal avenues leading to the city. Picquets of the Cossacks of the Guard were stationed at the corners of the principal streets. Vast multitudes thronged the Boulevards, in anxious and silent expectation of pending events. The royalists alone were active. The leaders, a small band indeed, had early assembled in the Place Louis XV., whence, with Bourbon banners displayed, they proceeded along the principal streets, haranguing the people and National Guard; but though not interfered with by the police,—for all seemed to feel that the Imperial government was at an end,—they were listened to with such perfect indifference, that many began to think their cause absolutely hopeless. It was between ten and eleven o'clock when the procession began to enter the city. Light horsemen of the Russian Guard opened the march; at the head of the main column rode the Emperor of Russia and the King of Prussia. … Then followed 35,000 men, cavalry, infantry, and artillery, the elite of the armies, in all the pride and circumstance of war and conquest. At first the multitude looked on in silent amazement; but the affability of the officers, above all, the condescending manner of the Czar, dispelled any fear they might still entertain; and shouts of 'Vive Alexander!' began to be heard; cries of 'Vive le Roi de Prusse!' were soon added. … The shouts of welcome increased at every step. The conquerors were now hailed as liberators; 'Vivent les Allies!' 'Vivent nos liberateurs!' sounded through the air, mingled at last with the long-forgotten cry of 'Vive le Roi!' 'Vivent les Bourbons!' … The Emperor Alexander had no sooner seen the troops file past on the Place Louis XV., than he repaired to the hôtel of Talleyrand, where in the evening, a council was assembled to deliberate on the important step next to be taken, and, on the best mode of turning the glorious victories achieved to an honourable and beneficial account. … The points discussed were:

The choice was not without difficulties. The first plan was easily dismissed; as the reception of the Allies proved clearly that the power of Napoleon was broken. The second seemed more likely to find favour, as promising to please the Emperor of Austria; but was finally rejected, as being, in fact, nothing more than a continuance of the Imperial reign under a different title. Against the restoration of the Bourbons, it was urged that the nation at large had evinced no desire for their recall, and seemed to have almost forgotten them. This, Talleyrand said, was owing entirely to the Congress of Chatillon, and the negotiations carried on with Napoleon; introducing at the same time, the Abbé de Pradt and Baron Louis, who fully confirmed the assertion. On being asked how he expected to obtain a declaration in favour of the exiled family, Talleyrand replied, that he was certain of the Senate; and that their vote would influence Paris, the example of which would be followed by all France. {1357} Alexander having on this assurance taken the opinion of the King of Prussia and Prince Schwarzenberg, signed a declaration to the effect that 'the Allies would treat no more with Napoleon Bonaparte, or with any member of his family.' A proclamation was issued at the same time, calling on the conservative Senate to assemble and form a provisional government, for the purpose of drawing up a constitution suitable to the wishes of the French people. This the Allies promised to guarantee; as it was their wish, they said, to see France 'powerful, happy, and prosperous.' A printer was ready in attendance; and before dark, this memorable decree was seen placarded in all the streets of Paris. The inconstant populace had not even waited for such a sig nal, and had been already engaged in destroying the emblems of the Imperial government; an attempt had even been made to pull down the statue of Napoleon from the summit of the column of Austerlitz, in the Place Vendome! The decisive impulse thus given, events moved rapidly forward. Caulaincourt's zealous efforts in favour of his master could effect nothing after the declaration already noticed. On the 2d, he took his departure for Fontainbleau; having, however, received the assurance that Napoleon would be suitably provided for. … The funds rose five per cent., and all other public securities in proportion, on the very day after the occupation of the capital; and wherever the Allied Sovereigns appeared in public, they were loudly cheered and hailed as liberators. From the first, officers of the Allied armies filled the public walks, theatres, and coffee-houses, and mixed with the people as welcome guests rather than as conquering invaders. The press, so long enslaved by Napoleon, took the most decided part against its oppressor; and from every quarter injurious pamphlets, epigrams, and satires, now poured upon the fallen ruler. Madame de Staël had characterised him as 'Robespierre on horseback'; De Pradt had more wittily termed him 'Jupiter Scapin'; and these sayings were not forgotten. But by far the most vivid sensation was produced by Chateaubriand's tract of 'Bonaparte and the Bourbons'; 30,000 copies of which are said to have been sold in two days. In proportion as the popular hatred of the Emperor evinced itself, grew the boldness of his adversaries. On the first of April, the Municipal Council of Paris met and already declared the throne vacant; on the next day, the Conservative Senate formed a Provisional Government, and issued a decree, declaring, first,'That Napoleon Bonaparte had forfeited the throne and the right of inheritance established in his family; 2d, That the people and army of France were disengaged and freed from the oath of fidelity which they had taken to him and his constitution.' … The members of the Legislative Assembly who happened to be in Paris, followed the example of the Senate. The Assembly had been dissolved in January, and could not meet constitutionally unless summoned by the Sovereign; this objection was, however, set aside, and the Assembly having met, ratified the act of deposition passed by the Senate. All the public functionaries, authorities and constituted bodies in and near Paris, hastened to send in their submission to the new powers: it was a general race in which honour was not always the prize of speed; for every address, every act of submission sent in to the new government, teemed with invectives against the deposed ruler. … It was in the night between the 2d and 3d, that Caulaincourt returned from his mission, and informed Napoleon of the events which had passed. … In what manner the Emperor received these fatal tidings we are not told. … At first it would seem that he entertained, or affected to entertain, thoughts of resorting to arms; for in the morning he reviewed his Guard, and addressed them in the following terms:—'Officers and soldiers of my Old Guard, the enemy has gained three marches on us, and outstripped us at Paris. Some factious men, emigrants whom I had pardoned, have surrounded the Emperor Alexander; they have mounted the white cockade, and would force us to do the same. In a few days I shall attack the enemy, and force them to quit the capital. I rely on you: am I right?' The troops readily replied with loud cheers to this address, calling out 'To Paris! 'to Paris!' but the Marshals and senior officers were by no means so zealous in the cause. … The Generals and Marshals … followed the Emperor to his apartments after the review; and having advised him to negotiate with the Allies, on the principle of a personal abdication, ended by informing him, that they would not accompany him if he persisted in the proposed attack on Paris. The scene which followed seems to have been of a very undignified description. Napoleon was almost convulsed with rage; he tore and trampled under foot the decree of the Senate; vowed vengeance against the whole body, who should yet, he said, be made to pay for their deed of 'felony'; but ended, nevertheless, by ignobly signing the abdication demanded of him. We say ignobly; for nothing can be more debasing in character, than to sink down from a very tempest of passion to tame submission. … The act of abdication was worded in the following terms: 'The Allied powers having proclaimed that the Emperor Napoleon is the sole obstacle to the re-establishment of peace in Europe, the Emperor Napoleon, faithful to his oath, declares that he is ready to descend from the throne, to quit France, and even to relinquish life, for the good of the country, which is inseparable from the rights of his son, from those of the regency in the person of the Empress, and from the maintenance of the laws of the empire. Done at our Palace of Fontainbleau, 4th April 1814. Napoleon.' Caulaincourt, Marshals Ney and M'Donald, were appointed to carry this conditional abdication to Paris. … The commissioners on returning to Fontainbleau found the Emperor in his cabinet, impatiently awaiting the result of their mission. Marshal Ney was the first to speak; and in that abrupt, harsh and not very respectful tone which he had lately assumed towards his falling sovereign, told him at once, that 'France, the army and the cause of peace, demanded his unconditional abdication.' Caulaincourt added, that the full sovereignty of the Isle of Elba, with a suitable establishment, had been offered by the Emperor Alexander; and Marshal M'Donald, who had so zealously defended the cause of his master, confirmed the statement,—declaring also that, 'in his opinion, the Imperial cause was completely lost, as they had all three'—the commissioners—'failed against a resolution irrevocably fixed.' 'What!' exclaimed Napoleon, 'not only my own abdication, but that of Marie Louise, and of my son? This is rather too much at once.' {1358} And with these words he delayed the answer till next day, intending, he said, to consider the subject, and consult the army; … Words ran high between the fallen chieftain and his former subordinates; there were altercations, recriminations, and painful scenes, and it was only when Napoleon had signed the following unconditional abdication that perfect calm was restored:—'The Allied Sovereigns having declared that the Emperor Napoleon is the only obstacle to the re-establishment of a general peace, the Emperor Napoleon, faithful to his oath, declares, that he renounces, for himself and his heirs, the throne of France and Italy; and that there is no personal sacrifice, not even that of life itself, which he is not willing to make for the interest of France. Napoleon. Fontainbleau, 6th April 1814.' This deplorable document is written in so agitated and faltering a hand as to be almost illegible. … According to the treaty signed at Paris on the 10th, and usually called the Treaty of Fontainbleau, Napoleon, from being Emperor of France and King of Italy, became Emperor of Elba! He was to have a guard and a navy suited to the extent of his dominions, and to receive from France a pension of six millions of francs annually. The Duchies of Parma, Placentia and Guastala, were to be conferred in sovereignty on Marie Louise and her heirs. Two millions and a half of francs were further to be paid annually by the French government to the Empress Josephine and other members of the Bonaparte family. Splendid as these terms were for a dethroned and defenceless monarch, Napoleon ratified the treaty with reluctance, and delayed the signature as long as possible; still clinging, it would seem, to some vague hope of returning fortune. It is even related by Fain, Norvins, Constant, and in the pretended Memoirs of Caulaincourt, that he attempted to commit suicide by taking poison, 'and was only saved by the weakness of the dose, and the remedies administered by his attendants, who, hearing his groans, hastened to his bedside. It is certain that he was very unwell on the following morning, the 18th April, a circumstance easily accounted for by the anxiety he had undergone; but there can be little difficulty in rejecting the tale of poison, for, it is mentioned in none of the St. Helena Memoirs."

Lieutenant-Colonel J. Mitchell, The Fall of Napoleon, book 8, chapter 8 (volume 2).

ALSO IN: M. de Bourrienne, Private Memoirs of Napoleon, volume 4, chapters 20-23.

FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (April-June).
   Departure of Napoleon for Elba.
   Louis XVIII. called to the throne.
   Settlement of the constitution.
   Evacuation of France by the Allies.
   The Treaty of Paris.
   Determination of the new boundaries of the kingdom.

"April 20, everything being ready for Napoleon's journey, and the commissioners of the four great powers who were to accompany him having arrived, the former drew up the imperial guard in the grand courtyard at Fontainebleau to take leave of them. 'Soldiers,' said he, 'I have one mission left to fulfil in life,—to recount to posterity the glorious deeds we have done together.' Would to Heaven he had kept his word and done nothing else! He kissed the flag, and his brave soldiers, who only saw the man who so often led them on to victory, burst into tears. Seven or eight hundred of them were to form the army left to him who had had a million soldiers at his command, and they were sent in advance, Napoleon going by another road, unescorted save by General Drouot, Bertrand, and the four foreign commissioners with their people. In the first departments through which they passed … the people who had been eye-witnesses of the invasion forgot the evil wrought by Napoleon, and only saw the defender of his country. They shouted 'Long live the Emperor! Down with foreigners!' But beyond Lyons, where the foe never penetrated, the population became hostile: old royalist and Catholic passions were revived in proportion as they went farther south; the mob cried 'Long live the King! down with the tyrant!' and others howled 'Long live the allies!' At Avignon and Organ a furious rabble attacked the carriages, demanding that the tyrant should be handed over to them to be hung or thrown into the Rhone. The man who braved the storm of shot and shell with utter indifference gave way before these ignoble perils, and disguised himself; otherwise the commissioners could scarcely have saved his life at Orgon. The sad journey closed at the Gulf of St. Raphael, on the coast of Provence. … An English frigate awaited him and bore him to Elba, where he landed at Porto-Ferraio, May 4. While the Empire was crumbling to dust … and the fallen Emperor went into exile, the new government was working hard to hold its own at Paris. The royalists were at sword's points with the national sovereignty party in the commission chosen by the senate to draw up a constitution. The pretender's agent, Abbé de Montesquiou, failed to win acceptance of the principle that royal right is superior to the nation's will; and the formula adopted was as follows: 'The French people freely call to the throne of France, Louis Stanislas Xavier de France, brother of the late king, and, after him, the other members of the house of Bourbon.' Thus they did not recognize in the king whom they elected the title of Louis XVIII., and did not admit that between him and his brother, Louis XVI., there had been a rightful king, the poor child who died in the Temple and whom royalists called Louis XVII. The reign of Louis Stanislas Xavier was to date from the day when he swore allegiance to the Constitution: the executive power was vested in the king, who shared the legislative power with the Senate and a Chamber of Deputies. The Constitution sanctioned individual liberty, freedom of worship and the press, the sale of national goods, the public debt, and proclaimed oblivion of all acts committed since the beginning of the Revolution. The principles of 1789 were maintained, and in the sad state of France there was nothing better to be done than to rally round this Constitution, which was voted by the Senate, April 6, and accepted by the Legislature. … The Senate's lack of popularity gave the royalist party hope that the act of April 6 might be retracted, and at this time that party won a faint success in a matter on which they laid great stress. Count d' Artois was on his way to Paris, and declared that he would not lay aside the white cockade on entering. The temporary government ordered the national guard to assume the white cockade, and let Count d'Artois in without conditions (April 12), He was received in solemn state, the marshals marching before him, still wearing their tri-colored cockades and plumes, which the government dared not attack. {1359} The rabble was cold, but the middle classes received the prince favorably and he proved gracious to every one. … D'Artois … insisted on being recognized, unconditionally, as lieutenant-general of the kingdom, as he had entered Paris without making terms; but this time the Senate and temporary government did not yield. They intended that the prince should make a solemn promise, in his brother's name, in regard to the Constitution. The czar interfered and explained to D' Artois that the allies were pledged to the Senate and the nation, and he was forced to submit and receive the lieutenant-generalcy of the kingdom from the Senate, 'until Louis Stanislas Xavier of France should accept the Constitutional Charter.' … The day after his proclamation as lieutenant-general, the white cockade was finally adopted, and … imposed upon the army and various public buildings, though the national cockade was still worn by many French soldiers from the Garonne to the Elbe, and many warlike deeds still signalized the final efforts of their arms, even after Napoleon had laid aside his sword. … By degrees the truce became universal, and the next question was to fix the terms of peace. … The enemy held nothing but Paris and the unfortified towns, French garrisons still occupying all the strongholds of France, old and new, and several important places far beyond the Rhine. … This was a powerful means of gaining, not the preservation of the natural frontiers, which could no longer be hoped for, but at least an important advance on the limits of the ancient monarchy. Unluckily a movement, natural but hasty, broke out all over France, to claim the immediate evacuation of her soil by foreign armies;"—an impatience which allowed no time for bargaining in the matter, and which precipitated an agreement (April 23) with the allied powers "to leave the French dominion as it had been on the 1st of January, 1792, in proportion as the places still occupied beyond those limits by French troops should be evacuated and restored to the allies. … This compact surrendered to the allies, without any compensation, 58 strongholds, 12,600 pieces of ordnance, arsenals and magazines filled with vast supplies." The new king, calling himself Louis XVIII., arrived in Paris on the 3d of May, from England, where he had latterly resided. He had offended the czar, ruffled public feeling in France, even before he arrived, by saying publicly to the English people that he owed his restoration, under Providence, to them. Negotiations for a definite treaty of peace were opened at once. "At Metternich's suggestion, the allies decided to conclude their arrangements with France in Paris, and to reserve general arrangements with Europe for a congress at Vienna.

Talleyrand did not object, although this plan was evidently unfavorable to France. … The royal council directed Talleyrand to try to win for the northern frontier those million people promised beyond the old limits; but Louis X VIII., by angering the czar, completed the sad work of April 23. Alexander thought of renewing with the Bourbons the alliance that he had planned with Napoleon, and marrying to the Duke de Berri, Louis's nephew, that one of his sisters to whom Napoleon preferred Marie Louise. Louis … responded churlishly to the czar's advances. Accordingly, when France demanded a solid frontier, including the South of Belgium, … Lord Castlereagh absolutely refused, and was supported by Prussia, hostile to France, and by Austria, indifferent on that score, but disposed to follow England in everything. Russia did not side with France. … The allies were willing to grant, in place of the old dominion of the monarchy, on the Rhine side, the line of the Queich, which opened communication with Landau, and to the southeast the department of Vaucluse (once County Venaissin) given up by the Pope, besides Chambéry and a part of Savoy; finally, in the Jura region, Montbéliard. This made nearly 600,000 people. As for the colonies, England reluctantly returned Martinique, Guadeloupe, and the Isle of Bourbon, but refused to restore the Isle de France [or Mauritius, captured in 1810], that great military post which is to the Indian Ocean what Malta is to the Mediterranean. This island was bravely defended for some years by its governor. … The English declared that they would also keep Malta, taken from France, and the Cape of Good Hope, wrested from Holland, saying that all these belonged to them, being on the road to India. … Secret articles provided that Holland, under the rule of the House of Orange, should be increased by the countries ceded by France, between the sea, the French frontier of 1790, and the Meuse (Austrian Netherlands and Liége). The countries ceded by France on the left bank of the Rhine were to be divided as 'compensation' among the German states. Austria was to have the country bounded by the Po, Ticino, and Lake Maggiore, that is, the old Venetian states, Milan, and Mantua. The territory of the former Republic of Genoa was to be given to the King of Sardinia. Such was the end of the wars of the Empire. Republican France reached the goal of the old monarchy, the natural limits of ancient Gaul; the Empire lost them."

"The Peace of Paris [signed May 30] was followed by some subsidiary treaties. … By a Convention of June 3rd between Austria and Bavaria, Maximilian Joseph restored to Austria the Tyrol with the Vorarlberg, the principality of Salzburg, the district of the Inn and the Hausrück. During the visit of the Emperor Alexander and the King of Prussia to London in June, it was agreed that the Article of the Peace of Paris stipulating the aggrandisement of Holland, should, be carried out by the annexation of Belgium to that country, an arrangement which was accepted by the Sovereign of the Netherlands, July 21st 1814."

ALSO IN: A. de Lamartine, History of the Restoration, books 13-14 and 16 (volumes 1-2).

      E. E. Crowe,
      History of the Reigns of Louis XVIII. and Charles X.,
      volume 1, chapter 3.

FRANCE: A. D. 1814-1815.
   Ten months of Bourbon rule and its follies.
   Return of Napoleon from Elba.
   Flight of the King.
   The Hundred Days.
   Preparations for war.

"The peace of Paris did not endure a year. Ten months of Bourbon rule, vengeful, implacable, stupid; alike violent in act and in language; sufficed to bring France once more to the brink of revolution. Two acts alone are sufficient to demonstrate the folly of the royalists—the resumption of the white flag, and the changing of the numbers of the regiments. A prudent king would have adopted the tricolour when he agreed to a constitutional charter, and would have refrained from wounding military sensibility by destroying the numbers of the regiments. But more stupid than these acts was the political policy pursued, a policy which aroused on all sides suspicions of what was worse than the grinding but gilded despotism of Napoleon—namely, that the Government favoured a forcible resumption of the confiscated lands, the restoration of tithes, and of the abolished exactions and imposts of feudalism. It has been surmised, and with much reason, that had Napoleon not reappeared a popular movement would have extorted from the king a really constitutional government. In that case France might have taken some real steps towards a free government, and the bases of liberty rather than of equality might have been laid. But while the Powers were wrangling at Vienna, and the Bourbons were irritating France, Napoleon was watching from Elba for the opportunity of resuming empire. It was not in the nature of the man to yield passively to anything, even to the inevitable. So long as a chance remained he looked out keenly for the propitious hour. He selected Elba as a residence because thence 'he could keep an eye upon France and upon the Bourbons.' It was his duty, he said, to guard the throne of France for his family and for his son. Thus, in making peace at Fontainebleau, he only bowed to a storm he could not then resist, and cherished in his mind the project of an imperial restoration. The hour for which he waited came at length. February, 1815, he had arrived at the conclusion that with the aid of the army he could overthrow the Bourbons, whose government, he said, was good for priests, nobles, and countesses of the old time, but worth nothing to the living generation. The army, he knew, was still, and would be always, devoted to him. … He had weighed all the chances for and against the success of his enterprise, and he had arrived at the conclusion that he should succeed; for, 'Fortune had never deserted him on great occasions.' It has been said that his departure was precipitated by a report of the dissolution of the Congress of Vienna. … It is possible, indeed, that the rumour of an intention to confine him upon an island in the Atlantic may have exercised some influence over him; but the real reasons for the selection of the 26th of February were that he was tired of inactivity, and convinced that the favourable moment had arrived. Therefore, instructing Murat to second him by assuming a strong position in front of Ancona, he embarked his faithful Thousand, and set sail for France. On the 1st of March he landed on the shores of the Gulf of Juan, and on the 20th he entered the Tuileries. As he had predicted, the army rallied to the tricolour; the generals could neither restrain nor guide their soldiers; the Bourbon dukes and princes, and the brave Duchess of Angoulême—'the only man of the family'—were utterly powerless before the universal military disaffection; and one after the other they were chased out of France. The army had restored Napoleon. Louis XVIII. drove out of Paris by the road to St. Denis on the 19th, a few hours before Napoleon, on the 20th, drove in by the Barrier of Italy; and on the 23rd, after a short stay at Lille, the King was safe in Ghent. 'The great question is,' wrote Lord Castlereagh to the Duke of Wellington three days afterwards, while yet in ignorance of the event, 'can the Bourbons get Frenchmen to fight for them against Frenchmen?' The result showed that they could not. In the then state of France the army was master of France. Louis and his ministers had done nothing to conciliate, and almost everything to irritate, the people; and even so early as November, 1814, Wellington did not see what means the King had of resisting the attack of a few hundred officers determined to risk everything. During the period occupied by Napoleon in passing from Elba to Paris, the conduct of' the sovereigns and diplomatists assembled at Vienna offered a striking contrast to the weakness and inaptitude of the Bourbons. … That there was fear in Vienna is manifest, but the acts of the Allied Powers show that fear speedily gave place to resolution. For, as early as the 12th of' March, before the Allies knew where Napoleon was, or anything about him, except that he was somewhere at large in France, they drew up that famous declaration, and signed it the next day, in which they declared that he had broken the sole legal tie to which his existence was attached, and that it was possible to keep with him 'neither peace nor truce.' 'The Powers, in consequence,' so runs this document, 'declare that Napoleon Buonaparte is placed beyond the pale of civil and social relations, and that, as a common enemy and disturber of the peace of the world, he has delivered himself over to public justice.' This declaration, which has been the subject of vehement criticism, was the natural consequence of the prevailing and correct appreciation of Napoleon's character. There was not a nation in Europe which felt the slightest particle of confidence or trust in him. Hence this declaration, made so promptly, was drawn up in ignorance of any professions he might make, because, beforehand, Europe felt that no professions of his could be relied on. The news of his success was followed by a treaty, adopted on the 25th of March, renewing the alliance of Chaumont, whereby Great Britain, Russia, Austria, and Prussia bound themselves to provide each 150,000 men; to employ, in addition, all their resources, and to work together for the common end—the maintenance of the Treaty of Paris, and of the stipulations determined on and signed at the Congress of Vienna. Further, they engaged not to lay down their arms but by common consent; nor before the object of the war should have been attained; nor, continues the document, 'until Buonaparte shall have been rendered absolutely unable to create disturbance, and to renew attempts for possessing himself of supreme power in France.' All the Powers of Europe generally, and Louis XVIII. specially, were invited to accede to the treaty; but, at the instance of Lord Castlereagh, the Four Great Powers declared in the most solemn manner that, although they desired to see his Most Christian Majesty restored to the throne, and also to contribute to that 'auspicious result,' yet that their 'principles' would not permit them to prosecute the war 'with a view of imposing any particular Government on France.' With Napoleon they refused to hold any communication whatever; and when he sent couriers to announce that he intended to observe existing treaties, they were stopped on the frontiers. … {1361} Wellington, on his own responsibility, acted for England, signed treaties, undertook heavy engagements in her name, and agreed to command an army to be assembled in Belgium; and having satisfied, as well as he could, the clamour of 'all' for subsidies from England, he took his departure from Vienna on the 29th of March, and arrived in Brussels on the 4th of April. The British Parliament and nation confirmed readily the proceedings of the Government and of the Duke of Wellington at Vienna. … Napoleon had formed a Ministry on the very evening of his return to the Tuileries. … He felt certain that war would ensue. Knowing that at the moment when he returned from Elba a large part of the best troops of England were in America, that the German force on the Rhine was weak, and that the Russian armies were in Poland, he calculated that the Allied Powers would not be in a position to open the campaign, at the earliest, until the middle of July; and, for a moment, he hoped that, by working on the feelings of his father-in-law, the Emperor of Austria, and by rousing the anger of the Emperor Alexander against his allies, he would be able, if not to reduce his enemies to two, England and Prussia, at least to defer the period of hostilities until the autumn. … Before his great schemes of military preparation were half complete he found himself compelled by events to begin the war. What he actually did accomplish between March and June has been the subject of fierce controversy. His friends exaggerate, his enemies undervalue, his exertions and their results. But no candid inquirer can fail to see, that if his energetic activity during this period is far below that of the Convention when threatened by Europe, it is far above the standard fixed by his passionate crimes. The real reason why he failed to raise a larger military force during the hundred days was that his genius worked upon exhausted materials. The nation, to use an expressive vulgarism, was 'used up.' … The proper conscription for 1815 had been levied in the autumn of 1813. The drafts on the rising generation had been anticipated, and hence there remained little available except the old soldiers. … The result of Napoleon's prodigious exertions to augment the military force of France appears to be this: Napoleon found ready to his hand a force of 228,972 men of all arms, officers included, giving a disposable effective of 155,000 men ready to take the field. By the 18th of June he had raised this force to 276,982 men, officers included: that is 247,609 of the line, and 29,373 of the Imperial Guard. The number disposable for war was 198,180; and it therefore follows that Napoleon had increased the general effective by 53,010 men, and that part of it disposable for war by 48, 180."

      ALSO IN:
      Imbert de Saint-Amand,
      The Duchess of Angouléme and the two Restorations,
      part 1.

      E. E. Crowe,
      History of the Reigns of Louis XVIII. and Charles X.,
      volume 1, chapters 4-6.

FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (June).
Napoleon's last campaign.
His final defeat and overthrow at Waterloo.

"The nearest troops of the allies were the Prussian army in the Rhenish provinces, and the army of British, Dutch, Belgians, Bunswickers, and Hanoverians, occupying Belgium. Napoleon's scheme, the best in his desperate circumstances, was to expel the British and Prussians, who were moving west, from Belgium, win the Rhine frontier—to arouse the enthusiasm of all France—before the Austrians were ready, and carry the war out of France. The Duke of Wellington proceeded to Belgium, for the first and last time to measure his skill with Napoleon's, and Marshal Blücher took over from Kleist the command of the Prussians. The two armies, the Prussian and the British, took up a line extending from Liege to the sea. The country on this line was open along the west, affording by nature little means of resisting an invasion, but most of the fortresses commanding the roads had been put in a state of moderate repair. The Prussians held the line of the Meuse and Sambre to beyond Charleroi, the head-quarters being at Namur. They numbered about 117,000 men … with 312 guns. … The motley mass of the British and their allies numbered 106,000 men … with 196 guns. … So entirely ignorant were the allies of Napoleon's movements, that on the very day on which he burst across the frontier, Wellington wrote to the Czar, who was at Vienna, respecting the general invasion of France. At that time the frontier of France approached within six miles of Charleroi (which is itself but 34 miles by the main road from Brussels). The Charleroi road was not only the most direct to Brussels, but was unprotected by fortresses; and the line of the allied armies was weakest here at the point of junction between them. … It was against the central weak point that Napoleon resolved to move, down the basins of the Sambre and the Meuse. … The mass of the troops was being assembled within a league of the frontier, but behind some small hills which completely screened them from the enemy's outposts. To conceal his designs to the last moment, the line of sentries along the frontier was tripled, and any attempt to pass the line was forbidden under pain of death. The arrangements were being carried out by Soult, who on the 2nd June had been appointed chief of the staff. … The army concentrated on the frontier consisted (according to Colonel Chesney) of 90,000 infantry and 22,000 cavalry—in all 112,000 men—344 guns. … Napoleon, accompanied by his brother Jerome, arrived in the camp, and in the evening of the 14th his soldiers, already elated by his presence, were excited to the highest pitch of enthusiasm by an address from Napoleon. … A general order fixed the attack upon the allies' position for three o'clock in the following morning (15th)." At the appointed time "the French left was in motion, Reille proceeding from Solre down the right bank of the Sambre. He was soon brought into collision with the Prussian outposts near Thuin: he drove them back and secured at ten o'clock the bridge of Marchiennes." The movements of other corps were delayed by various causes. Nevertheless, "of the Prussians only Ziethen's corps, and of Wellington's army only Perponcher's Dutch-Belgians, were as yet near the menaced position; while 40,000 French had passed the Sambre at Marchiennes and 70,000 more were entering Charleroi. When Reille deployed in front of Gosselies, the Prussians called in their detachments and retired from it, upon Fleurus, … leaving open the road through Quatre Bras to Brussels. {1362} Ney, who had just come up, then took command of the left, … which was now directed upon Quatre Bras; and Napoleon galloped off to the road between Charleroi and Fleurus, where the retiring Prussians were concentrating. … At dark Ziethen [with the First Prussian corps] still held Fleurus with his advanced guard, and the wood on its south, the bulk of his troops lay for the night upon the hill of Ligny, above the village of Bry. His loss during the day's manœuvring has been estimated at 2,000. On the French left, Ney… had come in contact with the advance guard of Wellington's army, a battalion of Nassauers and a light battery, in front of the village of Frasnes, two miles from Quatre Bras, the name applied to the farm-buildings at the intersection of the four main roads,—Brussels, Nivelles, Charleroi, Namur. … After a few cannon-shots the outpost fell back from Frasnes to Quatre Bras." Ney, after a reconnoissance, postponed attack until morning. "It had been intended by Napoleon that the whole army should have crossed the Sambre before noon; but from the several delays … when night fell on the 15th, half of the cavalry of the guard, two of Grouchy's reserve divisions, Lobau's corps, and one-half of Gérard's corps were still on the south of the river. Apparently relying on secret information from Paris—which contradicted the rumours that Napoleon was about to join the army—Wellington had been lulled into a false security, and the reports as to the concentration had been neglected. News of the enemy's advance across the Sambre did not reach him till three o'clock in the afternoon of the 15th, when the Prince of Orange in person reported the skirmish at Thuin. As he did not yet know the point of concentration, the British general, 'never precipitate or nervous' (Hooper), merely issued orders for all the troops to be in readiness. … At night intelligence was received from Mons that the French concentration was at Charleroi, and orders were issued for the immediate movement of the troops. … Wellington and the Prince of Orange, with several of the staff' officers, went—it is said, to prevent a panic in Brussels—to the Duchess of Richmond's ball, where 'Belgium's capital had gathered then her beauty and her chivalry,' and, 'while all went merry as a marriage bell,' the staff officers stole away one by one. The Duke himself, 'throwing away golden minutes' (Hamley), as if to show his confidence in his fortunes, remained to a late hour to return thanks after supper for the health of the Prince Regent of Great Britain, which the Prince of Orange proposed. … Blücher had received, at his head-quarters at Namur, news on the morning of the 14th of the French concentration, and he had ordered forward the corps of Pirch and Thielemann. … Napoleon did not foresee Blücher's promptitude, and nothing was done in the early morning of the 16th to proceed with the execution of the intended surprise. . . …. No orders were issued by the Emperor till eight, when Napoleon's resolution was taken,—to strike at the Prussians, who would, he believed, if defeated, retire upon their natural base of communications, through Namur and Liege, and he would thus be left to deal separately with the British, who could not move from their base, the sea. The French army was to advance in two wings, the left under Ney, the right under Grouchy, with the reserve under the Emperor himself. Ney was to capture Quatre Bras, reconnoitre the Brussels road, and hold himself in readiness to march to Brussels, which Napoleon hoped to be able to enter the following morning. … Napoleon had 64,000 men to attack the position at Ligny; Ney on the left wing had 45,000 for Quatre Bras; Lobau had 10,000 to support either wing of the Grand Army; 5,000 troops were in the rear; and the victorious wing, whether Ney's or Grouchy's, was to wheel round and manœuvre in the direction of the other. Thielemann having come up before the French delivered their attack, Blücher had 85,000 men on the field. Wellington arrived at Quatre Bras (which is 20 miles from Brussels) at 11 o'clock in the forenoon. As Marshal Ney gave no sign of an imminent attack, Wellington galloped over, about seven miles, to confer with Blücher. … Wellington, after some discussion, in which he expressed his disapproval of Blücher's position, agreed to move to the rear of the Prussians, to act as a reserve, if his own position at Quatre Bras were not attacked. … He reached Quatre Bras when his own position was being assailed, and no help could be sent to Blücher. … At about three o'clock, when the heavy cannonade a few miles to the west intimated that a desperate battle was in progress at Quatre Bras, the signal for attack [on the Prussians, at Ligny] was given. The French left sped forward with impetuosity; the resistance was vigorous but futile, and the enemy streamed through the village. Blücher immediately moved forward fresh troops and re-took the village, but was unable to retain it. … Thrice the Grenadiers forced their way into and through the village, but only to be driven back again." But "Blücher gradually exhausted his reserves, and when, in the dusk, Napoleon saw the last battalion moved forward and the ground behind Ligny vacant, he exclaimed, 'they are lost!' The Guards and the Cuirassiers were immediately ordered to attack," and the wearied Prussian infantry were broken by their onset. "The fugitives led precipitately over the fields and along the roads to the east, and the order for the whole to retire was immediately given. … Blücher himself gathered a few of his squadrons to check the hot pursuit near Sombreffe, and thrice led them to the charge. His squadrons were broken, and after the last charge his horse fell dead, and the veteran marshal lay under it. His aid-de-camp, Nostitz, stood by him, and covered him with a cloak; the Cuirassiers galloped past without noticing him. … Gneisenau, who took temporary command from the accident to Blücher, ordered a retreat upon Wavre, with the view of joining Bülow's corps and keeping open the communications with Wellington. … The loss on each side has been very variously estimated. Napoleon put his own loss at 7,000 men, Charras puts it at 11,000, and the loss of the Prussians at 18,000. The retreat upon Wavre abandoned the communications with Namur and Liege, through which the Prussian supplies came from the lower Rhine, for a new line by Louvain, but it kept the Prussians on a line parallel to the road on which Wellington must retreat, and thus still enabled the two armies to aid each other. 'This noble daring at once snatched from Napoleon the hoped-for fruits of his victory, and the danger Ligny had for a few hours averted was left impending over him' (Chesney)."

H. R. Clinton, The War in the Peninsula and Wellington's Campaigns in France and Belgium, chapter 12.

On Wellington's return to Quatre Bras from his interview with Blücher, he found, as stated above, that the Prince of Orange had already became desperately engaged with the superior forces of Ney. "The Duke's presence gave new life to the battle, and when Picton's division, followed by the Brunswickers and Van Merle's Belgian horse, arrived, he took the offensive, pushing forward right up to the edge of the farm of Gemioncourt. Ney, reinforced by the rest of Reille's corps and part of Kellerman's cavalry, violently retorted, and in the charge, which partially broke into spray before the squares, Wellington ran the risk of death or capture. But he leaped his horse over the 92d Highlanders lining the ditch on the Namur road, while his gallant pursuers, cut up by the infantry fire, were killed or driven off. Ney was further reinforced by more guns and cavalry, and Wellington's brigades continued to arrive in parcels. The Marshal was always superior in horsemen and cannon, but after 5 o'clock his opponent had larger numbers of foot. Holding firmly to the cross-roads and, the highway to Namur, Wellington became the stronger as the day waned; and when the Guards emerged from the Nivelles road and the Allies pressed forward, Ney, who had no fresh troops, was driven back, and his antagonist remained at sundown master of the whole field of battle. The position was maintained, but the cost was great, for there were no fewer than 4,600 killed and wounded, more than half being British soldiers. The thunder of cannon to the eastward had also died away, but none knew as yet at Quatre Bras how Blücher had fared at the hands of his redoubtable foe. Wellington, who slept at his head-quarters in Genappe, was on the field and scrutinising his outposts at daybreak an the 17th. Soon after came a report, confirmed a little later, that the Prussians had retreated on Wavre. … Napoleon had a belief that Blücher would retreat upon Liège, which caused him at a late hour in the day to despatch Grouchy to that side, and thus touch was lost. While the French were cooking and Napoleon was pondering, definite intelligence was brought to Wellington, who, learning for certain that Blücher was at Wavre, promised to stand fast himself at Mont St. Jean and fight, if Blücher would support him with two corps. The intrepid Marshal replied that he would came with his whole army, and Wellington got the famous answer before night. Thus was made, between generals who thoroughly trusted each other, that combination which led to the Battle of Waterloo. It was no chance combat, but the result of a deliberate design, rendered capable of execution, even when Blücher was wounded, by his resolve to retreat upon Wavre, and by Napoleon, who acted on conjecture that the Prussians would hurry towards their base at Liege. The morning at Quatre Bras was peaceful; the Allies cooked their food before starting rearward. Wellington, it is said, lay down for a moment, and snatched perhaps a little sleep. There was no stir in front or on the exposed left flank; and, covered by a strong display of horsemen, the Allied divisions tramped steadily towards Mont St. Jean. … The retreat continued all day. A thunderstorm, so often a precursor of Wellington's battles, deluged the fields with rain, and pursuer and pursued struggling through the mire, were drenched to the skin by nightfall. … The results of two days' warfare may be thus summed up. Napoleon had inflicted a defeat, yet not a decisive defeat, upon the Prussians, who escaped from his ken to Wavre. He had then, at a late hour on the 17th, detached Grouchy with 33,000 men to follow them, and Grouchy at night from Gembloux reported that they had retired in three directions. Moving himself in the afternoon, Napoleon, uniting with Ney, had pursued Wellington to Mont St. Jean, and slept in the comfortable belief that he had separated the Allies. At that very time Wellington, who had assembled his whole force except 17,000 men, … was in close communication with Blücher, and intended on the 18th to stop Napoleon by delivering battle, and to hold him fast until Blücher could cut in on his right flank and rear. Thus it was the Allies who were united practically, and the French army which was separated into two groups unable to support each other. … The tempest which burst over the retreating columns on the 17th followed them to their bivouacs and raged all night, and did not cease until late on the fateful Sunday. Wellington, mounting his faithful Copenhagen at break of day, rode from the village of Waterloo to the field, where the armies on both sides, protected by watchful sentries, were still contending with the mischiefs inflicted by the storm. The position was the crest of a gentle slope stretching from Smohain to the Nivelles road, having upon and in advance of its right the château, garden, and wood of Hougoumont, and in the centre, where the Charleroi road cut through the little ridge, the farm of La Haye Sainte. Both these posts were occupied, but the latter, unfortunately, not so solidly as Hougoumont. … The position was well filled by the 69,000 men of all arms and 156 guns which were present that day. Napoleon, who slept at the farm of Caillou, and who had been out on foot to the front during the night, was also early in the field, and glad of the gift which he thought fortune had placed in his hands. When Reille had joined him from Genappe, he had 72,000 men, all admirable soldiers, and 240 guns, with which to engage in combat, and he reckoned that the chances were ninety to ten in his favour. He mounted his charger, reconnoitred his opponent's position, and then gave the orders which, promptly and finely obeyed, disclosed the French array. … It was now nearly eleven o'clock, and, although his opponent knew it not, Wellington had got news of the march from Wavre of Bulow, whose leading troops were actually, at that time, close to the wood of St. Lambert on the French right; while Grouchy was at Sart les Walhain, between Gembloux and Wavre. It is not practicable here to give a full account of the battle of Waterloo; we can only describe its broad outlines. The first gun was fired about twenty or thirty minutes past eleven, and preluded a dashing and sustained attack an Hougoumont, which failed to carry the house, garden, or orchard, but did gain the wood. It was probably intended to divert attention from the attack on the left and centre, which Ney, massing his guns opposite the British left, was preparing to execute. Wellington watched and in some measure controlled the fight for Hougoumont, and then rode off to the centre, taking post at a solitary tree which grew near the Charleroi road above La Haye Sainte. {1364} Ney at half past one sent forward the whole of D'Erlon's corps, and although some of them pushed close up to and over the Wavre road, stormed the orchard of La Haye Sainte and took the Pappelotte farm, yet at the critical moment Sir William Ponsonby's Union Brigade of horse charged into the French infantry, already shattered by the fire of Picton's troops, and the net result of the combined operation was that two eagles and 3,000 prisoners were captured, while nearly that number of killed and wounded remained on the ground. On the other side of La Haye Sainte the Household Brigade, led by Lord Anglesea in person, charged in upon and routed a large body of French cuirassiers. The grand attack thus completely failed, and the centre, like the right, remained intact. It was just before this combat began that Napoleon saw something like troops towards St. Lambert and despatched two brigades of light cavalry to reconnoitre. A Prussian staff officer was caught beyond Planchenoit, and from him came the unexpected and unwelcome information that the whole Prussian army was approaching. … The signs of danger on his right flank, the punishment of D'Erlon's corps, the ineffectual attempt upon the British Guards in and about Hougoumont, were followed by a kind of pause and the combat reverted to cannonading and skirmishing. But towards four o'clock Napoleon, increasing the fire of his artillery, threw forward a mass of cavalry, forty squadrons, and then began that series of reiterated onsets of horse which lasted for two hours. … Twice they were driven down the slope, and the third time, when they came on, they were strengthened by Kellerman and Guyot until they reached a force of 77 squadrons, or 12,000 men; but these also were repulsed, the British horse, what remained of them, charging when the French were entangled among the squares and disordered by the musketry and guns. Four times these fine troopers charged, yet utterly failed to penetrate or move a single foot battalion. But some time before the final effort, Ney by a fierce attack got possession of La Haye Sainte, and thus, just as the cavalry were exhausted, the French infantry were established within sixty yards of the Allied centre. And although the Emperor was obliged to detach one-half of his Guard to the right, because Blucher had brought into play beyond Planchenoit against Lobau nearly 80,000 men, still the capture of La Haye Sainte was justly regarded as a grave event. Wellington during the cavalry fight had moved three brigades on his right nearer to Hougoumont, and had called up Chassé and his Belgians to support them; and it was a little before this time that he cried out to Brigadier-General Adam, 'By G—, Adam, I think we shall beat them yet! … The crisis of the battle had come for Napoleon. Unable after eight hours' conflict to do more than capture La Haye Sainte; hardly pressed by the Prussians, now strong and aggressive; owing such success as he had obtained to the valour and discipline of his soldiers—the Emperor delivered his last stroke, not for victory—he could no longer hope to win—but for safety. He sent forward the last ten battalions of his Guard to assail the British right, and directed the whole remaining infantry force available to attack all along the line. The Guard marched onward in two columns, which came successively in contact with their opponents. Napier's guns and the British Guards, who rising from the ground showed across the head of the first column, fired heavily and charging drove them in confusion back towards La Belle Alliance; and the second column, struck in flank by the musketry of the 52nd and 95th was next broken by a bayonet charge and pursued by Colonel Colborne to and beyond the Charleroi road. As Ziethen's Prussians were falling upon the French near Pappelotte, and Pirch and Bulow wrestling with the Imperial Guard in Planchenoit, Wellington ordered the whole of the British line to advance. The cheers arising on the right where he was, extended along the front and gave new strength to the wearied soldiers. He led the way. As he neared the Charleroi road, the riflemen, full of Peninsular memories, began to cheer him as he galloped up, but he called out, 'No cheering, my lads; forward and complete your victory.' He found that good soldier, Colborne, halted for a moment before three squares of the rallied Imperial Guard. 'Go on, Colborne,' he said; 'better attack them, they won't stand.' Nor did they. Wellington then turned to the right, where Vivian's Light Cavalry were active in the gloom, and we next find him once more with the 52nd near Rossomme, the farthest point of the advance, where that regiment halted after its grand march over the battlefield. Somewhere on the highway he met Blucher, who had so nobly kept his word, and it was then that Gneisenau undertook to chase the fugitives over the frontier. The French, or perhaps we should say the Napoleonic army, was destroyed, and the power which its mighty leader had built up on the basis of its astonishing successes was gone for ever."

FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (June-August).
   Napoleon's return to Paris.
   His final abdication.
   His surrender of himself to the English.
   His captivity at St. Helena.

   "The vanquished army had lost 200 pieces of ordnance, and
   80,000 men hors de combat or prisoners; as many more remained,
   independently of Grouchy's 85,000 men; but the difficulty was
   to rally them in presence of an enemy, that had taken lessons
   in audacity and activity from Napoleon himself. The loss of
   the allies was not less considerable, but there remained to
   them 150,000 men, the confidence of victory, and the certainty
   of being seconded by 300,000 allies, who were crossing the
   Rhine from Mentz to Bäle. Such was the issue of this struggle,
   commenced under such happy auspices, and which resulted more
   fatal to France than the battles of Poitiers and Azincourt. It
   must be admitted, that this disaster was the work of a
   multitude of unheard-of circumstances: if Napoleon can be
   reproached for certain faults, it must be allowed that fortune
   dealt cruelly with him in the lesser details, and that his
   enemies, in return, were as fortunate as they showed
   themselves skillful.
{1365}
   However unjust be the spirit of party, we are forced to render
   homage to the merits of two generals, who, unexpectedly
   attacked in their cantonments extending from Dinant and Liège
   to Renaix, near Tournay, had taken such wise measures as to be
   in condition next morning for giving battle to equal forces,
   and for afterwards conquering by an able concentration of the
   two armies. … In the very battle of Waterloo, the French
   might be censured for having attempted the first attack in
   masses too deep. This system was never successful against the
   murderous fire of English infantry and artillery. … There
   were likewise extraordinary charges of cavalry, which, being
   devoid of support, became heroic but useless struggles.
   Notwithstanding all this, it is almost certain that Napoleon
   would have remained master of the field of battle, but for the
   arrival of 65,000 Prussians on his rear; a decisive and
   disastrous circumstance, that to prevent was not entirely in
   his power. As soon as the enemy led 130,000 men on the
   battle-field, with scarcely 50,000 to oppose them, all was
   lost. … Napoleon had but one course left him, which was to
   direct Grouchy through the Ardennes on Laon; to collect at
   this point all that could be drawn from the interior, from
   Metz and from Rapp's corps, leaving but garrisons in Lorraine
   and Alsace. The imperial cause was very much shaken, put not
   entirely lost; should all Frenchmen determine on opposing
   Europe with the courage of the Spartans of Leonidas, the
   energy of the Russians in 1812, or of the Spaniards of
   Palafox. Unfortunately for them, as·for Napoleon, opinion was
   very much divided on this subject, and the majority still
   believing that the struggle interested only the power of the
   emperor and his family, the fate of the country seemed of
   little consequence. Prince Jerome had collected 25,000 men in
   rear of Avesnes: he was ordered to lead them to Laon; there
   remained 200 pieces of artillery, beside those of Grouchy. …
   Reaching Loon on the 19th, where he had at first resolved to
   await the junction of Grouchy and Jerome, the emperor
   discussed, with the small number of the trustworthy who had
   followed him, the course he should adopt after this frightful
   disaster. Should he repair to Paris, and concert with the
   chambers and his ministers, or else remain with the army,
   demanding of the chambers to invest him with dictatorial power
   and an unlimited confidence, under the conviction that he
   would obtain from them the most energetic measures, for saving
   France and conquering her independence, on heaps of ruins? As
   it always happens, his generals were divided in opinion; some
   wished him to proceed to Paris, and deposit the crown into the
   hands of the nation's delegates, or receive it from them a
   second time, with the means of defending it. Others, with a
   better appreciation of the views of the deputies, affirmed,
   that far from sympathizing with Napoleon, and seconding him,
   they would accuse him of having lost France, and would
   endeavor to save the country by losing the emperor. …
   Lastly, the most prudent thought that Napoleon should not go
   to Paris, but remain at the head of the army, in order to
   treat with the sovereigns himself, by offering to abdicate in
   favor of his son. It is said, that Napoleon inclined to the
   idea of remaining at Laon with the army; but the advice of the
   greatest number determined him, and he departed for Paris."

"It was a moment of unrelieved despair for the public men who gathered round him on his return to Paris, and among these were several whose fame was of earlier date than his own. La Fayette, the man of 1789; Carnot, organizer of victory to the Convention; Lucien, who had decided the revolution of Brumaire,—all these met in that comfortless deliberation. Carnot was for a dictatorship of public safety, that is, for renewing his great days of 1793; Lucien too liked the Roman sound of the word dictator. 'Dare!' he said to his brother, but the spring of that terrible will was broken at last. 'I have dared too much already;' said Napoleon. Meanwhile, in the Chamber of Representatives the word was not dictatorship but liberty. Here La Fayette caused the assembly to vote itself permanent, and to declare guilty of high treason whoever should attempt to dissolve it. He hinted that, if the word abdication were not soon pronounced on the other side, he would himself pronounce the word 'dechéance.' The second abdication took place on June 22d. 'I offer myself a sacrifice to the hatred of the enemies of France. My public life is finished, and I proclaim my son, under the title of Napoleon II., Emperor of the French.' On the 25th he retired to Malmaison, where Josephine had died the year before. He had by no means yet ceased to hope. When his son was passed over by the Chamber of Representatives, who named an executive commission of five, he protested that he had not intended to make way for a new Directory. … On the 27th he went so far as to offer his services once more as general, 'regarding myself still as the first soldier of the nation;' He was met by a refusal, and left Malmaison on the 29th for Rochefort, well furnished with books on the United States. France was by this time entering upon another Reign of Terror. Massacre had begun at Marseilles as early as the 25th. What should Napoleon do? He had been formerly the enemy of every other nation, and now he was the worst enemy, if not of France, yet of the triumphant faction in France. He lingered some days at Rochefort, where he had arrived on July 3d, and then, finding it impossible to escape the vigilance of the English cruisers, went on the 15th on board the 'Bellerophon' and surrendered himself to Captain Maitland. It was explained to him that no conditions could be accepted, but that he would be 'conveyed to England to be received in such manner as the Prince Regent should deem expedient:' He had written at the Île d'Aix the following characteristic letter to the Prince Regent:—'Royal Highness,—A prey to the factions which divide my country and to the enmity of the powers of Europe, I have terminated my public career, and I come, like Themistocles, to seat myself at the hearth of the British people. I place myself under the protection of its laws, which I claim from your Royal Highness as the most powerful, the most constant, and the most generous of my enemies.' It was perhaps the only course open to him. In France his life could scarcely have been spared, and Blücher talked of executing him on the spot where the Duc d'Enghien had fallen. He therefore could do nothing but what he did. His reference to Themistocles shows that he was conscious of being the worst enemy that England had ever had. {1366} Perhaps he remembered that at the rupture of the treaty of Amiens he had studied to envenom the contest by detaining the English residents in France. Still he might reflect, on the other hand, that England was the only great country which had not been trampled down and covered with massacre by his soldiers. It would have been inexcusable if the English Government had given way to vindictive feelings, especially as they could well afford to be magnanimous, having just won the greatest of all victories. But it was necessary to deprive him of the power of exciting new wars, and the experiment of Elba had shown that this involved depriving him of his liberty. The frenzy which had cost·the lives of millions must be checked. This was the principle laid down in the declaration of March 15th, by which he had been excommunicated as a public enemy. It was therefore necessary to impose some restraint upon him. He must be separated from his party and from all the revolutionary party in Europe. So long as he remained in Europe this would involve positive imprisonment. The only arrangement therefore which would allow him tolerable personal comfort and enjoyment of life, was to send him out of Europe. From these considerations grew the decision of the Government to send him to St. Helena. An Act of Parliament was passed 'for the better detaining in custody Napoleon Bonaparte,' and another Act for subjecting St. Helena to a special system of government. He was kept on board the 'Bellerophon' till August 4th, when he was transferred to the 'Northumberland.' On October 15th he arrived at St. Helena, accompanied by Counts Montholon, Las Cases, and Bertrand, with their families, General Gourgaud, and a number of servants. In April, 1816, arrived Sir Hudson Lowe, an officer who had been knighted for bringing the news of the capture of Paris in 1814, as governor. The rest of his life, which continued till May 5, 1821, was occupied partly in quarrels with this governor, which have now lost their interest, partly in the task he had undertaken at the time of his first abdication, that of relating his past life. He did not himself write this narrative, nor does it appear that he even dictated it word for word. It is a report made partly by General Gourgaud, partly by Count Montholon, of Napoleon's impassioned recitals; but they assure us that this report, as published, has been read and corrected throughout by him. It gives a tolerably complete account of the period between the siege of Toulon and the battle of Marengo. On the later period there is little, except a memoir on the campaign of 1815, to which the editors of the Correspondence have been able to add another on Elba and the Hundred Days."

      ALSO IN:
      Count de Las Cases,
      Life, Exile and Conversations of Napoleon.

      A. Thiers,
      History of the Consulate and the Empire,
      chapters 61-62 (volume 5).

FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (July-November).
   English and Prussian armies in Paris.
   Return of Louis XVIII.
   Restoration of the art-spoils or Napoleon.
   Indemnities demanded.
   Russian, Austrian and Spanish armies on French soil.
   The second Treaty or Paris.

"The 7th of July was the proudest day in the annals of England. On that day her victorious army, beaded by Wellington, made their public entry, along with the Prussians, into Paris, where an English drum had not been heard for nearly four hundred years. … The French regarded them with melancholy hearts and anxious looks. Few persons were to be seen in the streets. … The English established themselves in the Bois de Boulogne in a regular camp; the Prussians bivouacked in the churches, on the quays, and in the principal streets. On the following day Louis, who had followed in the rear of the English army from Ghent, made his public entrance, escorted by the national guard. But his entry was attended by still more melancholy circumstances, and of sinister augury to the future stability of his dynasty. Even the royalists were downcast; their patriotic feelings were deeply wounded by the defeat of France. … There was something in the restoration of the monarch by the arms of the old rivals and enemies of France which added inexpressibly to its bitterness. … The reality of subjugation was before their eyes. Blucher kept aloof from all intercourse with the court, and haughtily demanded a contribution of 100,000,000 francs … for the pay of his troops, as Napoleon had done from the Prussians at Berlin. Already the Prussian soldiers insisted with loud cries that the pillar of Austerlitz should be pulled down, as Napoleon had destroyed the pillar of Rosbach; and Blucher was so resolute to destroy the bridge of Jena, that he had actually begun operations by running mines under the arches for blowing it up. … Wellington as steadily resisted the ruthless act, but he had great difficulty in maintaining his point; and it was only by his placing a sentinel on the bridge, and repeated and earnest remonstrances, that the destruction of that beautiful monument was prevented. … A still more melancholy humiliation than they had yet experienced ere long befell the French nation. The Allied sovereigns now arrived in Paris, and insisted upon the restoration of the objects of art in the museum of the Louvre, which had been pillaged from their respective states by the orders of Napoleon. The justice of this demand could not be contested: it was only wresting the prey from the robber. … Nothing wounded the French so profoundly as this breaking up of the trophies of the war. It told them, in language not to be misunderstood, that conquest had now reached their doors: the iron went into the soul of the nation. A memorial from all the artists of Europe at Rome claimed for the Eternal City the entire restoration of the immortal works of art which had once adorned it. The Allied sovereigns acceded to the just demand; and Canova, impassioned for the arts and the city of his choice, hastened to Paris to superintend the removal. It was most effectually done. The bronze horses … [from Venice] were restored to their old station in front of the Church of St. Mark. The Transfiguration and the Last Communion of St. Jerome resumed their place in the halls of the Vatican; the Apollo and the Laocoon again adorned the precincts of St. Peter's; the Venus was enshrined anew amidst beauty in the Tribune of Florence; and the Descent from the Cross by Rubens was restored to the devout worship of the Flemings in the cathedral of Antwerp. … {1367} The claims preferred by the different Allied powers for restitution not merely of celebrated objects of art, but of curiosities and valuable articles of all kinds, which had been carried off by the French during their occupation of the different countries of Europe, especially under Napoleon, were immense, and demonstrated at once the almost incredible length to which the system of spoliation and robbery had been carried by the republican and imperial authorities. Their amount may be estimated by one instance from an official list, prepared by the Prussian authorities in 1815, It appears that, during the years 1806 and 1807, there had been violently taken from the Prussian states, on the requisition of M. Donore, and brought to Paris,—statues, paintings, antiquities, cameos, manuscripts, maps, gems, antiques, rarities, and other valuable articles, the catalogue of which occupies 53 closely printed pages of M. Schoell's valuable Recueil. Among them are 127 paintings, many of them of the very highest value, taken from the palaces of Berlin and Potsdam alone; 187 statues, chiefly antique, taken from the same palaces during the same period; and 86 valuable manuscripts and documents seized in the city of Aix-la-Chapelle, on the occupation of that city, then a neutral power, in 1803, by the armies of the First Consul on the invasion of Hanover. The total articles reclaimed by the Prussians exceeded two thousand. … The claims of states and cities for indemnity on account of' the enormous exactions made from them by the French generals, under the authority of the Convention and the Emperor, were still more extraordinary. … The vast amount of these claims for indemnities in money or territories, and the angry feelings with which they were urged, were of sinister augury to the French nation, and augmented, in a most serious degree, the difficulties experienced by those who were intrusted with the conduct of the negotiations. But, be they what they may, the French had no means of resisting them; all they could trust to was the moderation or jealousies of their conquerors. The force which, during the months of July and August, advanced from all quarters into their devoted territory, was immense, and such as demonstrated that, if Napoleon had not succeeded in dissolving the alliance by an early victory in the Netherlands, the contest, even without the battle of Waterloo, would have been hopeless. The united armies of Russians and Austrians, 350,000 strong, under Schwartzenberg and Barclay de Tolly, crossed the Rhine in various places from Bâle to Coblentz, and, pressing rapidly forward, soon occupied the whole eastern provinces of France. The Austrians and Piedmontese, a hundred thousand more; passed Mont Cenis, or descended the Rhone, from Geneva to Lyons. The Spaniards made their appearance in Bearn or Roussillon. The armies of Blucher and Wellington, now reinforced to 200,000 effective men, occupied Paris, its environs, Normandy, and Picardy. Eighty thousand Prussians and Germans, in addition, were advancing through the Rhenish provinces and Belgium. Before the Allied sovereigns returned to Paris, in the middle of July, the French territory was occupied by 800,000 men, to oppose which no considerable force remained but the army beyond the Loire, which mustered 65,000 combatants. … Austria insisted upon getting back Lorraine and Alsace; Spain put in a claim to the Basque provinces; Prussia alleged that her security would be incomplete unless Mayence, Luxembourg, and all the frontier provinces of France adjoining her territory, were ceded to her; and the King of the Netherlands claimed the whole of the French fortresses of the Flemish barrier. The monarchy of Louis seemed on the eve of dissolution; and so complete was the prostration of the vanquished, that there appeared no power capable of preventing it. It was with no small difficulty, and more from the mutual jealousies of the different powers than any other cause, that these natural reprisals for French rapacity were prevented from taking place. The negotiation was protracted at Paris till late in autumn; Russia, which had nothing to gain by the proposed partition, took part with France throughout its whole continuance; and the different powers, to support their pretensions in this debate, maintained their armies, who had entered on all sides, on the French soil; so that above 800,000 foreign troops were quartered on its inhabitants for several months. At length, however, by the persevering efforts of Lord Castlereagh, M. Nesselrode, and M. Talleyrand, all difficulties were adjusted, and the second treaty of Paris was concluded in November 1815, between France and the whole Allied powers. By this treaty, and the relative conventions which were signed the same day, conditions of a very onerous kind were imposed upon the restored government. The French frontier was restored to the state in which it stood in 1790, by which means the whole of the territory, far from inconsiderable, gained by the treaty of 1814, was resumed by the Allies. In consequence of this, France lost the fortresses of Landau, Sarre-Louis, Philipville, and Marienburg, with the adjacent territory of each. Versoix, with a small district round it, was ceded to the canton of Geneva; the fortress of Huningen was to be demolished; but the little country of the Venaisin, the first conquest of the Revolution, was preserved to France. Seven hundred millions of francs (£28,000,000 sterling) were to be paid to the Allied powers for the expenses of the war; in addition to which it was stipulated that an army of 150,000 men, composed of 80,000 from each of the great powers of England, Russia, Austria, and Prussia, and the lesser powers of Germany, was to occupy, for a period not less than three, or more than five years, the whole frontier fortresses of France; … and this large force was to be maintained entirely at the expense of the French government. In addition to this, the different powers obtained indemnities for the spoliations inflicted on them by France during the Revolution, which amounted to the enormous sum of 735,000,000 of francs more (£29,400,000 sterling). A hundred millions of francs were also provided to the smaller powers as an indemnity for the expenses of the war; so that the total sums which France had to pay, besides maintaining the army of occupation, amounted to no less than fifteen hundred and thirty-five millions of francs, or £61,400,000 sterling. … Great Britain, in a worthy spirit, surrendered the whole sum falling to her out of the indemnity for the war, amounting to nearly £5,000,000 sterling, to the King of the Netherlands, to restore the famous barrier against France which Joseph II. had so insanely demolished."

FRANCE: A. D. 1815-1830.
   The restored monarchy.
   Louis XVIII. and Charles X.
   Career of the Reactionaries.
   Conquest of Algiers.
   Ordinances of July.
   Revolution.
   Abdication and exile of the king.

"France was defeated but not crushed. Indeed she had gained Avignon and some districts of Alsace since 1792, and she had gained social and political stability by having millions of peasants as small proprietors in the soil; moreover, as Napoleon always waged his wars at the expense of his conquered foes, the French national debt was after all the wars only one-sixth of the debt of Great Britain. So France soon rose to a position of strength and prosperity hardly equalled in all Europe, in spite of bad harvests, political unrest, and the foreign occupation which ended in 1818. The royalists, after a quarter of a century of repression, now revenged themselves with truly French vehemence. In France a victorious party generally crushes its opponents; and the elections, held during the full swing of the royalist reaction, sent up to Paris a Legislative Assembly 'more royalist than the king himself.' Before it assembled, Louis XVIII., in spite of his promise only to punish those who were declared by the Assembly to be traitors, proscribed fifty-seven persons who had deserted to Napoleon in the 'Hundred Days.' … Of the proscribed men thirty-eight were banished and a few were shot. Among the latter the most illustrious was Marshal Ney, whose past bravery did not shield him from the extreme penalty for the betrayal of the military oath. … This impolitic execution rankled deep in the breasts of all Napoleon's old soldiers, but for the present all opposition was swept away in the furious tide of reaction. Brune, one of Napoleon's marshals, was killed by the royalist populace of Avignon; and the Protestants of the south, who were suspected of favouring Napoleon's home policy, suffered terrible outrages at Nimes and Uzès in this 'white terror.' The restored monarchy had far stronger executive powers than the old system wielded before 1789, for it now drew into its hands the centralised powers which, under the Directory and the Empire, had replaced the old cumbrous provincial system; but even this gain of power did not satisfy the hot-headed royalists of the Chamber. They instituted judicial courts under a provost (prévôt), which passed severe sentences without right of appeal. Dismissing the comparatively Liberal ministers Talleyrand and Fouché, Louis in September 1816 summoned a more royalist ministry under the Duc de Richelieu, which was itself hurried on by the reactionaries. Chateaubriand fanned the flames of royalist passion by his writings, until the king even found it necessary to dissolve this mischievous Chamber, and the new deputies who assembled (February 1817) showed a more moderate spirit. France was soon delivered from the foreign armies of occupation, for the sovereigns of Russia, Austria, and Prussia, meeting at Aix-la-Chapelle (September 1818), in order to combat revolutionary attempts, decided that an early evacuation of French territory would strengthen the Bourbon rule in France; and they renewed the Quadruple Alliance, which aimed at upholding existing treaties. The discontent in Germany and Italy awakened a sympathetic echo in France, which showed itself in the retirement of the Duc de Richelieu and the accession of a more progressive minister, Decazes (November 1819). This check to the royalist reaction was soon swept away by an event of sinister import. The Duc de Berry, second son of the Comte d'Artois, was assassinated (February 1820), as he was leaving the opera-house, by a fanatic who aimed at cutting off the direct Bourbon line (February 1820). His design utterly failed, for a posthumous son, the celebrated Comte de Chambord, was born in September 1820; and the only result was a new outburst of royalist fury. Liberty of the press was suspended, and a new complicated electoral system restricted the franchise to those who paid at least 1,000 francs a year in direct taxation: the Chamber of Deputies, a fifth part of which was renewed every year by an electorate now representing only the wealthy, became every year more reactionary, while the Left saw its numbers decline. The Ultra-royalist ministry of Villèle soon in its turn aroused secret conspiracies, for the death of Napoleon (May 5, 1821) was now awakening a feeling of regret for the comparative liberty enjoyed in France during the Empire. Military conspiracies were formed, only to be discovered and crushed, and the veteran republican Lafayette was thought to be concerned in a great attempt projected in the eastern departments with its headquarters at Belfort; and the terrible society of the Carbonari secretly spread its arms through the south of France, where it found soil as favourable as in Italy itself. … A revolution in Spain held Ferdinand a prisoner in his palace at Madrid. Louis determined to uphold the throne of his Bourbon relative, and sent an army which quickly effected its object (1823). 'The Pyrenees no longer exist,' exclaimed Louis XVIII. In fact, everywhere in Europe absolutism seemed to be triumphant, and the elections of December 1823 sent up a further reinforcement to the royalist party; also the approaching end of the sensible old king foreshadowed a period of still more violent reaction under his hot-headed brother Charles. Louis XVIII. died on September 16, 1824, At his death the restoration seemed firmly established. … France had quickly recovered from twenty years of warfare, and was thought to have the strongest government in Europe. Always the chief of the reactionary nobles, Charles had said, 'It is only Lafayette and I who have not changed since 1789.' Honest, sincere, and affable as the new king was, yet his popularity soon vanished when it was seen how entirely he was under the control of his confessor; and the ceremonies of his coronation at Rheims showed that he intended to revive the almost forgotten past. In Guizot's words, 'Louis XVIII was a moderate of the old system and a liberal-minded inheritor of the 18th century: Charles X. was a true Émigré, and a submissive bigot' Among the first bills which Charles proposed to the Chambers was one to indemnify those who had lost their lands in the Revolution. To give these lands back would have caused general unsettlement among thousands of small cultivators; but the former landowners received an indemnity of a milliard of francs, which they exclaimed against for its insufficiency just as loudly as the radicals did for its extravagance: by this tardy act of justice the State endeavoured to repair some of the unjust confiscations of the revolutionary era. … {1369} The attempts made by the Jesuits to regain their legal status in France, in spite of the prohibition dating from before the fall of the old regime, aroused further hostility to the king, who was well known to favour their cause. Nothing, however, so strengthened the growing opposition in the Chambers and in the country at large as a rigorous measure aimed at the newspapers, pamphlets, and books which combated the clerical reaction. These publications were to pay a stamp duty per page, while crushing fines were devised to ruin the offending critics. One of the leaders of the opposition, Casimir Périer, exclaimed against this measure as ruinous to trade: 'Printing would be suppressed in France and transferred to Belgium.' The king persevered in his mad enterprise: he refused to receive a petition from the most august literary society in Europe, the Académie Française, and cashiered its promoters as if they were clerks under his orders. Strange to say, the Chamber of Deputies passed the measure, while that of the Peers rejected it—an event greeted by illuminations all over Paris (April 1827). A few days afterwards, at a review of the National Guards in Paris, the troops raised cries for the liberty of the press and for the charter granted in 1815. The next day they were disbanded by royal command, but were foolishly allowed to retain their arms, which were soon to be used against the government. Charles next created seventy-six new peers to outvote his opponents in the Upper House. He also dissolved the Chamber of Deputies, but found the new members less pliable. Finally, Charles had to give way for the time, and accept a more moderate ministry under Martignac in place of the reactionary Villèle Cabinet. … Charles was soon able to dismiss this ministry, the last hope of conciliation, and formed (August 1829) a ministry under Count Polignac, one of whose colleagues was the General Bourmont who had deserted to the allies the day before Waterloo. The king's speech at the opening of the next session (March 1830) was curt and threatening, and the Chamber was soon prorogued. Reform banquets, a custom which the French borrowed from English reformers, increased the agitation, which the Polignac ministry vainly sought to divert by ambitious projects of invasion and partition of some neighbouring States. The only practical outcome of these projects was the conquest of the pirate stronghold of Algiers. This powerful fortress had been bombarded and reduced by Lord Exmouth with the British fleet in 1816, and the captives, mostly Italians, were released from that den of slave-dealers; but the Dey of Algiers had resumed his old habits, complaints from the French were met by defiance, and at last the French envoy quitted the harbor amid a shower of bullets. A powerful expedition effected a landing near the strongly-fortified harbour, and easily beat back the native attack; and then from the land side soon battered down the defences of the city.

Thus the city which had long been the terror of Mediterranean sailors became the nucleus of the important French colony of Algeria (July 4, 1830). The design of Charles X. and of his reactionary Polignac ministry to divert the French people from domestic grievances to foreign conquest needed the genius and strength of a Napoleon to ensure success. The mere fact of the expedition being Under the command of the hated General Bourmont had made it unpopular. … So, although the victory was triumphantly announced throughout France, yet the elections sent up a majority hostile to the king. Nevertheless, with his usual blind obstinacy, Charles on the 25th July 1830 issued the famous ordinances which brought matters to a crisis. The first suspended the liberty of the press, and placed books under a strict censorship; the second dissolved the newly-elected Chamber of Deputies; the third excluded licensed dealers (patentés) from the franchise; the fourth summoned a new Chamber under the new conditions, every one of which violated the charter granted by the late king. The Parisians at once flew to arms, and raised barricades in the many narrow streets which then favoured street-defence. Marmont, hated by the people as being the first of Napoleon's marshals who had treated with the allies, was to quell the disturbances with some 20,000 troops of the line; but on the second day's fighting (July 28) the insurgents, aided by the disbanded National Guards, and veterans of the empire, beat back the troops; and on the third day the royal troops, cut off from food and supplies, and exhausted by the heat, gave way before the tri-colour flag; the defection of two line regiments left the Louvre unguarded; a panic spread among other regiments, and soon the tri-colour floated above the Tuileries. Charles thereupon set the undignified example, soon to be followed by so many kings and, princes, of giving way when it was too late. He offered to withdraw the hated ordinances, but was forced to flee from St. Cloud. He then tried the last expedient, also doomed to failure, of abdicating in favour of his little grandson the Duc de Bordeaux, since better known as the Comte de Chambord. Retiring slowly with his family to Cherbourg, the baffled monarch set out for a second and last exile, spent first at Holyrood Palace, Edinburgh, and ended at Göritz in Bohemia. More than 5,000 civilians and 700 soldiers were killed or wounded in these terrible 'three days' of July 1830, which ended all attempts to re-establish the tyranny of the old régime. The victims were appropriately buried in the Place de la Bastille. They freed not France alone, but dealt a fierce blow at the system of Metternich."

      A. de Lamartine,
      The Restoration of Monarchy in France,
      books 32-50 (volumes 3-4).

      E. E. Crowe,
      History of the Reigns of Louis XVIII.
      and Charles X.

      G. L. Dickinson,
      Revolution and Reaction in Modern France,
      chapter 3.

FRANCE: A. D. 1822:
The Congress of Verona.
French intervention in Spain approved.

FRANCE: A. D. 1823-1827.
Interference in Spain to suppress the revolution and reinstate
King Ferdinand.

FRANCE: A. D. 1830-1840.
The monarchy renewed under Louis Philippe.
Its steady drift from the constitutional course.

"The Constitutional party set their hopes on Louis Philippe, Duke of Orleans. This prince, born in 1773, was the son of that notorious 'Egalité' who during the revolution had ended his checkered career under the guillotine. His grandmother was the noble Elizabeth Charlotte, a native of the Palatinate, who had the misfortune to be the wife of the effeminate Duke of Orleans, brother of Louis XIV. Louis Philippe was a Bourbon, like King Charles; but the opposition of several members of this Orleans branch of the royal house had caused it to be regarded as a separate family. From his youth up he had displayed a great deal of popular spirit and common-sense. … Seemingly created by his nature and career to be a citizen king, he had long since, as early as 1814, determined to accept the throne in case it were offered him." The offer came in 1830 with the revolution of July. On the 31st of that month he accepted the office of lieutenant-general of the kingdom, conferred by the vote of a meeting of fifty delegates. "The 'Society of the Friends of the People' [an organization of the pronounced republicans], not very well pleased with this result of the 'great week' [as the week of the revolution was called], laid before Lafayette, on the following day," their programme, "and commissioned him to make the duke guarantee the popular rights therein set forth by his signature. With this document in his pocket, Lafayette made his … visit to Louis Philippe in the Palais Royal. In the course of conversation he said to him, 'You know that I am a republican, and consider the American constitution the most perfect.' 'I am of the same opinion,' replied the duke; 'no one could have been two years in America and not share that view. But do you think that that constitution could be adopted in France in its present condition—with the present state of popular opinion?' 'No,' said Lafayette; 'what France needs is a popular monarchy surrounded by republican—thoroughly republican—institutions.' 'There I quite agree with you,' rejoined Louis Philippe. Enchanted with this political harmony, the old general considered it unnecessary to present the programme, and went security to the republicans for the duke, the patriot, of 1789. … On the 3d of August the Chamber was opened by the Duke of Orleans, and the abdication of the king and dauphin announced. … The question whether the constitution was to be changed, and how, gave rise to an animated contest between radicals and liberals. The confidence in Louis Philippe was so great, that they were content with a few improvements. The throne was declared vacant, and Louis Philippe proclaimed king of the French. … August 8th, Louis Philippe appeared in the Palais Bourbon, took the oath to the constitution, and was thereupon proclaimed king. … None of the great monarchs had so difficult a task as Louis Philippe. If he attached himself to the majority of his people and showed himself in earnest with 'the republican institutions which ought to surround the throne,' he had all the continental powers against him; if he inclined toward the absolute system of the latter, then not alone the extreme parties, but also the men of the constitutional monarchy, … rose against him. … His system, which he himself named a happy medium (juste milieu), would have been a happy medium if he had struck the middle and kept it; but he gradually swerved so much toward the right that the middle was far to his left. From the outset he had three parties against him—Legitimists, Bonapartists, and Republicans." At intervals, there were demonstrations and insurrections undertaken in the interest of each of these. In July, 1835, the assassination of the king was attempted, by the explosion of an infernal machine, which killed and wounded sixty people. "The whole Republican party was unjustly made responsible for this attempt, and new blows were struck at the juries and the Press. Every Press offence involving a libel of the king or the administration was to be tried from this time on before the Court of Peers, and the composition of that body rendered conviction certain. With these September laws' the reaction was complete, the power of the Republicans was broken. Their activity did not cease, however. Their numerous societies continued to exist in secret, and to the political affiliated themselves the social societies, which … demanded, among other impossibilities, the abolition of private property. It was these baleful excrescences which deprived republicanism of all credit, and outbreaks like that of May 12th, 1839, where a few hundred members of the 'Society of the Seasons,' with Barbès and Blanqui at their head, disarmed military posts and proclaimed the republic, found not the slightest response. The repeated attempts which were made on the king's life were also unsuccessful." The relations of Louis Philippe "to foreign powers became better the more he approximated to their system, putting restraints upon societies, the Press, and juries, and energetically crushing popular revolts. Naturally he was by this very means constantly further estranging the mass of the people. … What the Legitimists and Republicans had not effected—a change of government—the Napoleonids now took in hand." Louis Napoleon Bonaparte, son of ex-king Louis of Holland and Hortense Beauharnais, made his appearance among the soldiers of the garrison at Strasburg, October 30, 1836, with the expectation that they would proclaim him emperor and set the example of a rising in his favor. But the attempt was a wretched failure; Louis Napoleon was arrested and contemptuously sent out of the country, to America, without punishment. In 1840 he repeated his undertaking, at Boulogne, more abortively than in the first instance; was again made prisoner, and was consigned, this time, to the castle of Ham, from which he escaped six years later. "All the world laughed at his folly; but without the scenes of Strasburg and Boulogne, and the martyrdom of a six years' imprisonment, his name certainly would not have produced such an effect in the year 1848."

      F. P. Guizot,
      Memoirs to Illustrate the History of My Own Time,
      volumes 3-4.

FRANCE: A. D. 1841-1848.
   The limited electoral body and its corruption.
   Agitation for reform.
   The suppressed banquet at Paris and the
   revolution which followed.
   Abdication and flight of the king.

"The monarchy of Louis Philippe lasted for 18 years. But the experiment was practicable only so long as the throne rested on a small body of obedient electors. The qualification for the franchise was so high that it was held only by 200,000 people. So small a constituency could, be 'managed' by the skill of M. Guizot and M. Thiers [who were the chief rivals of the time in political leadership]. It could be 'managed' through gifts of places, bribes, the influence of local magnates, and the pressure of public officials. There was never perhaps so corrupt an electoral body. … M. Guizot, who was an austere puritan at home, and who has entered into a competition with Saint Augustin as a writer of religious meditations, raised many sneers to the lips of worldlings, not only by lending his hand to the infamous intrigue of the Spanish Marriages, but by allowing his subordinates to traffic in places for the sake of getting votes. His own hands, of course, were clean; no one spoke a whisper against his personal purity. But he seemed to have much practical sympathy with the advice which Pitt, in one of Landor's 'Imaginary Conversations,' gives to his young disciple Canning. Pecuniary corruption was the very breath of life to the constitutional monarchy. The voters were bought as freely as if they had stood in the market-place. The system admirably suited the purpose of the little family party of princes and parliamentary chiefs who ruled the country. But it was as artificial and fleeting as the sand castles which a child builds on the edge of the advancing tide."

"The population of France was then 34,000,000, and the privilege of the political franchise was vested exclusively in those who paid in direct taxes a sum not less than £8. This class numbered little more than 200,000. … The government had 130,000 places at its disposal, and the use which was made of these during the 18 years of Louis Philippe's reign was productive of corruption more widespread and shameless than France had known since the first revolution. In the scarcely exaggerated language used by M. de Lamartine, the government had 'succeeded in making of a nation of citizens a vile band of beggars.' It was obvious to all who desired the regeneration of France that reform must begin with the representation of the people. To this end the liberals directed much effort. They did not as yet propose universal suffrage, and their leaders were divided between an extension of the franchise to all who paid £2 of direct taxes and an extension, which went no lower than £4. The demand for reform was resisted by the government. … Among the leaders of the liberal party were men of high character and commanding influence. Arago, Odillon Barrot, Louis Blanc, Thiers, Lamartine, were formidable assailants for the strongest government to encounter. Under their guidance the agitation for reform assumed dimensions exceedingly embarrassing and even alarming. For once France borrowed from England her method of political agitation. Reform banquets, attended by thousands of persons, were held in all the chief towns, and the pressure of a peaceful public opinion was employed to obtain the remedy of a great wrong. The police made feeble attempts to prevent such gatherings, but were ordinarily unsuccessful. But the king and M. Guizot, strong in the support of the army and a purchased majority of the deputies, and apparently little aware of the vehemence of the popular desire, made no effort to satisfy or propitiate. Louis Philippe had wisely set a high value on the maintenance of cordial relations with England. … The Queen of England gratified him by a visit [1843], which he returned a few months after. … During these visits there was much conversation regarding a Spanish matter which was then of some interest. The Spanish government was looking around to find suitable husbands for their young queen and her sister. The hands of the princesses were offered to two sons of Louis Philippe. But … England looked with disfavour upon a close alliance between the crowns of France and Spain. The king would not offend England. He declined the hand of the Spanish queen, but accepted that of her sister for his fourth son, the Duc de Montpensier. Queen Victoria and her ministers approved of that marriage on the condition voluntarily offered by King Louis, that it should not take place till the Spanish queen was married and had children. But in a few years the king violated his pledge, and pressed upon Spain an arrangement under which the two marriages were celebrated together [1846]. … To Louis Philippe himself the transaction was calamitous. He had broken his kingly word, and he stood before Europe and before his own people a dishonoured man. … Circumstances made it easy for the opposition to enhance the general discontent. Many evidences of shameless corruption were at this time brought to light. … The crops failed in 1845 and 1846, and prices rose to a famine point. … The demand for parliamentary reform became constantly more urgent; but M. Guizot heeded it not. The reformers took up again their work of agitation. They announced a great procession and reform banquet. The police, somewhat hesitatingly, interdicted the demonstration, and its promoters resolved to submit; but the people, insufficiently informed of these movements, gathered for the procession in the early morning. All that day [February 22, 1848] the streets were thronged, and the excitement of the people increased from hour to hour; but few soldiers were seen, and consequently no conflict occurred. Next morning the strategic points of the city were garrisoned by a strong force of soldiers and national guards, and the people saw that the government feared them. Business was suspended, and the constantly rising agitation foretold irrepressible tumults. The men of the faubourgs appeared once more. Towards evening a few barricades were thrown up, and a few gunsmiths' shops were plundered. Worst of all, the national guard appeared to sympathize with the people. … To appease the angry mob, no measure seemed so hopeful as the sacrifice of the ministry. Guizot resigned. Thiers and Odillon Barrot, chiefs of the liberal party, were received into the cabinet. Marshal Bugeaud was appointed to command the troops. But before the day closed a disaster had occurred which made all concession vain. Before one of the public offices there was stationed a battalion of infantry, around which there surged an excited crowd. A shot came from the crowd, and was promptly responded to by a volley which killed or wounded 50 persons. {1372} The bodies of the victims were placed on waggons and drawn along the streets, that the fury of the people might be excited to the highest pitch. During that sleepless night, Marshal Bugeaud, skilfully directing the forces which he commanded, had taken the barricades and effectively checked the rioters. But in early morning the new ministers ordered him to desist and withdraw his troops. They deemed it useless to resist. Concession was, in their view, the only avenue to tranquillity. The soldiers retired; the crowds pressed on to the Tuileries." The king, terrified by their approach, was persuaded to sign an abdication in favor of his grandson, the Comte de Paris, and to fly in haste, with his family, from the palace and from Paris. A week later the royal family "reached the coast and embarked for England, … their majesties travelling under the lowly but well-chosen incognito of Mr. and Mrs. Smith. … Immediately on the departure of the king, a provisional government was organized, with M. Lamartine at its head."

FRANCE: A. D. 1848 (February-May).
   The three months of Provisional Government.
   Its extraordinary measures.
   Its absolutism.
   Creation or the Ateliers Nationaux.
   The consequences.

On the morning of February 24th—the morning of the king's flight—M. de Lamartine, entering the Palais Bourbon, where the Chamber of Deputies held its meetings, found in the vestibule seven or eight persons waiting for him. "Who they were we are not told—or what they were, except that they belonged to the newspaper press. Even the names of the papers with which they were connected are not expressly stated—though the 'National' and 'Réforme' are indicated. They demanded a secret conference. Lamartine took them into a distant apartment." There they "proposed to him to substitute for Louis-Philippe the Comte de Paris as king, and the Duchess of Orleans as regent, and to place him [Lamartine] over them minister." "Lamartine does not appear to have been surprised at the proposal. He does not appear to have doubted the power of seven or eight journalists to dethrone a king, create a regent, and appoint a minister! And he was right. The 'National' and the 'Réforme,' whose representatives stood before him, did more than all this, a couple of hours after. … He objected to their scheme that such an arrangement would not last, and declared himself in favour of a republic, based on universal suffrage; … they expressed their conviction, and separated, agreed, apparently, on the course of action to be pursued.' A few hours later, the Chamber was invaded by a body of rioters, fresh from the sack of the Tuileries. The Duchess of Orleans, who had presented herself at the Chamber with her two children, fled before them. "M. Sauzet, the President, disappeared. Lamartine [who was speaking] remained in the tribune, and desired Dupont de l'Eure to take the vacant chair." Thereupon a Provisional Government was appointed, in some fashion not clearly detailed. It underwent certain changes, by unexplained additions, within the following day or two, but "in the 'Moniteur' of February 27 (the third day of the existence of the Provisional Government), its members are arranged thus:—MM. Arago, Dupont de l'Eure, Albert (ouvrier), F. Marrast, F. Flocon, Lamartine, Marie, L. Blanc, Crémieux, Ledru Rollin, Garnier Pagès. … Within two days after its formation it was on the brink of ruin under an attack from the Terrorists [or Red Republicans, who assumed the red flag as their standard]. … The contest had left the members of the government in a state of mind which M. de Lamartine thinks peculiarly favourable to wise legislation. … 'Every member of the Council sought [he says], in the depths of his heart and of his intellect, for some great reform, some great legislative, political, or moral improvement. Some proposed the instantaneous abolition of negro slavery. Others, the abolition of the restrictions imposed by the laws of September upon the press. Some, the proclamation of fraternity among nations, in order to abolish war by abolishing conquest. Some, the abolition of the qualification of electors. And all, the principles of mutual charity among all classes of citizens. As quickly as these great democratic truths, rather felt than discussed, were converted into decrees, they were printed in a press set up at the door of the council-room, thrown from the windows to the crowd, and despatched by couriers through the departments.' … The important decrees, which actually bear date February 25 or 26, and which may therefore be referred to this evening of instinct, inspiration, and enthusiasm, are these:—The 18th, which sets at liberty all persons detained on political grounds. The 19th, by which the government—

3, Admits that operatives ought to combine in order to
enjoy the fruits of their labour:

4, And promises to return to the operatives, whose property it is, the million which will fall in from the civil list.

The 22nd, which dissolves the Municipal Guards. The 26th, which declares that the actual government of France is republican, and that the nation will immediately be called on to ratify by its votes this resolution of the government and of the people of Paris. The 29th, which declares that Royalty, under any name whatever, … is abolished. … And the 30th, which directs the immediate establishment of national workshops (ateliers natlonaux). We confess that, we agree with Lamartine in thinking that they bear the stamp of instinct much more than that of reason. … The declaration that the actual government of France was republican … was palpably untrue. The actual government of France at that time was as far removed from republicanism as it was possible for a government to be. It was a many-headed Dictatorship—a despotic oligarchy. Eleven men—some appointed in the offices of a newspaper, and the others by a mob which had broken into the Chamber of Deputies—ruled France, during three months, with an absoluteness of which there is no other example in history. … They dissolved the Chamber of Deputies; they forbade the peers to meet; they added 200,000 men to the regular army, and raised a new metropolitan army of 20,000 more at double the ordinary pay; to meet this expense they added 45 centimes to the direct taxes; they restricted the Bank from cash payments; they made its paper a legal tender, and then required it to lend them fifty millions; … they altered the hours of labour throughout France, and, subjected to heavy fines any master who should allow his operatives to remain at work for the accustomed period. … {1373} The necessary consequence of the 19th decree, promising employment to all applicants, was the creation of the ateliers nationaux by the 30th. These workshops were immediately opened in the outskirts Of Paris. A person who wished to take advantage of the offers of the Government took from the person with whom he lodged a certificate that he was an inhabitant of the Department de la Seine. This certificate he carried to the mairie of his arrondissement, and obtained an order of admission to an atelier. If he was received and employed there, he obtained an order on his mairie for forty sous. If he was not received, after having applied at all of them, and found them all full, he received an order for thirty sous. Thirty sous is not high pay; but it was to be had for doing nothing; and hopes of advancement were held out. Every body of eleven persons formed an escouade; and their head, the escouadier, elected by his companions, got half a franc a day extra. Five escouades formed a brigade; and the brigadier, also elected by his subordinates, received three francs a day. Above these again were the lieutenants, the chefs de compagnie, the chefs de service, and the chefs d'arrondissement, appointed by the Government, and receiving progressively higher salaries. Besides this, bread was distributed to their families in proportion to the number of children. The hours supposed to be employed in labour were nine and a half. … This semi-military organisation, regular payment, and nominal work produced results which we cannot suppose to have been unexpected by the Government. M. Emile Thomas tells us that in one mairie, that containing the Faubourg St.-Antoine, a mere supplemental bureau enrolled, from March 12 to 20, more than 1,000 new applicants every day. We have before us a list of those who had been enrolled on May 19, and it amounts to 87,942. A month later it amounted to 125,000—representing, at 4 to a family, 600,000 persons—more than one half of the population of Paris. To suppose that such an army as this could be regularly organised, fed, and paid, for months in idleness, and then quietly disbanded, was a folly of which the Provisional Government was not long guilty. They soon saw that the monster which they had created could not be subdued, if it could be subdued at all, by any means short of civil war. … 'A thunder-cloud (says M. de Lamartine) was always before our eyes. It was formed by the ateliers nationaux; This army of 120,000 work-people, the great part of whom were idlers and agitators, was the deposit of the misery, the laziness, the vagrancy, the vice, and the sedition which the flood of the revolution had cast up and left on its shores.' … As they were managed, the ateliers nationaux, it is now admitted, produced or aggravated the very evils which they professed to cure or to palliate. They produced or continued the stagnation of business which they were to remedy; and, when they became absolutely intolerable, the attempt to put an end to them occasioned the civil war which they were to prevent."

N. W. Senior, Journals kept in France and Italy, 1848-1852, volume 1, pages 14-59.

FRANCE: A. D. 1848 (April-December).
   The Constituent National Assembly, and the Constitution of the
   Second Republic.
   Savage and terrible insurrection of the workmen of the
   Ateliers Nationaux.
   Vigorous dictatorship of Cavaignac.
   Appearance of Louis Napoleon.
   His election to the Presidency of the Republic.

The election by universal suffrage of a Constituent National Assembly, twice deferred on account of fears of popular turbulence, took place on the 23d of April, and resulted in the return of a very Conservative majority, largely composed of Napoleonists, Legitimists and Orleanists. The meeting of the Assembly was opened on the 7th of May. "The moderates were anxious to invest M. de Lamartine with a dictatorial authority," which he declined. "Eventually an executive commission of five was appointed. … The commission consisted of Arago, Garnier Pagès, Marie, Lamartine, and Ledru Rollin. … This conciliatory executive commission was elected by the Assembly on the 10th of May. On the 15th, the 'concilliated' mob broke into the chamber, insulted the deputies, turned them out, proclaimed a provisional government, and then marched to the Hôtel de Ville, where they were installed with due revolutionary solemnity;" but the National Guard rallied to the support of the government, and the insurrection was promptly suppressed. "Eleven vacancies in the Assembly had to be filled in the department of the Seine, on account of double returns. These elections produced fresh uneasiness in Paris. Eighth on the list stood Louis Napoleon Bonaparte; and among the names mentioned as candidates was that of Prince de Joinville, the most popular of the Orleans princes. The executive commission appears to have been more afraid of the latter than of the former; and to prevent the disagreeable circumstance of France returning him to the Assembly as one of her representatives, they thought themselves justified in declaring the whole Orleans family incapable of serving France in any capacity. … Louis Napoleon, on the first proclamation of the Republic, had at once offered his services; but was by the Provisional Government requested to withdraw, as his great name might trouble the republic. … Two Bonapartes had been elected members for Corsica, and three sat in the Assembly; but, as the next heir of the Emperor, Louis Napoleon caused them much uneasiness. … Already mobs had gone about the Boulevard crying 'Vive l'Empereur.' The name of Bonaparte was not unpopular with the bourgeoisie; it was a guarantee of united and strong government to all. On his election, Louis Napoleon wrote to the President of the Assembly: a phrase in his letter gave considerable offence. Some days before, Lamartine had proposed his exclusion from the Assembly and the country; but, as it appeared he was in no way implicated in the seditious cries, they voted his admission by a large majority. The phrase which gave umbrage was: 'If the country imposes duties upon me, I shall know how to fulfill them.' … However, by a subsequent letter, dated the 15th, he restored confidence by saying he would resign rather than be a cause of tumult. But the real difficulties of the government arose from a different cause. {1374} The National Assembly bore with impatience the expense of the Ateliers Nationaux: It was enough to submit to the factious spirit of those bodies; but it was too much to pay them for keeping on foot an organized insurrection, ever ready to break out and deluge the capital in blood. The executive commission had been desirous of finding means gradually to lessen the numbers receiving wages; and on the 12th of May, it was resolved to close the lists. The commission foresaw that if the Ateliers were at once abolished, it would produce a rebellion in Paris; and they hoped, first, by preventing any more being inscribed, and then by setting them to task-work, that they should gradually get the numbers reduced. … But the Assembly would not wait; they ordered all the workmen between 18 and 25 years old, and unmarried, to be drafted into the army, or to be discharged; and they were breaking them up so rapidly, that if the workmen wanted to fight it was evident that it must be done at once or not at all. … General Cavaignac, who had been sent for from Africa, was on his arrival in Paris named Minister at War, and had command of the troops. … Preparations for the conflict commenced on Thursday the 22nd of June; but it was noon of the following day ere the first shot was fired. It is said, that had the executive commission known what they were about, the heads of the insurrection might have been all arrested in the meantime, for they were walking about all day, and at one time met in the Jardin des Plantes. The fighting on the 23d continued all day, with much slaughter, and little practical result. … The extent of the insurgent lines swallowed up the troops, so that, though great numbers were in Paris, there appeared to be a deficiency of them, and loud complaints were made against the inefficiency of the executive commission. During the night the fighting ceased, and both parties were occupied in strengthening their positions. The Assembly was sitting in permanence; they were highly incensed against the executive commission, and wished them to send in their resignations; but the latter refused, saying it was cowardly to do so in the face of insurrection. The Assembly then formally deposed the commission, and appointed Cavaignac dictator; to which arrangement the executive commission at once assented. The General instantly ordered the National Guards to prevent assemblages in the streets, and that no one should go out without a pass: anyone going about, out of uniform, without permission, was walked home. In this manner many persons carrying ammunition to the insurgents were arrested. At noon, he sent a flag of truce with a proclamation, offering an amnesty to the rebels, at the suggestion of the ex-prefect Caussidière; but it was unhesitatingly rejected. This latter personage, though he was not among the barricades, was by many thought to be the head of the insurrection. The troops of the insurgents were managed with great military skill, showing that persons of military knowledge must have had the command; though no one knew who were their leaders. … During the early part of the day, the fighting was mainly on the southern side of the river. The church of St. Gervais and the bridges were carried with great slaughter, as well as the church of St. Severin, and their great head-quarters the Pantheon; and by four o'clock, the troops had conquered the whole of the south bank of the Seine. On the other side, a hot engagement was going on in the Faubourgs Poissonnière and St. Denis: these were carried with great loss at a late hour, whence the insurrection was forced back to its great stronghold, the Clos St. Lazare; which defied every effort of General Lamoricière to take it on Saturday. An unfinished hospital served as a citadel, and several churches and public buildings as out-posts; while the old city wall, which they had loop-holed, enabled them to fire on the troops in comparative security; but the buildings were breached with cannon, and the insurgents by four o'clock on Sunday were dispersed. … A desperate struggle was going on at a late hour in the Faubourg du Temple; and on the Monday morning the insurgents made a stand behind the Canal St. Martin, where they sent to treat on condition of retaining their arms. But Cavaignac would hear of no terms. It was thought, at one time, that they had surrendered; when some soldiers, going within the lines, were surprised and murdered. Hostilities at once began again, and the insurgents were finally subdued by one o'clock on Monday the 26th. The victory was dearly bought: 8,000 were ascertained to have been killed or wounded; and, as many bodies were thrown into the Seine unrecognised, this is much under the number. Nearly 14,000 prisoners were taken, and 3,000 of these died of gaol fever. … The excellent Archbishop of Paris, Denis Auguste Affre, fell a sacrifice to his Christian benevolence. Horrified at the slaughter, he, attended by two of his vicars carrying the olive-branch of peace, passed between the combatants. The firing ceased at his appearance; but, from the discharge of a single musket, it began again: he, nevertheless, mounted the barricade and descended into the midst of the insurgents, and was, in the act of addressing them, when some patriot, fearing the effect of his exhortations, shot him from a window. … General Cavaignac, immediately after the pacification of Paris, laid down the temporary dictatorship with which he had been invested by the Assembly; but their gratitude for the salvation of society led them to appoint him President of the Council, with the power to name his own Ministry. He at once sent adrift all the red republican party, and chose a Ministry from among the moderate class of republicans; to which he afterwards added some members of the old opposition. … Prince Louis Napoleon was again thrust upon the Assembly, by being elected for Corsica; but he wrote a letter on the 8th of July, saying, that though he did not renounce the honour of one day sitting as a representative of the people, he would wait till the time when his return to France could not in any way serve as a pretext to the enemies of the republic. … On Tuesday, the 26th of September, shortly after the president had taken his seat, Louis Napoleon appeared quietly in the chamber, and placed himself on one of the back benches. … The discussion of the constitution, which had been referred to a committee, was the only subject of interest, except the important question of how the president should be elected. It was proposed by some that the assembly itself should elect a president, a proposition which was eventually negatived by a large majority. {1375} The real object was to exclude Louis Napoleon, whose great name gave him every chance of success, if an appeal were made to the universal suffrage of the nation, which the republicans distrusted. Another amendment was moved to exclude all pretenders to the throne; on which, allusion being made to Louis Napoleon, he mounted the rostrum, and denied that he was a pretender. … The red republicans were desirous of having no president, and that the constituent assembly itself should name the ministers. It was not the only constitutional point in dispute: for weeks and months, the debate on the constitution dragged its weary length along; amendments were discussed, and the work when turned out was, as might have been expected, a botch after all. … It was eventually agreed, that to give validity to the election of a president it should be necessary that he should have more than a half of all the votes given; that is to say, more votes than all the other candidates put together; if not, the assembly was to choose between the highest candidate on the list and his competitors, by which means they hoped to be able to get rid of Bonaparte. … The constitution was proclaimed on the 10th of November. … The legitimist and Orleanist parties refused to start a candidate for fear of weakening Bonaparte, and thus throwing the choice into the hands of the assembly, who would choose General Cavaignac. Both these parties gave the former at least a negative support; and as M. Thiers declared that nine-tenths of the country were opposed to the General as too revolutionary, it was clear that in the country itself reaction was going on faster than in the assembly. … Louis Napoleon's chief support was from the inhabitants of the country districts, the peasantry. … On the 10th of December, 5,534,520 votes were recorded for Louis Napoleon. General Cavaignac had 1,448,302. Then came Ledru Rollin; then Raspail. Lamartine got 17,914; 23,219 were disallowed, as being given for some of the banished royal family. The total number of voters was 7,449,471."

      ALSO IN:
      J. F. Corkran,
      History of the Constituent
      National Assembly from May, 1848.

      Marquis of Normanby,
      A Year of Revolution,
      chapters 13-15(volume 2).

      H. C. Lockwood,
      Constitutional History of France,
      chapter 5, and appendix 8.

FRANCE: A. D. 1849.
   Intervention at Rome, to crush the revolutionary republic and
   restore the Pope.
   French capture and occupation of the city.

FRANCE: A. D. 1849-1850.
Disagreement with England in Greece.
The Don Pacifico affair.

"In the beginning of the winter of 1851 France was still a republic; but the Constitution of 1848 had struck no root. There was a feeling that the country had been surprised and coerced into the act of declaring itself a republic, and that a monarchical system of government was the only one adapted for France. The sense of instability which sprang from this belief was connected with an agonising dread of insurrections. … Moreover, to those who watched and feared, it seemed that the shadow on the dial was moving on with a terrible steadiness to the hour when a return to anarchy was, as it were, pre-ordained by law; for the constitution requited that a new president should be chosen in the spring of the following year. … In general, France thought it best that, notwithstanding the Rule of the Constitution, which stood in the way, the then President should be quietly re-elected; and a large majority of the Assembly, faithfully representing this opinion, had come to a vote which sought to give it effect; but their desire was baffled by an unwise provision of the Republican Charter which had laid it down that no constitutional change should take place without the sanction of three-fourths of the Assembly. By this clumsy bar the action of the State system was hampered, and many whose minds generally inclined them to respect legality were forced to acknowledge that the Constitution wanted a wrench." The President of the republic, Prince Louis Napoleon Bonaparte, "had always wished to bring about a change in the constitution, but, originally, he had hoped to be able to do this with the aid and approval of some at least of the statesmen and eminent generals of the country." But, "although there were numbers in France who would have been heartily glad to see the Republic crushed by some able dictator, there were hardly any public men who believed that in the President of the Republic they would find the man they wanted. Therefore his overtures to the gentlemen of France were always rejected. Every statesman to whom he applied refused to entertain his proposals. Every general whom he urged always said that for whatever he did he must have 'an order from the Minister of War.' The President being thus rebuffed, his plan of changing the form of government with the assent of some of the leading statesmen and generals of the country degenerated into schemes of a very different kind; and at length he fell into the hands of persons of the quality of Persigny, Morny, and Fleury. … The President had been a promoter of the law of the 31st of May, restricting the franchise, but he now became the champion of universal suffrage. To minds versed in politics this change might have sufficed to disclose the nature of the schemes upon which the Chief of the State was brooding; but, from first to last, words tending to allay suspicion had been used with great industry and skill. From the moment of his coming before the public in February 1848, the Prince laid hold of almost every occasion he could find for vowing, again and again, that he harbored no schemes against the Constitution. … It was natural that in looking at the operation which changed the Republic into an Empire, the attention of the observer should be concentrated upon the person who, already the Chief of the State, was about to attain to the throne; and there seems to be no doubt, that what may be called the literary part of the transaction was performed by the President in person. He was the lawyer of the confederacy. He no doubt wrote the Proclamations, the Plebiscites, and the Constitutions, and all such like things; but it seems that the propelling power which brought the plot to bear was mainly supplied by Count de Morny, and by a resolute Major, named Fleury. M. Morny was a man of great daring, and gifted with more than common powers of fascination. He had been a member of the Chamber of Deputies in the time of the monarchy; but he was rather known to the world as a speculator than as a politician. He was a buyer and seller of those fractional and volatile interests in trading adventures, which go by the name of 'Shares.' … {1376} He knew how to found a 'company,' and he now undertook to establish institutions which were destined to be more lucrative to him than any of his former adventures; … It seems, however, that the man who was the most able to make the President act, to drive him deep into his own plot, and fiercely carry him through it, was Major Fleury. … He was daring and resolute, and his daring was of the kind which holds good in the moment of danger. If Prince Louis Bonaparte was bold and ingenious in designing, Fleury was the man to execute. … The language held by the generals who declared that they would act under the authority of the Minister of War and not without it, suggested the contrivance which was resorted to. Fleury determined to find a military man capable of command, capable of secrecy, and capable of a great venture. The person chosen was to be properly sounded, and if he seemed willing, was to be admitted into the plot. He was then to be made Minister of War, in order that through him the whole of the land forces should be at the disposal of the plotters. Fleury went to Algeria to find the instrument required, and he so well performed his task that he hit upon a general officer who was christened, it seems, Jacques Arnaud Le Roy, but was known at this time as Achille St. Arnaud. … He readily entered into the plot. From the moment that Prince Louis Bonaparte and his associates had entrusted their secret to the man of Fleury's selection, it was perhaps hardly possible for them to flinch, for the exigencies of St. Arnaud, formerly Le Roy, were not likely to be on so modest a scale as to consist with the financial arrangements of a Republic governed by law, and the discontent of a person of his quality with a secret like that in his charge would plainly bring the rest of the brethren into danger. He was made Minister of War. This was on the 27th of October. At the same time M. Maupas or de Maupas was brought into the Ministry. … Persigny, properly Fialin, was in the plot. He was descended on one side of an ancient family, and disliking his father's name he seems to have called himself for many years after the name of his maternal grandfather. … It was necessary to take measures for paralyzing the National Guard, but the force was under the command of General Perrot, a man whose honesty could not be tampered with. To dismiss him suddenly would be to excite suspicion. The following expedient was adopted: the President appointed as Chief of the Staff of the National Guard, a person named Vieyra. The past life and the then repute of this person were of such a kind, that General Perrot, it seems, conceived himself insulted by the nomination, and instantly resigned. That was what the brethren of the Elysée wanted. On Sunday, the 30th, General Lawæstine was appointed to the command. … His function was—not to lead the force of which he took the command but—to prevent it from acting. … Care had been taken to bring into Paris and its neighborhood the regiments most likely to serve the purpose of the Elysée, and to give the command to generals who might be expected to act without scruples. The forces in Paris and its neighborhood were under the orders of General Magnan. … From time to time the, common soldiery were gratified with presents of food and wine, as well, as with an abundance of flattering words, and their exasperation against civilians was so well kept alive that men used to African warfare were brought into the humor for calling the Parisians 'Bedouins.' There was massacre in the very sound. The army of Paris was in the temper required. It was necessary for the plotters to have the concurrence of M. St. Georges, the director Of the state printing-office. M. St. Georges was suborned. Then all was ready. On the Monday night between the 1st and 2d of December, the President had his usual assembly at the Elysée. Ministers who were loyally ignorant of what was going on were mingled with those who were in the plot. … At the usual hour the assembly began to disperse, and by eleven o'clock there were only three guests who remained. These were Morny (who had previously taken care to show himself at one of the theatres), Maupas, and St. Arnaud, formerly Le Roy. There was, besides, an orderly officer of the President, called Colonel Beville, who was initiated in the secret. … They were to strike the blow that night. … By and by they were apprised that an order which had been given for the movement of a battalion of gendarmerie, had duly taken effect without exciting remark. … The President entrusted a packet of manuscripts to Colonel Beville, and despatched him to the state printing office. It was in the streets which surround this building that the battalion of gendarmerie had been collected. When Paris was hushed in sleep, the battalion came quietly out, and folded round the state printing-office. From that moment until their work was done the printers were all close captives, for no one of them was suffered to go out. … It is said that there was something like resistance, but in the end, if not at first, the printers obeyed. Each compositor stood whilst he worked between two policemen, and, the manuscript being cut into many pieces, no one could make out the sense of what he was printing. By these proclamations the President asserted that the Assembly was a hot-bed of plots; declared it dissolved; pronounced for universal suffrage; proposed a new constitution; vowed anew that his duty was to maintain the Republic; and placed Paris and the twelve surrounding departments under martial law. In one of the proclamations, he appealed to the army, and strove to whet its enmity against civilians, by reminding it of the defeats inflicted upon the troops in 1830 and 1848. The President wrote letters dismissing the members of the government who were not in the plot; but he did not cause these letters to be delivered until the following morning. He also signed a paper appointing Morny to the Home Office. … The order from the Minister of War was probably signed by half-past two in the morning, for at three it was in the hands of Magnan. At the same hour Maupas (assigning for pretext the expected arrival of foreign refugees), caused a number of Commissaries to be summoned in all haste to the Prefecture of Police. At half-past three in the morning these men were in attendance. … It was then that, for the first time, the main secret of the confederates passed into the hands of a number of subordinate agents. During some hours of that night every one of those humble Commissaries had the destinies of France in his hands; for he might either obey the Minister, and so place his country in the power of the Elysée, or he might obey the law, denounce the plot, and bring its contrivers to trial. Maupas gave orders for the seizure at the same minute of the foremost Generals of France, and several of her leading Statesmen. {1377} Parties of the police, each under the orders of a Commissary, were to be at the doors of the persons to be arrested some time beforehand, but the seizures were not to take place until a quarter past six. … At the appointed minute, and whilst it was still dark, the designated houses were entered. The most famous generals of France were seized. General Changarnier, General Bedeau, General Lamoricière, General Cavaignac, and General Leflô were taken from their beds, and carried away through the sleeping city and thrown into prison. In the same minute the like was done with some of the chief members and officers of the Assembly, and amongst others with Thiers, Miot, Baze, Colonel Charras, Roger du Nord, and several of the democratic leaders. Some men believed to be the chiefs of secret societies were also seized. The general object of these night arrests was that, when morning broke, the army should be without generals inclined to observe the law, that the Assembly should be without the machinery for convoking it, and that all the political parties in the State should be paralyzed by the disappearance of their chiefs. The number of men thus seized in the dark was seventy-eight. Eighteen of these were members of the Assembly. Whilst it was still dark, Morny, escorted by a body of infantry, took possession of the Home Office, and prepared to touch the springs of that wondrous machinery by which a clerk can dictate to a nation. Already he began to tell 40,000 communes of the enthusiasm with which the sleeping city had received the announcement of measures not hitherto disclosed. When the light of the morning dawned, people saw the Proclamations on the walls, and slowly came to hear that numbers of the foremost men of France had been seized in the night-time, and that every General to whom the friends of law and order could look for help was lying in one or other of the prisons. The newspapers, to which a man might run in order to know truly what others thought and intended, were all seized and stopped. The gates of the Assembly were closed and guarded, but the Deputies, who began to flock thither, found means to enter by passing through one of the official residences which formed Part of the building. They had assembled in the Chamber in large numbers, and some of them having caught Dupin, their reluctant President, were forcing him to come and take the chair, when a body of infantry burst in and drove them out, striking some of them with the butt-ends of their muskets. … Driven from their Chamber, the Deputies assembled at the Mayoralty of the 10th arrondissement. There, upon the motion of the illustrious, Berryer, they resolved that the act of Louis Bonaparte was a forfeiture of the Presidency, and they directed the judges of the Supreme Court to meet and proceed to the judgment of the President and his accomplices. These resolutions had just been voted, when a battalion of the Chasseurs de Vincennes entered the courtyard. … An aide-de-camp of General Magnan came with a written order directing the officer in command of the battalion to clear the hall, to do this if necessary by force, and to carry off to the prison of Mazas any Deputies offering resistance. … The number of Deputies present at this moment was 220. The whole Assembly declared that they resisted, and would yield to nothing short of force. … They were carried off, some to the Fort of Mount Valerian, some to the fortress of Vincennes, and some to the prison of Mazas. … By the laws of the Republic, the duty of taking cognizance of offences against the Constitution was cast upon the Supreme Court. The Court was sitting, when an armed force entered the hall, and the judges were driven from the bench, but not until they had made a judicial order for the impeachment of the President."

FRANCE: A. D. 1851.
The bloody Triumph of the Coup d'État.
Destruction of the Second Republic.

"The second part of the Coup d'État, which drenched the boulevards with innocent blood, has cast a shade of horror over the whole transaction that time has been unable to efface. Paris is never so reduced in a crisis, whether the cause be just or unjust, that she is bereft of hands to erect and defend barricades in her streets. In the Faubourg St. Antoine an incipient rising on the 2d was suppressed immediately by the troops. The volcanic district from the Hôtel de Ville northward to the boulevards also showed signs of uneasiness, and throughout the morning of the 3d the military were busy pulling down partially completed barricades and dispersing small bodies of insurgents. There seems to be little question that the army was embittered against the populace. If this were so, the proclamation circulated by the president through the ranks on the 2d was not calculated to appease it. He styled the soldiers as the 'flower of the nation.' He pointed out to them that his interests and theirs were the same, and that they had suffered together in the past from the course of the Assembly. He reminded them of the years 1830 and 1848, when the army had fought the people in the streets of Paris, and concluded by an allusion to the military grandeur of the Bonapartes. During the afternoon of the 3d and morning of the 4th the troops remained inactive; pending orders from the minister of war, and in this interval several strong barricades were erected in the restless quarters. On the afternoon of the 4th the boulevards, from the Madeleine to the Rue du Sentier, were occupied by a great body of troops awaiting orders to move east through the Boulevard Bonne Nouvelle upon the barricaded district. The soldiers stood at ease, and the officers lounged about, smoking their cigars. The sidewalks, windows, and balconies were crowded with men, women, and children, thoughtless onlookers of the great military display. Suddenly a single shot was heard. It was fired from a window near the Rue du Sentier. The troops at the head of the column faced sharply to the south, and commenced a deliberate fusillade upon the crowded walks and balconies. The battalions farther west caught the murderous contagion, until the line of fire extended into the Boulevard des Italiens. In a few moments the beautiful boulevards were converted into a bloody pandemonium. The sidewalks were strewn with corpses and stained with blood. The air was rent with shrieks and groans and the breaking of glass, while the steady, incessant rattling of the musketry was intensified by an occasional cannon-shot, that brought down with a crash the masonry from some fine façade. {1378} This continued for nearly twenty minutes, when a lack of people to kill seems to have restrained the mad volleys of the troops. If any attempt was made by officers to check their men, it was wholly unavailing, and in some cases miserable fugitives were followed into buildings and massacred. Later in the day the barricades were attacked, and their defenders easily overcome. By night-fall insurgent Paris was thoroughly cowed. These allegations, though conflicting with sworn statements of Republicans and Imperialists, can hardly be refuted. The efforts of the Napoleonic faction to portray the thoughtless crowd of the boulevards as desperate and bloody-minded rebels have never been successful, while the opposition so brilliantly represented by the author of 'Histoire d'un Crime' have been too fierce and immoderate in their accusations to win public credence. The questions as to who fired the first shot, and whether it was fired as a signal for, or a menace against the military, are points on which Frenchmen of different political parties still debate. It is charitable to accept M. Hugo's insinuation that the soldiery were drunk with the president's wine, even though the fact implies a low state of discipline in the service. To what extent was the president responsible for the boulevard horror? M. Victor Hugo and M. de Maupas do not agree upon this point, and it seems useless to discuss it. Certain facts are indisputable. We know the army bore small love toward the Parisians, and we know it was in the streets by order of the president. We know that the latter was in bad company, and playing a dangerous game. We may discard M. Victor Hugo's statement as to the orders issued by the president from the Elysée on the fatal day, but we cannot disguise the fact that the boulevard horror subdued Paris, and crowned his cause with success. In other words, Louis Napoleon was the gainer by the slaughter of unoffending men, women, and children, and in after-years, when referring to the 4th of December, he found it for his interest to distort facts, and make figures lie. … Louis Napoleon had expressly stated in the proclamation that astonished Paris on the 2d that he made the people judge between him and the Assembly. The citizens of France were called upon to vote on the 20th and 21st of December 'Yes' or 'No' to the question as to whether the president should be sustained in the measures he had taken, should be empowered to draw up a new constitution, and should retain the presidential chair for a period of ten years."

      M. de Maupas,
      Story of the Coup d'État,
      chapters 18-24 (volume 2).

FRANCE: A. D. 1851-1852.
   Transportation and exile of republicans.
   The dictator's constitution for France.
   Rapid progress of despotism.
   The Second Empire ordained.
   Elevation of Napoleon III. to the throne.

"The struggle was over: terror of the victors followed. Thirty-two departments were in a state of siege. More than 100,000 citizens were languishing in prison. Trial followed trial in rapid succession, the cases being classed under three heads: 1st, persons found armed, or against whom serious charges existed; 2d, persons charged with minor offences; 3d, dangerous persons. The first class was judged at once by a council of war, the second sent to various tribunals, the third transported without trial. Many prisoners were not even questioned. Numbers were set free; but multitudes were still held. Under these conditions the date of the plebiscite, December 20 and 21, approached. Notices were posted to the effect that 'any person seeking to disturb the polls or to question the result of the ballot would be tried by a council of war.' All liberty of choice was taken from the electors, many of whom were arrested on suspicion of exciting others to vote against the president of the republic. When the lists were published it was found that the 'ayes' had carried the day, although many did not vote at all. Indubitably the figures were notably swelled by violence and fraud. … December 31, ex-Minister Baroche presented the result of the ballots to the prince-president,—a strange title now given to Louis Napoleon, for the time being, in lieu of another. … Next day, January 1, 1852, Archbishop Sibour celebrated a Te Deum in Notre Dame, the prince-president sitting under a canopy. … While the man of December 2 lodged in the palace of kings, the chief representatives of the republic were cast into exile. The executors of the plot treated the captive representatives very differently according as they were conservative or republican. When the prisoners were told that a distinction was to be made among them, they honorably refused to give their names, but they were betrayed by an usher of the Assembly. The republicans were then sent to Mazas, and treated like common thieves, M. Thiers alone being allowed a bed instead of the ordinary hammock. The other party were soon set free, with but few exceptions, and on the 8th of January the generals imprisoned at Ham, with their companion, Questor Baze, were sent to Belgium. Next day a series of proscriptions came out. All persons 'convicted of taking part in the recent insurrections' were to be transported, some to Guiana, some to Algiers. A second decree expelled from France, Algiers, and the French colonies, 'as a measure of public safety,' sixty representatives of the Left, including Victor Hugo and certain others, for whom it was reserved to aid in the foundation of a third republic. A third decree commanded the temporary absence from France and Algiers of eighteen other representatives, including the generals, with Thiers, De Rémusat, and several members of the Left, among them Edgar Quinet and Emile de Girardin. … The next step was to establish the famous 'mixed commissions' in every province. These commissions were to try the numerous prisoners still held captive. … The mixed commissions of 1852, as the historian of the coup d'état (M. Eugène Ténot) declares, 'decided, without legal proceedings, without hearing of witnesses, without public trial, the fate of thousands and thousands of republicans.' They have left the indelible memory of one of the most monstrous events known in history. An act equally extraordinary in another way was the promulgation of the new constitution framed by the dictator alone (January 14, 1852). … The constitution of 1852 began by a 'recognition, confirmation, and guarantee of the great principles proclaimed in 1789, which are the foundation of the public rights and laws of France.' {1379} But it did not say one word about the freedom of the press, nor about freedom of clubs and association. … 'The government of the French republic is intrusted to Prince Louis Napoleon Bonaparte for the term of ten years.' In the preface Louis Napoleon threw aside the fiction of irresponsibility 'which deceives public sentiment'; the constitution therefore declares the leader of the state responsible to the French people, but omits to say how this responsibility may be realized; the French people have no resource save revolution. … The legislative body was to consist of 262 members (one for each 3,500 electors), chosen for five years by universal suffrage. This body would vote upon the laws and taxes. Louis Napoleon, having profited so largely by the repeal of the law of May 31, could scarcely refuse to retain direct universal suffrage, but he essentially altered its character by various modifications. He also so reduced the importance of the only great body still elective, that he had little or nothing to fear from it. Another assembly, the Senate, was to be composed of eighty members, which number might be increased to 150. The senators were irremovable, and were to be chosen by the president of the republic, with the exception of cardinals, marshals, and admirals, who were senators by right. The president might give each senator an income of 80,000 francs. The Senate was the guardian of the constitution and of 'the public liberty.' … The executive power chose all mayors, and was at liberty to select them outside the town council. In fact, the constitution of 1852 surpassed the constitution of the year VIII. as a piece of monarchic reaction. It entailed no consulate, but an empire,—dictatorship and total confiscation of public liberty. … Despotism spread daily in every direction. On the 17th of February the liberty of the press was notably reduced, and severe penalties were affixed to any infraction. In fact, the press was made dependent on the good-will of the president. Education was next attacked, a decree of March 9, 1852, stripping the professors of the University of all the pledges and principles granted by the First Empire. … The new power, in 1852, labored to turn all the forces of the country to material interests, while it stifled all moral interests. It suppressed education and the press, and constantly stimulated the financial and industrial movement. … Numberless railroad companies now sprang to life, and roads were rapidly built upon a grand scale. The government adopted the system of grants on a long term of years,—say ninety-nine,—plus the guarantee of a small rate of interest. In everything the cry was for instant success, at any cost. Great financial operations followed on the heels of the first grants to railroad companies. … This year's budget, like the constitution, was the work of a single man. The dictator settled it by a decree; then, having ordered the elections for his Chamber of Deputies, just before his constitution went into operation, he raised the universal state of siege (March 28). This was only a feint, for his government was a permanent state of siege. … The official candidates presented, or rather imposed, were generally elected; the republicans failed to vote throughout a great part of the country. … March 29, the prince-president proceeded to install the great state bodies at the Tuileries. It was thought that he would hint in his speech that he expected the title of Emperor, but he left that point vague, and still talked of preserving the republic. … During the session a rumor was current that Louis Napoleon was to be proclaimed emperor on the 10th of May, after the distribution of eagles to the army; but this was not carried out. The dictator had no desire to be made emperor in this fashion. He meant to do it more artfully, and to make it seem that the nation forced the accomplishment of his wishes upon him. He therefore undertook a fresh journey through the provinces. … The watchword was everywhere given by the authorities and influential persons, whose example was imitated by the crowd, irreconcilable opponents keeping silent. … He returned to Paris, October 16, and was received in state at the Orleans station. The official bodies greeted him with shouts of 'Long live the Emperor!' … Next day, the following paragraph appeared in the 'Moniteur': 'The tremendous desire for the restoration of the empire manifested throughout France, makes it incumbent upon the president to consult the Senate upon the subject.' The Senate and Legislature were convened November 4; the latter was to verify the votes, should the Senate decide that the people must be consulted in regard to a change in the form of government, which no one doubted would be the case. … The Senate … passed a decree for the submission of the restoration of the hereditary empire for popular acceptance (November 7); the senators then went in a body to St. Cloud to inform the prince-president of this decision. … The people were then called upon to vote for the plebiscite decreed by the Senate (November 20 and 21). Republican and legitimist protests were circulated in despite of the police, the government publishing them in the official organ, the 'Moniteur,' as if in defiance, thinking that the excessive violence of the republican proscripts of London and Guernsey would alarm the peace-loving public. The result of the vote was even greater than that of December 20, 1851; the authenticity of the figures may indeed be doubted, but there is not a doubt that there was really a large majority in favor of the plebiscite. France abandoned the struggle! On the evening of December 1, the three great state bodies, the two Chambers and the State Council, went to St. Cloud, and the president of the Legislature presented the result of the ballot to the new emperor, who sat enthroned, between his uncle Jerome and his cousin Napoleon."

ALSO IN: H. C. Lockwood, Constitutional History of France, chapter 6, and appendix 9.

FRANCE: A. D. 1858.
The Orsini attempt to assassinate Napoleon III.
Complaints against England.

FRANCE: A. D. 1859.
   Alliance with Sardinia and war with Austria.
   Victories of Magenta and Solferino.
   Liberation of Lombardy.
   Peace of Villafranca.
   Acquisition of Savoy and Nice.

"Originally … the power of the Legislative Body was limited to voting and rejecting as a whole the laws submitted to it by the Executive; there was no such thing as criticism or control of the general policy of the reign: but the year 1860 opened a period of development in the direction of liberty; by a decree of the November of that year the Emperor permitted the Deputies to draw up an address in answer to his speech, giving them thereby the opportunity to criticise his policy; by that of December 1861 he allowed them to vote the budget by sections, that is to say, to discuss and, if desirable, reject its items; by that of January 1867 he substituted for the Address the right of questioning the Ministers, who might be delegated to the Chamber by the Emperor to take part in certain definite discussions; lastly, by that of September 1869 he gave to the Legislative Body the right of initiating laws, removed the restrictions hitherto retained on the right of amendment and of questions, and made the Ministers responsible to the Chamber. Thus the Constitution was deliberately modified, by the initiative of the Emperor himself, from the form of imperial despotism to that of parliamentary monarchy: this modified Constitution was submitted to a plebiscite in May 1870, and once more the people ratified the Empire by over seven million votes against a million and a half."

G. L. Dickinson, Revolution and Reaction in Modern France, chapter 7, section 8.

FRANCE: A. D. 1866-1870.
   Territorial concessions demanded from Germany.
   The Luxemburg question.
   War temporarily averted.

FRANCE: A. D. 1867.
Last defense of Papal sovereignty at Rome.
Defeat of Garibaldi at Mentana.

FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (June-July).
"The Hohenzollern incident."
Unjustifiable declaration of war against Prussia.

"Towards the last of June, 1870, there arose what is known as the 'Hohenzollern incident,' which assumed so much importance, as it led up to the Franco-German War. In June, 1868, Queen Isabella had been chased from Spain, and had sought refuge in France. The Spanish Cortes, maintaining the monarchical form, offered the Crown of Spain to Prince Hohenzollern, a relation of the King of Prussia.

The French Minister at Madrid telegraphed that Prince Leopold Hohenzollern had been nominated to the throne of Spain, and had accepted. This produced the utmost excitement and indignation among the French people. The Paris press teemed with articles more or less violent, calling on the government to prevent this outrage, even at the cost of war. The journals of all shades were unanimous in the matter, contending that it was an insult and a peril to France, and could not be tolerated. The Opposition in the Chamber made the incident an occasion for attacking the government, alleging that it was owing to its weak and vacillating policy that France was indebted to her fresh humiliation. The government journals, however, laid the whole blame upon the ambition of Count Bismarck, who had become to them a bête noire. … Both parties vied with each other in showing the extent of their dislike to the great Prussian Chancellor. Much pressure was soon brought to bear in the proper quarters; the result of this was the withdrawal of the Hohenzollern candidacy. Explanations were made, better counsels seemed to prevail, and all immediate trouble appeared averted. It seemed quite certain that all danger of a war between France and Germany was at an end, and all being quiet on the banks of the Seine, on the 3d of July I left Paris in pursuit of health and recreation at the healing waters of Carlsbad, of far-off Bohemia. I was in excellent relations with the Duke de Gramont, and everything appeared to be serene. I had hardly reached Carlsbad, when scanty news was received of a somewhat threatening character. I could hardly believe that anything very serious was likely to result; yet I was somewhat uneasy. Going to drink the water at one of the health-giving springs, early in the morning of July 15th, my Alsatian valet brought me the startling news, that a private telegram, received at midnight, gave the intelligence that France had declared war against Germany. The news fell upon the thousands of visitors and the people of Carlsbad, like a clap of thunder in a cloudless sky, and the most intense excitement prevailed. The nearest railroad station to Carlsbad, at that time, was Eger. … I rode all night from Carlsbad to Eger. Taking the railroad from Eger to Paris, and passing through Bavaria, Baden, Darmstadt and the valley of the Rhine, the excitement was something prodigious, recalling to me the days at home of the firing upon Sumter, in 1861. The troops were rushing to the depots; the trains were all blocked, and confusion everywhere reigned supreme. After great delays, and much discomfort, and a journey of fifty-two hours, I reached Paris at ten o'clock at night, July 18th. The great masses of people, naturally so excitable and turbulent, had been maddened by the false news so skilfully disseminated, that King William, at Ems, had insulted the French nation through its Ambassador. … It soon turned out that all the reports which had been spread over Paris, that King William had insulted the French Ambassador were utterly false, and had not the slightest foundation. The French Ambassador, M. Benedetti, denied that he had received the least indignity from the Emperor. The plain truth seemed to be that the French Ambassador courteously approached the Emperor, while walking in the garden of the Kursaal, and spoke to him in relation to the pending difficulties then existing between the two countries. The good old king was kind and polite, as he always is to every one with whom he comes in contact, and when M. Benedetti commenced talking in relation to matters of such a grave character, he politely stated that he would have to talk upon such questions with the German Foreign Office. All that was very proper, and nobody thought of it, or supposed that there was any indignity, as there was not the slightest intended. … {1381} The exaggerations in Paris and France of this simple incident surpassed all bounds, and they were apparently made to inflame the people still more. It really appeared that the Government of France had determined to have war with Germany, coûte que coûte [at all costs]. The alleged causes growing out of the talk that Germany was to put a German prince on the throne of Spain were but a mere pretext. The Hohenzollern candidature had been withdrawn, and there was no necessity or sense in any further trouble. But the truth was that, after eighteen years of peace, the courtiers and adventurers who surrounded the Emperor seemed to think that it was about time to have a war, to awaken the martial spirit of the French people, to plant the French eagles in triumph in the capital of some foreign country, and, as a consequence, to fix firmly on the throne the son of Napoleon the Third, and restore to the Imperial crown the lustre it had lost."

      W. Rüstow,
      The War for the Rhine Frontier, 1870,
      chapter 6 (volume 1).

FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (July-August).
   Disastrous opening of the war.
   Defeats at Wörth, Spichern and Gravelotte.
   Bazaine's army shut up in Metz.

"July 23d Napoleon intrusted the regency to the empress for the period of his absence from Paris. … On the 28th, … accompanied by his son, [he] left for Metz, to assume command of the army. … The army consisted of eight corps. Of these, the 1st, under Marshal MacMahon, was stationed at Strasburg; the 2d, under General Frossard, at St. Avold; the 3d, under Marshal Bazaine, at Metz; the 4th, under General Ladmirault, at Diedenhofen (Thionville); the 5th, under General Failly, at Bitsch; the 6th, under Marshal Canrobert, in the camp at Châlons; the 7th, under General Felix Douay, at Belfort; the 8th,—the Imperial Guard—under General Bourbaki, at Nancy. Accordingly, the French forces were divided into two groups, the larger stationed on the Moselle, and the smaller in Alsace. To the latter belonged the 1st and 7th corps, both of which were placed under the command of Marshal MacMahon, with orders to prevent the crown prince's army from entering Alsace. The larger group comprised the 2d, 3d, and 4th corps. … The 6th and 8th were to have formed the reserve; but the greatly superior numbers of Prince Frederic Charles and Steinmetz, who were advancing against this larger group, necessitated the immediate bringing of those corps to the front. The connection between the two groups was to be maintained by the 5th corps, stationed at Bitsch. Skirmishing of the advanced posts and collisions between reconnoitering parties began on the 19th of July. The most important of these minor engagements was that at Saarbrücken, on the 2d of August [the French claiming a victory]. … August 4th the crown prince crossed the French frontier and attacked the town of Weissenburg, on the little river Lauter. … Weissenburg was successfully carried by Prussian and Bavarian battalions combined, and the Geisberg by sixteen battalions of Prussians alone. … August 5th MacMahon with his corps took up his position at Wörth, fortifying the heights westward from Sauerbach, together with the villages of Froschweiler and Elsasshausen, in the intention of meeting at that place the advancing columns of the crown prince, whose attack he expected on the 7th. To strengthen his army sufficiently for the task required of it he endeavored to bring up General Felix Douay's corps from Belfort and Mühlhausen, and that of General Failly from Bitsch; but only one division of the former arrived in time, and a division of the latter which was sent to his support did not reach the neighborhood of the battle-field until the evening of the 6th, in time to afford a partial protection on the retreat. Consequently, MacMahon was left with not more than 45,000 men to face the crown prince's whole army. … On the morning of the 6th the advance guard of the 5th corps became involved in a sharp action with the enemy," and "from a mere skirmish of the advance guard resulted the decisive battle of Wörth. … After Wörth itself had been carried, the fighting was most severe around the fortified village of Froschweiler. This was finally taken, and a desperate charge of the French cuirassiers repulsed. Thereupon MacMahon's army broke and fled in wild confusion, some toward the passes of the Vosges, others to Strasburg or Bitsch. … The trophies of victory were numerous and valuable: 200 officers and 9,000 men prisoners. … The French lost 6,000 dead and wounded; the German loss was 489 officers and 10,153 men—a loss greater than that of Sadowa. … MacMahon, with about 15,000 of his defeated troops, reached Zabern on the morning of the 7th, and set out thence for Châlons, whither Generals Douay and Failly were also directed to lead their forces. A new army was to be formed at that point, and northern Alsace was abandoned to the crown prince's victorious troops. The Badish division received orders to march against Strasburg, and by the 9th the whole corps was assembled before that city, Hagenau having been taken by the cavalry on the way. … Preparations for a siege were made, a regular siege corps being formed … and placed under the command of General Werder. With the remainder of the third army the crown prince left Wörth on the 8th of August, marched through the unguarded passes of the Vosges, and entered Nancy on the 16th. … Detachments were left behind to blockade Bitsch and Pfalzburg. At Nancy the prince rested for a few days and waited for decisive news from the Saar and Moselle. A second victory was won on the 6th of August at Spichern [or Forbach]. Like the battle of Wörth, this action was not the result of a strategical combination, but rather of a misunderstanding. … Frossard [whose corps was encountered at Spichern] fell back on Metz by way of Saargemünd. Bazaine, who, although not more than seven or eight miles from the field of battle, had made no attempt to come to Frossard's assistance, led his corps to the same place. In this battle, owing to the unfavorable nature of the ground, the losses of the conquerors were heavier than those of the conquered. The Germans had 223 officers and 4,648 men dead, wounded, and missing; while the French, according to their own reports, lost 249 officers and 3,829 men, 2,000 of whom were taken prisoners. August 7th the victors continued their forward march, capturing great stores of provisions in Forbach. On the 9th St. Avold was taken, and foraging parties advanced almost to Metz. {1382} Marching through the Rhenish Palatinate, part of Prince Frederic Charles's army directed its course toward Metz by way of Saarbrücken, and part through Saargemünd. … In the imperial head-quarters at Metz the greatest consternation prevailed. … It was [finally] decided to concentrate five army corps on the right bank of the Moselle, at Metz, and to form a second army, consisting of four corps, under MacMahon's command, in the camp at Châlons. The first line of defence on the Rhine and Saar had been abandoned, and France was to be defended on the Moselle. By this decision Alsace and Lorraine were surrendered to the foe at the very outset." On the 9th of August the French emperor transferred the chief command from himself to Marshal Bazaine, while Lebœuf at the same time withdrew from the direction of the staff. Simultaneously, at Paris, the Grammont-Ollivier ministry resigned, and was succeeded by a cabinet formed under the presidency of Count Palikao (General Montauban). "New levies were called into the field, comprising all unmarried men between the ages of 25 and 30 not already enrolled in the 'garde mobile.' … In the German head-quarters … it was resolved in some way to make Bazaine's army harmless, either by shutting him up in Metz or by pushing him northward to the Belgian frontier. … The task was a difficult one. … All depended upon what course Bazaine might conclude to pursue, and the energy with which he executed his plans. It was his purpose to leave Metz with the field army and join MacMahon at Châlons. There would then be 300,000 French at that place to block the German march to Paris. In that event the Germans would have to leave 60,000 men before Metz … and Diedenhofen, and would not have enough left to venture an attack on the united and well-intrenched armies at Châlons. Accordingly, the union of those two armies must be prevented at any price, and Bazaine be attacked before Metz. The execution of this plan led to the severe fighting near that city—the battle of Colombey-Nouilly (Borny), on the 14th, Vionville on the 16th, and Gravelotte on the 18th." The battle of Gravelotte was "the first battle in the war in which a pre-arranged plan [Moltke's] was actually carried out. … It was a brilliant victory, and followed by important results. Bazaine's army was shut up in the fortress and among the outlying forts, and rendered unavailable for further service in the field. The losses of the French amounted to about 13,000 men, including 600 officers; the German loss was 899 officers and 19,260 men, of whom 328 officers and 4,909 men were killed outright. The number of combatants on the side of the French was about 140,000, on the side of the Germans 178,818, the former having 550, and the latter 822 cannon. It must be remembered, however, that the French occupied a position very much of the nature of a fortress, which had to be carried by storm."

Colonel A. Borbstaedt and Major F. Dwyer, The Franco-German War, chapters 10-29.

FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (August-September).
   Investment of Metz by the Germans.
   Disastrous attempt of MacMahon to rescue Bazaine.
   The catastrophe at Sedan.

"The huge, stubborn, vehement and bloody conflict waged in the rural tract between the northern edges of the Bois de Vaux and the Forest of Jaumont, which the French Marshal called the 'Defence of the Lines of Amanvillers,' the French Army, 'the Battle of St. Privat,' and the Germans the battle of 'Gravelotte—St. Privat,' established the mastery of the latter over 'the Army of the Rhine.' Marshal Bazaine had not proved strong enough to extricate the Army he was suddenly appointed to command from the false position in which it had been placed by the errors and hesitations of the Emperor and Marshal Lebœuf. … The German leaders forthwith resolved, and acted on the resolve, to take the largest advantage of success. When the broadening day showed that the French were encamped under the guns of the fort, and that they did not betray the faintest symptom of fighting for egress on any side, the place was deliberately invested. … Soon the blockade was so far completed that only adventurous scouts were able at rare intervals to work their way through the German lines. As early as the forenoon of the 19th, the King had decided to form what came to be called the 'Army of the Meuse' out of the Corps which were not needed to uphold the investment of Metz, and thus place himself in a condition to assail the French Army collecting at Chalons. … This formidable force was put under the command of the Crown Prince of Saxony, who had shown himself to be an able soldier. Consequently, there remained behind to invest Bazaine, seven Corps d'Armée and a Division of Reserve under General von Kummer. … One Army had been literally imprisoned, another remained at large, and behind it were the vast resources of France. Three Marshals were cooped up in the cage on the Moselle; one, MacMahon, and the Emperor were still in the field; and upon the forces with them it was resolved to advance at once, because prudence required that they should be shattered before they could be completely organized, and while the moral effect of the resounding blows struck in Alsace and Lorraine had lost none of its terrible power. Therefore the King and General von Moltke started on the morrow of victory to march on Paris through the plains of Champagne."

   "While the German invasion had thus been rolling from Lorraine
   into the flats of Champagne, the shattered right wing of the
   army of the Rhine, with reinforcements sent off from Paris,
   had been drawn together in the well-known plains made
   memorable by the defeat of Attila. By 20 August the first and
   fifth French corps marched rapidly from the Upper Moselle to
   the Marne, had been joined by the seventh corps from Belfort
   and by the twelfth formed in and despatched from Paris; and
   this force, numbering perhaps 130,000 men, with from 400 to
   500 guns, had been concentrated round the great camp of
   Châlons. Macmahon was given the supreme command, and the first
   operations of the experienced chief showed that he understood
   the present state of affairs, and were in accord with the
   rules of strategy. Bazaine, he knew, was in peril near Metz,
   and certainly had not attained the Meuse; and he was at the
   head of the last army which France could assemble for the
   defence of her capital.
{1383}
   In these circumstances, impressed perhaps by the grand
   memories of the campaign of 1814, he most properly resolved to
   fall back towards Paris; but as Bazaine was possibly not far
   distant, and a position on the flank of the German advance
   might afford a favourable opportunity to strike, he withdrew
   northwards on the 21st to Rheims, in the double hope that he
   would approach his colleague and threaten the communications
   of the advancing enemy. This, we repeat, was following the art
   of war, and had Macmahon firmly adhered to his purpose, there
   would have been no Sedan and no treaty of Frankfort. Unhappily
   the marshal, a hero in the field, was deficient in real
   strength of character, and at this critical moment evil
   counsels and false information shook, and at last changed, a
   resolve that ought to have never faltered. A new
   administration had been formed in Paris, and Palikao, the
   minister of war, devoted to the Empire, and especially bent on
   satisfying the demands of the excited capital, which
   passionately insisted on the relief of Bazaine, had conceived
   a project by which he hoped that this great object would be
   effected and the 'dynasty' be restored in popular opinion. The
   army of the Meuse, he argued, was near that stream, round
   Verdun; the third army was far away to the south; there was a
   considerable interval between the two masses; and the army of
   Châlons, then at Rheims, was not far from the Upper Meuse. In
   those circumstances it was quite practicable, should Macmahon
   rapidly advance to the Meuse, to overpower with his largely
   superior force the army of the Meuse before support could be
   sent from the distant third army; and the enemy in his path
   being swept aside, the marshal could then descend on Metz,
   fall with the collected strength of the army of Châlons on the
   divided fragments of the investing force, and triumphantly
   effect his junction with Bazaine, having routed, perhaps, the
   first and second armies before the third could appear on the
   scene. The defiles and woods of the Argonne and the Ardennes,
   stretching between the French and the German armies, Palikao
   insisted, would form a screen to conceal the advance of the
   army of Chãlons, and would greatly facilitate the proposed
   movement. This project reached Macmahon on 21 August, and may
   be pronounced one of the most reckless ever designed by a
   desperate gambler in war. … Macmahon at first refused to
   listen to what he condemned as a hopeless project; but bad
   advisers found their way to him, and his resolution was
   already yielding when a calamitous event fixed his shifting
   purpose. A despatch from Bazaine, obscure and untrue,
   announced that he was on his way northward. Macmahon inferred
   that his beleaguered colleague had left Metz and eluded his
   foes, and, thinking that he would reach Bazaine before long,
   in an evil hour for France and for himself, he consented to
   attempt the march to the Meuse."

      W. O'C. Morris,
      The Campaign of Sedan
      (English Historical Review., April, 1888).

"It was not until the afternoon of August 23 that MacMahon's army passed through Rheims. Anxious, and knowing that everything depended on speed, he addressed some columns as they toiled onwards, reminding them that French soldiers had marched thirty miles a day under the sun of Africa. The difference, however, was great between raids made by a few light regiments and the advance of a raw unwieldy mass; and though the marshal endeavoured to hurry them forward, he was confronted with almost insurmountable obstacles. Scarcely had the army made a march towards establishing itself at Bethniville, on the Suippe, when commissariat difficulties obliged him to re-approach the line of the railway. He made a movement on his left, and reached Rethel on the 24th, in order to obtain for his troops several days' subsistence. This distribution occupied the whole of the 25th. … As the direction of the French movement could not now be concealed, at this point MacMahon made arrangements for marching with all possible rapidity. It may be doubted, however, whether Napoleon himself, at the head of the grand army could have made the haste which the marshal designed with his raw and partly demoralized troops. … His army was altogether unequal to forced marches, and moved at this critical moment with the sluggishness inherent in its defective organization. Encumbered with stragglers, badly pioneered, and checked by hindrances of every kind, it made hardly ten miles a day; and it was the 27th of August before its right column, still far from the Meuse, passed through Vouziers, and the left reached Le Chêne. … On the 27th it was openly boasted of in Paris that MacMahon had gained at least forty-eight hours' start of the Crown Prince, and his coming success was firmly counted on by the imperialist cabinet, whereas, in reality, the whole scheme was foiled beforehand by Von Moltke's and General Blumenthal's prompt combination. … If in fighting, in the boldness of their cavalry, the activity of their staff, the cool firing of their infantry, and the skilful tactical use of their guns, the superiority of the Germans to their antagonists had been already proved; it only required the contrast now presented between the movements of the two armies to show, that in no point had the difference of training and moral feeling told more in favour of the invaders than in that of the marching, on which the elder Napoleon so often relied for his advantage over these very Germans. … Between the 27th and the morning of the 29th, the right column of the French army had only its outposts at Buzancy, while the left, though its outposts touched Stenay, was only at Stonne and Beaumont, both columns spreading a long way backward; in other words, they were still a march from the Meuse, which they ought to have passed three days before, and their rearward divisions were yet distant. The German armies, from the 26th to the 29th, made astonishing exertions to close on MacMahon as he crossed towards the Meuse, and success was already within their grasp. The force of the Crown Prince of Saxony, in two columns, had reached the Meuse at Dun on the 27th, and was thus in a position to arrest and retard the vanguard of the French whenever it attempted to cross the river. Meanwhile the army of the Crown Prince of Prussia, hastening forward by Varennes and Grand Prè, and to the left by Senuc and Suippe, had arrived close to the line of march of MacMahon's right column, and by the evening of the 28th had occupied it about Vouziers. A step farther, and this immense army would be upon the positions of the luckless French, who, assailed in flank and rear by superior numbers, could not fail to be involved in terrible disaster. … MacMahon [on the 27th], observing that the enemy so completely surrounded him, felt more than ever satisfied that it would be impossible to carry out the plan which had been prescribed to him at Paris; and to save, if possible, the sole army which France had at her disposal, he accordingly resolved to turn back in a westerly direction. … {1384} The same evening he sent … [a] telegram to the Count Palikao, at Paris. … In reply to this, the government sent a telegram to the emperor at eleven o'clock the same night, telling him that if they abandoned Bazaine there would certainly be a revolution in Paris, and they would themselves be attacked by all the enemy's forces. … The emperor admits that he could unquestionably have set this order aside, but 'he was resolved not to oppose the decision of the regency, and had resigned himself to submit to the consequences of the fatality which attached itself to all the resolutions of the government.' 'As for MacMahon, he again bowed to the decision intimated to him from Paris, and once more turned towards Metz. These orders and counter-orders naturally occasioned further delay, and the French headquarters had reached no farther than Stonne on the 28th. … On Monday, August 29, De Failly occupied the country between Beaumont and Stonne, on the left bank of the Meuse; while the main body of the French army, under MacMahon in person, had crossed the river, and were encamped on the right bank at Vaux, between Mouzon and Carignan, and on the morning of the 30th the emperor telegraphed to Paris that a brilliant victory might be expected. MacMahon's position was in a sharp wedge of country formed by the confluence of the rivers Meuse and Chiers, and it was his intention to advance towards Montmèdy. The other part of his army was close to the river on its left bank. … The battle—or rather series of battles, for the fighting extended over three days—which was to decide whether or not he would reach Metz and liberate Bazaine, began in earnest a little before noon on Tuesday, August 30."

"The retreating French were concentrated, or rather massed, under the walls of Sedan, in a valley commonly called the Sink of Givonne. The army consisted of twenty-nine brigades, fifteen divisions, and four corps d'armée, numbering ninety thousand men. 'It was there,' says Victor Hugo, 'no one could guess what for, without order, without discipline, a mere crowd of men, waiting, as it seemed, to be seized by an immensely powerful hand. It seemed to be under no particular anxiety. The men who composed it knew, or thought they knew, that the enemy was far away. Calculating four leagues as a day's march, they believed the Germans to be at three days' distance. The commanders, however, towards nightfall, made some preparations for safety. The whole army formed a sort of horse-shoe, its point turning towards Sedan. This disposition proved that its chiefs believed themselves in safety. The valley was one of those which the Emperor Napoleon used to call a "bowl," and which Admiral Van Tromp designated by a less polite name. No place could have been better calculated to shut in an army. Its very numbers were against it. Once in, if the way out were blocked, it could never leave it again. Some of the generals,—General Wimpfen among them—saw this, and were uneasy; but the little court around the emperor was confident of safety. "At worst," they said, "we can always reach the Belgian frontier." The commonest military precautions were neglected. The army slept soundly on the night of August 31. At the worst they believed themselves to have a line of retreat open to Mézières, a town on the frontier of Belgium. No cavalry reconnoissance was made that night; the guards were not doubled. The French believed themselves more than forty miles from the German army. They behaved as if they thought that army unconcentrated and ill-informed, attempting vaguely several things at once, and incapable of converging on one point, namely, Sedan. They thought they knew that the column under the Prince of Saxony was marching upon Châlons, and that the Crown Prince of Prussia was marching upon Metz. But that night, while the French army, in fancied security, was sleeping at Sedan, this is what was passing among the enemy. By a quarter to two A. M. the army of the Prince of Saxony was on its march eastward with orders not to fire a shot till five o'clock, and to make as little noise as possible. They marched without baggage of any kind. At the same hour another division of the Prussian army marched, with equal noiselessness, from another direction on Sedan, while the Würtemburgers secured the road to Mézières, thereby cutting off the possibility of a retreat into Belgium. At the same moment, namely, five o'clock,—on all the hills around Sedan, at all points of the compass, appeared a dense dark mass of German troops, with their commanders and artillery. Not one sound had been heard by the French army, not even an order. Two hundred and fifty thousand men were in a Circle on the heights round the Sink of Givonne. They had come as stealthily and as silently as serpents. They were there when the sun rose, and the French army were prisoners.'

   The battle was one of artillery. The German guns commanded
   every part of the crowded valley. Indeed the fight was simply
   a massacre. There was no hope for the French, though they
   fought bravely. Their best troops, the Garde Impériale, were
   with Bazaine at Metz. Marshal MacMahon was wounded very early
   in the day. The command passed first to General Ducrot, who
   was also disabled, and afterwards to Wimpfen, a brave African
   general who had hurried from Algeria just in time to take part
   in this disastrous day. He told the emperor that the only hope
   was for the troops to cut their way out of the valley; but the
   army was too closely crowded, too disorganized, to make this
   practicable. One Zouave regiment accomplished this feat, and
   reached Belgium. That night—the night of September 1—an
   aide-de-camp of the Emperor Napoleon carried this note to the
   camp of the king of Prussia:—Monsieur Mon Frère,—Not having
   been able to die in midst of my troops, it only remains for me
   to place my sword in the hands of your Majesty. I am your
   Majesty's good brother, Napoleon. … With Napoleon III. fell
   not only his own reputation as a ruler, but the glory of his
   uncle and the prestige of his name. The fallen emperor and
   Bismarck met in a little house upon the banks of the Meuse.
   Chairs were brought out, and they talked in the open air. It
   was a glorious autumn morning. The emperor looked care-worn,
   as well he might. He wished to see the king of Prussia before
   the articles of capitulation were drawn up: but King William
   declined the interview. When the capitulation was signed,
   however, he drove over to visit the captive emperor at a
   château where the latter had taken refuge.
{1385}
   Their interview was private; only the two sovereigns were
   present. The French emperor afterwards expressed to the Crown
   Prince of Prussia his deep sense of the courtesy shown him. He
   was desirous of passing as unnoticed as possible through
   French territory, where, indeed, exasperation against him, as
   the first cause of the misfortunes of France, was so great
   that his life would have been in peril. The next day he
   proceeded to the beautiful palace at Cassel called
   Wilhelmshöhe, or William's Rest. It had been built at ruinous
   expense by Jerome Bonaparte while king of Westphalia, and was
   then called Napoleon's Rest. … Thus eighty thousand men
   capitulated at Sedan, and were marched as prisoners into
   Germany; one hundred and seventy-five thousand French soldiers
   remained shut up in Metz, besides a few thousand more in
   Strasburg, Phalsbourg, Toul, and Belfort. But the road was
   open to Paris, and thither the various German armies marched,
   leaving the Landwehr, which could not be ordered to serve
   beyond the limits of Germany, to hold Alsace and Lorraine,
   already considered a part of the Fatherland."

"The German army had lost in the battle of Sedan about 460 officers and 8,500 men killed and wounded. On the French side the loss sustained in the battle and at the capitulation amounted according to their returns to the following: Killed 3,000 men; wounded 14,000; prisoners (in the battle) 21,000; prisoners (at the capitulation) 83,000; disarmed in Belgium 3,000; total 124,000."

      ALSO IN:
      Capt. G. Fitz-George,
      Plan of the battle of Sedan, with Memoir.

      A. Forbes,
      My Experiences of the War between France and Germany,
      part 1, chapter 4 (volume l).

      Colonel. A. Borbstaedt and Major F. Dwyer,
      The Franco-German War,
      chapters 30-40.

      G. B. Malleson,
      The Refounding of the German Empire,
      chapter 14.

FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (September).
   Revolution at Paris.
   Collapse of the empire.
   Self-constitution of the Government of National Defense.

At Paris, the whole truth of the tremendous disaster at Sedan was but slowly learned. On the afternoon of Saturday, September 3, Count de Palikao intimated a little part of it, only, "in a statement to the Corps Législatif, announcing that Marshal Bazaine, after a vigorous sally, had been obliged to retire again under the walls of Metz, and that Macmahon, after a series of combats, attended by reverses and successes— having at the outset driven a part of the enemy's army into the Meuse—had been compelled to retreat to Sedan and Mézières, a portion of his army having taken refuge in Belgium. The junction of the two armies had therefore not been made. The situation was serious, calmly observed the Minister of War, but not hopeless. Not hopeless! when the truth was that one army was blockaded and the other prisoner, and that there were no reserves. … At a midnight sitting Count de Palikao, still determined to conceal a portion of the truth, intimated that part of Marshal Macmahon's army had been driven back into Sedan, that the remainder had capitulated, and that the Emperor had been made prisoner. M. Jules Favre met this announcement of fresh disasters by a motion, declaring the Emperor and his dynasty to have forfeited all rights conferred by the Constitution, demanding the appointment of a Parliamentary Committee invested with the governing power, and having for its special mission the expulsion of the enemy from French territory, and further maintaining General Trochu in his post as Governor of Paris. The Chamber then adjourned till the morrow. But Paris had touched one of those crises when, as Pascal says, a grain of sand will give a turn to history and change the life of nations, and the morrow brought with it the downfall of the Ministry, of the dynasty, of the Empire, and of that bizarre constitutional edifice which had been kept waiting so long for its complemental crown. … It had been intimated that the Corps Législatif would reassemble at noon, before which time numerous groups collected on the Place de la Concorde, and eventually swelled to a considerable crowd. The bridge leading to the Palais Bourbon was guarded by a detachment of mounted gendarmes, and numerous sergents-de-ville. … Battalions of National Guards having, however, arrived, the gendarmes, after flourishing their swords, opened their ranks and allowed them to pass, followed by a considerable portion of the crowd, shouting 'Vive la République!' and singing the 'Chant du Départ.' The iron gates of the Palais Bourbon having been opened to admit a deputation of National Guards, the crowd precipitated itself forward, and in a few minutes the steps and courtyard were alike invaded. Cries of 'Vive la Garde Nationale!' 'Vive la Ligne!' 'Vive la République!' resounded on all sides, and the soldiers who occupied the court of the Palais Bourbon, after making a show of resistance, ended by hoisting the butt ends of their rifles in the air in sign of sympathy, joining at the same time in the shouts of the crowd, while the latter, encountering no further opposition, proceeded to invade the passages of the Chamber, at the moment Count de Kératry was attacking the Ministry for surrounding the Corps Législatif with troops and sergents-de-ville, contrary to the orders of General Trochu. Count de Palikao, having explained the relative positions of the Governor of Paris and the Minister of War, introduced a bill instituting a Council of Government and National Defence, composed of five members elected by the Legislative Body, the ministers to be appointed with the approval of the members of this Council, and he, Count de Palikao, to occupy the post of Lieutenant-General. M. Jules Favre having claimed priority for the motion which he had introduced the day before, M. Thiers, pleading the necessity for union, next moved that:—'In view of existing circumstances, the Chamber appoints a Commission of Government and National Defence. A Constituent Assembly will be convoked as soon as circumstances permit.' The Chamber having declared in favour of their urgency, these several propositions were eventually referred to the Bureau, and the sitting was suspended. It was during this period that the crowd penetrated into the Salles des Quatre Colonnes and de la Paix. … At half-past two, when the sitting was resumed, the galleries were crowded and very noisy. The members of the Left only were in their places. It was in vain the President attempted to obtain silence, in vain the solemn huissiers commanded it. MM. Gambetta and Crémieux appeared together at the tribune, and the former begged of the people to remain quiet. … {1386} A partial silence having been secured, Count de Palikao, followed by a few members of the majority, entered the Chamber, but did not essay to speak. … A minute or two afterwards, the clamour arose again, and a noisy multitude commenced invading the floor of the hall. … Nothing was left to the President but to put on his hat and retire, which he did, together with Count de Palikao and the members by whom the latter had been accompanied. By this time the Chamber was completely invaded by National and Mobile Guards, in company with an excited crowd, whose advance it was in vain now to attempt to repel. M. Jules Favre, having mounted the tribune, obtained a moment's silence. 'No scenes of violence,' cried he; 'let us reserve our arms for our enemies.' Finding it utterly impossible to obtain any further hearing inside the Chamber, M. Gambetta, accompanied by the members of the Left, proceeded to the steps of the peristyle, and there announced the dethronement of the Emperor to the people assembled outside. Accompanied by one section of the crowd, they now hurried to the Hôtel de Ville, and there installed themselves as a Provisional Government, whilst another section took possession of the Tuileries—whence the Empress had that morning taken flight—as national property. A select band of Republicans, mindful of what Count—now Citoyen—Henri Rochefort had done to bring Imperialism into disrepute, proceeded to the prison of Sainte Pélagie and conducted the author of the Lanterne, and other political prisoners, in triumph to the Hôtel de Ville. The deputies who quitted the Chamber when it was invaded by the mob, met that same afternoon at the President's residence, and sent a deputation to the Hôtel de Ville, with a proposal to act in common with the new Government. This proposition was, however, declined, on the score of the Republic having been already proclaimed and accepted by the population of Paris. At an evening meeting of nearly two hundred deputies, held under the presidency of M. Thiers, MM. Jules Favre and Simon attended on the part of the Provisional Government to explain that they were anxious to secure the support of the deputies, whom they hinted, however, could best serve their country in the departments. After this unequivocal rebuff, the deputies, who had in the meantime been apprised that seals had been placed on the doors of the Corps Législatif, saw that nothing remained to them but to protest, and protest they accordingly did against the events of the afternoon. … Not one of the two hundred deputies present so much as dared suggest the breaking of the seals and the assembling in the Legislative Chamber. … The Government which grasped the reins of power on the utter collapse of Imperial institutions was a mob-named one in the fullest sense of the term, the names having been chalked by the populace on the pillars of the portico of the Palais Bourbon during that invasion of the Chamber on the Sunday afternoon which resulted in the overthrow of the Imperial regime. The list appears to have been accepted by the principal members of the Left, who, although they would have preferred disassociating themselves from M. Rochefort, nevertheless felt that it was impossible to leave him out of the combination, and therefore adroitly—and not inappropriately, as the safety of Paris was especially in their keeping—made it embrace all the deputies for Paris, save, as M. Jules Simon observed, the most illustrious —meaning M. Thiers, who refused to join it. … The Government of National Defence, as it elected to style itself, on M. Rochefort's suggestion, was composed of the following members:—General Trochu, president; Jules Favre, Vice President and Minister for Foreign Affairs; Emanuel Arago; Crémieux, Minister of Justice; Jules Ferry, Secretary; Leon Gambetta, Minister of the Interior; Garnier-Pagès; Glais-Bizoin; Eugene Pelletan; Ernest Picard, Minister of Finance; Henri Rochefort; and Jules Simon, Minister of Public Instruction. Subsequently it associated with it General Le Flô, Minister of War; Admiral Fourichon, Minister of Marine; M. Dorian, Minister of Public Works; and M. Magnin, Minister of Agriculture and Commerce. These, with Count de Kératry, charged with the Prefecture of Police, M. Etienne Arago, appointed Mayor of Paris, composed altogether no less than eighteen members, upwards of two-thirds of whom were Bretons, advocates, or journalists. … For some days the new Government was prodigal of proclamations and decrees. Its first acts were to close the doors of the Palais Bourbon and the Palais du Luxembourg, and dissolve the Corps Législatif and abolish the Senate as bouches inutiles politiques, to issue proclamations to the army, or rather the debris of one, justifying the Revolution and appealing to the troops to continue their heroic efforts for the defence of the country, and to the National Guard, thanking them for their past, and asking for their future patriotism. It released all functionaries from their oaths, dismissed the ambassadors at foreign courts, appointed prefects in all the departments, and new mayors in the twenty arrondissements of the capital, proclaimed the complete liberty of the press, ordered all Germans not provided with special permission to remain, to quit the departments of the Seine and Seine-et-Oise within four-and-twenty hours. … It pressed forward the provisioning of the city and its works of defence, increased the herds of sheep and oxen and the stores of corn and flour, provisionally abolished all local customs and octroi dues, and fixed the price of butcher's meat, armed the outer forts and the enceinte, blew up or mined all the bridges and fired all the woods in the environs, razed thousands of houses to the ground, felled roadside trees, and constructed huge barricades with them; laid in fact all the beautiful suburbs in waste; listened to the thousand and one wild schemes put forth by patriotic madmen for exterminating the invaders, and launched a huge captive balloon, which hovered daily over Paris to give timely notice of their dreaded arrival."

      ALSO IN:
      J. Favre,
      The Government of the National Defence, June-October.

      W. Rüstow,
      The War for the Rhine Frontier,
      chapter 22 (volume 2).

FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (September-October).
   Futile striving for allies and for peace without
   territorial sacrifices.
   Investment of Paris.
   Gambetta's organization of defense in the provinces.
   Bazaine's surrender at Metz.

"The Government of National Defence … imagined that the fall of the Empire would simplify the cruel position of France towards the enemy. The Dynasty which had declared war being reversed, and the men now in power having been throughout opposed to war and in favour of German unity, and now demanding nothing but peace, what motive could the King of Prussia have to continue the invasion of France? It was further to be considered that free France would defend her integrity to the last drop of her blood; that she would voluntarily give up neither an inch of her territory nor a stone of her fortresses. Such were the ideas which the new Minister of Foreign Affairs, M. Jules Favre, expressed on the 6th of September, in a circular addressed to the French agents in foreign countries. The Cabinet of Berlin was not slow in disabusing him of these convictions. Far from accepting the view that the Emperor Napoleon was the sole promoter of war, Count Bismarck, in two despatches of the 13th and of the 16th of September, threw the responsibility of the conflict on the French nation. He stated that the vast majority of the Chambers had voted for war, and that the Emperor was justified in assuring the King that he had been forced into a war to which he was personally averse. … In order to be secure against future aggression, Germany would ask for guarantees from the French nation itself, and not from a transitory Government. … In any case, Germany would require Strasburg and Metz. Thus the accession to power of the Republican Government did not modify the reciprocal positions of the two belligerents. Nevertheless, hope was entertained in Paris that the friendly intervention of the great powers might induce the victor to soften his rigour;" but intervention was declined by the Berlin Cabinet and not undertaken. "On the 19th of September the investment of Paris was completed. At the desire of the French Government, the English Cabinet applied to the German head-quarters, with the object of obtaining for M. Jules Favre an interview with Count Bismarck. This request having been granted, the two statesmen held conferences, on the 19th and 20th of September, at Ferrières, a castle of Baron Rothschild near Meaux. During these interviews the French Minister was sentimental and the German Minister coldly logical. They could not come to an agreement on any single point. … The Government of Paris … again proclaimed that France would not cede an inch of her territory. Meanwhile, in consequence of the investment of Paris, the Government of National Defence was divided into two parts; some of its Delegates withdrew to Tours, forming a delegation of the central Government which remained in Paris. The German armies had continued their onward march, as well as their operations against the fortresses. Toul capitulated on the 23rd and Strasburg on the 28th of September. On the 5th of October, King William had established his headquarters at Versailles." Meantime "the Government of National Defence made a last attempt to secure allies, or at least the help of powerful mediators. With this object M. Thiers, who had placed himself at the disposal of the Administration of the 4th of September, was sent on a mission to the European Courts. From the 12th of September till the 20th of October, the old statesman visited in succession London, Vienna, St. Petersburg, and Florence. In none of these cities were his measures attended with happy results." At St. Petersburg and at London he was told—and he was himself convinced—"that the King of Prussia was compelled to consider the public opinion of Germany, and that France would have to resign herself to territorial sacrifices." He returned to France to advise, and to procure authority for, a conference with the German Chancellor. But events had already occurred which aggravated the forlorn condition of France. "The youngest and most enterprising member of the Government of Paris, M. Gambetta, had left the Capital on the 8th of October in a balloon for Tours. It was his intention to organise national defence in the Provinces. The day after his arrival at Tours, he issued a fiery Proclamation to the French people. … With an energy that called forth universal admiration, the Government of Tours, over which Gambetta presided as Dictator, organised resistance, formed a new army, and gathered together every possible resource for defence both in men and in materials. All these efforts could not arrest the progress of the invasion. From the 11th to the 31st of October, the Germans took successively Orleans, Soissons, Schlestadt and Dijon. Round Paris they repulsed the sallies of Malmaison, Champigny, and le Bourget. But all these defeats of heroic soldiers waned when compared to the appalling and decisive catastrophe of Metz. After the battle of Gravelotte, Marshal Bazaine had unsuccessfully attempted several sallies. … On the 7th of October, after an unfortunate battle at Woippy, lasting nine hours, Bazaine considered the situation desperate. His only thought was to obtain the most favourable conditions he could, and with this object he sent General Boyer to the headquarters at Versailles." After two weeks of negotiation, "on the 21st of October, the army encamped within the walls of Metz found itself without provisions. … Negotiations with Prince Frederick Charles, nephew of the King and Commander-in-chief of the besieging Army, were opened on the 25th, and terminated on the 27th of October. The conditions were identical with those of Sedan: capitulation of the town and its forts with all the material of war, all the army of the Rhine to be prisoners and the officers to be liberated on parole."

"The French Army of the Rhine at the time of the surrender still numbered 173,000 men, inclusive of 6,000 officers and 20,000 men remaining temporarily in Metz as sick or convalescent."

      ALSO IN:
      A. Forbes,
      My Experiences of the War between France and Germany,
      part 2 (volume 1).

FRANCE: A. D. 1870-1871.
   The war in the provinces.
   Unsuccessful attempts to relieve the capital.
   Distress in Paris.
   Capitulation and armistice.

"The surrender of Metz and the release of the great army of Prince Frederick Charles by which it was besieged fatally changed the conditions of the French war of national defence. Two hundred thousand of the victorious troops of Germany under some of their ablest generals were set free to attack the still untrained levies on the Loire and in the north of France, which, with more time for organisation, might well have forced the Germans to raise the siege of Paris. The army once commanded by Steinmetz was now reconstituted, and despatched under General Manteuffel towards Amiens; Prince Frederick Charles moved with the remainder of his troops towards the Loire. Aware that his approach could not long be delayed, Gambetta insisted that Aurelle de Paladines should begin the march on Paris. {1388} The general attacked Tann at Coulmiers on the 9th of November, defeated him, and re-occupied Orleans, the first real success that the French had gained in the war. There was great alarm at the German headquarters at Versailles; the possibility of a failure of the siege was discussed; and 40,000 troops were sent southwards in haste to the support of the Bavarian general. Aurelle, however, did not move upon the capital: his troops were still unfit for the enterprise; and he remained stationary on the north of Orleans, in order to improve his organisation, to await reinforcements, and to meet the attack of Frederick Charles in a strong position. In the third week of November the leading divisions of the army of Metz approached, and took post between Orleans and Paris. Gambetta now insisted that the effort should be made to relieve the capital. Aurelle resisted, but was forced to obey. The garrison of Paris had already made several unsuccessful attacks upon the lines of their besiegers, the most vigorous being that of Le Bourget on the 30th of October, in which bayonets were crossed. It was arranged that in the last days of November General Trochu should endeavour to break out on the southern side, and that simultaneously the army of the Loire should fall upon the enemy in front of it and endeavour to force its way to the capital. On the 28th the attack upon the Germans on the north of Orleans began. For several days the struggle was renewed by one division after another of the armies of Aurelle and Prince Frederick Charles. Victory remained at last with the Germans; the centre of the French position was carried; the right and left wings of the army were severed from one another and forced to retreat, the one up the Loire, the other towards the west. Orleans on the 5th of December passed back into the hands of the Germans. The sortie from Paris, which began with a successful attack by General Ducrot upon Champigny beyond the Marne, ended after some days of combat in the recovery by the Germans of the positions which they had lost, and in the retreat of Ducrot into Paris. In the same week Manteuffel, moving against the relieving army of the north, encountered it near Amiens, defeated it after a hard struggle, and gained possession of Amiens itself. After the fall of Amiens, Manteuffel moved upon Rouen. This city fell into his hands without resistance. … But the Republican armies, unlike those which the Germans had first encountered, were not to be crushed at a single blow. Under the energetic command of Faidherbe the army of the north advanced again upon Amiens. Goeben, who was left to defend the line of the Somme, went out to meet him, defeated him on the 23rd of December, and drove him back to Arras. But again, after a week's interval, Faidherbe pushed forward. On the 3rd of January he fell upon Goeben's weak division at Bapaume, and handled it so severely that the Germans would on the following day have abandoned their position, if the French had not themselves been the first to retire. Faidherbe, however, had only fallen back to receive reinforcements. After some days' rest he once more sought to gain the road to Paris, advancing this time by the eastward line through St. Quentin. In front of this town Goeben attacked him. The last battle of the army of the North was fought on the 19th of January. The French general endeavoured to disguise his defeat, but the German commander had won all that he desired. Faidherbe's army was compelled to retreat northwards in disorder; its part in the war was at an end. During the last three weeks of December there was a pause in the operations of the Germans on the Loire. … Gambetta … had … determined to throw the army of Bourbaki, strengthened by reinforcements from the south, upon Germany itself. The design was a daring one, and had the … French armies been capable of performing the work which Gambetta required of them, an inroad into Baden, or even the reconquest of Alsace, would most seriously have affected the position of the Germans before Paris. But Gambetta miscalculated the power of young, untrained troops, imperfectly armed, badly fed, against a veteran army. In a series of hard-fought struggles the army of the Loire under General Chanzy was driven back at the beginning of January from Vendôme to Le Mans. On the 12th, Chanzy took post before this city and fought his last battle. While he was making a vigorous resistance in the centre of the line, the Breton regiments stationed on his right gave way; the Germans pressed round him, and gained possession of the town. Chanzy retreated towards Laval, leaving thousands of prisoners in the hands of the enemy, and saving only the debris of an army. Bourbaki in the meantime, with a numerous but miserably equipped force, had almost reached Belfort. … Werder had evacuated Dijon and fallen back upon Vesoul; part of his army was still occupied in the siege of Belfort. As Bourbaki approached he fell back with the greater part of his troops in order to cover the besieging force, leaving one of his lieutenants to make a flank attack upon Bourbaki at Villersexel. This attack, one of the fiercest in the war, delayed the French for two days, and gave Werder time to occupy the strong positions that he had chosen about Montbéliard. Here, on the 15th of January, began a struggle which lasted for three days. The French, starving and perishing with cold, though far superior in number to their enemy, were led with little effect against the German entrenchments. On the 18th Bourbaki began his retreat. Werder was unable to follow him; Manteuffel with a weak force was still at some distance, and for a moment it seemed possible that Bourbaki, by a rapid movement westwards, might crush this isolated foe. Gambetta ordered Bourbaki to make the attempt: the commander refused to court further disaster with troops who were not fit to face an enemy, and retreated towards Pontarlier in the hope of making his way to Lyons. But Manteuffel now descended in front of him; divisions of Werder's army pressed down from the north; the retreat was cut off; and the unfortunate French general, whom a telegram from Gambetta removed from his command, attempted to take his own life. On the 1st of February, the wreck of his army, still numbering 85,000 men, but reduced to the extremity of weakness and misery, sought refuge beyond the Swiss frontier. The war was now over. Two days after Bourbaki's repulse at Montbéliard the last unsuccessful sortie was made from Paris. There now remained provisions only for another fortnight; above 40,000 of the inhabitants had succumbed to the privations of the siege; all hope of assistance from the relieving armies before actual famine should begin disappeared. {1389} On the 23rd of January Favre sought the German Chancellor at Versailles in order to discuss the conditions of a general armistice and of the capitulation of Paris. The negotiations lasted for several days; on the 28th an armistice was signed with the declared object that elections might at once be freely held for a National Assembly, which should decide whether the war should be continued, or on what conditions peace should be made. The conditions of the armistice were that the forts of Paris and all their material of war should be handed over to the German army; that the artillery of the enceinte should be dismounted; and that the regular troops in Paris should, as prisoners of war, surrender their arms. The National Guard were permitted to retain their weapons and their artillery. Immediately upon the fulfilment of the first two conditions all facilities were to be given for the entry of supplies of food into Paris. The articles of the armistice were duly executed, and on the 30th of January the Prussian flag waved over the forts of the French capital."

E. B. Washburne, Recollections of a Minister to France, volume 1, chapters 5-10.

FRANCE: A. D. 1871 (January-May).
   Preliminaries of Peace signed at Versailles.
   The Treaty of Frankfort.
   Cession of Alsace and one-fifth of Lorraine.
   Five milliards of indemnity.

"On the afternoon of January 28 [1871] the capitulation of Paris was signed, and an armistice agreed upon to expire on February 19 at noon. The provinces occupied by the armies of Bourbaki and Munteuffel were alone excluded from this agreement. On January 29 the German troops quietly took possession of the Paris forts. The regulars and mobiles became prisoners of war, with the exception of 12,000 men who were left under arms to preserve order. At the earnest request of Favre the National Guard were allowed to retain their arms. If Favre urged this as a measure to counteract the imperialistic ideas supposed to be still cherished by the prisoners returning from Germany, it was a political crime as well as a military folly. The National Guard became the armed Commune. … While the armies withdrew to the lines stipulated in the armistice, the elections went quietly forward. The assembly convened at Bordeaux, and manifested a spirit that won for it universal respect. On February 17 M. Thiers was appointed chief of the executive power, and having named his ministry, he repaired to Versailles to arrange the preliminaries of peace. The conferences that followed with the German chancellor were perhaps the most trying ordeals to which the Frenchman had ever been subjected. No peace was possible save on the basis of the cession of miles of territory and the strongest of fortresses. France must also pay a war indemnity of no less than five milliards of francs. Bismarck, it is true, thought Thiers 'too sentimental for business, … hardly fit indeed to buy or sell a horse,' but no diplomatist, however astute, could have made better terms for stricken France. So thought the assembly at Bordeaux; and when Thiers announced the result of his mission with a quivering lip, he had its sympathy and support. On the 2d of March the assembly formally ratified the peace preliminaries by a vote of 546 to 107. It had been stipulated in the armistice that the German troops should not occupy Paris. The extension of time granted by the Germans entitled them to some compensation, and the entry of Paris was the compensation claimed. The troops detailed for this purpose were not chosen at random. To the Frenchman who on the 1st day of March beheld them pass along the Avenue de Malakoff or the Champs Elysées it was an ominous pageant. It was a German and not a Prussian army that he beheld. … That night the Hessians smoked their pipes on the Trocadéro, and the Bavarians stacked their arms in the Place de la Concorde, while the lights blazing from the palace of the Elysée announced the German military headquarters. On the third day of the month, the Bordeaux Assembly having ratified the peace preliminaries, the German troops marched out, and Paris was left to herself again. The war was over. Beyond the Rhineland, in Bavaria and Würtemberg as well as in the north, all was joy and enthusiasm over the return of the army that had answered before the world the question, 'What is the German Fatherland?' On the 10th of May the definite treaty of peace was signed at Frankfort by which France ceded Alsace and a portion of Lorraine, including the fortresses of Metz and Strasburg, to her conqueror."

   The following are the heads of the Preliminary Treaty
   concluded at Versailles, to which the final Treaty of
   Frankfort conformed:

   "1. France renounces in favour of the German Empire the
   following rights: the fifth part of Lorraine including Metz
   and Thionville, and Alsace less Belfort.

   2. France will pay the sum of five milliards of francs, of
   which one milliard is to be paid in 1871 and the remaining
   four milliards by instalments extending over three years.

3. The German troops will begin to evacuate the French territory as soon as the Treaty is ratified. They will then evacuate the interior of Paris and some departments lying in the western region. The evacuation of the other departments will take place gradually after payment of the first milliard, and proportionately to the payment of the other four milliards. Interest at the rate of five per cent. per annum will be paid on the amount remaining due from the date of the ratification of the Treaty.

4. The German troops will not levy any requisitions in the departments occupied by them, but will be maintained at the cost of France. A delay will be granted to the inhabitants of the territories annexed to choose between the two nationalities.

7. Negotiations for a definitive Treaty of Peace will be opened at Brussels after the ratification of this Treaty.

8. The administration of the departments occupied by the German troops will be entrusted to French officials, but under the control of the chiefs of the German Corps of occupation.

9. The present Treaty confers upon the Germans no rights whatever in the portions of territories not occupied.

ALSO IN: E. Hertslet, The Map of Europe by Treaty, volume 3, numbers 438 and 446.

FRANCE: A. D. 1871 (March-May).
Insurrection of the Communists of Paris.
Second siege and reduction of the capital.

"On the 3d of March the German army of occupation—which had been in the assigned part of the city since the 1st—marched off through the Arc de Triomphe, and on the 7th the German headquarters were moved from Versailles. The great Franco-Prussian War was over. … But before … peace could be attained, the country had yet to suffer from the so-called patriots of the Red Republicans worse outrage than it had endured at the hands of the German invaders. When the negotiations for the capitulation of Paris were in progress, Count Bismarck had warned M. Favre of the danger of allowing, as he proposed, the National Guard to retain their arms; and the members of the Government of National Defence might themselves have seen the risk they were incurring, had they calmly considered the various émeutes that had taken place during the siege, and in which the National Guard had always played such a conspicuous part on the side of disaffection. Now, in the full consciousness of their strength—somewhere about 100,000—and in their possession of a powerful artillery,—for during the German occupation they had, on the pretext of keeping them safe, got a large number of cannon into their hands,—they seemed determined to attempt the revival of the Reign of Terror. … The appointment of General d'Aurelle de Paladines as their commander gave great offence, and on the 9th March an attempt to place the tricolor on the column in the Place de la Bastille instead of the red flag of revolution led to an outbreak. A promise in the event of the cannon being given up, of the continuance of pay till 'ordinary work was resumed,' was disregarded, and the dismissal of D'Aurelle and the full recognition of the right of the National Guard to elect its own officers demanded. An effort of the government to seize the cannon in the Place des Vosges failed, and it was now clear enough that more energetic action than negotiations must take place. On the morning of the 18th March a large force of regular troops under Generals Vinoy and Lecomte proceeded to Montmarte and took possession of the guns; but the want of horses for their immediate removal gave time for the Reds to assemble and frustrate the effort, while, worst of all, a large number of the regular troops fraternized with the insurgents. General Lecomte and General Clement Thomas were taken prisoners and almost immediately shot. The outbreak, thus begun, spread rapidly; for, through some unaccountable timidity of the government, the government forces were withdrawn from the city, and the insurgents left free to act as they pleased. They seized General Chanzy at the Orleans railway station, took possession of the Ministry of Justice and the Hôtel de Ville, and threw up barricades round all the revolutionary quarters. The Central Committee of the National Guard, the leading man of which was Assi, … summoned the people of Paris to meet 'in their comitia for the communal elections,' and declared their intention of resigning their power into the hands of the Commune thus chosen. The National Assembly removed from Bordeaux and held its sittings at Versailles: but bitter as was the feeling of the majority of the Deputies against the new turbulence, the position of affairs prevented any action from being taken against the insurgents. The removal of General d'Aurelle and the appointment of Admiral Saisset in his place was of no avail. A number of the inhabitants of Paris, styling themselves 'Men of Order,' attempted to influence affairs by a display of moral force, but they were fired on and dispersed. The Assembly was timid, and apparently quite unable to bring its troops into play. … Through Admiral Saisset concessions were offered, but the demands of the Communists increased with the prospect of obtaining anything. They now modestly demanded that they should supersede the Assembly wherever there was any prospect of collision of power, and be allowed to control the finances; and as a very natural consequence the negotiations were abandoned. This was on the 25th of March, and on the 26th the Commune was elected, the victory of the Reds being very easily gained, as hardly any of those opposed to them voted. Two days afterwards the Commune was proclaimed at the Hôtel de Ville, the members who had been elected being seated on a platform in red arm-chairs. The leading man of the new system was the honest but hot-headed and utopian Deleseluze; Cluseret, a man of considerable military genius, who had led a life of a very wild nature in America, and who was the soul of the resistance when the actual fighting began, was Delegate of War; Grousset, of Foreign Affairs; and Rigault, of Public Safety. The new government applied itself vigorously to changes; conscription was abolished, and the authority of the Versailles government declared 'null and void.' Seeing that a desperate struggle must inevitably ensue, a very large number of the inhabitants of Paris quitted the city, and the German authorities allowed the prisoners from Metz and Sedan to return so as to swell the forces at the disposal of M. Thiers. They also intimated that, in view of the altered circumstances, it might again become necessary for them to occupy the forts they had already evacuated. The first shot in the second siege of Paris, in which Frenchmen were arrayed against Frenchmen, was fired on the 2d April, when a strong division of the Versailles army advanced against the National Guards posted at Courbevoie, and drove them into Paris across the Pont de Neuilly. During the ensuing night a large force of insurgents gathered, and were on the morning of the 3d led in three columns against Versailles. Great hopes had been placed on the sympathy of the regular troops, but they were doomed to disappointment. … The expedition … not only failed, but it … cost the Commune two of its leading men,—Duval, and that Flourens who had already made himself so conspicuous in connection with revolutionary outbreaks under the Empire and the Government of National Defence,—both of whom were taken and promptly shot by the Versailles authorities. The failure and the executions proved so exasperating that the 'Commune of Paris' issued a proclamation denouncing the Versailles soldiers as banditti. … They had ample means of gratifying their passion for revenge, for they had in their hands a number of leading men, including Darboy, Archbishop of Paris, and M. Bonjean, President of the Court of Cassation, and these—two hundred in all—they proclaimed their intention of holding as hostages. {1391} M. Thiers was still hesitating, and waiting for a force sufficiently powerful to crush all opposition; and in this he was no doubt right, for any success of the Communists, even of the most temporary character, would have proved highly dangerous. The Germans had granted permission to the government to increase their original 30,000 troops to 150,000, and prisoners of Metz and Sedan had been pouring steadily back from Germany for this purpose. On the 8th April Marshal MacMahon took command of the forces at Versailles. A premature attack on the forts of Issy, Vanves, and Montrouge on the 11th failed, but on the 17th and 19th several of the insurgent positions were carried; on the 25th the bombardment of Issy and Vanves was begun, and from that time onwards operations against the city were carried on with the greatest activity, the insurgents being on all occasions put to the sword in a most merciless manner. Issy was taken on the 8th May, and Vanves on the 4th, and the enceinte laid bare. Inside Paris all this time there was nothing but jealousy. … First one leader, and then another, was tried, found wanting, and disgraced. … On the 21st May the defenders of the wall at the gate of St. Cloud were driven from their positions by the heavy artillery fire, and the besieging army, having become aware of the fact, pushed forward and secured this entrance to the city; and by the evening of the 22d there were 80,000 Versaillists within the walls. Next day they gained fresh ground, and were ready to re-occupy the Tuileries and the Hôtel de Ville; but before this was possible the Communists, mad with despair, had resolved on that series of outrages against humanity that will make their names detested and their cause distrusted as long as the story of their crimes stands recorded in the annals of history. They had already perpetrated more than one act of vandalism. … On the 12th May, in accordance with a public decree, they had destroyed the private residence of M. Thiers with all its pictures and books; on the 16th the magnificent column erected in the Place Vendome in memory of Napoleon I., and crowned by his statue, was undermined at one side and then pulled to the ground by means of ropes and utterly destroyed; and now on the 24th, in the last efforts of despairing rage, bands of men and women, still more frantic and eager for blood than were those of the Reign of Terror, rushed through the doomed city. Early in the morning the Tuileries, the Hôtel de Ville, the Ministry of Finance, the Palais d'Orsay, and other public and private buildings were seen to be on fire. The Louvre, too, with all its inestimable treasures, was in flames, and was saved with the greatest difficulty. If the Commune was to perish, it had clearly resolved that the city was to perish with it. Men and women marched about in bands with petroleum, and aided the spread of the conflagration by firing the city in different places. Heedless of the flames, the Versailles troops pressed on, eager, if possible, to save the lives of the 200 hostages, but, alas, in vain. A passion for blood had seized on the Commune, and its last expiring effort was to murder in cold blood, not only a large number of the hostages, but also batches of fresh victims, seized indiscriminately about the streets by bands of men and women, and dragged off to instant death. On the 26th Belleville was captured, and on the 27th and 28th the Cemetery of Père la Chaise was the scene of the final struggle,—a struggle of such a desperate nature—for there was no quarter—that, for days after, the air of the district was literally fraught with pestilence. Many of the leaders of the Commune had fallen in the final contest, and all the others who were captured by the Versailles troops during the fighting were at once shot. Of the 30,000 prisoners who had fallen into the hands of the government, a large number, both men and women, were executed without mercy, and the rest distributed in various prisons to await trial, as also were Rossel, Assi, Grousset, and others, who were captured after the resistance was at an end. Cluseret succeeded in making good his escape. … Of the prisoners, about 10,000 were set free without trial, and the others were sentenced by various courts-martial during the following months and on through the coming year, either to death, transportation or imprisonment."

      H. Martin,
      Popular History of France from the First Revolution,
      volume 3, chapter 24.

ALSO IN: E. B. Washburne, Recollections of a Minister to France, volume 2, chapters 5-7.

   "For the conduct of affairs the Communal Council divided
   itself into ten 'commissions,' of finance, war, public safety,
   external relations, education, justice, labour and exchange,
   provisions, the public service, and the general executive. Of
   these the most efficient appears to have been that of finance;
   by advances from the bank and by the revenues of the post, the
   telegraph, the octrois, &c., means were found to provide for
   the current expenditure. The other commissions were admittedly
   inefficient, and especially the one which was most important
   for the moment, that of war:—'as to a general plan,' says
   Lissagaray, 'there never was one: the men were abandoned to
   themselves, being neither cared for nor controlled;' 'at the
   Ministry,' says Gastyne, 'no one is at his place. They pass
   their time in running after one another. The most
   insignificant Lieutenant will take orders from nobody, and
   wants to give them to everybody. They smoke, chat and chaff.
   They dispute with the contractors. They buy irresponsibly
   right and left because the dealers give commissions or have
   private relations with the officials;' 'in the army of
   Versailles,' said a member of the Commune, 'they don't get
   drunk: in ours they are never sober;' 'the administration of
   war,' said another, 'is the organisation of disorganisation;'
   'I feel myself,' said Rossel, on resigning his command,
   'incapable of any longer bearing the responsibility of a
   command where everyone deliberates and no one obeys. The
   central committee of artillery has deliberated and prescribed
   nothing. The Commune has deliberated and resolved upon
   nothing. The Central Committee deliberates and has not yet
   known how to act. … My predecessor committed the fault of
   struggling against this absurd situation. I retire, and have
   the honour to ask you for a cell at Mazas.' The same
   incompetence, leading to the same result of anarchy, was
   displayed by the Executive Commission:—'in less than a
   fortnight,' said Grosset, 'conflicts of every kind had arisen;
   the Executive Commission gave orders which were not executed;
   each particular commission, thinking itself sovereign in its
   turn, gave orders too, so that the Executive Commission could
   have no real responsibility.'
{1392}
   On April 20 the Executive Commission was replaced by a
   committee, composed of a delegate from each of the nine other
   commissions; still efficiency could not be secured, and at the
   end of the month it was proposed to establish a Committee of
   Public Safety. This proposition was prompted by the traditions
   of 1793, and brought into overt antagonism the two conflicting
   tendencies of the Commune: there were some of its members who
   were ready to save the movement by a despotism, to secure at
   every cost a strong administration, and impose the Commune, if
   need be by terror, upon Paris and the provinces. … On the
   other hand there was a strong minority which opposed the
   proposal, on the ground that it was tantamount to an
   abdication on the part of the Communal Council. … The
   appointment of the Committee was carried by forty-five votes
   to twenty-three; many of those who voted for it regarded it as
   merely another 'Executive Commission,' subordinate to, and at
   any moment subject to dismissal by, the Commune; and so, in
   effect, it proved; it was neither more terrible nor more
   efficient than the body to which it succeeded; it came into
   existence on the 1st of May, and on the 9th the complaint was
   already advanced that 'your Committee of Public Safety has not
   answered our expectations; it has been an obstacle, instead of a
   stimulus;' on the 10th a new committee was appointed, with
   similar results; all that the innovation achieved was to bring
   into clear relief the fact that there existed in the Commune a
   Jacobin element ready to recur to the traditions of 1793, and
   to make Paris the mistress of France by the guillotine or its
   modern equivalent."

      G. L. Dickinson,
      Revolution and Reaction in Modern France,
      pages 267-270.

FRANCE: A. D. 1871-1876.
   The Assembly at Bordeaux.
   Thiers elected Chief of the Executive Power.
   The founding of the Republic.
   The recovery of order and prosperity.
   Resignation of Thiers.
   Election of Marshal MacMahon.
   Plans of the Monarchists defeated.
   Adoption of the Constitution of 1875.

"The elections passed off more quietly than was to be expected, and the Assembly which came together at Bordeaux on the 13th of February exactly represented the sentiment of the nation at that particular moment. France being eager for peace, the Assembly was pacific. It was also somewhat unrepublican, for the Republic had been represented in the provinces only by Gambetta, the promoter of war to the knife, who had sacrificed the interests of the Republic to what he conceived to be the interests of the national honor. Politics had, in truth, been little thought of, and Thiers was elected in 27 departments upon very diverse tickets, rather on account of his opposition to the war and his efforts in favor of peace than on account of his fame as a liberal orator and historian. Moved by the same impulse, the Assembly almost unanimously appointed him Chief of the Executive Power of the French Republic, and intrusted to him the double task of governing the country and of treating with the German Emperor. … It was apparently in the name of the Republic that peace was negotiated and the Government gradually reconstructed. … The Assembly, however, which was all-powerful, held that to change the form of government was one of its rights. It might have been urged that the electors had scarcely contemplated this, and that the Monarchists were in the majority simply because they represented peace, while in the provinces the Republic had meant nothing but war to the hilt. But these distinctions were not thought of in the press of more urgent business, namely, the treaty which was to check the shedding of blood, and the rudiments of administrative reconstruction. No monarchy would have been willing to assume the responsibility of this Treaty. … The Right accordingly consented to accept the name of Republic as a makeshift, provided it should be talked about as little as possible. Thiers had come to think, especially since the beginning of the war, that the Republic was the natural heir of Napoleon III. … He had, however, been struck with the circumstance that so many Legitimists had been elected to the Assembly, and he was no more eager than they to stop to discuss constitutions. … He was the more disposed to wait, inasmuch as he saw in the Chamber the very rapid formation and growth of a group in which he had great confidence. Of these deputies M. Jules Simon has given a better definition than they could themselves formulate,—for this political philosopher has written a masterly history of these years. … Here is what Simon says of this party in the Assembly: 'There were in this body some five-score firm spirits who were alike incapable either of forsaking the principles whereon all society rests, or of giving up freedom. Of all forms of government they would have preferred constitutional monarchy, had they found it established, or could they have restored it by a vote without resort to force. But they quickly perceived that neither the Legitimists nor the Bonapartists would consent to the constitutional form; that such a monarchy could obtain a majority neither in the Parliament nor among the people. … Some of these men entertained for the Republic a distrust which, at first, amounted to aversion. Being persuaded, however, that they must choose between the Republic and the Empire … they did not despair of forming a Republic at once liberal and conservative. In a word, they thrust aside the Legitimate Monarchy as chimerical, Republican and Cæsarian dictatorship as alike hateful. … Of this party M. Thiers was not merely the head, but the body also.' … But there was another party, which, although the least numerous in the Assembly and split into factions at that, was the most numerous in the country,—the Republican party."

"In the wake of Thiers followed such men as Rémusat, Casimir Périer, Leon Say, and Lafayette. This added strength made the Republicans the almost equal rivals of the other parties combined. So great was Thiers' influence that, despite his conversion to Republicanism, he was still able to control the Monarchical Assembly. A threat of resignation, so great was the dread of what might follow it, and so jealous were the Monarchists of two shades and the Imperialists of each other, was enough to bring the majority to the President's terms. It was under such political conditions that the infant Republic, during its first year, undertook the tasks of preserving peace, of maintaining internal order, of retrieving disaster, of tempting back prosperity and thrift to the desolated land, of relieving it of the burdens imposed by war, and, at the same time, of acquiring for itself greater security and permanency. The recovery of France was wonderfully rapid; her people began once more to taste sweet draughts of liberty; the indemnity was almost half diminished; and her industries, at the end of the year, were once more in full career. But the Republic was a long way from complete and unquestioned recognition. The second year of the Republic (1872-73) was passed amid constant conflicts between the rival parties. Thiers still maintained his ascendency, and stoutly adhered to his defence of Republican institutions; but the Assembly was restive under him, and energetic attempts were made to bring about a fusion between the Legitimists and the Orleanists. These attempts were rendered futile by the obstinacy of the Count of Chambord, who would yield nothing, either of principle or even of symbol, to his cousin of Orleans. The want of harmony among the Monarchists postponed the consideration of what should be the permanent political constitution of France until November of the year 1872, when a committee of thirty was chosen to recommend constitutional articles. Against this the Republicans protested. They declared that the Assembly had only been elected to make peace with Germany; … that dissolution was the only further act that the Assembly was competent to perform. This indicated the confidence of the Republicans in their increased strength in the country; and the fact that the Monarchists refused to dissolve shows that they were not far from holding this opinion of their opponents. Despite the rivalries and bitterness of the factions, the Republic met with no serious blow from the time of its provisional establishment in February, 1871, until May, 1873. Up to the latter period two thirds of the enormous indemnity had been paid, and the German force of occupation had almost entirely retired from French territory. … But in Italy, 1873, a grave misfortune, alike to France and to the Republican institutions, occurred. At last the Monarchical reactionists of the Assembly had gathered courage to make open war upon President Thiers. Perceiving that his policy was having the effect of nourishing and adding ever new strength to the Republican cause, and that every month drifted them further from the opportunity and hope of restoring Monarchy or Empire … they now forgot their own differences, and resolved, at all hazards, to get rid of the Republic's most powerful protector. … The Duc de Broglie, the leader of the reactionary Monarchists, offered a resolution in the Assembly which was tantamount to a proposition of want of confidence in President Thiers. After an acrimonious debate, in which Thiers himself took part, De Broglie's motion was passed by a majority of fourteen. The President had no alternative but to resign; and thus the executive power, at a critical moment, passed out of Republican into Monarchical hands. Marshal MacMahon was at once chosen President. … MacMahon was strongly Catholic in religion; and so far as he was known to have any political opinions, they wavered between Legitimism and Imperialism—they were certainly as far as possible from Republicanism. Now was formed and matured a deliberate project to overthrow the young Republic, and to set up Monarchy in its place. All circumstances combined to favor its success. The new President was found to be at least willing that the thing should, if it could, be done. His principal minister, De Broglie, entered warmly into the plot. The Orleanist princes agreed to waive their claims, and the Count of Paris was persuaded to pay a visit to the Count of Chambord at his retreat at Frohsdorf, to acknowledge the elder Bourbon's right to the throne, and to abandon his own pretensions. The Assembly was carefully canvassed, and it was found that a majority could be relied upon to proclaim, at the ripe moment, Chambord as king, with the title of Henry V. The Republic was now, in the early autumn of 1873, in the most serious and real peril. It needed but a word from the Bourbon pretender to overthrow it, and to replace it by the throne of the Capets and the Valois. Happily, the old leaven of Bourbon bigotry existed in 'Henry V.' He conceded the point of reigning with parliamentary institutions, but he would not accept the tricolor as the flag of the restored monarchy. He insisted upon returning to France under the white banner of his ancestors. To him the throne was not worth a piece of cloth. To his obstinacy in clinging to this trifle of symbolism the Republic owed its salvation. The scheme to restore the monarchy thus fell through. The result was that the two wings of Monarchists flew apart again, and the Republicans, being now united and patient under the splendid leadership of Gambetta, once more began to wax in strength. It only remained to the Conservatives to make the best of the situation—to proceed to the forming of a Constitution, and to at least postpone to as late a period as possible the permanent establishment of the Republic. The first step was to confirm MacMahon in the Presidency for a definite period; and 'the Septennate,' giving him a lease of power for seven years—that is, until the autumn of 1880—was voted. … It was not until late in the year 1875 that the Constitution which is now the organic law of France was finally adopted.

   The chief circumstance which impelled a majority of the
   Assembly to take this decisive step was the alarming revival
   of Imperialism in the country. This was shown in the success
   of Bonapartists in isolated elections to fill vacancies. Much
   as the Royalists distrusted a Republic, they dreaded yet more
   the restoration of the Empire; and the rapid progress made by
   the partisans of the Empire forced them to adopt what was
   really a moderate Republican Constitution. This Constitution
   provided that the President of the Republic should be elected
   by a joint convention of the Senate and the Chamber of
   Deputies; that the Senate should consist of 300 members, of
   whom 75 were to be elected for life by the Assembly, and the
   remaining 225 by electoral colleges, composed of the deputies,
   the councillors-general, the members of the councils
   d'arrondissement, and delegates chosen from municipal
   councils; that the vacancies in the life senatorships should
   be filled by the Senate itself, while the term of the Senators
   elected by the colleges should be nine years, one third
   retiring every three years; that the Chamber of Deputies
   should consist of 533 members, and that the deputies should be
   chosen by single districts, instead of, as formerly, in groups
   by departments: that the President could only dissolve the
   Chamber of Deputies with the consent of the Senate; that money
   bills should originate in the Lower Chamber, and that the
   President should have the right of veto.
{1394}
   The 'Septennate' organized and the Constitution adopted, the
   Assembly, which had clung to power for about five years, had
   no reason for continued existence, and at last dissolved early
   in 1876, having provided that the first general election under
   the new order of things should take place in February. … The
   result of the elections proved three things—the remarkable
   growth of Republican sentiment; the great progress made, in
   spite of the memory of Sedan, by the Bonapartist propaganda;
   and the utter hopelessness of any attempt at a Royalist
   restoration."

      See
      EDUCATION, MODERN: EUROPEAN COUNTRIES.
      FRANCE: A. D. 1833-1889.

FRANCE: A. D. 1875-1889.
   Stable settlements of the Republic.
   Presidencies of MacMahon and Grevy.
   Military operations in Tunis, Madagascar and Tonquin.
   Revision of the constitution.
   Expulsion of the princes.
   Boulangerism.
   Election of M. Sadi Carnot to the presidency.

"The last day of the year 1875 saw a final prorogation of this monarchist assembly which had established the Republic. It had been in existence nearly five years. The elections to the Senate gave a small majority to the Republicans. Those to the Chamber of Deputies (February, 1876) gave about two-thirds of its 532 seats to Republicans, mostly moderate Republicans. The ministry to which the leadership of this assembly was soon confided, was therefore naturally a ministry of moderate Republicans. M. Dufaure was prime minister, and M. Léon Say minister of finance. … The Dufaure ministry was not long-lived, being succeeded before the year 1876 closed, by a ministry led by M. Jules Simon, a distinguished orator and writer. The tenure of French cabinets in general has been so little permanent under the Third Republic, that in the nineteen years which have elapsed since the fall of the Empire, twenty-five cabinets have had charge of the executive government. … Few events had marked the history of the Simon ministry when, suddenly, in May, 1877, the President of the Republic demanded its resignation. Much influenced of late by Monarchist advisers, he had concluded that the moderate Republican cabinets did not possess the confidence of the chambers, and, feeling that the responsibility of maintaining the repose and security of France rested upon him, had resolved, rather than allow the management of the affairs of the country to fall into the hands of M. Gambetta and the Radicals, to appoint a ministry of conservatives, trusting that the country would ratify the step. A ministry was organized under the Duke of Broglie, and the Chamber of Deputies was first prorogued, and then, with the consent of the Senate, dissolved. The death of M. Thiers in September caused a great national demonstration in honor of that patriotic statesman, 'the liberator of the territory.' The result of the ensuing elections was a complete victory for the Republicans, who secured nearly three-fourths of the seats in the new Chamber. The Marshal, appointing a ministry composed of adherents of his policy who were not members of the Assembly, attempted to make head against the majority, but was forced in December to yield to the will of the people and of their representatives, and to recall M. Dufaure and the moderate Republicans to office. The year 1878 therefore passed off quietly, being especially distinguished by the great success of the universal exhibition held at Paris. … At the beginning of 1879 elections were held in pursuance of the provisions of the constitution, for the renewal of a portion of the Senate. … Elections were held for the filling of 82 seats. Of these the Republicans won 66, the Monarchist groups 16. This was a loss of 42 seats on the part of the latter, and assured to the Republicans a full control of the Senate. It had also the effect of definitively establishing the Republic as the permanent government of France. The Republican leaders therefore resolved to insist upon extensive changes in the personnel of the Council of State and the judiciary body. … When they also proposed to make extensive changes in other departments, Marshal MacMahon, who foresaw the impossibility of maintaining harmonious relations with the cabinets which the Republican majority would now demand, took these new measures as a pretext, and, on January 30, 1879, resigned the office of President of the Republic. On the same day the Senate and Chamber, united in National Assembly, elected as his successor, for the constitutional term of seven years, M. Jules Grevy, president of the Chamber of Deputies a moderate Republican who enjoyed general respect. M. Grévy was 71 years old. M. Gambetta was chosen to succeed him as president of the Chamber. The cabinet was remodelled, M. Dufaure resigning his office and being succeeded by M. Waddington. In the reorganized ministry one of the most prominent of the new members was M. Jules Ferry, its minister of education. He soon brought forward two measures which excited violent discussion: the one dealing with the regulation of superior education, the other with the constitution of the Supreme Council of Public Instruction. … In March, 1880, the Senate rejected the bill respecting universities. The ministry, now composed of members of the 'pure Left' (instead of a mixture of these and the Left Centre) under M. de Freycinet, resolved to enforce the existing laws against non-authorized congregations. The Jesuits were warned to close their establishments; the others, to apply for authorization. Failing to carry out these decrees, M. de Freycinet was forced to resign, and was succeeded as prime minister by M. Ferry, under whose orders the decrees were executed in October and November, establishments of the Jesuits and others, to the number of nearly 300, being forcibly closed and their inmates dispersed. Laws were also passed in the same year and in 1881 for the extension of public education, and a general amnesty proclaimed for persons engaged in the insurrection of the commune. In April and May, 1881, on pretext of chastising tribes on the Tunisian frontier of Algeria, who had committed depredations on the French territories in Northern Africa, a military force from Algeria entered Tunis, occupied the capital, and forced the Bey to sign a treaty by which he put himself and his country under the protectorate of France. … {1395} The elections, in August, resulted in a Chamber composed of 467 Republicans, 47 Bonapartists, and 43 Royalists, whereas its predecessor had consisted of 387 Republicans, 81 Bonapartists, and 61 Royalists. In response to a general demand, M. Gambetta became prime minister on the meeting of the new Assembly in the autumn. … But his measures failed to receive the support of the Chamber, and he was forced to resign after having held the office of prime minister but two months and a half (January, 1882). On the last day of that year M. Gambetta, still the most eminent French statesman of the time, died at Paris, aged forty-four. … The death of Gambetta aroused the Monarchists to renewed activity. Prince Napoleon issued a violent manifesto, and was arrested. Bills were brought in which were designed to exclude from the soil of France and of French possessions all members of families formerly reigning in France. Finally, however, after a prolonged contest, a decree suspending the dukes of Aumale, Chartres, and Alençon from their functions in the army was signed by the President. Some months later, August, 1883, the Count of Chambord ('Henry V.') died at Frohsdorf; by this event the elder branch of the house of Bourbon became extinct and the claims urged by both Legitimists and Orleanists were united in the person of the Count of Paris. During the year 1882 alleged encroachments upon French privileges and interests in the northwestern portion of Madagascar had embroiled France in conflict with the Hovas, the leading tribe of that island. The French admiral commanding the squadron in the Indian Ocean demanded in 1883 the placing of the northwestern part of the island under a French protectorate, and the payment of a large indemnity. These terms being refused by the queen of the Hovas, Tamatave was bombarded and occupied, and desultory operations continued until the summer of 1883, when an expedition of the Hovas resulted in a signal defeat of the French. A treaty was then negotiated, in accordance with which the foreign relations of the island were put under the control of France, while the queen of Madagascar retained the control of internal affairs and paid certain claims. A treaty executed in 1874 between the emperor of Annam and the French had conceded to the latter a protectorate over that country. His failure completely to carry out his agreement, and the presence of Chinese troops in Tonquin, were regarded as threatening the security of the French colony of Cochin China. A small expedition sent out [1882] under Commander Rivière to enforce the provision of the treaty was destroyed at Hanoi. Reinforcements were sent out. But the situation was complicated by the presence of bands of 'Black Flags,' brigands said to be unauthorized by the Annam government, and by claims on the part of China to a suzerainty over Tonquin. A treaty was made with Annam in August, 1883, providing for the cession of a province to France, and the establishment of a French protectorate over Annam and Tonquin. This, however, did not by any means wholly conclude hostilities in that province. Sontay was taken from the Black Flags in December, and Bacninh occupied in March, 1884. The advance of the French into regions over which China claimed suzerainty, and which were occupied by Chinese troops, brought on hostilities with that empire. In August, 1884, Admiral Courbet destroyed the Chinese fleet and arsenal at Foo-chow; in October he seized points on the northern end of the island of Formosa, and proclaimed a blockade of that portion of the island. On the frontier between Tonquin and China the French gained some successes, particularly in the capture of Lang-Sön; yet the climate, and the numbers and determination of the Chinese troops, rendered it impossible for them to secure substantial results from victories. Finally, after a desultory and destructive war, a treaty was signed in June, 1885, which arranged that Formosa should be evacuated, that Annam should in future have no diplomatic relations except through France, and that France should have virtually complete control over both it and Tonquin, though the question of Chinese suzerainty was left unsettled. … It was not felt that the expeditions against Madagascar, Annam, and China had achieved brilliant success. They had, moreover, been a source of much expense to France; at first popular, they finally caused the downfall of the ministry which ordered them. That ministry, the ministry of M. Jules Ferry, … remained in power an unusual length of time,—a little more than two years. Its principal achievement in domestic affairs consisted in bringing about the revision of the constitution, which, framed by the Versailles Assembly in 1875, was felt by many to contain an excessive number of Monarchical elements. … In 1885, after the fall of the Ferry cabinet, a law was passed providing for scrutin de liste; each department being entitled to a number of deputies proportioned to the number of its citizens, the deputies for each were to be chosen on a general or departmental ticket. In the same year a law was passed declaring ineligible to the office of President of the Republic, senator or deputy, any prince of families formerly reigning in France. … In December the National Assembly re-elected M. Grévy President of the Republic. In the ministry led by M. de Freycinet, which held office during the year 1886, great prominence was attained by the minister of war, General Boulanger, whose management of his department and political conduct won him great popularity. … The increasing activity of the agents of the Monarchist party, the strength which that party had shown in the elections of the preceding year, and the demonstrations which attended the marriage of the daughter of the Count of Paris to the crown prince of Portugal, incited the Republican leaders to more stringent measures against the princes of houses formerly reigning in France. The government was intrusted by law with discretionary power to expel them all from France, and definitely charged to expel actual Claimants of the throne and their direct heirs. The Count of Paris and his son the Duke of Orleans, Prince Napoleon and his son Prince Victor, were accordingly banished by presidential decree in June, 1886. General Boulanger struck off from the army-roll the names of all princes of the Bonaparte and Bourbon families. The Duke of Aumale, indignantly protesting, was also banished; in the spring of 1889 he was permitted to return. Meanwhile, within the Republican ranks, dissensions increased. The popularity of General Boulanger became more and more threatening to the cabinets of which he was a member. An agitation in his favor, conducted with much skill, caused fear lest he were aspiring to a military dictatorship of France. … {1396} In the autumn of 1887, an inquiry into the conduct of General Caffarel, deputy to the commander-in-chief, accused of selling decorations, implicated by Daniel Wilson, son-in-law of M. Grévy, who was alleged to have undertaken to obtain appointments to office and lucrative contracts in return for money. M. Grévy's unwise attempts to shield his son-in-law brought about his own fall. The chambers, determined to force his resignation, refused to accept any ministry proposed by him. After much resistance and irritating delays he submitted, and resigned the presidency of the Republic on December 2, 1887. On the next day the houses met in National Assembly at Versailles to chose the successor of M. Grévy. … The most prominent candidates for the Republicans were M. Ferry and M. de Freycinet; the former, however, was unpopular with the country. The followers of both, finding their election impossible, resolved to cast their votes for M. Sadi Carnot, a Republican of the highest integrity and universally respected. M. Carnot, a distinguished engineer, grandson of the Carnot who had, as minister of war, organized the victories of the armies of the Revolution, was accordingly elected President of the French Republic. … The chief difficulties encountered by the cabinet arose out of the active propagandism exercised in behalf of General Boulanger. … His name … became the rallying-point of those who were hostile to the parliamentary system, or to the Republican government in its present form. Alarmed both by his singular popularity and by his political intrigues, the government instituted a prosecution of him before the High Court of Justice; upon this he fled from the country, and the dangers of the agitation in his favor were, for the time at least, quieted. On May 5, 1889, the one-hundredth anniversary of the assembly of the States-General was held at Versailles. On the next day, President Carnot formally opened the Universal Exhibition at Paris, the greatest of the world's fairs which have been held in that city."

ALSO IN: H. C. Lockwood, Constitutional History of France, chapter 7, and appendix 10.

Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social
Science, March, 1893, supplement.

Elections for a new Chamber of Deputies were held in France, ending on Sunday, September 3, 1893. The resulting division of parties in the Chamber is stated as follows: "Opportunists [those, that is, who would shape political action by circumstances—by opportunities—and not by hard and fast principles], 292; Converted Monarchists [who accept the Republic as a fixed fact], 35; Unconverted Monarchists, 58; and Radicals, including Socialists, 187. As the Converted Monarchists will vote with the Government, there will be a heavy Government majority to begin with; but … it is not perfectly reliable, and is singularly deficient in marked men."

FRANCHE COMTÉ.

In the dissolution of the last kingdom of Burgundy (see BURGUNDY, THE LAST KINGDOM: A. D. 1032), its northern part maintained a connection with the Empire, which had then become Germanic, much longer than the southern. It became divided into two chief states—the County Palatine of Burgundy, known afterwards as Franche Comté, or the "free county," and Lesser Burgundy, which embraced western Switzerland and northern Savoy. "The County Palatine of Burgundy often passed from one dynasty to another, and it is remarkable for the number of times that it was held as a separate state by several of the great princes of Europe. It was held by the Emperor Frederick Barbarossa in right of his wife; the marriage of one of his female descendants carried it to Philip the Fifth of France. Then it became united with the French duchy of Burgundy under the dukes of the House of Valois. Saving a momentary French occupation after the death of Charles the Bold, it remained with them and their Austrian and Spanish representatives. … But, through all these changes of dynasty, it remained an acknowledged fief of the Empire, till its annexation to France under Lewis the Fourteenth. The capital of this county, it must be remembered, was Dole. The ecclesiastical metropolis of Besançon, though surrounded by the county, remained a free city of the Empire from the days of Frederick Barbarossa [A. D. 1152-1190] to those of Ferdinand the Third [A. D. 1637-1657]. It was then merged in the county, and along with the county it passed to France."

FRANCHE COMTÉ: A. D. 1674.
Final conquest by Louis XIV. and incorporation with France.

FRANCIA.

   Francis II.,
      Germanic Emperor, 1792-1806;
      Emperor of Austria, 1806-1835;
      King of Hungary and Bohemia, 1792-1835.

FRANCISCANS.

"Among the great duchies [of the old Germanic kingdom or empire of the ninth, tenth and eleventh centuries], that of Eastern Francia, Franken, or Franconia, is of much less importance in European history than that of Saxony. It gave the ducal title to the bishops of Würzburg; but it cannot be said to be in any sense continued in any modern state. Its name gradually retreated, and the circle of Franken or Franconia took in only the most eastern part of the ancient duchy.

The western and northern part of the duchy, together with a good deal of territory which was strictly Lotharingian, became part of the two Rhenish circles. Thus Fulda, the greatest of German abbeys, passed away from the Frankish name. In north-eastern Francia, the Hessian principalities grew up to the north-west. Within the Franconian circle lay Würzburg, the see of the bishops who bore the ducal title, the other great bishopric of Bamberg, together with the free city of Nürnberg, and various smaller principalities. In the Rhenish lands, both within and without the old Francia, one chief characteristic is the predominance of the ecclesiastical principalities, Mainz, Köln, Worms, Speyer, and Strassburg. The chief temporal power which arose in this region was the Palatinate of the Rhine, a power which, like others, went through many unions and divisions, and spread into four circles, those of Upper and Lower Rhine, Westfalia and Bavaria. This last district, though united with the Palatine Electorate, was, from the early part of the fourteenth century, distinguished from the Palatinate of the Rhine as the Oberpfalz or Upper Palatinate."

      E. A. Freeman,
      Historical Geography of Europe,
      chapter 8, section 1.

FRANCONIAN OR SALIC IMPERIAL HOUSE.

The emperors, Conrad II., Henry III., Henry IV., and Henry V., who reigned from 1024 until 1125, over the Germanic-Roman or Holy Roman Empire, were of the Salic or Franconian house.

FRANKALMOIGN.

FRANKFORT ON THE MAIN: A. D. 1525.
Formal establishment of the Reformed Religion.

FRANKFORT ON THE MAIN: A. D. 1801-1803.
One of six free cities which survived the Peace of Luneville.

FRANKFORT ON THE MAIN: A. D. 1806.
Loss of municipal freedom.
Transfer, as a grand duchy, to the ancient Elector of Mayence.

FRANKFORT ON THE MAIN: A. D. 1810-1815.
Loss and recovery of autonomy as a "free city."

FRANKFORT ON THE MAIN: A. D. 1848-1849.
   Meeting of the German National Assembly.
   Its work, its failure, and its end.
   Riotous outbreak in the city.

See PENNSYLVANIA: A.D. 1757-1762; and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765-1768, 1766, 1775 (JANUARY-MARCH), and (APRIL-JUNE).

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1776-1778, 1778 (FEBRUARY),
      1782 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (FEBRUARY-APRIL: TENNESSEE), and 1864 (NOVEMBER: TENNESSEE).

"'There is scarce a small village,' says Sir John Fortescue [15th century] 'in which you may not find a knight, an esquire, or some substantial householder (paterfamilias) commonly called a frankleyn, possessed of considerable estate; besides others who are called freeholders, and many yeomen of estate sufficient to make a substantial jury.' … By a frankleyn in this place we are to understand what we call a country squire, like the frankleyn of Chaucer; for the word esquire in Fortescue's time was only used in its limited sense, for the sons of peers and knights, or such as had obtained the title by creation or some other legal means."

FRANKPLEDGE.

An old English law required all men to combine in associations of ten, and to become standing sureties for one another, —which was called "frankpledge."

"It is well known that the name of 'Frank' is not to be found in the long list of German tribes preserved to us in the 'Germania' of Tacitus. Little or nothing is heard of them before the reign of Gordian III. In A. D. 240 Aurelian, then a tribune of the sixth legion stationed on the Rhine, encountered a body of marauding Franks near Mayence and drove them back into their marshes. The word 'Francia' is also found at a still earlier date, in the old Roman chart called the 'Charta Peutingeria,' and occupies on the map the right bank of the Rhine from opposite Coblentz to the sea. The origin of the Franks has been the subject of frequent debate, to which French patriotism has occasionally lent some asperity. … At the present day, however, historians of every nation, including the French, are unanimous in considering the Franks as a powerful confederacy of German tribes, who in the time of Tacitus inhabited the north-western parts of Germany bordering on the Rhine. And this theory is so well supported by many scattered notices, slight in themselves, but powerful when combined, that we can only wonder that it should ever have been called in question. Nor was this aggregation of tribes under the new name of Franks a singular instance; the same took place in the case of the Alemanni and Saxons. … The etymology of the name adopted by the new confederacy is also uncertain. The conjecture which has most probability in its favour is that adopted long ago by Gibbon, and confirmed in recent times by the authority of Grimm, which connects it with the German word Frank (free). … Tacitus speaks of nearly all the tribes, whose various appellations were afterwards merged in that of Frank, as living in the neighbourhood of the Rhine. Of these the principal were the Sicambri (the chief people of the old Iscævonian tribe), who, as there is reason to believe, were identical with the Salian Franks. The confederation further comprised the Bructeri, the Chamavi, Ansibarii, Tubantes, Marsi, and Chasuarii, of whom the five last had formerly belonged to the celebrated Cheruscan league, which, under the hero Arminius, destroyed three Roman legions in the Teutoburgian Forest. The strongest evidence of the identity of these tribes with the Franks, is the fact that, long after their settlement in Gaul, the distinctive names of the original people were still occasionally used as synonymous with that of the confederation. … The Franks advanced upon Gaul from two different directions, and under the different names of Salians, and Ripuarians, the former of whom we have reason to connect more particularly with the Sicambrian tribe. The origin of the words Salian and Ripuarian, which are first used respectively by Ammianus Marcellinus and Jornandes, is very obscure, and has served to exercise the ingenuity of ethnographers. There are, however, no sufficient grounds for a decided opinion. At the same time it is by no means improbable that the river Yssel, Isala or Sal (for it has borne all these appellations), may have given its name to that portion of the Franks who lived along its course. With still greater probability may the name Ripuarii, or Riparii, be derived from 'Ripa,' a term used by the Romans to signify the Rhine. These dwellers on 'the Bank' were those that remained in their ancient settlements while their Salian kinsmen were advancing into the heart of Gaul."

ALSO IN: P. Godwin, History of France: Ancient Gaul, book 3, chapters 9 and 11.

"When in the year 253 the different generals of Rome were once more fighting each other for the imperial dignity, and the Rhine-legions marched to Italy to fight out the cause of their emperor Valerianus against … Aemilianus of the Danube-army, this seems to have been the signal for the Germans pushing forward, especially towards the lower Rhine. These Germans were the Franks, who appear here for the first time, perhaps new opponents only in name; for, although the identification of them, already to be met with in later antiquity, with tribes formerly named on the lower Rhine—partly, the Chamavi settled beside the Bructeri, partly the Sugambri formerly mentioned subject to the Romans—is uncertain and at least inadequate, there is here greater probability than in the case of the Alamanni that the Germans hitherto dependent on Rome, on the right bank of the Rhine, and the Germanic tribes previously dislodged from the Rhine, took at that time—under the collective name of the 'Free'—the offensive in concert against the Romans."

Constantine the Great, A. D. 306, fought and defeated the Salian Franks in a great battle and "carried off a large number of captives to Treves, the chief residence of the emperor, and a rival of Rome itself in the splendour of its public buildings. It was in the circus of this city, and in the presence of Constantine, that the notorious 'Ludi Francici' were celebrated; at which several thousand Franks, including their kings Regaisus and Ascaricus, were compelled to fight with wild beasts, to the inexpressible delight of the Christian spectators."

FRANKS: 5th-10th Centuries.
   Barbarities of the conquest of Gaul.
   State of society under the rule of the conquerors.
   Evolution of Feudalism.

After vainly opposing the entrance of Vandals, Burgundians and Sueves into Gaul, A. D. 406, "the Franks, the valiant and faithful allies of the Roman republic, were soon [about A. D. 410-420] tempted to imitate the invaders whom they had so bravely resisted. Treves, the capital of Gaul, was pillaged by their lawless bands; and the humble colony which they so long maintained in the district of Toxandria, in Brabant, insensibly multiplied along the banks of the Meuse and Scheldt, till their independent power filled the whole extent of the Second, or Lower, Germany. … The ruin of the opulent provinces of Gaul may be dated from the establishment of these barbarians, whose alliance was dangerous and oppressive, and who were capriciously impelled, by interest or passion, to violate the public peace."

"They [the Franks] resisted the great invasion of the Vandals in the time of Stilicho, but did not scruple to take part in the subsequent ravages. Among the confusions of that disastrous period, indeed, it is not improbable that they seized the cities of Spires, Strasburg, Amiens, Arras, Therouane and Tournai, and by their assaults on Trèves compelled the removal of the præfectural government to Arles. Chroniclers who flourished two centuries later refer to the year 418 large and permanent conquests in Gaul by a visionary king called Pharamund, from whom the French monarchy is usually dated. But history seeks in vain for any authentic marks of his performances."

The royal dynasty of the kingdom of the Franks as founded by Clovis is called the Merovingian. "It is thought that the kings of the different Frankish people were all of the same family, of which the primitive ancestor was Meroveus (Meer-wig, warrior of the sea). After him those princes were called Merovingians (Meer-wings); they were distinguished by their long hair, which they never cut. A Meroveus, grandfather of Clovis, reigned, it is said, over the Franks between 448 and 456; but only his name remains, in some antient historians, and we know absolutely nothing more either of his family, his power, or of the tribe which obeyed him: so that we see no reason why his descendants had taken his name. … The Franks appear in history for the first time in the year 241. Some great captain only could, at this period, unite twenty different people in a new confederation; this chief was, apparently, the Meroveus, whose name appeared for such a long time as a title of glory for his descendants, although tradition has not preserved any trace of his victories."

"The Salian Franks had … associated a Roman or a Romanized Gaul, Aegidius, with their native chief in the leadership of the tribe. But, in the year 481, the native leadership passed into the hands of a chief who would not endure a Roman colleague, or the narrow limits within which, in the general turmoil of the world, his tribe was cramped. He is known to history by the name of Clovis, or Chlodvig, which through many transformations, became the later Ludwig and Louis. Clovis soon made himself feared as the most ambitious, the most unscrupulous, and the most energetic of the new Teutonic founders of states. Ten years after the fall of the Western empire [which was in 476], seven years before the rise of the Gothic kingdom of Theoderic, Clovis challenged the Roman patrician, Syagrius of Soissons, who had succeeded to Aegidius, defeated him in a pitched field, at Nogent, near Soissons (486), and finally crushed Latin rivalry in northern Gaul. Ten years later (496), in another famous battle, Tolbiac (Zülpich), near Cologne, he also crushed Teutonic rivalry, and established his supremacy over the kindred Alamanni of the Upper Rhine. Then he turned himself with bitter hostility against the Gothic power in Gaul. The Franks hated the Goths, as the ruder and fiercer of the same stock hate those who are a degree above them in the arts of peace, and are supposed to be below them in courage and the pursuits of war. There was another cause of antipathy. The Goths were zealous Arians; and Clovis, under the influence of his wife Clotildis, the niece of the Burgundian Gundobad, and in consequence, it is said, of a vow made in battle at Tolbiac, had received Catholic baptism from St. Remigius of Rheims.

The Frank king threw his sword into the scale against the Arian cause, and became the champion and hope of the Catholic population all over Gaul. Clovis was victorious. He crippled the Burgundian kingdom (500), which was finally destroyed by his sons (534). In a battle near Poitiers, he broke the power of the West Goths in Gaul; he drove them out of Aquitaine, leaving them but a narrow slip of coast, to seek their last settlement and resting-place in Spain; and, when he died, he was recognized by all the world, by Theoderic, by the Eastern emperor, who honoured him with the title of the consulship, as the master of Gaul. Nor was his a temporary conquest. The kingdom of the West Goths and the Burgundians had become the kingdom of the Franks. The invaders had at length arrived who were to remain. It was decided that the Franks, and not the Goths, were to direct the future destinies of Gaul and Germany, and that the Catholic faith, and not Arianism, was to be the religion of these great realms."

J. C. L. S. de Sismondi, The French under the Merovingians, translated by Bellingham, chapters 4-5.

FRANKS: A. D. 511-752.
The house of Clovis.
Ascendancy of the Austrasian Mayors of the Palace.

On the death of Clovis, his dominion, or, speaking more strictly, the kingly office in his dominion, was divided among his four sons, who were lads, then, ranging in age from twelve to eighteen. The eldest reigned in Metz, the second at Orleans, the third in Paris, and the youngest at Soissons. These princes extended the conquests of their father, subduing the Thuringians (A. D. 515-528), overthrowing the kingdom of the Burgundians (A. D. 523-534), diminishing the possessions of the Visigoths in Gaul (A. D. 531-532), acquiring Provence from the Ostrogoths of Italy and securing from the Emperor Justinian a clear Roman-imperial title to the whole of Gaul. The last survivor of the four brother-kings, Clotaire I., reunited the whole Frank empire under his own sceptre, and on his death, A. D. 561, it was again divided among his four sons. Six years later, on the death of the elder, it was redivided among the three survivors. Neustria fell to Chilperic, whose capital was at Soissons, Austrasia to Sigebert, who reigned at Metz, and Burgundia to Guntram, who had his seat of government at Orleans. Each of the kings took additionally a third of Aquitaine, and Provence was shared between Sigebert and Guntram. "It was agreed on this occasion that Paris, which was rising into great importance, should be held in common by all, but visited by none of the three kings without the consent of the others." The reign of these three brothers and their sons, from 561 to 613, was one long revolting tragedy of civil war, murder, lust, and treachery, made horribly interesting by the rival careers of the evil Fredegunda and the great unfortunate Brunhilda, queens of Neustria and Austrasia, respectively. {1400} In 613 a second Clotaire surviving his royal kin, united the Frank monarchy once more under a single crown. But power was fast slipping from the hands of the feeble creature who wore the crown, and passing to that one of his ministers who succeeded in making himself the representative of royalty—namely, the Mayor of the Palace. There was a little stir of energy in his son, Dagobert, but from generation to generation, after him, the Merovingian kings sank lower into that character which gave them the name of the fainéant kings ("rois fainéans")—the slothful or lazy kings—while the mayors of the palace ruled vigorously in their name and tumbled them, at last, from the throne. "While the Merovingian race in its decline is notorious in history as having produced an unexampled number of imbecile monarchs, the family which was destined to supplant them was no less wonderfully prolific in warriors and statesmen of the highest class. It is not often that great endowments are transmitted even from father to sou, but the line from which Charlemagne sprang presents to our admiring gaze an almost uninterrupted succession of five remarkable men, within little more than a single century. Of these the first three held the mayoralty of Austrasia [Pepin of Landen, Pepin of Heristal, and Carl, or Charles Martel, the Hammer]; and it was they who prevented the permanent establishment of absolute power on the Roman model, and secured to the German population of Austrasia an abiding victory over that amalgam of degraded Romans and corrupted Gauls which threatened to leaven the European world. To them, under Providence, we owe it that the centre of Europe is at this day German, and not Gallo-Latin." Pepin of Heristal, Mayor in Austrasia, broke the power of a rival Neustrian family in a decisive battle fought near the village of Testri, A. D. 687, and gathered the reins of the three kingdoms (Burgundy included) into his own hands. His still more vigorous son, Charles Martel, won the same ascendancy for himself afresh, after a struggle which was signalized by three sanguinary battles, at Amblève (A. D. 716), at Vinci, near Cambrai (717) and at Soissons (718). When firm in power at home, he turned his arms against the Frisians and the Bavarians, whom he subdued, and against the obstinate Saxons, whose country he harried six times without bringing them to submission. His great exploit in war, however, was the repulse of the invading Arabs and Moors, on the memorable battle-field of Tours (A. D.732), where the wave of Mahommedan invasion was rolled back in western Europe, never to advance beyond the Pyrenees again. Karl died in 741, leaving three sons, among whom his power was, in the Frank fashion, divided. But one of them resigned, in a few years, his sovereignty, to become a monk; another was deposed, and the third, Pepin, surnamed "The Little," or "The Short," became supreme. He contented himself, as his father, his grandfather, and his great grandfather had done, with the title of Mayor of the Palace, until 752, when, with the approval of the Pope and by the act of a great assembly of leudes and bishops at Soissons, he was lifted on the shield and crowned and anointed king of the Franks, while the last of the Merovingians was shorn of his long royal locks and placed in a monastery. The friendliness of the Pope in this matter was the result and the cementation of an alliance which bore important fruits. As the champion of the church, Pepin made war on the Lombards and conquered for the Papacy the first of its temporal dominions in Italy. In his own realm, he completed the expulsion of the Moors from Septimania, crushed an obstinate revolt in Aquitaine, and gave a firm footing to the two thrones which, when he died in 768, he left to his sons, Carl and Carloman, and which became in a few years the single throne of one vast empire, under Carl—Carl the Great— Charlemagne.

      J. C. L. S. de Sismondi,
      The French under the Merovingians,
      chapters 6-13.

FRANKS: A. D. 539-553.
Invasion of Italy.
Formal relinquishment of Gaul to them.

During the Gothic war in Italy,—when Belisarius was reconquering the cradle of the Roman Empire for the Eastern Empire which still called itself Roman, although its seat was at Constantinople,—both sides solicited the help of the Franks. Theudebert, who reigned at Metz, promised his aid to both, and kept his word. "He advanced [A. D. 539, with 100,000 men] toward Pavia, where the Greeks and Goths were met, about to encounter, and, with an unexpected impartiality, attacked the astonished Goths, whom he drove to Ravenna, and then, while the Greeks were yet rejoicing over his performance, fell upon them with merciless fury, and dispersed them through Tuscany." Theudebert now became fired with an ambition to conquer all Italy; but his savage army destroyed everything in its path so recklessly, and pursued so unbridled a course, that famine and pestilence soon compelled a retreat and only one-third of its original number recrossed the Alps. Notwithstanding, this treachery, the emperor Justinian renewed his offers of alliance with the Franks (A.D. 540), and "pledged to them, as the price of their fidelity to his cause, besides the usual subsidies, the relinquishment of every lingering claim, real or pretended, which the empire might assert to the sovereignty of the Gauls. The Franks accepted the terms, and 'from that time,' say the Byzantine authorities, 'the German chiefs presided at the games of the circus, and struck money no longer, as usual, with the effigy of the emperors, but with their own image and superscription. Theudebert, who was the principal agent of these transactions, if he ratified the provisions of the treaty, did not fulfill them in person, but satisfied himself with sending a few tributaries to the aid of his ally. But his first example proved to be more powerful than his later, and large swarms of Germans took advantage of the troubles in Italy to overrun the country and plunder and slay at will. For twelve years, under various leaders, but chiefly under two brothers of the Alemans, Lutherr and Bukhelin, they continued to harass the unhappy object of all barbaric resentments, till the sword of Narses finally exterminated them [A. D. 553]."

As a crowned dynasty, the Carlovingians or Carolingians or Carlings begin their history with Pepin the Short. As an established sovereign house, they find their founder in 'King Pepin's father, the great palace mayor, Carl, or Charles Martel, if not in his grandfather, Pepin Heristal. But the imperial splendor of the house came to it from the second of its kings, whom the French call 'Charlemagne,' but whom English readers ought to know as Charles the Great. The French form of the name has been always tending to represent 'Charlemagne' as a king of France, and modern historians object to it for that reason. "France, as it was to be and as we know it, had not come into existence in his [Charlemagne's] days. What was to be the France of history was then but one province of the Frank kingdom, and one with which Charles was personally least connected. … Charles, king of the Franks, was, above all things, a German. … It is entirely to mistake his place and his work to consider him in the light of a specially 'French' king, a predecessor of the kings who reigned at Paris and brought glory upon France. … Charles did nothing to make modern France. The Frank power on which he rose to the empire was in those days still mainly German; and his characteristic work was to lay the foundations of modern and civilized Germany, and, indirectly, of the new commonwealth of nations, which was to arise in the West of Europe."

"At the death of King Pippin the kingdom of the Franks was divided into two parts, or rather … the government over the kingdom was divided, for some large parts of the territory seem to have been in the hands of the two brothers together. The fact is, that we know next to nothing about this division, and hardly more about the joint reign of the brothers. The only thing really clear is, that they did not get along very well together, that Karl was distinctly the more active and capable of the two, and that after four years the younger brother, Karlmann, died, leaving two sons. Here was a chance for the old miseries of division to begin again; but fortunately the Franks seem by this time to have had enough of that, and to have seen that their greatest hope for the future lay in a united government. The widow and children of Karlmann went to the court of the Lombard king Desiderius and were cared for by him. The whole Frankish people acknowledged Charlemagne as their king. Of course he was not yet called Charlemagne, but simply Karl, and he was yet to show himself worthy of the addition 'Magnus.' … The settlement of Saxony went on, with occasional military episodes, by the slower, but more certain, processes of education and religious conversion. It appears to us to be anything but wise to force a religion upon a people at the point of the sword; but the singular fact is, that in two generations there was no more truly devout Christian people, according to the standards of the time, than just these same Saxons. A little more than a hundred years from the time when Charlemagne had thrashed the nation into unwilling acceptance of Frankish control, the crown of the Empire he founded was set upon the head of a Saxon prince. The progress in friendly relations between the two peoples is seen in the second of the great ordinances by which Saxon affairs were regulated. This edict, called the 'Capitulum Saxonicum,' was published after a great diet at Aachen, in 797, at which, we are told, there came together not only Franks, but also Saxon leaders from all parts of their country, who gave their approval to the new legislation. The general drift of these new laws is in the direction of moderation. … The object of this legislation was, now that the armed resistance seemed to be broken, to give the Saxons a government which should be as nearly as possible like that of the Franks. The absolute respect and subjection to the Christian Church is here, as it was formerly, kept always in sight. The churches and monasteries are still to be the centres from which every effort at civilization is to go out. There can be no doubt that the real agency in this whole process was the organized Church. The fruit of the great alliance between Frankish kingdom and Roman papacy was beginning to be seen. The papacy was ready to sanction any act of her ally for the fair promise of winning the great territory of North Germany to its spiritual allegiance. The most solid result of the campaigns of Charlemagne was the founding of the great bishoprics of Minden, Paderborn, Verden, Bremen, Osnabrück, and Halberstadt. … About these bishoprics, as, on the whole, the safest places, men came to settle. Roads were built to connect them; markets sprang up in their neighborhood; and thus gradually, during a development of centuries, great cities grew up, which came to be the homes of powerful and wealthy traders, and gave shape to the whole politics of the North. Saxony was become a part of the Frankish Empire, and all the more thoroughly so, because there was no royal or ducal line there which had to be kept in place."

Between 768 and 800 Charlemagne extinguished the Lombard kingdom and made himself master of Italy, as the ally and patron of the Pope, bearing the old Roman title of Patrician; he crossed the Pyrenees, drove the Saracens southward to the Ebro, and added a "Spanish March" to his empire (see SPAIN: A. D. 778); he broke the obstinate turbulence of the Saxons, in a series of bloody campaigns which (see SAXONS: A. D. 772-804) consumed a generation; he extirpated the troublesome Avars, still entrenched along the Danube, and he held with an always firm hand the whole dominion that came to him by inheritance from his father. "He had won his victories with Frankish arms, and he had taken possession of the conquered countries in the name of the Frankish people. Every step which he had taken had been with the advice and consent of the nation assembled in the great meetings of the springtime, and his public documents carefully express the share of the nation in his great achievements. Saxony, Bavaria, Lombardy, Aquitaine, the Spanish Mark, all these great countries, lying outside the territory of Frankland proper, had been made a part of its possession by the might of his arm and the wisdom of his counsel. But when this had all been done, the question arose, by what right he should hold all this power, and secure it so that it should not fall apart as soon as he should be gone. {1402} As king of the Franks it was impossible that he should not seem to the conquered peoples, however mild and beneficent his rule might be, a foreign prince; and though he might be able to force them to follow his banner in war, and submit to his judgment in peace, there was still wanting the one common interest which should bind all these peoples, strangers to the Franks and to each other, into one united nation. About the year 800 this problem seems to have been very much before the mind of Charlemagne. If we look at the boundaries of his kingdom, reaching from the Eider in the north to the Ebro and the Garigliano in the south, and from the ocean in the west to the Elbe and the Enns in the east, we shall say as the people of his own time did, 'this power is Imperial.' That word may mean little to us, but in fact it has often in history been used to describe just the kind of power which Charlemagne in the year 800 really had. … The idea of empire includes under this one term, kingdoms, duchies, or whatever powers might be in existence; all, however, subject to some one higher force, which they feel to be necessary for their support. … But where was the model upon which Charlemagne might build his new empire? Surely nowhere but in that great Roman Empire whose western representative had been finally allowed to disappear by Odoacer the Herulian in the year 476. … After Odoacer the Eastern Empire, with its capital at Constantinople, still lived on, and claimed for itself all the rights which had belonged to both parts. That Eastern Empire was still alive at the time of Charlemagne. We have met with it once or twice in our study of the Franks. Even Clovis had been tickled with the present of the title of Consul, sent him by the Eastern Emperor; and from time to time, as the Franks had meddled with the affairs of Italy, they had been reminded that Italy was in name still a part of the Imperial lands. … But now, when Charlemagne himself was thinking of taking the title of Emperor, he found himself forced to meet squarely the question, whether there could be two independent Christian Emperors at the same time. … On Christmas Day, in the year 800, Charlemagne was at Rome. He had gone thither at the request of the Pope Leo, who had been accused of dreadful crimes by his enemies in the city, and had been for a time deprived of his office. Charlemagne had acted as judge in the case, and had decided in favor of Leo. According to good Teutonic custom, the pope had purified himself of his charges by a tremendous oath on the Holy Trinity, and had again assumed the duties of the papacy. The Christmas service was held in great state at St. Peter's. While Charlemagne was kneeling in prayer at the grave of the Apostle, the pope suddenly approached him, and, in the presence of all the people, placed upon his head a golden crown. As he did so, the people cried out with one voice, 'Long life and victory to Charles Augustus, the mighty Emperor, the Peace-bringer, crowned by God!' Einhard, who ought to have known, assures us that Charles was totally surprised by the coronation, and often said afterward that if he had known of the plan he would not have gone into the church, even upon so high a festival. It is altogether probable that the king had not meant to be crowned at just that moment and in just that way; but that he had never thought of such a possibility seems utterly incredible. By this act Charlemagne was presented to the world as the successor of the ancient Roman Emperors of the West, and so far as power was concerned, he was that. But he was more. His power rested, not upon any inherited ideas, but upon two great facts: first, he was the head of the Germanic Race; and second, he was the temporal head of the Christian Church. The new empire which he founded rested on these two foundations."

The great empire which Charles labored, during all the remainder of his life, to organize in this Roman imperial character, was vast in its extent. "As an organized mass of provinces, regularly governed by imperial officers, it seems to have been nearly bounded, in Germany, by the Elbe, the Saale, the Bohemian mountains, and a line drawn from thence crossing the Danube above Vienna, and prolonged to the Gulf of Istria. Part of Dalmatia was comprised in the duchy of Friuli. In Italy the empire extended not much beyond the modern frontier of Naples, if we exclude, as was the fact, the duchy of Benevento from anything more than a titular subjection. The Spanish boundary … was the Ebro."

"The centre of his realm was the Rhine; his capitals Aachen [or Aix-la-Chapelle] and Engilenheim [or Ingelheim]; his army Frankish; his sympathies as they are shewn in the gathering of the old hero-lays, the composition of a German grammar, … were all for the race from which he sprang. … There were in his Empire, as in his own mind, two elements; those two from the union and mutual action and reaction of which modern civilization has arisen. These vast domains, reaching from the Ebro to the Carpathian mountains, from the Eyder to the Liris, were all the conquests of the Frankish sword, and were still governed almost exclusively by viceroys and officers of Frankish blood. But the conception of the Empire, that which made it a State and not a mere mass of subject tribes, … was inherited from an older and a grander system, was not Teutonic but Roman—Roman in its ordered rule, in its uniformity and precision, in its endeavour to subject the individual to the system—Roman in its effort to realize a certain limited and human perfection, whose very completeness shall exclude the hope of further progress." With the death of Charles in 814 the territorial disruption of his great empire began. "The returning wave of anarchy and barbarism swept up violent as ever, yet it could not wholly obliterate the past: the Empire, maimed and shattered though it was, had struck its roots too deep to be overthrown by force." The Teutonic part and the Romanized or Latinized part of the empire were broken in two, never to unite again; but, in another century, it was on the German and not the Gallo-Latin side of the line of its disruption that the imperial ideas and the imperial titles of Charlemagne came to life again, and his Teutonic Roman Empire—the "Holy Roman Empire," as it came to be called—was resurrected by Otto the Great, and established for eight centuries and a half of enduring influence in the politics of the world.

"Gibbon has remarked, that of all the heroes to whom the title of 'The Great' has been given, Charlemagne alone has retained it as a permanent addition to his name. The reason may perhaps be, that in no other man were ever united, in so large a measure, and in such perfect harmony, the qualities which, in their combination, constitute the heroic character, such as energy, or the love of action; ambition, or the love of power; curiosity, or the love of knowledge; and sensibility, or the love of pleasure—not, indeed, the love of forbidden, of unhallowed, or of enervating pleasure, but the keen relish for those blameless delights by which the burdened mind and jaded spirits recruit and renovate their powers. … For the charms of social intercourse, the play of a buoyant fancy, the exhilaration of honest mirth, and even the refreshment of athletic exercises, require for their perfect enjoyment that robust and absolute health of body and of mind which none but the noblest natures possess, and in the possession of which Charlemagne exceeded all other men. His lofty stature, his open countenance, his large and brilliant eyes, and the dome-like structure of his head, imparted, as we learn from Eginhard, to all his attitudes the dignity which becomes a king, relieved by the graceful activity of a practiced warrior. … Whether he was engaged in a frolic or a chase— composed verses or listened to homilies—fought or negotiated—cast down thrones or built them up—studied, conversed, or legislated, it seemed as if he, and he alone, were the one wakeful and really living agent in the midst of an inert, visionary, and somnolent generation. The rank held by Charlemagne among great commanders was achieved far more by this strange and almost superhuman activity than by any pre-eminent proficiency in the art or science of war. He was seldom engaged in any general action, and never undertook any considerable siege, excepting that of Pavia, which, in fact, was little more than a protracted blockade. But, during forty-six years of almost unintermitted warfare, he swept over the whole surface of Europe, from the Ebro to the Oder, from Bretagne to Hungary, from Denmark to Capua, with such a velocity of movement, and such a decision of purpose, that no power, civilized or barbarous, ever provoked his resentment without rapidly sinking beneath his prompt and irresistible blows. And though it be true, as Gibbon has observed, that he seldom, if ever, encountered in the field a really formidable antagonist, it is not less true that, but for his military skill, animated by his sleepless energy, the countless assailants by whom he was encompassed must rapidly have become too formidable for resistance. For to Charlemagne is due the introduction into modern warfare of the art by which a general compensates for the numerical inferiority of his own forces to that of his antagonists—the art of moving detached bodies of men along remote but converging lines with such mutual concert as to throw their united forces at the same moment on any meditated point of attack. Neither the Alpine marches of Hannibal nor those of Napoleon were combined with greater foresight, or executed with greater precision, than the simultaneous passages of Charlemagne and Count Bernard across the same mountain ranges, and their ultimate union in the vicinity of their Lombard enemies."

Charlemagne, at his death, was succeeded by his son Ludwig, or Louis the Pious—the single survivor of three sons among whom he had intended that his great empire should be shared. Mild in temper, conscientious in character, Louis reigned with success for sixteen years, and then lost all power of control, through the turbulence of his family and the disorders of his times. He "tried in vain to satisfy his sons (Lothar, Lewis, and Charles) by dividing and redividing: they rebelled; he was deposed, and forced by the bishops to do penance, again restored, but without power, a tool in the hands of contending factions. On his death the sons flew to arms, and the first of the dynastic quarrels of modern Europe was fought out on the field of Fontenay. In the partition treaty of Verdun [A. D. 843] which followed, the Teutonic principle of equal division among heirs triumphed over the Roman one of the transmission of an indivisible Empire: the practical sovereignty of all three brothers was admitted in their respective territories, a barren precedence only reserved to Lothar, with the imperial title which he, as the eldest, already enjoyed. A more important result was the separation of the Gaulish and German nationalities. … Modern Germany proclaims the era of A. D. 843 the beginning of her national existence and celebrated its thousandth anniversary [in 1843]. To Charles the Bald was given Francia Occidentalis; that is to say, Neustria and Aquitaine; to Lothar, who as Emperor must possess the two capitals, Rome and Aachen, a long and narrow kingdom stretching from the North Sea to the Mediterranean, and including the northern half of Italy; Lewis (surnamed, from his kingdom, the German) received all east of the Rhine, Franks, Saxons, Bavarians, Austria, Carinthia, with possible supremacies over Czechs and Moravians beyond. Throughout these regions German was spoken; through Charles's kingdom a corrupt tongue, equally removed from Latin and from modern French. Lothar's, being mixed and having no national basis, was the weakest of the three, and soon dissolved into the separate sovereignties of Italy, Burgundy and Lotharingia, or, as we call it, Lorraine. On the tangled history of the period that follows it is not possible to do more than touch. After passing from one branch of the Carolingian line to another, the imperial sceptre was at last possessed and disgraced by Charles the Fat, who united all the dominions of his great-grandfather. This unworthy heir could not avail himself of recovered territory to strengthen or defend the expiring monarchy. He was driven out of Italy in A. D. 887 and his death in 888 has been usually taken as the date of the extinction of the Carolingian Empire of the West. … From all sides the torrent of barbarism which Charles the Great had stemmed was rushing down upon his empire. … Under such strokes the already loosened fabric swiftly dissolved. No one thought of common defence or wide organization: the strong built castles, the weak became their bondsmen, or took shelter under the cowl: the governor—count, abbot, or bishop—tightened his grasp, turned a delegated into an independent, a personal into a territorial authority, and hardly owned a distant and feeble suzerain. … In Germany, the greatness of the evil worked at last its cure.

When the male line of the eastern branch of the Carolingians had ended in Lewis (surnamed the Child), son of Arnulf [A. D. 911], the chieftains chose and the people accepted Conrad the Franconian, and after him Henry the Saxon duke, both representing the female line of Charles. Henry laid the foundations of a firm monarchy, driving back the Magyars and Wends, recovering Lotharingia, founding towns to be centres of orderly life and strongholds against Hungarian irruptions. He had meant to claim at Rome his kingdom's rights, rights which Conrad's weakness had at least asserted by the demand of tribute; but death overtook him, and the plan was left to be fulfilled by Otto his son."

"The division of 888 was really the beginning of the modern states and the modern divisions of Europe. The Carolingian Empire was broken up into four separate kingdoms: the Western Kingdom, answering roughly to France, the Eastern Kingdom or Germany, Italy, and Burgundy. Of these, the three first remain as the greatest nations of the Continent: Burgundy, by that name, has vanished; but its place as a European power is occupied, far more worthily than by any King or Cæsar, by the noble confederation of Switzerland."

      E. A. Freeman,
      The Franks and the Gauls.
      (Historical Essays, 1st series, number 7.)

      ALSO IN:
      E. F. Henderson,
      Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages,
      book 2, numbers 3.

      See, also,
      GERMANY: A. D. 843-962;
      and FRANCE: A. D. 843, and after.

CENTRAL EUROPE AT THE PEACE OF VERDUN 843 A. D.

CENTRAL EUROPE 888 A. D.

FRATRES MINORES.

FREDERICK I.
   (called Barbarossa), Emperor, A. D. 1155-1190;
   King of Germany, 1152-1190;
   King of Italy, 1155-1190.

Frederick V., Elector of the Palatinate (and King-elect of Bohemia), and the Thirty Years' War.

   Frederick VI.,
      King of Denmark and Norway, 1808-1814;
      King of Denmark, 1814-1839.

   Frederick Augustus I.,
      Elector of Saxony, 1694-1733;
      King of Poland, 1697-1704 (deposed), and 1709-1733.

Frederick William (called The Great Elector),
Elector of Brandenburg, 1640-1688.

      See
      UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (APRIL-MAY: VIRGINIA).

FREE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND.

FREE CITIES.

See CITIES, IMPERIAL AND FREE, OF GERMANY; also, ITALY: A. D. 1056-1152, and after.

FREE LANCES.

FREE MASONS.

   "The fall of the Knights Templars has been connected with the
   origin of the Freemasons, and the idea has prevailed that the
   only secret purpose of the latter was the reestablishment of
   the suppressed order. Jacques de Molai, while a prisoner in
   Paris, is said to have created four new lodges, and the day
   after his execution, eight knights, disguised as masons, are
   said to have gone to gather up the ashes of their late Grand
   Master. To conceal their designs, the new Templars assumed the
   symbols of the trade, but took, it is said, the name of Francs
   'Maçons' to distinguish themselves from ordinary craftsmen,
   and also in memory of the general appellation given to them in
   Palestine. Even the allegories of Freemasonry, and the ceremonies
   of its initiations, have been explained by a reference to the
   history of the persecutions of the Templars. The Abbé Barruel
   says, that 'every thing—the signs, the language, the names of
   grand master, of knight, of temple—all, in a word, betray the
   Freemasons as descendants of the proscribed knights.' Lessing,
   in Germany, gave some authority to this opinion, by asserting
   positively that 'the lodges of the Templars were in the very
   highest repute in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, and
   that out of such a lodge, which had been constantly kept up in
   London, was established the society of Freemasons, in the
   seventeenth century, by Sir Christopher Wren.'
{1406}
   Lessing is of opinion that the name Mason has nothing to do
   with the English meaning of the word, but comes from
   Massonney, a 'lodge' of the Knights Templars. This idea may
   have caused the Freemasons to amalgamate the external ritual
   of the Templars with their own, and to found the higher French
   degrees which have given colour to the very hypothesis which
   gave rise to their introduction. But the whole story appears
   to be most improbable, and only rests upon the slight
   foundation of fancied or accidental analogies. Attempts have
   also been made to show that the Freemasons are only a
   continuation of the fraternities of architects which are
   supposed to have originated at the time of the building of
   Solomon's Temple. The Egyptian priests are supposed to have
   taught those who were initiated a secret and sacred system of
   architecture; this is said to have been transmitted to the
   Dionysiac architects, of whom the first historical traces are
   to be found in Asia Minor, where they were organized into a
   secret fraternity. … It is, however; a mere matter of
   speculation whether the Jewish and Dionysiac architects were
   closely connected, but there is some analogy between the
   latter and the Roman guilds, which Numa is said to have first
   introduced, and which were probably the prototypes of the
   later associations of masons which flourished until the end of
   the Roman Empire. The hordes of barbarians which then
   ruthlessly swept away whatever bore the semblance of luxury
   and elegance, did not spare the noblest specimens of art, and
   it was only when they became converted to Christianity, that
   the guilds were re-established. During the Lombard rule they
   became numerous in Italy. … As their numbers increased,
   Lombardy no longer sufficed for the exercise of their art, and
   they travelled into all the countries where Christianity, only
   recently established, required religious buildings. … These
   associations, however, became nearly crushed by the power of
   the monastic institutions, so that in the early part of the
   Middle Ages the words artist and priest became nearly
   synonymous; but in the twelfth century they emancipated
   themselves, and sprang into new life. The names of the authors
   of the great architectural creations of this period are almost
   all unknown; for these were not the work of individuals, but
   of fraternities. … In England guilds of masons are said to
   have existed in the year 926, but this tradition is not
   supported by history; in Scotland similar associations were
   established towards the end of the fifteenth century. The Abbé
   Grandidier regards Freemasonry as nothing more than a servile
   imitation of the ancient and useful fraternity of true masons
   established during the building of the Cathedral of Strasburg,
   one of the masterpieces of Gothic architecture, and which caused
   the fame of its builders to spread throughout Europe. In many
   towns similar fraternities were established. … The origin of
   the Freemasons of the present day is not to be attributed to
   these fraternities, but to the Rosicrucians [see ROSICRUCIANS]
   who first appeared at the beginning of the seventeenth
   century."

      A. P. Marras,
      Secret Fraternities of the Middle Ages,
      chapters 7-8.

      C. W. Heckethorn,
      Secret Societies of all Ages and Countries,
      book 8 (volume 1).

FREE TRADE IN ENGLAND.

See TARIFF LEGISLATION (ENGLAND): A. D. 1836-1839; 1842; 1845-1846; and 1846-1879.

FREEDMEN OF THE SOUTH.

FREEDOM OF THE PRESS: A. D. 1734.
Zenger's trial at New York.
Vindication of the rights of the colonial Press.

FREEDOM OF THE PRESS: A. D. 1771.
Last contest of the British Parliament with the Press.

FREEHOLD.

FREGELLÆ.

Fregellæ, a Latin colony, founded by the Romans, B. C. 329, in the Volscian territory, on the Liris, revolted in B. C. 125. and was totally destroyed. A Roman colony, named Fabrateria, was founded near the site.

Freiburg became a free city in 1120, but lost its freedom a century later, and passed, in 1368, under the domination of the Hapsburgs.

FREIBURG: A. D. 1644.
   Siege and capture by the Imperialists.
   Attempted recovery by Condé and Turenne.
   The three days battle.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1861 (JULY-SEPTEMBER: MISSOURI),
      and (AUGUST-OCTOBER: MISSOURI).

FRENCH AND INDIAN WAR.

The four intercolonial wars of the 17th and 18th centuries, in America, commonly known, respectively, as "King William's War," "Queen Anne's War," "King George's War," and the French and Indian War, were all of them conflicts with the French and Indians of Canada, or New France; but the last of the series (coincident with the "Seven Years War" in Europe) became especially characterized in the colonies by that designation. Its causes and chief events are to be found related under the following headings:

      CANADA: A.D. 1750-1753, 1755, 1756, 1756-1757, 1758,
      1759, 1760;
      NOVA SCOTIA: A. D.1749-1755, 1755;
      OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754, 1754, 1755;
      CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1758-1760;
      also, for an account of the accompanying Cherokee War,
      SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1759-1761.

FRENCH SPOLIATION CLAIMS.

HARRISON'S NORTHWESTERN CAMPAIGN.

   "Preaching Friars,"
   "Begging Friars,"
   "Minor Friars,"
   "Black Friars,"
   "Grey Friars."

"Beyond the Batavians, upon the north, dwelt the great Frisian family, occupying the regions between the Rhine and Ems. The Zuyder Zee and the Dollart, both caused by the terrific inundations of the 13th century, and not existing at this period [the early Roman Empire], did not then interpose boundaries between kindred tribes."

"The Frisians, adjoining [the Batavi] … in the coast district that is still named after them, as far as the lower Ems, submitted to Drusus and obtained a position similar to that of the Batavi. There was imposed on them instead of tribute simply the delivery of a number of bullocks' hides for the wants of the army; on the other hand they had to furnish comparatively large numbers of men for the Roman service. They were the most faithful allies of Drusus as afterwards of Germanicus."

FRISIANS: A. D. 528-729.
Struggles against the Frank dominion, before Charlemagne.

FRITH-GUILDS.

FROEBEL AND THE KINDERGARTEN.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1647-1648, 1649, 1650-1651, 1651-1653; and BORDEAUX: A. D. 1652-1653.

"Hans Fugger was the founder of the Fugger family, whose members still possess extensive estates and authority as princes and counts in Bavaria and Wurtemburg. He came to Augsburg in 1365 as a poor but energetic weaver's apprentice, acquired citizenship by marrying a burgher's daughter, and, after completing an excellent masterpiece, was admitted into the guild of weavers. … Hans Fugger died in 1409, leaving behind him a fortune of 3,000 florins, which he had made by his skill and diligence. This was a considerable sum in those days, for the gold mines of the New World had not yet been opened up, and the necessaries of life sold for very low prices. The sons carried on their father's business, and with so much skill and success that they were always called the rich Fuggers. The importance and wealth of the family increased every day. By the year 1500 it was not easy to find a frequented route by sea or land where Fugger's wares were not to be seen. On one occasion the powerful Hanseatic league seized twenty of their ships, which were sailing with a cargo of Hungarian copper, down the Vistula to Cracow and Dantzic. Below ground the miner worked for Fugger, above it the artisan. In 1448 they lent 150,000 florins to the then Archdukes of Austria, the Emperor Frederick the Third (father of Maximilian) and his brother Albert. In 1509 a century had passed since the weaver Hans Fugger had died leaving his fortune of 3,000 florins, acquired by his laborious industry. His grand-children were now the richest merchants in Europe; without the aid of their money the mightiest princes of the continent could not complete any important enterprise, and their family was connected with the noblest houses by the ties of relationship. They were raised to the rank of noblemen and endowed with honourable privileges by the Emperor Maximilian the First."

FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW, AND ITS REPEAL.

FULTON'S FIRST STEAMBOAT.

FUNDAMENTAL AGREEMENT OF NEW HAVEN.

FUNDAMENTAL ORDERS OF CONNECTICUT.

FUORUSCITI.

In Italy, during the Guelf and Ghibelline contests of the 13th and 14th centuries (see ITALY: A. D. 1215-1293), "almost every city had its body of 'fuorusciti';—literally, 'those who had gone out';—proscripts and exiles, in fact, who represented the minorities … in the different communities;—Ghibelline fuorusciti from Guelph cities, and Guelph fuorusciti from Ghibelline cities."

FUSILLADES.

FUTTEH ALI SHAH.

"The one national army [in Saxon England, before the Norman Conquest] was the fyrd, a force which had already received in the Karolingian legislation the name of landwehr by which the German knows it still. The fyrd was in fact composed of the whole mass of free landowners who formed the folk: and to the last it could only be summoned by the voice of the folk-moot. In theory therefore such a host represented the whole available force of the country. But in actual warfare its attendance at the king's war-call was limited by practical difficulties. Arms were costly; and the greater part of the fyrd came equipped with bludgeons and hedge-stakes, which could do little to meet the spear and battleaxe of the invader."

"In the spring of the year 1343, the king [Philip de Valois, king of France] published an ordinance by which no one was allowed to sell salt in France unless he bought it from the store-houses of the crown, which gave him the power of committing any degree of extortion in an article that was of the utmost necessity to his subjects. This obnoxious tax, which at a subsequent period became one of the chief sources of the revenue of the crown of France, was termed a gabelle, a word of Frankish or Teutonic origin, which had been in use from the earliest period to signify a tax in general, but which was from this time almost restricted to the extraordinary duty on salt. … This word gabelle is the same as the Anglo-Saxon word 'gafol,' a tax."

GACHUPINES AND GUADALUPES.

In the last days of Spanish rule in Mexico, the Spanish official party bore the name of Gachupines, while the native party, which prepared for revolution, were called Guadalupes.

The name of the Guadalupes was adopted by the Mexicans "in honour of 'Our Lady of Guadalupe,' the tutelar protectress of Mexico;" while that of the Gachupines "was a sobriquet gratuitously bestowed upon the Spanish faction."

"At this period [early in the last century before Christ] Gades was undoubtedly one of the most important emporiums of trade in the world: her citizens having absorbed a large part of the commerce that had previously belonged to Carthage. In the time of Strabo they still retained almost the whole trade with the Outer Sea, or Atlantic coasts."

E. H. Bunbury, History of Ancient Geography, chapter 18, section 6 (volume 2).

GAEL.

GAFOL.

A payment in money, or kind, or work, rendered in the way of rent by a villein-tenant to his lord, among the Saxons and early English. The word signified tribute.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1774 (MARCH-APRIL); 1775 (APRIL), (APRIL-MAY), and (JUNE).

See GENOA: A. D. 1261-1299; also CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1261-1453, and 1348-1355.

GALATIA.-GALATIANS.

In 280 B. C. a body of Gauls, or Celts, invaded Greece, under Brennus, and in the following year three tribes of them crossed into Asia Minor. There, as in Greece, they committed terrible ravages, and were a desolating scourge to the land, sometimes employed as mercenaries by one and another of the princes who fought over the fragments of Alexander's Empire, and sometimes roaming for plunder on their own account. Antiochus, son of Seleueus, of Syria, is said to have won a great victory over them; but it was not until 239 B. C. that they were seriously checked by Attalus, King of Pergamus, who defeated them in a great battle and forced them to settle in the part of ancient Phrygia which afterwards took its name from them, being called Galatia, or Gallo-Græcia, or Eastern Gaul. When the Romans subjugated Asia Minor they found the Galatæ among their most formidable enemies. The latter were permitted for a time to retain a certain degree of independence, under tetrarchs, and afterwards under kings of their own. But finally Galatia became a Roman province. "When St. Paul preached among them, they seemed fused into the Hellenistic world, speaking Greek like the rest of Asia; yet the Celtic language long lingered among them and St. Jerome says he found the country people still using it in his day (fourth century A. D.)."

GALILEE.

The Hebrew name Galil, applied originally to a little section of country, became in the Roman age, as Galilæa, the name of the whole region in Palestine north of Samaria and west of the river Jordan and the Sea of Galilee. Ewald interprets the name as meaning the "march" or frontier land; but in Smith's "Dictionary of the Bible" it is said to signify a "circle" or "circuit." It had many heathen inhabitants and was called Galilee of the Gentiles.

GALLDACHT.

GALLEON OR GALEON. GALERA. GALEAZA. GALEASSES.

GALLIA.

GALLIA BRACCATA, COMATA AND TOGATA.

"The antient historians make some allusion to another division of Gaul, perhaps introduced by the soldiers, for it was founded solely upon the costume of the inhabitants. Gallia Togata, near the Rhone, comprehended the Gauls who had adopted the toga and the Roman manners. In Gallia Comata, to the north of the Loire, the inhabitants wore long plaited hair, which we find to this day among the Bas Britons. Gallia Bracata, to the south of the Loire, wore, for the national costume, trousers reaching from the hips to the ancles, called 'braccæ.'"

J. C. L. S. de Sismondi, The French under the Merovingians, translated by Bellingham, chapter 2, note.

GALLIA CISALPINA.

GALLICAN CHURCH: A. D. 1438. The Pragmatic Sanction of Charles VII., affirming some of the decrees of the reforming Council of Basel.

GALLICAN CHURCH: A. D. 1515-1518.
Abrogation of the Pragmatic Sanction.
The Concordat of Bologna.

GALLICAN CHURCH: A. D. 1653-1713.
   The conflict of Jesuits and Jansenists.
   Persecution of the latter.
   The Bull Unigenitus and its tyrannical enforcement.

GALLICAN CHURCH: A. D. 1791-1792.
The civil constitution of the clergy.
The oath prescribed by the National Assembly.

GALLICAN CHURCH: A. D. 1793.
   Suppression of Christian worship in Paris and other parts of
   France.
   The worship of Reason.

GALLICAN CHURCH: A. D. 1802.
The Concordat of Napoleon.
Its Ultramontane influence.

GALLOGLASSES.

   The heavy-armed foot-soldiers of the
   Irish in their battles with the
   English during the 14th century.

GALLS.

GAMBETTA AND THE DEFENSE OF FRANCE.

GAMORI.

On the floor of the English House of Commons, "the long lines of seats rise gradually on each side of the chair—those to the Speaker's right being occupied by the upholders of the Government, and those to the left accommodating the Opposition. One length of seating runs in an unbroken line beneath each of the side galleries, and these are known as the 'back benches.' The other lengths are divided into two nearly equal parts by an unseated gap of about a yard wide. This is 'the gangway.' Though nothing more than a convenient means of access for members, this space has come to be regarded as the barrier that separates the thick and thin supporters of the rival leaders from their less fettered colleagues—that is to say, the steady men from the Radicals, Nationalists, and free-lances generally."

GAON.-THE GAONATE.

The ancient inhabitants of the north African region now called
Fezzan, were known as the Garamantes.

      E. H. Bunbury,
      History of Ancient Geography,
      chapter 8, section 1.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY; KENTUCKY-TENNESSEE).

GARIBALDI'S ITALIAN CAMPAIGNS.

"About this time [A. D. 1343] the king of England [Edward III.] resolved to rebuild and embellish the great castle of Windsor, which king Arthur had first founded in time past, and where he had erected and established that noble round table from whence so many gallant knights had issued forth, and displayed the valiant prowess of their deeds at arms over the world. King Edward, therefore, determined to establish an order of knighthood, consisting of himself, his children, and the most gallant knights in Christendom, to the number of forty. He ordered it to be denominated 'knights of the blue garter,' and that the feast should be celebrated every year at Windsor, upon St. George's day. He summoned, therefore, all the earls, barons, and knights of his realm, to inform them of his intentions; they heard it with great pleasure; for it appeared to them highly honourable, and capable of increasing love and friendship. Forty knights were then elected, according to report and estimation the bravest in Christendom, who sealed, and swore to maintain and keep the feast and the statutes which had been made. The king founded a chapel at Windsor, in honour of St. George, and established canons, there to serve God, with a handsome endowment. He then issued his proclamation for this feast by his heralds, whom he sent to France, Scotland, Burgundy, Hainault, Flanders, Brabant, and the empire of Germany, and offered to all knights and squires, that might come to this ceremony, passports to last for fifteen days after it was over. The celebration of this order was fixed for St. George's day next ensuing, to be held at Windsor, 1344."

"The popular tradition, derived from Polydore Vergil, is that, having a festival at Court, a lady chanced to drop her garter, when it was picked up by the King. Observing that the incident made the bye-standers smile significantly, Edward exclaimed in a tone of rebuke, 'Honi soit qui mal y pense'—'Dishonoured be he who thinks evil of it': and to prevent any further innuendos, he tied the garter round his own knee. This anecdote, it is true, has been characterized by some as an improbable fable; why, we know not. … Be the origin of the institution, however, what it may, no Order in Europe is so ancient, none so illustrious, for 'it exceeds in majesty, honour and fame all chivalrous fraternities in the world.' … By a Statute passed on the 17th January, 1805, the Order is to consist of the Sovereign and twenty-five Knights Companions, together with such lineal descendants of George III. as may be elected, always excepting the Prince of Wales, who is a constituent part of the original institution. Special Statutes have since, at different times, been proclaimed for the admission of Sovereigns and extra Knights."

      ALSO IN:
      J. Buswell,
      Historical Account of the Knights of the Garter.

      C. M. Yonge,
      Cameos from English History,
      2d series, chapter 3.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (MAY-AUGUST); 1777 (JULY-OCTOBER); 1777-1778; 1780 (FEBRUARY-AUGUST); 1780-1781.

GATH.

"Next [after the Mark, in the settlements of the Germanic peoples] in order of constitution, if not of time, is the union of two, three, or more Marks in a federal bond for purposes of a religious, judicial, or even political character. The technical name for such a union is in Germany a Gau or Bant; in England the ancient name Ga has been almost universally superseded by that of Scir or Shire. For the most part the natural divisions of the country are the divisions also of the Ga; and the size of this depends upon such accidental limits as well as upon the character and dispositions of the several collective bodies which we have called Marks. The Ga is the second and final form of unsevered possession; for every larger aggregate is but the result of a gradual reduction of such districts, under a higher political or administrative unity, different only in degree and not in kind from what prevailed individually in each. The kingdom is only a larger Ga than ordinary; indeed the Ga itself was the original kingdom. … Some of the modern shire-divisions of England in all probability have remained unchanged from the earliest times; so that here and there a now existent Shire may be identical in territory with an ancient Ga. But it may be doubted whether this observation can be very extensively applied."

"Gallia, in the widest sense of the term, is divided into three parts, one part occupied by the Belgae, a second by the Aquitani, and a third by a people whom the Romans name Galli, but in their own tongue they are named Celtae. These three people differ in language and social institutions. The Garumna (Garonne) is the boundary between the Aquitani and the Celtae: the rivers Matrona (Marne, a branch of the Seine) and the Sequana (Seine) separate the Celtae from the Belgae. … That part of Gallia which is occupied by the Celtae begins at the river Rhone: it is bounded by the Garonne, the Ocean and the territory of the Belgae; on the side of the Sequani and the Helvetii it also extends to the Rhine. It looks to the north. The territory of the Belgae begins where that of the Celtae ends: it extends to the lower part of the Rhine; it looks towards the north and the rising sun. Aquitania extends from the Garonne to the Pyrenean mountains and that part of the Ocean which borders on Spain. It looks in a direction between the setting sun and the north."

Julius Cæsar, Gallic Wars, book 1, chapter 1; translated by G. Long (Decline of the Roman Republic, volume 8, chapter 22).

Cæsar was consul for the year 695 A. U. (B. C. 59). At the expiration of his consulship he secured, by vote of the people, the government of the two Gauls (see ROME: B. C. 68-58), not for one year, which was the customary term, but for five years—afterwards extended to ten. Cisalpine Gaul (northern Italy) had been fully subjugated and was tranquil; Transalpine Gaul (Gaul west and north of the Alps, or modern France, Switzerland and Belgium) was troubled and threatening. In Transalpine Gaul the Romans had made no conquests beyond the Rhone, as yet, except along the coast at the south. The country between the Alps and the Rhone, excepting certain territories of Massilia (Marseilles) which still continued to be a free city, in alliance with Rome, had been fully appropriated and organized as a province—the Provence of later times. The territory between the Rhone and the Cevennes mountains was less fully occupied and controlled. Cæsar's first proceeding as proconsul in Gaul was to arrest the migration of the Helvetii, who had determined to abandon their Swiss valleys and to seize some new territory in Gaul. He blocked their passage through Roman Gaul, then followed them in their movement eastward of the Rhone, attacked and defeated them with great slaughter, and forced the small remnant to return to their deserted mountain homes. The same year (B. C. 58) he drove out of Gaul a formidable body of Suevic Germans who had crossed the Rhine some years before under their king, Ariovistus. They were almost annihilated. The next year (B. C. 57) he reduced to submission the powerful tribes of the Belgian region, who had provoked attack by leaguing themselves against the Roman intrusion in Gaul. The most obstinate of those tribes—the Nervii—were destroyed. In the following year (B. C. 56) Cæsar attacked and nearly exterminated the Veneti, a remarkable maritime people, who occupied part of Armorica (modern Brittany); he also reduced the coast tribes northwards to submission, while one of his lieutenants, Crassus, made a conquest of Aquitania. The conquest of Gaul was now apparently complete, and next year (B. C. 55), after routing and cutting to pieces another horde of Germanic invaders—the Usipetes and Tenctheri—who had ventured across the lower Rhine, Cæsar traversed the channel and invaded Britain. This first invasion, which had been little more than a reconnoissance, was repeated the year following (B. C. 54), with a larger force. It was an expedition having small results, and Cæsar returned from it in the early autumn to find his power in Gaul undermined everywhere by rebellious conspiracies. The first outbreak occurred among the Belgæ, and found its vigorous leader in a young chief of the Eburones, Ambiorix by name. Two legions, stationed in the midst of the Eburones, were cut to pieces while attempting to retreat. But the effect of this great disaster was broken by the bold energy of Cæsar, who led two legions, numbering barely 7,000 men, to the rescue of his lieutenant Cicero (brother of the orator) whose single legion, camped in the Nervian territory, was surrounded and besieged by 60,000 of the enemy. Cæsar and his 7,000 veterans sufficed to rout the 60,000 Belgians. Proceeding with similar vigor to further operations, and raising new legions to increase his force, the proconsul had stamped the rebellion out before the close of the year 58 B. C., and the Eburones, who led in it, had ceased to exist. But the next year (B. C. 52) brought upon him a still more serious rising, of the Gallic tribes in central Gaul, leagued with the Belgians. Its leader was Vercingetorix, a gallant and able young chief of the Arverni. It was begun by the Carnutes, who massacred the Roman settlers in their town of Genabum (probably modern Orleans, but some say Gien, farther up the Loire). Cæsar was on the Italian side of the Alps when the news reached him, and the Gauls expected to be able to prevent his joining the scattered Roman forces in their country. But his energy baffled them, as it had baffled them many times before. He was across the Alps, across the Rhone, over the Cevennes—through six feet of snow in the passes—and in their midst, with such troops as he could gather in the Province, before they dreamed of lying in wait for him. Then, leaving most of these forces with Decimus Brutus, in a strong position, he stole away secretly, recrossed the Cevennes, put himself at the head of a small body of cavalry at Vienne on the Rhone, and rode straight through the country of the insurgents to join his veteran legions, first at Langres and afterwards at Sens. {1412} In a few weeks he was at the head of a strong army, had taken the guilty town of Genabum and had given it up to fire and the sword. A little later the capital of the Bituriges, Avaricum (modern Bourges), suffered the same fate. Next, attempting to reduce the Arvernian town of Gergovia, he met with a check and was placed in a serious strait. But with the able help of his lieutenant Labienus, who defeated a powerful combination of the Gauls near Lutetia (modern Paris), he broke the toils, reunited his army, which he had divided, routed Vercingetorix in a great battle fought in the valley of the Vingeanne, and shut him up, with 80,000 men, in the city of Alesia. The siege of Alesia (modern Alise-Sainte-Reine, west of Dijon) which followed, was the most extraordinary of Cæsar's military exploits in Gaul. Holding his circumvallation of the town, against 80,000 within its walls and thrice as many swarming outside of it, he scattered the latter and forced the surrender of the former. His triumph was his greatest shame. Like a very savage, he dragged the knightly Vercingetorix in his captive train, exhibited him at a subsequent "triumph" in Rome, and then sent him to be put to death in the ghastly Tullianum. The fall of Alesia practically ended the revolt; although even the next year found some fighting to be done, and one stronghold of the Cadurci, Uxellodunum (modern Puy-d'Issolu, near Vayrac), held out with great obstinacy. It was taken by tapping with a tunnel the spring which supplied the besieged with water, and Cæsar punished the obstinacy of the garrison by cutting off their hands. Gaul was then deemed to be conquered and pacified, and Cæsar was prepared for the final contest with his rivals and enemies at Rome.

C. Merivale, History of the Romans under the Empire, chapters 6-7, 10, and 12 (volumes 1-2).

"The most important service which Probus [Roman Emperor, A. D. 276-282] rendered to the republic was the deliverance of Gaul, and the recovery of seventy flourishing cities oppressed by the barbarians of Germany, who, since the death of Aurelian, had ravaged that great province with impunity. Among the various multitude of those fierce invaders, we may distinguish, with some degree of clearness, three great armies, or rather nations, successively vanquished by the valour of Probus. He drove back the Franks into their morasses; a descriptive circumstance from whence we may infer that the confederacy known by the manly appellation of 'Free' already occupied the flat maritime country, intersected and almost overflown by the stagnating waters of the Rhine, and that several tribes of the Frisians and Batavians had acceded to their alliance. He vanquished the Burgundians [and the Lygians]. … The deliverance of Gaul is reported to have cost the lives of 400,000 of the invaders—a work of labour to the Romans, and of expense to the emperor, who gave a piece of gold for the head of every barbarian."

During the civil wars and religious quarrels which followed the death of Constantine the Great—more especially in the three years of the usurpation of Magnentius, in the west (A. D. 350-353), Gaul was not only abandoned, for the most part, to the barbarians of Germany, but Franks and Alemanni were invited by Constantius to enter it. "In a little while a large part of the north and east of Gaul were in their almost undisputed possession. The Alamans seized upon the countries which are now called Alsace and Lorraine; the Franks secured for themselves Batavia and Toxandria: forty-five flourishing cities, among them Cologne, Treves, Spires, Worms, and Strasburg, were ravaged; and, in short, from the sources of the Rhine to its mouth, forty miles inland, there remained no safety for the population but in the strongly fortified towns." In this condition of the Gallic provinces, Julian, the young nephew of the emperor, was raised to the rank of Cæsar and sent thither with a trifling force of men to take the command. "During an administration of six years [A. D. 355-361] this latest Cæsar revived in Gaul the memory of the indefatigable exploits and the vigorous rule of the first Cæsar. Insufficient and ill-disciplined as his forces were, and baffled and betrayed as he was by those who should have been his aids, he drove the fierce and powerful tribes of the Alamans, who were now the hydra of the western provinces, beyond the Upper Rhine; the Chamaves, another warlike tribe, he pursued into the heart of their native forests; while the still fiercer and more warlike Franks were dislodged from their habitations on the Meuse, to accept of conditions from his hands. … A part of these, called the Salians, and destined to figure hereafter, were allowed to settle in permanence in Toxandria, between the Meuse and the Scheld, near the modern Tongres. … By three successful expeditions beyond the Rhine [he] restored to their friends a multitude of Roman captives, recovered the broken and down-trodden lines of the empire, humiliated many of the proud chiefs of the Germans, and impressed a salutary awe and respect upon their truculent followers. … He spent the intervals of peace which his valor procured in recuperating the wasted energies of the inhabitants. Their dilapidated cities were repaired, the excesses of taxation retrenched, the deficient harvests compensated by large importations of corn from Britain, and the resources of suspended industry stimulated into new action. Once more, says Libanius, the Gauls ascended from the tombs to marry, to travel, to enjoy the festivals, and to celebrate the public games."

The same year (A. D. 406) in which Radagaisus, with his motley barbaric horde, invaded Italy and was destroyed by Stilicho, a more fatal assault was made upon Gaul. Two armies, in which were gathered up a vast multitude of Suevi, Vandals, Alans and Burgundians, passed the Rhine. The Franks opposed them as faithful allies of the Roman power, and defeated a Vandal army in one great battle, where 20,000 of the invaders were slain; but the Alans came opportunely to the rescue of their friends and forced the Frank defenders of Gaul to give way. "The victorious confederates pursued their march, and on the last day of the year, in a season when the waters of the Rhine were most probably frozen, they entered without opposition the defenceless provinces of Gaul. This memorable passage of the Suevi, the Vandals, the Alani, and the Burgundians, who never afterwards retreated, may be considered as the fall of the Roman empire in the countries beyond the Alps; and the barriers which had so long separated the savage and the civilized nations of the earth were, from that fatal moment, levelled with the ground. … The flourishing city of Mentz was surprised and destroyed, and many thousand Christians were inhumanly massacred in the church. Worms perished after a long and obstinate siege; Strasburg, Spires, Rheims, Tournay, Arras, Amiens, experienced the cruel oppression of the German yoke; and the consuming flames of war spread from the banks of the Rhine over the greatest part of the seventeen provinces of Gaul. That rich and extensive country, as far as the ocean, the Alps, and the Pyrenees, was delivered to the barbarians, who drove before them in a promiscuous crowd the bishop, the senator, and the virgin, laden with the spoils of their houses and altars."

The conquests of the Franks in Gaul, under Clovis, began in 486 and ended with his death in 511 (see FRANKS: A. D. 481-511). "In the year 532, Theoderik, one of the sons and successors of Chlodowig, said to those Frankish warriors whom he commanded: 'Follow me as far as Auvergne, and I will make you enter a country where you will take as much gold and silver as you possibly can desire; where you can carry away in abundance flocks, slaves, and garments.' The Franks took up arms and once more crossing the Loire, they advanced on the territory of the Bituriges and Arvernes. These paid with interest for the resistance they had dared to the first invasion. Everything amongst them was devastated; the churches and monasteries were razed to their foundations. The young men and women were dragged, their hands bound, after the luggage to be sold as slaves. The inhabitants of this unfortunate country perished in large numbers or were ruined by the pillage. Nothing was left them of what they had possessed, says an ancient chronicle, except the land, which the barbarians could not carry away. Such were the neighbourly relations kept up by the Franks with the Gallic populations which had remained beyond their limits. Their conduct with respect to the natives of the northern provinces was hardly less hostile. When Hilperik, the son of Chlother, wished, in the year 584, to send his daughter in marriage to the king of the West Goths, or Visigoths, settled in Spain, he came to Paris and carried away from the houses belonging to the 'fisc' a great number of men and women, who were heaped up in chariots to accompany and serve the bride elect. Those who refused to depart, and wept, were put in prison: several strangled themselves in despair. Many people of the best families enlisted by force into this procession, made their will, and gave their property to the churches. 'The son,' says a contemporary, 'was separated from his father, the mother from her daughter; they departed sobbing, and pronouncing deep curses; so many persons in Paris were in tears that it might be compared to the desolation of Egypt.' In their domestic misfortunes the kings of the Franks sometimes felt remorse, and trembled at the evil they had done. … But this momentary repentance soon yielded to the love of riches, the most violent passion of the Franks. Their incursions into the south of Gaul recommenced as soon as that country, recovered from its terrors and defeats, no longer admitted their garrisons nor tax collectors. Karle, to whom the fear of his arms gave the surname of Marteau, made an inroad as far as Marseilles; he took possession of Lyons, Arles, and Vienne, and carried off an immense booty to the territory of the Franks. When this same Karle, to insure his frontiers, went to fight the Saracens in Aquitania, he put the whole country to fire and sword; he burnt Bérgiers, Agde, and Nûnes; the arenas of the latter city still bear traces of the fire. At death of Karle, his two sons, Karlemann and Peppin, continued the great enterprise of replacing the inhabitants of the south, to whom the name of Romans was still given, under the yoke of the Franks. … Southern Gaul was to the sons of the Franks what entire Gaul had been to their fathers; a country, the riches and climate of which attracted them incessantly, and saw them return as enemies, as soon as it did not purchase peace of them."

      A. Thierry,
      Narratives of the Merovingian Era, Historical Essays, etc.,
      essay 24.

GAUL: 5th-10th Centuries.
   The conquerors and the conquered.
   State of society under the barbarian rule.
   The evolution of Feudalism.

"After the conclusion of the great struggles which took place in the fourth and fifth centuries, whether between the German conquerors and the last forces of the empire, or between the nations which had occupied different portions of Gaul, until the Franks remained sole masters of the country, two races, two populations, which had nothing in common but religion, appear forcibly brought together, and, as it were, face to face with each other, in one political community. The Gallo-Roman population presents under the same law very different and very unequal conditions; the barbarian population comprises, together with its own peculiar classifications of ranks and conditions, distinct laws and nationalities. In the first we find citizens absolutely free, coloni, or husbandmen belonging to the lands of a proprietor, and domestic slaves deprived of all civil rights; in the second, we see the Frankish race divided into two tribes, each having its own peculiar law [the law of the Salic Franks or Salic law, and the law of the Ripuarian Franks or Ripuarian law]; the Burgundians, the Goths, and the rest of the Teutonic races, who became subjected, either of their own accord or by force, to, the Frankish empire, governed by other and entirely different laws; but among them all, as well as among the Franks, we find at least three social conditions—two degrees of liberty, and slavery. {1414} Among these incongruous states of existence, the criminal law of the dominant race established, by means of the scale of damages for crime or personal injury, a kind of hierarchy— the starting-point of that movement towards an assimilation and gradual transformation, which, after the lapse of four centuries, from the fifth to the tenth, gave rise to the society of the feudal times. The first rank in the civil order belonged to the man of Frankish origin, and to the Barbarian who lived under the law of the Franks; in the second rank was placed the Barbarian, who lived under the law of his own country; next came the native freeman and proprietor, the Roman possessor, and, in the same degree, the Lidus or German colonus; after them, the Roman tributary—i. e., the native colonus; and, last of all, the slave, without distinction of origin. These various classes, separated on the one hand by distance of rank, on the other by difference of laws, manners, and language, were far from being equally distributed between the cities and the rural districts. All that was elevated in the Gallo-Roman population, of whatever character it might be, was found in the cities, where its noble, rich, and industrious families dwelt, surrounded by their domestic slaves; and, among the people of that race, the only constant residents in the country were the half-servile coloni and the agricultural slaves. On the contrary, the superior class of the German population established itself in the country, where each family, independent and proprietary, was maintained on its own domain by the labour of the Lidi whom it had brought thither, or of the old race of coloni who belonged to the soil. The only Germans who resided in the cities were a small number of officers in the service of the Crown, and of individuals without family and patrimony, who, in spite of their original habits, sought a livelihood by following some employment. The social superiority of the dominant race rooted itself firmly in the localities inhabited by them, and passed, as has been already remarked, from the cities to the rural districts. By degrees, also, it came to pass that the latter drew off from the former the upper portion of their population, who, in order to raise themselves still higher, and to mix with the conquerors, imitated, as far as they were able, their mode of life. … While Barbarism was thus occupying or usurping all the vantage points of the social state, and civil life in the intermediate classes was arrested in its progress, and sinking gradually to the lowest condition, even to that of personal servitude, an ameliorating movement already commenced before the fall of the empire, still continued, and declared itself more and more loudly. The dogma of a common brotherhood in the eyes of God, and of one sole redemption for all mankind, preached by the Church to the faithful of every race, touched the heart and awakened the mind in favour of the slave, and, in consequence, enfranchisements became more frequent, or a treatment more humane was adopted on the part of the masters, whether Gauls or Germans by origin. The latter, moreover, had imported from their country, where the mode of life was simple and without luxury, usages favourable to a modified slavery. The rich barbarian was waited upon by free persons—by the children of his relatives, his clients and his friends; the tendency of his national manners, different from that of the Roman, induced him to send the slave out of his house, and to establish him as a labourer or artisan on some portion of land to which he then became permanently attached, and the destination of which he followed, whether it were inherited or sold. … Domestic slavery made the man a chattel, a mere piece of moveable property. The slave, settled on a spot of land, from that time entered into the category of real property. At the same time that this last class, which properly bore the name of serfs, was increased at the expense of the first, the classes of the coloni and Lidi would naturally multiply simultaneously, by the very casualties of ruin and adverse circumstances which, at a period of incessant commotions, injured the condition of the freemen. … In the very heart of the Barbarian society, the class of small proprietors, which had originally formed its strength and glory, decreased, and finally became extinct by sinking into vassalage, or a state of still more ignoble dependence, which partook more or less of the character of actual servitude. … The freemen depressed towards servitude met the slave who had reached a sort of half liberty. Thus, through the whole extent of Gaul, was formed a vast body of agricultural labourers and rural artisans, whose lot, though never uniform, was brought more and more to a level of equality; and the creative wants of society produced a new sphere of industry in the country, while the cities remained stationary, or sank more and more into decay. … On every large estate where improvement flourished, the cabins of those employed, Lidi, coloni or slaves, grouped as necessity or convenience suggested, were multiplied and peopled more numerously, till they assumed the form of a hamlet. When these hamlets were situated in a favourable position … they continued to increase till they became villages. … The building of a church soon raised the village to the rank of a parish; and, as a consequence, the new parish took its place among the rural circonscriptions. … Thence sprung, altogether spontaneously, under the sanction of the intendant, joined to that of the priest, rude outlines of a municipal organization, in which the church became the depository of the acts which, in accordance with the Roman law, were inscribed on the registers of the city. It is in this way that beyond the towns, the cities, and the boroughs, where the remains of the old social condition lingered in an increasing state of degradation, elements of future improvement were formed. … This modification, already considerably advanced in the ninth century, was completed in the course of the tenth. At that period, the last class of the Gallo-Frankish society disappeared—viz., that of persons held as chattels, bought, exchanged, transferred from one place to another, like any other kind of moveable goods. The slave now belonged to the soil rather than to the person; his service, hitherto arbitrary, was changed into customary dues and regulated employment; he had a settled abode, and, in consequence, a right of possession in the soil on which he was dependent. This is the earliest form in which we distinctly trace the first impress of the modern world upon the civil state. {1415} The word serf henceforward took its definite meaning; it became the generic name of a mixed condition of servitude and freedom, in which we find blended together the states of the colonus and Lidus—two names which occur less and less frequently in the tenth century, till they entirely disappear. This century, the point to which all the social efforts of the four preceding ones which had elapsed since the Frankish conquest had been tending, saw the intestine struggle between the Roman and German manners brought to a conclusion by an important revolution. The latter definitively prevailed, and from their triumph arose the feudal system; that is to say, a new form of the state, a new constitution of property and domestic life, a parcelling out of the sovereignty and jurisdiction, all the public powers transformed into demesnial privileges, the idea of nobility devoted to the profession of arms, and that of ignobility to industry and labour. By a remarkable coincidence, the complete establishment of this system is the epoch when the distinction of races terminates in Frankish Gaul—when all the legal consequences of diversity of origin between Barbarians and Romans, conquerors and subjects, disappear. The law ceases to be personal, and becomes local; the German codes and the Roman code itself are replaced by custom; it is the territory and not the descent which distinguishes the inhabitant of the Gallic soil; finally, instead of national distinctions, one mixed population appears, to which the historian is able henceforward to give the name of French."

      A. Thierry,
      Formation and Progress of the Tiers État in France,
      volume 1, chapter 1.

"A prætorian prefect still resided at Trèves; a vicar of the seventeen Gallic provinces at Aries: each of these provinces had its Roman duke; each of the hundred and fifteen cities of Gaul had its count; each city its curia, or municipality. But, collaterally with this Roman organisation, the barbarians, assembled in their 'mallum,' of which their kings were presidents, decided on peace and war, made laws, or administered justice. Each division of the army had its Graf Jarl, or Count; each subdivision its centenary, or hundred-man; and all these fractions of the free population had the same right of deciding by suffrage in their own mallums, or peculiar courts, all their common affairs. In cases of opposition between the barbarian and the Roman jurisdiction, the overbearing arrogance of the one, and the abject baseness of the other, soon decided the question of supremacy. In some provinces the two powers were not concurrent: there were no barbarians between the Loire and the Meuse, nor between the Alps and the Rhone; but the feebleness of the Roman government was only the more conspicuous. A few great proprietors cultivated a part of the province with the aid of slaves; the rest was desert, or only inhabited by Bagaudæ, runaway slaves, who lived by robbery. Some towns still maintained a show of opulence, but not one gave the slightest sign of strength; not one enrolled its militia, nor repaired its fortifications. … Honorius wished to confer on the cities of southern Gaul a diet, at which they might have deliberated on public affairs: he did not even find public spirit enough to accept the offered privilege."

The last definite survival of Roman sovereignty in Gaul lingered until 486 in a district north of the Seine, between the Marne and the Oise, which had Soissons for its capital. It was maintained there, in the first instance, by Ægidius, a Gallic noble whom Marjorian, one of the last of the emperors at Rome, made Master-General of Gaul. The respect commanded by Ægidius among the surrounding barbarians was so great that the Salian Franks invited him to rule over them, in place of a licentious young king, Childeric, whom they had driven into exile. He was king of these Franks, according to Gregory of Tours, for eight years (457-464), until he died. Childeric then returned, was reinstated in his kingdom and became the father of Clovis (or Chlodwig), the founder of the great Frank monarchy. But a son of Ægidius, named Syagrius, was still the inheritor of a kingdom, known as, the "Kingdom of Syagrius," embracing, as has been said, the country around Soissons, between the Seine, the Marne and the Oise, and also including, in the opinion of some writers, Troyes and Auxerre. The first exploit of Clovis—the beginning of his career of conquest—was the overthrow of this "king of the Romans," as Syagrius was called, in a decisive battle fought at Soissons, A. D. 486, and the incorporation of his kingdom into the Frank dominions. Syagrius escaped to Toulouse, but was surrendered to Clovis and put to death.

GAUL: A. D. 540.
Formal relinquishment of the country to the Franks by
Justinian.

GAULS.

   "The Gauls, properly so called, the Galatæ of the Greeks, the
   Galli of the Romans, and the Gael of modern history, formed
   the van of the great Celtic migration which had poured
   westward at various intervals during many hundred years. …
   Having overrun the south of Gaul and penetrated into Spain,
   they lost a part of the territory thus acquired, and the
   restoration of the Iberian fugitives to Aquitania placed a
   barrier between the Celts in Spain and their brethren whom
   they had left behind them in the north. In the time of the
   Romans the Galli were found established in the centre and east
   of the country denominated Gaul, forming for the most part a
   great confederation, at the head of which stood the Arverni.
   It was the policy of the Romans to raise the Ædui into
   competition with this dominant tribe. … The Arverni, whose
   name is retained in the modern appellation of Auvergne,
   occupied a large district in the middle and south of Gaul, and
   were surrounded by tributary or dependent clans. The Ædui lay
   more to the north and east, and the centre of their
   possessions is marked by the position of their capital
   Bibracte, the modern Autun, situated in the highlands which
   separate the waters of the Loire, the Seine and the Saone. …
{1416}
   Other Gallic tribes stretched beyond the Saone: the Sequani,
   who afterwards made an attempt to usurp this coveted
   preeminence (the valley of the Doubs formed the centre of the
   Sequanese territory, which reached to the Jura and the Rhine);
   the Helvetii and other mountain races, whose scanty pastures
   extended to the sources of the Rhine; the Allobroges, who
   dwelt upon the Isere and Rhone, and who were the first of
   their race to meet and the first to succumb before the prowess
   of the Roman legions. According to the classification both of
   Cæsar and Strabo, the Turones, Pictones and Santones must be
   comprised under the same general denomination."

In the year 280 B. C. the Gauls, who had long before passed from northern Italy around the Adriatic to its eastern coast, made their first appearance in Macedonia and northern Greece. The Macedonian throne was occupied at the time by the infamous usurper, Ptolemy Ceraunus (see MACEDONIA: B. C. 297-280), and the Celtic savages did one good service to Greece by slaying him, in the single battle that was fought. The whole open country was abandoned to them, for a time, and they swept it, as far southward as the valley of the Peneus, in Thessaly; but the walled cities were safe. After ravaging the country for some months the Gauls appear to have retired; but it was only to return again the next year in more formidable numbers and under a chief, Brennus, of more vigor and capability. On this occasion the country suffered fearfully from the barbaric swarm, but defended itself with something like the spirit of the Greece of two centuries before. The Ætolians were conspicuous in the struggle; the Peloponnesian states gave little assistance. The policy of defense was much the same as at the time of the Persian invasion, and the enemy was confronted in force at the pass of Thermopylæ. Brennus made a more desperate attempt to force the pass than Xerxes had done and was beaten back with a tremendous slaughter of his Gauls. But he found traitors, as Xerxes had done, to guide him over the mountains, and the Greeks at Thermopylæ, surrounded by the enemy, could only escape by sea. The Gauls marched on Delphi, eager for the plunder of the great temple, and there they met with some fatal disaster. Precisely what occurred is not known. According to the Greeks, the god protected his sanctuary, and the accounts they have left are full of miracles and prodigies—of earthquakes, lightnings, tempests, and disease. The only clear facts seem to be that Delphi was successfully defended; that the Gauls retreated in disorder and were destroyed in vast numbers before the remnant of them got away from the country. Brennus is said to have killed himself to escape the wrath of his people for the failure of the expedition. One large body of the great army had separated from the rest and gone eastward into Thrace, before the catastrophe occurred. These subsequently passed over to Asia and pursued there an adventurous career, leaving a historic name in the country.

"The Irish law of succession in landed property, known as that of Irish gavelkind, was a logical consequence of the theory of tribal ownership. If a member of the tribe died, his piece of land did not descend by right to his eldest son, or even to all his children equally. Originally, it reverted to its sole absolute owner, the tribe, every member of which had a right to use proportionate to his tribal status. This was undoubtedly the essential principle of inheritance by gavelkind."

In his march from Phœnicia to Egypt (see MACEDONIA, &c.: B. C. 334-330), Alexander the Great was compelled to pause for several months and lay siege to the ancient Philistine city of Gaza. It was defended for the Persian king by a brave eunuch named Batis. In the course of the siege, Alexander received a severe wound in the shoulder, which irritated his savage temper. When the town was at length taken by storm, he gave no quarter. Its male inhabitants were put to the sword and the women and children sold to slavery. The eunuch Batis, being captured alive, but wounded, was dragged by the feet at the tail of a chariot, driven at full speed by Alexander himself. The "greatest of conquerors" proved himself often enough, in this way, to be the greatest of barbarians—in his age.

Gaza having sided with the Egyptian king, in a war between Alexander Jannæus, one of the Asmonean kings of the Jews, and Ptolemy Lathyrus of Egypt and Cyprus, the former laid siege to the city, about 100 B. C., and acquired possession of it after several months, through treachery. He took his revenge by massacring the inhabitants and reducing the city to ruins. It was rebuilt not long afterwards by the Romans.

GAZACA.

GAZNEVIDES, OR GHAZNEVIDES.

"Close to the Indus, and beyond the bare, hot, treeless shores of the ocean, the southern part of the plain [of eastern Iran] consists of sandy flats, in which nothing grows but prickly herbs and a few palms. The springs are a day's journey from each other, and often more. This region was possessed by a people whom Herodotus calls Sattagydæ and the companions of Alexander of Macedonia, Gedrosians. … Neighbours of the Gandarians, who, as we know, dwelt on the right bank of the Indus down to the Cabul, the Gedrosians led a wandering, predatory life; under the Persian kings, they were united into one satrapy with the Gandarians."

GELEONTES.

   An ancient colony of Greeks intermixed with natives which
   shared the country of the Budini, on the steppes between the
   Ural Mountains and the Caspian Sea.

GEMEINDE. GEMEINDERATH.

GEMOT.

GENABUM, OR CENABUM.

The principal town of the Gallic tribe called the Carnutes; identified by most archæologists with the modern city of Orleans, France, though some think its site was at Gien.

GENERAL PRIVILEGE OF ARAGON.

GENEVA: A. D. 1401.
Acquisition of the Genevois, or County, by the House of Savoy.
The city surrounded.

GENEVA: A. D. 1504-1535.
   The emancipation of the city from the Vidomme and the
   Prince-Bishop.
   Triumph of the Reformation.

"Geneva was nominally a free city of the Empire, but had in reality been governed for some centuries by its own bishop, associated with a committee of lay-assessors, and controlled by the general body of the citizens, in whose hands the ultimate power of taxation, and of election of the magistrates and regulation of the police, rested. The prince-bishop did not exercise his temporal jurisdiction directly, but through an officer called the Vidomme (vice-dominus), whose rights had in the 15th century become hereditary in the dukes of Savoy. These rights appear to have been exercised without any considerable attempt at encroachment till the beginning of the following century, when Charles III. succeeded to the ducal crown (1504). To his ambition the bishop, John, a weak and willing tool of the Savoy family, to which he was nearly allied, ceded everything; and the result was a tyrannical attempt to destroy the liberties of the Genevese. The Assembly of the citizens rose in arms; a bitter and sanguinary contest ensued between the Eidgenossen [Confederates] or Patriot party on the one side, and the Mamelukes or monarchical party on the other side. By the help of the free Helvetian states, particularly Berne and Friburg, the Patriots triumphed, the friends of Savoy were banished, the Vidommate abolished, and its powers transferred to a board of magistrates. The conduct of the bishops in this conflict … helped greatly, as may be imagined, to shake the old hierarchical authority in Geneva; and when, in 1532, Farel first made his appearance in the city, he found a party not indisposed to join him in his eager and zealous projects of reform. He had a hard fight for it, however, and was at first obliged to yield, and leave the city for a time; and it was not till August 1535 that he and Viret and Froment succeeded in abolishing the mass, and establishing the Protestant faith."

ALSO IN: J. Planta, History of the Helvetic Confederacy, book 2, chapter 6 (volume 2).

"Humanly speaking, it was a mere accident which caused Calvin to yield to the entreaties of his friends to remain in the city where he was to begin his renowned efforts in the cause of reform. Geneva had been from ancient times one of the most flourishing imperial cities of the Burgundian territory; it was situated on the frontiers of several countries where the cross roads of various nationalities met. The city, which in itself was remarkable, belonged originally to the German empire; the language of its inhabitants was Romanic; it was bounded on one side by Burgundy, on the other by German Switzerland. … Geneva was apparently in a state of political, ecclesiastical, and moral decay. With the puritanical strictness of Geneva, as it afterwards became, before the mind's eye, it is difficult to picture the Geneva of that day. An unbridled love of pleasure, a reckless wantonness, a licentious frivolity had taken possession of Genevan life, while the State was the plaything of intestine and foreign feuds. … Reformers had already appeared in the city: Vinet, Farel, Theodore Beza; they were Frenchmen, Farel a near neighbour of Geneva. These French Reformers are of quite a different stamp from our Germans, who, according as Luther or Melancthon is taken as their type, have either a plebeian popular, or learned theological character. They are either popular orators of great power and little polish, or they belong to the learned circles, and keep strictly to this character. In France they were mostly men belonging not to the lower, but to the middle and higher ranks of society, refined and cultivated; and in this fact lay the weakness of Calvinism, which knew well how to rule the masses, but never to gain their affection. … {1418} His [Calvin's] greatness … was shown in the fanatical zeal with which he entered the city, ready to stake his life for his cause. He began to teach, to found a school, to labour on the structure which was the idea of his life, to introduce reforms in doctrine, worship, the constitution and discipline of the Church, and he preached with that powerful eloquence only possessed by those in whom character and teaching are in unison. The purified worship was to take place within bare, unadorned walls; no picture of Christ, nor pomp of any kind, was to disturb the aspirations of the soul. Life outside the temple was also to be a service of God; games, swearing, dancing, singing, worldly amusements, and pleasure were regarded by him as sins, as much as real vice and crime. He began to form little congregations, like those in the early ages of the Church, and it need scarcely be said that even in this worldly and pleasure-loving city the apparition of this man, in the full vigour of life, all conviction and determination, half prophet and half tribune, produced a powerful impression. The number of his outward followers increased, but they were outward followers only. Most of them thought it would be well to make use of the bold Reformer to oppose the bishop, and that he would find means of establishing a new and independent Church, but they seemed to regard freedom as libertinism. Calvin therefore regarded the course things were taking with profound dissatisfaction. … So he delivered some extremely severe sermons, which half frightened and half estranged his hearers; and at Easter, 1538, when the congregation came to partake of the Lord's Supper, he took the unheard-of step of sending them all back from the altar, saying, 'You are not worthy to partake of the Lord's body; you are just what you were before; your sentiments, your morals, and your conduct are unchanged.' This was more than could be hazarded without peril to his life. The effect was indescribable; his own friends disapproved of the step. But that did not dismay him. He had barely time to flee for his life, and he had to leave Geneva in a state of transition—a chaos which justified a saying of his own, that defection from one Church is not renovation by another. He was now once more an exile. He wandered about on the frontiers of his country, in the German cities of Strasburg, Basle, &c., and we several times meet with him in the religious discussions between 1540 and 1550. … But a time came when they wished him back at Geneva. … In September, 1541, he returned and began his celebrated labours. Endowed with supreme power, like Lycurgus at Sparta, he set to work to make Geneva a city of the Lord—to found an ecclesiastical state in which religion, public life, government, and the worship of God were to be all of a piece, and an extraordinary task it was. Calvinistic Geneva became the school of reform for western Europe, and scattered far and wide the germs of similar institutions. In times when Protestantism elsewhere had become cool, this school carried on the conflict with the mediæval Church. Calvin was implacable in his determination to purify the worship of God of all needless adjuncts. All that was calculated to charm and affect the senses was abolished; spiritual worship should be independent of all earthly things, and should consist of edification by the word, and simple spiritual songs. All the traditional externals that Luther had retained—altars, pictures, ceremonials, and decorations of every kind—were dispensed with. … Calvin next established a system of Church discipline which controlled the individual in every relation of life, and ruled him from the cradle to the grave. He retained all the means by which ecclesiastical authority enforced obedience on the faithful in the Middle Ages—baptism, education up to confirmation, penance, penal discipline, and excommunication. … Calvin began his labours late in the autumn of 1541, and he acquired and maintained more power than was ever exercised by the most powerful popes. He was indeed only the 'preacher of the word,' but through his great influence he was the lawgiver, the administrator, the dictator of the State of Geneva. There was nothing in the commonwealth that had not been ordained by him, and this indicates a remarkable aspect of his character. The organization of the State of Geneva began with the ordinances of the 2nd of January, 1542. There were four orders of officials—pastors, teachers, elders, and deacons. The Consistory was formed of the pastors and elders. … It was the special duty of the Consistory, which was composed of the clergy and twelve laymen, to see that the ordinances were duly observed, and it was the supreme tribunal of morals. The twelve laymen were elected for a year, by the council of two hundred, on the nomination by the clergy. The Consistory met every Thursday to see that everything in the church was in order. They had the power of excommunication, but this only consisted in exclusion from the community of the faithful, and the loss of the privilege of partaking of the Lord's Supper. It also decided questions relating to marriage. The deacons had the care of the poor and of almsgiving. Calvin himself was the soul of the whole organization. But he was a cold, stiff, almost gloomy being, and his character produces a very different impression from the genial warmth of Luther, who could be cheerful and merry with his family. Half Old Testament prophet, half Republican demagogue, Calvin could do anything in his State, but it was by means of his personal influence, the authority of his words, 'the majesty of his character,' as was said by a magistrate of Geneva after his death. He was to the last the simple minister, whose frugal mode of life appeared to his enemies like niggardliness. After a reign of twenty-three years, he left behind him the possessions of a mendicant monk. … No other reformer established so rigid a church discipline. … All noisy games, games of chance, dancing, singing of profane songs, cursing and swearing, were forbidden, and … church-going and Sabbath-keeping were strictly enjoined. The moral police took account of everything. Every citizen had to be at home by nine o'clock, under heavy penalties. Adultery, which had previously been punished by a few days' imprisonment and a small fine, was now punished by death. … At a time when Europe had no solid results of reform to show, this little State of Geneva stood up as a great power; year by year it sent forth apostles into the world, who preached its doctrines everywhere, and it became the most dreaded counterpoise to Rome, when Rome no longer had any bulwark to defend her. … It formed a weighty counterpoise to the desperate efforts which the ancient Church and monarchical power were making to crush the spirit of the Reformation. {1419} It was impossible to oppose Caraffa, Philip II., and the Stuarts, with Luther's passive resistance; men were wanted who were ready to wage war to the knife, and such was the Calvinistic school. It everywhere accepted the challenge; throughout all the conflicts for political and religious liberty, up to the time of the first emigration to America, in France, the Netherlands, England, and Scotland, we recognise the Genevan school. A little bit of the world's history was enacted in Geneva, which forms the proudest portion of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries."

J. H. Merle D'Aubigne, History of the Reformation in the time of Calvin, books 9 and 11.

      L. von Ranke,
      Civil Wars and Monarchy in France, 16th-17th Centuries,
      chapter 8.

GENEVA: A. D. 1570.
Treaty with the Duke of Savoy.
Agreement of non-molestation.

GENEVA: A. D. 1602-1603.
The escalade of the Savoyards and its repulse.
Treaty of St. Julien.

Finding a pretext in some hostile manifestations which had appeared among the Genevese during a conflict between the French king and himself, Charles Emanuel I., duke of Savoy, chose to consider himself at war with Geneva, and "determined to fight out his quarrel without further notice. The night of the 11th to the 12th of December, 1602. is forever memorable in the annals of Geneva. 4,000 Savoyards, aided by darkness, attempted the escalade of its walls; an unforeseen accident disconcerted them; the citizens exhibited the most heroic presence of mind; the ladders by which the aggressors ascended were shot down by a random cannon-ball; the troops outside fell into confusion; those who had already entered the town were either mowed down in fight or hung on the scaffold on the morrow; thus the whole enterprise miscarried. It was in vain that the Duke came forward with his whole host, and tried to prevail by open force where stratagem had failed. He was thwarted by the intervention of the French and Swiss, and compelled by their threats to sign the Treaty of St. Julien (July 21st, 1603), which secured the independence of the Genevese. Charles nevertheless did not, to his last day, give up his designs upon that city."

GENEVA: A. D. 1815.
United as a canton to the Swiss Confederation, by the Congress
of Vienna.

GENEVA TRIBUNAL OF ARBITRATION.

"Genoa, anciently Genua, was the chief maritime city of Liguria, and afterwards a Roman municipium. Under the Lombards the constant invasions of the Saracens united the professions of trade and war, and its greatest merchants became also its greatest generals, while its naval captains were also merchants. The Crusades were of great advantage to Genoa [see CRUSADES: A. D. 1104-1111] in enabling it to establish trading settlements as far as the Black Sea; but the power of Pisa in the East, as well as its possession of Corsica and Sardinia, led to wars between it and Genoa, in which the Genoese took Corsica [see CORSICA: EARLY HISTORY] and drove the Pisans out of Sardinia. By land the Genoese territory was extended to Nice on one side and to Spezia on the other."

GENOA: A. D. 1261-1299.
   The supplanting of Venice at Constantinople and in the Black
   Sea trade.
   Colonies in the Crimea.
   Wars with Venice.
   Victory at Curzola and favorable treaty of peace.

During the Latin dynasty in Constantinople the Genoese never gained the first place in the commerce of the Black Sea. … It was Venice who held the key of all this commerce, at Constantinople; when, after diverting the whole course of the fourth Crusade, she induced Christendom to waste its energies on subduing the Greek empire for her benefit [see BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A.D. 1203-1204]. With the exiled Greek dynasty, however, the Genoese were always on the best of terms, at Trebizond, Nicea, and in Roumania; and recognizing that as long as the Latins were all-powerful in Constantinople she would have to relinquish the cream of the Black Sea commerce to the Queen of the Adriatic, she at length determined to strike a bold stroke and replace a Greek again on the throne." This was accomplished in 1261, when Baldwin II. fled from the Byzantine capital and Michael Paleologus took possession of his throne and crown (see GREEK EMPIRE OF NICÆA: A. D. 1204-1261). For the assistance given in that revolution, the Genoese obtained the treaty of Ninfeo, "which firmly established their influence in the Black Sea. … Thus did the brave mariner-town of Genoa turn the scale of the vast, but rotten, Eastern Empire; and her reward was manifold. The grateful emperor gave her streets and quays in Constantinople, immunity from tribute, and a free passage for her commerce. … In addition to these excellent terms in the treaty of Ninfeo, the emperor conceded to various Genoese private families numerous islands in the Archipelago. … But the great nucleus of this power was the streets, churches, and quays in Constantinople which were allotted to the Genoese, and formed a vast emporium of strength and commerce, which must have eventually led to entire possession of Constantinople, had not the 'podesta,' or ruler of the Genoese colony there, thought fit, from personal motives, or from large offers made him by the Venetians, to attempt a restoration of the Latin line. … His conspiracy was discovered, and the Genoese were sent away in a body to Eraclea. However, on representation from home that it was none of their doing, and that Guercio had been acting entirely on his own account, the emperor yielded in perpetuity to the Genoese the town of Pera, on the sole condition that the governors should do him homage [see, also, CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1261-1453]. … {1420} Thus were the Genoese established in this commanding position; here they had a separate government of their own, from here they ruled the road of commerce from China to Europe; and, taking advantage of the weakness of the emperors, they were able to do much as they wished about building fortresses and palaces, with gardens to the water's edge; and thus from Pera, with its citadel of Galata behind it, they were enabled to dictate what terms they pleased to ships passing to and from the Bosphorus." In the Black Sea, "from time immemorial, the small tongue of land now known as the Crimea, then as the Tauric Chersonese, was the mart towards which all the caravan trade of Asia was directed by this northern road, and upon this tongue of land sprang up a group of noble cities which, until finally seized by the Turks, were without exception Genoese property. Of these, Caffa was the chief. When this city was built on the ruins of Theodosia, and by whom, is somewhat shrouded in mystery. Certain it is that Genoa had a colony here soon after the first Crusade. … Second only to Caffa in importance, and better known to us by name, was the town of Crim, which gave its name eventually to the whole peninsula, which originally it had got from the Crim Tatars. … Prior to its cession to the Genoese, it had been the residence of a Tatar emperor. … Here, then, in this narrow tongue of land, which we now call the Crimea, was the kernel of Genoese prosperity. As long as she flourished here she flourished at home. And when at length the Turkish scourge swept over this peninsula and swallowed up her colonies, the Ligurian Republic, by a process of slow decay, withered like a sapless tree." The supplanting of the Venetians at Constantinople by the Genoese, and the great advantages gained by the latter in the commerce of the Black Sea, led necessarily to war between the rival republics. "To maintain her newly acquired influence in the East, Genoa sent forth a fleet under the joint command of Pierino Grimaldi, a noble, and Perchelto Mallone, the people's representative. They encountered the Venetian squadron at Malvasia [1263] which was greatly inferior to their own. But as the combatants were just warming to their work, Mallone, actuated by party spirit, withdrew his ships and sailed away. The Venetians could scarcely believe what they saw; they anticipated some deep laid stratagem, and withdrew for a while from the contest. When however they beheld Mallone's galleys fairly under sail, they wonderingly attacked Grimaldi and his 13 ships and obtained an easy victory. Grimaldi fell at his post. … This fatal day of Malvasia [sometimes called the battle of Sette Pozzi] might easily have secured Venice her lost place in the Black Sea had she been able to follow up her victory, but with inexplicable want of vigour she remained inactive." Genoa, meantime, recovered from the disaster and sent out another fleet which captured a rich squadron of Venetian merchant ships in the Adriatic, taking large booty. "It surprises us immensely to find how for the next thirty years Genoa was able to keep up a desultory warfare with Venice, when she was at the height of her struggle with Pisa; and it surprises us still more that Venice raised not a hand to assist Pisa, though she was on most friendly terms with her, and when by so doing she could have ruined Genoa. … After the fall of Pisa at Meloria, in 1296 [1284], Genoa could transfer her attention with all the greater vigour to her contest against Venice. Four years after this victory men's minds were again bent on war. Venice cared not to pay a tax to her rival on all ships which went to Caffa, Genoa resented the treatment she had received in Cyprus, and thus the rivals prepared for another and more determined contest for supremacy." The Venetians sent a fleet to operate in the Black Sea. "Fire was set to the houses of Galata, irreparable damage was done to Caffa, and in the Archipelago everything Genoese was burnt, and then off they sailed for Cyprus, whilst the Genoese were squabbling amongst themselves. With much trouble the many rulers of Genoa succeeded at length in adjusting their difference, and a goodly array of 76 galleys was entrusted to the care of Lamba D'Oria to punish the Venetians for their depredations. … Much larger was the force Venice produced for the contest, and when the combatants met off Curzola, amongst the Dalmatian islands, the Genoese were anxious to come to terms, and sought them, but the Venetians haughtily refused. … This battle of Curzola [September 8, 1298] was a sharp and vehement struggle, and resulted in terrible loss to the Venetians, four of whose galleys alone escaped to tell the tale. … Had Lamba D'Oria but driven the contest home, Venice was ill-prepared to meet him; as it was, he determined to sail off to Genoa, taking with him the Venetian admiral … Dandolo. Chained to the mast of his own vessel, and unable to sustain the effects of his humiliation, there, as he stood, Dandolo dashed his head against the mast and died. … The natural result of such a victory was a most favourable peace for Genoa, signed under the direction of Matteo Visconti, lord of Milan, in 1299; and thus the century closed on Genoa as without doubt the most powerful state in Italy, and unquestionably the mistress of the Mediterranean. … The next outbreak of war between the two Republics had its origin in the occupation of the island of Chios, in 1349," and Genoa in that struggle encountered not the Venetians alone, but the Greeks and Catalans in alliance with them.

      ALSO IN:
      W. C. Hazlitt,
      History of the Venetian Republic,
      chapter 11 (volume 2).

GENOA: A. D. 1282-1290.
   War with Pisa.
   The great victory of Meloria.
   Capture of the chain of the Pisan harbor.

GENOA: A. D. 1318-1319.
   Feuds of the four great families.
   Siege of the city by the exiles and the Lombard princes, and
   its defense by the King of Naples.

GENOA: A. D. 1381-1422.
   A succession of foreign masters.
   The King of France, the Marquis of Monferrat
   and the Duke of Milan.

The history of Genoa for more than a century after the disastrous War of Chioggia "is one long and melancholy tissue of internal and external troubles, coming faster and faster upon one another as the inherent vitality of the Republic grew weaker. … During this period we have a constant and unhealthy craving for foreign masters, be they Marquises of Monferrato, Dukes of Milan, or the more formidable subverters of freedom, the kings of France. … In 1396 … Adorno [then doge of Genoa], finding himself unable to tyrannize as he wished, decided on handing over the government to Charles VI. of France. In this he was ably backed up by many members of the old nobility, as the signatures to the treaty testify. The king was to be entitled 'Defender of the Commune and People,' and was to respect in every way the existing order of things. So on the 27th of November, in that year, the great bell in the tower of the ducal palace was rung, the French standard was raised by the side of the red cross of Genoa, and in the great council hall, where her rulers had sat for centuries, now sat enthroned the French ambassadors, whilst Antoniotto Adorno handed over to them the sceptre and keys of the city. These symbols of government were graciously restored to him, with the admonition that he should no longer be styled 'doge,' but 'governor' in the name of France. Thus did Adorno sell his country for the love of power, preferring to be the head of many slaves, rather than to live as a subordinate in a free community. The first two governors sent by France after Adorno's death were unable to cope with the seething mass of corruption they found within the city walls, until the Marshal Boucicault was sent, whose name was far famed for cruelty in Spain against the Moors, in Bulgaria against the Turks, and in France against the rebels." The government of Boucicault was hard and cruel, and "his name is handed down by the Genoese as the most hateful of her many tyrants." In 1409 they took advantage of his absence from the city to bring in the Marquis of Monferrato, who established himself in his place. "It was but for a brief period that the Genoese submitted to the Marquis of Monferrato; they preferred to return to their doges and internal quarrels. … Throughout the city nothing was heard but the din of arms. Brother fought against brother, father against son, and for the whole of an unusually chill December, in 1414, there was not a by-path in Genoa which was not paved with lances, battle-axes and dead bodies. … Out of this fiery trial Genoa at length emerged with Tommaso Campofregoso as her doge, one of the few bright lights which illumined Liguria during the early part of this century. … The Genoese arms during this time of quiescence again shone forth with something of their ancient brilliancy. Corsica was subdued, and a substantial league was formed with Henry V. of England, … 1421, by which perpetual friendship and peace by land and sea was sworn. Short, however, was the period during which Genoa could rest contented at home. Campofregoso was driven from the dogeship, and Filippo Maria, Visconti of Milan, was appointed protector of the Republic [1422], and through this allegiance the Genoese were drawn into an unprofitable war for the succession in Naples, in which the Duke of Milan and the Pope supported the claims of Queen Joanna and her adopted son, Louis of Anjou, against Alphonso of Aragon."

"The Bank of St. George was founded in Genoa in the year 1407. It was an immense success and a great support to the government. It gradually became a republic within the republic, more peaceful and better regulated than its mistress." In 1448 the administration of Corsica and of the Genoese colonies in the Levant was transferred to the Bank, which thenceforward appointed governors and conducted colonial affairs.

GENOA: A. D. 1421-1435.
Submission to the Duke of Milan, and recovery of the freedom
of the city.

GENOA: A. D. 1458-1464.
   Renewed struggles of domestic faction and changes of foreign
   masters.
   Submission to the Dukes of Milan.

"Genoa, wearied with internal convulsions, which followed each other incessantly, had lost all influence over the rest of Italy; continually oppressed by faction, it no longer preserved even the recollection of liberty. In 1458, it had submitted to the king of France, then Charles VII.; and John of Anjou, duke of Calabria, had come to exercise the functions of governor in the king's name. He made it, at the same time, his fortress, from whence to attack the kingdom of Naples.

But this war had worn out the patience of the Genoese; they rose against the French; and, on the 17th of July, 1461, destroyed the army sent to subdue them by René of Anjou. The Genoese had no sooner thrown off a foreign yoke than they became divided into two factions,—the Adorni and the Fregosi, [severally partisans of two families of that name which contended for the control of the republic]: both had at different times, and more than once, given them a doge. The more violent and tyrannical of these factious magistrates was Paolo Fregoso, also archbishop of Genoa, who had returned to his country, in 1462, as chief of banditti; and left it again, two years afterwards, as chief of a band of pirates. The Genoese, disgusted with their independence, which was disgraced by so many crimes and disturbances, had, on the 13th of April, 1464, yielded to Francesco Sforza, duke of Milan; and afterwards remained subject to his son Galeazzo."

GENOA: A. D. 1500-1507.
Capitulation to Louis XII. of France, conqueror of Milan.
Revolt and subjugation.

By the conquest of Milan (see ITALY: A. D. 1499-1500), Louis XII. of France acquired the signoria of Genoa, which had been held by the deposed duke, Ludovico Sforza. "According to the capitulation, one half of the magistrates of Genoa should be noble, the other half plebeian. They were to be chosen by the suffrages of their fellow-citizens; they were to retain the government of the whole of Liguria, and the administration of their own finances, with the reservation of a fixed sum payable yearly to the king of France. But the French could never comprehend that nobles were on an equality with villains; that a king was bound by conditions imposed by his subjects; or that money could be refused to him who had force. All the capitulations of Genoa were successively violated; while the Genoese nobles ranged themselves on the side of a king against their country: they were known to carry insolently about them a dagger, on which was inscribed, 'Chastise villains'; so impatient were they to separate themselves from the people, even by meanness and assassination. That people could not support the double yoke of a foreign master and of nobles who betrayed their country. On the 7th of February, 1507, they revolted, drove out the French, proclaimed the republic, and named a new doge; but time failed them to organize their defence. On the 3d of April, Louis advanced from Grenoble with a powerful army. He soon arrived before Genoa: the newly-raised militia, unable to withstand veteran troops, were defeated. Louis entered Genoa on the 29th of April; and immediately sent the doge and the greater number of the generous citizens, who had signalized themselves in the defence of their country, to the scaffold."

ALSO IN: L. von Ranke, History of the Latin and Teutonic Nations from 1494 to 1514, page 260.

GENOA: A. D. 1527-1528.
   French dominion momentarily restored and then overthrown by
   Andrew Doria.
   The republic revived.

GENOA: A. D. 1528-1559.
The conspiracy of Fiesco and its failure.
Revolt and recovery of Corsica.

"Sustained by the ability of Doria, and protected by the arms of Charles V., the Republic, during near nineteen years subsequent to this auspicious revolution, continued in the enjoyment of dignified independence and repose. But, the memorable conspiracy of Louis Fiesco, Count of Lavagna, the Catiline of Liguria, had nearly subverted Genoa, and reduced it anew to the obedience of France, or exposed it once more to all the misfortunes of anarchy. The massacre of Doria and his family constituted one of the primary objects of the plot; while the dissimulation, intrepidity, and capacity, which marked its leader … have rendered the attempt one of the most extraordinary related in modern history. It was accompanied with complete success till the moment of its termination. Jeannetin Doria, the heir of that house, having perished by the dagger, and Andrew, his uncle, being with difficulty saved by his servants, who transported him out of the city, the Genoese Senate was about to submit unconditionally to Fiesco, when that nobleman, by a sudden and accidental death, at once rendered abortive his own hopes and those of his followers. The government, resuming courage, expelled the surviving conspirators; and Doria, on his return to the city, sullied the lustre of his high character, by proceeding to acts of cruelty against the brothers and adherents of the Count of Lavagna. Notwithstanding this culpable and vindictive excess, he continued invariably firm to the political principles which he had inculcated, for maintaining the freedom of the Commonwealth. Philip, Prince of Spain, son of Charles V., having visited Genoa in the succeeding year, attempted to induce the senate, under specious pretences of securing their safety, to consent to the construction of a citadel, garrisoned by Spaniards. But he found in that assembly, as well as in Doria, an insurmountable opposition to the measure, which was rejected with unanimous indignation. The island of Corsica, which had been subjected for ages to Genoa, and which was oppressed by a tyrannical administration, took up arms at this period [1558-1559]; and the French having aided the insurgents, they maintained a long and successful struggle against their oppressors. But the peace concluded at Cateau between Philip, King of Spain, and Henry II., in which the Spanish court dictated terms to France, obliged that nation to evacuate their Corsican acquisitions, and to restore the island to the Genoese.

Soon afterwards [1559], at the very advanced age of ninety, Andrew Doria expired in his own palace, surrounded by the people on whom he had conferred freedom and tranquillity; leaving the Commonwealth in domestic repose and undisturbed by foreign war."

GENOA: A. D. 1745.
The republic sides with Spain and France in the War of the
Austrian Succession.

GENOA: A. D. 1746-1747.
   Surrendered to the Austrians.
   Popular rising.
   Expulsion of the Austrian garrison.
   Long siege and deliverance of the city.

GENOA: A. D. 1797.
Revolution forced by Bonaparte.
Creation of the Ligurian Republic.

GENOA: A. D. 1800.
   Siege by the Austrians.
   Masséna's defense.
   Surrender of the city.

GENOA: A. D. 1814.
Reduction of the forts by English troops.
Surrender of the French garrison.

GENS, GENTES, GENTILES.

"When Roman history begins, there were within the city, and subordinate to the common city government, a large number of smaller bodies, each of which preserved its individuality and some semblance of governmental machinery. These were clans [gens], and in prehistoric times each of them is taken to have had an independent political existence, living apart, worshiping its own gods, and ruled over by its own chieftain. This clan organization is not supposed to have been peculiar at all to Rome, but ancient society in general was composed of an indefinite number of such bodies, which, at the outset, treated with each other in a small way as nations might treat with each other to-day. It needs to be noted, however, that, at any rate, so far as Rome is concerned, this is a matter of inference, not of historical proof. The earliest political divisions in Latium of which we have any trace consisted of such clans united into communities. If they ever existed, separately, therefore their union must have been deliberate and artificial, and the body thus formed was the canton ('civitas' or 'populus'). Each canton had a fixed common stronghold ('capitolium,' 'height,' or 'arx'—cf. 'arceo' —'citadel') situated on some central elevation. The clans dwelt around in hamlets ('vici' or 'pagi') scattered through the canton. Originally, the central stronghold was not a place of residence like the 'pagi,' but a place of refuge … and a place of meeting. … In all of this, therefore, the clan seems to lie at the very foundation. … Any clan in the beginning, of course, must have been simply a family. When it grew so large as to be divided into sections, the sections were known as families ('familiæ') and their union was the clan. In this view the family, as we find it existing in the Roman state, was a subdivision of the clan. In other words, historically, families did not unite to form clans, but the clan was the primitive thing, and the families were its branches. Men thus recognized kinship of a double character. They were related to all the members of their clan as 'gentiles,' and again more closely to all the members of their branch of the clan at once as 'gentiles' and also as 'agnati.' As already stated, men belonged to the same family ('agnati') when they could trace their descent through males from a common ancestor who gave its name to the family, or, what is the same thing, was its eponym. Between the members of a clan the chief evidence of relationship in historical times was tradition. … We have thus outlined what is known as the patriarchal theory of society, and hinted at its application to certain facts in Roman history. It should be remembered, however, that it is only a theory, and that it is open to some apparent and to some real criticism."

"The patricians were divided into certain private associations, called Gentes, which we may translate Houses or Clans. All the members of each Gens were called gentiles; and they bore the same name, which always ended in -ius; as for instance, every member of the Julian Gens was a Julius; every member of the Cornelian Gens was a Cornelius, and so on. Now in every Gens there were a number of Families which were distinguished by a name added to the name of the Gens. Thus the Scipios, Sullas, Cinnas, Cethegi, Lentuli, were all families of the Cornelian Gens. Lastly, every person of every Family was denoted by a name prefixed to the name of the Gens. The name of the person was, in Latin, prænomen; that of the Gens or House, nomen, that of the Family, cognomen. Thus Caius Julius Cæsar was a person of the Cæsar Family in the Julian Gens; Lucius Cornelius Scipio was a person of the Scipio Family in the Cornelian Gens; and so forth."

"There is no word in the English language which satisfactorily renders the Latin word 'gens.' The term 'clan' is apt to mislead; for the Scotch Highland clans were very different from the Roman 'gentes.' The word 'House' is not quite correct, for it always implies relationship, which was not essential in the 'gens'; but for want of a better word we shall use 'House' to express 'gens,' except where the spirit of the language rejects the term and requires 'family' instead. The German language has in the word 'Geschlecht' an almost equivalent term for the Latin 'gens'."

GENSERIC AND THE VANDALS.

GENTILES.

A law which prohibited the taking of interest for loans is said to have been adopted at Rome, B. C. 342, on the proposal of the tribune Genucius; but modern historians are skeptical as to the actual enactment of the law.

"As far as our imperfect information enables us to trace, these early oligarchies of the Grecian states, against which the first usurping despots contended, contained in themselves more repulsive elements of inequality, and more mischievous barriers between the component parts of the population, than the oligarchies of later days. … The oligarchy was not (like the government so denominated in subsequent times) the government of a rich few over the less rich and the poor, but that of a peculiar order, sometimes a Patrician order, over all the remaining society. … The country-population, or villagers who tilled the land, seem in these early times to have been held to a painful dependence on the great proprietors who lived in the fortified town, and to have been distinguished by a dress and habits of their own, which often drew upon them an unfriendly nickname. … The governing proprietors went by the name of the Gamori, or Geomori, according as the Doric or Ionic dialect might be used in describing them, since they were found in states belonging to one race as well as to the other. They appear to have constituted a close order, transmitting their privileges to their children, but admitting no new members to a participation. The principle called by Greek thinkers a Timocracy (the apportionment of political rights and privileges according to comparative property) seems to have been little, if at all, applied in the earlier times. We know no example of it earlier than Solon."

GEORGE I.,
King of England (first of the Hanoverian or Brunswick line),
A. D. 1714-1727.

GEORGIA: A. D. 1663.
Embraced in the Carolina grant to Monk,
Clarendon, and others.

"Among the members of Parliament during the rule of Sir Robert Walpole was one almost unknown to us now, but deserving of honour beyond most men of his time. His name was James Oglethorpe. He was a soldier, and had fought against the Turks and in the great Marlborough wars against Louis XIV. In advanced life he became the friend of Samuel Johnson. Dr. Johnson urged him to write some account of his adventures. 'I know no one,' he said, 'whose life would be more interesting: if I were furnished with materials I should be very glad to write it.' Edmund Burke considered him 'a more extraordinary person than any he had ever read of.' John Wesley 'blessed God that ever he was born.' Oglethorpe attained the great age of ninety-six, and died in the year 1785. … In Oglethorpe's time it was in the power of a creditor to imprison, according to his pleasure, the man who owed him money and was not able to pay it. It was a common circumstance that a man should be imprisoned during a long series of years for a trifling debt. Oglethorpe had a friend upon whom this hard fate had fallen. His attention was thus painfully called to the cruelties which were inflicted upon the unfortunate and helpless. He appealed to Parliament, and after inquiry a partial remedy was obtained. The benevolent exertions of Oglethorpe procured liberty for multitudes who but for him might have ended their lives in captivity. This, however, did not content him. Liberty was an incomplete gift to men who had lost, or perhaps had scarcely ever possessed, the faculty of earning their own maintenance. Oglethorpe devised how lie might carry these unfortunates to a new world, where, under happier auspices, they might open a fresh career. He obtained [A. D. 1732] from King George II. a charter by which the country between the Savannah and the Alatamaha, and stretching westward to the Pacific, was erected into the province of Georgia. It was to be a refuge for the deserving poor, and next to them for Protestants suffering persecution. Parliament voted £10,000 in aid of the humane enterprise, and many benevolent persons were liberal with their gifts. In November the first exodus of the insolvent took place. Oglethorpe sailed with 120 emigrants, mainly selected from the prisons—penniless, but of good repute. He surveyed the coasts of Georgia, and chose a site for the capital of his new State. He pitched his tent where Savannah now stands, and at once proceeded to mark out the line of streets and squares. Next year the colony was joined by about a hundred German Protestants, who were then under persecution for their beliefs. … The fame of Oglethorpe's enterprise spread over Europe. All struggling men, against whom the battle of life went hard, looked to Georgia as a land of promise. They were the men who most urgently required to emigrate; but they were not always the men best fitted to conquer the difficulties of the immigrant's life. The progress of the colony was slow. The poor persons of whom it was originally composed were honest but ineffective, and could not in Georgia more than in England find out the way to become self-supporting. Encouragements were given which drew from Germany, from Switzerland, and from the Highlands of Scotland men of firmer texture of mind—better fitted to subdue the wilderness and bring forth its treasures. With Oglethorpe there went out, on his second expedition to Georgia [1736], the two brothers John and Charles Wesley. Charles went as secretary to the Governor. John was even then, although a very young man, a preacher of unusual promise. … He spent two years in Georgia, and these were unsuccessful years. His character was unformed; his zeal out of proportion to his discretion. The people felt that he preached 'personal satires' at them. He involved himself in quarrels, and at last had to leave the colony secretly, fearing arrest at the instance of some whom he had offended. He returned to begin his great career in England, with the feeling that his residence in Georgia had been of much value to himself, but of very little to the people whom he sought to benefit. Just as Wesley reached England, his fellow-labourer George Whitefield sailed for Georgia. … He founded an Orphan-House at Savannah, and supported it by contributions—obtained easily from men under the power of his unequalled eloquence. He visited Georgia very frequently, and his love for that colony remained with him to the last. Slavery was, at the outset, forbidden in Georgia. It was opposed to the gospel, Oglethorpe said, and therefore not to be allowed. He foresaw, besides, what has been so bitterly experienced since, that slavery must degrade the poor white labourer. But soon a desire sprung up among the less scrupulous of the settlers to have the use of slaves. Within seven years from the first landing, slave-ships were discharging their cargo at Savannah."

ALSO IN: T. M. Harris, Biographical Memorials of James Oglethorpe, chapters 1-10.

   "As early as October the 12th, 1732, the 'Society for the
   Propagation of Christian Knowledge' expressed to the Trustees
   a desire 'that the persecuted Salzburgers should have an
   asylum provided for them in Georgia.' … These Germans
   belonged to the Archbishopric of Salzburg, then the most
   eastern district of Bavaria; but now forming a detached
   district in upper Austria, and called Salzburg from the broad
   valley of the Salzer, which is made by the approximating of
   the Norric and Rhetian Alps. Their ancestors, the Vallenges of
   Piedmont, had been compelled by the barbarities of the Dukes
   of Savoy, to find a shelter from the storms of persecution in
   the Alpine passes and vales of Salzburg and the Tyrol, before
   the Reformation; and frequently since had they been hunted out
   by the hirelings and soldiery of the Church of Rome. …
{1425}
   The quietness which they had enjoyed for nearly half a century
   was now rudely broken in upon by Leopold, Count of Firmian and
   Archbishop of Salzburg, who determined to reduce them to the
   Papal faith and power. He began in the year 1729, and, ere he
   ended in 1732, not far from 30,000 had been driven from their
   homes, to seek among the Protestant States of Europe that
   charity and peace which were denied them in the glens and
   fastnesses of their native Alps. More than two-thirds settled
   in the Prussian States; the rest spread themselves over
   England, Holland, and other Protestant countries. Thrilling is
   the story of their exile. The march of these Salzburgers
   constitutes an epoch in the history of Germany. … The
   sympathies of Reformed Christendom were awakened on their
   behalf, and the most hospitable entertainment and assistance
   were everywhere given them." Forty-two families, numbering 78
   persons, accepted an invitation to settle in Georgia,
   receiving allotments of land and provisions until they could
   gather a harvest. They arrived at Savannah in March, 1734, and
   were settled at a spot which they selected for themselves,
   about thirty miles in the interior. "Oglethorpe marked out for
   them a town; ordered workmen to assist in building houses; and
   soon the whole body of Germans went up to their new home at
   Ebenezer."

      E. B. Speirs,
      The Salzburgers
      (English History Review, October, 1890).

GEORGIA: A. D. 1735-1749.
The Slavery question.
Original exclusion and subsequent admission of negro slaves.

Among the fundamental regulations of the Trustees was one prohibiting negro slavery in the colony. "It was policy and not philanthropy which prohibited slavery; for, though one of the Trustees, in a sermon to recommend charity, declared, 'Let avarice defend it as it will, there is an honest reluctance in humanity against buying and selling, and regarding those of our own species as our wealth and possessions'; and though Oglethorpe himself, speaking of slavery as against 'the gospel as well as the fundamental law of England', asserted, 'we refused, as Trustees, to make a law permitting such a horrid crime'; yet in the official publications of that body its inhibition is based only on political and prudential, and not on humane and liberal grounds; and even Oglethorpe owned a plantation and negroes near Parachucla in South Carolina, about forty miles above Savannah. … Their [the Trustees'] design was to provide for poor but honest persons, to erect a barrier between South Carolina and the Spanish settlements, and to establish a wine and silk-growing colony. It was thought by the Trustees that neither of these designs could be secured if slavery was introduced. … But while the Trustees disallowed negroes, they instituted a system of white slavery which was fraught with evil to the servants and to the colony. These were white servants, consisting of Welch, English, or German, males and females—families and individuals—who were indented to individuals or the Trustees, for a period of from four to fourteen years. … On arriving in Georgia, their service was sold for the term of indenture, or apportioned to the inhabitants by the magistrates, as their necessities required. … Two years had not elapsed since the landing of Oglethorpe before many complaints originated from this cause; and in the summer of 1735 a petition, signed by seventeen freeholders, setting forth the unprofitableness of white servants, and the necessity for negroes, was carried by Mr. Hugh Sterling to the Trustees, who, however, resented the appeal as an insult to their honour. … The plan for substituting white for black labour failed through the sparseness of the supply and the refractoriness of the servants. As a consequence of the inability of the settlers to procure adequate help, the lands granted them remained uncleared, and even those which the temporary industry of the first occupants prepared remained uncultivated. … There accumulated on the Trustees' hands a body of idle, clamourous, mischief-making men, who employed their time in declaiming against the very government whose charity both fed and clothed them. … For nearly fifteen years from 1735, the date of the first petition for negroes, and the date of their express law against their importation, the Trustees refused to listen to any similar representations, except to condemn them," and they were supported by the Salzburgers and the Highlanders, both of whom opposed the introduction of negro slaves. But finally, in 1749, the firmness of the Trustees gave way and they yielded to the clamor of the discontented colony. The importation of black slaves was permitted, under certain regulations intended to diminish the evils of the institution. "The change in the tenure of grants, and the permission to hold slaves, had an immediate effect on the prosperity of the colony."

      W. B. Stevens,
      History of Georgia,
      book 2, chapter 9 (volume 1).

GEORGIA: A. D. 1738-1743.
War with the Spaniards of Florida.
Discontents in the colony.

"The assiento enjoyed under the treaty of Utrecht by the English South Sea Company, the privilege, that is, of transporting to the Spanish colonies a certain number of slaves annually, … was made a cover for an extensive smuggling trade on the part of the English, into which private merchants also entered. … To guard against these systematic infractions of their laws, the Spaniards maintained a numerous fleet of vessels in the preventive service, known as 'guarda costas,' by which some severities were occasionally exercised on suspected or detected smugglers. These severities, grossly exaggerated, and resounded throughout the British dominions, served to revive in England and the colonies a hatred of the Spaniards, which, since the time of Philip II., had never wholly died out. Such was the temper and position of the two nations when the colonization of Georgia was begun, of which one avowed object was to erect a barrier against the Spaniards, among whom the runaway slaves of South Carolina were accustomed to find shelter, receiving in Florida an assignment of lands, and being armed and organized into companies, as a means of strengthening that feeble colony. A message sent to St. Augustine to demand the surrender of the South Carolina runaways met with a point blank refusal, and the feeling against the Spaniards ran very high in consequence. … Oglethorpe … returned from his second visit to England [Sept. 1738], with a newly-enlisted regiment of soldiers, and the appointment, also, of military commander for Georgia and the Carolinas, with orders 'to give no offense, but to repel force by force.' Both in Spain and England the administrators of the government were anxious for peace. … The ferocious clamors of the merchants and the mob … absolutely forced Walpole into a war.

Travelling 300 miles through the forests, Oglethorpe held at Coweta, on the Chattahoochee, just below the present site of Columbus, a new treaty with the Creeks, by which they confirmed their former cessions, acknowledged themselves subject to the King of Great Britain, and promised to exclude from their territories all but English settlers. After finishing the treaty, Oglethorpe returned through the woods by way of Augusta to Savannah, where he found orders from England to make an attack on Florida. He called at once on South Carolina and the Creeks for aid, and in the mean time made an expedition, in which he captured the Fort of Picolata, over against St. Augustine, thus securing the navigation of the St. John's, and cutting off the Spaniards from their forts at St. Mark's and Pensacola. South Carolina entered very eagerly into the enterprise. Money was voted; a regiment, 500 strong, was enlisted, partly in North Carolina and Virginia. This addition raised Oglethorpe's force to 1,200 men. The Indians that joined him were as many more. Having marched into Florida, he took a small fort or two, and, assisted by several ships of war, laid siege to St. Augustine. But the garrison was 1,000 strong, besides militia. The fortifications proved more formidable than had been expected. A considerable loss was experienced by a sortie from the town, falling heavily on the Highland Rangers. Presently the Indians deserted, followed by part of the Carolina regiment, and Oglethorpe was obliged to give over the enterprise. … From the time of this repulse, the good feeling of the Carolinians toward Oglethorpe came to an end. Many of the disappointed Georgia emigrants had removed to Charleston, and many calumnies against Oglethorpe were propagated, and embodied in a pamphlet published there. The Moravians also left Georgia, unwilling to violate their consciences by bearing arms. Most unfortunately for the new colony, the Spanish war withdrew the Highlanders and others of the best settlers from their farms to convert them into soldiers."

"After the late incursion into Florida, the General kept possession of a southern region which the Spaniards had claimed as their own; and, as they had taken encouragement from the successful defence of St. Augustine, and the well-known dissensions on the English side, it was to be expected that they would embrace the earliest opportunity of taking their revenge. … The storm, which had been so long anticipated, burst upon the colony in the year 1742. The Spaniards had … fitted out, at Havana, a fleet said to consist of 56 sail and 7,000 or 8,000 men. The force was probably not quite so great; if it was, it did not all reach its destination," being dispersed by a storm, "so that only a part of the whole number succeeded in reaching St. Augustine. The force was there placed under the command of Don Manuel de Monteano, the Governor of that place. … The fleet made its appearance on the coast of Georgia on the 21st of June"; but all its attempts, first to take possession of the Island of Amelia, and afterwards to reduce the forts at Frederica, were defeated by the vigor and skill of General Oglethorpe. After losing heavily in a fight called the Battle of the Bloody Marsh, the Spaniards retreated about the middle of July. The following year they prepared another attempt; but Oglethorpe anticipated it by a second demonstration on his own part against St. Augustine, which had no other result than to disconcert the plans of the enemy.

W. B. O. Peabody, Life of Oglethorpe (Library of American Biographies, 2d series, volume 2), chapters 11-12.

"While Oglethorpe was engaged in repelling the Spaniards, the trustees of Georgia had been fiercely assailed by their discontented colonists. They sent Thomas Stevens to England with a petition containing many charges of mismanagement, extravagance, and peculation, to which the trustees put in an answer. After a thorough examination of documents and witnesses in committee of the whole, and hearing counsel, the House of Commons resolved that 'the petition of Thomas Stevens contains false, scandalous, and malicious charges'; in consequence of which Stevens, the next day, was brought to the bar, and reprimanded on his knees. … Oglethorpe himself had been a special mark of the malice and obloquy of the discontented settlers. … Presently his lieutenant colonel, a man who owed everything to Oglethorpe's favor, re-echoing the slanders of the colonists, lodged formal charges against him. Oglethorpe proceeded to England to vindicate his character, and the accuser, convicted by a court of inquiry of falsehood, was disgraced and deprived of his commission. Appointed a major general, ordered to join the army assembled to oppose the landing of the Pretender, marrying also about this time, Oglethorpe did not again return to Georgia. The former scheme of administration having given rise to innumerable complaints, the government of that colony was intrusted to a president and four counselors."

GEORGIA: A. D. 1743-1764.
Surrender to the Crown.
Government as a royal province.

   "On Oglethorpe's departure [1743], William Stephens, the
   secretary, was made President, and continued in office until
   1751, when he was succeeded by Henry Parker. The colony, when
   Stephens came into office, comprised about 1,500 persons. It
   was almost at a stand-still. The brilliant prospects of the
   early days were dissipated, and immigration had ceased, thanks
   to the narrow policy and feeble government of the Trustees. An
   Indian rising, in 1749, headed by Mary Musgrove, Oglethorpe's
   Indian interpreter, and her husband, one Bosomworth, who laid
   claim to the whole country, came near causing the destruction
   of the colony, and was only repressed by much negotiation and
   lavish bribes. The colony, thus feeble and threatened,
   struggled on, until it was relieved from danger from the
   Indians and from the restrictive laws, and encouraged by the
   appointment of Parker, and the establishment of a
   representative government. This produced a turn in the affairs
   of Georgia. Trade revived, immigration was renewed, and
   everything began to wear again a more hopeful look. Just at
   this time, however, the original trust was on the point of
   expiring by limitation.
{1427}
   There was a party in the colony who desired a renewal of the
   charter; but the Trustees felt that their scheme had failed in
   every way, except perhaps as a defence to South Carolina, and
   when the limit of the charter was reached, they turned the
   colony over to the Crown. … A form of government was
   established similar to those of the other royal provinces, and
   Captain John Reynolds was sent out as the first Governor." The
   administration of Reynolds produced wide discontent, and in
   1757 he was recalled, being "succeeded by Henry Ellis as
   Lieutenant-governor. The change proved fortunate, and brought
   rest to the colony. Ellis ruled peaceably and with general
   respect for more than two years, and was then promoted to the
   governorship of Nova Scotia. In the same year his successor
   arrived at Savannah, in the person of James Wright, who
   continued to govern the province until it was severed from
   England by the Revolution. The feebleness of Georgia had
   prevented her taking part in the union of the colonies, and
   she was not represented in the Congress at Albany. Georgia
   also escaped the ravages of the French war, partly by her
   distant situation, and partly by the prudence of Governor
   Ellis; and the conclusion of that war gave Florida to England,
   and relieved the colony from the continual menace of Spanish
   aggression. A great Congress of southern Governors and Indian
   chiefs followed, in which Wright, more active than his
   predecessor, took a prominent part. Under his energetic and
   firm rule, the colony began to prosper greatly, and trade
   increased rapidly; but the Governor gained at the same time so
   much influence, and was a man of so much address, that he not
   only held the colony down at the time of the Stamp Act, but
   seriously hampered its action in the years which led to
   revolution."

      H. C. Lodge,
      Short History of the English Colonies in America,
      chapter 9.

GEORGIA: A. D. 1775-1777.
The end of royal government.
Constitutional organization of the state."

The news of the battle of Lexington reached Savannah on the night of the 10th of May, 1775, and produced intense excitement among all classes. On the night of the 11th, Noble Wimberly Jones, Joseph Habersham, Edward Telfair, and a few others, impressed with the necessity of securing all military stores, and preserving them for colonial use, took from the King's magazine, in Savannah, about 500 pounds of powder. … Tradition asserts that part of this powder was sent to Boston, and used by the militia at the battle of Bunker Hill. … The activity of the Liberty party, and its rapid increase, … gave Governor Wright just cause for alarm; and he wrote to General Gage, expressing his amazement that these southern provinces should be left in the situation they are, and the Governors and King's officers, and friends of Government, naked and exposed to the resentment of an enraged people.' … The assistance so earnestly solicited in these letters would have been promptly rendered, but that they never reached their destination. The Committee of Safety at Charleston withdrew them from their envelopes, as they passed through the port, and substituted others, stating that Georgia was quiet, and there existed no need either of troops or vessels." The position of Governor Wright soon became one of complete powerlessness and he begged to be recalled. In January, 1776, however, he was placed under arrest, by order of the Council of Safety, and gave his parole not to leave town, nor communicate with the men-of-war which had just arrived at Tybee; notwithstanding which he made his escape to one of the King's ships on the 11th of February. "The first effective organization of the friends of liberty in the province took place among the deputies from several parishes, who met in Savannah, on the 18th January, 1775, and formed what has been called 'A Provincial Congress.' Guided by the action of the other colonies, a 'Council of Safety' was created, on the 22d June, 1775, to whom was confided the general direction of the measures proper to be pursued in carrying out resistance to the tyrannical designs of the King and Parliament. William Ewen was the first President of this Council of Safety, and Seth John Cuthbert was the Secretary. On the 4th July, the Provincial Congress (now properly called such, as every parish and district was represented) met in Savannah, and elected as its presiding officer Archibald Bulloch. This Congress conferred upon the 'Council of Safety,' 'full power upon every emergency during the recess of Congress.'" Soon finding the need of a more definite order of government, the Provincial Congress, on the 15th of April, 1776, adopted provisionally, for six months, a series of "Rules and Regulations," under which Archibald Bulloch was elected President and Commander-in-chief of Georgia, and John Glen, Chief Justice. After the Declaration of Independence, steps were taken toward the settling of the government of the state on a permanent basis. On the proclamation of President Bulloch a convention was elected which met in Savannah in October, and which framed a constitution that was ratified on the 5th of February, 1777.

      W. B. Stevens,
      History of Georgia,
      book 4, chapter 2,
      and book 5, chapter 1 (volume 2).

GEORGIA: A. D. 1776-1778.
   The war in the North.
   The Articles of Confederation.
   The alliance with France.

GEORGIA: A. D. 1778-1779.
Savannah taken and the state subjugated by the British.

GEORGIA: A. D. 1779.
Unsuccessful attack on Savannah by the French and Americans.

GEORGIA: A. D. 1780-1783.
   Greene's campaign in the South.
   Lafayette and Washington in Virginia.
   Siege of Yorktown and surrender of Cornwallis.
   Peace.

GEORGIA: A. D. 1787-1788.
The formation and adoption of the Federal Constitution.

GEORGIA: A. D. 1861 (October-December).
Savannah threatened.
The Union forces in possession of the mouth of the river.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1861 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER: SOUTH CAROLINA-GEORGIA).

GEORGIA: A. D. 1862 (February-April).
Reduction of Fort Pulaski and sealing up of the port of
Savannah by the National Forces.

GEORGIA: A. D. 1864 (May-September).
Sherman's campaign against Atlanta.
The capture of the city.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (MAY: GEORGIA),
and (MAY-SEPTEMBER: GEORGIA).

GEORGIA: A. D. 1864 (September-October).
   Military occupation of Atlanta.
   Removal of the inhabitants.
   Hood's Raid to Sherman's rear.

GEORGIA: A. D. 1864 (November-December).
Destruction of Atlanta.
Sherman's March to the Sea.

GEORGIA: A. D. 1865 (March-May).
   Wilson's Raid.
   Capture of Jefferson Davis.
   End of the Rebellion.

The Geraldines of Irish history were descendants of Maurice and William Fitzgerald, two of the first among the Anglo-Norman adventurers to engage in the conquest of Ireland, A. D. 1169-1170. Their mother was a Welsh princess, named Nest, or Nesta, who is said to have been the mistress of Henry I. of England, and afterwards to have married the Norman baron, Gerald Fitz Walter, who became the father of the Fitzgeralds. "Maurice Fitzgerald, the eldest of the brothers, became the ancestor both of the Earls of Kildare and Desmond; William, the younger, obtained an immense grant of land in Kerry from the McCarthys, indeed as time went on the lordship of the Desmond Fitzgeralds grew larger and larger, until it covered nearly as much ground as many a small European kingdom. Nor was this all. The White Knight, the Knight of Glyn, and the Knight of Kerry were all three Fitzgeralds, all descended from the same root, and all owned large tracts of country. The position of the Geraldines of Kildare was even more important, on account of their close proximity to Dublin. In later times their great keep at Maynooth dominated the whole Pale, while their followers swarmed everywhere, each man with a 'G' embroidered upon his breast in token of his allegiance. By the beginning of the 16th century their power had reached to, perhaps, the highest point ever attained in these islands by any subject. Whoever might be called the Viceroy in Ireland it was the Earl of Kildare who practically governed the country."

      See, also,
      IRELAND: A. D. 1515;
      and for some account of the subsequent rebellion and fall
      of the Geraldines, see
      IRELAND: A. D. 1535-1553.

GEREFA.

"The most general name for the fiscal, administrative and executive officer among the Anglosaxons was Gerefa, or as it is written, in very early documents geroefa: but the peculiar functions of the individuals comprehended under it were further defined by a prefix compounded with it, as scirgerefa, the reeve of the shire or sheriff: tungerefa, the reeve of the farm or bailiff. The exact meaning and etymology of this name have hitherto eluded the researches of our best scholars."

One of the tribes of the Canaanites, whose territory is believed by Lenormant to have "included all Decapolis and even Galilee," and whose capital he places at Gerasa, now Djerash, in Perea.

F. Lenormant and E. Chevallier, Manual of Ancient History, book 6, chapter 1 (volume 2).

GERGITHIAN SIBYL.

GERGOVIA OF THE ARVERNI.

"The site of Gergovia of the Arverni is supposed to be a hill on the bank of the Allier, two miles from the modern Clermont in Auvergne. The Romans seem to have neglected Gergovia, and to have founded the neighbouring city, to which they gave the name Augustonemetum. The Roman city became known afterwards as Civitas Arvernorum, in the middle ages Arverna, and then, from the situation of its castle, clarus mons, Clermont."

C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 12 (volume 2, page 20, foot-note).

GERGOVIA OF THE BOIANS.

GERIZIM.

"The sacred centre of the Samaritans is Gerizim, the 'Mount of Blessings.' On. its summit a sacred rock marks the site where, according to their tradition, Joshua placed the Tabernacle and afterwards built a temple, restored later by Sanballat on the return of the Israelites from captivity. On the slope of the mountain the Feast of the Passover is still celebrated in accordance with the injunctions of the Law."

The distinction, made between High German and Low German is that resulting from differences of language, etc., between the Germanic peoples which dwelt anciently in the low, flat countries along the German Ocean and the Baltic, and those which occupied the higher regions of the upper Rhine, Elbe and Danube.

GERMAN EAST AFRICAN AND WEST AFRICAN ASSOCIATIONS.

————————————————— A Logical Outline of German History

IN WHICH THE DOMINANT CONDITIONS AND INFLUENCES ARE DISTINGUISHED BY COLORS.

Germany was slow in finding the definite place in geography and history that belongs to it at the present day. It was no more at first than a name, applied with large vagueness to the country beyond the Rhine and the Danube, where many restless tribes, of kindred language and character, were unstably distributed. In time, the tribes crowded one another into wide wandering movements, were pushed and pressed together into confederacies and nations, and went swarming over the Danube and the Rhine into Roman provinces, to take possession of them and to be the new masters of the European world; but it was the Germans, not Germany, who began then to be historic.

As a fact in history, Germany emerged first with the Franks, out of the dust-clouds of the wandering time and the darker clouds of the Gallic conquest. Fast seated on the great dividing river, the Rhine, the Franks reached backward into the land which gave them birth, and forward into the land which took their name, and gathered a broad empire out of both. But always the two parts of it refused to be held together. Neither by Clovis, the first conqueror, nor by Charlemagne, after three hundred years, were the Kingdom of the East Franks and the Kingdom of the West Franks bound fast into one. Under Charlemagne's successors, the Kingdom of the East Franks began to be Germany, in the growing of the fact as well as the name.

But no sooner had a Kingdom of Germany been created than it was strangely deprived of the distinctness needful to the making of a nation. The adventurous Otho, its second Saxon king, who reclaimed Italy and revived the imperial sovereignty of Charlemagne, diminished the weight and dignity of his Germanic realm as much as he advanced himself and his successors in title and rank. By that elevation of its kings to a pseudo-Roman throne, Germany lost its own proper place in history, and was obscured by the shadow of an empire which soon existed as a shadow only. Its elective kings, forsaking the title of Kings of Germany, and calling themselves Kings of the Romans, even while they waited for an imperial coronation at the hands of the Pope, made the nationalizing of Germany, as France was being nationalized, by its monarchy, impossible.

For three centuries, the ambitions and the interests of the imperialized monarchy were ultramontane. Its Teutonic seat was a mere resting-place between Italian expeditions. Its quarrels with the Popes cast all questions of German politics into the background. It took no root in German feeling, rallied no national sentiment, gathered no increase of authority, sent out from itself no centralizing influences, judicial or administrative, to resist the dissolving forces of feudalism. And nowhere else in Europe was the action of those forces so destructive of political unity. That great Fatherland of the German peoples, where the slow solidification of a nation should have been going on as surely as in France, was crumbled by them into petty principalities, which time only hardened in their separateness.

When, at last, the crown came to be settled in one fast-rooted and enduring House, it was not fortunately placed. Territorially the Hapsburgs were planted on the verge of the Teutonic land, where they fronted the Hungarians and the Svavs and were threatened by the approaching Turks. Speaking figuratively, they stood with their backs to Germany, facing their greater dangers and their greater opportunities, east and south.

Their personal dominions were acquired for the most part outside of the Teutonic line. Their immediate subjects were of many alien races, with a few of Greman blood. Their kingship of Hungary was more substantial in its political weight than any Germanic sovereignty that they held. From the beginning of its remarkable dynastic career, the House of Austria was in all respects quite at one side of the great people whose crown had unhappily passed to its keeping. The emperor-kings, throned with less reality at Vienna than at Presburg and Prague, lost more and more their German character, receded more and more from the range of German influence. Thus Germany was robbed again of the centralizing constraints which a vigorous, rising monarchy of the true stamp, not falsified by a fictitious imperialization, would have brought to bear upon it, for the unifying of a great nation.

The marriagcs which linked the Austrian House with the sovereign families of Burgundy and Spain only drew it still farther away, and made it more alien than before to the people of the German North. The imperial government was brought then under influences from Spain which opposed every tendency of their feeling and thought. While the strong Teutonic mind worked its slow way towards personal freedom,—towards fearless inquiry and independent belief,—a contrary movement went on in the Austrian court. Between Germany at large and the circle in which Vienna stood really a center and a capital, a widening inteliectual breach began when the Hapsburg brain was narrowed by the astringent blood of Castile. This appeared, not alone in the rupture of the religious Reformation, but in all the advances that were made, from the sixteenth century down, in science, philosophy, literature and art.

Some advance was always made; but the modern impulses which woke early in the German race were wastefully spent, during many generations, for want of any national concentration. No large channel opened to them; no worthy spirit directed them. The pettiness of petty politics and courts belittled in most ways, for a lamentable time, the workings of German energy and genius.

The Thirty Years War made chaos in Germany complete. No semblance of substance in the empire remained. The Kaiser had become a sovereign less honored than the King of France, and Vienna a capital less considered than Paris. But the first nucleus of nationality took form in that chaos, when Brandenburg drew Prussia to itself, in the union which produced a new kingdom at the North. The rise of Prussia was the rise of German nationality. It brought to bear on the German people the first centralizing influence that had acted upon them since their kings took the crown of Rome. For the first time in their history they felt the pull of a force which drew them towards common lines of action.

A. D. 1740-1786.—Frederick the Great.
A. D. 1800-1813.—Struggle with Napoleon.

The aggrandizement of Prussia by Frederick the Great, though iniquitous when considered in itself, was splendid work for Germany. It prepared, for the perils of the next generation, a power which Napoleon could humble at the moment, but which he could not crush. It gave footing for the great heroic rally of the Germanic people, whereby they conquered their place in the world and secured their future.

A. D. 1866.—The Seven Weeks War
A. D. 1870-1871.—The Franco-German War.
A. D. 1871.—The Empire.

In all that has come to pass since Leipsic and Waterloo, the logical sequence is plainer than history is wont to show it. From men of the first decade in this century, who put the school and the camp side by side in Prussian training, there came more than from Bismarck or Moltke of the power which triumphed at Sadowa and Sedan, which has constructed a new and true Empire of Germany, with its capital at Berlin, and which has dismissed Austria from German reckonings as mistress or as rival, but to make of her an ally and a friend.

Within the last third of the nineteenth century, the Germans may be said to have opened a great national career, such as the English, their kinsmen, had entered upon nearly two hundred years before. The energies of their powerful race have been centered at last, and are acting with new potency, in commerce and colonization, abroad, and in all modes of human advancement, at home.

      See GOTHS; FRANKS; ALEMANNI; MARCOMANNI;
      QUADI; GEPIDÆ; SAXONS; ANGLES; BURGUNDIANS;
      VANDALS; SUEVI; LOMBARDS.

GERMAN UNIVERSITIES.

GERMANIA.

"On the origin of the name Germania see Waitz D. V. G. i. 24; he rejects all German derivations and concludes that it is originally Gallic, the name given (as Tacitus indicates) by the Gauls first to the Tungri, and afterwards to all the kindred tribes. The meaning may be either 'good shouters' (Grimm), or, according to other writers, 'East-men,' or 'neighbours.'"

GERMANIC PEOPLES OF THE ALEMANNIC LEAGUE.

"The nations of the Germania had no common name recognised by themselves, and were content, when, ages after, they had realised their unity of tongue and descent, to speak of their language simply as the Lingua Theotisca, the language of the people (theod). … Whence the name 'Deutsch.' Zeuss derives it rather from the root of 'deuten,' to explain, so that 'theotisc' should mean 'significant.' But the root of 'theod' and 'deuten' is the same. … The general name by which the Romans knew them [Germani] was one which they had received from their Gallic neighbours."

W. Stubbs, Constitutional History of England, volume 1, chapter 3, and foot-note.

"In Gothic we have 'thiuda,' people; 'thiudisks,' belonging to the people. … The High-German, which looks upon Sanskrit 't' and Gothic 'th' as 'd,' possesses the same word, as 'diot,' people; 'diutisc,' popularis; hence Deutsch, German, and 'deuten,' to explain, literally to Germanize."

The account which Tacitus gives of the origin of the name Germany is this: "The name Germany … they [the Germans] say, is modern and newly introduced, from the fact that the tribes which first crossed the Rhine and drove out the Gauls, and are now called Tungrians, were then called Germans. Thus what was the name of a tribe, and not of a race, gradually prevailed, till all called themselves by this self-invented name of Germans, which the conquerors had first employed to inspire terror."

"It is only at the mouth of the Elbe that the Germany of the really historical period begins: and this is a Germany only in the eyes of scholars, antiquarians, and generalizing ethnologists. Not one of the populations to whom the name is here extended would have attached any meaning to the word, except so far as they had been instructed by men who had studied certain Latin writers. There was no name which was, at one and the same time, native and general. There were native names, but they were limited to special populations. There was a general name, but it was one which was applied by strangers and enemies. What this name was for the northern districts, we know beforehand. It was that of Saxones and Saxonia in Latin; of Sachsen and Sachsenland in the ordinary German. Evidence, however, that any German population ever so named itself is wholly wanting, though it is not impossible that some unimportant tribe may have done so: the only one so called being the Saxons of Ptolemy, who places them, along with several others, in the small district between the Elbe and the Eyder, and on three of the islands off the coast. … The Franks gave it its currency and generality; for, in the eyes of a Frank, Saxony and Friesland contained all those parts of Germany which, partly from their difference of dialect, partly from their rudeness, partly from their paganism, and partly from the obstinacy of their resistance, stood in contrast to the Empire of Charlemagne and his successors. A Saxon was an enemy whom the Franks had to coerce, a heathen whom they had to convert. What more the term meant is uncertain."

   "Germany is separated from the Galli, the Rhæti, and Pannonii,
   by the rivers Rhine and Danube; mountain ranges, or the fear
   which each feels for the other, divide it from the Sarmatæ and
   Daci. Elsewhere ocean girds it, embracing broad peninsulas and
   islands of unexplored extent, where certain tribes and
   kingdoms are newly known to us, revealed by war. The Rhine
   springs from a precipitous and inaccessible height of the
   Rhætian Alps, bends slightly westward, and mingles with the
   Northern Ocean. The Danube pours down from the gradual and
   gently rising slope of Mount Abnoba, and visits many nations,
   to force its way at last through six channels into the Pontus;
   a seventh mouth is lost in marshes. The Germans themselves I
   should regard as aboriginal, and not mixed at all with other
   races through immigration or intercourse. For, in former
   times, it was not by land but on shipboard that those who
   sought to emigrate would arrive; and the boundless and, so to
   speak, hostile ocean beyond us, is seldom entered by a sail
   from our world. And, besides the perils of rough and unknown
   seas, who would leave Asia, or Africa, or Italy for Germany,
   with its wild country, its inclement skies, its sullen manners
   and aspect, unless indeed it were his home?
{1430}
   In their ancient songs, their only way of remembering or
   recording the past, they celebrate an earth-born god, Tuisco,
   and his son Mannus, as the origin of their race, as their
   founders. To Mannus they assign three sons, from whose names,
   they say, the coast tribes are called Ingævones; those of the
   interior, Herminones; all the rest, Istævones. Some, with the
   freedom of conjecture permitted by antiquity, assert that the
   god had several descendants, and the nation several
   appellations, as Marsi, Gambrivii, Suevi, Vandilii, and that
   these are genuine old names. The name Germany, on the other
   hand, they say, is modern and newly introduced."

      Tacitus,
      Germany:
      translated by A. J. Church and W. J. Brodribb,
      chapters 1-2.

The first serious advance of the Roman arms beyond the Rhine was made in the reign of Augustus, by the emperor's step-son, Drusus. Cæsar had crossed the river, only to chastise and terrify the tribes on the right bank which threatened Gaul. Agrippa, some years later, repeated the operation, and withdrew, as Cæsar had done. But Drusus invaded Germany with intentions of conquest and occupation. His first campaign was undertaken in the spring of the year 12 B. C. He crossed the Rhine and drove the Usipetes into their strongholds; after which he embarked his legions on transport ships and moved them down the river to the ocean, thence to coast northwards to the mouth of the Ems, and so penetrate to the heart of the enemy's country. To facilitate this bold movement, he had caused a channel to be cut from the Rhine, at modern Arnheim, to the Zuyder Zee, utilizing the river Yssel. The expedition was not successful and retreated overland from the Frisian coast after considerable disaster and loss. The next year, Drusus returned to the attack, marching directly into the German country and advancing to the banks of the Weser, but retreating, again, with little to show of substantial results. He established a fortified outpost, however, on the Lippe, and named it Aliso. During the same summer, he is said to have fixed another post in the country of the Chatti. Two years then passed before Drusus was again permitted by the emperor to cross the Rhine. On his third campaign he passed the Weser and penetrated the Hercynian forest as far as the Elbe,—the Germans declining everywhere to give him battle. Erecting a trophy on the bank of the Elbe, he retraced his steps, but suffered a fall from his horse, on the homeward march, which caused his death. "If the Germans were neither reduced to subjection, nor even overthrown in any decisive engagement, as the Romans vainly pretended, yet their spirit of aggression was finally checked and from thenceforth, for many generations, they were fully occupied with the task of defending themselves."

   The work of Roman conquest in Germany, left unfinished by
   Drusus, was taken up by his brother Tiberius (afterwards
   emperor) under the direction of Augustus. Tiberius crossed the
   Rhine, for the first time, B. C. 8. The frontier tribes made
   no resistance, but offered submission at once. Tiberius sent
   their chiefs to Augustus, then holding his court at Lugdunum
   (Lyons), to make terms with the emperor in person, and
   Augustus basely treated them as captives and threw them into
   prison. The following year found the German tribes again under
   arms, and Tiberius again crossed the Rhine; but it was only to
   ravage the country, and not to remain. Then followed a period
   of ten years, during which the emperor's step-son,
   dissatisfied with his position and on ill terms with Augustus,
   retired to Rhodes. In the summer of A. D. 4, he returned to
   the command of the legions on the Rhine. Meantime, under other
   generals,—Domitius and Vinicius,—they had made several
   campaigns beyond the river; had momentarily crossed the Elbe;
   had constructed a road to the outposts on the Weser; had
   fought the Cherusci, with doubtful results, but had not
   settled the Roman power in Germany. Tiberius invaded the
   country once more, with a powerful force, and seems to have
   crushed all resistance in the region between the lower Rhine
   and the Weser. The following spring, he repeated, with more
   success, the movement of Drusus by land and sea, sending a
   flotilla around to the Elbe and up that stream, to a point
   where it met and co-operated with a column moved overland,
   through the wilderness. A single battle was fought and the
   Germans defeated; but, once more, when winter approached, the
   Romans retired and no permanent conquest was made. Two years
   later (A. D. 6), Tiberius turned his arms against the powerful
   nation of the Marcomanni, which had removed itself from the
   German mark, or border, into the country formerly occupied, by
   the Boii—modern Bohemia. Here, under their able chief Marbod,
   or Maroboduus, they developed a formidable military
   organization and became threatening to the Roman frontiers on
   the Upper Danube. Two converging expeditions, from the Danube
   and from the Rhine, were at the point of crushing the
   Marcomanni between them, when news of the alarming revolt, in
   Pannonia and Dalmatia, called the "Batonian War," caused the
   making of a hasty peace with Maroboduus. The Batonian or
   Pannonian war occupied Tiberius for nearly three years. He had
   just brought it to a close, when intelligence reached Rome of
   a disaster in Germany which filled the empire with horror and
   dismay. The tribes in northwestern Germany, between the lower
   Rhine and the Elbe, supposed to be cowed and submissive, had
   now found a leader who could unite them and excite them to
   disdain the Roman yoke. This leader was Arminius, or Hermann,
   a young chief of the Cherusci, who had been trained in the
   Roman military service and admitted to Roman citizenship, but
   who hated the oppressors of his country with implacable
   bitterness. The scheme of insurrection organized by Arminius
   was made easy of execution by the insolent carelessness and
   the incapacity of the Roman commander in Germany, L.
   Quintilius Varus. It succeeded so well that Varus and his
   army,—three entire legions, horse, foot and
   auxiliaries,—probably 20,000 men in all,—were overwhelmed in
   the Teutoburger Wald, north of the Lippe, and destroyed. Only
   a few skulking fugitives reached the Rhine and escaped to tell
   the fate of the rest. This was late in the summer of A. D. 9.
   In the following spring Tiberius was sent again to the Rhine
   frontier, with as powerful a levy of men and equipments as the
   empire could collect. He was accompanied by his nephew,
   Germanicus, son of Drusus, destined to be his successor in the
   field of German conquest.
{1431}
   But dread and fear were in the Roman heart, and the campaign
   of Tiberius, delayed another twelve months, until A. D. 11,
   was conducted too cautiously to accomplish any important
   result. He traversed and ravaged a considerable region of the
   German country, but withdrew again across the Rhine and left
   it, apparently, unoccupied. This was his last campaign.
   Returning to Rome, he waited only two years longer for the
   imperial sovereignty to which he succeeded on the death of
   Augustus, who had made him, by adoption, his son and his heir.

Germanicus—the son of Drusus—was given the command on the Rhine at the beginning of the year 13 A. D. The following year, Augustus died and Tiberius became emperor; whereupon Germanicus found himself no longer restrained from crossing the river and assuming the offensive against Arminius and his tribes. His first movement, that autumn, was up the valley of the Lippe, which he laid waste, far and wide. The next spring, he led one column, from Mentz, against the Chatti, as far as the upper branches of the Weser, while he sent another farther north to chastise the Cherusci and the Marsi, surprising and massacring the latter at their feast of Tanfana. Later in the same year, he penetrated, by a double expedition,—moving by sea and by land, as his father had done before,—to the country between the Ems and the Lippe, and laid waste the territory of the Bructeri, and their neighbors. He also visited the spot where the army of Varus had perished, and erected a monument to the dead. On the return from this expedition, four legions, under Cæcina, were beset in the same manner that Varus had been, and under like difficulties; but their commander was of different stuff and brought them safely through, after punishing his pursuers severely. But the army had been given up as lost, and only the resolute opposition of Agrippina, the wife of Germanicus, had prevented the Roman commander at Vetera, on the Rhine, from destroying the bridge there, and abandoning the legions to their supposed fate. In the spring of A. D. 16, Germanicus again embarked his army, 80,000 strong, at the mouth of the Rhine, on board transports, and moved it to the mouth of the Ems, where the fleet remained. Thence he marched up the Ems and across to the Weser, and was encountered, in the country of the Cherusci, by a general levy of the German tribes, led by Arminius and Inguiomerus. Two great battles were fought, in which the Romans were victorious. But, when returning from this campaign, the fleet encountered a storm in which so much of it perished, with the troops on board, that the disaster threw a heavy cloud of gloom over the triumph of Germanicus. The young general was soon afterwards recalled, and three years later he died,—of poison, as is supposed,—at Antioch. "The central government ceased from this time to take any warm interest in the subjugation of the Germans; and the dissensions of their states and princes, which peace was not slow in developing, attracted no Roman emissaries to the barbarian camps, and rarely led the legions beyond the frontier, which was now allowed to recede finally to the Rhine."

"Towards the middle of the third century, … a change becomes perceptible in the relations and attitude of the German peoples. Many of the nations, which have been celebrated in the annals of the classical writers, disappear silently from history; new races, new combinations and confederacies start into life, and the names which have achieved an imperishable notoriety from their connection with the long decay and the overthrow of the Roman Empire, come forward, and still survive. On the soil whereon the Sigambri, Marsi, Chauci, and Cherusci had struggled to preserve a rude independence, Franks and Saxons lived free and formidable; Alemanni were gathered along the foot of the Roman wall which connected the Danube with the Rhine, and had, hitherto, preserved inviolate the Agri decumates; while eastern Germany, allured by the hope of spoil, or impelled by external pressure, precipitated itself under the collective term of Goths upon the shrinking settlements of the Dacia and the Danube. The new appellations which appear in western Germany in the third century have not unnaturally given rise to the presumption that unknown peoples had penetrated through the land, and overpowered the ancient tribes, and national vanity has contributed to the delusion. As the Burgundians … were flattered by being told they were descendants of Roman colonists, so the barbarian writers of a later period busied their imaginations in the solitude of monastic life to enhance the glory of their countrymen, by the invention of what their inkling of classical knowledge led them to imagine a more illustrious origin. … Fictions like these may be referred to as an index of the time when the young barbarian spirit, eager after fame, and incapable of balancing probabilities, first gloated over the marvels of classical literature, though its refined and delicate beauties eluded their grosser taste; but they require no critical examination; there are no grounds for believing that Franks, Saxons, or Alemanni, were other than the original inhabitants of the country, though there is a natural difficulty arising from the want of written contemporary evidence in tracing the transition, and determining the tribes of which the new confederacies were formed. At the same time, though no immigration of strangers was possible, a movement of a particular tribe was not unfrequent. The constant internal dissensions of the Germans, combined with their spirit of warlike enterprise, led to frequent domestic wars; and the vanquished sometimes chose rather to seek an asylum far from their native soil, where they might live in freedom, than continue as bondmen or tributaries to the conqueror. Of such a nature were the wanderings of the Usipites and Teuchteri [Tenchteri] in Cæsar's time, the removal of the Ubii from Nassau to the neighbourhood of Cöln and Xanthen; and to this must be ascribed the appearance of the Burgundians, who had dwelt beyond the Oder, in the vicinity of the Main and the Necker. Another class of national emigrations, were those which implied a final abandonment of the native Germany with the object of seeking a new settlement among the possessions of the sinking empire. {1432} Those of the Goths, Vandals, Alans, Sueves, the second movement of the Burgundians, may be included in this category; the invasions of the Franks, Alemanni, and Saxons, on the contrary, cannot be called national emigrations, for they never abandoned, with their families, their original birthplace; their outwanderings, like the emigrations of the present day, were partial; their occupation of the enemy's territory was, in character, military and progressive; and, with the exception of the Anglo-Saxon settlement in Britain, their connection with the original stock was never interrupted. In all the migrations of German peoples spoken of from Cæsar downwards, the numbers of the emigrants appear to be enormously exaggerated. The Usipites and Teuchteri are estimated by Cæsar at 430,000 souls. How could such a multitude find nourishment during a three years' wandering? If 80,000 Burgundian Wehrmen came to the Rhine to the assistance of Valentinian, as Cassiodorius, Jerome, and other chroniclers state, the numbers of the whole nation must have approached 400,000, and it is impossible to believe that such a mass could obtain support in the narrow district lying between the Alemanni, the Hermunduri, and the Chatti. In other cases, vague expressions, and still more the wonderful achievements of the Germans in the course of their emigrations, have led to the supposition of enormous numbers; but Germany could not find nourishment for the multitudes which have been ascribed to it. Corn at that period was little cultivated; it was not the food of the people, whose chief support was flesh. … The conquests of the barbarians may be ascribed as much to the weakness of their adversaries, to their want of energy and union, as to their own strength. There was, in fact, no enemy to meet them in the field; and their domination was, at least, as acceptable to the provincial inhabitants as that of the imbecile, but rapacious ministers of the Roman government. … It was not the lust of wandering, but the influence of external circumstances which brought them to the vicinity of the Danube: at first the aggressions of the Romans, then the pressure of the Huns and the Sclavonic tribes. The whole intercourse of Germany with Rome must be considered as one long war, which began with the invasion of Cæsar; which, long restrained by the superior power of the enemy, warmed with his growing weakness, and only ended with the extinction of the Roman name. The wars of the third, fourth, and fifth centuries, were only a continuance of the ancient hostility. There might be partial truce, or occasional intermission; some tribes might be almost extirpated by the sword; some, for a time, bought off by money; but Rome was the universal enemy, and much of the internal restlessness of the Germans was no more than the natural movement towards the hostile borders. As the invasion of northern Germany gave rise to the first great northern union, so the conquest of Dacia brought Goths from the Vistula to the south, while the erection of the giant wall naturally gathered the Suevic tribes along its limits, only waiting for the opportunity to break through. Step by step this battle of centuries was fought; from the time of Caracalla the flood turned, wave followed wave like the encroaching tide, and the ancient landmarks receded bit by bit, till Rome itself was buried beneath the waters. … Three great confederacies of German tribes, more or less united by birth, position, interest, or language, may be discerned, during this period, in immediate contact with the Romans—-the Alemanni, the Goths, and the Franks. A fourth, the Saxons, was chiefly known from its maritime voyages off the coast of Gaul and Britain. There were also many independent peoples which cannot be enumerated among any of the political confederacies, but which acted for themselves, and pursued their individual ends: such were the Burgundians, the Alans, the Vandals, and the Lombards."

      See, also,
      ALEMANNI; MARCOMANNI; QUADI; GOTHS;
      GEPIDÆ; SAXONS; ANGLES, FRANKS;
      BURGUNDIANS; VANDALS; SUEVI; LOMBARDS;
      and, also, Appendix A, volume 1.

The vigorous emperor Probus, who, in the year 277, drove from Gaul the swarms of invaders that had ravaged the unhappy province with impunity for two years past, then crossed the Rhine and harried the country of the marauders, as far as the Elbe and the Neckar. "Germany, exhausted by the ill success of the last emigration, was astonished by his presence. Nine of the most considerable princes repaired to his camp and fell prostrate at his feet. Such a treaty was humbly received by the Germans as it pleased the conqueror to dictate." Probus then caused a stone wall, strengthened at intervals with towers, to be built from the Danube, near Neustadt and Ratisbon, to Wimpfen on the Neckar, and thence to the Rhine, for the protection of the settlers of the "Agri Decumates." But the wall was thrown down, a few years afterwards, by the Alemanni.

The original dominions of Clovis, or Chlodwig—with whose reign the career of the Franks as a consolidated people began—corresponded nearly to the modern kingdom of Belgium. His first conquests were from the Romans, in the neighboring parts of Gaul, and when those were finished, "the king of the Franks began to look round upon the other German nations settled upon its soil, with a view to the further extension of his power. A quarrel with the Alemanni supplied the first opportunity for the gratification of his ambition. For more than a century the Alemanni had been in undisturbed possession of Alsace, and the adjoining districts; Mainz, Worms, Speyer, Strasburg, Basel, Constanz, Bregenz, lay within their territory. … The Vosegen range was a bulwark on the side of Gaul, waste lands separated them from the Burgundians, who were settled about the Jura and in the south-west part of Helvetia, and the Moselle divided them from the Ripuarian Franks. It is unknown whether they formed a state distinct from their brethren on the right of the Rhine; probably such was the case, for the Alemanni, at all times, were divided into separate tribes, between which, however, was generally a common union; nor is it certain whether the Alsatian Alemanni were under one or several Adelings; a single king is mentioned as having fallen in the battle with Chlodwig, who may have been merely an elected military leader.

{1435}
   Equally obscure is the cause of their war with Chlodwig,
   though it has been assumed, perhaps too hastily, by all recent
   historians, that the Frank king became involved in it as an
   ally of the Ripuarians. The Ripuarian Franks were settled, as
   the name imports, upon the banks of the Rhine, from the
   Moselle downwards; their chief seat was the city of Cologne.
   It is probable that they consisted of the remains of the
   ancient Ubii, strengthened by the adventurers who crossed over
   on the first invasion, and the name implies that they were
   regarded by the Romans as a kind of limitanean soldiery. For,
   in the common parlance of the Romans of that period, the tract
   of land lying along the Rhine was called Ripa, in an absolute
   sense, and even the river itself was not unfrequently
   denominated by the same title. Ripuarii are Ripa-wehren,
   Hreop, or Hrepa-wehren, defenders of the shore. About the
   close of the fifth century these Ripuarii were under the
   government of a king, named Sigebert, usually called 'the
   lance.' The story told by modern writers is, that this
   Sigebert, having fallen into dispute with the Alemanni, called
   upon Chlodwig for assistance, a call which the young king
   willingly listened to. The Alemanni had invaded the Ripuarian
   territory, and advanced within a short distance of Cologne,
   when Chlodwig and his Franks joined the Ripuarii; a battle
   took place at Zülpich, about twenty-two English miles from
   Cologne, which, after a fierce struggle, ended in the defeat
   of the Alemanni. … Chlodwig was following up his victory
   over the Alemanni, perhaps with unnecessary ferocity, when he
   was stopped in his course by a flattering embassy from the
   great Theodorich. Many of the Alemanni had submitted, after
   the death of their chief, on the field of battle. 'Spare us,'
   they cried, 'for we are now thy people!' but there were many
   who, abhorring the Frank yoke, fled towards the south, and
   threw themselves under the protection of the Ostrogothic king,
   who had possessed himself of the ancient Rhætia and
   Vindelicia."

The sons of Clovis pushed their conquests on the Germanic as well as on the Gallic side of the Rhine. Theodoric, or Theuderik, who reigned at Metz, with the aid of his brother Clotaire, or Chlother, of Soissons, subjugated the Thuringians, between A. D. 515 and 528. "How he [Theuderik] acquired authority over the Alemans and the Bavarians is not known. Perhaps in the subjugation of Thuringia he had taken occasion to extend his sway over other nations; but from this time forth we find not only these, but the Saxons more to the north, regarded as the associates or tributaries of the Eastern or Ripuarian Franks. From the Elbe to the Meuse, and from the Northern Ocean to the sources of the Rhine, a region comprising a great part of ancient Germany, the ascendency of the Franks was practically acknowledged, and a kingdom was formed [Austrasia—Oster-rike—the Eastern Kingdom] which was destined to overshadow all the other Mérovingian states; The various tribes which composed its Germanic accretions, remote and exempt from the influences of the Roman civilization, retained their fierce customs and their rude superstitions, and continued to be governed by their hereditary dukes; but their wild masses marched under the standards of the Franks, and conceded to those formidable conquerors a certain degree of political supremacy." When, in 558, Clotaire, by the death of his brothers, became the sole king of the Franks, his empire embraced all Roman Gaul, except Septimania, still held by the Visigoths, and Brittany, but slightly subjected; "while in ancient Germany, from the Rhine to the Weser, the powerful duchies of the Alemans, the Thuringians, the Bavarians, the Frisons, and the Saxons, were regarded not entirely as subject, and yet as tributary provinces." During the next century and a half, the feebleness of the Merovingians lost their hold upon these German tributaries. "As early as the time of Chlother II. the Langobards had recovered their freedom; under Dagobert [622-638], the Saxons; under Sighebert II. [638-656], the Thuringians; and now, during the late broils [670-687], the Alemans, the Bavarians and the Frisons." But the vigorous Mayors of the Palace, Pepin Heristal and Karl Martel, applied themselves resolutely to the restoration of the Frank supremacy, in Germany as well as in Aquitaine. Pepin "found the task nearly impossible. Time and again he assailed the Frisons, the Saxons, the Bavarians, and the Alemans, but could bind them to no truce nor peace for any length of time. No less than ten times the Frisons resumed their arms, while the revolts of the others were so incessant that he was compelled to abandon all hope of recovering the southern or Roman part of Gaul, in order to direct his attention exclusively to the Germans. The aid which he received from the Christian missionaries rendered him more successful among them. Those intrepid propagandists pierced where his armies could not. … The Franks and the Popes of Rome had a common interest in this work of the conversion of the Germans, the Franks to restrain irruptions, and the Popes to carry their spiritual sway over Europe." Pepin left these unfinished German wars to his son Karl, the Hammer, and Karl prosecuted them with characteristic energy during his first years of power. "Almost every month he was forced into some expedition beyond the Rhine. … The Alemans, the Bavarians, and the Frisons, he succeeded in subjecting to a formal confession at least of the Frankish supremacy; but the turbulent and implacable Saxons baffled his most strenuous efforts. Their wild tribes had become, within a few years, a powerful and numerous nation; they had appropriated the lands of the Thuringians and Hassi, or Catti, and joined to themselves other confederations and tribes; and, stretching from the Rhine to the Elbe, offered their marshes and forests a free asylum to all the persecuted sectaries of Odhinn, to all the lovers of native and savage independence. Six times in succession the armies of Karl penetrated the wilderness they called their home, ravaging their fields and burning their cabins, but the Saxon war was still renewed. He left it to the energetic labors of other conquerors, to Christian missionaries, … to break the way of civilization into those rude and darkened realms." Karl's sons Pepin and Karloman crushed revolts of the Alemans, or Suabians, and the Bavarians in 742, and Karloman humbled the Saxons in a great campaign (744), compelling them in large numbers to submit to Christian baptism. After that, Germany waited for its first entire master—Charlemagne.

FIFTH CENTURY.

CONTEMPORANEOUS EVENTS.

Banishment of the Patriarch, John Chrysostom, from
Constantinople; burning of the Church of Saint Sophia.

   Breaking of the Rhine barrier by German tribes;
   overwhelming invasion of Gaul by Vandals, Alans, Suevi, and
   Burgundians.

   Execution of Stilicho at Ravenna;
   massacre of barbarian hostages in Italy;
   blockade of Rome by Alaric.

425.
   Accession of the Western Emperor, Valentinian III., under the
   regency of Placidia; formal and legal separation of the
   Eastern and Western Empires.

430.
Siege of Hippo Regius in Africa;
death of Saint Augustine, bishop of Hippo.

446.
   Thermopylæ passed by the Huns;
   humiliating purchase of peace with them by the Eastern
   Emperor.

449.
Landing in Britain of the Jutes under Hengist and Horsa.*
Meeting of the so-called Robber Synod at Ephesus.

456.
Supremacy of Ricimer, commander of the barbarian mercenaries,
in the Western Empire; Avitus deposed.

457.
Marjorian, first of the imperial puppets of Ricimer, raised to
the throne of the Western Empire.

472.
   Siege and storming of Rome by Ricimer;
   death of Anthemius, and of Ricimer;
   Olybrius and Glycerius successive emperors.

476.
   Romulus Augustulus dethroned by Odoacer:
   extinction for more than three centuries of the Western line
   of emperors.

488.
Theodoric, king of the Ostrogoths, commissioned by the Eastern
Emperor to invade Italy.

493.
   Surrender of Odoacer at Ravenna;
   his murder;
   Theodoric king of Italy.

496.
Defeat of the Alemanni at Tolbiac by Clovis, king of the Franks;
baptism of Clovis.

SIXTH CENTURY.

CONTEMPORANEOUS EVENTS.

Founding of the kingdom of Bernicia (afterward included in
Northumberland) in England.

553.
End of the Ostrogothic kingdom in Italy;
restoration of the imperial sovereignty.

Establishment of the Exarch at Ravenna, representing the
Emperor at Constantinople.

565.
Death of Belisarius and of the Eastern Emperor Justinian;
accession of Justin II.

567.
Division of the Frank dominion into the three kingdoms of
Austrasia, Neustria and Burgundy.

588.
Kingdom of Northumberland, in England, founded by the union of
Bernicia and Deira under Æthelric.

"Towards the close of the Merovingian period, … the kingdom of the Franks … was divided into four great districts, or kingdoms as they were called: Austrasia, or the eastern kingdom, from the river Rhine to the Meuse, with Metz as its principal city; Neustria, or the western kingdom, extending from Austrasia to the ocean on the west, and to the Loire on the south; Aquitaine, south of that river to the foot of the Pyrenees; and Burgundy, from the Rhone to the Alps, including Switzerland. These four kingdoms became, before the extinction of the Merovingian race, consolidated into two,—viz., Austrasia and Neustria, Eastern and Western Francia,—modern Germany and modern France, roughly speaking,—of which the first was to gain the pre-eminence, as it was the seat of the power of that race of Charlemagne which seized upon the kingdoms of the Merovingians. But in these kingdoms, while the family of Clovis occupied them, the royal power became more and more feeble as time went on, a condition which is illustrated by the title given in history to these kings,—that of 'rois fainéants.'… The most powerful officer of a Frankish king was his steward, or, as he was called, the mayor of his palace. … In Austrasia the office had become hereditary in the family of Pepin of Landen (a small village near Liège), and under its guidance the degenerate children of Clovis in that kingdom fought for the supremacy with those equally degenerate in Neustria, at that time also under the real control of another mayor of the palace, called Ebroin. The result of this struggle, after much bloodshed and misery, was reached in the year 687 at the battle of Testry, in which the Austrasians completely defeated the Neustrians. … The Merovingian princes were still nominally kings, while all the real power was in the hands of the descendants of Pepin of Landen, mayors of the palace, and the policy of government was as fully settled by them as if they had been kings de jure as well as de facto. This family produced in its earlier days some persons who have become among the most conspicuous figures in history:—Pepin, the founder; Pepin le Gros, of Héristal; Charles, his son, commonly called Martel, or the Hammerer; Pepin le Bref, under whom the Carlovingian dynasty was, by aid of the Pope, recognized as the lawful successor of the Merovingians, even before the extinction of that race; and, lastly, Charles, surnamed the Great, or Charlemagne, one of the few men of the human race who, by common consent, have occupied the foremost rank in history. … The object of Pepin of Héristal was two-fold,—to repress the disposition of the turbulent nobles to encroach upon the royal authority, and to bring again under the yoke of the Franks those tribes in Germany who had revolted against the Frankish rule owing to the weakness of the Merovingian government. He measurably accomplished both objects. … He seems to have had what perhaps is the best test at all times of the claims of a man to be a real statesman: some consciousness of the true nature of his mission,—the establishment of order. … His son and successor, Charles Martel, was even more conspicuous for the possession of this genius of statesmanship, but he exhibited it in a somewhat different direction. He, too, strove to hold the nobles in check, and to break the power of the Frisian and the Saxon tribes; and he fought besides, fortunately for his fame, one of the fifteen decisive battles in the history of the world, that of Poitiers, in 732, by which the Saracens, who had conquered Spain, and who had strong hopes of gaining possession of the whole of Western Europe, were driven back from Northern France, never to return. … His son, Pepin le Bref, is equally conspicuous with the rest in history, but in a somewhat different way. He continued the never-ending wars in Germany and in Gaul with the object of securing peace by the sword, and with more or less success. But his career is noteworthy principally because he completed the actual deposition of the last of the Merovingian race, whose nominal servants but real masters he and his predecessors, mayors of the palace, had been, and because he sought and obtained the sanction of the Church for this usurpation. … The Pope's position at this time was one of very great embarrassment. Harassed by the Lombards, who were not only robbers, but who were also Arians, and who admitted none of the Catholic clergy to their councils,—with no succor from the Emperors at Constantinople (whose subject he nominally was) against the Lombards, and, indeed, in open revolt against them because as bishop and patriarch of the West he had forbidden the execution of the decree against the placing of images in the churches,—for these and many such reasons he sorely needed succor, and naturally in his necessity he turned to the powerful King of the Franks. The coronation of Pepin le Bref, first by St. Boniface, and then by the Pope himself, was the first step in the fulfilment of the alliance on his part. Pepin was soon called upon to do his share of the work. Twice at the bidding of the Pope he descended from the Alps, and, defeating the Lombards, was rewarded by him and the people of Rome with the title of Patrician. … On the death of Pepin, the Lombards again took up arms and harassed the Church's territory. Charlemagne, his successor, was called upon to come to the rescue, and he swept the Lombard power in Italy out of existence, annexing its territory to the Frankish kingdom, and confirming the grant of the Exarchate and of the Pentapolis which his father had made to the Popes. This was in the year 774. … For twenty-five years Charlemagne ruled Rome nominally as Patrician, under the supremacy, equally nominal, of the Emperor at Constantinople. The true sovereign, recognized as such, was the Pope or Bishop of Rome, but the actual power was in the hands of the mob, who at one time towards the close of the century, in the absence of both Emperor and Patrician, assaulted the Pope while conducting a procession, and forced him to abandon the city. This Pope, Leo, with a fine instinct as to the quarter from which succor could alone come, hurried to seek Charlemagne, who was then in Germany engaged in one of his never-ending wars against the Saxons. The appeal for aid was not made in vain, and Charles descended once more from the Alps in the summer of 799, with his Frankish hosts. On Christmas day, A. D. 800, in the Church of St. Peter … Pope Leo, during the mass, and after the reading of the gospel, placed upon the brow of Charlemagne, who had abandoned his northern furs for the dress of a Roman patrician, the diadem of the Cæsars, and hailed him Imperator Semper Augustus, while the multitude shouted, 'Carolo, Augusto a Deo coronato magno et pacifico Imperatori Vita et Victoria.' In that shout and from that moment one of the most fruitful epochs of history begins."

"Three hundred and twenty-four years had passed since the last Cæsar of the West resigned his power into the hands of the senate, and left to his Eastern brother the sole headship of the Roman world. To the latter Italy had from that time been nominally subject; but it was only during one brief interval, between the death of Totila the last Ostrogothic king and the descent of Alboin the first Lombard, that his power had been really effective. In the further provinces, Gaul, Spain, Britain, it was only a memory. But the idea of a Roman Empire as a necessary part of the world's order had not vanished: it had been admitted by those who seemed to be destroying it; it had been cherished by the Church; was still recalled by laws and customs; was dear to the subject populations, who fondly looked back to the days when slavery was at least mitigated by peace and order. … Both the extinction of the Western Empire in [A.D. 476] … and its revival in A. D. 800 have been very generally misunderstood in modern times. … When Odoacer compelled the abdication of Romulus Augustulus, he did not abolish the Western Empire as a separate power, but caused it to be reunited with or sink into the Eastern, so that from that time there was, as there had been before Diocletian, a single undivided Roman Empire. In A. D. 800 the very memory of the separate Western Empire, as it had stood from the death of Theodosius till Odoacer, had, so far as appears, been long since lost, and neither Leo nor Charles nor anyone among their advisers dreamt of reviving it. They, too, like their predecessors, held the Roman Empire to be one and indivisible, and proposed by the coronation of the Frankish king, not to proclaim a severance of the East and West, but to reverse the act of Constantine, and make Old Rome again the civil as well as the ecclesiastical capital of the Empire that bore her name. … Although therefore we must in practice speak during the next seven centuries (down till A. D. 1453, when Constantinople fell before the Mohammedan) of an Eastern and a Western Empire, the phrase is in strictness incorrect, and was one which either court ought to have repudiated. The Byzantines always did repudiate it; the Latins usually; although, yielding to facts, they sometimes condescended to employ it themselves. But their theory was always the same. Charles was held to be the legitimate successor, not of Romulus Augustulus, but of Basil, Heraclius, Justinian, Arcadius, and all the Eastern line. … North Italy and Rome ceased for ever to own the supremacy of Byzantium; and while the Eastern princes paid a shameful tribute to the Mussulman, the Frankish Emperor—as the recognised head of Christendom—received from the patriarch of Jerusalem the keys of the Holy Sepulchre and the banner of Calvary; the gift of the Sepulchre itself, says Eginhard, from Aaron king of the Persians [the Caliph Haroun el Rashid]. … Four centuries later, when Papacy and Empire had been forced into the mortal struggle by which the fate of both was decided, three distinct theories regarding the coronation of Charles will be found advocated by three different parties, all of them plausible, all of them to some extent misleading. The Swabian Emperors held the crown to have been won by their great predecessor as the prize of conquest, and drew the conclusion that the citizens and bishop of Rome had no rights as against themselves. The patriotic party among the Romans, appealing to the early history of the Empire, declared that by nothing but the voice of their senate and people could an Emperor be lawfully created, he being only their chief magistrate, the temporary depositary of their authority. The Popes pointed to the indisputable fact that Leo imposed the crown, and argued that as God's earthly vicar it was then his, and must always continue to be their right to give to whomsoever they would an office which was created to be the handmaid of their own. Of these three it was the last view that eventually prevailed."

"There was a manifest conflict, during his later years, in the court, in the councils, in the mind of Charlemagne [who died in 814], between the King of the Franks and the Emperor of the West; between the dissociating, independent Teutonic principle, and the Roman principle of one code, one dominion, one sovereign. The Church, though Teutonic in descent, was Roman in the sentiment of unity. … That unity had been threatened by the proclaimed division of the realm between the sons of Charlemagne. The old Teutonic usage of equal distribution seemed doomed to prevail over the august unity of the Roman Empire. What may appear more extraordinary, the kingdom of Italy was the inferior appanage: it carried not with it the Empire, which was still to retain a certain supremacy; that was reserved for the Teutonic sovereign. It might seem as if this were but the continuation of the Lombard kingdom, which Charlemagne still held by the right of conquest. It was bestowed on Pepin; after his death entrusted to Bernhard, Pepin's illegitimate but only son. Wiser counsels prevailed. The two elder sons of Charlemagne died without issue; Louis the third son was summoned from his kingdom of Aquitaine, and solemnly crowned [813] at Aix-la-Chapelle, as successor to the whole Empire."

"Instead of being preoccupied with the care of keeping the empire united, Louis divided it in the year 817 by giving kingdoms to his three sons. The eldest, Lothaire, had Italy; Louis, Bavaria; Pepin, Aquitaine. A nephew of the emperor, Bernard, imagined himself wronged by this partition, and took up arms to hold Italy. Vanquished without striking a blow, he delivered himself up to his uncle, who caused his eyes to be put out. He expired under that torture. Louis reproached himself later for that cruel death, and to expiate it, subjected himself to a public penance. In 823, there was born to him a fourth son. To make him a sharer of his inheritance, the emperor, annulling in 829 the partition of 817, gave him Germany, thus depriving his elder sons of part of the inheritance previously assigned them. This provoked the resentment of those princes; they rose in rebellion against their father, and the rest of the reign of Louis was only a succession of impious contests with his turbulent sons. In 833, he deposed Pepin, and gave his kingdom of Aquitaine to his youngest born, Charles. Twice deposed himself, and twice restored, Louis only emerged from the cloister, for which he was so well fitted, to repeat the same faults. When Louis the Good-natured died in 840, it was not his cause only which he had lost through his weakness, but that of the empire. Those intestine quarrels presaged its dismemberment, which ere long happened. The sons of Louis, to serve their own ambition, had revived the national antipathies of the different races. Lothaire placed himself at the head of the Italians; Louis rallied the Germans round him, and Charles the Bald the Franks of Gaul, who were henceforward called Frenchmen. Those three peoples aspired to break up the union whose bond Charlemagne had imposed upon them, as the three brothers aspired to form each for himself a kingdom. The question was decided at the great battle of Fontanet, near Auxerre, in 841. Lothaire, who fought therein for the preservation of the empire and of his authority, was conquered. By the treaty of Verdun [843—see VERDUN, TREATY OF] it was decided that Louis should have Germany to the east of the Rhine; Charles, France to the west of the Scheld, the Meuse, the Saone, and the Rhone; finally, Lothaire, Italy, with the long range of country comprised between the Alps and the Cevennes, the Jura, the Saone, the Rhine, and the Meuse, which from his name was called Lotharingia. This designation is still to be traced in one of the recently French provinces, Lorraine."

S. Menzies, History of Europe from the Decadence of the Western Empire to the Reformation, chapter. 13.

GERMANY: A. D. 843-962.
   Treaty of Verdun.
   Definite separation from France.
   The kingdom of the East Franks.

The partition of the empire of Charlemagne among his three grandsons, by the Treaty of Verdun, A. D. 843, gave to Charles the Bald a kingdom which nearly coincided with France, as afterwards existing under that name, "before its Burgundian and German annexations.

It also founded a kingdom which roughly answered to the later Germany before its great extension to the East at the expense of the Slavonic nations. And as the Western kingdom was formed by the addition of Aquitaine to the Western Francia, so the Eastern kingdom was formed by the addition of the Eastern Francia to Bavaria. Lewis of Bavaria [surnamed 'the German'] became king of a kingdom which we are tempted to call the kingdom of Germany. Still it would as yet be premature to speak of France at all, or even to speak of Germany, except in the geographical sense. The two kingdoms are severally the kingdoms of the Eastern and of the Western Franks. … The Kings had no special titles, and their dominions had no special names recognized in formal use. Every king who ruled over any part of the ancient Francia was a king of the Franks. … The Eastern part of the Frankish dominions, the lot of Lewis the German and his successors, is thus called the Eastern Kingdom, the Teutonic Kingdom. Its king is the King of the East-Franks, sometimes simply the King of the Eastern men, sometimes the King of Germany. … The title of King of Germany is often found in the ninth century as a description, but it was not a formal title. The Eastern king, like other kings, for the most part simply calls himself' Rex,' till the time came when his rank as King of Germany, or of the East-Franks, became simply a step towards the higher title of Emperor of the Romans. … This Eastern or German kingdom, as it came out of the division of 887 [after the deposition of Charles III., called Charles the Fat,. who came to the throne in 881, and who had, momentarily reunited all the Frankish crowns, except that of Burgundy], had, from north to south,. nearly the same extent as the Germany of later times. It stretched from the Alps to the Eider. Its southern boundaries were somewhat fluctuating. Verona and Aquileia are sometimes counted as a German march, and the boundary between, Germany and Burgundy, crossing the modern Switzerland, often changed. To the north-east the kingdom hardly stretched beyond the Elbe, except in the small Saxon land between the Elbe and the Eider [called 'Saxony beyond the Elbe'—modern Holstein]. The great extension of the German power over the Slavonic lands beyond the Elbe had hardly yet begun. To the southeast lay the two border-lands or marks; the Eastern Mark, which grew into the later duchy of, Oesterreich or the modern Austria, and to the south of it the mark of Kärnthen or Carinthia. But the main part of the kingdom consisted of the great duchies of Saxony, Eastern Francia, Alemannia, and Bavaria. Of these the two names of Saxony and Bavaria must be carefully marked as having widely different meanings from those which they bear on the modern map. Ancient Saxony lies, speaking roughly, between the Eider, the Elbe, and the Rhine, though it never actually touches the last-named river. To the south of Saxony lies the Eastern Francia, the centre and kernel of the German kingdom. The Main and the Neckar both join the Rhine within its borders. To the south of Francia lie Alemannia and Bavaria. This last, it must be remembered, borders on Italy, with Bötzen for its frontier town. Alemannia is the land in which both the Rhine and the Danube take their source; it stretches on both sides of the Bodensee or Lake of Constanz, with the Rætian Alps as its southern boundary. For several ages to come, there is no distinction, national or even provincial, between the lands north and south of the Bodensee."

GERMANY: A. D. 881.
Accession of Charles III. (called The Fat), afterwards King of
all the Franks and Emperor.

GERMANY: A. D. 911-936.
   Conrad the Franconian and Henry the Fowler.
   Beginning of the Saxon line.
   Hungarian invasion.
   The building of towns.

In 911, on the death of Louis, surnamed the Child, the German or East-Frank branch of the dynasty of Charlemagne had become extinct. "There remained indeed Charles the Simple, acknowledged as king in some parts of France, but rejected in others, and possessing no personal claims to respect. The Germans therefore wisely determined to chose a sovereign from among themselves. They were at this time divided into five nations, each under its own duke, and distinguished by difference of laws, as well as of origin; the Franks, whose territory, comprising Franconia and the modern Palatinate, was considered as the cradle of the empire, and who seem to have arrogated some superiority over the rest, the Suabians, the Bavarians, the Saxons … and the Lorrainers, who occupied the left bank of the Rhine as far as its termination. The choice of these nations in their general assembly fell upon Conrad, duke of Franconia, according to some writers, or at least a man of high rank, and descended through females from Charlemagne. Conrad dying without male issue, the crown of Germany was bestowed [A. D. 919] upon Henry the Fowler, duke of Saxony, ancestor of the three Othos, who followed him in direct succession. To Henry, and to the first Otho [A. D. 936-973], Germany was more indebted than to any sovereign since Charlemagne."

"In 924, the Hungarians, who were as much dreaded as the angel of destruction, re-appeared. They came from the grassy plains of Hungary, mounted on small and ugly, but strong horses, and swept along the Danube like a hailstorm. Wherever they came they set fire to farms, hamlets, and towns, and killed all living creatures or carried them off. And often they bound their prisoners to the tails of their horses, and dragged them along till they died from the dreadful torture. Their very figures inspired disgust and terror, for their faces were brown, and disfigured by scars to absolute hideousness; their heads were shaven, and brutal ferocity and rapacity shone out of their deep-set eyes. And though the Germans fought bravely, these enemies always overmatched them, because they appeared now here, now there, on their fleet horses, and fell upon isolated districts before they were expected or could be stopped. … When on a sudden the terrible cry, 'The Hungarians are coming, the Hungarians are coming,' resounded through the land, all fled who could, as if the wild legions of hell were marching through Saxony and Thuringia. King Henry, however, would not fly, but encountered them in combat, like a true knight. Yet he lost the battle, either because he was ill, or because his soldiers were too few, and unaccustomed to the enemy's mode of fighting, which enabled them to conquer while they were fleeing. Henry was obliged to shut himself up in the royal palace of Werla, near Goslar, which he bravely defended. The Hungarians stormed it again and again, but they could not scale the walls; while Henry's men by a daring sally took a Hungarian chieftain prisoner, which so terrified the besiegers that they concluded a truce for nine years on condition that their chief should be released, and that Henry should engage to pay a yearly tribute. Henry submitted to the dishonourable sacrifice that he might husband his strength for better times. … How important it was to have fortified places which could not be stormed by cavalry, and therefore afforded a safe refuge to the neighbouring peasantry, Henry recognised in 929, when the Hungarians marched through Bavaria and Suabia to Lorraine, plundered the time-honoured monastery of St. Gall, and burnt the suburbs of Constance, but could not take the fortified town itself. Henry, accordingly, published an order throughout the land, that at suitable places large fortresses should be built, in which every ninth man from the neighbouring district must take garrison duty. Certainly living in towns was contrary to the customs of the North Germans, and here and there there was much resistance; but they soon recognised the wisdom of the royal order, and worked night and day with such diligence that there soon arose throughout the land towns with stately towers and strong walls, behind whose battlements the armed burghers defiantly awaited the Hungarians. Hamburg was then fortified, Itzehoe built, the walls of Magdeburg, Halle, and Erfurt extended, for these towns had stood since the time of Charlemagne. Quedlinburg, Merseburg, Meissen, Wittenberg, Goslar, Soest, Nordhausen, Duderstadt, Gronau, Pölde, were rebuilt, and many others of which the old chroniclers say nothing. Those who dwelt in the cities were called burghers, and in order that they might not be idle they began to practise many kinds of industry, and to barter their goods with the peasants. The emperor encouraged the building of towns, and granted emancipation to every slave who repaired to a town, allowed the towns to hold fairs and markets, granted to them the right of coining money and levying taxes, and gave them many landed estates and forests. Under such encouragement town life rapidly developed, and the emperor, in his disputes with the lawless nobility, always received loyal support from his disciplined burghers. After a few centuries the towns, which had now generally become republics, under the name of 'free imperial towns,' became the seats of the perfection of European trade, science, and culture. … These incalculable benefits are due to Henry's order to build towns."

   At the expiration of the nine years truce, the Hungarians
   resumed their attacks, and were defeated by Henry in two
   bloody battles.

GERMANY: A. D. 936-973.
Restoration of the Roman Empire by
Otho I. called the Great.

"Otho the Great, son and successor of Henry I., added the kingdom of Italy to the conquests of his father, and procured also the Imperial dignity for himself, and his successors in Germany. Italy had become a distinct kingdom since the revolution, which happened (888) at the death of the Emperor Charles the Fat. Ten princes in succession occupied the throne during the space of seventy-three years. Several of these princes, such as Guy, Lambert, Arnulf, Louis of Burgundy, and Berenger I., were invested with the Imperial dignity. Berenger I., having been assassinated (924), this latter dignity ceased entirely, and the city of Rome was even dismembered from the kingdom of Italy. The sovereignty of that city was seized by the famous Marozia, widow of a nobleman named Alberic. She raised her son to the pontificate by the title of John XI.; and the better to establish her dominion, she espoused Hugo King of Italy (932), who became, in consequence of this marriage, master of Rome. But Alberic, another son of Marozia, soon stirred up the people against this aspiring princess and her husband Hugo. {1440} Having driven Hugo from the throne, and shut up his mother in prison, he assumed to himself the sovereign authority, under the title of Patrician of the Romans. At his death (954) he transmitted the sovereignty to his son Octavian, who, though only nineteen years of age, caused himself to be elected pope, by the title of John XII. This epoch was one most disastrous for Italy. The weakness of the government excited factions among the nobility, gave birth to anarchy, and fresh opportunity for the depredations of the Hungarians and Arabs, who, at this period, were the scourge of Italy, which they ravaged with impunity. Pavia, the capital of the kingdom, was taken, and burnt by the Hungarians. These troubles increased on the accession of Berenger II. (950), grandson of Berenger I. That prince associated his son Adelbert with him in the royal dignity; and the public voice accused them of having caused the death of King Lothaire, son and successor of Hugo. Lothaire left a young widow, named Adelaide, daughter of Rodolph II., King of Burgundy and Italy. To avoid the importunities of Berenger II., who wished to compel her to marry his son Adelbert, this princess called in the King of Germany to her aid. Otho complied with the solicitations of the distressed queen; and, on this occasion, undertook his first expedition into Italy (951). The city of Pavia, and several other places, having fallen into his hands, he made himself be proclaimed King of Italy, and married the young queen, his protégée. Berenger and his son, being driven for shelter to their strongholds, had recourse to negociation. They succeeded in obtaining for themselves a confirmation of the royal title of Italy, on condition of doing homage for it to the King of Germany. … It appears that it was not without the regret, and even contrary to the wish of Adelaide, that Otho agreed to enter into terms of accommodation with Berenger. … Afterwards; however, he lent a favourable ear to the complaints which Pope John XII. and some Italian noblemen had addressed to him against Berenger and his son; and took occasion, on their account, to conduct a new army into Italy (961). Berenger, too feeble to oppose him, retired a second time within his fortifications. Otho marched from Pavia to Milan, and there made himself be crowned King of Italy; from thence he passed to Rome, about the commencement of the following year. Pope John XII., who had himself invited him, and again implored his protection against Berenger, gave him, at first, a very brilliant reception; and revived the Imperial dignity in his favour, which had been dormant for thirty-eight years. It was on the 2d of February, 962, that the Pope consecrated and crowned him Emperor; but he had soon cause to repent of this proceeding. Otho, immediately after his coronation at Rome, undertook the siege of St. Leon, a fortress in Umbria, where Berenger and his queen had taken refuge. While engaged in the siege, he received frequent intimations from Rome, of the misconduct and immoralities of the Pope. The remonstrances which he thought it his duty to make on this subject, offended the young pontiff, who resolved, in consequence, to break off union with the Emperor. Hurried on by the impetuosity of his character, he entered into a negociation with Adelbert; and even persuaded him to come to Rome, in order to concert with him measures of defence. On the first news of this event, Otho put himself at the head of a large detachment, with which he marched directly to Rome. The Pope, however, did not think it advisable to wait his approach, but fled with the King, his new ally. Otho, on arriving at the capital, exacted a solemn oath from the clergy and the people, that henceforth they would elect no pope without his counsel, and that of the Emperor and his successors. Having then assembled a council, he caused Pope John XII. to be deposed; and Leo VIII. was elected in his place. This latter Pontiff was maintained in the papacy, in spite of all the efforts which his adversary made to regain it. Berenger II., after having sustained a long siege at St. Leon, fell at length (964) into the hands of the conqueror, who sent him into exile at Bamberg, and compelled his son, Adelbert, to take refuge in the court of Constantinople. All Italy, to the extent of the ancient kingdom of the Lombards, fell under the dominion of the Germans; only a few maritime towns in Lower Italy, with the greater part of Apulia and Calabria, still remained in the power of the Greeks. This kingdom, together with the Imperial dignity, Otho transmitted to his successors on the throne of Germany. From this time the Germans held it to be an inviolable principle, that as the Imperial dignity was strictly united with the royalty of Italy, kings elected by the German nation should, at the same time, in virtue of that election, become Kings of Italy and Emperors. The practice of this triple coronation, viz., of Germany, Italy, and Rome, continued for many centuries; and from Otho the Great, till Maximilian I. (1508), no king of Germany took the title of Emperor, until after he had been formally crowned by the Pope."

"At the first glance it would seem as if the relation in which Otho now stood to the pope was the same as that occupied by Charlemagne; on a closer inspection, however; we find a wide difference. Charlemagne's connexion with the see of Rome was produced by mutual need; it was the result of long epochs of political combination embracing the development of various nations; their mutual understanding rested on an internal necessity, before which all opposing views and interests gave way. The sovereignty of Otho the Great, on the contrary, rested on a principle fundamentally opposed to the encroachment of spiritual influences. The alliance was momentary; the disruption of it inevitable. But when, soon after, the same pope who had invoked his aid, John XII., placed himself at the head of a rebellious faction, Otho was compelled to cause him to be formally deposed, and to crush the faction that supported him by repeated, exertions of force, before he could obtain perfect obedience; he was obliged to raise to the papal chair a pope on whose co-operation he could rely. The popes have often asserted that they transferred the empire to the Germans; and if they confined this assertion to the Carolingian race, they are not entirely wrong. The coronation of Charlemagne was the result of their free determination. But if they allude to the German emperors, properly so called, the contrary of their statement is just as true; not only Carlmann and Otho the Great, but their successors, constantly had to conquer the imperial throne, and to defend it, when conquered, sword in hand. {1441} It has been said that the Germans would have done more wisely if they had not meddled with the empire; or, at least, if they had first worked out their own internal political institutions, and then, with matured minds, taken part in the general affairs of Europe. But the things of this world are not wont to develop themselves so methodically. A nation is often compelled by circumstances to increase its territorial extent, before its internal growth is completed. For was it of slight importance to its inward progress that Germany thus remained in unbroken connexion with Italy?—the depository of all that remained of ancient civilisation, the source whence all the forms of Christianity had been derived. The mind of Germany has always unfolded itself by contact with the spirit of antiquity, and of the nations of Roman origin. … The German imperial government revived the civilising and Christianising tendencies which had distinguished the reigns of Charles Martell and Charlemagne. Otho the Great, in following the course marked out by his illustrious predecessors, gave it a fresh national importance by planting German colonies in Slavonian countries simultaneously with the diffusion of Christianity. He Germanised as well as converted the population he had subdued. He confirmed his father's conquests on the Saale and the Elbe, by the establishment of the bishoprics of Meissen and Osterland. After having conquered the tribes on the other side the Elbe in those long and perilous campaigns where he commanded in person, he established there, too, three bishoprics, which for a time gave an extraordinary impulse to the progress of conversion. … And even where the project of Germanising the population was out of the question, the supremacy of the German name was firmly and actively maintained. In Bohemia and Poland bishoprics were erected under German metropolitans; from Hamburg Christianity found its way into the north; missionaries from Passau traversed Hungary, nor is it improbable that the influence of these vast and sublime efforts extended even to Russia. The German empire was the centre of the conquering religion; as itself advanced, it extended the ecclesiastico-military State of which the Church was an integral part; it was the chief representative of the unity of western Christendom, and hence arose the necessity under which it lay of acquiring a decided ascendancy over the papacy. This secular and Germanic principle long retained the predominancy it had triumphantly acquired. … How magnificent was the position now occupied by the German nation, represented in the persons of the mightiest princes of Europe and united under their sceptre; at the head of an advancing civilisation, and of the whole of western Christendom; in the fullness of youthful aspiring strength! We must here however remark and confess, that Germany did not wholly understand her position, nor fulfil her mission. Above all, she did not succeed in giving complete reality to the idea of a western empire, such as appeared about to be established under Otho I. Independent and often hostile, though Christian powers arose through all the borders of Germany; in Hungary and in Poland, in the northern as well as in the southern possessions of the Normans; England and France were snatched again from German influence. Spain laughed at the German claims to a universal supremacy; her kings thought themselves emperors; even the enterprises nearest home—those across the Elbe—were for a time stationary or retrograde. If we seek for the causes of these unfavourable results, we need only turn our eyes on the internal condition of the empire, where we find an incessant and tempestuous struggle of all the forces of the nation. Unfortunately the establishment of a fixed rule of succession to the imperial crown was continually prevented by events."

GERMANY: A. D. 973-1122.
   End of the Saxon line.
   Election of the Franconians.
   Reformation of the Papacy.
   Contest of Henry IV. with the Head of the Church.
   The question of Investitures.

"Otho II. had a short and troubled reign, 973-983 A. D., having to repress the Slavi, the Danes, the Greeks of Lower Italy, and to defend Lorraine against the French. He died at Rome in his twenty-eighth year. 983 A. D. Otho III. (aged three years) succeeded under the regency of his mother, Theophania (a Greek princess), who had to contend with the rebellious nobles, the Slavi, the Poles, the Bohemians, and with France, which desired to conquer Lorraine. This able lady died 991 A. D. Otho III. made three expeditions into Italy, and in 998 A. D. put down the republic of Rome, which had been created by the patrician Crescentius. The resistance of Crescentius had been pardoned the preceding year, but on this occasion he was publicly beheaded on the battlements of Rome, in view of the army and of the people. In 999 A. D. Otho placed his tutor Gerbert in the papal chair as Sylvester II. The tutor and the emperor were in advance of their age. The former had gleaned from Saracen translations from the Greek, as well as from Latin literature, and was master of the science of the day. It is supposed that they had planned to remove the seat of empire to Rome—a project which, had he lived, he would not have been able to carry out, for the centre of political power had long moved northward: he died at the early age of twenty-two, 1002 A. D. Henry II. (the Holy), Duke of Bavaria, was elected emperor, and had to battle, like his predecessors, with rebellious nobles, with the Poles, and Bohemians, and the Slavi. He was thrice in Italy, and died 1024 A. D. 'Perhaps, with the single exception of St. Louis IX., there was no other prince of the middle ages so uniformly swayed by justice.' Conrad II. (the Salic) of Franconia was elected emperor in a diet in the plains between Mentz and Worms, near Oppenheim, which was attended by princes, nobles, and 50,000 people altogether. His reign was remarkable for the justice and mercy which he always kept in view. The kingdom of Aries and Burgundy was united to the empire, 1033 A. D. He checked the Poles, the Hungarians, and the Lombards, and gave Schleswiek to Denmark as a fief. In 1037 A. D. he granted to the lower vassals of the empire the hereditary succession to their offices and estates, and so extended the privileges of the great nobles, as to make them almost independent of the crown. Henry III. succeeded, 1039 A. D., and established the imperial power with a high hand."

"Henry III. was, as sovereign, able, upright, and resolute; and his early death—for his reign was cut short by disasters that preyed upon his health—is one of the calamities of history. The cause of the Roman Court he judged with vigor and good sense. His strong hand, more than any man's, dragged the Church out of the slough it had fallen into [see ROME: A. D. 962-1057]. … A few years before, in 1033, a child ten years old, son of one of the noble houses, had been put on the papal throne, under the name of Benedict IX.; and was restored to it by force of arms, five years later, when he had grown into a lewd, violent, and wilful boy of fifteen. At the age of twenty-one he was weary of the struggle, and sold out, for a large sum of money paid down, to a rich purchaser,—first plundering the papal treasury of all the funds he could lay his hands on. His successor, Gregory VI., naturally complained of his hard bargain, which was made harder by another claimant (Sylvester III.), elected by a different party; while no law that could possibly be quoted or invented would make valid the purchase and sale of the spiritual sovereignty of the world, which in theory the Papacy still was. Gregory appears to have been a respectable and even conscientious magistrate, by the standard of that evil time. But his open purchase of the dignity not only gave a shock to whatever right feeling there was left, but it made the extraordinary dilemma and scandal of three popes at once,—a knot which the German king, now Emperor, was called in to cut. … The worthless Benedict was dismissed, as having betrayed his charge. The impotent Sylvester was not recognized at all. The respectable Gregory was duly convinced of his deep guilt of Simony,—because he had 'thought that the gift of God could be purchased with money,'—and was suffered as a penitent to end his days in peace. A fourth, a German ecclesiastic, who was clean of all these intrigues, was set in the chair of Peter, where he reigned righteously for two years under the name of Clement II."

J. H. Allen, Christian History in its Three Great Periods: Second period, pages 57-58.

"With the popes of Henry's appointment a new and most powerful force rose to the control of the papacy—a strong and earnest movement for reformation which had arisen outside the circle of papal influence during the darkest days of its degradation, indeed, and entirely independent of the empire. This had started from the monastery of Cluny, founded in 910, in eastern France, as a reformation of the monastic life, but it involved gradually ideas of a wider reformation throughout the whole church. Two great sins of the time, as it regarded them, were especially attacked, the marriage of priests and simony, or the purchase of ecclesiastical preferment for money, including also appointments to church offices by temporal rulers. … The earnest spirit of Henry III. was not out of sympathy with the demand for a real reformation, and with the third pope of his appointment, Leo IX., in 1048, the ideas of Cluny obtained the direction of affairs. … One apparently insignificant act of Leo's had important consequences. He brought back with him to Rome the monk Hildebrand. He had been brought up in a monastery in Rome in the strictest ideas of Cluny, had been a supporter of Gregory VI., one of the three rival popes deposed by Henry, who, notwithstanding his outright purchase of the papacy, represented the new reform demand, and had gone with him into exile on his deposition. It does not appear that he exercised any decisive influence during the reign of Leo IX., but so great was his ability and such the power of his personality that very soon he became the directing spirit in the papal policy, though his influence over the papacy before his own pontificate was not so great nor so constant as it has sometimes been said to have been. So long as Henry lived the balance of power was decidedly in favor of the emperor, but in 1056 happened that disastrous event, which occurred so many times at critical points of imperial history, from Arnulf to Henry VI., the premature death of the emperor. His son, Henry IV., was only six years old at his father's death, and a minority followed just in the crisis of time needed to enable the feudal princes of Germany to recover and strengthen their independence against the central government, and to give free hands to the papacy to carry out its plans for throwing off the imperial control. Never again did an emperor occupy, in respect either to Germany or the papacy, the vantage-ground on which Henry III. had stood. … The triumph of the reform movement and of its ecclesiastical theory is especially connected with the name of Hildebrand, or Gregory VII., as he called himself when pope, and was very largely, if not entirely, due to his indomitable spirit and iron will, which would yield to no persuasion or threats or actual force. He is one of the most interesting personalities of history. … The three chief points which the reform party attempted to gain were the independence of the church from all outside control in the election of the pope, the celibacy of the clergy, and the abolition of simony or the purchase of ecclesiastical preferment. The foundation for the first of these was laid under Nicholas II. by assigning the selection of the pope to the college of cardinals in Rome, though it was only after some considerable time that this reform was fully secured. The second point, the celibacy of the clergy, had long been demanded by the church, but the requirement had not been strictly enforced, and in many parts of Europe married clergy were the rule. … As interpreted by the reformers, the third of their demands, the suppression of simony, was as great a step in advance and as revolutionary as the first. Technically, simony was the sin of securing an ecclesiastical office by bribery, named from the incident recorded in the eighth chapter of the Acts concerning Simon Magus. But at this time the desire for the complete independence of the church had given to it a new and wider meaning which made it include all appointment to positions in the church by laymen, including kings and the emperor. … According to the conception of the public law the bishop was an officer of the state. He had, in the great majority of cases, political duties to perform as important as his ecclesiastical duties. The lands which formed the endowment of his office had always been considered as being, still more directly than any other feudal land, the property of the state. … {1443} It was a matter of vital importance whether officers exercising such important functions and controlling so large a part of its area—probably everywhere as much as one-third of the territory—should be selected by the state or by some foreign power beyond its reach and having its own peculiar interests to seek. But this question of lay investiture was as vitally important for the church as for the state. … It was as necessary to the centralization and independence of the church that it should choose these officers as that it should elect the head of all—the pope. This was not a question for Germany alone. Every northern state had to face the same difficulty. … The struggle was so much more bitter and obstinate with the emperor than with any other sovereign because of the close relation of the two powers one to another, and because the whole question of their relative rights was bound up with it. It was an act of rebellion on the part of the papacy against the sovereign, who had controlled it with almost absolute power for a century, and it was rising into an equal, or even superior, place beside the emperor of what was practically a new power, a rival for his imperial position. … It was absolutely impossible that a conflict with these new claims should be avoided as soon as Henry IV. arrived at an age to take the government into his own hands and attempted to exercise his imperial rights as he understood them."

"At Gregory's accession, he [Henry] was a young man of twenty-three. His violence had already driven a whole district into rebellion. … The Pope sided with the insurgents. He summoned the young king to his judgment-seat at Rome; threatened at his refusal to 'cut him off as a rotten limb'; and passed on him the awful sentence of excommunication. The double terror of rebellion at home and the Church's curse at length broke down the passionate pride of Henry. Humbled and helpless, he crossed the Alps in midwinter, groping among the bleak precipices and ice-fields,—the peasants passing him in a rude sledge of hide down those dreadful slopes,—and went to beg absolution of Gregory at the mountain castle of Canossa. History has few scenes more dramatic than that which shows the proud, irascible, crest-fallen young sovereign confronted with the fiery, little, indomitable old man. To quote Gregory's own words:—'Here he came with few attendants, and for three days before the gate—his royal apparel laid aside, barefoot, clad in wool, and weeping abundantly—he never ceased to implore the aid and comfort of apostolic mercy, till all there present were moved with pity and compassion; insomuch that, interceding for him with many prayers and tears they all wondered at my strange severity, and some even cried out that it was not so much the severe dignity of an apostle as the cruel wrath of a tyrant. Overcome at length by the urgency of his appeal and the entreaties of all present, I relaxed the bond of anathema, and received him to the favor of communion and the bosom of our holy Mother the Church.' It was a truce which one party did not mean nor the other hope to keep. It was policy, not real terror or conviction, that had led Henry to humble himself before the Pope. It was policy, not contrition or compassion, that had led Gregory (against his better judgment, it is said) to accept his Sovereign's penance. In the war of policy, the man of the world prevailed. Freed of the Church's curse, he quickly won back the strength he had lost. He overthrew in battle the rival whom Gregory upheld. He swept his rebellious lands with sword and flame. He carried his victorious army to Rome, and was there crowned Emperor by a rival Pope [1084]. Gregory himself was only saved by his ferocious allies, Norman and Saracen, at cost of the devastation of half the capital,—that broad belt of ruin which still covers the half mile between the Coliseum and the Lateran gate. Then, hardly rescued from the popular wrath, he went away to die, defeated and heart-broken, at Salerno, with the almost despairing words on his lips: 'I have loved righteousness and hated iniquity, and therefore I die in exile!' But 'a spirit hath not flesh or bones,' as a body hath, and so it will not stay mangled and bruised. The victory lay, after all, with the combatant who could appeal to fanaticism as well as force."

J. H. Allen, Christian History in its Three Great Periods: second period, pages 69-72.

"Meanwhile, the Saxons had recognized Hermann of Luxemburg as their King, but in 1087 he resigned the crown: and another claimant, Eckbert, Margrave of Meissen, was murdered. The Saxons were now thoroughly' weary of strife, and as years and bitter experience had softened the character of Henry, they were the more willing to return to their allegiance. Peace was therefore, for a time, restored in Germany. The Papacy did not forgive Henry. He was excommunicated several times, and in 1091 his son Conrad was excited to rebel against him. In 1104 a more serious rebellion was headed by the Emperor's second son Henry, who had been crowned King, on promising not to seize the government during his father's lifetime, in 1099. The Emperor was treated very cruelly, and had to sign his own abdication at Ingelheim in 1105. A last effort was made on his behalf by the Duke of Lotharingia; but worn out by his sorrows and struggles, Henry died in August, 1106. His body lay in a stone coffin in an unconsecrated chapel at Speyer for five years. Not till 1111, when the sentence of excommunication was removed, was it properly buried. Henry V. was not so obedient to the Church as the Papal party had hoped. He stoutly maintained the very point which had brought so much trouble on his father. The right of investiture, he declared, had always belonged to his predecessors, and he was not to give up what they had handed on to him. In 1110 he went to Rome, accompanied by a large army. Next year Pope Paschal II. was forced to crown him Emperor: but as soon as the Germans had crossed the Alps again Paschal renewed all his old demands. The struggle soon spread to Germany. The Emperor was excommunicated; and the discontented princes, as eager as ever to break the royal power, sided with the Pope against him. Peace was not restored till 1122, when Calixtus II. was Pope. In that year, in a Diet held at Worms, both parties agreed to a compromise, called the Concordat of Worms."

"The long-desired reconciliation was effected in the form of the following concordat. The emperor renounced the right of investiture with the ring and crosier, and conceded that all bishoprics of the empire should be filled by canonical election and free consecration; the election of the German bishops (not of the Italian and Burgundian) should be held in presence of the emperor; the bishops elect should receive investiture, but only of their fiefs and regalia, by the sceptre in Germany before, in Italy and in Burgundy after, their consecration; for these grants they should promise fidelity to the emperor; contested elections should be decided by the emperor in favour of him who should be considered by the provincial synod to possess the better right. Finally he should restore to the Roman Church all the possessions and regalia of St. Peter. This convention secured to the Church many things, and above all, the freedom of ecclesiastical elections. Hitherto, the different Churches had been compelled to give their consent to elections that had been made by the king; but now the king was pledged to consent to the elections made by the Churches; and although these elections took place in his presence, he could not refuse his consent and investiture without violating the treaty, in which he had promised that for the future elections should be according to the canons. This, and the great difference, that the king, when he gave the ring and crosier, invested the bishop elect with his chief dignity, namely, his bishopric, but now granted him by investiture with the sceptre, only the accessories, namely the regalia, was felt by Lothaire, the successor of Henry, when he required of pope Innocent II. the restoration of the right of investiture. Upon one important point, the homage which was to be sworn to the king, the concordat was silent. By not speaking of it, Calixtus seemed to tolerate it, and the Roman see therefore permitted it, although it had been prohibited by Urban and Paschal. It is certain that Calixtus was as fully convinced as his predecessors, that the condition of vassals, to which bishops and abbots were reduced by their oath of homage, could hardly be reconciled with the nature and dignity of the episcopacy, or with the freedom of the Church, but he perhaps foresaw, that by insisting too strongly upon its discontinuance, he might awaken again the unholy war, and without any hopes of benefit, inflict many evils upon the Church. Sometime later Adrian endeavoured to free the Italian bishops from the homage, instead of which, the emperor was to be content with an oath of fidelity: but Frederick I. would not renounce the homage unless they resigned the regalia. The greatest concession made by the papal see in this concordat, was, that by its silence it appeared to have admitted the former pretensions of the emperors to take a part in the election of the Roman pontiff. … In the following year the concordat was ratified in the great council of three hundred bishops, the ninth general council of the Church, which was convened by Calixtus in Rome."

      See, also, PAPACY: A. D. 1056-1122;
      CANOSSA; ROME: A. D. 1081-1084;
      and SAXONY: A. D. 1073-1075.

The election of Lothaire II., in 1125, when a great assembly of nobles and church dignitaries was convened at Mentz, and when certain of the chiefs made a selection of candidates to be voted for, has been regarded by some historians—Hallam, Comyn and Dunham, for example—as indicating the origin of the German electoral college. They have held that a right of "pretaxation," or preliminary choice, was gradually acquired by certain princes, which grew into the finally settled electoral right. But this view is now looked upon as more than questionable, and is not supported by the best authorities. "The phrase electoral princes (electores principes) first occurs in the Privilegium majus Austriacum, which dates from 1156, but it does not appear what princes were intended, and the accounts extant of the elections of the rival kings, Philip and Otho (IV.) in 1198, show beyond question that the right of election was not then limited to a few princes. The election of Frederick II. (1213) is only described by the authorities in general terms. They inform us that many princes took part in the proceedings. The following brief passage concerning the royal elections occurs in the Auctor Vetus de Beneficiis: 'When the king elected by the Germans goes to Rome to be 'consecrated (the) six princes who first cast their votes for him shall by rights accompany him that the justice of his election may be evident to the Pope.' The Sachsenspiegel Lehurecht substantially copies this sentence, but designates as the six princes: 'the Bishop of Mentz and of Treves and of Cologne, and the Palsgrave of the Rhine, the Duke of Saxony, and the Margrave of Brandenburg.' The Sachsenspiegel of Landrecht is still more explicit: 'In voting for Emperor, the first shall be the Bishop of Mentz; the second, the (Bishop) of Treves; the third, the (Bishop) of Cologne. The first of the laymen to vote is the Palsgrave of the Rhine, the steward of the Empire; the second, the Duke of Saxony, the marshal; the third, the Margrave of Brandenburg, the chamberlain. The butler of the Empire (is) the King of Bohemia. He has no vote because he is not German.' The obvious inference is that these three temporal princes voted before the rest because they were respectively the steward, marshal, and chamberlain. In the chronicle of Albert of Stade, the inference is given as fact in these words: 'The Palsgrave votes because he is steward, the Duke of Saxony because (he is) marshal, and the Margrave of Brandenburg, because (he is) chamberlain.' The mere fact that the right of casting the first six votes attached to six particular princes implies that their votes greatly outweighed those of their fellow-princes, and this is well known to have been the case in all the elections held in the thirteenth century subsequent to that of Frederick II. Only two others were associated with them in the double election of Richard of Cornwall and Alphonso of Castile (1256), namely, the King of Bohemia and the Duke of Bavaria. The whole number of participants was therefore eight, yet Urban IV., in a letter written March 31, 1263, to Richard of Cornwall, mentions the King of Bohemia alone as associated with them, and incidentally states that the 'princes having a voice' in the royal elections were 'seven in number.' It seems as if this must have been the statement of an idea rather than of a fact, although a college of seven electors was a recognized institution ten years later, as the circumstances attending the election of Rudolph of Hapsburg, demonstrate."

The Mark of Brandenburg was raised to the rank of an Electorate in 1356—not in 1152 as erroneously stated by Carlyle. The Margraf then became Kurfürst—"one of the Seven who have a right … to choose, to 'kieren' the Romish Kaiser; and who are therefore called Kur Princes, Kurfürste, or Electors. … Fürst (prince) I suppose is equivalent originally to our noun of number, 'First.' The old verb 'kieren' (participle 'erkoren' still in use, not to mention 'Val-kyr' and other instances) is essentially the same word as our 'choose,' being written 'kiesen' as well as 'kieren.' Nay, say the etymologists, it is also written 'Küssen ('to kiss,'—to choose with such emphasis!), and is not likely to fall obsolete in that form.—The other Six Electoral Dignitaries, who grew to Eight by degrees, and may be worth noting once by the readers of this book, are:

1. Three Ecclesiastical, Mainz, Cöln, Trier (Mentz, Cologne, Treves), Archbishops all. …

2. Three Secular, Sachsen, Pfalz, Böhmen (Saxony, Palatinate, Bohemia); of which the last, Böhmen, since it fell from being a kingdom in itself, to being a Province of Austria, is not very vocal in the Diets.

These Six, with Brandenburg, are the Seven Kurfürsts in old time; Septemvirs of the Country, so to speak. But now Pfalz, in the Thirty-Years War (under our Prince Rupert's Father, whom the Germans call the 'Winter-King'), got abrogated, put to the ban, so far as an indignant Kaiser could; and the vote and Kur of Pfalz was given to his Cousin of Baiern (Bavaria),—so far as an indignant Kaiser could.

However, at the Peace of Westphalia (1648) it was found incompetent to any Kaiser to abrogate Pfalz or the like of Pfalz, a Kurfürst of the Empire. So, after jargon inconceivable, it was settled, that Pfalz must be reinstated, though with territories much clipped, and at the bottom of the list, not the top as formerly; and that Baiern, who could not stand to be balked after twenty-years possession, must be made Eighth Elector.

   "All the rules and requisites of the election were settled by
   Charles the Fourth in the Golden Bull [A. D. 1356—see below:
   A. D. 1347-1493], thenceforward a fundamental law of the
   Empire."

GERMANY: A. D. 1138-1268.
   The house of Suabia, or the Hohenstaufen.
   Its struggles in Germany and Italy, and its end.
   The Factions of the
   Guelfs and Ghibellines.
   Frederick Barbarossa and Frederick the Second.

On the death of Henry V., in 1125, the male line of the house of Franconia became extinct. Frederick, duke of Suabia, and his brother Conrad, duke of the Franks, were grandchildren of Henry IV. on their mother's side, and, inheriting the patrimonial estates, were plainly the heirs of the crown, if the crown was to be recognized as hereditary and dynastic. But jealousy of their house and a desire to reassert the elective dependence of the imperial office prevailed against their claims and their ambition. At an election which was denounced as irregular, the choice fell upon Lothaire of Saxony. The old imperial family was not only set aside, but its bitterest enemies were raised over it. The consequences were a feud and a struggle which grew and widened into the long-lasting, far-reaching, historical conflict of Guelfs and Ghibellines.

The Saxon emperor Lothaire found his strongest support in the great Wölf, Welf, or Guelf nobleman, Henry the Proud, duke of Bavaria, to whom he (Lothaire) now gave his daughter in marriage, together with the dukedom of Saxony, and whom he intended to make his successor on the imperial throne. But the scheme failed. On Lothaire's death, in 1138, the partisans of the Suabian family carried the election of Conrad (the Crusader—see CRUSADES: A. D. 1147-1149), and the dynasty most commonly called Hohenstaufen rose to power. It took the name of Hohenstaufen from its original family seat on the lofty hill of Staufen, in Suabia, overlooking the valley of the Rems. Its party, in the wars and factions of the time, received the name of the Waiblingen, from the birth-place of the Suabian duke Frederick—the little town of Waiblingen in Franconia. Under the tongue of the Italians, when these party names and war-cries were carried across the Alps, Waiblingen became Ghibelline and Welf became Guelf. During the first half century of the reign of the Hohenstaufen, the history of Germany is the history, for the most part, of the strife in which the Guelf dukes, Henry the Proud and Henry the Lion, are the central figures, and which ended in the breaking up of the old powerful duchy of Saxony. But Italy was the great historical field of the energies and the ambitions of the Hohenstaufen emperors. There, Frederick Barbarossa (Frederick Red beard, as the Italians called him), the second of the line, and Frederick II., his adventurous grandson, fought their long, losing battle with the popes and with the city-republics of Lombardy and Tuscany.

   Frederick Barbarossa, elected Emperor in 1152, passed into
   Italy in 1154. "He came there on the invitation of the Pope,
   of the Prince of Capua, and of the towns which had been
   subjected to the ambition of Milan. He marched at the head of
   his German feudatories, a splendid and imposing array. His
   first object was to crush the power of Milan, and to exalt
   that of Pavia, the head of a rival league. Nothing could stand
   against him. At Viterbo he was compelled to hold the stirrup
   of the Pope, and in return for this submission he received the
   crown from the Pontiff's hands in the Basilica of St. Peter.
   He returned northwards by the valley of the Tiber, dismissed
   his army at Ancona, and with difficulty escaped safely into
   Bavaria. His passage left little that was solid and durable
   behind it. He had effected nothing against the King of Naples.
   His friendship with the Pope was illusory and short-lived. The
   dissensions of the North, which had been hushed for a moment
   by his presence, broke out again as soon as his back was
   turned. He had, however, received the crown of Charles the
   Great from the hands of the successor of St. Peter. But
   Frederick was not a man to brook easily the miscarriage of his
   designs. In 1158 he collected another army at Ulm. Brescia was
   quickly subdued; Lodi, which had been destroyed by the
   Milanese, was rebuilt, and Milan itself was reduced to terms.
{1446}
   This peace lasted but for a short time; Milan revolted, and
   was placed under the ban of the Empire. The fate of Cremona
   taught the Milanese what they had to expect from the clemency
   of the Emperor. After a desultory warfare, regular siege was
   laid to the town. On March 1, 1162, Milan, reduced by famine,
   surrendered at discretion, and a fortnight later all the
   inhabitants were ordered to leave the town. The circuit of the
   walls was partitioned out among the most pitiless enemies of
   its former greatness, and the inhabitants of Lodi, of Cremona,
   of Pavia, of Novara, and of Como were encouraged to wreak
   their vengeance on their defeated rival. For six days the
   imperial army laboured to overturn the walls and public
   buildings, and when the Emperor left for Pavia, on Palm Sunday
   1162, not a fiftieth part of the city was standing. This terrible
   vengeance produced a violent reaction. The homeless fugitives
   were received by their ancient enemies, and local jealousies
   were merged in common hatred of the common foe. Frederick had
   already been excommunicated by Pope Alexander III. as the
   supporter of his rival Victor. Verona undertook to be the
   public vindicator of discontent. Five years after the
   destruction of Milan the Lombard league numbered fifteen towns
   amongst its members. Venice, Verona, Vicenza, Treviso,
   Ferrara, Brescia, Bergamo, Cremona, Milan, Lodi, Piacenza,
   Parma, Modena, and Bologna. The confederation solemnly engaged
   to expel the Emperor from Italy. The towns on the frontier of
   Piedmont asked and obtained admission to the league, and to
   mark the dawn of freedom a new town was founded on the low
   marshy ground which is drained by the Bormida and the Tanaro,
   and which afterwards witnessed the victory of Marengo. It was
   named by its founders Alessandria, in honour of the Pope, who
   had vindicated their independence of the Empire. … The
   Lombard league had unfortunately a very imperfect
   constitution. It had no common treasure, no uniform rules for
   the apportionment of contributions; it existed solely for the
   purposes of defence against the external foe. The time was not
   yet come when self-sacrifice and self-abnegation could lay the
   foundations of a united Italy. Frederick spent six years in
   preparing vengeance. In 1174 he laid siege to the new
   Alexandria, but did not succeed in taking it. A severe
   struggle took place two years later. In 1176 a new army
   arrived from Germany, and on May 29 Frederick Barbarossa was
   entirely defeated at Legnano. In 1876 the seventh hundred
   anniversary of the battle was celebrated on the spot where it
   was gained, and it is still regarded as the birthday of
   Italian freedom."

"The end was that the Emperor had to make peace with both the Pope and the cities, and in 1183 the rights of the cities were acknowledged in a treaty or law of the Empire, passed at Constanz or Constance in Swabia. In the last years of his reign, Frederick went on the third Crusade, and died on the way.

Frederick was succeeded by his son Henry the Sixth, who had already been chosen King, and who in the next year, 1191, was crowned Emperor. The chief event of his reign was the conquest of the Kingdom of Sicily, which he claimed in right of his wife Constance, the daughter of the first King William. He died in 1197, leaving his son Frederick a young child, who had already been chosen King in Germany, and who succeeded as hereditary King in Sicily. The Norman Kingdom of Sicily thus came to an end, except so far as it was continued through Frederick, who was descended from the Norman Kings through his mother. On the death of the Emperor Henry, the election of young Frederick seems to have been quite forgotten, and the crown was disputed between his uncle Philip of Swabia and Otto of Saxony. He was son of Henry the Lion, who had been Duke of Saxony and Bavaria, but who had lost the more part of his dominions in the time of Frederick Barbarossa. Otto's mother was Matilda, daughter of Henry the Second of England. … Both Kings were crowned, and, after the death of Philip, Otto was crowned Emperor in 1209. But presently young Frederick was again chosen, and in 1220 he was crowned Emperor, and reigned thirty years till his death in 1250. This Frederick the Second, who joined together so many crowns, was called the Wonder of the World. And he well deserved the name, for perhaps no King that ever reigned had greater natural gifts, and in thought and learning he was far above the age in which he lived. In his own kingdom of Sicily he could do pretty much as he pleased, and it flourished wonderfully in his time. But in Germany and Italy he had constantly to struggle against enemies of all kinds. In Germany he had to win the support of the Princes by granting them privileges which did much to undermine the royal power, and on the other hand he showed no favour to the rising power of the cities. In Italy he had endless strivings with one Pope after another, with Innocent the Third; Honorius the Third, Gregory the Ninth, and Innocent the Fourth; as well as with the Guelfic cities, which withstood him much as they had withstood his grandfather. He was more than once excommunicated by the Popes, and in 1245 Pope Innocent the Fourth held a Council at Lyons, in which he professed to depose the Emperor. More than one King was chosen in opposition to him in Germany, just as had been done in the time of Henry the Fourth, and there were civil wars all his time, both in Germany and in Italy, while a great part of the Kingdom of Burgundy was beginning to slip away from the Empire altogether."

"It is probable that there never lived a human being endowed with greater natural gifts, or whose natural gifts were, according to the means afforded him by his age, more sedulously cultivated, than the last Emperor of the House of Swabia. There seems to be no aspect of human nature which was not developed to the highest degree in his person. In versatility of gifts, in what we may call manysidedness of character, he appears as a sort of mediæval Alkibiadês, while he was undoubtedly far removed from Alkibiadês' utter lack of principle or steadiness of any kind. Warrior, statesman, lawgiver, scholar, there was nothing in the compass of the political or intellectual world of his age which he failed to grasp. In an age of change, when, in every corner of Europe and civilized Asia, old kingdoms, nations, systems, were falling and new ones rising, Frederick was emphatically the man of change, the author of things new and unheard of—he was stupor mundi et immutator mirabilis. {1447} A suspected heretic, a suspected Mahometan, he was the subject of all kinds of absurd and self-contradictory charges; but the charges mark real features in the character of the man. He was something unlike any other Emperor or any other man. … Of all men, Frederick the Second might have been expected to be the founder of something, the beginner of some new era, political or intellectual. He was a man to whom some great institution might well have looked back as its creator, to whom some large body of men, some sect or party or nation, might well have looked back as their prophet or founder or deliverer. But the most gifted of the sons of men has left behind him no such memory, while men whose gifts cannot bear a comparison with his are reverenced as founders by grateful nations, churches, political and philosophical parties. Frederick in fact founded nothing, and he sowed the seeds of the destruction of many things. His great charters to the spiritual and temporal princes of Germany dealt the death-blow to the Imperial power, while he, to say the least, looked coldly on the rising power of the cities and on those commercial Leagues which were in his time the best element of German political life. In fact, in whatever aspect we look at Frederick the Second, we find him, not the first, but the last, of every series to which he belongs. An English writer [Capgrave], two hundred years after his time, had the penetration to see that he was really the last Emperor. He was the last Prince in whose style the Imperial titles do not seem a mockery; he was the last under whose rule the three Imperial kingdoms retained any practical connexion with one another and with the ancient capital of all. … He was not only the last Emperor of the whole Empire; he might almost be called the last King of its several Kingdoms. After his time Burgundy vanishes as a kingdom. … Italy too, after Frederick, vanishes as a kingdom; any later exercise of the royal authority in Italy was something which came and went wholly by fits and starts. … Germany did not utterly vanish, or utterly split in pieces, like the sister kingdoms; but after Frederick came the Great Interregnum, and after the Great Interregnum the royal power in Germany never was what it had been before. In his hereditary Kingdom of Sicily he was not absolutely the last of his dynasty, for his son Manfred ruled prosperously and gloriously for some years after his death. But it is none the less clear that from Frederick's time the Sicilian Kingdom was doomed. … Still more conspicuously than all was Frederick the last Christian King of Jerusalem, the last baptized man who really ruled the Holy Land or wore a crown in the Holy City. … In the world of elegant letters Frederick has some claim to be looked on as the founder of that modern Italian language and literature which first assumed a distinctive shape at his Sicilian court. But in the wider field of political history Frederick appears nowhere as a creator, but rather everywhere as an involuntary destroyer. … Under Frederick the Empire and everything connected with it seems to crumble and decay while preserving its external splendour. As soon as its brilliant possessor is gone, it at once falls asunder. It is a significant fact that one who in mere genius, in mere accomplishments, was surely the greatest prince who ever wore a crown, a prince who held the greatest place on earth, and who was concerned during a long reign in some of the greatest transactions of one of the greatest ages, seems never, even from his own flatterers, to have received that title of Great which has been so lavishly bestowed on far smaller men. … Many causes combined to produce this singular result, that a man of the extraordinary genius of Frederick, and possessed of every advantage of birth, office, and opportunity, should have had so little direct effect upon the world. It is not enough to attribute his failure to the many and great faults of his moral character. Doubtless they were one cause among others. But a man who influences future ages is not necessarily a good man. … The weak side in the brilliant career of Frederick is one which seems to have been partly inherent in his character, and partly the result of the circumstances in which he found himself. Capable of every part, and in fact playing every part by turns, he had no single definite object, pursued honestly and steadfastly, throughout his whole life. With all his powers, with all his brilliancy, his course throughout life seems to have been in a manner determined for him by others. He was ever drifting into wars, into schemes of policy, which seem to be hardly ever of his own choosing. He was the mightiest and most dangerous adversary that the Papacy ever had. But he does not seem to have withstood the Papacy from any personal choice, or as the voluntary champion of any opposing principle. He became the enemy of the Papacy, he planned schemes which involved the utter overthrow of Papacy, yet he did so simply because he found that no Pope would ever let him alone. … The most really successful feature in Frederick's career, his acquisition of Jerusalem [see CRUSADES: A. D. 1216-1229], is not only a mere episode in his life, but it is something that was absolutely forced upon him against his will. … With other Crusaders the Holy War was, in some cases, the main business of their lives; in all cases it was something seriously undertaken as a matter either of policy or of religious duty. But the Crusade of the man who actually did recover the Holy City is simply a grotesque episode in his life. Excommunicated for not going, excommunicated again for going, excommunicated again for coming back, threatened on every side, he still went, and he succeeded. What others had failed to win by arms, he contrived to win by address, and all that came of his success was that it was made the ground of fresh accusations against him. … For a man to influence his age, he must in some sort belong to his age. He should be above it, before it, but he should not be foreign to it. … But Frederick belongs to no age; intellectually he is above his own age, above every age; morally it can hardly be denied that he was below his age; but in nothing was he of his age."

E. A. Freeman, The Emperor Frederick the Second (Historical Essays, volume 1, Essay 10).

For an account of Frederick's brilliant Sicilian court, and of some of the distinguishing features of his reign in Southern Italy, as well as of the end of his family, in the tragical deaths of his son Manfred and his grandson Conradin (1268).

GERMANY: A. D. 1180-1214. Bavaria and the Palatinate of the Rhine acquired by the house of Wittelsbach.

GERMANY: 13th Century. Cause of the multiplication of petty principalities and states.

"While the duchies and counties of Germany retained their original character of offices or governments, they were of course, even though considered as hereditary, not subject to partition among children. When they acquired the nature of fiefs, it was still consonant to the principles of a feudal tenure that the eldest son should inherit according to the law of primogeniture; an inferior provision or appanage, at most, being reserved for the younger children. The law of England favoured the eldest exclusively; that of France gave him great advantages. But in Germany a different rule began to prevail about the thirteenth century. An equal partition of the inheritance, without the least regard to priority of birth, was the general law of its principalities. Sometimes this was effected by undivided possession, or tenancy in common; the brothers residing together, and reigning jointly. This tended to preserve the integrity of dominion; but as it was frequently incommodious, a more usual practice was to divide the territory. From such partitions are derived those numerous independent principalities of the same house, many of which still subsist in Germany. In 1589 there were eight reigning princes of the Palatine family; and fourteen, in 1675, of that of Saxony. Originally these partitions were in general absolute and without reversion; but, as their effect in weakening families became evident, a practice was introduced of making compacts of reciprocal succession, by which a fief was prevented from escheating to the empire, until all the male posterity of the first feudatory should be extinct. Thus, while the German empire survived, all the princes of Hesse or of Saxony had reciprocal contingencies of succession, or what our lawyers call cross-remainders, to each other's dominions. A different system was gradually adopted. By the Golden Bull of Charles IV. the electoral territory, that is, the particular district to which the electoral suffrage was inseparably attached, became incapable of partition, and was to descend to the eldest son. In the 15th century the present house of Brandenburg set the first example of establishing primogeniture by law; the principalities of Anspach and Bayreuth were dismembered from it for the benefit of younger branches; but it was declared that all the other dominions of the family should for the future belong exclusively to the reigning elector. This politic measure was adopted in several other families; but, even in the 16th century, the prejudice was not removed, and some German princes denounced curses on their posterity, if they should introduce the impious custom of primogeniture. … Weakened by these subdivisions, the principalities of Germany in the 14th and 15th centuries shrink to a more and more diminutive size in the scale of nations."

GERMANY: A. D. 1231-1315.
Relations of the Swiss Forest Cantons to the Empire and to the
House of Austria.

GERMANY: A. D. 1250-1272.
   Degradation of the Holy Roman Empire.
   The Great Interregnum.
   Anarchy and disorder universal.
   Election of Rudolf of Hapsburg.

"With Frederick [the Second] fell the Empire. From the ruin that overwhelmed the greatest of its houses it emerged, living indeed, and destined to a long life, but so shattered, crippled, and degraded, that it could never more be to Europe and to Germany what it once had been. … The German kingdom broke down beneath the weight of the Roman Empire. To be universal sovereign Germany had sacrificed her own political existence. The necessity which their projects in Italy and disputes with the Pope laid the Emperors under of purchasing by concessions the support of their own princes, the ease with which in their absence the magnates could usurp, the difficulty which the monarch returning found in resuming the privileges of his crown, the temptation to revolt and set up pretenders to the throne which the Holy See held out, these were the causes whose steady action laid the foundation of that territorial independence which rose into a stable fabric at the era of the Great Interregnum. Frederick II. had, by two Pragmatic Sanctions, A. D. 1220 and 1232, granted, or rather confirmed, rights already customary, such as to give the bishops and nobles legal sovereignty in their own towns and territories, except when the Emperor should be present; and thus his direct jurisdiction became restricted to his narrowed domain, and to the cities immediately dependent on the crown. With so much less to do, an Emperor became altogether a less necessary personage; and hence the seven magnates of the realm, now by law or custom sole electors, were in no haste to fill up the place of Conrad IV., whom the supporters of his father Frederick had acknowledged. William of Holland [A. D. 1254] was in the field, but rejected by the Swabian party: on his death a new election was called for, and at last set on foot. The archbishop of Cologne advised his brethren to choose some one rich enough to support the dignity, not strong enough to be feared by the electors: both requisites met in the Plantagenet Richard, earl of Cornwall, brother of the English Henry III. He received three, eventually four votes, came to Germany, and was crowned at Aachen [A. D. 1256]. But three of the electors, finding that his bribe to them was lower than to the others, seceded in disgust, and chose Alfonso X. of Castile, who, shrewder than his competitor, continued to watch the stars at Toledo, enjoying the splendours of his title while troubling himself about it no further than to issue now and then a proclamation. Meantime the condition of Germany was frightful. The new Didius Julianus, the chosen of princes baser than the prætorians whom they copied, had neither the character nor the outward power and resources to make himself respected. Every floodgate of anarchy was opened: prelates and barons extended their domains by war: robber-knights infested the highways and the rivers: the misery of the weak, the tyranny and violence of the strong, were such as had not been seen for centuries. {1449} Things were even worse than under the Saxon and Franconian Emperors; for the petty nobles who had then been in some measure controlled by their dukes were now, after the extinction of the great houses, left without any feudal superior. Only in the cities was shelter or peace to be found. Those of the Rhine had already leagued themselves for mutual defence, and maintained a struggle in the interests of commerce and order against universal brigandage. At last, when Richard had been some time dead, it was felt that such things could not go on for ever: with no public law, and no courts of justice, an Emperor, the embodiment of legal government, was the only resource. The Pope himself, having now sufficiently improved the weakness of his enemy, found the disorganization of Germany beginning to tell upon his revenues, and threatened that if the electors did not appoint an Emperor, he would. Thus urged, they chose, in 1272 [1273?], Rudolf, count of Hapsburg, founder of the house of Austria. From this point there begins a new era. We have seen the Roman Empire revived in A. D. 800, by a prince whose vast dominions gave ground to his claim of universal monarchy; again erected, in A. D. 962, on the narrower but firmer basis of the German kingdom. We have seen Otto the Great and his successors during the three following centuries, a line of monarchs of unrivalled vigour and abilities, strain every nerve to make good the pretensions of their office against the rebels in Italy and the ecclesiastical power. Those efforts had now failed signally and hopelessly. Each successive Emperor had entered the strife with resources scantier than his predecessors, each had been more decisively vanquished by the Pope, the cities, and the princes. The Roman Empire might, and, so far as its practical utility was concerned, ought now to have been suffered to expire; nor could it have ended more gloriously than with the last of the Hohenstaufen. That it did not so expire, but lived on 600 years more, till it became a piece of antiquarianism hardly more venerable than ridiculous—till, as Voltaire said, all that could be said about it was that it was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire—was owing partly indeed to the belief, still unshaken, that it was a necessary part of the world's order, yet chiefly to its connection, which was by this time indissoluble, with the German kingdom. The Germans had confounded the two characters of their sovereign so long, and had grown so fond of the style and pretensions of a dignity whose possession appeared to exalt them above the other peoples of Europe, that it was now too late for them to separate the local from the universal monarch. If a German king was to be maintained at all, he must be Roman Emperor; and a German king there must still be. … That head, however, was no longer what he had been. The relative position of Germany and France was now exactly the reverse of that which they had occupied two centuries earlier. Rudolf was as conspicuously a weaker sovereign than Philip III. of France, as the Franconian Emperor Henry III. had been stronger than the Capetian Philip I. In every other state of Europe the tendency of events had been to centralize the administration and increase the power of the monarch, even in England not to diminish it: in Germany alone had political union become weaker, and the independence of the princes more confirmed."

GERMANY: A. D. 1273-1308.
The first Hapsburg kings of the Romans, Rodolph and Albert.

The choice made (A. D. 1273) by the German Electors of Rodolph of Hapsburg for King of the Romans (see AUSTRIA: A. D. 1246-1282), was duly approved and confirmed by Pope Gregory X., who silenced, by his spiritual admonitions, the rival claims of King Alfonso of Castile. But Rodolph, to secure this papal confirmation of his title, found it necessary to promise, through his ambassadors, a renewal of the Capitulation of Otho IV., respecting the temporalities of the Pope. This he repeated in person, on meeting the Pope at Lausanne, in 1275, On that occasion, "an agreement was entered into which afterwards ratified to the Church the long disputed gift of Charlemagne, comprising Ravenna, Æmilia, Bobbio, Cesena, Forumpopoli, Forli, Faenza, Imola, Bologna, Ferrara, Comacchio, Adria, Rimini, Urbino, Monteferetro, and the territory of Bagno. Rodolph also bound himself to protect the privileges of the Church, and to maintain the freedom of Episcopal elections, and the right of appeal in all ecclesiastical causes; and having stipulated for receiving the imperial crown in Rome he promised to undertake an expedition to the holy land. If Rodolph were sincere in these last engagements, the disturbed state of his German dominions afforded him an apology for their present non-fulfilment: but there is good reason for believing that he never intended to visit either Rome or Palestine; and his indifference to Italy has even been the theme of panegyric with his admirers. The repeated and mortifying reverses of the two Frederics were before his eyes; there was little to excite his sympathy with the Italians; and though Lombardy seemed ready to acknowledge his supremacy, the Tuscan cities evinced aspirations after independence." During the early years of Rodolph's reign he was employed in establishing his authority, as against the contumacy of Ottocar, King of Bohemia, and the Duke of Bavaria.

   Meantime, Gregory X. and three short-lived successors in the
   papal office passed away, and Nicholas III. had come to it
   (1277). That vigorous pontiff called Rodolph to account for
   not having yet surrendered the states of the Church in due
   form, and whispered a hint of excommunication and interdict.
   "Rodolph was too prudent to disregard this admonition: he
   evaded the projected crusade and journey to Rome; but he took
   care to send thither an emissary, who in his name surrendered
   to the Pope the territory already agreed on. … During his
   entire reign Rodolph maintained his indifference towards
   Italy." His views "were rather directed to the wilds of
   Hungary and Germany than to the delicious regions of the
   south. … He compelled Philip, Count of Savoy, to surrender
   Morat, Payerne, and Guminen, which had been usurped from the
   Empire. By a successful expedition across the Jura, he brought
   back to obedience Otho IV. Count of Burgundy; and forced him
   to renounce the allegiance he had proffered to Philip III.
   King of France. … He crushed an insurrection headed by an
   impostor, who had persuaded the infatuated multitude to
   believe that he was the Emperor Frederic II.
{1450}
   And he freed his dominions from rapine and desolation by the
   destruction of several castles, whose owners infested the
   country with their predatory incursions." Before his death, in
   1291, Rodolph "grew anxious to secure to his son Albert the
   succession to the throne, and his nomination by the Electors
   ere the grave closed upon himself. … But all his entreaties
   were unavailing; he was coldly reminded that he himself was
   still the 'King,' and that the Empire was too poor to support
   two kings. Rodolph might now repent his neglect to assume the
   imperial crown: but the character of Albert seems to have been
   the real obstacle to his elevation. With many of the great
   qualities of his father, this prince was deficient in his
   milder virtues; and his personal bravery and perseverance were
   tainted with pride, haughtiness; and avarice." On Rodolph's
   death, the Electors chose for his successor Adolphus, Count of
   Nassau, a choice of which they soon found reason to repent. By
   taking pay from Edward I. of England, for an alliance with the
   latter against the King of France, and by attempts to enforce
   a purchased claim upon the Landgraviate of Thuringia, Adolphus
   brought himself into contempt, and in 1298 he was solemnly
   deposed by the Electors, who now conferred the kingship upon
   Albert of Austria whom they had rejected six years before.
   "The deposed sovereign was, however, strongly supported; and
   he promptly collected his adherents, and marched at the head
   of a vast army against Albert, who was not unprepared for his
   reception. A great battle took place at Gelheim, near Worms;
   and, after a bloody contest, the troops of Adolphus were
   entirely defeated," and he himself was slain. But Albert, now
   unopposed in Germany, found his title disputed at Rome.
   Boniface VIII., the most arrogant of all popes, refused to
   acknowledge the validity of his election, and drove him into a
   close alliance with the Pope's implacable and finally
   triumphant enemy, Philip IV. of France (see PAPACY: A. D.
   1294-1348). He was soon at enmity, moreover, with a majority
   of the Electors who had given the crown to him, and they,
   stimulated by the Pope, were preparing to depose him, as they
   had deposed Adolphus. But Albert's energy broke up their
   plans. He humbled their leader, the Archbishop-Elector of
   Mentz, and the rest became submissive. The Pope now came to
   terms with him, and invited him to Rome to receive the
   imperial crown; also offering to him the crown of France, if
   he would take it from the head of the excommunicated Philip;
   but while these proposals were under discussion, Boniface
   suffered humiliations at the hands of the French king which
   caused his death. During most of his reign, Albert was busy
   with undertakings of ambition and rapacity which had no
   success. He attempted to seize the counties of Holland,
   Zealand, and Friesland, as fiefs reverting to the crown, on
   the death of John, Count of Holland, in 1299. He claimed the
   Bohemian crown in 1306, when Wenceslaus V., the young king,
   was assassinated, and invaded the country; but only to be
   beaten back. He was defeated at Lucka, in 1308, when
   attempting to grasp the inheritance of the Landgrave of
   Thuringia—under the very transaction which had chiefly caused
   his predecessor Adolphus to be deposed, and he himself
   invested with the Roman crown. Finally, he was in hostilities
   with the Swiss Forest Cantons, and was leading his forces
   against them, in May, 1308, when he was assassinated by
   several nobles, including his cousin John, whose enmity he had
   incurred.

GERMANY: A. D. 1282.
Acquisition of the duchy of Austria by the House of Hapsburg.

   The king (subsequently crowned emperor) chosen to succeed
   Albert was Count Henry of Luxemburg, an able and excellent
   prince. The new sovereign was crowned as Henry VII. "Henry did
   not make the extension of his private domains his object, yet
   favoring fortune brought it to him in the largest measure.
   Since the death of Wenzel III., the succession to the throne
   of Bohemia had been a subject of constant struggles. A very
   small party was in favor of Austria; but the chief power was
   in the hands of Henry of Carinthia, husband of Anna, Wenzel's
   eldest daughter. But he was hated by the people, whose hopes
   turned more and more to Elizabeth, a younger daughter of
   Wenzel; though she was kept in close confinement by Henry, who
   was about to marry her, it was supposed, below her rank. She
   escaped, fled to the emperor, and implored his aid. He gave
   her in marriage to his young son John, sending him to Bohemia
   in charge of Peter Aichspalter; to take possession of the
   kingdom. He did so, and it remained for more than a century in
   the Luxemburg family. This King John of Bohemia was a man of
   mark. His life was spent in the ceaseless pursuit of
   adventure—from tournament to tournament, from war to war,
   from one enterprise to another. We meet him now in Avignon,
   and now in Paris; then on the Rhine, in Prussia, Poland, or
   Hungary, and then prosecuting large plans in Italy, but hardly
   ever in his own kingdom. Yet his restless activity
   accomplished very little, apart from some important
   acquisitions in Silesia. Henry then gave attention to the
   public peace; came to an understanding with Leopold and
   Frederick, the proud sons of Albert, and put under the ban
   Everard of Wirtemberg, long a fomenter of disturbances,
   sending against him a strong imperial army. … At the Diet of
   Spires, in September, 1309, it was cheerfully resolved to
   carry out Henry's cherished plan of reviving the traditional
   dignity of the Roman emperors by an expedition to the Eternal
   City. Henry expected thus to renew the authority of his title
   at home, as well as in Italy, where, in the traditional view,
   the imperial crown was as important and as necessary as in
   Germany. Every thing here had gone to confusion and ruin since
   the Hohenstaufens had succumbed to the bitter hostility of the
   popes. The contending parties still called themselves Guelphs
   and Ghibellines, though they retained little of the original
   characteristics attached to these names. A formal embassy,
   with Matteo Visconti at its head, invited Henry to Milan; and
   the parties every where anticipated his coming with hope. The
   great Florentine poet, Dante, hailed him as a saviour for
   distracted Italy. Thus, with the pope's approval, he crossed
   the Alps in the autumn of 1310, attended by a splendid escort
   of princes of the empire.
{1451}
   The news of his approach excited general wonder and
   expectation, and his reception at Milan in December was like a
   triumph. He was crowned King of Lombardy without opposition.
   But when, in the true imperial spirit, he announced that he
   had come to serve the nation, and not one or another party,
   and proved his sincerity by treating both parties alike, all
   whose selfish hopes were deceived conspired against him.
   Brescia endured a frightful siege for four months, showing
   that the national hatred of German rule still survived. At
   length a union of all his adversaries was formed under King
   Robert of Naples, the grandson of Charles of Anjou, who put
   Conradin to death. Meanwhile Henry VII. went to Rome, May
   1312, and received the crown of the Cæsars from four
   cardinals, plenipotentiaries of the pope, in the church of St.
   John Lateran, south of the Tiber, St. Peter's being occupied
   by the Neapolitan troops. But many of his German soldiers left
   him, and he retired, with a small army, to Pisa, after an
   unsuccessful effort to take Florence. From the faithful city
   of Pisa he proclaimed King Robert under the ban, and, in
   concert with Frederick of Sicily, prepared for war by land and
   sea. But the pope, now a mere tool of the King of France,
   commanded an armistice; and when Henry, in an independent
   spirit, hesitated to obey, Clement V. pronounced the ban of
   the Church against him. It never reached the emperor, who died
   suddenly in the monastery of Buon-Convento: poisoned, as the
   German annalists assert, by a Dominican monk, in the
   sacramental cup, August 24, 1313. He was buried at Pisa.
   Meanwhile his army in Bohemia had been completely successful
   in establishing King John on the throne."

GERMANY: A. D. 1314-1347.
   Election of rival emperors, Lewis (Ludowic) of Bavaria and
   Frederic of Austria.
   Triumph of Lewis at the Battle of Mühldorf.
   Papal interference and excommunication of Lewis.
   Germany under interdict.
   Unrelenting hostility of the Church.

"The death of Heinric [Henry] replunged Germany into horrors to which, since the extinction of the Swabian line of emperors, it had been a stranger. The Austrian princes, who had never forgiven the elevation of the Luxemburg family, espoused the interests of Frederic, their head; the Bohemians as naturally opposed them. From the accession of John, the two houses were of necessity hostile; and it was evident that there could be no peace in Germany until one of them was subjected to the other. The Bohemians, indeed, could not hope to place their king on the vacant throne, since their project would have found an insurmountable obstacle in the jealousy of the electors; but they were at least resolved to support the pretensions of a prince hostile to the Austrians. … The diet being convoked at Frankfort, the electors repaired thither, but with very different views; for, as their suffrages were already engaged, while the more numerous party proclaimed the duke of Bavaria as Ludowic V., another no less eagerly proclaimed Frederic. Although Ludowic was a member of the Austro-Hapsburg family—his mother being a daughter of Rodolf I.—he had always been the enemy of the Austrian princes, and in the same degree the ally of the Luxemburg faction. The two candidates being respectively crowned kings of the Romans, Ludowic at Aix-la-Chapelle, by the archbishop of Mentz—Frederic at Bonn, by the metropolitan of Cologne, a civil war was inevitable: neither had virtue enough to sacrifice his own rights to the good of the state. … The contest would have ended in favour of the Austrians, but for the rashness of Frederic, who, in September 1322, without waiting for the arrival of his brother Leopold, assailed Ludowic between Mahldorf and Ettingen in Bavaria. … The battle was maintained with equal valour from the rising to the setting sun; and was evidently in favour of the Austrians, when an unexpected charge in flank by a body of cavalry under the margrave of Nuremburg decided the fortune of the day. Heinric of Austria was first taken prisoner; and Frederic himself, who disdained to flee, was soon in the same condition. To his everlasting honour, Ludowic received Frederic with the highest assurances of esteem; and though the latter was conveyed to the strong fortress of Trapnitz, in the Upper Palatinate, he was treated with every indulgence consistent with his safe custody. But the contest was not yet decided; the valiant Leopold was still at the head of a separate force; and pope John XXII., the natural enemy of the Ghibelins, incensed at some succours which Ludowic sent to that party in Lombardy, excommunicated the king of the Romans, and declared him deposed from his dignity. Among the ecclesiastics of the empire this iniquitous sentence had its weight; but had not other events been disastrous to the king, he might have safely despised it. By Leopold he was signally defeated; he had the mortification to see the inconstant king of Bohemia join the party of Austria; and the still heavier misfortune to learn that the ecclesiastical and two or three secular electors were proceeding to another choice—that of Charles de Valois, whose interests were warmly supported by the pope. In this emergency, his only chance of safety was a reconciliation with his enemies; and Frederic was released on condition of his renouncing all claim to the empire. But though Frederic sincerely resolved to fulfil his share of the compact, Leopold and the other princes of his family refused; and their refusal was approved by the pope. With the magnanimity of his character, Frederic, unable to execute the engagements which he had made, voluntarily surrendered himself to his enemy. But Ludowic, who would not be outdone in generosity, received him, not as a prisoner, but a friend. 'They ate,' says a contemporary writer, 'at the same table, slept on the same couch;' and when the King left Bavaria, the administration of that duchy was confided to Frederic. Two such men could not long remain even politically hostile; and by another treaty, it was agreed that they should exercise conjointly the government of the empire. When this arrangement was condemned both by the pope and the electors, Ludowic proposed to take Italy as his seat of government, and leave Germany to Frederic. But the death [1326] of the war-like Leopold—the great support of the Austrian cause—and the continued opposition of the states to any compromise, enabled Ludowic to retain the sceptre of the kingdom; and in 1329, that of Frederic strengthened his party. But his reign was destined to be one of troubles. … His open warfare against the head of the church did not much improve his affairs, the vindictive pope, in addition to the former sentence, placing all Germany under an interdict. … {1452} In 1338, the diet of Frankfort issued a declaration for ever memorable in the annals of freedom. That the imperial authority depended on God alone; that the pope had no temporal influence, direct or indirect, within the empire; … it concluded by empowering the emperor (Ludowic while in Italy [see ITALY: A. D. 1313-1330] had received the imperial crown from the anti-pope whom he had created in opposition to John XXII.) to raise, of his own authority, the interdict which, during four years, had oppressed the country. Another diet, held the following year, ratified this bold declaration. … But this conduct of the diet was above the comprehension of the vulgar, who still regarded Ludowic as under the curse of God and the church. … Unfortunately for the national independence, Ludowic himself contradicted the tenor of his hitherto spirited conduct, by mean submissions, by humiliating applications for absolution. They were unsuccessful; and he had the mortification to see the king of Bohemia, who had always acted an unaccountable part, become his bitter enemy. … From this moment the fate of Ludowic was decided. In conjunction with the pope and the French king, Charles of Bohemia, who in 1346 succeeded to his father's kingdom and antipathy, commenced a civil war; and in the midst of these troubled scenes the emperor breathed his last [October 11, 1347]. Twelve months before the decease of Ludowic, Charles of Bohemia [son of John, the blind king of Bohemia, who fell, fighting for the French, at the battle of Crecy], assisted by Clement VI., was elected king of the Romans."

      J. C. Robertson,
      History of the Christian Church,
      book 8, chapter 2, V. 7.

      M. Creighton,
      History of the Papacy during the Period of the Reformation,
      introduction, chapter 2.

   The Luxemburg line of emperors, and the reappearance of the
   Hapsburgs.
   The Holy Roman Empire as it was at the end of the Middle Ages.

"John king of Bohemia did not himself wear the imperial crown; but three of his descendants possessed it, with less interruption than could have been expected. His son Charles IV. succeeded Louis of Bavaria in 1347; not indeed without opposition, for a double election and a civil war were matters of course in Germany. Charles IV. has been treated with more derision by his contemporaries, and consequently by later writers, than almost any prince in history; yet he was remarkably successful in the only objects that he seriously pursued. Deficient in personal courage, insensible of humiliation, bending without shame to the pope, to the Italians, to the electors, so poor and so little reverenced as to be arrested by a butcher at Worms for want of paying his demand, Charles IV. affords a proof that a certain dexterity and cold-blooded perseverance may occasionally supply, in a sovereign, the want of more respectable qualities. He has been reproached with neglecting the empire. But he never deigned to trouble himself about the empire, except for his private' ends. He did not neglect the kingdom of Bohemia, to which he almost seemed to render Germany a province. Bohemia had been long considered as a fief of the empire, and indeed could pretend to an electoral vote by no other title. Charles, however, gave the states by law the right of choosing a king, on the extinction of the royal family, which seems derogatory to the imperial prerogative. … He constantly resided at Prague, where he founded a celebrated university, and embellished the city with buildings. This kingdom, augmented also during his reign by the acquisition of Silesia, he bequeathed to his son Wenceslaus, for whom, by pliancy towards the electors and the court of Rome, he had procured, against all recent example, the imperial succession. The reign of Charles IV. is distinguished in the constitutional history of the empire by his Golden Bull [1356]; an instrument which finally ascertained the prerogatives of the electoral college.

   The Golden Bull terminated the disputes which had arisen
   between different members of the same house as to their right
   of suffrage, which was declared inherent in certain definite
   territories. The number was absolutely restrained to seven.
   The place of legal imperial elections was fixed at Frankfort;
   of coronations, at Aix-la-Chapelle: and the latter ceremony
   was to be performed by the arch-bishop of Cologne. These
   regulations, though consonant to ancient usage, had not always
   been observed, and their neglect had sometimes excited
   questions as to the validity of elections. The dignity of
   elector was enhanced by the Golden Bull as highly as an
   imperial edict could carry it: they were declared equal to
   kings, and conspiracy against their persons incurred the
   penalty of high treason. Many other privileges are granted to
   render them more completely sovereign within their dominions.
   It seems extraordinary that Charles should have voluntarily
   elevated an oligarchy, from whose pretensions his predecessors
   had frequently suffered injury. But he had more to apprehend
   from the two great families of Bavaria and Austria, whom he
   relatively depressed by giving such a preponderance to the
   seven electors, than from any members of the college. By his
   compact with Brandenburg [see BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1168-1417] he
   had a fair prospect of adding a second vote to his own. …
   The next reign, nevertheless, evinced the danger of investing
   the electors with such preponderating authority. Wenceslaus
   [elected in 1378], a supine and voluptuous man, less
   respected, and more negligent of Germany, if possible, than
   his father, was regularly deposed by a majority of the
   electoral college in 1400. … They chose Robert count
   palatine instead of Wenceslaus; and though the latter did not
   cease to have some adherents, Robert has generally been
   counted among the lawful emperors. Upon his death [1410] the
   empire returned to the house of Luxemburg; Wenceslaus himself
   waiving his rights in favour of his brother Sigismund of
   Hungary." On the death of Sigismund, in 1437, the house of
   Austria regained the imperial throne, in the person of Albert,
   duke of Austria, who had married Sigismund's only daughter,
   the queen of Hungary and Bohemia. "He died in two years,
   leaving his wife pregnant with a son, Ladislaus Posthumus, who
   afterwards reigned in the two kingdoms just mentioned; and the
   choice of the electors fell upon Frederic duke of Styria,
   second-cousin of the last emperor, from whose posterity it
   never departed, except in a single instance, upon the
   extinction of his male line in 1740.
{1453}
   Frederic III. reigned 53 years [1440-1493], a longer period
   than any of his predecessors; and his personal character was
   more insignificant. … Frederic, always poor, and scarcely
   able to protect himself in Austria from the seditions of his
   subjects, or the inroads of the king of Hungary, was yet
   another founder of his family, and left their fortunes
   incomparably more prosperous than at his accession. The
   marriage of his son Maximilian with the heiress of Burgundy
   [see NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1477] began that aggrandizement of the
   house of Austria which Frederic seems to have anticipated. The
   electors, who had lost a good deal of their former spirit, and
   were grown sensible of the necessity of choosing a powerful
   sovereign, made no opposition to Maximilian's becoming king of
   the Romans in his father's lifetime."

"It is important to remark that, for more than a century after Charles IV. had fixed his seat in Bohemia, no emperor appeared, endowed with the vigour necessary to uphold and govern the empire. The bare fact that Charles's successor, Wenceslas, was a prisoner in the hands of the Bohemians, remained for a long time unknown in Germany: a simple decree of the electors' sufficed to dethrone him. Rupert the Palatine only escaped a similar fate by death. When Sigismund of Luxemburg, (who, after many disputed elections, kept possession of the field,) four years after his election, entered the territory of the empire of which he was to be crowned sovereign, he found so little sympathy that he was for a moment inclined to return to Hungary without accomplishing the object of his journey. The active part he took in the affairs of Bohemia, and of Europe generally, has given him a name; but in and for the empire, he did nothing worthy of note. Between the years 1422 and 1430 he never made his appearance beyond Vienna; from the autumn of 1431 to that of 1433 he was occupied with his coronation journey to Rome; and during the three years from 1434 to his death he never got beyond Bohemia and Moravia; nor did Albert II., who has been the subject of such lavish eulogy, ever visit the dominions of the empire. Frederic III., however, far outdid all his predecessors. During seven-and-twenty years, from 1444 to 1471, he was never seen within the boundaries of the empire. Hence it happened that the central action and the visible manifestation of sovereignty, in as far as any such existed in the empire, fell to the share of the princes, and more especially of the prince-electors. In the reign of Sigismund we find them convoking the diets, and leading the armies into the field against the Hussites: the operations against the Bohemians were attributed entirely to them. In this manner the empire became, like the papacy, a power which acted from a distance, and rested chiefly upon opinion. … The emperor was regarded, in the first place, as the supreme feudal lord, who conferred on property its highest and most sacred sanction. … Although he was regarded as the head and source of all temporal jurisdiction, yet no tribunal found more doubtful obedience than his own. The fact that royalty existed in Germany had almost been suffered to fall into oblivion; even the title had been lost. Henry VII. thought it an affront to be called King of Germany, and not, as he had a right to be called before any ceremony of coronation, King of the Romans. In the 15th century the emperor was regarded pre-eminently as the successor of the ancient Roman Cæsars, whose rights and dignities had been transferred, first to the Greeks, and then to the Germans in the persons of Charlemagne and Otho the Great; as the true secular head of Christendom. … The opinion was confidently entertained in Germany that the other sovereigns of Christendom, especially those of England, Spain, and France, were legally subject to the crown of the empire: the only controversy was, whether their disobedience was venial, or ought to be regarded as sinful."

E. F. Henderson, Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages, book 2, number 10.

GERMANY: A. D. 1363-1364.
Tyrol acquired by the House of Austria, with the reversion of
the crowns of Bohemia and Hungary.

GERMANY: A. D. 1386-1388.
Defeat of the Austrians by the Swiss at Sempach and Naefels.

GERMANY: A. D. 1414-1418.
Failure of demands for Church Reform in the Council of
Constance.

GERMANY: A. D. 1417.
The Electorate of Brandenburg conferred on the Hohenzollerns.

   "The March of Brandenburg is one of those districts which was
   first peopled by the advance of the German nation towards the
   east during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. It was in
   the beginning, like Silesia, Mecklenburg, Pomerania, Prussia,
   and Livonia, a German colony settled upon an almost
   uncultivated soil: from the very first, however, it seems to
   have given the greatest promise of vigour. … Possession was
   taken of the soil upon the ground of the rights of the
   princely Ascanian house—we know not whether these rights were
   founded upon inheritance, purchase, or cession. The process of
   occupation was so gradual that the institutions of the old
   German provinces, like those constituting the northern march,
   had time to take firm root in the newly-acquired territory;
   and owing to the constant necessity for unsheathing the sword,
   the colonists acquired warlike habits which tended to give them
   spirit and energy. … The Ascanians were a warlike but
   cultivated race, incessantly acquiring new possessions, but
   generous and openhanded; and new life followed in their
   footsteps. They soon took up an important political position
   among the German princely houses: their possessions extended
   over a great part of Thuringia, Moravia, Lausitz, and Silesia;
   the electoral dignity which they assumed gave to them and to
   their country a high rank in the Empire. In the Neumark and in
   Pomerelllen the Poles retreated before them, and on the
   Pomeranian coasts they protected the towns founded by the
   Teutonic order from the invasion of the Danes. It has been
   asked whether this race might not have greatly extended its
   power; but they were not destined even to make the attempt.
{1454}
   It is said that at the beginning of the fourteenth century
   nineteen members of this family were assembled on the
   Margrave's Hill near Rathenau. In the year 1320, of all these
   not one remained, or had even left an heir. … In Brandenburg
   … it really appeared as if the extinction of the ruling
   family would entail ruin upon the country. It had formed a
   close alliance with the imperial power—which at that moment
   was the subject of contention between the two great families
   of Wittelsbach and Luxemburg—was involved in the quarrels of
   those two races, injured by all their alternations of fortune,
   and sacrificed to their domestic and foreign policy, which was
   totally at variance with the interests of Brandenburg. At the
   very beginning of the struggle the March of Brandenburg lost
   its dependencies. … At length the Emperor Sigmund, the last
   of the house of Luxemburg, found himself so fully occupied
   with the disturbances in the Empire and the dissensions in the
   Church, that he could no longer maintain his power in the
   March, and intrusted the task to his friend and relation,
   Frederick, Burgrave of Nürnberg, to whom he lay under very
   great obligations, and who had assisted him with money at his
   need. … It was a great point gained, after so long a period
   of anarchy, to find a powerful and prudent prince ready to
   undertake the government of the province. He could do nothing
   in the open field against the revolted nobles, but he assailed
   and vanquished them in their hitherto impregnable strong-holds
   surrounded with walls fifteen feet thick, which he demolished
   with his clumsy but effective artillery. In a few years he had
   so far succeeded that he was able to proclaim a Landfriede, or
   public peace, according to which each and everyone who was an
   enemy to him, or to those comprehended in the peace, was
   considered and treated as the enemy of all. But the effect of
   all this would have been but transient, had not the Emperor,
   who had no son, and who was won by Frederick's numerous
   services and by his talents for action, made the Electorate
   hereditary in his family. … The most important day in the
   history of the March of Brandenburg and the family of Zollern
   was the 18th of April, 1417, when in the market-place of
   Constance the Emperor Sigmund formally invested the Burgrave
   with the dignity of Elector, placed in his hands the flag with
   the arms of the March and received from him the oath of
   allegiance. From this moment a prospect was afforded to the
   territory of Brandenburg of recovering its former prosperity
   and increasing its importance, while to the house of Zollern a
   career of glory and usefulness was opened worthy of powers
   which were thus called into action."

See, also, BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1168-1417;
and HOHENZOLLERN, RISE OF THE HOUSE OF.

GERMANY: A. D. 1467-1477.
Relations of Charles the Bold of Burgundy to the Empire.

Several risings of the German peasantry, in the later part of the 15th and early part of the 16th century, were named from the Bundschuh, or peasants' clog, which the insurgents bore as their emblem or pictured on their banners. "While the peasants in the Rhætian Alps were gradually throwing off the yoke of the nobles and forming the 'Graubund' [see SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1396-1499], a struggle, was going on between the neighbouring peasantry of Kempten (to the east of Lake Constance) and their feudal lord, the Abbot of Kempten. It began in 1423, and came to an open rebellion in 1492. It was a rebellion against new demands not sanctioned by ancient custom, and though it was crushed, and ended in little good to the peasantry (many of whom fled into Switzerland), yet it is worthy of note because in it for the first time appears the banner of the Bundschuh. The next rising was in Elsass (Alsace), in 1493, the peasants finding allies in the burghers of the towns along the Rhine, who had their own grievances. The Bundschuh was again their banner, and it was to Switzerland that their anxious eyes were turned for help. This movement also was prematurely discovered and put down. Then, in 1501, other peasants, close neighbours to those of Kempten, caught the infection, and in 1502, again in Elsass, but this time further north, in the region about Speyer and the Neckar, lower down the Rhine, nearer Franconia, the Bundschuh was raised again. It numbered on its recruit rolls many thousands of peasants from the country round, along the Neckar and the Rhine. The wild notion was to rise in arms, to make themselves free, like the Swiss, by the sword, to acknowledge no superior but the Emperor, and all Germany was to join the League. They were to pay no taxes or dues, and commons, forests, and rivers were to be free to all. Here, again, they mixed up religion with their demands, and 'Only what is just before God' was the motto on the banner of the Bundschuh. They, too, were betrayed, and in savage triumph the Emperor Maximilian ordered their property to be confiscated, their wives and children to be banished, and themselves to be quartered alive. … Few … really fell victims to this cruel order of the Emperor. The ringleaders dispersed, fleeing some into Switzerland and some into the Black Forest. For ten years now there was silence. The Bundschuh banner was furled, but only for a while. In 1512 and 1513, on the east side of the Rhine, in the Black Forest and the neighbouring districts of Würtemberg, the movement was again on foot on a still larger scale. It had found a leader in Joss Fritz. A soldier, with commanding presence and great natural eloquence, … he bided his time. … Again the League was betrayed … and Joss Fritz, with the banner under his clothes, had to fly for his life to Switzerland. … He returned after a while to the Black Forest, went about his secret errands, and again bided his time. In 1514 the peasantry of the Duke Ulrich of Würtemberg rose to resist the tyranny of their lord [in a combination called 'the League of Poor Conrad']. … The same year, in the valleys of the Austrian Alps, in Carinthia, Styria, and Crain, similar risings of the peasantry took place, all of them ending in the triumph of the nobles."

GERMANY: A. D. 1493-1519.
   The reign of Maximilian.
   His personal importance and his imperial powerlessness.
   Constitutional reforms in the Empire.
   The Imperial Chamber.
   The Circles.
   The Aulic Council.

   "Frederic [the Third] died in 1493, after a protracted and
   inglorious reign of 53 years. … On the death of his father,
   Maximilian had been seven years king of the Romans; and his
   accession to the imperial crown encountered no opposition. …
   Scarcely had he ascended the throne, when Charles VIII., king
   of France, passed through the Milanese into the south of
   Italy, and seized on Naples without opposition.

Maximilian endeavoured to rouse the German nation to a sense of its danger, but in vain. … With difficulty he was able to despatch 3,000 men to aid the league, which Spain, the pope, the Milanese, and the Venetians had formed, to expel the ambitious intruders from Italy. To cement his alliance with Fernando the Catholic, he married his son Philip to Juana, the daughter of the Spaniard. The confederacy triumphed; not through the efforts of Maximilian, but through the hatred of the Italians to the Gallic yoke. … Louis XII., who succeeded to Charles (1498), … forced Philip to do homage for Flanders; surrendering, indeed, three inconsiderable towns, that he might be at liberty to renew the designs of his house on Lombardy and Naples. … The French had little difficulty in expelling Ludovico Moro, the usurper of Milan, and in retaining possession of the country during the latter part of Maximilian's reign.

Louis, indeed, did homage for the duchy to the Germanic head; but such homage was merely nominal: it involved no tribute, no dependence. The occupation of this fine province by the French made no impression on the Germans; they regarded it as a fief of the house of Austria, not of the empire: but even if it had stood in the latter relation, they would not have moved one man, or voted one florin, to avert its fate. That the French did not obtain similar possession of Naples, and thereby become enabled to oppose Maximilian with greater effect, was owing to the valour of the Spanish troops, who retained the crown in the house of Aragon. His disputes with the Venetians were inglorious to his arms; they defeated his armies, and encroached considerably on his Italian possessions. He was equally unsuccessful with the Swiss, whom he vainly persuaded to acknowledge the supremacy of his house. … For many of his failures … he is not to be blamed. To carry on his vast enterprises he could command only the resources of Austria: had he been able to wield those of the empire, his name would have been more formidable to his enemies; and it is no slight praise, that with means so contracted he could preserve the Netherlands against the open violence, no less than the subtle duplicity, of France. But the internal transactions of Maximilian's reign are those only to which the attention of the reader can be directed with pleasure. In 1495 we witness the entire abolition of the right of diffidation [private warfare, see LANDFRIEDE],—a right which from time immemorial had been the curse of the empire. … The passing of the decree which for ever secured the public peace, by placing under the ban of the empire, and fining at 2,000 marks in gold, every city, every individual that should hereafter send or accept a defiance, was nearly unanimous. In regard to the long-proposed tribunal [to take cognizance of all violations of the public tranquillity], which was to retain the name of the Imperial chamber, Maximilian relaxed much from the pretensions of his father. … It was solemnly decreed that the new court should consist of one grand judge, and of 16 assessors, who were presented by the states, and nominated by the emperor. … Though a new tribunal was formed, its competency, its operation, its support, its constitution, the enforcement of its decisions, were left to chance; and many successive diets—even many generations—were passed before anything like an organised system could be introduced into it. For the execution of its decrees the Swabian league was soon employed; then another new authority, the Council of Regency. … But these authorities were insufficient to enforce the execution of the decrees emanating from the chamber; and it was found necessary to restore the proposition of the circles, which had been agitated in the reign of Albert II. …

   Originally they comprised only:
   1. Bavaria,
   2. Franconia,
   3. Saxony,
   4. the Rhine,
   5. Swabia, and
   6. Westphalia; thus excluding the states of Austria and the
   electorates. But this exclusion was the voluntary act of the
   electors, who were jealous of a tribunal which might encroach
   on their own privileges. In 1512, however, the opposition of
   most appears to have been removed; for four new circles were
   added.
   7. The circle of Austria comprised the hereditary dominions of
   that house.
   8. That of Burgundy contained the states inherited from
   Charles the Rash in Franche-Comté; and the Netherlands.
   9. That of the Lower Rhine comprehended the three
   ecclesiastical electorates and the Palatinate.
   10. That of Upper Saxony extended over the electorate of that
   name and the march of Brandenburg. …

Bohemia and Prussia … refused to be thus partitioned. Each of these circles had its internal organisations, the elements of which were promulgated in 1512, but which was considerably improved by succeeding diets. Each had its hereditary president, or director, and its hereditary prince convoked, both offices being frequently vested in the same individual. … Each circle had its military chief, elected by the local states, whose duty it was to execute the decrees of the imperial Chamber. Generally this office was held by the prince director. … The establishment of the Imperial Chamber was … disagreeable to the emperor. To rescue from its jurisdiction such causes as he considered lay more peculiarly within the range of his prerogative, and to encroach by degrees on the jurisdiction of this odious tribunal, Maximilian, in 1501, laid the foundation of the celebrated Aulic Council. But the competency of this tribunal was soon extended; from political affairs, investitures, charters, and the numerous matters which concerned the Imperial chancery, it immediately passed to judicial crimes. … By an imperial edict of 1518, the Aulic Council was to consist of 18 members, all nominated by the emperor. Five only were to be chosen from the states of the empire, the rest from those of Austria. About half were legists, the other half nobles, but all dependent on their chief. … When he [Maximilian] laboured to make this council as arbitrary in the empire as in Austria, he met with great opposition. … But his purpose was that of encroachment no less than of defence; and his example was so well imitated by his successors, that in most cases the Aulic Council was at length acknowledged to have a concurrent jurisdiction with the Imperial Chamber, in many the right of prevention over its rival."

"The received opinion which recognises in [Maximilian] the creative founder of the later constitution of the empire, must be abandoned. … He had not the power of keeping the princes of the empire together; … on the contrary, everything about him split into parties. It followed of necessity that abroad he rather lost than gained ground. … The glory which surrounds the memory of Maximilian, the high renown which he enjoyed even among his contemporaries, were therefore not won by the success of his enterprises, but by his personal qualities. Every good gift of nature had been lavished upon him in profusion. … He was a man … formed to excite admiration, and to inspire enthusiastic attachment; formed to be the romantic hero, the exhaustless theme of the people."

ALSO IN: L. von Ranke, History of the Latin and Teutonic Nations from 1494 to 1514, book 1, chapter 3, and book 2, chapters 2 and 4.

GERMANY: A. D.1496-1499.
The Swabian war.
Practical separation of the Swiss Confederacy from the Empire.

GERMANY: A. D. 1517-1523.
Beginning of the movement of Religious Reformation.
Papal Indulgences, and Luther's attack on them.

"The Reformation, like all other great social convulsions, was long in preparation. It was one part of that general progress, complex in its character, which marked the fifteenth century and the opening of the sixteenth as the period of transition from the Middle Ages to modern civilization. … But while the Reformation was one part of a change extending over the whole sphere of human knowledge and activity, it had its own specific origin and significance. These are still, to some extent, a subject of controversy. … One of its causes, as well as one of the sources of its great power, was the increasing discontent with the prevailing corruption and misgovernment in the Church, and with papal interference in civil affairs. … The misconduct of the popes in the last half of the fifteenth century was not more flagrant than that of their predecessors in the tenth century. But the fifteenth century was an age of light. What was done by the pontiffs was not done in a corner, but under the eyes of all Europe. Besides, there was now a deep-seated craving, especially in the Teutonic peoples, who had so long been under the tutelage of a legal, judaizing form of Christianity, for a more spiritual type of religion. … The Reformation may be viewed in two aspects. On the one hand it is a religious revolution affecting the beliefs, the rites, the ecclesiastical organization of the Church, and the form of Christian life. On the other hand, it is a great movement in which sovereigns and nations are involved; the occasion of wars and treaties; the close of an old, and the introduction of a new, period in the history of culture and civilization. Germany, including the Netherlands and Switzerland, was the stronghold of the Reformation. It was natural that such a movement should spring up and rise to its highest power among a people in whom a love of independence was mingled with a yearning for a more spiritual form of religion than was encouraged by mediæval ecclesiasticism. Hegel has dwelt with eloquence upon the fact that while the rest of the world was gone out to America or to the Indies, in quest of riches and a dominion that should encircle the globe, a simple monk, turning away from empty forms and the things of sense, was finding him whom the disciples once sought in a sepulchre of stone. Unquestionably the hero of the Reformation was Martin Luther. … As an English writer has pointed out, Luther's whole nature was identified with his great work, and while other leaders, like Melancthon and even Calvin, can be separated in thought from the Reformation, Luther, apart from the Reformation, would cease to be Luther.' … In 1517 John Tetzel, a hawker of indulgences, the proceeds of which were to help pay for the building of St. Peter's Church, appeared in the neighborhood of Wittenberg. To persuade the people to buy his spiritual wares, he told them, as Luther himself testifies, that as soon as their money clinked in the bottom of the chest the souls of their deceased friends forthwith went up to heaven. Luther was so struck with the enormity of this traffic that he determined to stop it. He preached against it, and on October 31, 1517, he posted on the door of the Church of All Saints, at Wittenberg, his ninety-five theses. [For the full text of these, see PAPACY: A. D. 1517], relating to the doctrine and practice of selling indulgences. Indulgences … were at first commutations of penance by the payment of money. The right to issue them had gradually become the exclusive prerogative of the popes. The eternal punishment of mortal sin being remitted or commuted by the absolution of the priest, it was open to the pope or his agents, by a grant of indulgences, to remove the temporal or terminable penalties, which might extend into purgatory. For the benefit of the needy he could draw upon the treasury of merit stored up by Christ and the saints. Although it was expressly declared by Pope Sixtus IV., that souls are delivered from purgatorial fires in a way analogous to the efficacy of prayer, and although contrition was theoretically required of the recipient of an indulgence, it often appeared to the people as a simple bargain, according to which, on payment of a stipulated sum, the individual obtained a full discharge from the penalties of sin, or procured the release of a soul from the flames. Luther's theses assailed the doctrines which made this baneful traffic possible. … Unconsciously to their author, they struck a blow at the authority of Rome and of the priesthood. Luther had no thought of throwing off his allegiance to the Roman Church. Even his theses were only propositions, propounded for academic debate, according to the custom in mediæval universities. He concluded them with the solemn declaration that he affirmed nothing, but left all to the judgment of the Church. … {1457} The theses stirred up a commotion all over Germany. … A controversy arose between the new champion of reform and the defenders of indulgences. It was during this dispute that Luther began to realize that human authority was against him and to see the necessity of planting himself more distinctly on the Scriptures. His clear arguments and resolute attitude won the respect of the Elector of Saxony, who, though he often sought to restrain his vehemence, nevertheless protected him from his enemies. This the elector was able to do because of his political importance, which became still greater when, after the death of Maximilian, he was made regent of Northern Germany."

"At first neither Luther, nor others, saw to what the contest about the indulgences would lead. The Humanists believed it to be only a scholastic disputation, and Hutten laughed to see theologians engaged in a fight with each other. It was not till the Leipzig disputation (1519), where Luther stood forward to defend his views against Eck, that the matter assumed a grave aspect, took another turn, and after the appearance of Luther's appeals 'To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation,' 'On the Babylonian Captivity,' and against Church abuses, that it assumed national importance. All the combustible materials were ready, the spark was thrown among them, and the flames broke out from every quarter. Hundreds of thousands of German hearts glowed responsive to the complaints which the Wittenberg monk flung against Papal Rome, in a language whose sonorous splendour and iron strength were now first heard in all the fulness, force, and beauty of the German idiom. That was an imperishable service rendered to his country by Luther. He wrote in German, and he wrote such German. The papal ban hurled back against him in 1520 was disregarded. He burnt it outside the gate of Wittenberg by the leper hospital, in the place where the rags and plague-stained garments of the lepers were wont to be consumed. The nobility, the burghers, the peasants, all thrilled at his call. Now the moment had come for a great emperor, a second Charlemagne, to stand forward and regenerate at once religion and the empire. There was, however, at the head of the state, only Charles V., the grandson of Maximilian, a man weak where he ought to have been strong, and strong where he ought to have been weak, a Spanish Burgundian prince, of Romance stock, who despised and disliked the German tongue, the tongue of the people whose imperial crown he bore, a prince whose policy was to combat France and humble it. It was convenient for him, at the time, to have the pope on his side, so he looked with dissatisfied eyes on the agitation in Germany. The noblest hearts among the princes bounded with hope that he would take the lead in the new movement. The lesser nobility, the cities, the peasantry, all expected of the emperor a reformation of the empire politically and religiously. … But all hopes were dashed. Charles V. as little saw his occasion as had Maximilian. He took up a hostile position to the new movement at once. He was, however, brought by the influential friends of Luther, among whom first of all was the Elector of Saxony, to hear what the reformer had to say for himself, before he placed him under the ban of the empire. Luther received the imperial safe-conduct, and was summoned to the Diet of Worms, there to defend himself. He went, notwithstanding that he was warned and reminded of the fate of Huss. 'I will go to Worms,' said he, 'even were as many devils set against me as there are tiles on the roofs.' It was probably on this journey that the thoughts entered his mind which afterwards (1530) found their expression in that famous chorale, 'Eine feste Burg ist unser Gott,' which became the battle-song of Protestants. Those were memorable days, the 17th and 18th of April, 1521, in which a poor monk stood up before the emperor and all the estates of the empire, undazzled by their threatening splendour, and conducted his own case. At that moment when he closed his defence with the stirring words, 'Let me be contradicted out of Holy Scripture—till that is done I will not recant. Here stand I. I can do no other, so help me God, amen!' then he had reached the pinnacle of his greatness. The result is well known. The emperor and his papal adviser remained unmoved, and the ban was pronounced against the heretic. Luther was carried off by his protector, the Elector of Saxony, and concealed in the Wartburg, where he worked at his translation of the Bible. … Brandenburg, Hesse, and Saxony declared in favour of reform. In 1523 Magdeburg, Wismar, Rostock, Stettin, Danzig, Riga, expelled the monks and priests, and appointed Lutheran preachers. Nürnberg and Breslau hailed the Reformation with delight."

GERMANY: A. D. 1519,
   Contest for the imperial crown,
   Three royal candidates in the field.
   Election of Charles V., the Austro-Spanish monarch of many
   thrones.

   In his last years, Maximilian made great efforts to secure the
   Imperial Crown for his grandson Charles, who had already
   inherited, through his mother Joanna, of Spain, the kingdoms
   of Castile, Aragon, and the Two Sicilies, and through his
   father, Philip of Austria, the duchy of Burgundy and the many
   lordships of the Netherlands. "In 1518 he obtained the consent
   of the majority of the electors to the Roman crown being
   bestowed on that prince. The electors of Treves and Saxony
   alone opposed the project, on the ground that, as Maximilian
   had never received the Imperial crown [but was styled Emperor
   Elect] he was himself still King of the Romans, and that
   consequently Charles could not assume a dignity that was not
   vacant. To obviate this objection, Maximilian pressed Leo to
   send the golden crown to Vienna; but this plan was defeated by
   the intrigues of the French court. Francis, who intended to
   become a candidate for the Imperial crown, intreated the Pope
   not to commit himself by such an act; and while these
   negociations were pending, Maximilian died at Wels, in Upper
   Austria, January 12th 1519. … Three candidates for the
   Imperial crown appeared in the field: the Kings of Spain,
   France, and England.
{1458}
   Francis I. [of France] was now at the height of his
   reputation. His enterprises had hitherto been crowned with
   success, the popular test of ability, and the world
   accordingly gave him credit for a political wisdom which he
   was far from possessing. He appears to have gained three or
   four of the Electors by the lavish distribution of his money,
   which his agent, Bonnivet, was obliged to carry through
   Germany on the backs of horses; for the Fuggers, the rich
   bankers of Augsburg, were in the interest of Charles, and
   refused to give the French any accommodation. But the bought
   votes of these venal Electors could not be depended on, some
   of whom sold themselves more than once to different parties.
   The infamy of Albert, Elector of Mentz, in these transactions,
   was particularly notorious. The chances of Henry VIII. [of
   England] were throughout but slender. Henry's hopes, like
   those of Francis, were chiefly founded on the corruptibility
   of the Electors, and on the expectation that both his rivals,
   from the very magnitude of their power, might be deemed
   ineligible. Of the three candidates the claims of Charles
   seemed the best founded and the most deserving of success. The
   House of Austria had already furnished six emperors, of whom
   the last three had reigned eighty years, as if by an
   hereditary succession. Charles's Austrian possessions made him
   a German prince, and from their situation constituted him the
   natural protector of Germany against the Turks. The previous
   canvass of Maximilian had been of some service to his cause,
   and all these advantages he seconded, like his competitors, by
   the free use of bribery. … Leo X., the weight of whose
   authority was sought both by Charles and Francis, though he
   seemed to favour each, desired the success of neither. He
   secretly advised the Electors to choose an emperor from among
   their own body; and as this seemed an easy solution of the
   difficulty, they unanimously offered the crown to Frederick
   the Wise, Elector of Saxony. But Frederick magnanimously
   refused it, and succeeded in uniting the suffrages of the
   Electors in favour of Charles; principally on the ground that
   he was the sovereign best qualified to meet the great danger
   impending from the Turk. … The new Emperor, now in his 20th
   year, assumed the title of Charles V. … He was proclaimed as
   'Emperor Elect,' the title borne by his grandfather, which he
   subsequently altered to that of 'Emperor Elect of the Romans,'
   a designation adopted by his successors, with the omission of
   the word 'elect,' down to the dissolution of the empire."

On his election to the Imperial throne, Charles ceded to his younger brother, Ferdinand, all the German possessions of the family. The latter, therefore, became Archduke of Austria, and the German branch of the House of Austria was continued through him; while Charles himself became the founder of a new branch of the House—the Spanish.

      J. S. Brewer,
      The Reign of Henry VIII.,
      chapter 11 (volume 1).

      J. Van Praet,
      Essays on the Political History of the 15th-17th Centuries,
      chapter 2, (volume 1).

GERMANY: A. D. 1520-1521.
The Capitulation of Charles V.
His first Diet, at Worms, and its political measures.

The election of Charles V. "was accompanied with a new and essential alteration in the constitution of the empire. Hitherto a general and verbal promise to confirm the Germanic privileges had been deemed a sufficient security; but as the enormous power and vast possessions of the new emperor rendered him the object of greater jealousy and alarm than his predecessors, the electors digested into a formal deed or capitulation all their laws, customs, and privileges, which the ambassadors of Charles signed before his election, and which he himself ratified before his coronation; and this example has been followed by his successors. It consisted of 36 articles, partly relating to the Germanic body in general, and partly to the electors and states in particular. Of those relating to the Germanic body in general, the most prominent were, not to confer the escheated fiefs, but to re-unite and consolidate them, for the benefit of the emperor and empire; not to intrust the charges of the empire to any but Germans; not to grant dispensations of the common law; to use the German language in the proceedings of the chancery; and to put no one arbitrarily to the ban, who had not been previously condemned by the diet or imperial chamber. He was to maintain the Germanic body in the exercise of its legislative powers, in its right of declaring war and making peace, of passing laws on commerce and coinage, of regulating the contingents, imposing and directing the perception of ordinary contributions, of establishing and superintending the superior tribunals, and of judging the personal causes of the states. Finally, he promised not to cite the members of the Germanic body before any tribunal except those of the empire, and to maintain them in their legitimate privileges of territorial sovereignty. The articles which regarded the electors were of the utmost importance, because they confirmed the rights which had been long contested with the emperors. … Besides these concessions, be promised not to make any attempt to render the imperial crown hereditary in his family, and to re-establish the council of regency, in conformity with the advice of the electors and great princes of the empire. On the 6th of January, 1521, Charles assembled his first diet at Worms, where he presided in person. At his proposition the states passed regulations to terminate the troubles which had already arisen during the short interval of the interregnum, and to prevent the revival of similar disorders. … The imperial chamber was re-established in all its authority, and the public peace again promulgated, and enforced by new penalties. In order to direct the affairs of the empire during the absence of Charles, a council of regency was established. … It was to consist of a lieutenant-general, appointed by the emperor, and 22 assessors, of' whom 18 were nominated by the states, and four by Charles, as possessor of the circles of Burgundy and Austria. … At the same time an aid of 20,000 foot and 4,000 horse was granted, to accompany the emperor in his expedition to Rome; but the diet endeavoured to prevent him from interfering, as Maximilian had done, in the affairs of Italy, by stipulating that these troops were only to be employed as an escort, and not for the purpose of aggression."

ALSO IN: L. von Ranke, History of the Reformation in Germany, book 2, chapter 4 (volume 1).

GERMANY: A. D. 1522-1525.
   Systematic organization and adoption in northern Germany of
   the Lutheran Reformation.
   The Diets at Nuremberg.
   The Catholic League of Ratisbon.

"A political ferment, very different from that produced by the Gospel, had long been troubling the empire. The people, weighed down under civil and ecclesiastical oppression, attached in many places to the lands belonging to the lords, and sold with them, threatened to rise, and furiously burst their chains. In Holland, at the end of the preceding century, the peasants had mustered around standards inscribed with the words 'bread' and 'cheese,' to them the two necessaries of life. In 1503 the 'Cobblers' League' ['Bundschuh'—see GERMANY: A. D. 1492-1514] had burst forth in the neighbourhood of Spires. In 1513 this was renewed in Brisgau, and encouraged by the priests. In 1514 Wurtemburg had witnessed 'the League of poor Conrad,' the object of which was to uphold 'the justice of God' by revolt. In 1515 terrible commotions had taken place in Carinthia and Hungary. These insurrections were stifled by torrents of blood, but no relief had been given to the peoples. A political reform was as much wanted as a religious one. The people had a right to it, but they were not ripe to enjoy it. Since the commencement of the Reformation these popular agitations had been suspended, the minds of men being absorbed with other thoughts. … But everything showed that peace would not last long. … The main dykes which had hitherto kept the torrent back were broken, and nothing could restrain its fury. Perhaps it must be admitted that the movement communicated to the people by the Reform gave new force to the discontent which was fermenting in the nation. … Erasmus did not hesitate to say to Luther: 'We are now reaping the fruits of the seed you have sown.' … The evil was augmented by the pretensions of certain fanatical men, who laid claim to celestial inspirations. … The most distinguished of these enthusiasts was Thomas Münzer. … His first appearance was at Zwickau. He left Wittenberg after Luther's return [from his concealment at Wartburg, 1522], dissatisfied with the inferior part he had played, and he became pastor of the little town of Alstadt in Thuringia. There he could not long be at rest, and he accused the reformers of founding a new papacy by their attachment to the letter, and of forming churches which were not pure and holy. He regarded himself as called of God to bear a remedy for so great an evil. … He maintained that to obey princes, 'destitute of reason,' was to serve God and Belial at the same time. Then, marching at the head of his parishioners, to a chapel which was visited by pilgrims from all quarters, he pulled it to the ground. After this exploit he was obliged to quit the country, wandered over Germany, and came to Switzerland, spreading as he went, wherever people would hear him, his plan for a universal revolution. In every place he found elements ready for his purpose. He threw his powder upon the burning coals, and a violent explosion soon followed. … The revolt commenced in those regions of the Black Forest, and the sources of the Danube, which were so often the scene of popular disturbances. On the 19th of July, 1524, the Thurgovian peasantry rose against the Abbot of Reichenau, who would not grant them an evangelical preacher. Thousands soon gathered around the little town of Tengen, to liberate an ecclesiastic who was imprisoned there. The revolt spread, with inconceivable rapidity, from Suabia to the Rhine countries, to Franconia, to Thuringia, and to Saxony. In January, 1525, the whole of these countries were in insurrection. Towards the end of that month the peasants published a declaration in twelve articles, asking the liberty to choose their own pastors, the abolition of petty tithes, serfdom, the duties on inheritance, and liberty to hunt, fish, cut wood, &c., and each demand was supported by a passage of Scripture."

J. H. Merle D'Aubigné, The Story of the Reformation, part 3, chapter 8, (History of the Reformation, book 10, chapters 10-11).

"Had the feudal lords granted proper and fair reforms long ago, they would never have heard of these twelve articles. But they had refused reform, and they now had to meet revolution. And they knew of but one way of meeting it, namely, by the sword. The lords of the Swabian League sent their army of foot and horsemen, under their captain, George Truchsess. The poor peasants could not hold out against trained soldiers and cavalry. Two battles on the Danube, in which thousands of peasants were slain, or drowned in the river, and a third equally bloody one in Algau, near the Boden See, crushed this rebellion in Swabia, as former rebellions had so often been crushed before. This was early in April 1525. But in the meantime the revolution had spread further north. In the valley of the Neckar a body of 6,000 peasants had come together, enraged by the news of the slaughter of their fellow peasants in the south of Swabia." They stormed the castle of the young Count von Helfenstein, who had recently cut the throats of some peasants who met him on the road, and put the Count to death, with 60 of his companions. "A yell of horror was raised through Germany at the news of the peasants' revenge. No yell had risen when the Count cut peasants' throats, or the Swabian lords slew thousands of peasant rebels. Europe had not yet learned to mete out the same measure of justice to noble and common blood. … The revolution spread, and the reign of terror spread with it. North and east of the valley of the Neckar, among the little towns of Franconia, and in the valleys of the Maine, other bands of peasants, mustering by thousands, destroyed alike cloisters and castles. Two hundred of these lighted the night with their flames during the few weeks of their temporary triumph. And here another feature of the revolution became prominent. The little towns were already … passing through an internal revolution. The artisans were rising against the wealthier burghers, overturning the town councils, and electing committees of artisans in their place, making sudden changes in religion, putting down the Mass, unfrocking priests and monks, and in fact, in the interests of what they thought to be the gospel, turning all things upside down. … It was during the Franconian rebellion that the peasants chose the robber knight Goetz von Berlichingen as their leader. It did them no good. More than a robber chief was needed to cope with soldiers used to war. … While all this was going on in the valleys of the Maine, the revolution had crossed the Rhine into Elsass and Lothringen, and the Palatinate about Spires and Worms, and in the month of May had been crushed in blood, as in Swabia and Franconia. {1460} South and east, in Bavaria, in the Tyrol, and in Carinthia also, castles and monasteries went up in flames, and then, when the tide of victory turned, the burning houses and farms of the peasants lit up the night and their blood flowed freely. Meanwhile Münzer, who had done so much to stir up the peasantry in the south to rebel, had gone north into Thuringia, and headed a revolution in the town of Mülhausen, and became a sort of Savonarola of a madder kind. … But the end was coming. The princes, with their disciplined troops, came nearer and nearer. What could Münzer do with his 8,000 peasants? He pointed to a rainbow and expected a miracle, but no miracle came. The battle, of course, was lost; 5,000 peasants lay dead upon the field near the little town of Frankenhausen, where it was fought. Münzer fled and concealed himself in a bed, but was found and taken before the princes, thrust into a dungeon, and afterwards beheaded. So ended the wild career of this misguided, fanatical, self-deceived, but yet, as we must think, earnest and in many ways heroic spirit. … The princes and nobles now everywhere prevailed over the insurgent peasants. Luther, writing on June 21, 1525, says:—'It is a certain fact, that in Franconia 11,000 peasants have been slain. Markgraf Casimir is cruelly severe upon his peasants, who have twice broken faith with him. In the Duchy of Wurtemberg, 6,000 have been killed; in different places in Swabia, 10,000. It is said that in Alsace the Duke of Lorraine has slain 20,000. Thus everywhere the wretched peasants are cut down.' … Before the Peasants' War was ended at least 100,000 perished, or twenty times as many as were put to death in Paris during the Reign of Terror in 1793. … Luther, throughout the Peasants' War, sided with the ruling powers. … The reform he sought was by means of the civil power; and in order to clear himself and his cause from all participation in the wild doings of the peasantry, he publicly exhorted the princes to crush their rebellion."

ALSO IN: L. von Ranke, History of the Reformation in Germany, book 3, chapter 6 (volume 2).

      C. W. C. Oman,
      The German Peasant War of 1525
      (English History Review, volume 5).

GERMANY: A. D. 1525-1529.
   League of Torgau.
   The Diets at Spires.
   Legal recognition of the Reformed Religion, and the withdrawal
   of it.
   The Protest which gave rise to the name "Protestants."

GERMANY: A. D. 1530.
   The Diet at Augsburg.
   The signing and reading of the Protestant Confession of Faith.
   The condemnatory decree.
   Breach between the Protestants and the emperor.

GERMANY: A. D. 1530-1532.
   The Augsburg Decree.
   Alarm of the Protestants.
   Their League of Smalkalde and alliance with the king of
   France.
   Pacification of Nuremberg with the emperor.
   Expulsion of the Turks from Hungary.

The decree issued by the Diet at Augsburg was condemnatory of most of the tenets peculiar to the protestants, "forbidding any person to protect or tolerate such as taught them, enjoining a strict observance of the established rites, and prohibiting any farther innovation, under severe penalties. All orders of men were required to assist with their persons and fortunes in carrying this decree into execution; and such as refused to obey it were declared incapable of acting as judges, or of appearing as parties in the imperial chamber, the supreme court of judicature in the empire. To all which was subjoined a promise, that an application should be made to the pope, requiring him to call a general council within six months, in order to terminate all controversies by its sovereign decisions. The severity of this decree, which was considered as a prelude to the most violent persecution, alarmed the protestants, and convinced them that the emperor was resolved on their destruction." Under these circumstances, the protestant princes met at Smalkalde, December 22, 1530, and there "concluded a league of mutual defence against all aggressors, by which they formed the protestant states of the empire into one regular body, and, beginning already to consider themselves as such, they resolved to apply to the kings of France and England, and to implore them to patronise and assist their new confederacy. An affair not connected with religion furnished them with a pretence for courting the aid of foreign princes.'" This was the election of the emperor's brother, Ferdinand, to be King of the Romans, against, which they had protested vigorously. "When the protestants, who were' assembled a second time at Smalkalde [February, 1531], received an account of this transaction, and heard, at the same time, that prosecutions were commenced in the imperial chamber against some of their number, on account of their religious principles, they thought it necessary, not only to renew their former confederacy, but immediately to despatch their ambassadors into France and England." The king of France "listened with the utmost eagerness to the complaints of the protestant princes; and, without seeming to countenance their religious opinions, determined secretly to cherish those sparks of political discord which might be afterwards kindled into a flame. For this purpose he sent William de Bellay, one of the ablest negotiators in France, into Germany, who, visiting the courts of the malecontent princes, and heightening their ill-humour by various arts, concluded an alliance between them, and his master, which, though concealed at that time, and productive of no immediate effects, laid the foundation of a union fatal on many occasions to Charles's ambitious projects. … The king of England [Henry VIII.], highly incensed against Charles, in complaisance to whom, the pope had long retarded, and now openly opposed, his divorce [from Catharine of Aragon], was no less disposed than Francis to strengthen a league which might be rendered so formidable to the emperor. But his favourite project of the divorce led him into such a labyrinth of schemes and negotiations, and he was, at the same time, so intent on abolishing the papal jurisdiction in England, that he had no leisure for foreign affairs. This obliged him to rest satisfied with giving general promises, together with a small supply in money, to the confederates of Smalkalde. Meanwhile, many circumstances convinced Charles that this was not a juncture" in which he could afford to let his zeal for the church push him to extremities with the protestants. {1461} "Negotiations were, accordingly, carried on by his direction with the elector of Saxony and his associates; after many delays … terms of pacification were agreed upon at Nuremberg [July 23], and ratified solemnly in the diet at Ratisbon [August 3]. In this treaty it was stipulated: that universal peace be established in Germany, until the meeting of a general council, the convocation of which within six months the emperor shall endeavour to procure; that no person shall be molested on account of religion; that a stop shall be put to all processes begun by the imperial chamber against protestants, and the sentences already passed to their detriment shall be declared void. On their part, the protestants engaged to assist the emperor with all their forces in resisting the invasion of the Turks. … The protestants of Germany, who had hitherto been viewed only as a religious sect, came henceforth to be considered as a political body of no small consequence. The intelligence which Charles received of Solyman's having entered Hungary, at the head of 300,000 men, brought the deliberations of the diet at Ratisbon to a period. … The protestants, as a testimony of their gratitude to the emperor, exerted themselves with extraordinary zeal, and brought into the field forces which exceeded in number the quota imposed on them; and the catholics imitating their example, one of the greatest and best-appointed armies that had ever been levied in Germany assembled near Vienna. … It amounted in all to 90,000 disciplined foot, and 30,000 horse, besides a prodigious swarm of irregulars. Of this vast army … the emperor took the command in person; and mankind waited in suspense the issue of a decisive battle between the two greatest monarchs in the world. But each of them dreading the other's power and good fortune, they both conducted their operations with such excessive caution, that a campaign for which such immense preparations had been made ended without any memorable event. Solyman, finding it impossible to gain ground upon an enemy always attentive and on his guard, marched back to Constantinople towards the end of autumn. … About the beginning of this campaign, the elector of Saxony died, and was succeeded by his son John Frederick. … Immediately after the retreat of the Turks, Charles, impatient to revisit Spain, set out, on his way thither, for Italy."

ALSO IN: L. von Ranke, History of the Reformation in Germany, book 6, chapters 1-8 (volume 3).

      H. Stebbing,
      History of the Reformation,
      chapters 12-13 (volume 2).

GERMANY: A. D. 1532-1536.
Fanaticism of the Anabaptists of Münster.
Siege and capture of the city.

GERMANY: A. D. 1533-1546.
   Mercenary aspects of the Reformation.
   Protestant intolerance.
   Union with the Swiss Reformers.
   The Catholic Holy League.
   Preparations for war.

"During the next few years [after the peace concluded at Nuremberg] there was no open hostility between the two religious parties. … But there was dissension enough. In the first place there was much disputation as to the meaning of the articles concluded at Nuremberg. The catholic princes, under the pretext that, if no man was to be disturbed for his faith, or for things depending on faith, he was still amenable for certain offences against the church, which were purely of a civil nature, were eager that the imperial chamber should take cognisance of future cases, at least, where protestants should seek to invade the temporalities of the church. … But nothing was effected; the tribunal was too powerless to enforce its decrees. In 1534, the protestants, in a public assembly, renounced all obedience to the chamber; yet they did not cease to appropriate to themselves the property of such monasteries and churches as, by the conversion of catholics to their faith—and that faith was continually progressive—lay within their jurisdiction. We need scarcely observe, that the prospect of spoliation was often the most powerful inducement with the princes and nobles to change their religion. When they, or the magistracy of any particular city, renounced the faith hitherto established, the people were expected to follow the example: the moment Lutheranism was established in its place, the ancient faith was abolished; nobody was allowed to profess it; and, with one common accord, all who had any prospect of benefiting by the change threw themselves on the domains of the expelled clergy. That the latter should complain before the only tribunal where justice could be expected, was natural; nor can we be surprised that the plunderers should soon deny, in religious affairs, the jurisdiction of that tribunal. From the departure of the emperor to the year 1538, some hundreds of domains were thus seized, and some hundreds of complaints addressed to him by parties who resolved to interpret the articles of Nuremberg in their own way. The protestants declared, in a letter to him, that their consciences would not allow them to tolerate any papist in their states. … By espousing the cause of the exiled duke of Wittemberg, they procured a powerful ally. … But a greater advantage was the union of the sacramentarians [the Swiss reformers, who accepted the doctrine of Zwingli respecting the purely symbolical significance of the commemoration of the Lord's Supper—see SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1528-1531] with the Lutherans. Of such a result, at the diet of Augsburg, there was not the least hope; but Bucer, being deputed by the imperial cities to ascertain whether a union might not be effected, laboured so zealously at the task that it was effected. He consented to modify some of his former opinions; or at least to wrap them in language so equivocal that they might mean anything or nothing at the pleasure of the holder. The Swiss, indeed, especially those of Zurich, refused to sanction the articles on which Luther and Bucer had agreed. Still, by the union of all protestant Germany under the same banners, much was gained. … In the meantime, the dissensions between the two great parties augmented from day to day. To pacify them, Charles sent fruitless embassies. Roused by the apparent danger, in 1538, the catholic princes formed, at Nuremberg, a counter league to that of Smalcald [calling it the Holy League]. … The death of Luther's old enemy, George, duke of Saxony [1539], transferred the dominion of that prince's states into the hands of [his brother Henry] a Lutheran. Henry, duke of Brunswick, was now the only great secular prince in the north of Germany who adhered to the Roman catholic faith. … A truce was concluded at Frankfort, in 1539; but it could not remove the existing animosity, which was daily augmented. Both parties were in the wrong. … {1462} At the close of 1540, Worms was the scene of a conference very different from that where, 20 years before, Luther had been proscribed. There was an interminable theological disputation. … As little good resulted, Charles, who was hastening from the Low Countries to his German dominions, evoked the affair before a diet at Ratisbon, in April, 1541. … The diet of Ratisbon was well attended; and never did prince exert himself more zealously than Charles to make peace between his angry subjects. But … all that could be obtained was, that things should be suffered to remain in their present state until a future diet or a general council. The reduction of Buda, however, by the Turks, rendered king Ferdinand, his brother, and the whole of Germany, eager for an immediate settlement of the dispute. … Hence the diet of Spires in 1542. If, in regard to religion, nothing definitive was arranged, except the selection of Trent as the place most suitable for a general council, one good end was secured—supplies for the war with the Turks. The campaign, however, which passed without an action, was inglorious to the Germans, who appear to have been in a lamentable state of discipline. Nor was the public satisfaction much increased by the disputes of the Smalcald league with Henry of Brunswick. The duke was angry with his subjects of Brunswick and Breslau, who adhered to the protestant league; and though he had reason enough to be dissatisfied with both, nothing could be more vexatious than his conduct towards them. In revenge, the league of Smalcald sent 19,000 men into the field,—a formidable display of protestant power!—and Henry was expelled from his hereditary states, which were seized by the victors. He invoked the aid of the imperial chamber, which cited the chiefs of the league; but as, in 1538, the competency of that tribunal had been denied in religious, so now it was denied in civil matters. … The following years exhibit on both sides the same jealousy, the same duplicity, often the same violence where the mask was no longer required, with as many ineffectual attempts to procure a union between them. … The progress of events continued to favour the reformers. They had already two votes in the electoral college,—those of Saxony and Brandenburg; they were now to have the preponderance; for the elector palatine and Herman archbishop of Cologne abjured their religion, thus placing at the command of the reformed party four votes against three. But this numerical superiority did not long remain. … The pope excommunicated the archbishop, deposed him from his dignity, and ordered the chapter to proceed to a new election; and when Herman refused to obey, Charles sent troops to expel him, and to install the archbishop elect, Count Adolf of Nassau. Herman retired to his patrimonial estates, where he died in the profession of the reformed religion. These events mortified the members of the Smalcald league; but they were soon partially consoled by the capture of Henry duke of Brunswick [1546], who had the temerity to collect troops and invade his patrimonial dominions. Their success gave umbrage to the emperor. … He knew that the confederates had already 20,000 men under arms, and that they were actively, however secretly, augmenting their forces. His first care was to cause troops to be as secretly collected in his hereditary states; his second, to seduce, if possible, some leaders of the protestants. With Maurice duke of Saxony he was soon successful; and eventually with the two margraves of Brandenburg, who agreed to make preparations for a campaign and join him at the proper moment. … His convocation of the diet at Ratisbon [1546], which after a vain parade ended in nothing, was only to hide his real designs. As he began to throw off the mask, the reformed theologians precipitately withdrew; and both parties took the field, but not until they had each published a manifesto to justify this extreme proceeding. In each there was much truth, and more falsehood."

GERMANY: A. D. 1542-1544.
   War with Francis I. of France.
   Battle of Cerisoles.
   Treaty of Crespy.

GERMANY: A. D. 1542-1563.
The beginning of the Roman Catholic reaction.
The Council of Trent.

GERMANY: A. D. 1546-1552.
   War of Charles against the Protestants.
   The treachery of Maurice of Saxony.
   The battle of Muhlberg.
   The emperor's proposed "Interim" and its failure.
   His reverse of fortune.
   Protestantism triumphant.
   The Treaty of Passau.

"Luther's death [which occurred in 1546] made no change in the resolution which Charles had at last taken to crush the Reformation in his German dominions by force of arms; on the contrary, he was more than ever stimulated to carry out his purpose by two occurrences: the adoption of the new religion by one who was not only an Elector of the Empire, but one of the chief prelates of the Church, the Prince-Archbishop of Cologne. … The other event that influenced him was the refusal of the Protestants to accept as binding the decrees of the Council of Trent, which was composed of scarcely any members but a few Italian and Spanish prelates, and from which they appealed to either a free general Council or a national Council of the Empire; offering, at the same time, if Charles should prefer it, to submit the whole question of religion to a joint Commission, composed of divines of each party. These remonstrances, however, the Emperor treated with contempt. He had been for some time secretly raising troops in different quarters; and, early in 1546, he made a fresh treaty with the Pope, by which he bound himself instantly to commence warlike operations, and which, though it had been negotiated, as a secret treaty, Paul instantly published, to prevent any retraction or delay on his part. War therefore now began, though Charles professed to enter upon it, not for the purpose of enforcing a particular religious belief on the recusants, but for that of re-establishing the Imperial authority, which, as he affirmed, many of the confederate princes had disowned. Such a pretext he expected to sow disunion in the body, some members of which were far from desirous to weaken the great confederacy of the Empire: and, in effect, it did produce a hesitation in their early steps that had the most important consequences on the first campaign; for, in spite of the length of time during which he had secretly been preparing for war, when it came they were more ready than he. They at once took the field with an army of 90,000 men and 120 guns, while he, for the first few weeks after the declaration of war, had hardly 10,000 men with him in Ratisbon. … {1463} But the advantage of a single over a divided command was perhaps never more clearly exemplified than in the first operations of the two armies. He, as the weaker party, took up a defensive position near Ingolstadt; but, though they advanced within sight of his lines, they could not agree on the mode of attack, or even on the prudence of attacking him at all. … At last, the confederates actually drew off, and Charles, advancing, made himself master of many important towns, which their irresolution alone had enabled him to approach." Meanwhile the Emperor had won an important ally. This was Duke Maurice, of the Albertine line of the House of Saxony (see SAXONY: A. D. 1180-1553), to whom several opportune deaths had given the ducal seat unexpectedly, in 1541, and whose ambition now hungered for the Electorate, which was held by the other (the Ernestine) branch of the family. He conceived the idea of profiting by the troubles of the time to win possession of it. "With this view, though he also was a Protestant, he tendered his services to the Emperor, who, in spite of his youth, discerned in him a promise of very superior capacity, gladly accepted his aid, and promised to reward him with the territories which he coveted. The advantages which Protestantism eventually derived from Maurice's success has blinded some historians to the infamy of the conduct by which he achieved it. … The Elector [John Frederick] was his [second] cousin; the Landgrave of Hesse was his father-in-law. Pleading an unwillingness while so young (he was barely 21) to engage in the war, he volunteered to undertake the protection of his cousin's dominions during his absence in the field. His offer was thankfully accepted; but he was no sooner installed in his charge than he began to negotiate with the enemy to invade the territories which he had bound himself to protect. And on receiving from Charles a copy of a decree, called the Ban of the Empire, which had just been issued against both the Elector and the Landgrave, he at once raised a force of his own, with which he overran one portion of [the Elector's] dominions, while a division of the Imperial army attacked the rest; and he would probably have succeeded at once in subduing the whole Electorate, had the main body of the Protestants been able to maintain the war on the Danube." But Charles's successes there brought about a suspension ol hostilities which enabled the Elector to return and "chastise Maurice for his treachery; to drive him not only from the towns and districts which he had seized, but to strip him also of the greater part of the territory which belonged to him by inheritance." Charles was unable, at first, to give any assistance to his ally. The Elector, however, who was the worst of generals, so scattered his forces that when, "on the 23d of April [1547], Charles reached the Elbe and prepared to attack him, he had no advantage over his assailant but that of position. That indeed was very strong. He lay at Muhlberg, on the right bank of the river, which at that point is 300 yards wide and more than four feet deep, with a stream so rapid as to render the passage, even for horsemen, a task of great difficulty and danger." Against the remonstrances of his ablest general, the Duke of Alva, Charles, favored by a heavy fog, led his army across the river and boldly attacked. The Ejector attempted to retreat, but his retreat became a rout. Many fell, but many more were taken prisoners, including the Elector and the Landgrave of Hesse. The victory was decisive for the time, and Charles used it without moderation or generosity. He declared a forfeiture of the whole Electorate of Saxony by John Frederick, and conferred it upon the treacherous Maurice; and, "though Maurice was son-in-law of the Landgrave of Hesse, he stripped that prince of his territories, and, by a device scarcely removed from the tricks of a kidnapper, threw him also into prison." Charles seemed now to be completely master of the situation in Germany, and there was little opposition to his will in a diet which he convened at Augsburg.

"He opened the Diet of Augsburg (September 1, 1547), in the hope of finally bringing about the union so long desired and so frequently attempted, but which he despaired of effecting through a council which the Protestants had rejected in advance. … By the famous 'Interim' of Augsburg—the joint production of Julius von Pflug, Bishop of Naumberg; Michael Helding, coadjutor of Mentz; and the wily and subtle John Agricola, preacher to the Elector of Brandenburg—Protestants were permitted to receive the Holy Eucharist under both kinds; the Protestant clergy already married to retain their wives; and a tacit approval given to the retention of property already taken from the Church. This instrument was, from beginning to end, a masterpiece of duplicity, and as such satisfied no party. The Catholics of Germany, the Protestants, and the Court of Rome, each took exception to it. … Maurice, the new Elector of Saxony, unwilling to give the Interim an unconditional approval, consulted with a number of Protestant theologians, headed by Melancthon, as to how far he might accept its provisions with a safe conscience. In reply they drew up what is known as the Leipsig Interim (1548), in which they stated that questions of ritual and ceremony, and others of minor importance, which they designated by the generic word adiaphora, might be wholly overlooked; and even in points of a strictly doctrinal character, they expressed themselves favourable to concession and compromise. … Such Lutheran preachers as professed to be faithful followers of their master, made a determined opposition to the 'Interim,' and began a vigorous assault upon its adiaphoristic clauses. The Anti-adiaphorists, as they were called, were headed by Flacius Illyricus, who being an ardent disciple of Luther's, and possessing somewhat of his courage and energy, repaired to Magdeburg, whose bold citizens were as defiant of imperial power as they were contemptuous of papal authority. But in spite of this spirited opposition, the Interim was gradually accepted by several Protestant countries and cities—a fact which encouraged the emperor at the Diet of Augsburg, in 1550, to make a final effort to have the Protestants attend the sessions of the Council of Trent, again opened by Pope Julius III. … After a short delay, deputies from Brandenburg, Würtemberg, and Saxony began to appear at Trent; and even the Wittenberg theologians, headed by Melancthon, were already on their way to the Council, when Maurice of Saxony, having secured all the advantages he hoped to obtain by an alliance with the Catholic party, and regardless of the obligations by which he was bound, proceeded to betray both the emperor and his country. {1464} Having received a commission to carry into effect the ban of the empire passed upon Magdeburg, he was in a position to assemble a large body of troops in Germany without exciting suspicion, or revealing his ulterior purposes. Besides uniting to himself, as confederates in his plot, John Albert, Duke of Mecklenburg; Albert, Margrave of Brandenburg; and William, Landgrave of Hesse, eldest son of Philip of Hesse, he entered into a secret treaty (Oct. 5, 1551) with Henry II., King of France, who, as was pretended, coming into Germany as the saviour of the country, seized the cities of Metz, Toul, and Verdun. Maurice also held out to Henry the prospect of securing the imperial crown. Everything being in readiness for action, Maurice advancing through Thuringia, seized the city of Augsburg, and suddenly made his appearance before Innspruck, whence the emperor, who lay sick of a severe attack of the gout, was hastily conveyed on a litter, through the passes of the mountains, to Villach, in Carinthia. While Maurice was thus making himself master of Innspruck, the King of the French was carrying out his part of the programme by actively prosecuting the war in Lorraine. Charles V., now destitute of the material resources necessary to carry on a successful campaign against the combined armies of the French king and the German princes, and despairing of putting an end to the obstinate conflict by his personal endeavours, resolved to re-establish, if possible, his waning power by peaceful negotiations. To this end, he commissioned his brother Ferdinand to conclude the Treaty of Passau (July 30, 1552), which provided that Philip of Hesse should be set at liberty, and gave pledges for the speedy settlement of all religious and political differences by a Diet, to be summoned at an early day. It further provided that neither the emperor nor the Protestant princes should put any restraint upon freedom of conscience, and that all questions arising in the interval between the two parties should be referred for settlement to an Imperial Commission, composed of an equal number of Catholics and Protestants. In consequence of the war then being carried on by the empire against France for the recovery of the three bishoprics of Lorraine of which the French had taken possession, the Diet did not convene until February 5, 1555."

ALSO IN: W. Robertson, History of the Reign of Charles V., books 8-10 (volume 2-3).

      E. E. Crowe,
      Cardinal Granvelle and Maurice of Saxony
      (Eminent Foreign Statesmen, volume 1).

GERMANY: A. D. 1547.
Pragmatic Sanction of Charles V., changing the relations of
the Netherland provinces to the Empire.

GERMANY: A. D. 1552-1561.
   Battle of Sievershausen and death of Maurice.
   The Religious Peace of Augsburg.
   Abdication of Charles V.
   Succession of Ferdinand I.
   The halting of the Reformation and the rally of Catholic
   resistance.

By the treaty of Passau, Maurice of Saxony bound himself to defend the empire against the French and the Turks. "He accordingly took the field against the latter, but with little success, the imperial commander, Castaldo, contravening all his efforts by plundering Hungary and drawing upon himself the hatred of the people. Charles, meanwhile, marched against the French, and, without hesitation, again deposed the corporative governments reinstated by Maurice, on his way through Augsburg, Ulm, Esslingen, etc. Metz, valiantly defended by the Duke de Guise, was vainly besieged for some months, and the Emperor was at length forced to retreat. The French were, nevertheless, driven out of Italy. The aged emperor now sighed for peace. Ferdinand, averse to open warfare, placed his hopes on the imperceptible effect of a consistently pursued system of suppression and Jesuitical obscurantism. Maurice was answerable for the continuance of the peace, the terms of which he had prescribed. … Albert the Wild [of Brandenburg] was the only one among the princes who was still desirous of war. Indifferent to aught else, he marched at the head of some thousand followers through central Germany, murdering and plundering as he passed along, with the intent of once more laying the Franconian and Saxon bishoprics waste in the name of the gospel. The princes at length formed the Heidelberg confederacy against this monster and the emperor put him under the bann of the empire, which Maurice undertook to execute, although he had been his old friend and companion in arms. Albert was engaged in plundering the archbishopric of Magdeburg, when Maurice came up with him at Sievershausen. A murderous engagement took place (A. D. 1553). Three of the princes of Brunswick were slain. Albert was severely wounded, and Maurice fell at the moment when victory declared in his favour, in the 33d year of his age, in the midst of his promising career. … Every obstacle was now removed, and a peace, known as the religious peace of Augsburg, was concluded by the diet held in that city, A. D. 1555. This peace was naturally a mere political agreement provisionally entered into by the princes for the benefit, not of religion, but of themselves. Popular opinion was dumb, knights, burgesses, and peasants bending in lowly submission to the mandate of their sovereigns. By this treaty, branded in history as the most lawless ever concerted in Germany, the principle 'cujus regio, ejus religio,' the faith of the prince must be that of the people, was laid down, By it not only all the Reformed subjects of a Catholic prince were exposed to the utmost cruelty and tyranny, but the religion of each separate country was rendered dependent on the caprice of the reigning prince; of this the Pfalz offered a sad example, the religion of the people being thus four times arbitrarily changed. … Freedom of belief, confined to the immediate subjects of the empire, for instance, to the reigning princes, the free nobility, and the city councillors, was monopolized by at most 20,000 privileged persons. … The false peace concluded at Augsburg was immediately followed by Charles V. 's abdication of his numerous crowns [see NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1555]. He would willingly have resigned that of the empire to his son Philip, had not the Spanish education of that prince, his gloomy and bigoted character, inspired the Germans with an aversion as unconquerable as that with which he beheld them. {1465} Ferdinand had, moreover, gained the favour of the German princes. Charles, nevertheless, influenced by affection towards his son, bestowed upon him one of the finest of the German provinces, the Netherlands, besides Spain, Milan, Naples, and the West Indies (America). Ferdinand received the rest of the German hereditary possessions of his house, besides Bohemia and Hungary. … Ferdinand I., opposed in his hereditary provinces by a predominating Protestant party, which he was compelled to tolerate, was politically overbalanced by his nephew, Philip II., in Spain and Italy, where Catholicism flourished. The preponderance of the Spanish over the Austrian branch of the house of Habsburg exercised the most pernicious influence on the whole of Germany, by securing to the Catholics a support which rendered reconciliation impossible. … The religious disputes and petty egotism of the several estates of the empire had utterly stifled every sentiment of patriotism, and not a dissentient voice was raised against the will of Charles V., which bestowed the whole of the Netherlands, one of the finest of the provinces of Germany, upon Spain, the division and consequent weakening of the powerful house of Habsburg being regarded by the princes with delight. At the same time that the power of the Protestant party was shaken by the peace of Augsburg, Cardinal Caraffa mounted the pontifical throne as Paul IV., the first pope who, following the plan of the Jesuits, abandoned the system of defence for that of attack. The Reformation no sooner ceased to progress, than a preventive movement began [see PAPACY: A. D. 1537-1563]. … Ferdinand I. was in a difficult position. Paul IV. refused to acknowledge him on account of the peace concluded between him and the Protestants, whom he was unable to oppose, and whose tenets he refused to embrace, notwithstanding the expressed wish of the majority of his subjects. Like his brother, he intrigued and diplomatized until his Jesuitical confessor, Bobadilla, and the new pope, Pius IV., again placed him on good terms with Rome, A. D. 1559. … Augustus, elector of Saxony, the brother of Maurice, alarmed at the fresh alliance between the emperor and pope, convoked a meeting of the Protestant leaders at Naumberg. His fears were, however, allayed by the peaceful proposals of the emperor (A. D. 1561). … A last attempt to save the unity of the German church, in the event of its separation from that of Rome, was made by Ferdinand, who convoked the spiritual electoral princes, the archbishops and bishops, for that purpose to Vienna, but the consideration with which he was compelled to treat the pope rendered his efforts weak and ineffectual. … The Protestants, blind to the unity and strength resulting from the policy of the Catholics, weakened themselves more and more by division."

GERMANY: A. D. 1556-1558.
Abdication of the emperor, Charles V., and election of his
brother, Ferdinand.

GERMANY: A. D. 1556-1609.
   The degeneracy of the Reformation.
   Internal hostilities of Protestantism.
   Tolerant reigns of Ferdinand I. and Maximilian II.
   Renewed persecution under Rudolf II.
   The risings against him.
   His cessions and abdications.

"Germany was externally at peace. When the peace was broken in Protestant states, the Protestants themselves, that is, a part of their divines, were the cause of' the disturbance. These were 'frantic' Lutherans. The theologian Flacius, at Jena, openly attacked Melancthon as a 'traitor to the church,' on account of his strivings for peace. The religious controversies in the bosom of the adherents of the Augsburg Confession had been since Luther's death inflamed to madness by a strict Lutheran party, by slaves of the letter, who raged not only against the Zwinglian and Calvinistic reformations, but against Melancthon and those who sympathized with him. The theological pugilists disgraced Protestantism, and aroused such a spirit of persecution that Melancthon died on the 19th of April, 1560, 'weary and full of anxiety of soul about the future of the Reformation and the German nation.' His followers, 'Lutheran' preachers and professors, were persecuted, banished, imprisoned, on account of suspicion of being inclined to the 'Reformed' [Calvinistic] as distinguished from 'Evangelical' views; prayers for the 'extirpation of heresy' were offered in the churches of Saxony, and a medal struck 'to commemorate the victory of Christ over the Devil and Reason,' that is, over Melancthon and his moderate party. … Each parson and professor held himself to be a divinely inspired watchman of Zion, who had to watch over purity of doctrine. … The universal prevalence of 'trials for witchcraft' in Protestant districts, with their chambers of torture and burnings at the stake, marked the new priestcraft of Lutheran Protestantism in its debasement into a dogmatizing church. This quickly degenerating Protestant Church comprised a mass of separate churches, because the vanity and selfishness of the court clergy at every court, and the professors of every university, would have a church of their own. … Every misfortune to the 'Reformed' churches caused a malevolent joy in the Lutheran camp, and every common measure against the common enemy was rejected by the Lutheran clergy from hatred to the 'Reformed.' … The emperor Ferdinand I. had long been convinced that some change was required in the Church of Rome. As he wrote to his ambassador in Trent, 'If a reform of the Church did not proceed from the Church herself, he would undertake the charge of it in Germany.' He never ceased to offer his mediation between the two religious parties. He thought, and thought justly, that a compromise was possible in Germany. … The change which gradually took place in the head and heart of Ferdinand had not extended to those who sat in St. Peter's chair. Ferdinand I., to improve the moral state of the old Church, insisted most strongly on the abolition of the celibacy of the clergy; this the Pope declared the most indispensable prop of the Papacy. As thus his proposals came to naught, he attempted to introduce the proposed reformation into his hereditary domains; but just as he was beginning to be the Reformer of these provinces, death removed him from the world, on the 25th of July, 1564. … His oldest son and successor, Maximilian II., … was out and out German. Growing up in the great movement of the time, the Emperor Maximilian II. was warmly devoted to the new ideas. He hated the Jesuits and the Papacy. … {1466} He remained in the middle between Protestants and Catholics,' but really above both. … He favored the Reformation in his Austrian dominions; at the very time when Philip II. of Spain, the son of Charles V., had commenced the bloodiest persecution against the Reformed Church in the Netherlands … ; at the very time when the French court, ruled and led by Jesuits, put into execution the long-prepared conspiracy of St. Bartholomew. … He never ceased to call the kings of France and Spain to gentleness and toleration. … 'I have no power,' said the emperor, 'over consciences, and may constrain no man's faith.' The princes unanimously elected the son of Maximilian as King of the Romans, and Max received another gratification: he was elected king by the gallant nation of the Poles. Thus the house of Austria was again powerfully strengthened. Hungary, Poland, Bohemia, and Germany, united under one ruler, formed a power which could meet Turkey and Russia. The Turks and the Russians were pressing forward. The Turkish wars, more than anything else, prevented Max from carrying out his long-cherished plan and giving a constitution to the empire and church of the Germans. He who towered high above the Papal party and the miserable controversies of Protestant divines, and whose clear mind saw what the times required, would have had every qualification for such a task. But in the midst of his great projects, Maximilian II. died, in his 49th year, on the 12th of October, 1576; as emperor, honest, mild and wise, and elevated above all religious controversies to a degree that no prince has ever reached. He had always been a rock of offence to the Catholic party. … But Rudolf [son of Maximilian II.], when he became emperor [1576], surrounded by secret Jesuits who had been his teachers and advisers, became the humblest slave of the order and let it do what it would. Rudolf had been sent by his father for the interests of his own house to the Spanish court; a terrible punishment now followed this self-seeking. Rudolf confirmed liberty of conscience only to the nobles, not to the citizens or peasants. He forbade the two latter classes to visit the Evangelical churches, he closed their schools, ordered them to frequent Catholic churches, threatened disobedience with banishment, and even in the case of nobles he dismissed from his court charges all who were not strict papists. The people of Vienna and Austria hated him for these orders. … Without any judicial investigation he threatened free cities with 'execution.' Aix la Chapelle expelled his troops. Gebhard, the elector of Cologne, married a Countess von Mansfeld and went over to Protestantism. … The Protestants supported him badly; Lutherans and Calvinists were at bitter feud with each other, and weakened themselves in the struggle. … It was a croaking of ravens, and a great field of the dead was not far off. … The Emperor Rudolf, … on a return journey from Rome, vowed to Our Lady of Loretto, 'his Generalissima,' to extirpate heretics at the risk of his life. In his hereditary estates he ordered all who were not papists to leave the territory. Soon afterwards he pulled down the Evangelical churches, and dispersed the citizens by arms. He intended soon to begin the same proceedings in Hungary and Bohemia; but in Hungary the nation rose in defence of its liberty and faith. The receipt of the intelligence that the Hungarian malcontents were progressing victoriously produced—what there had been symptoms of before—insanity. The members of the house of Austria assembled, and declared 'The Emperor Rudolf can be no longer head of the house, because unfortunately it is too plain that his Roman Imperial Majesty … was not competent or fit to govern the kingdoms.' The Archduke Matthias [eldest brother of Rudolf] was elected head of the Austrian house [1606]. He collected an army of 20,000 men, and made known that he would depose the emperor from the government of his hereditary domains. Rudolf's Jesuitical flatterers had named him the 'Bohemian Solomon.' He now, in terror, without drawing sword, ceded Hungary and Austria to Matthias, and gave him also the government of Moravia. Matthias guaranteed religious liberty to the Austrians. Rudolf did the same to the Bohemians and Silesians by the 'Letters of Majesty.' Rudolf, to escape deposition by Matthias, abdicated the throne of Bohemia."

GERMANY: A. D. 1608-1618.
   The Evangelical Union and the Catholic League.
   The Jülich-Cleve contest.
   Troubles in Bohemia.
   The beginning of the Thirty Years War.

   "Many Protestants were alarmed by the attempts Rudolf had made
   to put them down, and especially by his allowing the Duke of
   Bavaria to seize the free city of Donauwörth, formerly a
   Bavarian town, and make it Catholic. In 1608 a number of
   Protestants joined together and formed, for ten years, a
   league called The Union. Its formation was due chiefly to the
   exertions of Prince Christian of Anhalt, who had busily
   intrigued with Henry IV. of France; but its head was the
   Elector Palatine. As the latter belonged to the Reformed
   Church, the Lutherans for the most part treated the Union
   coldly; and the Elector of Saxony would have nothing to do
   with it. It soon had an opportunity of acting. Duke William of
   Jülich, who held Jülich, Cleve, and other lands, died in 1609.
   John Sigmund, Elector of Brandenburg, and the Palsgrave of
   Neuberg, both members of the Union, claimed to be his heirs,
   and took possession of his lands. The Emperor Rudolf sent his
   brother, the Archduke Leopold, Bishop of Passau, to drive out
   these princes. The Union thereupon formed an alliance with
   Henry IV. of France [see FRANCE: A. D. 1599-1610], and, coming
   to the aid of its members, scattered the forces of the
   Archduke in 1610. The Catholics now took fright, and hastened
   to form a League which should hold the Union in check. It was
   formed for nine years, and the supreme command was given to
   Maximilian, Duke of Bavaria. The death of Henry IV. took away
   from the Union its chief source of strength, so that it shrank
   from a general war. The two princes, however, who had given
   rise to the quarrel, kept for a time the Jülich-Cleve
   territory. In 1611 [1618] the power of the Elector of
   Brandenburg was further increased by his succeeding to the
   Duchy of Prussia. From this time East Prussia was always
   joined to the Mark or Electorate of Brandenburg. It was now,
   therefore, that the house of Brandenburg laid the foundations
   of its future greatness. Matthias, in order to pacify the
   Austrian States, granted them full religious liberty.
{1467}
   In 1609 the Bohemian States also obtained from Rudolf a Royal
   Charter, called 'The Letter of Majesty,' conceding to
   nobility, knights and towns perfect freedom in religious
   matters, and the right to build Protestant churches and
   schools on their own and on the royal lands. Bohemia showed no
   gratitude for this favour. Suspecting his designs, the
   Bohemians even shut Rudolf up in his castle at Prague in 1611,
   and asked Matthias to come to their aid. He did so, and seized
   the supreme power. Next year Rudolf died. Matthias was crowned
   at Frankfurt with great pomp, but he was no better fitted for
   the throne than his brother. He was compelled to yield much to
   the Protestants, yet favoured the Jesuits in their continued
   efforts to convert Germany. His government was so feeble that
   his brothers at length made him accept Ferdinand, Duke of
   Styria, as his coadjutor. In 1617 Ferdinand was elected as
   Rudolf's successor to the crowns of Bohemia and Hungary, and
   from this time all real power in the Habsburg possessions was
   wielded by him. Ferdinand was a young man, but had already
   given proof of great energy of character. … The Protestants
   looked forward with dread to his reign if he should receive
   the Imperial crown. Styria had become almost wholly Lutheran.
   When Ferdinand succeeded his father, he had driven out the
   Protestant families, and made the land altogether Catholic. No
   Catholic prince had ever shown himself more reckless as to the
   means by which he served his church. The Protestants,
   therefore, had good reason to fear that if he became Emperor
   he would renew the policy of Charles V., and try to bring back
   the old state of things, in which there was but one Church as
   there was but one Empire. Events proved that these fears were
   well founded. The last days of Matthias were very troubled.
   Two Protestant churches were built in Bohemia, one in the
   territory of the Archbishop of Prague, the other in that of
   the Abbot of Braunau. These princes, with permission of the
   Emperor, pulled down one of the churches and shut up the
   other. The Protestants complained; but their appeal was met by
   the reply that the Letter of Majesty did not permit them to
   build churches on the lands of ecclesiastics. This answer
   excited great indignation in Bohemia; and a rumour was got up
   that it had not come from the Emperor, but had been written in
   Prague. On May 23, 1618, a number of Protestants, headed by Count
   Thurn, marched to the Council Hall of the Royal Castle, and
   demanded to be told the real facts. When the councillors
   hesitated, two of them, with the private secretary, were
   seized and thrown out of the window.

The Protestants then took possession of the Royal Castle, drove the Jesuits out of Bohemia, and appointed a council of thirty nobles to carry on the government." These events formed the beginning of the "Thirty Years War."

"The Thirty Years' War was the last struggle which marked the progress of the Reformation. This war, whose direction and object were equally undetermined, may be divided into four distinct portions, in which the Elector Palatine, Denmark, Sweden, and France played in succession the principal part. It became more and more complicated, until it spread over the whole of Europe. It was prolonged indefinitely by various causes.

I. The intimate union between the two branches of the house of Austria and of the Catholic party—their opponents, on the other hand, were not homogeneous.

II. The inaction of England, the tardy intervention of France, the poverty of Denmark and Sweden, &c. The armies which took part in the Thirty Years' War were no longer feudal militias, they were permanent armies, although their sovereigns were incapable of supporting them. They lived at the expense of the countries which they laid waste. The ruined peasant turned soldier and sold himself to the first comer."

ALSO IN: A. Gindely, History of the Thirty Years' War, chapters 1-3 (volume 1).

GERMANY: A. D. 1618-1620.
   The Thirty Years War: Hostilities in Bohemia precipitated by
   Ferdinand.
   His election to the imperial throne and his deposition in
   Bohemia.
   Acceptance of the Bohemian crown by Frederick, the Palatine
   Elector.
   His unsupported situation.
   The Treaty of Ulm.

"The emperor was not a little disconcerted when he received the news of what was passing [in Bohemia]. For whence could he receive the aid necessary to put down these revolutionary acts and restore order in Bohemia? Discontent, indeed, was scarcely less formidably expressed even in his Austrian territories, whilst in Hungary its demonstration was equally as serious. Conciliation appeared to be the only means of preserving to the house of Austria that important country, and even the confessor and usual counsellor of the emperor, Cardinal Klesel, the most zealous opponent of the Protestants, advised that course. But such considerations were most strenuously opposed by young Ferdinand. … At his instigation, and that of the other archdukes, backed by the pope, the pacific Cardinal Klesel was unexpectedly arrested, and charged with a variety of crimes. The intention was to remove him from the presence of the old and weak emperor, who was now without support, and obliged to resign all to the archdukes. From this moment the impotency of the emperor was complete, and all hopes of an amicable pacification of Bohemia lost. The Bohemians, likewise, took to arms, and possessed themselves of every city in their country as far as Budweis and Pilsen, which were still occupied by the imperial troops. They obtained assistance, quite unlooked for, in the person of one who may be regarded as one of the most remarkable heroes of that day. … Count Ernest of Mansfield, a warrior from his youth, was of a bold and enterprising spirit; he had already encountered many dangers, and had just been raising some troops for the Duke of Savoy against the Spaniards. The duke, who now no longer required them, gave him permission to serve in the cause of the Evangelical Union in Germany; and by that body he was despatched with 3,000 men to Bohemia, as having apparently received his appointment from that country. He appeared there quite unexpectedly, and immediately took from the imperial army the important city of Pilsen [November 21, 1618]. … The Emperor Matthias died on the 10th of March, 1619 … and the Bohemians, who acknowledged his sovereignty while living, now resolved to renounce his successor Ferdinand, whose hostile intentions were already too clearly expressed. Ferdinand attained the throne under circumstances the most perplexing. {1468} Bohemia in arms, and threatening Vienna itself with invasion; Silesia and Moravia in alliance with them; Austria much disposed to unite with them; Hungary by no means firmly attached, and externally menaced by the Turks; besides which, encountering in every direction the hatred of the Protestants, against whom his zeal was undisguised. … Count Thurn advanced upon Vienna with a Bohemian army. … He came before Vienna, and his men fired, even upon the imperial castle itself, where Ferdinand, surrounded by open and secret foes, had taken up his quarters. He dared not leave his capital, for by so doing Austria, and with it the preservation of the empire itself, must have been sacrificed. But his enemies looked upon him as lost; and they already spoke of confining him in a convent, and educating his children in the Protestant faith. … Count Thurn was obliged soon to return to Bohemia, as Prague was menaced by the armies of Austria, and Ferdinand availed himself of this moment in order to undertake another hazardous and daring project. … He … resolved to proceed to Frankfort to attend the election of emperor. The spiritual electors had been gained over; Saxony also adhered closely to the house of Austria; Brandenburg was not unfriendly; hence the opposition of the palatinate alone against him could accomplish nothing; accordingly Ferdinand was unanimously chosen emperor on the 28th of August, 1619." Just two days previously, on the 26th of August, the Bohemians, at a general assembly of the states, had formally deposed Ferdinand from the kingship of their nation, and proceeded to elect another king in his place. "The Catholics proposed the Duke of Savoy and Maximilian of Bavaria, whilst, in the Protestant interest, the Elector John George of Saxony, and Frederick V., of the palatinate, were put forward. The latter obtained the election, being a son-in-law of King James I. of England, from whom they expected assistance, and who personally was regarded as resolute, magnanimous, and generous. The incorporated provinces of Moravia, Silesia and Lusatia supported the election, and even the Catholic states of Bohemia pledged their fidelity and obedience. Frederick was warned against accepting so dangerous a crown by Saxony, Bavaria, and even by his father-in-law; but his chaplain, Scultetus, and his own consort, Elizabeth, who as the daughter of a king aspired to a royal crown, persuaded him with all their influence to accept it. Frederick was accordingly ruled by them, received the regal dignity in Bohemia, and was crowned at Prague with great pomp on the 25th of October, 1619. … Ferdinand in returning from Frankfort passed on to Munich, and there concluded with the Duke of Bavaria that important treaty which secured to him the possession of Bohemia. These two princes had been companions in youth, and the Evangelical Union had by several incautious proceedings irritated the duke. Maximilian undertook the chief command in the cause of the Catholic party, and stipulated with the house of Austria that he should be indemnified for every outlay and loss incurred, to the extent even, if necessary, of the surrender of the territories of Austria itself into his hands. With Spain, also, the emperor succeeded in forming an alliance, and the Spanish general, Spinola, received orders to invade the countries of the palatinate from the Netherlands. Subsequently the Elector of Mentz arranged a convention at Mülhausen with the Elector John George of Saxony, the Elector of Cologne, and the Landgrave Lewis of Darmstadt, wherein it was determined to render all possible assistance to the emperor for the maintenance of his kingdom and the imperial dignity. Frederick, the new Bohemian king, was now left with no other auxiliary but the Evangelical Union; for the Transylvanian prince, Bethlen Gabor, was, notwithstanding all his promises, a very dubious and uncertain ally, whilst the troops he sent into Moravia and Bohemia were not unlike a horde of savage banditti. Meanwhile the union commenced its preparations for war, as well as the league. The whole of Germany resembled a grand depot for recruiting. Every eye was directed to the Swabian district, where the two armies were to meet; there, however, at Ulm, on the 3rd of July, 1620, they unexpectedly entered into a compact, in which the forces of the union engaged to lay down their arms, and both parties pledged each other to preserve peace and tranquillity. The unionists felt themselves too weak to maintain the contest, since Saxony was now likewise against them, and Spinola threatened them from the Netherlands. It was, however, a great advantage for the emperor, that Bohemia was excluded from this treaty, for, now the forces of the league were at liberty to aid him in subjugating his royal adversary. Maximilian of Bavaria, therefore, immediately took his departure, and on his war reduced the states of Upper Austria to the obedience due to Ferdinand, joined the imperial army, and made a spirited attack upon Bohemia. On the other side, the Elector of Saxony took possession of Lusatia in the name of the emperor."

ALSO IN: S. R. Gardiner, History of England, 1603-1642, chapters 29-32 (volume 3).

      Miss Benger,
      Memoirs of Elizabeth Stuart, Queen of Bohemia,
      chapters 6-9 (volumes 1-2).

GERMANY: A. D. 1620.
   The Thirty Years War: Disappointment of the Bohemians in
   their elected king.
   Frederick's offensive Calvinism.
   Defeat of his army before Prague.
   Loss of Bohemian liberties.
   Prostration of Protestantism.

   "The defection of the Union accelerated the downfall of
   Frederick; but its cordial support could scarcely have
   hindered it. For the Bohemians had been disappointed in their
   king, disappointed in the strength they had expected from him
   through his connexions, equally disappointed in the man, and
   in the hopes of protection and sympathy which they had
   expected from him in the exercise of their religion. Within a
   month of his coronation the metropolitan church was spoiled of
   its images, the crucifix cut in pieces, the statues of the
   saints cast out, broken, and burnt, the ornaments used in
   divine service, and venerable in the eyes of Catholics and
   Lutherans alike, scattered here and there, and turned upside
   down with contempt and execration. These proceedings, which
   were presumed, not without reason, to have the king's
   authority—for during their enactment the court chaplain
   addressed the people in praise of this purgation of the
   temple—called forth loud complaints and increased the
   disaffection which, more than any external force brought
   against Frederick, produced his ruin.
{1469}
   Early in November Maximilian appeared before Prague, and found
   the Bohemians, under Christian van Anhalt, skilfully and
   strongly posted on the Weissenberg [White Mountain] to offer
   battle. The cautious Bucquoi would have declined the offer,
   and attacked the city from another point; but an enthusiastic
   friar who broke in upon the conference of the leaders, and,
   exhibiting a mutilated image of the Virgin, reproached them
   with their hesitation, put to flight all timid counsels. The
   battle began at twelve o'clock. It was a Sunday, the octave of
   the festival of All Saints [November 8, 1620]. … In the
   Catholic army Bucquoi was at the head of the Imperial
   division. Tilly commanded in chief, and led the front to the
   battle. He was received with a heavy fire; and for half an
   hour the victory trembled in the balance: then the Hungarians,
   who had been defeated by the Croats the day before, fled, and
   all the efforts of the Duke of Saxe Weimar to rally them
   proved fruitless. Soon the whole Bohemian army, Germans,
   English, horse and foot, fled in disorder. One gallant little
   band of Moravians only, under the Count of Thurn and the young
   Count of Sehlick, maintained their position, and, with the
   exception of their leaders, fell almost to a man. The battle
   lasted only an hour; but the victory was not the less
   complete. A hundred banners, ten guns, and a rich spoil fell
   into the hands of the victors. Four thousand of the Bohemian
   army, but scarcely as many hundreds of their opponents (if we
   may believe their account), lay dead upon the field. …
   Frederick had returned from the army the day before, with the
   intelligence that the Bavarians were only eight (English)
   miles distant; but relying on the 28,000 men which he had to
   cover his capital, he felt that night no uneasiness. … He
   had invited the English ambassadors to dine; and he remained
   to entertain them. After dinner he mounted his horse to ride
   to the Star Park; but before he could get out of the city
   gate, he was met with the news of the total overthrow of his
   army. His negotiations with Maximilian failing, or receiving
   no answer, the next morning he prepared for flight. …
   Accompanied by his queen, Van Anhalt, the Prince of Hohenlohe,
   and the Count of Thurn, he made a precipitate retreat from
   Prague, leaving behind him the insignia of that monarchy which
   he had not the wisdom to firmly establish, nor resolution to
   defend to the last. It must be confessed, however, that his
   position, after the defeat at Prague, was not altogether so
   promising, and consequently his abandonment of his capital not
   altogether so pusillanimous, as some have represented."

"Frederick fled for his life through North Germany, till he found a refuge at the Hague. The reign of the Bohemian aristocracy was at an end. … The chiefs perished on the scaffold. Their lands were confiscated, and a new German and Catholic nobility arose. … The Royal Charter was declared to have been forfeited by rebellion, and the Protestant churches in the towns and on the royal estates had nothing to depend on but the will of the conqueror. The ministers of one great body —the Bohemian Brethren—were expelled at once. The Lutherans were spared for a time."

      ALSO IN:
      C. A. Peschek,
      Reformation and Anti-Reformation in Bohemia,
      volume 1, chapter 9.

GERMANY: A. D. 1621-1623.
   The Thirty Years War:
   The Elector Palatine placed under the ban.
   Dissolution of the Evangelical Union.
   Invasion and conquest of the Palatinate.
   Transfer of the electoral dignity to the Duke of Bavaria.

"Ferdinand, though firm, patient, and resigned in adversity, was stern, vengeful, and overbearing in prosperity. He was urged by many motives of resentment, policy, and zeal to complete the ruin of the elector Palatine, and he did not possess sufficient magnanimity to resist the temptation. Having squandered away the confiscated property among his Jesuits and favourites, he had still many allies and adherents whose fidelity he was desirous to reward; he was anxious to recover Upper Austria, which he had mortgaged to the duke of Bavaria, as a pledge for the expenses of the war; he wished to regain possession of Lusatia; and he was bound in honour to satisfy the elector of Saxony for his opportune assistance. … These motives overbearing an considerations of justice and prudence, Ferdinand published the ban of the empire [January 22, 1621], of his own authority, against the elector Palatine and his adherents the prince of Anhalt, the count of Hohenlohe, and the duke of Jaegendorf. The execution of this informal sentence he intrusted to the archduke Albert, as possessor of the circle of Burgundy, and to the duke of Bavaria, commanding the former to occupy the Lower, and the latter the Upper Palatinate. This vigorous act was instantly followed by the most decisive effects; for the Protestants were terrified by the prospect of sharing the fate of the unfortunate elector. The members of the union now felt the fatal consequences of their own indecision and want of foresight. … Threatened at once by Spinola [commanding the Spanish auxiliaries from the Netherlands] and the duke of Bavaria, and confounded by the growing power of the emperor, they vied in abandoning a confederacy which exposed them to his vengeance. On the 12th of April, 1621, they concluded at Mentz a treaty of neutrality, by which they promised not to interfere in the affairs of the Palatinate, agreed to disband their troops within a month, and to enter into no new confederacy to the disadvantage of the emperor. This dishonourable treaty was followed by the dissolution of the union, which, on its expiration, was not renewed. During these events, Spinola, having completed the reduction of the Lower Palatinate, was occupied in the siege of Frankendahl, which was on the point of surrendering, and its capture must have been followed by the submission of Heidelberg and Manheim. The duke of Bavaria had been still more successful in the Upper Palatinate, and had rapidly subjugated the whole province, together with the district of Cham. The elector Palatine, deserted by the Protestant union, and almost abandoned by his relatives, the kings of England and Denmark, owed the first revival of his hopes of restoration to Mansfeld, an illegitimate adventurer, with no other resources than plunder and devastation. Christian of Brunswick, administrator of Halberstadt, distinguished indeed by illustrious birth, but equally an adventurer, and equally destitute of territory or resources, espoused his cause, as well from ties of affinity [he was the cousin of Elizabeth, the electress Palatine, or queen of Bohemia, as she preferred to be called] as from a chivalrous attachment to his beautiful consort; and George Frederic, margrave of Baden, even abdicated his dignity to devote himself to his support." {1470} Mansfeld, who had held his ground in Bohemia for nearly a year after the battle of the White Mountain, now became hard pressed there by Tilly, and suddenly escaped by forced marches (October, 1621,) into the Lower Palatinate. "Here he found a more favourable field of action; for Spinola being recalled with the greater part of the Spanish forces, had left the remainder to Gonzales de Cordova, who, after reducing several minor fortresses, was pressing the siege of Frankendahl. The name of the brave adventurer drew to his standard multitudes of the troops, who had been disbanded by the Protestant union, and he was joined by a party of English, who had been sent for the defence of the Palatinate. Finding himself at the head of 20,000 men, he cleared the country in his passage, relieved Frankendahl, and provided for the safety of Heidelberg and Manheim. Unable, however, to subsist in a district so recently the seat of war, he turned into Alsace, where he increased his forces; from thence he invaded the neighbouring bishoprics of Spire and Strasburgh, levying heavy contributions, and giving up the rich domains of those sees to the devastations of his troops. Encouraged by this gleam of hope, the elector Palatine quitted his asylum in Holland, passed in disguise through Loraine and Alsace, joined Mansfeld, and gave his name and countenance to this predatory army." Mansfeld, recrossing the Rhine, effected a junction with the margrave of Baden; and Christian of Brunswick, after pillaging the rich sees of Lower Saxony, was on his way with a considerable force to unite with both. "At the same time the duke of Wirtemberg, the landgrave of Hesse, and other Protestant princes, began to arm, and hopes were even entertained of the revival of the Protestant union. Tilly, who had followed Mansfeld from Bohemia, had in vain endeavoured to prevent his junction with the margrave of Baden. Defeated at Mingelsheim by Mansfeld, on the 29th of April, 1622, he had been reduced to the defensive, and in this situation saw a powerful combination rising on every side against the house of Austria. He waited therefore for an opportunity of attacking those enemies singly, whom he could not resist when united, and that opportunity was presented by the separation of the margrave of Baden from Mansfeld, and his attempt to penetrate into Bavaria. Tilly suddenly drew together the Spanish troops, and with this accession of force defeated, on the 6th of May, the margrave at Wimpfen, with the loss of half his army, and took his whole train of artillery and military chest. Leaving Mansfeld employed in the siege of Ladenburgh, he next directed his attention to Christian of Brunswick, routed him on the 20th of June, at Hoechst [Höchst], as he was crossing the Main, pursued him till his junction with Mansfeld, and drove their united forces beyond the Rhine, again to seek a refuge and subsistence in Alsace. These successes revived the cause of Ferdinand; the margrave of Baden retired from the contest; the duke of Wirtemberg and the other Protestant princes suspended their armaments; and although Mansfeld and Christian of Brunswick laid siege to Saverne, and evinced a resolution to maintain the contest to the last extremity, yet the elector Palatine again gave way to that weakness which had already lost him a crown." He was persuaded by his witless father-in-law, James I. of England, to trust his cause to negotiations in which the latter was being duped by the emperor. He consented, accordingly, "to disavow his intrepid defenders, to dismiss them from his service, to retire again into Holland, and wait the mercy of the emperor. By this disavowal, Mansfeld and Christian were left without a name to countenance their operations; and after various negotiations, feigned or real, for entering into the service of the emperor, Spain, or France, they accepted the overtures of the Prince of Orange and forced their way through the Spanish army which attempted to oppose their passage, to join at Breda the troops of the United Provinces. The places in Alsace and the bishopric of Spire which had been occupied by the enemy were recovered by the archduke Leopold; and Tilly, having completed the conquest of the Palatinate by the capture of Heidelberg and Manheim, directed his attacks against the forces which Mansfeld and Christian of Brunswick had again assembled. After a short continuance in Holland, Mansfeld, in November, had led his predatory army into the rich province of East Friesland, conquered the principal fortresses, and extorted enormous contributions from the duke, who was in alliance with Spain. On the other hand, Christian, passing into Lower Saxony, persuaded the states of the circle to collect an army of observation amounting to 12,000 men, and intrust him with the command; and he soon increased this army to almost double that number, by the usual incitements of pillage and plunder. These levies attracting the attention of the emperor, his threats, together with the advance of Tilly, compelled the Saxon states to dismiss Christian and his army. Thus left a second time without authority, he pushed towards Westphalia, with the hope of joining Mansfeld and renewing hostilities in the Palatinate; his design was however anticipated by Tilly, who overtook him at Loen [or Stadtlohn], in the district of Munster, and defeated him with the loss of 6,000 killed and 4,000 prisoners, in August, 1623. The victorious general then turned towards East Friesland; but Mansfeld, who had hitherto maintained himself in that country, avoided an unequal contest by disbanding his troops, and withdrawing into Holland, in January, 1624. … Having despoiled the elector Palatine of all his dominions, and delivered himself from his enemies in Germany, Ferdinand had proceeded to carry his plans into execution, by transferring the electoral dignity to the duke of Bavaria, and dividing the conquered territories among his adherents. … He gained the elector of Saxony, by promising him the revenues and perhaps the cession of Lusatia; and the landgrave of Hesse Darmstadt, by offering to favour his pretensions to the succession of Marburgh, which he was contesting with the landgrave of Hesse Cassel. … Having thus gained those whose opposition was most likely to frustrate his design, he paid little regard to the feeble threats of James, and to the remonstrances of the king of Denmark. … He summoned, on the 25th of February, 1623, a meeting of the electors and princes who were most devoted to his cause at Ratisbon, and, in concurrence with the majority of this irregular assembly, transferred the Palatine electorate, with all its honours, privileges, and offices, to Maximilian, duke of Bavaria. {1471} To keep up, however, the hopes of the elector Palatine and his adherents, and not to drive his family and connections to desperation, the whole extent of the plan was not developed; the partition of his territories was deferred, the transfer of the electorate was made only for the life of Maximilian, and the rights of the sons and collateral heirs of the unfortunate elector were expressly reserved."

GERMANY: A. D. 1624-1626.
   The Thirty Years War:
   Alliance of England, Holland, and Denmark to support the
   Protestant cause.
   Creation of the imperial army of Wallenstein, and its first
   campaigns.

"Had the Emperor been as wise as he was resolute, it is probable that, victorious in every direction, he might have been able to conclude a permanent peace with the Protestant Party. But the bigotry which was a very part of his nature was spurred on by his easy triumphs to refuse to sheathe the sword until heresy had been rooted out from the land. In vain did the Protestant princes, who had maintained a selfish and foolish neutrality, remonstrate against the continuance of hostilities after the avowed object for which those hostilities were undertaken had been gained. In the opinion of Ferdinand II. the real object still remained to be accomplished. Under these critical circumstances the emigrants, now grown numerous [see BOHEMIA: A. D. 1621-1648], and the awakened Protestant princes, earnestly besought the aid of a foreign power. It was their representations which at length induced three nations of the reformed faith—England, Holland, and Denmark—to ally themselves to assist their oppressed brethren.

England agreed to send subsidies, Holland to supply troops. The command of the delivering army was confided to Christian IV., King of Denmark (1625). He was to be supported in Germany by the partisan Mansfeldt, by Prince Christian of Brunswick, and by the Protestants of Lower Saxony, who had armed themselves to resist the exactions of the Emperor. Ferdinand II., after vainly endeavouring to ward off hostilities by negotiations, despatched Tilly to the Weser to meet the enemy. Tilly followed the course of that river as far as Minden, causing to be occupied, as he marched, the places which commanded its passage. Pursuing his course northwards, he crossed the river at Neuburg (midway between Minden and Bremen), and occupied the principality of Kalenberg. The King of Denmark was near at hand, in the Duchy of Brunswick, anxious, for the moment, to avoid a battle. Tilly, superior to him in numbers, was as anxious to fight one. As though the position of the King of Denmark were not already sufficiently embarrassing, the Emperor proceeded at this period to make it almost unendurable by launching upon him likewise an imperial army. … Up to the period of the complete overthrow and expulsion from the Palatinate of Frederic V., ex-King of Bohemia, Ferdinand had been indebted for all his successes to Maximilian of Bavaria. It was Maximilian who, as head of the Holy League, had reconquered Bohemia for the Emperor: it was Maximilian's general, Tilly, who had driven the Protestant armies from the Palatinate; and it was the same general who was now opposing the Protestants of the north in the lands watered by the Weser. Maximilian had been rewarded by the cession to him of the Palatinate, but it was not advisable that so near a neighbour of Austria should be made too strong. It was this feeling, this jealousy of Maximilian, which now prompted Ferdinand to raise, for the first time in this war, an imperial army, and to send it to the north. This army was raised by and at the expense of Albert Wenzel Eusebius of Waldstein, known in history as Wallenstein. A Czech by nationality, born in 1583 of noble parents, who belonged to one of the most advanced sects of the reformers but who died whilst their son was yet young, Wallenstein had, when yet a child, been committed to the care of his uncle, Albert Slavata, an adherent of the Jesuits, and by him educated at Olmütz in the strictest Catholic faith." By marrying, first, a rich widow, who soon died, and then an heiress, daughter of Count Harrach, and by purchasing with the fortune thus acquired many confiscated estates, he had become possessed of enormous wealth. He had already won distinction as a soldier. "For his faithful services, Ferdinand in 1623 nominated Wallenstein to be Prince, a title changed, the year following, into that of Duke of Friedland. At this time the yearly income he derived from his various estates, all economically managed, was calculated to be 30,000,000 florins—little short of £2,500,000." Wallenstein now, in 1625, "divining his master's wishes, and animated by the ambition born of natural ability, offered to raise and maintain, at his own cost, an army of 50,000 men, and to lead it against the enemy. Ferdinand eagerly accepted the offer. Named Generalissimo and Field Marshal in July of the same year, Wallenstein marched at the head of 30,000 men, a number which increased almost daily, first to the Weser, thence, after noticing the positions of Tilly and of King Christian, to the banks of the Elbe, where he wintered. … In the spring … Mansfeldt, with the view to prevent a junction between Tilly and Wallenstein, marched against the latter, and, though his troops were fewer in number, took up a position at Dessau in full view of the imperial camp, and there intrenched himself. Here Wallenstein attacked (25 April 1626) and completely defeated him. Not discouraged by this overthrow, and still bearing in mind the main object of the campaign, Mansfeldt fell back into Brandenburg, recruited there his army, called to himself the Duke of Saxe-Weimar and then suddenly dashed, by forced marches, towards Silesia and Moravia, with the intention of reaching Hungary, where Bethlen Gabor had promised to meet him." Wallenstein followed and "pressed him so hard that, though Mansfeldt did effect a junction with Bethlen Gabor, it was with but the skeleton of his army. Despairing of success against numbers vastly superior, Bethlen Gabor withdrew from his new colleague, and Mansfeldt, reduced to despair, disbanded his remaining soldiers, and sold his camp-equipage to supply himself with the means of flight (September).

He died soon after (30th November). … Wallenstein then retraced his steps to the north. Meanwhile Tilly, left to deal with Christian IV., had followed that prince into Lower Saxony, had caught, attacked, and completely defeated him at Lutter (am Barenberge), the 27th July 1626. This victory gave him complete possession of that disaffected province, and, despite a vigorous attempt made by the Margrave George Frederic of Baden to wrest it from him, he held it till the return of Wallenstein from the pursuit of Mansfeldt. As two stars of so great a magnitude could not shine in the same hemisphere, it was then decided that Tilly should carry the war into Holland, whilst to Wallenstein should be left the honour of dealing with the King of Denmark and the Protestant princes of the north."

ALSO IN: W. Zimmermann, Popular History of Germany, book 5, chapter 2 (volume 4).

GERMANY: A. D. 1627-1629.
   The Thirty Years War:
   Wallenstein's campaign against the Danes.
   His power and his oppression in Germany.
   The country devoured by his army.
   Unsuccessful siege of Stralsund.
   First succor from the king of Sweden.
   The Peace of Lubeck.
   The Edict of Restitution.

"Wallenstein opened the campaign of 1627 at the head of a refreshed and well-equipped army of 40,000 men. His first effort was directed against Silesia; and the Danish troops, few in number, and ill commanded, gave way at his approach. To prevent the fugitives from infringing on the neutrality of Brandenburg, he occupied the whole electorate. Mecklenburg and Pomerania soon shared the same fate. Remonstrances and assurances of perfect neutrality were treated with absolute scorn; and Wallenstein declared, in his usual haughty style, that 'the time had arrived for dispensing altogether with electors; and that Germany ought to be governed like France and Spain, by a single and absolute sovereign.' In his rapid march towards the frontiers of Holstein, he acted fully up to the principle he had laid down, and naturally exercised despotic power, as the representative of the absolute monarch of whom he spoke. … He … followed up the Danes, defeated their armies in a series of actions near Heiligenhausen, overran the whole peninsula of Jutland before the end of the campaign, and forced the unhappy king to seek shelter, with the wrecks of his army, in the islands beyond the Belt. … Brilliant as the campaign of 1627 proved in its general result, few very striking feats of arms were performed during its progress. … Now it was that the princes and states of Lower Germany began to feel the consequences of their pusillanimous conduct; and the very provinces which had just before refused to raise troops for their own protection, were obliged to submit, without a murmur, to every species of insult and exaction. Wallenstein's army, augmented to 100,000 men, occupied the whole country; and the lordly leader following, on a far greater scale, the principle on which Mansfeld had acted, made the war maintain the war, and trampled alike on the rights of sovereigns and of subjects. And terrible was the penalty now paid for the short-sighted policy which avarice and cowardice had suggested, and which cunning had vainly tried to disguise beneath affected philanthropy, and a generous love of peace. Provided with imperial authority, and at the head of a force that could no longer be resisted, Wallenstein made the empire serve as a vast storehouse, and wealthy treasury for the benefit of the imperial army. He forbade even sovereigns and electors to raise supplies in their own countries, and was justly termed 'the princes' scourge, and soldiers' idol.' The system of living by contributions had completely demoralised the troops. Honour and discipline were entirely gone; and it was only beneath the eye of the stern and unrelenting commander, that anything like order continued to be observed. Dissipation and profligacy reigned in all ranks: bands of dissolute persons accompanied every regiment, and helped to extinguish the last sparks of morality in the breast of the soldier. The generals levied arbitrary taxes; the inferior officers followed the example of their superiors; and the privates, soon ceasing to obey those whom they ceased to respect, plundered in every direction; while blows, insults, or death awaited all who dared to resist. … The sums extorted, in this manner, prove that Germany must have been a wealthy country in the 17th century; for the money pressed out of some districts, by the imperial troops, far exceeds anything which the same quarters could now be made to furnish. Complaints against the author of such evils were, of course, not wanting; but the man complained of had rendered the Emperor all-powerful in Germany: from the Adriatic to the Baltic, Ferdinand reigned absolute, as no monarch had reigned since the days of the Othos. This supremacy was due to Wallenstein alone; and what could the voice of the humble and oppressed effect against such an offender? Or when did the voice of suffering nations, arrest the progress of power and ambition? During the winter that followed on the campaign of 1627, Wallenstein repaired to Prague, to claim [and to receive] from the Emperor, who was residing in the Bohemian capital, additional rewards for the important services so lately rendered. The boon solicited was nothing less than the Duchy of Mecklenburg, which was to be taken from its legitimate princes, on the ground of their having joined the King of Denmark, and bestowed on the successful general. … Hitherto the ocean had alone arrested the progress of Wallenstein: a fleet was now to be formed, which should enable him to give laws beyond the Belts, and perhaps beyond the Baltic also. Every seaport in Mecklenburg and Pomerania is ordered to be taken possession of and fortified. … The siege of Stralsund, which was resolved upon early in 1628, constitutes one of the most memorable operations of the war. Not merely because it furnishes an additional proof of what may be effected by skill, courage and resolution, against vastly superior forces, but because its result influenced, in an eminent degree, some of the most important events that followed. When Wallenstein ordered the seaports along the coast of Pomerania to be occupied, Stralsund, claiming its privilege as an imperial and Hanseatic free town, refused to admit his troops. … After a good deal of negotiation, which only cost the people of Stralsund some large sums of money, paid away in presents to the imperial officers, Arnheim invested the place on the 7th of May with 8,000 men. … {1473} The town … , unable to obtain assistance from the Duke of Pomerania, the lord superior of the province, who, however willing, had no means of furnishing relief, placed itself under the protection of Sweden; and Gustavus Adolphus, fully sensible of the importance of the place, immediately dispatched the celebrated David Leslie, at the head of 600 men, to aid in its defence. Count Brahe, with 1,000 more, soon followed; so that when Wallenstein reached the army on the 27th of June, he found himself opposed by a garrison of experienced soldiers, who had already retaken all the outworks which Arnheim had captured in the first instance. … Rain began to fall in such torrents that the trenches were entirely filled, and the flat moor ground, on which the army was encamped, became completely inundated and untenable. The proud spirit of Friedland, unused to yield, still persevered; but sickness attacked the troops, and the Danes having landed at Jasmund, he was obliged to march against them with the best part of his forces; and in fact to raise the siege. … The Danes having effected their object, in causing the siege of Stralsund to be raised, withdrew their troops from Jasmund, and landed them again at Wolgast. Here, however, Wallenstein surprised, and defeated them with great loss. … There being on all sides a willingness to bring the war to an end, peace was … concluded at Lubeck in January 1629. By this treaty the Danes recovered, without reserve or indemnity, all their former possessions; only pledging themselves not again to interfere in the affairs of the Empire. … The peace of Lubeck left Wallenstein absolute master in Germany, and without an equal in greatness: his spirit seemed to hover like a storm-charged cloud over the land, crushing to the earth every hope of liberty and successful resistance. Mansfeld and Christian of Brunswick had disappeared from the scene; Frederick V. had retired into obscurity. Tilly and Pappenheim, his former rivals, now condescended to receive favours, and to solicit pensions and rewards through the medium of his intercession. Even Maximilian of Bavaria was second in greatness to the all-dreaded Duke of Friedland: Europe held no uncrowned head that was his equal in fame, and no crowned head that surpassed him in power. … Ferdinand, elated with success, had neglected the opportunity, again afforded him by the peace of Lubeck, for restoring tranquillity to the empire. … Instead of a general peace, Ferdinand signed the fatal Edict of Restitution, by which the Protestants were called upon to restore all the Catholic Church property they had sequestrated since the religious pacification of 1555: such sequestration being, according to the Emperor's interpretation, contrary to the spirit of the treaty of Passau. The right of long-established possession was here entirely overlooked; and Ferdinand forgot, in his zeal for the church, that he was actually setting himself up as a judge, in a case in which he was a party also. It was farther added, that, according to the same treaty, freedom of departure from Catholic countries, was the only privilege which Protestants had a right to claim from Catholic princes. This decree came like a thunder-burst over Protestant Germany. Two archbishopricks, 12 bishopricks, and a countless number of convents and clerical domains, which the Protestants had confiscated, and applied to their own purposes, were now to be surrendered. Imperial commissioners were appointed to carry the mandate into effect, and, to secure immediate obedience, troops were placed at the disposal of the new officials. Wherever these functionaries appeared, the Protestant service was instantly suspended; the churches deprived of their bells; altars and pulpits pulled down; all Protestant books, bibles and catechisms were seized; and gibbets were erected to terrify those who might be disposed to resist. All Protestants who refused to change their religion were expelled from Augsburg: summary proceedings of the same kind were resorted to in other places. Armed with absolute power, the commissioners soon proceeded from reclaiming the property of the church to seize that of individuals. The estates of all persons who had served under Mansfeld, Baden, Christian of Brunswick; of all who had aided Frederick V., or rendered themselves obnoxious to the Emperor, were seized and confiscated. … The Duke of Friedland, who now ruled with dictatorial sway over Germany, had been ordered to carry the Edict of Restitution into effect, in all the countries occupied by his troops. The task, if we believe historians, was executed with unbending rigour."

ALSO IN: L. Häusser, The Period of the Reformation, 1517 to 1648, chapter 33.

GERMANY: A. D. 1627-1631. War of the Emperor and Spain with France, over the succession to the duchy of Mantua.

GERMANY: A. D. 1630.
   The Thirty Years War:
   Universal hostility to Wallenstein.
   His dismissal by the Emperor.
   The rising of a new champion of Protestantism in Sweden.

"Wallenstein had ever shown great toleration in his own domains; but it is not to be denied that … he aided to carry out the edict [of Restitution] in the most barbarous and relentless manner. It would be as tedious as painful to dwell upon all the cruelties which were committed, and the oppression that was exercised, by the imperial commissioners; but a spirit of resistance was aroused in the hearts of the German people, which only waited for opportunity to display itself. Nor was it alone against the emperor that wrath and indignation was excited. Wallenstein drew down upon his head even more dangerous enmity than that which sprung up against Ferdinand. He ruled in Germany with almost despotic sway; for the emperor himself seemed at this time little more than a tool in his hands. His manners were unpopular, stern, reserved, and gloomy. … Princes were kept waiting in his ante-chamber; and all petitions and remonstrances against his stern decrees were treated with the mortifying scorn which adds insult to injury. The magnificence of his train, the splendor of his household, the luxury and profusion that spread every where around him, afforded continual sources of envy and jealous hate to the ancient nobility of the empire. The Protestants throughout the land were his avowed and implacable enemies; and the Roman Catholic princes viewed him with fear and suspicion. Maximilian of Bavaria, whose star had waned under the growing luster of Wallenstein's renown, who had lost that authority in the empire which he knew to be due to his services and his genius, solely by the rise and influence of Wallenstein, and whose ambitious designs of ruling Germany through an emperor dependent upon him for power, had been frustrated entirely by the genius which placed the imperial throne upon a firm and independent basis, took no pains to conceal his hostility to the Duke of Friedland. … {1474} Though the soldiery still generally loved him, their officers hated the hand that put a limit to the oppression by which they throve, and would fain have resisted its power. … While these feelings were gathering strength in Germany; while Wallenstein, with no friends, though many supporters, saw himself an object of jealousy or hatred to the leaders of every party throughout the empire; and while the suppressed but cherished indignation of all Protestant Germany was preparing for the emperor a dreadful day of reckoning, events were taking place in other countries which hurried on rapidly the dangers that Wallenstein had foreseen. In France, a weak king, and a powerful, politic, and relentless minister, appeared in undissembled hostility to the house of Austria; and the famous Cardinal de Richelieu busied himself, successfully, to raise up enemies to the German branch of that family. … In Poland, Sigismund, after vainly contending with Gustavus Adolphus, and receiving an inefficient aid from Germany, was anxious to conclude the disastrous war with Sweden. Richelieu interfered; Oxenstiern negotiated on the part of Gustavus; and a truce of six years was concluded in August, 1629, by which the veteran and victorious Swedish troops were set free to act in any other direction. A great part of Livonia was virtually ceded to Gustavus, together with the towns and territories of Memel, Braunsberg and Elbingen, and the strong fortress of Pillau. At the same time, Richelieu impressed upon the mind of Gustavus the honor, the advantage, and the necessity of reducing the immense power of the emperor, and delivering the Protestant states of Germany from the oppression under which they groaned. … Confident in his own powers of mind and warlike skill, supported by the love and admiration of his people, relying on the valor and discipline of' his troops, and foreseeing all the mighty combinations which were certain to take place in his favor, Gustavus hesitated but little. He consulted with his ministers, indeed heard and answered every objection that could be raised; and then applied to the Senate at Stockholm to insure that his plans were approved, and that his efforts would be seconded by his people. His enterprise met with the most enthusiastic approbation; and then succeeded all the bustle of active preparation. … While this storm was gathering in the North, while the towns of Sweden were bristling with arms, and her ports filled with ships, Ferdinand was driven or persuaded to an act the most fatal to himself, and the most favorable to the King of Sweden. A Diet was summoned to meet at Ratisbon early in the year 1630; and the chief object of the emperor in taking a step so dangerous to the power he had really acquired, and to the projects so boldly put forth in his name, seems to have been to cause his son to be elected King of the Romans. … The name of the archduke, King of Hungary, is proposed to the Diet for election as King of the Romans, and a scene of indescribable confusion and murmuring takes place: A voice demands that, before any such election is considered, the complaints of the people of Germany against the imperial armies shall be heard; and then a perfect storm of accusations pours down. Every sort of tyranny and oppression, every sort of cruelty and exaction, every sort of licentiousness and vice is attributed to the emperor's troops; but the hatred and the charges all concentrate themselves upon the head of the great commander of the imperial forces; and there is a shout for his instant dismissal. … Ferdinand hesitated, and affected much surprise at the charges brought against his general and his armies. He yielded in the end, however; and it is said, upon very good authority, that his ruinous decision was brought about by the arts of the same skillful politician who had conjured up the storm which now menaced the empire from the north. Richelieu had sent an embassador to Ratisbon. … In the train of the embassador came the well-known intriguing friar, Father Joseph, the most unscrupulous and cunning of the cardinal's emissaries; and he, we are assured, found means to persuade the emperor that, by yielding to the demand of the electors and removing Wallenstein for a time, he might obtain the election of the King of Hungary, and then reinstate the Duke of Friedland in his command as soon as popular anger had subsided. However that might be, Ferdinand, as I have said, yielded, openly expressing his regret at the step he was about to take, and the apprehensions which he entertained for the consequences. Count Questenberg and another nobleman, who had been long on intimate terms with Wallenstein, were sent to the camp to notify to him his removal from command, and to soften the disgrace by assuring him of the emperor's gratitude and affection."

GERMANY: A. D. 1630-1631.
   The Thirty Years War:
   The Coming of Gustavus Adolphus.
   His occupation of Pomerania and Brandenburg.
   The horrible fate of Magdeburg at the hands of Tilly's
   ruffians.

   "On June 24, 1630, one hundred years, to a day, after the
   Augsburg Confession was promulgated, Gustavus Adolphus landed
   on the coast of Pomerania, near the mouth of the river Peene,
   with 13,000 men, veteran troops, whose rigid discipline was
   sustained by their piety, and who were simple-minded, noble,
   and glowing with the spirit of the battle. He had reasons
   enough for declaring war against Ferdinand, even if 10,000 of
   Wallenstein's troops had not been sent to aid Sigismund
   against him. But the controlling motive, in his own mind, was
   to succor the imperiled cause of religious freedom in Germany.
   Coming as the protector of the evangelic Church, he expected
   to be joined by the Protestant princes. But he was
   disappointed. Only the trampled and tortured people of North
   Germany, who in their despair were ready for revolts and
   conspiracies of their own, welcomed him as their deliverer
   from the bandits of Wallenstein and the League. Gustavus
   Adolphus appeared before Stettin, and by threats compelled the
   old duke, Bogislaw XIV., to open to him his capital city, He
   then took measures to secure possession of Pomerania. His army
   grew rapidly, while that of the emperor was widely dispersed,
   so that he now advanced into Brandenburg. George William, the
   elector, was a weak prince, though a Protestant, and a brother
   of the Queen of Sweden; he was guided by his Catholic
   chancellor, Schwarzenberg, and had painfully striven to keep
   neutral throughout the war, neither side, however, respecting
   his neutrality.
{1475}
   In dread of the plans of Gustavus Adolphus concerning
   Pomerania and Prussia, he held aloof from him. Meanwhile
   Tilly, general-in-chief of the troops of the emperor and the
   League, drew near, but suddenly turned aside to New
   Brandenburg, in the Mecklenburg territory, now occupied by the
   Swedes, captured it after three assaults, and put the garrison
   to the sword (1631). He then laid siege to Magdeburg. Gustavus
   Adolphus took Frankfort-on-the-Oder, where there was an
   imperial garrison, and treated it, in retaliation, with the
   same severity. Thence, in the spring of 1631, he set out for
   Berlin. … In Potsdam he heard of the fall of Magdeburg. He
   then marched with flying banners into Berlin, and compelled
   the elector to become his ally. Magdeburg was the strong
   refuge of Protestantism, and the most important trading centre
   in North Germany. It had resisted the Augsburg Interim of
   1548, and now resisted the Edict of Restitution, rejected the
   newly appointed prince bishop, Leopold William, son of the
   emperor himself, and refused to receive the emperor's
   garrison. The city was therefore banned by the emperor, and
   was besieged for many weeks by Pappenheim, a general of the
   League, who was then reinforced by Tilly himself with his
   army. Gustavus Adolphus was unable to make an advance, in view
   of the equivocal attitude of the two great Protestant electors,
   without exposing his rear to garrisoned fortresses. From
   Brandenburg as well as Saxony he asked in vain for help to
   save the Protestant city. Thus Magdeburg fell, May 10, 1631.
   The citizens were deceived by a pretended withdrawal of the
   enemy. But suddenly, at early dawn, the badly guarded
   fortifications were stormed."

Two gates of the city having been opened by the storming party, "Tilly marched in with part of his infantry. Immediately occupying the principal streets, he drove the citizens with pointed cannon into their dwellings, there to await their destiny. They were not long held in suspense; a word from Tilly decided the fate of Magdeburg. Even a more humane general would in vain have recommended mercy to such soldiers; but Tilly never made the attempt. Left by their general's silence masters of the lives of all the citizens, the soldiery broke into the houses to satiate their most brutal appetites. The prayers of innocence excited some compassion in the hearts of the Germans, but none in the rude breasts of Pappenheim's Walloons. Scarcely had the savage cruelty commenced, when the other gates were thrown open, and the cavalry, with the fearful hordes of the Croats, poured in upon the devoted inhabitants. Here commenced a scene of horrors for which history has no language—poetry no pencil. Neither innocent childhood, nor helpless old age; neither youth, sex, rank, nor beauty, could disarm the fury of the conquerors. Wives were abused in the arms of their husbands, daughters at the feet of their parents; and the defenceless sex exposed to the double sacrifice of virtue and life. No situation, however obscure, or however sacred, escaped the rapacity of the enemy. In a single church fifty-three women were found beheaded. The Croats amused themselves with throwing children into the flames; Pappenheim's Walloons with stabbing infants at the mother's breast. Some officers of the League, horror-struck at this dreadful scene, ventured to remind Tilly that he had it in his power to stop the carnage. 'Return in an hour,' was his answer; 'I will see what I can do; the soldier must have some reward for his danger and toils.' These horrors lasted with unabated fury, till at last the smoke and flames proved a check to the plunderers. To augment the confusion and to divert the resistance of the inhabitants, the Imperialists had, in the commencement of the assault, fired the town in several places. The wind rising rapidly, spread the flames, till the blaze became universal. Fearful, indeed, was the tumult amid clouds of smoke, heaps of dead bodies, the clash of swords, the crash of falling ruins, and streams of blood. The atmosphere glowed; and the intolerable heat forced at last even the murderers to take refuge in their camp. In less than twelve hours, this strong, populous, and flourishing city, one of the finest in Germany, was reduced to ashes, with the exception of two churches and a few houses. … The avarice of the officers had saved 400 of the richest citizens, in the hope of extorting from them an exorbitant ransom. But this humanity was confined to the officers of the League, whom the ruthless barbarity of the Imperialists caused to be regarded as guardian angels. Scarcely had the fury of the flames abated, when the Imperialists returned to renew the pillage amid the ruins and ashes of the town. Many were suffocated by the smoke; many found rich booty in the cellars, where the citizens had concealed their more valuable effects. On the 13th of May, Tilly himself appeared in the town, after the streets had been cleared of ashes and dead bodies. Horrible and revolting to humanity was the scene that presented itself. The living crawling from under the dead, children wandering about with heart-rending cries, calling for their parents; and infants still sucking the breasts of their lifeless mothers. More than 6,000 bodies were thrown into the Elbe to clear the streets; a much greater number had been consumed by the flames. The whole number of the slain was reckoned at not less than 30,000. The entrance of the general, which took place on the 14th, put a stop to the plunder, and saved the few who had hitherto contrived to escape. About a thousand people were taken out of the cathedral, where they had remained three days and two nights, without food, and in momentary fear of death."

      ALSO IN:
      Sir E. Cust,
      Lives of the Warriors of the
      Thirty Years' War, part 1.

GERMANY: A. D. 1631 (January).
   The Thirty Years War:
   The Treaty of Bärwalde between Gustavus Adolphus and the king
   of France.

   "On the 13th of January, 1631, the Treaty of Barwalde was
   concluded between France and Sweden. Hard cash had been the
   principal subject of the negotiation, and Louis XIII. had
   agreed to pay Gustavus a lump sum of $120,000 in consideration
   of his recent expenditure,—a further sum of $400,000 a year
   for six years to come. Until that time, or until a general
   peace, if such should supervene earlier, Sweden was to keep in
   the field an army of 30,000 foot and 6, 000 horse. The object
   of the alliance was declared to be 'the protection of their
   common friends, the security of the Baltic, the freedom of
   commerce, the restitution of the oppressed members of the
   Empire, the destruction of the newly erected fortresses in the
   Baltic, the North Sea, and in the Grisons territory, so that
   all should be left in the state in which it was before the
   German war had begun.'
{1476}
   Sweden was not to 'violate the Imperial constitution' where
   she conquered; she was to leave the Catholic religion
   undisturbed in all districts where she found it existing. She
   was to observe towards Bavaria and the League—the spoilt
   darlings of Richelieu's anti-Austrian policy—friendship or
   neutrality, so far as they would observe it towards her. If,
   at the end of six years, the objects were not accomplished,
   the treaty was to be renewed."

      C. R. L. Fletcher,
      Gustavus Adolphus and the Struggle
      of Protestantism for Existence,
      chapter 9.

GERMANY: A. D. 1631.
   The Thirty Years War:
   The elector of Brandenburg brought to terms by the king of
   Sweden.
   The elector of Saxony frightened into line.
   Defeat of Tilly at Leipsig (Breitenfeld).
   Effects of the great victory.

"Loud were the cries against Gustavus for not having relieved Magdeburg. To answer them he felt himself bound to publish a careful apology. In this document he declared, among other things, that if he could have obtained from the Elector of Brandenburg the passage of Küstrin he might not only have raised the siege of Magdeburg but have destroyed the whole of the Imperial army. The passage, however, had been denied him; and though the preservation of Magdeburg so much concerned the Elector of Saxony, he could obtain from him a passage toward it neither by Wittemberg, nor the Bridge of Dessau, nor such assistance in provision and shipping as was necessary for the success of the enterprise. … Something more than mere persuasion had induced the Elector of Brandenburg, after the capture of Francfort, to grant Gustavus possession of Spandau for a month. The month expired on the 8th of June; and the elector demanded back his stronghold. The king, fettered by his promise, surrendered it; but the next day, having marched to Berlin and pointed his guns against the palace, the ladies came forth as mediators, and the elector consented both to surrender Spandau again and to pay, for the maintenance of the Swedish troops, a monthly subsidy of 30,000 rix-dollars. At the end of May Tilly removed from Magdeburg and the Elbe to Ascherleben. This enabled the king to take Werben, on the confluence of the Elbe and Havel, where, after the reduction of Tangermünde and Havelberg, he established his celebrated camp." In the latter part of July, Tilly made two attacks on the king's camp at Werben, and was repulsed on both occasions with heavy loss. "In the middle of August, Gustavus broke up his camp. His force at that time, according to the muster-rolls, amounted to 13,000 foot, and 8,850 cavalry. He drew towards Leipsig, then threatened by Tilly, who, having been joined at Eisleben by 15,000 men under Fürstenburg, now possessed an army 40,000 strong to enforce the emperor's ban against the Leipsig decrees [or resolutions of a congress of Protestant princes which had assembled at Leipsig in February, 1631, moved to some organized common action by the Edict of Restitution] within the limits of the electorate. The Elector of Saxony was almost frightened out of his wits by the impending danger. … His grief and rage at the fall of Magdeburg had been so great that, for two days after receiving the news, he would admit no one into his presence. But that dire event only added to his perplexity; he could resolve neither upon submission, nor upon vengeance. In May, indeed, terrified by the threats of Ferdinand, he discontinued his levies, and disbanded a part of his troops already enlisted: but in June he sent Arnim to Gustavus with such overtures that the king drank his health, and seemed to have grown sanguine in the hope of his alliance. In July, his courage still rising, he permitted Gustavus to recruit in his dominions. In August, his courage falling again at the approach of Fürstenburg, he gave him and his troops a free passage through Thuringia." But now, later in the same month, he sent word to Gustavus Adolphus "that not only Wittemberg but the whole electorate was open to him; that not only his son, but himself, would serve under the king; that he would advance one month's payment for the Swedish troops immediately, and give security for two monthly payments more. … Gustavus rejoiced to find the Duke of Saxony in this temper, and, in pursuance of a league now entered into with him, and the Elector of Brandenburg, crossed the Elbe at Wittemberg on the 4th of September. The Saxons, from 16,000 to 20,000 strong, moving simultaneously from Torgau, the confederated armies met at Düben on the Mulda, three leagues from Leipsig. At a conference held there, it was debated whether it would be better to protract the war or to hazard a battle. The king took the former side, but yielded to the strong representations of the Duke of Saxony. … On the 6th of September the allies came within six or eight miles of the enemy, where they halted for the night. … Breitenfeld, the place at which Tilly, urged by the importunity of Pappenheim, had chosen to offer battle, was an extensive plain, in part recently ploughed, about a mile from Leipsig and near the cemetery of that city. Leipsig had surrendered to Tilly two days before. The Imperial army, estimated at 44,000 men, occupied a rising ground on the plain. … The army was drawn up in one line of great depth, having the infantry in the centre, the cavalry on the wings, according to the Spanish order of battle, The king subdivided his army, about 20,000 strong, into centre and wings, each of which consisted of two lines and a reserve. … To this disposition is attributed, in a great degree, the success of the day. … The files being so comparatively shallow, artillery made less havoc among them. Then, again, the division of the army into small maniples, with considerable intervals between each, gave space for evolutions, and the power of throwing the troops with rapidity wherever their services or support might be found requisite. … The battle began at 12 o'clock." It only ended with the setting of the sun; but long before that time the great army of Tilly was substantially destroyed. It had scattered the Saxons easily enough, and sent them flying, with their worthless elector; but Gustavus and his disciplined, brave, powerfully handled Swedes had broken and ruined the stout but clumsy imperial lines. "It is scarcely possible to exaggerate the importance of this success. On the event of that day, as Gustavus himself said, the whole (Protestant) cause, 'summa rei,' depended. The success was great in itself. The numbers engaged on either side had been nearly equal. Not so their loss. The Imperial loss in killed and wounded, according to Swedish computation, was from 8,000 to 10,000; according to the enemy's own account, between 6,000 and 7,000; while all seem to agree that the loss on the side of the allies was only 2,700, of which 2,000 were Saxon, 700 Swedes. Besides, Gustavus won the whole of the enemy's artillery, and more than 100 standards. Then the army of Tilly being annihilated left him free to choose his next point of attack, almost his next victory."

"The battle of Breitenfeld was an epoch in war, and it was an epoch in history. It was an epoch in war, because first in it was displayed on a great scale the superiority of mobility over weight. It was an epoch in history, because it broke the force upon which the revived Catholicism had relied for the extension of its empire over Europe. … 'Germany might tear herself and be torn to pieces for yet another half-generation, but the actual result of the Thirty-Years' War was as good as achieved.'"

C. R. L. Fletcher, Gustavus Adolphus and the Struggle of Protestantism for Existence, chapter 11.

      ALSO IN:
      G. B. Malleson,
      The Battle-fields of Germany,
      chapter 1.

GERMANY: A. D. 1631-1632.
   The Thirty Years War:
   Movements and plans of the Swedish king in southern Germany.
   Temporary recovery of the Palatinate.
   Occupation of Bavaria.
   The Saxons in Bohemia.
   Battle of the Lech.
   Death of Tilly.
   Wallenstein's recall.
   Siege and relief of Nuremberg.
   Battle of Lützen, and death of Gustavus Adolphus.

"This battle, sometimes called Breitenwald [Breitenfeld], sometimes the First Battle of Leipsic, … was the first victory on the Protestant side that had been achieved. It was Tilly's first defeat after thirty battles. It filled with joy those who had hitherto been depressed and hopeless. Cities which had dreaded to declare themselves for fear of the fate of Magdeburg began to lift up their heads, and vacillating princes to think that they could safely take the part which they preferred. Gustavus knew, however, that he must let the Germans do as much as possible for themselves, or he should arouse their national jealousy of him as a foreign conqueror. So he sent the Elector of Saxony to awaken the old spirit in Bohemia. As for himself, his great counsellor, Oxenstierna, wanted him to march straight on Vienna, but this was not his object. He wanted primarily to deliver the northern states, and to encourage the merchant cities, Ulm, Augsburg, Nuremberg, which had all along been Protestant, and to deliver the Palatinate from its oppressors. And, out of mortification, a strange ally offered himself, namely, Wallenstein, who wanted revenge on the Catholic League which had insisted on his dismissal, and the Emperor who had yielded to them. … He said that if Gustavus would trust him, he would soon get his old army together again, and chase Ferdinand and the Jesuits beyond the Alps. But Gustavus did not trust him, though he sat quiet at Prague while the Saxons were in possession of the city, plundering everywhere, and the Elector sending off to Dresden fifty waggon-loads filled with the treasures of the Emperor Rudolf's museum. … Many exiles returned, and there was a general resumption of the Hussite form of worship. Gustavus had marched to Erfurt, and then turned towards the Maine, where there was a long row of those prince bishoprics established on the frontier by the policy of Charlemagne—Wurtzburg, Bamberg, Fulda, Köln, Triers, Mentz, Wurms, Spiers. These had never been secularised and were popularly called the Priests' Lane. They had given all their forces to the Catholic League, and Gustavus meant to repay himself upon them. He permitted no cruelties, no persecutions; but he levied heavy contributions, and his troops made merry with the good Rhenish wine when he kept his Christmas at Mentz. He invited the dispossessed Elector Palatine to join him, and Frederick started for the camp, after the christening of his thirteenth child. … The suite was numerous enough to fill forty coaches, escorted by seventy horse—pretty well for an exiled prince dependent on the bounty of Holland and England. … There was the utmost enthusiasm for the Swede in England, and the Marquess of Hamilton obtained permission to raise a body of volunteers to join the Swedish standards, and in the August of 1631 brought 6,000 English and Scots in four small regiments; but they proved of little use … many dying. … So far as the King's plans can be understood, he meant to have formed a number of Protestant principalities, and united them in what he called 'Corpus Evangelicorum' around the Baltic and the Elbe, as a balance to the Austrian Roman Catholic power in southern Germany. Frederick wanted to raise an army of his own people and take the command, but to this Gustavus would not consent, having probably no great confidence in his capacity. All the Palatinate was free from the enemy except the three fortresses of Heidelberg, Frankenthal, and Kreuznach, and the last of these was immediately besieged. … In the midst of the exultation Frederick was grieved to learn that his beautiful home at Heidelberg had been ravaged by fire, probably by the Spanish garrison in expectation of having to abandon it. But as Tilly was collecting his forces again, Gustavus would not wait to master that place or Frankenthal, and recrossed the Rhine. Sir Harry Vane had been sent as ambassador from Charles I. to arrange for the restoration of the Palatinate, the King offering £10,000 a mouth for the expense of the war, and proposing that if, as was only too probable, he should be prevented from performing this promise, some of the fortresses should be left as guarantees in the hands of the Swedes. Frederick took great and petulant offence at this stipulation, and complained, with tears in his eyes, to Vane and the Marquess of Hamilton. … He persuaded them to suppress this article, though they warned him that if the treaty failed it would be by his own fault. It did in fact fail, for, as usual, the English money was not forthcoming, and even if it had been, Gustavus declared that he would be no man's servant for a few thousand pounds. Frederick also refused the King's own stipulation, that Lutherans should enjoy equal rights with Calvinists. Moreover, the Swedish success had been considerably more than was desired by his French allies. … Louis XIII. was distressed, but Richelieu silenced him, only attempting to make a treaty with the Swedes by which the Elector of Bavaria and the Catholic League should be neutral on condition of the restoration of the bishops. To this, however, Gustavus could not fully consent, and imposed conditions which the Catholics could not accept. Tilly was collecting his forces and threatening Nuremberg, but the Swedes advanced, and he was forced to retreat, so that it was as a deliverer that, on the 31st March [1632], Gustavus was received in beautiful old Nuremberg with a rapture of welcome. … {1478} Tilly had taken post on the Lech, and Maximilian was collecting an army in Bavaria. The object of Gustavus was now to beat one or other of them before they could join together: so he marched forward, took Donauwerth, and tried to take Ingoldstadt, but found it would occupy too much time, and, though all the generals were of a contrary opinion, resolved to attack Tilly and force the passage of the Lech. The Imperialists had fortified it to the utmost, but in their very teeth the Swedes succeeded in taking advantage of a bend in the river to play on them with their formidable artillery, construct a pontoon bridge, and, after a desperate struggle, effect a passage. Tilly was struck by a cannon-shot in the knee," and died soon afterwards. "On went Gustavus to Augsburg … where the Emperor had expelled the Lutheran pastors and cleared the municipal council of Protestant burgomasters. In restoring the former state of things, Gustavus took a fresh step, making the magistrates not only swear fidelity to him as an ally till the end of the war, but as a sovereign. This made the Germans begin to wonder what were his ulterior views. Then he marched on upon Bavaria, intending to bridge the Danube and take Ratisbon, but two strong forts prevented this. … He, however, made his way into the country between the Inn and the Lech, Maximilian retreating before him. … At Munich the inhabitants brought him their keys. As they knelt he said, 'Rise, worship God, not man.' … To compensate the soldiers for not plundering the city, the King gave them each a crown on the day of their entrance. … Catholic Germany was in despair. There was only one general in whom there was any hope, and that was the discarded Wallenstein. … He made himself be courted. He would not come to Vienna, only to Znaim in Moravia, where he made his terms like an independent prince. … At last he undertook to collect an army, but refused to take the command for more than three months. His name was enough to bring his Friedlanders flocking to his standard. Not only Catholics, but Protestants came, viewing Gustavus as a foreign invader. … Wallenstein received subsidies not only from the Emperor, but from the Pope and the King of Spain, towards levying and equipping them, and by the end of the three months he had the full 40,000 all in full order for the march. Then he resigned the command. … He affected to be bent only on going back to his tower and his stars at Prague [the study of astrology being his favorite occupation], and to yield slowly to the proposals made him. He was to be Generalissimo, neither Emperor nor Archduke was ever to enter his camp; he was to name all his officers, and have absolute control. … Moreover, he might levy contributions as he chose, and dispose as he pleased of lands and property taken from the enemy; Mecklenburg was to be secured to him, together with further rewards yet unspecified; and when Bohemia was freed from the enemy, the Emperor was to live there, no doubt under his control. … There was no help for it, and Wallenstein thus became the chief power in the Empire, in fact a dictator. The power was conferred on him in April. The first thing he did was to turn the Saxons out of Bohemia, which was an easy matter." At Egra, Wallenstein was joined by the Elector of Bavaria, which raised the Catholic force to 60,000. "The whole army marched upon Nuremberg, and Gustavus, with only 20,000 men, dashed back to its defence. Wallenstein had intrenched himself on an eminence called Fürth." As Nuremberg was terribly distressed, his own army suffering, and being infected with the lawless habits of German warfare, Gustavus found it necessary to attempt (August 24) the storming of the Imperialists' camp. He was repulsed, after losing 3,000 of his Swedes and thrice as many Germans. He then returned to Bavaria, while Wallenstein, abandoning his hope of taking Nuremberg, moved into Saxony and began ravaging the country. The Swedish king followed him so quickly that he had, no time to establish the fortified camp he had intended, but was forced to take up an intrenched position at Lützen. There he was attacked on the 6th of November, 1632, and defeated in a desperate battle, which became one of the memorable conflicts in history because it brought to an end the great and splendid career of Gustavus Adolphus, the Swede. The king fell as he was leading a charge, and the fierce fight went on over his body until the enemy had been driven from the field.

GERMANY: A. D. 1631-1641.
   The Thirty Years War:
   The war in Lorraine.
   Possession of the duchy taken by the French.

GERMANY: A. D. 1632-1634.
   The Thirty Years War:
   Retirement of Wallenstein to Bohemia.
   Oxenstiern in the leadership of the Protestant cause.
   Union of Heilbronn.
   Inaction and suspicious conduct of Wallenstein.
    The Ban pronounced against him.
   His assassination.

   "The account of the battle [of Lützen] transmitted by
   Wallenstein to the Imperial Court, led Ferdinand to think that
   he had gained the day. … But … the reputed conqueror was
   glad to shelter himself behind the mountains of the Bohemian
   frontier. After the battle, Wallenstein found it necessary to
   evacuate Saxony in all haste; and, leaving garrisons at
   Leipsic, Plauen, Zwickau, Chemnitz, Freiberg, Meissen, and
   Frauenstein, he reached Bohemia without further loss, and put
   his army into winter-quarters. After his arrival at Prague, he
   caused many of his officers to be executed for their conduct
   at Lützen, among whom were several who belonged to families of
   distinction, nor would he allow them to plead the Emperor's
   pardon. A few he rewarded. The harshness of his proceedings
   increased the hatred already felt for him by many of his
   officers, and especially the Italian portion: of them. …
   Axel Oxenstiern, the Swedish Chancellor, succeeded, on the
   death of Gustavus Adolphus, to the supreme direction of the
   affairs of Sweden in Germany, and was invested by the Council
   at Stockholm with full powers both to direct the army and to
   negotiate with the German courts. Duke Bernhard of Saxe-Weimar
   retained the military command of the Swedish-German army,
   divisions of which were cantoned from the Baltic to the
   Danube.
{1479}
   After driving the Imperialists from Saxony, Bernhard had
   hastened into Franconia, the bishoprics of which, according to
   a promise of Gustavus, were to be erected in his favour into a
   duchy; but, after taking Bamberg, his assistance was invoked
   by General Horn, on the Upper Danube. One of the first cares
   of Oxenstiern was to consolidate the German alliance; and, in
   March 1633, he summoned a meeting at Heilbronn of the States
   of the four Circles of the Upper and Lower Rhine, Franconia,
   and Suabia, as well as deputies from Nuremberg, Strasburg,
   Frankfort, Ulm, Augsburg, and other cities of the empire. The
   assembly was also attended by ambassadors from France,
   England, and Holland; and on April 9th was effected the Union
   of Heilbronn. Brandenburg and Saxony stood aloof; nor was
   France, though she renewed the alliance with Sweden, included
   in the Union. The French minister at Heilbronn assisted,
   however, in the formation of the Union, although he
   endeavoured to limit the power of Oxenstiern, to whom the
   conduct of the war was intrusted. At the same time, the Swedes
   also concluded a treaty with the Palatinate, now governed, or
   rather claimed to be governed, by Louis Philip, brother of the
   Elector Frederick V., as guardian and regent for the latter's
   youthful son Charles Louis. The unfortunate Frederick had
   expired at Mentz in his 37th year, not many days after the
   death of Gustavus Adolphus. … Swedish garrisons were to be
   maintained in Frankenthal, Bacharach, Kaub, and other places;
   Mannheim was to be at the disposal of the Swedes so long as
   the war should last. … After the junction of Duke Bernhard
   with Horn, the Swedish army,—for so we shall continue to call
   it, though composed in great part of Germans,—endeavoured to
   penetrate into Bavaria; but the Imperial General Altringer,
   aided by John von Werth, a commander of distinction, succeeded
   in covering Munich, and enabled Maximilian to return to his
   capital. The Swedish generals were also embarrassed by a
   mutiny of their mercenaries, as well as by their own
   misunderstandings and quarrels; and all that Duke Bernhard was
   able to accomplish in the campaign of 1633, besides some
   forays into Bavaria, was the capture of Ratisbon in November."

Wallenstein, meantime, had been doing little. "After a long period of inaction in Bohemia, he marched during the summer of 1633, with imperial pomp and splendor, into Silesia. There he found a mixed army of Swedes, Saxons, and Brandenburgers, with Matthias Thurn, who began the war, among them. Wallenstein finally shut in this army [at Steinau] so that he might have captured it; but he let it go, and went back to Bohemia, where he began to negotiate with Saxony for peace. Meanwhile the alliance formed at Heilbronn had brought Maximilian of Bavaria into great distress. Regensburg [Ratisbon], hitherto occupied by him, and regarded as an outwork of Bavaria and Austria, had been taken by Bernard of Weimar. But Wallenstein, whom the emperor sent to the rescue, only went into the Upper Palatinate, and then returned to Bohemia. He seemed to look upon that country as a strong and commanding position from which he could dictate peace. He carried on secret negotiations with France, Sweden, and all the emperor's enemies. He had, indeed, the power to do this under his commission; but his attitude toward his master became constantly more equivocal. The emperor was anxious to be rid of him without making him an enemy, and wished to give to his own son, the young King of Hungary, the command in chief. But the danger of losing his place drove Wallenstein to bolder schemes. At his camp at Pilsen, all his principal officers were induced by him to unite in a written request that he should in no case desert them—a step which seemed much like a conspiracy. But some of the generals, as Gallas, Aldringer, and Piccolomini, soon abandoned Wallenstein, and gave warning to the emperor. He secretly signed a patent deposing Wallenstein, and placed it in the hands of Piccolomini and Gallas, January 24, 1634, but acted with the profoundest dissimulation until he had made sure of most of the commanders who served under him. Then, suddenly, on February 18, Wallenstein, his brother-in-law Tertzski, Ilow, Neumann, and Kinsky were put under the ban, and the general's possessions were confiscated. Now, at length, Wallenstein openly revolted, and began to treat with the Swedes for desertion to them; but they did not fully trust him. Attended only by five Sclavonic regiments, who remained faithful to him, he went to Eger, where he was to meet troops of Bernard of Weimar; but before he could join them, he and the friends named above were assassinated, February 25, by traitors who had remained in his intimate companionship, and whom he trusted, under the command of Colonel Butler, an Irishman, employed by Piccolomini."

      Sir E. Cust,
      Lives of the Warriors of the Thirty Years' War,
      part 1.

GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.
   The Thirty Years War:
   Successes of the Imperialists.
   Their victory at Nördlingen.
   Richelieu and France become active in the war.
   Duke Bernhard's conquest of Alsace.
   Richelieu's appropriation of the conquest for France.

   "Want of union among the Protestants prevented them from
   deriving all the benefit which they had at first anticipated
   from Wallenstein's death. The King of Hungary assumed the
   command of the army, and by the aid of money, which was
   plentifully distributed, the soldiers were, without
   difficulty, kept in obedience; not the slightest attempt was
   any where made to resist the Emperor's orders. On the other
   hand, Bernhard of Weimar and Field-Marshal Horn were masters
   of Bavaria. In July 1634, they gained a complete victory at
   Landshut, over General Altringer, who was slain in the action.
   … The Swedes, who had so long been victorious, were, in their
   turn, destined to taste the bitterness of defeat. 15,000
   Spaniards, under the Cardinal Infant, son of Philip III.,
   entered Germany [see NETHERLANDS: A.D. 1621-1633, and
   1635-1638], and in conjunction with the imperial army, under
   the King of Hungary, laid siege to Nördlingen. Field-Marshal
   Horn, and Bernhard of Weimar, hurried to the relief of the
   place. Owing to the superiority of the enemy, who was besides
   strongly intrenched, the Swedish commanders had no intention
   to hazard a battle, before the arrival of the Rhin-graff Count
   Otho, with another division of the army, which was already
   close at hand; but the impetuosity of the Duke of Weimar lost
   every thing.
{1480}
   Horn had succeeded in carrying a hill, called the Amsberg, a
   strong point, which placed him in communication with the town,
   and almost secured the victory. Bernhard, thinking that so
   favourable an opening should not be neglected, hurried on to
   the attack of another post. It was taken and retaken; both
   armies were gradually, and without method, drawn into the
   combat, which, after eight hours' duration, ended in the
   complete defeat of the Swedes. Horn was made prisoner; and
   Bernhard escaped on a borrowed horse. … The defeat of'
   Nördlingen almost ruined the Swedish cause in Germany; the
   spell of invincibility was gone, and the effects of the panic
   far surpassed those which the sword had produced. Strong
   fortresses were abandoned before the enemy came in sight;
   provinces were evacuated, and armies, that had been deemed
   almost inconquerable, deserted their chiefs, and broke into
   bands of lawless robbers, who pillaged their way in every
   direction. Bavaria, Suabia and Franconia were lost; and it was
   only behind the Rhine that the scattered fugitives could again
   be brought into something like order. … The Emperor refused
   to grant the Swedes any other terms of peace than permission
   to retire from the empire. The Elector of Saxony, forgetful of
   what was due to his religion, and forgetful of all that Sweden
   had done for his country, concluded, at Prague, a separate
   peace with the Emperor; and soon afterwards joined the
   Imperialists against his former allies. The fortunes of the
   Protestants would have sunk beneath this additional blow, had
   not France come to their aid. Richelieu had before only
   nourished the war by means of subsidies, and had, at one time,
   become nearly as jealous of the Swedes as of the Austrians;
   but no sooner was their power broken, than the crafty priest
   took an active share in the contest."

"Richelieu entered resolutely into the contest, and in 1635 displayed enormous diplomatic activity. He wished not only to reduce Austria, but, at the same time, Spain. Spanish soldiers, Spanish treasure, and Spanish generals made in great part the strength of the imperial armies, and Spain besides never ceased to ferment internal troubles in France. Richelieu signed the treaty of Compiegne with the Swedes against Ferdinand II. By its conditions he granted them considerable subsidies in order that they should continue the war in Germany. He made the treaty of St. Germain en Laye with Bernard of Saxe Weimar, to whom he promised an annual allowance of money as well as Alsace, provided that he should remain in arms to wrest Franche-Comté from Philip IV. He made the treaty of Paris with the Dutch, who were to help the King of France to conquer Flanders, which was to be divided between France and the United Provinces. He made the treaty of Rivoli with the dukes of Savoy, of Parma, and of Mantua, who were to undertake in concert with France the invasion of the territories of Milan and to receive a portion of the spoils of Spain. At the same time he declared war against the Spanish Government, which had arrested and imprisoned the Elector of Trèves, the ally of France, and refused to surrender him when demanded. Hostilities immediately began on five different theatres of war—in the Low Countries, on the Rhine, in Eastern Germany, in Italy, and in Spain. The army of the Rhine, commanded by Cardinal de la Valette, was to operate in conjunction with the corps of Bernard of Saxe Weimar against the Imperialists, commanded by Count Gallas. To this army Turenne was attached. It consisted of 20,000 infantry, 5,000 cavalry, and 14 guns. This was the army upon which Richelieu mainly relied. … Valette was to annoy the enemy without exposing himself, and was not to approach the Rhine; but induced by Bernard, who had a dashing spirit and wished to reconquer all he had lost, encouraged by the terror of the Imperialists who raised the siege of Mayence, he determined to pass the river. He was not long in repenting of that step. He established his troops round Mayence and revictualled this place, which was occupied by a Swedish garrison, throwing in all the supplies of which the town had need. The Imperialists, who had calculated on this imprudence, immediately took to cutting off his supplies, so that soon everything was wanting in the French camp. … The scourge of famine threatened the French: it was necessary to retreat, to recross the Rhine, to pass the Sarre, and seek a refuge at Metz. Few retreats have been so difficult and so sad. The army was in such a pitiable condition that round Mayence the men had to be fed with roots and green grapes, and the horses with branches of trees. … The sick and the weary were abandoned, the guns were buried, villages were burnt to stay the pursuit of the enemy, and to prevent the wretched soldiers who would fall out of the ranks from taking refuge in them."

   "Meanwhile, Saxony had concluded with the Emperor at Pirna, at
   the close of 1634, a convention which ripened into a treaty of
   alliance, to which almost all the princes of Northern Germany
   subscribed, at Prague, in the month of May following. The
   Electors of Saxony and Brandenburg were thus changed into
   enemies of Sweden. The Swedish General, Banner [or Baner],
   who, at the period of the battle of Nördlingen, had been
   encamped side by side with the Saxon army on the White Hill
   near Prague, had, on the first indication of wavering on the
   part of its Elector, managed skilfully to withdraw his troops
   from the dangerous proximity. On the 22nd October 1635, he
   defeated the Saxon army, at Dömitz on the Elbe, then invaded
   Brandenburg, took Havelberg, and even threatened Berlin.
   Compelled by the approach of a Saxon and Imperialist army to
   quit his prey, he turned and beat the combined army at
   Wittstock (24th September 1636). After that battle, he drew
   the reinforced Imperialists, commanded by Gallas, after him
   into Pomerania; there he caused them great losses by cutting
   off their supplies, then forced them back into Saxony, and,
   following them up closely, attacked and beat them badly at
   Chemnitz (4th April, 1639)." In the south, Duke Bernhard had
   gained meantime some solid successes. After his retreat from
   Mayence, in 1635, he had concluded his secret treaty with
   Richelieu, placing himself wholly at the service of France,
   and receiving the promise of 4,000,000 francs yearly, for the
   support of his army, and the ultimate sovereignty of Alsace
   for himself. "Having concerted measures with La Valette
   [1636], … he invaded Lorraine, drove the enemy thence,
   taking Saarburg and Pfalzburg, and then, entering Alsace, took
   Saverne. His career of conquest in Alsace was checked by the
   invasion of Burgundy by Gallas, with an army of 40,000 men.
{1481}
   Duke Bernhard marched with all haste to Dijon, and forced
   Gallas to fall back, with great loss, beyond the Saone
   (November 1636). Pursuing his advantages, early the following
   year he forced the passage of the Saone at Gray, despite the
   vivid resistance of Prince Charles of Lorraine (June 1637),
   and pursued that commander as far as Besançon. Reinforced
   during the autumn, he marched towards the Upper Rhine, and,
   undertaking a winter campaign, captured Lauffenburg, after a
   skirmish with John of Werth; then Säckingen and Waldshut, and
   laid siege to Rheinfelden. The Imperialist army, led by John
   of Werth, succeeded, indeed, after a very hot encounter, in
   relieving that place; but three days later Duke Bernhard
   attacked and completely defeated it (21st February 1638),
   taking prisoners not only John of Werth himself, but the
   generals, Savelli, Enkefort, and Sperreuter. The consequences
   of this victory were the fall of Rheinfelden, Rötteln,
   Neuenberg, and Freiburg. Duke Bernhard then laid siege to
   Breisach (July 1638). … The Imperial general, Götz, advanced
   at the head of a force considerably outnumbering that of Duke
   Bernhard. Leaving a portion of his army before the place, Duke
   Bernhard then drew to himself Turenne, who was lying in the
   vicinity with 3,000 men, fell upon the Imperialists at
   Wittenweiher (30th July), completely defeated them, and
   captured their whole convoy. Another Imperialist army, led by
   the Duke of Lorraine in person, shared a similar fate at
   Thann, in the Sundgau, on the 4th October following. Götz, who
   was hastening with a strengthened army to support the Duke of
   Lorraine, attacked Duke Bernhard ten days later, but was
   repulsed with great loss. Breisach capitulated on the 7th
   December. Duke Bernhard took possession of it in his own name,
   and foiled all the efforts of Richelieu to secure it for
   France, by garrisoning it with German soldiers. To compensate
   the French Cardinal Minister for Breisach, Duke Bernhard
   undertook a winter campaign to drive the Imperialists from
   Franche-Comté. Entering that province at the end of December,
   he speedily made himself master of its richest part. He then
   returned to Alsace with the resolution to cross the Rhine and
   carry the war once again into Bavaria," and then, in junction
   with Banner, to Vienna. "He had made all the necessary
   preparations for this enterprise, had actually sent his army
   across the Rhine, when he died very suddenly, not without
   suspicion of poison, at Neuberg am Rhein (8th July, 1639). The
   lands he had conquered he bequeathed to his brother. … But
   Richelieu paid no attention to the wishes of the dead general.
   Before any of the family could interfere, he had secured all
   the fortresses in Alsace, even Breisach, which was its key,
   for France."

"During [1639] Piccolomini, at the head of the Imperialist and Spanish troops, gave battle to the French at Diedenhofen. The battle took place on the 7th of June, and the French were beaten and suffered great losses."

      ALSO IN:
      Sir E. Cust,
      Lives of the Warriors of the Thirty Years' War,
      part 2.

GERMANY: A. D. 1635-1638.
   The Thirty Years War:
   Campaigns in the Netherlands.
   The Dutch and French against the Spaniards.

GERMANY: A. D. 1636-1637.
   Diet at Ratisbon.
   Attempted negotiations of peace.
   Death of the Emperor Ferdinand II

"An electoral diet was assembled at Ratisbon, by the emperor in person, on the 15th of September, 1636, for the ostensible purpose of restoring peace, for which some vague negotiations had been opened under the mediation of the pope and the king of Denmark, and congresses appointed at Hamburgh and Cologne; but with the real view of procuring the election of his son Ferdinand as king of the Romans. … Ferdinand was elected with only the fruitless protest of the Palatine family, and the dissenting voice of the elector of Treves. … The emperor did not long survive this happy event. He died on the 15th of February, 1637. … Ferdinand … seems to have been the first who formally established the right of primogeniture in all his hereditary territories. By his testament, dated May 10th. 1621, he ordered that all his Austrian dominions should devolve on his eldest male descendant, and fixed the majority at 18 years."

GERMANY: A. D. 1640-1645.
   The Thirty Years War:
   Campaigns of Baner and Torstenson.
   The second Breitenfeld.
   Jankowitz.
   Mergentheim.
   Allerheim.
   War in Denmark.
   Swedish army in Austria.
   Saxony forced to neutrality.

"The war still went on for eight years, but the only influence that it exerted upon the subsequent Peace was that it overcame the last doubts of the Imperial court as to the indispensable principles of the Peace. … The first event of importance on the theatre of war after Bernhard's death was Baner's attempt to join the army of Weimar in central Germany. Not in a condition to pass the winter in Bohemia, and threatened in Saxony and Silesia, he … commenced [March, 1640] a retreat amidst fearful devastations, crossed the Elbe at Leitmeritz, and arrived April 3rd at Zwickau. He succeeded in joining with the mercenaries of Weimar and the troops of Lüneburg and Hesse at Saalfeld;" but no joint action was found possible. "Until December, the war on both sides consisted of marches hither and thither, accompanied with horrible devastation; but nothing decisive occurred. In September the Diet met at Ratisbon. While wearisome attempts were being made to bend the obstinacy of Austria, Baner resolved to compel her to yield by a bold stroke, to invade the Upper Palatinate, to surprise Ratisbon, and to put an end to the Diet and Emperor together. … Not without difficulty Guebriant [commanding the French in Alsace] was induced to follow, and to join Baner at Erfurt. … But the surprise of Ratisbon was a failure. … The armies now separated again. Baner exhausted his powers of persuasion in vain to induce Guebriant to go with him. The French went westward. Hard pressed himself, Baner proceeded by forced marches towards Bohemia, and by the end of March reached Zwickau, where he met Guebriant again, and they had a sharp conflict with the Imperialists on the Saal. There Baner died, on the 21st of May, 1641, leaving his army in a most critical condition, The warfare of the Swedish-French arms was come to a standstill. {1482} Both armies were near dissolution, when, in November, Torstenson, the last of the Gustavus Adolphus school of generals, and the one who most nearly equalled the master, appeared with the Swedish army, and by a few vigorous strokes, which followed each other with unexampled rapidity, restored the supremacy of its arms. … After three months of rest, which he mainly devoted to the reorganization and payment of his army, by the middle of January [1642] he had advanced towards the Elbe and the Altmark; and as the Imperial forces were weakened by sending troops to the Rhine, he formed the great project of proceeding through Silesia to the Austrian hereditary dominions. On April 3rd he crossed the Elbe at Werben, between the Imperial troops, increased his army to 20,000 men, stormed Glogau on May 4th, stood before Schweidnitz on the 30th, and defeated Francis Albert of Lauenburg; Schweidnitz, Neisse, and Oppeln fell into his hands. Meanwhile Guebriant, after subduing the defiant and mutinous spirit of his troops by means of money and promises, had, on January 17th, defeated the Imperialists near Kempen, not far from Crefeld [at Hulst], for which he was honoured with the dignity of marshal. But this was a short-lived gleam of light, and was soon followed by dark days, occasioned by want of money and discontent in the camp. … He had turned eastward from the Rhine to seek quarters for his murmuring troops in nether Germany, when Torstenson effected a decision in Saxony. After relieving Glogau, and having in vain tried to enter Bohemia, he had joined the detachments of Königsmark and Wrangel, and on October 30th he appeared before Leipzig. On November 2nd there was a battle near Breitenfeld, which ended in a disastrous defeat of the Imperialists and Leipzig surrendered to Torstenson three weeks afterwards. In spite of all the advantages which Torstenson gained for himself, it never came to a united action with the French; and the first victory won by the French in the Netherlands, in May, 1643, did not alter this state of things. Torstenson … was suddenly called to a remote scene of war in the north. King Christian IV. of Denmark had been persuaded, by means of the old Danish jealousy of Sweden, to take up arms for the Emperor. He declared war just as Torstenson was proceeding to Austria. Vienna was now saved; but so much the worse for Denmark. In forced marches, which were justly admired, Torstenson set out from Silesia towards Denmark at the end of October, conducted a masterly campaign against the Danes, beat them wherever he met with them, conquered Holstein and Schleswig, pushed on to Jutland, then, while Wrangel and Horn carried on the war (till the peace of Brömsebro, August, 1645), he returned and again took up the war against the Imperialists, everywhere an unvanquished general. The Imperialists under the incompetent Gallas intended to give Denmark breathing-time by creating a diversion; but it did not save Denmark, and brought another defeat upon themselves. Gallas did not bring back more than 2,000 men from Magdeburg to Bohemia, and they were in a very disorganized state. He was pursued by Torstenson, while Ragoczy threatened Hungary. The Emperor hastily collected what forces he could command, and resolved to give battle. Torstenson had advanced as far as Glattau in February, and on March 6th, 1645, a battle was fought near Jankowitz, three miles from Tabor. It was the most brilliant victory ever gained by the Swedes. The Imperial army was cut to pieces; several of its leaders imprisoned or killed. In a few weeks Torstenson conquered Moravia and Austria as far as the Danube. Not far from the capital itself he took possession of the Wolfsbrücke. As in 1618, Vienna was in great danger." But the ill-success of the French "always counterbalanced the Swedes' advantages. Either they were beaten just as the Swedes were victorious, or could not turn a victory to account. So it was during this year [1645]. The west frontier of the empire was guarded on the imperial side by Mercy, together with John of Werth, after he was liberated from prison. On 26th March, Turenne crossed the Rhine, and advanced towards Franconia. There he encamped near Mergentheim and Rosenberg. On 5th May, a battle near Mergentheim ended with the entire defeat of the French, and Turenne escaped with the greatest difficulty by way of Hammelburg, towards Fulda. The victors pushed on to the Rhine. To avenge this defeat, Enghien was sent from Paris, and, at the beginning of July, arrived at Spires, with 12,000 men. His forces, together with Königsmark's, the remnant of Turenne's and the Hessians, amounted to 30,000 men. At first Mercy dexterously avoided a battle under unfavourable circumstances, but on August 3d the contest was inevitable. A bloody battle was fought between Nördlingen and Donauwörth, near Allerheim [called the battle of Nordlingen, by the French], which was long doubtful, but, after tremendous losses, resulted in the victory of the French. Mercy's fall, Werth's imprudent advance, and a final brave assault of the Hessians, decided the day. But the victors were so weakened that they could not fully take advantage of it. Condé was ill; and in the autumn Turenne was compelled, not without perceptible damage to the cause, to retreat with his army to the Neckar and the Rhine. Neither had Torstenson been able to maintain his position in Austria. He had been obliged to raise the siege of Brunn, and learnt at the same time that Ragoczy had just made peace with the Emperor. Obliged to retire to Bohemia, he found his forces considerably diminished. Meanwhile, Kônigsmark had won an important advantage. While Torstenson was in Austria he gained a firm footing in Saxony. Then came the news of Allerheim, and of the peace of Brömsebro. Except Dresden and Königstein, all the important points were in the hands of the Swedes; so, on the 6th of September [1645], the Elector John George concluded a treaty of neutrality for six months. Besides money and supplies, the Swedes received Leipzig, Torgau, and the right of passage through the country. Meanwhile, Torstenson had retreated into the north-east of Bohemia, and severe physical sufferings compelled him to give up the command. He was succeeded by Charles Gustavus Wrangel."

GERMANY: A. D. 1642-1643.
The Thirty Years War:
Condé's victory at Rocroi and campaign on the Moselle.

GERMANY: A. D. 1643-1644.
   The Thirty Years War:
   Campaigns of Turenne and Condé against Merci, on the Upper
   Rhine.
   Dütlingen.
   Freiburg.
   Philipsburg.

"After the death of Bernard of Saxe Weimar, Marshal Guébriant had been placed in command of the troops of Weimar. He had besieged and taken Rottweil in Suabia, but had there been killed. Rantzau, who succeeded him in command of the Weimar army, marched (24-25 November, 1643) upon Dütlingen [or Tuttlingen], on the Upper Rhine, was there beaten by Mercy and made prisoner, with the loss of many officers and 7,000 soldiers. This was a great triumph for the Bavarians; a terrible disaster for France. The whole of the German infantry in the French service was dispersed or taken, the cavalry retreated as they best could upon the Rhine. … Circumstances required active measures. Plenipotentiaries had just assembled at Münster to begin the negotiations which ended with the peace of Westphalia. It was desired that the French Government should support the French diplomatist by quick successes. … Turenne was sent to the Rhine with reinforcements. … He re-established discipline, and breathed into [the army] a new spirit. … At the same time, by negotiations, the prisoners who had been taken at Dütlingen were restored to France, the gaps in the ranks were filled up, and in the spring of 1644 Turenne found himself at the head of 9,000 men, of whom 5,000 were cavalry, and was in a position to take the field." He "pushed through the Black Forest, and near the source of the Danube gained a success over a Bavarian detachment. For some reason which is not clear he threw a garrison into Freiburg, and retired across the Rhine. Had he remained near the town he would have prevented Mercy from investing it. So soon as Turenne was over the river, Mercy besieged Freiburg, and although Turenne advanced to relieve the place, a stupid error of some of his infantry made him fail, and Freiburg capitulated to Mercy."

"Affairs being in so bad a state about the Black Forest, the Great Condé, at that time Duc d'Enghien, was brought up, with 10,000 men; thus raising the French to a number above the enemy's. He came crowned with the immortal laurels of Rocroi; and in virtue of his birth, as a prince of the blood-royal, took precedence of the highest officers in the service. Merci, a capable and daring general, aware of his inferiority, now posted himself a short distance from Freyburg, in a position almost inaccessible. He garnished it with felled trees and intrenchments, mountains, woods, and marshes, which of themselves defied attack." Turenne advocated a flank movement, instead of a direct assault upon Merci's position; but Condé, reckless of his soldiers' lives, persisted in leading them against the enemy's works. "A terrible action ensued (August 3, 1644). Turenne made a long detour through a defile; Condé, awaiting his arrival on the ground, postponed the assault till three hours before sunset, and then ascended the steep. Merci had the worse, and retreated to a fresh position on the Black Mountain, where he successfully repulsed for one day Condé's columns (August 5). In this action Gaspard Merci was killed. Condé now adopted the flank movement, which, originally recommended by Turenne, would have saved much bloodshed; and Merci, hard pressed, escaped by a rapid retreat, leaving behind him his artillery and baggage (August 9). These are the 'three days of Freyburg.' To retake the captured Freyburg after their victory … was the natural suggestion first heard." But Turenne persuaded Condé that the reduction of Philipsburg was more important. "Philipsburg was taken after a short siege; and its fall was accompanied by the submission of the adjacent towns of Germersheim, Speier, Worms, Mentz, Oppenheim and Landau. Condé at this conjuncture left the Upper Rhine, and took away his regiments with him."

GERMANY: A. D. 1646-1648.
   The Thirty Years War:
   Its final campaigns.
   The sufferings of Bavaria.
   Truce and peace negotiations initiated by the Elector
   Maximilian.
   The ending of the war at Prague.

"The retreat of the French [after the battle of Allerheim] enabled the enemy to turn his whole force upon the Swedes in Bohemia. Gustavus Wrangel, no unworthy successor of Banner and Torstensohn, had, in 1646, been appointed Commander-in-chief of the Swedish army. … The Archduke, after reinforcing his army … moved against Wrangel, in the hope of being able to overwhelm him by his superior force before Koenigsmark could join him, or the French effect a diversion in his favour. Wrangel, however, did not await him." He moved through Upper Saxony and Hesse, to Weimar, where he was joined by the flying corps of Koenigsmark. Finally, after much delay, he was joined likewise by Turenne and the French. "The junction took place at Giessen, and they now felt themselves strong enough to meet the enemy. The latter had followed the Swedes into Hesse, in order to intercept their commissariat, and to prevent their union with Turenne. In both designs they had been unsuccessful; and the Imperialists now saw themselves cut off from the Maine, and exposed to great scarcity and want from the loss of their magazines. Wrangel took advantage of their weakness to execute a plan by which he hoped to give a new turn to the war. … He determined to follow the course of the Danube, and to break into the Austrian territories through the midst of Bavaria. … He moved hastily, … defeated a Bavarian corps near Donauwerth, and passed that river, as well as the Lech, unopposed. But by wasting his time in the unsuccessful siege of Augsburg, he gave opportunity to the Imperialists, not only to relieve that city, but also to repulse him as far as Lauingen. No sooner, however, had they turned towards Suabia, with a view to remove the war from Bavaria, than, seizing the opportunity, he repassed the Lech, and guarded the passage of it against the Imperialists themselves. Bavaria now lay open and defenceless before him; the French and Swedes quickly overran it; and the soldiery indemnified themselves for all dangers by frightful outrages, robberies, and extortions. The arrival of the Imperial troops, who at last succeeded in passing the Lech at Thierhaupten, only increased the misery of this country, which friend and foe indiscriminately plundered. And now, for the first time during the whole course of this war, the courage of Maximilian, which for eight-and-twenty years had stood unshaken amidst fearful dangers, began to waver. Ferdinand II., his school-companion at Ingolstadt, and the friend of his youth, was no more; and, with the death of his friend and benefactor, the strong tie was dissolved which had linked the Elector to the House of Austria. … {1484} Accordingly, the motives which the artifices of France now put in operation, in order to detach him from the Austrian alliance, and to induce him to lay down his arms, were drawn entirely from political considerations. … The Elector of Bavaria was unfortunately led to believe that the Spaniards alone were disinclined to peace, and that nothing but Spanish influence had induced the Emperor so long to resist a cessation of hostilities. Maximilian detested the Spaniards, and could never forgive their having opposed his application for the Palatine Electorate. … All doubts disappeared; and, convinced of the necessity of this step, he thought he should sufficiently discharge his obligations to the Emperor if he invited him also to share in the benefit of the truce. The deputies of the three crowns, and of Bavaria, met at Ulm, to adjust the conditions. But it was soon evident, from the instructions of the Austrian ambassador, that it was not the intention of the Emperor to second the conclusion of a truce, but if possible· to prevent it. … The good intentions of the Elector of Bavaria, to include the Emperor in the benefit of the truce, having been thus rendered unavailing, he felt himself justified in providing for his own safety. … He agreed to the Swedes extending their quarters in Suabia and Franconia, and to his own being restricted to Bavaria and the Palatinate. The conquests which he had made in Suabia were ceded to the allies, who, on their part, restored to him what they had taken from Bavaria. Cologne and Hesse Cassel were also included in the truce. After the conclusion of this treaty, upon the 14th March, 1647, the French and Swedes left Bavaria. … Turenne, according to agreement, marched into Wurtemburg, where he forced the Landgrave of Darmstadt and the Elector of Mentz to imitate the example of Bavaria, and to embrace the neutrality. And now, at last, France seemed to have attained the great object of its policy, that of depriving the Emperor of the support of the League, and of his Protestant allies. … But … after a brief crisis, the fallen power of Austria rose again to a formidable strength. The jealousy which France entertained of Sweden, prevented it from permitting the total ruin of the Emperor, or allowing the Swedes to obtain such a preponderance in Germany, which might have been destructive to France herself. Accordingly, the French minister declined to take advantage of the distresses of Austria; and the army of Turenne, separating from that of Wrangel, retired to the frontiers of the Netherlands. Wrangel, indeed, after moving from Suabia into Franconia, taking Schweinfurt, … attempted to make his way into Bohemia, and laid siege to Egra, the key of that kingdom. To relieve this fortress, the Emperor, put his last army in motion, and placed himself at its head. But … on his arrival Egra was already taken." Meantime the Emperor had engaged in intrigues with the Bavarian officers and had nearly seduced the whole army of the Elector. The latter discovered this conspiracy in time to thwart it; but he now suddenly, on his own behalf, struck hands with the Emperor again, and threw over his late agreements with the Swedes and French. "He had not derived from the truce the advantages he expected. Far from tending to accelerate a general peace, it had a pernicious influence upon the negociations at Munster and Osnaburg, and had made the allies bolder in their demands." Maximilian, therefore, renounced the truce and began hostilities anew. "This resolution, and the assistance which he immediately despatched to the Emperor in Bohemia, threatened materially to injure the Swedes, and Wrangel was compelled in haste to evacuate that kingdom. He retired through Thuringia into Westphalia and Lunenburg, in the hope of forming a junction with the French army under Turenne, while the Imperial and Bavarian army followed him to the Weser, under Melander and Gronsfeld. His ruin was inevitable if the enemy should overtake him before his junction with Turenne; but the same consideration which had just saved the Emperor now proved the salvation of the Swedes. … The Elector of Bavaria could not allow the Emperor to obtain so decisive a preponderance as, by the sudden alteration of affairs, might delay the chances of a general peace. … Now that the power of the Emperor threatened once more to attain a dangerous superiority, Maximilian at once ceased to pursue the Swedes. … Melander, prevented by the Bavarians from further pursuing Wrangel, crossed by Jena and Erfurt into Hesse. … In this exhausted country, his army was oppressed by want, while Wrangel was recruiting his strength, and remounting his cavalry in Lunenburg. Too weak to maintain his wretched quarters against the Swedish general, when he opened the campaign in the winter of 1648, and marched against Hesse, he was obliged to retire with disgrace, and take refuge on the banks of the Danube. … Turenne received permission to join the Swedes; and the last campaign of this eventful war was now opened by the united armies. Driving Melander before them along the Danube, they threw supplies into Egra, which was besieged by the Imperialists, and defeated the Imperial and Bavarian armies on the Danube, which ventured to oppose them at Susmarshausen, where Melander was mortally wounded." They then forced a passage of the Lech, at the point where Gustavus Adolphus formerly overcame Tilly, and ravaged Bavaria once more; while nothing but a prolonged rain-storm, which flooded the Inn, saved Austria from a similar devastation. Koenigsmark, with his flying corps, entered Bohemia, penetrated to Prague and surprised and captured the lesser side of the city (the Kleinsite), thus acquiring the reputation of "closing the Thirty Years' War by the last brilliant achievement. This decisive stroke, which vanquished the Emperor's irresolution, cost the Swedes only the loss of a single man. But the old town, the larger half of Prague, which is divided into two parts by the Moldau, by its vigorous resistance wearied out the efforts of the Palatine, Charles Gustavus, the successor of Christina on the throne, who had arrived from Sweden with fresh troops. … The approach of winter at last drove the besiegers into their quarters, and in the meantime the intelligence arrived that a peace had been signed at Munster, on the 24th October,"—the "solemn and ever memorable and sacred treaty which is known by the name of the Peace of Westphalia."

GERMANY: The Thirty Years War:
   Its horrors.
   Its destructiveness.
   The state of the country at its close.

"The materials of which the armies were composed passed inevitably from bad to worse. This, which had been a civil war at the first, did not continue such for long; or rather it united presently all the dreadfulness of a civil war and a foreign. It was not long before the hosts which trampled the German soil had in large part ceased to be German; every region of Europe sending of its children, and, as it would seem, of those whom it must have been gladdest to be rid of, to swell the ranks of the destroyers. … From all quarters they came trooping, not singly, but in whole battalions. … All armies draw after them a train of camp-followers; they are a plague which in the very nature of things is inevitable. But never perhaps did this evil rise to so enormous a height as now. Toward the close of this War an Imperial army of 40,000 men was found to be attended by the ugly accompaniment of 140,000 of these. The conflict had in fact by this time lasted so long that the soldiery had become as a distinct nation, camping in the midst of another; and the march of an army like the migration of some wild nomade horde, moving with wives and children through the land. And not with these only. There were others too in its train, as may easily be supposed. … It is a thought to make one shudder, the passage of one of these armies with its foul retinue through some fair and smiling and well-ordered region—what it found, and what it must have left it, and what its doings there will have been. Bear in mind that there was seldom in these armies any attempt whatever at a regular commissariat; rations being never issued except to the actual soldiers, and most irregularly to them; that the soldier's pay too was almost always enormously in arrear, so that he could not purchase even if he would. … It was indeed the bitterest irony of all, that this War, which claimed at the outset to be waged for the highest religious objects, for the glory of God and for the highest interests of His Church, should be signalized ere long by a more shameless treading under foot of all laws human and divine, disgraced by worse and wickeder outrages against God, and against man, the image of God, than probably any war which modern Christendom has seen. The three master sins of our fallen nature, hate, lust, and covetousness, were all rampant to the full. … Soon it became evident that there was no safety in almost any remoteness from that which might be the scene of warfare at the actual moment. When all in their immediate neighbourhood was wasted, armed bands variously disguised, as merchants, as gipsies, as travellers, or sometimes as women, would penetrate far into the land. … Nor was the condition of the larger towns much better. … It did not need actual siege or capture to make them acquainted with the miseries of the time. With no draught-cattle to bring firewood in, there was no help for it but that abandoned houses, by degrees whole streets, and sometimes the greater part of a town, should be pulled down to prevent those of its inhabitants who remained from perishing by cold, the city thus living upon and gradually consuming itself. … Under conditions like these, it is not wonderful that the fields were left nearly or altogether untilled; for who would sow what he could never hope to reap? … What wonder that famine, thus invited, should before long have arrived? … Persons were found dead in the fields with grass in their mouths; while the tanners' and knackers' yards were beset for the putrid carcasses of beasts; the multitudes, fierce with hunger, hardly enduring to wait till the skin had been stript away. The bodies of malefactors, broken on the wheel, were secretly removed to serve for food; or men climbed up the gibbets, and tore down the bodies which were suspended there, and devoured them. This, indeed, was a supply which was not likely to fail. … Prisoners in Alsace were killed that they might be eaten. Children were enticed from home. … Putting all together, it is not too much to say that the crowning horrors of Samaria, of Jerusalem, of Saguntum, found their parallels, and often worse than their parallels, in Christian Germany only two centuries ago. I had thought at one time that there were isolated examples of these horrors, one here, one there, just enough to warrant the assertion that such things were done; but my conviction now is that they were very frequent indeed, and in almost every part of the land. … Districts which had for centuries been in the occupation of civilized men were repossessed by forests. … When Peace was at length proclaimed, and Germany had leisure to take an inventory of her losses, it was not altogether impossible to make a rude and rough estimate. … The statistics, so far as they were got together, tell a terrible tale. … Of the population it was found that three-fourths, in some parts a far larger proportion, had perished; or, not having perished, were not less effectually lost to their native land, having fled to Switzerland, to Holland, and to other countries, never to return from them again. Thus in one group of twenty villages which had not exceptionally suffered, 85 per cent., or more than four-fifths of the inhabitants, had disappeared. … Of the houses, three-fourths were destroyed. … Careful German writers assure us that there are districts which at this present day [1872] have just attained the population, the agricultural wealth, the productive powers which they had when the War commenced."

R. C. Trench, Gustavus Adolphus in Germany, and other Lectures on the Thirty Years' War, lectures 3 and 5.

GERMANY: A. D. 1648.
   The Peace of Westphalia.
   Cession of Alsace to France.
   Separation of Switzerland from the Empire.
   Loosening of the constitutional bonds of the Empire.

   "The opening of the peace negotiations between the Emperor and
   his enemies was … fixed for the 25th of March, 1642, and the
   cities of Münster and Osnabrück as the places of the sitting;
   but neither in this year nor in the next did it take place. It
   was not until the year 1644 that in the former of these
   cities" were assembled the following: The Papal Nuncio and the
   envoy of the Republic of Venice, acting as mediators, two
   imperial ambassadors, two representatives of France, three of
   Spain, and the Catholic Electors; later came also the Catholic
   Princes. To Osnabrück, Sweden sent two ambassadors and France
   three, while the Electors, the German Princes and the imperial
   cities were represented. Questions of etiquette, which demanded
   prior settlement, occupied months, and serious matters when
   reached were dealt with slowly and jealously, with many
   interruptions. It was not until the 24th of October, 1648,
   that the articles of peace forming the two treaties of Münster
   and Osnabrück, and known together as the Peace of Westphalia,
   were signed by all the negotiators at Münster.
{1486}
   The more important of the provisions of the two instruments
   were the following "To France was secured the perpetual
   possession of the Bishoprics of Metz, Toul, and Verdun, as
   also Moyenvic and Pignerol, with the right to keep a garrison
   in Philipsburg, and finally Breisach, Alsace, with its ten
   imperial cities, and the Sundgau. The Emperor bound himself to
   gain the assent of the Archduke Ferdinand, of Tyrol and Spain,
   to this last-named cession. France made good to the Archduke this
   loss by the payment of 3,000,000 francs. Although it was not
   expressly provided that the connection with the Empire of the
   German provinces ceded to France should be dissolved, yet the
   separation became, as a matter of fact, a complete one. The
   Emperor did not summon the Kings of France to the Diets of the
   Empire, and the latter made no demand for such summons. … In
   relation to Italy, the French treaty provided that the peace
   concluded in 1631 [see ITALY: A. D. 1627-1631] should remain
   in force, except the part relating to Pignerol. ['Pinerolo was
   definitely put under the French overlordship.']

Switzerland was made independent of the German Empire; but the Circle of Burgundy [the Spanish Netherlands and Franche-Comté] was still to form a part of the Empire, and after the close of the war between France and Spain, in which the Emperor and the Empire were to take no part, was to be included in the peace. No aid was to be rendered to the Duke of Lorraine against France, although the Emperor and the Empire were left free to mediate for him a peace. Sweden received Hither Pomerania, including the Island of Rügen, from Further Pomerania the Island of Wollin and several cities, with their surroundings, among which were Stettin, as also the expectancy of Further Pomerania in case of the extinction of the house of Brandenburg. Furthermore, it received the city of Wismar, in Mecklenburg, and the Bishoprics of Bremen [secularized and made a Grand Duchy] and Verden, with reservation of the rights and immunities of the city of Bremen. Sweden was to hold all the ceded territory as feudal tenures of the Empire, and be represented for them in the Imperial Diet. … Brandenburg received for its loss of Pomerania the Bishoprics of Halberstadt, Minden, and Camin, and the expectancy of that of Magdeburg as soon as this should become vacant by the death of its Administrator, the Saxon Prince, although the four bailiwicks separated from it were to remain with Saxony as provided in the Peace of Prague. … The house of Brunswick-Lüneberg was to renounce its right to the coadjutorship of Magdeburg, Bremen, Halberstadt, and Ratzeburg, and, in return for this renunciation, was to alternate with a Catholic prelate in the possession of the Bishopric of Osnabrück. … To Duke Maximilian of Bavaria was conveyed the Electorate, together with the Upper Palatinate, to be hereditary in his family of the line of William, for which he, on the other hand, was to surrender to the Emperor the account of the 13,000,000 florins which he had made for the execution of the sentence against the Palsgrave Frederic. To the Palsgrave, Charles Lewis, son of the proscribed Elector [Frederic, who had died in 1632], was given back the Lower Palatinate, while a new Electorate, the eighth, was created for him. … There were numerous provisions relating to the restoration of the Dukes of Würtemberg, the Margraves of Baden, and the Counts of Nassau and those of Hanau to several parts of the territories which either belonged to them or were contested. A general amnesty was indeed provided, and everyone was to be restored to the possession of the lands which he had held before the war. This general article was, however, limited by various special provisions, as that in relation to the Palsgrave, and was not to be applied to Austria at all. … Specially important are the sections which relate to the settlement of religious grievances. The treaty of Passau and the Augsburg religious peace were confirmed; the 1st of January, 1624, was fixed as the time which was to govern mutual reclamations between the Catholics and Protestants; both parties were secured the right to all ecclesiastical foundations, whether in mediate or immediate connection with the Empire, which they severally held in possession on the first day of January, 1624; if any such had been taken from them after this date, restoration was to be made, unless otherwise specially provided. The Ecclesiastical Reservation was acknowledged by the Protestants, and Protestant holders of ecclesiastical property were freely admitted to the Imperial Diets. The right of reformation was conceded to the Estates, and permission to emigrate to the subjects; while it was at the same time provided that, if in 1624 Protestant subjects of Catholic Princes, or the reverse, enjoyed freedom of religion, this right should not in the future be diminished. It was specially granted for Silesia that all the concessions which had been made before the war to the Dukes of Liegnitz, Münsterburg, and Oels, and to the city of Breslau, relating to the free exercise of the Augsburg Confession, should remain in force. … Finally, the Reformed—that is, the adherents of Calvinism—were placed upon the same ground with those of the Augsburg Confession; and it was provided that if a Lutheran Estate of the Empire should become a Calvinist, or the reverse, his subjects should not be forced to change with their Prince."

"The emperor, in his own name, and in behalf of his family and the 'empire, ceded the full sovereignty of Upper and Lower Alsace, with the prefecture of Haguenau, or the ten towns [Haguenau, Schelestadt, Weissemburgh, Colmar, Landau, Oberenheim, Rosheim, Munster in the Val de St. Gregoire, Kaiserberg, and Turingheim], and their dependencies. But by one of those contradictions which are common in treaties, when both parties wish to preserve their respective claims, another article was introduced, binding the king of France to leave the ecclesiastics and immediate nobility of those provinces in the immediacy which they had hitherto possessed with regard to the Roman empire, and not to pretend to any sovereignty over them, but to remain content with such rights as belonged to the house of Austria. Yet this was again contradicted by a declaration, that this exception should not derogate from the supreme sovereignty before yielded to the king of France."

"Respecting the rights of sovereignty due to the princes and the relations of the states of the empire with the emperor, the Peace of Westphalia contained such regulations as must in the course of time produce a still greater relaxation of those ties, already partially loosened, which held together the empire in one entirety. … At the Peace of Westphalia the independence of the princes was made completely legal. They received the entire right of sovereignty over their territory, together with the power of making war, concluding peace, and forming alliances among themselves, as well as with foreign powers, provided such alliances were not to the injury of the empire. But what a feeble obstacle must this clause have presented? For henceforward, if a prince of the empire, having formed an alliance with a foreign power, became hostile to the emperor, he could immediately avail himself of the pretext that it was for the benefit of the empire, the maintenance of his rights, and the liberty of Germany. And in order that the said pretext might, with some appearance of right, be made available on every occasion, foreigners established themselves as the guardians of the empire; and accordingly France and Sweden took upon themselves the responsibility of legislating as guarantees, not only for the Germanic constitution, but for everything else that was concluded in the Peace of Westphalia at Münster and Osnaburg. Added to this, in reference to the imperial cities, whose rights had hitherto never been definitively fixed, it was now declared that they should always be included under the head of the other states, and that they should command a decisive voice in the diets; thenceforth, therefore, their votes and those of the other states—the electoral and other princes—should be of equal validity."

Peace between Spain and the United Provinces was embodied in a separate treaty, but negotiated at Münster, and concluded and signed a few months earlier in the same year. The war between Spain and France went on.

GERMANY: A. D. 1648.
Effects of the Peace of Westphalia on the Empire.
It becomes a loose confederacy and purely German.

"It may … be said of this famous peace, as of the other so-called 'fundamental law of the Empire,' the Golden Bull, that it did no more than legalize a condition of things already in existence, but which by being legalized acquired new importance. … While the political situation, to use a current phrase, had changed within the last two hundred years, the eyes with which men regarded it had changed still more. Never by their fiercest enemies in earlier times, not once by the Popes or Lombard republicans in the heat of their strife with the Franconian and Swabian Cæsars, had the Emperors been reproached as mere German kings, or their claim to be the lawful heirs of Rome denied. The Protestant jurists of the 16th or rather of the 17th century were the first persons who ventured to scoff at the pretended lordship of the world, and declare their Empire to be nothing more than a German monarchy, in dealing with which no superstitious reverence need prevent its subjects from making the best terms they could for themselves, and controlling a sovereign whose religious predilections made him the friend of their enemies. … It was by these views … that the states, or rather France and Sweden acting on their behalf, were guided in the negotiations of Osnabrück and Münster. By extorting a full recognition of the sovereignty of all the princes, Catholics and Protestants alike, in their respective territories, they bound the Emperor from any direct interference with the administration, either in particular districts or throughout the Empire. All affairs of public importance, including the rights of making war or peace, of levying contributions, raising troops, building fortresses, passing or interpreting laws, were henceforth to be left entirely in the hands of the Diet. … Both Lutherans and Calvinists were declared free from all jurisdiction of the Pope or any Catholic prelate. Thus the last link which bound Germany to Rome was snapped, the last of the principles by virtue of which the Empire had existed was abandoned. For the Empire now contained and recognized as its members persons who formed a visible body at open war with the Holy Roman Church; and its constitution admitted schismatics to a full share in all those civil rights which, according to the doctrines of the early Middle Age, could be enjoyed by no one who was out of the communion of the Catholic Church. The Peace of Westphalia was therefore an abrogation of the sovereignty of Rome, and of the theory of Church and State with which the name of Rome was associated. And in this light was it regarded by Pope Innocent X., who commanded his legate to protest against it, and subsequently declared it void by the bull 'Zelo domus Dei.' … The Peace of Westphalia is an era in imperial history not less clearly marked than the coronation of Otto the Great, or the death of Frederick II. As from the days of Maximilian it had borne a mixed or transitional character, well expressed by the name Romano-Germanic, so henceforth it is in everything but title purely and solely a German Empire. Properly, indeed, it was no longer an empire at all, but a Confederation, and that of the loosest sort. For it had no common treasury, no efficient common tribunals, no means of coercing a refractory member; its states were of different religions, were governed according to different forms, were administered judicially and financially without any regard to each other. … There were 300 petty principalities between the Alps and the Baltic, each with its own laws, its own courts, … its little armies, its separate coinage, its tolls and custom-houses on the frontier, its crowd of meddlesome and pedantic officials. … This vicious system, which paralyzed the trade, the literature, and the political thought of Germany, had been forming itself for some time, but did not become fully established until the Peace of Westphalia, by emancipating the princes from imperial control, had made them despots in their own territories."

GERMANY: A. D. 1648-1705.
   After the Peace of Westphalia.
   French influence in the Empire.
   Creation of the Ninth Elector.

After the Peace of Westphalia, the remainder of the reign of Ferdinand III. "passed in tranquillity. … He caused his son to be elected king of the Romans, under the title of Ferdinand IV.; but the young prince, already king of Bohemia and Hungary, preceded him to the tomb, and left the question of the succession to be decided by a diet. Ferdinand III. died in 1657. … The interregnum, and, indeed, the century which followed the death of Ferdinand, showed the alarming preponderance of the influence gained by France in the affairs of the empire, and the consequent criminality of the princes who had first invoked the assistance of that power. Her recent victories, her character as joint guarantee of the treaty of Westphalia, and the contiguity of her possessions to the states of the empire, encouraged her ministers to demand the imperial crown for the youthful Louis XIV. Still more extraordinary is the fact that four of the electors were gained, by that monarch's gold, to espouse his views. … Fortunately for Germany and for Europe, the electors of Treves, Brandenburg, and Saxony, were too patriotic to sanction this infatuated proposal; they threatened to elect a native prince of their own authority,—a menace which caused the rest to co-operate with them; so that, after some fruitless negotiations, Leopold, son of the late emperor, king of Bohemia and of Hungary, was raised to the vacant dignity. His reign was one of great humiliation to his house and to the empire. Without talents for government, without generosity, feeble, bigoted, and pusillanimous, he was little qualified to augment the glory of the country. … Throughout his long reign [1657-1705], he had the mortification to witness, on the part of Louis XIV., a series of the most unprovoked, wanton, and unprincipled usurpations ever recorded in history. … Internally, the reign of Leopold affords some interesting particulars. … Not the least is the establishment of a ninth electoral dignity in favour of Ernest Augustus, Duke of Brunswick Lunenburg, who then became (1692) the first elector of Hanover. This was the act of Leopold, in return for important aid in money and troops from two princes of that house; but it could not be effected without the concurrence of the electoral body, who long resisted it. … The establishment of a permanent diet, attended, not by the electors in person, but by their representatives, is one of the most striking peculiarities of Leopold's reign."

"Before the Thirty Years' War the territories of the German Hapsburgs were not very considerable. The greatest part of Hungary was in the hands of the Turks; the Tyrol belonged to a collateral line; and, in the other provinces, the independence of the Nobility was much stronger than the sovereignty of the Archdukes. The Nobles were all zealous protestants, so that a monarchical power could only be created after a victory of the Catholic faith. For the first time since 1621, the crown was seen in these regions to assume a really dominant position. Efforts in this direction had been zealously carried on since 1648; the Tyrolese Estates now lost their most important privileges; and, above all, the Emperor succeeded, by the help of Polish and German troops, in driving out the Turks from Hungary, and at the same time crushing the national freedom of the Magyars with frightful bloodshed. By these victories the Monarchy gained, in the first place, a large increase of territory—which placed it nearly on a level with France. In the second place it acquired at home the power of raising as many taxes and soldiers as were necessary to increase the army to the extent of its wishes; and of distributing its officials and troops—without distinction of nation—as imperial servants, throughout its dominions. And thus it secured submission at home and disposable strength for its operations abroad. Here it stopped short. As it had no national, and, consequently, no warm and natural relation to any of its provinces—which were merely used as passive tools to promote the lofty aims of the Hapsburg family—the Government had no intention of using its power at home for the furtherance of the public good, or the building up of a generally useful Administration. The Nobility had no longer the strength to resist the demands of the Crown for men and money, but it still retained exemption from taxes, the jurisdiction and police among its own peasants, and a multitude of feudal rights, which, often enough, degraded the peasant to the condition of a serf, and everywhere bound down agriculture in the most galling bonds. Of manufactures there were little or none; trade was carried on on the system of guilds. The State officials exercised but little influence over the internal affairs of the Communes, or Provinces; and the privileged orders had full liberty to prosecute their own interests among their inferiors with inconsiderate selfishness. In this aristocracy, the Church, from its wealth and its close internal unity, assumed the first place; and its superior importance was still farther enhanced by the fact of its being the chief bond of unity between the otherwise so loosely compacted portions of the Empire. … The Church attached the Nobility to the Government; for we must not forget that a very considerable portion of the estates of the Nobles had passed into the hands of new possessors who had received them as a reward for being good catholics. The Church, too, taught all the youth of the Empire—in all its different languages— obedience to the House of Hapsburg, and received from the Crown, in return, exclusive control of the national education. It formed, in spite of the resistance of nationalities, a sort of public opinion in favour of the unity of the Empire; and the Crown, in return, excluded all non-catholic opinions from the schools, from literature and religion. Austria, therefore, continued to be catholic, even after 1648; and by this we mean, not only that its Princes were personally devout—or that the Catholic clergy were supported in the performance of their spiritual functions—or that the institutions of the Church were liberally supported—but also that the State directed its policy according to ecclesiastical views, made use of the Church for political purposes, and crushed every movement hostile to it in all other spheres of the national life. In Austria, therefore, it was not merely a question of theological differences, but of the deepest and most comprehensive points of distinction between the mediæval and the modern world. Austria was still, in its whole nature, a Mediæval State or Confederacy of States. The consequences of this condition were most strikingly seen in its relation to Germany. In the first place, there was a complete separation, in regard to all mental and spiritual matters, between the great body of the Empire, and its powerful Eastern member. This was the period, in which Germany was awaking to a new intellectual life in modern Europe, and laying the foundation of its modern science in every branch—in History and Statistics, Chemistry and Geology, Jurisprudence and Philosophy—and assuming by its Literature, an equal rank with other nations in national refinement and civilization. {1489} By the works of genius which this period produced Austria remained entirely uninfluenced; and it has been said, that Werther had only been made known to the Viennese in the form of fireworks in the Prater. The literary policy allowed no seed of modern culture to enter the Empire; and the Jesuit schools had rendered the soil unfit for its reception. All the progress of German civilization, at this period, was based on the principle of the independence of the mind in art and science. The education of the Jesuits, on the contrary, though unsurpassed where the object is to prepare men for a special purpose, commences by disowning individual peculiarities, and the right of a man to choose his own career. There was, at this time, no other characteristic of an Austrian than an entire estrangement from the progress of the German mind. … The progress of the people in science and art, in politics and military strength, was only seen in the larger secular territories, which, after 1648, enjoyed their own sovereignty; and even these were checked in their movements at every step by the remnants of the Imperial Constitution. The Members of the Empire alone, in whom the decaying remains of Mediæval existence still lingered on—the Ecclesiastical Princes—the small Counts—the Imperial Knights and the Imperial Towns,—clung to the Emperor and the Imperial Diet. In these, partly from their small extent of territory, partly from the inefficiency of their institutions, neither active industry, nor public spirit, nor national pride, were to be found. In all which tended to elevate the nation, and raise its hopes for the future, they took, at this period, as little part as Austria herself. … The Imperial constitution, therefore, was inwardly decayed, and stood in no relation to the internal growth of the nation. … There was the same divergence between Austria and Germany with respect to their foreign interests, as we have observed in their internal relations. After the Turks had been driven from Hungary, and the Swedes from the half of' Pomerania, Germany had only two neighbours whom it was a matter of vital importance to watch,—the Poles and the French. In the South, on the contrary, it had no interests in opposition to Italy, except the protection of its frontier by the possession or the neutrality of the Alpine passes. And yet it was just towards Italy that the eyes of the House of Hapsburg had been uninterruptedly directed for centuries past. The favourite traditions of the family, and their political and ecclesiastical interest in securing the support of the Pope, and thereby that of the Clergy, constantly impelled them to consolidate and extend their dominion in that country. All other considerations yielded to this; and this is intelligible enough from an Austrian point of view; but it was not on that account less injurious to the German Empire. How strikingly was this opposition of interests displayed at the end of the glorious war of the Spanish succession, when the Emperor rejected a peace which would have restored Strasburg and Alsace to the Empire, because only Naples, and not Sicily also, was offered to Austria! How sharply defined do the same relations present themselves to our view, in the last years of the Hapsburg dynasty, at the peace of Vienna in 1738!—on which occasion the Emperor—in order at least to gain Tuscany, as a compensation for the loss of Naples,—gave up Lorraine to the French, without even consulting the Empire, which he had dragged into the war. Austria thus maintained a predominant influence in Italy; but the Empire, during the whole century after the Peace of Westphalia, did not obtain a single noteworthy advantage over France. How much more was this the case with respect to Poland, which during the whole period of the religious wars had been the most zealous ally of Spain and the Hapsburgs, and which subsequently seemed to threaten no danger to Austrian interests."

GERMANY: A. D. 1660-1664.
   Renewed war with the Turks.
   Victory of St. Gothard.
   Transylvania liberated.
   A twenty years truce.

      See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1672-1674,
      and 1674-1678;
      also NIMEGUEN, PEACE OF.

See BRANDENBURG: A.D. 1640-1688;
and SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1644-1697.

GERMANY: A. D. 1679-1681.
   The final absorption of Alsace and Les Trois-Evêchés by
   France, with boundaries widened.
   Bold encroachments of the French Chambers of Reannexation.
   The seizure of Strasburg.

"The Duke of Orleans, the French King's brother, had married the sister of the Elector Palatine, the last of the House of Simmern, who died in May 1685, when his next relative, the Count Palatine Philip William, Duke of Neuberg, took possession of the Electorate. The Duchess of Orleans had by her marriage contract renounced all her feudal rights to the Palatinate, but not her claims to the allodial property and the moveables of her family." These latter claims, taken in hand by Louis XIV. on behalf of his sister-in-law, were made so formidable that the new Elector appealed to the Empire for protection, "and, thus redoubled the uneasiness felt in Germany, and indeed throughout the greater part of Europe, respecting the schemes of Louis. The Prince of Orange availed himself of these suspicions to forward his plans against Louis. He artfully inflamed the general alarm, and at length succeeded in inducing the Emperor Leopold, the Kings of Spain, and Sweden, as princes of the Empire, the Electors of Saxony and Bavaria, the circles of Suabia, Franconia, Upper Saxony, and Bavaria, to enter into the celebrated League of Augsburg (July 9th 1686). The object of this league was to maintain the Treaties of Münster and Nimeguen and the Truce of Ratisbon. If any of the members of it was attacked he was to be assisted by the whole confederacy; 60,000 men were to be raised, who were to be frequently drilled, and to form a camp during some weeks of every year, and a common fund for their support was to be established at Frankfort. The League was to be in force only for three years, but might be prolonged at the expiration of that term should the public safety require it. The Elector Palatine, who was in fact the party most directly interested, acceded to the League early in September, as well as the Duke of Holstein Gottorp."

"To Madame's great anger France set up a claim to the Palatinate on her behalf, Louvois persuading the King and the royal family that with a few vigorous measures the Palatinate would be abandoned by the Neubourgs and annexed to France as part of Madame's dowry. This led to the devastation of the states, to which Madame [Charlotte Elizabeth, the Duchess of Orleans] so often and so bitterly alludes during the next ten years. Obliged by Louis XIV. 's policy to represent herself as desirous to recover her rights over her father's and brother's succession, in many documents which she was never even shown, Madame protested in all her private letters against France's action in the matter, and made every one at court thoroughly aware of her grief and disapproval of what the king was doing on her behalf."

GERMANY: A. D. 1689-1696.
The War of the League of Augsburg, or Grand Alliance,
against Louis XIV.

GERMANY: A. D. 1700-1740.
   The first king of Prussia and his shabby court.
   The second king, his Brobdingnagian army
   and his extraordinary character.
   The up-bringing of Frederick the Great.

The "Great Elector" of Brandenburg "left to his son Frederic a principality as considerable as any which was not called a kingdom."

"Frederic aspired to the style of royalty. Ostentatious and profuse, negligent of his true interests and of his high duties, insatiably eager for frivolous distinctions, he added nothing to the real weight of the state which he governed: perhaps he transmitted his inheritance to his children impaired rather than augmented in value; but he succeeded in gaining the great object of his life, the title of King. In the year 1700 he assumed this new dignity. He had, on that occasion to undergo all the mortifications which fall to the lot of ambitious upstarts. Compared with the other crowned heads of Europe, he made a figure resembling that which a Nabob or a Commissary, who had bought a title, would make in the company of Peers whose ancestors had been attainted for treason against the Plantagenets. The envy of the class which Frederic quitted, and the civil scorn of the class into which he intruded himself, were marked in very significant ways. … Frederic was succeeded by his son, Frederic William, a prince who must be allowed to have possessed some talents for administration, but whose character as disfigured by odious vices, and whose eccentricities were such as had never before been seen out of a madhouse. He was exact and diligent in the transacting of business; and he was the first who formed the design of obtaining for Prussia a place among the European powers, altogether out of proportion to her extent and population, by means of a strong military organization. Strict economy enabled him to keep up a peace establishment of 60,000 troops. These troops were disciplined in such a manner, that, placed beside them, the household regiments of Versailles and St. James's would have appeared an awkward squad. The master of such a force could not but be regarded by all his neighbours as a formidable enemy and a valuable ally. But the mind of Frederic William was so ill regulated, that all his inclinations became passions, and all his passions partook of the character of moral and intellectual disease. His parsimony degenerated into sordid avarice. His taste for military pomp and order became a mania, like that of a Dutch burgomaster for tulips, or that of a member of the Roxburghe Club for Caxtons. While the envoys of the Court of Berlin were in a state of such squalid poverty as moved the laughter of foreign capitals; while the food placed before the princes and princesses of the blood-royal of Prussia was too scanty to appease hunger, and so bad that even hunger loathed it, no price was thought too extravagant for tall recruits. The ambition of the king was to form a brigade of giants, and every country was ransacked by his agents for men above the ordinary stature. … Though his dominant passion was the love of military display, he was yet one of the most pacific of princes. We are afraid that his aversion to war was not the effect of humanity, but was merely one of his thousand whims. His feeling about his troops seems to have resembled a miser's feeling about his money. He loved to collect them, to count them, to see them increase; but he could not find it in his heart to break in upon the precious hoard. He looked forward to some future time when his Patagonian battalions were to drive hostile infantry before them like sheep: but this future time was always receding; and it is probable that, if his life had been prolonged 30 years, his superb army would never have seen any harder service than a sham fight in the fields near Berlin. But the great military means which he had collected were destined to be employed by a spirit far more daring and inventive than his own. Frederic, surnamed the Great, son of Frederic William, was born in January 1712. It may safely be pronounced that he had received from nature a strong and sharp understanding, and a rare firmness of temper and intensity of will. As to the other parts of his character, it is difficult to say whether they are to be ascribed to nature, or to the strange training which he underwent. The history of his boyhood is painfully interesting. Oliver Twist in the parish work-house, Smike at Dotheboys Hall, were petted children when compared with this wretched heir-apparent of a crown. The nature of Frederic William was hard and bad, and the habit of exercising arbitrary power had made him frightfully savage. His rage constantly vented itself to right and left in curses and blows. When his Majesty took a walk, every human being fled before him, as if a tiger had broken loose from a menagerie. … But it was in his own house that he was most unreasonable and ferocious. His palace was hell, and he the most execrable of fiends. … Early in the year 1740, Frederic William met death with a firmness and dignity worthy of a better and wiser man; and Frederic, who had just completed his 28th year, became king of Prussia."

"Frederick William I. became … the founder of the first modern State in Germany. His was a nature in which the repulsive and the imposing, the uncouth and the admirable, were closely united. In his manners a rough and unrefined peasant, in his family a tyrant, in his government a despot, choleric almost to madness, his reign would have been a curse to the country, had he not united with his unlimited power a rare executive ability and an incorruptible fidelity to duty; and from first to last he consecrated all his powers to the common weal. By him effective limitations were put upon the independent action of the provinces, and upon the overgrown privileges of the estates. He did not do away with the guilds of the different orders, but placed them under the strict control of a strongly centralized superintendence, and compelled their members to make every necessary sacrifice for the sake of assisting him in his efforts for the prosperity and power of Prussia. It is astonishing to see with what practical judgment he recognized a needed measure both in general and in detail; how he trained a body of officials, suited in all grades to the requirements of their position; how he disciplined them in activity, prudence, and rectitude, by strict inspection, by encouraging instruction, and by brutal punishments; how he enforced order and economy in the public finances; how he improved the administration of his own domains, so that it became a fruitful example to all proprietors; and how, full of the desire to make the peasants free owners of the soil, although he did not yet venture on such a radical measure, he nevertheless constantly protected the poor against the arbitrariness and oppression of the higher classes. … There was no department of life to which he did not give encouragement and assistance; it is also true that there was none which he did not render subservient to his own will, and the products of which he did not make conducive to the one great end,—the independence and aggrandizement of the State. So that he who was the ruler of, at most, three million people, created, without exhausting the country, a standing army of eighty thousand men: a remarkably skilful and ready army, which he disciplined with barbarous severity on the slightest occasion, at the same time that he looked out for the welfare of every soldier even in the smallest detail, according to his saying, that 'a king's warrior must live better than a gentleman's servant.' What he had in his mind, almost a hundred years before Scharnhorst, was the universal obligation of military service; but it fared with him in regard to this as in regard to the freedom of the peasants: strong as he was, he could not turn the world he lived in upside down; he contented himself with bequeathing his best ideas to a more propitious future. The foundations of the government rested upon the estates in spite of all monarchical reforms. Thus, beside the federative Empire of the Hapsburgs, arose the small, compact Prussian State, which, by reason of the concentration of its forces, was a match for its five-times-larger rival."

H. Von Sybel, The Founding of the German Empire by William I., book 1, chapter 2 (volume 1).

      ALSO IN:
      T. Carlyle,
      History of Frederick II., called the Great,
      book 3, chapter 19, books 5-10 (volumes 1-2).

GERMANY: A. D. 1702.
   The War of the Spanish Succession:
   Siege of Landau.
   Battle of Friedlingen.

On the part of the Imperialists, the War of the Spanish Succession was opened on the Rhine frontier in June 1702, by a movement of the army commanded by the Margrave Louis of Baden, which "came over the Rhine and laid siege to the important fortress of Landau,—the bulwark of Alsace as it was then regarded. The Margrave was subsequently joined by the Emperor's eldest son, the young King of the Romans, who desired to share in the glory, though not in the toils of the expected conquest. … The Maréchal de Catinat, one of the soldiers of whom France has most reason to be proud,—the virtuous Catinat as Rousseau terms him—held command at this period in Alsace. So inferior were his numbers that he could make no attempt to relieve Landau. But after its reduction an opportunity appeared in which by detaching a portion of his army he might retrieve the fortunes of France in another quarter. The Elector of Bavaria, after much irresolution, had openly espoused the cause of Louis. He seized upon the city of Ulm and issued a proclamation in favor of his new ally. To support his movements an enterprising and ambitious officer, the Marquis de Villars, was sent across the Rhine with part of the army of Alsace. The declaration of the Elector of Bavaria and the advance of Villars into Germany disquieted in no slight degree the Prince Louis of Baden. Leaving a sufficient garrison in Landau, he also passed the Rhine. The two armies met at Friedlingen on the 14th of October. Louis of Baden, a ponderous tactician bred in the wars against the Turks, might out-manœuvre some Grand Vizier, but was no match for the quick-witted Frenchman. He was signally defeated with the loss of 3,000 men; soon after which, the season being now far advanced, Villars led back his army to winter quarters in France. His victory of Friedlingen gained for him at Versailles the rank of Maréchal de France."

Earl Stanhope (Lord Mahon), History of England: Reign of Queen Anne, chapter 2.

      ALSO IN:
      W. Coxe,
      History of the House of Austria,
      chapter 68 (volume 2).

GERMANY: A. D. 1703.
The War of the Spanish Succession:
Campaigns on the Upper Rhine and in Bavaria.

   "Early in June [A. D. 1703], Marshal Tallard assumed the
   command of the French forces in Alsace, … took Prissac on
   the 7th of September, and invested Landau on the 16th of
   October. The allies, under the Prince of Hesse, attempted to
   raise the siege, but were defeated with considerable loss;
   and, soon after, Landau surrendered, thus terminating with
   disaster the campaign on the Upper Rhine. Still more
   considerable were the losses sustained in Bavaria. Marshal
   Villars commanded there, and, at the head of the French and
   Bavarians, defeated General Stirum, who headed the
   Imperialists, on the 20th of September. In December, Marshal
   Marsin, who had succeeded Villars in the command, made himself
   master of the important city of Augsburg, and in January,
   1704, the Bavarians got possession of Passau. Meanwhile, a
   formidable insurrection had broken out in Hungary, which so
   distracted the cabinet of Vienna that the capital seemed to be
   threatened by the combined forces of the French and Bavarians
   after the fall of Passau. … Instead of confining the war to
   one of posts and sieges in Flanders and Italy, it was resolved
   [by the French] to throw the bulk of their forces at once into
   Bavaria, and operate against Austria from the heart of
   Germany, by pouring down the valley of the Danube.
{1492}
   The advanced post held there by the Elector of Bavaria in
   front, forming a salient angle, penetrating, as it were, into
   the Imperial dominions, the menacing aspect of the Hungarian
   insurrection in the rear, promised the most successful issue
   to this decisive operation. For this purpose, Marshal Tallard,
   with the French army on the Upper Rhine, received orders to
   cross the Black Forest and advance into Swabia, and unite with
   the Elector of Bavaria, which he accordingly did at Donawerth,
   in the beginning of July. Marshal Villeroy, with forty
   battalions and thirty-nine squadrons, was to break off from
   the army in Flanders and support the advance by a movement on
   the Moselle, so as to be in a condition to join the main army
   on the Danube, of which it would form, as it were, the left
   wing; while Vendôme, with the army of Italy, was to penetrate
   into the Tyrol, and advance by Innspruck on Salzburg. The
   united armies, which it was calculated, after deducting all
   the losses of the campaign, would muster 80,000 combatants,
   was then to move direct by Lintz and the valley of the Danube
   on Vienna, while a large detachment penetrated into Hungary to
   lend a hand to the already formidable insurrection in that
   kingdom. The plan was grandly conceived. … Marlborough, by
   means of the secret information which he obtained from the
   French head-quarters, had got full intelligence of it, and its
   dangers to the allies, if it succeeded, struck him as much as
   the chances of great advantage to them if ably thwarted. His
   line was instantly taken."

      A. Alison,
      Military Life of Marlborough,
      chapter 2, sections 30-33.

   The measures taken by Marlborough to defeat the plans of the
   French in this campaign are briefly stated in the account of
   his first campaigns in the Netherlands.

      ALSO IN:
      H. Martin,
      History of France: Age of Louis XIV.
      (translated by M. L. Booth), volume 2, chapter 5.

      W. Coxe,
      History of the House of Austria,
      chapter 69 (volume 2).

GERMANY: A. D. 1704.
   The War of the Spanish Succession:
   Marlborough and Prince Eugene on the Danube.
   The Battle of Blenheim.

"Marlborough, with his motley army of English, Dutch, Danes and Germans, concealing his main purpose, was marching south along the Rhine, with a design to strike his critical blow, by attacking the French armies that were forming for the campaign of the Danube, and thus protect the Emperor and Vienna, and punish the Elector of Bavaria, whose territories would be then exposed. On the route, Marlborough was joined by Prince Eugene and the Margrave of Baden: but as a new French force was approaching, Prince Eugene was sent to keep it in check. Marlborough and the Prince of Baden, with united forces of about 60,000 men, then advanced, in rapid marches, and took, by gallant assault, the fortifications of the Schellenberg in Bavaria, and the old town of Donauworth, a critical and commanding position on the Danube. The allies were now masters of the main passages of the Danube—and had a strong place as a basis of action. The allied leaders thereupon sent troops into the heart of Bavaria, and devastated the country even to the vicinity of Munich—burning and destroying as they marched, and taking several minor fortresses. Marlborough's forces and those of Prince Eugene were distant from each other some forty miles, when came the news of the march of a French army of 25,000 men under Tallard, to form a junction with the others, to succor the Elector, and take revenge for the defeat of the Schellenberg. Two French Marshals, Tallard and Marsin, were now in command: their design was to attack Marlborough and Eugene's armies in detail. By rapid marches, Marlborough crossed the Danube and joined Prince Eugene near Donauworth, and thereupon occurred one of the most important and decisive contests of modern times, fought between the old town of Hochstadt and the village of Blenheim, about fifteen miles south of Donauworth. The skilful tactics of the allied generals precipitated the battle. The allied French and Bavarians numbered 60,000 [56,000; Malleson] men—the English, Dutch and Germans and other allies, about 53,000 [52,000; Malleson]. The allies were allowed to cross an intervening brook without opposition, and form their lines. A great charge, in full force, of the allies was then made; they broke the enemy's extended line; and an ensuing charge of cavalry scattered his forces right and left, and drove many into the Danube. More than 14,000 French and Bavarians, who had not struck a blow, except to defend their position, entrenched and shut up in the village of Blenheim, waiting for orders to move, were then surrounded by the victorious allies, and compelled to surrender as prisoners of war. The scattered remnants of the French and Bavarian army either disbanded, or were driven over the Rhine. The garrison at Ulm capitulated, and the Elector fled into France."

"The armies of Marchin and of Max Emanuel [of Bavaria] had been defeated; that of Tallard had been annihilated. Whilst the loss of the victors in killed and wounded reached 12,000 men, that of the French and Bavarians exceeded 14,000. In addition, the latter lost 13,000 men taken prisoners, 47 pieces of cannon, 25 standards, and 90 colours. Such was the battle of Blenheim. It was one of the decisive battles of history, and it changed the character of the war. Up to that moment, the action of France against. Germany had been aggressive; thenceforward it became purely defensive. Blenheim, in fact, dashed to the ground the hopes of Louis XIV. and Max Emanuel of Bavaria. It saved the house of Habsburg in Germany, and helped it greatly in Hungary. It showed likewise that it was possible to inflict a crushing defeat on the armies of Louis XIV."

   "Marlborough [after the battle], having detached part of his
   force to besiege Ulm, drew near with the bulk of his army to
   the Rhine, which he passed near Philipsburg on the 6th of
   September, and soon after commenced the siege of Landau, on
   the French side; Prince Louis, with 20,000 men, forming the
   besieging force, and Eugene and Marlborough, with 30,000, the
   covering army. Villeroi, with the French army, abandoned an
   intrenched camp which he had constructed to cover the town.
   Marlborough followed, and made every effort to bring the
   French marshal to battle, but in vain. … Ulm surrendered on
   the 16th of September, … which gave the allies a solid
   foundation on the Danube, and effectually crushed the power of
   the Elector of Bavaria, who, isolated now in the midst of his
   enemies, had no alternative but to abandon his dominions and
   seek refuge in Brussels, where he arrived in the end of
   September. …
{1493}
   The Electress of Bavaria, who had been left regent of that
   state in the absence of the Elector in Flanders, had now no
   resource left but submission; and a treaty was accordingly
   concluded in the beginning of November, by which she agreed to
   disband all her troops. Trêves and Traerbach were taken in the
   end of December; the Hungarian insurrection was suppressed;
   Landau capitulated in the beginning of the same month; a
   diversion which the enemy attempted toward Trêves was defeated
   by Marlborough's activity and vigilance, and that city put in
   a sufficient posture of defense; and, the campaign being now
   finished, that accomplished commander returned to the Hague
   and London."

      J. H. Burton,
      History of the Reign of Queen Anne,
      chapter 6 (volume 1).

      H. Martin,
      History of France: Age of Louis XIV.,
      volume 2, chapter 5.

GERMANY: A. D. 1705.
The War of the Spanish Succession:
The dissolution of Bavaria.

"The campaign of 1705 was destitute of any important events on the side of Germany. … In Bavaria, the peasants, irritated by the oppressions of the Austrian government, rose in a body in the autumn, and, could they have been supported by France, would have placed the Emperor in great danger; but without that aid the insurrection only proved fatal to themselves. The insurgents were beaten in detail, and the Emperor now resolved on the complete dissolution of Bavaria as a state. The four elder sons of Maximilian were carried to Klagenfurt in Carinthia, to be there educated under the strictest inspection as Counts of Wittelsbach, while the younger sons were consigned to the care of a court lady at Munich, and the daughters sent to a convent. The Electress, who had been on a visit to Venice, was not permitted to return to her dominions, and the Elector Maximilian, as well as the Elector of Cologne, was, by a decree of the Electoral College, placed under the ban of the Empire. The Upper Palatinate was restored to the Elector Palatine. … The remaining Bavarian territories were confiscated, and divided among various princes."

The campaign of 1705 in the Netherlands was unimportant; but
in Spain it had brilliant results.

GERMANY: A. D. 1706-1711.
The War of the Spanish Succession:
Successes of the French.

During 1706, little was attempted on either side by the forces which watched each other along the Rhine. In 1707 Villars, the French commander, obtained liberty to act. "The Emperor, greatly preoccupied with Hungary, had furnished but indifferent resources to the new general of the army of the Rhine, Brandenburg-Baireuth; the German army was ill paid and in bad condition in its immense lines on the right bank, which extended along the Rhine from Philippsburg as far as Stolhofen, then, in a square, from Stolhofen to the Black Mountains by Bühl. May 22, the lines were attacked simultaneously at four points. … The success was complete; the enemy fled into the mountains, abandoning artillery, baggage, and munitions, and did not stop till beyond the Neckar. The lines were razed; Swabia and a part of Franconia were put under contribution. Villars marched on Stuttgart, crossed the Neckar, and subjected the whole country to ransom as far as the Danube. The enemies in vain rallied and reinforced themselves with tardy contingents of the Empire; they could not prevent Villars from laying under contribution the Lower Neckar, then the country between the Danube and Lake Constance, and from maintaining himself beyond the Rhine till he went into winter-quarters. French parties scoured the country as conquerors as far as the fatal field of Hochstadt." At the beginning of the campaign of 1708, it was the plan of the allies to make their chief attack on France "by the way of the Rhine and the Moselle, with two armies of 60,000 men each, under the command of the Elector of Hanover and Eugene, whilst Marlborough occupied the great French army in Flanders." But this plan was changed. "Eugene left the Elector of Hanover in the north of Swabia, behind the lines of Etlingen, which the allies had raised during the winter to replace the lines of Bühl at Stolhofen, and, with 24,000 soldiers collected on the Moselle, he marched by the way of Coblentz towards Belgium (June 30). The French forces of the Rhine and the Moselle followed this movement." The campaign then ensuing in the Netherlands was that which was signalized by Marlborough and Eugene's victory at Oudenarde and the siege of Lille. In 1709, "the attention of Europe, as in 1708, was chiefly directed to Flanders; but it was not only on that side that France was menaced. France was to be encroached upon at once on the north and the east. Whilst the great allied army penetrated into Artois, the army of the Rhine and the army of the Alps were to penetrate, the latter into Bresse by the way of Savoy, the former into Franche-Comté by the way of Alsace, and to combine their operations. … The Germans had not taken the offensive in Alsace till in the month of August. Marshal Harcourt, with over 20,000 men, had covered himself with the lines of the Lauter: the Elector of Hanover, who had crossed the Rhine at Philippsburg with superior forces, did not attack Harcourt, and strove to amuse him whilst 8,000 or 9,000 Germans, left in Swabia with General Merci, moved rapidly on Neuberg … and established there a tête-du-pont in order to enter Upper Alsace." By swiftly sending a sufficient force to attack and defeat Merci at Neuberg, August 26, Harcourt completely frustrated these plans. "The Elector of Hanover recrossed the river and retired behind the lines of Etlingen." During the two following years the French and German forces on the side of the Rhine did little more than observe one another.

Meantime, Ramillies, Oudenarde and Malplaquet had been fought in the Netherlands; Prince Eugene had won his victory at Turin, and the contest had been practically decided in Spain, at Almanza.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1706-1707, 1708-1709, 1710-1712; ITALY: A. D. 1701-1713; SPAIN: A. D. 1706, 1707, and 1707-1710; and ENGLAND: A. D. 1710-1712.

GERMANY: A. D. 1711.
The War of the Spanish Succession:
Change in the circumstances of the war.

GERMANY: A. D. 1713-1719.
   The Emperor's continued differences with the King of Spain.
   The Triple Alliance.
   The Quadruple Alliance.

GERMANY: A. D. 1714.
Ending of the War of the Spanish Succession:
The Peace of Utrecht and the Treaty of Rastadt.

GERMANY: A. D. 1733-1735.
The War of the Polish Succession.
Cession of Lorraine to France.

GERMANY: A. D. 1740.
The question of the Austrian Succession.
The Pragmatic Sanction.

GERMANY: A. D. 1740-1756.
Early years of the reign of Frederick the Great in Prussia.
The War of the Austrian Succession.

When Frederick II., known as Frederick the Great, succeeded his father, in 1740, "nobody had the least suspicion that a tyrant of extraordinary military and political talents, of industry more extraordinary still, without fear, without faith, and without mercy, had ascended the throne."

The reign of Frederick II. "was expected to be an effeminate one; but when at the age of twenty-nine he became king, he forgot his pleasures, thought of nothing but glory, and no longer employed himself but in attention to his finances, his army, his policy, and his laws. His provinces were scattered, his resources weak, his power precarious; his army of seventy thousand soldiers was more remarkable for handsomeness of the men, and the elegance of their appearance, than for their discipline. He augmented it, instructed it, exercised it, and fortune began to open the field of glory to him at the moment he was fully prepared to enjoy her favours. Charles XII. was dead, and his station filled by a king without authority. Russia, deprived of Peter the Great, who had only rough-hewn her civilization, languished under the feeble government of the Empress Anne, and of a cruel and ignorant minister. Augustus III. King of Poland and Elector of Saxony, a Prince devoid of character, could not inspire him with any dread. Louis XV., a weak and peaceable king, was governed by Cardinal Fleuri, who loved peace, but always by his weakness suffered himself to be drawn into war. He presented to Frederic rather a support than an obstacle. The court of France had espoused the cause of Charles VII. against Francis I. Maria Theresa, wife of Francis, and Queen of Hungary, saw herself threatened by England, Holland, and France; and whilst she had but little reason to hope the preservation of her hereditary dominions, that arrogant princess wished to place her husband on the Imperial Throne. This quarrel kindled the flames of war in Europe; the genius of Frederic saw by a single glance that the moment was arrived for elevating Prussia to the second order of powers; he made an offer to Maria Theresa to defend her, if she would cede Silesia to him, and threatened her with war in case of refusal. The Empress, whose firmness nothing could shake, impoliticly refused that proposition; war was declared, and Frederic entered Silesia at the head of eighty thousand men. This first war lasted eighteen months.

Frederic, by gaining five battles, shewed that Europe would recognize one great man more in her bloody annals. He had begun the war from ambition, and contrary to strict justice; he concluded it with ability, but by the abandonment of France his ally, without giving her information of it, and he thus put in practice, when he was seated on the throne, the principles of Machiavel, whom he had refuted before he ascended it. Men judge according to the event. The hero was absolved by victory from the wrongs with which justice reproached him; and this brilliant example serves to confirm men in that error, too generally and too lightly adopted, that ability in politics is incompatible with the strict rule of morality. Four years after, in [1744], Frederic again took up arms.

He invaded Bohemia, Upper Silesia, and Moravia. Vienna thought him at her gates; but the defection of the Bavarians, the retreat of the French, and the return of Prince Charles into Bohemia, rapidly changed the face of affairs. The position of Frederic became as dangerous as it had been menacing; he was on the point of being lost, and he saw himself compelled to retire with as much precipitation, as he had advanced with boldness. The gaining the battle of Hohen-Friedberg saved him. That retreat and that victory fixed the seal to his reputation. It was after this action that he wrote to Louis XV. 'I have just discharged in Silesia the bill of exchange which your majesty drew on me at Fontenoy.' A letter so much the more modest, as Frederic had conquered, and Louis had only been witness to a victory. He displayed the same genius and the same activity in the campaign of 1745, and once more abandoned France in making his separate peace at Dresden. By this treaty Francis was peaceably assured of the empire, and the cession of Silesia was confirmed to Frederic. France during this war committed some wrongs, which might palliate the abandonment of Prussia. The French did not keep Prince Charles within bounds, they made no diversion into Germany, and fought no where but in Flanders. … In 1756, Europe was again in a flame. France and England declared war against each other, and both sought alliances; Frederic ranged himself on the side of England, and by that became the object of the unreflecting vengeance of the French, and of the alliance of that power with Austria; Austria also formed an alliance with the Court of Petersburg by means of a Saxon secretary; Frederic discovered the project of the Courts of Petersburg, Dresden, and Vienna, to invade the Prussian dominions. He was before-hand with them, and began the war by some conquests."

L. P. Ségur, the elder, History of the Principal Events of the Reign of Frederic William II., King of Prussia, volume 1, pages 2-6.

GERMANY: A. D. 1745.
The consort of Maria Theresa elected Emperor (Francis I.).
Rise of the imperial house of Hapsburg-Lorraine.

"The great national quarrel between England and the powers which restrained her free movements on the sea and her extension of colonies, had never ceased. England would have the freedom of the sea: and on land she pushed population and ploughs where France paraded soldiers. In such a struggle war must come, but, by laws invariable as the laws of nature, the population will win in the end. After much bickering, blows began in 1754, and at the beginning of 1755 England despatched the ill-fated Braddock with a small force, which was destroyed in July. … As yet, however, the quarrel was only colonial. England embittered it by seizing French ships without any declaration of war. But why did Frederick [of Prussia] strike in, if indeed he desired peace? In truth there was no choice for him. As early as 1752-53 his secret agents had discovered that Austria, Russia and Saxony were hatching a plot for the destruction of Prussia, and such a partition as afterwards befell unhappy Poland. In 1753 a Saxon official, Mentzel by name, began to supply the Prussian agents with copies of secret documents from the archives at Dresden, which proved that, during the whole of the peace, negotiations had been proceeding for a simultaneous attack on Frederick, though the astute Brühl [Saxon minister], mindful of former defeats, objected to playing the part of jackal to the neighbouring lions. In short, by the end of 1755 the king knew that preparations were already on foot in Austria and Russia, and that he would probably be attacked next year certainly, or, at latest, the year after. A great war was coming between England and France, in which the continental power would attack Hanover, and tread closely on the skirts of Prussia. The situation was dangerous, and became terribly menacing when England bargained with Russia to subsidise a Muscovite army of 55,000 men for defence of Hanover. Russia consented with alacrity. Money was all that the czarina needed for her preparations against Frederick, and in the autumn of 1755 she assembled, not 55,000, but 70,000 men on the Prussian frontier, nominally for the use of England. But throughout the winter all the talk at St. Petersburg was of Frederick's destruction in the coming spring. It was time for him to stir. His first move was one of policy. He offered England a 'neutrality convention' by which the two powers jointly should guarantee the German Reich against all foreign intervention during the coming war. On the 16th of January, 1756, the convention was signed in London, and the Russian agreement thrown over, as it could well be, since it had not been ratified. Europe was now ranking herself for the struggle. In preceding years, the Austrian diplomatist, Kaunitz, had so managed the French court, especially through the medium of Madame de Pompadour, that Louis XV. was now on the side of Maria Theresa, who had bowed her neck so far as to write to the French king's mistress as 'Ma Cousine,' while Frederick forgot policy, and spoke of the Pompadour in slighting terms. 'Je ne la connais pas,' said he once, and was never forgiven. … The agreement with Russia to partition Prussia had already been made, and Frederick's sharp tongue had betrayed him into calling the czarina that 'Infame catin du nord.' Saxony waited for the appearance of her stronger neighbours in order to join them. England alone was Frederick's ally."

"The secret sources of the Third Silesian War, since called 'Seven-Years War,' go back to 1745; nay, we may say, to the First Invasion of Silesia in 1740. For it was in Maria Theresa's incurable sorrow at loss of Silesia, and her inextinguishable hope to reconquer it, that this and all Friedrich's other Wars had their origin. … Traitor Menzel the Saxon Kanzellist … has been busy for Prussia ever since 'the end of 1752.' Got admittance to the Presses; sent his first Excerpt 'about the time of Easter-Fair 1753,'—time of Voltaire's taking wing. And has been at work ever since. Copying Despatches from the most secret Saxon Repositories; ready always on Excellency Maltzahn's indicating the Piece wanted [Maltzahn being the Prussian Minister at Dresden]. … Menzel … lasted in free activity till 1757; and was then put under lock and key. Was not hanged: sat prisoner for twenty-seven years after; over-grown with hair, legs and arms chained together, heavy iron-bar uniting both ankles; diet bread-and-water;—for the rest, healthy; and died, not very miserable it is said, in 1784."

T. Carlyle, History of Friedrich II. of Prussia, book 17, chapter 1 (volume 7).

      Frederick II.,
      History of the Seven Years War
      (Posthumous Works, volume 2), chapter 3.

      H. Tuttle,
      History of Prussia, 1745-1756
      (volume 3), chapters 6-9.

      F. Von Raumer,
      Contributions to Modern History:
      Frederick II. and his Times, chapters 24-28.

      See, also,
      ENGLAND: A. D. 1754-1755;
      and AUSTRIA: A. D. 1755-1763.

GERMANY: A. D. 1756.
   The Seven Years War:
   Frederick strikes the first blow.
   Saxony subdued.

   "Finding that the storm was wholly inevitable, and must burst
   on him next year, he [Frederick], with bold sagacity,
   determined to forestall it. First, then, in August, 1756, his
   ambassador at Vienna had orders to demand of the Empress Queen
   a statement of her intentions, to announce war as the
   alternative, and to declare that he would accept no answer 'in
   the style of an oracle.' The answer, as he expected, was
   evasive. Without further delay an army of 60,000 Prussians,
   headed by Frederick in person, poured into Saxony. The Queen
   of Poland was taken in Dresden: the King of Poland [Augustus
   III. Elector of Saxony, and, by election, King of Poland] and
   his troops were blockaded in Pirna. Thus did Frederick
   commence that mighty struggle which is known to Germans by the
   name of the Seven Years' War. The first object of the Prussian
   monarch at Dresden was to obtain possession of the original
   documents of the coalition against him, whose existence he
   knew by means of the traitor Menzel. The Queen of Poland, no
   less aware than Frederick of the importance of these papers,
   had carried them to her own bed-chamber. She sat down on the
   trunk which contained the most material ones, and declared to
   the Prussian officer sent to seize them that nothing but force
   should move her from the spot. [The official account of this
   occurrence which Carlyle produces represents the Queen as
   'standing before the door' of the 'archive apartment' in which
   the compromising documents were locked up, she having
   previously sealed the door.] This officer was of Scottish
   blood, General Keith, the Earl Marischal's brother.
{1496}
   'All Europe,' said the Queen, 'would exclaim against this
   outrage; and then, sir, you will be the victim; depend upon
   it, your King is a man to sacrifice you to his own honour!'
   Keith, who knew Frederick's character, was startled, and sent
   for further orders; but on receiving a reiteration of the
   first he did his duty. The papers were then made public,
   appended to a manifesto in vindication of Frederick's conduct;
   and they convinced the world that, although the apparent
   aggressor in his invasion of Saxony, he had only acted on the
   principles of self-defence. Meanwhile, the Prussian army
   closely blockaded the Saxon in Pirna, but the Austrian, under
   Marshal Brown, an officer of British extraction, was advancing
   to its relief through the mountain passes of Bohemia.
   Frederick left a sufficient force to maintain the blockade,
   marched against Brown with the remainder, and gave him battle
   at Lowositz [or Lobositz] on the 1st of October. It proved a
   hard-fought day; the King no longer found, as he says in one
   of his letters, the old Austrians he remembered; and his loss
   in killed and wounded was greater than theirs [3,308 against
   2,984]; but victory declared on his side. Then retracing his
   steps towards Pirna he compelled, by the pressure of famine,
   the whole Saxon army, 17,000 strong, to an unconditional
   surrender. The officers were sent home on parole, but the
   soldiers were induced, partly by force and partly by
   persuasion, to enlist in the Prussian ranks, and swear
   fidelity to Frederick. Their former sovereign, King Augustus,
   remained securely perched on his castle-rock of Königstein,
   but, becoming weary of confinement, solicited, and was most
   readily granted, passports to Warsaw. During the whole winter
   Frederick fixed his head-quarters at Dresden, treating Saxony
   in all respects as a conquered province, or as one of his own.
   Troops and taxes were levied throughout that rich and populous
   land with unsparing rigour, and were directed against the very
   cause which the sovereign of that land had embraced."

Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope), History of England, 1713-1783, chapter 33 (volume 4).

ALSO IN: T. Carlyle, History of Friedrich II., book 17, chapters 4-8 (volume 7).

GERMANY: A.-D. 1756-1757.
   The Seven Years War:
   Frederick under the Ban of the Empire.
   The coalition against Frederick.

"All through the winter Austria strained every nerve to consolidate her alliances, and she did not scruple to use her position at the head of the Empire, in order to drag that body into the quarrel that had arisen between two of its members. On his own responsibility, without consulting the electors, princes, and cities, the Emperor passed sentence on Frederick, and condemned him, unheard, as a disturber of the peace. Many of the great cities altogether refused to publish the Emperor's decree, and even among the states generally subservient to Austria there were some that were alarmed at so flagrant a disregard of law and precedent. It may have seemed a sign of what was to be expected should Prussia be annihilated, and no state remain in Germany that dared to lift up its voice against Austria. Nevertheless, in spite of this feeling, and in spite of the opposition of nearly all the Protestant states, Austria succeeded in inducing the Empire to espouse her cause. In all three colleges of electors, princes, and cities she obtained a majority, and at a diet held on January 17, 1757, it was resolved that an army of the Empire should be set on foot for the purpose of making war on Prussia. Some months later Frederick was put to the ban of the Empire. But the use of this antiquated weapon served rather to throw ridicule on those who employed it than to injure him against whom it was launched. … It has been calculated that the population of the States arrayed against Frederick the Great amounted to 90,000,000, and that they put 430,000 men into the field in the year 1757. The population of Prussia was 4,500,000, her army 200,000 strong; but, after deducting the garrisons of the fortresses, there remained little over 150,000 men available for service in the field. The odds against Frederick were great, but they were not absolutely overwhelming. His territories were scattered and difficult of defence, the extremities hardly defensible at all; but he occupied a central position from which he might, by rapidity of movement, be able to take his assailants in detail, unless their plans were distinguished by a harmony unusual in the efforts of a coalition."

F. W. Longman, Frederick the Great and the Seven Years' War, chapter 8, section 3.

GERMANY: A. D. 1757 (April-June).
   The Seven Years War:
   Frederick's, invasion of Bohemia.
   Victory at Prague and defeat at Kolin.

"At the commencement of 1757, the grand confederacy against the king of Prussia was consolidated by the efforts and intrigues of the court of Vienna. The French had drawn together 80,000 men on the Rhine, under the command of marshal d' Etrées; the army of execution was assembling in the empire; the Swedes were preparing to penetrate into Pomerania, and 60,000 Russians were stationed on the frontiers of Livonia, waiting the season of action to burst into the kingdom of Prussia. With this favourable aspect of affairs, the empress prepared for the campaign by augmenting her forces in Hungary and Bohemia to 150,000 men; the main army, stationed in the vicinity of Prague, was commanded by Prince Charles, who was assisted by the skill of marshal Brown, and the other corps intrusted to count Daun. Frederic possessed too much foresight and vigilance to remain inactive while his enemies were collecting their forces; he therefore resolved to carry the war into the heart of the Austrian territories, and by a decisive stroke to shake the basis of the confederacy. He covered this plan with consummate address; he affected great trepidation and uncertainty, and, to deceive the Austrians into a belief that he only intended to maintain himself in Saxony, put Dresden in a state of defence, broke down the bridges, and marked out various camps in the vicinity. In the midst of this apparent alarm three Prussian columns burst into Bohemia, in April, and rapidly advanced towards Prague. … The Austrians, pressed on all sides, retreated with precipitation under the walls of Prague, on the southern side of the Moldau, while the Prussians advancing towards the capital formed two bodies; one under Schwerin remaining at Jung Bunzlau, and the other, headed by the king, occupying the heights between the Moldau and the Weisseberg. {1497} Expecting to be joined by marshal Daun, who was hastening from Moravia, the Austrians remained on the defensive; but prince Charles took so strong a position as seemed to defy all apprehensions of an attack. … These obstacles, however, were insufficient to arrest the daring spirit of Frederic, who resolved to attack the Austrians before the arrival of Daun. Leaving a corps under prince Maurice above Prague, he crossed the Moldau near Rostock and Podabe on the 5th of May, with 16,000 men, and on the following morning at break of day was joined by the corps under marshal Schwerin. … Victory declared on the side of the Prussians, but was purchased by the loss of their best troops, not less than 18,000, even by the avowal of the king, being killed, with many of his bravest officers, and Schwerin, the father of the Prussian discipline, and the guide of Frederic in the career of victory. Of the Austrians 8,000 were killed and wounded, 9,000 made prisoners, and 28,000 shut up within the walls of Prague. … A column of 16,000 Austrians made good their retreat along the Moldau to join the army of marshal Daun. Prague was instantly blockaded by the victorious army, and not less than 100,000 souls were confined within the walls, almost without the means of subsistence. They were soon reduced to the greatest extremities. … In this disastrous moment the house of Austria was preserved from impending destruction by the skill and caution of a general, who now, for the first time, appeared at the head of an army. This general was Leopold count Daun, a native of Bohemia. … Daun had marched through Moravia towards Prague, to effect a junction with prince Charles. On arriving at Boehmischgrod, within a few miles of Prague, he was apprised of the recent defeat, and halted a few days to collect the fugitives, till his corps swelled so considerably that Frederic detached against him the prince of Bevern with 20,000 men." Daun declined battle and retreated, until he had collected an army of 60,000 men and restored their courage. He then advanced, forcing back the prince of Bevern, and when Frederick, joining the latter with reinforcements, attacked him at Kolin, on the 18th of June, he inflicted on the Prussian king a disastrous defeat—the first which Frederick had known. The Prussian troops, "for the first time defeated, gave way to despondency, and in their retreat exclaimed, 'This is our Pultawa.' Daun purchased the victory with the loss of 9,000 men; but on the side of the Prussians not less than 14,000 were killed, wounded, and taken prisoners, and 43 pieces of artillery, with 22 standards, fell into the hands of the Austrians. Maria Theresa … conveyed in person the news of this important victory to the countess Daun, and instituted the military order of merit, or the Order of Maria Theresa, with which she decorated the commander and officers who had most signalised themselves, and dated its commencement from the æra of that glorious victory. To give repose to the troops, and to replace the magazines which had been destroyed by the Prussians, Daun remained several days on the field of battle; and as he advanced to Prague found that the Prussians had raised the siege on the 20th of June, and were retreating with precipitation towards Saxony and Lusatia."

      F. Kugler,
      Pict. History of Germany during the
      Reign of Frederick the Great,
      chapter 25.

GERMANY: A. D. 1757 (July-December).
   The Seven Years War:
   Darkening and brightening of Frederick's career.
   Closter-Seven.
   Rossbach.
   Leuthen.

The enemies of the King of Prussia "were now closing upon him from every side. The provinces beyond the Vistula became the prey of Russian hordes, to which only one division of Prussians under Marshal Lehwald was opposed. In the result, however, their own devastations, and the consequent want of supplies, proved a check to their further progress during this campaign. In Westphalia above 80,000 effective French soldiers were advancing, commanded by the Mareschal d'Estrées, a grandson of the famous minister Louvois. The Duke of Cumberland, who had undertaken to defend his father's electorate against them, was at the head of a motley army of scarce 50,000 men. … His military talents were not such as to supply his want of numbers or of combination; he allowed the French to pass the deep and rapid Weser unopposed; he gave them no disturbance when laying waste great part of the Electorate; he only fell back from position to position until at length the enemy came up with him at the village of Hastenback near Hameln. There, on the 26th of July, an action was fought, and the Duke was worsted with the loss of several hundred men, The only resource of His Royal Highness was a retreat across the wide Lüneberg moors, to cover the town of Stade towards the mouth of the Elbe, where the archives and other valuable effects from Hanover had been already deposited for safety." Intrigue at Versailles having recalled D'Estrées and sent the Duke de Richelieu into his place, the latter pressed the Duke of Cumberland so closely, hemming him in and cutting off his communications, that he was soon glad to make terms. On the 8th of September the English Duke signed, at Closter-Seven, a convention under which the auxiliary troops in his army were sent home, the Hanoverians dispersed, and only a garrison left at Stade. "After the battle of Kolin and the Convention of Closter-Seven, the position of Frederick,— hemmed in on almost every side by victorious enemies,—was not only most dangerous but well-nigh desperate. To his own eyes it seemed so. He resolved in his thoughts, and discussed with his friends, the voluntary death of Otho as a worthy example to follow. Fully resolved never to fall alive into the hands of his enemies, nor yet to survive any decisive overthrow, he carried about his person a sure poison in a small glass phial. Yet … he could still, with indomitable skill and energy, make every preparation for encountering the Prince de Soubise. He marched against the French commander at the head of only 22,000 men; but these were veterans, trained in the strictest discipline, and full of confidence in their chief. Soubise, on the other hand, owed his appointment in part to his illustrious lineage, as head of the House of Rohan, and still more to Court-favour, as the minion of Madame de Pompadour, but in no degree to his own experience or abilities. He had under his orders nearly 40,000 of his countrymen, and nearly 20,000 troops of the Empire; for the Germanic diet also had been induced to join the league against Frederick. On the 5th of November the two armies came to a battle at Rosbach [or Rossbach], close to the plain of Lützen, where in the preceding century Gustavus Adolphus conquered and fell. {1498} By the skilful manœvres of Frederick the French were brought to believe that the Prussians intended nothing but retreat, and they advanced in high spirits as if only to pursue the fugitives. Of a sudden they found themselves attacked with all the compactness of discipline, and all the courage of despair. The troops of the Empire, a motley crew, fled at the first fire. … So rapid was the victory that the right wing of the Prussians, under Prince Ferdinand of Brunswick, was never engaged at all. Great numbers of the French were cut down in their flight by the Prussian cavalry, not a few perished in the waters of the Saale, and full 7,000 were made prisoners, with a large amount of baggage, artillery and standards. … The battle of Rosbach was not more remarkable for its military results than for its moral influence. It was hailed throughout Germany as a triumph of the Teutonic over the Gallic race. … So precarious was now Frederick's position that the battle of Rosbach, as he said himself, gained him nothing but leisure to fight another battle elsewhere. During his absence on the Saale, the Austrian armies had poured over the mountains into Silesia; they had defeated the Prussians under the Duke of Bevern; they had taken the main fortress, Schweidnitz, and the capital, Breslau; nearly the whole province was already theirs. A flying detachment of 4,000 cavalry, under General Haddick, had even pushed into Brandenburg, and levied a contribution from the city of Berlin [entering one of the suburbs of the Prussian capital and holding it for twelve hours]. The advancing season seemed to require winter quarters, but Frederick never dreamed of rest until Silesia was recovered. He hastened by forced marches from the Saale to the Oder, gathering reinforcements while he went along. As he drew near Breslau, the Imperial commander, Prince Charles of Lorraine, flushed with recent victory and confident in superior numbers, disregarded the prudent advice of Marshal Daun, and descended from an almost inaccessible position to give the King of Prussia battle on the open plain. … On the 5th of December, one month from the battle of Rosbach, the two armies met at Leuthen, a small village near Breslau, Frederick with 40,000, Prince Charles of Lorraine with between 60,000 and 70,000 men. For several hours did the conflict rage doubtfully and fiercely. It was decided mainly by the skill and the spirit of the Prussian monarch. 'The battle of Leuthen,' says Napoleon, 'was a master-piece. Did it even stand alone it would of itself entitle Frederick to immortal fame.' In killed, wounded and taken, the Austrians lost no less than 27,000 men; above 50 standards, above 100 cannon, above 4,000 waggons, became the spoil of the victors; Breslau was taken, Schweidnitz blockaded, Silesia recovered; the remnant of the Imperial forces fled back across the mountains; and Frederick, after one of the longest and most glorious campaigns that History records, at length allowed himself and his soldiers some repose."

Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope), History of England, 1713-1783, chapter 34 (volume 4).

      Sir E. Cust,
      Annals of the Wars of the 18th Century,
      volume 2, pages 217-240.

GERMANY: A. D. 1758.
   The Seven Years War:
   Campaign in Hanover.
   Siege of Olmütz.
   Russian defeat at Zorndorf.
   Prussian defeat at Hochkirch.

   "Before the end of 1757, England began to take a more active
   part on the Continent. Lord Chatham brought about the
   rejection of the Convention of Closter-Zeven by Parliament,
   and the recall of Cumberland by the king. The efficient Prince
   Ferdinand of Brunswick was proposed by Frederick and made
   commander of the English and Hanoverian forces. He opened the
   campaign of 1758 in the winter. The French, under Clermont,
   being without discipline or control, he drove them in headlong
   flight out of their winter-quarters in Hanover and Westphalia,
   to the Rhine and across it; and on June 23 defeated them at
   the battle of Crefeld. A French army under Soubise afterward
   crossed the Rhine higher up, and Ferdinand, retreated, but
   succeeded in protecting the west as far as the Weser against
   General Contades. Frederick first retook Schweidnitz, April
   16. He then, in order to prevent the junction of the Russians
   and Austrians, ventured to attack Austria, and invaded
   Moravia. His brother, Prince Henry, had but a small force in
   Saxony, and Frederick thought that he could best cover that
   country by an attack on Austria. But the siege of Olmütz
   detained him from May until July, and his prospects grew more
   doubtful. The Austrians captured a convoy of 300 wagons of
   military stores, which Ziethen was to have escorted to him.
   [Instead of 800, the convoy comprised 3,000 to 4,000 wagons,
   of which only 200 reached the Prussian camp, and its
   destruction by General Loudon completely frustrated
   Frederick's plan of campaign.] Frederick raised the siege,
   and, by an admirable retreat, brought his army through Bohemia
   by way of Königgrätz to Landshut. Here he received bad news.
   The Russians, under Fermor, were again in Prussia, occupying
   the eastern province, but treating it mildly as a conquered
   country, where the empress already received the homage of the
   people. They then advanced, with frightful ravages, through
   Pomerania and Neumark to the Oder, and were now near Küstrin,
   which they laid in ashes. Frederick made haste to meet them.
   He was so indignant at the desolation of the country and the
   suffering of his people that he forbade quarter to be given.
   The report of this fact also embittered the Russians. At
   Zorndorf, Frederick met the enemy, 50,000 strong, August 25,
   1758. They were drawn up in a great square or phalanx, in the
   ancient, half-barbarous manner. A frightfully bloody fight
   followed, since the Russians would not yield, and were cut
   down in heaps. Seidlitz, the victor of Rossbach, by a timely
   charge of his cavalry, captured the Russian artillery, and
   crushed their right wing. On the second day the Russians were
   driven back, but not without inflicting heavy loss on the
   Prussians, who, though they suffered much less than their
   enemies, left more than one third of their force on the field.
   The Russians were compelled to withdraw from Prussia.
   Frederick then hastened to Saxony, where his brother Henry was
   sorely pressed by Daun and the imperial army. He could not
   even wait to relieve Silesia, where Neisse, his principal
   fortress, was threatened. Daun, hearing of his approach, took
   up a position in his way, between Bautzen and Görlitz. But
   Frederick, whose contempt for this prudent and slow general
   was excessive, occupied a camp in a weak and exposed position,
   at Hochkirch, under Daun's very eyes, against the protest of
   his own generals.
{1499}
   He remained there three days unmolested; but on October 14,
   the day fixed for advancing, the Austrians attacked him with
   twice his numbers. A desperate fight took place in the burning
   village; the Prussians were driven out, and lost many guns.
   Frederick himself was in imminent danger, and his friends
   Keith and Duke Francis of Brunswick fell at his side. Yet the
   army did not lose its spirit or its discipline. Within eleven
   days Frederick, who had been joined by his brother Henry, was
   in Silesia, and relieved Neisse and Kosel. Thus the campaign
   of 1758 ended favorably to Frederick. The pope sent Daun a
   consecrated hat and sword, as a testimonial for his victory at
   Hochkirch."

F. Kugler, Pict. History of Germany during the Reign of Frederick the Great, chapters 29-31.

      Frederick II.,
      History of the Seven Years War
      (Posthumous Works, volume 2), chapter 8.

GERMANY: A. D. 1759 (April-August).
   The Seven Years War:
   Prince Ferdinand's Hanoverian campaign.
   Defeat at Bergen and victory at Minden.

In the Hanoverian field of war, where Prince Ferdinand of Brunswick held command, the campaign of 1759 was important, and prosperous in the end for the allies of Prussia. "Besides the Hanoverians and Hessians in British pay, he [Prince Ferdinand] had under his direction 10,000 or 12,000 British soldiers, amongst whom, since the death of the Duke of Marlborough, Lord George Sackville was the senior officer. The French, on their part, were making great exertions, under the new administration of the Duke de Choiseul; large reinforcements were sent into Germany, and early in the year they surprised by stratagem the free city of Frankfort and made it the place of arms for their southern army. No object could be of greater moment to Ferdinand than to dislodge them from this important post." Marching quickly, with 30,000 of his army, he attacked the French, under the Duke de Broglie, at Bergen, on the Nidda, in front of Frankfort, April 13, and was repulsed, after heavy fighting, with a loss of 2,000 men. "This reverse would, it was supposed, reduce Prince Ferdinand to the defensive during the remainder of the campaign. Both De Broglie and Contades eagerly pushed forward, their opponents giving way before them. Combining their forces, they reduced Cassel, Munster, and Minden, and they felt assured that the whole Electorate must soon again be theirs. Already had the archives and the most valuable property been sent off from Hanover to Stade. Already did a new Hastenbeck—a new Closter-Seven—rise in view. But it was under such difficulties that the genius of Ferdinand shone forth. With a far inferior army (for thus much is acknowledged, although I do not find the French numbers clearly or precisely stated), he still maintained his ground on the left of the Weser, and supplied every defect by his superiority of tactics. He left a detachment of 5,000 men exposed, and seemingly unguarded, as a bait to lure De Contades from his strong position at Minden. The French Mareschal was deceived by the feint, and directed the Duke De Broglie to march forward and profit by the blunder, as he deemed it to be. On the 1st of August, accordingly, De Broglie advanced into the plain, his force divided in eight columns." Instead of the small corps expected, he found the whole army of the allies in front of him. De Contades hurried to his assistance, and the French, forced to accept battle in an unfavorable position, were overcome. At the decisive moment of their retreat, "the Prince sent his orders to Lord George Sackville, who commanded the whole English and some German cavalry on the right wing of the Allies, and who had hitherto been kept back as a reserve. The orders were to charge and overwhelm the French in their retreat, before they could reach any clear ground to rally. Had these orders been duly fulfilled, it is acknowledged by French writers that their army must have been utterly destroyed; but Lord George either could not or would not understand what was enjoined on him. … Under such circumstances the victory of Minden would not have been signal or complete but for a previous and most high-spirited precaution of Prince Ferdinand. He had sent round to the rear of the French a body of 10,000 men, under his nephew—and also the King of Prussia's—the Hereditary Prince of Brunswick. … Thus Ferdinand became master of the passes, and the French were constrained to continue their retreat in disorder. Upon the whole, their loss was 8,000 men killed, wounded, or taken, 30 pieces of artillery, and 17 standards. … Great was the rejoicing in England at the victory of Minden"; but loud the outcry against Lord George Sackville, who was recalled and dismissed from all his employments.

Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope), History of England, 1713-1783, chapter 36 (volume 4).

ALSO IN: Sir E. Cust, Annals of the Wars of the 18th Century, volume 2, pages 327-333.

GERMANY: A. D. 1759 (July-November).
   The Seven Years War:
   Disasters of Frederick.
   Kunersdorf.
   Dresden.
   Maxen.

"Three years of the war were gone and the ardour of Frederick's' enemies showed no signs of abating. The war was unpopular in the Russian army, but the Czarina thought no sacrifice too great for the gratification of her hatred. France was sick of it too, and tottering on the verge of national bankruptcy, but Louis was kept true to his engagements by domestic influences and by the unbending determination of Maria Theresa never to lay down arms until Prussia was thoroughly humbled. … Already Frederick was at his wits' end for men and money. Of the splendid infantry which had stormed the heights at Prague, and stemmed the rout of Kollin, very little now remained. … Moreover, Austria, relying on her vastly larger population, had ceased to exchange prisoners, and after the end of 1759 Russia followed her example. … Frederick's pecuniary difficulties were even greater still. But for the English subsidy he could hardly have subsisted at all. … The summer was half gone before there was any serious fighting. Frederick had got together 125,000 men of some sort, besides garrison troops, but he no longer felt strong enough to take the initiative, and the Austrians were equally indisposed to attack without the co-operation of their allies. Towards the middle of July the Russians, under Count Soltikoff, issued from Posen, advanced to the Oder', and, after defeating a weak Prussian corps near Kay, took possession of Frankfort. {1500} It now became necessary for the king to march in person against them, the more especially as Laudon [or Loudon] with 18,000 Austrians was on his way to join Soltikoff. Before he could reach Frankfort, Laudon, eluding with much dexterity the vigilance of his enemies, effected his junction, and Frederick, with 48,000 men, found himself confronted by an army 78,000 strong. The Russians were encamped on the heights of Kunersdorf, east of Frankfort." Frederick attacked them, August 12, with brilliant success at first, routing their left wing and taking 70 guns, with several thousand prisoners. "The Prussian generals then besought the king to rest content with the advantage he had gained. The day was intensely hot; his soldiers had been on foot for twelve hours, and were suffering severely from thirst and exhaustion; moreover, if the Russians were let alone, they would probably go off quietly in the night, as they had done after Zorndorf. Unhappily Frederick refused to take counsel. He wanted to destroy the Russian army, not merely to defeat it; he had seized the Frankfort bridge and cut off its retreat." He persisted in his attack and was beaten off. "The Prussians were in full retreat when Laudon swept down upon them with eighteen fresh squadrons. The retreat became a rout more disorderly than in any battle of the war except Rossbach. The king, stupefied with his disaster, could hardly be induced to quit the field, and was heard to mutter, 'Is there then no cursed bullet that can reach me?' The defeat was overwhelming. Had it been properly followed up, it must have put an end to the war, and Kunersdorf would have ranked among the decisive battles of the world. Berlin lay open to the enemy; the royal family fled to Magdeburg. For the first (and last) time in his life Frederick gave way utterly to despair. 'I have no resources left,' he wrote to the minister Finckenstein the evening after the battle, 'and to tell the truth I hold all for lost. I shall not survive the ruin of my country. Farewell for ever.' The same night he resigned the command of the army to General Finck. Eighteen thousand, five hundred of his soldiers were killed, wounded, or prisoners, and the rest were so scattered that no more than 3,000 remained under his command. All the artillery was lost, and most of his best generals were killed or wounded. … By degrees, however, the prospect brightened. The fugitives kept coming in, and the enemy neglected to give the finishing stroke. Frederick shook off his despair, and resumed the command of his army. Artillery was ordered up from Berlin, and the troops serving against the Swedes were recalled from Pomerania. Within a week of Kunersdorf he was at the head of 33,000 men, and in a position to send relief to Dresden, which was besieged by an Austrian and Imperialist army. The relief, as it happened, arrived just too late." Dresden was surrendered by its commandant, Schmettau, on the 4th of September, to the great wrath of Frederick. By a wonderful march of fifty-eight miles in fifty hours, Prince Henry, the brother of Frederick, prevented the Austrians from gaining the whole electorate of Saxony. The Russians and the Austrians quarrelled, the former complaining that they were left to do all the fighting, and presently they withdrew into Poland. "With the departure of the Russians, the campaign would probably have ended, had not Frederick's desire to close it with a victory led him into a fresh disaster, hardly less serious and far more disgraceful than that of Kunersdorf. … With the view of hastening the retreat of the Austrians, and of driving them, if possible, into the difficult Pirna country, he ordered General Finck to take post with his corps at Maxen, to bar their direct line of communications with Bohemia." As the result, Finck, with his whole corps, of 12,000, were overwhelmed and taken prisoners. "The capitulation of Maxen was no less destructive of Frederick's plans than galling to his pride. The Austrians now retained Dresden, a place of great strategical importance, though the king, in the hope of dislodging them, exposed the wrecks of his army to the ruinous hardships of a winter campaign, in weather of unusual severity, and borrowed 12,000 men of Ferdinand of Brunswick to cover his flank while so engaged. The new year had commenced before he allowed his harassed troops to go into winter-quarters."

F. W. Longman, Frederick the Great and the Seven Years War, chapter 10, section 2.

      Frederick II.,
      History of the Seven Years War
      (Posthumous Works, volume 3), chapter 10.

GERMANY: A. D. 1760.
   The Seven Years War:
   Saxony reconquered by Frederick.
   Dresden bombarded.
   Battles of Liegnitz, Torgau and Warburg.

   "The campaign of 1759 had extended far into the winter, and
   Frederick conceived the bold idea of renewing it while the
   vigilance of his enemies was relaxed in winter quarters, and
   of making another effort to drive the Austrians from Saxony.
   His head-quarters were at Freyberg. Having received
   reinforcements from Prince Ferdinand, and been joined by
   12,000 men under the hereditary prince, he left the latter to
   keep guard behind the Mulde, and in January 1760, at a time
   when the snow lay deep upon the ground, he made a fierce
   spring upon the Austrians, who were posted at Dippoldiswalde;
   but General Maguire, who commanded there, baffled him by the
   vigilance and skill with which he guarded every pass, and
   compelled him to retrace his steps to Freyberg. When the
   winter had passed and the regular campaign had opened, Laudohn
   [Loudon], one of the most active of the Austrian generals—the
   same who had borne a great part in the victories of
   Hochkirchen and Kunersdorf—entered Silesia, surprised with a
   greatly superior force the Prussian General Fouqué, compelled
   him, with some thousands of soldiers, to surrender [at
   Landshut, June 22], and a few days later reduced the important
   fortress of Glatz [July 26]. Frederick, at the first news of
   the danger of Fouqué, marched rapidly towards Silesia, Daun
   slowly following, while an Austrian corps, under General Lacy,
   impeded his march by incessant skirmishes. On learning the
   surrender of Fouqué, Frederick at once turned and hastened
   towards Dresden. It was July, and the heat was so intense that
   on a single day more than a hundred of his soldiers dropped dead
   upon the march. He hoped to gain some days upon Daun, who was
   still pursuing, and to become master of Dresden before
   succours arrived. As he expected, he soon outstripped the
   Austrian general, and the materials for the siege were
   collected with astonishing rapidity, but General Maguire, who
   commanded at Dresden, defended it with complete success till
   the approach of the Austrian army obliged Frederick to retire.
{1501}
   Baffled in his design, he took a characteristic vengeance by
   bombarding that beautiful city with red-hot balls,
   slaughtering multitudes of its peaceable inhabitants, and
   reducing whole quarters to ashes; and he then darted again
   upon Silesia, still followed by the Austrian general. Laudohn
   had just met with his first reverse, having failed in the
   siege of Breslau [an attempted surprise and a brief
   bombardment]; on August 15, when Daun was still far off,
   Frederick fell upon him and beat him in the battle of
   Liegnitz. [The statement that 'Daun was still far off' appears
   to be erroneous. Loudon and Daun had formed a junction four
   days before, and had planned a concerted attack on Frederick's
   camp; Loudon was struck and defeated while making the movement
   agreed upon, and Daun was only a few miles away at the time.]
   Soon after, however, this success was counterbalanced by Lacy
   and Totleben, who; at the head of some Austrians and Russians,
   had marched upon Berlin, which, after a brave resistance, was
   once more captured and ruthlessly plundered; but on the
   approach of Frederick the enemy speedily retreated. Frederick
   then turned again towards Saxony, which was again occupied by
   Daun, and on November 3 he attacked his old enemy in his
   strong entrenchments at Torgau. Daun, in addition to the
   advantage of position, had the advantage of great numerical
   superiority, for his army was reckoned at 65,000, while that
   of Frederick was not more than 44,000. But the generalship of
   Frederick gained the victory. General Ziethen succeeded in
   attacking the Austrians in the rear, gaining the height, and
   throwing them into confusion. Daun was wounded and disabled,
   and General O'Donnell, who was next in command, was unable to
   restore the Austrian line. The day was conspicuous for its
   carnage, even among the bloody battles of the Seven Years'
   War: 20,000 Austrians were killed, wounded, or prisoners,
   while 14,000 Prussians were left on the field. The battle
   closed the campaign for the year, leaving all Saxony in the
   possession of the Prussians, with the exception of Dresden,
   which was still held by Maguire. The English and German army,
   under Prince Ferdinand, succeeded in the meantime in keeping
   at bay a very superior French army, under Marshal Broglio; and
   several slight skirmishes took place, with various results.
   The battle of Warburg, which was the most important, was won
   chiefly by the British cavalry, but Prince Ferdinand failed in
   his attempts to take Wesel and Gottingen; and at the close of
   the year the French took up their quarters at Cassel."

"All Frederick's exertions produced him only 96,000 men for defence of Silesia and Saxony this year [1761]. Prince Henry had to face Daun in Saxony; the king himself stood in Silesia against Loudon and the Russians under Butterlin. Loudon opened the campaign by advancing against Goltz, near Schweidnitz, in April. Goltz had only 12,000 to his adversary's 30,000, but posted himself so well that Loudon could not attack him. Reinforcements came gradually to Loudon, raising his army to 72,000, but orders from Vienna obliged him to remain inactive till he could be joined near Neisse by the Russians with 60,000. Goltz, manœuvring against the Russians, was taken prisoner. The king himself delayed the junction of his enemies for some time, but could not now offer battle. The junction took place the 18th of August. He then struck at Loudon's communications, but the thrust was well parried, and on the 20th of August, Frederick, for the first time, was reduced to an attitude of pure defence. He formed an intrenched camp at Bunzelwitz, and lay there, blocking the way to Schweidnitz. Loudon's intreaties could not persuade the Russians to join him in full force to attack the position, and on the 9th of September Butterlin's army fell back across the Oder, leaving 20,000 of his men to act under Loudon. Frederick remained a fortnight longer in the camp of Bunzelwitz, but was then forced to go, as his army was eating up the magazines of Schweidnitz. Again he moved against Loudon's magazines, but the Austrian general boldly marched for Schweidnitz, and captured the place by assault on the night of the 30th September—1st October. No fight took place between London and the king. They both went into winter quarters in December—Prussians at Strehlen, Austrians at Kunzendorf, and Russians about Glatz. … In the western theatre Ferdinand defeated Broglio and Soubise at Vellinghausen [or Wellinghausen, or Kirch-Denkern, as the battle, fought July 15, is differently called], the English contingent again behaving gloriously. … Prince Henry and Daun manœuvred skilfully throughout the campaign, but never came to serious blows. Frederick is described as being very gloomy in mind this winter. The end of the year left him with but 60,000 men in Saxony, Silesia, and the north. Eugene of Wurtemburg had 5,000 to hold back the Swedes, Prince Henry 25,000 in Saxony, the king himself 30,000. But the agony of France was increasing; Maria Theresa had to discharge 20,000 men from want of money, and Frederick's bitter enemy, 'cette infame Catin du Nord' [the czarina Elizabeth], was failing fast in health. A worse blow to the king than the loss of a battle had been the fall of Pitt, in October, and with him all hope of English subsidies. Still, the enemies of Prussia were almost exhausted. One more year of brave and stubborn resistance, and Prussia must be left in peace. By extraordinary exertions, and a power of administrative organisation which was one of his greatest qualities, Frederick not only kept up his 60, 000, but doubled their number. In the spring he had 70,000 for his Silesian army, 40,000 for Prince Henry in Saxony, and 10,000 for the Swedes or other purposes. Best news of all, the czarina died on the 5th of January, 1762, and Peter, who succeeded her—only for a short time, poor boy—was an ardent admirer of the great king. Frederick at once released and sent home his Russian prisoners, an act which brought back his Prussians from Russia. On the 23rd February Peter declared his intention to be at peace and amity with Frederick, concluded peace on the 5th of May, and a treaty of alliance a month later. The Swedes, following suit, declared peace on the 22nd of May, and Frederick could now give his sole attention to the Austrians." For a few weeks, only, the Prussian king had a Russian contingent of 20,000 in alliance with him, but could make no use of it. {1502} It was recalled in July, by the revolution at St. Petersburg, which deposed the young czar, Peter, in favour of his ambitious consort, Catherine. Frederick succeeded in concealing the fact long enough to frighten Daun by a show of preparations for attacking him, with the Russian troops included in his army, and the Austrian general retired to Glatz and Bohemia. Frederick then took Schweidnitz, and marched on Dresden. "Daun followed heavily. Like a prize-fighter knocked out of time, he had no more fight in him. Prince Henry had two affairs with the Reich's army and its Austrian contingent. Forced to retire from Freyburg on the 15th, he afterwards attacked them on the 29th of October and defeated them by a turning movement. They had 40,000, he 30, 000. The Austrian contingent suffered most. In the western theatre Ferdinand held his own and had his usual successes. His part in the war was to defend only, and he never failed to show high qualities as a general. Thus, nowhere had Frederick's enemies succeeded in crushing his defences. For seven years the little kingdom of Prussia had held her ground against the three great military powers, France, Austria, and Russia. All were now equally exhausted. The constancy, courage, and ability of Frederick were rewarded at last; on the 15th of February, 1763, the treaty of Hubertsburg was signed, by which Austria once more agreed to the cession of Silesia. Prussia was now a Great Power like the rest, her greatness resting on no shams, as she had proved."

ALSO IN: Sir E. Cust, Annals of the Wars of the 18th Century, volume 3, pages 57-87.

      Frederick II.,
      History of the Seven Years War
      (Posthumous Works, volume 3), chapters 14-16.

GERMANY: A. D. 1763.
The end, results and costs of the Seven Years War.
The Peace of Hubertsburg and Peace of Paris.

GERMANY: A. D. 1763-1790.
   A period of peace and progress.
   Intellectual cultivation.
   Accession of the Emperor Joseph II.
   His character and his reforms.
   Accession of Leopold II.

"The peace of nearly thirty years which followed the Seven-Years' War in Germany was a time of rich mental activity and growth. Court life itself, if its vanities were not abolished, still acquired a more enlightened and humane tone. The fierce passions of the princes no longer exclusively controlled it: there was something of regard for education, for art and science, and for the public welfare. This is particularly true of courts which were intimately connected with Prussia; as that of Brunswick, where Duke Charles, Frederick II.'s brother-in-law, though personally an extravagant prince, founded an institution of learning which brought together many of the best intellects of Germany (1740 to 1760), or that of Anhalt-Dessau, where the famous 'Philanthropinum' was established. Several princes imitated Frederick's military administration, and that sometimes on a scale so small as to be ludicrous. Prince William of Lippe-Schaumburg founded in his little territory a fortress and a school of war. But this school educated Scharnhorst, and the prince himself won fame in distant lands. He invited Herder to his little court at Bückeburg. Weimar, too, imitated Frederick's example, where the Duchess Amalie, daughter of Charles of Brunswick, and her intellectual son, Charles Augustus, made their little cities Weimar and Jena places of gathering for the greatest men of genius of the time. Among the petty Thuringian princes of this period, there were others of noble character. In 1764 the Saxon throne was ascended by Frederick Augustus, grandson of Augustus III., but, being a minor, he could not be elected king of Poland. This put an end to the union of the two titles, which had been the cause of immeasurable evil to Saxony and to Germany. When the young elector attained his majority, the government of Saxony was greatly improved, and a period of prosperity followed. Duke Charles Eugene of Wirtemberg (1737-1793), during his early years, rivaled Louis XV. in extravagance and immorality, but in after-days was greatly changed. He founded the Charles School, at which Schiller was educated. Baden enjoyed a high degree of prosperity under Charles Frederick (1746-1811). Even the spiritual lords, on the whole, threw their influence in favor of enlightenment and progress. … The prelates of Cologne, Trèves, Mayence, and Salzburg, strange to say, agreed at Ems in 1786 to renounce the supremacy of Rome, and to found an independent German Catholic Church; but the plan was broken down by the resistance of the inferior clergy and of the Emperor Joseph II. Some of the German states were slow to take part in the general progress. Bavaria was constantly retarded by the influence of the Jesuits. … The Palatinate, too, was under luxurious and idle rulers, mostly in the pay of France. In some territories the boundless extravagance of the princes was a terrible burden upon their subjects. … Men who professed enlightenment and humanity were often shamefully tyrannical. The courts of Cassel and Wirtemberg sold their people by regiments to England, to fight against the independence of the North American Colonies. …

   Austria shared in the general intellectual awakening of
   Germany. Maria Theresa was a firm, strong character, with a
   clear mind and sincere desire for the people's welfare. She
   found Austria in decay, and was able to introduce many
   reforms. She alleviated the condition of the peasants, who
   were still mostly serfs. The nobles had before lived mainly
   for show, but she provided institutions for their education.
   … It was a condition of the Peace of Hubertsburg that
   Frederick II. should give his electoral vote for the eldest
   son of Francis I. None of the other electors objected to the
   choice, and on March 27, 1764, they performed the ceremony of
   choosing Joseph 'King of the Romans,' but without power to
   interfere with the government during his father's life.
   Francis I. died August 18, 1765, and his son Joseph II.
   (1765-1790) was then crowned emperor in the traditional
   fashion. He was also associated with his mother in the
   government of' Austria; but she retained the royal power
   mainly in her own hands, assigning to her son the executive
   control of military affairs. Joseph II. was an impetuous and
   intellectual character, all aglow with the new ideas of
   enlightenment and progress, and was perhaps more deeply
   impressed by the example of Frederick II. than any other
   prince of the age. … At the same time, Joseph II. was eager
   to aggrandize Austria, and at least to obtain an equivalent
   for Silesia.
{1503}
   For a long time Austria had been longing to acquire Bavaria,
   and there now seemed to be some reason to hope for success,
   The ancient line of electors of the house of Wittelsbach died
   out in 1777 with Maximilian Joseph (December 30). The next
   heir was the Elector Palatine, Charles Theodore, also Duke of
   Jülich and Berg, who was not eager to obtain Bavaria, since,
   by the Peace of Westphalia, he must then forfeit the
   electorate of the Palatinate. … Under these circumstances
   Joseph II. made an unfounded claim to Lower Bavaria, under a
   pretended grant of the Emperor Sigismund in 1426. A secret
   treaty was made by him with Charles Theodore, by which he was
   to pay that prince a large sum of money for Lower Bavaria; and
   soon after Maximilian Joseph's death, Joseph II. occupied the
   land with troops. Frederick II., who was ever jealous of the
   growth of Austria, resolved to prevent this acquisition. …

Thus the war of the Bavarian Succession broke out (1778-79). … By the death of Maria Theresa, November 29, 1780, her son Joseph II. became sole monarch of Austria. … Joseph II. was a man of large mind and noble aims. Like Frederick, he was unwearying in labor, accessible to everyone, and eager to assume his share of work or responsibility. The books and the people's memory are full of anecdotes of him, though he was far from popular during his life. But he lacked the strong practical sense and calculating foresight of the veteran Prussian king. In his zeal for reforms he hastened to heap one upon another in confusion. Torture was abolished, and for a time even the death penalty. Rigid equality before the law was introduced, and slavery done away.

His reforms in the Church were still more sweeping. He closed more than half of the monasteries, and devoted their estates to public instruction; he introduced German hymns of praise and the German Bible. By his Edict of Toleration, June 22, 1781, he secured to all Protestants throughout the Austrian states their civil rights and freedom of worship, 'in houses of prayer without bells or towers.' … He zealously followed up Maria Theresa's policy of consolidating Austria into one state; and it was this course which made him enemies. He offended the powerful nobility of Hungary by abolishing serfdom (November 1, 1781), and the whole people by the measures he took to promote the use of the German language. In the Netherlands, he alienated from him the powerful clergy by his innovations; and they stirred up against him the people, already aggrieved by the loss of some of their ancient liberties. A revolution broke out among them in 1788, and was threatening to extend to Hungary and Bohemia, when the emperor suddenly died, still in the full vigor of manhood, at the age of forty-nine, February 20, 1790. … After his death, the progress of reform was checked in Austria; but he had awakened new and strong forces there, and a complete return to the ancient system was impossible. … Leopold II. (1790-1792), who succeeded his brother Joseph II., both in Austria and as emperor, was a self-indulgent but prudent ruler."

GERMANY: A. D. 1787.
Prussian intervention in Holland.
Restoration of the expelled stadtholder.

GERMANY: A. D. 1791-1792.
   The question of war with France, and the question of the
   Partition of Poland.
   Motives and action of Prussia and Austria.

"After the acceptance of the Constitution by Louis XVI. [September—see FRANCE: A. D. 1791 (JULY-SEPTEMBER)], the Emperor indulged for a time a confident hope, that the French question was solved, and that he was relieved from all fear of trouble from that quarter. He had cares enough upon him to make him heartily congratulate himself on this result. … In foreign affairs, the Polish question—the next in importance to the French—was still unsettled, and daily presented fresh difficulties. … The fact that Russia began to show the greatest favour to the Emigrés, and to preach at Berlin and Vienna a crusade against the wicked Jacobins, only served to confirm the Emperor in his peaceful sentiments. He rightly concluded that Catharine wished to entangle the German Powers in a struggle with France, that she might have her own way in Poland; and he was not at all inclined to be the dupe of so shallow an artifice. … At the same time he set about bringing his alliance with Prussia to a definite conclusion, in order to secure to himself a firm support for every emergency. On the 17th of November—a week after the enactment of the first edict against the Emigrés—Prince Reuss made a communication on this subject to the Prussian Ministry, and on this occasion declared himself empowered to commence at any moment the formal draft of an alliance. … 'We are now convinced,' wrote the Ministers to their ambassador at Vienna, 'that Austria will undertake nothing against France.' This persuasion was soon afterwards fully confirmed by Kaunitz, who descanted in the severest terms on the intrigues of the Emigrés on the Rhine, which it was not in the interest of any Power to support. It was ridiculous, he said, in the French Princes, and in Russia and Spain, to declare the acceptance of the constitution by the King compulsory, and therefore void; and still more so to dispute the right of Louis XVI. to alter the constitution at all. He said that they would vainly endeavour to goad Austria into a war, which could only have the very worst consequences for Louis and the present predominance of the moderate party in France. … Here, again, we see that without the machinations of the Girondists, the revolutionary war would never have been commenced. It is true, indeed, that at this time a very perceptible change took place in the opinions of the second German potentate—the King of Prussia. Immediately after the Congress of Pillnitz, great numbers of French Emigrés, who had been driven from Vienna by the coldness of Leopold, had betaken themselves to Berlin. At the Prussian Court they met with a hospitable reception, and aroused in the King, by their graphic descriptions, a warm interest for the victims of the Revolution. … He loaded the Emigrés with marks of favour of every kind, and thereby excited in them the most exaggerated hopes. {1504} Yet the King was far from intending to risk any important interest of the State for the sake of his protégés; he had no idea of pursuing an aggressive policy towards France; and the only point in which he differed from Leopold was in the feeling with which he regarded the development of the warlike tendencies of the French. His Ministers, moreover, were, without exception, possessed by the same idea as Prince Kaunitz; that a French war would be a misfortune to all Europe." As the year 1791 drew towards its close, "unfavourable news arrived from Paris. The attempts of the Feuillants had failed; Lafayette had separated himself from them and from the Court; and the zeal and confidence of victory among the Democrats were greater than ever. The Emigrés in Berlin were jubilant; they had always declared that no impression was to be made upon the Jacobins except by the edge of the sword, and that all hopes founded on the stability of a moderate middle party were futile. The King of Prussia agreed with them, and determined to begin the unavoidable struggle as quickly as possible. He told his Ministers that war was certain, and that Bischoffswerder ought to go once more to the Emperor. … Bischoffswerder, having received instructions from the King himself, left Berlin, and arrived in Vienna, after a speedy journey, on the 28th of February. But he was not destined again to discuss the fate of Europe with his Imperial patron; for on the 29th the smallpox showed itself, of which Leopold died after three days sickness. The greatest consternation and confusion reigned in Vienna. … No one knew to whom the young King Francis—he was as yet only king of Hungary and Bohemia—would give his confidence, or what course he would take; nay, his weakly and nervous constitution rendered it doubtful whether he could bear—even for a short period—the burdens of his office. For the present he confirmed the Ministers in their places, and expressed to them his wish to adhere to the political system of his father. … He … ordered one of his most experienced Generals, Prince Hohenlohe-Kirchberg, to be summoned to Vienna, that he might take council with Bischoffswerder respecting the warlike measures to be adopted by both Powers, in case of a French attack. At the same time, however, the Polish question was, if possible, to be brought to a decision, and Leopold's plan in all its details was to be categorically recommended for adoption, both in Berlin and Petersburg. … The Austrian Minister, Spielmann, had prepared the memorial on Poland, which Prince Reuss presented at Berlin, on the 10th of March. It represented that Austria and Prussia had the same interest in stopping a source of eternal embarrassment and discussion, by strengthening the cause of peace and order in Poland. That herein lay an especially powerful motive to make the crown of that country hereditary; that for both Powers the Elector of Saxony would be the most acceptable wearer of that crown. … The important point, the memorial went on to say, was this, that Poland should no longer be dependent on the predominant influence of any one neighbouring Power. … When the King had read this memorial, in which the Saxon-Polish union was brought forward, not as an idea of the feeble Elector, but as a proposal of powerful Austria; he cried out, 'We must never give our consent to this.' He agreed with his Ministers in the conclusion that nothing would be more dangerous to Prussia, than the formation of such a Power as would result from the proposed lasting union of Poland and Saxony—a Power, which, in alliance with Austria, could immediately overrun Silesia, and in alliance with Russia, might be fatal to East Prussia. … In the midst of this angry and anxious excitement, which for a moment alienated his heart from Austria, the King received a fresh and no less important despatch from Petersburg. Count Golz announced the first direct communication of Russia respecting Poland. 'Should Poland' [wrote the Russian Vice Chancellor] 'be firmly and lastingly united to Saxony, a Power of the first rank will arise, and one which will be able to exercise the most sensible pressure upon each of its neighbours. We are greatly concerned in this, in consequence of the extension of our Polish frontier; and Prussia is no less so, from the inevitable increase which would ensue of Saxon influence in the German Empire. We therefore suggest, that Prussia, Austria, and Russia, should come to an intimate understanding with one another on this most important subject.' … This communication sounded differently in the ears of the King from that which he had received from Austria. The fears which agitated his own mind and those of the Russian chancellor were identical. While Austria called upon him to commit a political suicide, Russia offered her aid in averting the most harassing danger, and even opened a prospect of a considerable territorial increase. The King had no doubt to which of the two Powers he ought to incline. He would have come to terms with Russia on the spot, had not an insurmountable obstacle existed in the new path which was opened to the aggrandizement of Prussia,—viz., the Polish treaty of 1790; in which Prussia had expressly bound herself to protect the independence and integrity of Poland. … He decided that there was no middle course between the Russian and Austrian plans. On the one side was his Polish treaty of 1790, the immediate consequence of which would be a new breach, and perhaps a war, with Russia, and the final result such a strengthening of Poland, as would throw back the Prussian State into that subordinate position, both in Germany and Europe, which it had occupied in the seventeenth century. On the other side there was, indeed, a manifest breach of faith, but also the salvation of Prussia from a perilous dilemma, and perhaps the extension of her boundaries by a goodly Polish Province. If he wavered at all in this conflict of feeling, the Parisian complications soon put an end to his doubts. In quick succession came the announcements that Delessart's peaceful Ministry had fallen; that King Louis had suffered the deepest humiliation; and that the helm of the State had passed into the hands of the Girondist war party. A declaration of war on the part of France against Francis· II. might be daily expected, and the Russian-Polish contest would then only form the less important moiety of the European catastrophe. Austria would now be occupied for a long time in the West; there could be no more question of the formation of a Polish-Saxon State; and Austria could no longer be reckoned upon to protect the constitution of 1791, or even to repel a Russian invasion of Poland. Prussia was bound to aid the Austrians against France, and for many months the King had cherished no more ardent wish than to fulfil this obligation with all his power. {1505} Simultaneously to oppose the Empress Catharine, was out of the question. … The King wrote on the 12th of March to his Ministers as follows: … 'Russia is not far removed from thoughts of a new partition; and this would indeed be the most effectual means of limiting the power of a Polish King, whether hereditary or elective. I doubt, however, whether in this case a suitable compensation could be found for Austria; and whether, after such a curtailment of the power of Poland, the Elector of Saxony would accept the crown. Yet if Austria could be compensated, the Russian plan would be the most advantageous for Prussia,—always provided that Prussia received the whole left bank of the Vistula, by the acquisition of which that distant frontier—so hard to be defended—would be well rounded off. This is my judgment respecting Polish affairs.' This was Poland's sentence of death. It was not, as we have seen, the result of a long-existing greed, but a suddenly seized expedient, which seemed to be accompanied with the least evil, in the midst of an unexampled European crisis. … On the 20th of April the French National Assembly proclaimed war against the King of Hungary and Bohemia. A fortnight later the Prince of Hohenlohe-Kirchberg appeared in Berlin to settle some common plan for the campaign; and at the same time Kaunitz directed Prince Reuss to enter into negociations on the political question of expenditure and compensation. Count Schulenburg … immediately sent a reply to the Prince, to the effect that Prussia—as it had uniformly declared since the previous summer—could only engage in the war on condition of receiving an adequate compensation. … Both statesmen well knew with what secret mistrust each of these Powers contemplated the aggrandizement of the other; their deliberations were therefore conducted with slow and anxious caution, and months passed by before their respective demands were reduced to any definite shape."

See FRANCE: A. D. 1791-1792; 1792 (APRIL-JULY), and (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER); 1792-1793 (DECEMBER-FEBRUARY); 1793 (FEBRUARY-APRIL), (MARCH-SEPTEMBER), and (JULY-DECEMBER).

GERMANY: A. D. 1794.
   Withdrawal of Prussia from the Coalition.
   French conquest of the Austrian Netherlands and successes on
   the Rhine.

GERMANY: A. D. 1795.
Treaty of Basle between Prussia and France.
Crumbling of the Coalition.

GERMANY: A. D. 1796-1797.
   Expulsion of Austria from Italy.
   Bonaparte's first campaigns.
   Advance of Moreau and Jourdan beyond the Rhine.
   Their retreat.
   Peace preliminaries of Leoben.

GERMANY: A. D. 1797 (October).
   The Treaty of Campo Formio between Austria and France.
   Austrian cession of the Netherlands and Lombardy and
   acquisition of Venice.

GERMANY: A. D. 1798.
The second Coalition against Revolutionary France.
Prussia and the Empire withheld from it.

GERMANY: A. D. 1800 (May-December).
The disastrous campaigns of Marengo and Hohenlinden.

GERMANY: A. D. 1801-1803.
   The Peace of Luneville.
   Territorial cessions and changes.
   The settlement of indemnities in the Empire.
   Confiscation and secularization of the ecclesiastical
   principalities.
   Absorption of Free Cities.
   Re-constitution of the Electoral College.

   "By the treaty of Luneville, which the Emperor Francis was
   obliged to subscribe, 'not only as Emperor of Austria, but in
   the name of the German empire,' Belgium and all the left bank
   of the Rhine were again formally ceded to France; Lombardy was
   erected into an independent state, and the Adige declared the
   boundary betwixt it and the dominions of Austria; Venice, with
   all its territorial possessions as far as the Adige, was
   guaranteed to Austria; the Duke of Modena received the Brisgau
   in exchange for his duchy, which was annexed to the Cisalpine
   republic; the Grand Duke of Tuscany, the Emperor's brother,
   gave up his dominions to the infant Duke of Parma, a branch of
   the Spanish family [who was thereupon raised to royal rank by the
   fiat of Bonaparte, who transformed the grand-duchy of Tuscany
   into the kingdom of Etruria], on the promise of an indemnity
   in Germany; France abandoned Kehl, Cassel, and
   Ehrenbreitstein, on condition that these forts should remain
   in the situation in which they were when given up; the princes
   dispossessed by the cession of the left bank of the Rhine were
   promised an indemnity in the bosom of the Empire; the
   independence of the Batavian, Helvetic, Cisalpine and Ligurian
   republics was guaranteed, and their inhabitants declared 'to
   have the power of choosing whatever form of government they
   preferred.' These conditions did not differ materially from
   those contained in the treaty of Campo Formio, or from those
   offered by Napoleon previous to the renewal of the war. …
   The article which compelled the Emperor to subscribe this
   treaty as head of the empire, as well as Emperor of Austria,
   gave rise in the sequel … to the most painful internal
   divisions in Germany. By a fundamental law of the empire, the
   Emperor could not bind the electors and states of which he was
   the head, without either their concurrence or express powers
   to that effect previously conferred. … The emperor hesitated
   long before he subscribed such a condition, which left the
   seeds of interminable discord in the Germanic body; but the
   conqueror was inexorable, and no means of evasion could be
   found. He vindicated himself to the electors in a dignified
   letter, dated 8th February 1801, the day before that when the
   treaty was signed. … The electors and princes of the empire
   felt the force of this touching appeal; they commiserated the
   situation of the first monarch in Christendom, compelled to
   throw himself on his subjects for forgiveness of a step which
   he could not avoid; and one of the first steps of the Diet of
   the empire, assembled after the treaty of Luneville was
   signed, was to give it their solemn ratification, grounded on
   the extraordinary situation in which the Emperor was then
   placed.
{1506}
   But the question of indemnities to the dispossessed princes
   was long and warmly agitated. It continued for above two years
   to distract the Germanic body; the intervention both of France
   and Russia was required to prevent the sword being drawn in
   these internal disputes; and by the magnitude of the changes
   which were ultimately made, and the habit of looking to
   foreign protection which was acquired, the foundation was laid
   of that league to support separate interests which afterwards,
   under the name of the Confederation of the Rhine, so well
   served the purposes of French ambition, and broke up the
   venerable fabric of the German empire."

"Germany: lost by this treaty about 24,000 square miles of its best territory and 3,500,000 of its people; while the princes were indemnified by the plunder of their peers. But the hardest task, the satisfactory distribution of this plunder, remained. While the Diet at Regensburg, after much complaint and management, assigned the arrangement of these affairs to a committee, the princely bargainers were in Paris, employing the most disgraceful means to obtain the favor of Talleyrand and other influential diplomatists. On the 25th of February, 1803, the final decision of the delegation or committee of the empire was adopted by the Diet, and promulgated with the approval of the emperor, Francis II., and of Prussia and Bavaria. It confiscated all the spiritual principalities in Germany, except that the Elector of Mayence, Charles Theodore of Dalberg, received Regensburg, Aschaffenburg, and Wetzlar, as an indemnity, and retained a seat and a voice in the imperial Diet. Of the 48 free cities of the empire, six only remained—Hamburg, Bremen, Lubeck, Frankfort, Nuremburg, and Augsburg. Austria obtained the bishoprics of Trent and Brixen; Prussia, as a compensation for the loss of 1,018 square miles with 122,000 inhabitants west of the Rhine, received 4,875 square miles, with 580,000 inhabitants, including the endowments of the religious houses of Hildesheim and Paderborn, and most of Münster; also Erfurt and Eichsfeld, and the free cities of Nordhausen, Mülhausen, and Goslar; Hanover obtained Osnabruck; to Bavaria, in exchange for the Palatinate, were assigned Würzburg, Bamberg, Freisingen, Augsburg, and Passau, besides a number of cities of the empire, in all about 6,150 square miles, to compensate for 4,240, vastly increasing its political importance. Wirtemberg, too, was richly compensated for the loss of the Mömpelgard by the confiscation of monastery endowments and free cities in Suabia. But Baden made the best bargain of all, receiving about 1,270 square miles of land, formerly belonging to bishops or to the Palatinate, in exchange for 170. After this acquisition, Baden extended, though in patches, from the Neckar to the Swiss border. By building up these three South German states, Napoleon sought to erect a barrier for himself against Austria and Prussia. With the same design, Hesse-Darmstadt and Nassau were much enlarged. There were multitudes of smaller changes, under the name of 'compensations and indemnities.' Four new lay electorates were established in the place of the three secularized prelacies, and were given to Baden, Wirtemberg, Hesse-Cassel, and Salzburg. But they never had occasion to take part in the election of an emperor."

ALSO IN: A. Thiers, History of the Consulate and the Empire, books 7 and 15 (volume 1).

GERMANY: A. D. 1805 (January-April).
The third Coalition against France.
Prussian Neutrality.

GERMANY: A. D. 1805 (September-December).
Napoleon's overwhelming campaign.
The catastrophes at Ulm and Austerlitz.

GERMANY: A. D. 1805-1806.
   The Peace of Presburg.
   Territorial losses of Austria.
   Aggrandizement of Bavaria and Würtemberg, which become
   kingdoms, and Baden a grand duchy.
   The Confederation of the Rhine.
   End of the Holy Roman Empire.

   "On the 6th of December, hostilities ceased, and the Russians
   retired by way of Galicia, but in accordance with the terms of
   the armistice, the French troops continued to occupy all the
   lands they had invaded, Austria, Tyrol, Venetia, Carniola,
   Carinthia, and Styria; within Bohemia they were to have the
   circle of Tabor, together with Brno and Znoymo in Moravia and
   Pozsony (Pressburg) in Hungary. The Morava (March) and the
   Hungarian frontier formed the line of demarcation between the
   two armies. A definitive peace was signed at Pressburg on the
   26th of December, 1805. Austria recognized the conquests of
   France in Holland and Switzerland and the annexation of Genoa,
   and ceded to the kingdom of Italy Friuli, Istria, Dalmatia with
   its islands, and the Bocche di Cattaro. A little later, by the
   explanatory Act of Fontainebleau, she lost the last of her
   possessions to the west of the Isonzo, when she exchanged
   those portions of the counties of Gorico and Gradisca which
   are situated on the right bank of that river for the county of
   Montefalcone in Istria. The new kingdoms of Bavaria and
   Würtemberg [brought into existence by this treaty, through the
   recognition of them by the Emperor Francis] were aggrandized
   at the expense of Austria. Bavaria obtained Vorarlberg, the
   county of Hohenembs, the town of Lindau, and the whole of
   Tyrol, with Brixen and Trent. Austrian Suabia was given to
   Würtemberg, while Breisgau and the Ortenau were bestowed on
   the new grand duke of Baden. One compensation alone, the duchy
   of Salzburg, fell to Austria for all her sacrifices, and this
   has remained in her possession ever since. The old bishopric
   of Würzburg was created an electorate and granted to Ferdinand
   III. of Tuscany and Salzburg. Altogether the monarchy lost
   about 25,400 square miles and nearly 3,000,000 of inhabitants.
   She lost Tyrol with its brave and loyal inhabitants and the
   Vörlande which had assured Austrian influence in Germany;
   every possession on the Rhine, in the Black Forest, and on the
   Lower Danube; she no longer touched either Switzerland or
   Italy, and she ceased to be a maritime power. Besides all
   this, she had to pay forty millions for the expenses of the
   war, while she was exhausted by contributions and
   requisitions. Vienna had suffered much, and the French army
   had carried off the 2,000 cannons and the 100,000 guns which
   had been contained in her arsenals. On the 16th of January,
   1806, the emperor Francis returned to his capital.
{1507}
   He was enthusiastically received, and the Viennese returned to
   the luxurious and easy way of life which has always
   characterized them. … Austria seemed no longer to have any
   part to play in German politics. Bavaria, Würtemberg and Baden
   had been formed into a separate league—the Confederation of
   the Rhine—under French protection. On the 1st of August,
   1806, these states announced to the Reichstag at Ratisbon that
   they looked upon the empire as at an end, and on the 6th,
   Francis II. formally resigned the empire altogether, and
   released all the Imperial officials from their engagements to
   him. Thus the sceptre of Charlemagne fell from the hands of
   the dynasty which had held it without interruption from 1438."

"Every bond of union was dissolved with the diet of the empire and with the imperial chamber. The barons and counts of the empire and the petty princes were mediatised; the princes of Hohenlohe, Oettingen, Schwarzenberg, Thurn, and Taxis, the Truchsess von Waldburg, Fürstenberg, Fugger, Leiningen, Löwenstein, Solms, Hesse-Homburg, Wied-Runkel, and Orange-Fulda, became subject to the neighbouring Rhenish confederated princes. Of the remaining six imperial free cities, Augsburg and Nuremberg fell to Bavaria; Frankfurt, under the title of grand-duchy, to the ancient elector of Mayence, who was again transferred thither from Ratisbon. The ancient Hanse-towns, Hamburg, Lübeck, and Bremen, alone retained their freedom."

"A swift succession of triumphs had left only one thing still preventing the full recognition of the Corsican warrior as sovereign of Western Europe, and that one was the existence of the old Romano-Germanic Empire. Napoleon had not long assumed his new title when he began to mark a distinction between 'la France' and 'l'Empire Française.' France had, since A. D. 1792, advanced to the Rhine, and, by the annexation of Piedmont, had overstepped the Alps; the French Empire included, besides the kingdom of Italy, a mass of dependent states, Naples, Holland, Switzerland, and many German principalities, the allies of France in the same sense in which the 'socii populi Romani' were allies of Rome. When the last of Pitt's coalitions had been destroyed at Austerlitz, and Austria had made her submission by the peace of Presburg, the conqueror felt that his hour was come. He had now overcome two Emperors, those of Austria and Russia, claiming to represent the old and new Rome respectively, and had in eighteen months created more kings than the occupants of the Germanic throne in as many centuries. It was time, he thought, to sweep away obsolete pretensions, and claim the sole inheritance of that Western Empire, of which the titles and ceremonies of his court presented a grotesque imitation. The task was an easy one after what had been already accomplished. Previous wars and treaties had so redistributed the territories and changed the constitution of the Germanic Empire that it could hardly be said to exist in anything but name. … The Emperor Francis, partly foreboding the events that were at hand, partly in order to meet Napoleon's assumption of the imperial name by depriving that name of its peculiar meaning, began in A. D. 1805 to style himself 'Hereditary Emperor of Austria,' while retaining at the same time his former title. The next act of the drama was one in which we may more readily pardon the ambition of a foreign conqueror than the traitorous selfishness of the German princes, who broke every tie of ancient friendship and duty to grovel at his throne. By the Act of the Confederation of the Rhine, signed at Paris, July 12th, 1806, Bavaria, Würtemberg, Baden, and several other states, sixteen in all, withdrew from the body and repudiated the laws of the Empire, while on August 1st the French envoy at Regensburg announced to the Diet that his master, who had consented to become Protector of the Confederate princes, no longer recognized the existence of the Empire. Francis II. resolved at once to anticipate this new Odoacer, and by a declaration, dated August 6th, 1806, resigned the imperial dignity. His deed states that finding it impossible, in the altered state of things, to fulfil the obligations imposed by his capitulation, he considers as dissolved the bonds which attached him to the Germanic body, releases from their allegiance the states who formed it, and retires to the government of his hereditary dominions under the title of 'Emperor of Austria.' Throughout, the term 'German Empire' (Deutsches Reich) is employed. But it was the crown of Augustus, of Constantine, of Charles, of Maximilian, that Francis of Hapsburg laid down, and a new era in the world's history was marked by the fall of its most venerable institution. One thousand and six years after Leo the Pope had crowned the Frankish king, eighteen hundred and fifty-eight years after Cæsar had conquered at Pharsalia, the Holy Roman Empire came to its end."

GERMANY: A. D. 1806 (January-August).
   The Confederation of the Rhine.
   Cession of Hanover to Prussia.
   Double dealing and weakness of the latter.
   Her submission to Napoleon's insults and wrongs.
   Final goading of the nation to war.

"The object at which all French politicians had aimed since the outbreak of the Revolutionary War, the exclusion of both Austria and Prussia from influence in Western Germany, was now completely attained. The triumph of French statesmanship, the consummation of two centuries of German discord, was seen in the Act of Federation subscribed by the Western German Sovereigns in the summer of 1806. By this Act the Kings of Bavaria and Würtemberg, the Elector of Baden, and 13 minor princes, united themselves, in the League known as the Rhenish Confederacy, under the protection of the French Emperor, and undertook to furnish contingents, amounting to 63,000 men, in all wars in which the French Empire should engage. Their connection with the ancient Germanic Body was completely severed; the very town in which the Diet of the Empire had held its meetings was annexed by one of the members of the Confederacy. The Confederacy itself, with a population of 8,000,000, became for all purposes of war and foreign policy a part of France. Its armies were organised by French officers; its frontiers were fortified by French engineers; its treaties were made for it at Paris. In the domestic changes which took place within these States the work of consolidation begun in 1801 was carried forward with increased vigour. Scores of tiny principalities which had escaped dissolution in the earlier movement were now absorbed by their stronger neighbours. … {1508} With the establishment of the Rhenish Confederacy and the conquest of Naples, Napoleon's empire reached, but did not overpass, the limits within which the sovereignty of France might probably have been long maintained. … If we may judge from the feeling with which Napoleon was regarded in Germany down to the middle of the year 1806, and in Italy down to a much later date, the Empire then founded might have been permanently upheld, if Napoleon had abstained from attacking other States." During the winter of 1806, Count Haugwitz, the Prussian minister, had visited Paris "for the purpose of obtaining some modification in the treaty which he had signed [at the palace of Schönbrunn, near Vienna] on behalf of Prussia after the battle of Austerlitz. The principal feature in that treaty had been the grant of Hanover to Prussia by the French Emperor in return for its alliance. This was the point which above all others excited King Frederick William's fears and scruples; He desired to acquire Hanover, but he also desired to derive his title rather from its English owner [King George III., who was also Elector of Hanover] than from its French invader. It was the object of Haugwitz' visit to Paris to obtain an alteration in the terms of the treaty which should make the Prussian occupation of Hanover appear to be merely provisional, and reserve to the King of England at least a nominal voice in its ultimate transfer. In full confidence that Napoleon would agree to such a change, the King of Prussia, on taking possession of Hanover in January, 1806, concealed the fact of its cession to himself by Napoleon, and published an untruthful proclamation. … The bitter truth that the treaty between France and Prussia contained no single word reserving the rights of the Elector, and that the very idea of qualifying the absolute cession of Hanover was an afterthought, lay hidden in the conscience of the Prussian Government. Never had a Government more completely placed itself at the mercy of a pitiless enemy. Count Haugwitz, on reaching Paris, was received by Napoleon with a storm of indignation and contempt. Napoleon declared that the ill-faith of Prussia had made an end even of that miserable pact which had been extorted after Austerlitz, and insisted that Prussia should openly defy Great Britain by closing the ports of Northern Germany to British vessels, and by declaring itself endowed by Napoleon with Hanover in virtue of Napoleon's own right of conquest. Haugwitz signed a second and more humiliating treaty [February 15] embodying these conditions; and the Prussian Government, now brought into the depths of contempt, but unready for immediate war, executed the orders of its master. … A decree was published excluding the ships of England from the ports of Prussia and from those of Hanover itself (March 28, 1806). It was promptly followed by the seizure of 400 Prussian vessels in British harbours, and by the total extinction of Prussian maritime commerce by British privateers. Scarcely was Prussia committed to this ruinous conflict with Great Britain when Napoleon opened negotiations for peace with Mr. Fox's Government. The first condition required by Great Britain was the restitution of Hanover to King George III. It was unhesitatingly granted by Napoleon. Thus was Prussia to be mocked of its prey, after it had been robbed of all its honour. … There was scarcely a courtier in Berlin who did not feel that the yoke of the French had become past endurance; even Haugwitz himself now considered war as a question of time. The patriotic party in the capital and the younger officers of the army bitterly denounced the dishonoured Government, and urged the King to strike for the credit of his country. … Brunswick was summoned to the King's council to form plans of a campaign; and appeals for help were sent to Vienna, to St. Petersburg, and even to the hostile Court of London. The condition of Prussia at this critical moment was one which filled with the deepest alarm those few patriotic statesmen who were not blinded by national vanity or by a slavery to routine. … Early in the year 1806 a paper was drawn up by Stein, exposing, in language seldom used by a statesman, the character of the men by whom Frederick William was surrounded, and declaring that nothing but a speedy change of system could save the Prussian State from utter downfall and ruin. Two measures of immediate necessity were specified by Stein, the establishment of a responsible council of Ministers, and the removal of Haugwitz and all his friends from power. … The army of Prussia … was nothing but the army of Frederick the Great grown twenty years older. … All Southern Germany was still in Napoleon's hands. The appearance of a Russian force in Dalmatia, after that country had been ceded by Austria to the French Emperor, had given Napoleon an excuse for maintaining his troops in their positions beyond the Rhine. As the probability of a war with Prussia became greater and greater, Napoleon tightened his grasp upon the Confederate States. Publications originating among the patriotic circles of Austria were beginning to appeal to the German people to unite against a foreign oppressor. An anonymous pamphlet, entitled 'Germany in its Deep Humiliation,' was sold by various booksellers in Bavaria, among others by Palm, a citizen of Nuremberg. There is no evidence that Palm was even acquainted with the contents of the pamphlet; but … Napoleon … required a victim to terrify those who, among the German people, might be inclined to listen to the call of patriotism. Palm was not too obscure for the new Charlemagne. The innocent and unoffending man, innocent even of the honourable crime of attempting to save his country, was dragged before a tribunal of French soldiers, and executed within twenty-four hours of his trial, in pursuance of the imperative orders of Napoleon (August 26). … Several years later, … the story of Palm's death was one of those that kindled the bitterest sense of wrong; at the time, it exercised no influence upon the course of political events. Prussia had already resolved upon war."

GERMANY: A. D. 1806 (October).
   Napoleon's sudden invasion of Prussia.
   The decisive battle of Jena.
   Prostration of the Prussian Kingdom.

"The Emperor of Russia … visited Berlin, when the feelings of Prussia, and indeed of all the neighbouring states, were in this fever of excitement. He again urged Frederick William to take up arms in the common cause, and offered to back him with all the forces of his own great empire. The English government, taking advantage of the same crisis, sent Lord Morpeth to Berlin, with offers of pecuniary supplies—about the acceptance of which, however, the anxiety of Prussia on the subject of Hanover created some difficulty. Lastly, Buonaparte, well informed of what was passing in Berlin, and desirous, since war must be, to hurry Frederick into the field ere the armies of the Czar could be joined with his, now poured out in the 'Moniteur' such abuse on the persons and characters of the Queen, Prince Louis, and every illustrious patriot throughout Prussia, that the general wrath could no longer be held in check. War-like preparations of every kind filled the kingdom during August and September. On the 1st of October the Prussian minister at Paris presented a note to Talleyrand, demanding, among other things, that the formation of a confederacy in the north of Germany should no longer be thwarted by French interference, and that the French troops within the territories of the Rhenish League should recross the Rhine into France, by the 8th of the same month of October. But Napoleon was already in person on the German side of the Rhine; and his answer to the Prussian note was a general order to his own troops, in which he called on them to observe in what manner a German sovereign still dared to insult the soldiers of Austerlitz. The conduct of Prussia, in thus rushing into hostilities without waiting for the advance of the Russians, was as rash as her holding back from Austria during the campaign of Austerlitz had been cowardly. As if determined to profit by no lesson, the Prussian council also directed their army to advance towards the French, instead of lying on their own frontier—a repetition of the great leading blunder of the Austrians in the preceding year. The Prussian army accordingly invaded the Saxon provinces, and the Elector … was compelled to accept the alliance which the cabinet of Berlin urged on him, and to join his troops with those of the power by which he had been thus insulted and wronged. No sooner did Napoleon know that the Prussians had advanced into the heart of Saxony, than he formed the plan of his campaign; and they, persisting in their advance, and taking up their position finally on the Saale, afforded him, as if studiously, the means of repeating, at their expense, the very manœvres which had ruined the Austrians in the preceding campaign." The flank of the Prussian position was turned,—the bridge across the Saale, at Saalfield, having been secured, after a hot engagement with the corps of Prince Louis of Prussia who fell in the fight,—"the French army passed entirely round them; Napoleon seized Naumburg and blew up the magazines there,—announcing, for the first time, by this explosion, to the King of Prussia and his generalissimo the Duke of Brunswick, that he was in their rear. From this moment the Prussians were isolated, and cut off from all their resources, as completely as the army of Mack was at Ulm, when the French had passed the Danube and overrun Suabia. The Duke of Brunswick hastily endeavoured to concentrate his forces for the purpose of cutting his way back again to the frontier which he had so rashly abandoned. Napoleon, meantime, had posted his divisions so as to watch the chief passages of the Saale, and expected, in confidence, the assault of his outwitted opponent. It was now that he found leisure to answer the manifesto of Frederick William. … His letter, dated at Gera, is written in the most elaborate style of insult. … The Prussian King understood well, on learning the fall of Naumburg, the imminent danger of his position; and his army was forthwith set in motion, in two great masses; the former, where he was in person present, advancing towards Naumburg; the latter attempting, in like manner, to force their passage through the French line in the neighbourhood of Jena. The King's march was arrested at Auerstadt by Davoust, who, after a severely contested action, at length repelled the assailant. Napoleon himself, meanwhile, was engaged with the other great body of the Prussians. Arriving on the evening of the 13th October at Jena, he perceived that the enemy were ready to attempt the advance next morning, while his own heavy train was still six-and-thirty hours' march in his rear. Not discouraged with this adverse circumstance, the Emperor laboured all night in directing and encouraging his soldiery to cut a road through the rocks, and draw up by that means such light guns as he had at command to a position on a lofty plateau in front of Jena, where no man could have expected beforehand that any artillery whatever should be planted. … Lannes commanded the centre, Augereau the right, Soult the left, and Murat the reserve and cavalry. Soult had to sustain the first assault of the Prussians, which was violent—and sudden; for the mist lay so thick on the field that the armies were within half-gunshot of each other ere the sun and wind rose and discovered them, and on that instant Mollendorf charged. The battle was contested well for some time on this point; but at length Ney appeared in the rear of the Emperor with a fresh division; and then the French centre advanced to a general charge, before which the Prussians were forced to retire. They moved for some space in good order; but Murat now poured his masses of cavalry on them, storm after storm, with such rapidity and vehemence that their rout became inevitable. It ended in the complete breaking up of the army—horse and foot all flying together, in the confusion of panic, upon the road to Weimar. At that point the fugitives met and mingled with their brethren flying, as confusedly as themselves, from Auerstadt. In the course of this disastrous day 20,000 Prussians were killed or taken, 300 guns, 20 generals, and 60 standards. The Commander-in-Chief, the Duke of Brunswick, being wounded in the face with a grape-shot, was carried early off the field, never to recover. … The various routed divisions roamed about the country, seeking separately the means of escape: they were in consequence destined to fall an easy prey. … The Prince of Hohenlohe at length drew together not less than 50,000 of these wandering soldiers," and retreated towards the Oder; but was forced, in the end, to lay down his arms at Prentzlow. "His rear, consisting of about 10,000, under the command of the celebrated General Blucher, was so far behind as to render it possible for them to attempt escape. Their heroic leader traversed the country with them for some time unbroken, and sustained a variety of assaults, from far superior numbers, with the most obstinate resolution. {1510} By degrees, however, the French, under Soult, hemmed him in on one side, Murat on the other, and Bernadotte appeared close behind him. He was thus forced to throw himself into Lubeck, where a severe action was fought in the streets of the town, on the 6th of November. The Prussian, in this battle, lost 4,000 prisoners, besides the slain and wounded: he retreated to Schwerta, and there, it being impossible for him to go farther without violating the neutrality of Denmark, on the morning of the 7th, Blucher at length laid down his arms. … The strong fortresses of the Prussian monarchy made as ineffectual resistance as the armies in the field. … Buonaparte, in person, entered Berlin on the 25th of October; and before the end of November, except Konigsberg—where the King himself had found refuge, and gathered round, him a few thousand troops … —and a few less important fortresses, the whole of the German possessions of the house of Brandenburg were in the hands of the conqueror. Louis Buonaparte, King of Holland, meanwhile had advanced into Westphalia and occupied that territory also, with great part of Hanover, East Friesland, Embden, and the dominions of Hesse-Cassel."

GERMANY: A. D. 1806 (October-December).
   Napoleon's ungenerous use of his victory.
   His insults to the Queen of Prussia.
   The kingdom governed as conquered territory.
   The French advance into Poland, to meet the Russians.
   Saxony made a kingdom.

"Napoleon made a severe and ungenerous use of his victory. The old Duke of Brunswick, respectable from his age, his achievements under the Great Frederick, and the honourable wounds he had recently received on the field of battle, and who had written a letter to Napoleon, after the battle of Jena, recommending his subjects to his generosity, was in an especial manner the object of invective. His states were overrun, and the official bulletins disgraced by a puerile tirade against a general who had done nothing but discharge his duty to his sovereign. For this he was punished by the total confiscation of his dominions. So virulent was the language employed, and such the apprehensions in consequence inspired, that the wounded general was compelled, with great personal suffering, to take refuge in Altona, where he soon after died. The Queen, whose spirit in prosperous and constancy in adverse fortune had justly endeared her to her subjects, and rendered her the admiration of all Europe, was pursued in successive bulletins with unmanly sarcasms; and a heroic princess, whose only fault, if fault it was, had been an excess of patriotic ardour, was compared to Helen, whose faithless vices had involved her country in the calamities consequent on the siege of Troy. The whole dominions of the Elector of Hesse Cassel were next seized; and that prince, who had not even combated at Jena, but merely permitted, when he could not prevent, the entry of the Prussians into his dominions, was dethroned and deprived of all his possessions. … The Prince of Orange, brother-in-law to the King of Prussia, … shared the same fate: while to the nobles of Berlin he used publicly the cruel expression, more withering to his own reputation than theirs,—'I will render that noblesse so poor that they shall be obliged to beg their bread.' … Meanwhile the French armies, without any further resistance, took possession of the whole country between the Rhine and the Oder; and in the rear of the victorious bands appeared, in severity unprecedented even in the revolutionary armies, the dismal scourge of contributions. Resolved to maintain the war exclusively on the provinces which were to be its theatre, Napoleon had taken only 24,000 francs in specie across the Rhine in the military chest of the army. It soon appeared from whom the deficiency was to be supplied. On the day after the battle of Jena appeared a proclamation, directing the levy of an extraordinary war contribution of 159,000,000 francs (£6,300,000) on the countries at war with France, of which 100,000,000 was to be borne by the Prussian states to the west of the Vistula, 25,000,000 by the Elector of Saxony [who had already detached himself from his alliance with Prussia], and the remainder by the lesser states in the Prussian confederacy. This enormous burden … was levied with unrelenting severity. … Nor was this all. The whole civil authorities who remained in the abandoned provinces were compelled to take an oath of fidelity to the French Emperor,—an unprecedented step, which clearly indicated the intention of annexing the Prussian dominions to the great nation. … Early in November there appeared an elaborate ordinance, which provided for the complete civil organisation and military occupation of the whole country from the Rhine to the Vistula. By this decree the conquered states were divided into four departments; those of Berlin, of Magdeburg, of Stettin, and of Custrin; the military and civil government of the whole conquered territory was intrusted to a governor-general at Berlin, having under him eight commanders of provinces into which it was divided. … The same system of government was extended to the duchy of Brunswick, the states of Hesse and Hanover, the duchy of Mecklenburg, and the Hanse towns, including Hamburg, which was speedily oppressed by grievous contributions. … The Emperor openly announced his determination to retain possession of all these states till England consented to his demands on the subject of the liberty of the seas. … Meanwhile the negotiations for the conclusion of a separate peace between France and Prussia were resumed. … The severity of the terms demanded, as well as … express assurances that no concessions, how great soever, could lead to a separate accommodation, as Napoleon was resolved to retain all his conquests until a general peace, led, as might have been expected, to the rupture of the negotiations. Desperate as the fortunes of Prussia were, … the King … declared his resolution to stand or fall with the Emperor of Russia [who was vigorously preparing to fulfil his promise of help to the stricken nation]. This refusal was anticipated by Napoleon. It reached him at Posen, whither he had advanced on his road to the Vistula; and nothing remained but to enter vigorously on the prosecution of the war in Poland. {1511} To this period of the war belongs the famous Berlin decree [see FRANCE: A. D. 1806-1810] of the 21st November against the commerce of Great Britain. … Napoleon … at Posen, in Prussian Poland, gave audience to the deputies of that unhappy kingdom, who came to implore his support to the remains of its once mighty dominion. His words were calculated to excite hopes which his subsequent conduct never realised. … While the main body of the French army was advancing by rapid strides from the Oder to the Vistula, Napoleon, ever anxious to secure his communications, and clear his rear of hostile bodies, caused two different armies to advance to support the flanks of the invading force. … The whole of the north of Germany was overrun by French troops, while 100,000 were assembling to meet the formidable legions of Russia in the heart of Poland. Vast as the forces of Napoleon were, such prodigious efforts, over so great an extent of surface, rendered fresh supplies indispensable. The senate at Paris was ready to furnish them; and on the requisition of the Emperor 80,000 were voted from the youth who were to arrive at the military age in 1807. … A treaty, offensive and defensive, between Saxony and France, was the natural result of these successes. This convention, arranged by Talleyrand, was signed at Posen, on the 12th December. It stipulated that the Elector of Saxony should be elevated to the dignity of king; he was admitted into the Confederation of the Rhine, and his contingent fixed at 20,000 men. By a separate article, it was provided that the passage of foreign troops across the kingdom of Saxony should take place without the consent of the sovereign: a provision which sufficiently pointed it out as a military outpost of the great nation—while, by a subsidiary treaty, signed at Posen three days afterwards, the whole minor princes of the House of Saxony were also admitted into the Confederacy."

Sir A. Alison, History of Europe, 1789-1815, chapter 43, sections 87-99 (volume 10).

      E. H. Hudson,
      Life and Times of Louisa,
      Queen of Prussia, volume 2, chapters 8-9.

GERMANY: A. D. 1806-1807.
   Opening of Napoleon's campaign against the Russians.
   The deluding of the Poles.
   indecisive battle of Eylau.

The campaign against the Russians "opened early in the winter. The 1st of November, the Russians and French marched towards the Vistula, the former from the Memel, the latter from the Oder. Fifty thousand Russians pressed forward under General Benningsen; a second and equal army followed at a distance with a reserve force. Some of the Russian forces on the Turkish frontier were recalled, but were still remote. The first two Russian armies, with the remaining Prussians, numbered about 120,000. England made many promises and kept few of them, thinking more of conquering Spanish and Dutch colonies than of helping her allies. Her aid was limited to a small reinforcement of the Swedes guarding Swedish Pomerania, the only portion of Northern Germany not yet in French power. Gustavus II., the young King of Sweden, weak and impulsive, rushed headlong, without a motive, into the … alliance [against Napoleon], destined to be so fatal to Sweden. … Eighty thousand men under Murat crossed the Oder and entered Prussian Poland, and an equal number stood ready to sustain them. November 9, Davout's division entered Posen, the principal town of the Polish provinces still preserving the national sentiment, and whose people detested Prussian rule and resented the treachery with which Prussia dismembered Poland after swearing alliance with her. All along the road, the peasants hastened to meet the French; and at Posen, Davout was hailed with an enthusiasm which moved even him, cold and severe as he was, and he urged Napoleon to justify the hopes of Poland, who looked to him as her savior. The Russian vanguard reached Warsaw before the French, but made no effort to remain there, and recrossed the Vistula. November 28, Davout and Murat entered the town, and public delight knew no bounds. It would be a mere illusion to fancy that sentiments of right and justice had any share in Napoleon's resolve, and that he was stirred by a desire to repair great wrongs. His only question was whether the resurrection of Poland would increase his greatness or not; and if he told the Sultan that he meant to restore Poland, it was because he thought Turkey would assist him the more willingly against Russia. He also offered part of Silesia to Austria, if she would aid him in the restoration of Poland by the cession of her Polish provinces; but it was not a sufficient offer, and therefore not serious. The truth was that he wanted promises from the Poles before he made any to them. … Thousands of Poles enlisted under the French flag and joined the Polish legions left from the Italian war. Napoleon established a provisional government of well-known Poles in Warsaw, and required nothing but volunteers of the country. He had seized without a blow that line of the Vistula which the Prussian king would not barter for a truce, and might have gone into winter-quarters there; but the Russians were close at hand on the opposite shore, in two great divisions 100,000 strong, in a wooded and marshy country forming a sort of triangle, whose point touches the union of the Narew and Ukra rivers with the Vistula, a few leagues below Warsaw. The Russians communicated with the sea by a Prussian corps stationed between them and Dantzic. Napoleon would not permit them to hold this post, and resolved to strike a blow, before going into winter-quarters, which should cut them off from the sea and drive them back towards the Memel and Lithuania. He crossed the Vistula, December 23, and attacked the Russians between the Narew and the Ukra. A series of bloody battles followed [the most important being at Pultusk and Golymin, December 26] in the dense forests and deep bogs of the thawing land. Napoleon said that he had discovered a fifth element in Poland,—mud. Men and horses stuck in the swamp and the cannons could not be extricated. Luckily the Russians were in the incompetent hands of General Kamenski, and both parties fought in the dark, the labyrinth of swamps and woods preventing either army from guessing the other's movements. The Russians were finally driven, with great loss, beyond the Narew towards the forests of Belostok, and a Prussian corps striving to assist them was driven back to the sea. … The grand army did not long enjoy the rest it so much needed; for the Russians, whose losses were more than made up by the arrival of their reserves, suddenly resumed the offensive. {1512} General Benningsen, who gave a fearful proof of his sinister energy by the murder of Paul I., had been put in command in Kamenski's place. Marching round the forests and traversing the line of lakes which divide the basin of the Narew from those watercourses flowing directly to the sea, he reached the maritime part of old Prussia, intending to cross the Vistula and drive the French from their position in Poland. He had hoped to surprise the French left wing, lying between the Passarge and Lower Vistula, but arrived too late. Ney and Bernadotte rapidly concentrated their forces and fought with a bravery which arrested the Russians (January 25 and 27). Napoleon came to the rescue, and having once driven the enemy into the woods and marshes of the interior, now strove to turn those who meant to turn him, by an inverse action forcing them to the sea-coast. … Benningsen then halted beyond Eylau, and massed his forces to receive battle next day [February 8]. He had about 70,000 men, twice the artillery of Napoleon (400 guns against 200), and hoped to be joined betimes by a Prussian corps. Napoleon could only dispose of 60,000 out of his 300,000 men,—Ney being some leagues away and Bernadotte out of reach. … The battlefield was a fearful sight next day. Twelve thousand Russians and 10,000 French lay dying and dead on the vast fields of snow reddened with blood. The Russians, besides, carried off 15,000 wounded. 'What an ineffectual massacre" cried Ney, as he traversed the scene of carnage. This was too true; for although Napoleon drove the Russians to the sea, it was not in the way he desired. Benningsen succeeded in reaching Konigsberg, where he could rest and reinforce his army, and Napoleon was not strong enough to drive him from this last shelter."

GERMANY: A. D. 1806-1810.
Commercial blockade by the English Orders in Council and
Napoleon's Decrees.

GERMANY: A. D. 1807 (February-June).
   Closer alliance of Prussia and Russia.
   Treaty of Bartenstein.
   Napoleon's victory at Friedland.
   End of the campaign.

   The effect produced in Europe by the doubtful battle of Eylau
   "was unlucky for France; in Paris the Funds fell. Bennigsen
   boldly ordered the Te Deum to be sung. In order to confirm his
   victory, re-organise his army, reassure France, re-establish
   the opinion of Europe, encourage the Polish insurrection, and
   to curb the ill-will of Germany and Austria, Napoleon remained
   a week at Eylau. He negotiated: on one side he caused
   Talleyrand to write to Zastrow, the Prussian foreign minister,
   to propose peace and his alliance; he sent Bertrand to Memel
   to offer to re-establish the King of Prussia, on the condition
   of no foreign intervention. He also tried to negotiate with
   Bennigsen; to which the latter made answer, 'that his master
   had charged him to fight, and not negotiate.' After some
   hesitation, Prussia ended by joining her fortunes to those of
   Russia. By the convention of Bartenstein (25th April, 1807)
   the two sovereigns came to terms on the following points:
   1. The re-establishment of Prussia within the limits of 1805.
   2. The dissolution of the Confederation of the Rhine.
   3. The restitution to Austria of the Tyrol and Venice.
   4. The accession of England to the coalition, and the
   aggrandisement of Hanover.
   5. The co-operation of Sweden.
   6. The restoration of the house of Orange, and indemnities to
   the kings of Naples and Sardinia.

   This document is important; it nearly reproduces the
   conditions offered to Napoleon at the Congress of Prague, in
   1813. Russia and Prussia proposed then to make a more pressing
   appeal to Austria, Sweden, and England; but the Emperor
   Francis was naturally undecided, and the Archduke Charles,
   alleging the state of the finances and the army, strongly
   advised him against any new intervention. Sweden was too weak;
   and notwithstanding his fury against Napoleon, Gustavus III.
   had just been forced to treat with Mortier. The English
   minister showed a remarkable inability to conceive the
   situation; he refused to guarantee the new Russian loan of a
   hundred and fifty millions, and would lend himself to no
   maritime diversion. Napoleon showed the greatest diplomatic
   activity. The Sultan Selim III. declared war against Russia;
   General Sebastiani, the envoy at Constantinople, put the
   Bosphorus in a state of defence, and repulsed the English
   fleet [see TURKS: A. D. 1806-1807]; General Gardane left for
   Ispahan, with a mission to cause a Persian outbreak in the
   Caucasus. Dantzig had capitulated [May 24, after a long
   siege], and Lefèbvre's 40,000 men were therefore ready for
   service. Masséna took 36,000 of them into Italy, In the
   spring, Bennigsen, who had been reinforced by 10,000 regular
   troops, 6,000 Cossacks, and the Imperial Guard, being now at
   the head of 100,000 men, took the offensive; Gortchakof
   commanding the right and Bagration the left. He tried, as in
   the preceding year, to seize Ney's division; but the latter
   fought, as he retired, two bloody fights, at Gutstadt and
   Ankendorff. Bennigsen, again in danger of being surrounded,
   retired on Heilsberg. He defended himself bravely (June 10);
   but the French, extending their line on his right, marched on
   Eylau, so as to cut him off from Konigsberg. The Russian
   generalissimo retreated; but being pressed, he had to draw up
   at Friedland, on the Alle. The position he had taken up was
   most dangerous. All his army was enclosed in an angle of the
   Alle, with the steep bed of the river at their backs, which in
   case of misfortune left them only one means of retreat, over
   the three bridges of Friedland. … 'Where are the Russians
   concealed?' asked Napoleon when he came up. When he had noted
   their situation, he exclaimed, 'It is not every day that one
   surprises the enemy in such a fault.' He put Lannes and Victor
   in reserve, ordered Mortier to oppose Gortchakof on the left
   and to remain still, as the movement which 'would be made by
   the right would pivot on the left.' As to Ney, he was to cope
   on the right with Bagration, who was shut in by the angle of
   the river; he was to meet them 'with his head down,' without
   taking any care of his own safety. Ney led the charge with
   irresistible fury; the Russians were riddled by his artillery
   at 150 paces: he successively crushed the chasseurs of the
   Russian Guard, the Ismaïlovski, and the Horse Guards, burnt
   Friedland by shells, and cannonaded the bridges which were the
   only means of retreat. … The Russian left wing was almost
   thrown into the river; Bagration, with the Semenovski and
   other troops, was hardly able to cover the defeat.
{1513}
   On the Russian right, Gortchakof, who had advanced to attack
   the immovable Mortier, had only time to ford the Alle. Count
   Lambert retired with 29 guns by the left bank; the rest fled
   by the right bank, closely pursued by the cavalry. Meanwhile
   Murat, Davoust, and Soult, who had taken no part in the
   battle, arrived before Konigsberg. Lestocq, with 25,000 men,
   tried to defend it, but on learning the disaster of Friedland
   he hastily evacuated it. Only one fortress now remained to
   Frederick William—the little town of Memel. The Russians had
   lost at Friedland from 15,000 to 20,000 men, besides 80 guns
   (June 14, 1807). … Alexander had no longer an army. Only one
   man, Barclay de Tolly, proposed to continue the war; but in
   order to do this it would be necessary to re-enter Russia, to
   penetrate into the very heart of the empire, to burn
   everything on the way, and only present a desert to the enemy.
   Alexander hoped to get off more cheaply. He wrote a severe
   letter to Bennigsen, and gave him powers to treat."

GERMANY: A. D. 1807 (June-July).
The Treaty of Tilsit.
Its known and its unknown agreements.

"Alexander I. now determined to negotiate in person with the rival emperor, and on the 25th of June the two sovereigns met at Tilsit, on a raft which was moored in the middle of the Niemen. The details of the conference are a secret, as Napoleon's subsequent account of it is untrustworthy, and no witnesses were present. All that is certain is that Alexander I., whose character was a curious mixture of nobility and weakness, was completely won over by his conqueror. … Napoleon, … instead of attempting to impose extreme terms upon a country which it was impossible to conquer, … offered to share with Russia the supremacy in Europe which had been won by French arms. The only conditions were the abandonment of the cause of the old monarchies, which seemed hopeless, and an alliance with France against England. Alexander had several grievances against the English government, especially the lukewarm support that had been given in recent operations, and made no objection to resume the policy of his predecessors in this respect. Two interviews sufficed to arrange the basis of an agreement. Both sovereigns abandoned their allies without scruple. Alexander gave up Prussia and Sweden, while Napoleon deserted the cause of the Poles, who had trusted to his zeal for their independence, and of the Turks, whom his envoy had recently induced to make war upon Russia. The Treaty of Tilsit was speedily drawn up; on the 7th of July peace was signed between France and Russia, on the 9th between France and Prussia. Frederick William III. had to resign the whole of his kingdom west of the Elbe, together with all the acquisitions which Prussia had made in the second and third partitions of Poland. The provinces that were left, amounting to barely half of what he had inherited, were burthened with the payment of an enormous sum as compensation to France. The district west of the Elbe was united with Hesse-Cassel, Brunswick, and ultimately with Hanover, to form the kingdom of Westphalia, which was given to Napoleon's youngest brother, Jerome. Of Polish Prussia, one province, Bialystock, was added to Russia, and the rest was made into the grand duchy of Warsaw, and transferred to Saxony. Danzig, with the surrounding territory, was declared a free state under Prussian and Saxon protection, but it was really subject to France, and remained a centre of French power on the Baltic. All trade between Prussia and England was cut off. Alexander I., on his side, recognised all Napoleon's new creations in Europe—the Confederation of the Rhine, the kingdoms of Italy, Naples, Holland, and Westphalia, and undertook to mediate between France and England. But the really important agreement between France and Russia was to be found, not in the formal treaties, but in the secret conventions which were arranged by the two emperors. The exact text of these has never been made public, and it is probable that some of the terms rested upon verbal rather than on written understandings, but the general drift of them is unquestionable. The bribe offered to Alexander was the aggrandisement of Russia in the East. To make him an accomplice in the acts of Napoleon, he was to be allowed to annex Finland from Sweden, and Moldavia and Wallachia from Turkey. With regard to England, Russia undertook to adopt Napoleon's blockade-system, and to obtain the adhesion of those states which still remained open to English trade—Sweden, Denmark, and Portugal."

   "'I thought,' said Napoleon at St. Helena, 'it would benefit
   the world to drive these brutes, the Turks, out of Europe. But
   when I reflected what power it would give to Russia, from the
   number of Greeks in the Turkish dominions who may be
   considered Russians, I refused to consent to it, especially as
   Alexander wanted Constantinople, which would have destroyed
   the equilibrium of power in Europe. France would gain Egypt,
   Syria, and the islands; but those were nothing to what Russia
   would have obtained.' This coincides with Savary's [Duke de
   Rovigo's] statement, that Alexander told him Napoleon said he
   was under no engagements to the new Sultan, and that changes
   in the world inevitably changed the relations of states to one
   another; and again, Alexander said that, in their
   conversations at Tilsit, Napoleon often told him he did not
   require the evacuation of Moldavia and Wallachia; he would
   place things in a train to dispense with it, and it was not
   possible to suffer longer the presence of the Turks in Europe.
   'He even left me,' said Alexander, 'to entertain the project
   of driving them back into Asia. It is only since that he has
   returned to the idea of leaving Constantinople to them, and
   some surrounding provinces.' Due day, when Napoleon was
   talking to Alexander, he asked his secretary, M. Meneval, for
   the map of Turkey, opened it, then renewed the conversation;
   and placing his finger on Constantinople said several times to
   the secretary, though not loud enough to be heard by
   Alexander, 'Constantinople, Constantinople, never. It is the
   capital of the world.' … It is very evident in their
   conversations that Napoleon agreed to his [Alexander's]
   possessing himself of the Turkish Empire up to the Balkan, if
   not beyond; though Bignon denies that any plan for the actual
   partition of Turkey was embodied in the treaty of Tilsit.
   Hardenberg, not always well informed, asserts that it was.
{1514}
   Savary says he could not believe that Napoleon would have
   abandoned the Turks without a compensation in some other
   quarter; and he felt certain Alexander had agreed in return to
   Napoleon's project for the conquest of Spain, 'which the
   Emperor had very much at heart'"

      A. Thiers,
      History of the Consulate and the Empire,
      book 27 (volume 2).

"For the five years that followed, Prussia is to be conceived, in addition to all her other humiliations, as in the hands of a remorseless creditor whose claims are decided by himself without appeal, and who wants more than all he can get. She is to be thought of as supporting for more than a year after the conclusion of the Treaty a French army of more than 150,000 men, then as supporting a French garrison in three principal fortresses, and finally, just before the period ends, as having to support the huge Russian expedition in its passage through the country. … It was not in fact from the Treaty of Tilsit, but from the systematic breach of it, that the sufferings of Prussia between 1807 and 1813 arose. It is indeed hardly too much to say that the advantage of the Treaty was received only by France, and that the only object Napoleon can have had in signing it was to inflict more harm on Prussia than he could inflict by simply continuing the war. Such was the downfall of Prussia. The tremendousness of the catastrophe strikes us less because we know that it was soon retrieved, and that Prussia rose again and became greater than ever. But could this recovery be anticipated? A great nation, we say, cannot be dissolved by a few disasters; patriotism and energy will retrieve everything. But precisely these seemed wanting. The State seemed to have fallen in pieces because it had no principle of cohesion, and was only held together by an artificial bureaucracy. It had been created by the energy of its government and the efficiency of its soldiers, and now it appeared to come to an end because its government had ceased to be energetic and its soldiers to be efficient. The catastrophe could not but seem as irremediable as it was sudden and complete." There may be discerned "three distinct causes for it. First, the undecided and pusillanimous policy pursued by the Prussian government since 1803 had an evident influence upon the result by making the great Powers, particularly England and Austria, slow to render it assistance, and also by making the commanders, especially Brunswick, irresolute in action because they could not, even at the last moment, believe the war to be serious. This indecision we have observed to have been connected with a mal-organisation of the Foreign Department. Secondly, the corruption of the military system, which led to the surrender of the fortresses. Thirdly, a misfortune for which Prussia was not responsible, its desertion by Russia at a critical moment, and the formation of a close alliance between Russia and France."

GERMANY: A. D. 1807-1808.
   The great Revolutionary Reforms of Hardenberg, Stein and
   Scharnhorst.
   Edict of Emancipation.
   Military reorganization.
   Beginning of local self-government.
   Seeds of a new national life.

"The work of those who resisted Napoleon—even if no one of them should ever be placed in the highest class of the benefactors of mankind—has in some cases proved enduring, and nowhere so much as in Germany. They began two great works—the reorganisation of Prussia and the revival of the German nationality, and time has deliberately ratified their views. Without retrogression, without mistake, except the mistake which in such matters is the most venial that can be committed, that, namely, of over-caution, of excessive hesitation, the edifice which was then founded has been raised higher and higher till it is near completion. … Because Frederick-William III. remains quietly seated on the throne through the whole period, we remain totally unaware that a Prussian revolution took place then—a revolution so comprehensive that the old reign and glories of Frederick may fairly be said to belong to another world—to an 'ancien regime' that has utterly passed away. It was a revolution which, though it did not touch the actual framework of government in such a way as to substitute one of Aristotle's forms of government for another, yet went so far beyond government, and made such a transformation both in industry and culture, that it deserves the name of revolution far more, for instance, than our English Revolution of the 17th century. … In Prussia few of the most distinguished statesmen, few even of those who took the lead in her liberation from Napoleon, were Prussians. Blücher himself began life in the service of Sweden, Scharnhorst was a Hanoverian, so was Hardenberg, and Stein came from Nassau. Niebuhr was enticed to Berlin from the Bank of Copenhagen. Hardenberg served George III. and afterwards the Duke of Brunswick before he entered the service of Frederick-William II.; and when Stein was dismissed by Frederick-William III. in the midst of the war of 1806, though he was a man of property and rank, he took measures to ascertain whether they were in want of a Finance Minister at St. Petersburg. … We misapprehend the nature of what took place when we say, as we usually do, that some important and useful reforms were introduced by Stein, Hardenberg, and Scharnhorst. In the first place, such a word as reform is not properly applied to changes so vast, and in the second place. the changes then made or at least commenced, went far beyond legislation. We want some word stronger than reform which shall convey that one of the greatest events of modern history now took place in Prussia. Revolution would convey this, but unfortunately we appropriate that word to changes in the form of government, or even mere changes of dynasty, provided they are violent, though such changes are commonly quite insignificant compared to what now took place in Prussia. … The form of government indeed was not changed. Not merely did the king continue to reign, but no Parliament was created even with powers ever so restricted. Another generation had to pass away before this innovation, which to us seems the beginning of political life, took place. But a nation must be made before it can be made free, and, as we have said, in Prussia there was an administration (in great disorder) and an army, but no nation. {1515} When Stein was placed at the head of affairs in the autumn of 1807, he seems, at first, hardly to have been aware that anything was called for beyond the reform of the administration, and the removal of some abuses in the army. Accordingly he did reform the administration from the top to the bottom, remodelling the whole machinery both of central and local government which had come down from the father of Frederick the Great. But the other work also was forced upon him, and he began to create the nation by emancipating the peasantry, while Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were brooding over the ideas which, five years later, took shape in the Landwehr of East Prussia. Besides emancipating the peasant he emancipated industry,—everywhere abolishing that strange caste system which divided the population rigidly into nobles, citizens, and peasants, and even stamped every acre of land in the country with its own unalterable rank as noble, or citizen, or peasant land. Emancipation, so to speak, had to be given before enfranchisement. The peasant must have something to live for; freewill must be awakened in the citizen; and he must be taught to fight for something before he could receive political liberty. Of such liberty Stein only provided one modest germ. By his Städteordnung he introduced popular election into the towns. Thus Prussia and France set out towards political liberty by different roads. Prussia began modestly with local liberties, but did not for a long time attempt a Parliament. France with her charte, and in imitation of France many of the small German States, had grand popular Parliaments, but no local liberties. And so for a long time Prussia was regarded as a backward State. … It was only by accident that Stein stopped short at municipal liberties and created no Parliament. He would have gone further, and in the last years of the wartime Hardenberg did summon deliberative assemblies, which, however, fell into disuse again after the peace. … In spite however of all reaction, the change irrevocably made by the legislation of that time was similar to that made in France by the Revolution, and caused the age before Jena to be regarded as an 'ancien regime.' But in addition to this, a change had been made in men's minds and thoughts by the shocks of the time, which prepared the way for legislative changes which have taken place since. How unprecedented in Prussia, for instance, was the dictatorial authority wielded by Hardenberg early in 1807, by Stein in the latter part of that year and in 1808, and by Hardenberg again from 1810 onwards! Before that time in the history of Prussia we find no subject eclipsing or even approaching the King in importance. Prussia had been made what she was almost entirely by her electors and kings. In war and organisation alike all had been done by the Great Elector or Frederick-William I., or Frederick the Great. But now this is suddenly changed. Everything now turns on the minister. Weak ministers are expelled by pressure put upon the king, strong ones are forced upon him. He is compelled to create a new ministerial power much greater than that of an English Prime Minister, and more like that of a Grand Vizier, and by these dictators the most comprehensive innovations are made. The loyalty of the people was not impaired by this; on the contrary, Stein and Hardenberg saved the Monarchy; but it evidently transferred the Monarchy, though safely, to a lower pedestal."

J. R. Seeley, Prussian History (Macmillan's Magazine, volume 36, pages 342-351).

      R. B. D. Morier,
      Agrarian Legislation of Prussia
      (Systems of Land Tenure: Cobden Club Essays,
      chapter 5).

GERMANY: A. D. 1808.
The Awakening of the national spirit.
Effects of the Spanish rising, and of Fichte's Addresses.

The beginnings of the great rising in Spain against Napoleon (see SPAIN: A. D. 1808, and after) "were watched by Stein from Berlin while he was engaged in negotiating with Daru; we can imagine with what feelings! His cause had been, since his ministry began, substantially the same as that of Spain; but he had perhaps understood it himself but dimly, at any rate hoped but faintly to see it prosper. But now he ripens at once into a great nationality statesman; the reforms of Prussia begin at once to take a more military stamp, and to point more decisively to a great uprising of the German race against the foreign oppressor. The change of feeling which took place in Prussia after the beginning of the Spanish troubles is very clearly marked in Stein's autobiography. After describing the negotiations at Paris and Berlin, … he begins a new paragraph thus: 'The popular war which had broken out in Spain and was attended with good success, had heightened the irritation of the inhabitants of the Prussian State caused by the humiliation they had suffered. All thirsted for revenge; plans of insurrection, which aimed at exterminating the French scattered about the country, were arranged; among others, one was to be carried out at Berlin, and I had the greatest trouble to keep the leaders, who confided their intentions to me, from a premature outbreak. We all watched the progress of the Spanish war and the commencement of the Austrian, for the preparations of that Power had not remained a secret; expectation was strained to the highest point; pains were necessary to moderate the excited eagerness for resistance in order to profit by it in more favourable circumstances. … Fichte's Addresses to the Germans, delivered during the French occupation of Berlin and printed under the censorship of M. Bignon, the Intendant, had a great effect upon the feelings of the cultivated class.' … That in the midst of such weighty matters he should remember to mention Fichte's Addresses is a remarkable testimony to the effect produced by them on the public mind, and at the same time it leads us to conjecture that they must have strongly influenced his own. They had been delivered in the winter at Berlin and of course could not be heard by Stein, who was then with the King, but they were not published till April. As affecting public opinion therefore, and also as known to Stein, the book was almost exactly of the same date as the Spanish Rebellion, and it is not unnatural that he should mention the two influences together. … When the lectures were delivered at Berlin a rising in Spain was not dreamed of, and even when they were published it had not taken place, nor could clearly be foreseen. And yet they teach the same lesson. That doctrine of nationality which was taught affirmatively by Spain had been suggested to Fichte's mind by the reductio ad absurdum which events had given to the negation of it in Germany. {1516} Nothing could be more convincing than the concurrence of the two methods of proof at the same moment, and the prophetic elevation of these discourses (which may have furnished a model to Carlyle) was well fitted to drive the lesson home, particularly to a mind like Stein's, which was quite capable of being impressed by large principles. … Fichte's Addresses do not profess to have in the first instance nationality for their subject. They profess to inquire whether there exists any grand comprehensive remedy for the evils with which Germany is afflicted. They find such a remedy where Turgot long before had looked for deliverance from the selfishness to which he traced all the abuses of the old regime, that is, in a grand system of national education. Fichte reiterates the favourite doctrine of modern Liberalism, that education as hitherto conducted by the Church has aimed only at securing for men happiness in another life, and that this is not enough, inasmuch as they need also to be taught how to bear themselves in the present life so as to do their duty to the state, to others and themselves. He is as sure as Turgot that a system of national education will work so powerfully upon the nation that in a few years they will not be recognisable, and he explains at great length what should be the nature of this system, dwelling principally upon the importance of instilling a love of duty for its own sake rather than for reward. The method to be adopted is that of Pestalozzi. Out of fourteen lectures the first three are entirely occupied with this. But then the subject is changed, and we find ourselves plunged into a long discussion of the peculiar characteristics which distinguish Germany from other nations and particularly other nations of German origin. At the present day this discussion, which occupies four lectures, seems hardly satisfactory; but it is a striking deviation from the fashion of that age. … But up to this point we perceive only that the subject of German nationality occupies Fichte's mind very much, and that there was more significance than we first remarked in the title, Addresses to the German Nation; otherwise we have met with nothing likely to seem of great importance to a statesman. But the eighth Lecture propounds the question, 'What is a Nation in the higher signification of the word, and what is patriotism? It is here that he delivers what might seem a commentary on the Spanish Revolution, which had not yet taken place. … Fichte proclaims the Nation not only to be different from the State, but to be something far higher and greater. … Applied to Germany this doctrine would lead to the practical conclusion that a united German State ought to be set up in which the separate German States should be absorbed. … In the lecture before us he contents himself with advising that patriotism as distinguished from loyalty to the State should be carefully inculcated in the new education, and should influence the individual German Governments. It would not indeed have been safe for Fichte to propose a political reform, but it rather appears that he thought it an advantage rather than a disadvantage that the Nation and the State should be distinct. … I should not have lingered so long over this book if it did not strike me as the prophetical or canonical book which announces and explains a great transition in Modern Europe, and the prophecies of which began to be fulfilled immediately after its publication by the rising in Spain. … It is this Spanish Revolution which when it has extended to the other countries we call the Anti-Napoleonic Revolution of Europe. It gave Europe years of unparalleled bloodshed, but at the same time years over which there broods a light of poetry; for no conception can be more profoundly poetical than that which now woke up in every part of Europe, the conception of the Nation. Those years also led the way to the great movements which have filled so much of the nineteenth century, and have rearranged the whole central part of the map of Europe on a more natural system."

GERMANY: A. D. 1808 (April-December).
The Tugendbund, and Stein's relations to it.

"English people think of Stein almost exclusively in connexion with land laws. But the second and more warlike period of his Ministry has also left a faint impression in the minds of many among us, who are in the habit of regarding him as the founder of the Tugendbund. In August and September [1808], the very months in which Stein was taking up his new position, this society was attracting general attention, and accordingly this is the place to consider Stein's relation to it. That he was secretly animating and urging it on must have seemed at the time more than probable, almost self-evident. It aimed at the very objects which he had at heart, it spoke of him with warm admiration, and in general it used language which seemed an echo of his own. … Whatever his connexion with the Tugendbund may have been, it cannot have commenced till April, 1808, for it was in that month that the Tugendbund began its existence, and therefore nothing can be more absurd than to represent Stein as beginning to revolutionise the country with the help of the Tugendbund, for his revolutionary edict had been promulgated in the October before. … In his autobiography … Stein [says]: 'An effect and not the cause of this passionate national indignation at the despotism of Napoleon was the Tugendbund, of which I was no more the founder than I was a member, as I can assert on my honour and as is well known to its originators. About July, 1808, there was formed at Königsberg a society consisting of several officers, for example, Colonel Gneisenau, Grolmann, &c., and learned men, such as Professor Krug, in order to combat selfishness and to rouse the nobler moral feelings; and according to the requirements of the existing laws they communicated their statutes and the list of their members to the King's Majesty, who sanctioned the former without any action on my part, it being my belief in general that there was no need of any other institute but to put new life into the spirit of Christian patriotism, the germ of which lay already in the existing institutions of State and Church. The new Society held its meetings, but of the proceedings I knew nothing, and when later it proposed to exert an indirect influence upon educational and military institutions I rejected the proposal as encroaching on the department of the civil and ecclesiastical governing bodies. As I was driven soon afterwards out of the public service, I know nothing of the further operations of this Society.' … {1517} He certainly seems to intend his readers to understand that he had not even any indirect or underhand connexion with it, but from first to last stood entirely aloof, except in one case when he interfered to restrain its action. It is even possible that by telling us that he had nothing to do with the step taken by the King when he sanctioned the statutes of the society he means to hint that; had his advice been taken, the society would not have been even allowed to exist. … The principal fact affirmed by Stein is indeed now beyond controversy; Stein was certainly not either the founder or a member of the Tugendbund. The society commonly known by that name, which however designated itself as the Moral and Scientific Union, was founded by a number of persons, of whom many were Freemasons, at Konigsberg in the month of April. Professor Krug, mentioned by Stein, was one of them; Gneisenau and Grolmann, whom he also mentions, were not among the first members, and Gneisenau, it seems, was never a member. The statutes were drawn by Krug, Bardeleben and Baersch, and if anyone person can be called the Founder of the Tugendbund, the second of these, Bardeleben, seems best to deserve the title. The Order of Cabinet by which the society was licensed is dated Konigsberg, June 30th, and runs as follows: 'The revival of morality, religion, serious taste and public spirit, is assuredly most commendable; and, so far as the society now being formed under the name of a Virtue Union (Tugendverein) is occupied with this within the limits of the laws of the country and without any interference in politics or public administration, His Majesty the King of Prussia approves the object and constitution of the society.' … From Konigsberg missionaries went forth who established branch associations, called Chambers, in other towns, first those of the Province of Prussia, Braunsberg, Elbing, Graudenz, Eylau, Hohenstein, Memel, Stallupöhnen; then in August and September Bardeleben spread the movement with great success through Silesia. The spirit which animated the new society could not but be approved by every patriot. They had been deeply struck with the decay of the nation, as shown in the occurrences of the war, and their views of the way in which it might be revived were much the same as those of Stein and Fichte. The only question was whether they were wise in organising a society in order to promulgate these views, whether such a society was likely to do much good, and also whether it might not by possibility do much harm. Stein's view, as he has given it, was that it was not likely to do much good, and that such an organisation was unnecessary. … It did not follow because he desired Estates or Parliaments that he was prepared to sanction a political club. … It may well have seemed to him that to suffer a political club to come into existence was to allow the guidance of the Revolution which he had begun to pass out of his hands. There appears, then, when we consider it closely, nothing unnatural in the course which Stein declares himself to have taken."

ALSO IN: T. Frost, Secret Societies of the European Revolution, volume 1, chapter 4.

GERMANY: A. D. 1808 (September-October).
Imperial conference and Treaty of Erfurt.

GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (January-June).
   Outburst of Austrian feeling against France.
   Reopening of war.
   Napoleon's advance to Vienna.
   His defeat at Aspern and perilous situation.
   Austrian reverses in Italy and Hungary.

"The one man of all the Austrians who felt the least amount of hatred against France, was, perhaps, the Emperor. All his family and all his people—nobles and priests, the middle classes and the peasantry—evinced a feeling full of anger against the nation which had upset Europe. … By reason of the French, the disturbers and spoilers, the enemies of the human race, despisers of morality and religion alike, Princes were suffering in their palaces, workmen in their shops, business men in their offices, priests in their churches, soldiers in their camps, peasants in their huts. The movement of exasperation was irresistible. Everyone said that it was a mistake to have laid down their arms; that they ought against France to have fought on to the bitter end, and to have sacrificed the last man and the last florin; that they had been wrong in not having gone to the assistance of Prussia after the Jena Campaign; and that the moment had arrived for all the Powers to coalesce against the common enemy and crush him. … All Europe had arrived at a paroxysm of indignation. What was she waiting for before rising? A signal. That signal Austria was about to give. And this time with what chances of success! The motto was to be 'victory or death.' But they were sure of victory. The French army, scattered from the Oder to the Tagus, from the mountains of Bohemia to the Sierra Morena, would not be able to resist the onslaught of so many nations eager to break their bonds. … Vienna, in 1809, indulged in the same language, and felt the same passions, that Berlin did in 1806. … The Landwehr, then only organized a few months, were impatiently awaiting the hour when they should measure themselves against the Veterans of the French army. Volunteers flocked in crowds to the colours. Patriotic subscriptions flowed in. … Boys wanted to leave school to fight. All classes of society vied with each other in zeal, courage, and a spirit of sacrifice. When the news was made public that the Archduke Charles had, on the 20th of February, 1809, been appointed Generalissimo, there was an outburst of joy and confidence from one end of the Empire to the other."

Imbert de Saint-Amand, Memoirs of the Empress Marie Louise, part 1, chapter 2.

"On receiving decisive intelligence of these hostile preparations, Napoleon returned with extraordinary expedition from Spain to Paris, in January, 1809, and gave orders to concentrate his forces in Germany, and call out the full contingents of the Confederation of the Rhine. Some further time was consumed by the preparations on either side. At last, on the 8th of April, the Austrian troops crossed the frontiers at once on the Inn, in Bohemia, in the Tyrol and in Italy. The whole burthen of the war rested on Austria alone, for Prussia remained neutral, and Russia, now allied to France, was even bound to make a show at least, though it were no more, of hostility to Austria. On the same day on which the Austrian forces crossed the frontiers, the Tyrol rose in insurrection [see below: A. D. 1809-1810 (APRIL-FEBRUARY)], and was swept clear of the enemy in four days, with the exception of a Bavarian garrison, that still held out in Kufstein. {1518} The French army was at this time dispersed over a line of forty leagues in extent, with numerous undefended apertures between the corps; so that the fairest possible opportunity presented itself to the Austrians for cutting to pieces the scattered forces of the French, and marching in triumph to the Rhine. As usual, however, the archduke's early movements were subjected to most impolitic delays by the Aulic Council; and time was allowed Napoleon to arrive on the theatre of war (April 17), and repair the faults committed by his adjutant-general, Berthier. He instantly extricated his army from its perilous position—almost cut in two by the advance of the Austrians—and, beginning on the 19th, he beat the latter in five battles on five successive days, at Thaun, Abensberg, Landshut, Eckmühl, and Ratisbon. The Archduke Charles retired into Bohemia to collect reinforcements, but General Hiller was, in consequence of the delay in repairing the fortifications of Linz, unable to maintain that place, the possession of which was important, on account of its forming a connecting point between Bohemia and the Austrian Oberland. Hiller, however, at least saved his honour by pushing forward to the Traun, and in a fearfully bloody encounter at Ebersberg, captured three French eagles, one of his colours alone falling into the enemy's hands. He was, nevertheless, compelled to retire before the superior forces of the French, and crossing over at Krems to the left bank of the Danube, he formed a junction with the Archduke Charles. The way was now clear to Vienna, which, after a slight show of defence, capitulated to Napoleon on the 12th of May. The Archduke Charles had hoped to reach the capital before the French, and to give battle to them beneath its walls; but as he had to make a circuit whilst the French pushed forward in a direct line, his plan was frustrated, and he arrived, when too late, from Bohemia. Both armies, separated by the Danube, stood opposed to one another in the vicinity of the imperial city. Both commanders were desirous of coming to a decisive engagement. The French had secured the island of Lobau, to serve as a mustering place, and point of transit across the Danube. The archduke allowed them to establish a bridge of boats, being resolved to await them on the Marchfeld. There it was that Rudolph of Habsburg, in the battle against Ottakar, had laid the foundation of the greatness of the house of Austria; and there the political existence of that house and the fate of the monarchy were now to be decided. Having crossed the river, Napoleon was received on the opposite bank, near Aspern and Esslingen, by his opponent, and, after a dreadful battle [in which Marshal Lannes was killed], that was carried on with unwearied animosity for two days, May 21st and 22nd, 1809, he was completely beaten, and compelled to fly for refuge to the island of Lobau. The rising stream had, meanwhile, carried away the bridge, Napoleon's sole chance of escape to the opposite bank. For two days he remained on the island with his defeated troops, without provisions, and in hourly expectation of being cut to pieces; the Austrians, however, neglected to turn the opportunity to advantage, and allowed the French leisure to rebuild the bridge, a work of extreme difficulty. During six weeks afterwards, the two armies continued to occupy their former positions under the walls of Vienna, on the right and left banks of the Danube, narrowly watching each other's movements, and preparing for a final struggle. Whilst these events were in progress, the Archduke John had successfully penetrated into Italy, where he had totally defeated the Viceroy Eugene at Salice, on the 16th of April. Favoured by the simultaneous revolt of the Tyrolese, he might have obtained the most decisive results from this victory, but the extraordinary progress of Napoleon down the valley of the Danube rendered necessary the concentration of the whole forces of the monarchy for the defence of the capital. Having begun a retreat, he was pursued by Eugene, and defeated on the Piave, with great loss, on the 8th of May. Escaping thence, without further molestation, to Villach, in Carinthia, he received intelligence of the fall of Vienna, together with a letter from the Archduke Charles, of the 15th of May, directing him to move with all his forces upon Lintz, to act on the rear and communications of Napoleon. Instead of obeying these orders, he thought proper to march into Hungary, abandoning the Tyrol and the whole projected operations on the Upper Danube to their fate. His disobedience was disastrous to the fortunes of his house, for it caused the fruits of the victory at Aspern to be lost. He might have arrived, with 50,000 men, on the 24th or 25th, at Lintz, where no one remained but Bernadotte and the Saxons, who were incapable of offering any serious resistance. Such a force, concentrated on the direct line of Napoleon's communications, immediately after his defeat at Aspern, on the 22nd, would have deprived him of all means of extricating himself from the most perilous situation in which he had yet been placed since ascending the consular throne. After totally defeating Jellachich in the valley of the Muhr, Eugene desisted from his pursuit of the army of Italy, and joined Napoleon at Vienna. The Archduke John united his forces at Raab with those of the Hungarian insurrection, under his brother, the Palatine. The viceroy again marched against him, and defeated him at Raab on the 14th of June. The Palatine remained with the Hungarian insurrection in Komorn; Archduke John moved on to Presburg. In the north, the Archduke Ferdinand, who had advanced as far as Warsaw, had been driven back by the Poles: under Poniatowsky, and by a Russian force sent by the Emperor Alexander to their aid, which, on this success, invaded Galicia."

      W. K. Kelly,
      History of the House of Austria (Continuation of Coxe),
      chapter 4.

ALSO IN: Sir A. Alison, History of Europe, 1789-1815, chapter 56-57 (volume 12).

   "A general revolt against the French had nearly taken place in
   Saxony and Westphalia, where the enormous burdens imposed on
   the people, and the insolence of the French troops, had
   kindled a deadly spirit of hostility against the oppressors.
   Everywhere the Tugendbund were in activity; and the advance of
   the Austrians towards Franconia and Saxony, at the beginning
   of the war, blew up the flame. The two first attempts at
   insurrection, headed respectively by Katt, a Prussian officer
   (April 3), and Dornberg, a Westphalian colonel (April 23),
   proved abortive; but the enterprise of the celebrated Schill
   was of a more formidable character.
{1519}
   This enthusiastic patriot, then a colonel in the Prussian
   army, had been compromised in the revolt of Dornberg; and
   finding himself discovered, he boldly raised the standard
   (April 29) at the head of 600 soldiers. His force speedily
   received accessions, but failing in his attempts on Wittenberg
   and Magdeburg, he moved towards the Baltic, in hope of succour
   from the British cruisers, and at last threw himself into
   Stralsund. Here he was speedily invested; the place was
   stormed (May 31), and the gallant Schill slain in the assault,
   a few hours only before the appearance of the British vessels
   —the timely arrival of which might have secured the place,
   and spread the rising over all Northern Germany. The Duke of
   Brunswick-Oels, with his 'black band' of volunteers, had at
   the same time invaded Saxony from Bohemia; and though then
   obliged to retreat, he made a second incursion in June,
   occupied Dresden and Leipsic, and drove the King of Westphalia
   into France. After the battle of Wagram he made his way across
   all Northern Germany, and was eventually conveyed, with his
   gallant followers, still 2,000 strong, to England."

GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (July-September).
   Napoleon's victory at Wagram.
   The Peace of Schonbrunn.
   Immense surrender of Austrian territory.

"The operation of establishing the bridges between the French camp and the left bank of the Danube commenced on the night of the 30th of June; and during the night of the 4th of July the whole French army, passing between the villages of Enzersdorf and Muhlleuten, debouched on the Marchfeld, wheeling to their left. Napoleon was on horseback in the midst of them by daylight; all the Austrian fortifications erected to defend the former bridge were turned, the villages occupied by their army taken, and the Archduke Charles was menaced both in flank and rear, the French line of battle appuyed on Enzersdorf being at a right angle to his left wing. Under these circumstances the Archduke, retiring his left, attempted to outflank the French right, while Napoleon bore down upon his centre at Wagram. This village became the scene of a sanguinary struggle, and one house only remained standing when night closed in. The Archduke sent courier after courier to hasten the advance of his brother, between whom and himself was Napoleon, whose line on the night of the 5th extended from Loibersdorf on the right to some two miles beyond Wagram on the left. Napoleon passed the night in massing his centre, still determining to manœuvre by his left in order to throw back the Archduke Charles on that side before the Archduke John could come up on the other. At six o'clock on the morning of the 6th of July he commanded the attack in person. Disregarding all risk, he appeared throughout the day in the hottest of the fire, mounted on a snow-white charger, Euphrates, a present from the Shah of Persia. The Archduke Charles as usual committed the error which Napoleon's enemies had not even yet learned was invariably fatal to them: extending his line too greatly he weakened his centre, at the same time opening tremendous assaults on the French wings, which suffered dreadfully. Napoleon ordered Lauriston to advance upon the Austrian centre with a hundred guns, supported by two whole divisions of infantry in column. The artillery, when within half cannon-shot, opened a terrific fire: nothing could withstand such a shock. The infantry, led by Macdonald, charged; the Austrian line was broken and the centre driven back in confusion. The right, in a panic, retrograded; the French cavalry then bore down upon them and decided the battle, the Archduke still fighting to secure his retreat, which he at length effected in tolerably good order. By noon the whole Austrian army was abandoning the contest. Their defeat so demoralized them that the Archduke John, who came up on Napoleon's right before the battle was over, was glad to retire with the rest, unnoticed by the enemy. That evening the Marchfeld and Wagram were in possession of the French. The population of Vienna had watched the battle from the roofs and ramparts of the city, and saw the retreat of their army with fear and gloom. Between 300,000 and 400,000 men were engaged, and the loss on both sides was nearly equal. About 20,000 dead and 30,000 wounded strewed the ground; the latter were conveyed to the hospitals of Vienna. … Twenty thousand Austrians were taken prisoners, but the number would have been greater had the French cavalry acted with their usual spirit. Bernadotte, issuing a bulletin, almost assuming to himself the sole merit of the victory, was removed from his command. Macdonald was created a marshal of the empire on the morning after the battle. … The battle of Wagram was won more by good fortune than skill. Napoleon's strategy was at fault, and had the Austrians fought as stoutly as they did at Aspern, Napoleon would have been signally defeated. Had the Archduke John acted promptly and vigorously, he might have united with his brother's left—which was intact—and overwhelmed the French. … The defeated army retired to Znaim, followed by the French; but further resistance was abandoned by the Emperor of Austria. The Archduke Charles solicited an armistice on the 9th; hostilities ceased, and Napoleon returned to the palace of Schonbrunn while the plenipotentiaries settled the terms of peace. … English Ministers displayed another instance of their customary spirit of procrastination. Exactly eight days after the armistice of Znaim, which assured them that Austria was no longer in a position to profit by or co-operate with their proceedings, they sent more than 80,000 fighting men, under the command of Lord Chatham, to besiege Antwerp. …

Operations against Naples proved equally abortive. … In Spain alone English arms were successful. Sir Arthur Wellesley won the battle of Talavera on the 28th of July. …

A treaty of peace, between France and Austria was signed on the 14th of October at Vienna [sometimes called the Treaty of Vienna, but more commonly the Peace of Schonbrunn]. The Emperor of Austria ceded Salzburg and a part of Upper Austria to the Confederation of the Rhine; part of Bohemia, Cracow, and Western Galicia to the King of Saxony as Grand Duke of Warsaw; part of Eastern Galicia to the Emperor of Russia; and Trieste, Carniola, Friuli, Villach, and some part of Croatia and Dalmatia to France: thus connecting the kingdom of Italy with Napoleon's Illyrian possessions, making him master of the entire coast of the Adriatic, and depriving Austria of its last seaport. It was computed that the Emperor Francis gave up territory to the amount of 45,000 square miles, with a population of nearly 4,000,000. He also paid a large contribution in money."

"The cessions made directly to Napoleon were the county of Görtz, or Goricia, and that of Montefalcone, forming the Austrian Friuli; the town and government of Trieste, Carniola, the circle of Villach in Carinthia, part of Croatia and Dalmatia, and the lordship of Räzuns in the Grison territory. All these provinces, with the exception of Räzuns, were incorporated by a decree of Napoleon, with Dalmatia and its islands, into a single state with the name of the Illyrian Provinces. They were never united with France, but always governed by Napoleon as an independent state. A few districts before possessed by Napoleon were also incorporated with them: as Venetian Istria and Dalmatia with the Bocca di Cattaro, Ragusa, and part of the Tyrol. … The only other articles of the treaty of much importance are the recognition by Austria of any changes made, or to be made, in Spain, Portugal, and Italy; the adherence of the Emperor to the prohibitive system adopted by France and Russia, and his engaging to cease all correspondence and relationship with Great Britain. By a decree made at Ratisbon, April 24th, 1809, Napoleon had suppressed the Teutonic Order in all the States belonging to the Rhenish Confederation, reannexed its possessions to the domains of the prince in which they were situated, and incorporated Mergentheim, with the rights, domains, and revenues attached to the Grand Mastership of the Order, with the Kingdom of Würtemberg. These dispositions were confirmed by the Treaty of Schönbrunn. The effect aimed at by the Treaty of Schönbrunn was to surround Austria with powerful states, and thus to paralyse all her military efforts. … The Emperor of Russia … was very ill satisfied with the small portion of the spoils assigned to him, and the augmentation awarded to the duchy of Warsaw. Hence the first occasion of coldness between him and Napoleon, whom he suspected of a design to reestablish the Kingdom of Poland."

ALSO IN: Sir A. Alison, History of Europe, 1789-1815, chapters 59-60 (volume 13).

      E. Baines,
      History of the Wars of the French Revolution,
      book 4, chapter 9 (volume 3).

GERMANY: A. D. 1809-1810 (April-February).
The revolt in the Tyrol.
Heroic struggle of Andrew Hofer and his countrymen.

   "The Tyrol, for centuries a possession of Austria, was ceded
   to Bavaria by the Peace of Presburg in 1805. The Bavarians
   made many innovations, in the French style, some good and some
   bad; but the mountaineers, clinging to their ancient ways,
   resisted them all alike. They hated the Bavarians as foreign
   masters forced upon them; and especially detested the military
   conscription, to which Austria had never subjected them. The
   priests had an almost unlimited influence over these faithful
   Catholics, and the Bavarians, who treated them rudely, were
   regarded as innovators and allies of revolutionary France.
   Thus the country submitted restlessly to the yoke of the Rhine
   League until the spring of 1809. A secret understanding was
   maintained with Austria and the Archduke John, and the people
   never abandoned the hope of returning to their Austrian
   allegiance. When the great war of 1809 began, the Emperor
   Francis summoned all his people to arms. The Tyrolese answered
   the call. … They are a people trained in early life to the
   use of arms, and to activity, courage, and ready devices in
   hunting, and in traveling on their mountain paths. Austria
   could be sure of the faithfulness of the Tyrol, and made haste
   to occupy the country. When the first troops were seen entering
   the passes, the people arose and drove away the Bavarian
   garrisons. The alarm was soon sounded through the deepest
   ravines of the land. Never was there a more united people, and
   each troop or company chose its own officers, in the ancient
   German style, from among their strongest and best men. Their
   commanders were hunters, shepherds, priests: the former
   gamekeeper, Speckbacher; the innkeeper, Martin Teimer; the
   fiery Capuchin monk, Haspinger, whose sole weapon in the field
   was a huge ebony crucifix, and many more of like peaceful
   occupations. At the head of the whole army was a man who, like
   Saul, towered by a head above all others, while his handsome
   black beard fell to his girdle—Andrew Hofer, formerly an
   innkeeper at Passeyr—a man of humble piety and simple
   faithfulness, who fairly represented the people he led. He
   regarded the war as dutiful service to his religion, his
   emperor, and his country. The whole land soon swarmed with
   little bands of men, making their way to Innsprück (April,
   1809), whence the Bavarian garrison fled. Meanwhile a small
   French corps came from Italy to relieve them. Though fired
   upon by the peasants from every ravine and hill, they passed
   the Brenner, and reached the Iselberg, near Innsprück. But
   here they were surrounded on every side, and forced to
   surrender. The first Austrian soldiers, under General
   Chasteler, then reached the capital, and their welcome was a
   popular festival. The liberators, as the Tyrolese soldiers
   regarded themselves, committed no cruelties, but carried on
   their enterprise in the spirit of a national jubilee. The
   tidings of the disasters at Regensburg [Ratisbon] now came
   upon them like a thunderbolt. The withdrawal of the Austrian
   army then left the Tyrol without protection. Napoleon treated
   the war as a mutiny, and set a price upon Chasteler's head.
   Neither Chasteler nor any of the Austrian officers with him
   understood the warfare of the peasantry. The Tyrolese were
   left almost wholly to themselves, but they resolved to defend
   their mountains. On May 11 the Bavarians under Wrede again set
   out, from Salzburg, captured the pass of the Strub after a
   bloody fight, and then climbed into the valley of the Inn.
   They practiced frightful cruelties in their way. A fierce
   struggle took place at the little village of Schwatz; the
   Bavarians burned the place, and marched to Innsprück.
   Chasteler withdrew, and the Bavarians and French, under Wrede
   and Lefevre, entered the capital. The country again appeared
   to be subdued. But cruelty had embittered the people. Wrede
   was recalled, with his corps, by Napoleon; and now Hofer, with
   his South Tyrolese, recrossed the Brenner Pass. Again the
   general alarm was given, the leaders called to arms, and again
   every pass, every wall of rock, every narrow road was seized.
   The struggle took place at the Iselberg.
{1521}
   The Bavarians, 7,000 in number, were defeated with heavy loss.
   The Tyrol now remained for several months undisturbed, during
   the campaign around Vienna. After the battle of Aspern, an
   imperial proclamation formally assured the Tyrolese that they
   should never be severed from the Austrian Empire; and that no
   peace should be signed unless their indissoluble union with
   the monarchy were recognized. The Tyrolese quietly trusted the
   emperor's promise, until the armistice of Znaim. But in this
   the Tyrol was not mentioned, and the French and their allies
   prepared to chastise the loyal and abandoned country."

"In the mouth of July, an army of 40,000 French and Bavarians attacked the Tyrol from the German side; while from Italy, General Rusca, with 18,000 men, entered from Clagenfurth, on the southern side of the Tyrolese Alps. Undismayed by this double and formidable invasion, they assailed the invaders as they penetrated into their fastnesses, defeated and destroyed them. The fate of a division of 10,000 men, belonging to the French and Bavarian army, which entered the Upper Innthal, or Valley of the Inn, will explain in part the means by which these victories were obtained. The invading troops advanced in a long column up a road bordered on the one side by the river Inn, there a deep and rapid torrent, where cliffs of immense height overhang both road and river. The vanguard was permitted to advance unopposed as far as Prutz, the object of their expedition. The rest of the army were therefore induced to trust themselves still deeper in this tremendous pass, where the precipices, becoming more and more narrow as they advanced, seemed about to close above their heads. No sound but of the screaming of the eagles disturbed from, their eyries, and the roar of the river, reached the ears of the soldier, and on the precipices, partly enveloped in a hazy mist, no human forms showed themselves. At length the voice of a man was heard calling across the ravine, 'Shall we begin?'—'No,' was returned in an authoritative tone of voice, by one who, like the first speaker, seemed the inhabitant of some upper region. The Bavarian detachment halted, and sent to the general for orders;' when presently was heard the terrible signal, 'In the name of the Holy Trinity, cut all loose!' Huge rocks, and trunks of trees, long prepared and laid in heaps for the purpose, began now to descend rapidly in every direction, while the deadly fire of the Tyrolese, who never throw away a shot, opened from every bush, crag, or corner of rock, which would afford the shooter cover. As this dreadful attack was made on the whole line at once, two-thirds of the enemy were instantly destroyed; while the Tyrolese, rushing from their shelter, with swords, spears, axes, scythes, clubs and all other rustic instruments which could be converted into weapons, beat down and routed the shattered remainder. As the vanguard, which had reached Prutz, was obliged to surrender, very few of the 10,000 invaders are computed to have extricated themselves from the fatal pass. But not all the courage of the Tyrolese, not all the strength of their country, could possibly enable them to defend themselves, when the peace with Austria had permitted Buonaparte to engage his whole immense means for the acquisition of these mountains. Austria too—Austria herself, in whose cause they had incurred all the dangers of war, instead of securing their indemnity by some stipulations in the treaty, sent them a cold exhortation to lay down their arms. Resistance, therefore, was abandoned as fruitless; Hofer, chief commander of the Tyrolese, resigned his command, and the Bavarians regained the possession of a country which they could never have won back by their own efforts. Hofer, and about thirty chiefs of these valiant defenders of their country, were put to death [February, 1810], in poor revenge for the loss their bravery had occasioned. But their fame, as their immortal spirit, was beyond the power of the judge alike and executioner; and the place where their blood was shed, becomes sacred to the thoughts of freedom, as the precincts of a temple to those of religion."

GERMANY: A. D. 1810.
Annexation of the Hanse Towns and territory on the North Sea
to France.

GERMANY: A. D. 1810-1812.
   Marriage of the Archduchess Marie Louise
   of Austria to Napoleon.
   Alliance of German powers with Napoleon against Russia.

GERMANY: A. D. 1812.
The Russian campaign of Napoleon and its disastrous ending.

GERMANY: A. D. 1812-1813.
   The Teutonic uprising against Napoleon.
   Beginning of the War of Liberation.
   Alliance of Prussia and Russia.

   "During Napoleon's march on Moscow and his fatal return,
   Macdonald remained on the Lower Dwina, before Riga, with an
   observation corps of Prussians and Poles, nor had he ever
   received an order to retreat from Napoleon. Learning of the
   misfortunes of the grand army, he went from the Dwina towards
   the Niemen. As he passed through Courland, General York,
   commander of the Prussian troops, allowed him to lead the way
   with the Poles, and then signed an agreement of neutrality
   with the Russians (December 30, 1812). The Prussian troops,
   from a military spirit of honor, had fought the Russians
   bravely; they retained some scruples relative to the worthy
   marshal under whom they served, and forsook without betraying
   him, that is, they left him time to escape. This was a most
   important event and the beginning of the inevitable defection
   of Germany. The attitude of Czar Alexander decided General
   York; the former was completely dazzled by his triumphs, and
   aspired to nothing less than to destroy Napoleon and liberate
   Europe, even France! With mingled enthusiasm and calculation,
   he promised all things to all men; on returning to Wilna, he
   granted an amnesty for all acts committed in Poland against
   Russian authority. On the one hand, he circulated a rumor that
   he was about to make himself King of Poland, and, on the other
   hand, he announced to the Prussians that he was ready to
   restore the Polish provinces taken from them by Napoleon. He
   authorized ex-Minister Stein to take possession, as we may
   say, of Old Prussia, just evacuated by the French, and to
   promise the speedy enfranchisement of Germany, protesting, at
   the same time, that he would not dispute 'the legitimate
   greatness' of France.
{1522}
   The French army, on hearing of York's defection, left
   Königsberg with ten or twelve thousand sick men and eight or
   ten thousand armed troops, withdrawing to the Vistula and
   thence to Warta and Posen. General Rapp had succeeded in
   gathering at Dantzic, the great French depot of stores and
   reserves, 25,000 men, few of whom had gone through the Russian
   campaign, and a division of almost equal numbers occupied
   Berlin. The French had in all barely 80,000 men, from Dantzic
   to the Rhine, not including their Austrian and Saxon allies,
   who had fallen back on Warsaw and seemed disposed to fight no
   more. Murat, to whom Napoleon confided the remains of the
   grand army, followed the Emperor's example and set out to
   defend his Neapolitan kingdom, leaving the chief command to
   Prince Eugene. Great agitation prevailed around the feeble
   French forces still occupying Germany. The Russians
   themselves, worn out, did not press the French very hotly; but
   York and Stein, masters of Königsberg, organized and armed Old
   Prussia without awaiting authorization from the king, who was
   not considered as a free agent, being under foreign rule.
   Pamphlets, proclamations, and popular songs were circulated
   everywhere, provoking the people to rebellion. The idea of
   German union ran like wildfire from the Niemen to the Rhine;
   federal union, not unity in a single body or state, which was
   not thought of then."

"The king of Prussia had suddenly abandoned Berlin [January, 1813], which was still in the hands of the French, for Breslau, whence he declared war against France. A conference also took place between him and the emperor Alexander at Calisch [Kalisch], and, on the 28th of February, 1813, an offensive and defensive alliance was concluded between them. The hour for vengeance had at length arrived. The whole Prussian nation, eager to throw off the hated yoke of the foreigner, to obliterate their disgrace in 1806, to regain their ancient name, cheerfully hastened to place their lives and property at the service of the impoverished government. The whole of the able-bodied population was put under arms. The standing army was increased: to each regiment were appended troops of volunteers, Jaegers, composed of young' men belonging to the higher classes, who furnished their own equipments: a numerous Landwehr, a sort of militia, was, as in Austria, raised besides the standing army, and measures were even taken to call out, in case of necessity, the heads of families and elderly men remaining at home, under the name of the Landsturm. The enthusiastic people, besides furnishing the customary supplies and paying the taxes, contributed to the full extent of their means towards defraying the immense expense of this general arming. Every heart throbbed high with pride and hope. … More loudly than even in 1809 in Austria was the German cause now discussed, the great name of the German empire now invoked in Prussia, for in that name alone could all the races of Germany be united against their hereditary foe. The celebrated proclamation, promising external and internal liberty to Germany, was, with this view, published at Calisch by Prussia and Russia. Nor was the appeal vain. It found an echo in every German heart, and such plain demonstrations of the state of the popular feeling on this side the Rhine were made, that Davoust sent serious warning to Napoleon, who contemptuously replied, 'Pah! Germans never can become Spaniards!' With his customary rapidity he levied in France a fresh army 300,000 strong, with which he so completely awed the Rhenish confederation as to compel it once more to take the field with thousands of Germans against their brother Germans. The troops, however, reluctantly obeyed, and even the traitors were but lukewarm, for they doubted of success. Mecklenburg alone sided with Prussia. Austria remained neutral. A Russian corps under General Tettenborn had preceded the rest of the troops and reached the coasts of the Baltic. As early as the 24th of March, 1813, it appeared in Hamburg and expelled the French authorities from the city. The heavily oppressed people of Hamburg, whose commerce had been totally annihilated by the continental system, gave way to the utmost demonstrations of delight, received their deliverers with open arms, revived their ancient rights, and immediately raised a Hanseatic corps destined to take the field against Napoleon. Dörnberg, the ancient foe to France, with another flying squadron took the French division under Morand prisoner, and the Prussian, Major Hellwig (the same who, in 1806, liberated the garrison of Erfurt), dispersed, with merely 120 hussars, a Bavarian regiment 1,300 strong and captured five pieces of artillery. In January, the peasantry of the upper country had already revolted against the conscription, and, in February, patriotic proclamations had been disseminated throughout Westphalia under the signature of the Baron von Stein. In this month, also, Captain Maas and two other patriots, who had attempted to raise a rebellion, were executed. As the army advanced, Stein was nominated chief of the provisional government of the still unconquered provinces of Western Germany. The first Russian army, 17,000 strong, under Wittgenstein, pushed forward to Magdeburg, and, at Mökern, repulsed 40,000 French who were advancing upon Berlin. The Prussians, under their veteran general, Blücher, entered Saxony and garrisoned Dresden, on the 27th of March, 1813, after an arch of the fine bridge across the Elbe [had] been uselessly blown up by the French. Blücher, whose gallantry in the former wars had gained for him the general esteem and whose kind and generous disposition had won the affection of the soldiery, was nominated generalissimo of the Prussian forces, but subordinate in command to Wittgenstein, who replaced Kutusow as generalissimo of the united forces of Russia and Prussia. The Emperor of Russia and the King of Prussia accompanied the army and were received with loud acclamations by the people of Dresden and Leipzig."

Bernadotte, the adopted Crown Prince and expectant King of Sweden, had been finally thrown into the arms of the new Coalition against Napoleon, by the refusal of the latter to take Norway from Denmark and give it to Sweden. "The disastrous retreat of the French from Moscow … led to the signature of the Treaty of Stockholm on the 2d of March, 1813, by which England acceded to the union of Norway to Sweden, and a Swedish force was sent to Pomerania under General Sandels. On the 18th of May, 1813, Bernadotte landed at Stralsund."

Lady Bloomfield, Biographical Sketch of Bernadotte (Memoir of Lord Bloomfield, volume 1, page 31).

GERMANY: A. D. 1813 (April-May).
Battle of Lützen.
Humiliation of the King of Saxony.

"On the 14th April, Napoleon left Paris to assume the command of the army. Previous to his departure, with a view, perhaps, of paying a compliment to the Emperor of Austria, the Empress Marie Louise was appointed regent in his absence; but Prince Schwarzenberg, who had arrived on a special mission from Vienna, was treated only as the commander of an auxiliary corps, to which orders would immediately be transmitted. On the 16th he reached Mayence, where, for the last time, vassal princes assembled courtier-like around him; and on the 20th he was already at Erfurt, in the midst of his newly-raised army. The roads were everywhere crowded with troops and artillery, closing in towards the banks of the Saale. From Italy, Marshal Bertrand joined with 40,000 men, old trained soldiers; the Viceroy brought an equal number from the vicinity of Magdeburg; and Marshal Macdonald having, on the 29th, taken Merseburg by assault, the whole army, which Bade, the ablest and most accurate of the authors who have written on this campaign, estimates at 140,000 men, was assembled for action. With this mighty force Napoleon determined to seek out the enemy, and bring them quickly to battle. The Russian and Prussian armies were no sooner united, after the alliance concluded between the sovereigns, than they crossed the Elbe, occupied Dresden, which the King of Saxony had abandoned, and advanced to the banks of the Saale. General Blücher commanded the Prussians, and Count Wittgenstein the Russian corps; and, death having closed the career of old Marshal Kutusoff, … the command of both armies devolved upon the last mentioned officer. Informed of the rapid advance of the French, the allied monarchs joined their forces, which were drawn together in the plains between the Saale and the Elbe; their numerous cavalry giving them perfect command of this wide and open country. Napoleon, always anxious for battle, determined to press on towards Leipzig, behind which he expected to find the Allied army, who, as it proved, were much nearer than he anticipated. At the passage of the Rippach, a small stream that borders the wide plain of Lützen, he already encountered a body of Russian cavalry and artillery under Count Winzingerode; and as the French were weak in horse, they had to bring the whole of Marshal Ney's corps into action before they could oblige the Russians to retire. Marshal Bessieres, the commander of the Imperial Guard, was killed. … On the evening of the 1st of May, Napoleon established his quarters in the small town of Lützen. The Allies, conscious of the vast numerical superiority of the French, did not intend to risk a general action on the left bank of the Elbe; but the length of the hostile column of march, which extended from beyond Naumberg almost to the gates of Leipzig, induced Scharnhorst to propose an advance from the direction of Borna and Pegau against the right flank of the enemy, and a sudden attack on the centre of their line in the plain of Lützen. It was expected that a decisive blow might be struck against this centre, and the hostile army broken before the distant wings could close up and take an effective part in the battle. The open nature of the country, well adapted to the action of cavalry, which formed the principal strength of the Allies, spoke in favour of the plan. … The bold attempt was immediately resolved upon, and the onset fixed for the following morning. The annals of war can hardly offer a plan of battle more skilfully conceived than the one of which we have here spoken; but unfortunately the execution fell far short of the admirable conception. Napoleon, with his Guards and the corps of Lauriston, was already at the gates of Leipzig, preparing for an attack on the city, when about one o'clock [May 2] the roar of artillery burst suddenly on the ear, and gathering thicker and thicker as it rolled along, proclaimed that a general action was engaged in the plain of Lützen,—proclaimed that the army was taken completely at fault, and placed in the most imminent peril. … The Allies, who, by means of their numerous cavalry, could easily mask their movement, had advanced unobserved into the plain of Lützen," and the action was begun by a brigade of Blücher's corps attacking the French in the village of Great-Görschen (Gross-Görschen). "Reinforcements … poured in from both sides, and the narrow and intersected ground between the villages became the scene of a most murderous and closely-contested combat of infantry. … But no attempt was made to employ the numerous and splendid cavalry, that stood idly exposed, on open plain, to the shot of the French artillery. … When night put an end to the combat, Great-Görschen was the sole trophy of the murderous fight that remained in the hands of the Allies. … On the side of the Allies, 2,000 Russians and 8,000 Prussians had been killed or wounded: among the slain was Prince Leopold of Hessen-Homburg; among the wounded was the admirable Scharnhorst, who died a few weeks afterwards. … The loss sustained by the French is not exactly known; but … Jomini tells us that the 3d corps, to which he was attached as chief of the staff, had alone 500 officers and 12,000 men 'hors de combat.' Both parties laid claim to the victory: the French, because the Allies retired on the day after the action; the Allies, because they remained masters of part of the captured battlefield, had taken two pieces of artillery, and 800 prisoners. … The Allies alleged, or pretended perhaps, that it was their intention to renew the action on the following morning: in the Prussian army every man, from the king to the humblest soldier, was anxious indeed to continue the fray; and the wrath of Blücher, who deemed victory certain, was altogether boundless when he found the retreat determined upon. But … opinion has, by degrees, justified Count Wittgenstein's resolution to recross the Elbe and fall back on the reinforcements advancing to join the army. … On the 8th of May, Napoleon held his triumphal entrance into Dresden. … On the advance of the Allies, the Saxon monarch had retired to Ratisbon, and from thence to Prague, intending, as he informed Napoleon, to join his efforts to the mediation of Austria. Orders had, at the same time, been given to General Thielman, commanding the Saxon troops at Torgau, to maintain the most perfect neutrality, and to admit neither of the contending parties within the walls of the fortress. Exasperated by this show of independence, Napoleon caused the following demands to be submitted to the King, allowing him only six hours to determine on their acceptance or refusal;

1. 'General Thielman and the Saxon troops instantly evacuate Torgau, and form the 7th corps under General Réynier; and all the resources of the country to be at the disposal of the Emperor, in conformity with the principles of the Confederation of the Rhine.'

2. 'The Saxon Cavalry'—some regiments had accompanied the King—'return immediately to Dresden.'

3. 'The King declares, in a letter to the Emperor, that he is still a member of the Confederation of the Rhine, and ready to fulfil all the obligations which it imposes upon him.'

'If these conditions are not immediately complied with,' says Napoleon in the instructions to his messenger, 'you will cause his Majesty to be informed that he is guilty of felony, has forfeited the Imperial protection, and has ceased to reign.' … Frederick Augustus, finding himself threatened with the loss of his crown by an overbearing conqueror already in possession of his capital, … yielded in an evil hour to those imperious demands, and returned to Dresden. … Fortune appeared again to smile upon her spoiled and favoured child; and he resolved, on his part, to leave no expedient untried to make the most of her returning aid. The mediation of Austria, which from the first had been galling to his pride, became more hateful every day, as it gradually assumed the appearance of an armed interference, ready to enforce its demands by military means. … Tidings having arrived that the allied army, instead of continuing their retreat, had halted and taken post at Bautzen, he immediately resolved to strike a decisive blow in the field, as the best means of thwarting the pacific efforts of his father-in-law."

Lieutenant Colonel J. Mitchell, The Fall of Napoleon, book 2, chapter 1 (volume 2).

GERMANY: A. D. 1813 (May-August).
   Battle of Bautzen.
   Armistice of Pleswitz.
   Accession of Austria and Great Britain to the Coalition
   against Napoleon.

"While the Emperor paused at Dresden, Ney made various demonstrations in the direction of Berlin, with the view of inducing the Allies to quit Bautzen; but it soon became manifest that they had resolved to sacrifice the Prussian capital, if it were necessary, rather than forego their position. … Having replaced by wood-work some arches of the magnificent bridge over the Elbe at Dresden, which the Allies had blown up on their retreat, Napoleon now moved towards Bautzen, and came in sight of the position on the morning of the 21st of May. Its strength was obviously great. In their front was the river Spree: wooded hills supported their right, and eminences well fortified their left. The action began with an attempt to turn their right, but Barclay de Tolly anticipated this movement, and repelled it with such vigour that a whole column of 7,000 dispersed and fled into the hills of Bohemia for safety. The Emperor then determined to pass the Spree in front of the enemy, and they permitted him to do so, rather than come down from their position. He took up his quarters in the town of Bautzen, and his whole army bivouacked in presence of the Allies. The battle was resumed at daybreak on the 22d; when Ney on the right, and Oudinot on the left; attempted simultaneously to turn the flanks of the position; while Soult and Napoleon himself directed charge after charge on the centre. During four hours the struggle was maintained with unflinching obstinacy; the wooded heights, where Blucher commanded, had been taken and retaken several times—the bloodshed on either side had been terrible—ere … the Allies perceived the necessity either of retiring, or of continuing the fight against superior numbers on disadvantageous ground. They withdrew accordingly; but still with all the deliberate coolness of a parade, halting at every favourable spot and renewing their cannonade. 'What,' exclaimed Napoleon, 'no results! not a gun! not a prisoner!—these people will not leave me so much as a nail.' During the whole day he urged the pursuit with impetuous rage, reproaching even his chosen generals as 'creeping scoundrels,' and exposing his own person in the very hottest of the fire." His closest friend, Duroc, Grand Master of the Palace, was mortally wounded by his side, before he gave up the pursuit. "The Allies, being strongly posted during most of the day, had suffered less than the French; the latter had lost 15,000, the former 10,000 men. They continued their retreat into Upper Silesia; and Buonaparte advanced to Breslau, and released the garrison of Glogau. Meanwhile the Austrian, having watched these indecisive though bloody fields, once more renewed his offers of mediation. The sovereigns of Russia and Prussia expressed great willingness to accept it; and Napoleon also appears to have been sincerely desirous for the moment of bringing his disputes to a peaceful termination. He agreed to an armistice [of six weeks], and in arranging its conditions agreed to fall back out of Silesia; thus enabling the allied princes to reopen communications with Berlin. The lines of country to be occupied by the armies, respectively, during the truce, were at length settled, and it was signed on the 1st of June [at Poischwitz, though the negotiations were mostly carried on at Pleswitz, whence the Armistice is usually named]. The French Emperor then returned to Dresden, and a general congress of diplomatists prepared to meet at Prague. England alone refused to send any representative to Prague, alleging that Buonaparte had as yet signified no disposition to recede from his pretensions on Spain, and that he had consented to the armistice with the sole view of gaining time for political intrigue and further military preparation. It may be doubted whether any of the allied powers who took part in the Congress did so with much hope that the disputes with Napoleon could find a peaceful end. … But it was of the utmost importance to gain time for the advance of Bernadotte; for the arrival of new reinforcements from Russia; for the completion of the Prussian organization; and, above all, for determining the policy of Vienna. Metternich, the Austrian minister, repaired in person to Dresden, and while inferior diplomatists wasted time in endless discussions at Prague, one interview between him and Napoleon brought the whole question to a definite issue. The Emperor … assumed at once that Austria had no wish but to drive a good bargain for herself, and asked broadly, 'What is your price? Will Illyria satisfy you? I only wish you to be neutral—I can deal with these Russians and Prussians single-handed.' {1525} Metternich stated plainly that the time in which Austria could be neutral was past; that the situation of Europe at large must be considered; … that events had proved the impossibility of a steadfast peace unless the sovereigns of the Continent were restored to the rank of independence; in a word, that the Rhenish Confederacy must be broken up; that France must be contented with the boundary of the Rhine, and pretend no longer to maintain her usurped and unnatural influence in Germany. Napoleon replied by a gross personal insult: 'Come, Metternich,' said he, 'tell me honestly how much the English have given you to take their part against me.' The Austrian court at length sent a formal document, containing its ultimatum, the tenor of which Metternich had sufficiently indicated in this conversation. Talleyrand and Fouché, who had now arrived from Paris, urged the Emperor to accede to the proffered terms. They represented to him the madness of rousing all Europe to conspire for his destruction, and insinuated that the progress of discontent was rapid in France itself. Their arguments were backed by intelligence of the most disastrous character from Spain. …

Napoleon was urged by his military as well as political advisers, to appreciate duly the crisis which his affairs had reached. … He proceeded to insult both ministers and generals … and ended by announcing that he did not wish for any plans of theirs, but their service in the execution of his. Thus blinded by arrogance and self-confidence, and incapable of weighing any other considerations against what he considered as the essence of his personal glory, Napoleon refused to abate one iota of his pretensions—until it was too late. Then, indeed, … he did show some symptoms of concession. A courier arrived at Prague with a note, in which he signified his willingness to accede to a considerable number of the Austrian stipulations. But this was on the 11th of August. The day preceding was that on which, by the agreement, the armistice was to end. On that day Austria had to sign an alliance, offensive and defensive, with Russia and Prussia. On the night between the 10th and 11th, rockets answering rockets, from height to height along the frontiers of Bohemia and Silesia, had announced to all the armies of the Allies this accession of strength, and the immediate recommencement of hostilities."

"On the 14th of June Great Britain had become a party to the treaty concluded between Russia and Prussia. She had promised assistance in this great struggle; but no aid could have been more effectual than that which she was rendering in the Peninsula."

      Prince Metternich,
      Memoirs, 1773-1815,
      book 1, chapter 8 (volume 1).

      J. R. Seeley,
      Life and Times of Stein,
      part 7, chapters 4-5 (volume 3).

GERMANY: A. D. 1813 (August).
Great battle and victory of Napoleon at Dresden.
French defeats at Kulm, Gross-Beeren and the Katzbach.

"Dresden, during the armistice, had been converted by Napoleon into such a place of strength that it might be called one citadel. All the trees in the neighbourhood, as well as those which had formed the ornament of the public gardens and walks of that beautiful capital, were cut down and converted into abattis and palisades; redoubts, field-works, and fosses had been constructed. The chain of fortresses garrisoned by French troops secured to Napoleon the rich valley of the Elbe. Hamburg, Dantzic, and many strong places on the Oder and Vistula were in his possession. … His army assembled at the seat of war amounted to nearly 300,000 men, including the Bavarian reserve of 25,000 under General Wrede, and he had greatly increased his cavalry. This powerful force was divided into eleven army corps, commanded by Vandamme, Victor, Bertrand, Ney, Lauriston, Marmont, Reynier, Poniatowski, Macdonald, Oudinot, and St. Cyr. Murat, who, roused by the news of the victories of Lutzen and Bautzen, had left his capital, was made commander-in-chief of all the cavalry. … Davoust held Hamburg with 20,000 men. Augereau with 24,000 occupied Bavaria. The armies of the allies were computed at nearly 400,000 men, including the divisions destined to invade Italy. Those ready for action at the seat of war in Germany were divided into three great masses,—the army of Bohemia, consisting mainly of Austrians commanded by Prince Schwartzenburg; the army of Silesia, commanded by Blucher; and the troops under the command of Bernadotte, stationed near Berlin. These immense hosts were strong in cavalry and artillery, and in discipline and experience far exceeded the French soldiers, who were nearly all young conscripts. Two Frenchmen of eminence were leaders in the ranks of the enemies of France,—Bernadotte and Moreau; Jomini, late chief of the engineer department in Napoleon's army, was a Swiss. These three men, well instructed by the great master of the art of war, directed the counsels of the allied Sovereigns and taught them how to conquer. Bernadotte pointed out that Napoleon lay in Dresden with his guard of five-and-twenty thousand men, while his marshals were stationed in various strong positions on the frontiers of Saxony. The moment a French corps d'armée was attacked Napoleon would spring from his central point upon the flank of the assailants, and as such a blow would be irresistible he would thus beat the allied armies in detail. To obviate this danger Bernadotte recommended that the first general who attacked a French division and brought Napoleon into the field should retreat, luring the Emperor onward in pursuit, when the other bodies of allied troops, simultaneously closing upon his rear, should surround him and cut him off from his, base. This plan was followed: Blucher advanced from Silesia, menacing the armies of Macdonald and Ney, and Napoleon, with the activity expected, issued from Dresden on the 15th of August, rapidly reached the point of danger, and assumed the offensive. But he was unable to bring the Prussian general to a decisive action, for Blucher, continuing to retreat before him, the pursuit was only arrested by an estafette reporting on the 23rd that the main body of the allies threatened Dresden. On the 25th, at 4 in the afternoon, 200,000 allied troops led by Schwartzenburg appeared before that city. St. Cyr, who had been left to observe the passes of the Bohemian mountains with 20,000 men, retreated before the irresistible torrent and threw himself into the Saxon capital, which he prepared to defend with his own forces and the garrison left by the Emperor. {1526} It was a service of the last importance. With Dresden Napoleon would lose his recruiting depot and supplies of every kind. … The Austrian commander-in-chief deferred the attack till the following day, replying to the expostulations of Jomini that Napoleon was engaged in the Silesian passes. Early on the morning of the 26th the allies advanced to the assault in six columns, under cover of a tremendous artillery fire. They carried one great redoubt, then another, and closed with the defenders of the city at every point, shells and balls falling thick on the houses, many of which were on fire. St. Cyr conducted the defence with heroism; but before midday a surrender was talked of. … Suddenly, from the opposite bank of the Elbe columns of soldiers were seen hastening towards the city. They pressed across the bridges, swept through the streets, and with loud shouts demanded to be led into battle, although they had made forced marches from the frontiers of Silesia. Napoleon, with the Old Guard and cuirassiers, was in the midst of them. His enemies had calculated on only half his energy and rapidity, and had forgotten that he could return as quickly as he left. The Prussians had penetrated the Grosse Garten on the French left, and so close was the Russian fire that Witgenstein's guns enfiladed the road by which Napoleon had to pass; consequently, to reach the city in safety, he was compelled to dismount at the most exposed part, and, according to Baron Odeleben (one of his aides-de-camp), creep along on his hands and knees (ventre à terre). Napoleon halted at the palace to reassure the King of Saxony, and then joined his troops who were already at the gates. Sallies were made by Ney and Mortier under his direction. The astonished assailants were driven back. The Young Guard recaptured the redoubts, and the French army deployed on the plateau lately in possession of their enemies. … The fury of the fight gradually slackened, and the armies took up their positions for the night. The French wings bivouacked to the right and left of the city, which itself formed Napoleon's centre. The allies were ranged in a semicircle cresting the heights. … They had not greatly the advantage in numbers, for Klenau's division never came up; and Napoleon, now that Victor and Marmont's corps had arrived, concentrated nearly 200,000 men. … The next day broke in a tempest of wind and rain. At six o'clock Napoleon was on horseback, and ordered his columns to advance. Their order of battle has been aptly compared to 'a fan when it expands.' Their position could scarcely have been worse. … Knowing that in case of disaster retreat would be almost an impossibility, Napoleon began an attack on both flanks of the allied army, certain that their defeat would demoralize the centre, which he could overwhelm by a simultaneous concentric attack, supported by the fire of 100 guns. The stormy weather which concealed their movements favoured them; and Murat turning and breaking the Austrian left, and Ney completely rolling up the Austrian right, the result was a decisive victory. By three in the afternoon of the 27th the battle was concluded, and the allies were in full retreat, pursued by the French. The roads to Bohemia and those to the south were barred by Murat's and Vandamme's corps, and the allied Sovereigns were obliged to take such country paths and byways as they could find—which had been rendered almost impassable by the heavy rain. They lost 25,000 prisoners, 40 standards, 60 pieces of cannon, and many waggons. The killed and wounded amounted on each side to seven or eight thousand. The first cannon-shot fired by the guard under the direction of Napoleon mortally wounded Moreau while talking to the Emperor Alexander. … The French left wing, composed of the three corps of Vandamme, St. Cyr, and Marmont, were ordered to march by their left along the Pirna road in pursuit of the foe, who was retreating into Bohemia in three columns, and had traversed the gorges of the Hartz Mountains in safety, though much baggage, several ammunition waggons, and 2,000 prisoners, fell into the hands of the French. The Russians, under Ostermann, halted on the plain of Culm [or Kulm] for the arrival of Kleist's Prussians; the Austrians hurried along the Prague route. Vandamme marched boldly on, neglecting even the precaution of guarding the defile of Peterswald in his rear. Trusting to the rapid advance of the other French corps, he was lured on by the hope of capturing the allied Sovereigns in their headquarters at Toplitz. Barclay de Tolly, having executed a rapid detour from left to right, brought the bulk of his Russian forces to bear on Vandamme, who, on reaching Culm, was attacked in front and rear [August 29-30], surprised and taken, losing the whole of his artillery and between 7,000 and 8,000 prisoners; the rest of his corps escaped and rejoined the army. This disaster totally deranged Napoleon's plans, which would have led him to follow up the pursuit towards Bohemia in person. Oudinot was ordered to march against Bülow's corps at Berlin and the Swedes commanded by Bernadotte, taking with him the divisions of Bertrand and Reynier—a force of 80,000 men. Reynier, who marched in advance, fell in with the allies at Gross-Beeren, attacked them precipitately and suffered severely, his division, chiefly composed of Saxons, taking flight. Oudinot also sustained considerable losses, and retreated to Torgau on the Elbe. Girard, sallying out of Magdeburg with 5,000 or 6,000 men, was defeated near Leibnitz, with the loss of 1,000 men, and some cannon and baggage. Macdonald encountered Blucher in the plains between Wahlstadt and the Katzbach under disadvantageous circumstances [August 26], and was obliged to retire in disorder."

"The great battle of the Katzbach, the counterpart to that of Hohenlinden, [was] one of the most glorious ever gained in the annals of European fame. Its trophies were immense. … Eighteen thousand prisoners, 103 pieces of cannon, and 230 caissons, besides 7,000 killed and wounded, presented a total loss to the French of 25,000 men."

"Of the battle of Kulm it is not too much to say that it was the most critical in the whole war of German liberation. The fate of the coalition was determined absolutely by its results. Had Vandamme been strong enough to keep his hold of Bohemia, and to block up from them the mouths of the passes, the allied columns, forced back into the exhausted mountain district through which they were retreating, must have perished for lack of food, or dissolved themselves."

GERMANY: A. D. 1813 (September-October).
   French reverse at Dennewitz.
   Napoleon's evacuation of Dresden.
   Allied concentration at Leipsic.
   Preparations for the decisive battle.

"The [allied] Army of the North had been nearly idle since the battle of Grossbeeren. The Prussian generals were extremely indignant against Bernadotte, whose slowness and inaction were intolerable to them. It took them, under his orders, a fortnight to advance as far as a good footman could march in a day. They then unexpectedly met a new French army advancing against them from a fortified camp at Wittenberg. Napoleon had now assigned to Marshal Ney—the bravest of the brave'—the work of beating 'the Cossack hordes and the poor militia,' and taking Berlin. Under him were Oudinot, Regnier, Bertrand, and Arrighi, with 70,000 men. On September 6 Tauenzien met their superior forces at Jüterbogk, but sustained himself valiantly through a perilous fight. Bernadotte was but two hours' march away, but as usual disregarded Bülow's request to bring aid. But Bülow himself brought up his corps on the right, and took the brunt of the battle, extending it through the villages south of Jüterbogk, of which Dennewitz was the centre. The Prussians took these villages by storm, and when evening came their victory was complete, though Bernadotte had not stretched out a hand to help them. … Bülow bore the name of Dennewitz afterward in honor of his victory. Ney reported to his master that he was entirely defeated. Napoleon unwisely ascribed his defeat entirely to the Saxons, who fought well that day for him, but for the last time. By his reproaches he entirely alienated the people from him. The French loss in this battle was 10,000 killed and wounded, and 10,000 prisoners, besides 80 guns. The Prussians lost in killed and wounded more than 5,000. Thus five victories had been won by the Allies in a fortnight, compensating fully for the loss of the battle of Dresden. The way to the Elbe lay open to the Army of the North. But Bernadotte continued to move with extreme slowness. Bülow and Tauenzien seriously proposed to Blücher to leave the Swedish prince, whom they openly denounced as a traitor. Blücher approached the Elbe across the Lausitz from Bohemia, and it would have been easy to cross the river and unite the two armies, threatening Napoleon's rear, and making Dresden untenable for him. Napoleon advanced in vain against Blücher to Bausitz. The Prussian general wisely avoided a battle. Then the emperor turned against the Army of Bohemia, but it was too strong in its position in the valley of Teplitz, with the mountains in its rear, to be attacked. Then again he moved toward Blücher, but again failed to bring about an action. At this time public opinion throughout Europe was undergoing a rapid change, and Napoleon's name was losing its magic. The near prospect of his fall made the nations he had oppressed eager and impatient for it, and his German allies and subjects lost all regard and hope for his cause. On October 8 the Bavarian plenipotentiary, General Wrede, concluded a treaty with Austria at Ried, by the terms of which Bavaria left Napoleon and joined the allies. This important defection, though it had been for some weeks expected, was felt by the French emperor as a severe blow to his prospects. Napoleon's circle of movement around Dresden began to be narrowed. The Russian reserves under Benningsen, 57,000 strong, were also advancing through Silesia toward Bohemia. Blücher was therefore not needed in Bohemia, and he pressed forward vigorously to cross the Elbe. His army advanced along the right bank of the Black Elster to its mouth above Wittenberg. On the opposite bank of the Elbe, in the bend of the stream, stands the village of Wartenburg, and just at the bend Blücher built two bridges of boats without opposition. On October 3 York's corps crossed the river. But now on the west side, among the thickets and swamps before the village, arose a furious struggle with a body of 20,000 French, Italians, and Germans of the Rhine League under Bertrand. York displayed eminent patience, coolness, and judgment, and won a decided victory out of a great danger. Bernadotte, though with much hesitation, also crossed the Elbe at the mouth of the Mulde, and the army of the North and of Silesia were thus united in Napoleon's rear. It was now evident that the successes of these armies had brought the French into extreme danger, and the allied sovereigns resolved upon a concerted attack. Leipsic was designated as the point at which the armies should combine. Napoleon could no longer hold Dresden, lest he should be cut off from France by a vastly superior force. The partisan corps of the allies were also growing bolder and more active far in Napoleon's rear, and on October 1 Czernicheff drove Jerome out of Cassel and proclaimed the kingdom of Westphalia dissolved. This was the work of a handful of Cossacks, without infantry and artillery; but though Jerome soon returned, the moral effect of this sudden and easy overthrow of one of Napoleon's military kingdoms was immense. On October 7 Napoleon left Dresden, and marched to the Mulde. Blücher's forces were arrayed along both sides of this stream, below Düben. But he quietly and successfully retired, on perceiving Napoleon's purpose to attack him, and moved westward to the Saale, in order to draw after him Bernadotte and the Northern army. The plan was successful, and the united armies took up a position behind the Saale, extending from Merseburg to Alsleben, Bernadotte occupying the northern end of the line next to the Elbe. Napoleon, disappointed in his first effort, now formed a plan whose boldness astonished both friend and foe. He resolved to cross the Elbe, to seize Berlin and the Marches, now uncovered, and thus, supported by his fortresses of Magdeburg, Stettin, Dantzic, and Hamburg, where he still had bodies of troops and magazines, to give the war an entirely new aspect. But the murmurs of his worn-out troops, and even of his generals, compelled him to abandon this plan, which was desperate, but might have been effectual. The suggestion of it terrified Bernadotte, whose province of Lower Pomerania would be threatened, and he would have withdrawn in headlong haste across the Elbe had not Blücher persisted in detaining him. Napoleon now resolved to march against the Bohemian army at Leipsic. On October 14, on approaching the city from the north, he heard cannon-shots on the opposite side. It was the advanced guard of the main army, which was descending from the Erz-Gebirge range, after a sharp but indecisive cavalry battle with Murat at the village of Liebertwolkwitz, south of Dresden. {1528} In the broad, thickly settled plains around Leipsic, the armies of Europe now assembled for the final and decisive conflict. Napoleon's command included Portuguese, Spaniards, Neapolitans, and large contingents of Germans from the Rhine League, as well as the flower of the French youth; while the allies brought against him Cossacks and Calmucks, Swedes and Magyars, besides all the resources of Prussian patriotism and Austrian discipline. Never since the awful struggle at Chalons, which saved Western civilization from Attila, had there been a strife so well deserving the name of 'the battle of the nations.' West of the city of Leipsic runs the Pleisse, and flows into the Elster on the northwest side. Above their junction, the two streams run for some distance near one another, inclosing a sharp angle of swampy land. The great highway to Lindenau from Leipsic crosses the Elster, and then runs southwesterly to Lützen and Weissenfels. South of the city and east of the Pleisse lie a number of villages, of which Wachau, Liebertwolkwitz, and Probstheida, nearer the city, were important points during the battle. The little river Partha approaches the city on the east, and then runs north, reaching the Elster at Gohlis. Napoleon occupied the villages north, east and south of the city, in a small circle around it."

ALSO IN: E. Baines, History of the Wars of the French Revolution, book 4, chapter 23 (volume 3).

"The town of Leipsic has four sides and four gates. … On the south is the rising ground called the Swedish Camp; and another called the Sheep-walk, bordering on the banks of the Pleisse. To this quarter the Grand Army of the Allies was seen advancing on the 15th of October. Buonaparte made his arrangements accordingly. Bertrand and Poniatowski defended Lindenau and the east side of the city, by which the French must retreat. Augereau was posted farther to the left, on the elevated plain of Wachau, and on the south, Victor, Lauriston, and Macdonald confronted the advance of the Allies with the Imperial Guards placed as a reserve. On the north, Marmont was placed between Mœckern and Euterist, to make head against Blücher, should he arrive in time to take part in the battle. On the opposite quarter, the sentinels of the two armies were within musket-shot of each other, when evening fell. … The number of men who engaged the next morning was estimated at 136,000 French, and 230,000 on the part of the Allies. … Napoleon remained all night in the rear of his own Guards, behind the central position, facing a village called Gossa, occupied by the Austrians. At daybreak on the 16th of October the battle began, The French position was assailed along all the southern front with the greatest fury. … The Allies having made six desperate attempts, … all of them unsuccessful, Napoleon in turn assumed the offensive. … This was about noon. The village of Gossa was carried by the bayonet. Macdonald made himself master of the Swedish Camp; and the eminence called the Sheep-walk was near being taken in the same manner. The impetuosity of the French had fairly broken through the centre of the Allies, and Napoleon sent the tidings of his success to the King of Saxony, who ordered all the bells in the city to be rung. … The King of Naples, with Latour-Maubourg and Kellermann, poured through the gap in the enemy's centre at the head of the whole body of cavalry, and thundered forward as far as Magdeburg, a village in the rear of the Allies, bearing down General Rayefskoi with the Grenadiers of the Russian reserve. At this moment, while the French were disordered by their own success, Alexander, who was present, ordered forward the Cossacks of his Guard, who, with their long lances, bore back the dense body of cavalry that had so nearly carried the day. Meantime, as had been apprehended, Blücher arrived before the city, and suddenly came into action with Marmont, being three times his numbers. He in consequence obtained great and decided advantages; and before night-fall had taken the village of Mœckern, together with 20 pieces of artillery and 2,000 prisoners. But on the south side the contest continued doubtful. Gossa was still disputed. … General Mehrfeldt fell into the hands of the French. The battle raged till night-fall, when it ceased by mutual consent. … The armies slept on the ground they had occupied during the day. The French on the southern side had not relinquished one foot of their original position, though attacked by such superior numbers. Marmont had indeed been forced back by Blücher, and compelled to crowd his line of defence nearer the walls of Leipsic. Thus pressed on all sides with doubtful issues, Buonaparte availed himself of the capture of General Mehrfeldt to demand an armistice and to signify his acceptance of the terms proposed by the Allies, but which were now found to be too moderate. … Napoleon received no answer till his troops had recrossed the Rhine; and the reason assigned is, that the Allies had pledged themselves solemnly to each other to enter into no treaty with him 'while a single individual of the French army remained in Germany.' … The 17th was spent in preparations on both sides, without any actual hostilities. At eight o'clock on the morning of the 18th they were renewed with tenfold fury. Napoleon had considerably contracted his circuit of defence, and the French were posted on an inner line, nearer to Leipsic, of which Probtsheyda was the central point. … Barclay, Wittgenstein, and Kleist advanced on Probtsheyda, where they were opposed by Murat, Victor, Augereau, and Lauriston, under the eye of Napoleon himself. On the left Macdonald had drawn back his division to a village called Stoetteritz. Along this whole line the contest was maintained furiously on both sides; nor could the terrified spectators, from the walls and steeples of Leipsic, perceive that it either receded or advanced. About two o'clock the Allies forced their way … into Probtsheyda; the camp-followers began to fly; the tumult was excessive. Napoleon … placed the reserve of the Old Guard in order, led them in person to recover the village, and saw them force their entrance ere he withdrew to the eminence from whence he watched the battle. … The Allies, at length, felt themselves obliged to desist from the murderous attacks on the villages which cost them so dear; and, withdrawing their troops, kept up a dreadful fire with their artillery. {1529} The French replied with equal spirit, though they had fewer guns; and, besides, their ammunition was falling short. Still, however, Napoleon completely maintained the day on the south of Leipsic, where he commanded in person. On the northern side, the yet greater superiority of numbers placed Ney in a precarious situation; and, pressed hard both by Blücher and the Crown-Prince, he was compelled to draw nearer the town, and had made a stand on an eminence called Heiterblick, when on a sudden the Saxons, who were stationed in that part of the field, deserted from the French and went over to the enemy. In consequence of this unexpected disaster, Ney was unable any longer to defend himself. It was in vain that Buonaparte dispatched his reserves of cavalry to·fill up the chasm that had been made; and Ney drew up the remainder of his forces close under the walls of Leipsic. The battle once more ceased at all points. … Although the French army had thus kept its ground up to the last moment on these two days, yet there was no prospect of their being able to hold out much longer at Leipsic. … All things counselled a retreat, which was destined (like the rest of late) to be unfortunate. … The retreat was commenced in the night-time; and Napoleon spent a third harassing night in giving the necessary orders for the march. He appointed Macdonald and Poniatowski … to defend the rear. … A temporary bridge which had been erected had given way, and the old bridge on the road to Lindenau was the only one that remained for the passage of the whole French army. But the defence of the suburbs had been so gallant and obstinate that time was allowed for this purpose. At length the rear-guard itself was about to retreat, when, as they approached the banks of the river, the bridge blew up by the mistake of a sergeant of a company of sappers who … set fire to the mine of which he had charge before the proper moment. This catastrophe effectually barred the escape of all those who still remained on the Leipsic side of the river, except a few who succeeded in swimming across, among whom was Marshal Macdonald. Poniatowski … was drowned in making the same attempt. In him, it might be said, perished the last of the Poles. About 25,000 French were made prisoners of war, with a great quantity of artillery and baggage."

"The battle of Leipsic was over. Already had the allied sovereigns entered the town, and forcing, not without difficulty, their way through the crowd, passed on to the market-place. Here, the house in which the King of Saxony had lodged was at once made known to them by the appearance of the Saxon troops whom Napoleon had left to guard their master. … Moreover, the King himself … stood bare-headed on the steps of the stairs. But the Emperor of Russia, who appears at once to have assumed the chief direction of affairs, took no notice of the suppliants. … The battle of Leipsic constitutes one of those great hinges on which the fortunes of the world may be said from time to time to turn. The importance of its political consequence cannot be overestimated. … As a great military operation, the one feature which forces itself prominently upon our notice is the enormous extent of the means employed on both sides to accomplish an end. Never since the days when Persia poured her millions into Greece had armies so numerous been marshalled against each other. Nor does history tell of trains of artillery so vast having been at any time brought into action with more murderous effect. … About 1,300 pieces, on the one side, were answered, during two days, by little short of 1,000 on the other. … We look in vain for any manifestations of genius or military skill, either in the combinations which rendered the battle of Leipsic inevitable, or in the arrangements according to which the attack and defence of the field were conducted. … It was the triumph, not of military skill, but of numbers."

"No more here than at Moscow must we seek in the failure of the leader's talents the cause of such deplorable results,— for he was never more fruitful in resource, more bold, more resolute, nor more a soldier,—but in the illusions of pride, in the wish to regain at a blow an immense fortune which he had lost, in the difficulty of acknowledging to himself his defeat in time, in a word, in all those errors which we may discern in miniature and caricature in an ordinary gambler, who madly risks riches acquired by folly; errors which are found on a large and terrible scale in this gigantic gambler, who plays with human blood as others play with money. As gamblers lose their fortunes twice,—once from not knowing where to stop, and a second time from wishing to restore it at a single cast,—so Napoleon endangered his at Moscow by wishing to make it exorbitantly large, and in the Dresden campaign by seeking to restore it in its full extent. The cause was always the same, the alteration not in the genius, but in the character, by the deteriorating influence of unlimited power and success."

GERMANY: A. D. 1813 (October-December).
   Retreat of Napoleon beyond the Rhine.
   Battle of Hanau.
   Fall of the kingdom of Westphalia.
   Surrender of French garrisons and forces.
   Liberation achieved.

   "Blucher, with Langeron and Sacken, moved in pursuit of the
   French army, which, disorganised and dejected, was wending its
   way towards the Rhine. At the passage of the Unstrutt, at
   Freyberg, 1,000 prisoners and 18 guns were captured by the
   Prussian hussars; but on the 23d the French reached Erfurth,
   the citadels and magazines of which afforded them at once
   security and relief from their privations. Here Napoleon
   halted two days, employed in reorganising his army, the
   thirteen corps of which were now formed into six, commanded by
   Victor, Ney, Bertrand, Augereau, Marmont, and Macdonald, and
   amounting in all to less than 90,000 men; while twice that
   number were left blockaded in the fortresses on the Elbe, the
   Oder, and the Vistula. On the 25th, after parting for the last
   time with Murat, who here quitted him and returned to Naples,
   he resumed his march, retreating with such rapidity through
   the Thuringian forest, that the Cossacks alone of the pursuing
   army could keep up with the retiring columns—while the men
   dropped, exhausted by fatigue and hunger, or deserted their
   ranks by hundreds; so that when the fugitive host approached
   the Maine, not more than 50,000 remained effective round their
   colours—10,000 had fallen or been made prisoners, and at
   least 30,000 were straggling in the rear. But here fresh
   dangers awaited them.
{1530}
   After the treaty of the 8th October, by which Bavaria had
   acceded to the grand alliance, an Austro-Bavarian force under
   Marshal Wrede had moved in the direction of Frankfort, and was
   posted, to the number of 45,000 men, in the oak forest near
   Hanau across the great road to Mayence, and blocking up
   entirely the French line of retreat. The battle commenced at
   11 A. M. on the 30th; but the French van, under Victor and
   Macdonald, after fighting its way through the forest, was
   arrested, when attempting to issue from its skirts, by the
   concentric fire of 70 pieces of cannon, and for four hours the
   combat continued, till the arrival of the guards and main body
   changed the aspect of affairs. Under cover of the terrible
   fire of Drouot's artillery, Sebastiani and Nansouty charged
   with the cavalry of the guard, and overthrew everything
   opposed to them, and Wrede at length drew off his shattered
   army behind the Kinzig. Hanau was bombarded and taken, and
   Mortier and Marmont, with the rear divisions, cut their way
   through on the following day, with considerable loss to their
   opponents. The total losses of the Allies amounted to 10,900
   men, of whom 4,000 were prisoners; and the victory threw a
   parting ray of glory over the long career of the revolutionary
   arms in Germany. On the 2d of November the French reached
   Mayence, and Napoleon, after remaining there six days to
   collect the remains of his army, set out for Paris, where he
   arrived on the 9th; and thus the French eagles bade a final
   adieu to the German plains. In the mean time, the Allied
   troops, following closely on the footsteps of the retreating
   French, poured in prodigious strength down the valley of the
   Maine. On the 5th of November the Emperor Alexander entered
   Frankfort in triumph, at the head of 20,000 horse; and on the
   9th the fortified post of Hochheim, in advance of the
   tête-du-pont of Mayence at Cassel, was stormed by Giulay. From
   the heights beyond the town the victorious armies of Germany
   beheld the winding stream of the Rhine; a shout of enthusiasm
   ran from rank to rank as they saw the mighty river of the
   Fatherland, which their arms had liberated; those in the rear
   hurried to the front, and soon a hundred thousand voices
   joined in the cheers which told the world that the war of
   independence was ended and Germany delivered. Nothing now
   remained but to reap the fruits of this mighty victory; yet so
   vast was the ruin that even this was a task of time and
   difficulty. The rickety kingdom of Westphalia fell at once,
   never more to rise; the revolutionary dynasty in Berg followed
   its fate; and the authority of the King of Britain was
   re-established by acclamation in Hanover, at the first
   appearance of Bernadotte and Benningsen. The reduction of
   Davoust, who had been left in Hamburg with 25,000 French and
   10,000 Danes, was an undertaking of more difficulty; and
   against him Walmoden and Bernadotte moved with 40,000 men. The
   French marshal had taken up a position on the Stecknitz; but,
   fearful of being cut off from Hamburg, he retired behind the
   Bille on the advance of the Allies, separating himself from
   the Danes, who were compelled to capitulate. The operations of
   the Crown-Prince against Denmark, the ancient rival of Sweden,
   were now pushed with a vigour and activity strongly
   contrasting with his luke-warmness in the general campaign;
   and the court of Copenhagen, seeing its dominions on the point
   of being overrun, signed an armistice on the 15th December, on
   which was soon after based a permanent treaty [of Kiel]. …

When Napoleon (Oct. 7) marched northwards from Dresden, he had left St. Cyr in that city with 30,000 men, opposed only by a newly-raised Russian corps under Tolstoi, which St. Cyr, by a sudden attack, routed with the loss of 3,000 men and 10 guns. But no sooner was the battle of Leipsic decided, than Dresden was again blockaded by 50.000 men under Klenau and Tolstoi; and St. Cyr, who was encumbered with a vast number of sick and wounded, and was almost without provisions, was obliged, after a fruitless sortie on the 6th November, to surrender on the 11th, on condition of being sent with his troops to France. The capitulation, however, was disallowed by Schwartzenberg, and the whole were made prisoners of war—a proceeding which the French, not without some justice, declaim against as a gross breach of faith—and thus no less than 32 generals, 1,795 officers, and 33,000 rank and file, with 240 pieces of cannon, fell into the power of the Allies. The fall of Dresden was soon followed by that of the other fortresses on the Vistula and the Oder. Stettin, with 8,000 men and 350 guns, surrendered on the 21st November; and Torgau, which contained the military hospitals and reserve parks of artillery left by the grand army on its retreat from the Elbe, yielded at discretion to Tauenzein (December 26), after a siege of two months. But such was the dreadful state of the garrison, from the ravages of typhus fever, that the Allies dared not enter this great pest-house till the 10th January; and the terrible epidemic which issued, from its walls made the circuit, during the four following years, of every country in Europe. Dantzic, with its motley garrison of 35,000 men, had been blockaded ever since the Moscow retreat; but the blockading corps, which was not of greater strength, could not confine the French within the walls; and Rapp made several sorties in force during the spring and summer, by which he procured abundance of provisions. It was not till after the termination of the armistice of Pleswitz that the siege was commenced in form; and after sustaining a severe bombardment, Rapp, deprived of all hope by the battle of Leipsic, capitulated (November 29) with his garrison, now reduced by the sword, sickness, and desertion, to 16,000 men. Zamosc, with 3,000 men, surrendered on the 22d December, and Modlin, with 1,200, on the 25th; and at the close of the year, France retained beyond the Rhine only Hamburg, Magdeburg, and Wittenberg, on the Elbe; Custrin and Glogau on the Oder; and the citadels of Erfurth and Würtzburg, which held out after the capitulation of the towns."

Epitome of Alison's History of Europe, sections 737-742 (chapter 82, volume 17, in complete work).

"The princes of the Confederation of the Rhine, with the exception of the captive King of Saxony, and one or two minor princes, deserted Napoleon, and entered into treaties with the Allies."

      ALSO IN:
      M. Bourrienne,
      Private Memoirs of Napoleon,
      volume 4, chapter 16.

      J. Philippart,
      Campaign in Germany and France, 1813,
      volume 1, pages 230-278.

GERMANY: A. D. 1814.
The Allies in France and in possession of Paris.
Fall of Napoleon.

GERMANY: A. D. 1814 (May).
Readjustment of French boundaries by the Treaty of Paris.

GERMANY: A. D. 1814-1815.
The Congress of Vienna.
Its territorial and political readjustments.

GERMANY: A. D. 1814-1820.
Reconstruction of Germany.
The Germanic Confederation and its constitution.

"Germany was now utterly disintegrated. The Holy Roman Empire had ceased to exist; the Confederation of the Rhine had followed it; and from the Black Forest to the Russian frontier there was nothing but angry ambitions, vengeances, and fears. If there was ever to be peace again in all these wide regions, it was clearly necessary to create something new. What was to be created was a far more difficult question; but already, on the 30th of May 1814, the powers had come to some sort of understanding, if not with regard to the means to be pursued, at least with regard to the end to be attained. In the Treaty of Paris we find these words: 'Les états de l'Allemagne seront indépendants et unis par un lien fédératif.' But how was this to be effected? There were some who wished the Holy Roman Empire to be restored. … Of course neither Prussia, Bavaria, nor Wurtemberg, could look kindly upon a plan so obviously unfavourable to them; but not even Austria really wished it, and indeed it had few powerful friends. Then there was a project of a North and South Germany, with the Maine for boundary; but this was very much the reverse of acceptable to the minor princes, who had no idea of being grouped like so many satellites, some around Austria and some around Prussia. Next came a plan of reconstruction by circles, the effect of which would have been to have thrown all the power of Germany into the hands of a few of the larger states. To this all the smaller independent states were bitterly opposed, and it broke down, although supported by the great authority of Stein, as well as by Gagern. If Germany had been in a later phase of political development, public opinion would perhaps have forced the sovereigns to consent to the formation of a really united Fatherland with a powerful executive and a national parliament—but the time for that had not arrived. What was the opposition of a few hundred clear-sighted men with their few thousand followers, that it should prevail over the masters of so many legions? What these potentates cared most about were their sovereign rights, and the dream of German unity was very readily sacrificed to the determination of each of them to be, as far as he possibly could, absolute master in his own dominions. Therefore it was that it soon became evident that the results of the deliberation on the future of Germany would be, not a federative state, but a confederation of states—a Staaten-Bund, not a Bundes-Staat. There is no doubt, however, that much mischief might have been avoided if all the stronger powers had worked conscientiously together to give this Staaten-Bund as national a character as possible. … Prussia was really honestly desirous to effect something of this kind, and Stein, Hardenberg, William von Humboldt, Count Münster, and other statesmen, laboured hard to bring it about. Austria, on the other hand, aided by Bavaria, Wurtemberg, and Baden, did all she could to oppose such projects. Things would perhaps have been settled better than they ultimately were, if the return of Napoleon from Elba had not frightened all Europe from its propriety, and turned the attention of the sovereigns towards warlike preparations. … The document by which the Germanic Confederation is created is of so much importance that we may say a word about the various stages through which it passed. First, then, it appears as a paper drawn up by Stein in March 1814, and submitted to Hardenberg, Count Münster, and the Emperor Alexander. Next, in the month of September, it took the form of an official plan, handed by Hardenberg to Metternich, and consisting of forty-one articles. This plan contemplated the creation of a confederation which should have the character rather of a Bundes-Staat than of a Staaten-Bund; but it went to pieces in consequence of the difficulties which we have noticed above, and out of it, and of ten other official proposals, twelve articles were sublimated by the rival chemistry of Hardenberg and Metternich. Upon these twelve articles the representatives of Austria, Prussia, Hanover, and Wurtemberg, deliberated. Their sittings were cut short partly by the ominous appearance which was presented in the autumn of 1814 by the Saxon and Polish questions, and partly by the difficulties from the side of Bavaria and Wurtemberg, which we have already noticed. The spring brought a project of the Austrian statesman Wessenberg, who proposed a Staaten-Bund rather than a Bundes-Staat; and out of this and a new Prussian project drawn up by W. von Humboldt, grew the last sketch, which was submitted on the 23d of May 1815 to the general conference of the plenipotentiaries of all Germany. They made short work of it at the last, and the Federal-Act (Bundes-Acte) bears date June 8th, 1815. This is the document which is incorporated in the principal act of the Congress of Vienna, and placed under the guarantee of eight European powers, including France and England. Wurtemberg, Baden, and Hesse-Homburg, did not form part of the Confederation for some little time—the latter not till 1817; but after they were added to the powers at first consenting, the number of the sovereign states in the Confederation was altogether thirty-nine. … The following are the chief stipulations of the Federal Act. The object of the Confederation is the external and internal security of Germany, and the independence and inviolability of the confederate states. A diète fédérative (Bundes-Versammlung) is to be created, and its attributions are sketched. The Diet is, as soon as possible, to draw up the fundamental laws of the Confederation. No state is to make war with another on any pretence. All federal territories are mutually guaranteed. There is to be in each state a 'Landständische Verfassung'—'il y aura des assemblées d'états dans tous les pays de la Confedération.' Art. 14 reserves many rights to the mediatised princes. Equal civil and political rights are guaranteed to all Christians in all German States, and stipulations are made in favour of the Jews. The Diet did not actually assemble before the 5th of November 1816. Its first measures, and, above all, its first words, were not unpopular. The Holy Allies, however, pressed with each succeeding month more heavily upon Germany, and got at last the control of the Confederation entirely into their hands. {1532} The chief epochs in this sad history were the Congress of Carlsbad, 1819—the resolutions of which against the freedom of the press were pronounced by Gentz to be a victory more glorious than Leipzig; the ministerial conferences which immediately succeeded it at Vienna; and the adoption by the Diet of the Final Act (Sehluss Acte) of the Confederation on the 8th of June 1820. The following are the chief stipulations of the Final Act:—The Confederation is indissoluble. No new member can be admitted without the unanimous consent of all the states, and no federal territory can be ceded to a foreign power without their permission. The regulations for the conduct of business by the Diet are amplified and more carefully defined. All quarrels between members of the Confederation are to be stopped before recourse is had to violence. The Diet may interfere to keep order in a state where the government of that state is notoriously incapable of doing so. Federal execution is provided for in case any government resists the authority of the Diet. Other articles declare the right of the Confederation to make war and peace as a body, to guard the rights of each separate state from injury, to take into consideration the differences between its members and foreign nations, to mediate between them, to maintain the neutrality of its territory, to make war when a state belonging to the Confederation is attacked in its non-federal territory if the attack seems likely to endanger Germany."

E. Hertslet, The Map of Europe by Treaty, volume 1, number 26 (Text of Federative Constitution).

GERMANY: A. D. 1815.
   Napoleon's return from Elba.
   The Quadruple Alliance.
   The Waterloo campaign and its results.

GERMANY: A. D. 1815.
   Final Overthrow of Napoleon.
   The Allies again in Paris.
   Second treaty with France.
   Restitutions and indemnities.
   French frontier of 1790 re-established.

GERMANY: A. D. 1817-1820.
   The Burschenschaft.
   Assassination of Kotzebue.
   The Karlsbad Conference.

"In 1817, the students of several Universities assembled at the Wartburg in order to celebrate the tercentenary of the Reformation. In the evening, a small number of them, the majority having already left, were carried away by enthusiastic zeal, and, in imitation of Luther, burnt a number of writings recently published against German freedom, together with other emblems of what was considered hateful in the institutions of some of the German States. These youthful excesses were viewed by the Governments as symptoms of grave peril. At the same time, a large number of students united to form one great German Burschenschaft [association of students], whose aim was the cultivation of a love of country, a love of freedom, and the moral sense. Thereupon increased anxiety on the part of the Governments, followed by vexatious police interference. Matters grew worse in consequence of the rash act of a fanatical student, named Sand. It became known that the Russian Government was using all its powerful influence to have liberal ideas suppressed in Germany, and that the play-wright Kotzebue had secretly sent to Russia slanderous and libellous reports on German patriots. Sand travelled to Mannheim and thrust a dagger into Kotzebue's heart. The consequences were most disastrous to the cause of freedom in Germany. The distrust of the Governments reached its height: it was held that this bloody deed must needs be the result of a wide-spread conspiracy: the authorities suspected demagogues everywhere. Ministers, of course at the instigation of Metternich, met at Karlsbad, and determined on repressive measures. These were afterwards adopted by the Federal Diet at Frankfort, which henceforth became an instrument in the hands of the Emperor Francis and his Minister for guiding the internal policy of the German States. Accordingly, the cession of state-constitutions was opposed, and prosecutions were instituted throughout Germany against all who identified themselves with the popular movement; many young men were thrown into prison; gymnastic and other societies were arbitrarily suppressed; a rigid censorship of the press was established, and the freedom of the Universities restrained; various professors, among them Arndt, whose songs had helped to fire the enthusiasm of the Freiheitskämpfer—the soldiers of Freedom—in the recent war, were deprived of their offices; the Burschenschaft was dissolved, and the wearing of their colours, the future colours of the German Empire, black, red, and gold, was forbidden. … The Universities continued to uphold the national idea; the Burschenschaft soon secretly revived as a private association, and as early as 1820 there again existed at most German Universities, Burschenschaften, which, though their aims were not sharply defined, bore a political colouring and placed the demand for German Unity in the foreground."

GERMANY: A. D. 1819-1847.
   Arbitrary rulers and discontented subjects.
   The ferment before revolution.
   Formation of the Zollverein.

"The history of Germany during the thirty years of peace which followed [the Congress of Carlsbad] is marked by very few events of importance. It was a season of gradual reaction on the part of the rulers; and of increasing impatience and enmity on the part of the people. Instead of becoming loving families, as the Holy Alliance designed, the States (except some of the little principalities) were divided into two hostile classes. There was material growth everywhere; the wounds left by war and foreign occupation were gradually healed; there was order, security for all who abstained from politics, and a comfortable repose for such as were indifferent to the future. But it was a sad and disheartening period for the men who were able to see clearly how Germany, with all the elements of a freer and stronger life existing in her people, was falling behind the political development of other countries. The three days' Revolution of 1830, which placed Louis Philippe on the throne of France, was followed by popular uprisings in some parts of Germany. Prussia and Austria were too strong, and their people too well held in check, to be affected; but in Brunswick the despotic Duke, Karl, was deposed, Saxony and Hesse-Cassel were obliged to accept co-rulers (out of their reigning families) and the English Duke, Ernest Augustus, was made viceroy of Hannover. {1533} These four States also adopted a constitutional form of government. The German Diet, as a matter of course, used what power it possessed to counteract these movements, but its influence was limited by its own laws of action. The hopes and aspirations of the people were kept alive, in spite of the system of repression, and some of the smaller States took advantage of their independence to introduce various measures of reform. As industry, commerce and travel increased, the existence of so many boundaries, with their custom-houses, taxes and other hindrances, became an unendurable burden. Bavaria and Würtemberg formed a customs union in 1828, Prussia followed, and by 1836 all of Germany except Austria was united in the Zollverein (Tariff Union) [see TARIFF LEGISLATION (GERMANY): A. D. 1833], which was not only a great material advantage, but helped to inculcate the idea of a closer political union. On the other hand, however, the monarchical reaction against liberal government was stronger than ever. Ernest Augustus of Hannover arbitrarily overthrew the constitution he had accepted, and Ludwig I. of Bavaria, renouncing all his former professions, made his land a very nest of absolutism and Jesuitism. In Prussia, such men as Stein, Gneisenau, and Wilhelm von Humboldt had long lost their influence, while others of less personal renown, but of similar political sentiments, were subjected to contemptible forms of persecution. In March, 1835, Francis II. of Austria died, and was succeeded by his son, Ferdinand I., a man of such weak intellect that he was in some respects idiotic. On the 7th of June, 1840, Frederick William III. of Prussia died, and was also succeeded by his son, Frederick William IV., a man of great wit and intelligence, who had made himself popular as Crown-prince, and whose accession the people hailed with joy, in the enthusiastic belief that better days were coming. The two dead monarchs, each of whom had reigned 43 years, left behind them a better memory among their people than they actually deserved. They were both weak, unstable and narrow-minded; had they not been controlled by others, they would have ruined Germany; but they were alike of excellent personal character, amiable, and very kindly disposed towards their subjects so long as the latter were perfectly obedient and reverential. There was no change in the condition of Austria, for Metternich remained the real ruler, as before. In Prussia a few unimportant concessions were made, an amnesty for political offences was declared, Alexander von Humboldt became the king's chosen associate, and much was done for science and art; but in their main hope of a liberal reorganization of the government, the people were bitterly deceived. Frederick William IV. took no steps towards the adoption of a Constitution; he made the censorship and the supervision of the police more severe; he interfered in the most arbitrary and bigoted manner in the system of religious instruction in the schools; and all his acts showed that his policy was to strengthen his throne by the support of the nobility and the civil service, without regard to the just claims of the people. Thus, in spite of the external quiet and order, the political atmosphere gradually became more sultry and disturbed. … There were signs of impatience in all quarters; various local outbreaks occurred, and the aspects were so threatening that in February, 1847, Frederick William IV. endeavored to silence the growing opposition by ordering the formation of a Legislative Assembly. But the provinces were represented, not the people, and the measure only emboldened the latter to clamor for a direct representation. Thereupon, the king closed the Assembly, after a short session, and the attempt was probably productive of more harm than good. In most of the other German States, the situation was very similar; everywhere there were elements of opposition, all the more violent and dangerous, because they had been kept down with a strong hand for so many years."

GERMANY: A. D. 1835-1846.
   Death of the Emperor Francis I. of Austria.
   Accession of Ferdinand I.
   Extinction of the Polish republic of Cracow.
   Its annexation to Austria.

GERMANY: A. D. 1839-1840.
The Turko-Egyptian question and its settlement.
Quadruple Alliance.

GERMANY: A. D. 1848 (March).
   Revolutionary outbreaks.
   The King of Prussia heads a national movement.
   Mistaken battle of soldiers and citizens at Berlin.

"The French revolution of February, the flight of Louis Philippe and the fall of the throne of the barricades, and the proclamation of a republic, had kindled from one end to the other of Europe the enthusiasm of the republican party. The conflagration rapidly extended itself. The Rhenish provinces of Prussia, whose near neighbourhood and former connexion with France made them more peculiarly combustible, broke out with a cry for the most extensive reforms; that is to say, for representative institutions, the passion for which had spread over the whole of Germany. … The reform fever which had attacked the Rhenish provinces quickly spread to the rest of the body politic. The urban populace—a class in all countries rarely incited to agitation—took the lead. They were headed by the students. Breslau, Königsberg, and Berlin, were in violent commotion. In the month of March, a great open air meeting was held at Berlin: it ended in a riot. The troops were called out to act against the mob. For near a week, Berlin was in a state of chronic disturbance. The troops acted with great firmness. The mob gathered together, but did not show much fight; but they were dispersed with difficulty, and continued to offer a passive resistance to the soldiers. On the 15th, ten persons were said to have been killed, and over 100 wounded. At the same time, similar scenes were, being enacted at Breslau and Königsberg, where several persons lost their lives. A deputation from the Rhenish provinces arrived at Berlin on the 18th, bearing a petition from Cologne to the king for reform. He promised to grant it. … Finding he could not keep the movement in check, he resolved to put himself at the head of it. It was probably the only course open to him, if he would preserve his crown. … {1534} The king must have previously had the questions which were agitating Germany under careful consideration; for he at once published a proclamation embodying the whole of them: the unity of Germany, by forming it into a federal state, with a federal representation; representative institutions for the separate states; a general military system for all Germany, under one federal banner; a German fleet; a tribunal for settling disputes between the states, and a right for all Germans to settle and trade in any part of Germany they thought fit; the whole of Germany formed into one customs union, and included in the Zollverein; one system of money, weights, and measures; and the freedom of the press. These were the subjects touched upon. … The popularity of the proclamation with the mob-leaders was unbounded, and the mob shouted. Every line of it contained their own ideas, vigorously expressed. Their delight was proportionate to their astonishment. A crowd got together at the palace to express their gratitude; the king came out of a window, and was loudly cheered. Two regiments of dragoons unluckily mistook the cheering for an attack, and began pushing them back by forcing their horses forward. … Unfortunately, as the conflict (if conflict it could be called, which was only a bout of which could push hardest) was going forward, two musket-shots were fired by a regiment of infantry. It appears that the muskets went off accidentally. No one was injured by them. It is not clear they were not blank cartridges; but the people took fright. They imagined that there was a design to slaughter them. At once they rushed to arms; barricades were thrown up in every street. … Sharpshooters placed themselves in the windows and behind the barricades, and opened a fire on the soldiery. These, exasperated by what they thought an unfair species of fighting, were by no means unwilling for the fray. … The troops carried barricade after barricade, and gave no quarter even to the unresisting. As they took the houses, they slaughtered all the sharpshooters they found in them, not very accurately discriminating those engaged in hostilities from those who were not. Horrible cruelties were committed on both sides. … The flight raged for fifteen hours. Either the king lost his head when it began, or the troops, having their blood up, would not stop. … The firing began at two o'clock on the 18th of March, and the authorities succeeded in withdrawing the troops and stopping it the next morning at five o'clock, they having been during that time successful at all points. … The king put out a manifesto at seven o'clock, declaring that the whole business arose from an unlucky misunderstanding between the troops and the people, as it unquestionably did, and the people appear to have been aware of the fact and ashamed of themselves. … A general amnesty was proclaimed for all parties concerned, and orders were given to form at once a burgher guard to supply the place of the military, who were to be withdrawn. A new ministry was appointed, of a liberal character. … The troops were marched out of the town, and were cheered by the people. … It is estimated that, of the populace, about 200 were killed: 187 received a public funeral. No accurate account of the wounded can be obtained. … Of the troops, according to the official returns, there fell 3 officers and 17 non-commissioned officers and privates; of wounded there were 14 officers, 14 non-commissioned officers, and 225 privates, and 1 surgeon. … The king's object was to divert popular enthusiasm into another channel; he therefore assumed the lead in the regeneration of Germany. On the 21st he issued a proclamation, enlarging on these views, and rode through the streets with the proscribed German tricolor on his helmet, and was vociferously cheered as he passed along. Prussia was not the first of the German states where the old order of things was overturned. During the whole of the month of March, Germany underwent the process of revolution. … On the 3d of March … the new order of things … began at Wurtemberg. The Duke of Hesse-Darmstadt abdicated. In Bavaria, things took a more practical turn. The people insisted on the dismissal of the king's mistress, Lola Montez: she was sent away, but, trusting to the king's dotage, she came back, police or no police—was received by the king—he created her Countess of Lansfeldt. This was a climax to which the people were not prepared to submit. … The king was compelled to expel her, to annul her patent of naturalization, and resume the grant he had made of property in her favour. This was more than he could stand, and he shortly after abdicated in favour of his heir. In Saxony the king gave way, after his troops had refused to act, and the freedom of the press was established, and other popular demands granted. In Vienna, the old system of Metternich was abolished, after a revolution which was little more than a street row. The king of Hanover refused to move, but was eventually induced to receive Stube as one of his ministers, who had been previously in prison for his opinions. However, he was firmer than most of his brother monarchs, and his country suffered less than the rest of Germany in consequence."

GERMANY: A. D. 1848 (March-September).
   Election and meeting of the National Assembly at Frankfort.
   Resignation of the Diet.
   Election of Archduke John to be Administrator of Germany.
   Powerlessness of the new government.
   Troubles rising from the Schleswig-Holstein question.
   Outbreak at Frankfort.
   The setting in of Reaction.

"In south-western Germany the liberal party set itself at the head of the movement. … The Heidelberg assembly of March 5th, consisting of the former opposition leaders in the various Chambers, issued a call to the German nation, and chose a commission of seven men, who were to make propositions with regard to a permanent parliament and to summon a preliminary parliament at Frankfort. This preliminary parliament assembled in St. Paul's church, March 31st. … The majority, consisting of constitutional monarchists, resolved that an assembly chosen by direct vote of the people … should meet in the month of May, with full and sovereign power to frame a constitution for all Germany. … These measures did not satisfy the radical party, whose leaders were Hecker and Struve. As their proposition to set up a sovereign assembly, and republicanize Germany, was rejected, they left Frankfort, and held in the highlands of Baden popular meetings at which they demanded the proclamation of the republic. {1535} A Hesse-Darmstadt corps under Frederic von Gagern … was sent to disperse them. An engagement took place at Kandern, in which Gagern was shot, but Hecker and his followers were put to flight. … The disturbances in Odenwald, and in the Main and Tauber districts, once the home of the peasant war, were of a different description. There the country people rose against the landed proprietors, destroyed the archives, with the odious tithe and rental books, and demolished a few castles. The Diet, which in the meantime continued its illusory existence, thought to extricate itself from the present difficulties by a few concessions. It … invited the governments to send confidential delegates to undertake, along with its members, a revision of the constitution of the confederation. … These confidential delegates, among them the poet Uhland, from Würtemberg, began their work on the 30th of March. The elections for the National Assembly stirred to their innermost fibres the German people, dreaming of the restoration of their former greatness. May 18th about 320 delegates assembled in the Imperial Hall, in the Römer (the Rathhaus), at Frankfort. … Never has a political assembly contained a greater number of intellectual and scholarly men—men of character and capable of self-sacrifice; but it certainly was not the forte of these numerous professors and jurists to conduct practical politics. The moderate party was decidedly in the majority. … It was decided … that a provisional central executive should be created in the place of the Diet, and created, not by the National Assembly in concert with the princes, but by the National Assembly alone. June 27th, following out the bold conception of its president, the assembly decided to appoint an irresponsible administrator, with a responsible ministry; and June 29th, Archduke John of Austria was chosen Administrator of Germany by 436 votes out of 546. He made his entry into Frankfort July 11th, and entered upon his office on the following day. The hour of the Diet had struck, apparently for the last time. It resigned its authority into the hands of the Administrator, and, after an existence of 32 years, left the stage unmourned. Archduke John was a popular prince, who found more pleasure in the mountain air of Tyrol and Styria than in the perfumed atmosphere of the Vienna court. But, as a novice 66 years of age, he was not equal to the task of governing, and as a thorough Austrian he lacked a heart for all Germany. The main question for him and for the National Assembly was, what force they could apply in case the individual governments refused obedience to the decrees issued in the name of the National Assembly. This was the Achilles's heel of the German revolution. … Orders were issued by the federal minister of war that all the troops of the Confederation should swear allegiance to the federal administrator on the 6th of August; but Prussia and Austria, with the exception of the Vienna garrison, paid no attention to these orders; Ernest Augustus, in Hanover, successfully set his hard head against them, and only the lesser states obeyed. … There certainly was no other way out of the difficulty than by the formation of a parliamentary army. … Instead of meeting these dangers resolutely, and in a common-sense way, the Assembly left matters to go as they would, outside of Frankfort. One humiliation was submitted to after another, while the Assembly, busying itself for months with a theoretical question, as if it were a juristic faculty, entered into a detailed consideration of the fundamental rights of the German people. The Schleswig-Holstein question, which had just entered upon a new phase of its existence, was the first matter of any importance to manifest the disagreement between the central administration and the separate governments; and it opened, as well, a dangerous gulf in the Assembly itself. The question at issue was one of succession [see SCANDINAVIAN STATES (DENMARK): A. D. 1848-1862]. … The Estates of the duchies [Schleswig and Holstein] established a provisional government, applied at Frankfort for the admission of Schleswig into the German confederation, and besought armed assistance both there and at Berlin. The preliminary parliament [this having occurred in April, before the meeting of the National Assembly] approved the application of Schleswig for admission, and commissioned Prussia, in conjunction with the 10th army corps of the Confederation, to occupy Schleswig and Holstein. On the 21st of April, 1848, General Wrangel crossed the Eider as commander of the forces of the Confederation; and on the 23d, in conjunction with the Schleswig-Holstein troops, he drove the Danes out of the Danewerk. On the following day the Danes were defeated at Oeversee by the 10th army corps, and all Schleswig-Holstein was free. Wrangel entered Jutland and imposed a war tax of 3,000,000 thalers (about $2,250,000). He meant to occupy this province until the Danes—who, owing to the inexcusable smallness of the Prussian navy, were in a position unhindered to injure the commerce of the Baltic—had indemnified Prussia for her losses; but Prussia, touched to the quick by the destruction of her commerce, and intimidated by the threatening attitude of Russia, Sweden, and England, recalled her troops, and concluded an armistice at Malmö, in Sweden, on the 26th of August. All measures of the provisional government were pronounced invalid; a common government for the duchies was to be appointed, one half by Denmark, and the other by the German confederation; the Schleswig troops were to be separated from those of Holstein; and the war was not to be renewed before the 1st of April, 1849—i. e., not in the winter, a time unfavorable for the Danes. This treaty was unquestionably no masterpiece on the part of the Prussians. All the advantage was on the side of the conquered Danes. … It was not merely the radicals who urged, if not the final rejection, at least a provisional cessation of the armistice, and the countermanding of the order to retreat. … A bill to that effect, demanded by the honor of Germany, had scarcely been passed by the majority, on the 5th of September, when the moderate party reflected that such action, involving a breach with Prussia, must lead to civil war and revolution, and call into play the wildest passions of the already excited people. In consequence of this the previous vote was rescinded, and the armistice of Malmö accepted by the Assembly, after the most excited debates, September 16th. This gave the radicals a welcome opportunity to appeal to the fists of the lower classes, and imitate the June outbreak of the social democrats in Paris. … {1536} A collision ensued [September 18]; barricades were erected, but were carried by the troops without much bloodshed. … General Auerswald and Prince Lichnowsky, riding on horseback near the city, were followed by a mob. They took refuge in a gardener's house on the Bornheimer-heide, but were dragged out and murdered with the most disgraceful atrocities. Thereupon the city was declared in a state of siege, all societies were forbidden, and strong measures were taken for the maintenance of order. The March revolution had passed its season, and reaction was again beginning to bloom. … Reaction drew moderate men to its side, and then used them as stepping-stones to immoderation."

GERMANY: A. D. 1848-1849.
   Revolutionary risings in Austria and Hungary.
   Bombardment of Vienna.
   The war in Hungary.
   Abdication of the Emperor Ferdinand.
   Accession of Francis Joseph.

GERMANY: A. D. 1848-1850.
   The Prussian National Assembly, and its dissolution.
   The work and the failure of the National Assembly of
   Frankfort.
   Refusal of the imperial crown by the King of Prussia.
   End of the movement for Germanic unity.

"The elections for the new Prussian Constituent Assembly, as well as for the Frankfort Parliament, were to take place (May 1). The Prussian National Assembly was to meet May 22. The Prussian people, under the new election law, if left to themselves, would have quietly chosen a body of competent representatives; but the revolutionary party thought nothing could be done without the ax and the musket. … The people of Berlin, from March to October, were … really in the hands of the mob. … The newly-elected Prussian National Assembly was opened by the king, May 21. … One of the first resolutions proceeded from Behrend of the Extreme Left. 'The Assembly recognizes the revolution, and declares that the combatants who fought at the barricades, on March 18 and 19, merit the thanks of the country.' … The motion was rejected. On issuing from the building into the street, after the sitting, the members who had voted against it, were received by the mob with threats and insults. … In the evening of the same day, in consequence of the rejection of the Behrend resolution, the arsenal was attacked by a large body of laborers. The burgher-guard were not prepared, and made a feeble defense. There was a great riot. The building was stormed and partially plundered. … The sketch of a constitution proposed by the king was now laid before the Assembly. It provided two Chambers—a House of Lords, and a House of Commons. The last to be elected by the democratic electoral law; the first to consist of all the princes of the royal house in their own right, and, in addition, 60 members from the wealthiest of the kingdom to be selected by the king, their office hereditary. This constitution was immediately rejected. On the rejection of the constitution the ministry Camphausen resigned. … The Assembly, elected exclusively to frame a constitution, instead of performing its duty … attempted to legislate, with despotic power, on subjects over which it had no jurisdiction. As the drama drew nearer its close, the Assembly became more open in its intention to overthrow the monarchy. On October 12 discussions began upon a resolution to strike from the king's title the words, 'By the grace of God,' and to abolish all titles of nobility and distinctions of rank. The Assembly building, during the sitting, was generally surrounded by threatening crowds. … Of course, during this period business was suspended, and want, beggary, and drunkenness, as well as lawless disorder, increased. … The writer was one day alone in the diplomatic box, following an excited debate. A speaker in the tribune was urging the overthrow of the monarchy, when suddenly the entire Assembly was struck mute with stupefaction. The Prince of Prussia, the late Emperor William I., supposed to be in England, in terror for his life, appeared at the door, accompanied by two officers, all three in full uniform, and marched directly up to the tribune. The Assembly could not have been more astounded had old Barbarossa himself, with his seven-hundred-years-long beard, marched into the hall out of his mountain cave. … After a slight delay, the President, Mr. von Grabow, accorded the tribune to the prince. He ascended and made a short address, which was listened to, with breathless attention, by every individual present. He spoke with the assurance of an heir to a throne which was not in the slightest danger of being abolished; but he spoke with the modesty and good sense of a prince who frankly accepted the vast transformation which the government had undergone, and who intended honestly to endeavor to carry out the will of the whole nation. … This was one of many occasions on which the honesty and superiority of the prince's character made itself felt even by his enemies. … Berlin was now thoroughly tired of street tumults and the horn of the burgher-guard. … The Prussian troops which had been engaged in the Schleswig-Holstein war, were now placed under General Wrangel. … He proceeded without delay to encircle the city with the 25,000 troops. At the same time, a cabinet order of the king (September 21) named a new ministry. … At this moment, the revolution over all Europe was nearly exhausted. Cavaignac had put down the June insurrection. The Prussian flag waved above the flag of Germany. The Frankfort Parliament was rapidly dying out. … On November 2, Count Brandenburg stated to the Assembly that the king had requested him to form a new ministry. … On the same day, Count Brandenburg, with his colleagues, appeared in the hall of the Prussian National Assembly, and announced his desire to read a message from his Majesty the King. … 'As the debates are no longer free in Berlin, the Assembly is hereby adjourned to November 27. It will then meet, and thereafter hold its meetings, not in Berlin, but in Brandenburg' (fifty miles from Berlin). After reading the message, Count Brandenburg, his colleagues, and all the members of the Right retired. … The Assembly … adjourned, and met again in the evening. … On November 10, the Assembly met again. Their debates were interrupted by General Wrangel, who had entered Berlin by the Brandenburg gate, at the head of 25,000 troops. … An officer from General Wrangel entered the hall and politely announced that he had received orders to disperse the Assembly. The members submitted, and left the hall. … {1537} An order was now issued dissolving the burgher-guard. On the 12th, Berlin was declared in a state of siege. … During the state of siege, the Assembly met again under the presidency of Mr. von Unruh. A body of troops entered the hall, and commanded the persons present to leave it. President von Unruh declared he could not consistently obey the order. There was, he said, no power higher than the Assembly. The soldiers did not fire on him, or cut him down with their sabers; but good-naturedly lifted his chair with him in it, and gently deposited both in the street. … On November 27, Count Brandenburg went to Brandenburg to open the Assembly; but he could not find any. It had split into two parts. … There was no longer a quorum. Thus the Prussian National Assembly disappeared. On December 5; appeared a royal decree, dissolving the National Assembly. … Then appeared a provisional octroyirte electoral law, for the election of two Chambers. … The new Chambers met February 26, 1849. … Prussia had thus closed the revolution of 1848, as far as she was concerned. Bismarck was elected member of the Second Chamber." Meantime, in the Frankfort Parliament, "the great question, Austria's position with regard to the new Germany, came up in the early part of November, 1848. Among many propositions, we mention three: I. Austria should abandon her German provinces. … II. Austria should remain as a separate whole, with all her provinces. … III. The Austrian plan. All the German States, and all the Austrian provinces (German and non-German), should be united into one gigantic empire … with Austria at the head. … Meanwhile, the debates went on upon the questions: What shall be the form, and who shall be the chief of what may be called the Prussian-Germany? Among the various propositions (all rejected) were the following: 1. A Directory, consisting of Austria, Prussia, Bavaria, Würtemberg, and Saxony. II. The King of Prussia and Emperor of Austria to alternate in succession every six years, as Emperor. III. A chief magistracy, to which every German citizen might aspire. IV. Revival of the old Bundestag, with certain improvements. On January 23, 1849, the resolution that one of the reigning German princes should be elected, with the title of Emperor of Germany, was adopted (258 against 211). As it was plain the throne could be offered to no one but Prussia, this was a breach between the Parliament and Austria. … The first reading of the constitution was completed, February 3, 1849. The middle and smaller German States declared themselves ready to accept it, but the kingdoms remained silent. … The real question before the Parliament was, whether Prussia or Austria should be leader of Germany. … On March 27, the hereditability passed by a majority of four. On March 28, the constitution, with the democratic electoral law, universal suffrage, the ballot, and the suspensive veto, was voted and accepted. … President Simson then called the name of each member to vote upon the question of the Emperor. There were 290 votes for Frederic William IV. … A deputation, consisting of 30 of the most distinguished members, was immediately sent to Berlin to communicate to the king his election as Emperor. … To the offer of the crown, his Majesty replied he 'could not accept without the consent of all the governments, and without having more carefully examined the constitution.' … Austria instantly rejected the constitution, protested against the authority of the Parliament, and recalled all her representatives from Frankfort. The King of Würtemberg accepted; but rejected the House of Hohenzollern as head of the Empire. Bavaria, Hanover, Saxony, rejected; 28 of the smaller German States accepted. In these were included the free-cities Hamburg, Bremen, Lubeck. … On April 28, Prussia addressed a circular note to the governments, inviting them to send representatives to Berlin, for the purpose of framing a new constitution. The note added: In case of any attempt to force the Frankfort constitution upon the country, Prussia was ready to render to the governments all necessary assistance. … On May 3, an insurrection broke out in Saxony. … On May 6, Prussian troops appeared, called by the Saxon government, and attacked the barricades. The battle lasted three days. … The insurgents abandoned the city. Dresden was declared in a state of siege. … The King of Prussia now recalled [from the Frankfort Parliament] all the Prussian representatives. … By the gradual disappearance of most of the moderate members … the Parliament, now a mere revolutionary committee, dwindled down to about 100 members. A resolution, proposed by Carl Vogt, was passed to transfer the sittings to Stuttgart. … On June 6, the Rump Parliament in Stuttgart elected a central government of its own. … The Assembly was then dispersed. … The German revolutions commenced and ended in the Grand Duchy of Baden. … By a mutiny in the regular army, it intrenched itself in the first-class fortress, Rastadt. There were, in all, three attempts at revolution in Baden [and one in the Palatinate]. … A large number of the leaders were tried and shot. … It was for taking part in this insurrection that Gottfried Kinkel was sentenced to imprisonment for life in the fortress of Spandau. Carl Schurz aided him in escaping."

GERMANY: A. D. 1848-1862.
Opening of the Schleswig-Holstein question.
War with Denmark.

GERMANY: A. D. 1853-1875.
Commercial treaties with Austria and France.
Progress towards free trade.

GERMANY: A. D. 1861-1866.
   Advent of King William I. and Prince Bismarck in Prussia.
   Reopening of the Schleswig-Holstein question.
   Conquest of the duchies by Prussia and Austria.
   Consequent quarrel and war.

"King Frederic William IV. [of Prussia], never a man of strong head, had for years been growing weaker and more eccentric. … In the early part of 1857, symptoms of softening of the brain began to show themselves. That disorder so developed itself that in October, 1857, he gave a delegation to the Prince of Prussia [his brother] to act as regent; but the first commission was only for three months. … The Prince's temporary commission was renewed from time to time; but it soon became apparent that Frederic William's case was hopeless, and his brother was formally installed as Regent in October, 1858. {1538} Ultimately, the King died in January, 1861, and his brother succeeded to the throne as William I." In September, 1862, Otto von Bismarck became the new King's chief minister, with General Roon for Minister of War, appointed to carry out a reorganization of the Prussian army which King William had determined to effect. Bismarck found his first opportunity for the aggrandizement of Prussia in a reopening of the Schleswig-Holstein question, which came about in November, 1863, when "Frederic of Denmark died, and Prince Christian succeeded to the throne of that kingdom. Already before his accession, the duchies were possessions of the Danish monarchy, but had in certain respects a separate administrative existence. This Denmark, in the year of Christian's accession, had materially infringed in the case of Sleswig, by a law which virtually incorporated that duchy with the Danish monarchy. The German Confederation protested against this 'Danification' of Sleswig, and having pronounced a decree of Federal execution against the new King of Denmark as Duke of Holstein and, in virtue of that duchy, a member of the German Confederation, sent into Holstein Federal troops belonging to the smaller States of the Confederation. The Confederation, as a collective body, favoured the establishment of the independence of the duchies, and had with it the wishes probably of the great mass of the German nation. But the independence of Sleswig and Holstein scarcely suited the views of Bismarck. He desired the annexation to Prussia of at all events Holstein, because in Holstein is the great harbour of Kiel, all important in view of the new fleet with which he purposed equipping Prussia; if Sleswig could be compassed along with Holstein, so much the better. But there were two difficulties in Bismarck's way. Prussia was a co-signatory of the Treaty of London. If he were to grasp at the duchies single-handed, a host of enemies might confront him. England was burning to take up arms in the cause of the father of the beautiful princess she had adopted as her own. The German Confederation would oppose Prussia's naked effort to aggrandise herself; and Austria, in the double character of a party to the Treaty of London and of a member of the Confederation, would rejoice in the opportunity to strike a blow at a power of whose rising pretensions she had begun to be jealous. The wily Bismarck had to dissemble. He made the proposal to Austria that the two states should ignore their participation as individual States in the Treaty of London, and that as corporate members of the German Confederation they should constitute themselves the executors of the Federal decree, and put aside the minor states whose troops had been charged with that office. Austria acceded. It was a bad hour for her when she did, yet she moves no compassion for the misfortunes which befell her as the issue. … The Diet had to submit. The Austro-Prussian troops marched through Holstein into Sleswig, and on the 2nd of February, 1864, struck at the Danes occupying the Dannewerke. … The venerable Marshal Wrangel was commander-in-chief of the combined forces until after the fall of Düppel, when Prince Frederic Charles succeeded him in that position; but throughout the campaign the control of the dispositions was mainly exercised by the Red Prince. But neither strategy nor tactics were very strenuously brought into use for the discomfiture of the unfortunate Danes. Their ruin was wrought partly because of the overwhelmingly superior force of their allied opponents, partly because of their own unpreparedness for war in almost everything save the possession of heroic bravery; but most of all by the fire of the needle-gun and the Prussian advantage in the possession of rifled artillery. Only part of the Prussian infantry had used the needle-gun in the reduction of the Baden insurrection in 1848; now, however, the whole army was equipped with it. … In their retreat from the Dannewerke into the Düppel position, the Danes suffered severely from the inclemency of the weather, and fought a desperate rear-guard engagement with the Austrians. … The Prussians undertook the task of reducing Düppel; the Austrians marched northward into Jutland, and driving back the Danish troops they encountered in their march, sat down before the fortress of Fredericia, and swept the Little Belt with their cannon. The sieges, both of Düppel and of Fredericia, were conducted with extreme inertness." But the former was taken and the latter abandoned. "The Danish war was terminated by the Treaty of Vienna on the 30th October, 1864, under which the duchies of Sleswig, Holstein, and Lauenburg were handed over to the sovereigns of Austria and Prussia. … Out of the Danish war of 1864 grew almost inevitably the war of 1866, between Prussia and Austria. The wolves quite naturally wrangled over the carcase, and the astuter wolf had so much the better of the wrangle that the duller one, unless he chose to be partly bullied, partly tricked out of his share, had no alternative but to fight for it, with the result that he clean lost that and a great deal more besides. The future of the Elbe Duchies was played at pitch and toss with between Prussia and Austria for the best part of a year; the details of the game were too intricate to be followed here. The condominium of the two Powers in the duchies produced constant friction, which was probably Bismarck's intention, especially as Prussia had taken care to keep stationed in them twice as many troops as Austria had left there. Relations were becoming very strained when in August, 1865, the Emperor Francis Joseph and King William met at the little watering-place of Gastein, and from their interview originated the short-lived arrangement known as the Convention of Gastein. By that compact, while the two Powers preserved the common sovereignty over the duchies, Austria accepted the administration of Holstein, Prussia undertaking that of Sleswig. Prussia was to have rights of way through Holstein to Sleswig, was given over the right of construction of a North Sea and Baltic Canal; and while Kiel was constituted a Federal harbour, Prussia was authorised to construct there the requisite fortifications and marine establishments, and to maintain an adequate force for the protection of these. Assuming the arrangement to be provisional, as on all hands it was regarded, Prussia clearly had the advantage under it. … But the Gastein Convention contained another provision—that Austria should sell to Prussia all her rights in the duchy of Lauenburg (an outlying appanage of Holstein) for the sum of 2,500,000 thalers: thus making market of rights of which she was but a trustee for the German Confederation. {1539} The Convention of Gastein pleased nobody, but that mattered little to Bismarck. … Bickerings recommenced before the year 1865 was out, and early in 1866 Austria began to arm. … In March, 1866, a secret treaty was formed between Italy and Prussia. … Prussia threw the Convention of Gastein to the winds by civilly but masterfully turning the Austrian brigade of occupation out of Holstein. Then Austria in the Federal Diet, complaining that by this act Prussia had disturbed the peace of the German Confederation, moved for a decree of Federal execution against that state, to be enforced by the Confederation's armed strength. On the 14th June, Austria's motion was carried by the Diet, its last act; for Prussia next day wrecked the flimsy organisation of the German Confederation, by declaring war against three of its component members, Hanover, Hesse, and Saxony. There was no formal declaration of war between Austria and Prussia, only a notification of intended hostile action sent by the Prussian commanders to the Austrian foreposts. On the 17th the Emperor Francis Joseph published his war manifesto; King William on the 18th emitted his to 'My People;' on the 20th, Italy declared war against Austria and Bavaria."

ALSO IN: H. von Sybel, The Founding of the German Empire, books 9-16 (volumes 3-4).

C. Lowe, Prince Bismarck, chapters 5-7 (volume 1), and appendices. A, B, C (volume 2).

GERMANY: A. D. 1866.
   The Seven Weeks War.
   Defeat of Austria.
   Victory and Supremacy of Prussia.
   Her Absorption of Hanover, Hesse, Nassau, Frankfort and
   Schleswig-Holstein.
   Formation of the North German Confederation.
   Exclusion of Austria from the Germanic organization.

"Prussia had built excellent railroads throughout the country, and quietly placed her troops on the frontier; within 14 days she had 500,000 men under arms. By the end of May they were on the frontiers ready for action, while Austria was only half prepared, and her allies only beginning to arm. On the 14th of June the diet, by a vote of nine to six, had ordered the immediate mobilization of a federal army; whereupon Prussia declared the federal compact dissolved and extinguished. In Vienna and the petty courts men said, 'Within fourteen days after the outbreak of hostilities the allied armies will enter Berlin in triumph and dictate peace; the power of Prussia will be broken by two blows.' The Legitimists were exultant; even the majority of the democracy in South Germany joined with the Ultramontane party in shouting for Austria. On the 10th of June, Bismark laid before the German governments the outlines of a new federal constitution, but was not listened to; on the 15th he made proposals to the states in the immediate neighborhood of Prussia for a peace on these foundations, and demanded their neutrality, adding that if they declined his peaceful offers he would treat them as enemies. The cabinets of Dresden and Hanover, of Cassel and Wiesbaden, declined them. Immediately, on the night of the 15th and 16th of June, Prussian troops entered Hanover, Hesse and Saxony. In four or five days Prussia had disarmed all North Germany, and broken all resistance from the North Sea to the Main. On the 18th of June, the Prussian general Bayer entered Cassel; the Elector was surprised at Wilhelmshöhe. As he still refused all terms he was arrested by the direct order of the king of Prussia and sent as a prisoner to Stettin. On the 17th, General Vogel von Falkenstein entered Hanover. King George with his army of 18,000 men sought to escape to South Germany. After a gallant struggle at Langensalza on the 27th, his brave troops were surrounded. The King capitulated on the 29th. His army was disbanded, he himself allowed to go to Vienna. On the 18th the Prussians were in Dresden; on the 19th, in Leipzig; by the 20th, all Saxony except the fortress of Königstein was in their hands. The king and army of Saxony, on the approach of the Prussians, had left the country by the railroads to Bohemia to form a junction with the Austrians. The Saxon army consisted of 23,000 men and 60 cannon. Everyone had expected Austria to occupy a country of such strategic value as Saxony before the Prussians could touch it. The Austrian army consisted of seven corps, 180,000 infantry, 24,000 cavalry, 762 guns. The popular opinion had forced the emperor to make Benedek the commander-in-chief in Bohemia. Everything there was new to him. The Prussians were divided into three armies: the army of the Elbe, 40,000 men, under Herwarth von Bittenfeld; the first army, 100,000 men, under Prince Frederick Charles; the second or Silesian army under the Crown Prince, 116,000 strong. The reserve consisted of 24,000 Landwehr. The whole force in this quarter numbered 280,000 men and 800 guns. … The Prussians knew what they were fighting for. To the Austrians the idea of this war was something strange. At Vienna, Benedek had spoken against war; after the first Prussian successes, he had in confidence advised the emperor to make peace as soon as possible. As he was unable, from want of means, to attack, he concentrated his army between Josephstadt and the county of Glatz. He thought only of defence. … On the 23rd of June the great Prussian army commenced contemporaneously its march to Bohemia from the Riesengebirge, from Lusatia, from Dresden. It advanced from four points to Josephstadt-Koniggrätz, where the junction was to take place. Bismarck had ordered, from financial as well as political reasons, that the war must be short. The Prussian armies had at all points debouched from the passes and entered Bohemia before a single Austrian corps had come near these passes. … In a couple of days Benedek lost in a series of fights against the three Prussian advancing armies nearly 35,000 men; five of his seven corps had been beaten. He concentrated these seven corps at Koniggrätz in the ground before this fortress; he determined to accept battle between the Elbe and the Bistritz. He had, however, previously reported to the emperor that his army after its losses was not in a condition for a pitched battle. He wished to retire to Moravia and avoid a battle till he had received reinforcements. This telegram of Benedek arrived in the middle of the exultation which filled the court of Vienna after hearing of the victory over the Italians at Custozza.

The emperor replied by ordering him briefly to give battle immediately. Benedek, on the 1st of July, again sent word to the emperor, 'Your majesty must conclude peace.' Yet on these repeated warnings came the order to fight at once. Benedek had provided for such an answer by his arrangements for July the 2nd. He had placed his 500 guns in the most favorable positions, and occupied the country between the Elbe and the little river Bistritz for the extent of a league. As soon as the Prussians heard of this movement they resolved to attack the Austrians on the 3d. On the 2d the king, accompanied by Count Bismarck, Von Roon and Von Moltke, had joined the army. He assumed command of the three armies. The Crown Prince and Herwarth were ordered to advance against Königgrätz. Part of the Crown Prince's army were still five German miles from the intended battle ground. Prince Frederick Charles and Herwarth had alone sustained the whole force of Austria in the struggle around Sadowa, which began at 8 o'clock in the morning. Frederick Charles attacked in the centre over against Sadowa; Herwarth on the right at Nechanitz; the Crown Prince was to advance on the left from Königinhof. The Crown Prince received orders at four o'clock in the morning; he could not in all probability reach the field before one or two o'clock after noon. All depended on his arrival in good time. Prince Frederick Charles forced the passage of the Bistritz and took Sadowa and other places, but could not take the heights. His troops suffered terribly from the awful fire of the Austrian batteries. The King himself and his staff came under fire, from which the earnest entreaties of Bismarck induced him to retire. About one o'clock the danger in the Prussian centre was great. After five hours of fighting they could not advance, and began to talk of retreat. On the right, things were better. Herwarth had defeated the Saxons, and threatened the Austrian left. Yet, if the army of the Crown Prince did not arrive, the battle was lost, for the Prussian centre was broken. But the Crown Prince brought the expected succor. About two o'clock came the news that a part of the Crown Prince's army had been engaged since one o'clock. The Austrians, attacked on their right flank and rear, had to give way in front. Under loud shouts of 'Forward,' Prince Frederick Charles took the Wood of Sadowa at three, and the heights of Lipa at four o'clock. At this very time, four o'clock, Benedek had already given orders to retreat. … From the … first the Prussians were superior to the Austrians in ammunition, provisions and supplies. They had a better organization, better preparation, and the needle-gun, which proved very destructive to the Austrians. The Austrian troops fought with thorough gallantry. … Respecting this campaign, an Austrian writes: 'Given in Vienna a powerful coterie which reserves to itself all the high commands and regards the army as its private estate for its own private benefit, and defeat is inevitable.' The Austrians lost at Sadowa, according to the official accounts at Vienna, 174 cannon, 18,000 prisoners. 11 colors, 4,190 killed, 11,900 wounded, 21,400 missing, including the prisoners. The Prussians acknowledged a loss of only 10,000 men. The result of the battle was heavier for Austria than the loss in the action and the retreat. The armistice which Benedek asked for on the 4th of July was refused by the Prussians: a second request on the 10th was also rejected. On the 5th of July the emperor of Austria sought the mediation of France to restore peace. … All further movements were put a stop to by the five days' armistice, which began on the 22d of July at noon, and was followed by an armistice for four weeks. … Hostilities were at an end on Austrian territory when the war began on the Main against the allies of Austria. The Bavarian army, under the aged Prince Charles, distinguished itself by being driven by the less numerous forces of Prussia under General Falkenstein across the Saale and the Main. … The eighth federal army corps of 50,000 men, composed of contingents from Baden, Würtemberg, Electoral Hesse, Hesse-Darmstadt, Nassau, and 12,000 Austrians under Prince Alexander of Hesse, was so mismanaged that the Würtemberg contingent believed itself sold and betrayed. … On the 16th of July, in the evening, Falkenstein entered Frankfort, and in the name of the king of Prussia took possession of this Free City, of Upper Hesse and Nassau. Frankfort, on account of its Austrian sympathies, had to pay a contribution of six millions of gulden to Falkenstein, and on the 19th of July a further sum of nineteen millions to Manteuffel, the successor of Falkenstein. The latter sum was remitted when the hitherto Free City became a Prussian city. Manteuffel, in several actions from the 23d to the 26th of July, drove the federal army back to Würzburg; Göben defeated the army of Baden at Werbach, and that of Würtemberg at Tauberbischofsheim; before this the eighth federal army corps joined the Bavarian army, and on the 25th and 26th of July the united forces were defeated at Gerschheim and Rossbrunn, and on the 27th, the citadel of Würzburg was invested. The court of Vienna had abandoned its South German allies when it concluded the armistice; it had not included its allies either in the armistice or the truce. … On the 29th of July, the Baden troops marched off homewards in the night, the Austrians marched to Bohemia, the Bavarians purchased an armistice by surrendering Würzburg to the Prussians. Thus of the eighth army corps, the Würtembergers and Hessians alone kept the field. On the 2d of August these remains of the eighth army corps were included in the armistice of Nicholsburg. … On the 23d of August peace was signed between Austria and Prussia at Prague. Bismarck treated Austria with great consideration, and demanded only twenty millions of thalers as war indemnity; Würtemberg had to pay eight millions of gulden, Baden six millions, Hesse-Darmstadt three millions, Bavaria thirty millions of gulden. The Würtemberg minister, Varnbüler, and the Baden minister, Freydorf, offered to form an offensive and defensive alliance with Prussia for the purpose of saving the ruling families, and in alarm lest Bavaria and Hesse-Darmstadt might seek in their territories compensation for cessions to Prussia. Bavaria also formed an alliance with Prussia, and ceded a small district in the north. Hesse-Darmstadt ceded Hesse-Homburg and some pieces of territory, and entered the North German Confederation, giving to Prussia the right of keeping a garrison in Mainz. {1541} Austria renounced her claims on Schleswig and Holstein, acknowledged the dissolution of the German Confederation and a modification of Germany by which Austria was excluded. It recognized the creation of the North German Confederation, the union of Venetia to Italy, the territorial alterations in North Germany. Prussia acknowledged the territorial possessions of Austria with the sole exception of Venetia; and also of Saxony; and undertook to obtain the assent of the King of Italy to the peace. Prussia announced the incorporation of Schleswig-Holstein, the Free City of Frankfort, the Kingdom of Hanover, the Electorate of Hesse, and the Duchy of Nassau, subject to the payment of annual incomes to the deposed princes. The Kingdom of Saxony, the two Mecklenburgs, the Hanse-towns, Oldenburg, Brunswick, and the Thuringian states entered the North German Confederation. Prussia now contained twenty-four millions of inhabitants, or including the Northern Confederation, twenty-nine millions. The military forces of the Confederation were placed under the command of Prussia. The states north of the Main were at liberty to form a Southern Confederation, the connection of which with the Northern Confederation was to be a subject of future discussion. Moreover, Bavaria, Baden and Würtemberg had engaged 'in case of war to place their whole military force at the disposal of Prussia,' and Prussia guaranteed their sovereignty and the integrity of their territory. Saxony paid ten millions of thalers as a war indemnity. Prussia received on the whole, as war indemnities, eighty-two millions of gulden. Thus ended in the year 1866 the struggle [known as the Seven Weeks War] between Austria and Prussia for the leadership of Germany."

ALSO IN: H. von Sybel, The Founding of the German Empire, books 17-20 (volume 5).

"We may make the statement that in the autumn of 1866 the German Empire was founded. … The Southern States were not yet members of the Confederation, but were already, to use an old expression, relatives of the Confederation (Bundesverwandte) in virtue of the offensive and defensive alliances with Prussia and of the new organization of the Tariff-Union. … The natural and inevitable course of events must here irresistibly break its way, unless some circumstance not to be foreseen should throw down the barriers beforehand. How soon such a crisis might take place no one could at that time estimate. But in regard to the certainty of the final result there was in Germany no longer any doubt. … Three-fourths of the territory of this Empire was dominated by a Government that was in the first place efficient in military organization, guided by the firm hand of King William, counselled by the representatives of the North German Sovereigns, and recognized by all the Powers of Europe. The opening of that Parliament was near at hand, that should in common with this Government determine the limitations to be placed upon the powers of the Confederation in its relation to the individual states and also the functions of the new Reichstag in the legislation and in the control of the finances of the Confederation. … It was, in the first place, certain that the functions of the future supreme Confederate authority would be in general the same as those specified in the Imperial Constitution of 1849. … The most radical difference between 1849 and 1866 consisted in the form of the Confederate Government. The former period aimed at the appointment of a Constitutional and hereditary emperor, with responsible ministers, to the utter exclusion of the German sovereigns: whereas now the plan included all of these sovereigns in a Confederate Council (Bundesrath) organized after the fashion of the old Confederate Diet, with committees for the various branches of the administration, and under the presidency of the King of Prussia, who should occupy a superior position in virtue of the conduct, placed in his hands once for all, of the foreign policy, the army and the navy, but who otherwise in the Confederate Council, in spite of the increase of his votes, could be outvoted like every other prince by a decree of the Majority. … Before the time of the peace-conferences, when all definite arrangements of Germany's future seemed suspended in the balance and undecided, the Crown Prince Frederick William, who in general had in mind for the supreme head of the Confederation a higher rank and position of power than did the Ring, maintained that his father should bear the title of King of Germany. Bismarck reminded him that there were other Kings in Germany: the Kings of Hanover, of Saxony, etc. 'These,' was the reply, 'will then take the title of Dukes.' 'But they will not agree to that.' 'They will have to!' cried His Royal Highness. After the further course of events, the Crown Prince indeed gave up his project; but in the early part of 1867 he asserted that the King should assume the title of German Emperor, arguing that the people would connect no tangible idea with the title of President of the Confederation, whereas the renewal of the imperial dignity would represent to them the actual incorporation of the unity finally attained, and the remembrance of the old glory and power of the Empire would kindle all hearts. This idea, as we have experienced and continue to experience its realization, was in itself perfectly correct: But it was evidently at that time premature: a North German empire would have aroused no enthusiasm in the north, and would have seriously hindered the accomplishment of the national aim in the south. King William rejected this proposition very decidedly: in his own simple way he wished to be nothing more than Confederate Commander-in-chief and the first among his peers."

H. von Sybel, The Founding of the German Empire by William I., book 20, chapter 4 (volume 5).

GERMANY: A. D. 1866-1870.
   Territorial concessions demanded by France.
   Rapid progress of German unification.
   The Zollparlament.
   The Luxemburg question.
   French determination for war.

"The conditions of peace … left it open to the Southern States to choose what relationship they would form with the Northern Confederation. This was a compromise between Bismarck and Napoleon, the latter fearing a United Germany, the former preferring to restrict himself to what was attainable at the time, and taking care not to humiliate or seriously to injure Austria, whose friendship he foresaw that Germany would need. Meanwhile Napoleon's interference continued. Scarcely had Benedetti, who had followed Bismarck to the battle-fields, returned to Berlin, when he received orders from his Government to demand not less than the left bank of the Rhine as a compensation for Prussia's increase of territory. For this purpose he submitted the draft of a treaty by which Prussia was even to bind herself to lend an active support to the cession of the Bavarian and Hessian possessions west of the Rhine! … Bismarck would listen to no mention of ceding German territory. 'Si vous refusez,' said the conceited Corsican, 'c'est la guerre.'—'Eh bien, la guerre,' replied Bismarck calmly. Just as little success had Benedetti with King William. 'Not a clod of German soil, not a chimney of a German village,' was William's kingly reply. Napoleon was not disposed at the time to carry out his threat. He disavowed Benedetti's action, declaring that the instructions had been obtained from him during his illness and that he wished to live in peace and friendship with Prussia. Napoleon's covetousness had at least one good effect: it furthered the work of German union. Bavaria and Würtemberg, who during the war had sided with Austria, had at first appealed to Napoleon to mediate between them and Prussia. But when the Ministers of the four South German States appeared at Berlin to negotiate with Bismarck, and Benedetti's draft-treaty was communicated to them, there was a complete change of disposition. They then wished to go much further than the Prussian Statesman was prepared to go: they asked, in order to be protected from French encroachments, to be admitted into the North German Confederation. But Bismarck would not depart from the stipulations of the Treaty of Nikolsburg. The most important result of the negotiations was that secret treaties were concluded by which the Southern States bound themselves to an alliance with the Northern Confederation for the defence of Germany, and engaged to place their troops under the supreme command of the Prussian King in the event of any attack by a foreign Power. In a military sense Klein-Deutschland was now one, though not yet politically. … That Prussia was the truly representative German State had been obvious to the thoughtful long before: the fact now stood out in clear light to all who would open their eyes to see. Progress had meanwhile been made with the construction of the North German Confederation, which embraced all the States to the north of the river Main. Its affairs were to be regulated by a Reichstag elected by universal suffrage and by a Federal Council formed of the representatives of the North German Governments. In a military sense it was a Single State, politically a Confederate State, with the King of Prussia as President. This arrangement was not of course regarded as final: and in his speech from the throne to the North German Reichstag, King William emphasized the declaration that Germany, so long torn, so long powerless, so long the theatre of war for foreign nations, would henceforth strive to recover the greatness of her past. … A first step towards 'bridging over the Main,' i. e., causing South and North to join hands again, was taken by the creation of a Zollparlament, or 'Customs Parliament, which was elected by the whole of Klein-Deutschland, and met at Berlin, henceforth the capital of Germany. It was also a step in advance that Baden and Hesse-Darmstadt signed conventions, by which their military system was put on the same footing as that of the North German Confederation. Baden indeed would willingly have entered into political union with the North, had the same disposition prevailed at the time in the other South German States. The National Liberals however had to contend with strong opposition from the Democrats in Würtemberg, and from the Ultramontanes in Bavaria. The latter were hostile to Prussia on account of her Protestantism, the former on account of the stern principles and severe discipline that pervaded her administration. … In the work of German unification the Bonapartes have an important share. … By outraging the principle of nationality, Napoleon I. had re-awakened the feeling of nationality among Germans: Napoleon III., by attempting to prevent the unification of Germany, actually hastened it on. … When King William had replied that he would not yield up an inch of German soil, 'patriotic pangs' at Prussian successes and the thirst for 'compensation' continued to disturb the sleep of the French Emperor, and as he was unwilling to appear baffled in his purpose, he returned to the charge. On the 16th of August, 1866, through his Ambassador Benedetti, he demanded 'the cession of Landau, Saarbrücken, Saarlouis, and Luxemburg, together with Prussia's consent to the annexation of Belgium by France. If that could not be obtained, he would be satisfied with Luxemburg and Belgium; he would even exclude Antwerp from the territory claimed that it might be created a free town. Thus he hoped to spare the susceptibilities of England. As a gracious return he offered the alliance of France. After his first interview Benedetti gave up his demand for the three German towns, and submitted a new scheme, according to which Germany should induce the King of the Netherlands to a cession of Luxemburg, and should support France in the conquest of Belgium; whilst, on his part, Napoleon would permit the formation of a federal union between the Northern Confederation and the South German States, and would enter into a defensive and offensive alliance with Germany. Count Bismarck treated these propositions, as he himself has stated, 'in a dilatory manner,' that is to say, he did not reject them, but he took good care not to make any definite promises. When the Prussian Prime Minister returned from his furlough to Berlin, towards the end of 1866, Benedetti resumed his negotiations, but now only with regard to Luxemburg, still garrisoned by Prussian troops as at the time of the old Germanic Confederation. Though the Grand-Duchy of Luxemburg did not belong to the new North German Confederation, Bismarck was not willing to allow it to be annexed by France. Moltke moreover declared that the fortress could only be evacuated by the Prussian troops if the fortifications were razed. But without its fortifications Napoleon would not have it. And when, with regard to the Emperor's intentions upon Belgium, Prussia offered no active support, but only promised observance of neutrality, France renounced the idea of an alliance with Prussia, and entered into direct negotiations with the King of Holland, as Grand-Duke of Luxemburg. {1543} Great excitement was thereby caused in Germany, and, as a timely warning to France, Bismarck surprised the world with the publication of the secret treaties between Prussia and the South German States. But when it became known that the King of Holland was actually consenting to the sale of his rights in Luxemburg to Napoleon, there was so loud a cry of indignation in all parts of Germany, there was so powerful a protest in the North German Parliament against any sale of German territory by the King of Holland, that Count Bismarck, himself surprised at the vigour of the patriotic outburst, declared to the Government of the Hague that the cession of Luxemburg would be considered a casus belli. This peremptory declaration had the desired effect: the cession did not take place. This was the first success in European politics of a united Germany, united not yet politically, but in spirit. That was satisfactory. A Conference of the Great Powers then met in London [May, 1867]: by its decision, Luxemburg was separated from Germany, and,—to give some kind of satisfaction to the Emperor of the French,—was formed into a neutral State. From a national point of view, that was unsatisfactory. … The danger of an outbreak of war between France and Germany had only been warded off for a time by the international settlement of the Luxemburg question. … In the early part of July, 1870, Prince Leopold of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen, at the request of the Spanish Government; became a candidate for the Spanish throne. Napoleon III. seized the occasion to carry into effect his hostile intentions against Germany."

ALSO IN: E. Simon, The Emperor William and his Reign, chapter 9-10 (volume l).

GERMANY: A. D. 1870 (June-July).
"The Hohenzollern incident."
French Declaration of War.

GERMANY: A. D. 1870 (September-December).
   The Germanic Confederation completed.
   Federative treaties with the states of South Germany.
   Suggestion of the Empire.

"Having decided on taking Strasburg and Metz from France" Prussia "could only justify that conquest by considerations of the safety of South Germany, and she could only defend these interests by effecting the union of North and South. She found it necessary to realise this union at any price, even by some concessions in favour of the autonomy of those States, and especially of Bavaria. Such was the spirit in which negotiations were opened, in the middle of September, 1870, between Bavaria and Prussia, with the participation of Baden, Wurtemberg and Hesse-Darmstadt. … Prussia asked at first for entire and unreserved adhesion to the Northern Confederation, a solution acceptable to Baden, Wurtemberg and Hesse-Darmstadt, but not to Bavaria, who demanded for herself the preservation of certain rights, and for her King a privileged position in the future Confederation next to the King of Prussia. The negotiations with Baden and Hesse-Darmstadt came to a conclusion on the 15th of November; and on the 25th, Wurtemberg accepted the same arrangement. These three States agreed to the constitution, slightly modified, of the Northern Confederation; the new treaties were completed by military conventions, establishing the fusion of the respective Corps d'Armée with the Federal Army of the North, under the command of the King of Prussia. The Treaty with Bavaria was signed at Versailles on the 23rd of November. The concessions obtained by the Cabinet of Munich were reduced to mere trifles. … The King of Bavaria was allowed the command of his army in time of peace. He was granted the administration of the Post-Office and partial autonomy of indirect contributions. A committee was conceded, in the Federal Council, for Foreign Affairs, under the Presidency of Bavaria. The right of the King of Prussia, as President of this Council, to declare war, was made conditional on its consent. Such were the Treaties submitted on the 24th of November to the sanction of the Parliament of the North, assembled in an Extraordinary Session. They met with intense opposition from the National Liberal and from the Progressive Party," but "the Parliament sanctioned the treaties on the 10th of December. According to the Treaties, the new association received the title of Germanic Confederation, and the King of Prussia that of its President. These titles were soon to undergo an important alteration. The King of Bavaria, satisfied with the concessions, more apparent than real, made by the Prussian Cabinet to his rights of sovereignty, consented to defer to the wishes of King William. On the 4th of December, King Louis addressed him [King William] a letter, informing him that he had invited the Confederate sovereigns to revive the German Empire and confer the title of Emperor on the President of the Confederation. … The sovereigns immediately gave their consent, so that the Imperial titles could be introduced into the new Constitution before the final ote of the Parliament of the North. … To tell the truth, King William attached slight importance to the votes of the various Chambers. He was not desirous of receiving his new dignity from the hands of a Parliament; the assent of the sovereigns was in his eyes far more essential."

GERMANY: A. D. 1870-1871.
   Victorious war with France.
   Siege of Paris.
   Occupation of the city.
   Enormous indemnity exacted.
   Acquisition of Alsace and part of Lorraine.

GERMANY: A. D. 1871 (January).
Assumption of the Imperial dignity by King William,
at Versailles.

   "Early in December the proposition came from King Ludwig of
   Bavaria to King William, that the possession of the
   presidential rights of the Confederacy vested in the Prussian
   monarch should be coupled with the imperial title. The King of
   Saxony spoke to the same purport; and in one day a measure
   providing for the amendment of the Constitution by the
   substitution of the words 'Emperor' and 'Empire' for
   'President' and 'Confederation' was passed through the North
   German Parliament, which voted also an address to his Majesty,
   from which the following is an extract: 'The North German
   Parliament, in unison with the Princes of Germany, approaches
   with the prayer that your Majesty will deign to consecrate the
   work of unification by accepting the Imperial Crown of Germany.
{1544}
   The Teutonic Crown on the head of your Majesty will
   inaugurate, for the re-established Empire of the German
   nation, an era of power, of peace, of well-being, and of
   liberty secured under the protection of the laws.' The address
   of the German Parliament was presented to the King at
   Versailles on Sunday, the 18th of December, by its speaker,
   Herr Simson, who, as speaker of the Frankfort Parliament in
   1848, had made the identical proffer to William's brother and
   predecessor [see above: A. D. 1848-1850]. … The formal
   ratification of assent to the Prussian King's assumption of
   the imperial dignity had yet to be received from the minor
   German States; but this was a foregone conclusion, and the
   unification of Germany really dates from that 18th of
   December, and from the solemn ceremonial in the prefecture of
   Versailles."

King William's formal assumption of the Imperial dignity took place on the 18th of January, 1871. "The Crown Prince was entrusted with all the preparations for the ceremony. Every regiment in the army of investment was instructed to send its colours in charge of an officer and two non-commissioned officers to Versailles, and all the higher officers who could be spared from duty were ordered to attend, for the army was to represent the German nation at this memorable scene. The Crown Prince escorted his father from the Prefecture to the palace of Versailles, where all the German Princes or their representatives were assembled in the Galerie des Glaces. A special service was read by the military chaplains, and then the Emperor, mounting on the dais, announced his assumption of Imperial authority, and instructed his Chancellor to read the Proclamation issued to the whole German nation. Then the Crown Prince, as the first subject of the Empire, came forward and performed the solemn act of homage, kneeling down before his Imperial Father. The Emperor raised him and clasped to his arms the son who had toiled and fought and borne so great a share in achieving what many generations had desired in vain."

By a proclamation dated April 16, 1871, the German Emperor ordered, "in the name of the German Empire, by and with the consent of the Council of the Confederation and of the Imperial Diet," that "in the place of the Constitution of the German Confederation," as agreed to in November 1870, there be substituted a Constitution for the German Empire,—the text of which appeared as an appendix to this imperial decree. For a full translation of the text of the Constitution,

GERMANY: A. D. 1871-1879.
Organization of the government of Alsace-Lorraine as an
imperial province.

"How to garner the territorial harvest of the war—Alsace-Lorraine—was a question which greatly vexed the parliamentary mind. Several possible solutions had presented themselves. The conquered provinces might be made neutral territory, which, with Belgium on one side, and Switzerland on the other, would thus interpose a continuous barrier against French aggression from the mouth of the Rhine to its source. But one fatal objection, among several others, to the adoption of this course, was the utter lack, in the Alsace-Lorrainers, of the primary condition of the existence of all neutral States—a determination on the part of the neutralised people themselves to be and remain neutral. And none knew better than Bismarck that it would take years of the most careful nursing to reconcile the kidnapped children of France to their adoptive parent. For him, the only serious question was whether Alsace-Lorraine should be annexed to Prussia, or be made an immediate Reichsland (Imperial Province). 'From the very first,' he said, 'I was most decidedly for the latter alternative, first—because there is no reason why dynastic questions should be mixed up with political ones; and, secondly—because I think it will be easier for the Alsatians to take to the name of "German" than to that at of "Prussian," the latter being detested in France in comparison with the other.' In its first session, accordingly, the Diet was asked to pass a law incorporating Alsace-Lorraine with the Empire, and placing the annexed provinces under a provisional dictatorship till the 1st January, 1874, when they would enter into the enjoyment of constitutional rights in common with the rest of the nation. But the latter clause provoked much controversy. … A compromise was ultimately effected by which the duration of the dictatorship, or period within which the Imperial Government alone was to have the right of making laws for Alsace-Lorraine, was shortened till 1st January, 1873; while the Diet, on the other hand, was only to have supervision of such loans or guarantees as affected the Empire. In the following year, however, the Diet came to the conclusion that, after all, the original term fixed for the dictatorship was the more advisable of the two, and prolonged it accordingly. For the next three years, therefore, the Reichsland was governed from the Wilhelmstrasse, as India is ruled from Downing Street. … In the beginning of 1874 … fifteen deputies from Alsace-Lorraine—now thus far admitted within the pale of the Constitution—took their seats in the second German Parliament. Of these fifteen deputies, five were out-and-out French Protesters, and the rest Clericals—seven of the latter being clergymen, including the Bishops of Metz and Strasburg. They entered the Diet in a body, with much theatrical pomp, the clergy wearing their robes; and one of the French Protesters—bearing the unfortunate name of Teutsch—immediately tabled a motion that the inhabitants of Alsace-Lorraine, having been annexed to Germany without being themselves consulted, should now be granted an opportunity of expressing their opinion on the subject by a plebiscite. … The motion of French Mr. Teutsch, who spoke fluent German, was of course rejected; whereupon he and several of his compatriots straightway returned home, and left the Diet to deal with the interests of their constituents as it liked. Those of his colleagues who remained behind only did so to complain of the 'intolerable tyranny' under which the provinces were groaning, and to move for the repeal of the law (of December, 1871) which invested the local Government with dictatorial powers. … {1545} Believing home-rule to be one of the best guarantees of federal cohesion, Bismarck determined to try the effect of this cementing agency on the newest part of the Imperial edifice; and, in the autumn of 1874, he advised the Emperor to grant the Alsace-Lorrainers (not by law, but by ordinance, which could easily be revoked) a previous voice on all bills to be submitted to the Reichstag on the domestic and fiscal affairs of the provinces. … In the following summer (June, 1875), therefore, there met at Strasburg the first Landesausschuss, or Provincial Committee, composed of delegates, thirty in number, from the administrative District Councils. … So well, indeed, on the whole, did this arrangement work, that within two years of its creation the Landesausschuss was invested with much broader powers. … Thus it came about that, while the Reichsland continued to be governed from Berlin, the making of its laws was more and more confined to Strasburg. … The party of the Irreconcilables had been gradually giving way to the Autonomists, or those who subordinated the question of nationality to that of home-rule. Rapidly gaining in strength, this latter party at last (in the spring of 1879) petitioned the Reichstag for an independent Government, with its seat in Strasburg, for the representation of the Reichsland in the Federal Council, and for an enlargement of the functions of the Provincial Committee. Nothing could have been more gratifying to Bismarck than this request, amounting, as it did, to a reluctant recognition of the Treaty of Frankfort on the part of the Alsace-Lorrainers. He therefore replied that he was quite willing to confer on the provinces 'the highest degree of independence compatible with the military security of the Empire.' The Diet, without distinction of party, applauded his words; and not only that, but it hastened to pass a bill embodying ideas at which the Chancellor himself had hinted in the previous year. By this bill, the government of Alsace-Lorraine was to centre in a Statthalter, or Imperial Viceroy, living at Strasburg, instead of, as heretofore, in the chancellor. … Without being a Sovereign, this Statthalter was to exercise all but sovereign rights. … For this high office the Emperor selected the brilliant soldier-statesman, Marshal Manteuffel. … Certainly, His Majesty could not possibly have chosen a better man for the responsible office, which the Marshal assumed on the 1st October, 1879. Henceforth, the conquered provinces entered an entirely new phase of their existence. … Whether the Reichsland will ever ripen into an integral part of Prussia, or into a regular Federal State with a Prussian prince for its Sovereign, the future alone can show."

"The German Culturkampf, or civilization-fight, as its illustrious chief promoter is said to have named it, may equally well be styled the religion combat, or education strife. … The arena of the Culturkampf in Germany is, strictly speaking, Prussia and Hesse Darmstadt—pre-eminently the former. According to the last census, taken December 1, 1880, the population of Prussia is 27,278,911. Of these, the Protestants are 17,645,462, being 64.7 per cent., and the Catholics 9,205,136, or 34.1 per cent., of the total population. The remainder are principally Jews, amounting to 363,790, or 1.334 per cent. It was on the 9th of January, 1873, that Dr. Falk, Minister of Public Worship, first introduced into the Prussian Diet the bills, which were afterwards to be known as the May Laws [so called because they were generally passed in the month of May, although in different years, but also called the Falk Laws, from the Minister who framed them]. These laws, which, for the future, were to regulate the relations of Church and State, purported to apply to the Evangelical or united Protestant State Church of Prussia … as well as to the Catholic Church. Their professed main objects were: first, to insure greater liberty to individual lay members of those churches; secondly, to secure a German and national, rather than an 'Ultramontane' and non-national, training for the clergy; and, thirdly, to protect the inferior clergy against the tyranny of their superiors—which simply meant, as proved in the sequel, the withdrawal of priests and people, in matters spiritual, from the jurisdiction of the bishops, and the separation of Catholic Prussia from the Centre of Unity; thus substituting a local or national Church, bound hand and foot, under State regulation, for a flourishing branch of the Universal Church. To promote these objects, it was provided, that all Ecclesiastical seminaries should be placed under State control; and that all candidates for the priesthood should pass a State examination in the usual subjects of a liberal education; and it was further provided, that the State should have the right to confirm or to reject all appointments of clergy. These bills were readily passed: and all the religious orders and congregations were suppressed, with the provisional exception of those which devoted themselves to the care of the sick; and all Catholic seminaries were closed. … The Bishops refused to obey the new laws, which in conscience they could not accept; and they subscribed a collective declaration to this effect, on the 26th of May 1873. On the 7th of August following, Pope Pius IX. addressed a strong letter of remonstrance to the Emperor William; but entirely without effect, as may be seen in the Imperial reply of the 5th of September. In punishment of their opposition, several of the Bishops and great numbers of their clergy were fined, imprisoned, exiled, and deprived of their salaries. Especially notable among the victims of persecution, were the venerable Archbishop of Cologne, Primate of Prussia, the Bishop of Munster, the Prince Bishop of Breslau, the Bishop of Paderborn, and Cardinal Ledochowski, Archbishop of Gnesen and Posen, on whom, then in prison, a Cardinal's hat was conferred by the Pope, in March 1875, as a mark of sympathy, encouragement, and approval. … The fifteen Catholic dioceses of Prussia comprised, in January 1873, a Catholic aggregate of 8,711,535 souls. They were administered by 4,627 parish-priests, and 3,812 coadjutor-priests, or curates, being a total of 8,439 clergy. Eight years later, owing to the operation of the May Laws, there were exiled or dead, without being replaced, 1,770 of these clergy, viz., 1,125 parish-priests, and 645, coadjutor-priests; and there were 601 parishes, comprising 644,697 souls, quite destitute of clerical care, and 584 parishes, or 1,501,994 souls, partially destitute thereof. Besides these 1,770 secular priests, dead or exiled, and not replaced, there were the regular clergy (the members of religious orders), all of whom had been expelled."

"Why was the Kulturkampf undertaken? This is a question often asked, and answered in different ways. That Ultramontanism is a danger to the Empire is the usual explanation; but proof is not producible. … Ultramontanism, as it is understood in France and Belgium, has never taken root in Germany. It was represented by the Jesuits, and when they were got rid of, Catholicism remained as a religion, but not as a political factor. … The real purpose of the Kulturkampf has been, I conceive, centralisation. It has not been waged against the Roman Church only, for the same process has been followed with the Protestant Churches. It was intolerable in a strong centralising Government to have a Calvinist and a Lutheran Church side by side, and both to call themselves Protestant. It interfered with systematic and neat account-keeping of public expenditure for religious purposes. Consequently, in 1839, the King of Prussia suppressed Calvinism and Lutheranism, and established a new Evangelical Church on their ruins, with constitution and liturgy chiefly of his own drawing up. The Protestant churches of Baden, Nassau, Hesse, and the Bavarian Palatinate have also been fused and organised on the Prussian pattern. In Schleswig-Holstein and in Hanover existed pure Lutherans, but they, for uniformity's sake, have been also recently unified and melted into the Landeskirche of Prussia. A military government cannot tolerate any sort of double allegiance in its subjects. Education and religion, medicine and jurisprudence, telegraphs and post-office, must be under the jurisdiction of the State. … From the point of view of a military despotism, the May laws are reasonable and necessary. As Germany is a great camp, the clergy, Protestant and Catholic, must be military chaplains amenable to the general in command. … I have no doubt whatever that this is the real explanation of the Kulturkampf, and that all other explanations are excuses and inventions. … The Chancellor, when he began the crusade, had probably no idea of the opposition he would meet with, and when the opposition manifested itself, it irritated him, and made him more dogged in pursuing his scheme."

"The passive resistance of the clergy and laity, standing on their own ground, and acting together in complete agreement, succeeded in the end. The laity had recognised their own priests, even when suspended by government, and had resolutely refused to receive others; and both priests and laity insisted upon the Church regulating its own theological education. Prussia and Baden became weary of the contest. In 1880 and 1881 the 'May Laws' were suspended, and, after negotiation with Leo XIII., they were to a large extent repealed. By this change, completed In April, 1887, the obligations of civil marriage and the vesting of Catholic property in the hands of lay trustees were retained, but the legislative interference with the administration of the Church, including the education required for the priesthood, was wholly abandoned. The Prussian Government had entirely miscalculated its power with the Church."

By the Bill passed in 1887, "all religious congregations which existed before the passing of the law of May 31, 1875, were to be allowed to re-establish themselves, provided their objects were purely religious, charitable, or contemplative. … The Society of Jesus, which is a teaching order, was not included in this permission. But Prince Bismarck's determination never to readmit the Jesuits is well known. … The Bill left very few vestiges of the May laws remaining."

GERMANY: A. D. 1878-1879.
Prince Bismarck's economic revolution.
Adoption of the Protective policy.

GERMANY: A. D. 1884-1889.
   Colonization in Africa.
   Territorial seizures.
   The Berlin Conference.

GERMANY: A. D. 1888.
   Death of the Emperor William I.
   Accession and death of Frederick III.
   Accession of William II.

The Emperor William died on the 9th of March, 1888. He was succeeded by his son, proclaimed under the title of Frederick III. The new Emperor was then at San Remo, undergoing treatment for a mortal malady of the throat. He returned at once to Berlin, where an unfavorable turn of the disease soon appeared. "Consequently an Imperial decree, dated the 21st of March, was addressed to the Crown Prince and published, expressing the wish of the Emperor that the Prince should make himself conversant with the affairs of State by immediate participation therein. His Imperial Highness was accordingly entrusted with the preparation and discharge of such State business as the Emperor should assign to him, and he was empowered in the performance of this duty to affix all necessary signatures, as the representative of the Emperor, without obtaining an especial authorisation on each occasion. … The insidious malady from which the Emperor suffered exhibited many fluctuations," but the end came on the 15th of June, his reign having lasted only three months. He was succeeded by his eldest son, who became Emperor William II.

Eminent Persons: Biographies reprinted from The Times, volume 4, pages 112-115.

   "The last two cities to uphold the name and traditions of the
   Hanseatic League, Hamburg and Bremen, have been incorporated
   into the German Zoll Verein, thus finally surrendering their
   old historical privileges as free ports. Lübeck took this step
   some twenty-two years ago [1866], Hamburg and Bremen not till
   October, 1888—so long had they resisted Prince Bismarck's
   more or less gentle suasions to enter his Protection League.
   … They, and Hamburg in particular, held out nobly, jealous,
   and rightly jealous, of the curtailment of those privileges
   which distinguished them from the other cities of the German
   Empire. It was after the foundation of this empire that the
   claim of the two cities to remain free ports was conceded and
   ratified in the Imperial Constitution of April, 1871, though
   the privilege, in the case of Hamburg, was restricted to the
   city and port, and withdrawn from the rest of the State, which
   extends to the mouth of the Elbe and embraces about 160 square
   miles, while the free-port territory was reduced to 28 square
   miles.
{1547}
   This was the first serious interference with the city's
   liberty, and others followed, perhaps rather of a petty,
   annoying, than of a seriously aggressive, character, but
   enough to show the direction in which the wind was blowing. It
   was in 1880 that the proposal to include Hamburg in the
   Customs Union was first politically discussed. … In May,
   1881, … was drafted a proposal to the effect that the whole
   of the city and port of Hamburg should be included in the Zoll
   Verein." After long and earnest discussion the proposition was
   adopted by the Senate and the House of Burgesses. "The details
   for carrying into effect this conclusion have occupied seven
   years, and the event was finally celebrated with great pomp,
   the Emperor William II. coming in person to enhance the
   solemnity of the sacrifice brought by the burghers of the erst
   free city for the common weal of the German Fatherland. …
   The last and only privilege the three once powerful Hanseatic
   cities retain is that of being entitled, like the greatest
   States in the empire, to send their own representatives to the
   Bundesrath and to the Reichstag."

GERMANY: A. D. 1889-1890.
Rupture between Emperor William II. and Chancellor Bismarck.
Retirement of the great Chancellor.

Soon after the accession of William II., signs of discord between the young Emperor and the veteran statesman, Chancellor Bismarck, began to appear. "In March, 1889, the Minister of Finance had drawn up a Bill for the reform of the income tax, which had been sanctioned by the Emperor; suddenly Prince Bismarck interfered, declaring that it was against the agrarian interest, and the Landtag, summoned expressly to vote that Bill, was dismissed 're inacta.' Count Waldersee, the Chief of the General Staff, an eminent and independent man, and standing high in favour, had for years been a thorn in the Chancellor's side, who looked upon him as a possible rival; he had tried to overthrow him under Frederic III., but had not succeeded, Moltke protesting that the general was indispensable to the army. When Waldersee, in the summer of 1889, accompanied the Emperor to Norway, a letter appeared in the Hamburger Nachrichten, to the effect that in a Memoir he had directed his sovereign's attention to the threatening character of the Russian armaments, and had advised, in contradiction to the Chancellor's policy, the forcing of war upon Russia. The Count from Trondhjem addressed a telegraphic denial to the paper, stating that he had never presented such a Memoir; but the Nachrichten registered this declaration in a garbled form and in small type, and the Norddeutsche Zeitung, which at the same time had published an article, to the effect that according to General von Clausewitz, war is only the continuation of a certain policy, and that therefore the Chief of the General Staff must needs be under the order of the Foreign Minister, took no notice of the Count's protest. … In the winter session of the Reichstag the Government presented a Bill tending to make the law against Social-Democracy a permanent one, but even the pliant National Liberals objected to the clause that the police should be entitled to expel Social-Democrats from the large towns. They would have been ready to grant that permission for two years, but the Government did not accept this, and the Bill fell to the ground. The reason, which at that time was not generally understood, was, that there existed already a hitch between the policy of the Chancellor and that of the Emperor, who had arrived at the conviction that the law against Social Democrats was not only barren, but had increased their power. This difference was accentuated by the Imperial decree of February 4 in favour of the protection of children's and women's labour, which the Chancellor had steadily resisted, and by the invitation of an international conference for that end. Prince Bismarck resigned the Ministry of Commerce, and was replaced by Herr von Berlepsch, who was to preside at the conference. The elections for the Reichstag were now at hand, a new surprise was expected for maintaining the majority obtained by the cry of 1887; but it did not come, and the result was a crushing defeat of the Chancellor. Perhaps even then the Emperor had discerned that he could not go on with Bismarck, and that it would be difficult to get rid of him, if he obtained another majority for five years. At least it seems certain that William II. already in the beginning of February had asked General von Caprivi whether he would be ready to take the Chancellor's place. Affairs were now rapidly pushing to a crisis. Bismarck asked the Emperor that, in virtue of a Cabinet order of 1852, his colleagues should be bound to submit beforehand to him any proposals of political importance before bringing it to the cognizance of the Sovereign. The Emperor refused, and insisted upon that order being cancelled. The last drop which made the cup overflow was an interview of the Chancellor with Windthorst. The Emperor, calling upon Bismarck the next morning, asked to hear what had passed in that conversation; the Chancellor declined to give any account of it, as he could not submit his intercourse with deputies to any control, and added that he was ready to resign."

The Change of Government in Germany (Fortnightly Review, August, 1890), pages 301-304.

"Early on the 17th of March the Emperor sent word that he was waiting for Bismarck's resignation. The Prince refused to resign, on grounds of conscience and of self-respect. … The Emperor must dismiss him. A second messenger came, in the course of the day, with a direct order from the Emperor that the Prince should send in his resignation within a given number of hours. At the same time Bismarck was informed that the Emperor intended to make him Duke of Lauenburg. The Prince responded that he might have had that title before if he had wished it. He was then assured (referring to the grounds on which he had previously declined the title) that the Emperor would pledge himself to secure such a legislative grant as would suffice for the proper maintenance of the ducal dignity. Bismarck declined this also, declaring that he could not be expected to close such a career as his had been 'by running after a gratuity such as is given to a faithful letter-carrier at New Year's.' His resignation, of course, he would send in as soon as possible, but he owed it to himself and to history to draw up a proper memorial. This he took two days to write. … He has since repeatedly demanded the publication of this memorial, but without success. … On March 20, the Emperor, in a most graciously worded letter (which was immediately published), accepted Bismarck's 'resignation.' … The immediate nomination of his successor [General von Caprivi] forced Bismarck to quit the Chancellor's official residence in such haste that … 'Bismarck himself compared his exit to the expulsion of a German family from Paris in 1870.'"

Nation, March 22, 1894 (reviewing 'Das Deutsche Reich zur Zeit Bismarcks,' von Dr. Hans Blum).

GERMANY: A. D. 1890.
Settlement of African claims with England.
Acquisition of Heligoland.

In January, 1894, the complete rupture of friendly relations between Prince Bismarck and the Emperor, and the Emperor's government, which had existed since the dismissal of the former, was terminated by a dramatic reconciliation. The Emperor made a peace-offering, upon the occasion of the Prince's recovery from an illness, by sending his congratulations, with a gift of wine. Prince Bismarck responded amiably, and was then invited to Berlin, to be entertained as a guest in the royal palace. The invitation was accepted, the visit promptly made on the 26th of January, and an enthusiastic reception was accorded to the venerable ex-chancellor at the capital, by court and populace alike.

GERONTOCRACY.

GEROUSIA.

GERRYMANDERING.

"In the composition of the House of Representatives [of the Congress of the United States] the state legislatures play a very important part. For the purposes of the election a state is divided into districts corresponding to the number of representatives the state is entitled to send to Congress. These electoral districts are marked out by the legislature, and the division is apt to be made by the preponderating party with an unfairness that is at once shameful and ridiculous. The aim, of course, is so to lay out the districts 'as to secure in the greatest possible number of them a majority for the party which conducts the operation. This is done sometimes by throwing the greatest possible number of hostile voters into a district which is anyhow certain to be hostile, sometimes by adding to a district where parties are equally divided some place in which the majority of friendly voters is sufficient to turn the scale. There is a district in Mississippi (the so-called Shoe-String District) 250 miles long by 30 broad, and another in Pennsylvania resembling a dumb-bell. … In Missouri a district has been contrived longer, if measured along its windings, than the state itself, into which as large a number as possible of the negro voters have been thrown.' This trick is called gerrymandering, from Elbridge Gerry, of Massachusetts, who was vice-president of the United States from 1813 to 1817. It seems to have been first devised in 1788 by the enemies of the Federal Constitution in Virginia, in order to prevent the election of James Madison to the first Congress, and fortunately it was unsuccessful. It was introduced some years afterward into Massachusetts. In 1812, while Gerry was governor of that state, the Republican legislature redistributed the districts in such wise that the shapes of the towns forming a single district in Essex county gave to the district a somewhat dragon-like contour. This was indicated upon a map of Massachusetts which Benjamin Russell, an ardent Federalist and editor of the 'Centinel,' hung up over the desk in his office. The celebrated painter, Gilbert Stuart, coming into the office one day and observing the uncouth figure, added with his pencil a head, wings and claws, and exclaimed, 'That will do for a salamander!' 'Better say a Gerrymander!' growled the editor; and the outlandish name, thus duly coined, soon came into general currency."

J. W. Dean, The Gerrymander (New England History and Genealogical Register, October, 1892).

"There is the strongest reason to believe that among the Dorians, as in all the heroic states, there was, from time immemorial, a council of elders. Not only is it utterly incredible that the Spartan council (called the gerusia, or senate) was first instituted by Lycurgus, it is not even clear that he introduced any important alteration in its constitution or functions. It was composed of thirty members, corresponding to the number of the 'obes,' a division as ancient as that of the tribes, which alone would suffice to refute the legend that the first council was formed of the thirty who aided Lycurgus in his enterprise, even without the conclusive fact that two of the 'obes' were represented by the kings. … So far as we know, the twenty-eight colleagues of the kings were always elected by the people, without regard to any qualification besides age and personal merit. The mode of election breathes a spirit of primitive simplicity: the candidates, who were required to have reached the age of sixty, presented themselves in succession to the assembly, and were received with applause proportioned to the esteem in which they were held by their fellow-citizens. These manifestations of popular feeling were noted by persons appointed for the purpose, who were shut up in an adjacent room, where they could hear the shouts, but could not see the competitors. He who in their judgment had been greeted with the loudest plaudits, won the prize—the highest dignity in the commonwealth next to the throne. The senators held their office for life."

GESITHS. GESITHCUND.

GESORIACUM.

The principal Roman port and naval station on the Gallic side of the English Channel—afterwards called Bononia-modern Boulogne. "Gesoriacum was the terminus of the great highway, or military marching road, which had been constructed by Agrippa across Gaul."

GHAZNEVIDES, OR GAZNEVIDES.

GHENT: A. D. 1379-1381.
The revolt of the White-Hoods.
The captaincy of Philip Van Arteveld.

In 1450, Philip, Duke of Burgundy, having exhausted his usual revenues, rich as they were, by the unbounded extravagance of his court, laid a heavy tax on salt in Flanders. The sturdy men of Ghent were little disposed to submit to an imposition so hateful as the French "gabelle"; still less when, the next year, a new duty on grain was demanded from them. They rose in revolt, put on their white hoods, and prepared for war. It was an unfortunate contest for them. They were defeated in nearly every engagement; each encounter was a massacre, with no quarter given on either side; the surrounding country was laid waste and depopulated. A final battle, fought at Gavre, or Gaveren, July 22, 1453, went against them so murderously that they submitted and went on their knees to the duke—not metaphorically, but actually. "The citizens were deprived of the banners of their guilds; and the duke was henceforward to have an equal voice with them in the appointment of their magistrates, whose judicial authority was considerably abridged; the inhabitants likewise bound themselves to liquidate the expenses of the war, and to pay the gabelle for the future." The Hollanders and Zealanders lent their assistance to the duke against Ghent, and were rewarded by some important concessions.

"The city lost her jurisdiction, her dominion over the surrounding country. She had no longer any subjects, was reduced to a commune, and a commune, too, in ward two gates, walled up forever, were to remind her of this grave change of state. The sovereign banner of Ghent, and the trades' banners, were handed over to Toison d'Or, who unceremoniously thrust them into a sack and carried them off."

Once more, in 1539, Ghent became the scene of a memorable rising of the people against the oppressive exactions of their foreign masters. "The origin of the present dispute between the Ghenters and the court was the subsidy of 1,200,000 guilders, demanded by the governess [sister of the emperor Charles V.] in 1536, which … it was found impossible to levy by a general tax throughout the provinces. It was therefore divided in proportional shares to each; that of Flanders being fixed at 400,000 guilders, or one-third of the whole. … The citizens of Ghent … persisted in refusing the demand, offering, instead, to serve the emperor as of old time, with their own troops assembled under the great standard of the town. … The other cities of Flanders showed themselves unwilling to espouse the cause of the Ghenters, who, finding they had no hope of support from them, or of redress from the emperor, took up arms, possessed themselves of the forts in the vicinity of Ghent, and despatched an embassy to Paris to offer the sovereignty of their city to the king." The French king, Francis I., not only gave them no encouragement, but permitted the emperor, then in Spain, to pass through France, in order to reach the scene of disturbance more promptly. In the winter of 1540, the latter presented himself before Ghent, at the head of a German army, and the unhappy city could do nothing but yield itself to him.

   At the time of this unsuccessful revolt and the submission of
   the city to Charles V., "Ghent was, in all respects, one of
   the most important cities in Europe. Erasmus, who, as a
   Hollander and a courtier, was not likely to be partial to the
   turbulent Flemings, asserted that there was no town in all
   Christendom to be compared to it for size, power, political
   constitution, or the culture of its inhabitants. It was, said
   one of its inhabitants at the epoch of the insurrection,
   rather a country than a city. … Its streets and squares were
   spacious and elegant, its churches and other public buildings
   numerous and splendid. The sumptuous church of Saint John or
   Saint Bavon, where Charles V. had been baptized, the ancient
   castle whither Baldwin Bras de Fer had brought the daughter of
   Charles the Bald [see FLANDERS: A. D. 863], the city hall with
   its graceful Moorish front, the well-known belfry, where for
   three centuries had perched the dragon sent by the Emperor
   Baldwin of Flanders from Constantinople, and where swung the
   famous Roland, whose iron tongue had called the citizens,
   generation after generation, to arms, whether to win battles
   over foreign kings at the head of their chivalry, or to plunge
   their swords in each others' breasts, were all conspicuous in
   the city and celebrated in the land. Especially the great bell
   was the object of the burghers' affection, and, generally, of
   the sovereign's hatred; while to all it seemed, as it were, a
   living historical personage, endowed with the human powers and
   passions which it had so long directed and inflamed. …
   Charles allowed a month of awful suspense to intervene between
   his arrival and his vengeance.
{1550}
   Despair and hope alternated during the interval. On the 17th
   of March, the spell was broken by the execution of 19 persons,
   who were beheaded as ringleaders. On the 29th of April, he
   pronounced sentence upon the city. … It annulled all the
   charters, privileges, and laws of Ghent. It confiscated all
   its public property, rents, revenues, houses, artillery,
   munitions of war, and in general everything which the
   corporation, or the traders, each and all, possessed in
   common. In particular, the great bell Roland was condemned and
   sentenced to immediate removal. It was decreed that the
   400,000 florins, which had caused the revolt, should forthwith
   be paid, together with an additional fine by Ghent of 150,000,
   besides 6,000 a year, forever after."

      J. L. Motley,
      The Rise of the Dutch Republic,
      introduction, section 11.

See NETHERLANDS (AUSTRIAN PROVINCES): A. D.1745;
and AIX-LA-CHAPELLE: A. D. 1748.

GHENT: A. D. 1814.
Negotiation of the Treaty of Peace between Great Britain and
the United States.

GHIBELINS.

GHILDE.

GIAN GALEAZZO,
   Lord of Milan, A. D. 1378-1396;
   Duke, 1396-1402.
   Gian Galeazzo II., Duke of Milan, 1476-1494.

King David's chosen band of six hundred, his heroes, his "mighty men," his standing army.

The Gibeonites were a "remnant of the Amorites, and the children of Israel had sworn unto them" (ii Samuel xxi., 2). Saul violated the pledged faith of his nation to these people and "sought to slay them." After Saul's death there came a famine which was attributed to his crime against the Gibeonites; whereupon David sought to make atonement to them. They would accept nothing but the execution of vengeance upon seven of Saul's family, and David gave up to them two sons of Saul's concubine, Rizpah, and five sons of Michel, the daughter of Saul, whom they hanged.

GIBRALTAR: A. D. 1309-1460. Taken by the Christians, recovered by the Moors, and finally wrested from them, after several sieges.

GILDS.

GILEAD.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (JULY: S. CAROLINA), and (AUGUST-DECEMBER: SOUTH CAROLINA).

GIOVANNA.

GIPSIES.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1791 (OCTOBER); 1791-1792; 1792 (JUNE-AUGUST), (AUGUST), (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER); 1793 (MARCH-JUNE), (JUNE), (JULY-DECEMBER), (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER); 1793-1794 (OCTOBER-APRIL).

GIRTON COLLEGE.

GITANOS.

GLADSTONE MINISTRIES.

GLENDOWER'S REBELLION.

GLEVUM.

Glevum was a large colonial city of the Romans in Britain, represented by the modern city of Gloucester. It "was a town of great importance, as standing not only on the Severn, near the place where it opened out into the Bristol Channel, but also as being close to the great Roman iron district of the Forest of Dean."

GNOSTICS-GNOSTICISM.

"In a word … Gnosticism was a philosophy of religion; but in what sense was it this? The name of Gnosticism—Gnosis—does not belong exclusively to the group of phenomena with whose historical explanation we are here concerned. Gnosis is a general idea; it is only as defined in one particular manner that it signifies Christian Gnosticism in a special sense: Gnosis is higher Knowledge, Knowledge that has a clear perception of the foundations on which it rests, and the manner in which its structure has been built up; a Knowledge that is completely that which, as Knowledge, it is called to be. In this sense it forms the natural antithesis to Pistis, Faith [whence Pistics, believing Christians]: if it is desired to denote Knowledge in its specific difference from faith, no word will mark the distinction more significantly than Gnosis. But we find that, even in this general sense, the Knowledge termed Gnosis is a religious Knowledge rather than any other; for it is not speculative Knowledge in general, but only such as is concerned with religion. … In its form and contents Christian Gnosticism is the expansion and development of Alexandrian religious philosophy; which was itself an offshoot of Greek philosophy. … The fundamental character of Gnosticism in all its forms is dualistic. It is its sharply-defined, all-pervading dualism that, more than anything else, marks it directly for an offspring of paganism. … In Gnosticism the two principles, spirit and matter, form the great and general antithesis, within the bounds of which the systems move with all that they contain. … A further leading Gnostic conception is the Demiurgus. The two highest principles being spirit and matter, and the true conception of a creation of the world being thus excluded, it follows in the Gnostic systems, and is a characteristic feature of them, that they separate the creator of the world from the supreme God, and give him a position subordinate to the latter. He is therefore rather the artificer than the creator of the world. … The oldest Gnostic sects are without doubt those whose name is not derived from a special founder, but only stand for the general notion of Gnosticism. Such a name is that of the Ophites or Naassenes. The Gnostics are called Ophites, brethren of the Serpent, not after the serpent with which the fathers compared Gnosticism, meaning to indicate the dangerous poison of its doctrine, and to suggest that it was the hydra, which as soon as it lost one head at once put forth another; but because the serpent was the accepted symbol of their lofty Knowledge. … The first priests and supporters of the dogma were, according to the author of the Philosophoumena, the so-caned Naassenes—a name derived from the Hebrew name of the serpent. They afterwards called themselves Gnostics, because they asserted that they alone knew the things that are deepest. From this root the one heresy divided into various branches; for though these heretics all taught a like doctrine, their dogmas were various."

F. C. Baur, The Church History of the First Three Centuries, volume 1, pages 187-202.

"Bigotry has destroyed their [the Gnostics'] writings so thoroughly, that we know little of them except from hostile sources. They called themselves Christians, but cared little for the authority of bishops or apostles, and borrowed freely from cabalists, Parsees, astrologers, and Greek philosophers, in building up their fantastic systems. … Much as we may fear that the Gnostic literature was more remarkable for boldness in speculation than for, clearness of reasoning or respect for facts, it is a great pity that it should have been almost entirely destroyed by ecclesiastical bigotry."

      ALSO IN:
      J. L. von Mosheim,
      Historical Commentaries on the State of Christianity,
      century 1,
      sections 60-70, century 2, sections 41-65.

      A. Neander,
      General History of the Christian Religion and Church,
      volume 2.

GODOLPHIN AND THE ENGLISH TREASURY.

GOLD DISCOVERY IN AUSTRALIA.

GOLD DISCOVERY IN CALIFORNIA.

GOLDEN BOOK OF VENICE.

A document to which the emperor attached his golden seal was called by the Byzantines, for that reason, a chrysobulum or golden bull. The term was adopted in the Western or Holy Roman Empire.

GOLDEN BULL OF HUNGARY.

GOLDEN CHERSONESE.

David Christy published his 'Cotton is King' in the year [1856] in which Buchanan was elected [President of the United States], and the Knights of the Golden Circle appear to have organized about the same time. The Golden Circle had its centre at Havana, Cuba, and with a radius of sixteen degrees (about 1,200 miles) its circumference took in Baltimore, St. Louis, about half of Mexico, all of Central America, and the best portions of the coast along the Caribbean Sea. The project was, to establish an empire with this circle for its territory, and by controlling four great staples—rice, tobacco, sugar, and cotton—practically govern the commercial world. Just how great a part this secret organization played in the scheme of secession, nobody that was not in its counsels can say; but it is certain that it boasted, probably with truth, a membership of many thousands."

During the American Civil War, the Order of the Knights of the Golden Circle was extended (1862-1864) through the Northern States, as a secret treasonable organization, in aid of the Southern Rebellion.

"It was on the occasion of his marriage [A. D. 1430] that Philip [Philip the Good, Duke of Burgundy, Count of Flanders, etc.], desirous of instituting a national order of knighthood, chose for its insignia a 'golden fleece,' with the motto, 'Pretium non vile laborum,'—not to be condemned is the reward of labour. … For the first time labour was given heraldic honours. The pride of the country had become laden with industrial recollections, its hope full of industrial triumphs; if feudalism would keep its hold, it must adopt or affect the national feeling. No longer despised was the recompense of toil; upon the honour of knighthood it should so be sworn; nay knighthood would henceforth wear appended to its collar of gold no other emblem than its earliest and most valued object—a golden fleece."

"This order of fraternity, of equality between nobles, in which the duke was admonished, 'chaptered,' just the same as any other, this council, to which he pretended to communicate his affairs, was at bottom a tribunal where the haughtiest found the duke their judge; he could honour or dishonour them by a sentence of the order. Their scutcheon answered for them; hung up in St. Jean's, Ghent, it could either be erased or blackened. … The great easily consoled themselves for degradation at Paris by lawyers, when they were glorified by the duke of Burgundy in a court of chivalry in which kings took their seat."

"The number of the members was originally fixed at 31, including the sovereign, as the head and chief of the institution. They were to be: 'Gentilshommes de nom et d'armes sans reproche.' In 1516, Pope Leo X. consented to increase the number to 52, including the head. After the accession of Charles V., in 1556, the Austro-Spanish, or, rather, the Spanish-Dutch line of the house of Austria, remained in possession of the Order. In 1700, the Emperor Charles VI. and King Philip of Spain both laid claim to it. … It now passes by the respective names of the Spanish or Austrian. 'Order of the Golden Fleece,' according to the country where it is issued."

"The Bay of San Francisco is separated by [from] the sea by low mountain ranges. Looking from the peaks of the Sierra Nevada, the coast mountains present an apparently continuous line, with only a single gap, resembling a mountain pass. This is the entrance to the great bay. … On the south, the bordering mountains come down in a narrow ridge of broken hills, terminating in a precipitous point, against which the sea breaks heavily. On the northern side, the mountain presents a bold promontory, rising in a few miles to a height of two or three thousand feet. Between these points is the strait—about one mile broad in the narrowest part, and five miles long from the sea to the bay. To this Gate I gave the name of Chrysopylæ, or Golden Gate; for the same reasons that the harbor of Byzantium (Constantinople afterwards), was called Chrysoceras, or Golden Horn. Passing through this gate, the bay opens to the right and left, extending in each direction about 35 miles, making a total length of more than 70, and a coast of about 275 miles."

   The imperial palace at Rome, as restored by Nero after the
   great fire, was called the Golden House. It was destroyed by
   Vespasian.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (FEBRUARY-MARCH: THE CAROLINAS), and (FEBRUARY-MARCH: N. CAROLINA).

GOMPHI.

Gomphi, a city on the border of Thessaly, shut its gates against Cæsar, shortly before the battle of Pharsalia. He halted one day in his march, stormed the town and gave it up to his soldiers to be sacked.

GONFALONIERE.

"The house of Gonzaga held sovereign power at Mantua, first as captains, then as marquesses, then as dukes, for nearly 400 years" (1328-1708).

GOOROO, OR GURU.

GORDIAN I. and II., Roman Emperors, A. D. 238.
Gordian III., Roman Emperor, A. D. 238-244.

"It was about February or March 333 B. C., when Alexander reached Gordium; where he appears to have halted for some time, giving to the troops which had been with him in Pisidia a repose doubtless needful. While at Gordium, he performed the memorable exploit familiarly known as the cutting of the Gordian knot. There was preserved in the citadel an ancient waggon of rude structure, said by the legend to have once belonged to the peasant Gordius and his son Midas—the primitive rustic kings of Phrygia, designated as such by the Gods and chosen by the people. The cord (composed of fibres from the bark of the cornel tree), attaching the yoke of this waggon to the pole, was so twisted and entangled as to form a knot of singular complexity, which no one had ever been able to untie. An oracle had pronounced, that to the person who should untie it the empire of Asia was destined. … Alexander, on inspecting the knot, was as much perplexed as others had been before him, until at length, in a fit of impatience, he drew his sword and severed the cord in two. By everyone this was accepted as a solution of the problem."

GORDYENE, OR CORDYENE, OR CORDUENE.

The tribes of the Carduchi which anciently occupied the region of northern Mesopotamia, east of the Tigris, have given their name permanently to the country, but in variously modified forms. In the Greek and Roman period it was known as Gordyene, Cordyene, Corduene; at the present day it is Kurdistan. Under the Parthian domination in Asia, Gordyene was a tributary kingdom. In the early part of the last century B. C. it was conquered by Tigranes, king of Armenia, who chose a site within it for building his vast new capital, Tigranocerta, to populate which twelve Greek cities were stripped of inhabitants. It was included among the conquests of Trajan for the Romans, but relinquished by Hadrian.

GORTYN.

GOSNOLD'S VOYAGE TO NEW ENGLAND.

Septimania, the strip of land along the Mediterranean between the Pyrenees and the Rhone, was the last possession of the Goths in Gaul, and the name Gothia became for a time attached to it.

The Gotini or Gothini were a people of ancient Germany who "are probably to be placed in Silesia, about Breslau." "The Gotini and Osi [who held a part of modern Gallicia, under the Carpathian mountains] are proved by their respective Gallic and Pannonian tongues, as well as by the fact of their enduring tribute, not to be Germans. … The Gotini, to complete their degradation, actually work iron mines."

Tacitus, Minor Works, translated by Church and Brodribb: The Germany, with geographical notes.

GOTHLAND IN SWEDEN.

A tribe in ancient Germany, mentioned by Tacitus. They "probably dwelt on either side of the Vistula, the Baltic being their northern boundary. Consequently, their settlements would coincide with portions of Pomerania and Prussia. Dr. Latham thinks they were identical with the Æstii."

   "The Scandinavian origin of the Goths has given rise to much
   discussion, and has been denied by several eminent modern
   scholars. The only reasons in favor of their Scandinavian
   origin are the testimony of Jornandes and the existence of the
   name of Gothland in Sweden; but the testimony of Jornandes
   contains at the best only the tradition of the people
   respecting their origin, which is never of much value; and the
   mere fact of the existence of the name of Gothland in Sweden
   is not sufficient to prove that this country was the original
   abode of the people. When the Romans first saw the Goths, in
   the reign of Caracalla, they dwelt in the land of the Getæ [on
   the northern side of the lower Danube]. Hence Jornandes,
   Procopius, and many other writers, both ancient and modern,
   supposed the Goths to be the same as the Getæ of the earlier
   historians. But the latter writers always regarded the Getæ as
   Thracians; and if their opinion was correct, they could have
   had no connection with the Goths. Still, it is a startling
   fact that a nation called Gothi should have emigrated from
   Germany, and settled accidentally in the country of a people
   with a name so like their own as that of Getæ. This may have
   happened by accident, but certainly all the probabilities are
   against it. Two hypotheses have been brought forward in modern
   times to meet this difficulty. One is that of Grimm, in his
   History of the German Language, who supposes that there was no
   migration of the Goths at all, that they were on the Lower
   Danube from the beginning, and that they were known to the
   earlier Greek and Latin writers as Getæ: but the great
   objection to this opinion is the general belief of the earlier
   writers that the Getæ were Thracians, and the latter were
   certainly not Germans.
{1554}
   The other is that of Latham, who supposes, with much
   ingenuity, that the name of Get, or Goth, was the general name
   given by the Slavonic nations to the Lithuanians. According to
   this theory, the Goth-ones, or Guth-ones, at the mouth of the
   Vistula, mentioned by Tacitus and Ptolemy, are Lithuanians,
   and the Get-æ, on the Danube, belong to the same nation.
   Latham also believes that the Goths of a later period were
   Germans who migrated to the Danube, but that they did not bear
   the name of Goths till they settled in the country of the
   Getæ.

      See Latham,
      The Germania of Tacitus,
      Epil., p. xxxviii., seq."

      W. Smith,
      Note to Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 10.

"The first clear utterance of tradition among the Goths points to Sweden as their home. It is true that this theory of the Swedish origin of the Goths has of late been strenuously combatted, but until it is actually disproved (if that be possible) it seems better to accept it as a 'working hypothesis,' and, at the very least, a legend which influenced the thoughts and feelings of the nation itself. Condensing the narrative of Jornandes … we get some such results as these: 'The island of Scanzia [peninsula of Norway and Sweden] lies in the Northern Ocean, opposite the mouths of the Vistula, in shape like a cedar-leaf. In this island, a warehouse of nations ("officina gentium"), dwelt the Goths, with many other tribes,' whose uncouth names are for the most part forgotten, though the Swedes, the Fins, the Heruli, are familiar to us. 'From this island the Goths, under their king Berig, set forth in search of new homes. They had but three ships, and as one of these during their passage always lagged behind, they called her "Gepanta," "the torpid one," and her crew, who ever after showed themselves more sluggish and clumsy than their companions when they became a nation, bore a name derived from this circumstance, Gepidae, the Loiterers'." Settling, first, near the mouth of the Vistula, these Gothic wanderers increased in numbers until they were forced once more to migrate southward and eastward, seeking a larger and more satisfactory home. In time, they reached the shores of the Euxine. "The date of this migration of the Goths is uncertain; but, as far as we can judge from the indications afforded by contemporary Roman events, it was somewhere between 100 and 200 A. D. At any rate, by the middle of the third century, we find them firmly planted in the South of Russia. They are now divided into three nations, the Ostrogoths on the East, the Visigoths on the West, the lazy Gepidae a little to the rear—that is, to the North of both. … It is important for us to remember that these men are Teutons of the Teutons. … Moreover, the evidence of language shows that among the Teutonic races they belonged to the Low German family of peoples: more nearly allied, that is to say, to the Dutch, the Frieslanders, and to our own Saxon forefathers, all of whom dwelt by the flat shores of the German Ocean or the Baltic Sea, than to the Suabians and other High German tribes who dwelt among the hills."

"The little kingdom of Bosphorus; whose capital was situated on the straits through which the Mæotis communicates itself to the Euxine, was composed of degenerate Greeks and half-civilized barbarians. It subsisted as an independent state from the time of the Peloponnesian war, was at last swallowed up by the ambition of Mithridates, and, with the rest of his dominions, sunk under the weight of the Roman arms. From the reign of Augustus the kings of Bosphorus were the humble but not useless allies of the empire. By presents, by arms, and by a slight fortification drawn across the isthmus, they effectually guarded, against the roving plunderers of Sarmatia, the access of a country which, from its peculiar situation and convenient harbours, commanded the Euxine Sea and Asia Minor. As long as the sceptre was possessed by a lineal succession of kings, they acquitted themselves of their important charge with vigilance and success. Domestic factions, and the fears or private interest of obscure usurpers who seized on the vacant throne, admitted the Goths [already, in the third century, in possession of the neighboring region about the mouth of the Dneiper] into the heart of Bosphorus. With the acquisition of a superfluous waste of fertile soil, the conquerors obtained the command of a naval force sufficient to transport their armies to the coast of Asia."

As early as the reign of Alexander Severus (A. D. 222-235) the Goths, then inhabiting the Ukraine, had troubled Dacia with incursions; but it was not until the time of the Emperor Philip, called the Arabian (244-249), that they invaded the Empire in force, passing through Dacia and crossing the Danube into Mœsia (Bulgaria). They had been bribed by a subsidy to refrain from pillaging Roman territory, but complained that their "stipendia" had not been paid. They made their way without opposition to the city of Marcianopolis, which Trajan had founded in honor of his sister, and which was the capital of one of the two provinces into which Mœsia had been divided. The inhabitants ransomed themselves by the payment of a large sum of money, and the barbarians retired. But their expedition had been successful enough to tempt a speedy repetition of it, and the year 250 found them, again, in Mœsia, ravaging the country with little hindrance. The following year they crossed the Hæmus or Balkan mountains and laid siege to the important city of Philippopolis—capital of Thrace, founded by Philip of Macedon. Now, however, a capable and vigorous emperor, Decius, was briefly wearing the Roman purple. He met the Goths and fought them so valiantly that 30,000 are said to have been slain; yet the victory remained with the barbarians, and Philippopolis was not saved. They took it by storm, put 100,000 of its inhabitants to the sword and left nothing in the ruins of the city worth carrying away. Meantime the enterprising Roman emperor had reanimated and recruited his troops and had secured positions which cut off the retreat of the Gothic host. The peril of the barbarians seemed so great, in fact, that they offered to surrender their whole booty and their captives, if they might, on so doing, march out of the country undisturbed. Decius sternly rejected the proposition, and so provoked his dangerous enemies to a despair which was fatal to him. In a terrible battle that was fought before the close of the year 251, at a place in Mœsia called Forum Trebonii, the Roman emperor perished, with the greater part of his army. The successor of Decius, Gallus, made haste to arrange a payment of annual peace-money to the Goths, which persuaded them to retire across the Danube.

ALSO IN: T. Hodgkin, Italy and Her Invaders, introduction, chapter 8 (volume 1).

Having acquired command of a port and a navy by their conquest of or alliance with the little kingdom of Bosporus in the Chersonesus Taurica (modern Crimea), the Goths launched forth boldly upon a series of naval marauding expeditions, which spread terror and destruction along the coasts of the Euxine, the Ægean and the straits between. The first city to suffer was Pityus, on the Euxine, which they totally destroyed, A. D. 258. The next was Trebizond, which fell a victim to the negligence with which its strong walls were guarded. The Goths loaded their ships with the enormous booty that they took from Trebizond, and left it almost a ruined city of the dead. Another expedition reached Bithynia, where the rich and splendid cities of Chalcedon, Nicea, Nicomedia, Prusa, Apamæa, nd others were pillaged and more or less wantonly destroyed. "In the year 267, another fleet, consisting of 500 vessels, manned chiefly by the Goths and Heruls [or Heruli], passed the Bosphorus and the Hellespont. They seized Byzantium and Chrysopolis, and advanced, plundering the islands and coasts of the Ægean Sea, and laying waste many of the principal cities of the Peloponnesus. Cyzicus, Lemnos, Skyros, Corinth, Sparta, and Argos are named as having suffered by their ravages. From the time of Sylla's conquest of Athens, a period of nearly 350 years had elapsed, during which Attica had escaped the evils of war; yet when the Athenians were called upon to defend their homes against the Goths, they displayed a spirit worthy of their ancient fame. An officer, named Cleodamus, had been sent by the government from Byzantium to Athens, in order to repair the fortifications, but a division of these Goths landed at the Piræus and succeeded in carrying Athens by storm, before any means were taken for its defence. Dexippus, an Athenian of rank in the Roman service, soon contrived to reassemble the garrison of the Acropolis; and by joining to it such of the citizens as possessed some knowledge of military discipline, or some spirit for warlike enterprise, he formed a little army of 2,000 men. Choosing a strong position in the Olive Grove, he circumscribed the movements of the Goths, and so harassed them by a close blockade that they were soon compelled to abandon Athens. Cleodamus, who was not at Athens when it was surprised, had in the meantime assembled a fleet and gained a naval victory over a division of the barbarian fleet, These reverses were a prelude to the ruin of the Goths. A Roman fleet entered the Archipelago, and a Roman army, under the emperor Gaillenus, marched into Illyricum; the separate divisions of the Gothic expedition were everywhere overtaken by these forces, and destroyed in detail. During this invasion of the empire, one of the divisions of the Gothic army crossed the Hellespont into Asia, and succeeded in plundering the cities of the Troad, and in destroying the celebrated temple of Diana of Ephesus. … The celebrity of Athens, and the presence of the historian Dexippus, have given to this incursion of the barbarians a prominent place in history; but many expeditions are casually mentioned which must have inflicted greater losses on the Greeks, and spread devastation more widely over the country."

"Claudius II. and his successor Aurelian, notwithstanding the shortness of their reigns, effectually dissipated the mosquito-swarms of barbarian invaders and provincial usurpers who were ruining the unhappy dominions of Gallienus. The two campaigns (of 268 and 269) in which the Emperor Claudius vanquished the barbarians are related with great brevity, and in such a shape that it is not easy to harmonise even the scanty details which are preserved for us. It seems clear, however, that the Goths (both Ostrogoths and Visigoths), with all their kindred tribes, poured themselves upon Thrace and Macedonia in vaster numbers than ever. The previous movements of these nations had been probably but robber-inroads: this was a national immigration. … A few years earlier, so vast an irruption must inevitably have ruined the Roman Empire. But now, under Claudius, the army, once more subjected to strict discipline, had regained, or was rapidly regaining, its tone, and the Gothic multitudes, vainly precipitating themselves against it, by the very vastness of their unwieldy masses, hastened their own destruction. A great battle was fought at Naissus (Nisch, in Servia), a battle which was not a complete victory, which according to one authority was even a defeat for the Romans, but since the barbarians as an immediate consequence of it lost 50,000 men, their doubtful victory may fairly be counted as a defeat. In the next campaign they were shut up in the intricate passes of the Balkans by the Roman cavalry. Under the pressure of famine they killed and ate the cattle that drew their waggons, so parting with their last chance of return to their northern homes. … At length the remnants of the huge host seem to have disbanded, some to have entered the service of their conqueror as 'foederati,' and many to have remained as hired labourers to plough the fields which they had once hoped to conquer. … The vast number of unburied corpses bred a pestilence, to which the Emperor fell a victim. His successor Aurelian, the conqueror of Zenobia … made peace wisely as well as war bravely, and, prudently determining on the final abandonment of the Roman province of Dacia, he conceded to the Goths the undisturbed possession of that region [A. D. 270], on condition of their not crossing the Danube to molest Moesia. Translating these terms into the language of modern geography, we may say, roughly, that the repose of Servia and Bulgaria was guaranteed by the final separation from the Roman Empire of Hungary, Transylvania, Moldavia, and Wallachia, which became from this time forward the acknowledged home of the Gothic nation. … For about a century (from 270 to 365) the Goths appear to have been with little exception at peace with Rome."

The introduction of Christianity among the Goths seems to have begun while they were yet on the northern side of the Danube and the Black Sea. It first resulted, no doubt, from the influence of many Christian captives who were swept from their homes in Mœsia, Greece, and Asia Minor, and carried away to spend their lives in slavery among the barbarians. To these were probably added a considerable number of Christian refugees from Roman persecution, before the period of Constantine. But it was not until the time of Ulfilas, the great apostle and bishop of the Goths (supposed to have held the office of bishop among them from about A. D. 341 to 381), that the development and organization of Christianity in the Gothic nation assumed importance. Ulfilas is represented to have been a descendant of one of the Christian captives alluded to above. Either as an ambassador or as a hostage, he seems to have passed some years in his early manhood at Constantinople. There he acquired a familiar knowledge of the Greek and Latin languages, and became fitted for his great work—the reducing of the Gothic language to a written form, with an alphabet partly invented, partly adapted from the Greek, and the translation of the Bible into that tongue. The early labors of Ulfilas among his countrymen beyond the Danube were interrupted by an outbreak of persecution, which drove him, with a considerable body of Christian Goths, to seek shelter within the Roman empire. They were permitted to settle in Mœsia, at the foot of the Balkans, round about Nicopolis, and near the site of modern Tirnova. There they acquired the name of the Gothi Minores, or Lesser Goths. From this Gothic settlement of Ulfilas in Mœsia the alphabet and written language to which he gave form have been called Mœso-Gothic. The Bible of Ulfilas—the first missionary translation of the Scriptures—with the personal labors of the apostle and his disciples, were powerfully influential, without doubt, in the Christianizing of the whole body of the Goths, and of their German neighbors, likewise. But Ulfilas had imbibed the doctrines of Arianism, or of Semi-Arianism, at Constantinople, and he communicated that heresy (as it was branded by the Athanasian triumph) to all the barbarian world within the range of Gothic influence. It followed that, when the kingdoms of the Goths, the Vandals, and the Burgundians were established in the west, they had to contend with the hostility of the orthodox or Catholic western church, and were undermined by it. That hostility had much to do with the breaking down of those states and with the better success of the orthodox Franks.

"Ermanaric, who seems to have been chosen king about the year 350, was a great warrior, like many of his predecessors; but his policy, and the objects for which he fought, were markedly different from theirs. … Ermanaric made no attempt to invade the provinces of the Roman Empire; but he resolved to make his Ostrogothic kingdom the centre of a great empire of his own. The seat of his kingdom was, as tradition tells us, on the banks of the Dnieper [and it extended to the Baltic]. … A Roman historian compares Ermanaric to Alexander the Great; and many ages afterwards his fame survived in the poetic traditions of Germans, Norsemen and Anglo-Saxons. … Ermanaric was the first king since Ostrogotha who belonged to the Amaling family. … Henceforward the kingship of the Ostrogoths became hereditary among the descendants of Ermanaric. During this time the Visigoths appear to have been practically independent, divided into separate tribes ruled by their own 'judges' or chieftains; but … it is probable that in theory they acknowledged the supremacy of the Ostrogothic king. … Ermanaric died in the year 375, and the Ostrogoths were subdued by the Hunnish king Balamber. For a whole century they remained subject to the Huns." One section of the Ostrogothic nation escaped from the Hunnish conquest and joined the Visigoths, who found a refuge on the Roman side of the Danube. The bulk of the nation bore the yoke until the death of the great Hun king, Attila, in 453, when the strife between his sons gave them an opportunity to throw it off.

"The forecast of European history which then [during the reign of Hermanric] seemed probable would have been that a great Teutonic Empire, stretching from the Danube to the Don, would take the place which the colossal Slav Empire now holds in the map of Europe, and would be ready, as a civilised and Christianised power, to step into the place of Eastern Rome when, in the fulness of centuries, the sceptre should drop from the nerveless hands of the Cæsars of Byzantium."

"Let us suppose that we have arrived at the year (364) when the feeble and timid Valens was placed on the Eastern throne by his brother Valentinian. At that time, Ulfilas would be in the fifty-third year of his age and the twenty-third of his episcopate. Hermanric, king of the Ostrogoths, a centenarian and more, was still the most important figure in the loosely welded Gothic confederacy. His special royalty may possibly have extended over Northern Hungary, Lithuania, and Southern Russia. The 'torpid' Gepidæ, dwelt to the north of him, to the south and west the Visigoths, whose settlements may perhaps have occupied the modern countries of Roumania, Transylvania and Southern Hungary. The two great nations, the Ostrogoths and Visigoths, were known at this time to the Romans, perhaps among themselves also, by the respective names of the Gruthungi and Thervingi, but it will be more convenient to disregard these appellations and speak of them by the names which they made conspicuous in later history."

   This was the situation of Gothia, or the Gothic Empire of
   Central Europe, when the Huns made their appearance on the
   scene. "An empire, formerly powerful, the first monarchy of
   the Huns, had been overthrown by the Sienpi, at a distance of
   500 leagues from the Roman frontier, and near to that of
   China, in the first century of the Christian era. … The
   entire nation of the Huns, abandoning to the Sienpi its
   ancient pastures bordering on China, had traversed the whole
   north of Asia by a march of 1,300 leagues. This immense horde,
   swelled by all the conquered nations whom it carried along in
   its passage, bore down on the plains of the Alans, and
   defeated them on the banks of the Tanais in a great battle.
{1557}
   It received into its body a part of the vanquished tribe,
   accompanied by which it continued to advance towards the West;
   while other Alans, too haughty to renounce their independence,
   had retreated, some into Germany, whence we shall see them
   afterwards pass into Gaul; others into the Caucasian
   mountains, where they preserve their name to this day. The
   Goths, who bordered on the Alans, had fertilised by their
   labours the rich plains which lie to the north of the Danube
   and of the Black Sea. More civilised than any of the kindred
   Germanic tribes, they began to make rapid progress in the
   social sciences. … This comparatively fortunate state of
   things was suddenly interrupted by the appearance of the
   Huns,—the unlooked-for arrival of that savage nation,
   which, from the moment it crossed the Borysthenes, or the
   Dnieper, began to burn their villages and their crops; to
   massacre, without pity, men, women, and children; to devastate
   and destroy whatever came within the reach of a Scythian
   horseman. … The great Hermanric, whose kingdom extended from
   the Baltic to the Black Sea, would not have abandoned his
   sceptre to the Huns without a struggle; but at this very time
   he was murdered by a domestic enemy. The nations he had
   subjugated prepared on every side for rebellion. The
   Ostrogoths, after a vain resistance, broke their alliance with
   the Visigoths; while the latter, like an affrighted flock of
   sheep, trooping together from all parts of their vast
   territory to the right bank of the Danube, refused to combat
   those superhuman beings by whom they were pursued. They
   stretched out their supplicating hands to the Romans on the
   other bank, entreating that they might be permitted to seek a
   refuge from the butchery which threatened them, in those wilds
   of Mœsia and Thrace which were, almost valueless to the
   empire." Their prayer was granted by the Emperor Valens, on
   the condition that they surrender their arms and that the sons
   of their chief men be given as hostages to the Romans. The
   great Visigothic nation was then (A. D. 376) transported
   across the Danube to the Mœsian shore—200,000 warriors in
   number, besides children and women and slaves in proportion.
   But the Roman officers charged with the reception of the Goths
   were so busy in plundering the goods and outraging the
   daughters and wives of their guests that they neglected to
   secure the arms of the grim warriors of the migration. Whence
   great calamities ensued.

      J. C. L. de Sismondi,
      Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapters 3 and 5 (volume 1).

When the Visigothic nation was permitted to cross the Danube, A. D. 376, to escape from the Huns, and was admitted into Lower Mœsia, nothing seems to have been left undone that would exasperate and make enemies of these unwelcome colonists. Every possible extortion and outrage was practised upon them. To buy food, they were driven to part, first, with their slaves, then with their household goods, and finally with their children, whom they sold. In despair, at last, they showed signs of revolt, and the fatuous Roman commander precipitated it by a murderous outrage at Marcianople (modern Shumla). In a battle which soon followed near that town, the Romans were disastrously beaten. The Visigoths were now joined by a large body of Ostrogoths, who passed the Danube without resistance, and received into their ranks, moreover, a considerable force of Gothic soldiers who had long been in the service of the empire. The open country of Mœsia and Thrace was now fully exposed to them (the fortified cities they could not reduce), and they devastated it for a time without restraint. But Valens, the emperor in the east, and Gratian in the west, exerted themselves in co-operation to gather forces against them, and for two years there was a doubtful struggle carried on. The most serious battle, that of The Willows (Ad Salices), fought in the region now called the Dobrudscha, was a victory to neither side. On the whole the Romans appear to have had some advantage in these campaigns, and to have narrowed the range of the Gothic depredations. But the host of the barbarians was continually increased by fresh reinforcements from beyond the Danube. Even their own ferocious enemies, Huns and Alans, were permitted to join their standard. Yet, in face of this fact, the folly and jealousy of the Emperor Valens led him to stake all on the chances of a battle which he made haste to rush into, when he learned that his nephew Gratian was marching to his assistance from the west. He coveted the sole honors of a victory; but death and infamy for himself and an overwhelming calamity to the empire were what he achieved. The battle was fought near Hadrianople, on the 9th day of August, A. D. 378. Two-thirds of the Roman army perished on the awful field, and the body of the emperor was never found.

GOTHS: A. D. 379-382.
Settlement of the Goths by Theodosius, in Mœsia and Thrace.

   "The forces of the East were nearly annihilated at the
   terrible battle of Adrianople: more than 60,000 Roman soldiers
   perished in the fight or in the pursuit; and the time was long
   past when such a loss could have been easily repaired by fresh
   levies. Nevertheless, even after this frightful massacre, the
   walls of Adrianople still opposed an unconquerable resistance
   to the barbarians. Valour may supply the place of military
   science in the open field, but civilised nations recover all
   the advantages of the art of war in the attack or defence of
   fortified towns. … The Goths, leaving Adrianople in their
   rear, advanced, ravaging all around them, to the foot of the
   walls of Constantinople; and, after some unimportant
   skirmishes, returned westward through Macedonia, Epirus and
   Dalmatia. From the Danube to the Adriatic, their passage was
   marked by conflagration and blood. Whilst the European
   provinces of the Greek empire sunk under these calamities, the
   Asiatic provinces took a horrible vengeance on the authors of
   them." The Gothic youths who had been required as hostages
   when the nation crossed the Danube, and those who were
   afterwards sold by their starving parents, were now gathered
   together in different cities of the Asiatic provinces and
   massacred in cold blood, at a given signal, on the same day
   and hour. By this atrocious act, all possible reconciliation
   with the Goths might well seem to be destroyed. The prospect
   was discouraging enough to the new emperor who now ascended
   the vacant throne of Valens (A. D. 379),—the soldier
   Theodosius, son of Theodosius who delivered Britain from the
   Scots.
{1558}
   Chosen by the Emperor Gratian to be his colleague and Emperor
   of the East, Theodosius undertook a most formidable task. "The
   abandonment of the Danube had opened the entrance of the
   empire, not only to the Goths, but to all the tribes of
   Germany and Scythia. … The blood of the young Goths which
   had been shed in Asia was daily avenged with interest over all
   that remained of Mœsian, Thrasian, Dalmatian, or Grecian race.
   It was more particularly during these four years of
   extermination that the Goths acquired the fatal celebrity
   attached to their name, which is still that of the destroyers
   of civilisation. Theodosius began by strengthening the
   fortified cities, recruiting the garrisons, and exercising his
   soldiers in small engagements whenever he felt assured of
   success; he then waited to take advantage of circumstances; he
   sought to divide his enemies by intrigue, and, above all,
   strenuously disavowed the rapacity of the ministers of Valens,
   or the cruelty of Julius; he took every occasion of declaring
   his attachment and esteem for the Gothic people, and at length
   succeeded in persuading them that his friendship was sincere.
   … The very victories of the Goths, their pride, their
   intemperance, at length impaired their energy. Fritigern, who,
   in the most difficult moments, had led them on with so much
   ability, was dead; the jealousies of independent tribes were
   rekindled. … It was by a series of treaties, with as many
   independent chieftains, that the nation was at length induced
   to lay down its arms: the last of these treaties was concluded
   on the 30th of October, 382. It restored peace to the Eastern
   empire, six years after the Goths crossed the Danube. This
   formidable nation was thus finally established within the
   boundary of the empire of the East. The vast regions they had
   ravaged were abandoned to them, if not in absolute
   sovereignty, at least on terms little at variance with their
   independence. The Goths settled in the bosom of the empire had
   no kings; their hereditary chiefs were consulted under the
   name of judges, but their power was unchanged. … The Goths
   gave a vague sort of recognition to the sovereignty of the
   Roman emperor; but they submitted neither to his laws, his
   magistrates, nor his taxes. They engaged to maintain 40,000
   men for the service of Theodosius; but they were to remain a
   distinct army. … It was, probably, at this period that their
   apostle, bishop Ulphilas, who had translated the Gospels into
   their tongue, invented the Mœso-Gothic character, which bears
   the name of their new abode."

"The death of Theodosius [A. D. 395] threw the administration of the Eastern Empire into the hands of Rufinus, the minister of Arcadius; and that of the Western into those of Stilicho, the guardian of Honorius. The discordant elements which composed the Roman empire began to reveal all their incongruities under these two ministers. … The two ministers hated one another with all the violence of aspiring ambition."

"The animosity existing between Stilicho and the successive ministers of the Eastern Emperor (an animosity which does not necessarily imply any fault on the part of the former) was one most potent cause of the downfall of the Western Empire. … Alaric (the all-ruler) surnamed Baltha (the bold) was the Visigothic chieftain whose genius taught him the means of turning this estrangement between the two Empires to the best account. He was probably born about 360. His birth-place was the island Peuce, in the Delta of the Danube, apparently south of what is now termed the Sulina mouth of that river. We have already met with him crossing the Alps as a leader of auxiliaries in the army of Theodosius."

"At this time [A. D. 395] Alaric, partly from disgust at not receiving all the preferment which he expected, and partly in the hope of compelling the government of the Eastern Empire to agree to his terms, quitted the imperial service and retired towards the frontiers, where he assembled a force sufficiently large to enable him to act independently of all authority. Availing himself of the disputes between the ministers of the two emperors, and perhaps instigated by Rufinus or Stilicho to aid their intrigues, he established himself in the provinces to the south of the Danube. In the year 395 he advanced to the walls of Constantinople; but the movement was evidently a feint. … After this demonstration, Alaric marched into Thrace and Macedonia, and extended his ravages into Thessaly. … When the Goth found the northern provinces exhausted, he resolved to invade Greece and Peloponnesus, which had long enjoyed profound tranquillity. … Thermopylæ was left unguarded, and Alaric entered Greece without encountering any resistance. The ravages committed by Alaric's army have been described in fearful terms; villages and towns were burnt, the men were murdered, and the women and children carried away to be sold as slaves by the Goths. … The walls of Thebes had been rebuilt, and it was in such a state of defence that Alaric could not venture to besiege it, but hurried forward to Athens. He concluded a treaty with the civil and military authorities, which enabled him to enter that city without opposition. … Athens evidently owed its good treatment to the condition of its population, and perhaps to the strength of its walls, which imposed some respect on the Goths; for the rest of Attica did not escape the usual fate of the districts through which the barbarians marched. The town of Eleusis, and the great temple of Ceres, were plundered and then destroyed. … Alaric marched unopposed into the Peloponnesus, and, in a short time, captured almost every city in it without meeting with any resistance. Corinth, Argos, and Sparta were all plundered by the Goths." Alaric wintered in the Peloponnesus; in the following spring he was attacked, not only by the forces of the Eastern Empire, whose subjects he had outraged, but by Stilicho, the energetic minister of the Roman West. Stilicho, in a vigorous campaign, drove the Goths into the mountains on the borders of Elis and Arcadia; but they escaped and reached Epirus, with their plunder (see ROME: A. D. 396-398). "The truth appears to be that Alaric availed himself so ably of the jealousy with which the court of Constantinople viewed the proceedings of Stilicho, as to negotiate a treaty, by which he was received into the Roman service, and that he really entered Epirus as a general of Arcadius. … He obtained the appointment of Commander-in-chief of the imperial forces in Eastern' Illyricum, which be held for four years. During this time he prepared his troops to seek his fortune in the Western Empire."

"The birth of Alaric, the glory of his past exploits, and the confidence in his future designs, insensibly united the body of the nation under his victorious standard; and, with the unanimous consent of the barbarian chieftains, the Master-general of Illyricum was elevated, according to ancient custom, on a shield, and solemnly proclaimed king of the Visigoths."

After Alaric had become a commissioned general of the Eastern Empire and had been placed in command of the great præfecture of Eastern Illyricum, he "remained quiet for three years, arming and drilling his followers, and waiting for the opportunity to make a bold stroke for a wider and more secure dominion. In the autumn of the year 400, knowing that Stilicho was absent on a campaign in Gaul, Alaric entered Italy. For about a year and a half the Goths ranged almost unresisted over the northern part of the peninsula. The emperor, whose court was then at Milan, made preparations for taking refuge in Gaul; and the walls of Rome were hurriedly repaired in expectation of an attack. On the Easter Sunday of the year 402 (March 19), the camp of Alaric, near Pollentia, was surprised by Stilicho, who rightly guessed that the Goths would be engaged in worship, and would not imagine their Roman fellow-Christians less observant of the sacred day than themselves. Though unprepared for battle, the barbarians made a desperate stand, but at last they were beaten. … Alaric was able to retreat in good order, and he soon after crossed the Po with the intention of marching against Rome. However, his troops began to desert in large numbers, and he had to change his purpose. In the first place he thought of invading Gaul, but Stilicho overtook him and defeated him heavily at Verona [A. D. 403]. Alaric himself narrowly escaped capture by the swiftness of his horse. Stilicho, however, was not very anxious for the destruction of Alaric, as he thought he might some day find him a convenient tool in his quarrels with the ministers of Arcadius [the Emperor of the East]. So he offered Alaric a handsome bribe to go away from Italy"—[back to Illyria].

GOTHS: (Visigoths): A. D. 408-410.
Alaric's three sieges and sack of Rome.
His death.

On the death of Alaric (A. D. 410), his brother-in-law, Ataulphus, or Atawulfs, was chosen king by the wandering Visigothic nation, and the new king succeeded in negotiating a treaty of peace with the court at Ravenna. As the result of it, the Goths moved northwards and, at the beginning of the year 412, they passed out of Italy into Gaul. A number of usurpers had risen in the western provinces, during the five years since 407, encouraged by the disorders of the time, and Ataulphus accepted a commission from Honorius to put them down and to restore the imperial authority in southern Gaul. The commission was faithfully executed in one of its parts; but the authority which the Gothic king established was, rather, his own, than that of the imperial puppet at Ravenna. Before the end of 413, he was master of most of the Gallic region on the Mediterranean (though Marseilles resisted him), and westward to the Atlantic. Then, at Narbonne, he married Galla Placidia, sister of Honorius, who had been a prisoner in the camp of the Goths for four years, but who was gallantly wooed, it would seem, and gently and truly won, by her Gothic lover. Apparently still commissioned by the Roman emperor, though half at war with him, and though his marriage with Placidia was haughtily forbidden and unrecognized, Ataulphus next carried his arms into Spain, already ravaged by Vandals, Alans and Suevic bands. But there he was cut off in the midst of his conquests, by assassination, in August, 415. The Goths, however, pursued their career under another valiant king, Wallia, who conquered the whole of Spain and meditated the invasion of Africa; but was persuaded to give up both conquests and prospects to Honorius, in exchange for a dominion which embraced the fairest portions of Gaul. "His victorious Goths, forty-three years after they had passed the Danube, were established, according to the faith of treaties, in the possession of the second Aquitaine, a maritime province between the Garonne and the Loire, under the civil and ecclesiastical jurisdiction of Bordeaux. … The Gothic limits were enlarged by the additional gift of some neighboring dioceses; and the successors of Alaric fixed their royal residence at Toulouse, which included five populous quarters, or cities, within the spacious circuit of its walls. … The Gothic limits contained the territories of seven cities—namely, those of Bordeaux, Périgueux, Angoulême, Agen, Saintes, Poitiers, and Toulouse. Hence the district obtained the name of Septimania."

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 31 (with note by Dr. Wm. Smith).

It was at the end of the year 418, that the Goths settled themselves in their new kingdom, of Toulouse. The next year, Wallia died, and was succeeded by Theodoric, a valorous soldier of the race of the Balthings, who played a considerable part in the history of the next thirty years.

"By the peace which their king Wallia concluded with Honorius (416) after the restoration of Placidia, they [the Visigoths] had obtained legal possession of the district called Aquitania Secunda, together with the territory round Toulouse, all of which allotment went by the name of Septimania or Gothia. For ten years (419-429) there had been firm peace between Visigoths and Romans; then, for ten years more (429-439), fierce and almost continued war, Theodoric, king of the Visigoths, endeavouring to take Arles and Narbonne; Aetius and his subordinate Litorius striving to take the Gothic capital of Toulouse, and all but succeeding. And in these wars Aetius had availed himself of his long-standing friendship with the Huns to enlist them as auxiliaries against the warriors of Theodoric, dangerous allies who plundered friends and enemies. … For the last twelve years (439-451) there had been peace, but scarcely friendship, between the Courts of Ravenna and Toulouse."

As the successor of Wallia, who died in 419, the Visigoths chose Theoderic, "who seems to have been a Balthing, though not related either to Wallia or to Atawulf. You must be careful not to confound this Visigoth Theoderic, or his son of the same name, with the great Theoderic the Amaling, who began to reign over the Ostrogoths about the year 475. Theoderic the Visigoth was not such a great man as his namesake, but he must have been both a brave soldier and an able ruler, or he could not have kept the affection and obedience of his people for thirty-two years. His great object was to extend his kingdom, which was hemmed in on the north by the Franks, … and on the west by another people of German invaders, the Burgunds; while the Roman Empire still kept possession of some rich cities, such as Arles and Narbonne [the first named of which Theoderic besieged unsuccessfully in 425, the last named in 437], which were temptingly close to the Gothic boundary on the south. … In the year 450 the Visigoths and the Romans were drawn more closely together by the approach of a great common danger. … The Huns … had, under their famous king, Attila, moved westward, and were threatening to over-run both Gaul and Italy."

"The Visigoths were governed from 453 to 466 by Theodoric the Second, son of Theodoric the First, and grandson of Alaric. … The reign of Theodoric was distinguished by conquests. On the one hand he drove the Suevians as far as the extremity of Gallicia. … On the other hand, in 462, he rendered himself master of the town of Narbon, which was delivered up to him by its count; he also carried his arms towards the Loire; but his brother Frederic, whom he had charged with the conquest of the Armorici, and who had taken possession of Chinon, was killed in 463 near Orleans, in a battle which he gave to Count Ægidius. Theodoric finally extended the dominion of the Visigoths to the Rhone; he even attacked Arles and Marseille, but he could not subjugate them. After a glorious reign of thirteen years, he was killed in the month of August, 466, by his brother Euric, by whom he was succeeded. … Euric … attacked, in 473, the province of Auvergne. … He conquered it in 475 and caused his possession of it to be confirmed by the emperor Nepos. He had at that period acquired the Loire and the Rhone as frontiers; in Spain he subjected the whole of the province of Taragon. … He afterwards conquered Provence, and was acknowledged a sovereign in Arles and at Marseille, towards the year 480. No prince, whether civilized or barbarian, was at that period so much feared as Euric; and, had he lived longer, it would undoubtedly have been to the Visigoths, and not to the Franks, that the honor would have belonged of reconstituting the Gallic provinces; but he died at Arles towards the end of the year 484, leaving an only son of tender age, who was crowned under the name of Alaric the Second."

J. C. L. S. de Sismondi, The French under the Merovingians; translated by Bellingham, chapter 4.

"The Ostrogothic brother-kings, who served under Attila at the battle in Champagne, on the overthrow of the Hunnish Empire obtained for themselves a goodly settlement in Pannonia, on the western bank of the Danube. For near twenty years they had been engaged in desultory hostilities with their barbarian neighbours, with Sueves and Rugians on the north, with Huns and Sarmatians on the south. Now, as their countryman, Jornandes, tells us with admirable frankness, 'the spoils of these neighbouring nations were dwindling, and food and clothing began to fail the Goths.' … They clustered round their kings, and clamoured to be led forth to war—whither they cared not, but war must be. Theodemir, the elder king, took counsel with his brother Widemir, and they resolved to commence a campaign against the Roman Empire. Theodemir, as the more powerful chieftain, was to attack the stronger Empire of the East; Widemir, with his weaker forces, was to enter Italy. He did so, but, like so many of the northern conquerors, he soon found a grave in the beautiful but deathly land. His son, the younger Widemir, succeeded to his designs of conquest, but Glycerius [Roman emperor, for the moment] approached him with presents and smooth words, and was not ashamed to suggest that he should transfer his arms to Gaul, which was still in theory, and partially in fact, a province of the Empire. The sturdy bands of Widemir's Ostrogoths descended accordingly into the valleys of the Rhone and the Loire; they speedily renewed the ancient alliance with the Visigothic members of their scattered nationality, and helped to ruin yet more utterly the already desperate cause of Gallo-Roman freedom."

   The greater mass of the Ostrogoth nation who followed
   Theodemir (or Theudemer) the elder of the royal brothers, into
   the territories of the Eastern Empire, were rapidly successful
   in their adventures. The Court at Constantinople made little
   attempt to oppose them with arms, but bribed them to peace by
   gifts of money and a large cession of territory in Macedonia.
   "Amongst the cities which were abandoned to them was Pella,
   famous as the birthplace of Alexander the Great. Just after
   the conclusion of this treaty (in the year 474) Theudemer
   died, and his son Theoderic, at the age of twenty years, began
   his long and glorious reign as king of the Ostrogoths."
   Theodoric had been reared in the imperial court at
   Constantinople, from his eighth to his eighteenth year, his
   father having pledged him to the emperor as a hostage for the
   fulfilment of a treaty of peace. He understood, therefore, the
   corrupt politics of the empire and its weakness, and he made the
   most of his knowledge.
{1561}
   Sometimes at peace with the reigning powers and sometimes at
   war; sometimes ravaging the country to the very gates of the
   impregnable capital, and sometimes settled quietly on lands
   along the southern bank of the Danube which he had taken in
   exchange for the Maeedonian tract; sometimes in league and
   sometimes in furious rivalry with another Gothic chieftain and
   adventurer, called Theodoric Strabo, whose origin and whose
   power are somewhat of a mystery—the seriousness to the
   Eastern Empire of the position and the strength of Theodoric
   and his Ostrogoths went on developing until the year 488. That
   year, the statesmen at Constantinople were illuminated by an
   idea. They proposed to Theodoric to migrate with his nation
   into Italy and to conquer a kingdom there. The Emperor Zeno,
   to whom the Roman senate had surrendered the sovereignty of
   the Western Roman Empire, and into whose hands the barbarian
   who extinguished it, Odoacer, or Odovacar, had delivered the
   purple robes—the Emperor Zeno, in the exercise of his
   imperial function, authorized the conquest to be made.
   Theodoric did not hesitate to accept a commission so
   scrupulously legal.

GOTHS: (Visigoths): A. D. 507-509.
The kingdom of Toulouse overthrown by the Franks.

"If the successors of Euric had been endowed with genius and energy equal to his, it is possible that the Visigoths might have made themselves masters of the whole Western world. But there was in the kingdom one fatal element of weakness, which perhaps not even a succession of rulers like Euric could have long prevented from working the destruction of the State. The Visigoth kings were Arians; the great mass of their subjects in Gaul were Catholics, and the hatred between religious parties was so great that it was almost impossible for a sovereign to win the attachment of subjects who regarded him as a heretic." After 496, when Clovis, the king of the Franks, renounced his heathenism, professed Christianity, and was baptized by a Catholic bishop, the Catholics of Southern Gaul began almost openly to invite him to the conquest of their country. In the year 507 he responded to the invitation, and declared war against the Visigoth, giving simply as his ground of war that it grieved him to see the fairest part of Gaul in the hands of the Arians. "The rapidity of Clovis's advance was something quite unexpected by the Visigoths. Alaric still clung to the hope of being able to avoid a battle until the arrival of Theodoric's Ostrogoths [from his great kinsman in Italy] and wished to retreat," but the opinion of his officers forced him to make a stand. "He drew up his army on 'the field of Voclad' (the name still survives as Vouillé or Vouglé), on the banks of the Clain, a few miles south of Poitiers, and prepared to receive the attack of the Franks. The battle which followed decided the fate of Gaul. The Visigoths were totally defeated, and their king was killed. Alaric's son, Amalaric, a child five years of age, was carried across the Pyrenees into Spain. During the next two years Clovis conquered, with very little resistance, almost all the Gaulish dominions of the Visigoths, and added them to his own. The 'Kingdom of Toulouse' was no more. … But Clovis was not allowed to fulfil his intention of thoroughly destroying their [the Visigothic] power, for the great Theoderic of Italy took up the cause of his grandson Amalaric. The final result of many struggles between Theoderic and the Franks was that the Visigoths were allowed to remain masters of Spain, and of a strip of sea-coast bordering on the Gulf of Lyons. … This diminished kingdom … lasted just 200 years."

   The conquests of Clovis, king of the Franks, reduced the
   dominion of the Visigoths on the northern side of the Pyrenees
   to a small strip of Roman Narbonensis, along the gulf of
   Lyons; but most of Spain had come under their rule at that
   time and remained so. Amalaric, son of Alaric II. (and
   grandson, on the maternal side, of the great Ostrogothic king,
   Theodoric, who ruled both Gothic kingdoms during the minority
   of Amalaric), reigned after the death of Theodoric until 531,
   when he was murdered. He had made Narbonne his capital, until
   he was driven from it, in a war with one of the sons of
   Clovis. It was recovered; but the seat of government became
   fixed at Toledo. During the reign of his successor, the Franks
   invaded Spain (A.D. 543), but were beaten back from the walls
   of Cæsaraugusta (modern Saragossa), and retreated with
   difficulty and disaster. The Visigoths were now able to hold
   their ground against the conquerors of Gaul, and the limits of
   their kingdom underwent little subsequent change, until the
   coming of the Moors. "The Gothic kings, in spite of bloody
   changes and fierce opposition from their nobility, succeeded
   in identifying themselves with the land and the people whom
   they had conquered. They guided the fortunes of the country
   with a distinct purpose and vigorous hand. By Leovigild
   (572-586) the power of the rebellious nobility was broken, and
   the independence and name of the Sueves of Gallicia
   extinguished. The still more dangerous religious conflict
   between the Catholic population and the inherited Arianism of
   the Goths was put down, but at the cost of the life of his
   son, Herminigild, who had married a Frank and Catholic
   princess, and who placed himself at the head of the Catholics.
   But Leovigild was the last Arian king. This cause of
   dissension was taken away by his son Reccared (568-601), who
   solemnly abandoned Arianism, and embraced with zeal the
   popular Catholic creed. He was followed by the greater part of
   his Arian subjects, but the change throughout the land was not
   accomplished without some fierce resistance. It led among
   other things to the disappearance of the Gothic language, and
   of all that recalled the Arian days, and to the destruction in
   Spain of what there was of Gothic literature, such as the
   translation of the Bible, supposed to be tainted with
   Arianism. But it determined the complete fusion of the Gothic
   and Latin population. After Reccared, two marked features of
   the later Spanish character began to show themselves. One was
   the great prominence in the state of the ecclesiastical
   element. The Spanish kings sought in the clergy a counterpoise
   to their turbulent nobility. The great church councils of
   Toledo became the legislative assemblies of the nation; the
   bishops in them took precedence of the nobles; laws were made
   there as well as canons; and seventeen of these councils are
   recorded between the end of the fourth century and the end of
   the seventh.
{1562}
   The other feature was that stern and systematic intolerance
   which became characteristic of Spain. Under Sisebut (612-620),
   took place the first expulsion of the Jews. … The Gothic
   realm of Spain was the most flourishing and the most advanced
   of the new Teutonic kingdoms. … But however the Goths in
   Spain might have worked out their political career, their
   course was rudely arrested. … While the Goths had been
   settling their laws, while their kings had been marshalling
   their court after the order of Byzantium, the Saracens had
   been drawing nearer and nearer."

GOTHS: (Ostrogoths): A. D. 535-553.
Fall of the kingdom of Theodoric.
Recovery of Italy by Justinian.

"Totila and Teia, last of the race of Ostrogoth kings, fell as became their heroic blood, sword in hand, upon the field of battle. Then occurred a singular phenomenon,—the annihilation and disappearance of a great and powerful people from the world's history. … A great people, which had organized an enlightened government, and sent 200,000 fighting men into the field of battle, is annihilated and forgotten. A wretched remnant, transported by Narses to Constantinople, were soon absorbed in the miserable proletariat of a metropolitan city. The rest fell by the sword, or were gradually amalgamated with the mixed population of the peninsula. The Visigoth kingdom in Gaul and Spain, which had been overshadowed by the glories of the great Theodoric, emerges into independent renown, and takes up the traditions of the Gothic name. In the annals of Europe, the Ostrogoth is heard of no more."

GRACES OF CHARLES I. TO THE IRISH.

GRAF.-GRAFIO.

"The highest official dignitary of which the Salic law [law of the Sulian Franks] makes mention is the Grafio (Graf, Count), who was appointed by the king, and therefore protected by a triple … leodis [weregild]. His authority and jurisdiction extended over a district answering to the gau (canton) of later times, in which he acted as the representative of the king, and was civil and military governor of the people."

GRAHAM'S DIKE.

GRAMPIANS, OR MONS GRANPIUS.

Victoriously fought by the Romans under Agricola with the tribes of Caledonia, A. D. 86. Mr. Skene fixes the battle ground at the junction of the Isla with the Tay.

"This tract of flat country, lying between the tropic and 29° South, extends eastward to the Parana and Paraguay, and westward to the province of Santiago del Estero. Its area is 180,000 square miles. About one-third belongs to Paraguay, and a small part to Bolivia, but the bulk is in the Argentine Republic. … The Gran Chaco is no desert, but a rich alluvial lowland, fitted for colonization, which is hindered by the want of knowledge of the rivers and their shiftings."

"In the Quitchoane language, which is the original language of Peru, they call 'chacu,' those great flocks of deer, goats, and such other wild animals, which the inhabitants of this part of America drive together when they hunt them; and this name was given to the country we speak of, because at the time Francis Pizarro made himself master of a great part of the Peruvian empire, a great number of its inhabitants took refuge there. Of 'Chacu', which the Spaniards pronounce 'Chacou" custom has made 'Chaco.' It appears that, at first, they comprehended nothing under this name but the country lying between the mountains of the Cordilliere, the Pilco Mayo, and the Red River; and that they extended it, in process of time, in proportion as other nations joined the Peruvians, who had taken refuge there to defend their liberties against the Spaniards."

Granada "was small and unimportant until the year 1012. Before that time, it was considered a dependency of Elvira [the neighboring ancient Roman city of Illiberis]; but, little by little, the people of Elvira migrated to it, and as it grew Elvira dwindled into insignificance."

H. Coppée, Conquest of Spain by the Arab-Moors, book 6, chapter 5, note (volume 2).

GRANADA: A. D. 1238.
The founding of the Moorish kingdom.
Its vassalage to the King of Castile.

GRANADA: A. D. 1238-1273.
The kingdom under its founder.
The building of the Alhambra.

      See
      FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1690, to 1695-1696;
      SPAIN: A. D. 1701-1702;
      and ENGLAND: A. D. 1701-1702.

GRAND ARMY OF THE REPUBLIC.

"The Grand Army of the Republic was organized April 6, 1866, in Decatur, the county seat of Macon County, Illinois. Its originator was Dr. Benjamin F. Stephenson, a physician of Springfield, Illinois, who had served during the war as surgeon of the 14th Illinois Infantry. He had spent many weeks in study and plans so that the Order might be one that would meet with the general approval of the surviving comrades of the war, and thus insure their hearty co-operation. He made a draft of a ritual, and sent it by Captain John S. Phelps to Decatur, where two veterans, Messrs. Coltrin and Prior, had a printing-office. These gentlemen, with their employees, who had been in the service, were first obligated to secrecy, and the ritual was then placed in type in their office. Captain Phelps returned to Springfield with proofs of the ritual, but the comrades in Decatur were so interested in the project, that, with the active assistance of Captain M. F. Kanan and Dr. J. W. Routh, a sufficient number of names were at once secured to an application for charter, and these gentlemen went to Springfield to request Dr. Stephenson to return with them and organize a post at Decatur. The formation of a post was under way in Springfield, but not being ready for muster, Dr. Stephenson, accompanied by several comrades, proceeded to Decatur, and, as stated, on April 6, 1866, mustered post No.1, with General Isaac C. Pugh as post commander, and Captain Kanan as adjutant. The latter gave material aid to Dr. Stephenson in the work of organizing other posts, and Dr. Routh served as chairman of a committee to revise the ritual. The title, 'The Grand Army of the Republic, U. S.,' was formally adopted that night. Soon after this, post No.2 was organized at Springfield with General Jules C. Webber as commander. … Nothing was done in the Eastern States about establishing posts until the opportunity was given for consultation on this subject at a national soldiers' and sailors' convention, held in Pittsburg in September, 1866, when prominent representatives from Eastern States were obligated and authorized to organize posts. The first posts so established were posts Nos. 1 in Philadelphia, and 3 in Pittsburg, by charters direct from the acting commander-in-chief, Dr. Stephenson; and post 2, Philadelphia, by charter received from General J. K. Proudfit, department commander of Wisconsin. A department convention was held at Springfield, Illinois, July 12, 1866, and adopted resolutions declaring the objects of the G. A. R. General John W. Palmer was elected the first Department Commander. … The first national convention was held at Indianapolis, Ind., November 20, 1866. … General Stephen A. Hurlbut, of Illinois, was elected Commander-in-Chief. General Thomas B. McKean, of New York, Senior Vice-Commander-in-Chief; General Nathan Kimball, of Indiana, Junior Vice-Commander-in-Chief; and Dr. Stephenson, Adjutant-General. The objects of the Order cannot be more briefly stated than from the articles and regulations.

1. To preserve and strengthen those kind and fraternal feelings which bind together the Soldiers, Sailors, and Marines who united to suppress the late Rebellion, and to perpetuate the memory and history of the dead.

2. To assist such former comrades in arms as need help and protection, and to extend needful aid to the widows and orphans of those who have fallen.

3. To maintain true allegiance to the United States of America, based upon a paramount respect for, and fidelity to, its Constitution and laws, to discountenance whatever tends to weaken loyalty, incites to insurrection, treason, or rebellion, or in any manner impairs the efficiency and permanency of our free institutions; and to encourage the spread of universal liberty, equal rights, and justice to all men.

Article IV. defines the qualifications of members in the following terms: Soldiers and Sailors of the United States Army, Navy, or Marine Corps who served between April 12, 1861, and April 29, 1865, in the war for the suppression of the Rebellion, and those having been honorably discharged therefrom after such service, and of such State regiments as were called into active service and subject to the orders of United States general officers, between the dates mentioned, shall be eligible to membership in the Grand Army of the Republic. No person shall be eligible who has at any time borne arms against the United States. … The second national encampment was held in Independence Hall, Philadelphia, Pa., January 15, 1868. … General John A. Logan, of Illinois, was elected Commander-in-Chief. … That which tended most to attract public attention to the organization was the issuance of the order of General Logan early in his administration, in 1868, directing the observance of May 30th as Memorial Day. … At the national encampment, held May 11, 1870, at Washington, D. C., the following article was adopted as a part of the rules and regulations: 'The national encampment hereby establishes a Memorial Day, to be observed by the members of the Grand Army of the Republic, on the 30th day of May annually, in commemoration of the deeds of our fallen comrades. When such day occurs on Sunday, the preceding day shall be observed, except where, by legal enactment, the succeeding day is made a legal holiday, when such day shall be observed.' Memorial Day has been observed as such every year since throughout the country wherever a post of the Grand Army of the Republic has been established. In most of the States the day has been designated as a holiday."

      W. H. Ward, editor,
      Records of Members of the
      Grand Army of the Republic,
      pages 6-9.

      ALSO IN:
      G. S. Merrill,
      The Grand Army of the Republic
      (New England Magazine, August, 1890).

The "fundamental constitutions" framed by the philosopher,
John Locke, for the Carolinas, were so called in their day.

GRAND SERJEANTY.

GRAND SHUPANES.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861
(SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862
(JANUARY-FEBRUARY: KENTUCKY-TENNESSEE).

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (JANUARY-APRIL: ON THE MISSISSIPPI), and (APRIL-JULY: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

   Last campaign.
      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864
      (MAY: VIRGINIA) to 1865 (APRIL: VIRGINIA).

GRANVELLE'S MINISTRY IN THE NETHERLANDS.

GRAYBACKS, BOYS IN GRAY.

GREAT BRITAIN: Adoption of the name for the United Kingdoms of
England and Scotland.

   This was the title commonly given to the Spanish general,
   Gonsalvo de Cordova, after his campaign against the French in
   Italy.

   The six larger and stronger nations of Europe,—England,
   Germany, France, Austria, Russia and Italy,—are often
   referred to as "the great powers." Until the rise of united
   Italy, the "great powers" of Europe were five in number.

GREAT RUSSIA.

GREAT WALL OF CHINA.

GREAVES.

The greaves which formed part of the armour of the ancient Greeks were "leggings formed of a pewter-like metal, which covered the lower limbs down to the instep; and they were fastened by clasps. … Homer designates them as 'flexible'; and he frequently speaks of the Greek soldiery as being well-equipped with this important defence—not only, that is, well provided with greaves, but also having them so well formed and adjusted that they would protect the limbs of the warrior without in any degree affecting his freedom of movement and action. These greaves, as has been stated, appear to have been formed of a metal resembling the alloy that we know as pewter."

      C. Boutell,
      Arms and Armour in Antiquity and the Middle Ages,
      chapter 2, section 3.

Map of India, about the close of the Sixteenth Century, and map of the growth of the Anglo-Indian Empire, To follow page 1708.

Two maps of Italy, at the beginning of the Seventh Century,
and A. D. 1492, To follow page 1804.

Four maps of the Empire of Alexander the Great
and his successors, To follow page 2061.

[Footnote: An important part of Greek history is treated more fully under the heading "ATHENS" (in Volume 1), to which the reader is referred. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/65306]

"The considerable part played by the people of Greece during many ages must undoubtedly be ascribed to the geographical position of their country. Other tribes having the same origin, but inhabiting countries less happily situated—such, for instance, as the Pelasgians of Illyria, who are believed to be the ancestors of the Albanians—have never risen above a state of barbarism, whilst the Hellenes placed themselves at the head of civilised nations, and opened fresh paths to their enterprise. If Greece had remained for ever what it was during the tertiary geological epoch—a vast plain attached to the deserts of Libya, and run over by lions and the rhinoceros—would it have become the native country of a Phidias, an Æschylos, or a Demosthenes? Certainly not. It would have shared the fate of Africa, and, far from taking the initiative in civilisation, would have waited for an impulse to be given to it from beyond. Greece, a sub-peninsula of the peninsula of the Balkans, was even more completely protected by transverse mountain barriers in the north than was Thracia or Macedonia. Greek culture was thus able to develop itself without fear of being stifled at its birth by successive invasions of barbarians. Mounts Olympus, Pelion, and Ossa, towards the north and east of Thessaly, constituted the first line of formidable obstacles towards Macedonia. A second barrier, the steep range of the Othrys, runs along what is the present political boundary of Greece. To the south of the Gulf of Lamia a fresh obstacle awaits us, for the range of the Œta closes the passage, and there is but the narrow pass of the Thermopylæ between it and the sea. Having crossed the mountains of the Locri and descended into the basin of Thebæ, there still remain to be crossed the Parnes or the spurs of the Cithæron before we reach the plains of Attica. The 'isthmus' beyond these is again defended by transverse barriers, outlying ramparts, as it were, of the mountain citadel of the Peloponnesus, that acropolis of all Greece. Hellas has frequently been compared to a series of chambers, the doors of which were strongly bolted; it was difficult to get in, but more difficult to get out again, owing to their stout defenders. Michelet likens Greece to a trap having three compartments. You entered, and found yourself taken first in Macedonia, then in Thessaly, then between the Thermopylæ and the isthmus. But the difficulties increase beyond the isthmus, and Lacedæmonia remained impregnable for a long time. At an epoch when the navigation even of a land-locked sea like the Ægean was attended with danger, Greece found herself sufficiently protected against the invasions of oriental nations; but, at the same time, no other country held out such inducements to the pacific expeditions of merchants. Gulfs and harbours facilitated access to her Ægean coasts, and the numerous outlying islands were available as stations or as places of refuge. Greece, therefore, was favourably placed for entering into commercial intercourse with the more highly civilised peoples who dwelt on the opposite coasts of Asia Minor. The colonists and voyagers of Eastern Ionia not only supplied their Achæan and Pelasgian kinsmen with foreign commodities and merchandise, but they also imparted to them the myths, the poetry, the sciences, and the arts of their native country. Indeed, the geographical configuration of Greece points towards the east, whence she has received her first enlightenment. Her peninsulas and outlying islands extend in that direction; the harbours on her eastern coasts are most commodious, and afford the best shelter; and the mountain-surrounded plains there offer the best sites for populous cities. … The most distinctive feature of Hellas, as far as concerns the relief of the ground, consists in the large number of small basins, separated one from the other by rocks or mountain ramparts. The features of the ground thus favoured the division of the Greek people into a multitude of independent republics. Every town had its river, its amphitheatre of hills or mountains, its acropolis, its fields, pastures, and forests, and nearly all of them had, likewise, access to the sea. All the elements required by a free community were thus to be found within each of these small districts, and the neighbourhood of other towns, equally favoured, kept alive perpetual emulation, too frequently degenerating into strife and battle. The islands of the Ægean Sea, likewise, had constituted themselves into miniature republics. Local institutions thus developed themselves freely, and even the smallest island of the Archipelago has its great representatives in history. But whilst there thus exists the greatest diversity, owing to the configuration of the ground and the multitude of islands, the sea acts as a binding element, washes every coast, and penetrates far inland. These gulfs and numerous harbours have made the maritime inhabitants of Greece a nation of sailors—amphibiæ, as Strabo called them. From the most remote times the passion for travel has always been strong amongst them. When the inhabitants of a town grew too numerous to support themselves upon the produce of their land, they swarmed out like bees, explored the coasts of the Mediterranean, and, when they had found a site which recalled their native home, they built themselves a new city. … The Greeks held the same position relatively to the world of the ancients which is occupied at the present time by the Anglo-Saxons with reference to the entire earth. There exists, indeed, a remarkable analogy between Greece, with its archipelago, and the British Islands, at the other extremity of the continent. Similar geographical advantages have brought about similar results, as far as commerce is concerned, and between the Ægean and the British seas time and space have effected a sort of harmony."

   "The independence of each city was a doctrine stamped deep on
   the Greek political mind by the very nature of the Greek land.
   How truly this is so is hardly fully understood till we see
   that land with our own eyes. The map may do something; but no
   map can bring home to us the true nature of the Greek land
   till we have stood on a Greek hill-top, on the akropolis of
   Athens or the loftier akropolis of Corinth, and have seen how
   thoroughly the land was a land of valleys cut off by hills, of
   islands and peninsulas cut off by arms of sea, from their
   neighbours on either side.
{1566}
   Or we might more truly say that, while the hills fenced them
   off from their neighbours, the arms of the sea laid them open
   to their neighbours. Their waters might bring either friends
   or enemies; but they brought both from one wholly distinct and
   isolated piece of land to another. Every island, every valley,
   every promontory, became the seat of a separate city; that is,
   according to Greek notions, the seat of an independent power,
   owning indeed many ties of brotherhood to each of the other
   cities which helped to make up the whole Greek nation, but
   each of which claimed the right of war and peace and separate
   diplomatic intercourse, alike with every other Greek city and
   with powers beyond the bounds of the Greek world. Corinth
   could treat with Athens and Athens with Corinth, and Corinth
   and Athens could each equally treat with the King of the
   Macedonians and with the Great King of Persia. … How close
   the Greek states are to one another, and yet how physically
   distinct they are from one another, it needs, for me at least,
   a journey to Greece fully to take in."

      E. A. Freeman,
      The Practical Bearings of European History
      (Lectures to American Audiences),
      pages 243-244.

GREECE: The Heroes and their Age. "The period included between the first appearance of the Hellenes in Thessaly and the return of the Greeks from Troy, is commonly known by the name of the heroic age, or ages. The real limits of this period cannot be exactly defined. The date of the siege of Troy is only the result of a doubtful calculation [ending B. C. 1183, as reckoned by Eratosthenes, but fixed at dates ranging from 33 to 63 years later by Isocrates, Callimachus and other Greek writers]; and … the reader will see that it must be scarcely possible to ascertain the precise beginning of the period: but still, so far as its traditions admit of anything like a chronological connexion, its duration may be estimated at six generations, or about 200 years [say from some time in the 14th to some time in the 12th century before Christ]. … The history of the heroic age is the history of the most celebrated persons belonging to this class, who, in the language of poetry, are called 'heroes.' The term 'hero' is of doubtful origin, though it was clearly a title of honour; but, in the poems of Homer, it is applied not only to the chiefs, but also to their followers, the freemen of lower rank, without, however, being contrasted with any other, so as to determine its precise meaning. In later times its use was narrowed, and in some degree altered: it was restricted to persons, whether of the heroic or of after ages, who were believed to be endowed with a superhuman, though not a divine, nature, and who were honoured with sacred rites, and were imagined to have the power of dispensing good or evil to their worshippers; and it was gradually combined with the notion of prodigious strength and gigantic stature. Here, however, we have only to do with the heroes as men. The history of their age is filled with their wars, expeditions, and adventures, and this is the great mine from which the materials of the Greek poetry were almost entirely drawn."

The legendary heroes whose exploits and adventures became the favorite subjects of Greek tragedy and song were Perseus, Hercules, Theseus, the Argonauts, and the heroes of the Siege of Troy.

"If there is any point in the annals of Greece at which we can draw the line between the days of myth and legend and the beginnings of authentic history, it is at the moment of the great migrations. Just as the irruption of the Teutonic tribes into the Roman empire in the 5th century after Christ marks the commencement of an entirely new era in modern Europe, so does the invasion of Southern and Central Greece by the Dorians, and the other tribes whom they set in motion, form the first landmark in a new period of Hellenic history. Before these migrations we are still in an atmosphere which we cannot recognize as that of the historical Greece that we know. The states have different boundaries, some of the most famous cities have not yet been founded, tribes who are destined to vanish occupy prominent places in the land, royal houses of a foreign stock are established everywhere, the distinction between Hellene and Barbarian is yet unknown. We cannot realize a Greece where Athens is not yet counted as a great city, while Mycenae is a seat of empire; where the Achaian element is everywhere predominant, and the Dorian element is as yet unknown. When, however, the migrations are ended, we at once find ourselves in a land which we recognize as the Greece of history. The tribes have settled into the districts which are to be their permanent abodes, and have assumed their distinctive characters. … The original impetus which set the Greek tribes in motion came from the north, and the whole movement rolled southward and eastward. It started with the invasion of the valley of the Peneus by the Thessalians, a warlike but hitherto obscure tribe, who had dwelt about Dodona in the uplands of Epirus. They crossed the passes of Pindus, and flooded down into the great plain to which they were to give their name. The tribes which had previously held it were either crushed and enslaved, or pushed forward into Central Greece by the wave of invasion. Two of the displaced races found new homes for themselves by conquest. The Arnaeans, who had dwelt in the southern lowlands along the courses of Apidanus and Enipeus, came through Thermopylae, pushed the Locriams aside to right and left, and descended into the valley of the Cephissus, where they subdued the Minyae of Orchomenus [see MINYI], and then, passing south, utterly expelled the Cadmeians of Thebes. The plain country which they had conquered received a single name. Boeotia became the common title of the basins of the Cephissus and the Asopus, which had previously been in the hands of distinct races. Two generations later the Boeotians endeavoured to cross Cithaeron, and add Attica to their conquests; but their king Xanthus fell in single combat with Melanthus, who fought in behalf of Athens, and his host gave up the enterprise. In their new country the Boeotians retained their national unity under the form of a league, in which no one city had authority over another, though in process of time Thebes grew so much greater than her neighbours that she exercised a marked preponderance over the other thirteen members of the confederation. Orchomenus, whose Minyan inhabitants had been subdued but not exterminated by the invaders, remained dependent on the league without being at first amalgamated with it. {1567} A second tribe who were expelled by the irruption of the Thessalians were the Dorians, a race whose name is hardly heard in Homer, and whose early history had been obscure and insignificant. They had till now dwelt along the western slope of Pindus. Swept on by the invaders, they crossed Mount Othrys, and dwelt for a time in the valley of the Spercheius and on the shoulders of Oeta. But the land was too narrow for them, and, after a generation had passed, the bulk of the nation moved southward to seek a wider home, while a small fraction only remained in the valleys of Oeta. Legends tell us that their first advance was made by the Isthmus of Corinth, and was repulsed by the allied states of Peloponnesus, Hyllus the Dorian leader having fallen in the fight by the hand of Echemus, King of Tegea. But the grandsons of Hyllus resumed his enterprise, and met with greater success. Their invasion was made, as we are told, in conjunction with their neighbours the Aetolians, and took the Aetolian port of Naupactus as its base. Pushing across the narrow strait at the mouth of the Corinthian Gulf, the allied hordes landed in Peloponnesus, and forced their way down the level country on its western coast, then the land of the Epeians, but afterwards to be known as Elis and Pisatis. This the Aetolians took as their share, while the Dorians pressed further south and east, and successively conquered Messenia, Laconia, and Argolis, destroying the Cauconian kingdom of Pylos and the Achaian states of Sparta and Argos. There can be little doubt that the legends of the Dorians pressed into a single generation the conquests of a long series of years. … It is highly probable that Messenia was the first seized of the three regions, and Argos the latest … but of the details or dates of the Dorian conquests we know absolutely nothing. Of the tribes whom the Dorians supplanted, some remained in the land as subjects to their newly found masters, while others took ship and fled over sea. The stoutest-hearted of the Achaians of Argolis, under Tisamenus, a grandson of Agamemnon, retired northward when the contest became hopeless, and threw themselves on the coast cities of the Corinthian Gulf, where up to this time the Ionic tribe of the Aegialeans had dwelt. The Ionians were worsted, and fled for refuge to their kindred in Attica, while the conquerors created a new Achaia between the Arcadian Mountains and the sea, and dwelt in the twelve cities which their predecessors had built. The rugged mountains of Arcadia were the only part of Peloponnesus which were to escape a change of masters resulting from the Dorian invasion. A generation after the fall of Argos, new war-bands thirsting for land pushed on to the north and west, led by descendants of Temenus. The Ionic towns of Sicyon and Phlius, Epidaurus and Troezen, all fell before them. Even the inaccessible Acropolis which protected the Aeolian settlement of Corinth could not preserve it from the hands of the enterprising Aletes. Nor was it long before the conquerors pressed on from Corinth beyond the isthmus, and attacked Attica. Foiled in their endeavour to subdue the land, they at least succeeded in tearing from it its western districts, where the town of Megara was made the capital of a new Dorian state, and served for many generations to curb the power of Athens. From Epidaurus a short voyage of fifteen miles took the Dorians to Aegina, where they formed a settlement which, first as a vassal to Epidaurus, and then as an independent community, enjoyed a high degree of commercial prosperity. It is not the least curious feature of the Dorian invasion that the leaders of the victorious tribe, who, like most other royal houses, claimed to descend from the gods and boasted that Heracles was their ancestor, should have asserted that they were not Dorians by race, but Achaians. Whether the rude northern invaders were in truth guided by princes of a different blood and higher civilization than themselves, it is impossible to say. … In all probability the Dorian invasion was to a considerable extent a check in the history of the development of Greek civilization, a supplanting of a richer and more cultured by a poorer and wilder race. The ruins of the prehistoric cities, which were supplanted by new Dorian foundations, point to a state of wealth to which the country did not again attain for many generations. On the other hand, the invasion brought about an increase in vigour and moral earnestness. The Dorians throughout their history were the sturdiest and most manly of the Greeks. The god to whose worship they were especially devoted was Apollo, the purest, the noblest, the most Hellenic member of the Olympian family. By their peculiar reverence for this noble conception of divinity, the Dorians marked themselves out as the most moral of the Greeks."

C. O. Müller, History and Antiquity of the Doric Race, introduction, and book 1, chapters 1-5.

      See, also, DORIANS AND IONIANS;
      ACHAIA; ÆOLIANS; THESSALY;
      and BŒOTIA.

GREECE:
The Migrations to Asia Minor and the Islands of the Ægean.
Æolian, Ionian and Dorian colonies.

   "Thucydides says that before the Dorian conquest, the date of
   which is traditionally fixed at B. C. 1104, Mycenae was the
   only city whence ruled a wealthy race of kings. Archaeology
   produces the bodies of kings ruling at Mycenae about the
   twelfth century and spreads their wealth under our eyes.
   Thucydides says that this wealth was brought in the form of
   gold from Phrygia by the founder of the line, Pelops.
   Archaeology tells us that the gold found at Mycenae may very
   probably have come from the opposite coast of Asia Minor which
   abounded in gold; and further that the patterns impressed on
   the gold work at Mycenae bear a very marked resemblance to the
   decorative patterns found on graves in Phrygia. Thucydides
   tells us that though Mycenae was small, yet its rulers had the
   hegemony over a great part of Greece. Archæology shews us that
   the kings of Mycenae were wealthy and important quite out of
   proportion to the small city which they ruled, and that the
   civilisation which centred at Mycenae spread over south Greece
   and the Aegean, and lasted for some centuries at least. It
   seems to me that the simplest way of meeting the facts of the
   case is to suppose that we have recovered at Mycenae the
   graves of the Pelopid race of monarchs. It will not of course
   do to go too far. … It would be too much to suppose that we
   have recovered the bodies of the Agamemnon who seems in the
   Iliad to be as familiar to us as Caesar or Alexander, or of
   his father Atreus, or of his charioteer and the rest.
{1568}
   We cannot of course prove the Iliad to be history; and if we
   could, the world would be poorer than before. But we can
   insist upon it that the legends of heroic Greece have more of
   the historic element in them than anyone supposed a few years
   ago. … Assuming then that we may fairly class the Pelopidae
   as Achaean, and may regard the remains at Mycenae as
   characteristic of the Achaean civilisation of Greece, is it
   possible to trace with bolder hand the history of Achaean
   Greece? Certainly we gain assistance in our endeavour to
   realize what the pre-Dorian state of Peloponnesus was like. We
   secure a hold upon history which is thoroughly objective,
   while all the history which before existed was so vague and
   imaginative that the clear mind of Grote refused to rely upon
   it at all. But the precise dates are more than we can venture
   to lay down, in the present condition of our knowledge. …
   The Achaean civilisation was contemporary with the eighteenth
   Egyptian dynasty (B. C. 1700-1400). It lasted during the
   invasions of Egypt from the north (1300-1100). When it ceased
   we cannot say with certainty. There is every historical
   probability that it was brought to a violent end in the Dorian
   invasion. The traditional date of that invasion is B. C. 1104.
   But it is obvious that this date cannot be relied upon."

"Greece was not a single country. … It was broken up into little districts, each with its own government. Any little city might be a complete state in itself, and independent of its neighbours. It might possess only a few miles of land and a few hundred inhabitants, and yet have its own laws, its own government, and its own army. … In a space smaller than an English county there might be several independent cities, sometimes at war, sometimes at peace with one another. Therefore when we say that the west coast of Asia Minor was part of Greece, we do not mean that this coast-land and European Greece were under one law and one government, for both were broken up into a number of little independent States: but we mean that the people who lived on the west coast of Asia Minor were just as much Greeks as the people who lived in European Greece. They spoke the same language, and had much the same customs, and they called one another Hellenes, in contrast to all other nations of the world, whom they called barbarians … , that is, 'the unintelligible folk,' because they could not understand their tongue."

"The nature of the country had … a powerful effect on the development of Greek politics. The whole land was broken up by mountains into a number of valleys more or less isolated; there was no central point from which a powerful monarch could control it. Hence Greece was, above all other countries, the home of independence and freedom. Each valley, and even the various hamlets of a valley, felt themselves possessed of a separate life, which they were jealous to preserve."

      See AKARNANIANS; ACHAIA;
      ÆGINA; ÆTOLIA; ARCADIA; ARGOS; ATHENS;
      ATTICA; BŒOTIA; CORINTH; DORIS AND
      DRYOPIS; ELIS; EPIRUS; EUBŒA; KORKYRA;
      LOCRI; MACEDONIA; MANTINEA; MEGALOPOLIS;
      MEGARA; MESSENE; OLYNTHUS; PHOKIANS;
      PLATÆA; SICYON; SPARTA; THEBES;
      and THESSALY.

GREECE:
   Political evolution of the leading States.
   Variety in the forms of Government.
   Rise of democracy at Athens.

   "The Hellenes followed no common political aim. …
   Independent and self-centred, they created, in a constant
   struggle of citizen with citizen and state with state, the
   groundwork of those forms of government which have been
   established in the world at large. We see monarchy,
   aristocracy, democracy, rising side by side and one after
   another, the changes being regulated in each community by its
   past experience and its special interests in the immediate
   present. These forms of government did not appear in their
   normal simplicity or in conformity with a distinct ideal, but
   under the modifications necessary to give them vitality. An
   example of this is Lakedæmon. If one of the families of the
   Heracleidæ [the two royal families-see SPARTA: THE
   CONSTITUTION] aimed at a tyranny, whilst another entered into
   relations with the native and subject population, fatal to the
   prerogatives of the conquerors, we can understand that in the
   third case, that, of the Spartan community, the aristocratic
   principle was maintained with the greatest strictness.
   Independently of this, the divisions of the Lakedæmonian
   monarchy between two lines, neither of which was to have
   precedence, was intended to guard against the repetition in
   Sparta of that which had happened in Argos. Above all, the
   members of the Gerusia, in which the two kings had only equal
   rights with the rest, held a position which would have been
   unattainable to the elders of the Homeric age. But even the
   Gerusia was not independent. There existed in addition to it a
   general assembly, which, whilst very aristocratic as regards
   the native and subject population, assumed a democratic aspect
   in contrast with the king and the elders. The internal life of
   the Spartan constitution depended upon the relations between
   the Gerusia and the aristocratic demos. … The Spartan
   aristocracy dominated the Peloponnesus. But the constitution
   contained a democratic clement working through the Ephors, by
   means of which the conduct of affairs might be concentrated in
   a succession of powerful hands. Alongside of this system, the
   purely aristocratic constitutions, which were without such a
   centre, could nowhere hold their ground. The Bacchiadæ in
   Corinth, two hundred in number, with a prytanis at their head,
   and inter-marrying only among themselves, were one of the most
   distinguished of these families. They were deprived of their
   exclusive supremacy by Kypselus, a man of humble birth on his
   father's side, but connected with the Bacchiadæ through his
   mother. … As the Kypselidæ rose in Corinth, the metropolis
   of the colonies towards the west, so in the corresponding
   eastern metropolis, Miletus, Thrasybulus raised himself from
   the dignity of prytanis to that of tyrant; in Ephesus,
   Pythagoras rose to power, and overthrew the Basilidæ; in
   Samos, Polycrates, who was master also of the Kyklades, and of
   whom it is recorded that he confiscated the property of the
   citizens and then made them a present of it again. By
   concentrating the forces of their several communities the
   tyrants obtained the means of surrounding themselves with a
   certain splendor, and above all of liberally encouraging
   poetry and art.
{1569}
   To these Polycrates opened his citadel, and in it we find
   Anacreon and Ibycus; Kypselus dedicated a famous statue to
   Zeus, at Olympia. The school of art at Sikyon was without a
   rival, and at the court of Periander were gathered the seven
   sages—men in whom a distinguished political position was
   combined with the prudential wisdom derived from the
   experience of life. This is the epoch of the legislator of
   Athens, Solon, who more than the rest has attracted to himself
   the notice of posterity.

He is the founder of the Athenian democracy. … His proverb 'Nothing in excess' indicates his character. He was a man who knew exactly what the time has a right to call for, and who utilized existing complications to bring about the needful changes. It is impossible adequately to express what he was to the people of Athens, and what services he rendered them. That removal of their pecuniary burdens, the seisachtheia, made life for the first time endurable to the humbler classes.

Solon cannot be said to have introduced democracy, but, in making the share of the upper classes in the government dependent upon the good pleasure of the community at large, he laid its foundations. The people were invested by him with attributes which they afterwards endeavored to extend. … Solon himself lived long enough to see the order which he established serve as the basis of the tyranny which he wished to avoid; it was the Four Hundred themselves who lent a hand to the change. The radical cause of failure was that the democratic element was too feebly constituted to control or to repress the violence of the families. To elevate the democracy into a true power in the state other events were necessary, which not only rendered possible, but actually brought about, its further development. The conflicts of the principal families, hushed for a moment, were revived under the eyes of Solon himself with redoubled violence. The Alemæonidæ [banished about 595 B. C.—see ATHENS: B. C. 612-595] were recalled, and Æthelred around them a party consisting mainly of the inhabitants of the seacoast, who, favored by trade, had the money in their hands; the genuine aristocrats, described as the inhabitants of the plains, who were in possession of the fruitful soil, were in perpetual antagonism to the Alemæonidæ; and, whilst these two parties were bickering, a third was formed from the inhabitants of the mountain districts, inferior to the two others in wealth, but of superior weight to either in the popular assemblies. At its head stood Peisistratus, a man distinguished by warlike exploits, and at an earlier date a friend of Solon. It was because his adherents did not feel themselves strong enough to protect their leader that they were induced to vote him a body-guard chosen from their own ranks. … As soon, however, as the first two parties combined, the third was at a disadvantage, so that after some time sentence of banishment was passed upon Peisistratus. … Peisistratus … found means to gather around him a troop of brave mercenaries, with whom, and with the support of his old adherents, he then invaded Attica. His opponents made but a feeble resistance, and he became without much trouble master both of the city and of the country.

He thus attained to power; it is true, with the approbation of the people, but nevertheless by armed force. … We have almost to stretch a point in order to call Peisistratus a tyrant—a word which carries with it the invidious sense of a selfish exercise of power. No authority could have been more rightly placed than his; it combined Athenian with Panhellenist tendencies. But for him Athens would not have been what she afterwards became to the world. … Nevertheless, it must be admitted that Peisistratus governed Athens absolutely, and even took steps to establish a permanent tyranny. He did, in fact, succeed in leaving the power he possessed to his sons, Hippias and Hipparchus. … Of the two brothers it was the one who had rendered most service to culture, Hipparchus, who was murdered at the festival of the Panathenæa. It was an act of revenge for a personal insult. … In his dread lest he should be visited by a similar doom, Hippias actually became an odious tyrant and excited universal discontent. One effect, however, of the loss of stability which the authority of the dominant family experienced was that the leading exiles ejected by Peisistratus combined in the enterprise which was a necessary condition of their return, the overthrow of Hippias. The Alcmæonidæ took the principal part. … The revolution to which this opened the way could, it might seem, have but one result, the establishment of an oligarchical government. … But the matter had a very different issue," resulting in the constitution of Cleisthenes and the establishment of democracy at Athens, despite the hostile opposition and interference of Sparta.

L. von Ranke, Universal History: The oldest Historical Group of Nations and the Greeks, chapter 5.

GREECE: B. C. 752.
The Archonship at Athens thrown open to the whole body of the
people.

GREECE: B. C. 610-600.
War of Athens and Megara for Salamis.
Spartan Arbitration.

GREECE: B. C. 500-493.
   Rising of the Ionians of Asia Minor against the Persians.
   Aid rendered to them by the Athenians.
   Provocation to Darius.

The Ionic Greek cities, or states, of Asia Minor, first subjugated by Crœsus, King of Lydia, in the sixth century B. C., were swallowed up, in the same century, with all other parts of the dominion of Crœsus, in the conquests of Cyrus, and formed part of the great Persian Empire, to the sovereignty of which Cambyses and Darius succeeded. In the reign of Darius there occurred a revolt of the Ionians (about 502 B. C.), led by the city of Miletus, under the influence of its governor, Aristagoras. Aristagoras, coming over to Greece in person, sought aid against the Persians, first at Sparta, where it was denied to him, and then, with better success, at Athens. Presenting himself to the citizens, just after they had expelled the Pisistratidæ, Aristagoras said to them "that the Milesians were colonists from Athens, and that it was just that the Athenians, being so mighty, should deliver them from slavery. {1570} And because his need was great, there was nothing that he did not promise, till at the last he persuaded them. For it is easier, it seems, to deceive a multitude than to deceive one man. Cleomenes the Spartan, being but one man, Aristagoras could not deceive; but he brought over to his purpose the people of Athens, being thirty thousand. So the Athenians, being persuaded, made a decree to send twenty ships to help the men of Ionia, and appointed one Melanthius, a man of reputation among them, to be captain. These ships were the beginning of trouble both to the Greeks and the barbarians. … When the twenty ships of the Athenians were arrived, and with them five ships of the Eretrians, which came, not for any love of the Athenians, but because the Milesians had helped them in the old time against the men of Chalcis, Aristagoras sent an army against Sardis, but he himself abode in Miletus. This army, crossing Mount Tmolus, took the city of Sardis without any hindrance; but the citadel they took not, for Artaphernes held it with a great force of soldiers. But though they took the city they had not the plunder of it, and for this reason. The houses in Sardis were for the most part built of reeds, and such as were built of bricks had their roofs of reeds; and when a certain soldier set fire to one of these houses, the fire ran quickly from house to house till the whole city was consumed. And while the city was burning, such Lydians and Persians as were in it, seeing they were cut off from escape (for the fire was in an the outskirts of the city), gathered together in haste to the market-place. Through this market-place flows the river Pactolus, which comes down from Mount Tmolus, having gold in its sands, and when it has passed out of the city it flows into the Hermus, which flows into the sea. Here then the Lydians and Persians were gathered together, being constrained to defend themselves. And when the men of Ionia saw their enemies how many they were, and that these were preparing to give battle, they were stricken with fear, and fled out of the city to Mount Tmolus, and thence, when it was night, they went back to the sea. In this manner was burnt the city of Sardis, and in it the great temple of the goddess Cybele, the burning of which temple was the cause, as said the Persians, for which afterwards they burnt the temples in Greece. Not long after came a host of Persians from beyond the river Halys; and when they found that the men of Ionia had departed from Sardis, they followed hard upon their track, and came up with them at Ephesus. And when the battle was joined, the men of Ionia fled before them. Many indeed were slain, and such as escaped were scattered, every man to his own city. After this the ships of the Athenians departed, and would not help the men of Ionia any more, though Aristagoras besought them to stay. Nevertheless the Ionians ceased not from making preparations of war against the King, making to themselves allies, some by force and some by persuasion, as the cities of the Hellespont and many of the Carians and the island of Cyprus. For all Cyprus, save Amathus only, revolted from the King under Onesilus, brother of King Gorgus. When King Darius heard that Sardis had been taken and burned with fire by the Ionians and the Athenians, with Aristagoras for leader, at the first he took no heed of the Ionians, as knowing that they would surely suffer for their deed, but he asked, 'Who are these Athenians?' And when they told him he took a bow and shot an arrow into the air, saying, 'O Zeus, grant that I may avenge myself on these Athenians.' And he commanded his servant that every day, when his dinner was served, he should say three times, 'Master, remember the Athenians.' … Meanwhile the Persians took not a few cities of the Ionians and Æolians. But while they were busy about these, the Carians revolted from the King; whereupon the captains of the Persians led their army into Caria, and the men of Caria came out to meet them; and they met them at a certain place which is called the White Pillars, near to the river Mæander. Then there were many counsels among the Carians, whereof the best was this, that they should cross the river and so contend with the Persians, having the river behind them, that so there being no escape for them if they fled, they might surpass themselves in courage. But this counsel did not prevail. Nevertheless, when the Persians had crossed the Meander, the Carians fought against them, and the battle was exceeding long and fierce. But at the last the Carians were vanquished, being overborne by numbers, so that there fell of them ten thousand. And when they that escaped—for many had fled to Labranda, where there is a great temple of Zeus and a grove of plane trees—were doubting whether they should yield themselves to the King or depart altogether from Asia, there came to their help the men of Miletus with their allies. Thereupon the Carians, putting away their doubts altogether, fought with the Persians a second time, and were vanquished yet more grievously than before. But on this day the men of Miletus suffered the chief damage. And the Carians fought with the Persians yet again a third time; for, hearing that these were about to attack their cities one by one, they laid an ambush for them on the road to Pedasus. And the Persians, marching by night, fell into the ambush, and were utterly destroyed, they and their captains. After these things, Aristagoras, seeing the power of the Persians, and having no more any hope to prevail over them—and indeed, for all that he had brought about so much trouble, he was of a poor spirit—called together his friends and said to them, 'We must needs have some place of refuge, if we be driven out of Miletus. Shall we therefore go to Sardinia, or to Myrcinus on the river Strymon; which King Darius gave to Histiæus?' To this Hecateus, the writer of chronicles, made answer, 'Let Aristagoras build a fort in Leros (this Leros is an island thirty miles distant from Miletus) and dwell there quietly, if he be driven from Miletus. And hereafter he can come from Leros and set himself up again in Miletus.' But Aristagoras went to Myrcinus, and not long afterwards was slain while he besieged a certain city of the Thracians."

GREECE: B. C. 496.
War of Sparta with Argos.
Overwhelming reverse of the Argives.

GREECE: B. C. 492-491.
   Wrath of the Persian king against Athens.
   Failure of his first expedition of invasion.
   Submission of 'Medizing' Greek states.
   Coercion of Ægina.
   Enforced union of Hellas.
   Headship of Sparta recognized.

The assistance given by Athens to the Ionian revolt stirred the wrath of the Persian monarch very deeply, and when he had put down the rebellion he prepared to chastise the audacious and insolent Greeks. "A great fleet started from the Hellespont, with orders to sail round the peninsula of Mt. Athos to the Gulf of Therma, while Mardonius advanced by land. His march was so harassed by the Thracians that when he had effected the conquest of Macedonia his force was too weak for any further attempt. The fleet was overtaken by a storm off Mt. Athos, on whose rocks 300 ships were dashed to pieces, and 20,000 men perished. Mardonius returned in disgrace to Asia with the remnant of his fleet and army. This failure only added fury to the resolution of Darius. While preparing all the resources of his empire for a second expedition, he sent round heralds to the chief cities of Greece, to demand the tribute of earth and water as signs of his being their rightful lord. Most of them submitted: Athens and Sparta alone ventured on defiance. Both treated the demand as an outrage which annulled the sanctity of the herald's person. At Athens the envoy was plunged into the loathsome Barathrum, a pit into which the most odious public criminals were cast. At Sparta the herald was hurled into a well, and bidden to seek his earth and water there. The submission of Ægina, the chief maritime state of Greece, and the great enemy of Athens, entailed the most important results. The act was denounced by Athens as treason against Greece, and the design was imputed to Ægina of calling in the Persians to secure vengeance on her rival. The Athenians made a formal complaint to Sparta against the 'Medism' of the Æginetans; a charge which is henceforth often repeated both against individuals and states. The Spartans had recently concluded a successful war with Argos, the only power that could dispute her supremacy in Peloponnesus; and now this appeal from Athens, the second city of Greece, at once recognized and established Sparta as the leading Hellenic state. In that character, her king Cleomenes undertook to punish the Medizing party in Ægina 'for the common good of Greece'; but he was met by proofs of the intrigues of his colleague Demaratus in their favour. … Cleomenes obtained his deposition on a charge of illegitimacy, and a public insult from his successor Leotychides drove Demaratus from Sparta. Hotly pursued as a 'Medist,' he effected his escape to Darius, whose designs against Athens and Sparta were now stimulated by the councils of their exiled sovereigns, Hippias and Demaratus. Meanwhile, Cleomenes and his new colleague returned to Ægina, which no longer resisted, and having seized ten of her leading citizens, placed them as hostages in the hands of the Athenians. Ægina was thus effectually disabled from throwing the weight of her fleet into the scale of Persia: Athens and Sparta, suspending their political jealousies, were united when their disunion would have been fatal; their conjunction drew after them most of the lesser states: and so the Greeks stood forth for the first time as a nation prepared to act in unison, under the leadership of Sparta (B. C. 491). That city retained her proud position till it was forfeited by the misconduct of her statesmen."

The second and greater expedition launched by Darius against the Greeks sailed from the Cilician coast in the summer of the year 490 B. C. It was under the command of two generals,—a Mede, named Datis, and the king's nephew, Artaphernes. It made the passage safely, destroying Naxos on the way, but sparing the sacred island and temple of Delos. Its landing was on the shores of Eubœa, where the city of Eretria was easily taken, its inhabitants dragged into slavery, and the first act of Persian vengeance accomplished. The expedition then sailed to the coast of Attica and came to land on the plain of Marathon, which spreads along the bay of that name. "Marathon, situated near to a bay on the eastern coast of Attica, and in a direction E. N. E. from Athens, is divided by the high ridge of Mount Pentelikus from the city, with which it communicated by two roads, one to the north, another to the south of that mountain. Of these two roads, the northern, at once the shortest and the most difficult, is 22 miles in length. … [The plain] 'is in length about six miles, in breadth never less than about one mile and a half. Two marshes bound the extremities of the plain; the southern is not very large and is almost dry at the conclusion of the great heats; but the northern, which generally covers considerably more than a square mile, offers several parts which are at all seasons impassable. Both, however, leave a broad, firm sandy beach between them and the sea. The uninterrupted flatness of the plain is hardly relieved by a single tree; and an amphitheatre of rocky hills and rugged mountains separates it from the rest of Attica."

   The Athenians waited for no nearer approach of the enemy to
   their city, but met them at their landing-place. They were few
   in number—only 10,000, with 1,000 more from the grateful city
   of Platæa, which Athens had protected against Thebes. They had
   sent to Sparta for aid, but a superstition delayed the march
   of the Spartans and they came the day after the battle. Of all
   the nearer Greeks none came to the help of Athens in that hour
   of extreme need; and so much the greater to her was the glory
   of Marathon. The ten thousand Athenian hoplites and the one
   thousand brave Platæans confronted the great host of Persia,
   of the numbers in which there is no account. Ten generals had
   the right of command on successive days, but Miltiades was
   known to be the superior captain and his colleagues gave place
   to him. "On the morning of the seventeenth day of the month of
   Metagitnion (September 12th), when the supreme command
   according to the original order of succession fell to
   Miltiades, he ordered the army to draw itself up according to
   the ten tribes. … The troops had advanced with perfect
   steadiness across the trenches and palisadings of their camp,
   as they had doubtless already done on previous days. But as
   soon as they had approached the enemy within a distance of
   5,000 feet they changed their march to a double-quick pace,
   which gradually rose to the rapidity of a charge, while at the
   same time they raised the war-cry with a loud voice.
{1572}
   When the Persians saw these men rushing down from the heights,
   they thought they beheld madmen: they quickly placed
   themselves in order of battle, but before they had time for an
   orderly discharge of arrows the Athenians were upon them,
   ready in their excitement to begin a closer contest, man
   against man in hand-to-hand fight, which is decided by
   personal courage and gymnastic agility, by the momentum of
   heavy-armed warriors, and by the use of lance and sword. Thus
   the well-managed and bold attack of the Athenians had
   succeeded in bringing into play the whole capability of
   victory which belonged to the Athenians. Yet the result was
   not generally successful. The enemy's centre stood firm. …
   But meanwhile both wings had thrown themselves upon the enemy;
   and after they had effected a victorious advance, the one on
   the way to Rhamnus, the other towards the coast, Miltiades …
   issued orders at the right moment for the wings to return from
   the pursuit, and to make a combined attack upon the Persian
   centre in its rear. Hereupon the rout speedily became general,
   and in their flight the troubles of the Persians increased;
   … they were driven into the morasses and there slain in
   numbers."

   The Athenian dead, when gathered for the solemn obsequies,
   numbered 192; the loss of the Persians was estimated by
   Herodotus at 6,400.

      Sir E. Bulwer Lytton,
      Athens: Its Rise and Fall,
      book 2, chapter 5.

GREECE: B. C. 489-480.
The Æginetan War.
Naval power of Athens created by Themistocles.

SEE ATHENS: B. C. 489-480.

GREECE: B. C. 481-479.
   Congress at Corinth.
   Hellenic union against Persia.
   Headship of Sparta.

"When it was known in Greece that Xerxes was on his march into Europe, it became necessary to take measures for the defence of the country. At the instigation of the Athenians, the Spartans, as the acknowledged leaders of Hellas and head of the Peloponnesian confederacy, called on those cities which had resolved to uphold the independence of their country to send plenipotentiaries to a congress at the Isthmus of Corinth. When the envoys assembled, a kind of Hellenic alliance was formed under the presidency of Sparta, and its unity was confirmed by an oath, binding the members to visit with severe penalties those Greeks who, without compulsion, had given earth and water to the envoys of Xerxes. This alliance was the nearest approach to a Hellenic union ever seen in Greece; but though it comprised most of the inhabitants of the Peloponnesus, except Argos and Achæa, the Megarians, Athenians, and two cities of Bœotia, Thespiæ and Platæa, were the only patriots north of the Isthmus. Others, who would willingly have been on that side, such as the common people of Thessaly, the Phocians and Locrians, were compelled by the force of circumstances to 'medize.' From the time at which it met in the autumn or summer of 481 to the autumn of 480 B. C., the congress at the Isthmus directed the military affairs of Greece. It fixed the plan of operations. Spies were sent to Sardis to ascertain the extent of the forces of Xerxes; envoys visited Argos, Crete, Corcyra, and Syracuse, in the hope, which proved vain, of obtaining assistance in the impending struggle. As soon as Xerxes was known to be in Europe, an army of 10,000 men was sent to hold the pass of Tempe, but afterwards, on the advice of Alexander of Macedon, this barrier was abandoned; and it was finally resolved to await the approaching forces at Thermopylæ and Artemisium. The supreme authority, both by land and sea, was in the hands of the Spartans; they were the natural leaders of any army which the Greeks could put into the field, and the allies refused to follow unless the ships also were under their charge. … When hostilities were suspended, the congress re-appears, and the Greeks once more meet at the Isthmus to apportion the spoil and adjudge the prizes of valour. In the next year we hear of no common plan of operations, the fleet and army seeming to act independently of each other; yet we observe that the chiefs of the medizing Thebans were taken to the Isthmus (Corinth) to be tried, after the battle of Platæa. It appears then that, under the stress of the great Persian invasion, the Greeks were brought into an alliance or confederation; and for the two years from midsummer 481 to midsummer 479 a congress continued to meet, with more or less interruption, at the Isthmus, consisting of plenipotentiaries from the various cities. This congress directed the affairs of the nation, so far as they were in any way connected with the Persian invasion. When the Barbarians were finally defeated, and there was no longer any alarm from that source, the congress seems to have discontinued its meetings. But the alliance remained; the cities continued to act in common, at any rate, so far as naval operations were concerned, and Sparta was still the leading power."

ALSO IN: C. O. Müller, History and Antiquity of the Doric Race, volume 1, appendix 4.

"Now when tidings of the battle that had been fought at Marathon [B. C. 490] reached the ears of King Darius, the son of Hystaspes, his anger against the Athenians," says Herodotus, "which had been already roused by their attack on Sardis, waxed still fiercer, and he became more than ever eager to lead an army against Greece. Instantly he sent off messengers to make proclamation through the several states that fresh levies were to be raised, and these at an increased rate; while ships, horses, provisions and transports were likewise to be furnished. So the men published his commands; and now all Asia was in commotion by the space of three years." But before his preparations were completed Darius died. His son Xerxes, who ascended the Persian throne, was cold to the Greek undertaking and required long persuasion before he took it up. When he did so, however, his preparations were on a scale more stupendous than those of his father, and consumed nearly five years. It was not until ten years after Marathon that Xerxes led from Sardis a host which, Herodotus computes at 1,700,000 men, besides half a million more which manned the fleet he had assembled. "Was there a nation in all Asia," cries the Greek historian, "which Xerxes did not bring with him against Greece? Or was there a river, except those of unusual size, which sufficed for his troops to drink?" By a bridge of boats at Abydos the army crossed the Hellespont, and moved slowly through Thrace, Macedonia and Thessaly; while the fleet, moving on the coast circuit of the same countries, avoided the perilous promontory of Mount Athos by cutting a canal. {1573} The Greeks had determined at first to make their stand against the invaders in Thessaly, at the vale of Tempe; but they found the post untenable and were persuaded, instead, to guard the narrower Pass of Thermopylæ. It was there that the Persians, arriving at Trachis, near the Malian gulf, found themselves faced by a small body of Greeks. The spot is thus described by Herodotus: "As for the entrance into Greece by Trachis, it is, at its narrowest point, about fifty feet wide. This, however, is not the place where the passage is most contracted; for it is still narrower a little above and a little below Thermopylae. At Alpeni, which is lower down than that place, it is only wide enough for a single carriage; and up above, at the river Phœnix, near the town called Anthela, it is the same. West of Thermopylæ rises a lofty and precipitous hill, impossible to climb, which runs up into the chain of Œta; while to the east the road is shut in by the sea and by marshes. In this place are the warm springs, which the natives call 'The Cauldrons'; and above them stands an altar sacred to Hercules. A wall had once been carried across the opening; and in this there had of old times been a gateway. … King Xerxes pitched his camp in the region of Malis called Trachinia, while on their side the Greeks occupied the straits. These straits the Greeks in general call Thermopylæ (the Hot Gates); but the natives and those who dwell in the neighbourhood call them Pylæ (the Gates). … The Greeks who at this spot awaited the coming of Xerxes were the following:—From Sparta, 300 men-at-arms; from Arcadia, 1,000 Tegeans and Mantineans, 500 of each people; 120 Orchomenians, from the Arcadian Orchomenus; and 1,000 from other cities; from Corinth, 400 men; from Phlius, 200; and from Mycenæ 80. Such was the number from the Peloponnese. There were also present, from Bœotia, 700 Thespians and 400 Thebans. Besides these troops, the Locrians of Opus and the Phocians had obeyed the call of their countrymen, and sent, the former all the force they had, the latter 1,000 men. … The various nations had each captains of their own under whom they served; but the one to whom all especially looked up, and who had the command of the entire force, was the Lacedæmonian, Leonidas. … The force with Leonidas was sent forward by the Spartans in advance of their main body, that the sight of them might encourage the allies to fight, and hinder them from going over to the Medes, as it was likely they might have done had they seen Sparta backward. They intended presently, when they had celebrated the Carneian festival, which was what now kept them at home, to leave a garrison in Sparta, and hasten in full force to join the army. The rest of the allies also intended to act similarly; for it happened that the Olympic festival fell exactly at this same period. None of them looked to see the contest at Thermopylæ decided so speedily." For two days Leonidas and his little army held the pass against the Persians. Then, there was found a traitor, a man of Malis, who betrayed to Xerxes the secret of a pathway across the mountains, by which he might steal into the rear of the post held by the Greeks. A thousand Phocians had been stationed on the mountain to guard this path; but they took fright when the Persians came upon them in the early dawn, and fled without a blow. When Leonidas learned that the way across the mountain was open to the enemy he knew that his defense was hopeless, and he ordered his allies to retreat while there was yet time. But he and his Spartans remained, thinking it "unseemly" to quit the post they had been specially sent to guard. The Thespians remained with them, and the Thebans—known partisans at heart of the Persians—were forced to stay. The latter deserted when the enemy approached; the Spartans and the Thespians fought and perished to the last man.

On the approach of the great invading army and fleet of Xerxes, the Greeks resolved to meet the one at the pass of Thermopylæ and the other at the northern entrance of the Eubœan channel. "The northern side of Eubœa afforded a commodious and advantageous station: it was a long beach, called, from a temple at its eastern extremity, Artemisium, capable of receiving the galleys, if it should be necessary to draw them upon the shore, and commanding a view of the open sea and the coast of Magnesia, and consequently an opportunity of watching the enemy's movements as he advanced towards the south; while, on the other hand, its short distance from Thermopylæ enabled the fleet to keep up a quick and easy communication with the land force."

The Persian fleet, after suffering heavily from a destructive storm on the Magnesian coast, reached Aphetæ, opposite Artemisium, at the mouth of the Pagasæan gulf. Notwithstanding its losses, it still vastly outnumbered the armament of the Greeks, and feared nothing but the escape of the latter. But, in the series of conflicts which ensued, the Greeks were generally victorious and proved their superior naval genius. They could not, however, afford the heavy losses which they sustained, and, upon hearing of the disaster at Thermopylæ and the Persian possession of the all-important pass, they deemed it necessary to retreat.

   Leonidas and his Spartan band having perished vainly at
   Thermopylæ, in their heroic attempt to hold the pass against
   the host of Xerxes, and the Greek ships at Artemisium having
   vainly beaten their overwhelming enemies, the whole of Greece
   north of the isthmus of Corinth lay completely at the mercy of
   the invader. The Thebans and other false-hearted Greeks joined
   his ranks, and saved their own cities by helping to destroy
   their neighbors. The Platæans, the Thespians and the Athenians
   abandoned their homes in haste, conducted their families, and
   such property as they might snatch away, to the nearer islands
   and to places of refuge in Peloponnesus. The Greeks of
   Peloponnesus rallied in force to the isthmus and began there
   the building of a defensive wall. Their fleet, retiring from
   Artemisium, was drawn together, with some re-enforcements,
   behind the island of Salamis, which stretches across the
   entrance to the bay of Eleusis, off the inner coast of Attica,
   near Athens.
{1574}
   Meantime the Persians had advanced through Attica, entered the
   deserted city of Athens, taken the Acropolis, which a small
   body of desperate patriots resolved to hold, had slain its
   defenders and burned its temples. Their fleet had also been
   assembled in the bay of Phalerum, which was the more easterly
   of the three harbors of Athens. At Salamis the Greeks were in
   dispute. The Corinthians and the Peloponnesians were bent upon
   falling back with the fleet to the isthmus; the Athenians, the
   Eginetans and the Megarians looked upon all as lost if the
   present combination of the whole naval power of Hellas in the
   narrow strait of Salamis was permitted to be broken up. At
   length Themistocles, the Athenian leader, a man of fertile
   brain and overbearing resolution, determined the question by
   sending a secret message to Xerxes that the Greek ships had
   prepared to escape from him. This brought down the Persian
   fleet upon them at once and left them no chance for retreat.
   Of the memorable fight which ensued (September 20 B. C. 480)
   the following is a part of the description given by Herodotus:
   "Against the Athenians, who held the western extremity of the
   line towards Eleusis, were placed the Phœnicians; against the
   Lacedæmonians, whose station was eastward towards the Piræus,
   the Ionians. Of these last, a few only followed the advice of
   Themistocles, to fight backwardly; the greater number did far
   otherwise. … Far the greater number of the Persian ships
   engaged in this battle were disabled, either by the Athenians
   or by the Eginetans. For as the Greeks fought in order and
   kept their line, while the barbarians were in confusion and
   had no plan in anything that they did, the issue of the battle
   could scarce be other than it was. Yet the Persians fought far
   more bravely here than at Eubœa, and indeed surpassed
   themselves; each did his utmost through fear of Xerxes, for
   each thought that the king's eye was upon himself. … During
   the whole time of the battle Xerxes sat at the base of the
   hill called Ægaleos, over against Salamis; and whenever he saw
   any of his own captains perform any worthy exploit he inquired
   concerning him; and the man's name was taken down by his
   scribes, together with the names of his father and his city.
   … When the rout of the barbarians began, and they sought to
   make their escape to Phalêrum, the Eginetans, awaiting them in
   the channel, performed exploits worthy to be recorded. Through
   the whole of the confused struggle the Athenians employed
   themselves in destroying such ships as either made resistance
   or fled to shore; while the Eginetans dealt with those which
   endeavoured to escape down the straits; so that the Persian
   vessels were no sooner clear of the Athenians than straightway
   they fell into the hands of the Eginetan squadron. … Such of
   the barbarian vessels as escaped from the battle fled to
   Phalêrum, and there sheltered themselves under the protection
   of the land army. … Xerxes, when he saw the extent of his
   loss, began to be afraid lest the Greeks might be counselled
   by the Ionians, or without their advice might determine, to
   sail straight to the Hellespont and break down the bridges
   there; in which case he would be blocked up in Europe and run
   great risk of perishing. He therefore made up his mind to
   fly."

      Herodotus,
      History
      (edited and translated by Rawlinson),
      book 8, sections 85—97 (volume 4).

      W. W. Goodwin,
      The Battle of Salamis
      (Papers of the American School at Athens, volume 1).

When Xerxes, after the defeat of his fleet at Salamis, fled back to Asia with part of his disordered host, he left his lieutenant, Mardonius, with a still formidable army, to repair the disaster and accomplish, if possible, the conquest of the Greeks. Mardonius retired to Thessaly for the winter, but returned to Attica in the spring and drove the Athenians once more from their shattered city, which they were endeavoring to repair. He made overtures to them which they rejected with scorn, and thereupon he destroyed everything in city and country which could be destroyed, reducing Athens to ruins and Attica to a desert. The Spartans and other Peloponnesians who had promised support to the Athenians were slow in coming, but they came in strong force at last. Mardonius fell back into Bœotia, where he took up a favorable position in a plain on the left bank of the Asopus, near Platæa. This was in September, B. C. 479. According to Herodotus, he had 300,000 "barbarian" troops and 50,000 Greek allies. The opposing Greeks, who followed him to the Asopus, were 110,000 in number. The two armies watched one another for more than ten days, unwilling to offer battle because the omens were on both sides discouraging. At length the Greeks undertook a change of position and Mardonius, mistaking this for a movement of retreat, led his Persians on a run to attack them. It was a fatal mistake. The Spartans, who bore the brunt of the Persian assault, soon convinced the deluded Mardonius that they were not in flight, while the Athenians dealt roughly with his Theban allies. "The barbarians," says Herodotus, "many times seized hold of the Greek spears and brake them; for in boldness and warlike spirit the Persians were not a whit inferior to the Greeks; but they were without bucklers, untrained, and far below the enemy in respect of skill in arms. Sometimes singly, sometimes in bodies of ten, now fewer and now more in number, they dashed forward upon the Spartan ranks, and so perished. … After Mardonius fell, and the troops with him, which were the main strength of the army, perished, the remainder yielded to the Lacedæmonians and took to flight. Their light clothing and want of bucklers were of the greatest hurt to them: for they had to contend against men heavily armed, while they themselves were without any such defence." Artabazus, who was second in command of the Persians, and who had 40,000 immediately under him, did not strike a blow in the battle, but quitted the field as soon as he saw the turn events had taken, and led his men in a retreat which had no pause until they reached and crossed the Hellespont. Of the remainder of the 300,000 of Mardonius' host, only 3,000, according to Herodotus, outlived the battle. It was the end of the Persian invasions of Greece.

In celebration of the victory an altar to Zeus was erected and consecrated by the united Greeks with solemn ceremonies, a quintennial festival, called the Feast of Liberty, was instituted at Platæa, and the territory of the Platæans was declared sacred and inviolable, so long as they should maintain the appointed sacrifices and funeral honors to the dead. But these agreements did not avail to protect the Platæans when the subsequent Peloponnesian War broke out, and they stood faithfully among the allies of Athens. "The last act of the assembled army was the expedition against Thebes, in order, according to the obligation incumbent upon them, to take revenge on the most obstinate ally of the national enemy. Eleven days after the battle Pausanias appeared before the city and demanded the surrender of the party-leaders, responsible for the policy of Thebes. Not until the siege had lasted twenty days was the surrender obtained. … Timagenidas and the other leaders of the Thebans were executed as traitors against the nation, by order of Pausanias, after he had dismissed the confederate army."

The same day, in September, B. C. 479, on which the Greeks at Platæa destroyed the army of Mardonius, witnessed an almost equal victory won by their compatriots of the fleet, on the coast of Asia Minor. The Persian fleet, to avoid a battle with them, had retreated to Mycale on the narrow strait between the island of Samos and the mainland, where a land army of 60,000 men was stationed at the time. Here they drew their ships on shore and surrounded them with a rampart. The Greeks, under Leotychides the Lacedæmonian, landed and attacked the whole combined force. The Ionians in the Persian army turned against their masters and helped to destroy them. The rout was complete and only a small remnant escaped to reach Sardis, where Xerxes was still lingering.

GREECE: B. C. 479-478.
   Athens assumes the protection of Ionia.
   Siege and capture of Sestus.
   Rebuilding and enlargement of Athens and its walls.
   Interference of Sparta foiled by Themistocles.

GREECE: B. C. 478-477.
   Reduction of Byzantium.
   Mad conduct of Pausanias.
   His recall.
   Alienation of the Asiatic Greeks from Sparta.
   Their closer union with Athens.
   Withdrawal of the Spartans from the war.
   Formation of the Delian Confederacy.

"Sestos had fallen: but Byzantion and the Thrakian Doriskos, with Eion on the Strymon and many other places on the northern shores of the Egean, were still held by Persian garrisons, when, in the year after the battle of Plataiai, Pausanias, as commander of the confederate fleet, sailed with 20 Peloponnesian and 30 Athenian ships to Kypros (Cyprus) and thence, having recovered the greater part of the island, to Byzantion. The resistance here was as obstinate perhaps as at Sestos; but the place was at length reduced, and Sparta stood for the moment at the head of a triumphant confederacy. It was now in her power to weld the isolated units, which made up the Hellenic world, into something like an organised society, and to kindle in it something like national life. … But she had no statesman capable, like Themistokles, of seizing on a golden opportunity, while in her own generals she found her greatest enemies." Pausanias "was, it would seem, dazzled by Persian wealth and enamoured of Persian pleasures. He had roused the indignation of his own people by having his name inscribed, as leader of all the Greek forces, on the tripod which was to commemorate the victory of Plataiai: and now his arrogance and tyranny were to excite at Byzantion a discontent and impatience destined to be followed by more serious consequences to his country as well as to himself. On the fall of Byzantion he sent to the Persian king the prisoners taken in the city, and spread the report that they had escaped. He forwarded at the same time, it is said, … a letter in which he informed Xerxes that he wished to marry his daughter and to make him lord of all Hellas." Xerxes opened negotiations with him, and "the head of this miserable man was now fairly turned. Clad in Persian garb, he aped the privacy of Asiatic despots; and when he came forth from his palace it was to make a royal progress through Thrace, surrounded by Median and Egyptian life guards, and to show his insolence to men who were at least his equals. The reports of this significant change in the behaviour of Pausanias led to his recall. He was put on his trial; but his accusers failed to establish the personal charges brought against him, while his Medism also was dismissed as not fully proved. The suspicion, however, was so strong that he was deprived of his command. … All these events were tending to alienate the Asiatic Greeks and the islanders of the Egean from a state which showed itself incapable of maintaining its authority over its own servants." Even before the recall of Pausanius, "the Asiatic Greeks intreated Aristeides the Athenian commander to admit them into direct relations with Athens; and the same change of feeling had passed over all the non-medising Greek states with the exception of the Peloponnesian allies of Sparta. In short, it had become clear that all Hellas was divided into two great sections, the one gravitating as naturally to Sparta, the great land power, as the other gravitated to Athens with her maritime preponderance. When therefore a Spartan commission headed by Dorkis arrived with a small force to take the place of Pausanias, they were met by passive resistance where they had looked for submission; and their retirement from the field in which they were unable to compel obedience left the confederacy an accomplished fact."

   This confederacy of the Asiatic Greeks with Athens, now
   definitely organized, is known as the Confederacy of Delos, or
   the Delian League. "To Athens, as decidedly the preponderant
   power, both morally and materially, was of necessity, and also
   with free good-will, consigned the headship and chief control
   of the affairs and conduct of the alliance; a position that
   carried with it the responsibility of the collection and
   administration of a common fund, and the presidency of the
   assemblies of delegates. As time went on and circumstances
   altered, the terms of confederation were modified in various
   instances; but at first the general rule was the contribution,
   not only of money or ships, but of actual personal service.
   … We have no precise enumeration of the allies of Athens at
   this early time, but the course of the history brings up the
   mention of many.
{1576}
   … Crete was never directly affected by these events, and
   Cyprus was also soon to be left aside; but otherwise all the
   Greek islands of the Aegean northwards—except Melos, Thera,
   Aegina, and Cythera—were contributory, including Euboea; as
   were the cities on the coasts of Thrace and the Chalcidic
   peninsula from the Macedonian boundary to the Hellespont;
   Byzantium and various cities on the coasts of the Propontis,
   and less certainly of the Euxine; the important series of
   cities on the western coast of Asia Minor—though apparently
   with considerable exceptions—Aeolian, Ionian, Dorian, and
   Carian, as far as Caunus at least on the borders of Lycia, if
   not even round to the Chelidonian isles. The sacred island of
   Delos was chosen as the depository of the common treasure and
   the place of meeting of the contributors. Apart from its
   central convenience and defensibleness as an island, and the
   sanctity of the temple, … it was a traditional centre for
   solemn reunions of Ionians from either side the Aegean. … At
   the distinct request of the allies the Athenians appointed
   Aristides to superintend the difficult process of assessing
   the various forms and amounts of contribution. … The total
   annual amount of the assessment was the large sum of 460
   talents (£112,125), and this perhaps not inclusive of, but
   only supplementary to, the costly supply of equipped ships."

      ALSO IN:
      E. Abbott,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapters 6 and 8.

GREECE: B. C. 477-462.
   Advancing democracy of Athens.
   Sustentation of the Commons from the Confederate Treasury.
   The stripping of power from the Areopagus.

GREECE: B. C. 477-461.
   Athens as the head of the Delian League.
   Triumph of Anti-Spartan policy at Athens and approach of war.
   Ostracism of Cimon.

"Between the end of the Persian war and the year 464 B. C., Sparta had sunk from the champion of the whole of Hellas to the half-discredited leader of the Peloponnese only. Athens, on the contrary, had risen from a subordinate member of the league controlled by Sparta to be the leader and almost the mistress of a league more dangerous than that over which Sparta held sway. Sparta unquestionably entertained towards Athens the jealous hatred of a defeated rival. By what steps Athens was increasing her control over the Delian League, and changing her position from that of a president to that of an absolute ruler will be explained. …

She was at the same time prosecuting the war against Persia with conspicuous success. Her leader in this task was Cimon. In the domain of practice Athens produced no nobler son than this man. He was the son of Miltiades, the victor of Marathon, and by heredity and inclination took his stand with the conservative party in Athens.

He succeeded here to the leading position of Aristides, and he possessed all that statesman's purity of character. … It was as a naval commander, and as a supporter of a forward policy against Persia, that Cimon won his greatest renown. But he had also a keen interest in the domestic development of Athens and her attitude to the other states of Greece. To maintain friendship with Sparta was the root of all his policy. His perfect honesty in supporting this policy was never questioned, and Sparta recognised his good will to them by appointing him Proxenus in Athens. It was his duty in this capacity to protect any Spartan resident in or visiting Athens. His character and personality were eminently attractive. … Under his guidance the Athenian fleet struck Persia blow on blow. … In 466, near the mouth of the Eurymedon in Pamphylia [see ATHENS: B. C. 470-466], the Persian fleet was destroyed, and after a fierce struggle her land forces also were defeated with very great slaughter. It was long before Persian influence counted for anything again on the waters of the Mediterranean. Cimon, with the personal qualities of Aristides, had obtained the successes of Themistocles. Opposition to Cimon was not wanting. The Athenian democracy had entered on a path that seemed blocked by his personal supremacy. And now the party of advancing democracy possessed a leader, the ablest and greatest that it was ever to possess. Pericles was about thirty years of age. … He was related to great families through both father and mother, and to great families that had championed the democratic side. His father Zanthippus had prosecuted Miltiades, the father of Cimon. … To lead the party of advanced democracy was to attack Cimon, against whom he had hereditary hostility. … When in 465 Thasos rebelled from Athens, defeat was certain unless she found allies. She applied to Sparta for assistance. Athens and Sparta were still nominally allies, for the creation of the Delian League had not openly destroyed the alliance that had subsisted between them since the days of the Persian war. But the Thasians hoped that Sparta's jealousy of Athens might induce her to disregard the alliance. And they reckoned rightly. The Spartan fleet was so weak that no interference upon the sea could be thought of, but if Attica were attacked by land the Athenians would be forced to draw off some part of their armament from Thasos. Sparta gave a secret promise that this attack should be made. But before they could fulfil their promise their own city was overwhelmed by a terrible earthquake. … Only five houses were left standing, and twenty thousand of the inhabitants lost their lives. King Archidamus saved the state from even more appalling ruin. While the inhabitants were dazed with the catastrophe, he ordered the alarm-trumpet to be blown; the military instincts of the Spartans answered to the call, and all that were left assembled outside of the city safe from the falling ruins. Archidamus's presence of mind saved them from even greater danger than that of earthquake. The disaster seemed to the masses of Helots that surrounded Sparta clear evidence of the wrath of the god Poseidon. … The Helots seized arms, therefore, and from all sides rushed upon Sparta. Thanks to Archidamus's action, they found the Spartans collected and ready for battle. They fell back upon Messenia, and concentrated their strength round Mount Ithome, the natural Acropolis of that district. … All the efforts of their opponents, never very successful in sieges, failed to dislodge them. At last, in 464, Sparta had to appeal to her allies for help against her own slaves; and, as Athens was her ally, she appealed to Athens. Should the help be granted? … Cimon advocated the granting of Sparta's demand with all his strength. … But there was much to be said on the other side, and it was said by Ephialtes and Pericles. {1577} The whole of Pericles's foreign policy is founded on the assumption that union between Athens and Sparta was undesirable and impossible. In everything they stood at opposite poles of thought. …. Cimon gained the vote of the people. He went at once with a force of four thousand heavy-armed soldiers to Ithome. Athenian soldiers enjoyed a great reputation for their ability in the conduct of sieges; but, despite their arrival, the Helots in Ithome still held out. And soon the Spartans grew suspicious of the Athenian contingent. The failure of Sparta was so clearly to the interest of Athens that the Spartans could not believe that the Athenians were in earnest in trying to prevent it; and at last Cimon was told that Sparta no longer had need of the Athenian force. The insult was all the more evident because none of the other allies were dismissed. Cimon at once returned to Athens. …

On his return he still opposed those complete democratic changes that Pericles and Ephialtes were at this time introducing into the state. A vote of ostracism was demanded. The requisite number of votes fell to Cimon, and he had to retire into exile (461). … His ostracism doubtless allowed the democratic changes, in any case inevitable, to be accomplished without much opposition or obstruction, but it also deprived Athens of her best soldier at a time when she needed all her military talent. For Athens could not forget Sparta's insult. In 461 she renounced the alliance with her that had existed since the Persian wars; and that this rupture did not mean neutrality was made clear when, immediately afterwards, Athens contracted an alliance with Argos, always the enemy and now the dangerous enemy of Sparta, and with the Thessalians, who also had grounds of hostility to Sparta. Under such circumstances war could not be long in coming."

      E. Abbott,
      Pericles and the Golden Age of Athens,
      chapters 5-6.

GREECE: B. C. 460-449.
   Disastrous Athenian expedition to Egypt.
   Cimon's last enterprise against the Persians.
   The disputed Peace of Cimon, or Callias.
   Five years truce between Athens and Sparta.

GREECE: B. C. 458-456.
   Alliance of Corinth and Ægina against Athens and Megara.
   Athenian victories.
   Siege and conquest of Ægina.
   The Spartans in Bœotia.
   Defeat of Athens at Tanagra.
   Her success at Œnophyta.
   Humiliation of Thebes.
   Athenian ascendancy restored.

Crippled by the great earthquake of 464 B. C., and harassed by the succeeding Messenian War, "nothing could be done, on the part of Sparta, to oppose the establishment and extension of the separate alliance between Athens and Argos; and accordingly the states of Northern Peloponnesus commenced their armaments against Athens on their own account, in order to obtain by force what formerly they had achieved by secret intrigues and by pushing forward Sparta. To stop the progress of the Attic power was a necessary condition of their own existence; and thus a new warlike group of states formed itself among the members of the disrupted confederation. The Corinthians entered into a secret alliance with Ægina and Epidaurus, and endeavored to extend their territory and obtain strong positions beyond the Isthmus at the expense of Megara. This they considered of special importance to them, inasmuch as they knew the Megareans, whose small country lay in the midst between the two hostile alliances, to be allies little deserving of trust. … The fears of the Corinthians were realized sooner than they had anticipated. The Megareans, under the pressure of events, renounced their treaty obligations to Sparta, and joined the Attico-Argive alliance. … The passes of the Geranea, the inlets and outlets of the Doric peninsula, now fell into the hands of the Athenians; Megara became an outwork of Athens; Attic troops occupied its towns; Attic ships cruised in the Gulf of Corinth, where harbors stood open to them at Pegæ and Ægosthena. The Athenians were eager to unite Megara as closely as possible to themselves, and for this reason immediately built two lines of walls, which connected Megara with its port Nisæa, eight stadia off, and rendered both places impregnable to the Peloponnesians. This extension of the hostile power to the boundaries of the Isthmus, and into the waters of the western gulf, seemed to the maritime cities of Peloponnesus to force them into action. Corinth, Epidaurus, and Ægina commenced an offensive war against Athens—a war which opened without having been formally declared; and Athens unhesitatingly accepted the challenge thrown out with sufficient distinctness in the armaments of her adversaries. Myronides, an experienced general and statesman, … landed with an Attic squadron near Halieis (where the frontiers of the Epidaurians and Argives met), and here found a united force of Corinthians, Epidaurians, and Æginetans awaiting him. Myronides was unsuccessful in his campaign. A few months later the hostile fleets met off the island of Cecryphalea, between Ægina and the coast of Epidaurus. The Athenians were victorious, and the struggle now closed round Ægina itself. Immediately opposite the island ensued a second great naval battle. Seventy of the enemy's ships fell into the hands of the Athenians, whose victorious fleet without delay surrounded Ægina. The Peloponnesians were fully aware of the importance of Ægina to them. Three hundred hoplites came to the relief of the island, and the Corinthians marched across the Geranea into Megaris to the relief of Ægina. It seemed impossible that, while the fleet of the Athenians was fighting in the land of the Nile, and another was lying before Ægina, they should have a third army in readiness for Megara. But the Peloponnesians had no conception of the capabilities of action belonging to the Athenians. True, the whole military levy was absent from the country, and only enough men were left at home for the mere defence of the walls. Yet all were notwithstanding agreed that neither should Ægina be given up nor the new allies be left in the lurch. Myronides advanced to meet the Corinthians with troops composed of those who had passed the age of military service or not yet reached it. In the first fight he held his ground: when the hostile forces returned for the second time, they were routed with tremendous loss. Megara was saved, and the energy of the Athenians had been most splendidly established. {1578} In attestation of it the sepulchral pillars were erected in the Ceramicus, on which were inscribed the names of the Athenian soldiers who had fallen in one and the same year (Ol. lxxx 3; B. C. 458-7) off Cyprus, in Egypt, Phœicia, Halieis, Ægina, and Megara. A fragment of this remarkable historical document is preserved to this day. While thus many years' accumulation of combustible materials had suddenly broken out into a flame of the fiercest war in Central Greece, new complications also arose in the north. The Thebans, who had suffered so deep a humiliation, believed the time to have arrived when the events of the past were forgotten, and when they could attain to new importance and power. In opposition to them the Phocians put forth their strength. … After the dissolution of the Hellenic Confederation, and the calamities which had befallen the Spartans, the Phocians thought they might venture an attack upon the Dorian tetrapolis, in order to extend their frontiers in this direction. … For Sparta it was a point of honor not to desert the primitive communities of the Dorian race. She roused herself to a vigorous effort, and, notwithstanding all her losses and the continuance of the war in Messenia, was able to send 11,500 men of her own troops and those of the confederates across the Isthmus before the Athenians had time to place any obstacles in their way [B. C. 457]. The Phocians were forced to relinquish their conquests. But when the Spartan troops were about to return home across the Isthmus they found the mountain-passes occupied by Athens, and the Gulf of Corinth made equally insecure by the presence of hostile ships. Nothing remained for the Lacedæmonians but to march into Bœotia, where their presence was welcome to Thebes. They entered the valley of the Asopus, and encamped in the territory of Tanagra, not far from the frontiers of Attica. Without calculating the consequences, the Athenians had brought themselves into an extremely dangerous situation. … Their difficulties increased when, contemporaneously, evil signs of treasonable plots made their appearance in the interior of the city. …

Thus, then, it was now necessary to contend simultaneously against foes within and foes without, to defend the constitution as well as the independence of the state. Nor was the question merely as to an isolated attack and a transitory danger; for the conduct of the Spartans in Bœotia clearly showed that it was now their intention to restore to power Thebes … because they were anxious to have in the rear of Athens a state able to stop the extension of the Attic power in Central Greece. This intention could be best fulfilled by supporting Thebes in the subjugation of the other Bœotian cities. For this purpose the Peloponnesians had busily strengthened the Theban, i. e. the oligarchical party, in the whole of the country, and encircled Thebes itself with new fortifications. Thebes was from a country town to become a great city, an independent fortified position, and a base for the Peloponnesian cause in Central Greece. Hence Athens could not have found herself threatened by a more dangerous complication. The whole civic army accordingly took the field, amounting, together with the Argives, and other allies, to 14,000 men, besides a body of Thessalian cavalry. In the low ground by the Asopus below Tanagra the armies met. An arduous and sanguinary struggle ensued, in which for the first time Athens and Sparta mutually tested their powers in a regular battle. For a long time the result was doubtful; till in the very thick of the battle the cavalry went over to the enemy, probably at the instigation of the Laconian party. This act of treason decided the day in favor of Sparta, although patriotic Athenians would never consent to count this among the battles lost by Athens. The Spartans were far from fulfilling the expectations of the party of the Oligarchs. As soon as they knew that the passes of the Isthmus were once more open, they took their departure, towards the fall of the year, through Megara, making this little country suffer for its defection by the devastation of its territory. … They reckoned upon Thebes being for the present strong enough to maintain herself against her neighbors; for ulterior offensive operations against Athens, Tanagra was to serve as a base. The plan was good, and the conjuncture of affairs favorable. But whatever the Spartans did, they did only by halves: they concluded a truce for four months, and quitted the ground. The Athenians, on the other hand, had no intention of allowing a menacing power to establish itself on the frontiers of their country. Without waiting for the return of the fair season, they crossed Mount Parnes two months after the battle, before any thoughts of war were entertained in Bœotia; Myronides, who was in command, defeated the Theban army which was to defend the valley of the Asopus, near Œnophyta. This battle with one blow put an end to all the plans of Thebes; the walls of Tanagra were razed. Myronides continued his march from town to town; everywhere the existing governments were overthrown, and democratic constitutions established with the help of Attic partisans. … Thus, after a passing humiliation, Athens was soon more powerful than ever, and her sway extended as far as the frontiers of the Phocians. Nay, during the same campaign she extended her military dominion as far as Locris. … Meanwhile the Æginetans also were gradually losing their power of resistance. For nine months they had resisted the Attic squadron. … Now their strength was exhausted; and the proud island of the Æacidæ, which Pindar had sung as the mother of the men who in the glorious rivalry of the festive games shone out before all other Hellenes, had to bow down before the irresistible good fortune of the Athenians, and was forced to pull down her walls, to deliver up her vessels of war, and bind herself to the payment of tribute. Contemporaneously with this event, the two arms of walls [at ATHENS] … between the upper and lower town were completed. Athens was now placed beyond the fear of any attack. … The Peloponnesian confederation was shaken to its very foundations; and Sparta was still let and hindered by the Messenian revolt, while the Athenians were able freely to dispose of their military and naval forces."

Thucydides, Peloponnesian War (translated by Jowett), book 1, sections 107-108.

GREECE: B. C. 449-445.
   Quarrel of Delphians and Phocians.
   Interference of Sparta and Athens.
   Bœotian revolution.
   Defeat of Athenians at Coroneia.
   Revolt of Eubœa and Megara.
   The Thirty Years Truce.

In 449 B. C. "on occasion of a dispute between the Delphians and the Phocians as to which should have the care of the temple and its treasures, the Lacedæmonians sent an army, and gave them to the former; but as soon as they were gone, Pericles led thither an Athenian army, and put the Phocians in possession. Of this the Lacedæmonians took no notice. The right of Promanty, or first consulting the oracle, which had been given to Sparta by the Delphians, was now assigned to Athens by the Phocians; and this honor was probably the cause of the interference of both states. As the Athenians had given the upper hand to the democratic party in Bœotia, there was of course a large number of the opposite party in exile. These had made themselves masters of Orchomenus, Chæroneia, and some other places, and if not checked in time, might greatly endanger the Athenian influence. Tolmidas, therefore, led an army and took and garrisoned Chæroneia; but, as he was returning, he was attacked at Coroneia by the exiles from Orchomenus, joined by those of Eubœa and their other friends. Tolmidas fell, and his troops were all slain or made prisoners. (Ol. 83, 2.) [B. C. 447.] The Athenians, fearing a general war, agreed to a treaty, by which, on their prisoners being restored, they evacuated Bœotia. The exiles returned to their several towns, and things were placed on their old footing. … Eubœa was now (Ol. 83, 3) [B. C. 446] in revolt: and while Pericles was at the head of an army reducing it, the party in Megara adverse to Athens rose and massacred all the Athenian garrisons except that of Nisæa. Corinthians, Sicyonians, and Epidaurians came to their aid: and the Peloponnesians, led by one of the Spartan kings, entered and wasted the plain of Eleusis. Pericles led back his army from Eubœa, but the enemy was gone; he then returned and reduced that island, and having expelled the people of Hestiæa, gave their lands to Athenian colonists; and the Athenians, being unwilling to risk the chance of war with the Dorian confederacy, gladly formed (Ol. 83, 4) [B. C. 445] a truce for thirty years, surrendering Nisæa and Pegæ, and withdrawing a garrison which they had in Trœzen, and ceasing to interfere in Achaia."

"The Athenians saw themselves compelled to give up their possessions in Peloponnesus, especially Achaia, as well as Trœzene and Pagæ, an important position for their communication with the peninsula. Even Nisæa was abandoned. Yet these losses, sensibly as they affected their influence upon the Grecian continent, were counterbalanced by a concession still more significant, the acknowledgment of the Delian League. It was left open to states and cities which were members of neither confederacy to join either at pleasure. These events happened in Ol. 83,3 (B. C. 445)—the revolt of Megara and Eubœa, the invasion of Pleistoanax, the re-conquest of Eubœa, and the conclusion of the treaty, which assumed the form of an armistice for thirty years. Great importance must be attributed to this settlement, as involving an acknowledgment which satisfied both parties and did justice to the great interests at stake on either side. If Athens renounced some of her possessions, the sacrifice was compensated by the fact that Sparta recognized the existence of the naval supremacy of Athens, and the basis on which it rested. We may perhaps assume that the compromise between Pericles and Pleistoanax was the result of the conviction felt by both these leading men that a fundamental dissociation of the Peloponnesian from the Delian league was a matter of necessity. The Spartans wished to be absolutely supreme in the one, and resigned the other to the Athenians."

L. von Ranke, Universal History: The Oldest Historical Group of Nations and the Greeks, chapter 7, section 2.

GREECE: B. C. 445-431. Splendor of Athens and greatness of the Athenian Empire under the rule of Pericles.

GREECE: B. C. 440.
Subjugation of revolted Samos by the Athenians.
Spartan interference prevented by Corinth.

"The Peloponnesian War was a protracted struggle, and attended by calamities such as Hellas had never known within a like period of time. Never were so many cities captured and depopulated—some by Barbarians, others by Hellenes themselves fighting against one another; and several of them after their capture were re-peopled by strangers. Never were exile and slaughter more frequent, whether in the war or brought about by civil strife. … There were earthquakes unparalleled in their extent and fury, and eclipses of the sun more numerous than are recorded to have happened in any former age; there were also in some places great droughts causing famines, and lastly the plague which did immense harm and destroyed numbers of the people. All these calamities fell upon Hellas simultaneously with the war, which began when the Athenians and Peloponnesians violated the thirty years' truce concluded by them after the recapture of Euboea. Why they broke it and what were the grounds of quarrel I will first set forth, that in time to come no man may be at a loss to know what was the origin of this great war. The real though unavowed cause I believe to have been the growth of the Athenian power, which terrified the Lacedaemonians and forced them into war."

   The quarrel between Corinth and Korkyra, out of which, as an
   immediate excitement, the Peloponnesian War grew, concerned
   "the city of Epidamnus, known afterwards, in the Roman times,
   as Dyrrachium, hard by the modern Durazzo—a colony founded by
   the Korkyreans on the coast of Illyria, in the Ionic gulf,
   considerably to the north of their own island."
{1580}
   The oligarchy of Epidamnus, driven out by the people, had
   allied themselves with the neighboring Illyrians and were
   harassing the city. Korkyra refused aid to the latter when
   appealed to, but Corinth (of which Korkyra was itself a
   colony) promptly rendered help. This involved Corinth and
   Korkyra in hostilities, and Athens gave support to the latter.

GREECE: B. C. 432.
   Great Sea-fight of the Corinthians
   with the Korkyrians and Athenians.
   Revolt of Potidæa.

"Although Korkyra became the ally of Athens, the force sent to her aid was confined to the small number of ten ships, for the express purpose of making it clear to the Corinthians that no aggressive measures were intended; and the generals received precise instructions to remain strictly neutral unless the Corinthians should attempt to effect a landing either on Korkyra or on any Korkyraian settlements. The Corinthians lost no time in bringing the quarrel to an issue. With a fleet of 150 ships, of which 60 were furnished by their allies, they sailed to the harbor of Cheimerion near the lake through which the river Acheron finds its way into the sea about thirty miles to the east of the southernmost promontory of Korkyra. The conflict which ensued exhibited a scene of confusion which the Athenian seamen probably regarded with infinite contempt. After a hard struggle the Korkyraians routed the right wing of the enemy's fleet, and chasing it to its camp on shore, lost time in plundering it and burning the tents. For this folly they paid a terrible price. The remainder of the Korkyraian fleet, borne down by sheer force of numbers, was put to flight, and probably saved from utter ruin only by the open interference of the Athenians, who now dashed into the fight without scruple, and came into direct conflict with the Corinthians. The latter were now resolved to press their advantage to the utmost. Sailing through the enemy's ships, they applied themselves to the task not of taking prizes, but of indiscriminate slaughter, to which not a few of their own people fell victims. After this work of destruction, they conveyed their disabled ships with their dead to Sybota, and, still unwearied, advanced again to the attack, although it was now late in the day. Their Paian, or battle cry, had already rung through the air, when they suddenly backed water. Twenty Athenian ships had come into sight, and the Corinthians, supposing them to be only the vanguard of a larger force, hastily retreated. The Korkyraians, ignorant of the cause of this movement, marvelled at their departure: but the darkness was now closing in, and they also withdrew to their own ground. So ended the greatest sea-fight in which Hellenes had thus far contended not with barbarians but with their own kinsfolk. On the following day the Korkyraians sailed to Sybota with such of their ships as were still fit for service, supported by the thirty Athenian ships. But the Corinthians, far from wishing to come to blows with the newcomers, were anxious rather for their own safety. Concluding that the Athenians now regarded the Thirty Years' Truce as broken, they were afraid of being forcibly hindered by them in their homeward voyage. It became necessary therefore to learn what they meant to do. The answer of the Athenians was plain and decisive. They did not mean to break the truce, and the Corinthians might go where they pleased, so long as they did not go to Korkyra or to any city or settlement belonging to her. … Upwards of a thousand prisoners had fallen into the hands of the Corinthians. Of these 250 were conveyed to Corinth, and treated with the greatest kindness and care. Like the Athenians, the Corinthians were acting only from a regard to their own interests. Their object was to send these prisoners back to Korkyra, nominally under pledge to pay a heavy ransom for their freedom, but having really covenanted to put down the Demos, and thus to insure the hearty alliance of Korkyra with Corinth. These men returned home to stir up the most savage seditions that ever disgraced an Hellenic city.

"The evils of this imprudent interference of the Athenians began now to be seen. In consequence of the Corcyrian alliance, the Athenians issued an order to Potidæa, a Macedonian town acknowledging their supremacy, to demolish its walls; to send back certain officers whom they had received from Corinth, and to give hostages for their good conduct. Potidæa, although an ally of Athens, had originally been a colony of Corinth, and thus arose the jealousy which occasioned these harsh and peremptory orders. Symptoms of universal hostility to Athens now appeared in the states around. The Corinthians and their allies were much irritated; the oppressed Potidæans were strongly instigated to revolt; and Perdiccas, king of Macedon, who had some time since been at open war with the Athenians, now gladly seized the opportunity to distress them, by exciting and assisting the malcontents. The Potidæans, however, deputed ambassadors to Athens to deprecate the harsh orders which had been sent them; but in the mean time to prepare for the worst, they also sent messengers to Sparta entreating support, where they met deputies from Corinth and Megara. By these loud and general complaints Sparta was at length roused to head the conspiracy against Athens, and the universal flames of war shortly afterwards broke forth throughout Greece." The revolt of Potidæa followed immediately; the Corinthians placed a strong force in the town, under Aristeus, and the Athenians sent an army under Phormion to lay siege to it.

GREECE: B. C. 432-431.
   Charges brought by Corinth against Athens.
   The hearing and the Congress at Sparta.
   Decision for war.
   Theban attack on Platæa.
   The Peloponnesian War begun.

The Corinthians "invited deputies from the other states of the confederacy to meet them at Sparta, and there charged the Athenians with having broken the treaty, and trampled on the rights of the Peloponnesians. The Spartans held an assembly to receive the complaints of their allies, and to discuss the question of peace or war. Here the Corinthians were seconded by several other members of the confederacy, who had also wrongs to complain of against Athens, and urged the Spartans for redress. … It happened that at this time Athenian envoys, who had been sent on other business, were still in Sparta. {1581} They desired permission to attend and address the assembly. … When the strangers had all been heard, they were desired to withdraw, that the assembly might deliberate. The feeling against the Athenians was universal; most voices were for instant war. … The deputies of the allies were then informed of the resolution which the assembly had adopted, and that a general congress of the confederacy would shortly be summoned to deliberate on the same question, in order that war, if decided on, might be decreed by common consent. … The congress decided on the war; but the confederacy was totally unprepared for commencing hostilities, and though the necessary preparations were immediately begun and vigorously prosecuted, nearly a year elapsed before it was ready to bring an army into the field. In the meantime embassies were sent to Athens with various remonstrances and demands, for the double purpose of amusing the Athenians with the prospect of peace, and of multiplying pretexts for war. An attempt was made, not, perhaps, so foolish as it was insolent, to revive the popular dread of the curse which had been supposed to hang over the Alcmæonids. The Athenians were called upon, in the name of the gods, to banish all who remained among them of that blood-stained race. If they had complied with this demand, they must have parted with Pericles, who, by the mother's side, was connected with the Alcmæonids. This, indeed, was not expected; but it was hoped that the refusal might afford a pretext to his enemies at Athens for treating him as the author of the war. The Athenians retorted by requiring the Spartans to expiate the pollution with which they had profaned the sanctuary of Tænarus, by dragging from it some Helots who had taken refuge there, and that of Athene, by the death of Pausanias. … Still, war had been only threatened, not declared; and peaceful intercourse, though not wholly free from distrust, was still kept up between the subjects of the two confederacies. But early in the following spring, B. C. 431, in the fifteenth year of the Thirty Years' Truce, an event took place which closed all prospects of peace, precipitated the commencement of war, imbittered the animosity of the contending parties, and prepared some of the most tragical scenes of the ensuing history. In the dead of night the city of Platæa was surprised by a body of 300 Thebans, commanded by two of the great officers called Bœotarchs. They had been invited by a Platæan named Nauclides, and others of the same party, who hoped, with the aid of the Thebans, to rid themselves of their political opponents, and to break off the relation in which their city was standing to Athens, and transfer its alliance to Thebes. The Thebans, foreseeing that a general war was fast approaching, felt the less scruple in strengthening themselves by this acquisition, while it might be made with little cost and risk. The gates were unguarded, as in time of peace, and one of them was secretly opened to the invaders, who advanced without interruption into the marketplace. … The Platæans, who were not in the plot, imagined the force by which their city had been surprised to be much stronger than it really was, and, as no hostile treatment was offered to them, remained quiet, and entered into a parley with the Thebans. In the course of these conferences they gradually discovered that the number of the enemy was small, and might be easily overpowered. … Having barricaded the streets with wagons, and made such other preparations as they thought necessary, a little before daybreak they suddenly fell upon the Thebans. The little band made a vigorous defence, and twice or thrice repulsed the assailants; but as these still returned to the charge, and were assisted by the women and slaves, who showered stones and tiles from the houses on the enemy, all, at the same time, raising a tumultuous clamour, and a heavy rain increased the confusion caused by the darkness, they at length lost their presence of mind, and took to flight. But most were unable to find their way in the dark through a strange town, and several were slain as they wandered to and fro in search of an outlet. … The main body, which had kept together, entered a large building adjoining the walls, having mistaken its gates, which they found open, for those of the town, and were shut in. The Platæans at first thought of setting fire to the building; but at length the men within, as well as the rest of the Thebans, who were still wandering up and down the streets, surrendered at discretion. Before their departure from Thebes it had been concerted that as large a force as could be raised should march the same night to support them. The distance between the two places was not quite nine miles, and these troops were expected to reach the gates of Platæa before the morning; but the Asopus, which crossed their road, had been swollen by the rain, and the state of the ground and the weather otherwise retarded them, so that they were still on their way when they heard of the failure of the enterprise. Though they did not know the fate of their countrymen, as it was possible that some might have been taken prisoners, they were at first inclined to seize as many of the Platæans as they could find without the walls, and to keep them as hostages. … The Thebans afterward alleged that they had received a promise, confirmed by an oath, that, on condition of their retiring from the Platæan territory, the prisoners should be released; and Thucydides seems disposed to believe this statement. The Platæans denied that they had pledged themselves to spare the lives of the prisoners, unless they should come to terms on the whole matter with the Thebans; but it does not seem likely that, after ascertaining the state of the case, the Thebans would have been satisfied with so slight a security. It is certain, however, that they retired, and that the Platæans, as soon as they had transported their movable property out of the country into the town, put to death all the prisoners— amounting to 180, and including Eurymachus, the principal author of the enterprise, and the man who possessed the greatest influence in Thebes. On the first entrance of the Thebans into Platæa, a messenger had been despatched to Athens with the intelligence, and the Athenians had immediately laid all the Bœotians in Attica under arrest; and when another messenger brought the news of the victory gained by the Platæans, they sent a herald to request that they would reserve the prisoners for the disposal of the Athenians. The herald came too late to prevent the execution; and the Athenians, foreseeing that Platæa would stand in great need of defence, sent a body of troops to garrison it, supplied it with provisions, and removed the women and children and all persons unfit for service in a siege. {1582} After this event it was apparent that the quarrel could only be decided by arms. Platæa was so intimately united with Athens, that the Athenians felt the attack which had been made on it as an outrage offered to themselves, and prepared for immediate hostilities. Sparta, too, instantly sent notice to all her allies to get their contingents ready by an appointed day for the invasion of Attica."

GREECE: B. C. 431-429.
   The Peloponnesian War: How Hellas was divided.
   The opposing camps.
   Peloponnesian invasions of Attica.
   The Plague at Athens.
   Death of Pericles.
   Surrender of Potidæa to the Athenians.

"All Hellas was excited by the coming conflict between her two chief cities. … The feeling of mankind was strongly on the side of the Lacedaemonians; for they professed to be the liberators of Hellas. … The general indignation against the Athenians was intense; some were longing to be delivered from them, others fearful of falling under their sway. … The Lacedaemonian confederacy included all the Peloponnesians with the exception of the Argives and the Achaeans—they were both neutral; only the Achaeans of Pellene took part with the Lacedaemonians at first; afterwards all the Achaeans joined them. Beyond the borders of the Peloponnese, the Megarians, Phocians, Locrians, Boeotians, Ambraciots, Leucadians, and Anactorians were their allies. Of these the Corinthians, Megarians, Sicyonians, Pellenians, Eleans, Ambraciots, and Leucadians provided a navy, the Boeotians, Phocians, and Locrians furnished cavalry, the other states only infantry. The allies of the Athenians were Chios, Lesbos, Plataea, the Messenians of Naupactus, the greater part of Acarnania, Corcyra, Zacynthus, and cities in many other countries which were their tributaries. There was the maritime region of Caria, the adjacent Dorian peoples, Ionia, the Hellespont, the Thracian coast, the islands that lie to the east within the line of Peloponnesus and Crete, including all the Cyclades with the exception of Melos and Thera. Chios, Lesbos and Corcyra furnished a navy; the rest, land forces and money. Thus much concerning the two confederacies, and the character of their respective forces. Immediately after the affair at Plataea the Lacedaemonians determined to invade Attica, and sent round word to their Peloponnesian and other allies, bidding them equip troops and provide all things necessary for a foreign expedition. The various states made their preparations as fast as they could, and at the appointed time, with contingents numbering two-thirds of the forces of each, met at the Isthmus." Then followed the invasion of Attica, the siege of Athens, the plague in the city, the death of Pericles, and the success won by the indomitable Athenians, at Potidaea, in the midst of their sore distress.

GREECE: B. C. 429-427.
The Peloponnesian War:
Siege, capture and destruction of Platæa.

"In the third spring of the war, the Peloponnesians changed their plan of offence. By the invasion and ravage of Attica for two following summers, tho much injury had been done to the Athenians, little advantage had accrued to themselves: the booty was far from paying the expense of the expedition; the enemy, it was found, could not be provoked to risk a battle, and the great purpose of the war was little forwarded. The Peloponnesians were yet very unequal to attempt naval operations of any consequence. Of the continental dependencies of Athens none was so open to their attacks, none so completely excluded from naval protection, none so likely by its danger to superinduce that war of the field which they wished, as Platæa. Against that town therefore it was determined to direct the principal effort. … Under the command still of Archidamus, the confederate army accordingly entered the Platæid, and ravage was immediately begun. … The town was small, as may be judged from the very small force which sufficed for an effectual garrison; only 400 Platæans, with 80 Athenians. There were besides in the place 110 women to prepare provisions, and no other person free or slave. The besieging army, composed of the flower of the Peloponnesian youth, was numerous. The first operation was to surround the town with a palisade, which might prevent any ready egress; the neighboring forest of Cithæron supplying materials. Then, in a chosen spot, ground was broken, according to the modern phrase, for making approaches. The business was to fill the town-ditch, and against the wall to form a mound, on which a force sufficient for assault might ascend. … Such was at that time the inartificial process of a siege. Thucydides appears to have been well aware that it did no credit to the science of his age. … To oppose this mode of attack, the first measure of the besieged was to raise, on that part of their wall against which the mound was forming, a strong wooden frame, covered in front with leather and hides; and, within this, to build a rampart with bricks from the neighboring houses. The wooden frame bound the whole, and kept it firm to a considerable height: the covering of hides protected both work and workmen against weapons discharged against them, especially fiery arrows. But the mound still rising as the superstructure on the wall rose, and this superstructure becoming unavoidably weaker with increasing height, while the mound was liable to no counterbalancing defect, it was necessary for the besieged to devise other opposition. Accordingly they broke through the bottom of their wall, where the mound bore against it, and brought in the earth. The Peloponnesians, soon aware of this, instead of loose earth, repaired their mound with clay or mud inclosed in baskets. This requiring more labor to remove, the besieged undermined the mound; and thus, for a long time unperceived, prevented it from gaining height. Still, however, fearing that the efforts of their scanty numbers would be overborne by the multitude of hands which the besiegers could employ, they had recourse to another device. Within their town-wall they built, in a semilunar form, a second wall, connected with the first at the extremities. These extended, on either side, beyond the mound; so that should the enemy possess themselves of the outer wall, their work would be to be renewed in a far less favorable situation. … A ram, advanced upon the Peloponnesian mound, battered the superstructure on the Platæan rampart, and shook it violently; to the great alarm of the garrison, but with little farther effect. {1583} Other machines of the same kind were employed against different parts of the wall itself, but to yet less purpose. … No means however were neglected by the besiegers that either approved practice suggested, or their ingenuity could devise, to promote their purpose; yet, after much of the summer consumed, they found every effort of their numerous forces so completely baffled by the vigilance, activity, and resolution of the little garrison, that they began to despair of succeeding by assault. Before however they would recur to the tedious method of blockade, they determined to try one more experiment, for which their numbers, and the neighboring woods of Cithæron, gave them more than ordinary facility. Preparing a very great quantity of faggots, they filled with them the town-ditch in the parts adjoining to their mound, and disposed piles in other parts around the place, wherever ground or any other circumstance gave most advantage. On the faggots they put sulphur and pitch, and then set all on fire. The conflagration was such as was never before known, says Thucydides, to have been prepared and made by the hands or men. … But fortunately for the garrison, a heavy rain, brought on by a thunderstorm without wind, extinguished the fire, and relieved them from an attack far more formidable than any they had before experienced. This attempt failing, the Peloponnesians determined immediately to reduce the siege to a blockade. … To the palisade, which already surrounded the town, a contravallation was added; with a double ditch, one without, and one within. A sufficient body of troops being then appointed to the guard of these works, the Bœotians undertaking one half, the other was allotted to detachments drafted from the troops of every state of the confederacy, and, a little after the middle of September, the rest of the army was dismissed for the winter."

When the blockade had endured for more than a year, and food in the city grew scarce, about half of the defending force made a bold dash for liberty, one stormy night, scaled the walls of circumvallation, and escaped. The remainder held out until some time in the next year, when they surrendered and were all put to death, the city being destroyed. The families of the Platæans had been sheltered at Athens before the siege began.

GREECE: B. C. 429-427.
   The Peloponnesian War:
   Phormio's sea-fights.
   Revolt of Lesbos.
   Siege and capture of Mitylene.
   The ferocious decree of Cleon reversed.

"At the same time that Archidamus laid siege to Plataea, a small Peloponnesian expedition, under a Spartan officer named Cnemus, had crossed the mouth of the Gulf of Corinth, and joined the land forces of the Leucadians and Ambraciots. They were bent on conquering the Acarnanians and the Messenians of Naupactus, the only continental allies whom Athens possessed in Western Greece. … When Cnemus had been joined by the troops of Leucas and the other Corinthian towns, and had further strengthened himself by summoning to his standard a number of the predatory barbarian tribes of Epirus, he advanced on Stratus, the chief city of Acarnania. At the same time a squadron of Peloponnesian ships collected at Corinth, and set sail down the gulf towards Naupactus. The only Athenian force in these waters consisted of twenty galleys under an able officer named Phormio, who was cruising off the straits of Rhium, to protect Naupactus and blockade the Corinthian Gulf. Both by land and by sea the operations of the Peloponnesians miscarried miserably. Cnemus collected a very considerable army, but as he sent his men forward to attack Stratus by three separate roads, he exposed them to defeat in detail. … By sea the defeat of the Peloponnesians was even more disgraceful; the Corinthian admirals Machaon and Isocrates were so scared, when they came across the squadron of Phormio at the mouth of the gulf, that, although they mustered 47 ships to his 20, they took up the defensive. Huddling together in a circle, they shrank from his attack, and allowed themselves to be hustled and worried into the Achaian harbour of Patrae, losing several ships in their flight. Presently reinforcements arrived; the Peloponnesian fleet was raised to no less than 77 vessels, and three Spartan officers were sent on board, to compel the Corinthian admirals, who had behaved so badly, to do their best in future. The whole squadron then set out to hunt down Phormio. They found him with his 20 ships coasting along the Aetolian shore towards Naupactus, and at once set out in pursuit. The long chase separated the larger fleet into scattered knots, and gave the fighting a disconnected and irregular character. While the rear ships of Phormio's squadron were compelled to run on shore a few miles outside Naupactus, the 11 leading vessels reached the harbour in safety. Finding that he was now only pursued by about a score of the enemy—the rest having stayed behind to take possession of the stranded Athenian vessels—Phormio came boldly out of port again. His 11 vessels took 6, and sunk one of their pursuers; and then, pushing on westward, actually succeeded in recapturing most of the 9 ships which had been lost in the morning. This engagement, though it had no great results, was considered the most daring feat performed by the Athenian navy during the whole war. … The winter passed uneventfully, and the war seemed as far as ever from showing any signs of producing a definite result. But although the Spartan invasion of 428 B. C. had no more effect than those of the preceding years, yet in the late summer there occurred an event so fraught with evil omens for Athens, as to threaten the whole fabric of her empire. For the first time since the commencement of hostilities, an important subject state made an endeavour to free itself by the aid of the Spartan fleet. Lesbos was one of the two Aegean islands which still remained free from tribute, and possessed a considerable war-navy. Among its five towns Mitylene was the chief, and far exceeded the others in wealth and resources. It was governed by an oligarchy, who had long been yearning to revolt, and had made careful preparation by accumulating war-like stores and enlisting foreign mercenaries. … The whole island except Methymna, where a democracy ruled, rose in arms, and determined to send for aid to Sparta. The Athenians at once despatched against Mitylene a squadron of 40 ships under Cleïppides, which had just been equipped for a cruise in Peloponnesian waters. This force had an engagement with the Lesbian fleet, and drove it back into the harbour of Mitylene. {1584} To gain time for assistance from across the Aegean to arrive, the Lesbians now pretended to be anxious to surrender, and engaged Cleïppides in a long and fruitless negotiation, while they were repeating their demands at Sparta. But at last the Athenian grew suspicious, established a close blockade of Mitylene by sea, and landed a small force of hoplites to hold a fortified camp on shore. … Believing the revolt of the Lesbians to be the earnest of a general rising of all the vassals of Athens, the Peloponnesians determined to make a vigorous effort in their favour. The land contingents of the various states were summoned to the Isthmus—though the harvest was now ripe, and the allies were loath to leave their reaping—while it was also determined to haul over the Corinthian Isthmus the fleet which had fought against Phormio, and then to despatch it to relieve Mitylene. … The Athenians were furious at the idea that their vassals were now about to be stirred up to revolt, and strained every nerve to defend themselves. While the blockade of Mitylene was kept up, and 100 galleys cruised in the Aegean to intercept any succours sent to Lesbos, another squadron of 100 ships sailed round Peloponnesus and harried the coastland with a systematic ferocity that surpassed any of their previous doings. To complete the crews of the 250 ships now afloat and in active service proved so great a drain on the military force of Athens, that not only the Thetes but citizens of the higher classes were drafted on shipboard. Nevertheless the effect which they designed by this display of power was fully produced. To defend their own harvests the confederates who had met at the Isthmus went homewards, while the dismay at the strength of the Athenian fleet was so great that the plan of sending naval aid to Lesbos was put off for the present. … All through the winter of 428-7 B. C. the blockade of Mitylene was kept up, though its maintenance proved a great drain on the resources of Athens. On the land side a considerable force of hoplites under Paches strengthened the troops already on the spot, and made it possible to wall the city in with lines of circumvallation. … When the spring of 427 B. C. arrived, the Spartans determined to make a serious attempt to send aid to Lesbos; but the fear of imperiling all their naval resources in a single expedition kept them from despatching a fleet of sufficient size. Only 42 galleys, under an admiral named Alcidas, were sent forth from Corinth. This squadron managed to cross the Aegean without meeting the Athenians, by steering a cautious and circuitous course among the islands. But so much time was lost on the way, that on arriving off Embatum in Ionia, Ælia found that Mitylene had surrendered just seven days before. … Learning the fall of Mitylene, he made off southward, and, after intercepting many merchant vessels off the Ionian coast and brutally slaying their crews, returned to Corinth without having struck a single blow for the cause of Sparta. Paches soon reduced Antissa, Eresus, and Pyrrha, the three Lesbian towns which had joined in the revolt of Mitylene, and was then able to sail home, taking with him the Laconian general Salaethus, who had been caught in hiding at Mitylene, together with the other leaders of the revolt. When the prisoners arrived at Athens Salaethus was at once put to death without a trial. But the fate of the Lesbians was the subject of an important and characteristic debate in the Ecclesia. Led by the demagogue Cleon, the Athenians at first passed the monstrous resolution that the whole of the Mitylenaeans, not merely the prisoners at Athens, but every adult male in the city, should be put to death, and their wives and families sold as slaves. It is some explanation but no excuse for this horrible decree that Lesbos had been an especially favoured ally, and that its revolt had for a moment put Athens in deadly fear of a general rising of Ionia and Aeolis. Cleon the leather-seller, the author of this infamous decree, was one of the statesmen of a coarse and inferior stamp, whose rise had been rendered possible by the democratic changes which Pericles had introduced into the state. … On the eve of the first day of debate the motion of Cleon had been passed, and a galley sent off to Paches at Mitylene, bidding him slay all the Lesbians; but on the next morning … the decree of Cleon was rescinded by a small majority, and a second galley sent off to stay Paches from the massacre. … By extraordinary exertions the bearers of the reprieve contrived to reach Lesbos only a few hours after Paches had received the first despatch, and before he had time to put it into execution. Thus the majority of the Mitylenaeans were saved; but all their leaders and prominent men, not less than 1,000 in number, were put to death. … The land of the Lesbians was divided into 3,000 lots, of which a tenth was consecrated to the gods, while the rest were granted out to Athenian cleruchs, who became the landlords of the old owners."

ALSO IN: Thucydides, History, book 2, sections 80-92, and book 3, sections 1-50.

GREECE: B. C. 425.
   The Peloponnesian War:
   Spartan catastrophe at Sphacteria.
   Peace pleaded for and refused by Athens.

In the seventh year of the Peloponnesian War (B. C. 425), the enterprising Athenian general, Demosthenes, obtained permission to seize and fortify a harbor on the west coast of Messenia, with a view to harassing the adjacent Spartan territory and stirring up revolt among the subjugated Messenians. The position he secured was the promontory of Pylus, overlooking the basin now called the Bay of Navarino, which latter was protected from the sea by the small island of Sphacteria, stretching across its front. The seizure of Pylus created alarm in Sparta at once, and vigorous measures were taken to expel the intruders. The small force of Demosthenes was assailed, front and rear, by a strong land army and a powerful Peloponnesian fleet; but he had fortified himself with skill and stoutly held his ground, waiting for help from Athens. Meantime his assailants had landed 420 men on the island of Sphacteria, and these were mostly hoplites, or heavy-armed soldiers, from the best citizenship of Sparta. In this situation an Athenian fleet made its sudden and unexpected appearance, defeated the Peloponnesian fleet completely, took possession of the harbor and surrounded the Spartans on Sphacteria with a ring from which there was no escape. To obtain the release of these citizens the Spartans were reduced to plead for peace on almost any terms, and Athens had her opportunity to end the war at that moment with great advantage to herself. But Cleon, the demagogue, persuaded the people to refuse peace. The beleaguered hoplites on Sphacteria were made prisoners by force, and little came of it in the end.

Pylus remained in the possession of the Athenians until
B. C. 408, when it was retaken by the Spartans.

GREECE: B. C. 424-421.
   The Peloponnesian War:
   Brasidas in Chalcidice.
   Athenian defeat at Delium.
   A year's Truce.
   Renewed hostilities.
   Death of Brasidas and Cleon at Amphipolis.
   The Peace of Nikias (Nicias).

"About the beginning of 424 B. C. Brasidas did for Sparta what Demosthenes had done for the Athenians. Just as Demosthenes had understood that the severest blow which he could inflict on Sparta was to occupy the coasts of Laconia, so Brasidas understood that the most effective method of assailing the Athenians was to arouse the allies to revolution, and by all means to aid the uprising. But since, from lack of a sufficient naval force, he could not work on the islands, he resolved to carry the war to the allied cities of the Athenians situated on the coast of Macedonia; especially since Perdikkas, king of Macedonia, the inhabitants of Chalkidike, and some other districts subject to the Athenians, had sought the assistance of Sparta, and had asked Brasidas to lead the undertaking. Sparta permitted his departure, but so little did she appear disposed to assist him, that she granted him only 700 Helots. In addition to these, however, he succeeded, through the money sent from Chalkidike, in enrolling about 1,000 men from the Peloponnesus. With this small force of 1,700 hoplites, Brasidas resolved to undertake this adventurous and important expedition. He started in the spring of 424, and reached Macedonia through eastern Hellas and Thessaly. He effected the march with great daring and wisdom, and on his way he also saved Megara, which was in extreme danger from the Athenians. Reaching Macedonia and uniting forces with Perdikkas, Brasidas detached from the Athenians many cities, promising them liberty from the tyranny they suffered, and their association in the Peloponnesian alliance on equal terms. He made good these promises by great military experience and perfectly honest dealings. In December he became master of Amphipolis, perhaps the most important of all the foreign possessions of Athens. The historian Thucydides, to whom was intrusted the defense of that important town, was at Thasos when Brasidas surprised it. He hastened to the assistance of the threatened city, but did not arrive in time to prevent its capture. Dr. Thirlwall says it does not appear that human prudence and activity could have accomplished anything more under the same circumstances; yet his unavoidable failure proved the occasion of a sentence under which he spent twenty years of his life in exile, where he composed his history. … The revolution of the allied cities in Macedonia astonished the Athenians, who almost at the same time sustained other misfortunes. Following the advice of Kleon, instead of directing their main efforts to the endangered Chalkidike, they decided, about the middle of 424, to recover Bœotia itself, in conjunction as usual with some malcontents in the Bœotian towns, who desired to break down and democratize the oligarchical governments. The undertaking, however, was not merely unsuccessful, but attended with a ruinous defeat. A force of 7,000 hoplites [among them, Socrates, the philosopher—see DELIUM], several hundred horsemen, and 25,000 light-armed under command of Hippokrates, took possession of Delium, a spot strongly situated, overhanging the sea, about five miles from Tanagra, and very near the Attic confines. But while the Athenians were still occupied in raising their fortifications, they were suddenly startled by the sound of the Bœotian pæan, and found themselves attacked by an army of 7,000 hoplites, 1,000 horse, and 500 peltasts. The Athenians suffered a complete defeat, and were driven away with great loss. Such was the change of affairs which took place in 424 B. C. During the preceding year they could have ended the war in a manner most advantageous to them. They did not choose to do so, and were now constantly defeated. Worse still, the seeds of revolt spread among the allied cities. The best citizens, among whom Nikias was a leader, finally persuaded the people that it was necessary to come to terms of peace, while affairs were yet undecided. For, although the Athenians had suffered the terrific defeat near Delium, and had lost Amphipolis and other cities of Macedonia, they were still masters of Pylos, of Kythera, of Methone, of Nisæa, and of the Spartans captured in Sphakteria; so that there was now an equality of advantages and of losses. Besides, the Lacedæmonians were ever ready to lay aside the sword in order to regain their men. Again, the oligarchy in Sparta envied Brasidas, and did not look with pleasure on his splendid achievements. Lately they had refused to send him any assistance whatever: The opportunity, therefore, was advantageous for the conclusion of peace, … Such were the arguments by which Nikias and his party finally gained the ascendency over Kleon, and in the beginning of 423 B. C. persuaded the Athenians to enter into an armistice of one year, within which they hoped to be able to put an end to the destructive war by a lasting peace. Unfortunately, the armistice could not be carried out in Chalkidike. The cities there continued in their rebellion against the Athenians. Brasidas could not be prevailed upon to leave them unprotected in the struggle which they had undertaken, relying on his promises of assistance. The war-like party at Athens, taking advantage of this, succeeded in frustrating any definite conditions of peace. On the other hand, the Lacedæmonians, seeing that the war was continued, sent an ample force to Brasidas. This army did not succeed in reaching him, because the king of Macedonia, Perdikkas, had in the meantime become angered with Brasidas, and persuaded the Thessalians to oppose the Lacedæmonians in their passage. The year of the armistice passed, and Kleon renewed his expostulations against the incompetency of the generals who had the control of affairs in Chalkidike. … The Athenians decided to forward a new force, and intrusted its command to Kleon. He therefore, in August, 422 B. C., started from the Peiræus, with 1,200 hoplites, 300 horsemen, a considerable number of allies, and thirty triremes. Reaching Chalkidike, he engaged in battle against Brasidas in Amphipolis, suffered a disgraceful defeat, and was killed while fleeing. Brasidas also ended his short but glorious career in this battle, dying the death of a hero. The way in which his memory was honored was the best evidence of the deep impression that he had made on the Hellenic world. {1586} All the allies attended his funeral in arms, and interred him at the public expense, in front of the market-place of Amphipolis. … Thus disappeared the two foremost champions of the war—its good spirit, Brasidas, and its evil, Kleon. The party of Nikias finally prevailed at Athens, and that general soon after arranged a conference with King Pleistoanax of Sparta, who was also anxious for peace. Discussions continued during the whole autumn and winter after the battle of Amphipolis, without any actual hostilities on either side. Finally, at the beginning of the spring of 421 B. C., a peace of fifty years was agreed upon. The principal conditions of this peace, known in history as the 'peace of Nikias,' were as follows:

1. The Lacedæmonians and their allies were to restore Amphipolis and all the prisoners to the Athenians. They were further to relinquish to the Athenians Argilus, Stageirus, Acanthus, Skolus, Olynthus, and Spartolus. But, with the exception of Amphipolis, these cities were to remain independent, paying to the Athenians only the usual tribute of the time of Aristeides.

2. The Athenians should restore to the Lacedæmonians Koryphasium, Kythera, Methone, Pteleum, and Atalante, with all the captives in their hands from Sparta or her allies.

3. Respecting Skione, Torone, Sermylus, or any other town in the possession of Athens, the Athenians should have the right to adopt such measures as they pleased.

4. The Lacedæmonians and their allies should restore Panaktum to the Athenians.

When these terms were submitted at Sparta to the consideration of the allied cities, the majority accepted them. The Bœotians, Megarians, and Corinthians, however, summarily refused their consent. The Peloponnesian war was now considered to be at an end, precisely ten years from its beginning; Both the combatants came out from it terribly maimed. Sparta not only did not attain her object—the emancipation of the Hellenic cities from the tyranny of the Athenians—but even officially recognized this tyranny, by consenting that the Athenians should adopt such measures as they choose toward the allied cities. Besides, Sparta obtained an ill repute throughout Hellas, because she had abandoned the Greeks in Chalkidike, who had at her instigation revolted, and because she had also sacrificed the interests of her principal allies. … Athens, on the other hand, preserved intact her supremacy, for which she undertook the struggle. This, however, was gained at the cost of Attica ravaged, a multitude of citizens slain, the exhaustion of the treasury, and the increase of the common hatred."

GREECE: B. C. 421-418.
   The Peloponnesian War:
   New combinations.
   The Argive League against Sparta.
   Conflicting alliances of Athens with both.
   Rising influence of Alcibiades.
   War in Argos.
   Spartan victory at Mantinea.
   Revolution in Argos.

"All the Spartan allies in Peloponnesus and the Boeotians refused to join in this treaty [of Nicias]. The latter concluded with the Athenians only a truce of ten days … , probably on condition, that, if no notice was given to the contrary, it was to be constantly renewed after the lapse of ten days. With Corinth there existed no truce at all. Some of the terms of the peace were not complied with, though this was the case much less on the part of Athens than on that of Sparta. … The Spartans, from the first, were guilty of infamous deception, and this immediately gave rise to bitter feelings. But before matters had come to this, and when the Athenians were still in the full belief that the Spartans were honest, all Greece was startled by a treaty of alliance between Athens and Sparta against their common enemies. This treaty was concluded very soon after the peace. … The consequence was, that Sparta suddenly found herself deserted by all her allies; the Corinthians and Boeotians renounced her, because they found themselves given over to the Athenians, and the Boeotians perhaps thought that the Spartans, if they could but reduce the Eleans to the condition of Helots, would readily allow Boeotia to be subdued by the Athenians. Thus Argos found the means of again following a policy which ever since the time of Cleomenes it had not ventured to think of, and … became the centre of an alliance with Mantinea, 'which had always been opposed to the Lacedaemonians,' and some other Arcadian towns, Achaia, Elis, and some places of the Acte. The Arcadians had dissolved their union, the three people of the country had separated themselves, though sometimes they united again; and thus it happened that only some of their towns were allied with Argos. Corinth at first would listen to neither party, and chose to remain neutral; 'for although for the moment it was highly exasperated against Sparta, yet it had at all times entertained a mortal hatred of Argos, and its own interests drew it towards Sparta.' But when, owing to Sparta's dishonesty, the affairs on the coasts of Thrace became more and more complicated, when the towns refused to submit to Athens, and when it became evident that this was the consequence of the instigations of Sparta, then the relation subsisting between the two states became worse also in Greece, and various negotiations and cavillings ensued. … After much delay, the Athenians and Spartans were already on the point of taking up arms against each other; but then they came to the singular agreement (Olympiad 89, 4), that the Athenians should retain possession of Pylos, but keep in it only Athenian troops, and not allow the Helots and Messenians to remain there. After this the loosened bonds between the Spartans, Corinthians, and Boeotians, were drawn more closely. The Boeotians were at length prevailed upon to surrender Panacton to the Spartans, who now restored it to the Athenians. This was in accordance with the undoubted meaning of the peace; but the Boeotians had first destroyed the place, and the Spartans delivered it to the Athenians only a heap of ruins. The Athenians justly complained, that this was not an honest restoration, and that the place ought to have been given back to them with its fortifications uninjured. The Spartans do not appear to have had honest intentions in any way. … While thus the alliance between Athens and Sparta, in the eyes of the world, still existed, it had in reality ceased and become an impossibility. Another alliance, however, was formed between Athens and Argos (Olympiad 89, 4) through the influence of Alcibiades, who stood in the relation of an hereditary proxenus to Argos. {1587} A more natural alliance than this could not be conceived, and by it the Athenians gained the Mantineans, Eleans, and other Peloponnesians over to their side. Alcibiades now exercised a decisive influence upon the fate of his country. … We generally conceive Alcibiades as a man whose beauty was his ornament, and to whom the follies of life were the main thing, and we forget that part of his character which history reveals to us. … Thucydides, who cannot be suspected of having been particularly partial to Alcibiades, most expressly recognises the fact, that the fate of Athens depended upon him, and that, if he had not separated his own fate from that of his native city, at first from necessity, but afterwards of his own accord, the course of the Peloponnesian war, through his personal influence alone, would have taken quite a different direction, and that he alone would have decided it in favour of Athens. This is, in fact, the general opinion of all antiquity, and there is no ancient writer of importance who does not view and estimate him in this light. It is only the moderns that entertain a derogatory opinion of him, and speak of him as an eccentric fool, who ought not to be named among the great statesmen of antiquity. … Alcibiades is quite a peculiar character; and I know no one in the whole range of ancient history who might be compared with him, though I have sometimes thought of Caesar. … Alcibiades was opposed to the peace of Nicias from entirely personal, perhaps even mean, motives. … It was on his advice that Athens concluded the alliance with Argos and Elis. Athens now had two alliances which were equally binding, and yet altogether opposed to each other: the one with Sparta, and an equally stringent one with Argos, the enemy of Sparta. This treaty with Argos, the Peloponnesians, etc., was extremely formidable to the Spartans; and they accordingly, for once, determined to act quickly, before it should be too late. The alliance with Argos, however, did not confer much real strength upon Athens, for the Argives were lazy, and Elis did not respect them, whence the Spartans had time again to unite themselves more closely with Corinth, Boeotia, and Megara. When, therefore, the war between the Spartans and Argives broke out, and the former resolutely took the field, Alcibiades persuaded the Athenians to send succour to the Argives, and thus the peace with Sparta was violated in an unprincipled manner. But still no blow was struck between Argos and Sparta. … King Agis had set out with a Spartan army, but concluded a truce with the Argives (Olympiad 90, 2); this, however, was taken very ill at Sparta, and the Argive commanders who had concluded it were censured by the people and magistrates of Argos. Soon afterwards the war broke out again, and, when the Athenian auxiliaries appeared, decided acts of hostility commenced. The occasion was an attempt of the Mantineans to subdue Tegea: the sad condition of Greece became more particularly manifest in Arcadia, by the divisions which tore one and the same nation to pieces. The country was distracted by several parties; had Arcadia been united, it would have been invulnerable. A battle was fought (Olympiad 90, 3) in the neighbourhood of Mantinea, between the Argives, their Athenian allies, the Mantineans, and part of the Arcadians ('the Eleans, annoyed at the conduct of the Argives, had abandoned their cause'), on the one hand, and the Spartans and a few allies on the other. The Spartans gained a most decisive victory; and, although they did not follow it up, yet the consequence was, that Argos concluded peace, the Argive alliance broke up, and at Argos a revolution took place, in which an oligarchical government was instituted, and by which Argos was drawn into the interest of Sparta (Olympiad 90, 4). This constitution, however, did not last, and very soon gave way to a democratic form of government. Argos, even at this time, and still more at a later period, is a sad example of the most degenerate and deplorable democracy, or, more properly speaking, anarchy."

GREECE: B. C. 416.
Siege and conquest of Melos by the Athenians.
Massacre of the inhabitants.

"It was in the beginning of summer 416 B. C. that the Athenians undertook the siege and conquest of the Dorian island of Mêlos, one of the Cyclades, and the only one, except Thêra, which was not already included in their empire. Mêlos and Thêra were both ancient colonies of Lacedæmon, with whom they had strong sympathies of lineage. They had never joined the confederacy of Delos, nor been in any way connected with Athens; but, at the same time, neither had they ever taken part in the recent war against her, nor given her any ground of complaint, until she landed and attacked them in the sixth year of the recent war. She now renewed her attempt, sending against the island a considerable force under Kleomêdês and Tisias."

"They desired immediate submission on the part of Melos, any attempt at resistance being regarded as an inroad upon the omnipotence of Athens by sea. For this reason they were wroth at the obstinate courage of the islanders, who broke off all further negotiations, and thus made it necessary for the Athenians to commence a costly circumvallation of the city. The Melians even succeeded on two successive occasions in breaking through part of the wall built round them by the enemy, and obtaining fresh supplies; but no relief arrived; and they had to undergo sufferings which made the 'Melian famine' a proverbial phrase to express the height of misery; and before the winter ended the island was forced to surrender unconditionally. … There was no question of quarter. All the islanders capable of bearing arms who had fallen into the hands of the Athenians were sentenced to death, and all the women and children to slavery."

GREECE: B. C. 415-413.
   The Peloponnesian War:
   Disastrous Athenian expedition against Syracuse.
   Alcibiades a fugitive in Sparta.
   His enmity to Athens.

GREECE: B. C. 413.
   The Peloponnesian War:
   Effects and consequences of the Sicilian expedition.
   Prostration of Athens.
   Strengthening of Sparta.
   Negotiations with the Persians against Athens.
   Peloponnesian invasion of Attica.
   The Decelian War.

"The Sicilian expedition ended in a series of events which, to this day, it is impossible to recall without a feeling of horror. … Since the Persian wars it had never come to pass, that on the one side all had been so completely lost, while on the other all was won. … When the Athenians recovered from the first stupefaction of grief, they called to mind the causes of the whole calamity, and hereupon in passionate fury turned round upon all who had advised the expedition, or who had encouraged vain hopes of victory, as orators, prophets, or soothsayers. Finally, the general excitement passed into the phase of despair and terror, conjuring up dangers even greater and more imminent than existed in reality. The citizens every day expected to see the Sicilian fleet with the Peloponnesians appear off the harbor, to take possession of the defenceless city; and they believed that the last days of Athens had arrived. … Athens had risked all her military and naval resources for the purpose of overcoming Syracuse. More than 200 ships of state, with their entire equipment, had been lost; and if we reckon up the numbers despatched on successive occasions to Sicily, the sum total, inclusive of the auxiliary troops, may be calculated at about 60,000 men. A squadron still lay in the waters of Naupactus; but even this was in danger and exposed to attack from the Corinthians, who had equipped fresh forces. The docks and naval arsenals were empty, and the treasury likewise. In the hopes of enormous booty and an abundance of new revenues, no expense had been spared; and the resources of the city were entirely exhausted. … But, far heavier than the material losses in money, ships, and men, was the moral blow which had been received by Athens, and which was more dangerous in her case than in that of any other state, because her whole power was based on the fear inspired in the subject states, so long as they saw the fleets of Athens absolutely supreme at sea. The ban of this fear had now been removed; disturbances arose in those island-states which were most necessary to Athens, and whose existence seemed to be most indissolubly blended with that of Attica, —in Eubœa, Chios, and Lesbos; everywhere the oligarchical parties raised their head, in order to overthrow the odious dominion of Athens. … Sparta, on the other hand, had in the course of a few months, without sending out an army or incurring any danger or losses, secured to herself the greatest advantages, such as she could not have obtained from the most successful campaign. Gylippus had again proved the value of a single Spartan man: inasmuch as in the hour of the greatest danger his personal conduct had altered the course of the most important and momentous transaction of the entire war. He was, in a word, the more fortunate successor of Brasidas. The authority of Sparta in the Peloponnesus, which the peace of Nicias had weakened, was now restored; with the exception of Argos and Elis, all her allies were on amicable terms with her; the brethren of her race beyond the sea, who had hitherto held aloof, had, by the attack made by the Athenian invasion, been drawn into the war, and had now become the most zealous and ardent allies of the Peloponnesians. … Moreover, the Athenians had driven the most capable of all living statesmen and commanders into the enemy's camp. No man was better adapted than Alcibiades for rousing the slowly-moving Lacedæmonians to energetic action; and it was he who supplied them with the best advice, and with the most accurate information as to Athenian politics and localities. Lastly, the Spartans were at the present time under a warlike king, the enterprising and ambitious Agis, the son of Archidamus. … Nothing was now required, except pecuniary means. And even these now unexpectedly offered themselves to the Spartans, in consequence of the events which had in the meantime occurred in the Persian empire. … Everywhere [in that empire] sedition raised its head, particularly in Asia Minor. Pissuthnes, the son of Hystaspes, who had on several previous occasions interfered in Greek affairs, rose in revolt. He was supported by Greek soldiers, under the command of an Athenian of the name of Lycon. The treachery of the latter enabled Darius to overthrow Pissuthnes, whose son, Amorges, maintained himself by Athenian aid in Caria. After the fall of Pissuthnes, Tissaphernes and Pharnabazus appear in Asia Minor as the first dignitaries of the Great King. Tissaphernes succeeded Pissuthnes as satrap in the maritime provinces. He was furious at the assistance offered by Athens to the party of his adversary; moreover, the Great King (possibly in consequence of the Sicilian war and the destruction of the Attic fleet) demanded that the tributes long withheld by the coast-towns, which were still regarded as subject to the Persian empire, should now be levied. Tissaphernes was obliged to pay the sums according to the rate at which they were entered in the imperial budget of Persia; and thus, in order to reimburse himself, found himself forced to pursue a war policy. … Everything now depended for the satrap upon obtaining assistance from a Greek quarter. He found opportunities for this purpose in Ionia itself, in all the more important cities of which a Persian party existed. … The most important and only independent power in Ionia was Chios. Here the aristocratic families had with great sagacity contrived to retain the government. … It was their government which now became the focus of the conspiracy against Athens, in the first instance establishing a connection on the opposite shore with Erythræ. Hereupon Tissaphernes opened negotiations with both cities, and in conjunction with them despatched an embassy to Peloponnesus charged with persuading the Spartans to place themselves at the head of the Ionian movement, the satrap at the same time promising to supply pay and provisions to the Peloponnesian forces. The situation of Pharnabazus was the same as that of Tissaphernes. Pharnabazus was the satrap of the northern province. … Pharnabazus endeavored to outbid Tissaphernes in his promises; and two powerful satraps became rival suitors for the favor of Sparta, to whom they offered money and their alliance. … While thus the most dangerous combinations were on all sides forming against Athens, the war had already broken out in Greece. This time Athens had been the first to commence direct hostilities. … A Peloponnesian army under Agis invaded Attica, with the advent of the spring of B. C. 413 (Olympiad xci. 3); at which date it was already to be anticipated how the Sicilian war would end. For twelve years Attica had been spared hostile invasions, and the vestiges of former wars had been effaced. {1589} The present devastations were therefore doubly ruinous; while at the same time it was now impossible to take vengeance upon the Peloponnesians by means of naval expeditions. And the worst point in the case was that they were now fully resolved, instead of recurring to their former method of carrying on the war and undertaking annual campaigns, to occupy permanently a fortified position on Attic soil." The invaders seized a strong position at Decelea, only fourteen miles northward from Athens, on a rocky peak of Mount Parnes, and fortified themselves so strongly that the Athenians ventured on no attempt to dislodge them. From this secure station they ravaged the surrounding country at pleasure. "This success was of such importance that even in ancient times it gave the name of the Decelean War to the entire last division of the Peloponnesian War. The occupation of Decelea forms the connecting link between the Sicilian War and the Attico-Peloponnesian, which now broke out afresh. … Its immediate object … it failed to effect; inasmuch as the Athenians did not allow it to prevent their despatching a fresh armament to Sicily. But when, half a year later, all was lost, the Athenians felt more heavily than ever the burden imposed upon them by the occupation of Decelea. The city was cut off from its most important source of supplies, since the enemy had in his power the roads communicating with Eubœa. … One-third of Attica no longer belonged to the Athenians, and even in the immediate vicinity of the city communication was unsafe; large numbers of the country-people, deprived of labor and means of subsistence, thronged the city; the citizens were forced night and day to perform the onerous duty of keeping watch."

GREECE: B. C. 413-412.
   The Peloponnesian War:
   Revolt of Chios, Miletus, Lesbos, and Rhodes from Athens.
   Revolution at Samos.
   Intrigues of Alcibiades for a revolution at Athens and for his
   own recall.

"Alkibiades … persuaded the Spartans to build a fleet, and send it over to Asia to assist the Ionians in revolting. He himself crossed at once to Chios with a few ships, in order to begin the revolt. The government of Chios was in the hands of the nobles; but they had hitherto served Athens so well that the Athenians had not altered the government to a democracy. Now, however, they revolted (B. C. 413). This was a heavy blow to Athens, for Chios was the most powerful of the Ionian States, and others would be sure to follow its example. Miletus and Lesbos revolted in B. C. 412. The nobles of Samos prepared to revolt, but the people were in favour of Athens, and rose against the nobles, killing 200 of them, and banishing 400 more. Athens now made Samos its free and equal ally, instead of its subject, and Samos became the head-quarters of the Athenian fleet and army. … The Athenians … had now manned a fresh navy. They defeated the Peloponnesian and Persian fleets together at Miletus, and were only kept from besieging Miletus by the arrival of a fleet from Syracuse. [This reinforcement of the enemy held them powerless to prevent a revolt in Rhodes, carried out by the oligarchs though opposed by the people.] Alkibiades had made enemies among the Spartans, and when he had been some time in Asia Minor an order came over from Sparta to put him to death. He escaped to Tissaphernes, and now made up his mind to win back the favour of Athens by breaking up the alliance between Tissaphernes and the Spartans. He contrived to make a quarrel between them about the rate of pay, and persuaded Tissaphernes that it would be the best thing for Persia to let the Spartans and Athenians wear one another out, without giving help to either. Tissaphernes therefore kept the Spartans idle for months, always pretending that he was on the point of bringing up his fleet to help them. Alkibiades now sent a lying message to the generals of the Athenian army at Samos that he could get Athens the help of Tissaphernes, if the Athenians would allow him to return from his exile: but he said that he could never return while there was a democracy; so that if they wished for the help of Persia they must change the government to an oligarchy (B. C. 412). In the army at Samos there were many rich men willing to see an oligarchy established at Athens, and peace made with Sparta. … Therefore, though the great mass of the army at Samos was democratical, a certain number of powerful men agreed to the plan of Alkibiades for changing the government. One of the conspirators, named Pisander, was sent to Athens to instruct the clubs of nobles and rich men to work secretly for this object. In these clubs the overthrow of the democracy was planned. Citizens known to be zealous for the constitution were secretly murdered. Terror fell over the city, for no one except the conspirators knew who did, and who did not, belong to the plot; and at last, partly by force, the assembly was brought to abolish the popular government."

GREECE: B. C. 411-407.
   The Peloponnesian War:
   Athenian victories at Cynossema and Abydos.
   Exploits of Alcibiades.
   His return to Athens and to supreme command.
   His second deposition and exile.

While Athens was in the throes of its revolution, "the war was prosecuted with vigour on the coast of Asia Minor. Mindarus, who now commanded the Peloponnesian fleet, disgusted at length by the often-broken promises of Tissaphernes, and the scanty and irregular pay which he furnished, set sail from Miletus and proceeded to the Hellespont, with the intention of assisting the satrap Pharnabazus, and of effecting, if possible, the revolt of the Athenian dependencies in that quarter. Hither he was pursued by the Athenian fleet under Thrasyllus. In a few days an engagement ensued (in August, 411 B. C.), in the famous straits between Sestos and Abydos, in which the Athenians, though with a smaller force, gained the victory, and erected a trophy on the promontory of Cynossema [see CYNOSSEMA] near the tomb and chapel of the Trojan queen Hecuba. The Athenians followed up their victory by the reduction of Cyzicus, which had revolted from them. A month or two afterward, another obstinate engagement took place between the Peloponnesian and Athenian fleets near Abydos, which lasted a whole day, and was at length decided in favour of the Athenians by the arrival of Alcibiades with his squadron of 18 ships from Samos."

Alcibiades, although recalled, had "resolved to delay his return until he had performed such exploits as might throw fresh lustre over his name, and endear him to all classes of his fellow-citizens. With this ambition he sailed with a small squadron from Samos, and having gained information that Mindarus, with the Peloponnesian fleet, had gone in pursuit of the Athenian navy, he hastened to afford his countrymen succour. Happily he arrived at the scene of action, near Abydos, at a most critical moment; when, after a severe engagement, the Spartans had on one side obtained an advantage, and were pursuing the broken lines of the Athenians. … He speedily decided the fortune of the day, completely routed the Spartans, … broke many of their ships in pieces, and took 30 from them. … His vanity after this signal success had, however, nearly destroyed him; for, being desirous of appearing to Tissaphernes as a conqueror instead of a fugitive, he hastened with a splendid retinue to visit him, when the crafty barbarian, thinking he should thus appease the suspicions of the Spartans, caused him to be arrested and confined in prison at Sardis. Hence, however, he found means to escape. … He sailed immediately for the Athenian camp to diffuse fresh animation among the soldiers, and induce them hastily to embark on an expedition against Mindarus and Pharnabazus, who were then with the residue of the Peloponnesian fleet at Cyzicum" (Cyzicus). Mindarus was defeated and killed and Pharnabazus driven to flight (B. C. 410). "Alcibiades pursued his victory, took Cyzicum without difficulty, and, staining his conquest with a cruelty with which he was not generally chargeable, put to death all the Peloponnesians whom he found within the city. A very short space of time elapsed after this brilliant success before Alcibiades found another occasion to deserve the gratitude of Athens," by defeating Pharnabazus, who had attacked the troops of Thrasyllus while they were wasting the territory of Abydos. He next reduced Chalcedon, bringing it back into the Athenian alliance, and once more defeating Pharnabazus, when the Persian satrap attempted to relieve the town. He also recovered Selymbria, and took Byzantium (which had revolted) after a severe fight (B. C. 408). "Alcibiades having raised the fortunes of his country from the lowest state of depression, not only by his brilliant victories, but his conciliating policy, prepared to return and enjoy the praise of his successes. He entered the Piræus [B. C. 407] in a galley adorned with the spoils of numerous victories, followed by a long line of ships which he had taken from the foe. … The whole city came down to the harbour to see and welcome him, and took no notice of Thrasybulus or Theramenes, his fellow-commanders. … An assembly of the people being convened, he addressed them in a gentle and modest speech, imputing his calamities not to their envy, but to some evil genius which pursued him. He exhorted them to take courage, bade them oppose their enemies with all the fresh inspiration of their zeal, and taught them to hope for happier days. Delighted with these assurances, they presented him with a crown of brass and gold, which never was before given to any but the Olympic victors, invested him with absolute control over their naval and military affairs, restored to him his confiscated wealth, and ordered the ministers of religion to absolve him from the curses which they had denounced against him. Theodorus, however, the high-priest, evaded the last part of the decree, by alleging that he had never cast any imprecation on him, if he had committed no offence against the republic. The tablets on which the curses against him had been inscribed were taken to the shore, and thrown with eagerness into the sea. His next measure heightened, if possible, the brief lustre of his triumph. In consequence of the fortification of Decelea by the Lacedæmonians, and their having possession of the passes of the country, the procession to Eleusis, in honour of Athene, had been long unable to take its usual course, and being conducted by sea, had lost many of its solemn and august ceremonials. He now, therefore, offered to conduct the solemnity by land. … His proposal being gladly accepted, he placed sentinels on the hills; and, surrounding the consecrated band with his soldiers, conducted the whole to Eleusis and back to Athens, without the slightest opposition, or breach of that order and profound stillness which he had exhorted the troops to maintain. After this graceful act of homage to the religion he was once accused of destroying, he was regarded by the common people as something more than human; they looked on him as destined never to know defeat, and believed their triumph was certain so long as he was their commander. But, in the very height of his popularity, causes of a second exile were maturing. The great envied him in proportion to the people's confidence, and that confidence itself became the means of his ruin: for, as the people really thought the spell of invincibility was upon him, they were prepared to attribute the least pause in his career of glory to a treacherous design. He departed with a hundred vessels, manned under his inspection, with colleagues of his own choice, to reduce the isle of Chios to obedience. At Andros he once more gained a victory over both the natives and the Spartans, who attempted to assist them. But, on his arrival at the chief scene of action, he found that he would be unable to keep the soldiers from deserting, unless he could raise money to pay them sums more nearly equal to those which the Lacedæmonians offered, than the pay he was able to bestow. He was compelled, therefore, to leave the fleet [at Notium] and go into Caria in order to obtain supplies. While absent on this occasion, he left Antiochus in the command. … To this officer Alcibiades gave express directions that he should refrain from coming to an engagement, whatever provocations he might receive. Anxious, however, to display his bravery, Antiochus took the first occasion to sail out in front of the Lacedæmonian fleet, which lay near Ephesus, under the command of Lysander, and attempt, by insults, to incite them to attack him. Lysander accordingly pursued him; the fleets came to the support of their respective admirals, and a general engagement ensued, in which Antiochus was slain, and the Athenians completely defeated. On receiving intelligence of this unhappy reverse, Alcibiades hastened to the fleet, and eager to repair the misfortune, offered battle to the Spartans; Lysander, however, did not choose to risk the loss of his advantage by accepting the challenge, and the Athenians were compelled to retire. This event, for which no blame really attached to Alcibiades, completed the ruin of his influence at Athens. {1591} It was believed that this, the first instance of his failure, must have arisen from corruption, or, at least, from a want of inclination to serve his country. He was also accused of leaving the navy under the direction of those who had no other recommendation to the charge but having been sharers in his luxurious banquets, and of having wandered about to indulge in profligate excesses. … On these grounds, the people in his absence took from him his command, and confided it to other generals. As soon as he heard of this new act of ingratitude, he resolved not to return home, but withdrew into Thrace, and fortified three castles … near to Perinthus. Here, having collected a formidable band, as an independent captain, he made incursions on the territories of those of the Thracians who acknowledged no settled form of government, and acquired considerable spoils."

Sir T. N. Talfourd, Early History of Greece (Encyclopedia Metropolitana), chapter 11.

GREECE: B. C. 406.
   The Peloponnesian War:
   Battle of Arginusæ.
   Trial and execution of the generals at Athens.

Alcibiades was succeeded by Conon and nine colleagues in command of the Athenian fleet on the coast of Asia Minor. The Athenians, soon afterwards, were driven into the harbor of Mitylene, on the island of Lesbos, by a superior Peloponnesian fleet, commanded by Callicratidas, and were blockaded there with small chance of escape. Conon contrived to send news of their desperate situation to Athens, and vigorous measures were promptly taken to rescue the fleet and to save Mitylene. Within thirty days, a fleet of 110 triremes was fitted out at the Piræus, and manned with a crew which took nearly the last able-bodied Athenian to make it complete. At Samos these were joined by 40 more triremes, making 150 in all, against which Callicratidas was able to bring out only 120 ships from Mitylene, when the relieving armament approached. The two fleets encountered one another near the islands of Arginusæ, off Cape Malea, the southern promontory of Lesbos. In the battle that ensued, which was the greatest naval conflict of the Peloponnesian War, the Athenians were completely victorious; Callicratidas was drowned and no less than 77 of the Peloponnesian ships were destroyed, while the Athenians themselves lost 25. As the result of this battle Sparta again made overtures of peace, as she had done after the battle of Cyzicus, and Athens, led by her demagogues, again rejected them. But the Athenian demagogues and populace did worse. They summoned home the eight generals who had won the battle of Arginusæ, to answer to a charge of having neglected, after the victory, to pick up the floating bodies of the Athenian dead and to rescue the drowning from the wrecked ships of their fleet. Six of the accused generals came home to meet the charge; but two thought it prudent to go into voluntary exile. The six were brought to trial; the forms of legality were violated to their prejudice and all means were unscrupulously employed to work up the popular passion against them. One man, only, among the prytanes—senators, that is, of the tribe then presiding, and who were the presidents of the popular assembly—stood out, without flinching, against the lawless rage of his fellow citizens, and refused, in calm scorn of all fierce threats against himself, to join in taking the unconstitutional vote. That one was the philosopher Socrates. The generals were condemned to death and received the fatal draught of hemlock from the same populace which pressed it a little later to the lips of the philosopher. "Thus died the son of Pericles and Aspasia [one of the generals, who bore his father's name], to whom his father had made a fatal gift in obtaining for him the Attic citizenship, and with him Erasinides, Thrasylus, Lysias, Aristocrates, and Diomedon. The last-named, the most innocent of all, who had wished that the whole fleet should immediately be employed in search of the wrecked, addressed the people once more; he expressed a wish that the decree dooming him to death might be beneficial to the state, and called upon his fellow-citizens to perform the thanksgiving offerings to the saving gods which they, the generals, had vowed on account of their victory. These words may have sunk deep into the hearts of many of his hearers; but their only effect has been to cast a yet brighter halo in the eyes of subsequent generations around the memory of these martyrs. Their innocence is best proved by the series of glaring infractions of law and morality which were needed to ensure their destruction, as well as by the shame and repugnance which seized upon the citizens, when they had recognized how fearfully, they had been led astray by a traitorous faction.

Mr. Grote attempts to uphold a view more unfavorable to the generals and less severe upon the Athenian people.

GREECE: B. C. 405.
   The Peloponnesian War
   Decisive battle of Aigospotamoi.
   Defeat of the Athenians.

   After the execution of the generals, "no long time passed
   before the Athenians repented of their madness and their
   crimes: but, yielding still to their old besetting sin, they
   insisted, as they had done in the days of Miltiades and after
   the catastrophe at Syracuse, on throwing the blame not on
   themselves but on their advisers. This great crime began at
   once to produce its natural fruits. The people were losing
   confidence in their officers, who, in their turn, felt that no
   services to the state could secure them against illegal
   prosecutions and arbitrary penalties. Corruption was eating
   its way into the heart of the state, and treason was losing
   its ugliness in the eyes of many who thought themselves none
   the worse for dallying with it. … The Athenian fleet had
   fallen back upon Samos; and with this island as a base, the
   generals were occupying themselves with movements, not for
   crushing the enemy, but for obtaining money. … The Spartans,
   whether at home or on the Asiatic coast, were now well aware
   that one more battle would decide the issue of the war; for
   with another defeat the subsidies of the Persians would be
   withdrawn from them as from men doomed to failure, and perhaps
   be transferred to the Athenians. In the army and fleet the cry
   was raised that Lysandros was the only man equal to the
   emergency. Spartan custom could not appoint the same man twice
   to the office of admiral; but when Arakos was sent out with
   Lysandros [Lysander] as his secretary, it was understood that
   the latter was really the man in power."
{1592}
   In the summer of 405 B. C. Lysandros made a sudden movement
   from the southern Ægean to the Hellespont, and laid siege to
   the rich town of Lampsacus, on the Asiatic side. The Athenians
   followed him, but not promptly enough to save Lampsacus, which
   they found in his possession when they arrived. They took
   their station, thereupon, at the mouth of the little stream
   called the Aigospotamoi (the Goat's Stream), directly opposite
   to Lampsacus, and endeavored for four successive days to
   provoke Lysandros to fight. He refused, watching his
   opportunity for the surprise which he effected on the fifth
   day, when he dashed across the narrow channel and caught the
   Athenian ships unprepared, their crews mostly scattered on
   shore. One only, of the six Athenian generals, Conon, had
   foreseen danger and was alert. Conon, with twelve triremes,
   escaped. The remaining ships, about one hundred and seventy in
   number, were captured almost without the loss of a man on the
   Peloponnesian side. Of the crews, some three or four thousand
   Athenians were pursued on shore and taken prisoners, to be
   afterwards slaughtered in cold blood. Two of the incapable
   generals shared their fate. Of the other generals who escaped,
   some at least were believed to have been bribed by Lysandros
   to betray the fleet into his hands. The blow to Athens was
   deadly. She had no power of resistance left, and when her
   enemies closed around her, a little later, she starved within
   her walls until resistance seemed no longer heroic, and then
   gave herself up to their mercy.

GREECE: B. C. 401-400.
The expedition of Cyrus, and the Retreat of the Ten Thousand
Greeks.

GREECE: B. C. 399-387.
   Spartan war with Persia.
   Greek confederacy against Sparta.
   The Corinthian War.
   Peace of Antalcidas.

The successful retreat of the Ten Thousand from Cunaxa, through the length of the Persian dominions (B. C. 401-400), and the account which they brought of the essential hollowness of the power of the Great King, produced an important change among the Greeks in their estimate of the Persian monarchy as an enemy to be feared. Sparta became ashamed of having abandoned the Greek cities of Asia Minor to their old oppressors, as she did after breaking the strength of their protector, Athens, in the Peloponnesian War. When, therefore, the Persians began to lay siege to the coast cities which resisted them, Sparta found spirit enough to interfere (B. C. 399) and sent over a small army, into which the surviving Cyreans were also enlisted. The only immediate result was a truce with the Persian satrap. But, meantime, the Athenian general Conon—he who escaped with a few triremes from Ægospotami and fled to Cyprus—had there established relations with the Persian court at Susa and had acquired a great influence, which he used to bring about the creation of a powerful Persian armament against Sparta, himself in command. The news of this armament, reaching Sparta, provoked the latter to a more vigorous prosecution of the war in Asia Minor. King Agesilaus took the field in Ionia with a strong army and conducted two brilliant campaigns (B. C. 396-395), pointing the way, as it were, to the expedition of Alexander a couple of generations later. The most important victory won was on the Pactolus, not far from Sardis. But, in the midst of his successes, Agesilaus was called home by troubles which arose in Greece. Sparta, by her arrogance and oppressive policy, had already alienated all the Greek states which helped her to break down Athens in the Peloponnesian War. Persian agents, with money, had assisted her enemies to organize a league against her. Thebes and Athens, first, then Argos and Corinth, with several of the lesser states, became confederated in an agreement to overthrow her domination. In an attempt to crush Thebes, the Spartans were badly beaten at Haliartus (B. C. 395), where their famous Lysander, conqueror of Athens, was killed. Their power in central and northern Greece was virtually annihilated, and then followed a struggle with their leagued enemies for the control or the Corinthian isthmus, whence came the name of the Corinthian War. It was this situation of things at home which called back King Agesilaus from his campaigns in Asia Minor. He had scarcely crossed the Hellespont on his return, in July B. C. 394, before all his work in Asia was undone by an overwhelming naval victory achieved at Cnydus by the Athenian Conon, commanding the Persian-Phœnician fleet. With his veteran army, including the old Cyreans, now returning home after seven years of incredible adventures and hardships, he made his way through all enemies into Bœotia and fought a battle with the league at Coronea, in which he so far gained a victory that he held the field, although the fruits of it were doubtful. The Spartans on the isthmus had also just gained a considerable success near Corinth, on the banks of the Nemea. On the whole, the results of the war were in their favor, until Conon and the Persian satrap, Pharnabazus, came over with the victorious fleet from Cnydus and lent its aid to the league. The most important proceeding of Conon was to rebuild (B. C. 393), with the help of his Persian friends, the Long Walls of Athens, which the Peloponnesians had required to be thrown down eleven years before. By this means he restored to Athens her independence and secured for her a new career of commercial prosperity. During six years more the war was tediously prolonged, without important or decisive events, while Sparta intrigued to detach the Persian king from his Athenian allies and the latter intrigued to retain his friendship. In the end, all parties were exhausted—Sparta, perhaps, least so—and accepted a shameful peace which was practically dictated by the Persian and had the form of an edict or mandate from Susa, in the following terms: "The king, Artaxerxes, deems it just that the cities in Asia, with the islands of Clazomenae and Cyprus, should belong to himself; the rest of the Hellenic cities he thinks it just to leave independent, both small and great, with the exception of Lemnos, Imbros, and Scyros, which three are to belong to Athens as of yore. Should any of the parties concerned not accept this peace, I, Artaxerxes, will war against him or them with those who share my views. {1593} This will I do by land and by sea, with ships and with money." By this, called the Peace of Antalcidas (B. C. 387) from the Lacedæmonian who was instrumental in bringing it about, the Ionian Greeks were once more abandoned to the Persian king and his satraps, while Sparta, which assumed to be the administrator and executor of the treaty, was confirmed in her supremacy over the other Grecian states.

      G. Rawlinson,
      The Five Great Monarchies,
      volume 3; Persia, chapter 7.

The Mantineians, having displayed unfriendliness to Sparta during the Corinthian War, were required by the latter, after the Peace of Antalcidas, to demolish their walls. On their refusal, king Agesipolis was sent to subdue them. By damming up the waters of the river Ophis he flooded the city and brought it to terms. "The city of Mantineia was now broken up, and the inhabitants were distributed again into the five constituent villages. Out of four-fifths of the population each man pulled down his house in the city, and rebuilt it in the village near to which his property lay. The remaining fifth continued to occupy Mantineia as a village. Each village was placed under oligarchical government and left unfortified."

When the Spartans sent their expedition against Olynthus, in 383 B. C., it marched in two divisions, the last of which, under Phoebidas, halted at Thebes, on the way, probably having secret orders to do so. "On reaching Thebes the troops encamped outside the city, round the gymnasium. Faction was rife within the city. The two polemarchs in office, Ismenias and Leontiades, were diametrically opposed, being the respective heads of antagonistic political clubs. Hence it was that, while Ismenias, ever inspired by hatred to the Lacedaemonians, would not come anywhere near the Spartan general, Leontiades, on the other hand, was assiduous in courting him; and when a sufficient intimacy was established between them, he made a proposal as follows: 'You have it in your power,' he said, addressing Phoebidas, 'this very day to confer supreme benefit on your country. Follow me with your hoplites, and I will introduce you into the citadel.'"

"On the day of the Thesmophoria, a religious festival celebrated by the women apart from the men, during which the acropolis, or Kadmeia, was consecrated to their exclusive use, Phœbidas, affecting to have concluded his halt, put himself in march to proceed as if towards Thrace; seemingly rounding the walls of Thebes, but not going into it. The Senate was actually assembled in the portico of the agora, and the heat of a summer's noon had driven everyone out of the streets, when Leontiades, stealing away from the Senate, hastened on horseback to overtake Phœbidas, caused him to face about, and conducted the Lacedæmonians straight up to the Kadmeia; the gates of which, as well as those of the town, were opened to his order as Polemarch. There were not only no citizens in the streets, but none even in the Kadmeia; no male person being permitted to be present at the feminine Thesmophoria; so that Phœbidas and his army became possessed of the Kadmeia without the smallest opposition. … The news of the seizure of the Kadmeia and of the revolution at Thebes [was] … received at Sparta with the greatest surprise, as well as with a mixed feeling of shame and satisfaction. Everywhere throughout Greece, probably, it excited a greater sensation than any event since the battle of Ægospotami. Tried by the recognised public law of Greece, it was a flagitions iniquity, for which Sparta had not the shadow of a pretence. … It stood condemned by the indignant sentiment of all Greece, unwillingly testified even by the philo-Laconian Xenophon himself. But it was at the same time an immense accession to Spartan power. … Phœbidas might well claim to have struck for Sparta the most important blow since Ægospotami, relieving her from one of her two really formidable enemies."

Among the Greek cities which were founded at an early day in that peninsula of Macedonia called Chalcidice, from Chalcis, in Eubœa, which colonized the greater number of them, Olynthus became the most important. It long maintained its independence against the Macedonian kings, on one hand, and against Athens, when Athens ruled the Ægean and its coasts, on the other. As it grew in power, it took under its protection the lesser towns of the peninsula and adjacent Macedonia, and formed a confederacy among them, which gradually extended to the larger cities and acquired a formidable character. But two of the Chalcidian cities watched this growth of Olynthus with jealousy and refused to be confederated with her. More than that, they joined the Macedonians in sending an embassy (B. C. 383) to Sparta, then all-powerful in Greece, after the Peace of Antalcidas, and invoked her intervention, to suppress the rising Olynthian confederacy. The response of Sparta was prompt, and although the Olynthians defended themselves with valor, inflicting one severe defeat upon the Lacedæmonian allies, they were forced at last (B. C. 379) to submit and the confederacy was dissolved. "By the peace of Antalkidas, Sparta had surrendered the Asiatic Greeks to Persia; by crushing the Olynthian confederacy, she virtually surrendered the Thracian Greeks to the Macedonian princes. … She gave the victory to Amyntas [king of Macedonia], and prepared the indispensable basis upon which his son Philip afterwards rose, to reduce not only Olynthus, but … the major part of the Grecian world, to one common level of subjection."

GREECE: B. C. 379-371.
The liberation of Thebes and her rise to supremacy.
The humbling of Sparta.

   For three years after the betrayal of the Acropolis, or
   Cadmea, of Thebes to the Spartans, the city groaned under the
   tyranny of the oligarchical party of Leontiades, whom the
   Spartans supported. Several hundreds of the more prominent of
   the democratic and patriotic party found a refuge at Athens,
   and the deliverance of Thebes was effected at last, about
   December, B. C. 379, by a daring enterprise on the part of
   some of these exiles.
{1594}
   Their plans were concerted with friends at Thebes, especially
   with one Phyllidas, who had retained the confidence of the
   party in power, being secretary to the polemarchs. The leader
   of the undertaking was Melon. "After a certain interval Melon,
   accompanied by six of the trustiest comrades he could find
   among his fellow-exiles, set off for Thebes. They were armed
   with nothing but daggers, and first of all crept into the
   neighbourhood under cover of night. The whole of the next day
   they lay concealed in a desert place, and drew near to the
   city gates in the guise of labourers returning home with the
   latest comers from the fields. Having got safely within the
   city, they spent the whole of that night at the house of a man
   named Charon, and again the next day in the same fashion.
   Phyllidas meanwhile was busily taken up with the concerns of
   the polemarchs, who were to celebrate a feast of Aphrodite on
   going out of office. Amongst other things, the secretary was
   to take this opportunity of fulfilling an old undertaking,
   which was the introduction of certain women to the polemarchs.
   They were to be the most majestic and the most beautiful to be
   found in Thebes. … Supper was over, and, thanks to the zeal
   with which the master of the ceremonies responded to their
   mood, they were speedily intoxicated. To their oft-repeated
   orders to introduce their mistresses, he went out and fetched
   Melon and the rest, three of them dressed up as ladies and the
   rest as their attendant maidens. … It was preconcerted that
   as soon as they were seated they were to throw aside their
   veils and strike home. That is one version of the death of the
   polemarchs. According to another, Melon and his friends came
   in as revellers, and so despatched their victims."

Having thus made way with the polemarchs, the conspirators surprised Leontiades in his own house and slew him. They then liberated and armed the prisoners whom they found in confinement and sent heralds through the city to proclaim the freedom of Thebes. A general rally of the citizens followed promptly. The party of the oppression was totally crushed and its prominent members put to death. The Spartan garrison in the Cadmea capitulated and was suffered to march out without molestation. The government of Thebes was reorganized on a more popular basis, and with a view to restoring the Bœotian League, in a perfected state, with Thebes for its head.

In the war with Sparta which followed, Athens was soon involved, and the Spartans were driven from all their footholds in the Bœotian towns. Then Athens and Thebes quarreled afresh, and the Spartans, to take advantage of the isolation of the latter, invaded her territory once more. But Thebes, under the training of her great statesman and soldier, Epaminondas, had become strong enough to face her Lacedæmonian enemy without help, and in the momentous battle of Leuctra, fought July 6, B. C. 371, on a plain not far from Platæa, the domineering power of Sparta was broken forever. "It was the most important of all the battles ever fought between Greeks. On this day Thebes became an independent power in Greece, and a return of Spartan despotism was henceforth impossible for all times."

      C. Sankey,
      The Spartan and Theban Supremacies,
      chapters 10-11.

GREECE: B. C. 371.
   The Arcadian union.
   Restoration of Mantinea.
   Building of Megalopolis.

One of the first effects of the battle of Leuctra (B. C. 371), which ended the domination of Sparta in Greek affairs, was to emancipate the Arcadians and to work great changes among them. Mantinea, which the Spartans had destroyed, was rebuilt the same year. Then "the chiefs of the parties opposed to the Spartan interest in the principal Arcadian towns concerted a plan for securing the independence of Arcadia, and for raising it to a higher rank than it had hitherto held in the political system of Greece. With a territory more extensive than any other region of Peloponnesus, peopled by a hardy race, proud of its ancient origin and immemorial possession of the land, and of its peculiar religious traditions, Arcadia—the Greek Switzerland—had never possessed any weight in the affairs of the nation; the land only served as a thoroughfare for hostile armies, and sent forth its sons to recruit the forces of foreign powers. … The object was to unite the Arcadian people in one body, yet so as not to destroy the independence of the particular states; and with this view it was proposed to found a metropolis, to institute a national council which should be invested with supreme authority in foreign affairs, particularly with regard to peace and war, and to establish a military force for the protection of the public safety. … Within a few months after the battle of Leuctra, a meeting of Arcadians from all the principal towns was held to deliberate on the measure; and under its decree a body of colonists, collected from various quarters, proceeded to found a new city, which was to be the seat of the general government, and was called Megalepolis, or Megalopolis (the Great City). The site chosen was on the banks of the Helisson, a small stream tributary to the Alpheus. … The city was designed on a very large scale, and the magnitude of the public buildings corresponded to its extent; the theatre was the most spacious in Greece. … The population was to be drawn … from a great number of the most ancient Arcadian towns. Pausanias gives a list of forty which were required to contribute to it. The greater part of them appear to have been entirely deserted by their inhabitants."

"The patriotic enthusiasm, however, out of which Megalopolis had first arisen, gradually became enfeebled. The city never attained that preeminence or power which its founders contemplated, and which had caused the city to be laid out on a scale too large for the population actually inhabiting it."

GREECE: B. C. 371-362.
   Popular fury in Argos.
   Arcadian union and disunion.
   Restoration of Mantinea.
   Expeditions of Epaminondas into Peloponnesus.
   His attempts against Sparta.
   His victory and death at Mantinea.

"In many of the Peloponnesian cities, when the power of Sparta seemed visibly on the wane, internal commotions had arisen, and much blood had been shed on both sides. But now Argos displayed the most fearful example of popular fury recorded in Greek annals, red as they are with tales of civil bloodshed. {1595} The democratic populace detected a conspiracy among the oligarchs, and thirty of the chief citizens were at once put to death. The excitement of the people was inflamed by the harangues of demagogues, and the mob, arming itself with cudgels, commenced a general massacre. When 1,200 citizens had fallen, the popular orators interfered to check the atrocities, but met with the same fate; and, sated at length with bloodshed, the multitude stayed the deadly work. But where the pressure of Spartan interference had been heaviest and most constant, there the reaction was naturally most striking. The popular impulses which were at work in Arkadia [see above] found their first outlet in the rebuilding of Mantineia." But there was far from unanimity in the Arkadian national movement. "In Tegea … public opinion was divided. The city had been treated by Sparta with special consideration, and had for centuries been her faithful ally; hence the oligarchical government looked with disfavour upon the project of union. But the democratical party was powerful and unscrupulous; and, with the help of the Mantineians, they effected a revolution, in which many were killed, and 800 exiles fled to Sparta." The Spartans, under Agesilaos, avenged them by ravaging the plain in front of Mantineia. "This invasion of Arkadia is chiefly important for the pretext which it furnished for Theban intervention. The Mantineians applied for help at first to Athens, and, meeting with a refusal, went on to Thebes. For this request Epameinondas must have been thoroughly prepared beforehand, and he was soon on the march with a powerful army. … On his arrival in the Peloponnese [B. C. 370], he found that Agesilaos had already retired; and some of the Theban generals, considering the season of the year, wished at once to return." But Epameinondas was persuaded by the allies of Thebes to make an attempt upon Sparta itself. "In four divisions the invading host streamed into the land which, according to the proudest boast of its inhabitants, had felt no hostile tread for 600 years. At Sellasia, not ten miles distant from Sparta, the army reunited; and, having plundered and burnt the town, swept down into the valley of the Eurotas, and marched along the left bank till it reached the bridge opposite the city. Within Sparta itself, though a universal terror prevailed, one man rose equal to the emergency. While the men fainted in spirit as they thought how few they were, and how wide their unwalled city, … Agesilaos accepted, not without mistrust, the services of 6,000 helots, collected reinforcements, preserved order, suppressed conspiracy, stamped out mutiny, posted guards on every vantage-ground, and refused to be tempted to a battle by the taunts of foes or the clamours of over-eager friends. … After one unsuccessful cavalry skirmish, the Theban general, who, in a campaign undertaken on his sole responsibility, dared not risk the chance of defeat, decided to leave the 'wasps'-nest' untaken. He completed his work of devastation by ravaging the whole of southern Lakonia, … and then turned back into Arkadia to devote himself to the more permanent objects of his expedition." Messene was now rebuilt (see MESSENIAN WAR, THE THIRD), and "the descendants of the old Messenian stock were gathered to form a new nation from Rhegion and Messene [Sicily], and from the parts of Lybia round Kyrene. … By thus restoring the Messenians to their ancient territory, Epameinondas deprived Sparta at one blow of nearly half her possessions. … At last Epameinondas had done his work; and, leaving Pammenes with a garrison in Tegea, he hastened to lead his soldiers home. At the Isthmus he found a hostile army from Athens," which had been persuaded to send succor to Sparta; but the Athenians did not care to give battle to the conquering Thebans, and the latter passed unopposed. On the arrival of Epameinondas at Thebes, "the leaders of a petty faction threatened to bring him and his colleagues to trial for retaining their command for four months beyond the legal term of office. But Epameinondas stood up in the assembly, and told his simple tale of victorious generalship and still more triumphant statesmanship; and the invidious cavils of snarling intriguers were at once forgotten." Sparta and Athens now formed an alliance, with the senseless agreement that command of the common forces "should be given alternately to each state for five days. … The first aim of the confederates was to occupy the passes of the isthmus," but Epameinondas forced a passage for his army, captured Sikyon, ravaged the territory of Epidauros, and made a bold but unsuccessful attempt to surprise Corinth. Then, on the arrival of reinforcements to the Spartans from Syracuse, he drew back to Thebes (B. C. 368). For a time the Thebans were occupied with troubles in Thessaly, and their Arkadian proteges in Peloponnese were carrying on war against Sparta independently, with so much momentary success that they became over-confident and rash. They paid for their foolhardiness by a frightful defeat, which cost them 10,000 men, whilst no Spartan is said to have fallen; hence the fight was known in Sparta as the Tearless Battle. "This defeat probably caused little grief at Thebes, for it would prove to the arrogant Arkadians that they could not yet dispense with Theban aid; and it decided Epameinondas to make a third expedition into the Peloponnese." The result of his third expedition was the enrolment of a number of Achaian cities as Theban allies, which gave to Thebes "the control of the coast-line of the Corinthian gulf." But the broad and statesmanlike terms on which Epameinondas arranged these alliances were set aside by his narrow-minded fellow citizens, and a policy adopted by which Achaia was "converted from a lukewarm neutral into an enthusiastic supporter of Sparta. In this unsettled state of Greek politics the Thebans resolved to have recourse, like the Spartans before them, to the authority of the Great King. Existing treaties, for which they were not responsible, acknowledged his right to interfere in the internal affairs of Greece." Pelopidas and other envoys were accordingly sent to Susa (E. C. 366), where they procured from Artaxerxes a rescript "which recognised the independence of Messene and ordered the Athenians to dismantle their fleet." But the mandate of the Great King proved void of effect. "After this the confusion in Greece grew infinitely worse. An accident transferred the town of Oropos … from the hands of Athens to those of Thebes; and as the Peloponnesian allies of the Athenians refused to help them to regain it, they broke with them, and, in spite of the efforts of Epameinondas, formed an alliance with Arkadia. … {1596} The Athenians made soon after a vain attempt to seize the friendly city of Corinth, and the disgusted Corinthians, together with the citizens of Epidauros and Phlious, … obtained the grudging consent of Sparta, and made a separate peace with Thebes. As soon as tranquillity was restored in one quarter, in another the flame of war would again burst forth." Its next outbreak (B. C. 365) was between Elis and Arkadia, the former being assisted by Sparta, and its principal event was a desperate battle fought for the possession of Olympia. The Arkadians held part of the city and acquired possession of the sacred treasures in the Olympian temple, which they determined to apply to the expenses of the war. "Raising the cry of sacrilege, the Mantineians, who were jealous both of Tegea and Megalopolis, at once broke loose and shut their gates." Soon afterwards, Mantineia separated herself wholly from the Arkadian confederacy and entered the Spartan alliance. This was among the causes which drew Epameinondas once more, and for the last time, into the Peloponnese (B. C. 362). "The armies of Greece were now gathering from all quarters for the great struggle. On the one side stood Sparta, Athens, Elis, Achaia, and a part of Arkadia, led by Mantineia; on the other side were ranged Boiotia [Thebes], Argos, Messenia, and the rest of Arkadia, while a few of the smaller states—as Phokis, Phlious, and Corinth—remained neutral." At the outset of his campaign, Epameinondas made a bold attempt, by a rapid night march, to surprise Sparta; but a traitorous warning had been given, the Spartans were barricaded and prepared for defence, and the undertaking failed. Then he marched quickly to Mantineia, and failed in his design there, likewise. A pitched battle was necessary to decide the issue, and it was fought on the plain between Mantineia and Tegea, on the 3d day of July, B. C. 362. The fine discipline of the Theban troops and the skilful tactics of Epameinondas had given the victory into his hands, when, "suddenly, the aspect of the battle changed. Except among the light troops on the extreme right, the advance was everywhere stayed. The Spartan hoplites were in full flight, but the conquerors did not stir a step in the pursuit. … The fury of the battle had instantly ceased. … Epameinondas had fallen wounded to death, and this was the result. … Every heart was broken, every arm paralysed. … Both sides claimed the victory in the battle, and erected the usual trophies, but the real advantage remained with the Thebans. … By the peace that ensued, the independence of Messenia was secured, and Megalopolis and the Pan-Arkadian constitution were preserved from destruction. The work of Epameinondas, though cut short, was thus not thrown away; and the power of Sparta was confined within the limits which he had assigned."

GREECE: B. C. 359-358.
First proceedings of Philip of Macedonia.
His acquisition of Amphipolis.

The famous Philip of Macedon succeeded to the Macedonian throne in 359 B. C., at the age of 23. In his youth he had been delivered to the Thebans as one of the hostages given upon the conclusion of a treaty of peace in 368. "His residence at Thebes gave him some tincture of Grecian philosophy and literature; but the most important lesson which he learned at that city was the art of war, with all the improved tactics introduced by Epaminondas. Philip … displayed at the beginning of his reign his extraordinary energy and abilities. After defeating the Illyrians he established a standing army, in which discipline was preserved by the severest punishments. He introduced the far-famed Macedonian phalanx, which was 16 men deep, armed with long projecting spears. Philip's views were first turned towards the eastern frontiers of his dominions, where his interests clashed with those of the Athenians. A few years before the Athenians had made various unavailing attempts to obtain possession of Amphipolis, once the jewel of their empire, but which they had never recovered since its capture by Brasidas in the eighth year of the Peloponnesian war."

The importance of Amphipolis to the Athenians arose chiefly from its vicinity to "the vast forests which clothed the mountains that enclose the basin of the Strymon, and afforded an inexhaustible supply of ship-timber." For the same reason that the Athenians desired ardently to regain possession of Amphipolis their enemies were strong in the wish to keep it out of their hands. Moreover, as the Macedonian kingdom became well-knitted in the strong hands of the ambitious Philip, the city of "the Nine Ways" assumed importance to that rising power, and Philip resolved to possess it. It was at this point that his ambitions first came into conflict with Athens. But the Athenians were not aware of his aims until too late. He deceived them completely, in fact, by a bargain to give help in acquiring Amphipolis for them, and to receive help in gaining Pydna for himself. But when his preparations were complete, he suddenly laid siege to Amphipolis and made himself master of the city (B. C. 358), besides taking Pydna as well. At Athens, "Philip was henceforth viewed as an open enemy, and this was the beginning—though without any formal declaration—of a state of hostility between the two powers, which was called, from its origin, the Amphipolitan War."

GREECE: B. C. 357-336.
   Advancement of Philip of Macedonia to supremacy.
   The Sacred Wars and their consequences.
   The fatal field of Chæronea.
   Philip's preparations for the invasion of Asia.
   His assassination.

A war between the Thebans and their neighbors, the Phocians, which broke out in 357 or 356 B. C., assumed great importance in Greek history and was called the Sacred War,—as two earlier contests, in which Delphi was concerned, had been likewise named. It is sometimes called the Ten Years Sacred War. Thebes, controlling the shadowy Amphictyonic Council, had brought a charge of sacrilege against the Phocians and procured a decree imposing upon them a heavy fine. The Phocians resisted the decree with unexpected energy, and, by a bold and sudden movement, gained possession of Delphi, where they destroyed the records of the Amphictyonic judgment against them. Having the vast accumulation of the sacred treasures of the Delphic temple in their hands, they did not scruple to appropriate them, and were able to maintain a powerful army of mercenaries, gathered from every part of Greece, with which they ravaged the territories of Bœotia and Locris, and acquired control of the pass of Thermopylæ. {1597} In the midst of their successes they were called upon for help by the tyrant of Pheræ in Thessaly, then being attacked by Philip of Macedon (B. C. 353). The Phocians opposed Philip with such success, at first, that he retreated from Thessaly; but it was only to recruit and reanimate his army. Returning presently he overthrew the Phocian army, with great slaughter—Onomarchus, its leader, being slain—and made himself master of all Thessaly. Both Athens and Sparta were now alarmed by this rapid advance into Central Greece of the conquering arms of the ambitious Macedonian, and both sent forces to the help of the Phocians. The former was so energetic that an army of 5,000 Athenian foot-soldiers and 400 horse reached Thermopylæ (May 352 B. C.) before Philip had been able to push forward from Thessaly. When he did advance, proclaiming his purpose to rescue the Delphian temple from sacrilegious robbers, he was repulsed at the pass and drew back. It was the beginning of the struggle for Greek independence against Macedonian energy and ambition. A few months later Demosthenes delivered the first of his immortal orations, called afterwards Philippics, in which he strove to keep the already languishing energy of the Athenians alive, in unfaltering resistance to the designs of Philip. For six years there was a state of war between Philip and the Athenians with their allies, but the conquests of the former in Thrace and the Chalcidian peninsula were steadily pressed. At length (B. C. 346) Athens was treacherously persuaded into a treaty of peace with Philip (the Peace of Philocrates) which excluded the Phocians from its terms. No sooner had he thus isolated the latter than he marched quickly to Thermopylæ, secured possession of the pass and declared himself the supporter of Thebes. The Sacred War was ended, Delphi rescued, Phocis punished without mercy, and Greece was under the feet of a master. This being accomplished, the Peace of Philocrates was doubtfully maintained for about six years. Then quarrels broke out which led up to still another Sacred War, and which gave Philip another opportunity to trample on the liberties of Greece. Curiously, the provoking causes of this outbreak were an inheritance from that more ancient Sacred War which brought ruin upon the town of Cirrha and a lasting curse upon its soil. The Locrians of Amphissa, dwelling near to the accursed territory, had ventured in the course of years to encroach upon it with brick-kilns, and to make use of its harbor. At a meeting of the Amphictyonic Council, in the spring of B. C. 339, this violation of the Sacred Law was brought to notice, by way of retaliation for some offence which the deputies of Amphissa had given to those of Athens. Hostilities ensued between the citizens of Delphi, pushed on by the Amphictyons, on one side, and the Amphissians on the other. The influence of Philip in the Amphictyonic Council was controlling, and his partisans had no difficulty in summoning him to act for the federation in settling this portentous affair. He marched into Bœotia, took possession of the strong city of Elatea, and very soon made it manifest that he contemplated something more than mere dealing with the refractory trespassers of Amphissa. Athens watched his movements with terror, and even Thebes, his former ally, took alarm. Through the exertions of Demosthenes, Thebes and Athens, once more, but too late, gave up their ancient enmity and united their strength and resources in a firm league. Megara, Corinth and other states were joined to them and common cause was made with the Locrians of Amphissa. These movements consumed a winter, and war opened in the spring. Philip gained successes from the beginning. He took Amphissa by surprise and carried Naupactus by storm. But it was not until August—the first day of August, B. C. 338—that the two combatants came together in force. This occurred in the Bœotian valley of the Cephisus, near the town of Chæronea, which gave its name to the battle. The Sacred Band of Thebes and the hoplites of Athens, with their allies, fought obstinately and well; but they were no match for the veterans of the Macedonian phalanx and most of them perished on the field. It was the last struggle for Grecian independence. Henceforth, practically at least, Hellas was swallowed up in Macedonia. We can see very plainly that Philip's "conduct towards Athens after the victory, under the appearance of generosity, was extremely prudent. His object was, to separate the Thebans from the Athenians, and he at once advanced against the former. The Athenian prisoners he sent home, free and clothed, accompanied by Antipater; he ordered the dead bodies to be burned, and their ashes to be conveyed to Athens, while the Thebans had to purchase their dead from him. He then entered Thebes, which he seems to have taken without any resistance, placed a Macedonian garrison in the Cadmea, and, with the same policy which Sparta had followed at Athens after the Peloponnesian war, he established an oligarchy of 300 of his partizans, who were for the most part returned exiles, and who now, under the protection of the garrison in the Cadmea, ruled like tyrants, and raged in a fearful manner. … Philip accepted all the terms which were agreeable to the Athenians; no investigations were to be instituted against his enemies, and none of them was to be sent into exile. Athens was not only to remain a perfectly sovereign city, but retain Lemnos, Imbros, and Scyros, nay even Samos and Chersonnesus, though he might have taken the latter without any difficulty, and though the Athenians had most cleruchiae in Samos. Thus he bought over the Athenians through this peace, against which Demosthenes and others, who saw farther, could not venture to protest, because Philip offered more than they could give him in return. … The only thing which the Athenians conceded to Philip, was, that they concluded a symmachia with him, and conferred upon him the supreme command in the Persian war. For with great cunning Philip summoned an assembly of the Greeks whom he called his allies, to Corinth, to deliberate upon the war against Persia. The war of revenge against the Persians had already become a popular idea in Greece. … Philip now entered Peloponnesus with his whole army, and went to the diet at Corinth, where the Greek deputies received his orders. In Peloponnesus he acted as mediator, for he was invited as such by the Arcadians, Messenians, and Argives, to decide their disputes with Lacedaemon, and they demanded that he should restore to them their ancient territories. {1598} The Arcadians had formerly possessed many places on the Eurotas, and the Messenians were still very far from having recovered all their ancient territories. He accordingly fixed the boundaries, and greatly diminished the extent of Laconia. … The Spartans, on that occasion, behaved in a dignified manner; they were the only ones who refused to acknowledge Philip as generalissimo against Persia. … Even the ancients regarded the day of Chaeronea as the death-day of Greece; every principle of life was cut off; the Greeks, indeed, continued to exist, but in spirit, and politically, they were dead. … Philip was now at the height of his power. Byzantium, and the other allied cities, had submitted to the conqueror, when he sent his army against them, and he was already trying to establish himself in Asia. 'A detachment of troops, under Attalus, had been sent across, to keep open the road for the great expedition, and had encamped on mount Ida.' Philip was thus enabled to commence his passage across the Hellespont whenever he pleased. But the close of his career was already at hand." He was assassinated in August, B. C. 336, by a certain Pausanias, at the instigation, it is said, of Olympias, one of Philip's several wives—and the mother of his famous son Alexander—whom he had repudiated to please a younger bride. "Philip was unquestionably an uncommon and extraordinary man, and the opinion of several among the ancients, that by the foundation of the Macedonian state he did something far greater than Alexander by the application of the powers he inherited, is quite correct. … When we regard him as the creator of his state, by uniting the most different nations, Macedonians and Greeks; … when we reflect what a man he must have been, from whom proceeded the impulse to train such great generals, … to whom Alexander, it must be observed, did not add one, for all Alexander's generals proceeded from the school of Philip, and there is not one whom Alexander did not inherit from Philip;—when we perceive the skill with which he gained over nations and states, … we cannot but acknowledge that he was an extraordinary man."

      T. Leland,
      History of the Life and Reign of Philip of Macedon,
      books 2-5.

GREECE: B. C. 351-348.
The Olynthian War.
Destruction of Olynthus by Philip of Macedonia.

After the overthrow of Spartan domination in Greece, Olynthus recovered its independence and regained, during the second quarter of the fourth century B. C., a considerable degree of prosperity and power. It was even helped in its rise by the cunning, dangerous hand of Philip of Macedon, who secured many and great advantages in his treacherous diplomacy by playing the mutual jealousies of Athens and Olynthus against one another. The Olynthian Confederacy, formed anew, just served its purpose as a counterpoise to the Athenian Confederacy, until Philip had no more need of that service. He was the friend and ally of the former until he had secured Amphipolis, Methone, and other necessary positions in Macedonia and Thrace. Then the mask began to slip and Olynthus (B. C. 351) got glimpses of the true character of her subtle neighbor. Too late, she made overtures to Athens, and Athens, too late, saw the vital importance of a league of friendship between the two Greek confederacies, against the half Hellenic, half barbaric Macedonian kingdom. Three of the great speeches of Demosthenes—the "Olynthiac orations"—were made upon this theme, and the orator succeeded for the first time in persuading his degenerated countrymen to act upon his clear view of the situation. Athens and Olynthus were joined in a defensive league and Athenian ships and men were sent to the Chalcidian peninsula,—too late. Partly by the force of his arms and partly by the power of his gold, buying traitors, Philip took Olynthus (B. C. 348) and all the thirty-two lesser towns that were federated with her. He took them and he destroyed them most brutally. "The haughty city of Olynthus vanished from the face of the earth, and together with it thirty-two towns inhabited by Greeks and flourishing as commercial communities. … The lot of those who saved life and liberty was happy in comparison with the fate of those who, like the majority of the Olynthians, fell into the hands of the conqueror and were sold into slavery, while their possessions were burnt to ashes or flung as booty to the mercenaries. … The mines continued to be worked for the royal treasury; with this exception the whole of Chalcidice became a desert"

The enmity between Athens and Byzantium yielded in 340 B. C. to their common fear of Philip of Macedon, and the exertions of Demosthenes brought about an alliance of the two cities, in which Perinthus, the near neighbor of Byzantium, was also joined. Philip, in wrath, proceeded with a fleet and army against both cities, laying siege, first to Perinthus and afterwards to Byzantium, but without success in either case. He was compelled to withdraw, after wasting several months in the fruitless undertaking. It was one of the few failures of the able Macedonian.

GREECE: B. C. 336-335.
   Northern campaign of Alexander of Macedonia.
   Revolt at Thebes.
   Destruction of the city.

   "Alexander … took up and continued the political and
   military schemes which his father had begun. We first make
   acquaintance with him and his army during his campaign against
   the tribes on the northern frontier of Makedonia. This
   campaign he carried out with energy equal to that of Philip,
   and with more success (spring of 335 B. C.). The distinctive
   feature of the war was that the Makedonian phalanx, the
   organization and equipment of which were adapted from Grecian
   models, everywhere won and maintained the upper hand. … Even
   at this epoch Byzantium was rising into importance. That city
   had, owing to its hostility with Persia, deserted the side of
   the Greeks for that of the Makedonians. It was from Byzantium
   that Alexander summoned triremes to help him against the
   island in the Danube on which the king of the Triballi had
   taken refuge. … The great successes of Alexander induced all
   the neighboring nationalities to accept the proposals of
   friendship which he made to them. … In Greece false reports
   concerning the progress of events in the north had raised to
   fever heat the general ferment which naturally existed.
{1599}
   Alexander relied upon the resolutions of the League of the
   Public Peace [formed by the Congress at Corinth], which had
   recognized his father and afterwards himself as its head. But
   he was now opposed by all those who were unable to forget
   their former condition, and who preferred the alliance with
   Persia which had left them independent, to the league with
   Makedonia which robbed them of their autonomy. … Thebes took
   the lead of the malcontents, and set about ridding herself of
   the garrison which Philip had placed in the Cadmeia. She thus
   became the centre of the whole Hellenic opposition. The
   enemies of Makedon, who had been exiled from every city,
   assembled in Thebes. … The same party was stirring in
   Lakedæmon, in Arcadia, in Ætolia, and, above all, at Athens.
   From Athens the Thebans were supplied, through the mediation
   of Demosthenes, and doubtless by means of Persian gold, with
   arms, of which they were likely to stand in need. …
   Alexander had no sooner settled with his enemies in the north
   than he turned to Hellas. So rapid was his movement that he
   found the pass of Thermopylæ still open, and, long before he
   was expected, appeared before the walls of Thebes." The fate
   of the city was decided by a battle in which the Makedonians
   were overwhelmingly victorious. "In the market-place, in the
   streets, in the very houses, there ensued a hideous massacre.
   … The victors were, however, not satisfied with the
   slaughter. Alexander summoned a meeting of his League, by
   which the complete destruction of Thebes was decreed, and this
   destruction was actually carried out (October, 335 B. C.). [At
   the same time Platæa, which Thebes had destroyed, was ordered
   to be rebuilt.] In Grecian history it was no unheard-of event
   that the members of the defeated nation should be sold into
   slavery, and so it happened on this occasion. The sale of the
   slaves supplied Alexander with a sum of money which was no
   inconsiderable addition to his military chest. But his main
   object was to strike terror, and this was spread through
   Greece by the ruthless destruction of the city of Œdipus, of
   Pindar, and of Epameinondas. … Deep and universal horror
   fell upon the Greeks. … The close connection that existed at
   this moment between Grecian and Persian affairs forbade him to
   lose a moment in turning his arms towards Asia. … A war
   between Alexander and Persia was inevitable, not only on
   account of the relation of the Greeks to Makedon, whose yoke
   they were very loth to bear, but on account of their relation
   to Persia, on whose support they leaned. … The career which
   Philip had begun, and in which Alexander was now proceeding,
   led of necessity to a struggle with the power that held sway
   in Asia Minor. Until that power were defeated, the Makedonian
   kingdom could not be regarded as firmly established."

      L. von Ranke,
      Universal History:
      The Oldest Historical Group of Nations and the Greeks,
      chapter 10, part 2.

GREECE: B. C. 323-322.
   Attempt to break the Macedonian yoke.
   The Lamian War.
   Subjugation of Athens.
   Suppression of democracy.
   Expulsion of poor citizens.
   Death of Demosthenes.

On the death of Alexander the Great, B. C. 323, a party at Athens which still hoped for freedom in Greece set on foot a vigorous movement designed to break the Macedonian yoke. A league was formed in which many cities joined—a larger assemblage of Hellenic states, says Mr. Grote, than that which resisted Xerxes in 480 B. C. A powerful army of Greek citizens and mercenaries was formed and placed under the command of a capable Athenian, Leosthenes, who led it into Thessaly, to meet the Macedonian general Antipater, who now ruled Greece.

The latter was defeated in a battle which ensued, and was driven into the fortified Thessalian town of Lamia, where he was besieged. Unfortunately, Leosthenes was killed during the progress of the siege, and a long interval occurred before a new commander could be agreed on. This gave Antipater time to obtain succor from Asia. A Macedonian army, under Leonnatus, crossed the Hellespont, and the besiegers of Lamia were forced to break up their camp in order to meet it. They did so with success; Leonnatus was slain and his army driven back. But meantime Antipater escaped from Lamia, joined the defeated troops and retreated into Macedonia. The war thus begun, and which took the name of the Lamian War, was continued, not unfavorably to the confederates, on the whole, until the following summer—August, 322 B. C.—when it was ended by a battle fought on the plain of Krannon, in Thessaly. Antipater, who had been joined by Kraterus, from Asia, was the victor, and Athens with all her allies submitted to the terms which he dictated. He established a Macedonian garrison in Munychia, and not only suppressed the democratic constitution of Athens, but ordered all the poorer citizens—all who possessed less than 2,000 drachmæ's worth of property, being 12,000 out of the 21,000 who then possessed the Athenian franchise—to be driven from the city; thus leaving a selected citizenship of 9,000 of the richer and more manageable men. The banished or deported 12,000 were scattered in Thrace, Illyria, Italy and even in northern Africa. The leaders of the anti-Macedonian rising were pursued with unrelenting animosity. Demosthenes, the great orator, who had been conspicuous among them, was dragged from a temple at Kalauria, to which he had fled, and took poison to escape the worse death which probably awaited him.

GREECE: B. C. 321-312.
   The contest for Athens and Peloponnesus, between Cassander and
   Polysperchon.
   Execution of Phocion.
   Restoration of Thebes.

"Antipater, after the termination of the Lamian war, passed
over to Asia and took part in the affairs there.

Being appointed guardian to the Kings, as the children and relatives of Alexander were called, he returned to Macedonia, leading them with him. … Antipater died (Olympiad 115, 3) shortly after his return to Macedonia. He directed that Polysperchon, his ancient mate in arms, should succeed him in his office, while to his son Cassander he left only the second place. But Cassander, an ambitious youth, looked upon his father's authority as his inheritance; and relying on the aid of the aristocratic party in the Grecian states, of Ptolemæus, who ruled in Egypt, and of Antigonus, the most powerful general in Asia, he resolved to dispute it with Polysperchon. {1600} Under pretext of going a-hunting, he escaped out of Macedonia, and passed over to Asia to concert matters with Antigonus. Polysperchon, seeing war inevitable, resolved to detach Greece, if possible, from Cassander. Knowing that the oligarchies established in the different states by Antipater would be likely to espouse the cause of his son, he issued a pompous edict, in the name of the Kings, restoring the democracies. … At Athens (Olympiad 115,4) [B. C. 317], Nicanor, who commanded in the Munychia, finding that the people were inclined toward Polysperchon, secretly collected troops, and seized the Piræeus. The people sent to him Phocion, Conon the son of Timotheüs, and Clearchus, men of distinction, and his friends; but to no purpose. A letter also came to him from Olympias, Alexander's mother, whom Polysperchon had recalled from Epeirus, and given the charge of her infant grandson, ordering him to surrender both the Munychia and the Piræeus; but to as little effect. Finally, Polysperchon's son Alexander entered Attica with an army, and encamped before the Piræeus. Phocion and other chiefs of the aristocracy went to Alexander, and advised him not to give these places up to the people, but to hold them himself till the contest with Cassander should be terminated. They feared, it is evident, for their own safety, and not without reason; for the people, ferocious with the recovery of power, soon after held an assembly, in which they deposed all the former magistrates, appointed the most furious democrats in their room, and passed sentences of death, banishment, and confiscation of goods on those who had governed under the oligarchy. Phocion and his friends fled to Alexander, who received them kindly, and sent them with letters in their favor to his father, who was now in Phocis. The Athenians also despatched an embassy, and, yielding to motives of interest, Polysperchon sent his suppliants prisoners to Athens, to stand a trial for their lives before the tribunal of an anarchic mob. … The prisoners were condemned and led off to prison, followed by the tears of their friends and the triumphant execrations of their mean-spirited enemies. They drank the fatal hemlock-juice, and their bodies were cast unburied beyond the confines of Attica. Four days after the death of Phocion, Cassander arrived at the Piræeus with 35 ships, carrying 4,000 men, given him by Antigonus. Polysperchon immediately entered Attica with 20,000 Macedonian foot and 4,000 of those of the allies, 1,000 horse, and 65 elephants, which he had brought from Asia, and encamped near the Piræeus. But as the siege was likely to be tedious, and sufficient provisions for so large an army could not be had, he left a force such as the country could support with his son Alexander, and passed with the remainder into Peloponnesus, to force the Megalopolitans to submit to the Kings; for they alone sided with Cassander, all the rest having obeyed the directions to put to death or banish his adherents. The whole serviceable population of Megalopolis, slaves included, amounted to 15,000 men; and under the directions of one Damis, who had served in Asia under Alexander, they prepared for a vigorous defence. Polysperchon sat down before the town, and his miners in a short time succeeded in throwing down three towers and a part of the wall. He attempted a storm, but was obliged to draw off his men, after an obstinate conflict. … The Athenians meantime saw themselves excluded from the sea, and from all their sources of profit and enjoyment, while little aid was to be expected from Polysperchon, who had been forced to raise the siege of Megalopolis, and whose fleet had just now been destroyed by Antigonus in the Hellespont. A citizen of some consideration ventured at length to propose in the assembly an arrangement with Cassander. The ordinary tumult at first was raised, but the sense of interest finally prevailed. Peace was procured, on the conditions of the Munychia remaining in Cassander's hands till the end of the present contest; political privileges being restricted to those possessed of ten minas and upwards of property, and a person appointed by Cassander being at the head of the government. The person selected for this office was Demetrius of Phaleron, a distinguished Athenian citizen; and under his mild and equitable rule the people were far happier than they could have been under a democracy, for which they had proved themselves no longer fit. Cassander then passed over into Peloponnesus, and laid siege to Tegea. While here, he heard that Olympias had put to death several of his friends in Macedonia; among the rest, Philip Aridæus and his wife Eurydice, members of the royal family. He at once (Olympiad 116, 1) [B. C. 316] set out for Macedonia; and, as the pass of Pylæ was occupied by the Ætolians, he embarked his troops in Locris, and landed them in Thessaly. He besieged Olympias in Pydna, forced her to surrender, and put her to death. Macedonia submitted to him, and he then set forth for Peloponnesus, where Polysperchon's son Alexander was at the head of an army. He forced a passage through Pylæ, and coming into Bœotia, announced his intention of restoring Thebes, which had now lain desolate for twenty years. The scattered Thebans were collected; the towns of Bœotia and other parts of Greece (Athens in particular), and even of Italy and Sicily, aided to raise the walls and to supply the wants of the returning exiles, and Thebes was once more numbered among the cities of Greece. As Alexander guarded the Isthmus, Cassander passed to Megara, where he embarked his troops and elephants, and crossed over to Epidaurus. He made Argos and Messene come over to his side, and then returned to Macedonia. In the conflict of interests which prevailed in this anarchic period, Antigonus was ere long among the enemies of Cassander. He sent one of his generals to Laconia, who, having obtained permission from the Spartans to recruit in Peloponnesus, raised 8,000 men. The command in Peloponnesus was given to Polysperchon, whose son Alexander was summoned over to Asia to accuse Cassander of treason before the assembly of the Macedonian soldiers. Cassander was proclaimed a public enemy unless he submitted to Antigonus; at the same time the Greeks were declared independent, Antigonus hoping thus to gain them over to his side. He then sent Alexander back with 500 talents; and when Ptolemæus of Egypt heard what Antigonus had done, he also hastened to declare the independence of the Greeks; for all the contending generals were anxious to stand well with the people of Greece, from which country, exclusive of other advantages, they drew their best soldiers. {1601} … Antigonus, to show the Greeks that he was in earnest in his promise to restore them to independence, sent one of his generals, named Telesphorus, with a fleet and army to Peloponnesus, who expelled Cassander's garrisons from most of the towns. The following year (Olympiad 117, 1) [B. C. 312] he sent an officer, named Ptolemæus, with another fleet and army to Greece. Ptolemæus landed in Bœotia, and being joined by 2,200 foot, and 1,300 horse of the Bœotians, he passed over to Eubœa; where having expelled the Macedonian garrison from Chalcis (the only town there which Cassander held), he left it without any foreign garrison, as a proof that Antigonus meant fairly. He then took Orôpus, and gave it to the Bœotians; he entered Attica, and the people forced Demetrius Phalereus to make a truce with him, and to send to Antigonus to treat of an alliance. Ptolemæus returned to Bœotia, expelled the garrison from the Cadmeia, and liberated Thebes."

In the spring of the year 307 B. C. Athens was surprised by an expedition sent from Ephesus by Antigonus, under his adventurous son Demetrius, surnamed Poliorcetes.

The city had then been for ten years subject to Cassander, the ruling chief in Macedonia for the time, and appears to have been mildly governed by Cassander's lieutenant, Demetrius the Phalerian. The coming of the other Demetrius offered nothing to the Athenians but a change of masters, but they welcomed him with extravagant demonstrations. Their degeneracy was shown in proceedings of Asiatic servility. They deified Demetrius and his father Antigonus, erected altars to them and appointed ministering priests. After some months spent at Athens in the enjoyment of these adulations, Demetrius returned to Asia, to take part in the war which Antigonus was waging with Ptolemy of Egypt and Lysimachus of Thrace, two of his former partners in the partition of the empire of Alexander. He was absent three years, and then returned, at the call of the Athenians, to save them from falling again into the hands of Cassander. He now made Athens his capital, as it were, for something more than a year, while he acquired control of Corinth, Argos, Sicyon, Chalcis in Eubœa and other important places, greatly reducing the dominion of the Macedonian, Cassander. His treatment at Athens, during this period, was marked by the same impious and disgraceful servility as before. He was called the guest of the goddess Athene and lodged in the Parthenon, which he polluted with intolerable debaucheries. But in the summer of 301 B. C. this clever adventurer was summoned again to Asia, to aid his father in the last great struggle, which decided the partition of the empire of Alexander between his self-constituted heirs. At the battle of Ipsus (see MACEDONIA: B. C. 310-301), Antigonus perished and Demetrius was stripped of the kingdom he expected to inherit. He turned to Athens for consolation, and the fickle city refused to admit him within her walls. But after some period of wanderings and adventures the unconquerable prince got together a force with which he compelled the Athenians to receive him, on more definite terms of submission on their part and of mastery on his. Moreover, he established his rule in the greater part of Peloponnesus, and finally, on the death of Cassander (B. C. 297), he acquired the crown of Macedonia. Not satisfied with what fortune had thus given him, he attempted to recover the Asiatic kingdom of his father, and died, B. C. 283, a captive in the hands of the Syrian monarch, Seleucus. His Macedonian kingdom had meantime been seized by Pyrrhus of Epirus; but it was ultimately recovered by the eldest legitimate son of Demetrius, called Antigonus Gonatus. From that time, for a century, until the Romans came, not only Macedonia, but Greece at large, Athens included, was ruled or dominated by this king and his descendants, known as the Antigonid kings.

GREECE: B. C. 297-280.
   Death of Cassander.
   Intrigues and murders of Ptolemy Keraunos and his strange
   acquisition of the Macedonian throne.

As the result of the conquests of Alexander and the wars of his successors, there were, in the third century before Christ, three great Hellenistic kingdoms, Macedonia, Egypt, Syria, which lasted, each under its own dynasty, till Rome swallowed them up. The first of these, which was the poorest, and the smallest, but historically the most important, included the ancestral possessions of Philip and Alexander— Macedonia, most of Thrace, 'Thessaly, the mountainous centre of the peninsula, as well as a protectorate more or less definite and absolute over Greece proper, the Cyclades, and certain tracts of Caria. … Next came Egypt, including Cyrene and Cyprus, and a general protectorate over the sea-coast cities of Asia Minor up to the Black Sea, together with claims often asserted with success on Syria, and on the coast lands of Southern Asia Minor. … Thirdly came what was now called Syria, on account of the policy of the house of Seleucus, who built there its capital, and determined to make the Greek or Hellenistic end of its vast dominions its political centre of gravity. The Kingdom of Syria owned the south and south-east of Asia Minor, Syria, and generally Palestine, Mesopotamia, and the mountain provinces adjoining it on the East, with vague claims further east when there was no king like Sandracottus to hold India and the Punjaub with a strong hand. There was still a large element of Hellenism in these remote parts. The kingdom of Bactria was ruled by a dynasty of kings with Greek names—Euthydemus is the chief—who coined in Greek style, and must therefore have regarded themselves as successors to Alexander. There are many exceptions and limitations to this general description, and many secondary and semi-independent kingdoms, which make the picture of Hellenism infinitely various and complicated. There was, in fact, a chain of independent kingdoms reaching from Media to Sparta, all of which asserted their complete freedom, and generally attained it by balancing the great powers one against the other. {1602} Here they are in their order. Atropatene was the kingdom in the northern and western parts of the province of Media, by Atropates, the satrap of Alexander, who claimed descent from the seven Persian chiefs who put Darius I. on the throne. Next came Armenia, hardly conquered by Alexander, and now established under a dynasty of its own. Then Cappadocia, the land in the heart of Asia Minor, where it narrows between Cilicia and Pontus, ruled by sovereigns also claiming royal Persian descent. … Fourthly, Pontus, under its equally Persian dynast Mithridates—a kingdom which makes a great figure in Eastern history under the later Roman Republic. There was moreover a dynast of Bithynia, set up and supported by the robber state of the Celtic Galatians, which had just been founded, and was a source of strength and of danger to all its neighbours. Then Pergamum, just being founded and strengthened by the first Attalid, Philetærus, an officer of Lysimachus, and presently to become one of the leading exponents of Hellenism. … Almost all these second-rate states (and with them the free Greek cities of Heracleia, Cyzicus, Byzantium, &c.) were fragments of the shuttered kingdom of Lysimachus. … We have taken no account of a very peculiar feature extending all through even the Greek kingdoms, especially that of the Selucids—the number of large Hellenistic cities founded as special centres of culture, or points of defence, and organized as such with a certain local independence. These cities, most of which we only know by name, were the real backbone of Hellenism in the world. Alexander had founded seventy of them, all called by his name. Many were upon great trade lines, like the Alexandria which still exists. Many were intended as garrison towns in the centre of remote provinces, like Candahar—a corruption of Iskanderieh, Iskendar being the Oriental form for Alexander. Some were mere outposts, where Macedonian soldiers were forced to settle, and guard the frontiers against the barbarians, like the Alexandria on the Iaxartes. … As regards Seleucus … we have a remarkable statement from Appian that he founded cities through the length and breadth of his kingdom, viz., sixteen Antiochs called after his father, five Laodiceas after his mother, nine Seleucias after himself, three Apameias and one Stratoniceia after his wives. … All through Syria and Upper Asia there are many towns bearing Greek and Macedonian names—Berea, Edessa, Perinthos, Aclæa, Pella, &c. The number of these, which have been enumerated in a special catalogue by Droysen, the learned historian of Hellenism, is enormous, and the first question which arises in our mind is this: where were Greek-speaking people found to fill them? It is indeed true that Greece proper about this time became depopulated, and that it never has recovered from this decay. … Yet … the whole population of Greece would never have sufficed for one tithe of the cities—the great cities—founded all over Asia by the Diadochi. We are therefore driven to the conclusion that but a small fraction, the soldiers and officials of the new cities, were Greeks—Macedonians, when founded by Alexander himself—generally broken down veterans, mutinous and discontented troops, and camp followers. To these were associated people from the surrounding country, it being Alexander's fixed idea to discountenance sporadic country life in villages and encourage town communities. The towns accordingly received considerable privileges. … The Greek language and political habits were thus the one bond of union among them, and the extraordinary colonizing genius of the Greek once more proved itself."

GREECE: B. C. 280-146.
   The Achaian League.
   Its rise and fall.
   Destruction of Sparta.
   Supremacy of Rome.

The Achaian League, which bore a leading part in the affairs of Greece during the last half of the third and first half of the second century before Christ, was in some sense the revival of a more ancient confederacy among the cities of Achaia in Peloponnesus. The older League, however, was confined to twelve cities of Achaia and had little weight, apparently, in general Hellenic politics. The revived League grew beyond the territorial boundaries which were indicated by its name, and embraced the larger part of Peloponnesus. It began about 280 B. C. by the forming of a union between the two Achaian cities of Patrai and Dyme. One by one their neighbors joined them, until ten cities were confederated and acting as one. "The first years of the growth of the Achaian League are contemporary with the invasion of Macedonia and Greece by the Gauls and with the wars between Pyrrhos and Antigonos Gonatas.

   Pyrrhos, for a moment, expelled Antigonos from the Macedonian
   throne, which Antigonos recovered while' Pyrrhos was warring
   in Peloponnesos. By the time that Pyrrhos was dead, and
   Antigonos again firmly fixed in Macedonia, the League had
   grown up to maturity as far as regarded the cities of the old
   Achaia. … Thus far, then, circumstances had favoured the
   quiet and peaceful growth of the League." It had had the
   opportunity to grow firm enough and strong enough, on the
   small scale, to offer some lessons to its disunited and
   tyrannized neighbors and to exercise an attractive influence
   upon them. One of the nearest of these neighbors was Sikyon,
   which groaned under a tyranny that had been fastened upon it
   by Macedonian influence. Among the exiles from Sikyon was a
   remarkable young man named Aratos, or Aratus, to whom the
   successful working of the small Achaian League suggested some
   broader extension of the same political organism. In B. C.
   251, Aratos succeeded in delivering his native city from its
   tyrant and in bringing about the annexation of Sikyon to the
   Achaian League. Eight years later, having meantime been
   elected to the chief office of the League, Aratos accomplished
   the expulsion of the Macedonians and their agents from
   Corinth, Megara, Troizen and Epidauros, and persuaded those
   four cities to unite themselves with the Achaians. During the
   next ten years he made similar progress in Arkadia, winning
   town after town to the federation, until the Arkadian federal
   capital, Megalopolis, was enrolled in the list of members, and
   gave to the League its greatest acquisition of energy and
   brain. In 229 B. C. the skill of Aratos and the prestige of
   the League, taking advantage of disturbances in Macedonia,
   effected the withdrawal of the Macedonian garrisons from
   Athens and the liberation of that city, which did not become
   confederated with its liberators, but entered into alliance
   with them. Argos was emancipated and annexed, B. C. 228, and
   "the League was now the greatest power of Greece.
{1603}
   A Federation of equal cities, democratically governed,
   embraced the whole of old Achaia, the whole of the Argolic
   peninsula, the greater part of Arkadia, together with Phlious,
   Sikyon, Corinth, Megara, and the island of Aigina." The one
   rival of the Achaian League in Peloponnesus was Sparta, which
   looked with jealousy upon its growing power, and would not be
   confederated with it. The consequences of that jealous rivalry
   were fatal to the hopes for Greece which the Achaian union had
   seemed to revive. Unfortunately, rather than otherwise, the
   Lacedæmonian throne came to be occupied at this time by the
   last of the hero-kings of the Herakleid race—Kleomenes. When
   the inevitable collision of war between Sparta and the League
   occurred (B. C. 227-221), the personal figure of Kleomenes
   loomed so large in the conflict that it took the name of the
   Kleomenic War. Aratos was the worst of generals, Kleomenes one
   of the greatest, and the Achaians were steadily beaten in the
   field. Driven to sore straits at last, they abandoned the
   whole original purpose of their federation, by inviting the
   king of Macedonia to help them crush the independence of
   Sparta. To win his aid they gave up Corinth to him, and under
   his leadership they achieved the shameful victory of Sellasia
   (B. C. 221), where all that is worthy in Lacedæmonian history
   came to an end. The League was now scarcely more than a
   dependency of the Macedonian kingdom, and figured as such in
   the so-called Social War with the Ætolian League, B. C.
   219-217. The wars of Rome with Macedonia which followed
   renewed its political importance considerably for a time.
   Becoming the ally of Rome, it was able to maintain a certain
   dignity and influence until the supremacy of the Roman arms
   had been securely proved, and then it sank to the helpless
   insignificance which all Roman alliances led to in the end. It
   was in that state when, on some complaint from Rome (B. C.
   167), a thousand of the chief citizens of Achaia were sent as
   prisoners to Italy and detained there until less than 300
   survived to return to their homes. Among them was the
   historian Polybios. A little later (B. C. 146) there was a
   wild revolt from the Roman yoke, in which Corinth took the
   lead. A few months of war ensued, ending in a decisive battle
   at Leukopetra. Then Corinth was sacked and destroyed by the
   Roman army and the Achaian League disappeared from history.

The series of wars in which the Romans made themselves masters of Greece were known in their annals as the Macedonian Wars. At the beginning, they were innocent of aggression. A young and ambitious but unprincipled king of Macedonia—Philip, who succeeded the able Antigonos Doson—had put himself in alliance with the Carthaginians and assailed the Romans in the midst of their desperate conflict with Hannibal. For the time they were unable to do more than trouble Philip so far as to prevent his bringing effective reinforcements to the enemy at their doors, and this they accomplished in part by a treaty with the Ætolians, which enlisted that unscrupulous league upon their side. The first Macedonian war, which began B. C. 214, was terminated by the Peace of Dyrrachium, B. C. 205. The Peace was of five years duration, and Philip employed it in reckless undertakings against Pergamus, against Rhodes, against Athens, everyone of which carried complaints to Rome, the rising arbiter of the Mediterranean world, whose hostility Philip lost no opportunity to provoke. On the Ides of March, B. C. 200, the Roman senate declared war. In the spring of B. C. 197 this second Macedonian War was ended at the battle of Cynoscephalæ—so called from the name of a range of hills known as the Dog-heads—where the Macedonian army was annihilated by the consul T. Quinctius Flamininus. At the next assembly of the Greeks for the Isthmian Games, a crier made proclamation in the arena that the Roman Senate and T. Quinctius the General, having conquered King Philip and the Macedonians, declared all the Greeks who had been subject to the king free and independent. Henceforth, whatever freedom and independence the states of Greece enjoyed were according to the will of Rome. An interval of twenty-five years, broken by the invasion of Antiochus and his defeat by the Romans at Thermopylæ (see SELEUCIDÆ: B. C. 224-187), was followed by a third Macedonian War. Philip was now dead and succeeded by his son Perseus, known to be hostile to Rome and accused of intrigues with her enemies. The Roman Senate forestalled his intentions by declaring war. The war which opened B. C. 171 was closed by the battle of Pydna, fought June 22, B. C. 168, where 20,000 Macedonians were slain and 11,000 taken prisoners, while the Romans lost scarcely 100 men. Perseus attempted flight, but was soon driven to give himself up and was sent to Rome. The Macedonian kingdom was then extinguished and its territory divided between four nominal republics, tributary to Rome. Twenty years after, there was an attempt made by a pretender to re-establish the Macedonian throne, and a fourth Macedonian War occurred; but it was soon finished (B. C. 146—see above, B. C. 280-146). The four republics then gave way, to form a Roman province of Macedonia and Epirus, while the remainder of Greece, in turn, became the Roman province of Achaia.

GREECE: B. C. 146-A. D. 180.
   Under the Romans, to the reign of Marcus Aurelius.
   Sufferings in the Mithridatic war and revolt,
   and in the Roman civil wars.
   Treatment by the emperors.
   Munificence of Herodes Atticus.

   "It was some time [after the Roman conquest] before the Greeks
   had great reason to regret their fortune. A combination of
   causes, which could hardly have entered into the calculations
   of any politician, enabled them to preserve their national
   institutions, and to exercise all their former social
   influence, even after the annihilation of their political
   existence. Their vanity was flattered by their admitted
   superiority in arts and literature, and by the respect paid to
   their usages and prejudices by the Romans. Their political
   subjection was at first not very burdensome; and a
   considerable portion of the nation was allowed to retain the
   appearance of independence.
{1604}
   Athens and Sparta were honoured with the title of allies of
   Rome. [Athens retained this independent existence, partaking
   something of the position of Hamburg in the Germanic body,
   until the time of Caracalla, when its citizens were absorbed
   into the Roman empire.—Footnote.] The nationality of the
   Greeks was so interwoven with their municipal institutions,
   that the Romans found it impossible to abolish the local
   administration; and an imperfect attempt made at the time of
   the conquest of Achaia was soon abandoned. … The Roman
   senate was evidently not without great jealousy and some fear
   of the Greeks; and great prudence was displayed in adopting a
   number of measures by which they were gradually weakened, and
   cautiously broken to the yoke of their conquerors. … It was
   not until after the time of Augustus, when the conquest of
   every portion of the Greek nation had been completed, that the
   Romans began to view the Greeks in the contemptible light in
   which they are represented by the writers of the capital.
   Crete was not reduced into the form of a province until about
   eight years after the subjection of Achaia, and its conquest
   was not effected without difficulty, after a war of three
   years, by the presence of a consular army. The resistance it
   offered was so obstinate that it was almost depopulated ere
   the Romans could complete its conquest. … The Roman
   government … soon adopted measures tending to diminish the
   resources of the Greek states when received as allies of the
   republic. … If we could place implicit faith in the
   testimony of so firm and partial an adherent of the Romans as
   Polybius, we must believe that the Roman administration was at
   first characterised by a love of justice, and that the Roman
   magistrates were far less venal than the Greeks. … Less than
   a century of irresponsible power effected a wonderful change
   in the conduct of the Roman magistrates. Cicero declares that
   the senate made a traffic of justice to the provincials. …
   But as the government of Rome grew more oppressive, and the
   amount of the taxes levied on the provinces was more severely
   exacted, the increased power of the republic rendered any
   rebellion of the Greeks utterly hopeless. … For sixty years
   after the conquest of Achaia, the Greeks remained docile
   subjects of Rome. … The number of Roman usurers increased,
   and the exactions of Roman publicans in collecting the taxes
   became more oppressive, so that when the army of Mithridates
   invaded Greece, B. C. 86, while Rome appeared plunged in
   anarchy by the civil broils of the partisans of Marius and
   Sylla, the Greeks in office conceived the vain hope of
   recovering their independence. …

Both parties, during the Mithridatic war, inflicted severe injuries on Greece. … Many of the losses were never repaired. The foundations of national prosperity were undermined, and it henceforward became impossible to save from the annual consumption of the inhabitants the sums necessary to replace the accumulated capital of ages, which this short war had annihilated."

"Scarcely had the storm of Roman war passed by, when the Cilician pirates, finding the coasts of Greece peculiarly favorable for their marauding incursions, and tempted by the wealth accumulated in the cities and temples, commenced their depredations on so gigantic a scale that Rome felt obliged to put forth all her military forces for their suppression. The exploits of Pompey the Great, who was clothed with autocratic power to destroy this gigantic evil, fill the brightest chapter in the history of that celebrated but too unfortunate commander. …

The civil wars in which the great Republic expired had the fields of Greece for their theatre. Under the tramp of contending armies, her fertile plains were desolated, and Roman blood, in a cause not her own; again and again moistened her soil.

   But at length the civil wars have come to an end, and the
   Empire introduces, for the first time in the melancholy
   history of man, a state of universal peace. Greece still
   maintains her pre-eminence in literature and art, and her
   schools are frequented by the sons of the Roman aristocracy.
   Her elder poets serve as models to the literary genius of the
   Augustan age. … The historians form themselves on Attic
   prototypes, and the philosophers of Rome divide themselves
   among the Grecian sects, while in Athens the Platonists, the
   Stoics, the Peripatetics, and the Epicureans still haunt the
   scenes with which the names of their masters were inseparably
   associated. … The establishment of the Empire made but
   little change in the administration of Greece. Augustus,
   indeed, showed no great solicitude, except to maintain the
   country in subjection by his military colonies,—especially
   those of Patræ and Nicopolis. He even deprived Athens of the
   privileges she had enjoyed under the Republic, and broke down
   the remaining power of Sparta, by declaring the independence
   of her subject towns. Some of his successors treated the
   country with favor, and endeavored, by a clement use of
   authority, to mitigate the sufferings of its decline. Even
   Nero, the amiable fiddler of Rome, was proud to display the
   extent of his musical abilities in their theatres. … The
   noble Trajan allowed the Greeks to retain their former local
   privileges, and did much to improve their condition by his
   wise and just administration. Hadrian was a passionate lover
   of Greek art and literature. Athens especially received the
   amplest benefits from his taste and wealth. He finished the
   temple of Olympian Zeus; established a public library; built a
   pantheon and a gymnasium; rebuilt the temple of Apollo at
   Megara; improved the old roads of Greece and made new ones.
   … Antoninus and Marcus Aurelius showed good will to Greece.
   The latter rebuilt the temple at Eleusis, and improved the
   Athenian schools, raising the salaries of the teachers, and in
   various ways contributing to make Athens, as it had been
   before, the most illustrious seat of learning in the world. It
   was in the reign of this Emperor, in the second century of our
   era, that one of the greatest benefactors of Athens and all
   Greece lived,—Herodes Atticus, distinguished alike for
   wealth, learning, and eloquence. Born at Marathon, …
   educated at Athens by the best teachers his father's wealth
   could procure, he became on going to Rome, in early life, the
   rhetorical teacher of Marcus Aurelius himself. Antoninus Pius
   bestowed on him the honor of the consulship; but he preferred
   the career of a teacher at Athens to the highest political
   dignities … , and he was followed thither by young men of
   the most eminent Roman families, from the Emperor's down. …
{1605}
   At Athens, south of the Ilissus, he built the stadium … and
   the theatre of Regilla. … At Corinth he built a theatre; at
   Olympia, an aqueduct; at Delphi, a race-course; and at
   Thermopylæ, a hospital. Peloponnesus, Eubœa, Bœotia, and
   Epeirus experienced his bounty, and even Italy was not
   forgotten in the lavish distribution of his wealth. He died in
   A. D. 180."

GREECE: A. D. 330.
Transference of the capital of the Roman Empire to Byzantium
(Constantinople).

GREECE: A. D. 394-395.
   Final division of the Roman Empire between the sons of
   Theodosius.
   Definite organization of the Eastern Empire under Arcadius.

GREECE: A. D. 527-567.
The reign of Justinian at Constantinople.
His recovery of Italy and Africa.

GREECE: A. D. 1205-1261.
   Overthrow of the Byzantine Empire by the Crusaders.
   The Latin Empire of Romania.
   The Greek Empire of Nicæa.
   The dukedoms of Athens and Naxos;
   The principality of Achaia.

      See ROMANIA; GREEK EMPIRE OF NICÆA;
      ATHENS: A. D.1205;
      ACHAIA: A. D. 1205-1387;
      and NAXOS.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1451-1481;
      CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1453, and 1453-1481;
      and ATHENS: A. D. 1456.

GREECE: A. D. 1454-1479.
   War of Turks and Venetians in the Peninsula.
   Siege of Corinth.
   Sack of Athens.
   Massacres at Negropont and Croia.

"The taking of Constantinople by the Turks, and the captivity of the Venetians settled in Pera, threatened [the power of Venice] … in the East; and she felt no repugnance to enter into a treaty with the enemies of her religion. After a year's negotiation, terms were concluded [1454] between the Sultan and Venice; by which her possessions were secured to her, and her trade guaranteed throughout the empire. In virtue of this treaty she continued to occupy Modon, Coron, Napoli di Romania, Argos, and other cities on the borders of the Peninsula, together with Eubœa (Negropont) and some of the smaller islands. But this good understanding was interrupted in 1463, when the Turks contrived an excuse for attacking the Venetian territory. Under pretence of resenting the asylum afforded to a Turkish refugee, the Pasha of the Morea besieged and captured Argos; and the Republic felt itself compelled immediately to resent the aggression. A re-inforcement was sent from Venice to Napoli, and Argos was quickly recaptured. Corinth was next besieged, and the project of fortifying the isthmus was once more renewed. … The labour of 30,000 workmen accomplished the work in 15 days; a stone wall of more than 12 feet high, defended by a ditch and flanked by 136 towers, was drawn across the isthmus. … But the approach of the Turks, whose numbers were probably exaggerated by report, threw the Venetians into distrust and consternation; and, unwilling to confide in the strength of their rampart, they abandoned the siege of Corinth, and retreated to Napoli, from which the infidels were repulsed with the loss of 5,000 men. The Peloponnesus was now exposed to the predatory retaliations of the Turks and Venetians; and the Christians appeared anxious to rival or surpass the Mahomedans in the refinement of their barbarous inflictions. … In the year 1465, Sigismondo Malatesta landed in the Morea with a re-inforcement of 1,000 men; and, without effecting the reduction of the citadel, captured and burned Misitra [near the ruins of ancient Sparta]. In the following year, Vittore Cappello, with the Venetian fleet, arrived in the straits of Euripus; and landing at Aulis marched into Attica. After making himself master of the Piræus, he laid siege to Athens; her walls were overthrown; her inhabitants plundered; and the Venetians retreated with the spoil to the opposite shores of Eubœa. The victorious career of Matthias Corvinus, King of Hungary, for a time diverted the Sultan from the war in the Morea; but … in the beginning of the year 1470 a fleet of 108 gallies, besides a number of smaller vessels, manned by a force 70,000 strong, issued from the harbour of Constantinople, and sailed for the straits of Euripus. … The army landed without molestation on the island, which they united to the mainland by a bridge of boats, and immediately proceeded to lay siege to the city of Negropont. … The hopes of the besieged were now centred in the Venetian fleet, which, under the command of Nicolo Canale, lay at anchor in the Saronic Gulf. But that admiral, whilst he awaited a re-inforcement, let slip the favourable opportunity of preventing the debarcation of the enemy, or of shutting up the Turks in the island by the destruction of their half-deserted fleet and bridge of boats. By an unaccountable inactivity, he suffered the city to be attacked, which, after a vigorous resistance of nearly a month, was carried by assault [July 12, 1470]; and all the inhabitants, who did not escape into the citadel, were put to the sword. At length that fortress was also taken; and the barbarous conqueror, who had promised to respect the head of the intrepid governor, deemed it no violation of his word to saw his victim in halves. After this decisive blow, which reduced the whole island, Mahomed led back his conquering army to Constantinople. … This success encouraged the Turks to attack the Venetians in their Italian territory; and the Pasha of Bosnia invaded Istria and Friuli, and carried fire and sword almost to the gates of Udine. {1606} In the following year [1474], however, the Turks were baffled in their attempt to reduce Scutari in Albania, which had been delivered by the gallant Scanderbeg to the guardian care of Venice. Some abortive negotiations for peace suspended hostilities until 1477, when the troops of Mahomed laid siege to Croia in Albania, which they reduced to the severest distress. But a new incursion into Friuli struck a panic into the inhabitants of Venice, who beheld, from the tops of their churches and towers, the raging flames which devoured the neighbouring villages." The Turks, however, withdrew into Albania, where the siege of Croia was terminated by its surrender and the massacre of its inhabitants, and the Sultan, in person, renewed the attack on Scutari. The stubborn garrison of that stronghold, however, resisted, with fearful slaughter, a continuous assault made upon their walls during two days and a night. Mahomed was forced to convert the siege into a blockade, and his troops reappeared in Friuli. "These repeated aggressions on her territories made Venice every day more anxious to conclude a peace with the Sultan," and a treaty was signed in April, 1479. "It was agreed that the islands of Negropont and Mitylene, with the cities of Croia and Scutari in Albania, and of Tenaro in the Morea, should be consigned to the Turk; whilst other conquests were to be reciprocally restored to their former owners. A tribute of 10,000 ducats was imposed upon Venice, and the inhabitants of Scutari [now reduced to 500 men and 150 women] were to be permitted to evacuate the city."

GREECE: A. D. 1645-1669.
The war of Candia.
Surrender of Crete to the Turks by the Venetians.

GREECE: A. D. 1714-1718.
The Venetians expelled again from the Morea by the Turks.
Corfu defended.

GREECE: A. D. 1770-1772.
Revolt against the Turkish rule.
Russian encouragement and desertion.

GREECE: A. D. 1821-1829.
   Overthrow of Turkish rule.
   Intervention of Russia, England and France.
   Battle of Navarino.
   Establishment of national independence.

"The Spanish revolution of 1820 [see SPAIN: A. D. 1814-1827], which was speedily followed by the revolutions of Naples, Sicily, and Piedmont, caused a great excitement throughout Europe, and paved the way for the Greek revolution of 1821. Since the beginning of the century the Greeks had been preparing for the struggle; in fact, for more than fifty years there had been a general movement in the direction of independence. … There had been many insurrections against the Turkish authority, but they were generally suppressed without difficulty, though with the shedding of much Greek blood. Nearly every village in Greece suffered from pillage by the Turks, and the families were comparatively few that did not mourn a father, son, or brother, killed by the Turks or carried into slavery, or a daughter or sister transported to a Turkish harem. … Notwithstanding their subjugation, many of the Greeks were commercially prosperous, and a large part of the traffic of the East was in their hands. They conducted nearly all the coasting trade of the Levant, and a few years before the revolution they had 600 vessels mounting 6,000 guns (for defence against pirates) and manned by 18,000 seamen. … In laying their plans for independence the Greeks resorted to the formation of secret societies, and so well was the scheme conducted that everything was ripe for insurrection before the Turkish rulers had any suspicion of the state of affairs. A great association was formed which included Greeks everywhere, not only in Greece and its islands, but in Constantinople, Austria, Germany, England, and other countries, wherever a Greek could be found. Men of other nationalities were occasionally admitted, but only when their loyalty to the Greek cause was beyond question, and their official positions gave them a chance to aid in the work. Several distinguished Russians were members, among them Count Capo D'Istria, a Greek by birth, who held the office of private secretary to the Emperor Alexander I. of Russia. The society was known as the Hetaira, or Hetairist, and consisted of several degrees or grades. The highest contained only sixteen persons, whose names were not all known, and it was impossible for any member of the lower classes to ascertain them. … All the Hetairists looked hopefully towards Russia, partly in consequence of their community of religion, and partly because of the fellow-feeling of the two countries in cordially detesting the Turk. … The immediate cause of the revolution, or rather the excuse for it, was the death of the Hospodar of Wallachia, January 30, 1821, followed by the appointment of his successor. During the interregnum, which naturally left the government in a weakened condition, the Hetairists determined to strike their blow for liberty. A band of 150 Greeks and Arnauts, under the command of Theodore Vladimiruko, formerly a lieutenant-colonel in the Russian service, marched out of Bucharest and seized the small town of Czernitz, near Trajan's Bridge, on the Danube. There Theodore issued a proclamation, and such was the feeling of discontent among the people, that in a few days he had a force of 12,000 men under his command. Soon afterwards there was an insurrection in Jassy, the capital of Moldavia, headed by Prince Alexander Ipsilanti, an officer in the Russian service. He issued a proclamation in which the aid of Russia was distinctly promised, and as the news of this proclamation was carried to Greece, there was a general movement in favor of insurrection. The Russian minister assured the Porte that his government had nothing to do with the insurrection, and the Patriarch and Synod of Constantinople issued a proclamation emphatically denouncing the movement, but in spite of this assurance and proclamation the insurrection went on. Count Nesselrode declared officially that Ipsilanti's name would be stricken from the Russian army list, and that his act was one for which he alone was responsible. This announcement was the death-blow of the insurrection in Moldavia and Wallachia, as the forces of Theodore and Ipsilanti were suppressed, after some sharp fighting, by the hordes of Moslems that were brought against them. … Nearly the whole of Greece was in full insurrection in a few months, and with far better prospects than had the insurrection on the Danube. {1607} Turks and Greeks were embittered against each other; the war-cry of the Turk was, 'Death to the Christian!' while that of the Christian was, 'Death to the Turk!' The example was set by the Turks, and, to the eternal disgrace of the Turkish government, slaughter in cold blood was made official. It was by the order and authority of the Porte that Gregory, Patriarch of Constantinople, a revered prelate, eighty years of age, was seized on Easter Sunday, as he was descending from the altar where he had been celebrating divine service, and hanged at the gate of his archiepiscopal palace, amid the shouts and howls of a Moslem mob. After hanging three hours, the body was cut down and delivered to some Jews, who dragged it about the streets and threw it into the sea, whence it was recovered the same night by some Christian fishermen. Some weeks later it was taken to Odessa and buried with great ceremony. This act of murder was the more atrocious on the part of the Turks, since the Patriarch had denounced the insurrection in a public proclamation, and his life and character were most blameless and exemplary. It is safe to say that this barbarity had more to do with fanning the fires of revolt than any other act of the Turkish government. But it was by no means the only act of the kind of which the Turks were guilty. The Patriarch of Adrianople with eight of his ecclesiastics was beheaded, and so were the dragoman of the Porte and several other eminent residents of Constantinople, descended from Greek settlers of two or three centuries ago. Churches were everywhere broken open and plundered; Greek citizens of the highest rank were murdered, their property stolen, and their wives and daughters sold as slaves; on the 15th of June five archbishops and a great number of laymen were hanged in the streets, and 450 mechanics were sold and transported into slavery; at Salonica the battlements of the town were lined with Christian heads, from which the blood ran down and discolored the water in the ditch. In all the great towns of the empire there were similar atrocities; some were the work of mobs, which the authorities did not seek to restrain, but the greater part of them were ordered by the governors or other officials, and met the approval of the Porte. At Smyrna, the Christian population was massacred by thousands without regard to age or sex, and in the island of Cyprus a body of 10,000 troops sent by the Porte ravaged the island, executed the metropolitan, five bishops, and thirty-six other ecclesiastics, and converted the whole island into a scene of rapine, bloodshed, and robbery. Several thousand Christians were killed before the atrocities ceased, and hundreds of their wives and daughters were carried into Turkish harems. These and similar outrages plainly told the Greeks that no hope remained except in complete independence of the Turks, and from one end of Greece to the other the fires of insurrection were everywhere lighted. The islands, as well as the mainland, were in full revolt, and the fleet of coasting vessels, nearly all of them armed for resisting pirates, gave the Turks a great deal of trouble. … On the land, battle followed battle in different parts of the country, and the narration of the events of the insurrection would fill a bulky volume. … During the latter part of 1821, the advantages to the Greeks were sufficient to encourage them to proclaim their independence, which was done in January, 1822. In the same month the Turks besieged Corinth, and in the following April they besieged and captured Chios (Scio), ending the capture with the slaughter of 40,000 inhabitants, the most horrible massacre of modern times. In July, the Greeks were victorious at Thermopylæ; in the same month Corinth fell, with great slaughter of the defenders. In April, 1823, the Greeks held a national congress at Argos; the victories of Marco Bozzaris occurred in the following June, and in August he was killed in a night attack upon the Turkish camp; in August, too, Lord Byron landed at Athens to take part in the cause of Greece, which was attracting the attention of the whole civilized world. The first Greek loan was issued in England in February, 1824; Lord Byron died at Missolonghi in the following April; in August the Capitan Pasha was defeated at Samos with heavy loss; in October, the provisional government of Greece was set up; and the fighting became almost continuous in the mountain districts of Greece. In February, 1825, Ibrahim Pasha arrived with a powerful army from Egypt, which captured Navarino in May, and Tripolitza in June of the same year. In July, the provisional government invoked the aid of England; in the following April (1826), Ibrahim Pasha took Missolonghi after a long and heroic defence [for twelve months]; and nearly a year later Reschid Pasha captured Athens. Down to the beginning of 1826, the Greeks had felt seriously the deprivation of Russian sympathy and aid for which they had been led to look before the revolution. The death of Alexander I., and the accession of Nicholas in December, 1825, caused a change in the situation. The British government sent the Duke of Wellington to St. Petersburg ostensibly to congratulate Nicholas on his elevation to the throne, but really to secure concert of action in regard to Greece. On the 4th of April a protocol was signed by the Duke of Wellington, Prince Lieven, and Count Nesselrode, which may be considered the foundation of Greek independence. Out of this protocol grew the treaty of July 6, 1827, between England, Russia, and France, by which it was stipulated that those nations should mediate between the contending Greeks and Turks. They proposed to the Sultan that he should retain a nominal authority over the Greeks, but receive from them a fixed annual tribute. … The Sultan … refused to listen to the scheme of mediation, and immediately made preparations for a fresh campaign, and also for the defence of Turkey in case of an attack. Ships and reinforcements were sent from Constantinople, and the Egyptian fleet, consisting of two 84-gun ships, twelve frigates, and forty-one transports, was despatched from Alexandria with 5,000 troops, and reached Navarino towards the end of August, 1827. The allied powers had foreseen the possibility of the Porte's refusal of mediation, and taken measures accordingly; an English fleet under Admiral Sir Edward Codrington, and a French fleet under Admiral De Rigny, were in the Mediterranean, and were shortly afterwards joined by the Russian fleet under Admiral Heiden. … The allied admirals held a conference, and decided to notify Ibrahim Pasha that he must stop the barbarities of plundering and burning villages and slaughtering their inhabitants. {1608} But Ibrahim would not listen to their remonstrances, and to show his utter disregard for the powers, he commanded four of his ships to sail to the Gulf of Patras to occupy Missolonghi and relieve some Turkish forts, in effect to clear those waters of every Greek man-of-war which was stationed there. This he did easily, the allied squadrons being temporarily absent. Admiral Codrington pursued him and, without difficulty, drove him back to Navarino. … A general muster of all the ships was ordered by Admiral Codrington, Commander-in-Chief of the squadron. … The allied fleet mounted 1,324 guns, while the combined Turkish and Egyptian fleet mounted 2,240 guns. To this superiority in the number of guns on board must be added the batteries on shore, which were all in the hands of the Turks. But the Christians had a point in their favor in their superiority in ships of the line, of which they possessed ten, while the Turks had but three. … The allied fleet entered the Bay of Navarino about two o'clock on the afternoon of October 20, 1827. … In less than four hours from the beginning of the contest the Ottoman fleet had ceased to be. Every armed ship was burnt, sunk, or destroyed; the only remaining vessels belonging to the Turks and Egyptians were twenty-five of the smallest transports, which were spared by order of Admiral Codrington. It was estimated that the loss in men on the Turkish and Egyptian vessels was fully 7,000. On the side of the allies, no vessels were destroyed, but the Asia, Albion, and Genoa of the English fleet were so much injured, that Admiral Codrington sent them to Malta for repairs which would enable them to stand the voyage home to England. Seventy-five men were killed and 197 wounded on the British fleet, and the loss of the French was 43 killed and 117 wounded. The Russian loss was not reported. … It was feared that when the news of the event at Navarino reached Constantinople, the lives of all Europeans in that city, including the foreign ambassadors, would be in great danger, but happily there was no violence on the part of the Turks. The ambassadors pressed for an answer to their note of August 16th, and at length the Sultan replied: 'My positive, absolute, definitive, unchangeable, eternal answer is, that the Sublime Porte does not accept any proposition regarding the Greeks, and will persist in its own will regarding them even to the last day of judgment.' The Porte even demanded compensation for the destruction of the fleet, and satisfaction for the insult, and that the allies should abstain from all interference in the affairs of Greece. The reply of the ambassadors was to the effect that the treaty of July obliged them to defend Greece, and that the Turks had no claim whatever for reparation for the affair of Navarino. The ambassadors left Constantinople on the 8th December, and soon afterwards Count Capo D'Istria, who had been elected President of Greece, took his seat, and issued a proclamation, declaring that the Ottoman rule over the country was at an end after three centuries of oppression. Thus was the independence of Greece established. There was little fighting after the events of Navarino, and early in 1828 Admiral Codrington and Ibrahim Pasha held a convention and agreed upon measures for evacuating the land of the Hellenes. During the summer and autumn Patras, Navarino, and Modon were successively surrendered to the French, and the Morea was evacuated by the Turks. Missolonghi was surrendered to Greece early in 1829, and by the Treaty of Adrianople in September of the same year the Porte acknowledged the independence of Greece, which was henceforth to be one in the family of nations."

      E. J. Trelawny,
      Records of Shelley, Byron, etc.,
      chapters 19-20 (volume 2).

GREECE: A. D. 1830-1862.
   The independent kingdom constituted under Otho of Bavaria.
   Its unsatisfactoriness.
   Dethronement of King Otho.
   Election of Prince George of Denmark.

"On February 3d, 1830, a protocol was signed which constituted Greece an independent State; and on the 11th of the same month Prince Leopold of Belgium accepted the crown which was offered to him by the Powers: He, however, soon resigned the honour; giving for his main reason the hopelessness of establishing a Greek kingdom from which Krete, Epeiros, and Thessaly were to be excluded. The northern boundary, as drawn in 1830, stretched from the Gulf of Zeitoun to the mouth of the Aspropotamos, thus depriving Greece of the greater part of Akarnania and Aitolia. After the assassination [by the family of an insurgent chief] of Count Capodistna (who was the popularly elected President of Greece from April 14th, 1827, to October 9th, 1831), and after the Powers had selected Prince Otho of Bavaria for the position declined by Prince Leopold, an arrangement was concluded between England, France, Russia, and Turkey, whereby the boundary was drawn from the Gulf of Arta to the same termination in the Gulf of Zeitoun. But a few months later the district of Zeitoun, north of the Spercheios, was added to Greece; and the new kingdom paid to the Porte an indemnity of 40,000,000 piastres, or about £460,000. The Powers guaranteed a loan to Greece of 60,000,000 francs, out of which the payment of the indemnity was made; and thus, at last, in the autumn of 1832, the fatherland of the Greeks was redeemed. Under Otho of Bavaria the country was governed at first by a Council of Regency, consisting of Count Armansperg, Professor Maurer, and General Heideck. Maurer was removed in 1834, and Armansperg in 1837; and at the close of the latter year, after the trial of another Bavarian as president of the Council, a Greek was for the first time appointed to the principal post in the Ministry. The greatest benefit conferred upon the country by its German rulers was the reinforcement of the legal system, and the elevation of the authority of the law. But, on the other hand, an unfortunate attempt was made to centralize the whole administration of Greece, her ancient municipal rights and customs were overlooked, taxation was almost as indiscriminate and burdensome as under the Turks, whilst large sums of money were spent upon the army, and on other objects of an unremunerative or insufficiently remunerative character, so that the young State was laden with pecuniary liabilities before anything had been done to develope her resources. … {1609} No national assembly was convened, no anxiety was shown to conciliate the people, liberty of expression was curtailed, personal offence was given by the foreigners, and by Armansperg in particular; brigandage and piracy flourished, and Greece began to suffer all the evils which might have been expected to arise from the government of unsympathetic aliens. … In addition to the rapid and alarming increase of brigandage by land and piracy by sea, there were popular insurrections in Messenia, Maina, Akarnania, and elsewhere. One of the most capable Englishmen who have ever espoused the cause of the Greeks, General Gordon, was commissioned in 1835 to clear northern Greece of the marauders by whom it was overrun. He executed his mission in an admirable manner, sweeping the whole of Phokis, Aitolia, and Akarnania, and securing the cooperation of the Turkish Pasha at Larissa. Hundreds of brigands were put to flight,—but only to return again next year, and to enjoy as great immunity as ever. … In the absence of a strong and active organization of the national forces, brigandage in Greece was an ineradicable institution; and, as a matter of fact, it was not suppressed until the year 1870. Gradually the discontent of the people, and the feebleness and infatuation of the Government, were breeding a revolution. … The three Guaranteeing Powers urged on Otho and his advisers the necessity of granting a Constitution, which had been promised on the establishment of the kingdom; and moral support was thus given to two very strong parties, known by the titles of Philorthodox and Constitutional, whose leaders looked to Russia and England respectively. The King and the Government neglected symptoms which were conspicuous to all besides, and the revolution of 1843 found them practically unprepared and helpless. On the 15th of September, after a well-contrived demonstration of the troops, which was acquiesced in and virtually sanctioned by the representatives of the three Powers, King Otho gave way, and signed the decrees which had been submitted to him. The Bavarian Ministers were dismissed, Mavrokordatos was made Premier, a National Assembly was convoked, and a Constitution was granted. For the first time since the Roman conquest, Greece resumed the dignity of self-government. The Constitution of 1844 was by no means an adequate one. It did not fully restore the privileges of local self-rule, and it only partially modified the system of centralization, from which so many evils had sprung. But it was nevertheless a great advance towards popular liberty. … The difficulties which arose between Russia and Turkey in 1853, and which led up to the Crimean War, inspired the Greeks with a hope that their 'grand idea'—the inheritance of the dominion of Turkey in Europe, so far as the Greek-speaking provinces are concerned—might be on the eve of accomplishment. … The Russian army crossed the Pruth in July, 1853, and preparations were at once made by the Greeks to invade Turkey. … The temper of the whole country was such that England and France deemed it necessary to take urgent measures for preventing an alliance between Russia and Greece. In May, 1854, an Anglo-French force was landed at the Peiraios, where it remained until February, 1857. Pressure was thus brought to bear upon King Otho, who was not in a position to resist it. … The humiliation of the Greeks under the foreign occupation weakened the authority of the King and his Ministers, and the unhappy country was once more a prey to rapine and disorder. … From the year 1859 a new portent began to make itself apparent in Greece. As the insurrection of 1821 may be said to have derived some of its energy from the upheaval of France and Europe in the preceding decades, so the Greek revolution of 1862 was doubtless hastened, if not suggested, by the Italian regeneration of 1848-1861. … On February 13th, 1862, the garrison of Nauplia revolted; other outbreaks followed; and at last, in October, during an ill-advised absence of the Monarch from his capital, the garrison of Athens broke out into open insurrection. A Provisional Government was nominated; the deposition of King Otho was proclaimed; and when the royal couple hurried back to the city they were refused an entrance. The representatives of the Powers were appealed to in vain; and the unfortunate Bavarian, after wearing the crown for thirty years, sailed from the Peiraios never to return. The hopes of the Greeks at once centred in Prince Alfred of England for their future king. … But the agreement of the three Powers on the establishment of the kingdom expressly excluded from the throne all members of the reigning families of England, France, and Russia; and thus, although Prince Alfred was elected king with practical unanimity, the English Government would not sanction his acceptance of the crown. The choice eventually and happily fell upon Prince George of Denmark, the present King of the Hellenes; and neither Greece nor Europe has had reason to regret the selection. … From this time forward the history of modern Greece enters upon a brighter phase."

GREECE: A. D. 1846-1850.
Rude enforcement of English claims.
The Don Pacifico Affair.

   "Greek independence had been established under the joint
   guardianship of Russia, France, and England. Constitutional
   government had been guaranteed. It had however been constantly
   delayed. Otho, the Bavarian Prince, who had been placed upon
   the throne, was absolute in his own tendencies, and supported
   by the absolute Powers; and France, eager to establish her own
   influence in the East, … had sided with the Absolutists,
   leaving England the sole supporter of constitutional rule. The
   Government and administration were deplorably bad. … Any
   demands raised by the English against the Government—and the
   bad administration afforded abundant opportunity for
   dispute—were certain to encounter the opposition of the King,
   supported by the advice of all the diplomatic body. Such
   questions had arisen. Ionians, claiming to be British
   subjects, had been maltreated, the boat's crew of a Queen's
   ship roughly handled, and in two cases the money claims of
   English subjects against the Government disregarded. They were
   trivial enough in themselves; a piece of land belonging to a
   Mr. Finlay [the historian of mediæval and modern Greece], a
   Scotchman, had been incorporated into the royal garden, and
   the price—no doubt somewhat exorbitant—which he set upon it
   refused. The house of Don Pacifico, a Jew, a native of
   Gibraltar, had been sacked by a mob, without due interference
   on the part of the police. He demanded compensation for
   ill-usage, for property destroyed, and for the loss of certain
   papers, the only proof as he declared of a somewhat doubtful
   claim against the Portuguese Government.
{1610}
   Such claims in the ordinary course of things should have been
   made in the Greek Law Court. But Lord Palmerston, placing no
   trust in the justice to be there obtained, made them a direct
   national claim upon the Government. For several years, on
   various pretences, the settlement of the question had been
   postponed, and Palmerston had even warned Russia that he
   should some day have to put strong pressure upon the Greek
   Court to obtain the discharge of their debts. At length, at
   the close of 1849, his patience became exhausted. Admiral
   Parker, with the British fleet, was ordered to the Piræus. Mr.
   Wyse, the English Ambassador, embarked in it. The claims were
   again formally laid before the King, and upon their being
   declined the Piræus was blockaded, ships of the Greek navy
   captured and merchant vessels secured by way of material
   guarantee for payment. The French and the Russians were
   indignant at this unexpected act of vigour." The Russians
   threatened; the French offered mediation, which was accepted.
   The French negotiations at Athens had no success; but at
   London there was promise of a friendly settlement of the
   matter, when Mr. Wyse, the English Minister at the Greek
   Court, being left in ignorance of the situation, brought fresh
   pressure to bear upon King Otho and extorted payment of his
   claims. The French were enraged and withdrew their Minister
   from London. "For the time, this trumpery little affair caused
   the greatest excitement, and, being regarded as a typical
   instance of Lord Palmerston's management of the Foreign
   Office, it formed the ground of a very serious attack upon the
   Government."

GREECE: A. D. 1862-1881.
   The Cretan struggle and defeat.
   The Greek question in the Berlin Congress.
   Small cession of territory by Turkey.

"The annexation of the Heptannesos [the seven (Ionian) islands] was a great benefit to Hellas. It was not only a piece of good fortune for the present but an earnest of the future. … There still remained the delusion of the Integrity of the Turkish Empire; but the Christians of the East really cannot believe in the sincerity of all the Powers who proclaim and sustain this extraordinary figment, any more than they are able to fall a prey to the hallucination itself. The reunion of the Heptannesos with the rest of Hellas was therefore regarded as marking the beginning of another and better era—a sanction to the hopes of other re-unions in the future. The first of the Hellenes who endeavoured to gain for themselves the same good fortune which had fallen upon the Ionians were again the Cretans. They defied Turkey for three years, 1866-7-8. With the exception of certain fortresses, the whole island was free. Acts of heroism and sacrifice such as those which had rendered glorious the first War of Independence, again challenged the attention of the world. Volunteers from the West recalled the Philhellenic enthusiasm of old days. The Hellenes of the mainland did not leave their brethren alone in the hour of danger; they hastened to fight at their side, while they opened in their own homes a place of refuge for the women and children of the island. Nearly 60,000 fugitives found protection there. For a while there was room for believing that the deliverance of Crete was at last accomplished. Russia and France were favourably disposed. Unhappily the good-will of these two Powers could not overcome the opposition of England, strongly supported by Austria. Diplomacy fought for the enslavement of the Cretans with as much persistence and more success than those with which it had opposed the deliverance of Greece. Freedom has not yet come for Crete. The islanders obtained by their struggle nothing but a doubtful amelioration of their condition by means of a sort of charter which was extracted from the unwillingness of the Porte in 1868, under the name of the 'Organic Regulation.' This edict has never been honestly put in force. However, even if it had been carried out, it would not have been a settlement of the Cretan question. The Cretans have never concealed what they want, or ceased to proclaim their intention of demanding it until they obtain it. At the time of the Congress of Berlin they thought once more that they would succeed. They got nothing but another promise from the Porte 'to enforce scrupulously the Organic Regulation of 1868, with such modifications as might be judged equitable.' … The history of the Greek Question at the Congress of Berlin and the conferences which followed it, is not to be treated in detail here. The time is not come for knowing all that took place. … We do not know why Hellas herself remained so long with her sword undrawn during the Russo-Turkish War—what promises or what threats held her back from moving when the armies of Russia, checked before Plevna, would have welcomed a diversion in the West, and when the Hellenic people both within and without the Kingdom were chafing at the do-nothing attitude of the Government of Athens. Everyone in Greece felt that the moment was come. The measures taken by hordes of Bashi-Bazooks were hardly sufficient to repress the insurrection which was ready in all quarters, and which at length broke out in the mountains of Thessaly. … It was only at the last moment, when the war was on the point of being closed by the treaty which victorious Russia compelled Turkey to grant at San Stefano, that the Greek Government, under the Presidency of Koumoundouros, yielded tardily to the pressure of the nation, and allowed the army to cross the frontier. It was too late for the diversion to be of any use to Russia, and it could look for no support from any other Government in Europe. This fact was realized at Athens, but men felt, at the same time, that it was needful to remind the world at any price that there is a Greek Question connected with the Eastern Question. The step was taken, but it was taken with a hesitation which betrayed itself in act as well as in word. … Diplomacy saw the danger of the fresh conflagration which the armed intervention of Greece was capable of kindling. {1611} The utmost possible amount of pressure was therefore brought to bear upon the Government of Athens in order to induce it to retrace the step, and in the result an order was obtained to the Greek Commander-in-Chief to recross the frontier, upon the solemn assurance of the great Powers 'that the national aspirations and interests of the Greek populations should be the subject of the deliberations of the approaching Congress.' … On July 5, 1878, the Congress accepted the resolution proposed by the French plenipotentiary, 'inviting the Porte to come to an understanding with Greece for a rectification of the frontiers in Thessaly and Epiros, a rectification which may follow the valley of the Peneus upon the Eastern side, and that of the Thyamis (or Kalamas) upon the Western.' In other words, they assign to Hellas the whole of Thessaly and a large part of Epiros. Notwithstanding the abandonment of the island of Crete, this was some satisfaction for the wrongs which she had suffered at the delimitation of the Kingdom. … But the scheme suggested by the Congress and sanctioned by the Conference of Berlin on July 1, 1880, was not carried out. When Turkey found that she was not confronted by an Europe determined to be obeyed, she refused to submit. And then the Powers, whose main anxiety was peace at any price, instead of insisting upon her compliance, put upon Hellas all the pressure which they were able to exercise, to induce her to submit the question of the frontiers to a fresh arbitration. … Hellas had to yield, and on July 2, 1881, three years after the signing of the famous Protocol of Berlin, she signed the convention by which Turkey ceded to her the flat part of Thessaly and a small scrap of Epiros."

A new constitution, framed by the National Assembly, "was ratified by the King on November 21, 1864. Abolishing the old Senate, it established a Representative Chamber of 150 deputies, since increased to 190, and again to 307, elected by ballot by all males over the age of twenty-one, from equal electoral districts (they were afterwards elected by nomarchies; the system now is by eparchies). Mr. Sergeant gives the number of electors (in 1879) at 311 per 1,000, but I do not know what he does with the women and minors, who must be about 75 per cent of the population. The present [1893] number of electors is 450,000, or 205 per 1,000. The King has considerable power: he is irresponsible; he appoints and dismisses his ministers and all officers and officials; and he can prorogue or suspend Parliament. Nor is his power merely nominal. In 1866 the Chamber behaved illegally, and the King promptly dissolved it; in 1875 again the King successfully steered his country out of a whirlpool of corruption; and, lastly, in 1892, his Majesty, finding M. Deleyannes obstinate in his financial dilatoriness, dismissed him. … Before King Otho there were 4 administrations; under his rule 24 (13 before the Constitution was granted and 11 after), 10 in the interregnum, and 42 under King George. This gives 70 administrations in 62 years, or about one every 10½ months, or, deducting the two kingless periods, 56 administrations in 60 years—that is, with an average duration of nearly 13 months. This compares for stability very well with the duration of French Ministries, 28 of which have lasted 22 years, or about 9½ months each. It should also be stated that there has been a distinct tendency to greater Ministerial longevity of late years in Greece. Under King Otho there were seven Parliaments in 18 years, which allows 2 years and 7 months for each Parliamentary period. Under King George there have been 13 in 28 years, or with a life of 2 years and 2 months each. However, we know that Parliament had not the same free play under the first King that it has had under the second; and, besides, the present Parliament, considering the Prime Minister's enormous majority, is likely to continue some time, and bring up the Georgian average. … There have been no notable changes of the Greek Constitution since its first promulgation, though there has been a natural expansion, especially in the judicial section. This very fact is of itself a vindication of Hellenic national stability."

GREEK EDUCATION.

GREEK EMPIRE OF CONSTANTINOPLE (A. D. 1261-1453).

GREEK EMPIRE OF NICÆA: A. D. 1204-1261.

The conquest of Constantinople by the Venetians and the Crusaders, in 1204, broke the Byzantine Empire into many fragments, some of which were secured by the conquerors and loosely bound together in the feudal empire of Romania, while others were snatched from the ruin and preserved by the Greeks, themselves. For the sovereignty of these latter numerous claimants made haste to contend. Three fugitive emperors were wandering in the outer territories of the shattered realm. One was that Alexius III., whose deposition of Isaac Angelos had afforded a pretext for the crusading conquest, and who had fled when Isaac was restored. A second was Alexius V. (Murtzuphlos), who pushed Isaac Angelos and his son Alexius IV. from the shaking throne when Constantinople resolved to defend itself against the Christians of the West, but who abandoned the city in the last hours of the siege. The third was Theodore Lascaris, son-in-law of Alexius III., who was elected to the imperial office as soon as the flight of Alexius V. became known—even after the besiegers had entered the city—and who, then, could do nothing but follow his fugitive predecessors. This last was the only one of the three who found a piece of defensible territory on which to set up his throne. He established himself in Bithynia, associating his claims with those of his worthless father-in-law, and contenting himself with the title of Despot, at first. But the convenient though objectionable father-in-law was not permitted to enjoy any share of the sovereignty which he acquired. Theodore, in fact, managed his affairs with great vigor and skill. The district in which his authority was recognized widened rapidly and the city of Nicæa became his capital. There, in 1206, he received the imperial crown, more formally and solemnly, anew, and rallied the Greek resistance which was destined to triumph, a little more than half a century later, over the insolent aggression of the Latin West. {1612} The small empire of Nicæa had to contend, not merely with the Latins in Constantinople and Greece, and with the Turkish Sultan of Iconium, but also with another ambitious fragment of Greek empire at Trebizond, which showed itself persistently hostile. His successors, moreover, were in conflict with a third such fragment in Europe, at Thessalonica. But, ten years after the flight of Theodore from Constantinople, his empire of Nicæa "extended from Heracleia on the Black Sea to the head of the Gulf of Nicomedia; from thence it embraced the coast of the Opsikian theme as far as Cyzicus; and then descending to the south, included Pergamus, and joined the coast of the Ægean. Theodore had already extended his power over the valleys of the Hermus, the Caister, and the Mæander." Theodore Lascaris died in 1222, leaving no son, and John Dukas Vatatzes, or Vataces as his name is written by some historians, a man of eminent abilities and high qualities, who had married Theodore's daughter, was elected to the vacant throne. He was saluted as John III.—assuming a continuity from the Byzantine to the Nicæan series of emperors. In a reign of thirty-three years, this prudent and capable emperor, as Gibbon expresses the fact, "rescued the provinces from national and foreign usurpers, till he pressed on all sides the imperial city [Constantinople], a leafless and sapless trunk, which must fall at the first stroke of the axe." He did not live to apply that blow nor to witness the fall of the coveted capital of the East. But the event occurred only six years after his death, and owed nothing to the energy or the capability of his successors. His son, Theodore II., reigned but four years, and left at his death, in 1258, a son, John IV., only eight years old. The appointed regent and tutor of this youth was soon assassinated, and Michael Paleologos, an able officer, who had some of the blood of the imperial Angelos family in his veins, was made in the first instance tutor to the young emperor, and soon afterwards raised to the throne with him as a colleague. In 1260 the new emperor made an attack on Constantinople and was repulsed. But on the 25th of July in the next year the city was taken by a sudden surprise, while 6,000 soldiers of its garrison were absent on an expedition against Daphnusia in the Black Sea. It was acquired almost without resistance, the Latin emperor, Baldwin II., taking promptly to flight. The destruction of life was slight; but the surprising party fired a considerable part of the city, to cover the smallness of its numbers, and Constantinople suffered once more from a disastrous conflagration. On the recovery of its ancient capital, the Greek empire ceased to bear the name of Nicæa, and its history is continued under the more imposing appellation of the Greek empire of Constantinople.

G. Finlay, History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires, from 716 to 1453, book 4, chapter 1 (volume 2).

GREEK EMPIRE OF TREBIZOND.

GREEK FIRE.

"The important secret of compounding and directing this artificial flame was imparted [in the later part of the seventh century to the Greeks, or Byzantines, at Constantinople] by Callinicus, a native of Heliopolis, in Syria, who deserted from the service of the caliph to that of the emperor. The skill of a chemist and engineer was equivalent to the succour of fleets and armies; and this discovery or improvement of the military art was fortunately reserved for the distressful period when the degenerate Romans of the East were incapable of contending with the warlike enthusiasm and youthful vigour of the Saracens. The historian who presumes to analyze this extraordinary composition should suspect his own ignorance and that of his Byzantine guides, so prone to the marvellous, so careless, and, in this instance, so jealous of the truth. From their obscure, and perhaps fallacious hints, it should seem that the principal ingredient of the Greek fire was the naphtha, or liquid bitumen, a light, tenacious, and inflammable oil, which springs from the earth. … The naphtha was mingled, I know not by what methods or in what proportions, with sulphur and with the pitch that is extracted from evergreen firs. From this mixture, which produced a thick smoke and a loud explosion, proceeded a fierce and obstinate flame … ; instead of being extinguished it was nourished and quickened by the element of water; and sand, urine, or vinegar were the only remedies that could damp the fury of this powerful agent. … It was either poured from the ramparts [of a besieged town] in large boilers, or launched in red-hot balls of stone and iron, or darted in arrows and javelins, twisted round with flax and tow, which had deeply imbibed the inflammable oil; sometimes it was deposited in fire-ships … and was most commonly blown through long tubes of copper, which were planted on the prow of a galley, and fancifully shaped into the mouths of savage monsters, that seemed to vomit a stream of liquid and consuming fire. This important art was preserved at Constantinople, as the palladium of the state. … The secret was confined, above 400 years, to the Romans of the East. … It was at length either discovered or stolen by the Mahometans; and, in the holy wars of Syria and Egypt, they retorted an invention, contrived against themselves, on the heads of the Christians. … The use of the Greek, or, as it might now be called, the Saracen fire, was continued to the middle of the fourteenth century."

GREEK GENIUS AND INFLUENCE.

GREEN MOUNTAIN BOYS.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (MAY-AUGUST); 1780-1781; and 1781 (JANUARY-MAY).

GREENLAND: A. D. 1450-1585. The lost Icelandic colony, absorbed by Eskimo. Rediscovery of the country.

GREENVILLE TREATY WITH THE INDIAN TRIBES.

GREGORIAN CALENDAR.—GREGORIAN ERA.

GREGORY I. (called The Great), Pope, A. D. 590-604.
   Gregory II., Pope, 715-731.
   Gregory III., Pope, 731-741.
   Gregory IV., Pope, 827-844.
   Gregory V., Pope, 996-999.
   Gregory VI., Pope, 1044-1046.
   Gregory VII., Pope, 1075-1085.
   Gregory VIII., Pope, 1187, October to December.
   Gregory IX., Pope, 1227-1241.
   Gregory X., Pope, 1271-1276.
   Gregory XI., Pope, 1371-1378.
   Gregory XII., Pope, 1406-1415.
   Gregory XIII., Pope, 1572-1585.
   Gregory XIV., Pope, 1590-1591.
   Gregory XV., Pope, 1621-162.
   Gregory XVI., Pope, 1831-1846.

GREY FRIARS.

GRIERSON'S RAID.

GRIQUAS.—GRIQUALAND.

"The Griquas or Baastards, a mixed race sprung from the intercourse of the 'Boers' [of South Africa] with their Hottentot slaves," migrated from Cape Colony after the Emancipation Act of 1833, "and, under the chiefs Waterboer and Adam Kok, settled in the country north of the confluence of the Orange and Vaal, the present Griqualand West. Subsequently, in 1852, Adam Kok's section of the Griquas again migrated to the territory then called No Man's Land, between Kafraria and southern Natal, now known as Griqualand East, or New Griqualand. … In consequence of the discovery of diamonds in the Griqua country in 1867, and the rush thither of thousands of Europeans from all the surrounding states, as well as from Europe, America, and Australia, the chief Waterboer ceded his rights to the British Government, and this region was annexed to the Cape Colony as the Lieutenant-Governorship of Griqualand West in 1871."

GUADALUPES.

"According to Fuentes y Guzman, derived from 'Coctecmalan' —that is to say 'Palo de leche,' milk-tree, commonly called 'Yerba mala,' found in the neighborhood of Antigua Guatemala. … In the Mexican tongue, if we may believe Vasquez, it was called 'Quauhtimali,' rotten-tree. … Others derive it from 'Uhatezmalha,' signifying 'the hill which discharges water'; and Juarros suggests that it may be from Juitemal, the first king of Guatemala."

GUATEMALA: A. D. 1821-1871.
   Separation from Spain.
   Brief annexation to Mexico.
   Resistance to Central American Federation.
   The wars of the states.

GUCK OR COCO TRIBES.

GUELDERLAND: A. D. 1079-1473.
Under the House of Nassau.
Acquisition by the Duke of Burgundy.

"The arable extent of Guelderland, its central position, and the number of its ancient towns, rendered it at all times of great importance. The men of Zutphen and Arnheim were foremost among the claimants of civic freedom; and at Tiel and Bommel industry struck early root, and struggled bravely to maturity through countless storms of feudal violence and rapine. Guelderland was constituted a county, or earldom, by Henry III. [Emperor, A. D. 1079], and bestowed on Otho, count of Nassau; and thus originated the influence of that celebrated family in the affairs of the Netherlands. Three centuries later the province was created a duchy of the empire. Vigour and ability continued to distinguish the house of Nassau, and they were destined to become eventually the most popular and powerful family in the nation. Apart from their influence, however, Guelderland hardly occupies as important a place in the general history of the country as Utrecht or Holland." In 1473, when the House of Burgundy had acquired sovereignty over most of the Netherland states, Charles the Bold availed himself of a domestic quarrel between the reigning prince of Guelderland and his heir "to purchase the duchy from the former for 92,000 crowns of gold. The old duke died before the pecuniary portion of the bargain was actually completed; and, the rightful heir being detained in prison, the grasping lord of Burgundy entered into possession of his purchase, for which no part of the price was ever paid."

W. T. McCullagh, Industrial History of Free Nations, chapters 8 and 10 (volume 2).

GUELFS, OR GUELPHS, AND GHIBELLINES:
German origin of these Factions and their feuds.

On the death (A. D. 1125) of Henry V., the last of the Franconian dynasty of Germanic emperors, Lothaire, Duke of Saxony, was elected emperor, in rather a tumultuous and irregular manner. Lothaire, and the Saxons generally, were embittered in enmity against the house of Franconia, and against the new family—the Suabiau or Hohenstauffen—which succeeded by inheritance, through the female line, to the Franconian claims. It was the object of his reign, moreover, to pass the imperial crown from his own head to that of his son-in-law, Henry the Proud. Hence arose a persecution of the Suabian family, under Lothaire, which stirred deep passions. Henry the Proud, for whose succession Lothaire labored, but vainly, united in himself several ancient streams of noble blood. He "was fourth in descent from Welf [or Guelf], son of Azon marquis of Este, by Cunegonda, heiress of a distinguished family, the Welfs of Altorf in Suabia." His ancestor, Welf, had been invested with the duchy of Bavaria. He himself represented, by right of his mother, the ancient ducal house of Saxony; and, by favor of his imperial father-in-law, the two powerful duchies, Bavaria and Saxony, were both conferred on him. He also received Hanover and Brunswick as the dowry of his wife. "On the death of Lothaire in 1138 the partisans of the house of Suabia made a hasty and irregular election of Conrad [one of the Hohenstauffen princes], in which the Saxon faction found itself obliged to acquiesce. The new emperor availed himself of the jealousy which Henry the Proud's aggrandizement had excited. Under pretence that two duchies could not legally be held by the same person, Henry was summoned to resign one of them, and on his refusal, the diet pronounced that he had incurred a forfeiture of both. Henry made but little resistance, and before his death, which happened soon afterwards, saw himself stripped of all his hereditary as well as acquired possessions. Upon this occasion the famous names of Guelf [or Guelph] and Ghibelin were first heard, which were destined to keep alive the flame of civil dissension in far distant countries, and after their meaning had been forgotten. The Guelfs, or Welfs, were, as I have said, the ancestors of Henry, and the name has become a sort of patronymic in his family. The word Ghibelin is derived from Wibelung, a town in Franconia, whence the emperors of that line are said to have sprung. The house of Suabia were considered in Germany as representing that of Franconia; as the Guelfs may, without much impropriety, be deemed to represent the Saxon line."

Sir Andrew Halliday, in his "Annals of the House of Hanover," traces the genealogy of the Guelfs with great minuteness and precision—with more minuteness, perhaps, in some remote particulars, and more precision, than seems consistent with entire credibility. He carries the line back to Edico, king or prince of the Heruli, or Rugii, or Scyrii,—the stock from which came Odoacer, who overturned the Western Roman Empire and made himself the first king of Italy. Edico, who was subject to Attila, and the favorite adviser of the king of the Huns, is thought to have had a son or brother named Guelf or Welf, who fell in battle with the Ostrogoths. It is to him that Sir Andrew is disposed to assign the honor of being the historical chief of the great family of the Guelfs. If not from this shadowy Guelf, it is from another of like name in the next generation—a brother of Odoacer—that he sees the family spring, and the story of its wide-branching and many-rooted growth, in Friuli, Altdorf, Bavaria, old Saxony, Brunswick, Hanover,—and thence, more royally than ever, in England,—is as interesting as a narrative of highly complicated genealogy can be.

   From the Guelf uncertainly indicated above were descended two
   Marquesses of Este, "successively known in German and Italian
   story as the first and second of that name. … Azo, the
   second Marquess of Este in Italy (born A. D. 995, died 1097),
   the head of the Italian (junior) branch of Guelphs [see ESTE],
   married Cunigunda, the sole heiress of the German Guelphs of
   Altdorf, thus uniting in his family the blood, wealth, and
   power of both branches of the old Guelphs, and becoming the
   common father of the later German and Italian princes of the
   name of Guelph.
{1615}
   No wonder, then, that he was elected by the Emperor, Henry
   III., as his representative in Italy. … Cunigunda, the first
   wife of Azo II., bore him one son, Guelph, who was known in
   German history as Guelph VI. He succeeded to his mother's
   titles and vast estates on her death, A. D. 1055, and to those
   of his father, A. D. 1097. … Henry IV. invested him with the
   Duchy of Bavaria, A. D. 1071—a title first assumed 170 years
   before (A. D. 900) by his almost mythological ancestor, Henry
   of the Golden Chariot." This Guelph VI. was the grandfather of
   Henry the Proud, Duke of Saxony and Bavaria, referred to
   above.

      See, also,
      SAXONY: A. D. 1178-1183;
      and GERMANY: A. D. 1138-1268;
      and, also, ESTE, HOUSE OF.

GUELFS:
The outcrop of the contention in Italy.
Its beginnings, causes, course and meaning.

"The Hanoverian troops having much distinguished themselves at the battle of Waterloo, George IV. (then prince regent) determined to found an order of merit which might, with especial propriety, be conferred upon such of them as deserved the distinction, and the 12th of August, 1815, was fixed upon as the date of its foundation. By the second statute, the Order is inseparably annexed to the possession of the Hanoverian crown, by vesting the grand-mastership in the sovereign of that country for the time being."

GUERRA DOS CABANOS.

GUERRILLAS.

A term of Spanish origin, derived from 'guerilla', signifying little or petty warfare, and applied to small, irregular bands of troops, carrying on war against an enemy by harassing, destructive raids.

GUEUX OF THE NETHERLAND REVOLT.

   "There was one European nation which was not likely to hunt
   for a golden city, when gold was to be earned by plain and
   matter of fact commerce. The Dutch had as early as 1542
   established a systematic if contraband trade with the Spanish
   Main; and in 1580 they began to settle in Guiana by planting a
   depot on the river Pomeroon, in what is now the county of
   Essequibo. In 1599 they built two forts at the mouth of the
   Amazon, but were driven out by the Portuguese; and about 1613
   they established a colony on the Essequibo, building the fort
   of 'Kyk over al', 'Look over all,' on an island where the
   Massaruni flows into the Essequibo. The colony was founded by
   Zeeland merchants, was known as Nova Zeelandia, and came under
   the control of the Netherlands West India Company, which was
   incorporated in 1621. Shortly afterwards colonisation began
   further to the east on the Berbice river. The founder was a
   Flushing merchant, Van Peere by name; he founded his
   settlement about 1624, and he held his rights under contract
   with the Chamber of Zeeland. … Thus was the present province
   of British Guiana colonised by Dutchmen. … While English
   discovery was attracted to the west and Orinoco, the first
   attempts at English settlement were far to the east on the
   Wyapoco or Oyapok river. Here, in 1604, while Ralegh was in
   prison, Captain Charles Leigh founded a colony at the mouth of
   the river. … In 1609 Robert Harcourt of Stanton Harcourt in
   Oxfordshire took up the work in which Leigh had failed. … In
   1613 he obtained from King James a grant of 'all that part of
   Guiana or continent of America lying between the river of
   Amazones and the river of Dessequebe,' which was not actually
   possessed or inhabited by any Christian power in friendship
   with England. … In 1619 a scheme was started for an Amazon
   Company, the leading spirit in which was Captain Roger North.
   … The company was fortunate enough to secure the powerful
   patronage of the Duke of Buckingham. Harcourt threw in his lot
   with them, and on the 19th of May 1627 a royal grant was made
   to the Duke of Buckingham and 55 other adventurers, including
   the Earl of Pembroke and Montgomery, who were incorporated
   under the title of 'the governor and company of noblemen and
   gentlemen of England for the plantation of Guiana.' The Duke
   of Buckingham was Governor, North was Deputy-Governor, and the
   grant included the 'royal' river of the Amazon. For about two
   years the company did some solid work, sending out four ships
   and 200 colonists; an attempt was then made in 1629 to bring
   the territory covered by their grant immediately under royal
   protection, and upon its failure their efforts at colonisation
   appear to have gradually died away. The English were not the
   only Europeans who tried their hand at settlement in the east
   of Guiana. … In 1613, 160 French families settled in
   Cayenne. The first colony failed, but in 1624 and 1626 fresh
   attempts were made a little to the west on the rivers Sinamari
   and Cananama; and in 1643 a Rouen Company, incorporated under
   the name of the Cape North Company, sent out three or four
   hundred men to Cayenne under the Sieur de Bretigny. Bretigny
   ruined the scheme by savage ill-treatment of Indians and
   colonists alike, and the remains of the settlement were
   absorbed by a new and more powerful Normandy Company." This
   failed in its turn, and gave way to a "French Equinoctial
   Company," organized under the auspices of Colbert, which sent
   out 1,200 colonists and fairly established them at Cayenne.
   Colbert, in 1665, placed the colony, "with all the other
   French possessions in the West Indies, under one strong West
   India Company. Such were the beginnings of colonisation in the
   west and east of Guiana. Between them lies the district now
   known as Dutch Guiana or Surinam." The first settlement in
   this was made in 1630 by 60 English colonists, under a Captain
   Marshall.
{1616}
   The colony failed, and was revived in 1650 by Lord Willoughby,
   then representing the fugitive King Charles II., as Governor
   of Barbadoes. In 1663, after the Restoration, Lord Willoughby,
   in conjunction with Lawrence Hyde, second son of the Earl of
   Clarendon, received Letters Patent "constituting them lords
   and proprietors of the district between the Copenam and the
   Maroni (which included the Surinam river) under the name of
   Willoughby Land." Soon afterwards "war broke out with the
   Dutch, and in March 1667 the colony capitulated to the Dutch
   admiral Crynsenn. The peace of Breda between Great Britain and
   the Netherlands, which was signed in the following July,
   provided that either nation should retain the conquests which
   it had made by the preceding 10th of May, and under this
   arrangement Surinam was ceded to the Netherlands, while New
   York became a British possession. … Thus ended for many long
   years all British connexion with Guiana. … When at length
   the English returned [in 1796 and 1803, during the subjection
   of the Dutch to Napoleon, and while they were forced to take
   part in his wars], they came as conquerors rather than as
   settlers, and by a strange perversity of history, the original
   Dutch colonies on the Berbice and Essequibo became a British
   dependency, while the Netherlanders retain to this day the
   part of Guiana which Lord Willoughby marked out for his own."
   These arrangements were settled in the convention between
   Great Britain and the Netherlands signed at London in 1814.

      C. P. Lucas,
      History Geography of the British Colonies,
      volume 2, section 2, chapter 8.

GUIENNE, OR GUYENNE.

A corruption of the name of Aquitaine, which came into use, apparently, about the 13th century.

"The history of the Gild Merchant begins with the Norman Conquest. The latter widened the horizon of the English merchant even more than that of the English annalist. The close union between England and Normandy led to an increase in foreign commerce, which in turn must have greatly stimulated internal trade and industry. Moreover, the greatly enhanced power of the English crown tempered feudal turbulence, affording a measure of security to traders in England that was as yet unknown on the continent. … With this expansion of trade the mercantile element would become a more potent factor in town life, and would soon feel the need of joint action to guard its nascent prosperity against encroachments. Not until there was something of importance to protect, not until trade and industry began to predominate over agriculture within the borough, would a protective union like the Gild Merchant come into being. Its existence, in short, presupposes a greater mercantile and industrial development than that which prevailed in England in the tenth century. This circumstance and the absence of all mention of the Gild Merchant in the records of the Anglo-Saxon period render it probable that this fraternity first appeared in England soon after the Conqueror had established his sway and restored order in the land. Whether it was merely a reorganization of older gilds, a spontaneous adaptation of the gild idea to the newly-begotten trade interests, or a new institution directly transplanted from Normandy, we have no means of determining with certainty. The last-mentioned view is strongly favoured by the circumstance that, at the time of the Conquest, the Gild Merchant doubtless existed in Northern France and Flanders. From the Frenchmen who became burgesses of English towns, and from the Norman merchants who thronged the marts of England after the Conquest, the English would soon ascertain the advantages of formal trade organization. The earliest distinct references to the Gild Merchant occur in a charter granted by Robert Fitz-Hamon to the burgesses of Burford (1087-1107), and in a document drawn up while Anselm was Archbishop of Canterbury (1093-1109). … Whether we place the inception of the fraternity immediately before or after the Norman Conquest, whether we make it a continuation of older Anglo-Saxon gilds, or a derivative from Normandy, or a wholly new and spontaneous growth, it was doubtless at first merely a private society, unconnected with the town government, having for its object the protection of its members, the tradesmen of the borough, and the maintenance of the newly invigorated trade interests. During the twelfth century it gradually became a recognised part of the town constitution, thus entering upon its second stage of development. How this came to pass can be easily realised from the later history of English gilds in general. For in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries … a simple social-religious gild at times attained such power in a community that it came to be regarded as an important constituent element of the civic administration. Quite similar must have been the growth of the Gild Merchant, which from the outset was doubtless composed of the most influential burgesses, and which, as the exponent of the mercantile interests, must always have been greatly concerned in the increase of the privileges and prosperity of the borough in general. It was very natural that the town authorities should use such a society for public purposes, entrusting to it the surveillance of the trade monopoly, in which its members were particularly interested,—allowing it to gradually become an important part of the civic administrative machinery. … The beginning of this third and final stage of development cannot be definitely fixed; for in some places it was of an earlier date than in others. The fourteenth century may in general be called the period of gradual transition. In the fifteenth century the transformation was completed. In this and the following centuries the term 'Gilda Mercatoria' became less and less frequent. In many places it soon wholly disappeared. Where it continued to subsist, the Gild no longer had an individuality of its own. Its alderman and other peculiar officers, its whole organization as a distinctive entity, had vanished. It had merged its identity in that of the general municipal organism. The head of the fraternity was now the head of the town; borough and Gild, burgesses and gildsmen were now identical. What had once been a distinct integral part of the civic body politic became vaguely blended with the whole of it. {1617} The old Gild Merchant was now rarely mentioned in connection with the municipal trade restrictions and regulations, the latter being commonly applied to burgesses, craftsmen, freemen, or 'foreigners.' The exegesis of this transformation … was due mainly to three causes: (1) the expansion of trade and the multiplication of the craft and mercantile fraternities, which absorbed the ancient functions of the Gild Merchant and rendered it superfluous; (2) the growth of the select governing body, which usurped most of the privileges of the old burghers at large, and hence tended to obliterate the distinction between them, or their less privileged successors, and the ancient gildsmen, leaving both only certain trade immunities; (3) the decay of the leet—the rallying point of the old burghers as distinguished from that of the gildsmen—the functions of which passed, in part, to the crafts, but mainly to the select body and to the justices of the peace. But even after the Gild Merchant and the borough had thus become identical, the old dual idea did not completely disappear, the Gild being often regarded as a particular phase or function of the town, namely, the municipality in its character of a trade monopoly. Hence the modern survivals of the Gild Merchant help to elucidate its actual functions in ancient times. In a few boroughs the select governing body of the town—the narrow civic corporation, in distinction from the burgesses or freemen at large—succeeded to the name and traditions of the Gild Merchant. In some of these cases the signification of the latter gradually dwindled down to a periodical civic feast of the privileged few. … In the eighteenth century we meet the word much less frequently than in the seventeenth; and toward the beginning of the present century it became very rare. The Municipal Corporations Commission, in 1835, found it still used in only a few boroughs. The remnants of the Gild Merchant and of the craft fraternities were rapidly vanishing before the new ideas of a more liberal age,—the age of laissez faire. The onerous, self-destructive restrictions of gilds were now being superseded by the stimulating measures of Chambers of Commerce. More than six centuries elapsed before the enactment of Magna Carta that all merchants 'may go through England, by land and water, to buy and sell, free from all unjust imposts,' became a realised fact throughout the realm. The Municipal Corporations Act of 1835 provided that 'every person in any borough may keep any shop for the sale of all lawful wares and merchandizes by wholesale or retail, and use every lawful trade, occupation, mystery, and handicraft, for hire, gain, sale, or otherwise, within any borough.' In a single town of England the Gild Merchant still subsists, but only as the shadow of its former self—a spectre from the distant past. At Preston the Gild Merchant has been 'celebrated' regularly once every twenty years for more than three centuries, on which occasions the burgesses renew their freedom and indulge in all the festivities of a civic carnival. The last Gild Merchant was held in 1882. There was then much feasting and dancing, there were gay processions of townsmen, and much talk of the glories of the past. And yet how few even of the scholars and noblemen there assembled from various parts of Great Britain knew what an important role the Gild Merchant had played in the annals of English municipal history, what strange vicissitudes it had undergone, what a remarkable transformation the centuries had wrought in it."

"The rise of the craft gilds is, roughly speaking, a century later [than the rise of the merchant gilds]; isolated examples occur early in the twelfth century, they become more numerous as the century advances, and in the thirteenth century they appear in all branches of manufacture and in every industrial centre. Craft gilds were associations of all the artisans engaged in a particular industry in a particular town, for certain common purposes. … Their appearance marks the second stage in the history of industry, the transition from the family system to the artisan (or gild) system. In the former there was no class of artisans properly so called; no class, that is to say, of men whose time was entirely or chiefly devoted to a particular manufacture; and this because all the needs of a family or other domestic group, whether of monastery or manor-house, were satisfied by the labours of the members of the group itself. The latter, on the contrary, is marked by the presence of a body of men each of whom was occupied more or less completely in one particular manufacture. The very growth from the one to the other system, therefore, is an example of 'division of labour,' or, to use a better phrase, of 'division of employments.' … When the place of the young manufactures of the twelfth century in the development of mediæval society is thus conceived, the discussion as to a possible Roman 'origin' of the gilds loses much of its interest. No doubt modern historians have exaggerated the breach in continuity between the Roman and the barbarian world; no doubt the artisans in the later Roman Empire had an organization somewhat like that of the later gilds. Moreover, it is possible that in one or two places in Gaul certain artisan corporations may have had a continuous existence from the fifth to the twelfth century. It is even possible that Roman regulations may have served as models for the organization of servile artisans on the lands of monasteries and great nobles,—from which, on the continent, some of the later craft gilds doubtless sprang. But when we see that the growth of an artisan class, as distinguished from isolated artisans here and there, was impossible till the twelfth century, because society had not yet reached the stage in which it was profitable or safe for a considerable number of men to confine themselves to any occupation except agriculture; and that the ideas which governed the craft gilds were not peculiar to themselves but common to the whole society of the time; then the elements of organization which may conceivably have been derived from or suggested by the Roman artisan corporations become of quite secondary importance. There is, as we have said, little doubt that some of the craft gilds of France and Germany were originally organizations of artisan serfs on the manors of great lay or ecclesiastical lords. This may also have been the case in some places in England, but no evidence has yet been adduced to show that it was so. … The relation of the craft gilds to the merchant gild is a still more difficult question. In many of the towns of Germany and the Netherlands a desperate struggle took place during the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries between a burgher oligarchy, who monopolized the municipal government, and were still further strengthened in many cases by union in a merchant gild, and the artisans organized in their craft gilds; the craftsmen fighting first for the right of having gilds of their own, and then for a share in the government of the town. {1618} These facts have been easily fitted into a symmetrical theory of industrial development; the merchant gilds, it is said, were first formed for protection against feudal lords, but became exclusive, and so rendered necessary the formation of craft gilds; and in the same way the craft gilds became exclusive afterwards, and the journeymen were compelled to form societies of their own for protection against the masters. … The very neatness of such a theory, the readiness with which it has been accepted by popular writers in spite of the paucity of English evidence, have perhaps led some historians to treat it with scant consideration. … At the end of the reign of Edward III. there were in London forty-eight companies or crafts, each with a separate organization and officers of its own, a number which had increased to at least sixty before the close of the century."

      W. J. Ashley,
      An Introduction to English Economic History and Theory,
      book 1, chapter 2 (volume 1).

"The unions known by the names of mystery, faculty, trade, fellowship, or (from the fact of possessing particular costumes) livery company, existed in large numbers throughout the realm, and were frequently divided into two or three categories. Thus in London the principal crafts were the twelve 'substantial companies' or 'livery companies' [Mercers, Grocers, Drapers, Fishmongers, Goldsmiths, Skinners, Merchant Tailors, Haberdashers, Salters, Ironmongers, Vintners, Cloth-workers]. … A perfect acquaintance with the details of the trade and the desire as well as the ability to produce good work were in all cases preliminary requisites [of membership]. In fact the main provisions of the craft, the very soul of its constitution, were the regulations intended to ensure the excellence of the products and the capacity of the workman. … The whole character of the craft guild is explained by these regulations, designed to prevent fraud and deception of the public."

E. R. A. Seligman, Mediæval Guilds of England (American Economics Association, volume 2, number 5), part 2, section 2.

GUILDS OF FLANDERS.

"In the course of the tenth century Bruges had waxed great and wealthy through its trade with England, while the Ghent people constructed a port at the junction of their two rivers. The Flemings, nevertheless, were still noted for the boorishness of their demeanour, their addiction to intemperance, and their excessive turbulence. Their pagan ancestors had been accustomed to form associations for their mutual protection against accidents by fire or water, and similar misadventures. These unions were called 'Minne,' or Friendships—an idea reproduced in the 'Amicitiæ,' to which allusion is so frequently made in the deeds of ancient corporations. … After a time the name of 'Minne' came to be supplanted by that of 'Ghilde,' meaning a feast at the common expense. Each ghilde was placed under the tutelage of a departed hero, or demigod, and was managed by officers elected by the members— social equality being the foundation of each fraternity. Subsequent to the introduction of Christianity the demigod was replaced by a saint, while the members were enjoined to practise works of piety. … The Ghildes were the base of the municipal administration, and gradually assumed the government of the town, but took another form and appellation. The word was thenceforward applied, in its restricted sense of Guild, as referring to trade corporations, while the previous organisation came to be described in French and Latin documents as Commune or Communia, and embraced all who were entitled to gather together in the cauter, or public place, when the bell rang out the summons from the town belfry. In Flanders the Communes grew out of popular institutions of ancient date, and, though, no doubt, their influence was sensibly increased by their confirmation at the hands of King or Count, they did not owe their origin to royal or seigniorial charters."

GUILDS OF FLORENCE.

"It was during these winter months [of the session of the French National Assembly, 1790] that Dr. Guillotin read his long discourse upon the reformation of the penal code; of which the 'Moniteur' has not preserved a single word. This discourse attracts our attention on two accounts:—First, it proposed a decree that there should be but one kind of punishment for capital crimes; secondly, that the arm of the executioner should be replaced by the action of a machine, which Dr. Guillotin had invented. 'With the aid of my machine,' said the glib doctor, 'I will make your head spring off in the twinkling of an eye, and you will suffer nothing.' Bursts of laughter met this declaration; nevertheless, the Assembly listened with attention, and adopted the proposal."

A bloody but indecisive battle, fought between the French, on one side, and Flemish and Burgundian troops on the other, in the war produced by the attempt of Louis XI. to rob Mary of Burgundy of her heritage. It was followed by a long truce, and a final treaty.

GUISCARD, Robert, and Roger and the Norman conquest of Southern
Italy and Sicily.

GUIZOT'S MINISTRY.

GURU, OR GOOROO.

GUY FAWKES' DAY.

November 5, the anniversary of the day on which the conspirators of the "Gunpowder Plot" intended to blow up King and Parliament, in England.

GWENT.

GWLEDIG.

A Welsh title, signifying ruler, or prince, which was taken by the native leader in Britain after the Romans left. He was the successor of the Roman Duke of Britain.

GWYNEDD.

"Amongst public buildings [of the ancient Greeks] we mentioned first the gymnasia, which, originating in the requirements of single persons, soon became centre-points of Greek life. Corporeal exercise was of great importance amongst the Greeks, and the games and competitions in the various kinds of bodily skill … formed a chief feature of their religious feasts. This circumstance reacted on both sculpture and architecture, in supplying the former with models of ideal beauty, and in setting the task to the latter of providing suitable places for these games to be celebrated. For purposes of this kind (as far as public exhibition was not concerned) the palæstrai and gymnasia served. In earlier times these two must be distinguished. In the palæstra … young men practised wrestling and boxing. As these arts were gradually developed, larger establishments with separate compartments became necessary. Originally such places were, like the schools of the grammarians, kept by private persons; sometimes they consisted only of open spaces, if possible near a brook and surrounded by trees. Soon, however, regular buildings—gymnasia—became necessary. At first they consisted of an uncovered, court surrounded by colonnades, adjoining which lay covered spaces, the former being used for running and jumping, the latter for wrestling. In the same degree as these exercises became more developed, and as grown-up men began to take an interest in these youthful sports, and spent a great part of their day at the gymnasia, these grew in size and splendour. They soon became a necessary of life, and no town could be without them, larger cities often containing several."

Of gymnasia "there were many at Athens; though three only, those of the Academy, Lyceum, and Cynosarges, have acquired celebrity: The site of the first of these gymnasia being low and marshy was in ancient times infested with malaria, but having been drained by Cimon and planted with trees it became a favourite promenade and place of exercise. Here, in walks shaded by the sacred olive, might be seen young men with crowns of rushes in flower upon their heads, enjoying the sweet odour of the smilax and the white poplar, while the platanos and the elm mingled their murmurs in the breeze of spring. The meadows of the Academy, according to Aristophanes the grammarian, were planted with the Apragmosune, a sort of flower so called as though it smelt of all kind of fragrance and safety, like our heart's-ease or flower of the Trinity. This place is supposed to have derived its name from Ecadamos, a public-spirited man who bequeathed his property for the purpose of keeping it in order. … The name of the Lyceum, sometimes derived from Lycus, son of Pandion, probably owed its origin to the temenos of Lycian Apollo there situated. It lay near the banks of the Ilissos, and was adorned with stately edifices, fountains and groves. … In this place anciently the Polemarch held his court and the forces of the republic were exercised before they went forth to war. Appended to the name of the Cynosarges, or third gymnasium surrounded with groves, was a legend which related that when Diomos was sacrificing to Hestia, a white dog snatched away a part of the victim from the altar, and running straightway out of the city deposited it on the spot where this gymnasium was afterwards erected."

"The name of that most illustrious of the Athenian gymnasia, the Academy, has been preserved through the dark ages, and exactly in the situation indicated by ancient testimony. We are informed that the Academy was six or eight stades distant from a gate in the wall of the asty named Dipylum, and that the road from thence to the Academy led through that part of the outer Cerameicus, in which it was a custom to bury the Athenian citizens who had fallen in battle on important occasions. Dipylum was the gate from whence began the Sacred Way from Athens to Eleusis. … It appears also that the Academy lay between the Sacred Way and the Colonus Hippius, a height near the Cephissus, sacred to Neptune, and the scene of the Œdipus Coloneus of Sophocles; for the Academy was not far from Colonus, and the latter was ten stades distant from the city. That part of the plain which is near the olive-groves, on the northeastern side of Athens, and is now called Akadhimia, is entirely in conformity with these data. It is on the lowest level, where some water-courses from the ridges of Lycabettus are consumed in gardens and olive plantations."

GYMNASIARCH.

"Having in various and distant countries lived in habits of intimacy with these people, I have come to the following conclusions respecting them: that wherever they are found, their manners and customs are virtually the same, though somewhat modified by circumstances, and that the language they speak amongst themselves, and of which they are particularly anxious to keep others in ignorance, is in all countries one and the same, but has been subjected more or less to modification; and lastly, that their countenances exhibit a decided family resemblance, but are darker or fairer according to the temperature of the climate, but invariably darker, at least in Europe, than the natives of the countries in which they dwell, for example, England and Russia, Germany and Spain. The names by which they are known differ with the country, though, with one or two exceptions, not materially; for example, they are styled in Russia, Zigani; in Turkey and Persia, Zingarri; and in Germany, Zigeuner; all which words apparently spring from the same etymon, which there is no improbability in supposing to be 'Zincali,' a term by which these people, especially those of Spain, sometimes designate themselves, and the meaning of which is believed to be, 'The black men of Zend or Ind.' In England and Spain they are commonly known as Gypsies and Gitanos, from a general belief that they were originally Egyptians, to which the two words are tantamount; and in France as Bohemians, from the circumstance that Bohemia was the first country in civilized Europe where they made their appearance; though there is reason for supposing that they had been wandering in the remote regions of Sclavonia for a considerable time previous, as their language abounds with words of Sclavonic origin, which could not have been adopted in a hasty passage through a wild and half populated country. But they generally style themselves and the language which they speak, Rommany. This word … is of Sanscrit origin, and signifies, 'The Husbands,' or that which pertaineth unto them. From whatever motive this appellation may have originated, it is perhaps more applicable than any other to a sect or caste like them, who have no love and no affection beyond their own race; who are capable of making great sacrifices for each other, and who gladly prey upon all the rest of the human species, whom they detest, and by whom they are hated and despised. It will perhaps not be out of place to observe here, that there is no reason for supposing that the word Roma or Rommany is derived from the Arabic word which signifies Greece or Grecians, as some people not much acquainted with the language of the race in question have imagined. … Scholars have asserted that the language which they speak proves them to be of Indian stock, and undoubtedly a great number of their words are Sanscrit. … There is scarcely a part of the habitable world where they are not to be found; their tents are alike pitched on the heaths of Brazil and the ridges of the Himalayan hills, and their language is heard at Moscow and Madrid, in the streets of London and Stamboul."

"One day, 450 years ago, or thereabouts, there knocked at the gates of the city of Lüneburg, on the Elbe, as strange a rabble rout as had ever been seen by German burgher. There were 300 of them, men and women, accompanied by an extraordinary number of children. They were dusky of skin, with jet-black hair and eyes; they wore strange garments; they were unwashed and dirty even beyond the liberal limits tolerated by the cold-water-fearing citizens of Lüneburg; they had with them horses, donkeys, and carts; they were led by two men whom they described as Duke and Count. … All the Lüneburgers turned out to gaze open-mouthed at these pilgrims, while the Duke and the Count told the authorities their tale, which was wild and romantic. … Many years before, they explained, while the tears of penitence stood in the eyes of all but the youngest children, they had been a Christian community, living in orthodoxy, and therefore happiness, in a far-off country known as Egypt. … They were then a happy Christian flock. To their valley came the Saracens, an execrable race, worshipping Mahound. Yielding, in an evil hour, to the threats and persecutions of their conquerors, they—here they turned their faces and wept aloud—they abjured Christ. But thereafter they had no rest or peace, and a remorse so deep fell upon their souls that they were fain to arise, leave their homes, and journey to Rome in hope of getting reconciliation with the Church, They were graciously received by the Pope, who promised to admit them back into the fold after seven years of penitential wandering. They had letters of credit from King Sigismund—would the Lüneburgers kindly look at them?—granting safe conduct and recommending them to the protection of all honest people. The Lüneburg folk were touched at the recital of so much suffering in a cause so good; they granted the request of the strangers. They allowed them to encamp, … The next day the strangers visited the town. In the evening a good many things were missed, especially those unconsidered trifles which a housewife may leave about her doorway. Poultry became suddenly scarce; eggs doubled in price; it was rumoured that purses had been lost while their owners gazed at the strangers; cherished cups of silver were not to be found. … While the Lüneburgers took counsel, in their leisurely way, how to meet a case so uncommon, the pilgrims suddenly decamped, leaving nothing behind them but the ashes of their fires and the picked bones of the purloined poultry. … This was the first historical appearance of Gipsies. It was a curious place to appear in. The mouth of the Elbe is a long way from Egypt, even if you travel by sea, which does not appear to have been the case; and a journey on laud not only would have been infinitely more fatiguing, but would, one would think, have led to some notice on the road before reaching Lüneburg. There, however, the Gipsies certainly are first heard of, and henceforth history has plenty to say about their doings. From Lüneburg they went to Hamburg, Lübeck, Rostock, Griefswald, travelling in an easterly direction. They are mentioned as having appeared in Saxony, where they were driven away, as at Lüneburg, for their thievish propensities. They travelled through Switzerland, headed by their great Duke Michael, and pretending to have been expelled from Egypt by the Turks, Their story in these early years, though it varied in particulars, remained the same in essentials. {1621} In Provence they called themselves Saracens; in Swabia they were Egyptians doomed to everlasting wanderings for having refused hospitality to the Virgin and Joseph; at Bâle, where they exhibited letters of safe conduct from the Pope, they were also Egyptians. Always the Land of the Nile; always the same pretence, or it may be reminiscence, of sojourn in Egypt; always, to soothe the suspicions of priests, faithful and submissive sons of the Church. From the very first their real character was apparent. They lie, cheat, and steal at Lüneburg; they lie and steal everywhere; they tell fortunes and cut purses, they buy and sell horses, they poison pigs, they rob and plunder, they wander and they will not work. They first came to Paris in the year 1427, when more people went to see them, we are told, than ever crowded to the Fair of Laudet. … They remained at St. Denis for a month, when they received peremptory orders to quit for the usual reason. … In the 16th century trouble began for the Roman folk. By this time their character was perfectly well known. They were called Bohemians, Heathen, Gitanos, Pharaohites, Robbers, Tartars, and Zigeuner. They had abandoned the old lying story of the penitential wanderings; they were outcasts; their hand was against every man's hand; their customs were the same then as they are described now by Leland or Borrow."

"Since the publication of Pott's book upon the gypsies [Die Zigeuner in Europa und Asien]—about 30 years ago—we have come to regard the origin of this singular people with considerable unanimity of opinion. Almost nobody doubts now that they are Indians; and the assumption that all the gypsies scattered throughout Europe are descended from one parent stock meets with little contradiction. Both of these beliefs are the outcome of the investigation of their language. … Pott, in the introduction to his book, and quoting from the 'Shah-Name' of Firdousi, informs us that, during the 5th century of our era, the Persian monarch, Behram Gour, received from an Indian king 12,000 musicians of both sexes, who were known as Luris. Now, as this is the name by which the gypsies of Persia are known even at the present day, and as, moreover, the author of the Persian work 'Modjmal at-tawarikh' emphatically says that the Luris or Lulis of modern Persia are the descendants of these same 12,000 musicians, there is no hazard in the assumption that we have here the first recorded gypsy migration. Confirmation of this is afforded by the Arabian historian, Hamza of Ispahan, who wrote half a century before Firdousi, and who was well versed in the history of the Sassasinides. It is related by this author that Behram Gour caused 12,000 musicians, called Zott, to be sent from India for the benefit of his subjects. And 'Zott' is the name by which the gypsies were known to the Arabs, and which they even bear in Damascus at the present day. In the Arabic dictionary 'al-Kamus' this entry occurs: 'Zott, arabicized from Jatt, a people of Indian origin. The word might be pronounced Zatt with equal correctness.' … For the fatherland of these Zott, or Jatt, we have not long to seek. Istakhri and Ibn-Haukal, the celebrated 10th-century geographers, recount as follows:— 'Between al-Mansura and Mokran the waters of the Indus have formed marshes, the borders of which are inhabited by certain Indian tribes, called Zott; those of them who dwell near the river live in huts, like the huts of the Berbers, and subsist chiefly on fish and water-fowl; while those occupying the level country further inland live like the Kurds, supporting themselves on milk, cheese, and maize.' In these same regions there are yet two more tribes placed by these geographers, namely, the Bodha and the Meid. The former are properly, according to Ibn-Haukal, a subdivision of the Zott. … In course of time the Meds (to adopt the spelling favoured by Sir Henry Elliott) overcame the Zotts, whom they treated with such severity that they had to leave the country. The Zotts then established themselves on the river Pehen, where they soon became skilful sailors"; while those living farther to the north, known as Kikan, became famed as breeders of horses and herders of buffalos. When the Arabs, in their career of conquest, came in contact with the Zotts, the latter joined them, and large colonies of them were removed, for some reason, to western Asia, and settled with their herds on the lower Euphrates and Tigris, and in Syria. The Zotts on the Tigris became strong and troublesome in time, and in 834 the khalif Motacem, after subjugating them by force, removed them from the country, to the number of 27,000, sending them to Ainzarba, on the northern frontier of Syria. In 855, Ainzarba was captured by the Byzantines, who carried off the Zotts, with all their buffalo herds. "Here, then, we have the first band of gypsies brought into the Greek Empire. … As regards the destinies of the Zotts after they had been brought to Asia Minor from Ainzarba, in the year 855, I have been unable—in the course of a hurried search—to discover anything. But, now that we know the year in which they entered Byzantine territory, others may be more successful. Whether the name Zott, or rather its Indian form Jatt (or Jaut), has also been brought with them into Europe, I am, of course, as little able to say."

M. J. de Goeje, A Contribution to the History of the Gypsies (In "Accounts of the Gypsies of India," edited by D. MacRitchie).

"Students of the gipsies, and especially those who have interested themselves in the history of the race, will have read with regret the announcement of the death, at Paris, on March 1st, of the veteran 'tsiganologue,' M. Paul Bataillard. For the last half century he had devoted his leisure time to the study of the early notices of the presence of gipsies in Europe. … It was his opinion that there have been gipsies in Eastern Europe since prehistoric times, and that it is to them Europe owes its knowledge of metallurgy. Heterodox although this opinion may be, it has recently been observed by Mr. F. H. Groome that 'Bataillard's theory is gaining favour with foreign archæologists, among whom MM. Mortillet, Chantre, and Burnouf had arrived independently at similar conclusions.'"

GYRWAS.

"Fen-folk"—the name taken by a body of Engle freebooters who occupied the islands in the Fen district of England for a long time before they were able to possess the Roman-British towns and country on its border.

HADRIAN,
   Roman Emperor, A. D. 117-138.
   Hadrian I., Pope, 772-795.
   Hadrian II., Pope, 867-872.
   Hadrian III., Pope, 884-885.
   Hadrian IV., Pope, 1154-1159.
   Hadrian V., Pope, 1276, July to August.

HADRIANOPLE.

HADRIAN'S MAUSOLEUM.

HADRIAN'S WALL.

HADRUMETUM, OR ADRUMETUM.

"Unlike other Dutch cities, the Hague owed its importance, not to commerce or manufactures, but to having early been made the seat of government of the United Provinces, and to the constant presence of the officers of state and the foreign ministers accredited to the republic. For four centuries the abode of the counts of Holland, it derives its name from the 'Haeg 'or hedge encircling the magnificent park which formed their ancient hunting ground, and the majestic trees in which, at this day, attract the admiration of Europe."

HAINAULT.

Hainault, the region of the Netherlands occupied anciently by the Nervii, became a county under hereditary lords in the 9th century. In the 11th century it was joined by marriage to the territories of the counts of Flanders, and so remained, until the beginning of the 14th century. In 1300 Hainault and Holland became joined under the same family of counts.

HAITI.

HAKO, OR HAKON I. (called the Good),
   King of Norway, A. D. 940-963.
   Hako II. (Jarl), King of Norway, 977-995.
   Hako III., King of Norway, 1202-1204.
   Hako IV., King of Norway, 1207-1263.
   Hako V., King of Norway, 1299-1319.
   Hako VI., King of Norway, 1343-1380.

HALF-BREEDS.

HALICARNASSUS.

See CARIANS; and ASIA MINOR; THE GREEK COLONIES; also, MACEDONIA: B. C. 334-330.

"In the year [1749] after the peace [of Aix-la-Chapelle] the land forces in Great Britain were reduced to little more than 18,000 men; those in Minorca, Gibraltar, and the American plantations, to 10,000; while the sailors retained in the Royal Navy were under 17,000. From the large number both of soldiers and seamen suddenly discharged, it was feared that they might be either driven to distress or tempted to depredation. Thus, both for their own comfort and for the quiet of the remaining community, emigration seemed to afford a safe and excellent resource. The province of Nova Scotia was pitched upon for this experiment, and the freehold of fifty acres was offered to each settler, with ten acres more for every child brought with him, besides a free passage, and an exemption from all taxes during a term of ten years. Allured by such advantages, above 4,000 persons, with their families, embarked under the command of Colonel Cornwallis, and landed at the harbour of Chebuetow. The new town which soon arose from their labours received its name from the Earl of Halifax, who presided at the Board of Trade, and who had the principal share in the foundation of this colony. In the first winter there were but 300 huts of wood, surrounded by a palisade."

Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope), History of England, 1713-1783, chapter 31 (volume 4).

HALIFAX CURRENCY.

"For many years Canada used what was called 'Halifax currency,' in which the nomenclature of sterling money was that employed, but having a pound of this currency valued at four dollars."

HALIFAX FISHERY AWARD.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (FEBRUARY-APRIL: TENNESSEE);
     (APRIL-MAY: TENNESSEE-MISSISSIPPI);
     (JUNE-OCTOBER: TENNESSEE-KENTUCKY).

HAMADAN.

"It is impossible to doubt that the Hamathites are identical with the Canaanitish tribe that was settled in the town of Hamath, afterwards called Epiphania, on the Orontes, between the Hittites and the Amorites of Kadesh. After the time of David they were succeeded in that town by the Arimæans."

F. Lenormant, Manual of Ancient History of the East, book 6, chapter 1 (volume 2).

HAMBURG: A. D. 1801-1803.
One of six Free Cities which survived the Peace of Luneville.

HAMBURG: A. D. 1815.
Once more a Free City and a member of the Germanic
Confederation.

HAMBURG: A. D. 1888.
Surrender of free privileges.
Absorption in the Zollverein and Empire.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1789-1792;
      also, TARIFF LEGISLATION (UNITED STATES):
      A. D. 1789-1791.

HAMITES.—HAMITIC LANGUAGES.

The name Hamites, as now used among ethnologists, is restricted more closely than it once was to certain African races, whose languages are found to be related. The languages classed as Hamitic are those of the ancient Egyptians and the modern Copts, most of the Abyssinian tribes, the Gallas and the Berbers. Some of the older writers, Lenormant, for example, embraced the Phœnicians and all their Canaanite neighbors among the Hamites; but this is not now an accepted view. It was undoubtedly formed under the influence of the theory from which the name Hamites came, namely that the people so designated were descendants of Ham; and it sought to adjust a division of the Hamitic family to four lines of descent, indicated by the Biblical account of the four sons of Ham,—Cush, Mizraim, Phut, and Canaan. This hypothesis identified the Cushites with the Ethiopians (modern Abyssinians and Nubians), the descendants of Mizraim with the Egyptians, those of Phut with the Libyans, and those of Canaan with the Canaanites, including the Phœnicians. Some held that the Hamites occupied originally a great part of western and southern Asia; that they were the primitive inhabitants of southern Mesopotamia, or Chaldea, southern Persia, and southern Arabia, and were displaced by the Semites; also that they once inhabited the most of Asia Minor, and that the Carians were a surviving remnant of them. But the more conservative sense in which the term Hamite is now used restricts it, as stated above, to certain races which are grouped together by a relationship in their languages. Whether or not the Hamitic tongues have an affinity to the Semitic seems still an open question; and, in fact, the whole subject is in an undetermined state, as may be inferred from the following extract: "The so-called Hamitic or sub-Semitic languages of Northern Africa … exhibit resemblances to the language of ancient Egypt as well as to those of the Semitic family. In the Libyan dialects we find the same double verbal form employed with the same double function as in Assyrian, and throughout the 'Hamitic' languages the causative is denoted by a prefixed sibilant as it was in the parent Semitic speech. We cannot argue, however, from language to race, … and the Libyans have ethnologically no connection with the Semites or the Egyptians. Moreover, in several instances the Hamitic' dialects are spoken by tribes of negro or Nubian origin, while the physiological characteristics of the Egyptians are very different from those of the Semite."

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1634-1637; 1640-1641; 1642 (JANUARY), (OCTOBER-DECEMBER); and 1643 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

HAMPDEN CLUBS.

HAMPTON COURT CONFERENCE.

HAMPTON ROADS PEACE CONFERENCE.

HANDVESTS.

HANES.

An ancient Egyptian city, once mentioned in the Bible by that name (Isaiah xxx. 4). Its ruins have been identified, about 70 miles above Cairo, on the western bank of the Nile. The Egyptian name of the city was Chenensu; the Greek name Heracleopolis.

HANOVER: A. D. 1529.
The Duke joins in the Protest which gave origin to the name
Protestants.

HANOVER: A. D. 1546.
Final separation from the Wolfenbüttel branch of the House.

The two principalities of Brunswick and Lüneburg, which had been divided, were reunited by Ernest, called the Confessor. On his death, in 1546, they were again divided, the heir of his elder son taking Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel, or Brunswick, and the younger receiving Brunswick-Lüneburg, or Hanover. From the latter branch sprang the Electoral House of Hanover, and the present royal family of England; from the former descended the Ducal Brunswick family.

HANOVER: A. D. 1648.
Losses and acquisitions in the Peace of Westphalia.
The alternating Bishopric.

HANOVER: A. D. 1701.
Settlement of the Succession of the Brunswick-Lüneberg line to
the English Crown.

HANOVER: A. D. 1720.
Acquisition of the duchies of Bremen and Verden by the
Elector.

HANOVER: A. D. 1757-1762.
French attack and British defense of the electorate in the
Seven Years War.

HANOVER: A. D. 1776.
Troops hired to Great Britain for service in the American War.

HANOVER: A. D. 1813.
Deliverance from Napoleon.
Restoration to the King of England.

HANOVER: A. D. 1815.
Raised to the rank of a kingdom, with territorial enlargement.

"From the hour that the Crown of these kingdoms [Great Britain and Ireland] devolved upon Queen Victoria, dates a change which was a real blessing in the relations of the Sovereign to the Continent of Europe. Hanover was at that instant wholly separated from Great Britain. By the law of that country a female could not reign except in default of heirs male in the Royal family. But in addition to the great advantage of separating the policy of England wholly from the intrigues and complications of a petty German State, it was an immediate happiness that the most hated and in some respects the most dangerous man in these islands was removed to a sphere where his political system might be worked out with less danger to the good of society than amongst a people where his influence was associated with the grossest follies of Toryism and the darkest designs of Orangeism. On the 24th of June the duke of Cumberland, now become Ernest Augustus, King of Hanover, left London. On the 28th he made a solemn entrance into the capital of his states, and at once exhibited to his new subjects his character and disposition by refusing to receive a deputation of the Chambers, who came to offer him their homage and their congratulations. By a proclamation of the 5th of July he announced his intention to abolish the representative constitution, which he had previously refused to recognize by the customary oath. We shall have little further occasion to notice the course of this worst disciple of the old school of intolerance and irresponsible government, and we may therefore at once state that he succeeded in depriving Hanover of the forms of freedom under which she had begun to live; ejected from their offices and banished some of the ablest professors of the University of Gottingen, who had ventured to think that letters would flourish best in a free soil; and reached the height of his ambition in becoming the representative of whatever in sovereign power was most repugnant to the spirit of the age."

"In consequence of the liberty and security enjoyed by the inhabitants of the free towns [of Germany—see CITIES: IMPERIAL AND FREE, OF GERMANY], while the rest of the country was a prey to all the evils of feudal anarchy and oppression, they made a comparatively rapid progress in wealth and population. Nuremberg, Augsburg, Worms, Spires, Frankfort, and other cities, became at an early period celebrated alike for the extent of their commerce, the magnificence of their buildings, and the opulence of their citizens. … The commercial spirit awakened in the north about the same time as in the south of Germany. Hamburgh was founded by Charlemagne in the beginning of the ninth century, in the intention of serving as a fort to bridle the Saxons, who had been subjugated by the emperor. Its favourable situation on the Elbe necessarily rendered it a commercial emporium. Towards the close of the twelfth century, the inhabitants, who had already been extensively engaged in naval enterprizes, began to form the design of emancipating themselves from the authority of their counts, and of becoming a sovereign and independent state; and in 1189 they obtained an Imperial charter which gave them various privileges, including among others the power of electing councillors, or aldermen, to whom, in conjunction with the deputy of the count, the government of the town was to be entrusted. Not long after Hamburgh became entirely free. In 1224 the citizens purchased from Count Albert the renunciation of all his rights, whether real or pretended, to any property in or sovereignty over the town, and its immediate vicinity. And the government was thus early placed on that liberal footing on which it has ever since remained. Lubeck, situated on the Trave, was founded about the middle of the twelfth century. It rapidly grew to be a place of great trade. {1625} It became the principal emporium for the commerce of the Baltic, and its merchants extended their dealings to Italy and the Levant. At a period when navigation was still imperfect, and when the seas were infested with pirates, it was of great importance to be able to maintain a safe intercourse by land between Lubeck and Hamburgh, as by that means the difficult and dangerous navigation of the Sound was avoided. And it is said by some, that the first political union between these cities had the protection of merchandize carried between them by land for its sole object. But this is contradicted by Lambec in his 'Origines Hamburgenses' (lib. xi., pa. 26). … But whatever may have been the motives which led to the alliance between these two cities, it was the origin of the famous Hanseatic League, so called from the German word 'hansa,' signifying a corporation. There is no very distinct evidence as to the time when the alliance in question was established; but the more general opinion seems to be that it dates from the year 1241. … From the beginning of the twelfth century, the progress of commerce and navigation in the north was exceedingly rapid. The countries which stretch along the bottom of the Baltic from Holstein to Russia, and which had been occupied by barbarous tribes of Sclavonic origin, were then subjugated by the Kings of Denmark, the Dukes of Saxony, and other princes. The greater part of the inhabitants being exterminated, their place was filled by German colonists, who founded the towns of Stralsund, Rostock, Wismar, etc. Prussia and Poland were afterwards subjugated by the Christian princes, and the Knights of the Teutonic order. So that in a comparatively short period, the foundations of civilization and the arts were laid in countries whose barbarism had ever remained impervious to the Roman power. The cities that were established along the coasts of the Baltic, and even in the interior of the countries bordering upon it, eagerly joined the Hanseatic confederation. They were indebted to the merchants of Lubeck for supplies of the commodities produced in more civilized countries, and they looked up to them for protection against the barbarians by whom they were surrounded. The progress of the league was in consequence singularly rapid. Previously to the end of the thirteenth century it embraced every considerable city in all those vast countries extending from Livonia to Holland; and was a match for the most powerful monarchs. The Hanseatic confederacy was at its highest degree of power and splendour during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. It then comprised from sixty to eighty cities, which were distributed into four classes or circles. Lubeck was at the head of the first circle, and had under it Hamburgh, Bremen, Rostock, Wismar, etc. Cologne was at the head of the second circle, with twenty-nine towns under it. Brunswick was at the head of the third circle, consisting of thirteen towns. Dantzic was at the head of the fourth circle, having under it eight towns in its vicinity, besides several that were more remote. The supreme authority of the League was vested in the deputies of the different towns assembled in Congress. In it they discussed all their measures; decided upon the sum that each city should contribute to the common fund; and upon the questions that arose between the confederacy and other powers, as well as those that frequently arose between the different members of the confederacy. The place for the meeting of Congress was not fixed, but it was most frequently held at Lubeck, which was considered as the capital of the League, and there its archives were kept. … Besides the towns already mentioned, there were others that were denominated confederated cities, or allies. … The Golden Bull proscribed all sorts of leagues and associations, as contrary to the fundamental laws of the empire, and to the subordination due to the emperor and the different princes. But Charles IV., the author of this famous edict, judged it expedient to conciliate the Hanseatic League; and his successors seem generally to have followed his example. As the power of the confederated cities was increased and consolidated, they became more ambitious. Instead of limiting their efforts to the mere advancement of commerce and their own protection, they endeavoured to acquire the monopoly of the trade of the North, and to exercise the same sort of dominion over the Baltic that the Venetians exercised over the Adriatic. For this purpose they succeeded in obtaining, partly in return for loans of money, and partly by force, various privileges and immunities from the Northern sovereigns which secured to them almost the whole foreign commerce of Scandinavia, Denmark, Prussia, Poland, Russia, etc. They exclusively carried on the herring-fishery of the Sound, at the same time that they endeavoured to obstruct and hinder the navigation of foreign vessels in the Baltic. … The Kings of Denmark, Sweden and Norway were frequently engaged in hostilities with the Hanse towns. They regarded, and it must be admitted not without pretty good reason, the privileges acquired by the League in their kingdoms as so many usurpations. But their efforts to abolish these privileges served, for more than two centuries, only to augment and extend them. … Waldemar III., who ascended the Danish throne in 1340, engaged in a furious contest with the League. Success seemed at first rather to incline to his arms. Ultimately, however, he was completely defeated by the forces of the League and its allies, and was even obliged to fly from his kingdom. In his exile he prevailed on the Emperor and the Pope to interpose in his favour. But neither the imperial rescripts nor the thunders of the Vatican were able to divert the confederated cities from their purposes. At length, in 1370, the regents, to whom the government of Denmark had been intrusted during the absence of the monarch, concluded a peace with the League on the conditions dictated by the latter; one of which was that most of the strong places in the kingdom should be given up to the League for fifteen years, in security for the faithful performance of the treaty. Waldemar having assented to these humiliating terms, returned soon after to Denmark. In the early part of the fifteenth century the Hanse towns having espoused the side of the Count of Holstein, who was at war with Eric X., King of Denmark, sent an armament of upwards of 200 ships, having more than 12,000 troops on board, to the assistance of their ally. This powerful aid decided the contest in his favour. Nearly at the same time the League raised their ally, Albert of Mecklenburgh, to the throne of Norway, who confirmed to them several important commercial privileges. {1626} In their contests with Sweden, during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, the League were equally successful. Such, indeed, was their ascendancy in that kingdom, that they were authorized to nominate some of the principal magistrates in most of the Swedish maritime towns of any importance! … The town of Wisby, situated on the west coast of the island of Gothland, became, during the ascendancy of the League, one of its principal depots, and also one of the best frequented emporiums of the North. But Wisby is chiefly famous from its name having become identified with the code of maritime laws that was long of paramount authority in the Baltic. … The principal Northern jurists and historians regard the Wisby code, or compilation, as anterior to the code, or compilation, denominated the Rules or Judgments of Oleron, and as being in fact the most ancient monument of the maritime laws of the middle ages. But no learning or ingenuity can give plausibility to so improbable a theory. … In order to facilitate and extend their commercial transactions, the League established various factories in foreign countries, the principal of which were at Novogorod in Russia, London in England, Bruges in the Netherlands, and Bergen in Norway. Novogorod, situated at the confluence of the Volkof with the Imler Lake, was, for a lengthened period, the most renowned emporium in the north-eastern parts of Europe. … The merchants of the Hanse towns, or Hansards, as they were then commonly termed, were established in London at a very early period, and their factory here was of considerable magnitude and importance. They enjoyed various privileges and immunities; they were permitted to govern themselves by their own laws and regulations; the custody of one of the gates of the city (Bishopsgate) was committed to their care; and the duties on various sorts of imported commodities were considerably reduced in their favour. These privileges necessarily excited the ill-will and animosity of the English merchants. … The League exerted themselves vigorously in defence of their privileges; and having declared war against England, they succeeded in excluding our vessels from the Baltic, and acted with such energy, that Edward IV. was glad to come to an accommodation with them, on terms which were anything but honourable to the English. In the treaty for this purpose, negotiated in 1474, the privileges of the merchants of the Hanse towns were renewed, and the king assigned to them, in absolute property, a large space of ground, with the buildings upon it, in Thames Street, denominated the Steel Yard, whence the Hanse merchants have been commonly denominated the Association of the Steel Yard. … In 1498, all direct commerce with the Netherlands being suspended, the trade fell into the hands of the Hanse merchants, whose commerce was in consequence very greatly extended. But, according as the spirit of commercial enterprise awakened in the nation, and as the benefits resulting from the prosecution of foreign trade came to be better known, the privileges of the Hanse merchants became more and more obnoxious. They were in consequence considerably modified in the reigns of Henry VII. and Henry VIII., and were at length wholly abolished in 1597. The different individuals belonging to the factory in London, as well as those belonging to the other factories of the League, lived together at a common table, and were enjoined to observe the strictest celibacy. … By means of their factory at Bergen, and of the privileges which had been either granted to or usurped by them, the League enjoyed for a lengthened period the monopoly of the commerce of Norway. But the principal factory of the League was at Bruges in the Netherlands. Bruges became, at a very early period, one of the first commercial cities of Europe, and the centre of the most extensive trade carried on to the north of Italy. The art of navigation in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries was so imperfect, that a voyage from Italy to the Baltic and back again could not be performed in a single season, and hence, for the sake of their mutual convenience, the Italian and Hanseatic merchants determined on establishing a magazine or store-house of their respective products in some intermediate situation. Bruges was fixed upon for this purpose, a distinction which it seems to have owed as much to the freedom enjoyed by the inhabitants, and the liberality of the government of the Low Countries, as to the conveniency of its situation. In consequence of this preference, Bruges speedily rose to the very highest rank among commercial cities, and became a place of vast wealth. … From the middle of the fifteenth century the power of the confederacy, though still very formidable, began to decline. This was not owing to any misconduct on the part of its leaders, but to the progress of that improvement it had done so much to promote. … Lubeck, Hamburgh, Bremen, and the towns in their vicinity, were latterly the only ones that had any interest in its maintenance. The cities in Zealand and Holland joined it, chiefly because they would otherwise have been excluded from the commerce of the Baltic; and those of Prussia, Poland and Russia did the same, because, had they not belonged to it, they would have been shut out from all intercourse with strangers. When, however, the Zealanders and Hollanders became sufficiently powerful at sea to be able to vindicate their right to the free navigation of the Baltic by force of arms, they immediately seceded from the League; and no sooner had the ships of the Dutch, the English, etc., begun to trade directly with the Polish and Prussian Hanse Towns, than these nations also embraced the first opportunity of withdrawing from it. … At the middle of the seventeenth century the cities of Lubeck, Hamburgh, and Bremen were all that continued to acknowledge the authority of the League."

ALSO IN: S. A. Dunham, History of the Germanic Empire, book 1, chapter 4 (volume 2).

      C. Walford,
      Outline History of the Hanseatic League
      (Royal Historical Society Transactions, volume 9).

      See, also,
      CITIES, IMPERIAL AND FREE, OF GERMANY;
      and SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1018-1397.

HANSEATIC LEAGUE.

HAOMA.

HARAN.

"From Ur, Abraham's father had migrated to Haran, in the northern part of Mesopotamia, on the high road which led from Babylonia and Assyria into Syria and Palestine. Why he should have migrated to so distant a city has been a great puzzle, and has tempted scholars to place both Ur and Haran in wrong localities; but here, again, the cuneiform inscriptions have at last furnished us with the key. As far back as the Accadian epoch, the district in which Haran was built belonged to the rulers of Babylonia; Haran was, in fact, the frontier town of the empire, commanding at once the highway into the west and the fords of the Euphrates; the name itself was an Accadian one, signifying 'the road.'"

The site of Haran is generally identified with that of the later city of Carrhæ.

HARD-SHELL DEMOCRATS.

HARDENBURG'S REFORM MEASURES IN PRUSSIA.

HARDICANUTE, OR HARTHACNUT,
King of Denmark, A. D. 1035-1042;
King of England, A. D. 1040-1042.

A very memorable battle in Scottish history, fought July 24, 1411, between the Highlanders and Lowlanders of the country. Donald, Lord of the Isles, was then practically an independent sovereign of the western Highlands of Scotland, as well as the islands opposite their shore. He claimed still larger domains and invaded the lowland districts to make his claim good. The defeat inflicted upon him, at heavy cost to the victors, was felt, says Mr. Benton in his "History of Scotland," as a more memorable deliverance even than that of Bannockburn. The independence of the Lord of the Isle was not extinguished until sixty years later. "The battle of Harlaw and its consequences were of the highest importance, since they might be said to decide the superiority of the more civilized regions of Scotland over those inhabited by the Celtic tribes, who remained almost as savage as their forefathers the Dalriads."

HARLEM.

HARMAR'S EXPEDITION AGAINST THE INDIANS.

HARMOSTS.

HAROLD (the Dane),
King of England, A. D. 1037-1040.
Harold (the Saxon), King of England, 1066.

HARPER'S FERRY: A. D. 1861 (April).
Arsenal destroyed and abandoned by the Federal garrison.
Occupied by the Rebels.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (JUNE-JULY: VIRGINIA),
      and (JULY-AUGUST: VIRGINIA).

HARROW SCHOOL.

HARTHACNUT.

"The haruspices, nearly related to the augures, were of Etruscan origin. Under the [Roman] Republic they were consulted only in a few individual cases: under the emperors they gained more importance, remaining, however, inferior to the other priestly colleges. They also expounded and procured lightnings and 'prodigies,' and moreover examined the intestines of sacrificed animals. … Heart, liver and lungs were carefully examined, every anomaly being explained in a favourable or unfavourable sense."

HARVARD ANNEX.

HARVARD COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY.

HASMONEANS, OR ASMONEANS.

A sect of Jewish mystics which rose during the 17th century in
Podolia, Wallachia, Moldavia, Hungary and neighboring regions.

HASTATI.

HATFIELD CHASE.
   A vast swamp in the West Riding of Yorkshire, England, 180,000
   acres in extent, which was sold by the crown in the reign of
   Charles I. to a Hollander who drained and reclaimed it. It had
   been a forest in early times and was the scene of a great
   battle between Penda, King of Mercia, and Edwin of
   Northumberland.

HATRA.

"Hatra [in central Mesopotamia] became known as a place of importance in the early part of the second century after Christ. It successfully resisted Trajan in A. D. 116, and Severus in A. D. 198. It is then described as a large and populous city, defended by strong and extensive walls, and containing within it a temple of the Sun, celebrated for the great value of its offerings. It enjoyed its own kings at this time, who were regarded as of Arabian stock, and were among the more important of the Parthian tributary monarchs. By the year A. D. 363 Hatra had gone to ruin, and is then described as 'long since deserted.' Its flourishing period thus belongs to the space between A. D. 100 and A. D. 300." The ruins of Hatra, now called El-Hadhr, were "visited by Mr. Layard in 1846, and described at length by Mr. Ross in the ninth volume of the 'Journal of the Royal Geographical Society,' as well as by Mr. Fergusson, in his 'History of Architecture.'"

HAVANA.

HAVELOCK'S CAMPAIGN IN INDIA.

HAVRE: A. D. 1563-1564.
Occupation by the English.
Siege and recovery by the French.

The Hawaiian or Sandwich Archipelago, in the North Pacific ocean, "consists of the seven large and inhabited volcanic islands of Oahu, Kauai, Niihau, Maui, Molokai, Lanai, and Hawaii, and the four bare and rocky islets of Kaula, Lehua, Kahoolawe, and Molokini, with a total area of 8,000 square miles, and a population of scarcely more than 50,000 souls. … The Kanakas, as the natives are called, are amongst the finest and most intelligent races of the Pacific, and have become thoroughly 'Europeanised,' or, perhaps rather, 'Americanised.' … The Hawaiians, like all other Polynesians, are visibly decreasing in a constantly increasing ratio."

"Gaetano discovered one of the Sandwich [Hawaiian] Islands in 1542; and, following him, Quiros found Tahiti and the New Hebrides. Sea voyages in the Pacific multiplied, but that sea long continued the exclusive theatre of the enterprises of the Spaniards and Portuguese. … Native traditions refer to the arrival of strangers a long time before Cook's appearance. In the seventeenth century Spanish merchantmen were crossing the Pacific, and might have refreshed at these islands. The buccaneers, too, may have found the small harbour a convenient place of concealment."

      M. Hopkins,
      Hawaii: The Past, Present and Future of the Island Kingdom,
      pages 83, 87.

"It is about a century since His Majesty's ships 'Resolution' and 'Adventure,' Captains Cook and Clerke, turned back from Behring Strait after an unsuccessful attempt to discover the North-West Passage. But the adventurers were destined to light upon fairer lands than those which they had failed to find. On the 18th of January, 1778, whilst sailing through the Pacific, the look-out man reported land ahead, and in the evening they anchored on the shores of that lovely group of twelve islands, which they named in honour of the then First Lord of the Admiralty—Lord Sandwich—better known to the satirists of his day as 'Jemmy Tickler,' one of the greatest of statesmen and most abandoned of men. The natives received the strangers gladly; but on the 14th of February, 1779, in an altercation consequent on the theft of a boat, Captain Cook was killed in Kealakcakua or Karakakoa Bay, in the Island of Hawaii, or Owhyhee, from which the official name of the country—the kingdom of Hawaii—takes its name."

   The several islands of the Hawaiian group were politically
   independent of each other and ruled by different chiefs at the
   time of Captain Cook's visit; but a few years later a chief
   named Kaméhaméha, of remarkable qualities and capabilities,
   succeeded to the sovereignty in the Island of Hawaii, and made
   himself master in time of the whole group. Dying in 1819, he
   left a consolidated kingdom to his son Liholiho, or Kaméhaméha
   II., in whose reign "tabu" and idolatry were abolished and
   Christian missionaries began their labors. The dynasty founded
   by Kaméhaméha held the throne until 1872. In 1840 a
   constitution was proclaimed, which created a legislative body,
   composed of hereditary nobles and seven representatives
   informally elected by the people. In 1842 the United States,
   by an official letter from Daniel Webster, then Secretary of
   State, "recognized the independence of the Hawaiian Kingdom,
   and declared, 'as the sense of the government of the United
   States, that the government of the Sandwich Islands ought to
   be respected; that no power ought to take possession of the
   islands, either as a conquest or for the purpose of
   colonization; and that no power ought to seek for any undue
   control over the existing government, or any exclusive
   privileges or preferences in matters of commerce.'" The
   following year, France and England formally recognized "the
   existence in the Sandwich Islands of a government capable of
   providing for the regularity of its relations with foreign
   nations," and agreed "never to take possession, either
   directly or under the title of a protectorate, or under any
   other form, of any part of the territory of which they are
   composed." In 1852 the constitution was revised. The
   legislature, formerly sitting in one body, was now divided
   into two houses and both enlarged.
{1629}
   In 1864, however, King Kaméhaméha V. forced the adoption of a
   new constitution which reversed this bicameral arrangement and
   restored the single chamber. A double qualification of the
   suffrage, by property and by education, was also introduced.
   With the death of Kaméhaméha V., in 1872, his line ended. His
   successor, Lunalilo, was elected by the legislature, and the
   choice ratified by a popular vote. The reign of Lunalilo
   lasted but two years. His successor, David Kalakaua, was
   raised to the throne by election. In the year after his
   accession, Kalakaua visited the United States, and soon
   afterwards, in 1875, a treaty of reciprocity between the two
   countries was negotiated. This was renewed and enlarged in
   1887. In 1881 the King made a tour of the world. In the fall
   of 1890 he came to California for his health; in January,
   1891, he died at San Francisco. His sister, Liliuokulani,
   widow of an American resident, succeeded him.

In 1887 a new constitution had been adopted. "This new constitution was not framed by the king but by the people through their own appointed citizens and members of the courts. The legislative powers of the crown which had been abridged by the constitution of 1864 were now entirely removed and vested in the representatives of the people. By this the crown became an executive. In addition to this provision there was one making the ministry a responsible body and depriving the king of the right to nominate members of the house of nobles. … The legislature consists of a House of Nobles composed of twenty-four members, who are elected for a term of six years, and a House of Representatives consisting of from twenty-four to forty-two members elected for two years. The Houses sit in joint session. In addition to these public officers there is a cabinet composed of four ministers appointed by the sovereign holding executive power and who may be removed upon sufficient cause by the legislature. Such was the form of government in vogue up to the time of the recent revolution which has excited the interest of the American government. On the 15th of January (1893) … Queen Liliuokalani made the attempt to promulgate a new constitution, obviously for the purpose of increasing her power in the government. It has been hinted that the queen desired to benefit in a pecuniary way by granting concessions for the establishment of a lottery, and the importation of opium into the kingdom, both of which had until a year ago been prohibited. It is best, however, to adhere to fact. The queen desired more power. This new constitution, as framed by her, deprived foreigners of the right of franchise, abrogated the House of Nobles, and gave to the queen herself the power to appoint a new House. This blow aimed directly at the foreigners, who are the largest property holders in the kingdom, stirred them to prompt action. The queen's own ministry were unsuccessful in their efforts to dissuade her from the attempt to put the new constitution into effect. The resolve was not to be shaken, however, and her determination to carry out her plan incited the people, chiefly the foreigners, to oppose the measure. The outcome was a revolution in which not a single life was sacrificed."

A provisional government set up by the revolutionists was immediately recognized by the United States Minister, Mr. Stevens, and commissioners were sent to Washington to apply for the annexation of the islands to the United States. On the 16th of February, 1893, the President of the United States, Mr. Harrison, sent a message to the Senate, submitting an annexation treaty and recommending its ratification. Meantime, at Honolulu, on the 9th of February, the United States Minister, acting without instructions, had established a protectorate over the Hawaiian Islands, in the name of the United States. On the 4th of March, a change in the Presidency of the United States occurred, Mr. Cleveland succeeding Mr. Harrison. One of the earliest acts of President Cleveland was to send a message to the Senate, withdrawing the annexation treaty of his predecessor. A commissioner, Mr. Blount, was then sent to the Hawaiian Islands to examine and report upon the circumstances attending the change of government. On the 18th of the following December the report of Commissioner Blount was sent to Congress, with an accompanying message from the President, in which latter paper the facts set forth by the Commissioner, and the conclusions reached and action taken by the United States Government, were summarized partly as follows: "On Saturday, January 14, 1893, the Queen of Hawaii, who had been contemplating the proclamation of a new constitution, had, in deference to the wishes and remonstrances of her Cabinet, renounced it for the present at least. Taking this relinquished purpose as a basis of action, citizens of Honolulu, numbering from fifty to one hundred, mostly resident aliens, met in a private room and selected a so-culled committee of safety composed of thirteen persons, nine of whom were foreign subjects, and composed of seven Americans, one Englishman, and one German. This committee, though its designs were not revealed, had in view nothing less than annexation to the United States, and between Saturday, the 14th, and the following Sunday, the 18th of January—though exactly what action was taken may never be revealed—they were certainly in communication with the United States Minister. On Monday morning the Queen and her Cabinet made public proclamation, with a notice which was specially served upon the representatives of all foreign governments, that any changes in the constitution would be sought only in the methods provided by that instrument. Nevertheless, at the call and under the auspices of the committee of safety, a mass meeting of citizens was held on that day to protest against the Queen's alleged illegal and unlawful proceedings and purpose. Even at this meeting the committee of safety continued to disguise their real purpose and contented themselves with procuring the passage of a resolution denouncing the Queen and empowering the committee to devise ways and means 'to secure the permanent maintenance of law and order and the protection of life, liberty, and property in Hawaii.' This meeting adjourned between 3 and 4 o'clock in the afternoon. On the same day, and immediately after such adjournment, the committee, unwilling to take further steps without the co-operation of the United States Minister, addressed him a note representing that the public safety was menaced and that lives and property were in danger, and concluded as follows: 'We are unable to protect ourselves without aid, and therefore pray for the protection of the United States forces.' {1630} Whatever may be thought of the other contents of this note, the absolute truth of this latter statement is incontestable. When the note was written and delivered, the committee, so far as it appears, had neither a man nor a gun at their command, and after its delivery they became so panic-stricken at their position that they sent some of their number to interview the Minister and request him not to land the United States forces till the next morning, but he replied the troops had been ordered and whether the committee were ready or not the landing should take place. And so it happened that on the 16th day of January, 1893, between 4 and 5 o'clock in the afternoon, a detachment of marines from the United States steamship Boston, with two pieces of artillery, landed at Honolulu. The men, upwards of one hundred and sixty in all, were supplied with double cartridge belts, filled with ammunition, and with haversacks and canteens, and were accompanied by a hospital corps with stretchers and medical supplies. This military demonstration upon the soil of Honolulu was of itself an act of war, unless made either with the consent of the Government of Hawaii or for the bona fide purpose of protecting the imperilled lives and property of the citizens of the United States. But there is no pretense of any such consent on the part of the Government of Hawaii, which at that time was undisputed, and was both the de facto and the de jure Government. In point of fact the Government, instead of requesting the presence of an armed force, protested against it. There is little basis for the pretense that such forces landed for the security of American life and property. … When these armed men were landed the city of Honolulu was in its customary orderly and peaceful condition. There was no symptom of riot or disturbance in any quarter. … Thus it appears that Hawaii was taken possession of by the United States forces without the consent or wish of the Government of the Islands, or anybody else so far as known, except the United States Minister. Therefore, the military occupation of Honolulu by the United States on the day mentioned was wholly without satisfaction, either as an occupation by consent or as an occupation necessitated by dangers threatening American life and property. It must be accounted for in some other way and on some other ground, and its real motive and purpose are neither obscure nor far to seek. The United States forces being now on the scene and favorably stationed, the committee proceeded to carry out their original scheme. They met the next morning, Tuesday, the 17th, perfected the plan of temporary government and fixed upon its principal officers, who were drawn from 13 members of the committee of safety. Between 1 and 2 o'clock, by squads and by different routes to avoid notice, and having first taken the precaution of ascertaining whether there was anyone there to oppose them, they proceeded to the Government building to proclaim the new Government. No sign of opposition was manifest, and thereupon an American citizen began to read the proclamation from the steps of the Government Building almost entirely without auditors. It is said that before the reading was finished quite a concourse of persons, variously estimated at from 50 to 100, some armed and some unarmed, gathered about the committee to give them aid and confidence. This statement is not important, since the one controlling factor in the whole affair was unquestionably the United States marines, who, drawn up under arms with artillery in readiness only 76 yards distant, dominated the situation. The Provisional Government thus proclaimed was by the terms of the proclamation 'to exist until terms of the Union with the United States had been negotiated and agreed upon.' The United States Minister, pursuant to prior agreement, recognized this Government within an hour after the reading of the proclamation, and before 5 o'clock, in answer to an inquiry on behalf of the Queen and her Cabinet, announced that he had done so. … Some hours after the recognition of the Provisional Government by the United States Minister, the barracks and the police station, with all the military resources of the country, were delivered up by the Queen upon the representation made to her that her cause would thereafter be reviewed at Washington, and while protesting that she surrendered to the superior force of the United States, whose Minister had caused United States troops to be landed at Honolulu and declared that he would support the Provisional Government, and that she yielded her authority to prevent collision of armed forces and loss of life, and only until such time as the United States, upon the facts being presented to it, should undo the action of its representative and reinstate her in the authority she claimed as the constitutional sovereign of the Hawaiian Islands. This protest was delivered to the chief of the Provisional Government, who indorsed it in his acknowledgment of its receipt. … As I apprehend the situation, we are brought face to face with the fact that the lawful government of Hawaii was overthrown without the drawing of a sword or the firing of a shot, by a process every step of which, it may safely be asserted, is directly traceable to and dependent for its success upon the agency of the United States acting through its diplomatic and naval representatives. … Believing, therefore, that the United States could not, under the circumstances disclosed, annex the islands without justly incurring the imputation of acquiring them by unjustifiable methods, I shall not again submit the treaty of annexation to the Senate for its consideration, and in the instructions to Minister Willis, a copy of which accompanies this message, I have directed him to so inform the Provisional Government. But in the present instance our duty does not, in my opinion, end with refusing to consummate this questionable transaction. … I mistake the American people if they favor the odious doctrine that there is no such thing as international morality; that there is one law for a strong nation and another for a weak one; and that even by indirection a strong power may, with impunity, despoil a weak one of its territory. … The Queen surrendered, not to the Provisional Government, but to the United States. She surrendered not absolutely and permanently, but temporarily and conditionally until such facts could be considered by the United States. … {1631} In view of the fact that both the Queen and the Provisional Government had at one time apparently acquiesced in a reference of the entire case to the United States Government, and considering the further fact that, in any event, the Provisional Government, by its own declared limitation, was only 'to exist until terms of union with the United States of America have been negotiated and agreed upon,' I hoped that after the assurance to the members of that Government that such union could not be consummated, I might compass a peaceful adjustment of the difficulty. Actuated by these desires and purposes, and not unmindful of the inherent perplexities of the situation nor limitations upon my part, I instructed Mr. Willis to advise the Queen and her supporters of my desire to aid in the restoration of the status existing before the lawless landing of the United States forces at Honolulu on the 17th of January last, if such restoration could be effected upon terms providing for clemency as well as justice to all parties concerned. The conditions suggested contemplated a general amnesty to those concerned in setting up the Provisional Government and a recognition of all the bona fide acts and obligations. In short, they require that the past should be buried, and that the restored Government should reassume its authority as if its continuity had not been interrupted. These conditions have not proved acceptable to the Queen, and though she has been informed that they will be insisted upon, and that unless acceded to the effort of the President to aid in the restoration of her Government will cease, I have not thus far learned that she is willing to yield them her acquiescence." The refusal of the Queen to consent to a general amnesty forbade further thought of her restoration; while the project of annexation to the United States was extinguished for the time by the just action of President Cleveland, sustained by the Senate. The unauthorized protectorate assumed by Minister Stevens having been withdrawn, the Provisional government remains (March, 1894) in control of the Government of the Hawaiian Islands, and a republican constitution is said to be in preparation.

HAWKINS' FIRST THREE VOYAGES.

HAYTI, HAITI, OR SAN DOMINGO (Originally called Hispaniola):
Its names.
Its beauty.

"Columbus called the island Hispaniola, and it has also been called St. Domingo from the city of that name on its southeastern coast; but Hayti or Haiti (the mountainous country) was its original Carrib name. The French bestowed upon it the deserved name of 'la Reine des Antilles.' All descriptions of its magnificence and beauty, even those of 'Washington Irving in his history of Columbus, fall far short of the reality. It seems beyond the power of language to exaggerate its beauties, its productiveness, the loveliness of its climate, and its desirableness as an abode for man. Columbus labored hard to prove to Isabella that he had found here the original garden of Eden."

      W. H. Pearson,
      Hayti and the Haitians
      (Putnam's Monthly Magazine, January, 1854).

HAYTI: A. D. 1499-1542.
   The enslavement of the natives.
   System of Repartimentos and Encomiendas.
   Introduction of negro slavery.
   Humane and reforming labors of Las Casas.

HAYTI: A. D. 1632-1803.
   Partly possessed France and partly by Spain.
   Revolt of the Slaves and rise of Toussaint L'Ouverture to power.
   Extinction of Slavery.
   Treachery of the French.
   Independence of the island acquired.

"About 1632 the French took possession of the western shore, and increased so rapidly that the Spaniards found it impossible to drive them out; and the footing they had gained was recognized by the Treaty of Ryswick, in 1697, when the western portion of Haiti was confirmed to France. The latter nation was fully conscious of the importance of the new acquirement, and under French rule it became of great value, supplying almost all Europe with cotton and sugar. But the larger eastern portion of the island, which still belonged to Spain, had no share in this progress, remaining much in the same condition as formerly; and thus matters stood—a sluggish community side by side with a thriving one—when the French Revolution broke out, and plunged the island into a state of ferment. In 1790 the population of the western colony consisted of half a million, of which number 38,360 were of European origin, 28,370 free people of colour, and the whole of the remainder negro slaves. The government of the island excluded the free people of colour—mostly mulattoes—from all political privileges, although they were in many cases well-educated men, and themselves the owners of large estates. … On the 15th May, 1790, the French National Assembly passed a decree declaring that people of colour, born of free parents, were entitled to all the privileges of French citizens. When this news reached the colony, it set the inhabitants in a perfect frenzy, the mulattoes manifesting an unbounded joy, whilst the whites boiled at the indignity their class had sustained. The representations of the latter caused the governor to delay the operation of the decree until the home government could be communicated with—a measure that aroused the greatest indignation amongst the mulattoes, and civil war appeared inevitable, when a third and wholly unexpected party stepped into the arena. The slaves rose in insurrection on August 23rd, 1791, marching with the body of a white infant on a spear-head as a standard, and murdering all Europeans indiscriminately. In the utmost consternation the whites conceded the required terms to the mulattoes, and, together with the help of the military, the rising was suppressed, and there seemed a prospect of peace, when the Assembly at Paris repealed the decree of the 15th May. The mulattoes now flew to arms, and for several years a terrible struggle was sustained, the horrors of which were augmented by vindictive ferocity on both sides. Commissioners sent from France could effect no settlement, for the camp of the whites was divided into two hostile sections, royalist and republican. {1632} The English and Spaniards both descended on the island, and the blacks, under able chiefs, held impregnable positions in the mountains. Apprehensive of a British invasion in force, the Commissioners, finding they could not conquer the blacks, resolved on conciliating them; and in August, 1793, universal freedom was proclaimed—a measure ratified by the National Convention early in the following year. Meanwhile the English had taken Port-au-Prince, and were besieging the French governor in Port de la Paix, when the blacks, relying on the recent proclamation, came to his assistance, under the command of Toussaint L'Ouverture, and effected his release. … François Dominique Toussaint, a negro of pure blood, a slave and the offspring of slaves, was born in 1743, and on attaining manhood was first employed as a coachman, and afterwards held a post of trust in connexion with the sugar manufactory of the estate to which he belonged. The overseer having taken a fancy to him, he was taught to read and write, and even picked up some slight knowledge of Latin and mathematics." He was slow to join the rising of the blacks; "but at length, after having secured the escape of his master and family, he joined the negro army in a medical capacity," but quickly rose to leadership. "At first the blacks fought with the Spaniards against the French;" but Toussaint came to the conclusion that they had more to hope from the French, and persuaded his followers to march to the relief of the French governor, Levaux. When the latter heard that Toussaint had won the blacks to this alliance, he exclaimed, "'Mais cet homme fait ouverture partout,' and from that day the black commander-in-chief received the surname of L'Ouverture, by which he is best known in history. Acting with wonderful energy, Toussaint effected a junction with Levaux, drove the English from their positions, took 28 Spanish batteries in four days, and finally the British abandoned the island, whilst the Spaniards [1797] gave up all claim to its western end. Toussaint L'Ouverture—now holding the position of commander-in-chief, but virtually dictator—succeeded with great skill in combining all the hostile elements of the colony. Peace was restored, commerce and agriculture revived, the whites were encouraged to reclaim their estates, and by a variety of prudent and temperate measures Toussaint showed the remarkable administrative abilities that he possessed. At this stage he assumed great state in public, being always guarded by a chosen body of 1,500 men in brilliant uniform, but in private life he was frugal and moderate. In the administration of affairs he was assisted by a council of nine, of whom eight were white planters. This body drew up a Constitution by which L'Ouverture was named president for life, and free trade established. The draft of this constitution, together with an autograph letter, he forwarded to Bonaparte; but the First Consul had no toleration for fellow-upstarts, and replied, 'He is a revolted slave whom we must punish; the honour of France is outraged.' At this time the whole island of Haiti was under Toussaint's sway. As some excuse for Bonaparte it must be acknowledged that Toussaint undoubtedly contemplated independence. … Anxious to divest his new presidency of even nominal subjection to France, he declared the independence of the island, with himself as supreme chief, in July 1801. Most unfortunately for the Haitian general, hostilities had for the moment ceased between Great Britain and France, and the First Consul was enabled to bestow his close attention on the former French colony. Determined to repossess it, Bonaparte sent out an army of 30,000 men, with 66 ships of war, under the command of his brother-in-law General Leclerc. … During Toussaint's presidency he had abolished slavery, the negroes still working the plantations, but as free men, and under the name of 'cultivators.' … Leclerc now endeavoured by proclamations to turn the cultivators against their chief, and also laboured to sow dissension in the ranks of the black army, by making the officers tempting offers, which they too often believed in and accepted. For months a bloody war raged, in which great cruelties were inflicted; but the discipline of the French was slowly telling in their favour, when Leclerc made a political blunder that destroyed the advantages he had gained. Thinking that all obstacles were overcome, he threw off the mask, and boldly declared the real object of the expedition—the re-enslavement of the negro population. This news fell like a thunderbolt amongst the blacks, who rallied round Toussaint in thousands." Alarmed at the effect, Leclerc recalled his proclamation, acknowledged it to be an error, and promised the summoning of an assembly representative of all races alike. "This specious programme won over Cristophe, Dessalines, and other negro generals; and finally, on receiving solemn assurances from Leclerc, Toussaint accepted his offers, and peace was concluded." Soon afterwards, by an act of the blackest treachery, the negro statesman and soldier was lured into the hands of his mean enemy, and sent, a prisoner, to France. Confined, without trial, or any hearing, in the dungeons of the Château Joux, in the department of Doubs, he was there allowed to pine away, without warm clothing and with insufficient food. … Finally the governor of the prison went away for four days, leaving his captive without food or drink. On his return Toussaint was dead, and the rats had gnawed his feet. It was given out that apoplexy was the cause of death. … This breach of faith on the part of the French aroused the fury and indignation of the blacks. … Under Dessalines, Cristophe, Clerveaux, and others, the fires of insurrection blazed out afresh." At the same time yellow fever raged and Leclerc was among the victims. General Rochambeau, who succeeded him, continued the war with unmeasured barbarity, but also with continued defeat and discouragement, until he was driven, in 1803, to surrender, and "the power of the French was lost on the island."

HAYTI: A. D. 1804-1880.
   Massacre of whites.
   The Empire of Dessalines.
   The kingdom of Christophe.
   The Republic of Pétion and Boyer.
   Separation of the independent Republic of San Domingo.
   The Empire of Soulouque.
   The restored Republic of Hayti.

"In the beginning of 1804 the independence of the negroes under Dessalines was sufficiently assured: but they were not satisfied until they had completed a general massacre of nearly the whole of the whites, including aged men, women and children, who remained in the island, numbering, according to the lowest estimate, 2,500 souls. Thus did Dessalines, in his own savage words, render war for war, crime for crime, and outrage for outrage, to the European cannibals who had so long preyed upon his unhappy race. The negroes declared Dessalines Emperor: and in October 1804 he was crowned at Port-au-Prince by the title of James I. Dessalines was at once a brave man and a cruel and avaricious tyrant. He acquired great influence over the negroes, who long remembered him with affectionate regret: but he was not warmly supported by the mulattoes, who were by far the most intelligent of the Haytians. He abolished the militia, and set up a standing army of 40,000 men, whom he found himself unable to pay, from the universal ruin which had overtaken the island. The plantation labourers refused to work. … Dessalines authorised the landowners to flog them. Dessalines was himself a large planter: he had 32 large plantations of his own at work, and he forced his labourers to work on them at the point of the bayonet. Both he and his successor, Christophe, like Mahomed Ali in Egypt, grew rich by being the chief merchants in their own dominions. … He failed in an expedition against St. Domingo, the Spanish part of the island, whence the French general Ferrand still threatened him: and at length some sanguinary acts of tyranny roused against him an insurrection headed by his old comrade Christophe. The insurgents marched on Port-au-Prince, and the first black Emperor was shot by an ambuscade at the Pont Rouge outside the town. The death of Dessalines delivered up Hayti once more to the horrors of civil war. The negroes and mulattoes, who had joined cordially enough to exterminate their common enemies, would no longer hold together; and ever since the death of Dessalines their jealousies and differences have been a source of weakness in the black republic. In the old times, Hayti, as the French part of the island of Española was henceforth called, had been divided into three provinces: South, East, and North. After the death of Dessalines each of these provinces became for a time a separate state. Christophe wished to maintain the unlimited imperialism which Dessalines had set up: but the Constituent Assembly, which he summoned at Port-au-Prince in 1806, had other views. They resolved upon a Republican constitution." Christophe, not contented with the offered presidency, "collected an army with the view of dispersing the Constituent Assembly: but they collected one of their own, under Pétion, and forced him to retire from the capital. Christophe maintained himself in Cap François, or, as it is now called, Cap Haytien; and here he ruled for 14 years. In 1811, despising the imperial title which Dessalines had desecrated, he took the royal style by the name of Henry I. Christophe, as a man, was nearly as great a monster as Dessalines. … Yet Christophe at his best was a man capable of great aims, and a sagacious and energetic ruler." In 1820, finding himself deserted in the face of a mulatto insurrection, he committed suicide. "In a month or two after Christophe's suicide the whole island was united under the rule of President Boyer." Boyer was the successor of Pétion, who had been elected in the North, under the republican constitution which Christophe refused submission to. Pétion, "a mulatto of the best type," educated at the military academy of Paris, and full of European ideas, had ruled the province which he controlled ably and well for eleven years. In discouragement he then took his own life, and was succeeded, in 1818, by his lieutenant, Jean Pierre Boyer, a mulatto. "On the suicide of Christophe, the army of the Northern Province, weary of the tyranny of one of their own race, declared for Boyer. The French part of the island was now once more under a single government: and Boyer turned his attention to the much larger Spanish territory, with the old capital of St. Domingo, where a Spaniard named Muñez de Caceres, with the aid of the negroes, had now followed the example in the West, and proclaimed an independent government. The Dominicans, however, were still afraid of Spain, and were glad to put themselves under the wing of Hayti: Boyer was not unwilling to take possession of the Spanish colony, and thus it happened that in 1822 he united the whole island under his Presidency. In the same year he was elected President for life under the constitution of Pétion, whose general policy he maintained: but his government, especially in his later years, was almost as despotic as that of Christophe. Boyer was the first Haytian who united the blacks and mulattoes under his rule. It was mainly through confidence in him that the government of Hayti won the recognition of the European powers. … In 1825 its independence was formally recognised by France, on a compensation of 150,000,000 of francs being guaranteed to the exiled planters and to the home government. This vast sum was afterwards reduced: but it still weighed heavily on the impoverished state, and the discontents which the necessary taxation produced led to Boyer's downfall," in 1843, when he withdrew to Jamaica, and afterwards to Paris, where he died in 1850. A singular state of affairs ensued. The eastern, or Spanish, part of the island resumed its independence (1844), under a republican constitution resembling that of Venezuela, and with Pedro Santana for its President, and has been known since that time as the Republic of San Domingo, or the Dominican Republic. In the Western, or Haytian Republic, large numbers of the negroes, "under the names of Piquets and Zinglins, now formed themselves into armed bands, and sought to obtain a general division of property under some communistic monarch of their own race. The mulatto officials now cajoled the poor negroes by bribing some old negro, whose name was well known to the mass of the people as one of the heroes of the war of liberty, to allow himself to be set up as President. The Boyerists, as the mulatto oligarchy were called, thus succeeded in re-establishing their power," and their system (for describing which the word "gerontocracy" has been invented) was carried on for some years, until it resulted, in 1847, in the election to the Presidency of General Faustin Soulouque. "Soulouque was an illiterate negro whose recommendations to power were that he was old enough to have taken part in the War of Independence, having been a lieutenant under Pétion, and that he was popular with the negroes, being devotedly attached to the strange mixture of freemasonry and fetish worship by which the Haytian blacks maintain their political organisation." {1634} The new President took his elevation more seriously than was expected, and proved to be more than a match for the mulattoes who thought to make him their puppet. He gathered the reins into his own hands, and crushed the mulattoes at Port-au-Prince by a general massacre. He then "caused himself to be proclaimed Emperor, by the title of Faustinus the First (1849)," and established a grotesque imperial court, with a fantastic nobility, in which a Duke de Lemonade figured by the side of a Prince Tape-à-l'œil. This lasted until December 1858, when Soulouque was dethroned and sent out of the country, to take refuge in Jamaica, and the republic was restored, with Fabre Nicholas Geffrard, a mulatto general, at its head. Geffrard held the Presidency for eight years, when he followed his predecessor into exile in Jamaica, and was succeeded by General Salnave, a negro, who tried to re-establish the Empire and was shot, 1869. Since that time revolutions have been frequent and nothing has been constant except the disorder and decline of the country. Meantime, the Dominican Republic has suffered scarcely less, from its own disorders and the attacks of its Haytian neighbors. In 1861 it was surrendered by a provisional government to Spain, but recovered independence three years later. Soon afterwards one of its parties sought annexation to the United States, and in 1869 the President of the latter republic, General Grant, concluded a treaty with the Dominican government for the cession of the peninsula of Samana, and for the placing of San Domingo under American protection. But the Senate of the United States refused to ratify the treaty.

HEARTS OF OAK BOYS. HEARTS OF STEEL BOYS.

Defeat of the Welsh, with the death of Cadwallon, the "last great hero of the British race," by the English of Bernicia, A.D. 635. "The victory of the Heaven-field indeed is memorable as the close of the last rally which the Britons ever made against their conquerors."

HÉBERT AND THE HÉBERTISTS IN THE FRENCH REVOLUTION.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1790; 1793 (MARCH-JUNE),
(SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER), to 1793-1794 (NOVEMBER-JUNE).

"The Hebrides or Western Islands comprise all the numerous islands and islets which extend along nearly all the west coast of Scotland; and they anciently comprised also the peninsula of Cantyre, the islands of the Clyde, the isle of Rachlin, and even for some time the isle of Man."

      See
      NORMANS.
      NORTHMEN: 8TH-9TH CENTURIES,
      and 10TH-13TH CENTURIES;
      also, SODOR AND MAN.

In 1346, the dominion of most of the Hebrides became consolidated under John, son of Ronald or Angus Oig, of Islay, and he assumed the title of "Lord of the Isles." The Lords of the Isles became substantially independent of the Scottish crown until the battle of Harlaw, in 1411 (see HARLAW, BATTLE OF). The lordship was extinguished in 1504 (see SCOTLAND: A. D. 1502-1504).

HEBRON.

In the settlement of the tribes of Israel, after the conquest of Canaan, Caleb, one of the heroes of Judah, "took possession of the territory round the famous old city of Hebron, and thereby gained for his tribe a seat held sacred from Patriarchal times. … Beginning with Hebron, he acquired for himself a considerable territory, which even in David's time was named simply Caleb, and was distinguished from the rest of Judah as a peculiar district. … Hebron remained till after David's time celebrated as the main seat and central point of the entire tribe, around which it is evident that all the rest of Judah gradually clustered in good order."

"Hebron was a Hittite city, the centre of an ancient civilization, which to some extent had been inherited by the tribe of Judah. It was undoubtedly the capital of Judah, a city of the highest religious character full of recollections and traditions. It could boast of fine public buildings, good water, and a vast and well-kept pool. The unification of Israel had just been accomplished there. It was only natural that Hebron should become the capital of the new kingdom [of David]. … It is not easy to say what induced David to leave a city which had such ancient and evident claims for a hamlet like Jebus [Jerusalem], which did not yet belong to him. It is probable that he found Hebron too exclusively Judahite."

One of the small, short-lived kingdoms of the Angles in early
England, its territory was in modern Herefordshire.

HECATOMB

"Large sacrifices, where a great number of animals were slaughtered, [among the ancient Greeks] are called hecatombs."

Fought, B. C. 224, by Cleomenes of Sparta with the forces of the Achæan League, over which he won a complete victory. The result was the calling in of Antigonus Doson, king of Macedonia, to become the ally of the League, and to be aided by it in crushing the last independent political life of Peloponnesian Greece.

HECATOMPYLOS.

The chief city of Parthia Proper, founded by Alexander the Great, and long remaining one of the capitals of the Parthian empire.

HEELERS.

The "heerban" was a military system instituted by Charlemagne, which gave way to the feudal system under his successors. "The basis of the heerban system was the duty of every fighting man to answer directly the call of the king to arms. The freeman, not only of the Franks, but of all the subject peoples, owed military service to the king alone. This duty is insisted upon in the laws of Charlemagne with constant repetition. The summons (heerban) was issued at the spring meeting, and sent out by the counts or missi. The soldier was obliged to present himself at the given time, fully armed and equipped with all provision for the campaign, except fire, water, and fodder for the horses."

HEGEMONY.

"A hegemony, the political ascendancy of some one city or community over a number of subject commonwealths."

HEIDELBERG UNIVERSITY.

Under Solon's constitution for the government of Athens, "a body of 6,000 citizens was every year created by lot to form a supreme court, called Heliæa, which was divided into several smaller ones, not limited to any precise number of persons. The qualifications required for this were the same with those which gave admission into the general assembly, except that the members of the former might not be under the age of thirty. It was, therefore, in fact, a select portion of the latter, in which the powers of the larger body were concentrated and exercised under a judicial form."

HELICON.

HELIOPOLIS.

HELLAS. HELLENES. GRAIKOI. GREEKS.

"To the Greek of the historical ages the idea of Hellas was not associated with any definite geographical limits. Wherever a Greek settlement existed, there for the colonists was Hellas. … Of a Hellas lying within certain specified bounds, and containing within it only Greek inhabitants, they knew nothing."

"Their language was, … from the beginning, the token of recognition among the Hellenes. … Where this language was spoken—in Asia, in Europe, or in Africa—there was Hellas. … A considerable number of the Greek tribes which immigrated by land [from Asia] into the European peninsula [of Greece] followed the tracks of the Italicans, and, taking a westward route through Pæonia and Macedonia, penetrated through Illyria into the western half of the Alpine country of Northern Greece, which the formation of its hill ranges and valleys renders more easily accessible from the north than Thessaly in its secluded hollow. The numerous rivers, abounding in water, which flow close by one another through long gorges into the Ionian Sea, here facilitated an advance into the south; and the rich pasture-land invited immigration; so that Epirus became the dwelling-place of a dense crowd of population, which commenced its civilized career in the fertile lowlands of the country. Among them three main tribes were marked out, of which the Chaones were regarded as the most ancient. … Farther to the south the Thesprotians had settled, and more inland, in the direction of Pindus, the Molossians. A more ancient appellation than those of this triple division is that of the Greeks (Graikoi), which the Hellenes thought the earliest designation of their ancestors. The same name of Græci (Greeks) the Italicans applied to the whole family of peoples with whom they had once dwelt together in these districts. This is the first collective name of the Hellenic tribes in Europe. … Far away from the coast, in the seclusion of the hills, where lie closely together the springs of the Thyamis, Aous, Aracthus, and Achelous, extends at the base of Tomarus the lake Ioannina, on the thickly wooded banks of which, between fields of corn and damp meadows, lay Dodona, a chosen seat of the Pelasgian Zeus, the invisible God, who announced his presence in the rustling of the oaks, whose altar was surrounded by a vast circle of tripods, for a sign that he was the first to unite the domestic hearths and civic communities into a great association centering in himself. This Dodona was the central seat of the Græci; it was a sacred centre of the whole district before the Italicans commenced their westward journey; and at the same time the place where the subsequent national name of the Greeks can be first proved to have prevailed; for the chosen of the people, who administered the worship of Zeus, were called Selli or Helli, and after them the surrounding country Hellopia or Hellas."

HELLENIC GENIUS AND INFLUENCE. HELLENIC AND HELLENISTIC CULTURE. HELLENISM.

"It was the privilege of the Greeks to discover the sovereign efficacy of reason. They entered on the pursuit of knowledge with a sure and joyous instinct. Baffled and puzzled they might be, but they never grew weary of the quest. The speculative faculty which reached its height in Plato and Aristotle, was, when we make due allowance for time and circumstance, scarcely less eminent in the Ionian philosophers; and it was Ionia that gave birth to an idea, which was foreign to the East, but has become the starting-point of modern science,—the idea that Nature works by fixed laws. A fragment of Euripides speaks of him as 'happy who has learned to search into causes,' who 'discerns the deathless and ageless order of nature, whence it arose, the how and the why.' The early poet-philosophers of Ionia gave the impulse which has carried the human intellect forward across the line which separates empirical from scientific knowledge; and the Greek precocity of mind in this direction, unlike that of the Orientals, had in it the promise of uninterrupted advance in the future,—of great discoveries in mathematics, geometry, experimental physics, in medicine also and physiology. … By the middle of the fifth century B. C. the general conception of law in the physical world was firmly established in the mind of Greek thinkers. Even the more obscure phenomena of disease were brought within the rule. Hippocrates writing about a malady which was common among the Scythians and was thought to be preternatural says: 'As for me I think that these maladies are divine like all others, but that none is more divine or more human than another. Each has its natural principle and none exists without its natural cause.' Again, the Greeks set themselves to discover a rational basis for conduct. Rigorously they brought their actions to the test of reason, and that not only by the mouth of philosophers, but through their poets, historians, and orators. Thinking and doing—clear thought and noble action—did not stand opposed to the Greek mind. The antithesis rather marks a period when the Hellenic spirit was past its prime, and had taken a one-sided bent. The Athenians of the Periclean age—in whom we must recognise the purest embodiment of Hellenism—had in truth the peculiar power, which Thucydides claims for them, of thinking before they acted and of acting also. … To Greece … we owe the love of Science, the love of Art, the love of Freedom: not Science alone, Art alone, or Freedom alone, but these vitally correlated with one another and brought into organic union. And in this union we recognise the distinctive features of the West. The Greek genius is the European genius in its first and brightest bloom. From a vivifying contact with the Greek spirit Europe derived that new and mighty impulse which we call Progress. Strange it is to think that these Greeks, like the other members of the Indo-European family, probably had their cradle in the East; that behind Greek civilisation, Greek language, Greek mythology, there is that Eastern background to which the comparative sciences seem to point. But it is no more than a background. In spite of an resemblances, in spite of common customs, common words, common syntax, common gods, the spirit of the Greeks and of their Eastern kinsmen—the spirit of their civilisation, art, language, and mythology—remains essentially distinct. … From Greece came that first mighty impulse, whose far-off workings are felt by us to-day, and which has brought it about that progress has been accepted as the law and goal of human endeavour. Greece first took up the task of equipping man with all that fits him for civil life and promotes his secular well being; of unfolding and expanding every inborn faculty and energy, bodily and mental; of striving restlessly after the perfection of the whole, and finding in this effort after an unattainable ideal that by which man becomes like to the gods. The life of the Hellenes, like that of their Epic hero Achilles, was brief and brilliant. But they have been endowed with the gift of renewing their youth. Renan, speaking of the nations that are fitted to play a part in universal history, says 'that they must die first that the world may live through them;' that a people must choose between the prolonged life, the tranquil and obscure destiny of one who lives for himself, and the troubled stormy career of one who lives for humanity. The nation which revolves within its breast social and religious problems is always weak politically. Thus it was with the Jews, who in order to make the religious conquest of the world must needs disappear as a nation.' 'They lost a material city, they opened the reign of the spiritual Jerusalem.' So too it was with Greece. As a people she ceased to be. When her freedom was overthrown at Chaeronea, the page of her history was to all appearance closed. Yet from that moment she was to enter on a larger life and on universal empire. Already during the last days of her independence it had been possible to speak of a new Hellenism, which rested not on ties of blood but on spiritual kinship. This presentiment of Isocrates was marvellously realised. As Alexander passed conquering through Asia, he restored to the East, as garnered grain, that Greek civilisation whose seeds had long ago been received from the East. Each conqueror in turn, the Macedonian and the Roman, bowed before conquered Greece and learnt lessons at her feet. To the modern world too Greece has been the great civiliser, the oecumenical teacher, the disturber and regenerator of slumbering societies. She is the source of most of the quickening ideas which re-make nations and renovate literature and art. If we reckon up our secular possessions, the wealth and heritage of the past, the larger share may be traced back to Greece. One half of life she has made her domain,—all, or well-nigh all, that belongs to the present order of things and to the visible world."

   "The part assigned to [the Greeks] in the drama of the nations
   was to create forms of beauty, to unfold ideas which should
   remain operative when the short bloom of their own existence
   was over, and thus to give a new impulse, a new direction, to
   the whole current of human life.
{1637}
   The prediction which Thucydides puts into the mouth of the
   Athenian orator has been fulfilled, though not in the sense
   literally conveyed; 'Assuredly we shall not be without
   witnesses,' says Pericles; 'there are mighty documents of our
   power, which shall make us the wonder of this age, and of ages
   to come.' He was thinking of those wide-spread settlements
   which attested the empire of Athens. But the immortal
   witnesses of his race are of another kind. Like the victims of
   the war, whose epitaph he was pronouncing, the Hellenes have
   their memorial in all lands, graven, not on stone, but in the
   hearts of mankind. … Are we not warranted by what we know of
   Greek work, imperfect though our knowledge is, in saying that
   no people has yet appeared in the world whose faculty for art,
   in the largest sense of the term, has been so comprehensive?
   And there is a further point that may be noted. It has been
   said that the man of genius sometimes is such in virtue of
   combining the temperament distinctive of his nation with some
   gift of his own which is foreign to that temperament; as in
   Shakespeare the basis is English, and the individual gift a
   flexibility of spirit which is not normally English. But we
   cannot apply this remark to the greatest of ancient Greek
   writers. They present certainly a wide range of individual
   differences. Yet so distinctive and so potent is the Hellenic
   nature that, if any two of such writers be compared, however
   wide the individual differences may be,—as between
   Aristophanes and Plato, or Pindar and Demosthenes,—such
   individual differences are less significant than those common
   characteristics of the Hellenic mind which separate both the
   men compared from all who are not Hellenes. If it were
   possible to trace the process by which the Hellenic race was
   originally separated from their Aryan kinsfolk, the
   physiological basis of their qualities might perhaps be traced
   in the mingling of different tribal ingredients. As it is,
   there is no clue to these secrets of nature's alchemy: the
   Hellenes appear in the dawn of their history with that unique
   temperament already distinct: we can point only to one cause,
   and that a subordinate cause, which must have aided its
   development, namely, the geographical position of Greece. No
   people of the ancient world were so fortunately placed.
   Nowhere are the aspects of external nature more beautiful,
   more varied, more stimulating to the energies of body and
   mind. A climate which, within three parallels of latitude,
   nourishes the beeches of Pindus and the palms of the Cyclades;
   mountain barriers which at once created a framework for the
   growth of local federations, and encouraged a sturdy spirit of
   freedom; coasts abounding in natural harbors; a sea dotted
   with islands, and notable for the regularity of its
   wind-currents; ready access alike to Asia and to the western
   Mediterranean,—these were circumstances happily congenial to
   the inborn faculties of the Greek race, and admirably fitted
   to expand them."

      R. C. Jebb,
      The Growth and Influence of Classical Greek Poetry,
      pages 27-31.

"The sense of beauty which the Greeks possessed to a greater extent than any other people could not fail to be caught by the exceptionally beautiful natural surroundings in which they lived; and their literature, at any rate their poetry, bears abundant testimony to the fact. Small though Greece is, it contains a greater variety, both in harmony and contrast, of natural beauty than most countries, however great. Its latitude gives it a southern climate, while its mountains allow of the growth of a vegetation found in more northern climes. Within a short space occur all the degrees of transition from snow-topped hills to vine-clad fountains. And the joy with which the beauty of their country filled the Greeks may be traced through all their poetry. … The two leading facts in the physical aspect of Greece are the sea and the mountains. As Europe is the most indented and has relatively the longest coast-line of all the continents of the world, so of all the countries of Europe the land of Greece is the most interpenetrated with arms of the sea. …

      'Two voices are there: one is of the Sea,
      One of the Mountains; each a mighty voice:
      In both from age to age thou didst rejoice;
      They were thy chosen music, Liberty!'

Both voices spoke impressively to Greece, and her literature echoes their tones. So long as Greece was free and the spirit of freedom animated the Greeks, so long their literature was creative and genius marked it. When liberty perished, literature declined. The field of Chæronea was fatal alike to the political liberty and to the literature of Greece. The love of liberty was indeed pushed even to an extreme in Greece; and this also was due to the physical configuration of the country. Mountains, it has been said, divide; seas unite. The rise and the long continuance in so small a country of so many cities, having their own laws, constitution, separate history, and independent existence, can only be explained by the fact that in their early growth they were protected, each by the mountains which surrounded it, so effectually, and the love of liberty in this time was developed to such an extent, that no single city was able to establish its dominion over the others. … Everyone of the numerous states, whose separate political existence was guaranteed by the mountains, was actually or potentially a separate centre of civilisation and of literature. In some one of these states each kind of literature could find the conditions appropriate or necessary to its development. Even a state which produced no men of literary genius itself might become the centre at which poets collected and encouraged the literature it could not produce, as was the case with Sparta, to which Greece owed the development of choral lyric. … The eastern basin of the Mediterranean has deserved well of literature, for it brought Greece into communication with her colonies on the islands and on the surrounding coasts, and enabled the numerous Greek cities to co-operate in the production of a rich and varied literature, instead of being confined each to a one-sided and incomplete development. The process of communication began in the earliest times, as is shown by the spread of epic literature. Originating in Ionia, it was taken up in Cyprus, where the epic called the Cypria was composed, and, at the beginning of the sixth century it was on the coast of Africa in the colony of Cyrene. The rapid spread of elegiac poetry is even more strikingly illustrated, for we find Solon in Athens quoting from his contemporary Mimnermus of Colophon. Choral lyric, which originated in Asia Minor, was conveyed to Sparta by Alcman, and by Simonides of Ceos all over the Greek world. But although in early times we find as much interchange and reaction in the colonies amongst themselves as between the colonies and the mother-country, with the advance of time we find the centripetal tendency becoming dominant. {1638} The mother-country becomes more and more the centre to which all literature and art gravitates. At the beginning of the sixth century Sparta attracted poets from the colonies in Asia Minor, but the only form of literature which Sparta rewarded and encouraged was choral lyric. No such narrowness characterised Athens, and when she established herself as the intellectual capital of Greece, all men of genius received a welcome there, and we find all forms of literature deserting their native homes, even their native dialects, to come to Athens. … As long as literature had many centres, there was no danger of all falling by a single stroke; but when it was centralised in Athens, and the blow delivered by Philip at Chæronea had fallen on Athens, classical Greek literature perished in a generation. It is somewhat difficult to distinguish race-qualities from the characteristics impressed on a people by the conditions under which it lives, since the latter by accumulation and transmission from generation to generation eventually become race-qualities. Thus the Spartans possessed qualities common to them and the Dorians, of whom they were a branch, and also qualities peculiar to themselves, which distinguished them from other Dorians. … The ordinary life of a Spartan citizen was that of a soldier in camp or garrison, rather than that of a member of a political community, and this system of life was highly unfavourable to literature. … Other Dorians, not hemmed in by such unfavourable conditions as the Spartans, did provide some contributions to the literature of Greece, and in the nature of their contributions we may detect the qualities of the race. The Dorians in Sicily sowed the seeds of rhetoric and carried comedy to considerable perfection. Of imagination the race seems destitute: it did not produce poets. On the other hand, the race is eminently practical as well as prosaic, and their humour was of a nature which corresponded to these qualities. … The Æolians form a contrast both to the Spartans and to the Athenians. The development of individuality is as characteristic of the Æolians as its absence is of the Spartans. But the Æolians, first of all Greeks, possessed a cavalry, and this means that they were wealthy and aristocratic. … This gives us the distinction between the Æolians and the Athenians: among the former, individuality was developed in the aristocracy alone; among the latter, in all the citizens. The Æolians added to the crown of Greek literature one of the brightest of its jewels-lyric poetry, as we understand lyric in modern times, that is, the expression of the poet's feelings, on any subject whatever, as his individual feeling. … But it was the Ionians who rendered the greatest services to Greek literature. They were a quick-witted race, full of enterprise, full of resources. In them we see reflected the character of the sea, as in the Dorians the character of the mountains. The latter partook of the narrowness and exclusiveness of their own homes, hemmed in by mountains, and by them protected from the incursion of strangers and strange innovations. The Ionians, on the other hand, were open as the sea, and had as many moods. They were eminently susceptible to beauty in all its forms, to the charm of change and to novelty. They were ever ready to put any belief or institution to the test of discussion, and were governed as much by ideas as by sentiments. Keenness of intellect, taste in all matters of literature and art, grace in expression, and measure in everything distinguished them above all Greeks. The development of epic poetry, the origin of prose, the cultivation of philosophy, are the proud distinction of the Ionian race. In Athens we have the qualities of the Ionian race in their finest flower."

"The Jewish region … was, in ancient times as well as in the Graeco-Roman period, surrounded on all sides by heathen districts. Only at Jamnia and Joppa had the Jewish element advanced as far as the sea. Elsewhere, even to the west, it was not the sea, but the Gentile region of the Philistine and Phenician cities, that formed the boundary of the Jewish. These heathen lands were far more deeply penetrated by Hellenism, than the country of the Jews. No reaction like the rising of the Maccabees had here put a stop to it, besides which heathen polytheism was adapted in quite a different manner from Judaism for blending with Hellenism. While therefore the further advance of Hellenism was obstructed by religious barriers in the interior of Palestine, it had attained here, as in all other districts since its triumphant entry under Alexander the Great, its natural preponderance over Oriental culture. Hence, long before the commencement of the Roman period, the educated world, especially in the great cities in the west and east of Palestine, was, we may well say, completely Hellenized. It is only with the lower strata of the populations and the dwellers in rural districts, that this must not be equally assumed. Besides however the border lands, the Jewish districts in the interior of Palestine were occupied by Hellenism, especially Scythopolis … and the town of Samaria, where Macedonian colonists had already been planted by Alexander the Great … while the national Samaritans had their central point at Sichem. The victorious penetration of Hellenistic culture is most plainly and comprehensively shown by the religious worship. The native religions, especially in the Philistine and Phenician cities, did indeed in many respects maintain themselves in their essential character; but still in such wise, that they were transformed by and blended with Greek elements. But besides these the purely Greek worship also gained an entrance, and in many places entirely supplanted the former. Unfortunately our sources of information do not furnish us the means of separating the Greek period proper from the Roman; the best are afforded by coins, and these for the most part belong to the Roman. On the whole however the picture, which we obtain, holds good for the pre-Roman period also, nor are we entirely without direct notices of this age. … In the Jewish region proper Hellenism was in its religious aspect triumphantly repulsed by the rising of the Maccabees; it was not till after the overthrow of Jewish nationality in the wars of Vespasian and Hadrian, that an entrance for heathen rites was forcibly obtained by the Romans. In saying this however we do not assert, that the Jewish people of those early times remained altogether unaffected by Hellenism. For the latter was a civilising power, which extended itself to every department of life. {1639} It fashioned in a peculiar manner the organization of the state, legislation, the administration of justice, public arrangements, art and science, trade and industry, and the customs of daily life down to fashion and ornaments, and thus impressed upon every department of life, wherever its influence reached, the stamp of the Greek mind. It is true that Hellenistic is not identical with Hellenic culture. The importance of the former on the contrary lay in the fact, that by its reception of the available elements of all foreign cultures within its reach, it became a world-culture. But this very world-culture became in its turn a peculiar whole, in which the preponderant Greek element was the ruling keynote. Into the stream of this Hellenistic culture the Jewish people was also drawn; slowly indeed and with reluctance, but yet irresistibly, for though religious zeal was able to banish heathen worship and all connected therewith from Israel, it could not for any length of time restrain the tide of Hellenistic culture in other departments of life. Its several stages cannot indeed be any longer traced. But when we reflect that the small Jewish country was enclosed on almost every side by Hellenistic regions, with which it was compelled, even for the sake of trade, to hold continual intercourse, and when we remember, that even the rising of the Maccabees was in the main directed not against Hellenism in general, but only against the heathen religion, that the later Asmonaeans bore in every respect a Hellenistic stamp-employed foreign mercenaries, minted foreign coins, took Greek names, etc., and that some of them, e. g. Aristobulus I., were direct favourers of Hellenism,—when all this is considered, it may safely be assumed, that Hellenism had, notwithstanding the rising of the Maccabees, gained access in no inconsiderable measure into Palestine even before the commencement of the Roman period."

      E. Schürer,
      History of the Jewish People in the Time of Christ,
      division 2, volume 1, pages 29-30.

"In the Alexandrian age, with all its close study and imitation of the classical models, nothing is more remarkable than the absence of any promise that the Hellenic spirit which animated those masterpieces was destined to have any abiding influence in the world. … And yet it is true that the vital power of the Hellenic genius was not fully revealed, until, after suffering some temporary eclipse in the superficially Greek civilizations of Asia and Egypt, it emerged in a new quality, as a source of illumination to the literature and the art of Rome. Early Roman literature was indebted to Greece for the greater part of its material; but a more important debt was in respect to the forms and moulds of composition. The Latin language of the third century B. C. was already in full possession of the qualities which always remained distinctive of it; it was clear, strong, weighty, precise, a language made to be spoken in the imperative mood, a fitting interpreter of government and law. But it was not flexible or graceful, musical or rapid; it was not suited to express delicate shades of thought or feeling; for literary purposes, it was, in comparison with Greek, a poor and rude idiom. The development of Latin into the language of Cicero and Virgil was gradually and laboriously accomplished under the constant influence of Greece. That finish of form, known as classical, which Roman writers share with Greek, was a lesson which Greece slowly impressed upon Rome. … A close and prolonged study of the Greek models could not end in a mere discipline of form; the beauty of the best Greek models depends too much on their vital spirit. Not only was the Roman imagination enriched, but the Roman intellect, through literary intercourse with the Greek, gradually acquired a flexibility and a plastic power which had not been among its original gifts. Through Roman literature the Greek influence was transmitted to later times in a shape which obscured, indeed, much of its charm, but which was also fitted to extend its empire, and to win an entrance for it in regions which would have been less accessible to a purer form of its manifestation."

      R. C. Jebb,
      The Growth and Influence of Classical Greek Poetry,
      chapter 8.

"Italy had been subject to the influence of Greece, ever since it had a history at all. … But the Hellenism of the Romans of the present period [second century B. C.] was, in its causes as well as its consequences, something essentially new. The Romans began to feel the lack of a richer intellectual life, and to be startled as it were at their own utter want of mental culture; and, if even nations of artistic gifts, such as the English and Germans, have not disdained in the pauses of their own productiveness to avail themselves of the paltry French culture for filling up the gap, it need excite no surprise that the Italian nation now flung itself with eager zeal on the glorious treasures as well as on the vile refuse of the intellectual development of Hellas. But it was an impulse still more profound and deep-rooted which carried the Romans irresistibly into the Hellenic vortex. Hellenic civilization still assumed that name, but it was Hellenic no longer; it was, it fact, humanistic and cosmopolitan. It had solved the problem of moulding a mass of different nations into one whole completely in the field of intellect, and to a certain degree in that of politics, and, now when the same task on a wider scale devolved on Rome, she entered on the possession of Hellenism along with the rest of the inheritance of Alexander the Great. Hellenism therefore was no longer a mere stimulus, or subordinate influence; it penetrated the Italian nation to the very core. Of course, the vigorous home life of Italy strove against the foreign element. It was only after a most vehement struggle that the Italian farmer abandoned the field to the cosmopolite of the capital; and, as in Germany the French coat called forth the national Germanic frock, so the reaction against Hellenism aroused in Rome a tendency, which opposed the influence of Greece on principle in a style to which earlier centuries were altogether unaccustomed, and in doing so fell not unfrequently into downright follies and absurdities. No department of human action or thought remained unaffected by this struggle between the new fashion and the old. Even political relations were largely influenced by it. The whimsical project of emancipating the Hellenes, … the kindred, likewise Hellenic, idea of combining republics in a common opposition to kings, and the desire of propagating Hellenic polity at the expense of eastern despotism—which were the two principles that regulated, for instance, the treatment of Macedonia—were fixed ideas of the new school, just as dread of the Carthaginians was the fixed idea of the old; and, if Cato pushed the latter to a ridiculous excess, Philhellenism now and then indulged in extravagances at least as foolish. … {1640} But the real struggle between Hellenism and its national antagonists during the present period was carried on in the field of faith, of manners, and of art and literature. … If Italy still possessed—what had long been a mere antiquarian curiosity in Hellas—a national religion, it was already visibly beginning to be ossified into theology. The torpor creeping over faith is nowhere perhaps so distinctly apparent as in the alterations in the economy of divine service and of the priesthood. The public service of the gods became not only more tedious, but above all more and more costly. … An augur like Lucius Paullus, who regarded the priesthood as a science and not as a mere title, was already a rare exception; and could not but be so, when the government more and more openly and unhesitatingly employed the auspices for the accomplishment of its political designs, or, in other words, treated the national religion in accordance with the view of Polybius as a superstition useful for imposing on the public at large. Where the way was thus paved, the Hellenistic irreligious spirit found free course. In connection with the incipient taste for art the sacred images of the gods began even in Cato's time to be employed, like other furniture, to embellish the chambers of the rich. More dangerous wounds were inflicted on religion by the rising literature. … Thus the old national religion was visibly on the decline; and, as the great trees of the primeval forest were uprooted, the soil became covered with a rank growth of thorns and briars and with weeds that had never been seen before. Native superstitions and foreign impostures of the most various hues mingled, competed and conflicted with each other. … The Hellenism of that epoch, already denationalized and pervaded by Oriental mysticism, introduced not only unbelief but also superstition in its most offensive and dangerous forms to Italy; and these vagaries, moreover, had a special charm, precisely because they were foreign. … Rites of the most abominable character came to the knowledge of the Roman authorities: a secret nocturnal festival in honour of the god Bacchus had been first introduced into Etruria by a Greek priest, and spreading like a cancer, had rapidly reached Rome and propagated itself over all Italy, everywhere corrupting families and giving rise to the most heinous crimes, unparalleled unchastity, falsifying of testaments, and murdering by poison. More than 7,000 men were sentenced to punishment, most of them to death, on this account, and rigorous enactments were issued as to the future. … The ties of family life became relaxed with fearful rapidity. The evil of grisettes and boy-favourites spread like a pestilence. … Luxury prevailed more and more in dress, ornaments and furniture, in the buildings and on the tables. Especially after the expedition to Asia Minor, which took place in 564, [B. C. 190] Asiatico-Hellenic luxury, such as prevailed at Ephesus and Alexandria, transferred its empty refinement and its petty trifling, destructive alike of money, time, and pleasure, to Rome. … As a matter of course, this revolution in life and manners brought an economic revolution in its train. Residence in the capital became more and more coveted as well as more costly. Rents rose to an unexampled height. Extravagant prices were paid for the new articles of luxury. … The influences which stimulated the growth of Roman literature were of a character altogether peculiar and hardly paralleled in any other nation. … By means of the Italian slaves and freedmen, a very large portion of whom were Greek or half Greek by birth, the Greek language and Greek knowledge to a certain extent reached even the lower ranks of the population, especially in the capital. The comedies of this period indicate that even the humbler classes of the capital were familiar with a sort of Latin, which could no more be properly understood without a knowledge of Greek than Sterne's English or Wieland's German without a knowledge of French. Men of senatorial families, however, not only addressed a Greek audience in Greek, but even published their speeches. … Under the influence of such circumstances Roman education developed itself. It is a mistaken opinion, that antiquity was materially inferior to our own times in the general diffusion of elementary attainments. Even among the lower classes and slaves there was considerable knowledge of reading, writing, and counting. … Elementary instruction, as well us instruction in Greek, must have been long ere this period imparted to a very considerable extent in Rome. But the epoch now before us initiated an education, the aim of which was to communicate not merely an outward expertness, but a real mental culture. The internal decomposition of Italian nationality had already, particularly in the aristocracy, advanced so far as to render the substitution of a broader human culture for that nationality inevitable: and the craving after a more advanced civilization was already powerfully stirring men's minds. The study of the Greek language as it were spontaneously met this craving. The classical literature of Greece, the Iliad and still more the Odyssey, had all along formed the basis of instruction; the overflowing treasures of Hellenic art and science were already by this means spread before the eyes of the Italians. Without any outward revolution, strictly speaking, in the character of instruction the natural result was, that the empirical study of the language became converted into a higher study of the literature; that the general culture connected with such literary studies was communicated in increased measure to the scholars; and that these availed themselves of the knowledge thus acquired to dive into that Greek literature which most powerfully influenced the spirit of the age—the tragedies of Euripides and the comedies of Menander. In a similar way greater importance came to be attached to the study of Latin. The higher society of Rome began to feel the need, if not of exchanging their mother-tongue for Greek, at least of refining it and adapting it to the changed state of culture. … But a Latin culture presupposed a literature, and no such literature existed in Rome. … The Romans desired a theatre, but the pieces were wanting. On these elements Roman literature was based; and its defective character was from the first and necessarily the result of such an origin. … Roman poetry in particular had its immediate origin not in the inward impulse of the poet, but in the outward demands of the school, which needed Latin manuals, and of the stage, which needed Latin dramas. Now both institutions—the school and the stage—were thoroughly anti-Roman and revolutionary. … The school and the theatre became the most effective levers in the hands of the new spirit of the age, and all the more so that they used the Latin tongue. {1641} Men might perhaps speak and write Greek, and yet not cease to be Romans; but in this case they were in the habit of speaking in the Roman language, while the whole inward being and life were Greek. It is one of the most pleasing, but it is one of the most remarkable and in a historical point of view most instructive, facts in this brilliant era of Roman conservatism, that during its course Hellenism struck root in the whole field of intellect not immediately political, and that the school-master and the maître de plaisir of the great public in close alliance created a Roman literature."

Panætius was the founder of "that Roman Stoicism which plays so prominent a part in the history of the Empire. He came from Rhodes, and was a pupil of Diogenes at Athens. The most important part of his life was, however, spent at Rome, in the house of Scipio Æmilianus, the centre of the Scipionic circle, where he trained up a number of Roman nobles to understand and to adopt his views. He seems to have taken the place of Polybius, and to have accompanied Scipio in his tour to the East (143 B. C.). He died as head of the Stoic school in Athens about 110 B. C. This was the man who, under the influence of the age, really modified the rigid tenets of his sect to make it the practical rule of life for statesmen, politicians, magnates, who had no time to sit all day and dispute, but who required something better than effete polytheism to give them dignity in their leisure, and steadfastness in the day of trial. … With the pupils of Panætius begins the long roll of Roman Stoics. … Here then, after all the dissolute and disintegrating influences of Hellenism,—its comœdia palliata, its parasites, its panders, its minions, its chicanery, its mendacity—had produced their terrible effect, came an antidote which, above all the human influences we know, purified and ennobled the world. It affected, unfortunately, only the higher classes at Rome; and even among them, as among any of the lower classes that speculated at all, it had as a dangerous rival that cheap and vulgar Epicureanism, which puffs up common natures with the belief that their trivial and coarse reflections have some philosophic basis, and can be defended with subtle arguments. But among the best of the Romans Hellenism produced a type seldom excelled in the world's history, a type as superior to the old Roman model as the nobleman is to the burgher in most countries—a type we see in Rutilius Rufus, as compared with the elder Cato. … It was in this way that Hellenistic philosophy made itself a home in Italy, and acquired pupils who in the next generation became masters in their way, and showed in Cicero and Lucretius no mean rivals of the contemporary Greek. … Till the poem of Lucretius and the works of Cicero, we may say nothing in Latin worth reading existed on the subject. Whoever wanted to study philosophy, therefore, down to that time (60 B. C.) studied it in Greek. Nearly the same thing may be said of the arts of architecture, painting, and sculpture. There were indeed distinctly Roman features in architecture, but they were mere matters of building, and whatever was done in the way of design, in the way of adding beauty to strength, was done wholly under the advice and direction of Greeks. The subservience to Hellenism in the way of internal household ornament was even more complete. … And with the ornaments of the house, the proper serving of the house, especially the more delicate departments—the cooking of state dinners, the attendance upon guests, the care of the great man's intimate comforts—could only be done fashionably by Greek slaves. … But of course these lower sides of Hellenism had no more potent effect in civilising Rome than the employing of French cooks and valets and the purchase of French ornaments and furniture had in improving our grandfathers. Much more serious was the acknowledged supremacy of the Greeks in literature of all kinds, and still more their insistence that this superiority depended mainly upon a careful system of intellectual education. … This is the point where Polybius, after his seventeen years' experience of Roman life, finds the capital flaw in the conduct of public affairs. In every Hellenistic state, he says, nothing engrosses the attention of legislators more than the question of education, whereas at Rome a most moral and serious government leaves the training of the young to the mistakes and hazards of private enterprise. That this was a grave blunder as regards the lower classes is probably true. … But when Rome grew from a city controlling Italy to an empire directing the world, such men as Æmilius Paullus saw plainly that they must do something more to fit their children for the splendid position they had themselves attained, and so they were obliged to keep foreign teachers of literature and art in their houses as private tutors. The highest class of these private tutors was that of the philosophers, whom we have considered, and while the State set itself against their public establishments, great men in the State openly encouraged them and kept them in their houses. … As regards literature, however, in the close of the second century B. C. a change was visible, which announced the new and marvellous results of the first. … Even in letters Roman culture began to take its place beside Greek, and the whole civilised world was divided into those who knew Greek letters and those who knew Roman only. There was no antagonism in spirit between them, for the Romans never ceased to venerate Greek letters or to prize a knowledge of that language. But of course there were great domains in the West beyond the influence of the most western Greeks, even of Massilia, where the first higher civilisation introduced was with the Roman legions and traders, and where culture assumed permanently a Latin form. In the East, though the Romans asserted themselves as conquerors, they always condescended to use Greek, and there were prætors proud to give their decisions at Roman assize courts in that language."

   The ancient Greek name of what is now called the straits of
   The Dardanelles, the channel which unites the Sea of Marmora
   with the Ægean. The name (Sea of Helle) came from the myth of
   Helle, who was said to have been drowned in these waters.

HELLESPONTINE SIBYL.

HELLULAND.

HELOTS.

Switzerland is sometimes called the Helvetian Republic, for no better reason than is found in the fact that the country occupied by the Helvetii of Cæsar is embraced in the modern Swiss Confederacy. But the original confederation, out of which grew the federal republic of Switzerland, did not touch Helvetian ground.

"The Helvetii, who inhabited a great part of modern Switzerland, had grown impatient of the narrow limits in which they were crowded together, and harassed at the same time by the encroachments of the advancing German tide. The Alps and Jura formed barriers to their diffusion on the south and west, and the population thus confined outgrew the scanty means of support afforded by its mountain valleys. … The Helvetii determined to force their way through the country of the Allobroges, and to trust either to arms or persuasion to obtain a passage through the [Roman] province and across the Rhone into the centre of Gaul. … Having completed their preparations, [they] appointed the 28th day of March [B. C. 58] for the meeting of their combined forces at the western outlet of the Lake Lemanus. The whole population of the assembled tribes amounted to 368,000 souls, including the women and children; the number that bore arms was 92,000. They cut themselves off from the means of retreat by giving ruthlessly to the flames every city and village of their land; twelve of one class and four hundred of the other were thus sacrificed, and with them all their superfluous stores, their furniture, arms and implements." When the news of this portentous movement reached Rome, Cæsar, then lately appointed to the government of the two Gauls, was raising levies, but had no force ready for the field. He flew to the scene in person, making the journey from Rome to Geneva in eight days. At Geneva, the frontier town of the conquered Allobroges, the Romans had a garrison, and Cæsar quickly gathered to that point the one legion stationed in the province. Breaking down the bridge which had spanned the river and constructing with characteristic energy a ditch and rampart from the outlet of the lake to the gorge of the Jura, he held the passage of the river with his single legion and forced the migratory horde to move off by the difficult route down the right bank of the Rhone. This accomplished, Cæsar hastened back to Italy, got five legions together, led them over the Cottian Alps, crossed the Rhone above Lyons, and caught up with the Helvetii before the last of their cumbrous train had got beyond the Saone. Attacking and cutting to pieces this rear-guard (it was the tribe of the Tigurini, which the Romans had encountered disastrously half a century before), he bridged the Saone and crossed it to pursue the main body of the enemy. For many days he followed them, refusing to give battle to the great barbarian army until he saw the moment opportune. His blow was struck at last in the neighborhood of the city of Bibracte, the capital of the Ædui—modern Autun. The defeat of the Helvetii was complete, and, although a great body of them escaped, they were set upon by the Gauls of the country and were soon glad to surrender themselves unconditionally to the Roman proconsul. Cæsar compelled them—110,000 survivors, of the 368,000 who left Switzerland in the spring—to go back to their mountains and rebuild and reoccupy the homes they had destroyed.

   The Helvii were a tribe of Gauls whose country was between the
   Rhone and the Cevennes, in the modern department of the
   Ardêche.

HENRICIANS.

   Henry II.,
   Emperor, A. D. 1014-1024;
   King of the East Franks (Germany), 1002-1024;
   King of Italy, 1004-1024.

   Henry III.,
   King of France (the last of the Valois), 1574-1589;
   King of Poland, 1573-1574.

Henry IV. (called the Great), King of France and Navarre (the first of the Bourbon kings), 1589-1610. Abjuration.

   Henry VI.,
   King of Germany, 1190-1197;
   Emperor, 1191-1197;
   King of Sicily, 1194-1197.

   Henry VII. (of Luxemburg),
   King of Germany, 1308-1313;
   King of Italy and Emperor, 1312-1313.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765 RECEPTION OF THE NEWS OF THE STAMP ACT, 1774 (SEPTEMBER), 1775 (APRIL-JUNE), 1778-1779 CLARKE'S CONQUEST; also, VIRGINIA: A. D. 1776.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY: KENTUCKY—TENNESSEE).

The northern district of Upper Egypt, embracing seven provinces, or nomes; whence its name.

Heraclea, a flourishing town of Greek origin on the Phrygian coast, called Heraclea Pontica to distinguish it from other towns of like name, was besieged for some two years by the Romans in the Third Mithridatic War. It was surrendered through treachery, B. C. 70, and suffered so greatly from the ensuing pillage and massacre that it never recovered. The Roman commander, Cotta, was afterwards prosecuted at Rome for appropriating the plunder of Heraclea, which included a famous statue of Hercules, with a golden club.

Among the ancient Greeks the reputed descendants of the demi-god hero, Herakles, or Hercules, were very numerous. "Distinguished families are everywhere to be traced who bear his patronymic and glory in the belief that they are his descendants. Among Achæans, Kadmeians, and Dorians, Hêraklês is venerated: the latter especially treat him as their principal hero—the Patron Hero-God of the race: the Hêrakleids form among all Dorians a privileged gens, in which at Sparta the special lineage of the two kings was included."

"The most important, and the most fertile in consequences, of all the migrations of Grecian races, and which continued even to the latest periods to exert its influence upon the Greek character, was the expedition of the Dorians into Peloponnesus. … The traditionary name of this expedition is 'the Return of the Descendants of Hercules' [or 'the Return of the Heraclidæ']. Hercules, the son of Zeus, is (even in the Iliad), both by birth and destiny, the hereditary prince of Tiryns and Mycenæ, and ruler of the surrounding nations. But through some evil chance Eurystheus obtained the precedency and the son of Zeus was compelled to serve him. Nevertheless he is represented as having bequeathed to his descendants his claims to the dominion of Peloponnesus, which they afterwards made good in conjunction with the Dorians; Hercules having also performed such actions in behalf of this race that his descendants were always entitled to the possession of one-third of the territory. The heroic life of Hercules was therefore the mythical title, through which the Dorians were made to appear, not as unjustly invading, but merely as reconquering, a country which had belonged to their princes in former times."

HERACLEIDÆ OF LYDIA.

   The second dynasty of the kings of Lydia—so-called by the
   Greeks as reputed descendants of the sun-god. The dynasty is
   represented as ending with Candaules.

HERCULANEUM.

HERCULIANS AND JOVIANS.

"The Hercynian Forest was known by report to Eratosthenes and some other Greeks, under the name Orcynia. The width of this forest, as Caesar says (B. G. vi. 25), was nine days' journey to a man without any incumbrance. It commenced at the territory of the Helvetii [ Switzerland] … and following the straight course of the Dunube reached to the country of the Daci and the Anartes. Here it turned to the left in different directions from the river, and extended to the territory of many nations. No man of western Germany could affirm that he had reached the eastern termination of the forest even after a journey of six days, nor that he had heard where it did terminate. This is all that Caesar knew of this great forest. … The nine days' journey, which measures the width of the Hercynian forest, is the width from south to north; and if we assume this width to be estimated at the western end of the Hercynia, which part would be the best known, it would correspond to the Schwarzwald and Odenwald, which extend on the east side of the Rhine from the neighbourhood of Bâle nearly as far north as Frankfort on the Main. The eastern parts of the forest would extend on the north side of the Danube along the Rauhe Alp and the Boehmerwald and still farther east. Caesar mentions another German forest named Bacenis (B. G. vi. 10), but all that he could say of it is this: it was a forest of boundless extent, and it separated the Suevi and the Cherusci; from which we may conclude that it is represented by the Thüringerwald, Erzgebirge, Riesengebirge, and the mountain ranges farther east, which separate the basin of the Danube from the basins of the Oder and the Vistula."

HERETOGA.

HEREWARD'S CAMP IN THE FENS.

HERIBANN.

HERMÆAN PROMONTORY.

The ancient name of the north-eastern horn of the Gulf of Tunis, now called Cape Bon. It was the limit fixed by the old treaties between Carthage and Rome, beyond which Roman ships must not go.

HERMITS.

HERMONTHIS.

Among the German tribes of the time of Tacitus, "a people loyal to Rome. Consequently they, alone of the Germans, trade not merely on the banks of the river, but far inland, and in the most flourishing colony of the province of Rætia. Everywhere they are allowed to pass without a guard; and while to the other tribes we display only our arms and our camps, to them we have thrown open our houses and country-seats, which they do not covet."

      Tacitus,
      Minor Works, translated by Church and Brodribb:
      The Germany.

   "The settlements of the Hermunduri must have been in Bavaria,
   and seem to have stretched from Ratisbon, northwards, as far
   as Bohemia and Saxony."

      Tacitus,
      Minor Works, translated by Church and Brodribb:
      The Germany.
      Geography notes.

A Sabine tribe, who anciently occupied a valley in the Lower Appenines, between the Anio and the Trerus, and who were leagued with the Romans and the Latins against the Volscians and the Æquians.

HEROIC AGE OF GREECE.

HEROÖPOLIS.

In February, 1429, while the English still held their ground in France, and while the Duke of Bedford was besieging Orleans [see FRANCE: A. D. 1429-1431], a large convoy of Lenten provisions, salted herring in the main, was sent away from Paris for the English army. It was under the escort of Sir John Fastolfe, with 1,500 men. At Rouvray en Beausse the convoy was attacked by 5,000 French cavalry, including the best knights and warriors of the kingdom. The English entrenched themselves behind their wagons and repelled the attack, with great slaughter and humiliation of the French chivalry; but in the mêlée the red-herrings were scattered thickly over the field. This caused the encounter to be named the Battle of the Herrings.

HERRNHUT.

The Heruli were a people closely associated with the Goths in their history and undoubtedly akin to them in blood. The great piratical expedition of A. D. 267 from the Crimea, which struck Athens, was made up of Herules as well as Goths. The Heruli passed with the Goths under the yoke of the Huns. After the breaking up of the empire of Attila, they were found occupying the region of modern Hungary which is between the Carpathians, the upper Theiss, and the Danube. The Herules were numerous among the barbarian auxiliaries of the Roman army in the last days of the empire.

HERZEGOVINA: A. D. 1875-1876.
Revolt against Turkish rule.
Interposition of the Powers.

HESTIASIS.

Political clubs "which were habitual and notorious at Athens; associations, bound together by oath, among the wealthy citizens, partly for purposes of amusement, but chiefly pledging the members to stand by each other in objects of political ambition, in judicial trials, in accusation or defence of official men after the period of office had expired, in carrying points through the public assembly, &c. … They furnished, when taken together, a formidable anti-popular force."

ALSO IN: G. F. Schömann, Antiquities of Greece: The State, part 3, chapter 3.

HETMAN.

HEYDUCS.

Servian Christians who, in the earlier period of the Turkish domination, fled into the forest and became outlaws and robbers were called Heyducs.

HIAWATHA AND THE IROQUOIS CONFEDERATION.

HIBERNIA.

HIDALGO.

"Originally written 'fijodalgo,' son of something. Later applied to gentlemen, country gentlemen perhaps more particularly. … In the Dic. Univ. authorities are quoted showing that the word 'hidalgo' originated with the Roman colonists of Spain, called 'Italicos,' who were exempt from imposts. Hence those enjoying similar benefits were called 'Italicos,' which word in lapse of time became 'hidalgo.'"

HIDE OF LAND. CARUCATE. VIRGATE.

"In the [Hundred] rolls for Huntingdonshire [England] a series of entries occurs, describing, contrary to the usual practice of the compilers, the number of acres in a virgate, and the number of virgates in a hide, in several manors. … They show clearly—(1) That the bundle of scattered strips called a virgate did not always contain the same number of acres. (2) That the hide did not always contain the same number of virgates. But at the same time it is evident that the hide in Huntingdonshire most often contained 120 acres or thereabouts. … We may gather from the instances given in the Hundred Rolls for Huntingdonshire, that the 'normal' hide consisted as a rule of four virgates of about thirty acres each. The really important consequence resulting from this is the recognition of the fact that as the virgate was a bundle of so many scattered strips in the open fields, the hide, so far as it consisted of actual virgates in villenage, was also a bundle—a compound and fourfold bundle—of scattered strips in the open fields. … A trace at least of the original reason of the varying contents and relations of the hide and virgate is to be found in the Hundred Rolls, as, indeed, almost everywhere else, in the use of another word in the place of hide, when, instead of the anciently assessed hidage of a manor, its modern actual taxable value is examined into and expressed. This new word is 'carucate'—'the land of a plough or plough team,'—'caruca' being the mediæval Latin term for both plough and plough team. … In some cases the carucate seems to be identical with the normal hide of 120 acres, but other instances show that the carucate varied in area. It is the land cultivated by a plough team; varying in acreage, therefore, according to the lightness or heaviness of the soil, and according to the strength of the team. … In pastoral districts of England and Wales the Roman tribute may possibly have been, if not a hide from each plough team, a hide from every family holding cattle. … The supposition of such an origin of the connexion of the word 'hide' with the 'land of a family,' or of a plough team, is mere conjecture; but the fact of the connexion is clear."

F. Seebohm, English Village Community, chapter 2, section 4, and chapter 10, section 6.

HIERATIC WRITING.

In some of the early Greek communities, the Hieroduli, or ministers of the gods, "formed a class of persons bound to certain services, duties, or contributions to the temple of some god, and … sometimes dwelt in the position of serfs on the sacred ground. They appear in considerable numbers, and as an integral part of the population only in Asia, as, e. g., at Comana in Cappadocia, where in Strabo's time there were more than 6,000 of them attached to the temple of the goddess Ma, who was named by the Greeks Enyo, and by the Romans Bellona. In Sicily too the Erycinian Aphrodite had numerous ministers, whom Cicero calls Venerii, and classes with the ministers of Mars (Martiales) at Larinum in South Italy. In Greece we may consider the Craugallidæ as Hieroduli of the Delphian Apollo. They belonged apparently to the race of Dryopes, who are said to have been at some former time conquered by Heracles, and dedicated by him to the god. The greater part of them, we are told, were sent at the command of Apollo to the Peloponnese, whilst the Craugallidæ remained behind. … At Corinth too there were numerous Hieroduli attached to Aphrodite, some of whom were women, who lived as Hetæræ and paid a certain tax from their earnings to the goddess."

"The Greeks gave the name of Hieroglyphics, that is, 'Sacred Sculpture,' to the national writing of the Egyptians, composed entirely of pictures of natural objects. Although very inapplicable, this name has been adopted by modern writers, and has been so completely accepted and used that it cannot now be replaced by a more appropriate appellation. … For a long series of ages the decipherment of the hieroglyphics, for which the classical writers furnish no assistance, remained a hopeless mystery. The acute genius of a Frenchman at last succeeded, not fifty years since, in lifting the veil. By a prodigious effort of induction, and almost divination, Jean François Champollion, who was born at Figeac (Lot) on the 23d of December, 1790, and died at Paris on the 4th of March, 1832, made the greatest discovery of the nineteenth century in the domain of historical science, and succeeded in fixing on a solid basis the principle of reading hieroglyphics. Numerous scholars have followed the path opened by him. … It would … be very far from the truth to regard hieroglyphics as always, or even generally, symbolical. No doubt there are symbolical characters among them, generally easy to understand; as also there are, and in very great number, figurative characters directly representing the object to be designated; but the majority of the signs found in every hieroglyphic text are characters purely phonetic; that is, representing either syllables (and these are so varied as to offer sometimes serious difficulties) or the letters of an only moderately complicated alphabet. These letters are also pictures of objects, but of objects or animals whose Egyptian name commenced with the letter in question, while also the syllabic characters (true rebusses) represented objects designated by that syllable."

F. Lenormant and E. Chevallier. Manual of the Ancient History of the East, book 3, chapter 5 (volume 1).

   "The system of writing employed by the people called Egyptians
   was probably entirely pictorial either at the time when they
   first arrived in Egypt, or during the time that they still
   lived in their original home. We, however, know of no
   inscription in which pictorial characters alone are used, for
   the earliest specimens of their writing known to us contain
   alphabetical characters. The Egyptians had three kinds of
   writing—Hieroglyphic, Hieratic, and Demotic. …
   Hieroglyphics … were commonly employed for inscriptions upon
   temples, tombs, coffins, statues, and stelæ, and many copies
   of the Book of the Dead were written in them. The earliest
   hieroglyphic inscription at present known is found on the
   monument of Shera, parts of which are preserved in the
   Ashmolean Museum at Oxford and in the Gîzeh Museum; it dates
   from the IInd dynasty. Hieroglyphics were used in Egypt for
   writing the names of Roman Emperors and for religious purposes
   until the third century after Christ, at least.
{1646}
   Hieratic … was a style of cursive writing much used by the
   priests in copying literary compositions on papyrus; during
   the XIth or XIIth dynasty wooden coffins were inscribed in
   hieratic with religious texts. The oldest document in hieratic
   is the famous Prisse papyrus, which records the counsels of
   Ptah-hetep to his son; the composition itself is about a
   thousand years older than this papyrus, which was probably
   inscribed about the XIth dynasty. Drafts of inscriptions were
   written upon flakes of calcareous stone in hieratic, and at a
   comparatively early date hieratic was used in writing copies
   of the Book of the Dead. Hieratic was used until about the
   fourth century after Christ. Demotic … is a purely
   conventional modification of hieratic characters, which
   preserve little of their original form, and was used for
   social and business purposes; in the early days of Egyptian
   decipherment it was called enchorial. … The Demotic writing
   appears to have come into use about B. C. 900, and it survived
   until about the fourth century after Christ. In the time of
   the Ptolemies three kinds of writing were inscribed side by
   side upon documents of public importance, hieroglyphic, Greek,
   and Demotic; examples are the stele of Canopus, set up in the
   ninth year of the reign of Ptolemy III. Euergetes I., B. C.
   247-222, at Canopus, to record the benefits which this king
   had conferred upon his country, and the famous Rosetta Stone,
   set up at Rosetta in the eighth year of the reign of Ptolemy
   V. Epiphanes (B. C. 205-182), likewise to commemorate the
   benefits conferred upon Egypt by himself and his family, etc.
   … A century or two after the Christian era Greek had
   obtained such a hold upon the inhabitants of Egypt, that the
   native Christian population, the disciples and followers of
   Saint Mark, were obliged to use the Greek alphabet to write
   down the Egyptian, that is to say Coptic, translation of the
   books of the Old and New Testaments, but they borrowed six
   signs from the demotic forms of ancient Egyptian characters to
   express the sounds which they found unrepresented in Greek."

"A number of solitaries residing among the mountains of Spain, Portugal, and Italy, gradually formed into a community, and called themselves Hieronymites, either because they had compiled their Rule from the writings of St. Jerome, or because, adopting the rule of St. Augustine, they had taken St. Jerome for their patron. … The community was approved by Gregory XI., in 1374. The famous monastery of Our Lady of Guadaloupe, in Estremadura; the magnificent Escurial, with its wealth of literary treasures, and the monastery of St. Just, where Charles V. sought an asylum in the decline of his life, attest their wonderful energy and zeal."

HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE.

William H. Seward, speaking in the Senate of the United States, March 11, 1850, on the question of the admission of California into the Union as a Free State, used the following language: "'The Constitution,' he said, 'regulates our stewardship; the Constitution devotes the domain to union, to justice, to defence, to welfare, and to liberty. But there is a higher law than the Constitution, which regulates our authority over the domain, and devotes it to the same noble purposes. The territory is a part, no inconsiderable part, of the common heritage of mankind, bestowed upon them by the Creator of the universe. We are His stewards, and must so discharge our trust as to secure in the highest attainable degree their happiness.' This public recognition by a Senator of the United States that the laws of the Creator were 'higher' than those of human enactment excited much astonishment and indignation, and called forth, in Congress and out of it, measureless abuse upon its author."

      H. Wilson,
      History of the Rise and Fall
      of the Slave Power in America,
      volume 2, pages 262-263.

   In the agitations that followed upon the adoption of the
   Fugitive Slave Law, and the other compromise measures
   attending the admission of California, this Higher Law
   Doctrine was much talked about.

HIGHLAND CLANS.

HIGHLANDS OF SCOTLAND.

HIKENILDE—STRETE.

HILDEBRAND, KING OF THE LOMBARDS, A. D. 743-744.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1861 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER: SOUTH CAROLINA-GEORGIA).

An article of dress in the nature of a cloak, worn by both men and women among the ancient Greeks. It "was arranged so that the one corner was thrown over the left shoulder in front, so as to be attached to the body by means of the left arm. On the back the dress was pulled toward the right side, so as to cover it completely up to the right shoulder, or, at least, to the armpit, in which latter case the right shoulder remained uncovered. Finally, the himation was again thrown over the left shoulder, so that the ends fell over the back. … A second way of arranging the himation, which left the right arm free, was more picturesque, and is therefore usually found in pictures."

HINDUISM.

HINDUSTAN.

HIPPARCH.

HIPPEIS.

Among the Spartans, the honorary title of Hippeis, or Knights, was given to the members of a chosen body of three hundred young men, the flower of the Spartan youth, who had not reached thirty years of age. "Their three leaders were called Hippagretæ, although in war they served not as cavalry but as hoplites. The name may possibly have survived from times in which they actually served on horseback." At Athens the term Hippeis was applied to the second of the four property classes into which Solon divided the population,—their property obliging them to serve as cavalry.

Fought, A. D. 550, in what was known as the Lazic War, between the Persians on one side and the Romans and the Lazi on the other. The latter were the victors.

HIPPO, OR HIPPO REGIUS.

HIPPODROME. STADION. THEATER.

"The arts practised in the gymnasia were publicly displayed at the festivals. The buildings in which these displays took place were modified according to their varieties. The races both on horseback and in chariots took place in the hippodrome; for the gymnastic games of the pentathlon served the stadion; while for the acme of the festivals, the musical and dramatic performances, theatres were erected."

E. Guhl and W. Koner, Life of the Greeks and Romans (translated by Hueffer), sections 28-30.

HIRA.

"The historians of the age of Justinian represent the state of the independent Arabs, who were divided by interest or affection in the long quarrel of the East [between the Romans and Persians—3rd to 7th century]: the tribe of Gassan was allowed to encamp on the Syrian territory; the princes of Hira were permitted to form a city about 40 miles to the southward of the ruins of Babylon. Their service in the field was speedy and vigorous; but their friendship was venal, their faith inconstant, their enmity capricious: it was an easier task to excite than to disarm these roving barbarians; and, in the familiar intercourse of war, they learned to see and to despise the splendid weakness both of Rome and of Persia."

"The dynasty of Palmyra and the western tribes embraced Christianity in the time of Constantine; to the east of the desert the religion was later of gaining ground, and indeed was not adopted by the court of Hira till near the end of the 6th century. Early in the 7th, Hira fell from its dignity as an independent power, and became a satrapy of Persia."

In 633 Hira was overwhelmed by the Mahometan conquest, and the
greater city of Kufa was built only 3 miles distant from it.

HISPALIS.

HISPANIA CITERIOR AND HISPANIA ULTERIOR.

HISPANIOLA.

The name given by Columbus to the island now divided between
the Republics of Hayti and San Domingo.

HISSARLIK.

The site of ancient Troy, as supposed to be identified by the
excavations of Dr. Schliemann.

"With us the word 'history,' like its equivalents in all modern languages, signifies either a form of literary composition or the appropriate subject or matter of such composition—either a narrative of events, or events which may be narrated. It is impossible to free the term from this doubleness and ambiguity of meaning. Nor is it, on the whole, to be desired. The advantages of having one term which may, with ordinary caution, be innocuously applied to two things so related, more than counterbalances the dangers involved in two things so distinct having the same name. … Since the word history has two very different meanings, it obviously cannot have merely one definition. To define an order of facts and a form of literature in the same terms—to suppose that when either of them is defined the other is defined—is so absurd that one would probably not believe it could be seriously done were it not so often done. But to do so has been the rule rather than the exception. The majority of so-called definitions of history are definitions only of the records of history. They relate to history as narrated and written, not to history as evolved and acted; in other words, although given as the only definitions of history needed, they do not apply to history itself, but merely to accounts of history. They may tell us what constitutes a book of history, but they cannot tell us what the history is with which all books of history are occupied. It is, however, with history in this latter sense that a student of the science or philosophy of history is mainly concerned. … If by history be meant history in its widest sense, the best definition of history as a form of literature is, perhaps, either the very old one, 'the narration of events,' or W. von Humboldt's, 'the exhibition of what has happened' (die Darstellung des Geschehenen). {1648} The excellence of these definitions lies in their clear and explicit indication of what history as effectuated or transacted is. It consists of events; it is das Geschehene. It is the entire course of events in time. It is all that has happened precisely as it happened. Whatever happens is history. Eternal and unchanging being has no history. Things or phenomena considered as existent, connected, and comprehended in space, compose what is called nature as distinguished from history. … Probably Droysen has found a neater and terser formula for it in German than any which the English language could supply. Nature he describes as 'das Nebeneinander des Seienden,' and history as 'das Nacheinander des Gewordenen.' … The only kind of history with which we have here directly to deal is that kind of it to which the name is generally restricted, history par excellence, human history, what has happened within the sphere of human agency and interests, the actions and creations of men, events which have affected the lives and destinies of men, or which have been produced by men. This is the ordinary sense of the word history. … To attempt further to define it would be worse than useless. It would be unduly to limit, and to distort and pervert, its meaning. In proof of this a few brief remarks on certain typical or celebrated definitions of history may perhaps be of service. The definition given in the Dictionary of the French Academy—'l'histoire est le récit des choses dignes de mémoire' [Transcriber: "the story of things worth remembering"]—is a specimen of a very numerous species. According to such definitions history consists of exceptional things, of celebrated or notorious events, of the lives and actions of great and exalted men, of conspicuous achievements in war and politics, in science and art, in religion and literature. But this is a narrow and superficial conception of history. History is made up of what is little as well as of what is great, of what is common as well as of what is strange, of what is counted mean as well as of what is counted noble. … Dr. Arnold's definition—'history is the biography of a society'—has been often praised. Nor altogether undeservedly. For it directs attention to the fact that all history accords with biography in supposing in its subject a certain unity of life, work, and end. … It does not follow, however, that biography is a more general notion than history, and history only a species of biography. In fact, it is not only as true and intelligible to say that biography is the history of an individual as to say that history is the biography of a society, but more so. It is the word biography in the latter case which is used in a secondary and analogical sense, not the word history in the former case. … According to Mr. Freeman, 'history is past politics and politics are present history.' This is not a mode of definition which any logician will be found to sanction. It is equivalent to saying that politics and history are the same, and may both be divided into past and present; but it does not tell us what either is. To affirm that this was that and that is this is not a definition of this or that, but only an assertion that something may be called either this or that. Besides, the identification of history with politics proceeds, as has been already indicated, on a view of history which is at once narrow and arbitrary. Further, it is just as true that mathematical history is past mathematics and mathematics are present history, as that political history is past politics and politics are present history. … The whole of man's past was once present thought, feeling, and action. There is nothing peculiar to politics in this respect."

      R. Flint,
      History of the Philosophy of History: France, etc.,
      pages 5-10.

"The position for which I have always striven is this, that history is past politics, that politics are present history. The true subject of history, of any history that deserves the name, is man in his political capacity, man as the member of an organized society, governed according to law. History, in any other aspect, hardly rises above antiquarianism, though I am far from holding that even simple antiquarianism, even the merest scraping together of local and genealogical detail, is necessarily antiquarian rubbish. I know not why the pursuits of the antiquary should be called rubbish, any more than the pursuits of the seeker after knowledge of any other kind. Still, the pursuits of the antiquary, the man of local and special detail, the man of buildings or coins or weapons or manuscripts, are not in themselves history, though they are constantly found to be most valuable helps to history. The collections of the antiquary are not history; but they are materials for history, materials of which the historian makes grateful use, and without which he would often be sore put to in doing his own work. … It is not too much to say that no kind of knowledge, of whatever kind, will be useless to the historian. There is none, however seemingly distant from his subject, which may not stand him in good stead at some pinch, sooner or later. But his immediate subject, that to which all other things are secondary, is man as the member of a political community. Rightly to understand man in that character, he must study him in all the forms, in all the developments, that political society has taken. Effects have to be traced up to their causes, causes have to be traced up to their effects; and we cannot go through either of those needful processes if we confine our studies either to the political societies of our own day or to political societies on a great physical scale. The object of history is to watch the workings of one side, and that the highest side, of human nature in all its shapes; and we do not see human nature in all its shapes, unless we follow it into all times and all circumstances under which we have any means of studying it. … In one sense it is perfectly true that history is always repeating itself; in another sense it would be equally true to say that history never repeats itself at all. No historical position can be exactly the same as any earlier historical position, if only for the reason that the earlier position has gone before it. … Even where the reproduction is unconscious, where the likeness is simply the result of the working of like causes, still the two results can never be exactly the same, if only because the earlier result itself takes its place among the causes of the later result. Differences of this kind must always be borne in mind, and they are quite enough to hinder any two historical events from being exact doubles of one another. … We must carefully distinguish between causes and occasions. It is one of the oldest and one of the wisest remarks of political philosophy that great events commonly arise from great causes, but from small occasions. {1649} A certain turn of mind, one which is more concerned with gossip, old or new, than with real history, delights in telling us how the greatest events spring from the smallest causes, how the fates of nations and empires are determined by some sheer accident, or by the personal caprice or personal quarrel of some perhaps very insignificant person. A good deal of court-gossip, a good deal of political gossip, passes both in past and present times for real history. Now a great deal of this gossip is sheer gossip, and may be cast aside without notice; but a good deal of it often does contain truth of a certain kind. Only bear in mind the difference between causes and occasions, and we may accept a good many of the stories which tell us how very trifling incidents led to very great events. … When I speak of causes and occasions, when I speak of small personal caprices and quarrels, as being not the causes of great events, but merely the occasions, I wish it to be fully understood that I do not at all place the agency of really great men among mere occasions: I fully give it its place among determining causes. In any large view of history, we must always be on our guard against either underrating or overrating the actions of individual men. History is something more than biography; but biography is an essential and a most important part of history. We must not think, on the one hand, that great men, heroes, or whatever we please to call them, can direct the course of history according to their own will and pleasure, perhaps according to their mere caprice, with no danger of their will being thwarted, unless it should run counter to the will of some other great man or hero of equal or greater power. … On the other hand, we must not deem that the course of history is so governed by general laws, that it is so completely in bondage to almost mechanical powers, that there is no room for the free agency of great men and of small men too. For it is of no little importance that, while we talk of the influence of great men on the history of the world, we should not forget the influence of the small men. Every man has some influence on the course of history."

E. A. Freeman, The Practical Bearings of European History (Lectures to American Audiences), pages 207-215.

"The philosophy of history is not a something separate from the facts of history, but a something contained in them. The more a man gets into the meaning of them, the more he gets into it, and it into him; for it is simply the meaning, the rational interpretation, the knowledge of the true nature and essential relations of the facts. And this is true of whatever species or order the facts may be. Their philosophy is not something separate and distinct from, something over and above, their interpretation, but simply their interpretation. He who knows about any people, or epoch, or special development of human nature, how it has come to be what it is and what it tends to, what causes have given it the character it has, and what its relation is to the general development of humanity, has attained to the philosophy of the history of that people, epoch, or development. Philosophical history is sometimes spoken of as a kind of history, but the language is most inaccurate. Every kind of history is philosophical which is true and thorough; which goes closely and deeply enough to work; which shows the what, how, and why of events as far as reason and research can ascertain. History always participates in some measure of philosophy, for events are always connected according to some real or supposed principle either of efficient or final causation."

"The believer in the possibility of a science of history is not called upon to hold either the doctrine of predestined events, or that of freedom of the will; and the only positions which, in this stage of the inquiry, I shall expect him to concede are the following: That when we perform an action, we perform it in consequence of some motive or motives; that those motives are the results of some antecedents; and that, therefore, if we were acquainted with the whole of the antecedents, and with all the laws of their movements, we could with unerring certainty predict the whole of their immediate results. This, unless I am greatly mistaken, is the view which must be held by every man whose mind is unbiased by system, and who forms his opinions according to the evidence actually before him. … Rejecting, then, the metaphysical dogma of free will and, the theological dogma of predestined events, we are driven to the conclusion that the actions of men, being determined solely by their antecedents, must have a character of uniformity, that is to say, must, under precisely the same circumstances, always issue in precisely the same results. And as all antecedents are either in the mind or out of it, we clearly see that all the variations in the results—in other words, all the changes of which history is full, all the vicissitudes of the human race, their progress or their decay, their happiness or their misery—must be the fruit of a double action; an action of external phenomena upon the mind, and another action of the mind upon the phenomena. These are the materials out of which a philosophic history can alone be constructed. On the one hand, we have the human mind obeying the laws of its own existence, and, when uncontrolled by external agents, developing itself according to the conditions of its organization. On the other hand, we have what is called Nature, obeying likewise its laws; but incessantly coming into contact with the minds of men, exciting their passions, stimulating their intellect, and therefore giving to their actions a direction which they would not have taken without such disturbance. Thus we have man modifying nature, and nature modifying man; while out of this reciprocal modification all events must necessarily spring. The problem immediately before us is to ascertain the method of discovering the laws of this double modification."

"Buckle is not the first who has attempted to treat the unscientific character of History, the 'methodless matter,' as an ancient writer names it, by the method of exhibiting vital phenomena under points of view analogous to those which are the starting-point of the exact sciences. But a notion which others have incidentally broached under some formula about 'natural growth,' or carried out in the very inadequate and merely figurative idea of 'the inorganic; what still others, as Comte in his attractive 'Philosophie Positive,' have developed speculatively, Buckle undertakes to ground in a comprehensive historical exposition. … {1650} He purposes to raise History to a science by showing how to demonstrate historical facts out of general laws. He paves the way for this by setting forth that the earliest and rudest conceptions touching the course of human destiny were those indicated by the ideas of chance and necessity, that in all probability' out of these grew later the 'dogmas' of free-will and predestination, that both are in a great degree 'mistakes,' or that, as he adds, 'we at least have no adequate proof of their truth.' He finds that all the changes of which History is full, all the vicissitudes which have come upon the human race, its advance and its decline, its happiness and its misery, must be the fruit, of a double agency, the working of outer phenomena upon our nature, and the working of our nature upon outer phenomena. He has confidence that he has discovered the 'laws' of this double influence, and that he has therefore elevated the History of mankind to a science. … Buckle does not so much leave the freedom of the will, in connection with divine providence, out of view, but rather declares it an illusion and throws it overboard. Within the precincts of philosophy also something similar has recently been taught. A thinker whom I regard with personal esteem says: 'If we call all that an individual man is, has and performs A, then this A arises out of a + x, a embracing all that comes to the man from his outer circumstances: from his country, people, age, etc., while the vanishingly little x is his own contribution, the work of his free will.' However vanishingly small this x may be, it is of infinite value. Morally and humanly considered it alone has value. The colors, the brush, the canvas which Raphael used were of materials which he had not created. He had learned from one and another master to apply these materials in drawing and painting. The idea of the Holy Virgin and of the saints and angels, he met with in church tradition. Various cloisters ordered pictures from him at given prices. That this incitement alone, these material and technical conditions and such traditions and contemplations, should 'explain' the Sistine Madonna, would be, in the formula A = a + x, the service of the vanishing little x. Similarly everywhere. Let statistics go on showing that in a certain country so and so many illegitimate births occur. Suppose that in the formula A = a + x this a includes all the elements which 'explain' the fact that among a thousand mothers twenty, thirty, or whatever the number is, are unmarried; each individual case of the kind has its history, how often a touching and affecting one. Of those twenty or thirty who have fallen is there a single one who will be consoled by knowing that the statistical law 'explains' her case? Amid the tortures of conscience through nights of weeping, many a one of them will be profoundly convinced that in the formula A = a + x the vanishing little x is of immeasurable weight, that in fact it embraces the entire moral worth of the human being, his total and exclusive value. No intelligent man will think of denying that the statistical method of considering human affairs has its great worth; but we must not forget how little, relatively, it can accomplish and is meant to accomplish: Many and perhaps all human relations have a legal side; yet no one will on that account bid us seek for the understanding of the Eroica or of Faust among jurists' definitions concerning intellectual property."

      J. G. Droysen,
      Outline of the Principles of History
      pages 62-64 and 77-79.

   "History, as it lies at the root of all science, is also the
   first distinct product of man's spiritual nature; his earliest
   expression of what can be called Thought. It is a looking both
   before and after; as, indeed, the coming Time already waits,
   unseen, yet definitely shaped, predetermined and inevitable,
   in the Time come; and only by the combination of both is the
   meaning of either completed. The Sibylline Books, though old,
   are not the oldest. Some nations have prophecy, some have not:
   but of all mankind, there is no tribe so rude that it has not
   attempted History, though several have not arithmetic enough
   to count Five. History has been written with quipo-threads,
   with feather-pictures, with wampum-belts; still oftener with
   earth-mounds and monumental stone-heaps, whether as pyramid or
   cairn; for the Celt and the Copt, the Red man as well as the
   White, lives between two eternities, and warring against
   Oblivion, he would fain unite himself in clear conscious
   relation, as in dim unconscious relation he is already united,
   with the whole Future and the whole Past. A talent for History
   may be said to be born with us, as our chief inheritance. In a
   certain sense all men are historians. Is not every memory
   written quite full with Annals, wherein joy and mourning,
   conquest and loss manifoldly alternate; and, with or without
   philosophy, the whole fortunes of one little inward Kingdom,
   and all its politics, foreign and domestic, stand ineffaceably
   recorded? Our very speech is curiously historical. Most men,
   you may observe, speak only to narrate; not in imparting what
   they have thought, which indeed were often a very small
   matter, but in exhibiting what they have undergone or seen,
   which is a quite unlimited one, do talkers dilate. Cut us off
   from Narrative, how would the stream of conversation, even
   among the wisest, languish into detached handfuls, and among
   the foolish utterly evaporate! Thus, as we do nothing but
   enact History, we say little but recite it: nay rather, in
   that widest sense, our whole spiritual life is built thereon.
   For, strictly considered, what is all Knowledge too but
   recorded Experience, and a product of History; of which;
   therefore, Reasoning and Belief, no less than Action and
   Passion, are essential materials? … Social Life is the
   aggregate of all the individual men's Lives who constitute
   society; History is the essence of innumerable Biographies.
   But if one Biography, nay our own Biography, study and
   recapitulate it as we may, remains in so many points
   unintelligible to us; how much more must these million, the
   very facts of which, to say nothing of the purport of them, we
   know not, and cannot know! … Which was the greatest
   innovator, which was the more important personage in man's
   history, he who first led armies over the Alps, and gained the
   victories of Cannæ and Thrasymene; or the nameless boor who
   first hammered out for himself an iron spade? When the oak
   tree is felled, the whole forest echoes with it; but a hundred
   acorns are planted silently by some unnoticed breeze.
{1651}
   Battles and war-tumults, which for the time din every ear, and
   with joy or terror intoxicate every heart, pass away like
   tavern-brawls; and, except some few Marathons and Morgartens,
   are remembered by accident, not by desert. Laws themselves,
   political Constitutions, are not our Life, but only the house
   wherein our Life is led: nay they are but the bare walls of
   the house; all whose essential furniture, the inventions and
   traditions, and daily habits that regulate and support our
   existence, are the work not of Dracos and Hampdens, but of
   Phœnician mariners, of Italian masons and Saxon metallurgists,
   of philosophers, alchymists, prophets, and all the
   long-forgotten train of artists and artisans; who from the
   first have been jointly teaching us how to think and how to
   act, how to rule over spiritual and over physical Nature. Well
   may we say that of our History the more important part is lost
   without recovery."

      T. Carlyle,
      On History
      (Critical and Miscellaneous Essays, volume 2).

"But how, it may be asked, are we to interpret the Past from the Present, if there are no institutions in the present answering to those in the past? We have no serfs, for example, in England at the present time, how then are we to understand a state of Society of which they were a component element? The answer is—by analogy, by looking at the essence of the relation. Between a modern master and his lackeys and dependents, the same essential relation subsists as between the lord and serf of feudal times. If we realise to ourselves the full round of this relationship, deepen the shades to correspond with the more absolute power possessed by a lord in early times, allow for a more aristocratic state of opinion and belief, the result will be the solution desired. This method of interpreting the Past from the Present has been followed by Shakespeare in his great historical dramas, with such success as we all know. He wishes, for example, to give us a picture of old Roman times. He gets from Plutarch and other sources the broad historical facts, the form of Government and Religion, the distribution of Power and Authority: this is the skeleton to which he has to give life and reality. How does he proceed? He simply takes his stand on the times in which he himself lived; notes the effects existing institutions have on his own and other minds; allows for the differences in custom, mode of life, and political and religious forms; and the result is a drama or dramas more real and lifelike, more true and believable, an insight into the working of Roman life more subtle and profound, than all the husks with which the historians have furnished us."

"Gibbon believed that the era of conquerors was at an end. Had he lived out the full life of man, he would have seen Europe at the feet of Napoleon. But a few years ago we believed the world had grown too civilized for war, and the Crystal Palace in Hyde Park was to be the inauguration of a new era. Battles bloody as Napoleon's are now the familiar tale of every day; and the arts which have made greatest progress are the arts of destruction. … What, then, is the use of History, and what are its lessons? If it can tell us little of the past, and nothing of the future, why waste our time over so barren a study? First, it is a voice forever sounding across the centuries the laws of right and wrong. Opinions alter, manners change, creeds rise and fall, but the moral law is written on the tablets of eternity. For every false word or unrighteous deed, for cruelty and oppression, for lust or vanity, the price has to be paid at last; not always by the chief offenders, but paid by some one. Justice and truth alone endure and live. Injustice and falsehood may be long-lived, but doomsday comes at last to them, in French revolutions and other terrible ways. That is one lesson of History. Another is that we should draw no horoscopes; that we should expect little, for what we expect will not come to pass."

"It is, I think, one of the best schools for that kind of reasoning which is most useful in practical life. It teaches men to weigh conflicting probabilities, to estimate degrees of evidence, to form a sound judgment of the value of authorities. Reasoning is taught by actual practice much more than by any a priori methods. Many good judges—and I own I am inclined to agree with them—doubt much whether a study of formal logic ever yet made a good reasoner. Mathematics are no doubt invaluable in this respect, but they only deal with demonstrations; and it has often been observed how many excellent mathematicians are somewhat peculiarly destitute of the power of measuring degrees of probability. But History is largely concerned with the kind of probabilities on which the conduct of life mainly, depends. There is one hint about historical reasoning which I think may not be unworthy of your notice. When studying some great historical controversy, place yourself by an effort of the imagination alternately on each side of the battle; try to realise as fully as you can the point of view of the best men on either side, and then draw up upon paper the arguments of each in the strongest form you can give them. You will find that few practices do more to elucidate the past, or form a better mental discipline."

   "He who demands certainties alone as the sphere of his action
   must retire from the activities of life, and confine himself
   to the domain of mathematical computation. He who is unwilling
   to investigate and weigh probabilities can have no good reason
   to hope for any practical success whatever. It is strictly
   accurate to say that the highest successes in life, whether in
   statesmanship, in legislation, in war, in the civic
   professions, or in the industrial pursuits, are attained by
   those who possess the greatest skill in the weighing of
   probabilities and the estimating of them at their true value.
   This is the essential reason why the study of history is so
   important an element in the work of improving the judgment,
   and in the work of fitting men to conduct properly the larger
   interests of communities and states. It is a study of
   humanity, not in an ideal condition, but as humanity exists.
   The student of history surveys the relations of life in
   essentially the same manner as the man of business surveys
   them. Perhaps it ought rather to be said that the historical
   method is the method that must be used in the common affairs
   of everyday life.
{1652}
   The premises from which the man of business has to draw his
   conclusions are always more or less involved and uncertain.
   The gift which insures success, therefore, is not so much the
   endowment of a powerful reasoning faculty as that other
   quality of intelligence, which we call good judgment. It is
   the ability to grasp what may be called the strategic points
   of a situation by instinctive or intuitive methods. It reaches
   its conclusions not by any very clearly defined or definable
   process, but rather by the method of conjecturing the value
   and importance of contingent elements. It is the ability to
   reach correct conclusions when the conditions of a strictly
   logical process are wanting. To a man of affairs this is the
   most valuable of all gifts; and it is acquired, so far as it
   comes by effort, not by studying the rigid processes of
   necessary reasoning, but by a large observance and
   contemplation of human affairs. And it is precisely this
   method of studying men that the historical student has to use.
   His premises are always more or less uncertain, and his
   conclusions, therefore, like the conclusions of every day
   life, are the product of his judgment rather than the product
   of pure reason. It is in the light of this fact that we are to
   explain the force of Guizot's remark, that nothing tortures
   history more than logic. Herein also is found the reason why
   the study of history is so necessary a part of a good
   preparation for the affairs of politics and statesmanship.
   Freeman has said that history is simply past politics, and
   politics are simply present history. If this be true—and who
   can deny it?—the study of history and the study of politics
   are much the same. The kind of involved and contingent
   reasoning necessary for the successful formation of political
   judgments is unquestionably the kind of reasoning which, of
   all studies, history is best adapted to give. It may also be
   said that the most important elements of success are the same
   in all practical vocations. The conditions, whether those of
   statesmanship or those of industry and commerce, have been
   essentially the same in all ages. Society is, and has been,
   from its first existence, a more or less complicated organism.
   It is a machine with a great number of wheels and springs. No
   part is independent. Hence it is that no man can be completely
   useful if he is out of gear with his age, however perfect he may
   be in himself."

"To turn for a moment to the general question. I should not like to be thought to be advocating my study on the mere grounds of utility; although I believe that utility, both as regards the training of the study and the information attained in it, to be the highest, humanly speaking, of all utilities; it helps to qualify a man to act in his character of a politician as a Christian man should. But this is not all; beyond the educational purpose, beyond the political purpose, beyond the philosophical use of history and its training, it has something of the preciousness of everything that is clearly true. In common with Natural Philosophy it has its value, I will not say as Science, for that would be to use a term which has now become equivocal, but it has a value analogous to the value of science; a value as something that is worth knowing and retaining in the knowledge for its own and for the truth's sake. And in this consists its especial attraction for its own votaries. It is not the pleasure of knowing something that the world does not know,—that doubtless is a motive that weighs with many minds, a motive to be accepted as a fact, though it may not be worth analysis. It is not the mere pleasure of investigating and finding with every step of investigation new points of view open out, and new fields of labour, new characters of interest;—that investigating instinct of human nature is not one to be ignored, and the exercise of it on such inexhaustible materials as are before us now is a most healthy exercise, one that cannot but strengthen and develop the whole mind of the man who uses it, urging him on to new studies, new languages, new discoveries in geography and science. But even this is not all. There is, I speak humbly, in common with Natural Science, in the study of living History, a gradual approximation to a consciousness that we are growing into a perception of the workings of the Almighty Ruler of the world. … The study of History is in this respect, as Coleridge said of Poetry, its own great reward, a thing to be loved and cultivated for its own sake. … If man is not, as we believe, the greatest and most wonderful of God's works, he is at least the most wonderful that comes within our contemplation; if the human will, which is the motive cause of all historical events, is not the freest agent in the universe, it is at least the freest agency of which we have any knowledge; if its variations are not absolutely innumerable and irreducible to classification, on the generalisations of which we may formulate laws and rules, and maxims and prophecies, they are far more diversified and less reducible than any other phenomena in those regions of the universe that we have power to penetrate. For one great insoluble problem of astronomy or geology there are a thousand insoluble problems in the life, in the character, in the face of every man that meets you in the street. Thus, whether we look at the dignity of the subject-matter, or at the nature of the mental exercise which it requires, or at the inexhaustible field over which the pursuit ranges, History, the knowledge of the adventures, the development, the changeful career, the varied growths, the ambitions, aspirations, and, if you like, the approximating destinies of mankind, claims a place second to none in the roll of sciences."

W. Stubbs, Seventeen Lectures on the Study of Medieval and Modern History, lectures 1 and 4.

"There is a passage in Lord Bacon so much to this purpose that I cannot forbear quoting it. 'Although' (he says) 'we are deeply indebted to the light, because by means of it we can find our way, ply our tasks, read, distinguish one another; and yet for all that the vision of the light itself is more excellent and more beautiful than all these various uses of it; so the contemplation and sight of things as they are, without superstition, without imposture, without error, and without confusion, is in itself worth more than all the harvest and profit of inventions put together.' And so may I say of History; that useful as it may be to the statesman, to the lawyer, to the schoolmaster, or the annalist, so far as it enables us to look at facts as they are, and to cultivate that habit within us, the importance of History is far beyond all mere amusement or even information that we may gather from it."

"To know History is impossible; not even Mr. Freeman, not Professor Ranke himself, can be said to know History. … No one, therefore, should be discouraged from studying History. Its greatest service is not so much to increase our knowledge as to stimulate thought and broaden our intellectual horizon, and for this purpose no study is its equal."

      W. P. Atkinson,
      On History and the Study of History,
      page 107.

"A history in which every particular incident may be true may on the whole be false. The circumstances which have most influence on the happiness of mankind, the changes of manners and morals, the transition of communities from poverty to wealth, from knowledge to ignorance, from ferocity to humanity—these are, for the most part, noiseless revolutions. Their progress is rarely indicated by what historians are pleased to call important events. They are not achieved by armies, or enacted by senates. They are sanctioned by no treaties and recorded in no archives. They are carried on in every school, in every church, behind ten thousand counters, at ten thousand firesides. The upper current of society presents no certain criterion by which we can judge of the direction in which the under current flows. We read of defeats and victories. But we know that nations may be miserable amidst victories and prosperous amidst defeats. We read of the fall of wise ministers and of the rise of profligate favourites. But we must remember how small a proportion the good or evil effected by a single statesman can bear to the good or evil of a great social system. … The effect of historical reading is analogous, in many respects, to that produced by foreign travel. The student, like the tourist, is transported into a new state of society. He sees new fashions. He hears new modes of expression. His mind is enlarged by contemplating the wide diversities of laws, of morals, and of manners. But men may travel far and return with minds as contracted as if they had never stirred from their own market-town. In the same manner, men may know the dates of many battles and the genealogies of many royal houses, and yet be no wiser. … The perfect historian is he in whose work the character and spirit of an age is exhibited in miniature. He relates no fact, he attributes no expression to his characters, which is not authenticated by sufficient testimony. But, by judicious selection, rejection, and arrangement, he gives to truth those attractions which have been usurped by fiction. In his narrative a due subordination is observed: some transactions are prominent; others retire. But the scale on which he represents them is increased or diminished, not according to the dignity of the persons concerned in them, but according to the degree in which they elucidate the condition of society and the nature of man. He shows us the court, the camp, and the senate. But he shows us also the nation. He considers no anecdote, no peculiarity of manner, no familiar saying, as too insignificant for his notice which is not too insignificant to illustrate the operation of laws, of religion, and of education, and to mark the progress of the human mind. Men will not merely be described, but will be made intimately known to us."

"That man reads history, or anything else, at great peril of being thoroughly misled, who has no perception of any truthfulness except that which can be fully ascertained by reference to facts; who does not in the least perceive the truth, or the reverse, of a writer's style, of his epithets, of his reasoning, of his mode of narration. In life our faith in any narration is much influenced by the personal appearance, voice, and gesture of the person narrating. There is some part of all these things in his writing; and you must look into that well before you can know what faith to give him. One man may make mistakes in names, and dates, and references, and yet have a real substance of truthfulness in him, a wish to enlighten himself and then you. Another may not be wrong in his facts, but have a declamatory, or sophistical, vein in him, much to be guarded against. A third may be both inaccurate and untruthful, caring not so much for any thing as to write his book. And if the reader cares only to read it, sad work they make between them of the memories of former days."

"The prodigious addition which the happy idea of the historical romance has made to the stories of elevated literature, and through it to the happiness and improvement of the human race, will not be properly appreciated, unless the novels most in vogue before the immortal creations of Scott appeared are considered. … Why is it that works so popular in their day, and abounding with so many traits of real genius, should so soon have palled upon the world? Simply because they were not founded upon a broad and general view of human nature; because they were drawn, not from real life in the innumerable phases which it presents to the observer, but imaginary life as it was conceived in the mind of the composer; because they were confined to one circle and class of society, and having exhausted all the natural ideas which it could present, its authors were driven, in the search of variety, to the invention of artificial and often ridiculous ones. Sir Walter Scott, as all the world knows, was the inventor of the historical romance. As if to demonstrate how ill founded was the opinion, that all things were worked out, and that originality no longer was accessible for the rest of time, Providence, by the means of that great mind, bestowed a new art, as it were, upon mankind—at the very time when literature to all appearance was effete, and invention, for above a century, had run in the cramped and worn-out channels of imitation. Gibbon was lamenting that the subjects of history were exhausted, and that modern story would never present the moving incidents of ancient story, on the verge of the French Revolution and the European war—of the Reign of Terror and the Moscow retreat. Such was the reply of Time to the complaint that political incident was worn out. Not less decisive was the answer which the genius of the Scottish bard afforded to the opinion, that the treasures of original thought were exhausted, and that nothing now remained for the sons of men. In the midst of that delusion he wrote 'Waverley'; and the effect was like the sun bursting through the clouds."

"Those sticklers for truth, who reproach Scott with having falsified history because he wilfully confused dates, forget the far greater truth which that wonderful writer generally presented. If, for his purposes, he disarranged the order of events a little; no grave historian ever succeeded better in painting the character of the epoch. He committed errors of detail enough to make Mrs. Markham shudder. He divined important historical truth which had escaped the sagacity of all historians. A great authority, Augustin Thierry, has pronounced Scott the greatest of all historical divinators."

"The novel of Ivanhoe places us four generations after the invasion of the Normans, in the reign of Richard, son of Henry Plantagenet, sixth king since the conqueror. At this period, at which the historian Hume can only represent to us a king and England, without telling us what a king is, nor what he means by England, Walter Scott, entering profoundly into the examination of events, shows us classes of men, distinct interests and conditions, two nations, a double language, customs which repel and combat each other; on one side tyranny and insolence, on the other misery and hatred, real developments of the drama of the conquest, of which the battle of Hastings had been only the prologue. … In the midst of the world which no longer exists, Walter Scott always places the world which does and always will exist, that is to say, human nature, of which he knows all the secrets. Everything peculiar to the time and place, the exterior of men, the aspect of the country and of the habitations, costumes, and manners, are described with the most minute truthfulness; and yet the immense erudition which has furnished so many details is nowhere to be perceived. Walter Scott seems to have for the past that second sight, which in times of ignorance, certain men attributed to themselves for the future. To say that there is more real history in his novels on Scotland and England than in the philosophically false compilations which still possess that great name, is not advancing any thing strange in the eyes of those who have read and understood 'Old Mortality,' 'Waverley,' 'Rob Roy,' the 'Fortunes of Nigel,' and the 'Heart of Mid-Lothian.'"

A. Thierry, Narratives of the Merovingian Era, Historical Essays, etc., essay 9.

"We have all heard how the romances of Walter Scott brought history home to people who would never have looked into the ponderous volumes of professed historians, and many of us confess to ourselves that there are large historical periods which would be utterly unknown to us but for some story either of the great romancer or one of his innumerable imitators. Writers, as well as readers, of history were awakened by Scott to what seemed to them the new discovery that the great personages of history were after all men and women of flesh and blood like ourselves. Hence in all later historical literature there is visible the effort to make history more personal, more dramatic than it had been before. We can hardly read the interesting Life of Lord Macaulay without perceiving that the most popular historical work of modern times owes its origin in a great measure to the Waverley Novels. Macaulay grew up in a world of novels; his conversation with his sisters was so steeped in reminiscences of the novels they had read together as to be unintelligible to those who wanted the clue. His youth and early manhood witnessed the appearance of the Waverley Novels themselves. … He became naturally possessed by the idea which is expressed over and over again in his essays, and which at last he realized with such wonderful success, the idea that it was quite possible to make history as interesting as romance. … Macaulay is only the most famous of a large group of writers who have been possessed with the same idea. As Scott founded the historical romance, he may be said to have founded the romantic history. And to this day it is an established popular opinion that this is the true way of writing history, only that few writers have genius enough for it. … It must be urged against this kind of history that very few subjects or periods are worthy of it. Once or twice there have appeared glorious characters whose perfection no eloquence can exaggerate; once or twice national events have arranged themselves like a drama, or risen to the elevation of an epic poem. But the average of history is not like this; it is indeed much more ordinary and monotonous than is commonly supposed. The serious student of history has to submit to a disenchantment like that which the experience of life brings to the imaginative youth. As life is not much like romance, so history when it is studied in original documents looks very unlike the conventional representation of it which historians have accustomed us to."

      J. R. Seeley,
      History and Polities
      (Macmillan's Magazine, August, 1879).

"The object of the historical student is to bring before his mind a picture of the main events and the spirit of the times which he studies. The first step is to get a general view from a brief book; the second step is to enlarge it from more elaborate books, reading more than one, and to use some system of written notes keeping them complete. The next step is to read some of the contemporary writers. Having done these three things carefully, the historical student carries away an impression of his period which will never be effaced."

      Prof. A. B. Hart,
      How to Study History
      (Chautauquan, October, 1893).

   "When I was a schoolmaster, I never considered a pupil
   thoroughly educated unless he had read Gibbon through before
   he left me. I read it through myself before I was eighteen,
   and I have derived unspeakable advantage from this experience.
   Gibbon's faults of style and matter have very slight effect on
   the youthful mind, whereas his merits, his scholarship, his
   learning, his breadth of view, his imagination, and his
   insight, afford a powerful stimulus to study. … I … wish
   to urge the claims of two subjects on your attention which
   have hitherto been unaccountably neglected. The first of them
   is universal history, the general course of the history of the
   world. It seems natural to think that no subject could be more
   important for the consideration of any human being than the
   knowledge of the main lines which the race has followed since
   the dawn of history in reaching the position which it has now
   attained. The best way of understanding any situation is to
   know how affairs came into that position. Besides the
   satisfaction of legitimate curiosity, it is only thus that we
   can be wise reformers, and distinguish between what is a mere
   survival of the past and an institution which is inherent in
   the character of the community.
{1655}
   Our German cousins are fully aware of this truth; a German
   parlour, however meagerly furnished, always contains two
   books, a Bible and a Weltgeschichte. I suppose that during the
   present century from a hundred to a hundred and fifty of these
   universal histories have made their appearance in Germany. In
   England I only know of two. In Germany, Italy, and Austria,
   and, I believe, in France, universal history forms an
   essential part of education for nearly all classes. It is
   taken as a subject under certain conditions in the
   Abiturienten-Examen. I once had the privilege of reading the
   notes of a viva voce examination of a student in this subject
   who did not pass. It covered the whole range of ancient,
   mediæval, and modern history. I was astonished at what the
   student did know, and still more at what he was expected to
   know. I should like to see the subject an essential part of
   all secondary education in England, just as the knowledge of
   Bible history was in my young days and may be still. If proper
   text-books were forthcoming, to which I again direct the
   attention of enterprising publishers, there would be no
   difficulty in making this subject an accompaniment of nearly
   every literary lesson. … The advantage would be the
   enlargement of the mind by the contemplation of the majestic
   march of human events and the preparation for any future
   course of historical study. 'Boys come to us,' said a German
   professor once to me, 'knowing their centuries.' How few
   English boys or even English men have any notion of their
   centuries! The dark ages are indeed dark to them. I once asked
   a boy at Eton, who had given me a date, whether it was B. C.
   or A. D. Being hopelessly puzzled, he replied that it was B.
   D. Many of us, if we were honest, would give a similar
   answer."

      O. Browning,
      The Teaching of History in Schools
      (Royal Historical Society, Transactions,
      new series, volume 4).

"From a variety of considerations, the writer is persuaded that one of the best introductions to history that can be given in American high schools, and even in those of lower grade, is through a study of the community in which the school is placed. History, like charity, begins at home. The best American citizens are those who mind home affairs and local interest. 'That man's the best cosmopolite who loves his native country best.' The best students of universal history are those who know some one country or some one subject well. The family, the hamlet, the neighborhood, the community, the parish, the village, town, city, county, and state are historically the ways by which men have approached national and international life. It was a preliminary study of the geography of Frankfort-on-the-Main that led Carl Ritter to study the physical structure of Europe and Asia, and thus to establish the new science of comparative geography. He says: 'Whoever has wandered through the valleys and woods, and over the hills and mountains of his own state, will be the one capable of following a Herodotus in his wanderings over the globe.' And we may say, as Ritter said of the science of geography, the first step in history is to know thoroughly the district where we live. … American local history should be studied as a contribution to national history. This country will yet be viewed and reviewed as an organism of historic growth, developing from minute germs, from the very protoplasm of state life. And some day this country will be studied in its international relations, as an organic part of a larger organism now vaguely called the World State, but as surely developing through the operation of economic, legal, social, and scientific forces as the American Union, the German and British Empires are evolving into higher forms. American history in its widest relations is not to be written by any one man nor by anyone generation of men. Our history will grow with the nation and with its developing consciousness of internationality. The present possibilities for the real progress of historic and economic science lie, first and foremost, in the development of a generation of economists and practical historians, who realize that history is past politics and politics present history; secondly, in the expansion of the local consciousness into a fuller sense of its historic worth and dignity, of the cosmopolitan relations of modern local life, and of its wholesome conservative power in these days of growing centralization. National and international life can best develop upon the constitutional basis of local self-government in church and state. … If young Americans are to appreciate their religious and political inheritance, they must learn its intrinsic worth. They must be taught to appreciate the common and lowly things around them. They should grow up with as profound respect for town and parish meetings as for the State legislature, not to speak of the Houses of Congress. They should recognize the majesty of the law, even in the parish constable as well as the high sheriff of the country. They should look on selectmen as the head men of the town, the survival of the old English reeve and four best men of the parish. They should be taught to see in the town common or village green a survival of that primitive institution of land-community upon which town and state are based. They should be taught the meaning of town and family names; how the word 'town' means, primarily, a place hedged in for the purposes of defence; how the picket-fences around home and house-lot are but a survival of the primitive town idea; how home, hamlet, and town live on together in a name like Hampton, or Home-town. They should investigate the most ordinary thing for these are often the most archaic. … It would certainly be an excellent thing for the development of historical science in America if teachers in our public schools would cultivate the historical spirit in their pupils with special reference to the local environment. … A multitude of historical associations gather around every old town and hamlet in the land. There are local legends and traditions, household tales, stories told by grandfathers and grandmothers, incidents remembered by 'the oldest inhabitants.' But above all in importance are the old documents and manuscript records of the first settlers, the early pioneers, the founders of our towns. Here are sources of information more authentic than tradition, and yet often entirely neglected. … In order to study history it is not necessary to begin with dead men's bones, with Theban dynasties, the kings of Assyria, the royal families of Europe, or even with the presidents of the United States. These subjects have their importance in certain connections, but for beginners in history there are perhaps other subjects of greater interest and vitality. {1656} The most natural entrance to a knowledge of the history of the world is from a local environment through widening circles of interest, until, from the rising ground of the present, the broad horizon of the past comes clearly into view. … A study of the community in which the student dwells will serve to connect that community not only with the origin and growth of the State and Nation, but with the mother-country, with the German fatherland, with village communities throughout the Aryan world,—from Germany and Russia to old Greece and Rome; from these classic lands to Persia and India."

H. B. Adams, Methods of Historical Study (Johns Hopkins University Studies, Second Series, 1-2), pages 16-21.

The Hittites mentioned in the Bible were known as the Khita or Khatta to the Egyptians, with whom they were often at war. Recent discoveries indicate that they formed a more civilized and powerful nation and played a more important part in the early history of Western Asia than was previously supposed. Many inscriptions and rock sculptures in Asia Minor and Syria which were formerly inexplicable are now attributed to the Hittites. The inscriptions have not yet been deciphered, but scholars are confident that the key to their secret will be found. The two chief cities of the Hittites were Kadesh on the Orontes and Carchemish on the Euphrates; so that their seat of empire was in northern Syria, but their power was felt from the extremity of Asia Minor to the confines of Egypt. It is conjectured that these people were originally from the Caucasus. "Their descendants," says Professor Sayee, "are still to be met with in the defiles of the Taurus and on the plateau of Kappadokia, though they have utterly forgotten the language or languages their forefathers spoke. What that language was is still uncertain, though the Hittite proper names which occur on the monuments of Egypt and Assyria show that it was neither Semitic nor Indo-European."

"We may … rest satisfied with the conclusion that the existence of a Hittite empire extending into Asia Minor is certified, not only by the records of ancient Egypt, but also by Hittite monuments which still exist. In the days of Ramses II., when the children of Israel were groaning under the tasks allotted to them, the enemies of their oppressors were already exercising a power and a domination which rivalled that of Egypt. The Egyptian monarch soon learned to his cost that the Hittite prince was as 'great' a king as himself, and could summon to his aid the inhabitants of the unknown north. Pharaoh's claim to sovereignty was disputed by adversaries as powerful as the ruler of Egypt, if indeed not more powerful, and there was always a refuge among them for those who were oppressed by the Egyptian king. When, however, we speak of a Hittite empire, we must understand clearly what that means. It was not an empire like that of Rome, where the subject provinces were consolidated together under a central authority, obeying the same laws and the same supreme head. It was not an empire like that of the Persians, or of the Assyrian successors of Tiglath-pileser III., which represented the organised union of numerous states and nations under a single ruler. … Before the days of Tiglath-pileser, in fact, empire in Western Asia meant the power of a prince to force a foreign people to submit to his rule. The conquered provinces had to be subdued again and again; but as long as this could be done, as long as the native struggles for freedom could be crushed by a campaign, so long did the empire exist. It was an empire of this sort that the Hittites established in Asia Minor. How long it lasted we cannot say. But so long as the distant races of the West answered the summons to war of the Hittite princes, it remained a reality. The fact that the tribes of the Troad and Lydia are found fighting under the command of the Hittite kings of Kadesh, proves that they acknowledged the supremacy of their Hittite lords, and followed them to battle like the vassals of some feudal chief. If Hittite armies had not marched to the shores of the Ægean, and Hittite princes been able from time to time to exact homage from the nations of the far west, Egypt would not have had to contend against the populations of Asia Minor in its wars with the Hittites, and the figures of Hittite warriors would not have been sculptured on the rocks of Karabel. There was a time when the Hittite name was feared as far as the western extremity of Asia Minor, and when Hittite satraps had their seat in the future capital of Lydia. Traditions of this period lingered on into classical days."

The "Midlanders," who dwelt in the middle of Canaan when the
Israelites invaded it.

HLÆFDIGE.

HLAFORD.

HLUDWIG.

HOARD. HORDERE.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JULY-DECEMBER),
PROGRESS OF THE WAR; 1794-1796; 1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL).

HOCHELAGA.

The name of an Indian village found by Cartier on the site of the present city of Montreal. An extensive region of surrounding country seems to have likewise borne the name Hochelaga, and Cartier calls the river St. Lawrence "the river of Hochelaga," or "the great river of Canada."

The great battle which English historians name from the village of Blenheim, is named by the French from the neighboring town of Hochstadt.

"Hohenzollern lies far south in Schwaben (Suabia), on the sunward slope of the Rauhe-Alp Country; no great way north from Constance and its Lake; but well aloft, near the springs of the Danube; its back leaning on the Black Forest; it is perhaps definable as the southern summit of that same huge old Hercynian Wood, which is still called the Schwarzwald (Black Forest), though now comparatively bare of trees. Fanciful Dryasdust, doing a little etymology, will tell you the name 'Zollern' is equivalent to 'Tollery' or Place of Tolls. Whereby Hohenzollern' comes to mean the 'High' or Upper 'Tollery';—and gives one the notion of antique pedlars climbing painfully, out of Italy and the Swiss valleys, thus far; unstrapping their packhorses here, and chaffering in unknown dialect about 'toll.' Poor souls;—it may be so, but we do not know, nor shall it concern us. This only is known: That a human kindred, probably of some talent for coercing anarchy and guiding mankind, had, centuries ago, built its 'Burg' there, and done that function in a small but creditable way ever since."

"The title, Count of Zollern, was conferred by Henry IV. in the eleventh century. … In 1190 Henry VI. appointed the Count of Zollern to the imperial office of Burgrave of Nuremberg. By fortunate marriages and prudent purchases, his descendants, who retained the office, gradually acquired extensive estates in Franconia, Moravia, and Burgundy, and their wisdom and growing power steadily increased their weight in the councils of the German princes. … Frederick VI. was enriched by Sigismund with large gifts of money, and was made his deputy in Brandenburg in 1411. The marches were in utter confusion, under the feuds and ravages of the unrestrained knighthood. Frederick reduced them to order, and at the Council of Constance, in 1417, received from Sigismund the margraviate of Brandenburg with the dignity of Elector."

HOLLAND: A. D. 1488-1491.
The Bread and Cheese War.
End of the Party of the Hooks.

HOLLAND: A. D. 1494.
The Great Privilege disputed by Philip the Handsome.
Friesland detached.

HOLLAND: A. D. 1506-1609.
The Austro-Spanish tyranny.
Revolt and independence of the United Provinces.

HOLLAND: A. D. 1793-1810.
   French invasion and conquest.
   The Batavian Republic.
   The kingdom of Louis Bonaparte.
   Annexation to France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (FEBRUARY-APRIL);
      1794-1795 (OCTOBER-MAY);
      and NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1806-1810.

HOLLAND: A. D. 1813-1814.
   Independence regained.
   Belgium annexed.
   The kingdom of the Netherlands.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1813;
      FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (APRIL-JUNE);
      and VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.

HOLLAND: A. D. 1830-1832.
Dissolution of the kingdom of the Netherlands.
Creation of the kingdoms of Holland and Belgium.

HOLOCAUST.

"The sacrifice of a whole burnt-offering, where nothing was kept back for the enjoyment of men," was called a holocaust by the ancient Greeks.

See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (DENMARK): A. D. 1848-1862;
and GERMANY: A. D. 1861-1866.

   "The document called the Holy Alliance was originally sketched
   at Paris [during the occupation of the French capital by the
   Allies, after Waterloo, in 1815], in the French language, by
   [the Czar] Alexander's own hand, after a long and animated
   conversation with Madame de Krüdener and Bergasse. It was
   suggested, perhaps, by words spoken by the king of Prussia
   after the battle of Bautzen, but was chiefly the result of the
   influence, upon a mind always inclined to religious ideas, of
   the conversation of Madame de Krüdener and of the philosopher
   Bader, the admirer of Tauler, Jacob Boehm, and St. Martin, the
   deadly foe of Kant and his successors in Germany. … The Czar
   dreamt of founding a Communion of states, bound together by
   the first principles of Christianity. … The king of Prussia
   signed the paper from motives of friendship for the Czar,
   without attaching much importance to what he did. … The
   emperor of Austria, the least sentimental of mankind, at first
   declined to sign, 'because,' he said, 'if the secret is a
   political one, I must tell it, to Metternich; if it is a
   religious one, I must tell it to my confessor.' Metternich
   accordingly was told; and observed scornfully, 'C'est du
   verbiage.'
{1658}
   Indeed no one of the princes who adhered to the Holy Alliance,
   with the single exception of Alexander himself, ever took it
   seriously. It was doomed from its birth. As M. de Bernhardi
   observes: 'It sank without leaving a trace in the stream of
   events, never became a reality, and never had the slightest
   real importance.' What had real importance was the continuance
   of the good understanding between the powers who had put down
   Napoleon, and their common fear of France. This good
   understanding and that common fear led to the treaty of the
   20th November 1815, by which it was stipulated that the Powers
   should, from time to time, hold Congresses with a view to
   regulating the welfare of nations and the peace of Europe. It
   was these Congresses, and not the Holy Alliance, which kept up
   close relations between the rulers of Russia, Prussia, and
   Austria, and enabled them, when the liberal movement on the
   Continent, which followed the conclusion of the war, began to
   be alarming, to take measures for a combined system of
   repression."

"In the name of the Most Holy and Indivisible Trinity: Holy Alliance of Sovereigns of Austria, Prussia, and Russia. Their Majesties the Emperor of Austria, the King of Prussia, and the Emperor of Russia, having, in consequence of the great events which have marked the course of the three last years in Europe, and especially of the blessings which it has pleased Divine Providence to shower down upon those States which place their confidence and their hope on it alone, acquired the intimate conviction of the necessity of settling the steps to be observed by the Powers, in their reciprocal relations, upon the sublime truths which the Holy Religion of our Saviour teaches; They solemnly declare that the present Act has no other object than to publish, in the face of the whole world, their fixed resolution, both in the administration of their respective States, and in their political relations with every other Government, to take for their sole guide the precepts of that Holy Religion, namely, the precepts of Justice, Christian Charity, and Peace, which, far from being applicable only to private concerns, must have an immediate influence on the councils of Princes, and guide all their steps, as being the only means of consolidating human institutions and remedying their imperfections. In consequence, their Majesties have agreed on the following Articles:—

Art. I. Conformably to the words of the Holy Scriptures, which command all men to consider each other as brethren, the Three contracting Monarchs will remain united by the bonds of a true and indissoluble fraternity, and considering each other as fellow countrymen, they will, on all occasions and in all places, lend each other aid and assistance; and, regarding themselves towards their subjects and armies as fathers of families, they will lead them, in the same spirit of fraternity with which they are animated, to protect Religion, Peace, and Justice.

Art II. In consequence, the sole principle of force, whether between the said Governments or between their Subjects, shall be that of doing each other reciprocal service, and of testifying by unalterable good will the mutual affection with which they ought to be animated, to consider themselves all as members of one and the same Christian nation; the three allied Princes looking on themselves as merely delegated by Providence to govern three branches of the One family, namely, Austria, Prussia, and Russia, thus confessing that the Christian world, of which they and their people form a part, has in reality no other Sovereign than Him to whom alone power really belongs, because in Him alone are found all the treasures of love, science, and infinite wisdom, that is to say, God, our Divine Saviour, the Word of the Most High, the Word of Life. Their Majesties consequently recommend to their people, with the most tender solicitude, as the sole means of enjoying that Peace which arises from a good conscience, and which alone is durable, to strengthen themselves every day more and more in the principles and exercise of the duties which the Divine Saviour has taught to mankind.

Art. III. All the Powers who shall choose solemnly to avow the sacred principles which have dictated the present Act, and shall acknowledge how important it is for the happiness of nations, too long agitated, that these truths should henceforth exercise over the destinies of mankind all the influence which belongs to them, will be received with equal ardour and affection into this Holy Alliance. Done in triplicate, and signed at Paris, the year of Grace 1815, 14/26th September."

"It is stated in 'Martens' Treaties' that the greater part of the Christian Powers acceded to this Treaty. France acceded to it in 1815; the Netherlands and Wurtemberg did so in 1816; and Saxony, Switzerland, and the Hansa Towns in 1817. But neither the Pope nor the Sultan were invited to accede."

"The Treaty of the Holy Alliance was not graced with the name of the Prince Regent [of Great Britain], but the Czar received a letter declaring that his principles had the personal approval of this great authority on religion and morality. The Kings of Naples and Sardinia were the next to subscribe, and in due time the names of the witty glutton, Louis XVIII., and of the abject Ferdinand of Spain were added."

   "Metternich, the worldly-wise, smiled at this manifesto as
   'nothing more than a philanthropic aspiration clothed in a
   religious garb.' He suspected that the evil-minded would
   misinterpret and that the jokers would ridicule it, but none
   knew better than he the flimsiness of diplomatic agreements,
   and accordingly he consented to it. Christianity has had many
   crimes committed in its name; the Holy Alliance made
   Christianity the cloak under which the kings of Europe
   conspired to perpetuate the helotage of their subjects.
   Metternich found it all the easier to direct kings whose
   common interest it was to uphold the paternal system therein
   approved. He exerted his influence over each of them
   separately; if the monarch were obdurate, he wheedled his
   minister; if the minister were wary, he prejudiced the monarch
   against him. Now by flattery, and now by specious argument, he
   won his advantage. … Like a trickster at cards, he marked
   every card in the pack and could always play the ace. … He
   told the truth when he knew it would not be believed; he
   prevaricated when he intended his falsehood should pass for
   truth. This was diplomacy, these the 'Christian precepts' by
   which one hundred and fifty millions of Europeans were
   governed.
{1659}
   In a society where everyone lies, falsehoods of equal cunning
   nullify each other. Metternich took care that his should excel
   in verisimilitude and in subtlety. It was an open battle of
   craft; but his craft was as superior to that of his
   competitors as a slow, undetectable poison is more often fatal
   than the hasty stab of a bravo. He fished both with hooks and
   nets; if one broke, the other held. … He was, we may affirm,
   sincerely insincere; strongly attached to the Hapsburg
   dynasty, and patriotic in so far as the aggrandizement of that
   House corresponded with the interests of the Austrian State.
   But the central figure in his perspective was always himself,
   whom he regarded as the savior of a social order whose
   preservation held back the world from chaos. … He spoke of
   his mission as an 'apostolate.' … To resist all
   change,—that was his policy; to keep the surface
   smooth,—that was his peace. … He likened himself to a
   spider, spinning a vast web. 'I begin to know the world well,'
   he said, 'and I believe that the flies are eaten by the
   spiders only because they die naturally so young that they
   have no time to gain experience, and do not know what is the
   nature of a spider's web.' How many flies he caught during his
   forty years' spinning! but his success, he admitted, was due
   quite as much to their blindness as to his cunning. … He
   seemed to delight in royal conferences in order that he might
   have the excitement of manipulating Alexander and Frederick
   William; for his own Emperor, Francis, was as pliable as putty
   in his hands. Such was Metternich, 'the most worldly, the most
   dexterous, the most fortunate of politicians,' the embodiment
   of that Old Régime strangely interpolated in the nineteenth
   century. Knowing him, we shall know the nature of the
   resistance which checked every patriotic impulse, every effort
   towards progress in Italy, between 1815 and 1848. Few names
   have been hated as his was hated, or feared as his was feared.
   The Italians pictured to themselves a monster, a worse than
   Herod, who gloated over human suffering, and spent his time in
   inventing new tortures for his victims. He regarded them, and
   all liberals, as natural enemies to the order in which he
   flourished; and he had no more mercy for them than the Spanish
   Inquisitors had for heretics."

Before the close of the 13th century, there first arose in Spain "an anomalous institution peculiar to Castile, which sought to secure the public tranquillity by means scarcely compatible themselves with civil subordination. I refer to the celebrated Hermandad, or Holy Brotherhood, as the association was sometimes called,—a name familiar to most readers in the lively fictions of Le Sage, though conveying there no very adequate idea of the extraordinary functions which it assumed at the period under review [13th-14th centuries]. Instead of a regularly organized police, it then consisted of a confederation of the principal cities, bound together by a solemn league and covenant for the defence of their liberties in seasons of civil anarchy. Its affairs were conducted by deputies, who assembled at stated intervals for this purpose, transacting their business under a common seal, enacting laws which they were careful to transmit to the nobles and even the sovereign himself, and enforcing their measures by an armed force. … One hundred cities associated in the Hermandad of 1315. In that of 1295, were thirty-four. The knights and inferior nobility frequently made part of the association. … In one of [the articles of confederation] it is declared that if any noble shall deprive a member of the association of his property, and refuse restitution, his house shall be razed to the ground. In another, that if any one, by command of the king, shall attempt to collect an unlawful tax, he shall be put to death on the spot." Under the government of Ferdinand and Isabella, among the measures adopted for checking the license and disorder which had become prevalent in Castile, and restoring a more effective administration of justice, was one for a reorganization of the Santa Hermandad. "The project for the reorganization of this institution was introduced into the cortes held, the year after Isabella's accession, at Madrigal, 1476. … The new institution differed essentially from the ancient hermandades, since, instead of being partial in its extent, it was designed to embrace the whole kingdom; and, instead of being directed, as had often been the case, against the crown itself, it was set in motion at the suggestion of the latter, and limited in its operation to the maintenance of public order. The crimes reserved for its jurisdiction were all violence or theft committed on the highways or in the open country, and in cities by such offenders as escaped into the country; house-breaking; rape; and resistance of justice. … An annual contribution of 18,000 maravedis was assessed on every 100 vecinos or householders, for the equipment and maintenance of a horseman, whose duty it was to arrest offenders and enforce the sentence of the law. On the flight of a criminal, the tocsins of the villages through which he was supposed to have passed were sounded, and the quadrilleros or officers of the brotherhood, stationed on the different points, took up the pursuit with such promptness as left little chance of escape. A court of two alcaldes was established in every town containing thirty families, for the trial of all crimes within the jurisdiction of the hermandad; and an appeal lay from them in specified cases to a supreme council. A general junta, composed of deputies from the cities throughout the kingdom was annually convened for the regulation of affairs, and their instructions were transmitted to provincial juntas, who superintended the execution of them. … Notwithstanding the popular constitution of the hermandad, and the obvious advantages attending its introduction at this juncture, it experienced so decided an opposition from the nobility, who discerned the check it was likely to impose on their authority, that it required all the queen's address and perseverance to effect its general adoption. … The important benefits resulting from the institution of the hermandad secured its confirmation by successive cortes, for the period of 22 years, in spite of the repeated opposition of the aristocracy. At length, in 1498, the objects for which it was established having been completely obtained, it was deemed advisable to relieve the nation from the heavy charges which its maintenance imposed. The great salaried officers were dismissed; a few subordinate functionaries were retained for the administration of justice, over whom the regular courts of criminal law possessed appellate jurisdiction; and the magnificent apparatus of the Santa Hermandad, stripped of all but the terrors of its name, dwindled into an ordinary police, such as it has existed, with various modifications of form, down to the present century."

W. H. Prescott, History of the Reign of Ferdinand and Isabella, introduction, section 1, with foot-note, and part 1, chapter 6.

HOLY BROTHERHOOD IN MEXICO.

"A certified fragment of the true cross preserved in a shrine of gold or silver gilt. It was brought over by St. Margaret, and left as a sacred legacy to her descendants and their kingdom. … The rood had been the sanctifying relic round which King David I. raised the house of canons regular of the Holy Rood, devoted to the rule of St. Augustin, at Edinburgh. The kings of Scotland afterwards found it so convenient to frequent this religious house that they built alongside of it a royal residence or palace, well known to the world as Holyrood House."

The Holy Rood, or Black Rood as it was sometimes called, was carried away from Scotland, along with the "coronation stone," by Edward I. of England, afterwards got back by treaty, and then lost again at the battle of Neville's Cross, from which it went as a trophy to Durham Abbey.

HOMAGE.

HOMER AND THE HOMERIC POEMS.

"When we use the word Homer, we do not mean a person historically known to us, like Pope or Milton. We mean in the main the author, whoever or whatever he was, of the wonderful poems called respectively, not by the author, but by the world, the 'Iliad' and the 'Odyssey.' His name is conventional, and its sense in etymology is not very different from that which would be conveyed by our phrase, 'the author.' … At the first dawn of the historic period, we find the poems established in popular renown; and so prominent that a school of minstrels takes the name of 'Homeridæ' from making it their business to preserve and to recite them. Still, the question whether the poems as we have them can be trusted, whether they present substantially the character of what may be termed original documents, is one of great but gradually diminishing difficulty. It is also of importance, because of the nature of their contents. In the first place, they give a far greater amount of information than is to be found in any other literary production of the same compass. In the second place, that information, speaking of it generally, is to be had nowhere else. In the third place, it is information of the utmost interest, and even of great moment. It introduces to us, in the very beginnings of their experience, the most gifted people of the world, and enables us to judge how they became such as in later times we know them. … And this picture is exhibited with such a fulness both of particulars and of vital force, that perhaps never in any country has an age been so completely placed upon record. … We are … probably to conceive of Homer as of a Bard who went from place to place to earn his bread by his profession, to exercise his knowledge in his gift of song, and to enlarge it by an ever-active observation of nature and experience of men. … It has … been extensively believed that he was a Greek of Asia Minor. And as there were no Greeks of Asia Minor at the time of the Trojan War, nor until a wide and searching revolution in the peninsula had substituted Dorian manners for those of the earlier Achaian age, which Homer sang, this belief involves the further proposition that the poet was severed by a considerable interval of time from the subjects of his verse. The last-named opinion depends very much upon the first; and the first chiefly, if not wholly, upon a perfectly vague tradition, which has no pretence to an historical character. … The question … has to be decided … by the internal evidence of the poems. This evidence, I venture to say, strongly supports the belief that Homer was an European, and if an European, then certainly also an Achaian Greek: a Greek, that is to say, of the pre-Doric period, when the Achaian name prevailed and principally distinguished the race. … Until the 18th century of our era was near its close, it may be said that all generations had believed Troy was actually Troy, and Homer in the main Homer; neither taking the one for a fable, or (quaintest of all dreams) for a symbol of solar phenomena, nor resolving the other into a multiform assemblage of successive bards, whose verses were at length pieced together by a clever literary tailor. … After slighter premonitory movements, it was Wolf that made, by the publication of his 'Prolegomena' in 1795, the serious attack. … Wolf maintained that available writing was not known at, or till long after, the period of their composition; and that works of such length, not intrusted to the custody of written characters, could not have been transmitted through a course of generations with any approach to fidelity. Therefore they could only be a number of separate songs, brought together at a later date."

"Homeric geography is entirely pre-Dorian. Total unconsciousness of any such event as the Dorian invasion reigns both in the Iliad and Odyssey. … A silence so remarkable can be explained only by the simple supposition that when they were composed the revolution in question had not yet occurred. Other circumstances confirm this view."

"It is … in the discoveries of Dr. Schliemann that we have the impulse which seems to be sending the balance over towards the belief in the European instead of in the Asiatic origin of the poems. We now know that at the very point which Homer makes the chief royal city of Greece there did, in fact, exist a civilisation which did, in fact, offer just the conditions for the rise of a poetry such as the Homeric—a great city 'rich in gold,' with a cultivation of the material arts such as is wont to go hand in hand with the growth of poetry. …

It is no longer possible to doubt that the world which the poems describe was one which really existed in the place where they put it. Even in details the poems have received striking illustration from the remains of Mykenai. … It appears that we may date the oldest part of the Iliad at least to some time before the Dorian invasion, which, according to the traditional chronology, took place about 1000 B. C. … But the poems can hardly be much earlier than the invasion; for there are various signs which indicate that the civilisation which they depict had made some advance beyond that of which we find the material remains in the 'shaft tombs,' discovered by Dr. Schliemann in the Acropolis of Mykenai. And the date of these has now been fixed by Mr. Petrie, from comparison with Egyptian remains, at about 1150. We can therefore hardly be far wrong, if the poems were composed in Achaian Greece, in dating their origin at about 1050 B. C. There still remains the question of the historical basis which may underlie the story of the Iliad. The poem may give us a true picture of Achaian Greece and its civilisation, and yet be no proof that the armies of Agamemnon fought beneath the walls of Troy. But here again the discoveries of recent years, and notably those of Schliemann at Hissarlik, have tended on the whole to confirm the belief that there is a historic reality behind the tale of Troy. … The hypothesis that the Iliad and Odyssey are the work of more than one poet … is one which has been gaining ground ever since it was seriously taken up and argued at length by Wolf in his famous 'Prolegomena,' just a century ago. But it has from the first encountered strong opposition, and is still regarded, in England at least, as the heretical view."

"It seems clear that the author or authors of the Iliad and Odyssey lived long before the time when Æolian, Ionian, Dorian, were the three great tribal names of Greece, and far from the coast on which these three names were attached to successive portions of territory. If we are to decide the ancient controversy about the birthplace of Homer, we must turn away from Asia, and set ourselves to consider the claims of three districts of Greece proper: Thessaly, the home of the chief hero and the most ancient worship; Bœotia, the ancient seat of the Muses, and the first in the very ancient (if not actually Homeric) muster-roll of the ships; and Argolis, the seat of Achæan empire."

D. B. Monro, Homer and the Early History of Greece (English Historical Review, January, 1886).

"I hold that the original nucleus of the Iliad was due to a single Achaean poet, living in Thessaly before the immigration which partly displaced the primitive Hellenes there. This primary Iliad may have been as old as the eleventh century B. C. It was afterwards brought by Achaean emigrants to Ionia, and there enlarged by successive Ionian poets. The original nucleus of the Odyssey was also composed, probably, in Greece proper, before the Dorian conquest of the Peloponnesus; was carried to Ionia by emigrants whom the conquerors drove out; and was there expanded into an epic which blends the local traits of its origin with the spirit of Ionian adventure and Ionian society."

      R. C. Jebb,
      The growth and influence of Classical Greek Poetry,
      page 14.

"We accept the Iliad as one epic by one hand. The inconsistencies which are the basis of the opposite theory seem to us reconcileable in many places, in others greatly exaggerated. … To us the hypothesis of a crowd of great harmonious poets, working for centuries at the Iliad, and sinking their own fame and identity in Homer's, appears more difficult of belief than the opinion that one great poet may make occasional slips and blunders." As for the Odyssey, "we have … to deal with critics who do not recognise the unity, the marshalling of incidents towards a given end. We have to do with critics who find, in place of unity, patchwork and compilation, and evident traces of diverse dates, and diverse places of composition. Thus argument is inefficient, demonstration is impossible, and the final judge must be the opinion of the most trustworthy literary critics and of literary tradition. These are unanimous, as against the 'microscope-men,' in favor of the unity of the Odyssey."

A victory for the English, under "Hotspur," over a raiding army of the Scots, A. D. 1402. It was won almost entirely by the English cross-bow. By some historians it is called the Battle of Humbledon.

HOMOOUSION AND HOMOIOUSION.

SEE ARIANISM.

HONDURAS: A. D. 1821-1871.
   Separation from Spain and independence.
   Brief annexation to Mexico.
   Attempted federations and their failure.
   The British colony.

HONG MERCHANTS.

HONORIUS,
   Roman Emperor (Western), A. D. 395-423.
   Honorius I., Pope, 625-638.
   Honorius II., Pope, 1124-1130.
   Honorius III., Pope, 1216-1227.
   Honorius IV., Pope, 1285-1287;

"When a great barony by forfeiture or escheat fell into the hands of the [English] crown, instead of being incorporated with the general body of the county or counties in which it lay, it retained a distinct corporate existence and the whole apparatus of jurisdiction which it had possessed before. Under the title of an Honour, it either continued in the possession of the king and was farmed like a shire, or was granted out again to another lord as a hereditary fief."

W. Stubbs, Constitutional History of England, chapter 11, section 129 (volume 1).

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864
(MAY-SEPTEMBER: GEORGIA) to (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER: GEORGIA).

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (JANUARY-APRIL: VIRGINIA), and (APRIL-MAY: VIRGINIA).

HOOKS AND KABELJAUWS, OR HOOKS AND CODS.

HOPLITES.

The aborigines of Canaan,—dwellers in caves, Troglodytes. "At the time of the Israelitish conquest … there still existed many remains of the Aborigines scattered through the land. They were then ordinarily designated by a name which suggests very different ideas—Rephaim, or Giants."

F. Lenormant considers the Rephaim a distinct race, divided into the Rephaim of Bashan, the Emim, the Zamzummim, the Zumim and the Anakim.

The decisive battle, fought A. D. 226, on the plain of Hormuz, in Persia Proper, in which the Parthian monarchy was overthrown, its last king, Artabanus, slain, and the New Persian, or Sassanian empire established by Artaxerxes I.

HOSPES. HOSPITES. HOSPITIUM.

"In the earlier stages of society, especially in Greece and Italy, where the population consisted of numerous independent tribes constantly at variance with each other, every stranger was looked upon with suspicion. … Hence it became common for a person who was engaged in commerce, or any other occupation which might compel him to visit a foreign country, to form previously a connection with a citizen of that country, who might be ready to receive him as a friend and act as his protector. Such a connection was always strictly reciprocal. … An alliance of this description was termed Hospitium, the parties who concluded it were termed Hospites in relation to each other, and thus the word Hospes bore a double signification, denoting, according to circumstances, either an entertainer or a guest. The obligations imposed by the covenant were regarded as of the most sacred character. … The league of Hospitium, when once formed, was hereditary. … The parties interchanged tokens, by which they or their descendants might recognise each other. This token, called 'tessera hospitalis,' was carefully preserved. … In process of time, among both the Greeks and Romans, it became common for a state, when it desired to pay a marked compliment to any individual, to pass a resolution declaring him the Hospes of the whole community."

HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN OF JERUSALEM, The Knights:
A. D. 1115-1310.
The origin and rise of the order.

   "Some citizens of Amalfi, in Italy, who traded to the East,
   had [some time before the first crusade], with the permission
   of the Egyptian khaleefeh, built a convent near the church of
   the Resurrection [at Jerusalem], which was dedicated to the
   Virgin, and named Santa Maria de Latina, whose abbot and monks
   were to receive and entertain pilgrims from the West. A
   nunnery was afterwards added, and as the confluence of
   pilgrims increased, a new 'hospitium' was erected, dedicated
   to St. John Eleëmon ('compassionate'), a former patriarch of
   Alexandria, or, as is asserted, with perhaps more probability,
   to St. John the Baptist. This hospital was supported by the
   bounty of the abbot of Sta. Maria and the alms of the
   faithful, and the sick and poor of the pilgrims here met with
   attention and kindness. At the time of the taking of
   Jerusalem, Gerhard, a native of Provence, presided over the
   hospital; and the care taken by him and his brethren of the
   sick and wounded of the crusaders won them universal favour.
   Godfrey bestowed on them his domain of Monboire, in Brabant;
   his example was followed by others, and the brethren of the
   Hospital soon found themselves rich enough to separate from
   the monastery.
{1663}
   They adopted the rule of the Augustinian canons, and assumed
   for their habit a black mantle, with a white cross of eight
   points on the left breast. Many knights who had come to Asia
   to combat the Infidels now laid aside their swords, and, as
   brethren of the Hospital, devoted themselves to the tending of
   the sick and relieving of the poor. Among these was a knight
   of Dauphiné, named Raymond Dupuy, who, on the death of
   Gerhard, was chosen to be his successor in office. Raymond, in
   the year 1118, gave the order its first regular organization."

To Raymond Dupuy "the Order owed its distinctly military character, and that wonderful organization, combining the care of the sick and poor with the profession of arms, which characterized the Knights of St. John during all their subsequent history. … A new and revised constitution was drawn up, by which it was provided that there should be three classes of members. First, the Knights, who should bear arms and form a military body for service in the field against the enemies of Christ in general, and of the kingdom of Jerusalem in particular. These were to be of necessity men of noble or gentle birth. Secondly, the Clergy, or Chaplains. … Thirdly, the Serving Brethren, who were not required to be men of rank, and who acted as Esquires to the Knights, and assisted in the care of the hospitals. All persons of these three classes were considered alike members of the Order, and took the usual three monastic vows, and wore the armorial bearings of the Order, and enjoyed its rights and privileges. As the Order spread and the number of its members and convents increased, it was found desirable to divide it further into nations or 'Langes' [tongues, or languages], of which there were ultimately seven, viz., those of Provence, Auvergne, France, Italy, Aragon, Germany, and England. The habit was a black robe with a cowl, having a cross of white linen of eight points upon the left breast. This was at first worn by all Hospitallers, to whichever of the three classes they belonged; but Pope Alexander IV. afterwards ordered that the Knights should be distinguished by a white cross upon a red ground. … It was not long before the new Order found a field for the exercise of its arms. … From this time the Hospitallers were always found in the ranks of the Christian army in every battle that was fought with the Moslems, and the fame of their gallantry and bravery soon spread far and wide, and attracted fresh recruits to their ranks from the noblest families of every country of Europe. They became the right hand of the King of Jerusalem," sharing the fortunes of the nominal kingdom for nearly two centuries, and almost sharing its ultimate fate. The handful who escaped from Acre in 1291 (see JERUSALEM: A. D. 1291) took refuge in Cyprus and rallied there the Knights scattered in other lands. Rebuilding and fortifying the town of Limisso, they made that their citadel and capital for a few years, finding a new vocation for their pious valor. They now took up war upon the naval side, and turned their arms specially against the Moslem pirates of the Mediterranean. They fitted out armed ships "which began to cruise between Palestine and European ports, conveying pilgrims, rescuing captives, and engaging and capturing the enemy's galleys." But not finding in Cyprus the independence they desired, the Knights, ere long, established themselves in a more satisfactory home on the island of Rhodes.

F. C. Woodhouse, Military Religious Orders of the Middle Ages, part 1, chapter 3-6.

ALSO IN: Abbe de Vertot, History of the Knights Hospitallers, books 1-3 (volume 1).

HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN OF JERUSALEM: A. D. 1310.
Conquest and occupation of Rhodes.

"The most important conquest of the time … was that of Rhodes, by the Knights Hospitallers of St. John of Jerusalem, both from its durability and from the renown of the conquerors. The knights had settled in Cyprus after they had been expelled from Acre, but they were soon discontented to remain as vassals of the King of Cyprus. They aspired to form a sovereign state, but it was not easy to make any conquests from the Infidels in a position which they could hope to maintain for any length of time. They therefore solicited permission from the Pope to turn their arms against the Greeks. His Holiness applauded their Christian zeal, and bestowed on them innumerable blessings and indulgences, besides nine thousand ducats to aid their enterprise. Under the pretext of a crusade for the recovery of Christ's tomb, the knights collected a force with which they besieged Rhodes. So great was their contempt for the Greek emperor that they sent an embassy to Constantinople, requiring Adronicus to withdraw his garrisons, and cede the island and its dependencies to them as feudatories, offering to supply him with a subsidiary force of three hundred cavalry. Adronicus dismissed the ambassadors, and sent an army to raise the siege; but his troops were defeated, and the knights took the city of Rhodes on the 15th August, 1310. As sovereigns of this beautiful island, they were long the bulwark of Christian Europe against the Turkish power; and the memory of the chivalrous youth who for successive ages found an early tomb at this verge of the Christian world, will long shed a romantic colouring on the history of Rhodes. They sustained the declining glory of a state of society that was hastening to become a vision of the past; they were the heroes of a class of which the Norse sea-kings had been the demigods. The little realm they governed as an independent state consisted of Rhodes, with the neighbouring islands of Kos, Kalymnos, Syme, Leros, Nisyros, Telos, and Chalke; on the opposite continent they possessed the classic city of Halicarnassus, and several strong forts, of which the picturesque ruins still overhang the sea."

G. Finlay, History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires, book 4, chapter 2 (volume 2).

ALSO IN: W. Porter, History of the Knights of Malta, chapters 7-10 (volume 1).

HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN OF JERUSALEM: A. D. 1482.
Treatment of the Turkish Prince Jemshid or Zizim.

HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN OF JERUSALEM: A. D. 1522.
Siege and surrender of Rhodes to the Turks

   In 1522, the Turkish sultan, Solyman the Magnificent, "turned
   his victorious arms against the island of Rhodes, the seat at
   that time of the Knights of St. John of Jerusalem. This small
   state he attacked with such a numerous army as the lords of
   Asia have been accustomed, in every age, to bring into the
   field. Two hundred thousand men, and a fleet of 400 sail,
   appeared against a town defended by a garrison consisting of
   5,000 soldiers and 600 knights, under the command of Villiers
   de L'Isle Adam, the grand-master, whose wisdom and valour
   rendered him worthy of that station at such a dangerous
   juncture.
{1664}
   No sooner did he begin to suspect the destination of Solyman's
   vast armaments than he despatched messengers to all the
   Christian courts, imploring their aid against the common
   enemy. But though every prince in that age acknowledged Rhodes
   to be the great bulwark of Christendom in the East, and
   trusted to the gallantry of its knights as the best security
   against the progress of the Ottoman arms,—though Adrian,
   with a zeal which became the head and father of the Church,
   exhorted the contending powers to forget their private
   quarrels, and, by uniting their arms, to prevent the infidels
   from destroying a society which did honour to the Christian
   name,—yet so violent and implacable was the animosity of both
   parties [in the wars of the Emperor Charles V. and Francis I.
   of France], that, regardless of the danger to which they
   exposed all Europe, … they suffered Solyman to carry on his
   operations against Rhodes without disturbance. The
   grand-master, after incredible efforts of courage, of
   patience, and of military conduct, during a siege of six
   months,—after sustaining many assaults, and disputing every
   post with amazing obstinacy,—was obliged at last to yield to
   numbers; and, having obtained an honourable capitulation from
   the sultan, who admired and respected his virtue, he
   surrendered the town, which was reduced to a heap of rubbish,
   and destitute of every resource. Charles and Francis, ashamed
   of having occasioned such a loss to Christendom by their
   ambitious contests, endeavoured to throw the blame of it on
   each other, while all Europe, with greater justice, imputed it
   equally to both. The emperor, by way of reparation, granted
   the Knights of St. John the small island of Malta, in which
   they fixed their residence, retaining, though with less power
   and splendour, their ancient spirit and implacable enmity to
   the infidels."

HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN OF JERUSALEM: A. D. 1530-1565.
   Occupation of Malta.
   Improvement and fortification of the island.
   The great siege.
   The Turks repelled.

"Malta, which had been annexed by Charles [the Fifth's] predecessors to Sicily, had descended to that monarch as part of the dominions of the crown of Aragon. In … ceding it to the Knights of St. John, the politic prince consulted his own interests quite as much as those of the order. He drew no revenue from the rocky isle, but, on the contrary, was charged with its defence against the Moorish corsairs, who made frequent descents on the spot, wasting the country, and dragging off the miserable people into slavery. By this transfer of the island to the military order of St. John, he not only relieved himself of all further expense on its account, but secured a permanent bulwark for the protection of his own dominions. … In October, 1530, L'Isle Adam and his brave associates took possession of their new domain. … It was not very long before the wilderness before them was to blossom like the rose, under their diligent culture. Earth was brought in large quantities, and at great cost, from Sicily. Terraces to receive it were hewn in the steep sides of the rock; and the soil, quickened by the ardent sun of Malta, was soon clothed with the glowing vegetation of the South. … In a short time, too, the island bristled with fortifications, which, combined with its natural defences, enabled its garrison to defy the attacks of the corsair. To these works was added the construction of suitable dwellings for the accommodation of the order. But it was long after, and not until the land had been desolated by the siege on which we are now to enter, that it was crowned with the stately edifices that eclipsed those of Rhodes itself, and made Malta the pride of the Mediterranean. … Again their galleys sailed forth to battle with the corsairs, and returned laden with the spoils of victory. … It was not long before the name of the Knights of Malta became as formidable on the southern shores of the Mediterranean as that of the Knights of Rhodes had been in the East." At length the Turkish sultan, Solyman the Magnificent, "resolved to signalize the close of his reign by driving the knights from Malta, as he had the commencement of it by driving them from Rhodes," and he made his preparations on a formidable scale. The grand-master of Malta, Jean Parisot de la Valette, had his spies at Constantinople, and was not long in ignorance of the Turkish project. He, too, prepared himself for the encounter with prodigious energy and forethought. He addressed appeals for help to all the Christian powers. "He summoned the knights absent in foreign lands to return to Malta, and take part with their brethren in the coming struggle. He imported large supplies of provisions and military stores from Sicily and Spain. He drilled the militia of the island, and formed an effective body of more than 3,000 men; to which was added a still greater number of Spanish and Italian troops. … The fortifications were put in repair, strengthened with outworks, and placed in the best condition for resisting the enemy. … The whole force which La Valette could muster in defence of the island amounted to about 9,000 men. This included 700 knights, of whom about 600 had already arrived [when the siege began]. The remainder were on their way; and joined him at a later period of the siege." The Turkish fleet made its appearance on the 18th of May, 1565. It comprised 130 royal galleys, with fifty of lesser size, and a number of transports. "The number of soldiers on board, independently of the mariners, and including 6,000 janizaries, was about 30,000,—the flower of the Ottoman army. … The command of the expedition was intrusted to two officers. One of these, Piali, was the same admiral who defeated the Spaniards at Gelves.

   He had the direction of the naval operations. The land forces
   were given to Mustapha, a veteran nearly 70 years of age. …
   The Turkish armada steered for the southeastern quarter of the
   island, and cast anchor in the port of St. Thomas. The troops
   speedily disembarked, and spread themselves in detached bodies
   over the land, devastating the country. … It was decided, in
   the Turkish council of war, to begin operations with the siege
   of the castle of St. Elmo"—a small but strong fort, built at
   the point of a promontory which separates Port Musiette, on
   the west, from what is now known as Valetta harbor, then
   called the Great Port. The heroic defense of St. Elmo, where a
   mere handful of knights and soldiers withstood the whole army
   and navy of the Turks for an entire month, is one of the grand
   episodes of war in the 16th century.
{1665}
   The few surviving defenders were overwhelmed in the final
   assault, which took place on the 23d of June. "The number of
   Christians who fell in this siege amounted to about 1,500. Of
   these 123 were members of the order, and among them several of
   its most illustrious warriors. The Turkish loss is estimated
   at 8,000, at the head of whom stood Dragut," the famous pasha
   of Tripoli, who had joined the besiegers, with ships and men,
   and who had received a mortal wound in one of the assaults.
   After the loss of St. Elmo, "the strength of the order was …
   concentrated on the two narrow slips of land which run out
   from the eastern side of the Great Port. … The northern
   peninsula, occupied by the town of Il Borgo, and at the
   extreme point by the castle of St. Angelo, was defended by
   works stronger and in better condition than the fortifications
   of St. Elmo. … The parallel slip of land was crowned by the
   fort of St. Michael." Early in July, the Turks opened their
   batteries on both St. Angelo and St. Michael, and on the 15th
   they attempted the storming of the latter, but were bloodily
   repulsed, losing 3,000 or 4,000 men, according to the
   Christian account. Two weeks later they made a general assault
   and were again repelled. On the 25th of August, the valiant
   knights, wasted and worn with watching and fighting, were
   relieved by long-promised re-enforcements from Sicily, and the
   disheartened Turks at once raised the siege. "The arms of
   Solyman II., during his long and glorious reign, met with no
   reverse so humiliating as his failure in the siege of Malta.
   … The waste of life was prodigious, amounting to more than
   30,000 men. … Yet the loss in this siege fell most
   grievously on the Christians. Full 200 knights, 2,500
   soldiers, and more than 7,000 inhabitants,—men, women, and
   children,—are said to have perished."

ALSO IN: W. Porter, History of the Knights of Malta, chapters 15-18 (volume 2).

HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN OF JERUSALEM: A. D. 1565-1879.
Decline and practical disappearance of the order.

"The Great Siege of 1565 was the last eminent exploit of the Order of St. John. From that time their fame rested rather on the laurels of the past than the deeds of the present. Rest and affluence produced gradually their usual consequences—diminished vigour and lessened independence. The 'esprit de corps' of the Knights became weaker after long years, in which there were no events to bind them together in united sympathies and common struggles. Many of them had become susceptible of bribery and petty jealousies. In 1789 the French Revolution burst out and aroused all European nations to some decided policy. The Order of St. John had received special favours from Louis XVI., and now showed their grateful appreciation of his kindness by cheerfully contributing a large portion of their revenue to assist him in his terrible emergencies. For this they suffered the confiscation of all the property of the Order in France, when the revolutionists obtained supreme power."

   "In September, 1792, a decree was passed, by which the estates
   and property of the Order of St. John in France were annexed
   to the state. Many of the knights were seized, imprisoned, and
   executed as aristocrats. The principal house of the Order in
   Paris, called the Temple, was converted into a prison, and
   there the unfortunate Louis XVI. and his family were
   incarcerated. The Directory also did its best to destroy the
   Order in Germany and Italy. … All this time the Directory
   had agents in Malta, who were propagating revolutionary
   doctrines, and stirring up the lowest of the people to
   rebellion and violence. There were in the island 332 knights
   (of whom many, however, were aged and infirm), and about 6,000
   troops. On June 9, 1798, the French fleet appeared before
   Malta, with Napoleon himself on board, and a few days after
   troops were landed, and began pillaging the country. They were
   at first successfully opposed by the soldiers of the Grand
   Master, but the seeds of sedition, which had been so freely
   sown, began to bear fruit, and the soldiers mutinied, and
   refused to obey their officers. All the outlying forts were
   taken, and the knights who commanded them, who were all
   French, were dragged before Napoleon. He accused them of
   taking up arms against their country, and declared that he
   would have them shot as traitors. Meanwhile sedition was
   rampant within the city. The people rose and attacked the
   palace of the Grand Master, and murdered several of the
   knights. They demanded that the island should be given up to
   the French, and finally opened the gates, and admitted
   Napoleon and his troops. After some delay, articles of
   capitulation were agreed upon, Malta was declared part of
   France, and all the knights were required to quit the island
   within three days. Napoleon sailed for Egypt on June 19,
   taking with him all the silver, gold, and jewels that could be
   collected from the churches and the treasury. … In the
   following September, 1798, Nelson besieged, and quickly
   obtained possession of the island, which has ever since
   remained in the hands of the English. In this way the ancient
   Order of St. John ceased to be a sovereign power, and
   practically its history came to an end. The last Grand Master,
   Baron Ferdinand von Hompesch, after the loss of Malta, retired
   to Trieste, and shortly afterwards abdicated and died at
   Montpelier, in 1805. Many of the knights, however, had in the
   mean time gone to Russia, and before the abdication of
   Hompesch, they elected the Emperor Paul Grand Master, who had
   for some time been protector of the Order. This election was
   undoubtedly irregular and void. By the terms of the Treaty of
   Amiens, in 1802, it was stipulated that Malta should be
   restored to the Order, but that there should be neither French
   nor English knights. But before the treaty could be carried
   into effect Napoleon returned from Elba, and war broke out
   again. By the treaty of Paris, in 1814, Malta was ceded to
   England. … In 1801, the assembly of the Knights at St.
   Petersburg … petitioned Pope Pius VII. to select a Grand
   Master from certain names which they sent. This he declined to
   do, but, some time afterwards, at the request of the Emperor
   Alexander, and the King of Naples, and without consulting the
   knights, the Pope appointed Count Giovanni di Tommasi Grand
   Master. He died in 1805, and no Grand Master has been since
   appointed. On his death-bed, Tommasi nominated the bailiff,
   Guevara Suardo, Lieutenant Master. …
{1666}
   [Such] lieutenants have presided over an association of
   titular knights at Rome, which is styled 'the Sacred Council.'
   In 1814, the French knights assembled at Paris and elected a
   capitulary commission for the government of the Order. … In
   or about the year 1826, the English 'Lange' of the Order of
   the Knights of Malta was revived. … A regular succession of
   Priors has been continued to the present time [1879], and the
   Duke of Manchester is the present Prior. The members of the
   Order devote themselves to relieving the poor, and assisting
   hospitals."

F. C. Woodhouse, Military Religious Orders of the Middle Ages, part 1, chapter 20.

HOSPODAR.

HOSTIS.

See SOUTH AFRICA: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS, and A. D. 1486-1806; also, AFRICA: THE INHABITING RACES.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

HOUSE OF LORDS.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

HOUSECARLS.

"No English King or Ealdorman had hitherto kept a permanent military force in his pay. But Cnut [or Canute, A. D. 1018-1035] now organized a regular paid force, kept constantly under arms, and ready to march at a moment's notice. These were the famous Thingmen, the Housecarls, of whom we hear so much under Cnut and under his successors. … The Housecarls were in fact a standing army, and a standing army was an institution which later Kings and great Earls, English as well as Danish, found it to be their interest to continue. Under Cnut they formed a sort of military guild with the king at their head."

E. A. Freeman, Norman Conquest, chapter 6, section 2, and appendix, note kkk (volume 1).

HOUSEHOLD FRANCHISE.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (APRIL-MAY), (JUNE); 1776 (AUGUST), (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER); 1776-1777; 1777 (JANUARY-DECEMBER); 1778 (JUNE).

HRINGS OF THE AVARS.

HUDSON'S BAY COMPANY.

HUGUENOTS.
First appearance and disputed origin of the name.
Quick formation of the Calvinistic Protestant Party in France.

HUGUENOTS: A. D. 1554-1565.
Attempted colonization in Brazil and in Florida.
The Massacre at Fort Caroline.

HUGUENOTS: A. D. 1620-1622.
   Their formidable organization and political pretensions.
   Continued desertion of nobles.
   Leadership of the clergy.
   Revolt and unfavorable Treaty of Montpellier.

HUGUENOTS: A. D. 1627-1628.
   Revolt in alliance with England.
   Richelieu's siege and capture of La Rochelle.
   End of political Huguenotism in France.

HUGUENOTS: A. D. 1681-1698.
   The climax of persecution in France.
   The Dragonnades.
   The Revocation of the Edict of Nantes.
   The great exodus.

   Hull, occupied by the Parliamentary forces under Lord Fairfax,
   after their defeat at Adwalton Moor, was besieged by the
   Royalists under the Earl of Newcastle, from September 2 until
   October 11, 1643, when they were driven off.

HUMANISM.

"The union of a number of townships for the purpose of judicial administration, peace, and defence, formed what is known as the 'hundred,' or 'wapentake'; a district answering to the 'pagus' of Tacitus, the 'hærred' of Scandinavia, the 'huntari' or 'gau' of Germany. … The name of the hundred, which, like the wapentake, first appears in the laws of Edgar, has its origin far back in the remotest antiquity, but the use of it as a geographical expression is discoverable only in comparatively late evidences. The 'pagus' of the Germania sent its hundred warriors to the host, and appeared by its hundred judges in the court of the 'princeps.' The Lex Salica contains abundant evidence that in the fifth century the administration of the hundred was the chief, if not the only, machinery of the Frank judicial system; and the word in one form or other enters into the constitution of all the German nations. It may be regarded then as a certain vestige of primitive organisation. But the exact relation of the territorial hundred to the hundred of the Germania is a point which is capable of, and has received, much discussion. It has been regarded as denoting simply a division of a hundred hides of land; as the district which furnished a hundred warriors to the host; as representing the original settlement of the hundred warriors; or as composed of a hundred hides, each of which furnished a single warrior. The question is not peculiar to English history, and the same result may have followed from very different causes as probably as from the same causes, here and on the continent. It is very probable, as already stated, that the colonists of Britain arranged themselves in hundreds of warriors; it is not probable that the country was carved into equal districts. The only conclusion that seems reasonable is that, under the name of geographical hundreds, we have the variously sized pagi or districts in which the hundred warriors settled. … The hundred-gemot, or wapentake court, was held every month; it was called six days before the day of meeting, and could not be held on Sunday. It was attended by the lords of lands within the hundred, or their stewards representing them, and by the parish priest, the reeve, and four best men of each township. … The criminal jurisdiction of the hundred is perpetuated in the manorial court leet."

W. Stubbs, Constitutional History of England, chapter 5, section 45 (volume 1).

"By the 13th century the importance of the hundred had much diminished. The need for any such body, intermediate between township and county, ceased to be felt, and the functions of the hundred were gradually absorbed by the county. Almost everywhere in England, by the reign of Elizabeth, the hundred had fallen into decay. It is curious that its name and some of its peculiarities should have been brought to America, and should in one state have remained to the present day. Some of the early settlements in Virginia were called hundreds, but they were practically nothing more than parishes, and the name soon became obsolete, except upon the map, where we still see, for example, Bermuda Hundred. But in Maryland the hundred flourished and became the political unit, like the township in New England. The hundred was the militia district, and the district for the assessment of taxes. In the earliest times it was also the representative district. … The hundred had also its assembly of all the people, which was in many respects like the New England town-meeting. These hundred-meetings enacted by-laws, levied taxes, appointed committees, and often exhibited a vigorous political life. But after the Revolution they fell into disuse, and in 1824 the hundred became extinct in Maryland; its organization was swallowed up in that of the county. In Delaware, however, the hundred remains to this day."

   The period of Napoleon's recovery of power in France, on his
   return from the Isle of Elba, and until his overthrow at
   Waterloo and final abdication, is often referred to as The
   Hundred Days.

"Gibbon is correct in connecting the language of the Hungarians with that of the Finnish or Tschudish race. The original abode of the Hungarians was in the country called Ugria or Jugoria, in the southern part of the Uralian mountains, which is now inhabited by the Voguls and Ostiaks, who are the eastern branches of the Finnish race, while the most important of the western branches are the Finns and Lappes. Ugria is called Great Hungary by the Franciscan monk Piano Carpini, who travelled in 1426 to the court of the Great Khan. From Ugria the Hungarians were expelled by the Turkish tribes of Petcheneges and Chazars, and sought refuge in the plains of the Lower Danube, where they first appeared in the reign of the Greek Emperor Theophilus, between 829 and 842. They called themselves Magyars, but the Russians gave them the name of Ugri, as originating from Ugria; and this name has been corrupted into Ungri and Hungarians. Although it is difficult to believe that the present Magyars, who are the foremost people in Eastern Europe, are of the same race as the degraded Voguls and Ostiaks, this fact is not only attested by historical authority, and the unerring affinity of language; but, when they first appeared in the central parts of Europe, the description given of them by an old chronicler of the ninth century (quoted by Zeuss, page 746) accords precisely with that of the Voguls and Ostiaks."

Dr. W. Smith, Note to Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 55.

"That a Majiar female ever made her way from the Ural Mountains to Hungary is more than I can find; the presumptions being against it. Hence it is just possible that a whole-blooded Majiar was never born on the banks of the Danube. Whether the other elements are most Turk or most Slavonic is more than I venture to guess."

"According to their own primitive traditions, the ruling caste, the main body of the nation, were the children of Mogor the son of Magog. The Hebrew name Mogor signifies 'Terror'; and slightly varied by the Orientals into Magyar became the rallying cry of the once-splendid Hungarian nationality."

Sir F. Palgrave, History of Normandy and England, book 1, chapter 3 (volume 1).

"The Magyars (the idiomatic synonym for Hungarians, and probably the proper name of one of their tribes), driven by internal dissensions from their native deserts, found a home for centuries around the Caucasus and along the barren shores of the Wolga. About the end of the 9th century they suddenly struck their tents, and pressed irresistibly forward to the very heart of Europe. … Immediately after crossing the eastern frontier (A. D. 889), the Magyars elected for their chief Arpad, the son of Almos, who conducted them to the frontiers of Hungary. The latter did not survive to see the conquest. The whole body under Arpad's guidance consisted of about a million, numbering among them about 200,000 warriors, and divided into seven tribes, each having its chief. The country which they prepared to take possession of, and the central part of which was then called Pannonia, was broken up into small parts, and inhabited by races dissimilar in origin and language; as Sclavonians, Wallachians, a few Huns and Avars, as well as some Germans. … Arpad soon descended with his followers on those wide plains, whence Attila, four centuries before, swayed two parts of the globe. Most dexterous horsemen, armed with light spears and almost unerring bows, these invaders followed their leader from victory to victory, soon rendering themselves masters of the land lying between the Theiss and the Danube, carrying at the same time their devastations, on the one hand, to the Adriatic, and, on the other, towards the German frontiers. Having achieved the conquest, Arpad took up his residence on the Danubian isle, Csepel, though the seat of the court was Buda or Attelburg. … The love of their new dominion was far from curbing the passion of the Magyars for distant bloody adventure and plunder. The most daring deeds were undertaken by single chiefs, during the reign of Zoltan and his successor Taksony, which filled up the first part of the tenth century. The enervated and superstitious population of Europe thought the Magyars to be the scourge of God, directly dropped down from heaven; the very report of their approach was sufficient to drive thousands into the recesses of mountains and depths of forests, while the priests increased the common panic by mingling in their litanies the words, 'God preserve us from the Magyars.' … The irruptions of the Magyars were simultaneously felt on the shores of the Baltic, among the inhabitants of the Alps, and at the very gates of Constantinople. The emperors of the East and of Germany were repeatedly obliged to purchase momentary peace by heavy tributes; but Germany, as may be conceived from her geographical position, was chiefly exposed to the ravages of these new neighbours."

"The deliverance of Germany and Christendom was achieved by the Saxon princes, Henry the Fowler and Otho the Great, who, in two memorable battles, forever broke the power of the Hungarians." Twenty years after their defeat by Henry the Fowler (A. D. 934) the Hungarians invaded the empire of his son (A. D. 955), "and their force is defined, in the lowest estimate, at 100,000 horse. They were invited by domestic faction; the gates of Germany were treacherously unlocked, and they spread, far beyond the Rhine and the Meuse, into the heart of Flanders. But the vigour and prudence of Otho dispelled the conspiracy; the princes were made sensible that, unless they were true to each other, their religion and country were irrecoverably lost; and the national powers were reviewed in the plains of Augsburg. They marched and fought in eight legions, according to the division of provinces and tribes [Bavarians, Franconians, Saxons, Swabians, Bohemians]. … The Hungarians were expected in the front; they secretly passed the Lech, a river of Bavaria that falls into the Danube, turned the rear of the Christian army, plundered the baggage, and disordered the legions of Bohemia and Swabia. The battle [near Augsburg, August 10, 955] was restored by the Franconians, whose duke, the valiant Conrad, was pierced with an arrow as he rested from his fatigues; the Saxons fought under the eyes of their king, and his victory surpassed, in merit and importance, the triumphs of the last two hundred years. The loss of the Hungarians was still greater in the flight than in the action; they were encompassed by the rivers of Bavaria; and their past cruelties excluded them from the hope of mercy."

HUNGARY: A. D. 972-1114.
   Christianization of the Magyars.
   Kingship conferred on the Duke by the Pope.
   Annexation of Croatia and conquest of Dalmatia.

"King Geiza [of the house of Arpad—see HUNGARIANS: RAVAGES IN EUROPE] (972-997) was the first pacific ruler of pagan Hungary. … Hungary was enclosed within limits which she was never again able to cross, and even within these limits the Magyars were not the only inhabitants; in almost every part they were surrounded by Slavs, whose language and laws were to exercise over them a lasting influence, and on the southeast they touched on that Romance or Wallachian element which, from the time of the Roman colonies of Trajan, had continued to develop there. Numerous marriages with these neighbours gradually modified the primitive type of the Magyars. … Geiza I. had married as his second wife a sister of the duke of Poland, Mieczyslaw. She had been converted to Christianity, and, like Clotilde of France, this princess knew how to use her influence in favour of her religion. {1669} She persuaded her husband to receive the missionaries who came to preach the Gospel in the country of the Magyars, and Pilgrim, archbishop of Lorch, undertook the systematic conversion of the nation. The mention of him in the 'Nibelungen Lied' in connection with Etzel (Attila), king of the Huns, is doubtless due to the memory of this mission. He sent priests from his diocese into Hungary, and in 974 he was able to announce to the pope 5,000 conversions. … The great Chekh apostle, St. Adalbert or Vojtech, bishop of Prague, continued the work begun by Pilgrim. About 994, he went to Gran (Esztergom), where the duke of Hungary then dwelt, and solemnly baptized the son of Geiza, to whom he gave the name of Stephen. Henceforth the court of the duke became the resort of knights from all the neighbouring countries, but especially from Germany, and these knights, entering into intimate relations with the native nobility, drew Hungary and the empire into still closer union. Prince Stephen, heir presumptive to the throne, married the princess Gisella, daughter of the duke of Bavaria, while one of the daughters of Geiza became the wife of the Polish duke Boleslaw, and another married Urseolus, doge of Venice. Through these alliances, Hungary obtained for itself a recognized place among European states, and the work begun so well by Geiza was completed by Stephen, to whom was reserved the honour of establishing the position of his kingdom in Europe and of completing its conversion. … 'Hungary became Catholic,' says a Magyar historian, 'not through apostolic teaching, nor through the invitation of the Holy See, but through the laws of king Stephen' (Verböczy). He was not always content to use persuasion alone to lead his subjects to the new faith; he hesitated not to use threats also. … Stephen sent an ambassador to Rome, to treat directly with pope Sylvester, who graciously received the homage done by him for his kingdom, and, by a letter dated the 27th of March, 1000, announced that he took the people of Hungary under the protection of the Church. By the same brief he granted the royal crown to Stephen. … Besides this, he conferred on him the privilege of having the cross always borne before him, as a symbol of the apostolic power which he granted to him. The authenticity of this pontifical letter has indeed been disputed; but, however that may be, the emperor of Austria, king of Hungary, still bears the title of Apostolic Majesty. … Under this great king, Hungary became a completely independent kingdom between the two empires of the East and West. … The laws of Stephen are contained in 56 articles divided into two books. His ideas on all matters of government are also to be found in the counsels which he wrote, or caused to be written, for his son Emerich. … The son for whom the great king had written his maxims died before his father, in 1031, and is honoured as a saint by the Church. The last years of king Stephen were harassed by rivalries and plots. He died on the 15th of August, 1038. … Stephen had chosen as his successor his nephew Peter, the son of the doge Urseolus." But Peter was driven out and sought help in Germany, bringing war into the country. The Hungarians chose for their king, Samuel Ala, a tribal chief; but soon deposed him and elected Andrew, son of Ladislas the Bald (1046). Andrew was dethroned by his brother Bela, in 1061. Both Andrew and Bela had bitter struggles with revived paganism, which was finally suppressed. Bela died in 1063. "According to the Asiatic custom, which still prevails in Turkey, he was succeeded by his nephew Solomon. … This prince was only twelve years of age, and the emperor, Henry IV., took advantage of his youth to place him in a humiliating position of tutelage. … The enemies of Solomon accused him of being the creature of the Germans, and reproached him for having done homage to the emperor for a state which belonged to St. Peter. Pope Gregory VII., who was then struggling against the emperor [see PAPACY: A. D. 1056-1122], encouraged the rebels. 'The kingdom of Hungary,' he said, owes obedience to none but the Church.' Prince Geiza was proclaimed king in the place of Solomon, but he died without having reigned. He was succeeded by Ladislas the Holy (1077), who was able to make himself equally independent of emperor and pope. … The dying Ladislas chose his nephew Koloman as his successor. … The most important act of this reign [Koloman's, 1095-1114] was the annexation of Croatia. In 1090, St. Ladislas had been elected to the throne of Croatia, and he, on his death, left the government of it to his nephew Almos, who very soon made himself unpopular. Koloman drove him out of Croatia, and had himself proclaimed king. He next set about the conquest of Dalmatia from the Venetians, seized the principal towns, Spalato (Spljet), Zara (Zadir), and Trogir (Trau), and granted them full power of self-government. Then (1102) he had himself crowned, at Belgrade, king of Croatia and Dalmatia. From this time the position of Croatia, as regarded Hungary, was very much the same as the position of Hungary in regard to Austria in later times."

HUNGARY: A. D. 1114-1301.
   The Golden Bull of King Bela.
   Invasion and frightful devastation by the Tartars.
   The end of the Arpad dynasty.

   "Coloman was succeeded on the throne by his son Stephen, who,
   after a short reign, was succeeded by Bela the Blind. The most
   important event of these reigns was the war with Venice about
   the possession of Dalmatia, and the annexation to the
   Hungarian crown of Rama, a part of Servia. In 1141, Geisa II.
   ascended the throne of St. Stephen. His reign was marked by
   several important events. Having entirely reduced
   Transylvania, he invited many Saxons and Flemish into his
   kingdom, some of whom settled in the Banat, in the south of
   Hungary, and others in Transylvania. In this principality the
   German settlers received from the king a separate district,
   being, besides, exempted from many taxes and endowed with
   particular privileges. … The following years of the 12th
   century, filled up by the reigns of Stephen III., Bela III.,
   and Emerick, are marked by the continuance of the Venetian
   war, but present no incidents deserving of particular notice.
   More important was the reign of Andrew II., who ascended the
   throne in 1205. …
{1670}
   Andrew, by the advice of the Pope, set out with a large army
   to the Holy Land [1216—see CRUSADES: A. D. 1216-1229],
   nominating the Ban, called Banko, viceroy of Hungary. While
   the Hungarian king spent his time in Constantinople, and
   afterwards in operations round Mount Tabor, Hungary became a
   scene of violence and rapine, aggravated by the careless and
   unconstitutional administration of the queen's foreign
   favourites, as well as by the extortions committed by the
   oligarchy on their inferiors. Receiving no support from the
   king of Jerusalem, Andrew resolved on returning home. On his
   arrival in Hungary, he had the mortification of finding, in
   addition to a disaffected nobility, a rival to the throne in
   the person of his son Bela. As the complaints of the nobles
   became daily louder, … the king resolved to confirm the
   privileges of the country by a new charter, called The Golden
   Bull. This took place in the year 1222. The chief provisions
   of this charter were as follows:

1st, That the states were henceforth to be annually convoked
either under the presidency of the king or the palatine;

2d, That no nobleman was to be arrested without being
previously tried and legally sentenced;

4th, That if called to military service beyond the frontiers
of the country, they were to be paid by the king;

5th, That high offices should neither be made hereditary nor given to foreigners without the consent of the Diet.

The most important point, however, was article 31st, which conferred on the nobles the right of appealing to arms in case of any violation of the laws by the crown. Other provisions contained in this charter refer to the exemption of the lower clergy from the payment of taxes and tolls, and to the determination of the tithes to be paid by the cultivators of the soil. … Andrew died soon after the promulgation of the charter, and was succeeded by his son Bela IV. The beginning of this prince's reign was troubled with internal dissensions caused by the Cumans [an Eastern tribe which invaded Hungary in the later half of the 11th century—see COSSACKS], who, after having been vanquished by St. Ladislaus, settled in Hungary between the banks of the Theiss and Marosch. But a greater and quite unexpected danger, which threatened Hungary with utter destruction, arose from the invasion of the Tartars. Their leader Batu, after having laid waste Poland and Silesia, poured with his innumerable bands into the heart of Hungary [see MONGOLS: A. D. 1229-1294]. Internal dissensions facilitated the triumph of the foe, and the battle fought on the banks of the river Sajo (A. D. 1241) terminated in the total defeat of the Hungarians. The Tartar hordes spread with astonishing rapidity throughout the whole country, which in a few weeks was converted into a chaos of blood and flames. Not contented with wholesale massacre, the Tartar leader devised snares to destroy the lives of those who succeeded in making their escape into the recesses of the mountains and the depths of the forests. Among those who perished in the battle of Sajo was the Hungarian chancellor, who carried with him the seal of state. Batu having got possession of the seal, caused a proclamation to be made in the name of the Hungarian king [calling the people back to their homes], to which he affixed the royal stamp. … Trusting to this appeal, the miserable people issued from their hiding-places, and returned to their homes. The cunning barbarian first caused them to do the work of harvest in order to supply his hordes with provisions, and then put them to an indiscriminate death. The king Bela, in the meantime, succeeded in making his way through the Carpathian Mountains into Austria; but instead of receiving assistance from the arch-duke Frederick, he was retained as a prisoner. Having pledged three counties of Hungary to Frederick, Bela was allowed to depart. … In the meantime Batu was as prompt in leaving Hungary, in consequence of the death of the Tartar khan. … Bela was succeeded on the throne by his son Stephen, in the year 1270." The reign of Stephen was short. He was followed by Ladislaus IV., who allied himself with Rudolph of Hapsburg in the war which overthrew and destroyed Ottoacer or Ottocar, king of Bohemia (see AUSTRIA: A. D. 1246-1282). "The reign of this prince, called the Cuman, was, besides, troubled by most devastating internal dissensions, caused by the Cumans, whose numbers were continually augmented by fresh arrivals … from their own tribe as well as from the Tartars." Ladislaus, dying in 1290, was succeeded by Andrew III., the last Hungarian king of the house of Arpad. "This prince had to dispute his throne with Rudolph of Hapsburg, who coveted the crown of Hungary for his son Albert. The appearance, however, of the Hungarian troops before the gates of Vienna compelled the Austrian emperor to sue for peace, which was cemented by a family alliance, Andrew having espoused Agnes, daughter of Albert. … Nor did this matrimonial alliance with Austria secure peace to Hungary. Pope Nicholas IV. was bent upon gaining the crown of St. Stephen for Charles Martel, son of Charles d'Anjou of Naples, who put forward his claims to the Hungarian crown in virtue of his mother, Mary, daughter of king Stephen V.," transferring them at his death to Charles Robert, nephew of the king of Naples. Andrew III., the last Arpad, died in 1301.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1301-1442.
   The House of Anjou and the House of Luxembourg.
   Conquests of Louis the Great.
   Beginning of wars with the Turks.
   The House of Austria and the disputed crown.

   On the extinction of the ancient race of kings, in the male
   line of descent, by the death of Andrew III., in 1301, the
   crown was "contested by several competitors, and at length
   fell into the hands of the House of Anjou, the reigning family
   of Naples [see ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1343-1389]. Charles
   Robert, grandson of Charles II. King of Naples, by Mary of
   Hungary, outstripped his rivals (1310), and transmitted the
   crown to his son LOUIS, surnamed the Great [1342]. This
   prince, characterized by his eminent qualities, made a
   distinguished figure among the Kings of Hungary. He conquered
   from the Venetians the whole of Dalmatia from the frontiers of
   Istria, as far as Durazzo; he reduced the princes of Moldavia,
   Wallachia, Bosnia and Bulgaria to a state of dependence; and
   at length mounted the throne of Poland, on the death of his
   uncle, Casimir the Great. Mary, his eldest daughter, succeeded
   him in the kingdom of Hungary (1382).
{1671}
   This princess married Sigismund of Luxembourg [afterwards
   Emperor, 1411-1437-see GERMANY: A. D. 1347-1493], who thus
   united the monarchy of Hungary to the Imperial crown. The
   reign of Sigismund in Hungary was most unfortunate. … He had
   to sustain the first war against the Ottoman Turks; and, with
   the Emperor of Constantinople as his ally, he assembled a
   formidable army, with which he undertook the siege of
   Nicopolis in Bulgaria [see TURKS (THE OTTOMANS): A. D.
   1389-1403]. In his retreat he was compelled to embark on the
   Danube, and directed his flight towards Constantinople. This
   disaster was followed by new misfortunes. The male contents of
   Hungary offered their crown to Ladislaus, called the
   Magnanimous, King of Naples, who took possession of Dalmatia,
   which he afterwards surrendered to the Venetians. Desirous to
   provide for the defence and security of his kingdom, Sigismund
   acquired, by treaty with the Prince of Servia, the fortress of
   Belgrade (1425), which, by its situation at the confluence of
   the Danube and the Save, seemed to him a proper bulwark to
   protect Hungary against the Turks. He transmitted the crown of
   Hungary [in 1437, when he died] to his son-in-law, Albert of
   Austria, who reigned only two years."

"Albert, afterwards the Emperor Albert II., was the first prince of the House of Habsburg that enjoyed the crowns of Hungary and Bohemia, which he owed to his father-in-law, the Emperor Sigismund, whose only daughter, Elizabeth, he had married. Elizabeth was the child of Barbara von Cilly, Sigismund's second wife, whose notorious vices had procured for her the odious epithets of the 'Bad,' and the 'German Messalina.' Barbara had determined to supplant her daughter, to claim the two crowns as her dowry, and to give them, with her hand, to Wladislaus, the young King of Poland, who, though 40 years her junior, she had marked out for her future husband. With this view she was courting the Hussite party in Bohemia: but Sigismund, a little before his death, caused her to be arrested; and, assembling the Hungarian and Bohemian nobles at Znaym, in Moravia, persuaded them, almost with his dying breath, to elect Albert as his successor. Sigismund expired the next day (December 9th, 1437). Albert was soon after recognised as king by the Hungarian diet, and immediately released his mother-in-law Barbara, upon her agreeing to restore some fortresses which she held in Hungary. He did not so easily obtain possession of the Bohemian crown. … The short reign of Albert in Hungary was disastrous both to himself and to the country. Previously to his fatal expedition against the Turks in 1439, … the Hungarian diet, before it would agree to settle the succession to the throne, forced him to accept a constitution which destroyed all unity and strength of government. By the famous 'Decretum Alberti Regis,' he reduced himself to be the mere shadow of a king; while by exalting the Palatine [a magistrate next to the king in rank, who presided over the legal tribunals, and discharged the functions of the king in the absence of the latter], the clergy, and the nobles, he perpetuated all the evils of the feudal system. … The most absurd and pernicious regulations were now adopted respecting the military system of the kingdom, and such as rendered it almost impossible effectually to resist the Turks. … On the death of Albert, Wladislaus [Ladislaus] III., King of Poland [the second Polish king of the dynasty of Jagellon], was … elected to the throne of Hungary. … Albert, besides two daughters, had left his wife Elizabeth pregnant; and the Hungarians, dreading a long minority in case she should give birth to a son, compelled her to offer her hand to Wladislaus, agreeing that the crown should descend to their issue; but at the same time engaging that if Elizabeth's child should prove a male, they would endeavour to procure for him the kingdom of Bohemia and the duchy of Austria; and that he should moreover succeed to the Hungarian throne in case Wladislaus had no issue by Elizabeth. … Scarcely had the Hungarian ambassador set off for the court of Wladislaus with these proposals, when Elizabeth brought forth a son, who, from the circumstances of his birth, was christened Ladislaus Posthumus. Elizabeth now repented of the arrangement that had been made; and the news having arrived that the archduke Frederick had been elected Emperor of Germany, she was induced to withdraw her consent to marry the King of Poland. Messengers were despatched to recall the Hungarian ambassadors; but it was too late—Wladislaus had accepted her hand, and prepared to enter Hungary with an army. … The party of the King of Poland, especially as it was headed by John of Hunyad, proved the stronger. Elizabeth was compelled to abandon Lower Hungary and take refuge at Vienna, carrying with her the crown of St. Stephen, which, with her infant son, she intrusted to the care of the Emperor Frederick III. (August 3rd, 1440). … In November 1442, Elizabeth and Wladislaus had an interview at Raab, when a peace was agreed upon, the terms of which are unknown; but it is probable that one of the chief conditions was a marriage between the contracting parties. The sudden death of Elizabeth, December 24th, 1442, not without suspicion of poison, prevented the ratification of a treaty which had never been agreeable to the great party led by John of Hunyad, whose recent victories over the Turks gave him enormous influence."

HUNGARY: A. D. 1442-1458.
   The minority of Ladislaus Posthumus.
   Regency of Huniades.
   His defeat of the Turks and his death.
   His son Matthias chosen king on the death of Ladislaus.

Peace between the factions was brought about by an agreement that "the Polish king should retain the government of Hungary until Ladislaus attained his majority; that he should be possessed of the throne in case the young prince died without issue; and the compact was sealed by affiancing the two daughters of Elizabeth to the King of Poland and his brother Casimir. {1672} The young Ladislaus was also acknowledged as King of Bohemia; and the administration during his minority vested in two Regents: Mainard, Count of Neuhaus, chosen on the part of the Catholics; and Henry Ptarsko, and after his death George Podiebrad, on that of the Hussites. The death of Uladislaus in the memorable battle of Warna again left Hungary without a ruler; and as Frederic III. persisted in retaining the young Ladislaus and the crown of St. Stephen, the Hungarians entrusted the government to John Corvinus Huniades, the redoubted defender of their country." In 1452, when the Emperor Frederic returned from Italy into Germany, "he found himself involved in a dispute with the Austrians, the Bohemians, and the Hungarians, in respect to the custody of the young Ladislaus. … As Ladislaus had now arrived at the age of thirteen, his subjects, but more particularly the Austrians, grew impatient of the detention of their sovereign at the imperial court. Whilst Podiebrad continued regent of Bohemia, and Huniades of Hungary, the affairs of Austria were directed by Frederic; and the unpopularity of his government caused a general anxiety for a change. But to give up the custody of his ward was contrary to the policy of the Emperor, and in the hope of silencing the Austrians he marched with a force against them. His enemies, however, proved too numerous; he was himself endangered by a siege in Neustadt; and compelled to purchase his deliverance by resigning the person of Ladislaus. The states of Austria, Bohemia, and Hungary then assembled at Vienna; Podiebrad and Huniades were confirmed in their regencies; and the administration of Austria, together with the custody of Ladislaus, was confided to his maternal great-uncle, Ulric, Count of Cilli. The resentment of Frederic does not appear to have been vehement; for in the following year [1453] he raised Austria to an archdutchy, and by a grant of especial privileges placed the Duke of the province on a level with the Electors. After being crowned King of Bohemia at Prague, Ladislaus was invited by his Hungarian subjects to visit that kingdom. But the Count of Cilli, jealous of the power of Huniades, so far worked upon the young king's mind as to create in him suspicions of the regent's integrity. An attempt was made to seize Huniades by enticing him to Vienna; but he eluded the snare, exposed the treachery of Ulric, and prevailed on Ladislaus to visit his people. At Buda, an apparent reconciliation took place between the count and the regent; but Ulric still persisted in his design of ruining the credit of a man whom he regarded as a dangerous rival. In the moment of danger, the brave spirit of Huniades triumphed over his insidious traducer; the siege of Belgrade by the Turks [1456], under Mahomed II., threw Hungary into consternation; the royal pupil and his crafty guardian abandoned the Hungarians to their fate and precipitately fled to Vienna; whilst Huniades was left to encounter the fury of the storm. … The undaunted resistance of that renowned captain preserved Belgrade; the Turks, after a desperate struggle, were compelled to abandon the siege; their loss amounted to 30,000 men; and the Sultan himself was severely wounded [see TURKS: A. D. 1451-1481]. The great defender did not long survive his triumph; dying, soon after the retreat of the enemy, of a fever occasioned by his extraordinary exertions. Huniades left two sons, Ladislaus and Matthias Corvinus, who were as much the idols of their country as they were objects of jealousy to Ulric and the King. The latter, indeed, took care to treat them with every mark of external respect; but the injurious behaviour of the count provoked Ladislaus Corvinus to open violence; and, in a personal rencounter, Ulric received a mortal wound. Enraged at the death of his favourite yet dreading the vengeance of the people, King Ladislaus resorted to treachery; and the brothers being lured into his power, the younger was beheaded as a murderer [1457]. Matthias was preserved from death by the menaces of the indignant Hungarians; the terrified monarch fled with his prisoner to Prague; and being there attacked by a malignant disease, was consigned to a premature grave after suffering for only a few hours. The death of Ladislaus Posthumus plunged the Emperor into new difficulties. His succession to the Austrian territory was opposed by his brother Albert VI., whose hostility had long troubled his repose. The Bohemians rejected his claim to their throne, and conferred the crown on the more deserving Podiebrad [1458]. The Hungarians testified their regard for the memory of Huniades Corvinus by electing his son Matthias, who purchased his liberty from Podiebrad for 40,000 ducats. Thus baffled in his views, Frederic consoled himself with his retention of the crown of St. Stephen; and his pertinacity in respect to this sacred relique involved him in a war with the new King of Hungary."

HUNGARY: A. D. 1468-1471.
King Matthias joins the crusade against George Podiebrad of
Bohemia and claims the Bohemian crown.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1471-1487.
   The wars of Matthias with Bohemia, Poland, the emperor and the
   Turks.
   Conquest and occupation of Austria.

   Ladislaus, elected to the throne of Bohemia on the death of
   George Podiebrad, was supported by all the forces of his
   father, the king of Poland, and Matthias of Hungary was now
   involved in war with both. Meanwhile, "his whole kingdom was
   agitated by intestine commotions, and a strong party of nobles
   breaking out into insurrection, had offered the crown to
   Casimir, prince of Poland. At the same time, the Turks having
   subdued Transylvania, and ravaged Dalmatia and Croatia, built
   the fortress of Szabatch on the Save, and from thence harassed
   Hungary with perpetual inroads. From these impending dangers,
   Matthias extricated himself by his courage, activity, and
   prudence. While he carried the war into Bohemia and Silesia,
   he awed, by his presence, his rebellious subjects, conciliated
   by degrees the disaffected nobles, expelled the Poles, and, by
   an important victory in the vicinity of Breslau, over the
   united armies of Poles and Bohemians, forced the two
   sovereigns, in 1474, to conclude an armistice for three years
   and a half. He availed himself of the suspension of arms to
   repel the Turks. He supported Stephen Bathori, hospodar of
   Wallachia, who had shaken off the Ottoman yoke, by a
   reinforcement of troops, enabled him to defeat Mahomet himself
   [on the plain of Kenyer-Mesö, October, 1479], at the head of
   100,000 men, and soon afterwards secured his frontiers on the
   side of the Danube by the capture of Szabatch.
{1673}
   Having in consequence of these successes delivered his
   dominions from the aggressions of the Turks, he hastened to
   gratify his vengeance against the emperor, whose conduct had
   afforded so many causes of complaint. After instigating
   Matthias to make war on George Podiebrad, Frederic had
   abandoned him in the midst of the contest, had refused to
   fulfil his promise of investing him with the kingdom of
   Bohemia, had concluded an alliance with the kings of Poland
   and Bohemia, and, on the 10th of June, 1477, formally
   conferred on Ladislaus the investiture of the crown."
   Matthias, as soon as he had freed himself from the Turks
   (1479), declared war against the emperor and invaded Austria.
   "Frederic, left without a single ally, was unable to make the
   smallest resistance, and in less than a month Matthias overran
   the greater part of Lower Austria, invested the capital, and
   either besieged or captured all the fortresses of the Danube,
   as far as Krems and Stein. Frederic fled in dismay to Lintz,
   and, to save his capital, was reduced to accept the conditions
   imposed by the conqueror," which included a promised payment
   of 100,000 ducats. This payment the shifty emperor evaded,
   when Matthias became involved anew, as he presently did, in
   hostilities with Bohemia and Poland. "Matthias, irritated by
   his conduct, concluded a peace with Ladislaus, by which he
   acknowledged him as king of Bohemia, and agreed that Moravia,
   Silesia, and Lusatia [which had been surrendered to him in
   1475] should revert to the crown of Bohemia, in ease of his
   death without issue. He then again invaded Austria; but his
   arms were not attended with the same rapid success as on the
   former invasion. … It was not till after a contest of four
   years, which called forth all the skill and perseverance of
   the warlike monarch and his most experienced generals, that
   they obtained possession of the capital [1485] and the
   neighbouring fortresses, and completed the subjugation of
   Lower Austria, by the capture of Newstadt, the favourite
   residence of the emperor. Frederic, driven from his hereditary
   dominions, at first took refuge at Gratz; and, on the approach
   of danger, wandered from city to city, and from convent to
   convent." After many appeals, he persuaded Albert, duke of
   Saxony, to take the field in his behalf; but Albert, with the
   small force at his command, could only retard the progress of
   the invader, and he soon concluded an armistice with him. "In
   consequence of this agreement, he [Albert of Saxony], in
   November, 1487, abandoned Austria, and Matthias was permitted
   to retain possession of the conquered territories, until
   Frederic had discharged his former engagement, and reimbursed
   the expenses of the war; should Matthias die before that
   period, these states were to revert to their sovereign."

      W. Coxe,
      History of the House of Austria,
      chapter 18 (volume 1).

HUNGARY: A. D. 1487-1526.
   Death of Matthias.
   Election of Wladislaw, or Ladislaus, of the Polish house of
   Jagellon.
   Union of the crowns of Hungary and Bohemia.
   Loss of the Austrian provinces.
   Treaty of Succession with Maximilian.
   Insurrection of the Kurucs.
   Loss of Belgrade.
   Great Turkish invasion and ruinous battle of Mohacs.
   The end of Hungarian independence.

"When once the archduchy of Austria was conquered, Mathias, who was already master of Moravia and Silesia, had in his power a state almost as large as the Austria of the present time, if we except from it Galicia and Bohemia. But his power had no solid foundation. While the influence of the house of Austria had been increased by marriage, Mathias Corvinus had no legitimate heir. He made several attempts to have his natural son, John Corvinus, born in Silesia, recognized as his successor; but he died suddenly (1490) at the age of 50, without having arranged anything definitely for the future of his kingdom. … Hungary reached her highest point in the reign of Mathias Corvinus, and from this time we shall have to watch her hopeless decay. The diet, divided by the ambition of rival barons, could decide on no national king, and so turned to a foreigner. Wladyslaw II., of the [Polish] house of Jagellon, was elected, and thus a king of Bohemia, and an old rival of Mathias, united the two crowns of St. Vacslav and St. Stephen—a union which had been so ardently hoped for by Mathias, and for which he had waged the miserable war against Bohemia. … The beginning of the new reign was not fortunate. Maximilian [son of the Emperor Frederic] recovered the Austrian provinces, and John of Poland declared war against his brother, Wladyslaw, and obliged him to cede part of Silesia to him. Maximilian invaded the west of Hungary, … whence he only consented to retire after Wladyslaw had agreed to a treaty, which secured Hungary to the house of Austria, in case of Wladyslaw dying without children. This treaty, in which the king disposed of the country without consulting the diet, roused universal indignation. … Meanwhile, the Turks thronged round the southern frontier of the kingdom. Bajazet II. had failed to capture Belgrade in 1492, but he could not be prevented from forcing his way into the valley of the Save, and beating the Hungarian army, which was badly paid and badly disciplined. … Wladyslaw had one son, Louis. Surrounded by the net of Austrian diplomacy, he had affianced this son in his cradle to Mary of Austria, the sister of Charles V., and later on he undertook, in defiance of public opinion, to leave the crown to his daughter Anne, who was, betrothed to Ferdinand of Austria, if Louis should die without heirs. … To add to the miseries of his reign, a peasant rising, a terrible Jacquerie, took place. … In 1513, Cardinal Bacracz came from Rome, bringing with him the papal bull for a crusade against the infidels; whereupon the peasants armed themselves, as if they were about to march against the Turks, and then turned their arms against the nobles. This terrible insurrection is called in Hungarian history the insurrection of the Kurucs (Kouroutses, cruciati) crusaders. … The chief leader of the insurrection, the peasant Dosza, was one of the Szeklers of Transylvania. … Dosza was beaten in a battle near Temesvar, and fell into the hands of his enemies. Their vengeance was terrible. The king of the peasants was seated on a throne of fire, and crowned by the executioner with a red-hot crown. He bore his frightful sufferings with a courage that astonished his adversaries. … The feeble Wladyslaw died in 1515, and the reign of the child-king, Louis II., may be summed up in two catastrophes, the loss of Belgrade and the defeat at Mohacs. The young king, married in his cradle, was corrupt and dissolute, and quite incapable of governing, and his guardians could not rise to the height of the occasion. {1674} The finances of the kingdom were in great disorder, and the leading barons quarrelled continually over the shreds of sovereignty still left. … This state of things was of the greatest use to the Turks, for while Hungary was sinking ever deeper into anarchy, Turkey was ruled by the great sovereign who was called Soliman the Magnificent. It was not long before he found a pretext for war in the arrest of one of his subjects as a spy, and assembled his troops at Sophia, captured Shabats [Szabatch], laid siege to Belgrade and took it, making it thenceforward a Mussulman fortress (1521). The key of the Danube was now in the hands of the Turks. … King Louis begged for help on every side. … The Austrian princes were ready to help him from interested motives; but even when joined with Hungary they were too feeble to conquer the armies of 'the Magnificent.' On the 25th of April, 1526, Soliman quitted Constantinople, bringing with him 100,000 men and 300 cannon, taking up arms not only against Hungary, but against the empire. One of the pretexts for his expedition was the captivity of Francis I.; he wished, he said, to save 'the bey of France' from the hands of the Germans and their allies the Hungarians. He crossed the Save near Osiek (Essek), captured Petervardin, and came up with the Hungarians at Mohacs, on the right bank of the Danube (August 26, 1526). The Magyar army was commanded by the king in person, assisted by Paul Tomory, archbishop of Kalocsa, one of the warlike bishops of whom Hungary gives us so many examples; by George Szapolyai, and by Peter Perenyi, bishop of Nagy-Varad (Great Varadin). Perenyi wished to treat with the Turks, in order to gain time for help to reach them from Croatia and Transylvania, but the impetuosity of Tomory decided on immediate battle. … At first, it seemed as if the battle was in favour of the Magyars; but Soliman had commanded that the front ranks of his army should give way before the Hungarian cavalry, and that then the main body of his troops should close around them. When the Magyars were thus easily within reach, they were overwhelmed by the Turkish artillery and forced to retreat. They took refuge in some marshy land, in which many of them lost their lives. The king had disappeared; Tomory was slain; seven bishops, 22 barons, and 22,000 men were left upon the field. The road to Buda lay open before the invaders, and after having laid waste the whole country on their way, they reached the capital, where the treasures which Mathias Corvinus had collected in his palace and his library were either carried off or committed to the flames. … Then the tide of invasion gradually retired, leaving behind it a land covered with ruins. The independent existence of Hungary ended with Louis II."

HUNGARY: A. D. 1526-1567.
   Election of John Zapolya to the throne.
   Rival candidacy and election of Ferdinand of Austria.
   Zapolya's appeal to the Turks.
   Great invasion by Soliman.
   Siege of Vienna.
   The sultan master of the greater part of the country.
   Progress of the Reformation.
   Soliman's last invasion.

   "No sooner was the corpse of Louis II. found lying in a marsh,
   under his mangled steed, than the necessity of speedily
   electing a new monarch was powerfully felt. Louis left no heir
   to the throne, while his wife Mary, archduchess of Austria,
   far from trying to possess herself of the helm of the state,
   was already on her way to Vienna, even before the results of
   the battle of Mohacs had become fully known. The vacant throne
   found thus an aspirant in John Zapolya, waivod of Transylvania
   and count of the Zips, who lay encamped with a mighty army at
   Szegedin, on his march to the plain of Mohacs. … The Diet,
   which met on the plain of Rakos (1526), proclaimed Zapolya
   king. … The day of coronation was soon fixed, the waivod
   receiving his royal unction at Weisenburg. Stephen Batory, the
   palatine, however, actuated by envy rather than ambition,
   first attempted to oppose to the new king the interests of the
   widow of Louis II. But the Austrian archduchess, unwilling to
   enter the field as a competitor for the crown, handed over her
   role to her brother Ferdinand I. of Austria, who was married
   to Anne, sister of the late Hungarian king. Ferdinand soon
   repaired to Presburg, a town beyond the reach of Zapolya's
   arms, where he was elected king of Hungary by an aristocratic
   party, headed by the palatine Batory, Francis Batthany, Ban of
   Croatia, and Nadasdy." After a fruitless conference between
   representatives of the rival kings, they proceeded to war.
   Zapolya was "master of the whole country, except some parts
   beyond the Danube," but he remained inactive at Buda until the
   Austrians surprised him there and forced him to evacuate the
   capital. "Not able to make head against the foreign
   mercenaries of Ferdinand, Zapolya was soon obliged to confine
   himself to the northern frontiers, till he left the kingdom
   for Poland, there to solicit help and concert measures for the
   renewal of the war (1528)." Receiving no encouragement from
   the king of Poland, Zapolya at length addressed himself to the
   great enemy of Hungary, the sultan Soliman, and there he met
   no rebuff. The Ottoman conqueror made instant preparations to
   enter Hungary as the champion of its native king. Thereupon
   "Zapolya organized a small army, and crossed the frontiers.
   His army was soon swelled to thousands, and he had possessed
   himself of the greatest part of Upper, before Soliman began to
   pour down on Lower Hungary. … Proclaiming to the people that
   his army was not come to conquer, but to assist their elected
   native king, Soliman marched onwards, took Buda, Gran, and
   Raab, all of them shamelessly given up by Ferdinand's
   mercenaries, and moved on unopposed to the walls of Vienna
   [1529]. Ferdinand, in his distress, Invoked the assistance of
   Germany; but his brother [the] emperor, as well as the Diet of
   Spires, engrossed with Luther and his followers, … were not
   forward to render their assistance. Vienna, however, though
   neglected by the German emperor, was momentarily saved by the
   advanced state of the season; for winter being at hand, the
   Turks, according to their usage at that season, took their
   way home. [The besieging army of Turks is said to have
   numbered 250,000 men; while the river swarmed with 400 Turkish
   boats. Twenty fierce assaults were made upon the defenses of
   the city, in as many days. The suburbs were destroyed and the
   surrounding country terribly ravaged.
{1675}
   Before raising the siege, the baffled Turk massacred thousands
   of captives, under the walls, only carrying away into slavery
   the young and fair of both sexes. The repulse of Soliman is
   "an epoch in the history of the world."]

… Zapolya, having taken up his position in Buda, ruled over the greatest part of Hungary; while Croatia submitted to Ferdinand. … A useless war was thus for a while carried on between the two rival sovereigns, in the midst of which Buda had to sustain a heavy siege conducted by General Roggendorf; but the garrison, though reduced so far as to be obliged to eat horseflesh, succeeded in repelling and routing the Austrian besiegers (1530)." Ferdinand now humbled himself to the sultan, beseeching his friendship and support, but in vain. The war of the rival kings went on until 1538, when it was suspended by what is known as the Treaty of Grosswardein, which conceded to each party possession of the parts of the country which he then occupied; which gave the whole to Zapolya if Ferdinand died without male issue, and the whole to Ferdinand if Zapolya died before him, even though Zapolya should leave an heir—but the heir, in this latter case, was to marry Ferdinand's daughter. This treaty produced immense indignation in the country. "That the never-despairing and ambitious Zapolya meant that step rather as a means of momentary repose, may safely be assumed; but the development of his schemes was arrested by the hand of death (1540), which removed the weary warrior from these scenes of blood, at the very moment when his ears were gladdened by the news that he had become the father of a son." Ferdinand now claimed the undivided sovereignty, according to the terms of the Treaty of Grosswardein; but the queen-dowager Isabella, wife of John Zapolya, maintained the rights of her infant son. She was supported by a strong party, animated and led by one George Martinussius, a priest of extraordinary powers. Both Ferdinand and Isabella appealed to the sultan, as to an acknowledged suzerain. He declared for young Zapolya, and sent an army to Buda to establish his authority, while another Turkish army occupied Transylvania. "Soliman soon followed in person, made his entry into Buda [1541], which he determined to keep permanently occupied during the minority of Sigismund; and assuring Isabella of his affection to the son of John, bade her retire with the child to Transylvania; a piece of advice which she followed not without some reluctance and distrust. Buda was thus henceforward governed by a pasha; the army of Ferdinand was ruined, and Soliman, under the title of an ally, became absolute lord of the country." After a few years "new complications and difficulties arose in Transylvania, when Martinussius, who was confirmed by Soliman in his capacity of guardian to the young Sigismund and regent of that country, began to excite the suspicion of queen Isabella. Ferdinand, aware of these circumstances, marched an army into Transylvania, headed by Costaldo, who was instructed to gain over the monk-tutor." Martinussius was won by the promise of a cardinal's hat; with his help the queen-dowager was coerced into abdicating in behalf of her son. Having brought this about, Ferdinand basely procured the assassination of the monk Martinussius. "'Far from gaining by an act that stamped his own name with eternal shame, Ferdinand was soon driven by the Turks from Transylvania, and lost even the places occupied by his troops in Hungary.' … Transylvania owned the sway of Sigismund Zapolya, while Ferdinand, in spite of the crown of the German empire, recently conferred upon him, … was fain to preserve in Hungary some small districts, contiguous to his Austrian dominions. … In the year 1563, Ferdinand convoked his party at Presburg," and prevailed upon them to go through the form of electing his son Maximilian to the Hungarian throne. "Ferdinand soon after died (1564), leaving three sons. Of these, Maximilian succeeded his father in Austria; Ferdinand inherited the Tyrol; and Charles, the youngest son, got possession of Styria. Maximilian, who, in addition to his Austrian dominions, succeeded to the throne of Bohemia and to that of the German empire, proved as impotent in Hungary as his father had been. The Pasha of Buda ruled the greater part of Hungary proper; Sigismund Zapolya continued to maintain his authority in Transylvania. … His [Maximilian's] reign left Hungary much the same as it was under his predecessor, although much credit is due to the neutral line of conduct he observed in regard to religious affairs. Unlike the rise and progress of the Reformation in the rest of Europe, religious reform in Hungary was rather an additional element in the political conflict than its originator. … By the battle of Mohacs, the Reformation was freed from a bigoted king and many persecuting prelates; while Ferdinand, conniving at the Protestant party in Germany, was withheld from persecuting it in Hungary, the more so from the dread that his rival might win the Protestant party to his interest. The Protestants thus increased in number amid the din of arms. … The sectarian spirit, though somewhat later than elsewhere, found also its way into this land of blood, and Hungary was soon possessed of considerable bodies of Lutherans and Calvinists, besides a smaller number of Anabaptists and Socinians. … Calvin's followers were mostly Magyars, while Lutheranism found its centre point in the German population of Transylvania." In 1566, Maximilian, encouraged by some subsidies obtained from his German subjects, began hostilities against the Turks and against Sigismund in Transylvania. This provoked another formidable invasion by the great sultan Soliman. The progress of the Turk was stopped, however, at the fortress of Szigeth, by a small garrison of 3,000 men, commanded by Nicholas Zriny. These devoted men resisted the whole army of the Moslems for nearly an entire month, and perished, everyone, without surrendering their trust. Soliman, furious at the loss of 20,000 men, and the long delay which their obstinate valor caused him, died of apoplexy while the siege went on. This brought the expedition to an end, and Maximilian "bought a new peace at the hands of Selim II., son of Soliman, for a tribute of 30,000 ducats (1567). Shortly after, Maximilian was also relieved of his rival, John Sigismund Zapolya, who died a sudden death."

HUNGARY: A. D. 1567-1604.
   Successive disturbances in Transylvania.
   Cession of the principality to the House of Austria, and
   consequent revolt.
   Religious persecutions of Rodolph.
   Successful rebellion of Botskai.
   Continued war with the Turks.

John Sigismond Zapolya refused at first to be included in the peace which Maximilian arranged with the Turks, and endeavored to stir up an insurrection in Hungary; but his scheme failed, and "he had no resource but to accept the terms of peace offered by Maximilian, which were advantageous to both parties. He engaged not to assume the title of king of Hungary, except in his correspondence with the Turks, and to acknowledge the emperor as king, his superior and master; in addition to Transylvania, as an hereditary principality, he was to retain for life the counties of Bihar and Marmarosch, with Crasna and Zolnok, and whatever territories he could recover from the Turks. In return, the emperor promised to confer on him one of his nieces in marriage, and to cede to him Oppelen in Silesia, if expelled from Transylvania. On the death of John Sigismond without issue male, Transylvania was to be considered as an elective principality, dependent on the crown of Hungary. The intended marriage did not take place, for John Sigismond dying on the 16th of March, 1571, soon after the peace, all his possessions in Hungary reverted to Maximilian. The diet of Transylvania chose Stephen Bathori, who had acted with great reputation as the general and minister of John Sigismond; and Maximilian, although he had recommended another person, prudently confirmed the choice. … The new waivode was accordingly confirmed, both by Maximilian and the Turks, took the oath of fidelity to the crown of Hungary, and continued to live on terms of friendship and concord with the emperor. … Maximilian being of a delicate constitution, and declining in health, employed the last years of his reign in taking precautions to secure his dignities and possessions for his descendants. Having first obtained the consent of the Hungarian states, his eldest son Rhodolph was, in 1572, crowned king of Hungary, in a diet at Presburgh." Subsequently, the election of Rhodolph by the Bohemian diet was likewise procured, and he was crowned king of Bohemia on the 22d of September, 1575. A few weeks later, the same son was chosen and crowned king of the Romans, which secured his succession to the imperial dignity. This latter crown fell to him the following year, when his father died. Educated in Spain and by the Jesuits, the new emperor was easily persuaded to reverse the tolerant policy of his father, and to adopt measures of repression and persecution against the Protestants, in the Austrian provinces, in Hungary and in Bohemia, which could not long be endured without resistance. "The first object of Rhodolph had been to secure his dominions in Hungary against the Turks. In order to diminish the enormous expense of defending the distant fortresses on the side of Croatia, he transferred that country, as a fief of the empire, to his uncle Charles, duke of Styria, who, from the contiguity of his dominions, was better able to provide for its security. Charles accordingly constructed the fortress of Carlstadt, on the Kulpa, which afterwards became the capital of Croatia, and a military station of the highest importance. He also divided the ceded territory into numerous tenures, which he conferred on freebooters and adventurers of every nation, and thus formed a singular species of military colony. This feudal establishment gradually extended along the frontiers of Sclavonia and Croatia, and not only contributed, at the time, to check the incursions of the Turks, but afterwards supplied that lawless and irregular, though formidable military force … who, under the names of Croats, Pandours, and other barbarous appellations, spread such terror among the enemies of Austria on the side of Europe. … Notwithstanding the armistice concluded with the Sultan by Maximilian, and its renewal by Rhodolph in 1584 and 1591, a predatory warfare had never ceased along the frontiers." The truce of 1591 was quickly broken in a more positive way by Sultan Amurath, whose forces invaded Croatia and laid siege to Siseek. They were attacked there and driven from their lines, with a loss of 12,000 men. "Irritated by this defeat, … Amurath published a formal declaration of war, and poured his numerous hordes into Hungary and Croatia. The two following years were passed in various sieges and engagements, attended with alternate success and defeat; but the advantage ultimately rested on the side of the Turks, by the capture of Siseck and Raab. In 1595, a more favourable though temporary turn was given to the Austrian affairs, by the defection of the prince of Transylvania from the Turks. On the elevation of Stephen Bathori to the throne of Poland, his brother Christopher succeeded him as waivode of Transylvania, and, dying in 1582, left an infant son, Sigismond, under the protection of the Porte. Sigismond, who possessed the high spirit and talents of his family, had scarcely assumed the reins of government before he liberated himself from the galling yoke of the Turks, and in 1595 concluded an offensive alliance with the house of Austria. … He was to retain Transylvania as an independent principality, the part of Hungary which he still held, and Moldavia and Wallachia. … The conquests of both parties were to be equally divided. … By this important alliance the house of Austria was delivered from an enemy who had always divided its efforts, and made a powerful diversion in favour of the Turks. Sigismond signalised himself by his heroic courage and military skill; uniting with the waivodes of Moldavia and Wallachia, he defeated the grand vizir, Sinan, took Turgovitch by storm, and drove the Turks back in disgrace towards Constantinople. Assisted by this diversion, the Austrians in Hungary were likewise successful, and not only checked the progress of the Turks, but distinguished their arms by the recovery of Gran and Vissegrad. This turn of success roused the sultan Mahomet, the son and successor of Amurath. … He put himself, in 1596, at the head of his forces, led them into Hungary, took Erlau, and defeating the Austrians under the archduke Maximilian, the lateness of the season alone prevented him from carrying his arms into Austria and Upper Hungary, which were exposed by the loss of Raab and Erlau. As Mahomet could not a second time tear himself from the seraglio, the war was carried on without vigour, and the season passed rather in truces than in action. But this year, though little distinguished by military events, was memorable for the cession of Transylvania to Rhodolph, by the brave yet fickle Sigismond, in exchange for the lordships of Ratibor and Oppelen in Silesia, with an annual pension." {1677} The capricious Sigismond, however, soon repenting of his bargain, reclaimed and recovered his Transylvanian dominion, but only to resign it again, in 1599, to his uncle, and again to repossess it. Not until 1602, after much fighting and disorder, was the fickle-minded and troublesome prince sent finally to retirement, in Bohemia. Transylvania was then placed under the government of the imperial general Basta. "His cruel and despotic administration driving the natives to despair, they found a chief in Moses Tzekeli, who, with other magnates, after ineffectually opposing the establishment of the Austrian government, had sought a refuge among the Turks. Tzekeli, at the head of his fellow exiles, assisted by bodies of Turks and Tartars, entered the country, was joined by numerous adherents, and, having obtained possession of the capital and the adjacent fortresses, was elected and inaugurated prince of Transylvania. His reign, however, was scarcely more permanent than that of his predecessor; for, before he could expel the Germans, he was, in 1603, defeated by the new waivode of Wallachia, and killed in the confusion of the battle. In consequence of this disaster, his followers dispersed, and Basta again recovered possession of the principality. During these revolutions in Transylvania, Hungary had been the scene of incessant warfare between the Austrians and the Turks, which exhausted both parties with little advantage to either. … Rhodolph had long lost the confidence of his Hungarian subjects. … He treated the complaints and remonstrances of his subjects with contempt and indifference; and the German troops being free from control, filled the country with devastation and pillage. While, however, he abandoned the civil and military affairs to chance, or to the will of his officers, he laboured to fetter his subjects with religious restrictions, and the most intolerant edicts were issued against the Protestants, in various parts of the kingdom. … The disaffected increasing in numbers, soon found a leader in Stephen Botskai, the principal magnate of Upper Hungary, uncle of Sigismond Bathori. … The discontents in Transylvania, arising from the same causes as the rebellion in Hungary, greatly contributed to the success of Botskai. … Being in 1604 assisted by a Turkish army, which the new sultan, Achmet, despatched into Transylvania, he soon expelled the Austrians, and was formally inaugurated sovereign. … But Botskai was too disinterested or too prudent to accept the regal dignity [as king of Hungary, which the grand vizier of the sultan proclaimed him]. … He acted, however, with the same vigour and activity as if he had a crown to acquire; before the close of the campaign he conquered all Upper Hungary, almost to the walls of Presburgh; at the same time the Turks reduced Gran, Vissegrad and Novigrad."

      ALSO IN:
      J. H. Merle D'Aubigne,
      History of the Protestant Church in Hungary,
      chapters 12-20.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1595-1606.
   The Turkish war.
   Great defeat at Cerestes.
   The Peace of Sitvatorok.

'The disasters which the Turkish arms were now experiencing in Wallachia and Hungary made the Sultan's best statesmen anxious that the sovereign should, after the manner of his great ancestors, head his troops in person, and endeavour to give an auspicious change to the fortune of the war. … The Imperialists, under the Archduke Maximilian and the Hungarian Count Pfalfy, aided by the revolted princes of the Danubian Principalities, dealt defeat and discouragement among the Ottoman ranks, and wrung numerous fortresses and districts from the empire. The cities of Gran, Wissgrad, and Babocsa, had fallen; and messengers in speedy succession announced the loss of Ibrail, Varna, Kilic, Ismail, Silistria, Rustchuk, Bucharest, and Akerman. These tidings at last roused the monarch in his harem. … Mahomet III. left his capital for the frontier in the June of 1596. … The display of the sacred standard of the Prophet, which now for the first time was unfurled over a Turkish army, excited … the zeal of the True Believers. … The Grand Vizier, Ibrahim Pacha, Hassan Sokolli Pacha, and Cicala Pacha, were the principal commanders under the Sultan. … The Archduke Maximilian, who commanded the Imperialists, retired at first before the superior numbers of the great Ottoman army; and the Sultan besieged and captured Erlau. The Imperialists now having effected a junction with the Transylvanian troops under Prince Sigismund, advanced again, though too late to save Erlau; and on October 23rd, 1596, the two armies were in presence of each other on the marshy plain of Cerestes, through which the waters of the Cincia ooze towards the river Theiss. There were three days of battle at Cerestes." Repeatedly, the effeminate Sultan wished to order a retreat, or to betake himself to flight; but was persuaded by his counsellors to remain on the field, though safely removed from the conflict. On the third day the battle was decided in favor of the Turks by a charge of their cavalry under Cicala. "Terror and flight spread through every division of the Imperialists; and in less than half an hour from the time when Cicala began his charge, Maximilian and Sigismund were flying for their lives, without a single Christian regiment keeping their ranks, or making an endeavour to rally and cover the retreat. 50,000 Germans and Transylvanians perished in the marshes or beneath the Ottoman sabre. … Mahomet III. eagerly returned after the battle to Constantinople, to receive felicitations and adulation for his victory, and to resume his usual life of voluptuous indolence. The war in Hungary was prolonged for several years, until the peace of Sitvatorok [November 11, 1606] in the reign of Mahomet's successor. … No change of importance was made in the territorial possessions of either party, except that the Prince of Transylvania was admitted as party to the treaty, and that province became to some extent, though not entirely, independent of the Ottoman Empire."

HUNGARY: A. D. 1606-1660.
   The Pacification of Vienna.
   Gabriel Bethlem of Transylvania and the Bohemian revolt.
   Participation and experience in the Thirty Years War.

   In 1606, the Archduke Mathias—who had lately been appointed
   to the Governorship of Hungary, and who had been acknowledged,
   by a secret compact among the members of the Hapsburg family as
   the head of their House—arranged the terms of a peace with
   Botskai. This treaty, called the "Pacification of Vienna,"
   restored the religious toleration that had been practised by
   Ferdinand and Maximilian; provided that Mathias should be
   lieutenant-general of the kingdom; gave to Botskai the title
   of Prince of Transylvania and part of Hungary; and stipulated
   that on the failure of his male issue these territories should
   revert to the House of Austria.
{1678}
   "This treaty, at last, restored peace to Hungary, but at the
   expense of her unity and independence. Some idea may be formed
   of the state of weakness and lassitude to which these long
   wars had reduced the country … by a statement of the
   divisions into which it had been split up by the various
   factions. Hungary, with Croatia, Sclavonia, and the frontiers,
   was then reckoned to cover an area of 4,427 square miles, and
   Transylvania one of 736. Of these 5,163 miles, Turkey
   possessed 1,859; Botskai in Hungary 1,346, in Transylvania
   736=2,082; [sic] and Austria only 1,222. Botskai died in 1606,
   and was succeeded by Sigismond Rakoczi, who, however, soon
   abdicated in favour of Gabriel Bathori." At this time the
   plans of the Austrian family for taking the reins of power out
   of the feeble and careless hands of the Emperor Rodolph, and
   giving them to his more energetic brother, the Archduke
   Mathias, came to a head.

Mathias "marched into Bohemia: and Rodolph, after a feeble resistance, found himself abandoned by all his supporters, and compelled to resign into the hands of Mathias Hungary, Austria and Moravia, and to guarantee to him the succession to the crown of Bohemia; Mathias in the meantime bearing the title of king elect of that kingdom, with the consent of the states. Rodolph at the same time delivered up the Hungarian regalia, which for some time past had been kept at Prague." Before his coronation, Mathias was required by the Hungarian diet to sign a compact, guaranteeing religious liberty; stipulating that the Hungarian Chamber of Finances should be independent of that of Austria, that all offices and employments should be filled by natives, and that the Jesuits should possess no real property in the country. The peace of the country was soon disturbed by another revolution in Transylvania. "Gabriel Bathori, who had succeeded Sigismond Bathori on the throne of the principality, had suffered his licentiousness to tempt him into insulting the wives of some of the nobles, who instantly fell upon him and murdered him; and in his place Gabriel Bethlem, a brave warrior and an able statesman, was unanimously elected, with the consent and approbation of the sultan. Under his government his dominions enjoyed a full measure of peace and tranquillity, and began to recover from the horrible devastations of preceding years. He did not, however, assume his dignity without dispute. Transylvania had been secured to the house of Austria on the death of Botskai, by the Pacification of Vienna, and Mathias was, of course, now anxious to enforce his rights, and he considered the present opportunity (1617) favourable, as the Turks were engaged in wars on the side of Asia and Poland. He therefore summoned a diet of the empire, to the throne of which he had succeeded in 1612 by the death of Rodolph. … But the diet refused all aid," and he was forced to conclude a peace with the sultan for the further period of twenty years. "No mention being made in it of Transylvania, the rights of Gabriel Bethlem were thus tacitly recognised. Mathias died soon after, in 1619, leaving his crown to his cousin, Ferdinand II." Then followed the renewed attempt of an imperial bigot to crush Protestantism in his dominions, and the Bohemian revolt (see BOHEMIA: A. D. 1611-1618) which kindled the flames of the "Thirty Years' War." Hungary and Transylvania were in sympathy with Bohemia. "Gabriel Bethlem entered Hungary, in answer to the call of the Protestants of that country, at the head of a large army—took Cassau, Tiernan, Newhasel, dispersed the imperial forces under Homonai, sent 18,000 men to enforce Count Thurn, got possession of Presburg by treachery, and seized upon the regalia." The cause of the Bohemians was lost at the battle of the White Mountain, before Prague; but "Gabriel Bethlem for a long time supported the prestige acquired by his earlier successes. He was proclaimed king of Hungary, and obtained considerable advantages over two generals of ability and reputation." But a treaty of peace was concluded at length, according to which Gabriel surrendered the crown and royal title, receiving the duchies of Oppelen and Ratibor in Silesia, and seven counties of Hungary, together with Cassau, Tokay, and other towns. Ferdinand promised complete toleration to the Protestants, but was not faithful to his promise, and war was soon resumed. Bethlem "collected an army of 45,000 men, joined his forces with those of Mansfeldt, the general of the confederacy [the Protestant Union], after his victory over the imperialists at Presburg; and at the same time the Bashaw of Buda entered Lower Hungary at the head of a large force, captured various fortresses in the district of Gran, and laid siege to Novigrad. They were opposed by two able generals, the famous Wallenstein and Swartzemberg, but without checking their progress. Wallenstein, however, followed Mansfeldt into Hungary, where the two armies remained for some time inactive in the presence of one another; but famine, disease, and the approach of winter at last brought the contest to, a close. The king of Denmark had been defeated, and Gabriel Bethlem began to fear that the whole force of the Austrians would now be directed against him, and concluded a truce. The bashaw of Buda feared the winter, and followed his example; and Mansfeldt, finding himself thus abandoned, disbanded his soldiers.

   … The treaty of peace was again renewed, the truce with the
   Turks prolonged." Gabriel Bethlem, or Bethlem Gabor, died in
   1629. "The Transylvanians elected George Rakotski to fill his
   place, and during nearly four years Hungary and Transylvania
   enjoyed the blessings of peace." Then they were again
   disturbed by attempts of Ferdinand to reduce Transylvania to
   the state of an Austrian province, and by hostile measures
   against the Protestants. The latter continued after the death
   of Ferdinand II. (1637), and under his son Ferdinand III.
   Rakotski inspired an insurrection of the Hungarians which
   became formidable, and which, joining in alliance with the
   Swedes, then warring in Germany, extorted from the emperor a
   very favorable treaty of peace (1647). "At the same time
   Ferdinand caused his son of the same name, and elder brother
   of Leopold, to be elected and crowned king. During his short
   reign, the country was tranquil; but in 1654 he died, leaving
   his rights to Leopold. The reign of Leopold [1655-1697] was a
   period which witnessed events more important to Hungary than
   any which preceded it, or have followed it, save only the
   revolutionary years, 1848 and 1849.
{1679}
   No monarch of the house of Austria had ever made so determined
   attacks upon Hungarian liberty, and to none did the Hungarians
   oppose a braver and more strenuous resistance. Nothing was
   left untried on the one side to overthrow the constitution;
   nothing was left untried on the other to uphold and defend
   it."

HUNGARY: A. D. 1660-1664.
   Turkish attacks on Upper Hungary.
   The battle of St. Gothard.
   Liberation of Transylvania.
   A twenty years truce.

"Hostilities had recommenced, in 1660, between the Ottoman empire and Austria, on account of Transylvania. The Turk was suzerain of Transylvania, and directly held Buda and the part of Hungary on the west and south of the Danube, projecting like a wedge between Upper Hungary, Styria, and Vienna. George Rakoczi, Prince of Transylvania, having perished in combat against the Sultan, his suzerain, the Turks had pursued the House of Rakoczi into the domains which it possessed in Upper Hungary. The Rakoczis, and the new prince elected by the Transvlvanians, Kemeni, invoked the aid of the emperor. The Italian, Montecuculi, the greatest military chieftain in the service of the House of Austria, expelled the Turks from a part of Transylvania, but could not maintain himself there; Kemeni was killed in a skirmish. The Turks installed their protégé, Michael Abaffi, in his place, and renewed their attacks against Upper Hungary (1661-1662). The secret of these alternations lay in the state of feeling of the Hungarians and Transylvanians, who, continually divided between two oppressors, the Turk and the Austrian, and too weak to rid themselves of either, always preferred the absent to the present master. … Religious distrust also complicated political distrust; Protestantism, crushed in Bohemia, remained powerful and irritated in Hungary. The emperor demanded the assistance of the Germanic Diet and all the Christian states against the enemy of Christianity. … Louis XIV., at the first request of Leopold, supported by the Pope, replied by offers so magnificent that they appalled the Emperor. Louis proposed not less than 60,000 auxiliaries, half to be furnished by France, half by the Alliance of the Rhine; that is, by the confederates of France in Germany. … The Emperor … would have gladly been able to dispense with the aid of France and his confederates; but the more pressing danger prevailed over the more remote. The Turks had made a great effort during the summer of 1663. The second of the Kiouprouglis, the Vizier Achmet, taking Austrian Hungary in the rear, had crossed the Danube at Buda with 100,000 fighting men, invaded the country between the Danube and the Carpathians, and hurled his Tartars to the doors of Presburg and Olmütz. Montecuculi had with great difficulty been able to maintain himself on the island of Schütt, a species of vast intrenched camp formed by nature in front of Presburg and Vienna. The fortified towns of Upper Hungary fell one after another, and the Germanic Diet, which Leopold had gone to Ratisbon to meet, replied with maddening dilatoriness to the urgent entreaties of the head of the Empire. The Diet voted no effective aid until February, 1664; but the Alliance of the Rhine, in particular, had already accorded 6,500 soldiers, on condition that the Diet should decide, before separating, certain questions relative to the interpretation of the Treaty of Westphalia. The Pope, Spain, and the Italian States furnished subsidies. Louis persisted in offering nothing but soldiers, and Leopold resigned himself to accept 6,000 Frenchmen. He had no reason to repent it. … When the junction was effected [July, 1664], the position of the Imperialists was one of great peril. They had resumed the offensive on the south of the Danube in the beginning of the year; but this diversion, contrary to the advice of Montecuculi, had succeeded ill. The Grand Vizier had repulsed them, and, after carrying back his principal forces to the right bank of the Danube, threatened to force the passage of the Raab and invade Styria and Austria. The Confederate army was in a condition to stand the shock just at the decisive moment. An attempt of the Turks to cross the Raab at the bridge of Kerment was repulsed by Coligni [commanding the French], July 26, 1664. The Grand Vizier reascended the Raab to St. Gothard, where were the headquarters of the Confederates, and, on August 1, the attack was made by all the Mussulman forces. The janizaries and spahis crossed the river and overthrew the troops of the Diet and a part of the Imperial regiments; the Germans rallied, but the Turks were continually reinforced, and the whole Mussulman army was soon found united on the other side of the Raab. The battle seemed lost, when the French moved. It is said that Achmet Kiouprougli, on seeing the young noblemen pour forth, with their uniforms decked with ribbons, and their blond perukes, asked, 'Who are these maidens?' The 'maidens' broke the terrible janizaries at the first shock; the mass of the Turkish army paused and recoiled on itself; the Confederate army, reanimated by the example of the French, rushed forward and charged on the whole line; the Turks fell back, at first slowly, their faces towards the enemy, then lost footing and fled precipitately to the river to recross it under the fire of the Christians; they filled it with their corpses. The fatigue of the troops, the night that supervened, the waters of the Raab, swelled the next day by a storm, and above all the lack of harmony among the generals, prevented the immediate pursuit of the Turks, who had rallied on the opposite bank of the river and had preserved the best part of their cavalry. It was expected, nevertheless, to see them expelled from all Hungary, when it was learned with astonishment that Leopold had hastened to treat, without the approbation of the Hungarian Diet, on conditions such that he seemed the conquered rather than the conqueror. A twenty years' truce was signed, August 10, in the camp of the Grand Vizier. Transylvania became again independent under its elective princes, but the protégé of the Turks, Abaffi, kept his principality; the Turks retained the two chief towns which they had conquered in Upper Hungary, and the Emperor made the Sultan a 'present,' that is, he paid him 200,000 florins tribute."

HUNGARY: A. D. 1668-1683.
   Increased religious persecution and Austrian oppression.
   Tekeli's revolt.
   The Turks again called in.
   Kara Mustapha's great invasion and siege of Vienna.
   Deliverance of the city by John Sobieski.

In Hungary, "the discontent caused by the oppressive Government and the fanatical persecution of Protestantism by the Austrian Cabinet had gone on increasing. At length, the Austrian domination had rendered itself thoroughly odious to the Hungarians. To hinder the progress of Protestantism, the Emperor Leopold, in the excess of his Catholic zeal, sent to the galleys a great number of preachers and ministers; and to all the evils of religious persecution were added the violence and devastations of the generals and the German administrators, who treated Hungary as a conquered province. The Hungarians in vain invoked the charters which consecrated their national liberties. To their most legitimate complaints Leopold replied by the infliction of punishments; he spared not even the families of the most illustrious; several magnates perished by the hands of the executioner. Such oppression was certain to bring about a revolt. In 1668 a conspiracy had been formed against Leopold by certain Hungarian leaders, which, however, was discovered and frustrated; and it was not till 1677, when the young Count Emmerich Tekeli, having escaped from prison, placed himself at the head of the malcontents, that these disturbances assumed any formidable importance. … Tekeli, who possessed much military talent, and was an uncompromising enemy of the House of Austria, having entered Upper Hungary with 12,000 men, defeated the Imperial forces, captured several towns, occupied the whole district of the Carpathian Mountains, and compelled the Austrian generals, Counts Wurmb and Leslie, to accept the truce he offered." In 1681 the Emperor made some concessions, which weakened the party of independence, while, at the same time, the Peace of Nimeguen, with France, allowed the House of Austria to employ all its forces against the rebels. "In this conjuncture Tekeli turned for aid towards the Turks, making an appeal to Mahomet IV.; and after the conclusion of the Turkish and Russian war in 1681, Kara Mustapha [the Grand Vizier] determined to assist the insurgents openly, their leader offering, in exchange, to acknowledge the suzerainty of the Porte. Tekeli sought also succour from France. Louis XIV. gave him subsidies, solicited the Sultan to send an army into Hungary, and caused an alliance between the Hungarians, Transylvanians, and Wallachians to be concluded against Austria (1682). The truce concluded in 1665 between Austria and Turkey had not yet expired," but the Sultan was persuaded to break it. "The Governor of Buda received orders to support Tekeli, who took the title of King. … Early in the spring of 1683 Sultan Mahomet marched forth from his capital with a large army, which at Belgrade he transferred to the command of Kara Mustapha. Tekeli formed a junction with the Turks at Essek."

"The strength of the regular forces, which Kara Mustapha led to Vienna, is known from the muster-roll which was found in his tent after the siege. It amounted to 275,000 men. The attendants and camp-followers cannot be reckoned; nor can any but an approximate speculation be made as to the number of the Tartar and other irregular troops that joined the Vizier. It is probable that not less than half a million of men were set in motion in this last great aggressive effort of the Ottomans against Christendom. The Emperor Leopold had neither men nor money sufficient to enable him to confront such a deluge of invasion; and, after many abject entreaties, he obtained a promise of help from King Sobieski of Poland, whom he had previously treated with contumely and neglect. … The Turkish army proceeded along the western side of the Danube from Belgrade, and reached Vienna without experiencing any serious check, though a gallant resistance was made by some of the strong places which it besieged during its advance. The city of Vienna was garrisoned by 11,000 men under Count Stahremberg, who proved himself a worthy successor of the Count Salm, who had fulfilled the same duty when the city was besieged by Sultan Solyman. The second siege of Vienna lasted from the 15th July to the 12th September, 1683, during which the most devoted heroism was displayed by both the garrison and the inhabitants. … The garrison was gradually wasted by the numerous assaults which it was called on to repulse, and in the frequent sorties, by which the Austrian commander sought to impede the progress of the besiegers. Kara Mustapha, at the end of August, had it in his power to carry the city by storm, if he had thought fit to employ his vast forces in a general assault, and to continue it from day to day, as Amurath IV. had done when Bagdad fell. But the Vizier kept the Turkish troops back out of avarice, in the hope that the city would come into his power by capitulation; in which case he would himself be enriched by the wealth of Vienna, which, if the city were taken by storm, would become the booty of the soldiery. … Sobieski had been unable to assemble his troops before the end of August; and, even then, they only amounted to 20,000 men. But he was joined by the Duke of Lorraine and some of the German commanders, who were at the head of a considerable army, and the Polish King crossed the Danube at Tulm, above Vienna, with about 70,000 men. He then wheeled round behind the Kalemberg Mountains to the north-west of Vienna, with the design of taking the besiegers in the rear. The Vizier took no heed of him; nor was any opposition made to the progress of the relieving army through the difficult country which it was obliged to traverse. On the 11th of September the Poles were on the summit of the Mount Kalemberg," overlooking the vast encampment of the besiegers. Sobieski "saw instantly the Vizier's want of military skill, and the exposure of the long lines of the Ottoman camp to a sudden and fatal attack. 'This man,' said he, 'is badly encamped: he knows nothing of war; we shall certainly beat him.' … The ground through which Sobieski had to move down from the Kalemberg was broken by ravines; and was so difficult for the passage of the troops that Kara Mustapha might, by an able disposition of part of his forces, have long kept the Poles in check, especially as Sobieski, in his hasty march, had brought but a small part of his artillery to the scene of action. But the Vizier displayed the same infatuation and imbecility that had marked his conduct throughout the campaign. … Unwilling to resign Vienna, Mustapha left the chief part of his Janissary force in the trenches before the city, and led the rest of his army towards the hills, down which Sobieski and his troops were advancing. {1691} In some parts of the field, where the Turks had partially intrenched the roads, their resistance to the Christians was obstinate; but Sobieski led on his best troops in person in a direct line for the Ottoman centre, where the Vizier's tent was conspicuous; and the terrible presence of the victor of Khoczim was soon recognised. 'By Allah! the King is really among us,' exclaimed the Khan of the Crimea, Selim Ghirai; and turned his horse's head for flight. The mass of the Ottoman army broke and fled in hopeless rout, hurrying Kara Mustapha with them from the field. The Janissaries, who had been left in the trenches before the city, were now attacked both by the garrison and the Poles and were cut to pieces. The camp, the whole artillery, and the military stores of the Ottomans became the spoil of the conquerors; and never was there a victory more complete, or signalised by more splendid trophies. The Turks continued their panic flight as far as Raab. … The great destruction of the Turks before Vienna was rapturously hailed throughout Christendom as the announcement of the approaching downfall of the Mahometan Empire in Europe."

"It was cold comfort to the inhabitants of Vienna, or to the King of Poland, to know that even if St. Stephen's had shared the fate of St. Sophia and become a mosque of Allah, and if the Polish standards had been borne in triumph to the Bosphorus, yet that, nevertheless, the undisciplined Ottomans would infallibly have been scattered by French, German and Swedish armies on the fields of Bavaria or of Saxony. Vienna would have been sacked; Poland would have been a prey to internal anarchy and to Tartar invasion. The ultimate triumph of their cause would have consoled few for their individual destruction. … So cool and experienced a diplomatist as Sir William Temple did indeed believe, at the time, that the fall of Vienna would have been followed by a great and permanent increase of Turkish power. Putting this aside, however, there were other results likely to spring from Turkish success. The Turks constantly made a powerful diversion in favour of France and her ambitious designs. Turkish victories upon the one side of Germany meant successful French aggressions upon the other, and Turkish schemes were promoted with that object by the French. … 'If France would but stand neutral, the controversy between Turks and Christians might soon be decided,' says the Duke of Lorraine. But France would not stand neutral."

      ALSO IN:
      G. B. Malleson,
      The Battle-Fields of Germany,
      chapter 9.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1683-1687.
   End of the insurrection of Tekeli.
   Bloody vengeance of the Austrian.
   The crown made hereditary in the House of Hapsburg.

The defeat of the Turks was likewise a defeat for the insurgent Tekeli, or Tököli, "whom they called the king of the Kurucz, and after it he found himself reduced to guerilla warfare. The victory over the Turks was followed by the capture of some of the chief Magyar towns … and in the end [1686] Buda itself, which was at last recovered after so long an occupation. … Kara Mustapha attributed his defeat to Tököli, and had his former ally arrested and imprisoned in Belgrade. His captivity put an end to the party of the king of the Kurucz. … An amnesty was proclaimed and immediately afterwards violated, the Italian general, Caraffa, becoming the merciless executioner of imperial vengeance. He established a court at Éperjes, and the horrors of this tribunal recall the most atrocious deeds of the Spaniards in the Low Countries. … After having terrorized Hungary, Leopold thought he had the right to expect every sort of concession. Notwithstanding persecution, up to this date the monarchy had remained elective. He was determined it should now become hereditary; and the diet of 1687, in conformity with the wishes of the sovereign, made the crown hereditary in the male line of the house of Habsburg."

HUNGARY: A. D. 1683-1699.
   Expulsion of the Turks.
   Battle of Zenta.
   Peace of Carlowitz.

   After the great defeat of the Turks before Vienna, their
   expulsion from Hungary was only a question of time. It began
   the same autumn, in October, by the taking of Gran. In 1684,
   the Imperialists under the Duke of Lorraine captured Visegrad
   and Waitzen, but failed in a siege of Ofen, although they
   defeated a Turkish army sent to its relief in July. In 1685
   they took Neuhäusel by storm, and drove the Turks from Gran,
   which these latter had undertaken to recover. Next year they
   laid siege again to Ofen, investing the city on the 21st of
   June and carrying it by a final assault on the 2d of
   September. "Ofen, after having been held by the Porte, and
   regarded as the third city in the Ottoman Empire, for 145
   years, was restored to the sway of the Habsburgs." Before the
   year closed the Austrians had acquired Szegedin, and several
   lesser towns. The great event of the campaign of 1687 was a
   battle on the field of Mohacs, where, in 1526, the Turks
   became actual masters of Hungary, for the most part, while the
   House of Austria acquired nominally the right to its crown. On
   this occasion the fortune of 1526 was reversed. "The defeat
   became a rout as decisive against the Turks as the earlier
   battle on the same spot had proved to the Jagellons."
   Transylvania and Slavonia were occupied as the consequence,
   and Erlau surrendered before the close of the year. In 1688,
   what seemed the crowning achievement of these campaigns was
   reached in the recovery of Belgrade, after a siege of less
   than a month. A Turkish army in Bosnia was destroyed; another
   was defeated near Nissa, and that city occupied; and at the
   end of 1689 the Turks held nothing north of the Danube except
   Temeswar and Grosswardein (Great Waradein); while the
   Austrians had made extensive advances, on the south of the
   river, into Bosnia and Servia. Then occurred a great rally of
   Ottoman energies, under an able Grand Vizier. In 1690, both
   Nissa and Belgrade were retaken, and the Austrians were
   expelled from Servia. But next year fortune favored the
   Austrians once more and the Turks were severely beaten, by
   Louis of Baden, on the field of Salankament. They still held
   Belgrade, however, and the Austrians suffered heavily in
   another attempt to regain that stronghold. For several years
   little progress in the war was made on either side; until
   Prince Eugene of Savoy received the command, in 1697, and
   wrought a speedy change in the military situation.
{1682}
   The Sultan, Mustapha II., had taken the Turkish command in
   person, "with the finest army the Osmanli had raised since
   their defeat at Mohacs." Prince Eugene attacked him, September
   11, at Zenta, on the Theiss, and destroyed his army almost
   literally. "When the battle ceased about 20,000 Osmanli lay on
   the ground; some 10,000 had been drowned; scarcely 1,000 had
   reached the opposite bank. There were but few prisoners.
   Amongst the slain were the Grand Vizier and four other
   Viziers. … By 10 o'clock at night not a single living
   Osmanli remained on the right bank of the Theiss. … The
   booty found in the camp surpassed all … expectations.
   Everything had been left by the terror-stricken Sultan. There
   was the treasury-chest, containing 3,000,000 piastres. … The
   cost of these spoils had been to the victors only 300 killed
   and 200 wounded. … The battle of Zenta, … regarded as part
   of the warfare which had raged for 200 years between the
   Osmanli and the Imperialists, … was the last, the most
   telling, the decisive blow." It was followed by a period of
   inaction, during which England and Holland undertook to
   mediate between the Porte and its several Christian enemies.
   Their mediation resulted in the meeting of a Congress at
   Carlowitz, or Karlowitz, on the Danube, which was attended by
   representatives of the Sultan, the Emperor, the Czar of
   Russia, the King of Poland, and the republic of Venice. "Here,
   after much negotiation, lasting seventy-two days, was
   concluded, the 26th January, 1699, the famous Peace of
   Carlowitz. The condition that each party should possess the
   territories occupied by each at the moment of the meeting of
   the congress formed its basis. By the treaty, then, the
   frontier of Hungary, which, when the war broke out, extended
   only to within a short distance of the then Turkish towns of
   Gran and Neuhäusel, was pushed forward to within a short
   distance of Temeswar and Belgrade. Transylvania and the
   country of Bacska, between the Danube and the Theiss, were
   yielded to the Emperor. To Poland were restored Kaminietz,
   Podolia, and the supremacy over the lands watered by the
   Ukraine, the Porte receiving from her in exchange, Soczava,
   Nemos, and Soroka; to Venice, who renounced the conquests she
   had made in the gulfs of Corinth and Ægina, part of the Morea,
   and almost all Dalmatia, including the towns of Castelnuovo
   and Cattaro; to Russia, the fortress and sea of Azof." By the
   Peace of Carlowitz "the Ottoman Power lost nearly one-half of
   its European dominions, and ceased to be dangerous to
   Christendom. Never more would the discontented magnates of
   Hungary be able to find a solid supporter in the sultan."

See, also, on the "Holy War," or "War of the "Holy League" against the Turks, of which the war in Hungary formed only a part, the TURKS: A. D. 1684—1696.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1699-1718.
   The revolt of Rakoczy and its suppression.
   The Treaty of Szathmar.
   Recovery of Belgrade and final expulsion of the Turks.
   Peace of Passarowitz.

   "The peace of Carlowitz, which disposed of the Hungarian
   territory without the will or knowledge of the Hungarian
   States, in utter contempt of repeatedly confirmed laws, was in
   itself a deep source of new discontent,—which was
   considerably increased by the general policy continually
   pursued by the Court of Vienna. Even after the coronation of
   Joseph I., a prince who; if left to himself, might have
   perhaps followed a less provoking line of conduct, Leopold,
   the real master of Hungary, did not relinquish his design of
   entirely demolishing its institutions. … The high clergy
   were ready to second any measure of the government, provided
   they were allowed full scope in their persecutions of the
   Protestants. … Scarcely had three years passed since the
   peace of Carlowitz was signed, when Leopold, just embarking in
   the war of the Spanish succession, saw the Hungarians suddenly
   rise up as one man in arms. … The head and soul of this new
   struggle in Hungary was Francis Rakoczy II., the son of Helen
   Zriny, by her first husband, after the death of whom she
   became the wife of Tököli." Rakoczy entered the country from
   Poland, with a few hundred men, in 1703, and issued a
   proclamation which brought large numbers to his support. The
   Austrian forces had been mostly drawn away, by the war of the
   Spanish succession, into Italy and to the Rhine, and during
   the first year of the insurrection the Hungarian patriot
   became master of the greater part of the country. Then there
   occurred a suspension of hostilities, while the English
   government made a fruitless effort at mediation. On the
   reopening of warfare, the Austrians were better prepared and
   more encouraged by the circumstances of the larger contest in
   which they were engaged; while the Hungarians were
   correspondingly discouraged. They had promises of help from
   France, and France failed them; they had expectations from
   Russia, but nothing came of them. "The fortune of war
   decidedly turned in favour of the imperialists, in consequence
   of which numerous families, to escape their fury, left their
   abodes to seek shelter in the national camp; a circumstance
   which, besides clogging the military movements, contributed to
   discourage the army and spread general consternation." In 1710
   Rakoczy went to Poland, where he was long absent, soliciting
   help which he did not get. "Before his departure, the chief
   command of the troops was entrusted to Karoly, who, tired of
   Rakoczy's prolonged and useless absence in Poland, assembled
   the nobles at Szathmar, and concluded, in 1711, a peace known
   as the Treaty of Szathmar. By this treaty the emperor engaged
   to redress all grievances, civil and religious, promising,
   besides, amnesty to all the adherents of Rakoczy, as well as
   the restitution of many properties illegally confiscated.
   Rakoczy protested from Poland against the peace concluded by
   Karoly; but of what effect could be the censure and
   remonstrance of a leader who, in the most critical emergency,
   had left the scene of action in quest of foreign assistance,
   which, he might have foreseen, would never be accorded. …
   After the peace of Szathmar, Hungarian history assumes a quite
   different character." Revolts are at an end for more than a
   century, and "Hungary, without producing a single man of note,
   lay in a state of deep lethargy." In 1714, the Emperor Charles
   VI. (who, as King of Hungary, was Charles III.) began a new
   war against the Porte, with Prince Eugene again commanding in
   Hungary. "The sultan Achmet III., anticipating the design of
   the imperial general [to concentrate his troops on the
   Danube], marched his army across the Save, and, as will be
   seen, to his own destruction.
{1683}
   After a small success gained by Palfy, Eugene routed the Turks
   at Petervardein [August 13, 1716], and captured besides nearly
   all their artillery. Profiting by the general consternation of
   the Turks, Eugene sent Palfy and the Prince of Wurtemberg to
   lay siege to the fortress of Temesvar, which commands the
   whole Banat, and which was surrendered by the Turks after a
   heavy siege. By these repeated disasters the Mussulmans lost
   all confidence in the success of their arms; and in the year
   1717 they opened the gates of Belgrade to the imperial army.
   The present campaign paved the way for the peace of
   Passarowitz, a little town in Servia,—a peace concluded
   between the Porte and the Emperor in 1718. In virtue of the
   provisions of this treaty, the Porte abandoned the Banat, the
   fortress of Belgrade, and a part of Bosnia, on the hither side
   of the Unna, promising besides the free navigation of the
   Danube to the people of the Austrian empire."

HUNGARY: A. D. 1740.
The question of the Austrian Succession.
The Pragmatic Sanction.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1740-1741.
   Beginning of the War of the Austrian Succession:
   Faithlessness of Frederick the Great.
   His seizure of Silesia.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1741.
The War of the Austrian Succession:
Maria Theresa's appeal and the Magyar response.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1780-1790.
Irritations of the reign of Joseph II.
Illiberality of the Hungarian nobles.

"The reign of Joseph II. is described by the historians of Hungary and Bohemia as a disastrous time for the two countries. Directly he ascended the throne he began to carry out a series of measures which deeply irritated the Magyars. With his philosophical ideas, the crown of Hungary was to him nothing more than a Gothic bauble, and the privileges of the nation only the miserable remains of an age of barbarism; the political opinions of the Hungarians were as distasteful to him as their customs, and he amused himself with ridiculing the long beards and the soft boots of the great nobles. He never would be crowned. He annoyed the bishops by his laws against convents, while his tyrannical tolerance never succeeded in contenting the Protestants. … On the 7th of April, 1784, he ordered that the holy crown should be brought to him in Vienna and placed in the imperial treasury. To confiscate this symbol of Hungarian independence was, in the eyes of the Magyars, an attempt at the suppression of the nation itself, and the affront was deeply resented. Up to this time the official language of the kingdom had been Latin, a neutral tongue among the many languages in use in the various parts of Hungary. Joseph believed he was proving his liberal principles in substituting German, and that language took the place of Latin. … Joseph II. soon learned that it is not wise to attack the dearest prejudices of a nation. The edict which introduced a foreign language was the signal for the new birth of Magyar. … At the time of the death of Joseph II. Hungary was in a state of violent disturbance. The 'comitat' of Pesth proclaimed that the rule of the Hapsburgs was at an end, and others threatened to do the same unless the national liberties were restored by the new sovereign. All united in demanding the convocation of the diet in order that the long-suppressed wishes of the people might be heard. The revolutionary wind which had passed over France had been felt even by the Magyars, but there was this great difference in its effect upon France and Hungary—in France, ideas of equality had guided the revolution; in Hungary, the great nobles and the squirearchy who formed the only political element claimed, under the name of liberties, privileges which were for the most part absolutely opposed to the ideas of the Revolution of 1789. … Among the late reforms only one had found favour in the eyes of the Magyars, and that was toleration towards Protestants, and the reason of this was to be found in the fact that the small landowners of Hungary were themselves to a large extent Protestant; yet a democratic party was gradually coming into existence which appealed to the masses. … When France declared war against Francis II. the Magyar nobles showed themselves quite ready to support their sovereign; they asked for nothing better than to fight the revolutionary democrats of Paris. Francis was crowned very soon after his accession, and was able to obtain both men and money from the diet; but before long, the reactionary measures carried by Thugut his minister, lost him all the popularity which had greeted him at the beginning of his reign. The censorship of the press, the employment of spies, and the persecution of the Protestants—a persecution, however, in which the Hungarian Catholics themselves took an active part—all helped to create discontent."

HUNGARY: A. D. 1815-1844.
The wakening of the national spirit.
Patriotic labors of Szechenyi and Kossuth.

"The battle of Waterloo, in 1815, put an end to the terrible struggle by which every country in Europe had for twenty years been agitated. The sovereigns of the continent now breathed freely … and their first act was to enter into a league against their deliverers, to revoke all their concessions, and break all their promises. … The most audacious of all those who joined in framing the Holy Alliance was the emperor of Austria. The Hungarians reminded him, in 1815, of his repeated promises to redress their grievances, while they were voting him men and money to defend his capital against the assaults of Napoleon. He could not deny the promises, but he emphatically declined to fulfil them. They asked him to convoke the diet, but he … determined to dispense with it for the future. … At last the popular ferment reached such a pitch, that the government found it absolutely necessary to yield the point in dispute. In 1825, Francis I. convoked the diet, and from that moment the old struggle, which the wars with France had suspended, was renewed. … The session was … rendered for ever memorable by an incident, in itself of trifling importance, but of vast significance when viewed in connexion with subsequent events. {1684} It was in it that Count Stephen Szechenyi made his first speech in the Magyar language. The life of this extraordinary man is more remarkable as an instance of what may be achieved by well-directed energy, labouring in obedience to the dictates of patriotism, than for any brilliant triumphs of eloquence or diplomacy. … He was no great orator; so that his influence over the Magyars—an influence such as no private individual has ever acquired over a people, except, perhaps, Kossuth and O'Connell—must be looked upon rather as the triumph of practical good sense and good intentions than of rhetorical appeals to prejudices or passion. … The first object to which his attention was directed was the restoration of the Magyar language, which, under the Germanizing efforts of Austria, had fallen into almost total disuse amongst the higher classes. He knew how intimately the use of the national language is connected with the feeling of nationality. … But the Magyar was now totally neglected by the Magyar gentlemen. Latin was the language of the diet, and of all legal and official documents, and German and French were alone used in good society. Szechenyi, as the first step in his scheme of reformation, set about rescuing it from the degradation and disuse into which it had fallen; and as the best of all ways to induce others to do a thing is to do it oneself first, he rose in the diet of 1825, and, contrary to previous usage, made a speech in Magyar. His colleagues were surprised; the magnates were shocked; the nation was electrified. … The diet sat for two years, and during the whole of that period Szechenyi continued his use of the native language, in which he strenuously opposed the designs of the court, and was soon considered the leader of the opposition or liberal party, which speedily grew up around him. His efforts were so successful, that before the close of the session, Francis was compelled to acknowledge the illegality of his previous acts, formally to recognize the independence of the country, and promise to convoke the diet at least once in every three years. … He [Szechenyi] soon had the satisfaction of seeing the Hungarian language growing to general use, but he was still vexed to see the total want of unity, co-operation, and communion which prevailed amongst the nobles, owing to the want of a newspaper press, or of any place of re-union where political subjects could be discussed amongst men of the same party with freedom and confidence. This he remedied by the establishment of the casino, at Pesth, upon the plan of the London clubs. He next turned his attention to the establishment of steam navigation on the Danube. … He … rigged out a boat, sailed down the Danube right to the Black Sea, explored it thoroughly, found it navigable in every part, went over to England, studied the principles of the steam-engine as applied to navigation, brought back English engineers, formed a company, and at last confounded the multitude of sceptics, who scoffed at his efforts, by the sight of a steam-boat on the river in full work. This feat was accomplished in October, 1830. … In the interval which followed the dissolution of the diet, Szechenyi still followed up his plan of reform with unwearied diligence, and owing to his exertions, a party was now formed which sought not merely the strict observance of the existing laws, but the reform of them, the abolition of the unjust privileges of the nobles, the emancipation of the peasantry, the establishment of a system of education, the equal distribution of the taxes, the equality of all religious sects, the improvement of the commercial code and of internal communication, and though last, not least, the freedom of the press. These projects were all strenuously debated, but on this occasion without any practical result. The next meeting was for a long time delayed, upon one pretext or another. At last it was convened in 1832, and proved in many respects one of the most important that had ever assembled. … The man who in future struggles was destined to play so prominent a part, during the whole of these … proceedings, was merely an intent and diligent looker-on. … He was a gentleman of noble origin, of course, but his whole fortune lay in his talents, which at that period were devoted to journalism—a profession which the Hungarians had not yet learned to estimate at its full value. He was still but thirty years of age, and within the diet he was known as a promising young man, although, amongst the world without, his name—the name of Louis Kossuth, which has since become a household word in two hemispheres—had never yet been heard. … Whether from the jealousy of the government or the apathy of the Magyars, no printed reports of the parliamentary proceedings had ever yet been published. … To supply this defect, Kossuth resolved to devote the time, which would otherwise have been wasted in idle listening, to carefully reporting everything that took place, and circulated it all over the country on a small printed sheet. The importance of the proceedings which then occupied the attention of the diet caused it to be read with extraordinary eagerness, and Kossuth rendered it still more attractive by amplifying, and often even embellishing, the speeches. The cabinet, however, soon took the alarm, and although the censorship was unknown to the Hungarian law, prohibited the printing and publication of the reports. This was a heavy blow, but Kossuth was not baffled. He instantly gathered round him a great number of young men to act as secretaries, who wrote out a great number of copies of the journal, which were then circulated in manuscript throughout Hungary. The government was completely foiled, and new ardour was infused into the liberal party. When the session was at an end he resolved to follow up his plan by reporting the meetings of the county assemblies, which were then the scenes of fiery debates. … The government stopped his journal in the post-office. He then established a staff of messengers and carriers, who circulated it from village to village. The enthusiasm of the people was fast rising to a flame. A crisis was imminent. It was resolved to arrest Kossuth. … He was seized, and shut up in the Neuhaus, a prison built at Pesth by Joseph II. He was, however, not brought to trial till 1839, and was then sentenced to four years' imprisonment. The charge brought against him was, that he had circulated false and inaccurate reports; but the real ground of offence was, as everyone knew, that he had circulated any reports at all. … Kossuth, after his liberation from prison, had taken up his abode for a short period at a watering place called Parad, for the purpose of recruiting his shattered health, and for a time wholly abstained from taking any part in public affairs. {1685} On the first of January, 1841, however, a printer in Pesth, named Landerer, obtained permission to publish a journal entitled 'Pesthi Hirlap,' or the Pesth Gazette. He offered the editorship to Kossuth, who accepted it, but only on condition that he should be perfectly untrammelled in the expression of his opinions. … Kossuth … soon raised the circulation of his paper to 10,000 copies—an immense number in a country where the newspaper press had hitherto hardly had a footing. He made vigorous onslaughts upon the privileges of the noblesse, and pleaded the cause of the middle and lower classes unanswerably. … In 1844, owing to a change of ministry which threw the liberals out of office, he lost the editorship of the Gazette; but he had kindled a flame which now blazed fiercely enough of itself."

HUNGARY: A. D. 1847-1849.
The struggle for National Independence and its failure.

"A strong spirit of nationality had been growing up for many years, greatly fostered by Louis Kossuth, a newspaper editor. The old Magyar language, which had been treated as barbarous, was cultivated. Books and papers were printed in the tongue, all with the spirit of independence as a country and a race apart from that of the Austrians. In November, 1847, Ferdinand V. had opened the Diet in person, and proposed reforms in the Constitution were put before him. Count Batthyani, Prince Esterhazy, Kossuth, and others, drew up a scheme which was laid before the Emperor in the April of 1848, amid the crash of revolutions, and was assented to by him. But the other tribes within the kingdom of Hungary, the Rascians and Croats, began to make separate demands, and to show themselves stronger than the Magyars and Germans scattered among them. It was strongly suspected that they were encouraged by the Austrian powers in order to break down the new Hungarian constitution. The Hungarian council applied to have their national troops recalled from Lombardy, where, under Radetzky, they were preserving the Emperor's power; but this could not be granted, and only a few foreign regiments, whom they distrusted, were sent them. Disturbances broke out, and at the same time the Wallachians in Transylvania rose, and committed ravages on the property of Hungarians. The confusion was great, for these insurgents called the constitutional government of Hungary rebels, and professed to be upholding the rights of the Emperor, and, on the other hand, the Hungarian government viewed them as rebels. … Meantime a high-spirited Croatian officer, Baron Jellachich, had been appointed Ban of Croatia, and collected forces from among his wild countrymen to put down the Hungarian rule. … Jellachich advanced upon Pesth, and thus showed the Government there that in Ferdinand's eyes they were the rebels. Batthyani resigned, and Kossuth set himself to raise the people. Jellachich was defeated, and entered the Austrian states, appearing to menace Vienna. The effect of this was a tremendous insurrection of the Viennese, who seized Latour, the minister at war, savagely murdered him, and hung his body, stripped naked, to a lamp-post. The Viennese, under the command of the Polish General Bern, now prepared for a siege, while Windischgrätz and Jellachich collected a large army of Austrians and Croatians, besieged the city, stormed it on the 30th of October, and made an entrance, when all the ringleaders of the rebellion were treated with great severity. Jellachich then prepared to lead his Croats into Hungary, which was a very different matter, since the constitutional government there had been formed under the sanction and encouragement of Ferdinand. Kossuth and the rest of the ministry therefore thought themselves justified in naming a committee of public safety, and voting the raising of an army of 200,000 men. Ferdinand V., now an old man, felt himself no longer capable of coping with all the discordant forces of the empire; a family council was held at Olmütz, whither the Court had retired, and it was decided that he should abdicate, and that his next brother, Francis Charles, should waive his right in favour of his son, Francis Joseph, a promising and amiable young man of twenty, who, it was hoped, would conciliate matters. On December 2d, 1848, the change was made, and the new Emperor put forth a proclamation, promising constitutional government, liberty of the press, and all that could conduce to true freedom, but called on all faithful subjects to repress the rebellions that were raging in the provinces. Both in Lombardy and in Hungary this was taken as defiance; indeed, the Magyars considered that neither the abdication of Ferdinand, nor the accession of Francis Joseph to their throne, was valid without the consent of the Diet. Prince Windischgrätz was sent to reduce them with a considerable army, while Kossuth showed remarkable ability in getting together supplies for the Hungarian force, which was commanded by Generals Bem and Görgei. The difficulties of passing the mountains in the winter told much against the Austrians, though a corps of Russians was sent to their assistance. Five considerable battles were fought in the early spring of 1849, and in April Windischgrätz was fairly driven across the Danube out of the country."

   "On the 4th of March [1849] a new Imperial Charter was
   promulgated at Olmütz, containing many excellent provisions,
   but having this fatal defect, that in it Hungary was merged
   completely in the Austrian Empire, and all its ancient
   institutions obliterated. On the 14th of April the Imperial
   Decree was answered by the Declaration of Independence, in
   which the Hapsburg dynasty was proclaimed to have forfeited
   all right to the Hungarian throne, and to be banished for ever
   from the country. Kossuth was appointed Governor, and a new
   Ministry was chosen, under the Premiership of M. Szemere, the
   late Minister for Home Affairs in the Batthyány Government.
   For a while the national army was victorious. … But the
   despotic princes of Europe were now recovering from the panic
   that had demoralised them and their principles in 1848; the
   time had come for absolutism to rally its forces and reassert
   itself after the old fashion. Acting on the maxim that 'La
   raison du plus fort est toujours la meilleure,' the Emperor of
   Austria, after previous arrangement with his imperial brother
   in St. Petersburg, felt at liberty to disavow and ignore the
   arguments for constitutional government which had seemed so
   cogent to his predecessor. … In July the Czar's troops a
   second time entered Hungary, this time with no disavowal of
   political motives, but on the ground that His majesty, having
   always reserved to himself entire freedom of action whenever
   revolutions in neighboring States should place his own in
   danger, was now convinced that the internal security of his
   empire was menaced by what was passing and preparing in
   Hungary.'
{1686}
   … In August, Gorgei, the commander-in-chief of the national
   army, who had been nominated Dictator in the place of Kossuth,
   was invested with full powers to treat for a peace, and
   instructed to act according to the best of his ability to save
   the national existence of Hungary. At Vilagós, on the 13th of
   August, the Hungarian army, by order of the new Dictator, laid
   down their arms, and surrendered—not to the Austrians, but to
   the Russian general Rudiger. Thanks to the united efforts of
   300,000 of the flower of the Austrian and Russian troops, the
   Hungarian rebellion was at an end. … General Haynau presided
   over the Bloody Assizes of Pesth and Arad, and the long roll
   of Hungarian patriots condemned to death at the hands of the
   Austrian hangman was headed by such names as Count Batthyány
   and General Damyanics, the wounded leader of the 'Redcaps,'
   the famous student brigade. Those who escaped death found a
   refuge in England, America, or Turkey, whither they carried
   with them bitter memories of wrong and suffering inflicted,
   and an undying 'love for the country of their birth. Those
   bitter memories have happily died away, under the healing
   influence of time, and still more of that great work of
   reconciliation which a wise generosity on both sides has
   effected between the two countries."

HUNGARY: A. D. 1849-1850.
   Contemplated recognition of the revolutionary government by
   the United States.
   The Hülsemann Letter of Daniel Webster.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1849-1859.
Completed Emancipation of the peasantry.
Restoration of pure absolutism.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1856-1868.
Recovery of nationality.
Formation of the dual Austro-Hungarian empire.

In 1856, the Emperor, Francis Joseph, "proclaimed an amnesty against the political offenders, and in the following year he decreed the restoration of their estates, and further steps were taken to study the wishes of the Hungarians. In 1859 other concessions were made, notably as to provincial Governments in Hungary, and they were given free administration as to their educational and religious rites in the Magyar tongue. In 1860 the 'Curia Regia' were reinstated, and finally, in 1861, the whole Constitution was restored to Hungary and its dependencies, Transylvania, Croatia, and Slavonia. The Hungarian Parliament, which had been closed for so many years, reopened its gates. These concessions, however, did not satisfy the Magyars, who wanted perfect autonomy for their country. … The Hungarians refused to pay taxes, which therefore had to be collected by military aid. In 1865 the Hungarian Parliament was opened by the Emperor in person, who gave his assent to the Self-Government of Hungary, but further details had still to be arranged, and the war which broke out between Austria, Prussia and Italy in 1866 prevented these from being carried out. On the strength of the Emperor's promise to accede to the wishes of his Hungarian subjects, the Hungarians fought most bravely in Germany and in Italy for the Austrian cause, but the disorganized system that then existed in the Austrian army was the cause of their defeat, and the dissolution of the German confederation, over which Austria presided for so many years. The final result of this was that a perfect autonomy for Hungary was reinstated in 1867, and the Dual System was introduced, by which Hungary received perfect freedom and independence as to the administration of its affairs without any interference from Austria, and became, so to say, a partner in the newly-formed Austro-Hungarian Monarchy. The Austro-Hungarian Dual Monarchy, as also described in the able 'Memoir' on Francis Deák, to which Sir Mountstuart E. Grant-Duff wrote a preface, is constituted as follows:

I. The Common Ministry for the Austro-Hungarian monarchy consists of a Minister for Foreign Affairs, for War, and for Finance.

II. In each half of the monarchy there is a separate Ministry of Worship, of Finance, Commerce, Justice, Agriculture, and National Defence, headed respectively by a Minister-President of the Council.

III. The Lower House in the Austrian Reichsrath consists of 353 members, in the Hungarian Diet of 444, now chosen in both cases by direct election.

IV. The Delegations, composed respectively of sixty members from each half of the monarchy, are elected annually from amongst their parliamentary representatives of the majority in each province by the members of the two Houses of the Austrian and Hungarian Legislatures.

V. The two Delegations, who meet alternately at Vienna and Budapest, deliberate separately, their discussions being confined strictly to affairs of common interest, with regard to which the Delegations have the right to interpellate the Common Minister and to propose laws or amendments. In case of disagreement between the two Delegations the question of policy at issue is discussed by an interchange of written messages; drawn up in the official language—German or Hungarian—of the Delegation sending the message, and accompanied by an authorized translation in the language of the Delegation to which it is addressed.

VI. If, after the interchange of three successive notes, an agreement between the two bodies is not arrived at, the question is put to the vote by ballot without further debate. The Delegates, of whom in a plenary session there must be an equal number present from each Delegation, vote individually, the Emperor-King having the casting vote.

VII. By virtue of the present definition of common affairs, the cost of the diplomatic service and the army, except the Honvéds (militia), is defrayed out of the Imperial revenues, to which Hungary contributes a proportion of 30 per 100.

VIII. With reference to the former, it is stipulated that all international treaties be submitted to the two Legislatures by their respective Ministries; with reference to the latter, that whilst the appointment to the military command of the whole army, as also to that of the national force of Hungary, is in the hands of the Sovereign, the settlement of matters affecting the recruiting, length of service, mobilization, and pay of the Honvéd army (the militia) remains with the Hungarian Legislature.

IX. Those matters which it is desirable should be subject to the same legislation, such as customs, indirect taxation, currency, etc., etc., are regulated by means of treaties, subject to the approval of the two Legislatures. In cases where the two parties are unable to come to an agreement, each retains the right to decide such questions in accordance with their own special interests.

   X. In common affairs, the decisions arrived at by the
   Delegations (within the scope of their powers), and sanctioned
   by the Sovereign, become thenceforth fundamental laws; each
   Ministry is bound to announce them to its respective National
   Legislature, and is responsible for their execution.

It should be here mentioned that the late great and lamented Hungarian statesman, Deák, and also the late Count Beust, have by their personal efforts contributed a great deal to these concessions being granted. The Hungarian Parliament was reopened in 1867, and the late Count Julius Andrássy, … who escaped to England from the noose of the hangman, became its Prime Minister. … In 1868 the Emperor and Empress entered in great state the town of Buda, and were crowned with the greatest pomp with the Apostolic crown of St. Stephen."

      See, also,
      AUSTRIA: A. D. 1866-1867,
      and FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS: MODERN FEDERATIONS.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1866-1887.
Difficulties and promises of the Austro-Hungarian empire.
Its ambitions in southeastern Europe.

Louis Kossuth, the leader of the revolutionary movement of 1848, died at Turin on the 20th of March, 1894, aged ninety-two years. He had refused to the end of his life to be reconciled to the Austro-Hungarian government, or to countenance the acceptance by the Hungarians of the dual nationality established by the constitution of 1867, and remained an exile in Italy. After his death his remains were brought to Budapest, and their burial, which took place on Sunday, April 1st, was made the occasion of a great national demonstration of respect.

HUNIADES AND THE HUNGARIAN WARS WITH THE TURKS.

HUNKERS.

"We have ascertained that the nation of the Huns, who surpassed all others in atrocity, came thus into being. When Filimer, fifth king of the Goths after their departure from Sweden, was entering Scythia, with his people, as we have before described, he found among them certain sorcerer-women, whom they call in their native tongue Aliorumnas (or Al-runas), whom he suspected and drove forth from the midst of his army into the wilderness. The unclean spirits that wander up and down in desert places, seeing these women, made concubines of them; and from this union sprang that most fierce people (of the Huns) who were at first little, foul, emaciated creatures, dwelling among the swamps, and possessing only the shadow of human speech by way of language. … Nations whom they would never have vanquished in fair fight fled horrified from those frightful—faces I can hardly call them, but rather—shapeless black collops of flesh, with little points instead of eyes. No hair on their cheeks or chins gives grace to adolescence or dignity to age, but deep furrowed scars instead, down the sides of their faces, show the impress of the iron which with characteristic ferocity they apply to every male child that is born among them. … They are little in stature, but lithe and active in their motions, and especially skilful in riding, broad-shouldered, good at the use of the bow and arrows, with sinewy necks, and always holding their heads high in their pride."

Jornandes, De Rebus Geticis, translated by T. Hodgkin in Italy and Her Invaders, book 1, chapter 1.

After driving the Goths from Dacia, the terrible Huns had halted in their march westward for something more than a generation. They were hovering, meantime, on the eastern frontiers of the empire "taking part like other barbarians in its disturbances and alliances. Emperors paid them tribute, and Roman generals kept up a politic or a questionable correspondence with them. Stilicho had detachments of Huns in the armies which fought against Alaric; the greatest Roman soldier after Stilicho,—and, like Stilicho, of barbarian parentage,—Aetius, who was to be their most formidable antagonist, had been a hostage and a messmate in their camps. … About 433, Attila, the son of Mundzukh, like Charles the Great, equally famous in history and legend, became their king. Attila was the exact prototype and forerunner of the Turkish chiefs of the house of Othman. In his profound hatred of civilized men, in his scorn of their knowledge, their arts, their habits and religion, and, in spite of this, in his systematic use of them as his secretaries and officers, in his rapacity combined with personal simplicity of life, in his insatiate and indiscriminate destructiveness, in the cunning which veiled itself under rudeness, in his extravagant arrogance, and audacious pretensions, in his sensuality, in his unscrupulous and far-reaching designs, in his ruthless cruelty joined with capricious displays of generosity, mercy, and good faith, we see the image of the irreclaimable Turkish barbarians who ten centuries later were to extinguish the civilization of [eastern?] Europe. The attraction of Attila's daring character, and his genius for the war which nomadic tribes delight in, gave him absolute ascendency over his nation, and over the Teutonic and Slavonic tribes near him. Like other conquerors of his race, he imagined and attempted an empire of ravage and desolation, a vast hunting ground and preserve, in which men and their works should supply the objects and zest of the chase."

"He [Attila] was truly the king of kings; for his court was formed of chiefs, who, in offices of command, had learned the art of obedience. There were three brothers of the race of the Amales, all of them kings of the Ostrogoths; Ardaric, king of the Gepidæ, his principal confidant; a king of the Merovingian Franks; kings of the Burgundians, Thuringians, Rugians, and Heruli, who commanded that part of their nation which had remained at home, when the other part crossed the Rhine half a century before."

"The amount of abject, slavish fear which this little swarthy Kalmuck succeeded in instilling into millions of human hearts is not to be easily matched in the history of our race. Whether he had much military talent may be doubted, since the only great battle in which he figured was a complete defeat. The impression left upon us by what history records of him is that of a gigantic bully, holding in his hands powers unequalled in the world for ravage and spoliation. … Some doubt has recently been thrown on the received accounts of the wide extent of Attila's power. … The prince who felt China on his left, who threatened Persepolis, Byzantium, Ravenna in front, who ruled Denmark and its islands in his rear, and who ultimately appeared in arms on the soil of Champagne on his right, was no minor monarch, and had his empire been as deep as it was widespread, he might worthily have taken rank with Cyrus and Alexander. At the same time it is well to remember that over far the larger part of this territory Attila's can have been only an over-lordship, Teutonic, Slavonic, and Tartar chieftains of every name bearing rule under him. His own personal government, if government it can be called, may very likely have been confined nearly within the limits of the modern Hungary and Transylvania."

"As far as we may ascertain the vague and obscure geography of Priscus, this [Attila's] capital appears to have been seated between the Danube, the Theiss [Teyss] and the Carpathian hills, in the plains of Upper Hungary, and most probably in the neighbourhood of Jazberin, Agria, or Tokay. In its origin it could be no more than an accidental camp, which, by the long and frequent residence of Attila, had insensibly swelled into a huge village."

Attila's first assault upon the Roman power was directed against the Eastern Empire. The court at Constantinople had been duly obsequious to him, but he found a pretext for war. "It was pretended that the Roman bishop of Margus had surreptitiously introduced himself into the sepulchre of the Hunnic kings and stolen from it the buried treasure. The Huns immediately fell upon a Roman town during the time of a fair, and pillaged everything before them, slaying the men and carrying off the women. To all complaints from Constantinople the answer was, "The bishop, or your lives.' The emperor thought, and with reason, that to give up an innocent man to be massacred would be displeasing to Heaven, would alienate the clergy, and only appease for a moment the demands of his merciless enemy. He refused, though timidly and in vague terms. The Huns replied by scouring Pannonia, laying Sirmium, its capital, in ruins, and extending their ravages far south of the Danube to the cities of Naissa and Sardica, upon both of which they wrought the extremity of their vengeance. A truce of four years only increased their fury and aggravated its effects. The war was suddenly recommenced. This time they reached Thessaly, and renewed with a somewhat similar result the far-famed passage of Thermopylæ by the hordes of Xerxes. Two Roman armies were put to complete rout, and seventy cities levelled to the ground. Theodosius purchased the redemption of his capital by the cession of territory extending for fifteen days' journey south of the Danube, by an immediate payment of 6,000 pounds of gold, and the promise of 2,000 more as an annual tribute."

In the spring of the year 451 Attila moved the great host which he had assembled in the Hungarian plains westward toward the Rhine and the provinces of Gaul. He hesitated, it was said, between the Eastern and Western Empires as the objects of his attack. But the East had found an emperor, at last, in Marcian, who put some courage into the state,—who refused tribute to the insolent Hun and showed a willingness for war. The West, under Valentinian III. and his mother Placidia, with the Goths, Vandals, Burgundians and Franks in the heart of its provinces, seemed to offer the most inviting field of conquest. Hence Attila turned his horses and their savage riders to the West. "The kings and nations of Germany and Scythia, from the Volga perhaps to the Danube, obeyed the warlike summons of Attila. From the royal village in the plains of Hungary his standard moved towards the West, and after a march of seven or eight hundred miles he reached the conflux of the Rhine and the Neckar, where he was joined by the Franks who adhered to his ally, the elder of the sons of Clodion. … The Hercynian forest supplied materials for a bridge of boats, and the hostile myriads were poured with resistless violence into the Belgic provinces." At Metz, the Huns "involved in a promiscuous massacre the priests who served at the altar and the infants who, in the hour of danger, had been providently baptized by the bishop; the flourishing city was delivered to the flames, and a solitary chapel of St. Stephen marked the place where it formerly stood. From the Rhine and the Moselle, Attila advanced into the heart of Gaul, crossed the Seine at Auxerre, and, after a long and laborious march, fixed his camp under the walls of Orleans."

   Meantime the energy of the unscrupulous but able Count Aetius,
   who ruled the court and commanded the resources of the Western
   Empire, had brought about a general combination of the
   barbarian forces in Gaul with those of the Romans. It
   included, first in importance, the Goths of the kingdom of
   Toulouse, under their king Theodoric, and with them the
   Burgundians, the Alans, a part of the Franks, and detachments
   of Saxons, Armoricans and other tribes. There were Goths, too,
   and Franks and Burgundians in the host of the Hun king. The
   latter laid siege to Orleans and the walls of the brave city
   were already crumbling under his battering rams when the
   banners of Aetius and Theodoric came in sight. Attila
   retreated beyond the Seine and took a position somewhere
   within the wide extent of what were anciently called the
   Catalaunian fields, now known as the Champagn country
   surrounding Chalons. There, in the early days of July, A. D.
   451, was fought the great and terrible battle which rescued
   Europe from the all-conquering Tartar.
{1689}
   The number of the slain, according to one chronicler, was 162,000;
   according to others 300,000. Neither army could claim a
   victory; both feared to renew the engagement. The Goths, whose
   king Theodoric was slain, withdrew in one direction, to their
   own territory; the Huns retreated in the other direction and
   quitted Gaul forever. The wily Roman, Aetins, was probably
   best satisfied with a result which crippled both Goth and Hun.
   As for the battle, its latest historian says: "Posterity has
   chosen to call it the battle of Chalons, but there is good
   reason to think that it was fought fifty miles distant from
   Chalons-sur-Marne, and that it would be more correctly named
   the battle of Troyes, or, to speak with complete accuracy, the
   battle of Mery-sur-Seine."

"It was during the retreat from Orleans that a Christian hermit is reported to have approached the Hunnish king, and said to him, 'Thou art the Scourge of God for the chastisement of Christians.' Attila instantly assumed this new title of terror, which thenceforth became the appellation by which he was most widely and most fearfully known."

In the summer of 451 Attila, retreating from the bloody plain of Chalons, recrossed the Rhine and returned to his quarters in Hungary. There, through the following autumn and winter, he nursed his chagrin and his wrath, and in the spring of 452 he set his host in motion again, directing its march to the Julian Alps and through their passes into Italy. The city of Aquileia, then prominent in commerce, and prosperous and rich, was the first to obstruct the savage invasion. The defence of the city proved so obstinate that Attila was at the point of abandoning his siege, when a flight of storks, which his shrewdness construed favorably as an omen, encouraged the Huns to one more irresistible assault and the doomed town was carried by storm. "In proportion to the stubbornness of the defence was the severity of the punishment meted out to Aquileia. The Roman soldiers were, no doubt, all slain. Attila was not a man to encumber himself with prisoners. The town was absolutely given up to the rage, the lust, and the greed of the Tartar horde who had so long chafed around its walls. … When the barbarians could plunder no more, they probably used fire, for the very buildings of Aquileia perished, so that, as Jornandes tells us, in his time, a century later than the siege, scarcely the vestiges of it yet remained. A few houses may have been left standing, and others must have slowly gathered round them, for the Patriarch of Aquileia retained all through the middle ages considerable remains of his old ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and a large and somewhat stately cathedral was reared there in the eleventh century. But the City of the North Wind never really recovered from the blow. … The terrible invaders, made more wrathful and more terrible by the resistance of Aquileia, streamed on through the trembling cities of Venetia." Patavium (modern Padua), Altinum and Julia Concordia, were blotted out of existence. At Vicenza, Verona, Brescia, Bergamo, Pavia and Milan, the towns were sacked, but spared destruction, and the inhabitants who did not escape were carried away into captivity. Many of the fugitives from these towns escaped the Huns by hiding in the islands and fens of the neighboring Adriatic coast, and out of the poor fishing villages that they formed there grew, in time, the great commercial city and republic of Venice. "The valley of the Po was now wasted to the heart's content of the invaders. Should they cross the Appennines and blot out Rome as they had blotted out Aquileia from among the cities of the world? This was the great question that was being debated in the Hunnish camp, and strange to say, the voices were not all for war. Already Italy began to strike that strange awe into the hearts of her northern conquerors which so often in later ages has been her best defence. The remembrance of Alaric, cut off by a mysterious death immediately after his capture of Rome, was present in the mind of Attila, and was frequently insisted upon by his counsellors." So, the grim Hun was prepared by his superstitions to listen to the embassy from Rome which met him at the Ticino, praying for peace. At the head of the embassy was the venerable bishop of Rome, Leo I.—the first of the great Popes. To his influence the pacific disposition into which Attila was persuaded has been commonly ascribed. At all events, the king of the Huns consented to peace with the Romans, and withdrew beyond the Danube in fulfilment of the treaty, leaving Italy a desert to the Appennines, but not beyond.

Attila died suddenly and mysteriously in his sleep, after a drunken debauch, some time in the early months of the year 453, and his death was the end of the "reign of terror" under which he had reduced half the world. "Immediately after his death, the Germans refused to submit to the divided rule of his sons. The army of Attila split up into two great camps; on the one side were the Gepidæ and Ostrogoths, with the majority of the Teutonic nations; on the other the Huns, the Alans, the Sarmatians or Slavonians, and the few Germans who still owned allegiance to the memory of Attila. A vast plain between the Drave and the Danube was selected to decide this vital struggle, known as the battle of Netad, which, though less famous in history, may perhaps claim equal importance with that of Chalons, as an arbiter of the destinies of civilization. … Fortune at first seemed to favour the Huns; but German steadfastness prevailed; Goths and Gepidæ scattered the less-disciplined bands of Asia; and Ardaric, the king of the latter tribe for the time, established himself in the royal residence of Attila, and assumed the leading position in the barbarian world."

   "Thirty thousand of the Huns and their confederates lay dead
   upon the field, among them Ellak, Attila's first-born. … The
   rest of his nation fled away across the Dacian plains, and
   over the Carpathian mountains to those wide steppes of
   Southern Russia in which at the commencement of our history we
   saw the three Gothic nations taking up their abode. Ernak,
   Attila's darling, ruled tranquilly under Roman protection in
   the district between the lower Danube and the Black Sea, which
   we now call the Dobrudscha, and which was then 'the lesser
   Scythia.'
{1690}
   Others of his family maintained a precarious footing higher up
   the stream. … There is nothing in the after-history of these
   fragments of the nation with which anyone need concern
   himself. … Dacia, that part of Hungary which lies east and
   north of the Danube, and which had been the heart of Attila's
   domains, fell to the lot of the Gepidae, under the wise and
   victorious Ardaric. Pannonia, that is the western portion of
   Hungary, with Sclavonia, and parts of Croatia, Styria and
   Lower Austria, was ruled over by the three Amal-descended
   kings of the Ostrogoths."

      T. Hodgkin,
      Italy and Her Invaders,
      book 3, chapter 1 (volume 2).

"Short as was the sway of Attila (from 434 to 453), the terror it had inspired and the great commotion it had brought over the whole Teuton and Roman world, were, not … soon forgotten. … The memory of the great chieftain hovered for a long time, like a bloody phantom, in the Roman annals and in the German sagas. … When we compare the historical Attila, before whose piercing glance Rome and Constantinople trembled, with Etzel of the Nibelungen Lied, we find that the latter bears but a slight resemblance to the former. It is true that Attila's powerful sway is still reflected in the Nibelungen Lied, as Kriemhild at her arrival in the land of the Huns is surprised at seeing so many nations submitted to his sceptre. Yet upon the whole Etzel plays in the German epic the part of a weak and sometimes even contemptible king, while glimpses of his real might can be detected only at rare intervals, fluttering as it were in the far-distant background of a by-gone time. … The Eddas and the Volsunga Saga bear the impress of the early Teutonic era, when the king was little more than the chosen leader in war; and the Northern people for a long time had in their political institutions nothing by which the conception of a great monarchy, or still less of a far-stretching realm like that of Attila, could be expressed."

"It was during the reign of this prince [Varahran V., king of Persia, A. D. 420-440] that those terrible struggles commenced between the Persians and their neighbours upon the north-east which continued, from the early part of the fifth till the middle of the sixth century, to endanger the very existence of the empire. Various names are given to the people with whom Persia waged her wars during this period. They are called Turks, Huns, sometimes even Chinese; but these terms seem to be used in a vague way, as 'Scythian' was by the ancients; and the special ethnic designation of the people appears to be quite a different name from any of them. It is a name the Persian form of which is 'Haïthal,' or 'Haïtheleh,' the Armenian 'Hephthagh,' and the Greek 'Ephthalites,' or sometimes 'Nephthalites.' … All that we know of the Ephthalites is, that they were established in force, during the fifth and sixth centuries of our era, in the regions east of the Caspian, especially in those beyond the Oxus river, and that they were generally regarded as belonging to the Scythic or Finno-Turkic population, which, at any rate from B. C. 200, had become powerful in that region. They were called 'White Huns' by some of the Greeks; but it is admitted that they were quite distinct from the Huns who invaded Europe under Attila. … They were a light-complexioned race, whereas the Huns were decidedly swart; they were not ill-looking, whereas the Huns were hideous; they were an agricultural people, while the Huns were nomads; they had good laws, and were tolerably well civilised, but the Huns were savages. It is probable that they belonged to the Thibetic or Turkish stock."

"We are able to distinguish the two great divisions of these formidable exiles [the Huns], which directed their march towards the Oxus and towards the Volga. The first of these colonies established their dominion in the fruitful and extensive plains of Sogdiana, on the eastern side of the Caspian, where they preserved the name of Huns, with the epithet of Euthalites [Ephthalites], or Nephthalites. Their manners were softened, and even their features were insensibly improved, by the mildness of the climate and their long residence in a flourishing province; which might still retain a faint impression of the arts of Greece. The White Huns, a name which they derived from the change of their complexion, soon abandoned the pastoral life of Scythia. Gorgo, which, under the appellation of Carizine, has since enjoyed a temporary splendour, was the residence of the king, who exercised a legal authority over an obedient people. Their luxury was maintained by the labour of the Sogdians."

HUS AND THE REFORMATION IN BOHEMIA.

HUSCARLS.

HUSSARS.

Matthias, son of John Hunyadi, was elected king of Hungary in 1458. "The defence of the country chiefly engaged the attention of Matthias at the commencement of his reign. Measures of defence were accordingly carried on with the utmost speed, the most important of which was the establishment of regular cavalry; to levy which one man was enrolled out of every 20 families. This was the origin of the 'Hussar,' meaning in Hungarian the price or due of twenty."

HUSTINGS. COURT OF HUSTING.

"The 'hygh and auncyent' Court of Husting of the City of London is of Anglo-Saxon, or, to speak more accurately, of Scandinavian origin, being a remarkable memorial of the sway once exercised over England by the Danes and other Northmen. The name of the Court is derived from [hus], 'a house,' and [dhing], a thing, 'cause,' or 'council,' and signifies, according to general acceptation, 'a court held in a house,' in contradistinction to other 'things,' or courts, which in Saxon times were usually held in the open air. … The term 'Husting' or, less correctly, 'Hustings' is commonly applied at the present day to open-air assemblies or temporary courts, usually held in some elevated position, for the purpose of electing members of Parliament in counties and boroughs, its strict etymological meaning, being lost sight of. … [The Court of Husting] is the oldest court of record within the City, and at one time constituted the sole court for settling disputes between citizen and citizen."

      See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1761;
      and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765,
      NEWS OF THE STAMP ACT; 1772-1773; 1774 (MAY-JUNE).

HWICCAS.

A name borne by the West Saxons who first settled in Gloucestershire and Worcestershire when that region was conquered. They led a revolt against the West Saxon king Ceawlin, in which they were joined by the Britons, or Welsh. The battle of Wanborough, fought A. D. 591, drove Ceawlin from the throne.

"The feast of the Hyacinthia was held annually at Amyclæ [Lacedæmonia], on the longest day of the Spartan month Hecatombeus, corresponding to our June and July. … Hyacinthus, the beautiful youth slain accidentally by Apollo, was the chief object of the worship. He took his name from the flower, which was an emblem of death; and the original feast seems to have been altogether a mournful ceremony,—a lamentation over the destruction of the flowers of spring by the summer heat, passing on to a more general lament over death itself.'

HYBLA.

"There was a Sikel goddess Hybla, whom the Greeks looked on as the same with several goddesses of their own mythology, here with one, there with another. Three towns in Sicily were called after her, one in the southeastern part of the island, now Ragusa, another on the coast north of Syracuse, near the place where the Greek colony of Megara was afterwards planted. This gave Its name to the Hyblaian hills not far off, famous for their honey; but there is no hill strictly called Mount Hybla. The third Hybla is inland, not far from Catania, and is now called Paterno."

The ancient name of the river Jelum, or Jhelum, in the Punjab, on the banks of which the Indian king Porus made a vain attempt to oppose the invasion of Alexander.

"The Hylleans are never mentioned in any historical narrative, but always in mythical [Greek] legends; and they appear to have been known to the geographers only from mythological writers. Yet they are generally placed in the islands of Melita and Black-Corcyra, to the south of Liburnia."

C. O. Müller, History and Antiquity of the Doric Race, volume 1, introduction.

HYMETTUS.

One of the noted mountains of Attica, "celebrated for its excellent honey, and the broad belt of flowers at its base, which scented the air with their delicious perfume."

HY-NIALS AND EUGENIANS.

"As surnames were not generally used, either in Ireland or anywhere else, till after the 10th century, the great families are distinguishable at first only by their tribe or clan names. Thus, at the north we have the Hy-Nial race; in the south the Eugenian race, so called, from Nial and Eoghan, their mutual ancestors."

HYPATIA.

A mythical people, supposed by the ancients to dwell beyond the north wind, and therefore to enjoy a perfect climate in the extreme north.

HYRCANIA. HYRCANIAN SEA.

"The mountain-chain which skirts the Great Plateau [of Iran] on the north, distinguished in these pages by the name of Elburz, broadens out after it passes the south-eastern corner of the Caspian Sea till it covers a space of nearly three degrees (more than 200 miles). Instead of the single lofty ridge which separates the Salt Desert from the low Caspian region, we find between the 54th and 59th degrees of east longitude three or four distinct ranges, all nearly parallel to one another, having a general direction of east and west. … Here in Persian times was settled a people called Hyrcani; and from them the tract derived the name of Hyrcania (Vehrkana), while the lake [Caspian Sea] on which it adjoined came to be known as 'the Hyrcanian Sea.' The fertility of the region, its broad plains, shady woods, and lofty mountains were celebrated by the ancient writers."

"In the inscriptions of the Achæmenids their land [Hyrcania] is known as Valkana; the modern name is Jorjan. Here, according to the Greeks, the mountains were covered with forests of oaks, where swarms of wild bees had their hives; in the valleys vines and fig-trees flourished, and the soil down to the sea was so luxuriant that corn grew from the fallen grains without any special sowing."

"The Sapeires [of Herodotus] appear to be the Iberians of later writers. The name is found under the various forms of Saspeires, Sapeires, Sabeires, or Sabeiri, and Abeires, whence the transition to Iberes is easy. They are always represented as adjoining on the Colchians to the east and southeast, so that they must evidently have inhabited the greater part of the modern province of Georgia. … There is reason to believe that the modern Georgians—still called 'Virk' by their neighbours—are their descendants, and preserve, in the original seat of the nation, a name and a nationality which have defied the destroying touch of time for more than twenty-four centuries."

If these Iberians of the east were connected in race or origin of name with the Iberians of western Europe, the connection does not seem to have been traced. Iberia was devastated and subjugated by the Seljuk Turks in the 11th century.

"The numerous skulls obtained from Basque cemeteries possess exactly those characters which have been remarked … in the Neolithic tombs and caves in Britain and on the Continent, and may therefore be taken to imply that the Basque-speaking peoples are to be looked upon as a fragment of the race which occupied the British isles, and the area west of the Rhine and north of the Alps, in the Neolithic age. … Nor can there be any reasonable doubt as to this small, dark-haired people being identical with the ancient Iberians of history, who have left their name in the Iberian peninsula [Spain] as a mark of their former dominion in the west. … In ancient times they were spread through Spain as far to the south as the Pillars of Hercules, and as far to the north-east as Germany and Denmark. The Iberic population of the British Isles was apparently preserved from contact with other races throughout the whole of the Neolithic age. On the Continent, however, it is not so; a new set of men, differing in physical characteristics from them, make their appearance. … The new invader is identified by Thurnam and Huxley with the Celtæ of history. … These two races were in possession of Spain during the very earliest times recorded in history, the Iberians occupying the north-western region, and the Celts, or Gauls, extending in a broad band south of the Pyrenees along the Mediterranean shore. … In the north the Vascones then, as now, held the Basque provinces of Spain. The distribution of these two races in Gaul is similar to that which we have noted in Spain. … When Cæsar conquered Gaul, the Iberian Aquitani possessed the region bounded by the river Garonne, the Cevennes, and the Pyrenees. … An ethnological connection also between Aquitaine and Brittany (Armorica) may be inferred from the remark of Pliny, 'Aquitania Armorica ante dicta.' … Just as the Celts pushed back the Iberian population of Gaul as far south as Aquitania, and swept round it into Spain, so they crossed the channel and overran the greater portion of Britain, until the Silures, identified by Tacitus with the Iberians, were left only in those fastnesses which were subsequently a refuge for the Welsh against the English invaders."

      ALSO IN:
      I. Taylor,
      Origin of the Aryans,
      chapter 2, section 5.

      See CELTS; LIGURIANS;
      AQUITAINE: THE ANCIENT TRIBES;
      AND PORTUGAL: EARLY HISTORY;
      and, also, volume 1, APPENDIX A.

IBERION.

One of the demes or ancient townships of Attica, where Icarius, in a Greek legend, was taught the art of wine-making by Dionysus.

An island near Samos and anciently belonging to the Samians, who used it chiefly for their pasture land.

ICELAND: A. D. 860-1100.
   Discovery and Settlement by the Northmen.
   A Norse Commonwealth.
   Development of the Saga Literature.

"Of the controversies that disquieted this age [the eighth century], the greatest and the most pernicious related to the worship of sacred images. Originating in Greece, it thence spread over the East, and the West, producing great harm both to the state and to the church. The first sparks of it appeared under Phillippicus Bardanes, who was emperor of the Greeks near the beginning of this century. With the consent of the patriarch John, in the year 712, he removed from the portico of the church of St. Sophia a picture representing the sixth general council, which condemned the Monothelites, whom the emperor was disposed to favour; and he sent his mandate to Rome, requiring all such pictures to be removed out of the churches. But Constantine, the Roman pontiff, not only protested against the emperor's edict, but … , having assembled a council at Rome, he caused the emperor himself to be condemned as an apostate from the true religion. These first commotions, however, terminated the next year, when the emperor was hurled from the throne. Under Leo the Isaurian, a very heroic emperor, another conflict ensued; which was far more terrific, severe, and lasting. Leo, unable to bear with the extravagant superstition of the Greeks in worshipping religious images, which rendered them a reproach both to the Jews and the Saracens; in order to extirpate the evil entirely, issued an edict in the year 726, commanding all images of saints, with the exception of that of Christ on the cross, to be removed out of the churches, and the worship of them to be wholly discontinued and abrogated. {1693} … A civil war broke out; first in the islands of the Archipelago and a part of Asia, and afterwards in Italy. For the people, either spontaneously, or being so instructed by the priests and monks, to whom the images were productive of gain, considered the emperor as an apostate from true religion. … In Italy, the Roman pontiffs, Gregory II. and Gregory III., were the principal authors of the revolt. … The Romans and the other people of Italy who were subjects of the Greek empire, violated their allegiance, and either massacred or expelled the viceroys of Leo. Exasperated by these causes, the emperor contemplated making war upon Italy, and especially upon the pontiff: but circumstances prevented him. Hence in the year 730, fired with resentment and indignation, he vented his fury against images and their worshippers, much more violently than before. For having assembled a council of bishops, he deposed Germanus, bishop of Constantinople, who favoured images, and substituted Anastasius in his place; commanded that images should be committed to the flames, and inflicted various punishments upon the advocates of them. The consequence of this severity was, that the Christian church was unhappily rent into two parties; that of the Iconoduli or Iconolatrae, who adored and worshipped images, and that of the Iconomachi or Iconoclastae, who would not preserve but destroyed them; and these parties furiously contended with mutual invectives, abuses, and assassinations. The course commenced by Gregory II. was warmly prosecuted by Gregory III., and although we cannot determine at this distance of time the precise degree of fault in either of these prelates, thus much is unquestionable, that the loss of their Italian possessions in this contest by the Greeks, is to be ascribed especially to the zeal of these two pontiffs in behalf of images. Leo's son Constantine, surnamed Copronymus by the furious tribe of Image-worshippers, after he came to the throne, A. D. 741, trod in his father's steps; for he laboured with equal vigour to extirpate the worship of images, in opposition to the machinations of the Roman pontiff and the monks. Yet he pursued the business with more moderation than his father had done: and being, aware that the Greeks were governed entirely by the authority of councils in religious matters, he collected a council of eastern bishops at Constantinople in the year 754, to examine and decide this controversy. By the Greeks this is called the seventh general council. The bishops pronounced sentence, as was customary, according to the views of the emperor; and therefore condemned images. … Leo IV., who succeeded to the throne on the death of Constantine, A. D. 775, entertained the same views as his father and grandfather. For when he saw, that the abettors of images were not to be moved at all by mild and gentle measures, he coerced them with penal statutes. But Leo IV. being removed by poison, through the wickedness of his perfidious wife Irene, in the year 780, images became triumphant. For that guilty woman, who governed the empire during the minority of her son Constantine, with a view to establish her authority, after entering into a league with Hadrian the Roman pontiff, assembled a council at Nice in Bithynia in the year 786, which is known by the title of the second. Nicene council. Here the laws of the emperors, together with the decrees of the council of Constantinople, were abrogated; the worship of images and of the cross was established. … In these contests most of the Latins,—as the Britons, the Germans, and the French, took middle ground between the contending parties; for they decided, that images were to be retained indeed, and to be placed in the churches, but that no religious worship could be offered to them without dishonouring the Supreme Being. In particular Charlemagne, at the suggestion of the French bishops who were displeased with the Nicene decrees, caused four Books concerning images to be drawn up by some learned man, and sent them in the year 790 to the Roman pontiff Hadrian, with a view to prevent his approving the decrees of Nice. In this work, the arguments of the Nicene bishops in defence of image-worship, are acutely and vigorously combated. But Hadrian was not to be taught by such a master, however illustrious, and therefore issued his formal confutation of the book. Charlemagne next assembled, in the year 794, a council of 300 bishops, at Frankfort on the Maine, in order to re-examine this controversy. This council approved the sentiments contained in the Books of Charlemagne, and forbid the worship of images."

J. L. von Mosheim, Institutes of Ecclesiastical History, book 3, century 8, part 2, chapter 3 (volume 2).

ALSO IN: P. Schaff, History of the Christian Church, volume 4, chapter 10, section 101.

ICONOCLASTS OF THE NETHERLANDS.

ICTIS.

An island off the coast of Britain, to which tin is said to have been brought from the main shore by natives to be sold to Greek merchants. Whether it was the Isle of Thanet, at the mouth of the Thames, or the Isle of Wight, or St. Michael's Mount, is a disputed question.

IDAHO: A. D. 1803.
Was it embraced in the Louisiana Purchase?
Grounds of American possession.

IDES.

Fought A. D. 617, between the East English, or East Angles, and the Northumbrians; the former victorious.

   One of the battles of the Peloponnesian War, in which the
   Ambrakiots were surprised and almost totally destroyed by
   Messenians and Akarnanians, under the Athenian general
   Demosthenes, B. C. 426.

IERNE.

IKENILD-STRETE.

ILA. ILARCH.

   The Spartan boys were divided into companies, according to
   their several ages; each company was called an Ila, and was
   commanded by a young officer called an Ilarch.

ILERDA.

Modern Lerida, in Spain, the scene of Cæsar's famous campaign against Afranius and Petreius, in the civil war.

ILIUM.

"For many years the term 'Illinois country' embraced all the region east of the Upper Mississippi as far as Lake Michigan, and from the Wisconsin on the north to the Ohio on the south. The extent of the Illinois country under the French varied but little from the extent of the present State of Illinois. At a later date, its limits on the east were restricted by the 'Wabash country,' which was erected into a separate government, under the commandant of 'Post St. Vincent,'on the Wabash River. … The early French on the Illinois were remarkable for their talent of ingratiating themselves with the warlike tribes around them, and for their easy amalgamation in manners and customs, and blood. … Their settlements were usually in the form of small, compact, patriarchal villages, like one great family assembled around their old men and patriarchs."

J. W. Monette, History of the Discovery and Settlement of the Valley of the Mississippi, volume 1, pages 181-183.

   "Up to this time, the 'Illinois country,' east of the Upper
   Mississippi, contained six distinct settlements, with their
   respective villages. These were:

1. Cahokia, near the mouth of Cahokia Creek, and nearly five
miles below the present site of St. Louis;

2. St. Philip, forty-five miles below the last, and four miles
above Fort Chartres, on the cast side of the Mississippi;

3. Fort Chartres, on the east bank of the Mississippi, twelve miles above Kaskaskia;

4. Kaskaskia, situated upon the Kaskaskia River, five miles above its mouth, upon a peninsula, and within two miles of the Mississippi River;

6. St. Geneviève, on the west side of the Mississippi, and about one mile from its bank, upon Gabarre Creek.

These are among the oldest towns in what was long known as the Illinois country. Kaskaskia, in its best days, under the French regime, was quite a large town, containing 2,000 or 3,000 inhabitants. But after it passed from the crown of France, its population for many years did not exceed 1,500 souls. Under the British dominion the population decreased to 460 souls, in 1773."

J. W. Monette, History of the Discovery and Settlement of the Mississippi Valley, volume 1, pages 167-168.

"The population of the French and Indian villages in the district of the Illinois, at the period of which we write, is largely a matter of conjecture and computation. Father Louis Vivier, a Jesuit missionary, in a letter dated June 8, 1750, and written from the vicinity of Fort Chartres, says: 'We have here whites, negroes, and Indians, to say nothing of the cross-breeds. There are five French villages, and three villages of the natives within a space of twenty-five leagues, situate between the Mississippi and another river called (Kaskaskia). In the French villages are, perhaps, eleven hundred whites, three hundred blacks, and sixty red slaves or savages. The three Illinois towns do not contain more than eight hundred souls, all told.' This estimate does not include the scattered French settlers or traders north of Peoria, nor on the Wabash. It is stated that the Illinois nation, then dwelling for the most part along the river of that name, occupied eleven different villages, with four or five fires at each village, and each fire warming a dozen families, except at the principal village, where there were three hundred lodges. These data would give us something near eight thousand as the total number of the Illinois of all tribes."

      J. Wallace,
      History of Illinois and Louisiana under the French Rule,
      chapter 16.

   "The French officers had, since the peace, been ready loyally
   to surrender the country to the English. But the Illinois, the
   Missouri, and the Osage tribes would not consent. At a council
   held in the spring of 1765, at Fort Chartres, the chief of the
   Kaskaskias, turning to the English officer, said: 'Go hence,
   and tell your chief that the Illinois and all our brethren
   will make war on you if you come upon our lands.' … But when
   Fraser, who arrived from Pittsburg, brought proofs that their
   elder brothers, the Senecas, the Delawares and the Shawnees,
   had made peace with the English, the Kaskaskias said: 'We
   follow as they shall lead.' 'I waged this war,' said Pontiac,
   'because, for two years together, the Delawares and Shawnees
   begged me to take up arms against the English. So I became
   their ally, and was of their mind;' and, plighting his word
   for peace, he kept it with integrity. A just curiosity may ask
   how many persons of foreign lineage had gathered in the valley
   of the Illinois since its discovery by the missionaries.
   Fraser was told that there were of white men, able to bear
   arms, 700; of white women, 500; of their children, 850; of
   negroes of both sexes, 900. The banks of the Wabash, we learn
   from another source, were occupied by about 110 French
   families, most of which were at Vincennes.
{1695}
   Fraser sought to overawe the French traders with the menace of
   an English army that was to come among them; but they pointed
   to the Mississippi, beyond which they would be safe from
   English jurisdiction [France having ceded to Spain her
   territory on the western side of the river]. … With Croghan,
   an Indian agent, who followed from Fort Pitt, the Illinois
   nations agreed that the English should take possession of all
   the posts which the French formerly held; and Captain
   Stirling, with 100 men of the 42d regiment, was detached down
   the Ohio, to relieve the French garrison. At Fort Chartres,
   St. Ange, who had served for fifty years in the wilderness,
   gave them a friendly reception; and on the morning of the 10th
   of October he surrendered to them the left bank of the
   Mississippi. Some of the French crossed the river, so that at
   St. Genevieve there were at least five-and-twenty families,
   while St. Louis, whose origin dates from the 15th of February
   1764, and whose skilfully chosen site attracted the admiration
   of the British commander, already counted about twice that
   number, and ranked as the leading settlement on the western
   side of the Mississippi. In the English portion of the distant
   territory, the government then instituted was the absolute
   rule of the British army, with a local judge to decide all
   disputes among the inhabitants according to the customs of the
   country, yet subject to an appeal to the military chief."

      G. Bancroft,
      History of the United States
      (Author's last revision),
      volume 3, pages 151-152.

"Just before and during the first years of the English domination, there was a large exodus of the French inhabitants from Illinois. Such, in fact, was their dislike of British rule that fully one-third of the population, embracing the wealthier and more influential families, removed with their slaves and other personal effects, beyond the Mississippi, or down that river to Natchez and New Orleans. Some of them settled at Ste. Genevieve, while others, after the example set by St. Ange, took up their abode in the village of St. Louis, which had now become a depot for the fur company of Louisiana. … At the close of the year 1765, the whole number of inhabitants of foreign birth or lineage, in Illinois, excluding the negro slaves, and including those living at Post Vincent on the Wabash, did not much exceed two thousand persons; and, during the entire period of British possession, the influx of alien population hardly more than kept pace with the outflow. Scarcely any Englishmen, other than the officers and troops composing the small garrisons, a few enterprising traders and some favored land speculators, were then to be seen in the Illinois, and no Americans came hither, for the purpose of settlement, until after the conquest of the country by Colonel Clark. All the settlements still remained essentially French, with whom there was no taste for innovation or change. But the blunt and sturdy Anglo-American had at last gained a firm foot-hold on the banks of the great Father of Rivers, and a new type of civilization, instinct with energy, enterprise and progress, was about to be introduced into the broad and fertile Valley of the Mississippi. … Captain Thomas Stirling began the military government of the country on October 10, 1765, with fair and liberal concessions, calculated to secure the good-will and loyalty of the French-Canadians, and to stay their further exodus; but his administration was not of long duration. On the 4th of the ensuing December, he was succeeded by Major Robert Farmer, who had arrived from Mobile with a detachment of the 34th British infantry. In the following year, after exercising an arbitrary authority over these isolated and feeble settlements, Major Farmer was displaced by Colonel Edward Cole, who had commanded a regiment under Wolfe, at Quebec. Colonel Cole remained in command at Fort Chartres about eighteen months; but the position was not congenial to him. … He was accordingly relieved at his own request, early in the year 1768. His successor was Colonel John Reed, who proved a bad exchange for the poor colonists. He soon became so notorious for his military oppressions of the people that he was removed, and gave place to Lieutenant-Colonel John Wilkins, of the 18th, or royal regiment of Ireland, who had formerly commanded at Fort Niagara. Colonel Wilkins arrived from Philadelphia and assumed the command September 5, 1768. He brought out with him seven companies of his regiment for garrison duty. … One of the most noticeable features of Colonel Wilkins' administration was the liberality with which he parceled out large tracts of the domain over which he ruled to his favorites in Illinois, Philadelphia, and elsewhere, without other consideration than requiring them to re-convey to him a certain interest in the same. Lieutenant Colonel Wilkins' government of the Illinois country eventually became unpopular, and specific charges were preferred against him, including a misappropriation of the public funds. He asked for an official investigation, claiming that he was able to justify his public conduct. But he was deposed from office in September, 1771, and sailed for Europe in July of the following year. Captain Hugh Lord, of the 18th regiment, became Wilkins' successor at Fort Chartres, and continued in command until the year 1775. … On the 2d of June, 1774, Parliament passed an act enlarging and extending the province of Quebec to the Mississippi River so as to include the territory of the Northwest. … Who was the immediate successor of Captain Lord in command of the Illinois is not positively determined."

      J. Wallace,
      History of Illinois and Louisiana Under the French Rule,
      chapter 20.

ILLINOIS: A. D. 1778-1779.
Conquest from the British by the Virginian General Clark and
annexation to the Kentucky District of Virginia.

ILLINOIS: A. D. 1784.
Included in the proposed states of Assenisipia, Illinoia, and
Polypotamia.

ILLINOIS: A. D. 1785-1786.
Partially covered by the western land claims of Massachusetts
and Connecticut, ceded to the United States.

ILLINOIS: A. D. 1787.
The Ordinance for the government of the Northwest Territory.
Perpetual exclusion of Slavery.

ILLINOIS: A. D. 1809.
Detached from Indiana and organized as a distinct Territory.

"In 1830 a treaty was made with the tribes of Sacs and Foxes, by which their lands in Illinois were ceded to the United States. They were nevertheless unwilling to leave their country. … Black Hawk, a chief of the Sacs, then about 60 years of age, refused submission, and the next year returned with a small force. He was driven back by the troops at Rock Island, but in March, 1832, he reappeared, at the head of about 1,000 warriors,—Sacs, Foxes, and Winnebagos,—and penetrated into the Rock river valley, declaring that he came only to plant corn. But either he would not or could not restrain his followers, and the devastation of Indian warfare soon spread among the frontier settlements. … The force at Rock Island was sent out to stay these ravages, and Generals Scott and Atkinson ordered from Buffalo with a reënforcement, which on the way was greatly diminished by cholera and desertions. The Governor of Illinois called for volunteers, and an effective force of about 2,400 men was soon marched against the enemy. Black Hawk's band fled before it. General Whiteside, who was in command, burned the Prophet's Town, on Rock River, and pursued the Indians up that stream. … The Indians were overtaken and badly defeated on Wisconsin River; and the survivors, still retreating northward, were again overtaken near Bad Axe River, on the left bank of the Mississippi. … Many of the Indians were shot in the water while trying to swim the stream; others were killed on a little island where they sought refuge. Only about 50 prisoners were taken, and most of these were squaws and children. The dispersion was complete, and the war was soon closed by the surrender or capture of Black Hawk, Keokuk, and other chiefs."

W. C. Bryant and S. H. Gay, Popular History of the United States, volume 4, chapter 12.

      J. B. Patterson, editor,
      History of Black Hawk, dictated by himself.
      Wisconsin Historical Society Collections,
      volume 10.

ILLYRIAN PROVINCES OF NAPOLEON.

"Northward of the tribes called Epirotic lay those more numerous and widely extended tribes who bore the general name of Illyrians, bounded on the west by the Adriatic, on the east by the mountain-range of Skardus, the northern continuation of Pindus, and thus covering what is now called Middle and Upper Albania, together with the more northerly mountains of Montenegro, Herzegovina, and Bosnia. Their limits to the north and north-east cannot be assigned. … Appian and others consider the Liburnians and Istrians as Illyrian, and Herodotus even includes under that name the Eneti or Veneti at the extremity of the Adriatic Gulf. … The Illyrians generally were poor, rapacious, fierce and formidable in battle. They shared with the remote Thracian tribes the custom of tattooing their bodies and of offering human sacrifices: moreover, they were always ready to sell their military service for hire, like the modern Albanian Schkipetars, in whom probably their blood yet flows, though with considerable admixture from subsequent immigrations. Of the Illyrian kingdom on the Adriatic coast, with Skodra (Scutari) for its capital city, which became formidable by its reckless piracies in the third century B. C., we hear nothing in the flourishing period of Grecian history."

ILLYRICUM OF THE ROMANS.

"The provinces of the Danube soon acquired the general appellation of Illyricum, or the Illyrian frontier, and were esteemed the most warlike of the empire; but they deserve to be more particularly considered under the names of Rhætia, Noricum, Pannonia, Dalmatia, Dacia, Mœsia, Thrace, Macedonia, and Greece. … Dalmatia, to which the name of Illyricum more properly belonged, was a long but narrow tract, between the Save and the Adriatic. … The inland parts have assumed the Sclavonian names of Croatia and Bosnia."

IMAGE-BREAKING IN THE NETHERLANDS.

IMAMS. THE IMAMATE.

"When an assembly of Moslems meet together for prayer, an Imam is chosen, who leads the prayer, and the congregation regulate their motions by his, prostrating themselves when he does so, and rising when he rises. In like manner, the khalif is set up on high as the Imam, or leader of the Faithful, in all the business of life. He must be a scrupulous observer of the law himself, and diligent in enforcing it upon others. The election of an Imam is imperative. … The qualities requisite in an Imam are four: knowledge, integrity, mental and physical soundness. … Among strict Moslems, it is a doctrine that Islam has been administered by only four veritable Imams—the 'rightly-guided khalifs': Abou Bekr, Omar, Othman, and Ali. But the Muhammadan world, in general, was not so exacting. They recognized the Commander of the Faithful in the prince who ruled with the title of khalif in Damascus or Baghdad, in Cordova or Kairo. The one condition absolutely essential was that the sovereign thus reigning should be a member of the tribe of Kuraish [or Koreish]."

A select corps of cavalry in the army of the Persians, under the Sassanian kings, bore this name. It numbered 10,000.

In the English Parliament of 1620-21 (reign of James I.), "on the motion of the Ex-Chief Justice, Sir Edward Coke, a committee of inquiry into grievances had been early appointed. The first abuse to which their attention was directed was that of monopolies, and this led to the revival of the ancient right of parliamentary impeachment—the solemn accusation of an individual by the Commons at the bar of the Lords—which had lain dormant since the impeachment of the Duke of Suffolk in 1449. Under the Tudors impeachments had fallen into disuse, partly through the subservience of the Commons, and partly through the preference of those sovereigns for bills of attainder, or of pains and penalties. Moreover, the power wielded by the Crown through the Star Chamber enabled it to inflict punishment for many state offences without resorting to the assistance of Parliament. With the revival of the spirit of liberty in the reign of James I., the practice of impeachment revived also, and was energetically used by the Commons in the interest alike of public justice and of popular power."

IMPERATOR.

"There can be no doubt that the title Imperator properly signifies one invested with Imperium, and it may very probably have been assumed in ancient times by every general on whom Imperium had been bestowed by a Lex Curiata. It is, however, equally certain, that in those periods of the republic with the history and usages of which we are most familiar, the title Imperator was not assumed as a matter of course by those who had received Imperium, but was, on the contrary, a much valued and eagerly coveted distinction. Properly speaking, it seems to have been in the gift of the soldiers, who hailed their victorious leader by this appellation on the field of battle; but occasionally, especially towards the end of the commonwealth, it was conferred by a vote of the Senate. … But the designation Imperator was employed under the empire in a manner and with a force altogether distinct from that which we have been considering. On this point we have the distinct testimony of Dion Cassius (xliii. 44, comp. liii. 17), who tells us that, in B. C. 46, the Senate bestowed upon Julius Cæsar the title of Imperator, not in the sense in which it had hitherto been applied, as a term of military distinction, but as the peculiar and befitting appellation of supreme power, and in this signification it was transmitted to his successors, without, however, suppressing the original import of the word. … Imperator, when used to denote supreme power, comprehending in fact the force of the titles Dictator and Rex, is usually, although not invariably, placed before the name of the individual to whom it is applied."

"When the Roman princes had lost sight of the senate and of their ancient capital, they easily forgot the origin and nature of their legal power. The civil offices of consul, of proconsul, of censor, and of tribune, by the union of which it had been formed, betrayed to the people its republican extraction. Those modest titles were laid aside; and if they still distinguished their high station by the appellation of Emperor, or Imperator, that word was understood in a new and more dignified sense, and no longer denoted the general of the Roman armies, but the sovereign of the Roman world. The name of Emperor, which was at first of a military nature, was associated with another of a more servile kind. The epithet of Dominus, or Lord, in its primitive signification, was expressive, not of the authority of a prince over his subjects, or of a commander over his soldiers, but of the despotic power of a master over his domestic slaves. Viewing it in that odious light, it had been rejected with abhorrence by the first Cæsars. Their resistance insensibly became more feeble, and the name less odious; till at length the style of 'our Lord and Emperor' was not only bestowed by flattery, but was regularly admitted into the laws and public monuments."

IMPERIAL CITIES OF GERMANY.

See CITIES, IMPERIAL AND FREE, OF GERMANY; and (as affected by the Treaties of Westphalia) GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

IMPERIAL FEDERATION.

IMPERIAL INDICTIONS.

"The supreme authority of the magistrates [in the Roman Republic], the 'imperium,' embraced not only the military but also the judicial power over the citizens. By virtue of the imperium a magistrate issued commands to the army, and by virtue of the imperium he sat in judgment over his fellow-citizens."

IMPRESSMENT OF AMERICAN SEAMEN BY BRITISH NAVAL OFFICERS.

INCUNABULA.

INDEPENDENCE DAY.

The anniversary of the American Declaration of Independence, adopted July 4, 1776.

   The hall in the old State House of Pennsylvania, at
   Philadelphia, within which the Declaration of American
   Independence was adopted and promulgated by the Continental
   Congress, on the 4th of July, 1776. The venerable State House,
   which was erected between 1729 and 1734, is carefully
   preserved, and the "Hall of Independence is kept closed,
   except when curious visitors seek entrance, or some special
   occasion opens its doors to the public.
{1698}
   Nothing now remains of the old furniture of the hall except
   two antique mahogany chairs, covered with red leather, one of
   which was used by Hancock as president, and the other by
   Charles Thomson as secretary of Congress, when the Declaration
   of Independence was adopted. … I ascended to the steeple,
   where hangs, in silent grandeur, the Liberty Bell. It is four
   feet in diameter at the lip, and three inches thick at the
   heaviest part. Its tone is destroyed by a crack, which extends
   from the lip to the crown, passing directly through the names
   of the persons who cast it. An attempt was made to restore
   the tone by sawing the crack wider, but without success. …
   The history of this bell is interesting. In 1752, a bell for
   the State House was imported from England. On the first
   trial-ringing, after its arrival, it was cracked. It was
   recast by Pass and Stow, of Philadelphia, in 1753, under the
   direction of Isaac Norris, Esq., the then speaker of the
   Colonial Assembly. And that is the bell, 'the greatest in
   English America,' which now hangs in the old State House
   steeple and claims our reverence. Upon fillets around its
   crown, cast there twenty-three years before the Continental
   Congress met in the State House, are the words of Holy Writ:
   'Proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the
   inhabitants thereof.' How prophetic! Beneath that very bell
   the representatives of the thirteen colonies 'proclaimed
   liberty.' Ay, and when the debates were ended, and the result
   was announced, on the 4th of July, 1776, the iron tongue of
   that very bell first 'proclaimed liberty throughout all the
   land, unto all the inhabitants thereof,' by ringing out the
   joyful annunciation for more than two hours."

ALSO IN: J. T. Scharf and T. Westcott, History of Philadelphia, volume I, chapters 15 and 17.

INDEPENDENT REPUBLICANS.

"The Puritans continued members of the church, only pursuing courses of their own in administering the ordinances, and it was not till about the middle of the reign of Elizabeth that the disposition was manifested among them to break away from the church altogether, and to form communities of their own. And then it was but a few of them who took this course: the more sober part remained in the church. The communities of persons who separated themselves were formed chiefly in London: there were very few in the distant counties, and those had no long continuance. It was not till the time of the Civil Wars that such bodies of Separatists, as they were called, or Congregationalists, or Independents, became numerous. At first they were often called Brownist churches, from Robert Brown, a divine of the time, who was for a while a zealous maintainer of the duty of separation."

"The peculiar tenet of Independency … consists in the belief that the only organization recognised in the primitive Church was that of the voluntary association of believers into local congregations, each choosing its own office-bearers and managing its own affairs, independently of neighbouring congregations, though willing occasionally to hold friendly conferences with such neighbouring congregations, and to profit by the collective advice. Gradually, it is asserted, this right or habit of occasional friendly conference between neighbouring congregations had been mismanaged and abused, until the true independency of each voluntary society of Christians was forgotten, and authority came to be vested in Synods or Councils of the office-bearers of the churches of a district or province. This usurpation of power by Synods or Councils, it is said, was as much a corruption of the primitive Church-discipline as was Prelacy itself. … So, I believe, though with varieties of expression, English Independents argue now. But, while they thus seek the original warrant for their clews in the New Testament and in the practice of the primitive Church, … they admit that the theory of Independency had to be worked out afresh by a new process of the English mind in the 16th and 17th centuries, and they are content, I believe, that the crude immediate beginning of that process should be sought in the opinions propagated, between 1580 and 1590, by the erratic Robert Brown, a Rutlandshire man, bred at Cambridge, who had become a preacher at Norwich. … Though Brown himself had vanished from public view since 1590, the Brownists, or Separatists, as they were called, had persisted in their course, through execration and persecution, as a sect of outlaws beyond the pale of ordinary Puritanism, and with whom moderate Puritans disowned connexion or sympathy. One hears of considerable numbers of them in the shires of Norfolk and Essex, and throughout Wales; and there was a central association of them in London, holding conventicles in the fields, or shifting from meeting-house to meeting-house in the suburbs, so as to elude Whitgift's ecclesiastical police. At length, in 1592, the police broke in upon one of the meetings of the London Brownists at Islington. … There ensued a vengeance far more ruthless than the Government dared against Puritans in general. Six of the leaders were brought to the scaffold. … Among the observers of these severities was Francis Bacon, then rising into eminence as a politician and lawyer. His feeling on the subject was thus expressed at the time: 'As for those which we call Brownists, being, when they were at the most, a very small number of very silly and base people here and there in corners dispersed, they are now (thanks be to God), by the good remedies that have been used, suppressed and worn out, so as there is scarce any news of them.' … Bacon was mistaken in supposing that Brownism was extinguished. Hospitable Holland received and sheltered what England cast out."

   "The name 'Brownist' had never been willingly borne by most of
   those who had accepted the distinguishing doctrine of the
   heresiarch to whom it related. Nor was it without reason that
   a distinction was alleged, and a new name preferred, when,
   relaxing the offensive severity of Brown's system, some who
   had adopted his tenet of the absolute independence of churches
   came to differ from him respecting the duty of avoiding and
   denouncing dissentients from it as rebellious, apostate,
   blasphemous, antichristian and accursed.
{1699}
   To this amendment of 'Brownism' the mature reflections and
   studies of the excellent Robinson of Leyden conducted him; and
   with reference to it he and his followers were sometimes
   called 'Semi-separatists.' Such a deference to reason and to
   charity gave a new position and attractiveness to the sect,
   and appears to have been considered as entitling Robinson to
   the character of 'father of the Independents.' Immediately on
   the meeting of the Long Parliament [1640], 'the Brownists, or
   Independents, who had assembled in private, and shifted from
   house to house for twenty or thirty years, resumed their
   courage, and showed themselves in public.' During this period
   of the obscurity of a sect which, when arrived at its full
   vigor, was to give law to the mother country, the history of
   the progress of its principles is mainly to be sought in New
   England. … Their opponents and their votaries alike referred
   to Massachusetts as the source of the potent element which had
   made its appearance in the religious politics of England."

      H. M. Dexter,
      The Congregationalism of the last 300 Years,
      lectures 1-5.

      See, also,
      ENGLAND: A. D. 1638-1640, and PURITANS:
      IN DISTINCTION FROM THE INDEPENDENTS, OR SEPARATISTS.

INDEPENDENTS: A. D. 1604-1617.
The church at Scrooby and its migration to Holland.

"The flimsiness of Brown's moral texture prevented him from becoming the leader in the Puritan exodus to New England. That honour was reserved for William Brewster, son of a country gentleman who had for many years been postmaster at Scrooby." After King James' Hampton Court Conference with the Puritan divines, in 1604, and his threatening words to them, nonconformity began to assume among the churches more decidedly the form of secession. "The key-note of the conflict was struck at Scrooby. Staunch Puritan as he was, Brewster had not hitherto favoured the extreme measures of the Separatists. Now he withdrew from the church, and gathered together a company of men and women who met on Sunday for divine service in his own drawing-room at Scrooby Manor. In organizing this independent Congregationalist society, Brewster was powerfully aided by John Robinson, a native of Lincolnshire. Robinson was then thirty years of age, and had taken his master's degree at Cambridge in 1600. He was a man of great learning and rare sweetness of temper, and was moreover distinguished for a broad and tolerant habit of mind too seldom found among the Puritans of that day. Friendly and unfriendly writers alike bear witness to his spirit of Christian charity and the comparatively slight value which he attached to orthodoxy in points of doctrine; and we can hardly be wrong in supposing that the comparatively tolerant behaviour of the Plymouth colonists, whereby they were contrasted with the settlers of Massachusetts, was in some measure due to the abiding influence of the teachings of this admirable man. Another important member of the Scrooby congregation was William Bradford, of the neighbouring village of Austerfield, then a lad of seventeen years, but already remarkable for maturity of intelligence and weight of character, afterward governor of Plymouth for nearly thirty years, he became the historian of his colony; and to his picturesque chronicle, written in pure and vigorous English, we are indebted for most that we know of the migration that started from Scrooby and ended in Plymouth. It was in 1606—two years after King James's truculent threat—that this independent church of Scrooby was organized. Another year had not elapsed before its members had suffered so much at the hands of officers of the law, that they began to think of following the example of former heretics and escaping to Holland. After an unsuccessful attempt in the autumn of 1607, they at length succeeded a few months later in accomplishing their flight to Amsterdam, where they hoped to find a home. But here they found the English exiles who had preceded them so fiercely involved in doctrinal controversies, that they decided to go further in search of peace and quiet: This decision, which we may ascribe to Robinson's wise counsels, served to keep the society of Pilgrims from getting divided and scattered. They reached Leyden in 1609, just as the Spanish government had sullenly abandoned the hopeless task of conquering the Dutch, and had granted to Holland the Twelve Years Truce. During eleven of these twelve years the Pilgrims remained in Leyden, supporting themselves by various occupations, while their numbers increased from 300 to more than 1,000. … In spite of the relief from persecution, however, the Pilgrims were not fully satisfied with their new home. The expiration of the truce with Spain might prove that this relief was only temporary; and at any rate, complete toleration did not fill the measure of their wants. Had they come to Holland as scattered bands of refugees, they might have been absorbed into the Dutch population, as Huguenot refugees have been absorbed in Germany, England, and America. But they had come as an organized community, and absorption into a foreign nation was something to be dreaded. They wished to preserve their English speech and English traditions, keep up their organization, and find some favoured spot where they might lay the corner-stone of a great Christian state. The spirit of nationality was strong in them; the spirit of self-government was strong in them; and the only thing which could satisfy these feelings was such a migration as had not been seen since ancient times, a migration like that of Phokaians to Massilia or Tyrians to Carthage. It was too late in the world's history to carry out such a scheme upon European soil. Every acre of territory there was appropriated. The only favourable outlook was upon the Atlantic coast of America, where English cruisers had now successfully disputed the pretensions of Spain, and where after forty years of disappointment and disaster a flourishing colony had at length been founded in Virginia."

      ALSO IN:
      G. Punchard,
      History of Congregationalism,
      volume 1, chapters 12-15.

      G. Sumner,
      Memoirs of the Pilgrims at Leyden
      (Massachusetts Historical Society Collection, 3d series,
      volume 9).

D. Campbell, The Puritan in Holland, England, and America, chapter 17 (volume 2).

"'Upon their talk of removing, sundry of the Dutch would have them go under them, and made them large offers'; but an inborn love for the English nation and for their mother tongue led them to the generous purpose of recovering the protection of England by enlarging her dominions. They were 'restless' with the desire to remove to 'the most northern parts of Virginia,' hoping, under the general government of that province, 'to live in a distinct body by themselves.' To obtain the consent of the London Company, John Carver, with Robert Cushman, in 1617, repaired to England. They took with them 'seven articles,' from the members of the church at Leyden, to be submitted to the council in England for Virginia. These articles discussed the relations which, as separatists in religion, they bore to their prince; and they adopted the theory which the admonitions of Luther and a century of persecution had developed as the common rule of plebeian sectaries on the continent of Europe. They expressed their concurrence in the creed of the Anglican church, and a desire of spiritual communion with its members. Toward the king and all civil authority derived from him, including the civil authority of bishops, they promised, as they would have done to Nero and the Roman pontifex, 'obedience in all things, active if the thing commanded be not against God's word, or passive if it be.' They denied all power to ecclesiastical bodies, unless it were given by the temporal magistrate. … The London company listened very willingly to their proposal, so that their agents 'found God going along with them'; and, through the influence of 'Sir Edwin Sandys, a religious gentleman then living,' a patent might at once have been taken, had not the envoys desired first to consult 'the multitude' at Leyden. On the 15th of December, 1617, the pilgrims transmitted their formal request, signed by the hands of the greatest part of the congregation. … The messengers of the pilgrims, satisfied with their reception by the Virginia company, petitioned the king for liberty of religion, to be confirmed under the king's broad seal. But here they encountered insurmountable difficulties. … Even while the negotiations were pending, a royal declaration constrained the Puritans of Lancashire to conform or leave the kingdom; and nothing more could be obtained for the wilds of America than an informal promise of neglect. On this the community relied, being advised not to entangle themselves with the bishops. 'If there should afterward be a purpose to wrong us,' thus they communed with themselves, 'though we had a seal as broad as the house-floor, there would be means enough found to recall or reverse it. We must rest herein on God's providence.' Better hopes seemed to dawn when, in 1619, the London company for Virginia elected for their treasurer Sir Edwin Sandys, who from the first had befriended the pilgrims. Under his presidency, so writes one of their number, the members of the company in their open court 'demanded our ends of going; which being related, they said the thing was of God, and granted a large patent.' As it was taken in the name of one who failed to accompany the expedition [Mr. John Wincob], the patent was never of any service. And, besides, the pilgrims, after investing all their own means, had not sufficient capital to execute their schemes. In this extremity, Robinson looked for aid to the Dutch. He and his people and their friends, to the number of 400 families, professed themselves well inclined to emigrate to the country on the Hudson, and to plant there a new commonwealth under the command of the stadholder and the states general. The 'West India company was willing to transport them without charge, and to furnish them with cattle; but when its directors petitioned the states general to promise protection to the enterprise against all violence from other potentates, the request was found to be in conflict with the policy of the Dutch republic, and was refused. The members of the church of Leyden, ceasing 'to meddle with the Dutch, or to depend too much on the Virginia company,' now trusted to their own resources and the aid of private friends. The fisheries had commended American expeditions to English merchants; and the agents from Leyden were able to form a partnership between their employers and men of business in London. The services of each emigrant were rated as a capital of £10, and belonged to the company; all profits were to be reserved till the end of seven years, when the whole amount, and all houses and land, gardens and fields, were to be divided among the share-holders according to their respective interests. The London merchant, who risked £100, would receive for his money tenfold as much as the penniless laborer for his services. This arrangement threatened a seven years' check to the pecuniary prosperity of the community; yet, as it did not interfere with civil rights or religion, it was accepted. And now, in July, 1620, the English at Leyden, trusting in God and in themselves, made ready for their departure."

G. Bancroft, History of the United States (Author's last revision), part 1, chapter 12 (volume 1).

   "To us … it seems natural that the whole country which is
   marked off from Asia by the great barrier of the Himalaya and
   the Suleiman range should have a single name. But it has not
   always seemed so. The Greeks had but a very vague idea of this
   country. To them for a long time the word India was for
   practical purposes what it was etymologically, the province of
   the Indus. When they say that Alexander invaded India, they
   refer to the Punjab. At a later time they obtained some
   information about the valley of the Ganges, but little or none
   about the Deccan. Meanwhile in India itself it did not seem so
   natural as it seems to us to give one name to the whole
   region. For there is a very marked difference between the
   northern and southern parts of it.
{1701}
   The great Aryan community which spoke Sanscrit and invented
   Brahminism spread itself chiefly from the Punjab along the
   great valley of the Ganges; but not at first far southward.
   Accordingly the name Hindostan properly belongs to this
   northern region. In the South or peninsula we find other races
   and non-Aryan languages. … It appears then that India is not
   a political name, but only a geographical expression like
   Europe or Africa."

"The name 'Hindustan' … is not used by the natives as it has been employed by writers of books and map-makers in Europe. … The word really means 'the land of the Hindus'; the northern part of the Peninsula, distinguished from the 'Deccan,' from which it is parted by the river Narbada. … The word Hindu' is of Zend (ancient Persian) origin, and may be taken to denote 'river-people,' so named, perhaps, from having first appeared on the line of the Indus, q. d., 'the river.'"

"Sinde, India, and Hindu-stan are various representatives of the same native word. 'Hindu' is the oldest known form, since it occurs in one of the most ancient portions of the Zendavesta. The Greeks and Romans sometimes called the river Sindus, instead of Indus."

"Our earliest glimpses of India disclose two races struggling for the soil. The one was a fair-skinned people, which had lately entered by the north-western passes,—a people who called themselves Aryan, literally of 'noble' lineage, speaking a stately language, worshipping friendly and powerful gods. These Aryans became the Brahmans and Rajputs of India. The other race was of a lower type, who had long dwelt in the land, and whom the lordly newcomers drove back into the mountains, or reduced to servitude on the plains. The comparatively pure descendants of these two races are now nearly equal in numbers; the intermediate castes, sprung chiefly from the ruder stock, make up the mass of the present Indian population. … The victorious Aryans called the early tribes Dasyus, or 'enemies,' and Dasas, or 'slaves.' The Aryans entered India from the colder north, and prided themselves on their fair complexion. Their Sanskrit word for 'colour' (varna) came to mean 'race' or 'caste.' The old Aryan poets, who composed the Veda at least 3,000 and perhaps 4,000 years ago, praised their bright gods, who, 'slaying the Dasyus, protected the Aryan colour;' who, 'subjected the black-skin to the Aryan man.' They tell us of their own 'stormy deities, who rush on like furious bulls and scatter the black-skin.' Moreover, the Aryan, with his finely-formed features, loathed the squat Mongolian faces of the Aborigines. One Vedic poet speaks of the non-Aryans as 'noseless' or flat-nosed, while another praises his own 'beautiful-nosed' gods. … Nevertheless all the non-Aryans could not have been savages. We hear of wealthy Dasyus or non-Aryans; and the Vedic hymns speak of their 'seven castles' and 'ninety forts.' The Aryans afterwards made alliance with non-Aryan tribes; and some of the most powerful kingdoms of India were ruled by non-Aryan kings. … Let us now examine these primitive peoples as they exist at the present day. Thrust back by the Aryan invaders from the plains, they have lain hidden away in the mountains, like the remains of extinct animals found in hill-caves. India thus forms a great museum of races, in which we can study man from his lowest to his highest stages of culture. … Among the rudest fragments of mankind are the isolated Andaman islanders, or non-Aryans of the Bay of Bengal. The Arab and early European voyagers described them as dog-faced man-eaters. The English officers sent to the islands in 1855 to establish a settlement, found themselves in the midst of naked cannibals; who daubed themselves at festivals with red earth, and mourned for their dead friends by plastering themselves with dark mud. … The Anamalai hills, in Southern Madras, form the refuge of many non-Aryan tribes. The long-haired, wild-looking Puliars live on jungle products, mice, or any small animals they can catch; and worship demons. Another clan, the Mundavers, have no fixed dwellings, but wander over the innermost hills with their cattle. They shelter themselves in caves or under little leaf sheds, and seldom remain in one spot more than a year. The thick-lipped, small-bodied Kaders, 'Lords of the Hills,' are a remnant of a higher race. They live by the chase, and wield some influence over the ruder forest-folk. These hills abound in the great stone monuments (kistvaens and dolmens) which the ancient non-Aryans erected over their dead. The Nairs, or hillmen of South-Western India, still keep up the old system of polyandry, according to which one woman is the wife of several husbands, and a man's property descends not to his own sons, but to his sister's children. This system also appears among the non-Aryan tribes of the Himalayas at the opposite end of India. In the Central Provinces, the non-Aryan races form a large part of the population. In certain localities they amount to one-half of the inhabitants. Their most important race, the Gonds, have made advances in civilisation; but the wilder tribes still cling to the forest, and live by the chase. … The Maris fly from their grass-built huts on the approach of a stranger. … Farther to the north-east, in the Tributary States of Orissa, there is a poor tribe, 10,000 in number, of Juangs or Patuas, literally the 'leaf-wearers.' Until lately their women wore no clothes, but only a few strings of beads around the waist, with a bunch of leaves before and behind. … Proceeding to the northern boundary of India, we find the slopes and spurs of the Himalayas peopled by a great variety of rude non-Aryan tribes. Some of the Assam hillmen have no word for expressing distance by miles or by any land-measure, but reckon the length of a journey by the number of plugs of tobacco or pan which they chew upon the way. They hate work; and, as a rule, they are fierce, black, undersized, and ill-fed. … Many of the aboriginal tribes, therefore, remain in the same early stage of human progress as that ascribed to them by the Vedic poets more than 3,000 years ago. But others have made great advances, and form communities of a well-developed type. These higher races, like the ruder ones, are scattered over the length and breadth of India, and I must confine myself to a very brief account of two of them,—the Santals and the Kandhs. The Santals have their home among the hills which abut on the valley of the Ganges in Lower Bengal. {1702} They dwell in villages of their own, apart from the people of the plains, and number about a million. Although still clinging to many customs of a hunting forest tribe, they have learned the use of the plough, and settled down into skilful husbandmen. Each hamlet is governed by its own headman, who is supposed to be a descendant of the original founder of the village. … Until near the end of the last century, the Santals lived by plundering the adjacent plains. But under British rule they settled down into peaceful cultivators. … The Kandhs, literally 'The Mountaineers,' a tribe about 100,000 strong, inhabit the steep and forest-covered ranges which rise from the Orissa coast. Their idea of government is purely patriarchal. The family is strictly ruled by the father. The grown-up sons have no property during his life, but live in his house with their wives and children, and all share the common meal prepared by the grandmother. The head of the tribe is usually the eldest son of the patriarchal family. … The Kandh system of tillage represents a stage half way between the migratory cultivation of the ruder non-Aryan tribes and the settled agriculture of the Hindus. … Whence came these primitive peoples, whom the Aryan invaders found in the land more than 3,000 years ago, and who are still scattered over India, the fragments of a pre-historic world? Written annals they do not possess. Their traditions tell us little. But from their languages we find that they belong to three stocks. First, the Tibeto-Burman tribes, who entered India from the north-east, and still cling to the skirts of the Himalayas. Second, the Kolarians, who also seem to have entered Bengal by the north-eastern passes. They dwell chiefly along the north-eastern ranges of the three-sided tableland which covers the southern half of India. Third, the Dravidians, who appear, on the other hand, to have found their way into the Punjab by the north-western passes. They now inhabit the southern part of the three-sided tableland as far down as Cape Comorin, the southernmost point of India. As a rule, the non-Aryan races, when fairly treated, are truthful, loyal, and kind. Those in the hills make good soldiers; while even the thieving tribes of the plains can be turned into clever police. The non-Aryan castes of Madras supplied the troops which conquered Southern India for the British; and some of them fought at the battle of Plassey, which won for us Bengal. The gallant Gurkhas, a non-Aryan tribe of the Himalayas, now rank among the bravest regiments in our Indian army, and lately covered themselves with honour in Afghanistan."

INDIA:
   The immigration and conquests of the Aryas.
   The hymns and prayers of their religion.
   Vedism.
   Brahmanism.
   Hinduism

   "The immigration of the Aryas into India took place from the
   west. They stand in the closest relation to the inhabitants of
   the table-land of Iran, especially the inhabitants of the
   eastern half. These also call themselves Aryas, though among
   them the word becomes Airya, or Ariya, and among the Greeks
   Arioi. The language of the Aryas is in the closest connection
   with that of the Avesta, the religious books of Iran, and in
   very close connection with the language of the monuments of
   Darius and Xerxes, in the western half of that region. The
   religious conceptions of the Iranians and Indians exhibit
   striking traits of a homogeneous character. A considerable
   number of the names of gods, of myths, sacrifices, and
   customs, occurs in both nations, though the meaning is not
   always the same, and is sometimes diametrically opposed.
   Moreover, the Aryas in India are at first confined to the
   borders of Iran, the region of the Indus, and the Panjab.
   Here; in the west, the Aryas had their most extensive
   settlements, and their oldest monuments frequently mention the
   Indus, but not the Ganges. Even the name by which the Aryas
   denote the land to the south of the Vindhyas, Dakshinapatha
   (Deccan), i. e., path to the right, confirms the fact already
   established, that the Aryas came from the west. From this it
   is beyond a doubt that the Aryas, descending from the heights
   of Iran, first occupied the valley of the Indus and the five
   tributary streams, which combine and flow into the river from
   the north-east, and they spread as far as they found pastures
   and arable land, i. e., as far eastward as the desert which
   separates the valley of the Indus from the Ganges. The river
   which irrigated their land, watered their pastures, and shaped
   the course of their lives they called Sindhu (in Pliny,
   Sindus), i. e., the river. It is, no doubt, the region of the
   Indus, with the Panjab, which is meant in the Avesta by the
   land hapta hindu (hendu), i. e., the seven streams. The
   inscriptions of Darius call the dwellers on the Indus Idhus.
   These names the Greeks render by Indos and Indoi. … Products
   of India, and among them such as do not belong to the land of
   the Indus, were exported from the land about 1000 B. C., under
   names given to them by the Aryas, and therefore the Aryas must
   have been settled there for centuries previously. For this
   reason, and it is confirmed by facts which will appear further
   on, we may assume that the Aryas descended into the valley of
   the Indus about the year 2000 B. C., i. e., about the time
   when the kingdom of Elam was predominant in the valley of the
   Euphrates and Tigris, when Assyria still stood under the
   dominion of Babylon, and the kingdom of Memphis was ruled by
   the Hyksos. … The oldest evidence of the life of the Aryas,
   whose immigration into the region of the Indus and settlement
   there we have been able to fix about 2000 B. C., is given in a
   collection of prayers and hymns of praise, the Rigveda, i. e.,
   'the knowledge of thanksgiving.' It is a selection or
   collection of poems and invocations in the possession of the
   priestly families, of hymns and prayers arising in these
   families, and sung and preserved by them. … We can ascertain
   with exactness the region in which the greater number of these
   poems grew up. The Indus is especially the object of praise:
   the 'seven rivers' are mentioned as the dwelling-place of the
   Aryas. This aggregate of seven is made up of the Indus itself
   and the five streams which unite and flow into it from the
   east—the Vitasta, Asikni, Iravati, Vipaça, Çatadru. The
   seventh river is the Sarasvati, which is expressly named 'the
   seven-sistered.' The land of the seven rivers is, as has
   already been remarked, known to the Iranians. The 'Sapta
   sindhava' of the Rigveda are, no doubt, the hapta hendu of the
   Avesta, and in the form Harahvaiti, the Arachotus of the Greeks,
   we again find the Sarasvati in the east of the table-land of
   Iran.
{1703}
   As the Yamuna and the Ganges are only mentioned in passing …
   and the Vindhya mountains and Narmadas are not mentioned at
   all, the conclusion is certain that, at the time when the
   songs of the Aryas were composed, the nation was confined to
   the land of the Panjab, though they may have already begun to
   move eastward beyond the valley of the Sarasvati. We gather
   from the songs of the Rigveda that the Aryas on the Indus were
   not one civic community. They were governed by a number of
   princes (raja). Some of these ruled on the bank of the Indus,
   others in the neighbourhood of the Sarasvati. They sometimes
   combined; they also fought not against the Dasyus only, but
   against each other."

"When the Indian branch of the Aryan family settled down in the land of the seven rivers. … now the Panjab, about the 15th century B. C., their religion was still nature-worship. It was still adoration of the forces which were everywhere in operation around them for production, destruction, and reproduction. But it was physiolatry developing itself more distinctly into forms of Theism, Polytheism, Anthropomorphism, and Pantheism. The phenomena of nature were thought of as something more than radiant beings, and something more than powerful forces. … They were addressed as kings, fathers, guardians, friends, benefactors, guests. They were invoked in formal hymns and prayers (mantras), in set metres (chandas). These hymns were composed in an early form of the Sanskrit language, at different times—perhaps during several centuries, from the 15th to the 10th B. C.—by men of light and leading (Rishis) among the Indo-Aryan immigrants, who were afterwards held in the highest veneration as patriarchal saints. Eventually the hymns were believed to have been directly revealed to, rather than composed by, these Rishis, and were then called divine knowledge (Veda), or the eternal word heard (sruti), and transmitted by them. These Mantras or hymns were arranged in three principal collections or continuous texts (Samhitas). The first and earliest was called the Hymn-veda (Rig-veda). It was a collection of 1,017 hymns, arranged for mere reading or reciting. This was the first bible of the Hindu religion, and the special bible of Vedism. … Vedism was the earliest form of the religion of the Indian branch of the great Aryan family. … Brahmanism grew out of Vedism. It taught the merging of all the forces of Nature in one universal spiritual Being—the only real Entity—which, when unmanifested and impersonal, was called Brahma (neuter); when manifested as a personal creator, was called Brahmā (masculine); and when manifested in the highest order of men, was called Brāhmana ('the Brāhmans'). Brahmanism was rather a philosophy than a religion, and in its fundamental doctrine was spiritual Pantheism. Hinduism grew out of Brahmanism. It was Brahmanism, so to speak, run to seed and spread out into a confused tangle of divine personalities and incarnations. … Yet Hinduism is distinct from Brahmanism, and chiefly in this—that it takes little account of the primordial, impersonal Being Brahma, and wholly neglects its personal manifestation Brahmā, substituting, in place of both Brahma and Brahmā., the two popular personal deities Siva and Vishnu. Be it noted, however, that the employment of the term Hinduism is wholly arbitrary and confessedly unsatisfactory. Unhappily there is no other expression sufficiently comprehensive. … Hinduism is Brahmanism modified by the creeds and superstitions of Buddhists [see below: B. C. 312—] and Non-Aryan races of all kinds, including Dravidians, Kolarians, and perhaps pre-Kolarian aborigines. It has even been modified by ideas imported from the religions of later conquering races, such as Islam and Christianity."

M. Williams, Religious Thought and Life in India, part 1, chapter 1, and introduction.

INDIA: B. C. 327-312.
   Invasion and conquests of Alexander the Great.
   Expulsion of the Greeks.
   Rise of the empire of Chandragupta.

"The year B. C. 327 marks an important era in the history of India. More than two centuries are supposed to have elapsed since the death of Gotama Buddha. The great empire of Magadha was apparently falling into anarchy, but Brahmanism and Buddhism were still expounding their respective dogmas on the banks of the Ganges. At this juncture Alexander of Macedon was leading an army of Greeks down the Cabul river towards the river Indus, which at that time formed the western frontier of the Punjab.

   … The design of Alexander was to conquer all the regions
   westward of the Indus, including the territory of Cabul, and
   then to cross the Indus in the neighbourhood of Attock, and
   march through the Punjab in a south-easterly direction,
   crossing all the tributary rivers on his way; and finally to
   pass down the valley of the Ganges and Jumna, via Delhi and
   Agra, and conquer the great Gangetic empire of Magadha or
   Pataliputra between the ancient cities of Prayaga and Gour.
   … After crossing the Indus, there were at least three
   kingdoms in the Punjab to be subdued one after the other,
   namely;—that of Taxiles between the Indus and the Jhelum;
   that of Porus the elder between the Jhelum and the Chenab; and
   that of Porus the younger between the Chenab and the Ravee.
   … When Alexander had fully established his authority in
   Cabul he crossed the Indus into the Punjab. Here he halted
   some time at the city of Taxila [Taxiles, the king, having
   submitted in advance], and then marched to the river Jhelum,
   and found that Porus the elder was encamped on the opposite
   bank with a large force of cavalry and infantry, together with
   chariots and elephants. The decisive battle which followed on
   the Jhelum is one of the most remarkable actions in ancient
   story. … Porus fought with a valour which excited the
   admiration of Alexander, but was at last wounded and compelled
   to fly. Ultimately he was induced to tender his submission.
   … The victory over Porus established the ascendancy of
   Alexander in the Punjab." It "not only decided the question
   between himself and Porus, but enabled him to open up a new
   communication with Persia, via the river Indus and the Indian
   Ocean.
{1704}
   He sent out woodmen to cut timber for ship-building in the
   northern forests, and to float it down the Jhelum; and he
   founded two cities, Bukephalia and Nikæa, one on each side of
   the Jhelum. … Whilst the fleet was being constructed,
   Alexander continued his march to the Chenab, and crossed that
   river into the dominions of Porus the younger," who fled at
   his approach, and whose kingdom was made over to the elder
   Porus, his uncle. "Alexander next crossed the Ravee, when he
   was called back by" a revolt in his rear, which he suppressed.
   "But meantime the Macedonians had grown weary of their
   campaign in India. … They … resisted every attempt to lead
   them beyond the Sutlej; and Alexander, making a virtue of
   necessity, at last consulted the oracles and found that they
   were unfavourable to an onward movement. … He returned with
   his army to the Jhelum, and embarked on board the fleet with a
   portion of his troops, whilst the remainder of his army
   marched along either bank. In this manner he proceeded almost
   due south through the Punjab and Scinde. … At last he
   reached the Indian Ocean, and beheld for the first time the
   phenomena of the tides; and then landed his army and marched
   through Beloochistan towards Susa, whilst Nearchos conducted
   the fleet to the Persian Gulf, and finally joined him in the
   same city. … Alexander had invaded the Punjab during the
   rainy season of B. C. 327, and reached the Indian Ocean about
   the middle of B. C. 326. Meantime Philip remained at Taxila as
   his lieutenant or deputy, and commanded a garrison of
   mercenaries and a body-guard of Macedonians. When Alexander
   was marching through Beloochistan, on his way to Susa, the
   news reached him that Philip had been murdered by the
   mercenaries, but that nearly all the murderers had been slain
   by the Macedonian body-guards. Alexander immediately
   despatched letters directing the Macedonian Eudemos to carry
   on the government in conjunction with Taxiles, until he could
   appoint another deputy; and this provisional arrangement seems
   to have been continued until the death of Alexander in B. C.
   323. The political anarchy which followed this catastrophe can
   scarcely be realized. … India was forgotten. Eudemos took
   advantage of the death of Alexander to murder Porus; but was
   ultimately driven out of the Punjab with all his Macedonians
   by an adventurer who was known to the Greeks as Sandrokottos,
   and to the Hindus as Chandragupta. This individual is said to
   have delivered India from a foreign yoke only to substitute
   his own. … By the aid of banditti he captured the city of
   Patali-putra, and obtained the throne; and then drove the
   Greeks out of India, and established his empire over the whole
   of Hindustan and the Punjab."

INDIA: B. C. 312
Chandragupta and Asoka.
The spread of Buddhism and its Brahmanic absorption.

   "The first tolerably trustworthy date in Indian history is the
   era of Candra-gupta (=Sandro-kottus) the founder of the Maurya
   dynasty, who, after making himself master of Pataliputra
   (Palibothra, Patna) and the kingdom of Magadha (Behar),
   extended his dominion over all Hindustan, and presented a
   determined front towards Alexander's successor Seleukos
   Nikator, the date of the commencement of whose reign was about
   312 B. C. When the latter contemplated invading India from his
   kingdom of Bactria, so effectual was the resistance offered by
   Candra-gupta that the Greek thought it politic to form an
   alliance with the Hindu king, and sent his own countryman
   Megasthenes as an ambassador to reside at his court. To this
   circumstance we owe the first authentic account of Indian
   manners, customs, and religious usages by an intelligent
   observer who was not a native, and this narrative of
   Megasthenes, preserved by Strabo, furnishes a basis on which
   we may found a fair inference that Brahmanism and Buddhism
   existed side by side in India on amicable terms in the fourth
   century B. C. There is even ground for believing that King
   Candra-gupta himself was in secret a Buddhist, though in
   public he paid homage to the gods of the Brahmans; at any
   rate, there can be little doubt that his successor Asoka did
   for Buddhism what Constantine did for Christianity—gave an
   impetus to its progress by adopting it as his own creed.
   Buddhism, then, became the state religion, the national faith
   of the whole kingdom of Magadha, and therefore of a great
   portion of India. This Asoka is by some regarded as identical
   with Candra-gupta; at any rate, their characters and much of
   their history are similar. He is probably the same as King
   Priyadarsi, whose edicts on stone pillars enjoining 'Dharma,'
   or the practice of virtue and universal benevolence, are
   scattered over India from Katak in the east and Gujarat in the
   west to Allahabad, Delhi, and Afghanistan on the north-west.
   What then is Buddhism? It is certainly not Brahmanism, yet it
   arose out of Brahmanism, and from the first had much in common
   with it. Brahmanism and Buddhism are closely interwoven with
   each other, yet they are very different from each other.
   Brahmanism is a religion which may be described as all
   theology, for it makes God everything, and everything God.
   Buddhism is no religion at all, and certainly no theology, but
   rather a system of duty, morality, and benevolence, without
   real deity, prayer or priest. The name Buddha is simply an
   epithet meaning the perfectly enlightened one,' or rather one
   who, by perfect knowledge of the truth, is liberated from all
   existence, and who, before his own attainment of Nirvana, or
   'extinction,' reveals to the world the method of obtaining it.
   The Buddha with whom we are concerned was only the last of a
   series of Buddhas who had appeared in previous cycles of the
   universe. He was born at Kapila-vastu, a city and kingdom at
   the foot of the mountains of Nepal, his father Suddhodana
   being the king of that country, and his mother Maya-devi being
   the daughter of King Suprabuddha. Hence he belonged to the
   Kshatriya class, and his family name was Sakya, while his name
   of Gautama (or Gotama) was taken from that of his tribe. He is
   said to have arrived at supreme knowledge under the Bodhi
   tree, or 'tree of wisdom' (familiarly called' the Bo tree'),
   at Gaya, in Behar (Magadha), about the year 588 B. C., and to
   have commenced propagating the new faith at Benares soon
   afterwards. … Buddhism was a protest against the tyranny of
   Brahmanism and caste. According to the Buddha, all men are
   equal.
{1705}
   … We have five marked features of Buddhism:

4. great importance assigned to self-mortification, austerity, and abstract meditation, as an aid to the suppression of all action;

There is still a sixth, which is perhaps the most noteworthy of all; viz., that the Buddha recognized no supreme deity. The only god, he affirmed, is what man himself can become. A Buddhist, therefore, never really prays, he only meditates on the perfections of the Buddha and the hope of attaining Nirvana. … Brahmanism and Buddhism [in India] appear to have blended, or, as it were, melted into each other, after each had reciprocally parted with something, and each had imparted something. At any rate it may be questioned whether Buddhism was ever forcibly expelled from any part of India by direct persecution, except, perhaps, in a few isolated centres of Brahmanical fanaticism, such as the neighbourhood of Benares. Even in Benares the Chinese traveller, Hiouen Thsang, found Brahmanism and Buddhism flourishing amicably side by side in the 7th century of our era. In the South of India the Buddha's doctrines seem to have met with acceptance at an early date, and Ceylon was probably converted as early as B. C. 240, soon after the third Buddhist council held under King Asoka. In other parts of India there was probably a period of Brahmanical hostility, and perhaps of occasional persecution; but eventually Buddhism was taken by the hand, and drawn back into the Brahmanical system by the Brahmans themselves, who met it half way and ended by boldly adopting the Buddha as an incarnation of Vishnu. … Only a small section of the Buddhist community resisted all conciliation, and these are probably represented by the present sect of Jains [who are found in large numbers in various parts of India, especially on the western coast]. Be the actual state of the case as it may, nothing can be clearer than the fact that Buddhism has disappeared from India (the island of Ceylon being excepted), and that it has not done so without having largely contributed towards the moulding of Brahmanism into the Hinduism of the present day."

      ALSO IN:
      M. Williams (now Sir Monier Monier-Williams),
      Buddhism.

   "Aryan civilisation was … germinating, but it was in
   uncongenial soil. Like the descendants of Abraham and Jacob,
   the invaders mingled with the heathen and learned their ways.
   The older inhabitants were barbarous, multilingual, indolent;
   worshippers less of many gods than of many devils. The fusion
   that ensued was not happy; though the origin and growth of the
   caste system prevented complete union, it facilitated some of
   its evils; the character of the Aryan settlers became
   disastrously affected; the want of commercial communication by
   land and sea tended to perpetuate stagnation. This was the
   state of things upon which the rising tide from Central Asia
   began to flow with resistless pertinacity after the
   Mongolo-Turkish power became established on the Oxus and the
   Helmand. It was not to be wondered at if the Arabs made no
   wide or lasting Indian conquests in the early ages of the
   Musulman era. At a time when they were engaged with the
   Christian Empires of the East and the West, when they were
   spreading the power of the crescent from the borders of
   Khorásán to the Pillars of Hercules, the warriors of Islam had
   perhaps but little temptation to undertake further adventure.
   Certain it is that beyond the confines of Makran and a part of
   Sindh (occupied less than a hundred years after the
   Hijra)—the Arab conquests did not spread in India. It was
   Nasir-ud-Din Sabuktigin—certainly a Merv captive and
   popularly believed a scion of the Sassanian dynasty that once
   ruled Persia—by whom the first Muslim invasion of Hindustan
   was made in durable fashion. His master, Alptigin, having fled
   from the oppression of the Samani dynasty of Bukhara in 962 A.
   D., had founded a principality at Ghazni. Sabuktigin acquired
   his favour, and was able, soon after his death, to acquire the
   succession in 977 A. D. He established his power in the
   Punjab; and his armies are said to have penetrated as far as
   Benares. On his death, 997 A. D., his son, the celebrated
   Sultan Mahmud, succeeded to the Empire extending from Balkh to
   Lahore, if not to Hansi [see TURKS: A. D. 999-1183]. During a
   reign of over thirty years he invaded Hindustan twelve times,
   inflicting terrible carnage on the Hindus, desecrating their
   idols, and demoralising their temples. Mathura, Kanauj,
   Somnath; to such distant and divergent points did his
   enterprises reach. Mahmud died 1030 A. D., and was buried at
   Ghazni, where his monument is still to be seen. For about one
   hundred years the dynasty continued to rule in the Punjab and
   Afghanistan, more and more troubled by the neighbouring tribe
   of Ghor, who in 1187 A. D. took Lahore and put an end to the
   Ghaznavide dynasty. A prince of the Ghorians—variously known,
   but whose name may be taken as Muhammad Bin Sam—was placed in
   a sort of almost independent viceroyalty at Ghazni. In 1191 A.
   D. he led an army against Sirhind, south of the Sutlaj river.
   Rai Pithaura, or Pirthi Rai, a chief of the Chauhans (who had
   lately possessed themselves of Dehli), marched against the
   invaders and defeated them in a battle where Bin Sam had a
   narrow escape from being slain. But the sturdy mountaineers
   would not be denied. Next year they returned" and defeated
   Pithaura. "The towns of Mirat and Dehli fell upon his defeat;
   and their fall was followed a year later by that of Kanauj and
   Benares. The Viceroy's brother dying at this juncture, he
   repaired to his own country to establish his succession. He
   was killed in an expedition, 1206 A. D., and the affairs of
   Hindustan devolved upon his favourite Mameluke, Kutb-ud-din
   Aibak. … When Muhammad bin Sam had gone away, to rule and
   ultimately to perish by violence in his native highlands, his
   acquisitions in Hindustan came under the sway of Kutb-ud-din
   Aibak, a Mameluke, or Turkish slave, who had for a long time
   been his faithful follower. One of the Viceroy's first
   undertakings was to level to the ground the palaces and
   temples of the Hindus at Dehli, and to build, with the
   materials obtained by their destruction, a great Mosque for
   the worship of Allah. … From 1192 to 1206, the year of Bin
   Sam's death, Kutb-ud-din Aibak ruled as Viceroy.
{1706}
   But it is recorded that the next Emperor—feeling the
   difficulty, perhaps, of exercising any sort of rule over so
   remote a dependency—sent Aibak a patent as 'Sultan,'
   accompanied by a canopy of state, a throne and a diadem.
   Becoming Sultan of Hindustan, the distinguished and fortunate
   Mameluke founded what is known as 'the Slave dynasty.' …
   Aibak died at Lahore, in 1210, from an accident at a game now
   known as 'polo.' He was contemporaneous with the great Mughul
   leader Changiz Khan, by whom, however, he was not molested.
   The chief event of his reign is to be found in his successful
   campaigns in Behar and Northern Bengal. … The Musulman power
   was not universally and firmly established in the Eastern
   Provinces till the reign of Balban (circ. 1282). At the death
   of Aibak the Empire was divided into four great portions. The
   Khiljis represented the power of Islam in Bihar and Bengal;
   the North-West Punjab was under a viceroy named Ilduz, a
   Turkman slave; the valley of the Indus was ruled by another of
   these Mamelukes, named Kabacha; while an attempt was made at
   Dehli to proclaim an incompetent lad, son of the deceased, as
   Sultan. But the Master of the Horse, a third Mameluke named
   Altimsh, was close at hand, and, hurrying up at the invitation
   of influential persons there, speedily put down the movement.
   … Altimsh, having deposed his feeble brother-in-law, became
   Suzerain of the Empire. His satraps were not disposed to
   obedience; and bloody wars broke out, into the details of
   which we need not enter. It will be sufficient to note that
   Ilduz was defeated and slain A. D. 1215. Two years later
   Kabacha came up from Sindh, and seems [to] have enlisted some
   of the Mughul hordes in his armies. These formidable
   barbarians, of whom more anon, were now in force in Khorasan,
   under Changiz in person, assisted by two of his sons.

They drove before them the Sultan of Khwarizm (now Khiva), and occupied Afghanistan. The fugitive, whose adventures are among the most romantic episodes of Eastern history, attempted to settle himself in the Panjab; but he was driven out by Altimsh and Kabacha in 1223. Two years later Altimsh moved on the Khiljis in the Eastern Provinces, occupied Gaur, their capital; and proceeding from thence made further conquests south and north at the expense of the Hindus. In 1228 he turned against Kabacha, the mighty Satrap of Sindh, who was routed in battle near Bakkhar, where he committed suicide or was accidentally drowned. In 1232-3 the Sultan reduced Gwalior (in spite of a stout resistance on the part of the Hindus under Milak Deo), slaying 700 prisoners at the door of his tent. In 1234 he took the province of Malwa; where he demolished the great temples of Bhilsa and Ujain. In the following year this puissant warrior of the Crescent succumbed to the common conqueror, dying a natural death at Dehli, after a glorious reign of twenty-six (lunar) years. … His eldest son, who had conducted the war against the Khiljis, had died before him, and the Empire was assumed by a younger son, Rukn-ud-din Firoz. … [In 1241] Lahore was taken by the Mughols with terrific carnage. Troubles ensued; Dehli was besieged by the army that had been raised for its defence against the Mughols; in May 1242 the city was taken by storm and the new Sultan was slain. His successor, Ala-uddin I., was a grandson of Altimsh, incompetent and apathetic as young men in his position have usually been. The land was partitioned among Turkish satraps, and overrun by the Mughols, who penetrated as far as Gaur in Bengal. Another horde, led by Mangu, grandson of Changiz, and father of the celebrated Kiblai Khan, ravaged the Western Punjab. The Sultan marched against them and met with a partial success. This turned into evil courses the little intellect that he had, a plot was organised for his destruction. Ala-ud-din was slain, and his uncle Nasir-ud-din was placed upon the vacant throne in June 1246. Nasir's reign was long, and, so far as his personal exploits went, would have been uneventful. But the risings of the Hindus and the incursions of the Mughols kept the Empire in perpetual turmoil." Nasir was succeeded in 1286-7 by his grandson, Kai Kobad. "This unfortunate young man was destined to prove the futility of human wisdom. Educated by his stern and serious grandfather, his lips had never touched those of a girl or a goblet. His sudden elevation turned his head. He gave himself up to debauchery, caused his cousin Khusru to be murdered, and was himself ultimately killed in his palace at Kilokhari, while lying sick of the palsy. With his death (1290) came to an end the Mameluke Empire of Hindustan."

      A. Dow,
      History of Hindustan
      (from the Persian of Ferishta),
      volume 1.

   "In 1290 the last Sultan of the Afghan slave dynasty was
   assassinated, and a Sultan ascended the throne at Delhi under
   the name of Jelal-ud-din. He was an old man of seventy, and
   made no mark in history; but he had a nephew, named
   Ala-ud-din, who became a man of renown," and who presently
   acquired the throne by murdering his uncle. "When Ala-ud-din
   was established on the throne at Delhi he sent an army to
   conquer Guzerat." This conquest was followed by that of
   Rajputana. "Meanwhile the Moghuls [Mongols] were very
   troublesome. In the previous reign the uncle of Ala-ud-din had
   enlisted 3,000, and settled them near Delhi; but they were
   turbulent, refractory, and mixed up with every rebellion.
   Ala-ud-din ordered them to be disbanded, and then they tried
   to murder him. Ala-ud-din then ordered a general massacre.
   Thousands are said to have been put to death, and their wives
   and children were sold into slavery. Ala-ud-din was the first
   Muhammadan sovereign who conquered Hindu Rajas in the Dekhan
   and Peninsula. … Ala-ud-din sent his general Malik Kafur to
   invade these southern countries, ransack temples, and carry
   off treasure and tribute. The story is a dreary narrative of
   raid and rapine. … Ala-ud-din died in 1316. His death was
   followed by a Hindu revolt; indeed Hindu influences must have
   been at work at Delhi for many years previously. Ala-ud-din
   had married a Hindu queen; his son had married her daughter.
   Malik Kafur was a Hindu converted to Islam. The leader of the
   revolt at Delhi in 1316 was another Hindu convert to Islam.
   The proceedings of the latter rebel, however, were of a mixed
   character. He was proclaimed Sultan under a Muhammadan name,
   and slaughtered every male of the royal house. Meanwhile his
   Hindu followers set up idols in the mosques, and seated
   themselves on Korans.
{1707}
   The rebels held possession of Delhi for five months. At the
   end of that time the city was captured by the Turkish governor
   of the Punjab, named Tughlak. The conqueror then ascended the
   throne of Delhi, and founded the dynasty of Tughlak Sultans.
   The Tughlak Sultans would not live at Delhi; they probably
   regarded it as a Hindu volcano. They held their court at
   Tughlakabad, a strong fortress about an hour's drive from old
   Delhi. The transfer of the capital from Delhi to Tughlakabad
   is a standpoint in history. It shows that a time had come when
   the Turk began to fear the Hindu. The conqueror of Delhi died
   in 1325. He was succeeded by a son who has left his mark in
   history. Muhammad Tughlak was a Sultan of grand ideas, but
   blind to all experiences, and deaf to all counsels. He sent
   his armies into the south to restore the Muhammadan supremacy
   which had been shaken by the Hindu revolt. Meanwhile the
   Moghuls invaded the Punjab, and Muhammad Tughlak bribed them
   to go away with gold and jewels. Thus the imperial treasury
   was emptied of all the wealth which had been accumulated by
   Ala-ud-din. The new Sultan tried to improve his finances, but
   only ruined the country by his exactions. … Then followed
   rebellions and revolutions. Bengal revolted, and became a
   separate kingdom under an independent Sultan. The Rajas of the
   Dekhan and Peninsula withheld their tribute. The Muhammadan
   army of the Dekhan broke out into mutiny, and set up a Sultan
   of their own. Muhammad Tughlak saw that all men turned against
   him. He died in 1350, after a reign of twenty-five years. The
   history of Delhi fades away after the death of Muhammad
   Tughlak. A Sultan reigned from 1350 to 1388, named Firuz Shah.
   He is said to have submitted to the dismemberment of the
   empire, and done his best to promote the welfare of the
   subjects left to him; but it is also said that he destroyed
   temples and idols, and burnt a Brahman alive for perverting
   Muhammadan women. In 1398-99, ten years after the death of
   Firuz Shah, Timur Shah invaded the Punjab and Hindustan [see
   TIMOUR]. The horrors of the Tartar invasion are indescribable;
   they teach nothing to the world, and the tale of atrocities
   may well be dropped into oblivion. It will suffice to say that
   Timur came and plundered, and then went away. He left officers
   to rule in his name, or to collect tribute in his name. In
   1450 they were put aside by Afghans;—turbulent Muhammadan
   fanatics whose presence must have been hateful to the Hindus.
   At last, in 1525, a descendant of Timur, named the Baber,
   invaded India, and conquered the Punjab and Hindustan."

ALSO IN: M. Elphinstone, History of India: Hindu and Mahometan, book 6. chapters 2-3.

[Image: Map of India, about the close of the Sixteenth Century, and map of the growth of the Anglo-Indian Empire.]

INDIA: A. D. 1399-1605.
The Saiyid and the Lodi dynasties.
The founding of the Moghul Empire by Babar and Akbar.

"The invasion of Taimur … dealt a fatal blow to an authority already crumbling. The chief authority lingered indeed for twelve years in the hands of the then representative, Sultan Mahmud. It then passed for a time into the hands of a family which did not claim the royal title. This family, known in history as the Saiyid dynasty, ruled nominally in Northern India for about 33 years, but the rule had no coherence, and a powerful Afghan of the Lodi family took the opportunity to endeavour to concentrate power in his own hands. The Muhammadan rule in India had indeed become by this time the rule of several disjointed chiefs over several disjointed provinces, subject in point of fact to no common head. Thus, in 1450, Delhi, with a small territory around it, was held by the representative of the Saiyid family. Within fourteen miles of the capital, Ahmad Khan ruled independently in Mewat. Sambhal, or the province now known as Rohilkhand, extending to the very walls of Delhi, was occupied by Darya Khan Lodi. … Lahore, Dipalpur, and Sirhind, as far south as Panipat, by Behlul Lodi. Multan, Jaunpur, Bengal, Malwa, and Gujarat, each had its separate king. Over most of these districts, and as far eastward as the country immediately to the north of Western Bihar, Behlul Lodi, known as Sultan Behlul, succeeded on the disappearance of the Saiyids in asserting his sole authority, 1450-88. His son and successor, Sultan Sikandar Lodi, subdued Behar, invaded Bengal, which, however, he subsequently agreed to yield to Allah-u-din, its sovereign, and not to invade it again; and overran a great portion of Central India. On his death, in 1518, he had concentrated under his own rule the territories now known as the Punjab; the North-western Provinces, including Jaunpur; a great part of Central India; and Western Bihar. But, in point of fact, the concentration was little more than nominal." The death of Sikandar Lodi was followed by a civil war which resulted in calling in the Tartar or Mongol conqueror, Babar, a descendant of Timour, who, beginning in 1494 with a small dominion (which he presently lost) in Ferghana, or Khokland, Central Asia, had made himself master of a great part of Afghanistan (1504), establishing his capital at Kabul. Babar had crossed the Indian border in 1505, but his first serious invasion was in 1519, followed, according to some historians, by a second invasion the same year; the third was in 1520; the fourth occurred after an interval of two or three years. On his fifth expedition he made the conquest complete, winning a great battle at Panipat, 53 miles to the north-west of Delhi, on the 24th of April, 1526. Ibrahim Lodi, son and successor of Sikandar Lodi, was killed in the battle, and Delhi and Agra were immediately occupied. "Henceforth the title of King of Kabul was to be subjected to the higher title of Emperor of Hindustan." Babar was in one sense the founder of the Mughal (synonymous with Mongol) dynasty—the dynasty of the Great Moguls, as his successors were formerly known. He died in 1530, sovereign of northern India, and of some provinces in the center of the peninsula: But "he bequeathed to his son, Humayun, … a congeries of territories uncemented by any bond of union or of common interest, except that which had been concentrated in his life. In a word, when he died, the Mughal dynasty, like the Muhammadan dynasties which had preceded it, had shot down no roots into the soil of Hindustan."

Humayun succeeded Babar in India, "but had to make over Kabul and the Western Punjab to his brother and rival, Kamran. Humayun was thus left to govern the new conquest of India, and at the same time was deprived of the country from which his father had drawn his support. The descendants of the early Afghan invaders, long settled in India, hated the new Muhammadan hordes of Babar even more than they hated the Hindus. After ten years of fighting, Humayun was driven out of India by these Afghans under Sher Shah, the Governor of Bengal. While flying through the desert of Sind to Persia, his famous son Akbar was born in the petty fort of Umarkot (1542). Sher Shah set up as emperor, but was killed while storming the rock fortress of Kalinjar (1545). His son succeeded. But, under Sher Shah's grandson, the third of the Afghan house, the Provinces revolted, including Malwa, the Punjab, and Bengal. Humayun returned to India, and Akbar, then only in his thirteenth year, defeated the Afghan army after a desperate battle at Panipat (1556). India now passed finally from the Afghans to the Mughals. Sher Shah's line disappears; and Humayun, having recovered his Kabul dominions, reigned again for a few months at Delhi, but died in 1556. … Akbar the Great, the real founder of the Mughal Empire as it existed for two centuries, succeeded his father at the age of fourteen. … His reign lasted for almost fifty years, from 1556 to 1605, and was therefore contemporary with that of our own Queen Elizabeth (1558-1603). His father, Humayun, left but a small kingdom in India, scarcely extending beyond the Districts around Agra and Delhi. … The reign of Akbar was a reign of pacification. … He found India split into petty kingdoms, and seething with discordant elements; on his death, in 1605, he bequeathed it an empire. The earlier invasions by Turks, Afghans, and Mughals, had left a powerful Muhammadan population in India under their own Chiefs. Akbar reduced these Musalman States to Provinces of the Delhi Empire. Many of the Hindu kings and Rajput nations had also regained their independence: Akbar brought them into political dependence upon his authority. This double task he effected partly by force of arms, but in part also by alliances. He enlisted the Rajput princes by marriage and by a sympathetic policy in the support of his throne. He then employed them in high posts, and played off his Hindu generals and Hindu ministers against the Mughal party in Upper India, and against the Afghan faction in Bengal. … His efforts to establish the Mughal Empire in Southern India were less successful. … Akbar subjugated Khandesh, and with this somewhat precarious annexation his conquests in the Deccan ceased. … Akbar not only subdued all India to the north of the Vindhya mountains, he also organized it into an empire. He partitioned it into Provinces, over each of which he placed a governor, or viceroy, with full civil and military control."

"I wish briefly and fairly to state what the Emperor Akbar did for the improvement of the country and the people of Hindostan. He improved the system of land-assessment, or rather he improved upon the improvements instituted by Shir Shah. He adapted an uniform and improved system of land-measurement, and computed the average value of the land, by dividing it into three classes, according to the productiveness of each. This computation being made, one-third of the average produce was fixed as the amount of tax to be paid to the state. But as this was ordinarily to be paid in money, it was necessary to ascertain the value of the produce, and this was done upon an average of the nineteen preceding years, according to local circumstances; and if the estimate was conceived to be too high, the tax-payer was privileged to pay the assessment in kind. … The regulations for the collection of the revenue enforced by Akbar were well calculated to prevent fraud and oppression, and, on the whole, they worked well for the benefit of the people; but it has been said of them, and with truth, that 'they contained no principle of progressive improvement, and held out no hopes to the rural population, by opening paths by which it might spread into other occupations, or rise by individual exertions within its own.' The judicial regulations of Akbar were liberal and humane. Justice, on the whole, was fairly administered. All unnecessary severity—all cruel personal punishments, as torture and mutilation, were prohibited, except in peculiar cases, and capital punishments were considerably restricted. The police appears to have been well organised. … He prohibited … trials by ordeal … ; he suppressed the barbarous custom of condemning to slavery prisoners taken in war; and he authoritatively forbade the burning of Hindoo widows, except with their own free and uninfluenced consent. … That something of the historical lustre which surrounds the name of the Emperor Akbar was derived rather from the personal character of the man than from the great things that he accomplished, is, I think, not to be denied. His actual performances, when they come to be computed, fall short of his reputation. But his merits are to be judged not so much by the standard of what he did, as of what he did with the opportunities allowed to him, and under the circumstances by which he was surrounded. Akbar built up the Mogul Empire, and had little leisure allowed him to perfect its internal economy."

      ALSO IN: 3
      W. Erskine,
      History of India under Baber and Humayun.

In May, 1498, Vasco da Gama, the Portuguese navigator, reached Calicut, on the southwest (Malabar) coast, being the first European to traverse the ocean route to India, around the Cape of Good Hope (see PORTUGAL: A. D. 1463-1498). He met with a hostile reception from the natives of Malabar; but the next voyager from Portugal, Alvarez Cabral, "who came out the following year, was very favourably received, being allowed to establish a factory on the mainland and to appoint a 'factor' (or consul, as we say now) to represent Portugal there. This factor seems to have had some difficulties with the natives, chiefly owing to his own high-handed actions, which resulted in the murder of himself and the destruction of the factory. Alvarez Cabral therefore sailed up to Cochin, and was received with great friendliness by the chiefs of that part of the country, who allowed him again to set up agencies at Cochin and at Cananore. But the vengeance of the ruler of Malabar pursued them; and the Portuguese, together with their native allies, had to fight desperately for their safety. {1709} They were almost exhausted with the struggle when in 1504 large reinforcements were sent from Portugal, bombarded Calicut, the capital of Malabar, and established the name and fame of the Portuguese as an important power in India generally. A regular maritime trade with India was now firmly set on foot, but the Portuguese had to struggle hard to maintain it. The Mohammedans of India called in the aid of Egypt against them, and even the republic of Venice joined these enemies, in hopes of crushing this new rival to their ancient trade. In 1508 a powerful expedition was sent out from Egypt against the newcomers, a tremendous battle took place, and the Portuguese were defeated. But by a desperate effort Almeida, the Portuguese viceroy, collected all his forces for a final blow, and succeeded in winning a magnificent naval victory which once and for all firmly established the Portuguese power in India. Two years afterwards Almeida's rival and successor, Alfonso de Albuquerque, gained possession of Goa (1510), and this city became the centre of their Indian dominion, which now included Ceylon and the Maldive Islands, together with the Malacca and Malabar coasts. In 1511 the city of Malacca was captured, and the city of Ormuz in 1515. The next few years were spent in consolidating their sovereignty in these regions, till in 1542 the Portuguese colonists practically regulated all the Asiatic coast trade with Europe, from the Persian Gulf … to Japan. … For nearly sixty years after this date the king of Portugal, or his viceroy, was virtually the supreme ruler—in commercial matters at any rate—of the southern coast of Asia. The Portuguese were at the climax of their power in the east. The way in which Portuguese trade was carried on is an interesting example of the spirit of monopoly which has, invariably at first and very often afterwards, inspired the policy of all European powers in their efforts of colonisation. The eastern trade was of course kept in the hands of Portuguese traders only, as far as direct commerce between Portugal and India was concerned; but even Portuguese traders were shut out from intermediate commerce between India and other eastern countries, i. e., China, Japan, Malacca, Mozambique, and Ormuz. This traffic was reserved as a monopoly to the crown; and it was only as a great favour, or in reward for some particular service, that the king allowed private individuals to engage in it. The merchant fleet of Portugal generally set sail from Lisbon, bound to Goa, once a year about February or March. … This voyage generally took about eighteen months, and, owing to the imperfect state of navigation at that time, and the lack of accurate charts of this new route, was frequently attended by the loss of several ships. Immense profits were, however, made by the traders. On arriving back at Lisbon the Portuguese merchants, as a rule, did not themselves engage in any trade with other European countries in the goods they had brought back, but left the distribution of them in the hands of Dutch, English, and Hansa sailors who met them at Lisbon. … The colonial empire of Portugal, so rapidly and brilliantly acquired, came to a disastrous close. It lasted altogether hardly a century. The avarice and oppressions of its viceroys and merchants, the spirit of monopoly which pervaded their whole policy, and the neglect both of the discipline and defences necessary to keep newly-acquired foreign possessions, hastened its ruin. By 1580 the Portuguese power in the east had seriously declined, and in that year the crown of Portugal was united to that of Spain in the person of Philip II. The Spaniards neglected their eastern possessions altogether, and engaged in wars with the Dutch which had the effect, not only of wasting a great portion of their own and the Portuguese fleet, but of positively driving the Dutch into those very eastern seas which the Portuguese had once so jealously kept to themselves. Only Goa and Diu and a few other small stations remained out of all their magnificent dominion."

H. de B. Gibbins, History of Commerce in Europe, book 3, chapter 1 (sections 94-97).

      E. Grey,
      Introduction to Travels of Pietro della Valle
      (Hakluyt Society Publications).

INDIA: A. D. 1600-1702.
   Beginnings of English trade.
   The chartering of the English East India Company.
   Its early footholds in Hindostan.
   The founding of Madras, Bombay and Calcutta.
   The three Presidencies.

"For some time it appears to have been thought by other European Powers, that the discovery of the passage round Africa by the Portuguese gave them some exclusive claim to its navigation. But after the year 1580 the conquest of Portugal by Spain, and the example of the Dutch who had already formed establishments not only in India but the Spice Islands, aroused the commercial enterprise of England. In 1599 an Association was formed for the Trade to the East Indies; a sum was raised by subscription, amounting to £68,000; and a petition was presented to the Crown for a Royal Charter. Queen Elizabeth wavered during some time, apprehending fresh entanglements with Spain. At length, in December 1600, the boon was granted; the 'Adventurers' (for so were they termed at that time) were constituted a body corporate, under the title of 'the Governor and Company of Merchants of London trading into the East Indies.' By their Charter they obtained the right of purchasing lands without limitation, and the monopoly of their trade during fifteen years, under the direction of a Governor, and twenty-four other persons in Committee, to be elected annually. … In 1609, the Charter of the new Company was not only renewed but rendered perpetual,—with a saving clause, however, that should any national detriment be at any time found to ensue, these exclusive privileges should, after three years' notice, cease and expire. It does not seem, however, that the trade of the new Company was extensive. Their first voyage consisted of four ships and one pinnace, having on board £28,742 in bullion, and £6,860 in goods, such as cloth, lead, tin, cutlery, and glass. Many other of their voyages were of smaller amount; thus, in 1612, when they united into a Joint Stock Company, they sent out only one ship, with £1,250 in bullion and £650 in goods. But their clear profits on their capital were immense; scarcely ever, it is stated, below 100 per cent. During the Civil Wars the Company shared in the decline of every other branch of trade and industry. {1710} But soon after the accession of Charles II. they obtained a new Charter, which not only confirmed their ancient privileges but vested in them authority, through their agents in India, to make peace and war with any prince or people, not being Christians, and to seize within their limits, and send home as prisoners, any Englishmen found without a licence. It may well be supposed that in the hands of any exclusive Company this last privilege was not likely to lie dormant. … The period of the Revolution was not so favourable to the Company as that of the Restoration. A rival Company arose, professing for its object greater freedom of trade with the East Indies, and supported by a majority in the House of Commons. It is said that the competition of these two Companies with the private traders and with one another had well nigh ruined both. … An Union between these Companies, essential, as it seemed, to their expected profits, was delayed by their angry feelings till 1702. Even then, by the Indenture which passed the Great Seal, several points were left unsettled between them, and separate transactions were allowed to their agents in India for the stocks already sent out. Thus the ensuing years were fraught with continued jarrings and contentions. … After the grant of the first Charter by Queen Elizabeth, and the growth of the Company's trade in India, their two main factories were fixed at Surat and Bantam. Surat was then the principal sea-port of the Mogul Empire, where the Mahometan pilgrims were wont to assemble for their voyages towards Mecca. Bantam, from its position in the island of Java, commanded the best part of the Spice trade. But at Surat the Company's servants were harassed by the hostility of the Portuguese, as at Bantam, by the hostility of the Dutch. To such heights did these differences rise that in 1622 the English assisted the Persians in the recovery of Ormuz from the Portuguese, and that in 1623 the Dutch committed the outrage termed the 'Massacre of Amboyna,'—putting to death, after a trial, and confession of guilt extorted by torture, Captain Towerson and nine other Englishmen, on a charge of conspiracy. In the final result, many years afterwards, the factories both at Bantam and Surat were relinquished by the Company. Other and newer settlements of theirs had, meanwhile, grown into importance.—In 1640 the English obtained permission from a Hindoo Prince in the Carnatic to purchase the ground adjoining the Portuguese settlement of St. Thomé, on which they proceeded to raise Fort St. George and the town of Madras. … In a very few years Madras had become a thriving town.—About twenty years afterwards, on the marriage of Charles II. to Catherine of Braganza [1661], the town and island of Bombay were ceded to the King of England as a part of the Infanta's dowry. For some time the Portuguese Governor continued to evade the grant, alleging that the patent of His Majesty was not in accordance with the customs of Portugal; he was compelled to yield; but the possession being found on trial to cost more than it produced, it was given up by King Charles to the East India Company, and became one of their principal stations. Nor was Bengal neglected. Considering the beauty and richness of that province, a proverb was already current among the Europeans, that there are a hundred gates for entering and not one for leaving it. The Dutch, the Portuguese, and the English had established their factories at or near the town of Hooghly on one of the branches—also called Hooghly—of the Ganges. But during the reign of James II. the imprudence of some of the Company's servants, and the seizure of a Mogul junk, had highly incensed the native Powers. The English found it necessary to leave Hooghly, and drop twenty-five miles down the river, to the village of Chuttanuttee. Some petty hostilities ensued, not only in Bengal but along the coasts of India. … So much irritated was Aurungzebe at the reports of these hostilities, that he issued orders for the total expulsion of the Company's servants from his dominions, but he was appeased by the humble apologies of the English traders, and the earnest intercession of the Hindoo, to whom this commerce was a source of profit. The English might even have resumed their factory at Hooghly, but preferred their new station at Chuttanuttee, and in 1698 obtained from the Mogul, on payment of an annual rent, a grant of the land on which it stood. Then, without delay, they began to construct for its defence a citadel, named Fort William, under whose shelter there grew by degrees from a mean village the great town of Calcutta,—the capital of modern India. … At nearly the same period another station,—Tegnapatam, a town on the coast of Coromandel, to the south of Madras,—was obtained by purchase. It was surnamed Fort St. David; was strengthened with walls and bulwarks, and was made subordinate to Madras for its government. Thus then before the accession of the House of Hanover these three main stations,—Fort William, Fort St. George, and Bombay,—had been erected into Presidencies, or central posts of Government; not, however, as at present, subject to one supreme authority, but each independent of the rest. Each was governed by a President and a Council of nine or twelve members, appointed by the Court of Directors in England. Each was surrounded with fortifications, and guarded by a small force, partly European and partly native, in the service of the Company. The Europeans were either recruits enlisted in England or strollers and deserters from other services in India. Among these the descendants of the old settlers, especially the Portuguese, were called Topasses,—from the tope or hat which they wore instead of turban. The natives, as yet ill-armed and ill-trained, were known by the name of Sepoys,—a corruption from the Indian word 'sipahi,' a soldier. But the territory of the English scarcely extended out of sight of their towns."

Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope); History of England, 1713-1783, chapter 39 (volume 4).

      H. Stevens, editor.,
      Dawn of British Trade to East Indies:
      Court Minutes of the East India Company, 1599-1603.

      J. W. Kaye,
      The Administration of the East India Company,
      chapters 3-4.

INDIA: A. D. 1605-1658.
   Jahangir and Nur Mahal.
   Shah Jahan and the Taj Mahal.
   Seizure of the throne by Aurungzebe.

"Selim, the son and successor of Akbar, reigned from the year of his father's death until 1627, having assumed the title of Jahangir, or 'Conqueror of the World'; that is to say, he reigned, but he did not govern. Before he came to the throne, he fell in love with a poor Persian girl," whom his father gave in marriage to one of his officers. "On his advent to the throne, Jahangir … managed to get the husband killed, and took the widow into his harem. He subsequently married her, and she ruled, not him alone, but the whole empire. … [She was first called Nur Mahal, 'Light of the Harem,' then Nur Jahan, 'Light of the World.'] It was during this reign, in 1615, that the first English ambassador, Sir Thomas Roe, arrived in Hindustan from James I.; and proceeding to Ajmere, where Jahangir was staying at the time with his court, he made him several presents, amongst which, we are told, a beautiful English coach gave the Emperor the most satisfaction. He received the ambassador with great distinction, showed him marked attention at all public receptions, and granted a firmân to the English to establish a factory at Surat. … The later years of Jahangir's reign were disturbed by family intrigues, in which the Empress Nur Jehan took a prominent part, endeavouring to secure the succession for her son-in-law; but after the death of the Emperor, his oldest living son, Shah Jahan, pensioned and forced the Empress into retirement … and … 'dispatched all the males of the house of Timour, so that only himself and his children remained of the posterity of Baber, who conquered India.' In some respects the reign of Shah Jahan was unfortunate. He lost his Afghan dominions, and gained but little by his invasions of the Dekhan, which were carried on by his rebellious son and successor, Aurungzeb; but in another direction he did more to perpetuate the glory of the Mughal dynasty than any other emperor of his line. Amongst other handsome buildings, he erected the most beautiful the world has ever possessed. … This was the well-known Taj Mahal at Agra, a mausoleum for his favourite Empress Arjamund, known as Mumtaz-i-Mahal [of which name, according to Elphinstone, Taj Mahal is a corruption], 'the Exalted One of the Seraglio.' … When Shah Jahan had attained his 66th year (according to some writers, his 70th), he was seized with a sudden illness, the result of his debauched life, and as it was reported that he was dead, a civil war broke out amongst his sons for the possession of the throne. These were four in number, Dara (the oldest), Shuja, Aurungzeb, and Murad (the youngest); and in the conflict Aurungzeb, the third son, was ultimately successful. Two of the brothers, Dara and Murad, fell into the power of the last-named and were put to death by his orders. Shuja escaped to Arracan, and was murdered there; and as for the Emperor, who had recovered, Aurungzeb confined him in the fort at Agra, with all his female relatives, and then caused himself to be proclaimed in his stead [1658]. Towards the close of Shah Jehan's life [which came to an end in 1666], a partial reconciliation took place between him and his son, who, however, did not release him from his confinement."

      Sir T. Roe,
      Journal of Embassy
      (Pinkerton's Collection of Voyages, volume 8).

      M. Elphinstone,
      History of India: Hindu and Mahometan,
      book 10.

INDIA: A. D. 1662-1748.
   The struggle of Aurungzebe with the Mahrattas.
   The Mahratta empire.
   Invasion of Nadir Shah.
   Sack of Delhi and great Massacre.

"Aurungzebe had reigned five years before he succeeded in destroying all his kinsmen. … About that time, in the year 1662, a new and extraordinary power in Southern India began to attract attention. The Mahrattas appear to have been nothing more than the Hindoo peasantry, scattered throughout some of the mountainous districts of the Mahomedan kingdoms of Ahmednuggur, Beijapoor and Golconda, and united into a body only by the prejudices of caste, of which their rank was the lowest, that of Sudra. In the confusion incidental to the constant wars in which these states were engaged, some of the head men of their villages set up for themselves, and one of them, Shahji Borla, became powerful enough to play a conspicuous part at the time of the annexation of Ahmednuggur to the Mogul empire. His son Sevaji, setting out from this vantage ground, strengthened his hands by the silent capture of some hill forts in Beijapoor, and eventually raising the standard of revolt against that government, introduced a spirit of union amidst the scattered masses of his people, and may thus be considered the founder of the Mahratta empire. In 1662 he commenced his predatory expeditions into the Mogul territory, and in ten years he found himself at the head of a regular government with the title of Rajah, and strong enough to encounter and defeat the imperial forces in a field battle. This was the critical moment in the progress of the Mogul empire. Aurungzebe was called away for two years by the chronic disturbances beyond the Indus; his strength was wasted by the ceaseless wars of the Deccan; and being goaded to madness by the casual insurrection of some Hindoo devotees in the centre of his dominions, he replaced the capitation tax on infidels, and fulminated other decrees against that portion of his subjects of such extravagant intolerance that they at length looked upon the progress of their co-religionists, the Mahrattas, with more longing than alarm. In 1679, the western portion of Rajahstan was in arms against the empire, and continued in a state of hostility more or less active during the whole reign. Even the emperor's eventual successes in the Deccan, in overthrowing the kingdoms of Beijapoor and Golconda, contributed to his ruin; for it removed the check of regular government from that distracted portion of the country, and … threw into the arms of the Mahrattas the adventurous and the desperate of the population. Sevaji died, and successors of less talent filled the throne of the robber-king; but this seems to have had no effect upon the progress of the inundation, which now bursting over the natural barriers of the peninsula, and sweeping away its military defences, overflowed Malwa and a portion of Guzerat. Aurungzebe fought gallantly and finessed craftily by turns; … and thus he struggled with his destiny even to extreme old age, bravely and alone. He expired in his 89th year, the 50th of his reign, on the 21st of February, 1707. … During the next twelve years after the death of Aurungzebe, no fewer than five princes sat upon the throne, whose reigns, without being distinguished by any great events, exhibited evident indications of the gradual decline of the empire. {1712} During that period the Sikhs, originally a sect of Hindoo dissenters, whose peculiarity consisted in their repudiation of all religious ceremonies, having first been changed into warriors by persecution, began to rise by the spirit of union into a nation; but so weak were they at this time that in 1706 the dying energies of the empire were sufficient almost for their extirpation. … Mahomed Shah succeeded to the throne in 1719. The Mahratta government was by this time completely consolidated, and the great families of the race, since so celebrated, had begun to rise into eminence: such as that of the Peshwa, the official title of a minister of the Rajah; of Holkar, the founder of which was a shepherd; and of Sindia, which sprang from a menial servant. … A still more remarkable personage of the time was Asof Jah, whose descendants became the Nizams [regulators or governors—the title becoming hereditary in the family of Asof, at Hyderabad] of the Deccan. … While the empire was … rent in pieces by internal disturbances, a more tremendous enemy even than the Mahrattas presented himself from without. A revolution had taken place in Persia, which seated a soldier of fortune upon the throne; and the famous Nadir Shah, after capturing Candahar, found it necessary, according to the fashion of conquerors, to seize upon the Mogul territories, Ghizni and Cabul, and when at the latter city to continue his march into Hindostan. In 1739, he arrived at Kurnaul, within 70 miles of Delhi, and defeated the emperor in a general engagement. … The two kings then proceeded to Delhi after the battle, where Nadir, in consequence, it is said, of an insurrection of the populace, set fire to the city and massacred the inhabitants to a number which has been variously estimated at from 30,000 to 150,000. He then proceeded to the main business of his invasion, robbing first the treasury and afterwards the inhabitants individually, torturing or murdering all who were suspected of concealing their riches, and at length returned to his own dominions, having obtained a formal cession of the country west of the Indus, and carrying with him in money and plate at least twelve millions sterling, besides jewels of great value, including those of the Peacock Throne [the throne of the Great Mogul, made solidly of gold and adorned with diamonds and pearls,—the enamelled back of the throne being spread in the form of a peacock's tail.]

Tavernier's Travels, translated and edited by V. Ball, book 2, chapter 8 (volume 1).

   From this period to the death of the Emperor Mahomed Shah, in
   1748, the interval was filled up with the disturbances which
   might be expected."

The Asof or Asaf Jah mentioned above had become, in 1721, the Prime Minister of the Emperor Muhammad Shah, "In a little more than three years he had thrown up in disgust an office which the levity of the young monarch hindered him from discharging to his satisfaction; and had repaired to the Deccan, where he founded the State which still subsists under the name of 'The Nizam's Dominions.' Nominally, it was the Subah [province] erected on the ruins of the old Musalman kingdoms; but in the decline of the Empire it became a hereditary and quasi-independent province, though the ruler never took the royal title, but continued to retain the style of an Imperial Viceroy, as 'Nizam-ul-mulk,' which his descendant still bears."

"The different provinces and viceroyalties went their own natural way; they were parcelled out in a scuffle among revolted governors, rebellious chiefs, leaders of insurgent tribes or sects, religious revivalists, or captains of mercenary bands. The Indian people were becoming a masterless multitude swaying to and fro in the political storm, and clinging to any power, natural or supernatural, that seemed likely to protect them. They were prepared to acquiesce in the assumption of authority by anyone who could show himself able to discharge the most elementary functions of government in the preservation of life and property. In short, the people were scattered without a leader or protector; while the political system under which they had long lived was disappearing in complete disorganization. It was during this period of tumultuary confusion that the French and English first appeared upon the political arena in India."

      J. G. Duff,
      History of the Mahrattas,
      volume 1, and volume 2, chapter 1.

INDIA: A. D. 1665-1743.
Commercial undertakings of the French.
Their settlement at Pondicherry.

"Many expeditions to India had been made [by the French] earlier than the time of Colbert's East India Company, chartered in the year 1665. The first French ships, of which there is any record, that succeeded in reaching India, were two despatched from one of the ports of Brittany in 1601. These ships were, however, wrecked on the Maldive Islands, and their commander did not return to France for ten years. Voyages were undertaken in 1616, 1619, and again in 1633, of which the most that can be said is that they met with no great disaster. The attempt to found settlements in Java and Madagascar, which was the object of these voyages, completely failed. The first operations of the French East India Company were to establish factories in Hindostan. Surat, a large commercial city at the mouth of the Taptee, was fixed upon for the principal depot. The abuses and lavish waste of the officers entrusted to carry out Colbert's plans, brought the company to an end in five years. An attempt in 1672 to form a colony at Trincomalee, on the north-east coast of Ceylon, was frustrated by the hostility of the Dutch. Afterwards the French made an attempt on Meliapoor or Thomé, belonging to the Portuguese. They were soon expelled, and the survivors sought refuge at Pondicherry [1674], a small town which they had purchased on the same coast of the Carnatic. In 1693, Pondicherry was taken by the Dutch, who improved the fortifications and general condition of the town. At the peace of Ryswick, in 1697, the settlement was restored to the French. For half a century Pondicherry shared the neglect common to French colonies, and owed more to the probity and discretion of its governors than to the home government. M. Martin, and subsequently Dumas, saved the settlement from ruin. They added to the defences; and Dumas, being in want of money for public purposes, obtained permission from the King of Delhi to coin money for the French settlers. He also procured the cession of Karikal, a district of Tanjore. On the other hand, several stations and forts had to be given up."

INDIA: A. D. 1743-1752.
   Struggle of the French and English for supremacy in the Deccan.
   Clive against Dupleix.
   The founding of British empire.

   "England owes the idea of an Indian empire to the French, as
   also the chief means by which she has hitherto sought to
   realize it. The war of the Austrian succession had just broken
   out [1743] between France and England.

Dupleix, the governor of the settlements of the French East India Company, proposed to the English company a neutrality in the eastern seas; it was rejected. The English probably repented of their presumption when they saw Captain Peyton, the commander of a squadron of three liners and a frigate, after an indecisive engagement with the French admiral, Labourdonnais, take flight to the Bay of Bengal, leaving Madras, then the most flourishing of the English settlements, defenceless. Dupleix and Labourdonnais were the first of that series of remarkable Frenchmen who, amidst every discouragement from home, and in spite of their frequent mutual dissensions, kept the French name so prominent in India for more than the next half century, only to meet on their return with obloquy, punishment, even death. Labourdonnais, who was Admiral of the French fleet, was also Governor of Mauritius, then called the Isle of France. He had disciplined a force of African negroes. With French troops and these, he entered the narrow strip of coast, five miles long, one mile broad, which was then the territory of Madras, bombarded the city, compelled the fort (which had lost five men) to surrender. But his terms were honourable; the English were placed on parole; the town was to be given up on payment of a moderate ransom (1746). Dupleix, however, was jealous; he denied Labourdonnais powers; broke the capitulation; paraded the Governor and other English gentlemen in triumph through Pondicherry. In vain did Admiral Boscawen besiege the latter place; time was wasted, the trenches were too far, the rains came on; Boscawen raised the siege, crippled in men and stores; was recalled by the news of the peace of Aix-la-Chapelle, and, to close his career of misfortune, lost several ships and 1,200 men on the Coromandel coast (1748-9). News of the treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle, however, produced a very temporary cessation of hostilities, Madras being restored, with fortifications much improved. The English fortunes seemed at their lowest in India; the French rising to their full height. Dupleix conceived the bold plan of interfering in the internal politics of the country. Labourdonnais had disciplined the negro; Dupleix disciplined the native Indian. … Labourdonnais had beaten off the so-called Nawab of the Carnatic, when he attempted to take Madras; the event produced an immense sensation; it was the first victory obtained for a century by Europeans over the natives of India. Dupleix was strong enough to be reckoned a valuable ally. But on the English side a young man had appeared who was to change the whole course of events in the East. Robert Clive, an attorney's son from Market Drayton, born in 1725, sent off at eighteen as a writer to Madras—a naughty boy who had grown into an insubordinate clerk, who had been several times in danger of losing his situation, and had twice attempted to destroy himself—ran away from Madras, disguised as a Mussulman, after Dupleix's violation of the capitulation, obtained an ensign's commission at twenty-one, and began distinguishing himself as a soldier under Major Lawrence, then the best British officer in India."

"Clive and others who escaped [from Madras] betook themselves to Fort St. David's—a small English settlement a few miles south of Pondicherry. There Clive prepared himself for the military vocation for which nature had clearly destined him. … At Fort St. David's the English intrigued with the native chiefs, much as the French had done, and not more creditably. They took sides, and changed sides, in the disputes of rival claimants to the province of Tanjore, under the inducement of the possession of Devi-cottah, a coast station at the mouth of the Coleroon. There was no great honour in the results, any more than in the conception, of this first little war. We obtained Devi-cottah; but we did not improve our reputation for good faith, nor lessen the distance between the French and ourselves in military prestige. But Dupleix was meantime providing the opportunity for Clive to determine whether the Deccan should be under French or English influence. … The greatest of the southern princes, the Nizam al Mulk, Viceroy of the Deccan, died in 1748; and rivals rose up, as usual, to claim both his throne and the richest province under his rule—the Carnatic. The pretenders on one side applied to the French for assistance, and obtained reinforcements to the extent of 400 French soldiers and 2,000 trained sepoys. This aid secured victory; the opposing prince was slain; and his son, the well-known Mohammed Ali, 'the Nabob of Arcot' of the last century, took refuge, with a few remaining troops, at Trichinopoly. In a little while, the French seemed to be supreme throughout the country. Dupleix was deferred to as the arbiter of the destinies of the native princes, while he was actually declared Governor of India, from the Kistna to Cape Comorin—a region as large as France, inhabited by 30,000,000 of people, and defended by a force so large that the cavalry alone amounted to 7,000 under the command of Dupleix. In the midst of this dominion, the English looked like a handful of dispirited and helpless settlers, awaiting the disposal of the haughty Frenchman. Their native ally had lost everything but Trichinopoly; and Trichinopoly itself was now besieged by the Nabob of the Carnatic and his French supporters. Dupleix was greater than even the Mogul sovereign; he had erected a column in his own honour, displaying on its four sides inscriptions in four languages, proclaiming his glory as the first man of the East; and a town had sprung up round this column, called his City of Victory. To the fatalistic mind of the native races it seemed a settled matter that the French rule was supreme, and that the English must perish out of the land. Major Lawrence had gone home; and the small force of the English had no commander. Clive was as yet only a commissary, with the rank of captain, and regarded more as a civilian than a soldier. {1714} He was only five-and-twenty. His superiors were in extreme alarm, foreseeing that when Trichinopoly was taken, the next step would be the destruction of Madras. Nothing could make their position worse; and they caught at every chance of making it better. Clive offered to attack Arcot, the capital of the Carnatic, in the hope that this would draw away the besiegers from Trichinopoly; and the offer was accepted. The force consisted of 200 British and 300 native soldiers, commanded, under Clive, by four factors and four military men, only two of whom had ever been in action. Everything was against them, from numbers and repute to the weather; but Clive took Arcot [September 11, 1751], and (what was much more difficult) kept it. The garrison had fled in a panic; but it was invested by 10,000 men before the British had repaired half its dilapidations and deficiencies, or recruited their numbers, now reduced to 320 men in all, commanded by four officers. For fifty days, amidst fatigue, hunger, and a hundred pressing dangers, the little band sustained the siege. … A series of victories followed, and men and opinion came round to the side of the victors. There was no energy at headquarters to sustain Clive in his career. … In his absence, the enemy appeared again before Fort George, and did much damage; but Clive came up, and 100 of the French soldiers were killed or taken. He uprooted Dupleix's boasting monument, and levelled the city to the ground, thereby reversing the native impression of the respective destinies of the French and English. Major Lawrence returned. Dupleix's military incapacity was proved, and his personal courage found wanting as soon as fortune deserted him. Trichinopoly was relieved, and the besiegers were beaten, and their candidate prince put to death. Dupleix struggled in desperation for some time longer before he gave up the contest; and Clive had his difficulties in completing the dislodgement of the French. … He did it; but nearly at the sacrifice of his life. When the British supremacy in the Deccan was completely established, he returned [1752] in bad health to England. … He left behind him Dupleix, for whom a summons home in disgrace was on the way."

INDIA: A. D. 1747-1761.
   The Duranee power in Afghanistan.
   Conflict of the Afghans and the Mahrattas.
   Great defeat of the latter at Panniput.
   Fall of the shattered Moghul empire.
   The state of things which invited British conquest.

On the death of Nadir Shah, who was murdered in 1747, his Afghan kingdom was acquired by a native chief, Ahmed Abdalee, who, first a prisoner and a slave to Nadir Shah, had become one of the trusted officers of his court and army. "Ahmed Abdalee had acquired so great an ascendency among the troops that upon this event [the death of Nadir Shah] several commanders and their followers joined his standard; and he drew off toward his own country. He fell in with and seized a convoy of treasure, which was proceeding to the camp. This enabled him to engage in his pay a still larger body of his countrymen. He proclaimed himself king of the Afghauns; and took the title of Doordowran, or pearl of the age, which being corrupted into Dooranee,[or Duranee], gave one of their names to himself and his Abdallees. He marched towards Candahar which submitted to his arms; and next proceeded to Cabul … and this province also fell into the hands of the Afghaun." Lahore was next added to his dominions, and he then, in 1747, invaded India, intent upon the capture of Delhi; but met with sufficient resistance to discourage his undertaking, and fell back to Cabul. In 1748, and again in 1749, he passed the Indus, and made himself master of the Punjab. In 1755-6 he marched to Delhi, which opened its gates to him and received him, pretendedly as a guest, but really as a master. A plague breaking out in his army caused him to return to his own country. He "left his son Governor of Lahore and Multan; disordered by revolutions, wasted and turbulent. A chief … incited the Seiks [Sikhs] to join him in molesting the Dooranees; and they gained several important advantages over their principal commanders. They invited the Mahratta generals, Ragonaut Raow, Shumsheer Bahadur, and Holkar, who had advanced into the neighbourhood of Delhi, to join them in driving the Abdalees from Lahore. No occupation could be more agreeable to the Mahrattas. After taking Sirhind, they advanced to Lahore, where the Abdalee Prince made but a feeble resistance and fled. This event put them in possession of both Multan and Lahore. … The whole Indian continent appeared now about to be swallowed up by the Mahrattas. … Ahmed Shah [the Abdalee, or Dooranee] was not only roused by the loss of his two provinces, and the disgrace imprinted on his arms, but he was invited by the chiefs and people of Hindustan, groaning under the depredations of the Mahrattas, to march to their succour and become their King. … For some days the Dooranees hovered round the Mahratta camp; when the Mahrattas, who were distressed for provisions, came out and offered battle. Their army, consisting of 80,000 veteran cavalry, was almost wholly destroyed; and Duttah Sindia, their General, was among the slain. A detachment of horse sent against another body of Mahrattas, who were marauding under Holkar in the neighbourhood of Secundra, surprised them so completely that Holkar fled naked, with a handful of followers, and the rest, with the exception of a few prisoners and fugitives, were all put to the sword. During the rainy season, while the Dooranee Shah was quartered at Secundra, the news of this disaster and disgrace excited the Mahrattas to the greatest exertions. A vast army was collected, and … the Mahrattas marched to gratify the resentments, and fulfil the unbounded hopes of the nation. … They arrived at the Jumna before it was sufficiently fallen to permit either the Mahrattas on the other side, or the Dooranees, to cross. In the meantime they marched to Delhi, of which after some resistance they took possession; plundered it with their usual rapacity, tearing away even the gold and silver ornaments of the palace; proclaimed Sultan Jewan Bukht, the son of Alee Gohur [or Shah Alum, absent son of the late nominal Emperor at Delhi, Alumgeer II., who had recently been put to death by his own vizir], Emperor; and named Sujah ad Dowlah, Nabob of Oude, his Vizir. {1715} Impatient at intelligence of these and some other transactions, Ahmed Shah swam the Jumna, still deemed impassable, with his whole army. This daring adventure, and the remembrance of the late disaster, shook the courage of the Mahrattas; and they entrenched their camp on a plain near Panniput. The Dooranee, having surrounded their position with parties of troops, to prevent the passage of supplies, contented himself for some days with skirmishing. At last he tried an assault; when the Rohilla infantry … forced their way into the Mahratta works, and Bulwant Raow with other chiefs was killed; but night put an end to the conflict. Meanwhile scarcity prevailed and filth accumulated in the Mahratta camp. The vigilance of Ahmed intercepted their convoys. In a little time famine and pestilence "raged. A battle became the only resource [January 7, 1761]. The Abdalee restrained his troops till the Mahrattas had advanced a considerable way from their works; when he rushed upon them with so much rapidity as left them hardly any time for using their cannon. The Bhaow was killed early in the action; confusion soon pervaded the army, and a dreadful carnage ensued. The field was floated with blood. Twenty-two thousand men and women were taken prisoners. Of those who escaped from the field of battle, the greater part were butchered by the people of the country, who had suffered from their depredations. Of an army of 140,000 horse, commanded by the most celebrated generals of the nation, only three chiefs of any rank, and a mere residue of the troops, found their way to Deccan. The Dooranee Shah made but little use of this mighty victory. After remaining a few months at Delhi, he recognized Alee Gohur as Emperor, by the title of Shah Aulum II.; and entrusting Nujeeb ad Dowlah with the superintendence of affairs, till his master should return from Bengal, he marched back to his capital of Cabul in the end of the year 1760 [1761]. With Aulum-geer II. the empire of the Moguls may be justly considered as having arrived at its close. The unhappy Prince who now received the name of Emperor, and who, after a life of misery and disaster, ended his days a pensioner of English merchants, never possessed a sufficient degree of power to consider himself for one moment as master of the throne."

"The words 'wonderful,' 'strange,' are often applied to great historical events, and there is no event to which they have been applied more freely than to our [the English] conquest of India. … But the event was not wonderful in a sense that it is difficult to discover adequate causes by which it could have been produced. If we begin by remarking that authority in India had fallen on the ground through the decay of the Mogul Empire, that it lay there waiting to be picked up by somebody, and that all over India in that period adventurers of one kind or another were founding Empires, it is really not surprising that a mercantile corporation which had money to pay a mercenary force should be able to compete with other adventurers, nor yet that it should outstrip all its competitors by bringing into the field English military science and generalship, especially when it was backed over and over again by the whole power and credit of England and directed by English statesmen. … England did not in the strict sense conquer India, but … certain Englishmen, who happened to reside in India at the time when the Mogul Empire fell, had a fortune like that of Hyder Ali or Runjeet Singh and rose to supreme power there."

INDIA: A. D. 1755-1757.
   Capture of Calcutta by Surajah Dowlah.
   The tragedy of the Black Hole.
   Clive's recovery of the Fort and settlement.

Clive remained three years in England, where he sought an election to Parliament, as a supporter of Fox, but was unseated by the Tories. On suffering this disappointment, he re-entered the service of the East India Company, as governor of Fort St. David, with the commission of a lieutenant-colonel in the British army, received from the king, and returned to India in 1755. Soon after his arrival at Fort St. David, "he received intelligence which called forth all the energy of his bold and active mind. Of the provinces which had been subject to the house of Tamerlane, the wealthiest was Bengal. No part of India possessed such natural advantages both for agriculture and for commerce. … The great commercial companies of Europe had long possessed factories in Bengal. The French were settled, as they still are, at Chandernagore on the Hoogley. Higher up the stream the Dutch traders held Chinsurah. Nearer to the sea, the English had built Fort William. A church and ample warehouses rose in the vicinity. A row of spacious houses, belonging to the chief factors of the East India Company, lined the banks of the river; and in the neighbourhood had sprung up a large and busy native town, where some Hindoo merchants of great opulence had fixed their abode. But the tract now covered by the palaces of Chowringhee contained only a few miserable huts thatched with straw. A jungle, abandoned to water-fowl and alligators, covered the site of the present Citadel, and the Course, which is now daily crowded at sunset with the gayest equipages of Calcutta. For the ground on which the settlement stood, the English, like other great landholders, paid rent to the government; and they were, like other great landholders, permitted to exercise a certain jurisdiction within their domain. The great province of Bengal, together with Orissa and Bahar, had long been governed by a viceroy, whom the English called Aliverdy Khan, and who, like the other viceroys of the Mogul, had become virtually independent. He died in 1756, and the sovereignty descended to his grandson, a youth under twenty years of age, who bore the name of Surajah Dowlah. … From a child Surajah Dowlah had hated the English. It was his whim to do so; and his whims were never opposed. He had also formed a very exaggerated notion of the wealth which might be obtained by plundering them; and his feeble and uncultivated mind was incapable of perceiving that the riches of Calcutta, had they been even greater than he imagined, would not compensate him for what he must lose, if the European trade, of which Bengal was a chief seat, should be driven by his violence to some other Quarter. Pretexts for a quarrel were readily found. {1716} The English, in expectation of a war with France, had begun to fortify their settlement without special permission from the Nabob. A rich native, whom he longed to plunder, had taken refuge at Calcutta, and had not been delivered up. On such grounds as these Surajah Dowlah marched with a great army against Fort William. The servants of the Company at Madras had been forced by Dupleix to become statesmen and soldiers. Those in Bengal were still mere traders, and were terrified and bewildered by the approaching danger. … The fort was taken [June 20, 1756] after a feeble resistance; and great numbers of the English fell into the hands of the conquerors. The Nabob seated himself with regal pomp in the principal hall of the factory, and ordered Mr. Holwell, the first in rank among the prisoners, to be brought before him. His Highness talked about the insolence of the English, and grumbled at the smallness of the treasure which he had found; but promised to spare their lives, and retired to rest. Then was committed that great crime, memorable for its singular atrocity, memorable for the tremendous retribution by which it was followed. The English captives were left at the mercy of the guards, and the guards determined to secure them for the night in the prison of the garrison, a chamber known by the fearful name of the Black Hole. Even for a single European malefactor, that dungeon would, in such a climate, have been too close and narrow. The space was only twenty feet square. The air-holes were small and obstructed. It was the summer solstice, the season when the fierce heat of Bengal can scarcely be rendered tolerable to natives of England by lofty halls and by the constant waving of fans. The number of the prisoners was 146. When they were ordered to enter the cell, they imagined that the soldiers were joking; and, being in high spirits on account of the promise of the Nabob to spare their lives, they laughed and jested at the absurdity of the notion. They soon discovered their mistake. They expostulated; they entreated; but in vain. The guards threatened to cut down all who hesitated. The captives were driven into the cell at the point of the sword, and the door was instantly shut and locked upon them. Nothing in history or fiction, not even the story which Ugolino told in the sea of everlasting ice, after he had wiped his bloody lips on the scalp of his murderer, approaches the horrors which were recounted by the few survivors of that night. They cried for mercy. They strove to burst the door. Holwell who, even in that extremity, retained some presence of mind, offered large bribes to the gaolers. But the answer was that nothing could be done without the Nabob's orders, that the Nabob was asleep, and that he would be angry if anybody woke him. Then the prisoners went mad with despair. They trampled each other down, fought for the places at the windows, fought for the pittance of water with which the cruel mercy of the murderers mocked their agonies, raved, prayed, blasphemed, implored the guards to fire among them. The gaolers in the mean time held lights to the bars, and shouted with laughter at the frantic struggles of their victims. At length the tumult died away in low gaspings and moanings. The day broke. The Nabob had slept off his debauch, and permitted the door to be opened. But it was some time before the soldiers could make a lane for the survivors, by piling up on each side the heaps of corpses on which the burning climate had already begun to do its loathsome work. When at length a passage was made, twenty-three ghastly figures, such as their own mothers would not have known, staggered one by one out of the charnel-house. A pit was instantly dug. The dead bodies, 123 in number, were flung into it promiscuously and covered up. … One Englishwoman had survived that night. She was placed in the harem of the Prince at Moorshedabad. Surajah Dowlah, in the mean time, sent letters to his nominal sovereign at Delhi, describing the late conquest in the most pompous language. He placed a garrison in Fort William, forbade Englishmen to dwell in the neighbourhood, and directed that, in memory of his great actions, Calcutta should thenceforward be called Alinagore, that is to say, the Port of God. In August the news of the fall of Calcutta reached Madras, and excited the fiercest and bitterest resentment. The cry of the whole settlement was for vengeance. Within forty-eight hours after the arrival of the intelligence it was determined that an expedition should be sent to the Hoogley, and that Clive should be at the head of the land forces. The naval armament was under the command of Admiral Watson. Nine hundred English infantry, fine troops and full of spirit, and 1,500 sepoys, composed the army which sailed to punish a Prince who had more subjects than Lewis XV. or the Empress Maria Theresa. In October the expedition sailed; but it had to make its way against adverse winds, and did not reach Bengal till December. The Nabob was revelling in fancied security at Moorshedabad. He was so profoundly ignorant of the state of foreign countries that he often used to say that there were not ten thousand men in all Europe; and it had never occurred to him as possible, that the English would dare to invade his dominions. But, though undisturbed by any fear of their military power, he began to miss them greatly. His revenues fell off. … He was already disposed to permit the company to resume its mercantile operations in his country, when he received the news that an English armament was in the Hoogley. He instantly ordered all his troops to assemble at Moorshedabad, and marched towards Calcutta. Clive had commenced operations with his usual vigour. He took Budgebudge, routed the garrison of Fort William, recovered Calcutta, stormed and sacked Hoogley. The Nabob, already disposed to make some concessions to the English, was confirmed in his pacific disposition by these proofs of their power and spirit. He accordingly made overtures to the chiefs of the invading armament, and offered to restore the factory, and to give compensation to those whom he had despoiled. Clive's profession, was war; and he felt that there was something discreditable in an accommodation with Surajah Dowlah. But his power was limited. … The promises of the Nabob were large, the chances of a contest doubtful; and Clive consented to treat, though he expressed his regret that things should not be concluded in so glorious a manner as he could have wished. With this negotiation commences a new chapter in the life of Clive. Hitherto he had been merely a soldier carrying into effect, with eminent ability and valour, the plans of others. Henceforth he is to be chiefly regarded as a statesman; and his military movements are to be considered as subordinate to his political designs."

INDIA: A. D. 1757.
   A Treacherous conspiracy against Surajah Dowlah.
   His overthrow at the battle of Plassey.
   The counterfeit Treaty with Omichund.
   Elevation of Meer Jaffier to the Subahdar's throne.

The unsatisfactory treaty entered into with Surajah Dowlah had been pressed upon Clive by the Calcutta merchants, who "thought the alliance would enable them to get rid of the rival French station at Chandernagore. The Subahdar gave a doubtful answer to their proposal to attack this settlement, which Clive interpreted as an assent. The French were overpowered, and surrendered their fort. Surajah Dowlah was now indignant against his recent allies; and sought the friendship of the French officers. Clive, called by the natives 'the daring in war,' was also the most adroit, and,—for the truth cannot be disguised,—the most unscrupulous in policy. The English resident at the Court of Moorshedabad, under Clive's instructions, encouraged a conspiracy to depose the Subahdar, and to raise his general, Meer Jaffier, to the supreme power. A Hindoo of great wealth and influence, Omichund, engaged in this conspiracy. After it had proceeded so far as to become the subject of a treaty between a Select Committee at Calcutta and Meer Jaffier, Omichund demanded that a condition should be inserted in that treaty, to pay him thirty lacs of rupees as a reward for his service. The merchants at Calcutta desired the largest share of any donation from Meer Jaffier, as a consideration for themselves, and were by no means willing that £300,000 should go to a crafty Hindoo. Clive suggested an expedient to secure Omichund's fidelity, and yet not to comply with his demands—to have two treaties drawn; a real one on red paper, a fictitious one on white. The white treaty was to be shown to Omichund, and he was to see with his own eyes that he had been properly cared for. Clive and the Committee signed this; as well as the red treaty which was to go to Meer Jaffier. Admiral Watson refused to sign the treacherous document. On the 19th of May, 1773, Clive stood up in his place in the House of Commons, to defend himself upon this charge against him, amongst other accusations. He boldly acknowledged that the stratagem of the two treaties was his invention;—that admiral Watson did not sign it; but that he should have thought himself authorised to sign for him in consequence of a conversation; that the person who did sign thought he had sufficient authority for so doing. 'He (Clive) forged admiral Watson's name, says lord Macaulay. … The courage, the perseverance, the unconquerable energy of Clive have furnished examples to many in India who have emulated his true glory. Thank God, the innate integrity of the British character has, for the most part, preserved us from such exhibitions of 'true policy and justice.' The English resident, Mr. Watts, left Moorshedabad. Clive wrote a letter of defiance to Surajah Dowlah, and marched towards his capital. The Subahdar had come forth from his city, as populous as the London of a century ago, to annihilate the paltry army of 1,000 English, and their 2,000 Sepoys disciplined by English officers, who dared to encounter his 60,000. He reached the village of Plassey with all the panoply of oriental warfare. His artillery alone appeared sufficient to sweep away those who brought only eight field pieces and two howitzers to meet his fifty heavy guns. Each gun was drawn by forty yoke of oxen; and a trained elephant was behind each gun to urge it over rough ground or up steep ascents. Meer Jaffier had not performed his promise to join the English with a division of the Subahdar's army. It was a time of terrible anxiety with the English commander. Should he venture to give battle without the aid of a native force? He submitted his doubt to a Council of War. Twelve officers, himself amongst the number, voted for delay. Seven voted for instant action. Clive reviewed the arguments on each side, and finally cast away his doubts. He determined to fight, without which departure from the opinion of the majority, he afterwards said, the English would never have been masters of Bengal. On the 22nd of June [1757], his little army marched fifteen miles, passed the Hooghly, and at one o'clock of the morning of the 23rd rested under the mangoe-trees of Plassey. As the day broke, the vast legions of the Subahdar,—15,000 cavalry, 45,000 infantry,—some armed with muskets, some with bows and arrows, began to surround the mangoe-grove and the hunting-lodge where Clive had watched through the night. There was a cannonade for several hours. The great guns of Surajah Dowlah did little execution. The small field-pieces of Clive were well served. One of the chief Mohammedan leaders having fallen, disorder ensued, and the Subahdar was advised to retreat. He himself fled upon a swift camel to Moorshedabad. When the British forces began to pursue, the victory became complete. Meer Jaffier joined the conquerors the next day. Surajah Dowlah did not consider himself safe in his capital; and he preferred to seek the protection of a French detachment at Patna. He escaped from his palace disguised; ascended the Ganges in a small boat; and fancied himself secure. A peasant whose ears he had cut off recognised his oppressor, and with some soldiers brought him back to Moorshedabad. In his presence-chamber now sat Meer Jaffier, to whose knees the wretched youth crawled for mercy. That night Surajah Dowlah was murdered in his prison, by the orders of Meer Jaffier's son, a boy as blood-thirsty as himself."

      E. Thornton,
      History of British Empire in India,
      volume 1, chapter 4.

INDIA: A. D. 1757-1772.
   Clive's Administration in Bengal.
   Decisive war with the Moghul Emperor and the Nawab of Oudh.
   English Supremacy established.

"The battle of Plassey was fought on June 23, 1757, an anniversary afterwards remembered when the Mutiny of 1857 was at its height. History has agreed to adopt this date as the beginning of the British Empire in the East. But the immediate results of the victory were comparatively small, and several years passed in hard fighting before even the Bengalis would admit the superiority of the British arms. {1718} For the moment, however, all opposition was at an end. Clive, again following in the steps of Dupleix, placed Mir Jafar upon the Viceregal throne at Murshidabad, being careful to obtain a patent of investiture from the Mughal court. Enormous sums were exacted from Mir Jafar as the price of his elevation. … At the same time, the Nawab made a grant to the Company of the zamindari or landholder's rights over an extensive tract of country round Calcutta, now known as the District of the Twenty-four Parganas. The area of this tract was 882 square miles. In 1757 the Company obtained only the zamindari rights—i. e., the rights to collect the cultivator's rents, with the revenue jurisdiction attached [see below: A. D. 1785-1793]. The superior lordship, or right to receive the land tax, remained with the Nawab. But in 1759, this also was granted by the Delhi Emperor, the nominal Suzerain of the Nawab, in favour of Clive, who thus became the landlord of his own masters, the Company. … Lord Clive's claims to the property as feudal Suzerain over the Company were contested in 1764; and on the 23d June, 1765, when he returned to Bengal, a new deed was issued, confirming the unconditional jagir to Lord Clive for ten years, with reversion afterwards to the Company in perpetuity. … In 1758, Clive was appointed by the Court of Directors the first Governor of all the Company's settlements in Bengal. Two powers threatened hostilities. On the west, the Shahzada or Imperial prince, known afterwards as the Emperor Shah Alam, with a mixed army of Afghans and Marhattas, and supported by the Nawab Wazir of Oudh, was advancing his own claims to the Province of Bengal. In the south, the influence of the French under Lally and Bussy was overshadowing the British at Madras. The name of Clive exercised a decisive effect in both directions. Mir Jafar was anxious to buy off the Shahzada, who had already invested Patna. But Clive marched in person to the rescue, with an army of only 450 Europeans and 2,500 sepoys, and the Mughal army dispersed without striking a blow. In the same year, Clive despatched a force southwards under Colonel Forde, which recaptured Masulipatam from the French, and permanently established British influence throughout the Northern Circars, and at the court of Haidarabad. He next attacked the Dutch, the only other European nation who might yet prove a rival to the English. He defeated them both by land and water; and their settlement at Chinsurah existed thenceforth only on sufferance. From 1760 to 1765, Clive was in England. He had left no system of government in Bengal, but merely the tradition that unlimited sums of money might be extracted from the natives by the terror of the English name. In 1761, it was found expedient and profitable to dethrone Mir Jafar, the English Nawab of Murshidabad, and to substitute his son-in-law, Mir Kasim, in his place. On this occasion, besides private donations, the English received a grant of the three Districts of Bardwan, Midnapur, and Chittagong, estimated to yield a net revenue of half a million sterling. But Mir Kasim soon began to show a will of his own, and to cherish dreams of independence. … The Nawab alleged that his civil authority was everywhere set at nought. The majority of the Council at Calcutta would not listen to his complaints. The Governor, Mr. Vansittart, and Warren Hastings, then a junior member of Council, attempted to effect some compromise. But the controversy had become too hot. The Nawab's officers fired upon an English boat, and forthwith all Bengal rose in arms [1763]. Two thousand of our sepoys were cut to pieces at Patna; about 200 Englishmen, who there and in other various parts of the Province fell into the hands of the Muhammadans, were massacred. But as soon as regular warfare commenced, Mir Kasim met with no more successes. His trained regiments were defeated in two pitched battles by Major Adams, at Gheriah and at Udha-nala; and he himself took refuge with the Nawab Wazir of Oudh, who refused to deliver him up. This led to a prolongation of the war. Shah Alam, who had now succeeded his father as Emperor, and Shuja-ud-Daula, the Nawab Wazir of Oudh, united their forces, and threatened Patna, which the English had recovered. A more formidable danger appeared in the English camp, in the form of the first sepoy mutiny. This was quelled by Major (afterwards Sir Hector) Munro, who ordered 24 of the ringleaders to be blown from guns, an old Mughal punishment. In 1764, Major Munro won the decisive battle of Baxar [or Buxar], which laid Oudh at the feet of the conquerors, and brought the Mughal Emperor as a suppliant to the English camp. Meanwhile, the Council at Calcutta had twice found the opportunity they loved of selling the government of Bengal to a new Nawab. But in 1765, Clive (now Baron Clive of Plassey in the peerage of Ireland) arrived at Calcutta, as Governor of Bengal for the second time. Two landmarks stand out in his policy. First, he sought the substance, although not the name, of territorial power, under the fiction of a grant from the Mughal Emperor. Second, he desired to purify the Company's service, by prohibiting illicit gains, and guaranteeing a reasonable pay from honest sources. In neither respect were his plans carried out by his immediate successors. But the beginning of our Indian rule dates from this second governorship of Clive, as our military supremacy had dated from his victory at Plassey. Clive landed, advanced rapidly up from Calcutta to Allahabad, and there settled in person the fate of nearly half of India. Oudh was given back to the Nawab Wazir, on condition of his paying half a million sterling towards the expenses of the war. The Provinces of Allahabad and Kora, forming the greater part of the Doab, were handed over to Shah Alam himself, who in his turn granted to the Company the diwani or fiscal administration of Bengal, Behar, and Orissa, and also the territorial jurisdiction of the Northern Circars. A puppet Nawab was still maintained at Murshidabad, who received an annual allowance from us of £600,000. Half that amount, or about £300,000, we paid to the Emperor as tribute from Bengal. Thus was constituted the dual system of government, by which the English received all the revenues and undertook to maintain the army; while the criminal jurisdiction, or nizamat, was vested in the Nawab. In Indian phraseology, the Company was diwan and the Nawab was nizam. The actual collection of the revenues still remained for some years in the hands of native officials. … Lord Clive quitted India for the third and last time in 1767. {1719} Between that date and the governorship of Warren Hastings, in 1772, little of importance occurred in Bengal beyond the terrible famine of 1770, which is officially reported to have swept away one-third of the inhabitants. The dual system of government, established in 1765 by Clive, had proved a failure. Warren Hastings, a tried servant of the Company, distinguished alike for intelligence, for probity, and for knowledge of oriental manners, was nominated Governor by the Court of Directors, with express instructions to carry out a predetermined series of reforms. In their own words, the Court had resolved to 'stand forth as diwan, and to take upon themselves, by the agency of their own servants, the entire care and administration of the revenues.' In the execution of this plan, Hastings removed the exchequer from Murshidabad to Calcutta, and appointed European officers, under the now familiar title of Collectors, to superintend the revenue collections and preside in the courts. Clive had laid the territorial foundations of the British Empire in Bengal. Hastings may be said to have created a British administration for that Empire."

Sir W. W. Hunter, India (article in Imperial Gazetteer of India) volume 4, pages 389-394.

INDIA: A. D. 1758-1761.
Overthrow of French domination in the Carnatic.
The decisive Battle of Wandiwash.

"In 1758 the fortunes of the French in India underwent an entire change. In April a French fleet arrived at Pondicherry. It brought a large force under the command of Count de Lally, who had been appointed Governor-General of the French possessions in India. … No sooner had he landed at Pondicherry than he organised an expedition against Fort St. David; but he found that no preparations had been made by the French authorities. There was a want alike of coolies, draught cattle, provisions, and ready money. But the energy of Lally overcame all obstacles. … In June, 1758, Lally captured Fort St. David. He then prepared to capture Madras as a preliminary to an advance on Bengal. He recalled Bussy from the Dekhan to help him with his Indian experiences; and he sent the Marquis de Conflans to succeed Bussy in the command of the Northern Circars. [A strip of territory on the Coromandel coast, which had been ceded to the French in 1752 by Salabut Jung, Nizam of the Dekhun, was so called; it stretched along 600 miles of seaboard, from the Carnatic frontier northwards.] … The departure of Bussy from the Northern Circars was disastrous to the French. The Raja of Vizianagram revolted against the French and sent to Calcutta for help. Clive despatched an English force to the Northern Circars, under the command of Colonel Forde; and in December, 1758, Colonel Forde defeated the French under Conflans [at Condore, or Kondur, December 9], and prepared to recover all the English factories on the coast which had been captured by Bussy. Meanwhile Count de Lally was actively engaged at Pondicherry in preparations for the siege of Madras. He hoped to capture Madras, and complete the destruction of the English in the Carnatic; and then to march northward, capture Calcutta, and expel the English from Bengal. … Lally reached Madras on the 12th of December, 1758, and at once took possession of Black Town. He then began the siege of Fort St. George with a vigour and activity which commanded the respect of his enemies. His difficulties were enormous. … Even the gunpowder was nearly exhausted. At last, on the 16th of February, 1759, an English fleet arrived at Madras under Admiral Pocock, and Lally was compelled to raise the siege. Such was the state of party feeling amongst the French in India, that the retreat of Lally from Madras was received at Pondicherry with every demonstration of joy. The career of Lally in India lasted for two years longer, namely from February, 1759, to February, 1761; it is a series of hopeless struggles and wearying misfortunes. In the Dekhan, Salabut Jung had been thrown into the utmost alarm by the departure of Bussy and defeat of Conflans. He was exposed to the intrigues and plots of his younger brother, Nizam Ali, and he despaired of obtaining further help from the French. Accordingly he opened up negotiations with Colonel Forde and the English. Forde on his part recovered all the Captured factories [taking Masulipatam by storm, April 7, 1759, after a fortnight's siege], and drove the French out of the Northern Circars. He could not however interfere in the domestic affairs of the Dekhan, by helping Salabut Jung against Nizam Ali. In 1761 Salabut Jung was dethroned and placed in confinement; and Nizam Ali ascended the throne at Hyderabad as ruler of the Dekhan. In the Carnatic the French were in despair. In January, 1760, Lally was defeated by Colonel Coote at Wandiwash, between Madras and Pondicherry. Lally opened up negotiations with Hyder Ali, who was rising to power in Mysore; but Hyder Ali as yet could do little or nothing. At the end of 1760 Colonel Coote began the siege of Pondicherry. Lally … was ill in health and worn out with vexation and fatigue. The settlement was torn by dissensions. In January, 1761, the garrison was starved into a capitulation, and the town and fortifications were levelled with the ground. A few weeks afterwards the French were compelled to surrender the strong hill-fortress of Jingi, and their military power in the Carnatic was brought to a close." On the return of Count Lally to France "he was sacrificed to save the reputation of the French ministers. … He was tried by the parliament of Paris. … In May, 1766, he was condemned not only to death, but to immediate execution."

"The battle of Wandewash, … though the numbers on each side were comparatively small, must yet be classed amongst the decisive battles of the world, for it dealt a fatal and decisive blow to French domination in India."

   "At this period, the main point of interest changes from the
   Presidency of Bengal to the Presidency of Madras. There, the
   English were becoming involved in another war. There, they had
   now, for the first time, to encounter the most skilful and
   daring of all the enemies against whom they ever fought in
   India—Hyder Ali.
{1720}
   He was of humble origin, the grandchild of a wandering 'fakir'
   or Mahomedan monk. Most versatile in his talents, Hyder was no
   less adventurous in his career; by turns a private man devoted
   to sports of the chase, a captain of free-booters, a
   partisan-chief, a rebel against the Rajah of Mysore, and
   commander-in-chief of the Mysorean army. Of this last position
   he availed himself to dethrone and supplant his master. …
   Pursuing his ambitious schemes, Hyder Ali became, not merely
   the successor of the Rajah, but the founder of the kingdom of
   Mysore. From his palace at Seringapatam, as from a centre, a
   new energy was infused through the whole of Southern India. By
   various wars and by the dispossession of several smaller
   princes, he extended his frontiers to the northward, nearly to
   the river Kistna. His posts on the coast of Malabar, Mangalore
   especially, gave him the means of founding a marine; and he
   applied himself with assiduous skill to train and discipline
   his troops according to the European models. The English at
   Madras were roused by his ambition, without as yet fully
   appreciating his genius. We find them at the beginning of 1767
   engaged, with little care or forethought, in a confederacy
   against him with the Nizam and the Mahrattas. Formidable as
   that confederacy might seem, it was speedily dissipated by the
   arts of Hyder. At the very outset, a well-timed subsidy bought
   off the Mahrattas. The Nizam showed no better faith; he was
   only more tardy in his treason. He took the field in concert
   with a body of English commanded by Colonel Joseph Smith, but
   soon began to show symptoms of defection, and at last drew off
   his troops to join the army of Hyder. A battle ensued near
   Trincomalee, in September, 1767. Colonel Smith had under him
   no more than 1,500 Europeans and 9,000 Sepoys; while the
   forces combined on the other side were estimated, probably
   with much exaggeration, at 70,000 men. Nevertheless, Victory,
   as usual, declared for the English cause. … Our victory at
   Trincomalee produced as its speedy consequence a treaty of
   peace with the Nizam. Hyder was left alone; but even thus
   proved fully a match for the English both of Madras and of
   Bombay. … He could not be prevented from laying waste the
   southern plains of the Carnatic, as the territory of one of
   the staunchest allies of England, Mahomed Ali, the Nabob of
   Arcot. Through such ravages, the British troops often
   underwent severe privations. … At length, in the spring of
   1769, Hyder Ali became desirous of peace, and resolved to
   extort it on favourable terms. First, by a dexterous feint he
   drew off the British forces 140 miles to the southward of
   Madras. Then suddenly, at the head of 5,000 horsemen, Hyder
   himself appeared at St. Thomas's Mount, within ten miles of
   that city. The terrified Members of the Council already, in
   their mind's eye, saw their country-houses given up to plunder
   and to flame, and were little inclined to dispute whatever
   might be asked by an enemy so near at hand. Happily his terms
   were not high. A treaty was signed, providing that a mutual
   restoration of conquests should take place, and that the
   contracting parties should agree to assist each other in all
   defensive wars. In the career of Hyder Ali, this was by no
   means the first, nor yet the last occasion, on which he showed
   himself sincerely desirous of alliance with the English. He
   did not conceal the fact, that, in order to maintain his power
   and secure himself, he must lean either on them or on the
   Mahrattas. … In this war with Hyder, the English had lost no
   great amount of reputation, and of territory they had lost
   none at all. But as regards their wealth and their resources,
   they had suffered severely. Supplies, both of men and of
   money, had been required from Bengal, to assist the government
   at Madras; and both had been freely given. In consequence of
   such a drain, there could not be made the usual investments in
   goods, nor yet the usual remittances to England. Thus at the
   very time when the proprietors of the East India Company had
   begun to wish each other joy on the great reforms effected by
   Lord Clive, and looked forward to a further increase of their
   half-yearly Dividend, they were told to prepare for its
   reduction. A panic ensued. Within a few days, in the spring of
   1769, India Stock fell above sixty per cent."

INDIA: A. D. 1770-1773.
   Climax of English misrule.
   Break-down of the East India Company's government.
   The Indian Act of Lord North.

"In 1770 Bengal was desolated by perhaps the most terrible of the many terrible famines that have darkened its history, and it was estimated that more than a third part of its inhabitants perished. Yet in spite of all these calamities, in spite of the rapidly accumulating evidence of the inadequacy of the Indian revenues, the rapacity of the proprietors at home prevailed, and dividends of 12 and 12½ per cent., as permitted by the last Act, were declared. The result of all this could hardly be doubtful. In July, 1772, the Directors were obliged to confess that the sum required for the necessary payments of the next three months was deficient to the extent of no less than £1,293,000, and in August the Chairman and Deputy Chairman waited on the Minister to inform him that nothing short of a loan of at least one million from the public could save the Company from ruin. The whole system of Indian government had thus for a time broken down. The division between the Directors and a large part of the proprietors, and between the authorities of the Company in England and those in India, the private and selfish interests of its servants in India, and of its proprietors at home, the continual oscillation between a policy of conquest and a policy of trade, and the great want in the whole organisation of any adequate power of command and of restraint, had fatally weakened the great corporation. In England the conviction was rapidly growing that the whole system of governing a great country by a commercial company was radically and incurably false. … The subject was discussed in Parliament, in 1772, at great length, and with much acrimony. Several propositions were put forward by the Directors, but rejected by the Parliament; and Parliament, under the influence of Lord North, and in spite of the strenuous and passionate opposition of Burke, asserted in unequivocal terms its right to the territorial revenues of the Company. A Select Committee, consisting of thirty-one members, was appointed by Parliament to make a full inquiry into the affairs of the Company. It was not, however, till 1773 that decisive measures were taken. {1721} The Company was at this time absolutely helpless. Lord North commanded an overwhelming majority in both Houses, and on Indian questions he was supported by a portion of the Opposition. The Company was on the brink of ruin, unable to pay its tribute to the Government, unable to meet the bills which were becoming due in Bengal. The publication, in 1773, of the report of the Select Committee, revealed a scene of maladministration, oppression, and fraud which aroused a wide-spread indignation through England; and the Government was able without difficulty, in spite of the provisions of the charter, to exercise a complete controlling and regulating power over the affairs of the Company. … By enormous majorities two measures were passed through Parliament in 1773, which mark the commencement of a new epoch in the history of the East India Company. By one Act, the ministers met its financial embarrassments by a loan of £1,400,000 at an interest of 4 per cent., and agreed to forego the claim of £400,000 till this loan had been discharged. The Company was restricted from declaring any dividend above 6 per cent. till the new loan had been discharged, and above 7 per cent. till its bond-debt was reduced to £1,500,000. It was obliged to submit its accounts every half-year to the Lords of the Treasury; it was restricted from accepting bills drawn by its servants in India for above 300,000 a year, and it was obliged to export to the British settlements within its limits British goods of a specified value. By another Act, the whole constitution of the Company was changed, and the great centre of authority and power was transferred to the Crown. … All the more important matters of jurisdiction in India were to be submitted to a new court, consisting of a Chief Justice and three puisne judges appointed by the Crown. A Governor-General of Bengal, Behar, and Orissa, was to be appointed at a salary of £25,000 a year, with four Councillors, at salaries of £8,000 a year, and the other presidencies were made subordinate to Bengal. The first Governor-General and Councillors were to be nominated, not by the East India Company, but by Parliament; they were to be named in the Act, and to hold their offices for five years; after that period the appointments reverted to the Directors, but were subject to the approbation of the Crown. Everything in the Company's correspondence with India relating to civil and military affairs was to be laid before the Government. No person in the service of the King or of the Company might receive presents, and the Governor-General, the Councillors, and the judges were excluded from all commercial profits and pursuits. By this memorable Act the charter of the East India Company was completely subverted, and the government of India passed mainly into the hands of the ministers of the Crown. The chief management of affairs was vested in persons in whose appointment or removal the Company had no voice or share, who might govern without its approbation or sanction, but who nevertheless drew, by authority of an Act of Parliament, large salaries from its exchequer. Such a measure could be justified only by extreme necessity and by brilliant success, and it was obviously open to the gravest objections from many sides. … Warren Hastings was the first Governor-General: Barwell, Clavering, Monson, and Philip Francis were the four Councillors."

W. E. H. Lecky, History of England in the 18th Century, chapter 13 (volume 3).

INDIA: A. D. 1773-1785.
   The First English Governor-General.
   Administration of Warren Hastings.
   Execution of Nuncomar.
   The Rohilla War.
   Annexation of Benares.
   Treatment of the Begums of Oudh.

   "The Governor-General was not at once the potential personage
   he has since become. The necessity of ruling by a Dictator (a
   dictator on the spot, though responsible to superiors at home)
   had not yet become obvious; and the Governor-General had no
   superiority in council, except the casting vote in case of an
   equal division. Whether he could govern or not depended
   chiefly on whether he had a party of two in the council. Two
   out of the four, with his own casting vote, were enough; and
   without it, he was not really governor. This is not the place
   in which to follow the history of the first general council
   and its factions, apart from the consequences to British
   interests. It must suffice to say that at the outset, three
   out of four of the council (and those the new officials from
   England) were opposed to Hastings. It has been related that
   the internal administration of Bengal under Clive's 'double
   system' was managed by the Nabob's prime-minister. This
   functionary had a salary of £100,000 a year, and enjoyed a
   high dignity and immense power. One man who aspired to hold
   the office in Clive's time was the great Hindoo, Nuncomar, …
   eminent in English eyes for his wealth, and his abilities, and
   much more in native estimation for his sanctity as a Brahmin,
   and his almost unbounded social power. … The Maharajah
   Nuncomar was a great scoundrel—there is no doubt of that;
   and his intrigues, supported by forgeries, were so flagrant as
   to prevent his appointment to the premiership under the Nabob.
   Such vices were less odious in Bengal than almost anywhere
   else; but they were inconvenient, as well as disgusting, to
   the British; and this was the reason why Clive set aside
   Nuncomar, and appointed his rival competitor, Mohammed Reza
   Khan, though he was highly reluctant to place the highest
   office in Bengal in the hands of a Mussulman. This Mussulman
   administered affairs for seven years before Hastings became
   Governor-General; and he also had the charge of the infant
   Nabob, after Surajah Dowla died. We have seen how dissatisfied
   the Directors were with the proceeds of their Bengal
   dominions. Nuncomar planted his agents everywhere; and in
   London especially; and these agents persuaded the Directors
   that Mohammed Reza Khan was to blame for their difficulties
   and their scanty revenues. Confident in this information, they
   sent secret orders to Hastings to arrest the great Mussulman,
   and everybody who belonged to him, and to hear what Nuncomar
   had to say against him." The Governor-General obeyed the order
   and made the arrests, "but the Mussulman minister was not
   punished, and Nuncomar hated Hastings accordingly. He bided
   his time, storing up materials of accusation with which to
   overwhelm the Governor at the first turn of his fortunes. That
   turn was when the majority of the Council were opposed to the
   Governor-General, and rendered him helpless in his office; and
   Nuncomar then presented himself, with offers of evidence to
   prove all manner of treasons and corruptions against Hastings.
{1722}
   Hastings was haughty; the councils were tempestuous. Hastings
   prepared to resign, though he was aware that the opinion of
   the English in Bengal was with him; and Nuncomar was the
   greatest native in the country, visited by the Council, and
   resorted to by all his countrymen who ventured to approach
   him. Foiled in the Council, Hastings had recourse to the
   Supreme Court [of which Sir Elijah Impey was the Chief
   Justice]. He caused Nuncomar to be arrested on a charge
   brought ostensibly by a native of having forged a bond six
   years before. After a long trial for an offence which appeared
   very slight to Bengalee natives in those days, the culprit was
   found guilty by a jury of Englishmen, and condemned to death
   by the judges."

"It may perhaps be said that no trial has been so often tried over again by such diverse authorities, or in so many different ways, as this celebrated proceeding. During the course of a century it has been made the theme of historical, political, and biographical discussions; all the points have been argued and debated by great orators and great lawyers; it has formed the avowed basis of a motion in Parliament to impeach the Chief-Justice, and it must have weighed heavily, though indirectly, with those who decided to impeach the Governor-General. It gave rise to rumours of a dark and nefarious conspiracy which, whether authentic or not, exactly suited the humour and the rhetoric of some contemporary English politicians. … Very recently Sir James Stephen, after subjecting the whole case to exact scrutiny and the most skilful analysis, after examining every document and every fact bearing upon this matter with anxious attention, has pronounced judgment declaring that Nuncomar's trial was perfectly fair, that Hastings had nothing to do with the prosecution, and that at the time there was no sort of conspiracy or understanding between Hastings and Impey in relation to it. Nothing can be more masterly or more effective than the method employed by Sir James Stephen to explode and demolish, by the force of a carefully-laid train of proofs, the loose fabric of assertions, invectives, and ill-woven demonstrations upon which the enemies of Hastings and Impey based and pushed forward their attacks, and which have never before been so vigorously battered in reply. … It may be accepted, upon Sir James Stephen's authority, that no evidence can be produced to justify conclusions adverse to the innocence of Hastings upon a charge that has from its nature affected the popular tradition regarding him far more deeply than the accusations of high-handed oppressive political transactions, which are little understood and leniently condemned by the English at large. There is really nothing to prove that he had anything to do with the prosecution, or that he influenced the sentence. … Nevertheless when Sir James Stephen undertakes to establish, by argument drawn from the general motives of human action, the moral certainty that Hastings was totally unconnected with the business, and that the popular impression against him is utterly wrong, his demonstration is necessarily less conclusive. … On the whole there is no reason whatever to dissent from Pitt's view, who treated the accusation of a conspiracy between Impey and Hastings for the purpose of destroying Nuncomar, as destitute of any shadow of solid proof. Whether Hastings, when Nuncomar openly tried to ruin him by false and malignant accusations, became aware and made use in self-defence of the fact that his accuser had rendered himself liable to a prosecution for forgery, is a different question, upon which also no evidence exists or is likely to be forthcoming."

   "James Mill says, 'No transaction perhaps of his whole
   administration more deeply tainted the reputation of Hastings
   than the tragedy of Nuncomar.' A similar remark was made by
   William Wilberforce. The most prominent part too in Nuncomar's
   story is played by Sir Elijah Impey. … Impey, in the present
   day, is known to English people in general only by the
   terrible attack made upon him by Lord Macaulay, in his essay
   on Warren Hastings. It stigmatises him as one of the vilest of
   mankind. 'No other such judge has dishonoured the English
   ermine since Jefferies drank himself to death in the Tower.'
   'Impey, sitting as a judge, put a man unjustly to death, in
   order to serve a political purpose.' 'The time had come when
   he was to be stripped of that robe which he had so foully
   dishonoured.' These dreadful accusations I, upon the fullest
   consideration of the whole subject, and, in particular, of
   much evidence which Macaulay seems to me never to have seen,
   believe to be wholly unjust. For Macaulay himself I have an
   affectionate admiration. He was my own friend, and my
   father's, and my grandfather's friend also, and there are few
   injunctions which I am more disposed to observe than the one
   which bids us not to forget such persons. I was, moreover, his
   successor in office, and am better able than most persons to
   appreciate the splendour of the services which he rendered to
   India. These considerations make me anxious if I can to repair
   a wrong done by him, not intentionally, for there never was a
   kinder-hearted man, but because he adopted on insufficient
   grounds the traditional hatred which the Whigs bore to Impey,
   and also because his marvellous power of style blinded him to
   the effect which his language produced. He did not know his
   own strength, and was probably not aware that a few sentences
   which came from him with little effort were enough to brand a
   man's name with almost indelible infamy. … My own opinion is
   that no man ever had, or could have, a fairer trial than
   Nuncomar, and that Impey in particular behaved with absolute
   fairness and as much indulgence as was compatible with his
   duty. In his defence at the bar of the House of Commons, he
   said, 'Conscious as I am how much it was my intention to
   favour the prisoner in everything that was consistent with
   justice; wishing as I did that the facts might turn out
   favourable for an acquittal; it has appeared most wonderful to
   me that the execution of my purpose has so far differed from
   my intentions that any ingenuity could form an objection to my
   personal conduct as bearing hard on the prisoner.' My own
   earnest study of the trial has led me to the conviction that
   every word of this is absolutely true and just. Indeed, the
   first matter which directed my attention to the subject was
   the glaring contrast between Impey's conduct as ascribed in
   the State Trials and his character as described by Lord
   Macaulay.
{1723}
   There is not a word in his summing-up of which I should have
   been ashamed had I said it myself, and all my study of the
   case has not suggested to me a single observation in
   Nuncomar's favour which is not noticed by Impey. As to the
   verdict, I think that there was ample evidence to support it.
   Whether it was in fact correct is a point on which it is
   impossible for me to give an unqualified opinion, as it is of
   course impossible now to judge decidedly of the credit due to
   the witnesses, and as I do not understand some part of the
   exhibits."

"Sir John Strachey, in his work on Hastings and the Rohilla War, examines in detail one of the chief charges made against the conduct of Warren Hastings while Governor-General. The Rohilla charge was dropped by Burke and the managers, and was therefore not one of the issues tried at the impeachment; but it was, in spite of this fact, one of the main accusations urged against the Governor-General in Macaulay's famous essay. Macaulay, following James Mill, accuses Warren Hastings of having hired out an English army to exterminate what Burke called 'the bravest, the most honourable and generous nation on earth.' According to Macaulay, the Vizier of Oudh coveted the Rohilla country, but was not strong enough to take it for himself. Accordingly, he paid down forty lakhs of rupees to Hastings, on condition that the latter should help to strike down and seize his prey. … Sir John Strachey … shows beyond a shadow of doubt that the whole story is a delusion. … 'The English army was not hired out by Hastings for the destruction of the Rohillas; the Rohillas described by Burke as belonging to the bravest, the most honourable and generous nation on earth, were no nation at all, but a comparatively small body of cruel and rapacious Afghan adventurers, who had imposed their foreign rule on an unwilling Hindoo population; and the story of their destruction is fictitious.' … The north-west angle of the great strip of plain which follows the course of the Ganges was possessed by a clan which fifty years before had been a mere band of Afghan mercenaries, but which was now beginning to settle down as a dominant governing class, living among a vastly more numerous subject-population of Hindoos. This country was Rohilkhand, the warrior-horde the Rohillas. It must never be forgotten that the Rohillas were no more the inhabitants of Rohilkhand than were the Normans fifty years after the Conquest the inhabitants of England. … But the fact that the corner of what geographically was our barrier State was held by the Rohillas, made it necessary for us to keep Rohilkhand as well as Oudh free from the Mahrattas. Hence it became the key-note of Warren Hastings' policy to help both the Rohillas and the Vizier [of Oudh] to maintain their independence against the Mahrattas. In the year 1772, however, the Mahrattas succeeded in crossing the Ganges, in getting into Rohilkhand, and in threatening the Province of Oudh. … Hastings encouraged the Vizier and the Rohilla chiefs to make an alliance, under which the Rohillas were to be reinstated in their country by aid of the Vizier, the Vizier obtaining for such assistance forty lakhs,—that is, he coupled the Rohillas and the Vizier, for defence purposes, into one barrier-State. … If the Rohillas had observed this treaty, all might have been well. Unhappily for them, they could not resist the temptation to break faith." They joined the Mahrattas against Oudh, and it was after this had occurred twice that Hastings lent assistance to the Vizier in expelling them from Rohilkhand. "Instead of exterminating the Rohillas, he helped make a warrior-clan, but one generation removed from a 'free company,' recross the Ganges and release from their grip the land they had conquered."

"The year 1781 opened for Hastings on a troubled sea of dangers, difficulties, and distress. Haidar Ali was raging in the Carnatic, Goddard and Camac were still fighting the Marathas, and French fleets were cruising in the Bay of Bengal. … It was no time for standing upon trifles. Money must be raised somehow, if British India was to be saved. Among other sources of supply, he turned to the Rajah of Banaras [or Benares]. Chait Singh was the grandson of an adventurer, who had ousted his own patron and protector from the lordship of the district so named. In 1775, his fief had been transferred by treaty from the Nawab of Oudh to the Company. As a vassal of the Company he was bound to aid them with men and money in times of special need. Five lakhs of rupees—£50,000—and two thousand horse was the quota which Hastings had demanded of him in 1780. In spite of the revenue of half-a-million, of the great wealth stored up in his private coffers, and of the splendid show which he always made in public, the Rajah pleaded poverty, and put off compliance with the demands of his liege lord. … Chait Singh had repeatedly delayed the payment of his ordinary tribute; his body-guard alone was larger than the force which Hastings required of him; he was enrolling troops for some warlike purpose, and Hastings' agents accused him of secret plottings with the Oudh Begams at Faizabad. … The Rajah, in fact, like a shrewd, self-seeking Hindu, was waiting upon circumstances, which at that time boded ill for his English neighbours. The Marathas, the French, or some other power might yet relieve him from the yoke of a ruler who restrained his ambition, and lectured him on the duty of preserving law and order among his own subjects. … It has often been argued that, in his stern dealings with the Rajah of Banaras, Hastings was impelled by malice and a desire for revenge. But the subsequent verdict of the House of Lords on this point, justifies itself to all who have carefully followed the facts of his life. … As a matter of policy, he determined to make an example of a contumacious vassal, whose conduct in that hour of need added a new danger to those which surrounded the English in India. A heavy fine would teach the Rajah to obey orders, and help betimes to fill his own treasury with the sinews of war. … Chait Singh had already tried upon the Governor-General those arts which in Eastern countries people of all classes employ against each other without a blush. He had sent Hastings a peace-offering of two lakhs—£20,000. Hastings took the money, but reserved it for the Company's use. Presently he received an offer of twenty lakhs for the public service. But Hastings was in no mood for further compromise in evasion of his former demands. {1724} He would be satisfied with nothing less than half a million in quittance of all dues. In July, 1781, he set out, with Wheeler's concurrence, for the Rajah's capital. … Traveling, as he preferred to do, with a small escort and as little parade as possible, he arrived on the 16th August at the populous and stately city. … On his way thither, at Baxar, the recusant Rajah had come to meet him, with a large retinue, in the hope of softening the heart of the great Lord Sahib. He even laid his turban on Hastings' lap. … With the haughtiness of an ancient Roman, Hastings declined his prayer for a private interview. On the day after his arrival at Banaras, the Governor-General forwarded to Chait Singh a paper stating the grounds of complaint against him, and demanding an explanation on each point. The Rajah's answer seemed to Hastings' so offensive in style and unsatisfactory in substance;' it was full, in fact, of such transparent, or, as Lord Thurlow afterwards called them, 'impudent' falsehoods, that the Governor-General issued orders for placing the Rajah under arrest. Early the next morning, Chait Singh was quietly arrested in his own palace. … Meanwhile his armed retainers were flocking into the city from his strong castle of Ramnagar, on the opposite bank. Mixing with the populace, they provoked a tumult, in which the two companies of Sepoys guarding the prisoner were cut to pieces. With unloaded muskets and empty pouches—for the ammunition had been forgotten—the poor men fell like sheep before their butchers. Two more companies, in marching to their aid through the narrow streets, were nearly annihilated. During the tumult Chait Singh quietly slipped out of the palace, dropped by a rope of turbans into a boat beneath, and crossed in safety to Ramnagar. … If Chait Singh's followers had not shared betimes their master's flight across the river, Hastings, with his band of thirty Englishmen and fifty Sepoys, might have paid very dearly for the sudden miscarriage of his plans. But the rabble of Banaras had no leader, and troops from the nearest garrisons were already marching to the rescue. … Among the first who reached him was the gallant Popham, bringing with him several hundred of his own Sepoys. … The beginning of September found Popham strong enough to open a campaign, which speedily avenged the slaughters at Banaras and Ramnagar, and carried Hastings back into the full stream of richly-earned success. … The capture of Bijigarh on the 10th November, closed the brief but brilliant campaign. The booty, amounting to £400,000, was at once divided among the captors; and Hastings lost his only chance of replenishing his treasury at the expense of Chait Singh. He consoled himself and improved the Company's finances, by bestowing the rebel's forfeit lordship on his nephew, and doubling the tribute hitherto exacted. He was more successful in accomplishing another object of his journey up the country."

"It is certain … that Chait Singh's rebellion was largely aided by the Begums or Princesses of Faizabad. On this point the evidence contained in Mr. Forrest's volumes ['Selections from Letters, Despatches and other State Papers in the Foreign Department of the Government of India,' edited by G. W. Forrest] leaves no shadow of reasonable doubt. In plain truth, the Begums, through their Ministers, the eunuchs, had levied war both against the Company and their own kinsmen and master, the new Wazir of Oudh. Some years before, when the Francis faction ruled in Calcutta, these ladies, the widow and the mother of Shuja, had joined with the British Agent in robbing the new Wazir, Asaf-ud-daula, of nearly all the rich treasure which his father had stored up in Faizabad. Hastings solemnly protested against a transaction which he was powerless to prevent. The Begums kept their hold upon the treasure, and their Jaghirs, or military fiefs, which ought by rights to have lapsed to the new Wazir. Meanwhile Asaf-ud-daula had to govern as he best could, with an empty treasury, and an army mutinous for arrears of pay. At last, with the suppression of the Benares revolt, it seemed to Hastings and the Wazir that the time had come for resuming the Jaghirs, and making the Begums disgorge their ill-gotten wealth. In accordance with the Treaty of Chunar, both these objects were carried out by the Wazir's orders, with just enough of compulsion to give Hastings' enemies a handle for the slanders and misrepresentations which lent so cruel a point to Sheridan's dazzling oratory, and to one of the most scathing passages in Macaulay's most popular essay. There are some points, no doubt, in Hastings' character and career about which honest men may still hold different opinions. But on all the weightier issues here mentioned there ought to be no room for further controversy. It is no longer possible to contend, for instance, that Hastings agreed, for a handsome bribe, to help in exterminating the innocent people of Rohilkhand; that he prompted Impey to murder Nand-Kumar; that any desire for plunder led him to fasten a quarrel upon Chait Singh; or that he engaged with the Oudh Wazir in a plot to rob the Wazir's own mother of vast property secured to her under a solemn compact, 'formally guaranteed by the Government of Bengal.'"

L. J. Trotter, Warren Hastings and his Libellers (Westminster Review, March, 1891).

      G. R. Gleig,
      Memoirs of Warren Hastings,
      volume 1, chapters 8-14, and volume 2.

"The brilliant successes obtained by the English over the French in Hindostan at the beginning of the war had made all direct competition between the two nations in that country impossible, but it was still in the power of the French to stimulate the hostility of the native princes, and the ablest of all these, Hyder Ali, the great ruler of Mysore, was once more in the field. Since his triumph over the English, in 1769, he had acquired much additional territory from the Mahrattas. He had immensely strengthened his military forces, both in numbers and discipline. … For some years he showed no wish to quarrel with the English, but when a Mahratta chief invaded his territory they refused to give him the assistance they were bound by the express terms of the treaty of 1769 to afford, they rejected or evaded more than one subsequent proposal of alliance, and they pursued a native policy in some instances hostile to his interest. {1725} As a great native sovereign, too, he had no wish to see the balance of power established by the rivalry between the British and French destroyed. … Mysore was swarming with French adventurers. The condition of Europe made it scarcely possible that England could send any fresh forces, and Hyder Ali had acquired a strength which appeared irresistible. Ominous rumours passed over the land towards the close of 1779, but they were little heeded, and no serious preparations had been made, when in July, 1780, the storm suddenly burst. At the head of an army of at least 90,000 men, including 30,000 horsemen, 100 cannon, many European officers and soldiers, and crowds of desperate adventurers from all parts of India, Hyder Ali descended upon the Carnatic and devastated a vast tract of country round Madras. Many forts and towns were invested, captured, or surrendered. The Nabob and some of his principal officers acted with gross treachery or cowardice, and in spite of the devastations native sympathies were strongly with the invaders. … Madras was for a time in imminent danger. A few forts commanded by British officers held out valiantly, but the English had only two considerable bodies of men, commanded respectively by Colonel Baillie and by Sir Hector Munro, in the field. They endeavoured to effect a junction, but Hyder succeeded in attacking separately the small army of Colonel Baillie, consisting of rather more than 3,700 men, and it was totally defeated [September 10], 2,000 men being left on the field. Munro only saved himself from a similar fate by a rapid retreat, abandoning his baggage, and much of his ammunition. Arcot, which was the capital of the Nabob, and which contained vast military stores, was besieged for six weeks, and surrendered in the beginning of November. Velore, Wandewash, Permacoil, and Chingliput, four of the chief strongholds in the Carnatic, were invested. A French fleet with French troops was daily expected, and it appeared almost certain that the British power would be extinguished in Madras, if not in the whole of Hindostan. It was saved by the energy of the Governor-General, Warren Hastings, who, by extraordinary efforts, collected a large body of Sepoys and a few Europeans in Bengal, and sent them with great rapidity to Madras, under the command of Sir Eyre Coote, who had proved himself twenty years before scarcely second in military genius to Clive himself. I do not propose to relate in detail the long and tangled story of the war that followed. … It is sufficient to say that Coote soon found himself at the head of about 7,200 men, of whom 1,400 were Europeans; that he succeeded in relieving Wandewash, and obliging Hyder Ali to abandon for the present the siege of Velore; that the French fleet, which arrived off the coast in January, 1781, was found to contain no troops, and that on July 1, 1781, Coote, with an army of about 8,000 men, totally defeated forces at least eight times as numerous, commanded by Hyder himself, in the great battle of Porto Novo. … The war raged over the Carnatic, over Tanjore, in the Dutch settlements to the south of Tanjore, on the opposite Malabar coast, and on the coast of Ceylon, while at the same time another and independent struggle was proceeding with the Mahrattas. … The coffers at Calcutta were nearly empty, and it was in order to replenish them that Hastings committed some of the acts which were afterwards the subjects of his impeachment. … By the skill and daring of a few able men, of whom Hastings, Coote, Munro, and Lord Macartney were the most prominent, the storm was weathered. Hyder Ali died in December, 1782, about four months before Sir Eyre Coote. The peace of 1782 withdrew France and Holland from the contest, and towards the close of 1783, Tippoo, the son of Hyder Ali, consented to negotiate a peace, which was signed in the following March. Its terms were a mutual restoration of all conquests, and in this, as in so many other great wars, neither of the contending parties gained a single advantage by all the bloodshed, the expenditure, the desolation, and the misery of a struggle of nearly four years."

W. E. H. Lecky, History of England in the 18th Century, chapter 14 (volume 5).

"The centre and heart of the English power lay in Bengal, which the war never reached at all, and which was governed by a man of rare talent and organizing capacity. No Anglo-Indian government of that time could carry on a campaign by war loans, as in Europe; the cost had to be provided out of revenue, or by requiring subsidies from allied native rulers; and it was Bengal that furnished not only the money and the men, but also the chief political direction and military leadership which surmounted the difficulties and repaired the calamities of the English in the western and southern Presidencies. And when at last the Marathas made peace, when Hyder Ali died, and Suffren, with all his courage and genius, could not master the English fleet in the Bay of Bengal, there could be no doubt that the war had proved the strength of the English position in India, had tested the firmness of its foundation. … With the termination of this war ended the only period in the long contest between England and the native powers, during which our position in India was for a time seriously jeoparded. That the English dominion emerged from this prolonged struggle uninjured, though not unshaken, is a result due to the political intrepidity of Warren Hastings. … Hastings had no aristocratic connexions or parliamentary influence at a time when the great families and the House of Commons held immense power; he was surrounded by enemies in his own Council; and his immediate masters, the East India Company, gave him very fluctuating support. Fiercely opposed by his own colleagues, and very ill obeyed by the subordinate Presidencies, he had to maintain the Company's commercial establishments, and at the same time to find money for carrying on distant and impolitic wars in which he had been involved by blunders at Madras or Bombay. These funds he had been expected to provide out of current revenues, after buying and despatching the merchandise on which the company's home dividends depended; for the resource of raising public loans, so freely used in England, was not available to him. He was thus inevitably driven to the financial transactions, at Benares and Lucknow, that were now so bitterly stigmatized as crimes by men who made no allowance for a perilous situation in a distant land, or for the weight of enormous national interests committed to the charge of the one man capable of sustaining them. When the storm had blown over in India, and he had piloted his vessel into calm water, he was sacrificed with little or no hesitation to party exigencies in England; the Ministry would have recalled him; they consented to his impeachment; they left him to be baited by the Opposition and to be ruined by the law's delay, by the incredible procrastination and the obsolete formalities of a seven years' trial before the House of Lords."

ALSO IN: Meer Hussein Ali Khan Kirmani, History of Hydur Naik, chapters 27-31.

INDIA: A. D. 1785-1793.
   State of India.
   Extent of English rule.
   Administration of Lord Cornwallis.
   War with Tippoo Saib (Third Mysore War).
   The "Permanent Settlement" of Land Revenue in Bengal,
   and its fruit.

"When Warren Hastings left India, the Mogul Empire was simply the phantom of a name. The warlike tribes of the north-west, Sikhs, Rajpoots, Jats, were henceforth independent; but the Rohillas of the north-east had been subdued and almost exterminated. Of the three greatest Soobahs or vice-royalties of the Mogul empire, at one time practically independent, that of Bengal had wholly disappeared, those of Oude and the Deckan had sunk into dependence on a foreign power, were maintained by the aid of foreign mercenaries. The only two native powers that remained were, the Mahrattas, and the newly-risen Mussulman dynasty of Mysore. The former were still divided between the great chieftaincies of the Peshwa, Scindia, Holkar, the Guicowar, and the Boslas of Berar. But the supremacy of the Peshwa was on the wane; that of Scindia, on the contrary, in the ascendant. Scindia ruled in the north; he had possession of the emperor's person, of Delhi, the old Mussulman capital. In the south, Hyder Ali and Tippoo [son of Hyder Ali, whom he had succeeded in 1782], Sultan of Mysore, had attained to remarkable power. They were dangerous to the Mahrattas, dangerous to the Nizam, dangerous, lastly, to the English. But the rise of the last-named power was the great event of the period. … They had won for themselves the three great provinces of Bengal, Behar, and Orissa, besides Benares,—forming a large compact mass of territory to the north-east. They had, farther down the east coast, the province of the Northern Circars, and farther still, the jagheer [land grant], of Madras; on the west, again, a large stretch of territory at the southern extremity of the peninsula. The two Mussulman sovereigns of Oude and Hyderabad were their dependent allies; they administered the country of the Nawab of the Carnatic, besides having hosts of smaller potentates under their protection. … The appointed successor to Hastings was Lord Macartney. … He lost his office, however, by hesitating to accept it, and going to England to urge conditions. … The great military event of Lord Cornwallis's government was the third Mysore war. It began with some disputes about the petty Raja of Cherika, from whom the English had farmed the customs of Tellicherry, and taken, in security for advances, a district called Randaterra, and by Tippoo's attack upon the lines of the Raja of Travancore, an ally of the English, consisting of a ditch, wall, and other defences, on an extent of about thirty miles. Tippoo was, however, repelled with great slaughter in an attack on the town (1789). Hearing this, Lord Cornwallis at once entered into treaties with the Nizam and the Peshwa for a joint war upon Mysore; all new conquests to be equally divided, all Tippoo's own conquests from the contracting powers to be restored. After a first inconclusive campaign, in which, notwithstanding the skill of General Meadows, the advantage rather remained to Tippoo, who, amongst other things, gave a decided check to Colonel Floyd (1790), Lord Cornwallis took the command in person, and carried Bangalore by assault, with great loss to both parties, but a tremendous carnage of the besieged. However, so wretched had been the English preparations, that, the cattle being 'reduced to skeletons, and scarcely able to move their own weight,' Lord Cornwallis, after advancing to besiege Seringapatam, was forced to retreat and to destroy the whole of his battering-train and other equipments; whilst General Abercrombie, who was advancing in the same direction from the Malabar coast, had to do the same (1791). A force of Mahrattas came in, well appointed and well provided, but too late to avert these disasters. The next campaign was more successful. It began by the taking of several of the hill-forts forming the western barrier of Mysore. … On the 5th February, 1792, however, Lord Cornwallis appeared before Seringapatam, situated in an island formed by the Cauvery: the fort and outworks were provided with 300 pieces of cannon; the fortified camp, outside the river, by six redoubts, with more than 100 pieces of heavy artillery. Tippoo's army consisted of 6,000 cavalry and 50,000 infantry, himself commanding. This first siege, which is celebrated in Indian warfare, continued with complete success on the English side till the 24th. 10,000 subjects of Coorg, whom Tippoo had enlisted by force, deserted. At last, when the whole island was carried and all preparations made for the siege, Tippoo made peace. The English allies had such confidence in Lord Cornwallis, that they left him entire discretion as to the terms. They were,—that Tippoo should give up half of his territory, pay a large sum for war expenses, and give up two of his sons as hostages. The ceded territory was divided between the allies, the Company obtaining a large strip of the Malabar coast, extending eastward to the Carnatic. … Meanwhile, on the breaking out of war between England and the French Republic, the French settlements in India were all again annexed (1792). Lord Cornwallis now applied himself to questions of internal government. Properly speaking, there was no English Government as yet. Mr. Kaye, the brilliant apologist of the East India Company, says, of Lord Cornwallis, that 'he gathered up the scattered fragments of government which he found, and reduced them to one comprehensive system.' He organized the administration of criminal justice, reorganized the police. He separated the connection of the revenues from the administration of justice, organizing civil justice in turn. … He next proceeded to organize the financial system of the Company's government. … Hence the famous 'Permanent Settlement' of Lord Cornwallis (22nd March, 1793)."

"In 1793 the so-called Permanent Settlement of the Land Revenue was introduced. We found in Bengal, when we succeeded to the Government, a class of middle-men, called Zemindars [or Zamindars-see, also, TALUKDARS], who collected the land revenue and the taxes, and we continued to employ them. As a matter of convenience and expediency, but not of right, the office of zemindar was often hereditary. The zemindars had never been in any sense the owners of the land, but it was supposed by Lord Cornwallis and the English rulers of the time that it would be an excellent thing for Bengal to have a class of landlords something like those of England; the zemindars were the only people that seemed available for the purpose, and they were declared to be the proprietors of the land. It was by no means intended that injustice should thus be done to others. Excepting the State, there was only one great class, that of the ryots or actual cultivators, which, according to immemorial custom, could be held to possess permanent rights in the land. The existence of those rights was recognised, and, as it was supposed, guarded by the law. … There has been much dispute as to the exact nature of the rights given to the zemindars, but everyone agrees that it was not the intention of the authors of the Permanent Settlement to confiscate anything which, according to the customs of the country, had belonged to the cultivators. The right of property given to the zemindars was a portion of those rights which had always been exercised by the State, and of which the State was at liberty to dispose; it was not intended that they should receive anything else. The land revenue, representing the share of the produce or rental to which the State was entitled, was fixed in perpetuity. The ryots were to continue to hold their lands permanently at the 'rates established in the purgunnah;' when the amount of these rates was disputed it was to be settled by the courts; so long as rents at those rates were paid, the ryot could not be evicted. The intention was to secure to the ryot fixity of tenure and fixity of rent. Unfortunately, these rights were only secured upon paper. … The consequences at the present time are these:—Even if it be assumed that the share of the rent which the State can wisely take is smaller than the share which any Government, Native or English, has ever taken or proposed to take in India, the amount now received by the State from the land in Bengal must be held to fall short of what it might be by a sum that can hardly be less than £5,000,000 a year; this is a moderate computation; probably the loss is much more. This is given away in return for no service to the State or to the public; the zemindars are merely the receivers of rent; with exceptions so rare as to deserve no consideration, they take no part in the improvement of the land, and, until a very few years ago, they bore virtually no share of the public burdens. The result of these proceedings of the last century, to the maintenance of which for ever the faith of the British Government is said to have been pledged, is that the poorer classes in poorer provinces have to make good to the State the millions which have been thrown away in Bengal. If this were all, it would be bad enough, but worse remains to be told. … 'The original intention of the framers of the Permanent Settlement (I am quoting from Sir George Campbell) was to record all rights. The Canoongoes (District Registrars) and Putwarees (Village Accountants) were to register all holdings, all transfers, all rent-rolls, and all receipts and payments; and every five years there was to be filed in the public offices a complete register of all land tenures. But the task was a difficult one; there was delay in carrying it out. … The putwarees fell into disuse or became the mere servants of the zemindars; the canoongoes were abolished. No record of the rights of the ryots and inferior holders was ever made, and even the quinquennial register of superior rights, which was maintained for a time, fell into disuse.' … The consequences of the Permanent Settlement did not become immediately prominent. … But, as time went on, and population and wealth increased, as cultivators were more readily found, and custom began to give way to competition, the position of the ryots became worse and that of the zemindars became stronger. Other circumstances helped the process of confiscation of the rights of the peasantry. … The confiscation of the rights of the ryots has reached vast proportions. In 1793 the rental left to the zemindars under the Permanent Settlement, after payment of the land revenue, is supposed not to have exceeded £400,000; according to some estimates it was less. If the intentions of the Government had been carried out, it was to the ryots that the greater portion of any future increase in the annual value of the land would have belonged, in those parts at least of the province which were at that time well cultivated. It is not possible to state with confidence the present gross annual rental of the landlords of Bengal. An imperfect valuation made some years ago showed it to be £13,000,000. It is now called £17,000,000, but there can be little doubt that it is much more. Thus, after deducting the land revenue, which is about £3,800,000, the net rental has risen from £400,000 in the last century to more than £13,000,000 at the present time. No portion of this increase has been due to the action of the zemindars. It has been due to the industry of the ryots, to whom the greater part of it rightfully belonged, to the peaceful progress of the country, and to the expenditure of the State, an expenditure mainly defrayed from the taxation of poorer provinces. If ever there was an 'unearned increment,' it is this."

ALSO IN: J. W. Kaye, The Administration of the East India Co., part 2, chapter 2.

"Warren Hastings returned to England in the summer of 1785, and met with a distinguished reception. "I find myself," he wrote to a friend, "every where and universally treated with evidences, apparent even to my own observation, that I possess the good opinion of my country." But underneath this superficial "good opinion" there existed a moral feeling which had been outraged by the unscrupulous measures of the Governor-General of India, and which began soon to speak aloud through the eloquent lips of Edmund Burke. Joined in the movement by Fox and Sheridan, Burke laid charges before Parliament which forced the House of Commons, in the session of 1787 to order the impeachment of Hastings before the Lords. On the 13th of February, 1788, the sittings of the Court commenced. {1728} There have been spectacles more dazzling to the eye, more gorgeous with jewellery and cloth of gold, more attractive to grown-up children, than that which was then exhibited at Westminster; but, perhaps, there never was a spectacle so well calculated to strike a highly cultivated, a reflecting, an imaginative mind. All the various kinds of interest which belong to the near and to the distant, to the present and to the past, were collected on one spot and in one hour. All the talents and all the accomplishments which are developed by liberty and civilisation were now displayed, with every advantage that could be derived both from co-operation and from contrast. Every step in the proceedings carried the mind either backward, through many troubled centuries, to the days when the foundations of our constitution were laid; or far away, over boundless seas and deserts, to dusky nations living under strange stars, worshipping strange gods, and writing strange characters from right to left. The High Court of Parliament was to sit, according to forms handed down from the days of the Plantagenets, on an Englishman accused of exercising tyranny over the lord of the holy city of Benares, and over the ladies of the princely house of Oude. The place was worthy of such a trial. It was the great hall of William Rufus, the hall which had resounded with acclamations at the inauguration of thirty kings, the hall which had witnessed the just sentence of Bacon and the just absolution of Somers, the hall where the eloquence of Strafford had for a moment awed and melted a victorious party inflamed with just resentment, the hall where Charles had confronted the High Court of Justice with the placid courage which has half redeemed his fame. Neither military nor civil pomp was wanting. The avenues were lined with grenadiers. The streets were kept clear by cavalry. The peers, robed in gold and ermine, were marshalled by the heralds under Garter King-at-arms. The judges in their vestments of state attended to give advice on points of law. Near a hundred and seventy lords, three fourths of the Upper House as the Upper House then was, walked in solemn order from their usual place of assembling to the tribunal. … The grey old walls were hung with scarlet. The long galleries were crowded by an audience such as has rarely excited the fears or the emulations of an orator. There were gathered together, from all parts of a great, free, enlightened, and prosperous empire, grace and female loveliness, wit and learning, the representatives of every science and of every art. … The Serjeants made proclamation. Hastings advanced to the bar, and bent his knee. The culprit was indeed not unworthy of that great presence. He had ruled an extensive and populous country, had made laws and treaties, had sent forth armies, had set up and pulled down princes. And in his high place he had so borne himself, that all had feared him, that most had loved him, and that hatred itself could deny him no title to glory, except virtue. He looked like a great man, and not like a bad man. … His counsel accompanied him, men all of whom were afterwards raised by their talents and learning to the highest posts in their profession, the bold and strong-minded Law, afterwards Chief Justice of the King's Bench; the more humane and eloquent Dallas, afterwards Chief Justice of the Common Pleas; and Plomer who, near twenty years later, successfully conducted in the same high court the defence of Lord Melville, and subsequently became Vice-chancellor and Master of the Rolls. But neither the culprit nor his advocates attracted so much notice as the accusers. In the midst of the blaze of red drapery, a space had been fitted up with green benches and tables for the Commons. The managers, with Burke at their head, appeared in full dress. The collectors of gossip did not fail to remark that even Fox, generally so regardless of his appearance, had paid to the illustrious tribunal the compliment of wearing a bag and sword. Pitt had refused to be one of the conductors of the impeachment; and his commanding, copious, and sonorous eloquence was wanting to that great muster of various talents. … The charges and the answers of Hastings were first read. The ceremony occupied two whole days, and was rendered less tedious than it would otherwise have been by the silver voice and just emphasis of Cowper, the clerk of the court, a near relation of the amiable poet. On the third day Burke rose. Four sittings were occupied by his opening speech, which was intended to be a general introduction to all the charges. With an exuberance of thought and a splendour of diction, which more than satisfied the highly raised expectation of the audience, he described the character and institutions of the natives of India, recounted the circumstances in which the Asiatic empire of Britain had originated, and set forth the constitution of the Company and of the English presidencies. … When the Court sat again, Mr. Fox, assisted by Mr. Grey, opened the charge respecting Cheyte Sing, and several days were spent in reading papers and hearing witnesses. The next article was that relating to the Princesses of Oude. The conduct of this part of the case was intrusted to Sheridan. The curiosity of the public to hear him was unbounded. His sparkling and highly finished declamation lasted two days; but the Hall was crowded to suffocation during the whole time. It was said that fifty guineas had been paid for a single ticket. Sheridan, when he concluded, contrived, with a knowledge of stage effect which his father might have envied, to sink back, as if exhausted, into the arms of Burke, who hugged him with the energy of generous admiration. June was now far advanced. The session could not last much longer; and the progress which had been made in the impeachment was not very satisfactory. There were twenty charges. On two only of these had even the case for the prosecution been heard; and it was now a year since Hastings had been admitted to bail. The interest taken by the public in the trial was great when the Court began to sit, and rose to the height when Sheridan spoke on the charge relating to the Begums. From that time the excitement went down fast. The spectacle had lost the attraction of novelty. The great displays of rhetoric were over. … The trial in the Hall went on languidly. In the session of 1788, when the proceedings had the interest of novelty, and when the Peers had little other business before them, only thirty-five days were given to the impeachment. In 1789 … during the whole year only seventeen days were given to the case of Hastings. … At length, in the spring of 1795, the decision was pronounced, near eight years after Hastings had been brought by the Serjeant-at-arms of the Commons to the bar of the Lords. {1729} … Only twenty-nine Peers voted. Of these only six found Hastings guilty on the charges relating to Cheyte Sing and to the Begums. On other charges, the majority in his favour was still greater. On some he was unanimously absolved. He was then called to the bar, was informed from the woolsack that the Lords had acquitted him, and was solemnly discharged. He bowed respectfully and retired. We have said that the decision had been fully expected. It was also generally approved. … It was thought, and not without reason, that, even if he was guilty, he was still an ill-used man, and that an impeachment of eight years was more than a sufficient punishment. It was also felt that, though, in the ordinary course of criminal law, a defendant is not allowed to set off his good actions against his crimes, a great political cause should be tried on different principles, and that a man who had governed an empire during thirteen years might have done some very reprehensible things, and yet might be on the whole deserving of rewards and honours rather than of fine and imprisonment."

"The trial had several beneficial results. It cleared off a cloud of misconceptions, calumnies, exaggerations, and false notions generally on both sides; it fixed and promulgated the standard which the English people would in future insist upon maintaining in their Indian administration; it bound down the East India Company to better behaviour; it served as an example and a salutary warning, and it relieved the national conscience. But the attempt to make Hastings a sacrifice and a burnt-offering for the sins of the people; the process of loading him with curses and driving him away into the wilderness; of stoning him with every epithet and metaphor that the English language could supply for heaping ignominy on his head; of keeping him seven years under an impeachment that menaced him with ruin and infamy—these were blots upon the prosecution and wide aberrations from the true course of justice which disfigured the aspect of the trial, distorted its aim, and had much to do with bringing it to the lame and impotent conclusion that Burke so bitterly denounced."

Speeches of Managers and Counsel in the Trial of Warren Hastings, edited by E. A. Bond.

INDIA: A. D. 1798-1805.
   The administration and imperial policy of the Marquis Wellesley.
   Treaty with the Nizam.
   Overthrow and death of Tippoo, Sultan of Mysore.
   War with the Mahrattas.
   Assaye and Laswari.
   Territorial acquisitions.

"The period of Sir John Shore's rule as Governor-General, from 1793 to 1798 [after which he became Lord Teignmouth], was uneventful. In 1798, Lord Mornington, better known as the Marquis of Wellesley, arrived in India, already inspired with imperial projects which were destined to change the map of the country. Mornington was the friend and favourite of Pitt, from whom he is thought to have derived his far-reaching political vision, and his antipathy to the French name. From the first he laid down as his guiding principle, that the English must be the one paramount power in the peninsula, and that Native princes could only retain the insignia of sovereignty by surrendering their political independence. The history of India since his time has been but the gradual development of this policy, which received its finishing touch when Queen Victoria was proclaimed Empress of India on the 1st of January, 1877. To frustrate the possibility of a French invasion of India, led by Napoleon in person, was the governing idea of Wellesley's foreign policy. France at this time, and for many years later, filled the place afterwards occupied by Russia in the minds of Indian statesmen. Nor was the danger so remote as might now be thought. French regiments guarded and overawed the Nizam of Haidarabad. The soldiers of Sindhia, the military head of the Marhatta Confederacy, were disciplined and led by French adventurers. Tipu Sultan of Mysore carried on a secret correspondence with the French Directorate, allowed a tree of liberty to be planted in his dominions, and enrolled himself in a republican club as 'Citizen Tipu.' The islands of Mauritius and Bourbon afforded a convenient half-way rendezvous for French intrigue and for the assembling of a hostile expedition. Above all, Napoleon Buonaparte was then in Egypt, dreaming of the conquests of Alexander, and no man knew in what direction he might turn his hitherto unconquered legions. Wellesley conceived the scheme of crushing for ever the French hopes in Asia, by placing himself at the head of a great Indian confederacy. In Lower Bengal, the sword of Clive and the policy of Warren Hastings had made the English paramount. Before the end of the century, our power was consolidated from the seaboard to Benares, high up the Gangetic valley. … In 1801, the treaty of Lucknow made over to the British the Doab, or fertile tract between the Ganges and the Jumna, together with Rohilkhand. In Southern India, our possessions were chiefly confined, before Lord Wellesley, to the coast Districts of Madras and Bombay. Wellesley resolved to make the British supreme as far as Delhi in Northern India, and to compel the great powers of the south to enter into subordinate relations to the Company's government. The intrigues of the Native princes gave him his opportunity for carrying out this plan without breach of faith. The time had arrived when the English must either become supreme in India, or be driven out of it. The Mughal Empire was completely broken up; and the sway had to pass either to the local Muhammadan governors of that empire, or to the Hindu Confederacy represented by the Marhattas, or to the British. Lord Wellesley determined that it should pass to the British. His work in Northern India was at first easy. The treaty of Lucknow in 1801 made us territorial rulers as far as the heart of the present North-Western Provinces, and established our political influence in Oudh. Beyond those limits, the northern branches of the Marhattas practically held sway, with the puppet emperor in their hands. Lord Wellesley left them untouched for a few years, until the second Marhatta war (1802-1804) gave him an opportunity for dealing effectively with their nation as a whole. In Southern India, he saw that the Nizam at Haidarabad stood in need of his protection, and he converted him into a useful follower throughout the succeeding struggle. The other Muhammadan power of the south, Tipu Sultan of Mysore, could not be so easily handled. {1730} Lord Wellesley resolved to crush him, and had ample provocation for so doing. The third power of Southern India—namely, the Marhatta Confederacy—was so loosely organized, that Lord Wellesley seems at first to have hoped to live on terms with it. When several years of fitful alliance had convinced him that he had to choose between the supremacy of the Marhattas or of the British in Southern India, he did not hesitate to decide. Lord Wellesley first addressed himself to the weakest of the three southern powers, the Nizam of Haidarabad. Here he won a diplomatic success, which turned a possible rival into a subservient ally. The French battalions at Haidarabad were disbanded, and the Nizam bound himself by treaty not to take any European into his service without the consent of the English Government,—a clause since inserted in every engagement entered into with Native powers. Wellesley next turned the whole weight of his resources against Tipu, whom Cornwallis had defeated, but not subdued. Tipu's intrigues with the French were laid bare, and he was given an opportunity of adhering to the new subsidiary system. On his refusal, war was declared, and Wellesley came down in viceregal state to Madras to organize the expedition in person, and to watch over the course of events. One English army marched into Mysore from Madras, accompanied by a contingent from the Nizam. Another advanced from the western coast. Tipu, after a feeble resistance in the field, retired into Seringapatam, and, when his capital was stormed, died fighting bravely in the breach (1799). Since the battle of Plassey, no event so greatly impressed the Native imagination as the capture of Seringapatam, which won for General Harris a peerage, and for Wellesley an Irish marquisate. In dealing with the territories of Tipu, Wellesley acted with moderation. The central portion, forming the old state of Mysore, was restored to an infant representative of the Hindu Rajas, whom Haidar Ali had dethroned; the rest of Tipu's dominion was partitioned between the Nizam, the Marhattas, and the English. At about the same time, the Karnatic, or the part of South-Eastern India ruled by the Nawab of Arcot, and also the principality of Tanjore, were placed under direct British administration, thus constituting the Madras Presidency almost as it has existed to the present day. … The Marhattas had been the nominal allies of the English in both their wars with Tipu. But they had not rendered active assistance, nor were they secured to the English side as the Nizam now was. The Marhatta powers at this time were five in number. The recognised head of the confederacy was the Peshwa of Poona, who ruled the hill country of the Western Ghats, the cradle of the Marhatta race. The fertile Province of Guzerat was annually harried by the horsemen of the Gaekwar of Baroda. In Central India, two military leaders, Sindhia of Gwalior and Holkar of Indore, alternately held the pre-eminence. Towards the east, the Bhonsla Raja of Nagpur reigned from Berar to the coast of Orissa. Wellesley laboured to bring these several Marhatta powers within the net of his subsidiary system. In 1802, the necessities of the Peshwa, who had been defeated by Holkar, and driven as a fugitive into British territory, induced him to sign the treaty of Bassein. By this he pledged himself to the British to hold communications with no other power, European or Native, and granted to us Districts for the maintenance of a subsidiary force. This greatly extended the English territorial influence in the Bombay Presidency. But it led to the second Marhatta war, as neither Sindhia nor the Raja of Nagpur would tolerate the Peshwa's betrayal of the Marhatta independence. The campaigns which followed are perhaps the most glorious in the history of the British arms in India. The general plan, and the adequate provision of resources, were due to the Marquis of Wellesley, as also the indomitable spirit which refused to admit of defeat. The armies were led by Sir Arthur Wellesley (afterwards Duke of Wellington) and General (afterwards Lord) Lake. Wellesley operated in the Deccan, where in a few short months, he won the decisive victories of Assaye [September 23, 1803] and Argaum [November 28], and captured Ahmednagar. Lake's campaign in Hindustan was equally brilliant, although it has received less notice from historians. He won pitched battles at Aligarh [August 29] and Laswari [November 1, 1803], and took the cities of Delhi and Agra. He scattered the French troops of Sindhia, and at the same time stood forward as the champion of the Mughal Emperor in his hereditary capital. Before the end of 1803, both Sindhia and the Bhonsla Raja of Nagpur sued for peace. Sindhia ceded all claims to the territory north of the Jumna, and left the blind old Emperor Shah Alam once more under British protection. The Bhonsla forfeited Orissa to the English, who had already occupied it with a flying column in 1803, and Berar to the Nizam, who gained fresh territory by every act of complaisance to the British Government. … The concluding years of Wellesley's rule were occupied with a series of operations against Holkar, which brought little credit on the British name. The disastrous retreat of Colonel Monson through Central India (1804) recalled memories of the convention of Wargaum, and of the destruction of Colonel Baillie's force by Haidar Ali. The repulse of Lake in person at the siege of Bhartpur (Bhurtpore) is memorable as an instance of a British army in India having to turn back with its object unaccomplished (1805). Bhartpur was not finally taken till 1827. Lord Wellesley during his six years of office carried out almost every part of his territorial scheme. In Northern India, Lord Lake's campaigns brought the North-Western provinces (the ancient Madhyadesa) under British rule, together with the custody of the puppet emperor. The new Districts were amalgamated with those previously acquired from the Nawab Wazir of Oudh into the 'Ceded and Conquered Provinces.' This partition of Northern India remained till the Sikh wars of 1844 and 1847 gave us the Punjab."

ALSO IN: W. H. Maxwell, Life of the Duke of Wellington, volume 1, chapters 2-12.

INDIA: A. D. 1805-1816.
   Reversal of Lord Wellesley's policy.
   Sepoy revolt at Vellore.
   Influence established with Runjeet Singh and the Sikhs.
   Conquest of the Mauritius.
   The Ghorka War.

"The retreat of Monson was not only a disastrous blow to British prestige, but ruined for a while the reputation of Lord Wellesley. Because a Mahratta freebooter had broken loose in Hindustan, the Home authorities imagined that all the Mahratta powers had risen against the imperial policy of the Governor-General. Lord Wellesley was recalled from his post, and Lord Cornwallis was sent out to take his place, to reverse the policy of his illustrious predecessor, to scuttle out of Western Hindustan, to restore all the ceded territories, to surrender all the captured fortresses, and to abandon large tracts of country to be plundered and devastated by the Mahrattas, as they had been from the days of Sivaji to those of Wellesley and Lake. Before Lord Cornwallis reached Bengal the political outlook had brightened. … But Lord Cornwallis was sixty-seven years of age, and had lost the nerve which he had displayed in his wars against Tippu; and he would have ignored the turn of the tide, and persisted in falling back on the old policy of conciliation and non-intervention, had not death cut short his career before he had been ten weeks in the country. Sir George Barlow, a Bengal civilian, succeeded for a while to the post of Governor-General, as a provisional arrangement. He had been a member of Council under both Wellesley and Cornwallis, and he halted between the two. He refused to restore the conquered territories to Sindia and the Bhonsla, but he gave back the Indore principality to Holkar, together with the captured fortresses. Worst of all, he annulled most of the protective treaties with the Rajput princes on the ground that they had deserted the British government during Monson's retreat from Jaswant Rao Holkar. For some years the policy of the British government was a half-hearted system of non-intervention. … The Mahratta princes were left to plunder and collect chout [a blackmail extortion, levied by the Mahrattas for a century] in Rajputana, and practically to make war on each other, so long as they respected the territories of the British government and its allies. … All this while an under-current of intrigue was at work between Indian courts, which served in the end to revive wild hopes of getting rid of British supremacy, and rekindling the old aspirations for war and rapine. In 1806 the peace of India was broken by an alarm from a very different quarter. In those days India was so remote from the British Isles that the existence of the British government mainly depended on the loyalty of its sepoy armies. Suddenly it was discovered that the Madras army was on the brink of mutiny. The British authorities at Madras had introduced an obnoxious head-dress resembling a European hat, in the place of the old time-honoured turban, and had, moreover, forbidden the sepoys to appear on parade with earrings and caste marks. India was astounded by a revolt of the Madras sepoys at the fortress of Vellore, about eight miles to the westward of Arcot. … The garrison at Vellore consisted of about 400 Europeans and 1,500 sepoys. At midnight, without warning, the sepoys rose in mutiny. One body fired on the European barracks until half the soldiers were killed or wounded. Another body fired on the houses of the British officers, and shot them down as they rushed out to know the cause of the uproar. All this while provisions were distributed amongst the sepoys by the Mysore princes, and the flag of Mysore was hoisted over the fortress. Fortunately the news was carried to Arcot, where Colonel Gillespie commanded a British garrison. Gillespie at once galloped to Vellore with a troop of British dragoons and two field guns. The gates of Vellore were blown open; the soldiers rushed in; 400 mutineers were cut down, and the outbreak was over. … In 1807 Lord Minto succeeded Barlow as Governor-General. He broke the spell of non-intervention. … Lord Minto's main work was to keep Napoleon and the French out of India. The north-west frontier was still vulnerable, but the Afghans had retired from the Punjab, and the once famous Runjeet Singh had founded a Sikh kingdom between the Indus and the Sutlej. As far as the British were concerned, the Sikhs formed a barrier against the Afghans; and Runjeet Singh was apparently friendly, for he had refused to shelter Jaswant Rao Holkar in his flight from Lord Lake. But there was no knowing what Runjeet Singh might do if the French found their way to Lahore. To crown the perplexity, the Sikh princes on the British side of the river Sutlej, who had done homage to the British government during the campaigns of Lord Lake, were being conquered by Runjeet Singh, and were appealing to the British government for protection. In 1808-9 a young Bengal civilian, named Charles Metcalfe, was sent on a mission to Lahore. The work before him was difficult and complicated, and somewhat trying to the nerves. The object was to secure Runjeet Singh as a useful ally against the French and Afghans, whilst protecting the Sikh states on the British side of the Sutlej, namely, Jhind, Nabha, and Patiala. Runjeet Singh was naturally disgusted at being checked by British interference. It was unfair, he said, for the British to wait until he had conquered the three states, and then to demand possession. Metcalfe cleverly dropped the question of justice, and appealed to Runjeet Singh's self-interest. By giving up the three states, Runjeet Singh would secure an alliance with the British, a strong frontier on the Sutlej, and freedom to push his conquests on the north and west. Runjeet Singh took the hint. He withdrew his pretensions from the British side of the Sutlej, and professed a friendship which remained unbroken until his death in 1839; but he knew what he was about. He conquered Cashmere on the north, and he wrested Peshawar from the Afghans; but he refused to open his dominions to British trade, and he was jealous to the last of any attempt to enter his territories. … Meanwhile the war against France and Napoleon had extended to eastern waters. The island of the Mauritius had become a French depot for frigates and privateers, which swept the seas from Madagascar to Java, until the East India Company reckoned its losses by millions, and private traders were brought to the brink of ruin. Lord Minto sent one expedition [1810], which wrested the Mauritius from the French; and he conducted another expedition in person, which wrested the island of Java from the Dutch, who at that time were the allies of France. The Mauritius has remained a British possession until this day, but Java was restored to Holland at the conclusion of the war. … Meanwhile war clouds were gathering on the southern slopes of the Himalayas. {1732} Down to the middle of the 18th century, the territory of Nipal had been peopled by a peaceful and industrious race of Buddhists known as Newars, but about the year 1767, when the British had taken over the Bengal provinces, the Newars were conquered by a Rajput tribe from Cashmere, known as Ghorkas. The Ghorka conquest of Nipal was as complete as the Norman conquest of England. The Ghorkas established a military despotism with Brahmanical institutions, and parcelled out the country amongst feudal nobles known as Bharadars. … During the early years of the 19th century the Ghorkas began to encroach on British territory, annexing villages and revenues from Darjeeling to Simla without right or reason. They were obviously bent on extending their dominion southward to the Ganges, and for a long time aggressions were overlooked for the sake of peace. At last two districts were appropriated to which the Ghorkas had not a shadow of a claim, and it was absolutely necessary to make a stand against their pretensions. Accordingly, Lord Minto sent an ultimatum to Khatmandu, declaring that unless the districts were restored they would be recovered by force of arms. Before the answer arrived, Lord Minto was succeeded in the post of Governor-General by Lord Moira, better known by his later title of Marquis of Hastings. Lord Moira landed at Calcutta in 1813. Shortly after his arrival an answer was received from the Ghorka government, that the disputed districts belonged to Nipal, and would not be surrendered. Lord Moira at once fixed a day on which the districts were to be restored; and when the day had passed without any action being taken by the Ghorkas, a British detachment entered the districts and set up police stations. … The council of Bharadars resolved on war, but they did not declare it in European fashion. A Ghorka army suddenly entered the disputed districts, surrounded the police stations, and murdered many of the constables, and then returned to Khatmandu to await the action of the British government in the way of reprisals. The war against the Ghorkas was more remote and more serious than the wars against the Mahrattas. … Those who have ascended the Himalayas to Darjeeling or Simla may realise something of the difficulties of an invasion of Nipal. The British army advanced in four divisions by four different routes. … General David Ochterlony, who advanced his division along the valley of the Sutlej, gained the most brilliant successes. He was one of the half-forgotten heroes of the East India Company. … For five months in the worst season of the year he carried one fortress after another, until the enemy made a final stand at Maloun on a shelf of the Himalayas. The Ghorkas made a desperate attack on the British works, but the attempt failed; and when the British batteries were about to open fire, the Ghorka garrison came to terms, and were permitted to march out with the honours of war. The fall of Maloun shook the faith of the Ghorka government in their heaven-built fortresses. Commissioners were sent to conclude a peace. Nipal agreed to cede Kumaon in the west, and the southern belt of forest and jungle known as the Terai. It also agreed to receive a British Resident at Khatmandu. Lord Moira had actually signed the treaty, when the Ghorkas raised the question of whether the Terai included the forest or only the swamp. War was renewed. Ochterlony advanced an army within fifty miles of Khatmandu, and then the Ghorkas concluded the treaty [1816], and the British army withdrew from Nipal. The Terai, however, was a bone of contention for many years afterwards. Nothing was said about a subsidiary army, and to this day Nipal is outside the pale of subsidiary alliances; but Nipal is bound over not to take any European into her service without the consent of the British government."

INDIA: A. D. 1816-1819.
   Suppression of the Pindaris.
   Overthrow of the Mahratta power.
   The last of the Peshwas.

"For some time past the Pindaris, a vast brotherhood of mounted freebooters, who were ready to fight under any standard for the chance of unbounded plunder, had been playing a more and more prominent part in the wars of native princes. As Free Lances, they had fought for the Peshwa at Panipat, had shared in the frequent struggles of the Sindhias and Holkars in Hindustan and Southern India, and made war on their own account with every native prince whose weakness at any moment seemed to invite attack. … From the hills and glens of Central India thousands of armed ruffians sallied forth year after year in quest of plunder, sparing no cruelty to gain their ends, and widening the circle of their ravages with each new raid, until in 1811 the smoke of their camp-fires could be seen from Gaya and Mirzapur. … To thwart Maratha intrigues and punish Pindari aggressions was the Governor-General's next aim. In spite of hindrances offered by his own council and the Court of Directors, he set himself to revive and extend Lord Wellesley's policy of securing peace and order throughout India by means of treaties, which placed one native prince after another in a kind of vassalage to the paramount power that ruled from Fort William. … By means of a little timely compulsion, the able and accomplished Elphinstone baffled for a while the plots which the Peshwa, Baji Rao, and his villainous accomplice, Trimbakji Danglia, had woven against their English allies. The treaty of June, 1817, left Lord Hastings master of Sagar and Bundalkhand, while it bound the Peshwa to renounce his friend Trimbakji, his own claims to the headship of the Maratha League, to make no treaties with any other native prince, and to accept in all things the counsel and control of the Company's Government. Hard as these terms may seem, there was no choice, averred Lord Hastings, between thus crippling a secret foe and depriving him of the crown he had fairly forfeited. Meanwhile Lord Hastings' fearless energy had already saved the Rajputs of Jaipur from further suffering at the hands of their Pathan oppressor, Amir Khan, and forced from Sindia himself a reluctant promise to aid in suppressing the Pindari hordes, whose fearful ravages had at length been felt by the peaceful villagers in the Northern Sarkars. In the autumn of 1817 Hastings took the field at the head of an army which, counting native contingents, mustered nearly 120,000 strong, with some 300 guns. From east, west, north, and south, a dozen columns set forth to hunt down the merciless ruffians who had so long been allowed to harry the fairest provinces of India. {1733} In spite of the havoc wrought among our troops by the great cholera outbreak of that year, and of a sudden rising among the Maratha princes for one last struggle with their former conquerors, our arms were everywhere successful against Marathas and Pindaris alike. The latter, hunted into the hills and jungles of Central India, found no safety anywhere except in small bodies and constant flight … and the famous robber-league passed into a tale of yore. Not less swift and sure was the punishment dealt upon the Maratha leaders who joined the Peshwa in his sudden uprising against the British power. His late submission had been nothing but a mask for renewed plottings. Elphinstone, however, saw through the mask which had taken in the confiding Malcolm. Before the end of October an English regiment, summoned in hot haste from Bombay, pitched its camp at Kirki, about two miles from Puna, beside the small Sepoy brigade already quartered there. In the first days of November Baji Rao began to assume a bolder tone as his plans grew ripe for instant execution. On the 5th, a body of Marathas attacked and destroyed the Residency, which Elphinstone had quitted in the nick of time. A great Maratha army then marched forth to overwhelm the little garrison at Kirki, before fresh troops could come up to its aid from Sirur. Elphinstone, however, who knew his foe, had no idea of awaiting the attack. Colonel Burr at once led out his men, not 3,000 all told. A brilliant charge of Maratha horse was heavily repulsed by a Sepoy regiment, and the English steadily advancing drove the enemy from the field. A few days later General Smith, at the head of a larger force, advanced on Puna, occupied the city, and pursued the frightened Peshwa from place to place. The heroic defence of Karigaum, a small village on the Bhima, by Captain Staunton and 800 Sepoys, with only two light guns, against 25,000 Marathas during a whole day, proved once more how nobly native troops could fight under English leading. Happily for Staunton's weary and diminished band, Smith came up the next morning, and the desponding Peshwa continued his retreat. Turn where he would, there was no rest for his jaded soldiers. Munro with a weak force, partly of his own raising, headed him on his way to the Carnatic, took several of his strong places, and drove him northwards within reach of General Smith. On the 19th February, 1818, that officer overtook and routed the flying foe at the village of Ashti. Bapu Gokla, the Peshwa's staunchest and ablest follower, perished in the field, while covering the retreat of his cowardly master. For some weeks longer Baji Rao fled hither and thither before his resolute pursuers. But at length all hope forsook him as the circle of escape grew daily narrower; and in the middle of May the great-grandson of Balaji Vishwanath yielded himself to Sir John Malcolm at Indor, on terms far more liberal than he had any reason to expect. Even for the faithful few who still shared his fortunes due provision was made at his request. He himself spent the rest of his days a princely pensioner at Bithur, near Cawnpore; but the sceptre which he and his sires had wielded for a hundred years passed into English hands, while the Rajah of Satara, the long-neglected heir of the house of Sivaji, was restored to the nominal headship of the Maratha power. Meanwhile Appa Sahib, the usurping Rajah of Berar, had no sooner heard of the outbreak at Puna, than he, too, like the Peshwa, threw off his mask. On the evening of the 24th November, 1817, his troops, to the number of 18,000, suddenly attacked the weak English and Sepoy force of 1,400 men with four guns, posted on the Sitabaldi Hills, outside Nagpur. A terrible fight for eighteen hours ended in the repulse of the assailants, with a loss to the victors of more than 300 men and twelve officers. A few weeks later Nagpur itself was occupied after another fight. Even then the Rajah might have kept his throne, for his conquerors were merciful and hoped the best. But they hoped in vain. It was not long before Appa Sahib, caught out in fresh intrigues, was sent off a prisoner towards Allahabad. Escaping from his captors, he wandered about the country for several years, and died at Lahor a pensioner on the bounty of Ranjit Singh. The house of Holkar had also paid the penalty of its rash resistance to our arms. … On the 6th January, 1818, the young Holkar was glad to sign a treaty which placed him and his heirs under English protection at the cost of his independence and of some part of his realm. Luckily for himself, Sindia had remained quiet, if not quite loyal, throughout this last struggle between the English and his Maratha kinsfolk. Thus in one short and decisive campaign, the great Maratha power, which had survived the slaughter of Panipat, fell shattered to pieces by the same blow which crushed the Pindaris, and raised an English merchant-company to the paramount lordship of all India. The last of the Peshwas had ceased to reign, the Rajah of Berar was a discrowned fugitive, the Rajah of Satara a king only in name, while Sindia, Holkar, and the Nizam were dependent princes who reigned only by sufferance of an English Governor-General at Calcutta. The Moghal Empire lingered only in the Palace of Dehli; its former viceroy, the Nawab of Audh, was our obedient vassal; the haughty princes of Rajputana bowed their necks, more or less cheerfully, to the yoke of masters merciful as Akbar and mightier than Aurangzib. Ranjit Singh himself cultivated the goodwill of those powerful neighbours who had sheltered the Sikhs of Sirhind from his ambitious inroads. With the final overthrow of the Marathas a new reign of peace, order, and general progress began for peoples who, during a hundred and fifty years, had lived in a ceaseless whirl of anarchy and armed strife. With the capture of Asirgarh in April, 1819, the fighting in Southern India came to an end."

      Major Ross-of-Bladensburg,
      The Marquess of Hastings,
      chapters 4-7.

INDIA: A. D. 1823-1833.
   The first Burmese War.
   English acquisition of Assam and Aracan.
   Suppression of Suttee and Thuggee.
   Rechartering of the East India Company.
   It is deprived of its last trading monopoly.

"On Hastings' retirement, in 1823, the choice of the ministry fell upon Canning. … Canning ultimately resigning the Governor-Generalship, the choice of the authorities fell upon Lord Amherst. The new Governor-General reached India at a time when the authorities in London had a right to expect a long period of peace. {1734} In fact, both in Hindostan and in the Deccan, the victories of Hastings had left the Company no more enemies to conquer. Unfortunately, however, for the prospects of peace, nature, which had given India an impenetrable boundary on the north, had left her with an undefined and open frontier on the east. On the shores of the Bay of Bengal, opposite Calcutta, a struggle had raged during the eighteenth century between the inhabitants of Ava and Pegu. The former, known as Burmans or Burmese, had the good fortune to find a capable leader, who rapidly ensured their own victory and founded a Burmese Empire. The successful competitors were not satisfied with their own predominance in Pegu—they conquered Aracan, they overran Assam, and they wrested from Siam a considerable territory on the Tenasserim coast. The conquest of Aracan brought the Burmese to the confines of the Company's dominions in Chittagong. The conquered people, disliking the severe rule of the conquerors, crossed the frontier and settled in British territory. Many of them used their new home as a secure basis for hostile raids on the Burmese. … The river Naf ran for a portion of its course between the possessions of the British in Chittagong and those of the Burmese in Aracan. With the object of preventing the repetition of outrages, which had occurred on the river, a small British guard was stationed on a little island, called Shaporee, near its mouth. The Burmese, claiming the island as their own, attacked the guard and drove it from the post. It was impossible to ignore such a challenge. The island was reoccupied; but the Governor-General, still anxious for peace, offered to treat its occupation by the Burmese as an action unauthorised by the Burmese Government. The Burmese Court, however, instead of accepting this offer, sent an army to reoccupy the island; collisions almost simultaneously occurred between the British and the Burmese on other parts of the frontier, and in February 1824 the first Burmese war began. … If the war of 1824 may be excused as inevitable, its conduct must be condemned as careless. No pains were taken to ascertain the nature of the country which it was requisite to invade, or the strength of the enemy whom it was decided to encounter. … Burma is watered by two great rivers, the Irawaddy and the Salwen. … In its upper waters the Irawaddy is a rapid stream; in its lower waters it flows through alluvial plains, and finds its way through a delta with nine mouths into the Bay of Bengal. On one of its western mouths is the town of Bassein, on one of its eastern mouths the great commercial port of Rangoon. The banks of the river are clothed with jungle and with forest; and malaria, the curse of all low-lying tropical lands, always lingers in the marshes. The authorities decided on invading Burma through the Rangoon branch of the river. They gave Sir Archibald Campbell, an officer who had won distinction in the Peninsula, the command of the expedition, and, as a preliminary measure, they determined to seize Rangoon. Its capture was accomplished with ease, and the Burmese retired from the town. But the victory was the precursor of difficulty. The troops dared not advance in an unhealthy season; the supplies which they had brought with them proved insufficient for their support; and the men perished by scores during their period of forced inaction. … When more favourable weather returned with the autumn, Campbell was again able to advance. Burma was then attacked from three separate bases. A force under Colonel Richards, moving along the valley of the Bramaputra, conquered Assam; an expedition under General Morrison, marching from Chittagong, occupied Aracan; while Campbell himself, dividing his army into two divisions, one moving by water, the other by land, passed up the Irawaddy and captured Donabue and Prome. The climate improved as the troops ascended the river, and the hot weather of 1825 proved less injurious than the summer of 1824. … The operations in 1825-6 drove home the lesson which the campaign of 1824-5 had already taught. The Burmese realised their impotence to resist, and consented to accept the terms which the British were still ready to offer them. Assam, Aracan, and the Tenasserim Coast were ceded to the Company; the King of Burma consented to receive a Resident at his capital, and to pay a very large sum of money—£1,000,000—towards the expenses of the war. … The increasing credit which the Company thus acquired did not add to the reputation of the Governor-General. … The Company complained of the vast additions which his rule had made to expenditure, and they doubted the expediency of acquiring new and unnecessary territory beyond the confines of India itself. The ministry thought that these acquisitions were opposed to the policy which Parliament had laid down, and to the true interests of the empire. It decided on his recall. … William Bentinck, whom Canning selected as Amherst's successor, was no stranger to Indian soil. More than twenty years before he had served as Governor of Madras. … Bentinck arrived in Calcutta in difficult times. Amherst's war had saddled the Government with a debt, and his successor with a deficit. … Retrenchment, in the opinion of every one qualified to judge, was absolutely indispensable, and Bentinck, as a matter of fact, brought out specific instructions to retrench. … In two other matters … Bentinck effected a change which deserves to be recollected with gratitude. He had the courage to abolish flogging in the native Indian army; he had the still higher courage to abolish suttee. … In Bengal the suttee, or 'the pure and virtuous woman,' who became a widow, was required to show her devotion to her husband by sacrificing herself on his funeral pile. … Successive Governors-General, whose attention had been directed to this barbarous practice, had feared to incur the unpopularity of abolishing it. … Cornwallis and Wellesley, Hastings and Amherst, were all afraid to prohibit murder which was identified with religion, and it was accordingly reserved to Bentinck to remove the reproach of its existence. With the consent of his Council, suttee was declared illegal. The danger which others had apprehended from its prohibition proved a mere phantom. The Hindoos complied with the order without attempting to resist it, and the horrible rite which had disgraced the soil of India for centuries became entirely unknown. For these humane regulations Bentinck deserves to be remembered with gratitude. Yet it should not be forgotten that these reforms were as much the work of his age as of himself. … One other great abuse was terminated under Bentinck. {1735} In Central India life was made unsafe and travelling dangerous by the establishment of a secret band of robbers known as Thugs. The Thugs mingled with any travellers whom they met, disarmed them by their conversation and courtesy, and availed themselves of the first convenient spot in their journey to strangle them with a rope and to rob them of their money. The burial of the victim usually concealed all traces of the crime; the secrecy of the confederates made its revelation unlikely; and, to make treachery more improbable, the Thugs usually consecrated their murders with religious rites, and claimed their god as the patron of their misdoings. Bentinck selected an active officer, Major Sleeman, whom he charged to put down Thuggee. Sleeman's exertions were rewarded by a gratifying success. The Thugs, like all secret societies, were assailable in one way. The first discovery of crime always produces an approver. The timid conspirator, conscious of his guilt, is glad to purchase his own safety by sacrificing his associates, and when one man turns traitor every member of the band is anxious to secure the rewards and immunity of treachery. Hence the first clue towards the practices of the Thugs led to the unveiling of the whole organisation; and the same statesman, who had the merit of forbidding suttee, succeeded in extirpating Thuggee from the dominions over which he ruled. Social reforms of this character occupy the greater portion of the history of Bentinck's government. In politics he almost always pursued a policy of non-intervention. The British during his rule made few additions to their possessions; they rarely interfered in the affairs of Native states. … The privileges which the East India, Company enjoyed had from time to time been renewed by the British Parliament. The charter of the Company had been extended for a period of twenty years in 1773, in 1793, and in 1813. But the conditions on which it was continued in 1813 were very different from those on which it had been originally granted. Instead of maintaining its exclusive right of trade, Parliament decided on throwing open the trade with India to all British subjects. It left the Company a monopoly of the China trade alone. The Act of 1813 of course excited the strenuous opposition of the Company. The highest authorities were brought forward to prove that the trade with India would not be increased by a termination of the monopoly. Their views, however, were proved false by the result, and the stern logic of facts consequently pointed in 1833 to the further extension of the policy of 1813 [see CHINA: A. D. 1839-1842]. … The inclination towards free trade was, in fact, so prevalent, that it is doubtful whether, even if the Tories had remained in office, they would have consented to preserve the monopoly. … The fall of the Wellington administration made its termination a certainty [see ENGLAND: A. D. 1832-1833]. … The Government consented to compensate the Company for the loss of its monopoly by an annuity of £630,000 charged on the territorial revenues of India. It is a remarkable circumstance that the change of ministry which deprived the Company of its trade possibly preserved its political power for nearly a quarter of a century. … The Whig ministry shrank from proposing an alteration for which the country was not prepared, and which might have aroused the opposition by which the Coalition of 1783 had been destroyed. Though, however, it left the rule with Leadenhall Street, it altered the machinery of government. The Governor-General of Bengal was made Governor-General of India. A fourth member—an English jurist—was added to his Council, and the Governor-General in Council was authorised to legislate for the whole of India. At the same time the disabilities which still clung to the natives were in theory swept away, and Europeans were for the first time allowed to hold land in India. These important proposals were carried at the close of the first session of the first reformed Parliament."

INDIA: A. D. 1836-1845.
   The first Afghan war and its catastrophe.
   Conquest and annexation of Scinde.
   Threatened trouble with the Sikhs.

"With the accession of Lord Auckland, Bentinck's successor, began a new era in Anglo-Indian history, in which the long-sown seeds of fresh political complications, which even now seem as far from solution as ever, began to put forth fruit. All danger from French ambition had passed away: but Russian intrigue was busy against us. We had brought the danger on ourselves. False to an alliance with Persia, which dated from the beginning of the century, we had turned a deaf ear to her entreaties for help against Russian aggression, and had allowed her to fall under the power of her tyrant, who thenceforth used her as an instrument of his ambition. The result of our selfish indifference appeared in 1837, when Persia, acting under Russian influence, laid siege to Herat, which was then under Afghan rule. While Herat was still holding out, the Shah was at last threatened with war, and raised the siege. Then was the time for Auckland to destroy the Russian danger once for all, by making a friend of the power which seemed to be the natural barrier against invasion from the north-west. After a long series of revolutions, Dost Mahomed, the representative of the now famous tribe of Baruckzyes, had established himself upon the throne, with the warm approval of the majority of the people; while Shah Sooja, the leader of the rival Suddozyes, was an exile. The ruling prince did not wait for Auckland to seek his friendship. He treated the Russian advances with contempt, and desired nothing better than to be an ally of the English. Auckland was urged to seize the opportunity. It was in his power to deal Russia a crushing blow, and to avert those troubles which are even now harassing British statesmen. He did not let slip the opportunity. He flung it from him, and clutched at a policy that was to bring misery to thousands of families in England, in India, and in Afghanistan, and to prove disastrous to the political interests of all three countries. … Those who are least interested in Indian history are not likely to forget how the Afghan mob murdered the British Envoy and his associates; how the British commander, putting faith in the chiefs of a people whom no treaties can bind, began that retreat from which but one man escaped to tell how 16,000 had perished; how poor Auckland, unmanned by the disaster, lacked the energy to retrieve it; how the heroic Sale held out at Jellalabad till Pollock relieved him; how Auckland's successor, Lord Ellenborough, dreading fresh disasters, hesitated to allow his generals to act till, yielding to their indignant zeal, he threw upon them the responsibility of that advance to Cabul which retrieved the lost prestige of our arms.

Thus closed the first act of a still unfinished drama. After celebrating the triumph of the victorious army, Ellenborough sent Charles Napier to punish the Ameers of Scinde [see SCINDE], who, emboldened by the retreat from Cabul, had violated a treaty which they had concluded with the British Government. The result of the war was the annexation of the country: but the whole series of transactions is only remembered now as having given rise to the dispute on the question of the guilt of the Ameers between Napier and James Outram. Less talked of at the time, but historically more important, was Ellenborough's reconstitution of the British relations with the Sindia of the day. Political disturbances had for some time agitated that prince's court, while his army had swollen to a dangerous size, and, like the Sikh army since Runjeet Singh's death, which had taken place a few years before, had passed beyond the control of the civil power. In these two armies Ellenborough saw a danger which might disturb the peace of Hindostan. He foresaw that the Sikh soldiers, released from the stern discipline of Runjeet Singh, would soon force a government which they despised to let them cross the Sutlej in quest of plunder. Two years later his character as a prophet was vindicated; and, if he had not now, in anticipation of the invasion which then took place, disbanded the greater part of Sindia's army, and over-awed the remainder by a native contingent under the command of British officers, the Sikhs would probably have joined their forces with the Mahrattas. … But the Directors took a different view of their Governor-General's conduct of affairs. In June, 1844, all India was astonished by the news that Ellenborough had been recalled. He had helped to bring about his own downfall, for in the controversies with his masters in which he, like some of the ablest of his predecessors, had found himself involved, he had shown an unfortunate want of discretion; but, though by bombastic proclamations and a theatrical love of display he had sometimes exposed himself to ridicule, many of his subordinates felt that in him they had lost a vigorous and able ruler. Sir Henry Hardinge, who was raised to the peerage before the close of his administration, succeeded to the office of Governor-General, and waited anxiously for the breaking of the storm which his predecessor had seen gathering. The Sikhs, the Puritans of India [see SIKHS], who were not strictly speaking a nation, but a religious brotherhood of warriors called the Khalsa, were animated by two passions equally dangerous to the peace of those around them, a fierce enthusiasm, half military, half religious, for the glory of their order, and an insatiable desire for plunder. By giving them full scope for the indulgence of these passions, and by punishing all disobedience with merciless severity, Runjeet Singh had governed his turbulent subjects for forty years: but, when he died, they broke loose from all control; and the weak Government of Lahore found that they could only save their own capital from being plundered by the Khalsa army by sending it to seek plunder in British territory. Thus began the first Sikh war."

"There had always been an expectation that whenever Runjeet Singh died, there would be trouble with his soldiery; and it soon appeared that some incursion was in contemplation, for which the Sikh troops were prepared by an able European training under French officers. While the strife about the succession was going on in the Punjaub, the military element of society there became supreme; and the government at Calcutta considered it necessary to move troops to the frontier to preserve peace, and reassure the inhabitants of whole districts which dreaded the incursions of a haughty and lawless soldiery. The Sikhs were alarmed at the approach of English troops, and adopted the same course towards us that we had tried with their western neighbours—they crossed the frontier to forestall our doing it. Whether this move was a device of the Sikh chiefs, as some say it was, to get rid of the army, and perhaps to cause its destruction by the British, and thus to clear the field for their own factions; or whether war with the British was considered so inevitable that the invasion of our territory was intended as a measure of prudence, we need not here decide. The fact was that the Sikh soldiery gathered round the tomb of Runjeet Singh, preparing themselves for a great battle soon to happen; and that war was virtually declared at Lahore in November, 1845, and fairly begun by the troops crossing the Sutlej on the 11th of December, and taking up a position near Ferozepore. The old error prevailed in the British councils, the mistake denounced by Charles Metcalfe as fatal—that of undervaluing the enemy. The Sikhs had been considered unworthy to be opposed to the Afghans in Runjeet's time; and now we expected to drive them into the Sutlej at once; but we had never yet, in India, so nearly met with our match. The battle of Moodkee was fought under Sir Hugh Gough, on the 18th of December, and 'the rabble' from the Punjaub astonished both Europeans and Sepoys by standing firm, manœuvring well, and rendering it no easy matter to close the day with honour to the English arms. This ill-timed contempt was truly calamitous, as it had caused miscalculations about ammunition, carriage, hospital-stores, and everything necessary for a campaign. All these things were left behind at Delhi or Agra; and the desperate necessity of winning a battle was only enough barely to save the day. The advantage was with the British in the battle of Moodkee, but not so decisively as all parties had expected. After a junction with reinforcements, the British fought the invaders again on the 21st and 22nd, at Ferozeshur. On the first night our troops were hardly masters of the ground they stood on, and had no reserve, while their gallant enemy had large reinforcements within reach. {1737} The next day might easily have been made fatal to the English army, at times when their ammunition fell short; but the Sikhs were badly commanded at a critical moment, then deserted by a traitorous leader, and finally driven back. For a month after this nothing was done by the British, and the Sikhs crossed the Sutlej at their ease. The valour of Gough and of Hardinge, who, while Governor-General, had put himself under the orders of the Commander-in-Chief, had saved the honour of the English; but their prestige was weakened among their own Sepoys, and even the European regiments; much more among the Sikhs; and most of all in the eyes of the vigilant surrounding states. It was a matter of life and death now to bring up guns, ammunition and treasure. A considerable portion fell into the enemy's hands on the 21st of January, on its way to the relief of Loodeeana; but the battle of Aliwal on the 28th was again a true British fight. The Sikhs were driven into the Sutlej; and as soon as they had collected in their stronghold of Sobraon on the other side, they were driven thence by a closing struggle on the 10th of February. The Sikhs were beaten, with a slaughter of 5,000 (some say 8,000) men; against 320 killed and 2,000 wounded on our side. The Maharajah submitted, the road to Lahore lay open, and the Governor-General could make his own terms. He flattered himself that he had arranged a protectorate of the Punjaub which would render annexation unnecessary; and all who could believe in it rejoiced that means had been found to escape the necessity of adding new conquests to a territory already much too large. As the Punjaub could not pay its amount of tribute to the Company, Cashmere and some other territory was accepted instead, and given, as a kingdom, to Gholab Singh … on his paying a portion of the debt, thus reimbursing the Company, and lessening the overgrown power of the Punjaub rulers. When, at the close of 1846, the English troops should be withdrawing from Lahore, the Sikh chiefs begged that they might remain, and take care of the Punjaub till the young Maharajah should grow up to manhood."

"Lord Hardinge entrusted the government of the Punjab to a Council of Regency, consisting of Sikh nobles under the guidance of Sir Henry Lawrence as British Resident. He refused to create a subsidiary army, but he left a British force to protect the government until the boy Dhuleep Singh reached his majority. Two-thirds of the Sikh army of the Khalsa were disbanded. The Jullunder Doab between the Sutlej and the Beyas was added to the British empire. … Lord Dalhousie succeeded Lord Hardinge in 1848. Shortly afterwards the Punjab was again in commotion. Sikh government under British protection had failed to keep the peace. The army of the Khalsa had disappeared, but the old love of license and plunder was burning in the hearts of the disbanded soldiery. The Sikh governor of Multan revolted; two Englishmen were murdered. A British force besieged the rebels in Multan. It was joined by a Sikh force in the service of the Council of Regency commanded by Shere Singh. So far the revolt at Multan was regarded as a single outbreak which would be soon suppressed by the capture of the fortress. In reality it was the beginning of a general insurrection. Shere Singh, who commanded the Sikh force in the besieging army, suddenly deserted the British force and joined his father Chutter Singh, who was already in open rebellion. The revolt was secretly promoted by the queen mother, and spread over the Punjab like wildfire. The old soldiers of the Khalsa rallied round Shere Singh and his father. The half-and-half government set up by Lord Hardinge was unable to cope with a revolution which was restoring the old anarchy. In November, 1848, Lord Gough advanced against the rebel army. Then followed the famous campaign between the Chenab and Jhelum rivers about 100 miles to the north of Lahore. In January, 1849, Lord Gough fought the dubious battle of Chillianwallah, near the spot where Alexander the Great crossed the Jhelum and defeated the army of Porus. Meanwhile Multan surrendered, and the besieging force joined Lord Gough. In February the Sikh army was utterly defeated at Gujerat."

   "Gujrat was essentially a forenoon battle, with the whole day
   before the combatants to finish their work. It commenced with
   a magnificent duel of artillery; the British infantry
   occupying post after post as they were abandoned by the enemy;
   and the British cavalry breaking up the Sikh masses and
   scattering them by pursuit. Of the sixty Sikh guns engaged,
   fifty-three were taken. Lord Dalhousie resolved to make the
   victory a final one. 'The war,' he declared, 'must be
   prosecuted now to the entire defeat and dispersion of all who
   are in arms against us, whether Sikhs or Afghans.' General
   Gilbert hurried out with a pursuing force of 12,000, horse,
   foot and artillery, the day after the battle. In the
   breathless chase which followed across the plains of the
   Punjab to the frontier mountain-wall, the Sikh military power
   was destroyed for ever. On the 12th of March, 1849, General
   Gilbert received the submission of the entire Sikh army at
   Rawal Pindi, together with the last forty-one of the 160 Sikh
   cannon captured by the British during the war. While the Sikh
   army heaped up their swords and shields and matchlocks in
   submissive piles, and salamed one by one as they passed
   disarmed along the British line, their Afghan allies were
   chased relentlessly westwards, and reached the safety of the
   Khaibar Pass panting, and barely twenty miles in front of the
   English hunters. The horsemen of Afghanistan, it was said,
   'had ridden down through the hills like lions and ran back
   into them like dogs.' The question remained what to do with
   the Punjab. The victory of Sobraon in 1846 gave to Lord
   Hardinge the right of conquest: the victory at Gujrat in 1849
   compelled Lord Dalhousie to assert that right. Lord Hardinge
   at the end of the first Punjab war in 1846, tried, as we have
   seen, an intermediate method of ruling the province by British
   officers for the benefit of the infant prince. This method had
   failed. … In determining the future arrangements for the
   Punjab, Lord Dalhousie had as his advisers the two Lawrences.
   Sir Henry Lawrence, the former Resident at Lahore; hurried
   back from his sick-leave in England on the breaking out of the
   war. He was of opinion that the annexation of the Punjab might
   perhaps be just, but that it would be inexpedient. His brother
   John, afterwards Lord Lawrence, who had also acted as
   Resident, although as much averse in general principle to
   annexation as Henry, was convinced that, in this case,
   annexation was not only just, but that its expediency was
   'both undeniable and pressing.'
{1738}
   Lord Dalhousie, after a full review of the efforts which had
   been made to convert the Sikh nation into a friendly power
   without annexation, decided that no course now remained to the
   British Government but to annex. … The annexation of the
   Punjab was deliberately approved of by the Court of Directors,
   by Parliament, and by the English nation."

      ALSO IN:
      Sir H. B. Edwardes and H. Merivale,
      Life of Sir Henry Lawrence.

      E. Arnold,
      The Marquis of Dalhousie's Administration of British India,
      volume 1, chapters 1-7.

      Sir R. Temple,
      Men and Events of My Time in India,
      chapters 3-4.

INDIA: A. D. 1848-1856.
   Lord Dalhousie's minor annexations.
   The lapse of dependent Native States.
   The case of Nana Sahib.

"In applying the doctrine of lapse to the Hindu chiefdoms, on default of natural successors or of an heir legally adopted with the sanction of the Ruling Power, Lord Dalhousie merely carried out the declared law of the case, and the deliberately formulated policy of the Government of India, years before he arrived in the country. In so doing, however, Lord Dalhousie became the unconscious but effective instrument by which the old India of Lord Wellesley at the beginning of the century was prepared for its conversion, in 1858, into the new India of the Queen. … The fundamental question was whether we should allow the government of a dependent State, in absence of natural heirs, to pass like mere private property to an adopted son. The Court of Directors had at one time permitted the adoption of a successor in special cases to a principality on failure of natural heirs. It declared, however, in 1834, that such an 'indulgence should be the exception, not the rule.' … As the evils of the old system of government by sham royalties further developed themselves, the Government of India determined in 1841 to enforce a more uniform policy. … What Lord Dalhousie did, therefore, was not to invent a new principle of Indian law, but to steadily apply an old principle. … The first case in which this principle came to be applied, shortly after Lord Dalhousie's arrival, was the Native State of Satara. That Maratha principality had been constituted by the British Government on the general break up of the Maratha power in 1818, and confirmed to the 'sons and heirs, and successors' of the recipient in 1819. In 1839 the reigning prince was deposed for misconduct by the British Government in the exercise of its Suzerain rights. By the same rights the British Government then set up the brother of the deposed prince on the throne. … The Raja, whom in 1839 we had placed on the throne, applied for permission to adopt a son. The British Government deliberately withheld the permission; and in the last hours of his life the Raja, in 1848, hastily adopted a son without the consent of the Government." Lord Dalhousie, with the advice of the Court of Directors, declared in this case that the territory of Satara had lapsed, on the death of the Raja, by failure of heirs, to the Power which deposed, and it was annexed, accordingly, to the British dominions. Under kindred circumstances the Native States of Sambalpur, on the south-western frontier of Lower Bengal, and Jhansi, a fragment of the Maratha dominions in Northern India, were absorbed. "The same principle of lapse on failure of heirs was applied by Lord Dalhousie to several other dependent States. Jaitpur in Bundelkhand, Baghat a petty hill Chiefdom of 36 square miles in the Punjab, Udaipur on the Western frontier of Lower Bengal, and Budawal in Khandesh, passed under direct British rule from this cause. The fort and military fief of Tanjore were annexed after Lord Dalhousie's departure from India, but practically on the grounds set forth by his government. … By far the largest accession of territory made during Lord Dalhousie's rule, to the British dominions on the failure of heirs, was the great central tract of India known as Nagpur. This Maratha principality as now constituted into the Central Provinces, and after various rectifications of frontier, has an area of 113,279 square miles, with a population of 12,000,000 souls. The territories annexed by Lord Dalhousie in 1854 make nearly four-fifths of the present Central Provinces. … It is difficult to find any ground for the charge which Mr. Kaye brought in 1865 against Lord Dalhousie, for 'harshness' towards the man afterwards known as the infamous Nana Sahib [see below: A. D. 1857 (MAY-AUGUST)]. As this charge, however, is still occasionally repeated, and as it has even been suggested that Lord Dalhousie was to some extent responsible for the Mutiny of 1857, in consequence of his action towards Nana Sahib in 1851, I must briefly state the facts. In 1818, the Peshwa of the Marathas, completely beaten in the field, threw himself on the generosity of the British. Sir John Malcolm, then the Governor-General's Agent in the Deccan, assured him of his protection, and engaged that he should receive an allowance of £80,000 a year for his support. … There could not be the slightest pretension that it was ever anything more than a personal annuity; and from first to last all mention of heirs is carefully excluded. The records show that the ex-Peshwa, Baji Rao, was well aware of this. Baji Rao lived until 1851, leaving to his adopted son, Nana Sahib, an immense fortune admitted to amount to £280,000, and believed by the Government of the North-western Provinces to greatly exceed that sum. The Government of India at once acknowledged the adopted son's title to this splendid heritage, and out of its own beneficence added to it the Jaghir, or grant of land, on which his father had resided in the North-western Provinces. But the pension, paid out of the tax-payers' pockets, lapsed upon the death of the annuitant."

INDIA: A. D. 1849-1893.
The life in exile of Dhuleep Singh, heir to the Sikh throne.

"Few careers have ever been more instructive to those who can see than that of the Maharajah Dhuleep Singh, who died in Paris on Sunday [October 22, 1893] of apoplexy. He finished life a despised exile, but no man of modern days ever had such chances, or had seen them snatched, partly by fate, partly by fault, so completely from his lips. But for an accident, if there is such a thing as accident, he would have been the Hindoo Emperor of India. {1739} His father, Runjeet Singh, that strange combination of Louis XI. and Charles the Bold, had formed and knew how to control an army which would have struck down all the native powers of India much more easily than did any of the Tartar conquerors. Without its master at its head, that army defeated the British, and but for a magnificent bribe paid to its General (vide Cunningham's 'History of the Sikhs') would have driven the English from India, and placed the child, Dhuleep Singh, upon the throne of the Peninsula, to be supported there by Sikh and Rajpoot, Mahratta, and Beharee. Apart from the English, there was nothing to resist them; and they were guided by a woman, the Ranee Chunda Kour; who of all modern women was most like Mary of Scots as her enemies have painted her, and of whom, after her fall, Lord Dalhousie said that her capture would be worth the sacrifice of a brigade. How Dhuleep Singh would have reigned had Runjeet Singh's destiny completed itself is another matter—probably like a Hindoo Humayoon—for even if not the son of Runjeet Singh, who, be it remembered, acknowledged him, he inherited ability from his mother; he was a bold man, and he was, as his career showed, capable of wild and daring adventure. He fell, however, from his throne under the shock of the second Sikh War, and began a new and, to all appearance, most promising career. Lord Dalhousie had a pity for the boy, and the English Court—we never quite understood why—an unusually kindly feeling. A fortune of £40,000 a year was settled on him, he was sent to England, and he was granted rank hardly less than that of a Prince of the Blood. He turned Christian—apparently from conviction, though subsequent events throw doubt on that—a tutor, who was quite competent, devoted himself to his education, and from the time he became of age he was regarded as in all respects a great English noble. He knew, too, how to sustain that character,—made no social blunders, became a great sportsman, and succeeded in maintaining for years the sustained stateliness of life which in England is held to confer social dignity. Confidence was first shaken by his marriage, which, though it did not turn out unsuccessfully, and though the lady was in after-life greatly liked and respected, was a whim, his bride being a half Coptic, half English girl whom he saw in an Egyptian school-room, and who, by all English as well as Indian ideas of rank, was an unfitting bride. Then he began over-spending, without the slightest necessity, for his great income was unburdened by a vast estate; and at last reduced his finances to such a condition that the India Office, which had made him advance after advance, closed its treasury and left him, as he thought, face to face with ruin. Then the fierce Asiatic blood in him came out. He declared himself wronged, perhaps believed himself oppressed, dropped the whole varnish of civilisation from him, and resolved to make an effort for the vengeance over which he had probably brooded for years. He publicly repudiated Christianity, and went through a ceremony intended to readmit him within the pale of the Sikh variety of the Hindoo faith. Whether it did readmit him, greater doctors than we must decide. That an ordinary Hindoo who has eaten beef cannot be readmitted to his own caste, even if the eating is involuntary, is certain, as witness the tradition of the Tagore family; but the rights of the Royal are, even in Hindooism, extraordinarily wide, and we fancy that, had Dhuleep Singh succeeded in his enterprise, Sikh doctors of theology would have declared his re-admission legal. He did not, however, succeed. He set out for the Punjab intending, it can hardly be doubted, if the Sikhs acknowledged him, to make a stroke for the throne, if not of India, at least of Runjeet Singh; but he was arrested at Aden, and after months of fierce dispute, let go, on condition that he should not return to India. He sought protection in Russia, which he did not obtain, and at last gave up the struggle, made his peace with the India Office, took his pension again, and lived, chiefly in Paris, the life of a disappointed but wealthy idler. There was some spirit in his adventure, though it was unwisely carried out. The English generally thought it a bit of foolhardiness, or a dodge to extract a loan from the India Office; but those who were responsible held a different opinion, and would have gone nearly any length to prevent his reaching the Punjab. They were probably wise. The heir of Runjeet might have been ridiculed by the Sikhs as a Christian, but he might also have been accepted as a reconverted man; and one successful skirmish in a district might have called to arms all the 'children of the sugar and the sword,' and set all India on fire. The Sikhs are our very good friends, and stood by us against any revival of the Empire of Delhi, their sworn hereditary foe; but they have not forgotten Runjeet Singh, and a chance of the Empire for themselves might have turned many of their heads."

   "While Lord Dalhousie was laying out the Punjab like a Scotch
   estate, on the most approved principles of planting,
   road-making, culture, and general management, the chance of
   another conquest at the opposite extremity of his vice-kingdom
   summoned him to Calcutta. The master of a trading barque from
   Chittagong, who was charged unjustly with cruelty to a pilot,
   had been fined £100 by the authorities of Rangoon, and the
   captain of a brig had in like manner been amerced for alleged
   ill-treatment of his crew. To support a claim for restitution,
   two English ships of war had been sent to the mouth of the
   Irrawadi. … Misunderstandings arose on some inexplicable
   point of etiquette;" the British commodore seized a royal
   yacht which lay in the river; the angry Burmese opened fire on
   his ships from their forts; and, "with an unprecedented
   economy of time and trouble in the discovery or making of
   plausible pretexts, a second war with Burmah was thus begun. A
   long catalogue of affronts, wrongs, and injuries, now for the
   first time poured in. … The subjects of the 'Golden Foot'
   … must make an official apology for their misbehaviour, pay
   ten lacs compensation, and receive a permanent Resident at
   Rangoon. If these demands were not met within five weeks,
   further reparation would be exacted otherwise, and as there
   was no fear that they would, preparations were made for an
   expedition. … The Governor-General threw himself with
   enthusiasm into an undertaking which promised him another
   chance of gratifying, as his biographer says, his 'passion for
   imperial symmetry.'
{1740}
   He resolved 'to take in kingdoms wherever they made a gap in
   the red line running round his dominions or broke its internal
   continuity.' There was a gap in the ring-fence between Arracan
   and Moulmein, which Pegu would fill. The logical inference was
   clear, the duty of appropriation obvious. Let us have Pegu.
   Ten millions of silver happening just then to lie in the
   coffers of Fort William, how could they be better invested
   than in a jungle on the sea coast, inhabited by quadrupeds and
   bipeds after their various kinds, alike unworthy of being
   consulted as to their future destiny? … In April, Martaban
   and Rangoon were taken with trifling loss. Operations being
   suspended during the rainy season, the city of Prome was not
   attacked till October, and after a few hours' struggle it
   fell, with the loss of a single sepoy on the side of the
   victors. There was in fact no serious danger to encounter,
   save from the climate; but that unfailing ally fought with
   terrible effect upon the side of Ava. … On the 20th
   December, 1852, a proclamation was issued, which, after
   reciting undisguisedly the ineffably inadequate pretext for
   the war, informed the inhabitants that the Governor in Council
   had resolved that the maritime province of Pegu should
   henceforth form a portion of the British territories in the
   East, and warning the King of Ava, 'should he fail to renew
   his former relations of friendship with the British
   Government, and seek to dispute its quiet possession of the
   province, the Governor-General would again put forth the power
   he held, which would lead to the total subversion of the
   Burman State, and to the ruin and exile of the King and his
   race.' But no depth of humiliation could bring the Sovereign
   or his Ministers to acknowledge the hopelessness of defeat or
   the permanency of dismemberment. … Twenty years have passed,
   and no treaty recognising the alienation of Pegu has yet [in
   1872] been signed."

      ALSO IN:
      E. Arnold,
      The Marquis of Dalhousie's Administration of British India,
      chapters 15-16 (volume 2).

"The various motives assigned for the Mutiny appear inadequate to the European mind. The truth seems to be that Native opinion throughout India was in a ferment, predisposing men to believe the wildest stories, and to rush into action in a paroxysm of terror. Panic acts on an Oriental population like drink upon a European mob. The annexation policy of Lord Dalhousie, although dictated by the most enlightened considerations, was distasteful to the Native mind. The spread of education, the appearance at the same moment of the steam-engine and the telegraph wire, seemed to reveal a deep plan for substituting an English for an Indian civilisation. The Bengal sepoys especially thought that they could see further than the rest of their countrymen. Most of them were Hindus of high caste; many of them were recruited from Oudh. They regarded our reforms on Western lines as attacks on their own nationality, and they knew at first hand what annexation meant. They believed it was by their prowess that the Punjab had been conquered, and that all India was held. The numerous dethroned princes, or their heirs and widows, were the first to learn and to take advantage of this spirit of disaffection and panic. They had heard of the Crimean war, and were told that Russia was the perpetual enemy of England. Our munificent pensions had supplied the funds with which they could buy the aid of skilful intriguers. They had much to gain, and little to lose, by a revolution. In this critical state of affairs, of which the Government had no official knowledge, a rumour ran through the cantonments that the cartridges of the Bengal army had been greased with the fat of pigs,—animals unclean alike to Hindu and Muhammadan. No assurances could quiet the minds of the sepoys. Fires occurred nightly in the Native lines; officers were insulted by their men; confidence was gone, and only the form of discipline remained. In addition, the outbreak of the storm found the Native regiments denuded of many of their best officers. The administration of the great empire to which Dalhousie put the corner-stone, required a larger staff than the civil service could supply. The practice of selecting able military men for civil posts, which had long existed, received a sudden and vast development. Oudh, the Punjab, the Central Provinces, British Burma, were administered to a large extent by picked officers from the Company's regiments. Good and skilful commanders remained; but the Native army had nevertheless been drained of many of its brightest intellects and firmest wills at the very crisis of its fate."

   "The annexation of Oudh had nothing to do with the Mutiny in
   the first place, though that measure certainly did add to the
   number of our enemies after the Mutiny commenced. The old
   government of Oudh was extremely obnoxious to the mass of our
   native soldiers of the regular army, who came from Oudh and
   the adjacent province of Behar, and with whom the Mutiny
   originated. These men were the sons and kinsmen of the Hindu
   yeomen of the country, all of whom benefited more or less by
   annexation; while Oudh was ruled by a Muhammadan family which
   had never identified itself with the people, and whose
   government was extremely oppressive to all classes except its
   immediate creatures and followers. But when the introduction
   of the greased cartridges had excited the Native Army to
   revolt, when the mutineers saw nothing before them short of
   escape on the one hand or destruction on the other, they, and
   all who sympathised with them, were driven to the most
   desperate measures. All who could be influenced by love or
   fear rallied round them. All who had little or nothing to lose
   joined their ranks. All that dangerous class of religious
   fanatics and devotees who abound in India, all the political
   intriguers, who in peaceful times can do no mischief, swelled
   the numbers of the enemy, and gave spirit and direction to
   their measures. India is full of races of men, who, from time
   immemorial, have lived by service or by plunder, and who are
   ready to join in any disturbance which may promise them
   employment. Oudh was full of disbanded soldiers who had not
   had time to settle down. Our gaols furnished thousands of
   desperate men let loose on society. The cry throughout the
   country, as cantonment after cantonment became the scene of
   triumphant mutiny was, 'The English rule is at an end. Let us
   plunder and enjoy ourselves.' The industrious classes
   throughout India were on our side, but for a long time feared
   to act.
{1741}
   On the one side they saw the few English in the country shot
   down or flying for their lives, or at the best standing on the
   defensive, sorely pressed; on the other side they saw summary
   punishment, in the shape of the plunder and destruction of
   their houses, dealt out to those who aided us. But when we
   evinced signs of vigour, when we began to assume the offensive
   and vindicate our authority, many of these people came forward
   and identified themselves with our cause."

Lord Lawrence, Speech at Glasgow, 1860 (quoted by Sir O. T. Burne, in "Clyde and Strathnairn," chapter 1).

INDIA: A. D. 1857 (May).
   The outbreak at Meerut.
   Seizure of Delhi by the Mutineers.
   Massacre of Europeans.
   Explosion of the magazine.

"The station of Meerut, some 40 miles north-east of Delhi, was one of the very few in India where adequate means existed for quelling an outbreak of native troops. There was a regiment of English Dragoons, a battalion of the 60th Rifles, and a strong force of Horse and Foot Artillery, far more than sufficient to deal with the three native regiments who were also quartered in the cantonment. The court-martial on … eighty-five men of the 3rd N. C., who had refused to take their cartridges, had by this time completed its inquiry. The men were sentenced to long terms of imprisonment. The sentence was carried out with impressive solemnity. On a morning [May 9] presently to become historical—the heavens sombre with rolling clouds—the brigade assembled to hear their comrades' doom—to see them stripped of their uniform and secured with felons' manacles. The scene produced intense emotion. Resistance was impossible. There were entreaties, tears, imprecations, as the prisoners were marched away to jail. Discipline had been vindicated by a terrible example. The next day was Sunday. In the evening, as the European Riflemen were gathering for Church, a sudden movement took place in the native quarters. The Cavalry dashed off to the jail to rescue their imprisoned companions. The two Infantry regiments, after a moment's wavering, threw in their lot with the mutineers. Then ensued a scene such as, unhappily, became too familiar in Upper India within the next few weeks. Officers were shot, houses fired, Europeans—men, women, and children, wherever found, were put to the sword. A crowd of miscreants from the jail, suddenly set free, made a long night of pillage. Meanwhile, paralysed by the sudden catastrophe, the English General of the Division and the Brigadier of the Station forbore to act, refused to let their subordinates act, and the Sepoys who had fled, a disorganised mob, in different directions, soon found themselves gathering on the march for Delhi. In the early morning at Delhi, where courts and offices had already begun the day's work, a line of horsemen were descried galloping on the Meerut road. They found their way into the city, into the presence of the King; cut down the European officials, and, as they were gradually reinforced by the arrival of fresh companions, commenced a general massacre of the Christian population. A brave telegraph clerk, as the mutineers burst in upon him, had just time to flash the dreadful tidings to Lahore. Before evening, the native regiments fired upon their officers and joined the mutineers. After weary hours of hope for the help from Meerut which never came, the British officers in command were compelled to recognise that the only chance of safety lay in flight. Ere the day closed, every European who had risen that morning in Delhi, was dead, or awaiting death, or wandering about the country in the desperate endeavor to reach a place of safety. A day dark with disaster was, however, illumined by the first of those heroic acts which will make the siege of Delhi immortal. The insurgents had their first taste of the quality of the race whose ascendancy they had elected to assail. Lieutenant Willoughby, the officer in charge of the Magazine, and eight gallant companions, resolved, early in the day, that, if they could not defend their invaluable supply of ammunition, they would destroy it, though its destruction would almost certainly involve their own. For hours they defended their stronghold against an overpowering crowd of assailants. The train was laid: the sergeant who was to fire it stood ready: Willoughby took a last look out upon the Meerut road: the assailants were swarming on the walls. The word was spoken: a vast column of flame and smoke shot upward. Two thousand of the assailants were blown into the air [and five of the defenders perished, while Willoughby and three of his companions escaped]. The thunder of that explosion announced to the mutineers that one great object in the seizure of Delhi had escaped their grasp."

ALSO IN: J. W. Kaye, History of the Sepoy War in India, book 4, chapters 1-3 (volume 2).

INDIA: A. D. 1857 (May-August).
   The situation at Delhi.
   Siege of the English at Cawnpur.
   Their surrender and massacre.
   The siege of Lucknow.

"A few days of inactivity allowed the flame to blaze up beyond possibility of immediate extinction. The unchallenged occupation of the Mughal capital by rebel sepoys and badmashes was followed by risings and massacres in almost every station within range of the example; and from Firozpur, Bareilly, Moradabad, Shahjahanpur, Cawnpur, and numerous other places came harrowing tales of massacre, suffering, and heroism. When this terrible news reached army head-quarters, it was received with a perhaps natural incredulity. Nevertheless, a force was hastily assembled at Ambala; and with the troops thus mobilised, General Anson, then Commander-in-Chief, made preparations to march against the renowned city of the Mughal. The little force had hardly started, however, when its leader died of cholera (May 27th). It was not until the 1st of June that General Barnard, who had succeeded temporarily to the chief command, advanced in earnest against the now jubilant rebels. Meanwhile, a small body of troops under Brigadier Archdale Wilson marched out from Meerut, after a disastrous delay; and the combined force, amounting to about 3,000 Europeans and one battalion of Gurkhas, fought its way onwards till it reached the outskirts of the city on the 8th of June, 1857. We may now refer to the three great points,—Delhi, Cawnpur, and Lucknow, round which the Mutiny was, so to speak, centred during the earlier period of the revolt; namely, from May, 1857, till the arrival in India of Sir Colin Campbell in August of that year. {1742} The modern city of Delhi was founded by the Emperor Jahangir in 1631. Situated on the right bank of a branch of the Jumna river it was, as it still is, surrounded by a high wall some seven miles in extent, strengthened by bastions and by a capacious dry ditch. The British force held the elevated ground known as the Ridge, which extends two miles along the northern and western faces of the city—a position taken up some centuries before by Timur Shah and his Tartar hordes when advancing to attack old Delhi. At intervals along the Ridge stood the Flagstaff Tower, the Observatory, a large mansion called Hindu Rao's house, and other defensible buildings. The space between the city and the Ridge was thickly planted, for the most part with trees and shrubs; in the midst of which might be seen numerous mosques and large houses, and the ruins of older buildings. It soon became evident that the position held by the British force on the Ridge was a false one; and the question arose whether the city might not be taken by a coup de main, seeing that it was impossible either to invest it or to attempt a regular siege with any chance of success. A plan of assault, to be carried out on the 12th of June, was drawn up by a young Engineer officer and sanctioned. Had this assault been delivered the city would in all likelihood have been taken and held. … But owing to a series of accidents, the plan fell through—a miscarriage the more to be regretted because the early recapture of the city would in all human probability have put a stop to further outbreaks. As matters stood, however, the gallant little force before Delhi could barely hold its own. It was an army of observation perpetually harassed by an active enemy. As time went on, therefore, the question of raising the siege in favour of a movement towards Agra was more than once seriously discussed, but was fortunately abandoned. On July 5th, 1857, General Barnard died, worn out with fatigue and anxiety. He was succeeded in command by General Archdale Wilson, an officer who, possessing no special force of character, did little more than secure the safe defence of the position until the arrival of Brigadier Nicholson from the Punjab, August 14th, 1857, with a moveable column of 2,500 men, Europeans and Sikhs. And here we may leave Delhi, for the moment, deferring till later any further details of the siege. The city of Cawnpur, situated on the south bank of the river Ganges, 42 miles south-west of Lucknow and 270 miles from Delhi, lies about a mile from the river in a large sandy plain. On the strip of land between the river and the town, a space broken by ravines, stretched the Civil Station and cantonments. A more difficult position to hold in an extremity cannot well be conceived, occupied as it was by four disaffected Sepoy regiments with but sixty European artillerymen to overawe them. There was, moreover, an incompetent commander. Realising after the disasters at Meerut and Delhi that his native garrison was not to be trusted, Sir Hugh Wheeler threw up a make-shift entrenchment close to the Sepoy lines. Commanded on all sides, it was totally unfitted to stand a siege. But a worse mistake was to follow. Alarmed as time went on at his growing difficulties, Sir Hugh Wheeler at length asked the notorious Nana Sahib [see above: A. D. 1848-1856], who lived a few miles off at Bithur, to assist him with troops to guard the Treasury. For some months previously this archtraitor's emissaries had been spreading discontent throughout India, but he himself had taken care to remain on good terms with his European neighbours. He now saw his opportunity. Cawnpur, delivered into his hands by the misplaced confidence of its defenders, was virtually in his keeping. Of European succour there was no immediate hope. The place was doomed. The crash came three days before General Barnard's force reached Delhi. With the exception of a few devoted natives who remained faithful to their salt, the whole Sepoy force on the 5th of June rose in revolt, opened the doors of the jail, robbed the treasury, and made themselves masters of the magazine. The Nana cast aside all further pretence of friendship and, joined by the mutinous troops, laid siege to the entrenchment already mentioned, which with culpable military ignorance had been thrown up in one of the worst positions that could have been chosen. The besieging army numbered some 3,000 men. The besieged could only muster about 400 English soldiers, more than 70 of which number were invalids. For twenty-one days the little garrison suffered untold horrors from starvation, heat, and the onslaughts of the rebels; until the General in command listened to overtures for surrender, and the garrison marched out on the 27th of June, to the number of about 450 souls, provided with a promise of safeguard from the Nana, who would allow them, as they thought, to embark in country boats for Allahabad. Tantia Topi, who afterwards became notorious in Central India, superintended the embarkation. No sooner, however, were the Europeans placed in the boats, in apparent safety, than a battery of guns concealed on the river banks opened fire, while at the same time a deadly fusillade of musketry was poured on the luckless refugees. The Nana at length ordered the massacre to cease. He celebrated what he called his glorious victory by proclaiming himself Peshwa or Maratha Sovereign, and by rewarding his troops for their 'splendid achievements,' while the wretched survivors of his treachery, numbering about 5 men and 206 women and children, were taken back to Cawnpur and confined in a small building for further vengeance and insult. On the 15th of July came the last act of this tragedy. The Nana, having suffered a crushing defeat at the hands of Brigadier Havelock's force within a day's march of Cawnpur, as will presently be recorded, put the whole of his prisoners to death. The men were brought out and killed in his presence, while the women and children were hacked to pieces by Muhammadan butchers and others in their prison. Their bodies were thrown into what is now known as the Cawnpur Well.' Lucknow, at the time of the Mutiny, was in population, in extent, and in the number and importance of its principal buildings, one of the foremost cities of India. … The Residency stood on a hill gently sloping towards the river, and was an imposing edifice of three stories. Near it were the iron and stone bridges over the river. … At the outbreak of the Mutiny the Sepoy regiments were stationed in various localities within the city; while the 32nd Foot, the only European regiment on the spot, was quartered in a barrack about a mile or so from the Residency. {1743} As was the case elsewhere, so it happened at Lucknow. While the population and native garrison were seething with sedition, the British authorities were hampered by ignorance of popular feeling, by the want of European troops, and by divided counsels. So, by the end of May, 1857, the rebellion in Oudh became an accomplished fact, although matters went on with comparative smoothness in Lucknow itself. At length, after a serious disaster at Chinhat, the British garrison was forced to withdraw to the Residency and its adjacent buildings; and on the 1st of July commenced the famous investment of this position by the rebel forces. The position was ill adapted for defence; for the lofty windows of the Residency itself not only allowed free access to the enemy's missiles, but its roof was wholly exposed. On the opposite side of the street, leading from the Bailey Guard Gate, was the house of the Residency Surgeon, Dr. (now Sir Joseph) Fayrer. It was a large but not lofty building with a flat roof which, protected by sand bags, afforded a good cover for our riflemen, and with a tyekhana, or underground story, that afforded good shelter for the women and children. But as a whole, the defences of the Residency were more formidable in name than in reality, and were greatly weakened by the proximity of high buildings from which the rebels without danger to themselves poured an unceasing fire. The siege had an ominous commencement. On July 4th the much-beloved Sir Henry Lawrence, the Resident, died of a wound received two days before from an enemy's shell that had fallen into his room. Brigadier Inglis succeeded him in command; and for three months the heroic garrison of about 1,700 souls held their weak position, amid inconceivable hardships and dangers, against thousands of the rebels who were constantly reinforced by fresh levies. It was well said in a general order by Lord Canning that there could not be found in the annals of war an achievement more heroic than this defence."

ALSO IN: J. W. Kaye, History of the Sepoy War, book 9, chapters 1-3 (volume 3).

INDIA: A. D. 1857 (June-September).
The siege, the storming and the capture of Delhi.
Murder of the Moghul princes.

"During the four months that followed the revolt at Delhi on the 11th of May, all political interest was centred at the ancient capital of the sovereigns of Hindustan. The public mind was occasionally distracted by the current of events at Cawnpore and Lukhnow, as well as at other stations which need not be particularised; but so long as Delhi remained in the hands of the rebels, the native princes were bewildered and alarmed; and its prompt recapture was deemed of vital importance to the prestige of the British government, and the re-establishment of British sovereignty in Hindustan. The Great Moghul had been little better than a mummy for more than half a century, and Bahadur Shah was a mere tool and puppet in the hands of rebel sepoys; but nevertheless the British government had to deal with the astounding fact that the rebels were fighting under his name and standard, just as Afghans and Mahrattas had done in the days of Ahmad Shah Durani and Mahadaji Sindia. To make matters worse, the roads to Delhi were open from the south and east; and nearly every outbreak in Hindustan was followed by a stampede of mutineers to the old capital of the Moghuls. Meanwhile, in the absence of railways, there were unfortunate delays in bringing up troops and guns to stamp out the fires of rebellion at the head centre. The highway from Calcutta to Delhi was blocked up by mutiny and insurrection; and every European soldier sent up from Calcutta was stopped for the relief of Benares, Allahabad, Cawnpore, or Lukhnow. But the possession of the Punjab at this crisis proved to be the salvation of the empire. Sir John Lawrence, the Chief Commissioner, was called upon to perform almost superhuman work:—to maintain order in a newly conquered province; to suppress mutiny and disaffection amongst the very sepoy regiments from Bengal who were supposed to garrison the country; and to send reinforcements of troops and guns, and supplies of all descriptions, to the siege of Delhi. Fortunately the Sikhs had been only a few short years under British administration; they had not forgotten the miseries that prevailed under the native government, and could appreciate the many blessings they enjoyed under British rule. They were staunch to the British government, and eager to be led against the rebels. In some cases terrible punishment was meted out to mutinous Bengal sepoys within the Punjab; but the imperial interests at stake were sufficient to justify every severity, although all must regret the painful necessity that called for such extreme measures. … The defences of Delhi covered an area of three square miles. The walls consisted of a series of bastions, about sixteen feet high, connected by long curtains, with occasional martello towers to aid the flanking fire. … There were seven gates to the city, namely, Lahore gate, Ajmir gate, Turkoman gate, Delhi gate, Mori gate, Kabul gate, and Kashmir gate. The principal street was the Chandni Chouk, which ran in a direct line from the Delhi gate to the palace of the Moghuls. … For many weeks the British army on the Ridge was unable to attempt siege operations. It was, in fact, the besieged, rather than the besiegers; for, although the bridges in the rear were blown up, the camp was exposed to continual assaults from all the other sides. On the 23rd of June, the hundredth anniversary of the battle of Plassy, the enemy made a greater effort than ever to carry the British position. The attack began on the right from the Subzi Mundi, its object being to capture the Mound battery. Finding it impossible to carry the battery, the rebels confined themselves to a hand to hand conflict in the Subzi Mundi. The deadly struggle continued for many hours; and as the rebels came up in overwhelming numbers, it was fortunate that the two bridges in the rear had been blown up the night before, or the assault might have had a different termination. It was not until after sunset that the enemy was compelled to retire with the loss of a thousand men. Similar actions were frequent during the month of August; but meanwhile reinforcements were coming up, and the end was drawing nigh. In the middle of August, Brigadier John Nicholson, one of the most distinguished officers of the time, came up from the Punjab with a brigade and siege train. On the 4th of September a heavy train of artillery was brought in from Ferozepore. {1744} The British force on the Ridge now exceeded 8,000 men. Hitherto the artillery had been too weak to attempt to breach the City walls; but now fifty-four heavy guns were brought into position and the siege began in earnest. From the 8th to the 12th of September four batteries poured in a constant storm of shot and shell; number one was directed against the Kashmir bastion, number two against the right flank of the Kashmir bastion, number three against the Water bastion, and number four against the Kashmir and Water gates and bastions. On the 13th of September the breaches were declared to be practicable, and the following morning was fixed for the final assault upon the doomed city. At three o'clock in the morning of the 14th September, three assaulting columns were formed in the trenches, whilst a fourth was kept in reserve. The first column was led by Brigadier Nicholson; the second by Brigadier Jones; the third by Colonel Campbell; and the fourth, or reserve, by Brigadier Longfield. The powder bags were laid at the Kashmir gate by Lieutenants Home and Salkeld. The explosion followed, and the third column rushed in, and pushed towards the Juma Musjid. Meanwhile the first column under Nicholson escaladed the breaches near the Kashmir gate, and pushed along the ramparts towards the Kabul gate, carrying the several bastions in the way. Here it was met by the second column under Brigadier Jones, who had escaladed the breach at the Water bastion. The advancing columns were met by a ceaseless fire from terraced houses, mosques, and other buildings; and John Nicholson, the hero of the day, whilst attempting to storm a narrow street near the Kabul gate, was struck down by a shot and mortally wounded."

"The long autumn day was over, and we were in Delhi. But Delhi was, by no means, ours. Sixty-six officers and 1,100 men— nearly a third, that is, of the whole attacking force—had fallen; while, as yet, not a sixth part of the town was in our power. How many men, it might well be asked, would be left to us by the time that we had conquered the remainder? We held the line of ramparts which we had attacked and the portions of the city immediately adjoining, but nothing more. The Lahore Gate and the Magazine, the Jumma Musjid and the Palace, were still untouched, and were keeping up a heavy fire on our position. Worse than this, a large number of our troops had fallen victims to the temptation which, more formidable than themselves, our foes had left behind them, and were wallowing in a state of bestial intoxication. The enemy, meanwhile, had been able to maintain their position outside the town; and if only, at this supreme hour, a heaven-sent General had appeared amongst them, they might have attacked our camp, defended as it was mainly by the sick, and the maimed, and the halt. … Never, perhaps, in the history of the Mutiny were we in quite so perilous a position as on the night which followed our greatest military success. General Wilson, indeed, proposed, as might have been expected from a man in his enfeebled condition of mind and body, to withdraw the guns, to fall back on the camp and wait for reinforcements there; a step which, it is needless to point out, would have given us all the deadly work to do over again, even if our force should prove able to maintain itself on the Ridge till reinforcements came. But the urgent remonstrances of Baird Smith and others, by word of mouth; of Chamberlain, by letter; and, perhaps, also, the echoes which may have reached him from the tempest-tossed hero who lay chafing against his cruel destiny on his death-bed, and exclaimed in a wild paroxysm of passion, when he heard of the move which was in contemplation, 'Thank God, I have strength enough left to shoot that man,' turned the General once more from his purpose. On the following day, the 15th, vast quantities of the intoxicating drinks, which had wrought such havoc amongst our men, were destroyed by General Wilson's order, and the streets literally ran with rivers of beer, and wine, and brandy. Meanwhile, the troops were sleeping off their drunken debauch; and on the 16th active operations were resumed. On that day the Magazine was taken, and its vast stores of shot and shell, and of all the 'material' of war, fell once more into the hands of their proper owners. By sapping gradually from house to house we managed, for three days more, to avoid the street-fighting which, once and again, has proved so demoralising to Englishmen; and, slowly but surely, we pressed back the defenders into that ever-narrowing part of the city of which, fortunately for themselves, they still held the bolt-holes. Many of them had already begun, like rats, to quit the sinking vessel. And now the unarmed population of the city flocked in one continuous stream out of the open gates, hoping to save their lives, if nothing else, from our avenging swords. On the 19th, the palace of the Moguls, which had witnessed the last expiring flicker of life in an effete dynasty, and the cruel murder of English men, and women, and children, fell into our hands; and by Sunday, the 20th, the whole of the city—in large part already a city of the dead—was at our mercy. But what of the King himself and the Princes of the royal house? They had slunk off to the tomb of Humayoun, a huge building, almost a city in itself, some miles from the modern Delhi, and there, swayed this way and that, now by the bolder spirits of his army who pressed him to put himself at their head and fight it out to the death, as became the descendant of Tamerlane and Baber, now by the entreaties of his young wife, who was anxious chiefly for her own safety and that of her son, the heir of the Moguls; and now, again, by the plausible suggestions of a double-dyed traitor of his own house who was in Hodson's pay, and who, approaching the head of his family with a kiss of peace, was endeavoring to detain him where he was till he could hand him over to his employer and receive the price of blood, the poor old monarch dozed or fooled away the few hours of his sovereignty which remained, the hours which might still make or mar him, in paroxysms of imbecile vacillation and despair. The traitor gained the day, and Hodson, who could play the game of force as well as of fraud, and was an equal adept at either, learning from his craven-hearted tool that the King was prepared to surrender on the promise of his life, went to Wilson and obtained leave, on that condition, to bring him into Delhi. The errand, with such a promise tacked on to it, was only half to Hodson's taste. {1745} 'If I get into the Palace,' he had written in cool blood some days before, 'the house of Timour will not be worth five minutes' purchase, I ween.' … After two hours of bargaining for his own life and that of his queen and favourite son, the poor old Priam tottered forth and was taken back, in a bullock-cart, a prisoner, to his own city and Palace, and was there handed over to the civil authorities. But there were other members of the royal family, as Hodson knew well from his informants, also lurking in Humayoun's tomb. … With a hundred of his famous horse Hodson started for Humayoun's tomb, and, after three hours of negotiation, the three princes, two of them the sons, the other the grandson of the King, surrendered unconditionally into his hands. … Their arms were taken from them, and, escorted by some of his horsemen, they too were despatched in bullock-carts towards Delhi. With the rest of his horse, Hodson stayed behind to disarm the large and nerveless crowd, who, as sheep having no shepherd, and unable, in their paralysed condition, to see what the brute weight even of a flock of sheep might do by a sudden rush, were overawed by his resolute bearing. This done, he galloped after his prey and caught them up just before the cavalcade reached the walls of Delhi. He ordered the princes roughly to get out of the cart and strip,—for, even in his thirst for their blood, he had, as it would seem, an eye to the value of their outer clothes,—he ordered them into the cart again, he seized a carbine from one of his troopers, and then and there, with his own hand, shot them down deliberately one after the other. It was a stupid, cold-blooded, three-fold murder. … Had they been put upon their trial, disclosures of great importance as to the origin of the Mutiny could hardly fail to have been elicited. Their punishment would have been proportioned to their offence, and would have been meted out to them with all the patient majesty of offended law."

      Major Hodson,
      Twelve Years of a Soldier's Life in India,
      part 2: The Delhi Campaign.

INDIA: A. D. 1857-1858 (July-June).
   General Havelock's campaign.
   Sir Colin Campbell's.
   The Relief of Lucknow.
   Substantial suppression of the Mutiny.

"Meanwhile the greatest anxiety prevailed with regard to our countrymen and countrywomen at Lucknow and Cawnpore. The Indian government made every effort to relieve them; but the reinforcements which had been despatched from England and China came in slowly, and the demands made for assistance far exceeded the means at the disposal of the government. … The task of relieving the city was entrusted to the heroic General Havelock, who marched out with a mere handful of men, of whom only 1,400 were British soldiers, to encounter a large army and a whole country in rebellion. At Futtehpore, on the 12th of July, he defeated a vastly superior force, posted in a very strong position. After giving his men a day's rest, he advanced again on the 14th, and routed the enemy in two pitched battles. Next morning he renewed his advance, and with a force of less than 900 men attacked 5,000 strongly entrenched, and commanded by Nana Sahib. They were outmanœuvred, out-flanked, beaten and dispersed. But for this signal defeat they wreaked their vengeance on the unfortunate women and children who still remained at Cawnpore. On the very day on which the battle occurred, they were massacred under circumstances of cruelty over which we must throw a veil. The well of Cawnpore, in which their hacked and mutilated bodies were flung, presented a spectacle from which soldiers who had regarded unmoved the carnage of numerous battle-fields shrank with horror. Of all the atrocities perpetrated during this war, so fruitful in horrors, this was the most awful; and it was followed by a terrible retribution. It steeled the hearts, and lent a furious and fearless energy to the arms, of the British soldiery. Wherever they came, they gave no quarter to the mutineers; a few men often frantically attacked hundreds, frantically but vainly defending themselves; and never ceased till all had been bayoneted, or shot, or hewn in pieces. All those who could be shown to have been accomplices in the perpetration of the murders that had been committed were hung, or blown from the cannon's mouth. Though the intrepid Havelock was unable to save the women and children who had been imprisoned in Cawnpore, he pressed forward to Lucknow. But the force under his command was too small to enable him to drive off the enemy. Meanwhile Sir J. Outram, who was now returning from the Persian war, which had been brought to a successful conclusion, was sent to Oude as chief commissioner, with full civil and military power. This appointment was fully deserved; but it had the effect, probably not thought of by those who made it, of superseding Havelock just as he was about to achieve the crowning success of his rapid and glorious career. Outram, however, with a generosity which did him more real honour than a thousand victories would have conferred, wrote to Havelock to inform him that he intended to join him with adequate reinforcements; adding: 'To you shall be left the glory of relieving Lucknow, for which you have already struggled so much. I shall accompany you only in my civil capacity as commissioner, placing my military service at your disposal, should you please, and serving under you as a volunteer.' Thus Havelock, after gaining no fewer than twelve battles against forces far superior in numbers to the little band he originally led, was enabled at length, on the 25th of August, to preserve the civilians, the women, and children of Lucknow from the impending horrors of another massacre, which would no doubt have been as fearful as that of Cawnpore. The Highlanders were the first to enter, and were welcomed with grateful enthusiasm by those whom they had saved from a fate worse than death. However, the enemy, recovering from the panic which the arrival of Havelock and his troops had caused, renewed the siege. Sir Colin Campbell, who had assumed the command of the Indian army, had determined to march to the relief of Lucknow. He set out from Cawnpore on the 9th of November, but was obliged to wait till the 14th for reinforcements, which were on the way to join him, and which raised the force under his command to 5,000—a force numerically far inferior to that which it was to attack. {1746} On the 17th of November the relief of Lucknow was effected. The music of the Highland regiments, playing 'The Campbells are coming,' announced to their delighted countrymen inside the city that the commander-in-chief himself was with the relieving force. Little time, however, was allowed for congratulations and rejoicings. The ladies, the civilians, and the garrison were quietly withdrawn; the guns, which it was thought not desirable to remove, were burst; and a retreat effected, without affording the enemy the slightest suspicion of what was going on until some hours after the town had been evacuated by its defenders. The retreating force reached Dilhasha on the 24th, without having sustained any serious molestation. There the gallant Havelock sank under the trials and hardships to which he had been exposed, and yielded up the life which was instrumental in preserving so many others from the most terrible of deaths. While Sir Colin Campbell was engaged in effecting the relief of Lucknow, intelligence reached Cawnpore that a large hostile army was making towards it. General Windham, who commanded there, unacquainted with the number or the position of the approaching force, marched forth to meet it, in the hope that he should be able to rout and cut up the advanced guard before the main body of the enemy could come to its assistance. But in this expectation he was disappointed. Instead of having to deal with the van, he engaged with the whole rebel army, and his little force, assailed on all sides, was obliged to retire. He at once despatched a letter to the commander-in-chief, requesting him to hasten to his assistance; but it was intercepted by the enemy. Fortunately Sir Colin Campbell, though ignorant of the critical position of his subordinate, came up just at the moment when the danger was at its height. This was on the 28th of November. He was, however, in no haste to attack the foe, and was content for the present merely to hold them in check. His first care was for the safety of the civilians, the women, and the children, which was not secured till the 30th; and he continued to protect them till the 5th of December, when they were all safely lodged at Allahabad. The enemy, unaware of the motive of his seeming inaction, imputed it to fear, and became every day more confident and audacious. On the 6th he at length turned fiercely on them, completely defeated them, and seized their baggage; he then dispersed and drove away another large force, under the command of Nana Sahib, which was watching the engagement at a little distance. The army entered the residence of Nana Sahib at Bithoor, and took possession of much treasure, which had been concealed in a well. Nearly the whole of the enemy's artillery was captured; and the army, being overtaken as they were in the act of crossing into Oude, great numbers of them were destroyed. Of course, for the moment Lucknow, being no longer garrisoned, had fallen into the hands of the insurgents; but they were not long permitted to retain it. Strong reinforcements arrived, and the Indian government was enabled to send a force against Lucknow sufficient to overwhelm all resistance; and on the 15th of December this important city was in the undisputed possession of the British troops. This final recovery of the capital of Oude decided the reconquest of that country. A struggle was, indeed, maintained for some time longer; innumerable battles were fought; and the final subjugation of the country was effected in the month of June, 1858."

General Shadwell, Life of Colin Campbell, Lord Clyde, volume 1, chapter 11, and volume 2, chapters 1-18.

INDIA: A. D. 1858.
   The Governor-General's Proclamation,
   Termination of the rule of the East India Company.
   The government transferred to the Crown.

   "By a singular circumstance, when the mutiny was suppressed in
   1858, the Governor-General, who in the previous year had been
   condemned for leniency which was thought ill-timed, was
   destined to receive censure for harshness which was declared
   unnecessary. On the eve of the fall of Lucknow, he drew up a
   proclamation confiscating the lands of all the great
   landowners in Oudh. Exceptions were, indeed, made to this
   sweeping decree. Landowners who could prove their loyalty were
   promised exemption from it, just as rebels who unconditionally
   surrendered, and whose hands were not stained with British
   blood, were offered pardon. There is no doubt that Canning, in
   drawing up this proclamation, relied on the exceptions which
   it contained, while there is equally no doubt that the critics
   who objected to it overlooked its parentheses. But its issue
   was made the basis of an attack which well-nigh proved fatal
   to the Governor-General's administration. The chances of party
   warfare had replaced Palmerston with Derby; and the
   Conservative minister had entrusted the Board of Control to
   the brilliant but erratic statesman who, fifteen years before,
   had astonished India with pageant and proclamation. …
   Ellenborough thought proper to condemn Canning's proclamation
   in a severe despatch, and to allow his censure to be made
   public. For a short time it seemed impossible that the
   Governor-General who had received such a despatch could
   continue his government. But the lapse of a few days showed
   that the minister who had framed the despatch, and not the
   Viceroy who had received it, was to suffer from the
   transaction. The public, recollecting the justice of Canning's
   rule, the mercy of his administration, almost unanimously
   considered that he should not have been hastily condemned for
   a document which, it was gradually evident, had only been
   imperfectly understood; and Ellenborough, to save his
   colleagues, volunteered to play the part of Jonah, and retired
   from the ministry. His retirement closes, in one sense, the
   history of the Indian Mutiny. But the transactions of the
   Mutiny had, almost for the first time, taught the public to
   consider the anomalies of Indian government. In the course of
   a hundred years a Company had been suffered to acquire an
   empire nearly ten times as large and as populous as Great
   Britain. It was true that the rule of the Company was in many
   respects nominal. The President of the Board of Control was
   the true head of the Indian Government, and spoke and acted
   through the Secret Committee of the Court of Directors. But
   this very circumstance only accentuated the anomaly. If the
   President of the Board of Control was in fact Indian minister,
   it was far simpler to make him Indian minister by name, and to
   do away with the clumsy expedient which alone enabled him to
   exercise his authority.
{1747}
   Hence it was generally decided that the rule of the Company
   should cease, and that India should thenceforward become one
   of the possessions of the crown. … A great danger thus led
   to the removal of a great anomaly, and the vast Indian empire
   which Englishmen had won was thenceforward taken into a
   nation's keeping."

The act "for the better government of India," which was passed in the autumn of 1858, "provided that all the territories previously under the government of the East India Company were to be vested in her Majesty, and all the Company's powers to be exercised in her name. One of her Majesty's principal Secretaries of State was to have all the power previously exercised by the Company, or by the Board of Control. The Secretary was to be assisted by a Council of India, to consist of fifteen members, of whom seven were to be elected by the Court of Directors from their own body, and eight nominated by the Crown. The vacancies among the nominated were to be filled up by the Crown; those among the elected by the remaining members of the Council for a certain time, but afterward by the Secretary of State for India. The competitive principle for the Civil Service was extended in its application, and made thoroughly practical. The military and naval forces of the Company were to be deemed the forces of her Majesty. A clause was introduced declaring that, except for the purpose of preventing or repelling actual invasion of India, the Indian revenues should not, without the consent of both Houses of Parliament, be applicable to defray the expenses of any military operation carried on beyond the external frontiers of her Majesty's Indian possessions. Another clause enacted that whenever an order was sent to India directing the commencement of hostilities by her Majesty's forces there, the fact should be communicated to Parliament within three months, if Parliament were then sitting, or, if not, within one month after its next meeting. These clauses were heard of more than once in later days. The Viceroy and Governor-General was to be supreme in India, but was to be assisted by a Council. India now has nine provinces, each under its own civil government, and independent of the others, but all subordinate to the authority of the Viceroy. In accordance with this Act the government of the Company, the famed 'John Company,' formally ceased on September 1st, 1858; and the Queen was proclaimed throughout India in the following November, with Lord Canning for her first Viceroy."

INDIA: A. D. 1862-1876.
Vice-regal administrations of
Lords Lawrence, Mayo and Northbrook.

Lord Canning was succeeded as Viceroy by Lord Elgin, in 1862; but Elgin only lived until November, 1863, and his successor was Sir John Lawrence, the savior of the Punjab. "Sir John Lawrence's Viceroyalty was an uneventful time. Great natural calamities by famine and cyclone fell upon the country, which called forth the philanthropic energies of Government and people. Commerce passed through an unexampled crisis, taxing skill and foresight. But the political atmosphere was calm. With the exception of little frontier wars, wasteful of resources that were sorely needed, there was nothing to divert the Government from the prosecution of schemes for the improvement of the physical and moral condition of the people." Sir John Lawrence held the Viceroyalty until January, 1869, when he was succeeded by Lord Mayo and returned to England. He was raised, in that year, to the peerage, under the title of Baron Lawrence of Punjab and Grateley. He died ten years later.

Lord Lawrence's immediate successor, Lord Mayo, was assassinated, while Viceroy, in 1872, by a convict—a Highlander—at the convict settlement on the Andaman Islands, for no reason of personal hatred, but only because he represented the governing authority which had condemned the man. Lord Mayo was succeeded by Lord Northbrook, who held the office from 1872 to 1876.

The successor of Lord Northbrook in the Vice-regal
office was Lord Lytton, appointed in 1876.

INDIA: A. D. 1877.
   The Native States and their quasi feudatory relation to the
   British Crown.
   Queen Victoria's assumption of the title of Empress of India.

   "In some sense the Indians were accustomed to consider the
   Company, as they now consider the Queen, to be the heir of the
   Great Mughal, and therefore universal suzerain by right of
   succession. But it is easy to exaggerate the force of this
   claim, which is itself a mere restatement of the fact of
   conquest. Politically, India is divided into two parts,
   commonly known as British territory and the native states. The
   first portion alone is ruled directly by English officials,
   and its inhabitants alone are subjects of the Queen. The
   native states are sometimes called feudatory—a convenient
   term to express their vague relation to the British crown. To
   define that relation precisely would be impossible. It has
   arisen at different times and by different methods; it varies
   from semi-independence to complete subjection. Some chiefs are
   the representatives of those whom we found on our first
   arrival in the country; others owe their existence to our
   creation. Some are parties to treaties entered into as between
   equal powers; others have consented to receive patents from
   their suzerain recording their limited rights; with others,
   again, there are no written engagements at all. Some have
   fought with us and come out of the struggle without dishonour.
   Some pay tribute; others pay none. Their extent and power vary
   as greatly as their political status. The Nizam of Haidarabad
   governs a kingdom of 80,000 square miles and 10,000,000
   inhabitants. Some of the petty chieftains of Kathiawar
   exercise authority over only a few acres. It is, however,
   necessary to draw a line sharply circumscribing the native
   states, as a class, from British territory. Every native chief
   possesses a certain measure of local authority, which is not
   derivative but inherent. English control, when and as
   exercised, is not so much of an administrative as of a
   diplomatic nature. In Anglo-Indian terminology this shade of
   meaning is expressed by the word 'political.' … As a general
   proposition, and excepting the quite insignificant states, it
   may be stated that the government is carried on not only in
   the name but also by the initiative of the native chief.
{1748}
   At all the large capitals, and at certain centres round which
   minor states are grouped, a British officer is stationed under
   the style of Resident or Agent. Through him all diplomatic
   affairs are conducted. He is at once an ambassador and a
   controller. His duty is to represent the majesty of the
   suzerain power, to keep a watchful eye upon abuses, and to
   encourage reforms."

"The supremacy of the British Government over all the Native States in India was declared in 1877, in a more emphatic form than it had received before, by the assumption by the Queen of the title of Kaisar-i-Hind, Empress of India. No such gathering of chiefs and princes has taken place in historical times as that seen at Delhi in January, 1877, when the rulers of all the principal States of India formally acknowledged their dependence on the British Crown. The political effect of the assertion of the supremacy of the paramount power, thus formally made for the first time in India, has been marked and extremely important."

      ALSO IN:
      G. B. Malleson,
      Historical Sketch of the Native States of India.

   On the defeat of the Conservative Beaconsfield Ministry in
   England, in 1880, Lord Lytton resigned the Viceroyalty and was
   succeeded by the Marquis of Ripon, who gave place in turn to
   the Marquis of Dufferin in 1884. In 1888, the Marquis of
   Lansdowne succeeded Lord Dufferin, and was himself succeeded
   in 1893 by Sir Henry Norman.

In June, 1893, the Indian Government, with the approval of the British Cabinet, stopped the free coinage of silver, with a view to the introduction of a gold standard. The Government, it was announced, while stopping the coinage of the declining metal for private persons, would continue on its own account to coin rupees in exchange for gold at a ratio then fixed at sixteen pence sterling per rupee. "The closing of the mints of British India to the coinage of silver coins of full-debt-paying power is the most momentous event in the monetary history of the present century. It is the final and disastrous blow to the use of silver as a measure of value and as money of full-debt-paying power, and the relegation of it to the position of a subsidiary, or token metal. It is the culmination of the evolution from a silver to a gold standard which has been progressing with startling rapidity in recent years. … The remarkable series of events which have characterized, or made manifest, this evolution from a silver to a gold standard are nearly all condensed in the brief period of twenty years, and are probably without a parallel in ancient or modern monetary history. … With the single exception of England, all Europe forty years ago had the silver standard, not only legally but actually—silver coins constituting the great bulk of the money of actual transactions. To-day, not a mint in Europe is open to the coinage of full-debt-paying silver coins, and the gateways of the Orient have been closed against it. Twenty years ago one ounce of gold exchanged in the markets of the world for fifteen and one-half ounces of silver; to-day, one ounce of gold will buy nearly thirty ounces of silver. … There is a general impression that silver has been the money of India from remote generations. This is a fallacy. It has not been a great many years since India adopted the silver standard. The ancient money of the Hindoos was gold, which in 1818 was supplemented by silver, but gold coins remained legal tender until 1835, when silver was made the sole standard of value and legal tender money in British India, and gold was demonetized. … During the last fifty odd years, India has absorbed vast quantities of silver."

INDIANA: A. D. 1778-1779.
Conquest from the British by the Virginian General Clark, and
annexation to the Kentucky district of Virginia.

INDIANA: A. D. 1784.
Included in the proposed states of Assenisipia, Metropotamia,
Illinoia and Polypotamia.

INDIANA: A. D. 1786.
Partially covered by the western land claims of Connecticut,
ceded to the United States.

INDIANA: A. D. 1787.
The Ordinance for the government of the Northwest Territory.
Perpetual exclusion of Slavery.

INDIANA: A. D. 1790-1795.
   Indian War.
   Disastrous expeditions of Harmar and St. Clair, and Wayne's
   decisive victory.

INDIANA: A. D. 1800-1818.
   Successive partitions of the Territory.
   Michigan and Illinois detached.
   The remaining Indiana admitted as a State.

"Indiana Territory as originally organized [in 1800] … included the county of Knox, upon the Wabash, from which has sprung the State of Indiana; the county of St. Clair, on the Upper Mississippi, or Illinois River, from which has sprung the State of Illinois; and the county of Wayne, upon the Detroit River, from which has sprung the State of Michigan. … At this time, the inhabitants contained in all of them did not amount to more than 5,640 souls, while the aggregate number of the Indian tribes within the extreme limits of the territory was more than 100,000. … By successive treaties, the Indian title was extinguished gradually to all the country lying upon the waters of the White River, and upon all the lower tributaries of the Wabash, upon the Little Wabash, the Kaskaskia, and east of the Mississippi, below the mouth of the Illinois. Thus, before the close of the year 1805, nearly all the southern half of the present State of Indiana, and one third of the State of Illinois, was open to the advance of the enterprising pioneer. … In 1807, the Federal government, in like manner, purchased from the Indians extensive regions west of Detroit River, and within the present State of Michigan, far beyond the limits of the white settlements in that quarter. Meantime, the settlements formerly comprised in Wayne county, having increased in inhabitants and importance, had been erected into a separate territorial government, known and designated as the 'Territory of Michigan.' On the 1st of July, 1805, the territory entered upon the first grade of territorial government, under the provisions of the ordinance of 1787; and William Hull, formerly a lieutenant in the Revolutionary army, was made the first governor. … Detroit … was made the seat of the territorial government. … By the close of the year 1808, the Indiana Territory east of the Wabash had received such an increase in numbers that it was desirable to assume the second grade of territorial government. Having a population of 5,000 free white males, Congress, with a view to a future state government, by an act approved February 3d, 1809, restricted its limits, and authorized a territorial Legislature. … The Indiana Territory, from this time, was bounded on the west by a line extending up the middle of the Wabash, from its mouth to Vincennes, and thence by a meridian due north to the southern extremity of Lake Michigan. On the north, it was bounded by the southern line of the Michigan Territory. That portion west of the Wabash was erected into a separate territorial government of the first grade, known and designated as the 'Illinois Territory.' The inhabitants of the Indiana Territory soon began to augment more rapidly. … In 1810 the people had increased in numbers to 24,500, and in the newly-erected Territory of Illinois there was an aggregate of 12,300 persons." In 1816 "it was ascertained that the Indiana Territory possessed a population which entitled it to an independent state government. Congress authorized the election of a convention to form a state Constitution," and "the new 'State of Indiana' was formally admitted into the Union on the 19th of April, 1816." Two years later, on the 3d of December, 1818, the Territory of Illinois was similarly transformed and became one of the states of the Union.

J. W. Monette, The Discovery and Settlement of the Mississippi Valley, book 5, chapter 16 (volume 2).

INDIANA: A. D. 1811.
General Harrison's campaign against Tecumseh and his League.
The Battle of Tippecanoe.

"As Columbus supposed himself to have landed on an island at the extremity of India, he called the natives by the general appellation of Indians, which was universally adopted before the true nature of his discovery was known, and has since been extended to all the aboriginals of the New World."

"The Spanish writers from the outset, beginning with Columbus in his letters, call the natives of America, Indians, and their English translators do the same. So, too, Richard Eden, the earliest English writer on American travel, applies the name to the natives of Peru and Mexico. It is used in the same way, both in translations and original accounts, during the rest of the century, but it is always limited to those races with whom the Spaniards were in contact. In its wider and later application the word does not seem to have established itself in English till the next century. The earliest instance I can find, where it is applied to the natives of North America generally in any original work, is by Hakluyt. In 1587 he translated Laudonnière's 'History of the French Colony in Florida,' and dedicated his translation to Sir Walter Raleigh. In this dedication he once uses the term Indian for the natives of North America. Heriot and the other writers who describe the various attempts at settlement in Virginia during the sixteenth century, invariably call the natives 'savages.' Perhaps the earliest instance where an English writer uses the name Indian specially to describe the occupants of the land afterwards colonized by the English is in the account of Archer's voyage to Virginia in 1602. This account, written by James Rosier, is published in Purchas (volume iv. b. viii.). From that time onward the use of the term in the wider sense becomes more common. We may reasonably infer that the use of it was an indication of the growing knowledge of the fact that the lands conquered by the Spaniards and those explored by the English formed one continent."

The indiction "was a cycle of 15 years, used only by the Romans, for appointing the times of certain public taxes; as appears from the title in the Code, 'De tributo indicto.' It was established by Constantine, A. D. 312, in the room of the heathen Olympiads; and was used in the acts of the General Councils, Emperors, and Popes."

   "The indictions consisted of a revolution of 15 years, which
   are separately reckoned as indiction 1, indiction 2, &c., up
   to 15; when they recommence with indiction 1. … Doubt exists
   as to the commencement of the indictions; some writers
   assigning the first indiction to the year 312; the greater
   number to the year 313; others to 314; whilst some place it
   in the year 315.
{1750}
   In 'L'Art de vérifier les Dates,' the year 313 is fixed upon
   as that of the first indiction. There are four descriptions of
   indictions. The first is that of Constantinople, which was
   instituted by Constantine in A. D. 312, and began on the 1st
   of September. The second, and more common in England and
   France, was the Imperial or Cæsarean indiction, which began on
   the 24th of September. The third kind of indiction is called
   the Roman or Pontifical, from its being generally used in
   papal bulls, at least from the ninth to the fourteenth
   century; it commences on the 25th of December or 1st of
   January, accordingly as either of these days was considered
   the first of the year. The fourth kind of indiction, which is
   to be found in the register of the parliaments of Paris, began
   in the month of October. … After the 12th century, the
   indiction was rarely mentioned in public instruments. … But
   in France, in private charters, and in ecclesiastical
   documents, the usage continued until the end of the 15th
   century."

INDO-EUROPEAN. INDO-GERMANIC.

INDUSTRIAL EDUCATION.

INGENUI. LIBERTINI.

"Free men [among the Romans] might be either persons born free (ingenui) and who had never been in slavery to a Roman, or persons who had once been slaves but had been emancipated (libertini)."

INIS-FAIL. INIS-EALGA.

INQUISITION, The: A. D. 1203-1525.
   Origin of the Holy Office.
   St. Dominic and the Dominicans.
   The Episcopal Inquisition.
   The Apostolical or Papal Inquisition.
   The Spanish Inquisition and its terrible rule.
   Estimate of victims.
   Expulsion of Jews and Moors.

"In the earlier ages of the Church, the definition of heresy had been committed to episcopal authority. But the cognisance of heretics and the determination of their punishment remained in the hands of secular magistrates. At the end of the 12th century the wide diffusion of the Albigensian heterodoxy through Languedoc and Northern Italy alarmed the chiefs of Christendom, and furnished the Papacy with a good pretext for extending its prerogatives. Innocent III. in 1203 empowered two French Cistercians, Pierre de Castelnau and Raoul, to preach against the heretics of Provence. In the following year he ratified this commission by a Bull, which censured the negligence and coldness of the bishops, appointed the Abbot of Citeaux Papal delegate in matters of heresy, and gave him authority to judge and punish misbelievers. This was the first germ of the Holy Office as a separate Tribunal. … Being a distinct encroachment of the Papacy upon the episcopal jurisdiction and prerogatives, the Inquisition met at first with some opposition from the bishops. The people for whose persecution it was designed, and at whose expense it carried on its work, broke into rebellion; the first years of its annals were rendered illustrious by the murder of one of its founders, Pierre de Castelnau. He was canonised, and became the first Saint of the Inquisition. … In spite of opposition, the Papal institution took root and flourished. Philip Augustus responded to the appeals of Innocent; and a crusade began against the Albigenses, in which Simon de Montfort won his sinister celebrity. During those bloody wars the Inquisition developed itself as a force of formidable expansive energy. Material assistance to the cause was rendered by a Spanish monk of the Augustine order, who settled in Provence on his way back from Rome in 1206. Domenigo de Guzman, known to universal history as S. Dominic, organised a new militia for the service of the orthodox Church between the years 1215 and 1219. His order, called the Order of the Preachers, was originally designed to repress heresy and confirm the faith by diffusing Catholic doctrine and maintaining the creed in its purity. It consisted of three sections: the Preaching Friars; nuns living in conventual retreat; and laymen, entitled the Third Order of Penitence or the Militia of Christ, who in after years were merged with the Congregation of S. Peter Martyr, and corresponded to the familiars of the Inquisition. Since the Dominicans were established in the heat and passion of a crusade against heresy, by a rigid Spaniard who employed his energies in persecuting misbelievers, they assumed at the outset a belligerent and inquisitorial attitude. Yet it is not strictly accurate to represent S. Dominic himself as the first Grand Inquisitor. {1751} The Papacy proceeded with caution in its design of forming a tribunal dependent on the Holy See and independent of the bishops. Papal Legates with plenipotentiary authority were sent to Languedoc, and decrees were issued against the heretics, in which the Inquisition was rather implied than directly named; nor can I find that S. Dominic, though he continued to be the soul of the new institution until his death, in 1221, obtained the title of Inquisitor. Notwithstanding this vagueness, the Holy Office may be said to have been founded by S. Dominic; and it soon became apparent that the order he had formed was destined to monopolise its functions. … This Apostolical Inquisition was at once introduced into Lombardy, Romagna and the Marches of Treviso. The extreme rigour of its proceedings, the extortions of monks, and the violent resistance offered by the communes, led to some relaxation of its original constitution. More authority had to be conceded to the bishops; and the right of the Inquisitors to levy taxes on the people was modified. Yet it retained its true form of a Papal organ, superseding the episcopal prerogatives, and overriding the secular magistrates, who were bound to execute its biddings. As such it was admitted into Tuscany, and established in Aragon. Venice received it in 1289, with certain reservations that placed its proceedings under the control of Doge and Council. In Languedoc, the country of its birth, it remained rooted at Toulouse and Carcassonne; but the Inquisition did not extend its authority over central and northern France. In Paris its functions were performed by the Sorbonne. Nor did it obtain a footing in England, although the statute 'De Haeretico Comburendo,' passed in 1401 at the instance of the higher clergy, sanctioned the principles on which it existed. … The revival of the Holy Office on a new and far more murderous basis, took place in 1484. We have seen that hitherto there had been two types of inquisition into heresy. The first, which remained in force up to the year 1203, may be called the episcopal. The second was the Apostolical or Dominican: it transferred this jurisdiction from the bishops to the Papacy, who employed the order of S. Dominic for the special service of the tribunal instituted by the Imperial Decrees of Frederick II. The third deserves no other name than Spanish, though, after it had taken shape in Spain, it was transferred to Portugal, applied in all the Spanish and Portuguese colonies, and communicated with some modifications to Italy and the Netherlands. Both the second and the third types of inquisition into heresy were Spanish inventions, patented by the Roman Pontiffs and monopolised by the Dominican order. But the third and final form of the Holy Office in Spain distinguished itself by emancipation from Papal and Royal control, and by a specific organisation which rendered it the most formidable of irresponsible engines in the annals of religious institutions. … Castile had hitherto been free from the pest. But the conditions of that kingdom offered a good occasion for its introduction at the date which I have named. During the Middle Ages the Jews of Castile acquired vast wealth and influence. Few families but felt the burden of their bonds and mortgages. Religious fanaticism, social jealousy, and pecuniary distress exasperated the Christian population; and as early as the year 1391, more than 5,000 Jews were massacred in one popular uprising. The Jews, in fear, adopted Christianity. It is said that in the 15th century the population counted some million of converts—called New Christians, or, in contempt, Marranos: a word which may probably be derived from the Hebrew Maranatha. These converted Jews, by their ability and wealth, crept into high offices of state, obtained titles of aristocracy, and founded noble houses. … It was a Sicilian Inquisitor, Philip Barberis, who suggested to Ferdinand the Catholic the advantage he might secure by extending the Holy Office to Castile. Ferdinand avowed his willingness; and Sixtus IV. gave the project his approval in 1478. But it met with opposition from the gentler-natured Isabella. … Then Isabella yielded; and in 1481 the Holy Office was founded at Seville. It began its work by publishing a comprehensive edict against all New Christians suspected of Judaising, which offence was so constructed as to cover the most innocent observance of national customs. Resting from labour on Saturday; performing ablutions at stated times; refusing to eat pork or puddings made of blood; and abstaining from wine, sufficed to colour accusations of heresy. … Upon the publication of this edict, there was an exodus of Jews by thousands into the fiefs of independent vassals of the crown—the Duke of Medina Sidonia, the Marquis of Cadiz, and the Count of Arcos. All emigrants were 'ipso facto' declared heretics by the Holy Office. During the first year after its foundation, Seville beheld 298 persons burned alive, and 79 condemned to perpetual imprisonment. A large square stage of stone, called the Quemadero, was erected for the execution of those multitudes who were destined to suffer death by hanging or by flame. In the same year, 2,000 were burned and 17,000 condemned to public penitence, while even a larger number were burned in effigy, in other parts of the kingdom. … In 1483 Thomas of Torquemada was nominated Inquisitor General for Castile and Aragon. Under his rule a Supreme Council was established, over which he presided for life. … In 1484 a General Council was held, and the constitution of the Inquisition was established by articles. … The two most formidable features of the Inquisition as thus constituted were the exclusion of the bishops from its tribunal and the secrecy of its procedure. … In the autumn of 1484 the Inquisition was introduced into Aragon; and Saragossa became its headquarters in that State. … The Spanish Inquisition was now firmly grounded. Directed by Torquemada, it began to encroach upon the crown, to insult the episcopacy, to defy the Papacy, to grind the Commons, and to outrage by its insolence the aristocracy. … The Holy Office grew every year in pride, pretensions and exactions. It arrogated to its tribunal crimes of usury, bigamy, blasphemous swearing, and unnatural vice, which appertained by right to the secular courts. It depopulated Spain by the extermination and banishment of at least three million industrious subjects during the first 139 years of its existence. … Torquemada was the genius of evil who created and presided over this foul instrument of human crime and folly. {1752} During his eighteen years of administration, reckoning from 1480 to 1498, he sacrificed, according to Llorente's calculation, above 114,000 victims, of whom 10,220 were burned alive, 6,860 burned in effigy, and 97,000 condemned to perpetual imprisonment or public penitence. He, too, it was who in 1492 compelled Ferdinand to drive the Jews from his dominions. … The edict of expulsion was issued on the last of March. Before the last of July all Jews were sentenced to depart, carrying no gold or silver with them. They disposed of their lands, houses, and goods for next to nothing, and went forth to die by thousands on the shores of Africa and Italy. … The exodus of the Jews was followed in 1502 by a similar exodus of Moors from Castile, and in 1524 by an exodus of Mauresques from Aragon. To compute the loss of wealth and population inflicted upon Spain by these mad edicts would be impossible. … After Torquemada, Diego Deza reigned as second Inquisitor General from 1498 to 1507. In these years, according to the same calculation, 2,592 were burned alive, 896 burned in effigy, 34,952 condemned to prison or public penitence. Cardinal Ximenes de Cisneros followed between 1507 and 1517. The victims of this decade were 3,564 burned alive. … Adrian, Bishop of Tortosa, tutor to Charles V., and afterwards Pope, was Inquisitor General between 1516 and 1525. Castile, Aragon, and Catalonia, at this epoch, simultaneously demanded a reform of the Holy Office from their youthful sovereign. But Charles refused, and the tale of Adrian's administration was 1,620 burned alive, 560 burned in effigy, 21,845 condemned to prison or public penitence. The total, during 43 years, between 1481 and 1525, amounted to 234,526, including all descriptions of condemned heretics. These figures are of necessity vague, for the Holy Office left but meagre records of its proceedings.".

J. A. Symonds, Renaissance in Italy: The Catholic Reaction, chapter 3 (part 1).

      ALSO IN:
      H. C. Lea,
      History of the Inquisition of the Middle Ages.

      W. H. Prescott,
      History of the Reign of Ferdinand and Isabella,
      part 1, chapters 7 and 17.

INSTITUTES OF JUSTINIAN.

"North of the Po, in the country about Milan, dwelt [3d century, B. C.] the great people of the Insubrians, while to the east of these on the Mincio and the Adige lay the Cenomanians; but these tribes, little inclined, seemingly, to make common cause with their countrymen [the Boian and Senonian Gauls] remained neutral in all the hostilities against Rome." But the Insubrians were attacked and subdued, B. C. 223.

INTERDICTS.

"The year of the London Exhibition, and under the auspices of the Emperor Napoleon III., a number of Paris working-men visited the English capital. They were welcomed by a London Committee of artisans, and on this occasion the wish for a closer union between the labourers of different countries was expressed on both sides. Then the Polish insurrection broke out, and masses of London and Paris working-men took steps simultaneously to manifest sympathy with the insurgents. A deputation was again sent over from Paris, and the result of this measure was a resolution to delay preparations for co-operation no longer. For some time the international idea was carefully given prominence in labour circles in various countries, and on September 28th, 1864, a congress of many nations was held in St. Martin's Hall, London, under the presidency of Professor Beesly. A committee was appointed, representing England, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, and Switzerland, for the drawing up of statutes for an International Working Men's Association, whose seat should be London. … It was not long before the International Association became a power which caused alarm to not a few European Governments."

INTERREX.

INTRANSIGENTISTS.

In European politics, the extreme radicals—the uncompromising and irreconcilable factions—are frequently so called.

IONIA.

The Ionian cities on the coast of Asia Minor bore collectively the name Ionia, though no national union was signified by the designation.

IONIAN ISLANDS:
To 1814.
Under Greek, Roman, Byzantine, Venetian and French rule.

   "Acarnania, as a glance at the map will show, is the most
   western part of continental Greece. But in close proximity to
   the mainland there stretch along the west coast a number of
   islands, some of them of considerable area, the history and
   traditions of which are inseparably intertwined with those of
   Hellas. They have long been known as the Ionian Islands,
   deriving the name, in all likelihood, from the sea in which
   they are situated; for their ancient inhabitants were not, so
   far as is known, of Ionic descent.
{1753}
   They are very numerous, but only six of them are of
   any historic importance. The most northerly is Corcyra
   (Corfu), a long, narrow island, which extends like a lofty
   breakwater in front of the coast of Epirus." The other five
   are Paxos (Paxo), Leucadia (Santa Maura), Cephallenia
   (Cephalonia), Ithaca (Thiaki), Zacynthus (Zante), and Cythera
   (Cerigo). "Though not the largest, Corcyra is the most
   populous and important of the islands. It has a place in the
   mythic tradition, and a still greater one in the ascertained
   history, of ancient Hellas.

… With the other islands in the Ionian Sea, Corcyra passed under the dominion of Rome, and subsequently became part of the Eastern Empire. In 540 A. D. the fleet of the Gothic leader Totila ravaged the coasts of the island, but did not capture the city, the fortifications of which had been greatly strengthened by the Romans. Five centuries later the island and its capital fell into the hands of a more formidable invader—the Norman Robert Guiscard, who captured them on his way from Italy to prosecute that invasion of the Byzantine Empire which was at one time so nearly attended with success. The first Norman supremacy did not last long; but in 1144 A. D., Roger, the Norman king of Sicily, took occasion of a rising of the Corcyreans (or, as they now began to be called, the Corfiotes) against the Byzantine Emperor Manuel to introduce a garrison into the city. Four years later Manuel, who was an energetic and warlike prince, laid siege to Corfu, and was assisted by the Venetians. The Norman garrison offered a most determined resistance, but were ultimately obliged to surrender on honourable terms. After the overthrow of the Byzantine emperors, in the early part of the 13th century, Corfu, with the other Ionian Islands, became part of the dominions of the Venetian republic, and so continued, with brief intervals, for nearly 500 years. The Venetian rule was on the whole favourable to the material prosperity of the island: it was admirably cultivated, and became the centre of a large commerce. Unlike most of the other possessions of Venice in the eastern Mediterranean, Corfu never fell into the hands of the Turks. They overran and ravaged the island in 1537, carrying off, according to their custom, many of the young women and children as slaves; and they besieged the capital, but its fortifications had been much strengthened by the Venetians, and the garrison was able to offer a successful resistance. In 1716 another memorable siege [see TURKS: A. D. 1714-1718] took place, during the war in which Sultan Achmet III. engaged with Austria and the Venetian republic. A large Ottoman army under Kara Mustapha beleaguered Corfu; but the garrison was commanded by a distinguished soldier, Count Schulemburg, who baffled an the efforts of the Turks, and at last compelled them to withdraw to their ships after they had lost 15,000 men. By the Treaty of Campo Formio, dictated in 1797 to Austria by Napoleon after his marvellous Italian campaign, the Ionian Islands were transferred to France [see FRANCE: A. D. 1797 (MAY-OCTOBER)], the rest of the Venetian territories falling to the share of Austria. The French garrisons were, however, expelled in 1799 by a Russo-Turkish expedition, and the islands constituted a republic [called the Republic of the Seven Islands]. But in 1807, when the course of events had changed Russia into an ally of the French emperor, the latter again obtained possession of the islands under the Treaty of Tilsit. The English, being masters of the Mediterranean, soon drove the French out of all the islands except Corfu. This was under French rule till 1814; and it is only fair to say that they did much for the improvement of the island, constructing some substantial roads in the interior. In 1814, during the general cataclysm of the gigantic empire of Napoleon, the French garrison was driven out of the island after a gallant resistance, and in the following year the Ionian Islands were reconstituted a republic under British protection and supremacy."

IONIAN ISLANDS: A. D. 1815-1862.
   The British protectorate.
   Its relinquishment.
   Annexation to the kingdom of Greece.

   "These seven islands [the Ionian] were constituted a sort of
   republic or commonwealth by the Treaty of Vienna [1815]. But
   they were consigned to the protectorate of Great Britain;
   which had the right of maintaining garrisons in them. Great
   Britain used to appoint a Lord High Commissioner, who was
   generally a military man, and whose office combined the duties
   of Commander-in-Chief with those of Civil Governor. The little
   republic had a Senate of six members and a Legislative
   Assembly of forty members. It seems almost a waste of words to
   say that the islanders were not content with British
   government. For good or ill, the Hellenes, wherever they are
   found, are sure to be filled with an impassioned longing for
   Hellenic independence. The people of the Ionian Islands were
   eager to be allowed to enter into one system with the kingdom
   of Greece. It was idle to try to amuse them by telling them
   they constituted an independent republic, and were actually
   governing themselves, … while they saw themselves presided
   over by an English Lord High Commissioner who was also the
   Commander-in-Chief of a goodly British army garrisoned in
   their midst. … It is certain that they got a great deal of
   material benefit from the presence of the energetic
   road-making British power. But they wanted to be, above all
   things, Greek. … Sir Edward Bulwer Lytton [who was
   then—1858—Secretary for the Colonies in the British
   Government] … thought the causes of the complaints and the
   dissatisfaction were well worth looking into, and he resolved
   on sending a statesman of distinction out to the islands to
   make the enquiry. Mr. Gladstone had been for some years out of
   office. He had been acting as an independent supporter of Lord
   Palmerston's Government. It occurred to Sir Edward Bulwer
   Lytton that Mr. Gladstone was the man best fitted to conduct
   the enquiry. … He offered, therefore, to Mr. Gladstone the
   office of Lord High Commissioner Extraordinary to the Ionian
   Islands, and Mr. Gladstone accepted the offer and its duties."
   Arriving in Corfu in November, 1858, "he called together the
   Senate, and endeavoured to satisfy them as to the real nature
   of his mission. He explained that he had not come there to
   discuss the propriety of maintaining the English protectorate,
   but only to enquire into the manner in which the just claims
   of the Ionian Islands might be secured by means of that
   protectorate."
{1754}
   But "the population of the islands persisted in regarding him,
   not as the commissioner of a Conservative English Government,
   but as 'Gladstone the Philhellene.' He was received wherever
   he went with the honours due to a liberator. … The visit of
   Mr. Gladstone, whatever purpose it may have been intended to
   fulfil, had the effect of making them [the Ionians] agitate
   more strenuously than ever for annexation to the kingdom of
   Greece. Their wish, however, was not to be granted yet. A new
   Lord High Commissioner was sent out after Mr. Gladstone's
   return. … Still … the idea held ground that sooner or
   later Great Britain would give up the charge of the islands. A
   few years after, an opportunity occurred for making the
   cession. The Greeks got rid quietly of their heavy German king
   Otho [see GREECE: A. D. 1830-1862], and on the advice chiefly
   of England they elected as sovereign a brother of the Princess
   of Wales. … The second son of the King of Denmark was made
   King of Greece; and Lord John Russell, on behalf of the
   English Government, then [1862] handed over to the kingdom of
   Greece the islands of which Great Britain had had so long to
   bear the unwilling charge."

IONIC (PAN-IONIC) AMPHIKTYONY.

"There existed at the commencement of historical Greece, in 776 B. C., besides the Ionians in Attica and the Cyclades, twelve Ionian cities of note on or near the coast of Asia Minor, besides a few others less important. Enumerated from south to north, they stand—Milêtus, Myûs, Priênê, Samos, Ephesus, Kolophôn, Lebedus, Teôs, Erythræ, Chios, Klazomenæ, Phôkæa. … Milêtus, Myûs and Priênê were situated on or near the productive plain of the river Mæander; while Ephesus was in like manner planted near the mouth of the Kaïster … : Kolophon is only a very few miles north of the same river. Possessing the best means of communication with the interior, these towns seem to have thriven with greater rapidity than the rest; and they, together with the neighbouring island of Samos, constituted in early times the strength of the Pan-Ionic Amphiktyony. The situation of the sacred precinct of Poseidôn (where this festival was celebrated) on the north side of the promontory of Mykalê, near Priênê, and between Ephesus and Milêtus, seems to show that these towns formed the primitive centre to which the other Ionian settlements became gradually aggregated. For it was by no means a centrical site with reference to all the twelve. … Moreover, it seems that the Pan-Ionic festival [the celebration of which constituted the Amphiktyony], though still formally continued, had lost its importance before the time of Thucydidês, and had become practically superseded by the more splendid festival of the Ephesia, near Ephesus, where the cities of Ionia found a more attractive place of meeting."

IOWA: A. D. 1834-1838. Joined to Michigan Territory; then to Wisconsin; then separately organized.

IOWA: A. D. 1845.
Admission into the Union, with Florida for a slave-state
counterweight.

IRACA.

IRAK.

At the time of the Mahometan conquest, "Chaldea and Babylonia occupied the rich region south of the river Tigris, watered by the Euphrates, and were known as Irak of the Arabs, as distinguished from Irak of the Persians, which corresponded somewhat nearly to the modern kingdom of Persia. … Irak of Arabia was at this time under the jurisdiction of Persia, and the wandering Arabs who roamed over the broad desert were tributary to Persia when they pitched their tents on the eastern side, and to Rome when sojourning on the side towards Syria; though they were at no time trusty allies or subjects. The region of Irak contains many relics of a former civilization; there are the mounds that mark the site of old Babylon."

"Between the valley of the Indus and the land of the Euphrates and Tigris, bounded on the south by the ocean and the Persian Gulf, on the north by the broad steppes which the Oxus and Jaxartes vainly attempt to fertilise, by the Caspian Sea and the valley of the Aras [embracing modern Persia, Baluchistan, Afghanistan and Russian Turkestan], lies the table-land of Iran. Rising to an average height of 4,000 feet above the level of the sea, it forms an oblong, the length of which from east to west is something more than 1,500 miles. … As far back as our information extends, we find the table-land of Iran occupied by a group of nations closely related to each other, and speaking dialects of the same language."

   Physical or material. (Red)
   Ethnological. (Blue)
   Social and political. (Green)
   Intellectual, moral and religious. (Tan)
   Foreign. (Black)

(Blue)
   In the history of the two islands which form the United
   Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland there is a contrast of
   fortune which nothing will account for save unexplainable
   qualities of race. The Celtic warmth prevailing on one side of
   St. George's Channel has worked ill in politics as against the
   Teutonic coolness on the other; and it is probable that no
   change of circumstances or conditions would have altered
   greatly the relations of the two peoples. In their situation
   as close neighbors, it was inevitable that one should dominate
   the other. It seems to have been no less inevitable that the
   mastery should settle where it did; and simply by the force of
   more masterful qualities in the English race.

(Red)
   If those who dwelt nearer to the mainland of Europe held
   advantages over those of the farther island, they took nothing
   from them in the earlier generations, but were overleaped and
   passed by when the first movements of Christianity and
   Christian culture into the West began; and it was Ireland, not
   England, for three centuries, which nourished the purest faith
   and the highest civilization of the age. If other advantages
   belonged to the island which was richer in iron and coal, the
   English were not helped by them to an ascendancy which they
   had won before the mining of their riches began.

(Green)
   In the early years of the eleventh century, when most of the
   island had submitted to the rule of Brian Born, and when he
   had shaken the grasp of the intruding Danes on the seaports of
   the eastern and southern coasts, the state and prospects of
   Ireland would have seemed to be well-nigh as good as those of
   England at the same time. But that appearance vanished soon,
   and it never returned. Among the English, the tendency toward
   national union grew stronger with every generation; among the
   Irish it got no growth. The political genius of the race,
   remarkable to the present day in municipal politics, but
   rarely successful in the greater political arenas, has always
   been tribal or provincial in its range, and wanting in a
   national comprehensiveness.

(Tan)
   The Norman conquest of England was helpful to the
   consolidation of an English kingdom. The Anglo-Norman conquest
   of Ireland occurring a century later, promoted, on the
   contrary, the divisions and disorders of the island. It
   brought a new faction into Irish quarrels, instead of a new
   sovereign to extinguish them. It was complete enough to forbid
   the growth of order from any native root of influence or
   authority, but not complete enough to carry order with itself.
   In the full sense of the term it was never a conquest. It was
   rather a persistent invasion, continued and repeated through
   more than five centuries. In every generation it inflamed anew
   the fierce animosity which an incomplete conquest will not
   suffer to die out, until the very descendants of the older
   intruders were infected with the native hatred of their
   later-coming kindred. After four hundred years of inconclusive
   conflict, the English were hardly nearer to mastery, the Irish
   hardly nearer to submission, than at first.

Then arose between them a new difference to embitter their antagonism. The Reformation of religion was accepted by one race as naturally as it was rejected by the other. But Protestantism under English patronage assumed a more hateful aspect in Irish eyes, and Irishmen as Papists became doubly odious to the English mind. So political hostilities and religious enmities fomented one another, from that time, while the primitive antagonism of race gave energy to both.

Under Cromwell and under William of Orange the subjugation was completed at last in the spirit of a Protestant crusade, and used as crusading victories have been wont to be used. The triumphant Church, planting its strong settlements in the land, assumed to itself all civil and political rights. Every office and every honorable profession were closed against the adherents of the defeated faith; its ministrations were forbidden; its priests were expelled.

(Green)
   But this was not all. As British commerce grew and British
   industries were built up, they contributed yet another to the
   malign confederacy of passions which oppressed the Irish
   people. The merchant, the manufacturer, the landowner and the
   farmer, on the English side, were banded by common jealousies
   to suppress competition in Ireland. They hindered the
   improvement of its resources and paralyzed its energies by
   atrocious legislation. They reduced its population to
   dependence on the most restricted production, leaving little
   except husbandry for a vocation, and that under grinding
   terms. They created by such measures a nation of peasants, as
   poor and as helpless as serfs, living wretchedly on precarious
   holdings of soil, at the mercy of landlords who regarded them
   with dislike and contempt.

It was under such crushing conditions as these that Ireland remained until near the end of the eighteenth century, always hating the oppressors, often resisting the oppression, but weakly or rashly, without judgment or enduring resolution. Then began a great change in the tenor of her history. Two influences of the age came into play, one acting on the conscience of the English people, the other on the mind and temper of the Irish. One has worked to the yielding of justice, the other to the firmer pressing of demands for it.

At this day it may be said that oppression in Ireland, whether religious or political, is wholly and forever extinct; that whatever remains in dispute between Celt and Saxon is from questions such as rise in every nation, and that the bitterness which stays in Anglo-Irish politics is the lingering rancor of a hateful past, not quickly to be extinguished.

"Ireland was known by many names from very early ages. Thus, in the Celtic it was called Inis-Fall, the isle of destiny; Inis-Ealga, the noble island; Fiodh-Inis, the woody island; and Eire, Fodhla, and Banba. By the Greeks it was called Ierne, probably from the vernacular name of Eire, by inflection Erin; whence, also, no doubt, its Latin name of Juverna; Plutarch calls it Ogygia, or the ancient land; the early Roman writers generally called it Hibernia, probably from its Iberian inhabitants, and the later Romans and mediæval writers Scotia, and sometimes Hibernia; and finally its name of Ireland was formed by the Anglo-Normans from its native name of Eire."

      See, also,
      SCOTLAND: THE NAME;
      and IRELAND: TRIBES OF EARLY CELTIC INHABITANTS.

"The first people … of whose existence in Ireland we can be said to know anything are commonly asserted to have been of Turanian origin, and are known as 'Formorians.' As far as we can gather, they were a dark, low-browed, stunted race, although, oddly enough, the word Formorian in early Irish legend is always used as synonymous with the word giant. They were, at any rate, a race of utterly savage hunters and fishermen, ignorant of metal, of pottery, possibly even of the use of fire; using the stone hammers or hatchets of which vast numbers remain in Ireland to this day, and specimens of which may be seen in every museum. How long they held possession no one can tell, although Irish philologists believe several local Irish names to date from this almost inconceivably remote epoch. Perhaps if we think of the Lapps of the present day, and picture them wandering about the country, … it will give us a fairly good notion of what these very earliest inhabitants of Ireland were probably like.

Next followed a Belgic colony, known as the Firbolgs, who overran the country, and appear to have been of a somewhat higher ethnological grade, although, like the Formorians, short, dark, and swarthy. Doubtless the latter were not entirely exterminated to make way for the Firbolgs, any more than the Firbolgs to make way for the Danaans, Milesians, and other successive races; such wholesale exterminations being, in fact, very rare, especially in a country which like Ireland seems specially laid out by kindly nature for the protection of a weaker race struggling in the grip of a stronger one. After the Firbolgs, though I should be sorry to be obliged to say how long after, fresh and more important tribes of invaders began to appear. The first of these were the Tuatha-da-Danaans, who arrived under the leadership of their king Nuad, and took possession of the east of the country. These Tuatha-da-Danaans are believed to have been large, blue-eyed people of Scandinavian origin, kinsmen and possibly ancestors of those Norsemen or 'Danes' who in years to come were destined to work such woe and havoc upon the island. … What their end was no man can tell you, save that they, too, were, in their turn, conquered by the Milesians or 'Scoti,' who next overran the country, giving to it their own name' of Scotia, by which name it was known down to the end of the twelfth century, and driving the earlier settlers before them, who thereupon fled to the hills, and took refuge in the forests, whence they emerged, doubtless, with unpleasant effect upon their conquerors, as another defeated race did upon their conquerors in later days."

"On the northern coast dwelt the Veniconii, in the modern county of Donegal, and the Robogdii, in Londonderry and Antrim. Adjoining to the Veniconii, westward, were the Erdini or Erpeditani, and next to them the Magnatæ, all in Donegal. Farther south were the Auteri, in Sligo; the Gangani, in Mayo; and the Velibori, or Ellebri, in the district between Galway and the Shannon. The south-west part of the island, with a great portion of the interior, was inhabited by the Iverni, who gave name not only to the great river but to the whole island, and who may, perhaps, be considered as the aboriginal inhabitants. … In the modern counties of Waterford and Tipperary, Ptolemy places a tribe called the Usdiæ or Vodiæ, according to the variations of the manuscripts. In the modern county of Wexford dwelt the Brigantes; and northward from them were the Coriondi, in Wicklow; the Menapii, in Dublin; the Cauci, on the banks of the Boyne; the Blanii, or Eblani, on the bay of Dundalk; the Voluntii, in Down; and the Darini, bordering on the Robogdii, in Antrim. Three, at least, of the tribes who held the eastern coast of Ireland, the Brigantes, the Menapii, and the Voluntii, were, no doubt, colonies from the opposite shores of Britain."

IRELAND:
   5th-8th Centuries.
   The coming of St. Patrick and the Christianizing of the Island.
   Its Schools and its Missionaries.

"Lying on the extreme verge of Europe, the last land then known to the adventurous Scandinavian, and beyond which fable had scarcely projected its dreams, it was in the fifth century since the Redemption that Christianity reached them. Patricius, a Celt of Gaul it is said, carried into Erin as a slave by one of the Pagan kings, some of whom made military expeditions to North and South Britain, and even to the Alps and the Loire, became the Apostle of Ireland. Patrick escaped from slavery, was educated at Rome, but in mature manhood insisted on returning to the place of his bondage, to preach Christianity to a people who seem to have exercised over the imagination of the Apostle the same spell of sympathy which in later times subdued strangers of many nations. He was received with extraordinary favour, and before his death nearly the whole island had embraced Christianity. The coming of Patrick took place in the year of our Lord 432, and he laboured for sixty years after; planting churches and schools, rooting out the practices and monuments of Paganism, and disciplining the people in religion and humanity. It was a noble service, and it impressed itself for ever on the memory of the race whom he served. … In the succeeding century the Church which he planted became possessed by a passion which it has never entirely lost, the passion for missionary enterprise. Its fathers projected the conversion of the fierce natives of the Continent to the new creed of humility and self-denial, and by the same humane agents which Patrick had employed in Ireland—persuasion and prayer; a task as generous as any of which history has preserved the record. In this epoch Ireland may, without exaggeration, be said to have been a Christian Greece, the nurse of science and civilisation. The Pagan annals of the country are overlaid by fable and extravagance, but the foundation of Oxford or the mission of St. Augustine does not lie more visibly within the boundaries of legitimate history than the Irish schools, which attracted students from Britain and Gaul, and sent out missionaries through the countries now known as Western Europe.

Among the forests of Germany, on the desert shores of the Hebrides, in the camp of Alfred, at the court of Charlemagne, in the capital of the Christian world, where Michelet describes their eloquence as charming the counsellors of the Emperor, there might be found the fervid preachers and subtle doctors of the Western Isle. It was then that the island won the title still fondly cherished, 'insula sanctorum'. The venerable Bede describes nobles and students at this epoch as quitting the island of Britain to seek education in Ireland, and he tells us that the hospitable Celts found them teachers, books, food and shelter at the cost of the nation. The school at Armagh, where St. Patrick had established the primacy of the Church, is reputed to have attracted 7,000 students, and there were schools at Lismore, Bangor, Clonmacnoise, and Mayo, which rivalled it in importance. Monasteries multiplied in a still greater number, and with results as beneficial. … Writers who are little disposed to make any other concession to Ireland admit that this was a period of extraordinary intellectual activity, and of memorable services to civilization. The arts, as far as they were the handmaidens of religion, attained a surprising development. The illuminated copies of the Scripture, the croziers and chalices which have come down to us from those days, the Celtic crosses and Celtic harps, the bells and tabernacles, are witnesses of a distinct and remarkable national culture. The people were still partly shepherds and husbandmen, partly soldiers, ruled by the Chief, the Brehon, and the Priest. … After this generous work had obtained a remarkable success, it was disturbed by contests with the Sea Kings. … The Cathedral and city of St. Patrick, the schools of Bangor, the cloisters of Clonmacnoise, and many more seats of piety and learning, fell into their hands. The sacred vessels of the altar were turned into drinking cups, and the missals, blazing with precious stones, were torn from their costly bindings to furnish ornaments for their sword hilts, and gifts to the Scalds who sang their achievements. These pagans burned monasteries, sacked churches, and murdered women and priests, for plunder or sport. … Before the dangers and troubles of a long internecine war, the School of the West gradually dwindled away, and it had fallen into complete decay before Brian Borhoime, at the beginning of the 11th century, finally subdued the invaders."

Sir C. G. Duffy, A Bird's Eye View of Irish History, revised edition, pages 7-12 (or chapter 4, in "Young Ireland").

"Ireland, that virgin island on which proconsul never set foot, which never knew either the orgies or the exactions of Rome, was also the only place in the world of which the Gospel took possession without bloodshed. … From the moment that this Green Erin, situated at the extremity of the known world, had seen the sun of faith rise upon her, she had vowed herself to it with an ardent and tender devotion which became her very life. The course of ages has not interrupted this; the most bloody and implacable of persecutions has not shaken it; the defection of all northern Europe has not led her astray; and she maintains still, amid the splendours and miseries of modern civilisation and Anglo-Saxon supremacy, an inextinguishable centre of faith, where survives, along with the completest orthodoxy, that admirable purity of manners which no conqueror and no adversary has ever been able to dispute, to equal, or to diminish. … The Irish communities, joined by the monks from Gaul and Rome, whom the example of Patrick had drawn upon his steps, entered into rivalry with the great monastic schools of Gaul. They explained Ovid there; they copied Virgil; they devoted themselves especially to Greek literature; they drew back from no inquiry, from no discussion. … A characteristic still more distinctive of the Irish monks, as of all their nation, was the imperious necessity of spreading themselves without, of seeking or carrying knowledge and faith afar, and of penetrating into the most distant regions to watch or combat paganism. This monastic nation, therefore, became the missionary nation 'par excellence'."

ALSO IN: T. Moore, History of Ireland, chapter 10-14 (volume 1), and chapter 18 (volume 2).

"The people popularly known in our history as Danes comprised swarms from various countries in the north of Europe, from Norway, Sweden, Zealand, Jutland, and, in general, from all the shores and islands of the Baltic. … In the Irish annals they are variously called Galls, or foreigners; Geinti, or Gentiles; and Lochlanni, or inhabitants of Lochlann, or Lake-land, that is, Norway; and they are distinguished as the Finn Galls, or White Foreigners, who are supposed to have been the inhabitants of Norway; and the Dubh Galls, or Black Foreigners, who were probably the people of Jutland, and of the southern shores of the Baltic Sea. A large tract of country north of Dublin still retains the name of the former. … The Danes never obtained the dominion of Ireland as they did that of England."

"Ireland was as yet [in the 9th century] a more tempting prey for the pirates than even Gaul. It was at the monasteries that these earlier raids were mainly aimed; and nowhere were the monastic houses so many and so rich. It was in these retreats indeed, sheltered as men deemed by their holiness from the greed of the spoiler, that the whole wealth of the country was stored; and the gold work and jewelry of their shrines, their precious chalices, the silver-bound horn which king or noble dedicated at their altars, the curiously-wrought covering of their mass-books, the hoard of their treasure-chests, fired the imagination of the northern marauders as the treasures of the Incas fired that of the soldiers of Spain. News spread fast up dale and fiord how wealth such as men never dreamed of was heaped up in houses guarded only by priests and shavelings who dared not draw sword. The Wikings had long been drawing closer to this tempting prey. From the coast of Norway a sail of twenty-four hours with a fair wind brings the sailor in sight of the Shetlands; Shetlands and Orkneys furnished a base for the advance of the pirates along the western shores of Britain, where they found a land like their own in the dales and lochs of Ross and Argyll, and where the names of Caithness and Sutherland tell of their conquest and settlement on the mainland; while the physical appearance of the people still records their colonization of the Hebrides. Names such as that of the Orm's Head mark their entrance at last into the Irish Channel."

"The 9th century was the period of Danish plunder, and of settlement along the coasts and in convenient places for purposes of plunder. Towards the latter end of this century the Irish in Ireland, like the English in England, succeeded in driving out the enemy, and there was peace for forty years. Then came the Danes again, but bent more definitely than before on permanent settlement; and their most notable work was the establishment of the Danish kingdom of Dublin, with its centre at one of their old haunts, Ath Cliath on the Liffey, where the city of Dublin was built by them. The establishment of this kingdom dates from the year 919, and its extent may be traced to-day as conterminous with the diocese of Dublin, extending from Holmpatrick and Skerries on the north, to Arklow and Wicklow on the south, and inland no farther than seven or eight miles to Leixlip. Until quite recently this was also the district over which extended the jurisdiction of the Lord Mayor of Dublin as Admiral of the Port of Dublin. On College Green used to be held the assembly of the freemen of the kingdom of Dublin, while the chiefs took their seats on the steep hill that once stood where St. Andrew's Church now stands, opposite to 'the old house on College Green,' which is so dear to the national aspirations of the modern Irishmen. There the Danes held their parliaments, agreeing on laws, consenting to judgments and contracts, feasting and making merry, just as the old Irish held their parliaments at Tara, Carman, Armagh, and elsewhere. Nor was Dublin the only Danish city. Limerick, Cork, Waterford, Wexford, all became the centres of petty Danish kingdoms, active in commerce, skilful for those times, in domestic architecture, and with political and legislative ideas identical in their essence with those of the people among whom they settled. In the course of the 10th century the Danes nominally became, for the most part, converts to Christianity. But it appears that they derived their Christianity mainly from English sources; and when they began to organize their Church, they did so after the Roman manner, and in connection with the see of Canterbury. It was not, however, till after the wars of Brian Born that Danish Christianity became either very real or at all organized."

By a revolution which occurred in the year 1000, Malachy II. of the dynasty which had reigned long at Tara, was deposed from the chief sovereignty, and Brian Boromh or Boru, of the royal family of Munster, who had fought his way up to masterful power, became the Ardrigh or over-king of Ireland. In 1014 Brian was called upon to face a great combination which the Danes of Dublin had effected with their fellow Northmen, including those of Denmark, Norway, Scotland and all the isles. It was the Danish intention now to accomplish completely the conquest of Ireland and bring their long struggle with its Celtic inhabitants to an effectual close, King Brian and his countrymen made equal exertions on their side to meet the attack, and the great battle of Clontarf, fought on Good Friday of the year 1014, gave them a decisive victory. "Clontarf, the lawn or meadow of bulls, stretches along the crescent-shaped north strand of Dublin harbor, from the ancient salmon weir at Ballyboght bridge, towards the promontory of Howth. Both horns of the crescent were held by the enemy, and communicated with his ships: the inland point terminating in the roofs of Dublin, and the seaward marked by the lion-like head of Howth. The meadow land between sloped gently upward and inward from the beach, and for the myriad duels which formed the ancient battle, no field could present less positive vantage ground to combatants on either side. The invading force had possession of both wings, so that Brian's army, which had first encamped at Kilmainham, must have crossed the Liffey higher up, and marched round by the present Drumcondra in order to reach the appointed field. The day seems to have been decided on by formal challenge. … The forces on both sides could not have fallen short of 20,000 men. … The utmost fury was displayed on all sides. … Hardly a nobly born man escaped, or sought to escape. The ten hundred in armor, and 3,000 others of the enemy, with about an equal number of the men of Ireland, lay dead upon the field. One division of the enemy were, towards sunset, retreating to their ships, when Brodar the Viking, perceiving the tent of Brian, standing apart, without a guard, and the aged king on his knees before the Crucifix, rushed in, cut him down with a single blow, and then continued his flight. … The deceased hero took his place at once in history, national and foreign. … The fame of the event went out through all nations. The chronicles of Wales, of Scotland, and of Man; the annals of Ademar and Marianus; the Sagas of Denmark and the Isles, all record the event. … 'Brian's battle,' as it is called in the Sagas, was, in short, such a defeat as prevented any general northern combination for the subsequent invasion of Ireland. Not that the country was entirely free from their attacks till the end of the 11th century; but, from the day of Clontarf forward, the long cherished Northern idea of a conquest of Ireland seems to have been gloomily abandoned by that indomitable people."

   "Ireland was now [immediately before Strongbow's conquest]
   divided into four confederations of tribes. The O'Neils held
   Ulidia, which is now called Ulster; the O'Connors Conacia, or
   Connaught; the O'Briens and the M'Carthys Mononia, or Munster;
   and the Macmurroughs Lagenia, or Leinster—all under the
   paramount but often-disputed rule of a branch of the Ulster
   O'Neils. The royal demesne of Meath, the appanage of the
   Ulster family, which included Westmeath, Longford, and a part
   of King's County, was sometimes counted a fifth kingdom. In
   the wild north, O'Neil, O'Donnel, O'Kane, O'Hara, O'Sheel,
   O'Carrol, were mighty names.
{1758}
   On the northern-most peninsula, where the Atlantic runs into
   Lough Foyle and Lough Swilly, O'Dogherty reigned supreme. In
   Connaught, O'Rourke, O'Reilly, O'Kelly, O'Flaherty, O'Malley,
   O'Dowd, were lords. In Meath and Leinster, MacGeogeghan,
   O'Farrell, O'Connor, O'Moore, O'Brennan, Macmurrough, ruled.
   In Munster, by the western shore, MacCarthy More held sway.
   MacCarthy Reagh swayed the south, by the pleasant waters of
   Cork Bay. O'Sullivan Beare was lord of the fair promontory
   between Bantry Bay and Kenmare River. O'Mahony reigned by
   roaring Water Bay. O'Donoghue was chieftain by the haunted
   Killarney Lakes. MacMahon ruled north of the Shannon. O'Loglin
   looked on Galway Bay. All Ireland, with the exception of a few
   seaport towns where the Danes had settled, was in the hands of
   Irish chiefs of old descent and famous lineage. They
   quarrelled amongst themselves as readily and as fiercely as if
   they had been the heads of so many Greek states. The Danes had
   been their Persians; their Romans were now to come."

"The conquest of Ireland is among the most important episodes in the reign of Henry II. … There were reasons, besides the mere lust of conquest, why an English king should desire to reduce Ireland. It had given harbours and recruits to the Northmen on their expeditions; Irish soldiers had fought at Brunanbeorh [or Brunnanburgh] against Athelstane; English exiles, like the sons of Harold, repeatedly fled to the island, and awaited the opportunity of reprisals upon their own government. Irish pirates infested the English coasts, and carried off prisoners, whom they sold as slaves. Accordingly, William the Conqueror had meditated subjugating Ireland, if he lived two years longer; William Rufus once declared, as he stood on the coast of Wales, that he would bridge St. George's Channel with a fleet of ships. But it was reserved for John of Salisbury to obtain from his intimate friend, the English pope, Adrian IV., a grant of Ireland to the English crown [by the Bull 'Laudabilitur'] as a hereditary fief (A. D. 1154). … Nevertheless, the difficulty of invading Ireland seemed greater than any profit likely to result from it. The king's council opposed the enterprise; and for some years the project was suffered to sleep. But the wretched disorders of Irish politics invited the invader." Diarmaid MacMurchad, king of Leinster, having been driven from his dominions, "repaired to the court of Henry II. in Aquitaine. The offer to hold Leinster, if Henry would reinstate him, as an English fief, procured Diarmaid free quarters in Bristol, to which he speedily returned, and letters patent authorizing any English subject to assist him. Diarmaid published these, and promised large rewards in land to those who would help him to win back his kingdom. The most powerful ally whom Diarmaid's offers attracted was Richard de Clare, surnamed Strongbow, earl of Pembroke, and distant cousin to the king. … Three other adventurers were enlisted. Two of them, Robert Fitz-Stephen and Maurice Fitz-Gerald, were sons, by different fathers, of Nest, a Welsh princess; the third was Maurice de Prendergast." In May, 1169, Fitz-Stephen, with a small following, crossed the channel and captured Wexford. Some other successes soon enabled Diarmaid to make peace with his enemies and recover his kingdom, even before Strongbow's expedition had left Wales. "Diarmaid was reinstated, and English subjects had no authority to carry on war on their own account in Ireland. Strongbow accordingly went to Normandy, and asked permission to push the advantages gained. Obtaining only an ambiguous answer from the king, he determined to consider it in his favour, and went back into Wales to prepare an expedition. In May, A. D. 1170, he sent over Raymond le Gros, Fitz-Stephen's half nephew, as his precursor." Raymond defeated the Irish with great slaughter, in a battle near Waterford, and savagely murdered seventy prisoners. "In August, A. D. 1170, as Strongbow was preparing to embark, he received an explicit order from the king not to proceed. Quietly disregarding it, he crossed with a little army of 1,200 men, out of whom 200 were knights. The storm of Waterford was his first exploit; and it illustrates the Irish architecture of the times, that the city walls were trenched by cutting away the wooden props of a house that was built into them. The frightful carnage of the storm was succeeded by the earl's marriage with Eva [daughter of King Diarmaid], who brought a kingdom as her dower. Then the united forces marched upon Dublin." The Danish city was treacherously stormed in the midst of a negotiation, and "the inhabitants experienced the worst miseries of the conquered. Hasculf [the Danish or Norse governor], and Asgall, king of the Northmen, escaped on board some small vessels to their countrymen in the Orkneys." The next year Hasculf reappeared with 60 ships from the Orkneys and Norway and laid siege to Dublin. He was defeated, taken prisoner and killed; but another fleet soon arrived and Dublin was again under siege. Reduced to a desperate strait, the small garrison sallied and routed the besiegers; but meantime Strongbow had lost ground elsewhere and Dublin and Waterford were the only possessions he retained. The anger of King Henry at his disobedience caused many of his followers to desert him, and he soon found it necessary to make peace with his offended sovereign. Crossing over to England, he succeeded in winning the royal pardon, and Henry returned to Ireland with him, to assist in the completing of the conquest. They were accompanied by a fleet of 400 ships and some 4,000 men. The appearance of the king was followed by a general submission of the Irish princes, and he made a royal progress to Cashel, where, in 1172, a synod was held to effect the Church reforms which were, ostensibly, the chief object of the conquest. "The court held at Lismore to establish order among the English settlers is better evidence than any synod of the real objects of the conquest. The country was partially distributed among Norman nobles; but as the English conquest of Ireland, more rapid than the Norman of England, had been effected by fewer men, and was more insecure, the changes in the property and laws of the nation were proportionately smaller. Meath, as the appanage of royalty, of course accrued to the English crown, and Henry assigned the whole of it to Hugh de Lacy, whom he made justiciary of the realm and governor of Dublin. The object of this enormous grant, no doubt, was to balance Strongbow's power. {1759} The families of Desmond, Ormond, and Vernon received other estates. But the number of those invested was small. … The slightness of the change, no doubt, mainly contributed to the readiness with which the supremacy of the English crown was accepted. In April, A. D. 1172, Henry was able to return to England, leaving only Ulster behind him nominally unsubdued. A series of petty wars between Irish chiefs and Norman nobles soon broke out. The precarious nature of the English dominion became manifest; and Henry was forced to publish the papal grant of Ireland, which he had hitherto suppressed. At last, in A. D. 1175, Roderic O'Connor [king of Connaught, and previously recognized over-king of Ireland] made a treaty with the English crown, and agreed to render homage and submission, and a tribute of every tenth hide, in return for royal rights in his own kingdom of Connaught. At the same time, the limits of the English pale, as it was afterwards called, were defined. This district, which was immediately subject to the king of England and his barons, comprised Dublin with its appurtenances, Meath, Leinster, and the country from Waterford to Dungarvon. … From the English point of view, the kings of England were henceforth lords-paramount of Ireland, with the fee of the soil vested in them, and all Irish princes in future were no more than tenants-in-chief. From the Irish point of view, the English kings were nothing more than military suzerains in the districts outside the pale."

C. H. Pearson, History of England during the Early and Middle Ages, volume 1, chapter 30.

      W. A. O'Conor,
      History of the Irish People,
      book 2, chapters 1-2.

      F. P. Barnard, editor,
      Strongbow's Conquest of Ireland:
      From Contemporary Writers.

"The feudal system as established in Ireland differed in important respects from that existing in England. It is usual for Irish writers to attribute much of the sufferings of Ireland to the misgovernment of England and the introduction of feudalism, whereas most of these evils may be referred rather to English non-government and to the peculiar anomalies of the Irish feudal system. The feudal system as introduced into Ireland, like most other institutions imported from England, was altered in such a manner as to retain all its evils, and lose all its advantages. The Crown in Ireland possessed no power of controlling its vassals. … In Ireland there were no manor or valuable estates that the Crown could appropriate—the entire country had to be conquered; and as the Crown did not assist in the conquest, it received no part of the spoils. Thus we find the Crown had absolutely no demesnes of its own, and, being deprived of any military force of its own, it had to rely upon such of the great feudal vassals as might remain loyal for the purpose of crushing those who might be in rebellion. The inevitable result of this policy was to kindle a civil war and excite personal feuds in the attempt to maintain order. … We have thus a feudal system, in which the Crown is powerless to fulfil its duties, yet active in preventing the greater nobles from exercising that influence which might have secured a reasonable degree of order. The whole energy of the nobles was turned away from government to war; and lest they should become local potentates, they were allowed to degenerate into local tyrants. But what, meanwhile, had become of the Irish nation? As the feudal system ignored their existence, we have permitted them to fall out of our view; but they still existed, and still were politically independent. The invaders had occupied the flat country, suitable for the operation of their forces, and the original inhabitants had retired into either the mountainous districts, impassable to cavalry, or into districts protected by the bogs, and difficult of access; nay, even in some parts of the island, where the Normans were not in force, they had re-occupied large portions of the open country. They did not retire as disorganised fugitives, but the tribes retreated, keeping their social organisation unbroken; and, although removed from their original habitations, still preserved their social identity. The remarkable point in the conquest was, that the Celtic population was not driven back upon anyone portion of the kingdom, but remained as it was, interpolated among the new arrivals. … The Celtic population possessed no definite legal position, filled no place in the feudal hierarchy, and was in the eyes of the English Government hostile and alien; the only exception to this was the case of the O'Briens, who, though not actually feudal vassals, had their estates secured by a charter, and five Irish families, through some unknown reason, were considered as the king's men and entitled to his protection; these were known as the five bloods, who enjoyed the law of England to the extent of the privilege to sue in the king's courts, viz., O'Neill, O'Molaghlin, O'Connor, O'Brien, and M'Murrough. … The Irish in Ireland were treated by the king's courts in Ireland as an alien and hostile nation; an Irishman out of the king's peace could not bring an action against an Englishman. … But, though legally ignored, the Irish tribes could not be politically disregarded. The English Government used their assistance to repress the rebellions of insurgent vassals. … They were called on to furnish assistance to the English armies, and on many occasions we find their chiefs summoned by writ of Parliament, as if feudal vassals; but the mode in which they were treated depended upon the immediate objects and want of the English Government, and the general course of conduct pursued towards them was such as has been previously stated. … We thus find the English and Irish races hopelessly at variance, and it would seem that one or other must have been crushed out in the contest; but such was not the result; they both survived, and, contrary to reasonable expectations, the Irish exhibited the greater vitality. The expulsion of the English colony was an effort beyond the power of the disunited Irish tribes; for in the darkest hours of the English settlement the power of England was ready, by some sudden effort, to reassert the English supremacy. But why did the Anglo-Normans wholly fail to subdue the Irish? …

1. The large extent comprised in the grants made to the first colonists led to a dispersion of the Norman nobles over the more fertile portions of the country. The English colony never formed one compact body capable of combined action. …

2. The military equipment of the Normans, and their mode of carrying on war, rendered their forces wholly inefficient, when, leaving the flat country, they attempted to penetrate the fastnesses of the native tribes. …

3. From the absence of any central government, civil wars continually arose between the several Norman lords; thus the military power of the colonists was frittered away in dissensions. …

4. The English Government continually called upon the Irish barons for aids and military service, to be employed in wars elsewhere than in Ireland. …

5. Many of the estates of the Norman nobles descended to heiresses who married Englishmen already possessing estates in England: hence arose absenteeism.

6. Even the lords who resided constantly upon their Irish estates gradually lost their Norman habits, and tended to assimilate themselves to the manners, and to adopt the language, of the Irish."

"Prior to experience, it would have been equally reasonable to expect that the modern Englishman would adopt the habits of the Hindoo or the Mohican, as that the fiery knights of Normandy would have stooped to imitate a race whom they despised as slaves; that they would have flung away their very knightly names to assume a barbarous equivalent [the De Burghs became Bourkes or Burkes, the M'Sweenies had been Veres in England, and the Munster Geraldines merged their family name in that of Desmond.—Foot-note]; and would so utterly have cast aside the commanding features of their Northern extraction, that their children's children could be distinguished neither in soul nor body, neither in look, in dress, in language, nor in disposition, from the Celts whom they had subdued. Such, however, was the extraordinary fact. The Irish who had been conquered in the field revenged their defeat on the minds and hearts of their conquerors; and in yielding, yielded only to fling over their new masters the subtle spell of the Celtic disposition. In vain the government attempted to stem the evil. Statute was passed after statute forbidding the 'Englishry' of Ireland to use the Irish language, or intermarry with Irish families, or copy Irish habits. Penalties were multiplied on penalties; fines, forfeitures, and at last death itself, were threatened for such offences. But all in vain. The stealthy evil crept on irresistibly. Fresh colonists were sent over to restore the system, but only for themselves or their children to be swept into the stream; and from the century which succeeded the Conquest till the reign of the eighth Henry, the strange phenomenon repeated itself, generation after generation, baffling the wisdom of statesmen, and paralysing every effort at a remedy."

The crushing defeat of the English by the Scotch at Bannockburn (1314) rekindled a spirit of rebellion in Ireland, and the discontented chiefs made haste to solicit aid from Scotland, offering the sovereignty of their island to Edward Bruce, brother of king Robert, if he would come to their help and conquer it. "By consent of king Robert, who was pleased to make a diversion against England upon a vulnerable point, and not, perhaps, sorry to be rid of a restless spirit, which became impatient in the lack of employment, Edward invaded Ireland at the head of a force of 6,000 Scots. He fought many battles, and gained them all. He became master of the province of Ulster, and was solemnly crowned king of Ireland; but found himself amid his successes obliged to intreat the assistance of king Robert with fresh supplies; for the impetuous Edward, who never spared his own person, was equally reckless of exposing his followers; and his successes were misfortunes, in so far as they wasted the brave men with whose lives they were purchased. Robert Bruce led supplies to his brother's assistance, with an army which enabled him to overrun Ireland, but without gaining any permanent advantage. He threatened Dublin, and penetrated as far as Limerick in the west, but was compelled, by scarcity of provisions, to retire again into Ulster, in the spring of 1317. He shortly after returned to Scotland, leaving a part of his troops with Edward, though probably convinced that his brother was engaged in a desperate and fruitless enterprise. … After his brother's departure, Edward's career of ambition was closed at the battle of Dundalk, where, October 5th, 1318, fortune at length failed a warrior who had tried her patience by so many hazards. On that fatal day he encountered, against the advice of his officers, an Anglo-Irish army ten times more numerous than his own. A strong champion among the English, named John Maupas, singling out the person of Edward, slew him, and received death at his hands. … A general officer of the Scots, called John Thomson, led back the remnant of the Scottish force to their own country. And thus ended the Scottish invasion of Ireland, with the loss of many brave soldiers."

   "Of all the legislative measures of this period the most
   notable was the Statute of Kilkenny, passed at a Parliament
   held in that town, in the last year of the decade, in the Lent
   session of 1367. This 'famous, or infamous,' enactment
   gathered up into one, and recapitulated with additional
   aggravations and insults, all the former oppressive,
   exasperating, and iniquitous ordinances by which English
   legislation for Ireland had hitherto been disgraced. … Among
   the earliest measures passed in the reign of Edward III. was a
   statute directed against absenteeism, obliging all Englishmen
   who were Irish proprietors either to reside on their estates
   or to provide soldiers to defend them. But this enactment was
   unproductive of good results. The O'Neills drove the colonists
   out of the 'liberty of Ulster,' and the English De Burghs, so
   far from helping to uphold English ascendency, appropriated to
   themselves the entire lordship of Connaught, made common cause
   with the native tribes, and adopting their dress, language,
   and customs, became 'Hibernis ipsis Hiberniores,' threw off
   their allegiance to King Edward, and bade defiance to the
   King's authority. Thus it came to pass that before many years
   of this reign had elapsed more than a third part of the
   territories of the Pale was again in the hands of its original
   possessors. … Edward III. inherited the barbarous and
   iniquitous traditions of English rule in Ireland, but he
   improved upon them.
{1761}
   He ordered all his officers in that country who had Irish
   estates to be removed and give place to Englishmen with no
   Irish ties. He next declared void every grant of land in
   Ireland since the time of Edward II., and made new grants of
   the lands thus recovered to the Crown. The tendency of this
   monstrous measure was to create two more antagonistic parties
   in Ireland, destined by their bitter dissensions to bring
   about the result that ere long 'all the King's land in Ireland
   was on the point of passing away from the Crown of England,'—
   viz., the 'English by blood,' as the established settlers were
   called, and the 'English by birth,' or new grantees. Some of
   the chief of the former, in despair of a career, or even of a
   quiet life, at home, were about to bid good-bye to Ireland and
   seek their fortunes elsewhere, when they were arrested by a
   proclamation making it penal for any English subject capable
   of bearing arms to leave the country. … The 'English by
   blood' became more and more intimately connected and
   identified with the native Irish, and the 'English by birth'
   became more and more powerless to maintain the English
   ascendency; till at last, in 1361, the King determined on
   sending over a viceroy of the blood royal, and appointed to
   the post his son Lionel, created shortly afterwards Duke of
   Clarence, whom he had married to Elizabeth de Burgh, daughter
   and representative of the last Earl of Ulster. But though
   Prince Lionel, on his arrival, took the precaution of
   forbidding any man born in Ireland to approach his camp, his
   position soon became so critical that the King issued writs
   commanding all the absentee Irish lords to hasten to Ireland
   to the assistance of the Prince, 'for that his very dear son
   and his companions in Ireland were in imminent peril.' The
   next step was the passing of the Statute of Kilkenny. It
   re-enacted the prohibition of marriage and foster-nursing,
   rendered obligatory the adoption of the English language and
   customs, forbade the national games of 'hurlings and
   quoitings,' and the use of the ancient Gaelic code called the
   Senchus Mor; a code by which the native brehons, or judges, of
   the Irish septs had decided causes among them since the time
   of the conversion of the race to Christianity in the fifth
   century."

During the Wars of the Roses, "if Ireland had any preference for either of the great contending parties in England, it was … for the House of York; and from this cause chiefly sprang the change of Henry VII.'s mode of governing the dependency which on ascending the throne he had found all but severed from his dominions. At first he had thought it best to employ the native nobility for this purpose, and had chosen for Deputy the Earl of Kildare—setting him, as the story ran, to rule all Ireland, because all Ireland could not rule him. When, however, he had time to reflect on the dangers springing from the Irish support of Simnel and Warbeck, from which he and his dynasty had escaped so narrowly, he perceived the necessity of bringing the country under a more regular government. Accordingly he sent over in 1494 (at the time when Warbeck was preparing for his descent on England) Sir Edward Poynings as Lord Deputy, a statesman and commander well experienced in the most important affairs of the time."

After some military operations, which he found to be beset with treacheries and difficulties, the new Lord Deputy held a Parliament at Drogheda—"perhaps the most memorable that was ever held in Ireland, as certainly no other Parliament in that country made laws which endured so long as two which were then enacted, and were known for centuries afterwards as the 'Poynings Acts.' By the first of these it was ordained that no Parliament should be held in Ireland in future until the king's Council in England had approved not only of its being summoned, but also of the Acts which the Lieutenant and Council of Ireland proposed to pass in it. By the second the laws enacted before that time in England were extended to Ireland also. Thus the Irish legislature was made entirely dependent upon England. The Irish Parliament had no power to originate anything, but was only free to accept or (if they were very bold) to reject measures drawn up by the Irish Council and approved already by the king and his Council in England before they were submitted to discussion. Little as this looks like parliamentary government, such was the state of subjection in which the Irish Parliament remained by virtue of this law for nearly three centuries later. Almost the whole time, that is to say, that Ireland had a separate Parliament at all it remained in this manner restricted in its action by the legislation of Sir Edward Poynings. … It should be remembered, however, that Henry VII. merely sought to do in Ireland what there is every reason to suppose he practically did in England. Legislation was not at this time considered to be the chief business of a Parliament."

      H. Hallam,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 18 (volume 3).

   "The events on which we are about to enter require for their
   understanding a sketch of the position of the various chiefs,
   as they were at this time scattered over the island. The
   English pale, originally comprising 'the four shires,' as they
   were called, of Dublin, Kildare, Meath, and Uriel or Louth,
   had been shorn down to half its old dimensions. The line
   extended from Dundalk to Ardee; from Ardee by Castletown to
   Kells; thence through Athboy and Trim to the Castle of
   Maynooth; from Maynooth it crossed to Claine upon the Liffey,
   and then followed up the line of the river to Ballimore
   Eustace, from which place it skirted back at the rear of the
   Wicklow and Dublin mountains to the forts at Dalkey, seven
   miles south of Dublin. This narrow strip alone, some fifty
   miles long and twenty broad, was in any sense English. Beyond
   the borders the common law of England was of no authority; the
   king's writ was but a strip of parchment; and the country was
   parcelled among a multitude of independent chiefs, who
   acknowledged no sovereignty but that of strength, who levied
   tribute on the inhabitants of the pale as a reward for a
   nominal protection of their rights, and as a compensation for
   abstaining from the plunder of their farms. …
{1762}
   These chiefs, with their dependent clans, were distributed
   over the four provinces in the following order. The
   Geraldines, the most powerful of the remaining Normans, were
   divided into two branches. The Geraldines of the south, under
   the Earls of Desmond, held Limerick, Cork, and Kerry; the
   Geraldines of Leinster lay along the frontiers of the English
   pale; and the heads of the house, the Earls of Kildare, were
   the feudal superiors of the greater portion of the English
   counties. To the Butlers, Earls of Ormond and Ossory, belonged
   Kilkenny, Carlow, and Tipperary. The De Burghs, or Bourkes, as
   they called themselves, were scattered over Galway, Roscommon,
   and the south of Sligo, occupying the broad plains which lie
   between the Shannon and the mountains of Connemara and Mayo.
   This was the relative position into which these clans had
   settled at the Conquest, and it had been maintained with
   little variation. The north, which had fallen to the Lacies
   and the De Courcies, had been wholly recovered by the Irish.
   The Lacies had become extinct. The De Courcies, once Earls of
   Ulster, had migrated to the south, and were reduced to the
   petty fief of Kinsale, which they held under the Desmonds. The
   Celtic chieftains had returned from the mountains to which
   they had been driven, bringing back with them, more intensely
   than ever, the Irish habits and traditions. … The O'Neils
   and O'Donnells had spread down over Ulster to the frontiers of
   the pale. The O'Connors and O'Carrolls had recrossed the
   Shannon and pushed forwards into Kildare; the O'Connor Don was
   established in a castle near Portarlington, said to be one of
   the strongest in Ireland; and the O'Carrolls had seized Leap,
   an ancient Danish fortress, surrounded by bog and forest, a
   few miles from Parsonstown. O'Brien of Inchiquin, Prince—as
   he styled himself—of Thomond, no longer contented with his
   principality of Clare, had thrown a bridge across the Shannon
   five miles above Limerick, and was thus enabled to enter
   Munster at his pleasure and spread his authority towards the
   south; while the M'Carties and O'Sullivans, in Cork and Kerry,
   were only not dangerous to the Earls of Desmond, because the
   Desmonds were more Irish than themselves, and were accepted as
   their natural chiefs. In Tipperary and Kilkenny only the
   Celtic reaction was held in check. The Earls of Ormond,
   although they were obliged themselves to live as Irish
   chieftains, and to govern by the Irish law, yet … remained
   true to their allegiance, and maintained the English authority
   as far as their power extended. … Wexford, Wicklow, and the
   mountains of Dublin, were occupied by the Highland tribes of
   O'Bryne and O'Toole, who, in their wild glens and dangerous
   gorges, defied attempts to conquer them, and who were able, at
   all times, issuing down out of the passes of the hills, to cut
   off communication with the pale. Thus the Butlers had no means
   of reaching Dublin except through the county of Kildare, the
   home of their hereditary rivals and foes. This is a general
   account of the situation of the various parties in Ireland at
   the beginning of the 16th century. I have spoken only of the
   leading families. … 'There be sixty counties, called
   regions, in Ireland,' says the report of 1515, 'inhabited with
   the king's Irish enemies.'"

IRELAND: A. D. 1535-1553.
   The reconquest under Henry VIII. and
   the fall of the Geraldines.
   The political pacification and the religious alienation.

"To Henry VIII. the policy which had been pursued by his father was utterly hateful. His purpose was to rule in Ireland as thoroughly and effectively as he ruled in England. … The Geraldines, who had been suffered under the preceding reign to govern Ireland in the name of the Crown, were quick to discover that the Crown would no longer stoop to be their tool. They resolved to frighten England again into a conviction of its helplessness; and the rising of Lord Thomas Fitzgerald followed the usual fashion of Irish revolts. A murder of the Archbishop of Dublin, a capture of the city, a repulse before its castle, a harrying of the Pale, ended in a sudden disappearance of the rebels among the bogs and forests of the border on the advance of the English forces. … Unluckily for the Geraldines, Henry had resolved to take Ireland seriously in hand, and he had Cromwell [Sir Thomas] to execute his will. Skeffington, the new Lord Deputy, brought with him a train of artillery, which worked a startling change in the political aspect of the island. The castles which had hitherto sheltered rebellion were battered into ruins. … Not only was the power of the great Norman house which had towered over Ireland utterly broken, but only a single boy was left to preserve its name. With the fall of the Geraldines Ireland felt itself in a master's grasp. … In seven years, partly through the vigour of Skeffington's successor, Lord Leonard Grey, and still more through the resolute will of Henry and Cromwell, the power of the Crown, which had been limited to the walls of Dublin, was acknowledged over the length and breadth of Ireland. … Chieftain after chieftain was won over to the acceptance of the indenture which guaranteed him in the possession of his lands, and left his authority over his tribesmen untouched, on conditions of a pledge of loyalty, of abstinence from illegal wars and exactions on his fellow-subjects, and of rendering a fixed tribute and service in war-time to the Crown. … [This] firm and conciliatory policy must in the end have won, but for the fatal blunder which plunged Ireland into religions strife at the moment when her civil strife seemed about to come to an end. … In Ireland the spirit of the Reformation never existed among the people at all. They accepted the legislative measures passed in the English Parliament without any dream of theological consequences, or of any change in the doctrine or ceremonies of the Church. … The mission of Archbishop Browne 'for the plucking-down of idols and extinguishing of idolatry' was the first step in the long effort of the English Government to force a new faith on a people who to a man clung passionately to their old religion. Browne's attempts at 'tuning the pulpits' were met by a sullen and significant opposition. … Protestantism had failed to wrest a single Irishman from his older convictions, but it succeeded in uniting all Ireland against the Crown. … The population within the Pale and without it became one, 'not as the Irish nation,' it has been acutely said, 'but as Catholics.' A new sense of national identity was found in the identity of religion."

IRELAND: A. D. 1559-1603.
The wars of Shane O'Neil and Hugh O'Neil, Earls of Tyrone.
The League of the Geraldines and the Ulster Confederacy.

"The Reformation begun under Henry VIII. was carried out with pitiless determination under Edward VI., and was met by the Catholics with unflinching opposition. Under Mary there was a period of respite, but the strife was renewed with greater fierceness in the succeeding reign. As authentic Irish history begins with St. Patrick, so with Elizabeth modern Irish history may be said to begin. … At her accession, Elizabeth was too much occupied with foreign complications to pay much heed to Ireland. Trouble first began in a conflict between the feudal laws and the old Irish law of Tanistry. Con O'Neil, Earl of Tyrone, had taken his title from Henry VIII., subject to the English law of succession; but when Con died, the clan O'Neil, disregarding the English principle of hereditary succession, chose Shane O'Neil, an illegitimate son of Con, and the hero of his Sept, to be The O'Neil. Shane O'Neil at once put himself forward as the champion of Irish liberty, the supporter of the Irish right to rule themselves in their own way and pay no heed to England. Under the pretence of governing the country, Elizabeth overran it with a soldiery who, as even Mr. Froude acknowledges, lived almost universally on plunder, and were little better than bandits. The time was an appropriate one for a champion of Irish rights. Shane O'Neil boldly stood out as sovereign of Ulster, and pitted himself against Elizabeth. … Shane fought bravely against his fate, but he was defeated [A. D. 1567], put to flight, and murdered by his enemies, the Scots of Antrim, in whose strongholds he madly sought refuge. His head was struck off, and sent to adorn the walls of Dublin Castle. His lands were declared forfeit, and his vassals, vassals of the Crown. English soldiers of fortune were given grants from Shane's escheated territory, but when they attempted to settle they were killed by the O'Neils. Others came in their place, under Walter Devereux, Earl of Essex, and did their best to simplify the process of colonization by exterminating the O'Neils, men, women, and children, wherever they could be got at. After two years of struggle Essex was compelled to abandon his settlement. But other colonizers were not disheartened. Some West of England gentlemen, under Peter Carew, seized on Cork, Limerick and Kerry, and sought to hold them by extirpating the obnoxious natives. Against these English inroads the great Geraldine League was formed. In the reign of Mary, that boy of twelve whom Henry VIII. had not been able to include in the general doom of his house had been allowed to return to Ireland, and to resume his ancestral honours, Once more the Geraldines were a great and powerful family in Ireland." Defeated in their first rising, "the Geraldines and their companion chiefs got encouragement in Rome and pledges from Spain, and they rose again under the Earl of Desmond and Sir James Fitzmaurice Fitzgerald. At first they had some successes, They had many wrongs to avenge. … Sir Francis Cosby, the Queen's representative in Leix and Offaly, had conceived and executed the idea of preventing any further possible rising of the chiefs in those districts by summoning them and their kinsmen to a great banquet in the fort of Mullaghmast, and there massacring them all. Out of 400 guests, only one man, a Lalor, escaped from that feast of blood. … With such memories in their minds, the tribes rose in all directions to the Desmond call. … Elizabeth sent over more troops to Ireland under the new Lord Deputy, Sir William Pelham, who had with him as ally Ormonde, the head of the house of Butler, hereditary foes of the Geraldines, and easily induced to act against them. Pelham and Ormonde cut their way over Munster, reducing the province by unexampled ferocity. Ormonde boasted that he had put to death nearly 6,000 disaffected persons. Just at this moment some of the chiefs of the Pale rose, and rose too late. They gained one victory over Lord Grey de Wilton in the pass of Glenmalure [August, 1580]. … Grey immediately abandoned the Pale to the insurgents, and turned to Smerwick [A. D. 1580], where some 800 Spanish and Italian soldiers had just landed, too late to be of any service to the rebellion, and had occupied the dismantled fort. It was at once blockaded by sea and by land. In Grey's army Sir Walter Raleigh and Edmund Spenser both held commands. Smerwick surrendered at discretion, and the prisoners were killed by Raleigh and his men in cold blood. Flushed by this success, Grey returned to the Pale and carried all before him. The Geraldines were disheartened, and were defeated wherever they made a stand. … Munster was so vigorously laid waste that Mr. Froude declares that 'the lowing of a cow or the sound of a ploughboy's whistle was not to be heard from Valentia to the Rock of Cashel.' Holinshed declares the traveller would not meet any man, woman, or child, saving in towns or cities, and would not see any beast; and Spenser gives a melancholy picture of the misery of the inhabitants, 'as that any stony heart would rue the same.' … The next step was to confiscate the estates of the rebellious chieftains. … The estates of Desmond and some 140 of his followers came to the Crown. The land was then distributed at the cheapest rate in large tracts to English nobles and gentlemen adventurers, who were pledged to colonize it with English labourers and tradesmen. But of these labourers and tradesmen not many came over, and those who did soon returned, tired of struggling for their foothold with the dispossessed Irish." During all this Geraldine or Desmond rebellion Ulster had remained quiet; but in 1594 it began to show signs of disturbance. "Hugh O'Neil, the grandson of that Con O'Neil whom Henry VIII. had made Earl of Tyrone, had been brought up at the English court, and confirmed in the lordship of Tyrone by the English Government. In the brilliant court of Elizabeth the young Irish chief was distinguished for his gifts of mind and body. When he came of age he was allowed to return to Ireland to his earldom. Once within his own country, he assumed his ancestral title of The O'Neil, and revived all the customs of independent Irish chieftains. For long enough he took no part in any plots or movements against the Crown; but many things, the ties of friendship and of love, combined to drive him into rebellion.

… Tyrone in the end consented to give the powerful support of his name and his arms to a skilfully planned confederation of the tribes. On all sides the Irish chiefs entered into the insurrection. O'Neil was certainly the most formidable Irish leader the English had yet encountered. … Victory followed victory [that of the Yellow Ford, 1598, being the most important]. In a little while all Ireland, with the exception of Dublin and a few garrison towns, was in the hands of the rebels. Essex, and the largest army ever sent to Ireland, crossed the Channel to cope with him; but Essex made no serious move, and after an interview with Tyrone, in which he promised more than he could perform, he returned to England to his death. His place was taken by Lord Mountjoy, who, for all his love of angling and of Elizabethan 'play-books,' was a stronger man. Tyrone met him, was defeated [at Kinsale, 1601]. From that hour the rebellion was over. … At last Tyrone was compelled to come to terms. He surrendered his estates, renounced all claim to the title of The O'Neil, abjured alliance with all foreign powers, and promised to introduce English laws and customs into Tyrone. In return he received a free pardon and a re-grant of his title and lands by letters patent. Rory O'Donnell, Red Hugh's brother, also submitted, and was allowed to retain the title of Earl of Tyrconnel. Elizabeth was already dead, and the son of Mary Stuart [James I.] was King of England when these terms were made; but they were not destined to do much good."

ALSO IN: T. D. McGee, Popular History of Ireland, book 8, chapters 3-11 (volumes 1-2).

      T. Leland,
      History of Ireland,
      book 4, chapters 1-5 (volume 2).

"With the submission of the Earl of Tyrone terminated the struggle between the Tudor princes and the native Celtic tribes. No chieftain henceforward claimed to rule his district in independence of the Crown of England. The Celtic land tenure, the Brehon laws, the language, customs, and traditions of the defeated race were doomed to gradual yet certain extinction. … Before Elizabeth was laid in the grave, the object for which during so many years she had striven was thus at length accomplished; … but between the wars of the Tudors and the civil government of the Stuarts, still remain (the intermediate link, as it were, between the two) the fall of the able man who had created and so long conducted an almost national resistance, and the colonisation by English settlers of his demesnes and the adjoining parts of Ulster."

"Lord Bacon, with whom ideas grew plentifully, had a suggestion at the service of the new king as profitable as the 'princelie policie' which he taught his predecessor. He was of opinion that a great settlement of English husbandmen in Ireland, able to guard as well as to till the land, would help to secure the interest of the Crown. Till this was done Ireland was not effectually reduced, as Sir Edward Coke afterwards declared, 'for there was ever a back-door in the north.' The only question was where to plant them. O'Neill and Tyrconnell had proved dangerous adversaries; they possessed a fertile territory, and as their 'loose order of inheritance' had been duly changed into 'an orderly succession,' they were quite ripe for confiscation. But they had been ostentatiously received into favour at the close of the late war, and some decent pretence for destroying them so soon was indispensable. It was found in a letter conveniently dropped in the precincts of Dublin Castle, disclosing a new conspiracy. Of a conspiracy there was not then, and has not been since discovered, any evidence worth recording. The letter was probably forged, according to the practise of the times; but where so noble a booty was to be distributed by the Crown, one can conceive how ill-timed and disloyal any doubt of their treason would have appeared at the Court of James, or of the Lord Deputy. They were proclaimed traitors, and fled to the Continent to solicit aid from the Catholic Powers. Without delay James and his counsellors set to work. The King applied to the City of London to take up the lands of the wild Irish. They were well watered, he assured them, plentifully supplied with fuel, with good store of all the necessaries for man's sustenance; and moreover yielded timber, hides, tallow, canvas, and cordage for the purposes of commerce. The Companies of Skinners, Fishmongers, Haberdashers, Vintners and the like thereupon became Absentee Proprietors, and have guzzled Irish rents in city feasts and holiday excursions to Ireland from that day to this. Six counties in Ulster were confiscated, and not merely the chiefs, but the entire population dispossessed. The fruitful plains of Armagh, the deep pastoral glens that lie between the sheltering hills of Donegal, the undulating meadow lands stretching by the noble lakes and rivers of Fermanagh, passed from the race which had possessed them since before the redemption of mankind. … The alluvial lands were given to English courtiers whom the Scotch king found it necessary to placate, and to Scotch partisans whom he dared not reward in England. The peasants driven out of the tribal lands to burrow in the hills or bogs were not treated according to any law known among civilised men. Under Celtic tenure the treason of the chief, if he committed treason, affected them no more than the offences of a tenant for life affect a remainder man in our modern practice. Under the feudal system they were innocent feudatories who would pass with the forfeited land to the Crown, with all their personal rights undisturbed. The method of settlement is stated with commendable simplicity by the latest historian. The 'plantators' got all the land worth their having; what was not worth their having—the barren mountains and trackless morass, which after two centuries still in many cases yield no human food—were left to those who in the language of an Act of Parliament of the period were 'natives of the realm of Irish blood, being descended from those who did inherit and possess the land.' Lest the frugality of the Celts should enable them to peacefully regain some of their possessions, it was strictly conditioned that no plantator or servitor should alienate his portion, or any part thereof, to the mere Irish. The confiscated territory amounted to two millions of acres. 'Of these a million and a half' says Mr. Froude, 'bog, forest, and mountain were restored to the Irish. The half million acres of fertile land were settled with families of Scottish and English Protestants.' It was in this manner that the famous Plantation of Ulster was founded."

Sir C. G. Duffy, Bird's-Eye View of Irish History, revised edition, pages 74-78 (or book 1, chapter 4, of "Young Ireland").

"The City of London had taken in hand the settlement of Derry, which was now to be rebuilt under the name of Londonderry, and to give its name to the county in which it stood, and which had hitherto been known as the county of Coleraine."

ALSO IN: T. D'Arcy McGee, Popular History of Ireland, book 9, chapter 1 (volume 2).

      C. P. Meehan,
      Fate and Fortunes of Hugh O'Neill, Earl of Tyrone,
      and Rory O'Donel, Earl of Tyrconnel.

On the accession of Charles I., "one more effort was made by the Irish gentry to persuade, or rather to bribe, the Government to allow them to remain undisturbed in the possession of their property. They offered to raise by voluntary assessment the large sum of £120,000 in three annual instalments of £40,000, on condition of obtaining certain Graces from the King. These Graces, the Irish analogue of the Petition of Rights, were of the most moderate and equitable description. The most important were that undisturbed possession of sixty years should secure a landed proprietor from all older claims on the part of the Crown, that the inhabitants of Connaught should be secured from litigation by the enrolment of their patents, and that Popish recusants should be permitted, without taking the Oath of Supremacy, to sue for livery of their estates in the Court of Arches, and to practise in the courts of law. The terms were accepted. The promise of the King was given. The Graces were transmitted by way of instruction to the Lord Deputy and Council, and the Government also engaged, as a further security to all proprietors, that their estates should be formally confirmed to them and to their heirs by the next Parliament which should be held in Ireland. The sequel forms one of the most shameful passages in the history of English government of Ireland. In distinct violation of the King's solemn promise, after the subsidies that were made on the faith of that promise had been duly obtained, without provocation or pretext or excuse, Wentworth, who now presided with stern despotism over the government of Ireland, announced the withdrawal of the two principal articles of the Graces, the limitation of Crown claims by a possession of sixty years and the legalisation of the Connaught titles."

In the summer of 1633, Thomas Wentworth, afterwards Earl of Strafford, was appointed Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland. "It was during his tenure of office as viceroy that he attempted to establish absolutism in Ireland, in order that, by the thereby enhanced power of the monarchy, he might be enabled to turn the scale in favour of a despotic government in England. And, never at a loss in the choice of his expedients, he contended for his scheme with an energy and a recklessness characteristic of the man. In the prosecution of his ends, he treated some of the most influential English noblemen resident in Ireland with the utmost indignity, simply with the object of intimidating them, at the outset, from any further opposition. One of them, Lord Mountnorris, was even condemned to death on a charge of sedition and mutiny, merely for having made use of a disrespectful expression with reference to the lord-lieutenant, the representative of the sovereign. … Every longing of the Irish Protestant Church for independence was suppressed by Wentworth. According to his views, supreme authority in Church matters belonged absolutely and unconditionally to the king. He, therefore, abolished, in 1634, the 'Irish Articles,' which granted some concessions to Puritanism, and which had been introduced by Archbishop Usher in the reign of James I., and, at the same time, he united the Irish Established Church indissolubly with that of England. But above all things he considered it to be his duty to increase the army, which had hitherto been in a disorganised condition, and to put it in a state of complete efficiency; in order to do this, however, it was of the first importance to augment the revenue of the Crown, and in pursuance of this object he disdained no means. He extorted large sums of money from the Catholics by reminding them that, in case their contributions were too niggardly, there still existed laws against the Papists which could easily be put into operation again. The City of London Company, which some years before had effected the colonization of Londonderry, was suddenly called to account for not having fulfilled the stipulations contained in its charter, and condemned to pay a fine of £70,000. In the same spirit he conceived the idea of obtaining additions to the royal exchequer by a fresh settlement of Connaught; and, accordingly, he induced the Government, regardless of the engagements made some years previously at the granting of the 'graces,' to re-assert the claims it had formerly advanced to the possession of this province. And now, as in the worst days of James I., there again prevailed the old system of investigation into the validity of the titles by which the landed gentry of Connaught held their estates. Such persons as were practised in disinterring these unregistered titles were looked upon with favour, and as a means of inciting to more vigorous efforts, a premium of 20 per cent. on the receipts realized during the first year by the confiscation of property thus imperfectly registered was guaranteed to the presidents of the commission. With a cynical frankness, Wentworth declared that no money was ever so judiciously expended as this, for now the people entered into the business with as much ardour and assiduity as if it were their own private concern. … The collective titles of the province of Connaught were at the unlimited disposal of the lord-lieutenant; and, although, notwithstanding this result, he, at the last moment, recoiled from the final act, and shrank from ejecting the present owners, and re-settling the province, it was not from any conscientious scruples that he refrained from taking this last decisive step: to the man whose motto was 'Thorough,' such scruples were unknown. … Practical considerations alone … induced Wentworth to pause in the path upon which he had entered. {1766} Just at that time the Crown was engaged in a contest with Puritanism in Scotland, while, in England, the attempts of Charles to make his rule absolute had produced a state of public feeling which was in the highest degree critical. … In view of these considerations, therefore, Strafford postponed the colonization of the western province to a more favourable season. While we turn with just abhorrence from the contemplation of the reckless and despotic acts of this remarkable man, we must not, on the other hand, fail to acknowledge that his administration has features which present a brighter aspect. … In the exercise of a certain toleration, dictated, it is true, only by policy, he declined to meddle directly in the religious affairs of the Catholics. His greatest merit, however, consists in having advanced the material well-being of the country. He took a lively interest in agriculture and cattle-rearing, and by causing the rude and antiquated methods of husbandry which prevailed among the Irish agriculturalists to be superseded by more modern appliances, he contributed very materially to the advancement of this branch of industry. He also largely encouraged navigation, in consequence of which the number of Irish ships increased from year to year; and although it can not be denied that he endeavoured to suppress the trade in woollen cloth, from an apprehension that it might come into dangerous competition with English manufactures, he, nevertheless, sought to compensate the Irish in other ways, and the development of the Irish linen industry in the north was essentially his work. … The Irish revenue annually increased, and the customs returns alone were trebled during the administration of Lord Strafford. He was, accordingly, in a position to place at the disposal of his royal master a standing army of 9,000 men. … It was, therefore, no idle boast, but a statement in strict accordance with the truth, which he made when writing to Archbishop Laud on 16th December, 1634: 'I can now say that the king is here as truly absolute as any sovereign in the world can be.'"

"Of all the suggesters of the infamous counsels of Charles, Laud and Wentworth were the most sincere:—Laud, from the intense faith with which he looked forward to the possible supremacy of the ecclesiastical power, and to which he was bent upon going, 'thorough', through every obstacle;—Wentworth, from that strong sense, with which birth and education had perverted his genius, of the superior excellence of despotic rule. … The letters which passed between them partook of a more intimate character, in respect of the avowal of ulterior designs, than either of them, probably, chose to avow elsewhere. … Laud had to regret his position in England, contrasted with that of the Irish deputy. 'My lord,' he writes to Wentworth, speaking of the general affairs of church and state, 'to speak freely, you may easily promise more in either kind than I can perform: for, as for the church, it is so bound up in the forms of the common law, that it is not possible for me, or for any man, to do that good which he would, or is bound to do. … And for the state, indeed, my lord, I am for Thorough; but I see that both thick and thin stays somebody, where I conceive it should not; and it is impossible for me to go thorough alone.' … Every new act of despotism which struck terror into Ireland shot comfort to the heart of Laud. 'As for my marginal note,' exclaims the archbishop, 'I see you deciphered it well, and I see you make use of it too,—do so still; thorow and thorow. Oh that I were where I might go so too I but I am shackled between delays and uncertainties. You have a great deal of honour here for your proceedings. Go on a God's name!' And on Wentworth went, stopping at no gratuitous quarrel that had the slightest chance of pleasing the archbishop, even to the demolishing the family tomb of the earl of Cork,—since his grace, among his select ecclesiastical researches, had discovered that the spot occupied by my lord of Cork's family monuments, was precisely that spot upon which the communion-table, to answer the purposes of heaven, ought to stand!"

      R. Browning,
      Thomas Wentworth (Eminent British Statesmen, volume 2,
      published under the name of John Forster).

      ALSO IN:
      S. R. Gardiner,
      The First Two Stuarts and the Puritan Revolution,
      chapter 5, section 4.

      S. R. Gardiner,
      History of England,
      chapter 76 (volume 8) and
      chapter 90 (volume 9).

      W. A. O'Conor,
      History of the Irish People,
      volume 2, book 3, chapter 1.

   "The government which Strafford had established in Ireland
   fell with him, the office of viceroy was entrusted to some of
   the judges, and shorn of the powers which gave it authority
   over the whole country. The Irish army, which had been formed
   with so much difficulty, and maintained in spite of so much
   opposition, was disbanded without any attention being
   vouchsafed to the King's wish that it should be allowed to
   enter the Spanish service. … Under the influence of events
   in England, government based on prerogative, and on its
   connexion with the English hierarchy, as it had existed in
   Ireland since Elizabeth's time, fell to the ground. This
   revolution however might entail important results. The Irish
   people was Catholic: while the Protestant settlers were split
   into two hostile factions, and thereby the highest authority
   in the land, which bore a really Protestant character, was
   systematically weakened and almost destroyed, the thought of
   ridding themselves of it altogether was sure to arise in the
   nation. The steed, never completely broken in, felt itself
   suddenly free from the tight rein which hitherto it had
   unwillingly obeyed. … It was the common object of all
   Catholics, alike of Anglo-Saxon and of Celtic origin, to
   restore to the Catholic Church the possession of the goods and
   houses that had been taken from her, and above all to put an
   end to the colonies established since James I. in which
   Puritan tendencies prevailed. The Catholics of the old
   settlements were as eager for this as the natives. The idea
   originated in a couple of chiefs of old Irish extraction,
   Roger O'More and Lord Macguire, who had been involved in
   Tyrone's ruin, but were connected by marriage with several
   English families. The first man whom O'More won over was Lord
   Mayo, the most powerful magnate of old English descent in
   Connaught, of the house of De Burgh. … The best military
   leader in the confederacy, Colonel Plunkett, was a Catholic of
   old English origin. … Among the natives the most notable
   personage was Phelim O'Neil, who, after having been long in
   England, and learning Protestantism there, on his return to
   Ireland went back to the old faith and the old customs: he was
   reckoned the rightful heir of Tyrone, and possessed unbounded
   popular influence.
{1767}
   The plan for which the Catholics of both Irish and English
   extraction now united was a very far-reaching one. It involved
   making the Catholic religion altogether dominant in Ireland:
   even of the old nobility none but the Catholics were to be
   tolerated: all the lands that had been seized for the new
   settlements were to be given back to the previous possessors
   or their heirs. In each district a distinguished family was to
   be answerable for order, and to maintain an armed force for
   the purpose. They would not revolt from the King, but still
   would leave him no real share in the government. Two lords
   justices, both Catholic, one of Irish, the other of old
   English family, were to be at the head of the government. …
   The preparations were made in profound silence: a man could
   travel across the country without perceiving any stir or
   uneasiness. But on the appointed day, October 23, the day of
   St. Ignatius, the insurrection everywhere broke out." Dublin
   was saved, by a disclosure of the plot to the government, on
   the evening of the 22d, by a Protestant Irishman who had
   gained knowledge of it. "Several other places also held out,
   as Londonderry and Carrickfergus, and afforded places to which
   the Protestants might fly. But no one can paint the rage and
   cruelty which was vented, far and wide over the land, upon the
   unarmed and defenceless. Many thousands perished: their
   corpses filled the land and served as food for the kites. …
   Religious abhorrence entered into a dreadful league with the
   fury of national hatred. The motives of the Sicilian Vespers
   and of the night of St. Bartholomew were united. Sir Phelim,
   who at once was proclaimed Lord and Master in Ulster, with the
   title of the native princes, as Tyrone had been, and who in
   his proclamations assumed the tone of a sovereign, was not at
   all the man to check these cruelties. … With all this
   letting loose of ancient barbarism there was still some
   holding back. The Scottish settlements were spared, although
   they were the most hated of all, for fear of incurring the
   hostility of the Scottish as well as of the English nation.
   Immediately there was a rising in the five counties of the old
   English Pale: the gentry of Louth, under the leadership of the
   sheriff, took the side of the rebels. The younger men of Meath
   assembled on the Boyne, and commenced hostilities against the
   Protestants: so completely had their religious sympathies
   prevailed over their patriotism."

"Some reference to the notorious story of the massacre of 1641 is required, not because the account of it is true and is a part of history, nor because it is false and needs refutation, but because it is a State fiction, a falsehood with a purpose, and as such deserves mention as much as the levying of troops or the passing of laws. The record of the period is not the history of a massacre, but of the deliberate invention of a massacre. … No word of massacre had been heard of in the first State document that referred to the so-called rebellion. The Catholic lords of the Pale would never have united their names and fortunes with those of murderers. … The royalists again and again urged in their treaties with their opponents that an investigation of the cruelties committed on both sides should be made, and the proposal was always absolutely refused."

W. A. O'Conor, History of the Irish People, book 3, chapter 1, section 5 (volume 2).

"There were few places of strength in Ulster which had not fallen by the end of the first week into the hands of the insurgents. Sir Phelim O'Neill already found himself at the head of some 30,000 men, as yet of course undisciplined, and but few of them efficiently armed; and it is not to be expected that such an irregular multitude, with wild passions let loose, and so many wrongs and insults to be avenged, could have been engaged in scenes of war, even so long, without committing some deeds of blood which the laws of regular warfare would not sanction. … Life was taken in some few instances where the act deserved the name of murder; but the cases of this nature, on the Irish side, at the commencement of the rebellion, were isolated ones; and nothing can be more unjust and false than to describe the outbreak of this war as a 'massacre'."

"This [Sir Wm. Petty's] estimate of 37,000 Protestants supposed to have been murdered makes no allowance for those who escaped to England and Scotland, and never returned to Ireland. It seems to me more likely that about 27,000 Protestants were murdered by the sword, gun, rope, drowning, &c., in the first three or four years of the rebellion. The evidence of the depositions, after deducting all doubtful exaggerations, leaves little doubt that the number so destroyed could hardly have been less than 25,000 at all events. But the truth is that no accurate estimate is possible. After the Portnaw massacre the Protestants, especially the Scotch, took an awful vengeance on their enemies. Henceforward one side vied in cruelty with the other."

      T. Leland,
      History of Ireland,
      book 5, chapters 3-4 (volume 3).

   "The truce [offered by King Charles to the rebels in 1643]
   appears to have been well observed by each party, and resulted
   in a treaty of peace which was signed in July, 1646, by which
   the Roman Catholics obtained every demand which they put
   forward. This peace was nevertheless at once broken, and
   Ormond (who had been appointed Lord Lieutenant in January,
   1643) was closely besieged in Dublin by a force, headed by
   Cardinal Rinuccini, the Papal Nuncio, who had assumed the
   command of the Irish Catholics. Finding himself in so
   dangerous a position, Ormond, by express direction from the
   king, offered his submission to the English Parliament, to
   whom he surrendered Dublin, Drogheda, Dundalk, and such other
   garrisons as remained in his hands. This transaction was
   completed on the 25th of July, 1647, when Colonel Jones took
   command of Dublin for the Parliament, and was made by them
   Commander-in-Chief in Ireland; his total force however
   amounted to but 5,000 men. The war now continued with varying
   success, the commanders for the Parliament being, in addition
   to Jones, Monk in Ulster and Lord Inchiquin in Munster;
{1768}
   The latter in 1648 joined Ormond, who in September, upon the
   invitation of the Catholics, returned to Ireland, the Papal
   Nuncio having been driven from the country by his own party,
   who were alienated from him by his folly and insolence. At the
   end of 1648 there were therefore two parties in Ireland; the
   Parliamentary, which had been the English, holding Dublin and
   a few garrisons, and the Catholics, who, formerly rebels, were
   now held as Royalists, and whose new leader Ormond, on the
   death of Charles I., proclaimed the Prince of Wales, on the
   16th of February, 1649, at Carrick, as King of England,
   Scotland, France, and Ireland. The English Parliament now at
   last resolved to put an end to disorder in Ireland, and with
   this object, in March, 1649, appointed Cromwell to the supreme
   command." Before Cromwell arrived in Ireland, however, the
   Irish Royalists had reduced every garrisoned place except
   Dublin and Londonderry, defeating Monk, who held Dundalk, but
   being defeated (August 2) by Jones when they laid siege to the
   capital. Though fought at the gates of Dublin, this was called
   the battle of Rathmines, Ormond retreated with a loss of 4,000
   killed and 2,500 prisoners.

IRELAND: A. D. 1649-1650.
Cromwell's campaign.
The slaughter at Drogheda and Wexford.

'When Cromwell arrived in Ireland at the head of 12,000 men, he found almost the whole country under the power of the Royalists (August 15th). A Parliamentary garrison in Dublin itself had only escaped a siege by surprising the enemy on the banks of the Liffey (August 2nd). The general first marched against Drogheda, then called Droghdagh or Tredah, and summoned the garrison to surrender; Sir Arthur Ashton, the governor, refused; he had 3,000 of the choicest troops of the confederates and enough provisions to enable him to hold out till winter should compel the enemy to raise the siege. But within twenty-four hours the English batteries had made a breach in the wall, Oliver, after twice seeing his soldiers beaten off, led them on in person and carried the breach. A terrible massacre followed. 'Being in the heat of action I forbade them,' Cromwell wrote in his despatch to the Parliament, 'to spare any that were in arms in the town; and I think that night they put to the sword about 2,000 men.' Of these, one-half probably fell in the streets; the other half Cromwell describes as having been slain at early dawn in St. Peter's Church. This he looks upon as a judgment for their previous proceedings there. 'It is remarkable,' he writes, 'that these people at first set up the mass in some places of the town that had been monasteries; but afterwards grew so insolent that, the last Lord's day before the storm, the Protestants were thrust out of the great church called St. Peter's, and they had public mass there; and in this very place near 1,000 of them were put to the sword, fleeing thither for safety. I believe all the friars were knocked on the head promiscuously but two.' … Royalist accounts assert that many hundreds of women and children were slain in St. Peter's Church: It is, of course, possible that some of the townspeople, fleeing thither for safety, lost their lives in the general massacre of the garrison. There is, however, no trustworthy witness for any lives being taken except those of soldiers and friars. Cromwell did not sanction the killing of any but those with arms in their hands, though he seems to have approved of the fate of the friars. The fanatical zeal of his letter, and the fact that he takes the full credit, or discredit, for the slaughter of the garrison; makes it improbable that he concealed anything; and this substantiated by his subsequent declaration, in which he gives this challenge:—'Give us an instance of one man, since my coming into Ireland, not in arms, massacred, destroyed, or banished, concerning the massacre or the destruction of whom justice hath not been done, or endeavoured to be done.' With the enemy's troops Cromwell carried out the determined mode of warfare which he began at Drogheda. They were mostly scattered over the country, occupied in garrison duty. Before whatever town he came he demanded immediate surrender, or threatened to refuse quarter. Town after town opened its gates to this grim summons. Wexford, which refused to surrender, was stormed, and the whole garrison, 2,000 in number, put to the sword (October 11th). … In other respects, while Cromwell's rigour and determination saved bloodshed in the end by the rapidity and completeness of his conquests, his conduct in Ireland contrasted favourably on many points with that of the Royalists there. His own soldiers, for ill-using the people contrary to regulations, were sometimes cashiered the army, sometimes hanged. When a treaty was made, he kept faithfully to its terms. Garrisons that yielded on summons were allowed either to march away with arms and baggage, or else to go abroad and enter the service of any government at peace with England. Before the war was over he had rid the country, on these terms, of some 45,000 soldiers. Taking advantage of the divisions of his enemies, he persuaded several garrisons of English soldiers to desert the cause of Charles Stuart for the Commonwealth. His conduct of the war was so successful that, during the nine months of his stay in Ireland, the forces of the Royalists were shattered, and the provinces of Leinster and Munster recovered for the Parliament. Cromwell returned to England in May, 1650, leaving his son-in-law Ireton to complete the conquest of the country. The last garrisons in Ulster and Munster surrendered during the course of the ensuing summer and autumn. Ireton crossed the Shannon and drove the Irish back into the bogs and mountain fastnesses of Connaught, their last refuge, where fighting still continued for two years after all the rest of the country had been reduced (1651-2)."

"No admiration for Cromwell, for his genius, courage, and earnestness—no sympathy with the cause that he upheld in England—can blind us to the truth, that the lurid light of this great crime [the massacre at Drogheda] burns still after centuries across the history of England and of Ireland; that it is one of those damning charges which the Puritan theology has yet to answer at the bar of humanity."

"Oliver's proceedings here [at Drogheda] have been the theme of much loud criticism, and sibylline execration; into which it is not our plan to enter at present. … To those who think that a land overrun with Sanguinary Quacks can be healed by sprinkling it with rose-water, these letters must be very horrible. Terrible Surgery this: but is it Surgery and Judgment, or atrocious Murder merely? That is a question which should be asked; and answered. Oliver Cromwell did believe in God's Judgments; and did not believe in the rose-water plan of Surgery;—which, in fact, is this Editor's case too. … Here is a man whose word represents a thing! Not bluster this, and false jargon scattering itself to the winds: what this man speaks out of him comes to pass as a fact; speech with this man is accurately prophetic of deed. This is the first King's face poor Ireland ever saw; the first Friend's face, little as it recognises him,—poor Ireland! … To our Irish friends we ought to say likewise that this Garrison of Tredah consisted, in good part, of Englishmen. Perfectly certain this:—and therefore let 'the bloody hoof of the Saxon,' &c., forbear to continue itself on that matter."

"Cromwell met with little resistance: wherever he came, he held out the promise of life and liberty of conscience; … liberty of conscience he explained to mean liberty of internal belief, not of external worship; … but the rejection of the offer, though it were afterwards accepted, was punished with the blood of the officers; and, if the place were taken by force, with indiscriminate slaughter."

IRELAND: A. D. 1651.
The Massachusetts colonists invited to Ireland by Cromwell.

"On 12th May, 1652, the Leinster army of the Irish surrendered on terms signed at Kilkenny, which were adopted successively by the other principal armies between that time and the September following, when the Ulster forces surrendered. By these Kilkenny articles, all except those who were guilty of the first blood were received into protection, on laying down their arms; those who should not be satisfied with the conclusions the Parliament might come to concerning the Irish nation, and should desire to transport themselves with their men to serve any foreign state in amity with the Parliament, should have liberty to treat with their agents for that purpose."

   "By the term Cromwellian Settlement is to be understood the
   history of the dealings of the Commonwealth of England with
   the lands and habitations of the people of Ireland after their
   conquest of the country in the year 1652. … The officers of
   the army were eager to take Irish lands in lieu of their
   arrears, though it does not appear that the common soldiers
   were, who had small debentures and no capital, and no chance
   of founding families and leaving estates to their posterity.
   But the adventurers [national creditors, who had loaned money
   to the government for the Irish War] must be first settled
   with, as they had a claim to about one million of acres, to
   satisfy the sums advanced for putting down the rebellion on
   the faith of the Act of 17 Charles I. (A. D. 1642), and
   subsequent Acts and Ordinances, commonly called 'The Acts of
   Subscription.' By these, lands for the adventurers must be
   first ascertained, before the rest of the country could be
   free for disposal by the Parliament to the army. … Towards
   the close of the year 1653, the island seemed sufficiently
   desolated to allow the English to occupy it. On the 26th of
   September in that year, the Parliament passed an Act for the
   new planting of Ireland with English. The government reserved
   for themselves all the towns, all the church lands and tithes;
   for they abolished all archbishops, bishops, deans, and other
   officers, belonging to that hierarchy, and in those days the
   Church of Christ sat in Chichester House on College-green.
   They reserved also for themselves the four counties of Dublin,
   Kildare, Carlow, and Cork. Out of the lands and tithes thus
   reserved, the government were to satisfy public debts, private
   favourites, eminent friends of the republican cause in
   Parliament, regicides, and the most active of the English
   rebels, not being of the army. They next made ample provision
   for the adventurers. The amount due to the adventurers was
   £360,000. This they divided into three lots, of which £110,000
   was to be satisfied in Munster, £205,000 in Leinster, and
   £45,000 in Ulster, and the moiety of ten counties was charged
   with their payment:—Waterford, Limerick, and Tipperary, in
   Munster; Meath, Westmeath, King's and Queen's Counties, in
   Leinster; and Antrim, Down, and Armagh, in Ulster. But, as all
   was required by the Adventurers Act to be done by lot, a
   lottery was appointed to be held in Grocers' Hall, London, for
   the 20th July, 1653. … A lot was then to be drawn by the
   adventurers, and by some officer appointed by the Lord General
   Cromwell on behalf of the soldiery, to ascertain which
   baronies in the ten counties should be for the adventurers,
   and which for the soldiers. The rest of Ireland, except
   Connaught, was to be set out amongst the officers and
   soldiers, for their arrears, amounting to £1,550,000, and to
   satisfy debts of money or provisions due for supplies advanced
   to the army of the Commonwealth, amounting to £1,750,000.
   Connaught was by the Parliament reserved and appointed for the
   habitation of the Irish nation; and all English and
   Protestants having lands there, who should desire to remove
   out of Connaught into the provinces inhabited by the English,
   were to receive estates in the English parts, of equal value,
   in exchange. … The Earl of Ormond, Primate Bramhall, and all
   the Catholic nobility, and many of the gentry, were declared
   incapable of pardon of life or estate, and were banished. …
   Connaught was selected for the habitation of all the Irish
   nation by reason of its being surrounded by the sea and the
   Shannon, all but ten miles, and the whole easily made into one
   line by a few forts. To further secure the imprisonment of the
   nation, and cut them off from relief by sea, a belt four miles
   wide, commencing one mile to the west of Sligo, and so winging
   along the coast and Shannon, was reserved by the Act of 27th
   September, 1653, from being set out to the Irish, and was
   given to the soldiery to plant. Thither all the Irish were to
   remove at latest by the first day of May, 1654, except Irish
   women married to English Protestants before the 2d December,
   1650, provided they became Protestants; except, also, boys
   under fourteen and girls under twelve, in Protestant service
   and to be brought up Protestants; and, lastly, those who had
   shown during the ten years' war in Ireland their constant good
   affection to the Parliament of England in preference to the
   king.
{1770}
   There they were to dwell without entering a walled town, or
   coming within five miles of some, on pain of death. All were
   to remove thither by the 1st of May, 1654, at latest, under
   pain of being put to death by sentence of a court of military
   officers, if found after that date on the English side of the
   Shannon." In the actual enforcement of the law—found
   impracticable in all its rigor—there were many special
   dispensations granted, and extensions of time.

J. P. Prendergast, The Cromwellian Settlement of Ireland, preface, and parts 1-2.

ALSO IN: J. A. Froude, The English in Ireland in the 18th Century, book 1, chapter 2 (volume 1).

"On the fall of Richard Cromwell, a council of officers was established in Dublin; these summoned a convention of deputies from the protestant proprietors; and the convention tendered to Charles the obedience of his ancient kingdom of Ireland. … To secure the royal protection, they made the king an offer of a considerable sum of money, assured him, though falsely, that the Irish Catholics meditated a general insurrection, and prayed him to summon a protestant parliament in Ireland, which might confirm the existing proprietors in the undisturbed possession of their estates. The present was graciously accepted, and the penal laws against the Irish Catholics were ordered to be strictly enforced; but Charles was unwilling to call a parliament, because it would necessarily consist of men whose principles, both civil and religious, he had been taught to distrust. The first measure recommended to him by his English advisers, with respect to Ireland, was the re-establishment of episcopacy. For this no legislative enactment was requisite. His return had given to the ancient laws their pristine authority. … In a short time the episcopal hierarchy was quietly restored to the enjoyment of its former rights, and the exercise of its former jurisdiction. To this, a work of easy accomplishment, succeeded a much more difficult attempt,—the settlement of landed property in Ireland. The military, whom it was dangerous to disoblige, and the adventurers, whose pretensions had been sanctioned by Charles I., demanded the royal confirmation of the titles by which they held their estates; and the demand was opposed by a multitude of petitioners claiming restitution or compensation [protestant royalists, loyal Catholics, &c.]. … Humanity, gratitude, and justice, called on the king to listen to many of these claims. … From an estimate delivered to the king, it appeared that there still remained at his disposal forfeited lands of the yearly rental of from eighty to one hundred thousand pounds; a fund sufficiently ample, it was contended, to 'reprize' or compensate all the Irish really deserving of the royal favour. Under this impression, Charles published his celebrated declaration for the settlement of Ireland. It provided that no person deriving his title from the adventurers under the parliament, or the soldiers under the commonwealth, should be disturbed in the possession of his lands, without receiving an equivalent from the fund for reprisals; that all innocents, whether protestants or Catholics, that is, persons who had never adhered either to the parliament or the confederates, should be restored to their rightful estates." After much contention between deputations from both sides sent to the king, an act was passed through the Irish parliament substantially according to the royal declaration. "But to execute this act was found to be a task of considerable difficulty. By improvident grants of lands to the church, the dukes of York, Ormond, and Albemarle, the earls of Orrery, Montrath, Kingston, Massarene, and several others, the fund for reprisals had been almost exhausted." New controversies and agitations arose, which finally induced the soldiers, adventurers, and grantees of the crown to surrender one third of their acquisitions, for the augmenting of the fund for reprisals. "The king, by this measure, was placed in a situation [August, 1665], not indeed to do justice, but to silence the most importunate or most deserving among the petitioners. … But when compensation had thus been made to a few of the sufferers, what, it may be asked, became of the officers who had followed the royal fortune abroad, or of the 3,000 Catholics who had entered their claims of innocence? To all these, the promises which had been made by the act of settlement were broken; the unfortunate claimants were deprived of their rights, and debarred from all hope of future relief. A measure of such sweeping and appalling oppression is perhaps without a parallel in the history of civilized nations. Its injustice could not be denied; and the only apology offered in its behalf was the stern necessity of quieting the fears and jealousies of the Cromwellian settlers, and of establishing on a permanent basis the protestant ascendancy in Ireland. … The following is the general result. The protestants were previously [i. e., before the Cromwellian Settlement] in possession of about one moiety of all the profitable lands in the island; of the second moiety, which had been forfeited under the commonwealth, something less than two-thirds was by the act confirmed to the protestants; and of the remainder a portion almost equal in quantity, but not in quality, to one-third, was appropriated to the Catholics."

IRELAND: A. D. 1685-1688.
The reign of James II.
Domination of Tyrconnel and the Catholics.

   "At the accession of James II., in 1685, he found the native
   Irish, all of whom were Roman Catholics, opposed to the
   English rule, as to that of a conquering minority. … Of the
   settlers, the Scotch Presbyterians shared the feelings of
   their brethren in their native country, and hated
   Episcopalians with the true religious fury. In the Irish
   Parliament the Presbyterians and Episcopalians were nearly
   balanced, whilst the Protestant Nonconformists, in numbers
   almost equalling the other two parties, had but few seats in
   the Parliament. The Episcopalians alone were hearty supporters
   of the house of Stuart; the Presbyterians and Nonconformists
   were Whigs. James was in a most favourable position for
   tranquilising Ireland, for, as a Roman Catholic, he was much
   more acceptable to the native Irish than his predecessors had
   been.
{1771}
   Had he followed his true interests, he would have endeavoured,
   firstly, to unite together, as firmly as possible, the English
   settlers in Ireland, and secondly, by wise acts of mediation,
   to bridge over the differences between the English and Irish.
   Thus he might have welded them into one people. James,
   however, followed a directly opposite policy, and the results
   of this misgovernment of Ireland are visible at the present
   day. The Duke of Ormond was at the time of the death of
   Charles II. both lord lieutenant and commander of the forces.
   … Soon after his accession James recalled him, and the
   office of lord lieutenant was bestowed on his own
   brother-in-law, Lord Clarendon, whilst the post of general of
   the troops was given to Richard Talbot, Earl of Tyrconnel.
   Talbot … was a coarse, vulgar, truculent ruffian, greedy and
   unprincipled; but in the eyes of James he had great virtues,
   for he was devoted to the Romish Church and to his sovereign.
   'Lying Dick Talbot,' as he was called, was raised by James to
   the peerage as Earl of Tyrconnel. Lord Clarendon was, from the
   time of his appointment, hampered by his associate," who,
   finally, in 1687, supplanted him, gathering the reins of
   government into his own hands, "not indeed as lord lieutenant,
   but with the power which Ormond had formerly held, although
   under a new title, that of lord deputy. The rule of Tyrconnel
   entirely subverted the old order of things. Protestants were
   disarmed and Protestant soldiers were disbanded. The militia
   was composed wholly of Roman Catholics. The dispensing power
   in the royal prerogative set aside the statutes of the
   kingdom, and the bench and privy council were occupied by
   Roman Catholics. Vacant bishoprics of the Established Church
   remained unfilled, and their revenues were devoted to Romish
   priests. Tithes were with impunity withheld from the clergy of
   the Establishment. … The hatred of the Irish Roman Catholics
   towards the Protestant settlers was excited to the utmost
   under Tyrconnel's rule. The former now hoped to mete out to
   the latter a full measure of retaliation. The breach was
   widened owing to the fear and distrust openly showed by the
   Protestants, and has never since been effectually repaired."
   Before the occurrence of the Revolution which drove James from
   his throne, in 1688, "Tyrconnel had disarmed all the
   Protestants, except those in the North. He had a large force
   of 20,000 men under arms, and of this force all the officers
   were trustworthy and Papists. He had filled the corporations
   of the towns with adherents of James. He had shown himself to
   be, as ever, tyrannical and unscrupulous. It was universally
   believed by the Protestants that a general massacre, a second
   St. Bartholomew, was intended. Even a day, December 9, was,
   they thought, fixed for the expected outbreak. The garrison of
   Londonderry had been temporarily withdrawn. On December 8,
   Lord Antrim arrived in command of 12,000 [1,200?] soldiers to
   form the new garrison. Without any warning, the Protestant
   apprentices ('the prentice boys of Derry') shut the gates of
   the city in his face. The inhabitants, in spite of the
   entreaties of the bishop and of the town council, refused to
   allow them to be opened. Antrim was compelled to withdraw.
   Thus one rallying-point was gained for the opponents of James.
   Another was found in Enniskillen, sixty miles south of
   Londonderry. Into these two towns poured all the Protestants
   from the surrounding districts. With these two exceptions, the
   boast of Tyrconnel that Ireland was true, was well founded."

"He [James II.] deliberately resolved, not merely to give to the aboriginal inhabitants of Ireland the entire dominion of their own country, but also to use them as his instruments for setting up arbitrary government in England. The event was such as might have been foreseen. The colonists turned to bay with the stubborn hardihood of their race. The mother country justly regarded their cause as her own. Then came a desperate struggle for a tremendous stake. … The contest was terrible but short. The weaker went down. His fate was cruel; and yet for the cruelty with which he was treated there was, not indeed a defence, but an excuse: for though he suffered all that tyranny could inflict, he suffered nothing that he would not himself have inflicted. The effect of the insane attempt to subjugate England by means of Ireland was that the Irish became hewers of wood and drawers of water to the English. … The momentary ascendency of Popery produced such a series of barbarous laws against Popery as made the statute book of Ireland a proverb of infamy throughout Christendom. Such were the bitter fruits of the policy of James."

      ALSO IN:
      J. R. O'Flanagan,
      Lives of the Lord Chancellors of Ireland,
      chapter 28 (volume 1).

   Enniskillen, then a village, surrounding an ancient castle,
   was, in 1688-89, one of the two rallying points of the
   Protestant colonists in Ireland, who supported the Revolution
   by which James II. was dethroned and William and Mary were
   crowned. The chief stronghold of their cause was Londonderry;
   but Enniskillen bore a scarcely less important part. "In
   December, 1688, Tyrconnel's troops, being two companies of
   Popish infantry, advanced upon Enniskillen. The inhabitants,
   reinforced by 200 foot and 150 horse, contributed by the
   neighbouring gentry, marched out to oppose them. Tyrconnel's
   men fled to Cavan. The Enniskilleners, then, arming themselves
   as well as they could, and converting all the country-houses
   round Lough Erne into garrisons, appointed Gustavus Hamilton
   their governor and resolved upon defence. … Early in May,
   1689, the Enniskilleners routed Tyrconnel's troops, sent from
   Connaught into Donegal. They next drove 1,500 men out of the
   County Cavan—destroyed the Castle of Ballincarrig—and then
   entered the County Meath, whence they carried off oxen and
   sheep. Colonel Hugh Sutherland was sent with a regiment of
   dragoons and two regiments of foot against the Enniskilleners,
   who, however, defeated them, and took Belturbet, where they
   found muskets, gunpowder, and provisions; but unfortunately
   they were unable to relieve Derry, then beleaguered and sorely
   distressed. The Enniskilleners held out against all attacks,
   and refused all terms of surrender. They were now assailed
   from various points; by Macarthy (then by James created
   Viscount Mountcashel) from the east, by another body from the
   west, and by the Duke of Berwick from the north.
{1772}
   The Enniskilleners sent to Colonel Kirke [commanding the
   English forces first sent to Ireland by William of Orange] who
   had arrived in Lough Foyle, and received from him some arms
   and ammunition; and Colonel Wolseley and Lieutenant-Colonel
   Berry came from him to their assistance. Colonel Wolseley took
   the command." Under Wolseley, the men of Enniskillen, 3,000
   strong, encountered 5,000 of the enemy, under Mountcashel,
   near the town of Newton Butler, on the 31st of July, three
   days after Derry had been relieved. Their victory was
   complete. "The whole Irish force was totally and hopelessly
   routed. Their slaughter was dreadful—l,500 killed, and 500
   drowned in Lough Erne, whither they were driven. Mountcashel
   was wounded and taken prisoner. The Enniskilleners lost only
   twenty killed and fifty wounded. They took 400 prisoners, some
   cannons, fourteen barrels of gunpowder, and all the colours
   and drums. … The victory became known at Strabane to the
   Irish army retreating from Derry, which thereupon broke up in
   confusion and fled to Omagh, and thence to Charlemont."

Supported by a French fleet, supplied moderately with French gold, and accompanied by a picked body of French officers, for the organizing and disciplining of raw Irish troops, James II. landed in Ireland, at Kinsale, on the 12th of March, 1689, to take personal possession of the government still maintained there in his name. From Kinsale he hastened to Dublin, "and summoned a Parliament, which met on May 7, 1689, and sat until July 18. This Parliament of James has been described as a Parliament of Irish Celts, yet out of the 228 members of the House of Commons about one-fourth only belonged to the native race, and even including members of families Anglicized or of doubtful origin, not one-third of the House of Commons belonged to the so-called Celts. Of the thirty-two lay peers who attended, not more than two or three bore old Irish names. The four spiritual peers were Protestant bishops."

"The members of the House of Commons were almost all new men, completely inexperienced in public business and animated by the resentment of the bitterest wrongs. Many of them were sons of some of the 3,000 proprietors who without trial and without compensation had been deprived by the Act of Settlement of the estates of their ancestors. To all of them the confiscations of Ulster, the fraud of Strafford, the long train of calamities that followed were recent and vivid events. … It will hardly appear surprising to candid men that a Parliament so constituted and called together amid the excitement of a civil war, should have displayed much violence, much disregard for vested interests. Its measures, indeed, were not all criminal. By one Act which was far in advance of the age, it established perfect religious liberty in Ireland. … By another Act, repealing Poynings' law, and asserting its own legislative independence, it anticipated the doctrine of Molyneux, Swift, and Grattan. … A third measure abolished the payments to Protestant clergy in the corporate towns, while a fourth ordered that the Catholics throughout Ireland should henceforth pay their tithes and other ecclesiastical dues to their own priests and not to the Protestant clergy. The Protestants were still to pay their tithes to their own clergy. … Several other measures—most of them now only known by their titles—were passed for developing the resources of the country or remedying some great abuse. … If these had been the only measures of the Irish Parliament it would have left an eminently honourable reputation. But, unfortunately, one of its main objects was to re-establish at all costs the descendants of the old proprietors in their land, and to annul by measures of sweeping violence the grievous wrongs and spoliations their fathers and their grandfathers had undergone. The first and most important measure with this object was the repeal of the Acts of Settlement and Explanation. … The preamble asserts that the outbreak of 1641 had been solely due to the intolerable oppression and to the disloyal conduct of the Lords Justices and Puritan party, that the Catholics of Ireland before the struggle had concluded had been fully reconciled to the sovereign, that they had received from the sovereign a full and formal pardon, and that the royal word had been in consequence pledged to the restitution of their properties. This pledge by the Act of Settlement had been to a great extent broken, and the Irish legislators maintained that the twenty-four years which had elapsed since that Act had not annulled the rights of the old proprietors or their descendants. They maintained that these claims were not only valid but were prior to all others, and they accordingly enacted that the heirs of all persons who had possessed landed property in Ireland on October 22, 1641, and who had been deprived of their inheritance by the Act of Settlement, should enter at once into possession of their old properties. … The long succession of confiscations of Irish land which had taken place from the days of Mary to the Act of Settlement had been mainly based upon real or pretended plots of the owners of the soil, which enabled the Government, on the plea of high treason, to appropriate the land which they desired. In 1689 the great bulk of the English proprietors of Irish soil were in actual correspondence with William, and were therefore legally guilty of high treason. The Irish legislators now proceeded to follow the example of the British Governments, and by a clause of extreme severity they pronounced the real estates of all Irish proprietors who dwelt in any part of the three kingdoms which did not acknowledge King James, or who aided, abetted or corresponded with the rebels, to be forfeited and vested in the Crown, and from this source they proposed to compensate the purchasers under the Act of Settlement. … The measure of repeal, however, was speedily followed by another Act of much more sweeping and violent injustice. The Act of Attainder, which was introduced in the latter part of June, aimed at nothing less than a complete overthrow of the existing land system in Ireland. A list divided into several groups, but containing in all more than 2,000 names, was drawn up of landowners who were to be attainted of high treason. … {1773} Few persons will question the tyranny of an Act which in this manner made a very large proportion of the Irish landlords liable to the penalties of high treason, unless they could prove their innocence, even though the only crime that could be alleged against them was that of living out of Ireland in a time of civil war. … It is … a curious illustration of the carelessness or partiality with which Irish history is written, that no popular historian has noticed that five days before this Act, which has been described as 'without a parallel in the history of civilised countries,' was introduced into the Irish Parliament, a Bill which appears, in its essential characteristics, to have been precisely similar was introduced into the Parliament of England; that it passed the English House of Commons; that it passed, with slight amendments, the English House of Lords; and that it was only lost, in its last stage, by a prorogation. … These facts will show how far the Irish Act of Attainder was from having the unique character that has been ascribed to it. It is not possible to say how that Act would have been executed, for the days of Jacobite ascendency were now few and evil. The Parliament was prorogued on the 20th of July, one of its last Acts being to vest in the King the property of those who were still absentees."

While James' Irish Parliament sat, "sufficient men had presented themselves to form fifty regiments of infantry and a proportionate number of cavalry. But … these levies were undisciplined, and their officers, with few exceptions, were without military training and experience. There were no arsenals, and in the government stores only about 1,000 serviceable firearms were found; there was no artillery and no supply of ammunition. … What coin was in circulation was small in quantity and debased in quality. James's Government issued a brass coinage, which had no currency outside the kingdom, and even within it practically circulated only among the partisans of James, and could not consequently help in purchasing arms, ammunition, and military stores, which had to be imported from without. Under such unfavourable circumstances the war began. The first campaign comprised the siege, or rather blockade, of Derry—for the Irish, having no artillery, could not undertake a regular siege—which was gallantly defended by the Scoto-English colonists; the check of Mountcashel by the Enniskilleners, who had followed the example of Derry; the landing of Schomberg with an army of Dutch, French Protestants, and English, who went into winter quarters near Dundalk, where he lost nearly half his troops from sickness; and, lastly, the military parade of James, who marched out from Dublin, and, failing to force Schomberg to fight, went into winter quarters himself. The result of the campaign was the successful defence of Derry, and the signal exhibition of James's incapacity as a general. At the opening of the second campaign, an exchange of troops was made between James and Louis XIV., with the view of giving prestige to the cause of the former. Six thousand French troops, under a drawing-room general, the well-known Comte de Lauzun, arrived in Ireland, and the same ships carried back an equal number of Irish troops—the brigade of Mountcashel, the best-trained and best-equipped body of troops in the Irish army. … The wasted army of Schomberg was strengthened by the arrival of William himself on June 14, 1690, with a considerable force. The united armies, composed of the most heterogeneous materials, one-half being foreigners of various nationalities, amounted to between 36,000 and 48,000 men. … To meet William, James set out from Dublin with an army of about 23,000 men. The French troops and the Irish cavalry were good, but the infantry was not well trained, and the artillery consisted only of twelve field-pieces. The battle took place on July 1, 1690, at the passage of the River Boyne, a few miles above Drogheda [the rout of James's army being complete and its loss about 1,500 men. William lost but 500; but the number included Schomberg, one of the great soldiers of his age. James was among the first in the flight, and he scarcely paused until he had put himself on board of a French frigate and quitted Ireland forever]. The Irish fell back on Dublin and thence retired behind the line of the Shannon. About 20,000 half-armed infantry and about 3,500 horse concentrated at Limerick. The English having failed in taking Athlone, the key of the upper Shannon, William gathered together about 38,000 men in the neighbourhood of Limerick. Lauzun having declared that Limerick could not be defended, and might be taken with roasted apples, withdrew with the whole of the French troops to Galway, to await the first opportunity of returning to France. On August 9, 1690, William moved his whole army close to the town and summoned the garrison to surrender; but having failed, with a loss of 2,000 men, to carry the town by assault, he raised the siege and went to England. The third and last campaign began late in 1691. The Irish received many promises of assistance from Louis XIV., but his ministers fulfilled few or none of them. With scarcely any loss of men, and with a small expenditure of stores and money, the Irish war enabled Louis to keep William and a veteran army of 40,000 men out of his way. … The campaign opened in the beginning of June with the advance of Ginkel [William's general] on Athlone. The chief defence of the place was the River Shannon, the works being weak, and mounting only a few field-pieces; yet so obstinately was the place defended that, but for the discovery of a ford, and some neglect on the part of D'Usson, who commanded, it is probable that the siege would have been raised. As it was, Ginkel became master of the heap of ruins. … St. Ruth [the French officer commanding the Irish] moved his camp to Aughrim [or Aghrim], and there was fought the final battle of the war on Sunday, July 12, 1691. … St. Ruth was killed at a critical moment, and his army defeated, with a loss of about 4,000 men, the English loss being about half that number. Part of the defeated Irish infantry retreated to Galway; but the bulk of the troops, including the whole of the cavalry, fell back on Limerick, which surrendered, after a gallant resistance, in October, 1691."

      W. A. O'Conor,
      History of the Irish People,
      book 3, chapter 3 (volume 2).

Sir J. Dalrymple, Memoirs of Great Britain and Ireland, part 2, books 2-5 (volume 2).

The surrender of Limerick was under the terms of a treaty—or of two treaties, one military, the other civil—formally negotiated for the terminating of the war. This Treaty of Limerick was signed, October 3, 1691, by Baron De Ginkel, William's general, and by the lords justices of Ireland, on behalf of the English, and by Sarsfield and other chieftains on behalf of the Irish. "Its chief provisions were: 'The Roman Catholics of this kingdom shall enjoy such privileges in the exercise of their religion as are consistent with the laws of Ireland; or as they did enjoy in the reign of King Charles II.; and their Majesties, as soon as their affairs will permit them to summon a Parliament in this kingdom, will endeavour to procure the said Roman Catholics such further security in that particular as may preserve them from any disturbance upon the account of their said religion. All the inhabitants or residents of Limerick, or any other garrison now in the possession of the Irish, and all officers and soldiers now in arms under any commission of King James, or those authorized by him to grant the same in the several counties of Limerick, Clare, Kerry, Cork, and Mayo, or any of them, and all the commissioned officers in their Majesties' quarters that belong to the Irish regiments now in being that are treated with and who are not prisoners of war, or having taken protection, and who shall return and submit to their Majesties' obedience, and their and every of their heirs shall hold, possess, and enjoy all and every their estates of freehold and inheritance; and all the rights, titles, and interest, privileges and immunities, which they, or every or any of them, held, enjoyed, and were rightfully and lawfully entitled to in the reign of King Charles II.' … A general pardon was to be granted to all persons comprised within the treaty, and the Lords Justices and the generals commanding King William's army were to use their best endeavours to get the attainders of any of them attainted repealed. … In the copy of the rough draft engrossed for signature the following words, 'and all such as are under their protection in the said counties,' which immediately followed the enumeration of the several counties in the second article, were omitted. This omission, whether the result of design or accident, was, however, rectified by King William when confirming the treaty in February, 1692. The confirming instrument stated that the words had been casually omitted; that the omission was not discovered till the articles were signed, but was taken notice of before the town was surrendered; and that the Lords Justices or General Ginkel, or one of them, had promised that the clause should be made good, since it was within the intention of the capitulation, and had been inserted in the rough draft. William then for himself did 'ratify and confirm the said omitted words.' The colonists, or at all events the 'new interests'—that is, those who shared or expected to share in the confiscations—were indignant at the concessions made to the native race."

"The advantages secured to Catholics by the Treaty of Limerick were moderate. But when the flower of the Irish army had withdrawn to France, and the remnant could be hanged without ceremony, they began to look inordinate. The parliament of Cromwellian settlers and Government officials in Dublin having excluded Catholic members, by requiring from them an oath of abjuration, in direct infringement of one of the articles of surrender, were free to proceed at their discretion. They first passed a stringent statute depriving Catholics of arms, and another ordering all 'Popish archbishops, bishops, vicars-general, deans, Jesuits, monks, friars, and regulars of whatever condition to depart from the kingdom on pain of transportation,' and then proceeded to consider the treaty. They … resolved by a decisive majority not to keep the conditions affecting the Catholics. William … struggled for a time to preserve his honour; but it is not convenient for a new king to be in conflict with his friends, and after a time he gave way. … In Ireland the Treaty of Limerick can never be forgotten; it is one of the title deeds of the Irish race to their inheritance in their native land. For more than a century its sordid and shameless violation was as common a reproach to England on the Continent as the partition of Poland has been a reproach to Russia in our own day."

Sir C. G. Duffy, Bird's-Eye View of Irish History, revised edition, pages 155-156 (or book 1, chapter 4, of "Young Ireland").

"The Protestant rancour of parliament was more powerful than the good will of the prince. The most vital articles of the capitulation were ignored, especially in all cases where the Catholic religion and the liberties granted to its professors were concerned; and 4,000 Irish were denounced as traitors and rebels,—by which declamation a fresh confiscation of 1,060,000 acres was immediately effected. … It has been calculated that in 1692 the Irish Catholics, who quadrupled the Protestants in number, owned only one-eleventh of the soil, and that the most wretched and unproductive portion."

IRELAND: A. D. 1691-1782.
   The peace of despair.
   A century of national death.
   Oppression of the Penal Laws.

"By the military treaty [of Limerick], those of Sarsfield's soldiers who would were suffered to follow him to France; and 10,000 men, the whole of his force, chose exile rather than life in a land where all hope of national freedom was lost. When the wild cry of the women who stood watching their departure was hushed, the silence of death settled down upon Ireland. For a hundred years the country remained at peace, but the peace was a peace of despair. The most terrible legal tyranny under which a nation has ever groaned avenged the rising under Tyrconnell. The conquered people, in Swift's bitter words of contempt, became 'hewers of wood and drawers of water' to their conquerors; but till the very eve of the French Revolution Ireland ceased to be a source of terror and anxiety to England."

   "In Ireland there was peace. The domination of the colonists
   was absolute. The native population was tranquil with the
   ghastly tranquillity of exhaustion and of despair. There were
   indeed outrages, robberies, fireraisings, assassinations. But
   more than a century passed away without one general
   insurrection. During that century, two rebellions were raised
   in Great Britain by the adherents of the House of Stuart. But
   neither when the elder Pretender was crowned at Scone, nor
   when the younger held his court at Holyrood, was the standard
   of that House set up in Connaught or Munster.
{1775}
   In 1745, indeed, when the Highlanders were marching towards
   London, the Roman Catholics of Ireland were so quiet that the
   Lord Lieutenant could, without the smallest risk, send several
   regiments across Saint George's Channel to reinforce the army
   of the Duke of Cumberland. Nor was this submission the effect
   of content, but of mere stupefaction and brokenness of heart.
   The iron had entered into the soul. The memory of past
   defeats, the habit of daily enduring insult and oppression,
   had cowed the spirits of the unhappy nation. There were indeed
   Irish Roman Catholics of great ability, energy and ambition;
   but they were to be found everywhere except in Ireland,—at
   Versailles and at Saint lldefonso, in the armies of Frederic
   and in the armies of Maria Theresa. One exile became a Marshal
   of France. Another became Prime Minister of Spain. If he had
   staid in his native land he would have been regarded as an
   inferior by all the ignorant and worthless squireens who had
   signed the Declaration against Transubstantiation. …
   Scattered over all Europe were to be found brave Irish
   generals, dexterous Irish diplomatists, Irish Counts, Irish
   Barons, Irish Knights … who, if they had remained in the
   house of bondage, could not have been ensigns of marching
   regiments or freemen of petty corporations. These men, the
   natural chiefs of their race, having been withdrawn, what
   remained was utterly helpless and passive. A rising of the
   Irishry against the Englishry was no more to be apprehended
   than a rising of the women and children against the men."

"An act of 1695 'deprived the Roman Catholics of the means of educating their children, either at home or abroad, and of the privilege of being guardians either of their own or of any other person's children.' Another Act of the same year deprived the Roman Catholics of the right of bearing arms, or of keeping any horse which was worth more than £5. An Act of 1697 ordered the expulsion of every Roman Catholic priest from Ireland. The Parliament, which had imposed these disabilities on Irish Roman Catholics, proceeded to confirm the Articles of Limerick, or 'so much of them as may consist with the safety and welfare of your Majesty's subjects of this kingdom,' and by a gross act of injustice omitted the whole of the first of these articles, and the important paragraph in the second article which had been accidentally omitted from the original copy of the Treaty, and subsequently restored to it by letters patent under the Great Seal. Reasonable men may differ on the propriety or impropriety of the conditions on which the surrender of Limerick was secured; but it is difficult to read the story of their repudiation without a deep sense of shame. Three other acts relating to the Roman Catholics were passed during the reign of William. An Act of 1697 forbade the intermarriage of Protestants and Papists. An Act of 1698 prevented Papists from being solicitors. Another Act of the same year stopped their employment as gamekeepers. William died; and the breach of faith which he had countenanced was forgotten amidst the pressure of the legislation which disgraced the reign of his successor. Two Acts passed in this reign, for preventing the further growth of Popery, were styled by Burke the 'ferocious Acts of Anne.' By the first of these Acts a Papist having a Protestant son was debarred from selling, mortgaging, or devising any portion of his estate: however young the son might be, he was to be taken from his father's hands and confided to the care of a Protestant relation. The estate of a Papist who had no Protestant heir was to be divided equally among his sons. The Papist was declared incapable of purchasing real estate or of taking land on lease for more than thirty-one years. A Papist was declared incapable of inheriting real estate from a Protestant. He was disqualified from holding any office, civil or military. With twenty exceptions, a Papist was forbidden to reside in Limerick or Galway. Advowsons the property of Papists were vested in the Crown. Religious intolerance had now apparently done its uttermost. … But the laws failed. Their severity insured their failure. … The first of the ferocious Acts of Anne was almost openly disregarded. … Its failure only induced the intolerant advisers of Anne to supplement it with harsher legislation. The Act of 1704 had deprived the Papist of the guardianship of his apostate child. An Act of 1709 empowered the Court of Chancery to oblige the Papist to discover his estate, and authorized the Court to make an order for the maintenance of the apostate child out of the proceeds of it. The Act of 1704 had made it illegal for a Papist to take lands on lease; the Act of 1709 disabled him from receiving a life annuity. An Act of 1704 had compelled the registry of priests. The Act of 1709 forbade their officiating in any parish except that in which they were registered. These, however, were the least reprehensible features in the Act of 1709. Its worst features were the encouragement which it gave to the meaner vices of human nature. The wife of a Papist, if she became a Protestant, was to receive a jointure out of her husband's estate. A Popish priest abandoning his religion was to receive an annuity of £30 a year. Rewards were to be paid for 'discovering' Popish prelates, priests, and schoolmasters. Two justices might compel any Papist to state on oath where and when he had heard mass, who had officiated at it, and who had been present at it. Encouragement was thus given to informers; bribes were thus held out to apostates; and Parliament trusted to the combined effects of bribery and intimidation to stamp out the last remnant of Popery. The penal code, however, was not yet complete. The armoury of intolerance was not yet exhausted. An Act of George I. disabled Papists from serving in the Irish militia, but compelled them to find Protestant substitutes; to pay double towards the support of the militia, and rendered their horses liable to seizure for militia purposes. By Acts of George II. the Papists were disfranchised; barristers or solicitors marrying Papists were deemed Papists; all marriages between Protestants and Papists were annulled; and Popish priests celebrating any illegal marriages were condemned to be hanged. By an Act of George III. Papists refusing to deliver up or declare their arms were liable to be placed in the pillory or to be whipped, as the Court should think proper. Such were the laws which the intolerance of a minority imposed on the majority of their fellow-subjects. Utterly unjust, they had not even the bare merit of success. … {1776} 'The great body of the people,' wrote Arthur Young [1780], 'stripped of their all, were more enraged than converted: they adhered to the persuasion of their forefathers with the steadiest and the most determined zeal; while the priests, actuated by the spirit of a thousand inducements, made proselytes among the common Protestants in defiance of every danger. … Those laws have crushed all the industry and wrested most of the property from the Catholics; but the religion triumphs; it is thought to increase.'"

      ALSO IN:
      R. R. Madden,
      Historical Notice of Penal Laws against Roman Catholics.

      E. Burke,
      Letter to a Peer of Ireland on the Penal Laws
      (Works, volume 4).

      E. Burke,
      Fragments of a Tract on the Popery Laws
      (Works, volume 6).

"A patent had been given [1722, by the Walpole administration] to a certain William Wood for supplying Ireland with a copper coinage. Many complaints had been made, and in September, 1723, addresses were voted by the Irish Houses of Parliament, declaring that the patent had been obtained by clandestine and false representations; that it was mischievous to the country; and that Wood had been guilty of frauds in his coinage. They were pacified by vague promises; but Walpole went on with the scheme on the strength of a favourable report of a committee of the Privy Council; and the excitement was already serious when (in 1724) Swift published the Drapier's Letters, which give him his chief title to eminence as a patriotic agitator. Swift either shared or took advantage of the general belief that the mysteries of the currency are unfathomable to the human intelligence. … There is, however, no real mystery about the halfpence. The small coins which do not form part of the legal-tender may be considered primarily as counters. A penny is a penny, so long as twelve are change for a shilling. It is not in the least necessary for this purpose that the copper contained in the twelve penny pieces should be worth or nearly worth a shilling. … At the present day bronze worth only twopence is coined into twelve penny pieces. … The effect of Wood's patent was that a mass of copper worth about £60,000 became worth £100,800 in the shape of halfpenny pieces. There was, therefore, a balance of about £40,000, to pay for the expenses of coinage. It would have been waste to get rid of this by putting more copper in the coins; but if so large a profit arose from the transaction, it would go to somebody. At the present day it would be brought into the national treasury. This was not the way in which business was done in Ireland. Wood was to pay £1,000 a year for fourteen years to the Crown. But £14,000 still leaves a large margin for profit. 'What was to become of it. According to the admiring biographer of Sir R. Walpole the patent had been originally given by Lord Sunderland to the Duchess of Kendal, a lady whom the King delighted to honour. … It was right and proper that a profit should be made on the transaction, but shameful that it should be divided between the King's mistress and William Wood, and that the bargain should be struck without consulting the Irish representatives, and maintained in, spite of their protests. The Duchess of Kendal was to be allowed to take a share of the wretched halfpence in the pocket of every Irish beggar. A more disgraceful transaction could hardly be imagined, or one more calculated to justify Swift's view of the selfishness and corruption of the English rulers. Swift saw his chance and went to work in characteristic fashion, with unscrupulous audacity of statement, guided by the keenest strategical instinct. … The patent was surrendered, and Swift might congratulate himself upon a complete victory. … The Irish succeeded in rejecting a real benefit at the cost of paying Wood the profit which he would have made, had he been allowed to confer it."

Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope), History of England, 1713-1783, chapter 13 (volume 2).

IRELAND: A. D. 1760-1798.
   Whiteboys.
   Oak Boys.
   Steel Boys.
   Peep of Day Boys.
   Catholic Defenders.

   "The peasantry continued to regard the land as their own; and
   with the general faith that wrong cannot last forever, they
   waited for the time when they would once more have possession
   of it. 'The lineal descendants of the old families,' wrote
   Arthur Young in 1774, 'are now to be found all over the
   kingdom, working as cottiers on the lands which were once
   their own.' … With the growth of what was called
   civilization, absenteeism, the worst disorder of the country,
   had increased. … The rise in prices, the demand for salt
   beef and salt butter for exportation and for the fleets, were
   revolutionizing the agriculture of Munster. The great
   limestone pastures of Limerick and Tipperary, the fertile
   meadow universally, was falling into the hands of capitalist
   graziers, in whose favour the landlords, or the landlords'
   agents, were evicting the smaller tenants. … To the
   peasantry these men were a curse. Common lands, where their
   own cows had been fed, were inclosed and taken from them. The
   change from tillage to grazing destroyed their employment.
   Their sole subsistence was from their potato gardens, the
   rents of which were heavily raised, while, by a curious
   mockery of justice, the grass lands were exempt from tithe,
   and the burden of maintaining the rectors and vicars of the
   Established Church was cast exclusively on the Catholic poor.
   Among a people who are suffering under a common wrong there is
   a sympathy of resentment which links them together without
   visible or discoverable bond. In the spring of 1760 Tipperary
   was suddenly overrun by bands of midnight marauders. Who they
   were was a mystery. Rumours reached England of insurgent
   regiments drilling in the moonlight; of French officers
   observed passing and repassing the Channel; but no French
   officer could be detected in Munster. The most rigid search
   discovered no stands of arms, such as soldiers use or could
   use. This only was certain, that white figures were seen in
   vast numbers, like moving clouds, flitting silently at night
   over field and moor, leaving behind them the tracks of where
   they had passed in levelled fences and houghed and moaning
   cattle; where the owners were specially hateful, in blazing
   homesteads, and the inmates' bodies blackening in the ashes.
   Arrests were generally useless. The country was sworn to
   secrecy.
{1777}
   Through the entire central plains of Ireland the people were
   bound by the most solemn oaths never to reveal the name of a
   confederate, or give evidence in a court of justice. … Thus
   it was long uncertain how the movement originated, who were
   its leaders, and whether there was one or many. Letters
   signed by Captain Dwyer or Joanna Meskell were left at the
   doors of obnoxious persons, ordering lands to be abandoned
   under penalties. If the commands were uncomplied with, the
   penalties were inexorably inflicted. … Torture usually being
   preferred to murder, male offenders against the Whiteboys were
   houghed like their cattle, or their tongues were torn out by
   the roots."

The Whiteboys took their name from the practice of wearing a white shirt drawn over their other clothing, when they were out upon their nocturnal expeditions. "The Oak Boy movement took place about 1761-2. … The injustice which led to the formation of the 'Oak Boys,' one of the best known of the colonial societies, was duty work on roads. Every householder was bound to give six days' labour in making and repairing the public roads; and if he had a horse, six days' labour of his horse. It was complained that this duty work was only levied on the poor, and that they were compelled to work on private job roads, and even upon what were the avenues and farm roads of the gentry. The name Oak Boys, or Hearts of Oak Boys, was derived from the members in their raids wearing an oak branch in their hats. The organization spread rapidly over the greater part of Ulster. Although the grievances were common to Protestant and Catholic workmen, and there was nothing religious in the objects or constitution of the Oak Boys, the society was an exclusively Protestant body, owing to the total absence at the period of any association between the Protestants and Catholics. … The Steel Boys, or Hearts of Steel Boys, followed the Oak Boys [about 1771]. They also were exclusively Protestant; the origin of this organization was the extravagance and profligacy of a bad landlord, the representative of the great land thief, Chichester, of the Plantation of King James I. … The Oak Boys and Steel Boys did not last long."

W. K. Sullivan, part 1 of Two Centuries of Irish History, chapter 5, with foot-note.

The landlord here referred to, as having provoked the organization of the Steel Boys, was the Marquis of Donegal. "Many of his Antrim leases having fallen in simultaneously, he demanded £100,000 in fines for the renewal of them. The tenants, all Protestants, offered the interest of the money in addition to the rent.' It could not be. Speculative Belfast capitalists paid the fine and took the lands over the heads of the tenants, to sublet. … The most substantial of the expelled tenantry gathered their effects together and sailed to join their countrymen in the New World. … Between those who were too poor to emigrate, and the Catholics who were in possession of their homes, there grew a protracted feud, which took form at last in the conspiracy of the Peep of Day Boys; in the fierce and savage expulsion of the intruders, who were bidden to go to hell or Connaught; and in the counter-organization of the Catholic Defenders, which spread over the whole island, and made the army of insurrection in 1798."

J. A. Froude, The English in Ireland, book 5, chapter 2, section 6 (volume 2).

IRELAND: A. D. 1778-1794.
Concession of Legislative independence by the
so-called Constitution of 1782.

"England's difficulty was Ireland's opportunity. Over in the American colonies Mr. Washington and his rebels were pressing hard upon the troops of King George. More than one garrison had been compelled to surrender, more than one general had given up his bright sword to a revolutionary leader. On the hither side of the Atlantic the American flag was scarcely less dreaded than at Yorktown and Saratoga. … Ireland, drained of troops, lay open to invasion. The terrible Paul Jones was drifting about the seas; descents upon Ireland were dreaded; if such descents had been made the island was practically defenceless. An alarmed Mayor of Belfast, appealing to the Government for military aid, was informed that no more serious and more formidable assistance could be rendered to the chief city of the North than might be given by half a troop of dismounted cavalry and half a troop of invalids. If the French-American enemy would consent to be scared by such a muster, well and good; if not Belfast, and for the matter of that, all Ireland, must look to itself. Thereupon Ireland, very promptly and decisively, did look to itself. A Militia Act was passed empowering the formation of volunteer corps—consisting, of course, solely of Protestants—for the defence of the island. A fever of military enthusiasm swept over the country; north and south and east and west men caught up arms, nominally to resist the French, really, though they knew it not, to effect one of the greatest constitutional revolutions in history. Before a startled Government could realise what was occurring 60,000 men were under arms. For the first time since the surrender of Limerick there was an armed force in Ireland able and willing to support a national cause. Suddenly, almost in the twinkling of an eye, Ireland found herself for the first time for generations in the possession of a well-armed, well-disciplined, and well-generalled military force. The armament that was organised to insure the safety of England was destined to achieve the liberties of Ireland. … All talk of organisation to resist foreign invasion was silenced; in its place the voice of the nation was heard loudly calling for the redress of its domestic grievances. Their leader was Charlemont; Grattan and Flood were their principal colonels."

"When the Parliament met, Grattan moved as an amendment to the Address, 'that it was by free export and import only that the Nation was to be saved from impending ruin'; and a corps of Volunteers, commanded by the Duke of Leinster, lined Dame Street as the Speaker and the Commons walked in procession to the Castle. Another demonstration of Volunteers in College Green excited Dublin a little later on, and (15th November, 1779) a riotous mob clamoured for Free Trade at the very doors of the House. … These events resulted in immediate success. Lord North proposed in the British Parliament three articles of relief to Irish trade—

(1) to allow free export of wool, woollens, and wool-flocks; (2) to allow a free export of glass; (3) to allow, under certain conditions, a free trade to all the British colonies.

When the news reached Ireland excessive joy prevailed. … But this was only a beginning. Poynings' Law, and the 6th of George I., required to be swept away too, so that Ireland might enjoy not only Free Trade, but also Self-government. Grattan moved his two famous resolutions:—

1. That the King, with the consent of the Lords and Commons of
Ireland, is alone competent to enact laws to bind Ireland.

In supporting these resolutions, Grattan cited England's dealings with America, to show what Ireland too might effect by claiming her just rights. … The Earl of Carlisle became Viceroy in 1781, with Mr. Eden as Secretary. Viewing England's embroilment in war—in America, in India, with France, and Spain, and Holland—the Irish Volunteers, whose numbers had swelled, Grattan said, to well-nigh 100,000 men, held meetings and reviews in various parts of the country. … The 16th of April, 1782, was a memorable day for Dublin. On that date, in a city thronged with Volunteers, with bands playing, and banners blazoned with gilded harps fluttering in the wind, Grattan, in an amendment to the Address which was always presented to the King at the opening of Parliament, moved, 'That Ireland is a distinct Kingdom, with a separate Parliament, and that this Parliament alone has a right to make laws for her.' On the 17th of May, the two Secretaries of State, Lord Shelburne in the Lords, and Charles James Fox in the Commons of Great Britain—proposed the repeal of the 6th of George I., a statute which declared the right of the English Parliament to make laws for Ireland. The English Government frankly and fully acceded to the demands of Ireland. Four points were granted—

(1) an Independent Irish Parliament; (2) the abrogation of Poynings' Law, empowering the English Privy Council to alter Irish Bills; (3) the introduction of a Biennial Mutiny Bill; (4) the abolition of the right of appeal to England from the Irish law courts.

These concessions were announced to the Irish Parliament at once: in their joy the Irish Houses voted £100,000, and 20,000 men to the navy of Great Britain. Ireland had at last achieved political freedom. Peace and prosperity seemed about to bless the land. … That there might be no misunderstanding as to the deliberate intention of the English Parliament in granting Irish legislative independence, Lord Shelburne had passed an Act of Renunciation, declaring that 'the Right claimed by the people of Ireland, to be bound only by laws enacted by His Majesty and the Parliament of that Kingdom, is hereby declared to be established and ascertained for ever, and shall at no time hereafter be questioned or questionable.' During the same session (1782), the two Catholic Relief Bills proposed by Luke Gardiner, who afterwards became Viscount Mountjoy, were passed. These measures gave Catholics the right to buy freeholds, to teach schools, and to educate their children as they pleased. The Habeas Corpus Act was now extended to Ireland; and marriages by presbyterian ministers were made legal."

"Had the Irish demanded a complete separation it would have been yielded without resistance. It would have been better had it been. The two countries would have immediately joined on terms of equality and of mutual confidence and respect. But the more the English Cabinet gave way the less were the Irish disposed to press their advantage. A feeling of warm attachment to England rapidly took the place of distrust. There never existed in Ireland so sincere and friendly a spirit of spontaneous union with England as at this moment, when the formal bond of union was almost wholly dissolved. From the moment when England made a formal surrender of her claim to govern Ireland a series of inroads commenced on the various interests supposed to be left to their own free development by that surrender. Ireland had not, like England, a body of Cabinet Ministers responsible to her Parliament. The Lord Lieutenant and the Irish Secretary held their offices and received their instructions from the English minister. There was greater need than ever before for a bribed majority in the Irish Commons, and the machinery for securing and managing it remained intact."

W. A. O'Conor, History of the Irish People, book 4, chapter 2, section 2 (volume 2).

"The history of these memorable eighteen years [1782-1800] has never been written, and yet these years are the … key to Irish political opinion in the 19th [century]. The Government which granted the constitution of 1782 began to conspire against it immediately. They had taken Poynings' Act away from the beginning of its proceedings, and they clapped it on to the end of its proceedings, as effectually as if the change had not been made. They developed in the Irish mind that distrust of all government which has made it so turbulent and so docile—turbulent to its administrators, docile to its popular leaders."

      ALSO IN:
      W. E. H. Lecky,
      Leaders of Public Opinion in Ireland: Henry Grattan.

"Disturbances … commenced in the north between two parties called Peep-o'-Day Boys and Defenders. They originated in 1784 among some country people, who appear to have been all Protestants or Presbyterians; but Catholics having sided with one of the parties, the quarrel quickly grew into a religious feud, and spread from the county of Armagh, where it commenced, to the neighbouring districts of Tyrone and Down. Both parties belonged to the humblest classes of the community. The Protestant party were well armed, and assembling in numbers, attacked the houses of Catholics under pretence of searching for arms; insulting their persons, and breaking their furniture. These wanton outrages were usually committed at an early hour in the morning, whence the name of Peep-o'-Day Boys; but the faction was also known as 'Protestant Boys,' and 'wreckers,' and ultimately merged in the Orange Society."

   "On February 4 (1793) Hobart [Chief Secretary] moved for leave
   to bring in his Catholic Relief Bill, and stated the nature of
   its provisions. It was of a kind which only a year before
   would have appeared utterly impossible, and which was in the
   most glaring opposition to all the doctrines which the
   Government and its partisans had of late been urging. … This
   great measure was before Parliament, with several
   intermissions, for rather more than five weeks. …
{1779}
   The vast preponderance of speakers were in favour of relief to
   Catholics, though there were grave differences as to the degree,
   and speakers of the highest authority represented the genuine
   Protestant feeling of the country as being in its favour. …
   Few things in Irish parliamentary history are more remarkable
   than the facility with which this great measure was carried,
   though it was in all its aspects thoroughly debated. It passed
   its second reading in the House of Commons with only a single
   negative. It was committed with only three negatives, and in
   the critical divisions on its clauses the majorities were at
   least two to one. The qualification required to authorise a
   Catholic to bear arms was raised in committee on the motion of
   the Chancellor, and in addition to the oath of allegiance of
   1774, a new oath was incorporated in the Bill, copied from one
   of the declarations of the Catholics, and abjuring certain
   tenets which had been ascribed to them, among others the
   assertion that the infallibility of the Pope was an article of
   their faith. For the rest the Bill became law almost exactly
   in the form in which it was originally designed. It swept away
   the few remaining disabilities relating to property which grew
   out of the penal code. It enabled Catholics to vote like
   Protestants for members of Parliament and magistrates in
   cities or boroughs; to become elected members of all
   corporations except Trinity College; to keep arms subject to
   some specified conditions; to hold all civil and military
   offices in the kingdom from which they were not specifically
   excluded; to hold the medical professorships on the foundation
   of Sir Patrick Dun; to take degrees and hold offices in any
   mixed college connected with the University of Dublin that
   might hereafter be founded. It also threw open to them the
   degrees of the University, enabling the King to alter its
   statutes to that effect. A long clause enumerated the prizes
   which were still withheld. Catholics might not sit in either
   House of Parliament; they were excluded from almost all
   Government and judicial positions; they could not be Privy
   Councillors, King's Counsel, Fellows of Trinity College,
   sheriffs or sub-sheriffs, or generals of the staff. Nearly
   every post of ambition was still reserved for Protestants, and
   the restrictions weighed most heavily on the Catholics who
   were most educated and most able. In the House of Lords as in
   the House of Commons the Bill passed with little open
   opposition, but a protest, signed among other peers by
   Charlemont, was drawn up against it. … The Catholic Relief
   Bill received the royal assent in April, 1793, and in the same
   month the Catholic Convention dissolved itself. Before doing
   so it passed a resolution recommending the Catholics 'to
   co-operate in all loyal and constitutional means' to obtain
   parliamentary reform. … The Catholic prelates in their
   pastorals expressed their gratitude for the Relief Bill. The
   United Irishmen on their side issued a proclamation warmly
   congratulating the Catholics on the measure for their relief,
   but also urging in passionate strains that parliamentary
   reform was the first of needs."

      W. E. H. Lecky,
      History of England in the 18th Century,
      chapter 25 (volume 6).

IRELAND: A. D. 1793-1798.
   Organization of the United Irishmen.
   Attempted French invasions.
   The rising of '98.

"Nothing could be less sinister than the original aims and methods of the Society of United Irishmen, which was conceived in the idea of uniting Catholics and Protestants 'in pursuit of the same object—a repeal of the penal laws, and a (parliamentary) reform including in itself an extension of the right of suffrage.' This union was founded at Belfast, in 1791, by Theobald Wolfe Tone, a young barrister of English descent, and, like the majority of the United Irishmen, a Protestant. Some months later a Dublin branch was founded, the chairman being the hon. Simon Butler, a Protestant gentleman of high character, and the secretary a tradesman named James Napper Tandy. The society grew rapidly, and branches were formed throughout Ulster and Leinster. The religious strife of the Orange boys and Defenders was a great trouble to the United men, who felt that these creed animosities among Irishmen were more ruinous to the national cause than any corruption of parliament or coercion of government could possibly be. Ireland, united, would be quite capable of fighting her own battles, but these party factions rendered her contemptible and weak. The society accordingly set itself the impossible task of drawing together the Defenders and the Orange men. Catholic emancipation—one of the great objects of the union—naturally appealed very differently to the rival parties: it was the great wish of the Defenders, the chief dread of the Orangemen. Both factions were composed of the poorest and most ignorant peasantry in Ireland, men whose political views did not soar above the idea that 'something should be done for old Ireland.' The United Irishmen devoted themselves to the regeneration of both parties, but the Orangemen would have none of them, and the Protestant United men found themselves drifting into partnership with the Catholic Defenders. To gain influence with this party, Tandy took the Defenders' oath. He was informed against; and, as to take an illegal oath was then a capital offence in Ireland, he had to fly for his life to America. This adventure made Tandy the hero of the Defenders, who now joined the union in great numbers; but the whole business brought the society into disrepute, and connected it with the Defenders, who, like the Orange boys, were merely a party of outrage. … One night in the May of '94 a government raid was made upon the premises of the union. The officers of the society were arrested, their papers seized, the type of their newspaper destroyed, and the United Irish Society was proclaimed as an illegal organisation. Towards the close of this year all need for a reform society seemed to have passed. Fitzwilliam was made viceroy, and emancipation and reform seemed assured. His sudden recall, the reversal of his appointments, the rejection of Grattan's Reform Bill, and the renewal of the old coercive system, convinced the United men of the powerlessness of peaceful agitation to check the growth of the system of government by corruption. They accordingly reorganised the union, but as a secret society, and with the avowed aim of separating Ireland from the British empire. The Fitzwilliam affair had greatly strengthened the union, which was joined by many men of high birth and position, among them lord Edward Fitzgerald, brother of the duke of Leinster, and Arthur O'Connor, nephew to lord Longueville, both of whom had been members of the House of Commons. … But the ablest man of the party was Thomas Addis Emmet, a barrister, and the elder brother of Robert Emmet. {1780} The society gradually swelled to the number of 5,000 members, but throughout its existence it was perfectly riddled with spies and informers, by whom government was supplied with a thorough knowledge of its doings. It became known to Pitt that the French government had sent an Englishman, named Jackson, as an emissary to Ireland. Jackson was convicted of treason, and hanged, and Wolfe Tone was sufficiently implicated in his guilt … to find it prudent to fly to America. But before leaving Ireland he arranged with the directors of the union to go from America to France, and to try to persuade the French government to assist Ireland in a struggle for separation. While Tone was taking his circuitous route to Paris, government, to meet the military development of the society, placed Ulster and Leinster under a stringent Insurrection Act; torture was employed to wring confession from suspected persons, and the Protestant militia and yeomanry were drafted at free quarters on the wretched Catholic peasantry. The barbarity of the soldiers lashed the people of the northern provinces into a state of fury. … In the meantime the indomitable Tone—unknown, without credentials, without influence, and ignorant of the French language—had persuaded the French government to lend him a fleet, 10,000 men, and 40,000 stand of arms, which armament left Brest for Bantry Bay on the 16th December, 1796. Ireland was now in the same position as England had been when William of Orange had appeared outside Torbay. Injustice, corruption, and oppression had in both cases goaded the people into rebellion. A calm sea and a fierce gale made the difference between the English patriot of 1688 and the Irish traitor of 1796. Had the sea been calm in the Christmas week of '96, nothing could have stopped the French from marching on to Dublin, but just as the ships put in to Bantry Bay, so wild a wind sprang up that they were driven out to sea, and blown and buffetted about. For a month they tossed about within sight of land, but the storm did not subside, and, all chance of landing seeming as far off as ever, they put back into the French port."

"After the failure of Hoche's expedition, another great armament was fitted out in the Texel, where it long lay ready to come forth, while the English fleet, the only safeguard of our coasts, was crippled by the mutiny at the Nore. But the wind once more fought for England, and the Batavian fleet came out at last only to be destroyed at Camperdown. Tone was personally engaged in both expeditions, and his lively Diary, the image of his character, gives us vivid accounts of both. The third effort of the French Government was feeble, and ended in the futile landing of a small force under Humbert. … In the last expedition Tone himself was taken prisoner, and, having been condemned to death, committed suicide in prison. … It was well for Ireland, as well as for England, that Tone failed in his enterprise. Had he succeeded, his country would for a time have been treated as Switzerland and the Batavian Republic were treated by their French regenerators, and, in the end, it would have been surely reconquered and punished by the power which was mistress of the sea. … But now that all is over, we can afford to say that Tone gallantly ventured his life in what naturally appeared to him, and would to a high-spirited Englishman under the same circumstances have appeared, a good cause. One of his race had but too much reason then to 'hate the very name of England,' and to look forward to the burning of her cities with feelings in which pity struggled with revenge for mastery, but revenge prevailed. … From the Republicans the disturbance spread, as in 1641, to that mass of blind disaffection and hatred, national, social, agrarian, and religious, which was always smouldering among the Catholic peasantry. With these sufferers the political theories of the French Revolutionists had no influence; they looked to French invasion, as well as to domestic insurrection, merely as a deliverance from the oppression under which they groaned. … The leading Roman Catholics, both clerical and lay, were on the side of the government. The mass of the Catholic priesthood were well inclined to take the same side, They could have no sympathy with an Atheist Republic, red with the blood of priests, as well as with the blood of a son of St. Louis. If some of the order were concerned in the movement, it was as demagogues, sympathizing with their peasant brethren, not as priests. Yet the Protestants insisted on treating the Catholic clergy as rebels by nature. They had assuredly done their best to make them so. … No sooner did the Catholic peasantry begin to move and organize themselves than the Protestant gentry and yeomanry as one man became Cromwellians again. Then commenced a Reign of Terror scarcely less savage than that of the Jacobins, against whom Europe was in arms, as a hideous and portentous brood of evil, the scourge and horror of the whole human race. The suspected conspirators were intimidated, and confessions, or pretended confessions, were extorted by loosing upon the homes of the peasantry the license and barbarity of an irregular soldiery more cruel than a regular invader. Flogging, half-hanging, pitch-capping, picketing, went on over a large district, and the most barbarous scourgings, without trial, were inflicted in the Riding-house at Dublin, in the very seat of government and justice. This was styled, 'exerting a vigour beyond the law;' and to become the object of such vigour, it was enough, as under Robespierre, to be suspected of being suspect. No one has yet fairly undertaken the revolting but salutary task of writing a faithful and impartial history of that period; but from the accounts we have, it appears not unlikely that the peasantry, though undoubtedly in a disturbed state, and to a great extent secretly organized, might have been kept quiet by measures of lenity and firmness; and that they were gratuitously scourged and tortured into open rebellion. When they did rebel, they shewed, as they had shewn in 1641, what the galley-slave is when, having long toiled under the lash, he contrives in a storm to slip his chains and become master of the vessel. The atrocities of Wexford and Vinegar-Hill rivalled the atrocities of Portnadown. Nor when the rebellion was vanquished did the victors fail to renew the famous feats of Sir Charles Coote and of the regiment of Cole. We now possess terrible and overwhelming evidence of their sanguinary ferocity in the correspondence of Lord Cornwallis, who was certainly no friend to rebels, having fought against them in America, but who was a man of sense and heart, most wisely sent over to quench the insurrection, and pacify the country. … {1781} The murders and other atrocities committed by the Jacobins were more numerous than those committed by the Orangemen, and as the victims were of higher rank they excited more indignation and pity; but in the use of torture the Orangemen seem to have reached a pitch of fiendish cruelty which was scarcely attained by the Jacobins. … The Jacobin party was almost entirely composed of men taken from the lowest of the people, whereas among the Irish terrorists were found men of high social position and good education."

      ALSO IN:
      R. R. Madden,
      The United Irishmen, their Lives and Times.

IRELAND: A. D. 1795-1796.
   Formation of the Orange Society.
   Battle of the Diamond.
   Persecution of Catholics by Protestant mobs.

"The year 1795 is very memorable in Irish history, as the year of the formation of the Orange Society, and the beginning of the most serious disturbances in the county of Armagh. … The old popular feud between the lower ranks of Papists and Presbyterians in the northern counties is easy to understand, and it is not less easy to see how the recent course of Irish politics had increased it. A class which had enjoyed and gloried in uncontested ascendency, found this ascendency passing from its hands. A class which had formerly been in subjection, was elated by new privileges, and looked forward to a complete abolition of political disabilities. Catholic and Protestant tenants came into a new competition, and the demeanour of Catholics towards Protestants was sensibly changed. There were boasts in taverns and at fairs, that the Protestants would speedily be swept away from the land and the descendants of the old proprietors restored, and it was soon known that Catholics all over the country were forming themselves into committees or societies, and were electing representatives for a great Catholic convention at Dublin. The riots and outrages of the Peep of Day Boys and Defenders had embittered the feeling on both sides. … Members of one or other creed were attacked and insulted as they went to their places of worship. There were fights on the high roads, at fairs, wakes, markets, and country sports, and there were occasionally crimes of a much deeper dye. … In September 1795 riots broke out in this county [Armagh], which continued for some days, but at length the parish priest on the one side, and a gentleman named Atkinson on the other, succeeded in so far appeasing the quarrel that the combatants formally agreed to a truce, and were about to retire to their homes, when a new party of Defenders, who had marched from the adjoining counties to the assistance of their brethren, appeared upon the scene, and on September 21 they attacked the Protestants at a place called the Diamond. The Catholics on this occasion were certainly the aggressors, and they appear to have considerably outnumbered their antagonists, but the Protestants were better posted, better armed, and better organised. A serious conflict ensued, and the Catholics were completely defeated, leaving a large number—probably twenty or thirty—dead upon the field. It was on the evening of the day on which the battle of the Diamond was fought, that the Orange Society was formed. It was at first a league of mutual defence, binding its members to maintain the laws and the peace of the country, and also the Protestant Constitution. No Catholic was to be admitted into the society, and the members were bound by oath not to reveal its secrets. The doctrine of Fitzgibbon, that the King, by assenting to Catholic emancipation, would invalidate his title to the throne, was remarkably reflected in the oath of the Orangemen, which bound them to defend the King and his heirs, 'so long as he or they support the Protestant ascendency.' The society took its name from William of Orange, the conqueror of the Catholics, and it agreed to celebrate annually the battle of the Boyne. In this respect there was nothing in it particularly novel. Protestant associations, for the purpose of commemorating the events and maintaining the principles of the Revolution, had long been known. … A very different spirit, however, animated the early Orangemen. The upper classes at first generally held aloof from the society; for a considerable time it appears to have been almost confined to the Protestant peasantry of Ulster, and the title of Orangemen was probably assumed by numbers who had never joined the organisation, who were simply Peep of Day Boys taking a new name, and whose conduct was certainly not such as those who instituted the society had intended. A terrible persecution of the Catholics immediately followed. The animosities between the lower orders of the two religions, which had long been little bridled, burst out afresh, and after the battle of the Diamond, the Protestant rabble of the county of Armagh, and of part of the adjoining counties, determined by continuous outrages to drive the Catholics from the country. Their cabins were placarded, or, as it was termed, 'papered,' with the words, 'To hell or Connaught,' and if the occupants did not at once abandon them, they were attacked at night by an armed mob. The webs and looms of the poor Catholic weavers were cut and destroyed. Every article of furniture was shattered or burnt. The houses were often set on fire, and the inmates were driven homeless into the world. The rioters met with scarcely any resistance or disturbance. Twelve or fourteen houses were sometimes wrecked in a single night. Several Catholic chapels were burnt, and the persecution, which began in the county of Armagh, soon extended over a wide area in the counties of Tyrone, Down, Antrim, and Derry. … The outrages continued with little abatement through a great part of the following year. As might have been expected, there were widely differing estimates of the number of the victims. According to some reports, which were no doubt grossly exaggerated, no less than 1,400 families, or about 7,000 persons, were driven out of the county of Armagh alone. Another, and much more probable account, spoke of 700 families, while a certain party among the gentry did their utmost to minimise the persecutions."

W. E. H. Lecky, History of England in the 18th Century, chapter 27 (volume 7).

"No sooner had the rebellion been suppressed than the Government proposed, to the Parliament of each country, the union of Great Britain and Ireland under a common legislature. This was no new idea. It had frequently been in the minds of successive generations of statesmen on both sides of the Channel; but had not yet been seriously discussed with a view to immediate action. Nothing could have been more safely predicted than that Ireland must, sooner or later, follow the precedent of Scotland, and yield her pretensions to a separate legislation. The measures of 1782, which appeared to establish the legislative independence of Ireland, really proved the vanity of such a pretension. … On the assembling of the British Parliament at the commencement of the year [1799], the question of the Union was recommended by a message from the Crown; and the address, after some opposition, was carried without a division. Pitt, at this, the earliest stage, pronounced the decision at which the Government had arrived to be positive and irrevocable. … Lord Cornwallis [then Lord Lieutenant of Ireland] also expressed his conviction that union was the only measure which could preserve the country. … The day before the intended Union was signified by a royal message to the English Parliament, the Irish Houses assembled; and the Viceroy's speech, of course, contained a paragraph relative to the project. The House of Lords, completely under the control of the Castle, agreed to an address in conformity with the speech, after a short and languid debate, by a large majority; but the Commons were violently agitated. … An amendment to the address pledging the House to maintain the Union was lost by one vote, after the House had sat twenty-one hours; but, on the report, the amendment to omit the paragraph referring to the Union was carried by a majority of four. … When it was understood that the Government was in earnest … there was little difficulty in alarming a people among whom the machinery of political agitation had, for some years, been extensively organised. The bar of Dublin took the lead, and it at once became evident that the policy of the Government had effected a union among Irishmen far more formidable than that which all the efforts of sedition had been able to accomplish. The meeting of the bar included not merely men of different religious persuasions, but, what was of more importance in Ireland, men of different sides in politics. … However conclusive the argument in favour of Union may appear to Englishmen, it was difficult for an Irishman to regard the Union in any other view than as a measure to deprive his country of her independent constitution, and to extinguish her national existence. Mr. Foster, the Speaker, took this view. … Sir John Parnell, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, followed the Speaker. Mr. Fitzgerald, the Prime Serjeant, a law officer of the Crown, was on the same side. Ponsonby, the leader of the Whigs, was vehement against the scheme; so was Grattan; so was Curran. Great efforts were made by the Government to quiet the Protestants, and to engage the Catholics to support the Union. These efforts were so far successful that most of the Orange lodges were persuaded to refrain from expressing any opinion on the subject. The Catholic hierarchy were conciliated by the promise of a provision for the clergy, and of an adjustment of the Tithe question. Hopes were held out, if promises were not actually made, to the Catholic community, that their civil disabilities would be removed. … If the Union was to be accomplished by constitutional means, it could be effected only by a vote of the Irish Parliament, concurring with a vote of the English Parliament; and if the Irish assembly were to pronounce an unbiased judgment on the question of its extinction, it is certain that a very small minority, possibly not a single vote, would be found to support the measure. … The vote on the address was followed, in a few days, by an address to the Crown, in which the Commons pledged themselves to maintain the constitution of 1782. The majority in favour of national independence had already increased from five to twenty. … The votes of the Irish Commons had disposed of the question for the current session; but preparations were immediately made for its future passage through the Irish Houses. The foremost men in Ireland … had first been tempted, but had indignantly refused every offer to betray the independence of their country. Another class of leading persons was then tried, and from these, for the most part, evasive answers were received. The minister understood the meaning of these dubious utterances. There was one mode of carrying the Union, and one mode only. Bribery of every kind must be employed without hesitation and without stint."

   "Lord Cornwallis had to work the system of 'negotiating and
   jobbing,' by promising an Irish Peerage, or a lift in that
   Peerage, or even an English Peerage, to a crowd of eager
   competitors for honours. The other specific for making
   converts was not yet in complete operation. Lord Castlereagh
   [the Irish Chief Secretary] had the plan in his
   portfolio:—borough proprietors to be compensated; … fifty
   barristers in parliament, who always considered a seat as the
   road to preferment, to be compensated; the purchasers of seats
   to be compensated; individuals connected either by residence
   or property with Dublin to be compensated. 'Lord Castlereagh
   considered that £1,500,000 would be required to effect all
   these compensations.' The sum actually paid to the
   borough-mongers alone was £1,260,000. Fifteen thousand pounds
   were allotted to each borough; and 'was apportioned amongst
   the various patrons.' … It had become a contest of bribery
   on both sides. There was an 'Opposition stock-purse,' as Lord
   Castlereagh describes the fund against which he was to
   struggle with the deeper purse at Whitehall. … During the
   administration of Lord Cornwallis, 29 Irish Peerages were
   created; of which seven only were unconnected with the
   question of Union. Six English Peerages were granted on
   account of Irish services; and there were 19 promotions in the
   Irish Peerage, earned by similar assistance." The question of
   Union was virtually decided in the Irish House of Commons on
   the 6th of February, 1800. Lord Castlereagh, on the previous
   day, had read a message from the Lord Lieutenant,
   communicating resolutions adopted by the parliament of Great
   Britain in the previous year. "The question was debated from
   four o'clock in the afternoon of the 5th to one o'clock in the
   afternoon of the 6th.
{1783}
   During that time the streets of Dublin were the scene of a
   great riot, and the peace of the city was maintained only by
   troops of cavalry. … On the division of the 6th there was a
   majority of 43 in favour of the Union." It was not, however,
   until the 7th of June, that the final legislative
   enactment—the Union Bill—was passed in the Irish House of
   Commons. The first article provided "that the kingdoms of
   Great Britain and Ireland should, upon the 1st of January,
   1801, be united into one kingdom, by the name of The United
   Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. The United Kingdom was
   to be represented in one and the same parliament. In the
   United Parliament there were to be 28 temporal Peers, elected
   for life by the Irish Peerage; and four spiritual Peers,
   taking their places in rotation. There were to be 100 members
   of the Lower House; each county returning two, as well as the
   cities of Dublin and Cork. The University returned one, and 31
   boroughs each returned one. Of these boroughs 23 remained
   close boroughs till the Reform Bill of 1831. … The Churches
   of England and Ireland were to be united. The proportion of
   Revenue to be levied was fixed at fifteen for Great Britain
   and two for Ireland, for the succeeding twenty years.
   Countervailing duties upon imports to each country were fixed
   by a minute tariff, but some commercial restrictions were to
   be removed."

"If the Irish Parliament had consisted mainly, or to any appreciable extent, of men who were disloyal to the connection, and whose sympathies were on the side of rebellion or with the enemies of England, the English Ministers would, I think, have been amply justified in employing almost any means to abolish it. … But it cannot be too clearly understood or too emphatically stated, that the legislative Union was not an act of this nature. The Parliament which was abolished was a Parliament of the most unqualified loyalists; it had shown itself ready to make every sacrifice in its power for the maintenance of the Empire, and from the time when Arthur O'Connor and Lord Edward Fitzgerald passed beyond its walls, it probably did not contain a single man who was really disaffected. … It must be added, that it was becoming evident that the relation between the two countries established by the Constitution of 1782 could not have continued unchanged. … Even with the best dispositions, the Constitution of 1782 involved many and grave probabilities of difference. … Sooner or later the corrupt borough ascendency must have broken down, and it was a grave question what was to succeed it. … An enormous increase of disloyalty and religious animosity had taken place during the last years of the century, and it added immensely to the danger of the democratic Catholic suffrage, which the Act of 1793 had called into existence. This was the strongest argument for hurrying on the Union; but when all due weight is assigned to it, it does not appear to me to have justified the policy of Pitt."

W. E. H. Lecky, History of England in the 18th Century, chapter 32 (volume 8).

      Marquis Cornwallis,
      Correspondence,
      chapters 19-21 (volumes 2-3).

      Viscount Castlereagh,
      Memoirs and Correspondence,
      volumes 2-3.

IRELAND: A. D. 1801.
Pitt's promise of Catholic Emancipation broken by the king.

"Lord Hardwicke succeeded Lord Cornwallis as viceroy in May [1801]; and for two years, so far as the British public knew, Ireland was undisturbed. The harvest of 1801 was abundant. The island was occupied by a military force of 125,000 men. Distant rumours of disturbances in Limerick, Tipperary, and Waterford were faintly audible. Imports and exports increased. The debt increased likewise, but, as it was met by loans and uncontrolled by any public assembly, no one protested, and few were aware of the fact. Landlords and middlemen throve on high rents, and peasants as yet could live. … Early in 1803 the murmurs in the southwest became louder. Visions of a fixed price for potatoes began to shape themselves, and the invasion of 'strangers' ready to take land from which tenants had been ejected was resisted. The magistrates urged the viceroy to obtain and exercise the powers of the Insurrection Act; but the evil was not thought of sufficient magnitude, and their request was refused: Amidst the general calm, the insurrection of Robert Emmett in July broke like a bolt from the blue. A young republican visionary, whose brother had taken an active part in the rebellion, he had inspired a few score comrades with the quixotic hope of rekindling Irish nationality by setting up a factory of pikes in a back street of Dublin. On the eve of St. James's Day, Quigley, one of his associates, who had been sowing vague hopes among the villages of Kildare, brought a mixed crowd into Dublin. When the evening fell, a sky-rocket was fired. Emmett and his little band sallied from Marshalsea Lane into St. James's Street, and distributed pikes to all who would take them. The disorderly mob thus armed proceeded to the debtors' prison, which they attacked, killing the officer who defended it. Emmett urged them on to the Castle. They followed, in a confused column, utterly beyond his power to control. On their war they fell in with the carriage of the Chief Justice, Lord Kilwarden, dragged him out, and killed him. By this time a few handfuls of troops had been collected. In half an hour two subalterns, with fifty soldiers each, had dispersed the whole gathering. By ten o'clock all was over, with the loss of 20 soldiers and 50 insurgents. Emmett and Russell, another of the leaders who had undertaken the agitation of Down and Antrim, were shortly afterwards taken and executed; Quigley escaped. Such was the last reverberation of the rebellion of 1798, or rather of the revolutionary fervour that led the way to that rebellion, before it had been tainted with religious animosity. Emmett died as Shelley would have died, a martyr and an enthusiast; but he knew little of his countrymen's condition, little of their aspirations, nothing of their needs. He had no successors."

"Emmet might easily have escaped to France if he had chosen, but he delayed till too late. Emmet was a young man, and Emmet was in love. 'The idol of his heart,' as he calls her in his dying speech, was Sarah Curran, the daughter of John Philpot Curran. … Emmet was determined to see her before he went. He placed his life upon the cast and lost it. … The White Terror which followed upon the failure of Emmet's rising was accompanied by almost all the horrors which marked the hours of repression after the rebellion of '98. … The old devil's dance of spies and informers went merrily forward; the prisons were choked with prisoners."

      J. Wills,
      History of Ireland in the Lives of Irishmen,
      volume 6, pages 68-80.

IRELAND: A. D. 1811-1829.
   O'Connell and the agitation for Catholic Emancipation
   and the Repeal of the Union.
   Catholic disabilities removed.

"There is much reason to believe that almost from the commencement of his career" Daniel O'Connell, the great Irish agitator, "formed one vast scheme of policy which he pursued through life with little deviation, and, it must be added, with little scruple. This scheme was to create and lead a public spirit among the Roman Catholics; to wrest emancipation by this means from the Government; to perpetuate the agitation created for that purpose till the Irish Parliament had been restored; to disendow the Established Church; and thus to open in Ireland a new era, with a separate and independent Parliament and perfect religious equality. It would be difficult to conceive a scheme of policy exhibiting more daring than this. The Roman Catholics had hitherto shown themselves absolutely incompetent to take any decisive part in politics. … O'Connell, however, perceived that it was possible to bring the whole mass of the people into the struggle, and to give them an almost unexampled momentum and unanimity by applying to politics a great power that lay dormant in Ireland—the power of the Catholic priesthood. To make the priests the rulers of the country, and himself the ruler of the priests, was his first great object. … There was a party supported by Keogh, the leader in '93, who recommended what was called 'a dignified silence'—in other words, a complete abstinence from petitioning and agitation. With this party O'Connell successfully grappled. His advice on every occasion was, 'Agitate, agitate, agitate!' and Keogh was so irritated by the defeat that he retired from the society." O'Connell's leadership of the movement for Catholic Emancipation became virtually established about the beginning of 1811. "He avowed himself repeatedly to be an agitator with an 'ulterior object,' and declared that that object was the repeal of the Union. 'Desiring, as I do, the repeal of the Union,' he said in one of his speeches, in 1813, 'I rejoice to see how our enemies promote that great object. … They delay the liberties of the Catholics, but they compensate us most amply because they advance the restoration of Ireland. By leaving one cause of agitation, they have created, and they will embody and give shape and form to, a public mind and a public spirit.' … Nothing can be more untrue than to represent the Repeal agitation as a mere afterthought designed to sustain his flagging popularity. Nor can it be said that the project was first started by him. The deep indignation that the Union had produced in Ireland was fermenting among all classes, and assuming the form, sometimes of a French party, sometimes of a social war, and sometimes of a constitutional agitation. … It would be tedious to follow into minute detail the difficulties and the mistakes that obstructed the Catholic movement, and were finally overcome by the energy or the tact of O'Connell. … Several times the movement was menaced by Government proclamations and prosecutions. Its great difficulty was to bring the public opinion of the whole body of the Roman Catholics actively and habitually into the question. … All preceding movements since the Revolution (except the passing excitement about Wood's halfpence) had been chiefly among the Protestants or among the higher order of the Catholics. The mass of the people had taken no real interest in politics, had felt no real pain at their disabilities, and were politically the willing slaves of their landlords. For the first time, under the influence of O'Connell, the great swell of a really democratic movement was felt. The simplest way of concentrating the new enthusiasm would have been by a system of delegates, but this had been rendered illegal by the Convention Act. On the other hand, the right of petitioning was one of the fundamental privileges of the constitution. By availing himself of this right O'Connell contrived, with the dexterity of a practised lawyer, to violate continually the spirit of the Convention Act, while keeping within the letter of the law. Proclamation after proclamation was launched against his society, but by continually changing its name and its form he generally succeeded in evading the prosecutions of the Government. These early societies, however, all sink into insignificance compared with that great Catholic Association which was formed in 1824. The avowed objects of this society were to promote religious education, to ascertain the numerical strength of the different religions, and to answer the charges against the Roman Catholics embodied in the hostile petitions. It also 'recommended' petitions (unconnected with the society) from every parish, and aggregate meetings in every county. The real object was to form a gigantic system of organisation, ramifying over the entire country, and directed in every parish by the priests, for the purpose of petitioning and in every other way agitating in favour of emancipation. The Catholic Rent [a system of small subscriptions—as small as a penny a month—collected from the poorest contributors, throughout Ireland] was instituted at this time, and it formed at once a powerful instrument of cohesion and a faithful barometer of the popular feeling. … The success of the Catholic Association became every week more striking. The rent rose with an extraordinary rapidity [from £350 a week in October to £700 a week in December, 1824]. The meetings in every county grew more and more enthusiastic, the triumph of priestly influence more and more certain. The Government made a feeble and abortive effort to arrest the storm by threatening both O'Connell and Sheil [Richard Lalor] with prosecution for certain passages in their speeches. … The formation of the Wellington Ministry [Wellington and Peel, 1828] seemed effectually to crush the present hopes of the Catholics, for the stubborn resolution of its leader was as well known as his Tory opinions. Yet this Ministry was destined to terminate the contest by establishing the principle of religious equality. … On the accession of the Wellington Ministry to power the Catholic Association passed a resolution to the effect that they would oppose with their whole energy any Irish member who consented to accept office under it. … {1785} An opportunity for carrying the resolution into effect soon occurred. Mr. Fitzgerald, the member for Clare, accepted the office of President of the Board of Trade, and was consequently obliged to go to his constituents for re-election." O'Connell entered the lists against him. "The excitement at this announcement rose at once to fever height. It extended over every part of Ireland, and penetrated every class of society. The whole mass of the Roman Catholics prepared to support him, and the vast system of organisation which he had framed acted effectually in every direction." For the first time, the landlords found that the voting of their tenants could not be controlled. Fitzgerald withdrew from the contest and O'Connell was elected. "Ireland was now on the very verge of revolution. The whole mass of the people had been organised like a regular army, and taught to act with the most perfect unanimity. … The Ministers, feeling further resistance to be hopeless, brought in the Emancipation Bill, confessedly because to withhold it would be to kindle a rebellion that would extend over the length and breadth of the land."

"Peel introduced the Relief Bill on the 5th March [1829]. The king had given to it a reluctant assent. At the last hour, the intrigues of Eldon and the Duke of Cumberland had so far influenced his weak and disingenuous mind that he withdrew his assent to his ministers' policy, on the pretence that he had not expected, and could not sanction, any modification of the Oath of Supremacy. He parted from his ministers with kisses and courtesy, and, for a few hours their resignation was in his hands. But with night his discretion waxed as his courage waned; his ministers were recalled, and their measure proceeded. In its main provisions it was thorough and far-reaching. It admitted the Roman Catholic to Parliament, and to all lay offices under the Crown, except those of Regent, Lord Chancellor, whether of England or of Ireland, and Lord Lieutenant. It repealed the oath of abjuration, it modified the oath of supremacy. … It approximated the Irish to the English county franchise by abolishing the forty-shilling freeholder, and raising the voters' qualifications to £10. All monasteries and institutions of Jesuits were suppressed; and Roman Catholic bishops were forbidden to assume titles of sees already held by bishops of the Church of Ireland. Municipal and other officials were forbidden to wear the insignia of their office at Roman Catholic ceremonies. Lastly, the new Oath of Supremacy was available only for persons thereafter to be elected to Parliament"—which nullified O'Connell's election at Clare. This petty stroke of malice is said to have been introduced in the bill for the gratification of the king. The vote in the Commons on the Bill was 353 against 180, and in the Lords 217 to 112. It received the Royal assent on the 13th of April.

W. J. Fitzpatrick, Correspondence of Daniel O'Connell, with notices of his Life and Times, volume 1, chapters 1-5.

W. C. Taylor, Life and Times of Sir Robert Peel, volume 1, chapters 16-18 and volume 2, chapters 1-2.

"Throughout the half-century extending from 1820 to 1870, a secret oath-bound agrarian confederacy, known as the 'Ribbon Society,' was the constant affliction and recurring terror of the landed classes of Ireland. The Vehmgericht itself was not more dreaded. … It is assuredly strange—indeed, almost incredible—that although the existence of this organisation was, in a general way, as well and as widely known as the fact that Queen Victoria reigned, or that Daniel O'Connell was once a living man; although the story of its crimes has thrilled judge and jury, and parliamentary committees have filled ponderous blue-books with evidence of its proceedings, there is to this hour the widest conflict of assertion and conclusion as to what exactly were its real aims, its origin, structure, character, and purpose. … I long ago satisfied myself that the Ribbonism of one period was not the Ribbonism of another; that the version of its aims and character prevalent amongst its own members in one county or district differed widely from that existing elsewhere. In Ulster it professed to be a defensive or retaliatory league against Orangeism. In Munster it was at first a combination against tithe-proctors. In Connaught it was an organisation against rack-renting and evictions. In Leinster it often was mere trade-unionism. … The Ribbon Society seems to have been wholly confined to small farmers, cottiers, labourers, and, in the towns, petty shopkeepers, in whose houses the 'lodges' were held. … Although from the inception, or first appearance, of Ribbonism the Catholic clergy waged a determined war upon it … the society was exclusively Catholic. Under no circumstances would a Protestant be admitted to membership. … The name 'Ribbon Society' was not attached to it until about 1826. It was previously known as 'Liberty Men'; the 'Religious Liberty System'; the 'United Sons of Irish Freedom'; 'Sons of the Shamrock'; and by other names. … It has been said, and probably with some truth, that it has been too much the habit to attribute erroneously to the Ribbon organisation every atrocity committed in the country, every deed of blood apparently arising out of agrarian combination or conspiracy. … But vain is all pretence that the Ribbon Society did not become, whatever the original design or intention of its members may have been, a hideous organisation of outrage and murder. … There was a period when Ribbon outrages had, at all events, a conceivable provocation; but there came a time when they sickened the public conscience by their wantonness. The vengeance of the society was ruthless and terrible. … From 1835 to 1855 the Ribbon organisation was at its greatest strength. … With the emigration of the labouring classes it was carried abroad, to England and to America. At one time the most formidable lodges were in Lancashire."

IRELAND: A. D. 1840-1841.
   Discontent with the results of the Union.
   Condition of the people.
   O'Connell's revival of agitation for Repeal.

"The Catholics were at length emancipated in 1829; and now, surely, their enemies suggested, they must be contented and grateful for evermore? Perverse must the people be who, having got what they asked, are not satisfied. Let us see. What they asked was to be admitted to their just share, or, at any rate to some share, of the government of their native country, from which they had been excluded for five generations. But on the passing of the Emancipation Act not a single Catholic was admitted to an office of authority, great or small. The door was opened, indeed, but not a soul was permitted to pass in. There were murmurs of discontent, and the class who still enjoyed all the patronage of the State, the Church, the army, the magistracy, and the public service, demanded if there was any use in attempting to conciliate a people so intractable and unreasonable? The Catholic Association, which had won the victory, was rewarded for its public spirit by being dissolved by Act of Parliament. Its leader, who had been elected to the House of Commons, had his election declared void by a phrase imported into the Emancipation Act for this special purpose. The forty-shilling freeholders, whose courage and magnanimity had made the cause irresistible, were immediately deprived of the franchise. By means of a high qualification and an ingeniously complicated system of registry, the electors in twelve counties were reduced from upwards of 100,000 to less than 10,000. Englishmen cannot comprehend our dissatisfaction. … Emancipation was speedily followed by a Reform of the House of Commons. In England a sweeping and salutary change was made both in the franchise, and in the distribution of seats; but Ireland did not obtain either the number of representatives she was demonstrably entitled to by population and resources, or such a reduction of the franchise as had been conceded to England. The Whigs were in power, and Ireland was well-disposed to the party. … But the idea of treating Ireland on perfectly equal terms, and giving her the full advantage of the Union which had been forced on her, did not exist in the mind of a single statesman of that epoch. After Emancipation and Reform, O'Connell had a fierce quarrel with the Whigs, during which he raised the question of Ireland's right to be governed exclusively by her own Parliament. The people responded passionately to his appeal. The party of Protestant Ascendancy had demanded the Repeal of the Union before Emancipation, but that disturbing event altered their policy, and they withheld all aid from O'Connell. After a brief time he abandoned the experiment, to substitute for it an attempt to obtain what was called 'justice to Ireland.' In furtherance of this project he made a compact with the Whigs that the Irish Party under his lead should support them in parliament. The Whigs in return made fairer appointments to judicial and other public employments, restrained jury packing, and established an unsectarian system of public education; but the national question was thrown back for more than a generation. In 1840-1 O'Connell revived the question of Repeal, on the ground that the Union had wholly failed to accomplish the end for which it was said to be designed. Instead of bringing Ireland prosperity, it had brought her ruin. The social condition of the country during the half-century, then drawing to a close was, indeed, without parallel in Europe. The whole population were dependent on agriculture. There were minerals, but none found in what miners call 'paying quantities.' There was no manufacture except linen, and the remnant of a woollen trade, slowly dying out before the pitiless competition of Yorkshire. What the island chiefly produced was food; which was exported to richer countries to enable the cultivator to pay an inordinate rent. Foreign travellers saw with amazement an island possessing all the natural conditions of a great commerce, as bare of commerce as if it lay in some byeway of the world where enterprise had not yet penetrated. … The great proprietors were two or three hundred—the heirs of the Undertakers, for the most part, and Absentees; the mass of the country was owned by a couple of thousand others, who lived in splendour, and even profusion; and for these the peasant ploughed, sowed, tended, and reaped a harvest which he never shared. Rent, in other countries, means the surplus after the farmer has been liberally paid for his skill and labour; in Ireland it meant the whole produce of the soil except a potato-pit. If a farmer strove for more, his master knew how to bring him to speedy submission. He could carry away his implements of trade by the law of distress, or rob him of his sole pursuit in life by the law of eviction. He could, and habitually did, seize the growing crop, the stools and pots in his miserable cabin, the blanket that sheltered his children, the cow that gave them nourishment. There were just and humane landlords, men who performed the duties which their position imposed, and did not exaggerate its rights; but they were a small minority. … Famines were frequent, and every other year destitution killed a crowd of peasants. For a hundred and fifty years before, whoever has described the condition of Ireland—English official, foreign visitor, or Irish patriot—described a famine more or less acute. Sometimes the tortured serfs rose in nocturnal jacquerie against the system; and then a cry of 'rebellion' was raised, and England was assured that these intractable barbarians were again (as the indictment always charged) 'levying war against the King's majesty.' There were indeed causes enough for national disaffection, but of these the poor peasant knew nothing; he was contending for so much miserable food as would save his children from starvation. There were sometimes barbarous agrarian murders—murders of agents and bailiffs chiefly, but occasionally of landlords. It would be shameful to forget that these savage crimes were often the result of savage provocation. … The country was naked of timber, the cabins of the peasantry were squalid and unfurnished. Mr. Carlyle reproves a lazy, thriftless people, who would not perform the simple operation of planting trees; and Mr. Froude frowns upon cottages whose naked walls are never draped by climbing roses or flowering creepers. But how much more eloquent is fact than rhetoric? The Irish landlords made a law that when the tenant planted a tree it became not his own property but his master's; and the established practice of four-fifths of the Irish landlords, when a tenant exhibited such signs of prosperity as a garden, or a white-washed cabin, was to reward his industry by increasing his rent. {1787} Peasants will not plant or make improvements on these conditions, nor, I fancy, would philosophers. … It was sometimes made a boast in those days that rank, property, station, and professional success distinguished the minority in Ireland who were imperialists and Protestants. It was not an amazing phenomenon, that those upon whom the law had bestowed a monopoly of rank, property, and station, for a hundred and fifty years, should have still maintained the advantage a dozen years after Emancipation. It was a subject of scornful reproach that the districts inhabited by Protestants were peaceful and prosperous, while the Catholic districts were often poor and disorderly. There is no doubt of the facts; the contrast certainly existed. But the mystery disappears when one comes to reflect that in Down and Antrim the Squire regarded his tenantry with as much sympathy and confidence as a Squire in Devon or Essex, that their sons were trained to bear arms, and taught from the pulpit and platform that they belonged to a superior race, that all the local employments, paid out of the public purse, were distributed among them, that they had certain well understood rights over their holdings on which no landlord could safely trench, and that they met their masters, from time to time, in the friendly equality of an Orange lodge; while in Tipperary, the farmer was a tenant at will who never saw his landlord except when he followed the hounds across his corn, or frowned at him from the bench; whose rent could be raised, or his tenancy terminated at the pleasure of his master; who, on the smallest complaint, was carried before a bench of magistrates, where he had no expectation, and little chance, of justice; and who wanted the essential stimulus to thrift and industry, the secure enjoyment of his earnings. As a set-off to this long catalogue of discouragements, there were two facts of happy augury. In 1842 half a million of children were receiving education in the National Schools under a system designed to establish religious equality, and administered by Catholic and Protestant Commissioners. And the Teetotal movement was at its height. Thousands were accepting every week a pledge of total abstinence from Father Mathew, a young priest whom the gifts of nature and the accidents of fortune combined to qualify for the mission of a Reformer. … There was the beginning of political reforms also. The Whigs sent a Lord Lieutenant and Chief Secretary to Ireland who, for the first time since the fall of Limerick, treated the bulk of the nation as the social and political equals of the minority. The minority had been so long accustomed to make and administer the laws, and to occupy the places of authority and distinction, that they regarded the change as a revolt; and Lord Mulgrave and Thomas Drummond as the successors of Tyrconnel and Nugent. In the interval, since Emancipation, a few Catholics were elected to Parliament, two Catholic lawyers were raised to the bench, and smaller appointments distributed among laymen. … The exclusion of Catholics from juries was restrained, and the practice of appointing partisans of too shameful antecedents to public functions was interrupted. … It was under these circumstances that O'Connell for the second time summoned the Irish people to demand a Repeal of the Union."

Sir C. G. Duffy, A Bird's-Eye View of Irish History, revised edition, pages 242-275.

      ALSO IN:
      Lord E. Fitzmaurice and J. R. Thursfield,
      Two Centuries of Irish History,
      part 4, chapters 1-2.

IRELAND: A. D. 1841-1848.
   O'Connell's last agitation.
   His trial, imprisonment and release.
   His death.
   The "Young Ireland" Party and its rebellion.

In 1841, O'Connell "left England and went to Ireland, and devoted himself there to the work of organization. A succession of monster meetings were held all over the country, the far-famed one on Tara Hill being, as is credibly asserted, attended by no less than a quarter of a million of people. Over this vast multitude gathered together around him the magic tones of the great orator's voice swept triumphantly; awakening anger, grief, passion, delight, laughter, tears, at its own pleasure. They were astonishing triumphs, but they were dearly bought. The position was, in fact, an impossible one to maintain long. O'Connell had carried the whole mass of the people with him up to the very brink of the precipice, but how to bring them safely and successfully down again was more than even he could accomplish. Resistance he had always steadily denounced, yet every day his own words seemed to be bringing the inevitable moment of collision nearer and nearer. The crisis came on October the 5th. A meeting had been summoned to meet at Clontarf, near Dublin, and on the afternoon of the 4th the Government suddenly came to the resolution of issuing a proclamation forbidding it to assemble. The risk was a formidable one for responsible men to run. Many of the people were already on their way, and only O'Connell's own rapid and vigorous measures in sending out in all directions to intercept them hindered the actual shedding of blood. His prosecution and that of some of his principal adherents was the next important event. By a Dublin jury he was found guilty, sentenced to two years' imprisonment, and conveyed to prison, still earnestly entreating the people to remain quiet, an order which they strictly obeyed. The jury by which he had been condemned was known to be strongly biassed against him, and an appeal had been forwarded against his sentence to the House of Lords. So strong there, too, was the feeling against O'Connell, that little expectation was entertained of its being favourably received. Greatly to its honour, however, the sentence was reversed and he was set free. … The enthusiasm shown at his release was frantic and delirious. None the less those months in Richmond prison proved the death-knell of his power. He was an old man by this time; he was already weakened in health, and that buoyancy which had hitherto carried him over any and every obstacle never again revived. The 'Young Ireland' party, the members of which had in the first instance been his allies and lieutenants, had now formed a distinct section, and upon the vital question of resistance were in fierce hostility to all his most cherished principles. The state of the country, too, preyed visibly upon his mind. By 1846 had begun that succession of disastrous seasons which, by destroying the feeble barrier which stood between the peasant and a cruel death, brought about a national tragedy, the most terrible perhaps with which modern Europe has been confronted. This tragedy, though he did not live to see the whole of it, O'Connell—himself the incarnation of the people—felt acutely. {1788} Deep despondency took hold of him. He retired, to a great degree, from public life, leaving the conduct of his organization in the hands of others. … In 1847 he resolved to leave Ireland, and to end his days in Rome. His last public appearance was in the House of Commons, where an attentive and deeply respectful audience hung upon the faltering and barely articulate accents which fell from his lips. In a few deeply moving words he appealed for aid and sympathy for his suffering countrymen, and left the House. … The camp and council chamber of the 'Young Ireland' party was the editor's room of 'The Nation' newspaper. There it found its inspiration, and there its plans were matured—so far, that is, as they can be said to have been ever matured. For an eminently readable and all things considered a wonderfully impartial account of this movement, the reader cannot do better than consult Sir Charles Gavan Duffy's 'Four Years of Irish History,' which has the immense advantage of being history taken at first hand, written that is by one who himself took a prominent part in the scenes which he describes. The most interesting figure in the party had, however, died before those memorable four years began. Thomas Davis, who was only thirty at the time of his death in 1845, was a man of large gifts, nay, might fairly be called a man of genius. … The whole movement in fact was, in the first instance; a literary quite as much as a political one. Nearly all who took part in it Gavan Duffy, John Mitchell, Meagher, Dillon, Davis himself—were very young men, many fresh from college, all filled with zeal for the cause of liberty and nationality. The graver side of the movement only showed itself when the struggle with O'Connell began. At first no idea of deposing, or even seriously opposing the great leader seems to have been intended. The attempt on O'Connell's part to carry a formal declaration against the employment under any circumstances of physical force was, the origin of that division, and what the younger spirits considered 'truckling to the Whigs' helped to widen the breach. When, too, O'Connell had partially retired into the background, his place was filled by his son, John O'Connell, the 'Head conciliator,' between whom and the 'Young Irelanders' there waged a fierce war, which in the end led to the indignant withdrawal of the latter from the Repeal council. Before matters reached this point, the younger camp had been strengthened by the adhesion of Smith O'Brien, who, though not a man of much intellectual calibre, carried no little weight in Ireland. … Early in January, 1847, O'Connell left on that journey of his which was never completed, and by the middle of May Ireland was suddenly startled by the news that her great leader was dead. The effect of his death was to produce a sudden and immense reaction. A vast revulsion of love and reverence sprang up all over the country; an immense sense of his incomparable services, and with it a vehement anger against all who had opposed him. Upon the 'Young Ireland' party, as was inevitable, the weight of that anger fell chiefly, and from the moment of O'Connell's death whatever claim they had to call themselves a national party vanished utterly. The men 'who killed the Liberator' could never again hope to carry with them the suffrages of any number of their countrymen. This contumely, to a great degree undeserved, naturally reacted upon the subjects of it. The taunt of treachery and ingratitude flung at them wherever they went stung and nettled. In the general reaction of gratitude and affection for O'Connell, his son John succeeded easily to the position of leader. The older members of the Repeal Association thereupon rallied about him, and the split between them and the younger men grew deeper and wider. A wild, impracticable visionary now came to play a part in the movement. A deformed misanthrope, called James Lalor, endowed with a considerable command of vague, passionate rhetoric, began to write incentives to revolt in 'The Nation.' These growing more and more violent were by the editor at length prudently suppressed. The seed, however, had already sown itself in another mind. John Mitchell is described by Mr. Justin McCarthy as 'the one formidable man amongst the rebels of '48; the one man who distinctly knew what he wanted, and was prepared to run any risk to get it.' … To him it was intolerable that any human being should be willing to go further and to dare more in the cause of Ireland than himself, and the result was that after awhile he broke away from his connection with The Nation,' and started a new organ under the name of 'The United Irishmen,' one definitely pledged from the first to the policy of action. From this point matters gathered speedily to a head. Mitchell's newspaper proceeded to fling out challenge after challenge to the Government, calling upon the people to gather and to 'sweep-this island clear of the English name and nation.' For some months these challenges remained unanswered. It was now, however, '48,' and nearly all Europe was in revolution. The necessity of taking some step began to be evident, and a Bill making all written incitement of insurrection felony was hurried through the House of Commons, and almost immediately after Mitchell was arrested. Even then he seems to have believed that the country would rise to liberate him. The country, however, showed no disposition to do anything of the sort. He was tried in Dublin, found guilty, sentenced to fourteen years' transportation, and a few days afterwards put on board a vessel in the harbour and conveyed to Spike Island, whence he was sent to Bermuda, and the following April in a convict vessel to the Cape, and finally to Tasmania. The other 'Young Irelanders,' stung apparently by their own previous inaction, thereupon rushed frantically into rebellion. The leaders—Smith O'Brien, Meagher, Dillon, and others—went about the country holding reviews of 'Confederates,' as they now called themselves, a proceeding which caused the Government to suspend the Habeas Corpus Act, and to issue a warrant for their arrest. A few more gatherings took place in different parts of the country, a few more ineffectual attempts were made to induce the people to rise, one very small collision with the police occurred, and then the whole thing was over. All the leaders in the course of a few days were arrested and Smith O'Brien and Meagher were sentenced to death, a sentence which was speedily changed into transportation. Gavan Duffy was arrested and several times tried, but the jury always disagreed, and in the end his prosecution was abandoned. The 'Young Ireland' movement, however, was dead, and never again revived."

In 1843, Mr. Sharman Crawford "succeeded in obtaining the appointment of a Royal Commission to investigate the 'occupation of land in Ireland.' This Commission, known from its chairman, Lord Devon, as the Devon Commission, marks a great epoch in the Irish land question. The Commissioners, in their Report, brought out strongly the facts that great misery existed in Ireland, and that the cause of the misery was the system of land tenure. The following extract from the Report indicates the general nature of its conclusions: 'A reference to the evidence of most of the witnesses will show that the agricultural labourer of Ireland continues to suffer the greatest privations and hardships; that he continues to depend upon casual and precarious employment for subsistence; that he is badly housed, badly fed, badly clothed, and badly paid for his labour. Our personal experience and observations during our enquiry have afforded us a melancholy confirmation of these statements, and we cannot forbear expressing our strong sense of the patient endurance which the labouring classes have generally exhibited under sufferings greater, we believe, than the people of any other country in Europe have to sustain.' And the remedy for the evil is to be found, continues the Report, in 'an increased and improved cultivation of the soil,' to be gained by securing for the tenant' fair remuneration for the outlay of his capital and labour.' No sooner was this Report issued than great numbers of petitions were presented to the House of Lords, and supported by Lord Devon, praying for legislative reform of the land evils; and in June, 1845, a bill was introduced into the House of Lords by Lord Stanley, on behalf of the government of Sir Robert Peel, for 'the purpose of providing compensation to tenants in Ireland, in certain cases, on being dispossessed of their holdings, for such improvements as they may have made during their tenancy.' By the selfish opposition of the Irish landlords this bill was thrown out. Two days after its rejection in the House of Lords Mr. Sharman Crawford brought into the House of Commons a Tenant Right Bill, and met with as little success. In 1846 a government bill was introduced, bearing a strong resemblance to that of Lord Stanley; but the ministry was overthrown, and the bill was dropped. A Liberal ministry under Lord John Russell came into power in July, 1846, and Irish hopes again began to rise. In 1847 the indefatigable Mr. Crawford brought in a bill, whose purpose was to extend the Ulster custom to the whole of Ireland; it was thrown out. A well-meant but in the end unsuccessful attempt to relieve the burdens of embarrassed landlords without redressing the grievances of rack-rented tenants, was made in 1848 by the measure well known as the Encumbered Estates Act. This Act had for its object to restore capital to the land; but with capital it brought in a class of proprietors who lacked the virtues as well as the vices of their predecessors, and were even more oppressive to the tenantry."

Towards the close of the session of Parliament in 1844, Sir Robert Peel undertook a measure "dealing with higher education in Ireland. Means were to be found, in some way, for the education of the upper classes of the Irish, and for the more efficient education of candidates for the Roman Catholic priesthood. Some provision already existed for the education of the Irish people. Trinity College, with its considerable endowments, afforded opportunities to wealthy Irish. The National Board, which Stanley had instituted, had under its control 3,153 schools, and 395,000 scholars. But Trinity College retained most of its advantages for the benefit of its Protestant students, and the 395,000 scholars, whom the National Board was educating, did not, after all, include one person in every twenty alive in Ireland. The Roman Catholic, since 1793, had been allowed to graduate at Trinity; but he could hold neither scholarship nor professorship. … Some steps had, indeed, been taken for the education of the Roman Catholic priesthood. In 1795, Fitzwilliam had proposed, and his successor, Camden, had approved, the appropriation of an annual sum of money to a college formed at Maynooth for the education of Roman Catholic priests. The Irish parliament had readily sanctioned the scheme; the payment of the grant had been continued, after the Union, by the Parliament of the United Kingdom, and, though the sums voted had been reduced to £9,000 a year in 1808, this amount had been thenceforward regularly allotted to Maynooth. In some respects the grant was actually disadvantageous to the college; it was too small to maintain the institution; it was large enough to discourage voluntary contributions. The surroundings of the college were squalid; its professors were wretchedly paid; it was even impossible to assign to each of the 440 students a separate room; it was dubbed by Macaulay, in a memorable speech, a 'miserable Dotheboys' Hall,' and it was Peel's deliberate opinion that the absolute withdrawal of the grant would be better than the continuance of the niggardly allowance." The Government "asked Parliament to vote a sum of £30,000 to improve the buildings at Maynooth; it proposed that the Board of Works should in future be responsible for keeping them in repair; it suggested that the salaries of professors should be more than doubled; that the position of the students should be improved; that the annual grant should be raised from about £9,000 to about £26,000, and that this sum, instead of being subject to the approval of the legislature once a year, should be placed on the Consolidated Fund. Then arose a series of debates which have no parallel in the history of the British Parliament. … 'The Orangeman raises his howl,' said Macaulay, 'and Exeter Hall sets up its bray, and Mr. MacNeile is horrified to think that a still larger grant is intended for the priests of Baal at the table of Jezebel, and the Protestant operatives of Dublin call for the impeachment of Ministers in exceedingly bad English.' {1790} A few years later a man, who was both a Christian and a gentleman, declared the Irish famine to be a dispensation of Providence in return for the Maynooth grant. … Night after night it rained petitions; 298 petitions against the bill were presented on the 3rd of April, when Peel explained his scheme; 148 on the 8th; 254 on the 9th; 552 on the 10th; 2,262 on the 11th, when the bill was put down for a second reading; 662 on the 14th; 581 on the 15th; 420 on the 16th; 335 on the 17th; 371 on the 18th. The petitions hardly allowed a doubt to remain as to the opinion of the country. Peel, indeed, was again exposed to the full force of the strongest power which any British Minister can encounter. The Mussulman, driven to his last defence, raises the standard of the Prophet, and proclaims a holy war. But the Englishman, if Protestantism be in danger, shouts, 'No Popery!' and creates equal enthusiasm. … Yet, vast as was the storm which the Minister had provoked, the issues which he had directly raised were of the smallest proportions. Hardly anyone ventured to propose that the original vote to Maynooth should be withdrawn. A grant, indeed, which had been sanctioned by George III., which had been fixed by Perceval, which had been voted in an unreformed Parliament, almost without debate, and which had been continued for fifty years, could not be withdrawn. Peel's opponents, therefore, were compelled to argue that there was no harm in sacrificing £9,000 a year to Baal, but that a sacrifice of £26,000 was full of harm. … They debated the second reading of the bill for six nights, the third reading for three nights, and they seized other opportunities for protracting the discussion. Even the Lords forgot their customary habits and sat up till a late hour on three successive evenings to discuss an amendment for inquiring into the class of books used at Maynooth. But this unusual display of zeal proved useless. A majority in both Houses steadily supported the Minister, and zealous Protestants and old-fashioned Tories were unable to defeat a scheme which was proposed by Peel and supported by Russell."

"In 1841 the population of Ireland was 8,175,124 souls. By 1845 it had probably reached to nearly nine millions. … To anyone looking beneath the surface the condition of the country was painfully precarious. Nine millions of a population living at best in a light-hearted and hopeful hand-to-mouth contentment, totally dependent on the hazards of one crop, destitute of manufacturing industries, and utterly without reserve or resource to fall back upon in time of reverse; what did all this mean but a state of things critical and alarming in the extreme? Yet no one seemed conscious of danger. The potato crop had been abundant for four or five years, and respite from dearth and distress was comparative happiness and prosperity. Moreover, the temperance movement [of Father Mathew] had come to make the 'good times' still better. Everything looked bright. No one concerned himself to discover how slender and treacherous was the foundation for this general hopefulness and confidence. Yet signs of the coming storm had been given. Partial famine caused by failing harvests had indeed been intermittent in Ireland, and, quite recently, warnings that ought not to have been mistaken or neglected had given notice that the esculent which formed the sole dependence of the peasant millions was subject to some mysterious blight. In 1844 it was stricken in America, but in Ireland the yield was healthy and plentiful as ever. The harvest of 1845 promised to be the richest gathered for many years. Suddenly, in one short month, in one week it might be said, the withering breath of a simoom seemed to sweep the land, blasting all in its path. I myself saw whole tracts of potato growth changed in one night from smiling luxuriance to a shrivelled and blackened waste. A shout of alarm arose. But the buoyant nature of the Celtic peasant did not yet give way. The crop was so profuse that it was expected the healthy portion would reach an average result. Winter revealed the alarming fact that the tubers had rotted in pit and store-house. Nevertheless the farmers, like hapless men who double their stakes to recover losses, made only the more strenuous exertions to till a larger breadth in 1846. Although already feeling the pinch of sore distress, if not actual famine, they worked as if for dear life; they begged and borrowed on any terms the means whereby to crop the land once more. The pawn-offices were choked with the humble finery that had shone at the village dance or the christening feast; the banks and local money-lenders were besieged with appeals for credit. Meals were stinted, backs were bared. Anything, anything to tide over the interval to the harvest of 'Forty-six.' O God, it is a dreadful thought that all this effort was but more surely leading them to ruin! It was this harvest of Forty-six that sealed their doom. Not partially but completely, utterly, hopelessly, it perished. As in the previous year, all promised brightly up to the close of July. Then, suddenly, in a night, whole areas were blighted; and this time, alas! no portion of the crop escaped. A cry of agony and despair went up all over the land. The last desperate stake for life had been played, and all was lost. The doomed people realised but too well what was before them. Last year's premonitory sufferings had exhausted them, and now?—they must die! My native district figures largely in the gloomy record of that dreadful time. I saw the horrible phantasmagoria—would God it were but that!—pass before my eyes. Blank stolid dismay, a sort of stupor, fell upon the people, contrasting remarkably with the fierce energy put forth a year before. It was no uncommon sight to see the cottier and his little family seated on the garden fence gazing all day long in moody silence at the blighted plot that had been their last hope. Nothing could arouse them. You spoke; they answered not. You tried to cheer them; they shook their heads. I never saw so sudden and so terrible a transformation. When first in the autumn of 1845 the partial blight appeared, wise voices were raised in warning to the Government that a frightful catastrophe was at hand; yet even then began that fatal circumlocution and inaptness which it maddens one to think of. It would be utter injustice to deny that the Government made exertions which judged by ordinary emergencies would be prompt and considerable. {1791} But judged by the awful magnitude of the evil then at hand or actually befallen, they were fatally tardy and inadequate. When at length the executive did hurry, the blunders of precipitancy outdid the disasters of excessive deliberation. … In October 1845 the Irish Mansion House Relief Committee implored the Government to call Parliament together and throw open the ports. The Government refused. Again and again the terrible urgency of the case, the magnitude of the disaster at hand, was pressed on the executive. It was the obstinate refusal of Lord John Russell to listen to these remonstrances and entreaties, and the sad verification subsequently of these apprehensions, that implanted in the Irish mind the bitter memories which still occasionally find vent in passionate accusation of 'England.' Not but the Government had many and weighty arguments in behalf of the course they took. … The situation bristled with difficulties. … At first the establishment of public soup-kitchens under local relief committees, subsidised by Government, was relied upon to arrest the famine. I doubt if the world ever saw so huge a demoralisation, so great a degradation, visited upon a once high-spirited and sensitive people. All over the country large iron boilers were set up, in which what was called 'soup' was concocted; later on Indian-meal stirabout was boiled. Around these boilers on the roadside there daily moaned and shrieked and fought and scuffled crowds of gaunt, cadaverous creatures that once had been men and women made in the image of God. The feeding of dogs in a kennel was far more decent and orderly. … I frequently stood and watched the scene till tears blinded me and I almost choked with grief and passion. … The conduct of the Irish landlords throughout the famine period has been variously described, and has been, I believe, generally condemned. I consider the censure visited on them too sweeping. … On many of them no blame too heavy could possibly fall. A large number were permanent absentees; their ranks were swelled by several who early fled the post of duty at home—cowardly and selfish deserters of a brave and faithful people. Of those who remained, some may have grown callous; it is impossible to contest authentic instances of brutal heartlessness here and there. But … the overwhelming balance is the other way. The bulk of the resident Irish landlords manfully did their best in that dread hour. … In the autumn of 1846 relief works were set on foot, the Government having received parliamentary authority to grant baronial loans for such undertakings. There might have been found many ways of applying these funds in reproductive employment, but the modes decided on were draining and road-making. … The result was in every sense deplorable failure. The wretched people were by this time too wasted and emaciated to work. The endeavour to do so under an inclement winter sky only hastened death. They tottered at day-break to the roll-call; vainly tried to wheel the barrow or ply the pick, but fainted away on the 'cutting,' or lay down on the wayside to rise no more. As for the roads on which so much money was wasted, and on which so many lives were sacrificed, hardly any of them were finished. Miles of grass-grown earth works throughout the country now mark their course and commemorate for posterity one of the gigantic blunders of the famine time. The first remarkable sign of the havoc which death was making was the decline, and disappearance of funerals. … Soon, alas! neither coffin nor shroud could be supplied. Daily in the street and on the footway some poor creature lay down as if to sleep, and presently was stiff and stark. In our district it was a common occurrence to find, on opening the front door in early morning, leaning against it, the corpse of some victim who in the night-time had 'rested' in its shelter. We raised a public subscription, and employed two men with horse and cart to go around each day and gather up the dead. One by one they were taken to a great pit at Ardnabrahair Abbey and dropped through the hinged bottom of a 'trap-coffin' into a common grave below. In the remoter rural districts even this rude sepulture was impossible. In the field and by the ditchside the victims lay as they fell, till some charitable hand was found to cover them with the adjacent soil. It was the fever which supervened on the famine that wrought the greatest slaughter and spread the greatest terror. … To come within the reach of this contagion was certain death. Whole families perished unvisited and unassisted. By levelling above their corpses the sheeling in which they died, the neighbours gave them a grave."

"In July 1847 as many as three millions of persons were actually receiving separate rations. A loan of £8,000,000 was contracted by the Government, expressly to supply such wants, and every step was taken by two successive administrations, Sir Robert Peel's and Lord John Russell's, to alleviate the sufferings of the people. Nor was private benevolence lacking. The Society of Friends, always ready in acts of charity and love, was foremost in the good work. A British Association was formed for the relief of Ireland, including Jones Lloyd (Lord Overstone), Thomas Baring, and Baron Rothschild. A Queen's letter was issued. … Subscriptions were received from almost every quarter of the world. The Queen's letter alone produced £171,533. The British Association collected £263,000; the Society of Friends £43,000; and £168,000 more were entrusted to the Dublin Society of Friends. The Sultan of Turkey sent £1,000. The Queen gave £2,000, and £500 more to the British Ladies' Clothing Fund. Prince Albert gave £500. The National Club collected £17,930. America sent two ships of war, the 'Jamestown' and the 'Macedonian,' full of provisions; and the Irish residents in the United States sent upwards of £200,000 to their relatives, to allow them to emigrate."

"By the end of 1847 cheap supplies of food began to be brought into the country by the ordinary operation of the laws of supply and demand, at far cheaper rates, owing to an abundant harvest abroad, than if the Government had tried to constitute itself the sole distributor. The potato harvest of 1847, if not bountiful, was at least comparatively good. … By March, 1848, the third and last period of the famine may be said to have terminated. But, though the direct period of distress was over, the economic problems which remained for solution were of overwhelming magnitude. … A million and a half of the people had disappeared. The land was devastated with fever and the diseases which dog the steps of famine. … The waters of the great deep were indeed going down, but the land was seen to be without form and void."

Lord E. Fitzmaurice and J. R. Thursfield, Two Centuries of Irish History, part 4, chapter 4.

"The famine and plague of 1846-47 was accompanied, and succeeded, by a wholesale clearance of congested districts and by cruel evictions. The new landlords [who had acquired property under the Encumbered Estates Act], bent on consolidating their property, turned out their tenants by regiments, and in the autumn of 1847 enormous numbers were deported. It is absolutely necessary to bear this strictly in mind, if we would judge of the intense hatred which prevails amongst the Irish in America to Great Britain. The children of many of those who were exiled then have raised themselves to positions of affluence and prosperity in the United States. But they have often heard from their fathers, and some of them may perhaps recall, the circumstances under which they were driven from their old homes in Ireland. … But there is a further and awful memory connected with that time. The people who had been suffering from fever carried the plague with them on board, and the vessels sometimes became floating charnel-houses. During the year 1847, out of 106,000 emigrants who crossed the Atlantic for Canada and New Brunswick, 6,100 perished on the ocean, 4,100 immediately on landing, 5,200 subsequently in the hospitals, and 1,900 in the towns to which they repaired. … Undoubtedly, historical circumstances have … had much to do with the political hatred to Great Britain; but its newly acquired intensity is owing to the still fresh remembrances of what took place after the famine, and to the fact that the wholesale clearances of Irish estates were, to say the least, not discouraged in the writings and speeches of English lawgivers, economists and statesmen."

Sir R. Blennerhassett, Ireland ("Reign of Queen Victoria," edited by T. H. Ward, volume 1, pages 563-565).

"The deaths from fever in the year 1846 were 17,145, in the following year 57,000, to which 27,000 by dysentery must be added."

"Between the years 1847 and 1851 (both inclusive) the almost incredible number of over one million Irish—men, women, and children—were conveyed in emigrant ships to America—a whole population. In 1847, 215,444 emigrated; in 1849, 218,842, and in 1851, 249,721."

"The population of Ireland by March 30, 1851, at the same ratio of increase as held in England and Wales, would have been 9,018,799—it was 6,552,385. It was the calculation of the Census Commissioners that the deficit, independently of the emigration, represented by the mortality in the five famine years, was 985,366."

IRELAND: A. D. 1848-1852.
   Tenant organizations.
   The Ulster Tenant Right.
   The Tenant League.

"The famine … and the evictions that followed it made the people more discontented than ever with the land system. The Democratic Association, organized about this time, adopted as its rallying cry, 'the land for the people.' … This association, whose aims are said to have been 'largely communistic and revolutionary,' opposed the Irish Alliance, the Nationalist Society organized by Charles Gavan Duffy. … During the years '49 and '50 numerous Tenant Protection Societies were formed throughout the country, the Presbyterians of Ulster taking quite as active a part as the Celtic Catholics of the other provinces. In May, 1850, the Presbyterian Synod of Ulster … resolved, against the protest, it is true, of the more conservative men, to petition Parliament to extend to the rest of Ireland the benefits of rights and securities similar to those of the Ulster custom. … The Ulster tenant right … has occupied an important place in the Irish land question for a long time. … The right differs much on different estates. On no two does it seem to be precisely the same. It is therefore not a right capable of being strictly defined. Nor did it have any legal sanction until the year 1870. The law did not recognize it. One of its chief incidents was that the tenant was entitled to live on his farm from year to year indefinitely on condition of acting properly, and paying his rent, which the landlord might raise from time to time to a reasonable extent, but not so as to extinguish the tenant's interest. In the second place, if the tenant got in debt, and could not pay the rent, or wished for any other reason to leave the holding, he could sell his interest, but the landlord had a right to be consulted, and could object to the purchaser. In the third place, the landlord, if he wanted to take the land for his own purposes, must pay the tenant a fair sum for his tenant-right. In the fourth place, all arrears of rent must be paid before the interest was transferred. These are said to be universal characteristics of every Ulster tenant-right custom. There were often additional restrictions or provisions, usually in limitation of the tenant's right to sell, or of the landlord's right to raise the rent, veto the sale of land, or take it for his own use. There were commonly established usages in reference to fixing a fair rent. Valuators were generally employed, and on their estimates, and not on competition in open market, the rent was fixed. … The Irish Tenant League was organized August 6, 1850, in Dublin. Among the resolutions adopted was one, calling for 'a fair valuation of rent between landlord and tenant in Ireland,' and another, 'that the tenant should not be disturbed in his holding as long as he paid his rent.' The question of arrears received a great deal of attention. The great majority of the tenants of Ireland were in arrears, owing to the successive failures of the crops, and were of course liable to eviction. … The Tenant League was a very popular one and spread throughout the country. There was much agitation, and in the general election in 1852, when the excitement was at its height, fifty-eight Tenant Leaguers were elected to Parliament. The Tenant League members resolved to hold themselves 'independent of and in opposition to all governments which do not make it a part of their policy' to give the tenants a measure of relief such as the League desired. It looked as though the party would hold the balance of power and be able to secure its objects. When however Sadlier and Keogh, two of the most prominent men in the party and men of great influence, accepted positions in the new government, 'bribed by office,' it has always been charged by the Irish, 'to betray the cause to which they had been most solemnly pledged,' the party was broken up without accomplishing its purpose."

"The Fenian movement differed from nearly all previous movements of the same kind in Ireland, in the fact that it arose and grew into strength without the patronage or the help of any of those who might be called the natural leaders of the people. … Its leaders were not men of high position, or distinguished name, or proved ability. They were not of aristocratic birth; they were not orators; they were not powerful writers. It was not the impulse of the American Civil War that engendered Fenianism; although that war had great influence on the manner in which Fenianism shaped its course. Fenianism had been in existence, in fact, although it had not got its peculiar name, long before the American War created a new race of Irishmen—the Irish-American soldiers—to turn their energies and their military inclination to a new purpose. … The suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, in consequence of the 1848 movement, led, as a matter of course, to secret association. Before the trials of the Irish leaders were well over in that year, a secret association was formed by a large number of young Irishmen in cities and towns. … After two or three attempts to arrange for a simultaneous rising had failed, or had ended only in little abortive and isolated ebullitions, the young men became discouraged. Some of the leaders went to France, some to the United States, some actually to England; and the association melted away. … Some years after this, the 'Phœnix' clubs began to be formed in Ireland. They were for the most part associations of the peasant class, and were on that account, perhaps, the more formidable and earnest. … The Phœnix clubs led to some of the ordinary prosecutions and convictions; and that was all. … After the Phœnix associations came the Fenians. 'This is a serious business now,' said a clever English literary man when he heard of the Fenian organisation; 'the Irish have got hold of a good name this time; the Fenians will last.' The Fenians are said to have been the ancient Irish militia. … There was an air of Celtic antiquity and of mystery about the name of Fenian which merited the artistic approval given to it by the impartial English writer whose observation has just been quoted. The Fenian agitation began about 1858, and it came to perfection about the middle of the American Civil War. It was ingeniously arranged on a system by which all authority converged towards one centre [called the Head-Centre], and those farthest away from the seat of direction knew proportionately less and less about the nature of the plans. They had to obey instructions only, and it was hoped that by this means weak or doubtful men would not have it in their power prematurely to reveal, to betray, or to thwart the purposes of their leaders. A convention was held in America, and the Fenian Association was resolved into a regular organised institution. A provisional government was established in the neighbourhood of Union Square, New York, with all the array and the mechanism of an actual working administration. … The Civil War had introduced a new figure to the world's stage. This was the Irish-American soldier. … Many of these men—thousands of them—were as sincerely patriotic in their way as they were simple and brave. It is needless to say that they were fastened on in some instances by adventurers, who fomented the Fenian movement out of the merest and the meanest self-seeking. … Some were making a living out of the organisation—out of that, and apparently nothing else. The contributions given by poor Irish hack-drivers and servant girls, in the sincere belief that they were helping to man the ranks of an Irish army of independence, enabled some of these self-appointed leaders to wear fine clothes and to order expensive dinners. … But in the main it is only fair to say that the Fenian movement in the United States was got up, organised and manned by persons who … were single-hearted, unselfish, and faithfully devoted to their cause. … After a while things went so far that the Fenian leaders in the United States issued an address, announcing that their officers were going to Ireland to raise an army there for the recovery of the country's independence. Of course the Government here were soon quite prepared to receive them; and indeed the authorities easily managed to keep themselves informed by means of spies of all that was going on in Ireland. … Meanwhile the Head Centre of Fenianism in America, James Stephens, who had borne a part in the movement of 1848, arrived in Ireland. He was arrested … [and] committed to Richmond Prison, Dublin, early in November, 1865; but before many days had passed the country was startled by the news that he had contrived to make his escape. The escape was planned with skill and daring. For a time it helped to strengthen the impression on the mind of the Irish peasantry that in Stephens there had at last been found an insurgent leader of adequate courage, craft, and good fortune. Stephens disappeared for a moment from the stage. In the meantime disputes and dissensions had arisen among the Fenians in America. The schism had gone so far as to lead to the setting up of two separate associations. There were of course distracted plans. One party was for an invasion of Canada; another pressed for operations in Ireland itself. The Canadian attempt actually was made. …

   Then Stephens came to the front again. It was only for a
   moment. He had returned to New York, and he now announced that
   he was determined to strike a blow in Ireland. Before long the
   impression was spread abroad that he had actually left the
   States to return to the scene of his proposed insurrection.
   The American-Irish kept streaming across the Atlantic, even in
   the stormy winter months, in the firm belief that before the
   winter had passed away, or at the farthest while the spring
   was yet young, Stephens would appear in Ireland at the head of
   an insurgent army. … Stephens did not reappear in Ireland.
   He made no attempt to keep his warlike promise. He may be said
   to have disappeared from the history of Fenianism. But the
   preparations had gone too far to be suddenly stopped. … It
   was hastily decided that something should be done. One venture
   was a scheme for the capture of Chester Castle [and the arms
   it contained]. … The Government were fully informed of the
   plot in advance; the police were actually on the look-out for
   the arrival of strangers in Chester, and the enterprise melted
   away.
{1794}
   In March, 1867, an attempt at a general rising was made in
   Ireland. It was a total failure; the one thing on which the
   country had to be congratulated was that it failed so
   completely and so quickly as to cause little bloodshed. Every
   influence combined to minimise the waste of life. The snow
   fell that spring as it had scarcely ever fallen before in the
   soft, mild climate of Ireland. … It made the gorges of the
   mountains untenable, and the gorges of the mountains were to
   be the encampments and the retreats of the Fenian insurgents.
   The snow fell for many days and nights, and when it ceased
   falling the insurrectionary movement was over. The
   insurrection was literally buried in that unlooked-for snow.
   There were some attacks on police barracks in various places
   —in Cork, in Kerry, in Limerick, in Tipperary, in Louth;
   there were some conflicts with the police; there were some
   shots fired, many captures made, a few lives lost; and then
   for the time at least all was over. The Fenian attempt thus
   made had not from the beginning a shadow of hope to excuse
   it." Some months afterwards a daring rescue of Fenian
   prisoners at Manchester stirred up a fresh excitement in
   Fenian circles. A policeman was killed in the affair, and
   three of the rescuers were hanged for his murder. On the 13th
   of December, 1867, an attempt was made to blow up the
   Clerkenwell House of Detention, where two Fenian prisoners
   were confined. "Six persons were killed on the spot; about six
   more died from the effects of the injuries they received; some
   120 persons were wounded. … It is not necessary to follow
   out the steps of the Fenian movement any further. There were
   many isolated attempts; there were many arrests, trials,
   imprisonments, banishments. The effect of all this, it must be
   stated as a mere historical fact, was only to increase the
   intensity of dissatisfaction and discontent among the Irish
   peasantry. … There were some public men who saw that the
   time had come when mere repression must no longer be relied
   upon as a cure for Irish discontent."

      G. P. Macdonell,
      Fenianism,
      Two Centuries of Irish History,
      part 5, chapter 4.

IRELAND: A. D. 1868-1870.
Disestablishment of the Irish Church.
Mr. Gladstone's Land Bill.

"The reason for exceptional legislation in Ireland rested chiefly on the essential difference between the landlord and tenant systems in England and in Ireland. In 1845 the Devon Royal Commission reported that the introduction of the English system would be extremely difficult, if not impracticable. The difference, it said, between the English and Irish systems 'consisted in this, that in Ireland the landlord builds neither dwelling-house nor farm offices, nor puts fences, gates, etc., into good order before he lets his land. In most cases, whatever is done in the way of building or fencing is done by the tenant; and, in the ordinary language of the country, houses, farm buildings, and even the making of fences are described by the general word "improvements," which is thus employed to denote the necessary adjuncts to a farm without which in England or Scotland no tenant would be found to rent it.' Thirty years later, John Bright summarized the matter by saying that if the land of Ireland were stripped of the improvements made upon it by the labor of the occupier, the face of the country would be 'as bare and naked as an American prairie.' This fundamental difference between the English and Irish land systems has never been fully appreciated in England, where the landlord's expenditure on buildings, fences, drainage, farm roads, etc., and on maintenance absorbs a large part of the rental. Reform of the Irish system began in 1870. Before that time little had been done to protect the Irish tenant except to forbid evictions at night, on Christmas Day, on Good Friday, and the pulling off the roofs of houses until the inmates had been removed. The Land Act of 1870 recognized, in principle, the tenant's property in his improvements by giving him a right to claim compensation if disturbed or evicted. This was not what the tenants wanted, viz., security of tenure. The results of compensation suits by 'disturbed' tenants were uncertain; compensation for improvements was limited in various ways, and the animus of the courts administering the act was distinctly hostile to the tenants. Many works necessary to the existence of tenants on small farms were not improvements in the eyes of the landlord, of the law, or of the judges; it was often impossible to adduce legal evidence of costly works done little by little, and at intervals, representing the savings of labor embodied in drainage, reclamation, or fencing. Buildings and other works of a superior character might be adjudged 'unsuitable' to small farms, and therefore not the subject of any compensation; moreover, it was expressly laid down that the use and enjoyment by the tenant of works effected wholly at his expense were to be accounted compensation to him by the landlord, and that, therefore, by lapse of time, the tenant's improvements became the landlord's property. The act of 1870 tended to make capricious and heartless evictions expensive and therefore less common; but it gave no security of tenure, and left the landlord still at liberty to raise the rent of improving tenants. It left the tenant still in a state of dependence and servility; it gave him no security for his expenditure, for the landlord's right to keep the rent continually rising was freely exercised. Even if the act had been liberally administered, it would have failed to give contentment, satisfy the demands of justice, or encourage the expenditure of capital by tenant farmers. Measure after measure proposed by Irish members for further reforms were rejected by Parliament between 1870 and 1880, and discontent continued to increase. … The Land Law Act of 1881 was based on the Report in 1880 of the Bessborough Royal Commission, but many of the most useful suggestions made were disregarded. This act purported to give the Irish yearly tenants (1) the right to sell their tenancies and improvements; (2) the right to have a 'fair' rent fixed by the land courts at intervals of fifteen years; (3) security of tenure arising from this right to have the rent fixed by the court instead of by the landlord.

… No definition of what constituted a fair rent was embodied in the act, but what is known as the Healy clause provided that 'no rent shall be allowed or made payable in respect of improvements made by a tenant or his predecessors.' … When the Irish courts came to interpret it, they held that the term improvements' meant only that interest in his improvements for which the tenant might have obtained compensation under the Land Act of 1870 if he had been disturbed or evicted, and that the time during which the tenant had had the use and enjoyment of his own expenditure was still to be accounted compensation made to him by his landlord, so that by mere lapse of time the tenant's improvements became the landlord's property. … In view of the continually falling prices of agricultural produce and diminishing farm profits, the operation of the land laws has not brought about peace between landlords and tenants. … In 1887 the Cowper Commission reported that the 200,000 rents which had been fixed were too high in consequence of the continued fall in prices. As a result of the report of this commission the fair-rent provisions of the law were extended to leaseholders holding for less than sixty years; but the courts still adhering to their former methods of interpretation, numbers of leaseholders who had made and maintained all the buildings, improvements, and equipments of their farms found themselves either excluded on narrow and technical points, or expressly rented on their own expenditure. In 1891 the fair-rent provisions were further extended to leaseholders holding for more than sixty years by the Redemption of Rent Act, under which long leasehold tenants could compel their landlords either to sell to them, or allow a fair rent to be fixed on their farms. … Concurrently with these attempts to place the relations of landlord and tenant on a peaceful and equitable basis, a system of State loans to enable tenants to buy their farms has been in operation. … It is now proposed to have an inquiry by a select committee of the House of Commons into

   (1) the principles adopted in fixing fair rents, particularly
   with respect to tenants' improvements;
   (2) the system of purchase and security offered for the loans
   of public money;
   (3) the organization and administrative work of the Land
   Commission

—a department which has cost the country about £100,000 a year since 1881. The popular demand for inquiry and reform comes as much from the Protestant North as from the Catholic South."

IRELAND: A. D. 1873-1879.
The Home Rule Movement.
Organization of the Land League.

"For some years after the failure of the Fenian insurrection there was no political agitation in Ireland; but in 1873 a new national movement began to make itself felt; this was the Home Rule Movement. It had been gradually formed since 1870 by one or two leading Irishmen, who thought the time was ripe for a new constitutional effort; chief among them was Mr. Isaac Butt, a Protestant, an eminent lawyer, and an earnest politician. The movement spread rapidly, and took a firm hold of the popular mind. After the General Election of 1874, some sixty Irish Members were returned who had stood before their constituencies as Home Rulers. The Home Rule demand is clear and simple enough; it asks for Ireland a separate Government, still allied with the Imperial Government, on the principles which regulate the alliance between the United States of America. The proposed Irish Parliament in College Green would bear just the same relation to the Parliament at Westminster that the Legislature and Senate of every American State bear to the head authority of the Congress in the Capitol at Washington. All that relates to local business it was proposed to delegate to the Irish Assembly; all questions of imperial policy were still to be left to the Imperial Government. There was nothing very startling, very daringly innovating, in the scheme. In most of the dependencies of Great Britain, Home Rule systems of some kind were already established. In Canada, in the Australasian Colonies, the principle might be seen at work upon a large scale; upon a small scale it was to be studied nearer home in the neighbouring Island of Man. … At first the Home Rule Party was not very active. Mr. Butt used to have a regular Home Rule debate once every Session, when he and his followers stated their views, and a division was taken and the Home Rulers were of course defeated. Yet, while the English House of Commons was thus steadily rejecting year after year the demand made for Home Rule by the large majority of the Irish Members, it was affording a strong argument in favour of some system of local Government, by consistently outvoting every proposition brought forward by the bulk of the Irish Members relating to Irish Questions. … Mr. Butt and his followers had proved the force of the desire for some sort of National Government in Ireland, but the strength of the movement they had created now called for stronger leaders. A new man was coming into Irish political life who was destined to be the most remarkable Irish leader since O'Connell. Mr. Charles Stuart Parnell, who entered the House of Commons in 1875 as Member for Meath, was a descendant of the English poet Parnell, and of the two Parnells, father and son, John and Henry, who stood by Grattan to the last in the struggle against the Union. He was a grand-nephew of Sir Henry Parnell, the first Lord Congleton, the advanced Reformer and friend of, Lord Grey and Lord Melbourne. He was Protestant, and a member of the Protestant Synod. Mr. Parnell set himself to form a party of Irishmen in the House of Commons who should be absolutely independent of any English political party, and who would go their own way with only the cause of Ireland to influence them. Mr. Parnell had all the qualities that go to make a good political leader, and he succeeded in his purpose. The more advanced men in and out of Parliament began to look up to him as the real representative of the popular voice. In 1878 Mr. Butt died. … The leadership of the Irish Parliamentary Party was given to Mr. William Shaw, Member for Cork County, an able, intelligent man, who proved himself in many ways a good leader. In quieter times his authority might have remained unquestioned, but these were unquiet, times. The decorous and demure attitude of the early Home Rule Party was to be changed into a more aggressive action, and Mr. Parnell was the champion of the change. It was soon obvious that he was the real leader recognised by the majority of the Irish Home Rule Members, and by the country behind them. Mr. Parnell and his following have been bitterly denounced for pursuing an obstructive policy. {1796} They are often written about as if they had invented obstruction; as if obstruction of the most audacious kind had never been practised in the House of Commons before Mr. Parnell entered it. It may perhaps be admitted that the Irish Members made more use of obstruction than had been done before their time. … The times undoubtedly were unquiet; the policy which was called in England obstructive and in Ireland active was obviously popular with the vast majority of the Irish people. The Land Question, too, was coming up again, and in a stronger form than ever. Mr. Butt, not very long before his death, had warned the House of Commons that the old land war was going to break out anew, and he was laughed at for his vivid fancy by the English Press and by English public opinion; but he proved a true prophet. Mr. Parnell had carefully studied the condition of the Irish tenant, and he saw that the Land Act of 1870 was not the last word of legislation on his behalf. Mr. Parnell was at first an ardent advocate of what came to be known as the Three F's, fair rent, fixity of tenure, and free sale. But the Three F's were soon to be put aside in favour of more advanced ideas. Outside Parliament a strenuous and earnest man was preparing to inaugurate the greatest land agitation ever seen in Ireland. Mr. Michael Davitt was the son of an evicted tenant. … When he grew to be a young man he joined the Fenians, and in 1870, on the evidence of an informer, he was arrested and sentenced to fifteen years' penal servitude; seven years later he was let out on ticket-of-leave. In his long imprisonment he had thought deeply upon the political and social condition of Ireland and the best means of improving it; when he came out he had abandoned his dreams of armed rebellion, and he went in for constitutional agitation to reform the Irish land system. The land system needed reforming; the condition of the tenant was only humanly endurable in years of good harvest. The three years from 1876 to 1879 were years of successive bad harvests. … Mr. Davitt had been in America, planning out a land organization, and had returned to Ireland to carry out his plan. Land meetings were held in many parts of Ireland, and in October Mr. Parnell, Mr. Davitt, Mr. Patrick Egan, and Mr. Thomas Brennan founded the Irish National Land League, the most powerful political organization that had been formed in Ireland since the Union. The objects of the Land League were the abolition of the existing landlord system and the introduction of peasant proprietorship."

IRELAND: A. D. 1880.
The breach between the Irish Party and the English Liberals.

"The new Irish party which followed the lead of Mr. Parnell has been often represented by the humourist as a sort of Falstaffian 'ragged regiment.' … From dint of repetition this has come to be almost an article of faith in some quarters. Yet it is curiously without foundation. A large proportion of Mr. Parnell's followers were journalists. … Those who were not journalists in the Irish party were generally what is called well-to-do. … At first there seemed no reason to expect any serious disunion between the Irish members and the Liberal' party. … The Irish vote in England had been given to the Liberal cause. The Liberal speakers and statesmen, without committing themselves to any definite line of policy, had manifested friendly sentiments towards Ireland; and though indeed nothing was said which could be construed into a recognition of the Home Rule claim, still the new Ministry was known to contain men favourable to that claim. The Irish members hoped for much from the new Government; and, on the other hand, the new Government expected to find cordial allies in all sections of the Irish party. The appointment of Mr. Forster to the Irish Secretaryship was regarded by many Irishmen, especially those allied to Mr. Shaw and his following, as a marked sign of the good intentions of the Government towards Ireland. … The Queen's Speech announced that the Peace Preservation Act would not be renewed. This was a very important announcement. Since the Union Ireland had hardly been governed by the ordinary law for a single year. … Now the Government was going to make the bold experiment of trying to rule Ireland without the assistance of coercive and exceptional law. The Queen's Speech, however, contained only one other reference to Ireland, in a promise that a measure would be introduced for the extension of the Irish borough franchise. This was in itself an important promise. … But extension of the borough franchise did not seem, to the Irish members in 1880 the most important form that legislation for Ireland could take just then. The country was greatly depressed by its recent suffering; the number of evictions was beginning to rise enormously. The Irish members thought that the Government should have made some promise to consider the land question, and above all should have done something to stay the alarming increase of evictions. Evictions had increased from 463 families in 1877 to 980 in 1878, to 1,238 in 1879; and they were still on the increase, as was shown at the end of 1880, when it was found that 2,110 families were evicted. An amendment to the Address was at once brought forward by the Irish party, and debated at some length. The Irish party called for some immediate legislation on behalf of the land question. Mr. Forster replied, admitting the necessity for some legislation, but declaring that there would not be time for the introduction of any such measure that session. Then the Irish members asked for some temporary measure to prevent the evictions … ; but the Chief Secretary answered that while the law existed it was necessary to carry it out, and he could only appeal to both sides to be moderate. Matters slowly drifted on in this way for a short time. … Evictions steadily increased, and Mr. O'Connor Power brought in a Bill for the purpose of staying evictions. Then the Government, while refusing to accept the Irish measure, brought in a Compensation for Disturbance Bill, which adopted some of the Irish suggestions. … On Friday, June 25, the second reading of the Bill was moved by Mr. Forster, who denied that it was a concession to the anti-rent agitation, and strongly denounced the outrages which were taking place in Ireland. … This was the point at which difference between the Irish party and the Government first became marked. {1797} The increase of evictions in Ireland, following as it did upon the widespread misery caused by the failure of the harvests and the partial famine, had generated—as famine and hunger have always generated—a certain amount of lawlessness. Evictions were occasionally resisted with violence; here and there outrages were committed upon bailiffs, process-servers, and agents. In different places, too, injuries had been inflicted upon the cattle and horses of landowners and land agents. … There is no need, there should be no attempt, to justify these crimes. But, while condemning all acts of violence, whether upon man or beast, it must be remembered that these acts were committed by ignorant peasants of the lowest class, maddened by hunger, want, and eviction, driven to despair by the sufferings of their wives and children, convinced of the utter hopelessness of redress, and longing for revenge. … The Compensation for Disturbance Bill was carried in the Commons after long debates in which the Irish party strove to make its principles stronger. … It was sent up to the Lords, where it was rejected on Tuesday, August 3, by a majority of 231. The Government answered the appeals of Irish members by refusing to take any steps to make the Lords retract their decision, or to introduce any similar measure that session. From that point the agitation and struggle of the past four years [1880-1884] may be said to date."

IRELAND: A. D. 1881-1882.
   The Coercion Bill and the Land Act.
   Arrest of the Irish leaders.
   Suppression of the Land League.
   The alleged Kilmainham Treaty, and release of Mr. Parnell and
   others.

Early in 1881, the Government armed itself with new powers for suppressing the increased lawlessness which showed itself in Ireland, and for resisting the systematic policy of intimidation which the Nationalists appeared to have planned, by the passage of a measure known as the Coercion Bill. This was followed, in April, by the introduction of a Land Bill, intended to redress the most conspicuous Irish grievance by establishing an authoritative tribunal for the determination of rents, and by aiding and facilitating the purchase of small holdings by the peasants. The Land Bill became law in August; but it failed to satisfy the demands of the Land League or to produce a more orderly state of feeling in Ireland. Severe proceedings were then decided upon by the Government. "The Prime Minister, during his visit to Leeds in the first week of October, had used language which could bear only one meaning. The question, he said, had come to be simply this, 'whether law or lawlessness must rule in Ireland;' the Irish people must not be deprived of the means of taking advantage of the Land Act by force or fear of force. He warned the party of disorder that 'the resources of civilisation were not yet exhausted.' A few days later Mr. Gladstone, speaking at the Guildhall, amid enthusiastic cheers, was able to announce that the long-delayed blow had fallen. Mr. Parnell was arrested in Dublin under the Coercion Act, and his arrest was followed by those of Mr. Sexton, Mr. Dillon, Mr. O'Kelly, and other prominent leaders of the agitation. The warnings of the Government had been met at first with derision and defiance, and the earlier arrests were furiously denounced; but the energy and persistence of the Government soon began to make an impression. … A Parthian shot was fired in the issue of a manifesto, purporting to be signed, not only by the 'suspects' in Kilmainham, but also by [Michael] Davitt, … in Portland Prison, which adjured the tenantry to pay no rent whatever until the Government had done penance for its tyranny and released the victims of British despotism. This open incitement to defiance of legal authority and repudiation of legal right was instantly met by the Irish Executive in a resolute spirit. On the 20th of October a proclamation was issued declaring the League to be 'an illegal and criminal association, intent on destroying the obligation of contracts and subverting law,' and announcing that its operations would thenceforward be forcibly suppressed, and those taking part in them held responsible."

   "In the month of April [1882] Mr. Parnell was released from
   Kilmainham on parole—urgent business demanding his presence
   in Paris. This parole the Irish National leader faithfully
   kept. Whether the sweets of liberty had special charms for Mr.
   Parnell does not appear; but certain it is that after his
   return to Kilmainham, the Member for Cork wrote to Captain
   O'Shea, one of the Irish Members, and indirectly to the
   Government, intimating that if the question of arrears could
   be introduced in Parliament by way of relieving the tenants of
   holdings and lessening greatly the number of evictions in the
   country for non-payment of rent, and providing the purchase
   clauses of the Land Bill were discussed, steps might be taken
   to lessen the number of outrages. The Government had the
   intimation conveyed to them, in short, which gave to their
   minds the conviction that Messrs. Parnell, Dillon, and
   O'Kelly, once released, and having in view the reforms
   indicated to them, would range themselves on the side of law
   and order in Ireland. Without any contract with the three
   members the release of Messrs. Parnell, Dillon, and O'Kelly
   was ordered, after they had been confined for a period
   bordering on three months. Michael Davitt had been released,
   likewise, and had been elected for Meath; but the seat was
   declared vacant again, owing to the conditions of his
   ticket-of-leave not permitting his return. Much has been said,
   and much has been written with regard to the release of the
   three Irish M. P.'s. The 'Kilmainham Treaty' has been … a
   term of scorn addressed to Mr. Gladstone and his colleagues.
   … As a fact … there was no Kilmainham Treaty. … Mr.
   Forster [the Secretary for Ireland] resigned because he did
   not think it right to share the responsibility of the release
   of Messrs. Parnell, Dillon, and O'Kelly. The Government had
   detained the Queen's subjects in prison without trial for the
   purpose of preventing crime, not for punishment, Mr. Forster
   said in vindication. Mr. Forster contended that the unwritten
   law, as promulgated by them, had worked the ruin and the
   injury of the Queen's subjects by instructions of one kind and
   another—biddings carried out to such a degree that no power
   on earth could have allowed it to continue without becoming a
   Government not merely in name but in shame.
{1798}
   Mr. Forster would have given the question of the release of
   the three consideration, if they had pledged themselves not to
   set their law up against the law of the land, or if Ireland
   had been quiet, or if there had been an accession of fresh
   powers on behalf of the Government: but these conditions were
   wanting. What Mr. Forster desired was an avowal of a change of
   purpose. He entreated his colleagues 'not to try to buy
   obedience,' as he termed it, and not to rely on appearances.
   The Government did rely on the intimation of Mr. Parnell … ;
   there was no treaty."

      W. W. Pimblett,
      English Political History, 1880-1885,
      chapter 10.

Mr. Forster, Chief Secretary for Ireland, resigned in April, 1882, and was succeeded by Lord Frederick Cavendish, brother of the Marquis of Hartington and son of the Duke of Devonshire. Earl Spencer at the same time became Viceroy, in place of Lord Cowper, resigned. "On the night of Friday, May 5th, Earl Spencer and Lord Frederick Cavendish crossed over to Ireland, and arrived in Dublin on the following day. The official entry was made in the morning, when the reception accorded by the populace to the new officials was described as having been very fairly favourable. Events seemed to have taken an entirely prosperous turn, and it was hoped that at last the long winter of Irish discontent had come to an end. On Sunday morning there spread through the United Kingdom the intelligence that the insane hatred of English rule had been the cause of a crime, even more brutal and unprovoked than any of the numerous outrages that had, during the last three years, sullied the annals of Ireland. It appeared that Lord Frederick Cavendish, having taken the oaths at the Castle, took a car about half-past seven in order to drive to the Viceregal Lodge. On the way he met Mr. Burke, the Permanent Under-Secretary, who, though his life had been repeatedly threatened, was walking along, according to his usual custom, without any police escort. Lord Frederick dismissed his car, and walked with him through the Phœnix Park. There, in broad daylight—for it was a fine summer evening—and in the middle of a public recreation ground, crowded with people, they were surrounded and murdered. More than one spectator witnessed what they imagined to be a drunken brawl, saw six men struggling together, and four of them drive off outside a car, painted red, which had been waiting for them the while, the carman sitting still and never turning his head. The bodies of the two officials were first discovered by two shop-boys on bicycles who had previously passed them alive. Lord Frederick Cavendish had six wounds, and Mr. Burke eleven, dealt evidently with daggers used by men of considerable strength. Lord Spencer himself had witnessed the struggle from the windows of the Viceregal Lodge, and thinking that some pickpockets had been at work sent a servant to make inquiries. A reward of £10,000, together with full pardon to anyone who was not one of the actual murderers, was promptly offered, but for many long months the telegrams from Dublin closed with the significant information—'No definite clue in the hands of the police.' All parties in Ireland at once united to express their horror and detestation at this dastardly crime."

ALSO IN: Sir C. Russell, The Parnell Commission: Opening Speech, pages 282-291.

IRELAND: A. D. 1884.
Enlargement of the Suffrage.
Representation of the People Act.

IRELAND: A. D. 1885-1886.
   Change of opinion in England.
   Mr. Gladstone's first Home Rule Bill and Irish Land Bill and
   their defeat.

   "All through the Parliament which sat from 1880 till 1885, the
   Nationalists' party, led by Mr. Parnell, and including at
   first less than half, ultimately about half, of the Irish
   members, was in constant and generally bitter opposition to
   the Government of Mr. Gladstone. But during these five years a
   steady, although silent and often unconscious, process of
   change was passing in the minds of English and Scotch members,
   especially Liberal members, due to their growing sense of the
   mistakes which Parliament committed in handling Irish
   questions, and of the hopelessness of the efforts which the
   Executive was making to pacify the country on the old methods.
   First, they came to feel that the present system was
   indefensible. Then, while still disliking the notion of an
   Irish Legislature, they began to think it deserved
   consideration. Next they admitted, though usually in
   confidence to one another, that although Home Rule might be a
   bad solution, it was a probable one, toward which events
   pointed. Last of all, and not till 1884, they asked themselves
   whether, after all, it would be a bad solution, provided a
   workable scheme could be found. But as no workable scheme had
   been proposed, they still kept their views, perhaps unwisely,
   to themselves, and although the language held at the general
   election of 1885 showed a great advance in the direction of
   favoring Irish self-government, beyond the attitude of 1880,
   it was still vague and hesitating, and could the more easily
   remain so because the constituencies had not (strange as it
   may now seem) realized the supreme importance of the Irish
   question. Few questions were put to candidates on the subject,
   for both candidates and electors wished to avoid it. It was
   disagreeable; it was perplexing; so they agreed to leave it on
   one side. But when the result of the Irish elections showed,
   in December, 1885, an overwhelming majority in favor of the
   Home Rule party, and when they showed, also, that this party
   held the balance of power in Parliament, no one could longer
   ignore the urgency of the issue. There took place what
   chemists call a precipitation of substance held in solution.
   Public opinion on the Irish question had been in a fluid
   state. It now began to crystallize, and the advocates and
   opponents of Irish self-government fell asunder into two
   masses, which soon solidified. This process was hastened by
   the fact that Mr. Gladstone's view, the indications of which,
   given by himself some months before, had been largely
   overlooked, now became generally understood. … In the spring
   of 1886 the question could be no longer evaded or postponed.
   It was necessary to choose between … two courses: the
   refusal of the demand for self-government, coupled with the
   introduction of a severe Coercion Bill, or the concession of
   it by the introduction of a Home Rule Bill. …
{1799}
   How the Government of Ireland Bill was brought into the House
   of Commons on April 8th, amid circumstances of curiosity and
   excitement unparalleled since 1832: how, after debates of
   almost unprecedented length, it was defeated in June, by a
   majority of thirty; how the policy it embodied was brought
   before the country at the general election, and failed to win
   approval; how the Liberal party has been rent in twain upon
   the question; how Mr. Gladstone resigned, and has been
   succeeded by a Tory Ministry, which the dissentient Liberals,
   who condemn Home Rule, are now supporting—all this is …
   well known.

… But the causes of the disaster may not be equally understood. … First, and most obvious, although not most important, was the weight of authority arrayed against the scheme. … The two most eminent leaders of the moderate Liberal, or, as it is often called, Whig, party, Lord Hartington and Mr. Goschen, both declared against the bill, and put forth all their oratory and influence against it. At the opposite extremity of the party, Mr. John Bright, the veteran and honored leader of the Radicals, Mr. Chamberlain, the younger and latterly more active and prominent chief of that large section, took up the same position of hostility. Scarcely less important was the attitude of the social magnates of the Liberal party all over the country. … As, at the preceding general election, in December, 1885, the Liberals had obtained a majority of less than a hundred over the Tories, a defection such as this was quite enough to involve their defeat. Probably the name of Mr. Bright alone turned the issue in some twenty constituencies, which might otherwise have cast a Home Rule vote. The mention of this cause, however, throws us back on the further question, Why was there such a weight of authority against the scheme proposed by Mr. Gladstone? How came so many of his former colleagues, friends, supporters, to differ and depart from him on this occasion? Besides some circumstances attending the production of the bill, … which told heavily against it, there were three feelings which worked upon men's minds, disposing them to reject it. The first of these was dislike and fear of the Irish Nationalist members. In the previous House of Commons this party had been uniformly and bitterly hostile to the Liberal Government. Measures intended for the good of Ireland, like the Land Act of 1881, had been ungraciously received, treated as concessions extorted, for which no thanks were due—inadequate concessions, which must be made the starting-point for fresh demands. Obstruction had been freely practised to defeat not only bills restraining the liberty of the subject in Ireland, but many other measures. Some members of the Irish party, apparently with the approval of the rest, had systematically sought to delay all English and Scotch legislation, and, in fact, to bring the work of Parliament to a dead stop. … There could be no doubt as to the hostility which they, still less as to that which their fellow-countrymen in the United States, had expressed toward England, for they had openly wished success to Russia while war seemed impending with her, and the so-called Mahdi of the Sudan was vociferously cheered at many a Nationalist meeting. … To many Englishmen, the proposal to create an Irish Parliament seemed nothing more or less than a proposal to hand over to these men the government of Ireland, with all the opportunities thence arising to oppress the opposite party in Ireland and to worry England herself. It was all very well to urge that the tactics which the Nationalists had pursued when their object was to extort Home Rule would be dropped, because superfluous, when Home Rule had been granted; or to point out that an Irish Parliament would probably contain different men from those who had been sent to Westminster as Mr. Parnell's nominees. Neither of these arguments could overcome the suspicious antipathy which many Englishmen felt. … The internal condition of Ireland supplied more substantial grounds for alarm. … Three-fourths of the people are Roman Catholics, one-fourth Protestants, and this Protestant fourth sub-divided into bodies not fond of one another, who have little community of sentiment. Besides the Scottish colony in Ulster, many English families have settled here and there through the country. They have been regarded as intruders by the aboriginal Celtic population, and many of them, although hundreds of years may have passed since they came, still look on themselves as rather English than Irish. … Many people in England assumed that an Irish Parliament would be under the control of the tenants and the humbler class generally, and would therefore be hostile to the landlords. They went farther, and made the much bolder assumption that as such a Parliament would be chosen by electors, most of whom were Roman Catholics, it would be under the control of the Catholic priesthood, and hostile to Protestants. Thus they supposed that the grant of self-government to Ireland would mean the abandonment of the upper and wealthier class, the landlords and the Protestants, to the tender mercies of their enemies. … The fact stood out that in Ireland two hostile factions had been contending for the last sixty years, and that the gift of self-government might enable one of them to tyrannize over the other. True, that party was the majority, and, according to the principles of democratic government, therefore entitled to prevail. But it is one thing to admit a principle and another to consent to its application. The minority had the sympathy of the upper classes in England, because the minority contained the landlords. It had the sympathy of a large part of the middle class, because it contained the Protestants. … There was another anticipation, another forecast of evils to follow, which told most of all upon English opinion. This was the notion that Home Rule was only a stage in the road to the complete separation of the two islands."

      J. Bryce,
      Past and Future of the Irish Question
      (New Princeton Review, January, 1887).

   On the 11th of September Mr. Parnell had introduced in the
   House of Commons a bill to make temporary provision for the
   relief of suffering tenants in Ireland, and it had been
   defeated after a sharp debate by a majority of 95. The chief
   argument for the bill had been that "something must be done to
   stay evictions during the approaching winter. The rents would
   be due in November, and the fall in agricultural prices had
   been so great, that the sale of their whole produce by the
   tenants would not, it was contended, bring in money enough to
   enable them to pay in full. … The greatest public interest
   in the subject was roused by Lord Clanricarde's evictions at
   Woodford in Galway. … His quarrel with his Woodford tenants
   was of old standing.
{1800}
   When the Home Rule Bill was before Parliament the National
   League urged them not to bring matters to a crisis, but their
   sufferings were too great to be borne, and they set the
   National League at defiance, and established a Plan of
   Campaign of their own. Lord Clanricarde would grant them no
   reduction, and they leagued themselves together, 316 in
   number, and when the November rent day came round in 1885 they
   resolved not to pay any rent at all if twenty-five per cent.
   reduction was refused. This was refused, and they withheld
   their rent. … The eviction of four of these tenants, in
   August, 1886, attracted general attention by the long fight
   the people made for their homes. Each house was besieged and
   defended like some mediæval city. One stone house, built by a
   tenant at a cost of £200, got the name of Saunders's fort. It
   was held by a garrison of 24, who threw boiling water on their
   assailants, and in one part of the fight threw out among them
   a hive of bees. … To evict these four men the whole
   available forces of the Crown in Galway were employed from
   Thursday the 19th of August to Friday the 27th. Seven hundred
   policemen and soldiers were present to protect the emergency
   men who carried out the evictions, and 60 peasants were taken
   to Galway gaol. It was to meet cases of this kind that, after
   the rejection of Mr. Parnell's Tenants' Relief Bill, the Plan
   of Campaign was started. In a speech at Woodford on the 17th
   of October Mr. John Dillon gave an outline of the scheme on
   which he thought a tenants' campaign against unjust rents
   might be started and carried on all over the country. … On
   the 23rd of October the 'Plan of Campaign' was published in
   full detail in 'United Ireland.' The first question to be
   answered, said the 'Plan,' was, How to meet the November
   demand for rent? On every estate the tenantry were to come
   together and decide whether to combine or not in resistance to
   exorbitant rent. When they were assembled, if the priest were
   not with them, they were to 'appoint an intelligent and sturdy
   member of their body as chairman, and after consulting, decide
   by resolution on the amount of abatement they will demand.' A
   committee of six or more and the chairman were then to be
   elected, to be called a Managing Committee, to take charge of
   the half year's rent of each tenant should the landlord refuse
   it. Everyone present was to pledge himself

(1) To abide by the decision of the majority; (2) To hold no communication with the landlord or his agents, except in presence of the body of the tenantry; (3) To accept no settlement for himself that was not given to every tenant on the estate.

Having thus pledged themselves each to the others they were to go to the rent office in a body on the rent day, or the gale day, as it is called in Ireland, and if the agent refused to see them in a body they were to depute the chairman to act as their spokesman and tender the reduced rent. If the agent refused to accept it, then the money was to be handed to the Managing Committee 'to fight the landlord with.' The fund thus got together was to be employed in supporting tenants who were dispossessed by sale or ejectment. The National League was to guarantee the continuance of the grants if needful after the fund was expended, or as long as the majority of the tenants held out."

Early in 1887, certain letters appeared in "The Times" newspaper, of London, one of which, printed in facsimile, "implied Mr. Parnell's sanction to the Park murders of 1882." It created a great sensation, and, "after many bitter debates in Parliament, a commission was appointed (1888) consisting of three judges to inquire not only into the authenticity of this and other letters attributed to several persons as their authors, but into the whole course of conduct pursued by many of the Irish Members of Parliament, in reference to the previous agitation in Ireland and their connexion with an extreme faction in America, who tried to intimidate this country by dastardly attempts to blow up our public buildings on several occasions between the years 1884 and 1887. The court sat from the winter months of 1888 until the summer of the following year, and examined dozens of witnesses, including Mr. Parnell and most of the other accused members, as well as dozens of the Irish peasantry who could give evidence as to outrages in their several districts. One of the witnesses, a mean and discarded Dublin journalist named Pigott, turned out to be the forger of the letters; and, having fled from the avenging hand of justice to Madrid, there put an end to his life by means of a revolver. Meantime, the interest in the investigation had flagged, and the report of the Commission, which deeply implicated many of the Irish members as to their connexion with the Fenian Society previous to their entrance to Parliament, on their own acknowledgment, fell rather flat on the public ear, wearied out in reiteration of Irish crime from the introduction of the Land League until the attempt to blow up London Bridge by American filibusters (1886). The unfortunate man Pigott had sold his forged letters to the over credulous Times newspaper at a fabulous price; and even experts in handwriting, so dexterously had they been manipulated, were ready to testify in open court to the genuineness of the letters before the tragic end of their luckless author left not a particle of doubt as to their origin."

      ALSO IN:
      Sir C. Russell,
      The Parnell Commission: Opening Speech for the Defence.

On the 28th of December, 1889, Captain O'Shea, one of the Irish Nationalist Members of Parliament, filed a petition for divorce from his wife on the ground of adultery with Mr. Parnell. The Irish leader tacitly confessed his guilt by making no answer, and in November, 1890, the divorce was granted to Captain O'Shea. In the following June Mr. Parnell and Mrs. O'Shea were married. The stigma which this affair put upon Mr. Parnell caused Mr. Gladstone, on behalf of the English Liberals, to demand his retirement from the leadership of the Home Rule Party. He refused to give way, and was supported in the refusal by a minority of his party. The majority, however, took action to depose him, and the party was torn asunder. A sudden illness ended Mr. Parnell's life on the 6th of October, 1891; but his death failed to restore peace, and the Irish Nationalists are still divided.

IRELAND: A. D. 1893.
Passage of the Home Rule Bill by the British House of Commons.
Its defeat by the House of Lords.

IRON AGE.

"It is known that a masked and unknown prisoner, the object of extraordinary surveillance, died, in 1703, in the Bastille, to which he had been taken from the St. Marguerite Isles in 1698; he had remained about ten years incarcerated in these isles, and traces of him are with certainty found in the fort of Exilles, and at Pignerol, as far back as about 1681. This singular fact, which began to be vaguely bruited a little before the middle of the 18th century, excited immense curiosity after Voltaire had availed himself of it in his 'Siècle de Louis XIV.', wherein he exhibited it in the most touching and tragic light. A thousand conjectures circulated: no great personage had disappeared in Europe about 1680. What interest so powerful had the government of Louis XIV. for concealing this mysterious visage from every human eye? Many explanations more or less plausible, more or less chimerical, have been attempted in regard to the 'man with the iron mask' (an erroneous designation that has prevailed; the mask was not of iron, but of black velvet; it was probably one of those 'loups' so long in use), when, in 1837, the bibliophile Jacob (M. Paul Lacroix) published a very ingenious book on this subject, in which he discussed all the hypotheses, and skilfully commented on all the facts and dates, in order to establish that, in 1680, Fouquet was represented as dead; that he was masked, sequestered anew, and dragged from fortress to fortress till his real death in 1703. It is impossible for us to admit this solution of the problem; the authenticity of the minister Louvois' correspondence with the governor of the prison of Pignerol, on the subject of Fouquet's death, in March, 1680, appears to us incontestable; and did this material proof not exist, we still could not believe in a return of rigor so strange, so barbarous, and so unaccountable on the part of Louis XIV., when all the official documents attest that his resentment had gradually been appeased, and that an old man who asked nothing more than a little free air before dying had ceased to be feared. There are many more presumptions in favor of Baron Heiss' opinion, reproduced by several writers, and, in the last instance, by M. Delort ('Histoire de l'homme au masque de fer'; 1825),—the opinion that the 'man with a mask' was a secretary of the Duke of Mantua, named Mattioli, carried off by order of Louis XIV. in 1679, for having deceived the French government, and having sought to form a coalition of the Italian princes against it. But however striking, in certain respects, may be the resemblances between Mattioli and the 'iron mask,' equally guarded by the governor St. Mars at Pignerol and at Exilles, however grave may be the testimony according to which Mattioli was transferred to the St. Marguerite Isles, the subaltern position of Mattioli, whom Catinat and Louvois, in their letters, characterize as a 'knave' and St. Mars threatens with a cudgel, ill accords, we do not say with the traditions relating to the profound respect shown the prisoner by the keepers, the governor, and even the minister,—these traditions may be contested,—but with the authentic details and documents given by the learned and judicious Father Griffet in regard to the extreme mystery in which the prisoner at the Bastille was enveloped, more than twenty years after the abduction of the obscure Mattioli, in regard to the mask that he never put off, in regard to the precautions taken after his death to annihilate the traces of his sojourn at the Bastille, which explains why nothing was found concerning him after the taking of that fortress. Many minds will always persist in seeking, under this impenetrable mask, a more dangerous secret, a mysterious accusing resemblance; and the most popular opinion, although the most void of an proof, will always doubtless be that suffered to transpire by Voltaire, under cover of his publisher, in the eighth edition of his 'Dictionnaire philosophique' (1771). According to this opinion, the honor of the royal household was involved in the secret, and the unknown victim was an illegitimate son of Anne of Austria. The only private crime of which Louis XIV. was perhaps capable, was a crime inspired by fanaticism for monarchical honor. However this may be, history has no right to pronounce upon what will never emerge from the domain of conjecture."

H. Martin, History of France: Age of Louis XIV., volume 1, page 40, foot-note.

"The Paris correspondent of the 'Daily Telegraph' records a fact which, if it is correctly reported, goes a long way towards clearing up one of the problems of modern history. A letter to Louvois by Louis XIV., written in cipher, has been long in the archives of the Ministry of War, and has at length been deciphered. In it the King orders Louvois to arrest General de Burlonde for having raised the siege of Conti without permission, to send him to Pignerol, and to conceal his features under a 'loup' or black-velvet mask. The order was executed, and the presumption is therefore violent that the 'Man in the Iron Mask'—it was a black-velvet one with iron springs—was General de Burlonde. The story tallies with the known fact that the prisoner made repeated attempts to communicate his name to soldiers, that he was treated with respect by his military jailors, and that Louis XV., who knew the truth of the whole affair, declared it to be a matter of no importance. The difficulty is to discover the King's motive for such a precaution; but he may have feared discontent among his great officers, or the soldiery."

The cipher despatch above referred to, and the whole subject of the imprisonment of General de Burlonde, are discussed at length, in the light of official records and correspondence, by M. Émile Burgaud and Commandant Bazeries (the latter of whom discovered the key to the cipher), in a book entitled "Le Masque de Fer: Révélation de la correspondance chiffrée de Louis XIV.," published at Paris in 1893. It seems to leave small doubt that the mysteriously masked prisoner was no other than General de Burlonde.

      ALSO IN:
      G. A. Ellis,
      True History of the State Prisoner commonly called
      the Iron Mask.

      E. Lawrence,
      The Man in the Iron Mask
      (Harper's Magazine, volume 43, page 98).

      M. Topin,
      The Man in the Iron Mask
      (Cornhill Magazine, volume 21, page 333).

IRONCLAD OATH.

An oath popularly styled the "Ironclad oath" was prescribed by the Congress of the United States, during the War of the Rebellion, in July, 1862, to be taken by every person elected or appointed to any office under the Government of the United States, the President only excepted. He was required to swear that he had "never voluntarily borne arms against the United States"; that he had "voluntarily given no aid, countenance, counsel, or encouragement to persons engaged in armed hostility to the National Government"; that he had "neither sought nor accepted, nor attempted to exercise the functions of any office whatever under authority or pretended authority in hostility to the United States"; that he had "never yielded a voluntary support to any pretended Government within the United States, hostile or inimical thereto."

   According to their traditions, the founder of the League or
   confederacy which united the five nations of the Iroquois—the
   Mohawks, the Onondagas, the Oneidas, the Cayugas, and the
   Senecas, was Hiawatha, the hero of Iroquois legend.

He was an Onondaga chief, and is supposed to have lived about the middle of the 15th century. "Hiawatha had long beheld with grief the evils which afflicted not only his own nation, but all the other tribes about them, through the continual wars in which they were engaged, and the misgovernment and miseries at home which these wars produced. With much meditation he had elaborated in his mind the scheme of a vast confederation which would ensure universal peace. In the mere plan of a confederation there was nothing new. There are probably few, if any, Indian tribes which have not, at one time or another, been members of a league or confederacy. It may almost be said to be their normal condition. But the plan which Hiawatha had evolved differed from all others in two particulars. The system which he devised was to be not a loose and transitory league, but a permanent government. While each nation was to retain its own council and its management of local affairs, the general control was to be lodged in a federal senate, composed of representatives elected by each nation, holding office during good behavior, and acknowledged as ruling chiefs throughout the whole confederacy. Still further, and more remarkably, the confederation was not to be a limited one. It was to be indefinitely expansible. The avowed design of its proposer was to abolish war altogether. He wished the federation to extend until all the tribes of men should be included in it, and peace should everywhere reign. Such is the positive testimony of the Iroquois themselves: and their statement, as will be seen, is supported by historical evidence. … His conceptions were beyond his time, and beyond ours; but their effect, within a limited sphere, was very great. For more than three centuries the bond which he devised held together the Iroquois nations in perfect amity. It proved, moreover, as he intended, elastic. The territory of the Iroquois, constantly extending as their united strength made itself felt, became the 'Great Asylum' of the Indian tribes. … Among the interminable stories with which the common people [of the Five Nations] beguile their winter nights, the traditions of Atotarho and Hiawatha became intermingled with the legends of their mythology. An accidental similarity, in the Onondaga dialect, between the name of Hiawatha and that of one of their ancient divinities, led to a confusion between the two, which has misled some investigators. This deity bears, in the sonorous Canienga tongue, the name of Taronhiawagon, meaning 'the Holder of the Heavens.' The Jesuit missionaries style him 'the great god of the Iroquois.' Among the Onondagas of the present day, the name is abridged to Taonhiawagi, or Tahiawagi. The confusion between this name and that of Hiawatha (which, in another form, is pronounced Tahionwatha) seems to have begun more than a century ago. … Mr. J. V. H. Clark, in his interesting History of Onondaga, makes the name to have been originally Ta-own-ya-wat-ha, and describes the bearer as 'the deity who presides over fisheries and hunting-grounds.' He came down from heaven in a white canoe, and after sundry adventures, which remind one of the labors of Hercules, assumed the name of Hiawatha (signifying, we are told, 'a very wise man'), and dwelt for a time as an ordinary mortal among men, occupied in works of benevolence. Finally, after founding the confederacy and bestowing many prudent counsels upon the people, he returned to the skies by the same conveyance in which he had descended. This legend, or, rather, congeries of intermingled legends, was communicated by Clark to Schoolcraft, when the latter was compiling his 'Notes on the Iroquois.' Mr. Schoolcraft, pleased with the poetical cast of the story, and the euphonious name, made confusion worse confounded by transferring the hero to a distant region and identifying him with Manabozho, a fantastic divinity of the Ojibways. Schoolcraft's volume, which he chose to entitle 'The Hiawatha Legends,' has not in it a single fact or fiction relating either to Hiawatha himself or to the Iroquois deity Taronhiawagon. Wild Ojibway stories concerning Manabozho and his comrades form the staple of its contents. But it is to this collection that we owe the charming poem of Longfellow; and thus, by an extraordinary fortune, a grave Iroquois lawgiver of the fifteenth century has become, in modern literature, an Ojibway demigod, son of the West Wind, and companion of the tricksy Paupukkeewis, the boastful Iagoo, and the strong Kwasind. If a Chinese traveler, during the middle ages, inquiring into the history and religion of the western nations, had confounded King Alfred with King Arthur, and both with Odin, he would not have made a more preposterous confusion of names and characters than that which has hitherto disguised the genuine personality of the great Onondaga reformer."

H. Hale, editor, The Iroquois Book of Rites (Brinton's Library of Aboriginal American Literature, number 2, pages 21-36).

IRREDENTISTS.

"This is the name given to a political organisation formed in 1878, with the avowed object of freeing all Italians from foreign rule, and of reuniting to the Italian kingdom all those portions of the Italy of old which have passed under foreign dominion. The operations of the 'Italia Irredenta' party are chiefly carried on against Austria, in consequence of the retention by that Empire of Trieste and the Southern Tyrol. Until these territories have been relinquished, Italy, or at least a certain part of it, will remain unsatisfied."

ISAAC II. (Comnenus),
Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or Greek), A. D. 1057-1059.

ISABELLA,
Queen of Castile
(wife of Ferdinand II., King of Aragon), A. D. 1474-1504.

The Isaurians were a fierce and savage race of mountaineers, who occupied anciently a district in Asia Minor, between Cilicia and Pamphylia on the south and Phrygia on the north. They were persistently a nation of robbers, living upon the spoils taken from their neighbors, who were never able to punish them justly in their mountain fastnesses. Even the iron hand of the Romans failed to reduce the Isaurians to order, although P. Servilius, in 78 B. C., destroyed most of their strongholds, and Pompey, eleven years later, in his great campaign against the pirates, put an end to the lawless depredations on sea and land of the Cilicians, who had become confederated with the Isaurians. Five centuries afterwards, in the days of the Eastern Empire, the Isaurians were the best soldiers of its army, and even gave an emperor to the throne at Constantinople in the person of Zeno or Zenon.

E. W. Brooks, The Emperor Zenon and the Isaurians (English Historical Review, April, 1893).

ISCA.

   The name of two towns in Roman Britain, one of which is
   identified with modern Exeter and the other with
   Caerleon-on-Usk. The latter was the station of the 2d legion.

ISHMAELIANS, The. See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 908-1171; also, ASSASSINS; and CARMATHIANS.

ISINÆ.

ISLAM.

"The religion founded by Mahomet is called Islam, a word meaning 'the entire surrender of the will to God'; its professors are called Mussulmans—'those who have surrendered themselves,' or 'Believers,' as opposed to the 'Rejectors' of the Divine messengers, who are named 'Kafirs,' or 'Mushrikin,' that is, 'those who associate, are [not?] companions or sharers with the Deity.' Islam is sometimes divided under the two heads of Faith and Practical Religion.

I. Faith (Iman) includes a belief in one God, omnipotent, omniscient, all-merciful, the author of all good; and in Mahomet as his prophet, expressed in the formula 'There is no God but God, and Mahomet is the Prophet of God.' It includes, also, a belief in the authority and sufficiency of the Koran, in angels, genii, and the devil, in the immortality of the soul, the resurrection, the day of judgment and in God's absolute decree for good and evil.

   II. Practical religion (Din) consists of five observances:
   (1) Recital of the formula of Belief,
   (2) Prayer with Ablution,
   (3) Fasting,
   (4) Almsgiving,
   (5) the Pilgrimage.

… The standard of Moslem orthodoxy is essentially the Koran and to it primary reference is made; but … some more extended and discriminating code became necessary. The deficiency was supplied by the compilation of the 'Sunnah,' or Traditional Law, which is built upon the sayings and practices of Mahomet, and, in the opinion of the orthodox, is invested with the force of law, and with some of the authority of inspiration. … In cases where both the Koran and the Sunnah afford no exact precept, the 'Rule of Faith' in their dogmatic belief, as well as the decisions of their secular courts, is based upon the teaching of one of the four great Imams, or founders of the orthodox sects, according as one or another of these prevails in any particular country. … The great Sunni sect is divided among the orthodox schools mentioned above, and is so called from its reception of the 'Sunnah,' as having authority concurrent with and supplementary to the Koran. In this respect it differs essentially from the Shias, or partisans of the house of Ali [the nephew of Mahomet and husband of his daughter Fatima] who, adhering to their own traditions, reject the authority of the 'Sunnah.' These two sects, moreover, have certain observances and matters of belief peculiar to themselves, the chief of which is the Shia doctrine, that the sovereign Imamat, or temporal and spiritual lordship over the faithful, was by divine right vested in Ali and in his descendants, through Hasan and Hosein, the children of Fatima, the daughter of the prophet. And thus the Persian Shias add to the formula of belief the confession, 'Ali is the Caliph of God.' In Persia the Shia doctrines prevail, and formerly so intense was sectarian hatred that the Sunni Mahometans paid a higher capitation tax there than the infidels. In Turkey the great majority are Sunni. In India the Shias number about one in twenty. The Shias, who reject this name, and call themselves Adliyah, or the 'Society of the Just,' are subdivided into a great variety of minor sects; but these … are united in asserting that the first three Caliphs, Abu Bekr, Omar, and Othman were usurpers, who had possessed themselves of the rightful and inalienable inheritance of Ali."

"The twelve Imams, or pontiffs, of the Persian creed, are Ali, Hassan, Hosein, and the lineal descendants of Hosein to the ninth generation. Without arms, or treasures, or subjects, they successively enjoyed the veneration of the people and provoked the jealousy of the reigning caliphs. … The twelfth and last of the Imams, conspicuous by the title of Mahadi, or the Guide, surpassed the solitude and sanctity of his predecessors. He concealed himself in a cavern near Bagdad: the time and place of his death are unknown; and his votaries pretend that he still lives and will appear before the day of judgment."

ISLE OF FRANCE.

The old French province containing Paris. Also the French name of Mauritius island, taken by England in 1810.

ISLE ROYALE.

ISLES OF THE BLESSED.

ISMAILEANS, OR ISHMAELIANS.

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 908-1171;
      also, ASSASSINS;
      and CARMATHIANS.

ISONOMY. ISOTIMY. ISAGORIA.

"The principle underlying democracy is the struggle for a legalised equality which was usually described [by the ancient Greeks] by the expressions Isonomy, or equality of law for all,—Isotimy, or proportionate regard paid to all, —Isagoria, or equal freedom of speech, with special reference to courts of justice and popular assemblies."

ISOPOLITY.

"Under Sp. Cassius [B. C. 493], Rome concluded a treaty with the Latins, in which the right of isopolity or the 'jus municipi' was conceded to them. The idea of isopolity changed in the course of time, but its essential features in early times were these: between the Romans and Latins and between the Romans and Caerites there existed this arrangement, that any citizen of the one state who wished to settle in the other, might forthwith be able to exercise there the rights of a citizen."

ISRAEL.

ISTAKR, OR STAKR.

The native name under the later, or Sassanian, Persian empire, of the ancient capital, Persepolis.

The ancient Greek name of the Danube, below the junction of the Theiss and the Save.

ISTHMIAN GAMES.

ISURIUM.

A Roman town in Britain, which had previously been the chief town of the British tribe of the Brigantes. It is identified with Aldborough, Yorkshire, "where the excavator meets continually with the tessellated floors of the Roman houses."

ITALIOTES.

[Image: Two maps of Italy, at the beginning of the
Seventh Century, and A. D. 1492.]

"It was not till the close of the Republic, or rather the beginning of the Empire, that the name of Italy was employed, as we now employ it, to designate the whole Peninsula, from the Alps to the Straits of Messina.

The term Italia, borrowed from the name of a primæval tribe who occupied the southern portion of the land, was gradually adopted as a generic title in the same obscure manner in which most of the countries of Europe, or (we may say) the Continents of the world, have received their appellations. In the remotest times the name only included Lower Calabria: from these narrow limits it gradually spread upwards, till about the time of the Punic Wars, its northern boundary ascended the little river Rubicon (between Umbria and Cisalpine Gaul), then followed the ridge of the Appennines westward to the source of the Macra, and was carried down the bed of that small stream to the Gulf of Genoa. When we speak of Italy, therefore, in the Roman sense of the word, we must dismiss from our thoughts all that fertile country which was at Rome entitled the provincial district of Gallia Cisalpina, and Liguria."

   "Philological research teaches us to distinguish three
   primitive Italian stocks, the Iapygian, the Etruscan, and that
   which we shall call the Italian. The last is divided into two
   main branches,—the Latin branch, and that to which the
   dialects of the Umbri, Marsi, Volsci and Samnites belong. As
   to the Iapygian stock, we have but little information.
{1805}
   At the southeastern extremity of Italy, in the Messapian or
   Calabrian peninsula, inscriptions in a peculiar extinct
   language have been found in considerable numbers; undoubtedly
   remains of the dialect of the Iapygians, who are very
   distinctly pronounced by tradition also to have been different
   from the Latin and Samnite stocks. … With the recognition of
   … a general family relationship or peculiar affinity between
   the Iapygians and Hellenes (a recognition, however, which by
   no means goes so far as to warrant our taking the Iapygian
   language to be a rude dialect of Greek), investigation must
   rest content. … The middle of the peninsula was inhabited,
   as far back as reliable tradition reaches, by two peoples or
   rather two branches of the same people, whose position in the
   Indo-Germanic family admits of being determined with greater
   precision than that of the Iapygian nation. We may with
   propriety call this people the Italian, since upon it rests
   the historical significance of the peninsula. It is divided
   into the two branch-stocks of the Latins and the Umbrians; the
   latter including their southern off-shoots, the Marsians and
   Samnites, and the colonies sent forth by the Samnites in
   historical times. … These examples [philological examples,
   given in the work, but omitted from this quotation], selected
   from a great abundance of analogous phenomena, suffice to
   establish the individuality of the Italian stock as
   distinguished from the other members of the Indo-Germanic
   family, and at the same time show it to be linguistically the
   nearest relative, as it is geographically the next neighbour,
   of the Greek. The Greek and the Italian are brothers; the
   Celt, the German and the Slavonian are their cousins. …
   Among the languages of the Italian stock, again, the Latin
   stands in marked contrast with the Umbro-Samnite dialects. It
   is true that of these only two, the Umbrian and the Samnite or
   Oscan, are in some degree known to us. … A conjoint view,
   however, of the facts of language and of history leaves no
   doubt that all these dialects belonged to the Umbro-Samnite
   branch of the great Italian stock. … It may … be regarded
   as certain that the Italians, like the Indians, migrated into
   their peninsula from the north. The advance of the
   Umbro-Sabellian stock along the central mountain-ridge of
   Italy, in a direction from north to south, can still be
   clearly traced; indeed its last phases belong to purely
   historical times. Less is known regarding the route which the
   Latin migration followed. Probably it proceeded in a similar
   direction along the west coast, long, in all likelihood,
   before the first Sabellian stocks began to move."

      See, also,
      ETRUSCANS; LATIUM; SABINES; SAMNITES;
      UMBRIANS; MAGNA GRÆCIA;
      also, ROME: B. C. 343-290, and 339-338.

"In the February number of the 'Civiltà Cattolica,' Padre de Cara pleads for a national effort on the part of Italian archaeologists to solve the question of the origin of their country's civilisation by the systematic exploration and excavation of Pelasgic Italy. … In a series of articles, extending over several years, the learned father has contended for the identity of the Hittites and Proto-Pelasgians on archaeological, etymological, and historical grounds; and he here repeats that, if 'Italic' means Aryan, then it is among the peoples speaking Oscan, Umbrian, Latin, and other dialects of the Indo-European family that the parentage of Italian civilisation must be sought; but that 'Italy' meant in the first place the country of the Hittites (Hethei), and hence of the Pelasgians, and that name and civilisation are alike Pelasgic. Those who hold it to have been Aryan have not only the testimony of Greek and Roman writers against them, but also the facts that there were Pelasgians in Italy whose stone constructions are standing to this day, and that the Etruscan language and culture had no Aryan affinities. The writer further points out that the walls of Pelasgic cities, whether in Italy, Greece, or Asia Minor, all resemble each other, and that the origin of Greek civilisation was also Pelasgian. In Greece, as in Italy, the Aryans followed centuries after the Hittite-Pelasgians, and Aryan Greece carried the arts of Pelasgic Greece to perfection. He believes that, of two migratory bands of Hittites, one invaded Greece and the other Italy, about the same time. He also draws attention to the coincidence that it is not very long since Greece, like Italy at the present time, could date its civilisation no further back than 700 or 800 B. C. Schliemann recovered centuries for Greece, but 'Italy still remains imprisoned in the iron circle of the seventh century.' To break it, she must follow Schliemann's plan; and as he had steady faith in the excavation of the Pelasgic cities and cemeteries of Greece, so will like faith and conduct on the part of Italian archaeologists let in light upon this once dark problem."

See ROME: B. C. 390-347, 282-275; PUNIC WARS;
CIMBRI AND TEUTONES; ALEMANNI; and RADAGAISUS.

ITALY: A. D. 476-553.
   The fall of the Western Roman Empire.
   The Ostrogothic kingdom of Theodoric, and its fall.
   Recovery of Italy by Justinian.

ITALY: A. D. 568-800.
   Lombard conquests and kingdom.
   Rise of the Papal power at Rome.
   Alliance of the Papacy with the sovereigns of the Franks.
   Revival of the Roman Empire under Charlemagne.

   "Since the invasion of Alboin, Italy had groaned under a
   complication of evils. The Lombards who had entered along with
   that chief in A. D. 568 [see LOMBARDS: A. D. 568-573, and
   after] had settled in considerable numbers in the valley of
   the Po, and founded the duchies of Spoleto and Benevento,
   leaving the rest of the country to be governed by the exarch
   of Ravenna as viceroy of the Eastern crown. This subjection
   was, however, little better than nominal. Although too few to
   occupy the whole peninsula, the invaders were yet strong
   enough to harass every part of it by inroads which met with no
   resistance from a population unused to arms, and without the
   spirit to use them in self-defence. … Tormented by their
   repeated attacks, Rome sought help in vain from Byzantium,
   whose forces, scarce able to repel from their walls the Avars
   and Saracens, could give no support to the distant exarch of
   Ravenna.
{1806}
   The Popes were the Emperor's subjects; they it waited his
   confirmation, like other bishops; they had more than once been
   the victims of his anger. But as the city became more
   accustomed in independence, and the Pope rose to a
   predominance, real if not yet legal [see ROME: A. D. 590-640,
   and PAPACY: A. D. 728-774], his tone grew bolder than that of
   the Eastern patriarchs. In the controversies that had raged in
   the Church, he had had the wisdom or good fortune to espouse
   (though not always from the first) the orthodox side: it was
   now by another quarrel of religion that his deliverance from
   an unwelcome yoke was accomplished. The Emperor Leo, born
   among the Isaurian mountains, where a purer faith may yet have
   lingered, and stung by the Mohammedan taunt of idolatry,
   determined to abolish the worship of images, which seemed fast
   obscuring the more spiritual part of Christianity. An attempt
   sufficient to cause tumults among the submissive Greeks,
   excited in Italy a fiercer commotion. The populace rose with
   one heart in defence of what had become to them more than a
   symbol: the exarch was slain: the Pope, though unwilling to
   sever himself from the lawful head and protector of the
   Church, must yet excommunicate the prince whom he could not
   reclaim from so hateful a heresy.

Liudprand, king of the Lombards, improved his opportunity: falling on the exarchate as the champion of images, on Rome as the minister of the Greek Emperor, he overran the one, and all but succeeded in capturing the other. The Pope escaped for the moment, but saw his peril: placed between a heretic and a robber, he turned his gaze beyond the Alps, to a Catholic chief who had just achieved a signal deliverance for Christendom on the field of Poitiers. Gregory II. had already opened communications with Charles Martel, mayor of the palace, and virtual ruler of the Frankish realm. As the crisis becomes more pressing, Gregory III. finds in the same quarter his only hope, and appeals to him in urgent letters, to haste to the succour of Holy Church. … Charles died before he could obey the call; but his son Pipin (surnamed the Short) made good use of the new friendship with Rome. He was the third of his family who had ruled the Franks with a monarch's full power [see FRANKS: A. D. 511-752]: it seemed time to abolish the pageant of Merovingian royalty; yet a departure from the ancient line might shock the feelings of the people. A course was taken whose dangers no one then foresaw: the Holy See, now for the first time invoked as an international power, pronounced the deposition of Childric, and gave to the royal office of his successor Pipin a sanctity hitherto unknown. … The compact between the chair of Peter and the Teutonic throne was hardly sealed, when the latter was summoned to discharge its share of the duties. Twice did Aistulf the Lombard assail Rome, twice did Pipin descend to the rescue: the second time at the bidding of a letter written in the name of St. Peter himself. Aistulf could make no resistance; and the Frank bestowed on the Papal chair all that belonged to the exarchate in North Italy, receiving as the meed of his services the title of Patrician [754]. … When on Pipin's death the restless Lombards again took up arms and menaced the possessions of the Church, Pipin's son Charles or Charlemagne swept down like a whirlwind from the Alps at the call of Pope Hadrian, seized king Desiderius in his capital, assumed himself the Lombard crown, and made northern Italy thenceforward an integral part of the Frankish empire [see GERMANY: A. D. 68-800]. … For the next twenty-four years Italy remained quiet. The government of Rome was carried on in the name of the Patrician Charles, although it does not appear that he sent thither any official representative; while at the same time both the city and the exarchate continued to admit the nominal supremacy of the Eastern Emperor, employing the years of his reign to date documents."

   "Thus, by German hands, the internal ascendancy of the German
   race in Italy, which had lasted, first under the Goths, and
   then under the Lombards, for 281 years, was finally broken. A
   German was still king over Italy, as for ages Germans were
   still to be. But Roman and native influence reconquered its
   supremacy in Italy, under the management and leadership of the
   bishops of Rome. The Lombards, already becoming Italianized,
   melted into provincial Italians. The Teutonic language
   disappeared, leaving a number of words to Italian dialects,
   and a number of names to Italian families. The last king of
   the Lombards bore an Italian name, Desiderius. The latest of
   Italian national heroes bears the Bavarian and Lombard name of
   Garibaldi. But the overthrow of the Lombards, and the gift of
   provinces and cities to St. Peter had even more eventful
   results. The alliance between the king of the Franks and the
   bishop of Rome had become one of the closest kind. … The
   German king and the Italian pope found themselves together at
   the head of the modern world of the West. But the fascination
   of the name of Rome still, as it had done for centuries, held
   sway over the Teutonic mind. … It was not unnatural that the
   idea should recommend itself, both to the king and the pope,
   of reviving in the West, in close connexion with the Roman
   primacy, that great name which still filled the imagination of
   the world, and which in Roman judgments, Greek Byzantium had
   wrongfully stolen away—the name of Cæsar Augustus, the claim
   to govern the world. There was a longing in the West for the
   restoration of the name and authority, 'lest,' as the
   contemporary writers express it, 'the heathen should mock at
   the Christian if the name of Emperor had ceased among them.'
   And at this moment, the government at Constantinople was in
   the hands of a woman, the Empress Irene. Charles's services to
   the pope were recompensed, and his victorious career of more
   than thirty years crowned, by the restoration at Rome, in his
   person, of the Roman empire and the imperial dignity. The same
   authority which had made him 'patrician,' and consecrated him
   king, now created him Emperor of the Romans. On Christmas day,
   800, when Charles came to pay his devotions before the altar
   of St. Peter's, Pope Leo III.—without Charles's knowledge or
   wish, so Charles declared to his biographer, Einhard, and, it
   may be, prematurely, as regards Charles's own feeling—placed
   a golden crown on his head, while all the people shouted, 'to
   Charles, the most pious Augustus, crowned of God, the great
   and peace-giving Emperor of the Romans, life and victory.' …
{1807}
   Thus a new power arose in Europe, new in reality and in its
   relations to society, though old in name. It was formally but
   the carrying on the line of the successors of Augustus and
   Constantine. But substantially it was something very
   different. Its authors could little foresee its destinies; but
   it was to last, in some sort the political centre of the world
   which was to be, for 1,000 years. And the Roman Church, which
   had done such great things, which had consecrated the new and
   mighty kings of the Franks, and had created for the mightiest
   of them the imperial claim to universal dominion, rose with
   them to a new attitude in the world. … The coronation of
   Charles at Rome, in the face of an imperial line at
   Constantinople, finally determined, though it did not at once
   accomplish, the separation of East and West, of Greek and
   Latin Christianity. This separation had long been impending,
   perhaps, becoming inevitable. … One Roman empire was still
   the only received theory. But one Roman empire, with its seat
   in the West, or one Roman empire, governed in partnership by
   two emperors of East and West, had become impossible in fact.
   The theory of its unity continued for ages; but whether the
   true successor of Augustus and Theodosius sat at
   Constantinople, or somewhere in the West, remained in dispute,
   till the dispute was ended by the extinction of the Eastern
   empire by the Turks on May 29, 1453."

   In the year 781 Charlemagne erected Italy and Aquitaine into
   two separate kingdoms, placing his infant sons Pipin and
   Ludwig on the thrones.

"The southern provinces [of Italy], which now compose the kingdom of Naples, were subject, for the most part [in the 8th and 9th centuries], to the Lombard dukes and princes of Beneventum—so powerful in war that they checked for a moment the genius of Charlemagne—so liberal in peace that they maintained in their capital an academy of thirty-two philosophers and grammarians. The division of this flourishing state produced the rival principalities of Benevento, Salerno, and Capua; and the thoughtless ambition or revenge of the competitors invited the Saracens to the ruin of their common inheritance. During a calamitous period of two hundred years, Italy was exposed to a repetition of wounds which the invaders were not capable of healing by the union and tranquillity of a perfect conquest. Their frequent and almost annual squadrons issued from the port of Palermo and were entertained with too much indulgence by the Christians of Naples: the more formidable fleets were prepared on the African coasts. … A colony of Saracens had been planted at Bari, which commands the entrance of the Adriatic Gulf; and their impartial depredations provoked the resentment and conciliated the union of the two emperors. An offensive alliance was concluded between Basil the Macedonian [of the Byzantine Empire], the first of his race, and Lewis, the great grandson of Charlemagne; and each party Supplied the deficiencies of his associate. … The fortress of Bari was invested by the infantry of the Franks and by the cavalry and galleys of the Greeks; and, after a defence of four years, the Arabian emir submitted [A. D. 871] to the clemency of Lewis, who commanded in person the operations of the siege. This important conquest had been achieved by the concord of the East and West; but their recent amity was soon embittered by the mutual complaints of jealousy and pride. … Whoever might deserve the honour, the Greek emperors, Basil and his son Leo, secured the advantage of the reduction of Bari. The Italians of Apulia and Calabria were persuaded or compelled to acknowledge their supremacy, and an ideal line from Mount Garganus to the Bay of Salerno leaves the far greater part of the [modern] kingdom of Naples under the dominion of the Eastern empire. Beyond that line the dukes or republics of Amalfi and Naples, who had never forfeited their voluntary allegiance, rejoiced in the neighbourhood of their lawful sovereign; and Amalfi was enriched by supplying Europe with the produce and manufactures of Asia. But the Lombard princes of Benevento, Salerno, and Capua, were reluctantly torn from the communion of the Latin world, and too often violated their oaths of servitude and tribute. The city of Bari rose to dignity and wealth as the metropolis of the new theme or province of Lombardy; the title of Patrician, and afterwards the singular name of Catapan, was assigned to the supreme governor. … As long as the sceptre was disputed by the princes of Italy, their efforts were feeble and adverse; and the Greeks resisted or eluded the forces of Germany which descended from the Alps under the imperial standard of the Othos. The first and greatest of those Saxon princes was compelled to relinquish the siege of Bari: the second, after the loss of his stoutest bishops and barons, escaped with honour from the bloody field of Crotona (A. D. 983). On that day the scale of war was turned against the Franks by the valour of the Saracens. … The Caliph of Egypt had transported 40,000 Moslems to the aid of his Christian ally. The successors of Basil amused themselves with the belief that the conquest of Lombardy had been achieved, and was still preserved, by the justice of their laws, the virtues of their ministers, and the gratitude of a people whom they had rescued from anarchy and oppression. A series of rebellions might dart a ray of truth into the palace of Constantinople; and the illusions of flattery were dispelled by the easy and rapid success of the Norman adventurers."

ITALY: A. D. 803-810.
   Charlemagne's boundary treaties with the Byzantine Emperor.
   Attempts of Pipin against the Venetians.
   The founding of Modern Venice.

ITALY: A. D. 843-951.
In the breaking up of Charlemagne's Empire.
The founding of the Holy Roman Empire.

In the partition of Charlemagne's Empire among his three grandsons, by the treaty of Verdun, A. D. 843, Italy, together with the new kingdom called Lotharingia, or Lorraine, was assigned to the elder, Lothar, who bore the title of Emperor. Lothar, who died in 855, redivided his dominions among three sons, and Lorraine, separated from Italy, was soon dismembered and shared between Germany and France. The Italian kingdom fell to Louis or Ludwig II., who was crowned Emperor, and on his death without issue, A. D. 875, it was seized, together with the imperial title, by the French Carlovingian king, Charles the Bald. Two years afterwards he died, and Italy, together with the imperial crown, was acquired by the last legitimate survivor of the German Carlovingian line, Charles the Fat, who died in 888. "At that memorable era (A. D. 888) the four kingdoms which this prince [Charles the Fat] had united fell asunder: West France, where Odo or Eudes [Duke of Paris, ancestor of the royal line of Capet] then began to reign, was never again united to Germany; East France (Germany) chose Arnulf; Burgundy split up into two principalities, in one of which (Transjurane) Rudolf proclaimed himself king, while the other (Cisjurune with Provence) submitted to Boso; while Italy was divided between the parties of Berengar of Friuli and Guido of Spoleto. The former was chosen king by the estates of Lombardy; the latter, and on his speedy death his son Lambert, was crowned Emperor by the Pope. Arnulf's [the German king's] descent chased them away and vindicated the claims of the Franks, but on his flight Italy and the anti-German faction at Rome became again free. Berengar was made king of Italy, and afterwards Emperor. Lewis of Burgundy, son of Boso, renounced his fealty to Arnulf, and procured the imperial dignity, whose vain title he retained through years of misery and exile, till A. D. 928. None of these Emperors were strong enough to rule well even in Italy; beyond it they were not so much as recognized. … In A. D. 924 died Berengar, the last of these phantom Emperors. After him Hugh of Burgundy and Lothar his son reigned as kings of Italy, if puppets in the hands of a riotous aristocracy can be so called. Rome was meanwhile ruled by the consul or senator Alberic [called variously senator, consul, patrician, and prince of the Romans], who had renewed her never quite extinct republican institutions, and in the degradation of the papacy was almost absolute in the city." Affairs in Italy were at this stage when Otto or Otho, the vigorous and chivalrous German king of the new line, came in 951 to re-establish and reconstitute the Roman Empire of Charlemagne and to make it a lasting entity in European politics—the "Holy Roman Empire" of modern history.

      See, also,
      ROME: A. D. 903-964;
      and ROMAN EMPIRE, THE HOLY: A. D. 963.

"The vicinity of Italy had tempted their early inroads; but from their camp on the Brenta they beheld with some terror the apparent strength and populousness of the new-discovered country. They requested leave to retire; their request was proudly rejected by the Italian king; and the lives of 20,000 Christians paid the forfeit of his obstinacy and rashness. Among the cities of the West the royal Pavia was conspicuous in fame and splendour; and the pre-eminence of Rome itself was only derived from the relies of the apostles. The Hungarians appeared; Pavia was in flames; forty-three churches were consumed; and, after the massacre of the people, they spared about 200 wretches who had gathered some bushels of gold and silver (a vague exaggeration) from the smoking ruins of their country. In these annual excursions from the Alps to the neighbourhood of Rome and Capua, the churches that yet escaped resounded with a fearful litany: 'Oh! save and deliver us from the arrows of the Hungarians!' But the saints were deaf or inexorable; and the torrent rolled forward, till it was stopped by the extreme land of Calabria."

"Otho I., his son Otho II., and his grandson Otho III., were successively acknowledged emperors and kings of Italy, from 961 to 1002. When this branch of the house of Saxony became extinct, Henry II. of Bavaria, and Conrad the Salic of Franconia, filled the throne from 1004 to 1039. During this period of nearly eighty years, the German emperors twelve times entered Italy at the head of their armies, which they always drew up in the plains of Roncaglia near Placentia; there they held the states of Lombardy, received homage from their Italian feudatories, caused the rents due to be paid, and promulgated laws for the government of Italy. A foreign sovereign, however, almost always absent, known only by his incursions at the head of a barbarous army, could not efficaciously govern a country which he hardly knew, and where his yoke was detested. … The emperors were too happy to acknowledge the local authorities, whatever they were, whenever they could obtain from them their pecuniary dues: sometimes they were dukes or marquises, whose dignities had survived the disasters of various invasions and of civil wars; sometimes the archbishops and bishops of great cities, whom Charlemagne and his successors had frequently invested with duchies and counties escheated to the crown, reckoning that lords elected for life would remain more dependent than hereditary lords; sometimes, finally, they were the magistrates themselves, who, although elected by the people, received from the monarch the title of imperial vicars, and took part with the nobles and prelates in the Plaids (placita), or diets of Roncaglia. After a stay of some months, the emperor returned with his army into Germany; the nobles retired to their castles, the prelates and magistrates to their cities: neither of these last acknowledged a superior authority to their own, nor reckoned on any other force than what they could themselves employ to assert what they called their rights. Opposite interests could not fail to produce collision, and the war was universal."

During the reign of Henry II. (A. D. 1002-1024), against whom a rival king of Italy was set up by the Italians, "there was hardly any recognised government, and the Lombards became more and more accustomed, through necessity, to protect themselves, and to provide for their own internal police. Meanwhile the German nation had become odious to the Italians. The rude soldiery, insolent and addicted to intoxication, were engaged in frequent disputes with the citizens, wherein the latter, as is usual in similar cases, were exposed first to the summary vengeance of the troops, and afterwards to penal chastisement for sedition. In one of these tumults, at the entry of Henry II. in 1004, the city of Pavia was burned to the ground, which inspired its inhabitants with a constant animosity against that emperor. Upon his death, in 1024, the Italians were disposed to break once more their connexion with Germany, which had elected as sovereign Conrad duke of Franconia. They offered their crown to Robert king of France and to William duke of Guienne." But neither of these princes would accept the troublesome diadem; and, in the end, the archbishop of Milan and other Lombard lords "repaired to Constance and tendered the crown to Conrad, which he was already disposed to claim as a sort of dependency upon Germany. It does not appear that either Conrad or his successors were ever regularly elected to reign over Italy; but whether this ceremony took place or not, we may certainly date from that time the subjection of Italy to the Germanic body. It became an unquestionable maxim, that the votes of a few German princes conferred a right to the sovereignty of a country which had never been conquered, and which had never formally recognised this superiority."

"The Italian Kingdom of the Karlings, the kingdom which was reunited to Germany under Otto the Great, was … a continuation of the old Lombard kingdom. It consisted of that kingdom, enlarged by the Italian lands which fell off from the Eastern Empire in the eighth century; that is by the Exarchate and the adjoining Pentapolis, and the immediate territory of Rome itself."

"A pilgrimage first took the Normans to Southern Italy, where they were to found a kingdom. Here there were, if I may so speak, three wrecks, three ruins of nations—Lombards in the mountains, Greeks in the ports, Sicilian and African Saracens rambling over the coasts. About the year 1000, some Norman pilgrims assist the inhabitants of Salerno to drive out a party of Arabs, who were holding them to ransom. Being well paid for the service, these Normans attract others of their countrymen hither. A Greek of Bari, named Melo or Meles, takes them into pay to free his city from the Greeks of Byzantium. Next they are settled by the Greek republic of Naples at the fort of Aversa, which lay between that city and her enemies, the Lombards of Capua (A. D. 1026). Finally, the sons of a poor gentleman of the Cotentin, Tancred of Hauteville, seek their fortune here. Tancred had twelve children; seven by the same mother. It was during William's [the Conqueror's] minority, when numbers of the barons endeavoured to withdraw themselves from the Bastard's yoke, that these sons of Tancred's directed their steps towards Italy, where it was said that a simple Norman knight had become count of Aversa. They set off penniless, and defrayed the expenses of their journey by the sword (A. D. 1037?). The Byzantine governor, or Katapan, engaged their services, and led them against the Arabs. But their countrymen beginning to flock to them, they no sooner saw themselves strong enough than they turned against their paymasters, seized Apulia [A. D. 1042], and divided it into twelve countships. This republic of Condottieri held its assemblies at Melphi. The Greeks endeavoured to defend themselves, but fruitlessly. They collected an army of 60,000 Italians; to be routed by the Normans, who amounted to several hundreds of well-armed men. The Byzantines then summoned their enemies, the Germans, to their aid; and the two empires, of the East and West, confederated against the sons of the gentleman of Coutances. The all-powerful emperor, Henry the Black (Henry III.), charged Leo IX., who had been nominated pope by him, and who was a German and kin to the imperial family, to exterminate these brigands. The pope led some Germans and a swarm of Italians against them [1053]; but the latter took to flight at the very beginning of the battle, and left the warlike pontiff in the hands of the enemy. Too wary to ill-treat him, the Normans piously cast themselves at their prisoner's feet, and compelled him to grant them, as a fief of the Church, all that they had taken or might take possession of in Apulia, Calabria, and on the other side of the strait; so that, in spite of himself, the pope became the suzerain of the kingdom of the Two Sicilies (A. D. 1052-1053)."

The two elder of the sons of Tancred were now dead, and the third son, Humphrey, died not long after. A fourth brother, Robert, surnamed Guiscard, who had lately arrived from Normandy with reinforcements, then established himself (A. D. 1057) with some difficulty in the leadership and succession. "He accomplished the reduction of almost all the country which composes the present kingdom of Naples, and, extinguishing the long dominion of the Beneventine Lombards and of the eastern empire in Italy [see BENEVENTUM, and AMALFI], finally received from Pope Nicholas II. the confirmation of the titles which he had assumed, of duke of Calabria and Apulia [A. D. 1080]. … While Robert Guiscard was perfecting his dominion on the continent, his younger brother Roger engaged in the astonishing design of conquering the large and beautiful island of Sicily from the Saracens with a few Norman volunteers. An air of romantic extravagance breathes over all the enterprises of the Normans in Italy; and, even if we discard the incredible tales which the legends and chronicles of the times have preserved of the valour and corporeal strength of these northern warriors, enough will remain in the authentic results of their expeditions to stagger the reason and warm the imagination with attractive visions of chivalrous achievement. … We are assured that 300 Christian knights were the greatest number which Roger could for many years bring into the field; and that 136 routed a prodigious host of Saracens at the battle of Ceramio. … But the Saracens were embroiled in internal discord, and their island was broken up into numerous petty states; we may, therefore, attribute to their dissensions a great part of the success which the chroniclers of the Normans have assigned to their good swords alone. Roger had, however, embarked in an arduous and laborious undertaking, which it required the unbending perseverance and patient valour of thirty years [A. D. 1060-1090] to accomplish. … At length, all Sicily bowed to his sway; Norman barons were infeuded over its surface; and Roger, with the title of great count, held the island as a fief of his brother's duchy."

ITALY: A. D. 1056-1122.
   Beginning of the conflict of the Popes with the Emperors.
   Hildebrand and Henry IV.
   The War of Investitures.

"The war of investitures, which lasted more than sixty years, accomplished the dissolution of every tie between the different members of the kingdom of Italy. Civil wars have at least this advantage,—that they force the rulers of the people to consult the wishes of their subjects, oblige them to gain affections which constitute their strength, and to compensate, by the granting of new privileges, the services which they require. The prelates, nobles, and cities of Italy obeyed, some the emperor, others the pope; not from a blind fear, but from choice, from affection, from conscience, according as the political or religious sentiment was predominant in each. The war was general, but everywhere waged with the national forces. Every city armed its militia, which, headed by the magistrates, attacked the neighbouring nobles or towns of a contrary party. While each city imagined it was fighting either for the pope or the emperor, it was habitually impelled exclusively by its own sentiments: every town considered itself as a whole, as an independent state, which had its own allies and enemies; each citizen felt an ardent patriotism, not for the kingdom of Italy, or for the empire, but for his own city. At the period when either kings or emperors had granted to towns the right of raising fortifications, that of assembling the citizens at the sound of a great bell, to concert together the means of their common defence, had been also conceded. This meeting of all the men of the state capable of bearing arms was called a parliament. It assembled in the great square, and elected annually two consuls, charged with the administration of justice at home, and the command of the army abroad. … The parliament, which named the consuls, appointed also a secret council, called a Consilio di Credenza, to assist the government, composed of a few members taken from each division; besides a grand council of the people, who prepared the decisions to be submitted to the parliament. … As industry had rapidly increased, and had preceded luxury,—as domestic life was sober, and the produce of labour considerable,—wealth had greatly augmented. The citizens allowed themselves no other use of their riches than that of defending or embellishing their country. It was from the year 900 to the year 1200 that the most prodigious works were undertaken and accomplished by the towns of Italy. … These three regenerating centuries gave an impulse to architecture, which soon awakened the other fine arts. The republican spirit which now fermented in every city, and gave to each of them constitutions so wise, magistrates so zealous, and citizens so patriotic, and so capable of great achievements, had found in Italy itself the models which had contributed to its formation. The war of investitures had given wing to this universal spirit of liberty and patriotism in all the municipalities of Lombardy, in Piedmont, Venetia, Romagna, and Tuscany. But there existed already in Italy other free cities. … Venice, … Ravenna, … Genoa, … Pisa, … Rome, Gaëta, Naples, Amalfi, Bari, were either never conquered by the Lombards, or in subjection too short a time to have lost their ancient walls, and the habit of guarding them. These cities served as the refuge of Roman civilization. … Those cities which had accumulated the most wealth, whose walls inclosed the greatest population, attempted, from the first half of the twelfth century, to secure by force of arms the obedience of such of the neighbouring towns as did not appear sufficiently strong to resist them, … to force them in to a perpetual alliance, so as to share their good or evil fortune, and always place their armed force under the standard of the dominant city. … Two great towns in the plains of Lombardy surpassed every other in power and wealth: Milan, which habitually directed the party of the church; and Pavia, which directed that of the empire. Both towns, however, seem to have changed parties during the reigns of Lothario III. and Conrad II., who, from the year 1125 to 1152 placed in opposition the two houses of Guelphs and Ghibelines in Germany. … Among the towns of Piedmont, Turin took the lead, and disputed the authority of the counts of Savoy, who called themselves imperial vicars in that country. … The family of the Veronese marquises, … who from the time of the Lombard kings had to defend the frontier against the Germans, were extinct; and the great cities of Verona, Padua, Vicenza, Treviso, and Mantua, nearly equal in power, maintained their independence. Bologna held the first rank among the towns south of the Po. … Tuscany, which had also had its powerful marquises, saw their family become extinct with the countess Matilda, the contemporary and friend of Gregory VII. Florence had since risen in power, destroyed Fiesole, and … was considered the head of the Tuscan league; and the more so that Pisa at this period thought only of her maritime expeditions. … Such was the state of Italy, when the Germanic diet, assembled at Frankfort in 1152, conferred the crown on Frederick Barbarossa, duke of Swabia, and of the house of Hohenstaufen."

      W. K. Williams,
      The Communes of Lombardy
      (Johns Hopkins University Studies, 9th series, 5-6).

      Europe during the Middle Ages
      (Lardner's Cabinet Cyclop.,
      volume 1, chapter 1).

ITALY: (Southern): A. D. 1081-1194.
   Robert Guiscard's invasions of the Eastern Empire.
   Union of Sicily with Apulia, and creation of the Kingdom of
   the Two Sicilies, or Naples.

"The success of his brother [Roger, in Sicily—see above: A. D. 1000-1090] furnished another spur to the ambition of Robert Guiscard. Taking advantage of a dynastic revolution at Constantinople, he and his son Bohemund commenced a series of invasions of the Eastern Empire [see BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1081-1085] which only ended with his death. These, though unsuccessful in their ultimate result, were influential causes of the first crusade, and deeply affected the relations of East and West for years to come. Meanwhile in Sicily Roger had been succeeded by his son [Roger II.], and, in 1127, this heir of the destinies of his race added the dukedom of Apulia to that of Sicily, obtained from Pope Anacletus the title of king, and finally established the Norman kingdom of Naples [also called the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies]. His character is thus described by a contemporary chronicler: 'He was a lover of justice and most severe avenger of crime. He abhorred lying; did everything by rule, and never promised what he did not mean to perform. He never persecuted his private enemies; and in war endeavoured on all occasions to gain his point without shedding of blood. Justice and peace were universally observed throughout his dominions.' During his reign the intercourse between England and Sicily was close. The government was organized on principles very similar to that of England. … Under his wise rule and that of his immediate successors, the south of Italy and Sicily enjoyed a transient gleam of prosperity and happiness. Their equal and tolerant government, far surpassing anything at that day in Europe, enabled the Saracen, the Greek, and the Italian to live together in harmony elsewhere unknown. Trade and industry flourished, the manufacture of silk enriched the inhabitants, and the kingdom of Naples was at peace until she was crushed under the iron heel of a Teutonic conqueror."

      ALSO IN:
      E. A. Freeman,
      The Normans at Palermo
      (Historical Essays, 3d series).

      J. W. Barlow,
      Short History of the Normans in South Europe,
      chapters 8-11.

ITALY: A. D. 1138.
The accession of the Hohenstaufens to the Imperial throne, and
the origin, in Germany, of the Guelf and Ghibelline factions.

ITALY: A. D. 1154-1162.
The first and second expeditions of Frederick Barbarossa.

Frederick I., the second of the emperors of the Hohenstaufen line, called by the Italians Frederick Barbarossa (Red beard), was elected king at Frankfort in March, 1152. In October, 1154, he crossed the Alps and entered Italy with a strong German army, having two purposes in view:

1. To receive the imperial crown, from the hands of the Pope, and to place on his own head, at Pavia, the iron crown of Lombardy or Italy.

2. To reduce to order and submission the rising city-republics of Lombardy and Tuscany, which had been growing rapidly in independence and power during the last four troubled imperial reigns.

   At Roncaglia, he held the diet of the kingdom, and listened to
   many complaints, especially against Milan, which had undoubtedly
   oppressed the weaker towns of its neighbourhood and abused its
   strength. Then he moved through the country, making a personal
   inspection of affairs, and giving a taste of his temper by
   burning the villages which failed to supply provisions to his
   troops with satisfactory promptitude. At Tortona he ordered
   the inhabitants to renounce their alliance with the Milanese.
   They refused, and endured in the upper portion of the city a
   siege of two months. Forced by want of water to surrender, at
   last, they were permitted to go free, but their town was
   sacked and burned. Asti, Chieri, Rosate, and other places of
   more or less importance, were destroyed. Frederick did not
   venture yet to attack Milan, but proceeded to Rome, demanding
   the imperial crown. The pope (Adrian IV.) and the Romans were
   alike distrustful of him, and he was not permitted to bring
   his army into the city. After no little wrangling over
   ceremonious details, and after being compelled to lead the
   horse and to hold the stirrup of the haughty pontiff,
   Barbarossa was finally crowned at St. Peter's, in the Vatican
   suburb. The Romans attempted to interrupt the coronation, and
   a terrible tumult occurred in which a thousand of the citizens
   were slain. But the Germans made no attempt to take possession
   of the city. On the contrary, they withdrew with haste, and
   the emperor led his army back to Germany, burning Spoleto on
   the way, because it failed in submissiveness, and marking a
   wide track of ruin and desolation through Italy as he went.
   This was in the summer of 1155. Three years passed, during
   which the Italian cities grew more determined in their
   independence, the emperor and his German subjects more bitter
   in hostility to them, and the pope and the emperor more
   antagonistic in their ambitions. In 1158 Frederick led a
   second expedition into Italy, especially determined to make an
   end of the contumacy of Milan. He began operations by creating
   a desert of blackened country around the offending city, being
   resolved to reduce it by famine. Mediators, however, appeared,
   who brought about a treaty of pacification, which interrupted
   hostilities for a few weeks. Then the Milanese found occasion
   to accuse the emperor of a treacherous violation of the terms
   of the treaty and again took up arms. The war was now to the
   death. But, before settling to the siege of Milan, Frederick
   gave himself the pleasure, first, of reducing the lesser city
   of Crema, which continued to be faithful among the allies of
   the Milanese. He held some children of the town in his hands,
   as hostages, and he bound them to the towers which he moved
   against the walls, compelling the wretched citizens to kill
   their own offspring in the act of their self-defense. By such
   atrocities as this, Crema was taken, at the end of seven
   months, and destroyed. Then Milan was assailed and
   beleaguered, harassed and blockaded, until, at the beginning
   of March, 1162, the starved inhabitants gave up their town.
   Frederick ordered the doomed city "to be completely evacuated,
   so that there should not be left in it a single living being.
   On the 25th of March, he summoned the militias of the rival
   and Ghibeline cities, and gave them orders to rase to the
   earth the houses as well as the walls of the town, so as not
   to leave one stone upon another. Those of the inhabitants of
   Milan whom their poverty, labour and industry attached to the
   soil, were divided into four open villages, built at a
   distance of at least two miles from the walls of their former
   city. Others sought hospitality in the neighbouring towns of
   Italy. …
{1812}
   Their sufferings, the extent of their sacrifices, the
   recollection of their valour, and the example of their noble
   sentiments, made proselytes to the cause of liberty in every
   city into which they were received." Meantime Frederick
   Barbarossa returned to Germany, with his fame as a puissant
   monarch much augmented.

G. B. Testa, History of the War of Frederick I. against the Communes of Lombardy, books 1-6.

      E. A. Freeman,
      Frederick the First, King of Italy
      (Historical Essays, 1st series).

ITALY: A. D. 1163-1164.
Third visitation of Frederick Barbarossa.
The rival Popes.

Frederick Barbarossa entered Italy for the third time in 1163, without an army, but imposingly escorted by his German nobles. He imagined that the country had been terrorized sufficiently by the savage measures of his previous visitation to need no more military repression. But he found the Lombard cities undismayed in the assertion of their rights, and drawing together in unions which had never been possible among them before. The hostility of his relations with the Papacy and with the greater part of the Church gave encouragement to political revolt. His quarrel with Pope Hadrian had been ended by the death of the latter, in 1159, but only to give rise to new and more disturbing contentions. It had grown so bitter before Hadrian died that the Pope had allied himself by treaty with Milan, Crema, and other cities resisting Frederick, and had promised to excommunicate the emperor within forty days. Sudden death frustrated the combination. At the election of Hadrian's successor there was a struggle of factions, each determined to put its representative in the papal chair, and each claiming success. Two rival popes were proclaimed and consecrated, one under the name of Alexander III., the other as Victor IV. Frederick recognized the latter, who made himself the emperor's creature. The greater part of Christendom soon gave its recognition to the former, although he had been driven to take refuge in France. Pope Alexander excommunicated Frederick and Frederick's pope, and Pope Victor retorted like anathemas. Whether the curses of Alexander were more effectual, or for other reasons, the authority of Victor dwindled, and he himself presently died (April 1164), while Frederick was making his third inspection of affairs in Italy. The emperor found it impossible to execute his unbending will without an army. Verona, Vicenza, Padua, and Treviso held a congress and openly associated themselves for common defense. Frederick attempted to make use of the militia forces of Pavia, Cremona, and other Ghibelline towns against them; but he found even these citizen-soldiers so mutinous with disaffection that he dared not pursue the undertaking. He returned to Germany for an army more in sympathy with his obstinate designs against Italian liberty.

      G. B. Testa,
      History of the War of Frederick I. against
      the Communes of Lombardy,
      book 7.

ITALY: A. D. 1166-1167.
The fourth expedition of Frederick Barbarossa.
The League of Lombardy.

"When Frederick, in the month of October, 1166, descended the mountains of the Grisons to enter Italy [for the fourth time] by the territory of Brescia, he marched his army directly to Lodi, without permitting any act of hostility on the way. At Lodi, he assembled, towards the end of November, a diet of the kingdom of Italy, at which he promised the Lombards to redress the grievances occasioned by the abuses of power by his podestas, and to respect their just liberties; he was desirous of separating their cause from that of the pope and the king of Sicily; and to give greater weight to his negotiation, he marched his army into central Italy. … The towns of the Veronese marches, seeing the emperor and his army pass without daring to attack them, became bolder: they assembled a new diet, in the beginning of April, at the convent of Pontida, between Milan and Bergamo. The consuls of Cremona, of Bergamo, of Brescia, of Mantua and Ferrara met there and joined those of the marches. The union of the Guelphs and Ghibellines, for the common liberty, was hailed with universal joy. The deputies of the Cremonese, who had lent their aid to the destruction of Milan, seconded those of the Milanese villages in imploring aid of the confederated towns to rebuild the city of Milan. This confederation was called the League of Lombardy. The consuls took the oath, and their constituents afterwards repeated it, that every Lombard should unite for the recovery of the common liberty; that the league for this purpose should last twenty years; and, finally, that they should aid each other in repairing in common any damage experienced in this sacred cause, by anyone member of the confederation: extending even to the past this contract for reciprocal security, the league resolved to rebuild Milan. The militias of Bergamo, Brescia, Cremona, Mantua, Verona, and Treviso, arrived the 27th of April, 1167, on the ground covered by the ruins of this great city. They apportioned among themselves the labour of restoring the inclosing walls; all the Milanese of the four villages, as well as those who had taken refuge in the more distant towns, came in crowds to take part in this pious work; and in a few weeks the new-grown city was in a state to repel the insults of its enemies. Lodi was soon afterwards compelled, by force of arms, to take the oath to the league; while the towns of Venice, Placentia, Parma, Modena, and Bologna voluntarily and gladly joined the association."

   Meantime Frederick Barbarossa had made himself master of the
   city of Rome. The Roman citizens had boldly ventured out to
   meet his German army and its allies on the Tusculan hills and
   had suffered a frightful defeat. Then some part of the walls
   of the Leonine City were carried by assault and the
   castellated church of St. Peter's was entered with ax and
   sword. Two German archbishops were among the leaders of the
   force which took the altars of the temple by storm and which
   polluted its floors with blood. Frederick's new 'anti-pope,
   Paschal III., successor to Victor IV., was now enthroned, and
   the empress was formally crowned in the apostolic basilica.
   Pope Alexander, who had been in possession of the city,
   withdrew, and the victorious emperor appeared to have the
   great objects of his burning ambition within his grasp.
   "Destiny willed otherwise. It was now August; the sun was
   burning the arid Campagna and oppressing the weary German
   troops. A slight rain came to refresh them, but the following
   day sudden destruction fell upon the camp.
{1813}
   Deadly fever attacked the army with terrible violence and
   reduced it daily. The men fell in heaps, and when struck down
   in the morning were dead by night. The disease took stronger
   hold owing to the superstitious fears of the army and the idea
   of divine vengeance, for the soldiers remembered in terror the
   profanation of St. Peter's, and they felt the keen edge of the
   destroying angel's sword. Decimated, dismayed, demoralised,
   the imperial army was hopelessly defeated, and Frederick was
   compelled to strike his tents and fly before the in visible
   destroyer. … The flower of his troops lay unburied in the
   furrows, and with difficulty could he manage to carry back to
   their native land the bodies of his noblest and trustiest
   knights. Never perhaps before had Frederick given proofs of
   such unshaken strength of mind. … He returned to Germany
   alone and almost a fugitive, his bravest knights dead, his
   army destroyed, and leaving behind him a whole nation of proud
   and watchful enemies. He returned alone, but his spirit was
   undaunted and dreamt of future victory and of final revenge."

ITALY: A. D. 1174-1183.
The last expedition of Frederick Barbarossa.
The Battle of Legnano, and the Peace of Constance.

It was not until 1174—seven years after his flight from the Roman pestilence—that Barbarossa was able to return to Italy and resume his struggle with Pope Alexander and the Lombard cities. He had been detained by troubles in Germany—the growing quarrel with his most powerful vassal, Henry the Lion, of Saxony, more particularly. Meantime, the League of the Lombard cities had spread and gained strength, and Pope Alexander III. was in active co-operation with it. To better fortify the frontiers of Lombardy, the League had built a strong new city, at the junction of the Tanaro and Bormida, had given it an immediate population of 15,000 people and had named it Alessandria, after the Pope. "The Emperor, whose arrival in Italy was urgently implored, was retained in Germany by his mistrust of Henry the Lion, who, in order to furnish himself with a pretext for refusing his assistance in the intended campaign without coming to an open breach, undertook a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, A. D. 1171; whence, after performing his devotions at the holy sepulchre, without unsheathing his sword in its defence, he returned to his native country. … At length, in 1174, Frederick Barbarossa persuaded the sullen duke to perform his duty in the field, and for the fourth time [with an army] crossed the Alps. A terrible revenge was taken upon Susa, which was burnt to the ground. Alexandria [Alessandria] withstood the siege. The military science of the age, every 'ruse de guerre,' was exhausted by both the besiegers and the besieged, and the whole of the winter was fruitlessly expended without any signal success on either side. The Lombard league meanwhile assembled an immense army in order to oppose Frederick in the open field, whilst treason threatened him on another side. … Henry also at length acted with open disloyalty, and declared to the emperor, who lay sick at Chiavenna, on the lake of Como, his intention of abandoning him; and, unshaken by Frederick's exhortation in the name of duty and honour to renounce his perfidious plans, offered to provide him with money on condition of receiving considerable additions to his power in Germany, and the free imperial town of Goslar in gift. … Frederick, reduced to the alternative of either following his insolent vassal, or of exposing himself and his weakened forces to total destruction by remaining in his present position, courageously resolved to abide the hazard, and to await the arrival of fresh reinforcements from Germany; the Lombards, however, saw their advantage, and attacked him at Legnano, on the 29th of May, 1176. The Swabians (the southern Germans still remaining true to their allegiance) fought with all the courage of despair, but Berthold von Zähringen was taken prisoner, the emperor's horse fell in the thickest of the fight, his banner was won by the 'Legion of Death,' a chosen Lombard troop, and he was given up as dead. He escaped almost by a miracle, whilst his little army was entirely overwhelmed."

After the disastrous battle of Legnano, Frederic "was at length persuaded, through the mediation of the republic of Venice, to consent to a truce of six years, the provisional terms of which were all favourable to the league. … At the expiration of the truce Frederic's anxiety to secure the crown for his son overcame his pride, and the famous Peace of Constance [A. D. 1183] established the Lombard republics in real independence. By the treaty of Constance the cities were maintained in the enjoyment of all the regalian rights, whether within their walls or in their district, which they could claim by usage. Those of levying war, of erecting fortifications, and of administering civil and criminal justice, were specially mentioned. The nomination of their consuls, or other magistrates, was left absolutely to the citizens; but they were to receive the investiture of their office from an imperial legate. The customary tributes of provision during the emperor's residence in Italy were preserved; and he was authorized to appoint in every city a judge of appeal in civil causes. The Lombard league was confirmed, and the cities were permitted to renew it at their own discretion; but they were to take every ten years an oath of fidelity to the emperor. This just compact preserved, along with every security for the liberties and welfare of the cities, as much of the imperial prerogatives as could be exercised by a foreign sovereign consistently with the people's happiness. … The Peace of Constance presented a noble opportunity to the Lombards of establishing a permanent federal union of small republics. … But dark, long-cherished hatreds, and that implacable vindictiveness which, at least in former ages, distinguished the private manners of Italy, deformed her national character. … For revenge she threw away the pearl of great price, and sacrificed even the recollection of that liberty which had stalked like a majestic spirit among the ruins of Milan."

After the settlement of the Peace of Constance, Frederick Barbarossa made no further attempt to destroy the now well established liberties of the north Italian cities. On the contrary, he devoted himself, with considerable success, to the regaining of their confidence and good-will, as against the papacy, with which his relations were not improved. In southern Italy, he acquired an important footing by the marriage of his son Henry (already crowned King of Rome, as Henry VI.), to Constance, the sole heiress of the Norman kingdom of the Two Sicilies. Soon after which he went crusading to the Holy Land, and perished in Asia Minor (A. D. 1190). His son and successor, Henry VI., who survived him but seven years, was occupied so much in securing the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies, already fallen to his wife (1194) by the death of the last of the Norman kings, that he had little time to trouble the peace of Lombardy or Germany. He was one of the meanest of kings, faithless and cold-blooded,—brutal to the Normans of the Sicilies and contemptible in his treatment of the English King Richard, when his vassal of Austria made a chance captive of the lion-hearted prince. He died in 1197, leaving as his heir a son but four years old—the Frederick II. of later years. There was war at once. Two rival kings were elected in Germany, by the two factions, Guelf and Ghibelline. The next year, one of them, Philip I., the Ghibelline, a younger son of Frederick Barbarossa, was assassinated; the other, Otho IV., a son of Henry the Lion, was recognized by his opponents, and went to Rome to claim the imperial crown. He received it, but soon quarrelled, as all his predecessors had done, with the pope (the great pope Innocent III. being now on the throne), and, Guelf as he was, began to put himself in alliance with the Ghibellines of Italy. Meantime, the boy Frederick had become king of the Two Sicilies by the death of his mother, and Pope Innocent was his guardian. He was now brought forward by the latter as a claimant of the Germanic crown, against Otho, and was sent into Germany to maintain his claim. The civil war which followed was practically ended by the battle of Bouvines (July 27, 1214—see BOUVINES) in which Otho's cause was lost. Four years after, the latter died, and Frederick reigned in Germany, Italy and the Two Sicilies, without a rival, holding the three separate crowns for five years before he received the imperial crown, in 1220. Meantime Innocent III. died, and Frederick became involved, even more bitterly than his father or his grandfather had been, in quarrels with the succeeding popes. He was a man far beyond his age in intellectual independence (see GERMANY: A. D. 1138-1268) and freedom from superstitious servility to the priesthood. His tastes were cultivated, his accomplishments were many. He welcomed the refinements which Europe at that time could borrow from the Saracens, and his court was one of gaiety and splendor. His papal enemies execrated him as a heretic, a blasphemer and an "apocalyptic beast." His greatest original offenses had grown out of two promises which he made in his youth:

1. To lead a crusade for the recovery of Jerusalem,—which he was slow in fulfilling;

2. To resign his Italian possessions to his son, retaining only the sovereignty of Germany for himself,—which promise he did not fulfil at all.

The war of the Church against him was implacable, and he was under its ban when he died. The pope even pursued him with maledictions when he went, at last, upon his crusade, in 1228, and when he did, by negotiations, free Jerusalem for a time from the Moslems (see CRUSADES: A. D. 1216-1229). He was involved, moreover, in conflicts with the Lombard cities (see FEDERAL GOVERNMENT: MEDIÆVAL LEAGUE) which the papacy encouraged and stimulated, and, in 1236, he won a great victory over the League, at Cortenuova, capturing the famous "Carroccio" of the Milanese and sending it as a gift to the Roman Senate. But, attempting to use his victory too inflexibly, he lost the fruits of it, and all his later years were years of trouble and disastrous war—disastrous to Italy and to himself. He died on the 13th of December 1250. "Out of the long array of the Germanic successors of Charles, he [Frederick II.] is, with Otto III., the only one who comes before us with a genius and a frame of character that are not those of a Northern or a Teuton. There dwelt in him, it is true, all the energy and knightly valour of his father Henry and his grandfather Barbarossa. But along with these, and changing their direction, were other gifts, inherited perhaps from his Italian mother and fostered by his education among the orange-groves of Palermo—a love of luxury and beauty, an intellect refined, subtle, philosophical. Through the mist of calumny and fable it is but dimly that the truth of the man can be discerned, and the outlines that appear serve to quicken rather than appease the curiosity with which we regard one of the most extraordinary personages in history. A sensualist, yet also a warrior and a politician; a profound lawgiver and an impassioned poet; in his youth fired by crusading fervour, in later life persecuting heretics while himself accused of blasphemy and unbelief; of winning manners and ardently beloved by his followers, but with the stain of more than one cruel deed upon his name, he was the marvel of his own generation, and succeeding ages looked back with awe, not unmingled with pity, upon the inscrutable figure of the last Emperor who had braved all the terrors of the Church and died beneath her ban, the last who had ruled from the sands of the ocean to the shores of the Sicilian sea. But while they pitied they condemned. The undying hatred of the Papacy threw round his memory a lurid light; him and him alone of all the imperial line, Dante, the worshipper of the Empire, must perforce deliver to the flames of hell."

   "The Emperor Frederick was a poet who could not only celebrate
   the charms of his sovereign lady, 'the flower of all flowers,
   the rose of May,' but could also exhibit his appreciation for
   the beauties of nature. … Frederick also delighted in
   sculpture, painting, and architecture. … Under his fostering
   influence every branch of learning was starting into life
   after the slumber of ages. Frederick's age can only be
   compared to that glorious era of the Renaissance, when the sun
   of learning, no longer shorn of his beams, poured a flood of
   light over the dark places of Europe. Frederick was not only
   distinguished for his love of polite literature, but also for
   his ardour in the pursuit of scientific knowledge. He was
   himself an author on medical subjects.
{1815}
   He was a great patron of natural history. He used his friendly
   relations with eastern kings to form a collection of animals
   not often seen in Europe—the elephant, camel, giraffe, and
   camelopard. He also wrote a treatise on Hawking, which is
   still cited with respect. He classifies birds, and treats
   generally of their habits. … But poetry and science were
   very far from occupying all the thoughts of this distinguished
   monarch. His great concern was the internal regulation of the
   kingdom committed to his charge. His code in Sicily and Naples
   was framed with the special view of securing equal rights to
   all classes of his subjects, and of delivering them from the
   yoke of the feudal oppressor. He stripped the nobles and
   prelates of their jurisdiction in criminal cases. He also
   decreed that any count or baron, carrying on war on his own
   account, should lose his head and his goods. These were
   amazing strides in the right direction, but the former was
   quite unprecedented in feudal kingdoms. Many justiciaries were
   appointed throughout the kingdom. No one might hold this
   office without the authorisation of the crown. He strove to
   make his officials as righteous as he was himself. He himself
   came before his courts. So great was his love of justice, that
   he would rather lose his cause than win it if he were in the
   wrong. No advocates were allowed to practise without an
   examination by the judicial bench. They were obliged to take
   an oath that they would allege nothing against their
   conscience. The court furnished widows, orphans, and the poor
   with champions free of expense. The law, by which it was
   guided, endeavoured to secure an even-handed administration of
   justice."

A. B. Pennington, The Emperor Frederick II. (Royal Historical Society, Transactions, new series, volume 1).

Although arbitrary and despotic in temper, the political intelligence of Frederick led him to practical ideas of government which were extraordinarily liberal for his age. In his Sicilian kingdom "the towns were shorn to a great extent of their local privileges, but were taught to unite their strength for the common good. Twice, at least, in the course of his reign, in 1232 and in 1240, Frederick summoned their deputies to a conference or Parliament, 'for the weal of the Kingdom and the general advantage of the State.' Forty-seven cities, all belonging to the Imperial domain, sent two deputies each to the Assembly convoked, which must not be confounded with the Solemn Courts held by the Sovereign and his Barons for the purpose Of revising charters, enacting Constitutions, and regulating the government. We should be mistaken in supposing that the Sicilian Parliament enjoyed much of the power implied by the name. There is no trace of any clamour against grievances, of any complaints against officials, or of any refusal to grant supplies. The only function of the deputies summoned seems to have been the assessing of the public burdens. The Emperor demanded a certain sum of money, and the deputies, meekly complying, regulated the ways and means of raising it. 'Send your messengers,' thus runs the writ, 'to see the Serenity of our face on your behalf, and to bring you back our will.' Later in the century, the Assembly acquired greater authority. It is just possible that Simon de Montfort, who is known to have visited the Imperial Court, may have borrowed his famous improvement on the old English constitution from an Apulian source; the gathering of the Commons at Foggia certainly preceded their first meeting at Westminster by thirty years. Other countries besides our own were indebted to Frederick for a better mode of legislation. Shortly after his death, many of his innovations were borrowed by his cousin Alonzo the Wise, and were inserted in Las Siete Partidas, the new Code of Castile. The ideas of the Suabian Emperor were evidently the model followed by St. Louis and his successors; in France, as well as in Southern Italy, the lawyer was feeling his way towards the enjoyment of the power wielded of old by the knight and the churchman; Philip the Fair was able to carry out the projects which Frederick had merely been able to sketch. The world made rapid strides between 1230 and 1300. The Northern half of Italy, distracted by endless struggles, was not insensible to the improvements introduced into the South by her mighty son. But in the North two fatal obstacles existed, the Papal power and the municipal spirit of the various States, which marred all Frederick's efforts in behalf of Italian unity." Frederick's court was the most brilliant and refined in Europe. Mr. Kington, his historian, introduces us to one of the Emperor's banquets, in the following description: "A great variety of strangers meet at the banqueting hour. Ambassadors from the Greek Monarch arrive with a present of falcons. Some clerical visitors from Germany are astounded to find themselves seated close to the turbaned men of the East, and shudder on hearing that these are envoys from the Sultan of Cairo and the Old Man of the Mountain. The honest Germans whisper among themselves some remarks on the late end of the Duke of Bavaria, who was stabbed at Kelheim by a man, suspected to be an assassin, employed by the mysterious Old Man on Frederick's behalf. The Emperor himself eats and drinks very little. He is the very model of a host. … The Emperor, it must be allowed, is rather loose in his talk. Speaking of his late Crusade, he remarks: 'If the God of the Jews had seen my Kingdom, the Terra di Lavoro, Calabria, Sicily, and Apulia, he would not have so often praised that land which he promised to the Jews and bestowed upon them.' The Bishops treasure up this unlucky speech, which will one day be noised abroad all over Italy. When the meal is over, the company are amused by the feats of some of the Almehs, brought from the East. Two young Arab girls of rare beauty place themselves each upon two balls in the middle of the flat pavement. On these they move backwards and forwards, singing and beating time with cymbals and castanets, while throwing themselves into intricate postures. Games and musical instruments, procured for the Empress, form part of the entertainment. We hear moreover of a Saracen dancer from Aquitaine. Such sports are relished by the guests quite as much as the Greek wine and the viands prepared by Berard the Court cook, who is famous for his scapece; this dish, consisting of fish boiled in salt water and sprinkled with saffron, popular to this day in the province of Lecce, has been derived from Apicius. … The Emperor now shows his guests the wild beasts, which he has brought from Africa and the East. There is the huge elephant, soon to be sent to Cremona, the bearer of the Imperial banner, guarded by a troop of Saracens. {1816} There is the female camelopard, called Seraph by the Arabs and Italians. Next come the camels and dromedaries which carry the Emperor's treasures when he is on the march. Lions, leopards, panthers, and rare birds form part of the collection, and are tended by Saracen keepers. Frederick perhaps wishes to show his friends some sport in the Apulian plains; he has hawks of all breeds, each of which has its name; but what most astonishes strangers is his method of bringing down the deer. The cheetahs, or hunting leopards of the East, are mounted on horseback behind their keepers; these animals, as the Emperor says, 'know how to ride.' He is a strict preserver of game; he gives orders that the wolves and foxes, which prey upon the small animals in his warren at Melazzo, be destroyed by means of a poison called wolf's powder. He has many parks and fishponds, to which he contrives to attend, even in the midst of Lombard wars. He directs the plantation of woods, and when a storm blows down his trees, the timber is to be sold at Naples. … The treasures, with which Frederick dazzles the eyes of his visitors, rival those of Solomon. The Sultan of Egypt has given his Christian brother a tent of wonderful workmanship, displaying the movements of the sun and moon, and telling the hours of the day and night. This prodigy, valued at 20,000 marks, is kept at Venosa. There is also a throne of gold, decked with pearls and precious stones, doomed to become the prey of Charles of Anjou and Pope Clement. There are purple robes embroidered with gold, silks from Tripoli, and the choicest works of the Eastern loom. Frederick charms the ears of his guests with melodies played on silver trumpets by black slaves, whom he has had trained. He himself knows how to sing. Travellers, jesters, poets, philosophers, knights, lawyers, all find a hearty welcome at the Apulian Court; if they are natives of the Kingdom they address its Lord in the customary second person singular, 'Tu, Messer.' He can well appreciate the pretensions of each guest, since he is able to converse with all his many subjects, each in his own tongue. The Arab from Palestine, the Greek from Calabria, the Italian from Tuscany, the Frenchman from Lorraine, the German from Thuringia, find that Cæsar understands them all. With Latin, of course, he is familiar. Very different is Frederick from his Northern grandsire, who could speak nothing but German and very bad Latin. Troubadour, Crusader, Lawgiver; German by blood, Italian by birth, Arab by training; the pupil, the tyrant, the victim of Rome; accused by the world of being by turns a Catholic persecutor, a Mohammedan convert, an Infidel freethinker; such is Frederick the Second. His character has been sketched for us by two men of opposite politics, Salimbene the Guelf and Jamsilla the Ghibelline, both of whom knew him well. Each does justice to the wonderful genius of the Emperor, and to the rapid development of the arts and commerce under his fostering care. But all is not fair, whatever appearances may be. Every generation of the Hohenstaufen Kaisers seemed to add a vice to the shame of their house. Cruelty is the one dark stain in the character of Barbarossa; cruelty and treachery mar the soaring genius of Henry the Sixth; cruelty, treachery, and lewdness are the three blots that can never be wiped away from the memory of Frederick the Second. He has painted his likeness with his own hand. His Registers with their varied entries throw more light upon his nature than any panegyrics or diatribes can do. One example will be enough. If he wishes to get an impregnable castle into his hands, he thus writes to his general:—'Pretend some business, and warily call the Castellan to you; seize on him if you can, and keep him till he cause the castle to be surrendered to you.' … Frederick's cruelty is indisputable. His leaden copes, which weighed down the victims of his wrath until death came to the rescue, were long the talk of Italy and are mentioned by Dante."

T. L. Kington, History of Frederick the Second, Emperor of the Romans, volume 1, chapter 9.

"After the death of Frederick II., an interval of twenty-three years passed without the appointment of a king of the Romans [the Great Interregnum—see GERMANY: A. D. 1250-1272], and an interval of sixty years without the recognition of an emperor in Italy." Frederick's son Conrad, whom he had caused to be crowned, was driven out of Germany and died in 1254. Another son, Manfred, acquired the crown of Sicily and reigned for a time; but the unrelenting pope persuaded Charles of Anjou to make a conquest of the kingdom, and Manfred was slain in battle (A. D. 1266). Conrad's young son, Conradin, then attempted to recover the Sicilian throne, but was defeated, taken prisoner, and perished on the scaffold (1268). He was the last of the Hohenstaufen.

      E. A. Freeman,
      The Emperor Frederick the Second
      (Historical Essays, volume 1, Essay 10).

      Mrs. W. Busk,
      Mediæval Popes, Emperors, Kings, and Crusaders,
      book 4 (volumes 3-4).

ITALY: A. D. 1198-1216.
The establishing of Papal Sovereignty in the
States of the Church.

ITALY: 13th Century.
Political conditions which prepared the way for the despots.

"The struggle between the Popes and the Hohenstaufen left Italy in a political condition which differed essentially from that of the other countries of the West. While in France, Spain, and England the feudal system was so organised that, at the close of its existence, it was naturally transformed into a unified monarchy, and while in Germany it helped to maintain, at least outwardly, the unity of the empire, Italy had shaken it off almost entirely. The Emperors of the fourteenth century, even in the most favourable case, were no longer received and respected as feudal lords, but as possible leaders and supporters of powers already in existence; while the Papacy, with its creatures and allies, was strong enough to hinder national unity in the future, not strong enough itself to bring about that unity. Between the two lay a multitude of political units—republics and despots—in part of long standing, in part of recent origin, whose existence was founded simply on their power to maintain it. In them for the first time we detect the modern political spirit of Europe, surrendered freely to its own instincts, often displaying the worst features of an unbridled egoism, outraging every right, and killing every germ of a healthier culture. {1817} But, wherever this vicious tendency is overcome or in any way compensated, a new fact appears in history—the state as the outcome of reflection and calculation, the state as a work of art. This new life displays itself in a hundred forms, both in the republican and in the despotic states, and determines their inward constitution, no less than their foreign policy. … The internal condition of the despotically governed states had a memorable counterpart in the Norman Empire of Lower Italy and Sicily, after its transformation by the Emperor Frederick II. Bred amid treason and peril in the neighbourhood of the Saracens, Frederick, the first ruler of the modern type who sat upon a throne, had early accustomed himself, both in criticism and action, to a thoroughly objective treatment of affairs. His acquaintance with the internal condition and administration of the Saracenic states was close and intimate; and the mortal struggle in which he was engaged with the Papacy compelled him, no less than his adversaries, to bring into the field all the resources at his command. Frederick's measures (especially after the year 1231) are aimed at the complete destruction of the feudal state, at the transformation of the people into a multitude destitute of will and of the means of resistance, but profitable in the utmost degree to the exchequer. He centralised, in a manner hitherto unknown in the West, the whole judicial and political administration by establishing the right of appeal from the feudal courts, which he did not, however, abolish, to the imperial judges. No office was henceforth to be filled by popular election, under penalty of the devastation of the offending district and of the enslavement of its inhabitants. Excise duties were introduced; the taxes, based on a comprehensive assessment, and distributed in accordance with Mohammedan usages, were collected by those cruel and vexatious methods without which, it is true, it is impossible to obtain any money from Orientals. Here, in short, we find, not a people, but simply a disciplined multitude of subjects. … The internal police, and the kernel of the army for foreign service, was composed of Saracens who had been brought over from Sicily to Nocera and Luceria—men who were deaf to the cry of misery and careless of the ban of the Church. At a later period the subjects, by whom the use of weapons had long been forgotten, were passive witnesses of the fall of Manfred and of the seizure of the government by Charles of Anjou; the latter continued to use the system which he found already at work. At the side of the centralising Emperor appeared an usurper of the most peculiar kind: his vicar and son-in-law, Ezzelino da Romano. … The conquests and usurpations which had hitherto taken place in the Middle Ages rested on real or pretended inheritance and other such claims, or else were effected against unbelievers and excommunicated persons. Here for the first time the attempt was openly made to found a throne by wholesale murder and endless barbarities, by the adoption, in short, of any means with a view to nothing but the end pursued. None of his successors, not even Cæsar Borgia, rivalled the colossal guilt of Ezzelino; but the example once set was not forgotten. … Immediately after the fall of Frederick and Ezzelino, a crowd of tyrants appeared upon the scene. The struggle between Guelph and Ghibelline was their opportunity. They came forward in general as Ghibelline leaders, but at times and under conditions so various, that it is impossible not to recognise in the fact a law of supreme and universal necessity."

      J. Burckhardt,
      The Renaissance in Italy,
      part 1, chapter 1, (volume 1).

ITALY: A. D. 1215.
The beginning, at Florence, the causes and the meaning of the
strife of the Guelfs and Ghibellines.

"In the year 1215 it chanced that a quarrel occurred at a festival between some young nobles of Florence. It was an event of as frivolous, and apparently unimportant, a character as thousands of other such broils; but this obscure quarrel has been treated by the whole body of Florentine historians as the origin and starting point of that series of civil wars which shaped the entire future fortunes of the community, and shook to its centre the whole fabric of society throughout central Italy. The story of it has become memorable therefore in Florentine annals, and has been rendered famous not only by the writers of history, but by many generations of poets, painters, novelists, and sculptors." Briefly sketched, the story is this: A handsome youth of the Buondelmonti family, mixing in a quarrel at the festival alluded to, struck one Oddo Arringhi dei Fifanti with his poniard. Common friends of the two brought about a reconciliation, by means of an arrangement of marriage between Buondelmonte and a niece of the injured man. But the lady was plain, and Buondelmonte, falling madly in love with another, more charming, whom evil chance and a scheming mother threw temptingly in his way, did not scruple to break his engagement, and to do it with insult. He wedded his new love, who was of the Donati family, on Easter Day, and on that same day he was slain by the Amidei, whose house he had so grossly affronted. "The assassins retired to their fortress houses, and left the bridal party to form itself as it might into a funeral procession. 'Great was the uproar in the city. He was placed on a bier; and his wife took her station on the bier also, and held his head in her lap, violently weeping; and in that manner they carried him through the whole of the city; and on that day began the ruin of Florence.' The last phrase of the above citation marks the significance which the Tuscan historians have attributed to this incident, and the important place that has always been assigned to it in Florentine history. We are told by all the earliest historians, especially by Malispini, in whose childhood these events must have happened, and whom Villani copies almost word for word, that from this quarrel began the great, fatal, and world-famous division of Florence into the parties of Guelph and Ghibelline. Dante goes so far as to consider the conduct of Buondelmonte in this affair so entirely the cause of the evils that arose from the Guelph and Ghibelline wars, that, had that cause not existed, no such misfortunes would have arisen. … Yet the historians admit that the party names of Guelph and Ghibelline were known in Florence long before; but they say that not till then did the city divide itself into two hostile camps under those rallying cries. It is curiously clear, from the accounts of Malispini and Villani, that, as usual in such matters, the Florentines had but a very hazy notion as to the meaning and origin of the two names [see GUELFS AND GHIBELLINES, and GERMANY: A. D. 1138-1268], for the sake of which they were prepared to cut each other's throats. {1818} Any name or watchword is good enough for a party rallying cry, when once passions have been connected with it; but the Florentines understood that Ghibelline meant attachment to the Empire in opposition to the Church, and Guelph attachment to the Church in opposition to the Empire. … But the quarrel of Guelph with Ghibelline in Florence was the expression of a still wider spread and more perennial conflict. … The Ghibellines were the old Imperial nobles, who, whether more anciently or more recently incorporated into the body of Florentine citizens, formed the aristocracy of the social body, and were naturally Imperialist in their sympathies. These Ghibellines were the high Tories of the Florentine community. The body of the people were Guelphs, naming themselves after the party professing attachment to the Church only because the Papacy was in opposition to the Empire. The Guelphs were the Whigs of Florence. The Radicals appeared on the scene in due time and normal sequence." From Florence, as its center, the strife of the two factions spread throughout Italy. "Ghibellinism was nearly universal in the north of Italy, divided among a number of more or less well known great families, of whom the principal were the Visconti at Milan, and the Della Scala at Verona. Naples and the States of the Church were Guelph; the former, as need hardly be suggested, from political circumstances, from opposition to the Empire, and from connection, rather than from principle. Tuscany and the whole of Central Italy were divided between the two, although the real strength and stronghold of genuine Guelphism was there. Without Florence, there would have been no Guelph party. Had those stout sandalled and leather-jerkined Florentine burghers of the 13th century not undertaken and persevered in that crusade against the feudal nobles and the Ghibelline principle, which … was the leading occupation and idea of the Commonwealth during all that century, Ghibellinism and Imperialism would have long since possessed and ruled Italy from the Alps to the toe of the boot."

T. A. Trollope, History of the Commonwealth of Florence, book 1, chapter 3, and book 3, chapter 1 (volume 1).

"One party called themselves the Emperor's liegemen, and their watchword was authority and law; the other side were the liegemen of Holy Church, and their cry was liberty; and the distinction as a broad one is true. But a democracy would become Ghibelline, without scruple, if its neighbour town was Guelf; and among the Guelf liegemen of the Church and liberty, the pride of blood and love of power were not a whit inferior to that of their opponents. Yet … it is not impossible to trace in the two factions differences of temper, of moral and political inclinations, which, though visible only on a large scale and in the mass, were quite sufficient to give meaning and reality to their mutual opposition. … The Ghibellines as a body reflected the worldliness, the license, the irreligion, the reckless selfishness, the daring insolence, and at the same time the gaiety and pomp, the princely magnificence and generosity and largeness of mind of the House of Swabia [the Hohenstaufen]; they were the men of the court and camp. … The Guelfs, on the other hand, were the party of the middle classes; they rose out of and held to the people; they were strong by their compactness, their organisation in cities, their commercial relations and interests, their command of money. Further, they were professedly the party of strictness and religion. … The genuine Guelf spirit was austere, frugal, independent, earnest, religious; fond of its home and Church, and of those celebrations which bound together Church and home; … in its higher form intolerant of evil, but intolerant always of whatever displeased it. Yet there was a grave and noble manliness about it which long kept it alive in Florence."

ITALY: A. D. 1236-1259.
The tyranny of Eccelino di Romano in the Veronese or Trevisan
Marches, and the crusade against him.

ITALY: A. D. 1248-1278.
The wars of a generation of the Guelfs and Ghibellines in
Tuscany.

ITALY: (Southern): A. D. 1250-1268.
Invasion and conquest of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies by
Charles of Anjou, on the invitation of the Pope.

   "The death of the Emperor Frederic II., in 1250, had been
   followed in less than four years by that of his son and
   successor Conrad IV., from whose son Conradin, at that time an
   infant, the Crown of the Two Sicilies was usurped by his uncle
   Manfred, a natural child of the deceased Frederic. The hatred
   of the See of Rome, notwithstanding the frequent changes which
   had occurred in the Papal Chair, still pursued the Line of
   Hohenstauffen, even in this illegitimate branch, and it was
   transmitted as an hereditary possession from Innocent IV.
   through Alexander IV. and Urban IV., to Clement IV.
   Interference in Germany itself was forbidden by the
   independence of the Electoral Princes: and when it was found
   impossible to obtain the nomination of an Emperor decidedly in
   the Guelph interest, Alexander contented himself by
   endeavouring to separate the Throne of the Two Sicilies from
   that of Germany, and to establish upon the former a Feudatory,
   and therefore a Champion, of the Church. Various alliances for
   this purpose were projected by Alexander, and by his
   successors who adopted a similar policy; and the Crown, which
   was in truth to be conquered from Manfred, was offered as an
   investiture which Rome had a full right to bestow." After long
   negotiations with Henry III. of England, who coveted the
   Sicilian prize for his second son, Edmund, and who paid large
   sums to the papal treasury by way of earnest money, but who
   showed little ability to oust the possessor, Pope Urban, at
   length, closed a bargain with that ambitious speculator in
   royal claims and titles, Charles of Anjou, brother of St.
   Louis, king of France. The honesty of Louis was somewhat
   troubled by the unscrupulous transaction; but his conscience
   submitted itself to the instructions of the Holy Father, and
   he permitted his brother to embark in the evil enterprise.
   "Charles, accordingly, having first accepted the Senator-ship
   of Rome, with which high magistracy he was invested by her
   citizens, negotiated with the Holy See, most ably and much to
   his advantage, for the loftier dignity of Kingship. In little
   more than a month after he had received his Crown from the
   hands of Clement IV., who had become Pope, he totally defeated
   and killed his opponent Manfred, in the battle of Grandella
   [near Benevento, February, 1266].
{1819}
   Conradin, who had now arrived at years of discretion, was
   still his rival; but the capture of the young Prince at
   Tagliacozzo [1268], and his speedy committal to the
   executioner, confirmed Charles of Anjou in his Kingdom, at the
   everlasting ex-pense of his good name. Few incidents in
   History are more calculated to awaken just indignation than
   the untimely end of the brave, wronged, and gallant Conradin.
   Charles of Anjou thus founded the first dynasty of his House
   which reigned over the Sicilies. The pretensions which Aragon
   afterwards advanced to the Crown of that Kingdom rested on a
   marriage between Pedro, the eldest son of King James, and
   Constance, a daughter of Manfred."

      Mrs. W. Busk,
      Mediæval Popes, Emperors, Kings, and Crusaders,
      book 5 (volume 4).

ITALY: A. D. 1250-1293.
Development of the popular Constitution of the Florentine
Commonwealth.

"From the death of Frederick the Second [A. D. 1250] … all practical power of an imperial kingdom in Italy may be said to have passed away. Presently begins the gradual change of the commonwealths into tyrannies, and the grouping together of many of them into larger states. We also see the beginning of more definite claims of temporal dominion on behalf of the Popes. In the course of the 300 years between Frederick the Second and Charles the Fifth, these processes gradually changed the face of the Italian kingdom. It became in the end a collection of principalities, broken only by the survival of a few oligarchic commonwealths and by the anomalous dominion of Venice on the mainland. Between Frederick the Second and Charles the Fifth, we may look on the Empire as practically in abeyance in Italy. The coming of an Emperor always caused a great stir for the time, but it was only for the time. After the grant of Rudolf of Habsburg to the Popes, a distinction was drawn between Imperial and papal territory in Italy. While certain princes and commonwealths still acknowledged at least the nominal superiority of the Emperor, others were now held to stand in the same relation of vassalage to the Pope."

"During the 14th and 15th centuries we find, roughly speaking, six sorts of despots in Italian cities. Of these the First class, which is a very small one, had a dynastic or hereditary right accruing from long seignorial possession, of their several districts. The most eminent are the houses of Montferrat and Savoy, the Marquises of Ferrara, the Princes of Urbino. … The Second class comprise those nobles who obtained the title of Vicars of the Empire, and built an illegal power upon the basis of imperial right in Lombardy. Of these, the Della Scala and Visconti families are illustrious instances. … The Third class is important. Nobles charged with military or judicial power, as Capitani or Podestas, by the free burghs, used their authority to enslave the cities they were chosen to administer. It was thus that almost all the numerous tyrants of Lombardy, Carraresi at Padua, Gonzaghi at Mantua, Rossi and Correggi at Parma, Torrensi and Visconti at Milan, Scotti at Piacenza, and so forth, erected their despotic dynasties. … In the Fourth class we find the principle of force still more openly at work. To it may be assigned those Condottieri who made a prey of cities at their pleasure. The illustrious Uguccione della Faggiuola, who neglected to follow up his victory over the Guelfs at Monte Catini, in order that he might cement his power in Lucca and Pisa, is an early instance of this kind of tyrant. His successor, Castruccio Castracane, the hero of Machiavelli's romance, is another. But it was not until the first half of the 15th century that professional Condottieri became powerful enough to found such kingdoms as that, for example, of Francesco Sforza at Milan. The Fifth class includes the nephews or sons of Popes. The Riario principality of Forli, the Della Rovere of Urbino, the Borgia of Romagna, the Farnese of Parma, form a distinct species of despotisms; but all these are of a comparatively late origin. Until the papacy of Sixtus IV. and Innocent VIII. the Popes had not bethought them of providing in this way for their relatives. … There remains the Sixth and last class of despots to be mentioned. This again is large and of the first importance. Citizens of eminence, like the Medici at Florence, the Bentivogli at Bologna, the Baglioni of Perugia, the Gambacorti of Pisa, like Pandolfo Petrucci in Siena (1502), Romeo Pepoli, the usurer of Bologna (1323), the plebeian Alticlinio and Agolanti of Padua (1313), acquired more than their due weight in the conduct of affairs, and gradually tended to tyranny. In most of these cases great wealth was the original source of despotic ascendancy. It was not uncommon to buy cities together with their Signory. … But personal qualities and nobility of blood might also produce despots of the Sixth class."

ITALY: A. D. 1261-1264.
   The supplanting of the Venetians by the Genoese at
   Constantinople and in the Black Sea.
   War between the Republics.

ITALY: A. D. 1273-1291.
Indifference of Rodolph of Hapsburg to his Italian dominions.
His neglect to claim the imperial crown.

ITALY: A. D. 1277-1447.
Tyranny of the Visconti at Milan.
Their domination in Lombardy and their fall.

ITALY: A. D. 1282-1293.
   War between Genoa and Pisa.
   Battle of Meloria.
   War of Florence and Lucca against Pisa.

ITALY: (Southern): A. D. 1282-1300.
   The Sicilian Vespers.
   Severance of the Two Sicilies.
   End of the House of Anjou in the insular kingdom.

   "Peter, King of Aragon, had married Constance, the daughter of
   Manfred, and laid claim to the kingdom of Sicily in her right.
   He sent for help to Michael Palaiologos, the restorer of the
   Eastern Empire. The Emperor agreed to his proposals, for his
   Empire was threatened by Charles of Anjou. These negotiations
   were, it is said, carried on through Giovanni di Procida, a
   Sicilian exile, who, as the story goes, had suffered cruel
   wrongs from the French. Charles knew something of the plans of
   the allies, and both parties were preparing for war, but
   affairs were brought to a crisis by a chance occurrence.
{1820}
   On March 30, 1282, a brutal insult was offered by a French
   soldier to a bride in the presence of her friends and
   neighbours outside the walls of Palermo, and the smothered
   hatred of the people broke out into open violence. The cry
   'Death to the French' was raised, and all who belonged to that
   nation in Palermo were slain without mercy. This massacre,
   which is called 'The Sicilian Vespers,' spread through the
   whole island; the yoke of the oppressor was broken and the
   land was delivered. Charles laid siege to Messina, but he was
   forced to retire by Peter of Aragon, who landed and was
   received as King. Pope Martin in vain excommunicated the
   rebels and their allies, and, in 1284, Charles received a
   great blow, for his son was defeated and taken prisoner by
   Roger of Loria, the Admiral of the Catalan fleet. Charles of
   Anjou died in 1286, and two years later his son, also called
   Charles, ransomed himself from prison."

Charles of Anjou "died of grief, leaving his son, the prince of Salerno, a prisoner, and Martin followed him, before he could proclaim a general crusade against the invader of the apostolic fief. Pedro, having enjoyed his two crowns to the day of his death, left them to his sons, Alphonso and James respectively, and both were excommunicated by Honorius IV. for their accession. The prince of Salerno, obtaining his release by the mediation of Edward of England, was absolved by Nicholas IV. from the conditions to which he had sworn, and crowned at Rome king of Apulia (i. e., Naples) and Sicily, A. D. 1289. His hopes of regaining the island were constantly disappointed. James, having succeeded to the crown of Arragon by the death of Alphonso, was persuaded to resign Sicily to Charles on condition of receiving his daughter in marriage, with an ample dowry. Boniface VIII. also graciously gave him leave to conquer the islands of Corsica and Sardinia, from the republics of Pisa and Genoa. The Sicilians, however, declining to be so bartered, bestowed their crown on James's brother Frederic [1295]; and though James contributed his fleet to reduce him, he retained the island throne [1300], while Charles and the pope were obliged to rest content with the continental kingdom. Their only satisfaction was to persist in calling Naples by the name of Sicily, and to stigmatise their rival as king of 'Trinacria.'"

ALSO IN: S. A. Dunham, History of Spain and Portugal, book 3, section 2, chapter 4.

"It was not the revival of antiquity alone, but its union with the genius of the Italian people, which achieved the conquest of the Western world. … The civilisation of Greece and Rome, which, ever since the fourteenth century, obtained so powerful a hold on Italian life, as the source and basis of culture, as the object and ideal of existence, partly also as an avowed reaction against preceding tendencies—this civilisation had long been exerting a partial influence on mediæval Europe, even beyond the boundaries of Italy. The culture of which Charles the Great was a representative was, in face of the barbarism of the seventh and eighth centuries, essentially a Renaissance, and could appear under no other form. … But the resuscitation of antiquity took a different form in Italy from that which it assumed in the North. The wave of barbarism had scarcely gone by before the people, in whom the former life was but half effaced, showed a consciousness of its past and a wish to reproduce it. Elsewhere in Europe men deliberately and with reflection borrowed this or the other element of classical civilisation; in Italy the sympathies both of the learned and of the people were naturally engaged on the side of antiquity as a whole, which stood to them as a symbol of past greatness. The Latin language, too, was easy to an Italian, and the numerous monuments and documents in which the country abounded facilitated a return to the past. With this tendency other elements—the popular character which time had now greatly modified, the political institutions imported by the Lombards from Germany, chivalry and other northern forms of civilisation, and the influence of religion and the Church—combined to produce the modern Italian spirit, which was destined to serve as a model and ideal for the whole western world. How antiquity began to work in plastic art, as soon as the flood of barbarism had subsided, is clearly shown in the Tuscan buildings of the twelfth and in the sculptures of the thirteenth centuries. … But the great and general enthusiasm of the Italians for classical antiquity did not display itself before the fourteenth century. For this a development of civic life was required, which took place only in Italy, and there not till then. It was needful that noble and burgher should first learn to dwell together on equal terms, and that a social world should arise which felt the want of culture, and had the leisure and the means to obtain it. But culture, as soon as it freed itself from the fantastic bonds of the Middle Ages, could not at once and without help find its way to the understanding of the physical and intellectual world. It needed a guide, and found one in the ancient civilisation, with its wealth of truth and knowledge in every spiritual interest. Both the form and the substance of this civilisation were adopted with admiring gratitude; it became the chief part of the culture of the age."

ITALY: A. D. 1305-1309.
Removal of the Papal Court to Lyons and then to Avignon.
The "Babylonish Captivity."

ITALY: A. D. 1310-1313.
   Visitation of the Emperor Henry VII.
   Hostility of Florence and siege of the city.
   Repulse from Rome.
   The Emperor's death.

   "No Emperor had come into Italy since the death of Frederic
   II. [1250]. Neither Rudolf nor his two successors [see
   GERMANY: A. D. 1273-1308] had been crowned Emperor, but on the
   death of Albert of Austria, the King of the Romans, in 1308,
   the electors chose Henry, Count of Luxemburg [Henry VII.]. In
   1310 he entered Italy with a small German army. Unlike most of
   these Imperial expeditions, this was approved of by the Pope.
{1821}
   The French King Philip IV. was really master of Pope Clement
   V., who did not live in Italy, but sometimes within the French
   kingdom, or in the English territory of Bordeaux, or in
   Avignon, a city of the Empire. But Clement did not like
   bearing the French yoke, and was fearful lest some one of
   greater talents than Charles of Valois should make an attempt
   on Italy, and make it impossible for the Pope to get free from
   the power of the French. He therefore favoured the expedition
   of King Henry, and hoped that it would revive the Ghibelin
   party and counteract the influence of the Guelfs, who were on
   the side of France. Dante tells us the feelings which were
   roused by the coming of the King. He seemed to come as God's
   vicegerent, to change the fortunes of men and bring the exiled
   home; by the majesty of his presence to bring the peace for
   which the banished poet longed, and to administer to all men
   justice; judgment and equity. Henry was worthy of these high
   hopes; for he was wise, just, and gracious, courageous in
   fight and honourable in council: but the task was too hard for
   him. At first all seemed to go well with him. The Ghibelins
   were ready to receive him as their natural lord; the Guelfs
   were inclined towards him by the Pope. In Milan the chief
   power was in the hands of Guido della Torre, the descendant of
   Pagano della Torre, who had done good service to the city
   after the battle of Corte Nuova. He was a strong Guelf, and
   was at the head of a large number of troops; for he was very
   rich. His great enemy was the Ghibelin Matteo Visconti, who
   continually struggled with Guido for the mastery. The king was
   willingly received by the Milanese, and Guido was not
   behindhand in bidding him welcome. While he was at Milan, on
   Christmas Day, 1310, he was crowned with the iron crown of the
   Italian kingdom, which was made of steel in the shape of
   laurel leaves, and studded with gems. He made both parties
   enter into an outward reconciliation, and the chiefs of both
   vied with one another in making him large presents. The King's
   need of money soon tired out the Milanese, and an insurrection
   was made in which both Matteo and Guido joined; but Matteo
   betrayed his rival, and Guido and all the Guelfs were driven
   out of Milan, which henceforth remained in the power of the
   Ghibelin Visconti [see MILAN: A. D. 1277-1447]. The King's
   demands for money made him unpopular, and each city, as he
   left it, rose against him. Pisa, and the other Tuscan enemies
   of Florence, received him with joy. But the great Guelfic city
   shut her gates against him, and made alliance with Robert, the
   Angevin King of Naples, the grandson of Charles of Anjou, and
   afterwards gave him [Robert] the signoria. Rome received a
   garrison from Naples, and the Imperial coronation had to be
   performed in the Church of St. John Lateran,"—Henry being
   repulsed in an attempt to force his entrance to the quarter of
   the Vatican.

"The city [of Rome] was divided in feeling, and the emperor's position so precarious that he retired to Tivoli at the end of August, and moved towards Tuscany, ravaging the Perugian territory on his way, being determined to bring Florence and all her allies to submission." By rapid movements he reached Florence and invested the city before his intentions were understood. "A sudden assault would probably have carried the city, for the inhabitants were taken by surprise, were in a state of consternation, and could scarcely believe that the emperor was there in person: their natural energy soon returned, the Gonfaloniers assembled their companies, the whole population armed themselves, even to the bishop and clergy; a camp was formed within the walls, the outer ditch palisaded, the gates closed, and thus for two days they remained hourly expecting an assault. At last their cavalry [which had been cut off by the emperor's movement] were seen returning by various ways and in small detachments; succours also poured in from Lucca, Prato, Pistoia, Volterra, Colle, and San Gimignano; and even Bologna, Rimini, Ravenna, Faenza, Cesina, Agobbio, Città di Castello with several other places rendered their assistance: indeed so great and extensive was Florentine influence and so rapid the communication, that within eight days after the investment 4,000 men at arms and innumerable infantry were assembled at Florence! As this was about double the imperial cavalry and four times its infantry, the city gates were thrown open and business proceeded as usual, except through that entrance immediately opposite to the enemy. For two and forty days did the emperor remain within a mile of Florence, ravaging all the country, but making no impression on the town; after which he raised the siege and moved to San Casciano, eight miles south." Later, the Imperialist army was withdrawn to Poggibonzi, and in March, 1313, it was moved to Pisa, to prepare for a new campaign. "The Florentines had thus from the first, without much military skill or enterprise, proved themselves the boldest and bitterest enemies of Henry; their opposition had never ceased; by letters, promises, and money, they corrupted all Lombardy. … Yet party quarrels did not cease. … The emperor now turned all his energies to the conquest of Naples, as the first step towards that of Italy itself. For this he formed a league with Sicily and Genoa; assembled troops from Germany and Lombardy; filled his treasury in various ways, and soon found himself at the head of 2,500 German cavalry and 1,500 Italian men-at-arms, besides a Genoese fleet of 70 galleys under Lamba Doria and 50 more supplied by the King of Sicily, who with 1,000 men-at-arms had already invaded Calabria by capturing Reggio and other places." On the 5th of August, the emperor left Pisa upon his expedition against Naples; on the 24th of the same month he died at Buonconvento —not without suspicions of poison, although his illness began before his departure from Pisa. "The intelligence of this event spread joy and consternation amongst his friends and enemies; the army soon separated, and his own immediate followers with the Pisan auxiliaries carried his body back to Pisa where it was magnificently interred."

ALSO IN: T. A. Trollope, History of the Commonwealth of Florence, book 2, chapter 7 (volume 1).

ITALY: A. D. 1312-1338.
The rising power and the reverses of the Scaligeri of Verona.
Mastino's war with Florence and Venice.

ITALY: A. D. 1313-1330.
   Guelf leadership of King Robert of Naples.
   Wars of Pisa and Florence.
   The rise and threatening power of Castruccio Castracani.
   Siege of Genoa.
   Visit of the Emperor Louis of Bavaria.
   Subjection and deliverance of Pisa.

"While the unexpected death of Henry VII. deprived the Ghibelin party of its leader, and long wars between rival candidates for the succession to the German throne placed the imperial authority over Italy in abeyance [see GERMANY: A. D. 1314-1347], Robert, king of Naples, the chief of the Guelf party, the possessor of Provence, and the favourite of the church, began to aspire to the general sovereignty of Italy. He had succeeded to the crowns of Naples and Provence on the death of his father, Charles II., in opposition to the recognized laws of inheritance (A. D. 1309). His elder brother, Charles Martel, by his marriage with the heiress of Hungary, had been called to the throne of that kingdom, and had died before his father. His son, Carobert, the reigning king of Hungary, on the death of his grandfather, Charles II., asserted his just rights to all the dominions of that monarch; but Robert, hastening to Avignon, whither Clement V. had now removed his court, obtained from the pope, as feudal superior of the royal fief of Naples, a sentence which set aside the claims of his nephew in his own favour. The king of Hungary did not seriously attempt to oppose this decision, and Robert, a prince of wisdom and address, though devoid of military talents, soon extended his ambitious views beyond the kingdom over which he reigned undisturbed." The death of Henry VII. "left him every opportunity both to attempt the subjugation of the Ghibelin states, and to convert his alliance with the Guelfs into the relation of sovereign and subject. … It was in Tuscany that the storm first broke over the Ghibelins after the loss of their imperial chief, and that the first ray of success unexpectedly beamed on their cause. Florence and the other Guelf cities of the province were no sooner delivered from the fear of Henry VII. than they prepared to wreak their vengeance against Pisa for the succours which she had furnished to the emperor. But that republic, in consternation at her danger, had taken into pay 1,000 German cavalry, the only part of the imperial army which could be prevailed upon to remain in Italy, and had chosen for her general Uguccione della Faggiuola, a celebrated Ghibelin captain. The ability of this commander, and the confidence with which he inspired the Pisans, turned the tide of fortune. … The vigour of his arms reduced the Guelf people of Lucca to sue for peace; they were compelled to restore their Ghibelin exiles; and then Uguccione, fomenting the dissensions which were thus created within the walls, easily subjected one of the most wealthy and flourishing cities of Tuscany to his sword (A. D. 1314). The loss of so valuable an ally as Lucca alarmed the Florentines, and the whole Guelf party. … King Robert sent two of his brothers into Tuscany with a body of gens-d'armerie; the Florentines and all the Tuscan Guelfs uniting their forces to this succour formed a large army; and the confederates advanced to relieve the castle of Montecatini which Uguccione was besieging." The Ghibelin commander had a much smaller force to resist them with; but he gained, notwithstanding, "a memorable victory, near Montecatini, in which both a brother and a nephew of the king of Naples were numbered with the slain (A. D. 1315). This triumph rendered Uguccione more formidable than ever; but his tyranny became insupportable both to the Pisans and Lucchese, and a conspiracy was formed in concert in both cities. … Excluded from both places and deserted by his troops, he retired to the court of the Scala at Verona (A. D. 1316). So Pisa recovered her liberty, but Lucca was less fortunate or wise, for her citizens only transferred the power which Uguccione had usurped to the chief of the Ghibelins. Castruccio Castracani degl' Interminelli, one of the most celebrated names in Italian history. This extraordinary man … had early in life shared the common fate of exile with the White Guelfs or Ghibelins of Lucca. Passing ten years of banishment in England, France, and the Ghibelin cities of Lombardy, he had served a long apprenticeship to arms under the best generals of the age. … He had no sooner returned to Lucca with the Ghibelin exiles, who were restored by the terms of the peace with Pisa, than he became the first citizen of the state. His skill and courage mainly contributed to the subsequent victory of Montecatini, and endeared him to the Lucchese; his influence and intrigues excited the jealousy of Uguccione, and caused his imprisonment; and the insurrection which delivered Lucca from that chief, liberated Castruccio from chains and impending death to sovereign command. Chosen annual captain of the people at three successive, elections, he at length demanded and obtained the suffrages of the senate and citizens for his elevation to the dignity of signor (A. D. 1320): … Under his government Lucca enjoyed repose for some years. … During these transactions in Tuscany, the Lombard plains were still desolated by incessant and unsparing warfare. The efforts of the Neapolitan king were mainly directed to crush Matteo Visconti [see MILAN: A. D. 1277-1447] and the Ghibelins in this part of Italy;" but the power of the latter was continually spreading. "In this prosperous state of the Ghibelin interests the domestic feuds of Genoa attracted the tide of war to her gates. The ambitious rivalry of her four great families, of the Grimaldi, the Fieschi, the Spinola, and the Doria, had long agitated the bosom of the republic; and at the period before us the two former, who headed the Guelf party, had, after various convulsions, gained possession of the government. The Spinola and Doria, retiring from the city, fortified themselves in the smaller towns of the Genoese territory, and immediately invited the Ghibelin chiefs of Lombardy to their aid. The lords of Milan and Verona promptly complied with the demand, … and laid siege to the capital. The rulers of Genoa could then resort in their terror to no other protection than that of the Neapolitan king. Robert, conscious of the importance of preserving the republic from subjection to his enemies, hastened by sea to its defence, and obtained the absolute cession of the Genoese liberties into his hands for ten years as the price of his services. … After the possession of the suburbs and outworks of Genoa had been obstinately contested during ten months, the Ghibelins were compelled to raise the siege. But Robert had scarcely quitted the city to pass into Provence, when the exiles with aid from Lombardy again approached Genoa, and during four years continued a war of posts in its vicinity. {1823} But neither the Lombard signors nor Robert engaged in this fruitless contest, and Lombardy again became the great theatre of warfare." But the power which Matteo Visconti was steadily building at Milan, for his family, could not be shaken, even though an invasion from France (1320), and a second from Germany (1322), was brought about through papal influence. At the same time Castruccio Castracani, having consolidated his despotism at Lucca, was making war upon the Florentines. When, in 1325, he succeeded in gaining possession of the Guelf city of Pistoia, "this acquisition, which was highly dangerous to Florence, produced such alarm in that republic that she called out her whole native force for the more vigorous prosecution of the war." Castruccio was heavily outnumbered in the campaign, but he gained, nevertheless, a great victory over the Florentines near the castle of Altopascio (November 23, 1325). "The whole Florentine territory was ravaged and plundered, and the conqueror carried his insults to the gates of the capital. … In the ruin which threatened the Guelf party in Tuscany, the Florentines had recourse to King Robert of Naples, with entreaties for aid," which he brought to them in 1326, but only on the condition "that his absolute command over the republic, which had expired in 1321, should be renewed for ten years in favour of his son Charles, duke of Calabria." But now a new danger to the Guelf interests appeared, in the approach of the emperor, Louis IV. of Bavaria. "After a long contest for the crown of Henry VII., Louis of Bavaria had triumphed over his rival, Frederic of Austria, and taken him prisoner at the sanguinary battle of Muhldorf, in 1322. Having since passed five years in confirming his authority in Germany, Louis was now tempted by ambition and cupidity to undertake an expedition into Italy (A. D. 1327)." Halting for some time at Milan, where he received the iron crown of Lombardy, and where he deposed and imprisoned Galeazzo Visconti, he proceeded into Tuscany "on his march to Rome, where he intended to receive the imperial crown. He was welcomed with joy by the signor of Lucca, and the superior genius of Castruccio at once acquired the entire ascendant over the weaker mind of Louis. Against the united forces of the emperor and of Castruccio, the duke of Calabria and his Guelf army cautiously maintained themselves on the defensive; but the passage of Louis through Tuscany was attended with disastrous consequences to the most famous Ghibelin city of that province." Pisa, notwithstanding the long fidelity of that republic to the Ghibelin cause, was sacrificed by the emperor to the covetous ambition of Castruccio. The forces of the two were joined in a siege to which the unfortunate city submitted after a month. "She thus fell in reality into the hands of Castruccio, who shortly established his absolute authority over her capital and territory. After extorting a heavy contribution from the Pisans, and rewarding the services of Castruccio by erecting the state of Lucca into an imperial duchy in his favour, the rapacious emperor pursued his march to Rome. There he consumed in the frivolous ceremony of his coronation [January 17, 1328], and in the vain endeavour to establish an antipope, the time which he might have employed, with the forces at his command, and in conjunction with Frederic, king of Sicily, in crushing for ever the power of Robert of Naples and of all the Guelfs of Italy who depended on that monarch." In August of the same year Castruccio, who "had now attained an elevation which seemed to threaten … the total subjugation of all Italy," died suddenly of a fever. "Florence breathed again from impending oppression, Pisa recovered her freedom, and Lucca sank from ephemeral splendour into lasting obscurity. By the death of Castruccio the emperor had lost his best counsellor and firmest support, and he soon ceased to be formidable to the Guelfs. … Hastily returning into Tuscany, he plundered the infant orphans of Castruccio of their inheritance to sell Lucca to a new signor, and to impose ruinous contributions upon the Pisans, before his return into Lombardy delivered them from tyranny. … The first proceeding of Louis in Lombardy had been to ruin the Visconti, and to drain their states of money: almost his last act in the province was to make the restoration of this family to power a new source of profit." In 1330 the emperor returned to Germany, recalled by troubles in that part of his dominions.

ITALY: A. D. 1314-1327.
The election and contest of rival emperors, Louis of Bavaria
and Frederick of Austria.

ITALY: A. D. 1341-1343.
Defeat of the Florentines by the Pisans, before Lucca.
Brief tyranny of the Duke of Athens at Florence.

ITALY: (Southern): A. D. 1343-1389.
   Troubled reign of Joanna I. in Naples.
   Murder of her husband, Andrew of Hungary.
   Political effects of the great Schism in the Church.
   The war of Charles of Durazzo and Louis of Anjou.
   Violent course of Pope Urban VI.

"In Naples itself the house of Anjou fell into disunion. Charles II. of Naples gained by marriage the dowry of Hungary [see HUNGARY: A. D. 1301-1342], which passed to his eldest son Charles Martel, while his second son, Robert, ruled in Naples. But Robert survived his only son, and left as heiress of the kingdom [1343] his grand-daughter Giovanna [better known as Joan, or Joanna]. The attempt to give stability to the rule of a female by marriage with her cousin, Andrew of Hungary, only aroused the jealousy of the Neapolitan nobles and raised up a strong party in opposition to Hungarian influence. Charles II. of Naples, Giovanna's great-grand-father, had left many sons and daughters, whose descendants of the great houses of Durazzo and Tarento, like those of the sons of Edward III. in England, hoped to exercise the royal power. When, in 1845, Pope Clement VI. was on the point of recognising Andrew as King of Naples, a conspiracy was formed against him, and he was murdered, with the connivance, as it was currently believed, of the Queen. Hereon the feuds in the kingdom blazed forth more violently than before; the party of Durazzo ranged itself against that of Tarento, and demanded punishment of the murderers; Giovanna I., to protect herself, married Lewis of Tarento in 1347. King Lewis of Hungary, aided by the party of Durazzo, entered Naples to avenge his brother's death, and for a while all was confusion. On the death of Lewis of Tarento (1362), Giovanna I. married James, King of Majorca, and on his death (1374), Otto, Duke of Brunswick. {1824} Giovanna I. was childless, and the slight lull which in the last years had come over the war of factions in Naples was only owing to the fact that all were preparing for the inevitable conflict which her death would bring." Neapolitan affairs were at this stage when the great schism occurred (see PAPACY; A. D. 1377-1417), which enthroned two rival popes, one (Urban VI.) at Rome, and one (Clement VII.) at Avignon. Queen Giovanna had inclined first to Urban, but was repelled, and gave her adhesion to Clement. Thereupon, Urban, on the 21st of April, 1380, "declared her deposed from her throne as a heretic, schismatic, and traitor to the Pope. He looked for help in carrying out his decree to King Lewis of Hungary, who had for a time laid aside his desire for vengeance against Giovanna, but was ready to resume his plans of aggrandisement when a favourable opportunity offered. … Lewis was not himself disposed to leave his kingdom; but he had at his court the son of his relative, Lewis of Durazzo, whom he had put to death in his Neapolitan campaign for complicity in Andrew's murder. Yet he felt compassion for his young son Charles, brought him to Hungary, and educated him at his court. As Giovanna was childless, Charles of Durazzo, or Carlo della Pace, as he was called in Italy, had a strong claim to the Neapolitan throne at her death." Charles of Durazzo was accordingly furnished with Hungarian troops for an expedition against Naples, and reached Rome in November, 1380. "Clement VII. on his side bestirred himself in behalf of his ally Giovanna, and for this purpose could count on the help of France. Failing the house of Durazzo, the house of Valois could put forward a claim to the Neapolitan throne, as being descended from the daughter of Charles II. The helpless Giovanna I. in her need adopted as her heir and successor Louis, Duke of Anjou, brother of the French king, and called him to her aid. Clement VII. hastened to confer on Louis everything that he could; he even formed the States of the Church into a kingdom of Adria, and bestowed them on Louis; only Rome itself, and the adjacent lands in Tuscany, Campania Maritima, and Sabina were reserved for the Pope. The Avignonese pretender was resolved to show how little he cared for Italy or for the old traditions of the Italian greatness of his office. Charles of Durazzo was first in the field, for Louis of Anjou was detained in France by the death of Charles V. in September, 1380. The accession of Charles VI. at the age of twelve threw the government of the kingdom upon the Council of Regency, of which Louis of Anjou was the chief member. He used his position to gratify his chief failing, avarice, and gathered large sums of money for his Neapolitan campaign. Meanwhile Charles of Durazzo was in Rome, where Urban VI. equipped him for his undertaking." In June, 1381, Charles marched against Naples, defeated Otto, the husband of Giovanna, at San Germano, and had the gates of Naples opened to him by a rising within the city on the 16th of July. Giovanna took refuge in the Castel Nuovo, but surrendered it on the 26th of August. After nine months of captivity, the unfortunate queen was "strangled in her prison on May 12, 1382, and her corpse was exposed for six days before burial that the certainty of her death might be known to all. Thenceforth the question between Charles III. and Louis was not complicated by any considerations of Giovanna's rights. It was a struggle of two dynasties for the Neapolitan crown, a struggle which was to continue for the next century. Crowned King of Naples by Clement VII., Louis of Anjou quitted Avignon at the end of May, accompanied by a brilliant array of French barons and knights. He hastened through North Italy, and disappointed the hopes of the fervent partisans of Clement VII. by pursuing his course over Aquila, through the Abruzzi, and refusing to turn aside to Rome, which, they said, he might have occupied, seized Urban VI., and so ended the Schism. When he entered the territory of Naples he soon received large accessions to his forces from discontented barons, while 22 galleys from Provence occupied Ischia and threatened Naples." Charles, having inferior forces, could not meet his adversary in the field, but showed great tactical skill, acting on the defensive, "cutting off supplies, and harassing his enemy by unexpected sallies. The French troops perished miserably from the effects of the climate; … Louis saw his splendid army rapidly dwindling away." But quarrels now arose between Charles and Pope Urban; the latter went to Naples to interfere in affairs; the King made him practically a prisoner and extorted from him agreements which were not to his liking. But Urban, on the 1st of January, 1384, "proclaimed a crusade against Louis as a heretic and schismatic, and Charles unfurled the banner of the Cross." In May the Pope withdrew from Naples to Nocera, and there began a series of interferences which convinced Charles "that Urban was a more serious adversary than Louis." With the summer came attacks of the plague upon both armies; but that of Louis suffered most, and Louis himself died, in September, bequeathing his claims on Naples to his eldest son. "On the death of Louis the remnant of his army dispersed, and Charles was free from one antagonist. … War was now declared between the Pope and the King. … Charles found adherents amongst Urban's Cardinals." Urban discovered the plots of the latter and threw six of them into a dungeon, where he tortured them with brutality. Charles attacked Nocera and took the town, but the castle in which the Pope had fortified himself resisted a long siege. "Three or four times a day the dauntless Pope appeared at a window, and with bell and torch cursed and excommunicated the besieging army." In August, 1385, Urban was rescued by some of his partisans, who broke through the camp of the besiegers and carried him off, still clinging to his captive cardinals, all but one of whom he subsequently put to death. He made his way to Trani and was there met by Genoese galleys which conveyed him and his party to Genoa. He resided in Genoa rather more than a year, very much to the discomfort and expense of the Genoese, and then, after much difficulty, found shelter at Lucca until September, 1387. Meantime Charles III. had left Naples, returning to Hungary to head a revolt against the widowed queen and young daughter of Lewis, who died in 1382. There he was assassinated in February, 1386. "The death of Charles III. again plunged the kingdom of Naples into confusion. The Angevin party, which had been powerless against Charles, raised against his son Ladislas, a boy of twelve years old, the claims of Louis II. of Anjou. {1825} The exactions of the Queen Regent Margaret awoke dissatisfaction, and led to the appointment in Naples of a new civic magistracy, called the Otto di Buono Stato, who were at variance with Margaret. The Angevins rallied under Tommaso of Sanseverino, and were reinforced by the arrival of Otto of Brunswick. The cause of Louis was still identified with that of Clement VII., who, in May 1385, had solemnly invested him with the kingdom of Naples. Urban VI., however, refused to recognise the claims of the son of Charles, though Margaret tried to propitiate him … and though Florence warmly supported her prayers for help." The Pope continued obstinate in this refusal until his death. He declared that the kingdom of Naples had lapsed to the Holy See, and he tried to gather money and troops for an expedition to secure it. As a means to that end, he ordered that the year 1390 should be a year of jubilee—a decade before the end of the century. It was his last desperate measure to obtain money. On the 15th of October 1389 he died and one of the most disastrous pontificates in the history of the Papacy came to an end.

      M. Creighton,
      History of the Papacy during the Period of the Reformation,
      book 1, chapter 1 (volume 1).

ITALY: A. D. 1343-1393.
   The "Free Companies."
   Their depredations and the wars employing them.
   The Great Company.
   The Company of Sir John Hawkwood.

"The practice of hiring troops to fight the battles of the Commonwealth [of Florence—but in other Italian states no less] had for some time past been continually on the increase. … The demand for these mercenary troops,—a demand which … preferred strangers from beyond the Alps,—had filled Italy with bands of free lances, ready to take service with any tyrant, or any free city that was willing to pay them. They passed from one service to another, and from one side of a quarrel to the other, with the utmost indifference and impartiality. But from this manner of life to setting up for themselves and warring for their own behoof there was but one step. And no prudent man could have doubted that this step would ere long be taken. Every circumstance of the age and country combined to invite and facilitate it. … Already, immediately after the fall of the Duke of Athens [at Florence, 1343], a German adventurer, one Werner, known in Italian history as the Duke Guarnieri, had induced a large number of the hired troops, who were then 'unattached' in Italy, mainly those dismissed at that time from the service of Pisa, to form themselves into an independent company and recognize him as their leader. With equal effrontery and accuracy this ruffian styled himself 'The enemy of God, of Pity, and of Mercy.' … This gang of bandits numbered more than 2,000 horsemen. Their first exploit was to threaten the city of Siena. Advancing through the Sienese territory towards the city, plundering, killing, and burning indiscriminately as they went, they inspired so sudden and universal a terror that the city was glad to buy them off with a sum of 12,000 florins. From the Sienese territory they passed to that of Arezzo, and thence to the district around Perugia; and then turning towards the Adriatic, overran Romagna, and the Rimini country, then governed by the Malatesat family. It is difficult adequately to describe, or even to conceive the sufferings, the destruction, the panic, the horror, which marked the track of such a body of miscreants." Finally, by the skilful management of the Lord of Bologna, the company was bought up and sent across the Alps, out of Italy, in detachments. "The relief was obtained in a manner which was sure to operate as an encouragement to the formation of other similar bands. And now, after the proclamation of the peace between Florence and the Visconti, on the 1st of April, 1353, … the experiment which had answered so well in the hands of the German 'Enemy to God and to Mercy,' was repeated on a larger scale by a French Knight Hospitaller of the name of Montreal, known in Italian history as Frà Moriale. … Being out of place, it occurred to him to collect all the fighting men in Italy who were similarly circumstanced, and form an independent company after the example of Guarnieri, with the avowed purpose of living by plunder and brigandage. He was so successful that he collected in a very short time 1,500 men-at-arms and 2,000 foot soldiers; who were subsequently increased to 5,000 cavaliers and 7,000 infantry; and this band was known as 'the Great Company.'" There was an attempt made, at first, to combine Florence, Siena and Perugia, with the Romagna, in resistance to the marauders; but it failed. "The result was that the Florentines were obliged to buy off the terrible Frà Moriale with a bribe of 28,000 florins, and Pisa with one of 16,000. … The chief … after Frà Moriale himself, was one Conrad, Count of Lando; and under him the Company marched towards Lombardy in search of fresh booty, while Moriale himself, remaining temporarily behind, went to Rome to confer privately, as it was believed, with the Colonna chiefs, respecting a project of employing his band against Rienzi, the tribune. But whether such was the object of his journey to Rome or not, it was fatal to the brigand chief. For Rienzi no sooner knew that the notorious Frà Moriale was within his jurisdiction than he arrested him, and summarily ordered him to execution as a common malefactor. The death of the chief, however, did not put an end to 'the Great Company'; for Conrad of Lando remained, and succeeded to the command of it." From 1356 to 1359, Italy in different parts was preyed upon by 'the Great Company,' sometimes in the service of the league of the lesser Lombard princes against the Visconti of Milan, and once in the employ of Siena against Perugia; but generally marauding on their own account, independently. Florence, alone, stood out in resistance to their exactions, and finally sent into the field against them 2,000 men-at-arms, all tried troops, 500 Hungarians: and 2,500 cross-bowmen, besides the native troops of the city. Subsequently the Florentine forces were joined by others from Milan, Padua, and elsewhere. The bandits marched all around the Florentine frontier, with much bluster, making great threats, but constantly evading an engagement. At length, on the 20th of July, 1359, the two armies were in such a position that "it was thought in the Florentine camp that a decisive battle would be fought on the morrow. But when that July morning dawned, Lando and his bandit host were already in full march northwards towards Genoa, with a precipitation that had all the appearance of flight. … 'The Great Company never again dared to show its face in Tuscany.'"

T. A. Trollope, History of the Commonwealth of Florence, book 3, chapter 6 (volume 2).

"Another company, consisting principally of Englishmen [lately turned loose in France by the Peace of Bretigny, 1360, which terminated the invasion of Edward III.], was brought into Italy at a somewhat later period by the Marquis of Montferrat. … About the same time another, composed principally of Germans, and commanded by Amichino Baumgarten, was raised by Galeazzo Visconti, and afterwards employed by the Pisans. Another, entitled that of St. George, was formed by Ambrose, the natural son of Bernabos Visconti, and let loose by him on the territories of Perugia and Sienna. Thus, at the end of the 14th century, Italy was devastated at one and the same time by these four companies of adventurers, or, as they might more justly be called, professional robbers. … Of all these companies, the military reputation of the English was undoubtedly the greatest—a circumstance which may be ascribed, in some degree, to the physical superiority of the men, but still more to the talents of Sir John Hawkwood, by whom they were commanded."

W. P. Urquhart, Life and Times of Francesco Sforza, book 2, chapter 1 (volume 1).

One of the marauding companies left in France after the Peace of Bretigny, and which afflicted that wretched country so sorely (see FRANCE: A. D. 1360-1380), was called the White Company, and Sir John Hawkwood was one of its commanders. "The White Company crossed into Lombardy, under the command of one Albaret, and took service under the Marquis of Montferrat, then at war with the Duke of Milan. Hawkwood [called Giovanni Aguto by the Italians] entered the Pisan service, and next year, when the marquis, being unable to maintain his English troops, disbanded them, the Pisans engaged them, and gave Hawkwood the command." Hawkwood and his company served Pisa, in war with Florence, until 1364, when they experienced a great defeat, which led to peace and their discharge. During the next three years they lived as independent freebooters, the territories of Siena suffering most from their depredations. Then they took service with Bernabo Visconti, Lord of Milan, making war for him on Florence and its allies; but very soon their arms were turned against Milan, and they were fighting in the pay of Florence and the Pope. "Within the next five years he changed sides twice. He served Galeazzo Visconti against the Papal States; and then, brought back to fight for Holy Church, defeated his late employer in two pitched battles." After this, when the league against an aggressive and ambitious pontiff extended, and Florence, Bologna and other cities joined Milan, Hawkwood took money from both at the same time, and cheated both, preliminarily to fighting each in turn. While serving the Pope his ruffians wantonly destroyed the captured town of Casena, massacring between 4,000 and 5,000 people, women and children included. In 1378, when Gregory XI. died, peace followed, and Hawkwood's company resumed its old freebooting. In 1381 he was engaged in the Neapolitan civil war. In 1387 he seems to have become permanently engaged in the service of Florence against the Duke of Milan. "In 1391, Florence concluded a general peace with all her enemies. Her foreign auxiliaries were dismissed, with the exception or Sir John Hawkwood and 1,000 men. Hawkwood henceforth remained in her service till his death, which took place on the 6th of March, 1393. He was buried at the public expense, as a valiant servant of the State."

ITALY: A. D. 1352-1378.
Subjugation and revolt of the States of the Church.
War of the Pope with Florence.

ITALY: A. D. 1378-1427.
   The democratizing of Florence.
   Tumult of the Ciompi.
   First appearance of the Medici.

ITALY: A. D. 1379-1381.
Final triumph of Venice over Genoa in the War of Chioggia.

ITALY: (Southern): A. D. 1386-1414.
   Renewed Civil War in Naples.
   Defeat of the Angevins and triumph of Ladislas.
   His ambitious career.
   His capture and recapture of Rome.

   "The death of Charles III. involved the kingdom of Naples in
   the most ruinous anarchy; and delivered it for many years a
   prey to all the disorders of a long minority and a disputed
   throne. Charles had left two children, Ladislaus, a boy of ten
   years old, and a daughter, Joanna; and his widow Margaret
   acted as regent for her son. On the other hand, the
   Sanseverini and other baronial families, rallying the Angevin
   party, proclaimed the young son of the late duke of Anjou
   king,—also under the guardianship of his mother, Maria,—by
   the title of Louis II. Thus Naples was disturbed by the rival
   pretensions of two boys, placed beneath the guidance of
   ambitious and intriguing mothers, and severally protected by
   two popes, who excommunicated each other, and laboured to
   crush the minors whom they respectively opposed, only that
   they might establish their own authority over the party which
   they supported. … For several years the Angevin party seemed
   to maintain the ascendancy. Louis II. was withheld in Provence
   from the scene of danger by his mother; but the barons who had
   raised his standard, forcing Margaret of Durazzo and the
   adherents of her son to retire to Greta, possessed themselves
   of the capital and great part of the kingdom. When Louis II.,
   therefore, was at length suffered by his mother to appear at
   Naples, attended by a powerful fleet and a numerous train of
   the warlike nobles of France (A. D. 1390), he disembarked at
   the capital amidst the acclamations of his people, and would
   probably have overpowered the party of Durazzo with ease, if,
   as he advanced towards manhood, he had displayed any energy of
   character. But he proved very unequal, by his indolence and
   love of pleasure, to contend with the son of Charles III.
   Educated in the midst of alarms and danger, and surrounded
   from his infancy by civil wars and conspiracies, Ladislaus had
   early been exercised in courageous enterprise, and trained to
   intrigue and dissimulation.
{1827}
   At the age of 16, his mother Margaret committed him to the
   barons of her party to make his first essay in arms; and from
   this period he was ever at the head of his troops. … A
   fortunate marriage, which his mother had effected for him with
   Constance di Clermont, the heiress of the most opulent noble
   of Sicily, increased his resources by an immense dowry; and
   while he made an able use of these riches [meanly and
   heartlessly divorcing the wife who brought them to him, when
   they had been spent], the new Italian pope, Boniface IX., the
   successor of Urban VI., recognized him for the legitimate son
   and vassal of the church, because Louis was supported by the
   Avignon pontiff. This decision gained him many partizans; …
   his talents and valour hourly advanced his success; and at
   last the Sanseverini and all the barons of the Angevin party,
   following the tide of fortune, went over to his standards, and
   opened to him the gates of Naples (A. D. 1399). Louis …
   retired by sea to his Provençal dominions, and finally
   abandoned the kingdom of Naples. Ladislaus, having thus
   triumphed over his sluggish antagonist, had leisure to
   consolidate his stern authority over the licentious and
   turbulent feudal aristocracy of his kingdom. … He …
   crushed the Sanseverini and other great families, whose power
   might make them dangerous; and having rooted out the seeds of
   all resistance to his sway in his own dominions, he prepared
   to direct his vigorous ambition to schemes of foreign
   conquest."

Until the death of Pope Boniface IX., Ladislas supported that pontiff through the hard struggle in which he crushed the rebellious Colonna and made himself master of the city of Rome. But when Boniface died, in 1404, the Neapolitan king began to scheme for bringing the ancient capital and the possessions of the Church under his own control. "His plan was to set the Pope [the newly elected Innocent, VII.] and the Roman people against one another, and by helping now one and now the other to get them both into his power. … He trusted that the rebellious Romans would drive the Pope from the city, and would then be compelled to submit to himself." He had entered Rome, four days after the papal election, ostensibly as a mediator between the rival factions, and between the Pope and the Roman people; and he was easily able to bring about an arrangement which gave him every opportunity for interference and for turning circumstances to his own advantage. Events soon followed as he had expected them, and as he helped, through his agents, to guide them. The turbulence of the people increased, until, in 1405, the Pope was driven to flight. "No sooner had the Pope left Rome than Giovanni Colonna, at the head of his troops, burst into the Vatican, where he took up his quarters. … The Vatican was sacked; even the Papal archives were pillaged, and Bulls, letters and registers were scattered about the streets. Many of these were afterwards restored, but the loss of historic documents must have been great." Ladislas now thought his time for seizing Rome was come; but when he sent 5,000 horse to join the Colonna, the Romans took alarm, repelled the Neapolitan troops, and called back the Pope, who returned in January, 1406, but who died in the following November. Under the next Pope, Gregory XII., there were negotiations with Avignon for the ending of the great schism; and all the craft of Ladislas was exerted to defeat that purpose; because a reunion of western Christendom would not be favorable to his designs. At last, a conference of the rival popes was arranged, to take place at Savona, near Genoa, and in August, 1407, Gregory XII. left Rome, moving slowly northwards, but finding reasons, equally with his competitor, for never presenting himself at the appointed meeting-place. In his absence the disorders of Rome increased, and when Ladislas, in April, 1408; appeared before the city with an army of 12,000 horse and as many foot, it was surrendered to him without resistance. "The craft of Ladislas had gained its end, and the temporal power of the Papacy had passed into his hands. … So utterly had the prestige of Rome, the memories of her glories, passed away from men's minds, that her sister republic of Florence could send and congratulate Ladislas on the triumphal victory which God and his own manhood had given him in the city of Rome." When, in 1408, the disgusted cardinals of both papal courts joined in calling a general Council of the Church, to meet at Pisa the following year, Ladislas threatened to prevent it. By this time "Gregory had sank to the lowest pitch of degradation: he sold to Ladislas for the small sum of 25,000 florins the entire States of the Church, and even Rome itself. After this bargain Ladislas set out for Rome, intending to proceed into Tuscany and break up the Council." Early in April, 1409, he marched northwards and threatened Siena. But Florence had now undertaken the defense of the Council, and resisted him so effectually that the meeting at Pisa was undisturbed. The immediate result of the Council was the election of a third claimant of the Papacy, Alexander V. (see PAPACY: A. D. 1377-1417). Around the new Pope a league was now formed which embraced Florence, Siena, and Louis of Anjou, whose claim upon Naples was revived. The league made an attempt on Rome in the autumn of 1409, and failed; but the following January the Neapolitans were expelled and the city was occupied by the papal forces. In May, 1410, Alexander V. died, and was succeeded by Baldassare Cossa, who took the name of John XXIII. The new Pope hastened to identify his cause with Louis of Anjou, and succeeded, by his energy, in putting into the field an army which comprised the four chief "condottieri" in Italy, with their veteran followers. Ladislas was attacked and routed completely at Rocca Secca, on the 19th of May, 1411. But the worthlessness of Louis and the mercenary character of his generals made the victory of no effect. Ladislas bought over the best of the troops and their leaders, and before the end of summer Louis was back in Provence, again abandoning his Neapolitan claims. Ladislas made peace, first, with Florence, by selling Cortona to that city, and then with the Pope, who recognized him as king, not only of Naples, but of Sicily as well. But Ladislas was only gaining time by these treaties. In June, 1413, he drove the Pope from Rome, and his troops again occupied the city. He seemed to be now well prepared for realizing his ambition to found an extended Italian kingdom; but his career was cut short by a mortal disease, which ended his life on the 6th of August, 1414.

      M. Creighton,
      History of the Papacy during the Period of the Reformation,
      book 1, chapters 3-8 (volume 1).

ITALY: A. D. 1390-1402.
Resistance of Florence to the spreading tyranny of the Duke of
Milan.

ITALY: A. D. 1391-1451.
Extension of the Italian dominions of the House of Savoy.

ITALY: A. D. 1402-1406.
   The crumbling of the Visconti dominion.
   Aggrandizement of Venice.
   Florentine purchase and conquest of Pisa.
   Decline of that city.

"The little states of Romagna, which had for the most part been conquered by Gian-Galeazzo [Visconti, Duke of Milan], were at his death [1402] overrun by the Count of Barbiano, who with his famous company entered the service of Pope Boniface IX. … The Count of Savoy, the Marquess of Montferrat, and the lords of Padua, Ferrara, and Mantua, were the only independent Sovereigns in North Italy in 1402. Of these Francesco, lord of Padua, was soon to fall. On the death of Gian-Galeazzo he seized on Verona. Venice would not allow her old enemy to gain this advantage, and made alliance with Francesco di Gonzaga, lord of Mantua, and with his help took Verona, and closely besieged Padua. After a gallant resistance Francesco da Carrara was forced to yield, and he and his two sons were taken prisoners to Venice, and were there strangled by order of the Council of Ten. This war gave the Venetians great power on the mainland. They reconquered Treviso, and gained Feltro, Verona [1405], Vicenza, and Padua [1405], and from this time Venice became an Italian power. In Tuscany, the death of her great enemy delivered Florence from her distress, and Siena, which now regained her liberty, placed herself under her protection. Pisa [which had been betrayed to Gian-Galeazzo in 1399] had been left to Gabriello Visconti, a bastard son of the late Duke. He put himself under the protection of Jean Boucicault, who governed Genoa for Charles VI., King of France, and with his consent he sold Pisa to the Florentines. The Pisans resisted this sacrifice of their freedom, and the war lasted a year, but in 1406 the city was forced to surrender. Many of the people left their homes; for, though Florence acted fairly towards her old enemy and new subject, yet the Pisans could not bear the yoke, and the greatness of the city, its trade and its wealth, vanished away."

"From that day to this it [Pisa] has never recovered,—not its former greatness, wealth, and energy,—but even sufficient vitality to arrest it on the downward course. … Of the two great political tendencies which were then disputing the world between them it made itself the champion and the symbol of the losing one. Pisa went down in the world together with the feudalism and Ghibellinism with which it was identified."

T. A. Trollope, History of the Commonwealth of Florence, book 4, chapter 6 (volume 2).

ALSO IN: W. C. Hazlitt, History of the Venetian Republic, chapter 21 (volume 3).

ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447.
   Renewed civil war in Naples.
   Defeat of the Angevins by Alfonso of Aragon and Sicily.
   Reconquest of Lombardy by Filippo Maria Visconti, and his
   wars with Florence, Venice and Naples.

On the death of Ladislaus, king of Naples (1414), "his sister, Joan II., widow of the son of the duke of Austria, succeeded him. She was 40 years of age; and, like her brother, abandoned to the most unrestrained libertinism. She left the government of her kingdom to her lovers, who disputed power by arms: they called into her service, or into that of her second husband, or of the rival princes whom she in turn adopted, the two armies of Sforza and Braccio [the two great mercenary captains of that time]. The consequence was the ruin of the kingdom of Naples, which ceased to menace the rest of Italy. The moment Ladislaus disappeared, a new enemy arose to disturb the Florentines—Filippo Maria Visconti [duke of Milan, second son of Gian Galeazzo Visconti, and successor to his elder brother Gian Maria, on the assassination of the latter, in 1412]. … Filippo … married the widow of Facino Cane, the powerful condottiere who had retained Gian Maria in 'his dependence, and who died the same day that Gian Maria was assassinated. By this sudden marriage he secured the army of Facino Cane,— which was, in fact, master of the greater part of the Milanese: with its aid he undertook, without delay, to recover the rest of his states from the hands of those tyrants who had divided amongst them the dominions of his father. … During the first year of his reign, which was to decide his existence as prince or subject, he fought with determined courage; but from that time, though he continually made war, he never showed himself to his armies. … In the battle of Monza, by which he acquired his brother's inheritance, and the only battle in which he was ever present, he remarked the brilliant courage of Francesco Carmagnola, a Piedmontese soldier of fortune, and immediately gave him a command. Carmagnola soon justified the duke's choice by the most distinguished talents for war, the most brilliant victories, and the most noble character. Francesco Carmagnola was, after a few years, placed at the head of the duke's armies; and, from the year 1412 to that of 1422, successively attacked all the tyrants who had divided the heritage of Gian Galeazzo, and brought those small states again under the dominion of the duke of Milan. Even the republic of Genoa submitted to him, in 1421, on the same conditions as those on which it had before submitted to the king of France,—reserving all its liberties; and granting the duke's lieutenant, who was Carmagnola himself, only those prerogatives which the constitution yielded to the doge. As soon as Filippo Maria had accomplished the conquest of Lombardy, he resumed the projects of his father against Romagna and Tuscany. He … renewed his intrigues against the republic of Florence, and combined them with those which he at the same time carried on in the kingdom of Naples. Joan, who had sent back to France her second husband, Jaques, count de la Marche, and who had no children, was persuaded, in 1420, by one of her lovers, to adopt Alphonso the Magnanimous, king of Aragon and Sicily, to whom she intrusted some of the fortresses of Naples. She revoked this adoption in 1423; and substituted in his place Louis III. of Anjou, son of Louis II. The former put himself at the head of the ancient party of Durazzo; the latter, of that of Anjou. {1829} The consequence was a civil war, in which the two great captains, Sforza and Braccio, were opposed to each other, and acquired new titles to glory. The duke of Milan made alliance with Joan II. and Louis III. of Anjou: Sforza, named great constable of the kingdom, was their general. The Florentines remained constant to Braccio, whom Alphonso had made governor of the Abruzzi; and who had seized, at the same time, the signoria of Perugia, his native city. … But Sforza and Braccio both perished, as Italy awaited with anxiety the result of the struggle about to be commenced. Sforza was drowned at the passage of the Pescara, on the 4th of January, 1424; Braccio was mortally wounded at the battle of Aquila, on the 2d of June of the same year. Francesco, son of the former, succeeded to his father's name and the command of his army, both of which he was destined to render still more illustrious. The son of Braccio, on the contrary, lost the sovereignty of Perugia, which resumed its freedom on the 29th of July of the same year; and the remnant of the army formed by this great captain elected for his chief his most able lieutenant, Nicolo Piccinino. This was the moment which Filippo Maria chose to push on his army to Romagna, and vigorously attack the Florentines. … The Florentines, having no tried general at the heart of their troops, experienced, from the 6th of September, 1423, to the 17th of October, 1425, no less than six successive defeats, either in Liguria or Romagna [at Forli, 1423, Zagonara, 1424, Lamone, Rapallo, Anghiari and Faggiola, 1425]. Undismayed by defeat, they reassembled their army for the seventh time: the patriotism of their rich merchants made up for the penury of their exhausted treasury. They, at the same time, sent their most distinguished statesmen as ambassadors to Venice, to represent to that republic that, if it did not join them while they still stood, the liberty of Italy was lost forever. … An illustrious fugitive, Francesco Carmagnola, who arrived about this time at Venice, accomplished what Florence had nearly failed in, by discovering to the Venetians the project of the duke of Milan to subjugate them." Carmagnola had been disgraced and discharged from employment by Filippo Maria, whose jealousy was alarmed by his great reputation, and he now took service against his late patron. "A league, formed between Florence and Venice, was successively joined by the marquis of Ferrara, the lord of Mantua, the Siennese, the duke Amadeus VIII. of Savoy, and the king Alphonso of Naples, who jointly declared war against Filippo Maria Visconti, on the 27th of January, 1426. … The good fortune of Carmagnola in war still attended him in the campaign of 1426. He was as successful against the duke of Milan as he had been for him: he took from him the city and whole province of Brescia. The duke ceded this conquest to the Venetians by treaty on the 30th of December; but he employed the winter in assembling his forces; and in the beginning of spring renewed the war." An indecisive engagement occurred at Casalsecco, July 12, 1427, and on the 11th of October following, in a marsh near Macalo, Carmagnola completely defeated the Milanese army commanded by Carlo Malatesta. A new peace was signed on the 18th of April, 1428; but war recommenced in the latter part of 1430. Fortune now abandoned Carmagnola. He suffered a surprise and defeat at Soncino, May 17, 1431, and the suspicious senate of Venice caused him to be arrested, tortured and put to death. "During the remainder of the reign of Filippo Maria he was habitually at war with the two republics of Venice and Florence. He … almost always lost ground by his distrust of his own generals, his versatility, his taste for contradictory intrigues, his eagerness to sign peace every year, and to recommence hostilities a few weeks afterwards." In 1441, on making peace with the two republics, he granted his daughter Bianca in marriage to their general, Francesco Sforza, with two lordships for her dowry. But he was soon intriguing against his son-in-law, soon at war again with Florence and Venice, and Sforza was again in the service of the latter. But in 1447 he made offers of reconciliation which were accepted, and Sforza was on his way to Milan when news came to him of the death of the duke, which occurred August 13. "The war of Lombardy was complicated by its connexion with another war which at the same time ravaged the kingdom of Naples. The queen, Joan II., had died there, on the 2d of February, 1435; three months after the death of her adopted son, Louis III. of Anjou: by her will she had substituted for that prince his brother René, duke of Lorraine. But Alphonso, king of Aragon and Sicily, whom she had primarily adopted, … claimed the succession, on the ground of this first adoption, as well as of the ancient rights of Manfred, to whom he had succeeded in the female line. The kingdom of Naples was divided between the parties of Aragon and Anjou. The Genoese, who had voluntarily ranged themselves under the protection of the duke of Milan, offered their assistance to the duke of Anjou. … On the 5th of August, 1435, their fleet met that of Alphonso, before the island of Ponza. They defeated it in a great battle, in which Alphonso had been made prisoner." Delivered to the duke of Milan, Alphonso soon convinced the latter that his alliance with the French interest at Naples was a mistake and a danger to him, and was set at liberty, with promises of aid. The Genoese were indignant at this and drove the Milanese garrison from their city, in December, 1435, recovering their freedom. "Alphonso, seconded by the duke of Milan, recommenced the war against René of Anjou with greater advantage. On the 2d of June, 1442, he took from him the city of Naples; from that time peace was re-established in that kingdom, and Alphonso … established himself amidst a people which he had conquered, but whose hearts he gained; and returned no more either to Sicily or Aragon. He died at Naples, on the 27th of June, 1458."

ALSO IN: W. P. Urquhart, Life and Times of Francesco Sforza, books 3-4 (volume 1).

      M. A. Hookham,
      Life and Times of Margaret of Anjou,
      volume 1, introduction and chapter 1.

ITALY: A. D. 1447-1454.
   End of the Visconti in the duchy of Milan.
   Disputed succession.
   Francesco Sforza in possession.
   War of Venice, Naples and other states
   against Milan and Florence.

ITALY: A. D. 1447-1480.
   The Pontificate of Nicolas V.
   Regeneration of the Papacy.
   Revival of letters and art.
   Threatening advance of the Turks.
   Fresh troubles in Naples.
   Expulsion of the French from Genoa.

"The failure of the Council of Basel [see PAPACY: A. D. 1431-1448] restored the position of the Papacy, and set it free from control. The character and ability of Pope Nicolas [V., 1447-1455] made him respected, and the part which he took in politics made him rank amongst the great temporal powers in Italy. From this time onwards to the end of our history we shall see the Popes the undisputed Princes of Rome, and the lords of all that part of Italy which they claimed from the gift of Kings and Emperors, and not least from the will of the Countess Matilda. Pope Nicolas used this power better than any of those who came after him, for he used it in the cause of peace, and to forward learning and artistic taste. He applied himself to the general pacification of Italy, and brought about the Peace of Lodi in 1454, which was signed by Venice and Milan and by King Alfonso. Christendom had great need of peace, for, in 1453, Constantinople had been taken by the Infidels and Mahomet the Second was spreading his conquest over the East of Europe. Before the fall of the city a great many Greeks had come to Italy, on different missions, and especially to attend a Council at Florence, where terms of union were made between the Greek and Latin Churches. Their coming revived the taste for Greek learning, which had been so powerfully felt by Petrarca and Boccaccio. Pope Nicolas made Rome the centre of this literature, and others followed his example. Theodore of Gaza, George of Trebizond, and many more, found enlightened patrons in the Pope, the King of Naples, Cosmo de'Medici, and Federigo, Count of Urbino. The Pope was a lover and patron of art as well as of literature. He rebuilt the churches, palaces, and fortifications of Rome and the Roman States, and formed the scheme of raising a church worthy of the memory of St. Peter, and left behind him the Vatican Palace as a worthy residence for the Apostle's successors. The Papal Library had been scattered during the Captivity and the Schism, but Pope Nicolas made a large collection of manuscripts, and thus founded the Library of the Vatican. The introduction of printing into Italy about this time gave great strength to the revival of learning. In 1452 the Pope crowned Frederic the Third Emperor at Rome with great magnificence. But he was not without danger in his city, for the next year a wild plot was made against him. A large number of Romans were displeased at the great power of the Pope. They were headed by Stefano Porcaro, who declared that he would free the city which had once been mistress of the world from the yoke of priests. The rising was to be ushered in by the slaughter of the Papal Court and the plunder of its treasures. The plot was discovered, and was punished with great severity. This was the last and most unworthy of the various attempts of the Romans to set up self-government. The advance of the Ottoman Turks during the latter part of the 15th century [see TURKS: A. D. 1451-1481] caused the greatest alarm in Italy. Venice, from her possessions and her trade in the Levant, was most exposed to the attacks of the Infidels, and she became the great champion against them. The learned Æneas Sylvius was chosen Pope, in 1458, and took the title of Pius the Second. He caused a crusade to be preached against the Turks, but he died in 1464, while the forces were gathering. The Venetians were constantly defeated in the Archipelago, and lost Eubœa, Lesbos, and other islands [see GREECE: A. D. 1454-1479]. In 1477 a large Turkish army entered Italy by Friuli, defeated the Venetians, and crossed the Tagliamento. They laid waste the country as far as the Piave, and their destroying fires could be seen from the Campanile of St. Mark's. In 1480 Mahomet's great general, Ahmed Keduk, took the strong city of Otranto, and massacred its inhabitants. This expedition was secretly favoured by the Venetians to spite the King of Naples. The danger to all Italy was very great, for the Sultan eagerly longed to conquer the older Rome, but the death of Mahomet the Second, and a disputed succession to his throne, fortunately checked the further advance of the invaders. When Alfonso, King of Aragon, Naples, and Sicily, died in 1458, he left Aragon and Sicily, which he had inherited, to his legitimate son John; but the crown of Naples, which he had won for himself, he left to Ferdinand, his illegitimate son. Ferdinand was a cruel and suspicious man, and the barons invited John of Calabria to come and help them against him. John of Calabria was the son of Réné, who had been adopted by Queen Joanna, and who called himself King. He was the French Governor of Genoa, and so already had a footing in Italy. He applied to Sforza to help him, but the Duke of Milan was firmly attached to the Peace of Lodi, and was too justly fearful of the French power to do so. Lewis the Eleventh, King of France, was too wise to meddle in Italian politics. Florence, which was usually on the French side, was now under the influence of Cosmo de' Medici, and Cosmo was under the influence of Francesco Sforza, so that the Duke of Calabria found no allies. The Archbishop of Genoa, Paola Fregoso, excited the people to drive out the French [see GENOA: A. D. 1458-1464] and the Doge Prospero Adorno, who belonged to their party. He then defeated King Réné, and the Duke of Calabria was forced to give up his attempt on Naples [1464]. The new government of Genoa was so oppressive that the Genoese put themselves under the protection of Francesco; Lewis the Eleventh ceded all his rights to him, and the city thus became part of the Duchy of Milan. The hopes of the French party in Italy were thus for the present entirely crushed."

ALSO IN: M. Creighton, History of the Papacy, book 4, chapters 3-4 (volume 2).

ITALY: A. D. 1469-1492.
The government of Lorenzo de' Medici, the Magnificent, at
Florence.

ITALY: A. D. 1492-1494.
   Charles VIII. of France invited across the Alps to possess
   Naples.
   The hostile disunion of the Italian states.

With the death of Lorenzo de Medici, which occurred at Florence in the spring of 1492, "the power vanished which had hitherto kept Naples and Milan quiet, and which, with subtle diplomatic skill, had postponed the breach of the peace in Italy. We find the comparison used, that Florence with Lorenzo at her head stood like a rocky dam between two stormy seas. Italy was at that time a free land and independent of foreign policy. Venice, with her well-established nobles at her head; Naples under the Aragonese, a branch of the family ruling in Spain; Milan, with Genoa, under Sforza—all three able powers by land and sea—counterbalanced each other. Lorenzo ruled central Italy; the small lords of the Romagna were in his pay, and the pope was on the best terms of relationship with him. But in Milan the mischief lay hidden. Ludovico Sforza, the guardian of his nephew Gian Galeazzo, had completely usurped the power. He allowed his ward to pine away mentally and bodily; he was bringing the young prince slowly to death. But his consort, a Neapolitan princess, saw through the treachery, and urged her father to change by force their insufferable position. Sforza could not alone have resisted Naples. No dependence was to be placed on the friendship of Venice; Lorenzo mediated as long as he lived, but now, on his death, Naples was no longer to be restrained. The first thing that happened was [Piero de Medici's] alliance with this power, and at the same time Ludovico's appeal for help to France, where a young and ambitious king had ascended the throne. The death of Innocent VIII., and the election of Alexander Borgia to the papacy, completed the confusion which was impending. Long diplomatic campaigns took place before war actually broke out. The matter in question was not the interests of nations—of this there was no thought—nor even the caprices of princes alone. The nobles of Italy took a passionate concern in these disputes. The contests of corresponding intrigues were fought out at the French court. France had been robbed of Naples by the Aragonese. The exiled Neapolitan barons, French in their interests, whose possessions the Arngonese had given to their own adherents, ardently seized the idea of returning victoriously to their country; the cardinals, hostile to Borgia—foremost among these stood the Cardinal of San Piero in Vincula, a nephew of the old Sixtus, and the Cardinal Ascanio Sforza, Ludovico's brother—urged for war against Alexander VI.; the Florentine nobles, anticipating Piero's violent measures, hoped for deliverance through the French, and advocated the matter at Lyons, where the court was stationed, and a whole colony of Florentine families had in time settled. Sforza held out the bait of glory and his just claims to the old legitimate possession. The Aragonese, on the other hand, proposed an accommodation. Spain, who would not forsake her belongings, stood at their side; the pope and Piero dei Medici adhered to Naples, and the French nobility were not in favour of an expedition to Italy. Venice remained neutral; still she might gain by the war, and she did not dissuade from it; and this opinion, that something was to be gained, gradually took possession of all parties, even of those who had at first wished to preserve peace. Spain was a direct gainer from the first. France ceded to King Ferdinand a disputed province, on the condition that he would afford no support to his Neapolitan cousins. Sforza, as lord of Genoa, wished to have Lucca and Pisa again, with all that belonged to them; the Visconti had possessed them of old, and he raised their claims afresh. We have said what were the hopes of Piero dei Medici [that he should be able to make himself Duke of Florence]. Pisa hoped to become free. The pope hoped by his alliance with Naples to make the first step towards the attainment of the great plans which he cherished for himself and his sons; he thought one day of dividing Italy among them. The French hoped to conquer Naples, and then to drive away the Turks in a vast crusade. As if for a crusade, the king raised the loan in his own country, which he required for the campaign. The Venetians hoped to bring the coast cities of the Adriatic Sea as much as possible under their authority. In the autumn of 1494, Charles of France placed himself at the head of his knights and mercenary troops, and crossed the Alps; whilst his fleet and artillery, the most fearful weapon of the French, went by sea from Marseilles to Genoa."

ALSO IN: T. A. Trollope, History of the Commonwealth of Florence, book 8, chapter 5.

ITALY: A. D. 1494-1496.
   The invasion by Charles VIII.
   His triumphant march, his easy conquest of Naples,
   and the speedy retreat.
   Effects of the expedition on France and Europe.

"On the 1st of March [1494] Charles VIII. made his state entry into Lyons, to assume the command of the expedition; an advanced guard under the Scotchman d'Aubigny was already pushing towards the Neapolitan frontier, and the Duke of Orleans was at Genoa. The Neapolitans on their side sent the Prince of Altamura with 30 galleys towards Genoa, while the Duke of Calabria, an inexperienced youth, entered the Pontifical States, under the guidance of tried generals. … The Pope seemed to have lost his head, and no longer knew what course to adopt. … Charles the VIII., having passed the Monginevra, entered Asti in the first days of September. He soon received intelligence that Don Federico and the Neapolitan fleet had been repulsed with heavy losses before Porto Venere, and that the Duke of Orleans and his Swiss had entered Rapallo, sacked the place, and put all the inhabitants, even the sick in the hospital, to the sword, thereby striking terror into the Italians, who were unaccustomed to carry on war in so sanguinary a fashion. On reaching Piacenza, the king learnt that Gio. Galeazzo, whom he had recently seen at Pavia, had just died there, poisoned, as all men said, by the Moor [Lodovico, the usurping uncle of Gio. Galeazzo the young Duke of Milan, was so called], who, after celebrating his obsequies at Milan, had entered St. Ambrogio, at the hour indicated by his astrologer, to consecrate the investiture already granted to him by Maximilian, King of the Romans. All this filled the minds of the French with suspicion, almost with terror; they were beginning to understand the nature of their closest ally's good faith. {1832} In fact, while Ludovico with one hand collected men and money for their cause, with the other he wove the threads of a league intended to drive them from Italy, when the moment should arrive. … Nevertheless the fortunes of the French prospered rapidly. The Duke of Calabria, having entered Romagna, withdrew across the Neapolitan frontier at the first glimpse of D'Aubigny's forces; and the bulk of the French army, commanded by the King in person, marched through the Lunigiana without encountering obstacles of any kind. After taking Fivizanno, sacking it, and putting to the sword the hundred soldiers who defended it, and part of the inhabitants, they pushed on towards Sarzana, through a barren district, between the mountains and the sea, where the slightest resistance might have proved fatal to them. But the small castles, intended for the defence of these valleys, yielded one after the other, without any attempt to resist the invaders; and hardly had the siege of Sarzana commenced than Piero dei Medici arrived, frightened out of his senses, surrendered at discretion, and even promised to pay 200,000 ducats. But on Piero's return to Florence, on the 8th of November, he found that the city had risen in revolt, and sent ambassadors to the French King on its own account to offer him an honourable reception; but that at the same time it was making preparations for defence in case of need [see FLORENCE: A. D. 1490-1498]. So great was the public indignation that Piero took flight to Venice, where his own ambassador, Soderini, hardly deigned to look at him, having meanwhile declared for the republican government just proclaimed in Florence, where everything had been rapidly changed. The houses of the Medici and their garden at St. Mark had been pillaged, exiles had been recalled and acquitted; a price put on Piero's head and that of his brother, the Cardinal. … The fabric, so long and so carefully built up by the Medici, was now suddenly crumbling into dust. On the 17th November Charles VIII., at the head of his formidable army, rode into Florence with his lance in rest, believing that that fact sufficed to make him master of the city. But the Florentines were armed, they had collected 6,000 soldiers within the walls, and they knew perfectly well that, from the vantage posts of towers and houses, they could easily worst an army scattered through the streets. They therefore repulsed the King's insolent proposals, and when he threatened to sound his trumpets, Piero Capponi, tearing up the offered treaty, replied that the Florentines were more ready to ring their bells. Through this firmness equitable terms were arranged. The Republic was to pay 120,000 florins in three quotas; the fortresses, however, were to be speedily restored to her. On the 28th November the French left the city, but not without stealing all that remained of the collection of antiquities in the Medici Palace. … Nevertheless the citizens were thankful to be finally delivered alike from old tyrants and new invaders. Having reached Rome, Charles VIII., in order to have done with the Pope, who now seemed inclined for resistance, pointed his guns against the Castle of St. Angelo, and thus matters were soon settled. … Scarcely encountering any obstacles, Charles led his army on to Naples." Ferdinand I., or Ferrante, had died on the 25th of January, 1494, and had been succeeded by his son Alfonso II, a prince more cruel and more hated than himself. The latter now renounced the throne in favor of his son, Ferdinand II., and fled to Sicily. "Ferdinand II., or Ferrandino, as he was called, after vainly seeking aid from all, even from the Turk, made a fruitless stand at Monte San Giovanni, which was taken, destroyed, and all its population put to the sword. … Naples rebelled in favour of the French, who marched in on the 22d of February [1495]. The following day Ferrandino fled to Ischia, then to Messina. And shortly the ambassadors of the Italian States appeared to offer congratulations to the conqueror. Now at last the Venetians were aroused, and having sent their envoys to Milan to know if Ludovico were disposed to take up arms to drive out the French, they found him not only ready to do so, but full of indignation. … He advised that money should be sent to Spain and to Maximilian, to induce them to attack France; but added that care must be taken not to call them into Italy; 'since having already one fever here, we should then have two.' A league was in fact concluded between the Venetians, Ludovico, the Pope, Spain and Maximilian. … The Neapolitans, soon wearied of bad government, had risen in revolt, and Charles VIII. after a stay of only 50 days in Naples had to make his departure with excessive haste, before every avenue of retreat should be cut off, leaving hardly more than 6,000 men in the kingdom, and taking with him a numerous army, which however only numbered 10,000 real combatants. On the 6th of July a pitched battle took place at Fornuovo near the river Taro. The allies had assembled about 30,000 men, three-fourths of whom were Venetians, the rest composed of Ludovico's soldiers and a few Germans sent by Maximilian. … The battle was bloody, and it was a disputed question which side obtained the victory; but although the Italians were not repulsed, remaining indeed masters of the field, the French succeeded in cutting their way through, which was the chief object they had in view. … Ludovico, taking advantage of the situation, soon made an agreement with the French on his own account, without concerning himself about the Venetians. … The fortunes of the French now declined rapidly in Italy, and all the more speedily owing to their bad government in the Neapolitan kingdom, and their abominable behaviour towards the few friends who had remained faithful to them. … Ferdinand II., with the aid of the Spaniards under Consalvo di Cordova, advanced triumphantly through Calabria and entered Naples on the 7th of July, 1496. In a short time all the Neapolitan fortresses capitulated, and the French who had held them returned to their own country, more than decimated and in an altogether deplorable condition. On the 6th of October Ferdinand II. breathed his last, worn out by the agitation and fatigues of the war, and was succeeded by his uncle Don Federico, the fifth King [counting Charles VIII. of France] who had ascended the Neapolitan throne within the last five years. … Naples was now in the absolute power of the Spaniards, who were already maturing their iniquitous designs upon the kingdom; these, however, were only discovered at a later period."

"In spite of its transitory character the invasion of Charles VIII. … was a great fact in the history of the Renaissance. It was, to use the pregnant phrase of Michelet, no less than the revelation of Italy to the nations of the North. Like a gale sweeping across a forest of trees in blossom, and bearing their fertilizing pollen, after it has broken and deflowered their branches, to far distant trees that hitherto have bloomed in barrenness, the storm of Charles's army carried far and wide through Europe thought-dust, imperceptible, but potent to enrich the nations. The French, alone, says Michelet, understood Italy. … From the Italians the French communicated to the rest of Europe what we call the movement of the Renaissance. There is some truth in this panegyric of Michelet's. The passage of the army of Charles VIII. marks a turning point in modern history, and from this epoch dates the diffusion of a spirit of culture over Europe."

ALSO IN: P. Villari, History of Savonarola and his Times, book 2, chapters 1-3 (volume 1).

L. von Ranke, History of the Latin and Teutonic Nations from 1494 to 1514, book 1, chapter 1.

ITALY: A. D. 1494-1503.
The growing power of Venice and the jealousies excited by it. See

VENICE: A. D. 1494-1503.

ITALY: A. D. 1424-1509.
The French deliverance of Pisa.
The long struggle and the Florentine reconquest.

ITALY: A. D. 1499-1500.
Invasion and conquest of the Milanese by Louis XII. of France.
His claim in right of Valentine Visconti.

Charles VIII. died in April, 1498, and was succeeded by Louis of Orleans, who ascended the throne as Louis XII. On his coronation, Louis XII. "assumed, besides his title of King of France, the titles of King of Naples and of Jerusalem, and Duke of Milan. This was as much as to say that he would pursue … a warlike and adventurous policy abroad. … By his policy at home Louis XII. deserved and obtained the name of 'Father of the People;' by his enterprises and wars abroad he involved France still more deeply than Charles VIII. had in that mad course of distant, reckless, and incoherent conquests for which his successor, Francis I., was destined to pay by capture at Pavia and by the lamentable treaty of Madrid, in 1526, as the price of his release. … Outside of France, Milaness (the Milanese district) was Louis XII.'s first thought, at his accession, and the first object of his desire. He looked upon it as his patrimony: His grandmother, Valentine Visconti, widow of that Duke of Orleans who had been assassinated at Paris in 1407 by order of John the Fearless, Duke of Burgundy, had been the last to inherit the duchy of Milan, which the Sforzas, in 1450, had seized. When Charles VIII. invaded Italy in 1494, 'Now is the time,' said Louis, 'to enforce the rights of Valentine Visconti, my grandmother, to Milaness.' And he, in fact, asserted them openly, and proclaimed his intention of vindicating them so soon as he found the moment propitious. When he became king, his chance of success was great. The Duke of Milan, Ludovic, the Moor, had by his sagacity and fertile mind, by his taste for arts and sciences and the intelligent patronage he bestowed upon them, by his ability in speaking, and by his facile character, obtained in Italy a position far beyond his real power. … Ludovic was, nevertheless, a turbulent rascal and a greedy tyrant. … He had, moreover, embroiled himself with his neighbours, the Venetians, who were watching for an opportunity of aggrandizing themselves at his expense." Louis XII. promptly concluded a treaty with Venice, which provided for the making of war in common upon the Duke of Milan, to recover the patrimony of the king—the Venetians to receive Cremona and certain forts and territory adjacent as their share of the expected spoils. "In the month of August, 1499, the French army, with a strength of from 20,000 to 25,000 men, of whom 5,000 were Swiss, invaded Milaness. Duke Ludovic Sforza opposed to it a force pretty near equal in number, but far less full of confidence and of far less valour. In less than three weeks the duchy was conquered; in only two cases was any assault necessary; all the other places were given up by traitors or surrendered without a show of resistance. The Venetians had the same success on the eastern frontier of the duchy. … Louis was at Lyons when he heard of his army's victory in Milaness and of Ludovic Sforza's flight. He was eager to go and take possession of his conquest, and, on the 6th of October, 1499, he made his triumphal entry into Milan amidst cries of 'Hurrah! for France.' He reduced the heavy imposts established by the Sforzas, revoked the vexatious game-laws, instituted at Milan a court of justice analogous to the French parliaments, loaded with favours the scholars and artists who were the honour of Lombardy, and recrossed the Alps at the end of some weeks, leaving as governor of Milaness John James Trivulzio, the valiant Condottiere, who, four years before, had quitted the service of Ferdinand II., King of Naples, for that of Charles VIII. Unfortunately Trivulzio was himself a Milanese and of the faction of the Guelphs. He had the passions of a partisan and the habits of a man of war; and he soon became as tyrannical and as much detested in Milaness as Ludovic the Moor had but lately been. A plot was formed in favour of the fallen tyrant, who was in Germany expecting it, and was recruiting, during expectancy, amongst the Germans and Swiss, in order to take advantage of it. On the 25th of January, 1500, the insurrection broke out; and two months later Ludovic Sforza had once more became master of Milaness, where the French possessed nothing but the castle of Milan. … Louis XII., so soon as he heard of the Milanese insurrection, sent into Italy Louis de la Trémoille, the best of his captains, and the Cardinal d' Amboise, his privy councillor and his friend. … The campaign did not last long. The Swiss who had been recruited by Ludovic and those who were in Louis XII.'s service had no mind to fight one another; and the former capitulated, surrendered the strong place of Novara, and promised to evacuate the country on condition of a safe-conduct for themselves and their booty." Ludovic attempted flight in disguise, but fell into the hands of the French and remained in captivity, at the castle of Loches, in Touraine, during the remainder of his life,—eight years. "And 'thus was the duchy of Milan, within seven months and a half, twice conquered by the French,' says John d' Auton in his 'Chronique,' 'and for the nonce was ended the war in Lombardy, and the authors thereof were captives and exiles.'"

      ALSO IN:
      A. M. F. Robinson,
      The End of the Middle Ages:
      Valentine Visconti; The French claim to Milan.

"At the end of the fifteenth century, Italy was the centre of European civilization: while the other nations were still plunged in a feudal barbarism which seems almost as far removed from all our sympathies as is the condition of some American or Polynesian savages, the Italians appear to us as possessing habits of thought, a mode of life, political, social, and literary institutions, not unlike those of to-day; as men whom we can thoroughly understand, whose ideas and aims, whose general views, resemble our own in that main, indefinable characteristic of being modern. They had shaken off the morbid monastic ways of feeling, they had thrown aside the crooked scholastic modes of thinking, they had trampled under foot the feudal institutions of the Middle Ages; no symbolical mists made them see things vague, strange, and distorted; their intellectual atmosphere was as clear as our own, and, if they saw less than we do, what they did see appeared to them in its true shape and proportions. Almost for the first time since the ruin of antique civilization; they could show well-organized, well-defined States; artistically disciplined armies; rationally devised laws; scientifically conducted agriculture; and widely extended, intelligently undertaken commerce. For the first time, also, they showed regularly built, healthy, and commodious towns; well-drained fields; and, more important than all, hundreds of miles of country owned not by feudal lords, but by citizens; cultivated not by serfs, but by free peasants. While in the rest of Europe men were floundering among the stagnant ideas and crumbling institutions of the effete Middle Ages, with but vague half-consciousness of their own nature, the Italians walked calmly through a life as well arranged as their great towns, bold, inquisitive, and sceptical; modern administrators, modern soldiers, modern politicians, modern financiers, scholars, and thinkers. Towards the end of the fifteenth century, Italy seemed to have obtained the philosophic, literary, and artistic inheritance of Greece; the administrative, legal, and military inheritance of Rome, increased threefold by her own strong, original, essentially modern activities. Yet, at that very time, and almost in proportion as all these advantages developed, the moral vitality of the Italians was rapidly decreasing, and a horrible moral gangrene beginning to spread: liberty was extinguished; public good faith seemed to be dying out; even private morality flickered ominously; every free State became subject to a despot, always unscrupulous and often infamous; warfare became a mere pretext for the rapine and extortions of mercenaries; diplomacy grew to be a mere swindle; the humanists inoculated literature with the filthiest refuse cast up by antiquity; nay, even civic and family ties were loosened; assassinations and fratricides began to abound, and all law, human and divine, to be set at defiance. … The men of the Renaissance had to pay a heavy price for … intellectual freedom and self-cognizance, which they not only enjoyed themselves, but transmitted to the rest of the world; the price was the loss of all moral standard, of all fixed public feeling. They had thrown aside all accepted rules and criteria, they had cast away all faith in traditional institutions, they had destroyed and could not yet rebuild. In their instinctive and universal disbelief in all that had been taught them, they lost all respect for opinion, for rule, for what had been called right and wrong. Could it be otherwise? Had they not discovered that what had been called right had often been unnatural, and what had been called wrong often natural? Moral teachings, remonstrances, and judgments belonged to that dogmatism from which they had broken loose; to those schools and churches where the foolish and the unnatural had been taught and worshiped; to those priests and monks who themselves most shamefully violated their teachings. To profess morality was to be a hypocrite; to reprobate others was to be narrow-minded. There was so much error mixed up with truth that truth had to share the discredit of error."

"The conditions under which the Italians performed their task in the Renaissance were such as seem at first sight unfavourable to any great achievement. Yet it is probable that, the end in view being the stimulation of mental activity; no better circumstances than they enjoyed could have been provided. Owing to a series of adverse accidents, and owing also to their own instinctive preference for local institutions, they failed to attain the coherence and the centralised organisation which are necessary to a nation as we understand that word. Their dismemberment among rival communities proved a fatal source of political and military weakness, but it developed all their intellectual energies by competition to the utmost. At the middle of the fifteenth century their communes had lost political liberty, and were ruled by despots. Martial spirit declined. Wars were carried on by mercenaries; and the people found itself in a state of practical disarmament, when the neighboring nations quarrelled for the prize of those rich provinces. At the same time society underwent a rapid moral deterioration. When Machiavelli called Italy 'the corruption of the world,' he did not speak rhetorically. An impure and worldly clergy; an irreligious, though superstitious, laity; a self-indulgent and materialistic middle class; an idle aristocracy, excluded from politics and unused to arms; a public given up to pleasure and money-getting; a multitude of scholars, devoted to trifles, and vitiated by studies which clashed with the ideals of Christianity—from such elements in the nation proceeded a widely-spread and ever-increasing degeneracy. Public energy, exhausted by the civil wars and debilitated by the arts of the tyrants, sank deep and deeper into the lassitude of acquiescent lethargy. Religion expired in laughter, irony and licence. Domestic simplicity yielded to vice, whereof the records are precise and unmistakable. The virile virtues disappeared. What survived of courage assumed the forms of ruffianism, ferocity and treasonable daring. Still, simultaneously with this decline in all the moral qualities which constitute a powerful people, the Italians brought their arts and some departments of their literature to a perfection that can only be paralleled by ancient Greece. The anomaly implied in this statement is striking; but it is revealed to us by evidence too overwhelming to be rejected. … It was through art that the creative instincts of the people found their true and adequate channel of expression. {1835} Paramount over all other manifestations of the epoch, fundamental beneath all, penetrative to the core of all, is the artistic impulse. The slowly self-consolidating life of a great kingdom, concentrating all elements of national existence by the centripetal force of organic unity, was wanting. Commonwealths and despotisms, representing a more imperfect stage of political growth, achieved completion and decayed. But art survived this disintegration of the medieval fabric; and in art the Italians found the cohesion denied them as a nation. While speaking thus of art, it is necessary to give a wide extension to that word. It must be understood to include literature. … We are justified in regarding the literary masterpieces of the sixteenth century as the fullest and most representative expression of the Italian temperament at the climax of its growth. The literature of the golden age implies humanism, implies painting. … It is not only possible but right to speak of Italy collectively when we review her work in the Renaissance. Yet it should not be forgotten that Italy at this time was a federation, presenting upon a miniature scale the same diversities in her component parts as the nations of Europe do now. … At the beginning of such a review, we cannot fail to be struck with the predominance of Florence. The superiority of the Tuscans was threefold. In the first place, they determined the development of art in all its branches. In the second place, they gave a language to Italy, which, without obliterating the local dialects, superseded them in literature when the right moment for intellectual community arrived. That moment, in the third place, was rendered possible by the humanistic movement, which began at Florence. … What the Lombards and Venetians produced in fine art and literature was of a later birth. Yet the novelists of Lombardy, the Latin lyrists of Garda, the school of romantic and dramatic poets at Ferrara, the group of sculptors and painters assembled in Milan by the Sforza dynasty, the maccaronic Muse of Mantua, the unrivalled magnificence of painting at Venice, the transient splendour of the Parmese masters, the wit of Modena, the learning of the princes of Mirandola and Carpi, must be catalogued among the most brilliant and characteristic manifestations of Italian genius. In pure literature Venice contributed but little. … Her place, as the home of Aldo's Greek press, and as the refuge for adventurers like Aretino and Folengo, when the rest of Italy was yielding to reactionary despotism, has to be commemorated. … The Romans who advanced Italian culture, were singularly few. The work of Rome was done almost exclusively by aliens, drawn for the most part from Tuscany and Lombardy. After Frederick II.'s brilliant reign, the Sicilians shared but little in the intellectual activity of the nation."

ITALY: A. D. 1501-1504.
   Perfidious treaty for the partition of Naples between Louis
   XII. of France and Ferdinand of Aragon.
   Their joint conquest.
   Their quarrel and war.
   The French expelled.
   The Spaniards in possession.

"In the spring of 1501, the French army was ready to pursue its march to Naples. King Frederick, alarmed at the storm which was gathering round his head, had some months before renewed the propositions formerly made by his father Ferdinand to Charles VIII.; namely, to acknowledge himself a feudatory of France, to pay an annual tribute, and to pledge several maritime towns as security for the fulfilment of these conditions. Louis, however, would not hear of these liberal offers, although Ferdinand the Catholic [of Aragon] undertook to guarantee the payment of the tribute proffered by Frederick, and strongly remonstrated against the contemplated expedition of the French King. Ferdinand finding that he could not divert Louis from his project, proposed to him to divide Naples between them, and a partition was arranged by a treaty concluded between the two monarchs at Granada, November 11th, 1500. Naples, the Terra di Lavoro, and the Abruzzi were assigned to Louis, with the title of King of Naples and Jerusalem; while Ferdinand was to have Calabria and Apulia with the title of Duke." This perfidious arrangement was kept secret, of course, from Frederick. "Meanwhile the forces of Ferdinand, under Gonsalvo of Cordova [the 'Great Captain,' as he was styled after his Italian campaign], were admitted as friends into the Neapolitan fortresses, which they afterwards held as enemies. Frederick opened to them without suspicion his ports and towns, and thus became the instrument of his own ruin. The unhappy Frederick had in vain looked around for assistance. He had paid the Emperor Maximilian 40,000 ducats to make a diversion in his favour by attacking Milan, but Maximilian was detached from the Neapolitan alliance by a counter bribe, and consented to prolong the truce with France. Frederick had then had recourse to Sultan Bajazet II., with as little effect; and this application only served to throw an odium on his cause. … The French army, which did not exceed 13,000 men, began its march towards Naples about the end of May, 1501, under the command of Stuart d'Aubigny, with Cæsar Borgia [son of Pope Alexander VI.] for his lieutenant. When it arrived before Rome, June 25th, the French and Spanish ambassadors acquainted the Pope with the treaty of Granada, and the contemplated partition of Naples, in which the suzerainty of this kingdom was guaranteed to the Holy See; a communication which Alexander received with more surprise than displeasure, and he proceeded at once to invest the Kings of France and Aragon with the provinces which they respectively claimed. Attacked in front by the French, in the rear by Gonsalvo, Frederick did not venture to take the field. He cantoned his troops in Naples, Averso, and Capua, of which the last alone made any attempt at defence. It was surprised by the French while in the act of treating for a capitulation (July 24th), and was subjected to the most revolting cruelty; 7,000 of the male inhabitants were massacred in the streets; the women were outraged; and forty of the handsomest reserved for Borgia's harem at Rome; where they were in readiness to amuse the Court at the extraordinary and disgusting fete given at the fourth marriage of Lucretia. Rather than expose his subjects to the horrors of a useless war, Frederick entered into negociations with d'Aubigny, with the view of surrendering himself to Louis XII. … In October, 1501, he sailed for France with a small squadron, which remained to him. {1836} In return for his abandonment of the provinces assigned to the French King, he was invested with the county of Maine, and a life pension of 30,000 ducats, on condition that he should not attempt to quit France; a guard was set over him to enforce the latter proviso, and this excellent prince died in captivity in 1504. Meanwhile Gonsalvo of Cordova was proceeding with the reduction of Calabria and Apulia. … The Spaniards entered Taranto March 1st, 1502; the other towns of southern Italy were soon reduced, and the Neapolitan branch of the House of Aragon fell for ever, after reigning 65 years. In the autumn of 1501, Louis had entered into negociations with the Emperor, in order to obtain formal investiture of the Duchy of Milan. With this view, Louis's daughter Claude, then only two years of age, was affianced to Charles [afterwards the Emperor, Charles V.], grandson of Maximilian, the infant child of the Archduke Philip and Joanna of Aragon. A treaty was subsequently signed at Trent, October 13th, 1501, by Maximilian and the Cardinal d'Amboise, to which the Spanish sovereigns find the Archduke Philip were also parties. By this instrument Louis engaged, in return for the investiture of Milan, to recognise the pretensions of the House of Austria to Hungary and Bohemia, and to second Maximilian in an expedition which he contemplated against the Turks. It was at this conference that those schemes against Venice began to be agitated, which ultimately produced the League of Cambray. The treaty between Louis and Ferdinand for the partition of Naples was so loosely drawn, that it seemed purposely intended to produce the quarrels which occurred." Disputes arose as to the possession of a couple of provinces, and the Spaniards were driven out. "In the course of 1502 the Spaniards were deprived of everything, except Barletta and a few towns on the coast of Bari. It was in the combats round this place that Bayard, by his deeds of courage and generosity, won his reputation as the model of chivalry, and became the idol of the French soldiery." The crafty and unscrupulous king of Aragon now amused Louis with the negotiation of a treaty for the relinquishment of the whole Neapolitan domain to the lately affianced infants, Charles of Austria and Claude of France, while he diligently reinforced the "Great Captain." Then "Gonsalvo suddenly resumed the offensive with extraordinary vigour and rapidity, and within a week two decisive battles were fought"—at Seminara, in Calabria, April 21, 1503, and at Cerignola, near Barletta, April 28. In the last named battle the French army was dispersed and almost destroyed. On the 14th of May, Gonsalvo entered Naples, and by the end of July the French had completely evacuated the Neapolitan territory. The king of France made prompt preparations for vigorous war, not only in Naples but in Spain itself, sending two armies to the Pyrenees and one across the Alps. The campaign of the latter was ruined by Cardinal d'Amboise, who stopped its march near Rome, to support his candidacy for the papal chair, just vacated by the death of Alexander VI. Malaria made havoc in the ranks of the French, and they were badly commanded. They advanced to the seat of war in October, and forced the passage of the Garigliano, November 9. "Here their progress was arrested. … The seasons themselves were hostile to the French; heavy rains set in with a constancy quite unusual in that climate; and the French soldiers perished by hundreds in the mud and swamps of the Garigliano. The Spanish army, encamped near Sessa, was better supplied and better disciplined; and at length, after two months of inaction, Gonsalvo, having received some reinforcements, assumed the offensive, and in his turn crossed the river. The French, whose quarters were widely dispersed, were not prepared for this attack, and attempted to fall back upon Gaeta; but their retreat soon became a disorderly flight; many threw down their arms without striking a blow; and hence the affair has sometimes been called the rout of the Garigliano [December 29, 1503]. Peter de' Medici, who was following the French army, perished in this retreat. … Very few of the French army found their way back to France. Gaeta surrendered at the first summons, January 1st, 1504. This was the most important of all Gonsalvo's victories, as it completed the conquest of Naples. The two attacks on Spain had also miscarried. … A truce of five months was concluded, November 15th, which was subsequently converted into a peace of three years."

      ALSO IN:
      L. von Ranke,
      History of the Latin and Teutonic Nations, 1494-1514,
      book 1, chapter 4,
      and book 2, chapter 1.

      T. A. Trollope,
      History of the Commonwealth of Florence,
      book 9, chapters 8-9 (volume 4).

      M. J. Quintana,
      The Great Captain
      (Lives of Celebrated Spaniards)

      G. P. R. James,
      Memoirs of Great Commanders,
      volume 1: Gonzalvez de Cordoba.

ITALY: A. D. 1504-1506.
   The Treaties of Blois.
   Tortuous diplomacy of Louis XII.
   His double renunciation of Naples.

   "There was danger [to Louis XII. of France] that the loss of
   the Milanese should follow that of the kingdom of Naples.
   Maximilian was already preparing to assert his imperial rights
   beyond the Alps, and Gonsalvo de Cordova was marching toward
   the northern part of the peninsula. Louis XII. divided and
   disarmed his enemies by three treaties, signed at Blois on the
   same day (1504). By the first Louis and Maximilian agreed to
   attack Venice, and to divide the spoil; by the second Louis
   promised the king of the Romans 200,000 francs in return for
   the investiture of the Milanese; by the third he renounced the
   kingdom of Naples in favor of Maximilian's grandson Charles,
   who was to marry Claude,' daughter of Louis XII., and receive
   as her dowry three French provinces,—Burgundy, Brittany, and
   Blois. A more disastrous agreement could not have been made.
   Charles was to obtain by inheritance from his father, Philip
   the Handsome, the Netherlands; from his mother, Castile; from
   his paternal grandfather, Austria; from his maternal
   grandfather, Aragon. And now he was assured of Italy, and
   France was to be dismembered for him. This was virtually
   giving him the empire of Europe. France protested, and Louis
   XII. seized the first occasion to respond to her wishes. He
   found it in 1505, when Ferdinand the Catholic married Germaine
   de Foix, niece of Louis XII. Louis by treaty made a second
   cession of his rights over the kingdom of Naples to his niece,
   thus breaking one of the principal conditions of his treaty
   with Maximilian. He convoked the States-General at Tours in
   order openly to break the others (1506).
{1837}
   The Assembly declared that the fundamental law of the state
   did not permit alienations of the domains of the crown, and
   besought the king to give his daughter in marriage to his heir
   presumptive, Francis, Duke of Angoulême, in order to insure
   the integrity of the territory and the independence of France.
   Louis XII. found little difficulty in acceding to their
   request. Maximilian and Ferdinand were at the time unable to
   protest."

ITALY: A. D. 1508-1509.
The League of Cambrai against Venice.
The continental provinces of the Republic torn away.

ITALY: A. D. 1510-1513.
   Dissolution of the League of Cambrai and formation of the Holy
   League against France.
   The French expelled from Milan and all Italy.
   Restoration of the Medici.
   Recovery of Venetian territories.

As the League of Cambrai began to weaken and fall in pieces, the vigorous republic of Venice "came forth again, retook Padua, and kept it through a long and terrible siege, at last forcing the Emperor to withdraw and send back his French allies. The Venetians recovered Vicenza, and threatened Verona; Maximilian, once more powerless, appealed to France to defend his conquests. Thus things stood [1510] when Julius II. made peace with Venice and began to look round him for allies against Louis XII. He negotiated with the foreign kings; but that was only in order thereby to neutralise their influence, sowing discord among them; it was on the Swiss mercenaries that he really leant. Now that he had gained all he wanted on the northern frontier of the States of the Church, he thought that he might safely undertake the high duty of protecting Italy against the foreigner: he would accomplish what Cæsar Borgia had but dreamed of doing, he would chase the Barbarian from the sacred soil of culture. … He 'thanked God,' when he heard of the death of the Cardinal of Amboise, 'that now he was Pope alone!' … He at once set himself to secure the Swiss, and found a ready and capable agent in Matthew Schynner, Bishop of Sion in the Valais. … Bishop Schynner was rewarded for this traffic with a cardinal's hat. And now, deprived by death of the guiding hand [of Cardinal d'Amboise], Louis XII. began to follow a difficult and dangerous line of policy: he called a National Council at Tours, and laid before it, as a case of conscience, the question whether he might make war on the Pope. The Council at once declared for the King, distinguishing, as well they might under Julius II., between the temporal and the spiritual in the Papacy, and declaring that any papal censure that might be launched would be null and void. Above all, an appeal was made to a General Council. … Meanwhile war went on in Italy. A broadly-planned attack on the Milanese, on Genoa, and Ferrara, concerted by Julius II. with the Venetians and Swiss, had come to nothing. Now the warlike pontiff—one knows his grim face from Raphael's picture, and his nervous grasp of the arms of his chair, as though he were about to spring forward into action—took the field in person. At Bologna he fell ill; they thought he would die; and Chaumont of Amboise was marching up with the French at his heels to surround and take him there. But by skilful treating with the French general Julius gained time, till a strong force of Venetians had entered Bologna. Then the Pope rose from his sick-bed, in the dead of winter, 1511, and marched out to besiege Mirandola," which capitulated. "Bayard soon after attacked him, and all but took him prisoner. A congress at Mantua followed: but the Pope sternly refused to make terms with the French: the war must go on. Then Louis took a dangerous step. He convoked an ecclesiastical council at Pisa, and struck a medal to express his contempt and hatred for Julius II. … The Pope had gone back to Rome, and Bologna had opened her gates to the French; the coming council, which should depose Julius, was proclaimed through Northern Italy. But, though the moment seemed favourable, nothing but a real agreement of the European powers could give success to such a step. And how far men were from such an agreement Louis was soon to learn; for Julius, finding that the French did not invade the States of the Church, resumed negociations with such success that in October 1511 a 'Holy League' was formed between the Pope, Venice, Ferdinand of Aragon, and Henry VIII. of England. Maximilian wavered and doubted; the Swiss were to be had—on payment. At first Louis showed a bold front; in spite of this strange whirl of the wheel of politics from the League of Cambrai to the Holy League, he persevered, giving the command of Milan to his nephew, Gaston of Foix, Duke of Nemours, a man of 23 years, the most promising of his younger captains. He relieved Bologna, seized Brescia, and pillaged it [1512]; and then pushed on to attack Ravenna; it is said that the booty of Brescia was so great that the French soldiers, having made their fortunes, deserted in crowds, and left the army much weakened. With this diminished force Gaston found himself caught between the hostile walls of Ravenna, and a relieving force of Spaniards, separated from him only by a canal. The Spaniards, after their usual way of warfare, made an entrenched camp round their position. The French first tried to take the city by assault; but being driven back, determined to attack the Spanish camp." They made the assault [on Easter Day, 1512] and took the camp, with great slaughter; but in his reckless pursuit of the retreating enemy Gaston de Foix was slain. "The death of the young Prince more than balanced the great victory of the day: for with Gaston, as Guicciardini says, perished all the vigour of the French army. … Though Ravenna was taken, the French could no longer support themselves. Their communications with Milan were threatened by the Swiss: they left garrisons in the strong places and fell back. The council of Pisa also had to take refuge at Milan. When the Swiss came down from their mountain-passes to restore the Sforza dynasty, the harassed council broke up from Milan, and fled to Lyons; there it lingered a while, but it had become contemptible; anon it vanished into thin air. The Pope retook Bologna, Parma, Piacenza; the Medici returned to Florence [see FLORENCE: A. D. 1502-1569]; Maximilian Sforza was re-established [see MILAN: A. D. 1512], while the Grisons Leagues received the Valteline as their reward: the English annoyed the coast without any decisive result. … Ferdinand seized Navarre, which henceforward became Spanish to the Pyrenees. {1838} Before winter, not one foot of Italian soil remained to the French. Julius II., the formidable centre of the Alliance, died at this moment (1513). … The allies secured the election of a Medicean Pope, Leo X., a pontiff hostile to France, and certain not to reverse that side of his predecessor's policy. … Louis, finding himself menaced on every side, suddenly turned about and offered his friendship to Venice. … Natural tendencies overbore all resentments on both sides, and a treaty between them both guaranteed the Milanese to Louis and gave him a strong force of Venetian soldiers. Meanwhile, Ferdinand had come to terms with Maximilian and boyish Henry VIII., who … had framed a scheme for the overthrow of France. The French king, instead of staying at home to defend his frontiers, was eager to retake Milan, and to join hands with the Venetians. … But the Swiss round Maximilian Sforza defended him without fear or treachery; and catching the French troops under La Trémoille in a wretched position not far from Novara, attacked and utterly defeated them (1513). The French withdrew beyond the Alps; the Venetians were driven off with great loss by the Spaniards, who ravaged their mainland territories down to the water's edge. For the short remainder of his life Louis XII. had no leisure again to try his fortunes in Italy: he was too busy elsewhere."

ALSO IN: P. Villari, Life and Times of Machiavelli, book 1, chapters 12-14 (volume 3).

L. von Ranke, History of the Latin and Teutonic Nations from 1494 to 1514, book 2, chapter 3.

      H. E. Napier,
      Florentine History,
      book 2, chapter 9 (volume 4).

ITALY: A. D. 1515-1516.
Invasion and reconquest of Milan by Francis I.
His treaty with the Pope.

ITALY: A. D. 1516-1517.
Abortive attempt against Milan by the Emperor, Maximilian.
His peace with Venice and surrender of Verona.

ITALY: A. D. 1520-1542.
   Early Reformation movements
   and their want of popular support.
   The Council of Trent.

ITALY: A. D. 1521-1522.
   Re-expulsion of the French from Milan.
   The treason of the Constable Bourbon.
   His appointment to the command of the Imperial army.

ITALY: A. D. 1523-1527.
   The double dealings of Pope Clement VII.
   Invasion of Milanese by Francis I. and his defeat and capture
   at Pavia.
   The Holy League against Charles V.
   The attack on Rome by Constable Bourbon.

Giulio de' Medici, natural son of Guiliano de' Medici, and cousin of Leo X., had succeeded Adrian VI. in the Papacy in 1523, under the name of Clement VII. "Nothing could have been more unfortunate than the new Pope's first steps on the zig-zag path which he proposed to follow. Becoming alarmed at the preponderating power of Charles [the Fifth, Emperor, King of Spain and Naples; Duke of Burgundy, and ruler of all the Netherlands, in 1524 be entered into a league with Francis [the First, king of France];

but scarcely had this been concluded when the memorable battle of Pavia resulting in the entire defeat of the French, on the 24th of February, 1525, and the captivity of the French king, frightened him back again into seeking anew the friendship of Charles, in April of that year.

Each of these successive treaties was of course duly sworn to and declared inviolable; but it could hardly be expected that he who exercised the power of annulling other men's oaths would submit to be bound by his own, when the observance of them became inconvenient. Clement accordingly was not prevented by the solemn treaty of April, 1525, from conspiring against his new ally in the July following. The object of this conspiracy was to induce Ferdinando Francesco d'Avalos, Marquis of Pescara, who commanded the army of Charles V. before Milan, to revolt against his sovereign, and join the Italians in an attempt to put an end for ever to Spanish sway in Italy. … But the Spanish general had no sooner secured clear evidence of the plans of the conspirators, by pretending to listen to their proposals, than he reported the whole to Charles. The miscarriage of this scheme, and the exposure consequent upon it, necessarily threw the vacillating and terrified Pontiff once more into the arms of Francis. 'The Most Christian'—as the old Italian historians often elliptically call the Kings of France—obtained his release from his Madrid prison by promising on oath, on the 17th of January, 1526, all that Charles, driving a hard bargain, chose to demand of him.

And Clement hastened to prove the sincerity of his renewed friendship by a professional contribution to the success of their new alliance, in the welcome shape of a plenary absolution from all observance of the oaths so sworn. … On the 22nd of May following [at Cognac], the Pope entered into a formal league with Francis [called 'Holy' for the reason that the Pope was a party to it]. Venice joined her troops to those of the Ecclesiastical States, and they marched together to the support of the Milanese, who had risen in revolt against the Emperor. Assistance had also been promised by Henry of England, who had stipulated, however, that he should not be named as a party to the alliance, but only considered as its protector. This was the most strenuous and most united attempt Italy had yet made to rid herself of the domination of the stranger, and patriotic hopes beat high in several Italian hearts. … It may be easily imagined that the 'Most Catholic' monarch [Charles V.] felt towards Clement at this time in a manner which led him to distinguish very nicely between the infallible head of the universal Church and the sovereign of the Ecclesiastical States. … Though he retained the utmost respect and reverence for the vicegerent of heaven, he thought that a little correction administered to the sovereign of Rome would not be amiss, and nothing could be easier than to find means ready to his hand for the infliction of it. The Colonnas were of course ready for a rebellion on the slightest encouragement. … So when Don Ugo di Moncada, Charles's general at Naples, proposed to the Colonnas to join him in a little frolic at Clement's expense, the noble and most reverend members of that powerful family jumped at the proposal. … The united forces of the Viceroy and the Colonnas accordingly one morning entered Rome, altogether without opposition, and marched at once to the Vatican. {1839} They completely sacked, not only the Pope's palace, and the residences of many gentlemen and prelates, but also, says the historian [Varchi], 'with unheard-of avarice and impiety,' robbed the sacristy of St. Peter of everything it contained. Clement had barely time to escape into the castle of St. Angelo; but as he found there neither soldiers nor ammunition, nor even food for above three days, … he consented to a treaty by which the Pope agreed to pardon the Colonnas freely for all they had done against him; to take no steps to revenge himself on them; to withdraw his troops from Lombardy; and to undertake nothing in any way, or under any pretext, against the Emperor." As a hostage for the fulfilment of this treaty, Pope Clement gave his dear friend Filippo Strozzi; but no sooner was he delivered from his captors than he hired seven "black companies" of adventurers and 2,000 Swiss, and began a furious war of extermination upon the Colonnas and all their dependents. At the same time he wrote private letters to the heads of his "Holy League," "warning them to pay no heed to any statement respecting a treaty made by him with the Emperor, and assuring them of his intention to carry on the war with the utmost energy." A little later, however, this remarkable Holy Father found it convenient to make another treaty with the Viceroy of Naples, for the release of his friend Strozzi, which bound him still more to friendly relations with the Emperor. This latter treaty, of March, 1527, "would seem in some sort to imply the reconciliation once again of the Pope and the Emperor." But Charles had already set forces in motion for the chastisement of the faithless Pope and his allies, which either he could not or did not care to arrest. "The Constable Bourbon, whom the gross injustice of Francis I., and the intolerable persecution of his infamous mother, Louise de Savoie, had driven to abandon his country and allegiance [see FRANCE: A. D. 1520-1523], … was now … marching southwards, with the imperial troops, to chastise the different members of the League against the Emperor, which Clement, as has been seen, had formed. George Frundsberg, a German leader of reputation, had also crossed the Alps with 15,000 men,—'all Lutherans and Lanzknechts,' as the Italians write with horror and dismay,—and had joined these forces to the Spaniards under Bourbon. … The combined force was in all respects more like a rabble rout of brigands and bandits than an army; and was assuredly such as must, even in those days, have been felt to be a disgrace to any sovereign permitting them to call themselves his soldiers. Their pay was, as was often the case with the troops of Charles V., hopelessly in arrear, and discipline was of course proportionably weak among them. … The progress southward of this bandit army … filled the cities exposed to their inroad with terror and dismay. They had passed like a destroying locust swarm over Bologna and Imola, and crossing the Apennines, which separate Umbria from Tuscany, had descended into the valley of the Arno not far from Arezzo. Florence and Rome both trembled. On which would the storm burst? That was the all-absorbing question. Pope Clement, with his usual avarice-blinded imbecility, had, immediately on concluding the above-mentioned treaty with the Neapolitan viceroy, discharged all his troops except a body-guard of about 600 men. Florence was nearly in as defenceless a position"; but a small army of the League, under the Duke of Urbino, was at Incisa, and it was "probably the presence of this army, little as it had hitherto done to impede the progress of the enemy, which decided Bourbon eventually to determine on marching towards Rome. It seems doubtful how far they were in so doing, executing the orders, or carrying out the wishes, of the Emperor. … Upon the whole we are warranted in supposing that Bourbon and Frundsberg would hardly have ventured on the course they took, if they had not had reason to believe that it would not much displease their master. … On the 5th of May [1527] Bourbon arrived beneath the walls of Rome. … On the evening of the 6th of May the city was stormed and given over to the unbridled cupidity and brutality of the soldiers. … Bourbon himself had fallen in the first moments of the attack."

T. A. Trollope, History of the Commonwealth of Florence, book 10, chapter 3 (volume 4).

      L. von Ranke,
      History of the Reformation in Germany,
      book 4, chapters 1-3.

"Bourbon fell at the first assault; but by evening the Vatican suburb was in the hands of the enemy. Clement, who was even best informed of the state of things, had not anticipated such an issue. He scarcely saved himself by flight from the Vatican to the castle of St. Angelo, whither the fugitive population hurried, as the shipwrecked crew of an entire fleet hastens to a single boat which cannot receive them. In the midst of the thronging stream of men, the portcullis was lowered. Whoever remained without was lost. Benvenuto Cellini was at that time in Rome, and was among the defenders of the walls. He boasted that his ball had destroyed Bourbon. He stole fortunately into the citadel, before it was closed, and entered the Pope's service as bombardier. Even at this last moment, Clement might have saved Rome itself, which, situated on the opposite shore of the river, had not yet been entered by the enemy. They offered to spare it for a ransom; but finding this too high, and awaiting hourly Urbino's army, to which, though nothing was yet to be seen of it, he looked as a deliverer in the time of need, he would hear nothing of it. And thus the undefended city fell into the hands of the imperialists. Almost without resistance they entered Trastevere, a small quarter of the city lying to the west of the Tiber; and then crossing the bridges, which no one had demolished, they pressed forwards into the heart of Rome. It was the depth of the night. Benvenuto Cellini was stationed on the tower of the castle of St. Angelo, at the foot of the colossal angel, and saw the flames bursting forth in the darkness, and heard the sorrowful cry all around. For it was late before the soldiers began to cast off all restraint. They had entered quietly. The Germans stood in battalions. But when they saw the Spaniards broken up and plundering, the desire was aroused in them also; and now a spirit of emulation appeared, as to which nation could outdo the other in cruelty. The Spaniards, it is asserted by impartial Italians, carried the day. {1840} There had been no siege, no bombardment, no flight of any great extent; but as if the earth had opened, and had disgorged a legion of devils, so suddenly came these hosts. Everything was in a moment abandoned to them. We must endeavour to conceive what kind of men these German soldiers were. They formed an intermediate class between the prime and the refuse of the people. Gathered together by the hope of booty, indifferent what end was assigned them, rendered wild by hunger and tardy pay, left without a master after the death of their commander, they found themselves unrestrained in the most luxurious city of the world—a city abounding with gold and riches, and at the same time decried for centuries in Germany, as the infernal nest of the popes, who lived there as incarnate devils, in the midst of their Babylonian doings. The opinion that the pope of Rome, and Clement VII. in particular, was the devil, prevailed not only in Germany, but in Italy and in Rome the people called him so. In the midst of plague and famine he had doubled the taxes and raised the price of bread. What with the Romans, however, was an invective arising from indignation, was an article of faith among the Germans. They believed they had to do with the real antichrist, whose destruction would be a benefit to Christendom. We must remember, if we would understand this fury of the German soldiery, in whose minds, as in those of all Germans, Lutheran ideas at that time prevailed, how Rome had been preached and written upon in the north. The city was represented to people as a vast abyss of sin; the men as villains, from the lowest up to the cardinals; the women as courtesans; the business of all as deceit, theft, and murder; and the robbing and deluding of men that had for centuries been emanating from Rome, was regarded as the universal disease from which the world was languishing. Thither for centuries the gold of Germany had flowed; there had emperors been humbled or poisoned; from Rome every evil had sprung. And thus, while satiating themselves with rapine and murder, they believed a good work was being done for the welfare of Christendom, and for the avenge of Germany. Never, however—this we know—does the nature of man exhibit itself more beast-like, than when it becomes furious for the sake of ideas of the highest character. Before the castle of St. Angelo, which, carefully fortified with walls and fosses, alone afforded resistance, the German soldiers proclaimed Martin Luther as pope. Luther's name was at that time a war-cry against pope and priestcraft. The rude multitude surmised not what Luther desired when he attacked the papacy. In front of St. Peter's church, they represented an imitation of the papal election with the sacred garments and utensils. They compelled one priest to give extreme unction to a dying mule. One protested that he would not rest until he had consumed a piece of the pope's flesh. It is true, Italians for the most part relate this, but the German reports themselves do not deny the excessive barbarity which was permitted. Ten millions of precious metal was carried away. How much blood did this money involve, and what was done to those from whom it was taken? Fewer were put to death than were plundered, says one of the records, but what does that imply? It is true, the Germans often quarrelled with the Spaniards, because the horrors which they saw them practise were too terrible for them. Otherwise the sparing of human life was less an act of clemency than of covetousness. Prisoners of war were at that time regarded as slaves; they were carried away as personal property, or a ransom was extorted. … This system was carried to a great pitch in Rome. The possessors of palaces were obliged to purchase their ransom, the Spanish cardinals as well as the Italian—no difference was made. Thus at least escape was possible. … And as the people were treated, so were the things. Upon the inlaid marble floor of the Vatican, where the Prince of Orange took up his abode—the command of the army devolving upon him after Bourbon's death—the soldiers lighted their fire. The splendid stained glass windows, executed by William of Marseilles, were broken for the sake of the lead. Raphael's tapestries were pronounced excellent booty; in the paintings on the walls the eyes were put out; and valuable documents were given as straw to the horses which stood in the Sistine Chapel. The statues in the streets were thrown down; the images of the Mother of God in the churches were broken to pieces. For six months the city thus remained in the power of the soldiery, who had lost all discipline, Pestilence and famine appeared. Rome had more than 90,000 inhabitants under Leo X.; when Clement VII. returned a year after the conquest, scarcely a third of that number then existed—poor, famished people, who had remained behind, because they knew not whither to turn. All this lay on the conscience of the man who now for months had been condemned to look down upon this misery from the castle of St. Angelo, in which the Spaniards held him completely blockaded, and where pestilence and want of provisions appeared just as much as down below in Rome. At last, after waiting day after day, he saw Urbino's army approaching from afar: their watch-fires were to be perceived; and every moment he expected that the duke would attack and deliver the city. But he moved not. It is thought he intended now to avenge the rapine which the Medici under Leo. X. had carried on against him. … After having rested for some time in sight of the city, in which the imperialists had opened their intrenchments round the castle of St. Angelo for a regular siege, he withdrew back again to the north, and left the pope to his fate."

ALSO IN: Benvenuto Cellini, Life, translated by J. A. Symonds, book 1, sections 34-38 (volume 1).

ITALY: A. D. 1527-1529.
   Siege and captivity of the Pope.
   New league against the Emperor.
   French invasion and disastrous siege of Naples.
   Genoese independence recovered.
   Treaties of Barcelona and Cambrai.
   Francis renounces all pretensions beyond the Alps.
   Charles V. supreme.

   Shut up in Castle St. Angelo, the Pope, Clement VII.,
   "deprived of every resource, and reduced to such extremity of
   famine as to feed on asses' flesh, was obliged to capitulate
   on such conditions as the conquerors were pleased to
   prescribe. He agreed to pay 400,000 ducats to the army; to
   surrender to the emperor all the places of strength belonging
   to the Church; and, besides giving hostages, to remain a
   prisoner himself until the chief articles were performed. …
   The account of this extraordinary and unexpected event was no
   less surprising than agreeable to the emperor.
{1841}
   But in order to conceal his joy from his subjects, who were
   filled with horror at the success and crimes of their
   countrymen, and to lessen the indignation of the rest of
   Europe, he declared that Rome had been assaulted without any
   order from him. He wrote to all the princes with whom he was
   in alliance, disclaiming his having had any knowledge of
   Bourbon's intention. He put himself and court into mourning;
   commanded the rejoicings which had been ordered for the birth
   of his son Philip to be stopped; and, employing an artifice no
   less hypocritical than gross, he appointed prayers and
   processions throughout all Spain for the recovery of the
   pope's liberty, which, by an order to his generals, he could
   have immediately granted him. … Francis and Henry [of France
   and England], alarmed at the progress of the imperial arms in
   Italy, had, even before the taking of Rome, entered into a
   closer alliance; and, in order to give some check to the
   emperor's ambition, had agreed to make a vigorous diversion in
   the Low Countries. The force of every motive which had
   influenced them at that time was now increased; and to these
   was added the desire of rescuing the pope out of the emperor's
   hands, a measure no less politic than it appeared to be pious.
   This, however, rendered it necessary to abandon their hostile
   intentions against the Low Countries, and to make Italy the
   seat of war. … Besides all … public considerations, Henry
   was influenced by one of a more private nature: having begun,
   about this time, to form his great scheme of divorcing
   Catharine of Aragon, towards the execution of which he knew
   that the sanction of papal authority would be necessary, he
   was desirous to acquire as much merit as possible with
   Clement, by appearing to be the chief instrument of his
   deliverance. … Henry … entered so eagerly into this new
   alliance, that, in order to give Francis the strongest proof
   of his friendship and respect, he formally renounced the
   ancient claim of the English monarchs to the crown of France,
   which had long been the pride and ruin of the nation; as a
   full compensation for which he accepted a pension of 50,000
   crowns, to be paid annually to himself and his successors. The
   pope, being unable to fulfil the conditions of his
   capitulation, still remained a prisoner. … The Florentines
   no sooner heard of what had happened at Rome, than they ran to
   arms … and, declaring themselves a free state, reëstablished
   their ancient popular government.

The Venetians, taking advantage of the calamity of their ally, the pope, seized Ravenna, and other places belonging to the church, under pretext of keeping them in deposite." On the other hand, Lannoy, Charles' viceroy at Naples, "marched to Rome, together with Moncada and the Marquis del Guasto, at the head of all the troops which they could assemble in the kingdom of Naples. The arrival of this reinforcement brought new calamities on the unhappy citizens of Rome; for the soldiers, envying the wealth of their companions, imitated their license, and with the utmost rapacity gathered the gleanings which had escaped the avarice of the Spaniards and Germans. There was not now any army in Italy capable of making head against the imperialists." But the troops who had enjoyed months of license and riotous pillage in Rome could not be brought back to discipline, and refused to quit the perishing city. They had chosen for their general the Prince of Orange, who "was obliged to pay more attention to their humours than they did to his commands. … This gave the king of France and the Venetians leisure to form new schemes, and to enter into new arrangements for delivering the pope, and preserving the liberties of Italy. The newly-restored republic of Florence very imprudently joined with them, and Lautrec … was … appointed generalissimo of the league. … The best troops in France marched under his command; and the king of England, though he had not yet declared war against the emperor, advanced a considerable sum towards carrying on the expedition. Lautrec's first operations [1527] were prudent, vigorous and successful. By the assistance of Andrew Doria, the ablest sea-officer of that age, he rendered himself master of Genoa, and reëstablished in that republic the faction of the Fregosi, together with the dominion of France. He obliged Alexandria to surrender after a short siege, and reduced all the country on that side of the Tessino. He took Pavia, which had so long resisted the arms of his sovereign, by assault, and plundered it with … cruelty. … But Lautrec durst not complete a conquest which would have been so honourable to himself and of such advantage to the league. Francis … was afraid that, if Sforza were once reëstablished in Milan, they [his confederates] would second but coldly the attack which he intended to make on the kingdom of Naples. … Happily the importunities of the pope and the solicitations of the Florentines, the one for relief, and the other for protection, were so urgent as to furnish him with a decent pretext for marching forward. … While Lautrec advanced slowly towards Rome, the emperor" came to terms with the pope, and Clement obtained his liberty at the cost of 350,000 crowns, a tenth of the ecclesiastical revenues of Spain, and an agreement to take no part in the war against Charles. The latter next made overtures to the French king, offering some relaxation of the treaty of Madrid; but they were received in a manner that irritated even his cold temper. He, in turn, provoked his antagonist, until a ridiculous exchange of defiances to personal combat passed between them. Meantime "Lautrec continued his operations, which promised to be more decisive. His army, which was now increased to 35,000 men, advanced by great marches towards Naples." The remains of the imperial army retreated, as he advanced, from Rome, where it had held riot for ten months, and took shelter behind the fortifications of the Neapolitan capital. Lautrec undertook (April, 1528) the siege of Naples, with the co-operation of the Genoese admiral, Doria, who blockaded its port. But he was neglected by his own frivolous king, and received little aid from the Pope, the king of England, or other confederates of the league. Moreover, Doria and the Genoese suffered treatment so insolent, oppressive and threatening, from the French court that the former opened negotiations with the emperor for a transfer of his services. "Charles, fully sensible of the importance of such an acquisition, granted him whatever terms he required. {1842} Doria sent back his commission, together with the collar of St. Michael, to Francis, and, hoisting the imperial colours, sailed with all his galleys towards Naples, not to block up the harbour of that unhappy city, as he had formerly engaged, but to bring them protection and deliverance. His arrival opened the communication with the sea, and restored plenty in Naples, which was now reduced to the last extremity; and the French … were soon reduced to great straits for want of provisions." With the heat of summer came pestilence; Lautrec died, and the wasted French army, attempting to retreat, was forced to lay down its arms and march under guard to the frontiers of France. "The loss of Genoa followed immediately upon the ruin of the army in Naples." Doria took possession of the town; the French garrison in the citadel capitulated (September 12, 1528), and the citadel was destroyed. "It was now in Doria's power to have rendered himself the sovereign of his country, which he had so happily delivered from oppression." But he magnanimously refused any preeminence among his fellow citizens. "Twelve persons were elected to new-model the constitution of the republic. The influence of Doria's virtue and example communicated itself to his countrymen; the factions which had long torn and ruined the state seemed to be forgotten; prudent precautions were taken to prevent their reviving; and the same form of government which hath subsisted with little variation since that time in Genoa, was established with universal applause." In Lombardy, the French army, under St. Pol, was surprised, defeated and ruined at Landriano (June, 1529), as completely as the army in Naples had been a few months before. All parties were now desirous of peace, but feared to seem too eager in making overtures. Two women took the negotiations in hand and carried them to a conclusion. "These were Margaret of Austria, dutchess dowager of Savoy, the emperor's aunt, and Louise, Francis's mother. They agreed on an interview at Cambray, and, being lodged in two adjoining houses, between which a communication was opened, met together without ceremony or observation, and held daily conferences, to which no person whatever was admitted." The result was a treaty signed August 5, 1529, known as the Peace of Cambray, or "the Ladies' Peace," or "Peace of the Dames." By its terms, Francis was to pay 2,000,000 crowns for the ransom of his sons; restore such towns as he still held in the Milanese; resign and renounce his pretensions to Naples, Milan, Genoa, and every other place beyond the Alps, as well as to Flanders and Artois; and consummate his marriage with the emperor's sister, Eleanora. On the other hand, the emperor only agreed not to press his claims on Burgundy, for the present, but reserved them, in full force. Another treaty, that of Barcelona, had already, in 1529, been concluded between the emperor and the pope. The former gave up the papal states which he occupied, and agreed to reëstablish the dominion of the Medici in Florence; besides giving his natural daughter in marriage to Alexander, the head of that family. In return he received the investiture of Naples, absolution for all concerned in the plundering of Rome, and the grant to himself and his brother of a fourth of the ecclesiastical revenues throughout their dominions.

ITALY: (Southern): A. D. 1528-1570.
   Naples under the Spanish Viceroys.
   Ravages of the Turks along the coast.
   Successful revolt against the Inquisition.
   Unsuccessful French invasion under Guise.

   "After the memorable and unfortunate expedition of Lautrec, in
   1528, Philibert of Chalons, Prince of Orange, who commanded
   the Imperial army, exercised the severest vengeance [in
   Naples] on the persons and estates of all those nobles who had
   joined the French, or who appeared to demonstrate any
   attachment towards that nation. … These multiplied … acts
   of oppression received no effectual redress during the short
   administration [1529-1532] of Cardinal Colonna, who succeeded
   to the Prince of Orange. … In the place of Cardinal Colonna
   was substituted Don Pedro de Toledo, who governed Naples with
   almost unlimited powers, during the space of near 21 years.
   His viceroyalty, which forms a memorable Epocha in the annals
   of the country, demands and fixes attention. We are impressed
   with horror at finding, by his own confession, … that during
   the progress of his administration, he put to death near
   18,000 persons, by the hand of the executioner. Yet a fact
   still more extraordinary is that Giannoné, himself a
   Neapolitan, and one of the ablest as well as most impartial
   historians whom the 18th century has produced, not only
   acquits, but even commends Toledo's severity, as equally
   wholesome and necessary," on account of the terrible
   lawlessness and disorder which he found in the country. "The
   inflexible and stern character of the viceroy speedily
   redressed these grievances, and finally restored order in the
   capital. … All the provinces experienced equal attention,
   and became the objects of his personal inspection. The
   unprotected coasts of Calabria and of Apulia, subject to the
   continual devastation of the Turks, who landed from their
   gallies, were fortified with towers and beacons to announce
   the enemy's approach. … Repeated attempts were made by
   Solyman II., Emperor of the Turks, either alone or in
   conjunction with the fleets of France, to effect the conquest
   of Naples, during this period: but the exertions of Toledo
   were happily attended with success in repulsing the Turkish
   invaders. … In no part of the middle ages … were the
   coasts of Naples and Sicily so frequently plundered, ravaged,
   and desolated, as at this period. Thousands of persons of both
   sexes, and of all conditions, were carried off by Barbarossa,
   Dragut, Sinan, and the other Bashaws, or admirals of the
   Porte. Not content with landing on the shores and ravaging the
   provinces, their squadrons perpetually appeared in sight of
   Naples; laid waste the islands of Ischia and Procida, situate
   in its immediate vicinity; attacked the towns of Pouzzoli and
   Baiæ; and committed every outrage of wanton barbarity. … The
   invasion of 1552, when Dragut blocked up the harbour of
   Naples, with 150 large gallies, during near four weeks, spread
   still greater consternation; and if the fleet of France had
   arrived, as had been concerted, it is more than probable that
   the city must have fallen into their hands. But the delays of
   Henry II., Solyman's ally, proved its preservation. The
   Turkish admiral, corrupted by a present of 200,000 ducats,
   which the Viceroy found means of conveying to him, retired and
   made sail for Constantinople. …
{1843}
   The administration of Toledo … was … completely subverted
   from the moment that he attempted [1546] to introduce the
   Inquisition. … The Neapolitans, patient under every other
   species of oppression, instantly revolted. … They even
   forgot, in the general terror, the distinction of ranks; and
   the Barons united with their fellow-citizens to oppose that
   formidable tribunal. The Viceroy, returning to the capital,
   reinforced by 3,000 veteran Spaniards, determined
   nevertheless, to support the measure. Hostilities took place,
   and the city, during near three months, was abandoned to
   anarchy, while the inhabitants, having invested the castle,
   besieged their governor. … The Emperor, convinced by
   experience of the impracticability of success in his attempt,
   at length desisted." Toledo died in 1553, and "was succeeded
   by the Cardinal Pacheco, as Viceroy; and the abdication of
   Charles V., in the following year, devolved on his son Philip
   II. the sovereignty of Naples. Alarmed at the preparations
   made by Henry II., King of France, in conjunction with Paul
   IV., who had newly ascended the papal throne, Philip
   dispatched Ferdinand, Duke of Alva, to the aid of his
   Neapolitan subjects; and to the vigorous measures embraced by
   him on his arrival was due the safety of the kingdom.

… The administration of the Duke of Alcala, to whom Philip delegated the supreme power soon after the recall of Alva [1558], lasted near 12 years, and was marked by almost every species of calamity."

"The march of the Mareschal of Lautrec was the last important attempt of the French to reconquer Naples. … Spain remained in possession of this beautiful country for two centuries. … Their [the Spaniards'] ascendancy was owing as well to an iron discipline as to that inveterate character of their race, the firmness of purpose which had gradually developed itself in the long struggle for the country which they wrenched inch by inch from their tenacious enemies. The Neapolitans found that they had in the Spaniards different rulers from the French."

A. de Reumont, The Carafas of Maddaloni: Naples under Spanish Dominion, book 1.

ITALY: A. D. 1529.
Siege of Florence by the Imperial forces.
Reinstatement of the Medici.

ITALY: A. D. 1530-1600.
   Under the Spanish domination, and the Papacy of the
   Counter-Reformation.
   The Inquisition.
   The Jesuits.
   The Vice-regal rule.
   Deplorable state of the country.

"It will be useful, at this point, to recapitulate the net results of Charles's administration of Italian affairs in 1530. The kingdom of the Two Sicilies, with the island of Sardinia and the Duchy of Milan, became Spanish provinces, and were ruled henceforth by viceroys. The House of Este was confirmed in the Duchy of Ferrara, including Modena and Reggio. The Duchies of Savoy and Mantua and the Marquisate of Montferrat, which had espoused the Spanish cause, were undisturbed. Genoa and Siena, both of them avowed allies of Spain, the former under Spanish protection, the latter subject to Spanish coercion, remained with the name and empty privileges of republics. Venice had made her peace with Spain, and though she was still strong enough to pursue an independent policy, she showed as yet no inclination, and had, indeed, no power, to stir up enemies against the Spanish autocrat. The Duchy of Urbino, recognised by Rome and subservient to Spanish influence, was permitted to exist. The Papacy once more assumed a haughty tone, relying on the firm alliance struck with Spain. This league, as years went by, was destined to grow still closer, still more fruitful of results. Florence alone had been excepted from the articles of peace. It was still enduring the horrors of the memorable siege when Clement left Bologna at the end of May. … Finally, on August 12, the town capitulated. Alessandro de' Medici, who had received the title of Duke of Florence from Charles at Bologna, took up his residence there in July 1531, and held the State by help of Spanish mercenaries under the command of Alessandro Vitelli. … Though the people endured far less misery from foreign armies in the period between 1530 and 1600 than they had done in the period from 1494 to 1527, yet the state of the country grew ever more and more deplorable. This was due in the first instance to the insane methods of taxation adopted by the Spanish viceroys, who held monopolies of corn and other necessary commodities in their hands, and who invented imposts for the meanest articles of consumption. Their example was followed by the Pope and petty princes. … The settlement made by Charles V. in 1530, and the various changes which took place in the duchies between that date and the end of the century, had then the effect of rendering the Papacy and Spain omnipotent in Italy. … What they only partially effected in Europe at large, by means of S. Bartholomew massacres, exterminations of Jews in Toledo and of Mussulmans in Granada, holocausts of victims in the Low Countries, wars against French Huguenots and German Lutherans, naval expeditions and plots against the state of England, assassinations of heretic princes, and occasional burning of free thinkers, they achieved with plenary success in Italy. … It is the tragic history of the eldest and most beautiful, the noblest and most venerable, the freest and most gifted of Europe's daughters, delivered over to the devilry that issued from the most incompetent and arrogantly stupid of the European sisterhood, and to the cruelty, inspired by panic, of an impious theocracy. When we use these terms to designate the Papacy of the Counter-Reformation, it is not that we forget how many of those Popes were men of blameless private life and serious views for Catholic Christendom. When we use these terms to designate the Spanish race in the sixteenth century, it is not that we are ignorant of Spanish chivalry and colonising enterprise, of Spanish romance, or of the fact that Spain produced great painters, great dramatists, and one great novelist in the brief period of her glory. We use them deliberately, however, in both cases; because the Papacy at this period committed itself to a policy of immoral, retrograde, and cowardly repression of the most generous of human impulses under the pressure of selfish terror; because the Spaniards abandoned themselves to a dark fiend of religious fanaticism; because they were merciless in their conquests and unintelligent in their administration of subjugated provinces; because they glutted their lusts of avarice and hatred on industrious folk of other creeds within their borders; because they cultivated barren pride and self-conceit in social life; because at the great epoch of Europe's reawakening they chose the wrong side and adhered to it with fatal obstinacy. … {1844} After the year 1530 seven Spanish devils entered Italy. These were the devil of the Inquisition, with stake and torture-room, and war declared against the will and soul and heart and intellect of man; the devil of Jesuitry, with its sham learning, shameless lying, and casuistical economy of sins; the devil of vice-royal rule, with its life-draining monopolies and gross incapacity for government; the devil of an insolent soldiery, quartered on the people, clamorous for pay, outrageous in their lusts and violences; the devil of fantastical taxation, levying tolls upon the bare necessities of life, and drying up the founts of national well-being at their sources; the devil of petty-princedom, wallowing in sloth and cruelty upon a pinchbeck throne; the devil of effeminate hidalgoism, ruinous in expenditure, mean and grasping, corrupt in private life, in public ostentatious, vain of titles, cringing to its masters, arrogant to its inferiors. In their train these brought with them seven other devils, their pernicious offspring: idleness, disease, brigandage, destitution, ignorance, superstition, hypocritically sanctioned vice. These fourteen devils were welcomed, entertained, and voluptuously lodged in all the fairest provinces of Italy. The Popes opened wide for them the gates of outraged and depopulated Rome. … After a tranquil sojourn of some years in Italy, these devils had every where spread desolation and corruption. Broad regions, like the Patrimony of S. Peter and Calabria, were given over to marauding bandits; wide tracts of fertile country, like the Sienese Maremma, were abandoned to malaria; wolves prowled through empty villages round Milan; in every city the pestilence swept off its hundreds daily; manufactures, commerce, agriculture, the industries of town and rural district, ceased; the Courts swarmed with petty nobles, who vaunted paltry titles, and resigned their wives to cicisbei and their sons to sloth; art and learning languished; there was not a man who ventured to speak out his thought or write the truth; and over the Dead Sea of social putrefaction floated the sickening oil of Jesuitical hypocrisy."

J. A. Symonds, Renaissance in Italy: The Catholic Reaction, part 1, chapter 1.

ITALY: A. D. 1536-1544.
   French invasion of Piedmont.
   French and Turkish siege of Nice.
   Turkish ravages on the coast.
   The Treaty of Crespy.

ITALY: A. D. 1545-1556. Creation of the duchy of Parma and Placentia, under the rule of the House of Farnese.

ITALY: A. D. 1559-1580.
End of the French occupation of Savoy and Piedmont.
The notable reign of Emanuel Philibert.

ITALY: A. D. 1559-1600.
   Peace without Prosperity.
   Foreign and domestic Despotism.
   Exhaustion and helplessness of the country.

"From the epoch of the treaty of Château Cambresis [1559] to the close of the 16th century, Italy remained, in one sense, in profound and uninterrupted peace. During this long period of 41 years, her provinces were neither troubled by a single invasion of foreign armies, nor by any hostilities of importance between her own feeble and nerveless powers. But this half century presented, nevertheless, anything rather than the aspect of public happiness and prosperity. Her wretched people enjoyed none of the real blessings of peace. Subject either to the oppressive yoke of their native despots, or to the more general influence of the arch-tyrant of Spain, they were abandoned to all the exactions of arbitrary government, and compelled to lavish their blood in foreign wars and in quarrels not their own. While France, torn by religious and civil dissensions, sank for a time from her political station among the powers of the continent, and was no longer capable of affording protection or exciting jealousy, Philip II. was left free to indulge in the peninsula all the obdurate tyranny of his nature. … The popes were interested in supporting his career of bigotry and religious persecution; the other powers of Italy crouched before him in abject submission. To feed the religious wars, in which he embarked as a principal or an accessory, in the endeavour to crush the protestant cause in France, in the Low Countries, and in Germany, he drained Italy of her resources in money and in men. … While the Italian soldiery fought with the courage of freemen, they continued the slaves of a despot, and while the Italian youth were consumed in transalpine warfare, their suffering country groaned under an iron yoke, and was abandoned a prey to the unresisted assaults of the infidels. Her coasts, left without troops, or defences in fortifications and shipping, were insulted and ravaged by the constant descents of the corsairs of Turkey and Barbary. Her maritime villages were burnt, her maritime population dragged off into slavery; and her tyrants, while they denied the people the power of defending themselves, were unable or careless also to afford them protection and safety."

ITALY: A. D. 1605-1607.
Venice under the guidance of Fra Paolo Sarpi.
Successful contest of the Republic with the Papacy.

ITALY: A. D. 1627-1631.
Disputed succession to the Duchy of Mantua.
War of France with Spain, Savoy and the Emperor.

   "About Christmas in the year 1627, Vincenzo II., Duke of
   Mantua, of the house of Gonzaga, died without issue. His next
   of kin, beyond all controversy, was Charles Gonzaga, Duke of
   Nevers, whose family had settled in France some fifty years
   before, and acquired by marriage the dukedoms of Nevers and
   Rethel. Although there was a jealousy on the part both of
   Austria and Spain that French influences should be introduced
   into Upper Italy, there seems to have been no intention, in
   the first instance, of depriving Charles of his Italian
   inheritance. … But … when the old Duke Vincenzo's days
   were evidently numbered, Charles's son, the young Duke of
   Rethel, by collusion with the citizens, arrived at Mantua to
   seize the throne which in a little while death would make
   vacant."
{1845}
   At the same time, he took from a convent in the city a young
   girl who represented whatever claims might exist in the direct
   native line, and married her, the pope granting a
   dispensation. "Both the King of Spain and the Emperor … were
   incensed by conduct which both must needs have regarded as
   indicative of hostility, and the latter as an invasion of his
   feudal rights. Spain flew to arms at once. The emperor
   summoned the young duke before his tribunal, to answer the
   charges of having seized the succession without his
   investiture, and married his ward without his consent. …
   Charles, supported by the promises of Richelieu, refused to
   acknowledge the emperor's rights of superiority, or to submit
   to his jurisdiction."

"The emperor … sequestered the disputed territory, and a Spanish army invaded Montferrat [embraced in the dominions of the Duke of Mantua] and besieged Casale, the capital. Such was the paramount importance attached by Richelieu to his principle of opposition to the house of Austria, that he induced Louis to cross the Alps in person with 36,000 men, in order to establish the Duke of Nevers in his new possessions. The king and the cardinal forced the pass of Susa in March, 1629, in spite of the Duke of Savoy, who was another competitor for Montferrat, and so decisive was the superiority of the French arms that the duke immediately afterward signed a treaty of peace and alliance with Louis, by which he undertook to procure the abandonment of the siege of Casale and the retreat of the Spaniards into their own territory. This engagement was fulfilled, and the Duke of Nevers took possession of his dominions without farther contest. But the triumph was too rapid and easy to be durable."

"The Spaniards remained, however, in Milaness, ready to burst again upon the Duke of Mantua. The king was in a hurry to return to France, in order to finish the subjugation of the Reformers in the south, commanded by the Duke of Rohan. The cardinal placed little or no reliance upon the Duke of Savoy. … A league … was formed between France, the republic of Venice, the Duke of Mantua, and the Duke of Savoy, for the defence of Italy in case of fresh aggression on the part of the Spaniards; and the king, who had just concluded peace with England, took the road back to France. Scarcely had the cardinal joined him before Privas when an Imperialist army advanced into the Grisons and, supported by the celebrated Spanish general Spinola, laid siege to Mantua. Richelieu did not hesitate: he entered Piedmont in the month of March, 1630, to march before long on Pignerol, an important place commanding the passage of the Alps; it, as well as the citadel, was carried in a few days. … The Duke of Savoy was furious, and had the soldiers who surrendered Pignerol cut in pieces. The king [Louis XIII.] had put himself in motion to join his army. … The inhabitants of Chambéry opened their gates to him; Annecy and Montmélian succumbed after a few days' siege; Maurienne in its entirety made its submission, and the king fixed his quarters there, whilst the cardinal pushed forward to Casale [the siege of which had been resumed by Spinola] with the main body of the army. Rejoicings were still going on for a success gained before Veillane over the troops of the Duke of Savoy, when news arrived of the capture of Mantua by the Imperialists. This was the finishing blow to the ambitious and restless spirit of the Duke of Savoy. He saw Mantua in the hands of the Spaniards, 'who never give back aught of what falls into their power' … ; it was all hope lost of an exchange which might have given him back Savoy; he took to his bed and died on the 26th of July, 1630, telling his son that peace must be made on any terms whatever." A truce was arranged, followed by negotiations at Ratisbon, and Casale was evacuated by both parties—the Spaniards having had possession of the city, while the citadel was held by the French. "It was only in the month of September, 1631, that the states of Savoy and Mantua were finally evacuated by the hostile troops. Pignerol had been given up to the new Duke of Savoy, but a secret agreement had been entered into between that prince and France: French soldiers remained concealed in Pignerol; and they retook possession of the place in the name of the king, who had purchased the town and its territory, to secure himself a passage into Italy. … The affairs of the emperor in Germany were in too bad a state for him to rekindle war, and France kept Pignerol."

"The peace left all parties very nearly in the condition in which they were when the war began; the chief loser was the emperor, who was now compelled to acknowledge De Nevers as Duke of Mantua and Montserrat; and the chief gainer was the Duke of Savoy, whose territories were enlarged by the addition of Alba, Trino, and some portions of the territory of Montserrat which lay nearest to his Piedmontese dominions. France; too, made some permanent acquisitions to compensate her for the cost of the war. She eluded the stipulation which bound her to evacuate Casal, and Victor Amedée subsequently suffered her to retain both that fortress and Pignerol, such permission, as was generally believed, … having furnished the secret reason which influenced Richelieu to consent to the duke's obtaining the portion of Montserrat already mentioned, the cardinal thus making the Duke of Mantua furnish the equivalent for the acquisitions made by Louis."

ITALY: A. D. 1635.
Italian alliances of Richelieu against the Spaniards in Milan.

ITALY: A. D. 1635-1659.
   Invasion of Milanese by French and Italian armies.
   Civil war and foreign war in Savoy and Piedmont.
   The extraordinary siege of Turin.
   Treaty of the Pyrenees.
   Restoration of territory to Savoy.

   "Richelieu … having obtained the alliance of the Dukes of
   Savoy, Parma, and Mantua, and having secured the neutrality of
   the Republics of Venice and Genoa, now bent all his efforts to
   expel the Spaniards from Milan, which was at that time but
   weakly defended. … In 1635, a French army of 15,000 men was
   accordingly assembled in Dauphiny, and placed under the
   command of Mareschal Crequi. Having crossed the Alps, it
   formed a junction with 8,000 troops under the Duke of Parma,
   and 12,000 under the Duke of Savoy, to whom the supreme
   command of this formidable army of 35,000 men was entrusted.
{1846}
   Such a force, if properly employed, ought to have proved
   sufficient to overwhelm the Dutchy of Milan, in its present
   unprotected condition. … But the confederates were long
   detained by idle disputes among themselves, their
   licentiousness and love of plunder." When they did advance
   into Milanese, their campaign was ineffective, and they
   finally "separated with mutual disgust," but "kept the field,
   ravaging the open and fertile plains of Milan. They likewise
   took possession of several towns, particularly Bremi, on the
   Po. … On hearing of the distress of Milan, the King of Spain
   took immediate steps for the relief of that bulwark of his
   Italian power. In 1636 he appointed to its government Diego
   Guzman, Marques of Leganez, who was a near relative of
   Olivarez. … He had not long entered on the government
   intrusted to him when he succeeded in expelling the enemy from
   every spot in Milan, with exception of Bremi, which they still
   retained. Milan having been thus delivered, Leganez
   transferred the theatre of war to the States of the Duke of
   Parma, and completely desolated those fertile regions,"
   compelling the Duke to renounce his French alliance (1637).
   "The Duke of Savoy, Victor Amadeus, did not long survive these
   events; and it was strongly suspected, both in Spain and
   Italy, though probably on no just grounds, that he had been
   poisoned. … The demise of the Duke of Mantua occurred nearly
   about the same period; and on the decease of these two
   princes, the Court of Spain used every exertion to detach
   their successors from the French confederacy. Its efforts
   succeeded, at least to a certain extent, with the
   Dutchess-dowager of Mantua. … But the Dutchess of Savoy, …
   being the sister of Louis XIII., could not easily be drawn off
   from the French interests. Olivarez [the Spanish minister],
   despairing to gain this princess, excited by his intrigues the
   brothers of the late Duke [Cardinal Maurice and Prince Thomas]
   to dispute with her the title to the regency." Leganez, now
   (1638) laid siege to Bremi, and Marshal Crequi, in attempting
   to relieve the place, was killed by a cannon shot. "By the
   loss of Bremi, the French were deprived of the last receptacle
   for their supplies or forces in the Dutchy of Milan; and in
   consequence of the death of Crequi, they had now no longer any
   chief of their own nation in Italy. The few French nobility
   who were still in the army returned to their own country, and
   the soldiery dispersed into Montferrat and Piedmont. Leganez,
   availing himself of this favourable posture of affairs,
   marched straightway into Piedmont, at the head of an army of
   20,000 men. … He first laid siege to Vercelli, which, from
   its vicinity to Milan, had always afforded easy access for the
   invasion of that dutchy, by the French and Savoyards." A new
   French army, of 13,000 men, under Cardinal La Valette, was
   sent to the relief of the place, but did not save it from
   surrender. "After the capture of Vercelli, the light troops of
   Leganez ravaged the principality of Piedmont as far as the
   gates of Turin."

Fabert and Turenne were now sent from France to the assistance of La Valette, "and soon changed the aspect of affairs. Turenne aided powerfully in driving back Leganez and Prince Thomas from Turin, in seizing Chivasso and in organizing a decisive success." In November, 1639, the French, through want of provisions, were forced to retreat to Carignano, repelling an attack made upon them in the course of the retreat. The command was now handed over to Turenne, "with instructions to revictual the citadel of Turin, which was defended by French troops against Prince Thomas, who had gained most of the town. Turenne succeeded … in conveying food and munitions into the citadel. In the following spring d'Harcourt [resuming command] undertook to relieve Casale, which belonged to the Duke of Mantua. … The place was besieged by Leganez." The attempt succeeded, the besieging army was beaten, and the siege raised. "After the relief of Casale d'Harcourt resolved, on the advice of Turenne, to besiege Turin. The investment was made on the 10th May, 1640. This siege offered a curious spectacle; the citadel which the French held was besieged by Prince Thomas, who held the town. He himself was besieged by the French army, which in its turn was besieged in its lines of circumvallation by the Spanish army of Leganez. The place capitulated on the 17th September. … Prince Thomas surrendered; Leganez recrossed the Po; Marie Christine [the Dowager-Duchess] re-entered Turin; and d'Harcourt, being recalled to France by the cardinal, left the command of the army to Turenne."

   "The fall of Turin did not put an end to the civil war, but
   its main exploits were limited to the taking of Cuneo by
   Harcourt (September 15th, 1641), … and of Revel, which was
   reduced by the Piedmontese troops who fought on the French
   side. … In the meantime the Regent, no less than her
   opponents, began to grow weary of the burdensome protection of
   their respective allies. … Under such circumstances, a
   reconciliation between the hostile parties became practicable,
   and was indeed effected on the 24th of July, 1642. The Princes
   were admitted to a share of the Regent's power, and from that
   time they joined the French standard, and took from the
   Spaniards most of the places they had themselves placed in
   their hands. … In the meanwhile the great agitator of
   Europe, Richelieu, had died (1642), and had been followed by
   the King, Louis XIII., five months later. … The struggle
   between the two great rival powers, France and Spain, scarcely
   interrupted by the celebrated peace of Westphalia, which put
   an end to the Thirty Years' War in the North, in 1648,
   continued throughout the greatest part of this period; but the
   rapid decline of Spain, the factions of Alessio in Sicily and
   of Massaniello in Naples, as much paralysed the efforts of the
   Court of Madrid as the disorders of the Fronde weakened that
   of Paris. The warlike operations in North Italy were languid
   and dull. The taking of Valenza by the French (September 3rd,
   1656) is the greatest event on record, and even that [was]
   void of results. By the treaty of the Pyrenees (November 17th,
   1059) Savoy was restored to her possessions, and Vercelli was
   evacuated by the Spaniards. The citadel of Turin had been
   given up by the French two years before, owing to the
   influence of Mazarin, who married on that occasion his niece
   Olimpia Mancini to Eugene Maurice, son of Thomas, Prince of
   Carignano, and first cousin to Charles Emanuel II. From that
   union, it is well known, was born in Paris, in 1663, Prince
   Eugene of Savoy.
{1847}
   The French nation were highly displeased at the loss of the
   Turin citadel, and never forgave the Cardinal this mere act of
   just and tardy restitution. Pinerola and Perosa, however,
   still remained in their hands, and placed the Court of Turin
   entirely at their discretion. During all this lapse of years,
   and until the latter end of the century, the history of
   Piedmont presents but a melancholy blank."

ITALY: A. D. 1646-1654.
   French hostility to the Pope.
   Siege of Orbitello.
   Masaniello's revolt at Naples.
   French intrigue and failures.

"The war [of France and Spain] in Italy had for some years languished, but hostility to the Pope [on the election of Innocent X., which Cardinal Mazarin, then supreme in France, had opposed] stirred it again into life. New vessels were fitted out for the navy, and large preparations were made for the invasion of Italy. … On April 26, 1646, the expedition set sail, and on the 9th of May it cast anchor off the important city of Orbitello. The fleet consisted of 156 sail, and was expected to land 10,000 men, and Mazarin wrote that all Italy was in terror. The ships were commanded by the Duke of Brézé, and no more skilful or gallant leader could have been found. … The command of the land forces was, however, entrusted to a leader whose deficiencies more than counterbalanced Brézé's skill. Mazarin desired an Italian prince to lead his expedition, and Prince Thomas of Savoy had been chosen for the command. … Fearing that disease would come with the hot weather, Mazarin urged Prince Thomas to press forward with the siege. But the most simple advances seemed beyond his skill. … A severe misfortune to the navy made the situation worse. In a sharp and successful engagement with the Spanish fleet, a cannon ball struck and killed the Duke of Brézé. His death was more disastrous than would have been the loss of 20 sail. The French fleet retired to Provence and left the sea open to the Spanish. Sickness was fast reducing the army on land, and on July 18th Prince Thomas raised the siege, which was no further advanced than when it was begun, and led back the remains of his command to Piedmont. … So mortifying an end to this expensive venture only strengthened Mazarin's resolution to make his power felt in Italy. The battered ships and fever-wasted soldiers were scarcely back in Provence, when the minister began to prepare a second expedition for the same end. … By September a fleet of 200 sail, with an army of 8,000 men commanded by the Marshals of La Meilleraie and Du Plessis, was under way. The expedition was conducted with skill and success. Orbitello was not again attacked, but Porto Longone, on the island of Elba, and Piombino, on the mainland, both places of much strategic importance, were captured after brief sieges. With this result came at once the change in the feelings of Innocent X. for which Mazarin had hoped," and certain objects of the latter's desire—including a cardinal's hat for his brother Michael—were brought within his reach. His attention was now turned to the more southerly portion of the peninsula. "During the expedition to Orbitello in 1646, Mazarin had closely watched Naples, whose coming revolution he foresaw. The ill-suppressed discontents of the city now showed themselves in disturbances, sudden and erratic as the eruptions of Vesuvius, and they offered to France an opportunity for seizing the richest of the remaining possessions of Spain. After the vicissitudes of centuries, Naples and Sicily were now subject to the Spanish crown. They were governed by a viceroy, and were subjected to the drain of men and money which was the result of Spain's necessities and the characteristic of her rule. Burdened with taxation, they complained that their viceroy, the Duke of Arcos, was sending to Spain money raised solely for their own defence. The imposition of a duty on fruits, in a country where fruit formed a cheap article of diet for the poor, and where almost all were poor, kindled the long smouldering discontent. Under the leadership of a fisherman [Tommaso Aniello], nicknamed Masaniello, the people of Naples in 1647 rose in revolt. Springing from utter obscurity, this young man of twenty-seven, poor and illiterate, became powerful almost in a day. While the Duke of Arcos hid himself away from the revolt, Masaniello was made Captain-General of Naples. So sudden a change turned his head. At first he had been bold, popular, and judicious. He sought only, he said, to deliver the people from their taxes, and when that was done, he would return again to selling soles and red mullets. But political delirium seized him when he reached an elevation which, for him, was as dizzy as the throne of the Roman emperors, and like some who reached that terrible eminence, his brain was crazed by the bewilderment and ecstasy of power. He made wild and incoherent speeches. He tore his garments, crying out against popular ingratitude, attacking groups of passers-by, riding his horse wildly through the multitude, and striking with his lance to the right and left. The populace wearied of its darling. Exalted to power on July 7th, he was murdered on the 16th, with the approval of those who had worshipped him a week before. But the revolution did not perish with him. Successive chiefs were chosen and deposed by a fickle people. When the insurrection was active, the representatives of Spain promised untaxed fruits and the privileges allowed by Charles V., and they revoked their promises when it appeared to subside. In the meantime, Mazarin watched the movement, uncertain as to the course he should pursue. … While the minister hesitated, the chance was seized by one who was never accused of too great caution." This was the Duke of Guise—the fifth Henry of that Dukedom—a wild, madcap young nobleman, who accepted an invitation from the Neapolitan insurgents to become their chief. Guise landed at Naples on the 15th of November, 1647, with half a dozen attendants, and a month later he was followed by a French fleet. But the latter did nothing, and Guise was helplessly without means. "The truth was that Mazarin, even if desirous of crippling the Spaniards, was very averse to assisting Guise. He believed that the duke either desired to form a republic, of which he should be chief, or a monarchy, of which he should be king, and neither plan was agreeable to the cardinal." At the end of a fortnight the fleet sailed away. Guise held his ground as the leader of the revolt until the following April, when certain of the Neapolitan patriots, corrupted by the enemy, betrayed the city into the hands of the Spaniards. {1848} "Guise endeavored, with a handful of followers, to escape towards Capua, but they were captured by a detachment of Spaniards. … By the petition of powerful friends, and by the avowal of France, Guise was saved from the public execution which some of his enemies demanded, but he was presently taken to Spain, and there was kept a prisoner during four years." Meantime, Mazarin had prepared another expedition, which appeared before Naples in the summer of 1648, but only to discover that the opportunity for deriving any advantage from the popular discontent in that city was past. "Receiving no popular aid, the expedition, after some ineffective endeavors, was abandoned." Six years afterwards, in 1654, Mazarin sent a third expedition to Naples, and entrusted it to the command of the Duke of Guise, who had lately been released from his captivity in Spain. "Guise hoped that the Neapolitans would rise in revolt when it was known that their former leader was so near, but not a person in the city showed any desire to start a movement in behalf of the Duke of Guise. The Spanish met him with superior forces." After some slight encounters the expedition sailed back to France.

J. B. Perkins, France under Mazarin, chapter 8 (volume 1), and chapter 16 (volume 2).

ALSO IN: A. De Reumont, The Carafas of Maddaloni: Naples under Spanish Dominion, book 3.

ITALY: A. D. 1701-1713.
   Savoy and Piedmont.
   The War of the Spanish Succession.
   The Peace of Utrecht.

"Compelled to take part, with one of the contending parties [in the War of the Spanish Succession—see SPAIN: A. D. 1698-1700, and 1701-1702], Victor [Duke of Savoy] would have been prompted by his interest to an alliance with Austria; but he was beset on all sides by the combined forces of France and Spain, and was all the more at their mercy as Louis XIV. had (April 5th, 1701) obtained from Ferdinand Gonzaga of Mantua permission to garrison his capital, in those days already one of the strongest places in Italy. The Duke of Savoy had already, in 1697, married his daughter, Adelaide, to one of Louis's grandsons, the Duke of Burgundy; he now gave his younger daughter, Mary Louise, to Burgundy's brother, the new King of Spain (September 11th, 1701), and took the field as French commander-in-chief. He was opposed by his own cousin, Prince Eugene, at the head of the Imperial armies. The war in Lombardy was carried on with some remissness, partly owing to the natural repugnance or irresolution of the Duke of Savoy, partly to the suspicion with which, on that very account, he was looked upon by Catinat and Vaudemont, the French and Spanish commanders under him. The King, in an evil hour, removed his able marshal, Catinat, and substituted for him Villeroi, a carpet knight and court warrior, who committed one fault after another, allowed himself to be beaten by Eugene at Chiari (September 1st), and to be surprised and taken prisoner at Cremona (1702, January 21st), to the infinite relief of his troops. Vendôme restored the fortunes of the French, and a very brilliant but undecisive action was fought at Luzzara (August 15th), after which Prince Eugene was driven from the neighbourhood of Mantua, and fell back towards the mountains of Tyrol. With the success of the French their arrogance increased, and with their arrogance the disgust and ill-will of Victor Amadeus." The Duke withdrew from the camp and began to listen to overtures from the Powers in the Grand Alliance. "Report of the secret intercourse of the Duke with Austrian agents reached Louis XIV., who sent immediate orders to Vendôme to secure and disarm the Piedmontese soldiers (3,800 to 6,000 in number) who were fighting under French standards at Mantua. This was achieved by treachery, at San Benedetto, on the 29th of September, 1703. An attempt to seize the Duke himself, whilst hunting near Turin, miscarried. Savoy retaliated by the arrest of the French and Spanish ambassadors, and war was declared (October 5th). The moment was ill·chosen. Victor had barely 4,000 men under his orders. The whole of Savoy was instantly overrun; and in Piedmont Vercelli, Ivrea, Verrua, as well as Susa, Bard, and Pinerolo, and even Chivasso, fell into the enemy's hands during the campaigns of 1704 and 1705. In the ensuing year the tide of invasion reached Nice and Villafranca; nothing was left to Victor Amadeus but Cuneo and Turin, and the victorious French armies appeared at last under the very walls of the capital (March, 1706). The war had, however, been waged with different results beyond the Alps, where the allies had crushed the French at Blenheim (1704) and at Ramillies (1705). One of the heroes of those great achievements, Prince Eugene, now hastened to the rescue of his cousin. He met with a severe check at Cassano (August 16th, 1705), and again at Calcinato (April 19th, 1706); but his skilful antagonist, Vendôme, was called away to Flanders, and Prince Eugene so out-manœuvred his successors as to be able to join Victor at Turin. The French had begun the siege of this place on the 13th of May, 1706. They had between 50,000 and 60,000 men, and 170 pieces of artillery with them." When Prince Eugene, early in September, reached the neighborhood of Turin, he concerted with Victor Amadeus an attack on the investing army which destroyed it completely. "Its relics withdrew in awful disorder towards Pinerolo, pursued not only by the victorious troops but also by the peasantry, who, besides attachment to their princes, obeyed in this instance an instinct of revenge against the French, who had barbarously used them. Out of 50,000 or 60,000 men who had sat down before Turin in March, hardly 20,000 recrossed the Alps in September. Three of the French generals lay dead on the field; … 6,000 prisoners were marched through the streets of the liberated town, and 55 French banners graced the main altar of the cathedral. In the following year, Victor and Eugene, greatly against their inclination, were induced by the allies to undertake an expedition against Toulon, which, like all previous invasions of Provence, led to utter discomfiture, and the loss of 10,000 combatants (1707, July 1st to September 1st). An attack upon Briançon, equally undertaken against the sound judgment of the Duke of Savoy, in 1708, led to no better results; but Savoy won back Exilles, Perosa, Fenestrelles, and, one by one, all the redoubts with which during those wars the Alps were bristling. {1849} The war slackened in Italy, and the fates of Europe were decided in the Netherlands. … By the Peace of Utrecht [A. D. 1713] France renounced to Savoy all the invaded territories, and, besides, the valleys of Oulx, Cesanne, Bardonneche, and Castel Delfino, ancient possessions of Dauphiny, east of the Alps, from the 12th century, whilst, for her own part, Savoy gave up the western valley of Barcellonette; thus the limits between the two nations (with the exception of Savoy and Nice) were at last fixed on the mountain-crest, at 'the parting of the waters.' By virtue of an agreement signed with Austria, November 8th, 1703, the whole of Montferrat, as well as Alessandria, Valenza, Lomellina, and Val Sesia, dependencies of the duchy of Milan, and the imperial fiefs in the Langhe (province of Alba), were ceded to Savoy."

      W. Coxe,
      History of the House of Austria,
      chapters 68, 69, 73-75, 77 (volume 2-3).

ITALY: A. D. 1713-1714.
Milan, Naples and Sardinia ceded to the House of Austria and
Sicily to the Duke of Savoy.

ITALY: A. D. 1715-1735.
   Ambitions of Elizabeth Farnese, the Spanish queen.
   The Austro-Spanish conflict.
   The Quadruple Alliance.
   Acquisition of Naples by the Spanish Bourbons.

By the provisions of the Treaty of Utrecht, Philip V. of Spain was left with no dominions in Italy, the Italian possessions of the Spanish monarchy having been transferred to Austria. Philip might have accepted this arrangement without demur. Not so his wife—"Elizabeth Farnese, a lady of the Italian family for whom the Duchy of Parma had been created by the Pope. The crown of Spain was settled on her step-son. For her own child the ambitious queen desired the honours of a crown. Cardinal Alberoni, a reckless and ambitious ecclesiastic, was the minister of the Spanish court. Under his advice and instigated by the queen, Philip claimed the possessions in Italy, which in the days of his grandfather had belonged to the Spanish crown. When his title to that crown was admitted, he denied the right of the other powers of Europe to alienate from it its possessions. This was not all: in right of his queen he claimed the duchies of Parma and of Tuscany. She determined to recover for him all the Italian possessions of the Spanish crown, and to add to them the duchies of Parma and Tuscany. The Duke of Parma was old and childless. The extinction of the reigning line of the Medici was near. Cosmo di Medici, the reigning sovereign, was old. His only son, Jean Gaston, was not likely to leave heirs. To Parma Elizabeth advanced her claims as heiress of the family of Farnese; to Tuscany she asserted a more questionable title in right of a descent from the family of Medici. These duchies she demanded for her son, Don Carlos, in whose behalf she was ready to waive her own claims. The success of these demands would have given to the Spanish monarchy even greater power than it had before enjoyed. To Naples, Sicily, and Milan, would have been added the territories of Parma and Tuscany. All Europe denounced the ambitious projects of Alberoni as entirely inconsistent with that balance of power which it had then become a political superstition to uphold. Philip's French relatives were determined in opposition to his claims; and to resist them the quadruple alliance was formed between Holland, England, France and the emperor. The parties to this alliance offered to the Spanish Bourbons that the emperor should settle on Don Carlos the reversion to the duchies of Parma and Tuscany on their lapsing to him by the failure of the reigning families without heirs. These proposals were rejected, and it was not until the Spanish court found the combination of four powerful monarchs too strong for them, that they reluctantly acceded to the terms of the Quadruple Alliance, and accepted for Don Carlos the promised reversion of Parma and Tuscany. To induce the emperor to accede to this arrangement the Duke of Savoy was compelled to surrender to him his newly-acquired kingdom of Sicily, receiving instead the island of Sardinia with its kingly title. It is as kings of Sardinia that the princes of Savoy have since been known in European history. The treaty of the quadruple alliance was thus the second by which at this period the European powers attempted to arrange the affairs of Italy. This treaty left the house of Austria in possession of Sicily and Naples. It was assented to by Spain in 1720. European complications unconnected with Italy produced new wars and a new treaty; and the treaty of Seville in 1724, followed by one entered into at Vienna two years later, confirmed Don Carlos in the duchy of Parma, of which, on the death of the last of the Farnese in 1734, he entered into possession. A dispute as to the election of a king of Poland gave the Spanish court an opportunity of once more attempting the resumption of the Neapolitan dominions. Don Carlos, the second son of Philip and Elizabeth, was now just grown to man's estate. His father placed in his hand the sword which he himself had received from Louis XIV. Don Carlos was but seventeen years old when he took possession of his sovereignty of Parma. In the same year [1734] he was called from it to invade the Sicilian dominions of Austria. He conquered in succession the continental territories, and the island of Sicily; and on the 15th of June, 1734, he was proclaimed as King of the Two Sicilies. The war of the Polish Succession was ended in the following year by a peace, the preliminaries of which were signed at Vienna. In this treaty an entirely new arrangement of Italian affairs was introduced. The rights of Don Carlos to the kingdoms of Naples and Sicily were recognised. Parma was surrendered to the emperor; and, lastly, the duchy of Tuscany was disposed of to a new claimant [Francis of Lorraine] for the honours of an Italian prince."

P. Colletta, History of the Kingdom of Naples, 1734-1856, book 1, chapter 1-2.

      See, also,
      SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1725;
      and FRANCE: A. D. 1733-1735.

ITALY: A. D. 1719.
The Emperor and the Duke of Savoy exchange Sardinia for
Sicily.

ITALY: A. D. 1733-1735.
   Franco-Austrian War.
   Invasion of the Milanese by the French.
   Naples and Sicily occupied by the Spaniards and erected into a
   kingdom for Don Carlos.

ITALY: A. D. 1741-1743.
The War of the Austrian Succession:
Ambitious undertakings of Spain.

   "The struggle between England and Spain had altogether merged
   in the great European war, and the chief efforts of the
   Spaniards were directed against the Austrian dominions in
   Italy.

The kingdom of Naples, which had passed under Austrian rule during the war of the [Spanish] Succession, had, as we have seen, been restored to the Spanish line in the war which ended in 1740, and Don Carlos, who ruled it, was altogether subservient to Spanish policy. The Duke of Lorraine, the husband of Maria Theresa, was sovereign of Tuscany; and the Austrian possessions consisted of the Duchy of Milan, and the provinces of Mantua and Placentia. They were garrisoned at the opening of the war by only 15,000 men, and their most dangerous enemy was the King of Sardinia, who had gradually extended his dominions into Lombardy, and whose army was, probably, the largest and most efficient in Italy. 'The Milanese,' his father is reported to have said, 'is like an artichoke, to be eaten leaf by leaf,' and the skill and perseverance with which for many generations the House of Savoy pursued that policy, have in our own day had their reward. Spanish troops had landed at Naples as early as November 1741. The King of Sardinia, the Prince of Modena, and the Republic of Genoa were on the same side. Venice was completely neutral, Tuscany was compelled to declare herself so, and a French army was soon to cross the Alps. The King of Sardinia, however, at this critical moment, was alarmed by the ambitious projects openly avowed by the Spaniards, and he was induced by English influence to change sides. He obtained the promise of certain territorial concessions from Austria, and of an annual subsidy of £200,000 from England; and on these conditions he suddenly marched with an army of 30,000 men to the support of the Austrians. An the plans of the confederates were disconcerted by this defection. The Spaniards went into winter quarters near Bologna in October, fought an unsuccessful battle at Campo Santo in the following February [1743], and then retired to Rimini, leaving Lombardy in complete tranquillity. The British fleet in the Mediterranean had been largely strengthened by Carteret, and it did good service to the cause. It burnt a Spanish squadron in the French port of St. Tropez, compelled the King of Naples, by the threat of bombardment, to withdraw his troops from the Spanish army, and sign an engagement of neutrality, destroyed large provisions of corn collected by the Genoese for the Spanish army, and cut off that army from all communications by sea."

"By a treaty between Great Britain, the Queen of Hungary, and the King of Sardinia, signed at Worms September 23rd, 1743, Charles Emanuel renounced his pretensions to Milan; the Queen of Hungary ceding to him the Vigevanesco, that part of the duchy of Pavia between the Po and the Tessino, the town and part of the duchy of Piacenza, and a portion of the district of Anghiera. Also whatever rights she might have to the marquisate of Finale hoping that the Republic of Genoa would facilitate this agreement, in order that the King of Sardinia might have a communication with the sea. The Queen of Hungary promised to increase her army in Italy to 30,000 men as soon as the affairs of Germany would permit; while the King of Great Britain engaged to keep a strong fleet in the Mediterranean, and to pay Charles Emanuel annually £200,000, so long as the war lasted, he keeping in the field an army of 45,000 men."

      T. H. Dyer,
      History of Modern Europe,
      book 6, chapter 4 (volume 3).

ITALY: A. D. 1743.
The Bourbon Family Compact (France and Spain) for establishing
Spanish claims.

   "In Italy, the discordant views and mutual jealousies of Maria
   Theresa and the king of Sardinia prevented the good effects
   which might have been derived from their recent union. The
   king was anxious to secure his own dominions on the side of
   France, and to conquer the marquisate of Finale; while Maria
   Theresa was desirous to direct her principal force against
   Naples, and recover possession of the two Sicilies. Hence,
   instead of co-operating for one great object, their forces
   were divided; and, after an arduous and active campaign, the
   Austrians were nearly in the same situation as at the
   commencement of the year. Prince Lobcowitz being reinforced,
   compelled the Spaniards to retreat successively from Pesara
   and Senegallia, attacked them at Loretto and Reconati, and
   drove them beyond the Fronto, the boundary of the kingdom of
   Naples. Alarmed by the advance of the Austrians, the king of
   Naples broke his neutrality, quitted his capital at the head
   of 15,000 men, and hastened to join the Spaniards. But Prince
   Lobcowitz … turned towards Rome, with the hope of
   penetrating into Naples on that side; and, in the commencement
   of June, reached the neighbourhood of Albano. His views were
   anticipated by the king of Naples, who, dividing the Spanish
   and Neapolitan troops into three columns, which were led by
   himself, the duke of Modena, and the count de Gages, passed
   through Anagm, Valmonte, and Monte Tortino, and reunited his
   forces at Veletri, in the Campagna di Roma. In this situation,
   the two hostile armies, separated only by a deep valley,
   harassed each other with continual skirmishes. At length
   prince Lobcowitz, in imitation of prince Eugene at Cremona,
   formed the project of surprising the head-quarters of the king
   of Naples. In the night of August 10th, a corps of Austrians,
   led by count Brown, penetrated into the town of Veletri,
   killed all who resisted, and would have surprised the king and
   the duke of Modena in their beds, had they not been alarmed by
   the French ambassador, and escaped to the camp. The Austrian
   troops, giving way to pillage, were vigorously attacked by a
   corps of Spaniards and Neapolitans, despatched from the camp,
   and driven from the town with great slaughter, and the capture
   of the second in command, the marquis de Novati. In this
   contest, however, the Spanish army lost no less than 3,000
   men. This daring exploit was the last offensive attempt of the
   Austrian forces. Prince Lobcowitz perceiving his troops
   rapidly decrease by the effects of the climate, and the
   unwholesome air of the Pontine marshes, began his retreat in
   the beginning of November, and though followed by an army
   superior in number, returned without loss to Rimini, Pesaro,
   Cesano, and Immola; while the combined Spaniards and
   Neapolitans took up their quarters between Viterbo and Civita
   Vecchia.
{1851}
   In consequence of the expedition against Naples, the king of
   Sardinia was left with 30,000 men, many of them new levies,
   and 6,000 Austrians, to oppose the combined army of French and
   Spaniards, who advanced on the side of Nice. After occupying
   that place, the united army forced the intrenched camp of the
   Sardinians, though defended by the king himself, made
   themselves masters of Montalbano and Villafranca, and prepared
   to penetrate into Piedmont along the sea coast. The Genoese,
   irritated by the transfer of Finale, were inclined to
   facilitate their operations; but were intimidated by the
   presence of an English squadron which threatened to bombard
   their capital. The prince of Conti, who commanded under the
   infant Don Philip, did not, however, relinquish the invasion
   of Piedmont, but formed the spirited project of leading his
   army over the passes of the Alps, although almost every rock
   was a fortress, and the obstacles of nature were assisted by
   all the resources of art. He led his army, with a large train
   of artillery, and numerous squadrons of cavalry, over
   precipices and along beds of torrents, carried the fort of
   Chateau Dauphin, forced the celebrated Barricades which were
   deemed impregnable, descended the valley of the Stura, took
   Demont after a slight resistance, and laid siege to Coni. The
   king of Sardinia, having in vain attempted to stop the
   progress of this torrent which burst the barriers of his
   country, indignantly retired to Saluzzo, to cover his capital.
   Being reinforced by 6,000 Austrians, he attempted to relieve
   Coni, but was repulsed after a severe engagement, though he
   succeeded in throwing succours into the town. This victory,
   however, did not produce any permanent advantage to the
   confederate forces; Coni continuing to hold out, the approach
   of winter and the losses they had sustained, amounting to
   10,000 men, compelled them to raise the siege and repass the
   Alps, which they did not effect without extreme difficulty."

ITALY: A. D. 1745.
The War of he Austrian Succession:
Successes of the Spaniards, French and Genoese.

"The Italian campaign of 1745, in boldness of design and rapidity of execution, scarcely finds a parallel in military history, and was most unpropitious to the Queen of Hungary and King of Sardinia. The experience of preceding years had taught the Bourbon Courts that all attempts to carry their arms across the Alps would be fruitless, unless they could secure a stable footing in the dominions of some Italian state on the other side, to counteract the power of their adversary, who had the entire command of the passes between Germany and Italy, by means of which reinforcements could be continually drafted to the scene of action. Accordingly they availed themselves of the jealousy and alarm excited at Genoa, by the transfer of Finale to the King of Sardinia, to engage that republic on their side. The plan was to unite the two armies which had wintered on the distant frontiers of Naples and Provence, in the vicinity of Genoa, where they were to be joined by 10,000 auxiliaries on the part of the republic. Charles Emanuel was sensible of the terrible consequences to himself, should the Genoese declare openly for the house of Bourbon, and sent General Pallavicini, a man of address and abilities, to renounce his pretensions to Finale, while Admiral Rowley, with a British fleet, hovered on their coasts. In spite of all this, nevertheless, the treaty of Aranjuez was concluded between France, Spain, and Genoa. After surmounting amazing difficulties, and making the most arduous and astonishing marches, the army commanded by Don Philip, who was accompanied by the French General Maillebois, and that commanded by Count de Gages, effected their junction on the 14th of June, near Genoa, when their united forces, now under Don Philip, amounted to 78,000 men. All that the King of Sardinia could do under these circumstances, was to make the best dispositions to defend the Milanese, the Parmesan, and the Plaisantine; but the whole disposable force under the King and Count Schulenburg, the successor of Lobkowitz, did not amount to above 45,000 men. Count Gages with 30,000 men was to be opposed to Schulenburg, and took possession of Serravalle, on the Scrivia; then advancing towards Alessandria he obliged the Austrians to retire under the cannon of Tortona. Don Philip made himself master of Acqui, so that the King of Sardinia, with the Austrian General, Count Schulenburg, had to retreat behind the Tanaro. On the 24th of July the strong citadel of Tortona was taken by the Spaniards, which opened the way to the occupation of Parma and Placentia. The combined army of French, Spanish, Neapolitans, and Genoese being now masters of an extensive tract with all the principal towns south of the Po, they readily effected a passage near the confluence of the Ticino, and with a detachment surprised Pavia. The Austrians, fearful for the Milanese, separated accordingly from the Sardinian troops. The Bourbon force seeing this, suddenly reunited, gained the Tanaro by a rapid movement on the night of the 27th of September, forded it in three columns, although the water reached to the very necks of the soldiers, fell upon the unsuspecting and unprepared Sardinians, broke their cavalry in the first charge, and drove the enemy in dismay and confusion to Valenza. Charles Emanuel fled to Casale, where he reassembled his broken army, in order to save it from utter ruin. The confederate armies still advanced, drove the King back and took Trino and Verua, which last place lay but twenty miles from his capital: fearful now that this might be bombarded he hastened thither, withdrew his forces under its cannon, and ordered the pavement of the city to be taken up. Maillebois, on his side, penetrated into the Milanese, and by the month of October the territories of the house of Austria in Italy were wholly subdued. The whole of Lombardy being thus open, Don Philip made a triumphant entry into Milan on the 20th of December, fondly hoping that he had secured for himself an Italian kingdom, as his brother, Don Carlos, had done at Naples. The Austrian garrison, however, still maintained the citadel of Milan and the fortress of Mantua."

ITALY: A. D. 1746-1747.
   The War of the Austrian Succession: A turn of fortune.
   The Spaniards and French abandon North Italy.
   The Austrians in Genoa, and their expulsion from the city.

"Of all the Austrian possessions in Lombardy, little remained except the fortress of Mantua and the citadel of Milan; while the citadels of Asti and Alessandria, the keys of Piedmont, were expected to fall before the commencement of the ensuing campaign. On the return of the season for action, the struggle for the mastery of Italy was renewed, and the queen of Spain already saw in imagination the crown of Lombardy gracing the brow of her second son. On the east, the French and Spanish armies had extended themselves as far as Reggio, Placentia, and Guastalla; on the north they were masters of the whole country between the Adda and Tesino; they blockaded the passages by the lake of Como and the Lago Maggiore, and were preparing to reduce the citadel of Milan; on the west their posts extended as far as Casale and Asti, though of the last the citadel was still held by the Sardinians. The main body of the French secured the communication with Genoa and the country south of the Po; a strong body at Reggio, Parma, and Placentia, covered their conquests on the east; and the Spaniards commanded the district between the Po and the mountains of Tyrol. The Sardinians were collected into the neighbourhood of Trino; while the Austrians fell back into the Novarrese to effect a junction with the reinforcements which were daily expected from Germany. In this situation, a sudden revolution took place in the fortune of the war. The empress queen [Maria Theresa], by the conclusion of a peace with Prussia, was at liberty to reinforce her army in Italy, and before the end of February 30,000 men had already descended from the Trentine Alps, and spread themselves as far as the Po." This change of situation caused the French court to make overtures to the king of Sardinia, which gave great offense to Spain. The wily Sardinian gained time by his negotiations with the French, until he found an opportunity, by suddenly ending the armistice, to capture the French garrison in Asti, to relieve the citadel of Alessandria and to lay siege to Valenza. "These disasters compelled Maillebois [the French general] to abandon his distant posts and concentrate his forces between Novi and Voghera, in order to maintain the communication with Genoa. Nor were the Spaniards beyond the Po in a less critical situation. A column of 10,000 Austrians under Berenclau having captured Codogno, and advanced to Lodi, the Spanish general was compelled to withdraw his troops from the passes towards the lakes, to send his artillery to Pavia and draw towards the Po. The infant had scarcely quitted Milan before a party of Austrian hussars entered the place." Meantime, the Spanish general Castelar, blockaded in Parma by the Austrians, broke through their lines and gained the eastern Riviera, with the loss of half his force. In June, the Spaniards and French, concentrated at Placentia, made a powerful attack on the Austrians, to arrest their progress, but were repulsed with heavy loss. The Sardinians soon afterwards formed a junction with the Austrians, which compelled the Spaniards and French to evacuate Placentia and retreat to Genoa, abandoning stores and artillery and losing many men. In the midst of these disasters, the Spanish king, Philip V., died, and his widowed queen, Elizabeth Farnese —the "Spanish termagant," Carlyle calls her—who had been the moving spirit of the struggle for Italy, lost the reins of government. His son (by his first wife, Maria Louisa of Savoy) who succeeded him, had no ambitions and no passions to interest him in the war, and resolved to escape from it. The marquis Las Minas, whom he sent to take command of the retreating army, speedily announced his intention to abandon Italy. "Thus deserted, the situation of the French and Genoese became desperate. … Maillebois, after exhorting the Genoese to defend their territory to the last extremity, was obliged to follow the example of Las Minas in withdrawing towards Provence. Abandoned to their fate, the Genoese could not withstand the combined attacks of the Austro-Sardinians, assisted by the British fleet. The city surrendered almost at discretion; the garrison were made prisoners of war; the stores, arms and artillery were to be delivered; the doge and six senators to repair to Vienna and implore forgiveness. The marquis of Botta, who had replaced Lichtenstein in the command, took possession of the place with 15,000 men, while the king of Sardinia occupied Finale and reduced Savona. In consequence of this success the Austrian court meditated the re-conquest of Naples and Sicily, which had been drained of troops to support the war in Lombardy." But this project was overruled by the British government, and the allied army crossed the Var, to carry the war into the southeastern provinces of France. "Their progress was, however, instantly arrested by an insurrection at Genoa, occasioned by the exactions and oppressions of the Austrian commanders. The garrison was expelled by the tumultuary efforts of the populace; and the army, to obviate the mischiefs of this unexpected reverse, hastily measured back its steps. Instead of completing the disasters of the Bourbon troops, the Austro-Sardinians employed the whole winter in the investment of Genoa." The siege was protracted but unsuccessful, and the allies were forced to abandon it the following summer, on the approach of the Bourbon forces, which resumed the offensive under Marshal Belleisle. After delivering Genoa, the latter sent a detachment of his army into Piedmont, where it met with disaster. No further operations of importance were undertaken before the conclusion of the peace, which was then being negotiated at Aix-la-Chapelle.

   The Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle "left nothing to Austria in
   Italy except the duchies of Milan and Mantua. Although the
   grand-duchy of Tuscany was settled on the family of
   Hapsburg-Lorraine, every precaution was taken to prevent that
   province from being united with the German possessions of
   their house. The arrangements of the treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle
   continued up to the period of the French revolution
   undisturbed. Those arrangements, although the result of a
   compromise of the interests and ambitions of rival statesmen,
   were not, considering the previous state of Italy,
   unfavourable to the cause of Italian independence.
{1853}
   Piedmont, already recognised as the protector of Italian
   nationality, gained not only in rank, but in substantial
   territory, by the acquisition of the island of Sardinia, still
   more by that of the High Novarese, and by extending her
   frontier to the Ticino. Naples and Sicily were released from
   the tyranny of viceroys, and placed under a resident king,
   with a stipulation to secure their future independence, that
   they should never be united to the Spanish crown. … In the
   45 [?] years which elapsed between the treaty of
   Aix-la-Chapelle and the French revolution, Italy enjoyed a
   perfect and uninterrupted peace. In some, at least, of its
   principalities, its progress in prosperity and in legislation
   was rapid. Naples and Sicily, under the government of Charles
   III., and subsequently under the regency of his minister,
   Tanucci, were ruled with energy and prudence. Tuscany
   prospered under the sway of the princes of Lorraine, Milan and
   Mantua were mildly governed by the Austrian court; and
   Lombardy rose from the misery to which the exactions of
   Spanish viceroys had reduced even the great resources of that
   rich and fertile province. In the other Italian States at
   least no change had taken place for the worse. Industry
   everywhere flourished under the presence of the most essential
   of all blessings,—peace."

ITALY: A. D. 1792-1793.
Annexation of Savoy and Nice to the French Republic.
Sardinia and the Two Sicilies in the coalition against France.

ITALY: A. D. 1794-1795.
   Passes of the Maritime Alps secured by the French.
   The coalition abandoned by the Grand Duke of Tuscany.
   French successes at Loano.

ITALY: A. D. 1796-1797.
   French invasion.
   Bonaparte's first campaigns.
   His victories and his pillage.
   Expulsion of the Austrians.
   French treaties with Genoa and Naples.
   The Cispadane and Cisalpine Republics.
   Surrender of Papal territories.
   Peace preliminaries of Leoben.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER), and (OCTOBER);
and 1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL).

ITALY: A. D. 1797 (MAY-OCTOBER).
   Creation of the Ligurian and Cisalpine Republics.
   The Peace of Campo-Formio.
   Lombardy relinquished by Austria.
   Venice and Venetian territory made over to her.

ITALY: A. D. 1797-1798 (December-May).
   French occupation of Rome.
   Formation of the Roman Republic.
   Removal of the Pope.

ITALY: A. D. 1798-1799.
   Overthrow of the Neapolitan Kingdom.
   Creation of the Parthenopeian Republic.
   Relinquishment of Piedmont by the king of Sardinia.
   French reverses.

ITALY: A. D. 1799 (APRIL-AUGUST).
   Successful Austro-Russian campaign.
   Suwarrow's victories.
   French evacuation of Lombardy, Piedmont and Naples.

ITALY: A. D. 1799 (AUGUST-DECEMBER).
   Austrian successes.
   Expulsion of the French.
   Fall of the Parthenopeian and Roman Republics.

ITALY: A. D. 1800.
   Bonaparte's Marengo campaign.
   Northern Italy recovered by the French.
   Siege and capture of Genoa by the Austrians.

ITALY: A. D. 1800-1801 (JUNE-FEBRUARY).
The king of Naples spared by Napoleon.
Restoration of Papal authority at Rome.

ITALY: A. D. 1802.
   Name of the Cisalpine Republic changed to Italian Republic.
   Bonaparte president.
   Annexation of part of Piedmont, with Parma and Elba, to
   France.

ITALY: A. D. 1805.
   Transformation of the Italian Republic into the Kingdom of
   Italy.
   Election and coronation of Napoleon.
   Annexation of Genoa to France.

ITALY: A. D. 1805.
Cession of Venetian territory by Austria to the Kingdom of
Italy.

ITALY: A. D. 1805-1806.
Napoleon's dethronement of the dynasty of Naples.
Joseph Bonaparte made king of the Two Sicilies.

ITALY: A. D. 1807-1808.
   Napoleon's visit.
   His arbitrary changes in the constitution.
   His public works.
   His despotism.
   His annexation of Tuscany to France, and seizure of the Papal
   States.

ITALY: A. D. 1808 (JULY).
The crown of Naples resigned by Joseph Bonaparte (now king of
Spain) and conferred on Joachim Murat.

ITALY: (Southern): A. D. 1808-1809.
   Beginning of the reign of Murat at Naples.
   Expulsion of the English from Capri.
   Insolence of Murat's soldiery.
   Popular discontent and hatred.
   Rise of the Carbonari.
   Civil war in Calabria.

"Joachim Murat, the new King of Naples, announced his accession to the nation [July, 1808]. 'The august Napoleon,' he said, 'had given him the kingdom of the two Sicilies. Gratitude to the donor, and a desire to benefit his subjects, would divide his heart.' … The commencement of Murat's reign was felicitous; the English, however, occupied the island of Capri, which, being placed at the opening of the gulf, is the key of the bay of Naples. Their presence stimulated all who were averse to the new government, intimidated its adherents, and impeded the freedom of navigation, to the manifest injury of commerce; besides, it was considered disgraceful, that one of the Napoleonides should suffer an enemy so near, and that enemy the English, who were at once so hated and so despised. The indolence of Joseph had patiently suffered the disgrace; but Joachim, a spirited soldier, was indignant at it, and he thought it necessary to commence his reign by some important enterprise. He armed therefore against Capri: Sir Hudson Lowe was there in garrison with two regiments collected from all the nations of Europe, and which were called the Royal Corsican and the Royal Maltese. … A body of French and Neapolitans were sent from Naples and Salerno, under the command of General Lamarque, to reduce the island; and they effected a landing, by means of ladders hung to the rocks by iron hooks, and thus possessed themselves of Anacarpi, though not without great difficulty, as the English resolutely defended themselves. … {1854} The siege proceeded but slowly—succours of men and ammunition reached the besieged from Sicily; but fortune favoured the enemy, as an adverse wind drove the English out to sea. The King, who superintended the operations from the shore of Massa, having waited at the point of Campanella, seizing the propitious moment, sent fresh squadrons in aid of Lamarque, and the English, being already broken, and the forts dismantled, now yielded to the conqueror. The Neapolitans were highly gratified by the acquisition of Capri, and from that event augured well of the new government. The kingdom of Naples contained three classes of people—barons, republicans, and populace. The barons willingly joined the party of the new king, because they were pleased by the honours granted to them, and they were not without hopes of recovering their ancient privileges, or at least of acquiring new ones. … The republicans were, on the contrary, inimical to Joachim, not because he was a king, for they easily accommodated themselves to royalty; but because his conduct in Tuscany, where he had driven them forth or bound them in chains like malefactors, had rendered him personally obnoxious to them. They were moreover disgusted by his incredible vanity, which led him to court and caress with the most zealous adulation every bearer of a feudal title. … The populace, who cared no more for Joachim than they had done for Joseph, would easily have contented themselves with the new government, if it had protected them from the oppressions of the barons, and had procured for them quiet and abundance. But Joachim, wholly intent on courting the nobles, neglected the people, who, oppressed by the barons and soldiery, became alienated from him. … The spirit of discontent was further increased by his introduction of the conscription laws of France. … Joachim, a soldier himself, permitted every thing to his soldiery; and an insupportable military license was the result. Hence, also, they became the sole support of his power, and it took no root in the affections of the people. The insolence of the troops continually augmented not only every desire, but every caprice of the head of a regiment, nay, even of the inferior officers, was to be complied with, as if they were the laws of the realm; and whosoever even lamented his subjection to their will was ill-treated and incurred some risk of being declared an enemy to the King. … The discontents produced by the enormities committed by the troops of Murat gave hopes to the court of Palermo that its fortunes might be re-established in the kingdom beyond the Faro. Meanwhile, the civil war raged in Calabria; nor were the Abruzzi tranquil. In these disturbances there were various factions in arms, and various objects were pursued: some of those who fought against Joachim, and had fought against Joseph, were adherents of Ferdinand,—others were the partisans of a republican constitution. … The sect of the Carbonari arose at this period."

      C. Botta,
      Italy during the Consulate and Empire of Napoleon,
      chapter 5.

   "The most famous, the most widely disseminated, and the most
   powerful of all the secret societies which sprang up in Italy
   was that of the Carbonari, or Charcoal-makers. … The
   Carbonari first began to attract attention in the Kingdom of
   Naples about the year 1808. A Genoese named Maghella, who
   burned with hatred of the French, is said to have initiated
   several Neapolitans into a secret order whose purpose it was
   to goad their countrymen into rebellion. They quitted Naples,
   where Murat's vigilant policy kept too strict a watch on
   conspirators, and retired to the Abruzzi, where in order to
   disarm suspicion they pretended to be engaged in
   charcoal-burning. As their numbers increased, agents were sent
   to establish lodges in the principal towns. The Bourbon king,
   shut up in Sicily, soon heard of them, and as he had not
   hesitated at letting loose with English aid galley-prisoners,
   or at encouraging brigands, to harass Murat, so he eagerly
   connived with these conspirators in the hope of recovering his
   throne. Murat, having striven for several years to suppress
   the Carbonari, at last, when he found his power slipping from
   him, reversed his policy towards them, and strove to
   conciliate them. But it was too late: neither he nor they
   could prevent the restoration of the Bourbons under the
   protection of Austria. The sectaries who had hitherto
   foolishly expected that, if the French could be expelled,
   Ferdinand would grant them a Liberal government, were soon
   cured of their delusion, and they now plotted against him as
   sedulously as they had plotted against his predecessor. Their
   membership increased to myriads; their lodges, starting up in
   every village in the Kingdom of Naples, had relations with
   branch-societies in all parts of the Peninsula: to the anxious
   ears of European despots the name Carbonaro soon meant all
   that was lawless and terrible; it meant anarchy, chaos,
   assassination. But when we read the catechism, or confession
   of faith, of the Carbonari we are surprised by the
   reasonableness of their aims and tenets. The duties of the
   individual Carbonaro were, 'to render to the Almighty the
   worship due to Him; to serve the fatherland with zeal; to
   reverence religion and laws; to fulfil the obligations of
   nature and friendship; to be faithful to promises; to observe
   silence, discretion, and charity; to cause harmony and good
   morals to prevail; to conquer the passions and submit the
   will; and to abhor the seven deadly sins.' The scope of the
   Society was to disseminate instruction; to unite the different
   classes of society under the bond of love; to impress a
   national character on the people, and to interest them in the
   preservation and defense of the fatherland and of religion; to
   destroy by moral culture the source of crimes due to the
   general depravity of mankind; to protect the weak and to raise
   up the unfortunate. … It went still farther and asserted the
   un-Catholic doctrine of liberty of conscience: 'to every
   Carbonaro,' so reads one of its articles, 'belongs the natural
   and unalterable right to worship the Almighty according to his
   own intuition and understanding.' We must not be misled,
   however, by these enlightened professions, into a wrong notion
   of the real purposes of Carbonarism. Politics, in spite of a
   rule forbidding political discussion, were the main business,
   and ethics but the incidental concern of the conspirators.
   They organized their Order under republican forms as if to
   prefigure the ideal towards which they aspired. The Republic
   was subdivided into provinces, each of which was controlled by
   a grand lodge, that of Salerno being the 'parent.' There were
   also four 'Tribes,' each having a council and holding an
   annual diet.
{1855}
   Each tribe had a Senate, which advised a House of
   Representatives, and this framed the laws which a magistracy
   executed. There were courts of the first instance, of appeal,
   and of cessation, and no Carbonaro might bring suit in the
   civil courts against a fellow member, unless he had first
   failed to get redress in one of these. … The Carbonari
   borrowed some of their rites from the Freemasons, with whom
   indeed they were commonly reported to be in such close
   relations that Freemasons who joined the 'Carbonic Republic'
   were spared the formality of initiation; other parts of their
   ceremonial they copied from the New Testament, with such
   additions as the special objects of the order called for."

      T. Frost,
      Secret Societies of the European Revolution,
      volume 1, chapter 5.

      General Sir H. Bunbury,
      The Great War with France,
      page 343, and after.

      The Chevalier O'Clery,
      History of the Italian Revolution
      chapter 3.

ITALY: A. D. 1809 (APRIL-MAY).
Renewed war of Austria with France.
Austrian advance and retreat.

ITALY: A. D. 1809 (MAY-JULY).
   Annexation of the Papal States to the French Empire.
   Removal of the Pope to Savona.
   Rome declared to be a free and imperial city.

ITALY: A. D. 1814.
   Desertion of Napoleon by Murat.
   His treaty with the Allies.
   Expulsion of the French from the Peninsula.

Murat, king of Naples, "foreseeing the downfall of the Emperor, had attempted to procure from Napoleon, as the price of his fidelity, the union under his own sceptre of all Italy south of the Po; but, failing in this, he prepared to abandon the cause of his benefactor. On the 11th January, 1814, he concluded a treaty with the Allies, by which he was guaranteed possession of Naples; and forthwith advancing on Rome with 20,000 men, occupied the second city in his brother-in-law's empire (January 19); having previously published a flaming proclamation, in which the perfidy and violence of the imperial government were denounced in terms which came strangely from a chief of the Revolution. … At the end of December, 1813, Eugene had withdrawn to the Adige with 36,000 men, before Bellegarde and 50,000 Austrians; and he was already taking measures for a further retreat, when the proclamation of Murat, and his hostile advance, rendered such a movement inevitable. He had accordingly fallen back to the Mincio, when, finding himself threatened on the flank by a British expedition from Sicily under Lord William Bentinck, he determined on again advancing against Bellegarde, so as to rid himself of one enemy before he encountered another. The two armies, however, thus mutually acting on the offensive, passed each other, and an irregular action at last ensued on the Mincio (February 8), in which the advantage was rather with the French, who made 1,500 prisoners, and drove Bellegarde shortly after over the Mincio, about 3,000 being killed and wounded on each side. But, in other quarters, affairs were going rapidly to wreck. Verona surrendered to the Austrians on the 14th, and Ancona to Murat on the 16th; and the desertion of the Italians, unequal to the fatigues of a winter campaign, was so great that the Viceroy was compelled to fall back to the Po. Fouché, meanwhile, as governor of Rome, had concluded a convention (February 20) with the Neapolitan generals for the evacuation of Pisa, Leghorn, Florence, and other garrisons of the French empire in Italy. A proclamation, however, by the hereditary prince of Sicily, who had accompanied Bentinck from Sicily, gave Murat such umbrage that he separated his troops from the British, and commenced operations, with little success, against Eugene on the Po, in which the remainder of March passed away. Bentinck, having at length received reinforcements from Catalonia, moved forward with 12,000 men, and occupied Spezia on the 29th of March, and, driving the French (April 8) from their position at Sestri, forced his way through the mountains, and appeared on the 16th in front of Genoa. On the 17th the forts and positions before the city were stormed; and the garrison, seeing preparations made for a bombardment, capitulated on the 18th, on condition of being allowed to march out with the honours of war. Murat had by this time recommenced vigorous operations, and after driving the French (April 13) from the Taro, had forced the passage of the Stura; but the news of Napoleon's fall put an end to hostilities. By a convention with the Austrians, Venice, Palma-Nuova, and the other fortresses still held by the French, were surrendered; the whole of Lombardy was occupied by the Germans; and in the first week of May the French troops finally repassed the Alps."

ITALY: A. D. 1814-1815.
   Return of the Despots.
   Restoration of Austrian tyranny in the North.
   The Pope in Rome again.

"With little resistance, Northern Italy was taken from the French. Had it been otherwise, had Murat and Beauharnais joined their forces, they might have long held the Austrians in check, perhaps even have made a descent on Vienna; and although this might not have hindered the ultimate overthrow of Napoleon, yet it must have compelled the Allies, at the day of settlement, to respect the wishes of the Italians. But disunited, and deluded into the belief that they were partners in a war of liberation, the Italians woke up to find that they had escaped from the talons of the French eagle, only to be caught in the clutch of the two-headed monstrosity of Austria. They were to be used, in the language of Joseph De Maistre, like coins, wherewith the Allies paid their debts. This was plain enough when the people of the just-destroyed Kingdom of Italy prepared to choose a ruler for themselves: one party favored Beauharnais, another wished an Austrian prince, a third an Italian, but all agreed in demanding independence. Austria quickly informed them that they were her subjects, and that their affairs would be decided at Vienna. Thus, almost without striking a blow, and without a suspicion of the lot awaiting them, the Northern Italians fell back under the domination of Austria. In the spring and early summer of 1814 the exiled princelings returned: Victor Emanuel I. from his savage refuge in Sardinia to Turin; Ferdinand III. from Würzburg to Florence; Pius VII. from his confinement at Fontainebleau and Savona to Rome.

Francis IV. to Modena. Other aspirants anxiously waited for the Congress of Vienna to bestow upon them the remaining provinces. The Congress … dragged on into the spring of the following year. … In Lombardy and Venetia, Metternich soon organized a thoroughly Austrian administration. The government of the two provinces was separate, that of Lombardy being centred at Milan, that of Venetia at Venice; but over all was placed an Austrian archduke as Viceroy. Each district had its civil and military tribunals, but the men who composed these being appointees of the viceroy or his deputies, their subservience could usually be reckoned upon. The trials were secret, a provision which, especially in political cases, made convictions easy. … Feudal privileges, which had been abolished by the French, could be recovered by doing homage to the Emperor and by paying specific taxes. In some respects there was an improvement in the general administration, but in others the deterioration was manifest. … Art, science, and literature were patronized, and they throve as potted plants thrive under the care of a gardener who cuts off every new shoot at a certain height. … We may liken the people of the Austro-Italian provinces to those Florentine revelers who, at the time of the plague, tried to drive away their terror by telling each other the merry stories reported by Boccaccio. The plague which penetrated every corner of Lombardy and Venetia was the Austrian police. Stealthy, but sure, its unseen presence was dreaded in palace and hovel, in church, tribunal, and closet. … Every police-office was crammed with records of the daily habits of each citizen, of his visitors, his relatives, his casual conversations,—even his style of dress and diet were set down. … Such was the Metternichian system of police and espionage that counteracted every mild law and every attempt to lessen the repugnance of the Italians. They were not to be deceived by blandishments: Lombardy was a prison, Venetia was a prison, and they were all captives, although they seemed to move about unshackled to their work or pleasure."

      See, also,
      VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF;
      AUSTRIA: A. D. 1815-1846;
      and HOLY ALLIANCE.

ITALY: (Southern): A. D. 1815.
   Murat's attempt to head a national movement.
   His failure, downfall and death.
   Restoration of the Bourbons at Naples.

"Wild as was the attempt in which, after Napoleon's return from Elba, the King of Naples lost his crown, we must yet judge of it both by his own character and the circumstances in which he was placed. … In the autumn of 1813 communications took place at Milan between Murat and the leaders of the secret societies which were then attempting to organise Italian patriotism in arms. In 1814, when the restoration of Austrian rule in Lombardy so cruelly disappointed the national hopes, these communications were renewed. The King of Naples was assured that he needed but to raise the standard of Italian independence to rally round him thousands and tens of thousands of volunteers. … These calculations … were readily adopted by the rash and vain-glorious monarch to whom they were presented. … His proud spirit chafed and fretted under the consciousness that he had turned upon Napoleon, and the mortification of finding himself deserted by those in reliance upon whose faith this sacrifice had been made. The events in France had taken him by surprise. In joining the alliance against Napoleon he had not calculated on the deposition of the emperor, still less had he dreamed of the destruction of the empire. … He bitterly reproached his own conduct for having lent himself to such results. … When his mind was agitated with these mingled feelings, the intelligence reached him that Napoleon had actually left Elba, on that enterprise in which he staked everything upon regaining the imperial throne of France. It came to him direct from Napoleon. … He foresaw that the armies of the allied powers would be engaged in a gigantic struggle with the efforts which Napoleon would be sure to make. Under such circumstances, he fancied Italy an easy conquest; once master of this he became a power with whom, in the conflict of nations, any of the contending parties could only be too happy to treat. He determined to place himself at the head of Italian nationality, and strike one daring blow for the chieftainship of the nation. … His ministers, his friends, the French generals, even his queen, Napoleon's sister, dissuaded him from such a course. … But with an obstinacy by which the vacillating appear sometimes to attempt to atone for habitual indecision, he persevered in spite of all advice. … He issued a proclamation and ordered his troops to cross the Papal frontier. … The Pope appointed a regency and retired, accompanied by most of the cardinals, to Florence. … On the 30th of March his [Murat's] troops attacked the Austrian forces at Cesena. The Germans were driven, without offering much resistance, from the town. On the evening of that day he issued from Rimini his proclamation to the Italian people, which was against Austria a declaration of war. … A declaration of war on the part of Austria immediately followed. … The whole of the Italian army of Austria was ordered at once to march upon Naples; and a treaty was concluded with Ferdinand, by which Austria engaged to use all her endeavours to recover for him his Neapolitan dominions. … The army which Murat led northward, instead of numbering 80,000 as he represented in his proclamation, certainly never exceeded 34,000. … Nearly 60,000 Austrians defended the banks of the Po. … On the 10th of April, the troops of Murat, under the command of General Pepe, were driven back by the Austrians, who now in their turn advanced. … A retreat to the frontiers of Naples was unanimously resolved on. This retreat was one that had all the disasters without any of the redeeming glories of war. … At last, as they approached the confines of the Neapolitan kingdom, an engagement which took place between Macerata and Tolentino, on the 4th of May, ended in a total and ignominious rout. … At Macerata most of the troops broke up into a disorganised rabble, and with difficulty Murat led to Capua a small remnant of an army, that could hardly be said to be defeated, because they were worsted without anything that deserves to be called a fight. {1857} From Capua, on the 12th of May, the king sent to Naples a proclamation granting a free constitution. To conceal the fact that this was wrung from him only in distress, he resorted to the miserable subterfuge of ante-dating it from Rimini, on the 30th of March." On the evening of the 18th of May, Murat entered Naples quietly on foot, and had his last interview with his queen and children. A British squadron was already in the harbor. The next night he slipped away to the island of Ischia, and thence to Frejus, while Queen Caroline remained to discharge the last duties of sovereignty. On the 20th Naples was surrendered to the Austrians, and the ex-queen took refuge on an English vessel to escape from a threatening mob of the lazzaroni. She was conveyed to Trieste, where the Austrian emperor had offered her an asylum. The restored Bourbon king, Ferdinand, made his entry into the capital on the 17th of June. Meantime, Murat, in France, had offered his services to Napoleon and they had been declined. After Waterloo, he escaped to Corsica, whence, in the following October, he made a foolhardy attempt to recover his kingdom, landing with a few followers at Pizzo, on the Neapolitan coast, expecting a rising of the people to welcome his return. But the rising that occurred was hostile instead of friendly. The party was quickly overpowered, Murat taken prisoner and delivered to Ferdinand's officers. He was summarily tried by court martial and shot, October 13, 1815.

ALSO IN: P. Colletta, History of Naples, book 7, chapter 5, and book 8, chapter 1 (volume 2).

ITALY: A. D. 1820-1821.
   Revolutionary insurrections in Naples and Sicily.
   Perjury and duplicity of the king.
   The revolt crushed by Austrian troops.
   Abortive insurrection in Piedmont.
   Its end at Novara.
   Abdication of Victor Emmanuel I.
   Accession of Charles Felix.

"In the last days of February, 1820, a revolution broke out in Spain. The object of its leaders was to restore the Constitution of 1812, which had been suppressed on the return of the Bourbons to the throne. … The Revolution proved successful, and for a short time the Spaniards obtained possession of a democratic Constitution. Their success stirred up the ardour of the Liberal party in the kingdom of the two Sicilies, and before many weeks were over a revolutionary movement occurred at Naples. The insurrection originated with the army under the command of General Pepé, and it is worthy of note that the movement was not directed against the reigning dynasty, and was not, even nominally, associated with any demand for national unity. All the insurgents asked for was the establishment of a Constitution similar to that then existing in Spain. After a very brief and feeble resistance, the King yielded to the demands of the military conspirators, who were strongly supported by popular feeling. On the 1st of October, a Parliament of the Neapolitan kingdom was opened by His Majesty Francis the First, who then and there took a solemn oath to observe the Constitution, and even went out of his way to profess his profound attachment for the principles on which the new Government was based. General Pepé thereupon resigned the Dictatorship he had assumed, and constitutional liberty was deemed to have been finally established in Southern Italy by a bloodless revolution. The rising on the mainland was followed after a brief interval by a popular insurrection in Sicily. The main object, however, of the Sicilian Constitutionalists was to bring about a legislative separation between the island and the kingdom of Naples proper. … The Sicilian insurrection afforded Francis I. the pretext he had looked for, from the commencement, for overthrowing the Constitution to which he had personally plighted his faith. The Allied Sovereigns took alarm at the outbreak of the revolutionary spirit in Sicily, and a Congress of the Great Powers was convoked at Laibach [see VERONA, THE CONGRESS OF] to consider what steps required to be taken for the protection of social order in the kingdom of Naples. … By the Neapolitan Constitution the Sovereign was not at liberty to leave the kingdom without the consent of the Parliament. This consent was only given, after much hesitation, in reliance upon the reiterated assurances of the King, both publicly and privately, that his one object in attending the Congress was to avert, if possible, a foreign intervention. His Majesty also pledged himself most solemnly not to sanction any change in the Constitution to which he had sworn allegiance, and … he promised further that he would not be a party to any reprisals being inflicted upon his subjects for the part they might have taken in the establishment of Constitutional liberty. As soon, however, as Francis the First had arrived at Laibach, he yielded without a protest to the alleged necessity for a foreign occupation of his kingdom, with the avowed object of putting down the Constitution. Without any delay being given, the Austrian regiments crossed the frontier, preceded by a manifesto from the King, calling upon his faithful subjects to receive the army of occupation not as enemies, but as friends. … The national troops, under General Pepé, were defeated with ease by the Austrians, who in the course of a few weeks effected, almost without opposition, the military occupation of the whole kingdom [February-March, 1821]. Forthwith reprisals commenced in grim earnest. On the plea that the resistance offered by the Constitutionalists to the invading army constituted an act of high treason, the King declared himself absolved from all promises he had given previously to his departure. A reign of terror was set on foot. … Signor Botta thus sums up the net result of the punishments inflicted after the return of the King in the Neapolitan provinces alone. 'About a thousand persons were condemned to death, imprisoned, or exiled. Infinitely greater was the number of officers and officials who were deprived of their posts by the Commissioners of Investigation.' … The establishment of Constitutional Government in the kingdom of the Two Sicilies, and the resolution adopted at the instigation of Austria, by the Congress of Laibach, to suppress the Neapolitan Constitution by armed force, produced a profound effect throughout Italy, and especially in Sardinia. The fact that internal reforms were incompatible with the ascendency of Austria in the Peninsula was brought home to the popular mind, and, for the first time in the history of Italy, the desire for civil liberty became identified with the national aversion to foreign rule. {1858} In Piedmont there was a powerful Constitutional party, composed chiefly of professional men, and a strong military caste, aristocratic by birth and conviction, but opposed on national grounds to the domination of Austria over Italy. These two parties coalesced for a time upon the common platform of Constitutional Reform and war with Austria; and the result was the abortive rising of 1821. The insurrection, however, though directed against the established Government, had about it nothing of an anti-dynastic, or even of a revolutionary character. On the contrary, the leaders of the revolt professed, and probably with sincerity, that they were carrying out the true wishes of their Sovereign. Their theory was, that Victor Emmanuel I. was only compelled to adhere to the Holy Alliance by considerations of foreign policy, and that, if his hands were forced, he would welcome any opportunity of severing himself from all complicity with Austria. Acting on this belief, they determined to proclaim the Constitution by a sort of coup d' état, and then, after having declared war on Austria, to invade Lombardy, and thus create a diversion in favour of the Neapolitans. It is certain that Victor Emmanuel I. gave no sanction to, and was not even cognisant of, this mad enterprise. … The troubles and calamities of his early life had exhausted his energy; and his one desire was to live at peace at home and abroad. On the other hand, it is certain that Charles Albert [prince of Savoy-Carignan, heir presumptive to the throne of Sardinia] was in communication with the leaders of the insurrection, though how far he was privy to their actual designs has never yet been clearly ascertained. The insurrection broke out just about the time when the Austrian troops were approaching the Neapolitan frontiers. … The insurrection gained head rapidly, and the example of Alexandria was followed by the garrison of Turin. Pressure was brought to bear upon Victor Emmanuel I., and he was led to believe that the only means of averting civil war was to grant the Constitution. The pressure, however, overshot its mark. On the one hand, the King felt that he could not possibly withstand the demand for a Constitution at the cost of having to order the regiments which had remained loyal to fire upon the insurgents. On the other hand, he did not feel justified in granting the Constitution without the sanction of his brother and [immediate] heir. In order, therefore, to escape from this dilemma, his Majesty abdicated suddenly in favour of Charles Felix [his brother]. As, however, the new Sovereign happened to be residing at Modena, at the Court of his brother-in-law, the Prince of Savoy-Carignan was appointed Regent until such time as Charles Felix could return to the capital. Immediately upon his abdication, Victor Emmanuel quitted Turin, and Charles Albert was left in supreme authority as Regent of the State. Within twelve hours of his accession to power, the Regent proclaimed the Spanish Constitution as the fundamental law of Piedmont. … The probability is … that Charles Albert, or rather his advisers, were anxious to tie the hands of the new Sovereign. They calculated that Charles Felix, who was no longer young, and who was known to be bitterly hostile to all Liberal theories of Government, would abdicate sooner than accept the Crown of a Constitutional kingdom. This calculation proved erroneous. … As soon as his Majesty learned the news of what had occurred in his absence, he issued a manifesto [March, 1821], declaring all the reforms granted under the Regency to be null and void, describing the authors of the Constitution as rebels, and avowing his intention, in the case of necessity, of calling upon the Allied Powers to assist him in restoring the legitimate authority of the Crown. Meanwhile, he refused to accept the throne till the restoration of order had given Victor Emmanuel full freedom to reconsider the propriety of abdication. This manifesto was followed by the immediate advance of an Austrian corps d'armée to the frontier stream of the Ticino, as well as by the announcement that the Russian Government had ordered an army of 100,000 men to set out on their march towards Italy, with the avowed object of restoring order in the Peninsula. The population of Piedmont recognised at once, with their practical good sense, that any effective resistance was out of the question. … The courage of the insurgents gave way in view of the obstacles which they had to encounter, and the last blow was dealt to their cause by the sudden defection of the Prince Regent. … Unable either to face his coadjutors in the Constitutional pronunciamento, or to assume the responsibility of an open conflict with the legitimate Sovereign, the Regent left Turin secretly [March 21, 1821], without giving any notice of his intended departure, and, on arriving at Novara, formally resigned his short-lived power. The leaders, however, of the insurrection had committed themselves too deeply to follow the example of the Regent. A Provisional Government was established at Turin, and it was determined to march upon Novara, in the hope that the troops collected there would fraternise with the insurgents. As soon as it was known that the insurgents were advancing in force from Turin, the Austrians, under General Bübner, crossed the Ticino, and effected a junction with the Royal troops. When the insurgents reached Novara, they suddenly found themselves confronted, not by their own fellow-countrymen, but by an Austrian army. A panic ensued, and the insurrectionary force suffered a disastrous, though, fortunately, a comparatively bloodless, defeat. After this disaster the insurrection was virtually at an end. … The Austrians, with the consent of Charles Felix, occupied the principal fortresses of Piedmont. The old order of things was restored, and, upon Victor Emmanuel's formal refusal to withdraw his abdication, Charles Felix assumed the title of King of Sardinia. As soon as military resistance had ceased, the insurrection was put down with a strong hand."

"Henceforth the issue could not be misunderstood. The conflict was not simply between the Neapolitans and their Bourbon king, or between the Piedmontese and Charles Felix, but between Italian Liberalism and European Absolutism. Santarosa and Pepé cried out in their disappointment that the just cause would have won had their timid colleagues been more daring, had promises but been kept; we, however, see clearly that though the struggle might have been prolonged, the result would have been unchanged. Piedmont and Naples, had each of their citizens been a hero, could not have overcome the Holy Alliance [see HOLY ALLIANCE], which was their real antagonist. {1859} The revolutionists had not directly attacked the Holy Alliance; they had not thrown down the gauntlet to Austria; they had simply insisted that they had a right to constitutional government; and Austria, more keen-witted than they, had seen that to suffer a constitution at Naples or Turin would be to acknowledge the injustice of those principles by which the Holy Alliance had decreed that Europe should be repressed to the end of time. So when the Carbonari aimed at Ferdinand they struck Austria, and Austria struck back a deadly blow. … But Austria and the Reactionists were not content with simple victory; treating the revolution as a crime, they at once proceeded to take vengeance. … Ferdinand, the perjured Neapolitan king, tarried behind in Florence, whilst the Austrians went down into his kingdom. … But as soon as Ferdinand was assured that the Austrian regiments were masters of Naples, he sent for that Prince of Canosa whom he had been forced unwillingly to dismiss on account of his outrageous cruelty five years before, and deputed to him the task of restoring genuine Bourbon tyranny in the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies. A better agent of vindictive wrath than Canosa could not have been found; he was troubled by no humane compunctions, nor by doubts as to the justice of his fierce measures; to him, as to Torquemada, persecution was a compound of duty and pleasure. … The right of assembling, no matter for what purpose, being denied, the universities, schools, and lyceums had to close; proscription lists were hurriedly drawn up, and they contained not only the names of those who had been prominent in the recent rising, but also of all who had incurred suspicion for any political acts as far back as 1793. … Houses were searched without warrant; seals were broken open; some of the revelations of the confessional were not sacred. The church-bells tolled incessantly for victims led to execution. To strike deeper terror, Canosa revived the barbarous torture of scourging in public. … How many victims actually suffered during this reign of terror we cannot tell. Canosa's list of the proscribed had, it is said, more than four thousand names. The prisons were choked with persons begging for trial; the galleys of Pantelleria, Procida, and the Ponza Islands swarmed with victims condemned for life; the scaffolds, erected in the public squares of the chief towns, were daily occupied. … At length, when his deputies had terrorized the country into apparent submission, and when the Austrian regiments made it safe for him to travel, Ferdinand quitted Florence and returned to Naples. … In Sicily the revolution smouldered and spluttered for years, in spite of remorseless efforts to stamp it out; on the mainland, robberies and brigandage, and outbreaks now political and now criminal, proved how delusive was a security based on oppression and lies. Amid these conditions Ferdinand passed the later years of his infamous reign. … In Piedmont the retaliation was as effectual as in Naples, but less blood was shed there. Della Torre took command of the kingdom in the name of Charles Felix. … Seventy-three officers were condemned to death, one hundred and five to the galleys; but as nearly all of them had escaped, they were hanged in effigy; only two, Lieutenant Lanari and Captain Garelli, were executed. The property of the condemned was sequestrated, their families were tormented, and the commission, not content with sentencing those who had taken an active part in the revolution, cashiered two hundred and twenty-one officers who, while holding aloof from Santarosa, had refused to join Della Torre at Novara and fight against their countrymen. … The King … had soon reason to learn the truth of a former epigram of his, 'Austria is a bird-lime which you cannot wash off your fingers when you have once touched it'; for Austria soon showed that her motive in bolstering falling monarchs on their shaky thrones was not simply philanthropic nor disinterested. General Bubna, on taking possession of Alessandria, sent the keys of that fortress to Emperor Francis, in order, he said,—and we wonder whether there was no sarcasm in his voice,—in order to give Charles Felix 'the pleasure of receiving them back from the Emperor's hand.' 'Although I found this a very poor joke,' wrote Charles Felix to his brother, 'I dissembled.' How, indeed, could he do otherwise? … Charles Felix had in truth become but the vassal of the hereditary enemy of his line, and that not by conquest, but by his own invitation."

      R. H. Wrightson,
      History of Modern Italy,
      chapters 2-3, and 6.

ITALY: A. D. 1830-1832.
Revolt in Modena, Parma, and the Papal States,
suppressed by Austrian troops.

   "The Revolution of 1830 [in France] made a natural impression
   in a country which had many evils to complain of and which had
   so lately been connected with France. The duke of Modena,
   Francis IV., sought to make use of the liberal movement to
   extend his rule over northern Italy. But at the last moment he
   was terrified by threats from Vienna, turned against his
   fellow-conspirators, and imprisoned them (February 3, 1831).
   The people, however, were so alienated by his treachery that
   he fled with his prisoners to seek safety in Austrian
   territory. A provisional government was formed, and Modena was
   declared a free state. Meanwhile the election of a new pope,
   Gregory XVI., gave occasion for a rising in the papal states.
   Bologna took the lead in throwing off its allegiance to Rome,
   and in a few weeks its example was followed by the whole of
   Romagna, Umbria, and the Marches. The two sons of Louis
   Bonaparte, the late king of Holland, hastened to join the
   insurgents, but the elder died at Forli (17 March), and thus
   an eventful career was opened to the younger brother, the
   future Napoleon III. Parma revolted against Maria Louisa, who
   followed the example of the duke of Modena and fled to
   Austria. The success of the movement, however, was very
   short-lived. Austrian troops marched to the assistance of the
   papacy, the rebellion was put down by force, and the exiled
   rulers were restored. Louis Philippe, on whom the insurgents
   had relied, had no sympathy with a movement in which members
   of the Bonaparte family were engaged. But a temporary revival
   of the insurrection brought the Austrians back to Romagna, and
   a great outcry was raised in France against the king.
{1860}
   To satisfy public opinion, Louis Philippe sent a French force
   to seize Ancona (February 22, 1832), but it was a very
   harmless demonstration, and had been explained beforehand to
   the papal government. In Naples and Sardinia no disturbances
   took place. Ferdinand II. succeeded his father Francis I. on
   the Neapolitan throne in 1830, and satisfied the people by
   introducing a more moderate system of government. Charles
   Albert became king of Sardinia on the death of Charles Felix
   (27 April, 1831), and found himself in a difficult position
   between Austria, which had good reason to mistrust him, and
   the liberal party, which he had betrayed."

"The Revolution of 1830, ineffectual as it seemed to its promoters, was yet most significant. It failed in Italy and Poland, in Spain and Portugal; it created a mongrel monarchy, neither Absolute nor Constitutional, in France; only in Belgium did it attain its immediate purpose. Nevertheless, if we look beneath the surface, we see that it was one of those epoch-marking events of which we can say, 'Things cannot be again what until just now they were.' … The late risings in the Duchies and Legations had brought no comfort to the conspirators, but had taught them, on the contrary, how ineffectual, how hopeless was the method of the secret societies. After more than fifteen years they had not gained an inch; they had only learned that their rulers would concede nothing, and that Austria, their great adversary, had staked her existence on maintaining thraldom in Italy. Innumerable small outbursts and three revolutions had ended in the death of hundreds and in the imprisonment or proscription of thousands of victims. … Just when conspiracy, through repeated failures, was thus discredited, there arose a leader so strong and unselfish, so magnetic and patient and zealous, that by him, if by anyone, conspiracy might be guided to victory. This leader, the Great Conspirator, was Joseph Mazzini, one of the half dozen supreme influences in European politics during the nineteenth century, whose career will interest posterity as long as it is concerned at all in our epoch of transition. For just as Metternich was the High Priest of the Old Regime, so Mazzini was the Prophet of a Social Order, more just, more free, more spiritual than any the world has known. He was an Idealist who would hold no parley with temporizers, an enthusiast whom half-concessions could not beguile: and so he came to be decried as a fanatic or a visionary. … Mazzini joined the Carbonari, not without suspecting that, under their complex symbolism and hierarchical mysteries they concealed a fatal lack of harmony, decision, and faith. … As he became better acquainted with Carbonarism, his conviction grew stronger that no permanent good could be achieved by it. … The open propaganda of his Republican and Unitarian doctrines was of course impossible; it must be carried on by a secret organization. But he was disgusted with the existing secret societies: they lacked harmony, they lacked faith, they had no distinct purpose; their Masonic mummeries were childish and farcical. … Therefore, Mazzini would have none of them; he would organize a new secret society, and call it 'Young Italy,' whose principles should be plainly understood by every one of its members. It was to be composed of men under forty, in order to secure the most energetic and disinterested members, and to avoid the influence of older men, who, trained by the past generation, were not in touch with the aspirations and needs of the new. It was to awaken the People, the bone and sinew of the nation; whereas the earlier sects had relied too much on the upper and middle classes, whose traditions and interests were either too aristocratic or too commercial. Roman Catholicism had ceased to be spiritual; it no longer purified and uplifted the hearts of the Italians. … Young Italy aimed, therefore, to substitute for the mediæval dogmas and patent idolatries of Rome a religion based on Reason, and so simple as to be within the comprehension of the humblest peasant. … The doctrines of the new sect spread, but since secret societies give the census-taker no account of their membership, we cannot cite figures to illustrate the growth of Young Italy. Contrary to Mazzini's expectations, it was recruited, not so much from the People, as from the Middle Class, the professional men, and the tradesmen." In 1831 Mazzini was forced into exile, at Marseilles, from which city he planned an invasion of Savoy. The project was discovered, and the Sardinian government revenged itself cruelly upon the patriots within its reach. "In a few weeks, eleven alleged conspirators had been executed, many more had been sentenced to the galleys, and others, who had escaped; were condemned in contumacy. Among the men who fled into exile at this time were … Vincent Gioberti and Joseph Garibaldi. … To an enthusiast less determined than Mazzini, this calamity would have been a check; to him, however, it was a spur. Instead of abandoning the expedition against Savoy, he worked with might and main to hurry it on. … One column, in which were fifty Italians and twice as many Poles, … was to enter Savoy by way of Annemasse. A second column had orders to push on from Nyon; a third, starting from Lyons, was to march towards Chambéry. Mazzini, with a musket on his shoulder, accompanied the first party. To his surprise, the peasants showed no enthusiasm when the tricolor flag was unfurled and the invaders shouted 'God and People! Liberty and the Republic!' before them. At length some carabineers and a platoon of troops appeared. A few shots were fired. Mazzini fainted; his comrades dispersed across the Swiss border, taking him with them. … His enemies attributed his fainting to cowardice; he himself explained it as the result of many nights of sleeplessness, of great fatigue, fever and cold. … To all but the few concerned in it, this first venture of Young Italy seemed a farce, the disproportion between its aim and its achievement was so enormous, and Mazzini's personal collapse was so ignominious. Nevertheless, Italian conspiracy had now and henceforth that head for lack of which it had so long floundered amid vague and contradictory purposes. The young Idealist had been beaten in his first encounter with obdurate Reality, but he was not discouraged. … Now began in earnest that 'apostolate' of his, which he laid down only at his death. {1861} Young Italy was established beyond the chance of being destroyed by an abortive expedition; Young Poland, Young Hungary, Young Europe itself, sprang up after the Mazzinian pattern; the Liberals and revolutionists of the Continent felt that their cause was international, and in their affliction they fraternized. No one could draw so fair and reasonable a Utopia for them as Mazzini drew; no one could so fire them with a sense of duty, with hope, with energy. He became the mainspring of the whole machine—truly an infernal machine to the autocrats—of European conspiracy. The redemption of Italy was always his nearest aim, but his generous principle reached out over other nations, for in the world that he prophesied every people must be free. Proscribed in Piedmont, expelled from Switzerland, denied lodging in France, he took refuge in London, there to direct, amid poverty and heartache, the whole vast scheme of plots. His bread he earned by writing critical and literary essays for the English reviews,—he quickly mastered the English language so as to use it with remarkable vigor,—and all his leisure he devoted to the preparation of political tracts, and to correspondence with numberless confederates. … He was the consulting physician for all the revolutionary practitioners of Europe. Those who were not his partisans disparaged his influence, asserting that he was only a man of words; but the best proof of his power lies in the anxiety he caused monarchs and cabinets, and in the precautions they took to guard against him. … Mazzini and Metternich! For nearly twenty years they were the antipodes of European politics. One in his London garret, poor, despised, yet indomitable and sleepless, sending his influence like an electric current through all barriers to revivify the heart of Italy and of Liberal Europe; the other in his Vienna palace, haughty, famous, equally alert and cunning, … shedding over Italy and over Europe his upas-doctrines of torpor and decay!"

ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.
   Insurrection and revolution throughout the peninsula.
   French occupation of Rome.
   Triumph of King "Bomba" in Naples and Sicily.
   Disastrous war of Sardinia with Austria.
   Lombardy and Venice enslaved anew.

"The revolution of 1831, which affected the States of the Church, Modena, and Parma, had been suppressed, like the still earlier rebellions in Naples and Piedmont, by Austrian intervention. … Hence, all the hatred of the Italians was directed against foreign rule, as the only obstacle to the freedom and unity of the peninsula. … The secret societies, and the exiles in communication with them—especially Joseph Mazzini, who issued his commands from London—took care that the national spirit should not be buried beneath material interests, but should remain ever wakeful. Singularly, the first encouragement came from" Rome. "Pope Gregory XVI., … had died June 1st, 1846, and been succeeded by the fifty-four-year-old Cardinal Count Mastai Ferretti, who took the name of Pius IX. If the pious world which visited him was charmed by the amiability and clemency of its new head, the cardinals were dismayed at the reforms which this new head would fain introduce in the States of the Church and in all Italy. He published an amnesty for all political offences; permitted the exiles to return with impunity; allowed the Press freer scope; threw open the highest civil offices to laymen; summoned from the notables of the provinces a council of state, which was to propose reforms; bestowed a liberal municipal constitution on the city of Rome; and endeavored to bring about an Italian confederation. … After the French revolution of 1848 he granted a constitution. There was a first chamber, to be named by the Pope, and a second chamber, to be elected by the people, while the irresponsible college of cardinals formed a sort of privy council. A new era appeared to be dawning. The old-world capital, Rome, once the mistress of the nations, still the mistress of all Roman Catholic hearts, was to become the central point of Italy. … But when the flames of war broke out in the north [see below], and the fate of Italy was about to be decided between Sardinia and Austria on the old battle fields of Lombardy, the Romans demanded from the Pope a declaration of war against Austria, and the despatch of Roman troops to join Charles Albert's army. Pius rejected their demands as unsuited to his papal office, and so broke with the men of the extreme party. … In this time of agitation Pius thought that in Count Pellegrino Rossi, of Carrara, … he had found the right man to carry out a policy of moderate liberalism, and on the 17th of September, 1848, he set him at the head of a new ministry. The anarchists … could not forgive Rossi for grasping the reins with a firm hand." On the 15th of November, as he alighted from his carriage at the door of the Chambers, he was stabbed in the neck by an assassin, and died on the spot. He was about, when murdered, to open the Chambers with a speech, in which he intended "to promise abolition of the rule of the cardinals and introduction of a lay government, and to insist upon Italy's independence and unity. … The next day an armed crowd appeared before the Quirinal and attacked the guard, which consisted of Swiss mercenaries, some of the bullets flying into the Pope's antechamber. He had to accept a radical ministry and dismiss the Swiss troops. … Pius fled in disguise from Rome to Gaeta, November 24th, and sought shelter with the King of Naples. Mazzini and his party had free scope. A constitutional convention was summoned, which declared the temporal power of the Pope abolished (February 5th, 1849), and Rome a republic. To them attached itself Tuscany. Grand-duke Leopold II. had granted a constitution, February 17th, 1848, but nevertheless the republican-minded ministry of Guerrazzi compelled him to join the Pope at Gaeta, February 21st, 1849. The republic was then proclaimed in Tuscany and union with Rome resolved upon." But Louis Napoleon, President of the French republic, intervened. "Marshal Oudinot was despatched with 8,000 men. He landed in Civita Vecchia, April 26th, 1849, and appeared before the walls of Rome on the 30th, expecting to take the city without any trouble. But … after a fight of several hours, he had to retreat to Civita Vecchia with a loss of 700 men. {1862} A few days later the Neapolitan army, which was to attack the rebels from the south, was defeated at Velletri; and the Spanish troops, the third in the league against the red republic, prudently avoided a battle. But Oudinot received considerable re-enforcements, and on June 3d he advanced against Rome for the second time, with 35,000 men, while the force in the city consisted of about 19,000, mostly volunteers and national guards. In spite of the bravery of Garibaldi and the volunteers, into whom he breathed his spirit, Rome had to capitulate, after a long and bloody struggle, owing to the superiority of the French artillery. On the 4th of July Oudinot entered the silent capital. Garibaldi, Mazzini, and their followers fled. … Pius, for whose nerves the Roman atmosphere was still too strong, did not return until the 4th of April, 1850. His ardor for reform was cooled. … In the Legations they had to protect themselves by Austrian bayonets, and in Rome and Civita Vecchia by French. This lasted in the Legations until 1859, and in Rome and Civita Vecchia until 1866 and 1870. Simultaneously with Rome the south of Italy had entered into the movement so characteristic of the year 1848. The scenes of 1820 and 1821 were repeated." The Sicilians again demanded independence; expelled the Neapolitan garrison from Palermo; refused to accept a constitution proffered by King Ferdinand II., which created a united parliament for Naples and Sicily; voted in a Sicilian parliament the perpetual exclusion of the Bourbon dynasty from the throne, and offered the crown of Sicily to a son of the king of Sardinia, who declined the gift. In Naples, Ferdinand yielded at first to the storm, and sent, under compulsion, a force of 13,000 Neapolitan troops, commanded by the old revolutionist, General Pepé, to join the Sardinians against Austria. This was in April, 1848. A month later he crushed the revolution with his Swiss mercenaries, recalled his army from northern Italy, and was master, again, in his capital and his peninsular kingdom. The following summer he landed 8,000 troops in Sicily; his army bombarded and stormed Messina in September; defeated the insurgents at the foot of Mount Etna; took Catania by storm in April, 1849, and entered Palermo, after a short bombardment, on the 17th of May, having gained for its master the nickname of "King Bomba." "He ordered a general disarmament, and established an oppressive military rule over the whole island; and there was no more talk of parliament and constitution. All these struggles in central and southern Italy stood in close connection with the events of 1848 and 1849 in upper Italy. … In the north the struggle was to shake off the Austrian yoke. … During the month of January, 1848, there was constant friction between the citizens and the military in Milan and the university cities of Pavia and Padua. … March 18th, Milan rose. All classes took part in the fight; and the eighty-two-year-old field-marshal Count Joseph Radetzky … was obliged, after a street fight of two days, to draw his troops out of the city, call up as quickly as possible the garrisons of the neighboring cities, and take up his position in the famous Quadrilateral, between Peschiera, Verona, Legnano, and Mantua. March 22d, Venice, where Count Zichy commanded, was lost for the Austrians," who yielded without resistance, releasing their political prisoners, one of whom, the celebrated Daniel Manin, a Venetian lawyer, took his place at the head of a provisional government. "Other cities followed the lead of Venice. The little duchies of Modena and Parma could hold out no longer; Dukes Francis and Charles fled to Austria, and provisional governments sprung up behind them. Like Naples, the duchies and Tuscany also sent their troops across the Po to help the Sardinians in the decisive struggle. The hopes of all Italy were centred on Sardinia and its king. … Charles Albert, called to the aid of Lombardy, entered Milan to win for himself the Lombardo-Venetian kingdom and the hegemony of Italy. He presented himself as the liberator of the peninsula, but it was not a part for which he was qualified by his antecedents. … He was a brave soldier, but a poor captain. … His opponent, Radetzky, was old, but his spirit was still young and fresh. … Radetzky received re-enforcements from Austria, and on the 6th of May repelled the attack of the Sardinian king south-west of Verona [at Santa Lucia]. May 29th, he carried the intrenchments at Cartatone; but as the Sardinians were victorious at Goito and took Peschiera, while Garibaldi with his Alpine rangers threatened the Austrian rear, he had to desist from further advances, and limit his operations to the recapture of Vicenza and the other cities of the Venetian main-land. In the mean time the Austrian court, chiefly at the instigation of the British embassy, had opened negotiations with the Lombards, and offered them their independence on condition of their assuming a considerable share of the public debt, and concluding a favorable commercial treaty with Austria. But, as the Lombards felt sure of acquiring their freedom more cheaply, they did not accept the proposition. Radetzky was now in a position to assume an active offensive. He won a brilliant victory at Custozza, July 25th. The Sardinians attempted to make a stand at Goito and again at Volta, but were driven back, and Radetzky advanced on Milan. Charles Albert had to evacuate the city," and on the 9th of August he concluded an armistice, withdrawing his troops from Lombardy and the duchies. But in the following March (1849) he was persuaded to renew the war, and he placed his army under the command of the Polish general Chrzanowski. It was the intention of the Sardinians to advance again into Lombardy, but they had no opportunity. "Radetzky crossed the Ticino, and in a four days' campaign on Sardinian soil defeated the foe so completely—March 21st at Mortara, and March 23d at Novara—that there could be no more thought of a renewal of the struggle. … Charles Albert, who had vainly sought death upon the battle-field, was weary of his throne and his life. In the night of March 23d, at Novara, he laid down the crown and declared his eldest son king of Sardinia, under the title of Victor Emmanuel II. He hoped that the latter would obtain a more favorable peace from the Austrians. … Then, saying farewell to his wife by letter, attended by but two servants, he travelled through France and Spain to Portugal. He died at Oporto, July 26th, 1849, of repeated strokes of apoplexy." After long negotiations, the new king concluded a treaty of peace with Austria on the 6th of August. "Sardinia retained its boundaries intact, and paid 75,000,000 lire as indemnity. The false report of a Sardinian victory at Novara had caused the population of Brescia to fall upon the Austrian garrison and drive them into the citadel. {1863} General Haynau hastened thither with 4,000 men well provided with artillery. The city was bombarded, and on the 1st of April it was reoccupied, after a fearful street fight, in which even women took part; but Haynau stained his name by inhuman cruelties, especially toward the gentler sex. Venice was not able to hold out much longer. It had at first attached itself to Sardinia, but after the defeat of the Sardinians the republic was proclaimed. Without the city, in Haynau's camp, swamp fever raged; within, hunger and cholera. On the news of the capitulation of Hungary, August 22d, it surrendered, and the heads of the revolution, Manin and Pepe, went into exile. All Italy was again brought under its old masters."

The siege of Venice, "reckoning from April 2, when the Assembly voted to resist at any cost, lasted 146 days; but the blockade by land began on June 18, 1848, when the Austrians first occupied Mestre. During the twenty-one weeks of actual siege, 900 Venetian troops were killed, and probably 7,000 or 8,000 were at different times on the sick-list. Of the Austrians, 1,200 were killed in engagements, 8,000 succumbed to fevers and cholera, and as many more were in the hospitals: 80,000 projectiles were fired from the Venetian batteries; from the Austrian, more than 120,000. During the seventeen months of her independence, Venice raised sixty million francs, exclusive of patriotic donations in plate and chattels. When Gorzkowsky came to examine the accounts of the defunct government he exclaimed, 'I did not believe that such Republican dogs were such honest men.' With the fate of Venice was quenched the last of the fires of liberty which the Revolution had kindled throughout Europe in 1848. Her people, whom the world had come to look down upon as degenerate,—mere trinket-makers and gondoliers,—had proved themselves second to none in heroism, superior to all in stability. At Venice, from first to last, we have had to record no excesses, no fickle changes, no slipping down of power from level to level till it sank in the mire of anarchy. She had her demagogues and her passions, but she would be the slave of neither; and in nothing did she show her character more worthily than in recognizing Manin and making him her leader. He repaid her trust by absolute fidelity. I can discover no public act of his to which you can impute any other motive than solicitude for her welfare. The common people loved him as a father, revered him as a patron saint; the upper classes, the soldiers, the politicians, whatever may have been the preferences of individuals or the ambition of cliques, felt that he was indispensable, and gave him wider and wider authority as danger increased. … The little lawyer, with the large, careworn face and blue eyes, had redeemed Venice from her long shame of decadence and servitude. But Europe would not suffer his work to stand; Europe preferred that Austria rather than freedom should rule at Venice. At daybreak on August 28 a mournful throng of the common people collected before Manin's house in Piazza San Paterniano. 'Here is our good father, poor dear fellow,' they were heard to say. 'He has endured so much for us. May God bless him!' They escorted him and his family to the shore, whence he embarked on the French ship Pluton, for he was among the forty prominent Venetians whom the Austrians condemned to banishment. At six o'clock the Pluton weighed anchor and passed through the winding channel of the lagune, out into the Adriatic. Long before the Austrian banners were hoisted that morning on the flagstaffs of St. Mark's, Venice, with her fair towers and glittering domes, had vanished forever from her Great Defender's sight. Outwardly, the Revolutionary Movement had failed; in France it had resulted in a spurious Republic, soon to become a tinsel Empire; elsewhere, there was not even a make-believe success to hide, if but for a while, the failure. In Italy, except in Piedmont, Reaction had full play. Bomba filled his Neapolitan and Sicilian prisons with political victims, and demonstrated again that the Bourbon government was a negation of God. Pius IX., having loitered at Naples with his Paragon of Virtue until April, 1850, returned to Rome, to be henceforth now the puppet and now the accomplice of Cardinal Antonelli in every scheme for oppressing his subjects, and for resisting Liberal tendencies. He held his temporal sovereignty through the kindness of the Bonapartist charlatan in France; it was fated that he should lose it forever when that charlatan lost his Empire. In Tuscany, Leopold thanked Austria for permitting him to rule over a people the intelligent part of which despised him. In Modena, the Duke was but an Austrian deputy sheriff. Lombardy and Venetia were again the prey of the double-beaked eagle of Hapsburg. Only in Piedmont did Constitutionalism and liberty survive to become, under an honest king and a wise minister, the ark of Italy's redemption."

      The Chevalier O'Clery,
      History of the Italian Revolution,
      chapters 6-7.

ITALY: A. D. 1856-1859.
   Austro-Italy before Europe in the Congress of Paris.
   Alliance of France with Sardinia.
   War with Austria.
   Emancipation of Lombardy.
   Peace of Villa-franca.

"The year 1856 brought an armistice between the contending powers [in the Crimea—see RUSSIA: A. D. 1853-1854 to 1854-1856], followed by the Congress of Paris, which settled the terms of peace. At that Congress Count Cavour and the Marquis Villamarina represented their country side by side with the envoys of the great European States. The Prime Minister of Piedmont, while taking his part in the re-establishment of the general peace with a skill and tact which won him the favour of his brother plenipotentiaries, never lost sight of the further object he had in view, namely, that of laying before the Congress the condition of Italy. … His efforts were rewarded with success. {1864} On the 30th March, 1856, the treaty of peace was signed, and on the 8th April Count Walewski called the attention of the members of the Congress to the state of Italy. … Count Buol, the Austrian plenipotentiary, would not admit that the Congress had any right to deal with the Italian question at all; he declined courteously, but firmly, to discuss the matter. … But although Austria refused to entertain the question, the fact remained that the condition of Italy now stood condemned, not by revolutionary chiefs, nor by the rulers of Piedmont alone, but by the envoys of some of the leading powers of Europe speaking officially in the name of their respective sovereigns. It was in truth a great diplomatic victory for Italy. … No one in Europe was more thoroughly convinced than Napoleon III. that the discontent of Italy and the plots of a section of Italians had their origin in the despotism which annihilated all national life in the Peninsula with the single exception of Piedmont. He felt keenly, also, how false, was his own position at Rome. … France upheld the Pope as a temporal sovereign, but, nevertheless, the latter ruled in a manner which pleased Austria and which displeased France. … Count Cavour went privately to meet the French Emperor at Plombières in July, 1858. During that interview it was arranged that France should ally herself actively with Piedmont against Austria. … The first public indication of the attitude taken up by France with regard to Austria and Italy was given on the 1st January, 1859, when Napoleon III. received the diplomatic corps at the Tuileries. Addressing Baron Hubner, the Austrian Ambassador, the French Emperor said: 'I regret that the relations between us are bad; tell your sovereign, however, that my sentiments towards him are not changed.' … The ties which united France to Piedmont were strengthened by the marriage, in the end of January, 1859, of the Princess Clotilde, the eldest daughter of Victor Emmanuel, with Prince Napoleon, the first cousin of the French Emperor. … An agreement was made by which the Emperor Napoleon promised to give armed assistance to Piedmont if she were attacked by Austria. The result, in case the allies were successful, was to be the formation of a northern kingdom of Italy. … Both Austria and Piedmont increased their armaments and raised loans in preparation for war. Men of all ranks and conditions of life flocked to Turin from the other States of Italy to join the Piedmontese army, or enrol themselves among the volunteers of Garibaldi, who had hastened to offer his services to the king against Austria. … Meanwhile, diplomacy made continual efforts to avert war. … The idea of a European Congress was started. … Then came the proposition of a general disarmament by way of staying the warlike preparations, which were taking ever enlarged proportions. On the 18th April, 1859, the Cabinet of Turin agreed to the principle of disarmament at the special request of England and France, on the condition that Piedmont took her seat at the Congress. The Cabinet of Vienna had made no reply to this proposition. Then suddenly it addressed, on the 23rd April, an ultimatum to the Cabinet of Turin demanding the instant disarmament of Piedmont, to which a categorical reply was asked for within three days. At the expiration of the three days Count Cavour, who was delighted at this hasty step of his opponent, remitted to Baron Kellerberg, the Austrian envoy, a refusal to comply with the request made. War was now inevitable. Victor Emmanuel addressed a stirring proclamation to his army on the 27th April, and two days afterwards another to the people of his own kingdom and to the people of Italy. … On the 30th April some French troops arrived at Turin. On the 13th May Napoleon III. disembarked at Genoa. … Although the Austrian armies proceeded to cross the Ticino and invade the Piedmontese territory, they failed to make a decisive march on Turin. Had Count Giúlay, the Austrian commander, done so without hesitation, he might well have reached the capital of Piedmont before the French had arrived in sufficient force to enable the little Piedmontese army to arrest the invasion. As it was, the opportunity was lost never to occur again. In the first engagements at Montebello and Palestro [May 20, 30 and 31] the advantage rested decidedly with the allies. … On the 4th June the French fought the battle of Magenta, which ended, though not without a hard struggle, in the defeat of the Austrians. On the 8th the Emperor Napoleon and King Victor Emmanuel entered Milan, where they were received with a welcome as sincere as it was enthusiastic. The rich Lombard capital hastened to recognise the king as its sovereign. While there he met in person, Garibaldi, who was in command of the volunteer corps, whose members had flocked from all parts of Italy to carry on under his command the war in the mountainous districts of the north against Austria. … The allied troops pursued their march onwards towards the River Mincio, upon whose banks two of the fortresses of the famous Quadrilateral are situated. On the 24th June they encountered the Austrian army at Solferino and San Martino. French, Piedmontese, and Austrians, fought with courage and determination. Nor was it until after ten or eleven hours of hard fighting that the allies forced their enemy to retreat and took possession of the positions he had occupied in the morning. While victory thus crowned the efforts of France and Piedmont in battle, events of no little importance were taking place in Italy. Ferdinand II. of Naples died on the 22nd May, just after he had received the news of the successes of the allies at Montebello and Palestro. He was succeeded by his son, Francis II. … Count Salmour was at once despatched by the Piedmontese Government … with the offer of a full and fair alliance between Turin and Naples. The offer was rejected. Francis determined to follow his father's example of absolutism at home while giving all his influence to Austria. Thus it was that the young Neapolitan king sowed, and as he sowed so he reaped. Leopold, the Grand Duke of Tuscany, had in April refused the proffered alliance of Piedmont. … Finally he left Florence and took refuge in the Austrian camp. A provisional Government was formed, which placed the Tuscan forces at the disposal of Victor Emmanuel. This change was effected in a few hours without bloodshed or violence. The Duchess of Parma went away to Switzerland with her young son, Duke Robert. Francis Duke of Modena betook himself, with what treasures he had time to lay his hands on, to the more congenial atmosphere of the head-quarters of the Austrian army. … 'The deputations which hastened from Tuscany, Parma, and Modena, to offer their allegiance to Victor Emmanuel, were received without difficulty. It was agreed that their complete annexation should be deferred until after the conclusion of peace. {1865} In the meanwhile the Piedmontese Government was to assume the responsibility of maintaining order and providing for military action. … The French and Piedmontese armies had won the battle of Solferino, and driven the enemy across the Mincio; their fleets were off the lagoons of Venice, and were even visible from the lofty Campanile of St. Mark. Italy was throbbing with a movement of national life daily gathering volume and force. Europe was impatiently expecting the next move. It took the unexpected form of an armistice, which the Emperor of the French proposed, on his sole responsibility, to the Emperor Francis Joseph on the 8th July. On the 12th the preliminaries of peace were signed at Villafranca. Victor Emmanuel was opposed to this act of his ally, but was unable to prevent it. The Italians were bitterly disappointed, and their anger was only too faithfully represented by Cavour himself. He hastened to the headquarters of the king, denounced in vehement language the whole proceeding, advised his majesty not to sign the armistice, not to accept Lombardy [see below], and to withdraw his troops from the Mincio to the Ticino. But Victor Emmanuel, though sympathising with the feelings of Italy and of his Minister, took a wiser and more judicious course than the one thus recommended. He accepted Cavour's resignation and signed the armistice, appending to his signature these words:—'J'accepte pour ce qui me concerne.' He reserved his liberty of action for the future and refused to pledge himself to anything more than a cessation of hostilities."

      C. Arrivabene,
      Italy under Victor Emmanuel,
      chapters 1-13 (volume 1).

ITALY: A. D. 1859-1861.
   The Treaty of Zurich and its practical negation.
   Annexation of Central Italy to Sardinia by Plebiscite.
   Revolution in Sicily and Naples.
   Garibaldi's great campaign of liberation.
   The Sardinian army in the Papal States.
   The new Kingdom of Italy proclaimed.

"The treaty concluded at Zurich in November [1859] between the ambassadors of France, Austria, and Sardinia substantially ratified the preliminaries arranged at Villafranca. Lombardy passed to the king of Sardinia; Venetia was retained by Austria. The rulers of Modena and Parma were to be restored, the papal power again established in the Legations, while the various states of the peninsula, excepting Sardinia and the Two Sicilies, were to form a confederation under the leadership of the Pope. According to the terms of the treaty Lombardy was the only state directly benefited by the war. … The people of central Italy showed no inclination to resume the old régime. They maintained their position firmly and consistently, despite the decisions of the Zurich Congress, the advice of the French emperor, and the threatening attitude of Naples and Rome. … The year closed without definite action, leaving the provisional governments in control. In fact, matters were simply drifting, and it seemed imperative to take some vigorous measures to terminate so abnormal a condition of affairs. Finally the project of a European congress was suggested. There was but one opinion as to who should represent Italy in such an event. … Cavour … returned to the head of affairs in January. This event was simultaneous with the removal of M. Walewski at Paris and a change in the policy of the French government. The emperor no longer advised the central Italians to accept the return of their rulers. His influence at Rome was exercised to induce the Pope to allow his subjects in the Legations to have their will. … The scheme of a European congress was abandoned. With France at his back to neutralize Austria, Cavour had nothing to fear. … He suggested to the emperor that the central Italians be allowed to settle their fate by plebiscite. This method was to a certain extent a craze with the emperor, … and Cavour was not surprised at the affirmative reply he received to his proposal. The elections took place in March, and by an overwhelming majority the people of Parma, Modena, Tuscany, and the Legations declared for annexation to Sardinia. Austria protested, but could do no more in the face of England and France. Naples followed the Austrian example, while almost simultaneously with the news of the elections there arrived at Turin the papal excommunication for Victor Emmanuel and his subjects. On the 2d of April the king opened the new parliament and addressed himself to the representatives of 12,000,000 Italians. The natural enthusiasm attending the session was seriously dampened by the royal announcement that, subject to the approval of their citizens and the ratification of parliament, Nice and Savoy were to be returned to France. It was, in fact, the concluding installment of the price arranged at Plombières to be paid for the French troops in the campaign of the previous year. … General Garibaldi, who sat in the parliament for Nice, was especially prominent in the angry debates that followed. … When the transfer had been ratified he withdrew to a humble retreat in the island of Caprera. … But the excitement over the loss of Nice and Savoy was soon diminished by the startling intelligence which arrived of rebellion in the Neapolitan dominions. Naples was mutinous, while in Sicily, Palermo and Messina were in open revolt. Garibaldi's time had come. Leaving Caprera, he made for Piedmont, and hastily organized a band of volunteers to assist in the popular movement. On the night of May 6, with about a thousand enthusiastic spirits, he embarked from the coast near Genoa in two steamers and sailed for Sicily. Cavour in the mean time winked at this extraordinary performance. He dispatched Admiral Persano with a squadron ostensibly to intercept the expedition, but in reality 'to navigate between it and the hostile Neapolitan fleet.' On the 11th Garibaldi landed safely at Marsala under the sleepy guns of a Neapolitan man-of-war. On the 14th he was at Salemi, where he issued the following proclamation: 'Garibaldi, commander-in-chief of the national forces in Sicily, on the invitation of the principal citizens, and on the deliberation of the free communes of the island, considering that in times of war it is necessary that the civil and military powers should be united in one person, assumes in the name of Victor Emmanuel, King of Italy, the Dictatorship in Sicily.'" On the 26th Garibaldi attacked Palermo; on the 6th of June he was in possession of the city and citadel; on the 25th of July Messina was surrendered to him. {1866} "Perhaps the excitement at Turin during these days was second only to that which animated the great Sicilian cities. The guns of Bomba's fleet at Palermo were no more active than the diplomatic artillery which the courts of Central Europe trained upon the government at Turin. … Cavour's position at this time was a trying, delicate, and from some points of view a questionable one. He had publicly expressed regret for Garibaldi's expedition, while privately he encouraged it. … Cavour's desire to see Garibaldi in Calabria was changed, a little later. La Farina was at Palermo in behalf of the Sardinian government, to induce Garibaldi to consent to the immediate annexation of Sicily to the new Italian kingdom. This Garibaldi declined to do, preferring to wait until he could lay the entire Neapolitan realm and Rome as well at the feet of Victor Emmanuel. This altered the aspect of affairs. It was evident that Garibaldi was getting headstrong. It was Cavour's constant solicitude to keep the Italian question in such a shape as to allow no foreign power a pretext for interference. Garibaldi's design against Rome garrisoned by French troops would be almost certain to bring on foreign complications and ruin the cause of Italian unity." On the 19th of August, Garibaldi crossed his army from Sicily to the mainland and advanced on Naples. "On the evening of September 6 the king embarked on a Spanish ship, and leaving his mutinous navy at anchor in the bay, quit forever those beautiful shores which his race had too long defiled. On the morning of September 7 Garibaldi was at Salerno; before night he had reached Naples, and its teeming thousands had run mad. … The Neapolitan fleet went over en masse to Garibaldi, and by him was placed under the orders of the Sardinian admiral. The Garibaldian troops came swarming into the city, some by land and others by sea. … Francis II. had shut himself up in the fortress of Gaeta with the remnants of his army, holding the line of the Volturno. … At Turin the state of unrest continued. Garibaldi's presence at Naples was attended with grave perils. Of course his designs upon Rome formed the principal danger, but his conspicuous inability as an organizer was one of scarcely less gravity. … Sardinian troops had become a necessity of the situation. … There was no time to lose. There could be no difficulty in finding an excuse to enter papal territory. The inhabitants of Umbria and the Marches, who had never ceased to appeal for annexation to the new kingdom, were suppressed by an army of foreign mercenaries that the Pope had mustered beneath his banner. … Cavour had interceded in vain with the Vatican to alter its course toward its disaffected subjects. At last, on September 7, the day Garibaldi entered Naples, he sent the royal ultimatum to Cardinal Antonelli at Rome. … On the 11th the unfavorable reply of Antonelli was received, and the same day the Sardinian troops crossed the papal frontier. … Every European power except England, which expressed open satisfaction, protested against this action. There was an imposing flight of ambassadors from Turin, and an ominous commotion all along the diplomatic horizon. Cavour had not moved, however, without a secret understanding with Napoleon. … The Sardinian army advanced rapidly in two columns. General Fanti seized Perugia and Spoleto, while Cialdini on the east of the Apennines utterly destroyed the main papal army under the French general Lamoricière at Castelfidardo [September 17]. Lamoricière with a few followers gained Ancona, but finding that town covered by the guns of the Sardinian fleet, he was compelled to surrender. 'The pontifical mercenary corps' became a thing of the past, Cavour could turn his whole attention to Naples. He had obtained from parliament an enthusiastic permission to receive, if tendered, the allegiance of the Two Sicilies. The army was ordered across the Neapolitan frontier, and the king left for Ancona to take command. In the mean time on October 1 Garibaldi had inflicted another severe defeat to the royal Neapolitan army on the Volturno. The Sardinian advance was wholly unimpeded. … On November 7 the king entered Naples, and on the following day was waited upon by a deputation to announce the result of the election that Garibaldi had previously decreed. 'Sire,' said their spokesman, 'The Neapolitan people, assembled in Comitia, by an immense majority have proclaimed you their king.' … Then followed an event so sublime as to be without parallel in these times of selfish ambition. Garibaldi bade farewell to his faithful followers, and, refusing all rewards, passed again to his quiet home in Caprera. … The people of Umbria and the Marches followed the lead of Naples in declaring themselves subjects of Victor Emmanuel. Except for the patrimony of St. Peter surrounding the city of Rome and the Austrian province of Venetia, Italy was united under the tricolor. While Garibaldi returned to his humble life, Cavour went to Turin to resume his labors. … On the 18th of February, 1861, the first national parliament representing the north and south met at Turin. Five days before, the last stronghold of Francis II. had capitulated, and the enthusiasm ran high. The kingdom of Italy was proclaimed, and the king confirmed as 'Victor Emmanuel II., by the grace of God and the will of the nation King of Italy.' … The work was almost done. The scheme that a few years before would have provoked a smile in any diplomatic circle in Europe had been perfected almost to the capstone. But the man who had conceived the plan and carried it through its darkest days was, not destined to witness its final consummation. Cavour was giving way. On May 29 he was stricken down with a violent illness." On June 6 he died. "To Mazzini belongs the credit of keeping alive the spirit of patriotism; Garibaldi is entitled to the admiration of the world as the pure patriot who fired men's souls; but Cavour was greater than either, and Mazzini and Garibaldi were but humble instruments in his magnificent plan of Italian regeneration."

ITALY: A. D. 1862-1866.
   The Roman question and the Venetian question.
   Impatience of the nation.
   Collision of Garibaldi with the government.
   Alliance with Prussia.
   War with Austria.
   Liberation and annexation of Venetia.

"The new ministry was formed by Baron Ricasoli. … In the month of July, Russia and Prussia followed the example of England and France, and acknowledged Italian unity. … Baron Ricasoli only held office about nine months; not feeling equal to the difficulties he had to encounter, he resigned in March, 1862, and Signor Ratazzi was empowered to form a new ministry. … The volunteer troops had become a source of serious embarrassment to the government. … It was found disagreeable and dangerous to have two standing armies under separate heads and a separate discipline, and it was proposed to amalgamate the Garibaldians with the royal troops. Endless disagreements arose out of this question. … As soon as this question was in a manner accommodated, a more serious one arose. The central provinces lost all patience in waiting so long for a peaceful solution of the Roman question. The leaders of the Young Italy party became more warlike in their language, and excited the peasantry to riotous proceedings, which the government had to put down forcibly, and this disagreeable fact helped to make the Ratazzi ministry unpopular. Garibaldi's name had been used as an incentive to those disturbances, and now the hot-headed general embarked for Sicily, to take the command of a troop who were bound for the Eternal City, resolved to cut with the sword the Gordian knot of the Roman question. The government used energetic measures to maintain its dignity, and not allow an irregular warfare to be carried on without its sanction. The times were difficult, no doubt, and the ministry had a hard road to tread. … The Garibaldians were already in the field, and having crossed from Sicily, were marching through Calabria with ever-increasing forces and the cry of 'Rome or death' on their lips. Victor Emmanuel had now no choice left him but to put down rebellion by force of arms. General Cialdini's painful duty it was to lead the royal troops on this occasion. He encountered the Garibaldians at Aspromonte, in Calabria, and on their refusing to surrender to the king, a fight ensued in which the volunteers were of course defeated, and their officers arrested. Garibaldi, with a ball in his foot, from the effects of which he has never recovered, was carried a state prisoner to Piedmont. … This unhappy episode was a bitter grief to Victor Emmanuel. … Aspromonte gave a final blow to the Ratazzi ministry. Never very popular, it was utterly shaken by the reaction in favour of Garibaldi. … After a good deal of worry and consultation, the king decided to call Luigi Carlo Farini to office. … Unhappily his health obliged him to retire very soon from public life, and he was succeeded by Minghetti. On the whole this first year without Cavour had been a very trying one to Victor Emmanuel. … Meantime the Roman question remained in abeyance—to the great detriment of the nation, for it kept Central and Southern Italy in a state of fermentation which the government could not long hold in check. The Bourbon intrigues at Rome, encouraging brigandage in the Two Sicilies, destroyed all security of life and property, and impeded foreigners from visiting the country. The Emperor of the French, occupying the false position of champion of Italian independence and protector of the temporal power of the Pope, would not do anything, nor let the Italian Government do anything, towards settling the momentous question. … Victor Emmanuel, who had his eye on Venice all the time, having a fixed impression that if it could be recovered he would find less difficulty in getting rid of the foreign occupation in Rome, now adopted energetic measures to bring about a settlement of this Venetian question, urging the English Government to use its influence with Austria to induce her to accept some compromise and surrender the Italian province peaceably. … Meantime the Italian Government continued to invite the French to withdraw their forces from the Roman States, and leave the Pope face to face with his own subjects without the aid of foreign bayonets. This the emperor, fearing to offend the papal party, could not make up his mind to do. But to make the road to Rome easier for the Italians, he proposed a transfer of the capital from Turin to some more southern town, Florence or Naples—he did not care which. The French minister, M. Drouyn de Lhuys, said:—'Of course in the end you will go to Rome. But it is important that between our evacuation and your going there, such an interval of time and such a series of events should elapse as to prevent people establishing any connection between the two facts. France must not have any responsibility.' … The king accepted the conditions, which provided that the French were to evacuate Rome in two years, and fixed on Florence as the residence of the court. … On November 18, 1860, the first Parliament was opened in Florence. … The quarrel between Austria and Prussia [see GERMANY: A. D. 1861-1866] was growing all this time, and Italy proposed an alliance defensive and offensive with the latter power. … The treaty was concluded April 8, 1866. When this fact became known, Austria, on the brink of war with Prussia, began to think that she must rid herself in some way of the worry of the Italians on her southern frontier, in order to be free to combat her powerful northern enemy. The cabinet of Vienna did not apply directly to the cabinet of Florence, but to that arbiter of the destinies of nations, Napoleon III., proposing to cede Venetia on condition that the Italian government should detach itself from the Prussian alliance. … After an ineffectual attempt to accommodate matters by a congress, war was declared against Austria, on June 20, 1866, and La Marmora, having appointed Ricasoli as his deputy at the head of the council, led the army northwards. … Victor Emmanuel appointed his cousin regent, and carried his sons along with him to the seat of war. … The forces of Austria were led by the able and experienced commander, the Archduke Albert, who had distinguished himself at Novara. On the ill-omened field of Custozza, where the Italians had been defeated in 1849, the opposing armies met [June 24]; and both being in good condition, well disciplined and brave, there was fought a prolonged and bloody battle, in which the Italians were worsted, but not routed. … On July 20 the Italian navy suffered an overwhelming defeat at Lissa in the Adriatic, and these two great misfortunes plunged Victor Emmanuel into the deepest grief. He felt disabled from continuing the war: all the sacrifice of life had been in vain: national unity was as far off as ever. … Meantime the Prussian arms were everywhere victorious over Austria, and about ten days after the battle of Custozza it was announced in the Moniteur that Austria had asked the Emperor Napoleon's mediation, offering to cede him Venice, and that he was making over that province to the King of Italy. {1868} Italy could not accept it without the consent of her ally Prussia; and while negotiations were going forward on the subject, the brief seven weeks' campaign was brought to a conclusion by the great victory of Sadowa, and on July 26 the preliminaries of peace were signed by the Austrian and Prussian plenipotentiaries. … Venice was restored to Italy by the Emperor of France, with the approval of Prussia. There was a sting in the thought that it was not wrung from the talons of the Austrian eagle by the valour of Italian arms, but by the force of diplomacy; still it was a delightful fact that Venice was free, with the tricolour waving on St. Mark's. The Italian soil was delivered from foreign occupation. … As soon as the treaty was signed at Vienna, October 2, the Venetian Assemblies unanimously elected Victor Emmanuel with acclamations, and begged for immediate annexation to the Kingdom of Italy. On November 4, in the city of Turin, Victor Emmanuel received the deputation which came to proffer him the homage of the inhabitants of Venetia. … On November 7 Victor Emmanuel made a solemn entry into the most beautiful, and, after Rome, the most interesting city of the Italian peninsula. … Hot upon the settlement of the Venetian question, came the discussion of that of Rome, which after the evacuation of the French troops [November, 1866] seemed more complicated than ever. The Catholic powers were now anxious to accommodate the quarrel between Italy and the Pope, and they offered to guarantee him his income and his independence if he would reconcile himself to the national will. But Pius IX. was immovable in his determination to oppose it to the last."

      G. Garibaldi,
      Autobiography,
      4th period, chapter 1 (volume 2),
      and volume 3, chapter 8.

ITALY: A. D. 1867-1870.
   Settlement of the Roman question.
   Defeat of Garibaldi at Mentana.
   Rome in the possession of the king of Italy.

Progress made by diplomacy in the settlement of the Roman question "was too slow for Garibaldi. He had once more fallen under the influence of the extreme republicans, and in 1867 he declared that he would delay no longer in planting the republican banner on the Vatican. Between these hot-headed and fanatical republicans on the one side, the Italian Ultramontanes on another, and the French Emperor on the third, the position of Victor Emmanuel was anything but enviable. In the autumn of 1867 Garibaldi was suddenly arrested by the Government, but released on condition that he would remain quietly at Caprera. But meanwhile the volunteers under Menotti Garibaldi (the great chief's son) had advanced into the Papal States. The old warrior was burning to be with them. On the 14th of October he effected his escape from Caprera, and managed eventually to join his son in the Romagna. Together they advanced on Rome, and won, after tremendous fighting, the great victory at Monte Rotundo. Meanwhile an army of occupation sent by the Government from Florence had crossed the Roman frontier, and a French force had landed on the coast. Garibaldi's position was already critical, but his resolution was unbroken. 'The Government of Florence,' he said, in a proclamation to the volunteers, 'has invaded the Roman territory, already won by us with precious blood from the enemies of Italy; we ought to receive our brothers in arms with love, and aid them in driving out of Rome the mercenary sustainers of tyranny; but if base deeds, the continuation of the vile convention of September, in mean consort with Jesuitism, shall urge us to lay down our arms in obedience to the order of the 2d December, then will I let the world know that I alone, a Roman general, with full power, elected by the universal suffrage of the only legal Government in Rome, that of the republic, have the right to maintain myself in arms in this the territory subject to my jurisdiction; and then, if any of these my volunteers, champions of liberty and Italian unity, wish to have Rome as the capital of Italy, fulfilling the vote of parliament and the nation, they must not put down their arms until Italy shall have acquired liberty of conscience and worship, built upon the ruin of Jesuitism, and until the soldiers of tyrants shall be banished from our land.' The position taken up by Garibaldi is perfectly intelligible. Rome we must have, if possible, by legal process, in conjunction with the royal arms'; but if they will stand aside, even if they will oppose, none the less Rome must be annexed to Italy. Unfortunately Garibaldi had left out of account the French force despatched by Napoleon III. to defend the Temporal dominions of the Pope, a force which even at this moment was advancing to the attack. The two armies met near the little village of Mentana, ill matched in every respect. The volunteers, numerous indeed but ill disciplined and badly armed, brought together, held together simply by the magic of a name, the French, admirably disciplined, armed with the fatal chassepots, fighting the battle of their ancient Church. The Garibaldians were terribly defeated. Victor Emmanuel grieved bitterly, like a true, warm-hearted father for the fate of his misguided but generous-hearted sons. … To the Emperor of the French he wrote an ardent appeal begging him to break with the Clericals and put himself at the head of the Liberal party in Europe, at the same time warning him that the old feeling of gratitude towards the French in Italy had quite disappeared. 'The late events have suffocated every remembrance of gratitude in the heart of Italy. It is no longer in the power of the Government to maintain the alliance with France. The chassepot gun at Mentana has given it a mortal blow.' At the same time the rebels were visited with condign punishment. Garibaldi himself was arrested, but after a brief imprisonment at Varignano was permitted to retire once more to Caprera. A prisoner so big as Garibaldi is always an embarrassment to gaolers. But the last act in the great drama … was near at hand. In 1870 the Franco-German War broke out. The contest, involving as it did the most momentous consequences, was as brief as it was decisive. The French, of course, could no longer maintain their position as champions of the Temporal power. Once more, therefore, the King of Italy attempted, with all the earnestness and with all the tenderness at his command, to induce the Pope to come to terms and accept the position, at once dignified and independent, which the Italian Government was anxious to secure to him. … {1869} But the Pope still unflinchingly adhered to the position he had taken up. … A feint of resistance was made, but on the 20th of September (1870) the royal troops entered Rome, and the Tricolour was mounted on the palace of the Capitol. So soon as might be a plebiscite was taken. The numbers are significant—for the King, 40,788, for the Pope, 46. But though the work was thus accomplished in the autumn of 1870, it was not until 2d June 1871 that the King made his triumphal entry into the capital of Italy."

ITALY: A. D. 1870-1894.
   The tasks and burdens of the United Nation.
   Military and colonial ambitions.
   The Triple Alliance.

"Italy now [In 1870] stood before the world as a nation of twenty-five million inhabitants, her frontiers well defined, her needs very evident. Nevertheless, if her national existence was to be more than a name, she must have discipline in self-government, and she must as quickly as possible acquire the tools and methods of the civilization prevailing among those nations into whose company her victories had raised her. Two thirds of her people lagged behind the Western world not only in material inventions, but in education and civic training. Railroads and telegraphs, the wider application of steam to industries, schools, courts, the police, had all to be provided, and provided quickly. Improvements which England and France had added gradually and paid for gradually, Italy had to organize and pay for in a few years. Hence a levying of heavy taxes, and exorbitant borrowing from the future in the public debt. Not only this, but ancient traditions, the memories of feuds between town and town, had to be obliterated; the people had to be made truly one people, so that Venetians, or Neapolitans, or Sicilians should each feel that they were first of all Italians. National uniformity must supplant provincial peculiarity; there must be one language, one code of laws, one common interest; in a word, the new nation must be Italianized. The ease and rapidity with which the Italians have progressed in all these respects have no parallel in modern times. Though immense the undertaking, they have, in performing it, revealed an adaptability to new conditions, a power of transformation which are among the most remarkable characteristics of their race, and the strongest proofs that ruin will not now engulf them. Only a race incapable of readjusting itself need despair. Happy had Italy been if, undistracted by temptation, she had pursued the plain course before her; still happy, had she resisted such temptation. But nations, like individuals, are not made all of one piece: they, too, acknowledge the better reason, but follow the worse; they, too, through pride or vanity or passion, often forfeit the winnings from years of toil. … Italy was recognized as a great power by her neighbors, and she willingly persuaded herself that it was her duty to do what they did. In this civilized age, the first requisite of a great power is a large standing army. … A large standing army being the first condition of ranking among the great powers, Italy set about preparing one. … Perhaps more than any other European nation she was excusable in desiring to show that her citizens could become soldiers, for she had been taunted time out of mind with her effeminacy, her cowardice. It might be argued, too, that she received a larger dividend in indirect compensation for her capital invested in the army than her neighbors received from theirs. Uniform military service helped to blot out provincial lines and to Italianize all sections; it also furnished rudimentary education to the vast body of illiterate conscripts. These ends might have been reached at far less cost by direct and natural means; but this fact should not lessen the credit due to the Italian military system for furthering them. Tradition, example, national sensitiveness, all conspired in this way to persuade Italy to saddle an immense army on her back. … One evidence of being a 'great power,' according to the political standard of the time, consists in ability to establish colonies, or at least a protectorate, in distant lands; therefore Italian Jingoes goaded their government on to plant the Italian flag in Africa. France was already mistress of Algiers; Spain held a lien on Morocco; Italy could accordingly do no less than spread her influence over Tunis. For a few years Italy complacently imagined that she was as good as her rivals in the possession of a foreign dependency. Then a sudden recrudescence of Jingoism in France caused the French to occupy Tunis. The Italians were very angry; but when they sounded the situation, they realized that it would be folly to go to war over it. … Not warned by this experience, Italy, a few years later, plunged yet more deeply into the uncertain policy of colonization. England and France having fallen out over the control of Egypt, then England, having virtually made the Khedive her vassal, suggested that it would be a very fine thing for Italy to establish a colony far down on the coast of the Red Sea, whence she could command the trade of Abyssinia. Italian Jingoes jumped at the suggestion, and for ten years the red-white-and-green flag has waved over Massaua. But the good that Italy has derived from this acquisition has yet to appear. … Equally slow have they been to learn that their partnership in the Triple Alliance [see TRIPLE ALLIANCE] has entailed upon them sacrifices out of all proportion to the benefits. To associate on apparently even terms with Germany and Austria was doubtless gratifying to national vanity, … but who can show that Italy has been more secure from attack since she entered that league than she was before? … For the sake … of a delusive honor,—the honor of posing as the partner of the arbiters of Europe,—Italy has, since 1882, seen her army and her debt increase, and her resources proportionately diminish. None of her ministers has had the courage to suggest quitting a ruinous policy; on the contrary, they have sought hither and thither to find means to perpetuate it without actually breaking the country's back. … Yet not on this account shall we despair of a country which, in spite of folly, has achieved much against great odds, and which has shown a wonderful capacity for sloughing off her past. Hardship itself, though it be the penalty of error, may, by restricting her ability to go astray, lead her back to the path of reason."

ITHACA.

One of the seven Ionian islands, small and unimportant, but interesting as being the Homeric island-kingdom of Ulysses—the principal scene of the story of the Odyssey. The island has been more or less explored, with a view to identifying the localities mentioned in the epic, by Sir William Gell, by Colonel Leake, and by Dr. Schliemann. Some account of the latter's work and its results is given in the introduction to his "Ilios."

ITHOME.

JACK CADE'S REBELLION.

JACK'S LAND.

JACKSON, Mississippi: A. D. 1863.
Capture and recapture by the Union forces.
Sack and ruin.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (APRIL-JULY: ON THE MISSISSIPPI);
      and (JULY: MISSISSIPPI).

The great religious dispute of the 5th century, concerning the single or the double nature of Christ, as God and as man, left, in the end, two extreme parties, the Monophysites and the Nestorians, exposed alike to the persecutions of the orthodox church, as established in its faith by the Council of Chalcedon, by the Roman Pope and by the emperors Justin and Justinian. The Monophysite party, strongest in Syria, was threatened with extinction; but a monk named James, or Jacobus, Baradæus—"Al Baradai," "the man in rags,"—imparted new life to it by his zeal and activity, and its members acquired from him the name of Jacobites. Amida (now Diarbekir) on the Tigris became the seat of the Jacobite patriarchs and remains so to this day. Abulpharagius, the oriental historian of the 13th century, was their most distinguished scholar, and held the office of Mafrian or vice-patriarch, so to speak, of the East. Their communities are mostly confined at present to the region of the Euphrates and the Tigris, and number less than 200,000 souls.

JACOBITES.

After the revolution of 1688 in England, which expelled James II. from the throne, his partisans, who wished to restore him, were called Jacobites, an appellation derived from the Latin form of his name—Jacobus. The name adhered after James' death to the party which maintained the rights of his son and grandson, James Stuart and Charles Edward, the "Old Pretender" and the "Young Pretender," as they were respectively called.

JAFFA (ANCIENT JOPPA): A. D. 1196-1197.
Taken and retaken by the German Crusaders.

JAFFA: A. D. 1799.
   Capture by Bonaparte.
   Massacre of prisoners.
   Reported poisoning of the sick.

JAGIR.

"A jagir [in India] is, literally, land given by a government as a reward for services rendered."

JAINISM. JAINS.

JAITCHE, DEFENSE OF (1527).

JALALÆAN ERA.

   One of the battles in which the Arabs, under the first
   successors of Mahomet, conquered the Persian empire. Fought A.
   D. 637.

In the spring of 1655, having determined upon an alliance with France and war with Spain, Cromwell fitted out an expedition under admirals Venables and Pen, secretly commissioned to attack Cuba and St. Domingo. Frustrated in an attempt against the latter island, the expedition made a descent on the island of Jamaica with better success. "This great gain was yet held insufficient to balance the first defeat; and on the return of Pen and Venables they were both committed to the Tower. I may pause for an instant here to notice a sound example of Cromwell's far-seeing sagacity. Though men scouted in that day the acquisition of Jamaica, he saw its value in itself, and its importance in relation to future attempts on the continent of America. Exerting the inhuman power of a despot—occasionally, as hurricanes and other horrors, necessary for the purification of the world—he ordered his son Henry to seize on 1,000 young girls in Ireland and send them over to Jamaica, for the purpose of increasing population there. A year later, and while the Italian Sagredo was in London, he issued an order that all females of disorderly lives should be arrested and shipped for Barbadoes for the like purpose. Twelve hundred were accordingly sent in three ships."

ALSO IN: G. Penn, Memorials of Sir Wm. Penn, Admiral, volume 2, page 124, and appendix H.

JAMAICA: A. D. 1655-1796.
   Development of the British colony.
   The Buccaneers.
   The Maroon wars.

"Cromwell set himself to maintain and develop his new conquest. He issued a proclamation encouraging trade and settlement in the island by exemption from taxes. In order to 'people and plant' it, he ordered an equal number of young men and women to be sent over from Ireland, he instructed the Scotch government to apprehend and transport the idle and vagrant, and he sent agents to the New England colonies and the other West Indian islands in order to attract settlers. After the first three or four years this policy of encouraging emigration, continued in spite of the Protector's death, bore due fruit, and Jamaica became to a singular extent a receptacle for the most varied types of settlers, for freemen as well as for political offenders or criminals from Newgate, and for immigrants from the colonies as well as from the mother country. … The death of Cromwell brought over adherents of the Parliamentary party, ill content with the restoration of the Stuarts; the evacuation of Surinam in favour of the Dutch brought in a contingent of planters in 1675; the survivors of the ill-fated Scotch colony at Darien came over in 1699; and the Rye House Plot, Sedgmoor, and the risings of 1715 and 1745 all contributed to the population of the island. Most of all, however, the buccaneers made Jamaica great and prosperous. … Situated as the island was, well inside the ring of the Spanish possessions, the English occupation of Jamaica was a godsend to the buccaneers, while their privateering trade was exactly suited to the restless soldiers who formed the large bulk of the early colonists. So Port Royal became in a few years a great emporium of ill-gotten wealth, and the man who sacked Panama became Sir Henry Morgan, Lieutenant-Governor of Jamaica. … In 1661 Charles II. sanctioned the beginnings of civil government. … Municipal institutions were introduced, judges and magistrates were appointed, land grants were issued, and the island began to take the form and substance of an English colony. The constitution thenceforward consisted of a Governor, a nominated Council, and an elected Assembly; and the first Assembly, consisting of 30 persons, met in January, 1664. … It was not long before the representative body began to assert its independence by opposition to the Crown, and in 1678 the Home government invited conflict by trying to apply to Jamaica the system which had been introduced into Ireland by the notorious Poynings' law. Under this system no Assembly could be summoned for legislative purposes except under special directions from home, and its functions would have been limited to registering consent to laws which had already been put into approved shape in England." Conflict over this, attempt to deal with Jamaica as "a conquered and tributary dependency" did not end until 1728, when the colonists bought relief from it by settling on the Crown an "irrevocable revenue" of £8,000 per annum. "About the time when the constitutional difficulty was settled, the Maroon question was pressing itself more and more upon the attention of the colonial government. The penalty which Jamaica paid for being a large and mountainous island was, that it harboured in its forests and ravines a body of men who, throughout its history down to the present century, were a source of anxiety and danger. The original Maroons, or mountaineers, for that is the real meaning of the term, were … the slaves of Spaniards who retreated into the interior when the English took the island, and sallied out from time to time to harass the invaders and cut off stragglers and detached parties. … Maroon or Maron is an abbreviation of Cimaron, and is derived from the Spanish or Portuguese 'Cima,' or mountain top. Skeat points out that the word is probably of Portuguese origin, the 'C' having been pronounced as 'S.' Benzoni (edited by the Hakluyt Society), who wrote about 1565, speaks of 'Cimaroui' as being the Spanish name for outlawed slaves in Hispaniola. … It is probable that the danger would have been greater if the outlaws had been a united band, but there were divisions of race and origin among them. The Maroons proper, the slaves of the Spaniards and their descendants, were mainly in the east of the island among the Blue Mountains, while the mountains of the central district were the refuge of runaways from English masters, including Africans of different races, as well as Madagascars or Malays. Towards the end of the seventeenth century the newer fugitives had found in a negro named Cudjoe an able and determined leader, and thenceforward the resistance to the government became more organised and systematic. … {1872} Finally, in 1738, Governor Trelawny made overtures of peace to the rebels, which were accepted. … By this treaty the freedom of the negroes was guaranteed, special reserves were assigned to them, they were left under the rule of their own captains assisted by white superintendents, but were bound over to help the government against foreign invasion from without and slave rebellions from within. A similar treaty was made with the eastern Maroons, and the whole of these blacks, some 600 in number, were established in five settlements. … Under these conditions the Maroons gave little trouble till the end of the 18th century. … The last Maroon war occurred in 1795." When the insurgent Maroons surrendered, the next year, they were, in violation of the terms made with them, transported to Nova Scotia, and afterwards to the warmer climate of Sierra Leone. "Thus ended the last Maroon rebellion; but … it affected only one section of these negro freemen, and even their descendants returned in many cases to Jamaica at a later date."

C. P. Lucas, Historical Geography of the British Colonies, volume 2, section 2, chapter 3, with foot-note.

ALSO IN: G. W. Bridges, Annals of Jamaica, volume 1, and volume 2, chapters 1-16.

"An earthquake of terrible violence laid waste in less than three minutes the flourishing colony of Jamaica. Whole plantations changed their place. Whole villages were swallowed up. Port Royal, the fairest and wealthiest city which the English had yet built in the New World, renowned for its quays, for its warehouses, and for its stately streets, which were said to rival Cheapside, was turned into a mass of ruins. Fifteen hundred of the inhabitants were buried under their own dwellings."

In October, 1865, there occurred an insurrection among the colored people of one district of Jamaica, the suppression of which throws "a not altogether pleasant light upon English methods, when applied to the government of a subject race. … The disturbances were confined to the district and parish of St. Thomas in the East. There were local grievances arising from a dispute between Mr. Gordon, a native [colored] proprietor, and Baron Ketelholdt, the custos of the parish. Mr. Gordon, a dissenter, and apparently a reformer of abuses and unpopular among his fellows, had been deprived of his place among the magistrates, and prevented from filling the office of churchwarden to which he was elected. The expenses of the suits against him had been defrayed from the public purse. The native Baptists, the sect to which he belonged, were angry with what they regarded as at once an act of persecution and a misappropriation of the public money. Indignation meetings had been held. … Behind this quarrel, which would not of itself have produced much result, there lay more general grievances. … There was a real grievance in the difficulty of obtaining redress through law administered entirely by landlords; and as a natural consequence there had grown up a strong mistrust of the law itself, and a complete alienation between the employer and the employed. To this was added a feeling on the part of the class above the ordinary labourer, known as the free settlers, that they were unduly rented, and obliged to pay rent for land which they should have held free; and there was a very general though vague expectation that in some way or other the occupiers would be freed from the payment of rent. The insurrection broke out in October;" a small riot, at first, at Morant Bay, in which a policeman was beaten; then an attempt to arrest one of the alleged rioters, a colored preacher, Paul Bogle by name, and a formidable resistance to the attempt by 400 of his friends. "On the next day, when the Magistrates and Vestry were assembled in the Court-House at Morant Bay, a crowd of insurgents made their appearance, the volunteers were called out, and the Riot Act read; and after a skirmish the Court-House was taken and burnt, 18 of the defenders killed and 30 wounded. The jail was broken open and several stores sacked. There was some evidence that the rising was premeditated, and that a good deal of drilling had been going on among the blacks under the command of Bogle. From Morant Bay armed parties of the insurgents passed inland through the country attacking the plantations, driving the inhabitants to take refuge in the bush, and putting some of the whites to death. The Governor of the Island at the time was Mr. Eyre [former explorer of Australia]. He at once summoned his Privy Council, and with their advice declared martial law over the county of Surrey, With the exception of the town of Kingston. Bodies of troops were also at once despatched to surround the insurgent district. … 439 persons fell victims to summary punishment, and not less than 1,000 dwellings were burnt; besides which, it would appear that at least 600 men and women were subjected to flogging, in some instances with circumstances of unusual cruelty. But the event which chiefly fixed the attention of the public in England was the summary conviction and execution of Mr. Gordon. He was undoubtedly a troublesome person, and there were circumstances raising a suspicion that he possessed a guilty knowledge of the intended insurrection. They were however far too slight to have secured his conviction before a Court of Law. But Governor Eyre caused him to be arrested in Kingston, where martial law did not exist, hurried on board ship and carried to Morant Bay, within the proclaimed district. He was there tried by a court-martial, consisting of three young officers," was sentenced to death, and immediately hanged.

   "When the story reached England, in clear and trustworthy
   form, two antagonistic parties were instantly formed. The
   extreme on the one side glorified Governor Eyre, and held that
   by his prompt action he had saved the white population of
   Jamaica from all the horrors of triumphant negro insurrection.
   The extreme on the other side denounced him as a mere fiend.
   The majority on both sides were more reasonable; but the
   difference between them was only less wide. An association
   called the Jamaica Committee was formed for the avowed purpose
   of seeing that justice was done. It comprised some of the most
   illustrious Englishmen. …
{1873}
   Another association was founded, on the opposite side, for the
   purpose of sustaining Governor Eyre; and it must be owned that
   it too had great names. Mr. Mill may be said to have led the
   one side, and Mr. Carlyle the other. The natural bent of each
   man's genius and temper turned him to the side of the Jamaica
   negroes, or of the Jamaica Governor. Mr. Tennyson, Mr.
   Kingsley, Mr. Ruskin, followed Mr. Carlyle; we know now that
   Mr. Dickens was of the same way of thinking. Mr. Herbert
   Spencer, Professor Huxley, Mr. Goldwin Smith, were in
   agreement with Mr. Mill. … No one needs to be told that Mr.
   Bright took the side of the oppressed, and Mr. Disraeli that
   of authority." A Commission of Inquiry sent out to investigate
   the whole matter, reported in April, 1866, commending the
   vigorous promptitude with which Governor Eyre had dealt with
   the disturbances at the beginning, but condemning the
   brutalities which followed, under cover of martial law, and
   especially the infamous execution of Gordon. The Jamaica
   Committee made repeated efforts to bring Governor Eyre's
   conduct to judicial trial; but without success. "The bills of
   indictment never got beyond the grand jury stage. The grand
   jury always threw them out. On one memorable occasion the
   attempt gave the Lord Chief Justice [Cockburn] of England an
   opportunity of delivering … to the grand jury … a charge
   entitled to the rank of a historical declaration of the law of
   England, and the limits of the military power even in cases of
   insurrection."

James I., King of England, A. D. 1603-1625
(he being, also, James VI., King of Scotland, 1567-1625).

   A defeat by Gorgias, the Syrian general, of part of the army
   of Judas Maccabæus which he left under his generals Joseph and
   Azarius, B. C. 164.

A famous school of Jewish theology, established by Jochanan, who escaped from Jerusalem during the siege by Titus.

"To the eye of the critical investigator, Japanese history, properly so-called, opens only in the latter part of the 5th or the beginning of the 6th century after Christ, when the gradual spread of Chinese culture, filtering in through Korea, had sufficiently dispelled the gloom of original barbarism to allow of the keeping of records. The whole question of the credibility of the early history of Japan has been carefully gone into during the last ten years by Aston and others, with the result that the first date pronounced trustworthy is A. D. 461, and it is discovered that even the annals of the 6th century are to be received with caution. We have ourselves no doubt of the justice of this negative criticism, and can only stand in amazement at the simplicity of most European writers, who have accepted without sifting them the uncritical statements of the Japanese annalists. … Japanese art and literature contain frequent allusions to the early history (so-called) of the country … as preserved in the works entitled Kojiki and Nihongi, both dating from the 8th century after Christ. … We include the mythology under the same heading, for the reason that it is absolutely impossible to separate the two. Why, indeed, attempt to do so, where both are equally fabulous? … Arrived at A. D. 600, we stand on terra firma. … About that time occurred the greatest event of Japanese history, the conversion of the nation to Buddhism (approximately A. D. 552-621). So far as can be gathered from the accounts of the early Chinese travellers, Chinese civilisation had slowly—very slowly—been gaining ground in the archipelago ever since the 3rd century after Christ. But when the Buddhist missionaries crossed the water, all Chinese institutions followed them and came in with a rush. Mathematical instruments and calendars were introduced; books began to be written (the earliest that has survived, and indeed nearly the earliest of all, is the already mentioned Kojiki, dating from A. D. 712); the custom of abdicating the throne in order to spend old age in prayer was adopted—a custom which, more than anything else, led to the effacement of the Mikado's authority during the Middle Ages. Sweeping changes in political arrangements began to be made in the year 645, and before the end of the 8th century, the government had been entirely remodelled on the Chinese centralised bureaucratic plan, with a regular system of ministers responsible to the sovereign, who, as 'Son of Heaven,' was theoretically absolute. In practice this absolutism lasted but a short time, because the entourage and mode of life of the Mikados were not such as to make of them able rulers. They passed their time surrounded only by women and priests, oscillating between indolence and debauchery, between poetastering and gorgeous temple services. This was the brilliant age of Japanese classical literature, which lived and moved and had its being in the atmosphere of an effeminate court. The Fujiwara family engrossed the power of the state during this early epoch (A. D. 670-1050). While their sons held all the great posts of government, the daughters were married to puppet emperors. The next change resulted from the impatience of the always manly and warlike Japanese gentry at the sight of this sort of petticoat government. {1874} The great clans of Taira and Minamoto arose, and struggled for and alternately held the reins of power during the second half of the 11th and the whole of the 12th century. … By the final overthrow of the Taira family at the sea fight of Dan-no-Ura in A. D. 1185, Yoritomo, the chief of the Minamotos, rose to supreme power, and obtained from the Court at Kyoto the title of Shogun [converted by western tongues into Tycoon], literally 'Generalissimo,' which had till then been applied in its proper meaning to those generals who were sent from time to time to subdue the Ainos or rebellious provincials, but which thenceforth took to itself a special sense, somewhat as the word Imperator (also meaning originally 'general') did in Rome. The coincidence is striking. So is the contrast. For, as Imperial Rome never ceased to be theoretically a republic, Japan contrariwise, though practically and indeed avowedly ruled by the Shoguns from A. D. 1190 to 1867, always retained the Mikado as theoretical head of the state, descendant of the Sun-Goddess, fountain of all honour. There never were two emperors, acknowledged as such, one spiritual and one secular, as has been so often asserted by European writers. There never was but one emperor—an emperor powerless it is true, seen only by the women who attended him, often a mere infant in arms, who was discarded on reaching adolescence for another infant in arms. Still, he was the theoretical head of the state, whose authority was merely delegated to the Shogun as, so to say, Mayor of the Palace. By a curious parallelism of destiny, the Shogunate itself more than once showed signs of fading away from substance into shadow. Yoritomo's descendants did not prove worthy of him, and for more than a century (A. D. 1205-1333) the real authority was wielded by the so-called 'Regents' of the Hojo family. … Their rule was made memorable by the repulse of the Mongol fleet sent by Kublai Khan with the purpose of adding Japan to his gigantic dominions. This was at the end of the 13th century, since which time Japan has never been attacked from without. During the 14th century, even the dowager-like calm of the Court of Kyoto was broken by internecine strife. Two branches of the Imperial house, supported each by different feudal chiefs, disputed the crown. One was called the Hokucho, or 'Northern Court,' the other the Nancho, or 'Southern Court.' After lasting some sixty years, this contest terminated in A. D. 1392 by the triumph of the Northern dynasty, whose cause the powerful Ashikaga family had espoused. From 1338 to 1565, the Ashikagas ruled Japan as Shoguns. … Meanwhile Japan had been discovered by the Portuguese (A. D. 1542); and the imprudent conduct of the Portuguese and Spanish friars (bateren, as they were called—a corruption of the word padre) made of the Christian religion an additional source of discord. Japan fell into utter anarchy. Each baron in his fastness was a law unto himself. Then, in the latter half of the 16th century, there arose successively three great men—Ota Nobunaga, the Taiko Hideyoshi, and Tokugawa Ieyasu. The first of these conceived the idea of centralising all the authority of the state in a single person; the second, Hideyoshi, who has been called the Napoleon of Japan, actually put the idea into practice, and joined the conquest of Korea (A. D. 1592-1598) to his domestic triumphs. Death overtook him in 1598, while he was revolving no less a scheme than the conquest of China. Ieyasu, setting Hideyoshi's youthful son aside, stepped into the vacant place. An able general, unsurpassed as a diplomat and administrator, he first quelled all the turbulent barons, then bestowed a considerable portion of their lands on his own kinsmen and dependents, and either broke or balanced, by a judicious distribution of other fiefs over different provinces of the Empire, the might of those greater feudal lords, such as Satsuma and Choshu, whom it was impossible to put altogether out of the way. The Court of Kyoto was treated by him respectfully, and investiture as Shogun for himself and his heirs duly obtained from the Mikado. In order further to break the might of the daimyos, Ieyasu compelled them to live at Yedo, which he had chosen for his capital in 1590, during six months of the year, and to leave their wives and families there as hostages during the other half. What Ieyasu sketched out, the third Shogun of his line, Iemitsu, perfected. From that time forward, 'Old Japan,' as we know it from the Dutch accounts, from art, from the stage, was crystallised for two hundred and fifty years. … Unchangeable to the outward eye of contemporaries, Japan had not passed a hundred years under the Tokugawa régime before the seeds of the disease which finally killed that regime were sown. Strangely enough, the instrument of destruction was historical research. Ieyasu himself had been a great patron of literature. His grandson, the second Prince of Mito, inherited his taste. Under the auspices of this Japanese Maecenas, a school of literati arose to whom the antiquities of their country were all in all—Japanese poetry and romance as against the Chinese Classics; the native religion, Shinto, as against the foreign religion, Buddhism; hence, by an inevitable extension, the ancient legitimate dynasty of the Mikados, as against the upstart Shoguns. … When Commodore Perry came with his big guns (A. D. 1853-4), he found a government already tottering to its fall, many who cared little for the Mikado's abstract rights, caring a great deal for the chance of aggrandising their own families at the Shogun's expense. The Shogun yielded to the demands of Perry and of the representatives of the other foreign powers—England, France, Russia—who followed in Perry's train, and consented to open Yokohama, Hakodate, and certain other ports to foreign trade and residence (1857-9). He even sent embassies to the United States and to Europe in 1860 and 1861. The knowledge of the outer world possessed by the Court of Yedo, though not extensive, was sufficient to assure the Shogun and his advisers that it was vain to refuse what the Western powers claimed. The Court of Kyoto had had no means of acquiring even this modicum of worldly wisdom. According to its view, Japan, 'the land of the gods,' should never be polluted by outsiders, the ports should be closed again, and the 'barbarians' expelled at any hazard. What specially tended to complicate matters at this crisis was the independent action of certain daimyos. One of them, the Prince of Choshu, acting, as is believed, under secret instructions from the Court of Kyoto, fired on ships belonging to Great Britain, France, Holland, and the United States—this, too, at the very moment (1863) when the Shogun's government … was doing its utmost to effect by diplomacy the departure of the foreigners whom it had been driven to admit a few years before. {1875} The consequence of this act was what is called 'the Shimonoseki Affair,' namely, the bombardment of Shimonoseki, Choshu's chief sea-port, by the combined fleets of the powers that had been insulted, and the exaction of an indemnity of $3,000,000. Though doubtless no feather, this broke the Shogunate's back. The Shogun Iemochi attempted to punish Choshu for the humiliation which he had brought on Japan, but failed, was himself defeated by the latter's troops, and died. Hitotsubashi, the last of his line, succeeded him. But the Court of Kyoto, prompted by the great daimyos of Choshu and Satsuma, suddenly decided on the abolition of the Shogunate. The Shogun submitted to the decree, and those of his followers who did not were routed—first at Fushimi near Kyoto (17th January, 1868), then at Ueno in Yedo (4th July, 1868), then in Aizu (6th November, 1868), and lastly at Hakodate (27th June, 1869), where some of them had endeavoured to set up an independent republic. The government of the country was reorganised during 1867-8, nominally on the basis of a pure absolutism, with the Mikado as sole wielder of all authority both legislative and executive. Thus the literary party had triumphed. All their dreams were realised. They were henceforth to have Japan for the Japanese. … From this dream they were soon roughly wakened. The shrewd clansmen of Satsuma find Choshu, who had humoured the ignorance of the Court and the fads of the scholars only as long as their common enemy, the Shogunate, remained in existence, now turned round, and declared in favour, not merely of foreign intercourse, but of the Europeanisation of their own country. History has never witnessed a more sudden 'volte-face.' History has never witnessed a wiser one."

JAPAN: A. D. 1549-1686.
   Jesuit Missions.
   The Century of Christianity.
   Its introduction and extirpation

Francis Xavier, "the Apostle of the Indies, was both the leader and director of a widely spread missionary movement, conducted by a rapidly increasing staff, not only of Jesuits, but also of priests and missionaries of other orders, as well as of native preachers and catechists. Xavier reserved for himself the arduous task of travelling to regions as yet unvisited by any preachers of Christianity; and his bold and impatient imagination was carried away by the idea of bearing the Cross to the countries of the farthest East. The islands of Japan, already known to Europe through the travels of Marco Polo, had been reached by the Portuguese only eight years before, namely, in 1541, and Xavier, while at Malacca, had conversed with navigators and traders who had visited that remote coast. A Japanese, named Angero (Hansiro), pursued for homicide, had fled to Malacca in a Portuguese ship. He professed a real or feigned desire to be baptized, and was presented to Xavier at Malacca, who sent him to Goa. There he learned Portuguese quickly, and was baptized under the name of Paul of the Holy Faith. … Having carefully arranged the affairs of the Seminary of the Holy Faith at Goa and the entire machinery of the mission, Francis Xavier took ship for Malacca on the 14th April, 1549. On the 24th of June he sailed for Japan, along with Angero and his two companions, in a Chinese junk belonging to a famous pirate, an ally of the Portuguese, who left in their hands hostages for the safety of the apostle on the voyage. After a dangerous voyage they reached Kagosima, the native town of Angero, under whose auspices Xavier was well received by the governor, magistrates, and other distinguished people. The apostle was unable to commence his mission at once, though, according to his biographers, he possessed the gift of tongues. 'We are here,' he writes, 'like so many statues. They speak to us, and make signs to us, and we remain mute. We have again become children, and all our present occupation is to learn the elements of the Japanese grammar.' His first impressions of Japan were very favourable. … Xavier left Japan on the 20th November, 1551, after a stay of two years and four months. In his controversies with the Japanese, Xavier had been continually met with the objection—how could the Scripture history be true when it had escaped the notice of the learned men of China? It was Chinese sages who had taught philosophy and history to the Japanese, and Chinese missionaries who had converted them to Buddhism. To China, then, would he go to strike a blow at the root of that mighty superstition. Accordingly he sailed from Goa about the middle of April, 1552. … Being a prey to continual anxiety to reach the new scene of his labours, Xavier fell ill, apparently of remittent fever, and died on the 2nd of December, 1552. … The result of Xavier's labours was the formation of a mission which, from Goa as a centre, radiated over much of the coast of Asia from Ormuz to Japan. … The two missionaries, whom Xavier had left at Japan, were soon after joined by three others: and in 1556 they were visited by the Provincial of the Order in the Indies, Melchior Nunez, who paid much attention to the Japanese mission and selected for it the best missionaries, as Xavier had recommended. … The Jesuits attached themselves to the fortunes of the King of Bungo, a restless and ambitious prince, who in the end added four little kingdoms to his own, and thus became master of a large part of the island of Kiusiu. In his dominions Christianity made such progress that the number of converts began to be counted by thousands. … The missionaries perseveringly sought to spread their religion by preaching, public discussion, the circulation of controversial writings, the instruction of the youth, the casting out of devils, the performance of those mystery plays so common in that age, by the institution of 'confréries' like those of Avignon, and, above all, by the well-timed administration of alms. Nor need we be surprised to learn that their first converts were principally the blind, the infirm, and old men one foot in the grave. There are, however, many proofs in their letters that they were able both to attract proselytes of a better class and to inspire them with an enthusiasm which promised well for the growth of the mission. In those early days the example of Xavier was still fresh; and his immediate successors seem to have inherited his energetic and self-denying disposition, though none of them could equal the great mental and moral qualities of the Apostle of the Indies. They kept at the same time a watchful eye upon the political events that were going on around them, and soon began to bear a part in them. The hostility between them and the Bonzes became more and more bitter."

"In several of the provinces of Kyushu the princes had become converts and had freely used their influence, and sometimes their authority, to extend Christianity among their subjects. In Kyoto and Yamaguchi, in Osaka and Sakai, as well as in Kyusbu, the Jesuit fathers had founded flourishing churches and exerted a wide influence. They had established colleges where the candidates for the church could be educated and trained. They had organized hospitals and asylums at Nagasaki and elsewhere, where those needing aid could be received and treated. It is true hat the progress of the work had met with a severe setback in A. D. 1587, when Taiko Sam a issued an edict expelling all foreign religious teachers from Japan. In pursuance of this edict nine foreigners who had evaded expulsion were burnt at Nagasaki. The reason for this decisive action on the part of Taiko Sama is usually attributed to the suspicion which had been awakened in him by the loose and unguarded talk of a Portuguese sea captain. But other causes undoubtedly contributed to produce in him this intolerant frame of mind. … In several of the provinces of Japan where the Jesuits had attained the ascendancy, the most forcible measures had been taken by the Christian princes to compel all their subjects to follow their own example and adopt the Christian faith. Takeyama, whom the Jesuit fathers designate as Justo Ucondono, carried out in his territory at Akashi a system of bitter persecution. He gave his subjects the option of becoming Christians or leaving his territory. Konishi Yukinaga, who received part of the province of Higo as his fief after the Korean war, enforced with great persistency the acceptance of the Christian faith, and robbed the Buddhist priests of their temples and their lands. The princes of Omura and Arima, and to a certain extent the princes of Bungo, followed the advice of the Jesuit fathers in using their authority to advance the cause of Christianity. The fathers could scarcely complain of having the system of intolerance practised upon them, which, when circumstances were favorable, they had advised to be applied to their opponents. … During the first years of Ieyasu's supremacy the Christians were not disturbed. … He issued in 1606 what may be called a warning proclamation, announcing that he had learned with pain that, contrary to Taiko Sama's edict, many had embraced the Christian religion. He warned all officers of his court to see that the edict was strictly enforced, He declared that it was for the good of the state that none should embrace the new doctrine; and that such as had already done so must change immediately. … In the meantime both the English and Dutch had appeared on the scene. … Their object was solely trade, and as the Portuguese monopoly hitherto had been mainly secured by the Jesuit fathers, it was natural for the new-comers to represent the motive of these fathers in an unfavorable and suspicious light. 'Indeed,' as Hildreth says, 'they had only to confirm the truth of what the Portuguese and Spanish said of each other to excite in the minds of the Japanese rulers the gravest distrust as to the designs of the priests of both nations.' Whether it is true as charged that the minds of the Japanese rulers had been poisoned against the Jesuit fathers by misrepresentation and falsehood, it may be impossible to determine definitely; but it is fair to infer that the cruel and intolerant policy of the Spanish and Portuguese would be fully set forth and the danger to the Japanese empire from the machinations of the foreign religious teachers held up in the worst light. … Ieyasu, evidently having made up his mind that for the safety of the empire Christianity must be extirpated, in 1614 issued an edict that the members of all religious orders, whether European or Japanese, should be sent out of the country: that the churches which had been erected in various localities should be pulled down, and that the native adherents of the faith should be compelled to renounce it. In part execution of this edict all the members of the Society of Jesus, native and foreign, were ordered to be sent to Nagasaki. Native Christians were sent to Tsugaru, the northern extremity of the Main island. … In accordance with this edict, as many as 300 persons are said to have been shipped from Japan October 25, 1614. All the resident Jesuits were included in this number, excepting eighteen fathers and nine brothers, who concealed themselves and thus escaped the search. Following his deportation of converts the most persistent efforts continued to be made to force the native Christians to renounce their faith. The accounts given, both by the foreign and by the Japanese writers, of the persecutions which now broke upon the heads of the Christians are beyond description horrible. … Rewards were offered for information involving Christians of every position and rank, even of parents against their children and of children against their parents. … The persecution began in its worst form about 1616. This was the year in which Ieyasu died, but his son and successor carried out the terrible programme with heartless thoroughness. It has never been surpassed for cruelty and brutality on the part of the persecutors, or for courage and constancy on the part of those who suffered. … Mr. Gubbins … says: 'We read of Christians being executed in a barbarous manner in sight of each other, of their being hurled from the tops of precipices, of their being buried alive, of their being torn asunder by oxen, of their being tied up in rice-bags, which were heaped up together, and of the pile thus formed being set on fire. Others were tortured before death by the insertion of sharp spikes under the nails of their hands and feet, while some poor wretches by a refinement of horrid cruelty were shut up in cages and there left to starve with food before their eyes. Let it not be supposed that we have drawn on the Jesuit accounts solely for this information. An examination of the Japanese records will show that the case is not overstated.'"

"The persecutions went on, the discovery of Christians occasionally occurring for several years, but in 1686 'the few remaining had learnt how to conceal their belief and the practice of their religion so well, that the Council issued a circular to the chief Daimios of the south and west, stating that none of the Kirishitan sect had been discovered of late years, owing perhaps to laziness on the part of those whose duty it was to search for them, and enjoining vigilance' (Satow). Traces of the Christian religion and people lingered in the country down to our own time."

JAPAN: A. D. 1852-1888.
   Opening the ports to foreigners.
   The treaty with the United States and the other treaties which
   followed.

"It is estimated that about the middle of the present century, American capital to the amount of seventeen million dollars was invested in the whaling industry in the seas of Japan and China. We thus see that it was not a mere outburst of French enthusiasm when M. Michelet paid this high tribute to the service of the whale to civilization: 'Who opened to men the great distant navigation? Who revealed the ocean and marked out its zones and its liquid highways? Who discovered the secrets of the globe? The Whale and the Whaler.' … There were causes other than the mere safety of whalers which led to the inception of the American expedition to Japan. On the one hand, the rise of industrial and commercial commonwealths on the Pacific, the discovery of gold in California, the increasing trade with China, the development of steam navigation—necessitating coal depots and ports for shelter, the opening of highways across the Isthmus of Central America, the missionary enterprises on the Asiatic continent, the rise of the Hawaiian Islands,—on the other hand, the knowledge of foreign nations among the ruling class in Japan, the news of the British victory in China, the progress of European settlements in the Pacific, the dissemination of western science among a progressive class of scholars, the advice from the Dutch government to discontinue the antiquated policy of exclusion—all these testified that the fulness of time for Japan to turn a new page in her history was at hand. … About this time, a newspaper article concerning some Japanese waifs who had been picked up at sea by the barque Auckland—Captain Jennings—and brought to San Francisco, attracted the attention of Commodore Aulick. He submitted a proposal to the government that it should take advantage of this incident to open commercial relations with the Empire, or at least to manifest the friendly feelings of the country. This proposal was made on the 9th of May, 1851. Daniel Webster was then Secretary of State, and in him Aulick found a ready friend. … Clothed with full power to negotiate and sign treaties, and furnished with a letter from President Fillmore to the Emperor, Commodore Aulick was on the eve of departure when for some reason he was prevented. Thus the project which began at his suggestion was obstructed when it was about to be accomplished, and another man, perhaps better fitted for the undertaking, entered into his labors. … Commodore [Matthew Calbraith] Perry shared the belief in the expediency of sending a special mission for the purpose. When Commodore Aulick was recalled, Perry proposed to the U. S. Government an immediate expedition. The proposal was accepted, and an expedition on the most liberal scale was resolved upon. He was invested with extraordinary powers, naval and diplomatic. The East India and China Seas and Japan were the official designation of the field of service, but the real object in view was the establishment of a coal depot in Japan. The public announcement of the resolution was followed by applications from all quarters of Christendom for permission to accompany the expedition; all these were, however, refused on prudential grounds. … Impatient of the delay caused by the tardy preparations of his vessels, Perry sailed from Norfolk on the 24th of November, 1852, with one ship, the Mississippi, leaving the rest to follow as soon as ready. … The Mississippi … touching at, several ports on her way, reached Loo Choo in May, where the squadron united. … In the afternoon of the 8th of July, 1853, the squadron entered the Bay of Yedo in martial order, and about 5 o'clock in the evening was anchored off the town of Uraga. No sooner had 'the black ships of the evil mien' made their entry into the Bay, than the signal guns were fired, followed by the discharge of rockets; then were seen on the shore companies of soldiers moving from garrison to garrison. The popular commotion in Yedo at the news of 'a foreign invasion' was beyond description. The whole city was in an uproar. In all directions were seen mothers flying with children in their arms, and men with mothers on their backs. Rumors of an immediate action, exaggerated each time they were communicated from mouth to mouth, added horror to the horror-stricken. … As the squadron dropped anchor, it was surrounded by junks and boats of all sorts, but there was no hostile sign shown. A document in French was handed on board, which proved to be a warning to any foreign vessel not to come nearer. The next day was spent in informal conference between the local officials of Uraga and the subordinate officers of the squadron. It was Commodore Perry's policy to behave with as much reserve and exclusiveness as the Japanese diplomats had done and would do. He would neither see, nor talk with, any except the highest dignitary of the realm. Meanwhile, the governor of Uraga came on board and was received by captains and lieutenants. He declared that the laws forbade any foreign communication to be held elsewhere than Nagasaki; but to Nagasaki the squadron would never go. The vexed governor would send to Yedo for further instructions, and the 12th was fixed as a day for another conference. Any exchange of thought was either in the Dutch language, for which interpreters were provided on both sides, or in Chinese, through Dr. S. Wells Williams, and afterward in Japanese, through Manjiro Nakahama. … On the 12th, the Governor of Uraga again appeared on board and insisted on the squadron's leaving the Yedo Bay for Nagasaki, where the President's letter would be duly received through the Dutch or the Chinese. This the Commodore firmly refused to do. It was therefore decided at the court of Yedo that the letter be received at Kurihama, a few miles from the town of Uraga. This procedure was, in the language of the commissioners, 'in opposition to the Japanese law;' but, on the ground that 'the Admiral, in his quality as Ambassador of the President, would be insulted by any other course,' the original of Mr. Fillmore's letter to the Japanese Emperor, enclosed in a golden box of one thousand dollars in value, was delivered on the 14th of July to the commissioners appointed by the Shogun. … {1878} Fortunately for Japan, the disturbed state of affairs in China made it prudent for Perry to repair to the ports of that country, which he did as though he had consulted solely the diplomatic convenience of our country. He left word that he would come the ensuing spring for our answer. … It was the Taiping Rebellion which called for Perry's presence in China. The American merchants had large interests at stake there—their property in Shanghai alone amounting, it is said, to $1,200,000. … While in China, Commodore Perry found that the Russian and French admirals, who were staying in Shanghai, contemplated a near visit to Japan. That he might not give any advantage to them, he left Macao earlier than he had intended, and, on the 13th of February, found himself again in the Bay of Yedo, with a stately fleet of eight ships. As the place where the conference had been held at the previous visit was out of the reach of gun-shot from the anchorage, Perry expressed a desire of holding negotiations in Yedo, a request impossible for the Japanese to comply with. After some hesitation, the suburb Kanagawa was mutually agreed upon as a suitable site, and there a temporary building was accordingly erected for the transaction of the business. On the 8th of May, Commodore Perry, arrayed in the paraphernalia befitting his rank, was ushered into the house. The reply of the Shogun to the President's letter was now given—the purport of which was, decidedly in word but reluctantly in spirit, in favor of friendly intercourse. Conferences were repeated in the middle and latter part of the month, and after many evasions and equivocations, deliberations and delays, invitations to banquets and exchanges of presents, at last, on Friday, the 31st of May, the formal treaty was signed; a synopsis of which is here presented:

   1. Peace and friendship.
   2. Ports of Shimoda and Hakodate open to American ships,
   and necessary provisions to be supplied them.
   3. Relief to shipwrecked people; expenses thereof not to be
   refunded.
   4. Americans to be free as in other countries, but amenable to
   just laws.
   5. Americans at Shimoda and Hakodate not to be subject to
   restrictions; free to go about within defined limits.
   6. Careful deliberation in transacting business which affects
   the welfare of either party.
   7. Trade in open ports subject to local regulations.
   8. Wood, water, provisions, coal, etc., to be procured through
   Japanese officers only.
   9. Most-favored nation clause.
   10. U. S. ships restricted to ports of Shimoda and Hakodate,
   except when forced by stress of weather.
   11. U. S. Consuls or agents to reside at Shimoda.
   12. Ratifications to be exchanged within eighteen months. …

His labors at an end, Perry bade the last farewell to Japan and started on his home-bound voyage. This was in June, 1854. … No sooner had Perry left, carrying off the trophy of peaceful victory—the treaty (though the Yedo government was in no enjoyment of peaceful rest), than the Russian Admiral Pontiatine appeared in Nagasaki. He urged that the same privileges be granted his country as were allowed the Americans. … Soon, the English Rear Admiral, Sir James Stirling, arrives at the same harbor, very kindly to notify the government that there may be some fighting in Japanese waters between Russians and his countrymen. … The British convention was signed October 14, 1854, and followed, in 1858, by the Elgin treaty. The treaty with Russia was signed January 26, 1855; Netherlands, 9th of November the same year; France, October 9, 1858; Portugal, 3rd of August, 1860; German Customs Union, 25th of January, 1861. The other nations which followed the United States were Italy, Spain, Denmark, Belgium, Switzerland, Austria-Hungary, Sweden and Norway, Peru, Hawaii, China, Corea and Siam; lastly Mexico, with whom we concluded a treaty on terms of perfect equality (November 30, 1888)."

      ALSO IN:
      F. L. Hawks,
      Narrative of the Expedition under Commander Perry.

"In 1869 was convened the Kogisho or 'Parliament,' as Sir Harry Parkes translates it in his despatch to the Earl of Clarendon. … The Kogisho was composed mostly of the retainers of the Daimios, for the latter, having no experience of the earnest business of life, 'were not eager to devote themselves to the labors of an onerous and voluntary office.' … The object of the Kogisho was to enable the government to sound public opinion on the various topics of the day, and to obtain the assistance of the country in the work of legislation by ascertaining whether the projects of the government were likely to be favorably received. The Kogisho, like the Councils of Kuges and Daimios, was nothing but an experiment, a mere germ of a deliberative assembly, which only time and experience could bring to maturity. … It was a quiet, peaceful, obedient debating society. It has left the record of its abortive undertakings in the 'Kogisho Nishi' or journal of 'Parliament.' The Kogisho was dissolved in the year of its birth. And the indifference of the public about its dissolution proves how small an influence it really had. But a greater event than the dissolution of the Kogisho was pending before the public gaze. This was the abolition of feudalism. … The measure to abolish feudalism was much discussed in the Kogisho before its dissolution. … In the following noted memorial, after reviewing the political history of Japan during the past few hundred years, these Daimios said: 'Now the great Government has been newly restored and the Emperor himself undertakes the direction of affairs. This is, indeed, a rare and mighty event. We have the name (of an Imperial Government), we must also have the fact. Our first duty is to illustrate our faithfulness and to prove our loyalty. … The place where we live is the Emperor's land and the food which we eat is grown by the Emperor's men. How can we make it our own? We now reverently offer up the list of our possessions and men, with the prayer that the Emperor will take good measures for rewarding those to whom reward is due and for taking from those to whom punishment is due. Let the imperial orders be issued for altering and remodelling the territories of the various clans. Let the civil and penal codes, the military laws down to the rules for uniform and the construction of engines of war, all proceed from the Emperor; let all the affairs of the empire, great and small, be referred to him.' This memorial was signed by the Daimios of Kago, Hizen, Satsuma, Choshiu, Tosa, and some other Daimios of the west. {1879} But the real author of the memorial is believed to have been Kido, the brain of the Restoration. Thus were the fiefs of the most powerful and most wealthy Daimios voluntarily offered to the Emperor. The other Daimios soon followed the example of their colleagues. And the feudalism which had existed in Japan for over eight centuries was abolished by the following laconic imperial decree of August, 1871: 'The clans are abolished, and prefectures are established in their places.' … While the government at home was thus tearing down the old framework of state, the Iwakura Embassy in foreign lands was gathering materials for the new. This was significant, inasmuch as five of the best statesmen of the time, with their staff of forty-four able men, came into association for over a year with western peoples, and beheld in operation their social, political and religious institutions. … In 1873, Count Itagaki with his friends had sent in a memorial to the government praying for the establishment of a representative assembly, but they had not been heeded by the government. In July, 1877, Count Itagaki with his Ri-shi-sha again addressed a memorial to the Emperor, 'praying for a change in the form of government, and setting forth the reasons which, in the opinion of the members of the society, rendered such a change necessary.' These reasons were nine in number and were developed at great length. … The civil war being ended, in 1878, the year which marks a decade from the establishment of the new regime, the government, persuaded that the time for popular institutions was fast approaching, not alone through representations of the Tosa memorialists, but through many other signs of the times, decided to take a step in the direction of establishing a national assembly. But the government acted cautiously. Thinking that to bring together hundreds of members unaccustomed to parliamentary debate and its excitement, and to allow them a hand in the administration of affairs of the state, might be attended with serious dangers, as a preparation for the national assembly the government established first local assemblies. Certainly this was a wise course. These local assemblies have not only been good training schools for popular government, but also proved reasonably successful. … The qualifications for electors (males only) are: an age of twenty years, registration, and payment of a land tax of $5. Voting is by ballot, but the names of the voters are to be written by themselves on the voting papers. There are now 2,172 members who sit in these local assemblies. … The gulf between absolute government and popular government was thus widened more and more by the institution of local government. The popular tide raised by these local assemblies was swelling in volume year by year. New waves were set in motion by the younger generation of thinkers. Toward the close of the year 1881 the flood rose so high that the government thought it wise not to resist longer. His Imperial Majesty, hearing the petitions of the people, graciously confirmed and expanded his promise of 1868 by the famous proclamation of October 12, 1881: 'We have long had it in view to gradually establish a constitutional form of government. … It was with this object in view that in the eighth year of Meiji (1875) we established the Senate, and in the eleventh year of Meiji (1878) authorized the formation of local assemblies. … We therefore hereby declare that we shall, in the twenty-third year of Meiji (1890) establish a parliament, in order to carry into full effect the determination we have announced; and we charge our faithful subjects bearing our commissions to make, in the meantime, all necessary preparations to that end.'"

      T. Iyenaga,
      The Constitutional Development of Japan, 1853-1881
      (Johns Hopkins University Studies, 9th Series, number 9).

JAPAN: A. D. 1871-1872.

JAQUES-GILMORE PEACE MISSION.

JARL.

JATTS OR JAUTS.

JAVA: A. D. 1811-1813.
Taken from the Dutch by the English.
Restored to Holland.

JAVAN.

   The Hebrew form of the Greek race-name Ionian; "but in the Old
   Testament it is generally applied to the island of Cyprus,
   which is called the Island of Yavnan, or the Ionians, on the
   Assyrian monuments."

The ancient name of the river now called the Sir, or Sihun,
which empties into the Sea of Aral.

JAYHAWKERS AND RED LEGS.

During the conflict of 1854-1859 in Kansas, certain "Free-state men in the Southeast, comparatively isolated, having little communication with [the town of] Lawrence, and consequently almost wholly without check, developed a successful if not very praiseworthy system of retaliation. Confederated at first for defense against pro-slavery outrages, but ultimately falling more or less completely into the vocation of robbers and assassins, they have received the name—whatever its origin may be—of jayhawkers."

"The complaints in former years of Border Ruffian forays from Missouri into Kansas [see KANSAS: A. D. 1854-1859], were, as soon as the civil war began, paid with interest by a continual accusation of incursions of Kansas 'Jayhawkers' and 'Red Legs' into Missouri."

JAYME.

JAZYGES, OR IAZYGES.

JEAN.

The Canaanite inhabitants of the city of Jebus, or ancient Jerusalem, which they held against the Israelites until David took the place by storm and made it the capital of his kingdom.

JEHAD.

JENNY GEDDES' STOOL.

"Jersey, Guernsey, and their fellows are simply that part of the Norman duchy which clave to its dukes when the rest fell away. Their people are those Normans who remained Normans while the rest stooped to become Frenchmen. The Queen of Great Britain has a perfect right, if she will, to call herself Duchess of the Normans, a title which, in my ears at least, sounds better than that of Empress of India."

      E. A. Freeman,
      Practical Bearings of General European History
      (Lectures to American Audiences), lecture 4.

"The first site of Jerusalem was the hill now erroneously called Sion, and which we shall designate … as Pseudo-Sion, the plateau of rock at the southwest, surrounded on all sides by ravines, viz., by the Valley of Hinnom on the west and south, and by the Tyropœon, or Cheesemakers' Valley, on the north and east. Parallel to this lay the real Sion, the less elevated eastern hill, shut in on the west by the Tyropœon Valley, which divided it from Pseudo-Sion, and on the east by the Valley of Jehoshaphat, and ending southward in a wedge-like point opposite to the south-east corner of Pseudo-Sion. The town on the western-most of these two ridges was known first as Jebus, and afterwards as the High Town, or Upper Market; and the accretion to it on the eastern hill was anciently called Salem, and subsequently the Low Town and Acra. In the days of lawless violence, the first object was safety; and, as the eastern hill was by nature exposed on the north, it was there protected artificially by a citadel and fosse. The High Town and Low Town were originally two distinct cities, occupied by the Amorites and Hittites, whence the taunt of the prophet to Jerusalem: 'Thy birth and thy nativity is of the land of Canaan; thy father was an Amorite and thy mother a Hittite.' Hence, also, the dualistic form of the name Jerusalem in Hebrew, signifying 'Twin-Jerusalem.' Indeed the opinion has been broached that Jerusalem is the compound of the two names, Jebus and Salem, softened 'euphoniæ gratiâ' into Jerusalem. It is remarkable that to the very last the quarter lying between the High Town and Low Town, though in the very heart of the city when the different parts were united into one compact body, was called the Suburb. The first notice of Jerusalem is in the time of Abraham. The king of Shinar and his confederates captured Sodom and Gomorrah, and carried away Lot, Abraham's brother's son; when Abraham, collecting his trainbands, followed after the enemy and rescued Lot; and on his return 'at the valley of Shaveh, which is the king's vale, Melchizedek, king of Salem—the priest of the Most High God—blessed Abram.' The king's vale was the Valley of Jehoshaphat: and Salem was identical with the eastern hill, the real Zion as we learn from the Psalms, 'In Salem is his tabernacle, and his dwelling-place in Zion;' where Salem and Zion are evidently used as synonymous. Whether Moriah, on which Abram offered his sacrifice, was the very mount on which the Temple was afterwards built, must be left to conjecture. But when the Second Book of Chronicles was written, the Jews had at least a tradition to that effect, for we read that 'Solomon began to build the house of the Lord at Jerusalem in Mount Moriah.' On the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt, we find distinct mention made of Jerusalem by that very name; for after Joshua's death, 'the children of Judah fought against Jerusalem, and took it … and set the city on fire.' But Josephus is probably right in understanding this to apply to the Low Town only, i. e., the eastern hill, or Sion, as opposed to the western hill, the High Town, or Pseudo-Sion. The men of Judah had only a temporary occupation even of the Low Town, for it was not until the time of David that Jerusalem was brought permanently under the dominion of the Israelites."

"David had reigned seven years and a half in Hebron over the
tribe of Judah alone.

He was now solemnly installed as king by the elders of all Israel, and 'made a league with them before Jehovah in Hebron.' This was equivalent to what we now call a 'coronation oath,' and denoted that he was a constitutional, not an arbitrary monarch. The Israelites had no intention to resign their liberties, but in the sequel it will appear, that, with paid foreign troops at his side, even a most religious king could be nothing but a despot. Concerning David's military proceedings during his reign at Hebron, we know nothing in detail, though we read of Joab bringing in a large spoil, probably from his old enemies the Amalekites. David had an army to feed, to exercise, and to keep out of mischief; but it is probable that the war against Abner generally occupied it sufficiently. Now however he determined to signalize his new power by a great exploit. The strength of Jerusalem had been sufficiently proved by the long secure dwelling of Jebusites in it, surrounded by a Hebraized population. Hebron was no longer a suitable place for the centre of David's administration; but Jerusalem, on the frontier of Benjamin and Judah, without separating him from his own tribe, gave him a ready access to the plains of Jericho below, and thereby to the eastern districts; and although by no means a central position, it was less remote from Ephraim than Hebron. Of this Jebusite town he therefore determined to possess himself. … The Jebusites were so confident of their safety, as to send to David an enigmatical message of defiance; which may be explained,—that a lame and blind garrison was sufficient to defend the place. David saw in this an opportunity of displacing Joab from his office of chief captain,—if indeed Joab formally held that office as yet, and had not merely assumed authority as David's eldest nephew and old comrade in arms. The king however now declared, that whoever should first scale the wall and drive off its defenders, should be made chief captain; but his hopes were signally disappointed. His impetuous nephew resolved not to be outdone, and triumphantly mounting the wall, was the immediate means of the capture of the town. … Jerusalem is henceforth its name in … history; in poetry only, and not before the times of king Hezekiah, is it entitled Salem, or peace; identifying it with the city of the legendary Melchisedek. David's first care was to provide for the security of his intended capital, by suitable fortifications. Immediately to the north of Mount Zion, and separated from it by a slighter depression which we have named, was another hill, called Millo in the Hebrew. … In ancient times this seems to have been much loftier than now; for it has been artificially lowered. David made no attempt to include Millo (or Acra) in his city, but fortified Mount Zion separately; whence it was afterwards called, The city of David."

"The Jebusite city was composed of the fortress of Sion, which must have been situated where the mosque of El Akasa now stands, and of a lower town (Ophel) which runs down from there to the well which they called Gihon. David took the fortress of Sion, and gave the greater portion of the neighbouring lands to Joab, and probably left the lower town to the Jebusites. That population, reduced to an inferior situation, lost all energy, thanks to the new Israelitish influx, and played no important part in the history of Jerusalem. David rebuilt the upper town of Sion, the citadel or millo, and all the neighbouring quarters. This is what they called the city of David. … David in reality created Jerusalem."

Jerusalem, the ancient stronghold of the Jebusites, which remained in the hands of that Canaanite people until David reduced it and made it the capital of his kingdom, was the object of many sieges in its subsequent history and suffered at the hands of many ruthless conquerors. It was taken, with no apparent resistance, by Shishak, of Egypt, in the reign of Rehoboam, and Solomon's temple plundered. Again, in the reign of Amaziah, it was entered by the armies of the rival kingdom of Israel and a great part of its walls thrown down. It was besieged without success by the tartan or general of Sennacherib, and captured a little later by Pharaoh Necho. In B. C. 586 the great calamity of its conquest and destruction by Nebuchadnezzar befell, when the survivors of its chief inhabitants were taken captive to Babylon. Rebuilt at the return from captivity, it enjoyed peace under the Persians; but in the troubled times which followed the dissolution of Alexander's Empire, Jerusalem was repeatedly pillaged and abused by the Greeks of Egypt and the Greeks of Syria. Its walls were demolished by Ptolemy I. (B. C. 320) and again by Autiochus Epiphanes (B. C. 168), when a great part of the city was likewise burned.

JERUSALEM: A. D. 130-134.
   Rebuilt by Hadrian.
   Change of name.
   The revolt of Bar-Kokheba.

   In the last of the wars of the Persians with the Romans, while
   Heraclius occupied the throne of the Empire, at
   Constantinople, and Chosroës II. filled that of the
   Sassanides, the latter (A. D. 614) "sent his general,
   Shahr-Barz, into the region east of the Antilibanus and took
   the ancient and famous city of Damascus. From Damascus, in the
   ensuing year, Shahr-Barz advanced against Palestine, and,
   summoning the Jews to his aid, proclaimed a Holy War against
   the Christian misbelievers, whom he threatened to enslave or
   exterminate. Twenty-six thousand of these fanatics flocked to
   his standard; and having occupied the Jordan region and
   Galilee, Shahr-Barz in A. D. 615 invested Jerusalem, and after
   a siege of eighteen days forced his way into the town and gave
   it over to plunder and rapine.
{1882}
   The cruel hostility of the Jews had free vent. The churches of
   Helena, of Constantine, of the Holy Sepulchre, of the
   Resurrection, and many others, were burnt or ruined; the
   greater part of the city was destroyed; the sacred treasuries
   were plundered; the relics scattered or carried off; and a
   massacre of the inhabitants, in which the Jews took the chief
   part, raged throughout the whole city for some days. As many
   as 17,000, or, according to another account, 90,000, were
   slain. Thirty-five thousand were made prisoners. Among them
   was the aged patriarch, Zacharias, who was carried captive
   into Persia, where he remained till his death. The Cross found
   by Helena, and believed to be 'the True Cross,' was at the
   same time transported to Ctesiphon; where it was preserved
   with care and duly venerated by the Christian wife of
   Chosroës."

In the winter of 637, the Arabs, then masters of the greater part of Syria, laid siege to Jerusalem. After four months of vigorous attack and defense, the Christian Patriarch of Jerusalem held a parley from the walls with the Arab general, Abu Obeidah. "'Do you not know,' said he, 'that this city is holy, and that whoever offers violence to it draws upon his head the vengeance of heaven?' 'We know it,' replied Abu Obeidah, 'to be the house of the prophets, where their bodies lie interred; we know it to be the place whence our prophet Mahomet made his nocturnal ascent to heaven; and we know that we are more worthy of possessing it than you are, nor will we raise the siege until Allah has delivered it into our hands, as he has done many other places.' Seeing there was no further hope, the patriarch consented to give up the city, on condition that the Caliph would come in person to take possession and sign the articles of surrender." This proposal being communicated to Omar, the Caliph, he consented to make the long journey from Medina to Jerusalem, and, in due time, he entered the Holy City, not like a conqueror, but on foot, with his staff in his hand and wearing his simple, much-patched Arab garb. "The articles of surrender were drawn up in writing by Omar, and served afterwards as a model for the Moslem leaders in other conquests. The Christians were to build no new churches in the surrendered territory. The church doors were to be set open to travellers, and free ingress permitted to Mahometans by day and night. The bells should only toll, and not ring, and no crosses should be erected on the churches, nor shown publicly in the streets. The Christians should not teach the Koran to their children; nor speak openly of their religion; nor attempt to make proselytes; nor hinder their kinsfolk from embracing Islam. They should not assume the Moslem dress, either caps, slippers, or turbans, nor part their hair like Moslems, but should always be distinguished by girdles. They should not use the Arabian language in inscriptions on their signets, nor salute after the Moslem manner, nor be called by Moslem surnames. They should rise on the entrance of a Moslem, and remain standing until he should be seated. They should entertain every Moslem traveller three days gratis. They should sell no wine, bear no arms, and use no saddle in riding; neither should they have any domestic who had been in Moslem service. … The Christians having agreed to surrender on these terms, the Caliph gave them, under his own hand, an assurance of protection in their lives and fortunes, the use of their churches, and the exercise of their religion."

JERUSALEM: A. D. 1099.
The Blood "Deliverance" of the Holy City by the Crusaders.

   The armies of the First Crusade (see CRUSADES: A. D.
   1096-1099)—the surviving remnant of them—reached Jerusalem
   in June, A. D. 1099. They numbered, it is believed, but 20,000
   fighting men, and an equal number of camp followers,—women,
   children, non-militant priests, and the like. "Immediately
   before the arrival of the Crusaders, the Mohammedans
   deliberated whether they should slaughter all the Christians
   in cold blood, or only fine them and expel them from the city.
   It was decided to adopt the latter plan; and the Crusaders
   were greeted on their arrival not only by the flying squadrons
   of the enemy's cavalry, but also by exiled Christians telling
   their piteous tales. Their houses had been pillaged, their
   wives kept as hostages; immense sums were required for their
   ransom; the churches were desecrated; and, even worse still,
   the Infidels were contemplating the entire destruction of the
   Church of the Holy Sepulchre. This last charge, at least, was
   not true. But it added fuel to a fire which was already beyond
   any control, and the chiefs gave a ready permission to their
   men to carry the town, if they could, by assault." They were
   repulsed with heavy loss, and driven to the operations of a
   regular siege, for which their resources were limited in the
   extreme. But overcoming all difficulties, and enduring much
   suffering from lack of water, at the end of little more than a
   month they drove the Moslems from the walls and entered the
   city—on Friday, the 15th of July, A. D. 1099. "The city was
   taken, and the massacre of its defenders began. The Christians
   ran through the streets slaughtering as they went. At first
   they spared none, neither man, woman, nor child, putting all
   alike to the sword; but when resistance had ceased, and rage
   was partly appeased, they began to bethink them of pillage,
   and tortured those who remained alive to make them discover
   their gold. As for the Jews within the city, they had fled to
   their synagogue, which the Christians set on fire, and so
   burned them all. The chroniclers relate, with savage joy, how
   the streets were encumbered with heads and mangled bodies, and
   how in the Haram Area, the sacred enclosure of the Temple, the
   knights rode in blood up to the knees of their horses. Here
   upwards of ten thousand were slaughtered, while the whole
   number of killed amounted, according to various estimates, to
   forty, seventy, and even a hundred thousand. …
{1883}
   Evening fell, and the clamour ceased, for there were no more
   enemies to kill, save a few whose lives had been promised by
   Tancred. Then from their hiding-places in the city came out
   the Christians who still remained in it. They had but one
   thought, to seek out and welcome Peter the Hermit, whom they
   proclaimed as their liberator. At the sight of these
   Christians, a sudden revulsion of feeling seized the soldiers.
   They remembered that the city they had taken was the city of
   the Lord, and this impulsive soldiery, sheathing swords
   reeking with blood, followed Godfrey to the Church of the Holy
   Sepulchre, where they passed the night in tears and prayers
   and services. In the morning the carnage began again. Those
   who had escaped the first fury were the women and children. It
   was now resolved to spare none. Even the three hundred to whom
   Tancred had promised life were slaughtered in spite of him.
   Raymond alone managed to save the lives of those who
   capitulated to him from the tower of David. It took a week to
   kill the Saracens, and to take away their dead bodies. Every
   Crusader had a right to the first house he took possession of,
   and the city found itself absolutely cleared of its old
   inhabitants, and in the hands of a new population. The true
   Cross, which had been hidden by the Christians during the
   siege, was brought forth again, and carried in joyful
   procession round the city, and for ten days the soldiers gave
   themselves up to murder, plunder—and prayers! And the first
   Crusade was finished."

Eight days after their bloody conquest of the Holy City had been achieved, "the Latin chiefs proceeded to the election of a king, to guard and govern their conquests in Palestine. Hugh the Great [count of Vermandois] and Stephen of Chartres had retired with some loss of reputation, which they strove to regain by a second crusade and an honourable death. Baldwin was established at Edessa, and Bohemond at Antioch; and two Roberts—the Duke of Normandy and the Count of Flanders— preferred their fair inheritance in the West to a doubtful competition or a barren sceptre. The jealousy and ambition of Raymond [of Toulouse] were condemned by his own followers; and the free, the just, the unanimous voice of the army proclaimed Godfrey of Bouillon the first and most worthy of the champions of Christendom. His magnanimity accepted a trust as full of danger as of glory; but in the city where his Saviour had been crowned with thorns the devout pilgrim rejected the name and ensigns of royalty, and the founder of the kingdom of Jerusalem contented himself with the modest title of Defender and Baron of the Holy Sepulchre. His government of a single year, too short for the public happiness, was interrupted in the first fortnight by a summons to the field by the approach of the vizir or sultan of Egypt, who had been too slow to prevent, but who was impatient to avenge, the loss of Jerusalem. His total overthrow in the battle of Ascalon sealed the establishment of the Latins in Syria, and signalized the valour of the French princes, who in this action bade a long farewell to the holy wars. … After suspending before the Holy sepulchre the sword and standard of the sultan, the new king (he deserves the title) embraced his departing companions, and could retain only, with the gallant Tancred, 300 knights and 2,000 foot soldiers, for the defence of Palestine."

Godfrey lived not quite a year after his election, and was succeeded on the throne of Jerusalem by his brother Baldwin, the prince of Edessa, who resigned that Mesopotamian lordship to his cousin, Baldwin du Bourg, and made haste to secure the more tempting sovereignty. Godfrey, during his short reign, had permitted himself to be made almost a vassal and subordinate of the patriarch of Jerusalem—one Daimbert, a domineering prelate from Italy. But Baldwin matched the priest in his own grasping qualities and soon established the kingship on a more substantial footing. He reigned eighteen years, and when he died, in 1118, the fortunate cousin, Baldwin du Bourg, received his crown, surrendering the principality of Edessa to another. This Baldwin II. died in 1131, and was succeeded by Fulk or Foulque, count of Anjou, who had lately arrived in Palestine and married Baldwin's daughter. "The Latin dominions in the East attained their greatest extent in the reign of King Baldwin II. … The entire sea-coast from Tarsus in Cilicia to El-Arish on the confines of Egypt was, with the exception of Ascalon and Gaza, in the possession of the Franks. In the north their dominions extended inland to Edessa beyond the Euphrates; the mountains of Lebanon and their kindred ranges bounded them on the east as they ran southwards; and then the Jordan and the desert formed their eastern limits. They were divided into four states, namely, the kingdom of Jerusalem, the county of Tripolis, the principality of Antioch, and the county of Edessa; the rulers of the three last held as vassals under the king." King Fulk died in 1143 or 1144, and was succeeded by his son, Baldwin III. Edessa was lost in the following year.

   "Godfrey was an elected king; and we have seen that his two
   immediate successors owed their crowns rather to personal
   merit and intrigue than to principles of hereditary
   succession. But after the death of Baldwin du Bourg, the
   foundation of the constitution appears to have been settled;
   and the Latin state of Jerusalem may be regarded as a feudal
   hereditary monarchy. There were two chief lords of the
   kingdom, namely, the patriarch and the king, whose cognizance
   extended over spiritual and temporal affairs. … The great
   officers of the crown were the seneschal, the constable, the
   marshal, and the chamberlain. … There were four chief
   baronies of the kingdom, and many other lordships which had
   the privileges of administering justice, coining money, and,
   in short, most of those powers and prerogatives which the
   great and independent nobility of Europe possessed. The first
   great barony comprised the counties of Jaffa and Ascalon, and
   the lordships of Ramula, Mirabel, and Ibelin. The second was
   the principality of Galilee. The third included the lordships
   of Sajetta, Cesarea, and Nazareth; and the fourth was the
   county of Tripoli. …
{1884}
   But the dignity of these four great barons is shewn by the
   number of knights which they were obliged to furnish, compared
   with the contributions of other nobles. Each of the three
   first barons was compelled to aid the king with five hundred
   knights. The service of Tripoli was performed by two hundred
   knights; that of the other baronies by one hundred and
   eighty-three Knights. Six hundred and sixty-six knights was
   the total number furnished by the cities of Jerusalem,
   Naplousa, Acre, and Tyre. The churches and the commercial
   communities of every part of the kingdom provided five
   thousand and seventy-five serjeants or serving men."

      ALSO IN:
      E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 58.

JERUSALEM: A. D. 1149-1187.
Decline and fall of the kingdom.
The Rise of Saladin and his conquest of the Holy City.

King Fulk was succeeded in 1144 by his son, a boy of thirteen, who took the title of Baldwin III. and with whom his mother associated herself on the throne. It was early in this reign of the boy-king that Edessa was taken by Zenghi, sultan of Aleppo, and an appeal made to Europe which called out the miserably abortive Second Crusade. The crusade "did nothing towards the maintenance of the waning ascendency of the Latins. Even victories brought with them no solid result, and in not a few instances victory was misused with a folly closely allied to madness. … The interminable series of wars, or rather of forays and reprisals, went on; and amidst such contests the life of Baldwin closed [A. D. 1162] in early manhood. … He died childless, and although some opposition was made to his choice, his brother Almeric [or Amaury] was elected to fill his place. Almost at the beginning of his reign the affairs of the Latin kingdom became complicated with those of Egypt; and the Christians are seen fighting by the side of one Mahomedan race, tribe, or faction against another." The Fatimite caliphs of Egypt had become mere puppets in the hands of their viziers, and when one grand vizier, Shawer, deposed by a rival, Dargham, appealed to the sultan of Aleppo (Noureddin, son of Zenghi), the latter embraced eagerly the opportunity to stretch his strong hand towards the Fatimite throne. Among his generals was Shiracouh, a valiant Koord, and he sent Shiracouh to Egypt to restore Shawer to power. With Shiracouh went a young nephew of the Koordish soldier, named Salah-ud-deen—better known in history as Saladin. Shawer, restored to authority, quickly quarrelled with his protectors, and endeavored to get rid of them—which proved not easy. He sought and obtained help from the Latin king of Jerusalem, in whose mind, too, there was the ambition to pluck this rotten-ripe plum on the Nile. After a war of five years duration, in which king Almeric was encouraged and but slightly helped by the Byzantine emperor, while Noureddin was approved and supported by the caliph of Bagdad, Noureddin's Koord general, Shiracouh, secured the prize. Grand vizier Shawer was put to death, and the wretched Fatimite caliph made young Saladin his vizier, fancying he had chosen a young man too fond of pleasure to be dangerously ambitious. He was speedily undeceived. Saladin needed only three years to make himself master of Egypt, and the caliph, then dying, was stripped of his title and his sovereignty. The bold Koord took the throne in the name of the Abbasside Caliph, at Bagdad, summarily ending the Fatimite schism. He was still nominally the servant of the sultan of Aleppo; but when Noureddin died, A. D. 1178, leaving his dominions to a young son, Saladin was able, with little resistance, to displace the latter and to become undisputed sovereign of Mahometan Syria, Egypt, and a large part of Mesopotamia. He now resolved to expel the Latins from Palestine and to restore the authority of the prophet once more in the holy places of Jerusalem. King Almeric had died in 1173, leaving his crown to a son, Baldwin IV., who was an unfortunate leper. The leper prince died in 1185, and the only makeshift for a king that Jerusalem found in this time of serious peril was one Guy of Lusignan, a vile and despised creature, who had married the last Baldwin's sister. The Holy Land, the Holy City and the Holy Sepulchre had this pitiful kinglet for their defender when the potent Saladin led his Moslems against them. The decisive battle was fought in July, A. D. 1187, near the city of Tiberias, and is known generally in Christian history as the Battle of Tiberias, but was called by Mahometan annalists the Battle of Hittin. The Christians were defeated with great slaughter; the miserable King Guy was taken prisoner—but soon released, to make trouble; the "true cross," most precious of all Christian relics, fell into Saladin's irreverent hands. Tiberias, Acre, Cæsarea, Jaffa, Berytos, Ascalon, submitted to the victor. Jerusalem was at his mercy; but he offered its defenders and inhabitants permission to depart peacefully from the place, having no wish, he said, to defile its hallowed soil with blood. When his offer was rejected, he made a vow to enter the city with his sword and to do as the Christians had done when they waded to their knees in blood through its streets. But when, after a short siege of fourteen days, Jerusalem was surrendered to him, he forgot his angry oath, and forgot the vengeance which might not have seemed strange in that age and that place. The sword of the victor was sheathed. The inhabitants were ransomed at a stipulated rate, and those for whom no ransom was paid were held as slaves. The sick and the helpless were permitted to remain in the city for a year, with the Knights of the Hospital—conspicuous among the enemies of Saladin and his faith—to attend upon them. The Crescent shone Christian-like as it rose over Jerusalem again. The Cross—the Crusaders' Cross—was shamed. The Latin kingdom of Jerusalem was now nearly extinct; Tyre alone held out against Saladin and constituted the most of the kingdom of King Guy of Lusignan.

      Mrs. W. Busk,
      Mediæval Popes, Emperors, Kings and Crusaders,
      book 2, chapters 10-11 (volume 2).

Guy de Lusignan, the poor creature whom Sybille, daughter of King Amaury, married and made king of Jerusalem, lost his kingdom fairly enough on the battle-field of Tiberias. To win his freedom from Saladin, moreover, he renounced his claims by a solemn oath and pledged himself to quit the soil of Palestine forever. But oaths were of small account with the Christian Crusaders, and with the priests who kept their consciences. Guy got easy absolution for the trifling perjury, and was a king once more,—waiting for the Crusaders to recover his kingdom. But when, in 1190, his queen Sybille and her two children died, King Guy's royal title wore a faded look to most people and was wholly denied by many. Presently, Conrad of Montferrat, who held possession of Tyre—the best part of what remained in the actual kingdom of Jerusalem—married Sybille's sister, Isabella, and claimed the kingship in her name. King Richard of England supported Guy, and King Philip Augustus of France, in sheer contrariness, took his side with Conrad. After long quarreling it was decided that Guy should wear the crown while he lived, and that it should pass when he died to Conrad and Conrad's children. It was Richard's wilfulness that forced this settlement; but, after all, on quitting Palestine, in 1192, the English king did not dare to leave affairs behind him in such worthless hands. He bought, therefore, the abdication of Guy de Lusignan, by making him king of Cyprus, and he gave the crown of Jerusalem to the strong and capable Conrad. But Conrad was murdered in a little time by emissaries of the Old Man of the Mountain (see ASSASSINS), who accused Richard of the instigation of the deed, and Count Henry of Champagne, Richard's nephew, accepted his widow and his crown. Henry enjoyed his titular royalty and his little hand-breadth of dominion on the Syrian coast for four years, only. Then he was killed, while defending Jaffa, and his oft-widowed widow, Isabella, brought the Lusignans back into Palestinian history again by marrying, for her fourth husband, Amaury de Lusignan, who had succeeded his brother Guy, now deceased, as king of Cyprus. Amaury possessed the two crowns, of Cyprus and Jerusalem, until his death, when the latter devolved on the daughter of Isabella, by her second husband, Conrad. The young queen accepted a husband recommended by the king of France, and approved by her barons, thus bringing a worthy king to the worthless throne. This was John de Brienne, a good French knight, who came to Palestine (A. D. 1210) with a little following of three hundred knights and strove valiantly to reconquer a kingdom for his royally entitled bride. But he strove in vain, and fragment after fragment of his crumbling remnant of dominion fell away until he held almost nothing except Acre. In 1217 the king of Hungary, the duke of Austria and a large army of crusaders came, professedly, to his help, but gave him none. The king of Hungary got possession of the head of St. Peter, the right hand of St. Thomas and one of the wine vessels of the marriage feast at Cana, and hastened home with his precious relics. The other crusaders went away to attack Egypt and brought their enterprise to a miserable end. Then King John de Brienne married his daughter Yolante, or Iolanta, to the German emperor, or King of the Romans, Frederick II., and surrendered to that prince his rights and claims to the kingship of Jerusalem. Frederick, at war with the Pope, and under the ban of the Church, went to Palestine, with 600 knights, and contrived by clever diplomacy and skilful pressure to secure a treaty with the sultan of Egypt (A. D. 1229), which placed Jerusalem, under some conditions, in his hands, and added other territory to the kingdom which he claimed by right of his wife. He entered Jerusalem and there set the crown on his own head; for the patriarch, the priests, and the monk-knights, of the Hospital and the Temple, shunned him and refused recognition to his work. But Frederick was the only "King of Jerusalem" after Guy de Lusignan, who wore a crown in the Holy City, and exercised in reality the sovereignty to which he pretended. Frederick returned to Italy in 1229 and his kingdom in the East was soon as shadowy and unreal as that of his predecessors had been.

      See, also,
      CRUSADES: 1188-1192, and 1216-1229;
      and CYPRUS: A. D. 1192-1489.

   After the overthrow of the Khuarezmian (Korasmian or
   Carismian) empire by the Mongols, its last prince, Gelaleddin,
   or Jalalu-d-Din, implacably pursued by those savage
   conquerors, fought them valiantly until he perished, at last,
   in Kurdistan. His army, made up of many mercenary bands,
   Turkish and other, then scattered, and two, at least, among
   its wandering divisions played important parts in subsequent
   history. Out of one of those Khuarezmian squadrons rose the
   powerful nation of the Ottoman Turks. The other invaded Syria.
   "The Mussulman powers of Syria several times united in a
   league against the Carismians, and drove them back to the
   other side of the Euphrates. But the spirit of rivalry which
   at all times divided the princes of the family of Saladin,
   soon recalled an enemy always redoubtable notwithstanding
   defeats. At the period of which we are speaking, the princes
   of Damascus, Carac, and Emessa had just formed an alliance
   with the Christians of Palestine; they not only restored
   Jerusalem, Tiberias, and the principality of Galilee to them,
   but they promised to join them in the conquest of Egypt, a
   conquest for which the whole of Syria was making preparations.
   The sultan of Cairo, to avenge himself upon the Christians who
   had broken the treaties concluded with him, to punish their
   new allies, and protect himself from their invasion,
   determined to apply for succour to the hordes of Carismia; and
   sent deputies to the leaders of these barbarians, promising to
   abandon Palestine to them, if they subdued it. This
   proposition was accepted with joy, and 20,000 horsemen,
   animated by a thirst for booty and slaughter, hastened from
   the further parts of Mesopotamia, disposed to be subservient
   to the vengeance or anger of the Egyptian monarch. On their
   march they ravaged the territory of Tripoli and the
   principality of Galilee, and the flames which everywhere
   accompanied their steps announced their arrival to the
   inhabitants of Jerusalem. Fortifications scarcely commenced,
   and the small number of warriors in the holy city, left not
   the least hope of being able to repel the unexpected attacks
   of such a formidable enemy.
{1886}
   The whole population of Jerusalem resolved to fly, under the
   guidance of the knights of the Hospital and the Temple. There
   only remained in the city the sick and a few inhabitants who
   could not make their minds up to abandon their homes and their
   infirm kindred. The Carismians soon arrived, and having
   destroyed a few intrenchments that had been made in their
   route, they entered Jerusalem sword in hand, massacred all
   they met, and … had recourse to a most odious stratagem to
   lure back the inhabitants who had taken flight. They raised
   the standards of the cross upon every tower, and set all the
   bells ringing." The retreating Christians were deceived. They
   persuaded themselves that a miracle had been wrought; "that
   God had taken pity on his people, and would not permit the
   city of Christ to be defiled by the presence of a sacrilegious
   horde. Seven thousand fugitives, deceived by this hope,
   returned to Jerusalem and gave themselves up to the fury of
   the Carismians, who put them all to the sword. Torrents of
   blood flowed through the streets and along the roads. A troop
   of nuns, children, and aged people, who had sought refuge in
   the church of the Holy Sepulchre, were massacred at the foot
   of the altars. The Carismians finding nothing among the living
   to satisfy their fury, burst open the sepulchres, and gave the
   coffins and remains of the dead up to the flames; the tomb of
   Christ, that of Godfrey of Bouillon, the sacred relics of the
   martyrs and heroes of the faith,—nothing was respected, and
   Jerusalem then witnessed within its walls such cruelties and
   profanations as had never taken place in the most barbarous
   wars, or in days marked by the anger of God." Subsequently the
   Christians of Palestine rallied, united their forces with
   those of the Moslem princes of Damascus and Emessa, and gave
   battle to the Carismians on the plains of Gaza; but they
   suffered a terrible defeat, leaving 30,000 dead on the field.
   Nearly all Palestine was then at the mercy of the savages, and
   Damascus was speedily subjugated. But the sultan of Cairo,
   beginning to fear the allies he had employed, turned his arms
   sharply against them, defeated them in two successive battles,
   and history tells nothing more of the career of these last
   adventurers of the Carismian or Khuarezmian name.

JERUSALEM: A. D. 1291.
The end of the Christian kingdom.
The surviving title of "King of Jerusalem."

"Since the death of the Emperor Frederic II. [A. D. 1250], the baseless throne of Jerusalem had found a claimant in Hugh de Lusignan, King of Cyprus, who, as lineally descended from Alice, daughter of Queen Isabella, was, in fact, the next heir, after failure of issue by the marriage of Frederic and Iolanta de Brienne. His claims were opposed by the partisans of Charles of Anjou, King of the Sicilies,—that wholesale speculator in diadems. … He rested his claim upon the double pretensions of a papal title to all the forfeited dignities of the imperial house of Hohenstauffen, and of a bargain with Mary of Antioch; whose rights, although she was descended only from a younger sister of Alice, he had eagerly purchased. But the prior title of the house of Cyprus was more generally recognised in Palestine; the coronation of Hugh had been celebrated at Tyre; and the last idle pageant of regal state in Palestine was exhibited by the race of Lusignan. At length the final storm of Mussulman war broke upon the phantom king and his subjects. It was twice provoked by the aggressions of the Latins themselves, in plundering the peaceable Moslem traders, who resorted, on the faith of treaties, to the Christian marts on the Syrian coast. After a vain attempt to obtain redress for the first of these violations of international law, Keladun, the reigning sultan of Egypt and Syria, revenged the infraction of the existing ten years' truce by a renewal of hostilities with overwhelming force; yearly repeated his ravages of the Christian territory; and at length, tearing the city and county of Tripoli—the last surviving great fief of the Latin kingdom—from its dilapidated crown, dictated the terms of peace to its powerless sovereign (A. D. 1289)." Two years later, a repetition of lawless outrages on Moslem merchants at Acre provoked a last wrathful and implacable invasion. "At the head of an immense army of 200,000 men, the Mameluke prince entered Palestine, swept the weaker Christian garrisons before him, and encamped under the towers of Acre (A. D. 1291). That city, which, since the fall of Jerusalem, had been for a century the capital of the Latin kingdom, was now become the last refuge of the Christian population of Palestine. Its defences were strong, its inhabitants numerous; but any state of society more vicious, disorderly, and helpless than its condition, can scarcely be imagined. Within its walls were crowded a promiscuous multitude, of every European nation, all equally disclaiming obedience to a general government, and enjoying impunity for every crime under the nominal jurisdiction of independent tribunals. Of these there were no less than seventeen; in which the papal legate, the king of Jerusalem, the despoiled great feudatories of his realm, the three military orders, the colonies of the maritime Italian republics, and the representatives of the princes of the West, all arrogated sovereign rights, and all abused them by the venal protection of offenders. … All the wretched inhabitants who could find such opportunities of escape, thronged on board the numerous vessels in the harbour, which set sail for Europe; and the last defence of Acre was abandoned to about 12,000 men, for the most part the soldiery of the three military orders. From that gallant chivalry, the Moslems encountered a resistance worthy of its ancient renown and of the extremity of the cause for which its triple fraternity had sworn to die. But the whole force of the Mameluke empire, in its yet youthful vigour, had been collected for their destruction." After a fierce siege of thirty-three days, one of the principal defensive works, described in contemporary accounts as "the Cursed Tower," was shattered, and the besiegers entered the city. The cowardly Lusignan had escaped by a stolen flight the night before. The Teutonic Knights, the Templars and the Hospitallers stood their ground with hopeless valor. Of the latter only seven escaped. "Bursting through the city, the savage victors pursued to the strand the unarmed and fleeing population, who had wildly sought a means of escape, which was denied not less by the fury of the elements than by the want of sufficient shipping. {1887} By the relentless cruelty of their pursuers, the sands and the waves were dyed with the blood of the fugitives; all who survived the first horrid massacre were doomed to a hopeless slavery; and the last catastrophe of the Crusades cost life or liberty to 60,000 Christians. … The Christian population of the few maritime towns which had yet been retained fled to Cyprus, or submitted their necks, without a struggle, to the Moslem yoke; and, after a bloody contest of two hundred years, the possession of the Holy Land was finally abandoned to the enemies of the Cross. The fall of Acre closes the annals of the Crusades."

Actual royalty in the legitimate line of the Lusignan family ends with a queen Charlotte, who was driven from Cyprus in 1464 by her bastard brother James. She made over to the house of Savoy (one of the members of which she had married) her rights and the three crowns she wore,—the crown of Armenia having been added to those of Jerusalem and Cyprus in the family. "The Dukes of Savoy called themselves Kings of Cyprus and Jerusalem from the date of Queen Charlotte's settlement; the Kings of Naples had called themselves Kings of Jerusalem since the transfer of the rights of Mary of Antioch [see above], in 1277, to Charles of Anjou; and the title has run on to the present day in the houses of Spain and Austria, the Dukes of Lorraine, and the successive dynasties of Naples. … The Kings of Sardinia continued to strike money as Kings of Cyprus and Jerusalem, until they became Kings of Italy. There is no recognized King of Cyprus now; but there are two or three Kings of Jerusalem; and the Cypriot title is claimed, I believe, by some obscure branch of the house of Lusignan, under the will of King James II."

W. Stubbs, Seventeen Lectures on the Study of Medieval and Modern History, lecture 8.

      ALSO IN:
      C. G. Addison,
      The Knights Templars,
      chapter 6.

"The Jesuates, so called from their custom of incessantly crying through the streets, 'Praised be Jesus Christ,' were founded by John Colombino, … a native of Siena. … The congregation was suppressed … by Clement IX., because some of the houses of the wealthy 'Padri dell' acqua vite,' as they were called, engaged in the business of distilling liquors and practising pharmacy (1668)."

JESUITS: A. D. 1540-1556.
   Founding of the Society of Jesus.
   System of its organization.
   Its principles and aims.

"Experience had shown that the old monastic orders were no longer sufficient. … About 1540, therefore, an idea began to be entertained at Rome that a new order was needed; the plan was not to abolish the old ones, but to found new ones which should better answer the required ends. The most important of them was the Society of Jesus. But in this case the moving cause did not proceed from Rome. Among the wars of Charles V. we must recur to the first contest at Navarra, in 1521. It was on this occasion, in defending Pamplona against the French, that Loyola received the wound which was to cause the monkish tendency to prevail over the chivalrous element in his nature. A kind of Catholicism still prevailed in Spain which no longer existed anywhere else. Its vigour may be traced to the fact that during the whole of the Middle Ages it was always in hostile contact with Islam, with the Mohammedan infidels. The crusades here had never come to an end. … As yet untainted by heresy, and suffering from no decline, in Spain, Catholicism was as eager for conquest as it had been in all the West in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. It was from the nation possessing this temperament that the founder of the order of the Jesuits sprang. Ignatius Loyola (born 1491) was a Spanish knight, possessing the two-fold tendencies which distinguish the knighthood of the Middle Ages. He was a gallant swordsman, delighting in martial feats and romantic love adventures; but he was at the same time animated by a glowing enthusiasm for the Church and her supremacy, even during the early period of his life. These two tendencies were striving together in his character, until the event took place which threw him upon a bed of suffering. No sooner was he compelled to renounce his worldly knighthood, than he was sure that he was called upon to found a new order of spiritual knighthood, like that of which he had read in the chivalrous romance, 'Amadis.' Entirely unaffected by the Reformation, what he understood by this was a spiritual brotherhood in the true mediæval sense, which should convert the heathen in the newly-discovered countries of the world. With all the zeal of a Spaniard he decided to live to the Catholic Church alone; he chastised his body with penances and all kinds of privations, made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, and, in order to complete his defective education, he visited the university of Paris; it was among his comrades there that he formed the first associations out of which the order was afterwards formed. Among these was Jacob Lainez; he was Loyola's fellow-countryman, the organizing head who was to stamp his impress upon the order. … Then came the spread of the new doctrines, the mighty progress of Protestantism. No one who was heartily attached to the old Church could doubt that there was work for such an association, for the object now in hand was not to make Christians of the aboriginal inhabitants of Central America, but to reconquer the apostate members of the Romish Church. About 1539 Loyola came with his fraternity to Rome. He did not find favour in all circles; the old orders regarded the new one with jealousy and mistrust; but Pope Paul III. (1534-49) did not allow himself to be misled, and in 1540 gave the fraternity his confirmation, thus constituting Loyola's followers an order, which, on its part, engaged 'to obey in all things the reigning Pope—to go into any country, to Turks, heathen, or heretics, or to whomsoever he might send them, at once, unconditionally, without question or reward.' It is from this time that the special history of the order begins. {1888} During the next year Loyola was chosen the first general of the order, an office which he held until his death (1541-56). He was succeeded by Lainez. He was less enthusiastic than his predecessor, had a cooler head, and was more reasonable; he was the man for diplomatic projects and complete and systematic organization. The new order differed in several respects from any previously existing one, but it entirely corresponded to the new era which had begun for the Romish Church. … The construction of the new order was based and carried out on a monarchical-military system. The territories of the Church were divided into provinces; at the head of each of these was a provincial; over the provincials, and chosen by them, the general, who commanded the soldiers of Christ, and was entrusted with dictatorial power, limited only by the opinions of three judges, assistants or admonitors. The general has no superior but the Pope, with whom he communicates directly; he appoints and dismisses all officials, issues orders as to the administration of the order, and rules with undisputed sway. The absolute monarchy which was assigned to the Pope by the Council of Trent, was conferred by him on the general of the Jesuits. Among the four vows of poverty, chastity, obedience, and subjection to the Pope, obedience was the soul of all. To learn and practise this physically and mentally, up to the point where, according to the Jesuit expression, a man becomes 'tanquam lignum et cadaver,' was the ruling principle of the institution. … Entire renunciation of the will and judgment in relation to everything commanded by the superior, blind obedience, unconditional subjection, constitute their ideal. There was but one exception, but even in this there was a reservation. It was expressly stated that there can be no obligation 'ad peccatum mortale vel veniale,' to sinful acts of greater or less importance, 'except when enjoined by the superior, in the name of Jesus Christ,' 'vel in virtute obedientiæ,'—an elastic doctrine which may well be summed up in the dictum that 'the end justifies the means.' Of course, all the members of this order had to renounce all ties of family, home, and country, and it was expressly enjoined. … Of the vow of poverty it is said, in the 'Summarium' of the constitution of the order, that it must be maintained as a 'murus religionis. No one shall have any property; everyone must be content with the meanest furniture and fare, and, if necessity or command require it, he must be ready to beg his bread from door to door ('ostiatim mendicare'). The external aspect of members of the order, their speech and silence, gestures, gait, garb, and bearing shall indicate the prescribed purity of soul. … On all these and many other points, the new order only laid greater stress on the precepts which were to be found among the rules of other orders, though in the universal demoralisation of the monastic life they had fallen into disuse. But it decidedly differed from all the others in the manner in which it aimed at obtaining sway in every sphere and every aspect of life. Himself without home or country, and not holding the doctrines of any political party, the disciple of Jesus renounced everything which might alienate him among varying nationalities, pursuing various political aims. Then he did not confine his labours to the pulpit and the confessional; he gained an influence over the rising generation by a systematic attention to education, which had been shamefully neglected by the other orders. He devoted himself to education from the national schools up to the academic chair, and by no means confined himself to the sphere of theology. This was a principle of immense importance. … It is a true saying, that 'he who gains the youth possesses the future'; and by devoting themselves to the education of youth, the Jesuits secured a future to the Church more surely than by any other scheme that could have been devised. What the schoolmasters were for the youth, the confessors were for those of riper years; what the clerical teachers were for the common people, the spiritual directors and confidants were for great lords and rulers—for the Jesuits aspired to a place at the side of the great, and at gaining the confidence of kings. It was not long before they could boast of astonishing success."

"The Society, in 1556, only 16 years after its commencement, counted as many as twelve provinces, 100 houses, and upwards of 1,000 members, dispersed over the whole known world. Their two most conspicuous and important establishments were the Collegio Romano and the German College. They already were in possession of many chairs, and soon monopolised the right of teaching, which gave them a most overwhelming influence."

"In 1542, Xavier landed at Goa, the capital of the Portuguese colony, on the western coast of Hindostan. He took lodgings at the hospital, and mingled with the poor. He associated also with the rich, and even played with them at cards, acting piously upon the motto of the order, 'Ad majorem Dei gloriam.' Having thus won good-will to himself, he went into the streets, with his hand-bell and crucifix, and, having rung the one, he held up the other, exhorting the multitudes to accept that religion of which it was the emblem. His great facility in acquiring foreign languages helped him much. He visited several times the pearl-fisheries on the Malabar coast, remaining at one time thirteen months, and planting forty-five churches. Cape Comorin, Travancore, Meliapore, the Moluccas, Malacca, and other ports of India, and finally the distant island of Japan—where Christianity was [accepted—see JAPAN: A. D. 1540-1686] … —received his successive visits. Leaving two Jesuits on the island, he returned to settle some matters at Goa, which done, he sailed for China, but died at the island of Sancian, a few leagues from the city of Canton, in 1552—ten years only after his arrival in India. He had in this time established an inquisition and a college at Goa. Numbers of the society, whom he had wisely distributed, had been sent to his aid; and the Christians in India were numbered by hundreds of thousands before the death of this 'Apostle of the Indies.' It has even been said, that he was the means of converting more persons in Asia than the church had lost by the Reformation in Europe. {1889} The empire of China, which Xavier was not allowed to enter, was visited, half a century later, by the Jesuit Matthew Ricci, who introduced his religion by means of his great skill in science and art, especially mathematics and drawing [see CHINA: A. D. 1294-1882]. He assumed the garb of a mandarin —associated with the higher classes—dined with the Emperor—allowed those who received Christianity to retain any rites of their own religion to which they were attached—and died in 1610, bequeathing and recommending his policy to others. This plan of accommodation was far more elaborately carried out by Robert Nobili, who went to Madura, in southern Hindostan, as a missionary of the order in 1606. He had observed the obstacle which caste threw in the way of missionary labor, and resolved to remove it. He presented himself as a foreign Brahmin, and attached himself to that class. They had a tradition, that there once had been four roads to truth in India, one of which they had lost. This he professed to restore. He did no violence to their existing ideas or institutions, but simply gave them other interpretations, and in three years he had seventy converted Brahmins about him. From this time he went on gathering crowds of converts, soon numbering 150,000. This facile policy, however, attracted the notice of the other religious orders, was loudly complained of at Rome, and, after almost an entire century of agitation, was condemned in 1704 by a special legation, appointed by Clement XI. to inquire into the matter of complaint. … The attention of the society was early directed to our own continent, and its missions everywhere anticipated the settlements. The most remarkable missions were in South America. Missionaries had been scattered over the whole continent, everywhere making converts, but doing nothing for the progress of the order. Aquaviva was general. This shrewd man saw the disadvantage of the policy, and at once applied the remedy. He directed, that, leaving only so many missionaries scattered over the continent as should be absolutely necessary, the main force should be concentrated upon a point. Paraguay was chosen. The missionaries formed what were called reductions—that is, villages into which the Indians were collected from their roving life, taught the ruder arts of civilization, and some of the rites and duties of the Christian religion. These villages were regularly laid out with streets, running each way from a public square, having a Church, work-shops and dwellings. Each family had a small piece of land assigned for cultivation, and all were reduced to the most systematic habits of industry and good order. … The men were trained to arms, and all the elements of an independent empire were fast coming into being. In 1632, thirty years after the starting of this system, Paraguay had twenty reductions, averaging 1,000 families each, which at a moderate estimate, would give a population of 100,000, and they still went on prospering until three times this number are, by some, said to have been reached. The Jesuits started, in California, in 1642, the same system, which they fully entered upon in 1679. This, next to Paraguay, became their most successful mission."

In 1632 the Jesuits entered on their mission work in Canada, or New France, where they supplanted the Récollet friars. "In 1640 Montreal, the site of which had been already indicated by Champlain in 1611, was founded, that there might be a nearer rendezvous than Quebec for the converted Indians. At its occupation a solemn mass was celebrated under a tent, and in France itself the following February a general supplication was offered up that the Queen of Angels would take the Island of Montreal under her protection. In the August of this year a general meeting of French settlers and Indians took place at Montreal, and the festival of the Assumption was solemnised at the island. The new crusading spirit took full possession of the enthusiastic French people, and the niece of Cardinal Richelieu founded a hospital for the natives between the Kennebec and Lake Superior, to which young and nobly-born hospital nuns from Dieppe offered their services. Plans were made for establishing mission posts, not only on the north amongst the Algonkins, but to the south of Luke Huron, in Michigan and at Green Bay, and so on as far as the regions to the west. The maps of the Jesuits prove that before 1660 they had traced the waters of Lake Erie and Lake Superior and had seen Lake Michigan. The Huron mission embraced principally the country lying between Lake Simcoe and Georgian Bay, building its stations on the rivers and shores. But the French missionaries, however much they might desire it, could not keep outside the intertribal strifes of the natives around them. Succeeding to Champlain's policy, they continued to aid the Algonkins and Hurons against their inveterate enemies the Iroquois. The Iroquois retaliated by the most horrible cruelty and revenge. There was no peace along the borders of this wild country, and missionaries and colonists carried their lives in their hands. In 1648 St. Joseph, a Huron mission town on the shores of Lake Simcoe, was burned down and destroyed by the Iroquois, and Père Daniel, the Jesuit leader, killed under circumstances of great atrocity. In 1649 St. Ignace, a station at the corner of Georgian Bay, was sacked, and there the pious Brebeuf met his end, after having suffered the most horrible tortures the Indians could invent. Brebeuf, after being hacked in the face and burnt all over the body with torches and red-hot iron, was scalped alive, and died after three hours' suffering. His companion, the gentle Gabriel Lallemand, endured terrible tortures for seventeen hours."

   The Hurons were dispersed and their nation destroyed by these
   attacks of the Iroquois. "With the fall of the Hurons fell the
   best hope of the Canadian mission. They, and the stable and
   populous communities around them, had been the rude material
   from which the Jesuit would have formed his Christian empire
   in the wilderness; but, one by one, these kindred peoples were
   uprooted and swept away, while the neighboring Algonquins, to
   whom they had been a bulwark, were involved with them in a
   common ruin. The land of promise was turned to a solitude and
   a desolation. There was still work in hand, it is true,—vast
   regions to explore, and countless heathens to snatch from
   perdition; but these, for the most part, were remote and
   scattered hordes, from whose conversion it was vain to look
   for the same solid and decisive results. In a measure, the
   occupation of the Jesuits was gone.
{1890}
   Some of them went home, 'well resolved,' writes the Father
   Superior, 'to return to the combat at the first sound of the
   trumpet'; while of those who remained, about twenty in number,
   several soon fell victims to famine, hardship, and the
   Iroquois. A few years more, and Canada ceased to be a mission;
   political and commercial interests gradually became ascendant,
   and the story of Jesuit propagandism was interwoven with her
   civil and military annals."

JESUITS: A. D. 1573-1592.
Change in the statutes of the Order on demands from Spain.

"At the first establishment of the Order, the elder and already educated men, who had just entered it, were for the most part Spaniards; the members joining it from other nations were chiefly young men, whose characters had yet to be formed. It followed naturally that the government of the society was, for the first ten years, almost entirely in Spanish hands. The first general congregation was composed of twenty-five members, eighteen of whom were Spaniards. The first three generals belonged to the same nation. After the death of the third, Borgia, in the year 1573, it was once more a Spaniard, Polanco, who had the best prospect of election. It was however manifest that his elevation would not have been regarded favourably, even in Spain itself. There were many new converts in the society who were Christianized Jews. Polanco also belonged to this class, and it was not thought desirable that the supreme authority in a body so powerful, and so monarchically constituted, should be confided to such hands. Pope Gregory XIV., who had received certain intimations on this subject, considered a change to be expedient on other grounds also. When a deputation presented itself before him from the congregation assembled to elect their general, Gregory inquired how many votes were possessed by each nation; the reply showed that Spain held more than all the others put together. He then asked from which nation the generals of the order had hitherto been taken. He was told that there had been three, all Spaniards. 'It will be just, then,' replied Gregory, 'that for once you should choose one from among the other nations.' He even proposed a candidate for their election. The Jesuits opposed themselves for a moment to this suggestion, as a violation of their privileges; but concluded by electing the very man proposed by the pontiff. This was Eberhard Mercurianus. A material change was at once perceived, as the consequence of this choice. Mercurianus, a weak and irresolute man, resigned the government of affairs, first indeed to a Spaniard again, but afterwards to a Frenchman, his official admonitor; factions were formed, one expelling the other from the offices of importance, and the ruling powers of the Order now began to meet occasional resistance from its subordinate members. But a circumstance of much higher moment was, that on the next vacancy—in the year 1581—this office was conferred on Claudius Acquaviva, a Neapolitan, belonging to a house previously attached to the French party, a man of great energy, and only thirty-eight years old. The Spaniards then thought they perceived that their nation, by which the society had been founded and guided on its early path, was now to be forever excluded from the generalship. Thereupon they became discontented and refractory, and conceived the design of making themselves less dependent on Rome. … They first had recourse to the national spiritual authority of their own country—the Inquisition. … One of the discontented Jesuits, impelled, as he affirmed, by a scruple of conscience, accused his order of concealing, and even remitting, transgressions of the kind so reserved, when the criminal was one of their society. The Inquisition immediately caused the Provincial implicated, together with his most active associates, to be arrested. Other accusations being made in consequence of these arrests, the Inquisition commanded that the statutes of the order should be placed before it, and proceeded to make further seizures of parties accused. … The Inquisition was, however, competent to inflict a punishment on the criminal only: it could not prescribe changes in the regulations of the society. When the affair, therefore, had proceeded thus far, the discontented members applied to the king also, assailing him with long memorials, wherein they complained of the defects in their constitution. The character of this constitution had never been agreeable to Philip II.; he used to say that he could see through all the other orders, but that the order of Jesuits he could not understand. … He at once commanded Manrique, bishop of Carthagena, to subject the Order to a visitation, with particular reference to these points. … The character of Sixtus V. made it particularly easy for Acquaviva to excite the antipathies of that pontiff against the proceedings of the Spaniards. Pope Sixtus had formed the hope, as we know, of rendering Rome, more decidedly than it ever yet was, the metropolis of Christendom. Acquaviva assured him, that the object really laboured for in Spain was no other than increased independence of Rome. Pope Sixtus hated nothing so much as illegitimate birth; and Acquaviva caused him to be informed that Manrique, the bishop selected as 'Visitator' of the Jesuits, was illegitimate. These were reasons sufficient to make Sixtus recall the assent he had already given to the visitation. He even summoned the case of the provincial before the tribunals of Rome. From his successor, Gregory XIV., the general succeeded in obtaining a formal confirmation of the rule of the order. But his antagonists also were unyielding and crafty. They perceived that the general must be attacked in the court of Rome itself. They availed themselves of his momentary absence. … In the summer of 1592, at the request of the Spanish Jesuits and Philip II., but without the knowledge of Acquaviva, the pontiff commanded that a general congregation should be held. Astonished and alarmed, Acquaviva hastened back. To the generals of the Jesuits these 'Congregations' were no less inconvenient than were the Convocations of the Church to the popes; and if his predecessors were anxious to avoid them, how much more cause had Acquaviva, against whom there prevailed so active an enmity! But he was soon convinced that the arrangement was irrevocable; he therefore resumed his composure and said, 'We are obedient sons; let the will of the holy father be done.' … {1891} Philip of Spain had demanded some changes, and had recommended others for consideration. On two things he' insisted: the resignation of certain papal privileges; those of reading forbidden books, for example, and of granting absolution for the crime of heresy; and a law, by virtue of which every novice who entered the order should surrender whatever patrimonial rights he might possess, and should even resign all his benefices. These were matters in regard to which the order came into collision with the Inquisition and the civil government. After some hesitation, the demands of the king were complied with, and principally through the influence of Acquaviva himself. But the points recommended by Philip for consideration were of much higher moment. First of all came the questions, whether the authority of the superiors should not be limited to a certain period; and whether a general congregation should not be held at certain fixed intervals? The very essence and being of the institute, the rights of absolute sovereignty, were here brought into question. Acquaviva was not on this occasion disposed to comply. After an animated discussion, the congregation rejected these propositions of Philip; but the pope, also, was convinced of their necessity. What had been refused to the king was now commanded by the pope. By the plenitude of his apostolic power, he determined and ordained that the superiors and rectors should be changed every third year; and that, at the expiration of every sixth year, a general congregation should be assembled. It is, indeed, true that the execution of these ordinances did not effect so much as had been hoped from them. … It was, nevertheless, a very serious blow to the society, that it had been compelled, by internal revolt and interference from without, to a change in its statutes."

JESUITS: A. D. 1581-1641.
Hostility of the Paulistas of Brazil.
Opposition to enslavement of the Indians.

JESUITS: A. D. 1702-1715.
The renewed conflict with Jansenism in France.
The Bull Unigenitus.

JESUITS: A. D. 1757-1773. Suppression of the Society in Portugal and the Portuguese dominions.

In 1757, a series of measures intended to break the power, if not to end the existence, of the Society of Jesus, in Portugal and the Portuguese dominions, was undertaken by the great Portuguese minister, Carvalho, better known by his later title as the Marquis of Pombal. "It is not necessary to speculate on the various motives which induced Carvalho to attack the Jesuits, but the principal cause lay in the fact that they were wealthy and powerful, and therefore a dangerous force in an absolutist monarchy. It must be remembered that the Jesuits of the 18th century formed a very different class of men to their predecessors. They were no longer intrepid missionary pioneers, but a corporation of wealthy traders, who made use of their spiritual position to further the cause of their commerce. They had done a great work in America by opening up the interior of Brazil and converting the natives, and their administration of Paraguay, one of the most interesting achievements in the whole history of Christianity, was without doubt a blessing to the people. But by the middle of the 18th century they had gone too far. It was one thing to convert the natives of Brazil, and another to absorb much of the wealth of that country, in doing which they prejudiced not only the Crown but the Portuguese people, whom they kept from settling in the territory under their rule. Whether it was a sufficient reason for Carvalho to attack the order, because it was wealthy and powerful, and had departed from its primitive simplicity, is a question for everyone to decide for themselves, but that this was the reason, and that the various excuses alleged by the admirers of the great minister are without foundation, is an undoubted fact. On September 19, 1757, the first important blow was struck, when the king's Jesuit confessor was dismissed, and all Jesuits were forbidden to come to Court. Carvalho, in the name of the King of Portugal, also formally denounced the order at Rome, and Benedict XIV., the then Pope, appointed the Cardinal de Saldanha, a friend of the minister, Visitor and Reformer of the Society of Jesus. The cardinal did not take long in making up his mind, and May 15, 1758, he forbade the Jesuits to engage in trade. An attempt upon the king's life, which shortly followed this measure, gave the minister the opportunity he wanted for urging the suppression of the famous society. The history of the Tavora plot, which culminated in this attempt, is one of the most mysterious affairs in the whole history of Portugal. … The three leaders of the plot were the Duke of Aveiro, a descendant of John II., and one of the greatest noblemen in Portugal, the Marquis of Tavora, who had filled with credit the post of Governor-general of India, and the Count of Atouguia, a descendant of the gallant Dom Luis de Athaide, the defender of Goa; but the heart and soul of the conspiracy was the Marchioness of Tavora, a beautiful and ambitious woman, who was bitterly offended because her husband had not been made a duke. The confessor of this lady was a Jesuit named Gabriel Malagrida. … The evidence on all sides is most contradictory, and all that is certain is that the king was fired at and wounded on the night of September 3, 1758; and that in the following January, the three noblemen who have been mentioned, the Marchioness of Tavora, Malagrida with seven other Jesuits, and many other individuals of all ranks of life, were arrested as implicated in the attempt to murder. The laymen had but a short trial and, together with the marchioness, were publicly executed ten days after their arrest. King Joseph certainly believed that the real culprits had been seized, and in his gratitude he created Carvalho Count of Oeyras, and encouraged him to pursue his campaign against the Jesuits. On January 19, 1759, the estates belonging to the society were sequestrated; and on September 3rd, all its members were expelled from Portugal, and directions were sent to the viceroys of India and Brazil to expel them likewise. The news of this bold stroke was received with admiration everywhere, except at Rome, and it became noised abroad that a great minister was ruling in Portugal. … {1892} In 1764 the Jesuit priest Malagrida was burnt alive, not as a traitor but as a heretic and imposter, on account of some crazy tractates he had written. The man was regarded as a martyr, and all communication between Portugal and the Holy See was broken off for two years, while the Portuguese minister exerted all his influence with the Courts of France and Spain to procure the entire suppression of the society which he hated. The king supported him consistently, and after another attempt upon his life in 1769, which the minister as usual attributed to the Jesuits, King Joseph created his faithful servant Marquis of Pombal, by which title he is best known to fame. The prime ministers of France and Spain cordially acquiesced in the hatred of the Jesuits, for both the Duc de Choiseul and the Count d'Aranda had something of Pombal's spirit in them, and imitated his policy; in both countries the society, which on its foundation had done so much for Catholicism and Christianity, was proscribed, and the worthy members treated with as much rigour as the unworthy; and finally in 1773 Pope Clement XIV. solemnly abolished the Society of Jesus. King Joseph did not long survive this triumph of his minister, for he died on February 24, 1777, and the Marquis of Pombal, then an old man of 77, was at once dismissed from office."

JESUITS: A. D. 1761-1769.
   Proceedings against the Order in the Parliament of Paris.
   Suppression in France, Spain, Bavaria, Parma, Modena, Venice.
   Demands on the Pope for the abolition of the Society.

"Father Antoine Lavalette, 'procureur' of the Jesuit Missions in the Antilles, resided in that capacity at St. Pierre in the island of Martinique. He was a man of talent, energy, and enterprise; and, following an example by no means uncommon in the Society, he had been for many years engaged in mercantile transactions on an extensive scale, and with eminent success. It was an occupation expressly prohibited to missionaries; but the Jesuits were in the habit of evading the difficulty by means of an ingenious fiction. Lavalette was in correspondence with the principal commercial firms in France, and particularly with that of Lioncy Brothers and Gouffre, of Marseilles. He made frequent consignments of merchandise to their house, which were covered by bills of exchange, drawn in Martinique and accepted by them. For a time the traffic proceeded prosperously; but it so happened that upon the breaking out of the Seven Years' War, several ships belonging to Lavalette, richly freighted with West Indian produce, were captured by the English cruisers, and their cargoes confiscated. The immediate loss fell upon Lioncy and Gouffre, to whom these vessels were consigned," and they were driven to bankruptcy, the General of the Society of Jesus refusing to be responsible for the obligations of his subordinate, Father Lavalette. "Under these circumstances the creditors determined to attack the Jesuit community as a corporate body," and the latter were so singularly unwary, for once, as not only to contest the claim before the Parliament of Paris, but to appeal to the constitutions of their Society in support of their contention, that each college was independent in the matter of temporal property, and that no corporate responsibility could exist. "The Parliament at once demanded that the constitutions thus referred to should he examined. The Jesuits were ordered to furnish a copy of them; they obeyed. … The compulsory production of these mysterious records, which had never before been inspected by any but Jesuit eyes, was an event of crucial significance. It was the turning-point of the whole affair; and its consequences were disastrous." As a first consequence, "the court condemned the General of the Jesuits, and in his person the whole Society which he governed, to acquit the bills of exchange still outstanding, together with interest and damages, within the space of a year from the date of the 'arrêt.' In default of payment the debt was made recoverable upon the common property of the Order, excepting only the endowments specially restricted to particular colleges. The delight of the public, who were present on the occasion in great numbers, 'was excessive,' says Barbier, 'and even indecent.'" As a second consequence, the Parliament, on the 6th of August, 1761, "condemned a quantity of publications by the Jesuits, dating from the year 1590 downwards, to be torn and burnt by the executioner and the next day this was duly carried out in the court of the Palais de Justice. Further, the 'arrêt' prohibited the king's subjects from entering the said Society; forbade the fathers to give instruction, private or public, in theology, philosophy, or humanity; and ordered their schools and colleges to be closed. The accusation brought against their books was … that of teaching 'abominable and murderous doctrine,' of justifying sedition, rebellion, and regicide. … The Government replied to these bold measures by ordering the Parliament to suspend the execution of its 'arrêts' for the space of a year. The Parliament affected to obey, but stipulated, in registering the letters-patent, that the delay should not extend beyond the 1st of April, 1762, and made other provisions which left them virtually at liberty to proceed as they might think proper. The Jesuits … relied too confidently on the protection of the Crown. … But the prestige of the monarchy was now seriously impaired, and it was no longer wise or safe for a King of France to undertake openly the defence of any institution which had incurred a deliberate sentence of condemnation from the mass of his people." In November, 1761, a meeting of French prelates was summoned by the Royal Council to consider and report upon several questions relative to the utility of the Society of Jesus, the character of its teaching and conduct, and the modifications, if any, which should be proposed as to the extent of authority exercised by the General of the Society. The bishops, by a large majority, made a report favorable to the Jesuits, but recommended, "as reasonable concessions to public opinion, certain alterations in its statutes and practical administration. … This project of compromise was forwarded to Rome for the consideration of the Pope and the General; and Louis gave them to understand, through his ambassador, that upon no other conditions would it be possible to stem the tide of opposition, and to maintain the Jesuits as a body corporate in France. {1893} It was now that the memorable reply was made, either by the General Ricci, or, according to other accounts, by Pope Clement XIII. himself—Sint ut sunt, aut non sint'; 'Let them remain as they are, or let them exist no longer.'" Even had the proposed reform been accepted, "its success was problematical; but its rejection sealed the fate of the Order. Louis, notwithstanding the ungracious response from Rome, proposed his scheme of conciliation to the Parliament in March, 1762, and annulled at the same time all measures adverse to the Jesuits taken since the 1st of August preceding. The Parliament, secretly encouraged by the Duc de Choiseul, refused to register this edict; the king, after some hesitation, withdrew it; and no available resource remained to shield the Order against its impending destiny. The Parliaments, both of Paris and the Provinces, laid the axe to the root without further delay. By an 'arrêt' of the 1st of April, 1762, the Jesuits were expelled from their 84 colleges in the ressort of the Parliament of Paris, and the example was followed by the provincial tribunals of Rouen, Rennes, Metz, Bordeaux, and Aix. The Society was now assailed by a general chorus of invective and execration. … The final blow was struck by the Parliament of Paris on the 6th of August, 1762. … The sentence then passed condemned the Society as 'inadmissible, by its nature, in any civilized State, inasmuch as it was contrary to the law of nature, subversive of authority spiritual and temporal, and introduced, under the veil of religion, not an Order sincerely aspiring to evangelical perfection, but rather a political body, of which the essence consists in perpetual attempts to attain, first, absolute independence, and in the end, supreme authority.' … The decree concludes by declaring the vows of the Jesuits illegal and void, forbidding them to observe the rules of the Order, to wear its dress, or to correspond with its members. They were to quit their houses within one week, and were to renounce, upon oath, all connection with the Society, upon pain of being disqualified for any ecclesiastical charge or public employment. The provincial Parliaments followed the lead of the capital, though in some few instances the decree of suppression was opposed, and carried only by a small majority; while at Besançon and Douai the decision was in favour of the Society. In Lorraine, too, under the peaceful government of Stanislas Leczinski, and in Alsace, where they were powerfully protected by Cardinal de Rohan, Bishop of Strasburg, the Jesuits were left unmolested. … The suppression of the Jesuits—the most important act of the administration of the Duc de Choiseul—was consummated by a royal ordonnance of November, 1764, to which Louis did not give his consent without mistrust and regret. It decreed that the Society should cease to exist throughout his Majesty's dominions; but it permitted the ex-Jesuits to reside in France as private citizens, and to exercise their ecclesiastical functions under the jurisdiction of the diocesans. … Almost immediately afterwards, on the 7th of January, 1765. appeared the bull 'Apostolicum,' by which Clement XIII. condemned, with all the weight of supreme and infallible authority, the measure which had deprived the Holy See of its most valiant defenders. … The only effect of the intervention of the Roman Curia was to excite further ebullitions of hostility against the prostrate Order. Charles III. of Spain, yielding, as it is alleged, to the exhortations of the Duc de Choiseul, abolished it throughout his dominions by a sudden mandate of April 2, 1767. … The Pope precipitated the final catastrophe by a further act of imprudence. The young Duke of Parma, a prince of the house of Bourbon, had excluded the Jesuits from his duchy, and had published certain ecclesiastical regulations detrimental to the ancient pretensions of the Roman See. Clement XIII., reviving an antiquated title in virtue of which Parma was claimed as a dependent fief of the Papacy, was rash enough to launch a bull of excommunication against the Duke, and deprived him of his dominions as a rebellious vassal. All the Bourbon sovereigns promptly combined to resent this insult to their family. The Papal Bull was suppressed at Paris, at Madrid, at Lisbon, at Parma, at Naples. The Jesuits were expelled from Venice, from Modena, from Bavaria. The Pontiff was summoned to revoke his 'monitorium'; and on his refusal French troops took possession of Avignon and the Comtat Venaissin, while the King of Naples seized Benevento and Pontecorvo. On the 16th of January, 1769, the ambassadors of Spain, France, and Naples presented a joint note to the Holy Father, demanding that the Order of Jesus should be secularised and abolished for ever. Clement, who had suffered severely from the manifold humiliations and reverses of his Pontificate, was overwhelmed by this last blow, from the effects of which he never rallied. He expired almost suddenly on the 2nd of February, 1769."

ALSO IN: T. Griesinger, The Jesuits, book 6, chapter 6, and book 7, chapter 1.

   "The attitude of the Roman Catholic Courts was so threatening,
   and their influence with the Conclave so powerful, that
   Lorenzo Ganganelli was selected [1769] for the triple crown,
   as the man best suited for their purposes. Belonging to the
   Franciscans, who had ever been antagonistic to the Jesuits, he
   had been a follower of the Augustinian theology, and was not
   altogether free from Jansenism. The Jesuits even went so far
   as to pray publicly in their churches for the conversion of
   the Pope. The pontificate of Clement XIV. has been rendered
   memorable in history by the Papal decree of July 21, 1773,
   which in its policy adopted the maxim of Lorenzo Ricci, the
   inflexible General of the Jesuits, 'Sint ut sunt, aut non
   sunt'—Let us be as we are, or let us not be! That decree
   declared that, from the very origin of the Order, sorrow,
   jealousies, and dissensions arose, not only among its own
   members but between them and the other religious orders and
   their colleges. After further declaring that, urged as its
   head by a sense of duty to restore the harmony of the Church,
   and feeling convinced that the Society could no longer
   subserve the uses for which it was created, and on other
   grounds of prudence and governmental wisdom, he by his decree
   abolished the Order of Jesuits, its offices, houses, and
   institutes. … The other religious orders at Rome were
   jealous that Jesuits should have been the confessors of
   Sovereigns at Westminster, Madrid, Vienna, Versailles, Lisbon,
   and Naples. The influences of the Dominicans, the
   Benedictines, and the Oratorians were accordingly exercised
   for their suppression. … The Papal Bull 'Dominus Redemptor
   noster' was at first resisted by the Jesuits, and their
   General, Lorenzo Ricci, was sent to the Castle of St. Angelo.
{1894}
   Bernardine Renzi, a female Pythoness, having predicted the
   death of the Pope, two Jesuits, Coltrano and Venissa, who were
   suspected of having instigated her prophecies, were consigned
   to the same prison. All that follows relating to the fate of
   Ganganelli is of mere historic interest; his end is shrouded
   in mystery, which has been as yet, and is likely to continue,
   impenetrable. According to the revelations of Cardinal de
   Bernis, Ganganelli was himself apprehensive of dying by
   poison, and a sinister rumour respecting a cup of chocolate
   with an infusion of 'Aqua de Tofana,' administered by a pious
   attendant, was generally prevalent throughout Europe; but the
   time has long since passed for an inquest over the deathbed of
   Clement XIV."

"All that follows the publication of the brief—the death of Ganganelli, the fierce and yet unexhausted disputes about the last year of his life, and the manner of his death—are to us indescribably melancholy and repulsive. … We have conflicting statements, both of which cannot be true—churchman against churchman—cardinal against cardinal—even, it should seem, pope against pope. On the one side there is a triumph, hardly disguised, in the terrors, in the sufferings, in the madness, which afflicted the later days of Clement; on the other, the profoundest honour, the deepest commiseration, for a wise and holy Pontiff, who, but for the crime of his enemies, might have enjoyed a long reign of peace and respect and inward satisfaction. There a protracted agony of remorse in life and anticipated damnation—that damnation, if not distinctly declared, made dubious or averted only by a special miracle:—here an apotheosis—a claim, at least, to canonization. There the judgment of God pronounced in language which hardly affects regret; here more than insinuations, dark charges of poison against persons not named, but therefore involving in the ignominy of possible guilt a large and powerful party. Throughout the history of the Jesuits it is this which strikes, perplexes, and appals the dispassionate student. The intensity with which they were hated surpasses even the intensity with which they hated. Nor is this depth of mutual animosity among those or towards those to whom the Jesuits were most widely opposed, the Protestants, and the adversaries of all religion; but among Roman Catholics—and those not always Jansenists or even Gallicans—among the most ardent assertors of the papal supremacy, monastics of other orders, parliaments, statesmen, kings, bishops, cardinals. Admiration and detestation of the Jesuits divide, as far as feeling is concerned, the Roman Catholic world, with a schism deeper and more implacable than any which arrays Protestant against Protestant, Episcopacy and Independency, Calvinism and Arminianism, Puseyism and Evangelicism. The two parties counterwork each other, write against each other in terms of equal acrimony, misunderstand each other, misrepresent each other, accuse and recriminate upon each other, with the same reckless zeal, in the same unmeasured language—each inflexibly, exclusively identifying his own cause with that of true religion, and involving its adversaries in one sweeping and remorseless condemnation. To us the question of the death of Clement XIV. is purely of historical interest. It is singular enough that Protestant writers are cited as alone doing impartial justice to the Jesuits and their enemies: the Compurgators of the 'Company of Jesus' are Frederick II. and the Encyclopedists. Outcast from Roman Catholic Europe, they found refuge in Prussia, and in the domains of Catherine II., from whence they disputed the validity and disobeyed the decrees of the Pope."

"The Jesuit Order remained in abeyance for a period of forty-two years, until Pius VII. on his return to Rome, after his liberation from the captivity he endured under Napoleon I. at Fontainebleau, issued his brief of August 7, 1814, 'solicitudo omnium,' by which he authorised the surviving members of the Order again to live according to the rules of their founder, to admit novices, and to found colleges. With singular fatuity the Papal Edict for the restoration of the Jesuits, contradicting its own title, assigns on the face of the document as the principal reason for its being issued the recommendation contained in the gracious despatch of August 11, 1800, received from Paul, the then reigning Emperor of the Russias. We have the histories of all nations concurring that Paul was notoriously mad, and within six months from the date of that gracious despatch he was strangled in his palace by the members of his own Court, as the only possible means, as they conceived, of rescuing the Empire from his insane and vicious despotism. In return probably for the successful intercession of Paul, Thadeus Brzozowski, a Pole by birth but a Russian subject, was elected the first General of the restored order. We find a striking comment on his recommendation in the Imperial Ukase of his successor, the Emperor Alexander, by which, in June 1817, he banished the Jesuits from all his dominions. Spain, the scene of their former ignominious treatment, was, under the degraded rule of the Ferdinandian dynasty, the first country to which they were recalled; but they were soon again expelled by the National Cortes. Our limits here confine us to a simple category of their subsequent expulsions from Roman Catholic States: from France in 1831, from Saxony in the same year, from Portugal again in 1834, from Spain again in 1835, from France again in 1845, from the whole of Switzerland, including the Roman Catholic Cantons, in 1847, and in 1848 from Bavaria and other German States. In the Revolution of 1848, they were expelled from every Italian State, even from the territories of the Pope; but on the counter Revolution they returned, to be again expelled in 1859 from Lombardy, Parma, Modena and the Legations. They have had to endure even a more recent vicissitude, for, in December 1871, a measure relating to the vexed question, the Union of Church and State, received the sanction of the National Council (Bundesrath) of Switzerland, by which the Jesuits were prohibited from settling in the country, from interfering even in education, or from founding or re-establishing colleges throughout the Federal territories. They have thus within a recent period received sentence of banishment from almost every Roman Catholic Government, but they still remain in Rome."

JESUITS: A. D. 1847.
The question of Expulsion in Switzerland.
The Sonderbund and the war of religions.

There have been two principal conjectures as to the origin of the name Hebrews, by which the descendants of Abraham were originally known. One derives the name from a progenitor, Eber; the other finds its origin in a Semitic word signifying "over," or "crossed over." In the latter view, the name was applied by the Canaanites to people who came into their country from beyond the Euphrates. Ewald, who rejects this latter hypothesis, says: "While there is nothing to show that the name emanated from strangers, nothing is more manifest than that the nation called themselves by it and had done so as long as memory could reach; indeed this is the only one of their names that appears to have been current in the earliest times. The history of this name shows that it must have been most frequently used in the ancient times, before that branch of the Hebrews which took the name of Israel became dominant, but that after the time of the Kings it entirely disappeared from ordinary speech, and was only revived in the period immediately before Christ, like many other names of the primeval times, through the prevalence of a learned mode of regarding antiquity, when it came afresh into esteem through the reverence then felt for Abraham."

After the return of the Israelites from the Babylonian captivity—the returned exiles being mostly of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin—"the name of Judah took the predominant place in the national titles. As the primitive name of 'Hebrew' had given way to the historical name of Israel, so that of Israel now gave way to the name of 'Judæan' or 'Jew,' so full of praise and pride, of reproach and scorn. 'It was born,' as their later historian [Josephus] truly observes, 'on the day when they came out from Babylon.'"

A. P. Stanley, Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church, volume 3, page 101.

"Of course, in the abstract, it is possible that such persons as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob should have existed. One can imagine that such and such incidents in the accounts regarding them really took place, and were handed down by tradition. … But our present investigation does not concern the question whether there existed men of those names, but whether the progenitors of Israel and of the neighbouring nations who are represented in Genesis are historical personages. It is this question which we answer in the negative. Must we then deny all historical value to the narratives of the patriarchs? By no means. What we have to do is to make proper use of them. They teach us what the Israelites thought as to their affinities with the tribes around them, and as to the manner of their own settlement in the land of their abode. If we strip them of their genealogical form, and at the same time take into consideration the influence which Israel's self-love must have exercised over the representation of relationships and facts, we have an historical kernel left. … The narratives in Genesis, viewed and used in this way, lead us to the following conception of Israel's early history. Canaan was originally inhabited by a number of tribes—of Semitic origin, as we shall perceive presently—who applied themselves to the rearing of cattle, to agriculture, or to commerce, according to the nature of the districts in which they were established. The countries which were subsequently named after Edom, Ammon, and Moab, also had their aboriginal inhabitants, the Horites, the Zamzummites, and the Emites. Whilst all these tribes retained possession of their dwelling-places, and the inhabitants of Canaan especially had reached a tolerably high stage of civilization and development, there occurred a Semitic migration, which issued from Arrapachitis (Arphacsad, Ur Casdim), and moved on in a south-westerly direction. The countries to the east and the south of Canaan were gradually occupied by these intruders, the former inhabitants being either expelled or subjugated; Ammon, Moab, Ishmael, and Edom became the ruling nations in those districts. In Canaan the situation was different. The tribes which—at first closely connected with the Edomites, but afterwards separated from them—had turned their steps towards Canaan, did not find themselves strong enough either to drive out, or to exact tribute from, the original inhabitants; they continued their wandering life among them, and lived upon the whole at peace with them. But a real settlement was still their aim. When, therefore, they had become more numerous and powerful, through the arrival of a number of kindred settlers from Mesopotamia—represented in tradition by the army with which Jacob returns to Canaan—they resumed their march in the same south-westerly direction, until at length they took possession of fixed habitations in the land of Goshen, on the borders of Egypt."

   "In the oldest extant record respecting Abraham, Genesis xiv.,
   … we see him acting as a powerful domestic prince, among
   many similar princes, who like him held Canaan in possession;
   not calling himself King, like Melchizedek, the priest-king of
   Salem, because he was the father and protector of his house,
   living with his family and bondmen in the open country, yet
   equal in power to the petty Canaanite kings. …
{1896}
   Detached as this account may be, it is at least evident from
   it that the Canaanites were at that time highly civilised,
   since they had a priest-king like Melchizedek, whom Abraham
   held in honour, but that they were even then so weakened by
   endless divisions and by the emasculating influence of that
   culture itself, as either to pay tribute to the warlike
   nations of the northeast (as the five kings of the cities of
   the Dead Sea had done for twelve years before they rebelled,
   ver. 4), or to seek for some valiant descendants of the
   northern lands living in their midst, who in return for
   certain concessions and services promised them protection and
   defence. … This idea furnishes the only tenable historical
   view of the migration of Abraham and his kindred. They did not
   conquer the land, nor at first hold it by mere force of arms,
   like the four north-eastern kings from whose hand Abraham
   delivered Lot, Genesis xiv. They advanced as leaders of small
   bands, with their fencible servants and the herds, at first
   rather sought or even invited by the old inhabitants of the
   land, as good warriors and serviceable allies, than forcing
   themselves upon them. Thus they took up their abode and
   obtained possessions among them, but were always wishing to
   migrate farther, even into Egypt. … Little as we are able to
   prove all the details of that migration from the north towards
   Egypt, which probably continued for centuries, it may with
   great certainty be conceived as on the whole similar to the
   gradual advance of many other northern nations; as of the
   Germans towards Rome, and of the Turks in these same regions
   in the Middle Ages. … We now understand that Abraham's name
   can designate only one of the most important and oldest of the
   Hebrew immigrations. But since Abraham had so early attained a
   name glorious among the Hebrews advancing towards the south,
   and since he was everything especially to the nation of Israel
   which arose out of this immigration, and to their nearest
   kindred, his name came to be the grand centre and
   rallying-point of all the memory of those times."

"It has been very generally supposed that Abraham's visit to Egypt took place under the reign of one of the kings of the twelfth dynasty [placed by Brugsch B. C. 2466-2266], but which king has not yet been satisfactorily made out. … Some Biblical critics have considered that Amenemha III. was king of Egypt when Abraham came there, and others that Usertsen I. was king, and that Amenemha was the Pharaoh of the time of Joseph. … It is generally accepted now that Joseph was sold into Egypt at the time when the Hyksos were in power [and about 1750 B. C.]; and it is also generally accepted that the Exodus took place after the death of Rameses II. and under the reign of Merenptah, or Meneptah. Now the children of Israel were in captivity in Egypt for 400 or 430 years; and as they went out of Egypt after the death of Rameses II., it was probably some time about the year 1350 B. C. There is little doubt that the Pharaoh who persecuted the Israelites so shamefully was Rameses II."

"It is stated by George the Syncellus, a writer whose extensive learning and entire honesty are unquestionable, that the synchronism of Joseph with Apepi, the last king of the only known Hyksos dynasty, was 'acknowledged by all.' The best modern authorities accept this view, if not as clearly established, at any rate as in the highest degree probable, and believe that it was Apepi who made the gifted Hebrew his prime minister, who invited his father and his brethren to settle in Egypt with their households, and assigned to them the land of Goshen for their residence."

"The new Pharaoh, 'who knew not Joseph,' who adorned the city of Ramses, the capital of the Tanitic nome, and the city of Pithom, the capital of what was afterwards the Sethroitic nome, with temple-cities, is no other, can be no other, than Ramessu II. or Rameses—the Sesostris of the Greeks, B. C. 1350, of whose buildings at Zoan the monuments and the papyrus-rolls speak in complete agreement. … Ramessu is the Pharaoh of the oppression, and the father of that unnamed princess, who found the child Moses exposed in the bulrushes on the bank of the river. … If Ramses-Sesostris … must be regarded beyond all doubt as the Pharaoh under whom the Jewish legislator Moses first saw the light, so the chronological relations—having regard to the great age of the two contemporaries, Ramses II. and Moses—demand that Mineptah [his son] should in all probability be acknowledged as the Pharaoh of the Exodus."

   The quotations given above represent the orthodox view of
   early Jewish history, in the light of modern monumental
   studies,—the view, that is, which accepts the Biblical
   account of Abraham and his seed as a literal family record,
   authentically widening into the annals of a nation. The more
   rationalizing views are indicated by the following: "There can
   be no doubt … as to the Semitic character of these Hyksos,
   or 'Pastors,' who, more than 2,000 years B. C., interrupted in
   a measure the current of Egyptian civilisation, and founded at
   Zoan (Tanis), near the Isthmus, the centre of a powerful
   Semitic state. These Hyksos were to all appearances
   Canaanites, near relations of the Hittites of Hebron. Hebron
   was in close community with Zoan, and there is a tradition,
   probably based upon historical data, that the two cities were
   built nearly at the same time. As invariably happens when
   barbarians enter into an ancient and powerful civilisation,
   the Hyksos soon became Egyptianised. … The Hyksos of Zoan
   could not fail to exercise a great influence upon the Hebrews
   who were encamped around Hebron, the Dead Sea, and in the
   southern districts of Palestine. The antipathy which
   afterwards existed between the Hebrews and the Canaanites was
   not as yet very perceptible. … There are the best of reasons
   for believing that the immigration of the Beni-Israel took
   place at two separate times. A first batch of Israelites seems
   to have been attracted by the Hittites of Egypt, while the
   bulk of the tribe was living upon the best of terms with the
   Hittites of Hebron. These first immigrants found favour with
   the Egyptianised Hittites of Memphis and Zoan; they secured
   very good positions, had children, and constituted a distinct
   family in Israel. This was what was afterwards called the
   'clan of the Josephel,' or the Beni-Joseph. Finding themselves
   well off in Lower Egypt, they sent for their brethren, who,
   impelled perhaps by famine, joined them there, and were
   received also favourably by the Hittite dynasties. These
   new-comers never went to Memphis. They remained in the
   vicinity of Zoan, where there is a land of Goshen, which was
   allotted to them. …
{1897}
   The whole of these ancient days, concerning which Israel
   possesses only legends and contradictory traditions, is
   enveloped in doubt; one thing, however, is certain, viz., that
   Israel entered Egypt under a dynasty favourable to the
   Semites, and left it under one which was hostile. The presence
   of a nomad tribe upon the extreme confines of Egypt must have
   been a matter of very small importance for this latter
   country. There is no certain trace of it in the Egyptian
   texts. The kingdom of Zoan, upon the contrary, left a deep
   impression upon the Israelites. Zoan became for them
   synonymous with Egypt. The relations between Zoan and Hebron
   were kept up, and … Hebron was proud of the synchronism,
   which made it out seven years older than Zoan. The
   first-comers, the Josephites, always assumed an air of
   superiority over their brethren, whose position they had been
   instrumental in establishing. … Their children, born in
   Egypt, possibly of Egyptian mothers, were scarcely Israelites.
   An agreement was come to, however; it was agreed that the
   Josephites should rank as Israelites with the rest. They
   formed two distinct tribes, those of Ephraim and Manasseh. …
   It is not impossible that the origin of the name of Joseph
   (addition, adjunction, annexation) may have arisen from the
   circumstance that the first emigrants and their families,
   having become strangers to their brethren, needed some sort of
   adjunction to become again part and parcel of the family of
   Israel."

It is said of the oppressed Israelites in Egypt that "they built for Pharaoh treasure cities, Pithom and Raamses." (Exodus i. 11.) One of those "treasure cities," or "store-cities," has been discovered, in a heap of ruins, at a place which the Arabs call "Tell el Maskhutah," and it was supposed at first to be the Raamses of the Biblical record. But explorations made in 1883 by M. Naville seem to have proved that it is the store-city of Pithom which lies buried in the mounds at Tell el Maskhutah and that Raamses is still to be found. As Raamses or Ramses was the starting point of the Exodus, something of a controversy concerning the route of the latter turns upon the question. It is the opinion of M. Naville that Succoth, where the Children of Israel made their first halt, was the district in which Pithom is situated, and that the Land of Goshen, their dwelling-place in Egypt, was a region embracing that district. The site of Pithom, as identified by Naville, is "on the south side of the sweet water canal which runs from Cairo to Suez through the Wadi Tumilât, about 12 miles from Ismailiah." The excavations made have brought to light a great number of chambers, with massive walls of brick, which are conjectured to have been granaries and storehouses, for the provisioning of caravans and armies to cross the desert to Syria, as well as for the collecting of tribute and for the warehousing of trade. Hence the name of store-city, or treasure-city. Under the Greeks Pithom changed its name to Heroopolis, and a new city called Arsinoë was built near it.

"I submit that Goshen, properly speaking, was the land which afterwards became the Arabian nome, viz., the country round Saft el Henneh east of the canal Abu-I-Munagge, a district comprising Belbeis and Abbaseh, and probably extending further north than the Wadi Tumilat. The capital of the nome was Pa Sopt, called by the Greeks Phacusa, now Saft el Henneh. At the time when the Israelites occupied the land, the term 'Goshen' belonged to a region which as yet had no definite boundaries, and which extended with the increase of the people over the territory they inhabited. The term 'land of Ramses' applies to a larger area, and covers that part of the Delta which lies to the eastward of the Tanitic branch. … As for the city of Ramses, it was situate in the Arabian nome. Probably it was Phacusa."

   The Israelites leaving Succoth, a region which we now know
   well, the neighbourhood of Tell-el-Maskhutah, push forward
   towards the desert, skirting the northern shore of the gulf,
   and thus reach the wilderness of Etham; but there, because of
   the pursuit of Pharaoh, they have to change their course, they
   are told to retrace their steps, so as to put the sea between
   them and the desert. … 'And the Lord spake unto Moses,
   saying: Speak unto the children of Israel that they turn and
   encamp before Pi-hahiroth, between Migdol and the sea, over
   against Baalzephon; before it shall ye encamp by the sea.' …
   The question is now, Where are we to look for Migdol and
   Pi-Hahiroth? As for Migdol, the ancient authors, and
   particularly the Itinerary, mention a Migdol, or Magdolon,
   which was twelve Roman miles distant from Pelusium. It is not
   possible to admit that this is the same Migdol which is spoken
   of in Exodus, for then it would not be the Red Sea, but the
   Mediterranean, which the Israelites would have before them,
   and we should thus have to fall in with MM. Schleiden and
   Brugsch's theory, that they followed the narrow track which
   lies between the Mediterranean and the Serbonian Bog. However
   ingenious are the arguments on which this system is based, I
   believe it must now be dismissed altogether, because we know
   the site of the station of Succoth. Is it possible to admit
   that, from the shore of the Arabian Gulf, the Israelites
   turned to the north, and marched forty miles through the
   desert in order to reach the Mediterranean? The journey would
   have lasted several days; they would have been obliged to pass
   in front of the fortresses of the north; they would have
   fallen into the way of the land of the Philistines, which they
   were told not to take; and, lastly, the Egyptians, issuing
   from Tanis and the northern cities, would have easily
   intercepted them. … All these reasons induce me to give up
   definitively the idea of the passage by the north, and to
   return to the old theory of a passage of the Red Sea, but of
   the Red Sea as it was at that time, extending a great deal
   farther northward, and not the Red Sea of to-day, which
   occupies a very different position. The word Migdol, in
   Egyptian, … is a common name. It means a fort, a tower. It
   is very likely that in a fortified region there have been
   several places so called, distinguished from each other,
   either by the name of the king who built them, or by some
   local circumstance; just as there are in Italy a considerable
   number of Torre. I should therefore, with M. Ebers, place
   Migdol at the present station of the Serapeum. There the sea
   was not wide, and the water probably very shallow; there also
   the phenomenon which took place on such a large scale when the
   Israelites went through must have been well known, as it is
   often seen now in other parts of Egypt.
{1898}
   As at this point the sea was liable to be driven back under
   the influence of the east wind, and to leave a dry way, the
   Pharaohs were obliged to have there a fort, a Migdol, so as to
   guard that part of the sea, and to prevent the Asiatics of the
   desert from using this temporary gate to enter Egypt, to steal
   cattle, and to plunder the fertile land which was round
   Pithom."

      E. Naville,
      The Store-City of Pithom and the Route of the Exodus
      (Egypt Expl. Fund, 1885).

"Modern critics prefer an intelligent interpretation, according to known natural laws, of the words of Exodus xiv. 21, 22, which lay stress upon the 'east wind' as the direct natural agent by which the sea bottom was for the time made dry land. … The theory, which dates from an early period, that the passage was in some sense tidal, miraculously aided by the agency of wind, has thus come to be very generally adopted."

      H. S. Palmer,
      Sinai
      (Ancient History from the Monuments),
      chapter 6.

"The first essay [west of Jordan] was made by Judah in conjunction with Simeon and Levi, but was far from prosperous. Simeon and Levi were annihilated; Judah also, though successful in mastering the mountain land to the west of the Dead Sea, was so only at the cost of severe losses which were not again made up until the accession of the Kenite families of the south (Caleb). As a consequence of the secession of these tribes, a new division of the nation into Israel and Judah took the place of that which had previously subsisted between the families of Leah and Rachel; under Israel were included all the tribes except Simeon, Levi, and Judah, which three are no longer mentioned in Judges v., where all the others are carefully and exhaustively enumerated. This half-abortive first invasion of the west was followed by a second, which was stronger and attended with much better results. It was led by the tribe of Joseph, to which the others attached themselves, Reuben and Gad only remaining behind in the old settlements. The district to the north of Judah, inhabited afterwards by Benjamin, was the first to be attacked. It was not until after several towns of this district had one by one fallen into the hands of the conquerors that the Canaanites set about a united resistance. They were, however, decisively repulsed by Joshua in the neighbourhood of Gibeon [or Beth-horon]; and by this victory the Israelites became masters of the whole central plateau of Palestine. The first camp, at Gilgal, near the ford of Jordan, which had been maintained until then, was now removed, and the ark of Jehovah brought further inland (perhaps by way of Bethel) to Shiloh, where henceforwards the headquarters were fixed, in a position which seemed as if it had been expressly made to favour attacks upon the fertile tract lying beneath it on the north. The Bne Rachel now occupied the new territory which up to that time had been acquired—Benjamin, in immediate contiguity with the frontier of Judah, then Ephraim, stretching to beyond Shiloh, and lastly Manasseh, furthest to the north, as far as to the plain of Jezreel. The centre of gravity, so to speak, already lay in Ephraim, to which belonged Joshua and the ark, It is mentioned as the last achievement of Joshua that at the waters of Merom he defeated Jabin, king of Hazor, and the allied princes of Galilee, thereby opening up the north for Israelitish settlers. … Even after the united resistance of the Canaanites had been broken, each individual community had still enough to do before it could take firm hold of the spot which it had searched out for itself or to which it had been assigned. The business of effecting permanent settlement was just a continuation of the former struggle, only on a diminished scale; every tribe and every family now fought for its own hand after the preliminary work had been accomplished by a united effort. Naturally, therefore, the conquest was at first but an incomplete one. The plain which fringed the coast was hardly touched; so also the valley of Jezreel with its girdle of fortified cities stretching from Acco to Bethshean. All that was subdued in the strict sense of that word was the mountainous land, particularly the southern hill-country of 'Mount Ephraim'; yet even here the Canaanites retained possession of not a few cities, such as Jebus, Shechem, Thebez. It was only after the lapse of centuries that all the lacunæ were filled up, and the Canaanite enclaves made tributary. The Israelites had the extraordinarily disintegrated state of the enemy to thank for the ease with which they had achieved success."

   "Remnants of the Canaanites remained everywhere among and
   between the Israelites. Beside the Benjamites the Jebusites (a
   tribe of the Amorites) maintained themselves, and at Gibeon,
   Kirjath-jearim, Chephirah, and Beeroth were the Hivites, who
   had made peace with the Israelites. In the land of Ephraim,
   the Canaanites held their ground at Geser and Bethel, until
   the latter—it was an important city—was stormed by the
   Ephraimites. Among the tribe of Manasseh the Canaanites were
   settled at Beth Shean, Dan, Taanach, Jibleam, Megiddo and
   their districts, and in the northern tribes the Canaanites
   were still more numerous. It was not till long after the
   immigration of the Hebrews that they were made in part
   tributary. The land of the Israelites beyond the Jordan, where
   the tribe of Manasseh possessed the north, Gad the centre, and
   Reuben the south as far as the Arnon, was exposed to the
   attacks of the Ammonites and Moabites, and the migratory
   tribes of the Syrian desert, and must have had the greater
   attraction for them, as better pastures were to be found in
   the heights of Gilead, and the valleys there were more
   fruitful. To the west only the tribe of Ephraim reached the
   sea, and became master of a harbourless strip of coast. The
   remaining part of the coast and all the harbours remained in
   the hands of the powerful cities of the Philistines and the
   Phenicians. No attempt was made to conquer these, although
   border-conflicts took place between the tribes of Judah, Dan,
   and Asher, and Philistines and Sidonians. Such an attempt
   could only have been made if the Israelites had remained
   united, and even then the powers of the Israelites would
   hardly have sufficed to overthrow the walls of Gaza, Ascalon,
   and Ashdod, of Tyre, Sidon, and Byblus. Yet the invasion of
   the Israelites was not without results for the cities of the
   coast: it forced a large part of the population to assemble in
   them, and we shall see … how rapid and powerful is the
   growth of the strength and importance of Tyre in the time
   immediately following the incursion of the Israelites, i. e.,
   immediately after the middle of the thirteenth century.
{1899}
   As the population and in consequence the power of the cities
   on the coast increased, owing to the collection of the ancient
   population on the shore of the sea, those cities became all
   the more dangerous neighbours for the Israelites. It was a
   misfortune for the new territory which the Israelites had won
   by the sword that it was without the protection of natural
   boundaries on the north and east, that the cities of the
   Philistines and Phenicians barred it towards the sea, and in
   the interior remnants of the Canaanites still maintained their
   place. Yet it was a far more serious danger for the immigrants
   that they were without unity, connection, or guidance, for
   they had already given up these before the conflict was ended.
   Undoubtedly a vigorous leadership in the war of conquest
   against the Canaanites might have established a military
   monarchy which would have provided better for the maintenance
   of the borders and the security of the land than was done in
   its absence. But the isolated defence made by the Canaanites
   permitted the attacking party also to isolate themselves. The
   new masters of the land lived, like the Canaanites before and
   among them, in separate cantons; the mountain land which they
   possessed was much broken up, and without any natural centre,
   and though there were dangerous neighbours, there was no
   single concentrated aggressive power in the neighbourhood, now
   that Egypt remained in her borders. The cities of the
   Philistines formed a federation merely, though a federation
   far more strongly organised than the tribes of the Israelites.
   Under these circumstances political unity was not an
   immediately pressing question among the Israelites."

      M. Duncker,
      History of Antiquity,
      book 2, chapter 11 (volume 1).

JEWS:
   Israel under the Judges.
   The wars of the Period.
   Conquest of Gilead and Bashan.
   Founding of the kingdom.

"The office which gives its name to the period [between the death of Joshua and the rise of Samuel] well describes it. It was occasional, irregular, uncertain, yet gradually tending to fixedness and perpetuity. Its title is itself expressive. The Ruler was not regal, but he was more than the mere head of a tribe, or the mere judge of special cases. We have to seek for the origin of the name, not amongst the Sheykhs of the Arabian desert, but amongst the civilised settlements of Phœnicia. 'Shophet,' 'Shophetim,' the Hebrew word which we translate 'Judge,' is the same as we find in the 'Suffes,' 'Suffetes,' of the Carthaginian rulers at the time of the Punic wars. As afterwards the office of 'king' was taken from the nations round about, so now, if not the office, at least the name of 'judge' or 'shophet' seems to have been drawn from the Canaanitish cities, with which for the first time Israel came into contact. … Finally the two offices which, in the earlier years of this period, had remained distinct—the High Priest and the Judge—were united in the person of Eli."

"The first war mentioned in the days of the Judges is with the Syrians, at a time when the Israelites, or a northern portion of them, were held in servitude for eight years by a king whose name, Cushan-rish-athaim, which may be translated the 'Most Wicked Negress,' seems to place him in the region of imaginary tradition rather than of history. … The next war mentioned was an invasion by the Moabites, who, being joined with a body of Ammonites, and Amalakites, harassed the Israelites of the neighbourhood of Gilgal and Jericho. … After a servitude of 18 years under the Moabites, Ehud, a Benjamite, found an opportunity of stabbing Eglon, the king of Moab; and shortly afterwards the Benjamites were relieved by a body of their neighbours from the hill country of Ephraim. The Israelites then defeated the Moabites, and seized the fords of the Jordan to stop their retreat, and slew them all to a man. While this war was going on on one side of the land, the Philistines from the south were harassing those of the Israelites who were nearest to their country. … The history then carries us back to the northern Israelites, and we hear of their struggle with the Canaanites of that part of the country which was afterwards called Galilee. These people were under a king named Jabin, who had 900 chariots of iron, and they cruelly oppressed the men of Naphtali and Zebulun, who were at that time the most northerly of the Israelites. After a suffering of 20 years, the two tribes of Zebulun and Naphtali, under the leadership of Barak, rallied against their oppressors, and called to their help their stronger neighbours, the men of Ephraim. The tribe of Ephraim was the most settled portion of the Israelites, and they had adopted some form of government, while the other tribes were stragglers scattered over the land, every man doing what was right in his own eyes. The Ephraimites were at that time governed, or, in their own language, judged, by a brave woman of the name of Deborah, who led her followers, together with some of the Benjamites, to the assistance of Barak, the leader of Zebulun and Naphtali; and, at the foot of Mount Tabor, near the brook Kishon, their united forces defeated Sisern, the general of the Canaanites. Sisera fled, and was murdered by Jael, a woman in whose tent he had sought for refuge. … The next war that we are told of is an invasion by the Midianites and Amalakites and Children of the East. They crossed the Jordan to attack the men of Manasseh, who were at the same time struggling with the Amorites, the natives who dwelt amongst them. Gideon, the leader of Manasseh, called together the fighting men of his own tribe, together with those of Asher, Zebulun, and Naphtali. The men of Gilead, who had come over to help him, seem to have deserted him. Gideon, however, routed his enemies, and then he summoned the Ephraimites to guard the fords of the Jordan, and to cut off the fugitives. … This victory of Gideon, or Jerubbaal, as he was also named, marked him out as a man fit to be the ruler of Israel, and to save them from the troubles that arose from the want of a single head to lead them against the enemies that surrounded them and dwelt among them. Accordingly, he obtained the rank of chief of all the northern Israelites. Gideon had dwelt at Ophrah, in the land of Manasseh; but his son Abimelech, who succeeded him in his high post, was born in Shechem, in the land of Ephraim, and had thus gained the friendship of some of that tribe. Abimelech put to death all but one of his brethren, the other sons of Gideon, and got himself made king at Shechem; and he was the first who bore that title among the Israelites. {1900} But his thus violently seizing upon the power was the cause of a long civil war between Ephraim and Manasseh, which ended in the death of the usurper Abimelech, and the transfer of the chieftainship to another tribe. Tola, a man of Issachar, was then made Judge, or ruler of the northern tribes. … After Tola, says the historian, Jair of Gilead judged Israel. … Jair and his successors may have ruled in the east at the same time that Deborah and Gideon and their successors were ruling or struggling against their oppressors in the west. Jephtha of Gilead is the next great captain mentioned. … The Ammonites, who dwelt in the more desert country to the east of Gilead, had made a serious incursion on the Israelites on both sides of the Jordan; and the men of Gilead, in their distress, sent for Jephtha, who was then living at Tob, in Syria, whither he had fled from a quarrel with his brethren. … It seems that the Ammonites invaded Gilead on the plea that they had possessed that land before the Israelites arrived there, to which Jephtha answered that the Israelites had dispossessed the Amorites under Sihon, king of Heshbon, and that the Ammonites had not dwelt in that part of the country. In stating the argument, the historian gives a history of their arrival on the banks of the Jordan. On coming out of Lower Egypt, they crossed the desert to the Red Sea, and then came to Kadesh. From thence they asked leave of the Edomites and Moabites to pass through their territory; but, being refused, they went round Moab till they came to the northern bank of the river Arnon, an eastern tributary of the Jordan. There they were attacked by Sihon, king of the Amorites; and on defeating him they seized his territory, which lay between the Arnon and the Jabbok. There the Israelites had dwelt quietly for 300 years, without fighting against either the Moabites or the Ammonites, who were both too strong to be attacked. This is a most interesting narrative, both for what it tells and for what it omits, as compared with the longer narrative in the Pentateuch. … It omits all mention of the delivery of the Law, or of the Ark, or of any supernatural events as having happened on the march, and of the fighting with Og, king of Bashan. Og, or Gog, as it is spelled by other writers, was the name of the monarch whose imaginary castles, seen upon the mountains in the distance, the traveller thought it not wise to approach. They were at the limits of all geographical knowledge. At this early time this fabulous king held Mount Bashan; in Ezekiel's time he had retreated to the shores of the Caspian Sea; and ten centuries later the Arabic travellers were stopped by him at the foot of the Altai Mountains, in Central Asia. His withdrawing before the advance of geographical explorers proves his unreal character. He is not mentioned in this earlier account of the Israelites settling in the land of the Amorites; it is only in the more modern narrative in the Book of Numbers that he is attacked and defeated in battle, and only in the yet more modern Book of Deuteronomy that we learn about his iron bedstead of nine cubits in length."

"At the close of the period of the Judges the greater part of the Israelites had quite lost their pastoral habits. They were an agricultural people living in cities and villages, and their oldest civil laws I are framed for this kind of life. All the new arts which this complete change of habit implies they must have derived from the Canaanites, and as they learned the ways of agricultural life they could hardly fail to acquire many of the characteristics of their teachers. To make the transformation complete only one thing was lacking —that Israel should also accept the religion of the aborigines. The history and the prophets alike testify that to a great extent they actually did this. Canaanite sanctuaries became Hebrew holy places, and the vileness of Canaanite nature-worship polluted the Hebrew festivals. For a time it seemed that Jehovah, the ancestral God of Israel, who brought their fathers up out of the house of bondage and gave them their goodly land, would be forgotten or transformed into a Canaanite Baal. If this change had been completed Israel would have left no name in the world's history; but Providence had other things in store for the people of Jehovah. Henceforth the real significance of Israel's fortunes lies in the preservation and development of the national faith, and the history of the tribes of Jacob is rightly set forth in the Bible as the history of that divine discipline by which Jehovah maintained a people for Himself amidst the seductions of Canaanite worship and the ever-new backslidings of Israel. … In the end Jehovah was still the God of Israel, and had become the God of Israel's land. Canaan was His heritage, not the heritage of the Baalim, and the Canaanite worship appears henceforth, not as a direct rival to the worship of Jehovah, but as a disturbing element corrupting the national faith, while unable to supplant it altogether. This, of course, in virtue of the close connection between religion and national feeling, means that Israel had now risen above the danger of absorption in the Canaanites, and felt itself to be a nation in the true sense of the word. We learn from the books of Samuel how this great advance was ultimately and permanently secured. The earlier wars recorded in the book of Judges had brought about no complete or lasting unity among the Hebrew tribes. But at length a new enemy arose, more formidable than any whom they had previously encountered. The Philistines from Caphtor, who, like the Israelites, had entered Canaan as emigrants, but coming most probably by sea had displaced the aboriginal Avvim in the rich coastlands beneath the mountains of Judah (Deuteronomy ii. 23; Amos ix. 7), pressed into the heart of the country, and broke the old strength of Ephraim in the battle of Ebenezer. This victory cut the Hebrew settlements in two, and threatened the independence of all the tribes. The common danger drew Israel together."

"No one appeared again in the character at once of judge and warrior, to protect the people by force of arms. It was the Levite Samuel, a prophet dedicated to God even before his birth, who recalled them to the consciousness of religious feeling. He succeeded in removing the emblems of Baal and Astarte from the heights, and in paving the way for renewed faith in Jehovah. … It was the feeling of the people that they could only carry on the war upon the system employed by all their neighbors. {1901} They demanded a king—a request very intelligible under existing circumstances, but one which nevertheless involved a wide and significant departure from the impulses which had hitherto moved the Jewish community and the forms in which it had shaped itself. … The Israelites demanded a king, not only to go before them and fight their battles, but also to judge them. They no longer looked for their preservation to the occasional efforts of the prophetic order and the ephemeral existence of heroic leaders. … The argument by which Samuel, as the narrative records, seeks to deter the people from their purpose, is that the king will encroach upon the freedom of private life which they have hitherto enjoyed, employing their sons and daughters in his service, whether in the palace or in war, exacting tithes, taking the best part of the land for himself, and regarding all as his bondsmen. In this freedom of tribal and family life lay the essence of the Mosaic constitution. But the danger that all may be lost is so pressing that the people insist upon their own will in opposition to the prophet. Nevertheless, without the prophet nothing can be done, and it is he who selects from the youth of the country the man who is to enjoy the new dignity in Israel. … At first the proceeding had but a doubtful result. Many despised a young man sprung from the smallest family of the smallest tribe of Israel, as one who could give them no real assistance. In order to make effective the conception of the kingly office thus assigned to him, it was necessary in the first place that he should gain for himself a personal reputation. A king of the Ammonites, a tribe in affinity to Israel, laid siege to Jabesh in Gilead, and burdened the proffered surrender of the place with the condition that he should put out the right eyes of the inhabitants. … Saul, the son of Kish, a Benjamite, designated by the prophet as king, but not as yet recognized as such, was engaged, as Gideon before him, in his rustic labors, when he learned the situation through the lamentations of the people. … Seized with the idea of his mission, Saul cuts in pieces a yoke of oxen, and sends the portions to the twelve tribes with the threat, 'Whosoever cometh not forth after Saul and after Samuel, so shall it be done unto his oxen.' … Thus urged, … Israel combines like one man; Jabesh is rescued and Saul acknowledged as king. … With the recognition of the king, however, and the progress of his good-fortune, a new and disturbing element appears. A contest breaks out between him and the prophet, in which we recognize not so much opposition as jealousy between the two powers. … On the one side was the independent power of monarchy, which looks to the requirements of the moment, on the other the prophet's tenacious and unreserved adherence to tradition. … The relations between the tribes have also some bearing on the question. Hitherto Ephraim had led the van, and jealously insisted on its prerogative. Saul was of Benjamin, a tribe nearly related to Ephraim by descent. He had made the men of his own tribe captains, and had given them vineyards. On the other hand, the prophet chose Saul's successor from the tribe of Judah. This successor was David, the son of Jesse. … In the opposition which now begins we have on the one side the prophet and his anointed, who aim at maintaining the religious authority in all its aspects, on the other the champion and deliverer of the nation, who, abandoned by the faithful, turns for aid to the powers of darkness and seeks knowledge of the future through witchcraft. Saul is the first tragic personage in the history of the world. David took refuge with the Philistines. Among them he lived as an independent military chieftain, and was joined not only by opponents of the king, but by others, ready for any service, or, in the language of the original, 'men armed with bows, who could use both the right hand and the left in hurling stones and shooting arrows out of a bow.' … In any serious war against the Israelites, such as actually broke out, the Sarim of the Philistines would not have tolerated him amongst them. David preferred to engage in a second attack upon the Amalekites, the common enemy of Philistines and Jews. At this juncture Israel was defeated by the Philistines. The king's sons were slain; Saul, in danger of falling into the enemy's hands, slew himself. Meanwhile David with his freebooters had defeated the Amalekites, and torn from their grasp the spoil they had accumulated, which was now distributed in Judah. Soon after, the death of Saul is announced. … David, conscious of being the rightful successor of Saul—for on him too, long ere this, the unction had been bestowed—betook himself to Hebron, the seat of the ancient Canaanitish kings, which had subsequently been given up to the priests and made one of the cities of refuge. It was in the province of Judah; and there, the tribe of Judah assisting at the ceremony, David was once more anointed. This tribe alone, however, acknowledged him; the others, especially Ephraim and Benjamin, attached themselves to Ishbosheth, the surviving son of Saul. … The first passage of arms between the two hosts took place between twelve of the tribe of Benjamin and twelve of David's men-at-arms. It led, however, to no result; it was a mutual slaughter, so complete as to leave no survivor. But in the more serious struggle which succeeded this the troops of David, trained as they were in warlike undertakings of great daring as well as variety, won the victory over Ishbosheth; and as the unanointed king could not rely upon the complete obedience of his commander-in-chief, who considered himself as important as his master, David, step by step, won the upper hand. … The Benjamites had been the heart and soul of the opposition which David experienced. Nevertheless, the first action which he undertook as acknowledged king of all the tribes redounded specially to their advantage, whilst it was at the same time a task of the utmost importance for the whole Israelitish commonwealth. Although Joshua had conquered the Amorites, one of their strongholds, Jebus, still remained unsubdued, and the Benjamites had exerted all their strength against it in vain. It was to this point that David next directed his victorious arms. Having conquered the place, he transferred the seat of his kingdom thither without delay [see JERUSALEM]. This seat is Jerusalem; the word Zion has the same meaning as Jebus."

L. von Ranke, Universal History: The Oldest Historical Groups of Nations, chapter 2.

"After Saul's death it was at first only in Judah, where David maintained his government, that a new Kingdom of Israel could be established at all, so disastrous were the consequences of the great Philistine victory. The Philistines, who must have already conquered the central territory, now occupied that to the north, also, while the inhabitants of the cities of the great plain of Jezreel and of the western bank of the Jordan, fled, we are very distinctly informed, across the river."

But Abner, the strong warrior and the faithful kinsman of Saul's family, took Ishbosheth, the oldest surviving son of his dead king, and throned him in the city of Mahanaim, beyond the Jordan, proceeding gradually to gather a kingdom for him by reconquest from the Philistines. Thus the Israelite nation was first divided into the two kingdoms of Israel and Judah, and there was bitter war between them. But that first division was not to endure long. Abner and Ishbosheth fell victims to treachery, and the tribes which had held by them offered allegiance to David, who then became king over "all Israel and Judah." By the conquest of the city of Jebus from its Canaanite founders and possessors, he acquired a new, impregnable capital, which, under the name of Jerusalem, grew to be the most reverently looked upon of all the cities of the world. "History has been completely distorted in representing David as the head of a powerful kingdom, which embraced nearly the whole of Syria. David was king of Judah and of Israel, and that was all; the neighboring peoples, Hebrews, Canaanites, Arameans and Philistines, as far as Mahul Hermon and the desert, were sternly subjected, and were more or less its tributaries. In reality, with the exception, perhaps, of the small town of Ziklag, David did not annex any non-Israelite country to the domain of Israel. The Philistines, the Edomites, the Moabites, the Ammonites, and the Arameans of Zoba, of Damascus, of Rehob and of Maacah were, after his day, very much what they were before, only a little weaker. Conquest was not a characteristic of Israel; the taking possession of the Canaanite lands was an act of a different order, and it came to be more and more regarded as the execution of a decree of Iahveh. As this decree did not extend to the lands of Edom, of Moab, of Ammon and of Aram, the Israelites deemed themselves justified in treating the Edomites, the Moabites, the Ammonites and the Arameans with the utmost severity, in carrying off their precious stones and objects of price, but not in taking their land, or in changing their dynasty. None of the methods employed by great empires such as Assyria was known to these small peoples, which had scarcely got beyond the status of tribes. They were as cruel as Assur, but much less politic and less capable of a general plan. The impression produced by the appearance of this new royalty was none the less extraordinary. The halo of glory which enveloped David remained like a star upon the forehead of Israel."

David died about 1000 B. C. and was succeeded by his son Solomon, whose mother, Bathsheba, secured the throne for him by intrigue. "Solomon was a younger son, to whom the throne had been allotted contrary to ordinary laws of succession, whilst Adonijah, whom a portion of the people had recognised as king, was considered the rightful heir. So long as the latter lived. Solomon's government could not be on a firm basis, and he could never feel himself secure. Adonijah had therefore to be removed; the leader of the body guard, Benaiah, forcibly entered his house and killed him. As an excuse for this act of violence, it was asserted that Adonijah had attempted to win the hand of Abishag, the young widow of David, and thus had revealed his traitorous intention of contesting the throne with his brother. No sooner had he fallen than Joab, the former adherent of Adonijah, feared that a similar fate would overtake him. This exemplary general, who had contributed so considerably to the aggrandisement of the people of Israel and to the power of the house of David, fled to the altar on Mount Zion, and clung to it, hoping to escape death. Benaiah, however, refused to respect his place of refuge, and shed his blood at the altar. In order to excuse this crime, it was circulated that David himself, on his death-bed, had impressed on his successor the duty of preventing Joab's grey head from sinking in peace to its last rest. … Adonijah's priestly partisan, Abiathar, whom Solomon did not dare to touch, was deprived of his office as high priest, and Zadok was made the sole head of the priesthood. His descendants were invested with the dignity of high priest for over a thousand years, whilst the offspring of Abiathar were neglected. The Benjamite Shimei, who had attacked David with execrations on his flight from Jerusalem, was also executed, and it was only through this three-fold deed of blood that Solomon's throne appeared to gain stability. Solomon then directed his attention to the formation of a court of the greatest magnificence."

"The main characteristic of Solomon's reign was peace. The Philistines, allies of the new dynasty, and given profitable employment by it as mercenaries, were no longer tempted to cross the frontier. … The decay of military strength was only felt in the zone of countries which were tributary to the kingdom. Hadad, or Hadar, the Edomite, who had been defeated by Joab and had taken refuge in Egypt, having heard of David's death, and that of Joab as well, left Pharaoh, whose sister-in-law he had married. We have no details of this war. … We only know that Hadad braved Israel throughout the whole of Solomon's reign, that he did it all the injury he could, and that he was an independent ruler over a great part at all events of Edom. A still more formidable adversary was Rezon, son of Eliadah, an Aramean warrior who, after the defeat of his lord, Hadadezer, king of Zobah, had assembled about him those who had fled before the sword of David. … A lucky 'coup-de-main' placed the city of Damascus at their mercy, and they succeeded in maintaining themselves there. During the whole of Solomon's reign Rezon continued to make war against Israel. The kingdom of Zobah does not appear, however, to have been re-established. Damascus became henceforth the centre and capital of that part of Aramea which adjoined Mount Hermon. David's horizon never extended beyond Syria. With Solomon, fresh perspectives opened up for the Israelites, especially for Jerusalem. Israel is no longer a group of tribes, continuing to lead in its mountains the patriarchal life of the past. It is a well-organised kingdom, small according to our ideas, but rather large judged by the standard of the day. The worldly life of the people of Iahveh is about to begin. If Israel had no other life but that it would not have found a place in history. … An alliance with Egypt was the first step in that career of profane politics which the prophets afterwards interlarded with so much that was impossible. … {1903} The king of Egypt gave Gezer as a dowry to his daughter, and married her to Solomon. … It is not too much to suppose that the tastes of this princess for refined luxury had a great influence upon the mind of her husband. … The relations of Solomon with Tyre exercised a still more civilising influence. Tyre, recently separated from Sidon, was then at the zenith of its activity, and, so to speak, in the full fire of its first foundation. A dynasty of kings named Hiram, or rather Ahiram, was at the head of this movement. The island was covered with constructions imitated from Egypt. … Hiram is the close ally of the king of Israel; it is he who provides Solomon with the artists who were lacking at Jerusalem; the precious materials for the buildings in Zion; seamen for the fleet of Eziongeber. The region of the upper Jordan, conquered by David, appears to have remained tributary to Solomon. What has been related as to a much larger extension of the kingdom of Solomon is greatly exaggerated. … The fables as to the pretended foundation of Palmyra by Solomon come from a letter intentionally added to the text of the ancient historiographer by the compiler of the Chronicles. The construction of Baalbec by Solomon rests upon a still more inadmissible piece of identification. … In reality, the dominion of Solomon was confined to Palestine. … What was better than peoples kept under by force, the Arab brigands were held in check from pillage. The Amalekites, the Midianites, the Beni-Quedem and other nomads were confronted with an impassable barrier all around Israel. The Philistines preserved their independence. … When it is surmised that Solomon reigned over all Syria, the size of his kingdom is exaggerated at least fourfold. Solomon's kingdom was barely a fourth of what is now called Syria. … Solomon … built 'cities of store,' or warehouses, the commercial or military object of which cannot well be defined. There was, more especially, a place named Tamar, in the direction of Petra, of which Solomon made a city, and which became a calling-place for the caravans. … With very good reason, too, Solomon had his attention constantly fixed upon the Red Sea, a broad canal which placed the dawning civilisation of the Mediterranean in communication with India, and thus opened up a new world, that of Ophir. The Bay of Suez belonged to Egypt, but the Gulf of Akaba was, one may say, at the mercy of anyone who cared to take it. Elath and Asiongaber, according to all appearances, had been of very little importance in earlier times. Without regularly occupying the country, Solomon secured the route by the Valley of Araba. He built a fleet at Asiongaber, though the Israelites had never much liking for the sea. Hiram provided Solomon with sailors, or, what is more probable, the two fleets acted together. On leaving the Straits of Aden, they went to Ophir, that is to say, to Western India, to Guzarate, or to the coast of Malabar."

The government of Solomon was extravagant and despotic; it imposed burdens upon the people which were borne impatiently until his death; and when his son Rehoboam refused to lessen them, the nation was instantly broken again on the lines of the earlier rupture. The two tribes of Judah and Benjamin, only, remained faithful to the house of David and constituted the kingdom of Judah. The other ten tribes made Jeroboam their king and retained the name of Israel for their kingdom. The period of this division is fixed at 978 B. C. Jerusalem continued to be the capital of the kingdom of Judah. In the kingdom of Israel several changes of royal residence occurred during the first half century, until Samaria was founded by King Omri and thenceforth became the capital city. "Six miles from Shechem, in the same well-watered valley, here opening into a wide basin, rises an oblong hill, with steep yet accessible sides, and a long level top. This was the mountain of Samaria, or, as it is called in the original, Shômeron, so named after its owner Shemer, who there lived in state, and who sold it to the King for the great sum of two talents of silver."

Dean Stanley, Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church, lectures 29-30 (volume 2).

For two centuries, until the overthrow of the kingdom, Samaria continued to be the queen of the land, and the seat of government, often giving its name to the whole state, so that the kings were called "Kings of Samaria." "Under the dynasties of Omri and Jehu [10th-8th centuries, B. C.] the Northern Kingdom took the leading part in Israel; even to the Judæan Amos it was Israel 'par excellence.' Judah was not only inferior in political power, but in the share it took in the active movements of national life and thought. In tracing the history of religion and the work of the prophets, we have been almost exclusively occupied with the North; Amos himself, when charged with a message to the whole family that Jehovah brought up out of Egypt, leaves his home to preach in a Northern sanctuary. During this whole period we have a much fuller knowledge of the life of Ephraim than of Judah; the Judæan history consists of meagre extracts from official records, except where it comes into contact with the North, through the alliance of Jehoshaphat with Ahab; through the reaction of Jehu's revolution in the fall of Athaliah, the last scion of the house of Ahab, and the accompanying abolition of Baal worship at Jerusalem, or, finally, through the presumptuous attempt of Amaziah to measure his strength with the powerful monarch of Samaria. While the house of Ephraim was engaged in the great war with Syria, Judah had seldom to deal with enemies more formidable than the Philistines or the Edomites; and the contest with these foes, renewed with varying success generation after generation, resolved itself into a succession of forays and blood-feuds such as have always been common in the lands of the Semites (Amos i.), and never assumed the character of a struggle for national existence. It was the Northern Kingdom that had the task of upholding the standard of Israel; its whole history presents greater interest and more heroic elements; its struggles, its calamities, and its glories were cast in a larger mould. It is a trite proverb that the nation which has no history is happy, and perhaps the course of Judah's existence ran more smoothly than that of its greater neighbor, in spite of the raids of the slave-dealers of the coast, and the lawless hordes of the desert. But no side of national existence is likely to find full development where there is little political activity; if the life of the North was more troubled, it was also larger and more intense. {1904} Ephraim took the lead in literature and religion as well as in politics; it was in Ephraim far more than in Judah that the traditions of past history were cherished, and new problems of religion became practical and called for solution by the word of the prophets. So long as the Northern Kingdom endured Judah was content to learn from it for evil or for good. It would be easy to show in detail that every wave of life and thought in Ephraim was transmitted with diminished intensity to the Southern Kingdom. In many respects the influence of Ephraim upon Judah was similar to that of England upon Scotland before the union of the crowns, but with the important difference that after the accession of Omri the two Hebrew kingdoms were seldom involved in hostilities. … The internal condition of the [Judæan] state was stable, though little progressive; the kings were fairly successful in war, though not sufficiently strong to maintain unbroken authority over Edom, the only vassal state of the old Davidic realm over which they still claimed suzerainty, and their civil administration must have been generally satisfactory according to the not very high standard of the East; for they retained the affections of their people, the justice and mercy of the throne of David are favourably spoken of in the old prophecy against Moab quoted in Isaiah XV., xvi., and Isaiah contrasts the disorders of his own time with the ancient reputation of Jerusalem for fidelity and justice (i. 21). … The religious conduct of the house of David followed the same general lines. Old abuses remained untouched, but the cultus remained much as David and Solomon had left it. Local high places were numerous, and no attempt was made to interfere with them; but the great temple on Mount Zion, which formed part of the complex of royal buildings erected by Solomon, maintained its prestige, and appears to have been a special object of solicitude to the kings, who treated its service as part of their royal state. It is common to imagine that the religious condition of Judah was very much superior to that of the North, but there is absolutely no evidence to support this opinion."

In the year B. C. 745 the throne of Assyria was seized by a soldier of great ability, called Pul, or Pulu, who took the name of Tiglath-pileser III. and who promptly entered on an ambitious career of conquest, with imperial aims and plans. "In B. C. 738 we find him receiving tribute from Menahem of Samaria, Rezon of Damascus, and Hiram of Tyre. … The throne of Israel was occupied at the time by Pekah, a successful general who had murdered his predecessor, but who was evidently a man of vigour and ability. He and Rezon endeavoured to form a confederacy of the Syrian and Palestinian states against their common Assyrian foe. In order to effect their object they considered it necessary to displace the reigning king of Judah, Ahaz, and substitute for him a creature of their own. … They were aided by a party of malcontents in Judah itself (Isaiah viii. 6), and the position of Ahaz seemed desperate. … In this moment of peril Isaiah was instructed to meet and comfort Ahaz. He bade him 'fear not, neither be fainthearted,' for the confederacy against the dynasty of David should be broken and overthrown. … But Ahaz … had no faith either in the prophet or in the message he was commissioned to deliver. He saw safety in one course only—that of invoking the assistance of the Assyrian king, and bribing him by the offer of homage and tribute to march against his enemies. In vain Isaiah denounced so suicidal and unpatriotic a policy. In vain he foretold that when Damascus and Samaria had been crushed, the next victim of the Assyrian king would be Judah itself. The infatuated Ahaz would not listen. He 'sent messengers to Tiglath-pileser king of Assyria, saying, I am thy servant and thy son: come up and save me out of the hand of the king of Syria, and out of the hand of the king of Israel, which rise up against me.'" The king of Assyria responded to the call (B. C. 734). He defeated Rezon in battle, laid siege to Damascus, swept the tribes east of the Jordan into captivity, overran the territory of Israel, captured Samaria and put to death Pekah the king. In place of Pekah he set up a vassal-king Hoshea. Six years later, Tiglath-pileser having died, and the Assyrian throne having been seized by another strong soldier, Shalmaneser IV., Hoshea attempted a revolt, looking to Egypt for help. But before Sabako king of Egypt could move to his assistance, "Hoshea was defeated by the Assyrian king or his satraps, and thrown into chains. The ruling classes of Samaria, however, still held out. An Assyrian army, accordingly, once more devastated the land of Israel, and laid siege to the capital. For three years Samaria remained untaken. Another revolution had meanwhile broken out in Assyria; Shalmaneser had died or been put to death, and a fresh military adventurer had seized the crown, taking the name of Sargon, after a famous monarch of ancient Babylonia. Sargon had hardly established himself upon the throne when Samaria fell (B. C. 722). … He contented himself with transporting only 27,280 of its inhabitants into captivity, only the upper classes, in fact, who were implicated in the revolt of Hoshea. An Assyrian satrap, or governor, was appointed over Samaria, while the bulk of the population was allowed to remain peaceably in their old homes."

"Much light is thrown upon the conditions of the national religion then and upon its subsequent development by the single fact that the exiled Israelites were absorbed by the surrounding heathenism without leaving a trace behind them, while the population of Judah, who had the benefit of a hundred years of respite, held their faith fast throughout the period of the Babylonian exile, and by means of it were able to maintain their own individuality afterwards in all the circumstances that arose. The fact that the fall of Samaria did not hinder but helped the religion of Jehovah is entirely due to the prophets."

"The first generation of the exiles lived to see the fall of their conquerors. … After this it is difficult to discover any distinct trace of the northern tribes. Some returned with their countrymen of the southern kingdom. … The immense Jewish population which made Babylonia a second Palestine was in part derived from them; and the Jewish customs that have been discovered in the Nestorian Christians, with the traditions of the sect itself, may indicate at any rate a mixture of Jewish descent. That they [the 'lost Ten Tribes'] are concealed in some unknown region of the earth, is a fable with no foundation either in history or prophecy."

Dean Stanley, Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church, lecture 34 (volume 2).

JEWS: B. C. 724-604.
The kingdom of Judah to the end of the Egyptian domination.

Three years before Sargon's destruction of Samaria, "Hezekiah had succeeded his father Ahaz upon the throne of Jerusalem. … Judah was tributary to Assyria, and owed to Assyria its deliverance from a great danger. But the deliverer and his designs were extremely dangerous, and made Judah apprehensive of being swallowed up presently, when its turn came. The neighbouring countries,—Phœnicia on the north, Moab, Ammon, and the Arabian nations on the east, Philistia on the west, Egypt and Ethiopia on the south,—shared Judah's apprehensions. There were risings, and they were sternly quelled; Judah, however, remained tranquil. But the scheme of an anti-Assyrian alliance was gradually becoming popular. Egypt was the great pillar of hope. By its size, wealth, resources, pretensions, and fame, Egypt seemed a possible rival to Assyria. Time went on. Sargon was murdered in 705; Sennacherib succeeded him. Then on all sides there was an explosion of revolts against the Assyrian rule. The first years of Sennacherib's reign were spent by him in quelling a formidable rising of Merodach Baladan, king of Babylon. The court and ministers of Hezekiah seized this opportunity for detaching their master from Assyria, for joining in the movement of the insurgent states of Palestine and its borders, and for allying themselves with Egypt. … In the year 701, Sennacherib, victorious in Babylonia, marched upon Palestine."

Sennacherib advanced along the Phœnician coast. "Having captured Ascalon, he next laid siege to Ekron, which, after the Egyptian army sent to its relief had been defeated at Eltekeh, fell into the enemy's hand, and was severely dealt with. Simultaneously various fortresses of Judah were occupied, and the level country was devastated (Isaiah i.). The consequence was that Hezekiah, in a state of panic, offered to the Assyrians his submission, which was accepted on payment of a heavy penalty, he being permitted, however, to retain possession of Jerusalem. He seemed to have got cheaply off from the unequal contest. The way being thus cleared, Sennacherib pressed on southwards, for the Egyptians were collecting their forces against him. The nearer he came to the enemy the more undesirable did he find it that he should leave in his rear so important a fortress as Jerusalem in the hands of a doubtful vassal. Notwithstanding the recently ratified treaty, therefore, he demanded the surrender of the city, believing that a policy of intimidation would be enough to secure it from Hezekiah. But there was another personality in Jerusalem of whom his plans had taken no account. Isaiah had indeed regarded the revolt from Assyria as a rebellion against Jehovah Himself, and therefore as a perfectly hopeless undertaking, which could only result in the utmost humiliation and sternest chastisement for Judah. But much more distinctly than Amos and Hosea before him did he hold firm as an article of faith the conviction that the kingdom would not be utterly annihilated; all his speeches of solemn warning closed with the announcement that a remnant should return and form the kernel of a new commonwealth to be fashioned after Jehovah's own heart. … Over against the vain confidence of the multitude Isaiah had hitherto brought into prominence the darker obverse of his religious belief, but now he confronted their present depression with its bright reverse; faintheartedness was still more alien to his nature than temerity. In the name of Jehovah he bade King Hezekiah be of good courage, and urged that he should by no means surrender. The Assyrians would not be able to take the city, not even to shoot an arrow into it, nor to bring up their siege train against it. 'I know thy sitting, thy going, and thy standing,' is Jehovah's language to the Assyrian, 'and also thy rage against Me. And I will put my ring in thy nose, and my bridle in thy lips, and I will turn thee back by the way by which thou camest.' And thus it proved in the issue. By a still unexplained catastrophe, the main army of Sennacherib was annihilated on the frontier between Egypt and Palestine, and Jerusalem thereby freed from all danger. The Assyrian king had to save himself by a hurried retreat to Nineveh; Isaiah was triumphant. A more magnificent close of a period of influential public life can hardly be imagined."

   "We possess in duplicate, on the Taylor Cylinder, found at
   Nineveh in 1830, and now in the British Museum, and on the
   Bull-inscription of Kouyunjik, Sennacherib's own account of
   the stages of his campaign. Sidon and the cities of Phœnicia
   were the first to be attacked; and, after reducing these, and
   receiving homage from several of the kings of the countries
   bordering on Palestine, who apparently were not this time
   implicated in the plan of revolt, Sennacherib started
   southwards, aiming to recover similarly Ashkelon, Ekron, and
   Jerusalem. In Ashkelon he deprived Zedek of his crown, which
   he bestowed upon Sarludari, the son of a former king,
   doubtless on the ground that he was friendly to Assyrian
   interests: at the same time four subject-cities belonging to
   Zedek, Beth-dagon, Joppa, Bene-Barak, and Azuru were captured
   and plundered. Sennacherib next proceeds to deal with Ekron.
   The people of Ekron, in order to carry through their plan for
   the recovery of independence without hindrance, had deposed
   their king Padi, who remained loyal to Assyria, and sent him
   bound in chains to Hezekiah. Upon news of the approach of the
   Assyrians, they had summoned the Egyptians to their aid; they
   arrive now 'with forces innumerable;' the encounter takes
   place at Altaku (probably not far from Ekron); victory
   declares for the Assyrian; and the Egyptians retire without
   effecting the desired relief. After this Sennacherib soon
   reduces Ekron; he obtains, moreover, the surrender of Padi
   from Jerusalem, and restores him to his throne. Now follows
   the account of the aggressive measures adopted by him against
   Judah and Jerusalem. 'And Hezekiah of Judah, who had not
   submitted to my yoke, forty-six of his strong cities,
   fortresses and smaller towns round about their border without
   number, with laying low of the walls, and with open (?)
   attack, with battle … of feet, … hewing about and
   trampling down (?), I besieged, I took 200,150 people, small
   and great, male and female, horses, mules,' asses, camels,
   oxen, and sheep without number, from the midst of them I
   brought out, and I counted them as spoil.
{1906}
   Himself, as a bird in a cage, in the midst of Jerusalem, his
   royal city, I shut up. Siege-works against him I erected, and
   the exit of the great gate of his city I blocked up. His
   cities which I had plundered, from his domain I cut off; and
   to Mitinti, king of Ashdod, to Padi, king of Ekron, and to
   Zilbel, king of Gaza, I gave them; I diminished his territory.
   To the former payment of their yearly tribute, the tribute of
   subjection to my sovereignty I added; I laid it upon them.
   Himself, Hezekiah, the terror of the splendour of my
   sovereignty overwhelmed: the Arabians and his dependents, whom
   he had introduced, for the defence of Jerusalem, his royal
   city, and to whom he had granted pay, together with 30 talents
   of gold, 800 talents of silver, bullion (?) … precious (?)
   stones of large size, couches of ivory, lofty thrones of
   ivory, elephant-skins, ivory, … wood, … woods of every
   kind, an abundant treasure, and in addition, his daughters,
   the women of his palace, his male and female
   harem(?)-attendants unto Nineveh, my royal city, he caused to
   be brought after me. For the payment of tribute, and the
   rendering of homage: he sent his envoy.' Here the account on
   the Inscription closes, the lines which follow relating to the
   campaign of the subsequent year."

"Between the retreat of Sennacherib's army and the capture of the capital by Nebuchadrezzar there was an interval of little more than a century, yet, meanwhile, upon the basis of the prophetical teaching, the foundations of Judaism were laid. … But though Sennacherib had retreated from Palestine, Judah still remained the vassal of Assyria. The empire of Assyria was scarcely affected by the event which was to change the face of the world, and for more than half-a-century its power was undiminished and supreme. Yet, as regards the internal condition of Judah, the great deliverance was the occasion of a reform which at first may well have made Isaiah's heart beat high. … Influential as he was at the court and with the king, and with reputation enormously enhanced by the fulfilment of his promise of deliverance, he probably urged and prompted Hezekiah to the execution of a religious reform. The meagre verse in the Book of Kings which describes this reform is both inaccurate and misplaced. There is no hint in the authentic writings of Isaiah or Micah that any religious innovations had been attempted before the Assyrian war. It was the startling issue of Sennacherib's invasion which afforded the opportunity and suggested the idea. Moreover, wider changes are attributed to Hezekiah than he can actually have effected. … The residuum of fact contained in the 18th chapter of the Second Book of Kings must be probably limited to the destruction of the Nehushtan, or brazen serpent, that mysterious image in which the contemporaries of Hezekiah, whatever may have been its original signification, doubtless recognized a symbol of Yahveh. Yet indirect evidence would incline us to believe that Hezekiah's reform involved more than the annihilation of a single idol; it is more probably to be regarded as an attempt at a general abolition of images, as well as a suppression of the new Assyrian star-worship and of the 'Moloch' sacrifices which had been introduced into Judah in the reign of Ahaz. Whether this material iconoclasm betokened or generated any wide moral reformation is more than doubtful. … Hezekiah's reign extended for about fourteen years after the deliverance of Jerusalem in 701. To the early part of this, its second division, the religious reformation must be assigned. A successful campaign against the Philistines, alluded to in the Book of Kings, probably fell within the same period. Beyond this, we know nothing, though we would gladly know much, of these fourteen concluding years of an eventful reign. In 686 Hezekiah died, and was succeeded by his son Manasseh, who occupied the throne for forty-five years (686-641). The Book of Kings does not record a single external incident throughout his long reign. It must have been a time of profound peace and of comparative prosperity. Manasseh remained the vassal of Assyria, and the Assyrian inscriptions speak of him as paying tribute to the two kings, Esarhaddon (681-669), Sennacherib's successor, and Asurbanipal (669-626), till whose death the supremacy of Assyria in Palestine was wholly undisputed. Uneventful as Manasseh's reign was in foreign politics, it was all the more important in its internal and religious history. In it, and in the short reign of Amon, who maintained the policy of his father, there set in a period of strong religious reaction, extending over nearly half-a-century (686-638). Manasseh is singled out by the historian for special and repeated reprobation. In the eyes of the exilic redactor, his iniquities were the immediate cause of the destruction of the national life. Not even Josiah's reformation could turn Yahveh 'from the fierceness of his great wrath, wherewith his anger was kindled against Judah, because of all the provocations that Manasseh had provoked him withal.' Jeremiah had said the same. Exile and dispersion are to come 'because of Manasseh, the son of Hezekiah, king of Judah, for that which he did in Jerusalem.' … What were the sins of Manasseh? It has already been indicated that the Assyrians made their influence felt, not only in politics, but also in religion. It was the old Babylonian worship of the luminaries of heaven which was introduced into Judah in the eighth century, and which, after receiving a short check during the reign of Hezekiah, became very widely prevalent under his son. … There are many tokens in the literature of the seventh century that the idolatrous reaction of Manasseh penetrated deep, making many converts. … Manasseh would apparently brook no opposition to the idolatrous proclivities of his court; he met the indignation of Isaiah's disciples and of the prophetical party by open and relentless persecution. … The older historian of the Book of Kings speaks of 'Manasseh shedding innocent blood very much, till he had filled Jerusalem from one end to another.' This innocent blood must have mainly flowed from those who opposed his idolatrous tendencies. … From the accession of Manasseh to the death of Amon (686-638), a period of forty-eight years, this internal conflict continued; and in it, as always, the blood of martyrs was the seed of the Church. In 638, Amon was succeeded by his son Josiah; then only eight years old. {1907} It is possible that his accession brought about some amelioration in the condition of the prophetical party, and that active persecution ceased. But the syncretistic and idolatrous worship was still maintained for another eighteen years, though those years are passed over without any notice in the Book of Kings. They were, however, years of great importance in the history of Asia, for they witnessed the break-up of the Assyrian empire, and the inroads of the Scythians. The collapse of Assyria followed hard upon the death of Asurbanipal in 626: Babylon revolted, the northern and north-western provinces of the empire fell into the hands of the Medes, and the authority of Assyria over the vassal kingdoms of the west was gradually weakened."

C. G. Montefiore, Lectures on the Origin and Growth of Religion, as illustrated by the Religion of the ancient Hebrews, (Hibbert Lectures, 1892), lecture 4.

"The Assyrian empire was much weakened and the king could not think of maintaining his power in the more distant provinces. … In the year 610 B. C., Nineveh was again besieged, this time by the Medes and Babylonians in league together. In the same year Psammetichus, king of Egypt, died and was succeeded by his son Necho. If Psammetichus had already tried to enlarge his kingdom at the expense of Assyria, Necho was not the man to miss the golden opportunity that now presented itself: he proposed to seize Syria and Palestine, the Assyrian provinces that bordered on his own kingdom, and thus to obtain his share of the spoil, even if he did not help to bring down the giant. By the second year after his accession to the throne he was on the march to Syria with a large army. Probably it was transported by sea and landed at Acco, on the Mediterranean, whence it was to proceed overland. But in carrying out this plan he encountered an unexpected obstacle: Josiah went to meet him with an army and attempted to prevent his march to Syria. … Josiah must have firmly believed that Jahveh would fight for his people and defeat the Egyptian ruler. From what Jeremiah tells us of the attitude of the prophets in the reigns of Jehoiakim and Zedekiah, we must infer that many of them strengthened the king in his intention not to endure an encroachment such as that of the Pharaoh. The Chronicler relates that Necho himself endeavored to dissuade Josiah from the unequal contest. But [uselessly]. … The decisive battle was fought in the valley of Megiddo: Judah was defeated; Josiah perished. … After the victory in the valley of Megiddo and the death of Josiah, Necho was master of the kingdom of Judah. Before he arrived there, 'the people of the land' made Jehoahaz, a younger son of Josiah, king, presumably because he was more attached than his elder brother to his father's policy. At all events, Necho hastened to depose him and send him to Egypt. He was superseded by Eliakim, henceforward called Jehoiakim. At first Jehoiakim was a vassal of Egypt, and it does not appear that he made any attempt to escape from this servitude. But it was not long before events occurred elsewhere in Asia that entirely changed his position. Nineveh had fallen; the Medes and the Chaldeans or Babylonians now ruled over the former territory of the Assyrians; Syria and Palestine fell to the share of the Babylonians. Of course, the Egyptians were not inclined to let them have undisputed possession. A battle was fought at Carchemish (Circesium), on the Euphrates, between the armies of Necho and Nebuchadnezzar, who then commanded in the name of his father, Nabopolassar, but very shortly afterwards succeeded him. The Egyptians sustained a crushing defeat (604 B. C). This decided the fate of Western Asia, including Judæa."

   "In the fourth year of Jehoiakim (B. C. 604) the mightiest
   monarch who had wielded the Assyrian power, Nebuchadnezzar,
   was associated in the empire with his father, and assumed the
   command of the armies of Assyria. Babylon now takes the place
   of Nineveh as the capital of the Assyrian empire. …
   Vassalage to the dominion of Egypt or of Babylon is now the
   ignominious doom of the king of Judah. … Nebuchadnezzar,
   having retaken Carchemish (B. C. 601), passed the Euphrates,
   and rapidly overran the whole of Syria and Palestine.
   Jerusalem made little resistance. The king was put in chains
   to be carried as a prisoner to Babylon. On his submission, he
   was reinstated on the throne; but the Temple was plundered of
   many of its treasures, and a number of well-born youths, among
   whom were Daniel, and three others, best known by their
   Persian names, Shadrach, Meshech, and Abednego. From this date
   commence the seventy years of the Captivity. Jehoiakim had
   learned neither wisdom nor moderation from his misfortunes.
   Three years after, he attempted to throw off the yoke of
   Chaldea. … At length this weak and cruel king was slain (B.
   C. 598). … Jehoiachin (Jeconias or Coniah), his son, had
   scarcely mounted the throne, when Nebuchadnezzar himself
   appeared at the gates of Jerusalem. The city surrendered at
   discretion. The king and all the royal family, the remaining
   treasures of the Temple, the strength of the army and the
   nobility, and all the more useful artisans, were carried away
   to Babylon. Over this wreck of a kingdom, Zedekiah
   (Mattaniah), the younger son of Josiah, was permitted to enjoy
   an inglorious and precarious sovereignty of eleven years,
   during which he abused his powers, even worse than his
   imbecile predecessors. In his ninth year, notwithstanding the
   remonstrances of the wise Jeremiah, he endeavoured to assert
   his independence; and Jerusalem, though besieged by
   Nebuchadnezzar in person, now made some resistance. … At
   length, in the city, famine reduced the fatal obstinacy of
   despair. Jerusalem opened its gates to the irresistible
   conqueror. The king, in an attempt to break through the
   besieging forces, or meditating flight towards his ally, the
   king of Ammon, was seized on the plain of Jericho. His
   children were slain before his face, his eyes put out, and
   thus the last king of the royal house of David, blind and
   childless, was led away into a foreign prison. The capture of
   Jerusalem took place on the ninth day of the fourth month: on
   the seventh day of the fifth month (two days on which Hebrew
   devotion still commemorates the desolation of the city by
   solemn fast and humiliation) the relentless Nebuzaradan
   executed the orders of his master by levelling the city, the
   palaces, and the Temple, in one common ruin. The few remaining
   treasures, particularly the two brazen pillars which stood
   before the Temple, were sent to Babylon; the chief priests
   were put to death, the rest carried into captivity. …
{1908}
   The miserable remnant of the people were placed under the
   command of Gedaliah, as a pasha of the great Assyrian monarch;
   the seat of government was fixed at Mizpeh. … Nebuzaradan
   (the general of Nebuchadnezzar) only left, according to the
   strong language of the Second Book of Kings, xxv. 12, 'of the
   poor of the land, to be vine-dressers and husbandmen.' … In
   general it seems that the Jewish exiles [in Babylonia] were
   allowed to dwell together in considerable bodies, not sold as
   household or personal or prædial slaves, at least not those of
   the better order of whom the Captivity chiefly consisted. They
   were colonists rather than captives, and became by degrees
   possessed of considerable property. … They had free
   enjoyment of their religion, such at least as adhered
   faithfully to their belief in Jehovah. We hear of no special
   and general religious persecution. The first deportation of
   chosen beautiful youths, after the earlier defeat of
   Jehoiakim, for hostages, or as a kind of court-pages, was not
   numerous. The second transportation swept away the king, his
   wife, all the officers and attendants of his court, 7,000 of
   the best of the army, 1,000 picked artisans, armourers, and
   others, amounting to 10,023 men. The last was more general: it
   comprehended the mass of the people, according to some
   calculations towards 300,000 or 400,000 souls."

The inhabitants left behind in Judæa "formed but a pitiful remnant of the former kingdom of Judah. Part of them had grown wild and led the lives of freebooters. Others busied themselves with agriculture, but they had much to suffer from the bands of Chaldean soldiers that roved about the land, and from the neighbouring tribes, who took advantage of Israel's abasement to extend their territories. … We do not know with certainty the number of the exiles carried off by Nebuchadnezzar: the returns given in the Old Testament are evidently incomplete. But that their number was very considerable, can be gathered from the number of those who afterwards went back. For their intrinsic worth, even more than for their numerical strength, these exiles had a right to be regarded as the real representatives of the kingdom of Judah and thus of all Israel. … It was … the kernel of the nation that was brought to Babylonia. Our information as to the social condition of the exiles is very defective. Even to the question, where they had to settle, we can only return an imperfect answer. We meet with a colony of exiles, companions of Jeconiah, at Tel-abib, in the neighbourhood of the river Chebar, usually supposed to be the Chaboras, which runs into the Euphrates not far from Circesium, but considered by others to be a smaller river, nearer to Babylon. It lay in the nature of the case, that the second and third company of captives received another destination. Even had it been possible, prudence would have opposed their settling in the immediate vicinity of their predecessors. We are not surprised therefore that Ezekiel, who lived at Tel-abib, does not mention their arrival there. Where they did go we are not told. The historian says 'to Babylon,' to which place, according to him, the first exiles (597 B. C.) were also brought; probably he does not, in either passage, mean only the capital of the Chaldean kingdom, but rather the province of that name to which the city of course belonged. … Nebuchadnezzar's purpose, the prevention of fresh disturbances, having been attained by their removal from Judæa, he could now leave them to develop their resources. It was even for the interest of the districts in which they settled, that their development should not be obstructed. Many unnecessary and troublesome conflicts were avoided and the best provision was made for the maintenance of order, by leaving them free, within certain limits, to regulate their own affairs. So the elders of the families and tribes remained in possession of the authority which they had formerly exercised."

"About the middle of the sixth century before Christ, Cyrus, King of Elam, began the career of conquest which left him master of Western Asia. Greek writers of history have done full justice to the character of this extraordinary man, but what they tell of his origin, his early adventures and rise to power, is for the most part mere fable. … Within recent years a new light has been thrown on one of the dimmest figures of the old world by the discovery of contemporary documents, in which the Conqueror of Babylon himself records his victories and the policy of his reign. … It appears from the Inscriptions that the founder of the Persian Empire was by no means the parvenu prince described by Herodotus. Cyrus was a king's son, and in early youth, by legitimate succession, himself became a king. From Susa (Shushan) on the Choaspes, his capital city, he ruled over the fertile and populous region lying eastward of the Lower Tigris which bore the name of Elam or Susiana. This realm was one of the most ancient in Western Asia. … Nabonidus became king of Babylon in the year 555 B. C. He had raised himself to the throne by conspiracy and murder, and his position at first was insecure. The eastern provinces, Syria and Phœnicia, rose in revolt against the usurper, while the Medes on the north began a harassing warfare and threatened an invasion of Babylonia. This latter danger was averted for the time by an unlooked-for deliverance. In the sixth year of Nabonidus (550 B. C.) Cyrus led his army against Astyages, the Median king. The discontented soldiery of Astyages mutinied on the eve of battle, seized the person of their sovereign, and delivered him up to the enemy. … This bloodless victory added Media to the dominions of Cyrus, gave him Ecbatana as a second capital and place of arms, and more than doubled his military strength. … The real aim of Cyrus was the overthrow of Babylon, and the construction of a new and still wider empire on the ruins of the old. … Within the two years following his conquest of the Medes he had extended his sway over the kindred race of the Persians, from which he himself had sprung. The wild tribes of Iran had long looked greedily on the rich Chaldæan plains and cities, and only waited a leader before swooping down like ravenous birds on their prey. This leader appeared in Cyrus. … Forty years had passed since the destruction of Jerusalem and the deportation of the great mass of the Jewish people to Babylonia (588 B. C.). During this period, under Nebuchadnezzar and his immediate successors on the throne, the exiles had lived in peace, following without interference their own customs, religious and social. … Nothing hindered them from leading a quiet and comfortable life among the Chaldæans, if only they were content to break with their past and give up hope for the future. {1909} But this was impossible for all true Israelites. They could not forget what they had been, or reconcile themselves to be what they now were. They had the means of livelihood in abundance, but to them their drink was as vinegar, their meat as gall. … The home-sickness of the people finds manifold expression in the literature of the Exile. … Now, as at every crisis in the national history, the Prophets stood forth, the true leaders of Israel. They kept the people constantly in mind of their high destinies, and comforted and encouraged them in their darkest hours. … Among the Jewish exiles, enlightened by the prophetic word, the name Koresh passed from lip to lip, and the movements of this new Conqueror were followed with straining eyes. … In the month Nisan (March) of the year 547 B. C., the ninth year of Nabonidus, Cyrus crossed the Tigris at the fords of Arbela, eastward of the modern Mosul, and began his first invasion of Babylonia. … Meanwhile the fainéant king Nabonidus lingered in his palace near Babylon, leaving the defence of the empire to his eldest son, the Prince Royal Belshazzar. Whether worsted in battle or, as is more likely, baffled by the difficulties in the way of an invader—the country seamed with water-courses, the numerous fortified towns, the Median Wall—Cyrus was forced to retreat. … In the seventeenth year of Nabonidus (539 B. C.) the King of Elam once more took the field against Babylon. This time the attack was made from the southeast. An opportune revolt of the southern provinces, probably fomented by Cyrus himself, opened the way for him into the heart of the land. … On all sides the disaffected subjects of Nabonidus went over to the invader, who passed on at the head of his 'vast army, innumerable, like the waters of a river,' without meeting any serious resistance. The last hope of Nabonidus rested on his Army of the North. In the month Tammuz (June) a pitched battle was fought near Routou, a town in Accad, and ended in the defeat of the Babylonians. A revolution followed at once. … Some days later the victorious army, under a lieutenant of the King, appeared before the walls of Babylon. The collapse of all authority made useless defences which were the wonder of the world; friendly hands threw open the brazen gates, and without a struggle the great city fell. … Four months later Cyrus entered Babylon in triumph. … The hitherto accepted opinion that Cyrus was an Aryan monotheist, a worshipper of Ormazd, and therefore so far in religious sympathy with the Jews, is seriously shaken if not overthrown by the Inscriptions which record his Babylonian conquest. Even if allowance be made for the fact that these are state documents, and reveal only what the monarch professed, not necessarily what he believed, there still remains the strong probability that Cyrus was not Zoroastrian in creed, but polytheist like his people of Elam. The Cyrus of the Inscriptions is either a fanatical idolater or simply an opportunist in matters of religion. The latter alternative is the more probable."

"The fall of the metropolis had decided the fortune of the Babylonian kingdom, and the provinces. The most important of these was Syria, with the great trading places of the Phenicians on the Mediterranean. … The hopes of the Jews were at last fulfilled. The fall of Babylon had avenged the fall of Jerusalem, and the subjugation of Syria to the armies of Babylon opened the way for their return. Cyrus did not belie the confidence which the Jews had so eagerly offered him; without hesitation he gave the exiles permission to return and erect again their shrine at Jerusalem. The return of the captives and the foundation of a new state of the Jews was very much to his interest; it might contribute to support his empire in Syria. He did not merely count on the gratitude of the returning exiles, but as any revival of the Babylonian kingdom, or rebellion of the Syrians against the Persian empire, imperilled the existence of this community, which had not only to be established anew, but would never be very strong, it must necessarily oppose any such attempts. Forty-nine years—seven Sabbatical years, instead of the ten announced by Jeremiah—had passed since the destruction of Jerusalem, and more than sixty since Jeremiah had first announced the seventy years of servitude to Babylon. Cyrus commissioned Zerubbabel, the son of Salathiel, a grandson of Jechoniah, the king who had been carried away captive, and therefore a scion of the ancient royal race, and a descendant of David, to be the leader of the returning exiles, to establish them in their abode, and be the head of the community; he bade his treasurer Mithridates give out to him the sacred vessels, which Nebuchadnezzar had carried away as trophies to Babylon, and placed in the temple of Bel; there are said to have been more than 5,000 utensils of gold and silver, baskets, goblets, cups, knives, etc. But all the Jews in Babylon did not avail themselves of the permission. Like the Israelites deported by Sargon into Media and Assyria some 180 years previously, many of the Jews brought to Mesopotamia and Babylonia at the time of Jechoniah and Zedekiah, had found there a new home, which they preferred to the land of their fathers. But the priests (to the number of more than 3,000), many of the families of the heads of the tribes, all who cared for the sanctuary and the old country, all in whom Jehovah 'awoke the spirit,' as the Book of Ezra says, began the march over the Euphrates. With Zerubbabel was Joshua, the high priest, the most distinguished among all the Jews, a grandson of the high priest, Zeraiah, whom Nebuchadnezzar had executed after the capture of Jerusalem. … It was a considerable multitude which left the land 'beyond the stream,' the waters of Babylon, to sit once more under the fig-tree in their ancient home, and build up the city of David and the temple of Jehovah from their ruins; 42,360 freemen, with 7,337 Hebrew men-servants and maid-servants; their goods were carried by 435 camels, 736 horses, 250 mules, and 6,720 asses (537 B. C.). The exodus of the Jews from Babylon is accompanied by a prophet with cries of joy, and announcements filled with the wildest hopes. … 'Go forth from Babylon,' he cries; 'fly from the land of the Chaldæans! Proclaim it with shouts of joy, tell it to the end of the earth and say: "Jehovah hath redeemed his servant Jacob."' {1910} 'How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth glad tidings, that publisheth peace, that saith unto Zion, Thy God reigneth. Up, up, go forth, touch no unclean person; go forth from among them. Cleanse yourselves, ye that bear Jehovah's vessels. Ye shall go forth in joy, and be led in peace; the mountains and the hills shall break forth before you into singing, and all the trees shall clap their hands. Jehovah goes before you, and the God of Israel brings up the rear. … Jehovah calls thee as an outcast sorrowful woman, and thy God speaks to thee as to a bride who has been put away; thy ruins, and deserts, and wasted land, which was destroyed from generation to generation—thy people build up the ruins, and renew the ancient cities. Behold, I will make thy desert like Eden, and thy wilderness like the garden of the Lord; I will lay thy stones with bright lead, and thy foundations with sapphires, and make thy towers of rubies and thy gates of carbuncles. Joy and delight is in them, thanksgiving and the sound of strings. The wealth of the sea shall come to thee, and the treasures of the nations shall be thine; like a stream will I bring salvation upon Israel, and the treasures of the nations like an overflowing river. Thy sons hasten onward; those that laid thee waste go forth from thee. Lift up thine eyes and see; thy sons come from far, and I will gather them to those that are gathered together. The islands and the ships of Tarshish wait to bring thy children from afar, their gold and their silver with them. The land will be too narrow for the inhabitants; widen the place for thy tent, let the carpets of thy habitation be spread—delay not. Draw out the rope; to the right and to the left must thou be widened. I will set up my banner for the nations, that they bring thy sons in their arm, and thy daughters shall be carried on the shoulders. Kings shall be thy guardians, and queens thy nursing-mothers; I will bow them to the earth before thee, and they shall lick the dust of thy feet, and thou shalt know that I am Jehovah, and they who wait patiently for me shall not be put to shame.' Such expectations and hopes were far from being realised. The Edomites had, in the mean-time, extended their borders and obtained possession of the South of Judah, but the land immediately round Jerusalem was free and no doubt almost depopulated. As the returning exiles contented themselves with the settlement at Jerusalem, the towns to the North, Anathoth, Gebah, Michmash, Kirjath-Jearim, and some others—only Bethlehem is mentioned to the South—they found nothing to impede them. Their first care was the restoration of the worship, according to the law and the custom of their fathers. … Then voluntary gifts were collected from all for the rebuilding of the temple; contributions even came in from those who had remained in Babylonia, so that 70,000 pieces of gold and 5,000 mimæ of silver are said to have been amassed. Tyrian masons were hired, and agreements made with Tyrian carpenters, to fell cedars in Lebanon, and bring them to Joppa, for which Cyrus had given his permission. The foundation of the temple was laid in the second year of the return (536 B. C.). … The fortunate beginning of the restoration of the city and temple soon met with difficulties. The people of Samaria, who were a mixture of the remnant of the Israelites and the strangers whom Sargon had brought there after the capture of Samaria, … and Esarhaddon at a later date, … came to meet the exiles in a friendly spirit, and offered them assistance, from which we must conclude that in spite of the foreign admixture the Israelitish blood and the worship of Jehovah were preponderant in Samaria. The new temple would thus have been the common sanctuary of the united people of Israel. But the 'sons of captivity' were too proud of the sorrows which they had undergone, and the fidelity which they had preserved to Jehovah, and their pure descent, to accept this offer. Hence the old quarrel between Israel and Judah broke out anew, and the exiles soon felt the result. After their repulse the Samaritans set themselves to hinder the building by force; 'they terrified the exiles that they built no more, and hired counsellors to make the attempt vain during the whole of the remainder of the reign of Cyrus.'"

The duration of the Captivity, strictly speaking, "was only forty-seven years, if we reckon by the Canon of Ptolemy, from the 19th year of Nabuchodrozzor to the first of Cyrus; or, better, forty-nine years, if we add on, as we probably ought to do, the two years' reign of the Median king whom Cyrus set on the throne of Babylon."

"The decree of Cyrus, at the close of the captivity, extended only to the rebuilding of the Temple. 'Thus saith Cyrus, king of Persia, The Lord God of heaven … hath charged me to build him an house at Jerusalem.' And under this decree Jeshua and Zerubbabel 'builded the altar of the God of Israel. … But the foundation of the Temple of the Lord was not yet laid.' Afterwards they 'laid the foundation of the Temple of the Lord,' including, apparently, the outer wall, for their enemies made a representation to the king of Persia that the Jews were rebuilding the walls of their city: 'The Jews which came up from thee to us are … building the rebellious and the bad city, and have set up the walls thereof, and joined the foundations.' And as the wall of the Temple, which was about twelve feet thick, gave a colour to the charge, a decree was issued by Artaxerxes to prohibit the further prosecution of the work. 'Then ceased the work of the house of God, which is at Jerusalem.' On the accession of Darius to the throne of Persia, Jeshua and Zerubbabel recommenced the restoration of the Temple, including the wall of the Outer Temple, for they 'began to build the house of God,' when their enemies again stepped forward, saying, 'Who hath commanded you to build this house, and to make up this wall?' And on a renewed complaint to the king of Persia, search was made for the decree of Cyrus, and when it was found, Darius permitted the Jews to proceed with the Temple; 'Let the governor of the Jews and the 'elders of the Jews build this house of God in his place;' and thereupon the structure and the outer walls thereof (the square of 600 feet) were completed: 'They builded and finished it … on the third day of the month Adar, which was in the sixth year of the reign of Darius the king.' Thus far the rebuilding extended to the Temple only, and not to the walls of the city. Ezra afterwards obtained a decree to restore the nationality of the Jews, viz., to 'set magistrates and judges, which might judge all the people;' and afterwards Nehemiah, the cupbearer to the king, was enabled in a favourable moment to win from him express permission to rebuild the Baris, or Vestry, afterwards Antonia, and also the city: 'Send me unto Judah, unto the city of my fathers' sepulchres, that I may build it;' and a direction was given to the governors beyond the Euphrates to forward Nehemiah and his company to Jerusalem; and the king's forester was required to supply the necessary timber."

"The Jews returned home sobered and improved by their sufferings in exile, and entirely cured of their early hankering after idolatry. Having no political independence, and living under a governor, they devoted themselves all the more to religion, the only source and support of their nationality, and became zealots for the law, and for a devout carrying out of all its precepts, as far as practicable. All, indeed, could not be again restored, The most holy of the new temple was empty, for it was without the lost and irreplaceable ark of the covenant; the oracular ornaments of the high-priest had disappeared. As Jerusalem was now, far more than formerly, the head and heart of the nation, the high-priesthood … was the authority to which the nation willingly submitted; it served as the representative and pillar of unity, and the sons of David were forgotten. Another of the abiding consequences of their exile was, the altered mode of life which the nation led. At first they had been exclusively devoted to agriculture; but after mixing with strangers they learnt to engage in trade, and this inclination went on always increasing; it contributed essentially to their being spread far beyond the borders of Palestine, and to their multiplying their settlements in foreign lands."

J. J. I. Dollinger, The Gentile and the Jew in the Courts of the Temple of Christ, book 10, section 1 (volume 2).

"There is something very remarkable in the history of this race, for the most part descendants of those families which had refused to listen to the summons of Zorobabel, Ezra, and Nehemiah, and to return to the possession of their native country. … The singular part of their history is this, that, though willing aliens from their native Palestine, they remained Jews in character and religion; they continued to be a separate people, and refused to mingle themselves with the population of the country in which they were domiciliated. While those who returned to the Holy Land were in danger of forming a mixed race, by intermarriages with the neighbouring tribes, which it required all the sternest exercise of authority in their rulers to prevent, the Babylonian Jews were still as distinct a people as the whole race of Israel has been since the final dispersion. … Nor did they, like the Jews of Alexandria, become in any degree independent of the great place of national worship; they were as rigid Jews as if they had grown up within sight of the Temple. … The Temple became what the Caaba of Mecca is to the Mohammedans, the object of the profoundest reverence, and sometimes of a pious pilgrimage; but the land of their fathers had lost its hold on their affections; they had no desire to exchange the level plains of Babylonia for the rich pastures, the golden cornfields, or the rocky vineyards of Galilee and Judæa. This Babylonian settlement was so numerous and flourishing, that Philo more than once intimates the possibility of their marching in such force to the assistance of their brethren in Palestine, in case the Roman oppression was carried to excess, as to make the fate of the war very doubtful. Their chief city Nearda, was strongly situated in a bend of the river Euphrates, which almost surrounded the town." About the middle of the first century (of the Christian era) a band of freebooters, formed by two brothers of this Jewish community, gave great provocation to the Babylonians, and to the Parthian king whose subjects they then were. They were finally, but with much difficulty, destroyed, and the Babylonians then "began to commit dreadful reprisals on the whole Jewish population. The Jews, unable to resist, fled in great numbers to Seleucia; six years after many more took refuge from a pestilence in the same city. Seleucia happened to be divided into two factions: one of the Greeks, the other of the Syrians. The Jews threw themselves into the scale of the Syrians, who thus obtained a superiority, till the Greeks came to terms with the Syrians; and both parties agreed to fall upon the unhappy Jews. As many as 50,000 men were slain. The few who escaped fled to Ctesiphon. Even there the enmity of the Seleucians pursued them; and at length the survivors took refuge in their old quarters, Nearda and Nisibis."

"The interval between the Testaments has been called 'The Centuries of Silence.' The phrase is most untrue; for, as a whole, this time was vocal with the cry of a battle in which empire contended with empire, and philosophy with philosophy: it was an age of earnest and angry contention. But the hundred years succeeding the death of Nehemiah are for us, so far as any record remains of that Judæan history, a century of silence. For some reason which does not appear, the period from the death of this sturdy old captain at Jerusalem to the time of the Greek conquest of Persia has no Jewish history. That it was a period of growth and development with the Judæans—especially in their theological and ecclesiastical life—is evident from the changes which the close of the century shows. The stress of external events made it a time of heavy taxation and distress,—a time of struggle with Samaria, and of internal conflict for the control of the high priest's office."

      T. R Slicer,
      Between the Testaments
      (The New World, March, 1892).

"After the death of Nehemiah and the high priest, Eliashib (413 B. C.), the Persian Court did not appoint governors of Judea. Samaria was the seat of the Persian Satrap for Syria, Phœnicia and Palestine. The sons of David had lost prestige under Nehemiah (Psalm lxxxix.). The ruler acknowledged by the Law, the prophet (Deuteronomy xviii. 15), was no more; the last prophets under Nehemiah, with the exception of Malachi, had proved unworthy of their illustrious predecessors. Therefore, the high priest was now the first man in the theocracy, and, contrary to the Laws of Moses (Leviticus x. 3), he was acknowledged the chief ruler of the nation, although he was no longer the bearer of the Urim and Thumim (Ezra ii. 63). He presided over the Great Synod, was the representative of the people before the king and his satrap, and gradually he established himself in the highest dignity of the nation."

      I. M. Wise,
      History of the Hebrews' Second Commonwealth, 1st period,
      chapter 4.

JEWS: B. C. 332-167.
   The Greek domination.
   Jewish dispersion.
   Hellenism.

On the fall of the Persian monarchy, Judea, with all the rest of western Asia, was gathered into the empire of Alexander the Great (see MACEDONIA: B. C. 334-330, and after), Jerusalem submitting to him without a siege, and so avoiding the fate of Tyre. In the wars between Alexander's generals and successors, which followed his death, Palestine changed masters several times, but does not seem to have been much disturbed. The High Priests continued to be the chiefs of the nation, and neither the religion nor the internal government of the Hebrew state suffered much interference. The final partition made among the new Macedonian kings (B. C. 302), gave Palestine to Ptolemy of Egypt, and it remained subject to Egypt for a century. This period was a happy one, on the whole, for the Jews. The Ptolemies were friendly to them, with one exception, respecting their religion and laws. Large numbers of them settled in Egypt, and especially in the rising new capital and emporium of trade—Alexandria. But in 201 B. C. Antiochus the Great, king of the Syrian or Seleucid monarchy, wrested Cœlosyria and Palestine from the Ptolemies and added it to his own dominions.

Antiochus dealt favorably with the Jews, but his successors proved harder masters than the Egyptian Greeks.

"These kings promoted the settlement of Greeks and Syrians in Palestine, so that it was by degrees all covered with cities and towns of Grecian nomenclature. The narrow territory of Judea alone kept free of them, but was surrounded with settlers whose speech, customs, and creed were Greek. On the other hand, the Jews went on spreading in lands where Greek was spoken. A good many of these were planted in Egypt, in the newly founded capital Antioch, in Lydia and Phrygia. Led on by their love of trade, they soon became numerous in the commercial cities of western Asia, Ephesus, Pergamus, Miletus, Sardis, &c. From Egypt and Alexandria, in which city, at a later period, they formed two-fifths of the inhabitants, they drew along the coast of Africa to Cyrene and the towns of the Pentapolis, and from Asia Anterior to the Macedonian and Greek marts; for the national love of commerce became more and more developed, till it absorbed all other occupations, and to this certainly the general inclination for commercial intercourse, prevalent at that period, greatly contributed. Thus it happened that two movements, identical in their operation, crossed each other, viz., an influx of Greek, or of Asiatic but hellenised, settlers into Palestine, and an outpouring of Jews and Samaritans into the cities speaking the Greek tongue. In olden times, while the Israelites still possessed a national kingdom, they felt their isolation from other people as a burden. It was as an oppressive yoke to them, which they bore impatiently, and were always trying to shake off. They wanted to live like other nations, to eat, drink, and intermarry with them, and, together with their own God, to honour the gods of the stranger also; for many raw and carnally-minded Jews only looked upon the one special God and protector of their nation as one god amongst many. But now there was a complete change in this respect. The Jews everywhere lived and acted upon the fundamental principle, that between them and all other nations there was an insurmountable barrier; they shut themselves off, and formed in every town separate corporations, with officers of their own; while at the same time they kept up a constant connexion with the sanctuary at Jerusalem. They paid a tribute to the temple there, which was carefully collected everywhere, and from time to time conveyed in solemn procession to Jerusalem. There alone, too, could the sacrifices and gifts which were demanded by the law be offered. In this wise they preserved a centre and a metropolis. And yet there followed from all this an event, which in its consequences was one of the most important in history, namely, the hellenising of the Jews who were living out of Judea, and even, in a degree, of those who remained in their own land. They were a people too gifted intellectually to resist the magnetic power by which the Hellenistic tongue and modes of thought and action worked even upon such as were disposed to resist them on principle. The Jews in the commercial towns readily acquired the Greek, and soon forgot their mother tongue; and as the younger generation already in their domestic circle were not taught Greek by natives, as might be supposed, this Jewish Greek grew into a peculiar idiom, the Hellenistic. During the reign of the second Ptolemy, 284-247 B. C., the law of Moses was translated at Alexandria into Greek, probably more to meet the religious wants of the Jews of the dispersion than to gratify the desire of the king. The necessity of a knowledge of Hebrew for the use of the holy Scriptures was thereby done away with, and Greek language and customs became more and more prevalent. Individuals began to join this or that school of philosophy, according to predilection and intellectual bias. The Platonic philosophy had necessarily most attractions for the disciples of Moses. The intrusion of Hellenism into Judea itself met with a much more considerable resistance from the old believing and conservative Jews. Those of the heathen dispersion were obliged to be satisfied with mere prayer, Bible readings and expositions, in their proseuchæ and synagogues, and to do without the solemn worship and sacrifices of the temple; but in Jerusalem the temple-worship was carried out with all its ancient usages and symbols. There presided the Sopherim, the Scribes or skilled expounders of the law, a title first appropriated to Esdras (about 450 B. C.). He was one of the founders of the new arrangements in the restored state, and was a priest, and at the same time a judge appointed by the king of Persia. … From that time forth dependence on the law, pride in its possession as the pledge of divine election, and the careful custody of this wall of partition, sank deep into the character of the nation, and became the source of many advantages as well as of serious faults. … The later Jewish tradition makes much mention of the great synagogue believed to have existed already in the time of Esdras, or to have been founded by him. It is supposed to have mustered 120 members, and, under the presidency of the high-priest, was to be the guardian of the law and doctrine. {1913} One of its last rulers was Simon the Just, who was high-priest, and the most distinguished doctor of his time (that of the first Ptolemys). Afterwards this threefold dignity or function of high-priest, scribe or rabbi, and of Nasi or prince of the synagogue, were never united in one person. … The high-priesthood fell into contempt, the more it served foreign rulers as the venal instrument of their caprice; but the Scribes flourished as being the preservers of all theological and juridical knowledge, and were supported by the respect and confidence of the people. … By the year 170 B. C., Hellenism had undoubtedly made such progress among the Jews, in Palestine even, that the Assyrian king, Antiochus Epiphanes, was able to plan the extirpation of the Jewish religion, and the conversion of the temple at Jerusalem into a temple of Jupiter Olympius."

J. J. I. Döllinger, The Gentile and the Jew in the Courts of the Temple of Christ, book 10, section 1 (volume 2).

Twice, Antiochus Epiphanes crushed rebellion in Jerusalem with awful ferocity. On the last occasion, the slain were believed to number 80,000, while 10,000 captives were led away and sold as slaves. The city was sacked and partly burned; the Temple was plundered and polluted. "Not content with these enormities, Antiochus determined to abolish altogether the Jewish religion, and, if possible, entirely to exterminate the race. With this intention, he issued an edict throughout his dominions, calling upon all the nations who were subject to his authority to renounce their religion and worship his gods, and this order he enforced with the most severe pains and penalties. The Jews were the only people who ventured to disobey the edict, whereupon, Antiochus ordered them to be treated with the utmost rigour, and sent to Jerusalem an old man named Atheneas, who was well versed in the rites of the Greek worship, as commissioner, to enforce obedience to his commands. This old pagan dedicated the Temple to Jupiter Olympus, and placed a statue of that false deity upon the altar of burnt offering. This desecration was not confined to Jerusalem, for everywhere throughout the Syrian empire groves and temples were dedicated, and statues and altars erected, to the heathen deities, and the worship of the true God was everywhere prohibited, and punished as the worst of crimes. That the chief fury of Antiochus's impious rage was directed against the Jews is evident from the fact that, whilst a general edict was published, condemning to death or torture all those who refused to worship the idols, a special decree was promulgated, by which it was made death to offer sacrifices to the God of Israel, observe the Sabbath, practise circumcision, or indeed to conform in the smallest degree to the precepts of the Mosaic law. Every effort was also made to destroy the copies of the Holy Scriptures; and persons refusing to deliver them up were punished by death. In this terrible distress, many of the Jews abandoned their homes and took shelter in the wilderness, where 'they lived in the mountains after the manner of beasts, and fed on herbs continuously lest they should be partakers of the pollution' (Maccabees v.). Of those who remained behind, some few yielded to the temptation, and saved themselves by apostacy, but the majority remained faithful to the God of their forefathers, Who, in His own good time, hearkened to the prayers of His people, and sent them a deliverer."

JEWS: B. C. 166-40.
   Revolt of the Maccabees.
   Reign of the Asmoneans.
   Rise of Herod.

The heroic family called The Maccabees, which began and led the revolt of the Jewish people against the oppression and persecution of the Seleucidæan kings, bore, also, the name of the Asmonean or Hasmonean family, derived from the name of "its chief of four generations back, Chasmon, or Asmon, 'the magnate.'" The head of the family at the time of the outbreak of the revolt, and who precipitated it, was Mattathias. He had five sons, the third of whom, Judas, became the military leader and great hero of the nation in its struggle. To Judas was given the surname or appellation of Makkabi, from whence came his historical name of Judas Maccabæus, and the general name of The Maccabees by which his family at large is commonly designated. The surname "Makkabi" is conjectured to have had the same meaning as that of Charles the "Martel"—viz., the "Hammerer"; but this is questioned. "Under Judas the revolt assumed larger proportions, and in a short time he was able to meet and defeat the Syrians in the open field. The situation which the Romans had created in Syria was favourable to the Jewish cause. In order to find money to pay the tribute imposed by Rome upon his house; Antiochus had to undertake an expedition into the Far East, which depleted Syria of a large number of troops. During the king's absence the government of the country was entrusted to a high functionary named Lysias. Lysias took a serious view of the rebellion in Judæa, and despatched a force under the command of three generals to suppress it. But this army met with alarming reverses at the hands of Judas, and Lysias was obliged to go to Palestine in person to conduct the campaign. Meanwhile Antiochus had been apprised of the disasters which had befallen his captains, and was hastening homewards to assume the supreme direction of affairs, when death put a termination to his career (B. C. 164). The pressure of Roman policy upon Antiochus was the indirect cause of the Jewish revolt, and the immediate cause of the king's inability to suppress it. After the death of Antiochus, the distracted state of Syria and the struggles of rival pretenders for the crown strengthened the position of the Jewish patriots. Antiochus V., son of the late king, was only nine years old when he began to reign (B. C. 164). His father had appointed a courtier named Philip regent during his son's minority. But this arrangement did not satisfy Lysias, who had the young king in his custody, and who was carrying on the campaign in Palestine when the news of his supersession by Philip arrived. Lysias immediately left off the contest with Judas, and devoted his energies to the task of resisting Philip's claims. At this juncture, if any historic value can be attached to a statement in the Second Book of the Maccabees, two Roman envoys, Quintus Memmius and Titus Manlius, who were probably on their way from Alexandria to Antioch, offered to take charge of Jewish interests at the Syrian capital. Peace is said to have been the outcome of their efforts (B. C. 162). But it was a peace which did not endure. {1914} In the following year the Syrian king once more invaded Palestine at the head of a great army, and, in spite of the strenuous opposition of Judas, laid siege to the Holy City. Famine soon reduced the garrison to the last extremities, and their fate would have been a hard one had not the disordered condition of Syria compelled the besiegers to accept honourable terms. Whilst the siege was in progress news came to the Syrian camp that Philip had put himself at the head of a large army, with the intention of enforcing his claims to the regency. No time was to be lost, and the king, acting on the advice of Lysias, accorded the Jews religious liberty. Jerusalem capitulated; and the same order of things was established as had existed previous to the insurrection. Soon after these events Antiochus V. was dethroned and executed by his relative, Demetrius I. In Judæa the new monarch allowed the people to retain the religious liberties granted them by his predecessor, and had he exercised more judgment in the selection of a High Priest it would have been impossible for Judas to renew the struggle against Syria with any prospect of success. The Assidæans, or Pious Ones, who afterwards developed into the party known as the Pharisees, and who, while their religion was at stake, were devoted followers of Judas, were satisfied with the attainment of religious freedom. But Judas and his friends, who formed the party which afterwards became the Sadducees, … were unwilling to relax their efforts till the country was completely independent. The Assidæans, consisting of the scribes and the bulk of the population, accepted Alcimus, the High Priest whom Demetrius had appointed, and were disposed for peace. But the senseless barbarities of Alcimus threw the Assidæans once more into the arms of the war party, and the struggle began afresh. The High Priest was obliged to flee from Jerusalem; Demetrius sent an army to reinstate him, but Judas defeated the Syrian forces, and the Jews enjoyed a short period of repose. … Two Jewish delegates, Eupolemos and Jason, were sent to Italy to form an alliance with Rome. The Senate, which never neglected an opportunity of crippling the Syrian monarchy, accorded a favourable reception to the Jewish envoys, and acknowledged the independence of their country. … While these negotiations were taking place the Syrian army again invaded Palestine. Judas went forth to meet them, and, after a desperate conflict, was defeated and slain [at Beer-Zath] (B. C. 161). The death of their leader shattered the party of freedom, and the Romans, probably because they saw no distinct centre of authority left standing in the country, ignored the treaty they had just made with the Jewish envoys, and left Judæa to its fate. It was not by direct intervention that the Romans helped the Jews forward on the path of independence; it was by the disintegrating action of Roman policy on the kingdom of Syria. The Jewish leaders did not fail to take advantage of the opportunities which were thus afforded them. About nine years after the death of Judas Maccabæus, the Romans started a new pretender to the Syrian crown in the person of Alexander Balas, a young man of unknown origin (B. C. 152). Supported by the allies of Rome, Balas was able to take the field against Demetrius, who became alarmed at the threatening aspect of affairs: Jonathan, a brother of Judas, was then at the head of the Jewish patriots (B. C. 161-142), and Demetrius attempted by concessions to win him over to his side. When the pretender Balas heard of this, he immediately outbade Demetrius, and offered Jonathan the High Priesthood as the price of his support. Jonathan sold himself to the highest bidder, and, notwithstanding further profuse promises from Demetrius, the Jewish leader remained true to his allegiance. The war between the two rivals did not last long; Demetrius was overthrown and slain (B. C. 151), and at the marriage of the new king, Jonathan was appointed civil and military governor of Judæa." The spiritual and the temporal government of the Jews was now united in the office of High Priest. Jonathan, captured and murdered by one of the Syrian pretenders, was succeeded in the office (B. C. 142), by another brother, Simon, who was assassinated, B. C. 135, by an ambitious son-in-law. Simon's son, John Hyrcanus, took his place.

The Asmonean family had now become so established in its princely character that the next of the line, Judas (who took the Greek name Aristobulus), assumed the crown and title of King (B. C. 105). Aristobulus reigned less than two years, and was succeeded by his brother Jonathan (Jannæus) Alexander. "These Jewish princes were as wide apart in character as in name from the house whose honours they inherited. Aristobulus, the bloody, … starved in prison his mother, whom John had left as regent. … Alexander, named Jannæus, in a reign of five and twenty years, was mostly occupied in petty wars,—generally unsuccessful, but indefatigable to begin afresh. He signalized himself in successive revolts of his people, first by the barbarous slaughter of 6,000, then by a civil war of some six years, which cost 10,000 lives, and finally by crucifying 800. … A restless, dissolute, ambitious man, called 'the Thracian' for his barbarities, his rule abhorred except for the comparative mercy he showed in the cities he had conquered, he died [B. C. 79] before the age of fifty, having done the one service of confirming the Jewish power upon the soil of Palestine."

"When … Jannæus Alexander died, the Jewish kingdom stretched towards the south over the whole Philistian territory as far as the Egyptian frontier; towards the south-east as far as the Nabatæan kingdom of Petra, from which Jannæus had wrested considerable tracts on the right bank of the Jordan and the Dead Sea; towards the north over Samaria and the Decapolis up to the lake of Gennesareth; here he was already making arrangements to occupy Ptolemais (Acco) and victoriously to repel the aggressions of the Ityræans. The coast obeyed the Jews from Mount Carmel as far as Rhinocorura, including the important Gaza—Ascalon alone was still free; so that the territory of the Jews, once almost cut off from the sea, could now be enumerated among the asylums of piracy. Now that the Armenian invasion, just as it approached the borders of Judæa, was averted by the intervention of Lucullus, … the gifted rulers of the Hasmonæan house would probably have carried their arms still further, had not the development of the power of that remarkable conquering sacerdotal state been arrested by internal divisions. {1915} The spirit of religious independence and the national patriotism—the energetic union of which had called the Maccabee state into life—very soon became dissociated and even antagonistic. The Jewish orthodoxy [or Pharisaism] gaining fresh strength in the times of the Maccabees, … proposed as its practical aim a community of Jews composed of the orthodox in all lands essentially irrespective of the secular government—a community which found its visible points of union in the tribute to the temple at Jerusalem obligatory on every conscientious Jew and in the schools of religion and spiritual courts, and its canonical superintendence in the great temple consistory at Jerusalem, which was reconstituted in the first period of the Maccabees and may be compared as respects its sphere of jurisdiction to the Roman pontifical college. Against this orthodoxy, which was becoming more and more ossified into theological formalism and a painful ceremonial service, was arrayed the opposition of the so-called Sadducees—partly dogmatic, in so far as these innovators acknowledged only the sacred books themselves and conceded authority merely, not canonicity, to the 'bequests of the scribes,' that is canonical tradition; partly political, in so far as instead of a fatalistic waiting for the strong arm of the Lord of Zebaoth they taught that the salvation of the nation was to be expected from the weapons of this world, and above all from the internal and external strengthening of the kingdom of David as re-established in the glorious times of the Maccabees. The partisans of orthodoxy found their support in the priesthood and the multitude. … Jannæus had kept down the priesthood with a strong hand; under his two sons there arose … a civil and fraternal war, since the Pharisees opposed the vigorous Aristobulus and attempted to obtain their objects under the nominal rule of his brother, the good-natured and indolent Hyrcanus. This dissension not merely put a stop to the Jewish conquests, but gave also foreign nations opportunity to interfere and to obtain a commanding position in southern Syria. This was the case first of all with the Nabatæans. This remarkable nation has often been confounded with its eastern neighbours, the wandering Arabs, but it is more closely related to the Aramæan branch than to the proper children of Ishmael. This Aramæan, or, according to the designation of the Occidentals, Syrian, stock must have in very early times sent forth from its most ancient settlements about Babylon a colony, probably for the sake of trade, to the northern end of the Arabian gulf; these were the Nabatæans on the Sinaitic peninsula, between the gulf of Suez and Aila, and in the region of Petra (Wadi Mousa). In their ports the wares of the Mediterranean were exchanged for those of India; the great southern caravan-route, which ran from Gaza to the mouth of the Euphrates and the Persian gulf, passed through the capital of the Nabatæans—Petra—whose still magnificent rock-palaces and rock-tombs furnish clearer evidence of the Nabatæan civilization than does an almost extinct tradition. The party of the Pharisees, to whom after the manner of priests the victory of their faction seemed not too dearly bought at the price of the independence and integrity of their country, solicited Aretas the king of the Nabatæans for aid against Aristobulus, in return for which they promised to give back to him all the conquests wrested from him by Jannæus. Thereupon Aretas had advanced with, it was said, 50,000 men into Judæa and, reinforced by the adherents of the Pharisees, he kept king Aristobulus besieged in his capital."

"While this was going on, Pompey had meanwhile begun his victorious campaign in Asia [see ROME: B. C. 69-63]. He had conquered Mithridates in B. C. 66, and had in the same year received the voluntary submission of Tigranes. While he himself now pressed on farther into Asia, he sent Scaurus to Syria in B. C. 65. When that general arrived at Damascus he heard of the war between the brothers in Judea, and pushed forward without delay to see how he might turn to account this strife between the rival princes. He had scarcely reached Judea when ambassadors presented themselves before him, both from Aristobulus and from Hyrcanus. They both sought his favour and support. Aristobulus offered him in return four hundred talents; and Hyrcanus could not be behind, and so promised the same sum. But Scaurus trusted Aristobulus rather because he was in a better position to fulfil his engagement, and so decided to take his side. He ordered Aretas to withdraw if he did not wish to be declared an enemy of the Romans. Aretas did not venture to show opposition. He therefore raised the siege, and thereupon Scaurus returned to Damascus. But Aristobulus pursued Aretas on his way homeward, and inflicted upon him a crushing defeat. But the Roman favour which Aristobulus had so exerted himself to secure, under the protection of which he believed himself to be safe, soon proved fatal to his well-being and that of his country. He himself left no stone unturned in order to win the goodwill of Pompey as well as of Scaurus. He sent Pompey a costly present, a skilfully wrought golden vine worth five hundred talents, which Strabo found still on view at Rome in the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus. But all this could not save Aristobulus, whenever Pompey found it to be for his advantage to withdraw his favour and take the side of Hyrcanus. In the spring of B. C. 63, Pompey proceeded from his winter quarters into Syria, subdued the greater and smaller princes in the Lebanon, and advanced by way of Heliopolis and Chalcis upon Damascus. There he was met at one and the same time by representatives of three Jewish parties. Not only did Aristobulus and Hyrcanus appear, but the Jewish people also sent an embassy. Hyrcanus complained that Aristobulus, in defiance of all law, had violently assumed the government; Aristobulus justified his conduct by pointing out the incapacity of Hyrcanus. But the people wished to have nothing to do with either, asked for the abolition of the monarchy and the restoration of the old theocratic constitution of the priests. Pompey heard them, but cautiously deferred any decision, and declared that he would put all things in order when he had accomplished his contemplated expedition against the Nabatheans. Till then all parties were to maintain the peace. Aristobulus, however, was by no means satisfied with this arrangement, and betrayed his discontent by suddenly quitting Dium, whither he had accompanied Pompey on his expedition against the Nabatheans. Pompey grew suspicious, postponed his campaign against the Nabatheans, and marched immediately against Aristobulus. {1916} He … pursued him through Jericho, and soon appeared in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem. But now Aristobulus lost heart. He betook himself to the camp of Pompey, gave him further presents, and promised to surrender to him the city if Pompey would suspend hostilities. Pompey was satisfied with this, and sent his general Gabinius to take possession of the city, while he retained Aristobulus in the camp. But Gabinius returned without having obtained his object, for the people in the city had shut the gates against him. Pompey was so enraged at this that he put Aristobulus in prison, and immediately advanced against the city. … The city was surrendered to Pompey, who sent in his legate Piso, and without drawing sword took possession of it. But the war faction gathered together on the temple mount and there prepared themselves for resistance. The temple mount was then, as afterwards, the strongest point in Jerusalem. It presented to the east and the south a sheer precipice. Also on the west it was separated from the city by a deep ravine. Only on the north was there a gradual slope; but even there approach was made almost impossible by the construction of strong fortifications. In this fortress, well nigh impregnable, the adherents of Aristobulus had now taken refuge, and Pompey, whether he would or not, had to engage upon a regular siege. … After a three months' siege, a breach was made in the wall. A son of the dictator Sulla was the first to make way through it with his troops. Others quickly followed. Then began a frightful massacre. The priests, who were then engaged offering sacrifice, would not desist from the execution of their office, and were hewn down at the altar. No less than 12,000 Jews are said to have lost their lives in this general butchery. It was towards the close of autumn of the year B. C. 63, under Cicero's consulship, according to Josephus on the very day of atonement, according to Dio Cassius on a Sabbath, that this holy city bowed its head before the Roman commander. Pompey himself forced his way into the Most Holy Place, into which only the feet of the high priest had ever before entered. But he left the treasures and precious things of the temple untouched, and also took care that the service of God should be continued without interruption. On the besieged he passed a severe sentence. Those who had promoted the war were beheaded; the city and the country were made tributary. … The boundaries of the Jewish territories were greatly curtailed. All the coast towns from Raphia to Dora were taken from the Jews; and also all non-Jewish towns on the east of the Jordan, such as Hippos, Gadara, Pella, Dium, and others; also Scythopolis and Samaria, with the regions around them. All these towns were immediately put under the rule of the governor of the newly-formed Roman province of Syria. The contracted Jewish territory was given over to Hyrcanus II., who was recognised as high priest, without the title of king. … With the institutions of Pompey the freedom of the Jewish people, after having existed for scarcely eighty years, if we reckon it as beginning in B. C. 142, was completely overthrown. Pompey, indeed, was acute enough to insist upon no essential change in the internal government of the country. He suffered the hierarchical constitution to remain intact, and gave the people as their high priest Hyrcanus II., who was favoured by the Pharisees. But the independence of the nation was at an end, and the Jewish high priest was a vassal of the Romans."

      E. Schürer,
      History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ,
      division 1, volume 1, pages 317-324.

   Hyrcanus II. was not merely the vassal of the Romans; he was
   the puppet of one of his own partisans—the able Idumean,
   Antipater, who gathered the reins of government into his own
   hands. "Antipater ruled without interfering with Hyrcanus; he
   rebuilt the walls of Jerusalem, and appointed Phasael, the
   eldest of his four heroic sons (whose mother was Kypros, an
   Arabian), to be ruler of the district of the holy city, and
   Herod the younger to be ruler of Galilee. This young man, who
   was at that time scarcely twenty-five years old, was soon able
   to surpass even his father. … He purified Galilee from the
   robber-bands, of which Hezekiah was the most dreaded leader,
   and by so doing, although he was already a mark for the hatred
   borne by the national and priestly party against the Edomites,
   as friends of their new tyrants the Romans, he distinguished
   himself by dealing summarily with the robbers, without
   appealing to the legal authorities. He therefore appeared
   before the Sanhedrim of Jerusalem, to which he was summoned by
   Hyrcanus, with a military escort, wearing purple, with his
   head anointed, and bearing a letter of safe-conduct from his
   patron Sextus Cæsar, the ruler of Syria. … Hyrcanus allowed
   him to withdraw in defiance: he hastened to Syria, bought the
   governments of Cœle-Syria and Samaria (B. C. 46), marched
   thence with an army towards Jerusalem, and when he had with
   difficulty been persuaded by his father and brother to return,
   he rejoiced that he had at least menaced the country. Neither
   the death of Julius Cæsar (B. C. March 44), the civil war at
   Rome, nor the poisoning of his father Antipater at the table
   of Hyrcanus in the year 43, interfered with Herod's success:
   He bought the favour of Cæsar's murderers by the unexampled
   haste with which he brought in large contributions, amounting
   to a hundred talents (more than £20,000) from Galilee alone,
   so that Cassius appointed him Procurator of Syria, and
   promised him the dignity of king, in the event of a victory
   over Anthony and Octavianus, a prospect which indeed cost his
   father his life. Nor was Herod's power destroyed by the
   unfortunate battle of Philippi in the autumn of B. C. 42. He
   succeeded in gaining Anthony by the influence of his person
   and of his wealth; and in spite of all the embassies of the
   Jews, Phasael and Herod were appointed tetrarchs of the whole
   of Judea in the year B. C. 41. His betrothal to Mariamne,
   grand-child of Hyrcanus, which took place at the same time,
   added the illusion of national and hereditary right to Herod's
   previous good fortune. But there was first an interval of
   hardship. Immediately afterwards, the Parthian armies overran
   Upper Asia, while Anthony remained in Egypt, ensnared by
   Cleopatra: they took Jerusalem [B. C. 40], and to please that
   place as well as the Jews of Babylon, they installed
   Antigonus, the son of Aristobulus, as king, taking Phasael and
   Hyrcanus prisoners, while Herod escaped with difficulty. All
   was ended with a blow, Herod was put to flight, Phasael killed
   himself, and Antigonus cut off the cars of Hyrcanus the high
   priest. Herod landed in Italy as an adventurer.
{1917}
   He met Anthony, and by his means also gained over Octavianus.
   Fear and hatred of the Parthians effected even more than old
   acquaintance and new engagements: and beyond his most daring
   hopes a decree of the senate [B. C. 40] bestowed the kingdom
   of Judea upon him."

Returning to Judæa with his new rank and the confirmed support of Rome, "Herod slowly obtained possession of the country, not without the help of Roman legions, and in a third campaign, in June (Sivan), B. C. 37, occupied Jerusalem [after a siege of half a year] and the Temple, in the halls of which fire raged, contrary to his wish, and blood streamed through its courts. This was the second Roman occupation of Jerusalem, after an interval of twenty-six years, even to a day. Antigonus fell, by the king's wish, beneath the axe of Anthony, and the Maccabean house had ceased to reign. The new kingdom underwent its final crisis in the war between Octavianus and Anthony, in which Herod was constrained to take part with Anthony. … The frankness with which, after the battle of Actium (September, B. C. 31), he proclaimed his friendship for Anthony to Octavianus at the island of Rhodes, in order to set before him the prospect of a like faithfulness, procured the crown for him afresh, which Octavianus set upon his head." Octavianus "restored to him all the possessions which his intriguing enemy Cleopatra had obtained at his expense in the south of the country and on its western coast, giving to him Gadra, Hippo, Samaria, and on the coast Gaza, Anthedon, Joppa, the tower of Strato, and in short the whole country, and even more than he had lost by Pompey's conquests. A few years later the same benefactor enlarged the kingdom on the north-east, by making over to Herod, between the years B. C. 24-21, the wide extent of territory reaching to Anti-Lebanon, and Damascus, in order to protect that city from attacks on the side of the desert. He was appointed Procurator-General of Syria, and afterwards nearly obtained the government of Arabia. It was in fact almost the kingdom of David which was again united under Herod. Herod enjoyed the favour of Octavianus, with few intervals, to the last. … Herod did not merely owe his success to that officious attention which displayed the greatness of Rome in costly hospitalities, gifts, and edifices of every kind, but to his genuine fidelity and manly heroism, his pre-eminent wisdom and readiness to accept the culture of the West, qualities which were recognized as adapting him to be a most useful ally in the territory which bounded the eastern empire of Rome, where the inhabitants were so ready to take offence. Herod, in a certain sense, emulated his friend in Rome, in introducing an Augustan era into his land. He, as well as Octavianus, put an end to war, and the dominion which had been cemented together by the blood of its citizens enjoyed a long peace, lasting for almost forty years. … The prosperity of the country increased so much in these quiet times that Herod, when he began to build the Temple, boasted of the wealth and income which had accumulated in an unprecedented manner, so as to confirm the most fabulous accounts of the luxurious expenditure of his reign. … Herod was not devoid of nobler qualities, even although they have been forgotten by the Jews and Christians. He was not merely a brave leader in war, a bold hunter and rider, and a sagacious ruler; there was in him a large-heartedness and an innate nobility of mind which enabled him to be a benefactor of his people. This fundamental characteristic of his nature, inherited from his father, is admitted by the Jewish historian, times out of number, and has been shown by his affection for his father, mother, and brothers, and also for his friends, by his beneficence in good fortune, and even in adversity. … When in the thirteenth year of his reign (B. C. 25), some years before the building of the Temple, famine and sickness devastated the land, he sold the gold and silver treasures in his house, and himself became poor, while he bespoke great quantities of grain from Egypt, which he dispensed, and caused to be made into bread: he clothed the poor, and fed 50,000 men at his own expense: he himself sent help to the towns of Syria, and obtained the immediate, and indeed the enduring gratitude of the people as a second Joseph. Yet it was only the large-heartedness of a barbarian, without true culture, or deeper morality. Hence came the unscrupulousness, the want of consideration for the national peculiarities which he opposed, the base cunning and vanity which coloured all his actions, and hence again, especially in later life, he became subject to caprices, to anger and repentance, to mistrust and cruelty, to the wiles of women and of eunuchs. He was, in short, only the petty tyrant, the successful upstart who was self-seeking, and at once rash and timid; a beggar before Augustus; a foolish time-server before the Greek and Roman world; a tyrant in his own house, and incapable either of resisting influence or of enduring contradiction. … The dangerous position of the upstart, with respect to the earlier royal family and to the national aversion, the divisions of his numerous family, the intrigues of a court of women, eunuchs, barbers, and frivolous flatterers of every description, drew him on, as if with demoniacal power, from one stage of cruelty to another. … Daily executions began on his entry into Jerusalem in the year B. C. 37 with the execution of Antigonus, of the nephew of Hyrcanus, and of his own dependants. … He pardoned no one whom he suspected: he enforced obedience by an oath, and whoever would not swear forfeited his life. Innumerable people disappeared mysteriously in the fortress of Hyrcania. Life was forfeited even for the offence of meeting or standing together, when it was noticed by the countless spies in the city and on the highways, and indeed by himself in his rounds by night. The bloody decimation of his own family was most revolting. About the year B. C. 35 he caused his wife's brother Aristobulus, who had been high priest for eighteen years, to be stifled by his Gallic guards in a pond at Jericho, because he was popular, and belonged to the old family: in the year B. C. 31, after the battle of Actium, he murdered his grandfather-in-law Hyrcanus, aged eighty years, and in the year B. C. 30 or 29 his wife Mariamne, and a little later her intriguing mother Alexandra, since they had become objects of suspicion to him: in the year B. C. 25 his brother-in-law, Kostobar, find a long line of friends were slain: about the year B. C. 6, the sons of Mariamne, Alexander and Aristobulus, were judicially condemned and strangled in Samaria: and finally the diabolical Antipater, the son of the first marriage, who, together with Salome, Herod's sister, and with Alexandra, his mother-in-law, had taken the greatest part in the crimes of the family."

Herod died within the year (B. C. 4) which has been most generally agreed upon as that of the birth of Jesus. By ten wives he had had many children, and had slain not a few; but a large family survived, to quarrel over the heritage, disputing a will which Herod left. There was a hearing of the disputants at Rome, and also a hearing given to deputies of the Jewish people, who prayed to be delivered from the Herodian family, all and singly. The latter prayer, however, received small consideration. The imperial judgment established Archelaus, eldest son of Herod's sixth wife, Malthace, in the sovereignty of Judæa, Idumæa, and Samaria, with the title of Ethnarch. To Herod Antipas, second son of the same mother, it gave Galilee and Peræa. Philip, another son, by a seventh wife, was made tetrarch of a small principality. Archelaus governed so oppressively that, after some years (A. D. 6), he was deposed by the Romans and banished to Gaul. Judæa was then joined to the præfecture of Syria, under a succession of Roman governors, the fifth of whom was Pontius Pilate. "Judaea thus became in the year 6 A. D. a Roman province of the second rank, and, apart from the ephemeral restoration of the kingdom of Jerusalem under Claudius in the years 41-44, thenceforth remained a Roman province. Instead of the previous native princes holding office for life and, under reservation of their being confirmed by the Roman government, hereditary, came an official of the equestrian order, nominated and liable to recall by the emperor. The port of Caesarea rebuilt by Herod after a Hellenic model became, probably at once, the seat of Roman administration. The exemption of the land from Roman garrison, as a matter of course, ceased, but, as throughout in provinces of second rank, the Roman military force consisted only of a moderate number of cavalry and infantry divisions of the inferior class; subsequently one ala and five cohorts—about 3,000 men—were stationed there. These troops were perhaps taken over from the earlier government, at least in great part formed in the country itself, mostly, however, from Samaritans and Syrian Greeks. The province did not obtain a legionary garrison, and even in the territories adjoining Judaea there was stationed at the most one of the four Syrian legions. To Jerusalem there came a standing Roman commandant, who took up his abode in the royal castle, with a weak standing garrison; only during the time of the Passover, when the whole land and countless strangers flocked to the temple, a stronger division of Roman soldiers was stationed in a colonnade belonging to the temple. … For the native authorities in Judaea as everywhere the urban communities were, as far as possible, taken as a basis. Samaria, or as the town was now called, Sebaste, the newly laid out Caesarea, and the other urban communities contained in the former kingdom of Archelaus, were self-administering, under superintendence of the Roman authority. The government also of the capital with the large territory belonging to it was organised in a similar way. Already in the pre-Roman period under the Seleucids there was formed … in Jerusalem a council of the elders, the Synhedrion, or as Judaised, the Sanhedrin. The presidency in it was held by the high priest, whom each ruler of the land, if he was not possibly himself high priest, appointed for the time. To the college belonged the former high priests and esteemed experts in the law. This assembly, in which the aristocratic element preponderated, acted as the supreme spiritual representative of the whole body of Jews, and, so far as this was not to be separated from it, also as the secular representative in particular of the community of Jerusalem. It is only the later Rabbinism that has by a pious fiction transformed the Sanhedrion of Jerusalem into a spiritual institute of Mosaic appointment. It corresponded essentially to the council of the Greek urban constitution, but certainly bore, as respected its composition as well as its sphere of working, a more spiritual character than belonged to the Greek representations of the community. To this Synhedrion and its high priest, who was now nominated by the procurator as representative of the imperial suzerain, the Roman government left or committed that jurisdiction which in the Hellenic subject communities belonged to the urban authorities and the common councils. With indifferent short-sightedness it allowed to the transcendental Messianism of the Pharisees free course, and to the by no means transcendental land-consistory—acting until the Messiah should arrive—tolerably free sway in affairs of faith, of manners, and of law, where Roman interests were not directly affected thereby. This applied in particular to the administration of justice. It is true that, as far as Roman burgesses were concerned in the matter, justice in civil as in criminal affairs must have been reserved for the Roman tribunals even already before the annexation of the land. But civil justice over the Jews remained even after that annexation chiefly with the local authority. Criminal justice over them was exercised by the latter probably in general concurrently with the Roman procurator; only sentences of death could not be executed by it otherwise than after confirmation by the imperial magistrate. In the main those arrangements were the inevitable consequences of the abolition of the principality, and when the Jews had obtained this request of theirs, they in fact obtained those arrangements along with it. … The local coining of petty moneys, as formerly practised by the kings, now took place in the name of the Roman ruler; but on account of the Jewish abhorrence of images the head of the emperor was not even placed on the coins. Setting foot within the interior of the temple continued to be forbidden in the case of every non-Jew under penalty of death. … In the very beginning of the reign of Tiberius the Jews, like the Syrians, complained of the pressure of the taxes; especially the prolonged administration of Pontius Pilatus is charged with all the usual official crimes by a not unfair observer. But Tiberius, as the same Jew says, had during the twenty-three years of his reign maintained the time-hallowed holy customs, and in no part set them aside or violated them. This is the more to be recognised, seeing that the same emperor in the West interfered against the Jews more emphatically than any other, and thus the long-suffering and caution shown by him in Judaea cannot be traced back to personal favour for Judaism. In spite of all this both the opposition on principle to the Roman government and the violent efforts at self-help on the part of the faithful developed themselves even in this time of peace."

      T. Mommsen,
      History of Rome: The Provinces, from Caesar to Diocletian,
      book 8, chapter 11.

In the year 41 A. D. the house of Herod rose to power again, in the person of his grandson, Herod Agrippa, descendant of the unfortunate Mariamne. Agrippa had lived long at Rome and won the favor of two successive emperors, Caligula and Claudius. Caligula deposed Herod Antipas from the tetrarchy of Galilee and conferred it on Agrippa. Claudius, in 41, added Judæa and Samaria to his dominions, establishing him in a kingdom even greater than that of his grandfather. He died suddenly in 44 A. D. and Judæa again relapsed to the state of a Roman province. His young son, also named Herod Agrippa, was provided, after a few years, with a small kingdom, that of Chalcis, exchanged later for one made up of other districts in Palestine. After the destruction of Jerusalem he retired to Rome, and the line of Herod ended with him.

"The reigning Christian computation of time, that sovereign authority in accordance with which we reckon our life, and which is surely above the assault of any critical doubts, goes, be it remembered, but a very little way towards the settlement of this question [as to the year of the birth of Jesus] in as much as its inventor, a Scythian by birth, Dionysius the Less, Abbot of a Roman monastery (died 556 A. D.) [see ERA, CHRISTIAN], … had certainly no entire immunity from human frailty. … The comparatively best assured and best supported account places the birth of Jesus in the reign of King Herod the Great. Matthew knows no other chronology: Luke gives the same, along with another, or, if we will, along with two others. Matthew more particularly, in his own account, puts the birth in the last years of that king. Jesus is a little child at the time of the coming of the Magi, and he is still a child at the return of Joseph from the flight into Egypt, after the death of Herod has taken place. We shall hit the sense of the writer most exactly if we assume that Jesus, at the time of the coming of the Magi, who gave King Herod ground for conjecturing a Messiah of about the age of two,—was about two years old; at the time of Herod's death, about four. … Now since Herod died … shortly before Easter of the year 750 A. U. C., i. e., 4 years before the Christian era, Jesus must have been born four years before. 746 A. U. C., or 8 years before the reputed Christian era, a view which is expressly espoused in the fifth Christian century; according to Apocrypha, 3 years before Herod's death, 747 A. U. C., 7 years B. C. If we are able in addition to build upon Kepler's Conjunction of Planets, which Bishop Münter, in his book, 'The Star of the Wise Men,' 1827, called to remembrance, we get with complete certainty 747 or 748, the latter, that is, if we attach any value to the fact that in that year Mars was added to Jupiter and Saturn. Desirable however as such certainty might be, it is nevertheless hard to abandon oneself to it with enthusiastic joy. … An actual reminiscence on the part of the Christian community of the approximate point of time at which the Lord was born, would be hard to call in question, even though it might have overlooked or forgotten every detail of the youth of Jesus besides. Finally, there is after all a trace of such reminiscence independent of all legendary formation. The introductory history of Luke without any appreciable historical connexion, rather in conflict with the world of legend represented in his Gospel, places the birth of John the Baptist and of Jesus in Herod's time. At the same time there is just as little, or even less, sign than elsewhere in Luke's preliminary story, of any dependence on the account in Matthew, or any world of legend like his. We should thus still be inclined to infer that Jesus, according to ancient Christian tradition, was born under King Herod, and more particularly, according to the legend of Matthew, which after all is the better guaranteed of the two, towards the close of his reign. … Luke appears … so far to give the most precise boundary line to the birth of Jesus, inasmuch as he brings it into immediate connexion with the first taxing of Judæa by the Romans, which admits of exact historical computation. The Roman taxing was indeed the occasion of Joseph and Mary's journey to Bethlehem, and of the birth of Jesus in the inn there. This taxing took place, as Luke quite rightly observes, for the first time in Judæa, under the Emperor Augustus, and more precisely, under Quirinius' Governorship of Syria, and moreover, … not only after the death of Herod, but also after his son Archelaos had been reigning about ten years, in consequence of the dethronement of Archelaos and the annexation of Judæa and Samaria by the Romans in the year 760 A. U. C. 7 A. D. But here too at once begins the difficulty. According to this statement Jesus would have been born from ten to fourteen years later than the Gospels otherwise assert, Luke himself included. This late birth would not only clash with the first statement of the Gospels themselves, but equally with all probability, inasmuch as Jesus would then not have been as much as thirty years old at his death, which in any case took place before the recall of the Procurator Pilate (781 A. U. C. 35 A. D.). We are here therefore compelled to acknowledge a simple error of the writer. … Once more … does Luke incidentally compute the time of the birth of Jesus. By describing the time of John the Baptist's appearance and speaking of Jesus at that period as about thirty years old, he favours the assumption, that Jesus was born about thirty years before the fifteenth year of the reign of the Emperor Tiberius. … We shall … see grounds for considering the commencement of the Baptist's ministry, as fixed far too early anywhere near the date 28 A. D. But if after all we assume the figure, as it stands, the fifteenth year of Tiberius, reckoning his reign from the 19th of August, 767, or 14 A. D., was the year 781-782, or 28-29 A. D. In that case Jesus must have been born, reckoning about 30 years backwards, towards the year 751-752, i. e., 2-3 years before our reputed era. … Of the later attempts to restore the year of Jesus' birth, those of antiquity and of modern times claim our attention in different ways. … {1920} Irenæus, followed by Tertullian, Hippolytus, Jerome, gives the forty-first year of the Emperor Augustus, Clement of Alexandria the twenty-eighth year of the same, as the year of birth: much the same in both cases, viz. (751-752), inasmuch as the former reckons from the first consulate of Augustus after the death of Cæsar (731 A. U. C.); Clement from his conquest of Egypt (724). Later authorities since Eusebius, the first Church historian, marked the forty-second year of Augustus, following a notice of their predecessors, that is 752-753, which date however Eusebius would make out to agree with the year of Clement, with the twenty-eighth year from the occupation of Egypt. But how many other years besides were possible! Here Sulpicius Severus (400 A. D.) pushed back beyond the limit set by Irenæus, naming at one time 746-747 as the time of Jesus' birth, at another the consuls of 750, and the later date has also been found … by the Arabic Gospel of the Infancy. Here again the date was shifted lower down than the figure of Eusebius to the forty-third year of Augustus, i. e., 753-754. This date is found already in Tertullian in one reading, though in conflict with the year 41; the Chronograph of the year 354 puts it down with the express mention of the Consuls Cæsar and Paulus at 754 A. U. C., the Egyptian monk Panodorus (400 A. D.) has so reckoned it; and the founder of the Christian reckoning, the Abbot Dionysius (Easter Table 525 A. D.) introduced it for all time. … What is certain is that this year 754 A. U. C. 1 A. D., this official Christian calendar, does not hit the tradition of the Gospels. In modern times, thanks to the efforts of great astronomers and chronologists, Kepler, Ideler, and Münter, the year 747 or 748 has found the greatest favour as the year of the Wise Men's star. But since people have come back from their enthusiasm for the discovery of this conjunction to a more faithful regard for the Gospels, it has always commended itself afresh, to place the birth of Jesus at latest in the first beginning of the year 750 (4 B. C.), i. e., before the death of King Herod, but if possible from two to four years earlier still 746-748, or 8-6 B. C. Thus Ewald inclines half to the year 748, and half to 749: Petavius, Usher, Lichtenstein to 749, Bengal, Anger, Winer, Wieseler to 750, Wurm indeed following Scaliger to 751, finally in latest times Rösch, attaching great weight to the statements of the Fathers, as well as to the Chinese star, actually gets by a multifariously laborious method, at 751-752, in which year, as he decides, even Herod must have been alive in spite of Josephus, and on the strength of an innocuous observation by a Jewish Rabbi. If it was hard enough to arrive at any certainty, or, at all events, probability with respect to the year of Jesus' birth, we must entirely waive all pretensions to tell the month or the day, however justifiable may be our curiosity on this head. Our traditional observance of the Day of Jesus on the 25th of December is not prescribed in any ancient calendar."

JEWS: A. D. 26. Political situation of Judæa at the time of the appearance of Jesus.

"Let us recall, in a few outlines, the political situation of Judæa at the exact moment when Jesus appeared before His countrymen. The shadow of independence, which had been left to it under the vassal kingdom of Herod the Great, had long vanished. Augustus had annexed Judæa to the Roman empire, not by making it one of those senatorial provinces governed by proconsuls, but as a direct dependant on his authority. He associated it with the government of Syria, the capital of which was Antioch, the residence of the imperial legate. In consequence, however, of its importance, and the difficulties presented by the complete subjection of such a people, the procurator of Judæa enjoyed a certain latitude in his administration; he at the same time managed the affairs of Samaria, but as a second department, distinct from the first. Faithful to the wise policy which it had pursued with so much success for centuries, Rome interfered as little as possible with the usages and institutions of the conquered province. The Sanhedrim was, therefore, allowed to continue side by side with the procurator, but its power was necessarily very limited. Its jurisdiction was confined to matters of religion and small civil causes: the procurator alone had the right of decreeing capital punishment. The high-priestly office had lost much of its importance. The Asmoneans and Herods had reduced it to a subordinate magistracy, of which they made a tool for their own purposes. Herod the Great had constituted himself guardian of the sacerdotal vestments, under pretext that he had had them restored to their first magnificence, on the Levitical model; he bestowed them only on the men of his choice. The Romans hastened to follow his example, and thus to keep in their hands an office which might become perilous to them. The procurator of Judæa resided at Cæsarea. He only came to Jerusalem for the solemn feasts, or in exceptional cases, to administer justice. His prætorium stood near the citadel of Antonia. The Roman garrison in the whole of Palestine did not exceed one legion. The levying of imposts on movable property, and on individuals, led to perpetual difficulties; no such objection was raised to the tribute of two drachms for the temple, which was levied by the Sanhedrim. The tax-gatherers in the service of the Romans were regarded as the representatives of a detested rule; thus the publicans—for the most part Jews by birth—were the objects of universal contempt. The first rebellion of any importance took place on the occasion of the census under Cyrenius. At the period at which we have arrived, Judæa was governed by Pilate, the third procurator since the annexation to the empire; he had found in the high-priestly office John, surnamed Caiaphas, son-in-law of Annas, the son of Seth, who had for a long time filled the same office under Valerius Gratus. Pilate had an ally rather than a rival in the Sadducee Caiaphas, who acted on no higher principle than the interest of his order, and the maintenance of his power. Pontius Pilate was wanting in the political tact which knows how to soften in form the severities of a foreign rule; he was a man of vulgar ambition, or rather, one of those men without patriotism, who think only of using their authority for their own advantage. He took no heed of the peculiar dispositions and aversions of the people whom he was to govern. Thus he sent to Jerusalem a Roman garrison with standards; the Jews regarded this as a horrible profanation, for the eagles were worshipped as gods. {1921} Assailed in his prætorium at Cæsarea by a suppliant crowd, which no violence could disperse, the procurator was compelled to yield to prayers, which might soon be changed into desperate resistance. From that moment his influence was gone in Judæa; he compromised it still further when he caused shields of gold, bearing his name engraved beside that of the emperor Tiberias, to be suspended from the outer walls of the citadel of Antonia. This flattery to the sovereign, which might have been unaccompanied with peril elsewhere, was received at Jerusalem as a gratuitous provocation, and he was obliged to recall a measure, persistence in which would have led to a terrible tumult. Having thus made himself an object of general aversion, he could not even do good without danger: his plan to build an aqueduct, a thing peculiarly needed on the burning soil of Judæa, created opposition so violent, that it could only be put down by force. Under such a governor, the national passions were in a perpetual state of agitation. This increase of patriotic fanaticism created great obstacles to a purely spiritual work like that of Jesus. Gaulonitis, Peræa, and Galilee still belonged, at this time, to the family of Herod. The tetrarch Philip governed the north-west of the country for thirty-seven years, and was distinguished for his moderation. … Galilee and Peræa were the portion of Herod Antipas, the murderer of John the Baptist. His divorce from the daughter of Aretas, after his marriage with Herodias, his brother's wife, had brought war upon the wide provinces which he governed. He was about soon to undergo a humiliating defeat. Like his brother, he was childless. Under the influence of such a prince, surrounded by a licentious court, evil propensities had free play, and the corruption of manners was a bad preparation for a religion of purity and self-denial. In the lowness of the times, the Herods, though of the family of the vile despots who had sold the independence of the Jews, were regarded as in some measure a national dynasty. They had a party which bore their name, and which, in religious matters, combined, after the example of Herod the Great, Pharisaism and Sadduceeism. Such were the political circumstances in the midst of which Jesus was placed."

The oppression of the Jewish nation under the Roman governors who ruled Judæa directly, after the death of the first Herod Agrippa (A. D. 44), may not have been heavier in reality than it had been while the dependent and Romanized tyranny of the Herodian kings prevailed, but it proved to be more irritating and exasperating. "The burden, harshly shifted, was felt to be more galling. The priests and nobles murmured, intrigued, conspired; the rabble, bolder or more impatient, broke out into sedition, and followed every chief who offered to lead them to victory and independence. … It was only indeed under extraordinary provocation that the populace of the Jewish capital, who were generally controlled by the superior prudence of their chiefs, broke into violence in the streets. … But the ruder independence of the Galileans was not so easily kept in check. Their tract of heath and mountain was always then, as it has since always been, in a state of partial insurrection. … For their coercion [at Jerusalem] the Romans had invented a peculiar machinery. To Agrippa, the tetrarch [the second Herod Agrippa], … they had given the title of King of the Sacrifices, in virtue of which he was suffered to reside in the palace at Jerusalem, and retain certain functions, fitted to impose on the imagination of the more ardent votaries of Jewish nationality. The palace of the Herods overlooked the Temple, and from its upper rooms the king could observe all that passed in that mart of business and intrigue. Placed, however, as a spy in this watch-tower, he was regarded by the Zealots, the faction of independence, as a foe to be baffled rather than a chief to be respected and honoured. They raised the walls of their sanctuary to shut out his view, and this, among other causes of discontent between the factions in the city, ripened to an enmity. … And now was introduced into the divisions of this unhappy people a new feature of atrocity. The Zealots sought to terrify the more prudent or time-serving by an organized system of private assassination. Their 'Sicarii,' or men of the dagger, are recognised in the records of the times as a secret agency, by which the most impatient of the patriots calculated on exterminating the chief supporters of the foreign government. … Hitherto the Romans, from policy rather than respect, had omitted to occupy Jerusalem with a military force. They were now invited and implored by the chiefs of the priesthood and nobility, and Florus [the Roman governor] sent a detachment to seize the city and protect the lives of his adherents. This was the point to which the Zealots themselves had wished to lead him."

   A furious battle in the streets of Jerusalem occurred on the
   entrance of the Roman troops. The latter gained possession of
   the citadel, with the upper city, but, after seven days of
   fighting, were forced to capitulate, and were ruthlessly put
   to the sword, in violation of sworn pledges. "On that very day
   and hour, while the Jews were plunging their daggers in the
   hearts of the Romans, a great and terrible slaughter of their
   own people was going on in Cæsarea, where the Syrians and
   Greeks had risen upon the Jews, and massacred 20,000 of them
   in a single day. And in every Syrian city the same madness and
   hatred seized the people, and the Jews were ruthlessly
   slaughtered in all. No more provocation was needed; no more
   was possible. … The heads of the people began the war with
   gloomy forebodings; the common masses with the wildest
   enthusiasm, which became the mere intoxication of success when
   they drove back Cestius from the walls of the city, on the
   very eve of his anticipated victory—for Cestius [præfect of
   Syria] hastened southwards with an army of 20,000 men, and
   besieged the city. The people, divided amongst themselves,
   were on the point of opening the gates to the Romans, when, to
   the surprise of everybody, Cestius suddenly broke up his camp
   and began to retreat. Why he did so, no one ever knew. … The
   retreat became a flight, and Cestius brought back his army
   with a quarter of its numbers killed. … Vespasian was sent
   hastily with a force of three legions, besides the cohorts of
   auxiliaries. … Of the first campaign, that in Galilee, our
   limits will not allow us to write. …
{1922}
   The months passed on, and yet the Romans did not appear before
   the walls of the city. This meantime was a prey to internal
   evils, which when read appear almost incredible. … The
   events at Rome which elevated Vespasian to the throne were the
   principal reasons that the siege of Jerusalem was not actually
   commenced till the early summer of the year 70, when, in
   April, Titus began his march from Cæsarea. … The city,
   meanwhile, had been continuing those civil dissensions which
   hastened its ruin. John [of Gischala], Simon Bar Gioras, and
   Eleazar, each at the head of his own faction, made the streets
   run with blood. John, whose followers numbered 6,000, held the
   Lower, New, and Middle City; Simon, at the head of 10,000 Jews
   and 5,000 Idumeans, had the strong post of the Upper City,
   with a portion of the third wall; Eleazar, with 2,000 zealots,
   more fanatic than the rest, had barricaded himself within the
   Temple itself. … In the sallies which John and Simon made
   upon each other all the buildings in this part of the town
   were destroyed or set on fire, and all their corn burned; so
   that famine had actually begun before the commencement of the
   siege."

W. Besant and E. H. Palmer, Jerusalem, the City of Herod and Saladin, chapters 1-2.

The awful but fascinating story of the siege, as told by Josephus and repeated by many writers since, is familiar to most readers and will not be given here. It was prolonged from April until the 7th of September, A. D. 70, when the Romans forced their way into the upper city. "They spread through the streets, slaying and burning as they went. In many houses where they expected rich plunder, they found nothing but heaps of putrid bodies, whole families who had died of hunger; they retreated from the loathsome sight and insufferable stench. But they were not moved to mercy towards the living; in some places the flames were actually retarded or quenched with streams of blood; night alone put an end to the carnage. … The city was ordered to be razed, excepting the three towers, which were left as standing monuments of the victory. … During the whole siege the number killed [according to Josephus] was 1,100,000, that of prisoners 97,000. In fact, the population not of Jerusalem alone, but that of the adjacent districts—many who had taken refuge in the city, more who had assembled for the feast of unleavened bread—had been shut up by the sudden formation of the siege." Of those who survived to the end and were spared, when the Roman soldiers had tired of slaughter, "all above seventeen years old were sent to Egypt to work in the mines, or distributed among the provinces to be exhibited as gladiators in the public theatres, and in combats against wild beasts. Twelve thousand died of hunger. … Thus fell, and forever, the metropolis of the Jewish state. … Of all the stately city—the populous streets, the palaces of the Jewish kings, the fortresses of her warriors, the Temple of her God—not a ruin remained, except the tall towers of Phasaelis, Mariamne, and Hippicus, and part of the western wall, which was left as a defence for the Roman camp."

"It might have been expected that, from the character of the great war with Rome, the people, as well as the state of the Jews, would have fallen into utter dissolution, or, at least, verged rapidly towards total extermination. Besides the loss of nearly a million and a half of lives during the war, the markets of the Roman empire were glutted with Jewish slaves. … Yet still this inexhaustible race revived before long to offer new candidates for its inalienable inheritance of detestation and misery. Of the state of Palestine, indeed, immediately after the war, we have little accurate information. It is uncertain how far the enormous loss of life, and the numbers carried into captivity drained the country of the Jewish population; or how far the rescript of Vespasian, which offered the whole landed property of the province for sale, introduced a foreign race into the possession of the soil. The immense numbers engaged in the rebellion during the reign of Hadrian imply, either that the country was not nearly exhausted, or that the reproduction in this still fertile region was extremely rapid. In fact, it must be remembered that … the ravage of war was, after all, by no means universal in the province. Galilee, Judæa, and great part of Idumæa were wasted, and probably much depopulated; but, excepting a few towns which made resistance, the populous regions and wealthy cities beyond the Jordan escaped the devastation. The dominions of King Agrippa were, for the most part, respected. Samaria submitted without resistance, as did most of the cities on the sea-coast. … The Jews, though looked upon with contempt as well as detestation, were yet regarded, during the reign of Vespasian and his immediate successors, with jealous watchfulness. A garrison of 800 men occupied the ruins of Jerusalem, to prevent the reconstruction of the city by the fond and religious zeal of its former inhabitants. … Still, … it is impossible, unless communities were suffered to be formed, and the whole race enjoyed comparative security, that the nation could have appeared in the formidable attitude of resistance which it assumed in the time of Hadrian."

   "Not quite fifty years after the destruction of Jerusalem, in
   the year 116, the Jews of the eastern Mediterranean rose
   against the imperial government. The rising, although
   undertaken by the Diaspora, was of a purely national character
   in its chief seats, Cyrene, Cyprus, Egypt, directed to the
   expulsion of the Romans as of the Hellenes, and, apparently,
   to the establishment of a separate Jewish state. It ramified
   even into Asiatic territory, and seized Mesopotamia and
   Palestine itself. When the insurgents were victorious they
   conducted the war with the same exasperation as the Sicarii in
   Jerusalem; they killed those whom they seized. … In Cyrene
   220,000, in Cyprus even 240,000 men are said to have been thus
   put to death by them. On the other hand, in Alexandria, which
   does not appear itself to have fallen into the hands of the
   Jews, the besieged Hellenes slew whatever Jews were then in
   the city. The immediate cause of the rising is not clear. …
   To all appearance it was an outbreak of religious exasperation
   of the Jews, which had been growing in secret like a volcano
   since the destruction of the temple. …
{1923}
   The insurgents were nowhere able to offer resistance to the
   compact troops, … and similar punishments were inflicted on
   this Diaspora as previously on the Jews of Palestine. That
   Trajan annihilated the Jews in Alexandria, as Appian says, is
   hardly all incorrect, although perhaps a too blunt expression
   for what took place."

The Emperor Hadrian, when his tour through the Empire brought him to Palestine, A. D. 130, resolved to erect the destroyed holy city of the Jews as a Roman colony with a Roman name, and to divest it altogether of the character which made it sacred in the eyes of the Jews. He forbade their sojourn in the new city, and exasperated them still more by showing favor, it is said, to the Christian sect. By this and by other measures a fresh revolt was provoked, A. D. 132, incited by the priest Eleazar and led by the bandit-chief Barcochebas, or Bar-Kok-heba ('Son of the Star'). The cruel struggle, redeemed by no humanity on either side, continued for three years, and was ended only when hundreds of thousands of Jews had been slain. "The dispersion of the unhappy race, particularly in the West, was now complete and final. The sacred soil of Jerusalem was occupied by a Roman colony, which received the name of Ælia Capitolina, with reference to the emperor who founded it [Publius Ælius Hadrianus] and to the supreme God of the pagan mythology, installed on the desecrated summits of Zion and Moriah."

"The whole body of the Jews at home and abroad was agitated by the movement and supported more or less openly the insurgents on the Jordan; even Jerusalem fell into their hands, and the governor of Syria and indeed the emperor Hadrian appeared on the scene of conflict. … As in the war under Vespasian no pitched battle took place, but one place after another cost time and blood, till at length after a three years' warfare the last castle of the insurgents, the strong Bether, not far from Jerusalem, was stormed by the Romans. The numbers handed down to us in good accounts of 50 fortresses taken, 985 villages occupied, 580,000 that fell, are not incredible, since the war was waged with inexorable cruelty, and the male population was probably everywhere put to death. In consequence of this rising the very name of the vanquished people was set aside; the province was thenceforth termed, not as formerly Judaea, but by the old name of Herodotus, Syria of the Philistines, or Syria Palaestina. The land remained desolate; the new city of Hadrian continued to exist, but did not prosper. The Jews were prohibited under penalty of death from ever setting foot in Jerusalem."

      T. Mommsen,
      History of Rome,
      book 8, chapter 11 (The Provinces, volume 2).

"In less than sixty years after the war under Hadrian, before the close of the second century after Christ, the Jews present the extraordinary spectacle of two regular and organized communities: one under a sort of spiritual head, the Patriarch of Tiberias, comprehending all of Israelitish descent who inhabited the Roman empire; the other under the Prince of the Captivity, to whom all the eastern [Babylonian] Jews paid their allegiance. … Unfortunately it is among the most difficult parts of Jewish history to trace the growth of the patriarchal authority established in Tiberias, and its recognition by the whole scattered body of the nation, who, with disinterested zeal, and I do not scruple to add, a noble attachment to the race of Israel, became voluntary subjects and tributaries to their spiritual sovereign, and united with one mind and one heart to establish their community on a settled basis. It is a singular spectacle to behold a nation dispersed in every region of the world, without a murmur or repugnance, submitting to the regulations, and taxing themselves to support the greatness, of a supremacy which rested solely on public opinion, and had no temporal power whatever to enforce its decrees. It was not long before the Rabbins, who had been hunted down with unrelenting cruelty, began to creep forth from their places of concealment. The death of Hadrian, in a few years after the termination of the war, and the accession of the mild Antoninus, gave them courage, not merely to make their public appearance, but openly to reëstablish their schools and synagogues. … The Rabbinical dominion gradually rose to greater power; the schools flourished; perhaps in this interval the great Synagogue or Sanhedrin had its other migrations, … and finally to Tiberias, where it fixed its pontifical throne and maintained its supremacy for several centuries. Tiberias, it may be remembered, was a town built by Herod Antipas, over an ancient cemetery, and therefore abominated by the more scrupulous Jews, as a dwelling of uncleanness. But the Rabbins soon obviated this objection. Simon Ben Jochai, by his cabalistic art, discovered the exact spot where the burial-place had been; this was marked off, and the rest of the city declared, on the same unerring authority, to be clean. Here, then, in this noble city, on the shore of the sea of Galilee, the Jewish pontiff fixed his throne; the Sanhedrin, if it had not, as the Jews pretend, existed during all the reverses of the nation, was formally reëstablished. Simon, the son and heir of Gamaliel, was acknowledged as the Patriarch of the Jews, and Nasi or President of the Sanhedrin. … In every region of the West, in every province of the Roman empire, the Jews of all ranks and classes submitted, with the utmost readiness, to the sway of their Spiritual Potentate. His mandates were obeyed, his legates received with honour, his supplies levied without difficulty, in Rome, in Spain, in Africa. … In the mean time the rival throne in Babylonia, that of the Prince of the Captivity, was rapidly rising to the state and dignity which perhaps did not attain its perfect height till under the Persian monarchs. There seems to have been some acknowledged hereditary claim in R. Hona, who now appears as the Prince of the Captivity, as if his descent from the House of David had been recognized by the willing credulity of his brethren. … The Court of the Resch-Glutha [Prince of the Captivity] is described as … splendid; in imitation of his Persian master, he had his officers, counsellors, and cupbearers. Rabbins were appointed as satraps over the different communities. This state, it is probable, was maintained by a tribute raised from the body of the people, and substituted for that which, in ancient times, was paid for the Temple in Jerusalem. … Whether the authority of the Prince of the Captivity extended beyond Babylonia and the adjacent districts is uncertain."

JEWS: 5-6th Centuries.
Early Jewish settlements in Europe.
Arian toleration and Catholic persecution.

"The survey of the settlement of the Jews in Europe begins, as we leave Asia, with the Byzantine Empire. They already lived in its cities before Christianity acquired the empire of the world. In Constantinople the Jewish community inhabited a separate quarter, called the brass-market, where there was also a large synagogue. They were, however, expelled thence by an emperor, either Theodosius II., or Justinus II., and the synagogue was converted into the 'Church of the Mother of God.' … In Greece, Macedonia, and Illyria the Jews had already been settled a long time. … In Italy the Jews are known to have been domiciled as early as the time of the Republic, and to have been in enjoyment of full political rights until these were curtailed by the Christian emperors. They probably looked with excusable pleasure on the fall of Rome. … When Italy became Ostrogothic under Theodoric, the position of the Jews in that country was peculiar. Outbreaks of a spirit of hostility to them were not infrequent during this reign, but at the bottom they were not directed against the Jews, but were meant to be a demonstration against this hated Arian monarch. … Those nations … which were baptised in the Arian creed betrayed less intolerance of the Jews. Thus the more Arianism was driven out of Europe and gave way before the Catholic religion, the more were the Jews harassed by proselytising zeal. … In spite of the antipathy entertained against them by the leaders of opinion, the Jews of Italy were happy in comparison with their brethren of the Byzantine empire. … Even when the Lombards embraced the Catholic faith the position of the Jews in Italy remained supportable. The heads of the Catholic Church, the Popes, were free from savage intolerance. Gregory I. (590-604), surnamed the great and holy, who laid the foundation of the power of Catholicism, gave utterance to the principle, that the Jews should only be converted by means of persuasion and gentleness, not by violence. … In the territory which was subject to the Papal sway, in Rome, Lower Italy, Sicily, and Sardinia, he steadfastly persisted in this course in the face of the fanatical bishops, who regarded the oppression of the Jews as a pious work. … In the west of Europe, in France and Spain, where the Church was first obliged to make its way laboriously, the situation of the Jews assumed a different and much more favourable aspect. … It was a long while before Catholicism gained a firm footing in the west of Europe, and the Jews who had settled there enjoyed undisturbed peace until the victorious Church gained the upper hand. The immigration of the Jews into these important and wealthy provinces took place most probably as early as the time of the Republic or of Cæsar. … The presence of the Jews in the west of Europe is, however, not certain until the 2d century. The Gaulish Jews, whose first settlement was in the district of Arles, enjoyed the full rights of Roman citizenship, whether they arrived in Gaul as merchants or fugitives, with the pedlar's pack or in the garb of slaves; they were likewise treated as Romans by the Frankish and Burgundian conquerors." The Burgundian King Sigismund, who embraced the Catholic faith in 516, "first raised the barrier between Jews and Christians. … A spirit of hostility to the Jews gradually spread from Burgundy over the Frankish countries. … The later of the Merovingian kings became more and more bigoted, and their hatred of the Jews consequently increased. … The Jews of Germany are certainly only to be regarded as colonies of the Frankish Jews, and such of them as lived in Austrasia, a province subject to the Merovingian kings, shared the same fate as their brethren in France. … While the history of the Jews in Byzance, Italy, and France, possesses but special interest, that of their brethren in the Pyrenean peninsula rises to the height of universal importance. … Jewish Spain contributed almost as greatly to the development of Judaism as Judæa and Babylonia. … Cordova, Grenada, and Toledo, are as familiar to the Jews as Jerusalem and Tiberias, and almost more so than Naherdea and Sora. When Judaism had come to a standstill in the East, and had grown weak with age, it acquired new vigour in Spain. … The first settlement of the Jews in beautiful Hesperia is buried in dim obscurity. It is certain that they came there as free men as early as the time of the Roman Republic, in order to take advantage of the productive resources of this country. The tortured victims of the unhappy insurrections under Vespasian, Titus, and Hadrian were also dispersed to the extreme west, and an exaggerated account relates that 80,000 of them were dragged off to Spain as prisoners. … The Jews … were unmolested under the Arian kings; … but as soon as the Catholic Church obtained the supremacy in Spain, and Arianism began to be persecuted, an unfavourable crisis set in."

JEWS: A. D. 615.
Siege and capture of Jerusalem by the Persians.
Sack and massacre.

In the seventh century, during the reign of the Eastern Roman Emperor Heraclius (A. D. 610-641) the Jews were subjected to a more general and bitter persecution than they had experienced before at the hands of the Christians. "It is said that about this time a prophecy was current, which declared that the Roman empire would be overthrown by a circumcised people. This report may have been spread by the Jews, in order to excite their own ardour, and assist their projects of rebellion; but the prophecy was saved from oblivion by the subsequent conquests of the Saracens. … The conduct of the Jews excited the bigotry, as it may have awakened the fears, of the imperial government, and both Phocas and Heraclius attempted to exterminate the Jewish religion, and if possible to put an end to the national existence. Heraclius not only practised every species of cruelty himself to effect this object within the bounds of his own dominions, but he even made the forced conversion or banishment of the Jews a prominent feature in his diplomacy." Thus Heraclius induced Sisebut, the Gothic king in Spain, and Dagobert, the Frank king, to join him in forcing baptism on the Jews, with the alternative of flight.

"Urged by the request and incited by the example of Heraclius, Sisebuto [or Sisebut] issued an edict in the year 616, that, within a year, the Jews in Spain should either embrace Christianity, or should be shorn, scourged, and expelled from the kingdom, and their property confiscated. … It was a premium on hypocrisy; for hypocrisy was an instrument of self-preservation. Ninety thousand Jews made a nominal submission."

H. Coppée, Conquest of Spain by the Arab-Moors, book 2, chapter 3 (volume 1).

After the death of the Caliph Othman (A. D. 655), when the followers of Mohammed were divided into two camps—the partisans of Ali and the partisans of Moawiyah, "the Babylonian Jews and Nestorian Christians sided with Ali, and rendered him their assistance." Prominent among the Jewish supporters of Ali was Mar-Isaac, the head of a school. "The unhappy Ali valued this homage, and, doubtless, accorded privileges to the Jewish head of the school. It is quite probable that from this time the head of the school of Sora occupied a certain dignity, and took the title of Gaon. There were certain privileges connected with the Gaonate, upon which even the Exilarch—also politically appointed—did not venture to encroach. Through this there arose a peculiar relationship between the two entirely opposing offices—the Exilarchate and the Gaonate. This led to subsequent quarrels. With Bostanaï [then Exilarch] and Mar-Isaac, the Jewish officials recognised by the Caliph, there begins a new period in Jewish history—the Epoch of the Geonim. … For the space of 40 years (680 to 720), only the names of the Geonim and Exilarchs are known to us, historical details, however, are entirely wanting. During this time, through quarrels and concessions, there arose peculiar relations between the officials of the Jewish-Persian kingdom, which developed into a kind of constitution. The Jewish community in Babylonia (Persia), which had the appearance of a state, had a peculiar constitution. The Exilarch was at their head, and next to him stood the Gaon. Both together they formed the unity of the community. The Exilarch filled political functions. He represented the Babylonian-Persian Judaism under the Caliphs. He collected the taxes from the various communities, and paid them into the treasury. The Exilarchs, both in their outer appearance and mode of life, were like princes. They drove about in a state carriage; they had outriders and a kind of body guard, and received princely homage. The religious unity of Judaism, on the other hand, was represented in the two chief schools of Sora and Pumbaditha. They expounded the Talmud, giving it a practical application; they made new laws and institutions, and saw that they were carried out, by allotting punishments for those who transgressed them. The Exilarch shared the judicial power in common with the Gaon of Sora and the head of the school of Pumbaditha. … The head of the school of Sora, however, was alone privileged to be styled 'Gaon'; the head of the school of Pumbaditha did not bear the title officially. The Gaon of Sora enjoyed general preference over his colleague of Pumbaditha."

JEWS: 8-15th Centuries.
   Toleration by Moors and Christians in Spain, followed by
   merciless persecution and expulsion.
   Treatment in Portugal.

"Under the Moorish government in Spain the lot of this persecuted, tormented people was more tolerable than in any Christian country. … Under the Christian kings of the 12th and 13th centuries, they rose to still greater influence as financial advisers and treasurers, astronomers and physicians; in Toledo alone they numbered 12,000. … Their condition in Spain from the time of the Moorish supremacy to the end of the 13th century was upon the whole more favourable than in any other country of Europe. … The 14th century brought disaster to the Jews of the Peninsula and elsewhere. … They were detested by the people; first in one town and then in another they were attacked and murdered, and their synagogues were burned down; and at length, in 1391, the storm broke upon them in all its fury, and raged through the length and breadth of Spain. … Many thousands were slain; whilst 200,000 saved themselves by receiving baptism, but it was discovered in a few years that 17,000 had lapsed into Judaism. A century later, in 1492, a royal edict commanded all Jews to quit the country, leaving their goods behind them. As the Inquisition at the same time forbade the sale of victuals to the Jews, the majority … were compelled to submit to baptism. Of those who withdrew into exile—the numbers are variously reckoned from 170,000 to 400,000—the greater part perished from pestilence, starvation, or shipwreck. The descendants of those who survived, the Sephardim, found refuge in Italy, and under Turkish rule in the East, and, for a short space, even in Portugal. … In Portugal the Jews fared even worse than their brethren in Spain. … The Inquisition was … introduced as the approved means for handing over to the exchequer the wealth of the new Christians."

J. I. von Döllinger, The Jews in Europe (Studies in European History, chapter 9).

ALSO IN: H. C. Lea, Chapters from the Religious History of Spain, pages 437-468.

W. H. Prescott, History of the Reign of Ferdinand and Isabella, part 1, chapter 17 (volume 2).

JEWS: 11th Century.
First appearance of Jews in England.
Their treatment as usurers.

   "Their first appearance in England is said to have been due to
   the Conqueror, who brought over a Jewish colony from Rouen to
   London. They were special favourites of William Rufus; under
   Henry they play a less conspicuous part; but in the next reign
   we find them at Lincoln, Oxford, and elsewhere, and there can
   be no doubt that they were already established in most of the
   chief English towns. They formed, however, no part of the
   townsfolk. The Jew was not a member of the state; he was the
   king's chattel, not to be meddled with, for good or for evil,
   save at the king's own bidding.
{1926}
   Exempt from toll and tax and from the fines of justice, he had
   the means of accumulating a hoard of wealth which might indeed
   be seized at any moment by an arbitrary act of the king, but
   which the king's protection guarded with jealous care against
   all other interference. The capacity in which the Jew usually
   appears is that of a money-lender—an occupation in which the
   scruples of the Church forbade Christians to engage, lest they
   should be contaminated with the sin of usury. Fettered by no
   such scruples, the Hebrew money-lenders drove a thriving
   trade."

"The Church declared against capitalism of any kind, branding it as usury. It became impossible in Angevin England to obtain the capital for any large scheme of building or organisation unless the projectors had the capital themselves. Here was the function which the Jew could perform in England of the twelfth century, which was just passing economically out of the stage of barter. Capital was wanted in particular for the change of architecture from wood to stone with the better classes, and especially for the erection of castles and monasteries. The Jews were, indeed, the first in England to possess dwelling-houses built with stone, probably for purposes of protection as well as of comfort. And as a specimen of their influence on monastic architecture, we have it on record that no less than nine Cistercian monasteries of the North Country were built by moneys lent by the great Aaron of Lincoln, who also boasted that he had built the shrine of St. Alban. … The result of the Church's attitude towards Jews and towards usury was to put the king into a peculiar relation towards his Jewish subjects. The Church kept them out of all other pursuits but that of usury, which it branded as infamous; the State followed suit, and confiscated the estates of all usurers dying as such. Hence, as a Jew could only be a usurer, his estate was always potentially the king's, and could be dealt with by the king as if it were his own. Yet, strange to say, it was not to the king's interest to keep the Jews' wealth in his own hands, for he, the king, as a good Christian, could not get usury for it, while the Jew could very soon double and treble it, since the absence of competition enabled him to fix the rate of interest very high, rarely less than forty per cent., often as much as eighty. … The only useful function the Jew could perform towards both king and people was to be as rich as possible, just as the larger the capital of a bank, the more valuable the part it plays in the world of commerce. … The king reaped the benefit of these riches in several ways. One of his main functions and main source of income was selling justice, and Jews were among his best customers. Then he claimed from them, as from his other subjects, fines and amerciaments for all the events of life. The Pipe Rolls contain entries of fines paid by Jews to marry, not to marry, to become divorced, to go a journey across the sea, to become partners with another Jew, in short, for all the decisive events of life. And above all, the king got frequent windfalls from the heirs of deceased Jews who paid heavy reliefs to have their fathers' charters and debts, of which, as we have seen, they could make more profitable use than the king, to whom the Jew's property escheated not qua Jew, but qua usurer. In the case of Aaron of Lincoln the king did not disgorge at all at his death, but kept in his own hands the large treasures, lands, houses and debts of the great financier. He appears to have first organised the Jewry, and made the whole of the English Jews his agents throughout the country. … In addition to these quasi-regular and normal sources of income from his Jews, the king claimed from them—again as from his other subjects—various contributions from time to time under the names of gifts and tallages. And here he certainly seems, on occasion at least, to have exercised an unfavourable discrimination in his demands from the Jews. In 1187, the year of Aaron of Lincoln's death, he took a tenth from the rest of England, which yielded £70,000, and a quarter from the Jews, which gave as much as £60,000. In other words, the Jews were reckoned to have, at that date, one quarter of the movable wealth of the kingdom (£240,000 against £700,000 held by the rest). … They acted the part of a sponge for the Royal Treasury, they gathered up all the floating money of the country, to be squeezed from time to time into the king's treasure-chest. … The king was thus … the sleeping-partner in all the Jewish usury, and may be regarded as the Arch-usurer of the kingdom. By this means he was enabled to bring pressure on any of his barons who were indebted to the Jews. He could offer to release them of their debt of the usury accruing to it, and in the case of debts falling into his hand by the death of a Jew, he could commute the debt for a much smaller sum. Thus the Cistercian abbeys referred to above paid Richard I. 1,000 marks instead of the 6,400 which they had owed to Aaron of Lincoln."

The lawless and savage mobs of Crusaders which followed in the wake of the disorderly hosts of Peter the Hermit and Walter the Penniless, A. D. 1096, expended their zeal, at the outset of their march, in hunting and killing Jews. "Acting on the notion that the infidels dwelling in Europe should be exterminated before those in Asia should be attacked, [they] murdered 12,000 Jews. In Treves, many of these unfortunate men, driven to despair, laid violent hands on their children and on themselves, and multitudes embraced Christianity, from which they lapsed the moment the peril had passed. Two hundred Jews fled from Cologne and took refuge in boats; they were overtaken and slain. In Mayence, the archbishop, Rudhart, took them under his protection, and gave them the great hall of his castle for an asylum; the pilgrims, nevertheless, forced their way in, and murdered 700 of them in the archbishop's presence. At Spires the Jews valiantly defended themselves. At Worms they all committed suicide. At Magdeburg the archbishop, Ruprecht, amused himself by attacking them during the celebration of the feast of tabernacles, and by seizing their property."

   The fervors of the Second Crusade [A. D. 1146] inclined, in
   Germany, to the same direction, of Jew-hunting; but St.
   Bernard, the apostle of the Crusade, was enlightened and
   humane enough to suppress the outrage by his great influence.
{1927}
   A monk named Radulf, self-appointed preacher of the Crusade in
   Germany, stirred up the people of the cities of the Rhine
   against the Jews, and numbers were massacred, notwithstanding
   attempts of the emperor, Conrad, to protect them. But Bernard
   went in person to the scene, and, by his personal authority,
   drove the brutal monk into his convent.

"It cannot be denied that this frugal, careful race formed the only class of traders in the land [16th-17th centuries]. That branch of industry which the nobleman despised, owing to pride or carelessness, and from which the peasant was excluded by stupidity and ignorance, fell to the share of the Jews. Though their presence may have been a misfortune for the nation in after years, they were certainly at the same time a national necessity. … Perpetually oppressed by capricious laws, the race raised itself by perseverance and cunning. Ill-treated, persecuted by fire and sword, still they returned, or others took their place; robbed and plundered repeatedly, the wealth of the land was yet theirs. … The first Jewish immigrants were exiles from Germany and Bohemia. In 1096 they fled to Poland, where at that time there was more religious tolerance than in the rest of Europe. The cruelty and greed of the first crusaders caused this exodus of the Jews. … Casimir the Great [1333-1370], instigated by his love for Esther, the beautiful Jewess of Opocno, gave the Jews such civil rights and privileges as a Polish king could grant, which conduced to the advantage of the land; but already in the time of Lewis of Hungary, 1371, they were sentenced to exile. Notwithstanding this, we find them scattered over the whole of Poland in 1386. Christians were forbidden on pain of excommunication to have any intercourse with Jews or to purchase from them. When they settled in towns they were forced to live in particular suburbs. … The incredible increase of the Jewish population, supposed to be three times as rapid as that of the Polish inhabitants, was very alarming, as the Jews managed to avoid all public burdens and taxes. Sigismund Augustus [1548-1572] resolved, in spite of their objections, to impose a poll tax of one florin per head, and at the same time to discover by this means their actual number. It was estimated at 200,000, but only 16,000 florins were paid as tax. Their power was increased by John Sobiesky, to whom they had prophesied that he would ascend the throne. He favoured the Jews so much, that the senate in 1682 implored him to regard the welfare of the state, and not let the favours of the crown pass through their hands. The laws forbidding the Jews on pain of death to trade with the peasants, to keep inns, to sell brandy—laws which were passed anew in every reign—show that they never ceased to carry on these trades, so profitable for them, so ruinous for the peasant."

At the time of the accession of Richard Cœur de Lion, king of England, the crusading spirit had inflamed a specially bitter hatred of the Jews. Some of the obnoxious people were imprudent enough to press in among the spectators of King Richard's coronation. They were driven back with blows; "a riot ensued, and the Jews' quarter was plundered. A day elapsed before the king's troops could restore order, and then only three rioters were punished, for damage done to Christians. Thus encouraged, or allowed, the frenzy of persecution spread over the land. Generally it was the country people who were setting out as pilgrims for Palestine, who began the crusade at home, while the cities interposed to preserve the king's peace. But the rumour that the unbelievers were accustomed to crucify a Christian boy at Easter had hardened men's hearts against them. The cause of murder and rapine prevailed in Dunstable, Stamford, and Lincoln. At York, the viscount allowed 500 Jews to take refuge in the castle. Fearing, in spite of this, to be given up, they closed the gates against the king's officers. They were now besieged by the townsmen, under orders of the viscount, and the defence of men untrained to arms and without artillery lay only in the strength of the walls. They offered to ransom their lives, but the crowd thirsted for blood. Then a rabbi rose up and addressed his countrymen. 'Men of Israel, hear my words: it is better for us to die for our law than to fall into the hands of those who hate it; and our law prescribes this.' Then every man slew his wife and children, and hurled the corpses over the battlements. The survivors shut themselves up with their treasures in the royal chamber, and set fire to it. The crowd indemnified themselves by sacking the Jews' quarter, and burning the schedules of their debts, which were kept for safety in the cathedral."

C. H. Pearson, History of England during the Early and Middle Ages, volume 1, chapter 32.

In France, during the Middle Ages, the extorting of money from the Jews was one of the devices depended upon for replenishing the royal treasury. "It is almost incredible to what a length this was carried. Usury, forbidden by law and superstition to Christians, was confined to this industrious and covetous people. … The children of Israel grew rich in despite of insult and oppression, and retaliated upon their Christian debtors. If an historian of Philip Augustus may be believed, they possessed almost one-half of Paris. Unquestionably they must have had support both at court and in the halls of justice. The policy of the kings of France was to employ them as a sponge to suck their subjects' money, which they might afterwards express with less odium than direct taxation would incur. Philip Augustus released all Christians in his dominions from their debts to the Jews, reserving a fifth part to himself. He afterwards expelled the whole nation from France. But they appear to have returned again—whether by stealth, or, as is more probable, by purchasing permission. St. Louis twice banished and twice recalled the Jews. A series of alternate persecution and tolerance was borne by this extraordinary people with an invincible perseverance, and a talent of accumulating riches which kept pace with their plunderers; till new schemes of finance supplying the turn, they were finally expelled under Charles VI. and never afterwards obtained any legal establishment in France."

      ALSO IN:
      J. I. von Döllinger,
      The Jews in Europe
      (Studies in European History, chapter 9).

JEWS: 13-14th Centuries.
   Hostility of the Papacy and the Church.
   Doctrine of the Divine condemnation of the Jews to Slavery.
   Claim of the Emperors to ownership of them.

"The declaration by Innocent III. [Pope, 1198-1216] that the entire nation was destined by God on account of its sins to perpetual slavery, was the Magna Charta continually appealed to by those who coveted the possessions of the Jews and the earnings of their industry; both princes and people acted upon it. … The succeeding popes took their stand upon the maxims and behests of Innocent III. If the Jews built themselves a synagogue, it was to be pulled down; they might only repair the old ones. No Jew might appear as a witness against a Christian. The bishops were charged to enforce the wearing of the distinctive badge, the hat or the yellow garment, by all the means in their power. The wearing of the badge was particularly cruel and oppressive, for in the frequent tumults and risings in the towns the Jews, being thus recognisable at a glance, fell all the more easily into the hands of the excited mob; and if a Jew undertook a journey he inevitably became a prey to the numerous bandits and adventurers, who naturally considered him as an outlaw. … Where popes failed to interfere, the councils of the various countries made amends for the omission; they forbade, for instance, a Christian letting or selling a house to a Jew, or buying wine from him. Besides all this, the order was often renewed that all copies of the Talmud and commentaries upon it—consequently the greater part of the Jewish literature—should be burnt. … The new theory as to the Jews being in a state of slavery was now adopted and enlarged upon by theologians and canonists. Thomas Aquinas, whose teaching was received by the whole Roman Church as unassailable, pronounced that since the race was condemned to perpetual bondage princes could dispose of the possessions of the Jews just as they would of their own. A long list of canonical writers maintained, upon the same ground, the right of princes and governors to seize upon the sons and daughters of Jews and have them baptized by force. It was commonly taught, and the ecclesiastical claim still exists, that a Jewish child once baptized was not to be left to the father. Meanwhile princes had eagerly seized upon the papal doctrine that the perpetual slavery of the Jews was ordained by God, and on it the Emperor Frederick II. founded the claim that all Jews belonged to him as Emperor, following the contention prevalent at the time that the right of lordship over them devolved upon him as the successor of the old Roman Emperors. … King Albert went so far as to claim from King Philip of France that the French Jews should be handed over to him. … From the 14th century this 'servitude to the state' was understood to mean complete slavery. 'You yourselves, your bodies and your possessions, belong,' says the Emperor Charles IV. in a document addressed to the Jews, 'to us and to the empire; we may act, make and do with you what we will and please.' The Jews were, in fact, constantly handed about like merchandise from one to another; the emperor, now in this place, now in that, declared their claims for debts to be cancelled; and for this a heavy sum was paid into his treasury, usually 30 per cent."

      J. I. Von Döllinger,
      The Jews in Europe
      (Studies in European History, chapter 9).

"At the same time [A. D. 1290], the King [Edward I.] banished all the Jews from the kingdom. Upward of 16,000 are said to have left England, nor did they reappear till Cromwell connived at their return in 1654. It is not quite clear why the King determined on this act of severity, especially as the Jews were royal property and a very convenient source of income. It is probable, however, that their way of doing business was very repugnant to his ideas of justice, while they were certainly great falsifiers of the coinage, which he was very anxious to keep pure and true. Earlier in the reign he had hanged between 200 and 300 of them for that crime, and they are said to have demanded 60 per cent. for their loans, taking advantage of the monopoly as money-lenders which the ecclesiastical prohibition of usury had given them."

The expulsion was in compliance with a demand made by Parliament. "We have no record of any special action or crime on the part of the Jews which suggested the particular parliamentary demand in 1290." It had been made four years before, when, "in one night, all the Jews in England were flung into prison, and would most likely have been expelled there and then, had they not outbribed the King with £12,000."

G. H. Leonard, Expulsion of the Jews by Edward I. (Royal History Society Transactions, new series, volume 5, 1891).

"In the year 1321, a general rumour prevailed through Europe that the unhappy beings afflicted with leprosy (a disease with which the Crusaders had become infected in the East …) had conspired to inoculate all their healthy fellow-creatures with their own loathsome malady. … The King of Grenada and the Jews were denounced as the prime movers of this nefarious plot directed to the extermination of Christianity; and it was said that the latter, unable to overcome the many impediments which opposed their own agency, had bribed the lepers to become their instruments. This 'enormous Creed,' in spite of its manifold absurdities, found easy admission; and, if other evidence were wanting for its support, torture was always at hand to provide confessions. Philip V. [of France] was among the firmest believers, and therefore among the most active avengers of the imaginary crime; and he encouraged persecution by numerous penal edicts. At Toulouse, 160 Jews were burned alive at once on a single pile, without distinction of sex, and, as it seems, without any forms of previous examination. In Paris, greater gentleness was manifested; those only were led to the stake from whom an avowal of guilt could be extorted."

"The lord of Parthenay writes word to the king that 'a great leper,' arrested on his territory, has confessed that a rich Jew had given him money, and supplied him with drugs. These drugs were compounded of human blood, of urine, and of the blood of Christ (the consecrated wafer), and the whole, after having been dried and pounded, was put into a bag with a weight and thrown into the springs or wells. Several lepers had already been provisionally burnt in Gascony, and the king, alarmed at the new movement which was originating, hastily returned from Poitou to France, and issued an ordinance for the general arrest of the lepers. Not a doubt was entertained by anyone of this horrible compact between the lepers and the Jews. 'We ourselves,' says a chronicler of the day, 'have seen with our own eyes one of these bags, in Poitou, in a burgh of our own vassalage.' … The king ordered all found guilty to be burnt, with the exception of those female lepers who happened to be pregnant. The other lepers were to be confined to their lazarettos. As to the Jews, they were burnt indiscriminately, especially in the South."

On the appearance in Europe, A. D. 1348, of the pestilence known as the Black Death, "there was a suspicion that the disease was due to human agencies, and, as usual, the Jews were asserted to have contrived the machinations by which the calamity was created. They were charged with poisoning the wells, and through France, Switzerland, and Germany, thousands of these unhappy people were destroyed on evidence derived from confessions obtained under torture. As far as he could, the Emperor Charles IV. protected them. They escaped persecution too in the dominions of Albrecht of Austria. It is said that the great number of the Jewish population in Poland is due to the fact that Casimir the Great was induced by the entreaties of one Esther, a favourite Jewish mistress of that monarch, to harbour and shelter them in his kingdom. It should be mentioned that Clement VI. forbad the persecution of the Jews at Avignon."

JEWS: 17th Century.
Toleration in Holland.
Attractiveness of that country to wealthy Israelites.

"Wednesday, December 12, 1655. This day, 'in a withdrawing room at Whitehall,' presided over by his Highness [the Lord Protector, Oliver Cromwell], who is much interested in the matter, was held 'a Conference concerning the Jews';—of which the modern reader too may have heard something. Conference, one of Four Conferences, publicly held, which filled all England with rumour in those old December days; but must now contract themselves into a point for us. Highest official Persons, with Lord Chief Barons, Lord Chief Justices, and chosen Clergy have met here to advise, by reason, Law-learning, Scripture-prophecy, and every source of light for the human mind, concerning the proposal of admitting Jews, with certain privileges as of alien-citizens, to reside in England. They were banished near Four-hundred years ago: shall they now be allowed to reside and trade again? The Proposer is Manasseh Ben Israel,' a learned Portuguese Jew of Amsterdam; who, being stirred up of late years by the great things doing in England, has petitioned one and the other, Long Parliament and Little Parliament, for this object; but could never, till his Highness came into power, get the matter brought to a hearing. And so they debate and solemnly consider; and his Highness spake;—and says one witness, 'I never heard a man speak so well.' His Highness was eager for the scheme, if so might be. But the Scripture-prophecies, Law-learnings, and lights of the human mind seemed to point another way: zealous Manasseh went home again; the Jews could not settle here except by private sufferance of his Highness."

"Cromwell … was able to overcome neither the arguments of the theologians, nor the jealousies of the merchants, nor the prejudices of the indifferent; and seeing that the conference was not likely to end as he desired, he put an end to its deliberations. Then, without granting the Jews the public establishment which they had solicited, he authorized a certain number of them to take up their residence in London, where they built a synagogue, purchased the land for a burial-ground, and quietly commenced the formation of a sort of corporation, devoted to the Protector, on whose tolerance their safety entirely depended."

JEWS: A. D. 1662-1753.
Condition in England.
Defeated attempt to legalize their naturalization.

   "The Jews … were not formally authorised to establish
   themselves in England till after the Restoration. The first
   synagogue in London was erected in 1662. … There does not
   appear … to have been any legal obstacle to the sovereign
   and Parliament naturalising a Jew till a law, enacted under
   James I., and directed against the Catholics, made the
   sacramental test an essential preliminary to naturalisation.
   Two subsequent enactments exempted from this necessity all
   foreigners who were engaged in the hemp and flax manufacture,
   and all Jews and Protestant foreigners who had lived for seven
   continuous years in the American plantations. In the reign of
   James II. the Jews were relieved from the payment of the alien
   duty, but it is a significant fact that it was reimposed after
   the Revolution at the petition of the London merchants. In the
   reign of Anne some of them are said to have privately
   negotiated with Godolphin for permission to purchase the town
   of Brentford, and to settle there with full privileges of
   trade; but the minister, fearing to arouse the spirit of
   religious intolerance and of commercial jealousy, refused the
   application. The great development of industrial enterprise
   which followed the long and prosperous administration of
   Walpole naturally attracted Jews, who were then as now
   preeminent in commercial matters, and many of them appear at
   this time to have settled in England,"—among others, the
   family of Disraeli. In 1753, the Pelhams attempted to legalise
   the naturalisation of Jews; "not to naturalise all resident
   Jews, but simply to enable Parliament to pass special Bills to
   naturalise those who applied to it, although they had not
   lived in the colonies or been engaged in the hemp or flax
   manufacture. …
{1930}
   The opponents of the ministry raised the cry that the Bill was
   an unchristian one, and England was thrown into paroxysms of
   excitement scarcely less intense than those which followed the
   impeachment of Sacheverell. There is no page in the history of
   the 18th century that shows more decisively how low was the
   intellectual and political condition of English public
   opinion. According to its opponents, the Jewish Naturalisation
   Bill sold the birthright of Englishmen for nothing, it was a
   distinct abandonment of Christianity, it would draw upon
   England all the curses which Providence had attached to the
   Jews. The commercial classes complained that it would fill
   England with usurers. … The clergy all over England
   denounced it." After fierce opposition, the bill was finally
   passed; "but as the tide of popular indignation rose higher
   and higher, the ministers in the next year brought forward and
   carried its repeal."

      W. E. H. Lecky,
      History of England, 18th Century,
      chapter 2 (volume 1).

"The refugees from the Ukraine who had settled in Little Russia were expelled in 1727. No Jews from without were allowed to enter Russia upon any pretext. The few physicians and other professional men of the excluded race who did manage to remain in Russia were in continual jeopardy of insult and expulsion. Over and over again Russian statesmen who were anxious to develop the resources and trade possibilities of their backward and barbarous land, hinted at the advisability of bringing in some Jews. The Imperial will was resolutely opposed. … When the broad-minded Catherine II ascended the throne these efforts were renewed, but she too resisted them, and says in her Memoirs, 'their admission into Russia might have occasioned much injury to our small tradesmen.' She was too deeply bitten with the Voltairean philosophy of her time to have, or even assume, any religious fervour in the matter, but though in 1786 she issued a high-sounding edict 'respecting the protection of the rights of Jews of Russia,' the persecution on economic and social grounds continued unabated. By this time it will be seen the laws did, however, recognise the existence of Jews in Russia. The explanation is that the first partition of Poland and the annexation of the great Turkish territory lying between the Dnieper and the Dniester had brought into the empire such a vast Hebraic population that any thought of expulsion was hopeless. … The rape of Poland and the looting of Turkey had brought two millions of Jews under the sceptre of the Czar. The fact could not be blinked. They were there—inside the Holy Empire, whose boast for centuries had been that no circumcised dog could find rest for his foot on its sanctified territory. To an autocracy based so wholly on an orthodox religion as is that of the Czars, this seemed a most trying and perplexing problem. The solution they hit upon was to set aside one part of the empire as a sort of lazar house, which should serve to keep the rest of it from pollution. Hence we get the Pale. Almost every decade since 1786, the date of Catherine's ukase, has witnessed some alteration made in the dimensions and boundaries of this Pale. Now it has been expanded, now sharply contracted. … To trace these changes would be to unnecessarily burden ourselves with details. It is enough to keep in mind that the creation of the Pale was Russia's solution of the Jewish problem in 1786, and is still the only one it can think of. Side by side with this naïve notion that Holy Russia could be kept an inviolate Christian land in the eyes of Heaven by juggling the map, there grew up the more worldly conception of turning the Jew to account as a kind of milch cow. … In 1819 Jewish brandy distillers were allowed to go into the interior and settle 'until,' as the ukase said, 'Russian master distillers shall have perfected themselves in the art of distilling.' They availed themselves of this permission in great numbers, and at the end of seven years were all summarily driven out again, a new ukase explaining that 'the number of Christian distillers was now sufficient.' … The past century's history of the Jews in Russia is made up of conflicts between these two impulses in the childlike Slavonic brain—the one to drive the heretic Jew into the Pale as into a kennel with kicks and stripes, the other guardedly to entice him out and manage to extract some service or profit from him. … In 1825 Nicholas ascended the throne. Within a year he had earned from the Jews that sinister title of 'The Second Haman,' by which Israel still recalls him. … With the death of Nicholas [1855] and the advent of Alexander II a new era dawned. Dr. Mackenzie Wallace has drawn a spirited and comprehensive picture of the literal stampede all Russia made to reform everything. … Almost the first thing the young Czar did was to revive a commission to inquire into the condition of the Jews, which Nicholas had decreed in 1840 and then allowed to lapse. This commission sent out a list of inquiries to all the Provincial Governors. These gentlemen returned voluminous reports, all, without exception, favourable to the Jews. … Upon the strength of these reports were issued the ukases of 1859, 1861, and 1865, … by which Jews of the first mercantile guild and Jewish artisans were allowed to reside all over the Empire. It is just as well to remember that even these beneficent concessions, which seem by contrast with what had gone before to mark such a vast forward step in Russo-Jewish history, were confessedly dictated by utilitarian considerations. The shackles were stricken only from the two categories of Jews whose freedom would bring profit to Russia. … Still, the quarter century following Alexander II's accession in 1855 fairly deserves its appellation of the 'golden age' when what preceded it is recalled."

   "It is to the French Revolution that the Jews owe their
   improved position in the modern world. That prolific parent of
   good and evil has at least deserved well of them. It was the
   first to do justice, full and unequivocal, to those whom every
   other great political movement passed over as too
   insignificant or too contemptible to be taken into account.
   Mirabeau and the Abbé Grégoire, the one in his desire to
   secularise the State, the other in his policy of
   Christianising the Revolution, as our historian Graetz puts
   it, both urged on a movement which, in an incredibly short
   space of time, succeeded in effecting the complete
   emancipation of all the Jews under the rule of the Republic.
   On the 17th September, 1791, the National Assembly decreed the
   abolition of every exceptional enactment previously in force
   against them, and thus made them by law what they had
   previously been in heart, citizens of their country.
{1931}
   He who started as the child, afterwards to become the master,
   of the Revolution, proclaimed the same great principles of
   religious equality wherever his victorious eagles penetrated.
   Since that dawn of a better time, the light has spread more
   and more, though even now [1890] it is only here and there
   that it has shone forth unto the perfect day."

      S. Singer,
      Jews in their Relation to Other Races
      (National Life and Thought, chapter 20).

"In 1846 the Act of Parliament was formally repealed which compelled Jews living in England to wear a distinctive dress. The law had, however, been in abeyance for nearly two centuries. About this time also the Jews were admitted to the privileges of the naturalization laws; and in 1858 the House of Commons by resolution altered the form of oath tendered to all its members. As it had stood up to this time, Jews were prevented from voting in the divisions, although a Jew could take his seat in the House when sent there by a constituency."

JEWS: 19th Century.
The Anti-Semite movement.
Later persecution of the Jews in Russia.

"Among the strange and unforeseen developments that have characterized the fourth quarter of the nineteenth century, few are likely to be regarded by the future historian with a deeper or more melancholy interest than the anti-Semite movement, which has swept with such a portentous rapidity over a great part of Europe. It has produced in Russia by far the most serious religious persecution of the century. It has raged fiercely in Roumania, the other great centre of the Oriental Jews. In enlightened Germany it has become a considerable parliamentary force. In Austria it counts among its adherents men of the highest social station. Even France, which from the days of the Revolution has been specially distinguished for its liberality to the Jews, has not escaped the contagion. … It is this movement which has been the occasion of the very valuable work of M. Anatole Leroy-Beaulieu on 'Israel among the Nations.' The author, who is universally recognized as one of the greatest of living political writers, has special qualifications for his task. With an exceedingly wide knowledge of the literature relating to his subject he combines much personal knowledge of the Jews in Palestine and in many other countries, and especially in those countries where the persecution has most furiously raged. That persecution, he justly says, unites in different degrees three of the most powerful elements that can move mankind—the spirit of religious intolerance; the spirit of exclusive nationality; and the jealousy which springs from trade or mercantile competition. Of these elements M. Leroy-Beaulieu considers the first to be on the whole the weakest. In that hideous Russian persecution which 'the New Exodus' of Frederic has made familiar to the English reader, the religious element certainly occupies a very leading place. Pobedonosteff, who shares with his master the chief guilt and infamy of this atrocious crime, belongs to the same type as the Torquemadas of the past, and the spirit that animates him has entered largely into the anti-Semite movement in other lands. … Another element to which M. Leroy-Beaulieu attaches considerable importance is the Kultur Kampf in Germany. When the German Government was engaged in its fierce struggle with the Catholics, these endeavored to effect a diversion and to avenge themselves on papers, which were largely in the hands of Jews, by raising a new cry. They declared that a Kultur Kampf was indeed needed, but that it should be directed against the alien people who were undermining the moral foundations of Christian societies; who were the implacable enemies of the Christian creed and of Christian ideals. The cry was soon taken up by a large body of Evangelical Protestants. … Still more powerful, in the opinion of our author, has been the spirit of intense and exclusive nationality which has in the present generation arisen in so many countries and which seeks to expel all alien or heterogeneous elements, and to mould the whole national being into a single definite type. The movement has been still further strengthened by the greater keenness of trade competition. In the midst of many idle, drunken and ignorant populations the shrewd, thrifty and sober Jew stands conspicuous as the most successful trader. His rare power of judging, influencing and managing men, his fertility of resource, his indomitable perseverance and industry continually force him into the foremost rank and he is prominent in occupations which excite much animosity. The tax-gatherer, the agent, the middleman, and the money-lender are very commonly of Jewish race and great Jewish capitalists largely control the money markets of Europe at a time when capital is the special object of socialistic attacks."

      W. E. H. Lecky,
      Israel among the Nations
      (The Forum, December, 1893).

   "Until 1881 the lives and property of Jews had been respected.
   Their liberties were restricted, not obsolete. In that year
   all was changed. The Pale of Settlement, especially in the
   South, became a centre of riot. Crimes were charged against,
   and violence was offered to, those who had no means of
   retaliation; and whose only defence was passive endurance. The
   restlessness of the country, the low moral tone of the most
   ignorant and unreasonable peasantry in the world, commercial
   jealousy, and official intrigues were responsible for the
   outbreak. The Jews had thriven; that was a crime. As the
   Government had refused them the privileges of citizenship,
   they had no right to rise above their neighbours. A rescript,
   for which General Ignatieff was responsible, took cognisance,
   not of the sufferings of the Jews, but of the condition of the
   Christians. Commissioners … were appointed, in all towns
   inhabited by Jews, to inquire
   (1) into the manner of mal-practices by which the presence of
   Jews became injurious to the Christian population;
   (2) into the best methods of preventing Jews from evading old
   restrictions;
   (3) what new laws were required to stop the pernicious conduct
   of Jews in business.
   The inquiry resulted in the May Laws of 1882. These laws,
   which were so severe that hesitation was felt in applying them
   throughout the Pale, were supposed to be of only temporary
   application. They were known as laws for the time, and only
   came into full operation in 1890. … The May Laws define the
   Jews' duties to the State. These consist of military service,
   and pecuniary contributions.
{1932}
   In common with all Russians, Jews are subject to the Law of
   Conscription. Unlike Christians, they may not provide a
   substitute. They may not follow any trade, or profession,
   until they have produced evidence of registration in the
   recruiting district. While subject to military service, Jews
   cannot rise higher than the rank of non-commissioned officer.
   … The journal of statistics gives the proportion of Jews to
   the population as 3.95 per cent., whereas the percentage on
   the conscription rolls is 5.80. Thus the Hebrew is ground
   between the upper and nether millstone. … In December 1890
   Russians were forbidden to sell, lease, or mortgage real
   estate to Jews throughout the Empire, a measure hitherto
   applied only to Poland. Where Jews have acquired such property
   they will be compelled to dispose thereof. The Jewish
   artisans, apothecaries' assistants, dentists, and midwives,
   with all apprentices, are to be expelled from all places
   outside the Pale. Exceptions to this are obtainable only by
   special permission from the Minister of the Interior. Even
   then the children of such must be removed to the Pale as soon
   as they come of age, or marry an unprivileged Jew. This Pale
   of Settlement, which stretches along the frontier, from the
   Baltic to the Black Sea, is a hell of seething wretchedness.
   Here five millions of Jews are compelled to live, and die, in
   a Ghetto of filth and misery, mocked with a feast of Tantalus.
   Beyond are lands where corn rots for lack of ingatherers; yet
   they are cabined and confined. Inability to bribe a corrupt
   mass of administrators has led to the expulsion of poor Jews
   from villages within the Pale, into crowded towns, such as
   Tchernizo, where the population has consequently risen from
   5,000 to 20,000. … In September [1890] the Jews were
   expelled from Trans-caspian territory; in October, Jews, not
   having the right to live in St. Petersburg, were ordered to be
   transferred, with their families, to their proper places of
   abode; in January the Jews were ordered to be expelled from
   the Terke region of the Caucasus; in February the Jews in
   Novgorod were expelled. It has been declared expedient to
   expel them from the Cossack Stanitzas of the Caucasus. Three
   years ago the Jews were forbidden to live on Crown lands.
   Eighty-seven families were recently ordered to leave Saraka
   districts; because they had settled there after the passing of
   the Ignatieff laws. Artisans are henceforth to be confined to
   limits of residence within the Pale. It is the same with
   millers; therefore mills are idle, and the price of corn has
   declined. In Courland and Livonia, descendants of Jewish
   families, which were established when those provinces were
   incorporated into Russia, may remain; but no others may
   settle. … Jews who have lived eight years in a village may
   be interned therein, and may not move, even walking distance,
   without leave. Jews leaving one village for another lose their
   rights, and must go to the Ghetto of the nearest town. This is
   practically a sentence of death. Executions are going on, not
   upon scaffolds, but in dusky Ghettos, where the victims of
   oppression pine without hope in the world."

      C. N. Barham,
      Persecution of the Jews in Russia
      (Westminster Review, volume 136, 1891), pages 139-144.

      ALSO IN:
      Persecution of the Jews in Russia:
      issued by the Russo-Jewish Committee;

JEYPORE, OR JEYPOOR.

JINGOES.

JOGLARS.

JOHNNIES.

JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (MAY-JULY), to 1866-1867 (OCTOBER-MARCH).

JOHNSON-CLARENDON CONVENTION.

JOHNSTON, General Albert Sidney.
   Command of Confederate forces in the west.
   Battle of Shiloh.
   Death.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862
      (JANUARY-FEBRUARY: KENTUCKY-TENNESSEE),
      and (FEBRUARY-APRIL: TENNESSEE).

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (MARCH-MAY: VIRGINIA), to (MAY: VIRGINIA).

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863-1864
(DECEMBER-APRIL: TENNESSEE-MISSISSIPPI).

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864
(MAY: GEORGIA), and (MAY-SEPTEMBER: GEORGIA).

JOINT HIGH COMMISSION.

JOLIET'S EXPLORATIONS.

JOMSBORG.

Jomsborg, a stronghold at the mouth of the Oder, became, in the later part of the 10th and early part of the 11th centuries, a noted fastness of the piratical heathen Danes, who found there "a secure refuge from the new religion and the civilization it brought with it," which their country was then submitting to. They founded at Jomsborg "a state to which no man might belong save on proof of courage, where no woman might enter within the walls, and where all booty was in common."

"The impregnable castle of a certain body corporate, or 'Sea-Robbery Association (limited),' which, for some generations, held the Baltic in terror, and plundered far beyond the Belt—in the ocean itself, in Flanders and the opulent trading havens there,—above all, in opulent anarchic England, which, for forty years from about this time, was the pirates' Goshen; and yielded, regularly every summer, slaves, danegelt, and miscellaneous plunder, like no other country Jomsburg or the viking-world had ever known."

The pirate-nest at Jomsborg was broken up, about the middle of the tenth century, by Magnus the Good, of Norway.

JONGLEURS.

JOPPA.

   Joseph I.,
   King of Hungary, 1687-1711;
   King of Bohemia and Germanic Emperor, 1705-1711.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1805-1806 (DECEMBER-SEPTEMBER);
and SPAIN: A. D. 1808 (MAY-SEPTEMBER), to 1812-1814.

   The Jewish city of Jotapata, defended by the historian
   Josephus, was besieged by Vespasian for forty-seven days, A.
   D. 67, and taken.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1793(JULY-DECEMBER); 1794 (MARCH-JULY); 1795 (JUNE-DECEMBER); 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER); 1798-1799 (AUGUST-APRIL).

JOUST.

JOVIANS AND HERCULIANS.

JUAN.

JUDAS MACCABÆUS.

JUDGES OF ISRAEL.

JUDGMENT OF GOD.

JUDICIAL COMBAT.

JUGERUM.

"A Roman jugerum [of land] was somewhat less than two-thirds of a statute acre."

JULIAN (called The Apostate),
Roman Emperor, A. D. 361-363.
Restorer of Paganism.

JULIAN CALENDAR. JULIAN ERA.

"The Julian Family is that of the dictator Cæsar; his name was transmitted, by adoption, out of the direct line, but always within the circle of his kindred, to the five first heads of the Roman empire; Augustus reigned from the year 30 B. C. to the year 14 of our era; Tiberius, from 14 to 37 A. D.; Caligula, from 37 to 41; Claudius, from 41 to 54; Nero, from 54 to 68."

"Cæsar [during his year of consulship, B. C. 59, before he went to Gaul] carried, with the help of the people, the body of admirable laws which are known to jurists as the 'Leges Juliæ,' and mark an epoch in Roman history. … There was a law declaring the inviolability of the persons of magistrates during their term of authority, reflecting back on the murder of Saturninus, and touching by implication the killing of Lentulus and his companions. There was a law for the punishment of adultery, most disinterestedly singular if the popular accounts of Cæsar's habits had any grain of truth in them. There were laws for the protection of the subject from violence, public or private; and laws disabling persons who had laid hands illegally on Roman citizens from holding office in the Commonwealth. There was a law, intended at last to be effective, to deal with judges who allowed themselves to be bribed. There were laws against defrauders of the revenue; laws against debasing the coin; laws against sacrilege; laws against corrupt State contracts; laws against bribery at elections. Finally, there was a law, carefully framed, 'De repetundis.' to exact retribution from pro-consuls or pro-prætors of the type of Verres, who had plundered the provinces."

JULIANUS.

The reign of Louis Philippe, which was brought about by the revolution of July, 1830 (see FRANCE: A.D. 1815-1830, and 1830-1840), is commonly known in France as the July Monarchy.

JUNONIA.

JUNTA.

A fortress in the pass of Derbend, between the last spurs of the Caucasus and the Caspian, which the Persians and the Romans undertook at one time to maintain jointly. "This fortress, known as Juroipach or Biraparach, commanded the usual passage by which the hordes of the north were accustomed to issue from their vast arid steppes upon the rich and populous regions of the south for the purpose of plundering raids, if not of actual conquests. Their incursions threatened almost equally Roman and Persian territory, and it was felt that the two nations were alike interested in preventing them."

… In the provisions of this assize for the repression of crime we find the origin of trial by jury, so often attributed to earlier times. Twelve lawful men of each hundred, with four from each township, were sworn to present those who were known or reputed as criminals within their district for trial by ordeal. The jurors were thus not merely witnesses, but sworn to act as judges also in determining the value of the charge; and it is this double character of Henry's [Henry II.] jurors that has descended to our 'grand jury.' … Two later steps brought the jury to its modern condition. Under Edward I. witnesses acquainted with the particular fact in question were added in each case to the general jury, and by the separation of these two classes of jurors at a later time the last became simply 'witnesses,' without any judicial power, while the first ceased to be witnesses at all, and became our modern jurors, who are only judges of the testimony given."

ALSO IN: W. Stubbs, Constitutional History of England, chapter 13, section 164.

JUSTICIAR.

The chief minister of the Norman kings of England. At first the Justiciar was the lieutenant or viceroy of the king during the absence of the latter from the kingdom; afterward a permanent minister of justice and finance.

Justinian II. (called Rhinotmetus),
Roman Emperor (Eastern), A. D. 685-695, and 704-711.

JUVAVIUM.

This was a festival instituted by Nero, to commemorate his attainment of the age of manhood. "His beard was clipped, and the first tender down of his cheek and chin enclosed in a golden casket and dedicated to Jupiter in the Capitol. This ceremony was followed by music and acting," in which the emperor, himself, performed.

JUVERNA.

KABELJAUWS.

KADESH.

A strong fortress of the ancient Hittites on the Orontes. The name signifies "the holy city."

KADESH-BARNEA.

An important locality in Biblical history. "It looms up as the objective point of the Israelites in their movement from Sinai to the Promised Land. It is the place of their testing, of their failure, of their judging, and of their dispersion. It is their rallying centre for the forty-years of their wandering, and the place of their re-assembling for their final move into the land of their longings."

Mr. Trumbull identifies the site with the oasis of Ayn Qadees, in the Wilderness of Zin.

KADIASKERS.

KADMEIANS, OR CADMEIANS.

KAFIRS. KAFIR WARS.

See SOUTH AFRICA: ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS, and A. D. 1811-1868; also, AFRICA: THE INHABITING RACES.

Acbah, the first of the Moslem conquerors of Northern Africa who penetrated as far westward as the domain of ancient Carthage, but who did not take that city, secured his footing in the region [A. D. 670-675] by founding a new city, thirty-three leagues southeast of Carthage and twelve leagues from the sea. The site chosen was a wild, thickly wooded valley, in the midst of which the Arab leader is said to have cleared a space, erected walls around it, and then, planting his lance in the center, cried to his followers: "This is your Caravan." Hence the name, Kairwan or Caerwan, or Cairoan. Fixing his seat of government at Kairwan, building mosques and opening markets, Acbah and his successors soon made the new city a populous and important capital.

KAISAR-I-HIND.

"To a certain class of modern philologists, no poem in the world is more familiar than the Kalewala, the long epic, which is to the mythology and traditional lore of the Finns what the Iliad and Odyssey of Homer are to the heroic story of ancient Greece. It is the source from which nearly all the information connected with the religious creed, the moral notions, the customs, and the domestic details of a most remarkable race is to be obtained. If we would know how the Greeks of the heroic age prayed, fought, eat, drank, sported, and clothed themselves, we turn to the pages of Homer. If we would obtain similar knowledge on the subject of the Finns, we consult the Kalewala. Though the traditions of the Finnish heroes are possibly as old as those of Achilles and Ajax, the arrangement of them into a continuous poem is a work of very recent date. No Wolfian controversy will arise respecting the construction of the Kalewala, for it is not more than twenty-five years since the Peisistratid who first put together the isolated songs, or Runes, published the result of his labours. Fragments of Finnish poetry, collected from the oral traditions of the people, had already made their appearance, though even the first important collection of these, which was made by Dr. Zacharias Topelius, dates no further back than 1822. … But it is with Dr. Lönnrot that the existence of the epic as an epic, with the title 'Kalewala,' begins. He published it in thirty-two Runes,—that is to say, books or cantos, for the word, which previously denoted an independent poem, now sinks into little more than a sign of division, though here and there, it must be confessed, an abrupt transition occurs, to which a parallel would not be found in the Iliad or the Odyssey. In 1849 a second edition of the Kalewala was published, likewise under the superintendence of Dr. Lönnrot, containing fifty cantos and nearly 23,000 lines."

"Besides its fresh and simple beauty of style, its worth as a storehouse of every kind of primitive folk-lore, being as it is the production of an Urvolk, a nation that has undergone no violent revolution in language or institutions—the Kalevala has the peculiar interest of occupying a position between the two kinds of primitive poetry, the ballad and the epic. … Sixty years ago, it may be said, no one was aware that Finland possessed a national poem at all. Her people—who claim affinity with the Magyars of Hungary, but are possibly a back-wave of an earlier tide of population—had remained untouched by foreign influences since their conquest by Sweden, and their somewhat lax and wholesale conversion to Christianity: events which took place gradually between the middle of the twelfth and the end of the thirteenth centuries. … The annexation of Finland by Russia, in 1809, awakened national feeling, and stimulated research into the songs and customs which were the heirlooms of the people. … From the north of Norway to the slopes of the Altai, ardent explorers sought out the fragments of unwritten early poetry. These runes, or runots, were sung chiefly by old men called Runoias, to beguile the weariness of the long dark winters. The custom was for two champions to engage in a contest of memory, clasping each other's hands, and reciting in turn till he whose memory first gave in slackened his hold. The Kalevala contains an instance of this practice, where it is said that no one was so hardy as to clasp hands with Wäinämöinen, who is at once the Orpheus and the Prometheus of Finnish mythology. These Runoias, or rhapsodists, complain, of course, of the degeneracy of human memory; they notice how any foreign influence, in religion or politics, is destructive to the native songs of a race. 'As for the lays of old time, a thousand have been scattered to the wind, a thousand buried in the snow. … As for those which the Munks (the Teutonic knights) swept away, and the prayer of the priest over-whelmed, a thousand tongues were not able to recount them.' In spite of the losses thus caused, and in spite of the suspicious character of the Finns, which often made the task of collection a dangerous one, enough materials remained to furnish Dr. Lönnrot, the most noted explorer, with thirty-five Runots, or cantos. These were published in 1835, but later research produced the fifteen cantos which make up the symmetrical fifty of the Kalevala. In the task of arranging and uniting these, Dr. Lönnrot played the part generally ascribed to Pisistratus in relation to the Iliad and Odyssey. He is said to have handled with singular fidelity the materials which now come before us as one poem, not without a certain unity and continuous thread of narrative. It is this unity which gives the Kalevala a claim to the title of epic, although the element of permanence which is most obvious in the Greek epics, and in the earliest Hebrew records, is here conspicuously absent. … Among the Finns we find no trace of an aristocracy; there is scarcely a mention of kings, or priests; the heroes of the poem are really popular heroes, fishers, smiths, husbandmen, 'medicine-men' or wizards; exaggerated shadows of the people, pursuing on a heroic scale, not war, but the common daily business of primitive and peaceful men. In recording their adventures, the Kalevala, like the shield of Achilles, reflects all the life of a race, the feasts, the funerals, the rites of seed-time and harvest, of marriage and death, the hymn, and the magical incantation. Were this all, the epic would only have the value of an exhaustive collection of the popular ballads which, as we have seen, are a poetical record of all the intenser moments in the existence of unsophisticated tribes. But it is distinguished from such a collection, by presenting the ballads as they are produced by the events of a continuous narrative, and thus it takes a distinct place between the aristocratic epics of Greece, or of the Franks, and the scattered songs which have been collected in Scotland, Sweden, Denmark, Greece, and Italy. Besides the interest of its unique position as a popular epic, the Kalevala is very precious, both for its literary beauties and for the confused mass of folk-lore which it contains. … What is to be understood by the word 'Kalevala'? The affix 'la' signifies 'abode.' Thus, 'Tuonela' is 'the abode of Tuoni,' the god of the lower world; and as 'kaleva' means 'heroic,' 'magnificent,' 'Kalevala' is 'The Home of Heroes,' like the Indian 'Beerbhoom,' or 'Virbhûmi.' The poem is the record of the adventures of the people of Kalevala—of their strife with the men of Pohjola, the place of the world's end."

A complete translation of the Kalevala into English verse, by
John Martin Crawford, was published in New York, in 1888.

Project Gutenberg Kalevala: the Epic Poem of Finland— Complete by Lönnrot and Crawford https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/5186

KAMBALU, CAMBALU.

KAMI, OR KHEMI, OR KEM.

KANAKAS.

KANSAS: A. D. 1854.
   Territorial organization.
   The Kansas-Nebraska Bill.
   Repeal of the Missouri Compromise.

KANSAS: A. D. 1854-1859.
The battle-ground of the struggle against Slavery-extension.
Border-ruffians and Free State settlers.

"The attention of the whole country had now been turned to the struggle provoked by the Kansas-Nebraska Bill, and the repeal of the Missouri Compromise. The fertile soil of Kansas had been offered as a prize to be contended for by Free and Slave States, and both had accepted the contest. The Slave State settlers were first in the field. The slave-holders of Western Missouri, which shut off Kansas from the Free States, had crossed the border, preempted lands, and warned Free State immigrants not to pass through Missouri. {1937} The first election of a delegate to Congress took place November 29th, 1854, and was carried by organized bands of Missourians, who moved over the border on election day, voted, and returned at once to Missouri. The spring election of 1855, for a Territorial Legislature, was carried in the same fashion. In July, 1855, the Legislature, all Pro-Slavery, met at Pawnee, and adopted a State Constitution. To save trouble it adopted the laws of the State of Missouri entire, with a series of original statutes denouncing the penalty of death for nearly fifty offenses against Slavery. All through the spring and summer of 1855 Kansas was the scene of almost continuous conflict, the Border Ruffians of Missouri endeavoring to drive out the Free State settlers by murder and arson, and the Free State settlers retaliating. The cry of 'bleeding Kansas' went through the North. Emigration societies were formed in the Free States to aid, arm, equip, and protect intending settlers. These, prevented from passing through Missouri, took a more Northern route through Iowa and Nebraska, and moved into Kansas like an invading army. The Southern states also sent parties of intending settlers. But these were not generally slave-holders, but young men anxious for excitement. They did not go to Kansas, as their opponents did, to plow, sow, gather crops, and build up homes. Therefore, though their first rapid and violent movements were successful, their subsequent increase of resources and numbers was not equal to that of the Free State settlers. The Territory soon became practically divided into a Pro-Slavery district, and a Free State district. Leavenworth in the former, and Topeka and Lawrence in the latter, were the chief towns. September 5th, 1855, a Free State Convention at Topeka repudiated the Territorial Legislature and all its works, as the acts and deeds of Missourians alone. It also resolved to order a separate election for delegate to Congress, so as to force that body to decide the question, and to form a State government. January 15th, 1856, the Free State settlers [having applied to Congress for admission as a State] elected State officers under the Topeka Free State Constitution. The Federal Executive now entered the field. January 24th, 1856, the President [Franklin Pierce], in a Special Message to Congress, endorsed the Pro-Slavery Legislature, and pronounced the attempt to form a Free State government, without the approval of the Federal authorities in the Territory, to be an act of rebellion. He then issued a proclamation, warning all persons engaged in disturbing the peace of Kansas to retire to their homes, and placed United States troops at the orders of Governor Shannon to enforce the (Pro-Slavery) laws of the Territory. The population of Kansas was now so large that very considerable armies were mustered on both sides, and a desultory civil war was kept up until nearly the end of the year. During its progress two Free State towns, Lawrence and Ossawattomie, were sacked. July 4th, 1856, the Free State Legislature attempted to assemble at Topeka, but was at once dispersed by a body of United States troops, under orders from Washington. September 9th, a new Governor, Geary, of Pennsylvania, arrived and succeeded in keeping the peace to some extent by a mixture of temporizing and decided measures. By the end, of the year he even claimed to have established order in the Territory. … January 6th, 1857, the Free State Legislature again attempted to meet at Topeka, and was again dispersed by Federal interference. Its presiding officer and many of its members were arrested by a United States deputy marshal. The Territorial, or Pro-Slavery, Legislature quarreled with Governor Geary, who resigned, and Robert J. Walker, of Mississippi, was appointed in his stead. A resolution was passed by the House [in Congress] declaring the Acts of the Territorial Legislature cruel, oppressive, illegal, and void. It was tabled by the Senate." A new Congress met December 7th, 1857, "with a Democratic majority in both branches. In the House, James L. Orr, of South Carolina, a Democrat, was chosen Speaker. The debates of this Session were mainly upon the last scene in the Kansas struggle. Governor Walker had succeeded in persuading the Free State settlers to recognize the Territorial Legislature so far as to take part in the election which it had ordered. The result gave them control of the Legislature. But a previously elected Pro-Slavery Convention, sitting at Lecompton, went on to form a State Constitution. This was to be submitted to the people, but only votes 'For the Constitution with Slavery,' or 'For the Constitution without Slavery,' were to be received. Not being allowed in either event to vote against the Constitution, the Free State settlers refused to vote at all, and the Lecompton Constitution with Slavery received 6,000 majority. The new Territorial Legislature, however, ordered an election at which the people could vote for or against the Lecompton Constitution, and a majority of 10,000 was cast against it. … The President's Message argued in favor of receiving Kansas as a State under the Lecompton Constitution with Slavery, on the ground that the delegates had been chosen to form a State Constitution, and were not obligated to submit it to the people at all. This view was supported by the Southern members of Congress, and opposed by the Republicans and by a part of the Democrats, headed by Senator Douglas, of Illinois. The Senate passed a bill admitting Kansas as a State, under the Lecompton Constitution. The House passed the bill, with the proviso that the Constitution should again be submitted to a popular vote. The Senate rejected the proviso. A conference committee recommended that the bill of the House should be adopted, with an additional proviso making large grants of public lands to the new State, if the people of Kansas should vote to adopt the Lecompton Constitution. In this form the bill was passed by both Houses, and became a law. … The proffered inducement of public lands was a failure, and in August the Lecompton Constitution was rejected by 10,000 majority. Kansas, therefore, still remained a Territory. In 1859, at an election called by the Territorial Legislature, the people decided in favor of another Convention to form a State Constitution. This body met at Wyandot, in July, 1859, and adopted a State Constitution prohibiting Slavery. The Wyandot Constitution was submitted to the people and received a majority of 4,000 in its favor;" but Congress refused the admission to Kansas under this Constitution, the Senate rejecting, though the House approved.

      ALSO IN:
      D. W. Wilder,
      Annals of Kansas (containing the text of the several
      Constitutions, etc.).

J. F. Rhodes, History of the United States from 1850, chapters 7-9 (volume 2).

   "As soon as a sufficient number of Southern members of
   Congress [from the seceding States] had withdrawn to give the
   Republicans a majority in both Houses, Kansas was admitted as
   a State [January 29, 1861] under the Wyandot Free State
   Constitution."

      A. Johnston,
      History of American Politics,
      2d edition, page 185.

KARAISM. KARAITES.

The Jewish sect of the Karaites originated in the teaching of one Anan ben David, in the 8th century, whose radical doctrine was the rejection of the Talmud and a return to the Bible "for the ordering of religious life." Hence "the system of religion which Anan founded received the name of the Religion of the Text, or Karaism,"

KARAKORUM.

The early capital of the Mongol empire of Jingis Khan and his successors was at Karakorum, believed to have been situated near the river Orkhon, or Orgon. Ogotai built a great palace there, in 1235, called Ordu Balik, or the city of the Ordu.

Fought B. C. 854, by Shalmaneser of Assyria, with the confederate, kings of Damascus, Israel and their Syrian neighbors; the latter defeated.

KARL.

KARLINGS, OR CARLINGS.

KARNATTAH.

KAROLINGIA AND KAROLINGIANS.

KARS: A. D. 1854-1856.
Siege and capture by the Russians.
Restoration to Turkey.

KASDIM, OR CASDIM.

KASHMERE: A. D. 1846.

KASSOPIANS.

KEARNEYITES.

KEARNEY'S EXPEDITION AND CONQUEST OF NEW MEXICO.

"The Arabs of the tribe of Kedar are often mentioned in the Bible, especially with reference to the trade with Phœnicia. They furnished the caravans across the desert of Dahna, to convey the merchandise of Hadramaut, Marah, and Oman to Syria. They inhabited the southern portion of Yemama, on the borders of the desert."

F. Lenormant, Manual of the Ancient History of the East, book 7, chapter 1, section 7 (volume 2).

"In 1876 an act was passed by the Dominion Parliament [Canada] erecting into a separate government under the name of the District of Keewatin the portion of the North-West Territory lying to the north of Manitoba. The district contains about 395,000 acres, and is principally occupied by Icelandic colonists. The Lieutenant-Governor of Manitoba is ex-officio Lieutenant-Governor of Keewatin."

KEFT.

KEM, OR KAMI, OR KHEMI.

Formed by the Jutes in the southeast corner of Britain. The only other settlement of the Jutes in England was in the Isle of Wight and on the neighboring coast of Hampshire.

KENT'S HOLE.

One of the most noted of the caves which have been carefully explored for relics of early man, coeval with extinct animals. It is in Devonshire, England, near Torquay.

KENTUCKY: A. D. 1765-1778.
   Absence of Indian inhabitants.
   Early exploration and settlement by the whites.
   The colony of Transylvania.

In the wars that were waged between the Indian tribes of the South, before the advent of white settlers, Kentucky became "a sort of border-land such as separated the Scots and English in their days of combat. … The Chickasaws alone held their ground, being the most northern of the sedentary Southern Indians. Their strongholds on the bluffs of the Mississippi and the inaccessibility of this country on account of its deep, sluggish, mud-bordered streams, seem to have given them a sufficient measure of protection against their enemies, but elsewhere in the State the Indians were rooted out by their wars. The last tenants of the State, east of the Tennessee River, were the Shawnees,—that combative folk who ravaged this country with their ceaseless wars from the head-waters of the Tennessee to the Mississippi, and from the Lakes to Alabama. It was no small advantage to the early settlers of Kentucky that they found this region without a resident Indian population, for, bitter as was the struggle with the claimants of the soil, it never had the danger that would have come from a contest with the natives in closer proximity to their homes. … As Kentucky was unoccupied by the Indians, it was neglected by the French. … Thus the first settlers found themselves, in the main, free from these dangers due to the savages and their Gallic allies. The land lay more open to their occupancy than any other part of this country ever did to its first European comers. … In 1765 Colonel George Croghan, who had previously visited the Ohio with Gist, made a surveying journey down that stream from Pittsburg to the Mississippi. … In 1766 a party of five persons, including a mulatto slave, under the command of Captain James Smith, explored a large part of what is now Tennessee, and probably extended their journey through Southern Kentucky. Journeys to Kentucky now became frequent. Every year sent one or more parties of pioneers to one part or another of the country. In 1769 Daniel Boone and five companions, all from the Yadkin settlements in North Carolina, came to Eastern Kentucky. One of the party was killed, but Boone remained, while his companions returned to their homes. Thus it will be seen that Boone's first visit was relatively late in the history of Kentucky explorations. Almost every part of its surface had been traversed by other explorers before this man, who passes in history as the typical pioneer, set foot upon its ground. In the time between 1770 and 1772 George Washington, then a land-surveyor, made two surveys in the region which is now the northeast corner of Kentucky. … The first distinct effort to found a colony was made by James Harrod and about forty companions, who found their way down the Ohio near to where Louisville now stands, and thence by land to what is now Mercer County, in Central Kentucky, where they established, on June 16, 1774, a village which they called, in honor of their leader, Harrodsburg. Earlier attempts at settlement were made at Louisville, but the fear of Indians caused the speedy abandonment of this post. … In 1775 other and stronger footholds were gained. Boone built a fort in what is now Madison County, and Logan another at St. Asaphs, in Lincoln County. The settlement of Kentucky was greatly favored by the decisive victory gained by Lord Dunmore's troops over the Indians from the north of the Ohio, at the mouth of the Kanawha.

   … That the process of possessing the land was going on with
   speed may be seen from the fact that Henderson and Company,
   land-agents at Boonesborough, issued from their office in the
   new-built fort entry certificates of surveys for 560,000 acres
   of land. The process of survey was of the rudest kind, but it
   served the purpose of momentary definition of the areas, made
   it possible to deal with the land as a commodity, and left the
   tribulations concerning boundaries to the next generation.
   These land deeds were given as of the 'colony of
   Transylvania,' which was in fact the first appellation of
   Kentucky, a name by which it was known for several years
   before it received its present appellation. At this time, the
   last year that the work of settling Kentucky was done under
   the authority of his majesty King George III., there were
   probably about 150 men who had placed themselves in
   settlements that were intended to be permanent within the
   bounds of what is now the Commonwealth of Kentucky. There may
   have been as many more doing the endless exploring work which
   preceded the choice of a site for their future homes. The men
   at Boone's Station claimed, and seem to have been awarded, a
   sort of hegemony among the settlements.
{1940}
   On the 23d of May, at the call of Colonel Henderson, the
   land-agent of the proprietors, delegates from these
   settlements met at Boonesborough, and drew up a brief code of
   nine laws for the government of the young Commonwealth. …
   The Boonesborough parliament adjourned to meet in September,
   but it never reassembled. The venture which led to its
   institution fell altogether to ruin, and the name of
   Transylvania has been almost entirely forgotten. … The
   colony of Transylvania rested on a purchase of about
   17,000,000 acres, or about one half the present area of
   Kentucky, which was made by some people of North Carolina from
   the Overhill Cherokee Indians, a part of the great tribe that
   dwelt on the Holston River. For this land the unfortunate
   adventurers paid the sum of £10,000 of English money. …
   Immediately after the Boonesborough parliament the position of
   the Transylvania company became very insecure; its own people
   began to doubt the validity of the titles they had obtained
   from the company, because, after a time, they learned from
   various sources that the lands of this region of Kentucky had
   been previously ceded to the English government by the Six
   Nations, and were included in the Virginia charter. In the
   latter part of 1775, eighty men of the Transylvania settlement
   signed a memorial asking to be taken under the protection of
   Virginia; or, if that colony thought it best, that their
   petition might be referred to the General Congress. … The
   proprietors of the colony made their answer to this rebellion
   by sending a delegate to the Federal Congress at Philadelphia,
   who was to request that the colony of Transylvania be added to
   the number of the American colonies. … Nothing came of this
   protest. Congress refused to seat their delegate, Patrick
   Henry and Jefferson, then representing Virginia, opposing the
   efforts of the proprietors. The Governor of North Carolina
   issued a proclamation declaring their purchase illegal. The
   colony gradually fell to pieces, though the State of Virginia
   took no decided action with reference to it until, in 1778,
   that Commonwealth declared the acts of the company void, but,
   in a generous spirit, offered compensation to Colonel
   Henderson and the other adventurers. The Transylvania company
   received 200,000 acres of valuable lands, and their sales to
   actual settlers were confirmed by an act of the Virginia
   Assembly. Thus the strongest, though not the first, colony of
   Kentucky, was a misadventure and quickly fell to pieces."

ALSO IN; T. Roosevelt, The Winning of the West, volume 1, chapters 6 and 8-12.

KENTUCKY: A. D. 1768.
The Treaty with the Six Nations at Fort Stanwix.
Pretended cession of the country south of the Ohio.

KENTUCKY: A. D. 1774.
The western Territorial claims of Virginia.
Lord Dunmore's war with the Indians.

KENTUCKY: A. D. 1775-1784.
   A county of Virginia.
   Indian warfare of the Revolution.
   Aspirations towards State independence.

"In the winter of 1775 Kentucky was formed into a county of Virginia. … About this time Harrodsburg, Boonesborough and Logan's Fort were successively assailed by the Indians. They withstood the furious attacks made upon them; not, however, without great loss. During the succeeding summer they were considerably reinforced by a number of men from North Carolina, and about 100 under Colonel Bowman from Virginia. In 1778 Kentucky was invaded by an army of Indians and Canadians under the command of Captain Duquesne; and the expedition of Colonel George Rodgers Clark against the English post of Vincennes and Kaskaskia took place this year. In February of this year Boone, with about 30 men, was engaged in making salt at the Lower Blue Licks, when he was surprised by about 200 Indians. The whole party surrendered upon terms of capitulation. The Indians carried them to Detroit, and delivered them all up to the commandant, except Boone, whom they carried to Chilicothe. Boone soon effected his escape. … After … some weeks … Captain Duquesne, with about 500 Indians and Canadians, made his appearance before Boonesborough, and besieged the fort for the space of nine days, but finally decamped with the loss of 30 men killed, and a much greater number wounded. … About the first of April, 1779, Robert Patterson erected a block house, with some adjacent defenses, where the city of Lexington now stands. This year, the celebrated land law of Kentucky was passed by the Legislature of Virginia, usually called the Occupying Claimant Law. The great defect of this law was, that Virginia, by this act, did not provide for the survey of the country at the expense of the State. … Each one holding a warrant could locate it where he pleased, and survey it at his own cost. … The consequence of this law was … a flood of emigration during the years 1780 and 1781. During this period the emigrants were greatly annoyed by the frequent incursions of the Indians, and their entire destruction sometimes seemed almost inevitable. This law was a great feast for the lawyers of that day. … In November, 1780, Kentucky was divided into three counties, bearing the names of Fayette, Lincoln, and Jefferson. … In 1782, Indian hostility was earlier, more active and shocking than it had ever been in the country before; a great battle was fought upon Hinkston's Fork of the Licking, near where Mount Sterling now stands, in which the Indians were victorious. In this battle, Estill, who commanded the whites, and nearly all of his officers, were killed. Near the Blue Licks another battle was soon afterwards fought with Captain Holder, in which the whites were again defeated; in both these last mentioned battles the contending foe were Wyandottes. … Peace was made with Great Britain in 1783, and hostilities ceased; hostilities with the Indians also for a time seemed suspended, but were soon renewed with greater violence than ever. During the cessation of hostilities with the Indians, settlements in Kentucky advanced rapidly. … As early as 1784 the people of Kentucky became strongly impressed with the necessity of the organization of a regular government, and gaining admission into the Union as a separate and independent State; but their efforts were continually perplexed and baffled for the space of eight years before their desire was fully accomplished. And though they were often tempted by Spain with the richest gifts of fortune if she would declare herself an independent State, and although the Congress of the Confederated States continually turned a deaf ear to her reiterated complaints and grievances, and repulsed her in every effort to obtain constitutional independence, she maintained to the last the highest respect for law and order, and the most unswerving affection for the Government. … With the view to admission into the Union as an independent State, there were elected and held nine Conventions in Kentucky within the space of eight years."

KENTUCKY: A. D. 1778-1779.
Conquest of the Northwest by the Virginian General Clark, and
its annexation to the Kentucky District.

KENTUCKY: A. D. 1781-1784.
Conflicting territorial claims of Virginia and New York and
their cession to the United States.

KENTUCKY: A. D. 1785-1800.
   The question of the free navigation of the Mississippi.
   Discontent of the settlers.
   Intrigues of Wilkinson.

KENTUCKY: A. D. 1789-1792.
Separation from Virginia and admission to the Union as a
State.

"In the last days of the Continental Congress, Virginia, after some struggles, having reluctantly consented to her organization on that condition as an independent state, Kentucky had applied to that body for admission into the confederacy. That application had been referred to the new federal government about to be organized, a delay which had made it necessary to recommence proceedings anew; for the Virginia Assembly had fixed a limitation of time, which, being over-past, drove back the separatists to the original starting-point. On a new application to the Virginia Legislature, a new act had authorized a new Convention, being the third held on that subject: to take the question of separating into consideration. But this act had imposed some new terms not at all agreeable to the Kentuckians, of which the principal was the assumption by the new state of a portion of the Virginia debt, on the ground of expenses incurred by recent expeditions against the Indians. The Convention which met under this act proceeded no further than to vote a memorial to the Virginia Legislature requesting the same terms formerly offered. That request was granted, and a fourth Convention was authorized again to consider the question of separation, and, should that measure be still persisted in, to fix the day when it should take place. Having met during the last summer [1790], this Convention had voted unanimously in favor of separation; had fixed the first day of June, 1792, as the time; and had authorized the meeting of a fifth Convention to frame a state Constitution. In anticipation of these results, an act of Congress was, now passed [February 4, 1791] admitting Kentucky into the Union from and after the day above mentioned, not only without any inspection of the state Constitution, but before any such Constitution had been actually formed." In the Constitution subsequently framed for the new state of Kentucky, by the Convention appointed as above, an article on the subject of slavery "provided that the Legislature should have no power to pass laws for the emancipation of slaves without the consent of their owners, nor without paying therefor, previous to such emancipation, a full equivalent in money; nor laws to prevent immigrants from bringing with them persons deemed slaves by the laws of anyone of the United States, so long as any persons of like age and description should be continued in slavery by the laws of Kentucky. But laws might be passed prohibiting the introduction of slaves for the purpose of sale, and also laws to oblige the owners of slaves to treat them with humanity."

KENTUCKY: A. D. 1790-1795.
   War with the Indian tribes of the Northwest.
   Disastrous expeditions of Harmar and St. Clair, and Wayne's
   decisive victory.

KENTUCKY: A. D. 1861 (January-September).
The struggle with Secession and its defeat.
"Neutrality" ended.

   "In the days when personal leadership was more than it can
   ever be again, while South Carolina was listening to the
   teachings of John C. Calhoun, which led her to try the
   experiment of secession, Kentucky was following Henry Clay,
   who, though a slave-holder, was a strong Unionist. The
   practical effect was seen when the crisis came, after he had
   been in his grave nine years. Governor Beriah Magoffin
   convened the Legislature in January, 1861, and asked it to
   organize the militia, buy muskets, and put the State in a
   condition of armed neutrality; all of which it refused to do.
   After the fall of Fort Sumter he called the Legislature
   together again, evidently hoping that the popular excitement
   would bring them over to his scheme. But the utmost that could
   be accomplished was the passage of a resolution by the lower
   house (May 16) declaring that Kentucky should occupy 'a
   position of strict neutrality,' and approving his refusal to
   furnish troops for the National army. Thereupon he issued a
   proclamation (May 20) in which he 'notified and warned all
   other States, separate or united, especially the United and
   Confederate States, that I solemnly forbid any movement upon
   Kentucky soil.' But two days later the Legislature repudiated
   this interpretation of neutrality, and passed a series of acts
   intended to prevent any scheme of secession that might be
   formed. It appropriated $1,000,000 for arms and ammunition,
   but placed the disbursement of the money and control of the
   arms in the hands of Commissioners that were all Union men. It
   amended the militia law so as to require the State Guards to
   take an oath to support the Constitution of the United States,
   and finally the Senate passed a resolution declaring that
   'Kentucky will not sever connection with the National
   Government, nor take up arms with either belligerent party.'
   Lovell H. Rousseau (afterward a gallant General in the
   National service), speaking in his place in the Senate, said:
   'The politicians are having their day; the people will yet
   have theirs. I have an abiding confidence in the right, and I
   know that this secession movement is all wrong. There is not a
   single substantial reason for it; our Government had never
   oppressed us with a feather's weight.' The Rev. Robert J.
   Breckinridge and other prominent citizens took a similar
   stand, and a new Legislature, chosen in August, presented a
   Union majority of three to one.
{1942}
   As a last resort, Governor Magoffin addressed a letter to
   President Lincoln, requesting that Kentucky's neutrality be
   respected and the National forces removed from the State. Mr.
   Lincoln, in refusing his request, courteously reminded him
   that the force consisted exclusively of Kentuckians, and told
   him that he had not met any Kentuckian except himself and the
   messengers that brought his letter who wanted it removed. To
   strengthen the first argument, Robert Anderson, of Fort Sumter
   fame, who was a citizen of Kentucky, was made a General and
   given the command in the State in September. Two months later,
   a secession convention met at Russellville, in the southern
   part of the State, organized a provisional government, and
   sent a full delegation to the Confederate Congress at
   Richmond, who found no difficulty in being admitted to seats
   in that body. Being now firmly supported by the new
   Legislature, the National Government began to arrest prominent
   Kentuckians who still advocated secession, whereupon others,
   including ex-Vice-President John C. Breckinridge, fled
   southward and entered the service of the Confederacy. Kentucky
   as a State was saved to the Union, but the line of separation
   was drawn between her citizens, and she contributed to the
   ranks of both the great contending armies."

KENTUCKY: A. D. 1861 (April).
Governor Magoffin's reply to President Lincoln's call for
troops.

KENTUCKY: A. D. 1862 (January-February).
Expulsion of Confederate armies along the whole line.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862
(JANUARY-FEBRUARY: KENTUCKY—TENNESSEE).

KENTUCKY: A. D. 1862 (August-October).
   Bragg's invasion.
   Buell's pursuit.
   Battle of Perryville.

KERNE.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861-1862 (DECEMBER-APRIL: VIRGINIA); and 1864 (JULY: VIRGINIA-MARYLAND).

KHALIF.

KHAN. KHAGAN.

"'Khan' is the modern contracted form of the word which is found in the middle ages as 'Khagan,' or 'Chagan,' and in the Persian and Arabic writers as 'Khakan' or 'Khacan.' Its original root is probably the 'Khak,' which meant King' in ancient Susianian, in Ethiopic ('Tirhakah'), and in Egyptian ('Hyk-sos')."

"The term Khar in Egyptian texts appears to apply to the inhabitants of that part of Syria generally known as Phœnicia, and seems to be derived from the Semitic Akharu, 'the back' or 'west.'"

A democratical party among the Mahometans, which first took form during the Caliphate of Ali, A. D. 657. The name given to the party, Kharejites, signified those who "go forth"—that is in secession and rebellion. It was their political creed that, "believers being absolutely equal, there should be no Caliph, nor oath of allegiance sworn to any man; but that the government should be in the hands of a Council of State elected by the people." Ali attacked and dispersed the Kharejites, in a battle at Nehrwan, A. D. 658; but they continued for a long period to give trouble to succeeding Caliphs.

Sir W. Muir, Annals of the Early Caliphate, chapters 40 and 42, with foot-note.

"This important people, now heard of for the first time in Persian history [late in the fifth century of the Christian era], appears to have occupied, in the reign of Kobad, the steppe country between the Wolga and the Don, whence they made raids through the passes of the Caucasus into the fertile provinces of Iberia, Albania, and Armenia. Whether they were Turks, as is generally believed, or Circassians, as has been ingeniously argued by a living writer [H. H. Howorth], is doubtful; but we cannot be mistaken in regarding them as at this time a race of fierce and terrible barbarians."

   "After the fall of the Persian empire [see MAHOMETAN CONQUEST:
   A. D. 632-651], they [the Khazars, or Chazars] crossed the
   Caucasus, invaded Armenia, and conquered the Crimean
   peninsula, which bore the name of Chazaria for some time. The
   Byzantine emperors trembled at the name of the Chazars, and
   flattered them, and paid them a tribute, in order to restrain
   their lust after the booty of Constantinople. The Bulgarians,
   and other tribes, were the vassals of the Chazars, and the
   people of Kiev (Russians) on the Dnieper were obliged to
   furnish them every year with a sword, and fine skins from
   every fur hunt.
{1943}
   With the Arabs, whose near neighbours they gradually became,
   they carried on terrible wars. Like their neighbours, the
   Bulgarians and the Russians, the Chazars professed a coarse
   religion, which was combined with sensuality and lewdness. The
   Chazars became acquainted with Islamism and Christianity
   through the Arabs and Greeks. … There were also Jews in the
   land of the Chazars; they were some of the fugitives who had
   escaped (723) the mania for conversion which possessed the
   Byzantine Emperor Leo. … As interpreters or merchants,
   physicians or counsellors, the Jews were known and beloved by
   the Chazarian court, and they inspired the warlike Bulan with
   a love of Judaism. … It is possible that the circumstances
   under which the Chazars embraced Judaism have been embellished
   by legend, but the fact itself is too definitely proved on all
   sides to allow of there being any doubt as to its reality.
   Besides Bulan, the nobles of his kingdom, numbering nearly
   4,000, adopted the Jewish religion. Little by little it made
   its way among the people, so that most of the inhabitants of
   the towns of the Chazarian kingdom were Jews. … A successor
   of Bulan, who bore the Hebrew name of Obadiah, was the first
   to occupy himself earnestly with the Jewish religion. He …
   founded synagogues and schools. … After Obadiah came a long
   series of Jewish Chagans, for according to a fundamental law
   of the state only Jewish rulers were permitted to ascend the
   throne."

KHEDIVE.

KHEMI, OR KEM.

KHIVA.

KHODYA.

In the autumn of A. D. 1220, one division of the armies of Jingis Khan, commanded by his son Tului, poured into Khorassan. "Khorassan was then one of the richest and most prosperous regions on the earth's surface; its towns were very thickly inhabited, and it was the first and most powerful province of Persia. The Mongol invasion altered all this, and the fearful ravage and destruction then committed is almost incredible." On the capture of the city of Nessa the inhabitants were tied together with cords and then massacred in a body—70,000 men, women and children together—by shooting them with arrows. At Meru (modern Merv) the wholesale massacre was repeated on a vastly larger scale, the corpses numbering 700,000, according to one account, 1,300,000 according to another. Even this was exceeded at Nishapoor ("city of Sapor"), the ancient capital of Khorassan. "To prevent the living hiding beneath the dead, Tului ordered every head to be cut off, and separate heaps to be made of men's, women's, and children's heads. The destruction of the city occupied fifteen days; it was razed to the ground, and its site was sown with barley; only 400 artisans escaped, and they were transported into the north. According to Mirkhond 1,747,000 men lost their lives in this massacre." The destroying army of demons and savages moved on to Herat, then a beautiful city surrounded by villages and gardens. It surrendered, and only 12,000 of its soldiers were slain at that time; but a few months later, upon news of a defeat suffered by the Mongols, Herat rebelled, and brought down upon itself a most terrible doom. Captured once more, after a siege of six months, the city experienced no mercy. "For a whole week the Mongols ceased not to kill, burn, and destroy, and it is said that 1,600,000 people were killed; the place was entirely depopulated and made desert." At Bamian, in the Hindu Kush, "every living creature, including animals and plants as well as human beings, was destroyed; a heap of slain was piled up like a mountain."

KHOTZIM.

"The extensive and fertile oasis in the midst of the sandy deserts of Central Asia, known in these days as the Khanat of Khiva, was called by the Greeks Chorasmia and by the Arabs Khwarezm [or Khuarezm]. The Chorasmians were of the Aryan race, and their contingent to the army of Xerxes was equipped precisely in the Bactrian fashion. It is probable that Chorasmia formed a portion of the short-lived Greco-Bactrian monarchy, and it certainly passed under the domination of the White Huns, from whom it was subsequently wrested by the Toorks."

KHUAREZM: 12th Century.
The Khuarezmian, or Khahrezmian,
or Korasmian, or Carizmian Empire.

"The sovereigns of Persia were in the habit of purchasing young Turks, who were captured by the various frontier tribes in their mutual struggles, and employing them in their service. They generally had a body guard formed of them, and many of them were enfranchised and rose to posts of high influence, and in many cases supplanted their masters. The founder of the Khuarezmian power was such a slave, named Nushtekin, in the service of the Seljuk Sultan Malik Shah. He rose to the position of a Teshtedar or chamberlain, which carried with it the government of the province of Khuarezm, that is of the fertile valley of the Oxus and the wide steppes on either side of it, bounded on the west by the Caspian and on the east by Bukharia." The grandson of Nushtekin became virtually independent of the Seljuk sultan, and the two next succeeding princes began and completed the overthrow of the Seljuk throne. The last Seljuk sultan, Togrul III., was slain in battle, A. D. 1193, by Takish or Tokush, the Khuarezmian ruler, who sent his head to the Caliph at Bagdad and was formally invested by the Caliph with the sovereignty of Khorassan, Irak Adjem and other parts of the Persian domain not occupied by the Atabegs and the Assassins. Takish's son extended his conquests in Transoxiana and Turkestan (A. D. 1209), and acquired Samarkand, which he made his capital. "He controlled an army of 400,000 men, and his dominions, at the invasion of the Mongols, stretched from the Jaxartes to the Persian Gulf, and from the Indus to the Irak Arab and Azerbaidjan."

In May, 1220, the Mongol army of Jingis Khan marched upon Urgendj, or Khuarezm—the original capital of the empire of Khuarezm, to which it gave its name. That city, which is represented by the modern Khiva, was "the capital of the rich cluster of cities that then bordered the Oxus, a river very like the Nile in forming a strip of green across two sandy deserts which bound it on either hand." The Mongols were commanded, at first, by the three elder sons of Jingis Khan: but two of them quarreled, and the siege was protracted through six months without much progress being made. Jingis then placed the youngest son, Ogotai, in charge of operations, and they were carried forward more vigorously. "The Mongols at length assaulted the town, fired its buildings with naptha, and after seven days of desperate street-fighting captured it. This was probably in December, 1220. They sent the artisans and skilled workmen into Tartary, set aside the young women and children as slaves, and then made a general massacre of the rest of the inhabitants. They destroyed the city, and then submerged it by opening the dykes of the Oxus. The ruins are probably those now known as Old Urgendj. Rasehid says that over 100,000 artisans and craftsmen were sent into Mongolia."

In December, 1240, the Mongols, pursuing their devastating march through Russia, reached Kiev. It was then a famous city, known among the Russians as "the mother of cities, magnificently placed on the high banks of the Dnieper, with its white walls, its beautiful gardens, and its thirty churches, with their gilded cupolas, which gave it its pretty Tartar name, Altundash Khan (i. e., the court of the Golden Heads): it was the metropolitan city of the old Russian princes, the seat of the chief patriarch of all Russia. It had latterly, namely, in 1204, suffered from the internal broils of the Russian princes, and had been much plundered and burnt. It was now to be for a while erased altogether." Kiev was taken by storm and the inhabitants "slaughtered without mercy: the very bones were torn from the tombs and trampled under the horses' hoofs. … The magnificent city, with the ancient Byzantine treasures which it contained, was destroyed." During the 14th and 15th centuries Kiev seems to have remained in ruins, and the modern city is said to be "but a shadow of its former self."

KILIDSCH.

KILIKIA.

KILPATRICK'S RAID TO RICHMOND.

"Cyning, by contraction King, is closely connected with the word 'Cyn' or 'Kin.' … I do not feel myself called upon to decide whether Cyning is strictly the patronymic of 'cyn,' or whether it comes immediately from a cognate adjective (see Allen, Royal Prerogative, 176: Kemble, i. 153). It is enough if the two words are of the same origin, as is shown by a whole crowd of cognates, 'cynebarn,' 'cynecyn,' 'cynedom,' 'cynehelm,' 'cynehlaford.' … (I copy from Mr. Earle's Glossarial Index.) In all these words 'cyn' has the meaning of 'royal.' The modern High-Dutch König is an odd corruption: but the elder form is 'Chuninc.' The word has never had an English feminine: Queen is simply 'Cwen,' woman, wife. … The notion of the King being the 'canning' or 'cunning' man [is] an idea which could have occurred only to a mind on which all Teutonic philology was thrown away."

E. A. Freeman, History of the Norman Conquest of England, chapter 3, section 1, and note L (volume 1).

KING GEORGE'S WAR.

KING OF THE ROMANS.

KING OF THE WOOD.

KING PHILIP'S WAR.

KING WILLIAM'S WAR.

   The war in Europe, of "the Grand Alliance" against Louis XIV.
   of France, frequently called "the War of the League of
   Augsburg," extended to the American colonies of England and
   France, and received in the former the name of King William's
   War.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1690; CANADA: A. D. 1689-1690, and 1692-1697; also, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1690; and NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1694-1697.

KING'S BENCH.

KING'S COLLEGE.

KING'S HEAD CLUB.

"The peace, as it was called, the primitive alliance for mutual good behaviour, for the performance and enforcement of rights and duties, the voluntary restraint of free society in its earliest form, was from the beginning of monarchy [in early England] under the protection of the king. … But this position is far from that of the fountain of justice and source of jurisdiction. The king's guarantee was not the sole safeguard of the peace; the hundred had its peace as well as the king; the king too had a distinct peace which like that of the church was not that of the country at large, a special guarantee for those who were under special protection. … When the king becomes the lord, patron and 'mundborh' of his whole people, they pass from the ancient national peace of which he is the guardian into the closer personal or territorial relation of which he is the source. The peace is now the king's peace. … The process by which the national peace became the king's peace is almost imperceptible; and it is very gradually that we arrive at the time at which all peace and law are supposed to die with the old king, and rise again at the proclamation of the new."

W. Stubbs, Constitutional History of England, chapter 7, section 72 (volume 1).

      ALSO IN:
      G. E. Howard,
      On the Development of the King's Peace
      (Nebraska University Studies, volume 1, number 3).

KINGSTON, Canada: A. D. 1673.
The building of Fort Frontenac.
La Salle's seigniory.

In 1673, Count Frontenac, governor of Canada, personally superintended the construction of a fort on the north shore of Lake Ontario, at the mouth of the Cataraqui, where the city of Kingston now stands, the site having been recommended by the explorer La Salle. The following year this fort, with surrounding lands to the extent of four leagues in front and half a league in depth, was granted in seigniory to La Salle, he agreeing to pay the cost of its construction and to maintain it at his own charge. He named the post Frontenac.

"The Kipchaks were called Comans by European writers. … The name Coman is derived no doubt from the river Kuma, the country about which was known to the Persians as Kumestan. … A part of their old country on the Kuma is still called Desht Kipchak, and the Kumuks, who have been pushed somewhat south by the Nogays, are, I believe, their lineal descendants. Others of their descendants no doubt remain also among the Krim Tartars. To the early Arab writers the Kipchaks were known as Gusses, a name by which we also meet with them in the Byzantine annals. This shows that they belonged to the great section of the Turks' known as the Gusses or Oghuz Turks. … They first invaded the country west of the Volga at the end of the ninth century, from which time till their final dispersal by the Mongols in the thirteenth century they were very persistent enemies of Russia. After the Mongol conquest it is very probable that they became an important element in the various tribes that made up the Golden Horde or Khanate of Kipchak."

KIRK OF SCOTLAND.

KIRKE'S LAMBS.

KIRRHA.

KISSIA.

KITCHEN-MIDDENS.

"Amongst the accumulations of Neolithic age which are thought by many archæologists to be oldest are the well-known 'Kjökkenmödingr' or kitchen-middens of Denmark. These are heaps and mounds composed principally of shells of edible molluscs, of which the most abundant are oyster, cockle, mussel, and periwinkle. Commingled with the shells occur bones of mammals, birds, and fish in less or greater abundance, and likewise many implements of stone, bone, and horn, together with potsherds. The middens are met with generally near the coast, and principally on the shores of the Lymfjord and the Kattegat; they would appear, indeed, never to be found on the borders of the North Sea. They form mounds or banks that vary in height from 3 or 5 feet up to 10 feet, with a width of 150 to 200 feet, and a length of sometimes nearly 350 yards. … The Danish savants (Forchhammer, Steenstrupp, and Worsaae), who first examined these curious shell-mounds, came to the conclusion that they were the refuse-heaps which had accumulated round the dwellings of some ancient coast-tribe. … Shell-mounds of similar character occur in other countries."

KIT'S COTY HOUSE.

The popular name of a conspicuous Cromlech or stone burial monument in Kent, England, near Addington.

KITTIM.

KJÖKKENMÖDINGR.

KLERUCHS.

"Another consequence of some moment arose out of this victory [of the Athenians over the citizens of Chalkis, or Chalcis, in the island of Eubœa, B. C. 506—see ATHENS: B. C. 509-506]. The Athenians planted a body of 4,000 of their citizens as Kleruchs (lot-holders) or settlers upon the lands of the wealthy Chalkidian oligarchy called the Hippobotæ—proprietors probably in the fertile plain of Lelantum between Chalkis and Eretria. This is a system which we shall find hereafter extensively followed out by the Athenians in the days of their power; partly with the view of providing for their poorer citizens—partly to serve as garrison among a population either hostile or of doubtful fidelity. These Attic Kleruchs (I can find no other name by which to speak of them) did not lose their birthright as Athenian citizens. They were not colonists in the Grecian sense, and they are known by a totally different name—but they corresponded very nearly to the colonies formerly planted out on the conquered lands by Rome."

KNIGHT-SERVICE.

KNIGHTHOOD:
   Black Eagle:
   A Prussian Order instituted by Frederick III., Elector of
   Brandenburg, in 1701.

KNIGHTHOOD:
Christ: a Papal Order, instituted by Pope John XXII., in 1319;
also a Portuguese Order.

KNIGHTHOOD:
   The Crescent: instituted by René of Anjou, titular King of
   Naples, in 1448, but suppressed by Pope Paul II., in 1464;
   also a Turkish Order

KNIGHTHOOD:
The Elephant: a Danish Order, instituted in 1693, by King
Christian V.

KNIGHTHOOD:
The Iron Cross: a Prussian Order, instituted in 1815 by
Frederick William III.

KNIGHTHOOD:
St. Januarius: instituted by Charles, King of the Two
Sicilies, in 1738.

KNIGHTHOOD:
The White Cross: an Order founded by the Grand Duke of
Tuscany, in 1814.

KNIGHTHOOD:
White Eagle: a Polish Order, instituted in 1325 by Ladislaus
IV., and revived by Augustus in 1705.

KNIGHTS.

KNIGHTS BACHELORS.

"The word 'bachelor,' from whence has come 'bachelier,' does not signify 'bas chevalier,' but a knight who has not the number of 'bachelles' of land requisite to display a banner: that is to say, four 'bachelles.' The 'bachelle' was composed of ten 'maz,' or 'meix' (farms or domains), each of which contained a sufficiency of land for the work of two oxen during a whole year."

J. Froissart, Chronicles (translated by Johnes), book 1, chapter 61, foot-note (volume 1).

KNIGHTS BANNERETS.

"The name [banneret] imports the bearer of a small banner, and, in this respect, he differed from the baron, who bore a gonfanon or banner of war, and the simple knight, who bore a penon. The banner, properly so called, was a square flag; the penon, according to the illuminations of ancient manuscripts, was a small square, having two long triangles attached to the side opposite that which was fixed to the lance or spear. These pendant portions resembling tails were so denominated. Rastal defines a banneret to be a knight made upon the field of battle, with the ceremony of cutting off the point of his standard, and so making this like a banner. And such, he says, are allowed to display their arms on a banner in the king's army, like the barons. That was, no doubt, the mode of creation; but it appears … that a knight, or an esquire of four bacelles, or cow lands, and therefore, a bachelor, to whom the king had presented a banner on his first battle, became a banneret on the second; so that, in such cases, there would be no such ceremony necessary."

KNIGHTS OF THE SHIRE.

During the thirteenth century there grew up in England the practice of sending to the Great Council of the king a certain number of knights from each shire to represent the "lesser baronage." which had formerly possessed the privilege of attending the council in person, but which had become more neglectful of attendance as their numbers increased. In theory, these knights of the shire, as they came to be called, were representatives of that "lesser baronage" only. "But the necessity of holding their election in the County Court rendered any restriction of the electoral body physically impossible. The court was composed of the whole body of freeholders, and no sheriff could distinguish the 'aye, aye' of the yeoman from the 'aye, aye' of the lesser baron. From the first moment therefore of their attendance we find the knights regarded not as mere representatives of the baronage, but as knights of the shire, and by this silent revolution the whole body of the rural freeholders were admitted to a share in the government of the realm."

The history of the knights of the shire is the history of the origin of county representation in the English Parliament. The representation of boroughs, or towns, has a history quite distinct. Of the leading part played by the knights of the shire in the development and establishment of the English Constitution Mr. Stubbs remarks ("Constitutional History of England," chapter 17, section 272): "Both historical evidence and the nature of the case lead to the conviction that the victory of the constitution was won by the knights of the shires; they were the leaders of parliamentary debate; they were the link between the good peers and the good towns; they were the indestructible element of the house of commons; they were the representatives of those local divisions of the realm which were coeval with the historical existence of the people of England, and the interests of which were most directly attacked by the abuses of royal prerogative."

KNOXVILLE: A. D. 1863 (September).
Evacuated by the Confederates and occupied by the Union
forces.

"The Koran, as Mr. Kingsley quaintly, but truly, says, 'after all is not a book, but an irregular collection of Mohammed's meditations and notes for sermons.' It is not a code, it is not a journal, it is a mere gathering together of irregular scraps, written on palm-leaves and bones of mutton, which Abu-Bekr [the bosom friend of Mahomet and the first of the Caliphs or successors of the Prophet] put together without the slightest regard to chronological order, only putting the long fragments at the beginning, and the short fragments at the end. But so far from having the Koran of Mahomet, we have not even the Koran of Abu-Bekr. Caliph Othman [the third Caliph], we know, gave enormous scandal by burning all the existing copies, which were extremely discordant, and putting forth his own version as the 'textus ab omnibus receptus.' How much then of the existing Koran is really Mahomet's; how much has been lost, added, transposed, or perverted; when, where, and why each fragment was delivered, it is often impossible even to conjecture. And yet these baskets of fragments are positively worshipped."

KORKYRA, OR CORCYRA.

The Greek island now known as Corfu, separated from the coast of Epirus by a strait only two to seven miles in breadth, bore in ancient times the name of Korkyra, or, rather, took that name from its ruling city. "Korkyra [the city] was founded by the Corinthians, at the same time (we are told) as Syracuse. … The island was generally conceived in antiquity as the residence of the Homeric Phæakians, and it is to this fact that Thucydides ascribes in part the eminence of the Korkyræan marine. According to another story, some Eretrians from Eubœa had settled there, and were compelled to retire. A third statement represents the Liburnians as the prior inhabitants,—and this perhaps is the most probable, since the Liburnians were an enterprising, maritime, piratical race, who long continued to occupy the more northerly islands in the Adriatic along the Illyrian and Dalmatian coast. … At the time when the Corinthians were about to colonize Sicily, it was natural that they should also wish to plant a settlement at Korkyra, which was a post of great importance for facilitating the voyage from Peloponnesus to Italy, and was further convenient for traffic with Epirus, at that period altogether non-Hellenic. Their choice of a site was fully justified by the prosperity and power of the colony, which, however, though sometimes in combination with the mother-city, was more frequently alienated from her and hostile, and continued so from an early period throughout most part of the three centuries from 700-400 B. C. … Notwithstanding the long-continued dissensions between Korkyra and Corinth, it appears that four considerable settlements on this same line of coast were formed by the joint enterprise of both,—Leukas and Anaktorium to the south of the mouth of the Ambrakiotic Gulf—and Apollonia and Epidamnus [afterwards called Dyrrhachium], both in the territory of the Illyrians at some distance to the north of the Akrokeraunian promontory [modern Cape Glossa, on the Albanian coast]. … Leukas, Anaktorium and Ambrakia are all referred to the agency of Kypselus the Corinthian. … The six colonies just named—Korkyra, Ambrakia, Anaktorium, Leukas [near the modern St. Maura], Apollonia, and Epidamnus—form an aggregate lying apart from the rest of the Hellenic name, and connected with each other, though not always maintained in harmony, by analogy of race and position, as well as by their common origin from Corinth."

KORKYRA: B. C. 435-432.
   Quarrel with Corinth.
   Help from Athens.
   Events leading to the Peloponnesian War.

KOS.

   A brave but predatory people in ancient times, occupying the
   mountains between Media and Persia, who were hunted down by
   Alexander the Great and the males among them exterminated.

KOTZIM.

KOYUNJIK.

KRALE.

KRETE.

KRIM TARTARY.

KRISSA. KRISSÆAN WAR.

KROTON.

KSHATRIYAS.

KUNBIS.

KURDS, OR KOORDS.

KURFÜRST.

KUSH. KUSHITES.

The name which the Britons of Wales and Cumberland gave to themselves during their struggle with the Angles and Saxons, meaning "Cym-bro (Combrox) or the compatriot, the native of the country, the rightful owner of the soil. … From the occupation by the English of the plain of the Dee and the Mersey, the Kymry dwelt in two lands, known in quasi-Latin as Cambria, in Welsh Cymru, which denotes the Principality of Wales, and Cumbria, or the kingdom of Cumberland. … Kambria was regularly used for Wales by such writers as Giraldus in the twelfth century, … but the fashion was not yet established of distinguishing between Cambria and Cumbria as we do."

The term Cymry or Kymry is sometimes used in a larger sense to denote the whole Brythonic branch of the Celtic race, as distinguished from the Goidelic, or Gaelic; but that use of it does not seem to be justified. On the question whether the name Kymry, or Cymry, bears any relation to that of the ancient Cimbri.

One of the three races of people who inhabited the Peloponnesian peninsula of Greece before the Dorian conquest,—the other two races being the Arcadians and the Achæans. "They were never (so far as history knows them) an independent population. They occupied the larger portion of the territory of Argolis, from Orneæ, near the northern or Phliasian border, to Thyrea and the Thyreatis, on the Laconian border: and though belonging originally (as Herodotus imagines rather than asserts) to the Ionic race—they had been so long subjects of Argos in his time that almost all evidence of their ante-Dorian condition had vanished."

KYRENE.

KYZICUS.

"The chief banner of the Christian emperors [Roman] was the so-called 'labarum.' Eusebius describes it as a long lance with a cross-piece; to the latter a square silk flag was attached, into which the images of the reigning emperor and his children were woven. To the point of the lance was fastened a golden crown enclosing the monogram of Christ and the sign of the cross."

LABOR ORGANIZATION.

"Labrador—Laboratoris Terra—is so called from the circumstance that Cortereal in the year 1500 stole thence a cargo of Indians for slaves."

      F. Parkman,
      Pioneers of France in the New World: Champlain,
      chapter 1, foot-note.

LABYRINTHS. MAZES.

"The Labyrinths of the classical age and the quaint devices of later times, the Mazes, of which they were the prototypes, present to the archaeologist a subject of investigation which hitherto has not received that degree of attention of which it appears so well deserving. … Labyrinths may be divided into several distinct classes, comprising complicated ranges of caverns, architectural labyrinths or sepulchral buildings, tortuous devices indicated by coloured marbles or cut in turf, and topiary labyrinths or mazes formed by clipped hedges. … Of the first class we may instance the labyrinth near Nauplia in Argolis, termed that of the Cyclops, and described by Strabo; also the celebrated Cretan example, which from the observations of modern travellers is supposed to have consisted of a series of caves, resembling in some degree the catacombs of Rome or Paris. It has been questioned, however, whether such a labyrinth actually existed. … Of architectural labyrinths, the most extraordinary specimen was without doubt that at the southern end of the lake Mœris in Egypt, and about thirty miles from Arsinoe. Herodotus, who describes it very distinctly, says that … it consisted of twelve covered courts, 1,500 subterranean chambers, in which the bodies of the Egyptian princes and the sacred crocodiles were interred, and of as many chambers above ground, which last only he was permitted to enter."

E. Trollope, Notices of Ancient and Mediaeval Labyrinths (Archaeological Journal, volume 15).

LA CADIE, ACADIA.

LACEDÆMON.

LACONIA.

LACUSTRINE HABITATIONS.

   Ladislaus VI. (Jagellon),
   King of Hungary, 1440-1444;
   King of Poland, 1434-1444.

Fought in what was called the Cleomenic War, between Cleomenes, king of Sparta, and the Achæan League, B. C. 226. The battle was fought near the city of Megalopolis, in Arcadia, which belonged to the League and which was threatened by Cleomenes. The latter won a complete victory, and Lydiades, of Megalopolis, one of the noblest of the later Greeks, was slain.

   "Hlæfdige," the Saxon word from which our modern English word
   "lady" comes, was the highest female title among the
   West-Saxons, being reserved for the king's wife.

LADY OF THE ENGLISH.

   By the custom of the West Saxons, the king's wife was called
   Lady, not Queen, and when the Wessex kingdom widened to cover
   England, its queen was known as the Lady of the English.

LÆNLAND.

"Either book land or folkland could be leased out by its holders [in early England]; and, under the name of 'lænland,' held by free cultivators."

W. Stubbs, Constitutional History of England, chapter 5, section 36 (volume 1).

LÆTI. LÆT. LAZZI.

"Families of the conquered tribes of Germany, who were forcibly settled within the 'limes' of the Roman provinces, in order that they might repeople desolated districts, or replace the otherwise dwindling provincial population—in order that they might bear the public burdens and minister to the public needs, i. e., till the public land, pay the public tribute, and also provide for the defence of the empire. They formed a semi-servile class, partly agricultural and partly military; they furnished corn for the granaries and soldiers for the cohorts of the empire, and were generally known in later times by the name of Læti or Liti."

"There seems to be no reason for questioning that the eorl, ceorl and læt of the earliest English laws, those of Ethelbert, answer exactly to the edhiling, the friling and the lazzus of the old Saxons. Whether the Kentish læts were of German origin has been questioned. Lappenberg thinks they were 'unfree of kindred race.' K. Maurer thinks them a relic of ancient British population who came between the free wealh and the slave. … The name (lazzus= slow or lazy) signifies condition, not nationality. … The wer-gild of the Kentish læt was 40, 60, or 80 shillings, according to rank, that of the ceorl being 200."

W. Stubbs, Constitutional History of England, chapter 4, section 31, foot-note (volume 1).

LAFAYETTE IN THE WAR OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778 (JUNE), (JULY-NOVEMBER); 1780 (JULY); 1781 (JANUARY-MAY), and (MAY-OCTOBER).

LAGIDE PRINCES.

The Egyptian dynasty founded by Ptolemy Soter, the Macedonian general, is sometimes called the Lagide dynasty and its princes the Lagide princes, with reference to the reputed father of Ptolemy, who bore the name of Lagus.

LAGTHING.

LAKE DWELLINGS.

"Among the most interesting relics of antiquity which have yet been discovered are the famous lake-dwellings of Switzerland, described by Dr. Keller and others. … Dr. Keller … has arranged them in three groups, according to the character of their substructure.

[1] Those of the first group, the Pile Dwellings, are, he tells us, by far the most numerous in the lakes of Switzerland and Upper Italy. In these the substructure consists of piles of various kinds of wood, sharpened sometimes by fire, sometimes by stone hatchets or celts, and in later times by tools of bronze, and probably of iron, the piles being driven into the bottom of the lake at various distances from the shore. …

[2] The Frame Pile-Dwellings are very rare. 'The distinction between this form and the regular pile-settlement consists in the fact that the piles, instead of having been driven into the mud of the lake, had been fixed by a mortise-and-tenon arrangement into split trunks, lying horizontally on the bed of the lake.' …

[3] In the Fascine Dwellings, as Dr. Keller terms his third group of lake-habitations, the substructure consisted of successive layers of sticks or small stems of trees built up from the bottom of the lake till they reached above the lake-level. …

   Lake-dwellings have been met with in many other regions of
   Europe besides Switzerland and Italy, as in Bavaria, Austria,
   Hungary, Mecklenburg, Pomerania, France, Wales, Ireland, and
   Scotland. The 'Crannoges' of Ireland and Scotland were rather
   artificial islands than dwellings like those described above."

LAMAS. LAMAISM.

   "The development of the Buddhist doctrine which has taken
   place in the Panjab, Nepal, and Tibet … has resulted at last
   in the complete establishment of Lamaism, a religion not only
   in many points different from, but actually antagonistic to,
   the primitive system of Buddhism; and this not only in its
   doctrine, but also in its church organization." Tibet is "the
   only country where the Order has become a hierarchy, and
   acquired temporal power. Here, as in so many other countries,
   civilization entered and history began with Buddhism. When the
   first missionaries went there is not, however, accurately
   known; but Nepal was becoming Buddhist in the 6th century, and
   the first Buddhist king of Tibet sent to India for the holy
   scriptures in 632 A. D. A century afterwards an adherent of
   the native devil-worship drove the monks away, destroyed the
   monasteries, and burnt the holy books; but the blood of the
   martyrs was the seed of the church—it returned triumphant
   after his death, and rapidly gained in wealth and influence.
   …
{1951}
   As the Order became wealthy, rival abbots had contended for
   supremacy, and the chiefs had first tried to use the church as
   a means of binding the people to themselves, and then,
   startled at its progress, had to fight against it for their
   own privilege and power. When, in the long run, the crozier
   proved stronger than the sword, the Dalai Lama became in 1419
   sole temporal sovereign of Tibet."

"Up to the moment of its conversion to Buddhism, a profound darkness had rested on [Tibet]. The inhabitants were ignorant and uncultivated, and their indigenous religion, sometimes called Bon, consisted chiefly of magic based on a kind of Shamanism. … The word is said to be of Tungusic origin, and to be used as a name for the earliest religion of Mongolia, Siberia and other Northern countries. … It is easy to understand that the chief function of the Shamans, or wizard-priests, was to exorcise evil demons, or to propitiate them by sacrifices and various magical practices. … The various gradations of the Tibetan hierarchy are not easily described, and only a general idea of them can be given. … First and lowest in rank comes the novice or junior monk, called Gethsul (Getzul). … Secondly and higher in rank we have the rull monk, called Gelong (or Gelon). … Thirdly we have the superior Gelong or Khanpo (strictly mKhan po), who has a real right to the further title Lama. … As the chief monk in a monastery he may be compared to the European Abbot. … Some of the higher Khanpo Lamas are supposed to be living re-incarnations or re-embodiments of certain canonized saints and Bodhi-sattvas who differ in rank. These are called Avatara Lamas, and of such there are three degrees. … There is also a whole class of mendicant Lamas. … Examples of the highest Avataras are the two quasi-Popes, or spiritual Kings, who are supreme Lamas of the Yellow sect—the one residing at Lhassa, and the other at Tashi Lunpo (Krashi Lunpo), about 100 miles distant. … The Grand Lama at Lhassa is the Dalai Lama, that is, 'the Ocean-Lama, or one whose power and learning are as great as the ocean. … The other Grand Lama, who resides in the monastery of Tashi Lunpo, is known in Europe under the names of the Tashi Lama."

"Kublai-Khan, after subduing China [see CHINA: A. D. 1259-1294], adopted the Buddhist doctrines, which had made considerable progress among the Tartars. In the year 1261 he raised a Buddhist priest named Mati to the dignity of head of the Faith in the empire. This priest is better known under the name of Pakbo Lama, or supreme Lama: he was a native of Thibet, and had gained the good graces and confidence of Kublai, who, at the same time that he conferred on him the supreme sacerdotal office, invested him with the temporal power in Thibet, with the titles of 'King of the Great and Precious Law,' and 'Institutor of the Empire.' Such was the origin of the Grand Lamas of Thibet, and it is not impossible that the Tartar Emperor, who had had frequent communications with the Christian missionaries, may have wished to create a religious organisation after the model of the Romish hierarchy."

A treaty of September 11, A. D. 1217, which was, in a certain sense, the sequel of Magna Carta. The barons who extorted the Great Charter from King John in 1215 were driven subsequently to a renewal of war with him. They renounced their allegiance and offered the crown to a French prince, Louis, husband of Blanche of Castile, who was John's niece. The pretensions of Louis were maintained after John's death, against his young son, Henry III. The cause of the latter triumphed in a decisive battle fought at Lincoln, May 20, 1217, and the contest was ended by the treaty named above. "The treaty of Lambeth is, in practical importance, scarcely inferior to the Charter itself.

W. Stubbs, Constitutional History of England, chapter 14, section 170 (volume 2).

"The Chancellorship of the Duchy of Lancaster is an office more remarkable for its antiquity than for its present usefulness. It dates from the time of Henry the Fourth, when the County of Lancashire was under a government distinct from the rest of the Kingdom. About the only duty now associated with the office is the appointment of magistrates for the county of Lancashire. In the other English and Welsh counties, these appointments are made by the Lord High Chancellor, who is the head of the Judicial system. The duties of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster are thus exceedingly light. The holder of the office is often spoken of as 'the maid of all work to the Cabinet,' from the fact that he is accorded a place in the Cabinet without being assigned any special duties likely to occupy the whole of his time. Usually the office is bestowed upon some statesman whom it is desirable for special reasons to have in the Cabinet, but for whom no other office of equal rank or importance is available."

LANCASTRIANS.

With Sir John Hawkwood and his "free company" of English mercenaries, "came first into Italy [about 1360] the use of the term 'lances,' as applied to hired troops; each 'lance' being understood to consist of three men; of whom one carried a lance, and the others were bowmen. … They mostly fought on foot, having between each two archers a lance, which was held as men hold their hunting-spears in a boar-hunt."

LAND GRANTS FOR SCHOOLS IN THE UNITED STATES.

LANDAMMANN.

The expression, Public Peace, which, in deference to numerous and high authorities I have generally used in the text, is liable to important objections. 'A breach of the public peace' means, in England, any open disorder or outrage. But [in mediæval Germany] the Landfriede (Pax publica) was a special act or provision directed against the abuse of an ancient and established institution,—the Fehderecht (jus diffidationis, or right of private warfare). The attempts to restrain this abuse were, for a long time, local and temporary. … The first energetic measure of the general government to put down private wars was that of the diet of Nürnberg (1466). … The Fehde is a middle term between duel and war. Every affront or injury led, after certain formalities, to the declaration, addressed to the offending party, that the aggrieved party would be his foe, and that of his helpers and helpers'-helpers. … I shall not go into an elaborate description of the evils attendant on the right of diffidation or private warfare (Fehderecht); they were probably not so great as is commonly imagined."

L. Ranke, History of the Reformation in Germany, volume 1, pages 77 (foot-note), 71, and 81.

"The right of diffidation, or of private warfare, had been the immemorial privilege of the Germanic nobles—a privilege as clear as it was ancient, which no diet attempted to abolish, but which, from the mischiefs attending its exercise, almost everyone had endeavoured to restrain. … Not only state, could declare war against state, prince against prince, noble against noble, but any noble could legally defy the emperor himself." In the reign of Frederick III. (1440-1493) efforts were made to institute a tribunal—an imperial chamber—which should have powers that would operate to restrain these private wars; but the emperor and the college of princes could not agree as to the constitution of the court proposed. To attain somewhat the same end, the emperor then "established a league both of the princes and of the imperial cities, which was destined to be better observed than most preceding confederations. Its object was to punish all who, during ten years, should, by the right of diffidation, violate the public tranquillity. He commenced with Swabia, which had ever been regarded as the imperial domain; and which, having no elector, no governing duke, no actual head other than the emperor himself, and, consequently, no other acknowledged protector, was sufficiently disposed to his views. In its origin the Swabian league consisted only of six cities, four prelates, three counts, sixteen knights; but by promises, or reasoning, or threats, Frederic soon augmented it. The number of towns was raised to 22, of prelates to 13, of counts to 12, of knights or inferior nobles to 350. It derived additional strength from the adhesion of princes and cities beyond the confines of Swabia; and additional splendour from the names of two electors, three margraves, and other reigning princes. It maintained constantly on foot 10,000 infantry and 1,000 cavalry,—a force generally sufficient for the preservation of tranquillity. Of its salutary effects some notion may be formed from the fact that, in a very short period, one-and-forty bandit dens were stormed, and that two powerful offenders, George duke of Bavaria, and duke Albert of Munich, were compelled by an armed force to make satisfaction for their infraction of the public peace."

The final suppression of the Fehderecht was brought about in the succeeding reign, of Maximilian, by the institution of the Imperial Chamber and the organization of the Circles to enforce its decrees.

LANDRECIES: A. D. 1794.
Siege and capture by the Allies.
Recovery by the French.

LANDSQUENETS.

"After the accession of Maximilian I. [Emperor, A. D. 1493-1519], the troops so celebrated in history under the name of 'Landsquenets' began to be known in Europe. They were native Germans, and soon rose to a high degree of military estimation. That Emperor, who had studied the art of war, and who conducted it on principles of Tactics, armed them with long lances; divided them into regiments, composed of ensigns and squads; compelled them to submit to a rigorous discipline, and retained them under their standards after the conclusion of the wars in which he was engaged. … Pikes were substituted in the place of their long lances, under Charles V."

LANDSTING.

See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (DENMARK-ICELAND): A. D. 1849-1874; and CONSTITUTION OF SWEDEN.

LANGUE D'OC.

"It is well known that French is in the main a descendant from the Latin, not the Latin of Rome, but the corrupter Latin which was spoken in Gaul. Now these Latin-speaking Gauls did not, for some reason, say 'est,' 'it is,' for 'yes,' as the Romans did; but they used a pronoun, either 'ille,' 'he,' or 'hoc,' 'this.' When, therefore, a Gaul desired to say 'yes,' he nodded, and said 'he' or else 'this,' meaning 'He is so,' or 'This is so.' As it happens the Gauls of the north said 'ille,' and those of the south said 'hoc,' and these words gradually got corrupted into two meaningless words, 'oui' and 'oc.' It is well known that the people in the south of France were especially distinguished by using the word 'oc' instead of 'oui' for 'yes,' so that their 'dialect' got to be called the 'langue d'oc,' and this word Langue-doc gave the name to a province of France."

LANGUEDOC.

When, as a consequence of the Albigensian wars, the dominions of the Counts of Toulouse were broken up and absorbed for the most part in the domain of the French crown, the country which had been chiefly ravaged in those wars, including Septimania and much of the old county of Toulouse, acquired the name by which its language was known—Languedoc. The 'langue d'oc' was spoken likewise in Provence and in Aquitaine; but it gave a definite geographical name only to the region between the Rhone and the Garonne.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1800-1801 (MAY-FEBRUARY); GERMANY: A. D. 1806 (OCTOBER); SPAIN: A. D. 1808 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER), 1808-1809 (DECEMBER-MARCH), 1809 (FEBRUARY-JULY); and GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (JANUARY-JUNE).

The rock-lifted castle and stronghold of Laon, situated in the modern department of Aisne, about 74 miles northeast from Paris, was the last refuge and capital—sometimes the sole dominion—of the Carolingian kings, in their final struggle with the new dynasty sprung from the Dukes of France. The "King of Laon" and the "King of St. Denis," as the contestants are sometimes called, disputed with one another for a monarchy which was small when the sovereignty of the two had been united in one. In 991 the "King of Laon" was betrayed to his rival, Hugh Capet, and died in prison. "Laon ceased to be a capital, and became a quiet country town; the castle, relic of those days, stood till 1832, when it was rased to the ground."

ALSO IN: Sir F. Palgrave, History of Normandy and England, book 1, part 2, chapter 4, parts 1-2 (volume 2).

   A race which occupied in early times the valley of the Peneus,
   in Thessaly; "a race which derived its origin from Almopia in
   Macedonia, and was at least very nearly connected with the
   Minyans and Æolians of Ephyra."

LARISSA.

LA ROCHELLE.

LA SALLE'S EXPLORATIONS.

"The Lateran derives its name from a rich patrician family, whose estates were confiscated by Nero. … It afterwards became an imperial residence, and a portion of it … was given by Constantine to Pope Melchiades in 312,—a donation which was confirmed to St. Sylvester, in whose reign the first basilica was built here. … The ancient Palace of the Lateran was the residence of the popes for nearly 1,000 years. … The modern Palace of the Lateran was built from designs of Fontana by Sixtus V. In 1693 Innocent XII. turned it into a hospital,—in 1438 Gregory XVI. appropriated it as a museum."

LATHES OF KENT.

"The county of Kent [England] is divided into six 'lathes,' of nearly equal size, having the jurisdiction of the hundreds in other shires. The lathe may be derived from the Jutish 'lething' (in modern Danish 'leding')—a military levy."

LATIFUNDIA.

The great slave-tilled estates of the Romans, which swallowed up the properties of the small land-holders of earlier times, were called Latifundia.

The Roman Catholic Church (see PAPACY) is often referred to as the Latin Church, in distinction from the Greek or Orthodox Church of the East.

LATIN EMPIRE AT CONSTANTINOPLE.

LATIN LANGUAGE IN THE MIDDLE AGES.

"We must … explain what was meant in the sixth century of Rome [third century B. C.] by the 'Latin name.' … The Latin name was now extended far beyond its old geographical limits, and was represented by a multitude of flourishing cities scattered over the whole of Italy, from the frontier of Cisalpine Gaul to the southern extremity of Apulia. … Not that they were Latins in their origin, or connected with the cities of the old Latium: on the contrary they were by extraction Romans; they were colonies founded by the Roman people, and consisting of Roman Citizens: but the Roman government had resolved that, in their political relations, they should be considered, not as Romans, but as Latins; and the Roman settlers, in consideration of the advantages which they enjoyed as colonists, were content to descend politically to a lower condition than that which they had received as their birthright. The states of the Latin name, whether cities of old Latium or Roman colonies, all enjoyed their own laws and municipal government, like the other allies; and all were, like the other allies, subject to the sovereign dominion of the Romans. They were also so much regarded as foreigners that they could not buy or inherit land from Roman citizens; nor had they generally the right of intermarriage with Romans. But they had two peculiar privileges: one, that any Latin who left behind him a son in his own city, to perpetuate his family there, might remove to Rome, and acquire the Roman franchise; the other, that every person who had held any magistracy or distinguished office in a Latin state, might become at once a Roman citizen."

LATIUM. THE OLD LATINS.

"The plain of Latium must have been in primeval times the scene of the grandest conflicts of nature, while the slowly formative agency of water deposited, and the eruptions of mighty volcanoes upheaved, the successive strata of that soil on which was to be decided the question to what people the sovereignty of the world should belong. Latium is bounded on the east by the mountains of the Sabines and Aequi, which form part of the Apennines; and on the south by the Volscian range rising to the height of 4,000 feet, which is separated from the main chain of the Apennines by the ancient territory of the Hernici, the table-land of the Sacco (Trerus, a tributary of the Liris), and stretching in a westerly direction terminates in the promontory of Terracina. On the west its boundary is the sea, which on this part of the coast forms but few and indifferent harbours. On the north it imperceptibly merges into the broad highlands of Etruria. The region thus enclosed forms a magnificent plain traversed by the Tiber, the 'mountain-stream' which issues from the Umbrian, and by the Anio, which rises in the Sabine mountains. Hills here and there emerge, like islands, from the plain; some of them steep limestone cliffs, such as that of Soracte in the north-east, and that of the Circeian promontory on the south-west, as well as the similar though lower height of the Janiculum near Rome; others volcanic elevations, whose extinct craters had become converted into lakes which in some cases still exist; the most important of these is the Alban range, which, free on every side, stands forth from the plain between the Volscian chain and the river Tiber. Here settled the stock which is known to history under the name of the Latins, or, as they were subsequently called by way of distinction from the Latin communities beyond the bounds of Latium, the 'Old Latins' ('prisci Latini'). But the territory occupied by them, the district of Latium, was only a small portion of the central plain of Italy. All the country north of the Tiber was to the Latins a foreign and even hostile domain, with whose inhabitants no lasting alliance, no public peace, was possible, and such armistices as were concluded appear always to have been for a limited period. The Tiber formed the northern boundary from early times. … We find, at the time when our history begins, the flat and marshy tracts to the south of the Alban range in the hands of Umbro-Sabellian stocks, the Rutuli and Volsci; Ardea and Velitrae are no longer in the number of originally Latin towns. Only the central portion of that region between the Tiber, the spurs of the Apennines, the Alban Mount, and the sea—a district of about 700 square miles, not much larger than the present canton of Zurich—was Latium proper, the 'plain,' as it appears to the eye of the observer from the heights of Monte Cavo. Though the country is a plain, it is not monotonously flat. With the exception of the sea-beach which is sandy and formed in part by the accumulations of the Tiber, the level is everywhere broken by hills of tufa moderate in height, though often somewhat steep, and by deep fissures of the ground. These alternating elevations and depressions of the surface lead to the formation of lakes in winter; and the exhalations proceeding in the heat of summer from the putrescent organic substances which they contain engender that noxious fever-laden atmosphere, which in ancient times tainted the district as it taints it at the present day."

LAUDER BRIDGE.

LAURAS.

"The institution of Lauras was the connecting link between the hermitage and the monastery, in the later and more ordinary use of that word. … A Laura was an aggregation of separate cells, under the not very strongly defined control of a superior, the inmates meeting together only on the first and last days, the old and new Sabbaths, of each week, for their common meal in the refectory and for common worship. … The origin of the word 'Laura' is uncertain. … Probably it is another form of 'labra,' the popular term in Alexandria for an alley or narrow court."

"From the appointment of Chaucer about five hundred years have elapsed, and during that period a long line of poets have held the title of Laureate. For the first two hundred years they were somewhat irregularly appointed, but from the creation of Richard Edwards in 1561, they come down to the present time without interruption. The selection of the Laureate has not always been a wise one, but the list contains the names of a few of our greatest authors, and the honour was certainly worthily bestowed upon Edmund Spenser, Ben Jonson, John Dryden, Robert Southey, William Wordsworth, and Alfred Tennyson. As the custom of crowning successful poets appears to have been in use since the origin of poetry itself, the office of Poet Laureate can certainly boast of considerable antiquity, and the laurel wreath of the Greeks and Romans was an envied trophy long before our Druidical forefathers held aloft the mistletoe bough in their mystic rites. From what foreign nation we first borrowed the idea of a King of the Poets is doubtful."

W. Hamilton, Origin of the Office of Poet Laureate (Royal Historical Society, Transactions, volume 8).

The following is a list of the Poets Laureate of England, with
the dates of their appointment:

   Geoffrey Chaucer, 1368;
   Sir John Gower, 1400;
   Henry Scogan;
   John Kay;
   Andrew Bernard, 1486;
   John Skelton, 1489;
   Robert Whittington, 1512;
   Richard Edwards, 1561;
   Edmund Spenser, 1590;
   Samuel Daniel, 1598;
   Ben Jonson, 1616;
   Sir William Davenant, 1638;
   John Dryden, 1670;
   Thomas Shadwell, 1688;
   Nahum Tate, 1692;
   Nicholas Rowe, 1715;
   Rev. Laurence Eusden, 1718;
   Colley Cibber, 1730;
   William Whitehead, 1757;
   Thomas Warton, 1785;
   Henry James Pye, 1790;
   Robert Southey, 1813;
   William Wordsworth, 1843;
   Alfred Tennyson, 1850.

These mines, in Attica, were owned and worked at an early time by the Athenian state, and seem to have yielded a large revenue, more or less of which was divided among the citizens. It was by persuading the Athenians to forego that division that Themistocles secured money to build the fleet which made Athens a great naval power. The mines were situated in the southern part of Attica, in a district of low hills, not far from the promontory of Sunium.

LAUSITZ.

LAW. [Prepared for this work by Austin Abbott, Dean of the
New York University Law School.]

The subject is here treated with reference to the history of the rights of persons and property, and that of procedure, rather than in its political and economic aspects, which are discussed under other heads. And those parts of the history of law thus considered which enter into our present systems are given the preference in space,—purely historical matters, such as the Roman Law, being treated elsewhere, as indicated in the references placed at the end of this article:

"The Emperor Constantine, or Antonine (for there is some doubt as to which it was), had the honour of being the first to renounce the claim to shipwrecked property in favor of the rightful owner. But the inhuman customs on this subject were too deeply rooted to be eradicated by the wisdom and vigilance of the Roman law givers. The legislation in favor of the unfortunate was disregarded by succeeding emperors, and when the empire itself was overturned by the northern barbarians, the laws of humanity were swept away in the tempest, and the continual depredations of the Saxons and Normans induced the inhabitants of the western coasts of Europe to treat all navigators who were thrown by the perils of the sea upon their shores as pirates, and to punish them as such, without inquiry or discrimination. The Emperor Andronicus Comnenus, who reigned at Constantinople in 1183, made great efforts to repress this inhuman practice. His edict was worthy of the highest praise, but it ceased to be put in execution after his death. … Valin says, it was reserved to the ordinances of Lewis XIV. to put the finishing stroke towards the extinction of this species of piracy, by declaring that shipwrecked persons and property were placed under the special protection and safe guard of the crown, and the punishment of death without hope of pardon, was pronounced against the guilty."

The Act of 28 Henry VIII., c. 15, granted jurisdiction to the
Lord High Admiral of England.

"The Request of the Judge of the Admiralty, to the Lord Chief Justice of her Majesty's Bench, and his Colleagues, and the Judges' Agreement 7th May 1575,"—by which the long controversy between these Courts as to their relative jurisdiction was terminated, will be found in full in

The space between high and low water mark is to be taken as
part of the sea, when the tide is in.

      Erastus C. Benedict,
      American Admiralty, 3d edition,
      by Robert D. Benedict, page 35,
      citing Sir John Constable's Case,
      Anderson's Rep. 89.

The Act of 1789 declared admiralty jurisdiction to extend to all cases "where the seizures are made on waters which are navigable from the sea by vessels of ten or more tons burthen."

   "Lord Mansfield, at a very early period of his judicial life,
   introduced to the notice of the English bar the Rhodian laws,
   the Consolato del mare, the laws of Oleron, the treatises of
   Roccus, the laws of Wisbuy, and, above all, the marine
   ordinances of Louis XIV., and the commentary of Valin. These
   authorities were cited by him in Luke v. Lyde [2 Burr. 882],
   and from that time a new direction was given to English
   studies, and new vigor, and more liberal and enlarged views,
   communicated to forensic investigations.
{1956}
   Since the year 1798, the decisions of Sir William Scott (now
   Lord Stowell) on the admiralty side of Westminster Hall, have
   been read and admired in every region of the republic of
   letters, as models of the most cultivated and the most
   enlightened human reason. … The doctrines are there reasoned
   out at large, and practically applied. The arguments at the
   bar, and the opinions from the bench, are intermingled with
   the greatest reflections, … the soundest policy, and a
   thorough acquaintance with all the various topics which
   concern the great social interests of mankind."

   The act 3 and 4 Vic., c. 65, restored to the English Admiralty
   some jurisdiction of which it had been deprived by the Common
   Law Courts.

"It took the Supreme Court of the United States more than fifty years to reject the antiquated doctrine of the English courts, that admiralty jurisdiction was confined to salt water, or water where the tide ebbed and flowed. Congress in 1845 passed an act extending the admiralty jurisdiction of the Federal courts to certain cases upon the great lakes, and the navigable waters connecting the same. The constitutionality of this act was seriously questioned, and it was not till 1851 that the Supreme Court, by a divided court, in the case of the Genesee Chief, which collided with another vessel on Lake Ontario, sustained the constitutionality of the act, and repudiated the absurd doctrine that tides had anything to do with the admiralty jurisdiction conferred by the constitution upon Federal courts."

Lyman Trumbull, Precedent versus Justice, American Law Review, volume 27, page 324.

ADMIRALTY LAW: A. D. 1873. Division of Loss in case of Collision settled by Judicature Act.

"The rule that where both ships are at fault for a collision each shall recover half his loss from the other, contradicts the old rule of the common law that a plaintiff who is guilty of contributory negligence can recover nothing. This conflict between the common law and the law of the Admiralty was put an end to in 1873 by the Judicature Act of that year, which (s. 25, subs. 9) provides that 'if both ships shall be found to have been in fault' the Admiralty rule shall prevail. … There can be no doubt that in some instances it works positive injustice; as where it prevents the innocent cargo-owner from recovering more than half his loss from one of the two wrong-doing shipowners. And recent cases show that it works in an arbitrary and uncertain manner when combined with the enactments limiting the shipowner's liability for damage done by his ship. The fact, however, remains, that it has been in operation with the approval of the shipping community for at least two centuries, and probably for a much longer period; and an attempt to abolish it at the time of the passing of the Judicature Acts met with no success. The true reason of its very general acceptance is probably this—that it gives effect to the principle of distributing losses at sea, which is widely prevalent in maritime affairs. Insurance, limitation of shipowner's liability, and general average contribution are all connected, more or less directly, with this principle."

R. G. Marsden, Two Points of Admiralty Law, Law Quarterly Review, volume 2, pages 357-362.

      See
      Benedict's Am. Admiralty,
      pages 91-97,
      and
      Davis' Outlines of International Law,
      pages 5, 6, &c.

"It may be confidently asserted that trial by jury was unknown to our Anglo-Saxon ancestors; and the idea of its existence in their legal system has arisen from a want of attention to the radical distinction between the members or judges composing a court, and a body of men apart from that court, but summoned to attend it in order to determine conclusively the facts of the case in dispute. This is the principle on which is founded the intervention of a jury; and no trace whatever can be found of such an institution in Anglo-Saxon times."

   "The first written body of English Law is said to have been
   promulgated in the Heptarchy by Ethelbert, about the year 630,
   and enacted with the consent of the states of his kingdom."

1. The technical use of "the king's peace" is, I suspect, connected with the very ancient rule that a breach of the peace in a house must be atoned for in proportion to the householder's rank. If it was in the king's dwelling, the offender's life was in the king's hand. This peculiar sanctity of the king's house was gradually extended to all persons who were about his business, or specially under his protection; but when the Crown undertook to keep the peace everywhere, the king's peace became coincident with the general peace of the kingdom, and his especial protection was deemed to be extended to all peaceable subjects. In substance, the term marks the establishment of the conception of public justice, exercised on behalf of the whole commonwealth, as something apart from and above the right of private vengeance,—a right which the party offended might pursue or not, or accept composition for, as he thought fit. The private blood feud, it is true, formally and finally disappeared from English jurisprudence only in the present century; but in its legalized historical shape of the wager of battle it was not a native English institution.

   "When the Normans came into England they brought with them,
   not only a far more vigorous and searching kingly power than
   had been known there, but also a certain product of the
   exercise of this power by the Frankish kings and the Norman
   dukes; namely, the use of the inquisition in public
   administration, i. e., the practice of ascertaining facts by
   summoning together by public authority a number of people most
   likely, as being neighbors, to know and tell the truth, and
   calling for their answer under oath. This was the parent of
   the modern jury. …
{1957}
   With the Normans came also another novelty, the judicial
   duel—one of the chief methods for determining controversies
   in the royal courts; and it was largely the cost, danger, and
   unpopularity of the last of these institutions which fed the
   wonderful growth of the other."

      J. B. Thayer,
      The Older Modes of Trial
      (Harvard Law Review, volume 5, page 45).

"The same remark which has already been made, with reference to the absence of all mention of the form of jury trial in the Anglo-Saxon Laws, applies equally to the first hundred years after the Conquest. It is incredible that so important a feature of our jurisprudence, if it had been known, would not have been alluded to in the various compilations of law which were made in the reigns of the early Norman kings. … Although the form of the jury did not then exist, the rudiments of that mode of trial may be distinctly traced, in the selection from the neighborhood where the dispute arose, of a certain number of persons, who after being duly sworn testified to the truth of the facts within their own knowledge. This is what distinguishes the proceeding from what took place among the Anglo-Saxons—namely, the choosing a limited number of probi homines to represent the community, and give testimony for them."

"As a legal tribunal the jurisdiction of the Curia was both civil and criminal, original and appellate. As a primary court it heard all causes in which the king's interests were concerned, as well as all causes between the tenants-in-chief of the crown, who were too great to submit to the local tribunals of the shire and the hundred. As an appellate court it was resorted to in those cases in which the powers of the local courts had been exhausted or had failed to do justice. By virtue of special writs, and as a special favor, the king could at his pleasure call up causes from the local courts to be heard in his own court according to such new methods as his advisers might invent. Through the issuance of these special writs the king became practically the fountain of justice, and through their agency the new system of royal law, which finds its source in the person of the king, was brought in to remedy the defects of the old, unelastic system of customary law which prevailed in the provincial courts of the people. The curia followed the person of the king, or the justiciar in the king's absence."

Hannis Taylor, Origin and Growth of the English Constitution, part 1, pages 245-246.

"The course of application to the curia regis was of this nature. The party suing paid, or undertook to pay, to the king a fine to have justitiam et rectam in his court: and thereupon he obtained a writ or precept, by means of which he commenced his suit; and the justices were authorized to hear and determine his claim."

"The earliest reference to the battle, I believe, in any account of a trial in England, is at the end of the case of Bishop Wulfstan v. Abbot Walter, in 1077. The controversy was settled, and we read: 'Thereof there are lawful witnesses … who said and heard this, ready to prove it by oath and battle.' This is an allusion to a common practice in the Middle Ages, that of challenging an adversary's witness, or perhaps to one method of disposing of cases where witnesses were allowed on opposite sides and contradicted each other. … Thus, as among nations still, so then in the popular courts and between contending private parties, the battle was often the ultima ratio, in cases where their rude and unrational methods of trial yielded no results. It was mainly in order to displace this dangerous … mode of proof that the recognitions—that is to say, the first organized form of the jury—were introduced. These were regarded as a special boon to the poor man, who was oppressed in many ways by the duel. It was by enactment of Henry II. that this reform was brought about, first in his Norman dominions (in 1150-52), before reaching the English throne, and afterwards in England, sometime after he became king, in 1154."

J. B. Thayer, The Older Modes of Trial (Harvard Law Review, volume 5, pages 66-67).

   "Our ancestors, instead of fixing a given number of years as
   the period within which legal proceedings to recover real
   property must be resorted to, had recourse to the singular
   expedient of making the period of limitation run from
   particular events or dates. From the time of Henry I. to that
   of Henry III., on a writ of right, the time within which a
   descent must be shown was the time of King Henry I. (Co. Litt.
   114b). In the twentieth year of Henry III., by the Statute of
   Merton (c. 8) the date was altered to the time of Henry II.
   Writs of 'mort d'ancestor' were limited to the time of the
   last return of King John into England; writs of novel
   disseisin to the time of the king's first crossing the sea
   into Gascony. In the previous reign, according to Glanville
   (lib. 13, c. 33), the disseisin must have been since the last
   voyage of King Henry II. into Normandy. So that the time
   necessary to bar a claim varied materially at different
   epochs. Thus matters remained until the 3 Edw. I. (Stat. West.
   1, c. 39), when, as all lawyers are aware, the time within
   which a writ of right might be brought was limited to cases in
   which the seisin of the ancestor was since the time of King
   Richard I., which was construed to mean the beginning of that
   king's reign (2 Inst. 238), a period of not less than
   eighty-six years. The legislature having thus adopted the
   reign of Richard I. as the date from which the limitation in a
   real action was to run, the courts of law adopted it as the
   period to which, in all matters of prescription or custom,
   legal memory, which till then had been confined to the time to
   which living memory could go back, should thenceforth be
   required to extend. Thus the law remained for two centuries
   and a half, by which time the limitation imposed in respect of
   actions to recover real property having long become
   inoperative to bar claims which had their origin posterior to
   the time of Richard I., and having therefore ceased
   practically to afford any protection against antiquated
   claims, the legislature, in 32d of Henry VIII. (c. 2), again
   interfered, and on this occasion, instead of dating the period
   of limitation from some particular event or date, took the
   wiser course of prescribing a fixed number of years as the
   limit within which a suit should be entertained. …
{1958}
   It was of course impossible that as time went on the adoption
   of a fixed epoch, as the time from which legal memory was to
   run, should not be attended by grievous inconvenience and
   hardship. Possession, however long, enjoyment, however
   interrupted, afforded no protection against stale and obsolete
   claims, or the assertion of long abandoned rights. And as
   parliament failed to intervene to amend the law, the judges
   set their ingenuity to work, by fictions and presumptions, to
   atone for the supineness of the legislature. … They first
   laid down the somewhat startling rule that from the usage of a
   lifetime the presumption arose that a similar usage had
   existed from a remote antiquity. Next, as it could not but
   happen that, in the case of many private rights, especially in
   that of easements, which had a more recent origin, such a
   presumption was impossible, judicial astuteness to support
   possession and enjoyment, which the law ought to have invested
   with the character of rights, had recourse to the questionable
   theory of lost grants. Juries were first told that from user,
   during living memory, or even during twenty years, they might
   presume a lost grant or deed; next they were recommended to
   make such presumption; and lastly, as the final consummation
   of judicial legislation, it was held that a jury should be
   told, not only that they might, but also that they were bound
   to presume the existence of such a lost grant, although
   neither judge nor jury, nor anyone else, had the shadow of a
   belief that any such instrument had ever really existed. …
   When the doctrine of presumptions had proceeded far towards
   its development, the legislature at length interfered, and in
   respect of real property and of certain specified easements,
   fixed certain periods of possession or enjoyment as
   establishing presumptive rights."

      C. J. Cockburn,
      in Bryant v. Foot,
      L. R. 2 Q. B., 161;
      s. c. (Thayer's Cases on Evidence, 94).

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1110 (circa).
The King's Peace superior to the Peace of the Subject.

"We find in the so-called laws of Henry I, that wherever men meet for drinking, selling, or like occasions, the peace of God and of the lord of the house is to be declared between them. The amount payable to the host is only one shilling, the king taking twelve, and the injured party, in case of insult, six. Thus the king is already concerned, and more concerned than anyone else; but the private right of the householder is distinctly though not largely acknowledged. We have the same feeling well marked in our modern law by the adage that every man's house is his castle, and the rule that forcible entry may not be made for the execution of ordinary civil process against the occupier: though for contempt of Court arising in a civil cause, it may, as not long ago the Sheriff of Kent had to learn in a sufficiently curious form. The theoretical stringency of our law of trespass goes back, probably, to the same origin. And in a quite recent American textbook we read, on the authority of several modern cases in various States of the Union, that 'a man assaulted in his dwelling is not obliged to retreat, but may defend his possession to the last extremity.'"

      F. Pollock,
      The King's Peace
      (Law Quarterly Review, volume 1, pages 40-41).

"The King's Peace is proclaimed in general terms at his accession. But, though generalized in its application, it still was subject to a strange and inconvenient limit in time. The fiction that the king is everywhere present, though not formulated, was tacitly adopted; the protection once confined to his household was extended to the whole kingdom. The fiction that the king never dies was yet to come. It was not the peace of the Crown, an authority having continuous and perpetual succession, that was proclaimed, but the peace of William or Henry. When William or Henry died, all authorities derived from him were determined or suspended; and among other consequences, his peace died with him. What this abeyance of the King's Peace practically meant is best told in the words of the Chronicle, which says upon the death of Henry I. (anno 1135): 'Then there was tribulation soon in the land, for every man that could forthwith robbed another.' Order was taken in this matter (as our English fashion is) only when the inconvenience became flagrant in a particular case. At the time of Henry III.'s death his son Edward was in Palestine. It was intolerable that there should be no way of enforcing the King's Peace till the king had come back to be crowned; and the great men of the realm, by a wise audacity, took upon them to issue a proclamation of the peace in the new king's name forthwith. This good precedent being once made, the doctrine of the King's Peace being in suspense was never afterwards heard of."

      F. Pollock,
      The King's Peace
      (Law Quarterly Review, volume 1, pages 48-49).

"The origin of the rule as to unanimity may, I think, be explained as follows: In the assise as instituted in the reign of Henry II. it was necessary that twelve jurors should agree in order to determine the question of disseisin; but this unanimity was not then secured by any process which tended to make the agreement compulsory. The mode adopted was called, indeed, an afforcement of the jury; but this term did not imply that any violence was done to the conscientious opinions of the minority. It merely meant that a sufficient number were to be added to the panel until twelve were at last found to agree in the same conclusion; and this became the verdict of the assise. … The civil law required two witnesses at least, and in some cases a greater number, to establish a fact in dispute; as, for instance, where a debt was secured by a written instrument, five witnesses were necessary to prove payment. These would have been called by our ancestors a jurata of five. At the present day, with us no will is valid which is not attested by at least two witnesses. In all countries the policy of the law determines what it will accept as the minimum of proof. Bearing then in mind that the jury system was in its inception nothing but the testimony of witnesses informing the court of facts supposed to lie within their own knowledge, we see at once that to require that twelve men should be unanimous was simply to fix the amount of evidence which the law deemed to be conclusive of a matter in dispute."

"The reign of Henry II. initiates the rule of law. The administrative machinery, which had been regulated by routine under Henry I., is now made a part of the constitution, enunciated in laws, and perfected by a steady series of reforms: The mind of Henry II. was that of a lawyer and man of business. He set to work from the very beginning of the reign to place order on a permanent basis, and, recurring to the men and measures of his grandfather, to complete an organization which should make a return to feudalism impossible."

       W. Stubbs,
       Select Charters of English Constitutional History,
       page 21.

"The first mention of the trial by assise in our existing statutes occurs in the Constitutions of Clarendon, A. D. 1164 [see ENGLAND: A. D. 1162-1170], where it was provided that if any dispute arose between a layman and a clerk as to whether a particular tenement was the property of the Church or belonged to a lay fief, this was to be determined before the chief justiciary of the kingdom, by the verdict of twelve lawful men. … This was followed by the Statute of Northampton, A. D. 1176, which directs the justices, in case a lord should refuse to give to the heir the seisin of his deceased ancestor, 'to cause a recognition to be made by means of twelve lawful men as to what seisin the deceased had on the day of his death;' and also orders them to inquire in the same manner in cases of novel disseisin."

"The king's justice was one great source of his revenue, and he sold it very dear. Observe that this buying and selling was not in itself corruption, though it is hard to believe that corruption did not get mixed up with it. Suitors paid heavily not to have causes decided in their favour in the king's court, but to have them heard there at all. The king's justice was not a matter of right, but of exceptional favour; and this was especially the case when he undertook, as he sometimes did, to review and overrule the actual decisions of local courts, or even reverse, on better information, his own previous commands. And not only was the king's writ sold, but it was sold at arbitrary and varying prices, the only explanation of which appears to be that in every case the king's officers took as much as they could get. Now we are in a position to understand that famous clause of the Great Charter: 'To no man will we sell, nor to none deny or delay, right or justice.' The Great Charter comes about half a century after the time of which we have been speaking; so in that time, you see, the great advance had been made of regarding the king's justice as a matter not of favour but of right. And besides this clause there is another which provides for the regular sending of the king's judges into the counties. Thus we may date from Magna Carta the regular administration of a uniform system of law throughout England. What is more, we may almost say that Magna Carta gave England a capital. For the king's court had till then no fixed seat; it would be now at Oxford, now at Westminster, now at Winchester, sometimes at places which by this time are quite obscure. But the Charter provided that causes between subject and subject which had to be tried by the king's judges should be tried not where the king's court happened to be, but in some certain place; and so the principal seat of the courts of justice, and ultimately the political capital of the realm, became established at Westminster."

"It has been generally supposed that justices in Eyre (justitiarii itinerantes) were first established in 1176, by Henry II., for we find it recorded that in that year, in a great counsel held at Northampton, the king divided the realm into six parts, and appointed three traveling justices to go each circuit, so that the number was eighteen in all. … But although the formal division of the kingdom into separate circuits may have been first made by Henry II., yet there is no doubt that single justiciars were appointed by William I., a few years after the Conquest, who visited the different shires to administer justice in the king's name, and thus represented the curia regis as distinct from the hundred and county courts."

   "No doubt usage for the last fifty or sixty years would be
   some evidence of usage 700 years ago, but if the question is
   to be considered as an ordinary question of fact, I certainly
   for one would very seldom find a verdict in support of the
   right as in fact so ancient. I can hardly believe, for
   instance, that the same fees in courts of justice which were
   till recently received by the officers as ancient fees
   attached to their ancient offices were in fact received 700
   years ago; or that the city of London took before the time of
   Richard I. the same payments for measuring corn and coals and
   oysters that they do now. I have no doubt the city of Bristol
   did levy dues in the Avon before the time of legal memory, and
   that the mayor, as head of that corporation, got some fees at
   that time; but I can hardly bring myself to believe that the
   mayor of Bristol at that time received 5s. a year from every
   ship above sixty tons burthen which entered the Avon; yet the
   claim of the city of Bristol to their ancient mayor's dues, of
   which this is one, was established before Lord Tenterden, in
   1828. I think the only way in which verdicts in support of
   such claims, and there are many such, could have properly been
   found, is by supposing that the jury were advised that, in
   favor of the long continued user, a presumption arose that it
   was legal, on which they ought to find that the user was
   immemorial, if that was necessary to legalize it, unless the
   contrary was proved; that presumption not being one purely of
   fact, and to be acted on only when the jury really entertained
   the opinion that in fact the legal origin existed. This was
   stated by Parke B., on the first trial of Jenkins v. Harvey, 1
   C. M. & R. 894, as being his practice, and what he considered
   the correct mode of leaving the question to the jury; and that
   was the view of the majority of the judges in the Court of
   Exchequer Chamber in Shephard v. Payne, 16 C. B. (N. S.) 132;
   33 L. J. (C. P.) 158. This is by no means a modern doctrine;
   it is as ancient as the time of Littleton, who, in his
   Tenures, § 170, says that all are agreed that usage since the
   time of Richard I. is a title; some, he says, have thought it
   the only title of prescription, but that others have said
   'that there is also another title of prescription that was at
   the common law before any statute of limitation of writs, &c.,
   and that it was where a custom or usage or other thing hath
   been used for time whereof mind of man runneth not to the
   contrary.
{1960}
   And they have said that this is proved by the pleading where a
   man will plead a title of prescription of custom. He shall say
   that such a custom hath been used from time whereof the memory
   of men runneth not to the contrary, that is as much as to say,
   when such a matter is pleaded, that no man then alive hath
   heard any proof of the contrary, nor hath no knowledge to the
   contrary; and insomuch that such title of prescription was at
   the common law, and not put out by any statute, ergo, it
   abideth as it was at the common law; and the rather that the
   said limitation of a writ of right is of so long time past.
   'Ideo quaere de hoc.' It is practically the same thing whether
   we say that usage as far back as proof extends is a title,
   though it does not go so far back as the year 1189; or that
   such usage is to be taken in the absence of proof to the
   contrary to establish that the usage began before that year;
   and certainly the lapse of 400 years since Littleton wrote has
   added force to the remark, 'the rather that the limitation of
   a writ of right is of so long time past.' But either way,
   proof that the origin of the usage was since that date, puts
   an end to the title by prescription; and the question comes
   round to be whether the amount of the fee, viz. 13s., is by
   itself sufficient proof that it must have originated since."

      J. Blackburn,
      in Bryant v. Foot, L. R. 2 Q. B., 161,. s. c.
      (Thayer's Cases on Evidence, page 88).

"The extant English judicial records do not begin until 1194 (Mich. 6 Rich. I.). We have a series of such records from 1384 (6 Rich. II.). The first law treatise by Glanvill was not written before 1187. The law reports begin in 1292. The knowledge of the laws of England prior to the twelfth century is in many points obscure and uncertain. From that time, however, the growth and development of these laws can be traced in the parliamentary and official records, treatises, and law reports."

John F. Dillon, The Laws and Jurisprudence of England and America, pages 28-29.

"A case of the year 1199 (2 Rot. Cur. Reg. 34) seems to be the earliest reported instance of an action of trespass in the royal courts. Only a few cases are recorded during the next fifty years. But about 1250 the action came suddenly into great popularity. In the 'Abbreviatio Placitorum,' twenty-five cases are given of the single year 1252-1253. We may infer that the writ, which had before been granted as a special favor, became at that time a writ of course. In Britton (f. 49), pleaders are advised to sue in trespass rather than by appeal, in order to avoid 'la perilouse aventure de batayles.' Trespass in the popular courts of the hundred and county was doubtless of far greater antiquity than the same action in the Curia Regis. Several cases of the reign of Henry I, are collected in Bigelow, Placita Anglo-Normannica, 89, 98, 102, 127."

      J. B. Ames,
      The Disseisin of Chattels
      (Harvard Law Review, volume 3, page 29, note).

"From the beginning of our records, we find cases, in a dispute over the genuineness of a deed, where the jury are combined with the witnesses to the deed. This goes back to the Franks; and their custom of requiring the witness to a document to defend it by battle also crossed the channel, and is found in Glanville (lib. X., c. 12). … In these cases the jury and the witnesses named in the deed were summoned together, and all went out and conferred privately as if composing one body; the witnesses did not regularly testify in open court. Cases of this kind are found very early, e. g. in 1208-1209 (Pl. Ab. 63, col. 1, Berk.). … In the earlier cases these witnesses appear, sometimes, to have been conceived of as a constituent part of the jury; it was a combination of business-witnesses and community-witnesses who tried the case,—the former supplying to the others their more exact information, just as the hundreders, or those from another county, did in the cases before noticed. But in time the jury and the witnesses came to be sharply discriminated. Two or three cases in the reign of Edward III. show this. In 1337, 1338 and 1349, we are told that they are charged differently; the charge to the jury is to tell the truth (a lour ascient) to the best of their knowledge, while that to the witnesses is to tell the truth and loyally inform the inquest, without saying anything about their knowledge (sans lour scient); 'for the witnesses,' says Thorpe, C. J., in 1349, 'should say nothing but what they know as certain, i. e., what they see and hear.' … By the Statute of York (12 Edw. II. c. 2), in 1318, it was provided that while process should still issue to the witnesses as before, yet the taking of the inquest should not be delayed by their absence. In this shape the matter ran on for a century or two. By 1472 (Y. B. 12 Edw. IV. 4, 9), we find a change. It is said, with the assent of all the judges, that process for the witnesses will not issue unless asked for. As late, certainly, as 1489 (Y. B. 5 H. VII. 8), we find witnesses to deeds still summoned with the jury. I know of no later case. In 1549-1550 Brooke, afterwards Chief Justice of the Common Bench, argues as if this practice was still known: 'When the witnesses … are joined to the inquest,' etc.; and I do not observe anything in his Abridgment, published in 1568, ten years after his death, to indicate that it was not a recognized part of the law during all his time. It may, however, well have been long obsolescent. Coke (Inst. 6 b.) says of it, early in the seventeenth century, 'and such process against witnesses is vanished;' but when or how he does not say. We may reasonably surmise, if it did not become infrequent as the practice grew, in the fifteenth century, of calling witnesses to testify to the jury in open court, that, at any rate, it must have soon disappeared when that practice came to be attended with the right, recognized, if not first granted, in the statute of 1562-1563 (5 Eliz. c. 9, s. 6), to have legal process against all sorts of witnesses."

James B. Thayer, in Harvard Law Review, volume 5, pages 302-5, also in Sel. Cas. Ev. pages 771-773.

"After the period reached in the passage above quoted, the old strictness as to the summoning of attesting witnesses still continued under the new system. As the history of the matter was forgotten, new reasons were invented, and the rule was extended to all sorts of writings."

"Another point which ought not to be forgotten in relation to the King's Court is its migratory character. The early kings of England were the greatest landowners in the country, and besides their landed estates they had rights over nearly every important town in England, which could be exercised only on the spot. They were continually travelling about from place to place, either to consume in kind part of their revenues, or to hunt or to fight. Wherever they went the great officers of their court, and in particular the chancellor with his clerks, and the various justices had to follow them. The pleas, so the phrase went, 'followed the person of the king,' and the machinery of justice went with them."

"With regard to the administration of justice, besides prohibiting all denials or delays of it, it fixed the court of Common Pleas at Westminster, that the suitors might no longer be harassed with following the King's person in all his progresses; and at the same time brought the trial of issues borne to the very doors of the freeholders by directing assizes to be taken in the proper counties, and establishing annual circuits. It also corrected some abuses then incident to the trials by wager of law and of battle; directing the regular awarding of inquest for life or member; prohibited the King's inferior ministers from holding pleas of the crown, or trying any criminal charge, whereby many forfeitures might otherwise have unjustly accrued to the exchequer: and regulated the time and place of holding the inferior tribunals of justice, the county court, sheriff's tourn, and court leet. … And, lastly (which alone would have merited the title that it bears, of the great charter,) it protected every individual of the nation in the free enjoyment of his life, his liberty and his property, unless declared to be forfeited by the judgment of his peers, or the law of the land."

"The Chancellors, during this reign [John 1199-1216], did nothing to be entitled to the gratitude of posterity, and were not unworthy of the master whom they served. The guardians of law were the feudal barons, assisted by some enlightened churchmen, and by their efforts the doctrine of resistance to lawless tyranny was fully established in England, and the rights of all classes of the people were defined and consolidated. We here reach a remarkable era in our constitutional history: National councils had met from the most remote times; but to the end of this reign their acts not being preserved are supposed to form a part of the lex non scripta, or common law. Now begins the distinction between common and statute law, and henceforth we can distinctly trace the changes which our juridical system has undergone. These changes were generally introduced by the Chancellor for the time being."

"It is curious that, in the most disturbed period of this turbulent reign, when ignorance seemed to be thickening and the human intellect to decline, there was written and given to the world the best treatise upon law of which England could boast, till the publication of Blackstone's Commentaries, in the middle of the eighteenth century. It would have been very gratifying to me if this work could have been ascribed with certainty to any of the Chancellors whose lives have been noticed. The author, usually styled Henry de Bracton, has gone by the name of Brycton, Britton, Briton, Breton, and Brets; and some have doubted whether all these names are not imaginary. From the elegance of his style, and the familiar knowledge he displays of the Roman law, I cannot doubt that he was an ecclesiastic who had addicted himself to the study of jurisprudence; and as he was likely to gain advancement from his extraordinary proficiency, he may have been one of those whom I have commemorated, although I must confess that he rather speaks the language likely to come from a disappointed practitioner rather than of a Chancellor who had been himself in the habit of making Judges. For comprehensiveness, for lucid arrangement, for logical precision, this author was unrivalled during many ages. Littleton's work on Tenures, which illustrated the reign of Edward IV., approaches Bracton; but how barbarous are, in comparison, the commentaries of Lord Coke, and the law treatises of Hale and of Hawkins!"

   "The additional provision made in the edition of 1217 to the
   provisions of the earlier issues of the Charter in respect of
   widow's rights fixed the law of dower on the basis on which it
   still rests. The general rule of law still is that the widow
   is entitled for her life to a third part of the lands of which
   her husband was seized for an estate of inheritance at any
   time during the marriage. At the present day there are means
   provided which are almost universally adopted, of barring or
   defeating the widow's claim. The general rule of law, however,
   remains the same. The history of the law of dower deserves a
   short notice, which may conveniently find a place here. It
   seems to be in outline as follows. Tacitus noticed the
   contrast of Teutonic custom and Roman law, in that it was not
   the wife who conferred a dowry on the husband, but the husband
   on the wife. By early Teutonic custom, besides the
   bride-price, or price paid by the intending husband to the
   family of the bride, it seems to have been usual for the
   husband to make gifts of lands or chattels to the bride
   herself. These appear to have taken two forms. In some cases
   the husband or his father executed before marriage an
   instrument called 'libellum dotis,' specifying the nature and
   extent of the property to be given to the wife. … Another
   and apparently among the Anglo-Saxons a commoner form of dower
   is the 'morning gift.' This was the gift which on the morning
   following the wedding the husband gave to the wife, and might
   consist either of land or chattels. … By the law as stated
   by Glanvil the man was bound to endow the woman 'tempore
   desponsationis ad ostium ecclesiae.' The dower might be
   specified or not. If not specified it was the third part of
   the freehold which the husband possessed at the time of
   betrothal. If more than a third part was named, the dower was
   after the husband's death cut down to a third. A gift of less
   would however be a satisfaction of dower. It was sometimes
   permitted to increase the dower when the freehold available at
   the time of betrothal was small, by giving the wife a third
   part or less of subsequent acquisitions. This however must
   have been expressly granted at the time of betrothal.
{1962}
   A woman could never claim more than had been granted 'ad
   ostium ecclesiae.' Dower too might be granted to a woman out
   of chattels personal, and in this case she would be entitled
   to a third part. In process of time however, this species of
   dower ceased to be regarded as legal, and was expressly denied
   to be law in the time of Henry IV. A trace of it still remains
   in the expression in the marriage service, 'with all my
   worldly goods I thee endow.'"

      Kenelm E. Digby,
      History of the Law of Real Property,
      pages 126-128 (4th edition).

"The writ had originally no connection whatever with the relief sought, it had been a general direction to do right to the plaintiff, or as the case might be, but, long before the time now referred to, this had been changed. … It appears that even after the writ obtained by the plaintiff had come to be connected with the remedy sought for, … a writ to suit each case was framed and issued, but the Provisions of Oxford (1258) expressly forbade the Chancellor to frame new writs without the consent of the King and his Council. It followed that there were certain writs, each applicable to a particular state of circumstances and leading to a particular judgment, which could be purchased by an intending plaintiff. These writs were described as writs 'de cursu,' and additions to their number were made from time to time by direction of the King, of his Council or of Parliament."

"The Norman Kings, who were ingenious adepts in realizing profit in every opportunity, commenced the sale of Judicial Offices. The Plantagenets followed their example. In Madox, chap. II., and in the 'Cottoni Posthuma, may be found innumerable instances of the purchase of the Chancellorship, and accurate details of the amount of the consideration monies. … What was bought must, of course, be sold, and justice became henceforth a marketable commodity. … The Courts of Law became a huckster's shop; every sort of produce, in the absence of money, was bartered for 'justice.'"

"Towards the end of this reign [Henry III.] the office of Chief Justiciary, which had often been found so dangerous to the Crown, fell into disuse. Hugh le Despenser, in the 49th of Henry III., was the last who bore the title. The hearing of common actions being fixed at Westminster by Magna Charta, the Aula Regia was gradually subdivided and certain Judges were assigned to hear criminal cases before the King himself, wheresoever he might be, in England. These formed the Court of King's Bench. They were called 'Justitiarii ad placita coram Rege,' and the one who was to preside 'Capitalis Justiciarius.' He was inferior in rank to the Chancellor, and had a salary of only one hundred marks a year, while the Chancellor had generally 500. Henceforth the Chancellor, in rank, power, and emolument, was the first magistrate under the Crown, and looked up to as the great head of the profession of the law."

      Lord Campbell,
      Lives of the Chancellors,
      volume 1, pages 139-140.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1275.
Statute of Westminster the First;
Improvement of the Law.

"He [Robert Burnel] presided at the Parliament which met in May, 1275, and passed the 'Statute of Westminster the First,' deserving the name of a Code rather than an Act of Parliament. From this chiefly, Edward I. has obtained the name of 'the English Justinian'—absurdly enough, as the Roman Emperor merely caused a compilation to be made of existing laws,—whereas the object now was to correct abuses, to supply defects, and to remodel the administration of justice. Edward deserves infinite praise for the sanction he gave to the undertaking; and from the observations he had made in France, Sicily, and the East, he may, like Napoleon, have been personally useful in the consultations for the formation of the new Code,—but the execution of the plan must have been left to others professionally skilled in jurisprudence, and the chief merit of it may safely be ascribed to Lord Chancellor Burnel, who brought it forward in Parliament. The statute is methodically divided into fifty-one chapters. … It provides for freedom of popular elections, then a mutter of much moment, as sheriffs, coroners, and conservators of the peace were still chosen by the free holders in the county court, and attempts had been made unduly to influence the elections of knights of the shire, almost from the time when the order was instituted. … It amends the criminal law, putting the crime of rape on the footing to which it has been lately restored, as a most grievous but not a capital offence. It embraces the subject of 'Procedure' both in civil and criminal matters, introducing many regulations with a view to render it cheaper, more simple, and more expeditious. … As long as Burnel continued in office the improvement of the law rapidly advanced,—there having been passed in the sixth year of the King's reign the 'Statute of Gloucester;' in the seventh year of the King's reign the 'Statute of Mortmain;' in the thirteenth year of the King's reign the 'Statute of Westminster the Second,' the 'Statute of Winchester,' and the 'Statute of Circumspecte agatis;' and in the eighteenth year of the King's reign the 'Statute of Quo Warranto,' and the 'Statute of Quia Emptores.' With the exception of the establishment of estates tail, which proved such an obstacle to the alienation of land till defeated by the fiction of Fines and Common Recoveries,—these laws were in a spirit of enlightened legislation, and admirably accommodated the law to the changed circumstances of the social system,—which ought to be the object of every wise legislation."

"The Statute of Gloucester, 6 Edw. I c. i, is the foundation of the common law jurisdiction as to costs, and by that statute it was enacted that in any action where the plaintiff recovered damages, he should also recover costs. … By the Judicature Act, 1875, O. L. V., the Legislature gave a direct authority to all the judges of the Courts constituted under the Judicature Act, and vested in them a discretion which was to guide and determine them, according to the circumstances of each case, in the disposition of costs."

"The inadequacy of the common form writs to meet every case was, to some extent, remedied by the 24th Chapter of the Statute of Westminster II., which, after providing for one or two particular cases to meet which no writ existed, provides further that 'whensoever from henceforth it shall fortune in Chancery that in one case a writ is found, and, in like case falling under like law is found none, the clerks of the Chancery shall agree in making a writ or shall adjourn the Plaintiffs until the next Parliament, and the cases shall be written in which they cannot agree, and be referred until the next Parliament; and, by consent of the men learned in the Law a writ shall be made, that it may not happen, that the King's Court should fail in ministering justice unto Complainants.' … The words of the statute give no power to make a completely new departure; writs are to be framed to fit cases similar to, but not identical with, cases falling within existing writs, and the examples given in the statute itself are cases of extension of remedies against a successor in title of the raiser of a nuisance, and for the successor in title of a person who had been disseised of his common. Moreover the form of the writ was debated upon before, and its sufficiency determined by the judges, not by its framers, and they were, as English judges have always been, devoted adherents to precedent. In the course of centuries, by taking certain writs as starting points, and accumulating successive variations upon them, the judges added great areas to our common law, and many of its most famous branches, assumpsit, and trover and conversion for instance, were developed in this way, but the expansion of the Common Law was the work of the 15th and subsequent centuries, when, under the stress of eager rivalry with the growing equitable jurisdiction of the Chancery, the judges strove, not only by admitting and developing actions upon the case, but also by the use of fictitious actions, following the example of the Roman Praetor, to supply the deficiencies of their system."

The Writ of Elegit "is a judicial writ given by the statute Westm. 2, 13 Edw. I., c. 18, either upon a judgment for a debt, or damages; or upon the forfeiture of a recognizance taken in the king's court. By the common law a man could only have satisfaction of goods, chattels, and the present profits of lands, by the … writs of 'fieri facias,' or 'levari facias;' but not the possession of the lands themselves; which was a natural consequence of the feudal principles, which prohibited the alienation, and of course the encumbering of the fief with the debts of the owner. … The statute therefore granted this writ (called an 'elegit,' because it is in the choice or the election of the plaintiff whether he will sue out this writ or one of the former), by which the defendant's goods and chattels are not sold, but only appraised; and all of them (except oxen and beasts of the plough) are delivered to the plaintiff, at such reasonable appraisement and price, in part of satisfaction of his debt. If the goods are not sufficient, then the moiety or one-half of his freehold lands, which he had at the time of the judgment given, whether held in his own name, or by any other in trust for him, are also to be delivered to the plaintiff; to hold, till out of the rents and profits thereof the debt be levied, or till the defendant's interest be expired; as till the death of the defendant, if he be tenant for life or in tail."

"The statute of Quia Emptores, 18 Edw. I., finally and permanently established the free right of alienation by the sub-vassal, without the lord's consent; … and it declared, that the grantee should not hold the land of his immediate feoffor, but of the chief lord of the fee, of whom the grantor himself held it. … The power of involuntary alienation, by rendering the land answerable by attachment for debt, was created by the statute of Westm. 2, 13 Edw. I, c. 18, which granted the elegit; and by the statutes merchant or staple, of 13 Edw. I., and 27 Edw. III., which gave the extent. These provisions were called for by the growing commercial spirit of the nation. To these we may add the statute of 1 Edw. III., taking away the forfeiture or alienation by the king's tenants in capite, and substituting a reasonable fine in its place; … and this gives us a condensed view of the progress of the common law right of alienation from a state of servitude to freedom."

"Fleta, so called from its composition in the Fleet prison by one of the justices imprisoned by Edward I., is believed to have been written about the year 1292, and is nothing but an abbreviation of Bracton, and the work called 'Britton,' which was composed between the years 1290 and 1300, is of the same character, except that it is written in the vernacular language, French, while Granvil, Bracton and Fleta are written in Latin."

"By the end of the thirteenth century, a time when so much else of our institutions was newly and strongly fashioned for larger uses, the King's Peace had fully grown from an occasional privilege into a common right. Much, however, remained to be done before the king's subjects had the full benefit of this. … A beginning of this was made as early as 1195 by the assignment of knights to take an oath of all men in the kingdom that they would keep the King's Peace to the best of their power. Like functions were assigned first to the old conservators of the peace, then to the justices who superseded them, and to whose office a huge array of powers and duties of the most miscellaneous kind have been added by later statutes. … Then the writ 'de securitate pacis' made it clear beyond cavil that the king's peace was now, by the common law, the right of every lawful man."

"The oldest reports extant on the English law, are the Year Books … , written in law French, and extend from the beginning of the reign of Edward II, to the latter end of the reign of Henry VIII, a period of about two hundred years. … The Year Books were very much occupied with discussions touching the forms of writs, and the pleadings and practice in real actions, which have gone entirely out of use."

"Until the time of Edward II. the sheriff was elected by the inhabitants of the several counties; but a statute of the 9th year of that reign abolished election, and ever since, with few exceptions, the sheriff has been appointed, upon nomination by the king's councillors and the judges of certain ranks, by the approval of the crown. … The office of sheriff is still in England one of eminent honor, and is conferred on the wealthiest and most notable commoners in the counties."

"The verdict of … the assize was founded on the personal knowledge of the jurors themselves respecting the matter in dispute, without hearing the evidence of witnesses in court. But there was an exception in the case of deeds which came into controversy, and in which persons had been named as witnessing the grant or other matter testified by the deed. … This seems to have paved the way for the important change whereby the jury ceasing to be witnesses themselves, gave their verdict upon the evidence brought before them at the trials. … Since the jurors themselves were originally mere witnesses, there was no distinction in principle between them and the attesting witnesses; so that it is by no means improbable that the latter were at first associated with them in the discharge of the same function, namely, the delivery of a verdict, and that gradually, in the course of years, a separation took place. This separation, at all events, existed in the reign of Edward III.; for although we find in the Year Books of that period the expression, 'the witnesses were joined to the assize,' a clear distinction is, notwithstanding, drawn between them."

"The Statute 36 Edward III., c. 15, A. D. 1362, enacted that in future all pleas should be 'pleaded, shewed, defended, answered, debated, and judged in the English tongue:' the lawyers, on the alert, appended a proviso that they should be 'entered and enrolled' in Latin, and the old customary terms and forms retained."

"As it was an essential principle of the jury trial from the earliest times, that the jurors should be summoned from the hundred where the cause of action arose, the court, in order to procure their attendance, issued in the first instance a writ called a venire facias, commanding the sheriff or other officer to whom it was directed, to have twelve good and lawful men for the neighborhood in court upon a day therein specified, to try the issue joined between the parties. And this was accordingly done, and the sheriff had his jury ready at the place which the court had appointed for its sitting. But when the Court of Common Pleas was severed from the Curia Regis, and became stationary at Westminster (a change which took place in the reign of King John, and was the subject of one of the provisions of Magna Charta), it was found to be very inconvenient to be obliged to take juries there from all parts of the country. And as justices were already in the habit of making periodical circuits for the purpose of holding the assize in pleas of land, it was thought advisable to substitute them for the full court in banc at Westminster, in other cases also. The statute 13 Edw. I. c. 30, was therefore passed, which enacted that these justices should try other issues: 'wherein small examination was required,' or where both parties desired it, and return the inquests into the court above. This led to an alteration in the form of the venire: and instead of the sheriff being simply ordered to bring the jurors to the courts at Westminster on a day named, he was now required to bring them there on a certain day, 'nisi prius,' that is, unless before that day the justices of assize came into his county, in which case the statute directed him to return the jury, not to the court, but before the justices of assize."

"This remedy by entry must be pursued according to statute 5 Rich. II., st. I., c. 8, in a peaceable and easy manner; and not with force or strong hand. For, if one turns or keeps another out of possession forcibly, this is an injury of both a civil and a criminal nature. The civil is remedied by an immediate restitution; which puts the ancient possessor in statu quo: the criminal injury, or public wrong, by breach of the king's peace, is punished by fine to the King."

"The statutes 6 Rich. II., c. 2, and 4 Hen. IV., c. 18, having ordered all writs to be laid in their proper counties, this, as the judges conceived, empowered them to change the venue, if required, and not to insist rigidly on abating the writ: which practice began in the reign of James the First. And this power is discretionally exercised, so as to prevent, and not to cause, a defect of justice. … And it will sometimes remove the venue from the proper jurisdiction, … upon a suggestion, duly supported, that a fair and impartial trial cannot be had therein."

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1388.
Prohibition against Citation of Roman Law
in Common-law Tribunals.

"In the reign of Edward III. the exactions of the court of Rome had become odious to the king and the people. Edward, supported by his Parliament, resisted the payment of the tribute which his predecessors from the Conquest downwards, but more particularly from the time of John, had been accustomed to pay to the court of Rome; … the name of the Roman Law, which in the reigns of Henry II. and III., and of Edward I., had been in considerable favor at court, and even … with the judges, became the object of aversion. In the reign of Richard II. the barons protested that they would never suffer the kingdom to be governed by the Roman law, and the judges prohibited it from being any longer cited in the common law tribunals."

"In 1436, an act was passed with the concurrence of the Chancellor, to check the wanton filing of bills in Chancery in disturbance of common law process. The Commons, after reciting the prevailing grievance, prayed 'that every person from this time forward vexed in Chancery for matter determinable by the common law, have action against him that so vexed him, and recover his damages.' The King answered, 'that no writ of subpoena be granted hereafter till security be found to satisfy the party so vexed and grieved for his damages and expenses, if it so be that the matter may not be made good which is contained in the bill.'"

       Lord Campbell,
       Lives of the Chancellors,
       volume I, page 272.

"It is then abundantly plain that by this time [the middle of the 15th century] witnesses could testify in open court to the jury. That this was by no means freely done seems also plain. Furthermore, it is pretty certain that this feature of a jury trial, in our day so conspicuous and indispensable, was then but little considered and of small importance."

ALSO IN: J. B. Thayer, The Jury and its Development (Harvard Law Review, volume 5, page 360).

"Very soon, as it seems, after the general practice began of allowing witnesses to testify to the jury, an interesting contrivance for eliminating the jury came into existence, the demurrer upon evidence. Such demurrers, like others, were demurrers in law; but they had the effect to withdraw from the jury all consideration of the facts, and, in their pure form, to submit to the court two questions, of which only the second was, in strictness, a question of law: (1) Whether a verdict for the party who gave the evidence could be given, as a matter of legitimate inference and interpretation from the evidence; (2) As a matter of law. Of this expedient, I do not observe any mention earlier than the year 1456, and it is interesting to notice that we do not trace the full use of witnesses to the jury much earlier than this."

J. B. Thayer, Law and Fact in Jury Trials (Harvard Law Review, volume 4, page 162).

      ALSO IN:
      J. B. Thayer,
      Select Cases on Evidence,
      page 149.

"Fortescue (De Laud. c. 26), who has the earliest account (about 1470) of witnesses testifying regularly to the jury, gives no information as to any ground for challenging them. But Coke, a century and a third later, makes certain qualifications of the assertion of the older judges, that 'they had not seen witnesses challenged.' He mentions as grounds of exclusion, legal infamy, being an 'infidel,' of non-sane memory, 'not of discretion,' a party interested, 'or the like.' And he says that 'it hath been resolved by the justices [in 1612] that a wife cannot be produced either against or for her husband, quia sunt duae animae in carne una.' He also points out that 'he that challengeth a right in the thing in demand cannot be a witness.' Here are the outlines of the subsequent tests for the competency of witnesses. They were much refined upon, particularly the excluding ground of interest; and great inconveniences resulted. At last in the fourth and fifth decades of the present century, in England, nearly all objections to competency were abolished, or turned into matters of privilege."

"The common-law judges at this time were very bold men, having of their own authority repealed the statute De Donis, passed in the reign of Edward I., which authorized the perpetual entail of land,—by deciding in Taltarum's Case, that the entail might be barred through a fictitious proceeding in the Court of Common Pleas, called a 'Common Recovery;'—the estate being adjudged to a sham claimant,—a sham equivalent being given to those who ought to succeed to it,—and the tenant in tail being enabled to dispose of it as he pleases, in spite of the will of the donor."

"It is probable that the willingness of equity to give pecuniary relief upon parol promises hastened the development of the action of assumpsit. Fairfax, J., in 1481, advised pleaders to pay more attention to actions on the case, and thereby diminish the resort to chancery; and Fineux, C. J., remarked, in 1505, after that advice had been followed and sanctioned by the courts, that it was no longer necessary to sue a subpoena in such cases. Brooke, in his 'Abridgment,' adds to this remark of Fineux, C. J.: 'But note that he shall have only damages by this [action on the case], but by subpoena the chancellor may compel him to execute the estate or imprison him ut dicitur.'"

J. B. Ames, Specific Performance of Contracts (The Green Bag, volume 1, page 26).

"In opening the volumes of our laws, as printed by authority 'from original records and authentic manuscripts,' we are struck with a change upon the face of these Statutes of Richard III., which indicates as true a regard for the liberty of the subjects as the laws themselves. For the first time the laws to be obeyed by the English people are enacted in the English tongue."

   "From about the period of the introduction of printing into
   this country, that is to say, towards the end of the fifteenth
   century, English authors had, in accordance with the opinion
   of the best legal authorities, a right to the Copyright in
   their works, according to the Common Law of the Realm, or a
   right to their 'copy' as it was anciently called, but there is
   no direct evidence of the right until 1558. The Charter of the
   Stationers' Company, which to this day is charged with the
   Registration of Copyright, was granted by Philip and Mary in
   1556. The avowed object of this corporation was to prevent the
   spread of the Reformation. Then there followed the despotic
   jurisdiction of the Star Chamber over the publication of
   books, and the Ordinances and the Licensing Act of Charles II.
   At the commencement of the 18th century there was no statutory
   protection of Copyright. Unrestricted piracy was rife. The
   existing remedies of a bill in equity and an action at law
   were too cumbrous and expensive to protect the authors' Common
   Law rights, and authors petitioned Parliament for speedier and
   more effectual remedies. In consequence, the 8 Anne, c. 19,
   the first English Statute providing for the protection of
   Copyright, was passed in 1710. This Act gave to the author the
   sole liberty of publication for 14 years, with a further term
   of fourteen years, provided the author was living at the
   expiration of the first term, and enacted provisions for the
   forfeiture of piratical copies and for the imposition of
   penalties in cases of piracy.
{1966}
   But in obtaining this Act, the authors placed themselves very
   much in the position of the dog in the fable, who dropped the
   substance in snatching at the shadow, for, while on the one
   hand they obtained the remedial measures they desired, on the
   other, the Perpetual Copyright to which they were entitled at
   the Common Law was reduced to the fixed maximum term already
   mentioned, through the combined operation of the statute and
   the judicial decisions to be presently referred to. But
   notwithstanding the statute, the Courts continued for some
   time to recognise the rights of authors at Common Law, and
   numerous injunctions were granted to protect the Copyright in
   books, in which the term of protection granted by the statute
   of Anne had expired, and which injunctions therefore could
   only have been granted on the basis of the Common Law right.
   In 1769 judgment was pronounced in the great Copyright case of
   Millar v. Taylor. The book in controversy was Thomson's
   'Seasons,' in which work the period of Copyright granted by
   the statute of Anne had expired, and the question was directly
   raised, whether a Perpetual Copyright according to Common Law,
   and independent of that statute, remained in the author after
   publication. Lord Mansfield, one of the greatest lawyers of
   all times, maintained in his judgment that Copyright was
   founded on the Common Law, and that it had not been taken away
   by the statute of Anne, which was intended merely to give for
   a term of years a more complete protection. But, in 1774 this
   decision was overruled by the House of Lords in the equally
   celebrated pendent case of Donaldson v. Beckett, in which the
   Judges consulted were equally divided on the same point, Lord
   Mansfield and Sir William Blackstone being amongst those who
   were of opinion that the Common Law right had not been taken
   away by the statute of Anne. But owing to a point of
   etiquette, namely that of being peer as well as one of the
   Judges, Lord Mansfield did not express his opinion, and in
   consequence, the House of Lords, influenced by a specious
   oration from Lord Camden, held (contrary to the opinion of the
   above-mentioned illustrious Jurists), that the statute had
   taken away all Common Law rights after publication, and hence
   that in a published book there was no Copyright except that
   given by the statute. This judgment caused great alarm amongst
   those who supposed that their Copyright was perpetual. Acts of
   Parliament were applied for, and in 1775 the Universities
   obtained one protecting their literary property."

      T. A. Romer,
      Copyright Law Reform
      (Law Magazine & Review,
      4th ser., volume 12, page 231).

"The writ of 'ejectione firmæ' … , out of which the modern action of ejectment has gradually grown into its present form, is not of any great antiquity. … The Court of Common Pleas had exclusive jurisdiction of real actions while ejectment could be brought in all three of the great common law courts. … The practitioners in the King's Bench also encouraged ejectment, for it enabled them to share in the lucrative practice of the Common Pleas. … In the action of 'ejectione firmæ,' the plaintiff first only recovered damages, as in any other action of trespass. … The courts, consequently following, it is said, in the footsteps of the courts of equity, … introduced into this action a species of relief not warranted by the original writ, … viz., a judgment to recover the term, and a writ of possession thereupon. Possibly the change was inspired by jealousy of the chancery courts. It cannot be stated precisely when this change took place. In 1383 it was conceded by the full court that in 'ejectione firmæ' the plaintiff could no more recover his term than in trespass he could recover damages for a trespass to be done. … But in 1468 it was agreed by opposing counsel that the term could be recovered, as well as damages. The earliest reported decision to this effect was in 1499, and is referred to by Mr. Reeves as the most important adjudication rendered during the reign of Henry VII., for it changed the whole system of remedies for the trial of controverted titles to land, and the recovery of real property."

"Ejectment is the form of action now retained in use in England under the Statute of 3 and 4 Wm. IV., c. 7, § 36, which abolished all other forms of real actions except dower. It is in general use in some form in this country, and by it the plaintiff recovers, if at all, upon the strength of his own title, and not upon the weakness of that of the tenant, since possession is deemed conclusive evidence of title as to all persons except such as can show a better one."

"To the present writer it seems impossible to refer consideration to a single source. At the present day it is doubtless just and expedient to resolve every consideration into a detriment to the promisee incurred at the request of the promisor. But this definition of consideration would not have covered the cases of the 16th century. There were then two distinct forms of consideration: (1) detriment; (2) a precedent debt. Of these detriment was the more ancient, having become established in substance, as early as 1504. On the other hand no case has been found recognizing the validity of a promise to pay a precedent debt before 1542. These two species of consideration, so different in their nature, are, as would be surmised, of distinct origin. The history of detriment is bound up with the history of special assumpsit, whereas the consideration based upon a precedent debt must be studied in the development of 'indebitatus assumpsit.'"

"It was decided in 1520, that one who sold goods to a third person on the faith of the defendant's promise that the price should be paid, might have an action on the case upon the promise. This decision introduced the whole law of parol guaranty. Cases in which the plaintiff gave his time or labor were as much within the principle of the new action as those in which he parted with property. And this fact was speedily recognized. In Saint-Germain's book, published in 1531, the student of law thus defines the liability of a promisor: 'If he to whom the promise is made have a charge by reason of the promise, … he shall have an action for that thing that was promised, though he that made the promise have no worldly profit by it.' From that day to this a detriment has always been deemed a valid consideration for a promise if incurred at the promisor's request."

"Before the passing of the Statute of Uses in the twenty-seventh year of Henry VIII, attempts had been made to protect by legislation the interests of creditors, of the king, and of the lords, which were affected injuriously by feoffments to uses. … The object of that Statute was by joining the possession or seisen to the use and interest (or, in other words, by providing that all the estate which would by the common law have passed to the grantee to uses should instantly be taken out of him and vested in 'cestui que use'), to annihilate altogether the distinction between the legal and beneficial ownership, to make the ostensible tenant, in every case also the legal tenant, liable to his lord for feudal dues and services,—wardship, marriage, and the rest. … By converting the use into the legal interest the Statute did away with the power of disposing of interests in lands by will, which had been one of the most important results of the introduction of uses. Probably these were the chief results aimed at by the Statute of Uses. A strange combination of circumstances—the force of usage by which practices had arisen too strong even for legislation to do away with, coupled with an almost superstitious adherence on the part of the courts to the letter of the statute—produced the curious result, that the effect of the Statute of Uses was directly the reverse of its purpose, that by means of it secret conveyances of the legal estate were introduced, while by a strained interpretation of its terms the old distinction between beneficial or equitable and legal ownership was revived. What may be called the modern law of Real Property and the highly technical and intricate system of conveyancing which still prevails, dates from the legislation of Henry VIII."

Kenelm E. Digby, History of the Law of Real Property (4th edition), pages 343-345.

"The power of disposing by will of land and goods has been of slow growth in England. The peculiar theories of the English land system prevented the existence of a testamentary power over land until it was created by the Statute of Wills (32 & 34 Hen. VIII.) extended by later statutes, and although a testamentary power over personal property is very ancient in this country, it was limited at common law by the claims of the testator's widow and children to their 'reasonable parts' of his goods. The widow was entitled to one third, or if there were no children to one half of her husband's personal estate; and the children to one third, or if there was no widow to one half of their father's personal estate, and the testator could only dispose by his will of what remained. Whether the superior claims of the widow and children existed all over England or only in some counties by custom is doubted; but … by Statutes of William and Mary, Will. III. and Geo. I., followed by the Wills Act (1 Vict. c. 26), the customs have been abolished, and a testator's testamentary power now extends to all his real and personal property."

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1542.
Liability in Indebitatus Assumpsit on an Express Promise.

"The origin of indebitatus assumpsit may be explained in a few words: Slade's case [4 Rep., 92a], decided in 1603, is commonly thought to be the source of this action. But this is a misapprehension. 'Indebitatus assumpsit' upon an express promise is at least sixty years older than Slade's case. The evidence of its existence throughout the last half of the sixteenth century is conclusive. There is a note by Brooke, who died in 1558, as follows: 'where one is indebted to me, and he promises to pay before Michaelmas, I may have an action of debt on the contract, or an action on the case on the promise.'"

"Twenty-two years after the passing of this statute (Mich. Term 4 & 5 Ph. & M.) the judges by a decision practically rendered the Statute nugatory by holding that the Statute will not execute more than one use, and that if there be a second use declared the Statute will not operate upon it. The effect of this was to bring again into full operation the equitable doctrine as to uses in lands."

"In Holland, all property, both real and personal, of persons dying intestate, except land held by feudal tenure, was equally divided among the children, under the provisions of an act passed by the States in 1580. This act also contained a further enlightened provision, copied from Rome, and since adopted in other Continental Countries, which prohibited parents from disinheriting their children except for certain specified offences. Under this legal system, it became customary for parents to divide their property by will equally among their children, just as the custom of leaving all the property to the eldest son grew up under the laws of England. The Puritans who settled New England adopted the idea of the equal distribution of property, in case there was no will—giving to the eldest son, however, in some of the colonies a double portion, according to the Old Testament injunction,—and thence it has spread over the whole United States."

"The first notice of the contract of insurance that appears in the English reports, is a case cited in Coke's Reports [6 Coke's Rep., 47b], and decided in the 31st of Elizabeth; and the commercial spirit of that age gave birth to the statute of 43rd Elizabeth, passed to give facility to the contract, and which created the court of policies of assurance, and shows by its preamble that the business of marine insurance had been in immemorial use, and actively followed. But the law of insurance received very little study and cultivation for ages afterwards; and Mr. Park informs us that there were not forty cases upon matters of insurance prior to the year 1756, and even those cases were generally loose nisi prius notes, containing very little information or claim to authority."

   "In 1592, Elizabeth appointed to the office of Chief-Justice
   of England a lawyer, John Popham, who is said to have
   occasionally been a highwayman until the age of thirty. At
   first blush this seems incredible, but only because such false
   notions generally prevail regarding the character of the time.
   The fact is that neither piracy nor robbery was considered
   particularly discreditable at the court of Elizabeth.
{1968}
   The queen knighted Francis Drake for his exploits as a pirate,
   and a law on the statute-books, passed in the middle of the
   century, gave benefit of clergy to peers of the realm when
   convicted of highway robbery. Men may doubt, if they choose,
   the stories about Popham, but the testimony of this statute
   cannot be disputed."

      D. Campbell,
      The Puritan in Holland, England and America,
      volume 1. page 366.

"This phrase is an old one. During the latter part of the seventeenth century and the whole of the eighteenth, while rules of evidence were forming, the judges and text writers were in the habit of laying down two principles; namely, (1) that one must bring the best evidence that he can, and (2) that if he does this, it is enough. These principles were the beginning, in the endeavor to give consistency to the system of evidence before juries. They were never literally enforced,—they were principles and not exact rules; but for a long time they afforded a valuable test. As rules of evidence and exceptions to the rules became more definite, the field for the application of the general principle of the 'Best Evidence' was narrower. But it was often resorted to as a definite rule and test in a manner which was very misleading. This is still occasionally done, as when we are told in McKinnon v. Bliss, 21 N. Y, p. 218, that 'it is a universal rule founded on necessity, that the best evidence of which the nature of the case admits is always receivable.' Greenleaf's treatment of this topic (followed by Taylor) is perplexing and antiquated. A juster conception of it is found in Best, Evid. s. 88. Always the chief example of the 'Best Evidence' principle was the rule about proving the contents of a writing. But the origin of this rule about writings was older than the 'Best Evidence' principle; and that principle may well have been a generalization from this rule, which appears to be traceable to the doctrine of profert. That doctrine required the actual production of the instrument which was set up in pleading. In like manner, it was said, in dealing with the jury, that a jury could not specifically find the contents of a deed unless it had been exhibited to them in evidence. And afterwards when the jury came to hear testimony from witnesses, it was said that witnesses could not undertake to speak to the contents of a deed without the production of the deed itself. … Our earliest records show the practice of exhibiting charters and other writings to the jury."

"When this country was colonized, about A. D. 1600, the law of mortgage was perfectly well settled in England. It was established there that a mortgage, whether by deed upon condition, by trust deed, or by deed and defeasance, vested the fee, at law, in the mortgagee, and that the mortgagee, unless the deed reserved possession to the mortgagor, was entitled to immediate possession. Theoretically our ancestors brought this law to America with them. Things ran on until the Revolution. Mortgages were given in the English form, by deed on condition, by deed and defeasance, or by trust deed. It was not customary in Plymouth or Massachusetts Bay, and it is probable that it was not customary elsewhere, to insert a provision that the mortgagor, until default in payment, should retain possession. Theoretically, during the one hundred and fifty years from the first settlement to the Revolution, the English rules of law governed all these transactions, and, as matter of book law, every mortgagee of a house or a farm was the owner of it, and had the absolute right to take possession upon the delivery of the deed. But the curious thing about this is, that the people generally never dreamed that such was the law."

H. W. Chaplin, The Story of Mortgage Law (Harvard Law Review, volume 4, page 12).

"The modern action for malicious prosecution, represented formerly by the action for conspiracy, has brought down to our own time a doctrine which is probably traceable to the practice of spreading the case fully upon the record, namely, that what is a reasonable and probable cause for a prosecution is a question for the court. That it is a question of fact is confessed, and also that other like questions in similar cases are given to the jury. Reasons of policy led the old judges to permit the defendant to state his case fully upon the record, so as to secure to the court a greater control over the jury in handling the facts, and to keep what were accounted questions of law, i. e., questions which it was thought should be decided by the judges out of the jury's hands. Gawdy, J., in such a case, in 1601-2, 'doubted whether it were a plea, because it amounts to a non culpabilis. … But the other justices held that it was a good plea, per doubt del lay gents.' Now that the mode of pleading has changed, the old rule still holds; being maintained, perhaps, chiefly by the old reasons of policy."

J. B. Thayer, Law and Fact in Jury Trials (Harvard Law Review, volume 4, page 147).

      ALSO IN:
      J. B. Thayer,
      Select Cases on Evidence,
      page 150.

"The origin and history of Bills of Exchange and other negotiable instruments are traced by Lord Chief Justice Cockburn in his judgment in Goodwin v. Robarts [L. R. 10 Ex., pages 346-358]. It seems that bills were first brought into use by the Florentines in the twelfth century. From Italy the use of them spread to France, and eventually they were introduced into England. The first English reported case in which they are mentioned is Martin v. Boure (Cro. Jac. 3), decided in 1603. At first the use of Bills of Exchange seems to have been confined to foreign bills between English and foreign merchants. It was afterwards extended to domestic bills between traders, and finally to bills of all persons whether traders or not. The law throughout has been based on the custom of merchants respecting them; the old form of declaration on bill used always to state that it was drawn 'secundum usum et consuetudinem mercatorum.'"

"It is not at all modern to infer death from a long absence; the recent thing is the fixing of a time of seven years, and putting this into a rule. The faint beginning of it, as a common-law rule, and one of general application in all questions of life and death, is found, so far as our recorded cases show, in Doe d. George v. Jesson (January, 1805). Long before this time, in 1604, the 'Bigamy Act' of James I. had exempted from the scope of its provisions, and so from the situation and punishment of a felon (1) those persons who had married a second time when the first spouse had been beyond the seas for seven years, and (2) those whose spouse had been absent for seven years, although not beyond the seas,—'the one of them not knowing the other to be living within that time.' This statute did not treat matters altogether as if the absent party were dead; it did not validate the second marriage in either case. It simply exempted a party from the statutory penalty."

J. B. Thayer, Presumptions and the Law of Evidence (Harvard Law Review, volume 3, page 151).

"There seems to have been no recognition of the right to sue upon an implied 'quantum meruit' before 1609. The innkeeper was the first to profit by the innovation. Reciprocity demanded that, if the law imposed a duty upon the innkeeper to receive and keep safely, it should also imply a promise on the part of the guest to pay what was reasonable. The tailor was in the same case with the innkeeper, and his right to recover upon a quantum meruit was recognized in 1610.". [Six Carpenters' Case, 8 Rep., 147a.]

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1623. Liability of Gratuitous Bailee to be Charged in Assumpsit, established.

"The earliest attempt to charge bailees in assumpsit were made when the bailment was gratuitous. These attempts, just before and after 1600, were unsuccessful, because the plaintiffs could not make out any consideration. The gratuitous bailment was, of course, not a benefit, but a burden to the defendant; and, on the other hand, it was not regarded as a detriment, but an advantage to the plaintiff. But in 1623 it was finally decided, not without a great straining, it must be conceded, of the doctrine of consideration, that a bailee might be charged in assumpsit on a gratuitous bailment."

J. B. Ames, History of Assumpsit (Harvard Law Review, volume 2, page 6, citing Wheatley v. Low, Palm., 281; Cro. Jac. 668).

"The distinction between temporary and permanent Legislation is a very old one." It was a distinction expressed at Athens; but "we have no such variety of name. All are alike Acts of Parliament. Acts in the nature of new departures in the Law of an important kind are frequently limited in time, very often with a view of gaining experience as to the practical working of a new system before the Legislature commits itself to final legislation on the subject, sometimes, no doubt, by way of compromise with the Opposition, objecting to the passing of such a measure at all. Limitation in time often occurs in old Acts. Instances are the first Act of the first Parliament of Charles I. (1 Car. 1., c. 1), forbidding certain sports and pastimes on Sunday, and permitting others. The Book of Sports of James I. had prepared the mind of the people for that more liberal observance of Sunday which had been so offensive to the Puritans of Elizabeth's reign, but it had not been down to that time acknowledged by the Legislature. This was now done in 1625, the Act was passed for the then Parliament, continued from time to time, and finally (the experiment having apparently succeeded) made perpetual in 1641. Another instance is the Music Hall Act of 1752 passed it is said on the advice of Henry Fielding, in consequence of the disorderly state of the music halls of the period, and perhaps still more on account of the Jacobite songs sometimes sung at such places. It was passed for three years, and, having apparently put an end to local disaffection, was made perpetual in 1755. Modern instances are the Ballot Act, 1872, passed originally for eight years, and now annually continued, the Regulation of Railways Act, 1873, creating a new tribunal, the Railway Commission, passed originally for five years, and annually continued until made perpetual by the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888; the Employers' Liability Act, 1880, a new departure in Social Legislation, expiring on the 31st December, 1887, and since annually continued; and the Shop Hours Regulation Act, 1886, a similar departure, expiring in 1888, and continued for the present Session. … (2) Place. —It is in this respect that the Experimental method of Parliament is most conspicuous. A law is enacted binding only locally, and is sometimes extended to the whole or a part of the realm, sometimes not. The old Statute of Circumspecte Agatis (13 Edw. I., stat. 4) passed in 1285 is one of the earliest examples. The point of importance in it is that it was addressed only to the Bishop of Norwich, but afterwards seems to have been tacitly admitted as law in the case of all dioceses, having probably been found to have worked well at Norwich. It was not unlike the Rescripts of the Roman emperors, which, primarily addressed to an individual, afterwards became precedents of general law."

James William (Law Magazine & Review, London 1888-9), 4th ser., volume 14, page 306.

"When now we look to the United States, we find no difficulty in tracing the history of the institution on this side of the Atlantic. The first settlers of New York coming from Holland, brought it with them. In 1636, the Pilgrims of Plymouth, coming also from Holland, passed a law requiring that for the prevention of frauds, all conveyances, including mortgages and leases, should be recorded. Connecticut followed in 1639, the Puritans of Massachusetts in 1641; Penn, of course, introduced it into Pennsylvania. Subsequently every State of the Union established substantially the same system."

   "Of all the reforms needed in England, that of the law was
   perhaps the most urgent. In the general features of its
   administration the system had been little changed since the
   days of the first Edward. As to its details, a mass of abuses
   had grown up which made the name of justice nothing but a
   mockery. Twenty thousand cases, it was said, stood for
   judgment in the Court of Chancery, some of them ten, twenty,
   thirty years old. In all the courts the judges held their
   positions at the pleasure of the crown. They and their clerks,
   the marshals, and the sheriffs exacted exorbitant fees for
   every service, and on their cause-list gave the preference to
   the suitor with the longest purse. Legal documents were
   written in a barbarous jargon which none but the initiated
   could understand.
{1970}
   The lawyers, for centuries, had exercised their ingenuity in
   perfecting a system of pleading, the main object of which
   seems to have been to augment their charges, while burying the
   merits of a cause under a tangle of technicalities which would
   secure them from disentombment. The result was that law had
   become a luxury for the rich alone."

      D. Campbell,
      The Puritan in Holland, England and America,
      volume 2, pages 383-384.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1657.
Perhaps the first Indebitatus Assumpsit for Money paid to
Defendant by Mistake.

"One who received money from another to be applied in a particular way was bound to give an account of his stewardship. If he fulfilled his commission, a plea to that effect would be a valid discharge. If he failed for any reason to apply the money in the mode directed, the auditors would find that the amount received was due to the plaintiff, who would have a judgment for its recovery. If, for example, the money was to be applied in payment of a debt erroneously supposed to be due from the plaintiff to the defendant, … the intended application of the money being impossible, the plaintiff would recover the money in Account. Debt would also lie in such cases. … By means of a fiction of a promise implied in law 'Indebitatus Assumpsit' because concurrent with Debt, and thus was established the familiar action of Assumpsit for money had and received to recover money paid to the defendant by mistake. Bonnel v. Fowke (1657) is, perhaps, the first action of the kind."

"The jury were still required to come from the neighborhood where the fact they had to try was supposed to have happened; and this explains the origin of the venue (vicintum), which appears in all indictments and declarations at the present day. It points out the place from which the jury must be summoned. … And it was said by the Court of Common Pleas in Bushell's case (A. D. 1670), that the jury being returned from the vicinage whence the cause of action arises, the law supposes them to have sufficient knowledge to try the matters in issue, 'and so they must, though no evidence were given on either side in court';—and the case is put of an action upon a bond to which the defendant pleads solvit ad diem, but offers no proof:—where, the court said 'the jury is directed to find for the plaintiff, unless they know payment was made of their own knowledge, according to the plea.' This is the meaning of the old legal doctrine, which is at first sight somewhat startling, that the evidence in court is not binding evidence to a jury. Therefore acting upon their own knowledge, they were at liberty to give a verdict in direct opposition to the evidence, if they so thought fit."

"During Lord Nottingham's period of office, and partly in consequence of his advice, the Statute of Frauds was passed. Its main provisions are directed against the enforcement of verbal contracts, the validity of verbal conveyances of interests in land, the creation of trusts of lands without writing, and the allowance of nuncupative wills. It also made equitable interests in lands subject to the owner's debts to the same extent as legal interests were. The statute carried into legislative effect principles which had, so far back as the time of Bacon's orders, been approved by the Court of Chancery, and by its operation in the common law courts it must often have obviated the necessity for equitable interference. In modern times it has not infrequently been decried, especially so far as it restricts the verbal proof of contracts, but in estimating its value and operation at the time it became a law it must be remembered that the evidence of the parties to an action at law could not then be received, and the Defendant might have been charged upon the uncorroborated statement of a single witness which he was not allowed to contradict, as Lord Eldon argued many years afterwards, when the action upon the case for fraud was introduced at law. It was therefore a most reasonable precaution, while this unreasonable rule continued, to lay down that the Defendant should be charged only upon writing signed by him."

"The language of the great charter is, that no freeman shall be taken or imprisoned but by the lawful judgment of his equals, or by the law of the land. And many subsequent old statutes expressly direct, that no man shall be taken or imprisoned by suggestion or petition to the king or his council, unless it be by legal indictment, or the process of the common-law. By the petition of right, 3 Car. I., it is enacted, that no freeman shall be imprisoned or detained without cause shown. … By 16 Car. I., c. 10, if any person be restrained of his liberty … , he shall, upon demand of his counsel, have a writ of habeas corpus, to bring his body before the court of king's bench or common pleas, who shall determine whether the cause of his commitment be just. … And by 31 Car. II., c. 2, commonly called the habeas corpus act, the methods of obtaining this writ are so plainly pointed out and enforced, that, … no subject of England can be long detained in prison, except in those cases in which the law requires and justifies such detainer. And, … it is declared by 1 W. and M. St. 2, c. 2, that excessive bail ought not be required."

"The first case that recognized the rule that the subsequent birth of a child was a revocation of a will of personal property, was decided by the court of delegates, upon appeal, in the reign of Charles II.; and it was grounded upon the law of the civilians [Overbury v. Overbury, 2 Show Rep., 253]. … The rule was applied in chancery to a devise of real estate, in Brown v. Thompson [I Ld. Raym. 441]; but it was received with doubt by Lord Hardwicke and Lord Northington. The distinction between a will of real and personal estate could not well be supported; and Lord Mansfield declared, that he saw no ground for a distinction. The great point was finally and solemnly settled, in 1771, by the court of exchequer, in Christopher v. Christopher [Dicken's Rep. 445], that marriage and a child, were a revocation of a will of land."

The dividing line between the ancient and the modern English reports may, for the sake of convenient arrangement, be placed at the revolution in the year 1688. "The distinction between the old and new law seems then to be more distinctly marked. The cumbersome and oppressive appendages of the feudal tenures were abolished in the reign of Charles II., and the spirit of modern improvement, … began then to be more sensibly felt, and more actively diffused. The appointment of that great and honest lawyer, Lord Holt, to the station of chief justice of the King's Bench, gave a new tone and impulse to the vigour of the common law."

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1689.
First instance of an Action sustained for Damages for a Breach
of Promise to Account.

"It is worthy of observation that while the obligation to account is created by law, yet the privity without which such an obligation cannot exist is, as a rule, created by the parties to the obligation. … Such then being the facts from which the law will raise an obligation to account, the next question is, How can such an obligation be enforced, or, what is the remedy upon such an obligation? It is obvious that the only adequate remedy is specific performance, or at least specific reparation. An action on the case to recover damages for a breach of the obligation, even if such an action would lie, would be clearly inadequate, as it would involve the necessity of investigating all the items of the account for the purpose of ascertaining the amount of the damages, and that a jury is not competent to do. In truth, however, such an action will not lie. If, indeed, there be an actual promise to account, either an express or implied in fact, an action will lie for the breach of that promise; but as such a promise is entirely collateral to the obligation to account, and as therefore a recovery on the promise would be no bar to an action on the obligation, it would seem that nominal damages only could be recovered in an action on the promise, or at the most only such special damages as the plaintiff had suffered by the breach of the promise. Besides the first instance in which an action on such a promise was sustained was as late as the time of Lord Holt [Wilkyns v. Wilkyns, Carth. 89], while the obligation to account has existed and been recognized from early times."

C. C. Langdell, A Brief Survey of Equity Jurisdiction (Harvard Law Review, volume 2, pages 250-251).

"The most celebrated case which he decided in this department was that of Coggs v. Bernard, in which the question arose, 'whether, if a person promises without reward to take care of goods, he is answerable if they are lost or damaged by his negligence?' In a short compass he expounded with admirable clearness and accuracy the whole law of bailment, or the liability of the person to whom goods are delivered for different purposes on behalf of the owner; availing himself of his knowledge of the Roman civil Jaw, of which most English lawyers were as ignorant as of the Institutes of Menu. … He then elaborately goes over the six sorts of bailment, showing the exact degree of care required on the part of the bailee in each, with the corresponding degree of negligence, which will give a right of action to the bailor. In the last he shows that, in consideration of the trust, there is an implied promise to take ordinary care; so that, although there be no reward, for a loss arising from gross negligence the bailee is liable to the bailor for the value of the goods. Sir William Jones is contented that his own masterly 'Essay on the Law of Bailment' shall be considered merely as a commentary upon this judgment; and Professor Story, in his 'Commentaries on the Law of Bailments,' represents it as 'a prodigious effort to arrange the principles by which the subject is regulated in a scientific order.'"

"The value of the discovery of the implied promise in fact was exemplified … in the case of a parol submission to an award. If the arbitrators awarded the payment of a sum of money, the money was recoverable in debt, since an award, after the analogy of a judgment, created a debt. But if the award was for the performance of a collateral act, … there was, originally, no mode of compelling compliance with the award, unless the parties expressly promised to abide by the decision of the arbitrators. Tilford v. French (1663) is a case in point. So, also, seven years later, 'it was said by Twisden, J., [Anon., 1 Vent. 69], that if two submit to an award, this contains not a reciprocal promise to perform; but there must be an express promise to ground an action upon it.' This doctrine was abandoned by the time of Lord Holt, who, … said: 'But the contrary has been held since; for if two men submit to the award of a third person, they do also thereby promise expressly to abide by his determination, for agreeing to refer is a promise in itself.'"

"Pleas to the jurisdiction, to the disability, or in abatement, were formerly very often used as mere dilatory pleas, without any foundation of truth, and calculated only for delay; but now by statute 4 and 5 Ann., c. 16, no dilatory plea is to be admitted, without affidavit made of the truth thereof, or some probable matter shown to the court to induce them to believe it true."

   "The most complicated, as well as the most modern, branch of
   the law of artificial persons relates to those which are
   formed for purposes of trade. They are a natural accompaniment
   of the extension of commerce. An ordinary partnership lacks
   the coherence which is required for great undertakings. Its
   partners may withdraw from it, taking their capital with them,
   and the 'firm' having as such no legal recognition, a contract
   made with it could be sued upon, according to the common law
   of England, only in an action in which the whole list of
   partners were made plaintiffs or defendants. In order to
   remedy the first of these inconveniences, partnerships were
   formed upon the principle of a joint-stock, the capital
   invested in which must remain at a fixed amount, although the
   shares into which it is divided may pass from hand to hand.
   This device did not however obviate the difficulty in suing,
   nor did it relieve the partners, past and present, from
   liability for debts in excess of their past or present,
   shares in the concern.
{1972}
   In the interest not only of the share-partners, but also of
   the public with which they had dealings, it was desirable to
   discourage the formation of such associations; and the
   formation of joint-stock partnerships, except such as were
   incorporated by royal charter, was accordingly, for a time,
   prohibited in England by the 'Bubble Act,' 6 Geo. I, c. 18. An
   incorporated trading company, in accordance with the ordinary
   principles regulating artificial persons, consists of a
   definite amount of capital to which alone creditors of the
   company can look for the satisfaction of their demands,
   divided into shares held by a number of individuals who,
   though they participate in the profits of the concern, in
   proportion to the number of shares held by each, incur no
   personal liability in respect of its losses. An artificial
   person of this sort is now recognized under most systems of
   law. It can be formed, as a rule, only with the consent of the
   sovereign power, and is described as a 'societe,' or
   'compagnie,' 'anonyme,' an 'Actiengesellschaft,' or
   'joint-stock company limited.' A less pure form of such a
   corporation is a company the shareholders in which incur an
   unlimited personal liability. There is also a form resembling
   a partnership 'en commandite,' in which the liability of some
   of the shareholders is limited by their shares, while that of
   others is unlimited. Subject to some exceptions, any seven
   partners in a trading concern may, and partners whose number
   exceeds twenty must, according to English law, become
   incorporated by registration under the Companies Acts, with
   either limited or unlimited liability as they may determine at
   the time of incorporation."

      Thomas Erskine Holland,
      Elements of Jurisprudence, 5th edition,
      page 298.

"The judicial construction of Magna Charta is illustrated in the great case of Mitchell v. Reynolds (1 P. W., 181), still the leading authority upon the doctrine of voluntary restraint of trade, though decided in 1711, when modern mercantile law was in its infancy. The Court (Chief Justice Parker), distinguishing between voluntary and involuntary restraints of trade, says as to involuntary restraints: 'The first reason why such of these, as are created by grant and charter from the crown and by-laws generally are void, is drawn from the encouragement which the law gives to trade and honest industry, and that they are contrary to the liberty of the subject. Second, another reason is drawn from Magna Charta, which is infringed by these acts of power. That statute says: Nullus liber homo, etc., disseizetur de libero tenemento, vel libertatibus vel liberis consuetudinibus suis, etc.; and these words have been always taken to extend to freedom of trade.'"

"The first statutory recognition of their existence occurs so late as in the Act 3 Geo. II., ch. 25. But the principle seems to have been admitted in early times. We find in the year 1450 (29 Hen. VI.) a petition for a special jury. … The statute of George II. speaks of special juries as already well known, and it declares and enacts that the courts at Westminster shall, upon motion made by any plaintiff, prosecutor, or defendant, order and appoint a jury to be struck before the proper officer of the court where the cause is depending, 'in such manner as special juries have been and are usually struck in such courts respectively upon trials at bar had in the said courts.'"

"There was one great improvement in law proceedings which, while he [Lord King] held the Great Seal, he at last accomplished. From very ancient times the written pleadings, both in criminal and civil suits, were, or rather professed to be, in the Latin tongue, and while the jargon employed would have been very perplexing to a Roman of the Augustan Age, it was wholly unintelligible to the persons whose life, property, and fame were at stake. This absurdity had been corrected in the time of the Commonwealth, but along with many others so corrected, had been reintroduced at the Restoration, and had prevailed during five succeeding reigns. The attention of the public was now attracted to it by a petition from the magistracy of the North Riding of the county of York, representing the evils of the old law language being retained in legal process and proceedings, and praying for the substitution of the native tongue. The bill, by the Chancellor's direction, was introduced in the House of Commons, and it passed there without much difficulty. In the Lords it was fully explained and ably supported by the Lord Chancellor, but it experienced considerable opposition. … Amidst heavy forebodings of future mischief the bill passed, and mankind are now astonished that so obvious a reform should have been so long deferred."

"Lord Hardwick established the rule that persons, though not Christians, if they believe in a divinity, may be sworn according to the ceremonies of their religion, and that the evidence given by them so sworn is admissible in courts of justice, as if, being Christians, they had been sworn upon the Evangelists. This subject first came before him in Ramkissenseat v. Barker, where, in a suit for an account against the representatives of an East India Governor, the plea being overruled that the plaintiff was an alien infidel, a cross bill was filed, and an objection being made that he could only be sworn in the usual form, a motion was made that the words in the commission, 'on the holy Evangelists,' should be omitted, and that the commissioners should be directed to administer an oath to him in the manner most binding on his conscience. … The point was afterwards finally settled in the great case of Omychund v. Barker, where a similar commission to examine witnesses having issued, the Commissioners certified 'That they had sworn the witnesses examined under it in the presence of Brahmin or priest of the Gentoo religion, and that each witness touched the hand of the Brahmin,—this being the most solemn form in which oaths are administered to witnesses professing the Gentoo religion.' Objection was made that the deposition so taken could not be read in evidence; and on account of the magnitude of the question, the Lord Chancellor called in the assistance of the three chiefs of the common law Courts.—After a very long, learned, and ingenious argument, which may be perused with pleasure, they concurred in the opinion that the depositions were admissible."

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1750.
   Dale v. Hall, I Wits., 281, understood to be the first
   reported case of an action of special assumpsit sustained
   against a common carrier, on his implied contract.

"Assumpsit, … was allowed, in the time of Charles I., in competition with Detinue and Case against a bailee for custody. At a later period Lord Holt suggested that one might 'turn an action against a common carrier into a special assumpsit (which the law implies) in respect of his hire.' Dale v. Hall (1750) is understood to have been the first reported case in which that suggestion was followed."

"Near the end of the last century demurrers upon evidence were rendered useless in England, by the decision in the case of Gibson v. Hunter (carrying down with it another great case, that of Lickbarrow v. Mason, which, like the former, had come up to the Lords upon this sort of demurrer), that the party demurring must specify upon the record the facts which he admits. That the rule was a new one is fairly plain from the case of Cocksedge v. Fanshawe, ten years earlier. It was not always followed in this country, but the fact that it was really a novelty was sometimes not understood."

J. B. Thayer, Law and Fact in Jury Trials (Harvard Law Review, volume 4, page 147).

      ALSO IN:
      J. B. Thayer,
      Select Cases on Evidence,
      page 149.

"In the reign of Geo. II., England had grown into the greatest manufacturing and commercial country in the world, while her jurisprudence had by no means been expanded or developed in the same proportion. … Hence, when questions necessarily arose respecting the buying and selling of goods,—respecting the affreightment of ships,—respecting marine insurances,—and respecting bills of exchange and promissory notes, no one knew how they were to be determined. … Mercantile questions were so ignorantly treated when they came into Westminster Hall, that they were usually settled by private arbitration among the merchants themselves. If an action turning upon a mercantile question was brought in a court of law, the judge submitted it to the jury, who determined it according to their own notions of what was fair, and no general rule was laid down which could afterwards be referred to for the purpose of settling similar disputes. … When he [Lord Mansfield] had ceased to preside in the Court of King's Bench, and had retired to enjoy the retrospect of his labors, he read the following just eulogy bestowed upon them by Mr. Justice Buller, in giving judgment in the important case of Lickbarrow v. Mason, respecting the effect of the indorsement of a bill of lading:—'Within these thirty years the commercial law of this country has taken a very different turn from what it did before. Lord Hardwicke himself was proceeding with great caution; not establishing any general principle, but decreeing on all the circumstances put together. Before that period we find that, in courts of law, all the evidence in mercantile cases was thrown together; they were left generally to a jury; and they produced no general principle. From that time, we all know, the great study has been to find some certain general principle, which shall be known to all mankind, not only to rule the particular case then under consideration, but to serve as a guide for the future. Most of us have heard these principles stated, reasoned upon, enlarged, and explained, till we have been lost in admiration at the strength and stretch of the understanding. And I should be very sorry to find myself under a necessity of differing from any case upon this subject which has been decided by Lord Mansfield, who may be truly said to be the founder of the commercial law of this country.' … With regard to bills of exchange and promissory notes, Lord Mansfield first promulgated many rules that now appear to us to be as certain as those which guide the planets in their orbits. For example, it was till then uncertain whether the second indorser of a bill of exchange could sue his immediate indorser without having previously demanded payment from the drawer. … He goes on to explain [in Heylyn v. Adamson, 2 Burr., 669], … that the maker of a promissory note is in the same situation as the acceptor of a bill of exchange, and that in suing the indorser of the note it is necessary to allege and to prove a demand on the maker. … Lord Mansfield had likewise to determine that the indorser of a bill of exchange is discharged if he receives no notice of there having been a refusal to accept by the drawee (Blesard v. Herst, 6 Burr., 2670); and that reasonable time for giving notice of the dishonor of a bill or note is to be determined by the Court as matter of law, and is not to be left to the jury as matter of fact, they being governed by the circumstances of each particular case. (Tindal v. Brown, 1 Term. Rep., 167.) It seems strange to us how the world could go on when such questions of hourly occurrence, were unsettled. … There is another contract of infinite importance to a maritime people. … I mean that between ship-owners and merchants for the hiring of ships and carriage of goods. … Till his time, the rights and liabilities of these parties had remained undecided upon the contingency, not unlikely to arise, of the ship being wrecked during the voyage, and the goods being saved and delivered to the consignee at an intermediate port. Lord Mansfield settled that freight is due pro rata itineris—in proportion to the part of the voyage performed. … Lord Mansfield's familiarity with the general principles of ethics, … availed him on all occasions when he had to determine on the proper construction and just fulfilment of contracts. The question having arisen, for the first time, whether the seller of goods by auction, with the declared condition that they shall be sold to 'the highest bidder,' may employ a 'puffer,'—an agent to raise the price by bidding,—he thus expressed himself: [Bexwell v. Christie, Cowp., 395] '… The basis of all dealings ought to be good faith; so more especially in these transactions, where the public are brought together upon a confidence that the articles set up to sale will be disposed of to the highest real bidder. That can never be the case if the owner may secretly enhance the price by a person employed for that purpose. … I cannot listen to the argument that it is a common practice, … the owner violates his contract with the public if, by himself or his agent, he bids upon his goods, and no subsequent bidder is bound to take the goods at the price at which they are knocked down to him.'"

"A glance into the pages of the Judges of England, by Foss, will show with what ruthless vigour the Stuarts exercised their prerogative of dismissing Judges whose decisions were displeasing to the court. Even after the Revolution, the prerogative of dismissal, which was supposed to keep the Judges dependent on the Crown, was jealously defended. When in 1692 a Bill passed both Houses of Parliament, establishing the independence of Judges by law, and confirming their salaries, William III. withheld his Royal assent. Bishop Burnet says, with reference to this exercise of the Veto, that it was represented to the King by some of the Judges themselves, that it was not fit that they should be out of all dependence on the Court. When the Act of Settlement secured that no Judge should be dismissed from office, except in consequence of a conviction for some offence, or the address of both Houses of Parliament, the Royal jealousy of the measure is seen by the promise under which that arrangement was not to take effect till the deaths of William III. and of Anne, and the failure of their issue respectively, in other words, till the accession of the House of Hanover. It was not till the reign of George III. that the Commissions of the Judges ceased to be void on the demise of the Crown."

J. G. S. MacNeill, Law Magazine and Review, 4th series, volume 16 (1890-91), page 202.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1760.
Stolen Bank Notes the Property of a Bona Fide Purchaser.

"The law of bills of exchange owes much of its scientific and liberal character to the wisdom of the great jurist, Lord Mansfield. Sixteen years before the American Revolution, he held that bank notes, though stolen, become the property of the person to whom they are bona fide delivered for value without knowledge of the larceny. This principle is later affirmed again and again as necessary to the preservation of the circulation of all the paper in the country, and with it all its commerce. Later there was a departure from this principle in the noted English case of Gill v. Cubitt, in which it was held that if the holder for value took it under circumstances which ought to have excited the suspicion of a prudent and careful man, he could not recover. This case annoyed courts and innocent holders for years, until it was sat upon, kicked, cuffed, and overruled, and the old doctrine of 1760 re-established, which is now the undisputed and settled law of England and this country."

      Wm. A. McClean,
      Negotiable Paper
      (The Green Bag, volume 5, page 86).

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1768.
Only one Business Corporation Chartered in this Country before
the Declaration of Independence.

"Pennsylvania is entitled to the honor of having chartered the first business corporation in this country, 'The Philadelphia Contributionship for Insuring Houses from Loss by Fire.' It was a mutual insurance company, first organized in 1752, but not chartered until 1768. It was the only business corporation whose charter antedated the Declaration of Independence. The next in order of time were: 'The Bank of North America,' chartered by Congress in 1781 and, the original charter having been repealed in 1785, by Pennsylvania in 1787; 'The Massachusetts Bank,' chartered in 1784; 'The Proprietors of Charles River Bridge,' in 1785; 'The Mutual Assurance Company' (Philadelphia), in 1786; 'The Associated Manufacturing Iron Co.' (N. Y.), in 1786. These were the only joint-stock business corporations chartered in America before 1787. After that time the number rapidly increased, especially in Massachusetts. Before the close of the century there were created in that State about fifty such bodies, at least half of them turn-pike and bridge companies. In the remaining States combined, there were perhaps as many more. There was no great variety in the purposes for which these early companies were formed. Insurance, banking, turn-pike roads, toll-bridges, canals, and, to a limited extent, manufacturing were the enterprises which they carried on."

S. Williston, History of the Law of Business Corporations before 1800 (Harvard Law Review, volume 2, pp. 165-166).

"When, by the Revolution, the Colony of New York became separated from the Crown of Great Britain, and a republican government was formed, The People succeeded the King in the ownership of all lands within the State which had not already been granted away, and they became from thenceforth the source of all private titles."

"It is held that only such parts of the common law as, with the acts of the colony in force on April 19, 1775, formed part of the law of the Colony on that day, were adopted by the State; and only such parts of the common and statute law of England were brought by the colonists with them as suited their condition, or were applicable to their situation. Such general laws thereupon became the laws of the Colony until altered by common consent, or by legislative enactment. The principles and rules of the common law as applicable to this country are held subject to modification and change, according to the circumstances and condition of the people and government here. … By the English common law, the King was the paramount proprietor and source of all title to all land within his dominion, and it was considered to be held mediately or immediately of him. After the independence of the United States, the title to land formerly possessed by the English Crown in this country passed to the People of the different States where the land lay, by virtue of the change of nationality and of the treaties made. The allegiance formerly due, also, from the people of this country to Great Britain was transferred, by the Revolution, to the governments of the States."

   "Hence the rule naturally follows, that no person can, by any
   possible arrangement, become invested with the absolute
   ownership of land. But as that ownership must be vested
   somewhere, or great confusion, if not disturbance, might
   result, it has, therefore, become an accepted rule of public
   law that the absolute and ultimate right of property shall be
   regarded as vested in the sovereign or corporate power of the
   State where the land lies. This corporate power has been
   naturally and appropriately selected for that purpose, because
   it is the only one which is certain to survive the generations
   of men as they pass away. Wherever that sovereign power is
   represented by an individual, as in England, there the
   absolute right of property to all land in the kingdom is
   vested in that individual whoever succeeds to the sovereignty,
   succeeds to that right of property and holds it in trust for
   the nation.
{1975}
   In this country, where the only sovereignty recognized in
   regard to real property, is represented by the State in its
   corporate capacity, that absolute right of property is vested
   in the State."

"A vendor who gives a false warranty may be charged to-day, of course, in contract; but the conception of such a warranty, as a contract is quite modern. Stuart v. Wilkens [3 Doug., 18], decided in 1778, is said to have been the first instance of an action of assumpsit upon a vendor's warranty."

"The symbolism of commerce, conventionally called 'trade-marks,' is, according to Mr. Browne, in his excellent work on trade-marks, as old as commerce itself. The Egyptians, the Chinese, the Babylonians, the Greeks, the Romans, all used various marks or signs to distinguish their goods and handiwork. The right to protection in such marks has come to be recognized throughout the civilized world. It is, however, during the last seventy or eighty years that the present system of jurisprudence has been built up. In 1742 Lord Hardwick refused an injunction to restrain the use of the Great Mogul stamp on cards. In 1783 Lord Mansfield laid the foundation of the law of trade-marks as at present developed, and in 1816, in the case of Day v. Day, the defendant was enjoined from infringing the plaintiff's blacking label. From that time to the present day there have arisen a multitude of cases, and the theory of the law of trade-marks proper may be considered as pretty clearly expounded. In 1875 the Trade-marks Registration Act provided for the registration of trade-marks, and defined what could in future properly be a trade-mark. In this country the Act of 1870, corrected by the Act of 1881, provided for the registration of trade-marks. The underlying principle of the law of trade-marks is that of preventing one man from acquiring the reputation of another by fraudulent means, and of preventing fraud upon the public; in other words, the application of the broad principles of equity."

Grafton D. Cushing, Cases Analogous to Trade-marks (Harvard Law Review, volume 4, page 321).

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1790. Stoppage in Transitu, and Rights of Third Person under a Bill of Lading.

"Lord Loughborough's most elaborate common law judgment was in the case of Lichbarrow v. Mason, when he presided in the court of Exchequer Chamber, on a writ of error from the Court of King's Bench. The question was one of infinite importance to commerce—'Whether the right of the unpaid seller of goods to stop them while they are on their way to a purchaser who has become insolvent, is divested by an intermediate sale to a third person, through the indorsement of the bill of lading, for a valuable consideration?' He concluded by saying:—'From a review of all the cases it does not appear that there has ever been a decision against the legal right of the consignor to stop the goods in transitu before the case which we have here to consider. The rule which we are now to lay down will not disturb but settle the notions of the commercial port of this country on a point of very great importance, as it regards the security and good faith of their transactions. For these reasons we think the judgment of the Court of King's Bench ought to be reversed.' But a writ of error being brought in the House of Lords, this reversal was reversed, and the right of the intermediate purchaser as against the original seller, has ever since been established."

"In Grant v. Gould, 2 H. Bl. p. 104 (1792), Lord Loughborough said: 'That all common law courts ought to proceed upon the general rule, namely, the best evidence that the nature of the case will admit, I perfectly agree.' But by this time it was becoming obvious that this 'general rule' was misapplied and over-emphasized. Blackstone, indeed, repeating Gilbert, had said in 1770, in the first editions of his Commentaries (III. 368) as it was said in all the later ones: 'The one general rule that runs through all the doctrine of trials is this, that the best evidence the nature of the case will admit of shall always be required, if possible to be had; but, if not possible, then the best evidence that can be had shall be allowed. For if it be found that there is any better evidence existing than is produced, the very not producing it is a presumption that it would have detected some falsehood that at present is concealed.' But in 1794, the acute and learned Christian, in editing the twelfth edition, pointed out the difficulties of the situation: 'No rule of law,' he said, 'is more frequently cited, and more generally misconceived, than this. It is certainly true when rightly understood; but it is very limited in its extent and application. It signifies nothing more than that, if the best legal evidence cannot possibly be produced, the next best legal evidence shall be admitted.'"

"In the first trial by jury at the bar of the Supreme Court of the United States, in 1794, Chief-Justice Jay, after remarking to the jury that fact was, for the jury and law for the court, went on to say: 'You have, nevertheless, a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy.' But I am disposed to think that the common-law power of the jury in criminal cases does not indicate any right on their part; it is rather one of those manifold illogical and yet rational results, which the good sense of the English people brought about, in all parts of their public affairs, by way of easing up the rigor of a strict application of rules."

J. B. Thayer, Law and Fact in Jury Trials (Harvard Law Review, volume 4, page 171).

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1813-1843. Insolvents placed under Jurisdiction of a Court, and able to claim Protection by a Surrender of Goods.

"It was not until 1813 that insolvents were placed under the jurisdiction of a court, and entitled to seek their discharge on rendering a true account of all their debts and property. A distinction was at length recognized between poverty and crime. This great remedial law restored liberty to crowds of wretched debtors. In the next thirteen years upwards of 50,000 were set free. Thirty years later, its beneficent principles were further extended, when debtors were not only released from confinement, but able to claim protection to their liberty, on giving up all their goods."

T. E. May, Constitutional History of England (Widdleton's edition) volume 2, page 271.

"The framers of the Constitution of the United States, moved chiefly by the mischiefs created by the preceding legislation of the States, which had made serious encroachments on the rights of property, inserted a clause in that instrument which declared that 'no State shall pass any ex post-facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts.' The first branch of this clause had always been understood to relate to criminal legislation, the second to legislation affecting civil rights. But, before the case of Dartmouth College v. Woodward occurred, there had been no judicial decisions respecting the meaning and scope of the restraint in regard to contracts. … The State court of New Hampshire, in deciding this case, had assumed that the college was a public corporation, and on that basis had rested their judgment; which was, that between the State and its public corporations there is no contract which the State cannot regulate, alter, or annul at pleasure. Mr. Webster had to overthrow this fundamental position. If he could show that this college was a private eleemosynary corporation, and that the grant of the right to be a corporation of this nature is a contract between the sovereign power and those who devote their funds to the charity, and take the incorporation for its better management, he could bring the legislative interference within the prohibition of the Federal Constitution. … Its important positions, … were these: 1. That Dr. Wheelock was the founder of this college, and as such entitled by law to be visitor, and that he had assigned all the visitatorial powers to the trustees. 2. That the charter created a private and not a pubic corporation, to administer a charity, in the administration of which the trustees had a property, which the law recognizes as such. 3. That the grant of such a charter is a contract between the sovereign power and its successors and those to whom it is granted and their successors. 4. That the legislation which took away from the trustees the right to exercise the powers of superintendence, visitation, and government, and transferred them to another set of trustees, impaired the obligation of that contract. … On the conclusion of the argument, the Chief Justice intimated that a decision was not to be expected until the next term. It was made in February, 1819, fully confirming the grounds on which Mr. Webster had placed the cause. From this decision, the principle in our constitutional jurisprudence, which regards a charter of a private corporation as a contract, and places it under the protection of the Constitution of the United States, takes its date. To Mr. Webster belongs the honor of having produced its judicial establishment."

"The first case of importance that came before the court of last resort with regard to the Indian question had to do with their title to land. This was the case of Johnson v. McIntosh, 8 Wheaton, 543. In this case, Chief Justice Marshall delivered the opinion of the court and held that discovery gave title to the country by whose subjects or by whose authority it was made, as against all persons but the Indians as occupants; that this title gave a power to grant the soil and to convey a title to the grantees, subject only to the Indian right of occupancy; and that the Indians could grant no title to the lands occupied by them, their right being simply that of occupancy and not of ownership. The Chief Justice says: 'It has never been doubted that either the United States or the several States had a clear title to all the lands within the boundary lines described in the treaty (of peace between England and United States) subject only to the Indians' right of occupancy, and that the exclusive power to extinguish that right was vested in that government which might constitutionally exercise it. … The United States, then, have unequivocally acceded to that great and broad rule by which its civilized inhabitants now hold this country. They hold and assert in themselves the title by which it was acquired. They maintain, as all others have maintained, that discovery gave an exclusive right to extinguish the Indian title of occupancy, either by purchase or by conquest; and gave also a right to such a degree of sovereignty as the circumstances of the people would allow them to exercise. The power now possessed by the government of the United States to grant lands resided, while we were colonies, in the crown or its grantees. The validity of the title given by either has never been questioned in our courts. It has been exercised uniformly over territory in possession of the Indians. The existence of this power must negative the existence of any right which may conflict with and control it. An absolute title to lands cannot exist, at the same time, in different persons, or in different governments. An absolute must be an exclusive title, or at least a title which excludes all others not compatible with it. All our institutions recognize the absolute title of the crown, subject only to the Indian right of occupancy, and recognize the absolute title of the crown to extinguish that right. This is incompatible with an absolute and complete title in the Indians.'"

"In the time of Fortescue, who was lord chancellor in the reign of Henry VI. [1422-61], with the exception of the requirement of personal knowledge in the jurors derived from near neighborhood of residence, the jury system had become in all its essential functions similar to what now exists. … The jury were still required to come from the neighborhood where the fact they had to try was supposed to have happened; and this explains the origin of the venire (vicinetum), which appears in all indictments and declarations at the present day. It points out the place from which the jury must be summoned. … Now, by 6 George IV., ch. 50, the jurors need only be good and lawful men of the body of the county."

"Be it therefore enacted … , That in Actions of Debt or upon the Case grounded upon any Simple Contract or Acknowledgement or Promise by Words only shall be deemed sufficient Evidence of a new or continuing Contract, … unless such Acknowledgement or Promise shall be made or contained by or in some Writing to be signed by the Party chargeable thereby."

"This form of action (detinue) was also formerly subject (as were some other of our legal remedies), to the incident of 'wager of law' ('vadiatio legis'),—a proceeding which consisted in the defendant's discharging himself from the claim on his own oath, bringing with him at the same time into court eleven of his neighbors, to swear that they believed his denial to be true. This relic of a very ancient and general institution, which we find established not only among the Saxons and Normans, but among almost all the northern nations that broke in upon the Roman empire, continued to subsist among us even till the last reign, when it was at length abolished by 3 and 4 Will, IV. c. 42, s. 13: and as the wager of law used to expose plaintiffs in detinue to great disadvantage, it had the effect of throwing that action almost entirely out of use, and introducing in its stead the action of trover and conversion."

"The statutes of 32 H. VIII., c. 2, and 21 Jac. I., c. 16 (so far as the latter applied to actions for the recovery of land) were superseded by 3 & 4 Wm. IV, c. 27. The latter statute abolished the ancient real actions, made ejectment (with few exceptions) the sole remedy for the recovery of land, and, for the first time, limited directly the period within which an ejectment might be brought. It also changed the meaning of 'right of entry,' making it signify simply the right of an owner to the possession of land of which another person has the actual possession, whether the owner's estate is devested or not. In a word, it made a right of entry and a right to maintain ejectment synonymous terms, and provided that whenever the one ceased the other should cease also; i. e., it provided that whenever the statute began to run against the one right, it should begin to run against the other also, and that, when it had run twenty years without interruption, both rights should cease; and it also provided that the statute should begin to run against each right the moment that the right began to exist, i. e., the moment that the actual possession and the right of possession became separated. The statute, therefore, not only ignored the fact that ejectment (notwithstanding its origin) is in substance purely in rem (the damages recovered being only nominal), and assumed that it was, on the contrary, in substance purely in personam, i. e., founded upon tort, but it also assumed that every actual possession of land, without a right of possession, is a tort."

"Our State legislatures commenced years ago to pass laws exempting from execution necessary household goods and personal apparel, the horses and implements of the farmer, the tools and instruments of the artisan, etc. Gradually the beneficent policy of such laws has been extended. In 1828, Mr. Benton warmly advocated in the Senate of the United States the policy of a national homestead law. The Republic of Texas passed the first Homestead Act, in 1836. It was the great gift of the infant Republic of Texas to the world. In 1849, Vermont followed; and this policy has since been adopted in all but eight States of the Union. By these laws a homestead (under various restrictions as to value) for the shelter and protection of the family is now exempt from execution or judicial sale for debt, unless both the husband and the wife shall expressly join in mortgaging it or otherwise expressly subjecting it to the claims of creditors."

"No legal principle, with a growth of less than half a century, has become more firmly fixed in the common law of to-day, than the rule that an employer, if himself without fault, is not liable to an employee injured through the negligence of a fellow-employee engaged in the same general employment. This exception to the well known doctrine of 'respondeat superior,' although sometimes considered an old one, was before the courts for the first time in 1837, in the celebrated case of Priestly v. Fowler, 3 M. & W. 1, which it is said, has changed the current of decisions more radically than any other reported case. … The American law, though in harmony with the English, seems to have had an origin of its own. In 1841 Murray v. The South Carolina Railroad Company, 1 Mc. & M. 385, decided that a railroad company was not liable to one servant injured through the negligence of another servant in the same employ. Although this decision came a few years after Priestly v. Fowler, the latter case was cited by neither counsel nor court. It is probable, therefore, that the American Court arrived at its conclusion entirely independent of the earlier English case,—a fact often lost sight of by those who in criticising the rule, assert that it all sprang from an ill-considered opinion by Lord Abinger in Priestly v. Fowler. The leading American case, however, is Farwell v. Boston and Worcester Railroad Company, 4 Met. 49, which, following the South Carolina case, settled the rule in the United States. It has been followed in nearly every jurisdiction, both State and Federal."

Marland C. Hobbs, Statutory Changes in Employers Liability (Harvard Law Review, volume 2, pages 212-213).

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1838.
Arrests on Mesne Process for Debt abolished, and Debtor's
Lands, for first time, taken in Satisfaction of Debt.

   "The law of debtor and creditor, until a comparatively recent
   period, was a scandal to a civilized country. For the smallest
   claim, any man was liable to be arrested on mesne process,
   before legal proof of the debt. … Many of these arrests were
   wanton and vexatious; and writs were issued with a facility
   and looseness which paced the liberty of every man—suddenly
   and without notice—at the mercy of any one who claimed
   payment of a debt. A debtor, however honest and solvent, was
   liable to arrest. The demand might even be false and
   fraudulent: but the pretended creditor, on making oath of the
   debt, was armed with this terrible process of the law. The
   wretched defendant might lie in prison for several months
   before his cause was heard; when, even if the action was
   discontinued or the debt disproved, he could not obtain his
   discharge without further proceedings, often too costly for a
   poor debtor, already deprived of his livelihood by
   imprisonment.
{1978}
   No longer even a debtor,—he could not shake off his bonds.
   … The total abolition of arrests on mesne process was
   frequently advocated, but it was not until 1888 that it was at
   length accomplished. Provision was made for securing
   absconding debtors; but the old process for the recovery of a
   debt in ordinary cases, which had wrought so many acts of
   oppression, was abolished. While this vindictive remedy was
   denied, the debtor's lands were, for the first time, allowed
   to be taken in satisfaction of a debt; and extended facilities
   were afterwards afforded for the recovery of small claims, by
   the establishment of county courts."

      T. E. May,
      Constitutional History of England (Widdleton's edition),
      volume 2, pages 267-268.

"According to the old English theory, a woman was a chattel, all of whose property belonged to her husband. He could beat her as he might a beast of burden, and, provided he was not guilty of what would be cruelty to animals, the law gave no redress. In the emancipation of women Mississippi led off, in 1839, New York following with its Married Women's Act of 1848, which has been since so enlarged and extended, and so generally adopted by the other states, that, for all purposes of business, ownership of property, and claim to her individual earnings, a married woman is to-day, in America, as independent as a man."

      D. Campbell,
      The Puritan in Holland, England and America,
      volume 1, page 71.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1842.
One who takes Commercial Paper as Collateral is a Holder for
Value.

"Take the subject of the transfer of such paper as collateral security for, or even in the payment of, a pre-existing indebtedness. We find some of the courts holding that one who takes such paper as collateral security for such a debt is a holder for value; others, that he is not, unless he extends the time for the payment of the secured debt or surrenders something of value, gives some new consideration; while still others hold that one so receiving such paper cannot be a holder for value; and some few hold that even receiving the note in payment and extinguishment of a pre-existing debt does not constitute one a holder for value. The question, as is known to all lawyers, was first presented to the Supreme Court of the United States in Swift vs. Tyson (16 Peters, 1). There, however, the note had been taken in payment of the debt. It was argued in that case that the highest court in New York had decided that one so taking a note was not a holder for value, and it was insisted in argument that the contract, being made in New York, was to be governed by its law; but the court, through Justice Story—Justice Catron alone dissenting—distinctly and emphatically repudiated the doctrine that the Federal court was to be governed on such questions 'by the decisions of the courts of the State where the contract was made, and held the holder a holder for value."

"It was not until 1845 that by statute the interest of the disseisee of land became transferable. Similar statutes have been enacted in many of our States. In a few jurisdictions the same results have been obtained by judicial legislation. But in Alabama, Connecticut, Dakota, Florida, Kentucky, Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island and Tennessee, and presumably in Maryland and New Jersey, it is still the law that the grantee of a disseisee cannot maintain an action in his own name for the recovery of the land."

J. B. Ames, The Disseisin of Chattels (Harvard Law Review, volume 3, page 25).

"When railway companies were first created with Parliamentary powers of a kind never before entrusted to similar bodies, it soon became necessary to determine whether, when once called into existence, they were to be held capable of exercising, as nearly as possible, all the powers of a natural person, unless expressly prohibited from doing so, or whether their acts must be strictly limited to the furtherance of the purpose for which they had been incorporated. The question was first raised in 1846, with reference to the right of a railway company to subsidise a harbour company, and Lord Langdale, in deciding against such a right, laid down the law in the following terms:—'Companies of this kind, possessing most extensive powers, have so recently been introduced into this country that neither the legislature nor the courts of law have yet been able to understand all the different lights in which their transactions ought properly to be viewed. … To look upon a railway company in the light of a common partnership, and as subject to no greater vigilance than common partnerships are, would, I think, be greatly to mistake the functions which they perform and the powers which they exercise of interference not only with the public but with the private rights of all individuals in this realm. … I am clearly of opinion that the powers which are given by an Act of Parliament, like that now in question, extend no further than is expressly stated in the Act, or is necessarily and properly required for carrying into effect the undertaking and works which the Act has expressly sanctioned.' [Citing Coleman v. Eastern Counties Rw. Co., 10 Beav., 18.] This view, though it has sometimes been criticised, seems now to be settled law. In a recent case in the House of Lords, the permission which the Legislature gives to the promoters of a company was paraphrased as follows:—'You may meet together and form yourselves into a company, but in doing that you must tell all who may be disposed to deal with you the objects for which you have been associated. Those who are dealing with you will trust to that memorandum of association, and they will see that you have the power of carrying on business in such a manner as it specifies. You must state the objects for which you are associated, so that the persons dealing with you will know that they are dealing with persons who can only devote their means to a given class of objects.' [Citing Riche v. Ashbury Carriage Co., L R., 7 E. & I., App. 684.] An act of a corporation in excess of its powers with reference to third persons is technically said to be ultra vires [perhaps first in South Yorkshire Rw. Co. v. Great Northern R. Co., 9 exch. 84 (1853)]; and is void even if unanimously agreed to by all the corporators. The same term is also, but less properly, applied to a resolution of a majority of the members of a corporation which being beyond the powers of the corporation will not bind a dissentient minority of its members."

      Thomas Erskine Holland,
      Elements of Jurisprudence, 5th edition, page 301.
      (Compare Article by Seymour D. Thompson in American Law
      Review, May-June, 1894).

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1848-1883.
The New York Codes and their Adoption in other Communities.

"The 'New York Mail' gives the following information as to the extent to which our New York Codes have been adopted in other communities. In most instances the codes have been adopted substantially in detail, and in others in principle: 'The first New York Code, the Code of Civil Procedure, went into effect on the 1st of July, 1848. It was adopted in Missouri in 1849; in California in 1851; in Kentucky in 1851; in Ohio in 1853; in the four provinces of India between 1853 and 1856; in Iowa in 1855; in Wisconsin in 1856; in Kansas in 1859; in Nevada in 1861; in Dakota in 1862; in Oregon in 1862; in Idaho in 1864; in Montana in 1864; in Minnesota in 1866; in Nebraska in 1866; in Arizona in 1866; in Arkansas in 1868; in North Carolina in 1868; in Wyoming in 1869; in Washington Territory in 1869; in South Carolina in 1870; in Utah in 1870; in Connecticut in 1879; in Indiana in 1881. In England and Ireland by the Judicature Act of 1873; this Judicature Act has been followed in many of the British Colonies; in the Consular Courts of Japan, in Shanghai, in Hong Kong and Singapore, between 1870 and 1874. The Code of Criminal Procedure, though not enacted in New York till 1881, was adopted in California in 1850; in India at the same time with the Code of Civil Procedure; in Kentucky in 1854; in Iowa in 1858; in Kansas in 1859; in Nevada in 1861; in Dakota in 1862; in Oregon in 1864; in Idaho in 1864; in Montana in 1864; in Washington Territory in 1869; in Wyoming in 1869; in Arkansas in 1874; in Utah in 1876; in Arizona in 1877; in Wisconsin in 1878; in Nebraska in 1881; in Indiana in 1881; in Minnesota in 1883. The Penal Code, though not enacted in New York until 1882, was adopted in Dakota in 1865 and in California in 1872. The Civil Code, not yet enacted in New York, though twice passed by the Legislature, was adopted in Dakota in 1866 and in California in 1872, and has been much used in the framing of substantive laws for India. The Political Code, reported for New York but not yet considered, was adopted in California in 1872. Thus it will be seen that the State of New York has given laws to the world to an extent and degree unknown since the Roman Codes followed Roman conquests.'"

"In civil matters, the greatest reform of modern times has been the simplification of procedure in the courts, and the virtual amalgamation of law and equity. Here again America took the lead, through the adoption by New York, in 1848, of a Code of Practice, which has been followed by most of the other states of the Union, and in its main features has lately been taken up by England."

"The earliest act of this kind in this country was passed by the Legislature of Connecticut in 1848. It is very broad and sweeping in its provisions. It is in these words: 'No person shall be disqualified as a witness in any suit or proceeding at law, or in equity, by reason of his interest in the event of the same, as a party or otherwise, or by reason of his conviction of a crime; but such interest or conviction may be shown for the purpose of affecting his credit.'

(Revised Statutes of Connecticut, 1849, page 86, section 141. In the margin of the page the time of the passage of the law is given as 1848.)

This act was drafted and its enactment secured by the Honorable Charles J. McCurdy, a distinguished lawyer and the Lieutenant-Governor of that State. A member of Judge McCurdy's family, having been present at the delivery of this lecture at New Haven in 1892, called my attention to the above fact, claiming, and justly, for this act the credit of leading in this country the way to such legislation. But he was mistaken in his claim that it preceded similar legislation in England, although its provisions are an improvement on the contemporary enactments of the like kind in that country."

John F. Dillon, Laws and Jurisprudence of England and America, page 374, notes.

"In some respects his [Bentham's] 'Judicial Evidence,' … is the most important of all his censorial writings on English Law. In this work he exposed the absurdity and perniciousness of many of the established technical rules of evidence. … Among the rules combatted were those relating to the competency of witnesses and the exclusion of evidence on various grounds, including that of pecuniary interest. He insisted that these rules frequently caused the miscarriage of justice, and that in the interest of justice they ought to be swept away. His reasoning fairly embraces the doctrine that parties ought to be allowed and even required to testify. … But Bentham had set a few men thinking. He had scattered the seeds of truth. Though they fell on stony ground they did not all perish. But verily reform is a plant of slow growth in the sterile gardens of the practising and practical lawyer. Bentham lived till 1832, and these exclusionary rules still held sway. But in 1843, by Lord Denman's Act, interest in actions at common law ceased, as a rule, to disqualify; and in 1846 and 1851, by Lord Brougham's Acts, parties in civil actions were as a rule made competent and compellable to testify. I believe I speak the universal judgment of the profession when I say changes more beneficial in the administration of justice have rarely taken place in our law, and that it is a matter of profound amazement, as we look back upon it, that these exclusionary rules ever had a place therein, and especially that they were able to retain it until within the last fifty years."

"A great procedure reform was effected by the Common Law Procedure Acts of 1852 and 1854 as the result of their labours." The main object of the Acts was to secure that the actual merits of every case should be brought before the judges unobscured by accidental and artificial questions arising upon the pleadings, but they also did something to secure that complete adaptability of the common law courts for finally determining every action brought within them, which the Chancery Commissioners of 1850 had indicated as one of the aims of the reformers. Power was given to the common law courts to allow parties to be interrogated by their opponents, to order discovery of documents, to direct specific delivery of goods, to grant injunctions, and to hear interpleader actions, and equitable pleas were allowed to be urged in defence to common law actions."

"Another mode of creating a security is possible, by which not merely the ownership of the thing but its possession also remains with the debtor. This is called by the Roman lawyers and their modern followers 'hypotheca.' Hypothecs may arise by the direct application of a rule of law, by judicial decision, or by agreement. Those implied by law, generally described as 'tacit hypothecs,' are probably the earliest. They are first heard of in Roman law in connection with that right of a landlord over the goods of his tenant, which is still well known on the Continent and in Scotland under its old name, and which in England takes the form of a right of Distress. Similar rights were subsequently granted to wives, pupils, minors, and legatees, over the property of husbands, tutors, curators, and heirs, respectively. The action by which the praetor Servius first enabled a landlord to claim the goods of his defaulting tenant in order to realize his rent, even if they had passed into the hands of third parties, was soon extended so as to give similar rights to any creditor over property which its owner had agreed should be held liable for a debt. A real right was thus created by the mere consent of the parties, without any transfer of possession, which although opposed to the theory of Roman law, became firmly established as applicable both to immoveable and moveable property. Of the modern States which have adopted the law of hypothec, Spain perhaps stands alone in adopting it to the fullest extent. The rest have, as a rule, recognized it only in relation to immoveables. Thus the Dutch law holds to the maxim 'mobilia non habent sequelam,' and the French Code, following the 'coutumes' of Paris and Normandy, lays down that 'les meubles n'ont pas de suite par hypotheque.' But by the 'Code de Commerce,' ships, though moveables, are capable of hypothecation; and in England what is called a mortgage, but is essentially a hypothec, of ships is recognized and regulated by the 'Merchant Shipping Acts,' under which the mortgage must be recorded by the registrar of the port at which the ship itself is registered [17 and 18 Vic. c. 104]. So also in the old contract of 'bottomry,' the ship is made security for money lent to enable it to proceed upon its voyage."

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1854-1882.
Simplification of Titles and Transfers of Land in England.

"For the past fifty years the project of simplifying the titles and transfer of land has received great attention in England. In the year 1854 a royal commission was created to consider the subject. The report of this commission, made in 1857, was able and full so far as it discussed the principles of land transfer which had been developed to that date. It recommended a limited plan of registration of title. This report, and the report of the special commission of the House of Commons of 1879, have been the foundation of most of the subsequent British legislation upon the subject. Among the more prominent acts passed may be named Lord Westbury's Act of 1862, which attempted to establish indefeasible titles; Lord Cairns' Land Transfer Act of 1875, which provided for guaranteed titles upon preliminary examinations; the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act of 1881, which established the use of short forms of conveyances; and Lord Cairns' Settled Land Act of 1882."

"In England the old common law methods of getting redress from the Crown were by 'petition de droit' and 'monstrans le droit,' in the Court of Chancery or the Court of Exchequer, and in some cases by proceedings in Chancery against the Attorney-General. It has recently been provided by statute [23 & 24 Vic., c. 24] that a petition of right may be entitled in anyone of the superior Courts in which the subject-matter of the petition would have been cognisable, if the same had been a matter in dispute between subject and subject, and that it shall be left with the Secretary of State for the Home Department, for her Majesty's consideration, who, if she shall think fit, may grant her fiat that right be done, whereupon an answer, plea, or demurrer shall be made on behalf of the Crown, and the subsequent proceedings be assimulated as far as practicable to the course of an ordinary action. It is also provided that costs shall be payable both to and by the Crown, subject to the same rules, so far as practicable, as obtain in proceedings between subject and subject."

   The United States Court of Claims was established in 1855. For
   State courts of claims see Note in 16 Abbott's New Cases 436
   and authorities there referred to.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1858.
The Contractual Theory of Marriage as affecting Divorce.

"The doctrine may be resolved into two propositions-(a) that a marriage celebrated abroad cannot be dissolved but by a Court of the foreign country; (b) that a marriage in England is indissoluble by a foreign Court. The first proposition has never been recognized in any decision in England. Even before the Act of 1858 it is extremely doubtful if the English Courts would have scrupled to decree a divorce â mensâ where the marriage was had in a foreign country, and certainly after the Statutes they did not hesitate to grant a divorce, though the marriage took place abroad (Ratcliff v. Ratcliff, 1859, 1 Sw. & Tr. 217). It is true that in cases where the foreign Courts have dissolved a marriage celebrated in their own country between persons domiciled in that country, these sentences were regarded as valid here, and some credit was given to the fact of the marriage having been celebrated there (Ryan v. Ryan, 1816, 2 Phill. 332; Argent v. Argent, 1865, 4 Sw. & Tr. 52); but bow far it influenced the learned Judges does not appear; the main consideration being the circumstance of domicile. The second proposition has been generally supposed by writers both in England and America (Story, Wharton) to have been introduced by Lolley's Case, 1812, Ruse. & Ry. 237, and followed in Tovey v. Lindsay, 1813, 1 Dow. 117, and McCarthy v. De Caix, 1831, 2 Cl. & F. 568, and only to have been abandoned in 1858 (Dicey), or in 1868 in Shaw v. Gould. But the case of Harvey v. Farnie, 1880-1882, 5 P. D. 153; 6 P. D. 35, 8 App. C. 48, has now shown that the Contractual theory had no permanent hold whatever in this country, that it did not originate with Lolley's Case and was not adopted by Lord Eldon but that it arose from a mistaken conception of Lord Brougham as to the point decided in the famous Resolution, and was never seriously entertained by any other Judge in England, and we submit this is correct."

E. H. Monnier, Law Magazine & Review, 12 ser., volume 17 (London, 1891-2), page 82.

"The first Judicature Act was passed in 1873 under the auspices of Lord Selborne and Lord Cairns. It provided for the consolidation of all the existing superior Courts into one Supreme Court, consisting of two primary divisions, a High Court of Justice and a Court of Appeal. … Law and Equity, it was provided, were to be administered concurrently by every division of the Court, in all civil matters, the same relief being granted upon equitable claims or defences, … as would have previously been granted in the Court of Chancery; no proceeding in the Court was to be stayed by injunction analogous to the old common injunction but the power for any branch of the Court to stay proceedings before itself was of course to be retained; and the Court was to determine the entire controversy in every matter that came before it. By the 25th section of the Act rules upon certain of the points where differences between Law and Equity had existed, deciding in favour of the latter, were laid down, and it was enacted generally that in the case of conflict, the rules of Equity should prevail."

"The Bills of Exchange Act 1882 is, I believe, the first code or codifying enactment which has found its way into the English Statute Book. By a code, I mean a statement under the authority of the legislature, and on a systematic plan, of the whole of the general principles applicable to any given branch of the law. A code differs from a digest inasmuch as its language is the language of the legislature, and therefore authoritative; while the propositions of a digest merely express what is, in the opinion of an individual author, the law on any given subject. In other words the words propositions of a code are law, while the propositions of a digest may or may not be law."

M. D. Chalmers, An Experiment in Codification (Law Quarterly Review, volume 2, page 125).

"The history of Land Transfer Reform in the United States is confined, almost exclusively, to matters which have occurred in the State of New York during the past ten years, and which culminated in the passage of the Block-Indexing Act for the city, of New York of 1889. In January, 1882, a report was made by a special committee of the Association of the Bar of the city of New York, which had been appointed to consider and report what changes, if any, should be made in the manner of transferring title to land in the city and State. The committee reported that by reason of the accumulated records in the offices of the county clerk and register of deeds of the city, 'searches practically could not be made in those offices,' and recommended the appointment of a State commission, which should consider and report a mode of transferring land free from the difficulties of the present system. The report was adopted by the association, and during the same year like recommendations were made by the Chamber of Commerce and by real estate and other associations of the city."

"In a very few words the history of the ordinary courts is as follows: Before the Conquest the ordinary criminal court was the County or Hundred Court, but it was subject to the general supervision and concurrent jurisdiction of the King's Court. The Conqueror and his sons did not alter this state of things, but the supervision of the King's Court and the exercise of his concurrent jurisdiction were much increased both in stringency and in frequency, and as time went on narrowed the jurisdiction and diminished the importance of the local court. In process of time the King's Court developed itself into the Court of King's Bench and the Courts of the Justices of Assize, Oyer and Terminer and Gaol Delivery, or to use the common expression, the Assize Courts; and the County Court, so far as its criminal jurisdiction was concerned, lost the greater part of its importance. These changes took place by degrees during the reigns which followed the Conquest, and were complete at the accession of Edward I. In the reign of Edward III. the Justices of the Peace were instituted, and they, in course of time, were authorized to hold Courts for the trial of offenders, which are the Courts of Quarter Sessions. The County Court, however, still retained a separate existence, till the beginning of the reign of Edward IV., when it was virtually, though not absolutely, abolished. A vestige of its existence is still to be traced in Courts Leet."

"In criminal cases in the king's courts, compurgation is thought to have disappeared in consequence of what has been called 'the implied prohibition' of the Assize of Clarendon, in 1166. But it remained long in the local and ecclesiastical courts. Palgrave preserves as the latest instances of compurgation in criminal cases that can be traced, some cases as late as 1440-1, in the Hundred Court of Winchelsea in Sussex. They are cases of felony, and the compurgation is with thirty-six neighbors. They show a mingling of the old and the new procedure."

      J. B. Thayer,
      The Older Modes of Trial
      (Harvard Law Review., volume 5, page 59).

"It seems to have been possible, even before the decree of the Fourth Lateran Council, in … 1215, to apply the jury to criminal cases when ever the accused asked for it. … The Assize of Clarendon, in 1166, with its apparatus of an accusing jury and a trial by ordeal is thought to have done away in the king's courts with compurgation as a mode of trial for crime; and now the Lateran Council, in forbidding ecclesiastics to take part in trial by ordeal, was deemed to have forbidden that mode of trial."

Jas. B. Thayer, The Jury and its Development (Harvard Law Review, volume 5, page 265).

"It is enough for me to point out that, on the circuits instituted by Henry II, and commonly distinguished as 'eyres', by way of pre-eminence, the administration of criminal justice, was treated, not as a thing by itself, but as one part, perhaps the most prominent and important part, of the general administration of the country, which was put to a considerable extent under the superintendence of the justices in eyre. Nor is this surprising when we consider that fines, amercements, and forfeitures of all sorts were items of great importance in the royal revenue. The rigorous enforcement of all the proprietary and other profitable rights of the Crown which the articles of eyre confided to the justices was naturally associated with their duties as administrators of the criminal law, in which the king was deeply interested, not only because it protected the life and property of his subjects, but also because it contributed to his revenue."

Sir J. F. Stephen, History of the Criminal Law of England, volume 1, page 102.

"The earliest instance of the ordeal [see ORDEAL] in our printed judicial records occurs in 1198-9, on an appeal of death, by a maimed person, where two of the defendants are adjudged to purge themselves by the hot iron. But within twenty years or so this mode of trial came to a sudden end in England, through the powerful agency of the Church,—an event which was the more remarkable because Henry II., in the Assize of Clarendon (1166) and again in that of Northampton (1176), providing a public mode of accusation in the case of the larger crimes, had fixed the ordeal as the mode of trial. The old form of trial by oath was no longer recognized in such cases in the king's courts. It was the stranger, therefore, that such quick operation should have been allowed in England to the decree, in November, 1215, of the Fourth Lateran Council at Rome. That this was recognized and accepted within about three years (1218-19) by the English crown is shown by the well-known writs of Henry III., to the judges, dealing with the puzzling question of what to do for a mode of trial, 'cum prohibitum sit per Ecclesiam Romanam judicium ignis et aquae.' I find no case of trial by ordeal in our printed records later than Trinity Term of the 15 John (1213)."

J. B. Thayer, The Older Modes of Trial (Harvard Law Review, volume 5, pages 64-65).

"The ordeal was strictly a mode of trial. What may clearly bring this home to one of the present day is the well-known fact that it gave place, not long after the Assize of Clarendon, to the petit jury, when Henry III. bowed to the decree of the fourth Lateran Council (1215) abolishing the ordeal. It was at this point that our cumbrous, inherited system of two juries in criminal cases had its origin."

J. B. Thayer, Presumptions and the Law of Evidence (Harvard Law Review, volume 3, page 159, note).

"Although Magna Charta took away the power of the Coroner of holding Pleas of the Crown, that is of trying the more important crimes, there was nothing to forbid him from continuing to receive accusations against all offenders. This he did, and continues to do to the present day, without challenge, in cases of sudden or unexplained deaths. Nor is it denied that he has done so and may do so in other matters, such as in treasure trove, wreck of the sea and deodands. The difficulty, of course, is to know whether the Coroner was or was not in the habit of holding inquests on fires. There is no evidence that he had not the power to do so. On the contrary, we think the extracts from the ancient writers which we have before quoted, are on the whole in favour of his having that power. Before Magna Charta he had the power to try all serious crimes; arson would unquestionably be one of them. Magna Charta only took a way his power of trying them, not of making a preliminary investigation, otherwise an inquest."

      Sherston Baker,
      Law Magazine & Review (London, 1886-7),
      4th ser., volume 12, page 268.

"From the reign of Edward I, to the year 1875 it [the Court of King's Bench] continued to be the Supreme Criminal Court of the Realm, with no alterations in its powers or constitution of sufficient importance to be mentioned except that during the Commonwealth it was called the Upper Bench."

"The earliest instance that occurs of any sort of preliminary inquiry into crimes with a view to subsequent proceedings is the case of the coroner's inquest. Coroners, according to Mr. Stubbs, originated in the year 1194, but the first authority of importance about their duties is to be found in Bracton. He gives an account of their duties so full as to imply that in his day their office was comparatively modern. The Statute de Officio Coronatoris (4 Edward I., st. 2, A. D. 1276) is almost a transcript of the passage in Bracton. It gives the coroner's duty very fully, and is, to this day, the foundation of the law on the subject."

Sir J. F. Stephen, History of the Criminal Law of England, volume 1, page 217.

"The first express mention of them with which I am acquainted is in the statute 13 Edw. I., c. 29 (A. D. 1285), which taken in connection with some subsequent authorities throws considerable light on their nature. They were either general or special. General when they were issued to commissioners whose duty it was to hear and determine all matters of a criminal nature within certain local limits, special when the commission was confined to particular cases. Such special commissions were frequently granted at the prayer of particular individuals. They differed from commissions of gaol delivery principally in the circumstance that the commission of Oyer and Terminer was 'ad inquirendum, audiendum, et terminandum,' whereas that of gaol delivery is 'ad gaolam nostram castri nostri de C. de prisonibus in ea existentibus hac vice deliberandum,' the interpretation put upon which was that justices of Oyer and Terminer could proceed only upon indictments taken before themselves, whereas justices of gaol delivery had to try everyone found in the prison which they were to deliver. On the other hand, a prisoner on bail could not be tried before a justice of gaol delivery, because he would not be in the gaol, whereas if he appeared before justices of Oyer and Terminer he might be both indicted and tried."

Sir J. F. Stephen, History of the Criminal Law of England, volume 1, page 106.

"The prisoner was allowed to challenge peremptorily, i. e. without showing cause, any number of jurors less than thirty-five, or three whole juries. When or why he acquired this right it is difficult to say. Neither Bracton nor Britton mention it, and it is hard to reconcile it with the fact that the jurors were witnesses. A man who might challenge peremptorily thirty-five witnesses could always secure impunity. It probably arose at a period when the separation between the duties of the jury and the witnesses was coming to be recognized. The earliest statute on the subject, 33 Edw. I, st. 4 (A. D. 1305), enacts 'that from henceforth, notwithstanding it be alleged by them that sue for the king that the jurors of those inquests, or some of them, be not indifferent for the king, yet such inquests shall not remain untaken for that cause, but if they that sue for the king will challenge any of those jurors, they shall assign of the challenge a cause certain.'"

Sir J. F. Stephen, History of the Criminal Law of England, volume 1, pages 301-302.

"In 1344 (18 Edw. Ill, st. 2, c. 2) it was enacted that 'two or three of the best of reputation in the counties shall be assigned keepers of the peace by the King's Commission, … to hear and determine felonies and trespasses done against the peace in the same counties, and to inflict punishment reasonably.' This was the first act by which the Conservators of the Peace obtained judicial power."

Sir J. F. Stephen, History of the Criminal Law of England, volume 1, page 113.

The earliest adjudication upon the legal responsibility of an
insane person occurred in the Year Book of the 21 Henry VII.

"In all cases of treason and misprision of treason,—by statutes l Edw. VI. c. 12; 5 & 6 Edw. VI. c. 11, and 7 & 8 Will. III. c. 3,—two lawful witnesses are required to convict a prisoner; unless he shall willingly and without violence confess the same. And, by the last-mentioned statute, it is declared, that both of such witnesses must be to the same overt act of treason; or one to one overt act, and the other to another overt act of the same species of treason, and not of distinct heads or kinds: and that no evidence shall be admitted to prove any overt act, not expressly laid in the indictment."

"In prosecutions by the State, every barrier which the law has ever attempted to erect for the protection of innocence was ruthlessly cast down. Men were arrested without the order of a magistrate, on the mere warrant of a secretary of state or privy councillor, and thrown into prison at the pleasure of the minister. In confinement they were subjected to torture, for the rack rarely stood idle while Elizabeth was on the throne. If brought to trial, they were denied the aid of a counsel and the evidence of witnesses in their behalf. Nor were they confronted with the witnesses against them, but written depositions, taken out of court and in the absence of the prisoner, were read to the jury, or rather such portions of them as the prosecution considered advantageous to its side. On the bench sat a judge holding office at the pleasure of the crown, and in the jury-box twelve men, picked out by the sheriff, who themselves were punished if they gave a verdict of acquittal."

"Sir James Fitz James Stephen, in his History of Criminal Law, estimates that at the end of the sixteenth century there were about 800 executions per year in England (volume 1, 468). Another sentence in vogue in England before that time was to be hanged, to have the bowels burned, and to be quartered. Beccaria describes the scene where 'amid clouds of writhing smoke the groans of human victims, the crackling of their bones, and the flying of their still panting bowels were a pleasing spectacle and agreeable harmony to the frantic multitude.' (chapter 39.) As late as the reign of Elizabeth, … the sentence of death in England was to be hung, drawn and quartered. Campian, the Jesuit, was tortured before trial until his limbs were dislocated on the rack, and was carried helpless into Westminster Hall for trial before the Chief Justice of England, unable to raise an arm in order to plead not guilty. He was sentenced to be hung, drawn and quartered, which meant legally, that upon being hung he was to be cut down while yet living, and dragged at the tail of a horse, and then before death should release him, to be hewn in pieces, which were to be sent dispersed to the places where the offense was committed or known, to be exhibited in attestation of the punishment, the head being displayed in the most important place, as the chief object of interest. In the process of hanging, drawing and quartering, Froude says that due precautions were taken to prolong the agony. Campian's case is specially interesting, as showing the intervention of a more humane spirit to mitigate the barbarity of the law. As they were about to cut him down alive from the gibbet, the voice of some one in authority cried out: Hold, till the man is dead.' This innovation was the precursor of the change in the law so as to require the sentence to be that he be hanged by the neck until he is dead. It is not generally known that the words 'until he is dead' are words of mercy inserted to protect the victim from the torture and mutilation which the public had gathered to enjoy."

      Austin Abbott,
      Address before New York Society of Medicine Journal
      (The Advocate, Minn., 1889, volume 1, page 71).

   "What … is the history of this rule? … Briefly, these
   things appear: 1st. That it is not a common law rule at all,
   but is wholly statutory in its authority. 2d. That the object
   of the rule, until a comparatively late period of its
   existence, was not to protect from answers in the king's court
   of justice, but to prevent a usurpation of jurisdiction on
   the part of the Court Christian (or ecclesiastical tribunals).
   3d. That even as thus enforced the rule was but partial and
   limited in its application. 4th. That by gradual perversion of
   function the rule assumed its present form, but not earlier
   than the latter half of the seventeenth century. … But
   nothing can be clearer than that it was a statutory rule. …
{1984}
   The first of these were 16 Car. I., c. 2 (1641) and provided
   that no one should impose any penalty in ecclesiastical
   matters, nor should 'tender … to any … person whatsoever
   any corporal oath whereby he shall be obliged to confess or
   accuse himself of any crime or any … thing whereby he shall
   be exposed to any censure or penalty whatever.' This probably
   applied to ecclesiastical courts alone. The second (13 Car.
   II., c. 12, 1662) is more general, providing that 'no one
   shall administer to any person whatsoever the oath usually
   called ex officio, or any other oath, whereby such persons may
   be charged or compelled to confess any criminal matter.' …
   The Statute of 13 Car. II. is cited in Scurr's Case, but
   otherwise neither of them seems to have been mentioned; nor do
   the text-books, as a rule, take any notice of them.
   Henceforward, however, no question arises in the courts as to
   the validity of the privilege against self-crimination, and
   the statutory exemption is recognized as applying in
   common-law courts us well as in others. … This maxim, or
   rather the abuse of it in the ecclesiastical courts, helps in
   part to explain the shape which the general privilege now has
   taken. … We notice that most of the church's religious
   investigations, … were conducted by means of commissions or
   inquisitions, not by ordinary trials upon proper presentment;
   and thus the very rule of the canon law itself was continually
   broken, and persons unsuspected and unbetrayed 'per famam'
   were compelled, 'seipsum prodere,' to become their own
   accusers. This, for a time, was the burden of the complaint.
   … Furthermore, in rebelling against this abuse of the
   canon-law rule, men were obliged to formulate their reasons
   for objecting to answer the articles of inquisitions. … They
   professed to be willing to answer ordinary questions, but not
   to betray themselves to disgrace and ruin, especially as where
   the crimes charged were, as a rule, religious offences and not
   those which men generally regard as offences against social
   order. In this way the rule began to be formulated and
   limited, as applying to the disclosure of forfeitures and
   penal offences. In the course of the struggle the aid of the
   civil courts was invoked, … and towards the end of the
   seventeenth century, … it found a lodgement in the practice
   of the Exchequer, of Chancery, and of the other courts. There
   had never been in the civil courts any complaint based on the
   same lines, or any demand for such a privilege. … But the
   momentum of this right, wrested from the ecclesiastical courts
   after a century of continual struggle, fairly carried it over
   and fixed it firmly in the common-law practice also."

John H. Wigmore, Nemo Tenetur seipsum Prodere (Harvard Law Review, volume 5, pages 71-88).

CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1660-1820. 187 Capital Offenses added to Criminal Code in England.

"From the Restoration to the death of George III.,—a period of 160 years,—no less than 187 capital offenses were added to the criminal code. The legislature was able, every year, to discover more than one heinous crime deserving of death. In the reign of George II. thirty-three Acts were passed creating capital offenses; in the first fifty years of George III., no less than sixty-three. In such a multiplication of offenses all principle was ignored; offenses wholly different in character and degree were confounded in the indiscriminating penalty of death. Whenever an offense was found to be increasing, some busy senator called for new rigor, until murder became in the eye of the law no greater crime than picking a pocket, purloining a ribbon from a shop, or pilfering a pewter-pot. Such law-makers were as ignorant as they were cruel. … Dr. Johnson,—no squeamish moralist,—exposed them; Sir W. Blackstone, in whom admiration of our jurisprudence was almost a foible, denounced them. Beccaria, Montesquieu, and Bentham demonstrated that certainty of punishment was more effectual in the repression of crime, than severity; but law-givers were still inexorable."

T. E. May, Constitutional History of England (Widdleton's edition), volume 2, pages 553-554.

"Holland, following the early example of Spain, always permitted a prisoner the services of a counsel; and if he was too poor to defray the cost, one was furnished at the public charge. In England, until after the fall of the Stuarts, this right, except for the purposes of arguing mere questions of law, was denied to every one placed on trial for his life. In 1695, it was finally accorded to persons indicted for high treason. Even then it is doubtful, says Lord Campbell, whether a bill for this purpose would have passed if Lord Ashley, afterwards Earl of Shaftesbury and author of the 'Characteristics,' had not broken down while delivering in the House of Commons a set speech upon it, and, being called upon to go on, had not electrified the House by observing: 'If I, sir, who rise only to give my opinion upon a bill now pending, in the fate of which I have no personal interest, am so confounded that I am unable to express the least of what I propose to say, what must the condition of that man be, who, without any assistance, is called to plead for his life, his honor, and for his posterity?'"

The fact that judicial torture, though not a common law power of the courts, was used in England by command of Mary, Elizabeth, James I and Charles I, is familiar to all. It was sanctioned by Lord Coke and Lord Bacon, and Coke himself conducted examinations by it. It was first made illegal in Scotland in 1708; in Bavaria and Wurtemburg in 1806; in Baden in 1831.

      Austin Abbott,
      Address before New York Society of Medicine Journal,
      (The Advocate, Minn., 1889, volume 1, page 71).

CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1725.
Knowledge of Right and Wrong the test of Responsibility.

The case of Edward Arnold, in 1725, who was indicted for shooting at Lord Onslow, seems to be the earliest case in which the knowledge of right and wrong becomes the test of responsibility.

   "In this case [Case of the North Briton Junius' Letter to the
   King, tried before Lord Mansfield and a special jury on the
   2nd June 1770] two doctrines were maintained which excepted
   libels from the general principles of the Criminal
   Law—firstly, that a publisher was criminally responsible for
   the acts of his servants, unless he was proved to be neither
   privy nor to have assented to the publication of a libel;
   secondly, that it was the province of the Court alone to judge
   of the criminality of the publication complained of. The first
   rule was rigidly observed in the Courts until the passing of
   Lord Campbell's Libel Act in 1843 (6 and 7 Vict., c. 96). The
   second prevailed only until 1792, when Fox's Libel Act (32
   Geo. III, c. 60) declared it to be contrary to the Law of
   England. …
{1985}
   A century's experience has proved that the law, as declared by
   the Legislature in 1792, has worked well, falsifying the
   forebodings of the Judges of the period, who predicted 'the
   confusion and destruction of the Law of England' as the result
   of a change which they regarded as the subversion of a
   fundamental and important principle of English Jurisprudence.
   Fox's Libel Act did not complete the emancipation of the
   Press. Liberty of discussion continued to be restrained by
   merciless persecution. The case of Sir Francis Burdett, in
   1820, deserves notice. Sir Francis had written, on the subject
   of the 'Peterloo Massacre' in Manchester, a letter which was
   published in a London newspaper. He was fined £2,000 and
   sentenced to imprisonment for three months. The proceedings on
   a motion for a new trial are of importance because of the
   Judicial interpretation of the Libel Act of 1792. The view was
   then stated by Best, J. (afterwards Lord Wynford), and was
   adopted unanimously by the Court, that the statute of George
   III. had not made the question of libel one of fact. If it
   had, instead of removing an anomaly, it would have created
   one. Libel, said Best, J., is a question of law, and the judge
   is the judge of the law in libel as in all other cases, the
   jury having the power of acting agreeably to his statement of
   the law or not. All that the statute does is to prevent the
   question from being left to the jury in the narrow way in
   which it was left before that time. The jury were then only to
   find the fact of the publication and the truth of the
   innuendoes, for the judges used to tell them that the intent
   was an inference of law to be drawn from the paper, with which
   the jury had nothing to do. The legislature have said that
   this is not so, but that the whole case is for the jury (4 B.
   and A. 95). The law relating to Political Libel has not been
   developed or altered in any way since the case of R. v.
   Burdett. If it should ever be revived, which does not at
   present appear probable, it will be found, says Sir James
   Stephen, to have been insensibly modified by the law as to
   defamatory libels on private persons, which has been the
   subject of a great number of highly important judicial
   decisions. The effect of these is, amongst other things, to
   give a right to everyone to criticise fairly—that is,
   honestly, even if mistakenly—the public conduct of public
   men, and to comment honestly, even if mistakenly, upon the
   proceedings of Parliament and the Courts of Justice. (History
   of the Criminal Law, II., 376.) The unsuccessful prosecution
   of Cobbett for an article in the 'Political Register,' in
   1831, nearly brought to a close the long series of contests
   between the Executive and the Press. From the period of the
   Reform Act of 1832, the utmost latitude has been permitted to
   public writings, and Press prosecutions for political libels,
   like the Censorship, have lapsed."

      J. W. Ross Brown,
      Law Magazine & Review,
      4th ser., volume 17, page 197.

"When the American States adopted their first constitutions, five of them contained a provision that every person accused of crime was to be allowed counsel for his defence. The same right was, in 1791, granted for all America in the first amendments to the Constitution of the United States. This would seem to be an elementary principle of justice, but it was not adopted in England until nearly half a century later, and then only after a bitter struggle."

"The last appeal of murder brought in England was the case of Ashford v. Thornton in 1818. In that case, after Thornton had been tried and acquitted of the murder of Mary Ashford at the Warwick Assizes her brother charged him in the court of king's bench with her murder, according to the forms of the ancient procedure. The court admitted the legality of the proceedings, and recognized the appellee's right to wage his body; but as the appellant was not prepared to fight, the case ended upon a plea of autrefois acquit interposed by Thornton when arraigned on the appeal. This proceeding led to the statute of 59 Geo. III., c. 46, by which all appeals in criminal cases were finally abolished."

Hannis Taylor, Origin and Growth of the English Constitution, part 1, page 311.

"Sir James Mackintosh in 1819, in moving in Parliament for a committee to inquire into the conditions of the criminal law, stated that there were then 'two hundred capital felonies on the statute book.' Undoubtedly this apparent severity, for the reasons stated by Sir James Stephen, is greater than the real severity, since many of the offenses made capital were of infrequent occurrence; and juries, moreover, often refused to convict, and persons capitally convicted for offenses of minor degrees of guilt were usually pardoned on condition of transportation to the American and afterwards to the Australian colonies. But this learned author admits that, 'after making all deductions on these grounds there can be no doubt that the legislation of the eighteenth century in criminal matters was severe to the highest degree, and destitute of any sort of principle or system.'"

"The 'ticket-of-leave' system [was] established under the English laws of penal servitude. It originated under the authority of the governors of the penal colonies, and was the first sanctioned by Parliament, so far as the committee are aware, by an Act 5 Geo. IV., chapter 34. Subsequently, when transportation for crime was abolished by the Acts 16, 17 Vict., chapter 99 (A. D. 1853) and 20, 21 Vict., chapter 3, and system of home prisons established, the 'license' or ticket-of-leave system was adopted by Parliament, in those acts, as a method of rewarding convicts for good conduct during imprisonment. By further acts passed in 1864, 1871 and 1879, the system has been brought gradually into its present efficacy."

Report of Committee on Judicial Administration, and Remedial Procedure (9 American Bar Association Report, 317).

"With the reform period commenced a new era in criminal legislation. Ministers and law officers now vied with philanthropists, in undoing the unhallowed work of many generations. In 1832, Lord Auckland, Master of the Mint, secured the abolition of capital punishment for offences connected with coinage; Mr. Attorney-general Denman exempted forgery from the same penalty in all but two cases, to which the Lords would not assent; and Mr. Ewart obtained the like remission for sheep-stealing, and other similar offences. In 1833, the Criminal Law Commission was appointed, to revise the entire code. … The commissioners recommended numerous other remissions, which were promptly carried into effect by Lord John Russell in 1837. Even these remissions, however, fell short of public opinion, which found expression in an amendment of Mr. Ewart, for limiting the punishment of death to the single crime of murder. This proposal was then lost by a majority of one; but has since, by successive measures, been accepted by the legislature;—murder alone, and the exceptional crime of treason, having been reserved for the last penalty of the law. Great indeed, and rapid, was this reformation of the criminal code. It was computed that, from 1810 to 1845, upwards of 1,400 persons had suffered death for crimes, which had since ceased to be capital."

T. E. May, Constitutional History of England (Widdleton's edition), volume 2, pages 557-558.

"In the 'Morning Advertiser' of the 19th of December, 1769, appeared Junius's celebrated letter to the king. Inflammatory and seditious, it could not be overlooked; and as the author was unknown, informations were immediately filed against the printers and publishers of the letter. But before they were brought to trial, Almon, the bookseller, was tried for selling the 'London Museum,' in which the libel was reprinted. His connection with the publication proved to be so slight that he escaped with a nominal punishment. Two doctrines, however, were maintained in this case, which excepted libels from the general principles of the criminal law. By the first, a publisher was held criminally answerable for the acts of his servants, unless proved to be neither privy nor assenting to the publication of a libel. So long as exculpatory evidence was admitted, this doctrine was defensible; but judges afterwards refused to admit such evidence, holding that the publication of a libel by a publisher's servant was proof of his criminality. And this monstrous rule of law prevailed until 1843, when it was condemned by Lord Campbell's Libel Act."

T. E. May, Constitutional History of England (Widdleton's edition), volume 2, pages 113-114.

"And be it enacted, that whensoever, upon the trial of any indictment or information for the publication of a libel, under the plea of not guilty, evidence shall have been given which shall establish a presumptive case of publication against the defendant by the act of any other person by his authority, it shall be competent to such defendant to prove that such publication was made without his authority, consent, or knowledge, and that the said publication did not arise from want of due care or caution on his part."

"England has not yet got her court of Criminal Appeal, although the Council of Judges, in their belated scheme of legal reform, recommend the legislature to create one. Questions whether an action should be dismissed as 'frivolous or vexatious,' disputes about' security for costs,' and the 'sufficiency of interrogatories' or 'particulars,' and all manner of trivial causes affecting property or status, are deemed by the law of England sufficiently important to entitle the parties to them, if dissatisfied with the finding of a court of first instance, to submit it to the touchstone of an appeal. But the lives and liberties of British subjects charged with the commission of criminal offences are in general disposed of irrevocably by the verdict of a jury, guided by the directions of a trial judge. To this rule, however, there are two leading exceptions. In the first place, any convicted prisoner may petition the sovereign for a pardon, or for the commutation of his sentence; and the royal prerogative of mercy is exercised through, and on the advice of the Secretary of State for the Home Department. In the second place, the English machine juridical notwithstanding its lack of a properly constituted Court of Criminal Appeal, is furnished with a kind of 'mechanical equivalent' therefor, in the 'Court for Crown Cases Reserved,' which was established by act of Parliament in 1848 (11 & 12 Vict. c. 78)."

CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1854.
Conflict between United States Constitution and a Treaty.

"About 1854, M. Dillon, French consul at San Francisco, refused to appear and testify in a criminal case. The Constitution of the United States (Amendment VI.), in criminal cases grants accused persons compulsory process for obtaining witnesses, while our treaties of 1853, with France (Art. II.) says that consuls 'shall never be compelled to appear as witnesses before the courts.' Thus there was a conflict between the Constitution and the treaty, and it was held that the treaty was void. After a long correspondence the French Consuls were directed to obey a subpoena in future."

Theodore D. Woolsey, Introduction to the Study of International Law [6th edition], page 157, note.

"This practice, so far as the committee can ascertain, has been adopted in the states of New York and Ohio only. … The Ohio statute has been taken mainly from that which was adopted in New York, April 12, 1877."

Report of Committee on Judicial Administrations, and Remedial Procedure (9 American Bar Association Report, page 313).

"The Supreme Court of the United States, in United States v. Rodgers, … 150 U. S., … in declaring that the term 'high seas' in the criminal law of the United States is applicable as well to the open waters of the great lakes as to the open waters of the ocean, may be said, in a just sense, not to have changed the law, but to have asserted the law to be in force upon a vast domain over which its jurisdiction was heretofore in doubt. The opinion of Justice Field will take its place in our jurisprudence in company with the great cases of the Genesee Chief, 12 How. (U. S.), 443, and its successors, and with them marks the self adapting capacity of the judicial power to meet the great exigencies of justice and good government."

ECCLESIASTICAL LAW: A. D. 449-1066.
No distinction between Lay and Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction.

"In the time of our Saxon ancestors, there was no sort of distinction between the lay and the ecclesiastical jurisdiction: the county court was as much a spiritual as a temporal tribunal; the rights of the church were ascertained and asserted at the same time, and by the same judges, as the rights of the laity. For this purpose the bishop of the diocese, and the alderman, or, in his absence, the sheriff of the county, used to sit together in the county court, and had there the cognizance of all causes, as well ecclesiastical as civil: a superior deference being paid to the bishop's opinion in spiritual matters, and to that of the lay judges in temporal.

ECCLESIASTICAL LAW: A. D. 1066-1087.
Separation of Ecclesiastical from Civil Courts.

"William I. (whose title was warmly espoused by the monasteries, which he liberally endowed, and by the foreign clergy whom he brought over in shoals from France and Italy, and planted in the best preferments of the English church), was at length prevailed upon to … separate the ecclesiastical court from the civil: whether actuated by principles of bigotry, or by those of a more refined policy, in order to discountenance the laws of King Edward, abounding with the spirit of Saxon liberty, is not altogether certain. But the latter, if not the cause, was undoubtedly the consequence, of this separation: for the Saxon laws were soon overborne by the Norman justiciaries, when the county court fell into disregard by the bishop's withdrawing his presence, in obedience to the charter of the conqueror; which prohibited any spiritual cause from being tried in the secular courts, and commanded the suitors to appear before the bishop only, whose decisions were directed to conform to the canon law."

"The most important ecclesiastical measure of the reign, the separation of the church jurisdiction from the secular business of the courts of law, is unfortunately, like all other charters of the time, undated. Its contents however show the influence of the ideas which under the genius of Hildebrand were forming the character of the continental churches. From henceforth the bishops and archdeacons are no longer to hold ecclesiastical pleas in the hundred-court, but to have courts of their own; to try causes by canonical, not by customary law, and allow no spiritual questions to come before laymen as judges. In case of contumacy the offender may be excommunicated and the king and sheriff will enforce the punishment. In the same way laymen are forbidden to interfere in spiritual causes. The reform is one which might very naturally recommend itself to a man like Lanfranc."

"King Henry the First, at his accession, among other restorations of the laws of King Edward the Confessor, revived this of the union of the civil and ecclesiastical courts. … This, however, was ill-relished by the popish clergy,… and, therefore, in their synod at Westminster, 3 Hen. I., they ordained that no bishop should attend the discussion of temporal causes; which soon dissolved this newly effected union."

ECCLESIASTICAL LAW: A. D. 1135.
Final Separation of Civil and Ecclesiastical Courts.

"And when, upon the death of King Henry the First, the usurper Stephen was brought in and supported by the clergy, we find one article of the oath which they imposed upon him was, that ecclesiastical persons and ecclesiastical causes should be subject only to the bishop's jurisdiction. And as it was about that time that the contest and emulation began between the laws of England and those of Rome, the temporal courts adhering to the former, and the spiritual adopting the latter as their rule of proceeding, this widened the breach between them, and made a coalition afterwards impracticable; which probably would else have been effected at the general reformation of the church."

ECCLESIASTICAL LAW: A. D. 1285.
Temporal Courts assume Jurisdiction of Defamation.

"To the Spiritual Court appears also to have belonged the punishment of defamation until the rise of actions on the case, when the temporal courts assumed jurisdiction, though not, it seems, to the exclusion of punishment by the church. The punishment of usurers, cleric and lay, also belonged to the ecclesiastical judges, though their movables were confiscated to the king, unless the usurer 'vita comite digne poenituerit, et testamento condito quae legare decreverit a se prorsus alienaverit.' That is, it seems, the personal punishment was inflicted by the Ecclesiastical Court, but the confiscation of goods (when proper) was decreed by the King's Court."

ECCLESIASTICAL LAW: A. D. 1857-1859.
Ecclesiastical Courts deprived of Matrimonial and Testamentary
Causes.

"Matrimonial causes, or injuries respecting the rights of marriage, are another … branch of the ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Though, if we consider marriages in the light of mere civil contracts, they do not seem to be properly of spiritual cognizance. But the Romanists having very early converted this contract into a holy sacramental ordinance, the church of course took it under her protection,' upon the division of the two jurisdictions. … One might … wonder, that the same authority, which enjoined the strictest celibacy to the priesthood, should think them the proper judges in causes between man and wife. These causes, indeed, partly from the nature of the injuries complained of, and partly from the clerical method of treating them, soon became too gross for the modesty of a lay tribunal. … Spiritual jurisdiction of testamentary causes is a peculiar constitution of this island; for in almost all other (even in popish) countries all matters testamentary are under the jurisdiction of the civil magistrate. And that this privilege is enjoyed by the clergy in England, not as a matter of ecclesiastical right, but by the special favor and indulgence of the municipal law, and as it should seem by some public act of the great council, is freely acknowledged by Lindewode, the ablest canonist of the fifteenth century. Testamentary causes, he observes, belong to the ecclesiastical courts 'de consuetudine Angliae, et super consensu regio et suorum procerum in talibus ab antiquo concesso.'"

Jurisdiction in testamentary causes was taken away from the ecclesiastical courts by Statutes 20 and 21 Vic., c. 77 and 21 and 22 Vic., chapters 56 and 95, and was transferred to the court of Probate. Jurisdiction in matrimonial causes was transferred to the Divorce Court by Statute 20 and 21 Vic., 85.

"As we approach the era of the Conquest, we find distinct traces of the Masters in Chancery, who, though in sacred orders, were well trained in jurisprudence, and assisted the chancellor in preparing writs and grants, as well as in the service of the royal chapel. They formed a sort of college of justice, of which he was the head. They all sate in the Wittenagemote, and, as 'Law Lords', are supposed to have had great weight in the deliberations of that assembly."

"From the conversion of the Anglo-Saxons to Christianity by the preaching of St. Augustine, the King always had near his person a priest, to whom was entrusted the care of his chapel, and who was his confessor. This person, selected from the most learned and able of his order, and greatly superior in accomplishments to the unlettered laymen attending the Court, soon acted as private secretary to the King, and gained his confidence in affairs of state. The present demarcation between civil and ecclesiastical employments was then little regarded, and to this same person was assigned the business of superintending writs and grants, with the custody of the great seal."

"The office of master, formerly called the Clerk or Keeper of the Rolls, is recognized at this early period, though at this time he appears to have been the Chancellor's deputy, not an independent officer."

Geo. Spence, Equity Jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery, volume 1, page 100.

Under the Norman Kings, the Chancellor was a kind of secretary of state. His functions were political rather than judicial. He attended to the royal correspondence, kept the royal accounts, and drew up writs for the administration of justice. He was also the keeper of the seal.

"The first keeper of the seals who was endowed with the title of Lord Chancellor was Maurice, who received the great seal in 1067. The incumbents of the office were for a long period ecclesiastics; and they usually enjoyed episcopal or archiepiscopal rank, and lived in the London palaces attached to their sees or provinces. The first Keeper of the seals of England was Fitzgilbert, appointed by Queen Matilda soon after her coronation, and there was no other layman appointed until the reign of Edward III."

"According to the law of England, trusts may be created 'inter vivos' as well as by testament, and their history is a curious one, beginning, like that of the Roman 'fidei commissa,' with an attempt to evade the law. The Statutes of Mortmain, passed to prevent the alienation of lands to religious houses, led to the introduction of 'uses,' by which the grantor alienated his land to a friend to hold 'to the use' of a monastery, the clerical chancellors giving legal validity to the wish thus expressed. Although this particular device was put a stop to by 15 Ric. II. c. 5, 'uses' continued to be employed for other purposes, having been found more malleable than what was called, by way of contrast, 'the legal estate.' They offered indeed so many modes of escaping the rigour of the law, that, after several other statutes had been passed with a view of curtailing their advantages, the 27 Hen. VIII. c. 10 enacted that, where anyone was seised to a use, the legal estate should be deemed to be in him to whose use he was seised. The statute did not apply to trusts of personal property, nor to trusts of land where any active duty was cast upon the trustee, nor where a use was limited 'upon a use,' i. e. where the person in whose favour a use was created was himself to hold the estate to the use of some one else. There continued therefore to be a number of cases in which, in spite of the 'Statute of Uses,' the Court of Chancery was able to carry out its policy of enforcing what had otherwise been merely moral duties. The system thus arising has grown to enormous dimensions, and trusts, which, according to the definition of Lord Hardwicke, are 'such a confidence between parties that no action at law will lie, but there is merely a case for the consideration of courts of equity,' are inserted not only in wills, but also in marriage settlements, arrangements with creditors, and numberless other instruments necessary for the comfort of families and the development of commerce."

"Having occasion to cross the sea and visit Gascony, A. D. 1253, Henry III. made her [Queen Eleanor] keeper of the seal during his absence, and in that character she in her own person presided in the 'Aula Regia,' hearing causes, and, it is to be feared, forming her decisions less in accordance with justice than her own private interests. Never did judge set law and equity more fearfully at naught."

"In the year 1258 the Provisions of Oxford were promulgated; two separate clauses of which bound the chancellor to issue no more writs except writs 'of course' without command of the King and his Council present with him. This, with the growing independence of the judiciary on the one hand, and the settlement of legal process on the other, terminated the right to issue special writs, and at last fixed the common writs in unchangeable form; most of which had by this time become developed into the final form in which for six centuries they were treated as precedents of declaration."

"In the reign of Edward I. the Chancellor begins to appear in the three characters in which we now know him; as a great political officer, as the head of a department for the issue of writs and the custody of documents in which the King's interest is concerned, as the administrator of the King's grace."

"There was likewise introduced about this time a great improvement in the administration of justice, by rendering the Court of Chancery stationary at Westminster. The ancient kings of England were constantly migrating,—one principal reason for which was, that the same part of the country, even with the aid of purveyance and pre-emption, could not long support the court and all the royal retainers, and render in kind due to the King could be best consumed on the spot. Therefore, if he kept Christmas at Westminster, he would keep Easter at Winchester, and Pentecost at Gloucester, visiting his many palaces and manors in rotation. The Aula Regis, and afterwards the courts into which it was partitioned, were ambulatory along with him—to the great vexation of the suitors. This grievance was partly corrected by Magna Charta, which enacted that the Court of Common Pleas should be held 'in a certain place,'—a corner of Westminster Hall being fixed upon for that purpose. In point of law, the Court of King's Bench and the Court of Chancery may still be held in any county of England,—'wheresoever in England the King or the Chancellor may be.' Down to the commencement of the reign of Edward III., the King's Bench and the Chancery actually had continued to follow the King's person, the Chancellor and his officers being entitled to part of the purveyance made for the royal household. By 28 Edw. 1., c. 5, the Lord Chancellor and the Justices of the King's Bench were ordered to follow the King, so that he might have at all times near him sages of the law able to order all matters which should come to the Court. But the two Courts were now by the King's command fixed in the places where, unless on a few extraordinary occasions, they continued to be held down to our own times, at the upper end of Westminster Hall, the King's Bench on the left hand, and the Chancery on the right, both remaining open to the Hall, and a bar erected to keep off the multitude from pressing on the judges."

"In the 22nd year of Edward III, matters which were of grace were definitely committed to the Chancellor for decision, and from this point there begins to develop that body of rules—supplementing the deficiencies or correcting the harshness of the Common Law—which we call Equity."

      Sir W. R. Anson,
      Law and Custom of the Constitution,
      part 2, page 147.

"It is said that John Waltham, Bishop of Salisbury, who was Keeper of the Rolls about the 5th of Richard II., considerably enlarged this new jurisdiction; that, to give efficacy to it, he invented, or more properly, was the first who adopted in that court, the writ of subpoena, a process which had before been used by the council, and is very plainly alluded to in the statutes of the last reign, though not under that name. This writ summoned the party to appear under a penalty, and answer such things as should be objected against him; upon this a petition was lodged, containing the articles of complaint to which he was then compelled to answer. These articles used to contain suggestions of injuries suffered, for which no remedy was to be had in the courts of common law, and therefore the complainant prayed advice and relief of the chancellor."

"From the time of passing the stat. 17 Richard II. we may consider that the Court of Chancery was established as a distinct and permanent court, having separate jurisdiction, with its own peculiar mode of procedure similar to that which had prevailed in the Council, though perhaps it was not wholly yet separated from the Council."

George Spence, Equity Jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery, volume 1, page 345.

"It is beyond a doubt that this [chancery] court had begun to exercise its judicial authority in the reigns of Richard II., Henry IV. and V. … But we do not find in our books any report of cases there determined till 37 Henry VI., except only on the subject of uses; which, as has been before remarked, might give rise to the opinion, that the first equitable judicature was concerned in the support of uses."

   The earliest record of written answers is in 21 Henry VI.
   Before that time little, if any, distinction was made
   between the examination and the answer.

EQUITY: A. D. 1461-1483.
Distinction between Proceeding by Bill and by Petition.

"A written statement of the grievance being required to be filed before the issuing of the subpoena, with security to pay damages and costs,—bills now acquired form, and the distinction arose between the proceeding by bill and by petition. The same regularity was observed in the subsequent stages of the suit. Whereas formerly the defendant was generally examined viva voce when he appeared in obedience to the subpoena, the practice now was to put in a written answer, commencing with a protestation against the truth or sufficiency of the matters contained in the bill, stating the facts relied upon by the defendant, and concluding with a prayer that he may be dismissed, with his costs. There were likewise, for the purpose of introducing new facts, special replications and rejoinders, which continued till the reign of Elizabeth, but which have been rendered unnecessary by the modern practice of amending the bill and answer. Pleas and demurrers now appear. Although the pleadings were in English, the decrees on the bill continued to be in Latin down to the reign of Henry VIII. Bills to perpetuate testimony, to set out metes and bounds, and for injunctions against proceedings at law, and to stay waste, became frequent."

"The equitable jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery may be considered as making its greatest advances in this reign [Edw. IV.]. The point was now settled, that there being a feoffment to uses, the 'cestui que' use, or person beneficially entitled, could maintain no action at law, the Judges saying that he had neither 'jus in re' nor 'jus ad rem,' and that their forms could not be moulded so as to afford him any effectual relief, either as to the land or the profits. The Chancellors, therefore, with general applause, declared that they would proceed by subpoena against the feoffee to compel him to perform a duty which in conscience was binding upon him, and gradually extended the remedy against his heir and against his alienee with notice of the trust, although they held, as their successors have done, that the purchaser of the legal estate for valuable consideration without notice might retain the land for his own benefit. They therefore now freely made decrees requiring the trustee to convey according to the directions of the 'cestui que trust,' or person beneficially interested; and the most important branch of the equitable jurisdiction of the Court over trusts was firmly and irrevocably established."

"Between the death, resignation, or removal of one chancellor, and the appointment of another, the Great Seal, instead of remaining in the personal custody of the Sovereign, was sometimes entrusted to a temporal keeper, either with limited authority (as only to seal writs), or with all the powers, though not with the rank of Chancellor. At last the practice grew up of occasionally appointing a person to hold the Great Seal with the title of 'Keeper,' where it was meant that he should permanently hold it in his own right and discharge all the duties belonging to it. Queen Elizabeth, ever sparing in the conferring of dignities, having given the Great Seal with the title of 'Keeper' to Sir Nicholas Bacon, objections were made to the legality of some of his acts,—and to obviate these, a statute was passed declaring that 'the Lord Keeper of the Great Seal for the time being shall have the same place, pre-eminence, and jurisdiction as the Lord Chancellor of England.' Since then there never have been a Chancellor and Keeper of the Great Seal concurrently, and the only difference between the two titles is, that the one is more sounding than the other, and is regarded as a higher mark of royal favor."

ALSO IN: Sir W. R. Anson, Law and Custom of the Constitution, volume 2, page 150.

"The business of the Court of Chancery had now so much increased that to dispose of it satisfactorily required a Judge regularly trained to the profession of the law, and willing to devote to it all his energy and industry. The Statute of Wills, the Statute of Uses, the new modes of conveyancing introduced for avoiding transmutation of possession, the questions which arose respecting the property of the dissolved monasteries, and the great increase of commerce and wealth in the nation, brought such a number of important suits into the Court of Chancery, that the holder of the Great Seal could no longer satisfy the public by occasionally stealing a few hours from his political occupations, to dispose of bills and petitions, and not only was his daily attendance demanded in Westminster Hall during term time, but it was necessary that he should sit, for a portion of each vacation, either at his own house, or in some convenient place appointed by him for clearing off his arrears."

"The late development of the implied contract to pay 'quantum meruit,' and to indemnify a surety, would be the more surprising, but for the fact that Equity gave relief to tailors and the like, and to sureties long before the common law held them. Spence, although at a loss to account for the jurisdiction, mentions a suit brought in Chancery, in 1567, by a tailor, to recover the amount due for clothes furnished. The suit was referred to the Queen's tailor, to ascertain the amount due, and upon his report a decree was made. The learned writer adds that 'there were suits for wages and many others of like nature.' A surety who had no counter-bond filed a bill against his principal in 1632, in a case which would seem to have been one of the earliest of the kind, for the reporter, after stating that there was a decree for the plaintiff, adds 'quod nota.'"

"No regular judicial system at that time prevailed in the court; but the suitor when he thought himself aggrieved, found a desultory and uncertain remedy, according to the private opinion of the chancellor, who was generally an ecclesiastic, or sometimes (though rarely) a statesman: no lawyer having sat in the court of chancery from the times of the chief justices Thorpe and Knyvet, successively chancellors to King Edward III. in 1372 and 1373, to the promotion of Sir Thomas More by King Henry VIII., in 1530. After which the great seal was indiscriminately committed to the custody of lawyers or courtiers, or churchmen, according as the convenience of the times and the disposition of the prince required, till Sargeant Puckering was made lord keeper in 1592; from which time to the present the court of chancery has always been filled by a lawyer, excepting the interval from 1621 to 1625, when the seal was entrusted to Dr. Williams, then dean of Westminster, but afterwards bishop of Lincoln; who had been chaplain to Lord Ellesmere when chancellor."

EQUITY: A. D. 1595.
Injunctions against Suits at Law.
Opposition of common law courts.

"The strongest inclination was shown to maintain this opposition to the court of equity, not only by the courts, but by the legislature. The stat. 27 Elizabeth, c, l., which, in very general words, restrains all application to other jurisdictions to impeach or impede the execution of judgments given in the king's courts, under penalty of a praemunire, has been interpreted, as well as stat. Richard II., c. 5, not only as imposing a restraint upon popish claims of judicature, but also of the equitable jurisdiction in Chancery; and in the thirty-first and thirty-second years of this reign, a counsellor-at-law was indicted in the King's Bench on the statute of praemunire, for exhibiting a bill in Chancery after judgment had gone against his client in the King's Bench. Under this and the like control, the Court of Chancery still continued to extend its authority, supported, in some degree, by the momentum it acquired in the time of Cardinal Wolsey."

J. Reeves, History English Law (Finlason's edition.), volume 5, pages 386-387.

Kerly says the earliest chancellors' decisions that have come down to us are those of Lord Ellesmere. He was the first chancellor to establish equity upon the basis of precedents. But compare Reeves (Finlason's), History English Law, volume 3, page 553, who mentions decisions in the Year Books.

"There is no trace of the doctrine being put into practice in England before the Reformation, although in the earliest reported cases where it has been applied it is treated as a well recognized rule, and as one owing its origin to the traditional favour with which charities had always been regarded. Much of the obscurity which covers the introduction of the doctrine into our Law may perhaps be explained by the fact that, in the earliest times, purely charitable gifts, as they would now be understood, were almost unknown. The piety of donors was most generally displayed in gifts to religious houses, and the application of the subject matter of such gifts was exclusively in the Superiors of the different Orders, and entirely exempt from secular control. From the religious houses the administration of charitable gifts passed to the Chancellor, as keeper of the King's conscience, the latter having as 'parens patriae' the general superintendence of all infants, idiots, lunatics and charities. And it was not until some time later that this jurisdiction became gradually merged, and then only in cases where trusts were interposed, in the general jurisdiction of the Chancery Courts. It is not necessary to go into the long vexed question as to when that actually took place. It is enough to say that it is now pretty conclusively established that the jurisdiction of the Chancery Courts over charitable trusts existed anterior to, and independently of, the Statute of Charitable Uses, 43 Eliz., c. 4. As charitable gifts generally involved the existence of a trust reposed in some one, it was natural that the Chancery Court, which assumed jurisdiction over trusts, should have gradually extended that jurisdiction over charities generally; but the origin of the power, that it was one delegated by the Crown to the Chancellor, must not be lost sight of, as in this way, probably, can be best explained the curious distinct jurisdictions vested in the Crown and the Chancery Courts respectively to apply gifts Cy pres, the limits of which, though long uncertain, were finally determined by Lord Eldon in the celebrated case of Moggridge v. Thackwell, 7 ves. 69. If we remember that the original jurisdiction in all charitable matters was in the Crown, and that even after the Chancery Courts acquired a jurisdiction over trusts, there was still a class of cases untouched by such jurisdiction, we shall better understand how the prerogative of the Crown still remained in a certain class of cases, as we shall see hereafter. However this may be, there is no doubt that when the Chancery Courts obtained the jurisdiction over the charities, which they have never lost, the liberal principles of the Civil or Canon Law as to the carrying out of such gifts were the sources and inspirations of their decisions. And hence the Cy pres doctrine became gradually well recognised, though the mode of its application has varied from time to time. Perhaps the most striking instances of this liberal construction are to be found in the series of cases which, by a very strained interpretation of the Statute of Elizabeth with regard to charitable uses, decided that gifts to such uses in favour of corporations, which could not take by devise under the old Wills Act, 32 Hen. VIII., c. 1, were good as operating in the nature of an appointment of the trust in equity, and that the intendment of the statute being in favour of charitable gifts, all deficiencies of assurance were to be supplied by the Courts. Although, historically, there may be no connection between the power of the King over the administration of charities, and the dispensing power reserved to him by the earlier Mortmain Acts, the one being, as we have seen, a right of Prerogative, the other a Feudal right in his capacity as ultimate Lord of the fee, it is perhaps not wholly out of place to allude shortly to the latter, particularly as the two appear not to have been kept distinct in later times. By the earlier Mortmain Acts, the dispensing power of the King, as Lord Paramount, to waive forfeitures under these Acts was recognised, and gifts of land to religious or charitable corporations were made not 'ipso facto' void, but only voidable at the instance of the immediate Lord, or, on his default, of the King and after the statute 'quia emptores,' which practically abolished mesne seignories, the Royal license became in most cases sufficient to secure the validity of the gift. The power of suspending statutes being declared illegal at the Revolution, it was deemed prudent, seeing that the grant of licenses in Mortmain imported an exercise of such suspending power, to give these licenses a Parliamentary sanction; and accordingly, by 7 and 8 William III., c. 37, it was declared that the King might grant licenses to aliens in Mortmain, and also to purchase, acquire, and hold lands in Mortmain in perpetuity without pain of forfeiture. The right of the mesne lord was thus passed over, and the dispensing power of the Crown, from being originally a Feudal right, became converted practically into one of Prerogative. The celebrated Statute of 1 Edward VI., c. 14, against superstitious uses, which is perhaps the earliest statutory recognition of the Cy pres doctrine, points also strongly to the original jurisdiction in these matters being in the King." The author proceeds to trace at some length the subsequent developments of the doctrine both judicial and statutory. The doctrine is not generally recognised in the United States.

H. L. Manby in Law Magazine & Review, 4th ser., volume 15 (London, 1889-90), page 203.

"After a violent struggle between Lord Coke and Lord Ellesmere, the jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery to stay by injunction execution on judgments at law was finally established. In this reign [James I.] the Court made another attempt,—which was speedily abandoned,—to determine upon the validity of wills,—and it has been long settled that the validity of wills of real property shall be referred to courts of law, and the validity of wills of personal property to the Ecclesiastical Courts,—equity only putting a construction upon them when their validity has been established."

The right to redeem after the day dates from the reign of James I. From the time of Edward IV. (1461-83) a mortgagor could redeem after the day if accident, or a collateral agreement, or fraud by mortgagee, prevented payment.

"In the time of Lord Ellesmere (A. D. 1616) arose that notable dispute between the courts of law and equity, set on foot by Sir Edward Coke, then chief justice of the court of king's bench; whether a court of equity could give relief after or against a judgment at the common law? This contest was so warmly carried on, that indictments were preferred against the suitors, the solicitors, the counsel, and even a master in chancery, for having incurred a 'praemunire,' by questioning in a court of equity a judgment in the court of king's bench, obtained by a gross fraud and imposition. This matter being brought before the king, was by him referred to his learned counsel for their advice and opinion; who reported so strongly in favor of the courts of equity, that his majesty gave judgment in their behalf."

"This was in 1616, the year of the memorable contest between Lord Coke and Lord Ellesmere as to the power of equity to restrain the execution of common-law judgment obtained by fraud. … The right of equity to enforce specific performance, where damages at law would be an inadequate remedy, has never since been questioned."

      J. B. Ames,
      Specific Performance of Contracts
      (The Green Bag, volume 1, page 27).

"It is the established doctrine in the English law, that if there be three mortgages in succession, and all duly registered, or a mortgage, and then a judgment, and then a second mortgage upon the estate, the junior mortgagee may purchase in the first mortgage, and tack it to his mortgage, and by that contrivance 'squeeze out' the middle mortgage, and gain preference over it. The same rule would apply if the first, as well as the second incumbrance, was a judgment; but the incumbrancer who tacks must always be a mortgagee, for he stands in the light of a bona fide purchaser, parting with his money upon the security of the mortgage. … In the English law, the rule is under some reasonable qualification. The last mortgagee cannot tack, if, when he took his mortgage, he had notice in fact … of the intervening incumbrance. … The English doctrine of tacking was first solemnly established in Marsh v. Lee [2 Vent. 337], under the assistance of Sir Matthew Hale, who compared the operation to a plank in shipwreck gained by the last mortgagee; and the subject was afterwards very fully and accurately expounded by the Master of the Rolls, in Brace v. Duchess of Marlborough [2 P. Wms. 491]."

"He [Lord Harcourt] first established the important doctrine, that if money is directed either by deed or will to be laid out in land, the money shall be taken to be land, even as to collateral heirs."

It was under Lord Hardwicke that the jurisdiction of Equity was fully developed. During the twenty years of his chancellorship the great branches of equitable jurisdiction were laid out, and his decisions were regularly cited as authority until after Lord Eldon's time.

"That the directors of a corporation shall manage its affairs honestly and carefully is primarily a right of the corporation itself rather than of the individual stockholders. … The only authority before the present century is the case of the Charitable Corporation v. Sutton, decided by Lord Hardwicke [2 Atk. 400]. But this case is the basis … of all subsequent decisions on the point, and it is still quoted as containing an accurate exposition of the law. The corporation was charitable only in name, being a joint-stock corporation for lending money on pledges. By the fraud of some of the directors … , and by the negligence of the rest, loans were made without proper security. The bill was against the directors and other officers, 'to have a satisfaction for a breach of trust, fraud, and mismanagement.' Lord Hardwicke granted the relief prayed, and a part of his decision is well worth quoting. He says: 'Committee-men are most properly agents to those who employ them in this trust, and who empower them to direct and superintend the affairs of the corporation. In this respect they may be guilty of acts of commission or omission, of malfeasance or nonfeasance. … Nor will I ever determine that a court of equity cannot lay hold of every breach of trust, let the person be guilty of it either in a private or public capacity.'"

S. Williston, History of the Law of Business (Harvard Law Review, volume 2, page 158-159).

"Originally, it appears not to have been contemplated that a demurrer or plea would lie to a bill for discovery, unless it were a demurrer or plea to the nature of the discovery sought or to the jurisdiction of the court, e. g., a plea of purchase for value; and, though it was a result of this doctrine that plaintiffs might compel discovery to which they were not entitled, it seems to have been supposed that they were not likely to do so to any injurious effect, since they must do it at their own expense. But this view was afterwards abandoned, and in 1782 it was decided that, if a bill of discovery in aid of an action at law stated no good cause of action against the defendant, it might be demurred to on that ground, i. e., that it showed on its face no right to relief at law, and, therefore, no right to discovery in equity. Three years later in Hindman v. Taylor, the question was raised whether a defendant could protect himself for answering a bill for discovery by setting up an affirmative defence by plea; and, though Lord Thurlow decided the question in the negative, his decision has since been overruled; and it is now fully settled that any defence may be set up to a bill for discovery by demurrer or plea, the same as to a bill for relief; and, if successful, it will protect the defendant from answering."

EQUITY: A. D. 1786.
Injunction after Decree to pay Proceeds of Estate into Court.

"As soon as a decree is made … , under which the executor will be required to pay the proceeds of the whole estate into court, an injunction ought to be granted against the enforcement of any claim against the estate by an action at law; and accordingly such has been the established rule for more than a hundred years. … The first injunction that was granted expressly upon the ground above explained was that granted by Lord Thurlow, in 1782, in the case of Brooks v. Reynolds. … In the subsequent case of Kenyon v. Worthington, … an application to Lord Thurlow for an injunction was resisted by counsel of the greatest eminence. The resistance, however, was unsuccessful, and the injunction was granted. This was in 1786; and from that time the question was regarded as settled."

C. C. Langdell, Equity Jurisdiction (Harvard Law Review, volume 5, pages 122-123).

"In Gun v. Prior, Forrest, 88, note, 1 Cox, 197, 2 Dickens, 657, Cas. in Eq. Pl. 47, a negative plea was overruled by Lord Thurlow after a full argument. This was in 1785. Two years later, the question came before the same judge again, and, after another full argument, was decided the same way. Newman v. Wallis, 2 Bro. C. C. 143, Cas. in Eq. Pl. 52. But in 1792, in the case of Hall v. Noyes, 3 Bro. C. C. 483, 489, Cas. in Eq. Pl. 223, 227, Lord Thurlow took occasion to say that he had changed his opinion upon the subject of negative pleas, and that his former decisions were wrong; and since then the right to plead a negative plea has not been questioned."

"'The doctrine of this Court,' he [Lord Eldon] said himself, 'ought to be as well settled and as uniform, almost, as those of the common law, laying down fixed principles, but taking care that they are to be applied according to the circumstances of each case. I cannot agree that the doctrines of this Court are to be changed by every succeeding judge. Nothing would inflict on me greater pain than the recollection that I had done any thing to justify the reproach that the Equity of this Court varies like the Chancellor's foot.' Certainly the reproach he dreaded cannot justly be inflicted upon his memory. … From his time onward the development of equity was effected ostensibly, and, in the great majority of cases, actually, by strict deduction from the principles to be discovered in decided cases, and the work of subsequent Chancery judges has been, for the most part, confined, as Lord Eldon's was, to tracing out these principles into detail, and to rationalising them by repeated review and definition."

"We are next to regard Story during his thirty-five years of judicial service. He performed an amount of judicial labor almost without parallel, either in quality or quantity, in the history of jurisprudence. His judgments in the Circuit Court comprehended thirteen volumes. His opinions in the Supreme Court are found in thirty-five volumes. Most of these decisions are on matters of grave difficulty, and many of them of first impression. Story absolutely created a vast amount of law for our country. Indeed, he was essentially a builder. When he came to the bench, the law of admiralty was quite vague and unformed; his genius formed it as exclusively as Stowell's did in England. He also did much toward building up the equity system which has become part of our jurisprudence. In questions of international and constitutional law, the breadth and variety of his legal learning enabled him to shine with peculiar brilliancy. It is sufficient to say that there is scarcely any branch of the law which he has not greatly illustrated and enlarged,—prize, constitutional, admiralty, patent, copyright, insurance, real estate, commercial law so called, and equity,—all were gracefully familiar to him. The most celebrated of his judgments are De Lovio v. Boit, in which be investigates the jurisdiction of the Admiralty; Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, which examines the appellate jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court; Dartmouth College v. Woodward, in which the question was, whether the charter of a college was a contract within the meaning of the constitutional provision prohibiting the enactment, by any State, of laws impairing the obligations of contracts; his dissenting opinion in Charles River Bridge Company v. The Warren Bridge; involving substantially the same question as the last case; and the opinion in the Girard will case. These are the most celebrated, but are scarcely superior to scores of his opinions in cases never heard of beyond the legal profession. His biographer is perhaps warranted in saying of his father's judicial opinions: 'For closeness of texture and compact logic, they are equal to the best judgments of Marshall; for luminousness and method, they stand beside those of Mansfield; in elegance of style, they yield the palm only to the prize cases of Lord Stowell, but in fullness of illustration and wealth and variety of learning, they stand alone."

"In February, 1814, he was appointed chancellor. The powers and jurisdiction of the court of chancery were not clearly defined. There were scarcely any precedents of its decisions, to which reference could be made in case of doubt. Without any other guide, he felt at liberty to exercise such powers of the English chancery as he deemed applicable under the Constitution and laws of the State, subject to the correction of the Court of Errors, on appeal. … On the 31st of July, 1823, having attained the age of sixty years, the period limited by the Constitution for the tenure of his office, he retired from the court, after hearing and deciding every case that had been brought before him. On this occasion the members of the bar residing in the City of New York, presented him an address. After speaking of the inestimable benefits conferred on the community by his judicial labors for five and twenty years they say: 'During this long course of services, so useful and honorable, and which will form the most brilliant period in our judicial history, you have, by a series of decisions in law and equity, distinguished alike for practical wisdom, profound learning, deep research and accurate discrimination, contributed to establish the fabric of our jurisprudence on those sound principles that have been sanctioned by the experience of mankind, and expounded by the enlightened and venerable sages of the law. Though others may hereafter enlarge and adorn the edifice whose deep and solid foundations were laid by the wise and patriotic framers of our government, in that common law which they claimed for the people as their noblest inheritance, your labors on this magnificent structure will forever remain eminently conspicuous, command the applause of the present generation, and exciting the admiration and gratitude of future ages.'"

"The principle of negative pleas was first established by the introduction of anomalous pleas; but it was not perceived at first that anomalous pleas involved the admission of pure negative pleas. It would often happen, however, that a defendant would have no affirmative defence to a bill, and yet the bill could not be supported because of the falsity of some material allegation contained in it; and, if the defendant could deny this false allegation by a negative plea, he would thereby avoid giving discovery as to all other parts of the bill. At length, therefore, the experiment of setting up such a plea was tried; and, though unsuccessful at first, it prevailed in the end, and negative pleas became fully established. If they had been well understood, they might have proved a moderate success, although they were wholly foreign to the system into which they were incorporated; but, as it was, their introduction was attended with infinite mischief and trouble, and they did much to bring the system into disrepute. For example, it was not clearly understood for a long time that a pure negative plea required the support of an answer; and there was no direct decision to that effect until the case of Sanders v. King, 6 Madd. 61, Cas. in Eq. Pl. 74, decided in 1821."

"None of the English statutes of limitation, prior to 3 & 4 Wm. IV., c. 27, had any application to suits in equity. Indeed, they contained no general terms embracing all actions at law, but named specifically all actions to which they applied; and they made no mention whatever of suits in equity. If a plaintiff sued in equity, when he might have brought an action at law, and the time for bringing the action was limited by statute, the statute might in a certain sense be pleaded to the suit in equity; for the defendant might say that, if the plaintiff had sued at law, his action would have been barred; that the declared policy of the law therefore, was against the plaintiff's recovering; and hence the cause was not one of which a court of equity ought to take cognizance. In strictness, however, the plea in such a case would be to the jurisdiction of the court."

EQUITY: A. D. 1836.
Personal Character of Shares of Stock first established in
England.

"The most accurate definition of the nature of the property acquired by the purchase of a share of stock in a corporation is that it is a fraction of all the rights and duties of the stockholders composing the corporation. Such does not seem to have been the clearly recognized view till after the beginning of the present century. The old idea was rather that the corporation held all its property strictly as a trustee, and that the shareholders were, strictly speaking, 'cestuis que trust,' being in equity co-owners of the corporate property. … It was not until the decision of Bligh v. Brent [Y. & C. 268], in 1836, that the modern view was established in England."

S. Williston, History of the Law of Business Corporations before 1800 (Harvard Law Review, volume 2, pages 149-151).

"In modern times the inventor of a new process obtains from the State, by way of recompense for the benefit he has conferred upon society, and in order to encourage others to follow his example, not only an exclusive privilege of using the new process for a fixed term of years, but also the right of letting or selling his privilege to another. Such an indulgence is called a patent-right, and a very similar favour, known as copy-right, is granted to the authors of books, and to painters, engravers, and sculptors, in the productions of their genius. It has been a somewhat vexed question whether a 'trade-mark' is to be added to the list of intangible objects of ownership. It was at any rate so treated in a series of judgments by Lord Westbury, which, it seems, are still good law. He says, for instance, 'Imposition on the public is indeed necessary for the plaintiff's title, but in this way only, that it is the test of the invasion by the defendant of the plaintiff's right of property.' [Citing 33 L. J. Ch. 204; cf. 35 Ch. D. Oakley v. Dalton.] It was also so described in the 'Trade Marks Registration Act,' 1875 [sections 3, 4, 5], as it was in the French law of 1857 relating to 'Marques de fabrique et de commerce.' The extension of the idea of ownership to these three rights is of comparatively recent date. Patent-right in England is older than the Statute of Monopolies, 21 Jac. I. C. 3, and copy-right is obscurely traceable previously to the Act of 8 Anne, C. 19, but trade-marks were first protected in the present century."

      ALSO IN:
      E. S. Drone,
      Treatise on the Law of Property in Intellectual Productions.

Topics of law treated under other heads are indicated by the following references:

"The Priests of the Missions, or the Lazarists ['sometimes called the Vincentian Congregation'], … have not unfrequently done very essential service to Christianity." Their Society was founded in 1624 by St. Vincent de Paul, "at the so-called Priory of St. Lazarus in Paris, whence the name Lazarists. … Besides their mission-labours, they took complete charge, in many instances, of ecclesiastical seminaries, which, in obedience to the instruction of the Council of Trent, had been established in the various dioceses, and even at this day many of these institutions are under their direction. In the year 1642 these devoted priests were to be seen in Italy, and not long after were sent to Algiers, to Tunis, to Madagascar, and to Poland."

LAZICA. LAZIC WAR.

"Lazica, the ancient Colchis and the modern Mingrelia and Imeritia, bordered upon the Black Sea." From A. D. 522 to 541 the little kingdom was a dependency of Rome, its king, having accepted Christianity, acknowledging himself a vassal of the Roman or Byzantine emperor. But the Romans provoked a revolt by their encroachments. "They seized and fortified a strong post, called Petra, upon the coast, appointed a commandant who claimed an authority as great as that of the Lazic king, and established a commercial monopoly which pressed with great severity upon the poorer classes of the Lazi." The Persians were accordingly invited in to drive the Romans out, and did so, reducing Lazica, for the time being, to the state of a Persian province. But, in their turn, the Persians became obnoxious, and the Lazi, making their peace with Rome, were taken by the Emperor Justinian under his protection. "The Lazic war, which commenced in consequence of this act of Justinian's, continued almost without intermission for nine years—from A. D. 549 to 557. Its details are related at great length by Procopius and Agathias, who view the struggle as one which vitally concerned the interests of their country. According to them, Chosroës [the Persian king] was bent upon holding Lazica in order to construct at the mouth of the Phasis a great naval station and arsenal, from which his fleets might issue to command the commerce or ravage the shores of the Black Sea." The Persians in the end withdrew from Lazica, but the Romans, by treaty, paid them an annual tribute for their possession of the country.

LEAGUE, The Holy, of Pope Innocent XI., the Emperor, Venice, Poland and Russia against the Turks.

LEAGUE OF AUGSBURG.

LEAGUE OF CAMBRAI.

LEAGUE OF LOMBARDY.

LEAGUE OF RATISBON.

LEAGUE OF THE GUEUX.

LEAGUE OF THE PRINCES.

LEAGUE OF THE PUBLIC WEAL.

LEAGUE OF THE RHINE.

LEAGUE OF TORGAU.

LECHFELD, OR BATTLE ON THE LECH (A. D. 955).

LECHFELD, OR BATTLE ON THE LECH (1632.)

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (MAY-AUGUST); 1776 (JUNE), (AUGUST); and 1778 (JUNE).

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (JUNE: VIRGINIA),
      and (JULY-AUGUST: VIRGINIA).

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (JULY-AUGUST: VIRGINIA);
      (AUGUST: VIRGINIA); and (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER: VIRGINIA).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (SEPTEMBER: MARYLAND).

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (JUNE: VIRGINIA),
      and (JUNE-JULY: PENNSYLVANIA);
      also (JULY-NOVEMBER: VIRGINIA).

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1864 (MAY: VIRGINIA), to 1865 (APRIL: VIRGINIA).

Leeds, occupied by the Royalists, under Sir William Savile, was taken by Sir Thomas Fairfax, after hard fighting, on the 23d of January, 1643.

LEGATE.

This was the title given to the lieutenant-general or associate chosen by a Roman commander or provincial governor to be his second-in-authority.

"The original order of a Roman army was, as it seems, similar to the phalanx: but the long unbroken line had been divided into smaller detachments since, and perhaps by Camillus. The long wars in the Samnite mountains naturally caused the Romans to retain and to perfect this organisation, which made their army more movable and pliable, without preventing the separate bodies quickly combining and forming in one line. The legion now [at the time of the war with Pyrrhus, B. C. 280] consisted of thirty companies (called 'manipuli') of the average strength of a hundred men, which were arranged in three lines of ten manipuli each, like the black squares on a chessboard. The manipuli of the first line consisted of the youngest troops, called 'hastati'; those of the second line, called 'principes,' were men in the full vigour of life; those of the third, the 'triarii,' formed a reserve of older soldiers, and were numerically only half as strong as the other two lines. The tactic order of the manipuli enabled the general to move the 'principes' forward into the intervals of the 'hastati,' or to withdraw the 'hastati ' back into the intervals of the 'principes,' the 'triarii' being kept as a reserve. … The light troops were armed with javelins, and retired behind the solid mass of the manipuli as soon as they had discharged their weapons in front of the line, at the beginning of the combat."

"The legions, as they are described by Polybius, in the time of the Punic wars, differed very materially from those which achieved the victories of Cæsar, or defended the monarchy of Hadrian and the Antonines. The constitution of the Imperial legion may be described in a few words. The heavy-armed infantry, which composed its principal strength, was divided into ten cohorts, and fifty-five companies, under the orders of a correspondent number of tribunes and centurions. The first cohort, which always claimed the post of honour and the custody of the eagle, was formed of 1,105 soldiers, the most approved for valour and fidelity. The remaining nine cohorts consisted each of 555; and the whole body of legionary infantry amounted to 6,100 men. … The legion was usually drawn up eight deep, and the regular distance of three feet was left between the files as well as ranks. … The cavalry, without which the force of the legion would have remained imperfect, was divided into ten troops or squadrons; the first, as the companion of the first cohort, consisted of 132 men; whilst each of the other nine amounted only to 66."

LEGITIMISTS AND ORLEANISTS.

The partisans of Bourbon monarchy in France became divided into two factions by the revolution of 1830, which deposed Charles X. and raised Louis Philippe to the throne. Charles X., brother of Louis XVI. and Louis XVIII., was in the direct line of royal descent, from Louis XIV. Louis Philippe, Duke of Orleans, who displaced him, belonged to a younger branch of the Bourbon family, descending from the brother of Louis XIV., Philippe, Duke of Orleans, father of the Regent Orleans. Louis Philippe, in his turn, was expelled from the throne in 1848, and the crown, after that event, became an object of claim in both families. The claim supported by the Legitimists was extinguished in 1883 by the death of the childless Comte de Chambord, grandson of Charles X. The Orleanist claim is still maintained (1894) by the Comte de Paris, grandson of Louis Philippe.

LEIPSIC: A. D. 1642.
Second Battle of Breitenfeld.
Surrender of the city to the Swedes.

LEIPSIC: A. D. 1813.
   Occupied by the Prussians and Russians.
   Regained by the French.
   The great "Battle of the Nations."

See GERMANY: A. D. 1812-1813;
1813 (APRIL-MAY), (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER), and (OCTOBER).

LEISLER'S REVOLUTION.

LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY.

LELANTIAN FIELDS. LELANTIAN FEUD.

"The Greeks beyond the sea [Ionian Greeks of Asia Minor] were however not merely designated in groups, according to the countries out of which they came, but certain collective names existed for them—such as that of Javan in the East. … Among all these names the most widely spread was that of the Leleges, which the ancients themselves designated as that of a mixed people. In Lycia, in Miletus, and in the Troad these Leleges had their home; in other words, on the whole extent of coast in which we have recognized the primitive seats of the people of Ionic Greeks."

LELIAERDS.

In the mediæval annals of the Flemish people, the partisans of the French are called "Leliaerds," from "lelie," the Flemish for lily.

LEMNOS.

One of the larger islands in the northern part of the Ægean Sea, lying opposite the Trojan coast. It was anciently associated with Samothrace and Imbros in the mysterious worship of the Cabeiri.

The Lemovices were a tribe of Gauls who occupied, in Cæsar's time, the territory afterwards known as the Limousin —department of Upper Vienne and parts adjoining.

A tribe in ancient Germany whose territory, on the Baltic coast, probably in the neighborhood of Danzig, bordered on that of the Gothones.

Leo III. (called The Isaurian),
Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or Greek),717-741.

LEODIS (WEREGILD).

   "This name Legio or Leon, so long borne by a province and by
   its chief city in Spain, is derived from the old Roman 'Regnum
   Legionis' (Kingdom of the Legion)."

      H. Coppée,
      Conquest of Spain by the Arab-Moors,
      book 5, chapter 1 (volume 1).

LEONIDAS AT THERMOPYLÆ.

LEOPOLD I.,
   Germanic Emperor, A. D. 1658-1705;
   King of Hungary, 1655-1705:
   King of Bohemia, 1657-1705.

LEPTA.

LEPTIS MAGNA.

"The city of Leptis Magna, originally a Phœnician colony, was the capital of this part of the province [the tract of north-African coast between the Lesser and the Greater Syrtes], and held much the same prominent position as that of Tripoli at the present day. The only other towns in the region of the Syrtes, as it was sometimes called, were Œa, on the site of the modern Tripoli, and Sabrata, the ruins of which are still visible at a place called Tripoli Vecchio. The three together gave the name of the Tripolis of Africa to this region, as distinguished from the Pentapolis of Cyrenaïca. Hence the modern appellation."

E. H. Bunbury, History of Ancient Geography, chapter 20, section 1, footnote (volume 2).

LESBOS.

The largest of the islands of the Ægean, lying south of the Troad, great part of which it once controlled, was particularly distinguished in the early literary history of ancient Greece, having produced what is called "the Æolian school" of lyric poetry. Alcæus, Sappho, Terpander and Arion were poets who sprang from Lesbos. The island was one of the important colonies of what was known as the Æolic migration, but became subject to Athens after the Persian War. In the fourth year of the Peloponnesian War its chief city, Mitylene (which afterwards gave its name to the entire island), seized the opportunity to revolt. The siege and reduction of Mytilene by the Athenians was one of the exciting incidents of that struggle.

The clubs of Sparta and Athens formed an important feature of the life of Greece. In every Grecian community there was a place of resort called the Lesche. In Sparta it was peculiarly the resort of old men, who assembled round a blazing fire in winter, and were listened to with profound respect by their juniors. These retreats were numerous in Athens.

"The proper home of the Spartan art of speech, the original source of so many Spartan jokes current over all Greece, was the Lesche, the place of meeting for men at leisure, near the public drilling-grounds, where they met in small bands, and exchanged merry talk."

LESE-MAJESTY.

A term in English law signifying treason, borrowed from the Romans. The contriving, or counselling or consenting to the king's death, or sedition against the king, are included in the crime of "lese-majesty."

LETTERS OF MARQUE.

LETTRE DE CACHET.

"In French history, a letter or order under seal; a private letter of state: a name given especially to a written order proceeding from and signed by the king, and countersigned by a secretary of state, and used at first as an occasional means of delaying the course of justice, but later, in the 17th and 18th centuries, as a warrant for the imprisonment without trial of a person obnoxious for any reason to the government, often for life or for a long period, and on frivolous pretexts. Lettres de cachet were abolished at the Revolution."

"The minister used to give generously blank lettres-de-cachet to the intendants, the bishops, and people in the administration. Saint-Florentin, alone, gave away as many as 50,000. Never had man's dearest treasure, liberty, been more lavishly squandered. These letters were the object of a profitable traffic; they were sold to fathers who wanted to get rid of their sons, and given to pretty women who were inconvenienced by their husbands. This last cause of imprisonment was one of the most prominent. And all through good-nature. The king [Louis XV.] was too good to refuse a lettre-de-cachet to a great lord. The intendant was too good-natured not to grant one at a lady's request. The government clerks, the mistresses of the clerks, and the friends of these mistresses, through good-nature, civility, or mere politeness, obtained, gave, or lent, those terrible orders by which a man was buried alive. Buried;—for such was the carelessness and levity of those amiable clerks,—almost all nobles, fashionable men, all occupied with their pleasures,—that they never had the time, when once the poor fellow was shut up, to think of his position."

J. Michelet, Historical View of the French Revolution, introduction, part 2, section 9.

LETTS.

LEUCADIA, LEUCAS.

Originally a peninsula of Acarnania, on the western coast of Greece, but converted into an island by the Corinthians, who cut a canal across its narrow neck. Its chief town, of the same name, was at one time the meeting place of the Acarnanian League. The high promontory at the south-western extremity of the island was celebrated for the temple of Apollo which crowned it, and as being the scene of the story of Sappho's suicidal leap from the Leucadian rock.

The kingdom of Pergamum having been bequeathed to the Romans by its last king, Attalus, a certain Aristonicus attempted to resist their possession of it, and Crassus, one of the consuls of B. C. 131 was sent against him. But Crassus had no success and was finally defeated and slain, near Leucæ. Aristonicus surrendered soon afterwards to M. Perperna and the war in Pergamum was ended.

   A tribe in Belgic Gaul which occupied the southern part of the
   modern department of the Meuse, the greater part of the
   Meurthe, and the department of the Vosges.

LEUDES.

"The Frankish warriors, but particularly the leaders, were called 'leudes,' from the Teutonic word 'leude,' 'liude,' 'leute,' people, as some think (Thierry, Lettres sur l'Hist. de Franc, p. 130). In the Scandinavian dialects, 'lide' means a warrior … ; and in the Kymric also 'lwydd' means an army or war-band. … It was not a title of dignity, as every free fighter among the Franks was a leud, but in process of time the term seems to have been restricted to the most prominent and powerful warriors alone."

"The roads in the whole Roman empire were measured and marked according to the unit of the Roman mile (1.48 kilometer), and up to the end of the second century this applied also to those [the Gallic] provinces. But from Severus onward its place was taken in the three Gauls and the two Germanies by a mile correlated no doubt to the Roman, but yet different and with a Gallic name, the 'leuga' (2.222 kilomètres), equal to one and a half Roman miles. … The double 'leuga,' the German 'rasta,' … corresponds to the French 'lieue.'"

LEUKAS.

"Especially popular among the soldiers [of the Parliamentary Army, England, A. D. 1647-48], and keeping up their excitement more particularly against the House of Lords, were the pamphlets that came from John Lilburne, and an associate of his named Richard Overton. … These were the pamphlets … which … were popular with the common soldiers of the Parliamentary Army, and nursed that especial form of the democratic passion among them which longed to sweep away the House of Lords and see England governed by a single Representative House. Baxter, who reports this growth of democratic opinion in the Army from his own observation, distinctly recognises in it the beginnings of that rough ultra-Republican party which afterwards became formidable under the name of The Levellers."

"They [the Levellers] had a vision of a pure and patriotic Parliament, accurately representing the people, yet carrying out a political programme incomprehensible to nine-tenths of the nation. This Parliament was to represent all legitimate varieties of thought, and was yet to act together as one man. The necessity for a Council of State they therefore entirely denied; and they denounced it as a new tyranny. The excise they condemned as an obstruction to trade. They would have no man compelled to fight, unless he felt free in his own conscience to do so. They appealed to the law of nature, and found their interpretation of it carrying them further and further away from English traditions and habits, whether of Church or State." A mutiny of the Levellers in the army, which broke out in April and May, 1640, was put down with stern vigor by Cromwell and Fairfax, several of the leaders being executed.

LEWIS AND CLARK'S EXPEDITION.

LEXINGTON, Massachusetts: A. D. 1775.
The beginning of the War of the American Revolution.

The Lexovii were one of the tribes of northwestern Gaul, in the time of Cæsar. Their position is indicated and their name, in a modified form, preserved by the town of Lisieux between Caen and Evreux.

LEYDEN: A. D. 1574.
   Siege by the Spaniards.
   Relief by the flooding of the land.
   The founding of the University.

"The Tuatha-de-Danaan [the people who preceded the Milesians in colonizing Ireland, according to the fabulous Irish histories] brought with them from Scandinavia, among other extraordinary things, three marvellous treasures, the Lia-Fail, or Stone of Destiny, the Sorcerer's Spear, and the Magic Caldron, all celebrated in the old Irish romances. The Lia-Fail possessed the remarkable property of making a strange noise and becoming wonderfully disturbed, whenever a monarch of Ireland of pure blood was crowned, and a prophecy was attached to it, that whatever country possessed it should be ruled over by a king of Irish descent, and enjoy uninterrupted success and prosperity. It was preserved at Cashel, where the kings of Munster were crowned upon it. According to some writers it was afterwards kept at the Hill of Tara, where it remained until it was carried to Scotland by an Irish prince, who succeeded to the crown of that country. There it was preserved at Scone, until Edward I. carried it away into England, and placed it under the seat of the coronation chair of our kings, where it still remains. … It seems to be the opinion of some modern antiquarians that a pillar stone still remaining at the Hill of Tara is the true Lia-Fail, which in that case was not carried to Scotland."

LIBBY PRISON.

LIBERAL REPUBLICAN PARTY.

LIBERAL UNIONISTS.

LIBERI HOMINES.

The party which opposed Calvin's austere and arbitrary rule in
Geneva were called Libertines.

LIBERTINI.

LIBERTY BOYS.

The name by which the Sons of Liberty of the American
Revolution were familiarly known.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1765; NEW YORK: A. D. 1773-1774;
      and LIBERTY TREE.

LIBERTY CAP.

"This emblem, like many similar ones received by the revolutions from the hand of chance, was a mystery even to those who wore it. It had been adopted [at Paris] for the first time on the day of the triumph of the soldiers of Châteauvieux [April 15, 1792, when 41 Swiss soldiers of the regiment of Châteauvieux, condemned to the galleys for participation in a dangerous mutiny of the garrison at Nancy in 1790, but liberated in compliance with the demands of the mob, were fêted as heroes by the Jacobins of Paris]. Some said it was the coiffure of the galley-slaves, once infamous, but glorious since it had covered the brows of these martyrs of the insurrection; and they added that the people wished to purify this head-dress from every stain by wearing it themselves. Others only saw in it the Phrygian bonnet, a symbol of freedom for slaves. The 'bonnet rouge' had from its first appearance been the subject of dispute and dissension amongst the Jacobins; the 'exaltés' wore it, whilst the 'modérés' yet abstained from adopting it." Robespierre and his immediate followers opposed the "frivolity" of the "bonnet rouge," and momentarily suppressed it in the Assembly. "But even the voice of Robespierre, and the resolutions of the Jacobins, could not arrest the outbreak of enthusiasm that had placed the sign of 'avenging equality' ('l'égalité vengeresse') on every head; and the evening of the day on which it was repudiated at the Jacobins' saw it inaugurated at all the theatres. The bust of Voltaire, the destroyer of prejudice, was adorned with the Phrygian cap of liberty, amidst the shouts of the spectators, whilst the cap and pike became the uniform and weapon of the citizen soldier."

ALSO IN: H. M. Stephens, History of the French Revolution, volume 2, chapter 2.

LIBERTY PARTY AND LIBERTY LEAGUE.

LIBERTY TREE AND LIBERTY HALL.

"Lafayette said, when in Boston, 'The world should never forget the spot where once stood Liberty Tree, so famous in your annals.' … The open space at the four corners of Washington, Essex, and Boylston streets was once known as Hanover Square, from the royal house of Hanover, and sometimes as the Elm Neighborhood, from the magnificent elms with which it was environed. It was one of the finest of these that obtained the name of Liberty Tree, from its being used on the first occasion of resistance to the obnoxious Stamp Act. … At daybreak on the 14th August, 1765, nearly ten years before active hostilities broke out, an effigy of Mr. Oliver, the Stamp officer, and a boot, with the Devil peeping out of it,—an allusion to Lord Bute,—was discovered hanging from Liberty Tree. The images remained hanging all day, and were visited by great numbers of people, both from the town and the neighboring country. Business was almost suspended. Lieutenant-Governor Hutchinson ordered the sheriff to take the figures down, but he was obliged to admit that he dared not do so. As the day closed in the effigies were taken down, placed upon a bier, and, followed by several thousand people of every class and condition," were borne through the city and then burned, after which much riotous conduct on the part of the crowd occurred. In 1766, when the repeal of the Stamp Act took place, a large copper plate was fastened to the tree, inscribed in golden characters:—'This tree was planted in the year 1646, and pruned by order of the Sons of Liberty, February 14th, 1766.' … The ground immediately about Liberty Tree was popularly known as Liberty Hall. In August, 1767, a flagstaff had been erected, which went through and extended above its highest branches. A flag hoisted upon this staff was the signal for the assembling of the Sons of Liberty. … In August, 1775, the name of Liberty having become offensive to the Tories and their British allies, the tree was cut down by a party led by one Job Williams."

The ancient Roman unit of weight was the libra, or pondus, from which the modern names of the livre and pound are derived. Its weight was equal to 5,015 Troy gr. or 325 grams, and it was identical with the Greek-Asiatic mina."

"The Babylonians were … essentially a reading and writing people. … Books were numerous and students were many. The books were for the most part written upon clay [tablets] with a wooden reed or metal stylus, for clay was cheap and plentiful, and easily impressed with the wedge-shaped lines of which the characters were composed. But besides clay, papyrus and possibly also parchment were employed as writing materials; at all events the papyrus is referred to in the texts."

"We must speak of the manner in which the tablet was formed. Fine clay was selected, kneaded, and moulded into the shape of the required tablet. One side was flat, and the other rounded. The writing was then inscribed on both sides, holes were pricked in the clay, and then it was baked. The holes allowed the steam which was generated during the process of baking to escape. It is thought that the clay used in some of the tablets was not only well kneaded, but ground in some kind of mill, for the texture of the clay is as fine as some of our best modern pottery. The wedges appear to have been impressed by a square headed instrument."

Assurbanipal, the Sardanapalus of the Greeks, was the greatest and most celebrated of Assyrian monarchs. He was the principal patron of Assyrian literature, and the greater part of the grand library at Nineveh was written during his reign."

"Assurbanipal is fond of old books, particularly of the old sacred works. He collects the scattered specimens from the chief cities of his empire, and even employs scribes in Chaldea, Ourouk, Barsippa, and Babylon to copy for him the tablets deposited in the temples. His principal library is at Nineveh, in the palace which he built for himself upon the banks of the Tigris, and which he has just finished decorating. It contains more than thirty thousand tablets, methodically classified and arranged in several rooms, with detailed catalogues for convenient reference. Many of the works are continued from tablet to tablet and form a series, each bearing the first words of the text as its title. The account of the creation, which begins with the phrase: 'Formerly, that which is above was not yet called the heaven,' was entitled: 'Formerly, that which is above, No.1;' 'Formerly, that which is above, No.2;' and so on to the end. Assurbanipal is not less proud of his love of letters than of his political activity, and he is anxious that posterity should know how much he has done for literature. His name is inscribed upon every work in his library, ancient and modern. 'The palace of Assurbanipal, king of legions, king of multitudes, king of Assyria, to whom the god Nebo and the goddess Tasmetu have granted attentive ears and open eyes to discover the writings of the scribes of my kingdom, whom the kings my predecessors, have employed. In my respect for Nebo, the god of intelligence, I have collected these tablets; I have had them copied, I have marked them with my name, and I have deposited them in my palace.' The library at Dur-Sarginu, although not so rich as the one in Nineveh, is still fairly well supplied."

Collections of inscribed tablets had been made by Tiglath-Pileser II., king of Assyria, B. C. 745, who had copied some historical inscriptions of his predecessors. Sargon, the founder of the dynasty to which Assur-bani-pal belonged, B. C. 722, had increased this library by adding a collection of astrological and similar texts, and Sennacherib, B. C. 705, had composed copies of the Assyrian canon, short histories, and miscellaneous inscriptions, to add to the collection. Sennacherib also moved the library from Calah, its original seat, to Nineveh, the capital. Esarhaddon, B. C. 681, added numerous historical and mythological texts. All the inscriptions of the former kings were, however, nothing compared to those written during the reign of Assur-bani-pal. Thousands of inscribed tablets from all places, and on every variety of subject, were collected, and copied, and stored in the library of the palace at Nineveh during his reign; and by his statements they appear to have been intended for the inspection of the people, and to spread learning among the Assyrians. Among these tablets one class consisted of historical texts, some the histories of the former kings of Assyria, and others copies of royal inscriptions from various other places. Similar to these were the copies of treaties, despatches, and orders from the king to his generals and ministers, a large number of which formed part of the library. There was a large collection of letters of all sorts, from despatches to the king on the one hand, down to private notes on the other. Geography found a place among the sciences, and was represented by lists of countries, towns, rivers, and mountains, notices of the position, products, and character of districts, &c., &c. There were tables giving accounts of the law and legal decisions, and tablets with contracts, loans, deeds of sale and barter, &c. There were lists of tribute and taxes, accounts of property in the various cities, forming some approach to a census and general account of the empire. One large and important section of the library was devoted to legends of various sorts, many of which were borrowed from other countries. Among these were the legends of the hero Izdubar, perhaps the Nimrod of the Bible. One of these legends gives the Chaldean account of the flood, others of this description give various fables and stories of evil spirits. The mythological part of the library embraced lists of the gods, their titles, attributes, temples, &c., hymns in praise of various deities, prayers to be used by different classes of men to different gods, and under various circumstances, as during eclipses or calamities, on setting out for a campaign, &c., &e. Astronomy was represented by various tablets and works on the appearance and motions of the heavens, and the various celestial phenomena. Astrology was closely connected with Astronomy, and formed a numerous class of subjects and inscriptions. An interesting division was formed by the works on natural history; these consisted of lists of animals, birds, reptiles, trees, grasses, stones, &c., &c., arranged in classes, according to their character and affinities as then understood, lists of minerals and their uses, lists of foods, &c., &c. Mathematics and arithmetic were found, including square and cube root, the working out of problems, &c., &c. Much of the learning on these tablets was borrowed from the Chaldeans and the people of Babylon, and had originally been written in a different language and style of writing, hence it was necessary to have translations and explanations of many of these; and in order to make their meaning clear, grammars, dictionaries, and lexicons were prepared, embracing the principal features of the two languages involved, and enabling the Assyrians to study the older inscriptions. Such are some of the principal features of the grand Assyrian library, which Assur-bani-pal established at Nineveh, and which probably numbered over 10,000 clay documents."

   "It is now [1882] more than thirty years since Sir Henry
   Layard, passing through one of the doorways of the partially
   explored palace in the mound of Konyunjik, guarded by
   sculptured fish gods, stood for the first time in the double
   chambers containing a large portion of the remains of the
   immense library collected by Assurbannipal, King of Nineveh.
   … Since that time, with but slight intermissions, this
   treasure-house of a forgotten past has been turned over again
   and again, notably in the expeditions of the late Mr. George
   Smith, and still the supply of its cuneiform literature is not
   exhausted. Until last year [1881] this discovery remained
   unique; but the perseverance of the British Museum authorities
   and the patient labour of Mr. Rassam were then rewarded by the
   exhumation of what is apparently the library chamber of the
   temple or palace at Sippara, with all its 10,000 tablets,
   resting undisturbed, arranged in their position on the
   shelves, just as placed in order by the librarian twenty-five
   centuries ago. …
{2002}
   From what Berosus tells us with regard to Sippara, or
   Pantibiblon (the town of books), the very city, one of whose
   libraries has just been brought to light, … it may be
   inferred that this was certainly one of the first towns that
   collected a library. … It is possible that the mound at
   Mugheir enshrines the oldest library of all, for here are the
   remains of the city of Ur (probably the Biblical Ur of the
   Chaldees). From this spot came the earliest known royal brick
   inscription, as follows:—'Urukh, King of Ur, who Bit Nanur
   built.' Although there are several texts from Mugheir, such as
   that of Dungi, son of Urukh, yet, unless by means of copies
   made for later libraries in Assyria, we cannot be said to know
   much of its library. Strange to say, however, the British
   Museum possesses the signet cylinder of one of the librarians
   of Ur, who is the earliest known person holding such an
   office. … Its inscription is given thus by
   Smith:—'Emuq-sin, the powerful hero, the King of Ur, King of
   the four regions; Amil Anu, the tablet-keeper, son of Gatu his
   servant.' … Erech, the modern Warka, is a city at which we
   know there must have been one or more libraries, for it was
   from thence Assurbannipal copied the famous Isdubar series of
   legends in twelve tablets, one of which contained the account
   of the Deluge. Hence also came the wonderful work on magic in
   more than one hundred tablets: for, as we have it, it is
   nothing more than a facsimile by Assurbannipal's scribes of a
   treatise which had formed part of the collection of the school
   of the priests at Erech. … Larsa, now named Senkereh, was
   the seat of a tablet collection that seems to have been
   largely a mathematical one; for in the remains we possess of
   it are tablets containing tables of squares and cube roots and
   others, giving the characters for fractions. There are from
   here also, however, fragments with lists of the gods, a
   portion of a geographical dictionary, lists of temples, &c.
   … To a library at Cutha we owe the remnants of a tablet work
   containing an account of the creation and the wars of the
   gods, and, among others, a very ancient terra-cotta tablet
   bearing a copy of an inscription engraved in the temple of the
   god Dup Lan at Cutha, by Dungi, King of Ur. The number of
   tablets and cylinders found by M. de Sarzec at Zirgulla show
   that there too the habit of committing so much to writing was
   as rife as in other cities of whose literary character we know
   more."

The Libraries of Babylonia and Assyria (Knowledge, November 24, 1882, and March 2, 1883).

"Pisistratus the tyrant is said to have been the first who supplied books of the liberal sciences at Athens for public use. Afterwards the Athenians themselves, with great care and pains, increased their number; but all this multitude of books, Xerxes, when he obtained possession of Athens, and burned the whole of the city except the citadel, seized and carried away to Persia. But king Seleucus, who was called Nicanor, many years afterwards, was careful that all of them should be again carried back to Athens." "That Pisistratus was the first who collected books, seems generally allowed by ancient writers. … In Greece were several famous libraries. Clearchus, who was a follower of Plato, founded a magnificent one in Heraclea. There was one in the island of Cnidos. The books of Athens were by Sylla removed to Rome. The public libraries of the Romans were filled with books, not of miscellaneous literature, but were rather political and sacred collections, consisting of what regarded their laws and the ceremonies of their religion."

Aulus Gellius, The Attic Nights, book 6, chapter 17 (volume 2), with foot-note by W. Beloe.

"If the libraries of the Greeks at all resembled in form and dimensions those found at Pompeii, they were by no means spacious; neither, in fact, was a great deal of room necessary, as the manuscripts of the ancients stowed away much closer than our modern books, and were sometimes kept in circular boxes, of elegant form, with covers of turned wood. The volumes consisted of rolls of parchment, sometimes purple at the back, or papyrus, about twelve or fourteen inches in breadth, and as many feet long as the subject required. The pages formed a number of transverse compartments, commencing at the left, and proceeding in order to the other extremity, and the reader, holding in either hand one end of the manuscript, unrolled and rolled it up as he read. Occasionally these books were placed on shelves, in piles, with the ends outwards, adorned with golden bosses, the titles of the various treatises being written on pendant labels."

   "The learned reader need not be reminded how wide is the
   difference between the ancient 'volumen,' or roll, and the
   'volume' of the modern book-trade, and how much smaller the
   amount of literary matter which the former may represent. Any
   single 'book' or 'part' of a treatise would anciently have
   been called 'volumen,' and would reckon as such in the
   enumeration of a collection of books. The Iliad of Homer,
   which in a modern library may form but a single volume, would
   have counted as twenty-four 'volumina' at Alexandria.
{2003}
   We read of authors leaving behind them works reckoned, not by
   volumes or tens of volumes, but by hundreds. … It will at
   once be understood that … the very largest assemblage of
   'volumina' assigned as the total of the greatest of the
   ancient collections would fall far short, in its real literary
   contents, of the second-rate, or even third-rate collections
   of the present day."

      Libraries, Ancient and Modern
      (Edinburgh Review,
      January, 1874).

"The first of the Ptolemies, Lagus, not only endeavoured to render Alexandria one of the most beautiful and most commercial of cities, he likewise wished her to become the cradle of science and philosophy. By the advice of an Athenian emigrant, Demetrius of Phaleros, this prince established a society of learned and scientific men, the prototype of our academies and modern institutions. He caused that celebrated museum to be raised, that became an ornament to the Bruchion; and here was deposited the noble library, 'a collection,' says Titus Livius, 'at once a proof of the magnificence of those kings, and of their love of science.' Philadelphos, the successor of Lagus, finding that the library of the Bruchion already numbered 400,000 volumes, and either thinking that the edifice could not well make room for any more, or being desirous, from motives of jealousy, to render his name equally famous by the construction of a similar monument, founded a second library in the temple of Serapis, called the Serapeum, situated at some distance from the Bruchion, in another part of the town. These two libraries were denominated, for a length of time, the Mother and the Daughter. During the war with Egypt, Cæsar, having set fire to the king's fleet, which happened to be anchored in the great port, it communicated with the Bruchion; the parent library was consumed, and, if any remains were rescued from the flames, they were, in all probability, conveyed to the Serapeum. Consequently, ever after, there can be no question but of the latter. Euergetes and the other Ptolemies enlarged it successively; and Cleopatra added 200,000 manuscripts at once from the library of King Pergamos, given her by Mark Antony. … Aulus Gellius and Ammianus Marcellus seem to insinuate that the whole of the Alexandrian library had been destroyed by fire in the time of Cæsar. … But both are mistaken on this point. Ammianus, in the rest of his narrative, evidently confounds Serapeum and Bruchion. … Suetonius (in his life of Domitian) mentions that this emperor sent some amanuenses to Alexandria, for the purpose of copying a quantity of books that were wanting in his library; consequently a library existed in Alexandria a long while after Cæsar. Besides, we know that the Serapeum was only destroyed A. D. 301, by the order of Theodosius. Doubtless the library suffered considerably on this last-mentioned occasion; but that it still partly existed is beyond a doubt, according to the testimony of Oroses, who, twenty-four years later, made a voyage to Alexandria, and assures us that he 'saw, in several temples, presses full of books,' the remains of ancient libraries. … The trustworthy Oroses, in 415, is the last witness we have of the existence of a library at Alexandria. The numerous Christian writers of the fifth and sixth centuries, who have handed down to us so many trifling facts, have not said a word upon this important subject. We, therefore, have no certain documents upon the fate of our library from 415 to 636, or, according to others, 640, when the Arabs took possession of Alexandria—a period of ignorance and barbarism, of war and revolutions, and vain disputes between a hundred different sects. Now, towards A. D. 636, or 640, the troops of the caliph, Omar, headed by his lieutenant, Amrou, took possession of Alexandria. For more than six centuries, nobody in Europe took the trouble of ascertaining what had become of the library of Alexandria. At length, in the year 1660, a learned Oxford scholar, Edward Pococke, who had been twice to the East, and had brought back a number of Arabian manuscripts, first introduced the Oriental history of the physician Abulfarage to the learned world, in a Latin translation. In it we read the following passage:—'In those days flourished John of Alexandria, whom we have surnamed the Grammarian, and who adopted the tenets of the Christian Jacobites. … He lived to the time when Amrou Ebno'l-As took Alexandria. He went to visit the conqueror; and Amrou, who was aware of the height of learning and science that John had attained, treated him with every distinction, and listened eagerly, to his lectures on philosophy, which were quite new to the Arabians. Amrou was himself a man of intellect and discernment, and very clear-headed. He retained the learned man about his person. John one day said to him, "You have visited all the stores of Alexandria, and you have put your seal on all the different things you found there. I say nothing about those treasures which have any value for you; but, in good sooth, you might leave us those of which you make no use." "What then is it that you want?" interrupted Amrou. "The books of philosophy that are to be found in the royal treasury," answered John. "I can dispose of nothing," Amrou then said, "without the permission of the lord of all true believers, Omar Ebno'l-Chattab." He therefore wrote to Omar, informing him of John's request. He received an answer from Omar in these words. "As to the books you mention, either, they agree with God's holy book, and then God's book is all-sufficient without them; or they disagree with God's book, in which case they ought not to be preserved." And, in consequence, Amrou Ebno'l-As caused them to be distributed amongst the different baths of the city, to serve as fuel. In this manner they were consumed in half-a-year.' When this account of Abulfarage's was made known in Europe, it was at once admitted as a fact, without the least question. … Since Pococke, another Arab historian, likewise a physician, was discovered, who gave pretty nearly the same account. This was Abdollatif, who wrote towards 1200, and consequently prior to Abulfarage. … Abdollatif does not relate any of the circumstances accessory to the destruction of the library. But what faith can we put in a writer who tells us that he has actually seen what could no longer have been in existence in his time? 'I have seen;' says he, 'the portico and the college that Alexander the Great caused to be built, and which contained the splendid library,' &c. Now, these buildings were situated within the Bruchion; and since the reign of Aurelian, who had destroyed it—that is to say, at least nine hundred years before Abdollatif—the Bruchion was a deserted spot, covered with ruins and rubbish. {2004} Abulfarage, on the other hand, places the library in the Royal Treasury; and the anachronism is just as bad. The royal edifices were all contained within the walls of the Bruchion; and not one of them could then be left. … As a fact is not necessarily incontestable because advanced as such by one or even two historians, several persons of learning and research have doubted the truth of this assertion. Renaudot (Hist. des Patriarches d'Alexandrie) had already questioned its authenticity, by observing: 'This account is rather suspicious, as is frequently the case with the Arabians.' And, lastly, Querci, the two Assemani, Villoison, and Gibbon, completely declared themselves against it. Gibbon at once expresses his astonishment that two historians, both of Egypt, should not have said a word about so remarkable an event. The first of these is Eutychius, patriarch of Alexandria, who lived in that city 500 years after it was taken by the Saracens, and who gives a long and detailed account, in his Annals, both of the siege and the succeeding events; the second is Elmacin, a most veracious writer, the author of a History of the Saracens, and who especially relates the life of Omar, and the taking of Alexandria, with its minutest circumstances. Is it conceivable or to be believed that these two historians should have been ignorant of so important a circumstance? That two learned men who would have been deeply interested in such a loss should have made no mention of it, though living and writing in Alexandria—Eutychius, too, at no distant period from the event? and that we should learn it for the first time from a stranger who wrote, six centuries after, on the frontiers of Media? Besides, as Gibbon observes, why should the Caliph Omar, who was no enemy to science, have acted, in this one instance, in direct opposition to his character. … To these reasons may be added the remark of a German writer, M. Reinhard, who observes that Eutychius (Annals of Eutychius, volume ii. page 316) transcribes the very words of the letter in which Amrou gives the Caliph Omar an account of the taking of Alexandria after a long and obstinate siege. 'I have carried the town by storm,' says he, 'and without any preceding offer of capitulation. I cannot describe all the treasures it contains; suffice it to say, that it numbers 4,000 palaces, 4,000 baths, 40,000 taxable Jews, 400 theatres, 12,000 gardeners who sell vegetables. Your Mussulmans demand the privilege of pillaging the city, and sharing the booty.' Omar, in his reply, disapproves of the request, and expressly forbids all pillage or dilapidation. It is plain that, in his official report, Amrou seeks to exaggerate the value of his conquest, and to magnify its importance, like the diplomatists of our times. He does not overlook a single hovel, nor a Jew, nor a gardener. How then could he have forgotten the library, he who, according to Abulfarage, was a friend to the fine arts and philosophy? … Elmacin in turn gives us Amrou's letter nearly in the same terms, and not one word of the library. … We … run no great risk in drawing the conclusion, from all these premises, that the library of the Ptolemies no longer existed in 640 at the taking of Alexandria by the Saracens. … If it be true, as we have every reason to think, that in 640 … the celebrated library no longer existed, we may inquire in what manner it had been dispersed and destroyed since 415 when Oroses affirms that he saw it? In the first place we must observe that Oroses only mentions some presses which he saw in the temples. It was not, therefore, the library of the Ptolemies as it once existed in the Serapeum. Let us call to mind, moreover, that ever since the first Roman emperors, Egypt had been the theatre of incessant civil warfare, and we shall be surprised that any traces of the library could still exist in later times."

Historical Researches on the pretended burning of the Library of Alexandria by the Saracens (Fraser's Magazine. April, 1844).

"After summing up the evidence we have been able to collect in regard to these libraries, we conclude that almost all the 700,000 volumes of the earlier Alexandrian libraries had been destroyed before the capture of the city by the Arabs; that another of considerable size, but chiefly of Christian literature, had been collected in the 250 years just preceding the Arab occupation; and that Abulpharaj, in a statement that is not literally true, gives, in the main, a correct account of the final destruction of the Alexandrian Library."

C. W. Super, Alexandria and its Libraries (National Quarterly Review, December, 1875).

      See, also,
      EDUCATION, ANCIENT: ALEXANDRIA;
      and ALEXANDRIA: B. C. 282-246.

   Pliny states that C. Asinius Pollio was the first who
   established a Public Library in Rome. But "Lucullus was
   undoubtedly before him in this claim upon the gratitude of the
   lovers of books. Plutarch tells us expressly that not only was
   the Library of Lucullus remarkable for its extent and for the
   beauty of the volumes which composed it, but that the use he
   made of them was even more to his honour than the pains he had
   taken in their acquisition. The Library, he says, 'was open to
   all. The Greeks who were at Rome resorted thither, as it were
   to the retreat of the Muses.' It is important to notice that,
   according to Pliny, the benefaction of Asinius Pollio to the
   literate among the Romans was 'ex manubiis.' This expression,
   conjoined with the fact that the statue of M. Varro was placed
   in the Library of Pollio, has led a recent distinguished
   historian of Rome under the Empire, Mr. Merivale, to suggest,
   that very probably Pollio only made additions to that Library
   which, as we know from Suetonius, Julius Cæsar had directed to
   be formed for public use under the care of Varro. These
   exploits of Pollio, which are most likely to have yielded him
   the 'spoils of war,' were of a date many years subsequent to
   the commission given by Cæsar to Varro. It has been usually,
   and somewhat rashly perhaps, inferred that this project, like
   many other schemes that were surging in that busy brain,
   remained a project only. In the absence of proof either way,
   may it not be reasonably conjectured that Varro's bust was
   placed in the Library called Pollio's because Varro had in
   truth carried out Cæsar's plan, with the ultimate concurrence
   and aid of Pollio? This Library—by whomsoever formed—was
   probably in the 'atrium libertatis' on the Aventine Mount.
{2005}
   From Suetonius we further learn that Augustus added porticoes
   to the Temple of Apollo on the Palatine Mount, with (as
   appears from monumental inscriptions to those who had charge
   of them) two distinct Libraries of Greek and Latin authors;
   that Tiberius added to the Public Libraries the works of the
   Greek poets Euphorion, Rhianus, and Parthenius,—authors whom
   he especially admired and tried to imitate,—and also their
   statues; that Caligula (in addition to a scheme for
   suppressing Homer) had thoughts of banishing both the works
   and the busts of Virgil and of Livy—characterizing the one
   as a writer of no genius and of little learning, and the other
   (not quite so unfortunately) as a careless and verbose
   historian—from all the Libraries; and that Domitian early in
   his reign restored at vast expense the Libraries in the
   Capitol which had been burnt, and to this end both collected
   MSS. from various countries, and sent scribes to Alexandria
   expressly to copy or to correct works which were there
   preserved. In addition to the Libraries mentioned by
   Suetonius, we read in Plutarch of the Library dedicated by
   Octavia to the memory of Marcellus; in Aulus Gellius of a
   Library in the Palace of Tiberius and of another in the Temple
   of Peace; and in Dion Cassius of the more famous Ulpian
   Library founded by Trajan. This Library, we are told by
   Vopiscus, was in his day added, by way of adornment, to the
   Baths of Diocletian. Of private Libraries amongst the Romans
   one of the earliest recorded is that which Emilius Paulus
   found amongst the spoils of Perseus, and which he is said to
   have shared between his sons. The collection of Tyrunnion,
   some eighty years later (perhaps), amounted, according to a
   passage in Suidas, to 30,000 volumes. That of Lucullus—which,
   some will think, ought to be placed in this category—has been
   mentioned already. With that—the most famous of all—which
   was the delight and the pride of Cicero, every reader of his
   letters has an almost personal familiarity, extending even to
   the names and services of those who were employed in binding
   and in placing the books. … Of the Libraries of the
   long-buried cities of Pompeii and Herculaneum there is not a
   scintilla of information extant, other than that which has
   been gathered from their ruins. At one time great hopes were
   entertained of important additions to classical learning from
   remains, the discovery of which has so largely increased our
   knowledge both of the arts and of the manners of the Romans.
   But all effort in this direction has hitherto been either
   fruitless or else only tantalizing, from the fragmentary
   character of the results attained."

"Most houses had a library, which, according to Vitruvius, ought to face the east in order to admit the light of the morning, and to prevent the books from becoming mouldy. At Herculaneum a library with bookcases containing 1,700 scrolls has been discovered. The grammarian Epaphroditus possessed a library of 30,000, and Sammanicus Serenus, the tutor of the younger Gordian, one of 62,000 books. Seneca ridicules the fashionable folly of illiterate men who adorned their walls with thousands of books, the titles of which were the delight of the yawning owner. According to Publius Victor, Rome possessed twenty-nine public libraries, the first of which was opened by Asinius Polio in the forecourt of the Temple of Peace; two others were founded during the reign of Augustus, viz., the Octavian and the Palatine libraries. Tiberius, Vespasian, Domitian, and Trajan added to their number; the Ulpian library, founded by the last-mentioned emperor, being the most important of all."

"Herculaneum remained a subterranean city from the year 79 to the year 1706. In the latter year some labourers who were employed in digging a well came upon a statue, a circumstance which led—not very speedily but in course of time … —to systematic excavations. Almost half a century passed, however, before the first roll of papyrus was discovered, near to Portici at a depth from the surface of about 120 English feet. In the course of a year or two, some 250 rolls—most of them Greek—had been found. … In 1754, further and more careful researches were made by Camillo Paderni, who succeeded in getting together no less than 337 Greek volumes and 18 Latin volumes. The latter were of larger dimensions than the Greek, and in worse condition. Very naturally, great interest was excited by these discoveries amongst scholars in all parts of Europe. In the years 1754 and 1755 the subject was repeatedly brought before the Royal Society by Mr. Locke and other of its fellows, sometimes in the form of communications from Paderni himself; at other times from the notes and observations of travellers. In one of these papers the disinterred rolls are described as appearing at first 'like roots of wood, all black, and seeming to be only of one piece. One of them falling on the ground, it broke in the middle, and many letters were observed, by which it was first known that the rolls were of papyrus. … They were in wooden cases, so much burnt, … that they cannot be recovered.' … At the beginning of the present century the attention of the British government was, to some extent, attracted to this subject. … Leave was at length obtained from the Neapolitan government for a literary mission to Herculaneum, which was entrusted to Mr. Hayter, one of the chaplains to the Prince Regent. But the results were few and unsatisfactory. … The Commission subsequently entrusted to Dr. Sickler of Hildburghausen was still more unfortunate. … In 1818, a committee of the House of Commons was appointed to inquire into the matter. It reported that, after an expenditure of about £1,100, no useful results had been attained. This inquiry and the experiments of Sickler led Sir Humphrey Davy to investigate the subject, and to undertake two successive journeys into Italy for its thorough elucidation. His account of his researches is highly interesting. … 'My experiments,' says Sir Humphrey Davy, … 'soon convinced me that the nature of these MSS. had been generally misunderstood; that they had not, as is usually supposed, been carbonized by the operation of fire, … but were in a state analogous to peat or Bovey coal, the leaves being generally cemented into one mass by a peculiar substance which had formed during the fermentation and chemical change of the vegetable matter comprising them, in a long course of ages. The nature of this substance being known, the destruction of it became a subject of obvious chemical investigation; and I was fortunate enough to find means of accomplishing this, without injuring the characters or destroying the texture of the MSS.' These means Sir Humphrey Davy has described very minutely in his subsequent communications to the Royal Society. {2006} Briefly, they may be said to have consisted in a mixture of a solution of glue with alcohol, enough to gelatinize it, applied by a camel's hair brush, for the separation of the layers. The process was sometimes assisted by the agency of ether, and the layers were dried by the action of a stream of air warmed gradually up to the temperature of boiling water. 'After the chemical operation, the leaves of most of the fragments separated perfectly from each other, and the Greek characters were in a high degree distinct. … The MSS. were probably on shelves of wood, which were broken down when the roofs of the houses yielded to the weight of the superincumbent mass. Hence, many of them were crushed and folded in a moist state, and the leaves of some pressed together in a perpendicular direction … in confused heaps; in these heaps the exterior MSS. … must have been acted on by the water; and as the ancient ink was composed of finely divided charcoal suspended in a solution of glue or gum, wherever the water percolated continuously, the characters were more or less erased.' … Sir Humphrey Davy proceeds to state that, according to the information given him, the number of MSS. and fragments of MSS. originally deposited in the Naples Museum was 1,696; that of these 88 had then been unrolled and found to be legible; that 319 others had been operated upon, and more or less unrolled, but were illegible; that 24 had been sent abroad as presents; and that of the remaining 1,265—which he had carefully examined—the majority were either small fragments, or MSS. so crushed and mutilated as to offer little hope of separation; whilst only from 80 to 120 offered a probability of success (and he elsewhere adds:—'this estimate, as my researches proceeded, appeared much too high'). … 'Of the 88 unrolled MSS. … the great body consists of works of Greek philosophers or sophists; nine are of Epicurus; thirty-two bear the name of Philodemus, three of Demetrius, one of each of these authors:—Colotes, Polystratus, Carneades, Chrysippus; and the subjects of these works, … and of those the authors of which are unknown, are either Natural or Moral Philosophy, Medicine, Criticism, and general observations on Arts, Life, and Manners.'"

"When Constantine the Great, in the year 336, made Byzantium the seat of his empire, he in a great measure newly built the city, decorated it with numerous splendid edifices, and called it after his own name. Desirous of making reparation to the Christians, for the injuries they had sustained during the reign of his tyrannical predecessor, this prince commanded the most diligent search to be made after those books which had been doomed to destruction. He caused transcripts to be made of such books as had escaped the Diocletian persecution; to these he added others, and with the whole formed a valuable Library at Constantinople. On the death of Constantine, the number of books contained in the Imperial Library was only six thousand nine hundred; but it was successively enlarged by the emperors, Julian and Theodosius the younger, the latter of whom augmented it to one hundred thousand volumes. Of these, more than half were burnt in the seventh century, by command of the emperor Leo III., in order to destroy all the monuments that might be quoted in proof against his opposition to the worship of images. In this library was deposited the only authentic copy of the Council of Nice: it has also been asserted that the works of Homer, written in golden letters, were consumed at the same time, together with a magnificent copy of the Four Gospels, bound in plates of gold to the weight of fifteen pounds, and enriched with precious stones. The convulsions that weakened the lower empire, were by no means favourable to the interests of literature. During the reign of Constantine Porphyrogennetus (in the eleventh entry) literature flourished for a short time: and he is said to have employed many learned Greeks in collecting books for a library, the arrangement of which he superintended himself. The final subversion of the Eastern Empire, and the capture of Constantinople by Mohammed II., A. D. 1453, dispersed the literati of Greece over Western Europe: but the Imperial Library was preserved by the express command of the conqueror, and continued to be kept in some apartments of the Seraglio; until Mourad (or Amurath) IV., in a fit of devotion, sacrificed (as it is reported) all the books in this Library to his hatred against the Christians."

      T. H. Horne,
      Introduction to the Study of Bibliography,
      pages 23-25.

"In every monastery there was established first a library, then great studios, where, to increase the number of books, skilful caligraphers transcribed manuscripts; and finally, schools, open to all those who had need of, or desire for, instruction. At Montierender, at Lorsch, at Corvey, at Fulda, at St. Gall, at Reichenau, at Nonantula, at Monte Cassino, at Wearmouth, at St. Albans, at Croyland, there were famous libraries. At St. Michael, at Luneburg, there were two—one for the abbot and one for the monks. In other abbeys, as at Hirschau, the abbot himself took his place in the Scriptorium, where many other monks were occupied in copying manuscripts. At St. Riquier, books bought for high prices, or transcribed with the utmost care, were regarded as the most valuable jewels of the monastery. 'Here,' says the chronicler of the abbey, counting up with innocent pride the volumes which it contained—'here are the riches of the cloister, the treasures of the celestial life, which fatten the soul by their sweetness. This is how we fulfil the excellent precept, Love the study of the Scriptures, and you will not love vice.' If we were called upon to enumerate the principal centres of learning in this century, we should be obliged to name nearly all the great abbeys whose founders we have mentioned, for most of them were great homes of knowledge. … The principal and most constant occupation of the learned Benedictine nuns was the transcription of manuscripts. It can never be known how many services to learning and history were rendered by their delicate hands throughout the middle ages. They brought to the work a dexterity, an elegance, and an assiduity which the monks themselves could not attain, and we owe to them some of the most beautiful specimens of the marvellous caligraphy of the period. … Nuns, therefore, were the rivals of monks in the task of enlarging and fertilising the field of Catholic learning. {2007} Every one is aware that the copying of manuscripts was one of the habitual occupations of monks. By it they fed the claustral libraries already spoken of, and which are the principal source of modern knowledge. Thus we must again refer to the first beginning of the Monastic Orders to find the earliest traces of a custom which from that time was, as it were, identified with the practices of religious life. In the depths of the Thebaïde, in the primitive monasteries of Tabenna, every house … had its library. There is express mention made of this in the rule of St. Benedict. … In the seventh century, St. Benedict Biscop, founder and abbot of Wearmouth in England, undertook five sea-voyages to search for and purchase books for his abbey, to which each time he brought back a large cargo. In the ninth century, Loup of Ferrières transformed his monastery of St. Josse-sur-Mer into a kind of depot for the trade in books which was carried on with England. About the same time, during the wars which ravaged Lombardy, most of the literary treasures which are now the pride of the Ambrosian library were being collected in the abbey of Bobbio. The monastery of Pomposa, near Ravenna, had, according to contemporaries, a finer library than those of Rome or of any other town in the world. In the eleventh century, the library of the abbey of Croyland numbered 3,000 volumes. The library of Novalese had 6,700, which the monks saved at the risk of their lives when their abbey was destroyed by the Saracens in 905. Hirschau contained an immense number of manuscripts. But, for the number and value of its books, Fulda eclipsed all the monasteries of Germany, and perhaps of the whole Christian world. On the other hand, some writers assure us that Monte Cassino, under the Abbot Didier, the friend of Gregory VII., possessed the richest collection which it was possible to find. The libraries thus created by the labours of monks became, as it were, the intellectual arsenals of princes and potentates. … There were also collections of books in all the cathedrals, in all the collegiate churches, and in many of the castles. Much has been said of the excessive price of certain books during the middle ages: Robertson and his imitators, in support of this theory, are fond of quoting the famous collection of homilies that Grecia Countess of Anjou bought, in 1056, for two hundred sheep, a measure of wheat, one of millet, one of rye, several marten-skins, and four pounds of silver. An instance like this always produces its effect; but these writers forgot to say that the books bought for such high prices were admirable specimens of caligraphy, of painting, and of carving. It would be just as reasonable to quote the exorbitant sums paid at sales by bibliomaniacs of our days, in order to prove that since the invention of printing, books have been excessive in price. Moreover, the ardent fondness of the Countess Grecia for beautiful books had been shared by other amateurs of a much earlier date. Bede relates that Alfred, King of Northumbria in the seventh century, gave eight hides of land to St. Benedict Biscop in exchange for a Cosmography which that book-loving abbot had bought at Rome. The monks loved their books with a passion which has never been surpassed in modern times. … It is an error to … suppose that books of theology or piety alone filled the libraries of the monks. Some enemies of the religious orders have, indeed, argued that this was the case; but the proof of the contrary is evident in all documents relating to the subject. The catalogues of the principal monastic libraries during those centuries which historians regard as most barbarous, are still in existence; and these catalogues amply justify the sentence of the great Leibnitz, when he said, 'Books and learning were preserved by the monasteries.' It is acknowledged that if, on one hand, the Benedictines settled in Iceland collected the Eddas and the principal traditions of the Scandinavian mythology, on the other all the monuments of Greece and Rome which escaped the devastations of barbarians were saved by the monks of Italy, France, and Germany, and by them alone. And if in some monasteries the scarcity of parchment and the ignorance of the superiors permitted the destruction, by copyists, of a certain small number of precious works, how can we forget that without these same copyists we should possess nothing—absolutely nothing—of classic antiquity? … Alcuin enumerates among the books in the library at York the works of Aristotle, Cicero, Pliny, Virgil, Statius, Lucan, and of Trogus Pompeïus. In his correspondence with Charlemagne he quotes Ovid, Horace, Terence, and Cicero, acknowledging that in his youth he had been more moved by the tears of Dido than by the Psalms of David."

   "It is in the great houses of the Benedictine Order that we
   find the largest libraries, such as in England at Bury St.
   Edmund's, Glastonbury, Peterborough, Heading, St. Alban's,
   and, above all, that of Christ Church in Canterbury, probably
   the earliest library formed in England. Among the other
   English monasteries of the libraries of which we still possess
   catalogues or other details, are St. Peter's at York,
   described in the eighth century by Alcuin, St. Cuthbert's at
   Durham, and St. Augustine's at Canterbury. At the dissolution
   of the monasteries their libraries were dispersed, and the
   basis of the great modern libraries is the volumes thus
   scattered over England. In general, the volumes were disposed
   much as now, that is to say, upright, and in large cases
   affixed to a wall, often with doors. The larger volumes at
   least were in many cases chained, so that they could only be
   used within about six feet of their proper place; and since
   the chain was always riveted on the fore-edge of one of the
   sides of a book, the back of the volume had to be thrust first
   into the shelf, leaving the front edge of the leaves exposed
   to view. Many old volumes bear a mark in ink on this front
   edge; and when this is the case, we may be sure that it was
   once chained in a library; and usually a little further
   investigation will disclose the mark of a rivet on one of the
   sides. Regulations were carefully made to prevent the mixture
   of different kinds of books, and their overcrowding or
   inconvenient position; while an organized system of lending
   was in vogue, by which at least once a year, and less formally
   at shorter intervals, the monks could change or renew the
   volumes already on loan. … Let us take an example of the
   arrangement of a monastic library of no special distinction in
   A. D. 1400,—that at Titchfield Abbey,—describing it in the
   words of the register of the monastery itself, only
   translating the Latin into English.
{2008}
   'The arrangement of the library of the monastery of Tychefeld
   is this:—There are in the library of Tychefeld four cases
   (columnae) in which to place books, of which two, the first
   and second, are on the eastern face; on the southern face is
   the third, and on the northern face the fourth. And each of
   them has eight shelves (gradus), marked with a letter and
   number affixed on the front of each shelf, that is to say, on
   the lower board of each of the aforesaid shelves; certain
   letters, however, are excepted, namely A, H, K, L, M, O, P, Q,
   which have no numbers affixed, because all the volumes to
   which one of those letters belongs are contained in the shelf
   to which that letter is assigned. [That is, the shelves with
   the letters A, H, K, etc., have a complete class of books in
   each, and in no case does that class overflow into a second
   shelf, so there was no need of marking these shelves with
   numbers as well as letters, in the way in which the rest were
   marked. Thus we should find 'B 1,' 'B 2,' 'B 3,' … 'B 7,'
   because B filled seven shelves; but 'A' only, because A filled
   one shelf alone.] So all and singular the volumes of the said
   library are fully marked on the first leaf and elsewhere on
   the shelf belonging to the book, with certain numbered
   letters. And in order that what is in the library may be more
   quickly found, the marking of the shelves of the said library,
   the inscriptions in the books, and the references in the
   register, in all points agree with each other. Anno Domini
   MCCCC.' … Titchfield Abbey was a Præmonstratensian house,
   founded in the thirteenth century, and never specially rich or
   prominent; yet we find it with a good library of sixty-eight
   books in theology, thirty-nine in Canon and Civil Law,
   twenty-nine in Medicine, thirty-seven in Arts, and in all
   three hundred and twenty-six volumes, many containing several
   treatises, so that the total number of works was considerably
   over a thousand."

On the revival of learning in Italy, "scarcity of books was at first a chief impediment to the study of antiquity. Popes and princes and even great religious institutions possessed far fewer books than many farmers of the present age. The library belonging to the Cathedral Church of S. Martino at Lucca in the ninth century contained only nineteen volumes of abridgements from ecclesiastical commentaries. The Cathedral of Novara in 1212 could boast copies of Boethius, Priscian, the Code of Justinian, the Decretals, and the Etymology of Isidorus, besides a Bible and some devotional treatises. This slender stock passed for great riches. Each of the precious volumes in such a collection was an epitome of mediæval art. Its pages were composed of fine vellum adorned with pictures. The initial letters displayed elaborate flourishes and exquisitely illuminated groups of figures. The scribe took pains to render his caligraphy perfect, and to ornament the margins with crimson, gold, and blue. Then he handed the parchment sheets to the binder, who encased them in rich settings of velvet or carved ivory and wood, embossed with gold and precious stones. The edges were gilt and stamped with patterns. The clasps were of wrought silver chased with niello. The price of such masterpieces was enormous. … Of these MSS. the greater part were manufactured in the cloisters, and it was here too that the martyrdom of ancient authors took place. Lucretius and Livy gave place to chronicles, antiphonaries, and homilies. Parchment was extremely dear, and the scrolls which nobody could read might be scraped and washed. Accordingly, the copyist erased the learning of the ancients, and filled the fair blank space he gained with litanies. At the same time it is but just to the monks to add that palimpsests have occasionally been found in which ecclesiastical works have yielded place to copies of the Latin poets used in elementary education. Another obstacle to the diffusion of learning was the incompetence of the copyists. It is true that at the great universities 'stationarii,' who supplied the text-books in use to students, were certified and subjected to the control of special censors called 'Preciani.' Yet their number was not large, and when they quitted the routine to which they were accustomed their incapacity betrayed itself by numerous errors. Petrarch's invective against the professional copyists shows the depth to which the art had sunk. 'Who,' he exclaims, 'will discover a cure for the ignorance and vile sloth of these copyists, who spoil everything and turn it to nonsense? If Cicero, Livy, and other illustrious ancients were to return to life, do you think they would understand their own works? There is no check upon these copyists, selected without examination or test of their capacity.' … At the same time the copyists formed a necessary and flourishing class of craftsmen. They were well paid. … Under these circumstances it was usual for even the most eminent scholars, like Petrarch, Boccaccio, and Poggio, to make their own copies of MSS. Niccolo de' Niccoli transcribed nearly the whole of the codices that formed the nucleus of the Library of the Mark. … It is clear that the first step toward the revival of learning implied three things: first, the collection of MSS. wherever they could be saved from the indolence of the monks; secondly, the formation of libraries for their preservation; and, thirdly, the invention of an art whereby they might be multiplied cheaply, conveniently, and accurately. The labour involved in the collection of classical manuscripts had to be performed by a few enthusiastic scholars, who received no help from the universities and their academical scribes, and who met with no sympathy in the monasteries they were bent on ransacking. … The monks performed at best the work of earthworms, who unwittingly preserve fragments of Greek architecture from corrosion by heaping mounds of mould and rubbish round them. Meanwhile the humanists went forth with the instinct of explorers to release the captives and awake the dead. From the convent libraries of Italy, from the museums of Constantinople, from the abbeys of Germany and Switzerland and France, the slumbering spirits of the ancients had to be evoked. … This work of discovery began with Petrarch. … It was carried on by Boccaccio. The account given by Benvenuto da Imola of Boccaccio's visit to Monte Cassino brings vividly before us both the ardour of these first explorers and the apathy of the Benedictines (who have sometimes been called the saviours of learning) with regard to the treasures of their own libraries. … {2009} 'Desirous of seeing the collection of books, which he understood to be a very choice one, he modestly asked a monk—for he was always most courteous in manners—to open the library, as a favour, for him. The monk answered stiffly, pointing to a steep staircase, "Go up; it is open." Boccaccio went up gladly; but he found that the place which held so great a treasure was without door or key. He entered, and saw grass sprouting on the windows, and all the books and benches thick with dust. In his astonishment he began to open and turn the leaves of first one tome and then another, and found many and divers volumes of ancient and foreign works. Some of them had lost several sheets; others were snipped and pared all round the text, and mutilated in various ways. At length, lamenting that the toil and study of so many illustrious men should have passed into the hands of most abandoned wretches, he departed with tears and sighs. Coming to the cloister, he asked a monk whom he met, why those valuable books had been so disgracefully mangled. He answered that the monks, seeking to gain a few soldi, were in the habit of cutting off sheets and making psalters, which they sold to boys. The margins too they manufactured into charms, and sold to women.' … What Italy contained of ancient codices soon saw the light. The visit of Poggio Bracciolini to Constance (1414) opened up for Italian scholars the stores that lay neglected in transalpine monasteries. … The treasures he unearthed at Reichenau, Weingarten, and above all S. Gallen, restored to Italy many lost masterpieces of Latin literature, and supplied students with full texts of authors who had hitherto been known in mutilated copies. The account he gave of his visit to S. Gallen in a Latin letter to a friend is justly celebrated. … 'In the middle [he says] of a well-stocked library, too large to catalogue at present, we discovered Quintilian, safe as yet and sound, though covered with dust and filthy with neglect and age. The books, you must know, were not housed according to their worth, but were lying in a most foul and obscure dungeon at the very bottom of a tower, a place into which condemned criminals would hardly have been thrust; and I am firmly persuaded that if anyone would but explore those ergastula of the barbarians wherein they incarcerate such men, we should meet with like good fortune in the case of many whose funeral orations have long ago been pronounced. Besides Quintilian, we exhumed the three first books and a half of the fourth book of the Argonautica of Flaccus, and the Commentaries of Asconius Pedianus upon eight orations of Cicero.' … Never was there a time in the world's history when money was spent more freely upon the collection and preservation of MSS., and when a more complete machinery was put in motion for the sake of securing literary treasures."

In a work entitled "Essai Statistique sur les Bibliothèques de Vienne," published in 1835, M. Adrien Balbi entered into an examination of the literary and numerical value of the principal libraries of ancient and modern times. M. Balbi, in this work, shows that "the Imperial Library of Vienna, regularly increasing from the epoch of its formation, by means equally honorable to the sovereign and to the nation, held, until the French revolution, the first place among the libraries of Europe. Since that period, several other institutions have risen to a much higher numerical rank. … No one of the libraries of the first class, now in existence, dates beyond the fifteenth century. The Vatican, the origin of which has been frequently carried back to the days of St. Hilarius, in 465, cannot, with any propriety, be said to have deserved the name of library before the reign of Martin the Fifth, by whose order it was removed from Avignon to Rome in 1417. And even then, a strict attention to the force of the term would require us to withhold from it this title, until the period of its final organization by Nicholas the Fifth, in 1447. It is difficult to speak with certainty concerning the libraries, whether public or private, which are supposed to have existed previous to the fifteenth century, both on account of the doubtful authority and indefiniteness of the passages in which they are mentioned, and the custom which so readily obtained, in those dark ages, of dignifying every petty collection with the name of library. But many libraries of the fifteenth century being still in existence, and others having been preserved long enough to make them the subject of historical inquiry before their dissolution, it becomes easier to fix, with satisfactory accuracy, the date of their foundation. We find accordingly, that, including the Vatican, and the libraries of Vienna, Ratisbon, and the Laurentian of Florence, which are a few years anterior to it, no less than ten were formed between the years 1430 and 1500. The increase of European libraries has generally been slowly progressive, although there have been periods of sudden augmentation in nearly all. Most of them began with a small number of manuscripts, sometimes with a few printed volumes, and often without any. To these, gradual accessions were made, from the different sources, which have always been more or less at the command of the sovereigns and nobles of Europe. In 1455, the Vatican contained 5,000 manuscripts. … Far different was the progress of the Royal Library of Paris. The origin of this institution is placed in the year 1595, the date of its removal from Fontainebleau to Paris by order of Henry the Fourth. In 1660, it contained but 1,435 printed volumes. In the course of the following year, this number was raised to 16,746, both printed volumes and manuscripts. During the ensuing eight years the library was nearly doubled; and before the close of the next century, it was supposed to have been augmented by upwards of 100,000 volumes more."

"The oldest of the great libraries of printed books is probably that of Vienna, which dates from 1440, and is said to have been opened to the public as early as 1575. The Town Library of Ratisbon dates from 1430; St. Mark's Library at Venice, from 1468; the Town Library of Frankfort, from 1484; that of Hamburg, from 1529; of Strasburg, from 1531; of Augsburg, from 1537; those of Berne and Geneva, from 1550; that of Basel, from 1564. The Royal Library of Copenhagen was founded about 1550. In 1671 it possessed 10,000 volumes; in 1748, about 65,000; in 1778, 100,000; in 1820, 300,000; and it now contains 410,000 volumes. The National Library of Paris was founded in 1595, but was not made public until 1737. In 1640 it contained about 17,000 volumes; in 1684, 50,000; in 1775, 150,000; in 1790, 200,000."

      E. Edwards,
      A Statistical View of the Principal Public Libraries in
      Europe and the United States Of America,
      (Journal of the Statistical Society, August., 1848).

According to "Minerva" (the "Year-book of the Learned World"), for 1893-94, the Royal Library at Berlin contains 850,000 printed books and 24,622 manuscripts; the Münich University Library, 370,000 books and 50,000 pamphlets, including 2,101 incunabula; the Leipsic University Library, 500,000 printed books, and 4,000 manuscripts; Heidelberg University Library, 400,000 bound volumes (including 1,000 incunabula), and 175,000 pamphlets and "dissertationen," with a large collection of manuscripts; Dresden Royal Public Library, 300,000 printed books (including 2,000 incunabula), 6,000 manuscripts, and 20,000 maps; Freiburg University Library, 250,000 volumes and over 500 manuscripts; Königsberg University Library, 220,000 volumes and 1,100 manuscripts; Tübingen University Library, 300,000 volumes and 3,500 manuscripts; Jena University Library, 200,000 volumes and 100,000 "dissertationen"; Halle University Library, 182,000 books and 800 manuscripts, besides 12,800 books, 35,000 pamphlets and 1,040 manuscripts in the Ponickausche Bibliothek, which is united with the University Library; Hamburg City Library, about 500,000 printed books and 5,000 manuscripts; Frankfort City Library (April, 1893), 326,139 volumes; Cologne City Library, 105,000 volumes, including 2,000 incunabula; Augsburg City and Provincial Library, about 200,000 volumes (including 1,760 incunabula) and 2,000 manuscripts; Göttingen University Library, 456,000 volumes of books and 5,300 manuscripts; Gotha Public Library, 200,000 printed books, including 1,029 incunabula, and 7,037 manuscripts, of which 3,500 are oriental; Greifswald University Library, 143 volumes of printed books and about 800 manuscripts; Bamberg Royal Public Library, 300,000 volumes, 3,132 manuscripts; Berlin University Library, 142,129 volumes; Bonn University Library, 219,000 volumes, including 1,235 incunabula, and 1,273 manuscripts; Bremen City Library, 120,000 volumes; Breslau University Library, 300,000 volumes, including about 2,500 incunabula, and about 3,000 manuscripts; Breslau City Library, 150,000 volumes and 3,000 manuscripts; Erlangen University Library, 180,000 volumes; Hanover Royal Public Library, 180,000 books and 3,500 manuscripts; Hanover City Library, 47,000 volumes; Carlsruhe Grand-ducal Library, 159,842 books and 3,754 manuscripts; Kiel University Library, 217,039 volumes, 2,375 manuscripts; Colmar City Library, 80,000 volumes; Marburg University Library, 150,000 volumes; Strasburg University Library, 700,000 volumes; Strasburg City Library, 90,000 volumes; Weimar Grand-ducal Library, 223,000 volumes and 2,000 manuscripts; Würzburg University Library, 300,000 volumes.

"The Munich library, … in matter of administration, resembles the British Museum. Here one finds carefully catalogued that great wealth of material that appears only in doctorate theses, and for this reason is most valuable to the historic student. No tedious formalities are insisted upon, and orders for books are not subjected to long delays. The Vienna library moves slowly, as though its machinery were retarded by the weight of its royal imperial name. The catalogue is not accessible, the attendants are not anxious to please, and the worker feels no special affection for the institution. But at the royal library of Berlin there exists an opposite state of affairs—with the catalogue at hand one can readily give the information needful in filling up the call card. This being a lending library, one occasionally meets with disappointment, but, as the privilege of borrowing is easily had, this feature can have a compensatory side. The most marked peculiarity found here is the periodic delivery of books. All books ordered before nine o'clock are delivered at eleven; those before eleven, at one; those before one, at three; and those after three are delivered the same day if possible. This causes some delay, but as soon as the rule is known it has no drawback for the continuous user, and for the benefit of one who wants only a single order there is placed at the outer door of the building a box into which one can deposit the call card, and returning at the proper time find the book waiting in the reading room above. This saves the climbing of many steps, and enables one to perform other duties between ordering and receiving. As far as I know, here alone does one purchase the call cards, but as the price is only twenty cents per hundred the cost is not an important item."

J. H. Gore, Library Facilities for Study in Europe (Educational Review, June, 1893).

In Berlin, "the report of the city government for 1889-00 reckons 25 public free libraries; 334,837 books were read by 14,900 persons, i. e., 17,219 volumes less than last year. The expenses were 26,490 marks, the allowance from the city treasury 23,400 marks [less than $6,000]."

   "The history of the vast collection of books which is now,
   after many wanderings, definitely located in the Rue de
   Richelieu, divides itself naturally into three periods, which,
   for the sake of convenience, may well be called by three of
   the names under which the Library has, at different times,
   been known. The first period is that in which the Library was
   nothing more than the private collection of each successive
   sovereign of France, which sometimes accompanied him in his
   journeys, and but too often, as in the case of King John, or
   that of Charles VII., shared in his misfortunes; it was then
   fitly called the 'Bibliothèque du Roi.' This period may be
   considered as ending in the time of Henry IV., who transferred
   the royal collection from Fontainebleau to Paris, and gave it
   a temporary home in the College de Clermont. Although its
   abode has often been changed since, it has never again been
   attached to a royal palace, or been removed from the capital.
   The second period dates from this act of Henry the Fourth's,
   and extends down to the Revolution of 1780, during which time
   the Library, although open with but slight restrictions to all
   men of letters who were well recommended, and to the general
   public for two days a week, from the year 1692, was not
   regarded as national property, but as an appendage of the
   Crown, which was indeed graciously opened to the learned, but
   was only national property in the same sense that the Queen's
   private library at Windsor is national property.
{2011}
   Although still called the Bibliothèque du Roi during this
   period, it may well be here spoken of, for the sake of
   distinction, as the Bibliothèque Royale down to the
   Revolution. In 1791, the King's library was proclaimed
   national property, and it was decreed that it should
   henceforth be called 'Bibliothèque Nationale,' which name it
   bore till the coronation of Napoleon as Emperor of the French,
   in 1805, when it was styled 'Bibliothèque Impériale.' Of
   course it was Bibliothèque Royale again in 1815, 'Nationale'
   in 1848, and once again, in 1852, was declared to be the
   'Bibliothèque Impériale.'"

After the fall of the Second Empire, the great library again became "Nationale" in name. According to a report made in the spring of 1894, the Bibliothèque Nationale of France contained, at the end of the previous year, 1,934,154 "'numbers,' forming at least 2,600,000 volumes." This report was made by a committee of twenty persons, appointed to consider the advisability and method of printing the catalogue of the library. The conclusions of the committee are favorable to the printing of the catalogue.

Books come to the National Library "in three ways: from (1) gifts, about 3,000 a year; … (2) purchase, 4,500 (the library has $20,000 a year to spend on books and binding); (3) copyright, 22,000 articles and 6,000 pieces of music. The printer, not the publisher, is bound to make the deposit, so that if the text and the illustrations are printed at different places there is a chance, unless everyone is careful, that the library will have an imperfect copy. But the greatest trouble comes from periodicals, of which the Bibliothèque Nationale receives 3,000. What would some of our librarians think of this who are inclined to boast or to lament that they receive 300? Every number of every newspaper in France must be received, sent for if it fails to come, registered, put on its pile, and at the end of the year tied up in a bundle and put away (for only the most important are bound). … The titles of new books are printed in a bulletin in two series, French and Foreign (causing a printer's bill of 5,000 francs a year). This began in 1875 for the foreign, and in 1882 for the French. These bulletins are cut up and the titles mounted on slips, which are fastened in a Leyden binder, three making a small folio page. The result is a series of 900 volumes, less easy to consult than a good card catalog, very much less easy than the British Museum pasted catalog, the Rudolph books, or the Rudolph machine. … The books received at the Bibliothèque Nationale before 1875 and 1882 are entered on some 2,000,000 slips, which are divided between two catalogs, that of the old library ('fonds ancien'), and of the intermediate library ('fonds intermédiarie'). In each of these catalogs they are arranged in series according to the subject divisions given above and under each subject alphabetically. There is no author catalog and the public are not allowed to consult these catalogs. If then a reader asks for a work received before 1875 the attendant guesses in which 'fonds' it is and what subject it treats of; if he does not find it where he looks first he tries some other division. No wonder it takes on an average half an hour for the reader to get his book. I must bear witness to the great skill which necessity has developed in the officials charged with this work. Some of their successes in bringing me out-of-the-way books were marvellous. On the other hand, when they reported certain works not in the library I did not feel at all sure that they were right, and I dare say they doubted themselves. All this will be changed when the library gets a printed alphabetical catalog of authors and has made from it a pasted alphabetical catalog of subjects. The author catalog, by the way, is expected to fill 40,000 double-columned quarto pages. … The library now has 50 kilometres (31 miles) of shelves and is full. A new store-house is needed and a public reading room ('salle de lecture'), which can be lighted by electricity, and be opened, like the British Museum, in the evening."

      C. A. Cutter,
      Notes on the Bibliothèque Nationale
      (Library Journal, June, 1894).

"The Bibliothèques Municipales de Paris have undergone a rapid development within the last few years. In 1878 there were only nine altogether, of which five were little used, and four practically unused. A special Bureau was then appointed by the Municipal Council to take charge of them, with the result that altogether 22 libraries have been opened, while the number of volumes lent rose from 29,339 in 1878 to 57,840 in 1879, to 147,567 in 1880, to 242,738 in 1881, and to 363,322 in 1882. … A sum of 3,050 francs is placed at the disposal of each library by the Municipal Council, which is thus appropriated; Books and Binding, Fr. 1,750; Librarian, 1,000; Attendant, 300. The amount of the sums thus voted by the Municipal Council in the year 1883 was 110,150 fr. For the year of 1884 the sum of 171,700 fr. has been voted, the increase being intended to provide for the establishment of fifteen new libraries in Communal Schools, as well as for the growing requirements of some of the libraries already established. The individual libraries are not, of course, as yet very considerable in point of numbers. The stock possessed by the twenty-two Bibliothèques Municipales in 1882 was 87,831 volumes, of which 20,411 had been added during that year. Information received since the publication of M. Dardenne's Report places the number in 1883 at 98,843 volumes. … The libraries are open to the public gratuitously every evening from 8 to 10 o'clock, and are closed on five days only during the whole year. Books may be read in the library or are lent out for home use. … Music is lent as well as books, the experiment having been first tried at the Mairie of the second arrondissement, in 1879, and having proved so successful that nine arrondissements have followed suit, and the total number of musical issues from the ten libraries in 1882 was 9,085. … Beside these libraries under the direction of the Mairies, there are a certain number of popular free libraries established and supported by voluntary efforts. Without dwelling upon the history of these libraries, all of which have been formed since 1860, it may be stated that there are now fourteen such libraries in as many arrondissements."

E. C. Thomas, The Popular Libraries of Paris (Library Chronicle, volume 1, 1884, pages 13-14).

"The Journal Officiel' contains in the number for August 29, of this year (1891), the substance of the following account: … The city of Paris has now 64 public libraries, all of which send out books and accommodate readers in their halls; they are open at the times when the factories and shops are closed. … The libraries are kept in the mayoralty buildings or ward district school-houses; a central office provides for the administration and support, while in each precinct a committee of superintendence attends to the choice and ordering of new accessions. All expenses are paid by the city, which, in its last budget, in 1890, appropriated therefor the trifle of 225,000 francs. On every library in full use are bestowed yearly about 2,400 francs, while 14,000 francs are employed in founding new ones. The number of books circulated in 1890 was 1,386,642, against 29,339 in 1878, in the nine libraries then existing. In 1878 there was an average of only 3,259 readers for each library, and in the last year the average was 23,500, which shows a seven-fold use of the libraries."

Public Libraries in Paris; translated from the Börsenblatt, October 7, 1891 (Library Journal, May, 1892).

A library of importance in Paris second only to the great National is the Mazarin, which contains 300,000 volumes (1,000 incunabula), and 5,800 manuscripts. The Library of the University has 141,678 volumes; the Library of the Museum of Natural History has 140,850 books and 2,050 manuscripts; the Sainte-Genevieve Library contains 120,000 volumes and 2,392 manuscripts; the Library of the City of Paris, 90,000 volumes and 2,000 manuscripts. The principal libraries of the provincial cities are reported as follows: Caen Municipal Library, 100,000 volumes, 620 manuscripts; Dijon Municipal Library, 100,000 volumes, 1,558 manuscripts; Marseilles City Library, 102,000 volumes, 1,656 manuscripts; Montpelier City Library, 120,000 volumes; Nantes City Library, 102,172 volumes, 2,231 manuscripts; Rheims Library, 100,000 books and 1,700 manuscripts; Lyons City Library and Library of the Palace of Arts, 160,000 volumes and 1,900 manuscripts; Toulouse City Library, 100,000 volumes and 950 manuscripts; Rouen City Library, 132,000 printed books and 3,800 manuscripts; Avignon, 117,000 volumes and 3,300 manuscripts; Bordeaux, 160,000 volumes, 1,500 manuscripts; Tours, 100,000 volumes and 1,743 manuscripts; Amiens, 80,000 volumes, 1,500 manuscripts; Besançon, 140,000 volumes and 1,850 manuscripts.

"There are in Italy between thirty and forty libraries which the present National Government, in recognition of former Governmental support, is committed to maintain, at least in some degree. It is a division of resources which even a rich country would find an impediment in developing a proper National Library, and Italy, with its over-burdened Treasury, is far from being in a position to offer the world a single library of the first class. … Italy, to build up a library which shall rank with the great national libraries of the future, will need to concentrate her resources; for though she has libraries now which are rich in manuscripts, she has not one which is able to meet the great demands of modern scholarship for printed books. … If with this want of fecundity there went a corresponding slothfulness in libraries, there would be little to be hoped of Italy in amassing great collections of books. In some respects I have found a more active bibliothecal spirit in Italy than elsewhere in Europe, and I suspect that if Italian unification has accomplished nothing else, it has unshackled the minds of librarians, and placed them more in sympathy with the modern gospel which makes a library more the servant than the master of its users. I suspect this is not, as a rule, the case in Germany. … I have certainly found in Italian librarians a great alertness of mind and a marked eagerness to observe the advances in library methods which have taken place elsewhere during the last five and twenty years. But at the same time, with all this activity, the miserable bureaucratic methods of which even the chance stranger sees so much in Italy, are allowed to embarrass the efforts of her best librarians. … In the present condition of Italian finances nothing adequate to the needs of the larger libraries can be allowed, and the wonder is that so much is done as is apparent; and it is doubtless owing to the great force of character which I find in some of the leading librarians that any progress is made at all. During the years when the new Italian kingdom had its capital in Florence a certain amount of concentration started the new Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale on its career; and when later the Government was transferred to Rome, the new capital was given another library, got together in a similar way, which is called the Biblioteca Nazionale Vittorio Emanuele. Neither collection is housed in any way suited to its functions, and the one at Florence is much the most important; indeed it is marvellously rich in early printed books and in manuscripts."

      J. Winsor,
      The condition of Italian Libraries
      (The Nation, July 9, 1891).

   "Even so inveterate a hater of literature as the Calif, who
   conquered Alexandria and gave its precious volumes to the
   flames, would have appreciated such a library as the Vatican.
   Not a book is to be seen—not a shelf is visible, and there is
   nothing to inform the visitor that he is in the most famous
   library in the world. … The eye is bewildered by innumerable
   busts, statues, and columns. The walls are gay with brilliant
   arabesques, and the visitor passes through lofty corridors and
   along splendid galleries, finding in every direction something
   to please and interest him. … The printed books number about
   125,000 volumes and there are about 25,000 manuscripts. The
   books and manuscripts are enclosed in low wooden cases around
   the walls of the various apartments, the cases are painted in
   white and gold colors, and thus harmonize with the gay
   appearance of the walls and ceilings. … The honor of
   founding the Vatican Library belongs to Pope Nicholas V., who,
   in 1447, transferred to the Palace of the Vatican the
   manuscripts which had been collected in the Lateran. At his
   death the library contained 9,000 manuscripts, but many of
   them were dispersed under his successor, Calixtus III. Sixtus
   IV. was very active in restoring and increasing the library.
   In 1588, the present library building was erected by Sixtus
   V., to receive the immense collection obtained by Leo X. In
   the year 1600 the value of the library was greatly augmented
   by the acquisition of the collection of Fulvius Ursinus and
   the valuable manuscripts from the Benedictine Monastery of
   Bobbio, composed chiefly of palimpsests. …
{2013}
   The next acquisition was the Library of the Elector Palatine,
   captured in 1621, at Heidelberg, by De Tilley, who presented
   it to Gregory XV. It numbered 2,388 manuscripts, 1,956 in
   Latin, and 432 in Greek. In 1658 the Library founded by Duke
   Federigo de Urbino—1,711 Greek and Latin manuscripts—was
   added to the valuable collection. One of the most valuable
   accessions was the collection of Queen Christina of Sweden,
   containing all the literary works which her father, Gustavus
   Adolphus, had captured at Prague, Bremen, etc., amounting to
   2,291 manuscripts, Greek and Latin. In 1746 the magnificent
   library of the Ottobuoni family, containing 3,862 Greek and
   Latin manuscripts, enriched the Vatican collection. After the
   downfall of Napoleon and the restoration of the peace of
   Europe in 1815, the King of Prussia, at the suggestion of
   Humboldt, applied to Pope Pius VII for the restoration of some
   of the manuscripts which De Tilley had plundered from the
   Heidelberg Library. The Pope, mindful of the prominent part
   taken by Prussia in the restoration of the Papal See,
   immediately complied with the royal request, and many
   manuscripts of great value to the German historians were sent
   back to Germany."

      E. L. Didier,
      The Vatican Library
      (Literary World, June 28, 1884).

The following recent statistics of other Italian libraries are from "Minerva," 1893-94: Florence National Central Library, 422,183 printed books, 398,845 pamphlets and 17,386 manuscripts; Rome, National Central Library of Victor Emmanuel, 241,978 books, 130,728 pamphlets, 4,676 manuscripts; Naples University Library, 181,072 printed books, 43,453 pamphlets, and 109 manuscripts; Bologna University Library, 251,700 books, 43,633 pamphlets and 5,000 manuscripts; Pavia University Library, 136,000 books, 80,000 pamphlets and 1,100 manuscripts; Turin National Library, 196,279 printed books and 4,119 manuscripts; Venice, National Library of St. Mark, 401,652 printed and bound books, 80,450 pamphlets, and 12,016 manuscripts; Pisa University Library, 108,188 books, 22,960 pamphlets and 274 manuscripts; Genoa University Library, 106,693 books, 46,231 pamphlets, and 1,586 manuscripts; Modena, the Este Library, 123,300 volumes, and 5,000 manuscripts; Padua University Library, 135,837 volumes, 2,326 manuscripts, and 63,849 pamphlets, etc.; Palermo National Library, 177,892 volumes and pamphlets, and 1,527 manuscripts; Palermo Communal Library, 209,000 books, 16,000 pamphlets, etc., 3,000 manuscripts; Parma Palatine Library, 250,000 books, 20,313 pamphlets, etc., 4,769 manuscripts; Siena Communal Library 67,966 volumes, 26,968 pamphlets, 4,890 manuscripts.

The principal libraries in the Empire are reported to contain as follows: Vienna University Library, 416,608 volumes, 373 incunabula, 498 manuscripts; Vienna Imperial and Royal Court Library, 500,000 volumes, 6,461 incunabula, and 20,000 manuscripts; Budapest University Library, 200,000 volumes, 1,000 manuscripts; Hungarian National Museum, 400,000 volumes and 63,000 manuscripts, mostly Hungarian; Czernowitz University Library, 64,586 volumes and over 30,000 pamphlets, etc.; Graz University 131,397 volumes of books and 1,708 manuscripts; Innspruck University Library, 135,000 printed books, including 1,653 incunabula, and 1,046 manuscripts; Cracow University Library, 283,858 volumes and 5,150 manuscripts; Lemberg University Library, 120,900 volumes; Prague University Library, 211,131 volumes, 3,848 manuscripts.

The principal libraries of Switzerland are the following: Basle Public Library, 170,000 volumes of printed books and about 5,000 manuscripts; Berne City Library, 80,000 volumes and a valuable manuscript collection; Berne University Library, 35,000 volumes; St. Gall "Stiftsbibliothek," about 40,000 volumes, including l,584 incunabula, and 1,730 manuscripts; Lucerne Cantonal Library, 80,000 volumes; Zurich City Library, 130,000 volumes.

   The following statistics of libraries in Holland are given in
   the German handbook, "Minerva," 1893-94: Leyden University
   Library, 190,000 volumes of printed books and 5,400
   manuscripts, of which latter 2,400 are oriental; Utrecht
   University Library, 200,000 volumes, besides pamphlets;
   Groningen University Library, 70,000 volumes.

   Brussels Royal Library, 375,000 volumes, and 27,000
   manuscripts; Ghent, Library of the City and University of
   Gand, 300,000 volumes.

The principal libraries of the Scandinavian kingdoms contain as follows: Christiania University Library, 312,000 volumes; Gothenburg City Library, about 60,000 volumes; Copenhagen University Library 300,000 books and 5,000 manuscripts; Lund University Library, 150,000 volumes; Stockholm Royal Library, 300,000 printed books and 11,000 manuscripts; Upsala University Library, 275,000 volumes and 11,000 manuscripts.

   The principal libraries in Spain are the following: Barcelona
   Provincial and University Library, 54,000 volumes; Madrid
   University Library, 200,761 volumes and 3,000 manuscripts;
   Madrid National Library, 450,000 volumes and 10,000
   manuscripts; Salamanca University Library, 72,000 volumes and
   870 manuscripts; Seville University Library, 62,000 volumes;
   Valencia University Library, 45,000 volumes; Valladolid
   University Library, 32,000 volumes.

   "The most notable [Russian] libraries are those founded by the
   government. Of these, two deserve special attention: the
   library of the Academy of Sciences and the Imperial Public
   Library in St. Petersburg. Books taken by the Russian armies
   from the Baltic provinces at the beginning of the eighteenth
   century formed the foundation of the first. The Imperial
   Library was the result of the Russian capture of Warsaw. Count
   Joseph Zalussky, bishop of Kiev, spent forty-three years
   collecting a rich library of 300,000 volumes and 10,000
   manuscripts, devoting all his wealth to the purchase of books.
   His brother Andrew further enriched the library with volumes
   taken from the museum of the Polish king, John III. In 1747
   Joseph Zalussky opened the library to the public, and in 1761
   bequeathed it to a college of Jesuits in Warsaw. Six years
   later (1767) Zalussky was arrested and his library removed to
   St. Petersburg. The transfer took place in bad weather and
   over poor roads, so that many books were injured and many lost
   in transit. When the library reached St. Petersburg it
   numbered 262,640 volumes and 24,500 estampes. Many had been
   stolen during the journey, and years later there were to be
   found in Poland books bearing the signature of Zalussky.
{2014}
   To the Imperial Library Alexander I. added, in 1805, the
   Dubrovsky collection. … Dubrovsky gathered his collection
   during a twenty-five years' residence in Paris, Rome, Madrid,
   and other large cities of Europe. He acquired many during the
   French revolution. … The Imperial Library possesses many
   palimpsests, Greek manuscripts of the second century, …
   besides Slavonian, Latin, French, and Oriental manuscripts.
   … The library is constantly growing, about 25,000 volumes
   being added every year. In income, size, and number of readers
   it vastly surpasses all private libraries in Russia, the
   largest of which does not exceed 25,000 volumes. In later
   years the village schools began to open libraries for limited
   circles of readers. Small libraries were successfully
   maintained in cities and the demand for good reading steadily
   increased among the people."

      A. V. Babine,
      Libraries in Russia,
      (Library Journal, March, 1893).

   The principal libraries of Russia reported in the German
   yearbook "Minerva" 1893-94 are the following: Charkow
   University Library, 123,000 volumes; Dorpat University
   Library, 170,000 volumes, and 104,700 dissertationen;
   Helsingfors University Library 170,000 volumes; Kasan
   University Library, 100,000 volumes; Kiev University Library,
   118,000 volumes; Moscow University Library, 217,000 volumes;
   Odessa University Library, 102,000 volumes; St. Petersburg
   University Library, 215,700 volumes; St. Petersburg Imperial
   Public Library, 1,050,000 volumes, 28,000 manuscripts.

"No monarch of England is known to have been an extensive collector of books (in the modern acceptation of the term) except George III., or, if the name of Charles I. should be added, it must be in a secondary rank, and with some uncertainty, because we have not the same evidence of his collection of books as we have of his pictures, in the catalogue which exists of them. A royal library had, indeed, been established in the reign of Henry VII.; it was increased, as noticed by Walpole, by many presents from abroad, made to our monarchs after the restoration of learning and the invention of printing; and naturally received accessions in every subsequent reign, if it were only from the various presents by which authors desired to show their respect or to solicit patronage, as well as from the custom of making new year's gifts, which were often books. There were also added to it the entire libraries of Lord Lumley (including those of Henry, Earl of Arundel, and Archbishop Cranmer), of the celebrated Casaubon, of Sir John Morris, and the Oriental MSS. of Sir Thomas Roe. Whilst this collection remained at St. James's Palace, the number of books amassed in each reign could have been easily distinguished, as they were classed and arranged under the names of the respective sovereigns. In 1759 King George II. transferred the whole, by letters patent, to the then newly-formed establishment of the British Museum; the arrangement under reigns was some time after departed from, and the several royal collections interspersed with the other books obtained from Sir Hans Sloane, Major Edwards, and various other sources. … George III., on his accession to the crown, thus found the apartments which had formerly contained the library of the Kings of England vacated by their ancient tenants. … Sir F. A. Barnard states that 'to create an establishment so necessary and important, and to attach it to the royal residence, was one of the earliest objects which engaged his majesty's attention at the commencement of his reign;' and he adds that the library of Joseph Smith, Esq., the British Consul at Venice, which was purchased in 1762, 'became the foundation of the present Royal Library.' Consul Smith's collection was already well known, from a catalogue which had been printed at Venice in 1755, to be eminently rich in the earliest editions of the classics, and in Italian literature.' Its purchase was effected for about £10,000, and it was brought direct to some apartments at the Queen's Palace commonly called Buckingham House. Here the subsequent collections were amassed; and here, after they had outgrown the rooms at first appropriated to them, the King erected two large additional libraries, one of which was a handsome octagon. Latterly the books occupied no less than seven apartments. … Early in the year 1823, it was made known to the public that King George IV. had presented the Royal Library to the British nation. … Shortly after, the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated in the House of Commons that it was his majesty's wish that the library should be placed in the British Museum, but in a separate apartment from the Museum Library."

"In the chief countries of the Continent of Europe … great national Museums have, commonly, had their origin in the liberality and wise foresight either of some sovereign or other, or of some powerful minister whose mind was large enough to combine with the cares of State a care for Learning. In Britain, our chief public collection of literature and of science originated simply in the public spirit of private persons. The British Museum was founded precisely at that period of our history when the distinctively national, or governmental, care for the interests of literature and of science was at its lowest, or almost its lowest, point. As regards the monarchs, it would be hard to fix on any, since the dawn of the Revival of Learning, who evinced less concern for the progress and diffusion of learning than did the first and second princes of the House of Hanover. As regards Parliament, the tardy and languid acceptance of the boon proffered, posthumously, by Sir Hans Sloane, constitutes just the one exceptional act of encouragement that serves to give saliency to the utter indifference which formed the ordinary rule. Long before Sloane's time … there had been zealous and repeated efforts to arouse the attention of the Government as well to the political importance as to the educational value of public museums. Many thinkers had already perceived that such collections were a positive increase of public wealth and of national greatness, as well as a powerful instrument of popular education. It had been shewn, over and over again, that for lack of public care precious monuments and treasures of learning had been lost; sometimes by their removal to far-off countries; sometimes by their utter destruction. Until the appeal made to Parliament by the Executors of Sir Hans Sloane, in the middle of the eighteenth century, all those efforts had uniformly failed. But Sir Hans Sloane cannot claim to be regarded, individually or very specially, as the Founder of the British Museum. His last Will, indeed, gave an opportunity for the foundation. {2015} Strictly speaking, he was not even the Founder of his own Collection, as it stood in his lifetime. The Founder of the Sloane Museum was William Courten, the last of a line of wealthy Flemish refugees, whose history, in their adopted country, is a series of romantic adventures. Parliament had previously accepted the gift of the Cottonian Library, at the hands of Sir John Cotton, third in descent from its Founder, and its acceptance of that gift had been followed by almost unbroken neglect, although the gift was a noble one. Sir John, when conversing, on one occasion, with Thomas Carte, told the historian that he had been offered £60,000 of English money, together with a carte blanche for some honorary mark of royal favour, on the part of Lewis XIV., for the Library which he afterwards settled upon the British nation. It has been estimated that Sloane expended (from first to last) upon his various collections about £50,000; so that even from the mercantile point of view, the Cotton family may be said to have been larger voluntary contributors towards our eventual National Museum than was Sir Hans Sloane himself. That point of view, however, would be a very false, because very narrow, one. Whether estimated by mere money value, or by a truer standard, the third, in order of time, of the Foundation-Collections,—that of the 'Harleian Manuscripts,'—was a much less important acquisition for the Nation than was the Museum of Sloane, or the Library of Cotton; but its literary value, as all students of our history and literature know, is, nevertheless, considerable. Its first Collector, Robert Harley, the Minister of Queen Anne and the first of the Harleian Earls of Oxford, is fairly entitled to rank, after Cotton, Courten, and Sloane, among the virtual or eventual co-founders of the British Museum. Chronologically, then, Sir Robert Cotton, William Courten, Hans Sloane, and Robert Harley, rank first as Founders; so long as we estimate their relative position in accordance with the successive steps by which the British Museum was eventually organized. But there is another synchronism by which greater accuracy is attainable. Although four years had elapsed between the passing—in 1753—of 'An Act for the purchase of the Museum or Collection of Sir Hans Sloane, and of the Harleian Collection of Manuscripts, and for providing one general repository for the better reception and more convenient use of the said Collections, and of the Cottonian Library and of the additions thereto,' and the gift—in 1757—to the Trustees of those already united Collections by King George II. of the Old Royal Library of the Kings his predecessors, yet that royal collection itself had been (in a restricted sense of the words) a Public and National possession soon after the days of the first real and central Founder of the present Museum, Sir Robert Cotton. But, despite its title, that Royal Library, also, was—in the main—the creation of subjects, not of Sovereigns or Governments. Its virtual founder Was Henry, prince of Wales [son of James I.]. It was acquired, out of his privy purse, as a subject, not as a Prince. He, therefore, has a title to be placed among the individual Collectors whose united efforts resulted—after long intervals of time—in the creation, eventually, of a public institution second to none, of its kind, in the world."

"Montague House was purchased by the Trustees in 1754 for a general repository, and the collections were removed to it. … On the 15th of January, 1750, the British Museum was opened for the inspection and use of the public. At first the Museum was divided into three departments, viz., Printed Books, Manuscripts, and Natural History; at the head of each of them was placed an officer designated as 'Under Librarian.' The increase of the collections soon rendered it necessary to provide additional accommodation for them, Montague House proving insufficient. The present by George III. of Egyptian Antiquities, and the purchase of the Hamilton and Townley Antiquities, made it moreover imperative to create an additional department—that of Antiquities and Art—to which were united the Prints and Drawings, as well as the Medals and Coins, previously attached to the library of Printed Books and Manuscripts. The acquisition of the Elgin Marbles in 1816 made the Department of Antiquities of the highest importance, and increased room being indispensable for the exhibition of those marbles, a temporary shelter was prepared for them. This was the last addition to Montague House. When, in 1823, the library collected by George III. was presented to the nation by George IV. it became necessary to erect a building fit to receive this valuable and extensive collection. It was then decided to have an entirely new edifice to contain the whole of the Museum collection, including the recently-acquired library. Sir R. Smirke was accordingly directed by the Trustees to prepare plans. The eastern side of the present structure was completed in 1828, and the Royal Library was then placed in it. The northern, southern, and western sides of the building were subsequently added, and in 1845 the whole of Montague House and its additions had disappeared; while the increasing collections had rendered it necessary to make various additions to the original design of Sir R. Smirke, some of them even before it had been carried out."

   "The necessity of a general enlargement of the library led to
   the suggestion of many plans—some impracticable—some too
   expensive—and all involving a delay which would have been
   fatal to the efficiency of the Institution. … Fortunately
   … after much vigorous discussion, a plan which had been
   suggested by the … Principal Librarian [Mr. Panizzi] for
   building in the vacant quadrangle, was adopted and carried out
   under his own immediate and watchful superintendence. … The
   quadrangle within which the new library is built is 313 feet
   in length by 235 wide, comprising an area of 73,555 square
   feet. Of this space the building covers 47,472 feet, being 258
   feet long by 184 feet in width, thus leaving an interval of
   from 27 to 30 feet all round. By this arrangement, the light
   and ventilation of the surrounding buildings is not interfered
   with, and the risk of fire from the outer buildings is guarded
   against. The Reading Boom is circular. The dome is 140 feet in
   diameter, and its height 106 feet. The diameter of the lantern
   is 40 feet. Light is further obtained from twenty
   circular-headed windows, 27 feet high by 12 feet wide,
   inserted at equal intervals round the dome at a height of 35
   feet from the ground.
{2016}
   In its diameter the dome of the Reading Room exceeds all
   others, with the exception of the Pantheon of Rome, which is
   about 2 feet wider. That of St. Peter's at Rome, and of Santa
   Maria in Florence are each only 139 feet; that of the tomb of
   Mahomet at Bejapore, 135; of St. Paul's, 112; of St. Sophia,
   at Constantinople, 107; and of the church of Darmstadt, 105.
   The new Reading Room contains 1,250,000 cubic feet of space,
   and the surrounding libraries 750,000. These libraries are 24
   feet in height, with the exception of that part which runs
   round the outside of the Reading Room, which is 32 feet high;
   the spring of the dome being 24 feet from the floor of the
   Reading Room, and the ground excavated 8 feet below this
   level. The whole building is constructed principally of iron.
   … The Reading Room contains ample and comfortable
   accommodation for 302 readers. There are thirty-five tables:
   eight are 34 feet long, and accommodate sixteen readers, eight
   on each side; nine are 30 feet long, and accommodate fourteen
   readers, seven on each side; two are 30 feet long, and
   accommodate eight readers each, viz., seven on one side and
   one on the other—these two tables are set apart for the
   exclusive use of ladies; sixteen other tables are 6 feet long,
   and accommodate two readers each—these are fitted up with
   rising desks of a large size for those readers who may have
   occasion to consult works beyond the usual dimensions. Each
   person has allotted to him, at the long tables, a space of 4
   feet 3 inches in length by 2 feet 1 inch in depth. He is
   screened from the opposite occupant by a longitudinal
   division, which is fitted with a hinged desk graduated on
   sloping racks, and a folding shelf for spare books. In the
   space between the two, which is recessed, an inkstand is
   fixed, having suitable penholders. … The framework of each
   table is of iron, forming air-distributing channels, which are
   contrived so that the air may be delivered at the top of the
   longitudinal screen division, above the level of the heads of
   the readers, or, if desired, only at each end pedestal of the
   tables, all the outlets being under the control of valves. A
   tubular foot-rail also passes from end to end of each table,
   which may have a current of warm water through it at pleasure,
   and be used as a foot-warmer if required. The pedestals of the
   tables form tubes communicating with the air-chamber below,
   which is 6 feet high, and occupies the whole area of the
   Reading Room: it is fitted with hot-water pipes arranged in
   radiating lines. The supply of fresh air is obtained from a
   shaft 60 feet high. … The shelves within the Reading Room
   contain about 60,000 volumes: the new building altogether will
   accommodate about 1,500,000 volumes."

List of the Books of Reference in the Reading Room of the
British Museum; preface.

The number of volumes of printed books in the British Museum in 1893 is reported to have been 1,600,000, the number of manuscripts 50,000 and the maps and charts 200,000.

A purchase from the Duke of Bedford, of adjoining land, to the extent of five and a half acres, for the enlargement of the Museum, was announced by the London Times, March 18, 1894. With this addition, the area of ground occupied by the Museum will be fourteen acres.

"Its founder, Sir Thomas Bodley, was a worthy of Devon, who had been actively employed by Queen Elizabeth as a diplomatist, and had returned tired of court life to the University, where long before he had been Fellow of Merton College. He found the ancient library of the University (which, after growing slowly with many vicissitudes from small beginnings, had suddenly been enriched in 1439-46 by a gift of 264 valuable MSS. from Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester) utterly destroyed by Edward VI.'s Commissioners, and the room built for its reception (still called 'Duke Humphrey's library') swept clear even of the readers' desks. His determination to refound the library of the University was actively carried out, and on November 8, 1602, the new institution was formally opened with about 2,000 printed and manuscript volumes. Two striking advantages were possessed by the Bodleian almost from the first. Sir Thomas Bodley employed his great influence at court and with friends to induce them to give help to his scheme, and accordingly we find not only donations of money and books from personal friends, but 240 MSS. contributed by the Deans and Chapters of Exeter and Windsor. Moreover, in 1610, he arranged with the Stationers' Company that they should present his foundation with a copy of every printed book published by a member of the Company; and from that time to this the right to every book published in the kingdom has been continuously enjoyed."

In 1891 the Bodleian Library was said to contain 400,000 printed books and 30,000 manuscripts. Under the copyright act of Great Britain, the British Museum, the Bodleian Library, Oxford, the Cambridge University Library, the Advocates Library, Edinburgh, and the Trinity College Library, Dublin, are each entitled to a copy of every work published in the United Kingdom.

   In the "Encyclopædia Britannica" (9th edition) we read, in the
   article "Libraries," that "the fine old library instituted by
   Humphrey Chetham in Manchester, in 1653, and which is still
   'housed in the old collegiate buildings where Raleigh was once
   entertained by Dr. Dee, might be said to be the first free
   library' in England. Two centuries, however, before worthy
   Chetham had erected his free fountain of knowledge for thirsty
   souls, a grave fraternity known as the Guild of Kalendars had
   established a free library, for all comers, in connection with
   a church yet standing in one of the thoroughfares of Old
   Bristol. … John Leland (temp. Henry VIII.) speaks of the
   Kalendars as an established body about the year 1170: and when
   in 1216 Henry III. held a Parliament in Bristol, the deeds of
   the guild were inspected, and ratified on account of the
   antiquity and high character of the fraternity ('propter
   antiquitates et bonitates in eâ Gilda repertas'), and Gualo,
   the Papal Legate, commended the Kalendars to the care of
   William de Blois, Bishop of Worcester, within whose diocese
   Bristol then lay. It was the office of the Kalendars to record
   local events and such general affairs as were thought worthy
   of commemoration, whence their name. They consisted of clergy
   and laity, even women being admitted to their Order. …
{2017}
   It was ordered by Wolstan, Bishop of Worcester, who in
   visitation of this part of his diocese, July 10, 1340,
   examined the ancient rules of the College, that a prior in
   priest's orders should be chosen by the majority of the
   chaplains and lay brethren, without the solemnity of
   confirmation, consecration or benediction of superiors, and
   eight chaplains who were not bound by monastic rules, were to
   be joined with him to celebrate for departed brethren and
   benefactors every day. By an ordinance of John Carpenter,
   Bishop of Worcester, A. D. 1464, the Prior was to reside in
   the college, and take charge of a certain library newly
   erected at the Bishop's expense, so that every festival day
   from seven to eleven in the forenoon admission should be
   freely allowed to all desirous of consulting the Prior, to
   read a public lecture every week in the library, and elucidate
   obscure places of Scripture as well as he could to those
   desirous of his teachings. … Lest, through negligence or
   accident, the books should be lost, it was ordered that three
   catalogues of them should be kept; one to remain with the Dean
   of Augustinian Canons, whose 14th-century church is now
   Bristol Cathedral, another with the Mayor for the time being,
   and the third with the Prior himself. Unfortunately, they are
   all three lost. … This interesting library was destroyed by
   fire in 1466 through the carelessness of a drunken
   'point-maker,' two adjoining houses against the steeple of the
   church being at the same time burnt down."

      J. Taylor,
      The First English Free Library and its Founders
      (Murray's Magazine, November, 1891).

"Free town-libraries are essentially a modern institution, and yet can boast of a greater antiquity than is generally supposed, for we find a town-library at Auvergne in 1540, and one at a still earlier date at Aix. Either the munificence of individuals or the action of corporate authorities has given very many of the continental towns freely accessible libraries, some of them of considerable extent. In England the history of town-libraries is much briefer. There is reason to believe that London at an early date was possessed of a common library; and Bristol, Norwich, and Leicester, had each town-libraries, but the corporations proved but careless guardians of their trust, and in each case allowed it to be diverted from the free use of the citizens for the benefit of a subscription library. At Bristol, in 1613, Mr. Robert Redwood 'gave his lodge to be converted into a library or place to put books in for the furtherance of learning.' Some few years after, Tobie Matthew, Archbishop of York, left some valuable books in various departments of literature for free access 'to the merchants and shopkeepers.' … The paucity of our public libraries, twenty years ago, excited the attention of Mr. Edward Edwards, to whose labours in this field the country owes so much. Having collected a large amount of statistics as to the comparative number of these institutions in different States, he communicated the result of his researches to the Statistical Society, in a paper which was read on the 20th of March, 1848, and was printed in this 'Journal' in the August following. The paper revealed some unpleasant facts, and showed that, in respect of the provision of public libraries, Great Britain occupied a very unworthy position. In the United Kingdom (including Malta) Mr. Edwards could only discover 29 libraries having more than 10,000 volumes, whilst France could boast 107, Austria 41, Switzerland 13. The number of volumes to every hundred of the population of cities containing libraries, was in Great Britain 43, France 125, Brunswick 2,353. Of the 29 British libraries enumerated by Mr. Edwards, some had only doubtful claims to be considered as public, and only one of them was absolutely free to all comers, without influence or formality. That one was the public library at Manchester, founded by Humphrey Chetham in 1665. The paper read before this Society twenty-two years ago was destined to be productive of great and speedy results. From the reading of it sprang the present system of free town-libraries. The seed was then sown, and it is now fructifying in the libraries which are springing up on every hand. The paper attracted the attention of the late William Ewart, Esq., M. P., and ultimately led to the appointment of a parliamentary committee on the subject of public libraries. The report of this committee paved the way for the Public Libraries Act of 1850."

      W. E. A. Axon,
      Statistical Notes on the Free Town-Libraries of Great
      Britain and the Continent
      (Journal of the Statistical Society,
      September 1870, volume 33).

The progress of free public libraries in England under the Act of 1850 was not, for a long time, very rapid. "In the 36 years from 1850 onward—that is, down to 1886—133 places had availed themselves of the benefits of the act. That was not a very large number, not amounting quite, upon the average, to four in each of those 36 years. … Now, see the change which has taken place. We have only four years, from 1887 to 1890, and in those four years no less than 70 places have taken advantage of the act, so that instead of an average of less than four places in the year, we have an average of more than 17 places."

W. E. Gladstone, Address at the Opening of the Free Public Library of St. Martin's-in-the-Fields.

"The Clerkenwell Library Commissioners draw attention to the enormous strides London has made within the last five years in the matter of public libraries. In 1886 four parishes had adopted the Acts; by December, 1891, 29 parishes had adopted them, and there are already 30 libraries and branches opened throughout the County of London, possessing over 250,000 volumes, and issuing over 3,000,000 volumes per annum."

Under a new law, which came into force in 1893, "any local authority (i. e., town council or district board), save in the County of London, may establish and maintain public libraries without reference to the wishes of the rate payers."

LIBRARIES:
United States of America:
Franklin and the first Subscription Library.

When Franklin's club, at Philadelphia, the Junto, was first formed, "its meetings were held (as the custom of clubs was in that clubbing age) in a tavern; and in a tavern of such humble pretensions as to be called by Franklin an ale-house. But the leathern-aproned philosophers soon removed to a room of their own, lent them by one of their members, Robert Grace. It often happened that a member would bring a book or two to the Junto, for the purpose of illustrating the subject of debate, and this led Franklin to propose that all the members should keep their books in the Junto room, as well for reference while debating as for the use of members during the week. The suggestion being approved, one end of their little apartment was soon filled with books; and there they remained for the common benefit a year. {2018} But some books having been injured, their owners became dissatisfied, and the books were all taken home. Books were then scarce, high-priced, and of great bulk. Folios were still common, and a book of less magnitude than quarto was deemed insignificant. … Few books of much importance were published at less than two guineas. Such prices as four guineas, five guineas, and six guineas were not uncommon. Deprived of the advantage of the Junto collection, Franklin conceived the idea of a subscription library. Early in 1731 he drew up a plan, the substance of which was, that each subscriber should contribute two pounds sterling for the first purchase of books, and ten shillings a year for the increase of the library. As few of the inhabitants of Philadelphia had money to spare, and still fewer cared for reading, he found very great difficulty in procuring a sufficient number of subscribers. He says: 'I put myself as much as I could out of sight, and stated it as a scheme of a number of friends, who had requested me to go about and propose it to such as they thought lovers of reading. In this way my affairs went on more smoothly, and I ever after practiced it on such occasions, and from my frequent successes can heartily recommend it.' Yet it was not until November, 1731, at least five months after the project was started, that fifty names were obtained; and not till March, 1732, that the money was collected. After consulting James Logan, 'the best judge of books in these parts,' the first list of books was made out, a draft upon London of forty-five pounds was purchased, and both were placed in the hands of one of the directors who was going to England. Peter Collinson undertook the purchase, and added to it presents of Newton's 'Principia,' and 'Gardener's Dictionary.' All the business of the library Mr. Collinson continued to transact for thirty years, and always swelled the annual parcel of books by gifts of valuable works. In those days getting a parcel from London was a tedious affair indeed. All the summer of 1732 the subscribers were waiting for the coming of the books, as for an event of the greatest interest. … In October the books arrived, and were placed, at first, in the room of the Junto. A librarian was appointed, and the library was opened once a week for giving out the books. The second year Franklin himself served as librarian. For many years the secretary to the directors was Joseph Breintnal, by whose zeal and diligence the interests of the library were greatly promoted. Franklin printed a catalogue soon after the arrival of the books, for which, and for other printing, he was exempted from paying his annual ten shillings for two years. The success of this library, thus begun by a few mechanics and clerks, was great in every sense of the word. Valuable donations of books, money and curiosities were frequently made to it. The number of subscribers slowly, but steadily, increased. Libraries of similar character sprung up all over the country, and many were started even in Philadelphia. Kalm, who was in Philadelphia in 1748, says that then the parent library had given rise to 'many little libraries,' on the same plan as itself. He also says that non-subscribers were then allowed to take books out of the library, by leaving a pledge for the value of the book, and paying for a folio eight pence a week, for a quarto six pence, and for all others four pence. 'The subscribers,' he says, 'were so kind to me as to order the librarian, during my stay here, to lend me every book I should want, without requiring any payment of me.' In 1764, the shares had risen in value to nearly twenty pounds, and the collection was considered to be worth seventeen hundred pounds. In 1785, the number of volumes was 5,487; in 1807, 14,457; in 1861, 70,000. The institution is one of the few in America that has held on its way, unchanged in any essential principle, for a century and a quarter, always on the increase, always faithfully administered, always doing well its appointed work. There is every reason to believe that it will do so for centuries to come. The prosperity of the Philadelphia Library was owing to the original excellence of the plan, the good sense embodied in the rules, the care with which its affairs were conducted, and the vigilance of Franklin and his friends in turning to account passing events. Thomas Penn, for example, visited Philadelphia a year or two after the library was founded; when the directors of the library waited upon him with a dutiful address, and received, in return, a gift of books and apparatus. It were difficult to over-estimate the value to the colonies of the libraries that grew out of Franklin's original' conception. They were among the chief means of educating the colonies up to Independence. 'Reading became fashionable,' says Franklin; 'and our people having no public amusements to divert their attention from study, became better acquainted with books, and in a few years were observed, by strangers, to be better instructed and more intelligent than people of the same rank generally are in other countries.' … What the Philadelphia Library did for Franklin himself, the libraries, doubtless, did for many others. It made him a daily student for twenty years. He set apart an hour or two every day for study, and thus acquired the substance of all the most valuable knowledge then possessed by mankind. Whether Franklin was the originator of subscription libraries, and of the idea of permitting books to be taken to the homes of subscribers, I cannot positively assert. But I can discover no trace of either of those two fruitful conceptions before his time."

   "The books were at first kept in the house of Robert Grace,
   whom Franklin characterizes as 'a young gentleman of some
   fortune, generous, lively, and witty, a lover of punning and
   of his friends.' Afterward they were allotted a room in the
   State-House; and, in 1742, a charter was obtained from the
   Proprietaries. In 1790, having in the interval absorbed
   several other associations and sustained a removal to
   Carpenter's Hall, where its apartment had been used as a
   hospital for wounded American soldiers, the Library was at
   last housed in a building especially erected for it at Fifth
   and Chestnut streets, where it remained until within the last
   few years. It brought only about eight thousand volumes into
   its new quarters, for it had languished somewhat during the
   Revolution and the war of words which attended our political
   birth. But it had received no injury. … Two years after
   removal to its quarters on Fifth street, the Library received
   the most valuable gift of books it has as yet had. James
   Logan, friend and adviser of Penn, … had gathered a most
   important collection of books.
{2019}
   Mr. Logan was translator of Cicero's 'Cato Major,' the first
   classic published in America, besides being versed in natural
   science. His library comprised, as he tells us, 'over one
   hundred volumes of authors, all in Greek, with mostly their
   versions; all the Roman classics without exception; all the
   Greek mathematicians. … Besides there are many of the most
   valuable Latin authors, and a great number of modern
   mathematicians.' These, at first bequeathed as a public
   library to the city, became a branch of the Philadelphia
   Library under certain conditions, one of which was that,
   barring contingencies, one of the donor's descendants should
   always hold the office of trustee. And to-day his direct
   descendant fills the position, and is perhaps the only example
   in this country of an hereditary office-holder. … In 1869
   died Dr. James Rush, son of Benjamin Rush, and himself well
   known as the author of a work on the human voice, and as
   husband of a lady who almost succeeded in naturalizing the
   salon in this country. By his will about one million dollars
   were devoted to the erection and maintenance of an isolated
   and fire-proof library-building, which was to be named the
   Ridgway Library, in memory of his wife. This building was
   offered to the Philadelphia Company, and the bequest was
   accepted. That institution had by this time accumulated about
   one hundred thousand volumes. … A building of the Doric
   order was erected, which with its grounds covers an entire
   square or block, and is calculated to contain four hundred
   thousand volumes, or three times as many as the Library at
   present has, and to this building the more valuable books of
   the Library were removed in 1878; the fiction and more modern
   works being placed in another designed in imitation of the old
   edifice, and nearer the center of the city."

      B. Samuel,
      The Father of American Libraries
      (Century Magazine, May, 1883).

In 1893, the library of the Philadelphia Library Company
contained 171,069 volumes.

The New York Society Library is the oldest institution of the kind in the city of New York. "In 1729, the Reverend Dr. Millington, Rector of Newington, England, by his will, bequeathed his library to the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts. By this society the library of Dr. Millington was presented to the corporation of the city, for the use of the clergy and gentlemen of New-York and the neighbouring provinces. … 'In 1754 [as related in Smith's History of New York] a set of gentlemen undertook to carry about a subscription towards raising a public library, and in a few days collected near 600 pounds, which were laid out in purchasing about 700 volumes of new, well-chosen books. Every subscriber, upon payment of five pounds principal, and the annual sum of ten shillings, is entitled to the use of these books,—his right, by the articles, is assignable, and for non-compliance with them may be forfeited. The care of this library is committed to twelve trustees, annually elected by the subscribers, on the last Tuesday of April, who are restricted from making any rules repugnant to the fundamental subscription. This is the beginning of a library which, in process of time, will probably become vastly rich and voluminous, and it would be very proper for the company to have a Charter for its security and encouragement.' The library of the corporation above alluded to, appearing to have been mismanaged, and at length entirely disused, the trustees of the New-York Society Library offered to take charge of it, and to deposit their own collection with it, in the City-Hall. This proposal having been acceded to by the corporation, the Institution thenceforward received the appellation of 'The City Library,' a name by which it was commonly known for a long time. A good foundation having been thus obtained, the library prospered and increased. … In 1772, a charter was granted to it by the colonial government. The war of the revolution, however, which soon after occurred, interfered with these pleasing prospects; the city fell into the possession of the enemy; the effect on all our public institutions was more or less disastrous, and to the library nearly fatal. An interval of no less than fourteen years, (of which it possesses no record whatever,) here occurs in the history of the society. At length it appears from the minutes, that 'the accidents of the late war having nearly destroyed the former library, no meeting of the proprietors for the choice of trustees was held from the last Tuesday in April, 1774, until Saturday, the 21st December, 1788, when a meeting was summoned.' In 1789, the original charter, with all its privileges, was revived by the legislature of this state; the surviving members resumed the payment of their annual dues, an accession of new subscribers was obtained, and the society, undeterred by the loss of its books, commenced almost a new collection."

   While Bishop Berkeley was residing, in 1729, on his farm near
   Newport, Rhode Island, "he took an active share in forming a
   philosophical society in Newport. … Among the members were
   Colonel Updike, Judge Scott (a granduncle of Sir Walter
   Scott), Nathaniel Kay, Henry Collins, Nathan Townsend, the
   Reverend James Honeyman, and the Reverend Jeremiah Condy. …
   The Society seems to have been very successful. One of its
   objects was to collect books. It originated, in 1747, the
   Redwood Library."

A. C. Fraser, Life and Letters of George Berkeley (volume 4 of Works), page 169.

The library thus founded took its name from Abraham Redwood, who gave £500 to it in 1747. Other subscriptions were obtained in Newport to the amount of £5,000, colonial currency, and a building for the library erected in 1750.

   "Mr. Ewart, in his Report of the Select Committee on Public
   Libraries, 1849, says: 'Our younger brethren, the people of
   the United States, have already anticipated us in the
   formation of libraries entirely open to the public.' No free
   public library, however, was then in operation, in the United
   States, yet one had been authorized by legislative action. The
   movements in the same direction in England and the United
   States seem to have gone on independently of each other; and
   in the public debates and private correspondence relating to
   the subject there seems to have been no borrowing of ideas, or
   scarcely an allusion, other than the one quoted, to what was
   being done elsewhere. In October, 1847, Josiah Quincy, Jr.,
   Mayor of Boston, suggested to the City Council that a petition
   be sent to the State legislature asking for authority to lay a
   tax by which the city of Boston could establish a library free
   to all its citizens. The Massachusetts legislature, in March,
   1848, passed such an act, and in 1851 made the act apply to
   all the cities and towns in the State.
{2020}
   In 1849 donations of books were made to the Boston Public
   Library. Late in the same year Mr. Edward Everett made to it
   the donation of his very complete collection of United States
   documents, and Mayor Bigelow a gift of $1,000. In May, 1852,
   the first Board of Trustees, with Mr. Everett as president,
   was organized, and Mr. Joshua Bates, of London, made his first
   donation of $50,000 for the use of the library. It was
   fortunate that the public-library system started where it did
   and under the supervision of the eminent men who constituted
   the first board of trustees of the Boston Public Library. Mr.
   George Ticknor was the person who mapped out the sagacious
   policy of that library—a policy which has never been
   improved, and which has been adopted by all the public
   libraries in this country, and, in its main features, by the
   free libraries of England. For fifteen years or more Mr.
   Ticknor gave the subject his personal attention. He went to
   the library every day, as regularly as any of the employes,
   and devoted several hours to the minutest details of its
   administration. Before he had any official relations with it,
   he gave profound consideration to, and settled in his own
   mind, the leading principles on which the library should be
   conducted. … Started as the public-library system was on
   such principles, and under the guidance of these eminent men,
   libraries sprang up rapidly in Massachusetts, and similar
   legislation was adopted in other States. The first legislation
   in Massachusetts was timid. The initiative law of 1848 allowed
   the city of Boston to spend only $5,000 a year on its Public
   Library, which has since expended $125,000 a year. The State
   soon abolished all limitation to the amount which might be
   raised for library purposes. New Hampshire, in 1849,
   anticipated Massachusetts, by two years, in the adoption of a
   general library law. Maine followed in 1854; Vermont in 1865;
   Ohio in 1867; Colorado, Illinois, and Wisconsin in 1872;
   Indiana and Iowa in 1873; Texas in 1874; Connecticut and Rhode
   Island in 1875; Michigan and Nebraska in 1877; California in
   1878; Missouri and New Jersey in 1885; Kansas in 1886. … The
   public library law of Illinois, adopted in 1872, and since
   enacted by other Western States, is more elaborate and
   complete than the library laws of any of the New England
   States. … The law of Wisconsin is similar to that of
   Illinois. … New Jersey has a public-library law patterned
   after that of Illinois."

W. F. Poole, President's Address at the annual meeting of the American Library Association, 1887.

The State of New York adopted a library law in 1892, under which the creation of free libraries has been promisingly begun. A law having like effect was adopted in New Hampshire in 1891.

"As to the early statistics of libraries in this country but little can be found. Prof. Jewett, in his 'Notices of Public Libraries,' published by the Smithsonian Institution in 1850, gave a summary of public libraries, amounting to 694 and containing at that time 2,201,632 volumes. In the census of 1850 an attempt was made to give the number of libraries and the number of volumes they contained, exclusive of school and Sunday school libraries. This number was 1,560; the number of volumes, 2,447,086. In 1856 Mr. Edward Edwards in his summary of libraries gave a much smaller number of libraries, being only 341, but the number of volumes was nearly the same, being 2,371,887, and was also based upon the census of 1850. Mr. William J. Rhees, in his 'Manual of Public Libraries,' which was printed in 1859, gave a list of 2,902 libraries, but of all this number only 1,312 had any report whatever of the number of volumes they contained. From these meager statistics it is seen that the reports do not vary very much, giving about the same number of libraries and number of volumes in them, taking account of the changes that would occur from the different classifications as to what was excepted or omitted as a library. The annual reports of the Bureau from 1870 to 1874 contained limited statistics of only a few hundred libraries, and little more is shown than the fact that there were about 2,000 public libraries of all kinds in the United States. About five years of labor was expended in collecting material for the special report of the Bureau upon public libraries, which was printed in 1876, and this gave a list of 3,649 libraries of over 300 volumes, and the total number of volumes was 12,276,964, this being about the first fairly complete collection of library statistics. In the report of the Bureau for 1884-85, after considerable correspondence and using the former work as a basis, another list of public libraries was published, amounting to 5,388 libraries of over 300 volumes, an increase of 1,869 libraries in ten years, or almost 54 per cent. The number of volumes contained in these libraries at that time was 20,622,076, or an increase of about 66 per cent, and showing that the percentage of increase in the number of volumes was even greater than that of the number of libraries. An estimate of the proportion of smaller libraries under 500 volumes in that list indicates that these smaller libraries included only about 20 per cent of the books, so that this list could be said to fairly show the extent of the libraries at that time. In the report for 1886-87, detailed statistics of the various classes of libraries were given, except those of colleges and schools, which were included in the statistics of those institutions. From the uncertainty of the data and the imperfect records given of the very small libraries, it was deemed best to restrict the statistics to collections of books that might be fairly called representative, and as those having less than 1,000 volumes made but a proportionally small percentage of the whole number of books the basis of 1,000 volumes or over was taken. This list includes the statistics only of libraries of this size and amounted to 1,777 libraries, containing 14,012,370 volumes, and were arranged in separate lists by classes as far as it could be done. … The number of libraries and of volumes in each of the seven special classes in the report made in 1887 was as follows: Free public lending libraries, 434; volumes, 3,721,191; free public reference libraries, 153; volumes, 3,075,099; free public school libraries, 93; volumes, 177,560; free corporate lending libraries, 241; volumes 1,727,870; libraries of clubs, associations, etc., 341; volumes, 2,460,334; subscription corporate libraries, 452; volumes, 2,644,929; and circulating libraries proper, 751; volumes, 215,487. The statistics [now] given … are for the year 1891, and include only libraries of 1,000 volumes and over, thus differing from the complete report of 1885. … {2021} There were, in 1891, 3,804 libraries. Of these, 3 contain over 500,000 volumes; 1 between 300,000 and 500,000; 26 between 100,000 and 300,000; 68 between 50,000 and 100,000; 128 between 25,000 and 50,000; 383 between 10,000 and 25,000; 565 between 5,000 and 10,000; and 2,360 between 1,000 and 5,000. … The North Atlantic Division contains 1,913 libraries, or 50.3 per cent of the whole number; the South Atlantic, 339, or 8.88 per cent; the South Central, 256, or 6.73 per cent; the North Central, 1,098, or 28.87 per cent, and the Western, 198, or 5.22 per cent. Of the distribution of volumes in the libraries, the North Atlantic Division has 16,605,286 or 53.34 per cent; the South Atlantic, 4,276,894, or 13.71 per cent; the South Central 1,345,708, or 4.03 per cent; the North Central, 7,320,045, or 23.32 per cent; and the Western, 1,593,974, or 5.34 per cent. … From [1885 to 1891] the increase in the United States in the number of libraries was from 2,987 to 3,804, an increase of 817, or 27.35 per cent; in the North Atlantic, from 1,543 to 1,913, an increase of 370, or 24 per cent; in the South Atlantic, from 289 to 338, an increase of 49, or 17 per cent; in the South Central, from 201 to 256, an increase of 55, or 27.5 per cent; in the North Central, from 813 to 1,099, an increase of 286, or 35.18 per cent; and in the Western, from 141 to 198, an increase of 57, or 40.43 per cent. These figures show that, comparatively, the largest increase in the number of libraries was in the Western Division, and of the number of volumes the greatest increase was in the North Central Division. The percentage of increase in the whole country was 66.3 for six years, or an average of over 11 per cent each year, which at this rate would double the number of volumes and libraries every nine years. … In the United States in 1885 there was one library to each 18,822 of the population, while in 1891 there was one to every 16,462, or a decrease of population to a library of 2,360, or 12.5 percent; in the North Atlantic Division the decrease was from 10,246 to 9,096, 1,150, or 11.2 per cent; in the South Atlantic, from 28,740 to 26,206, 2,534, or 8.08 per cent; in the South Central, from 48,974 to 42,863, 6,111, or 12.5 per cent; in the North Central, from 24,807 to 20,348, 4,459, or 18 per cent; and in the Western, from 15,557 to 15,290, 277 or 1.8 per cent. The distribution of libraries in the North Atlantic Division shows the smallest average population to a library and the least change in the number, except the Western Division, where the increase of population from immigration has been greater than the increase in the number of libraries. But, generally, the establishment and growth in the size of libraries have been very large in nearly every section. … This shows that in 1885 there were in the United States in the libraries of the size mentioned 34 books to every 100 of the population, while in 1891 this number was 50, or an increase of 16 books, or 47 per cent. In the North Atlantic Division the increase was from 66 to 95, an increase of 29 books, or 34 per cent; in the South Atlantic, from 34 to 48, an increase of 14, or 41 per cent; in the South Central, from 9 to 12, an increase of 3, or 33.33 per cent; in the North Central, from 20 to 33, an increase of 13, or 65 per cent; and in the Western, from 43 to 53, an increase of 10, or 23 per cent. These figures show that, comparatively, the largest increase of books to population has been in the great Northwest, over 11 per cent each year. In the whole country there has been an average increase of 7.8 per cent per annum; that is, the increase of the number of books in the libraries of the country has been 7.8 per cent greater than the increase of the population during the past six years."

      W. Flint,
      Statistics of Public Libraries
      (United States Bureau of Education,
      Circ. of Information Number 7, 1893).

"In 1839 the Hon. Horace Mann, then Secretary of the Board of Education, stated as the result of a careful effort to obtain authentic information relative to the libraries in the State, that there were from ten to fifteen town libraries, containing in the aggregate from three to four thousand volumes, to which all the citizens of the town had the right of access; that the aggregate number of volumes in the public libraries, of all kinds, in the State was about 300,000; and that but little more than 100,000 persons, or one-seventh of the population of the State, had any right of access to them. A little over a half century has passed. There are now 175 towns and cities having free public libraries under municipal control, and 248 of the 351 towns and cities contain libraries in which the people have rights or free privileges. There are about 2,500,000 volumes in these libraries, available for the use of 2,104,224 of the 2,238,943 inhabitants which the State contains according to the census of 1890. The gifts of individuals in money, not including gifts of books, for libraries and library buildings, exceed five and a half million dollars. There are still 103 towns in the State, with an aggregate population of 134,719, which do not have the benefit of the free use of a public library. These are almost without exception small towns, with a slender valuation, and 67 of them show a decline in population in the past five years. The State has taken the initiative in aiding the formation of free public libraries in such towns."

First Report of the Free Public Library Commission of Massachusetts, 1891, pref.

   The second report of the Commissioners, 1892, showed an
   addition of 36 to the towns which have established free public
   libraries.

   A distinctly new era in the history of American libraries—and
   in the history, it may be said, of libraries throughout the
   English-speaking world,—was opened, in 1876, by the meeting
   of a conference of librarians at Philadelphia, during the
   Centennial Exhibition of the summer of that year. The first
   fruit of the conference was the organization of a permanent
   American Library Association, which has held annual meetings
   since, bringing large numbers of the librarians of the country
   together every year, making common property of their
   experience, their knowledge, their ideas,—animating them with
   a common spirit, and enlisting them in important undertakings
   of cooperative work. Almost simultaneously with the
   Philadelphia meeting, but earlier, there was issued the first
   number of a "Library Journal," called into being by the
   sagacious energy of the same small band of pioneers who
   planned and brought about the conference. The Library Journal
   became the organ of the American Library Association, and each
   was stimulated and sustained by the other: Their combined
   influence has acted powerfully upon those engaged in the work
   of American libraries, to elevate their aims, to increase
   their efficiency, and to make their avocation a recognized
   profession, exacting well-defined qualifications.
{2022}
   The general result among the libraries of the country has been
   an increase of public usefulness beyond measure. To this
   renaissance in the library world many persons contributed; but
   its leading spirits were Melvil Dewey, latterly Director of
   the New York State Library; Justin Winsor, Librarian of
   Harvard University, formerly of the Boston Public Library; the
   late William F. Poole, LL.D., Librarian of the Newberry
   Library and formerly of the Chicago Public Library; Charles A.
   Cutter, lately Librarian of the Boston Athenæum; the late
   Frederick Leypoldt, first publisher of the "Library Journal,"
   and his successor, R. R. Bowker. The new library spirit was
   happily defined by James Russell Lowell, in his address
   delivered at the opening of a free public library in Chelsea,
   Massachusetts, and published in the volume of his works
   entitled "Democracy and other Addresses"; "Formerly," he said,
   "the duty of a librarian was considered too much that of a
   watch-dog, to keep people as much as possible away from the
   books, and to hand these over to his successor as little worn
   by use as he could. Librarians now, it is pleasant to see,
   have a different notion of their trust, and are in the habit
   of preparing, for the direction of the inexperienced, lists of
   such books as they think best worth reading. Cataloguing has
   also, thanks in great measure to American librarians, become a
   science, and catalogues, ceasing to be labyrinths without a
   clew, are furnished with finger-posts at every turn. Subject
   catalogues again save the beginner a vast deal of time and
   trouble by supplying him for nothing with one at least of the
   results of thorough scholarship, the knowing where to look for
   what he wants. I do not mean by this that there is or can be
   any short cut to learning, but that there may be, and is, such
   a short cut to information that will make learning more easily
   accessible."

   The organization of the American Library Association led to
   the formation, in 1877, of the Library Association of the
   United Kingdom, which was incident to the meeting of an
   international conference of Librarians held in London.

The following are the libraries in the United States which exceeded 100,000 volumes in 1891, as reported in the "Statistics of Public Libraries" published by the Bureau of Education. The name of each library is preceded by the date of its foundation:

1749. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia,
100,000 volumes; 100,000 pamphlets.

1865. Library of the Surgeon-General's Office, Washington,
104,300 volumes; 161,700 pamphlets.

1868. Cornell University Library, Ithaca, New York,
111,007 volumes; 25,000 pamphlets.

A remarkable number of the free public libraries of the United States are the creations of private wealth, munificently employed for the common good. The greater institutions which have this origin are the Astor Library in New York, founded by John Jacob Astor and enriched by his descendants; the Lenox Library in New York, founded by James Lenox; the Peabody Institute, in Baltimore, founded by George Peabody; the Enoch Pratt Free Library, in Baltimore, founded by the gentleman whose name it bears; the Newberry Library, in Chicago, founded by the will of Walter L. Newberry, who died in 1868; the Sutro Library in San Francisco, founded by Adolph Sutro, and the Carnegie Libraries founded at Pittsburg, Alleghany City and Braddock by Andrew Carnegie. By the will of John Crerar, who died in 1889, trustees for Chicago are in possession of an estate estimated at $2,500,000 or $3,000,000, for the endowment of a library which will soon exist. The intention of the late Samuel J. Tilden, former Governor of the State of New York, to apply the greater part of his immense estate to the endowment of a free library in the City of New York, has been partially defeated by contesting heirs; but the just feeling of one among the heirs has restored $2,000,000 to the purpose for which $5,000,000 was appropriated in Mr. Tilden's intent. Steps preparatory to the creation of the library are in progress. The lesser libraries, and institutions including libraries of considerable importance, which owe their origin to the public spirit and generosity of individual men of wealth, are quite too numerous in the country to be catalogued in this place. In addition to such, the bequests and gifts which have enriched the endowment of libraries otherwise founded are beyond computation.

LIBRARIES:
United States of America:
Government Departmental Libraries at Washington.

A remarkable creation of special libraries connected with the departments and bureaus of the national Government, has occurred within a few years past. The more important among them are the following:

Surgeon General's Office, 104,300 volumes and 161,700 pamphlets (reputed to be the best collection of medical literature, as it is certainly the best catalogued medical library, in the world);

United States House of Representatives, 125,000 (both of these being distinct from the great Library of Congress, which contained, in 1891, 659,843 volumes);

"In 1779 a number of the officers stationed at Quebec, and of the leading merchants, undertook the formation of a subscription library. The Governor, General Haldimand, took an active part in the work, and ordered on behalf of the subscribers £500 worth of books from London. The selection was entrusted to Richard Cumberland, the dramatist: and an interesting letter from the Governor addressed to him, describing the literary wants of the town and the class of books to be sent, is now in the Public Archives. A room for their reception was granted in the Bishop's Palace; and as late as 1806, we learn from Lambert's Travels that it was the only library [?] in Canada. Removed several times, it slowly increased, until in 1882 it numbered 4,000 volumes. The list of subscribers having become very much reduced, it was leased to the Quebec Literary Association in 1843. In 1854 a portion of it was burnt with the Parliament Buildings, where it was then quartered; and finally in 1866 the entire library, consisting of 6,990 volumes, were sold, subject to conditions, to the Literary and Historical Society for a nominal sum of $500. … Naturally on the organization of each of the provinces, libraries were established in connection with the Parliaments. We have therefore the following:

   Nova Scotia, Halifax, 25,319;
   New Brunswick, Fredericton, 10,850;
   Prince Edward Island, Charlottetown, 4,000;
   Quebec, Quebec, 17,400;
   Ontario, Toronto, 40,000;
   Manitoba, Winnipeg, 10,000;
   Northwest Territory, Regina, 1,480;
   British Columbia, Victoria, 1,200;
   Dominion of Canada, Ottawa, 120,000.
   Total volumes in Parliamentary libraries, 230,249.

By far the most important of our Canadian libraries is the Dominion Library of Parliament at Ottawa. Almost corresponding with the Congressional Library at Washington in its sources of income and work, it has grown rapidly during the past ten years, and now numbers 120,000 volumes. Originally established on the union of the provinces of Upper and Lower Canada in 1841, it was successively removed with the seat of government from Kingston to Montreal, to Quebec, to Toronto, again to Quebec, and finally to Ottawa. … The 38 colleges in Canada are provided with libraries containing 429,470 volumes, or an average of 11,302. The senior of these, Laval College, Quebec, is famous as being, after Harvard, the oldest on the continent, being founded by Bishop Laval in 1663. … In 1848 the late Dr. Ryerson, Superintendent of Education from 1844-1876, drafted a school bill which contained provisions for school and township libraries, and succeeded in awakening a deep interest in the subject. … In 1854 Parliament passed the requisite act and granted him the necessary funds to carry out his views in the matter. The regulations of the department authorized each county council to establish four classes of libraries—

1. An ordinary common school library in each schoolhouse for the use of the children and rate-payers.

2. A general public lending library available to all the ratepayers in the municipality.

3. A professional library of books on teaching, school organization, language, and kindred subjects, available for teachers only.

4. A library in any public institution under the control of the municipality, for the use of the inmates, or in any county jail, for the use of the prisoners. …

The proposal to establish the second class was however premature; and accordingly, finding that mechanics institutes were being developed throughout the towns and villages, the Educational Department wisely aided the movement by giving a small grant proportionate to the amount contributed by the members and reaching a maximum of $200, afterwards increased to $400 annually. In 1869 these had grown to number 26; in 1880, 74; and in 1886, 125. The number of volumes possessed by these 125 is 206,146, or an average of 1,650. … In the cities, however, the mechanics institute, with its limited number of subscribers, has been found unequal to the task assigned it, and accordingly, in 1882, the Free Libraries Act was passed, based upon similar enactments in Britain and the United States. … By the Free Libraries Act, the maximum of taxation is fixed at ½ a mill on the annual assessment. … None of the other provinces have followed Ontario in this matter."

J. Bain, Brief Review of the Libraries of Canada (Thousand Islands Conference of Librarians, 1887).

"The total number of public libraries in Canada of all kinds containing 1,000 or more volumes is 202, and of this number the Province of Ontario alone has 152, or over three-fourths of all, while Quebec has 27 or over one-half of the remaining fourth, the other provinces having from 2 to 6 libraries each. The total number of volumes and pamphlets in all the libraries reported is 1,478,910, of which the Province of Ontario has 863,332 volumes, or almost 60 per cent, while the Province of Quebec has 490,354, or over 33 percent; Nova Scotia, 48,250 volumes, or 3½ per cent; New Brunswick, 34,894 volumes, a little over 2.3 per cent; Manitoba, 31,025 volumes, or 2.1 per cent; British Columbia, 10,225 volumes, or not quite 0.7 per cent; and Prince Edward Island, 5,200 volumes, or over 0.3 per cent of the total number."

      V. Flint,
      Statistics [1891] of Public Libraries
      in the United States and Canada
      (United States Bureau of Education, Circular
      of Information No.7, 1893).

The National Library of Mexico contains 155,000 books, besides
manuscripts and pamphlets.

"It would be surprising if a people like the Chinese, who have the literary instinct so strongly developed, had not at an early date found the necessity of those great collections of books which are the means for carrying on the great work of civilization. China had her first great bibliothecal catastrophe two centuries before the Christian era, when the famous edict for the burning of the books was promulgated. Literature and despotism have never been on very good terms, and the despot of Tsin, finding a power at work which was unfavorable to his pretensions, determined to have all books destroyed except those relating to agriculture, divination and the history of his own house. His hatred to books included the makers of them, and the literati have not failed to make his name execrated for his double murders of men and books. When the brief dynasty of Tsin passed, the Princes of Han showed more appreciation of culture, and in 190 B. C. the atrocious edict was repealed, and the greatest efforts made to recover such literary treasures as had escaped the destroyer. Some classics are said to have been rewritten from the dictation of scholars who had committed them to memory. Some robbers broke open the tomb of Seang, King of Wei, who died B. C. 295, and found in it bamboo tablets containing more than 100,000 peen [bamboo slips]. These included a copy of the Classic of Changes and the Annals of the Bamboo Books, which indeed take their title from this circumstance. This treasure trove was placed in the Imperial Library. So the Shoo-king is said to have been found in a wall where it had been hidden by a descendant of Confucius, on the proclamation of the edict against books. Towards the close of the first century a library had been formed by Lew Heang and his son Lew Hin. … Succeeding dynasties imitated more or less this policy, and under the later Han dynasty great efforts were made to restore the library. … In the troubles at the close of the second century the palace at Lo-Yang was burned, and the greater part of the books destroyed. … Another Imperial collection at Lo-Yang, amounting to 29,945 books, was destroyed A. D. 311. In A. D. 431, Seäy Ling-Yuen, the keeper of the archives, made a catalogue of 4,582 books in his custody. Another catalogue was compiled in 473, and recorded 5,704 books. Buddhism and Taouism now began to contribute largely to the national literature. Amongst the other consequences of the overthrow of the Tse dynasty at the end of the fifth century was the destruction of the royal library of 18,010 books. Early in the next century a collection of 33,106 books, not including the Buddhist literature, was made chiefly, it is said, by the exertions of Jin Fang, the official curator. The Emperor Yuen-te removed his library, then amounting to 70,000 books, to King Chow, and the building was burnt down when he was threatened by the troops of Chow. The library of the later Wei dynasty was dispersed in the insurrection of 531, and the efforts made to restore it were not altogether successful. The later Chow collected a library of 10,000 books, and, on the overthrow of the Tse dynasty, this was increased by a mass of 5,000 mss. obtained from the fallen dynasty. When towards the close of the sixth century the Suy became masters of the empire they began to accumulate books. … The Tang dynasty are specially remarkable for their patronage of literature. Early in the eighth century the catalogue extended to 53,915 books, and a collection of recent authors included 28,469 books. Printing began to supersede manuscript in the tenth century, plentiful editions of the classics appeared and voluminous compilations. Whilst the Sung were great patrons of literature, the Leaou were at least lukewarm, and issued an edict prohibiting the printing of books by private persons. The Kin had books translated into their own tongue, for the benefit of the then Mongolian subjects. A similar policy was pursued by the Yuen dynasty, under whom dramatic literature and fiction began to flourish. In the year 1406, the printed books in the Imperial Library are said to have amounted to 300,000 printed books and twice the number of mss. … The great Imperial Library was founded by K'in Lung in the last century. In response to an imperial edict, many of the literati and book-lovers placed rare editions at the service of the government, to be copied. The Imperial Library has many of its books, therefore, in mss. Chinese printing, however, is only an imperfect copy of the caligraphy of good scribes. Four copies were made of each work. One was destined for the Wan Yuen Repository at Peking; a second for the Wan-tsung Repository at Kang-ning, the capital of Kiang-su province; a third for the Wan-hwui Repository at Yang-chou-fu, and the fourth for the Wan-lan Repository at Hong-Chou, the capital of Cheh-Kiang. A catalogue was published from which it appears that the library contained from ten to twelve thousand distinct works, occupying 168,000 volumes. The catalogue is in effect an annotated list of Chinese literature, and includes the works which were still wanting to the library and deemed essential to its completion. Dr. D. J. McGowan, who visited the Hong-Chou collection, says that it was really intended for a public library, and that those who applied for permission to the local authorities, not only were allowed access, but were afforded facilities for obtaining food and lodging, 'but from some cause or other the library is rarely or never consulted.' Besides the Imperial, there are Provincial, Departmental and District Libraries. Thus, the examination hall of every town will contain the standard classical and historical books. At Canton and other cities there are extensive collections, but their use is restricted to the mandarins. There are collections of books and sometimes printing presses in connection with the Buddhist monasteries."

W. E. A. Axon, Notes on Chinese Libraries (Library Journal, January and February, 1880).

"The Tokyo Library is national in its character, as the Congressional Library of the United States, the British Museum of Great Britain, etc. It is maintained by the State, and by the copyright Act it is to receive a copy of every book, pamphlet, etc., published in the empire. The Tokyo Library was established in 1872 by the Department of Education with about 70,000 volumes. In 1873 it was amalgamated with the library belonging to the Exhibition Bureau and two years later it was placed under the control of the Home Department, while a new library with the title of Tokyo Library was started by the Education Department at the same time with about 28,000 volumes newly collected. Thus the Tokyo Library began its career on a quite slender basis; but in 1876, the books increased to 68,953, and in 1877 to 71,853. Since that time, both the numbers of books and visitors have steadily increased, so much so that in 1884 the former reached 102,350 and latter 115,986, averaging 359 persons per one day. The library was then open free to all classes; but the presence of too many readers of the commonest text-books and light literature was found to have caused much hindrance to the serious students. … This disadvantage was somewhat remedied by introducing the fee system, which, of course, placed much restriction to the visitors of the library. … It is very clear from the character of the library that it is a reference library and not a circulating library. But as there are not any other large and well-equipped libraries in Tokyo, a system of 'lending out' is added, something like that of Königliche Bibliothek zu Berlin, with a subscription of 5 yen (about $5) per annum. … The Tokyo Library now contains 97,550 Japanese and Chinese books and 25,559 European books, besides about 100,000 of duplicates, popular books, etc., which are not used. The average number of books used is 337,262 a year. … The Library of the Imperial University, which is also under my charge, comprises all the books belonging to the Imperial University of Japan. These books are solely for the use of the instructors, students, and pupils, no admittance being granted to the general public. The library contains 77,991 European books and 101,217 Japanese and Chinese books. As to other smaller libraries of Japan, there are eight public and ten private libraries in different parts of the empire. The books contained in them are 66,912 Japanese and Chinese books and 4,731 European books with 43,911 visitors! Besides these, in most of towns of respectable size, there are generally two or three small private circulating libraries, which contain books chiefly consisting of light literature and historical works popularly treated."

      I. Tanaka,
      Tokyo Library
      (San Francisco Conference of Librarians, 1891).

The first free library in a native state of India was opened in 1892, with 10,000 volumes, 7,000 being in English. It was founded by the brother of the Maharajah.

LIBYAN SIBYL.

"The name of Africa was applied by the ancients only to that small portion of country south of Cape Bon; the rest was called Libya. The bulk of the population of the northern coast, between Egypt and the Pillars of Hercules, was of the Hamitic race of Phut, who were connected with the Egyptians and Ethiopians, and to whom the name of Libyans was not applied until a later date, as this name was originally confined to some tribes of Arian or Japhetic race, who had settled among the natives. From these nations sprung from Phut descended the races now called Berbers, who have spread over the north of Africa, from the northernmost valleys of the Atlas to the southern limits of the Sahara, and from Egypt to the Atlantic; perhaps even to the Canaries, where the ancient Guanches seem to have spoken a dialect nearly approaching that of the Berbers of Morocco. These Berbers—now called Amazigh, or Shuluh, in Morocco; Kabyles, in the three provinces of Algeria, Tunis, and Tripoli; Tibboos, between Fezzan and Egypt; and Tuariks in the Sahara—are the descendants of the same great family of nations whose blood, more or less pure, still runs in the veins of the tribes inhabiting the different parts of the vast territory once possessed by their ancestors. The language they still speak, known through the labours of learned officers of the French army in Africa, is nearly related to that of Ancient Egypt. It is that in which the few inscriptions we possess, emanating from the natives of Libya, Numidia, and Mauritania in olden times, are written. The alphabet peculiar to these natives, whilst under the Carthaginian rule, is still used by the Tuariks. Sallust, who was able to consult the archives of Carthage, and who seems more accurate than any other classical writer on African history, was acquainted with the annals of the primitive period, anterior to the arrival of the Arian tribes and the settlement of the Phœnician colonies. Then only three races, unequally distributed in a triple zone, were to be met with throughout Northern Africa. Along the shore bordering the Mediterranean were the primitive Libyans, who were Hamites, descendants of Phut; behind them, towards the interior, but on the western half only, were the Getulians … ; further still in the interior, and beyond the Sahara, were the negroes, originally called by the Greek name 'Ethiopians, which was afterwards erroneously applied to the Cushites of the Upper Nile. Sallust also learnt, from the Carthaginian traditions, of the great Japhetic invasion of the coast of Africa. … The Egyptian monuments have acquainted us with the date of the arrival of these Indo-Europeans in Africa, among whom were the Libyans, properly so called, the Maxyans, and Macæ. It was contemporary with the reigns of Seti I. and Ramses II."

F. Lenormant, Manual of Ancient History of the East, book 6, chapter 5 (volume 2).

LICTORS. FASCES.

"The fasces were bundles of rods (virgæ) of elm or birchwood, tied together round the handle of an axe (securis) with (most likely red) straps. The iron of the axe, which was the executioner's tool, protruded from the sticks. The fasces were carried on their left shoulders by the lictors, who walked in front of certain magistrates, making room for them, and compelling all people to move out of the way (summovere), barring Vestals and Roman matrons. To about the end of the Republic, when a special executioner was appointed, the lictors inflicted capital punishment. The king was entitled to twelve fasces, the same number being granted to the consuls. … The dictator was entitled to twenty-four lictors. … Since 42 B. C. the Flamen Dialis and the Vestals also were entitled to one lictor each. In case a higher official met his inferior in the street, he was saluted by the lictors of the latter withdrawing the axe and lowering the fasces."

"Liège lies on the borderland of the French and German speaking races. … It was the capital of an ecclesiastical principality, whose territory extended some distance up the river and over the wooded ridges and green valleys of the Ardennes. The town had originally sprung up round the tomb of St. Lambert—a shrine much frequented by pilgrims. … The Prince Bishop of Liège was the vassal of the emperor, but his subjects had long considered the kings of France their natural protectors. It was in France that they found a market for their manufactures, from France that pilgrims came to the tomb of St. Lambert or to the sylvan shrine of St. Hubert. Difference of language and rivalry in trade separated them from their Dutch-speaking neighbours. We hear, as early as the 10th century, of successful attempts on the part of the people of Liège, supported and directed by their bishops, to subdue the lords of the castles in their neighbourhood. A population of traders, artizans, and miners, were unlikely to submit to the pretensions of a feudal aristocracy. Nor was there a burgher oligarchy, as in many of the Flemish and German towns. Every citizen was eligible to office if he could obtain a majority of the votes of the whole male population. Constitutional limits were imposed on the power of the bishop; but he was the sole fountain of law and justice. By suspending their administration he could paralyse the social life of the State, and by his interdicts annihilate its religious life. Yet the burghers were involved in perpetual disputes with their bishop. When the power of the Dukes of Burgundy was established in the Low Countries, it was to them that the latter naturally applied for assistance against their unruly flock. John the Fearless defeated the citizens with great slaughter in 1408. He himself reckoned the number of slain at 25,000. In 1431 Liège was compelled to pay a fine of 200,000 crowns to the Duke of Burgundy." The Duke—Philip the Good—afterwards forced the reigning bishop to resign in favor of a brother of the Duke of Bourbon, a dissolute boy of eighteen, whose government was reckless and intolerable.

LIÈGE: A. D. 1467-1468. War with Charles the Bold of Burgundy and destruction of the city.

The Prince-bishop of Liège having joined the League of Augsburg against Louis XIV., and having received troops of the Grand Alliance into his city, the town was bombarded in May, 1691, by the French General Boufflers. There was no attempt at a siege; the attack was simply one of destructive malice, and the force which made it withdrew speedily.

On the 9th of April, A. D. 1241, the Mongols, who had already overrun a great part of Russia, defeated the combined forces of Poland, Moravia and Silesia in a battle which filled all Europe with consternation. It was fought near Lignitz (or Liegnitz), on a plain watered by the river Keiss, the site being now occupied by a village called Wahlstadt, i. e., "Field of Battle." "It was a Mongol habit to cut off an ear from each corpse after a battle, so as to have a record of the number slain; and we are told they filled nine sacks with these ghastly trophies," from the field of Lignitz.

LIGONIA.

   The mediæval republic of Genoa is often referred to as the
   Ligurian Republic; but the name was distinctively given by
   Napoleon to one of his ephemeral creations in Italy.

"The whole of Piedmont in its present extent was inhabited by the Ligurians: Pavia, under the name of Ticinum, was founded by a Ligurian tribe, the Lævians. When they pushed forward their frontier among the Apennines into the Casentino on the decline of the Etruscans, they probably only recovered what had before been wrested from them. Among the inhabitants of Corsica there were Ligurians. … The Ligurians and Iberians were anciently contiguous; whereas in aftertimes they were parted by the Gauls. We are told by Scylax, that from the borders of Iberia, that is, from the Pyrenees, to the Rhone, the two nations were dwelling intermixed. … But it is far more probable that the Iberians came from the south of the Pyrenees into Lower Languedoc, as they did into Aquitaine, and that the Ligurians were driven back by them. When the Celts, long after, moving in an opposite direction, reached the shore of the Mediterranean, they too drove the Ligurians close down to the coast, and dwelt as the ruling people amongst them, in the country about Avignon, as is implied by the name Celto-Ligurians. … Of their place in the family of nations we are ignorant: we only know that they were neither Iberians nor Celts."

"On the coast of Liguria, the land on each side of the city of Genoa, a land which was not reckoned Italian in early times, we find people who seem not to have been Aryan. And these Ligurians seem to have been part of a race which was spread through Italy and Sicily before the Aryan settlements, and to have been akin to the non-Aryan inhabitants of Spain and southern Gaul, of whom the Basques … remain as a remnant."

   A general assembly of Norman barons convened by Duke William,
   A. D. 1066, for the considering of his contemplated invasion
   of England.

LILLIBULLERO.

"Thomas Wharton, who, in the last Parliament, had represented Buckinghamshire, and who was already conspicuous both as a libertine and as a Whig, had written [A. D. 1688, just prior to the Revolution which drove James II. from the English throne] a satirical ballad on the administration of Tyrconnel [Richard Talbot, Earl of Tyrconnel, James' Lord Deputy in Ireland.]

In this little poem an Irishman congratulates a brother Irishman, in a barbarous jargon, on the approaching triumph of Popery and of the Milesian race. … These verses, which were in no respect above the ordinary standard of street poetry, had for burden some gibberish which was said to have been used as a watchword by the insurgents of Ulster in 1641. The verses and the tune caught the fancy of the nation. From one end of England to the other all classes were constantly singing this idle rhyme. It was especially the delight of the English army. More than seventy years after the Revolution, a great writer delineated, with exquisite skill, a veteran who had fought at the Boyne and at Namur. One of the characteristics of the good old soldier is his trick of whistling Lillibullero. Wharton afterwards boasted that he had sung a King out of three kingdoms. But in truth the success of Lillibullero was the effect, and not the cause, of that excited state of public feeling which produced the Revolution. … The song of Lillibullero is among the State Poems. In Percy's Relics the first part will be found, but not the second part, which was added after William's landing."

      ALSO IN:
      W. W. Wilkins,
      Political Ballads of the 17th and 18th Centuries,
      volume 1, page 275.

"This town, close to the western cape of Sicily, appears to have arisen as a substitute for the neighbouring town of Motye (of which we hear little more since its capture by Dionysius in 396 B. C.), and to have become the principal Carthaginian station." Lilybæum was first besieged and then blockaded by the Syracuse tyrant, Dionysius, B. C. 368; but he failed to reduce it. It was made a powerful stronghold by the Carthaginians.

This term was applied to certain Roman frontier-roads. "Limes is not every imperial frontier, but only that which is marked out by human hands, and arranged at the same time for being patrolled and having posts stationed for frontier-defence, such as we find in Germany and in Africa. … The Limes is thus the imperial frontier-road, destined for the regulation of frontier-intercourse, inasmuch as the crossing of it was allowed only at certain points corresponding to the bridges of the river boundary, and elsewhere forbidden. This was doubtless effected in the first instance by patrolling the line, and, so long as this was done, the Limes remained a boundary road. It remained so, too, when it was fortified on both sides, as was done in Britain and at the mouth of the Danube; the Britannic wall is also termed Limes."

The Limigantes were a tribe occupying, in the fourth century, a region of country between the Danube and the Theiss, who were said to have been formerly the slaves of a Sarmatian people in the same territory and to have overpowered and expelled their masters. The latter, in exile, became dependents of the warlike nation of the Quadi. At the end of a war with the latter, A. D. 357-359, in which they were greatly humbled, the Emperor Constantius commanded the Limigantes to surrender their stolen territory to its former owners. They resisted the mandate and were exterminated.

The Limigantes were a branch of the Iazyges or Jazyges, a nomadic Sarmatian or Sclavonic people who were settled in earlier times on the Palus Mæotis.

LIMISSO.

A foul crime which stains the name of "the Black Prince." Taking the city of Limoges, in France, after a short siege, A. D. 1370, he ordered a promiscuous massacre of the population, and more than 3,000 men, women and children were slain, while the town was pillaged and burned.

LIMONUM.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778-1779 THE WAR CARRIED INTO THE SOUTH; 1779 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER); 1780 (FEBRUARY-AUGUST).

LINDISWARA, LINDESFARAS.

"Dwellers about Lindum," or Lincoln; a name given for a time
to the Angles who seized and settled in that English district.

W. Stubbs, Constitutional History of England, chapter 7, section 70 (volume 1).

LINDUM.

   A tribe in ancient Gaul whose territory embraced parts in the
   modern French departments of the Haute-Marne, the Aube, the
   Yonne and the Côte-d'Or.

The standard of the Venetian republic. "Historians have failed or omitted to fix the precise time when this ensign of the lion was first adopted by the Republic. But when the two granite columns ['trophies of a successful raid in the Archipelago'], still the conspicuous ornaments of the Piazetta of St. Mark, were erected, in or about 1172, a winged lion in bronze was placed on one of them, and a statue of St. Theodore, a patron of earlier standing, on the other."

"On the morning of the 1st of November in this year, at the same period, though in less or greater degree a far-spreading earthquake ran through great part both of Europe and Barbary. In the north its effects, as usual with earthquakes in that region, were happily slight and few. Some gentle vibrations were felt as far as Dantzick. … In Madrid a violent shock was felt, but no buildings, and only two human beings, perished. In Fez and in Morocco, on the contrary, great numbers of houses fell down, and great multitudes of people were buried beneath the ruins. But the widest and most fearful destruction was reserved for Lisbon. Already, in the year 1531, that city had been laid half in ruins by an earthquake. The 1st of November 1755 was All Saints' Day, a festival of great solemnity; and at nine in the morning all the churches of Lisbon were crowded with kneeling worshippers of each sex, all classes, and all ages, when a sudden and most violent shock made every church reel to its foundations. Within the intervals of a few minutes two other shocks no less violent ensued, and every church in Lisbon—tall column and towering spire—was hurled to the ground. Thousands and thousands of people were crushed to death, and thousands more grievously maimed, unable to crawl away, and left to expire in lingering agony. The more stately and magnificent had been the fabric, the wider and more grievous was the havoc made by its ruin. About one fourth, as was vaguely computed, of all the houses in the city toppled down. The encumbered streets could scarce afford an outlet to the fugitives; 'friends,' says an eye-witness, 'running from their friends, fathers from their children, husbands from their wives, because every one fled away from their habitations full of terror, confusion, and distraction.' The earth seemed to heave and quiver like an animated being. The sun was darkened with the clouds of lurid dust that arose. Frantic with fear a headlong multitude rushed for refuge to a large and newly built stone pier which jutted out into the Tagus, when a sudden convulsion of the stream turned this pier bottom uppermost, like a ship on its keel in the tempest, and then engulphed it. And of all the living creatures who had lately thronged it,—full 3,000, it is said,—not one, even as a corpse, ever rose again. From the banks of the river other crowds were looking on in speechless affright, when the river itself came rushing in upon them like a torrent, though against wind and tide. It rose at least fifteen feet above the highest spring tides, and then again subsided, drawing in or dashing to pieces every thing within its reach, while the very ships in the harbour were violently whirled around. Earth and water alike seemed let loose as scourges on this devoted city. 'Indeed every clement,' says a person present, 'seemed to conspire to our destruction … for in about two hours after the shock fires broke out in three different parts of the city, occasioned from the goods and the kitchen fires being all jumbled together.' At this time also the wind grew into a fresh gale, which made the fires spread in extent and rage with fury during three days, until there remained but little for them to devour. Many of the maimed and wounded are believed to have perished unseen and unheeded in the flames; some few were almost miraculously rescued after being for whole days buried where they fell, without light or food or hope. The total number of deaths was computed at the time as not less than 30,000."

      Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
      History of England, 1713-1783,
      chapter 32 (volume 4).

LISBON: A. D. 1807.
Occupied by the French.
Departure of the Royal Family for Brazil.

LISLE.

LIT DE JUSTICE.

"From 1224 [when Russia was prostrated by the Mongol conquest] to 1487 … is a period of obscuration in Russian history, during which Russia is nothing in the Slavonian world. The hour of Russia's weakness was that in which the Lithuanians, formerly a mere chaos of Slavo-Finnish tribes, assumed organization and strength. Uniting the original Lithuanian tribes into one government, and extending his sway over those territories, formerly included in the Russian Empire, which the Mongolian destruction of the Russian power had left without a ruler, a native chief, named Ringold, founded (1235) a new state called the Grand-Duchy of Lithuania. The limits of this state extended from the Baltic coast, which it touched at a single point, across the entire continent, almost to the Black Sea, with Lithuania proper as its northern nucleus, and the populations along the whole course of the Dnieper as its subjects. The Lithuanians, thus made formidable by the extent of their dominion, were at this time still heathens."

Poland: Her History and Prospects (Westminster Review, January, 1855), page 119.

LITHUANIANS. LETTS.

"They and the Slavonians are branches of the same Sarmatian family; so, of course, their languages, though different, are allied. But next to the Slavonic what tongues are nearest the Lithuanic? Not the speech of the Fin, the German, or the Kelt, though these are the nearest in geography. The Latin is liker than any of these; but the likest of all is the ancient sacred language of India—the Sanskrit of the Vedas, Puranas, the Mahabharata, and the Ramayana. And what tongue is the nearest to the Sanskrit? Not those of Tibet and Armenia, not even those of Southern India. Its nearest parallel is the obscure and almost unlettered languages of Grodno, Wilna, Vitepsk, Courland, Livonia, and East Prussia. There is a difficult problem here. … The present distribution of the Lithuanian populations is second only in importance to that of the Ugrians. Livonia is the most convenient starting-point. Here it is spoken at present; though not aboriginal to the province. The Polish, German, and Russian languages have encroached on the Lithuanian, the Lithuanian on the Ugrian. It is the Lett branch of the Lithuanian which is spoken by the Letts of Livonia (Liefland), but not by the Liefs. The same is the case in Courland. East Prussia lies beyond the Russian empire, but it is not unnecessary to state that, as late as the sixteenth century, a Lithuanian tongue was spoken there. Vilna, Grodno, and Vitepsk are the proper Lithuanian provinces. There, the original proper Lithuanic tongue still survives; uncultivated, and day by day suffering from the encroachment of the Russian, but, withal, in the eyes of the ethnologist, the most important language in Europe."

LITTLE BRETHREN.

LITTLE RUSSIA.

LITURGIES.

"It was not only by taxation of its members that the [Athenian] State met its financial needs, but also by many other kinds of services which it demanded from them, and which, though not, like the former, producing an income, yet nevertheless saved an expense. Such services are called Liturgies [i. e.; properly, services for the people.'—Footnote]. They are partly ordinary or 'encyclic'— such, that is, as occurred annually, even in times of peace, according to a certain order, and which all bore some relation to worship and to the celebration of festivals—and partly extraordinary, for the needs of war. Among the former class the most important is the so-called Choregia, i. e., the furnishing of a chorus for musical contests and for festivals. … A similar though less burdensome Liturgy was the Gymnasiarchy for those feasts which were celebrated with gymnastic contests. The gymnasiarch, as it seems, was compelled to have all who wished to come forward as competitors trained in the gymnasia, to furnish them with board during the time of training, and at the games themselves to furnish the necessary fittings and ornaments of the place of contest. … More important and more costly than all these ordinary or encyclic Liturgies was the extraordinary Liturgy of trierarchy, i. e., the equipment of a ship of war."

"The Liturgiæ, which are sometimes considered as peculiar to the Athenians, … were common to all democracies at least [in the Greek states], and even to certain aristocracies or oligarchies. … The Liturgiæ of the Greeks were distinguished by a much more generous and noble characteristic than the corresponding services and contributions of the present day. They were considered honorable services. … Niggardliness in the performance of them was considered disgraceful. The state needed no paid officer, or contractors to superintend or undertake their execution. … The ordinary Liturgiæ … are principally the choregia, the gymnasiarchia, and the feasting of the tribes [or hestiasis]. … The lampadarchy, if not the only kind, was certainly the most important and expensive kind of gymnasiarchy. The race on foot with a torch in the hand was a common game. The same kind of race was run with horses for the first time at Athens in the time of Socrates. The art consisted, besides other particulars, in running the fastest, and at the same time not extinguishing the torch. … Since the festivity was celebrated at night, the illumination of the place which was the scene of the contest was necessary. Games of this kind were celebrated specially in honor of the gods of light and fire. … The expenses of the feasting of the tribes were borne by a person selected for this purpose from the tribe. … The entertainments, the expenses of which were defrayed by means of this liturgia, were different from the great feastings of the people, the expenses of which were paid from the treasury of the theorica. They were merely entertainments at the festivals of the tribes."

A. Boeckh, Public Economy of the Athenians (translated by Lamb), book 3, chapters 1 and 21-23.

In the Salic law, of the Franks, the litus appears as representing a class in that Germanic nation. He "was no doubt identical with the serf whom Tacitus represents as cultivating the soil, and paying a rent in kind to his lord. That the litus was not free is evident from the mention of his master and the fact that he could be sold; though we find a weregild set upon his life equal to that of a free Roman."

"After an ancient custom, the kings of France, at great solemnities, gave such of their subjects as were at court certain capes or furred mantles, with which the latter immediately clothed themselves before leaving the court. In the ancient 'comptes' (a sort of audits) these capes were called 'livrées' (whence, no doubt, our word livery), because the monarch gave them ('les livrait') himself."

LIVERY COMPANIES.

LIVERY OF SEIZIN.

Robert Livingston, "secretary of Albany," son of a Scotch clergyman, began to acquire a landed estate, by purchases from the Indians, soon after his arrival in America, which was about 1674. "The Mohegan tribes on the east side of the Hudson had become reduced to a few old Indians and squaws, who were ready to sell the lands of which they claimed the ownership. Livingston's position as clerk of Indian affairs gave him exceptional opportunities to select and to purchase the best lands in desirable localities. … In 1702, Lord Bellomont [then governor of New York] writes, 'I am told Livingston has on his great grant of 16 miles long and 24 broad, but four or five cottages, occupied by men too poor to be farmers, but are his vassals.' After the close of the war [Queen Anne's War], Livingston made more rapid progress in his improvements. He erected flour and timber mills, and a new manor-house." In 1715 Livingston obtained from Governor Hunter a confirmatory patent, under an exact and careful survey of his estate. "Although it does not give the number of acres, the survey computes the area of the manor to contain 160,240 acres. It was now believed to be secure against any attack. … Philip, the second proprietor, was not disturbed as to title or limits. He was a merchant, and resided in New York, spending his summers at the Manor House. … His son, Robert, succeeded him as the third proprietor, but he had hardly come into possession before he began to be harassed by his eastern neighbors, the people of Massachusetts. … Massachusetts, by her charter, claimed the lands lying west of her eastern boundary to the Pacific Ocean. She had long sought to make settlements within the province of New York. Now as her population increased she pushed them westward, and gradually encroached on lands within the limits of a sister province. In April, 1752, Livingston wrote to Governor Clinton, and entered complaint against the trespassers from Massachusetts. A long correspondence between the governors of the two provinces followed, but settled nothing. The trouble continued," for a number of years, and frequent riots were incident to it, in which several men were killed. At length, "the boundary between New York and Massachusetts was finally settled, and the claimants ceased their annoyance. … The Revolution was approaching. The public mind was occupied with politics. … Land titles ceased to be topics of discussion. The proprietors of the old manor, and all bearing their name, with a few unimportant exceptions, took a decided stand in favor of independence. During the war that followed, and for some years after its close, their title and possession of their broad acres were undisputed. But in 1795 another effort was made to dispossess them. The old methods of riots and arrests were abandoned. The title was now attacked by the tenants, incited and encouraged by the envious and disaffected. A petition, numerously signed by the tenants of the manor, was sent to the Legislature. … The committee to which the petition was referred reported adversely, and this was approved by the House on March 23, 1795. … After the failure of 1795 to break the title, there was a season of comparative quiet continued for nearly forty years. Then a combination was formed by the tenants of the old manorial estates, including those of large landed proprietors in other parts of the State, termed 'anti-renters.' It was a civil association with a military organization. It was their purpose to resist the payment of rents. The tenants of the Van Rensselaer and the Livingston Manors, being the most numerous, were the projectors and leaders, giving laws and directions. … Landlords and officers were intimidated by bands disguised as Indians, and some property was destroyed. The anti-renters carried their grievances into politics, throwing their votes for the party which would give them the most favorable legislation. In 1844, they petitioned the Legislature to set aside as defective the Van Rensselaer title, and put the tenants in legal possession of the farms they occupied. The petition was referred to the Judiciary Committee of the Assembly, the late Judge William Allen being chairman. Anti-renters of known ability were on the committee, and a favorable report was anticipated. But after a long and thorough investigation of the title … the committee unanimously reported against the prayer of the petition. This put an end to the combination, and to the anti-rent war, although resistance to the collection of rents in isolated cases, with bloodshed and loss of life, is still [1885] continued. The landlords, however, particularly the Livingstons, were tired of the strife. They adopted measures of compromise, selling to their tenants the lands they occupied at reduced valuations. Only small portions of the old manor now remain in the hands of Robert Livingston's descendants."

      ALSO IN:
      E. P. Cheyney,
      Anti-Rent Agitations in New York
      (University of Pennsylvania Pubs.).

"Till the year A. D. 1158 … Livonia was well-nigh utterly unknown to the rest of Europe. Some traders of Bremen then visited it, and formed several settlements along the coast. These commercial relations with their western neighbours first opened up the country to missionary enterprise, and in the year A. D. 1186 one of the merchant-ships of Bremen brought to the mouth of the Düna a venerable canon named Meinhard." Meinhard died in 1196, having accomplished little. He was succeeded by a Cistercian abbot named Berthold, who, being driven away by the obstinate pagans, returned wrathfully in 1198, with a crusading army, which Pope Innocent III. had commissioned him to lead against them. This was the beginning of a long and merciless crusading warfare waged against the Livonians, or Lieflanders, and against their Prussian and other Sclavonic neighbors, until all were forced to submit to the religious rites of their conquerors and to call themselves Christians. For the furthering of this crusade, Berthold's successor, Albert von Apeldern, of Bremen (who founded the town of Riga), "instituted, in the year A. D. 1201, with the concurrence of the emperor Otho IV. and the approbation of the Pope, the knightly 'Order of the Sword,' and placed it under the special protection of the Virgin Mary. The members of this order bound themselves by solemn vows to hear mass frequently, to abstain from marriage, to lead a sober and chaste life, and to fight against the heathen. In return for these services they were to have and to enjoy whatever lands they might wrest with their swords from their pagan adversaries. … Albert von Apeldern made Riga the starting-point of his operations. Thence, aided by Waldemar II. king of Denmark, he directed the arms of his crusaders against Esthonia, and the neighbouring countries of Semgallen and Courland. On these war-wasted districts he succeeded in imposing a nominal form of Christianity." The Order of the Sword was subsequently united with the Teutonic Order, which turned its crusading energies from the Moslems of the Holy Land to the heathendom of the Baltic.

LLANOS.

"'The Lobby' is the name given in America to persons, not being members of a legislature, who undertake to influence its members, and thereby to secure the passing of bills. The term includes both those who, since they hang about the chamber, and make a regular profession of working upon the members, are called 'lobbyists,' and those persons who on any particular occasion may come up to advocate, by argument or solicitation, any particular measure in which they happen to be interested. The name, therefore, does not necessarily impute any improper motive or conduct, though it is commonly used in what Bentham calls a dyslogistic sense."

J. Bryce, The American Commonwealth, volume 1, appendix note (B) to chapter 16.

LOCHLANN.

LOCKE'S CONSTITUTION FOR THE CAROLINAS.

LOCOFOCOS.

"In 1835, in the city and county of New York, a portion of the democrats organized themselves into the 'equal rights' party. At a meeting in Tammany Hall they attempted to embarrass the proceedings of the democratic nominating committee, by presenting a chairman in opposition to the one supported by the regular democrats. Both parties came to a dead lock, and, in the midst of great confusion, the committee extinguished the lights. The equal rights men immediately relighted the room with candles and locofoco matches, with which they had provided themselves. From this they received the name of locofocos, a designation which, for a time, was applied to the whole democratic party by the opposition."

LOCRI.

The city of Locri, or Locri Epizephyrii, an ancient Greek settlement in Southern Italy, was founded by the Locrians as early as B. C. 683. The elder Dionysius, tyrant of Syracuse, married a Locrian woman and showed great favor to the city, of which he acquired control; but it suffered terribly from his son, the younger Dionysius, who transferred his residence to Locri when first driven from Syracuse.

LODGER FRANCHISE.

LŒTIC COLONIES.

During and after the civil wars of the declining years of the Roman empire, large numbers of Germans were enlisted in the service of the rival factions, and were recompensed by gifts of land, on which they settled as colonists. "They were called Lœti, and the colonies lœtic colonies, probably from the German word 'leute,' people, because they were regarded as the people or men of the empire."

LOG CABIN AND HARD CIDER CAMPAIGN.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY: KENTUCKY-TENNESSEE).

LOGAN'S WRONGS. LOGAN'S WAR. LOGAN'S FAMOUS SPEECH.

"In Athens, all accounts, with the exception of those of the generals, were rendered to the logistæ and euthyni. Both authorities, before and after the archonship of Euclid, existed together at the same time. Their name itself shows that the logistæ were auditors of accounts. The euthyni were in immediate connection with them. … The logistæ were the principal persons in the auditing board."

The earlier Ionian Greek historians "confined their attention to the circle of myths and antiquities connected with single families, single cities and districts. These were the Ionic 'logographi,' so called because they noted down in easy narrative the remarkable facts that they had collected and obtained by inquiry as to the foundation of the cities, the myths of the prehistoric age, and the natural, political, and social condition of different countries."

LOGOTHETES.

A class of officers created under Justinian for the administration of the imperial finances in Italy, after its conquest from the Goths. Their functions corresponded with those of a modern auditor, or comptroller.

LOGSTOWN.

About the middle of the 18th century, Logstown was "an important Indian village a little below the site of the present city of Pittsburg. Here usually resided Tanacharisson, a Seneca chief of great note, being head sachem of the mixed tribes which had migrated to the Ohio and its branches. He was generally surnamed the half-king, being subordinate to the Iroquois confederacy."

LOIDIS.

"The coast [of Greece, in ancient times] opposite to the western side of Eubœa, from the neighbourhood of Thermopylæ as far as the Bœotian frontier at Anthedon, was possessed by the Lokrians, whose northern frontier town, Alpeni, was conterminous with the Malians. There was, however, one narrow strip of Phokis—the town of Daphnus, where the Phokians also touched the Eubœan sea—which broke this continuity and divided the Lokrians into two sections,—Lokrians of Mount Knemis, or Epiknemidian Lokrians, and Lokrians of Opus, or Opuntian Lokrians. … Besides these two sections of the Lokrian name, there was also a third, completely separate, and said to have been colonised from Opus,—the Lokrians surnamed Ozolæ,—who dwelt apart on the western side of Phokis, along the northern coast of the Corinthian Gulf. … Opus prided itself on being the mother-city of the Lokrian name. … The whole length of this Lokrian coast is celebrated for its beauty and fertility, both by ancient and modern observers."

LOLLARDS' TOWER.

When the persecution of the Lollards, or disciples of Wyclif, began in England, under Henry IV., the prisons were soon crowded, and the Archbishop of Canterbury found need of building an additional tower to his palace at Lambeth for the custody of them. The Lollards' Tower, as it was named, is still standing, with the rings in its walls to which the captives were chained.

   "The Langobardi … are ennobled by the smallness of their
   numbers; since, though surrounded by many powerful nations,
   they derive security, not from obsequiousness, but from their
   martial enterprise."

"In the reign of Augustus, the Langobardi dwelt on this side the Elbe, between Luneburg and Magdeburg. When conquered and driven beyond the Elbe by Tiberius, they occupied that part of the country where are now Prignitz, Ruppin, and part of the Middle Marche. They afterward founded the Lombard kingdom in Italy."

      Tacitus,
      Germany,
      Oxford translation,
      Translator's note.

The etymology which explains the name of the Lombards or Langobardi by finding in it a reference to the length of their beards is questioned by some modern writers. Sheppard ("Fall of Rome") conjectures that the name originally meant "long-spears" rather than "long-beards." Other writers derive the name "from the district they inhabited on the banks of the Elbe, where Börde (or Bord) still signifies 'a fertile plain by the side of a river,' and a district near Magdeburg is still called the lange Börde. According to this view, Langobardi would signify 'inhabitants of the long bord of the river'; and traces of their name are supposed still to occur in such names as Bardengau and Bardewick, in the neighbourhood of the Elbe."

Dr. W. Smith, Note to Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 42.

From the Elbe the Langobardi moved in time to the Danube. "Here they encountered the Gepidæ, who, … after having taken a leading part in the defeat and dispersion of the Huns in the great battle of Netad [A. D. 453], had settled in the plains of Upper Hungary and on the Transylvanian hills. For thirty years these two powerful tribes continued a contest in which both sides sought the assistance of the Greek emperor, and both were purposely encouraged in their rivalry with a view to their common destruction." In 566 the struggle was decided by a tremendous battle in which the Gepidæ were crushed. The Lombards, in this last encounter, had secured the aid of the pretended Avars, then lately arrived on the Danube; but the prestige of the overwhelming victory attached itself to the name of the young Lombard king, Alboin. "In the days of Charlemagne, the songs of the German peasant still told of his beauty, his heroic qualities, and the resistless vigour of his sword. His renown crossed the Alps, and fell, with a foreboding sound, upon the startled ears of the Italians, now experienced in the varied miseries of invasion."

   When the Lombards and the Avars crushed the nation of the
   Gepidæ (see AVARS), in 566, it was one of the terms of the
   bargain between them that the former should surrender to the
   Avars, not only the conquered territory—in Wallachia,
   Moldavia, Transylvania and part of Hungary—but, also, their
   own homes in Pannonia and Noricum. No doubt the ambitious
   Lombard king, Alboin, had thoughts of an easy conquest of
   Italy in his mind when he assented to so strange an agreement.
   Fourteen years before, the Lombard warriors had traversed the
   sunny peninsula in the army of Narses, as friends and allies
   of the Roman-Greeks.
{2033}
   The recollection of its charms, and of its still surviving
   wealth, invited them to return. Their old leader, Narses, had
   been deposed from the exarchate at Ravenna; it is possible
   that he encouraged their coming. "It was not an army, but an
   entire nation, which descended the Alps of Friuli in the year
   568. The exarch Longinus, who had succeeded Narses, shut
   himself up within the walls of Ravenna, and offered no other
   resistance. Pavia, which had been well fortified by the kings
   of the Ostrogoths, closed its gates, and sustained a siege of
   four years. Several other towns, Padua, Monzelice, and Mantua,
   opposed their isolated forces, but with less perseverance. The
   Lombards advanced slowly into the country, but still they
   advanced; at their approach, the inhabitants fled to the
   fortified towns upon the sea coast in the hope of being
   relieved by the Greek fleet, or at least of finding a refuge
   in the ships, if it became necessary to surrender the place.
   … The islands of Venice received the numerous fugitives from
   Venetia, and at their head the patriarch of Aquileia, who took
   up his abode at Grado; Ravenna opened its gates to the
   fugitives from the two banks of the Po; Genoa to those from
   Liguria; the inhabitants of La Romagna, between Rimini and
   Ancona, retired to the cities of the Pentapolis; Pisa, Rome,
   Gaeta, Naples, Amalfi, and all the maritime towns of the south
   of Italy were peopled at the same time by crowds of
   fugitives."

"From the Trentine hills to the gates of Ravenna and Rome, the inland regions of Italy became, without a battle or a siege, the lasting patrimony of the Lombards. … One city, which had been diligently fortified by the Goths, resisted the arms of a new invader; and, while Italy was subdued by the flying detachments of the Lombards, the royal camp was fixed above three years before the western gate of Ticinum, or Pavia. … The impatient besieger had bound himself by a tremendous oath that age, and sex, and dignity should be confounded in a general massacre. The aid of famine at length enabled him to execute his bloody vow; but as Alboin entered the gate his horse stumbled, fell, and could not be raised from the ground. One of his attendants was prompted by compassion, or piety, to interpret this miraculous sign of the wrath of Heaven: the conqueror paused and relented. … Delighted with the situation of a city which was endeared to his pride by the difficulty of the purchase, the prince of the Lombards disdained the ancient glories of Milan; and Pavia during some ages was respected as the capital of the kingdom of Italy."

Alboin survived but a short time the conquest of his Italian kingdom. He was murdered in June, 573, at the instigation of his wife, the Gepid princess Rosamond, whose alliance with him had been forced and hateful. His successor, Clef, or Clepho, a chief elected by the assembly of the nation at Pavia, reigned but eighteen months, when he, too, was murdered. After a distracted period of ten years, in which there was no king, the young son of Clepho, named Autharis, came to manhood and was raised to the throne. "Under the standard of their new king, the conquerors of Italy withstood three successive invasions [of the Franks and the Alemanni], one of which was led by Childebert himself, the last of the Merovingian race who descended from the Alps. … During a period of 200 years Italy was unequally divided between the kingdom of the Lombards and the exarchate of Ravenna. … From Pavia, the royal seat, their kingdom [that of the Lombards] was extended to the east, the north, and the west, as far as the confines of the Avars, the Bavarians, and the Franks of Austrasia and Burgundy. In the language of modern geography, it is now represented by the Terra Firma of the Venetian republic, Tyrol, the Milanese, Piedmont, the coast of Genoa, Mantua, Parma, and Modena, the grand duchy of Tuscany, and a large portion of the ecclesiastical state from Perugia to the Adriatic. The dukes, and at length the princes, of Beneventum, survived the monarchy, and propagated the name of the Lombards. From Capua to Tarentum, they reigned near 500 years over the greatest part of the present kingdom of Naples."

   Until 754 the Lombard kings pursued a generally prosperous
   career of aggrandizement, in Italy. They had succeeded, at the
   last, in expelling the exarchs of the Eastern Empire from
   Ravenna and in taking possession of that capital, with much of
   the territory and many of the cities in central Italy which
   depended on it. These successes inflamed their determination
   to acquire Rome, which had practically resumed its
   independence, and theoretically reconstituted itself a
   republic, with the Pope, in fact, ruling it as an actual
   prince. In 753 the Papal chair was filled by Stephen II. and
   the Lombard throne by King Aistaulf, or Astolphus. The former,
   being newly threatened by the latter, made a journey to the
   court of the Frank king, Pippin, to solicit his aid. Pippin
   was duly grateful for the sanction which the preceding pope
   had given to his seizure of the Merovingian crown, and he
   responded to the appeal in a vigorous way. In a short campaign
   beyond the Alps, in 754, he extorted from the Lombard king a
   promise to make over the cities of the exarchate to the Pope
   and to respect his domain. But the promise was broken as soon
   as made. The Franks were hardly out of Italy before Aistulf
   was ravaging the environs of Rome and assailing its gates. On
   this provocation Pippin came back the next year and humbled
   the Lombard more effectually, stripping him of additional
   territory, for the benefit of the Pope, taking heavy ransom
   and tributes from him, and binding him by oaths and hostages
   to acknowledge the supremacy of the king of the Franks. This
   chastisement sufficed for nearly twenty years; but in 773 the
   Pope (now Hadrian) was driven once more to appeal to the Frank
   monarch for protection against his northern neighbors. Pippin
   was dead and his great son Charles, or Charlemagne, had
   quarrels of his own with Lombardy to second the Papal call. He
   passed the Alps at the head of a powerful army, reduced Pavia
   after a year-long siege and made a complete conquest of the
   kingdom, immuring its late king in a cloister for the
   remainder of his days. He also confirmed, it is said, the
   territorial "donations" of his father to the Holy See and
   added some provinces to them. "Thus the kingdom of the
   Lombards, after a stormy existence of over two hundred years,
   was forever extinguished.
{2034}
   Comprising Piedmont, Genoa, the Milanese, Tuscany, and several
   smaller states, it constituted the most valuable acquisition,
   perhaps, the Franks had lately achieved. Their limits were
   advanced by it from the Alps to the Tiber; yet, in the
   disposal of his spoil, the magnanimous conqueror regarded the
   forms of government which had been previously established. He
   introduced no changes that were not deemed indispensable. The
   native dukes and counts were confirmed in their dignities; the
   national law was preserved, and the distributions of land
   maintained, Karl receiving the homage of the Lombard lords as
   their feudal sovereign, and reserving to himself only the name
   of King of Lombardy."

LOMBARDY: A. D. 1154-1183.
The wars of Frederick Barbarossa against the Communes.
The League of Lombardy.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1154-1162, to 1174-1183;
      and FEDERAL GOVERNMENT:
      MEDIÆVAL LEAGUE OF LOMBARDY.

LOMBARDY: A. D. 1277-1447. Rise and domination of the Visconti of Milan, and the dissolution of their threatening tyranny.

LOMBARDY: A. D. 1310-1313.
Visit of the Emperor Henry VII.
His coronation with the Iron Crown.

LOMBARDY: A. D. 1360-1391. The Free Companies and the wars with Florence and with the Pope.

LOMBARDY: A. D. 1412-1422.
Reconquest by Filippo Maria Visconti, third duke of Milan.

LOMBARDY: A. D. 1447-1454.
   Disputed succession of the Visconti in Milan.
   The duchy seized by Francesco Sforza.
   War of Venice, Naples, and other States against Milan and
   Florence.

LOMBARDY: A. D. 1492-1544. The struggle for the Milanese territory, until its acquisition by the Spanish crown.

LOMBARDY: A. D. 1745-1746. Occupied by the Spaniards and French and recovered by the Austrians.

LOMBARDY: A. D. 1749-1792.
Under Austrian rule, after the Peace of Aix-la-Chapelle.

LOMBARDY: A. D. 1796-1797.
Conquest by Bonaparte.
Creation of the Cisalpine Republic.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER);
      1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL);
      and 1797 (MAY-OCTOBER).

LOMBARDY: A. D. 1814-1815.
Restored to Austria.
Formation of the Lombardo-Venetian kingdom.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (APRIL-JUNE);
      VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF;
      ITALY: A. D. 1814-1815;
      and AUSTRIA: A. D. 1815-1846.

LOMBARDY: A. D. 1848-1849.
The struggle for freedom from Austrian misrule
and its failure.

LOMBARDY: A. D. 1859.
Emancipation from the Austrians.
Absorption in the kingdom of Italy.

   The crown of the Lombard kings was lined with an iron band,
   believed to have been wrought of the nails used in the
   Crucifixion. Hence it was called the Iron Crown.

"When Plautius [Aulus Plautius, who, in the reign of the Emperor Claudius, A. D. 43, led the second Roman invasion of Britain, that of Cæsar having been the first] withdrew his soldiers from the marshes they had vainly attempted to cross, he, no doubt, encamped them somewhere in the neighbourhood. I believe the place was London. The name of London refers directly to the marshes, though I cannot here enter into a philological argument to prove the fact. At London the Roman general was able both to watch his enemy and to secure the conquests he had made, while his ships could supply him with all the necessaries he required. When, in the autumn of the year 43, he drew the lines of circumvallation round his camp, I believe he founded the present metropolis of Britain. The notion entertained by some antiquaries that a British town preceded the Roman camp has no foundation to rest upon, and is inconsistent with all we know of the early geography of this part of Britain."

"Old as it is, London is far from being one of the oldest of British cities; till the coming of the Romans, indeed, the loneliness of its site seems to have been unbroken by any settlement whatever. The 'dun' was, in fact, the centre of a vast wilderness. … We know nothing of the settlement of the town; but its advantages as the first landing-place along the Thames secured for it at once the command of all trading intercourse with Gaul, and through Gaul with the empire at large. So rapid was its growth that only a few years after the landing of Claudius [who joined Aulus Plautius in the autumn of 43] London had risen into a flourishing port."

"The derivation of 'Londinium' from 'Llyn·din,' the lake fort, seems to agree best with the situation and the history. The Roman could not frame to pronounce the British word 'Llyn,' a word which must have sounded to his ears very much like 'Clun,' or 'Lun,' and the fact, if it is a fact, that Llyn was turned into Lon, goes to increase the probability that this is the correct derivation of the name. The first founder called his fastness the 'Fort of the Lake,' and this is all that remains of him or it. … London was in those days emphatically a Llyndin, the river itself being more like a broad lake than a stream, and behind the fortress lying the great northern lake,' as a writer so late as Fitzstephen calls it, where is now Moorfields. I take it, it was something very like an island, if not quite—a piece of high ground rising out of lake, and swamp, and estuary."

Londinium was one of the Roman towns in Britain destroyed by the Iceni, at the time of the furious insurrection to which they were incited by their outraged queen Boadicea, A. D. 61. It "was crowded with Roman residents, crowded still more at this moment with fugitives from the country towns and villas: but it was undefended by walls, its population of traders was of little account in military eyes, and Suetonius sternly determined to leave it, with all the wealth it harboured, to the barbarians, rather than sacrifice his soldiers in the attempt to save it. … Amidst the overthrow of the great cities of southern Britain, not less than 70,000 Roman colonists … perished. The work of twenty years was in a moment undone. Far and wide every vestige of Roman civilization was trodden into the soil. At this day the workmen who dig through the foundations of the Norman and the Saxon London, strike beneath them on the traces of a double Roman city, between which lies a mass of charred and broken rubbish, attesting the conflagration of the terrible Boadicea."

"It is certain that, either under Constantine [the emperor] himself, or under one of his immediate successors, the outer wall was built. Though the building of the Roman wall, which still in a sense defines the city boundaries, is an event in the history of London not second in importance even to its foundation, since it made a mere village and fort with a 'tête du pont' into a great city and the capital of provincial Britain, yet we have no records by which an exact date can be assigned to it. All we know is that in 350 London had no wall: and in 369 the wall existed. The new wall must have taken in an immense tract of what was until then open country, especially along the Watling Street, towards Cheap and Newgate. It transformed London into Augusta; and though the new name hardly appears on the page of history, and never without a reference to the older one, its existence proves the increase in estimation which was then accorded to the place. The object of this extensive circumvallation is not very clear. The population to be protected might very well have been crowded into a much smaller space. … The wall enclosed a space of 380 acres, being 5,485 yards in length, or 3 miles and 205 yards. The portion along the river extended from Blackfriars to the Tower."

"The historian Ammianus Marcellinus, who wrote about A. D. 380, in the reign of Gratian, states that Londinium (he calls it Lundinium) was in his days called Augusta. From him we learn that Lupicinus, who was sent by Julian to repress the inroads of the Scots and Picts, made Londinium his head quarters, and there concerted the plan of the campaign. In the reign of Valentinian Britain was again disturbed, not only by the northern barbarians, but also by the Franks and Saxons. Theodosius, who was appointed commander of the legions and cohorts selected for this service, came from Boulogne, by way of Rutupiæ, to Londinium, the same route taken a few years previously by Lupicinus, and there he also matured his plan for the restoration of the tranquillity of the province. It is on this occasion that Marcellinus speaks twice of Londinium as an ancient town, then called Augusta. By the anonymous chorographer of Ravenna it is called Londinium Augusta; and it is in this sense, a cognomen or distinguishing appellation, as applied to a pre-eminent town or capital, that we must probably understand the term as used by Marcellinus in relation to Londinium. … The extent of Londinium, from Ludgate on the west to the Tower on the east, was about a mile, and about half a mile from the wall on the north (London Wall) to the Thames, giving dimensions far greater than those of any other Roman town in Britain. These were the limits of the city when the Romans relinquished the dominion of the island."

"That London gradually increased in importance beyond the dignity of a commercial city is plain, from the mention of it in the Itinera, which show the number of marching roads beginning and terminating there. … London then [in the times of Julian and Theodosius] bore the name of 'Augusta,' or 'Londinium Augusta,' and this title is only applied to cities of pre-eminent importance. The area of Roman London was considerable, and, from discoveries made at different times, appears to have extended with the growth of Roman power. The walls when the Romans left Britain reached from Ludgate, on the west, to the Tower on the east, about one mile in length, and from London Wall to the Thames. … It also extended across the river on the Kentish side."

"Roman Loudon was built on the elevated ground on both sides of a stream, known in after time by the name of Wallbrook, which ran into the Thames not far from Southwark Bridge. … Its walls were identical with those which enclosed the mediæval city of London. … The northern and north-eastern parts of the town were occupied with extensive and—to judge by the remains which have been brought to light—magnificent mansions. … At the period to which our last chapter had brought us [A. D. 353], the city had extended to the other side of the Thames, and the borough of Southwark stands upon ground which covers the floors of Roman houses and the pavings of Roman streets."

For nearly half a century after its conquest by the East-Saxons (which took place probably about the middle of the 6th century) London "wholly disappears from our view." "We know nothing of the circumstances of its conquest, of the fate of its citizens, or of the settlement of the conquerors within its walls. That some such settlement had taken place, at least as early as the close of the seventh century, is plain from the story of Mellitus, when placed as bishop within its walls [see ENGLAND: A. D. 597-685]; but it is equally plain that the settlement was an English one, that the provincials had here as elsewhere disappeared, and that the ruin of the city had been complete. Had London merely surrendered to the East-Saxons and retained its older population and municipal life, it is hard to imagine how, within less than half a century, its burghers could have so wholly lost all trace of Christianity that not even a ruined church, as at Canterbury, remained for the use of the Christian bishop, and that the first care of Mellitus was to set up a mission church in the midst of a heathen population. It is even harder to imagine how all trace of the municipal institutions to which the Roman towns clung so obstinately should have so utterly disappeared. But more direct proofs of the wreck of the town meet us in the stray glimpses which we are able to get of its earlier topographical history. The story of early London is not that of a settled community slowly putting off the forms of Roman for those of English life, but of a number of little groups scattered here and there over the area within the walls, each growing up with its own life and institutions, gilds, sokes, religious houses, and the like, and only slowly drawing together into a municipal union which remained weak and imperfect even at the Norman Conquest. … Its position indeed was such that traffic could not fail to recreate the town; for whether a bridge or a ferry existed at this time, it was here that the traveller from Kent or Gaul would still cross the Thames, and it was from London that the roads still diverged which, silent and desolate as they had become, furnished the means of communication to any part of Britain."

"London may be said after this time [early in the 9th century] to be no longer the capital of one Saxon kingdom, but to be the special property of whichever king of whichever kingdom was then paramount in all England. When the supremacy of Mercia declined, and that of Wessex arose, London went to the conqueror. In 823, Egbert receives the submission of Essex, and in 827 he is in London, and in 833 a Witan is held there, at which he presides. Such are the scanty notes from which the history of London during the so-called Heptarchy must be compiled. … London had to bear the brunt of the attack [of the Danes] at first. Her walls wholly failed to protect her. Time after time the freebooters broke in. If the Saxons had spared anything of Roman London, it must have disappeared now. Massacre, slavery, and fire became familiar in her streets. At last the Danes seemed to have looked on her as their headquarters, and when, in 872, Alfred was forced to make truce with them, they actually retired to London as to their own city, to recruit. To Alfred, with his military experience and political sagacity, the possession of London was a necessity; but he had to wait long before he obtained it. His preparations were complete in 884. The story of the conflict is the story of his life. His first great success was the capture of London after a short siege: to hold it was the task of all his later years."

"We find them [the Londoners] active in the civil war of Stephen and Matilda. The famous bishop of Winchester tells the Londoners that they are almost accounted as noblemen on account of the greatness of their city; into the community of which it appears that some barons had been received. Indeed, the citizens, themselves, or at least the principal of them, were called barons. It was certainly by far the greatest city in England. There have been different estimates of its population, some of which are extravagant; but I think it could hardly have contained less than 30,000 or 40,000 souls within its walls; and the suburbs were very populous."

"The London of those days did not present the gigantic uniformity of the modern metropolis, and had not as yet become wholly absorbed in the whirl of business life. It was not as yet a whole province covered with houses, but a city of moderate size, surveyable from end to end, with walls and gates, beyond which lay pleasant suburbs. … Compared with the London of today, it possessed colour and the stamp of originality; for, as in the southern climes, business and domestic operations were carried on in the streets—and then the red houses with their woodwork, high gables, oriel windows and terraces, and the inhabitants in picturesque and gay attire. The upper circles of society did not, as yet, live apart in other districts; the nobility still had their mansions among the burgher class and the working people. Queen Elizabeth might be seen driving in an unwieldy gilt coach to some solemn service in St. Paul's Cathedral, or riding through the city to the Tower, to her hunting grounds, to a review of her troops, or might be seen starting for Richmond or Greenwich, accompanied by a brilliant retinue, on one of her magnificent barges that were kept in readiness close to where the theatres stood. Such a scene, with but little stretch of the imagination, might have led Shakespeare to think of the brilliant picture of Cleopatra on the Cydnus. The Thames was crossed by one bridge only, and was still pure and clear as crystal; swans swam about on it, and gardens and meadows lined its banks where we now have dusty wharfs and warehouses. Hundreds of boats would be skimming up and down the stream, and incessant would be the calls between the boatmen of 'Westward ho!' or 'Eastward ho!' And yet the loungers in the Temple Gardens and at Queenhithe could amuse themselves by catching salmon. {2037} In the streets crowds would be passing to and fro; above all, the well-known and dreaded apprentices, whose business it was to attract customers by calling out in front of the shops: 'What d'ye lack, gentles? what d'ye lack? My ware is best! Here shall you have your choice!' &c. Foreigners, too, of every nationality, resident in London, would be met with. Amid all this life every now and again would be seen the perambulation of one or other of the guilds, wedding processions, groups of country folk, gay companies of train-bands and archers. … The city was rich in springs and gardens, and the inhabitants still had leisure to enjoy their existence; time had not yet come to be synonymous with money, and men enjoyed their gossip at the barbers' and tobacconists' shops; at the latter, instruction was even given in the art of smoking, and in 1614 it is said that there were no less than 7,000 such shops in London. St. Paul's was a rendezvous for promenaders and idle folk; and on certain days, Smithfield and its Fair would be the centre of attraction; also Bartholomew Fair, with its puppet-shows and exhibitions of curiosities, where Bankes and his dancing-horse Morocco created a great sensation for a long time; Southwark, too, with its Paris Garden, attracted visitors to see the bear-baiting; it was here that the famous bear Sackerson put the women in a pleasant state of flutter; Master Slender had seen the bear loose twenty times, and taken it by the chain. No less attractive were the bowling-alleys, the fights at the Cock-pit and the tent-pegging in the tiltyard; and yet all these amusements were even surpassed by the newly-risen star of the theatre. … The population of London during the reign of the Bloody Mary is estimated by the Venetian ambassador, Giovanni Micheli, at 150,000, or, according to other MS. reports of his, at 180,000 souls. The population must have increased at an almost inconceivable rate, if we are to trust the reports of a second Venetian ambassador, Marc Antonio Correr, who, in 1610, reckoned the number of inhabitants at 300,000 souls; however, according to Raumer, another Venetian, Molino, estimated the population at 300,000 in 1607. The number of foreigners in London was extremely large, and in 1621 the colony of foreigners of all nations found settled there amounted to no less than 10,000 persons. Commerce, trade, and the industries were in a very flourishing state. The Thames alone, according to John Norden in his MS. description of Essex (1594), gave occupation to 40,000 men as boatmen, sailors, fishermen, and others. Great political and historical events had put new life into the English nation, and given it an important impetus, which manifested itself in London more especially, and exercised a stimulating influence upon literature and poetry. Indeed, it may be said that Shakespeare had the good fortune of having his life cast in one of the greatest historical periods, the gravitating point of which lay principally in London."

   "The water supply, it is now generally acknowledged, is the
   first cause of epidemic disease. In London, at the beginning
   of the reign of James I., it was threefold. Some water came to
   public conduits, like those in Cheap, by underground pipes
   from Tyburn. Some was drawn by water-wheels and other similar
   means from the Thames, polluted as it was, at London Bridge. A
   third source of supply was still more dangerous: in all the
   suburbs, and probably also in most houses in the city itself,
   people depended on wells. What wells among habitations, and
   especially filthy habitations, become, we know now, but in the
   17th century, and much later, the idea of their danger had not
   been started. Such being the conditions of existence in
   London; the plague now and then smouldering for a year or two,
   now and then breaking out as in 1603, 1625, and 1636, a long
   drouth, which means resort to half dry and stagnant
   reservoirs, was sufficient to call it forth in all its
   strength. The heat of the summer weather in 1665 was such that
   the very birds of the air were imagined to languish in their
   flight. The 7th of June, said Pepys, was the hottest day that
   ever he felt in his life. The deaths from the plague, which
   had begun at the end of the previous year, in the suburb of
   St. Giles' in the Fields, at a house in Long Acre, where two
   Frenchmen had died of it, rose during June from 112 to 268.
   The entries in the diary are for four months almost continuous
   as to the progress of the plague. Although it was calculated
   that not less than 200,000 people had followed the example of
   the king and court, and fled from the doomed city, yet the
   deaths increased daily. The lord mayor, Lawrence, held his
   ground, as did the brave earl of Craven and General Monk, now
   became duke of Albemarle. Craven provided a burial-ground, the
   Pest Field, with a kind of cottage-hospital in Soho; but the
   only remedy that could be devised by the united wisdom of the
   corporation, fortified by the presence of the duke and the
   earl, was to order fires in all the streets, as if the weather
   was not already hot enough. Medical art seems to have utterly
   broken down. Those of the sick who were treated by a
   physician, only died a more painful death by cupping,
   scarifying and blistering. The city rectors, too, who had come
   back with the king, fled from the danger, as might be expected
   from their antecedents, and the nonconformist lecturers who
   remained had overwhelming congregations wherever they preached
   repentence to the terror-stricken people. … The symptoms
   were very distressing. Fever and vomiting were among the
   first, and every little ailment was thought premonitory, so
   that it was said at the time that as many died of fright as of
   the disease itself. … The fatal signs were glandular
   swellings which ran their course in a few hours, the plague
   spots turning to gangrene almost as soon as they appeared. The
   patients frequently expired the same day that they were
   seized. … The most terrible stories of premature burial were
   circulated. All business was suspended. Grass grew in the
   streets. No one went about. The rumbling wheels of the cart,
   and the cry, 'Bring out your dead!' alone broke the stillness
   of the night. … In the first weeks of September the number
   of fatal cases rose to 1,500 a day, the bills of mortality
   recording 24,000 deaths between the 1st and 21st of that
   month. Then at last it began to decline, but rose again at the
   beginning of October.
{2038}
   A change of weather at length occurred, and the average
   declined so rapidly that, by the beginning of November, the
   number of deaths was reduced to 1,200, and before Christmas
   came it had fallen to the usual number of former years. In
   all, the official statements enumerated 97,306 deaths during
   the year, and, if we add those unrecorded, a very moderate
   estimate of the whole mortality would place it at the
   appalling figure of 100,000 at least."

"While the war [with the Dutch] continued without any decisive success on either side, a calamity happened in London which threw the people into great consternation. Fire, breaking out [September 2, 1666] in a baker's house near the bridge, spread itself on all sides with such rapidity that no efforts could extinguish it, till it laid in ashes a considerable part of the city. The inhabitants, without being able to provide effectually for their relief, were reduced to be spectators of their own ruin; and were pursued from street to street by the flames which unexpectedly gathered round them. Three days and nights did the fire advance; and it was only by the blowing up of houses that it was at last extinguished. … About 400 streets and 13,000 houses were reduced to ashes. The causes of the calamity were evident. The narrow streets of London, the houses built entirely of wood, the dry season, and a violent east wind which blew; these were so many concurring circumstances which rendered it easy to assign the reason of the destruction that ensued. But the people were not satisfied with this obvious account. Prompted by blind rage, some ascribed the guilt to the republicans, others to the Catholics. … The fire of London, though at that time a great calamity, has proved in the issue beneficial both to the city and the kingdom. The city was rebuilt in a very little time, and care was taken to make the streets wider and more regular than before. … London became much more healthy after the fire."

"I went this morning [September 7] on foot from Whitehall as far as London Bridge, thro' the late Fleete-street, Ludgate hill, by St. Paules, Cheapeside, Exchange, Bishopsgate, Aldersgate, and out to Moorefields, thence through Cornehill, &c., with extraordinary difficulty, clambering over heaps of yet smoking rubbish, and frequently mistaking where I was. The ground under my feete so hot, that it even burnt the soles of my shoes. … At my returne I was infinitely concerned to find that goodly Church St. Paules now a sad ruine. … Thus lay in ashes that most venerable church, one of the most ancient pieces of early piety in ye Christian world, besides neere 100 more. … In five or six miles traversing about I did not see one loade of timber unconsum'd, nor many stones but what were calcin'd white as snow. … I then went towards Islington and Highgate, where one might have seen 200,000 people of all ranks and degrees dispers'd and lying along by their heaps of what they could save from the fire, deploring their losse, and tho' ready to perish for hunger and destitution, yet not asking one penny for reliefe, which to me appear'd a stranger sight than any I had yet beheld."

LONDON: A. D. 1685.
The most populous capital in Europe.
The first lighting of the streets.

"There is reason to believe that, in 1685, London had been, during about half a century, the most populous capital in Europe. The inhabitants, who are now [1848] at least 1,900,000, were then probably little more than half a million. London had in the world only one commercial rival, now long ago outstripped, the mighty and opulent Amsterdam. … There is, indeed, no doubt that the trade of the metropolis then bore a far greater proportion than at present to the whole trade of the country; yet to our generation the honest vaunting of our ancestors must appear almost ludicrous. The shipping which they thought incredibly great appears not to have exceeded 70,000 tons. This was, indeed, then more than a third of the whole tonnage of the kingdom. … It ought to be noticed that, in the last year of the reign of Charles II. [1685], began a great change in the police of London, a change which has perhaps added as much to the happiness of the body of the people as revolutions of much greater fame. An ingenious projector, named Edward Heming, obtained letters patent conveying to him, for a term of years, the exclusive right of lighting up London. He undertook, for a moderate consideration, to place a light before every tenth door, on moonless nights, from Michaelmas to Lady Day, and from six to twelve of the clock."

The ignominious flight of James II. from his capital, on the morning of December 11, 1688, was followed by a wild outbreak of riot in London, which no effective authority existed to promptly repress. To the cry of "No Popery," Roman Catholic chapels and the residences of ambassadors of Roman Catholic States, were sacked and burned. "The morning of the 12th of December rose on a ghastly sight. The capital in many places presented the aspect of a city taken by storm. The Lords met at Whitehall, and exerted themselves to restore tranquillity. … In spite, however, of the well-meant efforts of the provisional government, the agitation grew hourly more formidable. … Another day of agitation and terror closed, and was followed by a night the strangest and most terrible that England had ever seen." Just before his flight, King James had sent an order for the disbanding of Ins army, which had been composed for the most part of troops brought over from Ireland. A terrifying rumor that this disbanded Irish soldiery was marching on London, and massacring men, women and children on the road, now spread through the city. "At one in the morning the drums of the militia beat to arms. Everywhere terrified women were weeping and wringing their hands, while their fathers and husbands were equipping themselves for fight. Before two the capital wore a face of stern preparedness which might well have daunted a real enemy, if such an enemy had been approaching. Candles were blazing at all the windows. The public places were as bright as at noonday. All the great avenues were barricaded. More than 20,000 pikes and muskets lined the streets. The late daybreak of the winter solstice found the whole City still in arms. During many years the Londoners retained a vivid recollection of what they called the Irish Night. … The panic had not been confined to London. The cry that disbanded Irish soldiers were coming to murder the Protestants had, with malignant ingenuity, been raised at once in many places widely distant from each other."

LONDON COMPANY FOR VIRGINIA, A. D. 1606-1625.
Charter and undertakings in Virginia.

LONDON COMPANY FOR VIRGINIA. D. 1619.
The unused patent granted to the Pilgrims at Leyden.

See INDEPENDENTS OR SEPARATISTS: A. D. 1617-1620;
and, also, MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1620, and 1621.

James II. fled in December, 1688, to France, from the Revolution in England which gave his throne to his daughter Mary, and her husband, William of Orange. He received aid from the French king and was landed in Ireland the following March, to attempt the maintenance of his sovereignty in that kingdom, if no more. Almost immediately upon his arrival he led his forces against Londonderry, where a great part of the Protestants of Ulster had taken refuge, and William and Mary had been proclaimed. "The city in 1689 was contained within the walls; and it rose by a gentle ascent from the base to the summit of a hill. The whole city was thus exposed to the fire of an enemy. There was no moat nor counterscarp. A ferry crossed the river Foyle from the east gate, and the north gate opened upon a quay. At the entrance of the Foyle was the strong fort of Culmore, with a smaller fort on the opposite bank. About two miles below the city were two forts—Charles Fort and Grange Fort. The trumpeter sent by the king with a summons to the obstinate city found the inhabitants 'in very great disorder, having turned out their governor Lundy, upon suspicion.' The cause of this unexpected reception was the presence of 'one Walker, a minister.' He was opposed to Lundy, who thought the place untenable, and counselled the townsmen to make conditions; 'but the fierce minister of the Gospel, being of the true Cromwellian or Cameronian stamp, inspired them with bolder resolutions.' The reverend George Walker and Major Baker were appointed governors during the siege. They mustered 7,020 soldiers, dividing them into regiments under eight colonels. In the town there were about 30,000 souls; but they were reduced to a less burdensome number, by 10,000 accepting an offer of the besieging commander to restore them to their dwellings. There were, according to Lundy's estimation, only provisions for ten days. The number of cannon possessed by the besieged was only twenty. On the 20th of April the city was invested, and the bombardment was begun. … No impression was made during nine days upon the determination to hold out; and on the 29th King James retraced his steps to Dublin, in considerable ill humour. The siege went on for six weeks with little change. Hamilton was now the commander of James's forces. The garrison of Londonderry and the inhabitants were gradually perishing from fatigue and insufficient food. But they bravely repelled an assault, in which 400 of the assailants fell. … Across the narrow part of the river, from Charles Fort to Grange Fort, the enemy stretched a great boom of fir-timber, joined by iron chains, and fastened on either shore by cables of a foot thick. On the 15th of June an English fleet of thirty sail was descried in the Lough. Signals were given and answered; but the ships lay at anchor for weeks. At the end of June, Baker, one of the heroic governors, died. Hamilton had been superseded in his command by Rosen, who issued a savage proclamation, declaring that unless the place were surrendered by the 1st of July, he would collect all the Protestants from the neighbouring districts, and drive them under the walls of the city to starve with those within the walls. A famished troop came thus beneath the walls of Londonderry, where they lay starving for three days. The besieged immediately threatened to hang all the prisoners within the city. This threat had its effect, and the famished crowd wended back their way to their solitary villages. It is but justice to James to say that he expressed his displeasure at this proceeding."

   "The state of the city was, hour by hour, becoming more
   frightful. The number of the inhabitants had been thinned more
   by famine and disease than by the fire of the enemy. Yet that
   fire was sharper and more constant than ever. … Every attack
   was still repelled. But the fighting men of the garrison were
   so much exhausted that they could scarcely keep their legs.
   Several of them, in the act of striking at the enemy, fell
   down from mere weakness. A very small quantity of grain
   remained, and was doled out by mouthfuls. The stock of salted
   hides was considerable, and by gnawing them the garrison
   appeased the rage of hunger. Dogs, fattened on the blood of
   the slain who lay unburied round the town, were luxuries which
   few could afford to purchase. The price of a whelp's paw was
   five shillings and sixpence. Nine horses were still alive, and
   but barely alive. They were so lean that little meat was
   likely to be found upon them. It was, however, determined to
   slaughter them for food. … The whole city was poisoned by
   the stench exhaled from the bodies of the dead and of the half
   dead. … It was no slight aggravation of the sufferings of
   the garrison that all this time the English ships were seen
   far off in Lough Foyle." At length, positive orders from
   England compelled Kirke, the commander of the relieving
   expedition "to make an attempt which, as far as appears, he
   might have made, with at least an equally fair prospect of
   success, six weeks earlier." Two merchant ships, the Mountjoy
   and the Phœnix, loaded with provisions, and the Dartmouth, a
   frigate of thirty-six guns, made a bold dash up the river,
   broke the great boom, ran the gauntlet of forts and batteries,
   and reached the city at ten o'clock in the evening of the 28th
   of July.
{2040}
   The captain of the Mountjoy was killed in the heroic
   undertaking, but Londonderry, his native town, was saved. The
   enemy continued their bombardment for three days more. "But,
   on the third night, flames were seen arising from the camp;
   and, when the first of August dawned, a line of smoking ruins
   marked the site lately occupied by the huts of the besiegers.
   … So ended this great siege, the most memorable in the
   annals of the British isles. It had lasted 105 days. The
   garrison had been reduced from about 7,000 effective men to
   about 3,000. The loss of the besiegers cannot be precisely
   ascertained. Walker estimated it at 8,000 men."

LONE STAR FLAG. LONE STAR STATE.

On assuming independence, in 1836, the republic of Texas adopted a flag bearing a single star, which was known as 'the flag of the lone Star.' With reference to this emblem, Texas is often called the Lone Star State.

LONG ISLAND: A. D. 1650. Division between the Dutch of New Netherland and the English of Connecticut.

LONG PARLIAMENT.

LONG WALLS OF ATHENS.

The walls which the Athenians built, B. C. 457, one, four miles long, to the harbor of Phalerum, and others, four and one half miles long, to the Piræus, to protect the communication of their city with its port, were called the Long Walls. The same name had been previously given to the walls built by the Athenians to protect the communication of Megara, then their ally, with its port of Nisæa; and Corinth had, also, its Long Walls, uniting it with the port Lechæum. The Long Walls of Athens were destroyed on the surrender of the city, at the termination of the Peloponnesian War, B. C. 404, and rebuilt, B. C. 393, by Conon, with Persian help.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER: TENNESSEE); and (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER: TENNESSEE).

LOPEZ FILIBUSTERING EXPEDITION (1851).

LORD.

"Every Teutonic King or other leader was surrounded by a band of chosen warriors, personally attached to him of their own free choice [see COMITATUS]. … The followers served their chief in peace and in war; they fought for him to the death, and rescued or avenged his life with their own. In return, they shared whatever gifts or honours the chief could distribute among them; and in our tongue at least it was his character of dispenser of gifts which gave the chief his official title. He was the 'Hlaford,' the 'Loaf-giver,' a name which, through a series of softenings and contractions, and with a complete forgetfulness of its primitive meaning, has settled down into the modern form of Lord."

LORD DUNMORE'S WAR.

"The ancient National Assembly [of England] gradually ceased to be anything more than an assembly of the 'greater barons,' and ultimately developed into a hereditary House of Lords, the Upper House of the National Parliament. The hereditary character of the House of Lords—now long regarded as fixed and fundamental—accrued slowly and undesignedly, as a consequence of the hereditary descent of the baronial fiefs, practically inalienable, in right of which summonses to the national council were issued."

   "The English aristocracy is a typical example of the way in
   which a close corporation dies out. Its members are almost
   always wealthy in the first instance, and their estates have
   been constantly added to by favour from the Crown, by
   something like the monopoly of the best Government
   appointments, and by marriages with wealthy heiresses. They
   are able to command the field sports and open-air life that
   conduce to health, and the medical advice that combats
   disease. Nevertheless, they die out so rapidly that only five
   families out of nearly six hundred go back without a break,
   and in the male line, to the fifteenth century. … 155 peers
   were summoned to the first Parliament of James II. In 1825,
   only 140 years later, only forty-eight of these nobles were
   represented by lineal descendants in the male line. The family
   has in several instances been continued by collaterals begging
   the peerage, which they could not have claimed at law, and in
   this way the change may seem less than it has really been; but
   the broad result appears to be that left to itself from 1688,
   with new creations absolutely forbidden, the House of Lords
   would by this time have been practically extinguished.
{2041}
   Of Charles II. 's six bastards, who were made dukes, only
   three have perpetuated the race. Three peerages have been lost
   to the Howard family, three to the Greys, two to the
   Mordaunts, two to the Hydes, two to the Gerards, and two to
   the Lucases. … It is in the lower strata of society that we
   have to seck for the springs of national life."

"The British peerage is something unique in the world. In England there is, strictly speaking, no nobility. This saying may indeed sound like a paradox. The English nobility, the British aristocracy, are phrases which are in everybody's mouth. Yet, in strictness, there is no such thing as an aristocracy or a nobility in England. There is undoubtedly an aristocratic element in the English constitution; the House of Lords is that aristocratic element. And there have been times in English history when there has been a strong tendency to aristocracy, when the lords have been stronger than either the king or the people. … But a real aristocracy, like that of Venice, an aristocracy not only stronger than either king or people, but which had driven out both king and people, an aristocracy from whose ranks no man can come down and into whose ranks no man can rise save by the act of the privileged body itself,—such an aristocracy as this England has never seen. Nor has England ever seen a nobility in the true sense, the sense which the word bears in every continental land, a body into which men may be raised by the king, but from which no man may come down, a body which hands on to all its members, to the latest generations, some kind of privilege or distinction, whether its privileges consist in substantial political power, or in bare titles and precedence. In England there is no nobility. The so-called noble family is not noble in the continental sense; privilege does not go on from generation to generation; titles and precedence are lost in the second or third generation; substantial privilege exists in only one member of the family at a time. The powers and privileges of the peer himself are many; but they belong to himself only; his children are legally commoners; his grandchildren are in most cases undistinguishable from other commoners. … A certain great position in the state is hereditary; but nobility in the strict sense there is none. The actual holder of the peerage has, as it were, drawn to his own person the whole nobility of the family."

E. A. Freeman, Practical Bearings of European History (Lectures to American Audiences), pages 305-307.

   "At the end of 1892 there were 545 members of the House of
   Lords, made up thus:
   Peers, 469;
   Lords of Appeal and Ex-Lords of Appeal, 5;
   Representative Peers of Scotland, 16;
   Representative Peers of Ireland, 28;
   Lords Spiritual, 27.

The Lords of Appeal are lawyers of great distinction who are appointed by the Queen and hold office during good behavior. Their number is always about the same. Their work is mainly judicial; but these Law Lords, as they are called, also speak and vote in the deliberative and legislative proceedings of the Upper House. The position of a Lord of Appeal differs from that of an ordinary peer in that his office is not hereditary. As regards the representative peers, those from Ireland, who number 28, are elected for life; those from Scotland, who number 16, are elected at a meeting of Scotch peers, held in Holyrood Palace, Edinburgh, after each General Election, and hold office during the lifetime of a Parliament. The Lords Spiritual include (1) the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Archbishop of York, the Bishops of London, Durham, and Winchester; and (2) twenty-two out of the other twenty-nine bishops of the Church of England. The prelates whose titles have been given take their seats in the House immediately on appointment; the other bishops take their seats by order of seniority of consecration. The prelates who are without seats in the House of Lords are known as junior bishops. The Bishop of Sodor and Man has a seat in the House of Lords, but no vote."

LORDS OF ARTICLES.

LORDS OF THE CONGREGATION.

LORDS OF THE ISLES.

In the division of the empire of Charlemagne among his three grandsons, made by the treaty of Verdun, A. D. 843, the elder, Lothaire, bearing the title of Emperor, received the kingdom of Italy, and, with it, another kingdom, named, after himself, Lotharingia—afterwards called Lorraine. This latter was so formed as to be an extension northwestwardly of his Italian kingdom, and to stretch in a long belt between the Germanic dominion of his brother Ludwig and the Francia Nova, or France, of his brother Charles. It extended "from the mouth of the Rhine to Provence, bounded by that river on one frontier, by France on the other."

"Between these two states [of the Eastern and Western, or Germanic and Gallic Franks] the policy of the ninth century instinctively put a barrier, The Emperor Lothar, besides Italy, kept a long narrow strip of territory between the dominions of his Eastern and Western brothers. … This land, having … been the dominion of two Lothars, took the name of Lotharingia, Lothringen, or Lorraine, a name which part of it has kept to this day. This land, sometimes attached to the Eastern kingdom, sometimes to the Western, sometimes divided between the two, sometimes separated from both, always kept its character of a border-land. … Lotharingia took in the two duchies of the Ripuarian Lotharingia and Lotharingia on the Mosel. The former contains a large part of the modern Belgium and the neighboring lands on the Rhine, including the royal city of Aachen. Lotharingia on the Mosel answers roughly to the later duchy of that name, though its extent to the East is considerably larger."

"Upon the death of the Emperor Lothair [A. D. 855] his share of the Carlovingian inheritance, the Kingdom acquired by disobedience, violence, deceit and fraud, sustained further partitions: Lothair's piece of the rent garment was clutched and tattered again and again by his nearest of kin, his three sons, and their two uncles, and the sons and the sons' sons of his sons and uncles, till the lineage ended. … The Emperor Lothair had directed and confirmed the partition of his third of the Carlovingian Empire, appointed to him by the treaty of Verdun." His namesake, his second son, Lothair II., received the kingdom called "Lotharingia, Lothierregne, or Lorraine," and which is defined in the terms of modern geography as follows: "The thirteen Cantons of Switzerland with their allies and tributaries, East or Free Friesland, Oldenburgh, the whole of the United Netherlands, all other territories included in the Archbishopric of Utrecht, the Trois Evéchés, Metz, Toul and Verdun, the electorates of Trèves and of Cologne, the Palatine Bishopric of Liège, Alsace and Franche-Comté, Hainault and the Cambresis, Brabant (known in intermediate stages as Basse-Lorraine, or the Duchy of Lohier), Namur, Juliers and Cleves, Luxemburgh and Limburg, the Duchy of Bar and the Duchy which retained the name of Lorraine, the only memorial of the antient and dissolved kingdom. … After King Lothair's death [A. D. 869] nine family competitors successively came into the field for that much-coveted Lotharingia." Charles the Bald, one of the uncles of the deceased king,—he who held the Neustrian or French dominion,—took possession and got himself crowned king of Lotharingia. But the rival uncle, Louis the German, soon forced him (A. D. 870) to a division of the spoils. "The lot of Charles consisted of Burgundy and Provence, and most of those Lotharingian dominions where the French or Walloon tongue was and yet is spoken; … he also took some purely Belgic territories, especially that very important district successively known as Basse-Lorraine, the Duchy of Lohier, and Brabant. Modern history is dawning fast upon us. Louis-le-Germanique received Aix-la-Chapelle, Cologne, Treves, Utrecht, Strasburgh, Metz,—indeed nearly all the territories of the Belgic and German tongues."

The definite separation of the East Franks, who ultimately constituted the Germany of modern history, from the West or Neustrian Franks, out of whose political organization sprang the kingdom of France, took place in 911, when the Franconian duke Conrad was elected king by the Germanic nations, and the rule of the Carolingian princes was ended for them. In this proceeding Lotharingia, or Lorraine, refused to concur. "Nobles and people held to the old imperial dynasty. … Opinions, customs, traditions, still rendered the Lotharingians mainly members of Romanized Gaul. They severed themselves from the Germans beyond the Rhine, separated by influences more powerful than the stream." The Lotharingians, accordingly, repudiated the sovereignty of Conrad and placed themselves under the rule of Charles the Simple, the Carolingian king then struggling to maintain his slender throne at Laon. "Twice did King Conrad attempt to win Lotharingia and reunite the Rhine-kingdom to the German realm: he succeeded in obtaining Alsace, but the remainder was resolutely retained by Charles." In 916 this remainder was constituted a duchy, by Charles, and conferred upon Gilbert, son of Rainier, Count of Hainault, who had been the leader of the movement against Conrad and the Germanic nations. A little later, when the Carolingian dynasty was near its end, Henry the Fowler and his son Otho, the great German king who revived the empire, recovered the suzerainty of Lorraine, and Otho gave it to his brother Bruno, Archbishop of Cologne. Under Bruno it was divided into two parts, Upper and Lower Lorraine. Lower Lorraine was subsequently conferred by Otho II. upon his cousin Charles, brother to Lothaire, the last of the French Carolingian kings. "The nature and extent of this same grant has been the subject of elaborate critical enquiry; but, for our purposes, it is sufficient to know, that Charles is accepted by all the historical disputants as first amongst the hereditary Dukes of the 'Basse-Lorraine'; and, having received investiture, he became a vassal of the Emperor." In 980, this disposition of Lower Lorraine was ratified by Lothaire, the French king, who, "abandoning all his rights and pretensions over Lorraine, openly and solemnly renounced the dominions, and granted the same to be held without let or interference from the French, and be subjected for ever to the German Empire."

Sir F. Palgrave, History of Normandy and England, book 1, part 2, chapter 1 and chapter 4, part 2.

"Lotharingia retained its Carolingian princes, but it retained them only by definitively becoming a fief of the Teutonic Kingdom. Charles died in prison, but his children continued to reign in Lotharingia as vassals of the Empire. Lotharingia was thus wholly lost to France; that portion of it which was retained by the descendants of Charles in the female line still preserves its freedom as part of the independent Kingdom of Belgium."

E. A. Freeman, History of the Norman Conquest of England, chapter 4, section 4 (volume 1).

LORRAINE: A. D. 1430.
   Acquisition of the duchy by René, Duke of Anjou
   and Count of Provence, afterwards King of Naples.
   Union with Bar.

LORRAINE: A. D. 1505-1559.
Rise of the Guises, a branch of the ducal house.
Cession to France of Les Trois Evéchés.

LORRAINE: A. D. 1624-1663.
   Quarrels and war of Duke Charles IV. with Richelieu and France.
   Ruin and depopulation of the duchy.
   Its possession by the French.

Early in Richelieu's administration of the French government, the first steps were taken towards the union of Lorraine with France. "Its situation, as well as its wealth and fertility, made it an acquisition specially valuable to that kingdom. … Lorraine had long been ruled by the present family of dukes, and in its government more had remained of feudal usages than in the monarchy that had grown up beside it. The character and career of the members of the house of Guise had brought Lorraine into very intimate connection with France, and the closeness of its relations added danger to its position as an independent state. Charles IV. became Duke of Lorraine in 1624 by virtue of the rights of his cousin and wife, the daughter of the last duke. … {2043} He soon began to take part in the intrigues of the French Court, and he enrolled himself among the lovers of Mme. de Chevreuse and the enemies of Richelieu. … Richelieu had long sought occasion for offence against the Duke Charles. The Duke of Lorraine was bound to do honor to the French king for the Duchy of Bar [which was a fief of the French crown, while Lorraine was an imperial fief], a duty which was often omitted, and the agents of Richelieu discovered that France had ancient and valid claims to other parts of his territory. His relations with France were rendered still more uncertain by his own untrustworthy character. To tell the truth or to keep his agreement were equally impossible for Duke Charles, and he was dealing with a man with whom it was dangerous to trifle. Gustavus Adolphus had invaded Germany, and the Duke of Lorraine was eager in defending the cause of the Emperor. In January, 1632, he was forced to make a peace with France, by which he agreed to make no treaty with any other prince or state without the knowledge and permission of the French king. Charles paid no attention to this treaty, and for all these causes in June, 1632, Louis [XIII.] invaded his dominions. They lay open to the French army, and no efficient opposition could be made. On June 26th Charles was forced to sign a second treaty, by which he surrendered the city and county of Clermont, and also yielded the possession for four years of the citadels of Stenay and Jametz. … This treaty made little change in the condition of affairs. Charles continued to act in hostility to the Swedes, to assist Gaston [Duke of Orleans, the rebellious and troublesome brother of Louis XIII., who had married Margaret of Lorraine, the Duke's sister], and in every way to violate the conditions of the treaty he had made. He seethed resolved to complete his own ruin, and he did not have to wait long for its accomplishment. In 1633 Louis a second time invaded Lorraine, and the Swedes, in return for the duke's hostility to them, also entered the province. Charles' forces were scattered and he was helpless, but he was as false as he was weak. He promised to surrender his sister Margaret, and he allowed her to escape. He sent his brother to make a treaty and then refused to ratify it. At last, he made the most disadvantageous treaty that was possible, and surrendered his capital, Nancy, the most strongly-fortified city of Lorraine, into Louis' possession until all difficulties should be settled between the king and the duke, which, as Richelieu said, might take till eternity. In January, 1634, Charles pursued his eccentric career by granting all his rights in the duchy to his brother, the Cardinal of Lorraine. The new duke also married a cousin in order to unite the rights of the two branches. … Charles adopted the life of a wandering soldier of fortune, which was most to his taste, and commanded the imperial forces at the battle of Nordlingen. He soon assumed again the rights which he had ceded, but his conduct rendered them constantly less valuable. The following years were filled with struggles with France, which resulted in her taking possession of still more of Lorraine, until its duke was entirely a fugitive. Such struggles brought upon its inhabitants a condition of constantly increasing want and misery. … It was ravaged by the hordes of the Duke of Weimar and the Swedes [see GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639], and on every side were pillage and burning and murders. Famine followed, and the horrors perpetrated from it were said to be more than could be described. Richelieu himself wrote that the inhabitants of Lorraine were mostly dead, villages burned, cities deserted, and a century would not entirely restore the country. Vincent de Paul did much of his charitable work in that unhappy province. … The duke at last, in 1641, came as a suppliant to Richelieu to ask for his duchy, and it was granted him, but on the condition that Stenay, Dun, Jametz, and Clermont should be united to France, that Nancy should remain in the king's possession until the peace, and that the duke should assist France with his troops against all enemies whenever required. … Charles was hardly back in his dominions before he chose to regard the treaty he had made as of no validity, and in July he violated it openly, and shortly took refuge with the Spanish army. … Thereupon the French again invaded Lorraine, and by October, 1641, practically the whole province was in their hands. It so continued until 1663."

"The faithfulness with which he [the Duke of Lorraine] adhered to his alliance with Austria, in spite of threatened losses, formed in the end a strong bond of reciprocal attachment and sympathy between the Hapsburgs and the Princes of Lorraine, which, at a later day, became even firmer, and finally culminated in the marriage of Stephen of Lorraine and Maria Theresa."

      A. Gindely,
      History of the Thirty Years' War,
      volume 2, chapter 6, section 3.

LORRAINE: A. D. 1648.
Desertion of the cause of the duke in the
Peace of Westphalia.

LORRAINE: A. D. 1680. Entire absorption of Les Trois Evêchés in France with boundaries extended by the Chamber of Reannexation.

LORRAINE: A. D. 1735.
Ceded to France.
Reversion of Tuscany secured to the former duke.

LORRAINE: A. D. 1871-1879. Organization of the government of Alsace-Lorraine as a German imperial province.

LOSANTIVILLE.

In 1470 an insurrection against the government of King Edward IV. broke out in Lincolnshire, England under the lead of Sir Robert Welles, who raised the Lancastrian standard of King Henry. The insurgents were vigorously attacked by Edward, at a place near Stamford, when the greater part of them "flung away their coats and took to flight, leaving their leader a prisoner in the hands of his enemies. The manner in which the rebels were dispersed caused the action to be spoken of as the battle of Lose-coat Field."

LOST TEN TRIBES OF ISRAEL.

Lothaire I., King of Italy and Rhineland, 817-855;
King of Lotharingia, and titular Emperor, 843-855.

LOTHARINGIA.

LOTHIAN.

   Louis I. (called The Pious),
   Emperor of the West, A. D. 814-840;
   King of Aquitaine, 781-814;
   King of the Franks, 814-840.

   Louis I. (called The Great),
   King of Hungary, 1342-1382;
   King of Poland, 1370-1382.

   Louis I.,
   King of Naples, 1382-1384;
   Count of Provence and Duke of Anjou, 1339-1384.

   Louis II.,
   King of Naples, 1389-1399;
   Duke of Anjou and Count of Provence, 1384-1417.

   Louis III.,
   King of the Franks (Northern France), 879-882;
   East Franks (Germany—in association with Carloman), 876-881.

Louis III., Duke of Anjou, Count of Provence, and titular King of Naples, 1417-1434.

   Louis V. (of Bavaria),
   Emperor, 1327-1347;
   King of Germany (in rivalry with Frederick III.), 1313-1347;
   King of Italy, 1327-1347.

   Louis X. (called Le Hutin, or The Brawler),
   King of France, 1314-1316;
   King of Navarre, 1305-1316.

Louis XVII., nominal King of France, 1793-1796, during the Revolution; died in prison, aged twelve years.

LOUISBOURG: A. D. 1758-1760.
Final capture and destruction of the place by the English.

LOUISIANA: A. D. 1629.
Mostly embraced in the Carolina grant to Sir Robert Heath, by
Charles I. of England.

LOUISIANA: A. D. 1682.
Named and possession taken for the king of France, by La
Salle.

LOUISIANA: A. D. 1698-1712.
   Iberville's colonization.
   Separation in government from New France.
   Crozat's monopoly.
   The French territorial claim.

"The court of France had been engaged in wars and political intrigues, and nothing toward colonizing Louisiana had been effected since the disastrous expedition of La Salle. Twelve years had elapsed, but his discoveries and his unfortunate fate had not been forgotten. At length, in 1698, an expedition for colonizing the region of the Lower Mississippi was set on foot by the French king. It was placed under the command of M. D'Iberville, who had been an experienced and distinguished naval commander in the French wars of Canada, and a successful agent in establishing colonies in Canada, Acadie and Cape Breton. … With his little fleet of two frigates, rating 30 guns each, and two smaller vessels, bearing a company of marines and 200 colonists, including a few women and children, he prepared to set sail from France for the mouth of the Mississippi. The colonists were mostly soldiers who had served in the armies of France and had received an honorable discharge. They were well supplied with provisions and implements requisite for opening settlements in the wilderness. It was on the 24th day of September, 1698, that this colony sailed from Rochelle." On the 2d of the following March, after considerable exploration of the coast, west from the Spanish settlement at Pensacola, Iberville found the mouth of the Mississippi, being confirmed in the identification of it by discovery of a letter, in the hands of the Indians, which Tonti had written to La Salle thirteen years before. "Soon afterward, Iberville selected a site and began to erect a fort upon the northeast shore of the Bay of Biloxi, about fifteen miles north of Ship Island. Here, upon a sandy shore, and under a burning sun, upon a pine barren, he settled his colony, about 80 miles northeast from the present city of New Orleans. … Having thus located his colony, and protected them [by a fort] from the danger of Indian treachery and hostility, he made other provision for their comfort and security, and then set sail for France, leaving his two brothers, Sauvolle and Bienville, as his lieutenants." The following September an English corvette appeared in the river, intending to explore it, but was warned off by the French, and retired. During the summer of 1699 the colonists suffered terribly from the maladies of the region, and M. Sauvolle, with many others, died. {2045} "Early in December following D'Iberville returned with an additional colony and a detachment of troops, in company with several vessels of war. Up to this time, the principal settlements had been at Ship Island and on the Bay of Biloxi; others had been begun at the Bay of St. Louis and on the Bay of Mobile. These were made as a matter of convenience, to hold and occupy the country; for his principal object was to colonize the banks of the Mississippi itself." Iberville now built a fort and located a small colony at a point about 54 miles above the mouth of the river, and about 38 miles below the present city of New Orleans. The next year, having been joined by the veteran De Tonti with a party of French Canadians from the Illinois, Iberville ascended the river nearly 400 miles, formed a friendly alliance with the Natchez tribe of Indians, and selected for a future settlement the site of the present city of Natchez. "In the spring of 1702 war had been declared by England against France and Spain, and by order of the King of France the headquarters of the commandant were removed to the western bank of the Mobile River. This was the first European settlement within the present State of Alabama. The Spanish settlement at Pensacola was not remote; but as England was now the common enemy, the French and Spanish commandants arranged their boundary between Mobile and Pensacola Bays to be the Perdido River. … The whole colony of Southern Louisiana as yet did not number 30 families besides soldiers. Bilious fevers had cut off many of the first emigrants, and famine and Indian hostility now threatened the remainder." Two years later, Iberville was broken in health by an attack of yellow fever and retired to France. After six further years of hardship and suffering, the colony, in 1710, still "presented a population of only 380 souls, distributed into five settlements, remote from each other. These were on Ship Island, Cat Island, at Biloxi, Mobile, and on the Mississippi. … Heretofore the settlements of Louisiana had been a dependence on New France, or Canada, although separated by a wilderness of 2,000 miles in extent. Now it was to be made an independent government, responsible only to the crown, and comprising also the Illinois country under its jurisdiction. The government of Louisiana was accordingly placed [1711] in the hands of a governor-general. The headquarters, or seat of the colonial government, was established at Mobile, and a new fort was erected upon the site of the present city of Mobile. … In France it was still believed that Louisiana presented a rich field for enterprise and speculation. The court, therefore, determined to place the resources of the province under the influence of individual enterprise. For this purpose, a grant of exclusive privileges, in all the commerce of the province, for a term of 15 years, was made to Anthony Crozat, a rich and influential merchant of France. His charter was dated September 26th, 1712. At this time the limits of Louisiana, as claimed by France, were very extensive. As specified in the charter of Crozat, it was 'bounded by New Mexico on the west, by the English lands of Carolina on the east, including all the establishments, ports, havens, rivers, and principally the port and haven of the Isle of Dauphin, heretofore called Massacre; the River St. Louis, heretofore called Mississippi, from the edge of the sea as far as the Illinois together with the River St. Philip, heretofore called Missouri, the River St. Jerome, heretofore called Wabash, with all the lands, lakes, and rivers mediately or immediately flowing into any part of the River St. Louis or Mississippi.' Thus Louisiana, as claimed by France at that early period, embraced all the immense regions of the United States from the Alleghany Mountains on the east to the Rocky Mountains on the west, and northward to the great lakes of Canada."

J. W. Monette, History of the Discovery and Settlement of the Valley of the Mississippi, book 2, chapter 5 (volume 1).

Louisiana: A. D. 1717-1718.
Crozat's failure and John Law's Mississippi Bubble.
The founding of New Orleans.

   "Crozat's failure was, in the nature of things, foreordained.
   His scheme, indeed, proved a stumbling-block to the colony and
   a loss to himself. In five years (1717) he was glad to
   surrender his monopoly to the crown. From its ashes sprung the
   gigantic Mississippi Scheme of John Law, to whom all
   Louisiana, now including the Illinois country, was granted for
   a term of years. Compared with this prodigality Crozat's
   concession was but a plaything. It not only gave Law's Company
   proprietary rights to the soil, but power was conferred to
   administer justice, make peace or war with the natives, build
   forts, levy troops and with consent of the crown to appoint
   such military governors as it should think fitting. These
   extraordinary privileges were put in force by a royal edict,
   dated in September, 1717. The new company [called the Western
   Company] granted lands along the river to individuals or
   associated persons, who were sometimes actual emigrants,
   sometimes great personages who sent out colonists at their own
   cost, or again the company itself undertook the building up of
   plantations on lands reserved by it for the purpose. One
   colony of Alsatians was sent out by Law to begin a plantation
   on the Arkansas. Others, more or less flourishing, were
   located at the mouth of the Yazoo, Natchez and Baton Rouge.
   All were agricultural plantations, though in most cases the
   plantations themselves consisted of a few poor huts covered
   with a thatch of palm-leaves. The earliest forts were usually
   a square earthwork, strengthened with palisades about the
   parapet. The company's agricultural system was founded upon
   African slave labor. Slaves were brought from St. Domingo or
   other of the West India islands. By some their employment was
   viewed with alarm, because it was thought the blacks would
   soon outnumber the whites, and might some day rise and
   overpower them; but we find only the feeblest protest entered
   against the moral wrong of slavery in any record of the time.
   Negroes could work in the fields, under the burning sun, when
   the whites could not. Their labor cost no more than their
   maintenance. The planters easily adopted what, indeed, already
   existed among their neighbors. Self-interest stilled
   conscience. The new company wisely appointed Bienville
   governor. Three ships brought munitions, troops, and stores of
   every sort from France, with which to put new life into the
   expiring colony. It was at this time (February, 1718) that
   Bienville began the foundation of the destined metropolis of
   Louisiana. The spot chosen by him was clearly but a fragment
   of the delta which the river had been for ages silently
   building of its own mud and driftwood.
{2046}
   It had literally risen from the sea. Elevated only a few feet
   above sea-level, threatened with frequent inundation, and in
   its primitive estate a cypress swamp, it seemed little suited
   for the abode of men, yet time has confirmed the wisdom of the
   choice. Here, then, a hundred miles from the Gulf, on the
   alluvial banks of the great river, twenty-five convicts and as
   many carpenters were set to work clearing the ground and
   building the humble log cabins, which were to constitute the
   capital, in its infancy. The settlement was named New Orleans,
   in honor of the Regent, Orleans, who ruled France during the
   minority of Louis XV.

      ALSO IN:
      A. McF. Davis,
      Canada and Louisiana
      (Narrative and Critical History of America,
      volume 5, chapter 1).

LOUISIANA: A. D 1719-1750.
   Surrendered to the Crown.
   Massacre of French by the Natchez,
   and destruction of that tribe.
   Unsuccessful war with the Chickasaws.

"The same prodigality and folly which prevailed in France during the government of John Law, over credit and commerce, found their way to his western possessions; and though the colony then planted survived, and the city then founded became in time what had been hoped,—it was long before the influence of the gambling mania of 1718-19-20 passed a way. Indeed the returns from Louisiana never repaid the cost and trouble of protecting it, and, in 1732, the Company asked leave to surrender their privileges to the crown, a favor which was granted them. But though the Company of the West did little for the enduring welfare of the Mississippi valley, it did something; the cultivation of tobacco, indigo, rice, and silk, was introduced, the lead mines of Missouri were opened, though at vast expense and in hope of finding silver; and, in Illinois, the culture of wheat began to assume some degree of stability and of importance. In the neighborhood of the river Kaskaskia, Charlevoix found three villages, and about Fort Chartres, the head quarters of the Company in that region, the French were rapidly settling. All the time, however, during which the great monopoly lasted, was, in Louisiana, a time of contest and trouble. The English, who, from an early period, had opened commercial relations with the Chickasaws, through them constantly interfered with the trade of the Mississippi. Along the coast, from Pensacola to the Rio del Norte, Spain disputed the claims of her northern neighbor: and at length the war of the Natchez struck terror into the hearts of both white and red men. Amid that nation … D'Iberville had marked out Fort Rosalie [on the site of the present city of Natchez], in 1700, and fourteen years later its erection had been commenced. The French, placed in the midst of the natives, and deeming them worthy only of contempt, increased their demands and injuries until they required even the abandonment of the chief town of the Natchez, that the intruders might use its site for a plantation. The inimical Chickasaws heard the murmurs of their wronged brethren, and breathed into their ears counsels of vengeance; the sufferers determined on the extermination of their tyrants. On the 28th of November, 1729, every Frenchman in that colony died by the hands of the natives, with the exception of two mechanics: the women and children were spared. It was a fearful revenge, and fearfully did the avengers suffer for their murders. Two months passed by, and the French and Choctaws in one day took 60 of their scalps; in three months they were driven from their country and scattered among the neighboring tribes; and within two years the remnants of the nation, chiefs and people, were sent to St. Domingo and sold into slavery. So perished this ancient and peculiar race, in the same year in which the Company of the West yielded its grants into the royal hands. When Louisiana came again into the charge of the government of France, it was determined, as a first step, to strike terror into the Chickasaws, who, devoted to the English, constantly interfered with the trade on the Mississippi. For this purpose the forces of New France, from New Orleans to Detroit, were ordered to meet in the country of the inimical Indians, upon the 10th of May, 1736, to strike a blow which should be final." D'Artaguette, governor of Illinois, was promptly at the rendezvous, with a large force of Indians, and a small body of French, but Bienville, from the southern province, proved dilatory. After waiting ten days, D'Artaguette attacked the Chickasaws, carried two of their defenses, but fell and was taken prisoner in the assault of a third; whereupon his Indian allies fled. Bienville, coming up five days afterwards, was repulsed in his turn and retreated, leaving D'Artaguette and his captive companions to a fearful fate. "Three years more passed away, and again a French army of nearly 4,000 white, red and black men, was gathered upon the banks of the Mississippi, to chastise the Chickasaws. From the summer of 1739 to the spring of 1740, this body of men sickened and wasted at Fort Assumption, upon the site of Memphis. In March of the last named year, without a blow struck, peace was concluded, and the province of Louisiana once more sunk into inactivity. Of the ten years which followed we know but little that is interesting."

      ALSO IN:
      M. Dumont,
      Historical Memoirs
      (French's Historical Collections of Louisiana, part 5).

      C. Gayarre,
      Louisiana; its Colonial History and Romance,
      2d series, lectures 5-7.

      S. G. Drake,
      Aboriginal Races of North America,
      book 4, chapter 5.

"In the beginning of 1728 there came a vessel of the company with a considerable number of young girls, who had not been taken, like their predecessors, from houses of correction. The company had given to each of them a casket containing some articles of dress. From that circumstance they became known in the colony under the nickname of the 'filles à la cassette', or 'the casket girls.' … Subsequently, it became a matter of importance in the colony to derive one's origin from the casket girls, rather than from the correction girls."

LOUISIANA: A. D. 1763.
   East of the Mississippi, except New Orleans, ceded to
   Great Britain, and west of the Mississippi, with New Orleans,
   to Spain.

LOUISIANA: A. D. 1766-1768.
Spanish occupation and the revolt against it.
The short-lived republic of New Orleans.

"Spain accepted Louisiana [west of the Mississippi, with New Orleans] with reluctance, for she lost France as her bulwark, and, to keep the territory from England, assumed new expenses and dangers. Its inhabitants loved the land of their ancestry; by every law of nature and human freedom, they had the right to protest against the transfer of their allegiance." Their protests were unavailing, however, and their appeals met the response: "France cannot bear the charge of supporting the colony's precarious existence." In March, 1766, Antonio de Ulloa arrived at New Orleans from Havana, to take possession for the Spanish king. "Ulloa landed with civil officers, three capuchin monks, and 80 soldiers. His reception was cold and gloomy. He brought no orders to redeem the seven million livres of French paper money, which weighed down a colony of less than 6,000 white men. The French garrison of 300 refused to enter the Spanish service, the people to give up their nationality, and Ulloa was obliged to administer the government under the French flag by the old French officers, at the cost of Spain. In May of the same year, the Spanish restrictive system was applied to Louisiana; in September, an ordinance compelled French vessels having special permits to accept the paper currency in pay for their cargoes, at an arbitrary tariff of prices. … The ordinance was suspended, but not till the alarm had destroyed all commerce. Ulloa retired from New Orleans to the Balise. Only there, and opposite Natchez, and at the river Iberville, was Spanish jurisdiction directly exercised. This state of things continued for a little more than two years. But the arbitrary and passionate conduct of Ulloa, the depreciation of the currency with the prospect of its becoming an almost total loss, the disputes respecting the expenses incurred since the session of 1762, the interruption of commerce, a captious ordinance which made a private monopoly of the traffic with the Indians, uncertainty of jurisdiction and allegiance, agitated the colony from one end to the other. It was proposed to make of New Orleans a republic, like Amsterdam or Venice, with a legislative body of 40 men, and a single executive. The people of the country parishes crowded in a mass into the city, joined those of New Orleans, and formed a numerous assembly, in which Lafrénière, John Milhet, Joseph Milhet, and the lawyer Doucet were conspicuous. … On the 25th of October, 1768, they adopted an address to the superior council, written by Lafrénière and Caresse, rehearsing their griefs; and, in their petition of rights, they claimed freedom of commerce with the ports of France and America, and the expulsion of Ulloa from the colony. The address, signed by 500 or 600 persons, was adopted the next day by the council … ; when the French flag was displayed on the public square, children and women ran up to kiss its folds, and it was raised by 900 men, amid shouts of 'Long live the king of France! we will have no king but him.' Ulloa retreated to Havana, and sent his representations to Spain. The inhabitants elected their own treasurer and syndics, sent envoys to Paris, … and memorialized the French monarch to stand as intercessor between them and the Catholic king, offering no alternative but to be a colony of France or a free commonwealth."

G. Bancroft, History of the United States (Author's last revision), volume 3, pages 316-318.

   "It was the fate of the Creoles—possibly a climatic
   result—to be slack-handed and dilatory. Month after month
   followed the October uprising without one of those incidents
   that would have succeeded in the history of an earnest people.
   In March, 1769, Foucault [French intendant] covertly deserted
   his associates, and denounced them, by letter, to the French
   cabinet. In April the Spanish frigate sailed from New Orleans.
   Three intrepid men (Loyola, Gayarre, and Navarro), the
   governmental staff which Ulloa had left in the province, still
   remained, unmolested. Not a fort was taken, though it is
   probable not one could have withstood assault. Not a spade was
   struck into the ground, or an obstruction planted, at any
   strategic point, throughout that whole 'Creole' spring time
   which stretches in its exuberant perfection from January to
   June. … One morning toward the end of July, 1769, the people
   of New Orleans were brought suddenly to their feet by the news
   that the Spaniards were at the mouth of the river in
   overwhelming force. There was no longer any room to postpone
   choice of action. Marquis, the Swiss captain, with a white
   cockade in his hat (he had been the leading advocate for a
   republic), and Petit, with a pistol in either hand, came out
   upon the ragged, sunburnt grass of the Place d'Armes and
   called upon the people to defend their liberties. About 100
   men joined them; but the town was struck motionless with
   dismay; the few who had gathered soon disappeared, and by the
   next day the resolution of the leaders was distinctly taken,
   to submit. But no one fled. … Lafrénière, Marquis, and
   Milhet descended the river, appeared before the commander of
   the Spaniards, and by the mouth of Lafrénière in a submissive
   but brave and manly address presented the homage of the
   people. The captain-general in his reply let fall the word
   seditious. Marquis boldly but respectfully objected. He was
   answered with gracious dignity and the assurance of ultimate
   justice, and the insurgent leaders returned to New Orleans and
   to their homes. The Spanish fleet numbered 24 sail. For more
   than three weeks it slowly pushed its way around the bends of
   the Mississippi, and on the 18th of August it finally furled
   its canvas before the town. Aubry [commanding the small force
   of French soldiers which had remained in the colony under
   Spanish pay] drew up his French troops with the colonial
   militia at the bottom of the Place d'Armes, a gun was fired
   from the flagship of the fleet, and Don Alexandro O'Reilly,
   accompanied by 2,600 chosen Spanish troops, and with 50 pieces
   of artillery, landed in unprecedented pomp, and took formal
   possession of the province. On the 21st, twelve of the
   principal insurrectionists were arrested. … Villeré [a
   planter, of prominence] either 'died raving mad on the day of
   his arrest,' as stated in the Spanish official report, or met
   his end in the act of resisting the guard on board the frigate
   where he had been placed in confinement. Lafrénière [former
   attorney-general and leader of the revolt], Noyan [a young
   ex-captain of cavalry], Caresse [a merchant], Marquis, and
   Joseph Milhet [a merchant] were condemned to be hanged.
{2048}
   The supplications both of colonists and Spanish officials
   saved them only from the gallows, and they fell before the
   fire of a file of Spanish grenadiers." The remaining prisoners
   were sent to Havana and kept in confinement for a year.
   "'Cruel O'Reilly'—the captain-general was justly named. …
   O'Reilly had come to set up a government, but not to remain
   and govern. On organizing the cabildo [a feebly constituted
   body—'like a crane, all feathers,' 'which, for the third part
   of a century, ruled the pettier destinies of the Louisiana
   Creoles '], he announced the appointment of Don Louis de
   Unzaga, colonel of the regiment of Havana, as governor of the
   province, and yielded him the chair. But under his own higher
   commission of captain-general he continued for a time in
   control. He established in force the laws of Castile and the
   Indies and the use of the Spanish tongue in the courts and the
   public offices. … Spanish rule in Louisiana was better, at
   least, than French, which, it is true, scarcely deserved the
   name of government. As to the laws themselves, it is worthy of
   notice that Louisiana 'is at this time the only State, of the
   vast territories acquired from France, Spain, and Mexico, in
   which the civil law has been retained, and forms a large
   portion of its jurisprudence.' On the 29th of October, 1770,
   O'Reilly sailed from New Orleans with most of his troops,
   leaving the Spanish power entirely and peacefully established.
   The force left by him in the colony amounted to 1,200 men. He
   had dealt a sudden and terrible blow; but he had followed it
   only with velvet strokes."

      ALSO IN:
      G. E. Waring, Jr., and G. W. Cable,
      History and Present Condition of New Orleans
      (United States Tenth Census, volume 19).

LOUISIANA: A. D. 1785-1800.
   The question of the
   Navigation of the Mississippi, in dispute between
   Spain and the United States.
   Discontent of settlers in Kentucky and Tennessee.
   Wilkinson's intrigues.

"Settlers in considerable numbers had crossed the mountains into Kentucky and Tennessee while the war of Independence was in progress. … At once it became a question of vital importance how these people were to find avenues of commerce with the outer world. … Immigration to the interior must cross the mountains; but the natural highway for commerce was the Mississippi River. If the use of this river were left free, nothing better could be desired. Unfortunately it was not free. The east bank of the river, as far south as the north boundary of Florida [which included some part of the present states of Alabama and Mississippi, but with the northern boundary in dispute—see FLORIDA: A. D. 1783-1787], was the property of the United States, but the west bank, together with the island of Orleans, was held by Spain. That power, while conceding to the people of the United States the free navigation of the Mississippi as far down as the American ownership of the left bank extended, claimed exclusive jurisdiction below that line, and proposed to exact customs duties from such American commerce as should pass in or out of the mouth of the river. This pretension if yielded to would place all that commerce at the mercy of Spain, and render not merely the navigation of the river of little value, but the very land from which the commerce sprung. It was inconceivable that such pretensions should be tolerated if successful resistance were possible, but the settlers were able to combat it on two grounds, either of which seemed, according to recognized rules of international law, conclusive. First, As citizens of the country owning one of the banks on the upper portion of the stream, they claimed the free navigation to the sea with the privilege of a landing place at its mouth as a natural right; and they were able to fortify this claim—if it needed support—with the opinions of publicists of acknowledged authority. Second, They claimed under the treaty of 1763 between Great Britain and France, whereby the latter, then the owner of Louisiana, had conceded to the former the free navigation of the Mississippi in its whole breadth and length, with passage in and out of its mouth, subject to the payment of no duty whatsoever. … Thus both in natural right and by treaty concession the claim of the American settlers seemed incontrovertible, and perhaps it may fairly be said that the whole country agreed in this view. When Mr. Jay, while the war of independence was still in progress, was sent to Spain to negotiate a treaty of amity and assistance, he was specially charged with the duty to see that the free navigation of the Mississippi was conceded. All his endeavors to that end, however, resulted in failure, and he was compelled to return home with the American claim still disputed. In 1785 the negotiation was transferred to this country, and Mr. Jay renewed his effort to obtain concessions, but without avail. The tenacity with which Spain held to its claim was so persistent that Congress in its anxiety to obtain a treaty of commerce finally instructed Mr. Jay on its behalf to consent that for twenty-five years the United States should forbear to claim the right in dispute. The instruction was given by the vote of the seven Northern States against a united South; and the action was so distinctly sectional as to threaten the stability of the Union. … In the West the feeling of dissatisfaction was most intense and uncompromising. The settlers of Kentucky already deemed themselves sufficiently numerous and powerful to be entitled to set up a state government of their own, and to have a voice in the councils of the Confederation. … In Tennessee as well as in Kentucky settlements had been going on rapidly; and perhaps in the former even more distinctly than in the latter a growing indifference to the national bond was manifest. … One of the difficult questions which confronted the new government, formed under the Federal constitution, was how to deal with this feeling and control or remove it. Spanish levies on American commerce were in some cases almost prohibitory, reaching fifty or seventy-five per cent. ad valorem, and it was quite out of the question that hardy backwoodsmen trained to arms should for any considerable time submit to pay them. If the national government failed to secure their rights by diplomacy, they would seek redress in such other way as might be open to them. … Among the most prominent of the Kentucky settlers was General James Wilkinson, who had gone there as a merchant in 1784. He was shortly found advocating, though somewhat covertly, the setting up of an independent State Government. {2049} In 1787 he opened trade with New Orleans, and endeavored to impress upon the Spanish authorities the importance of an amicable understanding with the settlers in the Ohio valley. His representations for a time had considerable effect, and the trade was not only relieved of oppressive burdens, but Americans were invited to make settlements within Spanish limits in Louisiana and West Florida. A considerable settlement was actually made at New Madrid under this invitation. But there is no reason to believe that genuine good feeling inspired this policy; the purpose plainly in view was to build up a Spanish party among the American settlers and eventually to detach them from the United States. But the course pursued was variable, being characterized in turn by liberality and by rigor. Wilkinson appears to have been allowed special privileges in trade, and this, together with the fact that he was known to receive a heavy remittance from New Orleans, begat a suspicion that he was under Spanish pay; a suspicion from which he was never wholly relieved, and which probably to some extent affected the judgment of men when he came under further suspicion in consequence of equivocal relations with Aaron Burr. In 1789 a British emissary made his appearance in Kentucky, whose mission seemed to be to sound the sentiments of the people respecting union with Canada. He came at a bad time for his purposes; for the feeling of the country against Great Britain was then at its height, and was particularly strong in the West, where the failure to deliver up the posts within American limits was known to have been influential in encouraging Indian hostilities. The British agent, therefore, met with anything but friendly reception. … Meantime Spain had become so far complicated in European wars as to be solicitous regarding the preservation of her own American possessions, then bordered by a hostile people, and at her suggestion an envoy was sent by the United States to Madrid, with whom in October 1795 a treaty was made, whereby among other things it was agreed that Spain should permit the people of the United States for the term of three years to make use of the port of New Orleans as a place of deposit for their produce and merchandise, and to export the same free from all duty or charge except for storage and incidental expenses. At the end of the three years the treaty contemplated further negotiations, and it was hoped by the American authorities that a decisive step had been taken towards the complete recognition of American claims. The treaty, however, was far from satisfying the people of Kentucky and Tennessee, who looked upon the assent of Spain to it as a mere makeshift for the protection of her territory from invasion. Projects for taking forcible possession of the mouth of the Mississippi continued therefore to be agitated. … The schemes of Don Francisco de Miranda for the overthrow of Spanish authority in America now became important. Miranda was of Spanish-American birth, and had been in the United States while the war of Independence was pending and formed acquaintance among the American officers. Conceiving the idea of liberating the Spanish colonies, he sought assistance from England and Russia, but when the French Revolution occurred he enlisted in the French service and for a time held important military positions. Driven from France in 1797 he took up his old scheme again: looking now to England and America for the necessary assistance. Several leading American statesmen were approached on the subject, Hamilton among them; and while the relations between France and the United States seemed likely to result in war, that great man, who had no fear of evils likely to result from the extension of territory, listened with approval to the project of a combined attack by British and American forces on the Spanish Colonies, and would have been willing, with the approval of the government, to personally take part in it. President Adams, however, frowned upon the scheme, and it was necessarily but with great reluctance abandoned. And now occurred an event of highest interest to the people of the United States. Spain, aware of her precarious hold upon Louisiana, in 1800 retroceded it to France."

T. M. Cooley, The Acquisition of Louisiana (Indiana Historical Society Pamphlets, no. 3).

      J. H. Monette,
      Discovery and Settlement of the Valley of the Mississippi,
      book 5, chapter 6 (volume 2).

LOUISIANA: D. 1798-1803.
   The last days of Spanish rule.
   The great domain transferred to France,
   and sold by Napoleon to the United States.
   The bounds of the purchase.

"During the years 1796-97 the Spanish authorities exhausted every means for delaying a confirmation of the boundary line as set forth in the treaty of 1783. By one pretext and another, they avoided the surrender of the Natchez territory and continued to hold the military posts therein. Not until the 23d of March, 1798, was the final step taken by which the Federal Government was permitted to occupy in full the province of Mississippi. … Soon after this we find the newly made territory of Mississippi occupied by a Federal force, and, strange to say, with General Wilkinson in command. The man who but lately had been playing the rôle of traitor, spy, insurrectionist and smuggler, was now chief commander on the border and was building a fort at Loftus Heights just above the boundary line. The new governor of Louisiana [Gayoso de Lemos], seeing the hope of detaching Kentucky and Tennessee fall dead at his feet, finally turned back to the old policy of restricting immigration and of discriminating against Protestants. By the treaty signed at Madrid in 1795, it had been stipulated that the citizens of the United States should not only have free navigation of the Mississippi River, but that they should also have the right to deposit in New Orleans all their produce during the space of three years. This limit, it was agreed, was to be extended by the Spanish Government, or, instead of an extension of time, a new point on the island of New Orleans was to be designated for depot. But at the expiration of the three years Morales, the Spanish intendant at New Orleans, declined to permit further deposits there, and refused to designate another place in accordance with the stipulation. This action aroused the people of the West; a storm of resentment broke forth and the government of the United States was forced to make a threatening demonstration in the direction of Louisiana. {2050} Three regiments of the regular army were at once dispatched to the Ohio. The people flew to arms. Invasion appeared imminent." But the Spanish authorities gave way, and a new intendant at New Orleans "received from his Government orders to remove the interdict issued by Gayoso and to restore to the Western people the right of deposit at New Orleans. These orders he promptly obeyed, thus reviving good feelings between his province and the United States. Trade revived; immigration increased. … The deluge of immigration startled the Spaniards. They saw to what it was swiftly tending. A few more years and this tide would rise too high to be resisted and Louisiana would be lost to the king, lost to the holy religion, given over to freedom, republicanism and ruin. … On the 18th of July … [1802] the king ordered that no more grants of land be given to citizens of the United States. This effectually killed the commerce of the Mississippi River, and the indignation of the Western people knew no bounds. … Rumors, apparently well founded, were afloat that the irresistible genius of Napoleon was wringing the province from Spain and that this meant a division of the territories between France and the United States. To a large majority of Louisiana's population these were thrillingly welcome rumors. The very thought of once more becoming the subjects of France was enough to intoxicate them with delight. The treaty of Ildefonso, however, which had been ratified at Madrid on the 21st of March, 1801, had been kept a secret. Napoleon had hoped to occupy Louisiana with a strong army, consisting of 25,000 men, together with a fleet to guard the coast; but his implacable and ever watchful foe, England, discovered his design and thwarted it. But by the terms of the treaty, the colony and province of Louisiana had gone into his hands. He must take possession and hold it, or he must see England become its master. Pressed on every side at that time by wars and political complications and well understanding that it would endanger his power for him to undertake a grand American enterprise, he gladly opened negotiations with the United States looking to the cession of Louisiana to that Government. … Napoleon had agreed with Spain that Louisiana should not be ceded to any other power. … Diplomacy very quickly surmounted so small an obstacle. … The treaty of cession was signed on the 30th of April, 1803, the United States agreeing to pay France 60,000,000 francs as the purchase price of the territory. … In addition, the sum due American citizens … was assumed by the United States. The treaty of April was ratified by Napoleon in May, 1803, and by the Senate of the United States in October. … Pausing to glance at this strange transaction, by which one republic sells outright to another republic a whole country without in the least consulting the wishes of the inhabitants, whose allegiance and all of whose political and civil rights are changed thereby, we are tempted to wonder if the republic of the United States could to-day sell Louisiana with the same impunity that attended the purchase! She bought the country and its people, just as she might have bought a desert island with its goats."

"No one could say what was the southwest boundary of the territory acquired; whether it should be the Sabine or the Rio del Norte; and a controversy with Spain on the subject might at any time arise. The northwest boundary was also somewhat vague and uncertain, and would be open to controversy with Great Britain. [That] the territory extended west to the Rocky Mountains was not questioned, but it might be claimed that it extended to the Pacific. An impression that it did so extend has since prevailed in some quarters, and in some public papers and documents it has been assumed as an undoubted fact. But neither Mr. Jefferson nor the French, whose right he purchased, ever claimed for Louisiana any such extent, and our title to Oregon has been safely deduced from other sources. Mr. Jefferson said expressly: 'To the waters of the Pacific we can found no claim in right of Louisiana.'"

Judge T. M. Cooley, The Acquisition of Louisiana (Indiana History Society Pamphlets, number 3).

"By the charter of Louis XIV., the country purchased to the north included all that was contiguous to the waters that flowed into the Mississippi. Consequently its northern boundary was the summit of the highlands in which its northern waters rise. By the tenth article of the treaty of Utrecht, France and England agreed to appoint commissioners to settle the boundary, and these commissioners, as such boundary, marked this summit on the 49th parallel of north latitude. This would not carry the rights of the United States beyond the Rocky Mountains. The claim to the territory beyond was based upon the principle of continuity, the prolongation of the territory to the adjacent great body of water. As against Great Britain, the claim was founded on the treaty of 1763, between France and Great Britain, by which the latter power ceded to the former all its rights west of the Mississippi River. The United States succeeded to all the rights of France. Besides this, there was an independent claim created by the discovery of the Columbia River by Gray, in 1792, and its exploration by Lewis and Clarke. All this was added to by the cession by Spain, in 1819, of any title that it had to all territory north of the 42d degree."

Rt. Rev. C. F. Robertson, The Louisiana Purchase (Papers of American Historical Association, volume 1, page 259).

As its southwestern and southeastern boundaries were eventually settled by treaty with Spain [see FLORIDA: A. D. 1819-1821], the Louisiana purchase embraced 2,300 square miles in the present state of Alabama, west of the Perdido and on the gulf, below latitude 31° north; 3,600 square miles in the present state of Mississippi, south of the same latitude; the whole of the present states of Louisiana, Arkansas, Missouri, Iowa, Nebraska, and the Dakotas; Minnesota, west of the Mississippi; Kansas, all but the southwest corner; the whole of the Indian Territory, and so much of Colorado, Wyoming, and Montana as lies on the eastern slope of the Rocky Mountains. If it is held that the French claim was good to the Pacific, then we may say that we owe the remainder of Montana, with Idaho, Oregon and Washington to the same great purchase.

Detailed accounts of the interesting circumstances and incidents connected with the negotiation at Paris will be found in the following works:—

H. Adams, History of the United States: First Administration of Jefferson; volume 2, chapters 1-3.

LOUISIANA: A. D. 1804-1805. Lewis and Clark's exploration of the northwestern region of the purchase, to the Pacific.

LOUISIANA: A. D. 1804-1812. The purchase divided into the Territories of Orleans and Louisiana. The first named becomes the State of Louisiana; the second becomes the Territory of Missouri.

"On the 26th of March, 1804, Congress passed an act dividing the province into two parts on the 33d parallel of latitude, the present northern boundary of Louisiana, and establishing for the lower portion a distinct territorial government, under the title of the territory of Orleans. The act was to go into effect in the following October. One of its provisions was the interdiction of the slave-trade. … The labors of the legislative council began on the 4th of December. A charter of incorporation was given by it to the city of New Orleans."

G: E. Waring, Jr., and G. W. Cable, History and Present Condition of New Orleans (United States Tenth Census, volume 19). pages 32-33.

"All north of the 33d parallel of north latitude was formed into a district, and styled the District of Louisiana. For judicial and administrative purposes this district, or upper Louisiana as we shall continue to call it, was attached to the territory of Indiana." But in March, 1805, Congress passed an act "which erected the district into a territory of the first or lowest grade, and changed its title from the District to the Territory of Louisiana." Seven years later, in June 1812, the Territory of Orleans (the lower Louisiana of old) having been received into the federal Union as the State of Louisiana, the territory which bore the ancient name was advanced by act of Congress "from the first to the second grade of territories, and its name changed to Missouri."

LOUISIANA: A. D. 1812. The Territory of Orleans admitted to the Union as the State of Louisiana.

"The population of the Territory of Orleans had been augmented annually by emigration from the United States. According to the census of 1810, the whole territory, exclusive of the Florida parishes, contained an aggregate of 76,550 souls. Of this number, the city of New Orleans and its precincts contained 24,552 persons, leaving 52,000 souls for the remainder of the territory. Besides these, the inhabitants of the Florida parishes amounted, probably, to not less than 2,500, including slaves. … Congress, by an act approved February 11th, 1811, … authorized the election of a convention to adopt a Constitution, preparatory to the admission of the Territory into the Union as an independent state. The convention, consisting of 60 delegates from the original parishes, met according to law, on the first Monday in November, and concluded its labors on the 22d day of January following, having adopted a Constitution for the proposed new 'State of Louisiana.' … The Constitution was accepted by Congress, and the State of Louisiana was formally admitted into the Union on the 8th day of April, 1812, upon an equal footing with the original states, from and after the 30th day of April, it being the ninth anniversary of the treaty of Paris. A few days subsequently, a 'supplemental act' of Congress extended the limits of the new state by the addition of the Florida parishes.

      J. W. Monette,
      Discovery and Settlement of the Valley of the Mississippi,
      book 5, chapter 15 (volume 2).

LOUISIANA: A. D. 1864.
Reconstruction of the state under President Lincoln's plan.

LOUISIANA: A. D. 1865.
President Johnson's recognition of the reconstructed state
government.

LOUISIANA: A. D. 1865-1867.
   The first Reconstruction experiment.
   The Riot at New Orleans.
   Establishment of military rule.

   "In 1865 the returned Confederates, restored to citizenship by
   the President's amnesty proclamation soon got control of
   almost all the State [as reorganized under the constitution
   framed and adopted in 1864].

The Legislature was in their hands, as well as most of the State and municipal offices; so, when the President, on the 20th of August, 1866, by proclamation, extended his previous instructions regarding civil affairs in Texas so as to have them apply to all the seceded States, there at once began in Louisiana a system of discriminative legislation directed against the freedmen, that led to flagrant wrongs in the enforcement of labor contracts, and in the remote parishes to numbers of outrages and murders. To remedy this deplorable condition of things, it was proposed, by those who had established the government of 1864, to remodel the constitution of the State; and they sought to do this by reassembling the convention, that body before its adjournment having provided for reconvening under certain conditions, in obedience to the call of its president. Therefore, early in the summer of 1866, many members of this convention met in conference at New Orleans, and decided that a necessity existed for reconvening the delegates, and a proclamation was issued accordingly by B. K. Howell, President pro tempore. {2052} Mayor John T. Monroe and the other officials of New Orleans looked upon this proposed action as revolutionary, and by the time the convention assembled (July 30) such bitterness of feeling prevailed that efforts were made by the mayor and city police to suppress the meeting. A bloody riot followed, resulting in the killing and wounding of about 160 persons. I happened [the writer is General Sheridan, then in command of the Military Division of the Gulf] to be absent from the city at the time, returning from Texas, where I had been called by affairs on the Rio Grande. On my way up from the mouth of the Mississippi I was met on the night of July 30 by one of my staff, who reported what had occurred, giving the details of the massacre—no milder term is fitting—and informing me that, to prevent further slaughter, General Baird, the senior military officer present, had assumed control of the municipal government. On reaching the city I made an investigation, and that night sent [a brief report, which was followed, on the 6th of August, by an extended account of the facts of the riot, containing the following statements]: … 'The convention assembled at 12 M. on the 30th, the timid members absenting themselves because the tone of the general public was ominous of trouble. … About 1 P. M. a procession of say from 60 to 130 colored men marched up Burgundy Street and across Canal Street toward the convention, carrying an American flag. These men had about one pistol to every ten men, and canes and clubs in addition. While crossing Canal Street a row occurred. … On arrival at the front of the Institute [where the convention was held] there was some throwing of brickbats by both sides. The police, who had been held well in hand, were vigorously marched to the scene of disorder. The procession entered the Institute with the flag, about 6 or 8 remaining outside. A row occurred between a policeman and one of these colored mob, and a shot was again fired by one of the parties, which led to an indiscriminate fire on the building through the windows by the policemen. This had been going on for a short time, when a white flag was displayed from the windows of the Institute, whereupon the firing ceased, and the police rushed into the building. From the testimony of wounded men, and others who were inside the building, the policemen opened an indiscriminate fire upon the audience until they had emptied their revolvers, when they retired, and those inside barricaded the doors. The door was broken in, and the firing again commenced, when many of the colored and white people either escaped throughout the door or were passed out by the policemen inside; but as they came out the policemen who formed the circle nearest the building fired upon them, and they were again fired upon by the citizens that formed the outer circle. Many of those wounded and taken prisoners, and others who were prisoners and not wounded, were fired upon by their captors and by citizens. The wounded were stabbed while lying on the ground, and their heads beaten with brickbats. … Some were killed and wounded several squares from the scene.' … Subsequently a military commission investigated the subject of the riot, taking a great deal of testimony. The commission substantially confirmed the conclusions given in my despatches, and still later there as an investigation by a select committee of the House of Representatives. … A list of the killed and wounded was embraced in the committee's report, and among other conclusions reached were the following: … 'This riotous attack upon the convention, with its terrible results of massacre and murder, was not an accident. It was the determined purpose of the mayor of the city of New Orleans to break up this convention by armed force.' … The committee held that no legal government existed in Louisiana, and recommended the temporary establishment of a provisional government therein." In the following March the Military Reconstruction Acts were passed by Congress.

   General Sheridan was assigned to the command of the fifth
   military district therein defined, consisting of Louisiana and
   Texas.

      ALSO IN:
      Report of Select Committee on New Orleans Riot,
      39th Congress, 2d Session, H. R. Report, Number 16.

LOUISIANA: A. D. 1868.
Reconstruction complete.
Restored representation in Congress.

"The early history of the Louvre is involved in great obscurity. The name of its founder and the period of its erection are alike unknown; the first notice of it we meet with upon record is in the 7th century, when Dagobert kept here his horses and hounds. The kings [Merovingeans] called 'fainéans' often visited it, when after dinner they rode in a sort of coach through the forest, which covered this side of the river, and in the evening returned in a boat, fishing by the way, to the city, where they supped and slept. There is no mention of this royal dwelling under the second, nor even under the third race of kings, till the reign of Philip Augustus. About the year 1204, that prince converted it into a kind of citadel, surrounded with wide ditches and flanked with towers. … The walls erected by Philip Augustus did not take in the Louvre, but after having remained outside of Paris more than six centuries, it was enclosed by the walls begun in 1367, under Charles V., and finished in 1383, under Charles VI. … Charles IX., Henry III., Henry IV., and Louis XIII., inhabited the Louvre and added to its buildings. Nothing remains of the old château of Philip Augustus, which Charles V. repaired; the most ancient part now in existence is that called 'le Vieux Louvre,' begun by Francis I. in 1539, and finished by Henry II. in 1548."

The origin of the word Louvre is believed to be a Saxon word, 'Leowar' or 'Lower,' which meant a fortified camp. … Francis I. did little more than decide the fate of the old Louvre by introducing the new fashion. His successors went on with the work; and the progress of it may be followed, reign after reign, till the last visible fragment of the Gothic castle had been ruthlessly carted away. … Vast as is the Louvre that we know, it is as nothing in comparison with the prodigious scheme imagined by Richelieu and Louis XIII.; a scheme which, though never carried out, gave a very strong impulse to the works, and ensured the completion of the present building, at least in a subsequent reign. … Happily for the Louvre Louis XIV. interested himself in it before he engulfed his millions at Marly and Versailles. … The sums of money expended on the Louvre and Tuileries defy all calculation. … The greatest spender on these palaces was Napoleon III."

LOW CHURCH.

LOWLANDS OF SCOTLAND.

"Near the mouth of the river Trave there had long existed a small settlement of pirates or fishermen. The convenience of the harbour had led to this settlement and it had been much frequented by Christian merchants. The unsettled state of the country, however, afforded them little security, and it had been often taken and plundered by the Pagan freebooters. When Henry acquired the dominion of the soil [Henry the Lion, Duke of Saxony, who subdued the heathen Wendish tribe of the Oborites, A. D. 1165, and added their country to his dominions] he paid particular attention to this infant establishment, and under the shadow of his power the city of Lubeck (for so it became) arose on a broad and permanent basis. He made it … the seat of a bishop; he also established a mint and a custom-house, and by the grant of a municipal government, he secured the personal, while he prepared the way for the political, rights of its burghers. The ancient name of the harbour was Wisby, and by a proclamation addressed to the Danes, Norwegians, Swedes, and Russians, he invited them to frequent it, with an assurance that the ways should be open and secure by land and water. … This judicious policy was rewarded by a rapid and large increase to the wealth and commerce of Lubeck."

LUBECK: A. D. 1801-1803.
One of six free cities which survived the Peace of Luneville.

LUCCA: A. D. 1314-1328.
   The brief tyranny of Uguccione della Faggiuola,
   and the longer despotism of Castruccio Castracani.
   Erected into an imperial duchy.

LUCCA: A. D. 1335-1341.
   Acquired by Mastino della Scala of Verona.
   Sold to Florence.
   Taken by Pisa.

LUCCA: A. D. 1814-1860.

After the fall of Napoleon Lucca was briefly occupied by the Neapolitans; then, in the new arrangements, figured for some time as a distinct duchy; afterwards became part of Tuscany, until its absorption in the kingdom of Italy.

LUCOTECIA.

LUDI. LUDI CIRCENSES, ETC.

"Public games (Ludi) formed an important feature in the worship of the gods [in ancient Rome], and in the earlier ages were always regarded as religious rites; so that the words Ludi, Feriae and Dies Festi are frequently employed as synonymous. Games celebrated every year upon a fixed day were denominated Ludi Stati. Such were the Ludi Romani s. Magni, held invariably on the 21st of September; the Megalesia on 4th April; the Floralia on 28th April, and many others. … Another classification of Ludi was derived from the place where they were exhibited and the nature of the exhibition …

   1. Ludi Circenses, chariot races and other games exhibited in
   a circus.
   2. Ludi Scenici, dramatic entertainments exhibited in a
   theatre.
   3. Munera Gladiatoria, prize-fights, which were usually
   exhibited in an amphitheatre."

LUDI MAXIMI ROMANI.

LUDWIG.

LUGDUNENSIS AND LUGDUNUM.

LUGUVALLIUM.

   The Roman military station at the western extremity of the
   Roman wall in Britain; the site of the modern city of
   Carlisle.

LUKETIA.

LUPERCAL. LUPERCALIA.

The Lupercal was the wolf cave in which, according to Roman legend, the twins, Romulus and Remus, were nursed by a she-wolf. It was supposed to be situated at the foot of the Palatine Hill. "The Lupercal is described by Dionysius as having once been a large grotto, shaded with thick bushes and large trees, and containing a copious spring of water. This grotto was dedicated to Lupercus, an ancient Latin pastoral divinity, who was worshipped by shepherds as the protector of their flocks against wolves. A festival was held every year, on the 15th of February, in the Lupercal, in honour of Lupercus; the place contained an altar and a grove sacred to the god. … Gibbon tells us the festival of the Lupercalia, whose origin had preceded the foundation of Rome, was still celebrated in the reign of Anthemus, 472 A.D."

   "At the Lupercalia youths ran through the streets dressed
   in goats' skins, beating all those they met with
   strips of goats' leather."

LURIS.

See JERUSALEM: A. D. 1149-1187, 1192-1229, and 1291;
also, CYPRUS: A. D. 1191, and 1192-1489.

LUSITANIA. LUSITANIANS.

The Lusitani or Lusitanians were the people who resisted the Roman conquest of Spain most obstinately—with even more resolution than their neighbors and kinsmen, the Celtiberians. In 153 B. C. they defeated a Roman army, which lost 6,000 men. The following year they inflicted another defeat, on the prætor Mummius, who lost 9,000 of his soldiers. Again, in 151, the prætor Galba suffered a loss of 7,000 men at their hands. But, in 150, Galba ravaged the Lusitanian country so effectually that they sued for peace. Pretending to arrange terms of friendship with them, this infamous Roman persuaded three large bands of the Lusitanians to lay down their arms, which being done he surrounded them with his troops and massacred them in cold blood. One of the few who escaped was a man named Viriathus, who became thenceforth the leader of his surviving countrymen in a guerrilla warfare which lasted for ten years, and which cost the Romans thousands of men. In the end they could not vanquish Viriathus, but basely bribed some traitors in his own camp to murder him. The Roman province which was afterwards formed out of the country of the Lusitanians, and which took their name, has been mistakenly identified with the modern kingdom of Portugal, which it coincided with only in part.

LUSTRUM.

After the [Roman] Censors had concluded the various duties committed to their charge, they proceeded in the last place to offer up, on behalf of the whole Roman people, the great expiatory sacrifice called Lustrum, and this being offered up once only in the space of five years, the term Lustrum is frequently employed to denote that space of time. … On the day fixed, the whole body of the people were summoned to assemble in the Campus Martius in martial order (exercitus) ranked according to their Classes and Centuries, horse and foot. The victims, consisting of a sow, a sheep, and a bull, whence the sacrifice was termed Suovetaurilia, before being led to the altar, were carried thrice round the multitude, who were then held to be purified and absolved from sin, and while the immolation took place the Censor recited a set form of prayer for the preservation and aggrandizement of the Roman State."

LUTETIA, LUKETIA, LUCOTECIA.

The beginning of the great city of Paris was represented by a small town named as above—the stronghold of the Gallic people called the Parisii—built on one of the islands in the Seine which Paris now covers and surrounds.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1516-1517, 1517, 1517-1521, 1521-1522, 1522-1525, 1525-1529, 1530-1531; also, GERMANY: A. D. 1530-1532.

LUXEMBURG, The House of:
Its aggrandizement in the Empire, in Bohemia, Hungary,
and Brandenburg.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1308-1313, and 1347-1493; also, HUNGARY: A. D. 1301-1442; and BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1168=1417.

See ACADEMY, THE ATHENIAN; and GYMNASIA, GREEK; also, relative to the suppression of the Lyceum, see ATHENS: A. D. 529.

"Probably the best constructed Federal Government that the ancient world beheld. The account given by Strabo, our sole authority, is so full, clear, and brief, that I cannot do better than translate it. The 'ancestral constitution of the Lykian League' is described by the great geographer in these words: 'There are three and twenty cities which have a share in the suffrage, and they come together from each city in the common Federal Assembly, choosing for their place of meeting any city which they think best. And, among the cities, the greatest are possessed of three votes apiece, the middle ones of two, and the rest of one; and in the same proportion they pay taxes, and take their share of other public burthens. … And, in the Federal Assembly, first the Lykiarch is chosen and then the other Magistrates of the League, and bodies of Federal Judges are appointed; and formerly they used to consult about war, and peace, and alliance; this now, of course, they cannot do, but these things must needs rest with the Romans.' … On the practical working of this constitution Strabo bestows the highest praise. Lykia was, in his day, a Roman dependency, but it retained its own laws and internal government."

The people who occupied in ancient times the extreme southern peninsula of Asia Minor. "The ancients knew of no unmixed population in this district. The Phœnicians explored the Lycian Taurus as well as the Cilician; and by land also Semitic tribes seem to have immigrated out of Syria and Cilicia; and these tribes formed the tribe of the Solymi. Another influx of population was conducted to this coast by means of the Rhodian chain of islands: men of Crete came across, who called themselves Termili or Trameli, and venerated Sarpedon as their Hero. After an arduous struggle, they gradually made themselves masters of the land encircled by sea and rock. … From the mouth of the Xanthus the Cretans entered the land. There Leto had first found a hospitable reception; in Patara, near by, arose the first great temple of Apollo, the god of light, or Lycius, with the worship of whom the inhabitants of the land became subsequently to such a degree identified as to receive themselves from the Greeks on whose coasts they landed the same name as the god, viz., Lycians. … We know that the Lycians, in courage and knowledge of the sea fully the equals of the most seafaring nation of the Archipelago, from a desire of an orderly political life, renounced at an early period the public practice of piracy, which their neighbours in Pisidia and Cilicia never relinquished. Their patriotism they proved in heroic struggles, and in the quiet of home developed a greater refinement of manners, to which the special honour in which they held the female sex bears marked testimony."

"On the western coast of Asia Minor the nation of the Lydians, which possessed the vallies of the Hermus and Mæander, had early arrived at a monarchy and a point of civilization far in advance of the stages of primitive life. … When the Greeks forced the Phenicians from the islands of the Ægean sea, and then, about the end of the eleventh and beginning of the tenth century, B. C., landed on the western coast of Asia Minor, the Lydians were not able any more than the Teucrians and Mysians in the North, or the Carians in the South, to prevent the establishment of the Greeks on their coasts, the loss of the ancient native sanctuaries at Smyrna, Colophon, Ephesus, and the founding of Greek cities in their land on the mouths of the Lydian rivers, the Hermus and the Cayster, though the Greek emigrants came in isolated expeditions over the sea. It was on the Lydian coasts that the most important Greek cities rose: Cyme, Phocæa, Smyrna, Colophon, Ephesus. Priene, Myus, and Miletus were on the land of the Carians."

"On the basis of a population related to the Phrygians and Armenians arose the nation of the Lydians, which through its original ancestor, Lud, would appear in Eastern tradition also to be reckoned as a member of the Semitic family. As long as we remain unacquainted with the spoken and written language of the Lydians, it will be impossible to define with any accuracy the mixture of peoples which here took place. But, speaking generally, there is no doubt of the double relationship of this people, and of its consequent important place in civilization among the groups of the nations of Asia Minor. The Lydians became on land, as the Phœnicians by sea, the mediators between Hellas and Anterior Asia. … The Lydians are the first among the nations of Asia Minor of whom we have any intimate knowledge as a political community."

The first, perhaps legendary, dynasty of Lydia, called the Atyadæ, was followed by one called the Herakleidæ by the Greeks, which is said to have ruled over 500 years. The last king of that family, Kandaules, was murdered, about B. C. 715, by Gyges, who founded the dynasty of the Mermnadæ, under whom the Lydian dominion was extended over most of Asia Minor, and its kings contended on fairly equal terms with the power of the Medes. But their monarchy was overthrown by Cyrus, B. C. 546, and the famous Crœsus, last of their line, ended his days as an attendant and counselor of the Persian king.

   Recent discoveries tend to the conclusion that the primitive
   inhabitants of Lydia were of a race to which the Hittites
   belonged.

      See, also,
      ASIA MINOR: B. C. 724-539;
      and PERSIA: B. C. 549-521.

"Of all the invaders of Gaul [in the reign of Probus, A. D.277] the most formidable were the Lygians, a distant people who reigned over a wide domain on the frontiers of Poland and Silesia. In the Lygian nation the Arii held the first rank by their numbers and fierceness. 'The Arii' (it is thus that they are described by the energy of Tacitus) 'study to improve by art and circumstances the innate terrors of their barbarism. Their shields are black, their bodies are painted black. They choose for the combat the darkest hour of the night.' … Yet the arms and discipline of the Romans easily discomfited these horrid phantoms. The Lygii were defeated in a general engagement, and Semno, the most renowned of their chiefs, fell alive into the hands of Probus. That prudent emperor, unwilling to reduce a brave people to despair, granted them an honourable capitulation and permitted them to return in safety to their native country. But the losses which they suffered in the march, the battle, and the retreat, broke the power of the nation; nor is the Lygian name ever repeated in the history either of Germany or of the empire."

"Lygii appears to have been the generic name of the Slavonians on the Vistula. They are the same people as those called Lekhs by Nestor, the Russian chronicler of the twelfth century. These Lekhs are the ancestors of the Poles."

"The Ligii were a widely-spread tribe, comprehending several clans. Tacitus names the Harii [or Arii], Helvecones, Manimi, Elisii, and Nahanarvali. Their territory was between the Oder and Vistula, and would include the greater part of Poland, and probably a portion of Silesia."

      See MISSOURI; A. D. 1861 (FEBRUARY-JULY);
      and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1861 (JULY-SEPTEMBER; MISSOURI).

Minutius Plancus, Roman governor of Gallia Comata, or the Gaul of Cæsar's conquest, founded, B. C. 43, a city called Lugdunum, at the confluence of the Rhone and the Saone. A few years later, under Augustus, it was made the capital of a province to which it gave its name—Lugdunensis—and which comprised the whole of central Gaul, between the Loire and the Seine with the Armorican peninsula. In time the name Lugdunum became softened and shorn to Lyons. "Lyons, which stood on the west side of the Rhone, not so near the confluence of the Sâone as now, appears to have been settled by fugitive Romans driven out of Vienne by another party. It grew with as marvelous a rapidity as some of our western cities, for in fifteen years it swelled from a simple colony into a metropolis of considerable splendor. … Lugdun appears to have been a Keltic designation, and, as the 'g' in that speech took the sound of 'y' and 'd' was silent, we can easily see how the name became Lyon."

P. Godwin, History of France: Ancient Gaul, book 2, chapter 5, with foot-note.

"Not having originated out of a Celtic canton, and hence always with a territory of narrow limits, but from the outset composed of Italians and in possession of the full Roman franchise, it [Lyons] stood forth unique in its kind among the communities of the three Gauls—as respects its legal relations, in some measure resembling Washington in the North American federation. … Only the governor of the middle or Lugudunensian province had his seat there; but when emperors or princes stayed in Gaul they as a rule resided in Lyons. Lyons was, alongside of Carthage, the only city of the Latin half of the empire which obtained a standing garrison, after the model of that of the capital. The only mint for imperial money which we can point to with certainty, for the earlier period of the empire, is that of Lyons. Here was the headquarters of the transit-dues which embraced all Gaul; and to this as a centre the Gallic network of roads converged. … Thus Lugudunum rapidly rose into prosperity. … In the later period of the empire, no doubt, it fell behind Treves."

LYONS: A. D. 1685-1698.
Loss in the silk weaving industry by the Huguenot exodus.

LYONS: A. D. 1793-1794.
Revolt against the Revolutionary government at Paris.
Siege and capture and fearful vengeance by the Terrorists.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JUNE), (JULY-DECEMBER);
and 1793—1794 (OCTOBER-APRIL).

MAARMORS.

McCLELLAN, General George B:
Appointment to chief command.
Organization of the Army of the Potomac.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (MARCH-MAY: VIRGINIA),
      (JULY-AUGUST: VIRGINIA).

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (JULY-AUGUST: VIRGINIA),
      to (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER, VIRGINIA).

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (SEPTEMBER: MARYLAND);
      and (OCTOBER-DECEMBER: VIRGINIA).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1798-1799 (AUGUST-APRIL), 1799 (APRIL-SEPTEMBER); GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (JULY-SEPTEMBER); 1813 (APRIL-MAY), (AUGUST), (OCTOBER), (OCTOBER-DECEMBER); and RUSSIA: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-SEPTEMBER).

"The club or mace, formed originally of hard wood, and the latter, subsequently either wholly or in part of metal, would naturally be adopted as one of the earliest weapons of primitive man, but it soon came to be regarded as a symbol of authority. … In the Middle Ages the mace was a common weapon with ecclesiastics, who, in consequence of their tenures, frequently took the field, but were, by a canon of the Church, forbidden to wield the sword. It strikes me as not improbable that in this custom we have the origin of the use of the mace as a symbol of authority by our cathedral and other ancient religious bodies. … In all probability its use by lay corporations may be traced to the corps of sergeants-at-mace, instituted as a body-guard both by Philip Augustus of France and our own Richard I., whilst with the Crusaders in Palestine. We learn that when the former monarch was in the Holy Land he found it necessary to secure his person from the emissaries of a sheik, called 'the Old Man of the Mountain,' who bound themselves to assassinate whomsoever he assigned. 'When the king,' says an ancient chronicler, 'heard of this he began to reflect seriously, and took counsel how he might best guard his person. He therefore instituted a guard of serjeants-à-maces who night and day were to be about his person in order to protect him.' These sergens-à-maces were 'afterwards called sergeants-at-arms, for Jean Bouteiller, … who lived in the time of Charles VI., that is, at the conclusion of the fourteenth century tells us, "The sergens d'armes are the mace-bearers that the king has to perform his duty, and who carry maces before the king; these are called sergeants-at-arms, because they are sergeants for the king's body.'" We learn further that Richard I. of England soon imitated the conduct of the French king, but he seems to have given his corps of sergeants-at-arms a more extensive power. Not only were they to watch round the king's tent in complete armour, with a mace, a sword, a bow and arrows, but were occasionally to arrest traitors and other offenders about the court, for which the mace was deemed a sufficient authority. … Hence, in all probability, was derived the custom of the chief magistrate of a municipality, who, as such, is the representative of the sovereign, being attended by his mace-bearer, as a symbol of the royal authority thus delegated to him."

"The Macedonians of the fourth century B. C. acquired, from the ability and enterprise of two successive kings, a great perfection in Greek military organization, without any of the loftier Hellenic qualities. Their career in Greece is purely destructive, extinguishing the free movement of the separate cities, and disarming the citizen-soldier to make room for the foreign mercenary whose sword was unhallowed by any feelings of patriotism—yet totally incompetent to substitute any good system of central or pacific administration. But the Macedonians of the seventh and sixth centuries B. C. are an aggregate only of rude inland tribes, subdivided into distinct petty principalities, and separated from the Greeks by a wider ethnical difference even than the Epirots; since Herodotus, who considers the Epirotic Molossians and Thesprotians as children of Hellen, decidedly thinks the contrary respecting the Macedonians. In the main, however, they seem at this early period analogous to the Epirots in character and civilization. They had some few towns, but they were chiefly village residents, extremely brave and pugnacious. … The original seats of the Macedonians were in the regions east of the chain of Skardus (the northerly continuation of Pindus)—north of the chain called the Cambunian mountains, which connects Olympus with Pindus, and which forms the north-western boundary of Thessaly; but they did not reach so far eastward as the Thermaic Gulf. … The Macedonian language was different from Illyrian, from Thracian, and seemingly also from Pæonian. It was also different from Greek, yet apparently not more widely distinct than that of the Epirots; so that the acquisition of Greek was comparatively easy to the chiefs and people. … The large and comparatively productive region covered by the various sections of Macedonians, helps to explain that increase of ascendency which they successively acquired over all their neighbours. It was not however until a late period that they became united under one government. At first, each section—how many we do not know—had its own prince or chief. The Elymiots, or inhabitants of Elymeia, the southernmost portion of Macedonia, were thus originally distinct and independent; also the Orestæ, in mountain-seats somewhat north-west of the Elymiots. … The section of the Macedonian name who afterwards swallowed up all the rest and became known as 'The Macedonians' had their original centre at Ægæ or Edessa—the lofty, commanding and picturesque site of the modern Vodhena."

MACEDONIA: B. C. 359-358.
Accession and first proceedings of King Philip.
His acquisition of Amphipolis.

MACEDONIA: B. C. 353-336.
   Philip's conquest of Thessaly.
   Intervention in the Sacred War.
   Victory at Chæronea.
   Mastery of Greece.
   Preparation to invade Persia.
   Assassination.

MACEDONIA: B. C. 351-348.
War with the Olynthian Confederacy.
Destruction of Olynthus.

MACEDONIA: B. C. 336-335.
Alexander's campaigns at the north.
Revolt and destruction of Thebes.

MACEDONIA: B. C. 334-330. Invasion and conquest of the Persian empire by Alexander the Great.

Philip of Macedonia fell under the hand of an assassin in the midst of his preparations (B. C. 336) for the invasion of the Persian Empire. He was succeeded by his son, Alexander, who applied himself first, with significant energy, to the chastisement of the troublesome barbarians on his northern frontier, and to the crushing of revolt in Greece (see GREECE: B. C. 336-335). He had not yet been a year on the throne "when he stood forth a greater and more powerful sovereign than his father, with his empire united in the bonds of fear and admiration, and ready to carry out the long premeditated attack of the Greeks on the dominion of the Great king. … He had indeed a splendid army of all branches, heavy infantry, light infantry, slingers and archers, artillery such as the ancients could produce without gunpowder, and cavalry, both Thessalian and Macedonian, fit for both skirmishing and the shock of battle. If its numbers were not above 40,000, this moderate force was surely as much as any commander could handle in a rapid campaign with long marches through a hostile country. … After a Homeric landing on the coast near Ilium, and sacrifices to the Ilian goddess at her ancient shrine, with feasts and games, the king started East to meet the Persian satraps, who had collected their cavalry and Greek mercenary infantry on the plain of Zeleia, behind the river Granicus (B. C. 334). Here he fought his first great battle, and showed the nature of his tactics. He used his heavy infantry, divided into two columns or phalanxes as his left wing, flanked by Thessalian cavalry, to threaten the right of the enemy, and keep him engaged while he delivered his main attack. Developing this movement by a rapid advance in echelonned squadrons thrown forward to the right, threatening to outflank the enemy, he induced them to spread their forces towards their left wing, and so weaken their left centre. No sooner had he succeeded in this than he threw his heavy cavalry on this weak point, and after a very severe struggle in crossing the river, and climbing its rugged banks, he completely broke the enemy's line. … He did not strike straight into Asia, for this would have left it possible for Mentor and Memnon, the able Rhodians who commanded on the coast for Darius, either to have raised all Asia Minor against him, or to have transferred the war back to Macedon. … So then he seized Sardis, the key of all the highroads eastwards; he laid siege to Halicarnassus, which made a very long and stubborn resistance, and did not advance till he had his rear safe from attack. Even with all these precautions, the Persian fleet, under Memnon, was producing serious difficulties, and had not that able general died at the critical moment (B. C. 333), the Spartan revolt, which was put down the following year in Greece, would have assumed serious proportions. Alexander now saw that he could press on, and strike at the headquarters of the enemies' power—Phœnicia and the Great king himself. He crossed the difficult range of the Taurus, the southern bulwark of the Persian Empire, and occupied Cilicia. Even the sea was supposed to have retreated to allow his army to pass along a narrow strand under precipitous cliffs. The Great king was awaiting him with a vast army—grossly exaggerated, moreover, in our Greek accounts—in the plain of Syria, near Damascus. Foolish advisers persuaded him, owing to some delay in Alexander's advance, to leave his favourable position, where the advantage of his hosts of cavalry was clear. He therefore actually crossed Alexander, who had passed on the sea side of Mount Amanus, southward, and occupied Issus on his rear. The Macedonian army was thus cut off from home, and a victory necessary to its very existence. The great battle of Issus was fought on such narrow ground, between the sea and the mountains, that neither side had room for outflanking its opponent, except by occupying the high ground on the inland side of the plain (B. C. 333). This was done by the Persians, and the banks of a little river (the Pinarus) crossing their front were fortified as at the Granicus. Alexander was obliged to advance with a large reserve to protect his right flank. As usual he attacked with his right centre, and as soon as he had shaken the troops opposed to him, wheeled to the left, and made straight for the king himself, who occupied the centre in his chariot. Had Darius withstood him bravely and for some time, the defeat of the Macedonians' left wing would probably have been complete, for the Persian cavalry on the coast, attacking the Thessalians on Alexander's left wing, were decidedly superior, and the Greek infantry was at this time a match for the phalanx. But the flight of Darius, and the panic which ensued about him, left Alexander leisure to turn to the assistance of his hard-pressed left wing, and recover the victory. … The greatness of this victory completely paralyzed all the revolt prepared in his rear by the Persian fleet. Alexander was now strong enough to go on without any base of operation, and he boldly (in the manifesto he addressed to Darius after the battle) proclaimed himself King of' Persia by right of conquest, who would brook no equal. Nevertheless, he delayed many months (which the siege of Tyre [see TYRE: B. C. 332] cost him, B. C. 332), and then, passing through Jerusalem, and showing consideration for the Jews, he again paused at the siege of Gaza [see GAZA: B. C. 332], merely, we may suppose, to prove that he was invincible, and to settle once for all the question of the world's mastery. He delayed again for a short while in Egypt [see EGYPT: B. C. 332], when he regulated the country as a province under his sway, with kindness towards the inhabitants, and respect for their religion, and founded Alexandria; nay, he even here made his first essay in claiming divinity; and then, at last, set out to conquer the Eastern provinces of Darius' empire. {2059} The great decisive battle in the plains of Mesopotamia (B. C. 331)—it is called either Arbela or Gaugamela—was spoken of as a trial of strength, and the enormous number of the Persian cavalry, acting on open ground, gave timid people room to fear; but Alexander had long since found out, what the British have found in their many Eastern wars, that even a valiant cavalry is helpless, if undisciplined, against an army of regulars under a competent commander. … The Macedonian had again, however, failed to capture his opponent, for which he blamed Parmenio. … So then, though the issue of the war was not doubtful, there was still a real and legitimate rival to the throne, commanding the sympathies of most of his subjects. For the present, however, Alexander turned his attention to occupying the great capitals of the Persian empire—capitals of older kingdoms, embodied in the empire. … These great cities, Babylon in Mesopotamia, Susa (Shushan) in Elam, Persepolis in Persia proper, and Ecbatana in Media, were all full of ancient wealth and splendour, adorned with great palaces, and famed for monstrous treasures. The actual amount of gold and silver seized in these hoards (not less than £30,000,000 of English money, and perhaps a great deal more) had a far larger effect on the world than the discovery of gold and silver mines in recent times. Every adventurer in the army became suddenly rich; all the means and materials for luxury which the long civilization of the East had discovered and employed, were suddenly thrown into the hands of comparatively rude and even barbarous soldiers. It was a prey such as the Spaniards found in Mexico and Peru, but had a far stronger civilization, which must react upon the conquerors. And already Alexander showed clear signs that he regarded himself as no mere Macedonian or Greek king, but as the Emperor of the East, and successor in every sense of the unfortunate Darius. He made superhuman efforts to overtake Darius in his retreat from Ecbatana through the Parthian passes to the northern provinces—Balkh and Samarcand. The narrative of this famous pursuit is as wonderful as anything in Alexander's campaign. He only reached the fleeing Persian as he was dying of the wounds dealt him by the traitor Bessus, his satrap in Bactria, who had aspired to the crown (B. C. 330). Alexander signally executed the regicide, and himself married the daughter of Darius—who had no son—thus assuming, as far as possible, the character of Darius' legitimate successor."

MACEDONIA: B. C. 330-323.
   Alexander's conquest of Afghanistan, Bactria and Sogdiana.
   His invasion of India.
   His death at Babylon.
   His character and aims.

"After reducing the country at the south of the Caspian, Alexander marched east and south, through what is now Persia and Afghanistan. On his way he founded the colony of Alexandria Arion, now Herat, an important military position on the western border of Afghanistan. At Prophthasia (Furrah), a little further south, he stayed two months. … Thence he went on eastwards and founded a city, said to be the modern Candahar, and then turned north and crossed the Hindo Koosh mountains, founding another colony near what is now Cabul. Bessus had intended to resist Alexander in Bactria (Balkh), but he fled northwards, and was taken and put to death. Alexander kept on marching northwards, and took Mara Kanda, now Samarcand, the capital of Bokhara (B. C. 329). He crossed the river Jaxartes (Sir), running into the sea of Aral, and defeated the Scythians beyond it, but did not penetrate their country. He intended the Jaxartes to be the northern frontier of his empire. … The conquest of Sogdiana (Bokhara) gave Alexander some trouble, and occupied him till the year B. C. 327. In B. C. 327 Alexander set out from Bactria to conquer India [see INDIA: B. C. 327-312]. … Alexander was as eager for discovery as for conquest; and from the mouth of the Indus he sent his fleet, under the admiral Nearchus, to make their way along the coast to the mouth of the Euphrates. He himself marched westwards with the army through the deserts of Beloochistan, and brought them after terrible sufferings, through thirst, disease, and fatigue, again to Persepolis (B. C. 324). From this he went to Susa, where he stayed some months, investigating the conduct of his satraps, and punishing some of them severely. Since the battle of Arbela, Alexander had become more and more like a Persian king in his way of living, although he did not allow it to interfere with his activity. He dressed in the Persian manner, and took up the ceremonies of the Persian court. The soldiers were displeased at his giving up the habits of Macedonia, and at Susa he provoked them still more by making eighty of his chief officers marry Persian wives. The object of Alexander was to break down distinctions of race and country in his empire, and to abolish the great gulf that there had hitherto been between the Greeks and the Asiatics. He also enrolled many Persians in the regiments which had hitherto contained none but Macedonians, and levied 30,000 troops from the most warlike districts of Asia, whom he armed in the Macedonian manner. Since the voyage of Nearchus, Alexander had determined on an expedition against Arabia by sea, and had given orders for ships to be built in Phœnicia, and then taken to pieces and carried by land to Thapsakus on the Euphrates. At Thapsakus they were to be put together again, and so make their way to Babylon, from which the expedition was to start. In the spring of B. C. 323, Alexander set out from Susa for Babylon. On his journey he was met by embassies from nearly all the States of the known world. At Babylon he found the ships ready: fresh troops had arrived, both Greek and Asiatic; and the expedition was on the point of starting, when Alexander was seized with fever and died (June, B. C. 323). He was only thirty-two years old."

   "Three great battles and several great sieges made Alexander
   master of the Persian empire. And it is worth remark that the
   immediate results of the three battles, Granikos, Issos, and
   Gaugamela, coincide with lasting results in the history of the
   world. The victory of the Granikos made Alexander master of
   Asia Minor, of a region which in the course of a few centuries
   was thoroughly hellenized, and which remained Greek,
   Christian, and Orthodox, down to the Turkish invasions of the
   11th century.
{2060}
   The territory which Alexander thus won, the lands from the
   Danube to Mount Tauros, answered very nearly to the extent of
   the Byzantine Empire for several centuries, and it might very
   possibly have been ruled by him, as it was in Byzantine times,
   from an European centre. The field of Issos gave him Syria and
   Egypt, lands which the Macedonian and the Roman kept for
   nearly a thousand years, and which for ages contained, in
   Alexandria and Antioch, the two greatest of Grecian cities.
   But Syria and Egypt themselves never became Greek; when they
   became Christian, they failed to become Orthodox, and they
   fell away at the first touch of the victorious Saracen. Their
   government called for an Asiatic or Egyptian capital, but
   their ruler might himself still have remained European and
   Hellenic. His third triumph at Gaugamela gave him the
   possession of the whole East; but it was but a momentary
   possession: he had now pressed onward into lands where neither
   Grecian culture, Roman dominion, nor Christian theology proved
   in the end able to strike any lasting root. … He had gone
   too far for his original objects. Lasting possession of his
   conquests beyond the Tigris could be kept only in the
   character of King of the Medes and Persians. Policy bade him
   put on that character. We can also fully believe that he was
   himself really dazzled with the splendour of his superhuman
   success. … His own deeds had outdone those which were told
   of any of his divine forefathers or their comrades; Achilleus,
   Herakles, Theseus, Dionysos, had done and suffered less than
   Alexander. Was it then wonderful that he should seriously
   believe that one who had outdone their acts must come of a
   stock equal to their own? Was it wonderful if, not merely in
   pride or policy, but in genuine faith, he disclaimed a human
   parent in Philip, and looked for the real father of the
   conqueror and lord of earth in the conqueror and lord of the
   heavenly world? We believe then that policy, passion, and
   genuine superstition were all joined together in the demand
   which Alexander made for divine, or at least for unusual,
   honours. He had taken the place of the Great King, and he
   demanded the homage which was held to be due to him who held
   that place. Such homage his barbarian' subjects were perfectly
   ready to pay; they would most likely have had but little
   respect for a king who forgot to call for it. But the homage
   which to a Persian seemed only the natural expression of
   respect for the royal dignity, seemed to Greeks and
   Macedonians an invasion of the honour due only to the immortal
   Gods. … He not only sent round to all the cities of Greece
   to demand divine honours, which were perhaps not worth
   refusing, but he ordered each city to bring back its political
   exiles. This last was an interference with the internal
   government of the cities which certainly was not warranted by
   Alexander's position as head of the Greek Confederacy. And, in
   other respects also, from this unhappy time all the worst
   failings of Alexander become more strongly developed. … The
   unfulfilled designs of Alexander must ever remain in darkness;
   no man can tell what might have been done by one of such
   mighty powers who was cut off at so early a stage of his
   career. That he looked forward to still further conquests
   seems beyond doubt. The only question is, Did his conquests,
   alike those which were won and those which were still to be
   won, spring from mere ambition and love of adventure, or is he
   to be looked on as in any degree the intentional missionary of
   Hellenic culture? That such he was is set forth with much
   warmth and some extravagance in a special treatise of
   Plutarch; it is argued more soberly, but with true vigour and
   eloquence, in the seventh volume of Bishop Thirlwall. Mr.
   Grote denies him all merit of the kind."

      ALSO IN:
      C. Thirlwall,
      History of Greece,
      chapters 51-55 (volumes 6-7).

MACEDONIA: B. C. 323-322.
   Revolt in Greece.
   The Lamian War.
   Subjugation of Athens.

MACEDONIA: B. C. 323-316.
   The Partition of the Empire of Alexander.
   First Period of the Wars of the Diadochi
   or Successors of Alexander.

Alexander "left his wife Roxana pregnant, who at the end of three months brought into the world the rightful heir to the sceptre, Alexander; he left likewise an illegitimate son, Hercules; a bastard half-brother, Arrhidæus; his mother, the haughty and cruel Olympias, and a sister, Cleopatra, both widows; the artful Eurydice, (daughter to Cyane, one of Philip's sisters,) subsequently married to the king, Arrhidæus; and Thessalonica, Philip's daughter, afterwards united to Cassander of Macedonia. The weak Arrhidæus, under the name of Philip, and the infant Alexander, were at last proclaimed kings, the regency being placed in the hands of Perdiccas, Leonnatus, and Meleager; the last of whom was quickly cut off at the instigation of Perdiccas." The provinces of the Empire which Alexander had conquered were now divided between the generals of his army, who are known in history as the Diadochi, that is, the Successors. The division was as follows: "Ptolemy son of Lagus received Egypt [see EGYPT: B. C. 323-30]; Leonnatus, Mysia; Antigonus, Phyrgia, Lycia, and Pamphylia; Lysymachus, Macedonian Thrace; Antipater and Craterus remained in possession of Macedonia. … The remaining provinces either did not come under the new division [see SELEUCIDAE], or else their governors are unworthy of notice,"

Meantime, "the body of Alexander lay unburied and neglected, and it was not until two years after his death that his remains were consigned to the tomb. But his followers still shewed their respect for his memory by retaining the feeble Arrhidæus on the throne, and preventing the marriage of Perdiccas with Cleopatra, the daughter of Philip; a union which manifestly was projected to open a way to the throne. But while this project of marriage occupied the attention of the regent, a league had secretly been formed for his destruction; and the storm burst forth from a quarter whence it was least expected. … The barbarous tribes of the Cappadocians and Paphlagonians … asserted their independence after the death of Alexander, and chose Ariarathes for their leader. Perdiccas sent against them Eumenes, who had hitherto fulfilled the peaceful duties of a secretary; and sent orders to Antigonus and Leonatns, the governors of Western Asia, to join the expedition with all their forces. These commands were disobeyed; and Perdiccas was forced to march with the royal army against the insurgents. He easily defeated these undisciplined troops, but sullied his victory by unnecessary cruelty. {2061} On his return he summoned the satraps of Western Asia to appear before his tribunal, and answer for their disobedience. Antigonus, seeing his danger, entered into a league with Ptolemy the satrap of Egypt, Antipater the governor of Macedon, and several other noblemen, to crush the regency. Perdiccas, on the other hand, leaving Eumenes to guard Lower Asia, marched with the choicest divisions of the royal army against Ptolemy, whose craft and ability he dreaded even more than his power. Antipater and Craterus were early in the field; they crossed the Hellespont with the army that had been left for the defence of Macedon. … Seduced by … false information, they divided their forces; Antipater hastening through Phrygia in pursuit of Perdiccas, while Craterus and Neoptolemus marched against Eumenes. They encountered him in the Trojan plain, and were completely defeated. … Eumenes sent intelligence of his success to Perdiccas; but two days before the messenger reached the royal camp the regent was no more. His army, wearied by the long siege of Pelusium, became dissatisfied; their mutinous dispositions were secretly encouraged by the emissaries of Ptolemy … and Perdiccas was murdered in his tent (B. C. 321). … In the meantime a brief struggle for independence had taken place in Greece, which is commonly called the Lamian war [see GREECE: B. C. 323-322]. … As soon as Ptolemy had been informed of the murder of Perdiccas, he came to the royal army with a large supply of wine and provisions. His kindness and courteous manners so won upon these turbulent soldiers, that they unanimously offered him the regency; but he had the prudence to decline so dangerous an office. On his refusal, the feeble Arrhidæus and the traitor Python were appointed to the regency, just as the news arrived of the recent victory of Eumenes. This intelligence filled the royal army with indignation. … They hastily passed a vote proclaiming Eumenes and his adherents public enemies. … The advance of an army to give effect to these decrees was delayed by a new revolution. Eurydice, the wife of Arrhidæus, a woman of great ambition and considerable talent for intrigue, wrested the regency from her feeble husband and Python, but was stripped of power on the arrival of Antipater, who reproached the Macedonians for submitting to the government of a woman; and, being ably supported by Antigonus and Seleucus, obtained for himself the office of regent. No sooner had Antipater been invested with supreme power than he sent Arrhidæus and Eurydice prisoners to Pella, and entrusted the conduct of the war against Eumenes to the crafty and ambitious Antigonus. … Eumenes was unable to cope with the forces sent against him; having been defeated in the open field, he took shelter in Nora, a Cappadocian city, and maintained a vigorous defence, rejecting the many tempting offers by which Antigonus endeavoured to win him to the support of his designs (B. C. 318). The death of Antipater produced a new revolution in the empire; and Eumenes in the meantime escaped from Nora, accompanied by his principal friends. … Antipater, at his death, bequeathed the regency to Polysperchon, excluding his son Cassander from power on account of his criminal intrigues with the wicked and ambitious Eurydice. Though a brave general, Polysperchon had not the qualifications of a statesman; he provoked the powerful resentment of Antigonus by entering into a close alliance with Eumenes; and he permitted Cassander to strengthen himself in southern Greece, where he seized the strong fortress of Munychia. … Polysperchon, unable to drive Cassander from Attica, entered the Peloponnesus to punish the Arcadians, and engaged in a fruitless siege of Megalopolis. In the meantime Olympias, to whom he had confided the government of Macedon, seized Arrhidæus and Eurydice, whom she had murdered in prison. Cassander hasted, at the head of all his forces, to avenge the death of his mistress: Olympias, unable to meet him in the field, fled to Pydna; but the city was forced to surrender after a brief defence, and Olympias was immediately put to death. Among the captives were Roxana the widow, Alexander Ægus the posthumous son, and Thessalonica the youngest daughter, of Alexander the Great. Cassander sought and obtained the hand of the latter princess, and thus consoled himself for the loss of his beloved Eurydice. By this marriage he acquired such influence, that Polysperchon did not venture to return home, but continued in the Peloponnesus, where he retained for some time a shadow of authority over the few Macedonians who still clung to the family of Alexander. In Asia, Eumenes maintained the royal cause against Antigonus, though deserted by all the satraps, and harassed by the mutinous dispositions of his troops, especially the Argyraspides, a body of guards that Alexander had raised to attend his own person, and presented with the silver shields from which they derived their name. After a long struggle, both armies joined in a decisive engagement; the Argyraspides broke the hostile infantry, but learning that their baggage had in the meantime been captured by the light troops of the enemy, they mutinied in the very moment of victory, and delivered their leader, bound with his own sash, into the hands of his merciless enemy (B. C. 315). The faithful Eumenes was put to death by the traitorous Antigonus; but he punished the Argyraspides for their treachery."

MACEDONIA: B. C. 315-310.
The first league and war against Antigonus.
Extermination of the heirs of Alexander.

   "Antigonus was now unquestionably the most powerful of the
   successors of Alexander the Great. As master of Asia, he ruled
   over those vast and rich lands that extended from India to the
   Mediterranean Sea. … Although nearly seventy years old, and
   blind in one eye, he still preserved the vigor of his forces.
   … He was fortunate in being assisted by a son, the famous
   Demetrius, who, though possessed of a very passionate nature,
   yet from early youth displayed wonderful military ability.
   Above all, the prominent representatives of the royal family
   had disappeared, and there remained only the youthful
   Alexander, Herakles, the illegitimate son of Alexander the
   Great, who had no lawful claim whatever to the sovereignty,
   and two daughters of Philip, Kleopatra, who lived at Sardis,
   and Thessalonike, whom Kassander had recently married—none of
   whom were sufficiently strong to assert their rights to the
   throne.
{2062}
   Thus Antigonus seemed indeed destined to become vicar and
   master of the entire Alexandrian kingdom, and to restore the
   unity of the empire. But not only was this union not realized,
   but even the great realm which Antigonus had established in
   Asia was doomed to inevitable destruction. The generals who
   possessed the various satrapies of the empire could not bear
   his supremacy, and accordingly entered into a convention,
   which gradually ripened into an active alliance against him.
   The principal organ of this movement was Seleukus, who, having
   escaped to Ptolemy of Egypt, first of all persuaded the latter
   to form an alliance—which Kassander of Macedonia and
   Lysimachus of Thrace readily joined—against the formidable
   power of Antigonus. The war lasted for four years, and was
   carried on in Asia, Europe, and Africa. Its fortunes were
   various [the most noteworthy event being a bloody defeat
   inflicted upon Demetrius the son of Antigonus, by Ptolemy, at
   Gaza, in 312], but the result was not decisive. … In 311 B.
   C. a compact was made between Antigonus on one side, and
   Kassander, Ptolemy, and Lysimachus on the other, whereby 'the
   supreme command in Europe was guaranteed to Kassander, until
   the maturity of Alexander, son of Roxana; Thrace being at the
   same time assured to Lysimachus, Egypt to Ptolemy, and the
   whole of Asia to Antigonus. It was at the same time covenanted
   by all that the Hellenic cities should be free.' Evidently
   this peace contained the seeds of new disputes and increasing
   jealousies. The first act of Kassander was to cause the death
   of Roxana and her child in the fortress of Amphipolis, where
   they had been confined; and thus disappeared forever the only
   link which apparently maintained the union of the empire, and
   a ready career now lay open to the ambition of the successors.
   Again, the name of Seleukus was not even mentioned in the
   peace, while it was well known at the time it was concluded
   that he had firmly established his rule over the eastern
   satrapies of Asia. … The troops also of Antigonus,
   notwithstanding the treaty, still remained in Hellas, under
   command of his nephew Ptolemy. Ptolemy of Egypt, therefore,
   accusing Antigonus of having contravened the treaty by
   garrisoning various Hellenic cities, renewed the war and the
   triple alliance against him." A series of assassinations soon
   followed, which put out of the way the young prince Herakles,
   bastard son of Alexander the Great, and Kleopatra, the sister
   of Alexander, who was preparing to wed Ptolemy of Egypt when
   Antigonus brought about her murder, to prevent the marriage.
   Another victim of the jealousies that were rife among the
   Diadochi was Antigonus' nephew Ptolemy, who had deserted his
   uncle's side, but who was killed by the Egyptian Ptolemy. "For
   more than ten years … Antigonus, Ptolemy, Lysimachus, and
   Kassander successively promised to leave the Greeks
   independent, free, and unguarded; but the latter never ceased
   to be guarded, taxed, and ruled by Macedonian despots. We may,
   indeed, say that the cities of Hellas never before had
   suffered so much as during the time when such great promises
   were made about their liberty. The Ætolians alone still
   possessed their independence. Rough, courageous, warlike, and
   fond of freedom, they continued fighting against the
   Macedonian rule."

MACEDONIA: B. C. 310-301.
   Demetrius Poliorcetes at Athens.
   His siege of Rhodes.
   The last combination against Antigonus.
   His defeat and death at Ipsus.
   Partition of his dominions.

After the war which was renewed in 310 B. C. had lasted three years, "Antigonus' resolved to make a vigorous effort to wrest Greece from the hands of Cassander and Ptolemy, who held all the principal towns in it. Accordingly, in the summer of 307 B. C., he despatched his son Demetrius from Ephesus to Athens, with a fleet of 250 sail, and 5,000 talents in money. Demetrius, who afterwards obtained the surname of 'Poliorcetes,' or 'Besieger of Cities,' was a young man of ardent temperament and great abilities. Upon arriving at the Piræus, he immediately proclaimed the object of his expedition to be the liberation of Athens and the expulsion of the Macedonian garrison. Supported by the Macedonians, Demetrius the Phalerean had now ruled Athens for a period of more than ten years. … During the first period of his administration he appears to have governed wisely and equitably, to have improved the Athenian laws, and to have adorned the city with useful buildings. But in spite of his pretensions to philosophy, the possession of uncontrolled power soon altered his character for the worse, and he became remarkable for luxury, ostentation, und sensuality. Hence he gradually lost the popularity which he had once enjoyed. … The Athenians heard with pleasure the proclamations of the son of Antigonus; his namesake, the Phalerean, was obliged to surrender the city to him, and to close his political career by retiring to Thebes. … Demetrius Poliorcetes then formally announced to the Athenian assembly the restoration of their ancient constitution, and promised them a large donative of corn and ship-timber. This munificence was repaid by the Athenians with the basest and most abject flattery

… Demetrius Poliorcetes did not remain long at Athens. Early in 306 B. C. he was recalled by his father, and, sailing to Cyprus, undertook the siege of Salamis. Ptolemy hastened to its relief with 140 vessels and 10,000 troops. The battle that ensued was one of the most memorable in the annals of ancient naval warfare, more particularly on account of the vast size of the vessels engaged. Ptolemy was completely defeated; and so important was the victory deemed by Antigonus, that on the strength of it he assumed the title of king, which he also conferred upon his son. This example was followed by Ptolemy, Seleucus, and Lysimachus. Encouraged by their success at Cyprus, Antigonus and Demetrius made a vain attempt upon Egypt, which, however, proved a disastrous failure. By way of revenge, Demetrius undertook an expedition against Rhodes, which had refused its aid in the attack upon Ptolemy. It was from the memorable siege of Rhodes that Demetrius obtained his name of Poliorcetes. … After a year spent in the vain attempt to take the town, Demetrius was forced to retire and grant the Rhodians peace.

Whilst Demetrius was thus employed, Cassander had made great progress in reducing Greece. He had taken Corinth, and was besieging Athens, when Demetrius entered the Euripus. Cassander immediately raised the siege, and was subsequently defeated in an action near Thermopylae. When Demetrius entered Athens he was received as before with the most extravagant flatteries. He remained two or three years in Greece, during which his superiority over Cassander was decided, though no great battle was fought. In the spring of 301 B. C. he was recalled by his father Antigonus, who stood in need of his assistance against Lysimachus and Seleucus. In the course of the same year the struggle between Antigonus and his rivals was brought to a close by the battle of Ipsus in Phrygia, in which Antigonus was killed, and his army completely defeated. Antigonus had attained the age of 81 at the time of his death. Demetrius retreated with the remnant of the army to Ephesus, whence he sailed to Cyprus, and afterwards proposed to go to Athens; but the Athenians, alienated by his ill-fortune at Ipsus, refused to receive him."

"After the battle [of Ipsus] it remained for the conquerors to divide the spoil. The dominions of Antigonus were actually in the hands of Seleucus and Lysimachus, and they alone had achieved the victory. It does not appear that they consulted either of their allies on the partition, though it seems that they obtained the assent of Cassander. They agreed to share all that Antigonus had possessed between themselves. It is not clear on what principle the line of demarcation was drawn, nor is it possible to trace it. But the greater part of Asia Minor was given to Lysimachus. The portion of Seleucus included not only the whole country between the coast of Syria and the Euphrates, but also, it seems, a part of Phrygia and of Cappadocia. Cilicia was assigned to Cassander's brother Pleistarchus. With regard to Syria however a difficulty remained. The greater part of it had … been conquered by Ptolemy: Tyre and Sidon alone were still occupied by the garrisons of Antigonus. Ptolemy had at least as good a right as his ally to all that he possessed. … Seleucus however began to take possession of it, and when Ptolemy pressed his claims returned an answer, mild in sound, but threatening in its import … : and it appears that Ptolemy was induced to withdraw his opposition. There were however also some native princes [Ardoates in Armenia, and Mithridates, son of Ariobarzanes, in Pontus—see MITHRIDATIC WARS] who had taken advantage of the contests between the Macedonian chiefs to establish their authority over extensive territories in the west of Asia. … So far as regards Asia, the battle of Ipsus must be considered as a disastrous event. Not because it transferred the power of Antigonus into different hands, nor because it would have been more desirable that he should have triumphed over Seleucus. But the new distribution of territory led to calamitous consequences, which might perhaps otherwise have been averted. If the empire of Seleucus had remained confined between the Indus and the Euphrates, it might have subsisted much longer, at least, as a barrier against the inroads of the barbarians, who at last obliterated all the traces of European civilisation left there by Alexander and his successors. But shortly after his victory, Seleucus founded his new capital on the Orontes, called, after his father, Antiochia, peopling it with the inhabitants of Antigonia. It became the residence of his dynasty, and grew, while their vast empire dwindled into the Syrian monarchy. For the prospects of Greece, on the other hand, the fall of Antigonus must clearly be accounted an advantage, so far as the effect was to dismember his territory, and to distribute it so that the most powerful of his successors was at the greatest distance. It was a gain that Macedonia was left an independent kingdom, within its ancient limits, and bounded on the north by a state of superior strength. It does not appear that any compact was made between Cassander and his allies as to the possession of Greece. It was probably understood that he should keep whatever he might acquire there."

ALSO IN: B. G. Niebuhr, Lectures on Ancient History, lectures 86-87 (volume 3).

MACEDONIA: B. C. 297-280.
   Death of Casander.
   Intrigues of Ptolemy Keraunos.
   Overthrow and death of Lysimachus.
   Abdication and death of Ptolemy.
   Murder of Seleucus.
   Seizure of the Macedonian crown by Keraunos.

"Casander died of disease (a rare end among this seed of dragon's teeth) in 297 B. C., and so the Greeks were left to assert their liberty, and Demetrius to machinate and effect his establishment on the throne of Macedonia, as well as to keep the world in fear and suspense by his naval forces, and his preparations to reconquer his father's position. Lysimachus, Seleucus, and Ptolemy were watching one another, and alternating in alliance and in war. All these princes, as well as Demetrius and Pyrrhus, king of Epirus, were connected in marriage; they all married as many wives as they pleased, apparently without remonstrance from their previous consorts. So the whole complex of the warring kings were in close family relations. … Pyrrhus was now a very rising and ambitions prince; if not in alliance with Demetrius, he was striving to extend his kingdom of Epirus into Macedonia, and would doubtless have succeeded, but for the superior power of Lysimachus. This Thracian monarch, in spite of serious reverses against the barbarians of the North, who took both him and his son prisoners, and released them very chivalrously, about this time possessed a solid and secure kingdom, and moreover an able and righteous son, Agathocles, so that his dynasty might have been established, but for the poisonous influence of Arsinoe, the daughter of Ptolemy, whom he, an old man, had married in token of an alliance after the battle of Ipsus. … The family quarrel which upset the world arose in this wise. To seal the alliance after Ipsus, old king Ptolemy sent his daughter Arsinoe to marry his rival and friend Lysimachus, who, on his side, had sent his daughter, another Arsinoe, in marriage to the younger Ptolemy (Philadelphus). This was the second son of the great Ptolemy, who had chosen him for the throne in preference to his eldest son, Keraunos, a man of violent and reckless character, who accordingly left the country, and went to seek his fortune at foreign courts. Meanwhile the old Ptolemy, for safety's sake, installed his second son as king of Egypt during his own life, and abdicated at the age of 83 [B. C. 283], full of honours, nor did he leave the court, where he appeared as a subject before his son as king. Keraunos naturally visited, in the first instance, the Thracian court, where he not only had a half sister (Arsinoe) queen, but where his full sister, Lysandra, was married to the crown prince, the gallant and popular Agathocles; but Keraunos and the queen conspired against this prince; they persuaded old Lysimachus that he was a traitor, and so Keraunos was directed to put him to death. {2064} This crime caused unusual excitement and odium all through the country, and the relations and party of the murdered prince called on Seleucus to avenge him. He did so, and advanced with an army against Lysimachus, whom he defeated and slew in a great battle, somewhere not far from the field of Ipsus. It was called the plain of Coron (B. C. 281). Thus died the last but one of Alexander's Companions, at the age of 80, he, too, in battle. Ptolemy was already laid in his peaceful grave (B. C. 283). There remained the last and greatest, the king of Asia, Seleucus. He, however, gave up all his Asiatic possessions from the Hellespont to the Indus to his son Antiochus, and meant to spend his last years in the home of his fathers, Macedonia; but as he was entering that kingdom he was murdered by Keraunos, whom he brought with him in his train. This bloodthirsty adventurer was thus left with an army which had no leader, in a kingdom which had no king; for Demetrius' son, Antigonus, the strongest claimant, had not yet made good his position. All the other kings, whose heads were full with their newly acquired sovereignties, viz., Antiochus in Asia and Ptolemy II. in Egypt, joined with Keraunos in buying off the dangerous Pyrrhus [king of Epirus—see ROME: B. C. 282-275], by bribes of men, money, and elephants, to make his expedition to Italy, and leave them to settle their affairs. The Greek cities, as usual, when there was a change of sovereign in Macedonia, rose and asserted what they were pleased to call their liberty, so preventing Antigonus from recovering his father's dominions. Meanwhile Keraunos established himself in Macedonia; he even, like our Richard, induced the queen, his step-sister, his old accomplice against Agathocles, to marry him! but it was only to murder her children by Lysimachus, the only dangerous claimants to the Thracian provinces. The wretched queen fled to Samothrace, and thence to Egypt, where she ended her guilty and chequered career as queen of her full brother Ptolemy II. (Philadelphus), and was deified during her life! Such then was the state of Alexander's Empire in 280 B. C. All the first Diadochi were dead, and so were even the sons of two of them, Demetrius and Agathocles. The son of the former was a claimant for the throne of Macedonia, which he acquired after long and doubtful struggles. Antiochus, who had long been regent of the Eastern provinces beyond Mesopotamia, had come suddenly, by his father's murder, into possession of so vast a kingdom, that he could not control the coast of Asia Minor, where sundry free cities and dynasts sought to establish themselves. Ptolemy II. was already king of Egypt, including the suzerainty of Cyrene, and had claims on Palestine and Syria. Ptolemy Keraunos, the double-dyed villain and murderer, was in possession of the throne of Macedonia, but at war with the claimant Antigonus. Pyrrhus of Epirus was gone to conquer a new kingdom in the West. Such was the state of things when a terrible new scourge [the invasion of the Gauls] broke over the world."

MACEDONIA: B. C. 277-244.
   Strife for the throne.
   Failures of Pyrrhus.
   Success of Antigonus Gonatus.
   His subjugation of Athens and Corinth.

   "On the retirement of the Gauls, Antipater, the nephew of
   Cassander, came forward for the second time, and was accepted
   as king by a portion, at any rate, of the Macedonians. But a
   new pretender soon appeared upon the scene. Antigonus Gonatus,
   the son of Demetrius Poliorcetes, who had maintained himself
   since that monarch's captivity as an independent prince in
   Central or Southern Hellas, claimed the throne once filled by
   his father, and, having taken into his service a body of
   Gallic mercenaries, defeated Antipater and made himself master
   of Macedonia. His pretensions being disputed by Antiochus
   Soter, the son of Seleucus, who had succeeded to the throne of
   Syria, he engaged in war with that prince, crossing into Asia
   and uniting his forces with those of Nicomedes, the Bithynian
   king, whom Antiochus was endeavouring to conquer. To this
   combination Antiochus was forced to yield: relinquishing his
   claims, he gave his sister, Phila, in marriage to Antigonus,
   and recognised him as king of Macedonia. Antigonus upon this
   fully established his power, repulsing a fresh attack of the
   Gauls. … But he was not long left in repose. In B. C. 274,
   Pyrrhus finally quitted Italy, having failed in all his
   schemes, but having made himself a great reputation. Landing
   in Epirus with a scanty force, he found the condition of
   Macedonia and of Greece favourable to his ambition. Antigonus
   had no hold on the affections of his subjects, whose
   recollections of his father, Demetrius, were unpleasing. The
   Greek cities were, some of them, under tyrants, others
   occupied against their will by Macedonian garrisons. Above
   all, Greece and Macedonia were full of military adventurers,
   ready to flock to any standard which offered them a fair
   prospect of plunder. Pyrrhus, therefore, having taken a body
   of Celts into his pay, declared war against Antigonus, B. C.
   273, and suddenly invaded Macedonia. Antigonus gave him
   battle, but was worsted, owing to the disaffection of his
   soldiers, and being twice defeated became a fugitive and a
   wanderer. The victories of Pyrrhus, and his son Ptolemy,
   placed the Macedonian crown upon the brow of the former, who
   might not improbably have become the founder of a great power,
   if he could have turned his attention to consolidation,
   instead of looking out for fresh conquests. But the arts and
   employments of peace had no charm for the Epirotic
   knight-errant. Hardly was he settled in his seat when, upon
   the invitation of Cleonymus of Sparta, he led an expedition
   into the Peloponnese, and attempted the conquest of that rough
   and difficult region. Repulsed from Sparta, which he had hoped
   to surprise, he sought to cover his disappointment by the
   capture of Argos; but here he was still more unsuccessful.
   Antigonus, now once more at the head of an army, watched the
   city, prepared to dispute its occupation, while the lately
   threatened Spartans hung upon the invader's rear.
{2065}
   In a desperate attempt to seize the place by night, the
   adventurous Epirote was first wounded by a soldier and then
   slain by the blow of a tile, thrown from a housetop by an
   Argive woman, B. C. 271. On the death of Pyrrhus the
   Macedonian throne was recovered by Antigonus, who commenced
   his second reign by establishing his influence over most of
   the Peloponnese, after which he was engaged in a long war with
   the Athenians (B. C. 268 to 263), who were supported by Sparta
   and by Egypt [see ATHENS: B. C. 288-263]. These allies
   rendered, however, but little help; and Athens must have soon
   succumbed, had not Antigonus been called away to Macedonia by
   the invasion of Alexander, son of Pyrrhus. This enterprising
   prince carried, at first, all before him, and was even
   acknowledged as Macedonian king; but ere long Demetrius, the
   son of Antigonus, having defeated Alexander near Derdia,
   re-established his father's dominion over Macedon, and,
   invading Epirus, succeeded in driving the Epirotic monarch out
   of his paternal kingdom. The Epirots soon restored him; but
   from this time he remained at peace with Antigonus, who was
   able once more to devote his undivided attention to the
   subjugation of the Greeks. In B. C. 263 he took Athens, and
   rendered himself complete master of Attica; and, in B. C. 244,
   … he contrived by a treacherous stratagem to obtain
   possession of Corinth. But at this point his successes ceased.
   A power had been quietly growing up in a corner of the
   Peloponnese [the Achaian League—see GREECE: B. C. 280-146]
   which was to become a counterpoise to Macedonia, and to give
   to the closing scenes of Grecian history an interest little
   inferior to that which had belonged to its earlier pages."

MACEDONIAN PHALANX.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (MAY: GEORGIA); and (MAY-SEPTEMBER: GEORGIA).

In the year 1419, Joham Gonçalvez Zarco and Tristam Vaz, "seeing from Porto Santo something that seemed like a cloud, but yet different (the origin of so much discovery, noting the difference in the likeness), built two boats, and, making for this cloud, soon found themselves alongside a beautiful island, abounding in many things, but most of all in trees, on which account they gave it the name of Madeira (wood)."

MADRID: A. D. 1706-1710. Taken and retaken by the French and Austrian claimants of the crown.

MADRID: A. D. 1808.
Arrival of Joseph Bonaparte, as king, and his speedy flight.

MADRID: A. D. 1808 (December).
Recovery by the French.
Return of King Joseph Bonaparte.

MADRID: A. D. 1812.
Evacuation by the French.
Occupation of the city by Wellington and his army.

   A common or national name given by the Romans to the tribes in
   Scotland which dwelt between the Forth and the Clyde, next to
   "the wall."

MÆOTIS PALUS, PALUS MÆOTIS.

MAFRIAN.

MAGDEBURG: A. D. 1631. Siege, storming, and horrible sack and massacre by the troops of Tilly.

MAGIANS. MAGI.

The priesthood of the ancient Iranian religion—the religion of the Avesta and of Zarathrustra, or Zoroaster—as it existed among the Medes and Persians. In Eastern Iran the priests were called Athravas. In Western Iran "they are not called Athravas, but Magush. This name is first found in the inscription which Darius caused to be cut on the rock-wall of Behistun; afterwards it was consistently used by Western writers, from Herodotus to Agathias, for the priests of Iran."

"The priests of the Zoroastrians, from a time not long subsequent to Darius Hystaspis, were the Magi. This tribe, or caste, originally perhaps external to Zoroastrianism, had come to be recognised as a true priestly order; and was entrusted by the Sassanian princes with the whole control and direction of the religion of the state. Its chief was a personage holding a rank but very little inferior to the king. He bore the title of 'Tenpet,' 'Head of the Religion,' or 'Movpetan Movpet,' 'Head of the Chief Magi.'"

"To the whole ancient world Zoroaster's lore was best known by the name of the doctrine of the Magi, which denomination was commonly applied to the priests of India, Persia, and Babylonia. The earliest mention of them is made by the prophet Jeremiah (xxxix. 3), who enumerated among the retinue of King Nebuchadnezzar at his entry into Jerusalem, the 'Chief of the Magi' ('rab mag' in Hebrew), from which statement we may distinctly gather that the Magi exercised a great influence at the court of Babylonia 600 years B. C. They were, however, foreigners, and are not to be confounded with the indigenous priests. … The name Magi occurs even in the New Testament. In the Gospel according to St. Matthew (ii. 1), the Magi (Greek 'magoi,' translated in the English Bible by 'wise men') came from the East to Jerusalem, to worship the new-born child Jesus at Bethlehem. That these Magi were priests of the Zoroastrian religion, we know from Greek writers."

MAGNA CARTA.

MAGNA GRÆCIA.

"It was during the height of their prosperity, seemingly, in the sixth century B. C., that the Italic Greeks [in southern Italy] either acquired for, or bestowed upon, their territory the appellation of Magna Græcia, which at that time it well deserved; for not only were Sybaris and Kroton then the greatest Grecian cities situated near together, but the whole peninsula of Calabria may be considered as attached to the Grecian cities on the coast. The native Œnotrians and Sikels occupying the interior had become hellenised, or semi-hellenised, with a mixture of Greeks among them—common subjects of these great cities."

MAGNESIA.

The eastern coast of Thessaly was anciently so called. The Magnetes who occupied it were among the people who became subject to the Thessalians or Thesprotians, when the latter came over from Epirus and occupied the valley of the Peneus.

Two towns named Magnesia in Asia Minor were believed to be colonies from the Magnetes of Thessaly. One was on the south side of the Meander; the other, more northerly, near the river Harmus.

Magnus II., King of Sweden, 1319-1350, and 1359-1363; and VII. of Norway, 1319-1343.

MAHARAJA.

"The religion of Islam acknowledges the mission of Jesus, but not His divinity. Since the Creation, it teaches, five prophets had appeared before the birth of Mahomet—Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus—each being greater than his predecessor, and each bringing a fuller and higher revelation than the last. Jesus ranks above all the prophets of the old dispensation, but below those of the new, inaugurated by Mahomet. In the final struggle He will be but the servant and auxiliary of a more august personage—the Mahdi. The literal meaning of the word Mahdi is not, as the newspapers generally assert, 'He who leads,' a meaning more in consonance with European ideas, but 'He who is led.' … If he leads his fellow-men it is because he alone is the 'well-guided one,' led by God—the Mahdi. The word Mahdi is only an epithet which may be applied to any prophet, or even to any ordinary person; but used as a proper name it indicates him who is 'well-guided' beyond all others, the Mahdi 'par excellence,' who is to end the drama of the world, and of whom Jesus shall only be the vicar. … The Koran does not speak of the Mahdi, but it seems certain that Mahomet must have announced him. … The idea of the Mahdi once formed, it circulated throughout the Mussulman world: we will follow it rapidly in its course among the Persians, the Turks, the Egyptians, and the Arabs of the Soudan; but without for an instant pretending to pass in review all the Mahdis who have appeared upon the prophetic stage; for their name is Legion."

      See, also,
      ISLAM; ALMOHADES;
      and EGYPT: A. D. 1870-1883, and 1884-1885.

MAHDIYA:
Taken by the Moorish Corsair, Dragut,
and retaken by the Spaniards (1550).

MAHOMETAN CONQUEST AND EMPIRE.

Mahomet (the usage of Christendom has fixed this form of the name Mohammad) was born at Mecca, on or about the 20th day of August, A. D. 570. He sprang from "the noblest race in Mecca and in Arabia [the tribe of Koreish and the family of Hashem]. To his family belonged the hereditary guardianship of the Kaaba and a high place among the aristocracy of his native city. Personally poor, he was raised to a position of importance by his marriage with the rich widow Khadijah, whose mercantile affairs he had previously conducted. In his fortieth year he began to announce himself as an Apostle of God, sent to root out idolatry, and to restore the true faith of the preceding Prophets, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus. Slowly and gradually he makes converts in his native city; his good wife Khadijah, his faithful servant Zeyd, are the first to recognize his mission; his young cousin, the noble Ali, the brave and generous and injured model of Arabian chivalry, declares himself his convert and Vizier; the prudent, moderate and bountiful Abu-Bekr acknowledges the pretensions of the daring innovator. Through mockery and persecution the Prophet keeps unflinchingly in his path; no threats, no injuries, hinder him from still preaching to his people the unity and the righteousness of God, and exhorting to a far purer and better morality than had ever been set before them. He claims no temporal power, no spiritual domination; he asks but for simple toleration, for free permission to win men by persuasion into the way of truth. … As yet at least his hands were not stained with blood, nor his inner life with lust."

   After ten years of preaching at Mecca, and of a private
   circulation and repetition of the successive Suras or chapters
   of the Koran, as the prophet delivered them, Mahomet had
   gained but a small following, while the opposition to his
   doctrines and pretensions had gained strength. But in A. D.
   620 (he being then fifty years of age) he gained the ear of a
   company of pilgrims from Medina and won them to his faith.
   Returning home, they spread the gospel of Islam among their
   neighbors, and the disciples at Medina were soon strong enough
   in numbers to offer protection to their prophet and to his
   persecuted followers in Mecca. As the result of two pledges,
   famous in Mahometan history, which were given by the men of
   Medina to Mahomet, in secret meetings at the hill of Acaba, a
   general emigration of the adherents of the new faith from
   Mecca to Medina took place in the spring of the year 622.
   Mahomet and his closest friend, Abu Bakr, having remained with
   their families until the last, escaped the rage of the
   Koreish, or Coreish, only by a secret flight and a concealment
   for three days in a cave on Mount Thaur, near Mecca. Their
   departure from the cave of Thaur, according to the most
   accepted reckoning, was on the 20th of June, A. D. 622. This
   is the date of the Hegira, or flight, or emigration of Mahomet
   from Mecca to Medina. The Mahometan Era of the Hegira, "though
   referring 'par excellence' to the flight of the Prophet, …
   is also applicable to all his followers who emigrated to
   Medina prior to the capture of Mecca; and they are hence
   called Muhâjirîn, i. e., the Emigrants, or Refugees. We have
   seen that they commenced to emigrate from the beginning of
   Moharram (the first month of the Hegira era) two months
   before." The title of the Muhâjirîn, or Refugees, soon became
   an illustrious one, as did that of the Ansar, or Allies, of
   Medina, who received and protected them. At Medina Mahomet
   found himself strongly sustained. Before the year of his
   flight ended, he opened hostilities against the city which had
   rejected him, by attacking its Syrian caravans. The attacks
   were followed up and the traffic of Mecca greatly interfered
   with, until January, 624, when the famous battle of Bedr, or
   Badr, was fought, and the first great victory of the sword of
   Islam achieved.
{2068}
   The 300 warriors of Bedr formed "the peerage of Islam." From
   this time the ascendancy of Mahomet was rapidly gained, and
   assumed a political as well as a religious character. His
   authority was established at Medina and his influence spread
   among the neighboring tribes. Nor was his cause more than
   temporarily depressed by a sharp defeat which he sustained,
   January, 625, in battle with the Koreish at Ohod. Two years
   later Medina was attacked and besieged by a great force of the
   Koreish and other tribes of Arabs and Jews, against the latter
   of whom Mahomet, after vainly courting their adhesion and
   recognition, had turned with relentless hostility. The siege
   failed and the retreat of the enemy was hastened by a timely
   storm. In the next year Mahomet extorted from the Koreish a
   treaty, known as the Truce of Hodeibia, which suspended
   hostilities for ten years and permitted the prophet and his
   followers to visit Mecca for three days in the following year.
   The pilgrimage to Mecca was made in the holy month, February,
   629, and in 630 Mahomet found adherents enough within the city
   and outside of it to deliver the coveted shrine and capital of
   Arabia into his hands. Alleging a breach of the treaty of
   peace, he marched against the city with an army of 10,000 men,
   and it was surrendered to him by his obstinate opponent, Abu
   Sofiân, who acknowledged, at last, the divine commission of
   Mahomet and became a disciple. The idols in the Kaaba were
   thrown down and the ancient temple dedicated to the worship of
   the one God. The conquest of Mecca was followed within no long
   time by the submission of the whole Arabic peninsula. The most
   obstinate in resisting were the great Bedouin tribe of the
   Hawazin, in the hill country, southeast of Mecca, with their
   kindred, the Bani Thackif. These were crushed in the important
   battle of Honein, and their strong city of Tayif was
   afterwards taken. Before Mahomet died, on the 8th June, A. D.
   632, he was the prince as well as the prophet of Arabia, and
   his armies, passing the Syrian borders, had already
   encountered the Romans, though not gloriously, in a battle
   fought at Muta, not far from the Dead Sea.

MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 632-639.
   Abu Bekr.
   Omar.
   The founding of the Caliphate.
   Conquest of Syria.

   The death of Mahomet left Islam without a head. The Prophet
   had neither named a successor (Khalif or Caliph), nor had he
   instituted a mode in which the choice of one should be made.
   His nephew and son-in-law—"the Bayard of Islam," the
   lion-hearted Ali—seemed the natural heir of that strangely
   born sovereignty of the Arab world. But its elders and chiefs
   were averse to Ali, and the assembly which they convened
   preferred, instead, the Prophet's faithful friend, the
   venerable Abu Bekr. This first of the caliphs reigned modestly
   but two years, and on his death, July, A. D. 634, the stern
   soldier Omar was raised to the more than royal place. By this
   time the armies of the crescent were already far advanced
   beyond the frontiers of Arabia in their fierce career of
   conquest. No sooner had Abu Bekr, in 632, set his heel on some
   rebellious movements, which threatened his authority, than he
   made haste to open fields in which the military spirit and
   ambitions of his unquiet people might find full exercise. With
   bold impartiality he challenged, at once, and alike, the two
   dominant powers of the eastern world, sending armies to invade
   the soil of Persia, on one hand, and the Syrian provinces of
   the Roman empire, on the other. The invincible Khaled, or
   Caled, led the former, at first, but was soon transferred to
   the more critical field, which the latter proved to be. "One
   of the fifteen provinces of Syria, the cultivated lands to the
   eastward of the Jordan, had been decorated by Roman vanity
   with the name of 'Arabia'; and the first arms of the Saracens
   were justified by the semblance of a national right." The
   strong city of Bosra was taken, partly through the treachery
   of its commander, Romanus, who renounced Christianity and
   embraced the faith of Islam. From Bosra the Moslems advanced
   on Damascus, but suspended the siege of the city until they
   had encountered the army which the Emperor Heraclius sent to
   its relief. This they did on the field of Aiznadin, in the
   south of Palestine, July 30, A. D. 634, when 50,000 of the
   Roman-Greeks and Syrians are said to have perished, while but
   470 Arabs fell. Damascus was immediately invested and taken
   after a protracted siege, which Voltaire has likened to the
   siege of Troy, on account of the many combats and
   stratagems—the many incidents of tragedy and romance—which
   poets and historians have handed down, in some connection with
   its progress or its end. The ferocity of Khaled was only half
   restrained by his milder colleague in command, Abu Obeidah,
   and the wretched inhabitants of Damascus suffered terribly at
   his hands. The city, itself, was spared and highly favored,
   becoming the Syrian capital of the Arabs. Heliopolis (Baalbec)
   was besieged and taken in January, A. D. 636; Emessa
   surrendered soon after. In November, 636, a great and decisive
   battle was fought with the forces of Heraclius at Yermuk, or
   Yermouk, on the borders of Palestine and Arabia. The
   Christians fought obstinately and well, but they were
   overwhelmed with fearful slaughter. "After the battle of
   Yermuk the Roman army no longer appeared in the field; and the
   Saracens might securely choose, among the fortified towns of
   Syria, the first object of their attack. They consulted the
   caliph whether they should march to Cæsarea or Jerusalem; and
   the advice of Ali determined the immediate siege of the
   latter. … After Mecca and Medina, it was revered and visited
   by the devout Moslems as the temple of the Holy Land, which
   had been sanctified by the revelation of Moses, of Jesus, and
   of Mahomet himself." The defense of Jerusalem, notwithstanding
   its great strength, was maintained with less stubbornness than
   that of Damascus had been. After a siege of four months, in
   the winter of A. D. 637, the Christian patriarch or bishop of
   Jerusalem, who seems to have been first in authority, proposed
   to give up the Holy City, if Omar, the caliph, would come in
   person from Medina to settle and sign the terms of surrender.
   Omar deemed the prize worthy of this concession and made the
   long journey, travelling as simply as the humblest pilgrim and
   entering Jerusalem on foot.
{2069}
   After this, little remained to make the conquest of all Syria
   complete. Aleppo was taken, but not easily, after a siege, and
   Antioch, the splendid seat of eastern luxury and wealth, was
   abandoned by the emperor and submitted, paying a great ransom
   for its escape from spoliation and the sword. The year 639 saw
   Syria at the feet of the Arabs whom it had despised six years
   before, and the armies of the caliph were ready to advance to
   new fields, east, northwards, and west.

During the invasion of Syria, Abu Bekr, the first of the Caliphs, sent an expedition towards the Euphrates, under command of the redoubtable Khaled (633). The first object of its attack was Hira, a city on the western branch of the Euphrates, not far from modern Kufa. Hira was the seat of a small kingdom of Christian Arabs tributary to Persia and under Persian protection and control. Its domain embraced the northern part of that fertile tract between the desert and the Euphrates which the Arab writers call Sawad; the southern part being a Persian province of which the capital, Obolla, was the great emporium of the Indian trade. Hira and Obolla were speedily taken and this whole region subdued. But, Khaled being then transferred to the army in Syria, the Persians regained courage, while the energy of the Moslems was relaxed. In an encounter called the Battle of the Bridge, A. D. 635, the latter experienced a disastrous check; but the next year found them more victorious than ever. The great battle of Cadesia (Kadisiyeh) ended all hope in Persia of doing more than defend the Euphrates as a western frontier. Within two years even that hope disappeared. The new Arab general, Sa'ad Ibn Abi Wakas, having spent the interval in strengthening his forces, and in founding the city of Busrah, or Bassora, below the junction of the Euphrates and Tigris, as well as that of Kufa, which became the Moslem capital, advanced into Mesopotamia, A. D. 637, crossing the river without opposition. The Persian capital, Ctesiphon, was abandoned to him so precipitately that most of its vast treasures fell into his hands. It was not until six months later that the Persians and Arabs met in battle, at Jalula, and the encounter was fatal to the former, 100,000 having perished on the field. "By the close of the year A. D. 637 the banner of the Prophet waved over the whole tract west of Zagros, from Nineveh almost to Susa." Then a brief pause ensued. In 641 the Persian king Isdigerd—last of the Sassanian house—made a great, heroic effort to recover his lost dominions and save what remained. He staked all and lost, in the final battle of Nehavend, which the Arabs called "Fattah-hul-Futtuh," or "Victory of Victories." "The defeat of Nehavend terminated the Sassanian power. Isdigerd indeed, escaping from Rei, and flying continually from place to place, prolonged an inglorious existence for the space of ten more years—from A. D. 641 to A. D. 651; but he had no longer a kingdom. Persia fell to pieces on the occasion of 'the victory of victories,' and made no other united effort against the Arabs. Province after province was occupied by the fierce invaders; and, at length, in A. D. 651, their arms penetrated to Merv, where the last scion of the house of Babek had for some years found a refuge. … The order of conquest seems to have been the following: Media, Northern Persia, Rhagiana, Azerbijan, Gurgan, Tantrist, and Khorassan in A. D. 642; Southern Persia, Kerman, Seistan, Mekran, and Kurdistan in A. D. 643; Merv, Balkh, Herat, and Kharezm in A. D. 650 or 652."

   "It was in the nineteenth or twentieth year of the Hegira [A.
   D. 640 or 641] that Amru, having obtained the hesitating
   consent of the Caliph, set out from Palestine for Egypt. His
   army, though joined on its march by bands of Bedouins lured by
   the hope of plunder, did not at the first exceed 4,000 men.
   Soon after he had left, Omar, concerned at the smallness of
   his force, would have recalled him; but finding that he had
   already gone too far to be stopped, he sent heavy
   reinforcements, under Zobeir, one of the chief Companions,
   after him. The army of Amru was thus swelled to an imposing
   array of from 12,000 to 16,000 men, some of them warriors of
   renown. Amru entered Egypt by Arish, and overcoming the
   garrison at Faroma [ancient Pelusium], turned to the left and
   so passed onward through the desert, reaching thus the
   easternmost of the seven estuaries of the Nile. Along this
   branch of the river he marched by Bubastis towards Upper
   Egypt,"—and, so, to Heliopolis, near to the great ancient
   city of Misr, or Memphis. Here, and throughout their conquest
   of Egypt, the Moslem invaders appear to have found some
   goodwill towards them prevailing among the Christians of the
   Jacobite sect, who had never become reconciled to the Orthodox
   Greeks. Heliopolis and Memphis were surrendered to their arms
   after some hard fighting and a siege of no long duration.
   "Amru lost no time in marching upon Alexandria so as to reach
   it before the Greek troops, hastily called in from the
   outlying garrisons, could rally there for its defence. On the
   way he put to flight several columns which sought to hinder
   his advance; and at last presented himself before the walls of
   the great city, which, offering (as it still does) on the land
   side a narrow and well-fortified front, was capable of an
   obstinate resistance. Towards the sea also it was open to
   succour at the pleasure of the Byzantine Court. But during the
   siege Heraclius died, and the opportunity of relief was
   supinely allowed to slip away." In the end Alexandria
   capitulated and was protected from plunder (see LIBRARIES,
   ANCIENT: ALEXANDRIA), paying tribute to the conquerors. "Amru,
   it is said, wished to fix his seat of government at
   Alexandria, but Omar would not allow him to remain so far away
   from his camp, with so many branches of the Nile between. So
   he returned to Upper Egypt. A body of the Arabs crossed the
   Nile and settled in Ghizeh, on the western bank—a movement
   which Omar permitted only on condition that a strong fortress
   was constructed there to prevent the possibility of their
   being surprised and cut off.
{2070}
   The headquarters of the army were pitched near Memphis. Around
   them grew up a military station, called from its origin
   Fostat, or 'the Encampment.' It expanded rapidly into the
   capital of Egypt, the modern Cairo. … This name 'Cahira,'
   or City of the Victory, is of later date [see below: A. D.
   908-1171]. … Zobeir urged Amru to enforce the right of
   conquest, and divide the land among his followers. But Amru
   refused; and the Caliph, as might have been expected,
   confirmed the judgment. 'Leave the land of Egypt,' was his
   wise reply, 'in the people's hands to nurse and fructify.' As
   elsewhere, Omar would not allow the Arabs to become
   proprietors of a single acre. Even Amru was refused ground
   whereupon to build a mansion for himself. … So the land of
   Egypt, left in the hands of its ancestral occupants, became a
   rich granary for the Hejaz, even as in bygone times it had
   been the granary of Italy and the Byzantine empire. … Amru,
   with the restless spirit of his faith, soon pushed his
   conquests westward beyond the limits of Egypt, established
   himself in Barca, and reached even to Tripoli. … Early in
   the Caliphate of Othman [A. D. 646] a desperate attempt was
   made to regain possession of Alexandria. The Moslems, busy
   with their conquests elsewhere, had left the city
   insufficiently protected. The Greek inhabitants conspired with
   the Court; and a fleet of 300 ships was sent under command of
   Manuel, who drove out the garrison and took possession of the
   city. Amru hastened to its rescue. A great battle was fought
   outside the walls: the Greeks were defeated, and the unhappy
   town was subjected to the miseries of a second and a longer
   siege. It was at last taken by storm and given up to plunder.
   … The city, though still maintaining its commercial import,
   fell now from its high estate. The pomp and circumstance of
   the Moslem Court were transferred to Fostat, and Alexandria
   ceased to be the capital of Egypt."

The death of Omar, the second of the Caliphs, was a violent one. "It occurred in November, A. D. 644. One day a slave who worked for his master at the carpenter's bench came to see the Commander of the Faithful, and complained to him of being overworked, and badly treated by the citizen that owned him. Omar listened attentively, but arriving at the conclusion that the charges were false, sternly dismissed the carpenter to his bench. The man retired, vowing to be revenged. The following day was Friday, 'the day of the Assembly.' Omar, as usual, went to lead the prayers of the assembly in the great mosque. He opened his mouth to speak. He had just said 'Allah,' when the keen dagger of the offended slave was thrust into his back, and the Commander of the Faithful fell on the sacred floor, fatally wounded. The people, in a perfect frenzy of horror and rage, fell upon the assassin, but with superhuman strength he threw them off, and rushing about in the madness of despair he killed some and wounded others, and finally turning the point of his dagger to his own breast, fell dead. Omar lingered several days in great agony, but he was brave to the end. His dying words were, 'Give to my successor this parting bequest, that he be kind to the men of this city, Medina, which gave a home to us, and to the Faith. Tell him to make much of their virtues, and to pass lightly over their faults. Bid him also treat well the Arab tribes, for verily they are the backbone of Islam. Moreover, let him faithfully fulfil the covenants made with the Christians and the Jews! O Allah! I have finished my course! To him that cometh after me, I leave the kingdom firmly established and at peace!' Thus perished one of the greatest Princes the Mohammedans were ever to know. Omar was truly a great and good man, of whom any country and any creed might be proud."

"While Egypt was won almost without a blow, Latin Africa [northern Africa beyond Egypt] took sixty years to conquer. It was first invaded under Othman in 647, but Carthage was not subdued till 698, nor was the province fully reduced for eleven years longer. And why? Doubtless because Africa contained two classes of inhabitants, not over-friendly to each other, but both of whom had something to lose by a Saracenic conquest. The citizens of Carthage were Roman in every sense, their language was Latin, their faith was orthodox; they had no wrongs beyond those which always afflict provincials under a despotism; wrongs not likely to be alleviated by exchanging a Christian despot at Constantinople for an infidel one at Medina or Damascus. Beyond them, in the inland provinces, were the native Moors, barbarians, and many of them pagans; they had fought for their rude liberty against the Cæsars, and they had no intention of surrendering it to the Caliphs. Romans and Moors alike long preferred the chances of the sword to either Koran or tribute; but their ultimate fate was different. Latin civilization and Latin Christianity gradually disappeared by the decay and extermination of their votaries. The Moors, a people not unlike the Arabs in their unconverted state, were at last content to embrace their religion, and to share their destinies and their triumphs. Arabs and Moors intermingled went on to further conquests; and the name of the barbarian converts was more familiarly used in Western Europe to denote the united nation than the terrible name of the original compatriots of the Prophet."

"In their climate and government, their diet and habitation, the wandering Moors resembled the Bedoweens of the desert. With the religion they were proud to adopt the language, name, and origin of Arabs; the blood of the strangers and natives was insensibly mingled; and from the Euphrates to the Atlantic the same nation might seem to be diffused over the sandy plains of Asia and Africa. Yet I will not deny that 50,000 tents of pure Arabians might be transported over the Nile and scattered through the Libyan desert; and I am not ignorant that five of the Moorish tribes still retain their barbarous idiom, with the appellation and character of 'white' Africans."

"By 647 the Barbary coast was overrun up to the gates of Roman Carthage; but the wild Berber population was more difficult to subdue than the luxurious subjects of the Sasanids of Persia or the Greeks of Syria and Egypt. Kayrawan was founded as the African capital in 670; Carthage fell in 693, and the Arabs pushed their arms as far as the Atlantic. From Tangier they crossed into Spain in 710."

ALSO IN: W. Irving, Mahomet and his Successors, volume 2, chapters 35, 44, 54-55.

Abu Bekr, the immediate successor of Mahomet, reigned but two years, dying August, A. D. 634. By his nomination, Omar was raised to the Caliphate and ruled Islam until 644, when he was murdered by a Persian slave. His successor was Othman, who had been the secretary of the Prophet. The Caliphate of Othman was troubled by many plots and increasing disaffection, which ended in his assassination, A. D. 656. It was not until then that Ali, the nephew and son-in-law of Mahomet, was permitted to take the Prophet's seat. But the dissensions in the Moslem world had grown more bitter as the fields of ambitious rivalry were widened, and the factions opposed to Ali were implacable, "Now begins the tragic tale of the wrongs and martyrdoms of the immediate family of the Prophet. The province of Syria was now ruled by the crafty Moawiyah, whose father was Abu-Sofian, so long the bitterest enemy of Mahomet, and at last a tardy and unwilling proselyte. … Such was the parentage of the man who was to deprive the descendants of the Apostle of their heritage. Moawiyah gave himself out as the avenger of Othman; Ali was represented as his murderer, although his sons, the grandsons of the Prophet, had fought, and one of them received a wound, in the defence of that Caliph. … Ayesha, too, the Mother of the Faithful, Telha and Zobeir, the Prophet's old companions, revolted on their own account, and the whole of the brief reign of Ali was one constant succession of civil war." Syria adhered to Moawiyah. Ayesha, Zobeir and Telha gained possession of Bussorah and made that city their headquarters of rebellion. They were defeated there by Ali in a great battle, A. D. 656, called the Battle of the Camel, because the litter which bore Ayesha on the back of a camel became the center of the fight. But he gained little from the success; nor more from a long, indecisive battle fought with Moawiyah at Siffin, in July, A. D. 657. Amru, the conqueror of Egypt, had now joined Moawiyah, and his influence enlisted that great province in the revolt. At last, in 661, the civil war was ended by the assassination of Ali. His eldest son, Hassan, who seems to have been a spiritless youth, bargained away his claims to Moawiyah, and the latter became undisputed Caliph, founding a dynasty called that of the Ommiades, or Omeyyads (from Ommiah, or Omeyya, the great grandfather of Moawiyah), which occupied the throne for almost a century—not at Medina, but at Damascus, to which city the Caliphate was now transferred. "In thus converting the Caliphate into an hereditary monarchy he utterly changed its character. It soon assumed the character of a common oriental empire. … The Ommiads were masters of slaves instead of leaders of freemen; the public will was no longer consulted, and the public good as little; the Commander of the Faithful sank into an earthly despot, ruling by force, like any Assyrian conqueror of old. The early Caliphs dwelt in the sacred city of Medina, and directed the counsels of the Empire from beside the tomb of the Prophet. Moawiyah transferred his throne to the conquered splendours of Damascus; and Mecca and Medina became tributary cities to the ruler of Syria. At one time a rival Caliph, Abdallah, established himself in Arabia; twice were the holy cities taken by storm, and the Kaaba itself was battered down by the engines of the invaders. … Such a revolution however did not effect itself without considerable opposition. The partizans of the house of Ali continued to form a formidable sect. In their ideas the Vicarship of the Prophet was not to be, like an earthly kingdom, the mere prize of craft or of valour. It was the inalienable heritage of the sacred descendants of the Prophet himself. … This was the origin of the Shiah sect, the assertors of the rights of Ali and his house."

When Ali, or Aly, the nephew and son-in-law of Mahomet, had been slain, A. D. 661, and the Caliphate had been seized by Moawiyah, the first of the Ommiades, "the followers of 'Aly proclaimed his elder son, Hasan, Khalif; but this poor-spirited youth was contented to sell his pretensions to the throne. … On his death, his brother Hoseyn became the lawful Khalif in the eyes of the partisans of the House of 'Aly, who ignored the general admission of the authority of the 'Ommiades.' … For a time Hoseyn remained quietly at Medina, leading a life of devotion, and declining to push his claims. But at length an opportunity for striking a blow at the rival House presented itself, and Hoseyn did not hesitate to avail himself of it. He was invited to join an insurrection which had broken out at Kufa [A. D. 680], the most mutinous and fickle of all the cities of the empire; and he set out with his family and friends, to the number of 100 souls, and an escort of 500 horsemen, to join the insurgents. As he drew nigh to Kufa, he discovered that the rising had been suppressed by the 'Ommiade' governor of the city, and that the country round him was hostile instead of loyal to him. And now there came out from Kufa an army of 4,000 horse, who surrounded the little body of travellers [on the plain of Kerbela], and cut them off alike from the city and the river. … A series of single combats, in which Hoseyn and his followers displayed heroic courage, ended in the death of the Imam and the men who were with him, and the enslaving of the women and children."

"The scene [of the massacre of Hosein and his band] … is still fresh as yesterday in the mind of every Believer, and is commemorated with wild grief and frenzy as often as the fatal day, the Tenth of the first month of the year [tenth of Moharram—October 10], comes round. … The tragedy of Kerbala decided not only the fate of the Caliphate, but of Mahometan kingdoms long after the Caliphate had waned and disappeared. … The tragedy is yearly represented on the stage as a religious ceremony"—in the "Passion Play" of the Moharram Festival.

"After the fall of the Persian kingdom, the river Oxus divided the territories of the Saracens and of the Turks: This narrow boundary was soon overleaped by the spirit of the Arabs; the governors of Chorassan extended their successive inroads; and one of their triumphs was adorned with the buskin of a Turkish queen, which she dropped in her precipitate flight beyond the hills of Bochara. But the final conquest of Transoxana, as well as of Spain, was reserved for the glorious reign of the inactive Walid; and the name of Catibah, the camel-driver, declares the origin and merit of his successful lieutenant. While one of his colleagues displayed the first Mahometan banner on the banks of the Indus, the spacious regions between the Oxus, the Jaxartes, and the Caspian sea were reduced by the arms of Catibah to the obedience of the prophet and of the caliph. A tribute of two millions of pieces of gold was imposed on the infidels; their idols were burned or broken; the Mussulman chief pronounced a sermon in the new mosch [mosque] of Carizme; after several battles the Turkish hordes were driven back to the desert; and the emperors of China solicited the friendship of the victorious Arabs. To their industry the prosperity of the province, the Sogdiana of the ancients, may in a great measure be ascribed; but the advantages of the soil and climate had been understood and cultivated since the reign of the Macedonian kings. Before the invasion of the Saracens, Carizme, Bochara, and Samarcand were rich and populous under the yoke of the shepherds of the North."

—————————————————— [Page 2073 and 2074 are placed here to avoid interrupting the next article, "The repulse from Gaul.".]

SEVENTH CENTURY.

CONTEMPORANEOUS EVENTS.

A.D.
602.
      Revolt in Constantinople;
      fall and death of Maurice;
      accession of Phocas.

604.
Death of Pope Gregory the Great.
Death of St. Augustine of Canterbury. [Uncertain date.]

610.
      Death of the Eastern Emperor Phocas;
      accession of Heraclius.
      Venetia ravaged by the Avars.

616.
First expulsion of the Jews from Spain.
Advance of the Persians to the Bosphorus.

622.
The flight of Mahomet from Mecca (the Hegira).
Romans under Heraclius victorious over the Persians.

627.
Victory of Heraclius over Chosroes of Persia, at Nineveh.
Conversion of Northumbria to Christianity.

628.
Recovery of Jerusalem and of the supposed True Cross,
from the Persians, by Heraclius.

634.
      Death of Abu Bekr;
      Omar chosen caliph.
      Battle of Hieromax or Yermuk;
      Battle of the Bridge. [Uncertain date.]
      Defeat of Heraclius.
      Compilation and arrangement of the Koran. [Uncertain date.]

635.
      Siege and capture of Damascus by the Mahometans;
      invasion of Persia;
      victory at Kadisiyeh. [Uncertain date.]
      Defeat of the Welsh by the English
      in the battle of the Heavenfield.

641.
      Death of the Eastern Emperor Heraclius;
      three rival emperors;
      accession of Constans II.
      Victory at Nehavend and final conquest of Persia
      by the Mahometans;
      end of the Sassanian kingdom;
      capture of Alexandria, [Uncertain date.]
      founding of Cairo.

656.
      Murder of Caliph Othman;
      Ali chosen caliph;
      rebellion of Moawiyah;
      civil war;
      Battle of the Camel.

661.
      Assassination of Ali;
      Moawiyah, first of the Omeyyads, made caliph;
      Damascus his capital.

668.
      Assassination of Constans at Syracuse; [Uncertain date.]
      accession of Constantine IV. to the throne of the Eastern Empire.
      Beginning of the siege of Constantinople by the Saracens.

673.
First Council of the Anglo-Saxon Church, at Hereford.
Birth of the Venerable Bede [Uncertain date.] (died 735).

677.
The raising of the siege of Constantinople;
treaty of peace. [Uncertain date.]

680.
      Sixth General Council of the Church, at Constantinople;
      condemnation of the Monothelite heresy.
      Massacre at Kerbela of Hoseyn, son of Ali, and his followers.

685.
      Death of the Eastern Emperor, Constantine IV.,
      and accession of Justinian II.
      The Angles of Northumbria, under King Ecgfrith,
      defeated by the Picts at Nectansmere.

EIGHTH CENTURY.

CONTEMPORANEOUS EVENTS.

711.
      Invasion of Spain by the Arab-Moors.
      Moslem conquest of Transoxiana and Sardinia.
      Final fall and death of the Eastern Emperor Justinian II.

717.
      Elevation of Leo the Isaurian to the throne of the Eastern Empire.
      Second siege of Constantinople by the Moslems.
      Great defeat of the Moslems at the Cave of Covadonga in Spain.

718.
Victory of Charles Martel at Soissons;
his authority acknowledged in both Frankish kingdoms.

726.
Iconoclastic edicts of Leo the Isaurian;
tumult and insurrection in Constantinople.

731.
      Death of Pope Gregory II.;
      election of Gregory III.;
      last confirmation of a Papal election by the Eastern Emperor.

732.
      Great defeat of the Moslems by the Franks
      under Charles Martel at Poitiers, or Tours.
      Council held at Rome by Pope Gregory III.;
      edict against the Iconoclasts.

740.
Death of Leo the Isaurian, Emperor in the East;
accession of Constantine V.

741.
      Death of Charles Martel.
      Death of Pope Gregory III.;
      election of Zacharias.

744.
      Defeat of the Saxons by Carloman;
      their forced baptism.
      Death of Liutprand, king of the Lombards.

747.
The Plague in Constantinople.
Pippin the Short made Mayor in both kingdoms of the Franks.

752.
      End of the Merovingian dynasty of Frankish kings;
      assumption of the crown by Pippin the Short.
      Death of Pope Zacharias;
      election of Stephen II.

754.
First invasion of Italy by Pippin the Short.
Rome assailed by the Lombards.

755.
      Subjugation of the Lombards by Pippin;
      his donation of temporalities to the Pope.
      Martyrdom of Saint Boniface in Germany.

759.
Loss of Narbonne, the last foothold of the
Mahometans north of the Pyrenees.

763.
Founding of the capital of the Eastern Caliphs at Bagdad.
[Uncertain date.]

768.
      Conquest of Aquitaine by Pippin the Short.
      Death of Pippin;
      accession of Charlemagne and Carloman.
      Deposition of the anti-pope Constantine;
      election of Pope Stephen III.

772.
      Charlemagne's first wars with the Saxons.
      Death of Pope Stephen III.;
      election of Hadrian I.

774.
      Charlemagne's acquisition of the Lombard kingdom;
      his enlargement of the donation of temporalities to the Pope.
      Forgery of the "Donation of Constantine." [Uncertain date.]

780.
      Death of the Eastern Emperor Leo IV.;
      accession of Constantine VI.;
      regency of Irene.

787.
Seventh General Council of the Church (Second Council of Nicæa).
First incursions of the Danes in England.

797.
Deposition and blinding of the Eastern Emperor
Constantine VI., by his mother Irene.

800.
      Imperial coronation of Charlemagne;
      revival of the Empire.
      Accession of Ecgberht, king of Wessex,
      the first king of all the English.

"The deeds of Musa [in Africa and Spain] had been performed 'in the evening of his life,' but, to borrow the words of Gibbon, 'his breast was still fired with the ardor of youth, and the possession of Spain was considered as only the first step to the monarchy of Europe. With a powerful armament by sea and land, he was preparing to pass the Pyrenees, to extinguish in Gaul the declining kingdoms of the Franks and Lombards, and to preach the unity of God on the altar of the Vatican. Thence, subduing the barbarians of Germany, he proposed to follow the course of the Danube from its source to the Euxine Sea, to overthrow the Greek or Roman empire of Constantinople, and, returning from Europe to Asia, to unite his new acquisitions with Antioch and the provinces of Syria.' This vast enterprise … was freely revolved by the successors of Musa. In pursuance of it, El Haur, the new lieutenant of the califs, assailed the fugitive Goths in their retreats in Septimania (715-718). El Zamah, who succeeded him, crossed the mountains, and, seizing Narbonne, expelled the inhabitants and settled there a colony of Saracens (719). The following year they passed the Rhone, in order to extend their dominion over Provence, but, repelled by the dukes and the militia of the country, turned their forces toward Toulouse (721). Eudo, Duke of Aquitain, bravely defending his capital, brought on a decisive combat. … El Zamah fell. The carnage among his retreating men then became so great that the Arabs named the passage from Toulouse to Carcassone the Road of Martyrs (Balat al Chouda). Supporting their terrible reverses with the characteristic resignation of their race and faith, the Arabs were still able to retain a hold of Narbonne and of other fortresses of the south, and, after a respite of four years, spent in recruiting their troops from Spain and Africa, to resume their projects of invasion and pillage in Gaul (725). Under the Wali Anbessa, they ascended the Rhone as far as the city of Lyons, devastating the towns and the fields. … When, … at the close of his expeditions, Anbessa perished by the hands of the Infidels, all the fanaticism of the Mussulman heart was aroused into an eager desire for revenge. His successor, Abd-el-Rahman, a tried and experienced general, energetic and heroic as he was just and prudent, … entered into elaborate preparations for the final conquest of Gaul. For two years the ports of Syria, Egypt, and Africa swarmed with departing soldiery, and Spain resounded with the calls and cries to arms (727-729)." The storm broke first on Aquitaine, and its valiant Duke Eudes, or Eudo, rashly meeting the enemy in the open field, in front of Bordeaux, suffered an irretrievable defeat (May, 731). Bordeaux was stormed and sacked, and all Aquitaine was given up to the ravages of the unsparing Moslem host. Eudes fled, a helpless fugitive, to his enemies the Franks, and besought the aid of the great palace-mayor, Karl Martel, practical sovereign of the Frankish kingdoms, and father of the Pippin who would soon become king in name as well as in fact. But, not for Aquitaine, only, but for all Gaul, all Germany,—all Christendom in Europe,—Karl and his Franks were called on to rally and do battle against the sons of the desert, whose fateful march of conquest seemed never to end. "'During all the rest of the summer, the Roman clarions and the German horns sounded and groaned through all the cities of Neustria and Austrasia, through the rustic palaces of the Frankish leudes, and in the woody gaus of western Germany.' … Meanwhile, Abel-el-Rahman, laden with plunder and satiated with blood, had bent his steps toward the southwest, where he concentrated his troops on the banks of the Charente. Enriched and victorious as he was, there was still an object in Gaul which provoked alike the cupidity and the zeal of his followers. This was the Basilica of St. Martin of Tours, the shrine of the Gallic Christians, where the richest treasures of the Church were collected, and in which the profoundest veneration of its members centred. He yearned for the pillage and the overthrow of this illustrious sanctuary, and, taking the road from Poitiers, he encountered the giants of the North in the same valley of the Vienne and Clain where, nearly three hundred years before, the Franks and the Wisigoths had disputed the supremacy of Gaul. There, on those autumn fields, the Koran and the Bible—Islamism and Christianity—Asia and Europe—stood face to face, ready to grapple in a deadly and decisive conflict. … {2075} Trivial skirmishes from time to time kept alive the ardor of both hosts, till at length, at dawn on Saturday, the 11th of October [A. D. 732], the signal for a general onset was given. With one loud shout of Allah-Akbar (God is great), the Arab horsemen charged like a tempest upon their foe, but the deep columns of the Franks did not bend before the blast. 'Like a wall of iron,' says the chronicler, 'like a rampart of ice, the men of the North stood unmoved by the frightful shock.' All day long the charges were renewed." Still the stout Franks held their ground, and still the indomitable warriors of Islam pressed upon them, until late in the afternoon, when the latter were thrown into confusion by an attack on their rear. Then Karl and his men charged on them and their lines were broken—their rout was bloody and complete. When night put an end to the slaughter, the Franks slept upon their arms, expecting that the dreaded Saracens would rally and resume the fight. But they vanished in the darkness. Their leader, the brave Abd-el-Rahman had fallen in the wild melée and no courage was left in their hearts. Abandoning everything but their horses and their arms, they fled to Narbonne. "Europe was rescued, Christianity triumphant, Karl the hero forever of Christian civilization."

The booty found by the Franks in the Moslem camp "was enormous; hard-money, ingots of the precious metals, melted from jewels and shrines; precious vases, rich stuffs, subsistence stores, flocks and herds gathered and parked in the camp. Most of this booty had been taken by the Moslemah from the Aquitanians, who now had the sorrow of seeing it greedily divided among the Franks."

H. Coppée, Conquest of Spain by the! Arab-Moors, book 6, chapter 1 (volume 2).

MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 715-750.
Omeyyads and Abbassides.
The dividing of the Caliphate.

The tragic death of Hosein and his companions at Kerbela kindled a passion which time would not extinguish in the hearts of one great party among the Moslems. The first ambitious leader to take advantage of the excitement of it, as a means of overthrowing the Omeyyads, was Abdallah ibn Zobeir, who, posing first as the "Protector of the Holy House" of Ali, soon proclaimed himself Caliph and maintained for thirteen years a rival court at Mecca. In the war which raged during a great part of those years, Medina was taken by storm and given over to pillage, while the holy city of Mecca withstood a siege of forty days, during which the sacred Caaba was destroyed. Zobeir fell, at last, in a final battle fought under the walls of Mecca. Meantime, several changes in the caliphate at Damascus had taken place and the throne was soon afterwards [A. D. 705] occupied by the Caliph Welid, whose reign proved more glorious than that of any other prince of his house. "Elements of disorder still remained, but under the wise and firm sceptre of Welid they were held in check. The arts of peace prevailed; schools were founded, learning cultivated, and poets royally rewarded; public works of every useful kind were promoted, and even hospitals established for the aged, lame, and blind. Such, indeed, at this era, was the glory of the court of Damascus that Weild, of all the Caliphs both before and after, gives the precedence to Welid. It is the fashion for the Arabian historians to abuse the Omeyyads as a dissolute, intemperate, and godless race; but we must not forget that these all wrote more or less under Abbasside inspiration. … After Welid, the Omeyyad dynasty lasted six-and-thirty years. But it began to rest on a precarious basis. For now the agents of the house of Hashim, descendants of the Prophet and of his uncle Abbas, commenced to ply secretly, but with vigour and persistency, their task of canvass and intrigue in distant cities, and especially in the provinces of the East. For a long time, the endeavour of these agitators was directed to the advocacy of the Shiya right; that is to say, it was based upon the Divine claim of Aly, and his descendants in the Prophet's line, to the Imamate or leadership over the empire of Islam. … The discomfiture of the Shiyas paved the way for the designing advocates of the other Hashimite branch, namely, that of the house of Abbas, the uncle of the Prophet. These had all along been plotting in the background, and watching their opportunity. They now vaunted the claims of this line, and were barefaced enough to urge that, being descended from the uncle of Mahomet through male representatives, they took precedence over the direct descendants of the Prophet himself, because these came through Fatima in the female line. About the year 130 of the Hegira, Abul Abbas, of Abasside descent, was put forward in Persia, as the candidate of this party, and his claim was supported by the famous general Abu Muslim. Successful in the East, Abu Muslim turned his arms to the West. A great battle, one of those which decide the fate of empires, was fought on the banks of the Zab [A. D. 750]; and, through the defection of certain Kharejite and Yemen levies, was lost by the Omeyyad army. Merwan II., the last of his dynasty, was driven to Egypt, and there killed in the church of Bussir, whither he had fled for refuge. At the close of the year 132 [August 5, A. D. 750], the black flag, emblem of the Abbassides, floated over the battlements of Damascus. The Omeyyad dynasty, after ruling the vast Moslem empire for a century, now disappeared in cruelty and bloodshed. … So perished the royal house of the Omeyyads. But one escaped. He fled to Spain, which had never favoured the overweening pretensions of the Prophet's family, whether in the line of Aly or Abbas. Accepted by the Arab tribes, whose influence in the West was paramount, Abd al Rahman now laid the foundation of a new Dynasty and perpetuated the Omeyyad name at the magnificent court of Cordova. … Thus, with the rise of the Abbassides, the unity of the Caliphate came to an end. Never after, either in theory or in fact, was there a successor to the Prophet, acknowledged as such over all Islam. Other provinces followed in the wake of Spain. The Aghlabite dynasty in the east of Africa, and, west of it, the Edrisites in Fez, both of Alyite descent; Egypt and Sicily under independent rulers; the Tahirite kings in Persia, their native soil; these and others, breaking away from the central government, established kingdoms of their own. The name of Caliph, however it might survive in the Abbasside lineage, or be assumed by less legitimate pretenders, had now altogether lost its virtue and significance."

During the year of his coronation (A. D. 752) Pippin, or Pepin the Short—the first of the Carolingians to assume the Frankish crown—having taken measures to reduce Aquitaine to obedience, was diverted, on his march towards that country, into Septimania. The discord prevailing among the Moslems, who had occupied this region of Gaul for more than thirty years, "opened the prospect of an easy conquest. With little fighting, and through the treachery of a Goth named Ansemond, who commanded at Beziers, Agde, Maguelonne, and Nismes, under an Arabian wali, he was enabled to seize those strong-holds, and to leave a part of his troops to besiege Narbonne, as the first step toward future success." Then Pippin was called away by war with the Saxons and in Brittany, and was occupied with other cares and conflicts, until A. D. 759, when he took up and finished the task of expelling the Saracens from Gaul. "His troops left in occupation of Septimania (752) had steadily prosecuted the siege of Narbonne. … Not till after a blockade of seven years was the city surrendered, and then through the treason of the Christians and Goths who were inside the walls, and made secret terms with the beleaguers. They rose upon the Arabs, cut them in pieces, and opened the gates to the Franks. A reduction of Elne, Caucoliberis, and Carcassone followed hard upon that of Narbonne. … In a little while the entire Arab population was driven out of Septimania, after an occupation of forty years; and a large and important province (equivalent nearly to the whole of Languedoc), held during the time of the Merovingians by the Wisigoths, was secured to the possession of the Franks. The Arabs, however, though expelled, left many traces of their long residence on the manners and customs of Southern Gaul."

When the struggle of the house of Abbas with the house of Omeyya, for the throne of the caliphate at Damascus, was ended by the overthrow of the Omeyyads (A. D. 750), the wretched members of the fallen family were hunted down with unsparing ferocity. "A single youth of the doomed race escaped from destruction. After a long series of romantic adventures, he found his way into Spain [A. D. 756]; he there found partizans, by whose aid he was enabled to establish himself as sovereign of the country, and to resist all the attempts of the Abbassides to regain, or rather to obtain, possession of the distant province. From this Abderrahman [or Abdalrahman] the Ommiad proceeded the line of Emirs and Caliphs of Cordova, who reigned in splendour in the West for three centuries after their house had been exterminated in their original possessions. … When the Ommiad Abdalrahman escaped into Spain … the peninsula was in a very disordered state. The authority of the Caliphs of the East was nearly nominal, and governors rose and fell with very little reference to their distant sovereign. … The elevation of Abdalrahman may have been the result, not so much of any blind preference of Ommiads to Abbassides, as of a conviction that nature designed the Iberian peninsula to form an independent state. But at that early period of Mahometan history an independent Mahometan state could hardly be founded, except under the guise of a rival Caliphate. … And undoubtedly nothing is more certain than that the Ommiads of Cordova were in every sense a rival dynasty to the Abbassides of Bagdad. The race of Moawiyah seem to have decidedly improved by their migration westward. The Caliphs of Spain must be allowed one of the highest places among Mahometan dynasties. In the duration of their house and in the abundance of able princes which it produced, they yield only to the Ottoman Sultans, while they rise incomparably above them in every estimable quality. … The most splendid period of the Saracen empire in Spain was during the tenth century. The great Caliph Abdalrahman Annasir Ledinallah raised the magnificence of the Cordovan monarchy to its highest pitch. … The last thirty years of the Ommiad dynasty are a mere wearisome series of usurpations and civil wars. In 1031 the line became extinct, and the Ommiad empire was cut up into numerous petty states. From this moment the Christians advance, no more to retreat, and the cause of Islam is only sustained by repeated African immigrations."

ALSO IN: H. Coppée, Conquest of Spain by the Arab-Moors, book 6, chapter 5; book 7, chapters 1-4; book 8, chapter 1.

"The city of Damascus, full as it was of memorials of the pride and greatness of the Ommiade dynasty, was naturally distasteful to the Abbassides. The Caliph Mansur had commenced the building of a new capital in the neighbourhood of Kufa, to be called after the founder of his family, Hashimiyeh. The Kufans, however, were devoted partisans of the descendants of Ali. … The growing jealousy and distrust between the two houses made it inadvisable for the Beni Abbas to plant the seat of their empire in immediate propinquity to the head-quarters of the Ali faction, and Mansur therefore selected another site [about A. D. 763]. This was Bagdad, on the western bank of the Tigris [fifteen miles above Medain, which was the ancient Seleucia and Ctesiphon]. It was well suited by nature for a great capital. The Tigris brought commerce from Diyar Bekr on the north, and through the Persian Gulf from India and China on the east; while the Euphrates, which here approaches the Tigris at the nearest point, and is reached by a good road, communicated directly with Syria and the west. The name Bagdad is a very ancient one, signifying 'given or founded by the deity,' and testifies to the importance of the site. The new city rapidly increased in extent and magnificence, the founder and his next two successors expending fabulous sums upon its embellishment, and the ancient palaces of the Sassanian kings, as well as the other principal cities of Asia, were robbed of their works of art for its adornment."

"Baghdad, answering to its proud name of 'Dar al Salam,' 'The City of Peace,' became for a time the capital of the world, the centre of luxury, the emporium of commerce, and the scat of learning."

MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 815-945.
Decline and temporal fall of the Caliphate at Bagdad.

"It was not until nearly the close of the first century after the Hejira that the banners of Islam were carried into the regions beyond the Oxus, and only after a great deal of hard fighting that the oases of Bokhara and Samarkand were annexed to the dominions of the khalif. In these struggles, a large number of Turks—men, women, and children—fell into the power of the Moslems, and were scattered over Asia as slaves. … The khalif Mamoun [son of Haroun Alraschid—A. D. 815-834] was the first sovereign who conceived the idea of basing the royal power on a foundation of regularly drilled Turkish soldiers."

"The Caliphs from this time leaned for support on great bands of foreign mercenaries, chiefly Turks, and their captains became the real lords of the empire as soon as they realised their own strength. How thoroughly the Abbásid caliphate had been undermined was shown all at once in a shocking manner, when the Caliph Mutawakkil was murdered by his own servants at the command of his son, and the parricide Muntasir set upon the throne in his stead (December 861). The power of the Caliphs was now at an end; they became the mere playthings of their own savage warriors. The remoter, sometimes even the nearer, provinces were practically independent. The princes formally recognised the Caliph as their sovereign, stamped his name upon their coins, and gave it precedence in public prayer, but these were honours without any solid value. Some Caliphs, indeed, recovered a measure of real power, but only as rulers of a much diminished State. Theoretically the fiction of an undivided empire of Islam was maintained, but it had long ceased to be a reality. The names of Caliph, Commander of the Faithful, Imám, continued still to inspire some reverence; the theological doctors of law insisted that the Caliph, in spiritual things at least, must everywhere bear rule, and control all judicial posts; but even theoretically his position was far behind that of a pope, and in practice was not for a moment to be compared to it. The Caliph never was the head of a true hierarchy; Islam in fact knows no priesthood on which such a system could have rested. In the tenth century the Buids, three brothers who had left the hardly converted Gilán (the mountainous district at the southwest angle of the Caspian Sea) as poor adventurers, succeeded in conquering for themselves the sovereign command over wide domains, and over Bagdad itself [establishing what is known as the dynasty of the Buids or Bouides, or Bowides, or Dilemites]. They even proposed to themselves to displace the Abbásids and set descendants of Ali upon the throne, and abandoned the idea only because they feared that a Caliph of the house of Ali might exercise too great an authority over their Shíite soldiers, and so become independent; while, on the other hand, they could make use of these troops for any violence they chose against the Abbásid puppet who sat in Mansúr's seat."

"Egypt, during the ninth and tenth centuries, was the theatre of several revolutions. Two dynasties of Turkish slaves, the Tolunides and the Ilkshidites, established themselves in that country, which was only reunited to the Caliphate of Bagdad for a brief period between their usurpations. But early in the ninth century a singular power had been growing up on its western border. … A schism arose among the followers of Ali [the shiahs, who recognized no succession to the Prophet, or Imamate—leadership in Islam—except in the line of descent from Ali, nephew of Mahomet and husband of Mahomet's daughter, Fatima], regarding the legitimate succession to the sixth Imam, Jaffer. His eldest son, Ismail or Ishmael, dying before him, Jaffer appointed another son, Moussa or Moses, his heir. But a large body of the sect denied that Jaffer had the right to make a new nomination; they affirmed the Imamate to be strictly hereditary, and formed a new party of Ishmaelians, who seem to have made something very like a deity of their hero. A chief of this sect, Mahomet, surnamed Al Mehdi, or the Leader, a title given by the Shiahs to their Imams, revolted in Africa in 908. He professed himself, though his claims were bitterly derided by his enemies, to be a descendant of Ishmael, and consequently to be the legitimate Imam. Armed with this claim, it was of course his business to acquire, if he could, the temporal power of a Caliph; and as he soon obtained the sovereignty of a considerable portion of Africa, a rival Caliphate was consequently established in that country. This dynasty assumed the name of Fatimites, in honour of their famous ancestress Fatima, the daughter of the Prophet. The fourth in succession, Muezzeddin by name, obtained possession of Egypt about 967. … The Ilkshidites and their nominal sovereigns, the Abbassides, lost Egypt with great rapidity. Al Muezzeddin transferred his residence thither, and founded [at Fostat—see above, A. D. 640-646] the city of Cairo, which he made his capital. Egypt thus, from a tributary province, became again, as in the days of its Pharaohs and Ptolemies, the scat of a powerful kingdom. The claims of the Egyptian Caliphs were diligently preached throughout all Islam, and their temporal power was rapidly extended into the adjoining provinces of Syria and Arabia. Palestine became again … the battle-field for the lords of Egypt and of the East. Jerusalem, the holy city of so many creeds, was conquered and reconquered. … The Egyptian Caliphate … played an important part in the history of the Crusades. At last, in 1171, it was abolished by the famous Saladin. He himself became the founder of a new dynasty; but the formal aspect of the change was that Egypt, so long schismatic, was again restored to the obedience of Bagdad. Saladin was lord of Egypt, but the titles of the Abbasside Caliph, the true Commander of the Faithful, appeared again on the coin and in the public prayers, instead of that of his Fatimite rival."

MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 1017.
Expulsion from Sardinia by the Pisans and Genoese.

See TURKS: A. D. 1240-1326; 1326-1359;
1360-1389; 1389-1403; 1402-1451; and 1451-1481.

MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 1258.
Extinction of the Caliphate of Bagdad by the Mongols.

MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 1273-1492.
Decay and fall of the last Moorish kingdom in Spain.

MAHOMETAN ERA.

MAHRATTAS: A. D. 1759-1761.
Disastrous conflict with the Afghans.
Great defeat at Panniput.

MAID OF NORWAY.

"Sullivan in 'History of Maine,' and others, say that the territory was called the Province of Maine, in compliment to Queen Henrietta, who had that province in France for dowry. But Folsom, 'Discourse on Maine' (Maine Historical Collection, volume ii., page 38), says that that province in France did not belong to Henrietta. Maine, like all the rest of the coast, was known as the 'Maine,' the mainland, and it is not unlikely that the word so much used by the early fishers on the coast, may thus have been permanently given to this part of it."

W. C. Bryant and S. H. Gay, History of the United States, volume 1, page 337; foot-note.

MAINE: A. D. 1607-1608.
The Popham colony on the Kennebec.
Fruitless undertaking of the Plymouth Company.

The company chartered in England by King James, in 1606, for the colonization of the indefinite region called Virginia, was divided into two branches. To one, commonly spoken of as the London Company, but sometimes as the Virginia Company, was assigned a domain in the south, from 34° to 41° North Latitude. To the other, less familiarly known as the Plymouth Company, or the North Virginia Company, was granted a range of territory from 38° to 45° North Latitude.

The first named company founded a state; the Plymouth branch was less fortunate. "Of the Plymouth Company, George Popham, brother of the Chief Justice, and Raleigh Gilbert, son of the earlier navigator and nephew of Sir Walter Raleigh, were original associates. A vessel despatched from Bristol by Sir John Popham made a further survey of the coast of New England, and returned with accounts which infused vigorous life into the undertaking; and it was now prosecuted with eagerness and liberality. But in little more than a year 'all its former hopes were frozen to death.' Three ships sailed from Plymouth with 100 settlers, amply furnished, and taking two of Gorges's Indians [kidnapped on the voyage of Captain Weymouth in 1605] as interpreters and guides. After a prosperous voyage they reached the mouth of the river called Sagadahoc, or Kennebec, in Maine, and on a projecting point proceeded to organize their community. After prayers and a sermon, they listened to a reading of the patent and of the ordinances under which it had been decreed by the authorities at home that they should live. George Popham had been constituted their President, Raleigh Gilbert was Admiral. … The adventurers dug wells, and built huts. More than half of the number became discouraged, and returned with the ships to England. Forty-five remained through the winter, which proved to be very long and severe. … When the President sickened and died, and, presently after, a vessel despatched to them with supplies brought intelligence of the death of Sir John Popham, and of Sir John Gilbert,—the latter event calling for the presence of the Admiral, Gilbert's brother and heir, in England,—they were ready to avail themselves of the excuses thus afforded for retreating from the distasteful enterprise. All yielded to their homesickness, and embarked on board of the returning ship, taking with them a small vessel which they had built, and some furs and other products of the country. Statesmen, merchants, and soldiers had not learned the conditions of a settlement in New England. 'The country was branded by the return of the plantation as being over cold, and in respect of that not habitable by Englishmen.' Still the son of the Chief Justice, 'Sir Francis Popham, could not so give it over, but continued to send thither several years after, in hope of better fortunes, but found it fruitless, and was necessitated at last to sit down with the loss he had already undergone.' Sir Francis Popham's enterprises were merely commercial. Gorges alone [Sir Ferdinando Gorges, who had been among the most active of the original promotors of the Company], 'not doubting but God would effect that which man despaired of,' persevered in cherishing the project of a colony."

     ALSO IN:
     W. C. Bryant and S. H. Gay,
     Popular History of the United States,
     chapter 12, volume 1.

MAINE: A. D. 1623-1631.
Gorges' and Mason's grant and the division of it.
First colonies planted.

"The coast from the Piscataqua to the Kennebec was covered by six … patents, issued in the course of three years by the Council for New England, with the consent, doubtless, of Gorges, who was anxious to interest as many persons as possible in the projects of colonization to which he was himself so much devoted. Several of these grants were for small tracts; the most important embraced an extent of 40 miles square, bordering on Casco Bay, and named Ligonia. The establishments hitherto attempted on the eastern coast had been principally for fishing and fur-trading; this was to be an agricultural colony, and became familiarly known as the 'Plow patent.' A company was formed, and some settlers sent out; but they did not like the situation, and removed to Massachusetts. Another of these grants was the Pemaquid patent, a narrow tract on both sides of Pemaquid Point, where already were some settlers. Pemaquid remained an independent community for the next forty years."

The Plow Patent "first came into notoriety in a territorial dispute in 1643. The main facts of the case are told shortly but clearly by Winthrop. According to him, in July, 1631, ten husbandmen came from England, in a ship named the Plough, with a patent for land at Sagadahock. But as the place did not please them they settled in Massachusetts, and were seemingly dispersed in the religious troubles of 1636. … At a later day the rights of the patentees were bought up, and were made a ground for ousting Gorges from a part of his territory."

J. A. Doyle, The English in America: The Puritan Colonies, volume 1, chapter 7.

      ALSO IN:
      J. W. Thornton,
      Pemaquid Papers; and Ancient Pemaquid,
      (Maine Historical Society Collection, volume 5).

MAINE: A. D. 1639.
A Palatine principality.
The royal charter to Sir Ferdinando Gorges.

"In April 1639 a charter was granted by the King constituting Gorges Lord Proprietor of Maine. The territory was bounded by the Sagadahock or Kennebec on the north and the Piscataqua on the south, and was to extend 120 miles inland. The political privileges of the Proprietor were to be identical with those enjoyed by the Bishop of Durham as Count Palatine. He was to legislate in conjunction with the freeholders of the province, and with the usual reservation in favour of the laws of England. His political rights were to be subject to the control of the Commissioners for Plantations, but his territorial rights were to be independent and complete in themselves. He was also to enjoy a monopoly of the trade of the colony. The only other points specially worth notice were a declaration that the religion of the colony was to be that of the Church of England, a reservation on behalf of all English subjects of the right of fishing with its necessary incidents, and the grant to the Proprietor of authority to create manors and manorial courts. There is something painful in the spectacle of the once vigorous and enterprising soldier amusing his old age by playing at kingship. In no little German court of the last century could the forms of government and the realities of life have been more at variance. To conduct the business of two fishing villages Gorges called into existence a staff of officials which might have sufficed for the affairs of the Byzantine Empire. He even outdid the absurdities which the Proprietors of Carolina perpetrated thirty years later. They at least saw that their elaborate machinery of caciques and landgraves was unfit for practical purposes, and they waived it in favour of a simple system which had sprung up in obedience to natural wants. But Gorges tells complacently and with a deliberate care, which contrasts with his usually hurried and slovenly style, how he parcelled out his territory and nominated his officials. … The task of putting this cumbrous machinery into motion was entrusted by the Proprietor to his son, Thomas Gorges, as Deputy-Governor."

J. A. Doyle, The English in America: The Puritan Colonies, volume 1, chapter 7.

"The Province was divided into two counties, of one of which Agamenticus, or York, was the principal settlement; of the other, Saco. … The greatness of York made it arrogant; and it sent a deputation of aldermen and burgesses to the General Court at Saco, to save its metropolitan rights by a solemn protest. The Proprietary was its friend, and before long exalted it still more by a city charter, authorizing it and its suburbs, constituting a territory of 21 square miles, to be governed, under the name of 'Gorgeana,' by a Mayor, twelve Aldermen, a Common Council of 24 members, and a Recorder, all to be annually chosen by the citizens. Probably as many as two thirds of the adult males were in places of authority. The forms of proceeding in the Recorder's Court were to be copied from those of the British chancery. This grave foolery was acted more than ten years."

      ALSO IN:
      Sir F. Gorges,
      Brief Narration
      (Maine Historical Society Collection, volume 2).

MAINE: A. D. 1643-1677.
Territorial jurisdiction in dispute.
The claims of Massachusetts made good.

   "In 1643, the troubles in England between the King and Commons
   grew violent, and in that year Alexander Rigby bought the old
   grant called Lygonia or 'Plow Patent,' and appointed George
   Cleaves his deputy-president. Governor Thomas Gorges about
   that time returned to England, and left Vines in his place.
   Between Cleaves and Vines there was of course a conflict of
   jurisdiction, and Cleaves appealed for aid to Massachusetts;
   and both parties agreed to leave their claims (1645) to the
   decision of the Massachusetts Magistrates, who decided—that
   they could not decide the matter. But the next year the
   Commissioners for American plantations in England decided in
   favor of Rigby; and Vines left the country. In 1647, at last,
   at the age of 74, Sir Ferdinando Gorges died, and with him
   died all his plans for kingdoms and power in Maine. In 1651,
   Massachusetts, finding that her patent, which included lands
   lying three miles north of the head waters of the Merrimack,
   took in all the lower part of Maine, began to extend her
   jurisdiction, and as most of the settlers favored her
   authority, it was pretty well established till the time of the
   Restoration (1660).
{2080}
   Upon the Restoration of Charles II., the heir of Gorges
   claimed his rights to Maine. His agent in the province was
   Edward Godfrey. Those claims were confirmed by the Committee
   of Parliament, and in 1664 he obtained an order from the King
   to the Governor of Massachusetts to restore him his province.
   In 1664 the King's Commissioners came over, and proceeded
   through the Colonies, and among the rest to Maine; where they
   appointed various officers without the concurrence of
   Massachusetts; so that for some years Maine was distracted
   with parties, and was in confusion. In 1668, Massachusetts
   sent four Commissioners to York, who resumed and
   re-established the jurisdiction of Massachusetts, with which
   the majority of the people were best pleased; and in 1669 the
   Deputies from Maine again took their seats in the
   Massachusetts Court. Her jurisdiction was, however, disputed
   by the heirs of Mason and Gorges, and it was not finally set
   at rest till the year 1677, by the purchase of their claims
   from them, by Massachusetts, for £1,250."

MAINE: A. D. 1664.
The Pemaquid patent purchased and granted
to the Duke of York.

MAINE: A. D. 1820.
   Separation from Massachusetts.
   Recognition as a distinct commonwealth and
   admission into the Union.

"Petitions for the separation of the District of Maine were first preferred to the legislature of Massachusetts in 1816, and a convention was appointed to be holden at Brunswick. This convention voted in favor of the step, but the separation was not effected until 1820, at which time Maine was erected into a distinct and independent commonwealth, and was admitted into the American Union."

"In the division of the property all the real estate in Massachusetts was to be forever hers; all that in Maine to be equally divided between the two, share and share alike. … The admission of Maine and Missouri into the Union were both under discussion in Congress at the same time. The advocates of the latter, wishing to carry it through the Legislature, without any restrictive clause against slavery, put both into a bill together,—determined each should share the same fate. … Several days the subject was debated, and sent from one branch to the other in Congress, till the 1st of March, when, to our joy, they were divorced; and on the 3d of the month [March, 1820] an act was passed by which Maine was declared to be, from and after the 15th of that month, one of the United States."

MAINE: A. D. 1842.
Settlement of the northern boundary disputes,
by the Ashburton Treaty.

"The law of Majestas or Treason … under the [Roman] empire … was the legal protection thrown round the person of the chief of the state: any attempt against the dignity or safety of the community became an attack on its glorified representative. Nevertheless, it is remarkable that the first legal enactment which received this title, half a century before the foundation of the empire, was actually devised for the protection, not of the state itself, but of a personage dear to the state, namely, the tribune of the people. Treason to the State indeed had long before been known, and defined as Perduellio, the levying of war against the commonwealth. … But the crime of majesty was first specified by the demagogue Apuleius, in an enactment of the year 654 [B. C. 100], for the purpose of guarding or exalting the dignity of the champion of the plebs. … The law of Apuleius was followed by that of another tribune, Varius, conceived in a similar spirit. … [After the constitution of Sulla] the distinction between Majestas and Perduellio henceforth vanishes: the crime of Treason is specifically extended from acts of violence to measures calculated to bring the State into contempt."

   "No one with any tincture of literary knowledge is ignorant of
   the fame at least of the great Malatesta family—the house of
   the Wrongheads, as they were rightly called by some prevision
   of their future part in Lombard history. … The story of
   Francesca da Polenta, who was wedded to the hunchback Giovanni
   Malatesta and murdered by him with her lover Paolo, is known
   not merely to students of Dante, but to readers of Byron and
   Leigh Hunt, to admirers of Flaxman, Ary Scheffer, Doré—to
   all, in fact, who have of art and letters any love. The
   history of these Malatesti, from their first establishment
   under Otho III. [A. D. 996-1002] as lieutenants for the Empire
   in the Marches of Ancona, down to their final subjugation by the
   Papacy in the age of the Renaissance, is made up of all the
   vicissitudes which could befall a mediæval Italian despotism.
{2081}
   Acquiring an unlawful right over the towns of Rimini, Cesena,
   Sogliano, Ghiacciuolo, they ruled their petty principalities
   like tyrants by the help of the Guelf and Ghibelline factions,
   inclining to the one or the other as it suited their humour or
   their interest, wrangling among themselves, transmitting the
   succession of their dynasty through bastards and by deeds of
   force, quarrelling with their neighbours the Counts of Urbino,
   alternately defying and submitting to the Papal legates in
   Romagna, serving as condottieri in the wars of the Visconti
   and the state of Venice, and by their restlessness and genius
   for military intrigues contributing in no slight measure to
   the general disturbance of Italy. The Malatesti were a race
   of strongly marked character: more, perhaps, than any other
   house of Italian tyrants, they combined for generations those
   qualities of the fox and the lion, which Machiavelli thought
   indispensable to a successful despot. … So far as Rimini is
   concerned, the house of Malatesta culminated in Sigismondo
   Pandolfo, son of Gian Galeazzo Visconti's general, the
   perfidious Pandolfo. … Having begun by defying the Holy See,
   he was impeached at Rome for heresy, parricide, incest,
   adultery, rape, and sacrilege, burned in effigy by Pope Pius
   II., and finally restored to the bosom of the Church, after
   suffering the despoliation of almost all his territories, in
   1463. The occasion on which this fierce and turbulent despiser
   of laws human and divine was forced to kneel as a penitent
   before the Papal legate in the gorgeous temple dedicated to
   his own pride, in order that the ban of excommunication might
   be removed from Rimini, was one of those petty triumphs,
   interesting chiefly for their picturesqueness, by which the
   Popes confirmed their questionable rights over the cities of
   Romagna. Sigismondo, shorn of his sovereignty, took the
   command of the Venetian troops against the Turks in the Morea,
   and returned in 1465, crowned with laurels, to die at Rimini."

Many ethnologists set up as a distinct stock "the '.Malayan' or 'Brown' race, and claim for it an importance not less than any of the darker varieties of the species. It bears, however, the marks of an origin too recent, and presents Asian analogies too clearly, for it to be regarded otherwise than as a branch of the Asian race, descended like it from some ancestral tribe in that great continent. Its dispersion has been extraordinary. Its members are found almost continuously on the land areas from Madagascar to Easter Island, a distance nearly two-thirds of the circumference of the globe; everywhere they speak dialects with such affinities that we must assume for all one parent stem, and their separation must have taken place not so very long ago to have permitted such a monoglottic trait as this. The stock is divided at present into two groups, the western or Malayan peoples, and the eastern or Polynesian peoples. There has been some discussion about the original identity of these, but we may consider it now proved by both physical, linguistic and traditional evidence. The original home of the parent stem has also excited some controversy, but this too may be taken as settled. There is no reasonable doubt but that the Malays came from the southeastern regions of Asia, from the peninsula of Farther India, and thence spread south, east and west over the whole of the island world. Their first occupation of Sumatra and Java has been estimated to have occurred not later than 1000 B. C., and probably was a thousand years earlier, or about the time that the Aryans entered Northern India. The relationship of the Malayic with the other Asian stocks has not yet been made out. Physically they stand near to the Sinitic peoples of small stature and roundish heads of southeastern Asia. The oldest form of their language, however, was not monosyllabic and tonic, but was disyllabic. … The purest type of the true Malays is seen in Malacca, Sumatra and Java. … It has changed slightly by foreign intermixture among the Battaks of Sumatra, the Dayaks of Borneo, the Alfures and the Bugis. But the supposition that these are so remote that they cannot properly be classed with the Malays is an exaggeration of some recent ethnographers, and is not approved by the best authorities. … In character the Malays are energetic, quick of perception, genial in demeanor, but unscrupulous, cruel and revengeful. Veracity is unknown, and the love of gain is far stronger than any other passion or affection. This thirst for gold made the Malay the daring navigator he early became. As merchant, pirate or explorer, and generally as all three in one, he pushed his crafts far and wide over the tropical seas through 12,000 miles of extent. On the extreme west he reached and colonized Madagascar. The Hovas there, undoubtedly of Malay blood, number about 800,000 in a population of five and a half millions, the remainder being Negroids of various degrees of fusion. In spite of this disproportion, the Hovas are the recognized masters of the island. … The Malays probably established various colonies in southern India. The natives at Travancore and the Sinhalese of Ceylon bear a strongly Malayan aspect. … Some ethnographers would make the Polynesians and Micronesians a different race from the Malays; but the farthest that one can go in this direction is to admit that they reveal some strain of another blood. This is evident in their physical appearance. … All the Polynesian languages have some affinities to the Malayan, and the Polynesian traditions unanimously refer to the west for the home of their ancestors. We are able, indeed, by carefully analyzing these traditions, to trace with considerable accuracy both the route they followed to the Oceanic isles, and the respective dates when they settled them. Thus, the first station of their ancestors ou leaving the western group, was the small island of Buru or Boru, between Celebes and New Guinea. Here they encountered the Papuas, some of whom still dwell in the interior, while the coast people are fair. Leaving Boru, they passed to the north of New Guinea, colonizing the Caroline and Solomon islands, but the vanguard pressing forward to take possession of Savai in the Samoan group and Tonga to its south. These two islands formed a second center of distribution over the western Pacific. The Maoris of New Zealand moved from Tonga—'holy Tonga' as they call it in their songs—about 600 years ago. The Society islanders migrated from Savai, and they in turn sent forth the population of the Marquesas, the Sandwich islands and Easter island. The separation of the Polynesians from the western Malays must have taken place about the beginning of our era."

Fought, A. D. 991, by the English against an invading army of Norwegians, who proved the victors. The battle, with the heroic death of the English leader, Brihtnoth, became the subject of a famous early-English poem, which is translated in Freeman's "Old English History for Children." The field of battle was on the Blackwater in Essex.

One of the early peoples of Greece, who dwelt on the Malian Gulf, in the lower valley of the Sperchæus. They were a warlike people, neighbors and close allies of the Dorians, before the migration of the latter to the Peloponnesus.

C. O. Müller, History and Antiquity of the Doric Race, volume 1, book 1, chapter 2.

MALIGNANTS.

"About this time [A. D. 1643] the word 'malignant' was first born (as to the common use) in England; the deduction thereof being disputable, whether from 'malus ignis,' bad fire, or 'malum lignum,' bad fuel; but this is sure, betwixt both, the name made a combustion all over England. It was fixed as a note of disgrace on those of the king's party."

MALLUM. MALL. MALLBERG.

"The Franks … constituted one great army, the main body of which was encamped round the abode of their Kyning or commander, and the rest of which was broken up into various detachments. … Every such detachment became ere long a sedentary tribe, and the chief of each was accustomed, as occasion required, to convene the mallum (that is, an assembly of the free inhabitants) of his district, to deliberate with him on all the affairs of his immediate locality. The Kyning also occasionally convened an assembly of the whole of the Frankish chiefs, to deliberate with him at the Champs de Mars on the affairs of the whole confederacy. But neither the mallum nor the Champs de Mars was a legislative convention. Each of them was a council of war or an assembly of warriors."

"The Court was mostly held in a field or on a hill, called 'mallstatt,' or 'mallberg,' that is, the place or hill where the 'mall' or Court assembled, and the judge set up his shield of office, without which he might not hold Court."

MALTA: A. D. 1530-1565.
Ceded by the emperor, Charles V., to the Knights of St. John.
Their defense of the island against the Turks in the great siege.

MALTA: A. D. 1800-1802.
Surrender to an English fleet.
Agreement of restoration to the Knights of St. John.

   During their occupation of the island, the Knights
   Hospitallers of St. John of Jerusalem were commonly called
   Knights of Malta, as they had previously been called Knights
   of Rhodes:

MALVERN CHASE.

An ancient royal forest in Worcestershire, England, between
Malvern Hills and the River Severn. Few remains of it exist.

MAMACONAS.

MAMELUKE, OR SLAVE, DYNASTY OF INDIA.

MAMELUKES OF BRAZIL.

"Near the Basilica Porcia, and at the foot of the Capitoline Hill [in ancient Rome], was the ancient carcer or prison. The original erection of it has been attributed to Ancus Martius, as we learn from Livy, who says 'he made a prison in the middle of the city, overlooking the Forum.' The name by which it is known—Mamertinus—may have been derived from its being built by Ancus Martius. Mamers was the Sabine name of the god Mars, and consequently from the name Mamertius, the Sabine way of spelling Martius, may have been derived Mamertinus. In this prison there are two chambers, one above the other, built of hewn stone. The upper is square, while the lower is semicircular. The style of masonry points to an early date, when the Etruscan style of masonry prevailed in Rome. … To these chambers there was no entrance except by a small aperture in the upper roof, and a similar hole in the upper floor led to the cell below. From a passage in Livy it would appear that Tullianum was the name given to the lower cell of the carcer. … Varro expressly tells us that the lower part of the prison which was underground was called Tullianum because it was added by Servius Tullius."

"The oldest portion of the horror-striking Mamertine Prisons … is the most ancient among all Roman buildings still extant as originally constructed."

"Here, Jugurtha, king of Mauritania, was starved to death by Marius. Here Julius Cæsar, during his triumph for the conquest of Gaul, caused his gallant enemy Vercingetorix to be put to death. … The spot is more interesting to the Christian world as the prison of SS. Peter and Paul."

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (AUGUST: VIRGINIA);
      and (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER: VIRGINIA).

MANCHESTER: A. D. 1817-1819. The march of the Blanketeers, and the "Massacre of Peterloo."

   A ship canal, connecting Manchester with Liverpool, and making
   the former practically a seaport, was opened on the 1st day of
   January, 1894. The building of the canal was begun in 1887.

MANCUNIUM.

A Roman town in Britain which occupied the site of the modern city of Manchester.

   A tribe in ancient Gaul, which occupied part of the modern
   French department of the Côte-d'Or and whose chief town was
   Alesia, the scene of Cæsar's famous siege.

      Napoleon III.,
      History of Cæsar,
      book 3, chapter 2, footnote (volume 2).

"Of all the Greek writers who have treated of the history of the Pharaohs, there is only one whose testimony has, since the deciphering of the hieroglyphics, preserved any great value—a value which increases the more it is compared with the original monuments; we speak of Manetho. Once he was treated with contempt; his veracity was disputed, the long series of dynasties he unfolds to our view was regarded as fabulous. Now, all that remains of his work is the first of an authorities for the reconstruction of the ancient history of Egypt. Manetho, a priest of the town of Sebennytus, in the Delta, wrote in Greek, in the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus, a history of Egypt, founded on the official archives preserved in the temples. Like many other books of antiquity, this history has been lost; we possess now a few fragments only, with the list of all the kings placed by Manetho at the end of his work—a list happily preserved in the writings of some chronologers of the Christian epoch. This list divides into dynasties, or royal families, all the kings who reigned successively in Egypt down to the time of Alexander."

F. Lenormant, Manual of Ancient History of the East, book 3, chapter 1, section 2 (volume 1).

"The earliest notice we have of the island which is now adorned by a beautiful and opulent city is to be found in Hudson's journal. 'Mana-hata' is therein mentioned, in reference to the hostile people whom he encountered on his return from his exploring of the river, and who resided on this island. De Laet … calls those wicked people Manatthans, and names the river Manhattes. … Hartger calls the Indians and the island Mahattan. … In some of the early transactions of the colony, it is spelled Monhattoes, Munhatos, and Manhattoes. Professor Ebeling says, that at the mouth of the river lived the Manhattans or Manathanes (or as the Englishmen commonly called it, Manhados), who kept up violent animosities with their neighbours, and were at first most hostile towards the Dutch, but suffered themselves to be persuaded afterwards to sell them the island, or at least that part of it where New York now stands. Manhattan is now the name, and it was, when correctly adopted, so given by the Dutch, and by them it not only distinguished the Indians, the island and the river, but it was a general name of their plantations. … Mr. Heckewelder observes that hitherto an his labours had been fruitless in inquiring about a nation or tribe of Indians called the 'Manhattos' or 'Manathones'; Indians both of the Mahicanni and Delaware nations assured him that they never had heard of any Indian tribe by that name. He says he is convinced that it was the Delawares or Munseys (which last was a branch of the Delawares) who inhabited that part of the country where New York now is. York Island is called by the Delawares to this day [1824] Manahattani or Manahachtanink. The Delaware word for 'Island' is 'Manátey'; the Monsey word for the same is 'Manáchtey' … Dr. Barton also has given as his belief that the Manhattæ were a branch of the Munsis."

      J. V. N. Yates and J. W. Moulton,
      History of the State of New York,
      volume 1, pages 223-224.

      ALSO IN:
      Memorial History of the City of New York,
      volume 1, chapter 2.

      See, also,
      AMERICAN ABORIGINES: DELAWARES,
      and ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

"A certain Mani (or Manes, as the ecclesiastical writers call him), born in Persia about A. D. 240, grew to manhood under Sapor, exposed to … various religious influences. … With a mind free from prejudice and open to conviction, he studied the various systems of belief which he found established in Western Asia—the Cabalism of the Babylonian Jews, the Dualism of the Magi, the mysterious doctrines of the Christians, and even the Buddhism of India. At first he inclined to Christianity, and is said to have been admitted to priest's orders and to have ministered to a congregation; but after a time he thought that he saw his way to the formation of a new creed, which should combine all that was best in the religious systems which he was acquainted with, and omit what was superfluous or objectionable. He adopted the Dualism of the Zoroastrians, the metempsychosis of India, the angelism and demonism of the Talmud and Trinitarianism of the Gospel of Christ. Christ himself he identified with Mithra, and gave Him his dwelling in the sun. He assumed to be the Paraclete promised by Christ, who should guide men into all truth, and claimed that his 'Ertang,' a sacred book illustrated by pictures of his own painting, should supersede the New Testament. Such pretensions were not likely to be tolerated by the Christian community; and Manes had not put them forward very long when he was expelled from the church and forced to carry his teaching elsewhere. Under these circumstances he is said to have addressed himself to Sapor [the Persian king], who was at first inclined to show him some favour; but when he found out what the doctrines of the new teacher actually were, his feelings underwent a change, and Manes, proscribed, or at any rate threatened with penalties, had to retire into a foreign country. … Though the morality of the Manichees was pure, and though their religion is regarded by some as a sort of Christianity, there were but few points in which it was an improvement on Zoroastrianism."

First in Persia and, afterwards, throughout Christendom, the Manicheans were subjected to a merciless persecution; but they spread their doctrines, notwithstanding, in the west and in the east, and it was not until several centuries had passed that the heresy became extinct.

J. L. Mosheim, Christianity during the first 325 years, Third Century, lectures 39-55.

MANIPULI.

MANITOBA.

MANORS.

"The name manor is of Norman origin, but the estate to which it was given existed, in its essential character, long before the Conquest; it received a new name as the shire also did, but neither the one nor the other was created by this change. The local jurisdictions of the thegns who had grants of sac and soc, or who exercised judicial functions amongst their free neighbours, were identical with the manorial jurisdictions of the new owners. … The manor itself was, as Ordericus tells us, nothing more nor less than the ancient township, now held by a lord who possessed certain judicial rights varying according to the terms of the grant by which he was infeoffed. Every manor had a court baron, the ancient gemot of the township, in which by-laws were made and other local business transacted, and a court customary in which the business of the villenage was despatched. Those manors whose lords had under the Anglo-Saxon laws possessed sac and soc, or who since the Conquest had had grants in which those terms were used, had also a court-leet, or criminal jurisdiction, cut out as it were from the criminal jurisdiction of the hundred, and excusing the suitors who attended it from going to the court-leet of the hundred."

W. Stubbs, Constitutional History of England, chapter 9, section 98, and chapter 11, section 129 (volume 1).

"From the Conquest to the 14th century we find the same agricultural conditions prevailing over the greater part of England. Small gatherings of houses and cots appear as oases in the moorland and forest, more or less frequent according to the early or late settlement of the district, and its freedom from, or exposure to, the ravages of war and the punishment of rebellion. These oases, townships or vills if of some extent, hamlets if of but a few houses, gather round one or more mansions of superior size and importance, the Manor houses, or abodes of the Lords of the respective Manors. Round each township stretch the great ploughed fields, usually three in number, open and uninclosed. Each field is divided into a series of parallel strips a furlong in length, a rod wide, four of which would make an acre, the strips being separated by ridges of turf called balks, while along the head of each series of strips runs a broad band of turf known as a headland, on which the plough is turned, when it does not by custom turn on some fellow-tenant's land, and which serves as a road to the various strips in the fields. These strips are allotted in rotation to a certain number of the dwellers in the township, a very common holding being that known as a virgate or yardland, consisting of about 30 acres. … Mr. Seebohm's exhaustive researches have conclusively connected this system of open fields and rotation of strips with the system of common ploughing, each holder of land providing so many oxen for the common plough, two being the contribution of the holder of a virgate, and eight the normal number drawing the plough, though this would vary with the character of the soil. … At the date of Domesday (1086), the holders of land in the common fields comprise the Lord; the free tenants, socmanni or liberi homines, when there are any; the villani or Saxon geburs, the holders of virgates or half virgates; and the bordarii or cotarii, holders of small plots of 5 acres or so, who have fewer rights and fewer duties. Besides ploughing the common-fields, the villani as part of their tenure have to supply the labour necessary to cultivate the arable land that the Lord of the Manor keeps in his own hands as his domain, dominicum, or demesne."

Relative to the origin of the manor and the development of the community from which it rose there are divergent views much discussed at the present day. "The interpretation, current fifteen years ago, was the natural outcome of the Mark theory and was somewhat as follows: The community was a voluntary association, a simple unit within which there were households or families of various degrees of wealth, rank and authority, but in point of status each was the equal of the other. Each was subject only to the customs and usages of the community and to the court of the Mark. The Mark was therefore a judicial and political as well as an agricultural unit, though cultivation of the soil was the primary bond of union. All offices were filled by election, but the incumbent in due time sank back into the general body of 'markgenossen.' He who was afterwards to be the lord of the manor was originally only the first Marksman,' who attained to this preeminence in part by the prestige of election to a position of headship, in part by usurpation, and in part by the prerogatives which protection and assistance to weaker Marksmen brought. Thus the first Marksman became the lord and held the others in a kind of subjection to himself, and received from them, though free, dues and services which grew increasingly more severe. The main difficulty here seems to be in the premise, and it is the evident artificiality of the voluntary association of freemen which has led to such adverse criticism upon the whole theory. … While the free village community was under fire at home as well as abroad, Mr. Seebohm presented a new view of an exactly opposite character, with the formula of the community in villeinage under a lord. Although this view has for the moment divided thinkers on the subject, it has proved no more satisfactory than the other; for while it does explain the origin of the lord of the manor, it leaves wholly untouched the body of free Saxons whom Earle calls the rank and file of the invading army. Other theories have sought to supply the omissions in this vague non-documentary field, all erected with learning and skill, but unfortunately not in harmony with one another. Coote and Finlason have given to the manor an unqualified Roman origin. Lewis holds to a solid British foundation, the Teutonists would make it wholly Saxon, while Gomme is inclined to see an Aryo-British community under Saxon overlordship. Thus there is a wide range from which to select; all cannot be true; no one is an explanation of all conditions, yet most of them have considerable sound evidence to support them. It is this lack of harmony which drives the student to discover some theory which shall be in touch with known tribal conditions and a natural consequence of their development, and which at the same time shall be sufficiently elastic to conform to the facts which confront us in the early historical period. An attempt has been made [in the work here quoted from] to lay down two premises, the first of which is the composite character of the tribal and village community, and the second the diverse ethnological conditions of Britain after the Conquest, conditions which would allow for different results. … Kemble in his chapter on Personal Rank has a remark which is ill in keeping with his peaceful Mark theory. He says: 'There can be no doubt that some kind of military organization preceded the peaceful settlement, and in many respects determined its mode and character.' To this statement Earle has added another equally pregnant: 'Of all principles of military regiment there is none so necessary or so elementary as this, that all men must be under a captain, and such a captain as is able to command prompt and willing obedience. Upon this military principle I conceive the English settlements were originally founded, that each several settlement was under a military leader, and that this military leader was the ancestor of the lord of the manor.' Professor Earle then continues in the endeavor to apply the suggestion contained in the above quotation. He shows that the 'hundreds' represent the first permanent encampment of the invading host, and that the military occupation preceded the civil organization, the latter falling into the mould which the former had prepared. According to this the manorial organization was based upon a composite military foundation, the rank and file composing the one element, the village community; the captain or military leader composing the other, settled with suitable provision by the side of his company; the lord by the side of free owners. In this attempt to give the manor a composite origin, as the only rational means whereby the chief difficulty can be removed, and in the attempt to carry the seignorial element to the very beginning we believe him to be wholly right. But an objection must be raised to the way in which Professor Earle makes up his composite element. It is too artificial, too exclusively military; the occupiers of the village are the members of the 'company,' the occupier of the adjacent seat is the 'captain,' afterwards to become the lord. … We feel certain that the local community, the village, was simply the kindred, the sub-clan group, which had become a local habitation, yet when we attempt to test its presence in Anglo-Saxon Britain we meet with many difficulties."

MANTINEA.

"Mantinea was the single city of Arcadia which had dared to pursue an independent line of policy [see SPARTA: B. C. 743-510]. Not until the Persian Wars the community coalesced out of five villages into one fortified city; this being done at the instigation of Argos, which already at this early date entertained thoughts of forming for itself a confederation in its vicinity: Mantinea had endeavored to increase its city and territory by conquest, and after the Peace of Nicias had openly opposed Sparta."

MANTINEA: B. C. 371-362.
   Restoration of the city.
   Arcadian union and disunion.
   The great battle.
   Victory and death of Epaminondas.

In the war between Cleomenes of Sparta and the Achæan League, the city of Mantinea was, first, surprised by Aratus, the chief of the League, B. C. 226, and occupied by an Achæan garrison; then recaptured by Cleomenes, and his partisans, B. C. 224, and finally, B. C. 222, stormed by Antigonus, king of Macedonia, acting in the name of the League, and given up to pillage. Its citizens were sold into slavery. "The dispeopled city was placed by the conqueror at the disposal of Argos, which decreed that a colony should be sent to take possession of it under the auspices of Aratus. The occasion enabled him to pay another courtly compliment to the king of Macedonia. On his proposal, the name of the 'lovely Mantinea'—as it was described in the Homeric catalogue—was exchanged for that of Antigonea, a symbol of its ruin and of the humiliation of Greece."

In the wars of the Achæan League, the Lacedæmonians were defeated under the walls of Mantinea with great slaughter, by the forces of the League, ably marshalled by Philopœmen, and the Lacedaemonian king Machanidas was slain. "It was the third great battle fought on the same, or nearly the same, ground. Here, in the interval between the two parts of the Peloponnesian War, had Agis restored the glory of Sparta after her humiliation at Sphakteria; here Epameinôndas had fallen in the moment of victory; here now [B. C. 207] was to be fought the last great battle of independent Greece."

MANTUA: A. D. 1627-1631.
   War of France, Spain and the Empire over the disputed
   succession to the duchy.
   Siege and capture of the city by the Imperialists.
   Rights of the Duke de Nevers established.

MANTUA: A. D. 1866.

The Austrians retained Mantua until their final withdrawal from the peninsula, in 1866, when it was absorbed in the new kingdom of Italy.

"The Indians [of Hindostan] possess a series of books of law, which, like that called after Manu, bear the name of a saint or seer of antiquity, or of a god. One is named after Gautama, another after Vasishtha, a third after Apastamba, a fourth after Yajnavalkya; others after Bandhayana and Vishnu. According to the tradition of the Indians the law of Manu is the oldest and most honourable. … The conclusion is … inevitable that the decisive precepts which we find in the collection must have been put together and written down about the year 600 [B. C.]."

"The name, 'Laws of Manu,' somewhat resembles a 'pious fraud'; for the 'Laws' are merely the laws or customs of a school or association of Hindus, called the Manavas, who lived in the country rendered holy by the divine river Saraswati. In this district the Hindus first felt themselves a settled people, and in this neighbourhood they established colleges and hermitages, or 'asramas,' from some of which we may suppose Brahmanas, Upanishads, and other religious compositions may have issued; and under such influences we may imagine the Code of Manu to have been composed."

MANUAL TRAINING.

MANUEL I. (Comnenus),
Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or Greek), A. D. 1143-1181.

The Isle of Man in the Irish Sea gets its English name, Man, by an abbreviation of the native name, Mannin, the origin of which is unknown. The language, called Manx (now little used), and the inhabitants, called Manxmen, are both of Gaelic, or Irish derivation. From the sixth to the tenth century the island was successively ruled by the Scots (Irish), the Welsh and the Norwegians, finally becoming a separate petty kingdom, with Norwegian claims upon it. In the thirteenth century the little kingdom was annexed to Scotland. Subsequently, after various vicissitudes, it passed under English control and was granted by Henry IV. to Sir John Stanley. The Stanleys, after some generations, found a dignity which they esteemed higher, in the earldom of Derby, and relinquished the title of King of Man. This was done by the second Earl of Derby, 1505. In 1765 the sovereignty and revenues of the island were purchased by the British government; but its independent form of government has undergone little change. It enjoys "home rule" to perfection. It has its own legislature, called the Court of Tynwald, consisting of a council, or upper chamber, and a representative body called the House of Keys. Acts of the imperial parliament do not apply to the Isle of Man unless it is specifically named in them. It has its own courts, with judges called deemsters (who are the successors of the ancient Druidical priests), and its own governor, appointed by the crown. The divisions of the island, corresponding to English counties, are called sheadings.

"We must … regard them as a remnant of the Amorites, which, in later times, … spread to the west of Petra."

MAORIS. MAORI WAR.

This was a weapon in use among the Mexicans when the Spaniards found them. It "was a stout stick, three feet and a half long, and about four inches broad, armed on each side with a sort of razors of the stone itztli (obsidian), extraordinarily sharp, fixed and firmly fastened to the stick with gum lack. … The first stroke only was to be feared, for the razors became soon blunt."

MARACANDA.

MARAGHA.

   One of the battles fought by the Romans with the Persians
   during the retreat from Julian's fatal expedition beyond the
   Tigris, A. D. 363. The Persians were repulsed.

MARAT AND THE FRENCH REVOLUTION.

MARATA.

MARATHAS.

MARAVEDIS.

MARCH. MARK.

The frontier or boundary of a territory; a border. Hence came the title of Marquis, which was originally that of an officer charged with the guarding of some March or border district of a kingdom. In Great Britain this title ranks second in the five orders of nobility, only the title of Duke being superior to it. The old English kingdom of Mercia was formed by the Angles who were first called the "Men of the March," having settled on the Welsh border, and that was the origin of its name. The kingdom of Prussia grew out of the "Mark of Brandenburg," which was originally a military border district formed on the skirts of the German empire to resist the Wends. Various other European states had the same origin.

MARCH CLUB.

MARCIANAPOLIS.

"The Marcomanni [an ancient German people who dwelt, first, on the Rhine, but afterwards occupied southern Bohemia] stand first in strength and renown, and their very territory, from which the Boii were driven in a former age, was won by valour. Nor are the Narisci [settled in the region of modern Ratisbon] and Quadi [who probably occupied Moravia] inferior to them. This I may call the frontier of Germany, so far as it is completed by the Danube. The Marcomanni and Quadi have, up to our time, been ruled by kings of their own nation, descended from the noble stock of Maroboduus and Tudrus. They now submit even to foreigners; but the strength and power of the monarch depend on Roman influence."

      Tacitus,
      Germany, translated by Church and Brodribb,
      chapter 42.

"The Marcomanni cannot be demonstrated as a distinct people before Marbod. It is very possible that the word up to that point indicates nothing but what it etymologically signifies—the land or frontier guard."

MARGARET,
Queen of the North: Denmark and Norway, A. D. 1387-1412;
Sweden, 1388-1412.

MARGHUSH.

MARGIANA.

The ancient name of the valley of the Murghab or Moorghab (called the Margos). It is represented at the present day by the oasis now called Merv; was the Bactrian Mourn and the Marghush of the old Persians. It was inhabited by the Margiani.

MARGRAVE. MARQUIS.

"This of Markgrafs (Grafs of the Marches, 'marked' Places, or Boundaries) was a natural invention in that state of circumstances [the circumstances of the Germany of the 10th century, under Henry the Fowler]. It did not quite originate with Henry; but was much perfected by him, he first recognising how essential it was. On all frontiers he had his 'Graf' (Count, 'Reeve,' 'G'reeve,' whom some think to be only 'Grau,' Gray, or 'Senior,' the hardiest, wisest steel-gray man he could discover) stationed on the Marck, strenuously doing watch and ward there: the post of difficulty, of peril, and naturally of honour too, nothing of a sinecure by any means. Which post, like every other, always had a tendency to become hereditary, if the kindred did not fail in fit men. And hence have come the innumerable Margraves, Marquises, and such like, of modern times; titles now become chimerical, and more or less mendacious, as most of our titles are."

"The title derived from the old imperial office of markgrave [margrave], 'comes marchensis,' or count of the marches, had belonged to several foreigners who were brought into relation with England in the twelfth century; the duke of Brabant was marquess of Antwerp, and the count of Maurienne marquess of Italy; but in France the title was not commonly used until the seventeenth century, and it is possible that it came to England direct from Germany. … The fact that, within a century of its introduction into England, it was used in so unmeaning a designation as the marquess of Montague, shows that it had lost all traces of its original application."

A treaty which Attila the Hun extorted from the Eastern Roman Emperor, Theodosius, A. D. 434,—called by Sismondi "the most shameful treaty that ever monarch signed." It gave up to the savage king every fugitive from his vengeance or his jealousy whom he demanded, and even the Roman captives who had escaped from his bonds. It promised, moreover, an annual tribute to him of 700 pounds of gold.

MARHATTAS.

Maria Theresa, Archduchess of Austria and
Queen of Hungary and Bohemia, 1745-1780.

MARIANA.

MARITIME PROVINCES.

The British American provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland, are commonly referred to as the Maritime Provinces.

MARK.

   "The theory of the Mark, or as it is more generally called in
   its later form, the free village community, has been an
   accepted hypothesis for the historical and economic world for
   more than half a century. Elaborated and expanded by the
   writings of Kemble in England and v. Maurer in Germany, taken
   up by later English writers and given wide currency through
   the works of Sir Henry Maine, Green, and Freeman, it has been
   accepted and extended by scores of historical writers on this
   side of the Atlantic as well as the other until it has become
   a commonplace in literature. Firm as has been its hold and
   important as has been its work, it is almost universally
   conceded that further modification or entire rejection must be
   the next step to be taken in the presence of the more thorough
   and scholarly research which is becoming prominent, and before
   all questions can be answered which this study brings to
   light. A change has taken place in the thought upon this
   subject; a reaction against the idealism of the political
   thinkers of half a century ago. The history of the hypothesis
   forms an interesting chapter in the relation between modern
   thought and the interpretation of past history, and shows that
   in the formation of an opinion both writer and reader are
   unconsciously dependent upon the spirit of the age in which
   they live. The free village community, as it is commonly
   understood, standing at the dawn of English and German history
   is discoverable in no historical documents, and for that
   reason it has been accepted by prudent scholars with caution.
{2089}
   But the causes which have made it a widely acceptable
   hypothesis and have served to entrench it firmly in the mind
   of scholar and reader alike, have easily supplied what was
   wanting in the way of exact material, and have led to
   conclusions which are now recognized as often too hazy,
   historically inaccurate, though agreeable to the thought
   tendencies of the age. … The Mark as defined by Kemble, who
   felt in this interpretation the influence of the German
   writers, … was a district large or small with a well-defined
   boundary, containing certain proportions of heath, forest, fen
   and pasture. Upon this tract of land were communities of
   families or households, originally bound by kindred or tribal
   ties, but who had early lost this blood relationship and were
   composed of freemen, voluntarily associated for mutual support
   and tillage of the soil, with commonable rights in the land
   within the Mark. The Marks were entirely independent, having
   nothing to do with each other, self-supporting and isolated,
   until by continual expansion they either federated or
   coalesced into larger communities. Such communities varying in
   size covered England, internally differing only in minor
   details, in all other respects similar. This view of the Mark
   had been taken already more or less independently by v. Maurer
   in Germany, and five years after the appearance of Kemble's
   work, there was published the first of the series of volumes
   which have rendered Maurer's name famous as the establisher of
   the theory. As his method was more exact, his results were
   built upon a more stable foundation than were those of Kemble,
   but in general the two writers did not greatly differ."

W. Stubbs, Constitutional History of England, chapter 3, section 24 (volume 1).

MARKLAND.

The tide of Mahometan conquest, sweeping across North Africa (see MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 647-709), burst upon Marocco in 698. "Eleven years were required to overcome the stubborn resistance of the Berbers, who, however, when once conquered, submitted with a good grace and embraced the new creed with a facility entirely in accordance with the adaptive nature they still exhibit. Mingled bands of Moors and Arabs passed over into Spain, under Tarik and Moossa, and by the defeat of Roderic at the battle of Guadalete, in 711, the foundation of their Spanish empire was laid [see SPAIN: A. D. 711-713], on which was afterwards raised the magnificent fabric of the Western Khalifate. This is not the place to dwell on the glories of their dominion. … Suffice it to say, that a reflection of this glory extended to Marocco, where the libraries and universities of Fez and Marocco City told of the learning introduced by wise men, Moorish and Christian alike, who pursued their studies without fear of interruption on the score of religious belief. The Moors in the days of their greatness, be it observed, were far more liberal-minded than the Spanish Catholics afterwards showed themselves, and allowed Christians to practise their own religion in their own places of worship—in striking contrast to the fanaticism of their descendants in Marocco at the present day. … The intervals of repose under the rule of powerful and enlightened monarchs, during which the above-mentioned institutions flourished, were nevertheless comparatively rare, and the general history of Marocco during the Moorish dominion in Spain seems to have been one monotonous record of strife between contending tribes and dynasties. Early in the tenth century, the Berbers got the mastery of the Arabs, who never afterwards appear in the history of the country except under the general name of Moors. Various principalities were formed [11-13th centuries—see ALMORAVIDES and ALMOHADES], of which the chief were Fez, Marocco, and Tafilet, though now and again, and especially under the Marin dynasty, in the 13th century, the two former were consolidated into one kingdom. In the 15th century the successes of the Spaniards caused the centre of Moorish power to shift from Spain to Marocco. In the declining days of the Hispano-Moorish empire, and after its final extinction, the Spaniards and Portuguese revenged themselves on their conquerors by attacking the coast-towns of Marocco, many of which they captured. It is not improbable that they would eventually have possessed themselves of the entire country, but for the disastrous defeat of King Sebastian in 1578, at the battle of the Three Kings, on the banks of the Wad El Ma Hassen, near Alcazar [see PORTUGAL: A. D. 1579-1580]. This was the turning-point in Moorish history, and an African Creasy would have to rank the conflict at Alcazar among the decisive battles of the continent. With the rout and slaughter of the Portuguese fled the last chance of civilizing the country, which from that period gradually relapsed into a state of isolated barbarism. … For 250 years the throne has been in the hands of members of the Shereefian family of Fileli, who have remained practically undisputed masters of the whole of the empire. All this time, as in the earlier classical ages, Marocco has been practically shut out from the world. … The chief events of importance in Moorish affairs in the present century were the defeat of the Moors by the French at the battle of Isly [see BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1830-1846], near the Algerian frontier, in 1844, and the subsequent bombardment of Mogador and the coast-towns, and the Spanish war which terminated in 1860 with the peace of Tetuan. These reverses taught the Moors the power of European states, and brought about a great improvement in the position of Christians in the country. The Government of Marocco is in effect a kind of' graduated despotism, where every official, while possessing complete authority over those beneath him, must render absolute submission to his superiors. The supreme power is vested in the Sultan, the head of the State in all things spiritual and temporal. … Of the ultimate dissolution of the Moorish dominion there can be little doubt. … European States have long had their eyes upon it, but the same mutual distrust and jealousy which preserves the decaying fabric of the Turkish Empire has hitherto done the like for Marocco, whose Sultan serves the same purpose on the Straits of Gibraltar as the Turkish Sultan does on the Bosphorus."

MAROONS.

MARQUETTE'S EXPLORATIONS.

MARQUIS.

An ancient ditch running from Alba to Rome,—being part of a channel by which the Vale of Grotta was drained.

B. G. Niebuhr, Lectures on Ancient Ethnography and Geography., volume 2, page 50.

MARRANOS.

MARS' HILL.

MARSCHFELD.

In preparation for the insurrection of August 10, 1792, which overthrew the French monarchy, and made the Revolution begun in 1789 complete, the Jacobins had summoned armed bands of their supporters from an parts of France, ostensibly as volunteers to join the army on the frontier, but actually and immediately as a reinforcement for the attack which they had planned to make on the king at the Tuileries.

Among the "fédérés" who came was a battalion of 500 from Marseilles, which arrived at the capital on the 30th of July. "This battalion has been described by every historian as a collection of the vagabonds who are always to be found in a great seaport town, and particularly in one like Marseilles, where food was cheap and lodging unnecessary. But their character has lately been vindicated, and it has been shown that these Marseillais were picked men from the national guards of Marseilles, like the other fédérés, and contained the most hardy as well as the most revolutionary men of the city. …. They left Marseilles 513 strong, with two guns, on July 2, and had been marching slowly across France, singing the immortal war song to which they gave their name. … The 'Marseillaise' had in itself no very radical history. On April 24, 1792, just after the declaration of war, the mayor of Strasbourg, Dietrich, who was himself no advanced republican, but a constitutionalist, remarked at a great banquet that it was very sad that all the national war songs of France could not be sung by her present defenders, because they all treated of loyalty to the king and not to the nation as well. One of the guests was a young captain of engineers, Rouget de Lisle, who had in 1791 composed a successful 'Hymne à la Liberté,' and Dietrich appealed to him to compose something suitable. The young man was struck by the notion, and during the night he was suddenly inspired with both words and air, and on the following day he sang over to Dietrich's guests the famous song which was to be the war-song of the French Republic. Madame Dietrich arranged the air for the orchestra; Rouget de Lisle dedicated it to Marshal Lückner, as the 'Chant de guerre pour l'armée du Rhin,' and it at once became popular in Strasbourg. Neither Dietrich nor Rouget were advanced republicans. The watchword of the famous song was not 'Sauvons la République,' but' Sauvons la Patrie.' The air was a taking one. From Strasbourg it quickly spread over the south of France, and particularly attracted the patriots of Marseilles. … There are many legends on the origin of the 'Marseillaise'; the account here followed is that given by Amedée Rouget de Lisle, the author's nephew, in his 'La verité sur la paternité de la Marseillaise,' Paris, 1865, which is confirmed by a letter of Madame Dietrich's, written at the time, and first published in 'Souvenirs d' Alsace—Rouget de Lisle à Strasbourg et a Huningue,' by Adolphe Morpain."

MARSEILLES: A. D. 1524.
Unsuccessful siege by the Spaniards and the Constable Bourbon.

MARSEILLES: A. D. 1793.
Revolt against the Revolutionary Government at Paris.
Fearful vengeance of the Terrorists.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1787-1789;
and SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES.

The Marsigni were an ancient German tribe who inhabited "what is now Galatz, Jagerndorf and part of Silesia."

MARTLING MEN.

In February, 1806, when DeWitt Clinton and his political followers were organizing opposition to Governor Lewis, and were forming an alliance to that end with the political friends of Aaron Burr, a meeting of Republicans (afterwards called Democrats) was held at "Martling's Long Room," in New York City. Hence Mr. Clinton's Democratic opponents, "for a long time afterwards, were known in other parts of the state by the name of Martling Men."

J. D. Hammond, History of Political Parties in the State of New York, volume 1, page 230.

MARYLAND: A. D. 1632.
The charter granted to Lord Baltimore.
An American palatinate.

"Among those who had become interested in the London or Virginia, Company, under its second charter, in 1609, was Sir George Calvert, afterwards the founder of Maryland. … Upon the dissolution of the Virginia Company … he was named by the king one of the royal commissioners to whom the government of that colony was confided. Hitherto he had been a Protestant, but in 1624, having become unsettled in his religious convictions, he renounced the church of England, in which he had been bred, and embraced the faith of the Catholic church. Moved by conscientious scruples, he determined no longer to hold the office of secretary of state [conferred on him in 1619], which would make him, in a manner, the instrument of persecution against those whose faith he had adopted, and tendered his resignation to the king. … The king, … while he accepted his resignation, continued him as a member of his privy council for life, and soon after created him Lord Baltimore, of Baltimore, in Ireland. The spirit of intolerance at that time pervaded England. … The laws against the Catholics in England were particularly severe and cruel, and rendered it impossible for any man to practice his religion in quiet and safety. Sir George Calvert felt this; and although he was assured of protection from the gratitude and affection of the king, he determined to seek another land and to found a new state, where conscience should be free and every man might worship God according to his own heart, in peace and perfect security. … At first he fixed his eyes on New-found-land, in the settlement of which he had been interested before his conversion. … Having purchased a ship, he sailed with his family to that island, in which, a few years before, he had obtained a grant of a province under the name of Avalon. Here he only resided two years [see NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1610-1655], when he found the climate and soil unsuited for the establishment of a flourishing community, and determined to seek a more genial country in the south. Accordingly, in 1628, he sailed to Virginia, with the intention of settling in the limits of that colony, or more probably to explore the uninhabited country on its borders, in order to secure a grant of it from the king. Upon his arrival within the jurisdiction of the colony, the authorities tendered him the oaths of allegiance and supremacy, to which, as then framed, no Catholic could subscribe. Lord Baltimore refused to take them, but prepared a form of an oath of allegiance which he and all his followers were willing to accept. His proposal was rejected, and being compelled to leave their waters, he explored the Chesapeake above the settlements. He was pleased with the beautiful and well wooded country, which surrounded the noble inlets and indentations of the great bay, and determined there to found his principality. … He returned to England to obtain a grant from Charles I, who had succeeded his father, James I, upon the throne. Remembering his services to his father, and perhaps moved by the intercessions of Henrietta Maria, his Catholic queen, who desired to secure an asylum abroad for the persecuted members of her church in England, Charles directed the patent to be issued. It was prepared by Lord Baltimore himself; but before it was finally executed that truly great and good, man died, and the patent was delivered to his son Cecilius, who succeeded as well to his noble designs as to his titles and estates. The charter was issued on the 20th of June, 1632, and the new province, in honor of Queen Henrietta Maria, was named 'Terra Mariæ'—Maryland."

   "The boundaries of Maryland, unlike those of the other
   colonies, were precisely defined. Its limits were: on the
   north, the fortieth parallel of north latitude; on the west
   and southwest, a line running south from this parallel to the
   farthest source of the Potomac, and thence by the farther or
   western bank of that river to Chesapeake Bay; on the south by
   a line running across the bay and peninsula to the Atlantic;
   and on the east by the ocean and the Delaware Bay and River.
   It included, therefore, all the present State of Delaware, a
   large tract of land now forming part of Pennsylvania, and
   another now occupied and claimed by West Virginia. The charter
   of Maryland contained the most ample rights and privileges
   ever conferred by a sovereign of England. It erected Maryland
   into a palatinate, equivalent to a principality, reserving
   only the feudal supremacy of the crown. The Proprietary was
   made absolute lord of the land and water within his
   boundaries, could erect towns, cities, and ports, make war or
   peace, call the whole fighting population to arms, and declare
   martial law, levy tolls and duties, establish courts of
   justice, appoint judges, magistrates, and other civil
   officers, execute the laws, and pardon offenders. He could
   erect manors with courts-baron and courts-leet, and confer
   titles and dignities, so that they differed from those of
   England. He could make laws with the assent of the freemen of
   the province, and, in cases of emergency, ordinances not
   impairing life, limb, or property, without their assent. He
   could found churches and chapels, have them consecrated
   according to the ecclesiastical laws of England, and appoint
   the incumbents. All this territory, with these royal rights,
   'jura regalia,' was to be held of the crown in free socage, by
   the delivery of two Indian arrows yearly at the palace of
   Windsor, and the fifth of all gold or silver mined. The
   colonists and their descendants were to remain English
   subjects. …
{2092}
   The King furthermore bound himself and his successors to lay
   no taxes, customs, subsidies, or contributions whatever upon
   the people of the province. … This charter, by which
   Maryland was virtually an independent and self-governed
   community, placed the destinies of the colonists in their own
   hands. … Though often attacked, and at times held in
   abeyance, the charter was never revoked."

The intention to create a palatine principality in Maryland is distinctly expressed in the fourth section of the charter, which grants to Lord Baltimore, his heirs and assigns, "as ample rights, jurisdictions, privileges, prerogatives, royalties, liberties, immunities, and royal rights … as any bishop of Durham, within the bishoprick or county palatine of Durham, in our kingdom of England, ever heretofore hath had, held, used, or enjoyed, or of right could, or ought to have, held, use, or enjoy."

"Cecil, Lord Baltimore, after receiving his charter for Maryland, in June, 1632, prepared to carry out his father's plans. Terms of settlement were issued to attract colonists, and a body of emigrants was soon collected to begin the foundation of the new province. The leading gentlemen who were induced to take part in the project were Catholics; those whom they took out to till the soil, or ply various trades, were not all or, indeed, mainly Catholics, but they could not have been very strongly Protestant to embark in a venture so absolutely under Catholic control. At Avalon Sir George Calvert, anxious for the religious life of his colonists, had taken over both Catholic and Protestant clergymen, and was ill repaid for his liberal conduct. To avoid a similar ground of reproach, Baron Cecil left each part of his colonists free to take their own clergymen. It is a significant fact that the Protestant portion were so indifferent that they neither took over any minister of religion, nor for several years after Maryland settlements began made any attempt to procure one. On behalf of the Catholic settlers, Lord Baltimore applied to Father Richard Blount, at that time provincial of the Jesuits in England, and wrote to the General of the Society, at Rome, to excite their zeal in behalf of the English Catholics who were about to proceed to Maryland. He could offer the clergy no support. … The Jesuits did not shrink from a mission field where they were to look for no support from the proprietary or their flock, and were to live amid dangers. It was decided that two Fathers were to go as gentlemen adventurers, taking artisans with them, and acquiring lands like others, from which they were to draw their support. … The Maryland pilgrims under Leonard Calvert, brother of the lord proprietary, consisted of his brother George, some 20 other gentlemen, and 200 laboring men well provided. To convey these to the land of Mary, Lord Baltimore had his own pinnace, the Dove, of 50 tons, commanded by Robert Winter, and the Ark, a chartered vessel of 350 tons burthen, Richard Lowe being captain. Leonard Calvert was appointed governor, Jerome Hawley and Thomas Cornwaleys being joined in the commission." After many malicious hindrances and delays, the two vessels sailed from Cowes, November 22, 1633, and made their voyage in safety, though encountering heavy storms. They came to anchor in Chesapeake Bay, near one of the Heron Islands, which they named St. Clement; and on that island they raised a cross and celebrated mass. "Catholicity thus planted her cross and her altar in the heart of the English colonies in America, March 25, 1634. The land was consecrated, and then preparations were made to select a spot for the settlement. Leaving Father White at St. Clement's, the governor, with Father Altham, ran up the river in a pinnace, and at Potomac on the southern shore met Archihau, regent of the powerful tribe that held sway over that part of the land." Having won the goodwill of the savages, "Leonard Calvert sailed back to Saint Clement's. Then the pilgrims entered the Saint Mary's, a bold, broad stream, emptying into the Potomac about 12 miles from its mouth. For the first settlement of the new province, Leonard Calvert, who had landed, selected a spot a short distance above, about a mile from the eastern shore of the river. Here stood an Indian town, whose inhabitants, harassed by the Susquehannas, had already begun to emigrate to the westward. To observe strict justice with the Indian tribes, Calvert purchased from the werowance, or king, Yaocomoco, 30 miles of territory. The Indians gradually gave up some of their houses to the colonists, agreeing to leave the rest also after they had gathered in their harvest. … The new settlement began with Catholic and Protestant dwelling together in harmony, neither attempting to interfere with the religious rights of the other, 'and religious liberty obtained a home, its only home in the wide world, at the humble village which bore the name of St. Mary's' [Bancroft, i, 247]. … The settlers were soon at work. Houses for their use were erected, crops were planted, activity and industry prevailed. St. Mary's chapel was dedicated to the worship of Almighty God, and near it a fort stood, ready to protect the settlers. It was required by the fact that Clayborne [a trading adventurer and a member of the Virginia Council], the fanatical enemy of Lord Baltimore and his Catholic projects, who had already settled on Kent Island, was exciting the Indians against the colonists of Maryland. The little community gave the priests a field too limited for their zeal. … The Indian tribes were to be reached. … Another priest, with a lay brother, came to share their labors before the close of the year 1635; and the next year four priests were reported as the number assigned to the Maryland mission. Of their early labors no record is preserved. … Sickness prevailed in the colony, and the missionaries did not escape. Within two months after his arrival Father Knolles, a talented young priest of much hope, sank a victim to the climate, and Brother Gervase, one of the original band of settlers, also died. … Lord Baltimore's scheme embraced not only religious but legislative freedom, and his charter provided for a colonial assembly. … In less than three years an assembly of the freemen of the little colony was convened and opened its sessions on the 25-26th of January, 1637. All who had taken up lands were summoned to attend in person." Some of the resulting legislation was disapproved by the missionaries, and "the variance of opinion was most unfortunate in its results to the colony, as impairing the harmony which had hitherto prevailed."

William Clayborne "was the person most aggrieved by the Maryland charter. Under a general license from Charles I. to trade, he had established a lucrative post on Kent Island. The King, as he had unquestioned right to do under the theory of English law, granted to Lord Baltimore a certain tract of wild land, including Kent Island. Clayborne had no legal right there except as the subject of Baltimore; but, since his real injuries coincided with the fancied ones of the Virginians generally, his claim assumed importance. … There was … so strong a feeling in favor of Clayborne in Virginia that he was soon able to send an armed pinnace up the Chesapeake to defend his invaded rights at Kent Island, but the expedition was unfortunate. Governor Calvert, after a sharp encounter, captured Clayborne's pinnace, and proclaimed its owner a rebel. Calvert then demanded that the author of this trouble should be given up by Virginia; but Harvey [the governor], who had been in difficulties himself on account of his lukewarmness toward Clayborne, refused to comply. Clayborne, however, solved the problem in his own way, by going at once to England to attack his enemies in their stronghold. … On his arrival in England he … presented a petition to the King, and by adroitly working on the cupidity of Charles, not only came near recovering Kent Island, but almost obtained a large grant besides. After involving Lord Baltimore in a good deal of litigation, Clayborne was obliged, by an adverse decision of the Lords Commissioners of Plantations, to abandon all hopes in England, and therefore withdrew to Virginia to wait for better times."

MARYLAND: A. D. 1643-1649.
Colonial disturbances from the English Civil War.
Lord Baltimore and the Puritans.

The struggle of parties incident to the overthrow of the monarchy and the civil war, in England, was attended in Maryland "with a degree of violence disproportionate to its substantial results. It is difficult to fasten the blame of the first attack definitely on either party. In 1643 or 1644 the King gave letters of marque to Leonard Calvert commissioning him to seize upon all ships belonging to the Parliament. It would seem, however, as if the other side had begun to be active, since only three months later we find the Governor issuing a proclamation for the arrest of Richard Ingle, a sea-captain, apparently a Puritan and an ally of Clayborne. … Ingle … landed at St. Mary's [1645], while Clayborne at the same time made a fresh attempt upon Kent Island. Later events showed that under a resolute leader the Maryland Royalists were capable of a determined resistance, but now either no such leader was forthcoming, or the party was taken by surprise. Cornwallis, who seems to have been the most energetic man in the colony, was absent in England, and Leonard Calvert fled into Virginia, apparently without an effort to maintain his authority. Ingle and his followers landed and seized upon St. Mary's, took possession of the government, and plundered Cornwallis's house and goods to the value of £300. Their success was short-lived. Calvert returned, rallied his party, and ejected Clayborne and Ingle. The Parliament made no attempt to back the proceedings of its supporters, and the matter dwindled into a petty dispute between Ingle and Cornwallis, in which the latter obtained at least some redress for his losses. The Isle of Kent held out somewhat longer, but in the course of the next year it was brought back to its allegiance. This event was followed in less than a twelvemonth by the death of the Governor [June 9, 1647]. Baltimore now began to see that in the existing position of parties he must choose between his fidelity to a fallen cause and his position as the Proprietor of Maryland. As early as 1642 we find him warning the Roman Catholic priests in his colony that they must expect no privileges beyond those which they would enjoy in England. He now showed his anxiety to propitiate the rising powers by his choice of a successor to his brother. The new Governor, William Stone, was a Protestant. The Council was also reconstituted and only two Papists appeared among its members. … Furthermore he [Lord Baltimore] exacted from Stone an oath that he would not molest any persons on the ground of their religion, provided they accepted the fundamental dogmas of Christianity. The Roman Catholics were singled out as the special objects of this protection, though we may reasonably suppose that it was also intended to check religious dissensions. So far Baltimore only acted like a prudent, unenthusiastic man, who was willing to make the best of a defeat and save what he could out of it by a seemingly free sacrifice of what was already lost. … The internal condition of the colony had now been substantially changed since the failure of Ingle and Clayborne. The Puritan party there had received an important addition. … A number of Nonconformists had made an attempt to establish themselves on the shores of the Chesapeake Bay. … The toleration which was denied them by the rigid and narrow-minded Anglicanism of Virginia was conceded by the liberality or the indifference of Baltimore. The precise date and manner of their immigration cannot be discovered, but we know that by 1650 their settlement was important enough to be made into a separate county under the name of Ann Arundel, and by 1653 they formed two distinct communities, numbering between them close upon 140 householders. All that was required of them was an oath of fidelity to the Proprietor, and it seems doubtful whether even that was exacted at the outset. They seem, in the unsettled and anarchical condition of the colony, to have been allowed to form a separate and well-nigh independent body, holding political views openly at variance with those of the Proprietor. To what extent the settlers on the Isle of Kent were avowedly hostile to Baltimore's government is doubtful. But it is clear that discontent was rife among them, and that in conjunction with the new-comers they made up a formidable body, prepared to oppose the Proprietor and support the Parliament. Symptoms of internal disaffection were seen in the proceedings of the Assembly of 1649."

      J. A. Doyle,
      The English in America: Virginia, Maryland, &c.,
      chapter 10.

Religious liberty was a vital part of the earliest common-law of the province. At the date of the charter, Toleration existed in the heart of the proprietary. And it appeared in the earliest administration of the affairs of the province. But an oath was soon prepared by him, including a pledge from the governor and the privy counsellors, 'directly or indirectly' to 'trouble, molest, or discountenance' no 'person whatever,' in the province, 'professing to believe in Jesus Christ.' Its date is still an open question—some writers supposing it was imposed in 1637; and others, in 1648. I am inclined to think the oath of the latter was but 'an augmented edition' of the one in the former year. The grant of the charter marks the era of a special Toleration. But the earliest practice of the government presents the first, the official oath the second, the action of the Assembly in 1649 the third, and to advocates of a republican government the most important phasis, in the history of the general Toleration. … To the legislators of 1649 was it given … to take their own rank among the foremost spirits of the age. Near the close of the session, … by a solemn act [the 'Act Concerning Religion'], they endorsed that policy which ever since has shed the brightest lustre upon the legislative annals of the province. … The design was five-fold:—to guard by an express penalty 'the most sacred things of God'; to inculcate the principle of religious decency and order; to establish, upon a firmer basis, the harmony already existing between the colonists; to secure, in the fullest sense, freedom as well as protection to all believers in Christianity; and to protect quiet disbelievers against every sort of reproach or ignominy."

"In the wording of this act we see evident marks of a compromise between the differing sentiments in the Assembly. … It was as good a compromise as could be made at the time, and an immense advance upon the principles and practice of the age. In reality, it simply formulated in a statute what had been Baltimore's policy from the first. … From the foundation of the colony no man was molested under Baltimore's rule on account of religion. Whenever the Proprietary's power was overthrown, religious persecution began, and was checked so soon as he was reinstated."

   "To whatever causes … toleration was due, it worked well in
   populating Maryland. There was an influx of immigration,
   composed in part of the Puritans driven from Virginia by
   Berkeley. These people, although refusing the oath of
   fidelity, settled at Providence, near the site of Annapolis.
   Not merely the Protestant but the Puritan interest was now
   predominant in Maryland, and in the next Assembly the Puritan
   faction had control. They elected one of their leaders
   Speaker, and expelled a Catholic who refused to take an oath
   requiring secrecy on the part of the Burgesses. … Yet they
   passed stringent laws against Clayborne, and an act reciting
   their affection for Lord Baltimore, who had so vivid an idea
   of their power that he deemed it best to assent to sumptuary
   laws of a typically Puritan character. The Assembly appears to
   have acknowledged the supremacy of Parliament, while their
   proprietary went so far in the same direction that his loyalty
   was doubted, and Charles II. afterward appointed Sir William
   Davenant in his place to govern Maryland. This discreet
   conduct on the part of Lord Baltimore served, however, as a
   protection neither to the colonists nor to the proprietary
   rights. To the next Assembly, the Puritans of Providence
   refused to send delegates, evidently expecting a dissolution
   of the proprietary government, and the consequent supremacy of
   their faction. Nor were they deceived. Such had been the
   prudence of the Assembly and of Lord Baltimore that Maryland
   was not expressly named in the Parliamentary commission for
   the 'reducement' of the colonies; but, unfortunately,
   Clayborne was the ruling spirit among the Parliamentary
   commissioners, and he was not the man to let any informality
   of wording in a document stand between him and his revenge.
   … Clayborne and Richard Bennet, one of the Providence
   settlers, and also a commissioner, soon gave their undivided
   attention to Maryland." Stone was displaced from the
   Governorship, but reinstated after a year, taking sides for a
   time with the Puritan party. "He endeavored to trim at a time
   when trimming was impossible. … Stone's second change,
   however, was a decided one. Although he proclaimed Cromwell as
   Lord-Protector, he carried on the government exclusively in
   Baltimore's interest, ejected the Puritans, recalled the
   Catholic Councillors, and issued a proclamation against the
   inhabitants of Providence as factious and seditious. A
   flagrant attempt to convert a young girl to Catholicism added
   fuel to the flames. Moderation was at an end. Clayborne and
   Bennet, backed by Virginia, returned and called an Assembly,
   from which Catholics were to be excluded. In Maryland, as in
   England, the extreme wing of the Puritan party was now in the
   ascendant, and exercised its power oppressively and
   relentlessly. Stone took arms and marched against the
   Puritans. A battle was fought at Providence, in which the
   Puritans, who, whatever their other failings, were always
   ready in a fray, were completely victorious. A few executions
   and some sequestrations followed, and severe laws against the
   Catholics were passed. The policy of the Puritans was not
   toleration, and they certainly never believed in it.
   Nevertheless, Lord Baltimore kept his patent, and the Puritans
   did not receive in England the warm sympathy they had
   expected." In the end (1657) there was a compromise. The
   proprietary government was re-established, and Fendall, whom
   Baltimore had appointed Governor in place of Stone, was
   recognized. "The results of all this turbulence were the right
   to carry arms, the practical assertion of the right to make
   laws and lay taxes, relief from the oath of fealty with the
   obnoxious clauses, and the breakdown of the Catholic interest
   in Maryland politics. Toleration was wisely restored. The
   solid advantages were gained by the Puritan minority at the
   expense of the lord proprietary.
{2095}
   In the interregnum which ensued on the abdication of Richard
   Cromwell, the Assembly met and claimed supreme authority in
   the province, and denied their responsibility to anyone but
   the sovereign in England. Fendall, a weak man of the agitator
   species, acceded to the claims of the Assembly; but Baltimore
   removed Fendall, and kept the power which the Assembly had
   attempted to take away. … Maryland did not suffer by the
   Restoration, as was the case with her sister colonies, but
   gained many solid advantages. The factious strife of years was
   at last allayed, and order, peace, and stability of government
   supervened. Philip Calvert, an illegitimate son of the first
   proprietary, was governor for nearly two years, and was then
   succeeded [1661] by his nephew, Charles, the oldest son of
   Lord Baltimore, whose administration lasted for fourteen. It
   would have been difficult to find at that time better
   governors than these Calverts proved themselves. Moderate and
   just, they administered the affairs of Maryland sensibly and
   well. Population increased, and the immigration of Quakers and
   foreigners, and of the oppressed of all nations, was greatly
   stimulated by a renewal of the old policy of religious
   toleration. The prosperity of the colony was marked."

ALSO IN: J. Grahame, History of the United States (Colonial), book 3 (volume 1).

      D. R. Randall,
       A Puritan Colony in Maryland.
      (Johns Hopkins University Studies, 4th series, no. 6).

      W. H. Browne,
      George Calvert and Cecilius Calvert,
      chapters 8-9.

MARYLAND: A. D. 1664-1682.
Claims to Delaware disputed by the Duke of York.
Grant of Delaware by the Duke to William Penn.

MARYLAND: A. D. 1681-1685.
The Boundary dispute with William Penn, in its first stages.

MARYLAND: A. D. 1688-1757.
   Lord Baltimore deprived of the government.
   Change of faith and restoration of his son.
   Intolerance revived.

Lord Baltimore, "though guilty of no maladministration in his government, though a zealous Roman catholic, and firmly attached to the cause of King James II., could not prevent his charter from being questioned in that arbitrary reign, and a suit from being commenced to deprive him of the property and jurisdiction of a province granted by the royal favour, and peopled at such a vast expense of his own. But it was the error of that weak and unfortunate reign, neither to know its friends, nor its enemies; but by a blind precipitate conduct to hurry on everything of whatever consequence with almost equal heat, and to imagine that the sound of the royal authority was sufficient to justify every sort of conduct to every sort of people. But these injuries could not shake the honour and constancy of Lord Baltimore, nor tempt him to desert the cause of his master. Upon the revolution [1688] he had no reason to expect any favour; yet he met with more than king James had intended him; he was deprived indeed of all his jurisdiction [1691], but he was left the profits of his province, which were by no means inconsiderable; and when his descendents had conformed to the church of England, they were restored [1741] to all their rights as fully as the legislature has thought fit that any proprietor should enjoy them. When upon the revolution power changed hands in that province, the new men made but an indifferent requital for the liberties and indulgences they had enjoyed under the old administration. They not only deprived the Roman Catholics of all share in the government, but of all the rights of freemen; they have even adopted the whole body of the penal laws of England against them; they are at this day [1757] meditating new laws in the same spirit, and they would undoubtedly go to the greatest lengths in this respect, if the moderation and good sense of the government in England did not set some bounds to their bigotry."

      E. Burke,
      Account of the European Settlements in America,
      part 7, chapter 18 (volume 2).

"We may now place side by side the three tolerations of Maryland. The toleration of the Proprietaries lasted fifty years, and under it all believers in Christ were equal before the law, and all support to churches or ministers was voluntary; the Puritan toleration lasted six years, and included all but Papists, Prelatists, and those who held objectionable doctrines; the Anglican toleration lasted eighty years, and had glebes and churches for the Establishment, connivance for Dissenters, the penal laws for Catholics."

"Maryland had never taken kindly to towns, and though in Queen Anne's reign, in conformity with the royal wish, a number were founded, the reluctant Assembly 'erecting' them by batches—42 at once in 1706—scarcely any passed beyond the embryonic stage. … St. Mary's and Annapolis, the one waning as the other waxed, remained the only real towns of the colony for the first 90 years of its existence; Joppa, on the Gunpowder, was the next, and had a fair share of prosperity for 50 years and more, until her young and more vigorous rival, Baltimore, drew off her trade, and she gradually dwindled, peaked, and pined away to a solitary house and a grass-grown grave-yard, wherein slumber the mortal remains of her ancient citizens. Baltimore on the Patapsco was not the first to bear that appellation. At least two Baltimores had a name, if not a local habitation, and perished, if they can be said ever to have rightly existed, before their younger sister saw the light. … In 1729, the planters near the Patapsco, feeling the need of a convenient port, made application to the Assembly, and an act was passed authorising the purchase of the necessary land, whereupon 60 acres bounding on the northwest branch of the river, at the part of the harbor now called the Basin, were bought of Daniel and Charles Carroll at 40 shillings the acre. The streets and lots were laid off in the following January, and purchasers invited. The waterfronts were immediately taken up."

MARYLAND: A. D. 1754.
The Colonial Congress at Albany, and Franklin's Plan of Union.

      See
      CANADA: A. D. 1750-1753, to 1760;
      OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754, 1754, 1755;
      NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1749-1755, 1755;
      and CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1758-1760.

MARYLAND: A. D. 1760-1767.
Settlement of the boundary dispute with Pennsylvania.
Mason and Dixon's line.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1760-1775, to 1775;
and BOSTON: A. D. 1768, to 1773.

MARYLAND: A. D. 1776.
The end of proprietary and royal government.
Formation and adoption of a state constitution.

"In Maryland the party in favor of independence encountered peculiar obstacles. Under the proprietary rule the colony enjoyed a large measure of happiness and prosperity. The Governor, Robert Eden, was greatly respected, and to the last was treated with forbearance. … The political power was vested in a Convention which created the Council of Safety and provided for the common defence. This was, however, so much under the control of the proprietary party and timid Whigs that, on the 21st of May [1776], it renewed its former instructions against independence. … The popular leaders determined 'to take the sense of the people.' Charles Carroll of Carrolton, and Samuel Chase, who had just returned from Canada, entered with zeal into the movement on the side of independence and revolution. Meetings were called in the counties. … Anne Arundel County declared that the province, except in questions of domestic policy, was bound by the decisions of Congress. … Charles County followed, pronouncing for independence, confederation, and a new government. … Frederick County (June 17) unanimously resolved: 'That what may be recommended by a majority of the Congress equally delegated by the people of the United Colonies, we will, at the hazard of our lives and fortunes, support and maintain.' … This was immediately printed. 'Read the papers,' Samuel Chase wrote on the 21st to John Adams, 'and be assured Frederick speaks the sense of many counties.' Two days afterward the British man-of-war, Fowey, with a flag of truce at her top-gallant mast, anchored before Annapolis; the next day, Governor Eden was on board; and so closed the series of royal governors on Maryland soil."

"Elections were held throughout the state on the 1st day of August, 1776, for delegates to a new convention to form a constitution and state government. … On the 14th of August this new body assembled. … On the 3d of November the bill of rights was adopted. On the 8th of the same month the constitution of the State was finally agreed to, and elections ordered to carry it into effect."

MARYLAND: A. D. 1776-1783.
The War of Independence, to the Peace with Great Britain.

MARYLAND: A. D. 1776-1808.
Anti-Slavery opinion and the causes of its disappearance.

MARYLAND: A. D. 1777-1781.
   Resistance to the western territorial claims of states
   chartered to the Pacific Ocean.
   Influence upon land-cessions to the United States.

MARYLAND: A. D. 1787-1788.
Adoption and ratification of the Federal Constitution.

MARYLAND: A. D. 1861 (April).
Reply of Governor Hicks to President Lincoln's call for troops.

      See
      UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (APRIL)
      PRESIDENT LINCOLN'S CALL TO ARMS.

MARYLAND: A. D. 1861 (April).
   Secession activity.
   Baltimore mastered by the rebel mob.
   Attack on the Sixth Massachusetts Regiment.

      See
      UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1861 (APRIL) ACTIVITY OF REBELLION.

MARYLAND: A. D. 1861 (April-May).
Attempted "neutrality" and the end of it.
General Butler at Annapolis and Baltimore.

      See
      UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1861 (APRIL-MAY: MARYLAND).

MARYLAND: A. D. 1862 (September).
Lee's first invasion and his cool reception.
The battles of South Mountain and Antietam.

      See
      UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (SEPTEMBER: MARYLAND).

      See
      UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (JUNE-JULY: PENNSYLVANIA).

      See
      UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (JULY: VIRGINIA—MARYLAND).

MARZOCCO.

"'Marzocco' was the name given to the Florentine Lion, a stone figure of which was set up in all subject places and the name shouted as a battle-cry by their armies. It is said to be derived from the Hebrew, 'Mare' (form, or appearance, or aspect) and 'Sciahhal,' 'a great Lion.'"

MASANIELLO'S REVOLT.

MASKOKI FAMILY OF INDIANS.

MASNADA.

MASON AND DIXON'S LINE.

MASORETES, MASSORETES MASORETIC.

When the Hebrew language had ceased to be a living language "the so-called Masoretes, or Jewish scribes, in the sixth century after the Christian era, invented a system of symbols which should represent the pronunciation of the Hebrew of the Old Testament as read, or rather chanted, at the time in the great synagogue of Tiberias in Palestine. It is in accordance with this Masoretic mode of pronunciation that Hebrew is now taught."

"Massora denotes, in general, tradition … ; but more especially it denotes the tradition concerning the text of the Bible. Hence those who made this special tradition their object of study were called Massoretes. … As there was an eastern and western, or Babylonian and Palestinian Talmud, so likewise there developed itself a twofold Massora,—a Babylonian, or eastern, and a Palestinian, or western: the more important is the former. At Tiberias the study of the Massora had been in a flourishing condition for a long time. Here lived the famous Massorete, Aaron ben-Moses ben-Asher, commonly called Ben-Asher, in the beginning of the tenth century, who finally fixed the so-called Massoretic text."

"The name Massachusetts, so far as I have observed, is first mentioned by Captain Smith in his 'Description of New England,' 1616. He spells the word variously, but he appears to use the term Massachuset and Massachewset to denote the country, while he adds a final's' when he is speaking of the inhabitants. He speaks of Massachusets Mount and Massachusets River, using the word also in its possessive form; while in another place he calls the former 'the high mountain of Massachusit.' To this mountain, on his map, he gives the English name of 'Chevyot Hills.' Hutchinson (i. 460) supposes the Blue Hills of Milton to be intended. He says that a small hill near Squantum, the former seat of a great Indian sachem, was called Massachusetts Hill, or Mount Massachusetts, down to his time. Cotton, in his Indian vocabulary, says the word means 'a hill in the form of an arrow's head.' See, also, Neal's 'New England,' ii. 215, 216. In the Massachusetts charter the name is spelled in three or four different ways, to make sure of a description of the territory."

      C. Deane,
      New England (Narrative and Critical History of America,
      volume 3, page 342, footnote).

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1620.
The Pilgrim Fathers.
Whence and why they came to New England.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1620.
   The voyage of the Mayflower.
   The landing of the Pilgrims.
   The founding of Plymouth colony.

The congregation of John Robinson, at Leyden, having, after long efforts, procured from the London Company for Virginia a patent or grant of land which proved useless to them, and having closed a hard bargain with certain merchants of London who supplied to some limited extent the means necessary for their emigration and settlement (see INDEPENDENTS, OR SEPARATISTS: A. D. 1617-1620), were prepared, in the summer of 1620, to send forth the first pilgrims from their community, across the ocean, seeking freedom in the worship of God. "The means at command provided only for sending a portion of the company; and 'those that stayed, being the greater number, required the pastor to stay with them,' while Elder Brewster accompanied, in the pastor's stead, the almost as numerous minority who were to constitute a church by themselves; and in every church, by Robinson's theories, the 'governing elder,' next in rank to the pastor and the teacher, must be 'apt to teach.' A small ship,—the 'Speedwell,'—of some 60 tons burden, was bought and fitted out in Holland, and early in July those who were ready for the formidable voyage, being 'the youngest and strongest part,' left Leyden for embarkation at Delft-Haven, nearly 20 miles to the southward,—sad at the parting, 'but,' says Bradford, 'they knew that they were pilgrims.' About the middle of the second week of the month the vessel sailed for Southampton, England. On the arrival there they found the 'Mayflower,' a ship of about 180 tons burden, which had been hired in London, awaiting them with their fellow passengers,—partly laborers employed by the merchants, partly Englishmen like-minded with themselves, who were disposed to join the colony. Mr. Weston, also, was there, to represent the merchants; but, when discussion arose about the terms of the contract, he went off in anger, leaving the contract unsigned, and the arrangements so incomplete that the Pilgrims were forced to dispose of sixty pounds' worth of their not abundant stock of provisions to meet absolutely necessary charges. The ships, with perhaps 120 passengers, put to sea about August 5/15, with hopes of the colony being well settled before winter; but the 'Speedwell' was soon pronounced too leaky to proceed without being overhauled, and so both ships put in at Dartmouth, after eight days' sail. Repairs were made, and before the end of another week they started again; but when about a hundred leagues beyond Land's End, Reynolds, the master of the' Speedwell,' declared her in imminent danger of sinking, so that both ships again put about. On reaching Plymouth Harbor it was decided to abandon the smaller vessel, and thus to send back those of the company whom such a succession of mishaps had disheartened. … It was not known till later that the alarm over the 'Speedwell's' condition was owing to deception practised by the master and crew. … At length, on Wednesday, September 6/16, the Mayflower left Plymouth, and nine weeks from the following day, on November 9/19, sighted the eastern coast of the flat, but at that time well-wooded shores of Cape Cod. She took from Plymouth 102 passengers, besides the master and crew; on the voyage one man-servant died and one child was born, making 102 (73 males and 29 females) who reached their destination. Of these, the colony proper consisted of 34 adult males, 18 of them accompanied by their wives and 14 by minor children (20 boys and 8 girls); besides these, there were 3 maid-servants and 19 men-servants, sailors, and craftsmen,—5 of them only half-grown boys,—who were hired for temporary service. Of the 34 men who were the nucleus of the colony, more than half are known to have come from Leyden; in fact, but 4 of the 34 are certainly known to be of the Southampton accessions. … And whither were they bound? As we have seen, a patent was secured in 1619 in Mr. Wincob's name; but 'God so disposed as he never went nor they ever made use of this patent,' says Bradford,—not however making it clear when the intention of colonizing under this instrument was abandoned. {2098} The 'merchant adventurers' while negotiating at Leyden seem to have taken out another patent from the Virginia Company, in February, 1620, in the names of John Peirce and of his associates; and this was more probably the authority under which the Mayflower voyage was undertaken. As the Pilgrims had known before leaving Holland of an intended grant of the northern parts of Virginia to a new company,—the Council for New England,—when they found themselves off Cape Cod, 'the patent they had being for Virginia and not for New England, which belonged to another Government, with which the Virginia Company had nothing to do,' they changed the ship's course, with intent, says Bradford, 'to find some place about Hudson's River for their habitation,' and so fulfil the conditions of their patent; but difficulties of navigation and opposition from the master and crew caused the exiles, after half a day's voyage, to retrace their course and seek a resting-place on the nearest shore. … Their radical change of destination exposed the colonists to a new danger. As soon as it was known, some of the hired laborers threatened to break loose (upon landing) from their engagements, and to enjoy full license, as a result of the loss of the authority delegated in the Virginia Company's patent. The necessity of some mode of civil government had been enjoined on the Pilgrims in the farewell letter from their pastor, and was now availed of to restrain these insurgents and to unite visibly the well-affected. A compact, which has often been eulogized as the first written constitution in the world, was drawn up. … Of the 41 signers to this compact, 34 were the adults called above the nucleus of the colony, and seven were servants or hired workmen; the seven remaining adult males of the latter sort were perhaps too ill to sign with the rest (all of them soon died), or the list of signers may be imperfect. This needful preliminary step was taken on Saturday, November 11/21, by which time the Mayflower had rounded the Cape and found shelter in the quiet harbor on which now lies the village of Provincetown; and probably on the same day they 'chose, or rather confirmed,' as Bradford has it, … Mr. John Carver governor for the ensuing year. On the same day an armed delegation visited the neighboring shore, finding no inhabitants. There were no attractions, however, for a permanent settlement, nor even accommodations for a comfortable encampment while such a place was being sought." Some days were spent in exploring Cape Cod Bay, and the harbor since known as Plymouth Bay was chosen for the settlement of the colony. The exploring party landed, as is believed, at the famous Rock, on Monday December 11/21. "Through an unfortunate mistake, originating in the last century, the 22d has been commonly adopted as the true date. … Tradition divides the honor of being the first to step on Plymouth Rock between John Alden and Mary Chilton, but the date of their landing must have been subsequent to December 11 [N. S. 21]." It was not till the end of the week, December 16/26, that the Mayflower was anchored in the chosen haven. "The selection of a site and the preparation of materials, in uncertain weather, delayed till Monday, the 25th [January 4, N. S.] the beginning of 'the first house for common use, to receive them and their goods.' Before the new year, house-lots were assigned to families, and by the middle of January most of the company had left the ship for a home on land."

F. B. Dexter, The Pilgrim Church and Plymouth Colony (Narrative and Critical History of America, volume 3, chapter 8, with foot-notes).

"Before the Pilgrims landed, they by a solemn instrument founded the Puritan republic. The tone of this instrument and the success of its authors may afford a lesson to revolutionists who sever the present from the past with the guillotine, fling the illustrious dead out of their tombs, and begin history again with the year one. These men had been wronged as much as the Jacobins. 'In the name of God. Amen. We whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the grace of God of Great Britain and Ireland, defender of the faith, etc., having undertaken, for the glory of God and advancement of the Christian faith, and honour of our king and country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia, do by these presents solemnly and mutually, in the presence of God and of one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politic for our better ordering and preservation, and for the furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof to exact, constitute, and frame such just and equal laws, ordinances and acts, constitutions and offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet for the general good of the colony, unto which we promise all due submission and obedience.' And then follows the roll of plebeian names, to which the Roll of Battle Abbey is a poor record of nobility. There are points in history at which the spirit which moves the whole shows itself more clearly through the outward frame. This is one of them. Here we are passing from the feudal age of privilege and force to the age of due submission and obedience, to just and equal offices and laws, for our better ordering and preservation. In this political covenant of the Pilgrim fathers lies the American Declaration of Independence. From the American Declaration of Independence was borrowed the French Declaration of the Rights of Man. France, rushing ill-prepared, though with overweening confidence, on the great problems of the eighteenth century, shattered not her own hopes alone, but nearly at the same moment the Puritan Republic, breaking the last slight link that bound it to feudal Europe, and placing modern society firmly and tranquilly on its new foundation. To the free States of America we owe our best assurance that the oldest, the most famous, the most cherished of human institutions are not the life, nor would their fall be the death, of social man; that all which comes of Charlemagne, and all which comes of Constantine, might go to the tombs of Charlemagne and Constantine, and yet social duty and affection, religion and worship, free obedience to good government, free reverence for just laws, continue as before. They who have achieved this have little need to talk of Bunker's Hill."

      Goldwin Smith,
      On the Foundation of the American Colonies
      (Lectures on the Study of History).

      ALSO IN:
      W. Bradford,
      History of Plymouth Plantation
      (Massachusetts Historical Society Collection,
      4th series, volume 3), book 1.

      Mourt's Relation,
      or Journal of the Plantation at Plymouth;
      edited by H. M. Dexter.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1621.
   The first year of the Plymouth Colony and its sufferings.
   The Pierce patent.
   The naming of Plymouth.

"The labor of providing habitations had scarcely begun, when sickness set in, the consequence of exposure and bad food. Within four months it carried off nearly half their number. Six died in December, eight in January, seventeen in February, and thirteen in March. At one time during the winter, only six or seven had strength enough left to nurse the dying and bury the dead. Destitute of every provision, which the weakness and the daintiness of the invalid require, the sick lay crowded in the unwholesome vessel, or in half-built cabins heaped around with snow-drifts. The rude sailors refused them even a share of those coarse sea-stores which would have given a little variety to their diet, till disease spread among the crew, and the kind ministrations of those whom they had neglected and affronted brought them to a better temper. The dead were interred in a bluff by the water-side, the marks of burial being carefully effaced, lest the natives should discover how the colony had been weakened. … Meantime, courage and fidelity never gave out. The well carried out the dead through the cold and snow, and then hastened back from the burial to wait on the sick; and as the sick began to recover, they took the places of those whose strength had been exhausted." In March, the first intercourse of the colonists with the few natives of the region was opened, through Samoset, a friendly Indian, who had learned from fishermen on the more eastern coast to speak a little English. Soon afterwards, they made a treaty of friendship and alliance with Massasoit, the chief of the nearest tribe, which treaty remained in force for 54 years. On the 5th of April the Mayflower set sail on her homeward voyage, "with scarcely more than half the crew which had navigated her to America, the rest having fallen victims to the epidemic of the winter. … She carried back not one of the emigrants, dispiriting as were the hardships which they had endured, and those they had still in prospect." Soon after the departure of the Mayflower, Carver, the Governor, died. "Bradford was chosen to the vacant office, with Isaac Allerton, at his request, for his Assistant. Forty-six of the colonists of the Mayflower were now dead,—28 out of the 48 adult men. Before the arrival of the second party of emigrants in the autumn, the dead reached the number of 51, and only an equal number survived the first miseries of the enterprise. … Before the winter set in, tidings from England had come, to relieve the long year's lonesomeness; and a welcome addition was made to the sadly diminished number. The Fortune, a vessel of 55 tons' burden, reached Plymouth after a passage of four months, with Cushman and some 30 other emigrants. The men who now arrived outnumbered those of their predecessors who were still living. … Some were old friends of the colonists, at Leyden. Others were persons who added to the moral as well as to the numerical strength of the settlement. But there were not wanting such as became subjects for anxiety and coercion." The Fortune also brought to the colonists a patent from the Council for New England, as it was commonly known—the corporation into which the old Plymouth Company, or North Virginia branch of the Virginia Company, had been transformed (see NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1620-1623). "Upon lands of this corporation Bradford and his companions had sat down without leave, and were of course liable to be summarily expelled. Informed of their position by the return of the Mayflower to England in the spring, their friends obtained from the Council a patent which was brought by the Fortune. It was taken out in the name of 'John Pierce, citizen and cloth-worker of London, and his associates,' with the understanding that it should be held in trust for the Adventurers, of whom Pierce was one. It allowed 100 acres of land to every colonist gone and to go to New England, at a yearly rent of two shillings an acre after seven years. It granted 1,500 acres for public uses, and liberty to 'hawk, fish, and fowl'; to 'truck, trade, and traffic with the savages'; to 'establish such laws and ordinances as are for their better government, and the same, by such officer or officers as they shall by most voices elect and choose, to put in execution'; and 'to encounter, expulse, repel, and resist by force of arms' all intruders. … The instrument was signed for the Council by the Duke of Hamilton, the Duke of Lenox, the Earl of Warwick, Lord Sheffield, and Sir Ferdinando Gorges. … The precise time of the adoption of the name which the settlement has borne since its first year is not known. Plymouth is the name recorded on Smith's map as having been given to the spot by Prince Charles. It seems very likely that the emigrants had with them this map, which had been much circulated. … Morton (Memorial, 56) assigns as a reason for adopting it that 'Plymouth in Old England was the last town they left in their native country, and they received many kindnesses from some Christians there.' In Mourt, 'Plymouth' and 'the now well-defended town of New Plymouth' are used as equivalent. Later, the name Plymouth came to be appropriated to the town, and New Plymouth to the Colony."

F. Baylies, Historical Memoir of the Colony of New Plymouth, volume 1, chapters 5-6.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1622-1628.
Weston at Wessagusset, Morton at Merrymount,
and other settlements.

   "During the years immediately following the voyage of the
   Mayflower, several attempts at settlement were made about the
   shores of Massachusetts bay. One of the merchant adventurers,
   Thomas Weston, took it into his head in 1622 to separate from
   his partners and send out a colony of seventy men on his own
   account. These men made a settlement at Wessagusset, some
   twenty-five miles north of Plymouth. They were a disorderly,
   thriftless rabble, picked up from the London streets, and soon
   got into trouble with the Indians; after a year they were glad to
   get back to England as best they could, and in this the
   Plymouth settlers willingly aided them. In June of that same
   year 1622 there arrived on the scene a picturesque but ill
   understood personage, Thomas Morton, 'of Clifford's Inn,
   Gent.,' as he tells on the title-page of his quaint and
   delightful book, the 'New English Canaan.' Bradford
   disparagingly says that he 'had been a kind of petiefogger of
   Furnifell's Inn'; but the churchman Samuel Maverick declares
   that he was a 'gentleman of good qualitie.'
{2100}
   He was an agent of Sir Ferdinando Gorges, and came with some
   thirty followers, to make the beginnings of a royalist and
   Episcopal settlement in the Massachusetts bay, He was
   naturally regarded with ill favour by the Pilgrims as well as
   by the later Puritan settlers, and their accounts of him will
   probably bear taking with a grain or two of salt. In 1625
   there came one Captain Wollaston, with a gang of indented
   white servants, and established himself on the site of the
   present town of Quincy. Finding this system of industry ill
   suited to northern agriculture, he carried most of his men off
   to Virginia, where he sold them. Morton took possession of the
   site of the settlement, which he called Merrymount. There,
   according to Bradford, he set up a 'schoole of athisme,' and
   his men did quaff strong waters and comport themselves 'as if
   they had anew revived and celebrated the feasts of ye Roman
   Goddes Flora, or the beastly practices of ye madd
   Bachanalians.' Charges of atheism have been freely hurled
   about in all ages. In Morton's case the accusation seems to
   have been based upon the fact that he used the Book of Common
   Prayer. His men so far maintained the ancient customs of merry
   England as to plant a Maypole eighty feet high, about which
   they frolicked with the redskins, while furthermore they
   taught them the use of firearms and sold them muskets and rum.
   This was positively dangerous, and in the summer of 1628 the
   settlers at Merrymount were dispersed by Miles Standish.
   Morton was sent to England, but returned the next year, and
   presently again repaired to Merrymount. By this time other
   settlements were dotted about the coast. There were a few
   scattered cottages or cabins at Nantasket and at the mouth of
   the Piscataqua, while Samuel Maverick had fortified himself on
   Noddle's Island, and William Blackstone already lived upon the
   Shawmut peninsula, since called Boston. These two gentlemen
   were no friends to the Puritans; they were churchmen and
   representatives of Sir Ferdinando Gorges."

      ALSO IN:
      C. F. Adams, Jr.,
      Old Planters about Boston Harbor
      (Massachusetts Historical Society Proceedings, June, 1878).

      C. F. Adams, Jr.,
      Introduction to Morton's New English Canaan
      (Prince Society, 1883).

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1623-1629.
   Plymouth Colony.
   Land allotments.
   Buying freedom from the adventurers at London.
   The new patent.

"In 1623 the Ann and Little James, the former of 140 tons, and the latter of 44 tons, arrived with 60 persons to be added to the colony, and a number of others who had come at their own charge and on their own account. … The passengers in the Ann and Little James completed the list of those who are usually called the first-comers. The Ann returned to England in September, carrying Mr. Winslow to negotiate with the merchants, for needful supplies, and the Little James remained at Plymouth in the service of the company. … Up to that time the company had worked together on the company lands, and, each sharing in the fruits of another's labors, felt little of that personal responsibility which was necessary to secure the largest returns. … 'At length, after much debate of things, the Governor (with the advise of the cheefest amongest them) gave way that they should set corne every man for his owne perticuler, and in that regard trust to themselves; in all other things to goe on in the generall way as before. And so assigned to every family a parcell of land, according to the proportion of their number for that end. … This had very good success; for it made all hands very industrious.' … Such is the language of Bradford concerning a measure which was adopted from motives of necessity, but which was, to a certain extent, an infringement of the provisions of the contract with the adventurers. Before the planting season of the next year a more emphatic violation of the contract was committed. 'They (the colony) begane now highly to prise corne as more pretious then silver, and those that had some to spare begane to trade one with another for smale things, by the quarte, potle, & peck &C.: for money they had none, and if any had, corne was prefered before it. That they might therfore encrease their tillage to better advantage, they made suite to the Governor to have some portion of land given them for continuance, and not by yearly lotte. … Which being well considered, their request was granted. And to every person was given only one acre of land, to them and theirs, as nere the towne as might be, and they had no more till the 7 years were expired.' This experience gradually led the colony in the right track, and the growing necessity for some other circulating medium than silver secured abundant harvests." Winslow returned from England in 1624, "bringing, besides a good supply, '3 heifers & a bull the first begining of any catle of that kind in the land.' At that time there were 180 persons in the colony, 'some cattle and goats, but many swine and poultry and thirty-two dwelling houses.' In the latter part of the year Winslow sailed again for England in the Little James and returned in 1625. The news he brought was discouraging to the colonists. The debt due to the adventurers was £1,400, and the creditors had lost confidence in their enterprise." On this intelligence, Capt. Standish was sent to England, followed next year by Mr. Allerton, "to make a composition with the adventurers," and obtain, if possible, a release from the seven years contract under which the colonists were bound. Allerton returned in 1627, having concluded an agreement with the adventurers at London for the purchase of all their rights and interests in the plantation, for the sum of £1,800. The agreement was approved by the colony, and Bradford, Standish, Allerton, Winslow, Brewster, Howland, Alden, and others, assumed the debt of £1,800, the trading privileges of the colony being assigned to them for their security. "In accordance with this agreement these gentlemen at once entered vigorously into the enterprise, and by the use of wampum, as a circulating medium, carried on so extensive a trade with the natives, in the purchase of furs and other articles for export to England as within the prescribed period [six years] to pay off the entire debt and leave the colony in the undisputed possession of their lands. No legal-tender scheme, in these later days, has been bolder in its conception, or more successful in its career, than that of the Pilgrim Fathers, which, with the shells of the shore, relieved their community from debt, and established on a permanent basis the wealth and prosperity of New England. … {2101} After the negotiations with the adventurers had been completed, the colonists were anxious to obtain another patent from the New England Company conferring larger powers and defining their territorial limits. After three visits to England, Allerton was sent a fourth time, in 1629, and secured a patent dated January 13, 1629 (old style), and signed by the Earl of Warwick on behalf of the Council of New England, enlarging the original grant, and establishing the boundaries of what has been since known as the Old Colony. It granted to William Bradford and his associates 'all that part of New England in America, the tract and tracts of land that lie within or between a certain rivolet or rundlett, then commonly caned Coahasset alias Conahasset, towards the north, and the river commonly called Naraganset river towards the south, and the great Western ocean towards the east," and between two lines described as extending, severally, from the mouth of the Naraganset and the mouth of the Coahasset, "up into the mainland westward," "to the utmost limits and bounds of a country or place in New England called Pokernacutt, alias Puckenakick, alias Sawaamset."

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1623-1629.
The Dorchester Company and the royal Charter to the Governor
and Company of Massachusetts Bay.

"While the people of Plymouth were struggling to establish their colony, some of the English Puritans, restless under the growing despotism of Charles, began to turn their eyes to New England. Under the lead of the Rev. John White, the Dorchester Company was formed for trading and fishing, and a station was established at Cape Ann [A. D. 1623]; but the enterprise did not prosper, the colonists were disorderly, and the Company made an arrangement for Roger Conant and others, driven from Plymouth by the rigid principles of the Separatists, to come to Cape Ann. Still matters did not improve and the Company was dissolved; but White held to his purpose, and Conant and a few others moved to Naumkeag, and determined to settle there. Conant induced his companions to persevere, and matters in England led to a fresh attempt; for discontent grew rapidly as Charles proceeded in his policy. A second Dorchester Company, not this time a small affair for fishing and trading, but one backed by men of wealth and influence, was formed, and a large grant of lands [from three miles north of the Merrimac to three miles south of the Charles, and to extend from the Atlantic to the Western Ocean] was made by the Council for New England to Sir Henry Roswell and five others [March, 1628]. One of the six patentees, John Endicott, went out during the following summer with a small company, assumed the government at Naumkeag, which was now called Salem, and sent out exploring parties. The company thus formed in England was merely a voluntary partnership, but it paved the way for another and much larger scheme. Disaffection had become wide-spread. The Puritans began to fear that religious and political liberty alike were not only in danger but were doomed to destruction, and a large portion of the party resolved to combine for the preservation of all that was dearest to them by removal to the New World. The Dorchester Company was enlarged, and a royal charter was obtained incorporating the Governor and Company of Massachusetts Bay," March 4, 1629.

"This [the royal charter named above] is the instrument under which the Colony of Massachusetts continued to conduct its affairs for 55 years. The patentees named in it were Roswell and his five associates, with 20 other persons, of whom White was not one. It gave power forever to the freemen of the Company to elect annually, from their own number, a Governor, Deputy-Governor, and 18 Assistants, on the last Wednesday of Easter term, and to make laws and ordinances not repugnant to the laws of England, for their own benefit and the government of persons inhabiting their territory. Four meetings of the Company were to be held in a year, and others might be convened in a manner prescribed. Meetings of the Governor, Deputy-Governor, and Assistants, were to be held once a month or oftener. The Governor, Deputy-Governor, and any two Assistants, were authorized, but not required, to administer to freemen the oaths of supremacy and allegiance. The Company might transport settlers not 'restrained by special name.' They had authority to admit new associates, and establish the terms of their admission, and elect and constitute such officers as they should see fit for the ordering and managing of their affairs. They were empowered to 'encounter, repulse, repel, and resist by force of arms … all such person and persons as should at any time thereafter attempt or enterprise the destruction, invasion, detriment, or annoyance to the said plantation or inhabitants.' Nothing was said of religious liberty. The government may have relied upon its power to restrain it, and the emigrants on their distance and obscurity to protect it."

"In anticipation of a future want the grantees resisted the insertion of any condition which should fix the government of the Company in England. Winthrop explicitly states that the advisers of the Crown had originally imposed such a condition, but that the patentees succeeded, not without difficulty, in freeing themselves from it. That fact is a full answer to those who held that in transferring the government to America the patentees broke faith with the Crown."

J. A. Doyle, The English in America: The Puritan Colonies, volume 1, chapter 3.

      ALSO IN:
      Records of the Government and Company of Massachusetts Bay;
      edited by N. B. Shurtleff,
      volume 1 (containing the Charter).

      S. F. Haven,
      Origin of the Company
      (Archœologia Americana, volume 3).

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1629-1630.
The immigration of the Governor and Company of
Massachusetts Bay, with their Royal Charter.

"Several persons, of considerable importance in the English nation, were now enlisted among the adventurers, who, for the unmolested enjoyment of their religion, were resolved to remove into Massachusetts. Foreseeing, however, and dreading the inconvenience of being governed by laws made for them without their own consent, they judged it more reasonable that the colony should be ruled by men residing in the plantation, than by those dwelling at a distance of three thousand miles, and over whom they should have no control. At a meeting of the company on the 28th of July [1629], Matthew Cradock, the governor, proposed that the charter should be transferred to those of the freemen who should become inhabitants of the colony, and the powers conferred by it be executed for the future in New England. {2102} An agreement was accordingly made at Cambridge, in England, on the 26th of August, between Sir Richard Saltonstall, Thomas Dudley, Isaac Johnson, John Winthrop, and a few others, that, on those conditions, they would be ready the ensuing March, with their persons and families, to embark for New England, for the purpose of settling in the country. The governor and company, entirely disposed to promote the measure, called a general court [at which, after a serious debate, adjourned from one day to the next,] … it was decreed that the government and the patent of the plantation should be transferred from London to Massachusetts Bay. An order was drawn up for that purpose, in pursuance of which a court was holden on the 20th of October for a new election of officers, who would be willing to remove with their families; and 'the court having received extraordinary great commendation of Mr. John Winthrop, both for his integrity and sufficiency, as being one very well fitted for the place, with a full consent chose him governor for the year ensuing.' … Preparations were now made for the removal of a large number of colonists, and in the spring of 1630 a fleet of 14 sail was got ready. Mr. Winthrop having by the consent of all been chosen for their leader, immediately set about making preparations for his departure. He converted a fine estate of £600 or £700 per annum into money and in March embarked on board the Arbella, one of the principal ships. Before leaving Yarmouth, an address to their fathers and brethren remaining in England was drawn up, and subscribed on the 7th of April by Governor Winthrop and others, breathing an affectionate farewell to the Church of England and their native land. … In the same ship with Governor Winthrop came Thomas Dudley, who had been chosen deputy governor after the embarkation, and several other gentlemen of wealth and quality; the fleet containing about 840 passengers, of various occupations, some of whom were from the west of England, but most from the neighborhood of London. The fleet sailed early in April; and the Arbella arrived off Cape Ann on Friday, the 11th of June, and on the following day entered the harbor of Salem. A few days after their arrival, the governor, and several of the principal persons of the colony, made an excursion some 20 miles along the bay, for the purpose of selecting a convenient site for a town. They finally pitched down on the north side of Charles river (Charlestown), and took lodgings in the great house built there the preceding year; the rest of the company erected cottages, booths, and tents, for present accommodation, about the town hill. Their place of assembling for divine service was under a spreading tree. On the 8th of July, a day of thanksgiving was kept for the safe arrival of the fleet. On the 30th of the same month, after a day of solemn prayer and fasting, the foundation of a church was laid at Charlestown, afterwards the first church of Boston, and Governor Winthrop, Deputy Governor Dudley, and the Rev. Mr. Wilson, entered into church covenant. The first court of assistants was held at Charlestown, on the 23d of August, and the first question proposed was a suitable provision for the support of the gospel. Towards the close of autumn, Governor Winthrop and most of the assistants removed to the peninsula of Shawmut (Boston), and lived there the first winter, intending in the spring to build a fortified town, but undetermined as to its situation. On the 6th of December they resolved to fortify the isthmus of that peninsula; but, changing their minds before the month expired, they agreed upon a place about three miles above Charlestown, which they called first Newtown, and afterwards Cambridge, where they engaged to build houses the ensuing spring. The rest of the winter they suffered much by the severity of the season, and were obliged to live upon acorns, groundnuts, and shell-fish. … They had appointed the 6th of February for a fast, in consequence of their alarm for the safety of a ship which had been sent to Ireland for provisions; but fortunately the vessel arrived on the 5th, and they ordered a public thanksgiving instead thereof."

J. B. Moore, Lives of the Governors of New Plymouth and Massachusetts Bay; part 2: Winthrop.

ALSO IN: R. C. Winthrop, Life and Letters of John Winthrop, volume 1, chapters 15-19, and volume 2, chapters 1-4.

      A. Young,
      Chronicles of the first Planters of Massachusetts Bay,
      chapters 14-19.

   "The English people who came with Governor Winthrop first
   located upon the peninsula of Mishawum, which they called
   Charlestown. … They found here a single white man named
   Thomas Walford, living very peaceably and contentedly among
   the Indians. They also discovered that the peninsula of
   Shawmut had one solitary white inhabitant whose name was
   William Blackstone. They could see every day the smoke curling
   above this man's lonely cabin. He, too, was a Puritan
   clergyman, like many of those who had now come to make a home
   in the New World, free from the tyranny of the English
   bishops. Still another Englishman, Samuel Maverick by name,
   had built a house, and with the help of David Thompson, a fort
   which mounted four small cannon, truly called 'murtherers,'
   and was living very comfortably on the island that is now East
   Boston. And again, by looking across the bay, to the south,
   the smoke of an English cottage, on Thompson's Island, was
   probably seen stealing upward to the sky. So that we certainly
   know these people were the first settlers of Boston. But
   scarcity of water, and sickness, which soon broke out among
   them, made the settlers at Charlestown very discontented. They
   began to scatter. Indeed this peninsula was too small properly
   to accommodate all of them with their cattle. Therefore good
   William Blackstone, with true hospitality, came in their
   distress to tell them there was a fine spring of pure water at
   Shawmut, and to invite them there. Probably his account
   induced quite a number to remove at once; while others,
   wishing to make farms, looked out homes along the shores of
   the mainland, at Medford, Newtown (Cambridge), Watertown and
   Roxbury. A separate company of colonists also settled at
   Mattapan, or Dorchester. The dissatisfaction with Charlestown
   was so general that at last only a few of the original
   settlers remained there. … While those in chief authority
   were still undecided, Isaac Johnson, one of the most
   influential and honored men among the colonists, began, with
   others, in earnest, the settlement of Boston. He chose for
   himself the square of land now enclosed by Tremont, Court,
   Washington and School Streets.
{2103}
   Unfortunately this gentleman, who was much beloved, died
   before the removal to Boston became general. … Although the
   chief men of the colony continued for some time yet to favor
   the plan of a fortified town farther inland, Boston had now
   become too firmly rooted, and the people too unwilling, to
   make a second change of location practicable, or even
   desirable. So this project was abandoned, though not before
   high words passed between Winthrop and Dudley about it. The
   governor then removed the frame of his new house from
   Cambridge, or Newtown, to Boston, setting it up on the land
   between Milk Street, Spring Lane, and Washington Street. One
   of the finest springs being upon his lot, the name Spring Lane
   is easily traced. The people first located themselves within
   the space now comprised between Milk, Bromfield, Tremont, and
   Hanover Streets, and the water, or, in general terms, upon the
   southeasterly slope of Beacon Hill. Pemberton Hill soon became
   a favorite locality. The North End, including that portion of
   the town north of Union Street, was soon built up by the new
   emigrants coming in, or by removals from the South End, as all
   the town south of this district was called. In time a third
   district on the north side of Beacon Hill grew up, and was
   called the West End. And in the old city these general
   divisions continue to-day. Shawmut, we remember, was the first
   name Boston had. Now the settlers at Charlestown, seeing
   always before them a high hill topped with three little peaks,
   had already, and very aptly too, we think, named Shawmut
   Trimountain [the origin of the name Tremont in Boston]. But
   when they began to remove there they called it Boston, after a
   place of that name in England, and because they had determined
   beforehand to give to their chief town this name. So says the
   second highest person among them, Deputy Governor Thomas
   Dudley. The settlers built their first church on the ground
   now covered by Brazer's Building, in State Street. …
   Directly in front of the meeting-house was the town
   market-place. Where Quincy Market is was the principal
   landing-place. The Common was set apart as a pasture-ground
   and training-field. … A beacon was set up on the summit of
   Trimountain and a fort upon the southernmost hill of the town.
   From this time these hills took the names of Windmill, Beacon,
   and Fort Hills."

"The order of the Court of Assistants,—Governor Winthrop presiding,—'That Trimontaine shall be called Boston,' was passed on the 7th of September, old style, or, as we now count it, the 17th of September, 1630. The name of Boston was specially dear to the Massachusetts colonists, from its association with the old St. Botolphs' town, or Boston, of Lincolnshire, England, from which the Lady Arbella Johnson and her husband had come, and where John Cotton was still preaching in its noble parish church. But the precise date of the removal of the Governor and Company to the peninsula is nowhere given."

R. C. Winthrop, Boston Founded (Memorial History of Boston; edited by J. Winsor, volume 1), pages 116-117.

      ALSO IN:
      C. F. Adams, Jr.,
      Earliest Exploration and Settlement of Boston Harbor
      (Mem. History, pages 63-86).

"The charter of the Massachusetts Company had prescribed no condition of investment with its franchise,—or with what under the circumstances which had arisen was the same thing, the prerogatives of citizenship in the plantation,—except the will and vote of those who were already freemen. At the first Cisatlantic General Court for election, 'to the end the body of the commons may be preserved of honest and good men,' it was 'ordered and agreed, that, for the time to come, no man shall be admitted to the freedom of this body politic, but such as are members of some of the churches within the limits of the same." The men who laid this singular foundation for the commonwealth which they were instituting, had been accustomed to feel responsibility, and to act upon well-considered reasons. By charter from the English crown, the land was theirs as against all other civilized people, and they had a right to choose according to their own rules the associates who should help them to occupy and govern it. Exercising this right, they determined that magistracy and citizenship should belong only to Christian men, ascertained to be such by the best test which they knew how to apply. They established a kind of aristocracy hitherto unknown."

"The aim of Winthrop and his friends in coming to Massachusetts was the construction of a theocratic state which should be to Christians, under the New Testament dispensation, all that the theocracy of Moses and Joshua and Samuel had been to the Jews in Old Testament days. They should be to all intents and purposes freed from the jurisdiction of the Stuart king, and so far as possible the text of the Holy Scriptures should be their guide both in weighty matters of general legislation and in the shaping of the smallest details of daily life. In such a scheme there was no room for religious liberty as we understand it."

   "The projected religious commonwealth was to be founded and
   administered by the Bible, the whole Bible, not by the New
   Testament alone. … They revered and used and treated the
   Holy Book as one whole. A single sentence from any part of it
   was an oracle to them: it was as a slice or crumb from any
   part of a loaf of bread, all of the same consistency. God, as
   King, had been the Lawgiver of Israel: he should be their
   Lawgiver too. … The Church should fashion the State and be
   identical with it. Only experienced and covenanted Christian
   believers, pledged by their profession to accordance of
   opinion and purpose with the original proprietors and exiles,
   should be admitted as freemen, or full citizens of the
   commonwealth. They would restrain and limit their own liberty
   of conscience, as well as their own freedom of action, within
   Bible rules. In fact,—in spirit even more than in the
   letter,—they did adopt all of the Jewish code which was in
   any way practicable for them. The leading minister of the
   colony was formally appointed by the General Court to adapt
   the Jewish law to their case [1636]; and it was enacted that,
   till that work was really done, 'Moses, his Judicials,' should
   be in full force. Mr. Cotton in due time presented the results
   of his labor in a code of laws illustrated by Scripture texts.
   This code was not formally adopted by the Court; but the spirit
   of it, soon rewrought into another body, had full sway. …
{2104}
   That frankly avowed and practically applied purpose of the
   Fathers, of establishing here a Bible Commonwealth, 'under a
   due form of government, both civil and ecclesiastical,'
   furnishes the key to, the explanation of, all dark things and
   all the bright things in their early history. The young people
   educated among us ought to read our history by that simple,
   plain interpretation. The consciences of our Fathers were not
   free in our sense of that word. They were held under rigid
   subjection to what they regarded as God's Holy Word, through
   and through in every sentence of it, just as the consciences
   of their Fathers were held, under the sway of the Pope and the
   Roman Church. The Bible was to them supreme. Their church was
   based on it, modelled by it, governed by it; and they intended
   their State should be also."

G. E. Ellis, Lowell Institute Lectures on the Early History of Massachusetts, pages 50-55.

"Though communicants were not necessarily voters, no one could be a voter who was not a communicant; therefore the town-meeting was nothing but the church meeting, possibly somewhat attenuated, and called by a different name. By this insidious statute the clergy seized the temporal power, which they held till the charter fell. The minister stood at the head of the congregation and moulded it to suit his purposes and to do his will. … Common men could not have kept this hold upon the inhabitants of New England, but the clergy were learned, resolute, and able, and their strong but narrow minds burned with fanaticism and love of power; with their beliefs and under their temptations persecution seemed to them not only their most potent weapon, but a duty they owed to Christ—and that duty they unflinchingly performed."

      D. Campbell,
      The Puritan in Holland, England, and America,
      chapter 22 (volume 2).

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1633-1635.
Hostilities between the Plymouth Colony and
the French on the Maine coast.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1634-1637.
Threatening movements in England.
The Charter demanded.

"That the government of Charles I. should view with a hostile eye the growth of a Puritan state in New England is not at all surprising. The only fit ground for wonder would seem to be that Charles should have been willing at the outset to grant a charter to the able and influential Puritans who organized the Company of Massachusetts Bay. Probably, however, the king thought at first it would relieve him at home if a few dozen of the Puritan leaders could be allowed to concentrate their minds upon a project of colonization in America. It might divert attention for a moment from his own despotic schemes. Very likely the scheme would prove a failure and the Massachusetts colony incur a fate like that of Roanoke Island; and at all events the wealth of the Puritans might better be sunk in a remote and perilous enterprise than employed at home in organizing resistance to the crown. Such, very likely, may have been the king's motive in granting the Massachusetts charter two days after turning his Parliament out of doors. But the events of the last half-dozen years had come to present the case in a new light. The young colony was not languishing. It was full of sturdy life; it had wrought mischief to the schemes of Gorges; and what was more, it had begun to take unheard-of liberties with things ecclesiastical and political. Its example was getting to be a dangerous one. It was evidently worth while to put a strong curb upon Massachusetts. Any promise made to his subjects Charles regarded as a promise made under duress which he was quite justified in breaking whenever it suited his purpose to do so. Enemies of Massachusetts were busy in England. Schismatics from Salem and revellers from Merrymount were ready with their tales of woe, and now Gorges and Mason were vigorously pressing their territorial claims."

   In April, 1634, "the superintendence of the colonies was …
   removed from the privy council to an arbitrary special
   commission, of which William Laud, archbishop of Canterbury,
   and the archbishop of York, were the chief. These, with ten of
   the highest officers of State, were invested with full power
   to make laws and orders, … to appoint judges and magistrates
   and establish courts for civil and ecclesiastical affairs, …
   to revoke all charters and patents which had been
   surreptitiously obtained, or which conceded liberties
   prejudicial to the royal prerogative. Cradock, who had been
   governor of the corporation in England before the transfer of
   the charter of Massachusetts, was strictly charged to deliver
   it up; and he wrote to the governor and council to send it
   home. Upon receipt of his letter, they resolved 'not to return
   any answer or excuse at that time.' In September, a copy of
   the commission to Archbishop Laud and his associates was
   brought to Boston; and it was at the same time rumored that
   the colonists were to be compelled by force to accept a new
   governor, the discipline of the church of England, and the
   laws of the commissioners. The intelligence awakened 'the
   magistrates and deputies to discover their minds each to
   other, and to hasten their fortifications,' towards which,
   poor as was the colony, £600 were raised. In January, 1635,
   all the ministers assembled at Boston; and they unanimously
   declared against the reception of a general governor, saying:
   'We ought to defend our lawful possessions, if we are able; if
   not, to avoid and protract.' In the month before this
   declaration, it is not strange that Laud and his associates
   should have esteemed the inhabitants of Massachusetts to be
   men of refractory humors. … Restraints were placed upon
   emigration; no one above the rank of a serving man might
   remove to the colony without the special leave of Laud and his
   associates. … Willingly as these acts were enforced by
   religious bigotry, they were promoted by another cause. A
   change had come over the character of the great Plymouth
   council for the colonization of New England," which now
   schemed and bargained with the English court to surrender its
   general charter, on the condition that the vast territory
   which it had already ceded to the Massachusetts Company and
   others should be reclaimed by the king and granted anew, in
   severalty, to its members (see NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1635). "At
   the Trinity term of the court of king's bench, a quo warranto
   was brought against the Company of the Massachusetts bay. At
   the ensuing Michaelmas, several of its members who resided in
   England made their appearance, and judgment was pronounced
   against them individually; the rest of the patentees stood
   outlawed, but no judgment was entered against them.
{2105}
   The unexpected death of Mason, the proprietary of New
   Hampshire, in December, 1635, removed the chief instigator of
   these aggressions. In July, 1637, the king, professing 'to
   redress the mischiefs that had arisen out of the many
   different humours,' took the government of New England into
   his own hands, and appointed over it Sir Ferdinando Gorges as
   governor-general. … But the measure was feeble and
   ineffectual." Gorges "never left England, and was hardly heard
   of except by petitions to its government." Troubles had
   thickened about king Charles and his creature Laud until they
   no longer had time or disposition to bestow more of their
   thoughts on Massachusetts. A long-suffering nation was making
   ready to put an end to their malignant activities, and the
   Puritans of New England and Old England were alike delivered.

      G. Bancroft,
      History of the United States
      (Author's last revision),
      part 1, chapter 17 (volume 1).

      ALSO IN:
      T. Hutchinson,
      History of the Colony of Massachusetts Bay,
      volume 1, pages 51 and 86-89.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1635-1636.
The founding of Boston Latin School and Harvard College.

"The intolerance of England had established the New England colonies. The time was at hand when those colonies should in their turn alienate from them their own children, and be the unwilling parents of a fresh state. In 1631, there arrived at Boston a young minister, Roger Williams, 'godly and zealous, having precious gifts.' … His theological doctrines seem to have been those generally received among the Puritans, but in questions of church discipline he went far beyond most of his sect. He was a rigid separatist, and carried the doctrine of toleration, or, as perhaps it might be more properly called, state indifference, to its fullest length. Accordingly it was impossible to employ him as a minister at Boston. He went to Salem, which was then without a preacher, and was appointed to the vacant office. But a message from Winthrop and the assistants compelled the church of Salem to retract its choice, and the young enthusiast withdrew to Plymouth," where he remained two years, until August, 1633, when he returned to Salem. "In 1634, he incurred the displeasure of some of his congregation by putting forward the doctrine that no tenure of land could be valid which had not the sanction of the natives. His doctrine was censured by the court at Boston, but on his satisfying the court of his 'loyalty,' the matter passed over. But before long he put forward doctrines, in the opinion of the government, yet more dangerous. He advocated complete separation from the Church of England, and denounced compulsory worship and a compulsory church establishment. Carrying the doctrine of individual liberty to its fullest extent, he asserted that the magistrate was only the agent of the people, and had no right to protect the people against itself; that his power extends only as far as such cases as disturb the public peace. … On the 8th of August, 1635, Williams was summoned before the general court; his opinions were denounced as 'erroneous and very dangerous,' and notice was given to the church at Salem that, unless it could explain the matter to the satisfaction of the court, Williams must be dismissed. In October, Williams was again brought before the court, and after a 'disputation' with Mr. Hooker, which failed to reduce him from any of his errors, he was sentenced to depart out of the jurisdiction of Massachusetts in six weeks. The church of Salem acquiesced in the condemnation of their pastor. Their own experience might have taught the fathers of New England that the best way to strengthen heresy is to oppose it. The natural result followed; the people were 'much taken with the apprehension of Williams 'godliness,' and a large congregation, including 'many devout women,' gathered round him. Since they had failed to check the evil, the Massachusetts government resolved to exterminate it and to ship Williams for England. The crew of a pinnace was sent to arrest him, but, fortunately for the future of New England, he had escaped. … He had set out [January, 1636] for the territory of Narragansett, and there founded the village of Providence."

"His [Roger Williams'] own statement is, it was 'only for the holy truth of Christ Jesus that he was denied the common air to breathe in, and a civil cohabitation upon the same common earth.' But the facts of the case seem to show that it was because his opinions differed from the opinions of those among whom he lived, and were considered by them as dangerous and seditious, tending to the utter destruction of their community, that he was a sacrifice to honest convictions of truth and duty. … The sentence of banishment, however, was not passed without reluctance. Governor Winthrop remained his friend to the day of his death, and even proposed, in view of his services in the Pequot war, that his sentence should be revoked. Governor Haynes, of Connecticut, who pronounced his sentence, afterwards regretted it. Governor Winslow, of Plymouth, who had no hand in his expulsion, 'put a piece of gold in the hands of his wife,' to relieve his necessities, and though Mr. Cotton hardly clears himself from the charge of having procured his sentence, there was no private feud between them. Cotton Mather concedes that 'many judicious persons judged him to have had the root of the matter in him.' Later writers declare him, 'from the whole course and tenor of his life and conduct, to have been one of the most disinterested men that ever lived, a most pious and heavenly-minded soul.' And the magnanimous exile himself says, 'I did ever from my soul honor and love them, even when their judgment led them to afflict me.'"

E. B. Underhill, introduction to Williams' 'Bloudy Tenent of Persecution' (Hansard Knollys Society).

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1636-1638.
Mrs. Anne Hutchinson and the Antinomian troubles.

"The agitation and strife connected with the Antinomian controversy, opened by Mrs. Ann Hutchinson, came dangerously near to bringing the fortunes of the young Massachusetts colony to a most disastrous ruin. … The peril overhung at a time when the proprietary colonists had the most reasonable and fearful forebodings of the loss of their charter by the interference of a Privy Council Commission. … Ominously enough, too, Mrs. Hutchinson arrived here, September 18, 1634, in the vessel which brought the copy of that commission. Winthrop describes her as a woman of a 'ready wit and bold spirit.' Strongly gifted herself, she had a gentle and weak husband, who was guided by her. She had at home enjoyed no ministrations so much as those of Cotton, and her brother-in-law, Mr. Wheelwright. She came here to put herself again under the preaching of the former. … She had been here for two years, known as a ready, kindly, and most serviceable woman, especially to her own sex in their straits and sicknesses. But she anticipated the introduction of 'the woman question' among the colonists in a more troublesome form than it has yet assumed for us. Joined by her brother-in-law, who was also admitted to the church, after those two quiet years she soon made her influence felt for trouble, as he did likewise. … The male members of the Boston Church had a weekly meeting, in which they discussed the ministrations of Cotton and Wilson. Mrs. Hutchinson organized and presided over one, held soon twice in a week, for her own sex, attended by nearly a hundred of the principal women on the peninsula and in the neighborhood. It was easy to foresee what would come of it, through one so able and earnest as herself, even if she had no novel or disjointed or disproportioned doctrine to inculcate; which, however, it proved that she had. Antinomian means a denying, or, at least, a weakening, of the obligation to observe the moral law, and to comply with the external duties; to do the works associated with the idea of internal, spiritual righteousness. It was a false or disproportioned construction of St. Paul's great doctrine of justification by faith, without the works of the law. … Mrs. Hutchinson, was understood to teach, that one who was graciously justified by a spiritual assurance, need not be greatly concerned for outward sanctification by works. She judged and approved, or censured and discredited, the preachers whom she heard, according as they favored or repudiated that view. Her admirers accepted her opinions. … Word soon went forth that Mrs. Hutchinson had pronounced in her meetings, that Mr. Cotton and her brother-in-law Wheelwright, alone of all the ministers in the colony, were under 'a covenant of grace,' the rest being 'legalists,' or under 'a covenant of works.' These reports, which soon became more than opinions, were blazing brands that it would be impossible to keep from reaching inflammable material. … As the contention extended it involved all the principal persons of the colony. Cotton and all but five members of the Boston Church—though one of these five was Winthrop, and another was Wilson—proved to be sympathizers with Mrs. Hutchinson; while the ministers and leading people outside in the other hamlets were strongly opposed to her. She had a partisan, moreover, of transcending influence in the young Governor, Sir Henry Vane," who had come over from England the year before, and who had been chosen at the next election for Governor, with Winthrop as deputy. "Though pure and devout, and ardent in zeal, he had not then the practical wisdom for which Milton afterwards praised him in his noble sonnet:—'Vane, young in years, but in sage counsels old.' … With his strong support, and that of two other prominent magistrates, and of so overwhelming a majority of the Boston Church, Mrs. Hutchinson naturally felt emboldened." But in the end her Church and party were overcome by the ministers and their supporters in the other parts of the colony; she was excommunicated and banished (November, 1637, and March, 1638), going forth to perish six years later at the hands of the Indians, while living on the shore of Long Island Sound, at a place now known as Pelham Neck, near New Rochelle. "As the summing up of the strife, 76 persons were disarmed; two were disfranchised and fined; 2 more were fined; 8 more were disfranchised; 3 were banished; and 11 who had asked permission to remove had leave, in the form of a limitation of time within which they must do it. The more estimable and considerable of them apologized and were received back."

G. E. Ellis, Lowell Institute Lectures on the Early History of Massachusetts, pages 95-100.

Ecclesiastical History of New England (Massachusetts Historical Society Collection, series 1, volume 9).

G. E. Ellis, Life of Anne Hutchinson (Library of American Biographies, new series, volume 6).

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1637.
The first Synod of the Churches and its dealings with Heresy.

   The election of Sir Harry Vane to be Governor of the colony,
   in place of John Winthrop, "took place in the open air upon
   what is now Cambridge Common on the 27th day of May [1637].
   Four months later it was followed by the gathering of the
   first Synod of Massachusetts churches; which again, meeting
   here in Cambridge, doubtless held its sessions in the original
   meeting-house standing on what is now called Mount Auburn
   Street. The Synod sat through twenty-four days, during which
   it busied itself unearthing heterodox opinions and making the
   situation uncomfortable for those suspected of heresy, until
   it had spread upon its record no less than eighty-two such
   'opinions, some blasphemous, others erroneous, and all
   unsafe,' besides 'nine unwholesome expressions,' all alleged
   to be rife in the infant community. Having performed this
   feat, it broke up amid general congratulations 'that matters
   had been carried on so peaceably, and concluded so comfortably
   in all love.' … As the twig is bent, the tree inclines. The
   Massachusetts twig was here and then bent; and, as it was
   bent, it during hard upon two centuries inclined. The question
   of Religious Toleration was, so far as Massachusetts could
   decide it, decided in 1637 in the negative. … The turning
   point in the history of early Massachusetts was the Cambridge
   Synod of September, 1637, … which succeeded in spreading on
   its record, as then prevailing in the infant settlement,
   eighty-two 'opinions, some blasphemous, others erroneous and
   all unsafe,' besides 'nine unwholesome expressions,' the whole
   mighty mass of which was then incontinently dismissed, in the
   language of one of the leading divines who figured in that
   Assembly, 'to the devil of hell, from whence they came.'
{2107}
   The mere enumeration of this long list of heresies as then
   somewhere prevailing is strong evidence of intellectual
   activity in early Massachusetts,—an activity which found
   ready expression through such men as Roger Williams, John
   Cotton, John Wheelwright and Sir Henry Vane, to say nothing of
   Mrs. Hutchinson, while the receptive condition of the mental
   soil is likewise seen in the hold the new opinions took. It
   was plainly a period of intellectual quickening,—a dawn of
   promise. Of this there can no doubt exist. It was freely
   acknowledged at the time; it has been stated as one of the
   conditions of that period by all writers on it since. The body
   of those who listened to him stood by Roger Williams; and the
   magistrates drove him away for that reason. Anne Hutchinson so
   held the ear of the whole Boston community that she had 'some
   of all sorts and quality, in all places to defend and
   patronize' her opinions; 'some of the magistrates, some
   gentlemen, some scholars and men of learning, some Burgesses
   of our General Court, some of our captains and soldiers, some
   chief men in towns, and some men eminent for religion, parts
   and wit.' These words of a leader of the clerical
   faction,—one of those most active in the work of
   repression,—describe to the life an active-minded,
   intelligent community quick to receive and ready to assimilate
   that which is new. Then came the Synod. It was a premonition.
   It was as if the fresh new sap,—the young budding leaves,—
   the possible, incipient flowers, had felt the chill of an
   approaching glacier. And that was exactly what it was;—a
   theological glacier then slowly settled down upon
   Massachusetts,—a glacier lasting through a period of nearly
   one hundred and fifty years."

      C. F. Adams,
      Massachusetts: Its Historians and its History,
      pages 10-59.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1640-1644.
The end of the Puritan exodus.
Numerical growth and political development.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1643.
The Confederation of the Colonies.
The growth of Plymouth.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1643-1654.
Interest in Acadia and temporary conquest of the Province.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1646-1651.
The Presbyterian Cabal and the Cambridge Platform.

"There had now come to be many persons in Massachusetts who disapproved of the provision which restricted the suffrage to members of the Independent or Congregational churches of New England, and in 1646 the views of these people were presented in a petition to the General Court. … The leading signers of this menacing petition were William Vassall, Samuel Maverick, and Dr. Robert Child. … Their request would seem at first sight reasonable enough. At a superficial glance it seems conceived in a modern spirit of liberalism. In reality it was nothing of the sort. In England it was just the critical moment of the struggle between Presbyterians and Independents which had come in to complicate the issues of the great civil war. Vassall, Child, and Maverick seem to have been the leading spirits in a cabal for the establishment of Presbyterianism in New England, and in their petition they simply took advantage of the discontent of the disfranchised citizens in Massachusetts in order to put in an entering wedge. This was thoroughly understood by the legislature of Massachusetts, and accordingly the petition was dismissed and the petitioners were roundly fined. Just as Child was about to start for England with his grievances, the magistrates overhauled his papers and discovered a petition to the parliamentary Board of Commissioners, suggesting that Presbyterianism should be established in New England, and that a viceroy or governor-general should be appointed to rule there. To the men of Massachusetts this last suggestion was a crowning horror. It seemed scarcely less than treason. The signers of this petition were the same who had signed the petition to the General Court. They were now fined still more heavily and imprisoned for six months. By and by they found their way, one after another, to London, while the colonists sent Edward Winslow, of Plymouth, as an advocate to thwart their schemes. … The cabal accomplished nothing because of the decisive defeat of Presbyterianism in England. 'Pride's Purge' settled all that. The petition of Vassall and his friends was the occasion for the meeting of a synod of churches at Cambridge, in order to complete the organization of Congregationalism. In 1648 the work of the synod was embodied in the famous Cambridge Platform, which adopted the Westminster Confession as its creed, carefully defined the powers of the clergy, and declared it to be the duty of magistrates to suppress heresy. In 1649 the General Court laid this platform before the congregations; in 1651 it was adopted; and this event may be regarded as completing the theocratic organization of the Puritan commonwealth in Massachusetts. It was immediately preceded and followed by the deaths of the two foremost men in that commonwealth. John Winthrop died in 1649 and John Cotton in 1652."

   "Massachusetts had, from the outset, sympathized with
   Parliament in its contest with the king, and had blended her
   fortunes with the fortunes of the reformers. She had expressed
   her willingness to 'rise and fall with them,' and' sent over
   useful men, others going voluntarily, to their aid, who were
   of good use, and did acceptable service to the army.' Her
   loyalty, therefore, procured for her the protection of
   Parliament. Yet the execution of Charles, which royalists have
   ever regarded with the utmost abhorrence, was not openly
   approved here. 'I find,' says Hutchinson, 'scarce any marks of
   approbation of the tragical scene of which this year they
   received intelligence.' The few allusions we have discovered
   are none of them couched in terms of exultation. Virginia
   pursued a different course, and openly resisted Parliament,
   refused to submit to its decrees, and adhered to the cause of
   royalty. … Yet the legislation of the commonwealth was not
   wholly favorable even to Massachusetts.
{2108}
   The proclamation relative to Virginia asserted, in general
   terms, the power of appointing governors and commissioners to
   be placed in all the English colonies, without exception; and
   by Mr. Winslow, their agent in England, they were informed
   that it was the pleasure of Parliament the patent of
   Massachusetts should be returned, and a new one taken out,
   under which courts were to be held and warrants issued. With
   this request the people were indisposed to comply; and, too
   wary to hazard the liberties so dearly purchased, a petition
   was drawn up, pleading the cause of the colony with great
   force, setting forth its allegiance, and expressing the hope
   that, under the new government, things might not go worse with
   them than under that of the king, and that their charter might
   not be recalled, as they desired no better. This remonstrance
   was successful; the measure was dropped, and the charter of
   Charles continued in force. Parliament was not 'foiled' by the
   colony. Its request was deemed reasonable; and there was no
   disposition to invade forcibly its liberties. We have evidence
   of this in the course of Cromwell. After his success in the
   'Emerald Isle,' conceiving the project of introducing
   Puritanism into Ireland, an invitation was extended to the
   people of Massachusetts to remove thither and settle. But they
   were too strongly attached to the land of their adoption, and
   to its government, 'the happiest and wisest this day in the
   world,' readily to desert it. Hence the politic proposal of
   the lord protector was respectfully declined."

ALSO IN: J. A. Doyle, The English in America: Puritan Colonies, volume 1, chapter 9.

"In July, 1656, Mary Fisher and Ann Austin came to Boston from Barbadoes; and shortly after, nine others, men and women, arrived in the ship Speedwell from London. It was at once known, for they did not wish to conceal it, that they were 'Friends,' vulgarly called 'Quakers'; and the Magistrates at once took them in hand, determined that no people holding (as they considered them) such damnable opinions, should come into the Colony. A great crowd collected to hear them questioned, and Boston was stirred up by a few illiterate enthusiasts. They stood up before the Court with their hats on, apparently without fear, and had no hesitation in calling governor Endicott plain 'John.' … The replies which these men and women made were direct and bold, and were considered rude and contemptuous. … They … were committed to prison for their 'Rudeness and Insolence'; there being no law then under which they could be punished for being Quakers." Before the year closed, this defect of law was remedied by severe enactments, "laying a penalty of £100 for bringing any Quaker into the Colony: forty shillings for entertaining them for an hour; Quaker men who came against these prohibitions were, upon first conviction, to lose one ear, upon the second, the other ear; and women were to be whipped. Upon the third conviction, their tongues were to be bored with a hot iron. But these things seemed useless, for the Quakers, knowing their fate, swarmed into Massachusetts; and the Magistrates were fast getting more business than they could attend to. It was then determined to try greater severity, and in October, 1658, a law was passed in Massachusetts (resisted by the Deputies, urged by the Magistrates), punishing Quakers, who had been banished, with death." The first to challenge the dread penalty were a woman, Mary Dyer, and two men, William Robinson and Marmaduke Stevenson, who, after being banished (September, 1659), came defiantly back the next month. "Governor Endicott pronounced sentence of death against them. … On the 27th of October, in the afternoon, a guard of 200 men, attended with a drummer, conducted them to the gallows." Stevenson and Robinson were hanged; but Mary Dyer was reprieved. "Her mind was made up for death, and her reprieve brought her no joy. She was taken away by her son. … Mary Dyer was a 'comely and valiant woman,' and in the next Spring she returned. What now was to be done? The law said she must be hung, and Endicott again pronounced sentence, and she was led out to die a felon's death. Some scoffed and jeered her, but the most pitied; she died bravely, fearing nothing. … There seemed no end; for Quaker after Quaker came; they were tried, they were whipped, and the prison was full. … William Ledra [banished in 1657] came back (September, 1660), and was subject to death. They offered him his life, if he would go away and promise not to return; he said: 'I came here to bear my testimony, and to tell the truth of the Lord, in the ears of this people. I refuse to go.' So he was hanged in the succeeding March (14th). Wenlock Christopherson, or Christison, came, and was tried and condemned to die. … The death of Ledra, and the return of Wenlock Christison, brought confusion among the Magistrates, and some said 'Where will this end?' and declared it was time to stop. Governor Endicott found it difficult to get a Court to agree to sentence Christison to death; but he halted not, and pronounced the sentence. … But a few days afterward the jailor opened the prison doors, and Wenlock (with 27 others) was set at liberty, much to his and their surprise." The friends of the Quakers in England had prevailed upon King Charles II., then lately restored, "to order the persecutions to cease in New England (September 1661). Samuel Shattock, a banished Quaker, was sent from England by Charles, with a letter to Governor Endicott [the subject of Whittier's poem, 'The King's Missive'], commanding that no more Quakers should be hanged or imprisoned in New England, but should be sent to England for trial. This ended the persecutions; for, on the 9th of December, 1661, the Court ordered all Quakers to be set at liberty."

"Some of our writers, alike in prose and in poetry, have assumed, and have written on the assumption, that the deliverance of the Quakers was effected by the interposition in their behalf of King Charles II. … The royal letter … had … been substantially anticipated as to its principal demand by the action of the Court [in Massachusetts]. The general jail delivery of 31 Quakers, including the three under the death sentence who had voluntarily agreed to go off, was ordered by the Court in October, 1660. The King's letter was dated at Whitehall a year afterward. Let us claim whatever of relief we can find in reminding ourselves that it was the stern opposition and protest of the majority of the people of the Puritan Colony, and not the King's command, that had opened the gates of mercy."

While the Quakers first arrested at Boston were lying in jail, "the Federal Commissioners, then in session at Plymouth, recommended that laws be forthwith enacted to keep these dreaded heretics out of the land. Next year they stooped so far as to seek the aid of Rhode Island, the colony which they had refused to admit into their confederacy. … Roger Williams was then president of Rhode Island, and in full accord with his noble spirit was the reply of the assembly. 'We have no law amongst us whereby to punish any for only declaring by words their minds and understandings concerning the things and ways of God as to salvation and our eternal condition.' As for these Quakers, we find that where they are 'most of all suffered to declare themselves freely and only opposed by arguments in discourse, there they least of all desire to come.' Any breach of the civil law shall be punished, but the 'freedom of different consciences shall be respected.' This reply enraged the confederated colonies, and Massachusetts, as the strongest and most overbearing, threatened to cut off the trade of Rhode Island, which forthwith appealed to Cromwell for protection. … In thus protecting the Quakers, Williams never for a moment concealed his antipathy to their doctrines. … The four confederated colonies all proceeded to pass laws banishing Quakers. … Those of Connecticut … were the mildest."

      ALSO IN:
      B. Adams,
      The Emancipation of Massachusetts,
      chapter 5.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1660-1665.
Under the Restored Monarchy.
The first collision with the crown.

"In May, 1660, Charles II. mounted the throne of his ancestors. … In December of this year, intelligence of the accession of a new king had reached Massachusetts; the General Court convened and prepared addresses to his majesty. … In the following May a reply, signed by Mr. Secretary Morrice, together with a mandate for the arrest of Goffe and Whalley, the regicides who had escaped to Massachusetts, was received in Boston. The king's response contained a general expression of good will, which, however, did not quiet the apprehensions of the colonists. The air was filled with rumors, and something seemed to forebode an early collision with the crown. At a special session of the court, held in June, 'a declaration of natural and chartered rights' was approved and published. In this document the people affirmed their right 'to choose their own governor, deputy governor, and representatives; to admit freemen on terms to be prescribed at their own pleasure; to set up all sorts of officers, superior and inferior, and point out their power and places; to exercise, by their annually elected magistrates and deputies, all power and authority, legislative, executive, and judicial; to defend themselves by force of arms against every aggression; and to reject, as an infringement of their rights, any parliamentary or royal imposition, prejudicial to the country, and contrary to any just act of colonial legislation.' More than a year elapsed from the restoration of Charles II. to his public recognition at Boston. … Even the drinking of his health was forbidden, and the event was celebrated only amid the coldest formalities. Meanwhile the colonists not only declared, but openly assumed, their rights; and in consequence complaints were almost daily instituted by those who were hostile to the government. Political opinion was diversified; and while 'a majority were for sustaining, with the charter, an independent government in undiminished force, a minority were willing to make some concessions.' In the midst of the discussions, John Norton, 'a friend to moderate counsels,' and Simon Bradstreet were induced to go to England as agents of the colony. Having been instructed to convince the king of the loyalty of the people of Massachusetts, and to 'engage to nothing prejudicial to their present standing according to their patent, and to endeavor the establishment of the rights and privileges then enjoyed,' the commissioners sailed from Boston on the 10th of February, 1662. In England they were courteously received by king Charles, and from him obtained, in a letter dated June 28, a confirmation of their charter, and an amnesty for all past offences. At the same time the king rebuked them for the irregularities which had been complained of in the government; directed 'a repeal of all laws derogatory to his authority; the taking of the oath of allegiance; the administration of justice in his name; a concession of the elective franchise to all freeholders of competent estate; and as 'the principle of the charter was the freedom of the liberty of conscience,' the allowance of that freedom to those who desired to use 'the booke of common prayer, and perform their devotion in the manner established in England.' These requisitions of the king proved anything but acceptable to the people of Massachusetts. With them the question of obedience became a question of freedom, and gave rise to the parties which continued to divide the colony until the establishment of actual independence. It was not thought best to comply immediately with his majesty's demands; on the other hand, no refusal to do so was promulgated." Presently a rumor reached America "that royal commissioners were to be appointed to regulate the affairs of New England. Precautionary measures were now taken. The patent and a duplicate of the same were delivered to a committee of four, with instructions to hold them in safe keeping. Captain Davenport, at Castle Fort, was ordered to give early announcement of the arrival of his Majesty's ships. Officers and soldiers were forbidden to land from ships, except in small parties. … On the 23d of July, 1664, 'about five or six of the clock at night,' the 'Guinea,' followed by three other ships of the line, arrived in Boston harbor. They were well manned and equipped for the reduction of the Dutch settlements on the Hudson, and brought commissioners hostile to colonial freedom, and who were charged by the king to determine 'all complaints and appeals in all causes and matters, as well military as criminal and civil,' and to 'proceed in all things for the providing for and settling the peace and security of the country, according to their good and sound discretions.' Colonel Richard Nichols and Colonel George Cartwright were the chief members of the commission. {2110} At the earliest possible moment they produced their legal warrant, the king's letter of April 23, and requested the assistance of the colonies in the reduction of the Dutch. Shortly afterwards the fleet set out for New Netherlands. On the 3d of August the General Court convened, and the state of affairs was discussed." As the result of the discussion it was agreed that a force of 200 men should be raised to serve against the Dutch, and that the old law of citizenship should be so far modified as to provide "'that all English subjects, being freeholders, and of a competent estate, and certified by the ministers of the place to be orthodox in faith, and not vicious in their lives, should be made freemen, although not members of the church.' Before the session closed, Massachusetts published an order forbidding the making of complaints to the commissioners," and adopted a spirited address to the king. When, in February, 1665, three of the commissioners returned to Boston, they soon found that they were not to be permitted to take any proceedings which could call in question "the privilege of government within themselves" which the colony claimed. Attempting in May to hold a court for the hearing of charges against a Boston merchant, they were interrupted by a herald from the governor who sounded his trumpet and forbade, in the name of the king, any abetting of their proceedings. On this they wrathfully departed for the north, after sending reports of the contumacy of Massachusetts to the king. The latter now summoned governor Bellingham to England, but the summons was not obeyed. "'We have already furnished our views in writing [said the General Court], so that the ablest persons among us could not declare our case more fully.' … The defiance of Massachusetts was followed by no immediate danger. For a season the contest with the crown ceased. The king himself was too much engaged with his women to bestow his attention upon matters of state; and thus, while England was lamenting the want of a good government, the colonies, true to themselves, their country, and their God, flourished in purity and peace."

"Although the colonists were alarmed at their own success, there was nothing to fear. At no time before or since could England have been so safely defied. … The discord between the crown and Parliament paralyzed the nation, and the wastefulness of Charles kept him always poor. By the treaty of Dover in 1670 he became a pensioner of Louis XIV. The Cabal followed, probably the worst ministry England ever saw; and in 1672, at Clifford's suggestion, the exchequer was closed and the debt repudiated to provide funds for the second Dutch war. In March fighting began, and the tremendous battles with De Ruyter kept the navy in the Channel. At length, in 1673, the Cabal fell, and Danby became prime minister. Although during these years of disaster and disgrace Massachusetts was not molested by Great Britain, they were not all years during which the theocracy could tranquilly enjoy its victory. … With the rise of Danby a more regular administration opened, and, as usual, the attention of the government was fixed upon Massachusetts by the clamors of those who demanded redress for injuries alleged to have been received at her hands. In 1674 the heirs of Mason and Gorges, in despair at the reoccupation of Maine, proposed to surrender their claim to the king, reserving one third of the product of the customs for themselves. The London merchants also had become restive under the systematic violation of the Navigation Acts. The breach in the revenue laws had, indeed, been long a subject of complaint, and the commissioners had received instructions relating thereto; but it was not till this year that these questions became serious. … New England was fast getting its share of the carrying trade. London merchants already began to feel the competition of its cheap and untaxed ships, and manufacturers to complain that they were undersold in the American market, by goods brought direct from the Continental ports. A petition, therefore, was presented to the king, to carry the law into effect. … The famous Edward Randolph now appears. The government was still too deeply embarrassed to act with energy. A temporizing policy was therefore adopted; and as the experiment of a commission had failed, Randolph was chosen as a messenger to carry the petitions and opinions to Massachusetts; together with a letter from the king, directing that agents should be sent in answer thereto. After delivering them, he was ordered to devote himself to preparing a report upon the country. He reached Boston June 10, 1676. Although it was a time of terrible suffering from the ravages of the Indian war, the temper of the magistrates was harsher than ever. The repulse of the commissioners had convinced them that Charles was not only lazy and ignorant, but too poor to use force; and they also believed him to be so embroiled with Parliament as to make his overthrow probable. Filled with such feelings, their reception of Randolph was almost brutal. John Leverett was governor, who seems to have taken pains to mark his contempt in every way in his power. Randolph was an able, but an unscrupulous man, and probably it would not have been difficult to have secured his good-will. Far however from bribing, or even flattering him, they so treated him as to make him the bitterest enemy the Puritan Commonwealth ever knew. … The legislature met in August, 1676, and a decision had to be made concerning agents. On the whole, the clergy concluded it would be wiser to obey the crown, 'provided they be, with utmost care & caution, qualified as to their instructions.' Accordingly, after a short adjournment, the General Court chose William Stoughton and Peter Bulkely; and having strictly limited their power to a settlement of the territorial controversy, they sent them on their mission. … The controversy concerning the boundary was referred to the two chief justices, who promptly decided against the Company; and the easy acquiescence of the General Court must raise a doubt as to their faith in the soundness of their claims. And now again the fatality which seemed to pursue the theocracy in all its dealings with England led it to give fresh provocation to the king by secretly buying the title of Gorges for 1,250 pounds. Charles had intended to settle Maine on the Duke of Monmouth. It was a worthless possession, whose revenue never paid for its defence; yet so stubborn was the colony that it made haste to anticipate the crown and thus became 'Lord Proprietary' of a burdensome province at the cost of a slight which was never forgiven. {2111} Almost immediately the Privy Council had begun to open other matters, such as coining and illicit trade; and the attorney-general drew up a list of statutes which, in his opinion, were contrary to the laws of England. … In the spring the law officers gave an opinion that the misdemeanors alleged against Massachusetts were sufficient to avoid her patent; and the Privy Council, in view of the encroachments and injuries which she had continually practised on her neighbors, and her contempt of his majesty's commands, advised that a 'quo warranto' should be brought against the charter. Randolph was appointed collector at Boston. Even Leverett now saw that some concessions must be made, and the General Court ordered the oath of allegiance to be taken; nothing but perversity seems to have caused the long delay. The royal arms were also carved in the courthouse; and this was all, for the clergy were determined upon those matters touching their authority. … Nearly half a century had elapsed since the emigration, and with the growth of wealth and population changes had come. In March, John Leverett, who had long been the head of the high-church party, died, and the election of Simon Bradstreet as his successor was a triumph for the opposition. Great as the clerical influence still was, it had lost much of its old despotic power, and the congregations were no longer united in support of the policy of their pastors. … Boston and the larger towns favored concession, while the country was the ministers' stronghold. The result of this divergence of opinion was that the moderate party, to which Bradstreet and Dudley belonged, predominated in the Board of Assistants, while the deputies remained immovable. The branches of the legislature thus became opposed; no course of action could be agreed on, and the theocracy drifted to its destruction. … Meanwhile Randolph had renewed his attack. He declared that in spite of promises and excuses the revenue laws were not enforced; that his men were beaten, and that he hourly expected to be thrown into prison; whereas in other colonies, he asserted, he was treated with great respect. There can be no doubt ingenuity was used to devise means of annoyance; and certainly the life he was made to lead was hard. In March he sailed for home, and while in London he made a series of reports to the government which seem to have produced the conviction that the moment for action had come. In December he returned, commissioned as deputy-surveyor and auditor-general for all New England, except New Hampshire. … Hitherto the clerical party had procrastinated, buoyed up by the hope that in the fierce struggle with the commons Charles might be overthrown; but this dream ended with the dissolution of the Oxford Parliament, and further inaction became impossible. Joseph Dudley and John Richards were chosen agents, and provided with instructions bearing the peculiar tinge of ecclesiastical statesmanship. … The agents were urged to do what was possible to avert, or at least delay, the stroke; but they were forbidden to consent to appeals, or to alterations in the qualifications required for the admission of freemen. They had previously been directed to pacify the king by a present of 2,000 pounds; and this ill-judged attempt at bribery had covered them with ridicule. Further negotiation would have been futile. Proceedings were begun at once, and Randolph was sent to Boston to serve the writ of 'quo warranto'; he was also charged with a royal declaration promising that, even then, were submission made, the charter should be restored with only such changes as the public welfare demanded. Dudley, who was a man of much political sagacity, had returned and strongly urged moderation. The magistrates were not without the instincts of statesmanship: they saw that a breach with England must destroy all safeguards of the common freedom, and they voted an address to the crown accepting the proffered terms. But the clergy strove against them: the privileges of their order were at stake; they felt that the loss of their importance would be 'destructive to the interest of religion and of Christ's kingdom in the colony,' and they roused their congregations to resist. The deputies did not represent the people, but the church. … The influence which had moulded their minds and guided their actions controlled them still, and they rejected the address. … All that could be resolved on was to retain Robert Humphrys of the Middle Temple to interpose such delays as the law permitted; but no attempt was made at defence upon the merits of their cause, probably because all knew well that no such defence was possible. Meanwhile, for technical reasons, the 'quo warranto' had been abandoned, and a writ of 'scire facias' had been issued out of chancery. On June 18, 1684, the lord keeper ordered the defendant to appear and plead on the first day of the next Michaelmas Term. The time allowed was too short for an answer from America, and judgment was entered by default. … So perished the Puritan Commonwealth. The child of the Reformation, its life sprang from the assertion of the freedom of the mind; but this great and noble principle is fatal to the temporal power of a priesthood, and during the supremacy of the clergy the government was doomed to be both persecuting and repressive. Under no circumstance could the theocracy have endured: it must have fallen by revolt from within if not by attack from without."

   "December 19, 1686, Sir Edmund Andros arrived at Nantasket, in
   the Kingfisher, a 50 gun ship, with commissions from King
   James for the government of New England."

      T. Hutchinson,
      History of the Colony of Massachusetts Bay,
      volume 1, chapter 3.

      ALSO IN:
      G. E. Ellis,
      Puritan Age and Rule in Massachusetts,
      chapter 13.

      C. Deane,
      The Struggle to Maintain the Charter of Charles I.
      (Memorial History of Boston,
      volume 1, pages 329-382).

"With the charter were swept away representative government, and every right and every political institution reared during half a century of conflict. The rule of Andros was on the model dear to the heart of his royal master—a harsh despotism, but neither strong nor wise; it was wretched misgovernment, and stupid, blundering oppression. And this arbitrary and miserable system Andros undertook to force upon a people of English race, who had been independent and self-governing for fifty years. He laid taxes at his own pleasure, and not even according to previous rates, as he had promised; he denied the Habeas Corpus to John Wise, the intrepid minister of Ipswich, arrested for preaching against taxation without representation, and he awakened a like resistance in all directions. He instituted fees, was believed to pack juries, and made Randolph licenser of the press. Worst of all, he struck at property, demanded the examination of the old titles, declared them worthless, extorted quit-rents for renewal, and issued writs of intrusion against those who resisted; while, not content with attacking political liberty and the rights of property, he excited religious animosity by forbidding civil marriages, seizing the old South church for the Episcopal service, and introducing swearing by the Book in courts of justice. He left nothing undone to enrage the people and prepare for revolution; and when he returned from unsuccessful Indian warfare in the east, the storm was ready to burst. News came of the landing of the Prince of Orange. Andros arrested the bearer of the tidings, and issued a proclamation against the Prince; but the act was vain. Without apparent concert or preparation Boston rose in arms, the signal-fire blazed on Beacon Hill, and the country people poured in, hot for revenge. Some of the old magistrates met at the town-house, and read a 'declaration of the gentlemen, merchants, and inhabitants,' setting forth the misdeeds of Andros, the illegality of the Dudley government by commission, and the wrongful suppression of the charter. Andros and Dudley were arrested and thrown into prison, together with the captain of the Rose frigate, which lay helpless beneath the guns of the fort, and a provisional government was established, with Bradstreet at its head. William and Mary were proclaimed, the revolution was complete, and Andros soon went back a prisoner to England."

ALSO IN: J. G. Palfrey, History of New England, book 3, chapters 13-14 (volume 3).

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1689-1692.
   The procuring of the new Charter.
   The Colonial Republic transformed into a Royal Province.
   The absorption of Plymouth.

A little more than a month from the overthrow of Andros a ship from England arrived at Boston, with news of the proclamation of William and Mary. This was joyful intelligence to the body of the people. The magistrates were at once relieved from their fears, for the revolution in the old world justified that in the new. Three days later the proclamation was published with unusual ceremony. … A week later the representatives of the several towns, upon a new choice, met at Boston, and proposals were made that charges should be forthwith drawn up against Andros, or that all the prisoners but Andros should be liberated on bail; but both propositions were rejected. The representatives likewise urged the unconditional resumption of the charter, declaring that they could not act in any thing until this was conceded. Many opposed the motion; but it was finally adopted; and it was resolved that all the laws in force May 12, 1686, should be continued until further orders. Yet the magistrates, conscious of the insecurity of the position they occupied, used prudently the powers intrusted to them." Meantime, Increase Mather, who had gone to England before the Revolution took place as agent for the colony, had procured an audience with the new king, William III., and received from him an assurance that he would remove Andros from the government of New England and call him to an account for his administration. "Anxious for the restoration of the old charter and its privileges, under which the colony had prospered so well, the agent applied himself diligently to that object, advising with the wisest statesmen for its accomplishment. It was the concurrent judgment of all that the best course would be to obtain first a reversion of the judgment against the charter by an act of Parliament, and then apply to the king for such additional privileges as were necessary. Accordingly, in the House of Commons, where the whole subject of seizing charters in the reign of Charles II. was up for discussion, the charters of New England were inserted with the rest; and, though enemies opposed the measure, it was voted that their abrogation was a grievance, and that they should be forthwith restored." But before the bill having this most satisfactory effect had been acted on in the House of Lords, the Convention Parliament was prorogued, then dissolved, and the next parliament proved to be less friendly. An order was obtained, however, from the king, continuing the government of the colony under the old charter until a new one was settled, and requiring Andros and his fellow prisoners to be sent to England for trial. On the trial, much court influence seemed to go in favor of Sir Edmund; the proceedings against him were summarily quashed, and he was discharged. Soon afterwards he was made governor of Virginia, while Dudley received appointment to the office of chief justice at New York. Contending against the intrigues of the Andros party, and many other adverse influences, the agents of Massachusetts were reluctantly forced at last to relinquish all hopes of the restoration of the old charter, and "application was made for a new grant, which should confirm the privileges of the old instrument, and such in addition as the experience of the people had taught them would be of benefit. … The king was prevailed upon to refer the affairs of New England to the two lords chief justices and the attorney and solicitor-general, all of whom were supposed to be friendly to the applicants. Mr. Mather was permitted to attend their meetings." Difficulties arose in connection with Plymouth Colony. It was the determination in England that Plymouth should no longer be separately chartered, but should be joined to Massachusetts or New York. In opposing the former more natural union, the Plymouth people very nearly brought about their annexation to New York; but Mather's influence averted that result. "The first draught of a charter was objected to by the agents, because of its limitation of the powers of the governor, who was to be appointed by the king. The second draught was also objected to; whereupon the agents were informed that they 'must not consider themselves as plenipotentiaries from a foreign state, and that if they were unwilling to submit to the pleasure of the king, his majesty would settle the country without them, and they might take what would follow.' {2113} Nothing remained, therefore, but to decide whether they would submit, or continue without a charter, and at the mercy of the king." The two colleagues who had been associated with Mather opposed submission, but the latter yielded, and the charter was signed. "By the terms of this new charter the territories of Massachusetts, Plymouth, and Maine, with a tract farther east, were united into one jurisdiction, whose officers were to consist of a governor, a deputy governor, and a secretary, appointed by the king, and 28 councillors, chosen by the people. A General Court was to be holden annually, on the last Wednesday in May, and at such other times as the governor saw fit; and each town was authorized to choose two deputies to represent them in this court. The choice of these deputies was conceded to all freeholders having an estate of the value of forty pounds sterling, or land yielding an income of at least forty shillings per annum; and every deputy was to take the oath of allegiance prescribed by the crown. All residents of the province and their children were entitled to the liberties of natural born subjects; and liberty of conscience was secured to all but Papists. … To the governor was given a negative upon all laws enacted by the General Court; without his consent in writing none were valid; and all receiving his sanction were to be transmitted to the king for approval, and if rejected at any time within three years were to be of no effect. The governor was empowered to establish courts, levy taxes, convene the militia, carry on war, exercise martial law, with the consent of the council, and erect and furnish an requisite forts. … Such was the province charter of 1692—a far different instrument from the colonial charter of 1629. It effected a thorough revolution in the country. The form of government, the powers of the people, and the entire foundation and objects of the body politic, were placed upon a new basis; and the dependence of the colonies upon the crown was secured. … It was on Saturday, the 14th of May, 1692, that Sir William Phips arrived at Boston as the first governor of the new province."

      ALSO IN:
      W. H. Whitmore,
      The Inter-Charter Period
      (Memorial History of Boston, volume 2).

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1689-1697.
   King William's War.
   Temporary conquest of Acadia.
   Disastrous expedition against Quebec.
   Threatened attack by the French.

"The people of Massachusetts in the 17th century, like all other Christian people at that time,—at least, with extremely rare individual exceptions,—believed in the reality of a hideous crime called 'witchcraft.' … In a few instances witches were believed to have appeared in the earlier years of New England. But the cases had been sporadic. … With three or four exceptions … no person appears to have been punished for witchcraft in Massachusetts, nor convicted of it, for more than sixty years after the settlement, though there had been three or four trials of other persons suspected of the crime. At the time when the question respecting the colonial charter was rapidly approaching an issue, and the public mind was in feverish agitation, the ministers sent out a paper of proposals for collecting facts concerning witchcrafts and other 'strange apparitions.' This brought out a work from President [Increase] Mather entitled 'Illustrious Providences,' in which that influential person related numerous stories of the performances of persons leagued with the Devil. The imagination of his restless young son [Cotton Mather] was stimulated, and circumstances fed the flame." A poor Irish washerwoman, in Boston, accused by some malicious children named Goodwin, who played antics which were supposed to signify that they had been bewitched, was tried, convicted and sent to the gallows (1688) as a witch. "Cotton Mather took the oldest 'afflicted' girl to his house, where she dexterously played upon his self-conceit to stimulate his credulity. She satisfied him that Satan regarded him as his most terrible enemy, and avoided him with especial awe. … Mather's account of these transactions ['Late Memorable Providences relating to Witchcrafts and Possessions'], with a collection of other appropriate matter, was circulated not only in Massachusetts, but widely also in England, where it obtained the warm commendation of Richard Baxter; and it may be supposed to have had an important effect in producing the more disastrous delusion which followed three years after. … Mr. Samuel Parris was minister of a church in a part of Salem which was then called 'Salem Village,' and which now as a separate town bears the name of Danvers. He was a man of talents, and of repute for professional endowments, but avaricious, wrong-headed, and ill-tempered. Among his parishioners, at the time of his installation and afterwards, there had been angry disputes about the election of a minister, which had never been composed. Neighbors and relations were embittered against each other. Elizabeth Parris, the minister's daughter, was now nine years old. A niece of his, eleven years old, lived in his family. His neighbor, Thomas Putnam, the parish clerk, had a daughter named Ann, twelve years of age. These children, with a few other young women, of whom two were as old as twenty years or thereabouts, had become possessed with a wild curiosity about the sorceries of which they had been hearing and reading, and used to hold meetings for study, if it may be so called, and practice. They learned to go through motions similar to those which had lately made the Goodwin children so famous. They forced their limbs into grotesque postures, uttered unnatural outcries, were seized with cramps and spasms, became incapable of speech and of motion. By and by [March, 1692], they interrupted public worship. … The families were distressed. The neighbors were alarmed. The physicians were perplexed and baffled, and at length declared that nothing short of witchery was the trouble. The kinsfolk of the 'afflicted children' assembled for fasting and prayer. Then the neighboring ministers were sent for, and held at Mr. Parris's house a prayer-meeting which lasted through the day. The children performed in their presence, and the result was a confirmation by the ministers of the opinion of the doctors. Of course, the next inquiry was by whom the manifest witchcraft was exercised. {2114} It was presumed that the unhappy girls could give the answer. For a time they refused to do so. But at length, yielding to an importunity which it had become difficult to escape unless by an avowal of their fraud, they pronounced the names of Good, Osborn, and Tituba. Tituba—half Indian, half negro—was a servant of Mr. Parris, brought by him from Barbadoes, where he had formerly been a merchant. Sarah Good was an old woman, miserably poor. Sarah Osborn had been prosperous in early life. She had been married twice, and her second husband was still living, but separated from her. Her reputation was not good, and for some time she had been bedridden, and in a disturbed nervous state. … Tituba, whether in collusion with her young mistress, or, as was afterwards said, in consequence of having been scourged by Mr. Parris, confessed herself to be a witch, and charged Good and Osborn with being her accomplices. The evidence was then thought sufficient, and the three were committed to gaol for trial. Martha Corey and Rebecca Nourse were next cried out against. Both were church-members of excellent character, the latter, seventy years of age. They were examined by the same Magistrates, and sent to prison, and with them a child of Sarah Good, only four or five years old, also charged with diabolical practices."

"Now a new feature of this thing showed itself. The wife of Thomas Putnam joined the children, and 'makes most terrible shrieks' against Goody Nurse—that she was bewitching her, too. On the 3d of April, Minister Parris preached long and strong from the Text, 'Have I not chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?' in which he bore down so hard upon the Witches accused that Sarah Cloyse, the sister of Nurse, would not sit still, but 'went out of meeting'; always a wicked thing to do, as they thought, but now a heinous one. At once the children cried out against her, and she was clapt into prison with the rest. Through the months of April and May, Justices Hawthorne and Curwin (or Corwin), with Marshal George Herrick, were busy getting the Witches into jail, and the good people were startled, astounded, and terror-struck, at the numbers who were seized. … Bridget Bishop, only, was then brought to trial, for the new Charter and new Governor (Phips), were expected daily. She was old, and had been accused of witchcraft twenty years before. … So, as there was no doubt about her, she was quickly condemned, and hung on the 10th day of this pleasant June, in the presence of a crowd of sad and frightened people. … The new Governor, Phips, one of Mather's Church, fell in with the prevailing fear, and a new bench of special Judges, composed of Lieutenant-Governor Stoughton, Major Saltonstall, Major Richards, Major Gidney, Mr. Wait Winthrop, Captain Sewall, and Mr. Sargent, were sworn in, and went to work. On the 30th of June, Sarah Good, Rebeka Nurse, Susannah Martin, Elizabeth How, and Sarah Wilder, were brought to trial; all were found guilty, and sentenced to death, except Nurse, who, being a Church member, was acquitted by the jury. At this, the 'afflicted' children fell into fits, and others made great outcries; and the popular dissatisfaction was so great, that the Court sent them back to the jury room, and they returned shortly, with a verdict of Guilty! The Rev. Mr. Noyes, of Salem, then excommunicated Nurse, delivered her to Satan, and they all were led out to die. Minister Noyes told Susannah Martin that she was a witch, and knew it, and she had better confess it; but she refused, and told him that 'he lied,' and that he knew it; and, 'that if he took away her life, God would give him blood to drink;' which curse is now traditionally believed, and that he was choked with blood. They were hanged, protesting their innocence; and there was none to pity them. On the 5th of August, a new batch was haled before the Court. Reverend George Burroughs, John Proctor and his wife, John Willard, George Jacobs, and Martha Carrier. Burroughs was disliked by some of the Clergy, for he was tinctured with Roger Williams's Heresies of Religious Freedom; and he was particularly obnoxious to Mather, for he had spoken slightingly of witchcraft, and had even said there was no such thing as a witch. Willard had been a constable employed in seizing witches, but, becoming sick of the business, had refused to do it any more. The children at once cried out, that he, too, was a witch; he fled for his life, but was caught at Nashua, and brought back. Old Jacobs was accused by his own grand-daughter; and Carrier was convicted upon the testimony of her own children. They were all quickly convicted and sentenced. … All but Mrs. Proctor saw the last of earth on the 19th of August. They were hanged on Gallows Hill. Minister Burroughs made so moving a prayer, closing with the Lord's Prayer, which it was thought no witch could say, that there was fear lest the crowd should hinder the hanging. As soon as he was turned off, Mr. Mather, sitting on his horse, addressed the people, to prove to them that Burroughs was really no Minister, and to show how he must be guilty, notwithstanding his prayer, for the devil could change himself into an angel of light. … Giles Cory, an old man of 80, saw that the accused were prejudged, and refused to plead to the charge against him. What could be done with him? It was found that for this, by some sort of old law, he might be pressed to death. So on the 16th of September, just as the autumn tints were beginning to glorify the earth, he was laid on the ground, bound hand and foot, and stones were piled upon him, till the tongue was pressed out of his mouth; 'the Sheriff with his cane forced it in again when he was dying.' Such cruel things did fear—fear of the Devil—lead these people to do. He was the first and last who died in New England in this way. On the 22d of September, eight of the sentenced were carted up Gallows Hill and done to death. Amid a great concourse of men, women, and children, from the neighboring villages, and from Boston, the victims went crying and singing, dragged through the lines of terror-stricken or pitying people. Some would have rescued them, but they had no leaders, and knew not how to act; so that tragedy was consummated; and the Reverend Mr. Noyes, pointing at them, said, 'What a sad thing it is to see eight fire-brands of hell hanging there!' Sad indeed! {2115} Nineteen had now been hung. One pressed to death. Eight were condemned. A hundred and fifty were in prison; and two hundred more were accused by the 'afflicted.' Some fifty had acknowledged themselves witches, of whom not one was executed. … It was now October, and this mischief seemed to be spreading like fire among the dry grass of the Prairies; and a better quality of persons was beginning to be accused by the bewitched. … But these accusations made people consider, and many began to think that they had been going on too fast. 'The juries changed sooner than the judges, and they sooner than the Clergy.' 'At last,' says one of them, 'it was evidently seen that there must be a stop put, or the generation of the church of God would fall under that condemnation.' In other words, the better class of church members were in danger! At the January session, only three were convicted, and they were reprieved; whereat Chief Justice Stoughton rose in anger, and said, 'The Lord be merciful to this country!' In the spring, Governor Phips, being about to leave the country, pardoned all who were condemned, and the jails were delivered. The excitement subsided as rapidly as it had arisen, but the evil work was done."

      ALSO IN:
      S. P. Fowler, editor,
      Salem Witchcraft (including Calef's
      "More Wonders of the Invisible World," etc.).

      C. S. Osgood and H. M. Batchelder,
      Historical Sketch of Salem,
      chapter 2.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1692-1693.
The Salem Witchcraft madness: its ending, and the reaction.

"On the second Wednesday in October, 1692, about a fortnight after the last hanging of eight at Salem, the representatives of the colony assembled; and the people of Andover, their minister joining with them, appeared with their remonstrance against the doings of the witch tribunals. Of the discussions that ensued no record is preserved; we know only the issue. The general court ordered by bill a convocation of ministers, that the people might be led in the right way as to the witchcraft. … They abrogated the special court, established a tribunal by statute, and delayed its opening till January of the following year. This interval gave the public mind security and freedom; and though Phips still conferred the place of chief judge on Stoughton, yet jurors acted independently. When, in January, 1693, the court met at Salem, six women of Andover, renouncing their confessions, treated the witchcraft but as something so called, the bewildered but as 'seemingly afflicted.' A memorial of like tenor came from the inhabitants of Andover. Of the presentments, the grand jury dismissed more than half; and of the twenty-six against whom bills were found through the testimony on which others had been condemned, verdicts of acquittal followed. … The people of Salem village drove Parris from the place; Noyes regained favor only by a full confession and consecrating the remainder of his life to deeds of mercy. Sewall, one of the judges, by rising in his pew in the Old South meeting-house on a fast-day and reading to the whole congregation a paper in which he bewailed his great offence, recovered public esteem. Stoughton never repented. The diary of Cotton Mather proves that he, who had sought the foundation of faith in tales of wonders, himself 'had temptations to atheism, and to the abandonment of all religion as a mere delusion.'"

G. Bancroft, History of the United States (Author's last revision), part 3, chapter 3 (volume 2).

"It was long before the public mind recovered from its paralysis. No one knew what ought to be said or done, the tragedy had been so awful. The parties who had acted in it were so numerous, and of such standing, including almost all the most eminent and honored leaders of the community from the bench, the bar, the magistracy, the pulpit, the medical faculty, and in fact all classes and descriptions of persons; the mysteries connected with the accusers and confessors; the universal prevalence of the legal, theological, and philosophical theories that had led to the proceedings; the utter impossibility of realizing or measuring the extent of the calamity; and the general shame and horror associated with the subject in all minds; prevented any open movement. … Dr. Bentley describes the condition of the community in some brief and pregnant sentences … : 'As soon as the judges ceased to condemn, the people ceased to accuse. … Terror at the violence and guilt of the proceedings succeeded instantly to the conviction of blind zeal; and what every man had encouraged all professed to abhor. Few dared to blame other men, because few were innocent. The guilt and the shame became the portion of the country, while Salem had the infamy of being the place of the transactions.'"

"The probability seems to be that those who began in harmless deceit found themselves at length involved so deeply, that dread of shame and punishment drove them to an extremity where their only choice was between sacrificing themselves, or others to save themselves. It is not unlikely that some of the younger girls were so far carried along by imitation or imaginative sympathy as in some degree to 'credit their own lie.' … Parish and boundary feuds had set enmity between neighbors, and the girls, called on to say who troubled them, cried out upon those whom they had been wont to hear called by hard names at home. They probably had no notion what a frightful ending their comedy was to have; but at any rate they were powerless, for the reins had passed out of their hands into the sterner grasp of minister and magistrate. … In one respect, to which Mr. Upham first gives the importance it deserves, the Salem trials were distinguished from all others. Though some of the accused had been terrified into confession, yet not one persevered in it, but all died protesting their innocence, and with unshaken constancy, though an acknowledgment of guilt would have saved the lives of all. This martyr proof of the efficacy of Puritanism in the character and conscience may be allowed to outweigh a great many sneers at Puritan fanaticism."

      ALSO IN:
      G. M. Beard,
      Psychology of the Salem Witchcraft Excitement.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1744-1748.
King George's War.
The taking of Louisbourg and its restoration to France.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1754.
The Colonial Congress at Albany and Franklin's plan of Union.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1755-1760.
The French and Indian War, and conquest of Canada.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1750-1753, to 1760;
      NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1749-1755, 1755;
      OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754, 1754, 1755;
      CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1758-1760.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1761.
Harsh enforcement of revenue laws.
The Writs of Assistance and Otis's speech.

"It was in 1761, immediately after the overthrow of the French in Canada, that attempts were made to enforce the revenue laws more strictly than heretofore; and trouble was at once threatened. Charles Paxton, the principal officer of the custom-house in Boston, applied to the Superior Court to grant him the authority to use 'writs of assistance' in searching for smuggled goods. A writ of assistance was a general search-warrant, empowering the officer armed with it to enter, by force if necessary, any dwelling-house or warehouse where contraband goods were supposed to be stored or hidden. A special search-warrant was one in which the name of the suspected person, and the house which it was proposed to search, were accurately specified, and the goods which it was intended to seize were as far as possible described. In the use of such special warrants there was not much danger of gross injustice or oppression. … But the general search-warrant, or 'writ of assistance,' as it was called because men try to cover up the ugliness of hateful things by giving them innocent names, was quite a different affair. It was a blank form upon which the custom-house officer might fill in the names of persons and descriptions of houses and goods to suit himself. … The writ of assistance was therefore an abominable instrument of tyranny. Such writs had been allowed by a statute of the evil reign of Charles II.; a statute of William III. had clothed custom-house officers in the colonies with like powers to those which they possessed in England; and neither of these statutes had been repealed. There can therefore be little doubt that the issue of such search-warrants was strictly legal, unless the authority of Parliament to make laws for the colonies was to be denied. James Otis then held the crown office of advocate-general, with an ample salary and prospects of high favour from government. When the revenue officers called upon him, in view of his position, to defend their cause, he resigned his office and at once undertook to act as counsel for the merchants of Boston in their protest against the issue of the writs. A large fee was offered him, but he refused it. 'In such a cause,' said he, 'I despise all fees.' The case was tried in the council-chamber at the east end of the old town-hall, or what is now known as the 'Old State-House,' in Boston. Chief-justice Hutchinson presided, and Jeremiah Gridley, one of the greatest lawyers of that day, argued the case for the writs in a very powerful speech. The reply of Otis, which took five hours in the delivery, was one of the greatest speeches of modern times. It went beyond the particular legal question at issue, and took up the whole question of the constitutional relations between the colonies and the mother-country. At the bottom of this, as of all the disputes that led to the Revolution, lay the ultimate question whether Americans were bound to yield obedience to laws which they had no share in making. This question, and the spirit that answered it flatly and doggedly in the negative, were heard like an undertone pervading all the arguments in Otis's wonderful speech, and it was because of this that the young lawyer John Adams, who was present, afterward declared that on that day 'the child Independence was born.' Chief-justice Hutchinson … reserved his decision until advice could be had from the law-officers of the crown in London; and when next term he was instructed by them to grant the writs, this result added fresh impetus to the spirit that Otis's eloquence had aroused. The custom-house officers, armed with their writs, began breaking into warehouses and seizing goods which were said to have been smuggled. In this rough way they confiscated private property to the value of many thousands of pounds; but sometimes the owners of warehouses armed themselves and barricaded their doors and windows, and thus the officers were often successfully defied, for the sheriff was far from prompt in coming to aid them."

      F. Bowen,
      Life of James Otis
      (Library of American Biographies,
      series 2, volume 2), chapter 2-3.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1761-1766.
   The question of taxation by Parliament.
   The Sugar Act.
   The Stamp Act and its repeal.
   The Declaratory Act.
   The Stamp Act Congress.
   Non-importation agreements.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1768-1770.
   The quartering of troops in Boston.
   The "Massacre."
   Removal of the troops.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1769.
The Boston patriots threatened.
Virginia roused to their support.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1770-1773.
   Repeal of the Townshend duties except on Tea.
   Committees of Correspondence instituted.
   The coming of the Tea Ships.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1774.
   The Boston Port Bill and the Massachusetts Act.
   Free government destroyed and commerce interdicted.
   The First Continental Congress.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1774.
   Organization of an independent Provisional Government.
   The Committee of Safety.
   Minute-men.

Under the Provincial Congress and the energetic Committee of Safety (which consisted at the beginning of Hancock, Warren and Church, of Boston, Richard Devens of Charlestown, Benj. White of Brookline, Joseph Palmer of Braintree, Abraham Watson of Cambridge, Azor Orne of Marblehead, and Norton Quincy, who declined) a complete and effective administration of government, entirely independent of royal authority, was brought into operation. Subsequently, John Pigeon of Newton, William Heath of Roxbury, and Jabez Fisher of Wrentham, were added to the committee.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1775.
   The beginning of the War of the American Revolution.
   Lexington.
   Concord.
   The country in arms and Boston under siege.
   Ticonderoga.
   Bunker Hill
   The Second Continental Congress.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1775-1776.
Washington in command at Cambridge.
British evacuation of Boston.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1776 (April-May).
Independence assumed and urged upon the General Congress.

"Massachusetts had for nearly a year acted independently of the officers of the crown. … The General Court, at their session in April [1776], passed a resolve to alter the style of writs and other legal processes—substituting 'the people and government of Massachusetts' for George III.; and, in dating official papers, the particular year of the king was omitted, and only the year of our Lord was mentioned. Early in May, likewise, an order was passed and published, by which the people of the several towns in the province were advised to give instructions to their respective representatives, to be chosen for the following political year, on the subject of independence. It is not contended that this was the first instance in which such a proposition was publicly made; for North Carolina had, two weeks before, authorized her delegates to join with the other colonies in declaring independence; and Rhode Island and Connecticut had indicated their inclination by dispensing with the oath of allegiance to the king, though a month elapsed before the Connecticut Assembly instructed their delegates to vote for independence. The returns from the towns of Massachusetts were highly encouraging, and in nearly every instance the instructions to their representatives were favorable to an explicit declaration of independence."

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1776 (July).
The Declaration of Independence by the Continental Congress.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1776-1777.
   The struggle for New York and the Hudson.
   The campaigns in New Jersey and on the Delaware.
   Burgoyne's invasion and surrender.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1777-1783.
   The Articles of Confederation.
   Alliance with France.
   Treason of Arnold.
   The war in the south.
   Surrender of Cornwallis.
   Peace.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1785. Western territorial claims and their cession to the United States.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1786.
Settlement of land claims with New York.
The cession of western New York.

"The Shays Rebellion, which takes its name from the leader of the insurgents, Daniel Shays, lately a captain in the Continental army, had its taproot in the growing spirit of lawlessness. But special causes of discontent were traceable to an unequal distribution of wealth and excessive land taxation in Massachusetts, the sole seat of the outbreak. Governor Bowdoin and his party strove vigorously to reduce the State debt and keep up the public credit at a period of great public depression. But this strained severely the farmers and citizens of moderate means in the inland towns. Private creditors pressed their debtors, while the State pressed all. Attachments were put upon the poor man's cattle and teams, and his little homestead was sacrificed under the sheriff's hammer. It was no sign of prosperity that the dockets of the county courts were crowded, and that lawyers and court officers put in the sickle. There was common complaint of the high salaries of public officials and the wasteful cost attending litigation. One might suppose that a legislature annually chosen would soon remedy this state of things. But the inhabitants of the western counties took the short cut of resisting civil process and openly defying the laws. And herein their error lay. Shays rallied so large a force of malcontents about Worcester in the fall of 1786 that the sheriff and his deputies were powerless against them, and no court could be held. … This first success of the Massachusetts insurgents alarmed the friends of order throughout the Union. … Congress, by this time an adept in stealthy and diplomatic methods, offered secret aid to the authorities of Massachusetts upon the pretext of dispatching troops against the Indians. But the tender was not accepted; for in James Bowdoin the State had an executive equal to the emergency. Availing himself of a temporary loan from patriotic citizens, he raised and equipped a militia force, large enough to overawe the rebels, which, under General Lincoln's command, was promptly marched against them. Shays appears to have had more of the demagogue than warrior about him, and his followers fled as the troops advanced [being finally surprised and routed at Petersham, February 4, 1787]. By midwinter civil order was restored; but the legislature made some concessions not less just than prudent. The vanquished rebels were treated with marked clemency. But Governor Bowdoin's energy lost him a re-election the following spring, and one of the manliest pioneers of Continental reform was remitted to private life for the rest of his days. To him succeeded the veteran Hancock, whose light shone through a horn-lantern of vanity and love of popular applause."

      ALSO IN:
      J. B. McMaster,
      History of the People of the United States,
      volume 1, chapter 3.

      J. G. Holland,
      History of West Massachusetts,
      volume 1, chapters 16-18.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1812-1814.
Opposition of Federalists to the war with England.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1861 (April).
Prompt response to President Lincoln's call for troops.
Attack on the Sixth Regiment in Baltimore.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1861 (April-May).
The Eighth Regiment making its way to Washington.
Butler and Baltimore.

MASSALIOTS.

   See FRANCE:
   A. D. 1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL);
   1798-1799 (AUGUST-APRIL);
   1799 (APRIL-SEPTEMBER) and (AUGUST-DECEMBER);
   1800-1801 (MAY-FEBRUARY);
   1805 (MARCH-DECEMBER);
   1805-1806 (DECEMBER-SEPTEMBER);
   and SPAIN: A. D. 1810-1812.

MASSILIA.

MASSORETES.

MATELOTAGE.

An ancient Roman festival, celebrated on the Calends of March, in memory of the intervention of the Sabine matrons, to make peace between their Sabine kinsmen and their Roman husbands.

The Mattiaci were an ancient German tribe friendly to Rome.
They inhabited a region in Nassau, about Wiesbaden.

MAURETANIA. MAURETANIANS. MOORS.

Maurice, Prince of Orange and Count of Nassau,
Stadtholder of the United Provinces (Netherlands), 1587-1625.

MAURITANIANS.

MAURITIUS RIVER.

MAUSOLEUM AT HALICARNASSUS.

MAUSOLEUM OF HADRIAN.

MAVROVALLACHIA.

MAXIMA CÆSARIENSIS.

   Maximilian I., Archduke of Austria, King of the Romans,
   A. D. 1486-1493;
   Germanic Emperor, 1493-1519.

Maximilian II., Archduke of Austria, King of Hungary
and Bohemia, and Germanic Emperor, 1564-1576.

MAYENCE.

The castle of Maynooth, held by the Irish in the rebellion of 1535, was besieged by the English, stormed and taken, March 23 of that year, and twenty-six of its defenders hanged. The rebellion soon collapsed.

MAYOR OF THE PALACE.

"The Mayor of the Palace is met with in all the Frankish kingdoms. … The mayors were at first merely the first superintendents, the first administrators of the interior of the palace of the king; the chiefs whom he put at the head of his companions, of his leudes, still united around him. It was their duty to maintain order among the king's men, to administer justice, to look to all the affairs, to all the wants, of that great domestic society. They were the men of the king with the leudes; this was their first character, their first state. Now for the second. After having exercised the power of the king over his leudes, his mayors of the palace usurped it to their own profit. The leudes, by grants of public charges and fiefs, were not long before they became great proprietors. This new situation was superior to that of companions of the king; they detached themselves from him, and united in order to defend their common interests. According as their fortune dictated, the mayors of the palace sometimes resisted them, more often united with them, and, at first servants of the king, they at last became the chiefs of an aristocracy, against whom royalty could do nothing. These are the two principal phases of this institution: it gained more extension and fixedness in Austrasia, in the family of the Pepins, who possessed it almost a century and a half, than anywhere else."

MAZACA.

"Mazaca [the capital city of ancient Cappadocia] was situated at the base of the great volcanic mountain Argaeus (Argish), about 13,000 feet high. … The Roman emperor Tiberius changed the name of Mazaca to Caesareia, and it is now Kaisariyeh on the Kara Su, a small stream which flows into the Halys (Kizil Ermak)."

MAZES.

MAZOR.

MEADE, General George G.:
Command of the Army of the Potomac.
Battle of Gettysburg, and after.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (JUNE-JULY: PENNSYLVANIA);
      and (JULY-NOVEMBER: VIRGINIA).

The city of Meaux, on the Marne, in France, was vigorously besieged for seven months by Henry V. of England, but surrendered on the 10th of May, 1422.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (MAY: VIRGINIA) THE PENINSULAR CAMPAIGN; and (JUNE-JULY: VIRGINIA).

MEDAIN.

Medain, "the twin city," combined in one, under this Arabic name, the two contiguous Persian capitals, Seleucia and Ctesiphon. The name Medain signifies "cities," and "it is said to have comprised a cluster of seven towns, but it is ordinarily taken to designate the twin cities of Seleucia and Ctesiphon."

MEDIA AND THE MEDES.

The country of the Medes, in its original extent, coincided very nearly with the northwestern part of modern Persia, between Farsistan and the Elburz mountains. "The boundaries of Media are given somewhat differently by different writers, and no doubt they actually varied at different periods; but the variations were not great, and the natural limits, on three sides at any rate, may be laid down with tolerable precision. Towards the north the boundary was at first the mountain chain closing in on that side the Urumiyeh basin, after which it seems to have been held that the true limit was the Araxes, to its entrance on the low country, and then the mountain chain west and south of the Caspian. Westward, the line of demarcation may be best regarded as, towards the south, running along the centre of the Zagros region; and, above this, as formed by that continuation of the Zagros chain which separates the Urumiyeh from the Van basin. Eastward, the boundary was marked by the spur from the Elburz, across which lay the pass known as the Pylæ Caspiæ, and below this by the great salt desert, whose western limit is nearly in the same longitude. Towards the south there was no marked line or natural boundary. … We may place the southern limit with much probability about the line of the thirty-second parallel, which is nearly the present boundary between Irak and Fars."

"The nation of the Medes belongs to the group of the Arian tribes, which occupied the table-land of Iran. This has been already proved by the statement of Herodotus that in ancient times the Medians were called Areans by all men, by the religion of the Medes, and by all the Median words and names that have come down to us. According to Herodotus the nation consisted of six tribes: the Arizanti, Busae, Struchates, Budii, Paraetaceni, and Magi. … The Magians we have already found to be a hereditary order of Priests."

The Medes, who seem to have been long without any centralizing authority among them, became, at last, united under a monarchy which grew in power, until, in the later part of the seventh century B. C., it combined with Babylonia against the decaying Assyrian kingdom. Nineveh was destroyed by the confederates, and the dominions of Assyria were divided between them. The Median empire which then rose, by the side of the Babylonian, endured little more than half a century. It was the first of the conquests of Cyrus (see PERSIA: B. C. 549-521), or Kyros, the founder of the Persian empire (B. C. 549).

      ALSO IN:
      F. Lenormant and E. Chevallier,
      Manual of the Ancient History of the East,
      book 5, chapters 1-4.

MEDIA ATROPATENE.

Renouard, in his "History of Medicine," arranges the chronology of the development of medical knowledge in three grand divisions or Ages, subdivided into eight periods. "The First Age commences with the infancy of society, as far back as historic tradition carries us, and terminates toward the end of the second century of the Christian era, at the death of Galen, during the reign of Septimus Severus. This lapse of time constitutes, in Medicine, the Foundation Age. The germ of the Healing Art, concealed, at first, in the instincts of men, is gradually developed; the basis of the science is laid, and great principles are discussed. … The Second Age, which may be called the Age of Transition, offers very little material to the history of Medicine. We see no longer the conflicts and discussions between partisans of different doctrines; the medical sects are confounded. The art remains stationary, or imperceptibly retrogrades. I can not better depict this epoch than by comparing it to the life of an insect in the nympha state; though no exterior change appears, an admirable metamorphosis is going on, imperceptibly, within. The eye of man only perceives the wonder after it has been finished. Thus from the 15th century, which is the beginning of the third and last Age of Medicine, or the Age of Renovation, Europe offers us a spectacle of which the most glorious eras of the republics of Greece and Rome only can give us an idea. It would seem as if a new life was infused into the veins of the inhabitants of this part of the world; the sciences, fine arts, industry, religion, social institutions, all are changed. A multitude of schools are open for teaching Medicine. Establishments which had no models among the ancients, are created for the purpose of extending to the poorer classes the benefits of the Healing Art. The ingenious activity of modern Christians explores and is sufficient for everything. These three grand chronological divisions do not suffice to classify, in our minds, the principal phases of the history of Medicine; consequently, I have subdivided each age into a smaller number of sections, easy to be retained, and which I have named Periods. The first Age embraces four periods, the second and third ages, each, two. … The first period, which we name Primitive Period, or that of instinct, ends with the ruin of Troy, about twelve centuries before the Christian era. The second, called the Mystic or Sacred Period, extends from the dissolution of the 'Pythagorean Society' to about the year 500 A. C. The third period, which ends at the foundation of the Alexandrian Library, A. C., 320, we name the Philosophic Period. The fourth, which we designate the Anatomic, extends to the end of the first age, i. e., to the year 200 of the Christian era. The fifth is called the Greek Period; it ends at the destruction of the Alexandrian Library, A. D. 640. The sixth receives the surname of Arabic, and closes with the 14th century. The seventh period, which begins the third age, comprises the 15th and 16th centuries; it is distinguished as the Erudite. Finally, the eighth, or last period, embraces the 17th and 18th centuries [beyond which the writer did not carry his history]. I call it the Reform Period."

"Medicine is practised among them [the Egyptians] on a plan of separation; each physician treats a single disorder, and no more: thus the country swarms with medical practitioners, some undertaking to cure diseases of the eye, others of the head, others again of the teeth, others of the intestines, and some those which are not local."

"Not only was the study of medicine of very early date in Egypt, but medical men there were in such repute that they were sent for at various times from other countries. Their knowledge of medicine is celebrated by Homer (Od. iv. 229), who describes Polydamna, the wife of Thonis, as giving medicinal plants 'to Helen, in Egypt, a country producing an infinite number of drugs … where each physician possesses knowledge above all other men.' 'O virgin daughter of Egypt,' says Jeremiah (lxvi. 11), 'in vain shalt thou use many medicines.' Cyrus and Darius both sent to Egypt for medical men (Her. iii. 1, 132): and Pliny (xix. 5) says post mortem examinations were made in order to discover the nature of maladies. Doctors received their salaries from the treasury; but they were obliged to conform in the treatment of a patient to the rules laid down in their books, his death being a capital crime, if he was found to have been treated in any other way. But deviations from, and approved additions to, the sacred prescriptions were occasionally made; and the prohibition was only to prevent the experiments of young practitioners, whom Pliny considers the only persons privileged to kill a man with impunity. Aristotle indeed says 'the Egyptian physicians were allowed after the third day to alter the treatment prescribed by authority, and even before, taking upon themselves the responsibility' (Polit. iii. 11). Experience gradually taught them many new remedies; and that they had adopted a method (of no very old standing in modern practice) of stopping teeth with gold is proved by some mummies found at Thebes. Besides the protection of society from the pretensions of quacks, the Egyptians provided that doctors should not demand fees on a foreign journey or on military service, when patients were treated free of expense (Diod. i. 82); and we may conclude that they were obliged to treat the poor gratis, on consideration of the allowance paid them as a body by government. … Poor and superstitious people sometimes had recourse to dreams, to wizards, to donations to sacred animals, and to exvotos to the gods. … Charms were also written for the credulous, some of which have been found on small pieces of papyrus, which were rolled up and worn as by the modern Egyptians. Accoucheurs were women; which we learn from Exodus i. 15, and from the sculptures, as in modern Egypt. … The Egyptian doctors were of the sacerdotal order, like the embalmers, who are called (in Genesis l. 2) 'Physicians,' and were' commanded by Joseph to embalm his father.' They were of the class called Pastophori, who, according to Clemens (Strom. lib. 6), being physicians, were expected to know about all things relating to the body, and diseases, and remedies, contained in the six last sacred books of Hermes. Manetho tells us that Athothes, the second king of Egypt, who was a physician, wrote the anatomical books; and his name, translated Hermogenes, may have been the origin of the tradition that ascribed them to Hermes, the Egyptian Thoth. Or the fable may mean that they were the result of intellect personified by Thoth, or Hermes."

"The ancient Egyptians, though medical science was zealously studied by them, also thought that the efficacy of the treatment was enhanced by magic formulæ. In the Ebers Papyrus, an important and very ancient manual of Egyptian medicine, the prescriptions for various medicaments are accompanied by the forms of exorcism to be used at the same time, and yet many portions of this work give evidence of the advanced knowledge of its authors."

"Works on medicine abounded in Egypt from the remotest times, and the great medical library of Memphis, which was of immemorial antiquity, was yet in existence in the second century before our era, when Galen visited the Valley of the Nile. … Ateta, third king of the First Dynasty, is the reputed author of a treatise on anatomy. He also covered himself with glory by the invention of an infallible hair-wash, which, like a dutiful son, he is said to have prepared especially for the benefit of his mother. No less than five medical papyri have come down to our time, the finest being the celebrated Ebers papyrus, bought at Thebes by Dr. Ebers in 1874. This papyrus contains one hundred and ten pages, each page consisting of about twenty-two lines of bold hieratic writing. It may be described as an Encyclopædia of Medicine as known and practised by the Egyptians of the Eighteenth Dynasty; and it contains prescriptions for all kinds of diseases—some borrowed from Syrian medical lore, and some of such great antiquity that they are ascribed to the mythologic ages, when the gods yet reigned personally upon earth. Among others, we are given the recipe for an application whereby Osiris cured Ra of the headache. The Egyptians attached great importance to these ancient medical works, which were regarded as final. The physician who faithfully followed their rules of treatment might kill or cure with impunity; but if he ventured to treat the patient according to his own notions, and if that patient died, he paid for the experiment with his life. Seeing, however, what the canonical remedies were, the marvel is that anybody ever recovered from anything. Raw meat; horrible mixtures of nitre, beer, milk, and blood, boiled up and swallowed hot; the bile of certain fishes; and the bones, fat, and skins of all kinds of unsavory creatures, such as vultures, bats, lizards and crocodiles, were among their choicest remedies."

   "In Egypt … man does not die, but some one or something
   assassinates him. The murderer often belongs to our world, and
   can be easily pointed out. … Often, though, it belongs to
   the invisible world, and only reveals itself by the malignity
   of its attacks: it is a god, a spirit, the soul of a dead man,
   that has cunningly entered a living person, or that throws
   itself upon him with irresistible violence. … Whoever treats
   a sick person has therefore two equally important duties to
   perform. He must first discover the nature of the spirit in
   possession, and, if necessary, its name, and then attack it,
   drive it out, or even destroy it. He can only succeed by
   powerful magic, so he must be an expert in reciting
   incantations, and skilful in making amulets. He must then use
   medicine to contend with the disorders which the presence of
   the strange being has produced in the body; this is done by a
   finely graduated régime and various remedies. The cure-workers
   are therefore divided into several categories.
{2122}
   Some incline towards sorcery, and have faith in formulas and
   talismen only; they think they have done enough if they have
   driven out the spirit. Others extol the use of drugs; they
   study the qualities of plants and minerals, describe the
   diseases to which each of the substances provided by nature is
   suitable, and settle the exact time when they must be procured
   and applied: certain herbs have no power unless they are
   gathered during the night at the full moon, others are
   efficacious in summer only, another acts equally well in
   winter or summer. The best doctors carefully avoid binding
   themselves exclusively to either method."

"The employment of numerous drugs in Egypt has been mentioned by sacred and profane writers; and the medicinal properties of many herbs which grow in the deserts, particularly between the Nile and Red Sea, are still known to the Arabs, though their application has been but imperfectly recorded and preserved. … Homer, in the Odyssey, describes the many valuable medicines given by Polydamna, the wife of Thonis, to Helen, while in Egypt, 'a country whose fertile soil produces an infinity of drugs, some salutary and some pernicious, where each physician possesses knowledge above all other men'; and Pliny makes frequent mention of the productions of that country, and their use in medicine. He also notices the physicians of Egypt; and as if their number was indicative of the many maladies to which the inhabitants were subject, he observes that it was a country productive of numerous diseases. In this, however, he does not agree with Herodotus, who affirms that, 'after the Libyans, there are no people so healthy as the Egyptians, which may be attributed to the invariable nature of the seasons in their country.' In Pliny's time the introduction of luxurious habits and excess had probably wrought a change in the people; and to the same cause may be attributed the numerous complaints among the Romans, 'unknown to their fathers and ancestors.' The same author tells us that the Egyptians examined the bodies after death, to ascertain the nature of the diseases of which they had died; and we can readily believe that a people so far advanced in civilization and the principles of medicine as to assign each physician his peculiar branch, would have resorted to this effectual method of acquiring knowledge and experience for the benefit of the community. It is evident that the medical skill of the Egyptians was well known even in foreign and distant countries; and we learn from Herodotus, that Cyrus and Darius both sent to Egypt for medical men. … The Egyptians, according to Pliny, claimed the honour of having invented the art of curing diseases."

Sir J. G. Wilkinson, Manners and Customs of the Ancient Egyptians, chapter 10 (volume 2).

"The Ptolemies, down to the very termination of their dominion over Egypt, appear to have encouraged the curative art, and for the purpose of restoring declining health, surrounded themselves with the most illustrious physicians of the age. … The science of medicine of the period was fully represented at the Museum by distinguished professors, who, according to Athenæus, restored the knowledge of this art to the towns and islands of the Grecian Archipelago. … About the period of the absorption of the Egyptian kingdom into the expanding dominion of the Romans, the schools of Alexandria still continued to be the centre of medical studies; and notwithstanding the apparent dissidence between the demands of a strict science and public affairs, its professors exhibited, equally with their brother philosophers, a taste for diplomacy. Dioscorides and Serapion, two physicians of Alexandria, were the envoys of the elder Ptolemy to Rome, and at a later date were bearers of dispatches from Cæsar to one of his officers in Egypt."

The Babylonians "have no physicians, but when a man is ill, they lay him in the public square, and the passers-by come up to him, and if they have ever had his disease themselves or have known anyone who has suffered from it, they give him advice, recommending him to do whatever they found good in their own case, or in the case known to them. And no one is allowed to pass the sick man in silence without asking him what his ailment is."

Herodotus, History, translated by G. Rawlinson, book 1, chapter 197 (volume 1).

"The incantations against diseases describe a great variety of cases. … But the most numerous are those which aim at the cure of the plague, fever, and 'disease of the head;' this latter, judging from the indications which are given of its symptoms and its effects, appears to have been a sort of erysipelas, or cutaneous disease. … These are the principal passages of a long incantation against 'the disease of the head:' the tablet on which we find it bears six other long formulæ against the same evil. 'The disease of the head exists on man. The disease of the head, the ulceration of the forehead exists on man. The disease of the head marks like a tiara, the disease of the head from sunrise to sunset. In the sea and the vast earth a very small tiara is become the tiara, the very large tiara, his tiara. The diseases of the head pierce like a bull, the diseases of the head shoot like the palpitation of the heart. … The diseases of the head, like doves to their dove-cotes, like grasshoppers into the sky, like birds into space may they fly away. May the invalid be replaced in the protecting hands of his god!' This specimen will give the reader an idea of the uniform composition of these incantations against diseases, which filled the second book of the work under consideration. They all follow the same plan throughout, beginning with the definition of the disease and its symptoms, which occupies the greater part of the formula; and ending with a desire for deliverance from it, and the order for it to depart. Sometimes, however, the incantation of the magician assumes a dramatic form at the end. … We must add … the use of certain enchanted drinks, which, doubtless, really contained medicinal drugs, as a cure for diseases, and also of magic knots, the efficacy of which was so firmly believed in, even up to the middle ages. Here is a remedy which one of the formulæ supposes to have been prescribed by Hea against a disease of the head: 'Knot on the right and arrange flat in regular bands, on the left a woman's diadem; divide it twice in seven little bands; … gird the head of the invalid with it; gird the forehead of the invalid with it; gird the seat of life with it; gird his hands and his feet: seat him on his bed; pour on him enchanted waters. Let the disease of his head be carried away into the heavens like a violent wind; … may the earth swallow it up like passing waters!' Still more powerful than the incantations were conjurations wrought by the power of numbers."

"The Finnish incantations for exorcising the demons of diseases were composed in exactly the same spirit, and founded upon the same data, as the Accadian incantations destined for the like purpose. They were formulæ belonging to the same family, and they often showed a remarkable similarity of language; the Egyptian incantations, on the contrary, having been composed by people with very different ideas about the supernatural world, assumed quite another form. This is an incantation from one of the songs of the Kalevala: 'O malady, disappear into the heavens; pain, rise up to the clouds; inflamed vapour, fly into the air, in order that the wind may take thee away, that the tempest may chase thee to distant regions, where neither sun nor moon give their light, where the warm wind does not inflame the flesh. O pain, mount upon the winged steed of stone, and fly to the mountains covered with iron. For he is too robust to be devoured by disease, to be consumed by pains. Go, O diseases, to where the virgin of pains has her hearth, where the daughter of Wäinämöinen cooks pains, go to the hill of pains. There are the white dogs, who formerly howled in torments, who groaned in their sufferings.'"

"There is reason to … conclude, from the imperfect opportunities of investigation we possess, that in medicine, as in astronomy and metaphysics, the Hindus once kept pace with the most enlightened nations of the world; and that they attained as thorough a proficiency in medicine and surgery as any people whose acquisitions are recorded, and as indeed was practicable, before anatomy was made known to us by the discoveries of modern enquirers. It might easily be supposed that their patient attention and natural shrewdness would render the Hindus excellent observers; whilst the extent and fertility of their native country would furnish them with many valuable drugs and medicaments. Their Nidana or Diagnosis, accordingly, appears to define and distinguish symptoms with great accuracy, and their Dravyabhidhana, or Materia Medica, is sufficiently voluminous. They have also paid great attention to regimen and diet, and have a number of works on the food and general treatment, suited to the complaint, or favourable to the operation of the medicine administered. This branch they entitle Pathyapathya. To these subjects are to be added the Chikitsa, or medical treatment of diseases—on which subject they have a variety of compositions, containing much absurdity, with much that is of value; and the Rasavidya, or Pharmacy, in which they are most deficient. All these works, however, are of little avail to the present generation, as they are very rarely studied, and still more rarely understood, by any of the practising empirics. The divisions of the science thus noticed, as existing in books, exclude two important branches, without which the whole system must be defective—Anatomy and Surgery. We can easily imagine, that these were not likely to have been much cultivated in Hindustan. … The Ayur Veda, as the medical writings of highest antiquity and authority are collectively called, is considered to be a portion of the fourth or Atharva Veda, and is consequently the work of Brahma—by him it was communicated to Daksha, the Prajapati, and by him the two Aswins, or sons of Surya, the Sun, were instructed in it, and they then became the medical attendants of the gods—a genealogy that cannot fail recalling to us the two sons of Esculapius, and their descent from Apollo. Now what were the duties of the Aswins, according to Hindu authorities?—the gods, enjoying eternal youth and health, stood in no need of physicians, and consequently they held no such sinecure station. The wars between the gods and demons, however, and the conflicts amongst the gods themselves, in which wounds might be suffered, although death might not be inflicted, required chirurgical aid—and it was this, accordingly, which the two Aswins rendered. … The meaning of these legendary absurdities is clear enough, and is conformable to the tenor of all history. Man, in the semi-barbarous state, if not more subject to external injuries than internal disease, was at least more likely to seek remedies for the former, which were obvious to his senses, than to imagine the means of relieving the latter, whose nature he could so little comprehend. Surgical, therefore, preceded medicinal skill; as Celsus has asserted, when commenting on Homer's account of Podalirius and Machaon, who were not consulted, he says, during the plague in the Grecian camp, although regularly employed to extract darts and heal wounds. … We may be satisfied that Surgery was once extensively cultivated, and highly esteemed by the Hindus. Its rational principles and scientific practice are, however, now, it may be admitted, wholly unknown to them. … It would be an enquiry of some interest to trace the period and causes of the disappearance of Surgery from amongst the Hindus: it is evidently of comparatively modern occurrence, as operative and instrumental practice forms so principal a part of those writings, which are undeniably most ancient; and which, being regarded as the composition of inspired writers, are held of the highest authority."

   "The number of medical works and authors is extraordinarily
   large. The former are either systems embracing the whole
   domain of the science, or highly special investigations of
   single topics, or, lastly, vast compilations prepared in modern
   times under the patronage of kings and princes. The sum of
   knowledge embodied in their contents appears really to be most
   respectable. Many of the statements on dietetics and on the
   origin and diagnosis of diseases bespeak a very keen
   observation. In surgery, too, the Indians seem to have
   attained a special proficiency, and in this department
   European surgeons might perhaps even at the present day still
   learn something from them, as indeed they have already
   borrowed from them the operation of rhinoplasty. The
   information, again, regarding the medicinal properties of
   minerals (especially precious stones and metals), of plants,
   and animal substances, and the chemical analysis and
   decomposition of these, covers certainly much that is
   valuable. Indeed, the branch of Materia Medica generally
   appears to be handled with great predilection, and this makes
   up to us in some measure at least for the absence of
   investigations in the field of natural science. On the
   diseases, &c., of horses and elephants also there exist very
   special monographs.
{2124}
   For the rest, during the last few centuries medical science
   has suffered great detriment from the increasing prevalence of
   the notion, in itself a very ancient one, that diseases are
   but the result of transgressions and sins committed, and from
   the consequent very general substitution of fastings, alms,
   and gifts to the Brahmans, for real remedies. … The
   influence … of Hindu medicine upon the Arabs in the first
   centuries of the Hijra was one of the very highest
   significance; and the Khalifs of Bagdad caused a considerable
   number of works upon the subject to be translated. Now, as
   Arabian medicine constituted the chief authority and guiding
   principle of European physicians down to the seventeenth
   century, it directly follows—just as in the case of
   astronomy—that the Indians must have been held in high esteem
   by these latter; and indeed Charaka is repeatedly mentioned in
   the Latin translations of Avicenna (Ibn Sina), Rhazes (Al
   Rasi), and Serapion (Ibn Serabi)."

"If we are to judge from the frequent mention of physicians (Exodus xv. 26; Isaiah iii. 7; Jeremiah viii. 22; Sirach x. 11, xxxviii. 1 ff.; Matthew ix. 12; Mark v. 26; Luke iv. 23, etc.), the Israelites must have given much attention to medicine from ancient times. The physicians must have understood how to heal wounds and external injuries with bandaging, mollifying with oil (Isaiah i. 6; Luke x. 34), balsam (Jeremiah xlvi. 11, li. 8), plasters (2 Kings xx. 7), and salves prepared from herbs (Sirach xxxviii. 8; Exodus xxi. 19; 2 Kings viii. 29; Ezekiel xxx. 21). The ordinances respecting leprosy also show that the lawgiver was well acquainted with the various kinds of skin eruptions (comp. section 114). And not only Moses, but other Israelites also may have acquired much practical knowledge of medicine in Egypt, where the healing art was cultivated from high antiquity. But as to how far the Israelitish physicians advanced in this art, we have not more exact information. From the few scattered hints in the Old and New Testaments, so much only is clear, that internal diseases were also treated (2 Chronicles xvi. 12; Luke viii. 43), and that the medicinal springs which Palestine possesses were much used by invalids. It by no means follows from the fact that the superintendence of lepers and the pronouncing of them clean are assigned by the law to the priests, that these occupied themselves chiefly with medicine. The task which the law laid on them has nothing to do with the healing of leprosy. Of the application of charms, there is not a single instance in Scripture."

The surgery of the Talmud includes a knowledge of dislocations of the thigh, contusions of the head, perforation of the lungs and other organs, injuries of the spinal cord and trachea, and fractures of the ribs. Polypus of the nose was considered to be a punishment for past sins. In sciatica the patient is advised to rub the hip sixty times with meat-broth. Bleeding was performed by mechanics or barbers. The pathology of the Talmud ascribes diseases to a constitutional vice, to evil influences acting on the body from without, or to the effect of magic. Jaundice is recognized as arising from retention of the bile, dropsy from suppression of the urine. The Talmudists divided dropsy into anasarca, ascites, and tympanites. Rupture and atrophy of the kidneys were held to be always fatal. Hydatids of the liver were more favourably considered. Suppuration of the spinal cord, induration of the lungs, etc., are incurable. Dr. Baas says that these are 'views which may have been based on the dissection of (dead) animals, and may be considered the germs of pathological anatomy.' Some critical symptoms are sweating, sneezing, defecation, and dreams, which promise a favourable termination of the disease. Natural remedies, both external and internal, were employed. Magic was also Talmudic. Dispensations were given by the Rabbis to permit sick persons to eat prohibited food. Onions were prescribed for worms; wine and pepper for stomach disorders; goat's milk for difficulty of breathing; emetics in nausea; a mixture of gum and alum for menorrhagia (not a bad prescription); a dog's liver was ordered for the bite of a mad dog. Many drugs, such a assafœtida, are evidently adopted from Greek medicine. The dissection of the bodies of animals provided the Talmudists with their anatomy. It is, however, recorded that Rabbi Ishmael, at the close of the first century, made a skeleton by boiling the body of a prostitute. We find that dissection in the interests of science was permitted by the Talmud. The Rabbis counted 252 bones in the human skeleton."

"It is well known that the oldest documents which we possess relative to the practice of Medicine, are the various treatises contained in the Collection which bears the name of Hippocrates. Their great excellence has been acknowledged in all ages, and it has always been a question which has naturally excited literary curiosity, by what steps the art had attained to such perfection at so early a period. … It is clearly established that, long before the birth of philosophy, medicine had been zealously and successfully cultivated by the Asclepiadæ, an order of priest-physicians that traced its origin to a mythical personage bearing the distinguished name of Æsculapius. Two of his sons, Podalirius and Machaon, figure in the Homeric poems, not however as priests, but as warriors possessed of surgical skill in the treatment of wounds, for which they are highly complimented by the poet. It was probably some generations after this time (if one may venture a conjecture on a matter partaking very much of the legendary character) that Æsculapius was deified, and that Temples of Health, called 'Asclepia,' presided over by the Asclepiadæ, were erected in various parts of Greece, as receptacles for the sick, to which invalids resorted in those days for the cure of diseases, under the same circumstances as they go to hospitals and spas at the present time. What remedial measures were adopted in these temples we have no means of ascertaining so fully as could be wished, but the following facts, collected from a variety of sources, may be pretty confidently relied upon for their accuracy. In the first place, then, it is well ascertained that a large proportion of these temples were built in the vicinity of thermæ, or medicinal springs, the virtues of which would no doubt contribute greatly to the cure of the sick. At his entrance into the temple, the devotee was subjected to purifications, and made to go through a regular course of bathing, accompanied with methodical frictions, resembling the oriental system now well known by the name of shampooing. {2125} Fomentations with decoctions of odoriferous herbs were also not forgotten. A total abstinence from food was at first prescribed, but afterwards the patient would no doubt be permitted to partake of the flesh of the animals which were brought to the temples as sacrifices. Every means that could be thought of was used for working upon the imagination of the sick, such as religious ceremonies of an imposing nature, accompanied by music, and whatever else could arouse their senses, conciliate their confidence, and, in certain cases, contribute to their amusement. … It is also well known that the Asclepiadæ noted down with great care the symptoms and issue of every case, and that, from such observations, they became in time great adepts in the art of prognosis. … The office of priesthood was hereditary in certain families, so that information thus acquired would be transmitted from father to son, and go on accumulating from one generation to another. Whether the Asclepiadæ availed themselves of the great opportunities which they must undoubtedly have had of cultivating human and comparative anatomy, has been much disputed in modern times. … It is worthy of remark, that Galen holds Hippocrates to have been a very successful cultivator of anatomy. … Of the 'Asclepia' we have mentioned above, it will naturally be supposed that some were in much higher repute than others, either from being possessed of peculiar advantages, or from the prevalence of fashion. In the beginning of the fifth century before the Christian era the temples of Rhodes, Cnidos, and Cos were held in especial favour, and on the extinction of the first of these, another rose up in Italy in its stead. But the temple of Cos was destined to throw the reputation of all the others into the background, by producing among the priests of Æsculapius the individual who, in all after ages, has been distinguished by the name of the Great Hippocrates. … That Hippocrates was lineally descended from Æsculapius was generally admitted by his countrymen, and a genealogical table, professing to give a list of the names of his forefathers, up to Æsculapius, has been transmitted to us from remote antiquity. … Of the circumstances connected with the life of Hippocrates little is known for certain. … Aulus Gellius, … in an elaborate disquisition on Greek and Roman chronology, states decidedly that Socrates was contemporary with Hippocrates, but younger than he. Now it is well ascertained that the death of Socrates took place about the year 400 A. C., and as he was then nearly seventy years old, his birth must be dated as happening about the year 470 A. C. … It will readily occur to the reader, then, that our author flourished at one of the most memorable epochs in the intellectual development of the human race. … From his forefathers he inherited a distinguished situation in one of the most eminent hospitals, or Temples of Health, then in existence, where he must have enjoyed free access to all the treasures of observations collected during many generations, and at the same time would have an opportunity of assisting his own father in the management of the sick. Thus from his youth he must have been familiar with the principles of medicine, both in the abstract and in the concrete. … Initiated in the theory and first principles of medicine, as now described, Hippocrates no doubt commenced the practice of his art in the Asclepion of Cos, as his forefathers had done before him. Why he afterwards left the place of his nativity, and visited distant regions of the earth, whither the duties of his profession and the calls of humanity invited him, cannot now be satisfactorily determined. … According to all the accounts which have come down to us of his life, he spent the latter part of it in Thessaly, and died at Larissa, when far advanced in years. … As a medical author the name of Hippocrates stands pre-eminently illustrious. … Looking upon the animal system as one whole, every part of which conspires and sympathises with all the other parts, he would appear to have regarded disease also as one, and to have referred all its modifications to peculiarities of situation. Whatever may now be thought of his general views on Pathology, all must admit that his mode of prosecuting the cultivation of medicine is in the true spirit of the Inductive Philosophy; all his descriptions of disease are evidently derived from patient observation of its phenomena, and all his rules of practice are clearly based on experience. Of the fallaciousness of experience by itself he was well aware, however. … Above all others Hippocrates was strictly the physician of experience and common sense. In short, the basis of his system was a rational experience, and not a blind empiricism, so that the Empirics in after ages had no good grounds for claiming him as belonging to their sect. What he appears to have studied with particular attention is the natural history of diseases, that is to say, their tendencies to a favorable or fatal issue. … One of the most distinguishing characteristics, then, of the Hippocratic system of medicine, is the importance attached in it to prognosis, under which was comprehended a complete acquaintance with the previous and present condition of the patient and the tendency of the disease. … In the practice of surgery he was a bold operator. He fearlessly, and as we would now think, in some cases unnecessarily, perforated the skull with the trepan and the trephine in injuries of the head. He opened the chest also in empyema and hydrothorax. His extensive practice, and no doubt his great familiarity with the accidents occurring at the public games of his country, must have furnished him with ample opportunities of becoming acquainted with dislocations and fractures of all kinds; and how well he had profited by the opportunities which he thus enjoyed, every page of his treatises 'On Fractures,' and 'On the Articulations,' abundantly testifies."

      F. Adams,
      Preliminary Discourse (Genuine Works of Hippocrates),
      section 1.

   "The school of the Asclepiadæ has been responsible for certain
   theories which have been more or less prominent during the
   earlier historical days. One of these which prevailed
   throughout the Hippocratic works is that of Coction and
   Crisis. By the former term is meant thickening or elaboration
   of humors in the body, which was supposed to be necessary for
   their elimination in some tangible form. Disease was regarded
   as an association of phenomena resulting from efforts made by
   the conservative principles of life to effect a coction, i.
   e., a combination, of the morbific matter in the economy, it
   being held that the latter could not be properly expelled until
   thus united and prepared so as to form excrementious material.
{2126}
   This elaboration was supposed to be brought about by the vital
   principles which some called nature (Phusis), some spirit
   (Psyche), some breath (Pneuma), and some heat (Thermon). The
   gradual climax of morbid phenomena has, since the days of
   Hippocrates, been commonly known as Crisis. All this was
   regarded as the announcement of the completion of this union
   by coction. The day on which it was accomplished was termed
   'critical,' as were also the signs which preceded or
   accompanied it, and for the crisis the physician anxiously
   watched. Coction having been effected and crisis occurring, it
   only remained to evacuate the morbific material, which nature
   sometimes spontaneously accomplished by the critical sweat,
   urination, or stools; or sometimes the physician had to come
   to her relief by the administration of diuretics, purgatives,
   et cetera. The term 'critical period' was given to the number
   of days necessary for coction, which in its perfection was
   supposed to be four, the so-called quaternary, while the
   septenary was also held in high consideration. … This
   doctrine of crisis in disease left an impress upon the medical
   mind not yet fully eliminated."

"Making no pretension … to describe the regular medical practice among the Greeks, I shall here, nevertheless, introduce some few particulars more or less connected with it, which may be regarded as characteristic of the age and people. Great were the virtues which they ascribed to the herb alysson, (biscutella didyma,) which, being pounded and eaten with meat cured hydrophobia. Nay, more, being suspended in the house, it promoted the health of its inhabitants; it protected likewise both man and cattle from enchantment; and, bound in a piece of scarlet flannel round the necks of the latter, it preserved them from all diseases. Coriander-seed, eaten in too great quantity, produced, they thought, a derangement of the intellect. Ointment of saffron had an opposite effect, for the nostrils and heads of lunatics being rubbed therewith they were supposed to receive considerable relief. Melampos the goatherd was reported to have cured the daughters of Prætos of their madness by large doses of black hellebore, which thereafter received from him the name of Melampodion. Sea-onions suspended over the doors preserved from enchantment, as did likewise a branch of rhamnus over doors or windows. A decoction of rosemary and of the leaves and stems of the anemone was administered to nurses to promote the secretion of milk, and a like potion prepared from the leaves of the Cretan dittany was given to women in labour. This herb, in order to preserve its virtues unimpaired, and that it might be the more easily transported to all parts of the country, was preserved in a joint of a ferula or reed. A plaster of incense, Cimolian earth, and oil of roses, was applied to reduce the swelling of the breasts. A medicine prepared from mule's fern, was believed to produce sterility, as were likewise the waters of a certain fountain near Pyrrha, while to those about Thespiæ a contrary effect was attributed, as well as to the wine of Heraclea in Arcadia. The inhabitants of this primitive region drank milk as an aperient in the Spring, because of the medicinal herbs on which the cattle were then supposed to feed. Medicines of laxative properties were prepared from the juice of the wild cucumber, which were said to retain their virtues for two hundred years, though simples in general were thought to lose their medicinal qualities in less than four. The oriental gum called kankamon was administered in water or honeyed vinegar to fat persons to diminish their obesity, and also as a remedy for the toothache. For this latter purpose the gum of the Ethiopian olive was put into the hollow tooth, though more efficacy perhaps was attributed to the root of dittander which they suspended as a charm about the neck. A plaster of the root of the white thorn or iris roots prepared with flour of copper, honey, and great centaury, drew out thorns and arrow heads without pain. An unguent procured from fern was sold to rustics for curing the necks of their cattle galled by the yoke. A decoction of marsh-mallow leaves and wine or honeyed vinegar was administered to persons who had been stung by bees or wasps or other insects; bites and burns were healed by an external application of the leaf smeared with oil, and the powdered roots cast into water caused it to freeze if placed out during the night in the open air; an unguent was prepared with oil from reeds, green or dry, which protected those who anointed themselves with it from the stings of venomous reptiles. Cinnamon unguent, or terebinth and myrtle-berries, boiled in wine, were supposed to be a preservative against the bite of the tarantula or scorpion, as was the pistachio nut against that of serpents. Some persons ate a roasted scorpion to cure its own bite; a powder, moreover, was prepared from sea-crabs supposed to be fatal to this reptile. Vipers were made to contribute their part to the materia medica; for, being caught alive, they were enclosed with salt and dried figs in a vase which was then put into a furnace till its contents were reduced to charcoal, which they esteemed a valuable medicine. A. considerable quantity of viper's flesh was in the last century imported from Egypt into Venice, to be used in the composition of medicinal treacle. From the flowers of the sneezewort, a sort of snuff appears to have been manufactured, though probably used only in medicines. The ashes of old leather cured burns, galls, and blistered feet. The common remedy when persons had eaten poisonous mushrooms was a dose of nitre exhibited in vinegar and water; with water it was esteemed a cure for the sting of a burncow, and with benzoin it operated as an antidote against the poison of bulls' blood."

   "Medical societies or schools seem to have been as ancient as
   Hippocrates. The Hippocratic oath, as it is called, has been
   preserved, and is one of the greatest curiosities we have
   received from antiquity:

'I swear by Apollo the physician, by Æsculapius, by Hygeia, by Panacea, and by all gods and goddesses, that I will fulfil religiously, according to the best of my power and judgment, the solemn vow which I now make.

I will honour as my father the master who taught me the art of medicine; his children I will consider as my brothers, and teach them my profession without fee or reward.

   I will admit to my lectures and discourses my own sons, my
   master's sons, and those pupils who have taken the medical
   oath; but no one else.

I will prescribe such medicines as may be best suited to the cases of my patients, according to the best of my judgment; and no temptation shall ever induce me to administer poison.

I will religiously maintain the purity of my character and the
honour of my art.

I will not perform the operation of lithotomy, but leave it to
those to whose calling it belongs.

Into whatever house I enter, I will enter it with the sole view of relieving the sick, and conduct myself with propriety towards the women of the family.

If during my attendance I happen to hear of anything that should not be revealed, I will keep it a profound secret.

If I observe this oath, may I have success in this life, and may I obtain general esteem after it; if I break it, may the contrary be my lot.'"

Pliny's account of the Greek physicians in Rome in his time (first century) is not flattering to the profession. He says: "For the cure of King Antiochus—to give our first illustration of the profits realized by the medical art—Erasistratus received from his son, King Ptolemæus, the sum of one hundred talents. … I pass over in silence many physicians of the very highest celebrity, the Cassii, for instance, the Calpetani, the Arruntii, and the Rubrii, men who received fees yearly from the great, amounting to no less than 250,000 sesterces. As for Q. Stertinius, he thought that he conferred an obligation upon the emperors in being content with 500,000 sesterces per annum; and indeed he proved, by an enumeration of the several houses, that a city practice would bring him in a yearly income of not less than 600,000 sesterces. Fully equal to this was the sum lavished upon his brother by Claudius Cæsar; and the two brothers, although they had drawn largely upon their fortunes in beautifying the public buildings at Neapolis, left to their heirs no less than 30,000,000 of sesterces! such an estate as no physician but Arruntius had till then possessed. Next in succession arose Vettius Valens, rendered so notorious by his adulterous connection with Messalina, the wife of Claudius Cæsar, and equally celebrated as a professor of eloquence. When established in public favour, he became the founder of a new sect. It was in the same age, too, during the reign of the Emperor Nero, that the destinies of the medical art passed into the hands of Thessalus, a man who swept away all the precepts of his predecessors, and declaimed with a sort of frenzy against the physicians of every age; but with what discretion and in what spirit, we may abundantly conclude from a single trait presented by his character—upon his tomb, which is still to be seen on the Appian Way, he had his name inscribed as the 'Iatronices'—the 'Conqueror of the Physicians.' No stage-player, no driver of a three-horse chariot, had a greater throng attending him when he appeared in public: but he was at last eclipsed in credit by Crinas, a native of Massilia, who, to wear an appearance of greater discreetness and more devoutness, united in himself the pursuit of two sciences, and prescribed diets to his patients in accordance with the movements of the heavenly bodies, as indicated by the almanacks of the mathematicians, taking observations himself of the various times and seasons. It was but recently that he died, leaving 10,000,000 of sesterces, after having expended hardly a less sum upon building the walls of his native place and of other towns. It was while these men were ruling our destinies, that all at once, Charmis, a native also of Massilia, took the City by surprise. Not content with condemning the practice of preceding physicians, he proscribed the use of warm baths as well, and persuaded people, in the very depth of winter even, to immerse themselves in cold water. His patients he used to plunge into large vessels filled with cold water, and it was a common thing to see aged men of consular rank make it a matter of parade to freeze themselves; a method of treatment, in favour of which Annæus Seneca gives his personal testimony, in writings still extant. There can be no doubt whatever, that all these men, in the pursuit of celebrity by the introduction of some novelty or other, made purchase of it at the downright expense of human life. Hence those woeful discussions, those consultations at the bedside of the patient, where no one thinks fit to be of the same opinion as another, lest he may have the appearance of being subordinate to another; hence, too, that ominous inscription to be read upon a tomb, 'It was the multitude of physicians that killed me.' The medical art, so often modified and renewed as it has been, is still on the change from day to day, and still are we impelled onwards by the puffs which emanate from the ingenuity of the Greeks. … Cassius Hemina, one of our most ancient writers, says that the first physician that visited Rome was Archagathus, the son of Lysanias, who came over from Peloponnesus, in the year of the City 535, L. Æmilius and M. Livius being consuls. He states also, that the right of free citizenship was granted him, and that he had a shop provided for his practice at the public expense in the Acilian Cross-way; that from his practice he received the name of 'Vulnerarius'; that on his arrival he was greatly welcomed at first, but that soon afterwards, from the cruelty displayed by him in cutting and searing his patients, he acquired the new name of 'Carnifex,' and brought his art and physicians in general into considerable disrepute. That such was the fact, we may readily understand from the words of M. Cato, a man whose authority stands so high of itself, that but little weight is added to it by the triumph which he gained, and the Censorship which he held. I shall, therefore, give his own words in reference to this subject. 'Concerning those Greeks, son Marcus, I will speak to you more at length on the befitting occasion. I will show you the results of my own experience at Athens, and that, while it is a good plan to dip into their literature, it is not worth while to make a thorough acquaintance with it. They are a most iniquitous and intractable race, and you may take my word as the word of a prophet, when I tell you, that whenever that nation shall bestow its literature upon Rome it will mar everything; and that all the sooner, if it sends its physicians among us. They have conspired among themselves to murder all barbarians with their medicine; a profession which they exercise for lucre, in order that they may win our confidence, and dispatch us all the more easily. They are in the common habit, too, of calling us barbarians, and stigmatize us beyond all other nations, by giving us the abominable appellation of Opici. {2128} I forbid you to have anything to do with physicians.' Cato, who wrote to this effect, died in his eighty-fifth year, in the year of the City 605; so that no one is to suppose that he had not sufficient time to form his experience, either with reference to the duration of the republic, or the length of his own life. Well then—are we to conclude that he has stamped with condemnation a thing that in itself is most useful? Far from it, by Hercules! … Medicine is the only one of the arts of Greece, that, lucrative as it is, the Roman gravity has hitherto refused to cultivate. It is but very few of our fellow-citizens that have even attempted it."

Pliny, Natural History (Bohn's translation), book 29, chapters 3-8 (volume 5).

MEDICAL SCIENCE: 2d Century.
Galen and the development of Anatomy and Pathology.

"In the earliest conceptions which men entertained of their power of moving their own members, they probably had no thought of any mechanism or organization by which this was effected. The foot and the hand, no less than the head, were seen to be endowed with life; and this pervading life seemed sufficiently to explain the power of motion in each part of the frame, without its being held necessary to seek out a special seat of the will, or instruments by which its impulses were made effective. But the slightest inspection of dissected animals showed that their limbs were formed of a curious and complex collection of cordage, and communications of various kinds, running along and connecting the bones of the skeleton. These cords and communications we now distinguish as muscles, nerves, veins, arteries, &c.; and among these, we assign to the muscles the office of moving the parts to which they are attached, as cords move the parts of a machine. Though this action of the muscles on the bones may now appear very obvious, it was, probably, not at first discerned. It is observed that Homer, who describes the wounds which are inflicted in his battles with so much apparent anatomical precision, nowhere employs the word muscle. And even Hippocrates of Cos, the most celebrated physician of antiquity, is held to have had no distinct conception of such an organ. … Nor do we find much more distinctness on this subject even in Aristotle, a generation or two later. … He is held to have really had the merit of discovering the nerves of sensation, which he calls the 'canals of the brain' … , but the analysis of the mechanism of motion is left by him almost untouched. … His immediate predecessors were far from remedying the deficiencies of his doctrines. Those who professed to study physiology and medicine were, for the most part, studious only to frame some general system of abstract principles, which might give an appearance of connexion and profundity to their tenets. In this manner the successors of Hippocrates became a medical school, of great note in its day, designated as the Dogmatic school; in opposition to which arose an Empiric sect, who professed to deduce their modes of cure, not from theoretical dogmas, but from experience. These rival parties prevailed principally in Asia Minor and Egypt, during the time of Alexander's successors,—a period rich in names, but poor in discoveries; and we find no clear evidence of any decided advance in anatomy. … The victories of Lucullus and Pompeius, in Greece and Asia, made the Romans acquainted with the Greek philosophy; and the consequence soon was, that shoals of philosophers, rhetoricians, poets, and physicians streamed from Greece, Asia Minor, and Egypt, to Rome and Italy, to traffic their knowledge and their arts for Roman wealth. Among these was one person whose name makes a great figure in the history of medicine, Asclepiades of Prusa in Bithynia. This man appears to have been a quack, with the usual endowments of his class. … He would not, on such accounts, deserve a place in the history of science, but that he became the founder of a new school, the Methodic, which professed to hold itself separate both from the Dogmatics and the Empirics. I have noticed these schools of medicine, because, though I am not able to state distinctly their respective merits in the cultivation of anatomy, a great progress in that science was undoubtedly made during their domination, of which the praise must, I conceive, be in some way divided among them. The amount of this progress we are able to estimate, when we come to the works of Galen, who flourished under the Antonines, and died about A. D. 203. The following passage from his works will show that this progress in knowledge was not made without the usual condition of laborious and careful experiment, while it implies the curious fact of such experiment being conducted by means of family tradition and instruction, so as to give rise to a caste of dissectors. In the opening of his Second Book on Anatomical Manipulations, he speaks thus of his predecessors: 'I do not blame the ancients, who did not write books on anatomical manipulation; though I praise Marinus, who did. For it was superfluous for them to compose such records for themselves or others, while they were, from their childhood, exercised by their parents in dissecting, just as familiarly as in writing and reading; so that there was no more fear of their forgetting their anatomy, than of forgetting their alphabet. But when grown men, as well as children, were taught, this thorough discipline fell off; and, the art being carried out of the family of the Asclepiads, and declining by repeated transmission, books became necessary for the student.' That the general structure of the animal frame, as composed of bones and muscles, was known with great accuracy before the time of Galen, is manifest from the nature of the mistakes and deficiencies of his predecessors which he finds it necessary to notice. … Galen was from the first highly esteemed as an anatomist. He was originally of Pergamus; and after receiving the instructions of many medical and philosophical professors, and especially of those of Alexandria, which was then the metropolis of the learned and scientific world, he came to Rome, where his reputation was soon so great as to excite the envy and hatred of the Roman physicians. The emperors Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus would have retained him near them; but he preferred pursuing his travels, directed principally by curiosity. When he died, he left behind him numerous works, an of them of great value for the light they throw on the history of anatomy and medicine; and these were for a long period the storehouse of all the most important anatomical knowledge which the world possessed. In the time of intellectual barrenness and servility, among the Arabians and the Europeans of the dark ages, the writings of Galen had almost unquestioned authority; and it was only by an uncommon effort of independent thinking that Abdollatif ventured to assert, that even Galen's assertions must give way to the evidence of the senses. In more modern times, when Vesalius, in the sixteenth century, accused Galen of mistakes, he drew upon himself the hostility of the whole body of physicians."

W. Whewell, History of the Inductive Sciences, book 17, chapter 1, section 1 (volume 2).

"Galen strongly denied being attached to any of the sects of his day, and regarded as slaves those who took the title of Hippocratists, Praxagoreaus, or Herophilists, and so on. Nevertheless his predilection in favor of the Hippocratic writings is well marked, for he explains, comments upon them, and amplifies them at length, refutes the objections of their adversaries and gives them the highest place. He says, 'No one before me has given the true method of treating disease; Hippocrates, I confess, has heretofore shown the path, but as he was the first to enter it he was not able to go as far as he wished. … He has not made all the necessary distinction, and is often obscure, as is usually the case with ancients when they attempt to be concise. He says very little of complicated diseases; in a word, he has only sketched what another was to complete; he has opened the path, but has left it for a successor to enlarge and make it plain.' This implies how he regarded himself as the successor of Hippocrates, and how little weight he attached to the labors of others. He held that there were three sorts of principles in man—spirits, humors, and solids. Throughout his metaphysical speculations Galen reproduces and amplifies the Hippocratic dogmatism. Between perfect health and disease there were, he thought, eight kinds of temperaments or imperfect mixtures compatible with the exercise of the functions of life. With Plato and Aristotle he thought the human soul to be composed of three faculties or parts, the vegetive, residing in the liver; the irascible, having its seat in the heart, and the rational, which resided in the brain. He divided diseases of the solids of the body into what he called distempers; he distinguished between the continued and intermittent fevers, regarding the quotidian as being caused by phlegm, the tertian as due to yellow bile, and the quartan due to atrabile. In the doctrine of coction, crises, and critical days, he agreed with Hippocrates; with him he also agreed in the positive statement that diseases are cured by their contraries."

"It probably sounds paradoxical (though it is not) to affirm that, throughout the first half of the Middle Ages, science made its home chiefly with the Semites and Græco-Romans (its founders), while, in opposition to the original relations, faith and its outgrowths alone were fostered by the Germans. In the sterile wastes of the desert the Arabians constructed a verdant oasis of science, in lands to-day the home once more of absolute or partial barbarism. A genuine meteor of civilization were these Arabians. … The Arabians built their medicine upon the principles and theories of the Greeks (whose medical writings were studied and copied mostly in translations only), and especially upon those of Galen, in such a way, that, on the whole, they added to it very little matter of their own, save numerous subtle definitions and amplifications. But Indian medical views and works, as well as those of other earlier Asiatic peoples (e. g., the Chaldeans), exercised demonstrably, but in a subordinate degree, an influence upon Arabian medicine. The Arabians interwove too into their medical views various philosophical theorems, especially those of Aristotle, already corrupted by the Alexandrians and still further falsified by themselves with portions of the Neo-Platonic philosophy; and finally they added thereto a goodly share of the absurdities of astrology and alchemy. Indeed it is nowadays considered proven that they even made use of ancient Egyptian medical works, e. g., the papyrus Ebers. Thus the medicine of the Arabians, like Grecian medicine its parent, did not greatly surpass the grade of development of mere medical philosophy, and, so far as regards its intrinsic worth, it stands entirely upon Grecian foundations. … Yet they constantly advanced novelties in the sciences subsidiary to medicine, materia medica and pharmacy, from the latter of which chemistry, pharmacies and the profession of the apothecary were developed. … The mode of transfer of Greek medicine to the Arabians was probably as follows: The inhabitants of the neighboring parts of Asia, including both the Persians and Arabians, as the result of multifarious business connexions with Alexandria, came, even at an early date, in contact with Grecian science, and by degrees a permanent alliance was formed with it. In a more evident way the same result was accomplished by the Jewish schools in Asia, the great majority of which owed their foundation to Alexandria. Such schools were established at Nisibis, at Nahardea in Mesopotamia, at Mathæ-Mechasja on the Euphrates, at Sura, &c., and their period of prime falls in the 5th century. The influence of the Nestorian universities was especially favorable and permanent, particularly the school under Greek management founded at Edessa, in Mesopotamia, where Stephen of Edessa, the reputed father of Alexander of Tralles, taught (A. D. 530). …. Still more influential in the transfer of Grecian science to the Arabians was the banishment of the 'heathen' philosophers of the last so-called Platonic school of Athens, by the 'Christian' despot Justinian I. (529). These philosophers were well received at the court of the infidel Chosroës, and in return manifested their gratitude by the propagation of Grecian science. … From all these causes it resulted that, even as early as the time of Mohammed (571-632), physicians educated in the Grecian doctrines lived among the Arabians. … Arabian culture (and of course Arabian medicine) reached its zenith at the period of the greatest power and greatest wealth of the Caliphate in the 9th and 10th centuries. At that time intellectual life was rooted in the schools of the mosques, i. e., the Arabian universities, which the great caliphs were zealous in founding. Such Arabian universities arose and existed in the progress of time (even as late as the 14th century) at Bagdad, Bassora, Cufa, Samarcand, Ispahan, Damascus, Bokhara, Firuzabad and Khurdistan, and under the scholastic Fatimides (909-1171) in Alexandria. Under the Ommyiades (755-1031), after the settlement of the Arabians in Spain in the beginning of the 8th century, were founded the famous universities of Cordova (possessing in the 10th century a library of 250,000 volumes), Seville, Toledo, Almeria and Murcia under the three caliphs named Abderrahman and Al Hakem. {2130} Less important were the universities of Granada and Valencia, and least important of all, those founded by the Edrisi dynasty (800-986) in the provinces of Tunis, Fez and Morocco. In spite of all these institutions the Arabians possessed no talent for productive research; still less, like the ancient Semites, did they create any arts, save poesy and architecture. Their whole civilization bore the stamp of its foreign origin. … 'The Prince of Physicians' (el Sheik el Reis—he was also a poet) was the title given by the Arabians to Abu Ali el Hossein ebn Abdallah ebn Sina (Ebn Sina, Avicenna), 980-1037, in recognition of his great erudition, of which the chief evidences are stored in his 'Canon.' This work, though it contains substantially merely the conclusions of the Greeks, was the text-book and law of the healing art, even as late as the first century of modern times."

"The Saracens commenced the application of chemistry, both to the theory and practice of medicine, in the explanation of the functions of the human body and in the cure of its diseases. Nor was their surgery behind their medicine. Albucasis, of Cordova, shrinks not from the performance of the most formidable operations in his own and in the obstetrical art; the actual cautery and the knife are used without hesitation. He has left us ample descriptions of the surgical instruments then employed; and from him we learn that, in operations on females in which considerations of delicacy intervened, the services of properly instructed women were secured. How different was all this from the state of things in Europe: the Christian peasant, fever-stricken or overtaken by accident, hied to the nearest saint-shrine and expected a miracle; the Spanish Moor relied on the prescription or lancet of his physician, or the bandage and knife of his surgeon."

J. W. Draper, History of the Intellectual Development of Europe, volume 2, chapter 2.

"The accession of Gehwer to the throne of Mussulman Spain, early in the eleventh century, was marked by the promulgation of regulations so judiciously planned, touching medical science and its practice, that he deserves the highest commendation for the unwavering zeal with which he supervised this important branch of learning taught in the metropolis. Those evils which the provinces had suffered previous to his rule, through the practice of medicine by debased empirics, were quickly removed by this sagacious Caliph. Upon the publication of his rescripts, such medical charlatans or ambulatory physicians as boldly announced themselves to be medici, without a knowledge of the science, were ignominiously expelled from the provincial towns. He decreed that a college of skilled surgeons should be forthwith organized, for the single specified function of rigidly examining into the assumed qualifications of applicants for licenses to exercise the curative art in municipal or rural departments, or sought professional employment as physicians in the numerous hospitals upon the Mahometan domains."

"Anatomy and physiology, far from making any conquests under Arabian rule, followed on the contrary a retrograde movement. As those physicians never devoted themselves to dissections, they were under the necessity of conforming entirely to the accounts of Galen. … Pathology was enriched in the Arabian writings by some new observations. … The physicians of this nation were the first … who began to distinguish eruptive fevers by the exterior characters of the eruption, while the Greeks paid but little attention to these signs. Therapeutics made also some interesting acquisitions under the Arab physicians. It owes to them, among other things, the introduction of mild purgatives, such as cassia, senna, and manna, which replaced advantageously, in many cases, the drastics employed by the ancients; it is indebted to them, also, for several chemical and pharmaceutical improvements, as the confection of syrups, tinctures, and distilled waters, which are very frequently and usefully employed. Finally, external therapeutics, or surgery, received some minor additions, such as pomades, plasters, and new ointments; but these additions were very far from compensating for the considerable losses which it suffered by their abandoning a multitude of operations in use among the Greeks."

"The difficulties under which medical science laboured may be estimated from the fact that dissection was forbidden by the clergy of the Middle Ages, on the ground that it was impious to mutilate a form made in the image of God. We do not find this pious objection interfering with such mutilation when effected by means of the rack and the wheel and such other clerical rather than medical instruments. But in the reign of Philip the Second of Spain a famous Spanish doctor was actually condemned by the Inquisition to be burnt for having performed a surgical operation, and it was only by royal favour that he was permitted instead to expiate his crime by a pilgrimage to the Holy Land, where he died in poverty and exile. This being the attitude of the all-powerful Church towards medical progress, it is not surprising that medical science should have stagnated, and that Galen and Dioscorides were permitted to lay down the law in the sixteenth century as they had done since the beginning of the Christian era. Some light is thrown upon the state of things here from resulting by a work translated from the German in the year 1561, and entitled 'A most excellent and perfecte homish apothecarye or physicke booke, for all the grefes and diseases of the bodye.' The first chapter is 'Concerning the Head and his partes.' 'Galen sayth, the head is divided into foure partes: in the fore part hath blood the dominion; Colera in the ryght syde, Melancholy in the left syde, and Flegma beareth rule in the hindermost part. If the head doth ake so sore by reason of a runninge that he cannot snoffe hys nose, bath hys fete in a depe tub untill the knees and give him this medicine … which riseth into hys head and dryeth hys moyst braynes. Galen sayth He that hath payne in the hindermost part of hys head, the same must be let blood under the chynne, specially on the right side; also were it good ofte to burn the heyre of a man before hys nose. The braynes are greved many wayes; many there are whom the head whyrleth so sore that he thinketh the earth turneth upsydedoune: Cummin refraineth the whyrling, comforteth the braynes and maketh them to growe agayne: or he may take the braynes of a hogge, rost the same upon a grede yron and cut slices thereof and lay to the greved parts.' {2131} This doctrine of like helping like was of universal application, and in medical works of the Middle Ages we meet constantly with such prescriptions as these:—'Take the right eye of a Frogg, lap it in a peece of russet cloth and hang it about the neck: it cureth the light eye if it bee en flamed or bleared. And if the left eye be greved, do the like by the left eye of the said Frogg." Again—'The skin of a Raven's heel is good against the gout, but the right heel skin must be laid upon the right foot if that be gouty, and the left upon the left. … If you would have a man become bold or impudent let him carry about him the skin or eyes of a Lion or a Cock, and he will be fearless of his enemies, nay, he will be very terrible unto them. If you would have him talkative, give him tongues, and seek out those of water frogs and ducks and such creatures notorious for their continuall noise making.' On the same principle we find it prescribed as a cure for the quartane ague to lay the fourth book of Homer's Iliad under the patient's head; a remedy which had at least the negative merit of not being nauseous. … For weak eyes the patient is to 'take the tounge of a foxe, and hange the same about his necke, and so long it hangeth there his sight shall not wax feeble, as sayth Pliny.' The hanging of such amulets round the neck was very frequently prescribed, and the efficacy of them is a thing curiously well attested. Elias Ashmole in his diary for 1681 has entered the following—'I tooke this morning a good dose of elixir, and hung three spiders about my neck, and they drove my ague away. Deo gratias!' A baked toad hung in a silk bag about the neck was also held in high esteem, as was a toad, either alive or dried, laid upon the back of the neck as a means of stopping a bleeding at the nose: and again, 'either frogg or toade, the nails whereof have been clipped, hanged about one that is sick of quartane ague, riddeth away the disease forever, as sayth Pliny.' We have even a striking instance of the benefit derived from an amulet by a horse, who could not be suspected of having helped forward the cure by the strength of his faith in it. 'The root of cut Malowe hanged about the neck driveth away blemishes of the eyen, whether it be in a man or a horse, as I Jerome of Brunsweig, have seene myselfe. I have myselfe done it to a blind horse that I bought for X crounes, and was sold again of XL crounes'—a trick distinctly worth knowing."

"If we survey the social and political state of Europe from the twelfth to the sixteenth century, in its relation to the development of medical art, our attention is at once arrested by Italy, which at this period was far ahead of the rest of the world. Taking the number of universities as an index of civilization, we find that, before the year 1500, there were sixteen in Italy,—while in France there were but six: in Germany, including Hungary, Bohemia, Bavaria, &c., there were eight: and in Britain, two; making sixteen in all,—the exact number which existed in Italy alone. The Italian Universities were, likewise, no less superior in number than in fame to those of the north. … In many of the Italian republics, during the twelfth, thirteenth, and fourteenth centuries, the power was chiefly in the hands of the middle classes; and it is probable that the physicians occupied a high and influential position among them. Galvanis Flamma describes Milan in 1288, as having a population of 200,000, among whom were 600 notaries, 200 physicians, 80 schoolmasters, and fifty transcribers of manuscripts or books. Milan was about this period at a pitch of glory which has not been equalled since the Greek republics."

"Three schools, as early as 1158, had a reputation which extended throughout the whole of Europe: Paris for theological studies, Bologna for Roman or civil law, and Salerno as the chief medical school of the west."

"In 1215 Pope Innocent III. fulminated an anathema specially directed against surgery, by ordaining, that as the church abhorred all cruel or sanguinary practices, no priest should be permitted to follow surgery, or to perform any operations in which either instruments of steel or fire were employed: and that they should refuse their benediction to all those who professed and pursued it. … The saints have proved sad enemies to the doctors. Miraculous cures are attested by monks, abbots, bishops, popes, and consecrated saints. … Pilgrimages and visits to holy shrines have usurped the place of medicine, and, as in many cases at our own watering places, by air and exercise, have unquestionably effected what the employment of regular professional aid had been unable to accomplish. St. Dominic, St. Bellinus, and St. Vitus have been greatly renowned in the cure of diseases in general; the latter particularly, who takes both poisons and madness of all kinds under his special protection. Melton says 'the saints of the Romanists have usurped the place of the zodiacal constellations in their governance of the parts of man's body, and that "for every limbe they have a saint." Thus St. Otilia keepes the head instead of Aries; St. Blasius is appointed to governe the necke instead of Taurus; St. Lawrence keepes the backe and shoulders instead of Gemini, Cancer, and Leo: St. Erasmus rules the belly with the entrayles, in the place of Libra and Scorpius; in the stead of Sagittarius, Capricornus, Aquarius, and Pisces, the holy church of Rome hath elected St. Burgarde, St. Rochus. St. Quirinus, St. John, and many others, which governe the thighes, feet, shinnes, and knees.' This supposed influence of the Romish saints is more minutely exhibited, according to Hone, in two very old prints, from engravings on wood, in the collection of the British Museum. Right hand: the top joint of the thumb is dedicated to God, the second joint to the Virgin; the top joint of the fore-finger to St. Barnabas, the second joint to St. John, the third to St. Paul: the top joint of the second finger to Simon Cleophas, the second joint to Tathideo, the third to Joseph; the top joint of the third finger to Zaccheus, the second to Stephen, the third to the evangelist Luke; the top joint of the little finger to Leatus, the second to Mark, the third to Nicodemus. Left hand: the top joint of the thumb is dedicated to Christ, the second joint to the Virgin: the top joint of the fore-finger to St. James, the second to St. John the Evangelist, the third to St. Peter; the first joint of the second finger to St. Simon, the second joint to St. Matthew, the third to St. James the Great; the top joint of the third finger to St. Jude, the second joint to St. Bartholomew, the third to St. Andrew; the top joint of the little finger to St. Matthias, the second to St. Thomas, the third joint to St. Philip. … {2132} "The credulity of mankind has never been more strongly displayed than in the general belief afforded to the authenticity of remarkable cures of diseases said to have been effected by the imposition of royal hands. The practice seems to have originated in an opinion that there is something sacred or divine attaching either to the sovereign or his functions. … The practice appears to be one of English growth, commencing with Edward the Confessor, and descending only to foreign potentates who could show an alliance with the royal family of England. The kings of France, however, claimed the right to dispense the Gift of Healing, and it was certainly exercised by Philip the First; but the French historians say that he was deprived of the power on account of the irregularity of his life. Laurentius, first physician to Henry IV, of France, who is indignant at the attempt made to derive its origin from Edward the Confessor, asserts the power to have commenced with Clovis I, A. D. 481, and says that Louis I, A. D. 814, added to the ceremonial of touching, the sign of the cross. Mezeray also says, that St. Louis, through humility, first added the sign of the cross in touching for the king's evil. … If credit is to be given to a statement … by William of Malmesbury, with respect to Edward the Confessor, we must admit that in England, for a period of nearly 700 years, the practice of the royal touch was exercised in a greater or lesser degree, as it extended to the reign of Queen Anne. It must not however be supposed that historical documents are extant to prove a regular continuance of the practice during this time. No accounts whatever of the first four Norman kings attempting to cure the complaint are to be found. In the reign of William III, it was not on any occasion exercised. He manifested more sense than his predecessors, for he withheld from employing the royal touch for the cure of scrofula; and Rapin says, that he was so persuaded he should do no injury to persons afflicted with this distemper by not touching them, that he refrained from it all his reign. Queen Elizabeth was also averse to the practice, yet she extensively performed it. It flourished most in the time of Charles II, particularly after his restoration, and a public register of cases was kept at Whitehall, the principal scene of its operation."

T. J. Pettigrew, Superstitions connected with the History and Practice of Medicine and Surgery, pages 34-37, and 117-121.

Paracelsus, of whose many names this one stands alone in history to represent him, was an extraordinary person, born in Switzerland, in 1493. He died in 1541. "His character has been very variously estimated. The obstructives of his own age and many hasty judges since have pronounced him a quack. This is simply ridiculous. As a chemist, he is considered to have been the discoverer of zinc, and perhaps of bismuth. He was acquainted with hydrogen, muriatic, and sulphurous gases. He distinguished alum from the vitriols; remarking that the former contained an earth, and the latter metals. He perceived the part played by the atmosphere in combustion, and recognized the analogy between combustion and respiration. He saw that in the organic system chemical processes are constantly going on. Thus, to him is due the fundamental idea from which have sprung the chemico-physiological researches of Liebig, Mulder, Boussingault, and others. By using in medicine, not crude vegetables, but their active principles, he opened the way to the discovery of the proximate principles of vegetables, organic alkalis, and the like. But perhaps the greatest service he rendered to chemistry, was by declaring it an essential part of medical education, and by showing that its true practical application lay not in gold-making, but in pharmacy and the industrial arts. In medicine he scouted the fearfully complex electuaries and mixtures of the Galenists and the Arabian polypharmacists, recommending simpler and more active preparations. He showed that the idea of poison is merely relative, and knew that poisons in suitable doses may be employed in medicine. He prescribed tin as a remedy for intestinal worms, mercury as an anti-syphilitic, and lead in the diseases of the skin. He also used preparations of antimony, arsenic, and iron. He employed sulphuric acid in the treatment of saturnine affections. The astonishing cures which he undoubtedly performed were, however, due not so much to his peculiar medicines, as to his eminent sagacity and insight. He showed the importance of a chemical examination of urine for the diagnosis of disease."

   "The modern doctor dates only from the reign of Henry VIII.,
   when the College of Physicians in England was founded as a
   body corporate by letters patent in the tenth year of the
   reign. This grant was in response to a petition from a few of
   the most notable members of the profession resident in London,
   who were perhaps moved by both a laudable zeal in the
   interests of science, and a compassion for the sufferings of
   the subjects of astrological and toxicological experiments.
   The charter thus obtained, though probably drafted by the
   promoters themselves, was found to be so inadequately worded
   and expressed, that it became necessary to obtain powers to
   amend it by Act of Parliament. Among these early members were
   Linacre, Wotton, and others, famous scholars beyond doubt,
   though possibly but indifferent practitioners. In fact, we are
   constantly struck throughout the early history of the
   profession by the frequent occurrence of names associated with
   almost every other branch of study than that strictly
   appertaining to the art of medicine. We have naturalists,
   magneticians, astronomers, mathematicians, logicians, and
   classical scholars, but scarce one who accomplished anything
   worthy to be recorded in the annals of medical science. Indeed
   it is difficult to conceive any useful object that could have
   been attained by the existence of the College as a
   professional licensing body, other than the pecuniary
   interests of the orthodox. … It is most significant as to
   the social degradation of the science of medicine, that most
   of the notorious empirics of the latter half of the sixteenth
   century were both highly recommended and strenuously supported
   in their resistance to the proctors of orthodoxy by some of
   the greatest names of the age. These self-deluded victims of
   quackery were not indeed adverse in theory to the pretensions
   of more regular members of the profession.
{2133}
   They would patronize the Court physicians, or, if favorites of
   the Crown, they might even submit to the Sovereign's
   recommendation in that behalf; but none the less their family
   doctor was in far too many cases some outlandish professor of
   occult arts, retained in learned state on the premises, who
   undertook the speedy, not to say miraculous, cure of his
   patron's particular disease by all the charms of the Cabala."

      H. Hall,
      The Early Medicus
      (Merry England; also in Eclectic Magazine, June, 1884).

John Baptist van Helmont "was born at Brussels in the year 1577. … His parents were noble, and he was heir to great possessions. He pursued in Louvain the usual course of scholastic philosophy. … Becoming accidentally acquainted with the writings of Thomas à Kempis and John Tauler, he from that day adopted what goes by the vague term of mysticism. That is, thoroughly convinced that there was a spiritual world in intimate and eternal union with the spirit of man; that this spiritual world was revealed to that human soul which submitted to receive it in humility; and that the doctrines of Christianity were not to be looked upon as a system of philosophy; but as a rule of life, he resolved to follow them to the letter. The consequence of this resolution was, that he devoted himself to the art of medicine, in imitation of the Great Healer of the body as well as of the soul; and as the prejudices of his time and country made his rank and wealth an obstacle to his entrance into the medical profession, he made over all his property, with its honours, to his sister; that, 'laying aside every weight, he might run the race that was set before him.' He entered on his new studies with all the zeal of his character, and very soon had so completely mastered the writings of Hippocrates and Galen, as to excite the surprise of his contemporaries. But although styled a dreamer, and having a mind easily moved to belief in spiritual manifestation, he was not of a credulous nature in regard to matters belonging to the senses. And as he believed that Christianity was to be practised, and to be found true by the test of experiment, so he believed that the doctrines of Hippocrates and of Galen were to be subjected to a similar trial. An opportunity soon occurred to himself. He caught the itch and turned to Galen for its cure. Galen attributes this disease to overheated bile and sour phlegm, and says that it is to be cured by purgatives. Van Helmont, with the implicit faith of his simple nature, procured the prescribed medicines, and took them as ordered by Galen. Alas, no cure of the itch followed, but great exhaustion of his whole body: so Galen was not to be trusted. This was a serious discovery; for if he could not trust Galen, by whom the whole medical world swore, to whom was he to turn? … Van Helmont resolved to work out for himself a solution of the great problem to which he had devoted his life. Van Helmont's system may be called spiritual vitalism. The primary cause of all organization was Archæus. By Archæus, a man is much more nearly allied, he says, to the world of spirits and the Father of spirits than to the external world. Archæus is the creative spirit which, working upon the raw material of water or fluidity, by means of 'a ferment' excites all the endless actions which result in the growth and nourishment of the body. Thus, digestion is neither a chemical nor a mechanical operation; nor is it, as was then supposed, the effects of heat, for it is arrested instead of aided by fever, and goes on in perfection in fishes and cold-blooded animals; but, on the command of Archæus, an acid is generated in the stomach, which dissolves the food. This is the first digestion. The second consists in the neutralization of this acid by the bile out of the gall bladder. The third takes place in the vessels of the mesentery. The fourth goes on in the heart, by the action of the vital spirits. The fifth consists in the conversion of the arterial blood into vital spirits, chiefly in the brain. The sixth consists of the preparation of nourishment in the laboratory of each organ, during which operation Archæus, present everywhere, is itself regenerated, and superintends the momentary regeneration of the whole frame. If for digestion we substitute the word nutrition, we cannot fail to be struck by the near approach to accuracy in this description of the succession of processes by which it is brought about. Van Helmont's pathology was quite consistent with his physiology. As life and all vital action depended upon Archæus, so the perturbation of Archæus gave rise to fevers, and derangements of the blood and secretions. Thus, gout was a disease not confined to the part in which it showed itself, but was the result of Archæus. It will be seen that by this theory the entire system of Galen was non-suited. There is no place for the elements and the humours."

MEDICAL SCIENCE: 17th Century.
Harvey and the Discovery of the Circulation of the Blood.

William Harvey, "physician and discoverer of the circulation of the blood, was born at Folkestone, Kent, 1 April 1578, in a house which was in later times the posthouse of the town and which still belongs to Caius College, Cambridge, to which Harvey bequeathed it. His father was Thomas Harvey, a Kentish yeoman. … In 1588 William was sent to the King's School, Canterbury. Thence he went to Cambridge, where he was admitted a pensioner in Gonville and Caius College, 31 May 1593. … He graduated B. A. 1597, and, determining to study medicine, travelled through France and Germany to Padua, the most famous school of physic of that time. … He returned to England, graduated M. D. at Cambridge 1602, and soon after took a house in the parish of St. Martin-extra-Ludgate in London. … On 4 August 1615 he was elected Lumleian lecturer at the College of Physicians, … and in the following April, on the 16th, 17th, and 18th, he delivered at the college in Knightrider Street, near St. Paul's Cathedral, the lectures in which he made the first public statement of his thoughts on the circulation of the blood. The notes from which he delivered these lectures exist in their original manuscript and binding at the British Museum. … In 1628, twelve years after his first statement of it in his lectures, he published at Frankfurt, through William Fitzer, his discovery of the circulation of the blood. The book is a small quarto, entitled 'Exercitatio Anatomica de Motu Cordis et Sanguinis in Animalibus,' and contains seventy-two pages and two plates of diagrams. The printers evidently had difficulty in reading the author's handwriting, and there are many misprints. … {2134} He begins by modestly stating how the difficulties of the subject had gradually become clear to him, and by expressing with a quotation from the 'Andria' of Terence, the hope that his discovery might help others to still further knowledge. He then describes the motions of arteries, of the ventricles of the heart, and of its auricles, as seen in living animals, and the use of these movements. He shows that the blood coming into the right auricle from the vena cava, and passing then to the right ventricle, is pumped out to the lungs through the pulmonary artery, passes through the parenchyma of the lungs, and comes thence by the pulmonary veins to the left ventricle. This same blood, he shows, is then pumped out to the body. It is carried out by arteries and comes back by veins, performing a complete circulation. He shows that, in a live snake, when the great veins are tied some way from the heart, the piece of vein between the ligature and the heart is empty, and further, that blood coming from the heart is checked in an artery by a ligature, so that there is blood between the heart and the ligature and no blood beyond the ligature. He then shows how the blood comes back to the heart by the veins, and demonstrates their valves. These had before been described by Hieronymus Fabricius of Aquapendente, but before Harvey no exact explanation of their function had been given. He gives diagrams showing the results of obstructing the veins, and that these valves may thus be seen to prevent the flow of blood in the veins in any direction except towards the heart. After a summary of a few lines in the fourteenth chapter he further illustrates the perpetual circuit of the blood, and points out how morbid materials are carried from the heart all over the body. The last chapter gives a masterly account of the structure of the heart in men and animals, and points out that the right ventricle is thinner than the left because it has only to send the blood a short way into the lungs, while the left ventricle has to pump it all over the body. This great and original book at once attracted attention and excited discussion. In the College of Physicians of London, where Harvey had mentioned the discovery in his lectures every year since 1616, the Exercitatio received all the honour it deserved. On the continent of Europe it was received with less favour, but neither in England nor abroad did anyone suggest that the discovery was to be found in other writers. … Before his death the great discovery of Harvey was accepted throughout the medical world. The modern controversy … as to whether the discovery was taken from some previous author is sufficiently refuted by the opinion of the opponents of his views in his own time, who agreed in denouncing the doctrine as new; by the laborious method of gradual demonstration obvious in his book and lectures; and, lastly, by the complete absence of lucid demonstration of the action of the heart and course of the blood in Cæsalpinus, Servetus, and all others who have been suggested as possible originals of the discovery. It remains to this day the greatest of the discoveries of physiology, and its whole honour belongs to Harvey."

ALSO IN: R. Willis, William Harvey: A history of the Discovery of the Circulation of the Blood.

"The discovery of the lymphatic vessels and their purpose was scarcely less remarkable than that of the circulation of the blood. It has about it less of eclat, because it was not the work of one man, but was a matter of slow development. Herophilus and Erasistratus had seen white vessels connected with the lymph nodes in the mesentery of certain animals, and had supposed them to be arteries full of air. Galen disputed this, and believed the intestinal chyle to be carried by the veins of the mesentery into the liver. In 1563 Eustachius had described the thoracic duct in the horse; in 1622 Aselli, professor of anatomy at Milan, discovered the lacteal vessels in a dog which had been killed immediately after eating. Having pricked one of these by mistake, he saw a white fluid issue from it. Repeating the same experiment at other times he became certain that the white threads were vessels which drew the chyle from the intestines. He observed the valves with which they are supplied, and supposed these vessels to all meet in the pancreas and to be continued into the liver. In 1647 Pecquet, who was still a student at Montpelier, discovered the lymph reservoir, or receptaculum chyli, and the canal which leads from it, i. e., the thoracic duct, which he followed to its termination in the left subclavian vein. Having ligated it he saw it swell below, and empty itself above the ligature. He studied the courses of the lacteals, and convinced himself that they all entered into the common reservoir. His discovery gave the last blow to the ancient theory, which attributed to the liver the function of blood making, and it confirmed the doctrine of Harvey, while, like it, it had been very strongly opposed. Strangely enough, Harvey in this instance united with his great opponent, Riolan, in making common cause against the discovery of Pecquet and its significance. From that time the lymphatic vessels and glands became objects of common interest and were investigated by many anatomists, especially Bartholin, Ruysch, the Hunters, Hewson, and above all by Mascagni. He was the first to give a graphic description of the whole lymphatic apparatus."

MEDICAL SCIENCE: 17th Century.
Descartes and the dawn of modern Physiological science.

"The essence of modern, as contrasted with ancient, physiological science appears to me to lie in its antagonism to animistic hypotheses and animistic phraseology. It offers physical explanations of vital phenomena, or frankly confesses that it has none to offer. And, so far as I know, the first person who gave expression to this modern view of physiology, who was bold enough to enunciate the proposition that vital phenomena, like all the other phenomena of the physical world, are, in ultimate analysis, resolvable into matter and motion was René Descartes. The fifty-four years of life of this most original and powerful thinker are widely overlapped, on both sides, by the eighty of Harvey, who survived his younger contemporary by seven years, and takes pleasure in acknowledging the French philosopher's appreciation of his great discovery. {2135} In fact, Descartes accepted the doctrine of the circulation as propounded by 'Harvæus médecin d'Angleterre,' and gave a full account of it in his first work, the famous 'Discours de la Méthode,' which was published in 1637, only nine years after the exercitation 'De motu cordis;' and, though differing from Harvey on some important points (in which it may be noted, in passing, Descartes was wrong and Harvey right), he always speaks of him with great respect. And so important does the subject seem to Descartes that he returns to it in the 'Traité des Passions' and in the 'Traité de l'Homme.' It is easy to see that Harvey's work must have had a peculiar significance for the subtle thinker, to whom we owe both the spiritualistic and the materialistic philosophies of modern times. It was in the very year of its publication, 1628, that Descartes withdrew into that life of solitary investigation and meditation of which his philosophy was the fruit. … Descartes uses 'thought' as the equivalent of our modern term 'consciousness.' Thought is the function of the soul, and its only function. Our natural heat and all the movements of the body, says he, do not depend on the soul. Death does not take place from any fault of the soul, but only because some of the principal parts of the body become corrupted. … Descartes' 'Treatise on Man' is a sketch of human physiology, in which a bold attempt is made to explain all the phenomena of life, except those of consciousness, by physical reasonings. To a mind turned in this direction, Harvey's exposition of the heart and vessels as a hydraulic mechanism must have been supremely welcome. Descartes was not a mere philosophical theorist, but a hardworking dissector and experimenter, and he held the strongest opinion respecting the practical value of the new conception which he was introducing. … 'It is true,' says he, 'that as medicine is now practised, it contains little that is very useful; but without any desire to depreciate, I am sure that there is no one, even among professional men, who will not declare that all we know is very little as compared with that which remains to be known; and that we might escape an infinity of diseases of the mind, no less than of the body, and even perhaps from the weakness of old age, if we had sufficient knowledge of their causes and of all the remedies with which nature has provided us.' So strongly impressed was Descartes with this, that he resolved to spend the rest of his life in trying to acquire such a knowledge of nature as would lead to the construction of a better medical doctrine. The anti-Cartesians found material for cheap ridicule in these aspirations of the philosopher; and it is almost needless to say that, in the thirteen years which elapsed between the publication of the 'Discours' and the death of Descartes, he did not contribute much to their realisation. But, for the next century, all progress in physiology took place along the lines which Descartes laid down. The greatest physiological and pathological work of the seventeenth century, Borelli's treatise 'De Motu Animalium,' is, to all intents and purposes, a development of Descartes' fundamental conception; and the same may be said of the physiology and pathology of Boerhaave, whose authority dominated in the medical world of the first half of the eighteenth century. With the origin of modern chemistry, and of electrical science, in the latter half of the eighteenth century, aids in the analysis of the phenomena of life, of which Descartes could not have dreamed, were offered to the physiologist. And the greater part of the gigantic progress which has been made in the present century is a justification of the prevision of Descartes. For it consists, essentially, in a more and more complete resolution of the grosser organs of the living body into physico-chemical mechanisms. 'I shall try to explain our whole bodily machinery in such a way, that it will be no more necessary for us to suppose that the soul produces such movements as are not voluntary, than it is to think that there is in a clock a soul which causes it to show the hours.' These words of Descartes might be appropriately taken as a motto by the author of any modern treatise on physiology."

      T. H. Huxley,
      Connection of the Biological Sciences with Medicine
      (Science and Culture, etc., lecture 13).

"The aborigines of South America appear, except perhaps in one locality, to have been ignorant of the virtues of Peruvian bark. This sovereign remedy is absent in the wallets of itinerant doctors, whose materia medica has been handed down from father to son, since the days of the Yncas. It is mentioned neither by the Ynca Garcilasso de la Vega, nor by Acosta, in their lists of Indian medicines. It seems probable, nevertheless, that the Indians were aware of the virtues of Peruvian bark in the neighborhood of Loxa, 230 miles south of Quito, where its use was first made known to Europeans; and the local name for the tree quina-quina, 'bark of bark,' indicates that it was believed to possess some special medicinal properties. … In 1638 the wife of Don Luis Geronimo Fernandez de Cabrera Bobadilla y Mendoza, fourth Count of Chinchon, and Viceroy of Peru, lay sick of an intermittent fever in the palace of Lima. … The news of her illness at Lima reached Don Francisco Lopez de Canizares, the Corregidor of Loxa, who had become acquainted with the febrifuge virtues of the bark. He sent a parcel of it to the Vice-Queen, and the new remedy, administered by her physician, Dr. Don Juan de Vega, effected a rapid and complete cure. … The Countess of Chinchon returned to Spain in the spring of 1640, bringing with her a supply of that precious quina bark which had worked so wonderful a cure upon herself, and the healing virtues of which she intended to distribute amongst the sick on her husband's estates. It thus gradually became known in Europe, and was most appropriately called Countess's powder (Pulvis Comitissæ). By this name it was long known to druggists and in commerce. … In memory of the great service to humanity performed by the Countess of Chinchon, Linnæus named the genus which yields Peruvian bark, Chinchona. Unfortunately the great botanist was misinformed as to the name of her whom he desired to honour. This is to be accounted for by his having received his knowledge of the Countess through a foreign and not a Spanish source. Thus misled, Linnæus spelt the word Cinchona … and Cinhona, … omitting one or two letters. … After the cure of the Countess of Chinchon the Jesuits were the great promoters of the introduction of bark into Europe. In 1670 these fathers sent parcels of the powdered bark to Rome, whence it was distributed to members of the fraternity throughout Europe, by Cardinal de Lugo, and used for the cure of agues with great success. Hence the name of 'Jesuits' bark,' and 'Cardinal's bark;' and it was a ludicrous result of its patronage by the Jesuits that its use should have been for a long time opposed by Protestants, and favoured by Roman Catholics. In 1679 Louis XIV. bought the secret of preparing quinquina from Sir Robert Talbor, an English doctor, for 2,000 louis-d'or, a large pension, and a title. From that time Peruvian bark seems to have been recognised as the most efficacious remedy for intermittent fevers."

"Sydenham [Thomas Sydenham, 1624-1689], the prince of practical physicians, whose character is as beautiful and as genuinely English as his name, did for his art what Locke did for the philosophy of mind—he made it, in the main, observational; he made knowledge a means, not an end. It would not be easy to over-estimate our obligations as a nation to these two men, in regard to all that is involved in the promotion of health of body and soundness of mind. They were among the first in their respective regions to show their faith in the inductive method, by their works. They both professed to be more of guides than critics, and were the interpreters and servants of Nature, not her diviners and tormentors." Of Sydenham, "we must remember in the midst of what a mass of errors and prejudices, of theories actively mischievous, he was placed, at a time when the mania of hypothesis was at its height, and when the practical part of his art was overrun and stultified by vile and silly nostrums. We must have all this in our mind, or we shall fail in estimating the amount of independent thought, of courage and uprightness, and of all that deserves to be called magnanimity and virtue, which was involved in his thinking and writing and acting as he did. 'The improvement of physic [he wrote] in my opinion, depends, 1st, Upon collecting as genuine and natural a description or history of diseases as can be procured; and, 2d, Upon laying down a fixed and complete method of cure. With regard to the history of diseases, whoever considers the undertaking deliberately will perceive that a few such particulars must be attended to: 1st, All diseases should be described as objects of natural history, with the same exactness as is done by botanists, for there are many diseases that come under the same genus, and bear the same name, that, being specifically different, require a different treatment. The word carduus or thistle, is applied to several herbs, and yet a botanist would be inaccurate and imperfect who would content himself with a generic description. Furthermore, when this distribution of distempers into genera has been attempted, it has been to fit into some hypothesis, and hence this distribution is made to suit the bent of the author rather than the real nature of the disorder. How much this has obstructed the improvement of physic any man may know. In writing, therefore, such a natural history of diseases, every merely philosophical hypothesis should be set aside, and the manifest and natural phenomena, however minute, should be noted with the utmost exactness. The usefulness of this procedure cannot be easily overrated, as compared with the subtle inquiries and trifling notions of modern writers. … If only one person in every age had accurately described, and consistently cured, but a single disease, and made known his secret, physic would not be where it now is; but we have long since forsook the ancient method of cure, founded upon the knowledge of conjunct causes, insomuch that the art, as at this day practised, is rather the art of talking about diseases than of curing them.' … His friend Locke could not have stated the case more clearly or sensibly. It is this doctrine of 'conjunct causes,' this necessity for watching the action of compound and often opposing forces, and the having to do all this not in a machine, of which if you have seen one, you have seen all, but where each organism has often much that is different from, as well as common with, all others. … It is this which takes medicine out of the category of exact sciences, and puts it into that which includes politics, ethics, navigation and practical engineering, in all of which, though there are principles, and those principles quite within the scope of human reason, yet the application of these principles must, in the main, be left to each man's skill, presence of mind, and judgment, as to the case in hand. … It would not be easy to over-estimate the permanent impression for good, which the writings, the character, and the practice of Sydenham have made on the art of healing in England, and on the Continent generally. In the writings of Boerhaave, Stahl, Gaubius, Pinel, Bordeu, Haller, and many others, he is spoken of as the father of rational medicine; as the first man who applied to his profession the Baconian principles of interpreting and serving nature, and who never forgot the master's rule, 'Non fingendum aut excogitandum, sed inveniendum, quid natura aut faciat aut ferat.' … Like all men of a large practical nature, he could not have been what he was, or done what he did, without possessing and often exercising the true philosophizing faculty. He was a man of the same quality of mind in this respect with Watt, Franklin, and John Hunter, in whom speculation was not the less genuine that it was with them a means rather than an end."

MEDICAL SCIENCE: 17th Century.
Closing period of the Humoral Pathology.
The Doctrines of Hoffmann, Stahl and Boerhaave.

"If we take a general survey of medical opinions, we shall find that they are all either subordinate to, or coincident with, two grand theories. The one of these considers the solid constituents of the animal economy as the elementary vehicle of life, and consequently places in them the primary seat of disease. The other, on the contrary, sees in the humors the original realization of vitality; and these, as they determine the existence and quality of the secondary parts, or solids, contain, therefore, within themselves, the ultimate principle of the morbid affection. By relation to these theories, the history of medicine is divided into three great periods. During the first, the two theories, still crude, are not yet disentangled from each other; this period extends from the origin of medicine to the time of Galen. The second comprehends the reign of Humoral Pathology—the interval between Galen and Frederic Hoffmann. In the last the doctrine of the Living Solid is predominant; from Hoffmann it reaches to the present day. … By Galen, Humorism was first formally expounded, and reduced to a regular code of doctrine. {2137} Four elementary fluids, their relations and changes, sufficed to explain the varieties of natural temperament, and the causes of disease; while the genius, eloquence, and unbounded learning with which he illustrated this theory, mainly bestowed on it the ascendency, which, without essential alteration, it retained from the conclusion of the second to the beginning of the eighteenth century. Galenism and Humorism are, in fact, convertible expressions. Not that this hypothesis during that long interval encountered no opposition. It met, certainly, with some partial contradiction among the Greek and Arabian physicians. After the restoration of learning Fernelius and Brissot, Argenterius and Joubert, attacked it in different ways. … Until the epoch we have stated, the prevalence of the Humoral Pathology was, however, all but universal. Nor was this doctrine merely an erroneous speculation; it exerted the most decisive, the most pernicious influence on practice.—The various diseased affections were denominated in accommodation to the theory. In place of saying that a malady affected the liver, the peritonæum, or the organs of circulation, its seat was assumed in the blood, the bile, or the lymph. The morbific causes acted exclusively on the fluids; the food digested in the stomach, and converted into chyle, determined the qualities of the blood; and poisons operated through the corruption they thus effected in the vital humors. All symptoms were interpreted in blind subservience to the hypothesis; and those only attracted attention which the hypothesis seemed calculated to explain. The color and consistence of the blood, mucus, feces, urine, and pus, were carefully studied. On the other hand the phenomena of the solids, if not wholly overlooked, as mere accidents, were slumped together under some collective name, and attached to the theory through a subsidiary hypothesis. By supposed changes in the humors, they explained the association and consecution of symptoms. Under the terms, crudity, coction, and evacuation, were designated the three principal periods of diseases, as dependent on an alteration of the morbific matter. In the first, this matter, in all its deleterious energy, had not yet undergone any change on the part of the organs; it was still crude. In the second, nature gradually resumed the ascendant; coction took place. In the third, the peccant matter, now rendered mobile, was evacuated by urine, perspiration, dejection, &c., and æquilibrium restored. When no critical discharge was apparent, the morbific matter, it was supposed, had, after a suitable elaboration, been assimilated to the humors, and its deleterious character neutralized. Coction might be perfect or imperfect; and the transformation of one disease into another was lightly solved by the transport or emigration of the noxious humor. … Examinations of the dead body confirmed them in their notions. In the redness and tumefaction of inflamed parts, they beheld only a congestion of blood; and in dropsies, merely the dissolution of that fluid; tubercles were simply coagula of lymph; and other organic alterations, in general, naught but obstructions from an increased viscosity of the humors. The plan of cure was in unison with the rest of the hypothesis. Venesection was copiously employed to renew the blood, to attenuate its consistency, or to remove a part of the morbific matter with which it was impregnated; and cathartics, sudorifics, diuretics, were largely administered, with a similar intent. In a word, as plethora or cacochymia were the two great causes of disease, their whole therapeutic was directed to change the quantity or quality of the fluids. Nor was this murderous treatment limited to the actual period of disease. Seven or eight annual bloodings, and as many purgations—such was the common regimen the theory prescribed to insure continuance of health; and the twofold depletion, still customary, at spring and fall, among the peasantry of many European countries, is a remnant of the once universal practice. In Spain, every village has even now its Sangrador, whose only cast of surgery is blood-letting; and he is rarely idle. The medical treatment of Lewis XIII, may be quoted as a specimen of the humoral therapeutic, Within a single year this theory inflicted on that unfortunate monarch above a hundred cathartics, and more than forty bloodings.—During the fifteen centuries of Humorism, how many millions of lives did medicine cost mankind? The establishment of a system founded on the correcter doctrine of Solidism, and purified from the crudities of the Iatro-mathematical and Iatro-chemical hypotheses was reserved for three celebrated physicians toward the commencement of the eighteenth century—Frederic Hoffmann—George Ernest Stahl—and Hermann Boerhaave. The first and second of this triumvirate were born in the same year, were both pupils of Wedelius of Jena, and both professors, and rival professors, in the University of Halle; the third was eight years younger than his contemporaries, and long an ornament of the University of Leyden."

"The great and permanent merits of Hoffmann [1660-1742] as a medical philosopher, undoubtedly consisted in his having perceived and pointed out more clearly than any of his predecessors, the extensive and powerful influence of the Nervous System, in modifying and regulating at least, if not in producing, all the phenomena of the organic as well as of the animal functions in the human economy, and more particularly in his application of this doctrine to the explanation of diseases. … It was reserved for Hoffmann … to take a comprehensive view of the Nervous System, not only as the organ of sense and motion, but also as the common centre by which all the different parts of the animal economy are connected together, and through which they mutually influence each other. He was, accordingly, led to regard all those alterations in the structure and functions of this economy, which constitute the state of disease, as having their primary origin in affections of the nervous system, and as depending, therefore, upon a deranged state of the imperceptible and contractile motions in the solids, rather than upon changes induced in the chemical composition of the fluid parts of the body."

      J. Thomson,
      Account of the Life, Lectures and Writings of William Cullen,
      pages 195-196.

"George Ernest Stahl (1660-1734), chemist, was professor of medicine at Halle (1694) and physician to the King of Prussia (1716). He opposed materialism, and substituted 'animism,' explaining the symptoms of disease as efforts of the soul to get rid of morbid influences. Stahl's 'anima' corresponds to Sydenham's 'nature' in a measure, and has some relationship to the Archeus of Paracelsus and Van Helmont. Stahl was the author of the 'phlogiston' theory in chemistry, which in its time has had important influence on medicine. Phlogiston was a substance which he supposed to exist in all combustible matters, and the escape of this principle from any compound was held to account for the phenomenon of fire. According to Stahl, diseases arise from the direct action of noxious powers upon the body; and from the reaction of the system itself endeavouring to oppose and counteract the effects of the noxious powers, and so preserve and repair itself. He did not consider diseases, therefore, pernicious in themselves, though he admitted that they might become so from mistakes made by the soul in the choice, or proportion of the motions excited to remove them, or the time when these efforts are made. Death, according to this theory, is due to the indolence of the soul, leading it to desist from its vital motions, and refusing to continue longer the struggle against the derangements of the body. Here we have the 'expectant treatment' so much in vogue with many medical men. 'Trusting to the constant attention and wisdom of nature,' they administered inert medicines as placebos, while they left to nature the cure of the disease. But they neglected the use of invaluable remedies such as opium and Peruvian bark, for which error it must be admitted they atoned by discountenancing bleeding, vomiting, etc. Stahl's remedies were chiefly of the class known as 'Antiphlogistic,' or anti-febrile."

"The influence of Boerhaave [1668-1738] was immense while it lasted—it was world-wide; but it was like a ripple on the ocean—it had no depth. He knew everything and did everything better than any of his contemporaries, except those who made one thing, not everything, their study. He was familiar with the researches of the great anatomists, of the chemists, of the botanists, of historians, of men of learning, but he was not a great anatomist, chemist, or historian. As to his practice, we cannot pronounce a very decided opinion, except that he was a man of judgment and independence. Here his reputation made his success: a prescription of his would no doubt effect many a cure, although the patient had taken the remedy he prescribed fifty times without any benefit. His greatness depended upon his inexhaustible activity. He had the energy of a dozen ordinary men, and so he was twelve times as powerful as one. He mentions quite incidentally how he was in the habit of frequently spending whole nights in botanical excursions on foot; and we know he had no time to sleep in the day. He took an interest in everything, was always on the alert, had a prodigious memory, and indefatigable industry. On these great homely qualities, added to a kind disposition and an unaffected piety, his popularity was founded. It was all fairly won and nobly worn. It is startling, however, to find that a man whose name one hundred years ago was familiar to the ear as household words, and of whom historians predicted that he would always be regarded as one of the greatest as well as best of men, an example to his race, should be already almost forgotten. An example is of no use unless it is known; Boerhaave is now unknown. The reason is plain;—he was not the founder of any system, nor did he make any discovery. He simply used with supreme success the thoughts and discoveries of others; as soon as he ceased to live, his influence began therefore to decline; and before his generation had passed away, his star had waned before the genius of Cullen, who succeeded in fixing the attention of Europe, and who, in his turn, was soon to be displaced by others."

      J. R. Russell,
      History and Heroes of the Art of Medicine,
      pages 297-298.

MEDICAL SCIENCE: 17-18th Centuries.
Introduction of the Microscope in Medicine.
First glimmerings of the Germ Theory of Disease.

"Since Athanasius Kircher [1601-1680] mistook blood and pus corpuscles for small worms, and built up on his mistake a new theory of disease and putrefaction, and since Christian Lange, the Professor of Pathological Anatomy in Leipzig, in the preface to Kircher's book (1671) expressed his opinion that the purpura of lying-in-women, measles, and other fevers were the result of putrefaction caused by worms or animalculæ, a 'Pathologia Animata' has, from time to time, been put forward to explain the causation of disease. … Remarkable as were Kircher's observations, still more wonderful were those of Anthony van Leeuwenhoek, a native of Delft in Holland, who in his youth had learned the art of polishing lenses, and who was able, ultimately, to produce the first really good microscope that had yet been constructed. Not only did Leeuwenhoek make his microscope, but he used it to such good purpose that he was able to place before the Royal Society of London a series of most interesting and valuable letters giving the result of his researches on minute specks of living protoplasm. … The world that Leeuwenhoek … opened up so thoroughly was rapidly invaded by other observers and theorists. The thoughtful physicians of the time believed that at last they had found the 'fons et origo mali,' and Nicolas Andry, reviewing Kircher's' Contagium Animatum,' replaced his worms by these newly-described animalculæ or germs, and pushing the theory to its legitimate and logical conclusion, he also evolved a germ theory of putrefaction and fermentation. He maintained that air, water, vinegar, fermenting wine, old beer, and sour milk were all full of germs; that the blood and pustules of smallpox also contained them, and that other diseases, very rife about this period, were the result of the activity of these organisms. Such headway did he make, and such conviction did his arguments carry with them, that the mercurial treatment much in vogue at that time was actually based on the supposition that these organisms, the 'causæ causantes' of disease, were killed by the action of mercury and mercurial salts. With a kind of prophetic instinct, and certainly as the result of keen observation, Varro and Lancisi ascribed the dangerous character of marsh or swamp air to the action of invisible animalculæ; in fact the theory was so freely and forcibly propagated that even where no micro-organisms could be found their presence was inferred with the inevitable result, as Löffler points out, that these 'inconceivable' worms became the legitimate butts for the shafts of ridicule; and in 1726 there appeared in Paris a satirical work, in which these small organisms received the name of 'fainter,' 'body-pincher,' 'ulcerator,' 'weeping fistula,' 'sensualist'; the whole system was thus laughingly held up to satire, and the germ theory of disease completely discredited. {2139} Linnæus [1707-1778], however, with his wonderful powers of observation and deduction, considered that it was possible that there might be rescued from this 'chaos' small living beings which were as yet insufficiently separated and examined, but in which he firmly believed might lie not only the actual contagium of certain eruptive diseases, and of acute fevers, but also the exciting causes of both fermentation and putrefaction. The man, however, who of all workers earliest recognized the importance of Linnæus' observations was a Viennese doctor, Marcus Antonius Plenciz. … He it was who, at this time, insisted upon the specific character of the infective agent in every case of disease; for scarlet fever there was a scarlet fever seed or germ—a seed which could never give rise to smallpox. He showed that it was possible for this organism to become disseminated through the air, and for it to multiply in the body; and he explained the incubation stage of a febrile disease as dependent on the growth of a germ within the body during the period after its introduction, when its presence had not yet been made manifest. … As regards putrefaction, having corroborated Linnæus' observations and found countless animalculæ in putrefying matter, he came to the conclusion that this process was the result of the development, multiplication, and carrying on of the functions of nutrition and excretion by these germs; the products of fermentation being the volatile salts set free by the organisms, which, multiplying rapidly by forming seeds or eggs, rendered the fluid in which they developed thick, turbid, and foul. This theory, admirable as it was, and accurate as it has since been proved to be, could not then be based on any very extensive or detailed observation, and we find that some of the most prominent and brilliant men of the period did not feel justified in accepting the explanation that Plenciz had offered as to the causes of disease and fermentation processes."

MEDICAL SCIENCE: 17-18th Centuries.
Hahnemann and the origin of the System of Homœopathy.

Samuel Hahnemann, originator of the system of medicine called "Homœopathy," was born in 1755, at Meissen, in Saxony. He studied medicine at Leipsic, and afterwards at Vienna. In 1784 he settled in Dresden, but returned to Leipsic in 1789. "In the following year, while translating Cullen's Materia Medica out of English into German, his attention was arrested by the insufficient explanation's advanced in that work of the cure of ague by cinchona bark. By way of experiment, he took a large dose of that substance to ascertain its action on the healthy body. In the course of a few days he experienced the symptoms of ague; and it thus occurred to him that perhaps the reason why cinchona cures ague is because it has the power to produce symptoms in a healthy person similar to those of ague. To ascertain the truth of this conjecture, he ransacked the records of medicine for well-attested cures effected by single remedies; and finding sufficient evidences of this fact, he advanced a step further, and proposed, in an article published in Hufeland's Journal, in the year 1797, to apply this new principle to the discovery of proper medicines for every form of disease. Soon afterwards he published a case to illustrate his method. It was one of a severe kind of colic cured by a strong dose of veratrum album. Before this substance gave relief to the patient it excited a severe aggravation of his symptoms. This induced Hahnemann, instead of drops or grains, to give the fraction of a drop or grain, and he thus introduced infinitesimal doses. Some years later he applied his new principle in the treatment of scarlet fever; and finding that belladonna cured the peculiar type of that disease, which then prevailed in Germany, he proposed to give this medicine as a prophylactic, or preventive against scarlet fever; from that time it has been extensively employed for this purpose. In the year 1810 he published his great work, entitled Organon of Medicine, which has been translated into all the European languages, as well as into Arabic. In this book he fully expounded his new system, which he called Homœopathy. His next publication was a Materia Medica, consisting of a description of the effects of medicines upon persons in health. These works were published between the years 1810 and 1821, at Leipsic, where he founded a school, and was surrounded by disciples. As his system involved the administration of medicines, each separately by itself, and in doses infinitely minute, there was no longer any need of the apothecaries' intervention between their physician and the patient. In consequence of this the Apothecaries Company brought to bear upon Hahnemann an act forbidding physicians to dispense their own medicines, and with such effect that he was obliged to leave Leipsic. The Grand Duke of Anhalt Köthen, appointed him his physician, and invited him to live at Köthen. Thither, accordingly, he removed in the year 1821, and there he prepared various new editions of his Organon, and new volumes of his Materia Medica for publication. In 1835 he married a second time; his wife was a French lady of considerable position; and in the same year he left Köthen, and settled in Paris, where he enjoyed a great reputation till his death, which took place in the year 1843."

      W. Bayes,
      Origin and Present Status of Homœopathy
      (Translation of the Homœopathic Medical Society
      of the State of New York, 1869, article 21).

      J. C. Burnett,
      Ecce Medicus;
      or Hahnemann as a man and as a physician.

   "John Hunter [born 1728, died 1793] was not only one of the
   most profound anatomists of the age in which he lived, but he
   is by the common consent of his successors allowed to be one
   of the greatest men that ever practised surgery. One of the
   most striking discoveries in this part of his profession—
   indeed one of the most brilliant in surgery of his
   century—was the operation for the cure of popliteal aneurism
   by tying the femoral artery above the tumour in the ham, and
   without interfering with it. He improved the treatment of the
   rupture of the tendo achillis, in consequence of having
   experienced the accident himself when dancing. He invented the
   method of curing fistula lacrymalis by perforating the os
   unguis, and curing hydrocele radically by injection. His
   anatomical discoveries were numerous and important—amongst
   others the distribution of the blood-vessels of the uterus,
   which he traced till their disappearance in the placenta.
{2140}
   He was the first who demonstrated the existence of lymphatic
   vessels in birds; described the distribution of the branches
   of the olfactory nerve, as well as those of the fifth pair;
   and to him we owe the best and most faithful account of the
   descent of the testicle in the human subject, from the abdomen
   into the scrotum. Physiology is also indebted to him for many
   new views and ingenious suggestions. … 'Before his time
   surgery had been little more than a mechanical art, somewhat
   dignified by the material on which it was employed. Hunter
   first made it a science; and by pointing out its peculiar
   excellence as affording visible examples of the effects and
   progress of disease, induced men of far higher attainments
   than those who had before practised it to make it their
   study.' The best monument of his genius and talents, however,
   is the splendid museum which he formed by his sole efforts,
   and which he made, too, when labouring under every
   disadvantage of deficient education and limited means. It
   shows that as an anatomist and physiologist he had no
   superior."

"One of the most notable events of the 18th century, or for that matter, in the history of medicine, was the introduction of the systematic practice of preventive inoculation against small-pox. We are so generally taught that this is entirely due to the efforts of Jenner, or rather we are so often allowed to think it without being necessarily taught otherwise, that the measure deserves a historical sketch. The communication of the natural disease to the healthy in order to protect them from the same natural disease, in other words, the communication of small-pox to prevent the same, reaches back into antiquity. It is mentioned in the Sanskrit Vedas as then performed, always by Brahmins, who employed pus procured from small-pox vesicles a year before. They rubbed the place selected for operation until the skin was red, then scratched with a sharp instrument, and laid upon the place cotton soaked in the variolous pus, moistened with water from the sacred Ganges. Along with this measure they insisted upon most hygienic regulations, to which in a large measure their good results were due. Among the Chinese was practised what was known as 'Pock-sowing,' and as long ago as 1000 years before Christ they introduced into the nasal cavities of young children pledgets of cotton saturated with variolous pus. The Arabians inoculated the same disease with needles, and so did the Circassians, while in the states of north Africa incisions were made between the fingers, and among some of the negroes inoculation was performed in or upon the nose. In Constantinople, under the Greeks, the custom had long been naturalized and was practised by old women instructed in the art, who regarded it as a revelation of St. Mary. The first accounts of this practice were given to the Royal Society by Timoni, a physician of Constantinople, in 1714. The actual introduction of the practice into the West, however, was due to Lady Mary Wortley Montagu, who died in 1762, and who was wife of the English ambassador to the Porte in 1717. She had her son inoculated in Constantinople by her surgeon Maitland, and after her return to London, in 1721, it was also performed upon her daughter. During the same years experiments were undertaken by Maitland upon criminals; and as these turned out favorably, the Prince of Wales and his sisters were inoculated by Mead. The practice was then more or less speedily adopted on this side of the ocean as well as on that, but suffered occasional severe blows because of unfortunate cases here and there, such as never can be avoided. The clergy, especially, using the Bible, as designing men always can use it, to back up any view or practice, became warm opponents of vaccination, and stigmatized it as a very atrocious invasion of the Divine prerogative of punishment. But in 1746 the Bishop of Worcester recommended it from the pulpit, and established houses for inoculation, and thus made it again popular. In Germany the operation was generally favored, and in France and Italy a little later came into vogue."

   Many before the English physician, Dr. Jenner, "had witnessed
   the cow-pox, and had heard of the report current among the
   milkmaids in Gloucestershire, that whoever had taken that
   disease was secure against smallpox. It was a trifling, vulgar
   rumor, supposed to have no significance whatever; and no one
   had thought it worthy of investigation, until it was
   accidentally brought under the notice of Jenner. He was a
   youth, pursuing his studies at Sodbury, when his attention was
   arrested by the casual observation made by a country girl who
   came to his master's shop for advice. The smallpox was
   mentioned, when the girl said, 'I can't take that disease, for
   I have had cow-pox.' The observation immediately riveted
   Jenner's attention, and he forthwith set about inquiring and
   making observations on the subject. His professional friends,
   to whom he mentioned his views as to the prophylactic virtues
   of cow-pox, laughed at him, and even threatened to expel him
   from their society, if he persisted in harassing them with the
   subject. In London he was so fortunate as to study under John
   Hunter [1770-1773] to whom he communicated his views. The
   advice of the great anatomist was thoroughly characteristic:
   'Don't think, but try; be patient, be accurate.' Jenner's
   courage was greatly supported by the advice, which conveyed to
   him the true art of philosophical investigation. He went back
   to the country to practise his profession, and carefully to
   make observations and experiments, which he continued to
   pursue for a period of twenty years. His faith in his
   discovery was so implicit that he vaccinated his own son on
   three several occasions. At length he published his views in a
   quarto of about seventy pages, in which he gave the details of
   twenty-three cases of successful vaccination of individuals,
   to whom it was found afterwards impossible to communicate the
   smallpox either by contagion or inoculation. It was in 1798
   that this treatise was published; though he had been working
   out his ideas as long before as 1775, when they began to
   assume a definite form. How was the discovery received? First
   with indifference, then with active hostility. He proceeded to
   London to exhibit to the profession the process of vaccination
   and its successful results; but not a single doctor could be
   got to make a trial of it, and after fruitlessly waiting for
   nearly three months, Jenner returned to his native village.
{2141}
   He was even caricatured and abused for his attempt to
   'bestialize' his species by the introduction into their
   systems of diseased matter from the cow's udder. Cobbett was
   one of his most furious assailants. Vaccination was denounced
   from the pulpit as 'diabolical.' It was averred that
   vaccinated children became 'ox-faced,' that abscesses broke
   out to 'indicate sprouting horns,' and that the countenance
   was gradually 'transmuted into the visage of a cow, the voice
   into the bellowing of bulls.' Vaccination, however, was a
   truth, and notwithstanding the violence of the opposition
   belief in it spread slowly. In one village where a gentleman
   tried to introduce the practice, the first persons who
   permitted themselves to be vaccinated were absolutely pelted,
   and were driven into their houses if they appeared out of
   doors. Two ladies of title,—Lady Ducie and the Countess of
   Berkeley,—to their honor be it remembered,—had the courage
   to vaccinate their own children; and the prejudices of the day
   were at once broken through. The medical profession gradually
   came round, and there were several who even sought to rob Dr.
   Jenner of the merit of the discovery, when its vast importance
   came to be recognized. Jenner's cause at last triumphed, and
   he was publicly honored and rewarded. In his prosperity he was
   as modest as he had been in his obscurity. He was invited to
   settle in London, and told that he might command a practice of
   £10,000 a year. But his answer was, 'No! In the morning of my
   days I have sought the sequestered and lowly paths of
   life,—the valley, and not the mountain,—and now, in the
   evening of my days, it is not meet for me to hold myself up as
   an object for fortune and for fame.' In Jenner's own lifetime
   the practice of vaccination had been adopted all over the
   civilized world; and when he died, his title as Benefactor of
   his kind was recognized far and wide. Cuvier has said, 'If
   vaccine were the only discovery of the epoch, it would serve
   to render it illustrious forever."

"John Brown, born of obscure parents in a village of Berwick, in Scotland, was remarkable, from his early youth, for an extraordinary aptitude for acquiring languages, a decided inclination for scholastic dispute, a pedantic tone and manner, and somewhat irregular conduct. Having abandoned theology for medicine, he fixed his residence in Edinburgh. … He was particularly entertained and countenanced by Cullen, who even took him into his family in the character of preceptor of his children. This agreeable relation subsisted during twelve consecutive years between these two men, whose characters and minds were so different. … But some trifling matters of mutual discontent grew at length into coldness, and changed the old friendship which had united them into an irreconcilable hatred. Their rupture broke out about the year 1778, and in a short time after, Brown published his Elements of Medicine. … Brown employed some of the ideas of his master to develop a doctrine much more simple in appearance, but founded entirely on abstract considerations; a doctrine in which every provision seems to be made for discussion, but none for practice. Cullen had said that the nervous system receives the first impression of excitants, and transmits it afterwards to the other organs endowed with motion and vitality. Brown explains thus, the same thought: 'Life is only sustained by incitation. It is only the result of the action of incitants on the incitability of organs.' Cullen regarded the atony of the small vessels as the proximate cause of fever. Brown, improving on this hypothesis, admits, with hardly any exceptions, only hyposthenic diseases. … The Scotch physiologist distinguished only two pathological states—one consisting in an excess of incitability, which he names the sthenic diathesis; the other, constituted by a want, more or less notable, of the same faculty, which he designates as the asthenic diathesis. Besides, Brown considers these two states as affecting the entire economy, rather than any organ in particular. … After having reduced all diseases to two genera, and withdrawn from pathology the study of local lesions, Brown arrives, by a subtile argumentation, to consider the affections of the sthenic order as prevailing in a very small number of instances, so that the diseases of the asthenic type comprehend nearly the totality of affections. According to this theory, a physician is rarely ever mistaken if he orders in all his cases, remedies of an exciting nature. … Never since the days of Thessalus (of charlatan memory) had anyone simplified to such a point the study and practice of medicine. We may even say that in this respect the Scotch pathologist left far in the rear the physician of Nero. To this attraction, well calculated to tempt students and practitioners, the doctrine of Brown joined the advantage of being presented in an energetic and captivating style, full of imagery, which suffices to explain its rapid progress. But this doctrine, so seductive in its exposition, so easy in its application, is one of the most disastrous that man has been able to imagine, for it tends to propagate the abuse of diffusible stimulants, of which spirituous liquors make a part, an abuse excessively injurious to health in general, and the intellectual faculties in particular—an abuse to which man is too much inclined, naturally, and which the sophisms of Brown may have contributed to spread in all classes of English society. … Notwithstanding its defects, the system of Brown made rapid progress, principally in Germany and Italy."

   "About the time when we seniors commenced the study of
   medicine, it was still under the influence of the important
   discoveries which Albrecht von Haller [1708-1777] had made on
   the excitability of nerves; and which he had placed in
   connection with the vitalistic theory of the nature of life.
   Haller had observed the excitability in the nerves and muscles
   of amputated members. The most surprising thing to him was,
   that the most varied external actions, mechanical, chemical,
   thermal, to which electrical ones were subsequently added, had
   always the same result; namely, that they produced muscular
   contraction. They were only quantitatively distinguished as
   regards their action on the organism, that is, only by the
   strength of the excitation; he designated them by the common
   name of stimulus; he called the altered condition of the nerve
   the excitation, and its capacity of responding to a stimulus
   the excitability, which was lost at death.
{2142}
   This entire condition of things, which physically speaking
   asserts no more than the nerves, as concerns the changes which
   take place in them after excitation, are in an exceedingly
   unstable state of equilibrium; this was looked upon as the
   fundamental property of animal life, and was unhesitatingly
   transferred to the other organs and tissues of the body, for
   which there was no similar justification. It was believed that
   none of them were active of themselves, but must receive an
   impulse by a stimulus from without; air and nourishment were
   considered to be the normal stimuli. The kind of activity
   seemed, on the contrary, to be conditioned by the specific
   energy of the organ, under the influence of the vital force.
   Increase or diminution of the excitability was the category
   under which the whole of the acute diseases were referred, and
   from which indications were taken as to whether the treatment
   should be lowering or stimulating. The rigid one-sidedness and
   the unrelenting logic with which … [John] Brown had once
   worked out the system was broken, but it always furnished the
   leading points of view."

      H. Helmholtz,
      On Thought in Medicine
      (Popular Lectures, series 2, lecture 5).

Marie Francis Xavier Bichat, was born in 1771 and died in 1802, accomplishing his extraordinary work as an anatomist and physician within a lifetime of thirty-one years. "The peculiar physiological views of Bichat are to be found stated more or less distinctly in all his works; and it is a merit of his that he has always kept in sight the necessary connexion of this part of the science of medicine with every other, and, so far as he has developed his ideas upon the subjects of pathology, materia medica, and therapeutics, they seem all to have been founded upon and connected with the principles of physiology, which he had adopted. … Everything around living bodies, according to Bichat, tends constantly to their destruction. And to this influence they would necessarily yield, were they not gifted with some permanent principle of reaction. This principle is their life, and a living system is therefore necessarily always engaged in the performance of functions, whose object is to resist death. Life, however, does not consist in a single principle, as has been taught by some celebrated writers, by Stahl, Van Helmont, and Barthez, &c. We are to study the phenomena of life, as we do those of other matter, and refer the operations performed in living systems to such ultimate principles as we can trace them to, in the same way that we do the operations taking place among inorganic substances. … His essential doctrine … is that there is no one single, individual, presiding principle of vitality, which animates the body, but that it is a collection of matter gifted for a time with certain powers of action, combined into organs which are thus enabled to act, and that the result is a series of functions, the connected performance of which constitutes it a living thing. This is his view of life, considered in the most general and simple way. But in carrying the examination farther, he points out two remarkable modifications of life, as considered in different relations, one common both to vegetables and animals, the other peculiar to animals. … Those which we have in common with the vegetable, which are necessary merely to our individual, bodily existence, are called the functions of organic life, because they are common to all organized matter. Those, on the other hand, which are peculiar to animals, which in them are superadded to the possession of the organic functions, are called the functions of animal life. Physiologically speaking, then, we have two lives, the concurrence of which enables us to live and move and have our being; both equally necessary to the relations we maintain as human beings, but not equally necessary to the simple existence of a living thing. … The two lives differ, in some important respects, as to the organs by which their functions are performed. Those of the animal life present a symmetry of external form, strongly contrasted with the irregularity, which is a prominent characteristic of those of organic life. In the animal life, every function IS either performed by a pair of organs, perfectly similar in structure and size, situated one upon each side of the median dividing line of the body, or else by a single organ divided into two similar and perfectly symmetrical halves by that line. … The organs of the organic life, on the contrary, present a picture totally different; they are irregularly formed, and irregularly arranged. … This symmetry of the form is accompanied by a corresponding harmony in the functions of the organs of the animal life. … The functions of the organic life are constantly going on; they admit of no interruption, no repose. … In those of the animal life, the case is widely different. They have intervals of entire repose. The organs of this life are incapable of constant activity, they become fatigued by exercise and require rest. This rest, with regard to any particular organ, is the sleep of that organ. … Upon this principle, Bichat founds his theory of sleep. General sleep is the combination of the sleep of particular organs. Sleep then is not any definite state, but is more or less complete rest of the whole system in proportion to the number of organs which require repose. … The two lives differ also in regard to habit; the animal being much under its control, the organic but slightly. … But the principal and most important feature in the physiological system of Bichat, is the complete, and entire, and exclusive explanation of all the phenomena of the living system upon the principles of vitality alone. Former physiologists have not always kept this distinctly in view. … The human body has been regarded, too often, as a mass of matter, organized to be sure, but yet under the direction of physical laws, and the performance of its functions has been ascribed to the powers of inorganic matter. Hence, physiology has generally been somewhat tinctured by the favorite science of the age, with some of its notions. … With Bichat the properties of life were all in all. The phenomena of the system, whether in health or disease, were all ascribed to their influence and operation."

MEDICAL SCIENCE: 18-19th Centuries.
Pinel and the Reform in treatment of the Insane.

Philippe Pinel, "who had attained some distinction as an alienist, was appointed, 1792, to fill the post of superintendent of the Bicêtre, which then contained upwards of 200 male patients, believed not only to be incurable, but entirely uncontrollable. The previous experience of the physician, here stood him in good stead. He had been a diligent student of the authorities of his own and foreign countries on diseases of the mind, and in his earlier years had been appointed by the French government to report on the condition of the asylums at Paris and Charenton. On assuming the oversight of the Bicêtre, he found 53 men languishing in chains, some of whom had been bound for a great number of years. These were regarded by the authorities as dangerous and even desperate characters; but the sight of men grown gray and decrepit as the result of prolonged torture, made a very different impression on the mind of Pinel. He addressed appeal after appeal to the Commune, craving power to release, without delay, the unhappy beings under his charge. The authorities tardily and unwillingly yielded to the importunity of the physician. An official, who was deputed by the Commune to accompany the superintendent and watch his experiment, no sooner caught sight of the chained maniacs than he excitedly exclaimed: 'Ah, ça! citoyen, es-tu fou toi-même de vouloir déchaîner de pareils animaux?' The physician was not to be deterred, however, from carrying out his benevolent project, and did not rest satisfied until all of the 53 men had been gradually liberated from their chains. Singular as it may appear, the man who had been regarded as the most dangerous, and who had survived forty years of this severe treatment, was afterwards known as the faithful and devoted servant of Pinel. The reforms of Pinel were not confined to the Bicêtre, an establishment exclusively for men, but extended to the Salpêtrière, an institution for women. There is, perhaps, no more touching event in history than that of this kind-hearted and wise physician removing the bands and chains from the ill-fated inmates of this place of horrors. The monstrous fallacy of cruel treatment once fully exposed, the insane came to be looked upon as unfortunate human beings, stricken with a terrible disease, and, like other sick persons, requiring every aid which science and benevolent sympathy could provide with a view to cure. Governmental inquiries were instituted with a view to the attainment of better treatment, and in different countries, almost simultaneously, the provision of suitable and adequate accommodation for the insane was declared to be a State necessity."

"In 1798, Mr. Humphry Davy, an apprentice to Mr. Borlase a surgeon at Bodmin, had so distinguished himself by zeal and power in the study of chemistry and natural philosophy, that he was invited by Dr. Beddoes of Bristol, to become the 'superintendent of the Pneumatic Institution which had been established at Clifton for the purpose of trying the medicinal effects of different gases.' He obtained release from his apprenticeship, accepted the appointment, and devoted himself to the study of gases, not only in their medicinal effects, but much more in all their chemical and physical relations. After two years' work he published his 'Researches, Chemical and Philosophical, chiefly concerning Nitrous Oxide.' … He wrote, near the end of his essay: 'As nitrous oxide in its extensive operation appears capable of destroying physical pain, it may probably be used with advantage during surgical operations in which no great effusion of blood takes place.' It seems strange that no one caught at a suggestion such as this. … The nitrous oxide might have been of as little general interest as the carbonic or any other, had it not been for the strange and various excitements produced by its inhalation. These made it a favourite subject with chemical lecturers, and year after year, in nearly every chemical theatre, it was fun to inhale it after the lecture on the gaseous compounds of nitrogen; and among those who inhaled it there must have been many who, in their intoxication, received sharp and heavy blows, but, at the time, felt no pain. And this went on for more than forty years, exciting nothing worthy to be called thought or observation, till, in December 1844, Mr. Colton, a popular itinerant lecturer on chemistry, delivered a lecture on 'laughing gas' in Hartford, Connecticut. Among his auditors was Mr. Horace Wells, an enterprising dentist in that town, a man of some power in mechanical invention. After the lecture came the usual amusement of inhaling the gas, and Wells, in whom long wishing had bred a kind of belief that something might be found to make tooth-drawing painless, observed that one of the men excited by the gas was not conscious of hurting himself when he fell on the benches and bruised and cut his knees. Even when he became calm and clear-headed the man was sure that he did not feel pain at the time of his fall. Wells was at once convinced—more easily convinced than a man of more scientific mind would have been—that, during similar insensibility, in a state of intense nervous excitement, teeth might be drawn without pain, and he determined that himself and one of his own largest teeth should be the first for trial. Next morning Colton gave him the gas, and his friend Dr. Riggs extracted his tooth. He remained unconscious for a few moments, and then exclaimed, 'A new era in tooth-pulling! It did not hurt me more than the prick of a pin. It is the greatest discovery ever made.' In the next three weeks Wells extracted teeth from some twelve or fifteen persons under the influence of the nitrous oxide, and gave pain to only two or three. Dr. Riggs, also, used it with the same success, and the practice was well known and talked of in Hartford. Encouraged by his success Wells went to Boston, wishing to enlarge the reputation of his discovery and to have an opportunity of giving the gas to some one undergoing a surgical operation. Dr. J. C. Warren, the senior Surgeon of the Massachusetts General Hospital, to whom he applied for this purpose, asked him to show first its effects on some one from whom he would draw a tooth. He undertook to do this in the theatre of the medical college before a large class of students, to whom he had, on a previous day, explained his plan. Unluckily, the bag of gas from which the patient was inhaling was taken a way too soon; he cried out when his tooth was drawn; the students hissed and hooted; and the discovery was denounced as an imposture. Wells left Boston disappointed and disheartened; he fell ill, and was for many months unable to practise his profession. Soon afterwards he gave up dentistry, and neglected the use and study of the nitrous oxide, till he was recalled to it by a discovery even more important than his own. The thread of the history of nitrous oxide may be broken here. {2144} The inhalation of sulphuric ether was often, even in the last century, used for the relief of spasmodic asthma, phthisis, and some other diseases of the chest. … As the sulphuric ether would 'produce effects very similar to those occasioned by nitrous oxide,' and was much the more easy to procure, it came to be often inhaled, for amusement, by chemist's lads and by pupils in the dispensaries of surgeons. It was often thus used by young people in many places in the United States. They had what they called 'ether frolics.' … Among those who had joined in these ether-frolics was Dr. Wilhite of Anderson, South Carolina. In one of them, in 1839," a negro boy was unconscious so long that he was supposed for some time to be dead. "The fright at having, it was supposed, so nearly killed the boy, put an end to the ether-frolics in that neighbourhood; but in 1842, Wilhite had become a pupil of Dr. Crauford Long, practising at that time at Jefferson (Jackson County, Georgia). Here he and Dr. Long and three fellow-pupils often amused themselves with the ether-inhalation, and Dr. Long observed that when he became furiously excited, as he often did, he was unconscious of the blows which he, by chance, received as he rushed or tumbled about. He observed the same in his pupils; and thinking over this, and emboldened by what Mr. Wilhite told him of the negro-boy recovering after an hour's insensibility, he determined to try whether the ether-inhalation would make any one insensible of the pain of an operation. So, in March, 1842, nearly three years before Wells's observations with the nitrous oxide, he induced a Mr. Venable, who had been very fond of inhaling ether, to inhale it till he was quite insensible. Then he dissected a tumour from his neck; no pain was felt, and no harm followed. Three months later, he similarly removed another tumour from him; and again, in 1842 and in 1845, he operated on other three patients, and none felt pain. His operations were known and talked of in his neighbourhood; but the neighbourhood was only that of an obscure little town; and he did not publish any of his observations. … He waited to test the ether more thoroughly in some greater operation than those in which he had yet tried it; and then he would have published his account of it. While he was waiting, others began to stir more actively in busier places, where his work was quite unknown, not even heard of. Among those with whom, in his unlucky visit to Boston, Wells talked of his use of the nitrous oxide, and of the great discovery which he believed that he had made, were Dr. Morton and Dr. Charles Jackson. … Morton was a restless energetic dentist, a rough man, resolute to get practice and make his fortune. Jackson was a quiet scientific gentleman, unpractical and unselfish, in good repute as a chemist, geologist, and mineralogist. At the time of Wells's visit, Morton, who had been his pupil in 1842, and for a short time, in 1843, his partner, was studying medicine and anatomy at the Massachusetts Medical College, and was living in Jackson's house. Neither Morton nor Jackson put much if any faith in Wells's story, and Morton witnessed his failure in the medical theatre. Still, Morton had it in his head that tooth-drawing might somehow be made painless. … Jackson had long known, as many others did, of sulphuric ether being inhaled for amusement and of its producing effects like those of nitrous oxide; he knew also of its employment as a remedy for the irritation caused by inhaling chlorine. He had himself used it for this purpose, and once, in 1842, while using it, he became completely insensible. He had thus been led to think that the pure ether might be used for the prevention of pain in surgical operations; he spoke of it with some scientific friends, and sometimes advised a trial of it; but he did not urge it or take any active steps to promote even the trial. One evening, Morton, who was now in practice as a dentist, called on him, full of some scheme which he did not divulge, and urgent for success in painless tooth-drawing. Jackson advised him to use the ether, and taught him how to use it. On that same evening, the 30th of September, 1846, Morton inhaled the ether, put himself to sleep, and, when he awoke, found that he had been asleep for eight minutes. Instantly, as he tells, he looked for an opportunity of giving it to a patient; and one just then coming in, a stout healthy man, he induced him to inhale, made him quite insensible, and drew his tooth without his having the least consciousness of what was done. But the great step had yet to be made. … Could it be right to incur the risk of insensibility long enough and deep enough for a large surgical operation? It was generally believed that in such insensibility there was serious danger to life. Was it really so? Jackson advised Morton to ask Dr. J. C. Warren to let him try, and Warren dared to let him. It is hard, now, to think how bold the enterprise must have seemed to those who were capable of thinking accurately on the facts then known. The first trial was made on the 16th of October, 1846. Morton gave the ether to a patient in the Massachusetts General Hospital, and Dr. Warren removed a tumour from his neck. The result was not complete success; the patient hardly felt the pain of the cutting, but he was aware that the operation was being performed. On the next day, in a severer operation by Dr. Hayward, the success was perfect; the patient felt nothing, and in long insensibility there was no appearance of danger to life. The discovery might already be deemed complete; for the trials of the next following days had the same success, and thence onwards the use of the ether extended over constantly widening fields. … It might almost be said that in every place, at least in Europe, where the discovery was promoted more quickly than in America, the month might be named before which all operative surgery was agonising, and after which it was painless."

      Sir J. Paget,
      Escape from Pain
      (Nineteenth Century, December 1879).

"It was some time ago the current belief that epidemic diseases generally were propagated by a kind of malaria, which consisted of organic matter in a state of motor-decay; that when such matter was taken into the body through the lungs, skin, or stomach, it had the power of spreading there the destroying process by which itself had been assailed. Such a power was visibly exerted in the case of yeast. A little leaven was seen to leaven the whole lump—a mere speck of matter, in this supposed state of decomposition, being apparently competent to propagate indefinitely its own decay. Why should not a bit of rotten malaria act in a similar manner within the human frame? In 1836 a very wonderful reply was given to this question. In that year Cagniard de la Tour discovered the yeast-plant—a living organism, which when placed in a proper medium feeds, grows, and reproduces itself, and in this way carries on the process which we name fermentation. By this striking discovery fermentation was connected with organic growth. Schwann, of Berlin, discovered the yeast-plant independently about the same time."

The question of fermentation "had come to present an entirely new aspect through the discovery of Cagniard de la Tour that yeast is really a plant belonging to one of the lowest types of fungi, which grows and reproduces itself in the fermentable fluid, and whose vegetative action is presumably the cause of that fermentation, just as the development of mould in a jam-pot occasions a like change in the upper stratum of the jam, on whose surface, and at whose expense, it lives and reproduces itself. Chemists generally—especially Liebig, who had a fermentation theory of his own—pooh-poohed this idea altogether; maintaining the presence of the yeast-plant to be a mere concomitant, and refusing to believe that it had any real share in the process. But in 1843, Professor Helmholtz, then a young undistinguished man, devised a method of stopping the passage of organic germs from a fermenting into a fermentable liquid, without checking the passage of fluids; and as no fermentation was then set up, he drew the inference that the 'particulate' organic germs, not the soluble material of the yeast, furnish the primum mobile of this change,—a doctrine which, though now universally accepted, had to fight its way for some time against the whole force of chemical authority. A little before Cagniard de la Tour's discovery, a set of investigations had been made by Schulze and Schwann, to determine whether the exclusion of air was absolutely necessary to prevent the appearance of living organisms in decomposing fluids, or whether these fluids might be kept free from animal or vegetable life, by such means as would presumably destroy any germs which the air admitted to them might bring in from without, such as passing it through a red-hot tube or strong sulphuric acid. These experiments, it should be said, had reference rather to the question of 'spontaneous generation,' or 'abiogenesis,' than to the cause of fermentation and decomposition; its object being to determine whether the living things found by the microscope in a decomposing liquid exposed to the air, spring from germs brought by the atmosphere, or are generated 'de novo' in the act of decay—the latter doctrine having then many upholders. But the discovery of the real nature of yeast, and the recognition of the part it plays in alcoholic fermentation, gave an entirely new value to Schulze's and Schwann's results; suggesting that putrefactive and other kinds of decomposition may be really due, not (as formerly supposed) to the action of atmospheric oxygen upon unstable organic compounds, but to a new arrangement of elements brought about by the development of germinal particles deposited from the atmosphere. It was at this point that Pasteur took up the inquiry; and for its subsequent complete working-out, science is mainly indebted to him: for although other investigators—notably Professor Tyndall—have confirmed and extended his conclusions by ingenious variations on his mode of research, they would be the first to acknowledge that all those main positions which have now gained universal acceptance—save on the part of a few obstinate 'irreconcilables'—have been established by Pasteur's own labours. … The first application of these doctrines to the study of disease in the living animal was made in a very important investigation, committed to Pasteur by his old master in chemistry (the eminent and eloquent Dumas), into the nature of the 'pébrine,' which was threatening to extinguish the whole silk culture of France and Italy. … Though it concerned only a humble worm, it laid the foundation of an entirely new system and method of research into the nature and causes of a large class of diseases in man and the higher animals, of which we are now only beginning to see the important issues. Among the most immediately productive of its results, may be accounted the 'antiseptic surgery' of Professor Lister; of which the principle is the careful exclusion of living bacteria and other germs, alike from the natural internal cavities of the body, and from such as are formed by disease, whenever these may be laid open by accident, or may have to be opened surgically. This exclusion is effected by the judicious use of carbolic acid, which kills the germs without doing any mischief to the patient; and the saving of lives, of limbs, and of severe suffering, already brought about by this method, constitutes in itself a glorious triumph alike to the scientific elaborator of the germ-doctrine, and to the scientific surgeon by whom it has been thus applied. A far wider range of study, however, soon opened itself. The revival by Dr. Farr of the doctrine of 'zymosis' (fermentation),—long ago suggested by the sagacity of Robert Boyle, and practically taken up in the middle of the last century by Sir John Pringle (the most scientific physician of his time),—as the expression of the effect produced in the blood by the introduction of a specific poison (such as that of small-pox, measles, scarlatina, cholera, typhus, &c.), had naturally directed the attention of thoughtful men to the question (often previously raised speculatively), whether these specific poisons are not really organic germs, each kind of which, a real 'contagium vivum,' when sown in the circulating fluid, produces a definite 'zymosis' of its own, in the course of which the poison is reproduced with large increase, exactly after the manner of yeast in a fermenting wort. Pasteur's success brought this question to the front, as one not to talk about, but to work at."

      W. B. Carpenter,
      Disease-Germs
      (Nineteenth Century, October, 1881).

   "That really gifted scholar and paragon of industry and
   attainment, Rudolph Virchow, announced in 1858 a theory known
   as Modern Vitalism which was borrowed from natural scientific
   medicine and is distinguished from the vitalism of the
   previous century in this, that it breaks up the old vital
   force, which was supposed to be either distributed throughout
   the entire body, or located in a few organs, into an
   indefinite number of associate vital forces working
   harmoniously, and assigns to them all the final elementary
   principles without microscopic seat. 'Every animal principle
   has a sum of vital unities, each of which bears all the
   characteristics of life.
{2146}
   The characteristics and unity of life cannot be found in any
   determinate point of a higher organism, e. g., in the brain,
   but only in the definite, ever recurring arrangements of each
   element present. Hence it results that the composition of a
   large body amounts to a kind of social arrangement, in which
   each one of the movements of individual existence is dependent
   upon the others, but in such a way that each element has a
   special activity of its own, and that each, although it
   receives the impulse to its own activity from other parts,
   still itself performs its own functions.' This it will be seen
   is nothing but another way of expressing the cell doctrine to
   which most medical men are now committed, which means that our
   bodies are built up with cells, and that each cell has a unity
   and a purpose of its own. Sir Robert Hooke in 1677 discovered
   plant cells. Schwann discovered animal cells, and Robert Brown
   discovered cell nuclei, but it remained for Virchow, using the
   microscope, to supply the gap which had risen between
   anatomical knowledge and medical theory, that is, to supply a
   'cellular pathology,' since which time the cell has assumed
   the role which the fibre occupied in the theories of the 17th
   and 18th centuries. Time alone can decide as to the ultimate
   validity of these views. This theory was from its announcement
   most enthusiastically received, and so far has responded to
   nearly all the requirements which have been made of it. Even
   its author was almost startled with its success. … As a
   result of Virchow's labors there has arisen in Germany what
   has been called the medical school of natural sciences of
   which Virchow is the intellectual father. This school seeks
   mainly by means of pathological anatomy and microscopy,
   experimental physiology and pathology, and the other applied
   sciences, or rather by their methods, to make medicine also an
   exact science."

"The traditional expression contagium vivum received a more precise meaning in 1840 from Henle, who in his 'Pathologischen Untersuchungen,' showed clearly and distinctly that the contagia till then invisible must be regarded as living organisms, and gave his reasons for this view. … If we are forced to recognise the characteristic qualities of living beings in these contagia, there is no good reason why we should not regard them as real living beings, parasites. For the only general distinction between their mode of appearance and operation and that of parasites is, that the parasites with which we are acquainted have been seen and the contagia have not. That this may be due to imperfect observation is shown by the experiments on the itch in 1840, in which the contagium, the itch-mite, though almost visible without magnifying power, was long at least misunderstood. It was only a short time before that the microscopic Fungus, Achorion, which causes favus, was unexpectedly discovered, as well as the Fungus which gives rise to the infectious disease in the caterpillar of the silkworm known as muscardine. Other and similar cases occurred at a later time, and among them that of the discovery of the Trichinae between 1850 and 1860, a very remarkable instance of a contagious parasite long overlooked. Henle repeated his statements in 1853 in his 'Rationelle Pathologie,' but for reasons which it is not our business to examine, his views on animal pathology met with little attention or approval. It was in connection with plant-pathology that Henle's views were first destined to further development, and obtained a firmer footing. It is true that the botanists who occupied themselves with the diseases of plants knew nothing of Henle's pathological writings, but made independent efforts to carry on some first attempts which had been made with distinguished success in the beginning of the century. But they did in fact strike upon the path indicated by Henle, and the constant advance made after, about the year 1850, resulted not only in the tracing back of all infectious diseases in plants to parasites as their exciting cause, but in proving that most of the diseases of plants are due to parasitic infection. It may now certainly be admitted that the task was comparatively easy in the vegetable kingdom, partly because the structure of plants makes them more accessible to research, partly because most of the parasites which infect them are true Fungi, and considerably larger than most of the contagia of animal bodies. From this time observers in the domain of animal pathology, partly influenced, more or less, by these discoveries in botany, and partly in consequence of the revival of the vitalistic theory of fermentation by Pasteur about the year 1860, returned to Henle's vitalistic theory of contagion. Henle himself, in the exposition of his views, had already indicated the points of comparison between his own theory and the theory of fermentation founded at that time by Cagniard-Latour and Schwann. Under the influence, as he expressly says, of Pasteur's writings, Davaine recalled to mind the little rods first seen by his teacher, Rayer, in the blood of an animal suffering from anthrax, and actually discovered in them the exciting cause of the disease, which may be taken as a type of an infectious disease both contagious and miasmatic also, in so far as it originates, as has been said, in anthrax-districts. This was, in 1863, a very important confirmation of Henle's theory, inasmuch as a very small parasite, not very easy of observation at that time, was recognised as a contagium. It was some time before much further advance was made. … The latest advance to be recorded begins with the participation of Robert Koch in the work of research since 1876."

   "M. Pasteur is no ordinary man; he is one of the rare
   individuals who must be described by the term 'genius.' Having
   commenced his scientific career and attained great distinction
   as a chemist, M. Pasteur was led by his study of the chemical
   process of fermentations to give his attention to the
   phenomena of disease in living bodies resembling
   fermentations. Owing to a singular and fortunate mental
   characteristic, he has been able, not simply to pursue a rigid
   path of investigation dictated by the logical or natural
   connection of the phenomena investigated, but deliberately to
   select for inquiry matters of the most profound importance to
   the community, and to bring his inquiries to a successful
   practical issue in a large number of instances.
{2147}
   Thus he has saved the silkworm industry of France and Italy
   from destruction, he has taught the French wine-makers to
   quickly mature their wine, he has effected an enormous
   improvement and economy in the manufacture of beer, he has
   rescued the sheep and cattle of Europe from the fatal disease
   'anthrax,' and it is probable—he would not himself assert
   that it is at present more than probable—that he has rendered
   hydrophobia a thing of the past. The discoveries made by this
   remarkable man would have rendered him, had he patented their
   application and disposed of them according to commercial
   principles, the richest man in the world. They represent a
   gain of some millions sterling annually to the community. …
   M. Pasteur's first experiment in relation to hydrophobia was
   made in December 1880, when he inoculated two rabbits with the
   mucus from the mouth of a child which had died of that
   disease. As his inquiries extended he found that it was
   necessary to establish by means of experiment even the most
   elementary facts with regard to the disease, for the existing
   knowledge on the subject was extremely small, and much of what
   passed for knowledge was only ill-founded tradition."

"The development of our knowledge relating to the bacteria, stimulated by the controversy relating to spontaneous generation and by the demonstration that various processes of fermentation and putrefaction are due to microörganisms of this class, has depended largely upon improvements in methods of research. Among the most important points in the development of bacteriological technique we may mention first, the use of a cotton air filter (Schröder and Von Dusch, 1854); second, the sterilization of culture fluids by heat (methods perfected by Pasteur, Koch, and others); third, the use of the aniline dyes as staining agents (first recommended by Weigert in 1877); fourth, the introduction of solid culture media and the 'plate method' for obtaining pure cultures, by Koch in 1881. The various improvements in methods of research, and especially the introduction of solid culture media and Koch's 'plate method' for isolating bacteria from mixed 'cultures, have placed bacteriology upon a scientific basis. … It was a distinguished French physician, Davaine, who first demonstrated the etiological relation of a microörganism of this class to a specific infectious disease. The anthrax bacillus had been seen in the blood of animals dying from this disease by Pollender in 1849, and by Davaine in 1850, but it was several years later (1863) before the last-named observer claimed to have demonstrated by inoculation experiments the causal relation of the bacillus to the disease in question. The experiments of Davaine were not generally accepted as conclusive, because in inoculating an animal with blood containing the bacillus, from an infected animal which had succumbed to the disease, the living microörganism was associated with material from the body of the diseased animal. This objection was subsequently removed by the experiments of Pasteur, Koch, and many others, with pure cultures of the bacillus, which were shown to have the same pathogenic effects as had been obtained in inoculation experiments with the blood of an infected animal."

"In 1876 the eminent microscopist, Professor Cohn, of Breslau, was in London, and he then handed me a number of his 'Beiträge,' containing a memoir by Dr. Koch on Splenic Fever (Milzbrand, Charbon, Malignant Pustule), which seemed to me to mark an epoch in the history of this formidable disease. With admirable patience, skill, and penetration Koch followed up the life-history of bacillus anthracis, the contagium of this fever. At the time here referred to he was a young physician holding a small appointment in the neighbourhood of Breslau, and it was easy to predict, and indeed I predicted at the time, that he would soon find himself in a higher position. When I next heard of him he was head of the Imperial Sanitary Institute of Berlin. … Koch was not the discoverer of the parasite of splenic fever. Davaine and Rayer, in 1850, had observed the little microscopic rods in the blood of animals which had died of splenic fever. But they were quite unconscious of the significance of their observation, and for thirteen years, as M. Radot informs us, strangely let the matter drop. In 1863 Davaine's attention was again directed to the subject by the researches of Pasteur, and he then pronounced the parasite to be the cause of the fever. He was opposed by some of his fellow-countrymen; long discussions followed, and a second period of thirteen years, ending with the publication of Koch's paper, elapsed before M. Pasteur took up the question. I always, indeed, assumed that from the paper of the learned German came the impulse towards a line of inquiry in which M. Pasteur has achieved such splendid results."

   "On the 24th of March, 1882, an address of very serious public
   import was delivered by Dr. Koch before the Physiological
   Society of Berlin. … The address … is entitled 'The
   Etiology of Tubercular Disease.' Koch first made himself
   known, and famous, by the penetration, skill, and thoroughness
   of his researches on the contagium of anthrax, or splenic
   fever. … Koch's last inquiry deals with a disease which, in
   point of mortality, stands at the head of them all. 'If,' he
   says, 'the seriousness of a malady be measured by the number
   of its victims, then the most dreaded pests which have
   hitherto ravaged the world—plague and cholera included—must
   stand far behind the one now under consideration.' Then
   follows the startling statement that one-seventh of the deaths
   of the human race are due to tubercular disease. Prior to Koch
   it had been placed beyond doubt that the disease was
   communicable; and the aim of the Berlin physician has been to
   determine the precise character of the contagium which
   previous experiments on inoculation and inhalation had proved
   to be capable of indefinite transfer and reproduction. He
   subjected the diseased organs of a great number of men and
   animals to microscopic examination, and found, in all cases,
   the tubercles infested by a minute, rod-shaped parasite, which
   by means of a special dye, he differentiated from the
   surrounding tissue. 'It was,' he says, 'in the highest degree
   impressive to observe in the centre of the tubercle-cell the
   minute organism which had created it.' Transferring directly,
   by inoculation, the tuberculous matter from diseased animals
   to healthy ones, he in every instance reproduced the disease.
   To meet the objection that it was not the parasite itself, but
   some virus in which it was imbedded in the diseased organ,
   that was the real contagium, he cultivated his bacilli
   artificially for long periods of time and through many
   successive generations.
{2148}
   With a speck of matter, for example, from a tuberculous human
   lung, he infected a substance prepared, after much trial, by
   himself, with the view of affording nutriment to the parasite.
   In this medium he permitted it to grow and multiply: From the
   new generation he took a minute sample, and infected therewith
   fresh nutritive matter, thus producing another brood.
   Generation after generation of bacilli were developed in this
   way, without the intervention of disease. At the end of the
   process, which sometimes embraced successive cultivations
   extending over half a year, the purified bacilli were
   introduced into the circulation of healthy animals of various
   kinds. In every case inoculation was followed by the
   reproduction and spread of the parasite, and the generation of
   the original disease. … The moral of these experiments is
   obvious. In no other conceivable way than that pursued by Koch
   could the true character of the most destructive malady by
   which humanity is now assailed be determined. And however
   noisy the fanaticism of the moment may be, the common-sense of
   Englishmen will not, in the long run, permit it to enact
   cruelty in the name of tenderness, or to debar us from the
   light and leading of such investigations as that which is here
   so imperfectly described."

"An account of the innumerable questions and investigations in this department of modern pathogenesis, of the various views on certain questions, etc., does not fall within the compass of our brief sketch. Nor are we able to furnish a consistent theory, simply because such an one does not [1889] exist. One fact alone is agreed upon, to wit, that certain of the lower fungi, as parasites within or upon the body, excite diseases (infectious diseases). As regards the modus operandi of these parasites two main theories are held. According to one theory, these parasites, by their development, deprive the body of its nutriment and endanger life particularly when, thronging in the blood, they deprive this of the oxygen necessary for existence. According to the other theory, they threaten life by occasioning decompositions which engender putrid poisons (ptomaines). These latter poisons were first isolated by P. L. Panum in 1856, and have been recently specially studied by Brieger (Ueber Ptomaine, Berlin, 1885-86). They act differently upon bodies according to the variety of the alkaloidal poison. Metschnikoff regards the white blood-corpuscles as antagonists of these parasites (thus explaining the cases of recovery from parasitic diseases), and in this point of view calls them 'phagocytes.' On the other hand E. Salmon and Theodore Smith ('Transactions of the Washington Biological Society, February 22d, 1886) were the first to demonstrate that sterilized nutritive solutions or germ-free products of change of matter of the virulent exciters of disease, when injected, afford protection. A. Chauveau as early as 1880 had brought forward evidence of the probability of this fact, and Hans Buchner in 1879 admitted the possibility of depriving bacteria of their virulence. Pasteur, however, believes he has demonstrated that by continued cultures (also a sort of bacillary Isopathy) 'debilitated' germs act as prophylactics against the corresponding parasitic diseases, and he even thinks he has confirmed this by his inoculations against hydrophobia—a view, at all events, still open to doubt. … The chief diseases regarded as of parasitic origin at present are: anthrax (Davaine, 1850); relapsing fever (Obermeier, 1873); gonorrhœa and blenorrhœa neonatorum (Neisser, 1879); glanders (Struck, 1882, Loeffler and Schütz); syphilis (Sigm. Lustgarten, 1884); diphtheria (Oertel, Letzerich, Klebs); typhus (Eberle, Klebs); tuberculosis (Koch, 1882); cholera (Koch, 1884); lepra (Armauer-Hansen); actinomycosis (Bollinger in cattle, 1877; Israel in man, 1884); septicæmia (Klebs); erysipelas (Fehleisen); pneumonia (Friedländer); malarial fever (Klebs, Tommasi-Crudeli, Marchiafava); malignant œdema (Koch); tetanus (Carle and Rattone, Nicolaier, Roeschlaub assumed a tetania occasioned by bacilli); cancer (Scheuerlen; priority contested by Dr. G. Rappia and Prof. Domingo Freire of Rio Janeiro); yellow fever (microbe claimed to have been discovered by Freire); dysentery (bacillary diphtheritis of the large intestine); cholera nostras (Finkler and Prior); scarlet fever (Coze and Feltz, '72); variola and vaccina (Keber, Zülzer, Weigert, Klebs); acute yellow atrophy of the liver (Klebs, Waldeyer, Eppinger); endocarditis (Ziegler); hæmophilia neonatorum (Klebs, Eppinger); trachoma (Sattler); keratitis (Leber—aspergillus); ulcus rodens corneæ (Sattler); gonorrhœal rheumatism (Petrone, Kammerer). If the bacterial theory of infection, constantly threatening life by such numerous pathogenic varieties of infecting organisms, must be looked upon as a gloomy one, the anti-bacterial Phagocyte Theory of Metschnikoff, professor of zoology in Odessa, is adapted to make one feel more comfortable, inasmuch as it brings into view the possibility of an antagonism to these infecting organisms, and explains the method of nature's cures. Metschnikoff observed that the wandering cells—the white blood corpuscles—after the manner of amœbæ, surround, hold fast, digest ('devour,' hence 'phagocytes'), and thus render harmless the bacteria which have entered the body. … The prophylactic effects of inoculation are explained on the theory that by means of this operation the wandering cells are prepared, as it were, for subsequent accidental irruptions of similar pathogenic bacteria, are habituated or compelled thereby to at once devour such organisms when they enter the body spontaneously, and thus to render them harmless. Inoculation would thus be a sort of training or education of the phagocytes. The immunity of many persons from infectious diseases, so far as it is not effected by inoculations, would by analogy be explained on the theory that with such individuals the phagocytes are from the outset so constituted that they at once render harmless any stray bacteria which come within their domain by immediately devouring them. … When … in spite of the phagocytes, the patients die of infectious diseases, the fact is to be explained by the excessive number of the bacteria present, which is so great that the phagocytes are unequal to the task of 'devouring' them all."

"Together with the growth of our knowledge of the causes of disease there has been … slowly growing up also a new kind of warfare against disease. It is this science of hygiene which is now promising to transform all the old traditional ways of dealing with disease, and which now makes possible the organisation of the conditions of health. And this science of hygiene, it must be repeated, rests on the exact knowledge of the causes of disease which we are now obtaining. … At the beginning of the eighteenth century Mead, a famous physician of that day, whose reputation still lives, had proposed the formation of a central board of health to organise common measures for the public safety. It was not, however, until more than a hundred years later, in 1831, under the influence of the terror of cholera, that this first step was taken; so that, as it has been well said and often since proved, 'panic is the parent of sanitation.' In 1842 Sir Edwin Chadwick issued his report on 'The Sanitary Condition of the Labouring Population of Great Britain.' This report produced marked effect, and may truly be said to have inaugurated the new era of collective action, embodying itself in legislation directed to the preservation of national health, an era which is thus just half a century old. Chadwick's report led to a Royal Commission, which was the first step in the elevation of public health to a State interest; and a few years later (1847) Liverpool, and immediately afterwards London, appointed the first medical officers of health in Great Britain. In 1848 another epidemic of cholera appeared, and a General Board of Health was established. During this epidemic Dr. Snow began those inquiries which led to the discovery that the spread of the disease was due to the contamination of drinking-water by the intestinal discharges of patients. That discovery marked the first great stage in the new movement. Henceforth the objects to be striven for in the evolution of sanitation became ever more clear and precise, and a succession of notable discoveries in connection with various epidemics enlarged the sphere of sanitation, and revealed new possibilities in the prevention of human misery."

"Of all countries of the civilized world, none has a sanitary code so complete and so precise as England. In addition, English legislation is distinguished from that of other countries, by the fact that the principal regulations emanate from Parliament instead of being simple administrative orders. Thus the legislation is the work of the nation, which has recognised its necessity in its own interest. Consequently the laws are respected, and, as a rule, religiously observed, without objection or murmur. In the whole country, the marvellous results which have been produced can be seen. Thanks to these laws, the rate of mortality has been lowered, the mean duration of life increased, the amount of sickness decreased. They have greatly alleviated the misery in the houses of the poor, who, thanks to sanitary measures, have a better prospect of recovering their health and the means of providing for their subsistence and that of their families. … The sanitary administration of England is, in accordance with the Public Health Act of 1875, in the hands of a central authority, the Local Government Board; and local authorities, the Local Boards of Health. The Local Government Board consists of a president, nominated by the Queen, and the following ex-officio members:—the Lord President of the Privy Council, all the principal Secretaries of State for the time being, the Lord Privy Seal, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, a Parliamentary Secretary, and a permanent Secretary. The President and Secretaries are, properly speaking, the directors of the Local Government Board, the other members being only consulted on matters of prime importance. Nine special departments are controlled by the Local Government Board:

1. Poor-law administration. 2. Legal questions. 3. Sanitary regulations respecting buildings. 4. Sanitary regulations respecting sewers, streets, etc. 5. Medical and hygienic matters. 6. Vaccination. 7. The Hygiene of factories. 8. The water supply of London. 9. Statistics.

Medical and sanitary matters are under the direction of a
Medical Officer, and an Assistant Medical Officer."

"The United States have no uniform legislation for the organization of public hygiene to the present day. Each State organizes this service as it chooses. … That which characterizes the sanitary organization of the States is the fact that, in a large number of States, the right is granted to the sanitary administrations to carry before the justices the infractions of the regulations on this subject. It is a similar organization to that of Great Britain, with a little less independence, and it is the logical result of the general system of administration which exists in the American Union. … Without doubt the day will come when the National Board of Health will be by act of Congress, with the consent of all the States, the real superior council of public hygiene of the American Union."

      E. Sève,
      On the General Organization of Public Hygiene
      (Proceedings, International Sanitary Conference, 1881).

   "The General Government [of the United States] can do little
   in the way of compulsory legislation, which might interfere
   with the action of the several States to control their own
   sanitary affairs. It is possible that upon the ground of power
   to legislate with regard to commerce, it might establish some
   general system of quarantine and do something toward the
   prevention of the pollution of navigable streams; but it could
   probably only do this with such restrictions and exceptions as
   would make its action of little practical value, unless,
   indeed, it should resort to its right of eminent domain, and
   become liable for all damages, individual or municipal, which
   its action might cause. … No one would deny that the General
   Government can properly create an organization for the purpose
   of collecting and diffusing information on sanitary matters;
   but comparatively few understand how much real power and
   influence such an organization might acquire without having
   the slightest legal authority to enforce any of its
   recommendations. The passing of sanitary laws, and the
   granting to a certain department the power to enforce these
   laws, will not ensure good public health unless the public at
   large supports those laws intelligently, and it can only do
   this through State and municipal sanitary organizations. The
   General Government might do much to promote the formation of
   such organizations, and to assist them in various ways. … By
   the 'act to prevent the introduction of infectious or
   contagious diseases into the United States, and to establish a
   national board of health,' approved March 3, 1879, the first
   step has been taken in the direction above indicated.
{2150}
   The act provides for a national board of health, to consist of
   seven members, appointed by the President, and of four
   officers detailed from the Medical Department of the Army,
   Medical Department of the Navy, and the Marine Hospital
   Service, and the Department of Justice respectively. No
   definite term of Office is prescribed, the Board being
   essentially provisional in character. The duties of the board
   are 'to obtain information upon all matters affecting the
   public health, to advise the several departments of the
   government, the executives of the several States, and the
   Commissioners of the District of Columbia, on all questions
   submitted by them, or whenever in the opinion of the board
   such advice may tend to the preservation and improvement of
   the public health.' The board is also directed to prepare a
   plan for a national public health organization in conjunction
   with the National Academy of Sciences."

      J. S. Billings,
      Introduction to "A Treatise on Hygiene and Public Health,"
      edited by A. IL Buck.

      Sir J. Simon,
      Public Health: Reports of the Medical Officer
      of the Privy Council and Local Government Board.

By Mahomet's Hegira or flight from Mecca to Yethrib, A. D. 622, the latter city became the seat of Islam and was henceforward known as Medina—Medinet-en-Neby—"the City of the Prophet."

In the civil war which followed the accession of Yezid, the second of the Omeyyad caliphs, Medina was besieged and stormed by Yezid's army and given up for three days to every imaginable brutality on the part of the soldiery. The inhabitants who survived were made slaves.

MEDIOLANUM.

MEDIOMATRICI.

The original form of the name of the city of Metz, which had
been called Divodurum by the Gauls at an earlier day.

MEDISM. MEDIZED GREEKS.

During the wars of the Persians against the Greeks, the former had many friends and allies, both secret and open, among the latter. These were commonly called Medized Greeks, and their treason went by the name of Medism.

MEDITERRANEAN FUND.

A special fund provided by the United States Congress, in 1803, for the War with Tripoli.

"For this sea … the Greeks had no distinctive name, because it had so long been practically the only one known to them; and Strabo can only distinguish it as 'the Inner' or 'Our' Sea. … The now familiar appellation of Mediterranean is in like manner first used by Solinus [third century], only as a convenient designation, not as a strictly geographical term. … The first extant author who employs it distinctly as a proper name is Isidorus, who wrote in the seventh century."

E: H. Bunbury, History of Ancient Geography, chapter 21, section 1, chapter 23, section 2, foot-note, chapter 31 (volume 2).

The last exploit of Cleomenes of Sparta, in his struggle with the Achæan League and its ally, the king of Macedonia, before the fatal field of Sellasia, was the capture of Megalopolis, B. C. 222. Most of the citizens escaped. He offered to restore their town to them, if they would forsake the League. They refused, and he destroyed it, so utterly that its restoration was believed to be impossible. But in the following year the inhabitants were brought back and Megalopolis existed again, though never with its former importance.

"The city of Megalopolis held at this time [B. C. 194-183] the same sort of position in the Achaian League which the State of Virginia held in the first days of the American Union. Without any sort of legal preëminence, without at all assuming the character of a capital, Megalopolis was clearly the first city of the League, the city which gave the nation the largest proportion of its leading statesmen. Megalopolis, like Virginia, was 'the Mother of Presidents,' and that too of Presidents of different political parties. As Virginia produced both Washington and Jefferson, so Megalopolis, if she produced Philopoimen and Lykortas, produced also Aristainos and Diophanes."

MEGARA.

Megara, the ancient Greek city and state whose territory lay between Attica and Corinth, forming part of the Corinthian isthmus, "is affirmed to have been originally settled by the Dorians of Corinth, and to have remained for some time a dependency of that city. It is farther said to have been at first merely one of five separate villages—Megara, Heræa, Peiræa, Kynosura, Tripodiskus—inhabited by a kindred population, and generally on friendly terms, yet sometimes distracted by quarrels. …

Whatever may be the truth respecting this alleged early subjection of Megara, we know it in the historical age, and that too as early as the 14th Olympiad, only as an independent Dorian city, maintaining the integrity of its territory under its leader Orsippus, the famous Olympic runner, against some powerful enemies, probably the Corinthians. It was of no mean consideration, possessing a territory which extended across Mount Geraneia to the Corinthian Gulf, on which the fortified town and port of Pêgæ, belonging to the Megarians, was situated. It was mother of early and distant colonies,—and competent, during the time of Solon, to carry on a protracted contest with the Athenians, for the possession of Salamis; wherein, although the latter were at last victorious, it was not without an intermediate period of ill-success and despair."

MEGARA: B. C. 610-600.
Struggle with Athens for Salamis.
Spartan arbitration favorable to the Athenians.

MEGIDDO.

The valley of Megiddo, forming the western part of the great Plain of Esdraelon, in northern Palestine—stretching from the valley of the Jordan to the Mediterranean Sea, along the course of the river Kishon—was the field of many important battles in ancient times. Thothmes III. of the eighteenth Egyptian dynasty, whose reign is placed about 1600 B. C., met there, near the city of Megiddo, and defeated a confederacy of Syrian and Canaanite princes who attempted to throw off his yoke. A remarkable account of his victory and of the spoils he took is preserved in inscriptions on the walls of the temple at Karnak.

It was at Megiddo, also, that Sisera, commanding the forces of the Canaanites, was beaten and driven to flight by the Israelites under Barak. Gideon's' assault on the Midianites was from the slope of Mount Gilboa, which rises out of the same valley. The latter battle has been called by historians the Battle of Jezreel, and Jezreel is one of the forms of the name of the valley of Esdraelon. It was there that the Philistines were arrayed when Saul fought his last battle with them, and on the slopes of Gilboa he fell on his sword and died. On the same historic plain, near the city of Megiddo, Josiah, king of Judah, fought against Necho, the Pharaoh of Egypt, B. C. 609, and was defeated and mortally wounded. The plain of Megiddo was so often, in fact, the meeting place of ancient armies that it seems to have come to be looked upon as the typical battle-ground, and apparently the name Armageddon in Revelations is an allusion to it in that sense. The ancient city of Megiddo has been identified in site with the present town of Ledjûn, which is the Legio of the Romans—the station of a Roman legion.

"The king [of the Parthian monarchy] was permanently advised by two councils, consisting of persons not of his own nomination, whom rights, conferred by birth or office, entitled to their seats. One of these was a family conclave, … or assembly of the full-grown males of the Royal House; the other was a senate comprising both the spiritual and the temporal chiefs of the nation, the Sophi, or 'Wise Men,' and the Magi, or 'Priests.' Together these two bodies constituted the Megistanes, the 'Nobles' or 'Great Men'—the privileged class which to a considerable extent checked and controlled the monarch. The monarchy was elective; but only in the house of the Arsacidæ."

MEHDI, AL.

MEHEMET ALI AND THE INDEPENDENT PASHALIK OF EGYPT.

MELCHITES.

A name applied in the religious controversies of the 6th century, by the heretical Jacobites, to the adherents of the orthodox church. It signified that they were imperialists, or royalists, taking their doctrines from the sovereign power.

A tribe in ancient Gaul which was established in the north of the modern French department of the Seine-et-Marne and in a small part of the department of the Oise.

MELIAN FAMINE.

One of the important sieges in the second campaign of the
English king Henry V. in France, A. D. 1420.

MEMLUKS.

The foundation of Memphis is the first event in Egyptian history, the one large historical incident in the reign of the first king, who emerges a real man from the shadow land which the Egyptians called the reign of the gods. … Menes, the founder of Memphis and Egyptian history, came from the south. Civilisation descended the Nile. His native place was Thinis, or This, in Upper Egypt, a still older town, where his shadowy predecessors ruled. … A great engineering work was the first act of the builder. He chose his site … but the stream was on the wrong side, flowing below the Libyan chain, flowing over where the city should be, offering no water-bulwark against the invader from the eastern border. So he raised, a few miles to the south, a mighty dyke, and turned the river into the present course, founding the city on the west bank, with the desert behind and the Nile before. … The new city received a name which reflects the satisfaction of the ancient founder: he called it Mennufre, 'the Good' or 'Perfect Mansion.' This was the civil name. … The civil name is the parent of the Greek Memphis and the Hebrew Moph, also found in the form Noph."

MEMPHIS, Tennessee: A. D. 1862.
Naval fight in the river.
Surrender of the city to the Union forces.

"This period [12-13th centuries], so prolific in institutions of every sort, also gave birth to the Mendicant orders, a species of spiritual chivalry still more generous and heroic than that which we have just treated [the military-religious orders], and unique in history. … Many causes combined to call them into existence. In proportion as the Church grew wealthy her discipline relaxed, and dangers menaced her on every side. … The problem thus presented to the Church was taken up at the opening of the 13th century, and thrown into practical shape by two men equally eminent in intellectual endowments and spiritual gifts. While each solved it in his own way, they were both attached to each other by the closest friendship. Dominic, a member of the powerful house of Guzman, was born in the year 1170, at Callaruega (Calahorra, in Old Castile), a village in the diocese of Osma. While pursuing his studies in the university of Valencia, he was distinguished by a spirit of charity and self·sacrifice. … Diego, Bishop of Osma, … a man of severe character, and ardently devoted to the good of the Church, found in Dominic one after his own heart. He took the young priest with him on a mission which he made to the south of France." Dominic was finally left in charge of the mission. "His peaceful disposition, his spirit of prayer, his charity, forbearance, and patient temper formed a consoling contrast to the bloody crusade which had recently been set on foot against the Albigenses. After spending ten years in this toilsome and thankless mission, labouring only for love of God and the profit of souls, he set out for Rome, in 1215, with his plans fully matured, and submitted to Pope Innocent III. the project of giving to the Church a new method of defence, in an order which should combine the contemplative life of the monk with the active career of a secular priest. … Innocent gave his sanction to Dominic's project, provided he would manage to bring it under some of the existing Rules. Dominic accordingly selected the Rule of St. Augustine, introducing a few changes, with a view to greater severity, taken from the Rule of the Premonstratensians. That the members of the new order might be free to devote themselves entirely to their spiritual labours, they were forbidden to accept any property requiring their active administration, but were permitted to receive the incomes of such as was administered by others. Property, therefore, might be held by the Order as a body, but not administered by its members. Pope Honorius III. confirmed the action of his illustrious predecessor, and approved the Order in the following year, giving it, from its object, the name of the 'Order of Friars Preachers' ('Ordo Prædicatorum, Fratres Prædicatores'). … Dominic founded, in the year 1206, an Order of Dominican nuns. … The dress of the Dominicans is a white garment and scapular, resembling in form that of the Augustinians, with a black cloak and a pointed cap. Francis of Assisi, the son of a wealthy merchant named Bernardini, was born in the year 1182, in Assisi, in Umbria. His baptismal name was John, but from his habit of reading the romances of the Troubadours in his youth, he gradually acquired the name of Il Francesco, or the Little Frenchman. … When about twenty-four years of age, he fell dangerously ill, and, while suffering from this attack, gave himself up to a train of religious thought which led him to consider the emptiness and uselessness of his past life. … He … conceived the idea of founding a society whose members should go about through the whole world, after the manner of the apostles, preaching and exhorting to penance. … His zeal gradually excited emulation, and prompted others to aspire after the same perfection. His first associates were his townsmen, Bernard Quintavalle and Peter Cattano, and others soon followed. Their habit consisted of a long brown tunic of coarse woolen cloth, surmounted by a hood of the same material, and confined about the waist with a hempen cord. This simple but ennobling dress was selected because it was that of the poor peasants of the surrounding country. … He sent his companions, two-and-two, in all directions, saying to them in taking leave: 'Go; always travel two-and-two. Pray until the third hour; then only may you speak. Let your speech be simple and humble.' … With St. Francis, absolute poverty was not only a practice, it was the essential principle on which he based his Order. Not only were the individual members forbidden to have any personal property whatever, but neither could they hold any as an Order, and were entirely dependent for their support upon alms. … Hence the chief difference between mendicant and other monastic orders consists in this, that, in the former, begging takes the place of the ordinary vow of personal poverty. … In 1223, Pope Honorius III. approved the Order of Franciscans (Fratres Minores), to which … Innocent III. had given a verbal sanction in 1210."

"They were" called 'Friars' because, out of humility, their founders would not have them called 'Father' and 'Dominus,' like the monks, but simply 'Brother' ('Frater,' 'Frère,' Friar). … Dominic gave to his order the name of Preaching Friars; more commonly they were styled Dominicans, or, from the colour of their habits, Black Friars. … The Franciscans were styled by their founder 'Fratri Minori'—lesser brothers, Friars Minors; they were more usually called Grey Friars, from the colour of their habits, or Cordeliers, from the knotted cord which formed their characteristic girdle."

"People talk of 'Monks and Friars' as if these were convertible terms. The truth is that the difference between the Monks and the Friars was almost one of kind. The Monk was supposed never to leave his cloister. The Friar in St. Francis' first intention had no cloister to leave."

E. F. Henderson, Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages, book 3, number 8.

MENENDEZ'S MASSACRE OF FLORIDA HUGUENOTS.

MENHIR.

Meaning literally "long-stone." The name is usually given to single, upright stones, sometimes very large, which are found in the British islands, France and elsewhere, and which are supposed to be the rude sepulchral monuments of some of the earlier races, Celtic and pre-Celtic.

MENTZ: A. D. 1792.
Occupation by the French Revolutionary army.
Incorporation with the French Republic.

"Jayme [king of Aragon, called El Conquistador], when a captive in the hands of Simon de Montfort [see SPAIN: A. D. 1212-1238], had—mere baby as he was—made a vow that, when he should be a man and a king, he would endeavour to do something for the redemption of captives. So, before he was a man in age, he instituted another religious order of knighthood, called La Merced, which added to their other duties that of collecting alms and using them for the ransoming of captives to the Moors."

MERCHANT ADVENTURERS.

"The original Company of the Merchant Adventurers carried on trade chiefly with the Netherlands. Their principal mart was at first Bruges, whence it was removed to Antwerp early in the fifteenth century. In distinction from the staplers, who dealt in certain raw materials, the Merchant Adventurers had the monopoly of exporting certain manufactured articles, especially cloths. Though of national importance, they constituted a strictly private company, and not, like the staplers, an administrative organ of the British government. The former were all subjects of the English crown; the staplers were made up of aliens as well as Englishmen. In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries frequent dissensions broke out between these two bodies regarding the exportation of cloth. To carry on foreign trade freely in wool as well as in cloth, a merchant had to join both companies. Much obscurity hangs over the early history of the Merchant Adventurers. They claimed' that John, Duke of Brabant, founded their society in 1216 or 1248, and that it originally bore the name of the Brotherhood of St. Thomas à Becket. But it could scarcely have existed in its later form before the reign of Edward III., when the cloth industry began to flourish in England. The earliest charter granted to it as an organized association dates from the year 1407. Their powers were greatly increased by Henry VII. The soul of this society, and perhaps its original nucleus, was the Mercers' Company of London. … Though the most influential Merchant Adventurers resided in London, there were many in other English towns. … The contrast between the old Gild Merchant and the Company of Merchant Adventurers is striking. The one had to do wholly with foreign trade, and its members were forbidden to exercise a manual occupation or even to be retail shopkeepers; the other consisted mainly of small shopkeepers and artisans. The line of demarkation between merchants and manual craftsmen was sharply drawn by the second half of the sixteenth century, the term 'merchant' having already acquired its modern signification as a dealer on an extensive scale. Besides the Company of Merchant Adventurers trading to the Low Countries—which during the eighteenth century was called the Hamburg Company—various new Companies of Merchant Adventurers trading to other lands arose in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, especially during the reigns of Elizabeth and her immediate successors. Among them were the Russian or Muscovy Company, the Turkey or Levant Company, the Guinea Company, the Morocco Company, the Eastland Company, the Spanish Company, and the East India Company, the last-mentioned being the most powerful of them all."

MERCHANT GUILD.

MERCHANT TAYLORS' SCHOOL.

A kingdom formed at the close of the 6th century by the West Angles, on the Welsh border, or March. The people who formed it had acquired the name of Men of the March, from which they came to be called Mercians, and their kingdom Mercia. In the next century, under King Penda, its territory and its power were greatly extended, at the expense of Northumbria.

"For the institution of this godlike order, the Christian world was indebted to Pope Innocent III., at the close of the 12th century. … The exertions of the order were soon crowned with success. One third of its revenues was appropriated to the objects of its foundation, and thousands groaning in slavery were restored to their country. … The order … met with so much encouragement that, in the time of Alberic, the monk (who wrote about forty years after its institution), the number of monastic houses amounted to 600, most of which were situated in France, Lombardy and Spain."

S. A. Dunham, History of Spain and Portugal, book 3, section 3, chapter 4 (volume 4).

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863-1864 (DECEMBER-APRIL: TENNESSEE-MISSISSIPPI).

MERMNADÆ, The.
The third dynasty of the kings of Lydia, beginning
with Gyges and ending with Crœsus.

      M. Duncker,
      History of Antiquity,
      book 4, chapter 17 (volume 3).

The final great victory won by Joshua in the conquest of Canaan, over the Canaanite and Amorite kings, under Jabin, king of Hazor, who seems to have been a kind of over-king or chieftain among them.

Dean Stanley, Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church, lecture 12 (volume 1).

MERRYMOUNT.

A body of laws enacted at a Great Council held at Merton, in England, under Henry III., A. D. 1236, which marks an important advance made in the development of constitutional legislation.

MERU.

In the merciless march through Central Asia of the awful Mongol horde set in motion by Jingis Khan, the great city of Meru (modern Merv) was reached in the autumn of A. D. 1220. This was "Meru Shahjan, i. e., Meru the king of the world, one of the four chief cities of Khorassan, and one of the oldest cities of the world. It had been the capital of the great Seljuk Sultans Melikshah and Sanjar, and was very rich and populous. It was situated on the banks of the Meri el rond, also called the Murjab. … The siege commenced on the 25th of February, 1221. The governor of the town … sent a venerable imam as an envoy to the Mongol camp. He returned with such fair promises that the governor himself repaired to the camp, and was loaded with presents; he was asked to send for his chief relations and friends; when these were fairly in his power, Tulni [one of the sons of Jingis Khan] ordered them all, including the governor, to be killed. The Mongols then entered the town, the inhabitants were ordered to evacuate it with their treasures; the mournful procession, we are told, took four days to defile out. … A general and frightful massacre ensued; only 400 artisans and a certain number of young people were reserved as slaves. The author of the 'Jhankushai' says that the Seyid Yzz-ud-din, a man renowned for his virtues and piety, assisted by many people, were thirteen days in counting the corpses, which numbered 1,300,000. Ibn al Ethir says that 700,000 corpses were counted. The town was sacked, the mausolemn of the Sultan Sanjar was rifled and then burnt, and the walls and citadel of Meru levelled with the ground."

MERWING.

One of the forms given to the name of the royal family of the Franks, established in power by Clovis, and more commonly known as the Merovingian Family.

MESOPOTAMIA.

"Between the outer limits of the Syro-Arabian desert and the foot of the great mountain-range of Kurdistan and Luristan intervenes a territory long famous in the world's history, and the chief site of three out of the five empires of whose history, geography, and antiquities it is proposed to treat in the present volumes. Known to the Jews as Aram-Naharaim, or 'Syria of the two rivers'; to the Greeks and Romans as Mesopotamia, or 'the between-river country'; to the Arabs as Al-Jezireh, or, 'the island,' this district has always taken its name from the streams [the Tigris and Euphrates] which constitute its most striking feature."

MESSANA.

MESSENE, in Peloponnesus: B. C. 369.
The founding of the city.
Restoration of the enslaved Messenians.

A faction in Messene which was hostile to the Achæan League having gained the ascendancy, B. C. 184, declared its secession from the League. Philopœmen, the chief of the League, proceeded at once with a small force to reduce the Messenians to obedience, but was taken prisoner and was foully executed by his enemies. Bishop Thirlwall pronounced him "the last great man whom Greece produced." The death of Philopœmen was speedily avenged on those who caused it and Messene was recovered to the League.

"Zancle was originally colonised by pirates who came from Cyme the Chalcidian city in Opicia. … Zancle was the original name of the place, a name given by the Sicels because the site was in shape like a sickle, for which the Sicel word is Zanclon. These earlier settlers were afterwards driven out by the Samians and other Ionians, who when they fled from the Persians found their way to Sicily. Not long afterwards Anaxilas, the tyrant of Rhegium, drove out these Samians. He then repeopled their city with a mixed multitude, and called the place Messene, after his native country."

The Spartans were engaged in two successive wars with their neighbors of Messenia, whose territory, adjoining their own in the southwestern extremity of Peloponnesus, was rich, prosperous and covetable. "It was unavoidable that the Spartans should look down with envy from their bare rocky ridges into the prosperous land of their neighbours and the terraces close by, descending to the river, with their well-cultivated plantations of oil and wine. Besides, the Dorians who had immigrated into Messenia had, under the influence of the native population and of a life of comfortable ease, lost their primitive character. Messenia seemed like a piece of Arcadia, with which it was most intimately connected. … Hence this was no war of Dorians against Dorians; it rather seemed to be Sparta's mission to make good the failure of the Dorization of Messenia which had sunk back into Pelasgic conditions of life, and to unite with herself the remains of the Dorian people still surviving there. In short, a variety of motives contributed to provoke a forcible extension of Spartan military power on this particular side."

The First Messenian War was commenced B. C. 745 and lasted twenty years, ending in the complete subjugation of the Messenians, who were reduced to a state of servitude like that of the Helots of Sparta. After enduring the oppression for thirty-nine years, the Messenians rose in revolt against their Spartan masters, B. C. 685. The leader and great hero of this Second Messenian War was Aristomenes, whose renown became so great in the despairing struggle that the latter was called among the ancients the Aristomnean War. But all the valor and self-sacrifice of the unhappy Messenians availed nothing. They gave up the contest, B. C. 668; large numbers of them escaped to other lands and those who remained were reduced to a more wretched condition than before.

"The whole of Laconia [E. C. 464] was shaken by an earthquake, which opened great chasms in the ground, and rolled down huge masses from the highest peaks of Taygetus: Sparta itself became a heap of ruins, in which not more than five houses are said to have been left standing. More than 20,000 persons were believed to have been destroyed by the shock, and the flower of the Spartan youth was overwhelmed by the fall of the buildings in which they were exercising themselves at the time."

The Helots of Sparta, especially those who were descended from the enslaved Messenians, took advantage of the confusion produced by the earthquake, to rise in revolt. Having secured possession of Ithome, they fortified themselves in the town and withstood there a siege of ten years,—sometimes called the Third Messenian War. The Spartans invited the Athenians to aid them in the siege, but soon grew jealous of their allies and dismissed them with some rudeness. This was one of the prime causes of the animosity between Athens and Sparta which afterward flamed out in the Peloponnesian War. In the end, the Messenians at Ithome capitulated and were allowed to quit the country; whereupon the Athenians settled them at Naupactus, on the Corinthian gulf, and so gained an ardent ally, in an important situation.

Nearly one hundred years later (B. C. 369) when Thebes, under Epaminondas, rose to power in Greece and Sparta was humiliated, it was one of the measures of the Theban statesman to found at Ithome an important city which he named Messene, into which the long oppressed Messenians were gathered, from slavery and from exile, and were organized in a state once more, free and independent.

MESTIZO. MULATTO.

   A half-breed person in Peru, born of a white father and an
   Indian mother, is called a Mestizo. One born of a white father
   and a negro mother is called a mulatto.

METAPONTIUM.

MÉTAYERS.

   "The term Methodist was a college nickname bestowed upon a
   small society of students at Oxford who met together between
   1729 and 1735 for the purpose of mutual improvement. They were
   accustomed to communicate every week, to fast regularly on
   Wednesdays and Fridays, and on most days during Lent; to read
   and discuss the Bible in common, to abstain from most forms of
   amusement and luxury, and to visit sick persons and prisoners
   in the gaol. John Wesley, the master-spirit of this society,
   and the future leader of the religious revival of the
   eighteenth century, was born in 1703, and was the second
   surviving son of Samuel Wesley, the Rector of Epworth, in
   Lincolnshire. … The society hardly numbered more than
   fifteen members, and was the object of much ridicule at the
   university; but it included some men who afterwards played
   considerable parts in the world.
{2156}
   Among them was Charles, the younger brother of John Wesley,
   whose hymns became the favourite poetry of the sect, and whose
   gentler, more submissive, and more amiable character, though
   less fitted than that of his brother for the great conflicts
   of public life, was very useful in moderating the movement,
   and in drawing converts to it by personal influence. Charles
   Wesley appears to have been the first to originate the society
   at Oxford; he brought Whitefield into its pale, and besides
   being the most popular poet he was one of the most persuasive
   preachers of the movement. There, too, was James Hervey, who
   became one of the earliest links connecting Methodism with
   general literature."

   The first Scotch army assembled by Robert Bruce after he had
   been crowned king of Scotland, was surprised and routed by
   Aymer de Valence, June 26, 1306.

C. H. Pearson, History of England during the Early and Middle Ages, volume 2, chapter 14.

METŒCI.

"Resident aliens, or Metœci, are non-citizens possessed of personal freedom, and settled in Attica. Their number, in the flourishing periods of the State, might amount to 45,000, and therefore was about half that of the citizens."

G. F. Schömann, Antiquity of Greece: The State, part 3, chapter 3, section 2.

"Hitherto [before the age of Pericles] the Athenians had only had the Octaëteris, i. e., the period of eight years, of which three were composed of thirteen months, in order thus to make the lunar years correspond to the solar. But as eight such solar years still amount to something short of 99 lunar months, this cycle was insufficient for its purpose. … Meton and his associates calculated that a more correct adjustment might be obtained within a cycle of 6,940 days. These made up 235 months, which formed a cycle of 19 years; and this was the so-called 'Great Year,' or 'Year of Meton.'"

METROPOLITANS.

The Gallic town of Divodurum acquired later the name of
Mediomatrici, which modern tongues have changed to Metz.

METZ: A. D. 1552-1559.
   Treacherous occupation by the French.
   Siege by Charles V.
   Cession to France.

METZ: A. D. 1870.
The French army of Bazaine enclosed and besieged.
The surrender.

MEXICAN PICTURE-WRITING.

"Notwithstanding evident marks of similarity in nearly all the manifestations of the progressional spirit in aboriginal America, in art, thought, and religion, there is much reason for and convenience in referring all the native civilization to two branches, the Maya and the Nahua, the former the more ancient, the latter the more recent and wide-spread. … It is only, however, in a very general sense that this classification can be accepted, and then only for practical convenience in elucidating the subject; since there are several nations that must be ranked among our civilized peoples, which, particularly in the matter of language, show no Maya nor Nahua affinities. Nor is too much importance to be attached to the names Maya and Nahua, by which I designate these parallel civilizations. The former is adopted for the reason that the Maya people and tongue are commonly regarded as among the most ancient in all the Central American region, a region where formerly flourished the civilization that left such wonderful remains at Palenque, Uxmal, and Copan; the latter as being an older designation than either Aztec or Toltec, both of which stocks the race Nahua includes. The civilization of what is now the Mexican Republic, north of Tehuantepec, belonged to the Nahua branch, both at the time of the conquest and throughout the historic period preceding. Very few traces of the Maya element occur north of Chiapas, and these are chiefly linguistic, appearing in two or three nations dwelling along the shores of the Mexican gulf. In published works upon the subject the Aztecs are the representatives of the Nahua element; indeed, what is known of the Aztecs has furnished material for nine tenths of all that has been written on the American civilized nations in general. The truth of the matter is that the Aztecs were only the most powerful of a league or confederation of three nations, which in the 16th century, from their capitals in the valley, ruled central Mexico."

   "The evidence … has pointed—with varying force, but with
   great uniformity of direction—towards the Central or
   Usumacinta region [Central America], not necessarily as the
   original cradle of American civilization, but as the most
   ancient home to which it can be traced by traditional,
   monumental, and linguistic records. …
{2157}
   Throughout several centuries preceding the Christian era, and
   perhaps one or two centuries following, there flourished in
   Central America the great Maya empire of the Chanes, Culhuas,
   or Serpents, known to its foes as Xibalba, with its centre in
   Chiapas at or near Palenque, and with several allied capitals
   in the surrounding region. Its first establishment at a remote
   period was attributed by the people to a being called Votan,
   who was afterwards worshipped as a god. … From its centre in
   the Usumacinta region the Votanic power was gradually extended
   north-westward towards Anáhuac, where its subjects vaguely
   appear in tradition as Quinames, or giants. It also penetrated
   northeastward into Yucatan, where Zamná was its reputed
   founder, and the Cocomes and Itzas probably its subjects. …
   The Maya empire seems to have been in the height of its
   prosperity when the rival Nahua power came into prominence,
   perhaps two or three centuries before Christ. The origin of
   the new people and of the new institutions is as deeply
   shrouded in mystery as is that of their predecessors. … The
   Plumed Serpent, known in different tongues as Quetzalcoatl,
   Gucumatz, and Cukulcan, was the being who traditionally
   founded the new order of things. The Nahua power grew up side
   by side with its Xibalban predecessor, having its capital
   Tulan apparently in Chiapas. Like the Maya power, it was not
   confined to its original home, but was borne … towards
   Anáhuac. … The struggle on the part of the Xibalbans seems
   to have been that of an old effete monarchy against a young
   and progressive people. Whatever its cause, the result of the
   conquest was the overthrow of the Votanic monarchs at a date
   which may be approximately fixed within a century before or
   after the beginning of our era. From that time the ancient
   empire disappears from traditional history. … Respecting the
   ensuing period of Nahua greatness in Central America nothing
   is recorded save that it ended in revolt, disaster, and a
   general scattering of the tribes at some period probably
   preceding the 5th century. The national names that appear in
   connection with the closing struggles are the Toltecs,
   Chichimecs, Quichés, Nonohualcas, and Tutul Xius, none of them
   apparently identical with the Xibalbans. … Of the tribes
   that were successively defeated and forced to seek new homes,
   those that spoke the Maya dialects, although considering
   themselves Nahuas, seem to have settled chiefly in the south
   and east. Some of them afterwards rose to great prominence in
   Guatemala and Yucatan. … The Nahua-speaking tribes as a rule
   established themselves in Anáhuac and in the western and
   north-western parts of Mexico. … The valley of Mexico and
   the country immediately adjoining soon became the centre of
   the Nahuas in Mexico."

"The old-time story, how the Toltecs in the 6th century appeared on the Mexican table-land, how they were driven out and scattered in the 11th century, how after a brief interval the Chichimecs followed their footsteps, and how these last were succeeded by the Aztecs who were found in possession,—the last two, and probably the first, migrating in immense hordes from the far north-west,—all this is sufficiently familiar to readers of Mexican history, and is furthermore fully set forth in the 5th volume of this work. It is probable, however, that this account, accurate to a certain degree, has been by many writers too literally construed; since the once popular theory of wholesale national migrations of American peoples within historic times, and particularly of such migrations from the northwest, may now be regarded as practically unfounded. The 6th century is the most remote period to which we are carried in the annals of Anáhuac by traditions sufficiently definite to be considered in any proper sense as historic records. … At the opening … of the historic times, we find the Toltecs in possession of Anáhuac and the surrounding country. Though the civilization was old, the name was new, derived probably, although not so regarded by all, from Tollan, a capital city of the empire, but afterward becoming synonymous with all that is excellent in art and high culture. Tradition imputes to the Toltecs a higher civilization than that found among the Aztecs, who had degenerated with the growth of the warlike spirit, and especially by the introduction of more cruel and sanguinary religious rites. But this superiority, in some respects not improbable, rests on no very strong evidence, since this people left no relics of that artistic skill which gave them so great traditional fame; there is, however, much reason to ascribe the construction of the pyramids at Teotihuacan and Cholula to the Toltec or a still earlier period. Among the civilized peoples of the 16th century, however, and among their descendants down to the present day, nearly every ancient relic of architecture or sculpture is accredited to the Toltecs, from whom all claim descent. … So confusing has been the effect of this universal reference of all traditional events to a Toltec source, that, while we can not doubt the actual existence of this great empire, the details of its history, into which the supernatural so largely enters, must be regarded as to a great extent mythical. There are no data for fixing accurately the bounds of the Toltec domain, particularly in the south. There is very little, however, to indicate that it was more extensive in this direction than that of the Aztecs in later times, although it seems to have extended somewhat farther northward. On the west there is some evidence that it included the territory of Michoacan, never subdued by the Aztecs; and it probably stretched eastward to the Atlantic. … During the most flourishing period of its traditional five centuries of duration, the Toltec empire was ruled by a confederacy, similar in some respects to the alliance of later date between Mexico, Tezcuco and Tlacopan. The capitals were Culhuacan, Otompan, and Tollan, the two former corresponding somewhat in territory with Mexico and Tezcuco, while the latter was just beyond the limits of the valley toward the north-west. Each of these capital cities became in turn the leading power in the confederacy. Tollan reached the highest eminence in culture, splendor, and fame, and Culhuacan was the only one of the three to survive by name the bloody convulsions by which the empire was at last overthrown, and retain anything of her former greatness. Long-continued civil wars, arising chiefly from dissensions between rival religious factions, … gradually undermine the imperial thrones. … So the kings of Tollan, Culhuacan, and Otompan, lose, year by year, their prestige, and finally, in the middle of the 11th century, are completely overthrown, leaving the Mexican tableland to be ruled by new combinations of rising powers."

"Long before the Aztecs, a Toltec tribe called the Acolhuas, or Culhuas, had settled in the valley of Mexico. The name is more ancient than that of Toltec, and the Mexican civilization might perhaps as appropriately be called Culhua as Nahua. The name is interpreted 'crooked' from coloa, bend; also 'grandfather' from colli. Colhuacan might therefore signify Land of Our Ancestors."

"The most venerable traditions of the Maya race claimed for them a migration from 'Tollan in Zuyva.' … This Tollan is certainly none other than the abode of Quetzalcoatl. … The cities which selected him as their tutelary deity were named for that which he was supposed to have ruled over. Thus we have Tollan and Tollantzinco ('behind Tollan') in the Valley of Mexico, and the pyramid Cholula was called 'Tollan-Cholollan,' as well as many other Tollans and Tulas among the Nahuatl colonies. The natives of the city of Tula were called, from its name, Tolteca, which simply means 'those who dwell in Tollan.' And who, let us ask, were these Toltecs? They have hovered about the dawn of American history long enough. To them have been attributed not only the primitive culture of Central America and Mexico, but of lands far to the north, and even the earthworks of the Ohio Valley. It is time they were assigned their proper place, and that is among the purely fabulous creations of the imagination, among the giants and fairies, the gnomes and sylphs, and other such fancied beings which in all ages and nations the popular mind has loved to create. Toltec, Toltecatl, which in later days came to mean a skilled craftsman or artificer, signifies, as I have said, an inhabitant of Tollan—of the City of the Sun—in other words, a Child of Light. … In some, and these I consider the original versions of the myth, they do not constitute a nation at all, but are merely the disciples or servants of Quetzalcoatl. They have all the traits of beings of supernatural powers."

A recent totally contrary view, in which the Toltecs are fully
accepted and modernized, is presented by M. Charnay.

"The new era succeeding the Toltec rule is that of the Chichimec empire, which endured with some variations down to the coming of Cortes. The ordinary version of the early annals has it, that the Chichimecs, a wild tribe living far in the north-west, learning that the fertile regions of Central Mexico had been abandoned by the Toltecs, came down in immense hordes to occupy the land. … The name Chichimec at the time of the Spanish conquest, and subsequently, was used with two significations, first, as applied to the line of kings that reigned at Tezcuco, and second, to all the wild hunting tribes, particularly in the broad and little-known regions of the north. Traditionally or historically, the name has been applied to nearly every people mentioned in the ancient history of America. This has caused the greatest confusion among writers on the subject, a confusion which I believe can only be cleared up by the supposition that the name Chichimec, like that of Toltec, never was applied as a tribal or national designation proper to any people, while such people were living. It seems probable that among the Nahua peoples that occupied the country from the 6th to the 11th centuries, a few of the leading powers appropriated to themselves the title Toltecs, which had been at first employed by the inhabitants of Tollan, whose artistic excellence soon rendered it a designation of honor. To the other Nahua peoples, by whom these leading powers were surrounded, whose institutions were identical, but whose polish and elegance of manner were deemed by these self-constituted aristocrats somewhat inferior, the term Chichimecs, barbarians, etymologically 'dogs,' was applied. After the convulsions that overthrew Tollan, and reversed the condition of the Nahua nations, the 'dogs' in their turn assumed an air of superiority and retained their designation, Chichimecs, as a title of honor and nobility."

"We may suppose the 'Toltec period' in Mexican tradition to have been simply the period when the pueblo-town of Tollan was flourishing, and domineered most likely over neighbouring pueblos. One might thus speak it as one would speak of the 'Theban period' in Greek history. After the 'Toltec period,' with perhaps an intervening 'Chichimec period' of confusion, came the 'Aztec period;' or, in other words, some time after Tollan lost its importance, the city of Mexico came to the front. Such, I suspect, is the slender historical residuum underlying the legend of a 'Toltec empire.' The Codex Ramirez assigns the year 1168 as the date of the abandonment of the Serpent Hill by the people of Tollan. We begin to leave this twilight of legend when we meet the Aztecs already encamped in the Valley of Mexico. Finding the most obviously eligible sites preoccupied, they were sagacious enough to detect the advantages of a certain marshy spot through which the outlets of lakes Chalco and Xochimilco, besides sundry rivulets, flowed northward and eastward into Lake Tezcuco. Here in the year 1325 they began to build their pueblo, which they called Tenochtitlan,—a name whereby hangs a tale. When the Aztecs, hard pressed by foes, took refuge among these marshes, they came upon a sacrificial stone which they recognized as one upon which some years before one of their priests had immolated a captive chief. From a crevice in this stone, where a little earth was imbedded, there grew a cactus, upon which sat an eagle holding in its beak a serpent. A priest ingeniously interpreted this symbolism as a prophecy of signal and long-continued victory, and forthwith diving into the lake he had an interview with Tlaloc, the god of waters, who told him that upon that very spot the people were to build their town. The place was therefore called Tenochtitlan, or 'place of the cactus-rock,' but the name under which it afterward came to be best known was taken from Mexitl, one of the names of the war-god Huitzilopochtli. The device of the rock and cactus, with the eagle and serpent, formed a tribal totem for the Aztecs, and has been adopted as the coat-of-arms of the present Republic of Mexico.

The pueblo of Tenochtitlan was surrounded by salt marshes; which by dint of dikes and causeways the Aztecs gradually converted into a large artificial lake, and thus made their pueblo by far the most defensible stronghold in Anahuac,— impregnable, indeed, so far as Indian modes of attack were concerned. The advantages of this commanding position were slowly but surely realized. A dangerous neighbour upon the western shore of the lake was the tribe of Tecpanecas, whose principal pueblo was Azcaputzalco. The Aztecs succeeded in making an alliance with these Tecpanecas, but it was upon unfavourable terms and involved the payment of tribute to Azcaputzalco. It gave the Aztecs, however, some time to develop their strength. Their military organization was gradually perfected, and in 1375 they elected their first tlacatecuhtli, or 'chief-of-men,' whom European writers, in the loose phraseology formerly current, called 'founder of the Mexican empire.' The name of this official was Acamapichtli, or 'Handful-of-Reeds.' During the eight-and-twenty years of his chieftancy the pueblo houses in Tenochtitlan began to be built very solidly of stone, and the irregular water-courses flowing between them were improved into canals. Some months after his death in 1403 his son Huitzilihuitl, or 'Humming-bird,' was chosen to succeed him. This Huitzilihuitl was succeeded in 1414 by his brother Chimalpopoca, or 'Smoking Shield,' under whom temporary calamity visited the Aztec town. The alliance with Azcaputzalco was broken, and that pueblo joined its forces to those of Tezcuco on the eastern shore of the lake. United they attacked the Aztecs, defeated them, and captured their chief-of-men, who died a prisoner in 1427. He was succeeded by Izcoatzin, or 'Obsidian Snake,' an aged chieftain who died in 1436. During these nine years a complete change came over the scene. Quarrels arose between Azcaputzalco and Tezcuco; the latter pueblo entered into alliance with Tenochtitlan, and together they overwhelmed and destroyed Azcaputzalco, and butchered most of its people. What was left of the conquered pueblo was made a slave mart for the Aztecs, and the remnant of the people were removed to the neighbouring pueblo of Tlacopan, which was made tributary to Mexico. By this great victory the Aztecs also acquired secure control of the springs upon Chepultepec, or 'Grasshopper Hill,' which furnished a steady supply of fresh water to their island pueblo. The next step was the formation of a partnership between the three pueblo towns, Tenochtitlan, Tezcuco, and Tlacopan, for the organized and systematic plunder of other pueblos. All the tribute or spoils extorted was to be divided into five parts, of which two parts each were for Tezcuco and Tenochtitlan, and one part for Tlacopan. The Aztec chief-of-men became military commander of the confederacy, which now' began to extend operations to a distance. The next four chiefs-of-men were Montezuma, or 'Angry Chief,' the First, from 1436 to 1464; Axayacatl, or 'Face-in-the-Water,' from 1464 to 1477; Tizoc, or 'Wounded Leg,' from 1477 to 1486; and Ahuizotl, or 'Water-Rat,' from 1486 to 1502. Under these chiefs the great temple of Mexico was completed, and the aqueduct from Chepultepec was increased in capacity until it not only supplied water for ordinary uses, but could also be made to maintain the level of the canals and the lake. In the driest seasons, therefore, Tenochtitlan remained safe from attack. Forth from this well-protected lair the Aztec warriors went on their errands of blood. Thirty or more pueblo towns, mostly between Tenochtitlan and the Gulf coast, scattered over an area about the size of Massachusetts, were made tributary to the Confederacy; and as all these communities spoke the Nahua language, this process of conquest, if it had not been cut short by the Spaniards, might in course of time have ended in the formation of a primitive kind of state. This tributary area formed but a very small portion of the country which we call Mexico. If the reader will just look at a map of the Republic of Mexico in a modern atlas, and observe that the states of Queretaro, Guanaxuato, Michoacan, Guerrero, and a good part of La Puebla, lie outside the region sometimes absurdly styled 'Montezuma's Empire,' and surround three sides of it, he will begin to put himself into the proper state of mind for appreciating the history of Cortes and his companions. Into the outlying region just mentioned, occupied by tribes for the most part akin to the Nahuas in blood and speech, the warriors of the Confederacy sometimes ventured, with varying fortunes. They levied occasional tribute among the pueblos in these regions, but hardly made any of them regularly tributary. The longest range of their arms seems to have been to the eastward, where they sent their tax-gatherers along the coast into the isthmus of Tehuantepec, and came into conflict with the warlike Mayas and Quiches. … Such was, in general outline, what we may call the political situation in the time of the son of Axayacatl, the second Montezuma, who was elected chief-of-men in 1502, being then thirty-four years of age."

Some time in the latter part of the year 1517, the Spaniards in Cuba had acquired definite knowledge of a much civilized people who inhabited "terra firma" to the west of them, by the return of Hernandez de Cordova from his involuntary voyage to Yucatan (see AMERICA: A. D. 1157-1518). In the spring of 1518 the Cuban governor, Velasquez, had enlarged that knowledge by sending an expedition under Grijalva to the Mexican coast, and, even before Grijalva returned, he had begun preparations for a more serious undertaking of conquest and occupation in the rich country newly found. For the command of this second armament he selected Hernando Cortes, one of the boldest and most ambitious of the adventurers who had helped to subdue and settle the island of Cuba. Before the fleet sailed, however, a jealous distrust of his lieutenant had become excited by some cause in the governor's mind, and he attempted to supersede him in the command, Cortes slipped out of port, half prepared as he was for the voyage, defied the orders of his superior, and made his way (February, 1519) to the scene of his future conquests, actually as a rebel against the authority which commissioned him. "The squadron of Cortés was composed of eleven small vessels. {2160} There were 110 sailors, 553 soldiers, of which 13 were armed with muskets, and 32 with arquebuses, the others with swords and pikes only. There were 10 little field-pieces, and 16 horses. Such were the forces with which the bold adventurer set forth to conquer a vast empire, defended by large armies, not without courage, according to the report of Grijalva. But the companions of Cortes were unfamiliar with fear. Cortés followed the same route as Grijalva. … At the Tabasco River, which the Spanish called Rio de Grijalva, because that explorer had discovered it, they had a fight with some natives who resisted their approach. These natives fought bravely, but the fire-arms, and above all the horses, which they conceived to be of one piece with their riders, caused them extreme terror, and the rout was complete. … The native prince, overcome, sent gifts to the conqueror, and, without much knowing the extent of his agreement, acknowledged himself as vassal of the king of Spain, the most powerful monarch of the world." Meantime, tidings of a fresh appearance of the same strange race which had briefly visited the shores of the empire the year before were conveyed to Montezuma, and the king, who had sent envoys to the strangers before, but not quickly enough to find them, resolved to do so again. "The presents prepared for Grijalva, which had reached the shore too late, were, alas! all ready. To these were now added the ornaments used in the decoration of the image of Quetzalcoatl, on days of solemnity, regarded as the most sacred among all the possessions of the royal house of Mexico. Cortés accepted the rôle of Quetzalcoatl and allowed himself to be decorated with the ornaments belonging to that god without hesitation. The populace were convinced that it was their deity really returned to them. A feast was served to the envoys, with the accompaniment of some European wine which they found delicious. … During the feast native painters were busy depicting every thing they saw to be shown to their royal master. … Cortes sent to Montezuma a gilt helmet with the message that he hoped to see it back again filled with gold. … The bearer of this gift and communication, returning swiftly to the court, reported to the monarch that the intention of the stranger was to come at once to the capital of the empire. Montezuma at once assembled a new council of all his great vassals, some of whom urged the reception of Cortés, others his immediate dismissal. The latter view prevailed, and the monarch sent, with more presents to the unknown invader, benevolent but peremptory commands that he should go away immediately. … Meanwhile the Spanish camp was feasting and reposing in huts of cane, with fresh provisions, in great joy after the weariness of their voyage. They accepted with enthusiasm the presents of the emperor, but the treasures which were sent had an entirely different effect from that hoped for by Montezuma; they only inflamed the desire of the Spaniard to have all within his grasp, of which this was but a specimen. It was now that the great mistake in policy was apparent, by which the Aztec chieftain had for years been making enemies all over the country, invading surrounding states, and carrying off prisoners for a horrible death by sacrifice. These welcomed the strangers and encouraged their presence."

"Meanwhile Cortés, by his craft, quieted a rising faction of the party of Velasquez which demanded to be led back to Cuba. He did this by seeming to acquiesce in the demand of his followers in laying the foundations of a town and constituting its people a municipality competent to choose a representative of the royal authority. This done, Cortés resigned his commission from Velasquez, and was at once invested with supreme power by the new municipality. The scheme which Velasquez had suspected was thus brought to fruition. Whoever resisted the new captain was conquered by force, persuasion, tact, or magnetism; and Cortés became as popular as he was irresistible. At this point messengers presented themselves from tribes not far off who were unwilling subjects of the Aztec power. The presence of possible allies was a propitious circumstance, and Cortés proceeded to cultivate the friendship of these tribes. He moved his camp day by day along the shore, inuring his men to marches, while the fleet sailed in company. They reached a large city [Cempoalla, or Zempoalla, the site of which has not been determined], and were regaled. Each chief told of the tyranny of Montezuma, and the eyes of Cortés glistened. The Spaniards went on to another town, slaves being provided to bear their burdens. Here they found tax-gatherers of Montezuma collecting tribute. Emboldened by Cortés' glance, his hosts seized the Aztec emissaries and delivered them to the Spaniards. Cortés now played a double game. He propitiated the servants of Montezuma by secretly releasing them, and added to his allies by enjoining every tribe he could reach to resist the Aztec collectors of tribute. The wandering municipality, as represented in this piratical army, at last stopped at a harbor where a town (La Villa Rica de Vera Cruz) sprang up, and became the base of future operations." At this point in his movements the adventurer despatched a vessel to Spain, with letters to the king, and with dazzling gifts of gold and Aztec fabrics. "Now came the famous resolve of Cortés. He would band his heterogeneous folk together— adherents of Cortés and of Velasquez—in one common cause and danger. So he adroitly led them to be partners in the deed which he stealthily planned. Hulk after hulk of the apparently worm-eaten vessels of the fleet sank in the harbor, until there was no flotilla left upon which any could desert him. The march to Mexico was now assured. The force with which to accomplish this consisted of about 450 Spaniards, six or seven light guns, fifteen horses, and a swarm of Indian slaves and attendants. A body of the Totonacs accompanied them. Two or three days brought them into the higher plain and its enlivening vegetation. When they reached the dependencies of Montezuma, they found orders had been given to extend to them every courtesy. They soon reached the Anahuac plateau, which reminded them not a little of Spain itself. They passed from cacique to cacique, some of whom groaned under the yoke of the Aztec; but not one dared do more than orders from Montezuma dictated. {2161} Then the invaders approached the territory of an independent people, those of Tlascala, who had walled their country against neighboring enemies. A fight took place at the frontiers, in which the Spaniards lost two horses. They forced passes against great odds, but again lost a horse or two,— which was a perceptible diminution of their power to terrify. The accounts speak of immense hordes of the Tlascalans, which historians now take with allowances, great or small. Cortés spread what alarm he could by burning villages and capturing the country people. His greatest obstacle soon appeared in the compacted army of Tlascalans arrayed in his front. The conflict which ensued was for a while doubtful. Every horse was hurt, and 60 Spaniards were wounded; but the result was the retreat of the Tlascalans. Divining that the Spanish power was derived from the sun, the enemy planned a night attack; but Cortés suspected it, and assaulted them in their own ambush. Cortés now had an opportunity to display his double-facedness and his wiles. He received embassies both from Montezuma and from the senate of the Tlascalans. He cajoled each, and played off his friendship for the one in cementing an alliance with the other. But to Tlascala and Mexico he would go, so he told them. The Tlascalans were not averse, for they thought it boded no good to the Aztecs, if he could be bound to themselves. Montezuma dreaded the contact, and tried to intimidate the strangers by tales of the horrible difficulties of the journey. Presently the army took up its march for Tlascala, where they were royally received, and wives in abundance were bestowed upon the leaders. Next they passed to Cholula, which was subject to the Aztecs."

      J. Winsor,
      Narrative and Critical History of America,
      volume 2, chapter 6.

"The distance from Tlascala to Chololan [or Cholula] is but from 15 to 20 miles. It was a kind of holy place, venerated far and wide in Anahuac; pilgrimages were made thither, as the Mahometans go to Mecca, and Christians to Jerusalem or Rome. The city was consecrated to the worship of Quetzalcoatl, who had there the noblest temple in all Mexico, built, like all the temples in the country, on the summit of a truncated pyramid. The traveller of the present day beholds this pyramid on the horizon as he approaches Puebla, on his route from Vera Cruz to Mexico. But the worship of the beneficent Quetzalcoatl had been perverted by the sombre genius of the Aztecs. To this essentially good deity 6,000 human victims were annually immolated in his temple at Chololan. … The Spaniards found at Chololan an eager and, to all appearance at least, a perfectly cordial welcome." But this hospitality masked, it is said, a great plot for their destruction, which Montezuma had inspired and to aid which he had sent into the neighborhood of the city a powerful Mexican army. The plot was revealed to Cortez—so the Spanish historians relate—and "he took his resolution with his accustomed energy and foresight. He made his dispositions for the very next day. He acquainted the caciques of Chololan that he should evacuate the city at break of dawn, and required them to furnish 2,000 porters or 'tamanes,' for the baggage. The caciques then organized their attack for the morrow morning, not without a promise of the men required, whom, in fact, they brought at dawn to the great court in which the foreigners were domiciled. The conflict soon began. The Spaniards, who were perfectly prepared, commenced by massacring the caciques. The mass of Chololans that attempted to invade their quarters were crushed under the fire of their artillery and musketry, and the charges of their cavalry. Hearing the reports, the Tlascalans, who had been left at the entrance of the city, rushed on to the rescue. … They could now glut their hatred and vengeance; they slaughtered as long as they could, and then set to work at plunder. The Spaniards, too, after having killed all that resisted, betook themselves to pillage. The unfortunate city of Chololan was thus inundated with blood and sacked. Cortez, however, enjoined that the women and children should be spared, and we are assured that in that he was obeyed, even by his cruel auxiliaries from Tlascala. … To the praise of Cortez it must be said that, after the victory, he once more showed himself tolerant: he left the inhabitants at liberty to follow their old religion on condition that they should no longer immolate human victims. After this signal blow, all the threats, all the intrigues, of Montezuma, had no possible effect, and the Aztec emperor could be under no illusion as to the inflexible intention of Cortez. The latter, as soon as he had installed new chiefs at Chololan, and effaced the more hideous traces of the massacre and pillage that had desolated the city, set out with his own troops and his Indian auxiliaries from Tlascala for the capital of the Aztec empire, the magnificent city of Tenochtitlan."

      M. Chevalier,
      Mexico, Ancient and Modern,
      part 2, chapter 4 (volume 1).

   "This Province is in the form of a circle, surrounded on all
   sides by lofty and rugged mountains; its level surface
   comprises an area of about 70 leagues in circumference,
   including two lakes, that overspread nearly the whole valley,
   being navigated by boats more than 50 leagues round. One of
   these lakes contains fresh, and the other, which is the larger
   of the two, salt water. On one side of the lakes, in the
   middle of the valley, a range of highlands divides them from
   one another, with the exception of a narrow strait which lies
   between the highlands and the lofty Sierras. This strait is a
   bow-shot wide, and connects the two lakes; and by this means a
   trade is carried on between the cities and other settlements
   on the lakes in canoes without the necessity of travelling by
   land. As the salt lake rises and falls with its tides like the
   sea, during the time of high water it pours into the other
   lake with the rapidity of a powerful stream; and on the other
   hand, when the tide has ebbed, the water runs from the fresh
   into the salt lake. This great city of Temixtitan
   [Tenochtitlan—Mexico] is situated in this salt lake, and from
   the main land to the denser parts of it, by whichever route
   one chooses to enter, the distance is two leagues. There are
   four avenues or entrances to the city, all of which are formed
   by artificial causeways, two spears' length in width. The city
   is as large as Seville or Cordova; its streets, I speak of the
   principal ones, are very wide and straight; some of these, and
   all the inferior ones, are half land and half water, and are
   navigated by canoes.
{2162}
   All the streets at intervals have openings, through which the
   water flows, crossing from one street to another; and at these
   openings, some of which are very wide, there are also very
   wide bridges, composed of large pieces of timber, of great
   strength and well put together; on many of these bridges ten
   horses can go abreast. … This city has many public squares,
   in which are situated the markets and other places for buying
   and selling. There is one square twice as large as that of the
   city of Salamanca, surrounded by porticoes, where are daily
   assembled more than 60,000 souls, engaged in buying and
   selling; and where are found all kinds of merchandise that the
   world affords, embracing the necessaries of life, as for
   instance articles of food, as well as jewels of gold and
   silver, lead, brass, copper, tin, precious stones, bones,
   shells, snails, and feathers. … Every kind of merchandise is
   sold in a particular street or quarter assigned to it
   exclusively, and thus the best order is preserved. They sell
   everything by number or measure; at least so far we have not
   observed them to sell any thing by weight. There is a building
   in the great square that is used as an audience house, where
   ten or twelve persons, who are magistrates, sit and decide all
   controversies that arise in the market, and order delinquents
   to be punished. … This great city contains a large number of
   temples, or houses for their idols, very handsome edifices,
   which are situated in the different districts and the suburbs.
   … Among these temples there is one which far surpasses all
   the rest, whose grandeur of architectural details no human
   tongue is able to describe; for within its precincts,
   surrounded by a lofty wall, there is room enough for a town of
   500 families. Around the interior of this enclosure there are
   handsome edifices, containing large halls and corridors, in
   which the religious persons attached to the temple reside.
   There are full 40 towers, which are lofty and well built, the
   largest of which has 50 steps leading to its main body, and is
   higher than the tower of the principal church at Seville. The
   stone and wood of which they are constructed are so well
   wrought in every part that nothing could be better done. …
   This noble city contains many fine and magnificent houses;
   which may be accounted for from the fact that all the nobility
   of the country, who are the vassals of Muteczuma, have houses
   in the city, in which they reside a certain part of the year;
   and, besides, there are numerous wealthy citizens who also
   possess fine houses."

      H. Cortés,
      Despatches [Letters] (translated by G. Folsom),
      letter 2, chapter 5.

"We had already been four days in the city of Mexico, and neither our commander nor any of us had, during that time, left our quarters, excepting to visit the gardens and buildings adjoining the palace. Cortes now, therefore, determined to view the city, and visit the great market, and the chief temple of Huitzilopochtli. … The moment we arrived in this immense market, we were perfectly astonished at the vast numbers of people, the profusion of merchandise which was there exposed for sale, and at the good police and order that reigned throughout. … Every species of goods which New Spain produces were here to be found; and everything put me in mind of my native town Medina del Campo during fair time, where every merchandise has a separate street assigned for its sale. … On quitting the market, we entered the spacious yards which surround the chief temple. … Motecusuma, who was sacrificing on the top to his idols, sent six papas and two of his principal officers to conduct Cortes up the steps. There were 114 steps to the summit. …Indeed, this infernal temple, from its great height, commanded a view of the whole surrounding neighbourhood. From this place we could likewise see the three causeways which led into Mexico. … We also observed the aqueduct which ran from Chapultepec, and provided the whole town with sweet water. We could also distinctly see the bridges across the openings, by which these causeways were intersected, and through which the waters of the lake ebbed and flowed. The lake itself was crowded with canoes, which were bringing provisions, manufactures and other merchandise to the city. From here we also discovered that the only communication of the houses in this city, and of all the other towns built in the lake, was by means of drawbridges or canoes. In all these towns the beautiful white plastered temples rose above the smaller ones, like so many towers and castles in our Spanish towns, and this, it may be imagined, was a splendid sight."

Bernal Diaz del Castillo, Memoirs (translated by Lockhart), chapter 92 (volume 1).

"In the West India Islands the Spanish discoverers found small Indian tribes under the government of chiefs; but on the continent, in the Valley of Mexico, they found a confederacy of three Indian tribes under a more advanced but similar government. In the midst of the valley was a large pueblo, the largest in America, surrounded with water, approached by causeways; in fine, a water-girt fortress impregnable to Indian assault. This pueblo presented to the Spanish adventurers the extraordinary spectacle of an Indian society lying two ethnical periods back of European society, but with a government and plan of life at once intelligent, orderly, and complete. … The Spanish adventurers who captured the pueblo of Mexico saw a king in Montezuma, lords in Aztec chiefs, and a palace in the large joint-tenement house occupied, Indian fashion, by Montezuma and his fellow-householders. It was, perhaps, an unavoidable self-deception at the time, because they knew nothing of the Aztec social system. Unfortunately it inaugurated American aboriginal history upon a misconception of Indian life which has remained substantially unquestioned until recently. The first eye-witnesses gave the keynote to this history by introducing Montezuma as a king, occupying a palace of great extent crowded with retainers, and situated in the midst of a grand and populous city, over which, and much besides, he was reputed master. But king and kingdom were in time found too common to express all the glory and splendor the imagination was beginning to conceive of Aztec society; and emperor and empire gradually superseded the more humble conception of the conquerors. … To every author, from Cortes and Bernal Diaz to Brasseur de Bourbourg and Hubert H. Bancroft, Indian society was an unfathomable mystery, and their works have left it a mystery still. Ignorant of its structure and principles, and unable to comprehend its peculiarities, they invoked the imagination to supply whatever was necessary to fill out the picture. … {2163} Thus, in this case, we have a grand historical romance, strung upon the conquest of Mexico as upon a thread; the acts of the Spaniards, the pueblo of Mexico, and its capture, are historical, while the descriptions of Indian society and government are imaginary and delusive. … There is a strong probability, from what is known of Indian life and society, that the house in which Montezuma lived, was a joint-tenement house of the aboriginal American model, owned by a large number of related families, and occupied by them in common as joint proprietors; that the dinner [of Montezuma, in his palace, as described by Cortes and Bernal Diaz] … was the usual single daily meal of a communal household, prepared in a common cookhouse from common stores, and divided, Indian fashion, from the kettle; and that all the Spaniards found in Mexico was a simple confederacy of three Indian tribes, the counterpart of which was found in all parts of America. It may be premised further that the Spanish adventurers who thronged to the new world after its discovery found the same race of Red Indians in the West India Islands, in Central and South America, in Florida, and in Mexico. In their mode of life and means of subsistence, in their weapons, arts, usages, and customs, in their institutions, and in their mental and physical characteristics, they were the same people in different stages of advancement. No distinction of race was observed, and none in fact existed. … Not a vestige of the ancient pueblo of Mexico (Tenochtitlan) remains to assist us to a knowledge of its architecture. Its structures, which were useless to a people of European habits, were speedily destroyed to make room for a city adapted to the wants of a civilized race. We must seek for its characteristics in contemporary Indian houses which still remain in ruins, and in such of the early descriptions as have come down to us, and then leave the subject with but little accurate knowledge. Its situation, partly on dry land and partly in the waters of a shallow artificial pond formed by causeways and dikes, led to the formation of streets and squares, which were unusual in Indian pueblos, and gave to it a remarkable appearance. … Many of the houses were large, far beyond the supposable wants of a single Indian family. They were constructed of adobe brick, and of stone, and plastered over in both cases with gypsum, which made them a brilliant white; and some were constructed of a red porous stone. In cutting and dressing this stone flint implements were used. The fact that the houses were plastered externally leads us to infer that they had not learned to dress stone and lay them in courses. It is not certainly established that they had learned the use of a mortar of lime and sand. In the final attack and capture, it is said that Cortes, in the course of seventeen days, destroyed and levelled three-quarters of the pueblo, which demonstrates the flimsy character of the masonry. … It is doubtful whether there was a single pueblo in North America, with the exception of Tlascala, Cholula, Tezcuco, and Mexico, which contained 10,000 inhabitants. There is no occasion to apply the term 'city' to any of them. None of the Spanish descriptions enable us to realize the exact form and structure of these houses, or their relations to each other in forming a pueblo. … It is evident from the citations made that the largest of these joint·tenement houses would accommodate from 500 to 1,000 or more people, living in the fashion of Indians; and that the courts were probably quadrangles, formed by constructing the building on three sides of an inclosed space, as in the New Mexican pueblos, or upon the four sides, as in the House of the Nuns, at Uxmal."

      L. H. Morgan,
      Houses and House-life of the American Aborigines
      (United States Geographical and Geological Survey of
      Rocky Mountain Region:
      Contribution to North American Ethnology, volume 4),
      chapter 10.

MEXICO: A. D. 1519-1520.
   Captivity of Montezuma, Cortés ruling in his name.
   The discomfiture of Narvaez.
   The revolt of the capital.

When Cortés had time to survey and to realize his position in the Mexican capital, he saw that it was full of extreme danger. To be isolated with so small a force in the midst of any hostile, populous city would be perilous; but in Mexico that peril was immeasurably increased by the peculiar situation and construction of the island-city—Venice-like in its insulation, and connected with the mainland by long and narrow, causeways and bridges, easily broken and difficult to secure for retreat. With characteristic audacity, the Spanish leader mastered the danger of the situation, so to speak, by taking Montezuma himself in pledge for the peace and good behavior of his subjects. Commanded by Cortés to quit his palace, and to take up his residence with the Spaniards in their quarters, the Mexican monarch remonstrated but obeyed, and became from that day the shadow of a king. "During, six months that Cortes remained in Mexico [from November, 1519, until May, 1520], the monarch continued in the Spanish quarters, with an appearance of as entire satisfaction and tranquillity as if he had resided there, not from constraint, but through choice. His ministers and officers attended him as usual. He took cognizance of all affairs; every order was issued in his name. … Such was the dread which both Montezuma and his subjects had of the Spaniards, or such the veneration in which they held them, that no attempt was made to deliver their sovereign from confinement, and though Cortes, relying on this ascendant which he had acquired over their minds, permitted him not only to visit his temples, but to make hunting excursions beyond the lake, a guard of a few Spaniards carried with it such a terrour as to intimidate the multitude, and secure the captive monarch. Thus, by the fortunate temerity of Cortes in seizing Montezuma, the Spaniards at once secured to themselves more extensive authority in the Mexican empire than it was possible to have acquired in a long course of time by open force; and they exercised more absolute sway in the name of another than they could have done in their own. … Cortes availed himself to the utmost of the powers which he possessed by being able to act in the name of Montezuma. He sent some Spaniards, whom he judged best qualified for such commissions, into different parts of the empire, accompanied by persons of distinction, whom Montezuma appointed to attend them both as guides and protectors. They visited most of the provinces, viewed their soil and productions, surveyed with particular care the districts which yielded gold or silver, pitched upon several places as proper stations for future colonies, and endeavoured to prepare the minds of the people for submitting to the Spanish yoke." At the same time, Cortes strengthened his footing in the capital by building and launching two brigantines on the lake, with an equipment and armament which his royal prisoner caused to be brought up for him from Vera Cruz. {2164} He also persuaded Montezuma to acknowledge himself a vassal of the King of Castile, and to subject his kingdom to the payment of an annual tribute. But, while his cunning conquest of an empire was advancing thus prosperously, the astute Spanish captain allowed his prudence to be overridden by his religious zeal. Becoming impatient at the obstinacy with which Montezuma clung to his false gods, Cortes made a rash attempt, with his soldiers, to cast down the idols in the great temple of the city, and to set the image of the Virgin in their place. The sacrilegious outrage roused the Mexicans from their tame submission and fired them with an inextinguishable rage. At this most unfortunate juncture, news came from Vera Cruz which demanded the personal presence of Cortes on the coast. Velasquez, the hostile governor of Cuba, to whom the adventurer in Mexico was a rebel, had sent, at last, an expedition, to put a stop to his unauthorized proceedings and to arrest his person. Cortes faced the new menace as boldly as he had faced all others. Leaving 150 men in the angry Mexican capital, under Pedro de Alvarado, he set out with the small remainder of his force to attack the Spanish intruders. Even after picking up some detachments outside and joining the garrison at Vera Cruz, he could muster but 250 men; while Narvaez, who commanded the expedition from Cuba, had brought 800 foot soldiers and 80 horse, with twelve pieces of cannon. The latter had taken possession of the city of Zempoalla and was strongly posted in one of its temples. There Cortes surprised him, in a night attack, took him prisoner, in a wounded state, and compelled his troops to lay down their arms. Nearly the whole of the latter were soon captivated by the commanding genius of the man they had been sent to arrest, and enlisted in his service. He found himself now at the head of a thousand well armed men; and he found in the same moment that he needed them all. For news came from Mexico that Alvarado, thinking to anticipate and crush a suspected intention of the Mexicans to rise against him, had provoked the revolt and made it desperate by a most perfidious, brutal massacre of several hundred of the chief persons of the empire, committed while they were celebrating one of the festivals of their religion, in the temple. The Spaniards at Mexico were now beleaguered, as the consequence, in their quarters, and their only hope was the hope that Cortes would make haste to their rescue,—which he did.

ALSO IN: H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States, volume 4, chapters 17-23.

MEXICO: A. D. 1520 (JUNE-JULY).
   The return of Cortes to the Mexican Capital.
   The battle in the city.
   The death of Montezuma.
   The disastrous Retreat of the Spaniards.

The alarming intelligence which came to him from the Mexican capital called out in Cortés the whole energy of his nature. Hastily summoning back the various expeditions he had already sent out, and gathering all his forces together, he "reviewed his men, and found that they amounted to 1,300 soldiers, among whom were 96 horsemen, 80 cross-bowmen, and about 80 musketeers. Cortez marched with great strides to Mexico, and entered the city at the head of this formidable force on the 24th of June, 1520, the day of John the Baptist. Very different was the reception of Cortez on this occasion from that on his first entry into Mexico, when Montezuma had gone forth with all pomp to meet him. Now, the Indians stood silently in the doorways of their houses, and the bridges between the houses were taken up. Even when he arrived at his own quarters he found the gates barred, so strict had been the siege, and he had to demand an entry." The Mexicans, strangely enough, made no attempt to oppose his entrance into the city and his junction with Alvarado; yet the day after his return their attack upon the Spanish quarters, now so strongly reinforced, was renewed. "Cortez, who was not at all given to exaggeration, says that neither the streets nor the terraced roofs ('azoteas') were visible, being entirely obscured by the people who were upon them; that the multitude of stones was so great that it seemed as if it rained stones; and that the arrows came so thickly that the walls and the courts were full of them, rendering it difficult to move about. Cortez made two or three desperate sallies, and was wounded. The Mexicans succeeded in setting fire to the fortress, which was with difficulty subdued, and they would have scaled the walls at the point where the fire had done most damage but for a large force of cross-bowmen, musketeers, and artillery, which Cortez threw forward to meet the danger. The Mexicans at last drew back, leaving no fewer than 80 Spaniards wounded in this first encounter. The ensuing morning, as soon as it was daylight, the attack was renewed. … Again, and with considerable success, Cortez made sallies from the fortress in the course of the day; but at the end of it there were about 60 more of his men to be added to the list of wounded, already large, from the injuries received on the preceding day. The third day was devoted by the ingenious Cortez to making three movable fortresses, called 'mantas,' which, he thought, would enable his men, with less danger, to contend against the Mexicans upon their terraced roofs. … It was on this day that the unfortunate Montezuma, either at the request of Cortez, or of his own accord, came out upon a battlement and addressed the people." He was interrupted by a shower of stones and arrows and received wounds from which he died soon after. The fighting on this day was more desperate than it had been before. The Spaniards undertook to dislodge a body of the Indians who had posted themselves on the summit of the great temple, which was dangerously near at hand. Again and again they were driven back, until Cortez bound his shield to his wounded arm and led the assault. Then, after three hours of fighting, from terrace to terrace, they gained the upper platform and put every Mexican to the sword. But 40 Spaniards perished in the struggle. "This fight in the temple gave a momentary brightness to the arms of the Spaniards and afforded Cortez an opportunity to resume negotiations. But the determination of the Mexicans was fixed and complete. … They would all perish, if that were needful, to gain their point of destroying the Spaniards. They bade Cortez look at the streets, the squares, and the terraces, covered with people; and then, in a business-like and calculating manner, they told him that if 25,000 of them were to die for each Spaniard, still the Spaniards would perish first. … {2165} It generally requires at least as much courage to retreat as to advance. Indeed, few men have the courage and the ready wisdom to retreat in time. But Cortez, once convinced that his position in Mexico was no longer tenable, wasted no time or energy in parleying with danger. Terror had lost its influence with the Mexicans, and superior strategy was of little avail against such overpowering numbers. … Cortez resolved to quit the city that night [July 1, 1520]. … A little before midnight the stealthy march began. The Spaniards succeeded in laying down the pontoon over the first bridge-way, and the vanguard with Sandoval passed over; but, while the rest were passing, the Mexicans gave the alarm with loud shouts and blowing of horns. … Almost immediately upon this alarm the lake was covered with canoes. It rained, and the misfortunes of the night commenced by two horses slipping from the pontoon into the water. Then the Mexicans attacked the pontoon-bearers so furiously that it was impossible for them to raise it up again." After that, all seems to have been a confused struggle in the darkness, where even Cortez could do little for the unfortunate rear-guard of his troops. "This memorable night has ever been celebrated in American history as 'la noche triste.' In this flight from Mexico all the artillery was lost, and there perished 450 Spaniards, … 4,000 of the Indian allies, 46 horses, and most of the Mexican prisoners, including one son and two daughters of Montezuma, and his nephew the King of Tezcuco. A loss which posterity will ever regret was that of the books and accounts, memorials and writings, of which there were some, it is said, that contained a narrative of all that had happened since Cortez left Cuba. … In the annals of retreats there has seldom been one recorded which proved more entirely disastrous."

MEXICO: A. D. 1520-1521.
   The retreat to Tlascala.
   Reinforcements and recovery.
   Cortes in the field again.
   Preparations to attack Mexico.

"After the disasters and fatigues of the 'noche triste,' the melancholy and broken band of Cortez rested for a day at Tacuba, whilst the Mexicans returned to their capital, probably to bury the dead and purify their city. It is singular, yet it is certain, that they did not follow up their successes by a death blow at the disarmed Spaniards. But this momentary paralysis of their efforts was not to be trusted, and accordingly Cortez began to retreat eastwardly, under the guidance of the Tlascalans, by a circuitous route around the northern limits of lake Zumpango. The flying forces and their auxiliaries were soon in a famishing condition, subsisting alone on corn or on wild cherries gathered in the forest, with occasional refreshment and support from the carcase of a horse that perished by the way. For six days these fragments of the Spanish army continued their weary pilgrimage, and, on the seventh, reached Otumba." At Otumba their progress was barred by a vast army of the Aztecs, which had marched by a shorter road to intercept them; but after a desperate battle the natives fled and the Spaniards were troubled no more until they reached the friendly shelter of Tlascala. The Tlascalans held faithfully to their alliance and received the flying strangers with helpful hands and encouraging words. But many of Cortez' men demanded permission to continue their retreat to Vera Cruz. "Just at this moment, too, Cuitlahua, who mounted the throne of Mexico on the death of Montezuma, despatched a mission to the Tlascalans, proposing to bury the hatchet, and to unite in sweeping the Spaniards from the realm." A hot discussion ensued in the council of the Tlascalan chiefs, which resulted in the rejection of the Mexican proposal, and the confidence of Cortez was restored. He succeeded in pacifying his men, and gave them employment by expeditions against tribes and towns within reach which adhered to the Mexican king. After some time he obtained reinforcements, by an arrival of vessels at Vera Cruz bringing men and supplies, and he began to make serious preparations for the reconquest of the Aztec capital. He "constructed new arms and caused old ones to be repaired; made powder with sulphur obtained from the volcano of Popocatopetl; and, under the direction of his builder, Lopez, prepared the timber for brigantines, which he designed to carry, in pieces, and launch on the lake at the town of Tezcoco. At that port, he resolved to prepare himself fully for the final attack, and, this time, he determined to assault the enemy's capital by water as well as by land." The last day of December found him once more on the shores of the Mexican lake, encamped at Tezcoco, with a Spanish force restored to 600 men in strength, having 40 horses, 80 arquebuses and nine small cannon. Of Indian allies he is said to have had many thousands. Meantime, Cuitlahua had died of smallpox—which came to the country with the Spaniards—and had been succeeded by Guatemozin, his nephew, a vigorous young man of twenty-five. "At Tezcoco, Cortéz was firmly planted on the eastern edge of the valley of Mexico, in full sight of the capital which lay across the lake, near its western shore, at the distance of about twelve miles. Behind him, towards the sea-coast, he commanded the country, … while, by passes through lower spurs of the mountains, he might easily communicate with the valleys of which the Tlascalans and Cholulans were masters." One by one he reduced and destroyed or occupied the neighboring towns, and overran the surrounding country, in expeditions which made the complete circle of the valley and gave him a complete knowledge of it, while they re-established the prestige of the Spaniards and the terror of their arms. On the 28th of April the newly built brigantines, 12 in number, were launched upon the lake, and all was in readiness for an attack upon the city, with forces now increased by fresh arrivals to 87 horse and 818 Spanish infantry, with three iron field pieces and 15 brass falconets.

B. Mayer, Mexico, Aztec, Spanish and Republican, book 1, chapters 6-8 (volume 1).

"The observations which Cortes had made in his late tour of reconnaissance had determined him to begin the siege by distributing his forces into three separate camps, which he proposed to establish at the extremities of the principal causeways," under three of his captains, Alvarado, Olid and Sandoval. The movement of forces from Tezcuco began on the 10th of May, 1521. {2166} Alvarado and Olid occupied Tacuba, cut the aqueduct which conveyed water from Chapoltepec to the capital, and made an unsuccessful attempt to get possession of the fatal causeway of "the noche triste." Holding Tacuba, however, Alvarado commanded that important passage, while Sandoval, seizing the city of Iztapalapan, at the southern extremity of the lake, and Olid, establishing himself near the latter, at Cojohuacan, were planted at the two outlets, it would seem, of another of the causeways, which branched to attain the shore at those two points. When so much had been accomplished, Cortés, in person, set sail with his fleet of brigantines and speedily cleared the lake of all the swarm of light canoes and little vessels with which the unfortunate Mexicans tried vainly though valorously to dispute it with him. "This victory, more complete than even the sanguine temper of Cortés had prognosticated, proved the superiority of the Spaniards, and left them, henceforth, undisputed masters of the Aztec sea. It was nearly dusk when the squadron, coasting along the great southern causeway, anchored off the point of junction, called Xoloc, where the branch from Cojohuacan meets the principal dike. The avenue widened at this point, so as to afford room for two towers, or turreted temples, built of stone, and surrounded by walls of the same material, which presented altogether a position of some strength, and, at the present moment, was garrisoned by a body of Aztecs. They were not numerous; and Cortés, landing with his soldiers, succeeded without much difficulty in dislodging the enemy, and in getting possession of the works." Here, in a most advantageous position on the great causeway, the Spanish commander fortified himself and established his headquarters, summoning Olid with half of his force to join him and transferring Sandoval to Olid's post at Cojohuacan. "The two principal avenues to Mexico, those on the south and the west, were now occupied by the Christians. There still remained a third, the great dike of Tepejacac, on the north, which, indeed, taking up the principal street, that passed in a direct line through the heart of the city, might be regarded as a continuation of the dike of Iztapalapan. By this northern route a means of escape was still left open to the besieged, and they availed themselves of it, at present, to maintain their communications with the country, and to supply themselves with provisions. Alvarado, who observed this from his station at Tacuba, advised his commander of it, and the latter instructed Sandoval to take up his position on the causeway. That officer, though suffering at the time from a severe wound, … hastened to obey; and thus, by shutting up its only communication with the surrounding country, completed the blockade of the capital. But Cortés was not content to wait patiently the effects of a dilatory blockade." He arranged with his subordinate captains the plan of a simultaneous advance along each of the causeways toward the city. From his own post he pushed forward with great success, assisted by the brigantines which sailed along side, and which, by the flanking fire of their artillery, drove the Aztecs from one barricade after another, which they had erected at every dismantled bridge. Fighting their way steadily, the Spaniards traversed the whole length of the dike and entered the city; penetrated to the great square; saw once more their old quarters; scaled again the sides of the pyramid-temple, to slay the bloody priests and to strip the idols of their jewels and gold. But the Aztecs were frenzied by this sacrilege, as they had been frenzied by the same deed before, and renewed the battle with so much fury that the Spaniards were driven back in thorough panic and disarray. "All seemed to be lost;—when suddenly sounds were heard in an adjoining street, like the distant tramp of horses galloping rapidly over the pavement. They drew nearer and nearer, and a body of cavalry soon emerged on the great square. Though but a handful in number, they plunged boldly into the thick of the enemy," who speedily broke and fled, enabling Cortés to withdraw his troops in safety. Neither Alvarado nor Sandoval, who had greater difficulties to overcome, and who had no help from the brigantines, reached the suburbs of the city; but their assault had been vigorously made, and had been of great help to that of Cortés. The success of the demonstration spread consternation among the Mexicans and their vassals, and brought a number of the latter over to the Spanish side. Among these latter was the prince of Tezcuco, who joined Cortés, with a large force, in the next assault which the latter made presently upon the city. Again penetrating to the great square, the Spaniards on this occasion destroyed the palaces there by fire. But the spirit of the Mexicans remained unbroken, and they were found in every encounter opposing as obstinate a resistance as ever. They contrived, too, for a remarkable length of time, to run the blockade of the brigantines on the lake and to bring supplies into the city by their canoes. But, at length, when most of the great towns of the neighborhood had deserted their cause, the supplies failed and starvation began to do its work in the fated city. At the same time, the Spaniards were amply provisioned, and their new allies built barracks and huts for their shelter. Cortés "would gladly have spared the town and its inhabitants. … He intimated more than once, by means of the prisoners whom he released, his willingness to grant them fair terms of capitulation. Day after day, he fully expected his proffers would be accepted. But day after day he was disappointed. He had yet to learn how tenacious was the memory of the Aztecs."

   "The impatience of the soldiers grew to a great height, and
   was supported in an official quarter—by no less a person than
   Alderete, the king's treasurer. Cortez gave way, against his
   own judgment, to their importunities" and another general
   attack was ordered. "On the appointed day Cortez moved from
   his camp, supported by seven brigantines, and by more than
   3,000 canoes filled with his Indian allies. When his soldiers
   reached the entrance of the city, he divided them in the
   following manner. There were three streets which led to the
   market-place from the position which the Spaniards had already
   gained. Along, the principal street, the king's treasurer,
   with 70 Spaniards and 15,000 or 20,000 allies, was to make his
   way. His rear was to be protected by a small guard of
   horsemen. The other two streets were smaller, and led from the
   street of Tlacuba to the market-place.
{2167}
   Along the broader of these two streets Cortez sent two of his
   principal captains, with 80 Spaniards and 10,000 Indians; he
   himself, with eight horsemen, 75 foot-soldiers, 25 musketeers,
   and an 'infinite number' of allies, was to enter the narrower
   street. At the entrance to the street of Tlacuba he left two
   large cannon, with eight horsemen to guard them, and at the
   entrance of his own street he also left eight horsemen to
   protect the rear. … The Spaniards and their allies made
   their entrance into the city with even more success and less
   embarrassment than on previous occasions. Bridges and
   barricades were gained, and the three main bodies of the army
   moved forward into the heart of the city." But in the
   excitement of their advance they left unrepaired behind them a
   great breach in the causeway, ten or twelve paces wide,
   although Cortez had repeatedly enjoined upon his captains that
   no such dangerous death-trap should be left to catch them in
   the event of a retreat. The neglect in this case was most
   disastrous. Being presently repulsed and driven back, the
   division which had allowed this chasm to yawn behind it was
   engulfed. Cortez, whose distrust had been excited in some way,
   discovered the danger, but too late. He made his way to the
   spot, only to find "the whole aperture so full of Spaniards
   and Indians that, as he says, there was not room for a straw
   to float upon the surface of the water. The peril was so
   imminent that Cortez not only thought that the Conquest of
   Mexico was gone, but that the term of his life as well as of
   his victories had come, and he resolved to die there fighting.
   All that he could do at first was to help his men out of the
   water; and, meanwhile, the Mexicans charged upon them in such
   numbers that he and his little party were entirely surrounded.
   The enemy seized upon his person, and would have carried him
   off but for the resolute bravery of some of his guard, one of
   whom lost his life there in succouring his master. … At last
   he and a few of his men succeeded in fighting their way to the
   broad street of Tlacuba, where, like a brave captain, instead
   of continuing his flight, he and the few horsemen who were
   with him turned round and formed a rear guard to protect his
   retreating troops. He also sent immediate orders to the king's
   treasurer and the other commanders to make good their
   retreat."

"As we were thus retreating, we continually heard the large drum beating from the summit of the chief temple of the city. Its tone was mournful indeed, and sounded like the very instrument of Satan. This drum was so vast in its dimensions that it could be heard from eight to twelve miles distance. Every time we heard its mournful sound, the Mexicans, as we subsequently learnt, offered to their idols the bleeding hearts of our unfortunate countrymen. … After we had at last, with excessive toil, crossed a deep opening, and had arrived at our encampment, … the large drum of Huitzilopochtli again resounded from the summit of the temple, accompanied by all the hellish music of shell trumpets, horns, and other instruments. … We could plainly see the platform, with the chapel in which those cursed idols stood; how the Mexicans had adorned the heads of the Spaniards with feathers, and compelled their victims to dance round the god Huitzilopochtli; we saw how they stretched them out at full length on a large stone, ripped open their breasts with flint knives, tore out the palpitating heart and offered it to their idols. Alas! we were forced to be spectators of all this, and how they then seized hold of the dead bodies by the legs and threw them headlong down the steps of the temple, at the bottom of which other executioners stood ready to receive them, who severed the arms, legs, and heads from the bodies, drew the skin off the faces, which were tanned with the beards still adhering to them, and produced as spectacles of mockery and derision at their feasts; the legs, arms, and other parts of the body being cut up and devoured. … On that terrible day the loss of the three divisions amounted to 60 men and 7 horses."

MEXICO: A. D. 1521 (August).
   The last days of the Siege.
   The taking of the ruined city.
   The end of the Aztec dominion.

   "Guatemozin's victory diffused immense enthusiasm among the
   Aztecs and those who remained united to them. The priests
   proclaimed that the gods, satiated by the sacrifice of the
   Spanish prisoners, had promised to rid the country of the
   foreigners, and that the promise would be fulfilled within
   eight days. This intelligence spread alarm among the allies of
   the Spaniards. They deserted in great numbers—not to go over
   to the Aztecs, whose anger they dreaded, but to return to
   their homes. Cortez had good watch kept in the camp. The
   sorties of the besieged were repulsed; the eight days passed
   without the Spaniards having lost more than a few marauders.
   The allies, seeing that the oracle was wrong, came back to
   their former friends. The aggressive ardour of the besieged
   grew cooler, and they soon found themselves assailed by the
   plagues that ordinarily attack troops massed in a city—not
   only famine, but epidemic diseases, the result of want and
   overcrowding. … Famine pinched them more cruelly day after
   day. Lizards and such rats as they could find were their
   richest nourishment; reptiles and insects were eagerly looked
   for, trees stripped of their bark, and roots stealthily sought
   after by night. Meanwhile, Cortez, seeing that there was no
   other means of bringing them to submission, pursued the work
   of destruction he had resolved on with so much regret. …
   Heaps of bodies were found in every street that was won from
   them; this people, so punctilious in their customs of
   sepulture, had ceased to bury their dead. … Soon there was
   left to the besieged but one quarter, and that the most
   incommodious of all, forming barely an eighth of the city,
   where there were not houses enough to give them shelter. …
   The 13th August, 1521, had now arrived, and that was to be the
   last day of this once flourishing empire. Before making a
   final assault, Cortez once more invited the emperor to his
   presence. His envoys came back with the 'cihuacoatl,' a
   magistrate of the first rank, who declared, with an air of
   consternation, that Guatemozin knew how to die, but that he
   would not come to treat. Then, turning towards Cortez, he
   added: 'Do now whatever you please.' 'Be it so,' replied
   Cortez; 'go and tell your friends to prepare; they are going
   to die.' In fact, the troops advanced; there was a last mêlée,
   a last carnage, on land and on the lake. …
{2168}
   Guatemozin, driven to the shore of the lake, threw himself
   into a canoe with a few warriors, and endeavoured to escape by
   dint of rowing; but he was pursued by a brigantine of the
   Spanish fleet, taken and brought to Cortez, who received him
   with the respect due to a crowned head. … The Aztec empire
   had ceased to exist; Spanish sway was established in Mexico.
   The Cross was triumphant in that fine country, and there was
   no sharer in its reign. The number of persons that perished in
   the siege has been differently estimated. The most moderate
   calculation puts it at 120,000 on the side of the Aztecs. Very
   many Indians fell on the side of the besiegers. The historian
   Ixtlixochitl says there were 30,000 dead of the warriors of
   Tezcuco alone. All that were left alive of the Aztecs were, at
   the request of Guatemozin, allowed to leave the city in
   freedom, on the morning after it was taken. … They dispersed
   in all directions, everywhere spreading a terror of the
   Spaniards, and the feeling that to resist them was impossible.
   That conviction must have been established speedily and
   firmly, for there was no further attempt at resistance, unless
   it were at one point, in the territory of Panuco, near the
   Atlantic Ocean."

ALSO IN: H. Cortes, Despatches [Letters] MEXICO, translated by G. Folsom, letter 3, chapter 5.

MEXICO: A. D. 1521-1524.
The rebuilding of the capital.
The completion and settlement of the Conquest.

"The first ebullition of triumph was succeeded in the army by very different feelings, as they beheld the scanty spoil gleaned from the conquered city;" and Cortés was driven, by the clamors and suspicions of his soldiers, to subject his heroic captive, Guatemozin, to torture, in the hope of wringing from him a disclosure of some concealment of his imagined treasures. Its only result was to add another infamy to the name and memory of the conquerors. "The commander-in-chief, with his little band of Spaniards, now daily recruited by reinforcements from the Islands, still occupied the quarters of Cojohuacan, which they had taken up at the termination of the siege. Cortés did not immediately decide in what quarter of the Valley to establish the new capital which was to take the place of the ancient Tenochtitlan. … At length he decided on retaining the site of the ancient city, … and he made preparations for the reconstruction of the capital on a scale of magnificence which should, in his own language, 'raise her to the rank of Queen of the surrounding provinces, in the same manner as she had been of yore.' The labor was to be performed by the Indian population, drawn from all quarters of the Valley, and including the Mexicans themselves, great numbers of whom still lingered in the neighborhood of their ancient residence. … In less than four years from the destruction of Mexico, a new city had risen on its ruins, which, if inferior to the ancient capital in extent, surpassed it in magnificence and strength. It occupied so exactly the same site as its predecessor that the 'plaza mayor,' or great square, was the same spot which had been covered by the huge 'teocalli' and the palace of Montezuma; while the principal streets took their departure as before from this central point, and, passing through the whole length of the city, terminated at the principal causeways. Great alterations, however, took place in the fashion of the architecture." Meantime, Cortés had been brought into much danger at the Spanish court, by the machinations of his enemies, encouraged by Bishop Fonseca, the same minister who pursued Columbus with hostility. His friends in Spain rallied, however, to his support, and the result of an investigation, undertaken by a board to which the Emperor Charles V. referred all the charges against him, was the confirmation of his acts in Mexico to their full extent. "He was constituted Governor, Captain-General, and Chief Justice of New Spain, with power to appoint to all offices, civil and military, and to order any person to leave the country whose residence there he might deem prejudicial to the interests of the Crown. This judgment of the council was ratified by Charles V., and the commission investing Cortés with these ample powers was signed by the emperor at Valladolid, October 15th, 1522. … The attention of Cortés was not confined to the capital. He was careful to establish settlements in every part of the country which afforded a favourable position for them. … While thus occupied with the internal economy of the country, Cortés was still bent on his great schemes of discovery and conquest." He fitted out a fleet to explore the shores of the Pacific, and another in the Gulf of Mexico—the prime object of both being the discovery of some strait that would open one ocean to the other. He also sent Olid in command of an expedition by sea to occupy and colonize Honduras, and Alvarado, by land, at the head of a large force, to subdue Guatemala. The former, having partly accomplished his mission, attempted to establish for himself an independent jurisdiction, and his conduct induced Cortés to proceed to Honduras in person. It was in the course of this expedition that Guatemozin, the dethroned Mexican chief, who had been forced to accompany his conqueror, was accused of a plot against the Spaniards and was hung to a tree. 'We have the testimony of Bernal Diaz, one of the Spaniards on the spot, that the execution "was most unjust, and was thought wrong by all of us." "Within three short years after the Conquest [Cortés] had reduced under the dominion of Castile an extent of country more than 400 leagues in length, as he affirms, on the Atlantic coast, and more than 500 on the Pacific; and, with the exception of a few interior provinces of no great importance, had brought them to a condition of entire tranquillity."

ALSO IN: H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States, volume 5 (Mexico, volume 2), chapters 1-8.

   "Antonio de Mendoza, Conde de Tendilla, was the first viceroy
   sent by Charles V. to New Spain. He arrived in the autumn of
   1535. … He had a well-balanced and moderate character, and
   governed the country with justice and generosity combined. He
   … set himself to reform the abuses which had already
   appeared, protected the Indians from the humiliations which
   the newly arrived Spaniards were disposed to put upon them; he
   stimulated all branches of agriculture, and finding the
   natives were already well informed in the cultivation of land,
   he encouraged them in this pursuit by all possible efforts. …
{2169}
   To the religious orders in Mexico is due in great measure the
   firm base upon which the government of Spain was established
   there. The new viceroy fully recognized this, and encouraged
   the foundations of colleges and schools already undertaken by
   them. In every way he promoted the prosperity and growth of
   the country, and had the satisfaction in the course of his
   government, which lasted 15 years, to see everything bear the
   marks of his judgment and enterprise. It was he who founded
   two cities [Guadalajara and Valladolid] which have reached
   great importance. … Cortés was away when the Viceroy Mendoza
   arrived in Mexico. He still retained his title as governor,
   with the same powers always conferred upon him; but his long
   absences from the capital made it necessary, as he fully
   recognized, that some other strong authority should be
   established there. Nevertheless, he never got on very well
   with such other authorities, and on his return soon became at
   odds with Mendoza, who, in his opinion, interfered with his
   prerogatives. It was then that Cortés bade farewell to his
   family, and taking with him his eldest son and heir, Don
   Martin, then eight years old, he embarked for Spain, leaving
   Mendoza undisturbed in the execution of his office. … In
   1536 was issued the first book printed in Mexico, on a press
   imported by Mendoza, and put into the hands of one Juan
   Pablos. … In 1550 this good ruler [Mendoza] sailed away from
   Mexico. … He passed on to take charge of the government of
   Peru, by a practice which came to be quite common—a sort of
   diplomatic succession by which the viceroys of New Spain were
   promoted to the post at Peru. Don Luis de Velasco, second
   viceroy of New Spain, made his entrance into the capital with
   great pomp, at the end of the year 1550. He, like his
   predecessor, had been selected with care by the orders of
   Charles V. … His first decree was one liberating 150 Indians
   from slavery, who were working chiefly in the mines. … He
   established in Mexico, for the security of travellers upon the
   highway, the tribunal of the Holy Brotherhood, instituted in
   Spain for the same purpose in the time of Isabella. He founded
   the Royal University of Mexico, and the Royal Hospital for the
   exclusive use of the natives. … The good Viceroy Velasco
   died in 1564, having governed the country for 14 years. …
   During the government of this ruler and his predecessor all
   the administration of New Spain, political, civil, and
   religious was established upon so firm a foundation that it
   could go on in daily action like a well regulated machine." In
   the meantime, Charles V. had resigned the burden of his great
   sovereignty, transferring all his crowns to his narrow-souled
   son, Philip II., who cared nothing for the New World except as
   a source of gold and silver supply and a field for religious
   bigotry. Under Philip "the character of the viceroys was
   lowered from the high standard adhered to when Charles the
   Emperor selected them himself. To follow the long list of them
   would be most tedious and useless, as they passed in rotation,
   governing according to the best of their lights for several
   years in Mexico, and then passing on, either by death or by
   promotion to Peru. In 1571 the Inquisition was fully
   established … and the next year the Jesuits arrived. … The
   first 'auto-da-fé' was celebrated in the year 1574, when, as
   its chronicler mentions cheerfully, 'there perished 21
   pestilent Lutherans.' From this time such ceremonies were of
   frequent occurrence, but the Inquisition never reached the
   point it did in Old Spain. … The viceroys of New Spain under
   Philip III. [1578-1621] were, for the most part, men of
   judgment and moderation. While the government at home, in the
   hands of profligate favorites, was growing weaker and weaker,
   that of Mexico was becoming more firmly established." It was
   not shaken nor disturbed by the War of the Spanish Succession,
   during the early years of the eighteenth century; but the
   Revolution in France, which convulsed Europe before that
   century closed, wrought changes which were lasting in the New
   World as well as the Old. "There were in all 64 viceroys,
   beginning with Don Antonio de Mendoza, 1535, and ending with
   Juan O'Donoju in 1822."

ALSO IN: H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States, volumes 5-6 (Mexico, volumes 2-3).

MEXICO: A. D. 1539-1586.
Expeditions of Niza, Coronado, and others to the North.
Search for the Seven Cities of Cibola.

MEXICO: A. D. 1810-1819.
   The first Revolutionary movement.
   Hidalgo.
   Allende.
   Morelos.

"The causes of the coming revolution were not hidden. The law that excluded Spaniards born in America from equal rights with those who were immigrants was a natural, not to say necessary, source of discontent among people whose good-will was much needed by any viceroy. There was inevitably not a little mutual repugnance between the Mexican and Spanish stocks, and the home government did nothing to mollify such asperities. There were commercial monopolies militant against public interests. The clergy were alienated, and since they were not thus so serviceable as formerly in the part of mediators in enforcing governmental aims, it was found necessary to use force where the people were not accustomed to it. The Viceroy Jose de Iturrigaray practised a seeming condescension that deceived no one, and he pursued his exactions partly by reason of self-interest, and partly in order to supply Madrid with means to meet the financial troubles that the Napoleonic era was creating. After some years of these conditions in New Spain, a conspiracy, resulting from a reaction, sent the viceroy back to Spain a prisoner. This gave strength to revolutionary sentiments, and a few trials for treason increased the discontent. The men who were now put successively in the vice-regal place had few qualities for the times, and a certain timidity of policy was not conducive to strength of government. … The outbreak, when it came, brought to the front a curate of Dolores, a native priest, Miguel Hidalgo, who commanded the confidence of the disaffected, and was relied upon to guide the priesthood. Ignacio de Allende had some of the soldierly qualities needed for a generalissimo. The purpose of these men and their allies, before they should openly proclaim a revolt, was to seize some of the leading Spaniards; but their plot being discovered, they hastily assembled at Dolores and raised the standard of revolt (1810). Thus banded together, but badly organized and poorly armed, a body of 5,000 insurgents marched from Dolores, headed by Hidalgo and Allende, and approached Guanajuato, where the intendente Riaña had intrenched himself in a fortified alhondiga, or granary. {2170} The attack of the rebels was headlong and bloody. The gates were fired with flaming rubbish, and through the glowing way the mad throng rushed, and after a hand-to-hand conflict (September 28, 1810) the fortress fell. The royalist leader had been killed, and scenes of pillage and riot followed. Meanwhile the viceroy in Mexico prepared to receive the insurgents, and his ally, the church, excommunicated their leaders. The military force of the royalists was inconsiderable, and what there was, it was feared, might prove not as loyal as was desirable. As Hidalgo marched towards the capital, he tried to seduce to his side a young lieutenant, Augustin Iturbide, who was in command of a small outlying force. The future emperor declined the offer, and, making his way to the city, was at once sent to join Trujillo, who commanded a corps of observation which confronted the insurgents, and who finally ran the chances of a battle at Las Cruces. … The insurgents soon surrounded him, and he was only able to reach the city by breaking with a part of his force through the enveloping line. Hidalgo had lost 2,000 men, but he had gained the day. He soon intercepted a despatch and learned from it that General Calleja had been put in motion from San Luis Potosi, and it seemed more prudent to Hidalgo that, instead of approaching Mexico, he should retreat to be nearer his recruiting ground. The retrograde movement brought the usual result to an undisciplined force, and he was already weakened by desertions when Calleja struck his line of march at Aculco. Hidalgo felt it important for the revolution to have time enough to spread into other parts of the province, and so he merely fought Calleja to cover his further retreat. The rebel leader soon gathered his forces at Celaya, while Allende, his colleague, posted himself at Guanajuato. Here the latter was attacked by Calleja and routed, and the royal forces made bloody work in the town. Hidalgo, moving to Valladolid, reorganized his army, and then, proceeding to Guadalajara, he set up a form of government, with Ignacio Lopez Rayon as Secretary-general. At this time the insurgents held completely the provinces of Nueva Galicia, Zacatecas, and San Luis Potosi, a belt of country stretching from sea to sea in the latitude of Tampico. … In January, 1811, the signs were not very propitious for the royalists. … At this juncture … Hidalgo moved out from Guadalajara with his entire force, which was large enough, consisting of 60,000 foot, 20,000 horse, and 100 cannon; but it was poorly armed, and without effective discipline; while Calleja commanded a well-equipped and well-organized force, but in extent it only counted 3,000 foot, with as many horse, and ten guns. At the bridge of Calderon, 10 or 11 leagues from the city, Hidalgo prepared to stand. Here Calleja attacked him," and won the day, entering Guadalajara as a victor on the 21st of January, 1811. "Hidalgo fled with his broken army, and soon resigned the command to Allende. This general had scarcely 4,000 or 5,000 men left when he reached Saltillo, where he joined Jimenes. The disheartenment of defeat was spreading through the country. Town after town was heard from as yielding to the victors. The leaders, counselling together at Saltillo, resolved to escape to the United States; but, as they were marching,—about 2,000 in all, with 24 guns and a money-chest,—they fell into an ambush planned in the interest of a counter-revolution by one Elizondo, and, with nothing more than a show of resistance, the party was captured, one and all. The judgment of death upon Hidalgo, Allende, and Jimenes soon followed. The main force of the insurgents had thus disappeared, but a small body still remained in arms under the lead of Jose Maria Morelos." Morelos was uneducated, but capable and energetic, and he kept life in the rebellion for two years. He captured Orizaba in October, 1812, Oajaca in the following month, and Acapulco in the spring of 1813. In November of that year he appeared before Valladolid, the capital of Michoacan, but was attacked there by Iturbide and routed. "In January, 1814, Morelos made a final stand at Puruaran, but Iturbide still drove him on. Disaster followed upon disaster, till finally Morelos was deposed by his own congress. This body had adherents enough to make it necessary for Calleja to appeal to the home government for a reinforcement of 8,000 troops. … Morelos, meanwhile, commanding an escort which was protecting the migratory congress, was intercepted and captured by a force of royalists, and, after the forms of a trial, he was executed December 22, 1815. The campaign of 1816 was sustained by the insurgents against a force of 80,000 men which Calleja had collected. … Neither side had much success, and the war was simply tedious. At last, in August, a new viceroy, Juan Riaz de Apodaca, succeeded to Calleja, and uniting a more humane policy with vigor in disposing his forces, the leading rebel officers … surrendered in January, 1817. … A certain quixotic interest is lent to the closing months of the revolution by the adventurous exploits of Espoz y Mina. He had fitted out a small expedition in the United States, which, landing on the Gulf coast, for a while swept victoriously inland. … But Mina was finally surprised and executed. Other vagrant rebel leaders fell one by one into the hands of the royalists; but Guadalupe Victoria held out, and concealed himself in the wilds for two years."

J. Winsor, Spanish North America (Narrative and Critical History of America, volume 8, chapter 4).

MEXICO: A. D. 1820-1826.
   Independence of Spain.
   The brief empire of Iturbide and its fall.
   Constitution of the Republic of the United Mexican States.

"The establishment of a constitutional government in Spain, in 1820, produced upon Mexico an effect very different from what was anticipated. As the constitution provided for a more liberal administration of government in Mexico than had prevailed since 1812, the increased freedom of the elections again threw the minds of the people into a ferment, and the spirit of independence, which had been only smothered, broke forth anew. Moreover, divisions were created among the old Spaniards themselves; some being in favor of the old system, while others were sincerely attached to the constitution. Some formidable inroads on the property and prerogatives of the church alienated the clergy from the new government, and induced them to desire a return to the old system. {2171} The Viceroy, Apodaca, encouraged by the hopes held out by the Royalists in Spain, although he had at first taken the oath to support the constitution, secretly favored the party opposed to it, and arranged his plans for its overthrow. Don Augustin Iturbide, the person selected by the Viceroy to make the first open demonstration against the existing government, was offered the command of a body of troops on the western coast, at the head of which he was to proclaim the re-establishment of the absolute authority of the king. Iturbide, accepting the commission, departed from the capital to take command of the troops, but with intentions very different from those which the Viceroy supposed him to entertain. Reflecting upon the state of the country, and convinced of the facility with which the authority of Spain might be shaken off,—by bringing the Creole troops to act in concert with the old insurgents, —Iturbide resolved to proclaim Mexico wholly independent of the Spanish nation. Having his head quarters at the little town of Iguala, on the road to Acapulco, Iturbide, on the 24th of February, 1821, there proclaimed his project, known as the 'Plan of Iguala,' and induced his soldiers to take an oath to support it. This 'Plan' declared that Mexico should be an independent nation, its religion Catholic, and its government a constitutional monarchy. The crown was offered to Ferdinand VII, of Spain, provided he would consent to occupy the throne in person; and, in case of his refusal, to his infant brothers, Don Carlos and Don Francisco. A constitution was to be formed by a Mexican Congress; … all distinctions of caste were to be abolished. … The Viceroy, astonished by this unexpected movement of Iturbide, and remaining irresolute and inactive at the capital, was deposed, and Don Francisco Novello, a military officer, was placed at the head of the government; but his authority was not generally recognized, and Iturbide was left to pursue his plans in the interior without interruption. Being joined by Generals Guerrero and Victoria as soon as they knew that the independence of their country was the object of Iturbide, not only all the survivors of the first insurgents, but whole detachments of Creole troops flocked to his standard, and his success was soon rendered certain. The clergy and the people were equally decided in favor of independence; … and, before the month of July, the whole country recognized the authority of Iturbide, with the exception of the capital, in which Novello had shut himself up with the European troops. Iturbide had already reached Queretaro with his troops, on his road to Mexico, when he was informed of the arrival, at Vera Cruz, of a new Viceroy. … At Cordova, whither the Viceroy had been allowed to proceed, for the purpose of an interview with Iturbide, the latter induced him to accept by treaty the Plan of Iguala, as the only means of securing the lives and property of the Spaniards then in Mexico, and of establishing the right to the throne in the house of Bourbon. By this agreement, called the 'Treaty of Cordova,' the Viceroy, in the name of the king, his master, recognized the independence of Mexico, and gave up the capital to the army of the insurgents, which took possession of it, without effusion of blood, on the 27th of September, 1821. All opposition being ended, and the capital occupied, in accordance with a provision of the Plan of Iguala a provisional junta was established, the principal business of which was to call a congress for the formation of a constitution suitable to the country. At the same time a regency, consisting of five individuals, was elected, at the head of which was placed Iturbide. … When the congress assembled [February 24, 1822], three distinct parties were found amongst the members. The Bourbonists, adhering to the Plan of Iguala altogether, wished a constitutional monarchy, with a prince of the house of Bourbon at its head; the Republican, setting aside the Plan of Iguala, desired a federal republic; while a third party, the Iturbidists, adopting the Plan of Iguala with the exception of the article in favor of the Bourbons, wished to place Iturbide himself upon the throne. As it was soon learned that the Spanish government had declared the treaty of Cordova null and void, the Bourbonists ceased to exist as a party, and the struggle was confined to the Iturbidists and the Republicans." By the aid of a mob demonstration in the city of Mexico, on the night of May 18, 1822, the former triumphed, and Iturbide was declared emperor, under the title of Augustin the First. "The choice was ratified by the provinces without opposition, and Iturbide found himself in peaceable possession of a throne to which his own abilities and a concurrence of favorable circumstances had raised him. Had the monarch elect been guided by counsels of prudence, and allowed his authority to be confined within constitutional limits, he might perhaps have continued to maintain a modified authority; but forgetting the unstable foundation of his throne, he began his reign with all the airs of hereditary royalty. On his accession a struggle for power immediately commenced between him and the congress." After arbitrarily imprisoning the most distinguished members of that body, Iturbide, at last, proclaimed its dissolution and substituted a junta of his own nomination. "Before the end of November an insurrection broke out in the northern provinces, but this was speedily quelled by the imperial troops." It was followed in December by a more formidable revolt, led off by Santa Anna (or Santana), a young general who had supported Iturbide, but who had been haughtily dismissed from the government of Vera Cruz. Santa Anna was joined by Victoria and other old Republican leaders, and the power of Iturbide crumbled so rapidly that he resigned his crown on the 19th of March, 1823, promising to quit the country, on being assured a yearly allowance of $25,000 for his support. "With his family and suite he embarked for Leghorn on the 11th of May. … From Italy he proceeded to London, and made preparations for returning to Mexico; in consequence of which, congress, on the 28th of April, 1824, passed a decree of outlawry against him. He landed in disguise at Soto la Marina, July 14th, 1824; was arrested by General Garza, and shot at Padillo by order of the provincial congress of Tamaulipas, on the 19th of that month. … On the departure of Iturbide, a temporary executive was appointed, consisting of Generals Victoria, Bravo, and Negrete, by whom the government was administered until the meeting of a new congress, which assembled at the capital in August, 1823. {2172} This body immediately entered on the duties of preparing a new constitution, which was submitted on the 31st of January, 1824, and definitively sanctioned on the 4th of October following. By this instrument, modeled somewhat after the constitution of the United States, the absolute independence of the country was declared, and the several Mexican Provinces were united in a Federal Republic. The legislative power was vested in a Congress, consisting of a Senate and a House of Representatives. … The supreme executive authority was vested in one individual, styled the 'President of the United Mexican States.' … The third article in the constitution declared that 'The Religion of the Mexican Nation is, and will be perpetually, the Roman Catholic Apostolic. The nation will protect it by wise and just laws, and prohibit the exercise of any other whatever.' … On the 1st of January, 1825, the first congress under the federal constitution assembled in the city of Mexico; and, at the same time, General Guadalupe Victoria was installed as president of the republic, and General Nicholas Bravo as vice-president. The years 1825 and 1826 passed with few disturbances; the administration of Victoria was generally popular; and the country enjoyed a higher degree of prosperity than at any former or subsequent period."

      ALSO IN:
      H. H. Bancroft,
      History of the Pacific States,
      volume 7 (Mexico, volume 3), chapters 29-33,
      and volume 8, chapters 1-2.

MEXICO: A. D. 1822-1828.
   Free-Masonry in politics.
   The rival branches of the order.
   The Escocés and the Yorkinos.

For some years a furious contest raged between two political societies, "known as the 'Escocés' and 'Yorkinos'—or, as we should call them, Scotch Free-Masons and York Free-Masons—whose secret organizations were employed for political purposes by two rival political parties. At the time of the restoration of the Constitutional Government of Spain in 1820, Free-Masonry was introduced into Mexico; and as it was derived from the Scotch branch of that order, it was called, after the name of the people of Scotland, 'Escocés.' Into this institution were initiated many of the old Spaniards still remaining in the country, the Creole aristocracy, and the privileged classes—parties that could ill endure the elevation of a Creole colonel, Iturbide, to the Imperial throne. When Mr. Poinsett was sent out as Embassador to Mexico [1822], he carried with him the charter for a Grand Lodge from the American, or York order of Free-Masons in the United States. Into this new order the leaders of the Democratic party were initiated. The bitter rivalry that sprung up between these two branches of the Masonic body kept the country in a ferment for ten years, and resulted finally in the formation of a party whose motto was opposition to all secret societies, and who derived their name of Anti-Masons from the party of the same name then flourishing in the United States. When the Escocés had so far lost ground in popular favor as to be in the greatest apprehension from their prosperous but imbittered rivals, the Yorkinos, as a last resort, to save themselves, and to ruin the hated organization, they pronounced against all secret societies. … 'General Bravo,' Vice-President of Mexico, and leader of the Escocés, having issued his proclamation declaring that, as a last resort, he appealed to arms to rid the republic of that pest, secret societies, and that he would not give up the contest until he had rooted them out, root and branch, took up his position at Tulansingo—a village about 30 miles north of the City of Mexico. Here, at about daylight on the morning of the 7th January, 1828, he was assailed by General Guerrero, the leader of the Yorkinos, and commander of the forces of government.' After a slight skirmish, in which eight men were killed and six wounded, General Bravo and his party were made prisoners; and thus perished forever the party of the Escocés. This victory was so complete as to prove a real disaster to the Yorkinos. The want of outside pressure led to internal dissensions; so that when two of its own members, Guerrero and Pedraza, became rival candidates for the presidency, the election was determined by a resort to arms."

ALSO IN: H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States, volume 8 (Mexico, volume 5), chapter 2.

MEXICO: A. D. 1828-1844.
   The rise of Santa Anna.
   Dissolution of the Federal System.
   The Unitary Republic established.
   Recognition by Spain.
   The Pastry War.
   Retrogradation and decline.

"After the death of Iturbide, by far the most powerful person in the nation was the Creole general Santa Anna, who, at the age of 24, had already destroyed the military empire of his chief. Santa Anna at first interested himself in the visionary project of Bolivar for framing a general confederation of the new nations of South America.

   This project … failed completely; and for several years he
   settled down as governor of Vera Cruz, reconciled himself to
   the Federal Republic, and took no part in public life. In
   1828, however, the Presidential election led to a civil war in
   which Santa Anna and his favourite Veracrusanos first found
   out their capabilities; and they had an opportunity of testing
   them again in the next year, when the feeble force of
   Barrados, the last military attempt made by Spain to reduce
   Mexico, was cut to pieces at Tampico. From that movement Santa
   Anna became the sole controller of the destinies of the
   country: and in 1833 he was elected President. Forty years ago
   all Europe knew the picture of Santa Anna, with his tall spare
   figure, sunburnt face, and black hair curling over his
   forehead; how he lived on his hacienda of Manga de Clavo,
   cockfighting, gambling, and horse-racing, occasionally putting
   himself at the head of his bronzed troops, and either making a
   dash at an insurrection, or making a pronunciamento on his own
   account. Mexican histories tell how gallantly he defended Vera
   Cruz in 1839, against the French invasion under Prince de
   Joinville [called 'the Pastry War,' because consequent on the
   non-payment of French claims, among which there was prominence
   given to a certain pastry-cook's claim for goods destroyed in
   the riot of a revolution at the capital in 1828]; how his leg,
   having been shattered by a ball, was buried with a solemn
   service and a funeral oration in the cemetery of Santa Paula
   in Mexico; and how, in a few years, when Santa Anna was in
   disgrace with the people, they destroyed the tomb, and kicked
   Santa Anna's limb about the streets with every mark of hatred
   and contempt. …
{2173}
   The manifold difficulties of government in Mexico sufficiently
   attested the weakness of the Federal constitution; and in
   1835, after a trial of eleven years, the state governments
   were dissolved, and the Republic, one and indivisible, set up
   for a time in their place. There was now to be a President,
   elected by an indirect vote for eight years, a Senate, and a
   House of Deputies, both elected by a direct popular vote, and
   an elective Supreme Court. Santa Anna, who was identified with
   the Unitary principle, was re-elected three times; so that
   with some intermission he governed Mexico for 20 years. The
   dissolution of the Federal government naturally strengthened
   the hands of Santa Anna; and in 1836 Mexico was for the first
   time recognized by Spain. But the unitary republic was a time
   of disaster and disgrace; and from the point of view of
   progress it was a period of reaction. … Europe looked
   forward, almost without jealousy, to the time when the great
   nation of North America would absorb this people of
   half-civilized Indians mixed with degenerate Spaniards. Events
   which now happened greatly strengthened this impression."

      E. J. Payne,
      History of European Colonies,
      chapter 20, sections 6-7.

"The general affairs of the country in the second half of 1829 were in a chaotic state. Disorganization fettered every branch of the government. … And yet, amidst its constant struggle, Guerrero's administration decreed several progressive measures, the most important of which was the abolition of slavery. African slavery had indeed been reduced to narrow limits. The Dominican provincial of Chiapas, Father Matias Cordoba, gave freedom to the slaves on the estates of his order. On the 16th of September, 1825, President Victoria had liberated in the country's name the slaves purchased with a certain fund collected for that purpose, as well as those given up by their owners to the patriotic junta. The general abolition, however, was not actually carried out for some time, certain difficulties having arisen; and several states, among which was Zacatecas, had decreed the freedom of slaves before the general government arrived at a final conclusion on the subject. As a matter of fact, the few remaining slaves were in domestic service, and treated more like members of families than as actual chattels. At last Deputy Tornel, taking advantage of the time when Guerrero was invested with extraordinary powers, drew up and laid before him a decree for total abolition. It was signed September 15, 1829, and proclaimed the next day, the national anniversary. The law met with no demur save from Coahuila and Texas, in which state were about 1,000 slaves, whose manumission would cost heavily, as the owners held them at a high valuation. It seems that the law was not fully enforced; for on the 5th of April, 1837, another was promulgated, declaring slavery abolished without exception and with compensation to the owners."

H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States, volume 8 (Mexico, volume 5), chapter 4.

"Texas had claimed the Rio Grande as her western limit, though she had never exercised actual control over either New Mexico or the country lying between the Nueces and the Rio Grande. The groundless character of the claims of Texas to the Rio Grande as its western boundary was even admitted by some friends of the measure. … Silas Wright, … referring to the boundaries of Texas, declared that 'they embraced a country to which Texas had no claims, over which she had never asserted jurisdiction, and which she had no right to cede.' Mr. Benton denounced the treaty [of annexation and cession of territory] as an attempt to seize 2,000 square miles of Mexican territory by the incorporation of the left bank of the Rio del Norte, which would be an act of direct aggression. … In ordering, therefore, General Taylor to pass a portion of his forces westward of the river Nueces, which was done before annexation was accomplished, President Polk put in peril the peace and the good name of the country. In his Annual Message of December of that year [1845] he stated that American troops were in position on the Nueces, 'to defend our own and the rights of Texas.' But, not content with occupying ground on and westward of the Nueces, he issued, on the 13th of January, 1846, the fatal order to General Taylor to advance and 'occupy positions on or near the left bank of the Rio del Norte.' That movement of the army from Corpus Christi to the Rio Grande, a distance of more than 100 miles, was an invasion of Mexican territory,—an act of war for which the President was and must ever be held responsible by the general judgment of mankind."

H. Wilson, History of the Rise and Fall of the Slave Power in America, volume 2, chapter 2.

      ALSO IN:
      T. H. Benton,
      Thirty Years' View,
      volume 2, chapter 149.

MEXICO: A. D. 1846-1847.
   War with the United States.
   The first movements of American invasion.
   Palo Alto.
   Resaca de la Palma.
   Monterey.
   Buena Vista.
   Fremont in California.

   "The annexation of Texas accomplished [see TEXAS: A. D.
   1824-1836, and 1836-1845], General Taylor, the United States
   commander in the Southwest, received orders to advance to the
   Rio Grande. Such was the impoverished and distracted condition
   of Mexico that she apparently contemplated no retaliation for
   the injury she had sustained, and, had the American army
   remained at the Nueces, a conflict might perhaps have been
   avoided. But, on Taylor's approaching the Rio Grande, a combat
   ensued [May 8, 1846] at Palo Alto with Arista, the Mexican
   commander, who crossed over that stream. It ended in the
   defeat of the Mexicans, and the next day another engagement
   took place at Resaca de la Palma, with the same result. These
   actions eventually assumed considerable political importance.
   They were among the causes of General Taylor's subsequent
   elevation to the Presidency. As soon as intelligence of what
   had occurred reached Washington, President Polk, forgetting
   that the author of a war is not he who begins it, but he who
   has made it necessary, addressed a special message to Congress
   announcing that the Mexicans 'had at last invaded our
   territory, and shed the blood of our fellow-citizens on our
   own soil.' Congress at once (May 13th, 1846) passed an act
   providing money and men.
{2174}
   Its preamble stated, 'Whereas, by the act of the Republic of
   Mexico, a state of war exists between that country and the
   United States, be it enacted,' etc. As long previously as
   1843, Mr. Bocanegra, the Mexican Minister of Foreign
   Relations, had formally notified the American government that
   the annexation of Texas would inevitably lead to war. General
   Almonte, the Mexican minister at Washington, in a note to Mr.
   Upshur, the Secretary of State, said that, 'in the name of his
   nation, and now for them, he protests, in the most solemn
   manner, against such an aggression; and he moreover declares,
   by express order of his government, that, on sanction being
   given by the executive of the Union to the incorporation of
   Texas into the United States, he will consider his mission
   ended, seeing that, as the Secretary of State will have
   learned, the Mexican government is resolved to declare war as
   soon as it receives intimation of such an act.' War being thus
   provoked by the American government, General Scott received
   orders (November 18th, 1846) to take command of the expedition
   intended for the invasion of Mexico."

After his defeat at Resaca de la Palma, the Mexican general Arista "retreated in the direction of San Luis Potosi, and was superseded by General Pedro Ampudia. General Taylor marched his forces across the Rio Grande on the 17th of May and the invasion of Mexico was begun in earnest. From the 21st to the 24th of September, he was engaged with 7,000 men in the attack upon Monterey, the capital of Nueva Leon, garrisoned by a force of 9,000. He met with the same success which had attended his former engagements. General Ampudia was also forced to retire to San Luis Potosi. The brilliant features of this attack were the assault upon Obispado Viejo by General Worth on the first day of the fight, and the storming of the heights above on the following day. … Upon the defeat of Ampudia, Santa Anna, having then just attained to the chief magistracy of Mexico [the American blockading squadron at Vera Cruz had permitted him to return to the country, expecting that his presence would be advantageous to the invaders], and left it in the hands of his Vice-President, Gomez Farias, took the command of the Mexican forces and set out to check the advance of General Taylor. On the 23d of February, 1847, the bloody battle of Angostura, as it is called by the Mexicans (known to the Americans as the battle of Buena Vista), was fought, and lost by the Mexican army. Santa Anna returned to San Luis Potosi, whence he was called to the capital to head off the insurrection against Gomez Farias, by the party called derisively the Polkos, because their insurrection at that time was clearly favorable to the movements of the American army, and because James K. Polk was then the President of the United States and head of the American party favorable to the war. It was at this time that the army of Taylor was reduced to about 5,000 men in order to supply General Winfield Scott with forces to carry out his military operations, and the field of war was transferred to the region between Vera Cruz and the capital. While these events were in progress an expedition under General John C. Fremont had been made over-land through New Mexico and into California [see CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1846-1847; and NEW MEXICO: A. D. 1846], and under the directions of the United States government the Mexicans of California had been incited to revolt."

      ALSO IN:
      H. Von Holst,
      Constitutional and Political History of the U. S.,
      volume 3, chapters 4-9.

      E. D. Mansfield,
      History of the Mexican War,
      chapters 2-4 and 8.

MEXICO: A. D. 1847 (March-September).
   General Scott's campaign.
   From Vera Cruz to the capital.
   Cerro Gordo.
   Contreras.
   Churubusco.
   Molino del Rey.
   Chapultepec.
   The conquest complete.

"General Winfield Scott was ordered to Mexico, to take chief command and conduct the war according to his own plan. This was, in brief, to carry an expedition against Vera Cruz, reduce its defences, and then march on the city of Mexico by the shortest route. … On the 7th of March [1847], the fleet with Scott's army came to anchor a few miles south of Vera Cruz, and two days later he landed his whole force—nearly 12,000 men—by means of surf-boats. Vera Cruz was a city of 7,000 inhabitants, strongly fortified. … On the 22d the investment was complete. A summons to surrender being refused, the batteries opened, and the bombardment was kept up for four days, the small war vessels joining in it. The Mexican batteries and the castle [of San Juan de Ulloa, on a reef in the harbor] replied with spirit, and with some little effect; but the city and castle were surrendered on the 27th. The want of draught animals and wagons delayed till the middle of April the march upon the capital of the country, 200 miles distant. The first obstacle was found at Cerro Gordo, 50 miles northwest of Vera Cruz, where the Mexicans had taken position on the heights around a rugged mountain pass, with a battery commanding every turn of the road. A way was found to flank the position on the extreme left, and on the morning of April 18th the Americans attacked in three columns. … The divisions of Twiggs and Worth … attacked the height of Cerro Gordo, where the Mexicans were most strongly intrenched, and where Santa Anna commanded in person. This being carried by storm, its guns were turned first upon the retreating Mexicans, and then upon the advanced position that Pillow was assaulting in front. The Mexicans, finding themselves surrounded, soon surrendered. Santa Anna, with the remainder of his troops, fled toward Jalapa, where Scott followed him and took the place."

W. C. Bryant and S. H. Gay, Popular History of the United States, volume 4, chapter 14.

   "Less than a month later [after the battle of Cerro Gordo] the
   American army occupied the city of Puebla. Scott remained at
   Puebla during June and July, awaiting reinforcements and
   drilling them as they arrived. On the 7th of August he set out
   for the capital, which was now defended by about 30,000
   troops. A series of encounters took place on the 19th, and on
   the next day three battles were fought, at Contreras,
   Churubusco, and San Antonio. They were in reality parts of one
   general engagement. The troops on both sides fought with
   stubbornness and bravery, but in the end the Mexicans were
   completely routed, and the pursuit of the flying enemy reached
   almost to the gates of the capital. A commissioner, Nicholas
   P. Trist, having been previously appointed to negotiate with
   the Mexicans, an armistice was now agreed upon, to begin on
   the 23d of August.
{2175}
   The armistice, from a strategic point of view, was a mistake,
   the advantage of the overwhelming victories of the 19th and
   20th was in great part lost, and the Mexicans were enabled to
   recover from the demoralization which had followed their
   defeat. The position of the American army, in the heart of the
   enemy's country, where it might be cut off from reinforcements
   and supplies, was full of danger, and the fortifications which
   barred the way to the capital, Molino del Rey, Casa Mata, and
   Chapultepec, were exceedingly formidable. On the 7th of
   September the armistice came to an end. The negotiations had
   failed, and General Scott prepared to move on the remaining
   works. A reconnoisance was made on that day, and on the 8th
   Scott attacked the enemy. The army of Santa Anna was drawn up
   with its right resting on Casa Mata and its left on Molino del
   Rey. Both these positions were carried by assault, and the
   Mexicans, after severe loss, were defeated and driven off the
   field. The next two days were occupied in preparing for the
   final assault upon Chapultepec. A careful disposition was made
   of the troops, batteries were planted within range, and on the
   12th they opened a destructive fire. On the 13th a
   simultaneous assault was made from both sides, the troops
   storming the fortress with great bravery and dash, and the
   works were carried, the enemy flying in confusion. The army
   followed them along the two causeways of Belen and San Cosmé,
   fighting its way to the gates of the city. Here a struggle
   continued till after nightfall, the enemy making a desperate
   defence. Early the next morning, a deputation of the city
   council waited upon General Scott, asking for terms of
   capitulation. These were refused, and the divisions of Worth
   and Quitman entered the capital. Street fighting was kept up
   for two days longer, but by the 16th the Americans had secured
   possession of the city. Negotiations were now renewed, and the
   occupation of the territory, meanwhile, continued. The
   principal towns were garrisoned, and taxes and duties
   collected by the United States. Occasional encounters took
   place at various points, but the warfare was chiefly of a
   guerrilla character. Towards the close of the war General
   Scott was superseded by General Butler. But the work had been
   already completed."

      J. R. Soley,
      The Wars of the United States, 1789-1850
      (Narrative and Critical History of America,
      volume 7, chapter 6).

ALSO IN: H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States, volume 8 (Mexico, volume 5), chapters 17-20.

      President's Message and Documents,
      December 7, 1847
      (Senate Ex. Doc., No. 1, 30th Cong., 1st Session).

MEXICO: A. D. 1848.
The Treaty of Guadaloupe Hidalgo.
Territory ceded to the United States.

"The Mexican people had now succumbed to the victorious armies of the 'barbarians of the North.' The Mexican Government was favorable to the settlement of the questions which had caused this unhappy war. A new administration was in power. General Anaya on the 11th of November was elected President of the Mexican Republic until the 8th of January, 1848, when the constitutional term of office would expire. … National pride … bowed to the necessities of the republic, and the deputies assembled in the Mexican Congress favored the organization of a commission for the purpose of reopening negotiations with Mr. Trist, who still remained in Mexico, and was determined to assume the responsibility of acting still as agent of the United States [although his powers had been withdrawn]. The lack of coöperation by the adherents of Santa Anna prevented immediate action on the part of these commissioners. On the 8th of January, 1848, General Herrera was elected Constitutional President of the Mexican Republic. … Under the new administration negotiations were easily opened with a spirit of harmony and concession which indicated a happy issue. Mexico gave up her claim to the Nueces as the boundary-line of her territory, and the United States did not longer insist upon the cession of Lower California and the right of way across the Isthmus of Tehuantepec. The previous offer of money by the United States for the cession of New Mexico and Upper California was also continued. … On the 2d of February a treaty of peace was unanimously adopted and signed by the commissioners at the city of Guadaloupe Hidalgo. … The ratifications of the Mexican Congress and of the United States Senate were exchanged May 30th, 1848. The United States, by the terms of this treaty, paid to Mexico $15,000,000 for the territory added to its boundaries. They moreover freed the Mexican Republic from all claims of citizens of the United States against Mexico for damages, which the United States agreed to pay to the amount of $3,250,000. The boundary-line was also fixed between the two republics. It began in the Gulf of Mexico three miles from the mouth of the Rio Grande del Norte, running up the centre of that river to the point where it strikes the southern boundary of New Mexico; then westward along that southern boundary which runs north of Elpaso, to its western termination; thence northward along the western line of New Mexico until it intersects the first branch of the river Gila, thence down the middle of the Gila until it empties into the Rio Colorado, following the division line between Upper and Lower California to the Pacific Ocean, one marine league south of the port of San Diego. On the 12th of June, the last of the United States troops left the capital of Mexico. … The partisan supporters of President Polk's administration did not hesitate to avow that the war with Mexico was waged for conquest of territory. … The demands of indemnity from Mexico first made by the United States were equal, exclusive of Texas, to half of the domain of Mexico, embracing a territory upward of 800,000 square miles. … The area of New Mexico, as actually ceded by treaty to the United States, was 526,078 square miles. The disputed ground of Texas, which rightfully belonged to Mexico, and which was also yielded in the treaty of peace, contained no less than 125,520 square miles. The acquisition of the total amount of 651,591 square miles of territory was one of the direct results of this war, in which President Polk was ever pretending 'to conquer a peace.' To this must be added the undisputed region of Texas, which was 325,520 square miles more, in order adequately to represent the acquisition of territory to the United States, amounting to 851,590 square miles. This has been computed to be seventeen times the extent of the State of New York. … The territory thus acquired included ten degrees of latitude on the Pacific coast, and extended east to the Rio Grande, a distance of 1,000 miles, … Five thousand miles of sea-coast were added to the possessions of the United States. … The mineral resources of the conquered territory, including California, New Mexico, Arizona, Western Colorado, Utah, and Nevada, have been developed to such an extent that their value is beyond computation."

      ALSO IN:
      Treaties and Conventions between the United States
      and other Countries (edition of 1889),
      pages 681-694.

MEXICO: A. D. 1848-1861.
   The succession of Revolutions and the War of the Reform.
   The new Constitution.
   The government of Juarez and
   the Nationalization of Church property.

"For a brief period, after the withdrawal of the American army, the Mexican people drew the breath of peace, disturbed only by outbreaks headed by the turbulent Paredes. … In June, 1848, Señor Herrera (who had been in power at the opening of the war with the United States) took possession of the presidential chair. For the first time within the memory of men then living, the supreme power changed hands without disturbance or opposition. … The army … was greatly reduced, arrangements were made with creditors abroad, and for the faithful discharge of internal affairs. General Mariano Arista, formerly minister of war, assumed peaceful possession of power, in January, 1851, and continued the wise and economical administration of his predecessor. But Mexico could not long remain at peace, even with herself; she was quiet merely because utterly prostrated, and in December, 1852, some military officers, thirsting for power, rebelled against the government. They commenced again the old system of 'pronunciamientos'; usually begun by some man in a province distant from the seat of government, and gradually gaining such strength that when finally met by the lawful forces they were beyond control. Rather than plunge his country anew into the horrors of a civil war, General Arista resigned his office and sailed for Europe, where he died in poverty a few years later. It may astonish anyone except the close student of Mexican history to learn the name of the man next placed in power by the revolutionists, for it was no one else than General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna! Recalled by the successful rebels from his exile in Cuba and South America, Santa Anna hastened to the scene of conflict. … He commenced at once to extend indefinitely the army, and to intrench himself in a position of despotic power, and, in December, 1853, he issued a decree which, in substance, declared him perpetual dictator. This aroused opposition all over the country, and the Liberals, who were opposed to an arbitrary centralized government, rose in rebellion. The most successful leaders were Generals Alvarez and Comonfort, who, after repeated victories, drove the arch conspirator from the capital, on the 9th of August, 1855. Santa Anna secretly left the city of Mexico, and a few days later embarked at Vera Cruz for Havana. During several years he resided in Cuba, St. Thomas, Nassau, and the United States, constantly intriguing for a return to power in Mexico."

"Upon the flight of Santa Anna, anarchy was imminent in the capital. The most prominent promoters of the revolution assembled quickly, and elected General Romulo Diaz de la Vega acting-president, and he succeeded in establishing order. … By a representative assembly General Martin Carrera was elected acting-president, and he was installed on the 15th of August, 1855, but resigned on the 11th of the following month, when the presidency devolved a second time upon General Romulo Diaz de la Vega. The revolution of Alvarez and Comonfort, known as the Plan de Ayotla, was entirely successful, and under the wise and just administration of Diaz de la Vega, the country was brought to the wholly abnormal state of quiet and order. Representatives of the triumphant party assembled in Cuernavaca and elected General Juan Alvarez president ad interim, and upon the formation of his cabinet he named Comonfort his Minister of War. Returning to the capital, he transferred the presidency to his Minister of War, and on the 12th of December, 1855, General Ignacio Comonfort entered upon the discharge of his duties as acting-president. He was made actual president by a large majority in the popular election held two years later, and was reinstalled on the 1st of December, 1857. He proved to be one of the most remarkable rulers of Mexico, and his administration marks the beginning of a new era in Mexican history. Scarcely had Comonfort begun his rule as the substitute of Alvarez, when revolutions again broke out and assumed formidable proportions. Puebla was occupied by 5,000 insurgents. Federal troops sent against them joined their cause. Comonfort succeeded in raising an army of 16,000 men, well equipped, and at its head marched to Puebla and suppressed the revolution before the end of March. But in October another rebellion broke out in Puebla, headed by Colonel Miguel Miramon. The government succeeded in suppressing this, as well as one which broke out in San Luis Potosi, and another, under the leadership of General Tomas Mejia, in Queretaro. It was by Comonfort that the war between the Church and the government, so long threatened, was precipitated. In June, 1856, he issued a decree ordering the sale of all the unimproved real estate held by the Church, at its assessed value. The Church was to receive the proceeds, but the land was to become thereby freed from all ecclesiastical control." Upon information of a conspiracy centering in one of the monasteries of the city of Mexico, the president sent troops to take possession of the place, and finally ordered it to be suppressed. These measures provoked an implacable hostility on the part of the supporters of the Church. "On the 5th of February, 1857, the present Constitution of Mexico was adopted by Congress. Comonfort, as Provisional President, subscribed it, and it was under its provisions that he was elected actual president. But ten days after his inauguration in December, 1857, and his taking the oath to support the new Constitution, the President, supposing that he could gain the full support of the Liberals, and claiming that he had found the operation of the Constitution impracticable, dissolved Congress and set the Constitution aside. He threw his legal successor, Benito Juarez, the President of the Supreme Court of Justice, and one of the supporters of the new Constitution, into prison." Revolution upon revolution now followed in quick succession. Comonfort fled the country. Zuloaga, Pezuela, Pavon, Miramon, were seated in turn in the presidential chair for brief terms of a half recognized government. {2177} "Constitutionally (if we may ever use that word seriously in connection with Mexican affairs), upon the abandonment of the presidency by Comonfort, the office devolved upon the President of the Supreme Court of Justice. That office was held at the time by Don Benito Juarez, who thereupon became president de jure of Mexico. … The most curious specimen of the nomenclature adopted in Mexican history is that which gives to the struggle between the Church party and its allies and the Constitutional government the name of the War of the Reform. … What was thereby reformed it would be difficult to say, … further than the suppression of the outreaching power, wealth, and influence of the Church, and the assertion of the supremacy of the State. … But the 'War of the Reform' had all the bitterness of a religious war. … Juarez, who is thus made to appear as a reformer, was the most remarkable man Mexico has ever produced. He was born in 1806 in the mountains of Oaxaca. … He belonged to the Zapoteca tribe of Indians. Not a drop of Spanish blood flowed in his veins. … Upon the flight of Comonfort, Juarez was utterly without support or means to establish his government. Being driven out of the capital by Zuloaga he went to Guadalajara, and then by way of the Pacific coast, Panama, and New Orleans, to Vera Cruz. There he succeeded in setting up the Constitutional government, supporting it out of the customs duties collected at the ports of entry on the Gulf coast. It was war to the knife between the President in Vera Cruz and the Anti-Presidents in the capital. … On the 12th of July, 1859, Juarez made a long stride in advance of Comonfort by issuing his famous decree, 'nationalizing'—that is, sequestrating, or more properly confiscating—the property of the Church. It was enforced in Vera Cruz at once. … The armies of the two rival governments met in conflict on many occasions. It was at Calpulalpam, in a battle lasting from the 21st to the 24th of December, 1860, that Miramon was defeated and forced to leave the country. General Ortega, in command of the forces of Juarez, advanced to the capital and held it for the return of his chief. When the army of Juarez entered the capital, on the 27th of December, the decree of sequestration began to be executed there with brutal severity. … Monasteries were closed forthwith, and the members of the various religious orders were expelled [from] the country. … It is said that from the 'nationalized' church property the government secured $20,000,000, without, as subsequent events showed, deriving any permanent benefit from it. It helped to precipitate another war, in which it was all dissipated, and the country was poorer than ever. … The decree issued by Juarez from Vera Cruz in 1859, nationalizing the property of the Church, was quickly followed up by a decree suspending for two years payment on all foreign debts. The national debt at that time amounted to about $100,000,000, according to some statements, and was divided up between England, Spain, and France. England's share was about $80,000,000. France's claim was comparatively insignificant. They were all said to have been founded upon usurious or fraudulent contracts, and the French claim was especially dubious. … Upon the issuing of the decree suspending payment on these foreign debts, the three creditor nations' at once broke off diplomatic relations with Mexico, and Napoleon III., of France, proceeded to carry out a plan which had for some time occupied his mind."

      ALSO IN:
      H. H. Bancroft,
      History of the Pacific States,
      volume 8 (Mexico, volume 5), chapters 20-30,
      and volume 9 (6), chapter 1.

MEXICO: A. D. 1861-1867.
The French intervention.
Maximilian's ill-starred empire and its fate.

The expedition against Mexico "was in the beginning a joint undertaking of England, France, and Spain. Its professed object, as set forth in a convention signed in London on October 31st, 1861, was 'to demand from the Mexican authorities more efficacious protection for the persons and properties of their (the Allied Sovereigns') subjects, as well as a fulfilment of the obligations contracted toward their Majesties by the Republic of Mexico.' … Lord Russell, who had acted with great forbearance towards Mexico up to this time, now agreed to co-operate with France and Spain in exacting reparation from Juarez. But he defined clearly the extent to which the intervention of England would go. England would join in an expedition for the purpose, if necessary, of seizing on Mexican custom-houses, and thus making good the foreign claims. But she would not go a step further. She would have nothing to do with upsetting the Government of Mexico, or imposing any European system on the Mexican people. Accordingly, the Second Article of the Convention pledged the contracting parties not to seek for themselves any acquisition of territory or any special advantage, and not to exercise in the internal affairs of Mexico any influence of a nature to prejudice the right of the Mexican nation to choose and to constitute freely the form of its government. The Emperor of the French, however, had already made up his mind that he would establish a sort of feudatory monarchy in Mexico. He had long had various schemes and ambitions floating in his mind concerning those parts of America on the shores of the Gulf of Mexico, which were once the possessions of France. … At the very time when he signed the convention with the pledge contained in its second article, he had already been making arrangements to found a monarchy in Mexico. If he could have ventured to set up a monarchy with a French prince at its head, he would probably have done so; but this would have been too bold a venture. He, therefore, persuaded the Archduke Maximilian, brother of the Emperor of Austria, to accept the crown of the monarchy he proposed to set up in Mexico. The Archduke was a man of pure and noble character, but evidently wanting in strength of mind, and he agreed, after some hesitation, to accept the offer. Meanwhile the joint expedition sailed. We [the English] sent only a line-of-battle ship, two frigates, and 700 marines. France sent in the first instance about 2,500 men, whom she largely reinforced immediately after. Spain had about 6,000 men, under the command of the late Marshal Prim. The Allies soon began to find that their purposes were incompatible. There was much suspicion about the designs of France. … Some of the claims set up by France disgusted the other Allies. The Jecker claims were for a long time after as familiar a subject of ridicule as our own Pacifico claims had been. {2178} A Swiss house of Jecker & Company had lent the former Government of Mexico $750,000, and got bonds from that Government, which was on its very last legs, for $15,000,000. The Government was immediately afterwards upset, and Juarez came into power. M. Jecker modestly put in his claim for $15,000,000. Juarez refused to comply with the demand. He offered to pay the $750,000 lent and five per cent. interest, but he declined to pay exactly twenty times the amount of the sum advanced. M. Jecker had by this time become somehow a subject of France, and the French Government took up his claim. It was clear that the Emperor of the French had resolved that there should be war. At last the designs of the French Government became evident to the English and Spanish Plenipotentiaries, and England and Spain withdrew from the Convention. … The Emperor of the French 'walked his own wild road, whither that led him.' He overran a certain portion of Mexico with his troops. He captured Puebla after a long and desperate resistance [and after suffering a defeat on the 5th of May, 1862, in the battle of Cinco de Mayo]; he occupied the capital, and he set up the Mexican Empire, with Maximilian as Emperor. French troops remained to protect the new Empire. Against all this the United States Government protested from time to time. … However, the Emperor Napoleon cared nothing just then about the Monroe doctrine, complacently satisfied that the United States were going to pieces, and that the Southern Confederacy would be his friend and ally. He received the protests of the American Government with unveiled indifference. At last the tide in American affairs turned. The Confederacy crumbled away; Richmond was taken; Lee surrendered; Jefferson Davis was a prisoner. Then the United States returned to the Mexican Question, and the American Government informed Louis Napoleon that it would be inconvenient, gravely inconvenient, if he were not to withdraw his soldiers from Mexico. A significant movement of American troops under a renowned General, then flushed with success, was made in the direction of the Mexican frontier. There was nothing for Louis Napoleon but to withdraw [March, 1867]. … The Mexican Empire lasted two months and a week after the last of the French troops had been withdrawn. Maximilian endeavoured to raise an army of his own, and to defend himself against the daily increasing strength of Juarez. He showed all the courage which might have been expected from his race, and from his own previous history. But in an evil hour for himself, and yielding, it is stated, to the persuasion of a French officer, he had issued a decree that all who resisted his authority in arms should be shot. By virtue of this monstrous ordinance, Mexican officers of the regular army, taken prisoners while resisting, as they were bound to do, the invasion of a European prince, were shot like brigands. The Mexican general, Ortega, was one of those thus shamefully done to death. When Juarez conquered, and Maximilian, in his turn, was made a prisoner, he was tried by court-martial, condemned and shot. … The French Empire never recovered the shock of this Mexican failure."

ALSO IN: H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States, volume 9 (Mexico, volume 6), chapters 1-14.

   "On the 15th of July [1867] Juarez made a solemn entry into
   the capital. Many good citizens of Mexico, who had watched
   gloomily the whole episode of the French intervention, now
   emerged to light and rejoiced conspicuously in the return of
   their legitimate chief. … He was received with genuine
   acclamations by the populace, while high society remained
   within doors, curtains close-drawn, except that the women took
   pride in showing their deep mourning for the death of the
   Emperor. … Peace now came back to the country. A general
   election established Juarez as President, and order and
   progress once more consented to test the good resolutions of
   the Republic." Santa Anna made one feeble and futile attempt
   to disturb the quiet of his country, but was arrested without
   difficulty and sent into exile again. But Juarez had many
   opponents and enemies to contend with. "As the period of
   election approached, in 1871, party lines became sharply
   divided, and the question of his return to power was warmly
   contested. A large body still advocated the re-election of
   Juarez, as of the greatest importance to the consolidation of
   the Constitution and reform, but the admirers of military
   glory claimed the honors of President for General Diaz, who
   had done so much, at the head of the army, to restore the
   Republic. A third party represented the interests of Lerdo,
   minister of Juarez all through the epoch of the intervention,
   a man of great strength of character and capacity for
   government. … The campaign was vigorous throughout the
   country. … The election took place; the Juaristas were
   triumphant. Their party had a fair majority and Juarez was
   re-elected. But the Mexicans not yet had learned to accept the
   ballot, and a rebellion followed. The two defeated parties
   combined, and civil war began again. Government defended
   itself with vigor and resolution, and, in spite of the
   popularity of General Diaz as a commander, held its own during
   a campaign of more than a year. Its opponents were still
   undaunted, and the struggle might have long continued but for
   the sudden death of Juarez, on the 19th of July, 1872. … Don
   Sebastian Lerdo de Tejada, then President of the Supreme
   Court, assumed the government, was elected President, and the
   late agitation of parties was at an end. For three years peace
   reigned in Mexico, and then began another revolution. Towards
   the end of 1875, rumors of dissatisfaction were afloat. …
   Early in the next year, a 'Plan' was started, one of those
   fatal propositions for change which have always spread like
   wildfire through the Mexican community. By midsummer, the
   Republic was once more plunged in civil war. Although he had
   apparently no hand in the 'Plan' of Tuxtepec, General Porfirio
   Diaz appeared at the head of the army of the revolutionists.
   … During the summer there was fighting and much confusion,
   in the midst of which the election took place for the choice
   of President for another term of four years.
{2179}
   The result was in favor of Lerdo de Tejada, but he was so
   unpopular that he was obliged soon after to leave the capital,
   on the 20th of November, accompanied by his ministers and a
   few other persons. The other Lerdistas hid themselves,
   Congress dissolved, and the opposition triumphed. Thus ended
   the government of the Lerdistas, but a few days before the
   expiration of its legal term. On the 24th of November, General
   Porfirio Diaz made his solemn entry into the capital, and was
   proclaimed Provisional President. After a good deal of
   fighting all over the country, Congress declared him, in May,
   1877, to be Constitutional President for a term to last until
   November 30, 1880. … President Diaz was able to consolidate
   his power, and to retain his seat without civil war, although
   this has been imminent at times, especially towards the end of
   his term. In 1880, General Manuel Gonsalez was elected, and on
   the 1st of December of that year, for the second time only in
   the history of the Republic, the retiring President gave over
   his office to his legally elected successor. … The
   administration of Gonsalez passed through its four years
   without any important outbreak. … At the end of that term
   General Diaz was re-elected and became President December 1,
   1884. The treasury of the country was empty, the Republic
   without credit, yet he has [1888] … succeeded in placing his
   government upon a tolerably stable financial basis, and done
   much to restore the foreign credit of the Republic."

"At the close of Maximilian's empire Mexico had but one railroad, with 260 miles of track. To-day she has them running in all directions, with an [aggregate] of 10,025 kilometers (about 6,300 miles), and is building more. Of telegraph lines in 1867 she had but a few short connections, under 3,000 kilometers; now she has telephone and telegraph lines which aggregate between 60,000 and 70,000 kilometers. … In his … message to Congress (1891) President Diaz said: 'It is gratifying to me to be able to inform Congress that the financial situation of the republic continues to improve. … Without increasing the tariff, the custom-houses now collect $9,000,000 more than they did four years ago.' … The revenues of the republic have more than doubled in the past twenty years. In 1870 they were $16,000,000; they are estimated now at over $36,000,000." The third term of President Diaz, "now [1892] drawing to a close, has been one of great prosperity. … As we write popular demonstrations are being made in favor of another term."

President Diaz was re-elected for a fourth term, which began
December 1, 1892, and will expire in 1896.

ALSO IN: H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States, volume 9 (Mexico volume 6), chapter 19.

MIAMIS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
ALGONQUIAN FAMILY, ILLINOIS, and SACS, &c.

Michael VIII. (Palæologus), Greek Emperor of Nicæa, 1260-1261;
Greek Emperor of Constantinople, 1261-1282.

MICHIGAN: A. D. 1775-1783.
Held by the British throughout the War of Independence.

MICHIGAN: A. D. 1784.
Included in the proposed states of Cherronesus and Sylvania.

MICHIGAN: A. D. 1785-1786. Partially covered by the western land claims of Massachusetts and Connecticut, ceded to the United States.

MICHIGAN: A. D. 1787.
The Ordinance for the government of the Northwest Territory.
Perpetual exclusion of Slavery.

MICHIGAN: A. D. 1805. Detached from Indiana Territory and distinctly named and organized.

MICHIGAN: A. D. 1812. The surrender of Detroit and the whole territory to the British arms by General Hull.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812-1813,
HARRISON'S NORTHWESTERN CAMPAIGN.

MICHIGAN: A. D. 1818-1836. Extension of Territorial limits to the Mississippi, and then beyond.

MICHIGAN: A. D. 1837.
Admission into the Union as a State.
Settlement of Boundaries.

   A conflict between the terms of the constitution under which
   the state of Ohio was admitted into the Union in 1803 and the
   Act of Congress which, in 1805, erected the Territory of
   Michigan, gave rise to a serious boundary dispute between the
   two. The Michigan claim rested not only upon the Act of 1805,
   but primarily upon the great
   Ordinance of 1787.
{2180}
   It involved the possession of a wedge-shaped strip of
   territory, which "averaged six miles in width, across Ohio,
   embraced some 468 square miles, and included the lake-port of
   Toledo and the mouth of the Maumee river." In 1834, Michigan
   began to urge her claims to statehood. "Without waiting for an
   enabling act, a convention held at Detroit in May and June,
   1835, adopted a state constitution for submission to congress,
   demanding entry into the Union, 'in conformity to the fifth
   article of the ordinance' of 1787—of course the boundaries
   sought being those established by the article in question.
   That summer, there were popular disturbances in the disputed
   territory, and some gunpowder harmlessly wasted. In December,
   President Jackson laid the matter before congress in a special
   message. Congress quietly determined to 'arbitrate' the
   quarrel by giving to Ohio the disputed tract, and offering
   Michigan, by way of partial recompense, the whole of what is
   to-day her upper peninsula. Michigan did not want the
   supposedly barren and worthless country to her northwest,
   protested long and loud against what she deemed to be an
   outrage, declared that she had no community of interest with
   the north peninsula, and was separated from it by
   insurmountable natural barriers for one-half of the year,
   while it rightfully belonged to the fifth state, to be formed
   out of the Northwest Territory. But congress persisted in
   making this settlement of the quarrel one of the conditions
   precedent to the admission of Michigan into the Union. In
   September, 1836, a state convention, called for the sole
   purpose of deciding the question, rejected the proposition on
   the ground that congress had no right to annex such a
   condition, according to the terms of the ordinance; a second
   convention, however, approved of it on the 15th of December
   following, and congress at once accepted this decision as
   final. Thus Michigan came into the sisterhood of states,
   January 26, 1837, with the territorial limits which she
   possesses to-day."

      R. G. Thwaites,
      The Boundaries of Wisconsin
      (Wisconsin Historical Society Collections,
      volume 11, pages 456-460).

MICHILLIMACKINAC.

One of Saul's campaigns against the Philistines received this name from Jonathan's exploit in scaling the height of Michmash and driving the garrison in panic from their stronghold.

Dean Stanley, Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church, lecture 21 (volume 2).

MICKLEGARTH.

"Constantine had transplanted the Roman name, the centre of Roman power, and much of what was Roman in ideas and habits, to Byzantium, the New Rome.

The result was that remarkable empire [see BYZANTINE EMPIRE] which, though since its fall it has become a by-word, was, when it was standing, the wonder and the envy of the barbarian world, the mysterious 'Micklegarth,' 'the Great City, the Town of towns,' of the northern legends."

MIDDLE AGES.

"The term Middle Ages is applied to the time which elapsed between the fall of the Roman Empire and the formation of the great modern monarchies, between the first permanent invasion of the Germans, at the beginning of the 5th century of our era [see GAUL: A. D. 406-409], and the last invasion, made by the Turks, ten centuries later, in 1453."

"It is not possible to fix accurate limits to the Middle Ages; … though the ten centuries from the 5th to the 15th seem, in a general point of view, to constitute that period."

   "We commonly say that ancient history closed with the year 476
   A. D. The great fact which marks the close of that age and the
   beginning of a new one is the conquest of the Western Roman
   Empire by the German tribes, a process which occupied the
   whole of the fifth century and more. But if we are to select
   any special date to mark the change, the year 476 is the best
   for the purpose. … When we turn to the close of medieval
   history we find no such general agreement as to the specific
   date which shall be selected to stand for that fact. For one
   author it is 1453, the fall of the Eastern Roman Empire
   through the capture of Constantinople by the Turks; for
   another, 1492, the discovery of America; for another, 1520,
   the full opening of the Reformation. This variety of date is
   in itself very significant. It unconsciously marks the
   extremely important fact that the middle ages come to an end
   at different dates in the different lines of
   advance—manifestly earlier in politics and economics than
   upon the intellectual side. … It is a transition age. Lying,
   as it does, between two ages, in each of which there is an
   especially rapid advance of civilization, it is not itself
   primarily an age of progress. As compared with either ancient
   or modern history, the additions which were made during the
   middle ages to the common stock of civilization are few and
   unimportant. Absolutely, perhaps, they are not so. … But the
   most important of them fall within the last part of the
   period, and they are really indications that the age is
   drawing to a close, and a new and different one coming on.
   Progress, however much there may have been, is not its
   distinctive characteristic. There is a popular recognition of
   this fact in the general opinion that the medieval is a very
   barren and uninteresting period of history—the 'dark
   ages'—so confused and without evident plan that its facts are
   a mere disorganized jumble, impossible to reduce to system or
   to hold in mind. This must be emphatically true for every one,
   unless there can be found running through all its confusion
   some single line of evolution which will give it meaning and
   organization. … Most certainly there must be some such
   general meaning of the age.
{2181}
   The orderly and regular progress of history makes it
   impossible that it should be otherwise. Whether that meaning
   can be correctly stated or not is much more uncertain. It is
   the difficulty of doing this which makes medieval history seem
   so comparatively barren a period. The most evident general
   meaning of the age is … assimilation. The greatest work
   which had to be done was to bring the German barbarian, who
   had taken possession of the ancient world and become
   everywhere the ruling race, up to such a level of attainment
   and understanding that he would be able to take up the work of
   civilization where antiquity had been forced to suspend it and
   go on with it from that point. … Here, then, is the work of
   the middle ages. To the results of ancient history were to be
   added the ideas and institutions of the Germans; to the
   enfeebled Roman race was to be added the youthful energy and
   vigor of the German. Under the conditions which existed this
   union could not be made—a harmonious and homogeneous
   Christendom could not be formed, except through centuries of
   time, through anarchy, and ignorance, and superstition."

"We speak, sometimes, of the 'Dark Ages,' and in matters of the exact sciences perhaps they were dark enough. Yet we must deduct something from our youthful ideas of their obscurity when we find that our truest lovers of beauty fix the building age of the world between the years 500 and 1500 of our era. Architecture, more than any other art, is an index to the happiness and freedom of the people; and during this period of 1,000 years, 'an architecture, pure in its principles, reasonable in its practice, and beautiful to the eyes of all men, even the simplest,' covered Europe with beautiful buildings from Constantinople to the north of Britain. In presence of this manifestation of free and productive intelligence, unmatched even in ancient Greece and Rome, and utterly unmatchable to-day, we may usefully reflect upon the expressive and constructive force of the spirit of Christendom, even in its darkest hours. The more closely we examine the question, the less ground we shall find for the conception of the Middle Ages as a long sleep followed by a sudden awakening. Rather we should consider that ancient Greece was the root, and ancient Rome the stem and branches of our life; that the Dark Ages, as we call them, represent its flower, and the modern world of science and political freedom the slowly-matured fruit. If we consider carefully that the Christian humanistic spirit held itself as charged from the first with the destinies of the illiterate and half-heathen masses of the European peoples, whereas, neither in Greece nor in the Roman Empire was civilisation intended for more than a third or a fourth part of the inhabitants of their territories, we shall not be surprised at an apparent fall of intellectual level, which really meant the beginning of a universal rise hitherto unknown in the history of the world. Ideas of this kind may help us to understand what must remain after all a paradox, that we have been taught to apply the term 'Dark Ages' to the period of what were in some respects the greatest achievements of the human mind, for example, the Cathedral of Florence and the writings of Dante. … It is perfectly obvious now to all who look carefully at these questions, that the instinct of our physical science and naturalistic art, of our evolutionist philosophy and democratic politics, is not antagonistic to, but is essentially one with the instinct which, in the Middle Ages, regarded all beauty and truth and power as the working of the Divine reason in the mind of man and in nature. What a genuine though grotesque anticipation of Charles Darwin is there in Francis of Assisi preaching to the birds!"

"'I know nothing of those ages which knew nothing.' I really forget to which of two eminent wits this saying belongs; but I have often thought that I should have liked to ask him how he came to know so curious and important a fact respecting ages of which he knew nothing. Was it merely by hearsay? Everybody allows, however, that they were dark ages. Certainly; but what do we mean by darkness? Is not the term, as it is generally used, comparative? Suppose I were to say that I am writing 'in a little dark room,' would you understand me to mean that I could not see the paper before me? Or if I should say that I was writing 'on a dark day,' would you think I meant that the sun had not risen by noon? Well, then, let me beg you to remember this, when you and I use the term, dark ages. … Many causes … have concurred to render those ages very dark to us; but, for the present, I feel it sufficient to remind the reader, that darkness is quite a different thing from shutting the eyes: and that we have no right to complain that we can see but little until we have used due diligence to see what we can. As to the other point—that is, as to the degree of darkness in which those ages were really involved, and as to the mode and degree in which it affected those who lived in them, I must express my belief, that it has been a good deal exaggerated. There is no doubt that those who lived in what are generally called the 'middle' or the 'dark' ages, knew nothing of many things which are familiar to us, and which we deem essential to our comfort, and almost to our existence; but still I doubt whether, even in this point of view, they were so entirely dark as some would have us suppose."

"In the Middle Ages both sides of human consciousness—that which was turned within as that which was turned without—lay dreaming or half-awake beneath a common veil. The veil was woven of faith, illusion, and childish prepossession, through which the world and history were seen clad in strange hues. Man was conscious of himself only as a member of a race, people, party, family, or corporation—only through some general category. In Italy this veil first melted into air; an objective treatment and consideration of the state and of all the things of this world became possible. The subjective side at the same time asserted itself with corresponding emphasis; man became a spiritual individual, and recognised himself as such."

      See, also,
      EUROPE (page 1010-1048):
      EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL;
      LIBRARIES, MEDIÆVAL;
      MEDICAL SCIENCE, MEDIÆVAL;
      MONEY AND BANKING, MEDIÆVAL.

"The name of Midian, though sometimes given peculiarly to the tribe on the south-east shores of the Gulf of Akaba, was extended to all Arabian tribes on the east of the Jordan,—'the Amalekites, and all the children of the East.'"

Dean Stanley, Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church, lecture 15 (volume 1).

MIGDOL.

MIKADO.

"Though this is the name by which the whole outer world knows the sovereign of Japan, it is not that now used in Japan itself, except in poetry and on great occasions. The Japanese have got into the habit of calling their sovereign by such alien Chinese titles as Tenshi, 'the Son of Heaven'; Ten-o, or Tenno, 'the Heavenly Emperor'; Shujo, 'the Supreme Master.' His designation in the official translations of modern public documents into English is 'Emperor.' … The etymology of the word Mikado is not quite clear. Some—and theirs is the current opinion—trace it to 'mi,' 'august,' and 'kado,' a 'gate,' reminding one of the 'Sublime Porte' of Turkey. … The word Mikado is often employed to denote the monarch's Court as well as the monarch himself."

MILAN: B. C. 223-222.
The capital of the Insubrian Gauls (Mediolanum).
Taken by the Romans.

During the miserable and calamitous reign of the Roman emperor Gallienus, the army on the Upper Danube invested their leader, Aureolus, with the imperial purple, and crossed the Alps to place him on the throne. Defeated by Gallienus in a battle fought near Milan, Aureolus and his army took refuge in that city and were there besieged. During the progress of the siege a conspiracy against Gallienus was formed in his own camp, and he was assassinated. The crown was then offered to the soldier Claudius—afterwards called Claudius Gothicus—and he accepted it. The siege of Milan was continued by Claudius, the city was forced to surrender and Aureolus was put to death.

"Diocletian and Maximian were the first Roman princes who fixed, in time of peace, their ordinary residence in the provinces. … The court of the emperor of the west [Maximian] was, for the most part, established at Milan, whose situation, at the foot of the Alps, appeared far more convenient than that of Rome, for the important purpose of watching the motions of the barbarians of Germany. Milan soon assumed the splendour of an imperial city. The houses are described as numerous and well-built; the manners of the people as polished and liberal."

The greatness of the Milanese, in later times, "was chiefly originated and promoted by the prerogatives of their Archbishop, amongst which that of crowning, and so in a manner constituting, the King of Italy, raised him in wealth and splendour above every other prelate of the Roman Church, and his city above every other city of Lombardy in power and pride. … It is said that the Church of Milan was founded by St. Barnabas; it is certain that it owed its chief aggrandisement, and the splendour which distinguished it from all other churches, to St. Ambrose [Archbishop from 374 to 397], who, having come to Milan in the time of Valentinian as a magistrate, was by the people made Bishop also, and as such was able to exalt it by the ordination of many inferior dignitaries, and by obtaining supremacy for it over all the Bishops of Lombardy. … This church received from St. Ambrose a peculiar liturgy, which was always much loved and venerated by the Milanese, and continued longer in use than any of those which anciently prevailed in other churches of the West. To the singing in divine service, which was then artless and rude, St. Ambrose, taking for models the ancient melodies still current in his time, the last echoes of the civilisation of distant ages, imparted a more regular rhythm [known as 'the Ambrosian Chant']; which, when reduced by St. Gregory to the grave simplicity of tone that best accords with the majesty of worship, obtained the name of 'Canto fermo'; and afterwards becoming richer, more elaborate, and easier to learn through the many ingenious inventions of Guido d' Arezzo, … was brought by degrees to the perfection of modern counterpoint. … St. Ambrose also composed prayers for his church, and hymns; amongst others, according to popular belief, that most sublime and majestic one, the Te Deum, which is now familiar and dear to the whole of Western Christendom. It is said that his clergy were not forbidden to marry. Hence an opinion prevailed that this church, according to the ancient statutes, ought not to be entirely subject to that of Rome."

G. B. Testa, History of the War of Frederick I. against the Communes of Lombardy, pages 23-24.

When Belisarius, in his first campaign for the recovery of Italy from the Goths, had secured possession of Rome, A. D. 538, he sent a small force northward to Milan, and that city, hating its Gothic rulers, was gladly surrendered to him. It was occupied by a small Roman garrison and unwisely left to the attacks upon it that were inevitable. Very soon the Goths appeared before its walls, and with them 10,000 Burgundians who had crossed the Alps to their assistance. Belisarius despatched an army to the relief of the city, but the generals in command of it were cowardly and did nothing. After stoutly resisting for six months, suffering the last extremes of starvation and misery, Milan fell, and a terrible vengeance was wreaked upon it. "All the men were slain, and these, if the information given to Procopius was correct, amounted to 300,000. The women were made slaves, and handed over by the Goths to their Burgundian allies in payment of their services. The city itself was rased to the ground: not the only time that signal destruction has overtaken the fair capital of Lombardy."

"The Goths, in their last moments, were revenged by the destruction of a city second only to Rome in size and opulence."

MILAN: A. D. 1277-1447.
   The rise and the reign of the Visconti.
   Extension of their Tyranny over Lombardy.
   The downfall of their House.

"The power of the Visconti in Milan was founded upon that of the Della Torre family, who preceded them as Captains General of the people at the end of the 13th century. Otho, Archbishop of Milan, first laid a substantial basis for the dominion of his house by imprisoning Napoleone Della Torre and five of his relatives in three iron cages in 1277, and by causing his nephew Matteo Visconti to be nominated both by the Emperor and by the people of Milan as imperial Vicar. Matteo, who headed the Ghibelline party in Lombardy, was the model of a prudent Italian despot. From the date 1311, when he finally succeeded in his attempts upon the sovereignty of Milan [see ITALY: A. D. 1310-1313], to 1322, when he abdicated in favour of his son Galeazzo, he ruled his states by force of character, craft, and insight, more than by violence or cruelty. Excellent as a general, he was still better as a diplomatist, winning more cities by money than by the sword. All through his life, as became a Ghibelline chief at that time, he persisted in fierce enmity against the Church. … Galeazzo, his son, was less fortunate than Matteo, surnamed Il Grande by the Lombards. The Emperor Louis of Bavaria threw him into prison on the occasion of his visit to Milan in 1327 [see ITALY: A. D. 1313-1330], and only released him at the intercession of his friend Castruccio Castracane. To such an extent was the growing tyranny of the Visconti still dependent upon their office delegated from the Empire. … Azzo [the son of Galeazzo] bought the city, together with the title of Imperial Vicar, from the same Louis who had imprisoned his father. When he was thus seated in the tyranny of his grandfather, he proceeded to fortify it further by the addition of ten Lombard towns, which he reduced beneath the supremacy of Milan. At the same time he consolidated his own power by the murder of his uncle Marco in 1329, who had grown too mighty as a general. … Azzo died in 1339, and was succeeded by his uncle Lucchino," who was poisoned by his wife in 1349. "Lucchino was potent as a general and governor. He bought Parma from Obizzo d' Este, and made the town of Pisa dependent upon Milan. … Lucchino left sons, but none of proved legitimacy. Consequently he was succeeded by his brother Giovanni, son of old Matteo il Grande and Archbishop of Milan. This man, the friend of Petrarch, was one of the most notable characters of the 14th century. Finding himself at the head of 16 cities, he added Bologna to the tyranny of the Visconti, in 1350, and made himself strong enough to defy the Pope. … In 1353 Giovanni annexed Genoa to the Milanese principality, and died in 1354, having established the rule of the Visconti over the whole of the north of Italy, with the exception of Piedmont, Verona, Mantua, Ferrara, and Venice. The reign of the Archbishop Giovanni marks a new epoch in the despotism of the Visconti. They are now no longer the successful rivals of the Della Torre family, or dependents on imperial caprice, but self-made sovereigns, with a well-established power in Milan and a wide extent of subject territory. Their dynasty, though based on force and maintained by violence, has come to be acknowledged; and we shall soon see them allying themselves with the royal houses of Europe. After the death of Giovanni, Matteo's sons were extinct. But Stefano, the last of his family, had left three children, who now succeeded to the lands and cities of the house. They were named Matteo, Bernabo, and Galeazzo. Between these three princes a partition of the heritage of Giovanni Visconti was effected. … Milan and Genoa were to be ruled by the three in common." Matteo was put out of the way by his two brothers in 1355. Bernabo reigned brutally at Milan, and Galeazzo with great splendor at Pavia. The latter married his daughter to the Duke of Clarence, son of Edward III. of England, and his son to Princess Isabella, of France. "Galeazzo died in 1378, and was succeeded in his own portion of the Visconti domain by his son Gian Galeazzo," who was able, seven years afterwards, by singular refinements of treachery, to put his uncle to death and take possession of his territories. "The reign of Gian Galeazzo, which began with this coup-de-main (1385-1402), forms a very important chapter in Italian history. … At the time of his accession the Visconti had already rooted out the Correggi and Rossi of Parma, the Scotti of Piacenza, the Pelavicini of San Donnino, the Tornielli of Novara, the Ponzoni and Cavalcabò of Cremona, the Beccaria and Languschi of Pavia, the Fisiraghi of Lodi, the Brusati of Brescia. … But the Carrara family still ruled at Padua, the Gonzaga at Mantua, the Este at Ferrara, while the great house of Scala was in possession of Verona. Gian Galeazzo's schemes were at first directed against the Scala dynasty. Founded, like that of the Visconti, upon the imperial authority, it rose to its greatest height under the Ghibelline general Can Grande and his nephew Mastino in the first half of the 14th century (1312-1351). Mastino had himself cherished the project of an Italian Kingdom; but he died before approaching its accomplishment. The degeneracy of his house began with his three sons. The two younger killed the eldest; of the survivors the stronger slew the weaker and then died in 1374, leaving his domains to two of his bastards. One of these, named Antonio, killed the other in 1381, and afterwards fell a prey to the Visconti in 1387. In his subjugation of Verona Gian Galeazzo contrived to make use of the Carrara family, although these princes were allied by marriage to the Scaligers, and had everything to lose by their downfall. {2184} He next proceeded to attack Padua, and gained the co-operation of Venice. In 1388 Francesco da Carrara had to cede his territory to Visconti's generals, who in the same year possessed themselves for him of the Trevisan Marches. It was then that the Venetians saw too late the error they had committed in suffering Verona and Padua to be annexed by the Visconti. … Having now made himself master of the north of Italy with the exception of Mantua, Ferrara, and Bologna, Gian Galeazzo turned his attention to these cities." By intrigues of devilish subtlety and malignity, he drew the Marquis of Ferrara and the Marquis of Mantua into crimes which were their ruin, and made his conquest of those cities easy. "The whole of Lombardy was now prostrate before the Milanese viper. His next move was to set foot in Tuscany. For this purpose Pisa had to be acquired; and here again he resorted to his devilish policy of inciting other men to crimes by which he alone would profit in the long run. Pisa was ruled at that time by the Gambacorta family, with an old merchant named Pietro at their head." Gian Galeazzo caused Pietro to be assassinated, and then bought the city from the assassins (1399). "In 1399 the Duke laid hands on Siena; and in the next two years the plague came to his assistance by enfeebling the ruling families of Lucca and Bologna, the Guinizzi and the Bentivogli, so that he was now able to take possession of those cities. There remained no power in Italy, except the Republic of Florence and the exiled but invincible Francesco da Carrara, to withstand his further progress. Florence [see FLORENCE: A. D. 1390-1402] delayed his conquests in Tuscany. Francesco managed to return to Padua. Still the peril which threatened the whole of Italy was imminent. … At last, when all other hope of independence for Italy had failed, the plague broke out with fury in Lombardy," and Gian Galeazzo died of it in 1402, aged 55. "At his death his two sons were still mere boys. … The generals refused to act with them, and each seized upon such portions of the Visconti inheritance as he could most easily acquire. The vast tyranny of the first Duke of Milan fell to pieces in a day." The dominion which his elder son lost (see ITALY: A. D. 1402-1406) and which his younger son regained (see ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447) slipped from the family on the death of the last of them, in 1447.

"At the end of the fourteenth century their [the Visconti's] informal lordship passed by a royal grant [from the Emperor Wenceslaus to Gian-Galeazzo; A. D. 1395] into an acknowledged duchy of the Empire. The dominion which they had gradually gained, and which was thus in a manner legalized, took in all the great cities of Lombardy, those especially which had formed the Lombard League against the Swabian Emperors. Pavia indeed, the ancient rival of Milan, kept a kind of separate being, and was formed into a distinct county. But the duchy granted by Wenceslaus to Gian-Galeazzo stretched far on both sides of the lake of Garda."

G. Procter (G. Perceval, pseudonym), History of Italy, chapters 4-5 (volume 1).

      T. A. Trollope,
      History of the Commonwealth of Florence,
      book 4, chapters 4-6 (volume 2).

MILAN: A. D. 1360-1391.
Wars with Florence and with the Pope.
Dealings with the Free Companies.

MILAN: A. D. 1447-1454.
   Competitors for the ducal succession to the Visconti.
   The prize carried off by Francesco Sforza.
   War of Milan and Florence with Venice, Naples,
   Savoy, and other states.

John Galeazzo Visconti had married (as stated above) a daughter of King John of France. "Valentine Visconti, one of the children of this marriage, married her cousin, Louis, duke of Orleans, the only brother of Charles VI. In their marriage contract, which the pope confirmed, it was stipulated that, upon failure of heirs male in the family of Visconti; the duchy of Milan should descend to the posterity of Valentine and the duke of Orleans. That event took place. In the year 1447, Philip Maria, the last prince of the ducal family of Visconti, died. Various competitors claimed the succession. Charles, duke of Orleans, pleaded his right to it, founded on the marriage contract of his mother, Valentine Visconti. Alfonso, king of Naples, claimed it in consequence of a will made by Philip Maria in his favor. The emperor contended that, upon the extinction of male issue in the family of Visconti, the fief returned to the superior lord, and ought to be re-annexed to the empire. The people of Milan, smitten with the love of liberty which in that age prevailed among the Italian states, declared against the dominion of any master, and established a republican form of government. But during the struggle among so many competitors, the prize for which they contended was seized by one from whom none of them apprehended any danger. Francis Sforza, the natural son of Jacomuzzo Sforza, whom his courage and abilities had elevated from the rank of a peasant to be one of the most eminent and powerful of the Italian condottieri, having succeeded his father in the command of the adventurers who followed his standard, had married a natural daughter of the last duke of Milan [see ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447]. Upon this shadow of a title Francis founded his pretensions to the duchy, which he supported with such talents and valor as placed him at last on the ducal throne."

W. Robertson, History of Charles the Fifth: View of the Progress of Society, section 3.

   "Francesco Sforza possessed himself of the supreme power by
   treachery and force of arms, but he saved for half a century
   the independence of a State which, after 170 years of tyranny,
   was no longer capable of life as a commonwealth, and furthered
   its prosperity, while he powerfully contributed to the
   formation of a political system which, however great its
   weakness, was the most reasonable under existing
   circumstances. Without the aid of Florence and Cosimo de'
   Medici, he would not have attained his ends. Cosimo had
   recognised his ability in the war with Visconti, and made a
   close alliance with him. … It was necessary to choose
   between Sforza and Venice, for there was only one alternative:
   either the condottiere would make himself Duke of Milan, or the
   Republic of San Marco would extend its rule over all Lombardy.
   In Florence several voices declared in favour of the old ally
   on the Adriatic. … Cosimo de' Medici gave the casting-vote
   in Sforza's favour. …
{2185}
   Without Florentine money; Sforza would never have been able to
   maintain the double contest—on the one side against Milan,
   which he blockaded and starved out; and on the other against
   the Venetians, who sought to relieve it, and whom he repulsed.
   And when, on March 25, 1450, he made his entry into the city
   which proclaimed him ruler, he was obliged to maintain himself
   with Florentine money till he had established his position and
   re-organised the State. … Common animosity to Florence and
   Sforza drew Venice and the king [Alfonso, of Naples] nearer to
   one another, and at the end of 1451 an alliance, offensive and
   defensive, was concluded against them, which Siena, Savoy, and
   Montferrat joined. … On May 16, 1452, the Republic, and,
   four weeks later, King Alfonso, declared war, which the
   Emperor Frederick III., then in Italy, and Pope Nicholas V.,
   successor to Eugenius IV. since 1447, in vain endeavoured to
   prevent." The next year "a foreign event contributed more than
   all to terminate this miserable war. … On May 29, 1453,
   Mohammed II. stormed Constantinople. The West was threatened,
   more especially Venice, which had such great and wealthy
   possessions in the Levant, and Naples. This time the excellent
   Pope Nicholas V. did not exert himself in vain. On April 9,
   1454, Venice concluded a tolerably favourable peace with
   Francesco Sforza at Lodi, in which King Alfonso, Florence,
   Savoy, Montferrat, Mantua, and Siena, were to be included. The
   king, who had made considerable preparations for war, did not
   ratify the compact till January 26 of the following year. The
   States of Northern and Central Italy then joined in an
   alliance, and a succession of peaceful years followed."

      A. von Reumont,
      Lorenzo de' Medici,
      book 1, chapter 7 (volume 1).

MILAN: A. D. 1492-1496.
   The usurpation of Ludovico, the Moor.
   His invitation to Charles VIII. of France.
   The French invasion of Italy.

MILAN: A. D. 1499-1500.
Conquest by Louis XII. of France.
His claim by right of Valentine Visconti.

MILAN: A. D. 1501. Treaty for the investiture of Louis XII. as Duke, by the Emperor Maximilian.

Notwithstanding the success of the French at Ravenna, in their struggle with the Holy League formed against them by Pope Julius II. (see ITALY: A. D. 1510-1513), they could not hold their ground in Italy. "Cremona shook off the yoke of France, and city after city followed her example. Nor did it seem possible longer to hold Milan in subjection. That versatile state, after twice bending the neck to Louis, a second time grew weary of his government; and greedily listened to the proposal of the Pope to set upon the throne Massimiliano Sforza, son of their late Duke Ludovico. Full of this project the people of Milan rose simultaneously to avenge the cruelties of the French; the soldiers and merchants remaining in the city were plundered, and about 1,500 put to the sword. The retreating army was harassed by the Lombards, and severely galled by the Swiss; and after encountering the greatest difficulties, the French crossed the Alps, having preserved none of their conquests in Lombardy except the citadel of Milan, and a few other fortresses. … At the close of the year, Massimiliano Sforza made his triumphal entry into Milan, with the most extravagant ebullitions of delight on the part of the people."

      Sir R. Comyn,
      History of the Western Empire,
      chapter 37 (volume 2).

MILAN: A. D. 1515.
French reconquest by Francis I.
Final overthrow of the Sforzas.

MILAN: A. D. 1517.
Abortive attempt of the Emperor Maximilian against the French.

MILAN: A. D. 1527-1529.
   Renewed attack of the French king.
   Its disastrous end.
   Renunciation of the French claim.

MILAN: A. D. 1544.
Repeated renunciation of the claims of Francis I.
The duchy becomes a dependency of the Spanish crown.

MILAN: A. D. 1796.
Occupation by the French.
Bonaparte's pillage of the Art-galleries and Churches.

MILAN: A. D. 1848-1849.
   Insurrection.
   Expulsion of the Austrians.
   Failure of the struggle.

In Irish legendary history, the followers of Miled, who came from the north of Spain and were the last of the four races which colonized Ireland.

MILETUS.

Miletus, on the coast of Asia Minor, near its southwestern extremity, "with her four harbours, had been the earliest anchorage on the entire coast. Phœnicians, Cretans, and Carians, had inaugurated her world-wide importance, and Attic families, endowed with eminent energy, had founded the city anew.

True, Miletus also had a rich territory of her own in her rear, viz., the broad valley of the Mæander, where among other rural pursuits particularly the breeding of sheep flourished. Miletus became the principal market for the finer sorts of wool; and the manufacture of this article into variegated tapestry and coloured stuffs for clothing employed a large multitude of human beings. But this industry also continued in an increasing measure to demand importation from without of all kinds of materials of art, articles of food, and slaves.

In no city was agriculture made a consideration so secondary to industry and trade as here. At Miletus, the maritime trade even came to form a particular party among the citizens, the so-called 'Aeinautæ,' the 'men never off the water.'"

Miletus took an early leading part in the great Ionian enterprises of colonization and trade, particularly in the Pontus, or Black Sea, where the Milesians succeeded the Phœnicians, establishing important commercial settlements at Sinope, Cyzicus and elsewhere. They were among the last of the Asiatic Ionians to succumb to the Lydian monarchy, and they were the first to revolt against the Persian domination, when that had taken the place of the Lydian. The great revolt failed and Miletus was practically destroyed.

Recovering some importance it was destroyed again by Alexander. Once more rising under the Roman empire, it was destroyed finally by the Turks and its very ruins have not been identified with certainty;

MILITARY-RELIGIOUS ORDERS.

   See HOSPITALLERS;
   TEMPLARS;
   TEUTONIC KNIGHTS;
   and ST. LAZARUS. KNIGHTS OF.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY: KENTUCKY-TENNESSEE).

"It has often been stated that in the tenth century there was a universal belief that the end of the world was to happen in the year 1000 A. D. This representation has recently been subjected to a critical scrutiny by Eiken, Le Roy, and Orsi, and found to be an unwarrantable exaggeration. It would be still less applicable to any century earlier or later than the tenth. A conviction of the impending destruction of the world, however, was not uncommon at almost any period of the middle age. It is frequently found expressed in the writings of Gregory of Tours, Fredegar, Lambert of Hersfeld, Ekkehard of Aurach, and Otto of Freisingen."

      R. Flint,
      History of the Philosophy of History: France, etc.,
      pages 101-102.

MINA.

MINIMS.

"Of the orders which arose in the 15th century, the most remarkable was that of Eremites [Hermits] of St. Francis, or Minims, founded … by St. Francis of Paola, and approved by Sixtus IV. in 1474." St. Francis, a Minorite friar of Calabria, was one of the devotees whom Louis XI. of France gathered about himself during his last days, in the hope that their intercessions might prolong his life. To propitiate him, Louis "founded convents at Plessis and at Amboise for the new religious society, the members of which, not content with the name of Minorites, desired to signify their profession of utter insignificance by styling themselves Minims."

J. C. Robertson, History of the Christian Church, volume 8, pages 369 and 224.

MINNE.

MINNESOTA: A. D. 1803. Part of the state, west of the Mississippi, acquired in the Louisiana Purchase.

MINNESOTA: A. D. 1834-1838.
Joined to Michigan Territory; then to Wisconsin; then to Iowa.

Minnesota was organized as a Territory in 1849, and admitted
to the Union as a State in 1858.

In 1708, during the War of the Spanish Succession, Port Mahon, and the whole island of Minorca, were taken by an English expedition from Barcelona, under General Stanhope, who afterwards received a title from his conquest, becoming Viscount Stanhope of Mahon. Port Mahon was then considered the best harbor in the Mediterranean and its importance to England was rated above that of Gibraltar.

At the Peace of Utrecht Minorca was ceded to Great Britain and remained under the British flag during the greater part of the 18th century.

At the outbreak of the Seven Years War, in 1756, there was great dread in England of an immediate French invasion; and "the Government so thoroughly lost heart as to request the King to garrison England with Hanoverian troops. This dread was kept alive by a simulated collection of French troops in the north. But, under cover of this threat, a fleet was being collected at Toulon, with the real design of capturing Minorca. The ministry were at last roused to this danger, and Byng was despatched with ten sail of the line to prevent it. Three days after he set sail the Duke de Richelieu, with 16,000 men, slipped across into the island, and compelled General Blakeney, who was somewhat old and infirm, to withdraw into the castle of St. Philip, which was at once besieged. On the 19th of May—much too late to prevent the landing of Richelieu—Byng arrived within view of St. Philip, which was still in the possession of the English. The French Admiral, La Galissonnière, sailed out to cover the siege, and Byng, who apparently felt himself unequally matched—although West, his second in command, behaved with gallantry and success—called a council of war, and withdrew. Blakeney, who had defended his position with great bravery, had to surrender. The failure of Byng, and the general weakness and incapacity of the ministry, roused the temper of the people to rage; and Newcastle, trembling for himself, threw all the blame upon the Admiral, hoping by this means to satisfy the popular cry. … A court martial held upon that officer had been bound by strict instructions, and had found itself obliged to bring in a verdict of guilty, though without casting any imputation on the personal courage of the Admiral. On his accession to power Pitt was courageous enough, although he rested on the popular favour, to do his best to get Byng pardoned, and urged on the King that the House of Commons seemed to wish the sentence to be mitigated. The King is said to have answered in words that fairly describe Pitt's position, 'Sir, you have taught me to look for the sense of my subjects in another place than the House of Commons.' The sentence was carried out, and Byng was shot on the quarter-deck of the 'Monarque' at Portsmouth (March 14, 1757)."

The Franciscan friars, called by their founder "Fratri
Minori," bore very commonly the name of the Minorites.

MINSIS, MUNSEES, MINISINKS.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
      ALGONQUIAN FAMILY, and DELAWARES;
      and, also, MANHATTAN ISLAND.

MINUTE-MEN.

"The race [among the Greeks] which … first issues forth with a history of its own from the dark background of the Pelasgian people is that of the Minyi. The cycle of their heroes includes Iason and Euneus, his son, who trades with Phœnicians and with Greeks. … The myths of the Argo were developed in the greatest completeness on the Pagasæan gulf, in the seats of the Minyi; and they are the first with whom a perceptible movement of the Pelasgean tribes beyond the sea—in other words, a Greek history in Europe—begins. The Minyi spread both by land and sea. They migrated southwards into the fertile fields of Bœotia, and settled on the southern side of the Copæic valley by the sea. … After leaving the low southern coast they founded a new city at the western extremity of the Bœotian valley. There a long mountain ridge juts out from the direction of Parnassus, and round its farthest projection flows in a semicircle the Cephissus. At the lower edge of the height lies the village of Skripu. Ascending from its huts, one passes over primitive lines of wall to the peak of the mountain, only approachable by a rocky staircase of a hundred steps, and forming the summit of a castle. This is the second city of the Minyi in Bœotia, called Orchomenus: like the first, the most ancient walled royal seat which can be proved to have existed in Hellas, occupying a proud and commanding position over the valley by the sea. Only a little above the dirty huts of clay rises out of the depths of the soil the mighty block of marble, more than twenty feet high, which covered the entrance of a round building. The ancients called it the treasury of Minyas, in the vaults of which the ancient kings were believed to have hoarded the superfluity of their treasures of gold and silver, and in these remains endeavoured to recall to themselves the glory of Orchomenus sung by Homer."

   "The 'mir' is a commune, whose bond is unity of autonomy and
   of possession of land. Sometimes the mir is a single village.
   In this case the economic administration adapts itself exactly
   to the civil. Again, it may happen that a large village is
   divided into many rural communes. Then each commune has its
   special economic administration, whilst the civil and police
   administration is common to all. Sometimes, lastly, a number
   of villages only have one mir. Thus the size of the mir may
   vary from 20 or 30 to some thousands of 'dvors.' … The
   'dvor,' or court, is the economic unit: it contains one or
   several houses, and one or several married couples lodge in
   it. The 'dvor' has only one hedge and one gate in common for
   its inmates. … With the Great Russians the mir regulates
   even the ground that the houses stand on; the mir has the
   right to shift about the 'dvors.' …
{2188}
   Besides land, the communes have property of another kind:
   fish-lakes, communal mills, a communal herd for the
   improvement of oxen and horses; finally, storehouses, intended
   for the distribution to the peasants of seeds for their fields
   or food for their families. The enjoyment of all these various
   things must be distributed among the members of the commune,
   must be distributed regularly, equally, equitably. Thus, a
   fair distribution today will not be fair five or six years
   hence, because in some families the number of members will
   have increased, in others diminished. A new distribution,
   therefore, will be necessary to make the shares equal. For a
   long time this equalization can be brought about by partial
   sharings-up, by exchange of lots of ground between the private
   persons concerned, without upsetting everybody by a general
   redistribution. … The Russian mir is not an elementary unit.
   It is made up of several primordial cells—of small circles
   that form in perfect freedom. The mir only asks that the
   circles (osmaks) are equal as to labour-power. This condition
   fulfilled, I am free to choose my companions in accordance
   with my friendships or my interests. When the village has any
   work to do, any property to distribute, the administration or
   the assembly of the commune generally does not concern itself
   with individuals, but with the 'osmak' … Each village has an
   administration; it is represented by a mayor (selskï
   starosta), chosen by the mir. But this administration has to
   do only with affairs determined upon in principle by the
   communal assembly. The starosta has no right of initiating any
   measures of importance. Such questions (partition of the land,
   new taxes, leases of communal property, etc.) are only
   adjudicated and decided by the assembly of the mir. All the
   peasants living in the village come to the assembly, even the
   women. If, for example, the wife, by the death of her husband,
   is the head of the family, at the assembly she has the right
   to vote. … The peasants meet very frequently. … The
   assemblies are very lively, … courageous, independent."

      L. Tikhomirov,
      Russia, Political and Social,
      book 3, chapter 2, with foot-note,
      chapter 1 (volume 1).

   Rabbi Jehuda, the Patriarch at Tiberius, was the author (about
   A. D. 194) of "a new constitution to the Jewish people. He
   embodied in the celebrated Mischna, or Code of Traditional
   Law, all the authorized interpretations of the Mosaic Law, the
   traditions, the decisions of the learned, and the precedents
   of the courts or schools. … The sources from which the
   Mischna was derived may give a fair view of the nature of the
   Rabbinical authority, and the manner in which it had
   superseded the original Mosaic Constitution. The Mischna was
   grounded,
      1. On the Written Law of Moses.
      2. On the Oral Law, received by Moses on Mount Sinai,
      and handed down, it was said, by uninterrupted tradition.
      3. The decisions or maxims of the Wise Men.
      4. Opinions of particular individuals, on which the
      schools were divided, and which still remained open.
      5. Ancient usages and customs.

The distribution of the Mischna affords a curious exemplification of the intimate manner in which the religious and civil duties of the Jews were interwoven, and of the authority assumed by the Law over every transaction of life. The Mischna commenced with rules for prayer, thanksgiving, ablutions; it is impossible to conceive the minuteness or subtlety of these rules, and the fine distinctions drawn by the Rabbins. It was a question whether a man who ate figs, grapes, and pomegranates, was to say one or three graces; … whether he should sweep the house and then wash his hands, or wash his hands and then sweep the house. But there are nobler words."

The arrangement by which Sextus Pompeius was virtually admitted (B. C. 40) for a time into partnership with the triumvirate of Antony, Octavius and Lepidus, was so called.

MISR.

MISSI DOMINICI.

"Nothing was more novel or peculiar in the legislation of Karl [Charlemagne] than his institution of imperial deputies, called Missi Dominici, who were regularly sent forth from the palace to oversee and inspect the various local administrations. Consisting of a body of two or three officers each, one of whom was always a prelate, they visited the counties every three months, and held there the local assizes, or 'placita minores.' … Even religion and morals were not exempted from this scrutiny."

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER: TENNESSEE);
      and (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER: TENNESSEE).

MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1663.
Embraced in the Carolina grant to Monk, Chesterfield, and others.

MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1763.
Partly embraced in West Florida, ceded to Great Britain.

      See SEVEN YEARS WAR: THE TREATIES;
      FLORIDA: A. D. 1763;
      and NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1763.

MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1783.
Mostly covered by the English cession to the United States.

"The territory heretofore surrendered by the Spanish authorities, and lying north of the 31st degree of latitude, with the consent and approbation of the State of Georgia, was erected into a territory of the United States by act of Congress, approved April 7th, 1798, entitled 'an act for the amicable settlement of limits with the State of Georgia, and authorizing the establishment of a government in the Mississippi Territory. The territory comprised in the new organization, or the original Mississippi Territory, embraced that portion of country between the Spanish line of demarkation and a line drawn due east from the mouth of the Yazoo to the Chattahoochy River. The Mississippi River was its western limit and the Chattahoochy its eastern. The organization of a territorial government by the United States was in no wise to impair the rights of Georgia to the soil, which was left open for future negotiation between the State of Georgia and the United States." In 1802 the State of Georgia ceded to the United States all her claim to lands south of the State of Tennessee, stipulating to receive $1,250,000" out of the first nett proceeds of lands lying in said ceded territory." In 1804 "the whole of the extensive territory ceded by Georgia, lying north of the Mississippi Territory, and south of Tennessee, was … annexed to the Mississippi Territory, and was subsequently included within its limits and jurisdiction. The boundaries of the Mississippi Territory, consequently, were the 31st degree on the south, and the 35th degree on the north, extending from the Mississippi River to the western limits of Georgia, and comprised the whole territory now embraced in the States of Alabama and Mississippi, excepting the small Florida District between the Pearl and Perdido Rivers. Four fifths of this extensive territory were in the possession of the four great southern Indian confederacies, the Choctâs, the Chickasâs, the Creeks, and the Cherokees, comprising an aggregate of about 75,000 souls, and at least 10,000 warriors. The only portions of this territory to which the Indian title had been extinguished was a narrow strip from 15 to 50 miles in width, on the east side of the Mississippi, and about 70 miles in length, and a small district on the Tombigby."

J. W. Monette, Discovery and Settlement of the Valley of the Mississippi, book 5, chapter 13 (volume 2).

MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1812-1813. Spanish West Florida annexed to Mississippi Territory and possession taken.

The sixth and seventh of the new States added to the original Union of thirteen were Indiana and Mississippi. "These last almost simultaneously found representation in the Fifteenth Congress; and of them Indiana, not without an internal struggle, held steadfastly to the fundamental Ordinance of 1787 under which it was settled, having adopted its free State constitution in June, 1816; Mississippi, which followed on the slave side, agreeing upon a constitution, in August, 1817, which the new Congress, at its earliest opportunity [December 10, 1817] after assembling, pronounced republican in form, and satisfactory."

At the same time, the part of Mississippi Territory which forms the present State of Alabama was detached and erected into the Territory of Alabama.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863-1864 (DECEMBER-APRIL: TENNESSEE—MISSISSIPPI).

MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1865 (June).
Provisional government set up under
President Johnson's plan of Reconstruction.

MISSISSIPPI RIVER: A. D. 1528-1542.
Crossed by Cabeça de Vaca, and by Hernando de Soto.
Descended by the survivors of De Soto's company.

MISSISSIPPI RIVER: A. D. 1682.
Exploration to the mouth by La Salle.
See CANADA: A. D. 1669-1687.

MISSISSIPPI RIVER: A. D. 1783-1803. The question of the Right of Navigation disputed between Spain and the United States.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1861 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER: ON THE MISSISSIPPI), Belmont;
      1862 (MARCH-APRIL), NEW

Madrid and Island No. 10; 1862 (APRIL), New Orleans; 1862 (MAY-JULY), First Vicksburg attack; 1862 (JUNE), Memphis; 1862 (DECEMBER), Second Vicksburg attack; 1863 (JANUARY-APRIL), and (APRIL-JULY);

Siege and capture of Vicksburg; 1863 (MAY-JULY), Port Hudson and the clear opening of the River.

MISSISSIPPI VALLEY: A. D. 1763.
Cession of the eastern side of the river to Great Britain.

MISSISSIPPI VALLEY: A. D. 1803.
Purchase of the western side by the United States.

MISSOURI: A. D. 1763-1765.
French withdrawal to the West of the Mississippi.
The founding of St. Louis.

MISSOURI: A. D. 1804-1812.
Upper Louisiana organized as the Territory of Louisiana.
The changing of its name to Missouri.

MISSOURI: A. D. 1821.
Admission to the Union.
The Compromise concerning Slavery.

MISSOURI: A. D. 1861 (February-July).
   The baffling of the Secessionists.
   Blair, Lyon and the Home Guards of St. Louis.
   The capture of Camp Jackson.
   Battle of Boonville.
   A loyal State Government organized.

The seizure of arsenals and arms by the secessionists of the Atlantic and Gulf States "naturally, directed the attention of the leaders of the different political parties in Missouri to the arsenal in St. Louis, and set them to work planning how they might get control of the 40,000 muskets and other munitions of war which it was known to contain. … Satisfied that movements were on foot among irresponsible parties, Unionist as well as Secessionist, to take possession of this post, General D. M. Frost, of the Missouri state militia, a graduate of West Point and a thorough soldier, is said to have called Governor Jackson's attention to the necessity of 'looking after' it. … Jackson, however, needed no prompting. … He did not hesitate to give Frost authority to seize the arsenal, whenever in his judgment it might become necessary to do so. Meanwhile he was to assist in protecting it against mob violence of any kind or from any source. … Frost, however, was not the only person in St. Louis who had his eyes fixed upon the arsenal and its contents. Frank Blair was looking longingly in the same direction, and was already busily engaged in organizing the bands which, supplied with guns from this very storehouse, enabled him, some four months later, to lay such a heavy hand upon Missouri. Just then, it is true, he could not arm them, … but he did not permit this to interfere with the work of recruiting and drilling. That went on steadily, and as a consequence, when the moment came for action, Blair was able to appear at the decisive point with a well-armed force, ten times as numerous as that which his opponents could bring against him. In the mean time, whilst these two, or rather three, parties (for Frost can hardly be termed a secessionist, though as an officer in the service of the State he was willing to obey the orders of his commander) were watching each other, the federal government awoke from its lethargy, and began to concentrate troops in St. Louis for the protection of its property. … By the 18th of February, the day of the election of delegates to the convention which pronounced so decidedly against secession, there were between four and five hundred men behind the arsenal walls. … General Harney, who was in command of the department and presumably familiar with its condition, under date of February 19, notified the authorities at Washington that there was no danger of an attack, and never had been. … Such was not the opinion of Captain Nathaniel Lyon, who had arrived at the arsenal on the 6th of February, and who was destined, in the short space of the coming six months, to write his name indelibly in the history of the State. … Under the stimulating influence of two such spirits as Blair and … [Lyon] the work of preparation went bravely on. By the middle of April, four regiments had been enlisted, and Lyon, who was now in command of the arsenal, though not of the department, proceeded to arm them in accordance with an order which Blair had procured from Washington. Backed by this force, Blair felt strong enough to set up an opposition to the state government, and accordingly, when Jackson refused to furnish the quota of troops assigned to Missouri under President Lincoln's call of April 15, 1861 [see UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (APRIL)], he telegraphed to Washington that if an order to muster the men into the service was sent to Captain Lyon 'the requisition would be filled in two days.' The order was duly forwarded, and five regiments having been sworn in instead of four, as called for, Blair was offered the command. This he declined, and, on his recommendation, Lyon was elected in his place. On the 7th and 8th of May another brigade was organized. … This made ten regiments of volunteers, besides several companies of regulars and a battery of artillery, that were now ready for service; and as General Harney, whose relatives and associates were suspected of disloyalty, had been ordered to Washington to explain his position, Lyon was virtually in command of the department. … Jackson, … though possessed of but little actual power, was unwilling to give up the contest without an effort. He did not accept the decision of the February election as final. … Repairing to St. Louis, as soon as the adjournment of the General Assembly had left him free, he began at once, in conjunction with certain leading secessionists, to concert measures for arming the militia of the State. … {2191} To this end, the seizure of the arsenal was held to be a prerequisite, and General Frost was preparing a memorial showing how this could best be done, when the surrender of Fort Sumter and the President's consequent call for troops hurried Jackson into a position of antagonism to the federal government. … He sent messengers to the Confederate authorities at Montgomery, Alabama, asking them to supply him with the guns that were needed for the proposed attack on the arsenal; and he summoned the General Assembly to meet at Jefferson City on the 2d of May, to deliberate upon such measures as might be deemed necessary for placing the State in a position to defend herself. He also ordered, as he was authorized to do under the law, the commanders of the several military districts to hold the regular yearly encampments for the purpose of instructing their men in drill and discipline. … Practically its effect was limited to the first or Frost's brigade, as that was the only one that had been organized under the law. On the 3d of May, this little band, numbering less than 700 men, pitched their tents in a wooded valley in the outskirts of the city of St. Louis, and named it Camp Jackson, in honor of the governor. It is described as being surrounded on all sides, at short range, by commanding hills; it was, moreover, open to a charge of cavalry in any and every direction, and the men were supplied with but five rounds of ammunition each, hardly enough for guard purposes. In a word, it was defenseless, and this fact is believed to be conclusive in regard to the peaceful character of the camp as it was organized. … Lyon … announced his intention of seizing the entire force at the camp, without any ceremony other than a demand for its surrender. … Putting his troops in motion early in the morning of the 10th of May; he surrounded Camp Jackson and demanded its surrender. As Frost could make no defense against the overwhelming odds brought against him, he was of course obliged to comply; and his men, having been disarmed, were marched to the arsenal, where they were paroled. … After the surrender, and whilst the prisoners were standing in line, waiting for the order to march, a crowd of men, women and children collected and began to abuse the home guards, attacking them with stones and other missiles. It is even said that several shots were fired at them, but this lacks confirmation. According to Frost, who was at the head of the column of prisoners, the first intimation of firing was given by a single shot, followed almost immediately by volley firing, which is said to have been executed with precision considering the rawness of the troops. When the fusillade was checked, it was found that 28 persons had been killed or mortally wounded, among whom were three of the prisoners, two women, and one child. … Judging this action by the reasons assigned for it, and by its effect throughout the State, it must be pronounced a blunder. So far from intimidating the secessionists, it served only to exasperate them; and it drove not a few Union men, among them General Sterling Price, into the ranks of the opposition and ultimately into the Confederate army."

When news of the capture of Camp Jackson reached Jefferson City, where the legislature was in session, Governor Jackson at once ordered a bridge on the railroad from St. Louis to be destroyed, and the legislature made haste to pass several bills in the interest of the rebellion, including one which placed the whole military power of the State in the hands of the Governor. Armed with this authority, Jackson proceeded to organize the Militia of Missouri as a secession army. Meantime Captain Lyon had been superseded in command by the arrival at St. Louis of General Harney, and the latter introduced a total change of policy at once. He was trapped into an agreement with Governor Jackson and Sterling Price, now general-in-chief of the Missouri forces, which tied his hands, while the cunning rebel leaders were rapidly placing the State in active insurrection. But the eyes of the authorities at Washington were opened by Blair; Harney was soon displaced and Lyon restored to command. This occurred May 30th. On the 15th of June Lyon took possession of the capital of the State, Jefferson City, the Governor and other State officers taking flight to Boonville, where their forces were being gathered. Lyon promptly followed, routing and dispersing them at Boonville on the 17th. The State Convention which had taken a recess in March was now called together by a committee that had been empowered to do so before the convention separated, and a provisional State government was organized (July 31) with a loyal governor, Hamilton R. Gamble, at its head.

MISSOURI: A. D. 1861 (July-September).
   Sigel's retreat from Carthage.
   Death of Lyon at Wilson's Creek.
   Siege of Lexington.
   Fremont in command.

A. D. 1861 (August-October).
   Fremont in command.
   His premature proclamation of freedom to the Slaves of rebels.
   His quarrel with Frank P. Blair.
   The change in command.

MISSOURI: A. D. 1862 (January-March).
Price and the Rebel forces driven into Arkansas.
Battle of Pea Ridge.

MISSOURI: A. D. 1862 (July-September).
Organization of the loyal Militia of the state.
Warfare with Rebel guerrillas.

MISSOURI: A. D. 1862 (September-December).
Social effects of the Civil War.
The Battle of Prairie Grove.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER: MISSOURI-ARKANSAS).

MISSOURI COMPROMISE, The.
Its Repeal, and the decision of the Supreme Court against it.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862(APRIL-MAY: ALABAMA);
      and (JUNE-OCTOBER: TENNESSEE-KENTUCKY).

A somewhat vaguely defined part of eastern Asia Minor, between Armenia, Phrygia, Cilicia and the Euxine, was called Cappadocia in times anterior to 363 B. C. Like its neighbors, it had fallen under the rule of the Persians and formed a province of their empire, ruled by hereditary satraps. In the year above named, the then reigning satrap, Ariobarzanes, rebelled and made himself king of the northern coast district of Cappadocia, while the southern and inland part was retained under Persian rule. The kingdom founded by Ariobarzanes took the name of Pontus, from the sea on which it bordered. It was reduced to submission by Alexander the Great, but regained independence during the wars between Alexander's successors (see MACEDONIA: B. C. 310-301; and SELEUCIDÆ: B. C. 281-224), and extended its limits towards the west and south. The kingdom of Pontus, however, only rose to importance in history under the powerful sovereignty of Mithridates V. who took the title of Eupator and is often called Mithridates the Great. He ascended the throne while a child, B. C. 120, but received, notwithstanding, a wonderful education and training. At the age of twenty (B. C. 112) he entered upon a career of conquest, which was intended to strengthen his power for the struggle with Rome, which he saw to be inevitable. Within a period of about seven years he extended his dominions around the nearly complete circuit of the Euxine, through Armenia, Colchis, and along the northern coasts westward to the Crimea and the Dniester; while at the same time he formed alliances with the barbarous tribes on the Danube, with which he hoped to threaten Italy.

"He [Mithridates] rivalled Hannibal in his unquenchable hatred to Rome. This hatred had its origin in the revocation of a district of Phrygia which the Senate had granted to his father. … To his banner clustered a quarter of a million of the fierce warriors of the Caucasus and the Scythian steppes and of his own Hellenized Pontic soldiers; Greek captains, in whom he had a confidence unshaken by disaster—Archelaus, Neoptolemus, Dorilaus—gave tactical strength to his forces. He was allied, too, with the Armenian king, Tigranes; and he now turned his thoughts to Numidia, Syria, and Egypt with the intention of forming a coalition against his foe on the Tiber. A coin has been found which commemorated an alliance proposed between the Pontic king and the Italian rebels. … The imperious folly of M'. Aquillius, the Roman envoy in the East, precipitated the intentions of the king; instead of contending for the princedom of Bithynia and Cappadocia, he suddenly appealed to the disaffected in the Roman province. The fierce white fire of Asiatic hate shot out simultaneously through the length and breadth of the country [B. C. 88]; and the awful news came to distracted Rome that 80,000 Italians had fallen victims to the vengeance of the provincials. Terror-stricken publicani were chased from Adramyttium and Ephesus into the sea, their only refuge, and there cut down by their pursuers; the Mæander was rolling along the corpses of the Italians of Tralles; in Caria the refined cruelty of the oppressed people was butchering the children before the eyes of father and mother, then the mother before the eyes of her husband, and giving to the man death as the crown and the relief of his torture. … Asia was lost to Rome; only Rhodes, which had retained her independence, remained faithful to her great ally. The Pontic fleet, under Archelaus, appeared at Delos, and carried thence 2,000 talents to Athens, offering to that imperial city the government of her ancient tributary. This politic measure awaked hopes of independence in Greece. Aristion, an Epicurean philosopher, seized the reins of power in Athens, and Archelaus repaired the crumbling battlements of the Piræus. The wave of eastern conquest was rolling on towards Italy itself. The proconsul Sulla marched to Brundisium, and, undeterred by the ominous news that his consular colleague, Q. Rufus, had been murdered in Picenum, or by the sinister attitude of the new consul Cinna, he crossed over to Greece with five legions to stem the advancing wave. History knows no more magnificent illustration of cool, self-restrained determination than the action of Sulla during these three years." He left Rome to his enemies, the fierce faction of Marius, who were prompt to seize the city and to fill it with "wailing for the dead, or with the more terrible silence which followed a complete massacre" [see ROME: B. C. 88-78]. "The news of this carnival of democracy reached the camp of Sulla along with innumerable noble fugitives who had escaped the Marian terror. The proconsul was unmoved; with unexampled self-confidence he began to assume that he and his constituted Rome, while the Forum and Curia were filled with lawless anarchists, who would soon have to be dealt with. He carried Athens by assault, and slew the whole population, with their tyrant Aristion [see ATHENS: B. C. 87-86], but he counted it among the favours of the goddess of Fortune that he, man of culture as he was, was able to save the immemorial buildings of the city from the fate of Syracuse or Corinth. Archelaus, in Piræus, offered the most heroic resistance. … With the spring Sulla heard of the approach of the main army from Pontus, under the command of Taxiles. 120,000 men, and ninety scythed chariots, were pouring over Mount Œta to overwhelm him. With wonderful rapidity he marched northwards through friendly Thebes, and drew up his little army on a slope near Chæronea, digging trenches on his left and right to save his flank from being turned. He showed himself every inch a general, he compelled the enemy to meet him on this ground of his own choice, and the day did not close before 110,000 of the enemy were captured or slain, and the camp of Archelaus, who had hastened from Athens to take the command, was carried by assault. We have before us still, in the pages of Plutarch, Sulla's own memoirs. If we may believe him, he lost only fifteen men in the battle. By this brilliant engagement he had restored Greece to her allegiance, and, what was even better, the disaster aroused an the savagery of Mithradates, the Greek vanished in the oriental despot. {2193} Suspicious and ruthless, he ordered his nearest friends to be assassinated; he transported all the population of Chios to the mainland, and by his violence and exaction stirred Ephesus, Sardes, Tralles, and many other cities, to renounce his control, and to return to the Roman government. Still, he did not suspect Archelaus, but appointed him, together with Dorilaus, to lead a new army into Greece. The new army appeared in Bœotia, and encamped by the Copaic Lake, near Orchomenos. Before the raw levies could become familiar with the sight of the legions, Sulla assaulted the camp [B. C. 85], and rallied his wavering men by leading them in person with the cry, 'Go, tell them in Rome that you left your general in the trenches of Orchomenos;' the self-consciousness was sublime, for nothing would have pleased the people in Rome better; his victory was complete, and Archelaus escaped alone in a boat to Calchis. As the conqueror returned from the battle-field to reorganize Greece, he learnt that the Senate had deposed him from command, declared him an outlaw, and appointed as his successor the consul L. Valerius Flaccus. The disorganization of the republic seemed to have reached a climax. Flaccus conducted his army straight to the Bosphorus without venturing to approach the rebel proconsul Sulla; while Mithradates, who began to wish for peace, preferred to negotiate with his conqueror rather than with the consul of the republic. To complete this complication of anarchy, Flaccus was murdered, and superseded in the command by his own legate, C. Flavius Fimbria; this choice of their general by the legions themselves might seem significant if anything could be significant or connected in such a chaos. But Sulla now crossed into Asia, and concluded peace with Mithradates on these conditions: The king was to relinquish all his conquests, surrender deserters, restore the people of Chios, pay 2,000 talents, and give up seventy of his ships. Fimbria … remained to be dealt with. It was not a difficult matter: the two Roman armies confronted one another at Thyatira, and the Fimbrians streamed over to Sulla. After all, the legionaries, who had long ceased to be citizens, were soldiers first and politicians after; they worshipped the felicity of the great general; and the democratic general had not yet appeared who could bind his men to him by a spell stronger than Sulla's. Fimbria persuaded a slave to thrust him through with his sword. His enemies were vanquished in Asia, but in Rome Cinna was again consul (85 B. C.), and his colleague, Cn. Papirius Carbo, out-Cinnaed Cinna. Yet Sulla was in no hurry. He spent more than a year in reorganizing the disordered province. … He even allowed Cinna and Carbo, who began to prepare for war with him (84 B. C.), to be re-elected to the consulship; but when the more cautious party in the Senate entered into negotiations with him, and offered him a safe conduct to Italy, he showed in a word what he took to be the nature of the situation by saying that he was not in need of their safe conduct, but he was coming to secure them."

After a second and a third war with Rome (see ROME: B. C. 78-68, and 69-63), Mithridates was finally (B. C. 65) driven from his old dominions into the Crimean kingdom of Bosporus, where he ended his life in despair two years later. The kingdom of Pontus was absorbed in the Roman empire. The southern part of Cappadocia held some rank as an independent kingdom until A. D. 17, when it was likewise reduced to the state of a Roman province.

MITYLENE.

The chief city in ancient times of the island of Lesbos, to which it ultimately gave its name.

MITYLENE: B. C. 428-427.
   Revolt from Athenian rule.
   Siege and surrender.
   The tender mercies of Athens.

MIZRAIM.

As related in the Bible (Genesis xix. 37), Moab was the son of Lot's eldest daughter and the ancient people called Moabites were descended from him. They occupied at an early time the rich tableland or highlands on the east side of the Dead Sea; but the Amorites drove them out of the richer northern part of this territory into its southern half, where they occupied a very narrow domain, but one easily defended. This occurred shortly before the coming of the Israelites into Canaan. Between the Moabites and the Israelites, after the settlement of the latter, there was frequent war, but sometimes relations both peaceful and friendly. David finally subjugated their nation, in a war of peculiar atrocity. After the division of the kingdoms, Moab was subject to Israel, but revolted on the death of Ahab and was nearly destroyed in the horrible war which followed. The Biblical account of this war is given in 2 Kings III. It is strangely supplemented and filled out by a Moabite record—the famous Moabite Stone—found and deciphered within quite recent times, under the following circumstance. Dr. Klein, a German missionary, travelling in 1869 in what was formerly the "Land of Moab," discovered a stone of black basalt bearing a long inscription in Phœnician characters. He copied a small part of it and made his discovery known. The Prussian government opened negotiations for the purchase of the stone, and M. Clermont-Ganneau, of the French consulate at Jerusalem, made efforts likewise to secure it for his own country. Meantime, very fortunately, the latter sent men to take impressions—squeezes, as they are called—of the inscription, which was imperfectly done. But these imperfect squeezes proved invaluable; for the Arabs, finding the stone to be a covetable thing, and fearing that it was to be taken from them, crumbled it into fragments with the aid of fire and water. Most of the pieces were subsequently recovered, and were put together by the help of M. Clermont-Ganneau's squeezes, so that an important part of the inscription was deciphered in the end. It was found to be a record by Mesha, king of Moab, of the war with Israel referred to above.

The Moabites appear to have recovered from the blow, but not
much of their subsequent history is known.

MODENA: A. D. 1796.
Dethronement of the Duke by Bonaparte.
Formation of the Cispadane Republic.

MODENA: A. D. 1831.
Revolt and expulsion of the Duke.
His restoration by Austrian troops.

MODENA: A. D. 1859-1861.
End of the dukedom.
Absorption in the new Kingdom of Italy.

"On the west of Egypt there is an oasis of cultivable land, the Fayum, buried in the midst of the desert, and attached by a sort of isthmus to the country watered by the Nile. In the centre of this oasis is a large plateau about the same level as the valley of the Nile; to the west, however, a considerable depression of the land produces a valley occupied by a natural lake more than ten leagues in length, the 'Birket Kerun.' In the centre of this plateau Amenemhe [twelfth dynasty] undertook the formation of an artificial lake with an area of ten millions of square metres. If the rise of the Nile was insufficient, the water was led into the lake and stored up for use, not only in the Fayum, but over the whole of the left bank of the Nile as far as the sea. If too large an inundation threatened the dykes, the vast reservoir of the artificial lake remained open, and when the lake itself overflowed, the surplus waters were led by a canal into the Birket Kerun. The two names given in Egypt to this admirable work of Amenemhe III. deserve to be recorded. Of one, Meri, that is 'the Lake,' par excellence, the Greeks have made Moeris, a name erroneously applied by them to a king; whilst the other, P-iom, 'the Sea,' has become, in the mouth of the Arabs, the name of the entire province, Fayum."

M. Mariette, quoted in Lenormant's Manual of Ancient History of the East, book 3, chapter 2.

MŒSIA, MÆSIA.

"After the Danube had received the waters of the Teyss [Theiss] and the Save, it acquired, at least among the Greeks, the name of Ister. It formerly divided Mœsia and Dacia, the latter of which, as we have already seen, was a conquest of Trajan, and the only province beyond the river. … On the right hand of the Danube, Mœsia, … during the middle ages, was broken into the barbarian kingdoms of Servia and Bulgaria."

MŒSO-GOTHIC.

MOGONTIACUM.

"The two headquarters of the [Roman] army of the Rhine were always Vetera, near Wesel, and Mogontiacum, the modern Mentz. … Mogontiacum or Mentz, [was] from the time of Drusus down to the end of Rome the stronghold out of which the Romans sallied to attack Germany from Gaul, as it is at the present day the true barrier of Germany against France. Here the Romans, even after they had abandoned their rule in the region of the upper Rhine generally, retained not merely the tête-de-pont on the other bank, the 'castellum Mogontiacense' (Castel), but also that plain of the Main itself, in their possession; and in this region a Roman civilisation might establish itself. The land originally belonged to the Chatti, and a Chattan tribe, the Mattiaci, remained settled here even under Roman rule."

MOGUL EMPIRE. THE GREAT MOGUL.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY,
      HORIKANS, and STOCKBRIDGE INDIANS;
      also, NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1637.

"This nocturnal fraternity met in the days of Queen Anne: [1707] but it had been for many previous years the favourite amusement of dissolute young men to form themselves into Clubs and Associations for committing all sorts of excesses in the public streets, and alike attacking orderly pedestrians, and even defenceless women. These Clubs took various slang designations. At the Restoration they were 'Mums,' and 'Tityre-tus.' They were succeeded by the 'Hectors' and 'Scourers,' when, says Shadwell, 'a man could not go from the Rose Tavern to the Piazza once, but he must venture his life twice.' Then came the 'Nickers,' whose delight it was to smash windows with showers of halfpence; next were the 'Hawkabites'; and lastly the 'Mohocks.' These last are described in the 'Spectator,' No. 324, as a set of men who have borrowed their name from a sort of cannibals, in India, who subsist by plundering and devouring all the nations about them. … Their avowed design was mischief, and upon this foundation all their rules and orders were framed. They took care to drink themselves to a pitch beyond reason or humanity, and then made a general sally, and attacked all who were in the streets. Some were knocked down, others stabbed, and others cut and carbonadoed. … They had special barbarities which they executed upon their prisoners. 'Tipping the lion' was squeezing the nose flat to the face and boring out the eyes with their fingers. 'Dancing-masters' were those who taught their scholars to cut capers by running swords through their legs. The 'Tumblers' set women on their heads. The 'Sweaters' worked in parties of half-a-dozen, surrounding their victims with the points of their swords. … Another savage diversion of the Mohocks was their thrusting women into barrels, and rolling them down Snow or Ludgate Hill. … At length the villanies of the Mohocks were attempted to be put down by a Royal proclamation, issued on the 18th of March, 1712: this, however, had very little effect, for we soon find Swift exclaiming: 'They go on still and cut people's faces every night!' … The Mohocks held together until nearly the end of the reign of George I." [1727]

MOLDAVIA. MOLDO-WALLACHIA.

MOLTKE'S CAMPAIGNS.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1831-1840;
      GERMANY: A. D. 1866;
      FRANCE: A. D. 1870, and 1870-1871.

MONA.

The ancient name of the island of Anglesea. It was the final seat of the Druidical religion in Britain. Taken by the Romans under Suetonius, A. D. 61, the priests were slain, the sacred groves destroyed and Druidism practically exterminated.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: POWHATAN CONFEDERACY, and IROQUOIS TRIBES OF THE SOUTH.

MONAPIA.

"The name of Monapia first occurs in Pliny, and must be unquestionably identified with the Isle of Man; though the name of the latter would dispose us at first to consider it as representing Mona. But the Mona of the Romans, which was attacked by Suetonius Paulinus and Agricola, was certainly Anglesea."

E. H. Bunbury, History of Ancient Geography., chapter 24, section 2, foot-note.

MONASTERY. MONASTICISM. CONVENT. ABBEY. PRIORY.

"Monasticism was not the product of Christianity; it was the inheritance of the Church, not its invention; not the offspring, but the adopted child. The old antagonism between mind and matter, flesh and spirit, self and the world has asserted itself in all ages, especially among the nations of the East. The Essenes, the Therapeutæ, and other Oriental mystics, were as truly the precursors of Christian asceticism in the desert or in the cloister, as Elijah and St. John the Baptist. The Neoplatonism of Alexandria, extolling the passionless man above him who regulates his passions, sanctioned and systematized this craving after a life of utter abstraction from external things, this abhorrence of all contact with what is material as a defilement. Doubtless the cherished remembrance of the martyrs and confessors, who in the preceding centuries of the Christian era had triumphed over many a sanguinary persecution, gave a fresh impulse in the fourth century to this propensity to asceticism, stimulating the devout to vie with their forefathers in the faith by their voluntary endurance of self-inflicted austerities. … The terms monastery, originally the cell or eave of a solitary, laura, an irregular cluster of cells, and cœnobium, an association of monks, few or many, under one roof and under one control, mark the three earliest stages in the development of monasticism. {2196} In Syria and Palestine each monk originally had a separate cell; in Lower Egypt two were together in one cell, whence the term 'syncellita,' or sharer of the cell, came to express this sort of comradeship; in the Thebaid, under Pachomius of Tabenna, each cell contained three monks. At a later period the monks arrogated to themselves by general consent the title of 'the religious,' and admission into a monastery was termed 'conversion' to God. … The history of monasticism, like the history of states and institutions in general, divides itself broadly into three great periods, of growth, of glory, and of decay. … From the beginning of the fourth century to the close of the fifth, from Antony the hermit to Benedict of Monte Casino, is the age of undisciplined impulse of enthusiasm not as yet regulated by experience. … Everything is on a scale of illogical exaggeration, is wanting in balance, in proportion, in symmetry. Because purity, unworldliness, charity, are virtues, therefore a woman is to be regarded as a venomous reptile, gold as a worthless pebble; the deadliest foe and the dearest friend are to be esteemed just alike. Because it is right to be humble, therefore the monk cuts off hand, ear, or tongue, to avoid being made bishop, and feigns idiocy, in order not to be accounted wise. Because it is well to teach people to be patient, therefore a sick monk never speaks a kind word for years to the brother monk who nursed him. Because it is right to keep the lips from idle words, therefore a monk holds a large stone in his mouth for three years. Every precept is to be taken literally, and obeyed unreasoningly. Therefore monks who have been plundered by a robber run after him to give him a something which has escaped his notice. Self-denial is enjoined in the gospel. Therefore the austerities of asceticism are to be simply endless. One ascetic makes his dwelling in a hollow tree, another in a cave, another in a tomb, another on the top of a pillar, another has so lost the very appearance of a man, that he is shot at by shepherds, who mistake him for a wolf. The natural instincts, instead of being trained and cultivated, are to be killed outright, in this abhorrence of things material. … The period which follows, from the first Benedict to Charlemagne, exhibits monasticism in a more mature stage of activity. The social intercourse of the monastery, duly harmonized by a traditional routine, with its subordination of rank and offices, its division of duties, its mutual dependence of all on each other, and on their head, civilized the monastic life; and, as the monk himself became subject to the refining influences of civilization, he went forth into the world to civilize others. … Had it not been for monks and monasteries, the barbarian deluge might have swept away utterly the traces of Roman civilization. The Benedictine monk was the pioneer of civilization and Christianity in England, Germany, Poland, Bohemia, Sweden, Denmark. The schools attached to the Lerinensian monasteries were the precursors of the Benedictine seminaries in France and of the professional chairs filled by learned Benedictines in the universities of mediæval Christendom. With the incessant din of arms around him, it was the monk in his cloister, even in regions beyond the immediate sphere of Benedict's legislation, even in the remote fastnesses, for instance of Mount Athos, who, by preserving and transcribing ancient manuscripts, both Christian and pagan, as well as by recording his observations of contemporaneous events, was handing down the torch of knowledge unquenched to future generations, and hoarding up stores of erudition for the researches of a more enlightened age. The first musicians, painters, farmers, statesmen, in Europe, after the downfall of Imperial Rome under the onslaught of the barbarians, were monks."

"The monastic stream, which had been born in the deserts of Egypt, divided itself into two great arms. The one spread in the East, at first inundated everything, then concentrated and lost itself there. The other escaped into the West, and spread itself by a thousand channels over an entire world which had to be covered and fertilised." Athanasius, who was driven twice by persecution to take refuge among the hermits in the Thebaid, Egypt, and who was three times exiled by an imperial order to the West, "became thus the natural link between the Fathers of the desert and those vast regions which their successors were to conquer and transform. … It was in 340 that he came for the first time to Rome, in order to escape the violence of the Arians, and invoke the protection of Pope Julius. … He spread in Rome the first report of the life led by the monks in the Thebaid, of the marvellous exploits of Anthony, who was still alive, of the immense foundations which Pacome was at that time forming upon the banks of the higher Nile. He had brought with him two of the most austere of these monks. … The narratives of Athanasius … roused the hearts and imaginations of the Romans, and especially of the Roman women. The name of monk, to which popular prejudice seems already to have attached a kind of ignominy, became immediately an honoured and envied title. The impression produced at first by the exhortations of the illustrious exile, was extended and strengthened during the two other visits which he made to the Eternal City. Some time afterwards, on the death of St. Anthony, Athanasius, at the request of his disciples, wrote the life of the patriarch of the Thebaid; and this biography, circulating through all the West, immediately acquired there the popularity of a legend, and the authority of a confession of faith. … Under this narrative form, says St. Gregory of Nazianzus, he promulgated the laws of monastic life. The town and environs of Rome were soon full of monasteries, rapidly occupied by men distinguished alike by birth, fortune and knowledge, who lived there in charity, sanctity, and freedom. From Rome the new institution, already distinguished by the name of religion, or religious life, par excellence, extended itself over all Italy. It was planted at the foot of the Alps by the influence of a great bishop, Eusebius of Vercelli. … From the continent the new institution rapidly gained the isles of the Mediterranean, and even the rugged rocks of the Gargon and of Capraja, where the monks, voluntarily exiled from the world, went to take the place of the criminals and political victims whom the emperors had been accustomed to banish thither. … Most of the great leaders of the cenobitical institution had, since St. Pacome, made out, under the name of Rule, instructions and constitutions for the use of their immediate disciples; but none of these works had acquired an extensive or lasting sway. In the East, it is true, the rule of St. Basil had prevailed in a multitude of monasteries, yet notwithstanding Cassianus, in visiting Egypt, Palestine, and Mesopotamia, found there almost as many different rules as there were monasteries. {2197} In the West the diversity was still more strange. Each man made for himself his own rule and discipline, taking his authority from the writings or example of the Eastern Fathers. The Gauls especially exclaimed against the extreme rigour of the fasts and abstinences, which might be suitable under a fervid sky like that of Egypt or Syria, but which could not be endured by what they already called Gallican weakness; and even in the initial fervour of the monasteries of the Jura, they had succeeded in imposing a necessary medium upon their chiefs. Here it was the changing will of an abbot; there a written rule; elsewhere, the traditions of the elders, which determined the order of conventual life. In some houses various rules were practised at the same time, according to the inclination of the inhabitants of each cell, and were changed according to the times and places. They passed thus from excessive austerity to laxness, and conversely, according to the liking of each. Uncertainty and instability were everywhere. … A general arrangement was precisely what was most wanting in monastic life. There were an immense number of monks; there had been among them saints and illustrious men; but to speak truly, the monastic order had still no existence. Even where the rule of St. Basil had acquired the necessary degree of establishment and authority—that is to say, in a considerable portion of the East—the gift of fertility was denied to it. … In the West also, towards the end of the fifth century, the cenobitical institution seemed to have fallen into the torpor and sterility of the East. After St. Jerome, who died in 420, and St. Augustine, who died in 430, after the Fathers of Lerins, whose splendour paled towards 450, there was a kind of eclipse. … Except in Ireland and Gaul, where, in most of the provinces, some new foundations rose, a general interruption was observable in the extension of the institution. … If this eclipse had lasted, the history of the monks of the West would only have been, like that of the Eastern monks, a sublime but brief passage in the annals of the Church, instead of being their longest and best-filled page. This was not to be: but to keep the promises which the monastic order had made to the Church and to the new-born Christendom, it needed, at the beginning of the sixth century, a new and energetic impulse, such as would concentrate and discipline so many scattered, irregular, and intermittent forces; a uniform and universally accepted rule; a legislator inspired by the fertile and glorious past, to establish and govern the future. God provided for that necessity by sending St. Benedict into the world."

Count de Montalembert, The Monks of the West, volume 1, pages 381-387 and 512-515.

"The very word monastery is a misnomer: the word is a Greek word, and means the dwelling-place of a solitary person, living in seclusion. … In the 13th century … a monastery meant what we now understand it to mean—viz., the abode of a society of men or women who lived together in common—who were supposed to partake of common meals; to sleep together in one common dormitory; to attend certain services together in their common church; to transact certain business or pursue certain employments in the sight and hearing of each other in the common cloister; and, when the end came, to be laid side by side in the common graveyard, where in theory none but members of the order could find a resting-place for their bones. When I say 'societies of men and women' I am again reminded that the other term, 'convent,' has somehow got to be used commonly in a mistaken sense. People use the word as if it signified a religious house tenanted exclusively by women. The truth is that a convent is nothing more than a Latin name for an association of persons who have come together with a view to live for a common object and to submit to certain rules in the ordering of their daily lives. The monastery was the common dwelling-place; the convent was the society of persons inhabiting it; and the ordinary formula used when a body of monks or nuns execute any corporate act—such as buying or selling land—by any legal instrument is, 'The Prior and Convent of the Monastery of the Holy Trinity at Norwich;' 'the Abbot and Convent of the Monastery of St. Peter's, Westminster;' 'the Abbess and Convent of the Monastery of St. Mary and St. Bernard at Lacock,' and so on. … A monastery in theory then was, as it was called, a Religious House. It was supposed to be the home of people whose lives were passed in the worship of God, and in taking care of their own souls, and making themselves fit for a better world than this hereafter. … The church of a monastery was the heart of the place. It was not that the church was built for the monastery, but the monastery existed for the church. … Almost as essential to the idea of a monastery as the church was the cloister or great quadrangle, inclosed on all sides by the high walls of the monastic buildings. … All round this quadrangle ran a covered arcade, whose roof, leaning against the high walls, was supported on the inner side by an open trellis work in stone—often exhibiting great beauty of design and workmanship—through which light and air was admitted into the arcade. … The cloister was really the living place of the monks. Here they pursued their daily avocations, here they taught their school. … 'But surely a monk always lived in a cell, didn't he?' The sooner we get rid of that delusion the better. Be it understood that until Henry II. founded the Carthusian Abbey of Witham, in 1178, there was no such thing known in England as a monk's cell, as we understand the term. It was a peculiarity of the Carthusian order, and when it was first introduced it was regarded as a startling novelty for any privacy or anything approaching solitude to be tolerated in a monastery. The Carthusian system never found much favour in England. … At the time of the Norman Conquest it may be said that all English monks were professedly under one and the same Rule—the famous Benedictine Rule. The Rule of a monastery was the constitution or code of laws, which regulated the discipline of the house, and the Rule of St. Benedict dates back as far as the 6th century, though it was not introduced into England for more than 100 years after it had been adopted elsewhere. … About 150 years before the Conquest, a great reformation had been attempted of the French monasteries, … the reformers breaking away from the old Benedictines and subjecting themselves to a new and improved Rule. {2198} These first reformers were called Cluniac monks, from the great Abbey of Clugni, in Burgundy, in which the new order of things had begun. The first English house of reformed or Cluniac monks was founded at Lewes, in Sussex, 11 years after the Conquest. … The constitution of every convent, great or small, was monarchical. The head of the house was almost an absolute sovereign, and was called the Abbot. His dominions often extended, even in England, over a very wide tract of country, and sometimes over several minor monasteries which were called Cells. … The heads of these cells or subject houses were called Priors. An Abbey was a monastery which was independent. A priory was a monastery which in theory or in fact was subject to an abbey. All the Cluniac monasteries in England were thus said to be alien priories, because they were mere cells of the great Abbey of Clugni in France, to which each priory paid heavy tribute."

      See, also,
      CŒNOBIUM;
      LAURAS;
      MENDICANT ORDERS;
      BENEDICTINE;
      CISTERCIAN;
      CARMELITE,
      and AUSTIN CANONS.

MONASTIC LIBRARIES.

MONASTIC ORDERS.

   See AUSTIN CANONS;
   BENEDICTINE ORDERS;
   CAPUCHINS;
   CARMELITE FRIARS;
   CARTHUSIAN;
   CISTERCIAN;
   CLAIRVAUX;
   CLUGNY;
   MENDICANT ORDERS;
   RECOLLECTS;
   SERVITES;
   THEATINES;
   TRAPPISTS.

"When the division of labour has been once thoroughly established, it is but a very small part of a man's wants which the produce of his own labour can supply. He supplies the far greater part of them by exchanging that surplus part of the produce of his own labour, which is over and above his own consumption, for such parts of the produce of other men's labour us he has occasion for. Every man thus lives by exchanging, or becomes in some measure a merchant, and the society itself grows to be what is properly a commercial society. But when the division of labour first began to take place, this power of exchanging must frequently have been very much clogged and embarrassed in its operations. One man, we shall suppose, has more of a certain commodity than he himself has occasion for, while another has less. The former consequently would be glad to dispose of, and the latter to purchase, a part of this superfluity. But if this latter should chance to have nothing that the former stands in need of, no exchange can be made between them. The butcher has more meat in his shop than he himself can consume, and the brewer and the baker would each of them be willing to purchase a part of it. But they have nothing to offer in exchange, except the different productions of their respective trades, and the butcher is already provided with all the bread and beer which he has immediate occasion for. No exchange can, in this case, be made between them. … In order to avoid the inconveniency of such situations, every prudent man in every period of society, after the first establishment of the division of labour, must naturally have endeavoured to manage his affairs in such a manner, as to have at all times by him, besides the peculiar produce of his own industry, a certain quantity of some one commodity or other, such as he imagined few people would be likely to refuse in exchange for the produce of their industry. Many different commodities, it is probable, were successively both thought of and employed for this purpose. In the rude ages of society, cattle are said to have been the common instrument of commerce; and, though they must have been a most inconvenient one, yet in old times we find things were frequently valued according to the number of cattle which had been given in exchange for them. The armour of Diomede, says Homer, cost only nine oxen; but that of Glaucus cost an hundred oxen. Salt is said to be the common instrument of commerce and exchange in Abyssinia; a species of shells in some parts of the coasts of India; dried cod at Newfoundland; tobacco in Virginia; sugar in some of our West India colonies; hides or dressed leather in some other countries; and there is at this day [1775] a village in Scotland where it is not uncommon, I am told, for a workman to carry nails instead of money to the baker's shop or the alehouse. In all countries, however, men seem at last to have been determined by irresistible reasons to give the preference, for this employment, to metals above every other commodity."

   "There is … no machine which has saved as much labor as
   money. … The invention of money has been rightly compared to
   the invention of writing with letters. We may, however, call
   the introduction of money as the universal medium of exchange
   … one of the greatest and most beneficent of advances ever
   made by the race. … Very different kinds of commodities
   have, according to circumstances, been used as money; but
   uniformly only such as possess a universally recognized
   economic value. On the whole, people in a low stage of
   civilization are wont to employ, mainly, only ordinary
   commodities, such as are calculated to satisfy a vulgar and
   urgent want, as an instrument of exchange. As they advance in
   civilization, they, at each step, choose a more and more
   costly object, for this purpose, and one which ministers to
   the more elevated wants. Races of hunters, at least in
   non-tropical countries, usually use skins as money; that is
   the almost exclusive product of their labor, one which can be
   preserved for a long period of time, which constitutes their
   principal article of clothing and their principal export in
   the more highly developed regions. Nomadic races and the lower
   agricultural races, pass, by a natural gradation, to the use of
   cattle as money; which supposes rich pasturages at the
   disposal of all.
{2199}
   If it were otherwise, there would be a great many to whom
   payments of this kind had been made, who would not know what
   to do with the cattle given them, on account of the charges
   for their maintenance. … That metals were used for the
   purpose of money much later than the commodities above
   mentioned, and the precious metals in turn later than the
   non-precious metals, cannot by any means be shown to be
   universally true. Rather is gold in some countries to be
   obtained by the exercise of so little skill, and both gold and
   silver satisfy a want so live and general, and one so early
   felt, that they are to be met with as an instrument of
   exchange in very early times. In the case of isolated races,
   much depends on the nature of the metals with which the
   geologic constitution of the country has furnished them. In
   general, however, the above law is found to prevail here. The
   higher the development of a people becomes, the more frequent
   is the occurrence of large payments; and to effect these, the
   more costly a metal is, the better, of course, it is adapted
   to effect such payments. Besides, only rich nations are able
   to possess the costly metals in a quantity absolutely great.
   Among the Jews, gold as money dates only from the time of
   David. King Pheidon, of Argos, it is said, introduced silver
   money into Greece, about the middle of the eighth century
   before Christ. Gold came into use at a much later period. The
   Romans struck silver money, for the first time, in 209 before
   Christ, and, in 207, the first gold coins. Among modern
   nations, Venice (1285) and Florence seem to have been the
   first to have coined gold in any quantity."

      W. Roscher,
      Principles of Political Economy,
      book 2, chapter 3, sections 117-119 (volume 1).

"Money seems to us now so obvious a convenience, and so much a necessity of commerce, that it appears almost inconceivable that a people who created the Sphinx and the Pyramids, the temples of Ipsamboul and Karnac, should have been entirely ignorant of coins. Yet it appears from the statements of Herodotus, and the evidence of the monuments themselves, that this was really the case. As regards the commercial and banking systems of ancient Egypt, we are almost entirely without information. Their standard of value seems to have been the 'outen' or 'ten' of copper (94-96 grammes), which circulated like the æs rude of the Romans by weight, and in the form of bricks, being measured by the balance. It was obtained from the mines of Mount Sinai, which were worked as early as the fourth dynasty. Gold and silver appear to have been also used, though less frequently. Like copper, they were sometimes in the form of bricks, but generally in rings, resembling the ring money of the ancient Celts, which is said to have been employed in Ireland down to the 12th century, and still holds its own in the interior of Africa. This approximated very nearly to the possession of money, but it wanted what the Roman lawyers called 'the law' and 'the form.' Neither the weight nor the pureness was guaranteed by any public authority. Such a state of things seems to us very inconvenient, but after all It is not very different from that which prevails in China even at the present day. The first money struck in Egypt, and that for the use rather of the Greek and Phœnician merchants than of the natives, was by the Satrap Aryandes. In ancient Babylonia and Assyria, as in Egypt, the precious metals, and especially silver, circulated as uncoined ingots. They were readily taken indeed, but taken by weight and verified by the balance like any other merchandise. The excavations in Assyria and Babylon, which have thrown so much light upon ancient history, have afforded us some interesting information as to the commercial arrangements of these countries, and we now possess a considerable number of receipts, contracts, and other records relating to loans of silver on personal securities at fixed rates of interest; loans on landed or house property; sales of land, in one case with a plan; sales of slaves, &c. These were engraved on tablets of clay, which were then burnt. M. Lenormant divides these most interesting documents into five principal types:

1. Simple obligations. 2. Obligations with a penal clause in case of non-fulfilment. One he gives which had 79 days to run. 3. Obligations with the guarantee of a third party. 4. Obligations payable to a third person. 5. Drafts drawn upon one place, payable in another. …

These Assyrian drafts were negotiable, but from the nature of things could not pass by endorsement, because, when the clay was once baked, nothing new could be added, and under these circumstances the name of the payee was frequently omitted. It seems to follow that they must have been regularly advised. It is certainly remarkable that such instruments, and especially letters of credit, should have preceded the use of coins. The earliest banking firm of which we have any account is said to be that of Egibi and Company, for our knowledge of whom we are indebted to Mr. Boscawen, Mr. Pinches, and Mr. Hilton Price. Several documents and records belonging to this family are in the British Museum. They are on clay tablets, and were discovered in an earthenware jar found in the neighbourhood of Hillah, a few miles from Babylon. The house is said to have acted as a sort of national bank of Babylon: the founder of the house, Egibi, probably lived in the reign of Sennacherib, about 700 B. C. This family has been traced during a century and a half, and through five generations, down to the reign of Darius. At the same time, the tablets hitherto translated scarcely seem to me to prove that the firm acted as bankers, in our sense of the word."

"We have an enormous number of the documents of this firm, beginning with Nebuchadnezzar the Great, and going on for some five generations or so to the time of Darius. The tablets are dated month after month and year after year, and thus they afford us a sure method of fixing the chronology of that very uncertain period of history. There is a small contract tablet in the Museum at Zürich, discovered by Dr. Oppert, dated in the 5th year of Pacorus, king of Persia, who reigned about the time of Domitian. There is a little doubt about the reading of one of the characters in the name, but if it is correct, it will prove that the use of cuneiform did not fall into disuse until after the Christian Era. … Some have tried to show that Egibi is the Babylonian form of Jacob, which would lead one to suspect the family to have been Jews; but this is not certain at present."

"It is in the development of trade, and especially of banking, rather than in manufactures, that Babylonia and Chaldæa were in advance of all the rest of the world. The most cautious Assyriologists are the least confident in their renderings of the numerous contract tablets from which, if they were accurately interpreted, we should certainly be able to reconstruct the laws and usages of the world's first great market place. … The following account of Babylonian usages is derived from the text of M. Revillout's work. … It is confirmed in essentials by the later work of Meissner, who has translated over one hundred deeds of the age of Hammurabi and his successors. In Chaldæa every kind of commodity, from land to money, circulated with a freedom that is unknown to modern commerce; every value was negotiable, and there was no limit to the number and variety of the agreements that might be entered into. … Brick tablets did not lend themselves readily to 'bookkeeping,' as no further entry could be made after baking, while the first entry was not secure unless baked at once. Each brick recorded one transaction, and was kept by the party interested till the contract was completed, and the destruction of the tablet was equivalent to a receipt. Babylonian law allowed debts to be paid by assigning another person's debt to the creditor; a debt was property, and could be assigned without reference to the debtor, so that any formal acknowledgment of indebtedness could be treated like a negotiable bill—a fact which speaks volumes for the commercial honesty of the people. A separate tablet was, of course, required to record the original debt, or rather to say that So-and-so's debt to Such-an-one has been by him sold to a third party. Such third party could again either assign his claim to a bank for a consideration, or if the last debtor had a credit at the bank, the creditor could be paid out of that, a sort of forecast of the modern clearing-house system. The debtor who pays before the term agreed on has to receive a formal surrender of the creditor's claim, or a transfer of it to himself. The Babylonian regarded money and credit as synonymous, and the phrase, 'Money of Such-an-one upon So-and-so,' is used as equivalent to A's credit with B. … In ancient Babylonia, as in modern China, the normal effect of a loan was supposed to be beneficial to the borrower. In Egypt, judging from the form of the deeds, the idea was that the creditor asserted a claim upon the debtor, or the debtor acknowledged a liability to the man from whom he had borrowed. In Babylonia the personal question is scarcely considered; one person owes money to another—that is the commonest thing in the world—such loans are in a chronic state of being incurred and paid off; one man's debt is another man's credit, and credit being the soul of commerce, the loan is considered rather as a part of the floating negotiable capital of the country than as a burden on the shoulders of one particular debtor."

   "Not only did the Chinese possess coins at a very early
   period, but they were also the inventors of bank notes. Some
   writers regard bank notes as having originated about 119 B.
   C., in the reign of the Emperor Ou-ti. At this time the Court
   was in want of money, and to raise it Klaproth tells us that
   the prime minister hit upon the following device. When any
   princess or courtiers entered the imperial presence, it was
   customary to cover the face with a piece of skin. It was first
   decreed then, that for this purpose the skin of certain white
   deer kept in one of the royal parks should alone be permitted,
   and then these pieces of skin were sold for a high price. But
   although they appear to have passed from one noble to another,
   they do not seem ever to have entered into general
   circulation. It was therefore very different from the Russian
   skin money. In this case the notes were 'used instead of the
   skins from which they were cut, the skins themselves being too
   bulky and heavy to be constantly carried backward and forward.
   Only a little piece was cut off to figure as a token of
   possession of the whole skin. The ownership was proved when
   the piece fitted in the hole.' True bank notes are said to
   have been invented about 800 A. D., in the reign of
   Hiantsoung, of the dynasty of Thang, and were called
   'feytsien,' or flying money. It is curious, however, though
   not surprising, to find that the temptation to over-issue led
   to the same results in China as in the West. The value of the
   notes fell, until at length it took 11,000 min, or £3,000, to
   buy a cake of rice, and the use of notes appears to have been
   abandoned. Subsequently the issue was revived, and Tchang-yang
   (960-990 A. D.) seems to have been the first private person
   who issued notes. Somewhat later, under the Emperor
   'Tching-tsong (997-1022), this invention was largely extended.
   Sixteen of the richest firms united to form a bank of issue
   which emitted paper money in series, some payable every three
   years. The earliest mention, in European literature, of paper,
   or rather cotton, money appears to be by Rubruquis, a monk,
   who was sent by St. Louis, in the year 1252, to the Court of
   the Mongol Prince Mangu-Khan, but he merely mentions the fact
   of its existence. Marco Polo, who resided from 1275 to 1284 at
   the court of Kublai-Khan, … gives us a longer and
   interesting account of the note system, which he greatly
   admired, and he concludes by saying, 'Now you have heard the
   ways and means whereby the great Khan may have, and, in fact,
   has, more treasure than all the kings in the world. You know
   all about it, and the reason why.' But this apparent facility
   of creating money led, in the East, as it has elsewhere, to
   great abuses. Sir John Mandeville, who was in Tartary shortly
   afterwards, in 1322, tells us that the 'Emperour may dispenden
   als moehe as he wile with outen estymacioum. For he despendeth
   not, ne maketh no money, but of lether emprented, or of
   papyre. … For there and beyonde hem thei make no money,
   nouther of gold nor of sylver. And therefore he may despende
   ynow and outrageously.' The great Khan seems to have been
   himself of the same opinion. He appears to have 'despent
   outrageously,' and the value of the paper money again fell to
   a very small fraction of its nominal amount, causing great
   discontent and misery, until about the middle of the sixteenth
   century, under the Mandchu dynasty, it was abolished, and
   appears to have been so completely forgotten, that the Jesuit
   father, Gabriel de Magaillans, who resided at Pekin about
   1668, observes that there is no recollection of paper money
   having ever existed in the manner described by Marco Polo;
   though two centuries later it was again in use. It must be
   observed, however, that these Chinese bank notes differed from
   ours in one essential—namely, they were not payable at sight.
{2201}
   Western notes, even when not payable at all, have generally
   purported to be exchangeable at the will of the holder, but
   this principle the Chinese did not adopt, and their notes were
   only payable at certain specified periods."

      Sir J. Lubbock,
      The History of Money
      (Nineteenth Century, November, 1879).

"Many centuries before the invention of the art of coining, gold and silver in the East, and bronze in the West, in bullion form, had already supplanted barter, the most primitive of all methods of buying and selling, when among pastoral peoples the ox and the sheep were the ordinary mediums of exchange. The very word 'pecunia' is an evidence of this practice in Italy at a period which is probably recent in comparison with the time when values were estimated in cattle in Greece and the East. 'So far as we have any knowledge,' says Herodotus, 'the Lydians were the first nation to introduce the use of gold and silver coin.' This statement of the father of history must not, however, be accepted as finally settling the vexed question as to who were the inventors of coined money, for Strabo, Aelian, and the Parian Chronicle, all agree in adopting the more commonly received tradition, that Pheidon, King of Argos, first struck silver coins in the island of Aegina. These two apparently contradictory assertions modern research tends to reconcile with one another. The one embodies the Asiatic, the other the European tradition; and the truth of the matter is that gold was first coined by the Lydians in Asia Minor, in the seventh century before our era; and that silver was first struck in European Greece about the same time. The earliest coins are simply bullets of metal, oval or bean-shaped, bearing on one side the signet of the state or of the community responsible for the purity of the metal and the exactness of the weight. Coins were at first stamped on one side only, the reverse showing merely the impress of the square-headed spike or anvil on which, after being weighed, the bullet of hot metal was placed with a pair of tongs and there held while a second workman adjusted upon it the engraved die. This done, a third man with a heavy hammer would come down upon it with all his might, and the coin would be produced, bearing on its face or obverse the seal of the issuer, and on the reverse only the mark of the anvil spike, an incuse square. This simple process was after a time improved upon by adding a second engraved die beneath the metal bullet, so that a single blow of the sledge-hammer would provide the coin with a type, as it is called, in relief on both sides. The presence of the unengraved incuse square may therefore be accepted as an indication of high antiquity, and nearly all Greek coins which are later than the age of the Persian wars bear a type on both sides. … Greek coin-types may be divided into two distinct classes:

(a) Mythological or religious representations, and (b) portraits of historical persons.

From the earliest times down to the age of Alexander the Great the types of Greek coins are almost exclusively religious. However strange this may seem at first, it is not difficult to explain. It must be borne in mind that when the enterprising and commercial Lydians first lighted upon the happy idea of stamping metal for general circulation, a guarantee of just weight and purity of metal would be the one condition required. … What more binding guarantee could be found than the invocation of one or other of those divinities most honoured and most dreaded in the district in which the coin was intended to circulate. There is even good reason to think that the earliest coins were actually struck within the precincts of the temples, and under the direct auspices of the priests; for in times of general insecurity by sea and land, the temples alone remained sacred and inviolate."

      B. V. Head,
      Greek Coins
      Coins and Medals, edited by S. Lane-Poole, chapter 2.

   "The banker's calling is both new and old. As a distinct
   branch of commerce, and a separate agent in the advancement of
   civilisation, its history hardly extends over 300 years; but,
   in a rude and undeveloped sort of way, it has existed during
   some dozens of centuries. It began almost with the beginning
   of society. No sooner had men learnt to adopt a portable and
   artificial equivalent for their commodities, and thus to buy
   and sell and get gain more easily, than the more careful of
   them began to gather up their money in little heaps, or in
   great heaps, if they were fortunate enough. These heaps were,
   by the Romans, called montes—mounds, or banks,—and
   henceforth every money-maker was a primitive banker. The
   prudent farmers and shopkeepers in the out-of-the-way
   villages, who now lock up their savings in strong boxes, or
   conceal them in places where they are least likely to be found
   by thieves, show us how the richest and most enterprising men
   of far-off times, whether in Anglo-Saxon or mediæval Britain,
   ancient Greece and Rome, China or Judæa, made banks for
   themselves before the great advantages of joint-stock heaping
   up of money were discovered. When and in what precise way that
   discovery was made antiquarians have yet to decide. …
   Perhaps Jews and Greeks set the example to the modern world.
   Every rich Athenian had his treasurer or money-keeper, and
   whenever any particular treasurer proved himself a good
   accountant and safe banker, it is easy to understand how, from
   having one master, he came to have several, until he was able
   to change his condition of slavery for the humble rank of a
   freedman, and then to use his freedom to such good purpose
   that he became an influential member of the community. Having
   many people's money, entrusted to his care, he received good
   payment for his responsible duty, and he quickly learned to
   increase his wealth by lending out his own savings, if not his
   employers' capital, at the highest rate of interest that he
   could obtain. The Greek bankers were chiefly famous as
   money-lenders, and interest at thirty-six per cent. per annum
   was not considered unusually exorbitant among them. For their
   charges they were often blamed by spendthrifts, satirists, and
   others. 'It is said,' complains Plutarch, 'that hares bring
   forth and nourish their young at the same time that they
   conceive again; but the debts of these scoundrels and savages
   bring forth before they conceive, for they give and
   immediately demand again; they take away their money at the
   same time as they put it out; they place at interest what they
   receive as interest. The Messenians have a proverb: "There is
   a Pylos before Pylos, and yet another Pylos still."
{2202}
   So of the usurers it may be said, "There is a profit before
   profit, and yet another profit still;" and then, forsooth,
   they laugh at philosophers, who say that nothing can come out
   of nothing!' The Greek bankers and money-lenders, those of
   Delos and Delphi especially, are reported to have used the
   temples as treasure-houses, and to have taken the priests into
   partnership in their money-making. Some arrangement of that
   sort seems to have existed among the Jews, and to have aroused
   the anger of Jesus when he went into the Temple of Jerusalem,
   'and overthrew the tables of the money-changers, and said unto
   them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of
   prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.' Bankers' or
   money-changers' tables were famous institutions all over the
   civilised world of the ancients. Livy tells how, in 308 B. C.,
   if not before, they were to be found in the Roman Forum, and
   later Latin authors make frequent allusions to banking
   transactions of all sorts. They talk of deposits and
   securities, bills of exchange and drafts to order, cheques and
   bankers' books, as glibly as a modern merchant. But these
   things were nearly forgotten during the dark ages, until the
   Jews, true to the money-making propensities that characterised
   them while they still had a country of their own, set the
   fashion of money-making and of banking in all the countries of
   Europe through which they were dispersed."

"Oriental contact first stirred the 'auri sacra fames' in the Greek mind. That this was so the Greek language itself tells plainly. For 'chrusos,' gold, is a Semitic loan-word, closely related to the Hebrew 'charuz,' but taken immediately, there can be no reasonable doubt, from the Phœnician. The restless treasure-seekers from Tyre were, indeed, as the Græco-Semitic term metal intimates, the original subterranean explorers of the Balkan peninsula. As early, probably, as the 15th century B. C. they 'digged out ribs of gold' on the islands of Thasos and Siphnos, and on the Thracian mainland at Mount Pangæum; and the fables of the Golden Fleece, and of Arimaspian wars with gold-guarding griffins, prove the hold won by the 'precious bane' over the popular imagination. Asia Minor was, however, the chief source of prehistoric supply, the native mines lying long neglected after the Phœnicians had been driven from the scene. Midas was a typical king in a land where the mountains were gold-granulated, and the rivers ran over sands of gold. And it was in fact from Phrygia that Pelops was traditionally reported to have brought the treasures which made Mycenæ the golden city of the Achæan world. The Epic affluence in gold was not wholly fictitious. From the sepulchres of Mycenæ alone about one hundred pounds Troy weight of the metal have been disinterred; freely at command even in the lowest stratum of the successive habitations at Hissarlik, it was lavishly stored, and highly wrought in the picturesquely-named 'treasure of Priam'; and has been found, in plates and pearls, beneath twenty metres of volcanic debris, in the Cyclatic islands Thera and Therapia. This plentifulness contrasts strangely with the extreme scarcity of gold in historic Greece. It persisted, however, mainly owing to the vicinity of the auriferous Ural Mountains, in the Milesian colony of Panticapæum, near Kertch, where graves have been opened containing corpses shining 'like images' in a complete clothing of gold-leaf, and equipped with ample supplies of golden vessels and ornaments. Silver was, at the outset, a still rarer substance than gold. Not that there is really less of it. … But it occurs less obviously, and is less easy to obtain pure. Accordingly, in some very early Egyptian inscriptions, silver, by heading the list of metals, claims a supremacy over them which proved short-lived. It terminated for ever with the scarcity that had produced it, when the Phœnicians began to pour the flood of Spanish silver into the markets and treasure-chambers of the East. Armenia constituted another tolerably copious source of supply; and it was in this quarter that Homer located the 'birth-place of silver.'"

"Taken as a whole the Greek money is excellent; pure in metal and exact in weight, its real corresponding to its nominal value. Nothing better has been done in this way among the most civilized and best governed nations of modern times. There is, indeed, always a certain recognized limit, which keeps the actual weight of the money slightly below its theoretical weight; and this fact recurs with such regularity that it may be regarded as a rule. We must conclude, therefore, that it was under this form that Greek civilization allowed to the coiner of money the right of seigniorage, or the benefit legitimately due to him to cover the expenses of the coinage, and in exchange for the service rendered by him to the public in providing them with money, by which they were saved the trouble of perpetual weighing. This allowance, however, is always kept within very narrow limits, and is never more than the excess of the natural value of the coined money over that of the metal in ingots. … Of course, the general and predominant fact of the excellence of the Greek money in the time of Hellenic independence is subject, like all human things, to some exceptions. There were a few cities which yielded to the delusive bait of an unlawful advantage, debasing the quality of their coins without foreseeing that the consequences of this unfair operation would react against themselves. But these exceptions are very rare."

      F. Lenormant,
      Money in Ancient Greece and Rome
      (Contemporary Review, February; 1879).

   "The quantity, particularly of gold, … was, in the earlier
   historical periods, according to unexceptionable testimony,
   extremely small. In the time of Crœsus, according to
   Theopompus, gold was not to be found for sale in any of the
   Greek States. The Spartans, needing some for a votive
   offering, wished to purchase a quantity from Crœsus;
   manifestly because he was the nearest person from whom it
   could be obtained. … Even during the period from the
   seventieth to the eightieth Olympiads, (B. C. 500-460,) pure
   gold was a rarity. When Hiero of Syracuse wished to send a
   tripod and a statue of the Goddess of Victory, made of pure
   gold, to the Delphian Apollo, he could not procure the
   requisite quantity of metal until his agents applied to the
   Corinthian Architiles, who, as was related by the
   above-mentioned Theopompus and Phanias of Eresus, had long
   been in the practice of purchasing gold in small quantities,
   and hoarding it. Greece proper itself did not possess many
   mines of precious metals. The most important of the few which
   it possessed were the Attic silver mines of Laurion.
{2203}
   These were at first very productive. … Asia and Africa
   furnished incomparably a larger quantity of the precious
   metals than was procured in Greece and the other European
   countries. … Colchis, Lydia, and Phrygia, were distinguished
   for their abundance of gold. Some derive the tradition of the
   golden fleece from the gold washings in Colchis. Who has not
   heard of the riches of Midas, and Gyges, and Crœsus, the gold
   mines of the mountains Tmolus and Sipylus, the gold-sand of
   the Pactolus? … From the very productive gold mines of
   India, together with its rivers flowing with gold, among which
   in particular the Ganges may be classed, arose the fable of
   the gold-digging ants. From these annual revenues the royal
   treasure was formed. By this a great quantity of precious
   metal was kept from circulation. It was manifestly their
   principle to coin only as much gold and silver as was
   necessary for the purposes of trade, and for the expenditures
   of the State. In Greece, also, great quantities were kept from
   circulation, and accumulated in treasuries. There were locked
   up in the citadel of Athens 9,700 talents of coined silver,
   besides the gold and silver vessels and utensils. The Delphian
   god possessed a great number of the most valuable articles.
   … The magnificent expenditures of Pericles upon public
   edifices and structures, for works of the plastic arts, for
   theatrical exhibitions, and in carrying on wars, distributed
   what Athens had collected, into many hands. The temple-robbing
   Phocians coined from the treasures at Delphi ten thousand
   talents in gold and silver; and this large sum was consumed by
   war. Philip of Macedonia, in fine, carried on his wars as much
   with gold as with arms. Thus a large amount of money came into
   circulation in the period between the commencement of the
   Persian wars and the age of Demosthenes. The precious metals,
   therefore, must of necessity have depreciated in value, as
   they did at a later period, when Constantine the Great caused
   money to be coined from the precious articles found in the
   heathen temples. But what a quantity of gold and silver flowed
   through Alexander's conquest of Asia into the western
   countries! Allowing that his historians exaggerate, the main
   point, however, remains certain. … Alexander's successors
   not only collected immense sums, but by their wars again put
   them into circulation. … The enormous taxes which were
   raised in the Macedonian kingdoms, the revelry and extravagant
   liberality of the kings, which passed all bounds, indicate the
   existence of an immense amount of ready money."

      A. Boeckh,
      The Public Economy of the Athenians,
      book 1, chapter 3.

"Nearly all the silver in common use for trade throughout the East was brought into the market by the Phœnicians. The silver mines were few and distant; the trade was thus a monopoly, worth keeping so by the most savage treatment of suspected rivals, and, as a monopoly, so lucrative that, but for the long and costly voyage between Spain and Syria, the merchant would have seemed to get his profit for nothing. … The use of silver money, though it did not originate with the Phœnicians, was no doubt promoted by their widespread dealings. The coins were always of known weight, and standing in a well-known relation to the bars used for large transactions."

"It is a curious fact that coinage in Phoenicia, one of the most commercial of ancient countries, should have been late in origin, and apparently not very plentiful. There are, in fact, no coins of earlier period than the third century which we can with certainty attribute to the great cities of Tyre and Sidon. Some modern writers, however, consider that many of the coins generally classed under Persia—notably those bearing the types of a chariot, a galley, and an owl respectively— were issued by those cities in the 5th and 4th centuries B. C. But it is certain, in any case, that the Phoenicians were far behind the Greeks in the art of moneying. With the invasion of Persia by Alexander the Great came a great change; and all the ancient landmarks of Asiatic government and order were swept away. During the life of Alexander the Great the coins bearing his name and his types circulated throughout Asia; and after his death the same range of currency was attained by the money of the early Seleucid Kings of Syria—Seleucis I., Antiochus I., and Antiochus II., who virtually succeeded to the dominions of the Persian Kings, and tried in many respects to carry on their policy. Of these monarchs we possess a splendid series of coins."

"It would seem that, until the middle of the second century B. C., the Jews either weighed out gold and silver for the 'Price of goods, or else used the money usually current in Syria, that of Persia, Phoenicia, Athens, and the Seleucidae. Simon the Maccabee was the first to issue the Jewish shekel as a coin, and we learn from the Book of Maccabees that the privilege of striking was expressly granted him by King Antiochus VII. of Syria. We possess shekels of years 1-5 of the deliverance of Zion; the types are a chalice and a triple flower. The kings who succeeded Simon, down to Antigonus, confined themselves to the issue of copper money, with Hebrew legends and with types calculated not to shock the susceptible feelings of their people, to whom the representation of a living thing was abominable—such types as a lily, a palm, a star, or an anchor. When the Herodian family came in, several violations of this rule appear."

   "In Rome the generic terms for money seem to have been
   successively, pecunia, As, nummns, and moneta. … Moneta …
   is derived from the name of the temple in which, or in a
   building to or next to which the money of Rome was coined
   after the defeat of Pyrrhus, B. a. 275, more probably after
   the capture of Tarentum by the Romans, B. C. 272. It probably
   did not come into use until after the era of Scipio, and then
   was only used occasionally until the period of the Empire,
   when it and its derivatives became more common. Nummus,
   nevertheless, continued to hold its ground until towards the
   decline of the Empire, when it went entirely out of use, and
   moneta and its derivatives usurped its place, which it has
   continued to hold ever since. Moneta is therefore
   substantially a term of the Dark Ages. … The idea associated
   with moneta is coins, whose value was derived mainly from that
   of the material of which they were composed; whilst the idea
   associated with nummus is a system of symbols whose value was
   derived from legal limitation.
{2204}
   From the fact that our language sprang from the Dark Ages, we
   have no generic word for money other than moneta, which only
   relates to one kind of money. For a similar reason, the
   comparative newness of the English tongue, we have no word for
   a piece of money except coin, which, properly speaking, only
   relates to one kind of piece, namely, that which is struck by
   the cuneus."

The extent and energy of the Roman traffic, in the great age of the Republic, during the third and second centuries before Christ, "may be traced most distinctly by means of coins and monetary relations. The Roman denarius kept pace with the Roman legions. … The Sicilian mints—last of all that of Syracuse in 542—were closed or at any rate restricted to small money in consequence of the Roman conquest, and … in Sicily and Sardinia the denarius obtained legal circulation at least side by side with the older silver currency and probably very soon became the exclusive legal tender. With equal if not greater rapidity the Roman silver coinage penetrated into Spain, where the great silver-mines existed and there was virtually no earlier national coinage; at a very early period the Spanish towns even began to coin after the Roman standard. On the whole, as Carthage coined only to a very limited extent, there existed not a single important mint in addition to that of Rome in the region of the western Mediterranean, with the exception of the mint of Massilia and perhaps also of those of the Illyrian Greeks at Apollonia and Epidamnus. Accordingly, when the Romans began to establish themselves in the region of the Po, these mints were about 225 subjected to the Roman standard in such a way, that, while they retained the right of coining silver, they uniformly—and the Massiliots in particular—were led to adjust their drachma to the weight of the Roman three-quarter denarius, which the Roman government on its part began to coin, primarily for the use of upper Italy, under the name of the 'piece of Victory' (victoriatus). This new system, based on the Roman, prevailed throughout the Massiliot, Upper Italian, and Illyrian territories; and these coins even penetrated into the barbarian lands on the north, those of Massilia, for instance, into the Alpine districts along the whole basin of the Rhone, and those of Illyria as far as the modern Transylvania. The eastern half of the Mediterranean was not yet reached by the Roman money, as it had not yet fallen under the direct sovereignty of Rome; but its place was filled by gold, the true and natural medium for international and transmarine commerce. It is true that the Roman government, in conformity with its strictly conservative character, adhered—with the exception of a temporary coinage of gold occasioned by the financial embarrassment during the Hannibalic war—steadfastly to the rule of coining silver only in addition to the national-Italian copper; but commerce had already assumed such dimensions, that it was able in the absence of money to conduct its transactions with gold by weight. Of the sum in cash, which lay in the Roman treasury in 597, scarcely a sixth was coined or uncoined silver, five-sixths consisted of gold in bars, and beyond doubt the precious metals were found in all the chests of the larger Roman capitalists in substantially similar proportions. Already therefore gold held the first place in great transactions; and, as may be inferred from this fact, the preponderance of traffic was maintained with foreign lands, and particularly with the East, which since the times of Philip and Alexander the Great had adopted a gold currency. The whole gain from these immense transactions of the Roman capitalists flowed in the long run to Rome. … The moneyed superiority of Rome as compared with the rest of the civilized world was, accordingly, quite as decided as its political and military ascendancy. Rome in this respect stood towards other countries somewhat as the England of the present day stands towards the continent."

In the later years of the Roman Republic the coinage became debased and uncertain. "Cæsar restored the public credit by issuing good money, such as had not been seen in Rome for a length of time, money of pure metal and exact weight; with scarcely any admixture of plated pieces, money which could circulate for its real value, and this measure became one of the principal sources of his popularity. Augustus followed his example, but at the same time took away from the Senate the right of coining gold and silver, reserving this exclusively to the imperial authority, which was to exercise it absolutely without control. From this time we find the theory that the value of money is arbitrary, and depends solely on the will of the sovereign who issues it, more and more widely and tenaciously held. … The faith placed in the official impress fostered the temptation to abuse it. … In less than a century the change of the money of the State into imperial money, and the theory that its value arose from its bearing the effigy of the sovereign, produced a system of adulteration of specie, which went on growing to the very close of the Empire, and which the successors of Augustus utilized largely for the indulgence of their passions and their prodigality."

      F. Lenormant,
      Money in Ancient Greece and Rome
      (Contemporary Review, February, 1879).

As regards the monetary system of the Middle Ages, the precious metals, when uncoined, were weighed by the pound and half pound or mark, for which different standards were in use, the most generally recognised being those of Troyes and Cologne. Of coined money there existed a perplexing variety, which made it almost impossible to ascertain the relative value, not only of different coins, but of the same coin of different issues. This resulted from the emperor or king conferring the right of coinage upon various lords spiritual and temporal, from whom it was ultimately acquired by individual towns. The management was in most cases entrusted to a company, temporary or permanent, inspected by an official, the coin-tester, originally appointed by the sovereign, but afterwards by the company, and confirmed by the king or bishop. The house where the process of coining was performed was called the mint, and the company who held the rights of coinage in fee was known as the Mint House Company, or simply the House Company. Very generally the office was held by the Corporation of Goldsmiths. The want of perfect supervision led to great debasement of the currency, especially in Germany and France; but in England and Italy the standard was tolerably well maintained. {2205} Payments in silver were much more common than in gold. Before the Crusades the only gold coins known in Europe were the Byzantine solides, the Italian tari, and Moorish maurabotini. The solidi, which were originally of 23 to 23½ carat gold, but subsequently very much deteriorated, were reckoned as equal to twelve silver denars. They passed current in Southern and Eastern Europe, Hungary, Germany, Poland, and Prussia. … Solde, sol, and sou are only repeated transformations of the name of the coin, which have been accompanied by still greater changes in its value. The tari or tarentini derived its name from the Italian town where it was originally struck. It was less generally known than the solides, and was equal to one-fourth the latter in value. The maurabotini or sarazens were only of 15 carats gold. The name survives in the Spanish maravedi, which, however, like the sou, is now made of copper instead of gold. In the thirteenth century augustals, florentines, and ducats, or zecchins (sequins), were coined in Italy. The first-mentioned, the weight of which was half an ounce, were named in honour of Frederick II., who was Roman Cæsar and Augustus in 1252. The florentines, also known as gigliati, or lilies, from the arms of Florence, which they bore on one side, with the effigy of John the Baptist on the reverse, were of fine gold and lighter than the solidi, about 64 being reckoned equal to the mark. The ducats or zecchins were of Venetian origin, receiving their first name from the Duca or Doge, and the other from the Zecca or Mint House. They were somewhat less in value than the florentines, 66 or 67 being counted to the fine mark. Nearly equivalent in value to these Italian coins were the gold guilders coined in the fourteenth century in Hungary and the Rhine regions. The Rhenish guilder was of 22½ or 23 carats fine, and in weight 1/66; of a mark of Cologne. The silver guilder was of later production, and the name is now used as equivalent to florin. … In silver payments, the metal being usually nearly pure, it was common to compute by weight, coins and uncoined bullion being alike put into the scale, as is still the case in some Eastern countries. Hence the origin of the pound, livre, or mark. The most widely diffused silver coin was the denarius, which was, as in ancient Roman times, the 11/240 of a pound. The name pending or pennig, by which the denarius was known among the old Teutonic nations, seems to be connected with pendere, to weigh out or pay; as the other ancient Teutonic coin, the sceat, was with sceoton, to pay, a word which is preserved in the modern phrases 'scot free,' 'pay your scot.' … Half-pennies and farthings were not known in the earliest times, but the penny was deeply indented by two cross lines, which enabled it to be broken into quarters or farthings (feordings or fourthings). From the indented cross the denarius was known in Germany as the kreutzer. … With such a diversity of coinage, it was necessary to settle any mercantile transaction in the currency of the place. Not only would sellers have refused to accept money whose value was unknown to them, but in many places they were forbidden to do so by law. Merchants attending foreign markets therefore brought with them a quantity of fine silver and gold in bars, which they exchanged on the spot for the current coin of the place, to be used in settling their transactions; the balance remaining on hand they re-exchanged for bullion before leaving. The business of money-changing, which thus arose, was a very lucrative one, and was originally mostly in the hands of Italian merchants, chiefly Lombards and Florentines. In Italy the money-changers formed a guild, members of which settled in the Netherlands, England, Cologne, and the Mediterranean ports. In these different towns and countries they kept up a close connection with each other and with Italy, and at an early period (before the thirteenth century) commenced the practice of assignments, i. e., receiving money in one place, to be paid by an order upon their correspondents in another, thus saving the merchant who travelled from country to country the expense and risk of transporting specie. In the thirteenth century this branch of business was in extensive use at Barcelona, and in 1307 the tribute of 'Peter's pence' was sent from England to the Pope through the Lombard exchangers. From 5 to 6 per cent., or more, was charged upon the transaction, and the profitable nature of the business soon led many wealthy and even noble Italian families to employ their money in this way. They established a member of their firm in each of the great centres of trade to receive and pay on their account. In Florence alone (about 1350) there are said to have been eighty such houses. Among these the Frescobaldi, Bardi, and Peruzzi are well-known names; but the chief place was taken by the famous Florentine house of the Medici, who had banking houses established in sixteen of the chief cities of Europe and the Levant. In the north of Europe, before long, similar arrangements were established by the merchants of the Hanseatic League. … Assignments of this kind were drawn out in the form of letters, requesting the person by whom the money was due to pay it over to another party, named in the bill, on account of the writer, specifying also the time within which and the form in which the payment was to be made. They were thus known as letters, billets, or bills of exchange, and appear in Italy as early as the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. Among the earliest examples in existence are a letter of exchange, dated at Milan in 1325, payable within five months at Lucca; one dated at Bruges, 1304, and payable at Barcelona; and another, dated at Bologna, 1381, payable in Venice. … 'The first writers who treat of bills are Italians: the Italian language furnishes the technical terms for drafts, remittances, currency, sight, usance, and discount, used in most of the languages of Europe.' … Of other branches of banking the germs also appeared in the Middle Ages. Venice seems to have been the first city to possess something answering to a deposit bank. The merchants here united in forming a common treasury, where they deposited sums of money, upon which they gave assignments or orders for payment to their creditors, and to which similar assignments due to themselves were paid and added on to the amount at their credit. The taula di cambi (exchange counter) of Barcelona was a similar institution, as also the bank of St. George, at Genoa."

   The name "Lombards" was frequently given, during the Middle
   Ages, to all the Italian merchants and money-lenders—from
   Florence, Venice, Genoa, and elsewhere—who were engaged
   throughout Europe in banking and trade.

"The business of money-changing seemed thoroughly at home here, and it is not surprising that the invention of bills of exchange, which we first meet with in 1199 in the relations between England and Italy, should be ascribed to Florence. The money trade seems to have flourished as early as the twelfth century, towards the end of which a Marquis of Ferrara raised money on his lands from the Florentines. In 1204 we find the money-changers as one of the corporations. In 1228, and probably from the beginning of the century, several Florentines were settled in London as changers to King Henry III.; and here, as in France, they conducted the money transactions of the Papal chair in conjunction with the Sienese. Their oldest known statute, which established rules for the whole conduct of trade (Statuto dell' Università della Mercatanzia) drawn up by a commission consisting of five members of the great guilds, is dated 1280. Their guild-hall was in the Via Calimaruzza, opposite that of the Calimala, and was litter included in the buildings of the post-office, on the site of which, after the post-office had been removed to what was formerly the mint, a building was lately erected, similar in architecture to the Palazzo of the Signoria, which stands opposite. Their coat of arms displayed gold coins laid one beside another on a red field. At the end of the thirteenth century their activity, especially in France and England, was extraordinarily great. But if wealth surpassing all previous conception was attained, it not seldom involved loss of repute, and those who pursued the calling ran the risk of immense losses from fiscal measures to the carrying out of which they themselves contributed, as well as those which were caused by insolvency or dishonesty. … The names of Tuscans and Lombards, and that of Cahorsiens in France, no longer indicated the origin, but the trade of the money-changers, who drew down the ancient hatred upon themselves. … France possessed at this time the greatest attraction for the Florentine money-makers, although they were sometimes severely oppressed, which is sufficient proof that their winnings were still greater than their occasional losses. … The Florentine money market suffered the severest blow from England. At the end of the twelfth century there were already Florentine houses of exchange in London, and if Pisans, Genoese, and Venetians managed the trade by sea in the times of the Crusades, it was the Florentines mostly who looked after financial affairs in connection with the Papal chair, as we have seen. Numerous banks appeared about the middle of the thirteenth century, among which the Frescobaldi, a family of ancient nobility, and as such attainted by the prosecutions against it, took the lead, and were referred to the custom-house of the country for re-imbursement of the loans made to the kings Edward I. and II. Later, the two great trading companies of the Bardi and Peruzzi came into notice, and with their money Edward III. began the French war against Philip of Valois. But even in the first year of this war, which began with an unsuccessful attack upon Flanders, the king suspended the payments to the creditors of the State by a decree of May 6, 1339. The advances made by the Bardi amounted to 180,000 marks sterling, those of the Peruzzi to above 135,000, according to Giovanni Villani, who knew only too well about these things, since he was ruined by them himself to the extent of 'a sum of more than 1,355,000 gold florins, equivalent to the value of a kingdom.' Bonifazio Peruzzi, the head of the house, hastened to London, where he died of grief in the following year. The blow fell on the whole city. … Both houses began at once to liquidate, and the prevailing disturbance contributed not a little to the early success of the ambitious plans of the Duke of Athens. The real bankruptcy ensued, however, in January 1346, when new losses had occurred in Sicily. … The banks of the Acciaiuoli, Bonuccorsi, Cocchi, Antellesi, Corsini, da Uzzano, Perendoli, and many smaller ones, as well as numerous private persons, were involved in the ruin. 'The immense loans to foreign sovereigns,' adds Villani, 'drew down ruin upon our city, the like of which it had never known.' There was a complete lack of cash. Estates in the city found no purchasers at a third of their former value. … The famine and pestilence of 1347 and 1348, the oppressions of the mercenary bands and the heavy expenses caused by them, the cost of the war against Pope Gregory XI., and finally the tumult of the Ciompi, left Florence no peace for a long time. … At the beginning of the fifteenth century industry was again flourishing in all its branches in Florence, financial operations were extended, and foreign countries filled with Florentine banks and mercantile houses. … In London the most important firms had their representatives, Bruges was the chief place for Flanders, and we shall see how these connections lasted to the time of the greatest splendour of the Medici. France is frequently mentioned. The official representatives of the Florentine nation resided in the capital, while numerous houses established themselves in Lyons, in Avignon (since the removal of the Papal chair to this town), in Nismes, Narbonne, Carcassonne, Marseilles, &c. … The house of the Peruzzi alone had sixteen counting-houses in the fourteenth century, from London to Cyprus."

"The three principal branches of industry which enriched the Florentines were—banking, the manufacture of cloth, and the dyeing of it, and the manufacture of silk. The three most important guilds of the seven 'arti maggiori' were those which represented these three industries. Perhaps the most important in the amount of its gains, as well as that which first rose to a high degree of importance, was the 'Arte del Cambio,' or banking. The earliest banking operations seem to have arisen from the need of the Roman court to find some means of causing the dues to which it laid claim in distant parts of Europe to be collected and transmitted to Rome. When the Papal Court was removed to Avignon, its residence there occasioned a greatly increased sending backwards and forwards of money between Italy and that city. And of all this banking business, the largest and most profitable portion was in the hands of Florentine citizens, whether resident in Florence or in the various commercial cities of Europe. We find Florentines engaged in lending money at interest to sovereign princes as early as the first quarter of the twelfth century."

T. A. Trollope, History of the Commonwealth of Florence, book 4, chapter 1 (volume 2).

"The Bank of St. George, its constitution, its building, and its history, forms one of the most interesting relies of mediæval commercial activity. Those old grey walls, as seen still in Genoa, begrimed with dirt and fast falling into decay, are the cradle of modern commerce, modern banking schemes, and modern wealth. … This Bank of St. George is indeed a most singular political phenomenon. Elsewhere than in Genoa we search in vain for a parallel for the existence of a body of citizens distinct from the government—with their own laws, magistrates, and independent authority—a state within a state, a republic within a republic. All dealings with the government were voluntary on the part of the bank. … But, far from working without harmony, we always find the greatest unanimity of feeling between these two forms of republics within the same city walls. The government of Genoa always respected the liberties of the bank, and the bank always did its best to assist the government when in pecuniary distress. … To define an exact origin for the bank is difficult; it owed its existence to the natural development of commercial enterprise rather than to the genius of anyone man, or the shrewdness of any particular period in Genoese history. The Crusades, and the necessary preparation of galleys, brought into Genoa the idea of advancing capital for a term of years as a loan to the government on the security of the taxes and public revenues; but in those cases the profits were quickly realized, and the debts soon cancelled by the monarchs who incurred them. However, the expeditions against the Saracens and the Moors were otherwise, and were undertaken at some risk to Genoa herself. … Now large sums of money were advanced, the profits on which were not spontaneous; it was more an investment of capital for a longer term of years, which was secured by the public revenues, but the profits of which depended on the success of the expedition. In 1148 was the first formal debt incurred by the government, and to meet the occasion the same system was adopted which continued in vogue, subject only to regulations and improvements which were found necessary as time went on, until the days of the French Revolution. The creditors nominated from amongst themselves a council of administration to watch over the common interests, and to them the government conceded a certain number of the custom duties for a term of years until the debt should be extinguished. This council of administration elected their own consuls, after the fashion of the Republic governors. Every hundred francs was termed a share (luogo) and every creditor a shareholder (luogatorio). … Each separate loan was termed a 'compera,' and these loans were collectively known as the 'compere of St. George,' which in later years became the celebrated bank. Each loan generally took the name of the object for which it was raised, or the name of the saint on whose day the contract was signed; and when an advance of money was required, it was done by public auction in the streets, when the auctioneer sold the investment to the ever ready merchants, who collected outside the 'loggia,' or other prominent position chosen for the sale. In a loud voice was proclaimed the name and object of the loan, and the tax which was to be handed over to the purchasers to secure its repayment. So numerous did these loans become by 1252, that it was found necessary to unite them under one head, with a chancellor and other minor officials to watch over them. And as time went on, so great was the credit of Genoa, and so easy was this system found for raising money, that the people began to grow alarmed at the extent of the liabilities. So, in 1302, commissioners were appointed at a great assembly, two hundred and seventy-one articles and regulations were drown up to give additional security to investors, and henceforth no future loan could be effected without the sanction of the consuls and the confirmation of the greater council of the shareholders. … During the days of the first doge, Simone Boccanegra, great changes were to be effected in the working system of the 'compere of St. George.' To this date many have assigned the origin of the Bank of St. George, but it will be seen only to be a further consolidation of the same system, which had already been at work two centuries. … In 1339, … at the popular revolution, all the old books were burnt, and a new commission appointed to regulate the 'compere.' … Instead … of being the origin of the bank, it was only another step in the growing wish for consolidation, which the expanding tendency of the 'compere' rendered necessary; which consolidation took final effect in 1407, when the Bank was thoroughly organized on the same footing which lasted till the end. Every year and every event tended towards this system of blending the loans together, to which fact is due the extensive power which the directors of the bank eventually wielded, when all interests and all petty disputes were merged together in one. … As time went on, and the French governor, Boucicault, weighed on the treasury the burden of fresh fortifications, and an expensive war; when Corsican troubles, and the Turks in the East, caused the advance of money to be frequent, an assembly of all the shareholders in all the loans decided that an entire reorganization of the public debts should take place. Nine men were elected to draw up a new scheme, in 1407, and by their instrumentality all the shares were united; the interest for all was to be seven per cent., and fresh officials were appointed to superintend the now thoroughly constituted and re-named 'Bank of St. George.' And at length we behold this celebrated bank. Its credit never failed, and no anxiety was ever felt by any shareholder about his annual income, until the days of the French Revolution. … This Bank of St. George was essentially one of the times, and not one which could have existed on modern ideas of credit; for it was a bank which would only issue paper for the coin in its actual possession, and would hardly suit the dictates of modern commerce. It was not a bank for borrowers but for capitalists, who required enormous security for immense sums until they could employ them themselves. … One of the most interesting features in connection with the dealings of the bank with the Genoese government, and a conclusive proof of the perfect accord which existed between them, was the cession from time to time of various colonies and provinces to the directors of the bank when the government felt itself too weak and too poor to maintain them. In this manner were the colonies in the Black Sea made over to the bank when the Turkish difficulties arose. {2208} Corsica and Cyprus, also towns on the Riviera, such as Sarzana, Ventimiglia, Levanto, found themselves at various times under the direct sovereignty of the bank. … It is melancholy to have to draw a veil over the career of this illustrious bank with the Revolution of 1798. The new order of things which Genoa had learnt from France deemed it inconsistent with liberty that the taxes, the property of the Republic, should remain in the hands of the directors of St. George; it was voted a tyranny on a small scale, and the directors were compelled to surrender them; and inasmuch as the taxes represented the sole source from which their income was derived, they soon discovered that their bank notes were useless, and the building was closed shortly afterwards. In 1804 and 1814 attempts were made to resuscitate the fallen fortunes of St. George, but without avail; and so this bank, the origin of which was shrouded in the mysteries of bygone centuries, fell under the sweeping scythe of the French Revolution."

MONEY AND BANKING: 16-17th Centuries.
Monetary effects of the Discovery of America.

"From 1492, the year of the discovery of the New World, to 1500, it is doubtful whether [the mines of Mexico and Peru] … yielded on an average a prey of more than 1,500,000 francs (£60,000) a year. From 1500 to 1545, if we add to the treasure produced from the mines the amount of plunder found in the capital of the Montezumas, Ténochtitlan (now the city of Mexico), as well as in the temples and palaces of the kingdom of the Incas, the gold and silver drawn from America did not exceed an average of sixteen million francs (£640,000) a year. From 1545, the scene changes. In one of the gloomiest deserts on the face of the globe, in the midst of the rugged and inhospitable mountain scenery of Upper Peru, chance revealed to a poor Indian, who was guarding a flock of llamas, a mine of silver of incomparable richness. A crowd of miners was instantly attracted by the report of the rich deposits of ore spread over the sides of this mountain of Potocchi—a name which for euphony the European nations have since changed to Potosi. The exportation of the precious metals from America to Europe now rose rapidly to an amount which equalled, weight for weight, sixty millions of francs (£2,400,000) of our day, and it afterwards rose even to upwards of eighty millions. At that time such a mass of gold and silver represented a far greater amount of riches than at present. Under the influence of so extraordinary a supply, the value of these precious metals declined in Europe, in comparison with every other production of human industry, just as would be the case with iron or lead, if mines were discovered which yielded those metals in superabundance, as compared with their present consumption, and at a much less cost of labour than previously, just in fact as occurs in the case of manufactures of every kind, whenever, by improved processes, or from natural causes of a novel kind, they can be produced in unusual quantities, and at a great reduction of cost. This fall in the value of gold and silver, in comparison with all other productions, revealed itself by the increased quantity of coined metal which it was necessary to give in exchange for the generality of other articles. And it was thus that the working of the mines of America had necessarily for effect a general rise of prices, in other words, it made all other commodities dearer. The fall in the value of the precious metals, or that which means the same thing, the general rise of prices, does not appear to have been very great, out of Spain, till after the middle of the 16th century. Shortly after the commencement of the 17th century, the effects of the productiveness of the new mines and of the diminished cost of working them were realised in all parts of Europe. For the silver, which had been extracted in greater proportion than the gold, and on more favourable terms, the fall in value had been in the proportion of 1 to 3. In transactions where previously one pound of silver, or a coin containing a given quantity of this metal, had sufficed, henceforth three were required. … After having been arrested for awhile in this downward course, and even after having witnessed for a time a tendency to an upward movement, the fall in the value of the precious metals, and the corresponding rise in prices, resumed their course, under the influence of the same causes, until towards the end of the 18th century, without however manifesting their influence so widely or intensely as had been witnessed after the first development of the great American mines. We find, as the result, that during the first half of the 19th century, the value of silver fell to about the sixth of what it was before the discovery of America, when compared with the price of corn."

M. Chevalier, On the Probable Fall in the Value of Gold (translated by Cobden), section 1, chapter 1.

"In 1609, the great Bank of Amsterdam was founded, and its foundation not only testifies to the wealth of the republic, but marks an epoch in the commercial history of Northern Europe. Long before this period, banks had been established in the Italian cities, but, until late in the history of the Bank of England, which was not founded until nearly a century later, nothing was known on such a scale as this. It was established to meet the inconvenience arising from the circulation of currency from all quarters of the globe, and to accommodate merchants in their dealings. Anyone making a deposit of gold or silver received notes for the amount, less a small commission, and these notes commanded a premium in all countries. Before the end of the century its deposits of this character amounted to one hundred and eighty million dollars, an amount of treasure which bewildered financiers in every other part of Europe."

D. Campbell, The Puritan in Holland, England, and America, volume 2, pages 323-324.

   Sea shells, strung or embroidered on belts and garments,
   formed the "wampum" which was the money of the North American
   Indians (see WAMPUM). "Tradition gives to the Narragansetts
   the honor of inventing these valued articles, valuable both
   for use and exchange. This tribe was one of the most powerful,
   and it is asserted that their commercial use of wampum gave
   them their best opportunities of wealth. The Long Island
   Indians manufactured the beads in large quantities and then
   were forced to pay them away in tribute to the Mohawks and the
   fiercer tribes of the interior.
{2209}
   Furs were readily exchanged for these trinkets, which carried
   a permanent value, through the constancy of the Indian desire
   for them. The holder of wampum always compelled trade to come
   to him. After the use of wampum was established in colonial
   life, contracts were made payable at will in wampum, beaver,
   or silver. … The use began in New England in 1627. It was a
   legal tender until 1661, and for more than three quarters of a
   century the wampum was current in small transactions. For more
   than a century, indeed; this currency entered into the
   intercourse of Indian and colonist. … Labor is a chief
   factor in civilized society and the labor of the Indian was
   made available through wampum. As Winthrop shows, 10,000
   beaver skins annually came to the Dutch from the Great Lake.
   The chase was the primitive form of Indian industry and furs
   were the most conspicuous feature of foreign trade, as gold is
   to-day, but wampum played a much larger part in the vital
   trade of the time. Wampum, or the things it represented,
   carried deer meat and Indian corn to the New England men. Corn
   and pork went for fish; fish went for West India rum,
   molasses, and the silver which Europe coveted. West India
   products, or the direct exchange of fish with the Catholic
   countries of Europe, brought back the goods needed to
   replenish and extend colonial industries and trade. … As
   long as the natives were active and furs were plenty, there
   appears to have been no difficulty in passing any quantity of
   wampum in common with other currencies. The Bay annulled its
   statutes, making the beads a legal tender in 1661. Rhode
   Island and Connecticut followed this example soon after. …
   New York continued the beads in circulation longer than the
   regular use prevailed in New England. In 1693 they were
   recognized in the definite rates of the Brooklyn ferry. They
   continued to be circulated in the more remote districts of New
   England through the century, and even into the beginning of
   the eighteenth."

      W. B. Weeden,
      Indian Money as a Factor in New England Civilization,
      pages 5-30.

"The earliest coinage for America is said to have been executed in 1612, when the Virginia Company was endeavoring to establish a Colony on the Summer Islands (the Bermudas). This coin was of the denomination of a shilling, and was struck in brass." The "pine-tree" money of Massachusetts" was instituted by the Colonial Assembly in 1652, after the fall of Charles I. … This coinage was not discontinued until 1686; yet they appear to have continued the use of the same date, the shillings, sixpences, and threepences all bearing the date 1652, while the twopenny pieces are all dated 1662. … After the suppression of their mint, the Colony of Massachusetts issued no more coins until after the establishment of the Confederacy. … The silver coins of Lord Baltimore, Lord Proprietor of Maryland, were the shilling, sixpence, and fourpence, or groat."

MONEY AND BANKING: 17-18th Centuries.
Banking in Great Britain.
Origin and influence of the Bank of England.

"In the reign of William old men were still living who could remember the days when there was not a single banking house in the city of London. So late as the time of the Restoration every trader had his own strong box in his own house, and, when an acceptance was presented to him, told down the crowns and Caroluses on his own counter. But the increase of wealth had produced its natural effect, the subdivision of labour. Before the end of the reign of Charles II. a new mode of paying and receiving money had come into fashion among the merchants of the capital. A class of agents arose, whose office was to keep the cash of the commercial houses. This new branch of business naturally fell into the hands of the goldsmiths, who were accustomed to traffic largely in the precious metals, and who had vaults in which great masses of bullion could lie secure from fire and from robbers. It was at the shops of the goldsmiths of Lombard Street that all the payments in coin were made. Other traders gave and received nothing but paper. This great change did not take place without much opposition and clamour. … No sooner had banking become a separate and important trade, than men began to discuss with earnestness the question whether it would be expedient to erect a national bank. … Two public banks had long been renowned throughout Europe, the Bank of Saint George at Genoa, and the Bank of Amsterdam. … Why should not the Bank of London be as great and as durable as the Banks of Genoa and Amsterdam? Before the end of the reign of Charles II. several plans were proposed, examined, attacked and defended. Some pamphleteers maintained that a national bank ought to be under the direction of the King. Others thought that the management ought to be entrusted to the Lord Mayor, Alderman and Common Council of the capital. After the Revolution the subject was discussed with an animation before unknown. … A crowd of plans, some of which resemble the fancies of a child or the dreams of a man in a fever, were pressed on the government. Pre-eminently conspicuous among the political mountebanks, whose busy faces were seen every day in the lobby of the House of Commons, were John Briscoe and Hugh Chamberlayne, two projectors worthy to have been members of that Academy which Gulliver found at Lagado. These men affirmed that the one cure for every distemper of the State was a Land Bank. A Land Bank would work for England miracles such as had never been wrought for Israel. … These blessed effects the Land Bank was to produce simply by issuing enormous quantities of notes on landed security. The doctrine of the projectors was that every person who had real property ought to have, besides that property, paper money to the full value of that property. Thus, if his estate was worth two thousand pounds, he ought to have his estate and two thousand pounds in paper money. Both Briscoe and Chamberlayne treated with the greatest contempt the notion that there could be an over-issue of paper as long as there was, for every ten pound note, a piece of land in the country worth ten pounds. … All the projectors of this busy time, however, were not so absurd as Chamberlayne. One among them, William Paterson, was an ingenious, though not always a judicious speculator. Of his early life little is known except that he was a native of Scotland, and that he had been in the West Indies. … This man submitted to the government, in 1691, a plan of a national bank; and his plan was favourably received both by statesmen and by merchants. {2210} But years passed away; and nothing was done, till, in the spring of 1694, it became absolutely necessary to find some new mode of defraying the charges of the war. Then at length the scheme devised by the poor and obscure Scottish adventurer was taken up in earnest by Montague [Charles Montague, then one of the lords of the treasury and subsequently Chancellor of the Exchequer]. With Montague was closely allied Michael Godfrey. … Michael was one of the ablest, most upright and most opulent of the merchant princes of London. … By these two distinguished men Paterson's scheme was fathered. Montague undertook to manage the House of Commons, Godfrey to manage the City. An approving vote was obtained from the Committee of Ways and Means; and a bill, the title of which gave occasion to many sarcasms, was laid on the table. It was indeed not easy to guess that a bill, which purported only to impose a new duty on tonnage for the benefit of such persons as should advance money towards carrying on the war, was really a bill creating the greatest commercial institution that the world had ever seen. The plan was that £1,200,000 should be borrowed by the government on what was then considered as the moderate interest of eight per cent. In order to induce capitalists to advance the money promptly on terms so favourable to the public, the subscribers were to be incorporated by the name of the Governor and Company of the Bank of England. The corporation was to have no exclusive privilege, and was to be restricted from trading in any thing but bills of exchange, bullion and forfeited pledges. As soon as the plan became generally known, a paper war broke out. … All the goldsmiths and pawnbrokers set up a howl of rage. Some discontented Tories predicted ruin to the monarchy. … Some discontented Whigs, on the other hand, predicted ruin to our liberties. … The power of the purse, the one great security for all the rights of Englishmen, will be transferred from the House of Commons to the Governor and Directors of the new Company. This last consideration was really of some weight, and was allowed to be so by the authors of the bill. A clause was therefore most properly inserted which inhibited the Bank from advancing money to the Crown without authority from Parliament. Every infraction of this salutary rule was to be punished by forfeiture of three times the sum advanced; and it was provided that the King should not have power to remit any part of the penalty. The plan, thus amended, received the sanction of the Commons more easily than might have been expected from the violence of the adverse clamour. In truth, the Parliament was under duress. Money must be had, and could in no other way be had so easily. … The bill, however, was not safe when it had reached the Upper House," but it was passed, and received the royal assent. "In the City the success of Montague's plan was complete. It was then at least as difficult to raise a million at eight per cent. as it would now be to raise forty millions at four per cent. It had been supposed that contributions would drop in very slowly: and a considerable time had therefore been allowed by the Act. This indulgence was not needed. So popular was the new investment that on the day on which the books were opened £300,000 were subscribed; 300,000 more were subscribed during the next 48 hours; and, in ten days, to the delight of all the friends of the government, it was announced that the list was full. The whole sum which the Corporation was bound to lend to the State was paid into the Exchequer before the first instalment was due. Somers gladly put the Great Seal to a charter framed in conformity with the terms prescribed by Parliament; and the Bank of England commenced its operations in the house of the Company of Grocers. … It soon appeared that Montague had, by skilfully availing himself of the financial difficulties of the country, rendered an inestimable service to his party. During several generations the Bank of England was emphatically a Whig body. It was Whig, not accidentally, but necessarily. It must have instantly stopped payment if it had ceased to receive the interest on the sum which it had advanced to the government; and of that, interest James would not have paid one farthing."

"For a long time the Bank of England was the focus of London Liberalism, and in that capacity rendered to the State inestimable services. In return for these substantial benefits the Bank of England received from the Government, either at first or afterwards, three most important privileges. First. The Bank of England had the exclusive possession of the Government balances. In its first period … the Bank gave credit to the Government, but afterwards it derived credit from the Government. There is a natural tendency in men to follow the example of the Government under which they live. The Government is the largest, most important, and most conspicuous entity with which the mass of any people are acquainted; its range of knowledge must always lie infinitely greater than the average of their knowledge, and therefore, unless there is a conspicuous warning to the contrary, most men are inclined to think their Government right, and, when they can, to do what it does. Especially in money matters a man might fairly reason—'If the Government is right in trusting the Bank of England with the great balance of the nation, I cannot be wrong in trusting it with my little balance.' Second, The Bank of England had, till lately, the monopoly of limited liability in England. The common law of England knows nothing of any such principle. It is only possible by Royal Charter or Statute Law. And by neither of these was any real bank … permitted with limited liability in England till within these few years. … Thirdly. The Bank of England had the privilege of being the sole joint stock company permitted to issue bank notes in England. Private London bankers did indeed issue notes down to the middle of the last century, but no joint stock company could do so. The explanatory clause of the Act of 1742 sounds most curiously to our modern ears. … 'It is the true intent and meaning of the said Act that no other bank shall be created, established, or allowed by Parliament, and that it shall not be lawful for any body politic or corporate whatsoever created or to be created, or for any other persons whatsoever united or to be united in covenants or partnership exceeding the number of six persons in that part of Great Britain called England, to borrow, owe, or take up any sum or sums of money on their bills or notes payable on demand or at any less time than six months from the borrowing thereof during the continuance of such said privilege to the said governor and company, who are hereby declared to be and remain a corporation with the privilege of exclusive banking, as before recited.' {2211} To our modern ears these words seem to mean more than they did. The term banking was then applied only to the issue of notes and the taking up of money on bills on demand. Our present system of deposit banking, in which no bills or promissory notes are issued, was not then known on a great scale, and was not called banking. But its effect was very important. It in time gave the Bank of England the monopoly of the note issue of the Metropolis. It had at that time no branches, and so it did not compete for the country circulation. But in the Metropolis, where it did compete, it was completely victorious. No company but the Bank of England could issue notes, and unincorporated individuals gradually gave way, and ceased to do so. Up to 1844 London private bankers might have issued notes if they pleased, but almost a hundred years ago they were forced out of the field. The Bank of England had so long had a practical monopoly of the circulation, that it is commonly believed always to have had a legal monopoly. And the practical effect of the clause went further: it was believed to make the Bank of England the only joint stock company that could receive deposits, as well as the only company that could issue notes. The gift of 'exclusive banking' to the Bank of England was read in its most natural modern sense: it was thought to prohibit any other banking company from carrying on our present system of banking. After joint stock banking was permitted in the country, people began to inquire why it should not exist in the Metropolis too? And then it was seen that the words I have quoted only forbid the issue of negotiable instruments, and not the receiving of money when no such instrument is given. Upon this construction, the London and Westminster Bank and all our older joint stock banks were founded. But till they began, the Bank of England had among companies not only the exclusive privilege of note issue, but that of deposit banking too. It was in every sense the only banking company in London. With so many advantages over all competitors, it is quite natural that the Bank of England should have far outstripped them all. … All the other bankers grouped themselves round it, and lodged their reserve with it. Thus our one-reserve system of banking was not deliberately founded upon definite reasons; it was the gradual consequence of many singular events, and of an accumulation of legal privileges on a single bank which has now been altered, and which no one would now defend. … For more than a century after its creation (notwithstanding occasional errors) the Bank of England, in the main, acted with judgment and with caution. Its business was but small as we should now reckon, but for the most part it conducted that business with prudence and discretion. In 1696, it had been involved in the most serious difficulties, and had been obliged to refuse to pay some of its notes. For a long period it was in wholesome dread of public opinion, and the necessity of retaining public confidence made it cautious. But the English Government removed that necessity. In 1797, Mr. Pitt feared that he might not be able to obtain sufficient specie for foreign payments, in consequence of the low state of the Bank reserve, and he therefore required the Bank not to pay in cash. He removed the preservative apprehension which is the best security of all Banks. For this reason the period under which the Bank of England did not pay gold for its notes—the period from 1797 to 1819—is always called the period of the Bank 'restriction.' As the Bank during that period did not perform, and was not compelled by law to perform, its contract of paying its notes in cash, it might apparently have been well called the period of Bank license. But the word 'restriction' was quite right, and was the only proper word as a description of the policy of 1797. Mr. Pitt did not say that the Bank of England need not pay its notes in specie; he 'restricted' them from doing so; he said that they must not. In consequence, from 1797 to 1844 (when a new era begins), there never was a proper caution on the part of the Bank directors. At heart they considered that the Bank of England had a kind of charmed life, and that it was above the ordinary banking anxiety to pay its way. And this feeling was very natural."

      H. May,
      The Bank of England
      (Fortnightly Review, March, 1885).

MONEY AND BANKING: 17-18th Centuries.
Early Paper issues and Banks in the American Colonies.

   "Previous to the Revolutionary War paper money was issued to a
   greater or less extent by each one of the thirteen colonies.
   The first issue was by Massachusetts in 1690, to aid in
   fitting out the expedition against Canada. Similar issues had
   been made by New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New
   York, and New Jersey, previous to the year 1711. South
   Carolina began to emit bills in 1712, Pennsylvania in 1723,
   Maryland in 1734, Delaware in 1739, Virginia in 1755, and
   Georgia in 1760. Originally the issues were authorized to meet
   the necessities of the colonial treasuries. In Massachusetts,
   in 1715, as a remedy for the prevailing embarrassment of
   trade, a land bank was proposed with the right to issue
   circulating notes secured by land. … The plan for the land
   bank was defeated, but the issue of paper money by the
   treasury was authorized to the extent of £50,000, to be loaned
   on good mortgages in sums of not more than £500, nor less than
   £50, to one person. The rate of interest was five per cent.,
   payable with one-fifth of the principal annually. … In 1733
   an issue of bills to the amount of £110,000 was made by the
   merchants of Boston, which were to be redeemed at the end of
   ten years, in silver, at the rate of 19 shillings per ounce.
   In 1739, the commercial and financial embarrassment still
   continuing, another land bank was started in Massachusetts.
   … A specie bank was also formed in 1739, by Edward
   Hutchinson and others, which issued bills to the amount of
   £120,000, redeemable in fifteen years in silver, at 20
   shillings per ounce, or gold pro rata. The payment of these
   notes was guaranteed by wealthy and responsible merchants.
   These notes, and those of a similar issue in 1733, were
   largely hoarded and did not pass generally into circulation.
   In 1740 Parliament passed a bill to extend the act of 1720,
   known as the bubble act, to the American colonies, with the
   intention of breaking up all companies formed for the purpose
   of issuing paper money.
{2212}
   Under this act both the land bank and the specie bank were
   forced to liquidate their affairs, though not without some
   resistance on the part of the former. … The paper money of
   the colonies, whether issued by them or by the loan banks,
   depreciated almost without exception as the amounts in
   circulation increased. … The emission of bills by the
   colonies and the banks was not regarded with favor by the
   mother country, and the provincial governors were as a general
   thing opposed to these issues. They were consequently
   frequently embroiled with their legislatures."

"The Bank of Vienna was founded as a bank of deposit in 1703, and as a bank of issue in 1793; the Banks of Berlin and Breslau in 1765 with state sanction; the Austrian National Bank in 1816. In St. Petersburg three banks were set up; the Loan Bank in 1772, advancing loans on deposits of bullion and jewels; the Assignation Bank in 1768 (and in Moscow, 1770), issuing government paper money; the Aid Bank in 1797, to relieve estates from mortgage and advance money for improvements. The Commercial Bank of Russia was founded in 1818. The Bank of Stockholm was founded in 1688. The Bank of France was founded first in 1803 and reorganised in 1806, when its capital was raised to 90,000,000 francs, held in 90,000 shares of 1,000 francs. It is the only authorised source of paper money in France, and is intimately associated with the government."

MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1775-1780.
The Continental Currency of the American Revolution.

"The colonies … went into the Revolutionary War, many of them with paper already in circulation, all of them making issues for the expenses of military preparations. The Continental Congress, having no power to tax, and its members being accustomed to paper issues as the ordinary form of public finance, began to issue bills on the faith of the 'Continent,' Franklin earnestly approving. The first issue was for 300,000 Spanish dollars, redeemable in gold or silver, in three years, ordered in May and issued in August, 1775. Paper for nine million dollars was issued before any depreciation began. The issues of the separate colonies must have affected it, but the popular enthusiasm went for something. Pelatiah Webster, almost alone as it seems, insisted on taxation, but a member of Congress indignantly asked if he was to help tax the people when they could go to the printing-office and get a cartload of money. In 1776, when the depreciation began, Congress took harsh measures to try to sustain the bills. Committees of safety also took measures to punish those who 'forestalled' or 'engrossed,' these being the terms for speculators who bought up for a rise."

"During the summer of 1780 this wretched 'Continental' currency fell into contempt. As Washington said, it took a wagon-load of money to buy a wagon-load of provisions. At the end of the year 1778, the paper dollar was worth sixteen cents in the northern states and twelve cents in the south. Early in 1780 its value had fallen to two cents, and before the end of the year it took ten paper dollars to make a cent. In October, Indian corn sold wholesale in Boston for $150 a bushel, butter was $12 a pound, tea $90, sugar $10, beef $8, coffee $12, and a barrel of flour cost $1,575. Samuel Adams paid $2,000 for a hat and suit of clothes. The money soon ceased to circulate, debts could not be collected, and there was a general prostration of credit. To say that a thing was 'worth a Continental' became the strongest possible expression of contempt."

   Before the close of the year 1780, the Continental Currency
   had ceased to circulate. Attempts were subsequently made to
   have it funded or redeemed, but without success.

      ALSO IN:
      H. Phillips, Jr.,
      Historical Sketches of American Paper Currency,
      2d Series.

MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1780-1784.
The Pennsylvania Bank and the Bank of North America.

"The Pennsylvania Bank, which was organized in Philadelphia during the Revolutionary War, was founded for the purpose of facilitating the operations of the Government in transporting supplies for the army. It began its useful work in 1780, and continued in existence until after the close of the war; finally closing its affairs toward the end of the year 1784. But the need was felt of a national bank which should not only aid the Government on a large scale by its money and credit, but should extend facilities to individuals, and thereby benefit the community as well as the state. Through the influence and exertion of Robert Morris, then Superintendent of Finance for the United States, the Bank of North America, at Philadelphia, was organized with a capital of $400,000. It was incorporated by Congress in December, 1781, and by the State of Pennsylvania a few months afterward. Its success was immediate and complete. It not only rendered valuable and timely aid to the United States Government and to the State of Pennsylvania, but it greatly assisted in restoring confidence and credit to the commercial community, and afforded facilities to private enterprise that were especially welcome. … The success of the Bank of North America, and the advantages which the citizens of Philadelphia enjoyed from the facilities it offered them, naturally suggested the founding of a similar enterprise in the city of New York." The Bank of New York was accordingly founded in 1784.

ALSO IN: W. G. Sumner, The Financier and the Finances of the American Revolution, chapter 17 (volume 2).

   "The financial embarrassments of the government in 1789 were
   extreme. Many taxes had ceased to be productive; the
   confiscated estates not only yielded no revenue but caused a
   large expense, and, as a measure of resource, the finance
   committee of the Assembly reported in favor of issues based
   upon the confiscated lands. But the bitter experience of
   France through the Mississippi schemes of John Law, 1719-21,
   made the Assembly and the nation hesitate. … Necker, the
   Minister, stood firm in his opposition to the issue of paper
   money, even as a measure of resource; but the steady pressure
   of fiscal exigencies, together with the influence of the
   fervid orators of the Assembly, gained a continually
   increasing support to the proposition of the committee. …
{2213}
   The leaders of the Assembly were secretly actuated by a
   political purpose, viz., by widely distributing the titles to
   the confiscated lands (for such the paper money in effect was)
   to commit the thrifty middle class of France to the principles
   and measures of the revolution. … Oratory, the force of
   fiscal necessities, the half-confessed political design,
   prevailed at last over the warnings of experience; and a
   decree passed the Assembly authorizing an issue of notes to
   the value of four hundred million francs, on the security of
   the public lands. To emphasize this security the title of
   'assignats' was applied to the paper. … The issue was made;
   the assignats went into circulation; and soon came the
   inevitable demand for more. … The decree for a further issue
   of eight hundred millions passed, September, 1790. Though the
   opponents of the issue had lost heart and voice, they still
   polled 423 votes against 508. To conciliate a minority still
   so large, contraction was provided for by requiring that the
   paper when paid into the Treasury should be burned, and the
   decree contained a solemn declaration that in no case should
   the amount exceed twelve hundred millions. June 19, 1791, the
   Assembly, against feeble resistance, violated this pledge and
   authorized a further issue of six hundred millions. Under the
   operation of Gresham's Law, specie now began to disappear from
   circulation. … And now came the collapse of French industry.
   … 'Everything that tariffs and custom-houses could do was
   done. Still the great manufactories of Normandy were closed;
   those of the rest of the kingdom speedily followed, and vast
   numbers of workmen, in all parts of the country, were thrown
   out of employment. … In the spring of 1791 no one knew
   whether a piece of paper money, representing 100 francs,
   would, a month later, have a purchasing power of 100 francs,
   or 90 francs, or 80, or 60. The result was that capitalists
   declined to embark their means in business. Enterprise
   received a mortal blow. Demand for labor was still further
   diminished. The business of France dwindled into a mere living
   from hand to mouth.' … Towards the end of 1794 there had
   been issued 7,000 millions in assignats; by May, 1795, 10,000
   millions; by the end of July, 16,000 millions; by the
   beginning of 1796, 45,000 millions, of which 36,000 millions
   were in actual circulation. M. Bresson gives the following
   table of depreciation: 24 livres in coin were worth in
   assignats
   April 1, 1795, 238;
   May 1, 299;
   June 1, 439;
   July 1, 808;
   Aug. 1, 807;
   Sept. 1, 1,101;
   Oct. 1, 1,205;
   Nov. 1, 2,588;
   Dec. 1, 3,575;
   Jan. 1, 1796, 4,658;
   Feb. 1, 5,337.

At the last 'an assignat professing to be worth 100 francs was commonly exchanged for 5 sous 6 deniers: in other words, a paper note professing to be worth £4 sterling passed current for less than 3d. in money.' The downward course of the assignats had unquestionably been accelerated by the extensive counterfeiting of the paper in Belgium, Switzerland, and England. … Now appears that last resort of finance under a depreciating paper: an issue under new names and new devices. … Territorial Mandates were ordered to be issued for assignats at 30:1, the mandates to be directly exchangeable for land, at the will of the holder, on demand. … For a brief time after the first limited emission, the mandates rose as high as 80 per cent. of their nominal value; but soon additional issues sent them down even more rapidly than the assignats had fallen."

On the organization of the government of the United States, under its federal constitution, in 1789 and 1790, the lead in constructive statesmanship was taken, as is well known, by Alexander Hamilton. His plan "included a financial institution to develop the national resources, strengthen the public credit, aid the Treasury Department in its administration, and provide a secure and sound circulating medium for the people. On December 13, 1790, he sent into Congress a report on the subject of a national bank. The Republican party, then in the minority, opposed the plan as unconstitutional, on the ground that the power of creating banks or any corporate body had not been expressly delegated to Congress, and was therefore not possessed by it. Washington's cabinet was divided; Jefferson opposing the measure as not within the implied powers, because it was an expediency and not a paramount necessity. Later he used stronger language, and denounced the institution as 'one of the most deadly hostility existing against the principles and form of our Constitution,' nor did he ever abandon these views. There is the authority of Mr. Gallatin for saying that Jefferson 'died a decided enemy to our banking system generally, and specially to a bank of the United States.' But Hamilton's views prevailed. Washington, who in the weary years of war had seen the imperative necessity of some national organization of the finances, after mature deliberation approved the plan, and on February 25, 1791, the Bank of the United States was incorporated. The capital stock was limited to twenty-five thousand shares of four hundred dollars each, or ten millions of dollars, payable one fourth in gold and silver, and three fourths in public securities bearing an interest of six and three per cent. The stock was immediately subscribed for, the government taking five thousand shares, two millions of dollars, under the right reserved in the charter. The subscription of the United States was paid in ten equal annual instalments. A large proportion of the stock was held abroad, and the shares soon rose above par. … Authority was given the bank to establish offices of discount and deposit within the United States. The chief bank was placed in Philadelphia and branches were established in eight cities, with capitals in proportion to their commercial importance. In 1809 the stockholders of the Bank of the United States memorialized the government for a renewal of their charter, which would expire on March 4, 1811; and on March 9, 1809, Mr. Gallatin sent in a report in which he reviewed the operations of the bank from its organization. Of the government shares, five million dollars at par, two thousand four hundred and ninety-three shares were sold in 1796 and 1797 at an advance of 25 per cent., two hundred and eighty-seven in 1797 at an advance of twenty per cent., and the remaining 2,220 shares in 1802, at an advance of 45 per cent., making together, exclusive of the dividends, a profit of $671,680 to the United States. Eighteen thousand shares of the bank stock were held abroad, and seven thousand shares, or a little more than one fourth part of the capital, in the United States. {2214} A table of all the dividends made by the bank showed that they had on the average been at the rate of 8 3/8 (precisely 8 13/34) per cent. a year, which proved that the bank had not in any considerable degree used the public deposits for the purpose of extending its discounts. From a general view of the debits and credits, as presented, it appeared that the affairs of the Bank of the United States, considered as a moneyed institution, had been wisely and skilfully managed. The advantages derived by the government Mr. Gallatin stated to be, 1, safe-keeping of the public moneys; 2, transmission of the public moneys; 3, collection of the revenue; 4, loans. The strongest objection to the renewal of the charter lay in the great portion of the bank stock held by foreigners. Not on account of any influence over the institution, since they had no vote; but because of the high rate of interest payable by America to foreign countries. … Congress refused to prolong its existence and the institution was dissolved. Fortunately for the country, it wound up its affairs with such deliberation and prudence as to allow of the interposition of other bank credits in lieu of those withdrawn, and thus prevented a serious shock to the interests of the community. In the twenty years of its existence from 1791 to 1811 its management was irreproachable. The immediate effect of the refusal of Congress to recharter the Bank of the United States was to bring the Treasury to the verge of bankruptcy. The interference of Parish, Girard, and Astor alone saved the credit of the government. … Another immediate effect of the dissolution of the bank was the withdrawal from the country of the foreign capital invested in the bank, more than seven millions of dollars. This amount was remitted, in the twelve months preceding the war, in specie. Specie was at that time a product foreign to the United States, and by no means easy to obtain. … The notes of the Bank of the United States, payable on demand in gold and silver at the counters of the bank, or any of its branches, were, by its charter, receivable in all payments to the United States; but this quality was also stripped from them on March 19, 1812, by a repeal of the act according it. To these disturbances of the financial equilibrium of the country was added the necessary withdrawal of fifteen millions of bank credit and its transfer to other institutions. This gave an extraordinary impulse to the establishment of local banks, each eager for a share of the profits. The capital of the country, instead of being concentrated, was dissipated. Between January 1, 1811, and 1815, one hundred and twenty new banks were chartered, and forty millions of dollars were added to the banking capital. To realize profits, the issues of paper were pushed to the extreme of possible circulation. Meanwhile New England kept aloof from the nation. The specie in the vaults of the banks of Massachusetts rose from $1,706,000 on June 1, 1811, to $7,326,000 on June 1, 1814. … The suspension of the banks was precipitated by the capture of Washington. It began in Baltimore, which was threatened by the British, and was at once followed in Philadelphia and New York. Before the end of September all the banks south and west of New England had suspended specie payment. … The depression of the local currencies ranged from seven to twenty-five per cent. … In November the Treasury Department found itself involved in the common disaster. The refusal of the banks, in which the public moneys were deposited, to pay their notes or the drafts upon them in specie deprived the government of its gold and silver; and their refusal, likewise, of credit and circulation to the issues of banks in other States deprived the government also of the only means it possessed for transferring its funds to pay the dividends on the debt and discharge the treasury notes. … On October 14, 1814, Alexander J. Dallas, Mr. Gallatin's old friend, who had been appointed Secretary of the Treasury on the 6th of the same month, in a report of a plan to support the public credit, proposed the incorporation of a national bank. A bill was passed by Congress, but returned to it by Madison with his veto on January 15, 1815. … Mr. Dallas again, as a last resort, insisted on a bank as the only means by which the currency of the country could be restored to a sound condition. In December, 1815, Dallas reported to the Committee of the House of Representatives on the national currency, of which John C. Calhoun was chairman, a plan for a national bank, and on March 3, 1816, the second Bank of the United States was chartered by Congress. The capital was thirty-five millions, of which the government held seven millions in seventy thousand shares of one hundred dollars each. Mr. Madison approved the bill. … The second national bank of the United States was located at Philadelphia, and chartered for twenty years."

MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1817-1833.
The Second Bank of the United States
and the war upon it.

   "On the 1st of January, 1817, the bank opened for business,
   with the country on the brink of a great monetary crisis, but
   'too late to prevent the crash which followed.' The management
   of the bank during the first two years of its existence was
   far from satisfactory. It aggravated the troubles of the
   financial situation instead of relieving them. Specie payments
   were nominally resumed in 1817, but the insidious canker of
   inflation had eaten its way into the arteries of business, and
   in the crisis of 1819 came another suspension that lasted for
   two years. … It was only by a desperate effort that the bank
   finally weathered the storm brought on by its own
   mismanagement and that of the State Banks. After the recovery,
   a period of several years of prosperity followed, and the
   management of the bank was thoroughly reorganized and sound.
   From this time on until the great 'Bank War' its affairs seem
   to have been conducted with a view to performing its duty to
   the government as well as to its individual stockholders, and
   it rendered such aid to the public, directly, and indirectly,
   as entitled it to respect and fair treatment on the part of
   the servants of the people. … But the bank controversy was
   not yet over. It was about to be revived, and to become a
   prominent issue in a period of our national politics more
   distinguished for the bitterness of its personal animosities
   than perhaps any other in our annals. … As already said, the
   ten years following the revulsion of 1819-25 were years of
   almost unbroken prosperity. … The question of the
   continuance of the bank was not under discussion. In fact,
   scarcely any mention of the subject was made until President
   Jackson referred to it in his message of December, 1829.
{2215}
   In this message he reopened the question of the
   constitutionality of the bank, but the committee to which this
   portion of the message was referred in the House of
   Representatives made a report favorable to the institution.
   There seems no reason to doubt the honesty of Jackson's
   opinion that the bank was unconstitutional, and at first he
   probably had no feeling in the matter except that which sprang
   from his convictions on this point. Certain events, however,
   increased his hostility to the bank, and strengthened his
   resolution to destroy it. … When President Jackson first
   attacked the bank, the weapon he chiefly relied on was the
   alleged unconstitutionality of the charter."

      D. Kinley,
      The Independent Treasury of the United States,
      chapter 1.

The question of the rechartering of the Bank was made an issue in the presidential campaign of 1832, by Henry Clay. "Its disinterested friends in both parties strongly dissuaded Biddle [president of the Bank] from allowing the question of recharter to be brought into the campaign. Clay's advisers tried to dissuade him. The bank, however, could not oppose the public man on whom it depended most, and the party leaders deferred at last to their chief. Jackson never was more dictatorial and obstinate than Clay was at this juncture." Pending the election, a bill to renew the charter of the Bank was passed through both houses of Congress. The President promptly vetoed it. "The national republican convention met at Baltimore, December 12, 1831. It … issued an address, in which the bank question was put forward. It was declared that the President 'is fully and three times over pledged to the people to negative any bill that may be passed for rechartering the bank, and there is little doubt that the additional influence which he would acquire by a reelection would be employed to carry through Congress the extraordinary substitute which he has repeatedly proposed.' The appeal, therefore, was to defeat Jackson in order to save the bank. … Such a challenge as that could have but one effect on Jackson. It called every faculty he possessed into activity to compass the destruction of the bank. Instead of retiring from the position he had taken, the moment there was a fight to be fought, he did what he did at New Orleans. He moved his lines up to the last point he could command on the side towards the enemy. … The proceedings seemed to prove just what the anti-bank men had asserted: that the bank was a great monster, which aimed to control elections, and to set up and put down Presidents. The campaign of 1832 was a struggle between the popularity of the bank and the popularity of Jackson."

Jackson was overwhelmingly elected, and feeling convinced that his war upon the Bank had received the approval of the people, he determined to remove the public deposits from its keeping on his own responsibility. "With this view he removed (in the spring of 1833) the Secretary of the Treasury, who would not consent to remove the deposits, and appointed William J. Duane, of Pennsylvania, in his place. He proved to be no more compliant than his predecessor. After many attempts to persuade him, the President announced to the Cabinet his final decision that the deposits must be removed. The Reasons given were that the law gave the Secretary, not Congress, control of the deposits, that it was improper to leave them longer in a bank whose charter would so soon expire, that the Bank's funds had been largely used for political purposes, that its inability to pay all its depositors had been shown by its efforts to procure an extension of time from its creditors in Europe, and that its four government directors had been systematically kept from knowledge of its management. Secretary Duane refused either to remove the deposits or to resign his office, and pronounced the proposed removal unnecessary, unwise, vindictive, arbitrary, and unjust. He was at once removed from office, and Roger B. Taney, of Maryland, appointed in his place. The necessary Orders for Removal were given by Secretary Taney. It was not strictly a removal, for all previous deposits were left in the Bank, to be drawn upon until exhausted. It was rather a cessation. The deposits were afterwards made in various State banks, and the Bank of the United States was compelled to call in its loans. The commercial distress which followed in consequence probably strengthened the President in the end by giving a convincing proof of the Bank's power as an antagonist to the Government."

"Michigan became a State in January, 1837. Almost the first act of her State legislature was the passage of a general banking law under which any ten or more freeholders of any county might organize themselves into a corporation for the transaction of banking business. Of the nominal capital of a bank only ten per cent. in specie was required to be paid when subscriptions to the stock were made, and twenty per cent. additional in specie when the bank began business. For the further security of the notes which were to be issued as currency, the stockholders were to give first mortgages upon real estate, to be estimated at its cash value by at least three county officers, the mortgages to be filed with the auditor-general of the State. A bank commissioner was appointed to superintend the organization of the banks, and to attest the legality of their proceedings to the auditor-general, who, upon receiving such attestation, was to deliver to the banks circulating notes amounting to two and a half times the capital certified to as having been paid in. This law was passed in obedience to a popular cry that the banking business had become an 'odious monopoly' that ought to be broken up. Its design was to 'introduce free competition into what was considered a profitable branch of business heretofore monopolized by a few favored corporations.' Anybody was to be given fair opportunities for entering the business on equal terms with everybody else. The act was passed in March, 1837, and the legislature adjourned till November 9 following. Before the latter date arrived, in fact before any banks had been organized under the law, a financial panic seized the whole country. An era of wild speculation reached a climax, the banks in all the principal cities of the country suspended specie payments, and State legislatures were called together to devise remedies to meet the situation. That of Michigan was convened in special session in June, and its remedy for the case of Michigan was to leave the general banking law in force, and to add to it full authority for banks organized under it to begin the business of issuing bills in a state of suspension—that is, to flood the State with an irredeemable currency, based upon thirty per cent. of specie and seventy per cent. of land mortgage bonds."

"Wild lands that had been recently bought of the government at one dollar and twenty-five cents an acre were now valued at ten or twenty times that amount, and lots in villages that still existed only on paper had a worth for banking purposes only limited by the conscience of the officer who was to take the securities. Any ten freeholders of a county must be poor indeed if they could not give sufficient security to answer the purpose of the general banking law. The requirement of the payment of thirty per cent. of the capital stock in specie was more difficult to be complied with. But as the payment was to be made to the bank itself, the difficulty was gotten over in various ingenious ways, which the author of the general banking law could hardly have anticipated. In some cases, stock notes in terms payable in specie, or the certificates of individuals which stated—untruly—that the maker held a specified sum of specie for the bank, were counted as specie itself; in others, a small sum of specie was paid in and taken out, and the process repeated over and over until the aggregate of payments equaled the sum required; in still others, the specie with which one bank was organized was passed from town to town and made to answer the purposes of several. By the first day of January, 1838, articles of association for twenty-one banks had been filed, making, with the banks before in existence, an average of one to less than five thousand people. Some of them were absolutely without capital, and some were organized by scheming men in New York and elsewhere, who took the bills away with them to circulate abroad, putting out none at home. For some, locations as inaccessible as possible were selected, that the bills might not come back to plague the managers. The bank commissioners say in their report for 1838, of their journey for inspection: 'The singular spectacle was presented of the officers of the State seeking for banks in situations the most inaccessible and remote from trade, and finding at every step an increase of labor by the discovery of new and unknown organizations. Before they could be arrested the mischief was done: large issues were in circulation and no adequate remedy for the evil.' One bank was found housed in a saw-mill, and it was said with pardonable exaggeration in one of the public papers. 'Every village plat with a house, or even without a house, if it had a hollow stump to serve as a vault, was the site of a bank.' … The governor, when he delivered his annual message in January, 1838, still had confidence in the general banking law, which he said 'offered to all persons the privilege of banking under certain guards and restrictions,' and he declared that 'the principles upon which this law is based are certainly correct, destroying as they do the odious feature of a banking monopoly, and giving equal rights to all classes of the community.' … The aggregate amount of private indebtedness had by this time become enormous, and the pressure for payment was serious and disquieting. … The people must have relief; and what relief could be so certain or so speedy as more banks and more money? More banks therefore continued to be organized, and the paper current flowed out among the people in increasing volume. … At the beginning of 1839 the bank commissioners estimated that there were a million dollars of bills of insolvent banks in the hands of individuals and unavailable. Yet the governor, in his annual message delivered in January, found it a 'source of unfeigned gratification to be able to congratulate [the legislature] on the prosperous condition to which our rising commonwealth has attained.' … Then came stay laws, and laws to compel creditors to take lands at a valuation. They were doubtful in point of utility, and more than doubtful in point of morality and constitutionality. The federal bankrupt act of 1841 first brought substantial relief: it brought almost no dividends to creditors, but it relieved debtors from their crushing burdens and permitted them, sobered and in their right minds, to enter once more the fields of industry and activity. The extraordinary history of the attempt to break up an 'odious monopoly' in banking by making everybody a banker, and to create prosperity by unlimited issues of paper currency, was brought at length to a fit conclusion."

"On April 18th, 1838, the monopoly of banking under special charters, was brought to a close in the State of New York, by the passage of the act 'to authorize the business of Banking.' Under this law Associations for Banking purposes and Individual Bankers, were authorized to carry on the business of Banking, by establishing offices of deposit, discount and circulation. Subsequently a separate Department was organized at Albany, called 'The Bank Department,' with a Superintendent, who was charged with the supervision of all the banks in the State. Under this law institutions could be organized simply as banks of 'discount and deposit,' and might also add the issuing of a paper currency to circulate as money. At first the law provided that State and United States stocks for one-half, and bonds and mortgages for the other half, might be deposited as security for the circulating notes to be issued by Banks and individual Bankers. Upon a fair trial, however, it was found that when a bank failed, and the Bank Department was called upon to redeem the circulating notes of such bank, the mortgages could not be made available in time to meet the demand. … By an amendment of the law the receiving of mortgages as security for circulating notes was discontinued."

E. G. Spaulding, One Hundred Years of Progress in the Business of Banking, page 48.

"By an act of parliament passed in 1838, conferring certain privileges on the Bank of England, it was provided that the charter granted to that body should expire in 1855, but the power was reserved to the legislature, on giving six months' notice, to revise the charter ten years earlier. Availing themselves of this option, the government proposed a measure for regulating the entire monetary system of the country."

"The growth of commerce, and in particular the establishment of numerous joint-stock banks had given a dangerous impulse to issues of paper money, which were not then restricted by law. Even the Bank of England did not observe any fixed proportion between the amount of notes which it issued and the amount of bullion which it kept in reserve. When introducing this subject to the House of Commons, Peel remarked that within the last twenty years there had been four periods when a contraction of issues had been necessary in order to maintain the convertibility of paper, and that in none of these had the Bank of England acted with vigour equal to the emergency. In the latest of these periods, from June of 1838 to June of 1839, the amount of bullion in the Bank had fallen to little more than £4,000,000, whilst the total of paper in circulation had risen to little less than £30,000,000. … Peel was not the first to devise the methods which he adopted. Mr. Jones Loyd, afterwards Lord Overstone, who impressed the learned with his tracts and the vulgar with his riches, had advised the principal changes in the law relating to the issue of paper money which Peel effected by the Bank Charter Act. These changes were three in number. The first was to separate totally the two departments of the Bank of England, the banking department and the issue department. The banking department was left to be managed as best the wisdom of the directors could devise for the profit of the shareholders. The issue department was placed under regulations which deprived the Bank of any discretion in its management, and may almost be said to have made it a department of the State. The second innovation was to limit the issue of paper by the Bank of England to an amount proportioned to the value of its assets. The Bank was allowed to issue notes to the amount of £14,000,000 against Government securities in its possession. The Government owed the Bank a debt of £11,000,000, besides which the Bank held Exchequer Bills. But the amount over £14,000,000 which the Bank could issue was not, henceforwards, to be more than the equivalent of the bullion in its possession. By this means it was made certain that the Bank would be able to give coin for any of its notes which might be presented to it. The third innovation was to limit the issues of the country banks. The power of issuing notes was denied to any private or joint-stock banks founded after the date of the Act. It was recognized in those banks which already possessed it, but limited to a total sum of £8,500,000, the average quantity of such notes which had been in circulation during the years immediately preceding. It was provided that if any of the banks which retained this privilege should cease to exist or to issue notes, the Bank of England should be entitled to increase its note circulation by a sum equal to two-thirds of the amount of the former issues of the bank which ceased to issue paper. The Bank of England was required in this contingency to augment the reserve fund. By Acts passed in the succeeding year, the principles of the English Bank Charter Act were applied to Scotland and Ireland, with such modifications as the peculiar circumstances of those kingdoms required. The Bank Charter Act has ever since been the subject of voluminous and contradictory criticism, both by political economists and by men of business."

      ALSO IN:
      Bonamy Price,
      The Bank Charter Act of 1844
      (Fraser's Magazine, June, 1865).

      W. C. Taylor,
      Life and Times of Sir Robert Peel,
      volume 3, chapter 7.

MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1848-1893.
   Production of the Precious Metals
   in the last half-century.
   The Silver Question in the United States.

"The total (estimated) stock of gold in the world in 1848, was £560,000,000. As for the annual production, it had varied considerably since the beginning of the century [from £3,000,000 to £8,000,000]. Such was the state of things immediately preceding 1848. In that year the Californian discoveries took place, and these were followed by the discoveries in Australia in 1851.

For these three years the annual average production is set down by the Economist at £9,000,000, but from this date the production suddenly rose to, for 1852, £27,000.000, and continued to rise till 1856, when it attained its maximum of £32,250,000. At this stage a decline in the returns occurred, the lowest point reached being in 1860, when they fell to £18,683,000, but from this they rose again, and for the last ten years [before 1873] have maintained an average of about £20,500,000; the returns for the year 1871 being £20,811,000. The total amount of gold added to the world's stock by this twenty years' production has been about £500,000,000, an amount nearly equal to that existing in the world at the date of the discoveries: in other words, the stock of gold in the world has been nearly doubled since that time."

"The yearly average of gold production in the twenty-five years from 1851-75 was $127,000,000. The yearly average product of silver for the same period was $51,000,000. The average annual product of gold for the fifteen years from 1876 to 1890 declined to $108,000,000; a minus of 15 per cent. The average annual product of silver for the same period increased to $116,000,000; a plus of 127 per cent. There is the whole silver question."

   "From 1793—the date of the first issue of silver coin by the
   United States—to 1834 the silver and the gold dollar were
   alike authorized to be received as legal tender in payment of
   debt, but silver alone circulated. Subsequently, however,
   silver was not used, except in fractional payments, or, since
   1853, as a subsidiary coin. The silver coin, as a coin of
   circulation, had become obsolete. The reason why, prior to
   1834, payments were made exclusively in silver, and
   subsequently to that date in gold, is found in the fact that
   prior to the legislation of 1834 … the standard silver coins
   were relatively the cheaper, and consequently circulated to
   the exclusion of the gold; while during the later period the
   standard gold coins were the cheaper, circulating to the
   exclusion of the silver. The Coinage Act of 1873, by which the
   coinage of the silver dollar was discontinued, became a law on
   February 12th of that year. The act of February 28, 1878,
   which passed Congress by a two-thirds vote over the veto of
   President Hayes, again provided for the coinage of a silver
   dollar of 412.5 grains, the silver bullion to be purchased at
   the market price by the Government, and the amount so
   purchased and coined not to be less than two millions of
   dollars per month. During the debate on this bill the charge
   was repeatedly made, in and out of Congress, that the previous
   act of 1873, discontinuing the free coinage of the silver
   dollar, was passed surreptitiously.
{2218}
   This statement has no foundation in fact. The report of the
   writer, who was then Deputy Comptroller of the Currency,
   transmitted to Congress in 1870 by the Secretary, three times
   distinctly stated that the bill accompanying it proposed to
   discontinue the issue of the silver dollar-piece. Various
   experts, to whom it had been submitted, approved this feature
   of the bill, and their opinions were printed by order of
   Congress."

"The bill of 1878, generally spoken of as the 'Bland' bill, directed the secretary of the treasury to purchase not less than two million nor more than four million dollars' worth of silver bullion per month, to coin it into silver dollars, said silver dollars to be full legal tender at 'their nominal value.' Also, that the holder of ten or more of these silver dollars could exchange them for silver certificates, said certificates being 'receivable for customs, taxes, and all public dues.' The bill was pushed and passed by the efforts, principally, of the greenback inflationists and the representatives of the silver States. … Since 1878 [to 1891], 405,000,000 silver dollars have been coined. Of these 348,000,000 are still lying in the treasury vaults. No comment is needed. The Bland-Allison act did not hold up silver. In 1870 it was worth $1.12 an ounce, in 1880 $1.14, '81 $1.13, '82 $1.13, '83 $1.11, '86 99 cents, until in '89 it reached 93½ cents an ounce. That is, in 1880 the commercial ratio was 22:1 and the coin value of the Bland-Allison silver dollar was 72 cents. In March, 1800, a bill was reported to the House by the committee of 'coinage, weights and measures,' based on a plan proposed by Secretary Windom. … The bill passed the House. The Senate passed it with an amendment making provision for free and unlimited coinage. It finally went to a conference committee which reported the bill that became a law, July 14, 1890. This bill directs the secretary of the treasury to purchase four and one-half million ounces of silver a month at the market price, to give legal tender treasury notes therefor, said notes being redeemable in gold or silver coin at the option of the government, 'it being the established policy of the United States to maintain the two metals on a parity with each other upon the present legal ratio.' It was believed that this bill would raise the price of silver. … To-day [December 8, 1891] the silver in our dollar is actually worth 73 cents."

      See, also,
      UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1873, 1878, and 1890-1893.

In the summer of 1893, a financial crisis, produced in the judgment of the best informed by the operation of the silver-purchase law of 1890 (known commonly as the Sherman Act) became so serious that President Cleveland called a special session of Congress to deal with it. In his Message to Congress, at the opening of its session, the President said: "With plenteous crops, with abundant promise of remunerative production and manufacture, with unusual invitation to safe investment, and with satisfactory assurance to business enterprise, suddenly financial fear and distrust have sprung up on every side. Numerous moneyed institutions have suspended because abundant assets were not immediately available to meet the demands of the frightened depositors. Surviving corporations and individuals are content to keep in hand the money they are usually anxious to loan, and those engaged in legitimate business are surprised to find that the securities they offer for loans, though heretofore satisfactory, are no longer accepted. Values supposed to be fixed are fast becoming conjectural, and loss and failure have involved every branch of business. I believe these things are principally chargeable to congressional legislation touching the purchase and coinage of silver by the General Government. This legislation is embodied in a statute passed on the 14th day of July, 1890, which was the culmination of much agitation on the subject involved, and which may be considered a truce, after a long struggle between the advocates of free silver coinage and those intending to be more conservative." A bill to repeal the act of July 14, 1890 (the Sherman law, so called), was passed by both houses and received the President's signature, Nov. 1, 1893.

   "The gold discoveries of California and Australia were
   directly the cause of the Latin Union. … In 1853, when the
   subsidiary silver of the United States had disappeared before
   the cheapened gold, we reduced the quantity of silver in the
   small coins sufficiently to keep them dollar for dollar below
   the value of gold. Switzerland followed this example of the
   United States in her law of January 31, 1860; but, instead of
   distinctly reducing the weight of pure silver in her small
   coins, she accomplished the same end by lowering the fineness
   of standard for these coins to 800 thousandths fine. …
   Meanwhile France and Italy had a higher standard for their
   coins than Switzerland, and as the neighboring states, which
   had the franc system of coinage in common, found each other's
   coins in circulation within their own limits, it was clear
   that the cheaper Swiss coins, according to Gresham's law, must
   drive out the dearer French and Italian coins, which contained
   more pure silver, but which passed current at the same nominal
   value. The Swiss coins of 800 thousandths fine began to pass
   the French frontier and to displace the French coins of a
   similar denomination; and the French coins were exported,
   melted, and recoined in Switzerland at a profit. This, of
   course, brought forth a decree in France (April 14, 1864),
   which prohibited the receipt of these Swiss coins at the
   public offices of France, the customs-offices, etc., and they
   were consequently refused in common trade among individuals.
   Belgium also, as well as Switzerland, began to think it
   necessary to deal with the questions affecting her silver
   small coins, which were leaving that country for the same
   reason that they were leaving Switzerland. Belgium then
   undertook to make overtures to France, in order that some
   concerted action might be undertaken by the four countries
   using the franc system—Italy, Belgium, France, and
   Switzerland—to remedy the evil to which all were exposed by
   the disappearance of their silver coin needed in every-day
   transactions. The discoveries of gold had forced a
   reconsideration of their coinage systems. In consequence of
   these overtures, a conference of delegates representing the
   Latin states just mentioned assembled in Paris, November
   20, 1865. … The Conference, fully realizing the effects of
   the fall of gold in driving out their silver coins, agreed to
   establish a uniform coinage in the four countries, on the
   essential principles adopted by the United States in 1853.
{2219}
   They lowered the silver pieces of two francs, one franc, fifty
   centimes, and twenty centimes from a standard of 900
   thousandths fine to a uniform fineness of 835 thousandths,
   reducing these coins to the position of a subsidiary currency.
   They retained for the countries of the Latin Union, however,
   the system of bimetallism. Gold pieces of one hundred, fifty,
   twenty, ten, and five francs were to be coined, together with
   five-franc pieces of silver, and all at a standard of 900
   thousandths fine. Free coinage at a ratio of 15½:1, was
   thereby granted to any holder of either gold or silver bullion
   who wanted silver coins of five francs, or gold coins from
   five francs and upward. … The subsidiary silver coins (below
   five francs) were made a legal tender between individuals of
   the state which coined them to the amount of fifty francs. …
   The treaty was ratified, and went into effect August 1, 1866,
   to continue until January 1, 1880, or about fifteen years. …
   The downward tendency of silver in 1873 led the Latin Union to
   fear that the demonetized silver of Germany would flood their
   own mints if they continued the free coinage of five-franc
   silver pieces at a legal ratio of 15½:1. … This condition of
   things led to the meeting of delegates from the countries of
   the Latin Union at Paris, January 30, 1874, who there agreed
   to a treaty supplementary to that originally formed in 1865,
   and determined on withdrawing from individuals the full power
   of free coinage by limiting to a moderate sum the amount of
   silver five-franc pieces which should be coined by each state
   of the Union during the year 1874. The date of this suspension
   of coinage by the Latin Union is regarded by all authorities
   as of great import in regard to the value of silver."

      J. L. Laughlin,
      The History of Bimetallism in the United States,
      pages 146-155.

MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1861-1878.
The Legal-tender notes, or Greenbacks, the
National Bank System, of the American Civil War.

"In January, 1861, the paper currency of the United States was furnished by 1,600 private corporations, organized under thirty-four different State laws. The circulation of the banks amounted to $202,000,000, of which only about $50,000,000 were issued in the States which in April, 1861, undertook to set up an independent government. About $150,000,000 were in circulation in the loyal States, including West Virginia. When Congress met in extraordinary session on the 4th of July, the three-months volunteers, who had hastened to the defence of the capital, were confronting the rebel army on the line of the Potomac, and the first great battle at Bull Run was impending. President Lincoln called upon Congress to provide for the enlistment of 400,000 men, and Secretary Chase submitted estimates for probable expenditures amounting to $318,000,000. The treasury was empty, and the expenses of the government were rapidly approaching a million dollars a day. The ordinary expenses of the government, during the year ending on the 30th of June, 1861, had been $62,000,000, and even this sum had not been supplied by the revenue, which amounted to only $41,000,000. The rest had been borrowed. It was now necessary to provide for an expenditure increased fivefold, and amounting to eight times the income of the country, Secretary Chase advised that $80,000,000 be provided by taxation, and $240,000,000 by loans; and that, in anticipation of revenue, provision be made for the issue of $50,000,000 of treasury notes, redeemable on demand in coin. 'The greatest care will, however, be requisite,' he said, 'to prevent the degradation of such issues into an irredeemable paper currency, than which no more certainly fatal expedient for impoverishing the masses and discrediting the government of any country can well be devised.' The desired authority was granted by Congress. The Secretary was authorized to borrow, on the credit of the United States, not exceeding $250,000,000, and, 'as a part of the above loan,' to issue an exchange for coin, or pay for salaries or other dues from the United States, not over $50,000,000 of treasury notes, bearing no interest, but payable on demand at Philadelphia, New York, or Boston. The act does not say, 'payable in coin,' for nobody had then imagined that any other form of payment was possible. Congress adjourned on the 6th of August, after passing an act to provide an increased revenue from imports, and laying a direct tax of $20,000,000 upon the States, and a tax of 3 per cent. upon the excess of all private incomes above $800. The Secretary immediately invited the banks of Philadelphia, New York, and Boston to assist in the negotiation of the proposed loans, and they loyally responded. On the 19th of August they took $50,000,000 of three years 7-30 bonds at par; on the 1st of October, $50,000,000 more of the same securities at par; and on the 16th of November, $50,000,000 of twenty years 6 per cents., at a rate making the interest equivalent to 7 per cent. These advances relieved the temporary necessities of the treasury, and, when Congress reassembled in December, Secretary Chase was prepared to recommend a permanent financial policy. The solid basis of this policy was to be taxation. … It was estimated, a revenue of $90,000,000 would be needed; and to secure that sum, the Secretary advised that the duties on tea, coffee, and sugar be increased; that a direct tax of $20,000,000 be assessed on the States; that the income tax be modified so as to produce $10,000,000, and that duties be laid on liquors, tobacco, carriages, legacies, bank-notes, bills payable, and conveyances. For the extraordinary expenses of the war it was necessary to depend upon loans, and the authority to be granted for this purpose the Secretary left 'to the better judgment of Congress,' only suggesting that the rate of interest should be regulated by law, and that the time had come when the government might properly claim a part, at least, of the advantage of the paper circulation, then constituting a loan without interest from the people to the banks. There were two ways, Secretary Chase said, in which this advantage might be secured: 1. By increasing the issue of United States notes, and taxing the bank-notes out of existence. 2. By providing a national currency, to be issued by the banks but secured by the pledge of United States bonds. The former plan the Secretary did not recommend, regarding the hazard of a depreciating and finally worthless currency as far outweighing the probable benefits of the measure. … Congress had hardly begun to consider these recommendations, when the situation was completely changed by the suspension of specie payments, on the 28th of December, by the banks of New York, followed by the suspension of the other banks in the country, and compelling the treasury also to suspend. {2220} This suspension was the result of a panic occasioned by the shadow of war with England. … To provide for the pressing wants of the treasury, Congress, on the 12th of February, 1862, authorized the issue of $10,000,000 more of demand notes. Before the end of the session further issues were provided for, making the aggregate of United States notes $300,000,000, besides fractional currency. There was a long debate upon the propriety of making these notes a legal tender for private debts, and it seemed for a time that the measure would be defeated by this dispute. [The bill authorizing the issue of legal tender notes known afterwards as 'Greenbacks' was prepared by the Hon. E. G. Spaulding, who subsequently wrote the history of the measure.] Secretary Chase finally advised the concession of this point; nevertheless, 55 votes in the House of Representatives … were recorded against the provision making the notes a tender for private debts. Congress also empowered the Secretary to borrow $500,000,000 on 5-20 year 6 per cent. bonds, besides a temporary loan of $100,000,000, and provided that the interest on the bonds should be paid in coin, and that the customs should be collected in coin for that purpose. Nothing was said about the principal, for it was taken for granted that specie payments would be resumed before the payment of the principal of the debt would be undertaken. … Congress had thus adopted the plan which the Secretary of the Treasury did not recommend, and neglected the proposition which he preferred. … When Congress met in December, 1862, the magnitude of the war had become fully apparent. … The enormous demands upon the treasury … had exhausted the resources provided by Congress. The disbursements in November amounted to $59,847,077—two millions a day. Unpaid requisitions had accumulated amounting to $46,000,000. The total receipts for the year then current, ending June 30, 1863, were estimated at $511,000,000; the expenditures at $788,000,000; leaving $277,000,000 to be provided for. There were only two ways to obtain this sum—by a fresh issue of United States notes, or by new interest-bearing loans. But the gold premium had advanced in October to 34; the notes were already at a discount of 25 per cent. The consequences of an addition of $277,000,000 to the volume of currency, the Secretary said, would be 'inflation of prices, increase of expenditures, augmentation of debt, and, ultimately, disastrous defeat of the very purposes sought to be obtained by it.' He therefore recommended an increase in the amount authorized to be borrowed on the 5-20 bonds. … In order to create a market for the bonds, he again recommended the creation of banking associations under a national law requiring them to secure their circulation by a deposit of government bonds. The suggestion thus renewed was not received with favor by Congress. … On the 7th of January Mr. Hooper offered again his bill to provide a national currency, secured by a pledge of United States bonds, but the next day Mr. Stevens, of Pennsylvania, submitted the bill with an adverse report from the committee on ways and means. On the 14th of January Mr. Stevens reported a resolution authorizing the Secretary of the Treasury to issue $100,000,000 more of United States notes for the immediate payment of the army and navy. The resolution passed the House at once, and the Senate the next day. … On the 19th of January President Lincoln sent a special message to the House, announcing that he had signed the joint resolution authorizing a new issue of United States notes, but adding that he considered it his duty to express his sincere regret that it had been found necessary to add such a sum to an already redundant currency, while the suspended banks were still left free to increase their circulation at will. He warned Congress that such a policy must soon produce disastrous consequences, and the warning was effective. On the 25th of January Senator Sherman offered a bill to provide a national currency, differing in some respects from Mr. Hooper's in the House. The bill passed the Senate on the 12th of February, 23 to 21, and the House on the 20th, 78 to 64. … It was signed by the President on the 25th of February, 1863."

"One immediate effect of the Legal Tender Act was to destroy our credit abroad. Stocks were sent home for sale, and, as Bagebot shows, Lombard Street was closed to a nation which had adopted legal tender paper money. … By August all specie had disappeared from circulation, and postage-stamps and private note-issues took its place. In July a bill was passed for issuing stamps as fractional currency, but in March 1863, another act was passed providing for an issue of 50,000,000 in notes for fractional parts of a dollar—not legal tender. For many years the actual issue was only 30,000,000, the amount of silver fractional coins in circulation in the North, east of the Rocky Mountains, when the war broke out. … Gold rose to 200-220 or above, making the paper worth 45 or 50 cts., at which point the 5 per cent. ten-forties floated. The amount sold up to October 31st, 1865, was $172,770,100. Mr. Spaulding reckons up the paper issues which acted more or less as currency, on January 30th, 1864, at $1,125,877,034; 812,000,000 bore no interest."

The paper-money issues of the Civil War were not brought to parity of value with gold until near the close of the year 1878. The 1st day of January, 1879, had been fixed for resumption by an act passed in 1875; but that date was generally anticipated in practical business by a few months.

A. S. Bolles, Financial History of the United States, 1861-1885, book 1, chapters 4, 5, 8, and 11, and book 2, chapter 2.

   "At the close of the Franco-Prussian war the new German Empire
   found the opportunity … for the establishment of a uniform
   coinage throughout its numerous small states, and was
   essentially aided in its plan at this time by the receipt of
   the enormous war-indemnity from France, of which $54,600,000
   was paid to Germany in French gold coin. Besides this, Germany
   received from France bills of exchange in payment of the
   indemnity which gave Germany the title to gold in places, such
   as London, on which the bills were drawn. Gold in this way
   left London for Berlin. With a large stock of gold on hand,
   Germany began a series of measures to change her circulation
   from silver to gold.
{2221}
   Her circulation in 1870, before the change was made, was
   composed substantially of silver and paper money, with no more
   than 4 per cent of the whole circulation in gold. … The
   substitution of gold instead of silver in a country like
   Germany which had a single silver medium was carried out by a
   path which led first to temporary bimetallism and later to
   gold monometallism. And for this purpose the preparatory
   measures were passed December 4, 1871. … This law of 1871
   created new gold coins, current equally with existing silver
   coins, at rates of exchange which were based on a ratio
   between the gold and silver coins of 1:15½. The silver coins
   were not demonetized by this law; their coinage was for the
   present only discontinued; but there was no doubt as to the
   intention of the Government in the future. … The next and
   decisive step toward a single gold standard was taken by the
   act of July 9, 1873. … By this measure gold was established
   as the monetary standard of the country, with the 'mark' as
   the unit, and silver was used, as in the United States in
   1853, in a subsidiary service. … Under the terms of this
   legislation Germany began to withdraw her old silver coinage,
   and to sell as bullion whatever silver was not recoined into
   the new subsidiary currency."

     J. L. Laughlin,
      History of Bimetallism in the United States,
      pages 136-140.

   The free coinage of silver in India was stopped by the
   Government in June, 1893, thus taking the first step toward
   the establishment of the gold standard in that country.

"The name Mongol (according to Schmidt) is derived from the word Mong, meaning brave, daring, bold, an etymology which is acquiesced in by Dr. Schott. Ssanang Setzen says it was first given to the race in the time of Jingis Khan, but it is of much older date than his time, as we know from the Chinese accounts. … They point further, as the statements of Raschid do, to the Mongols having at first been merely one tribe of a great confederacy, whose name was probably extended to the whole when the prowess of the Imperial House which governed it gained the supremacy. We learn lastly from them that the generic name by which the race was known in early times to the Chinese was Shi wei, the Mongols having, in fact, been a tribe of the Shi wei. … The Shi wei were known to the Chinese from the 7th century; they then consisted of various detached hordes, subject to the Thu kiu, or Turks. … After the fall of the Yuan-Yuan, the Turks, by whom they were overthrown, acquired the supreme control of Eastern Asia. They had, under the name of Hiong nu, been masters of the Mongolian desert and its border land from a very early period, and under their new name of Turks they merely reconquered a position from which they had been driven some centuries before. Everywhere in Mongol history we find evidence of their presence, the titles Khakan, Khan, Bigui or Beg, Terkhan, &c., are common to both races, while the same names occur among Mongol and Turkish chiefs. … This fact of the former predominance of Turkish influence in further Asia supports the traditions collected by Raschid, Abulghazi, &c., … which trace the race of Mongol Khans up to the old royal race of the Turks."

"Here [in the eastern portion of Asia known as the desert of Gobi], from time immemorial, the Mongols, a people nearly akin to the Turks in language and physiognomy, had made their home, leading a miserable nomadic life in the midst of a wild and barren country, unrecognised by their neighbours, and their very name unknown centuries after their kinsmen, the Turks, had been exercising an all-powerful influence over the destinies of Western Asia."

"Jingiz-Khan [or Genghis, or Zingis], whose original name was Tamujin, the son of a Tatar chief, was born in the year 1153 A. D. In 1202, at the age of 49, he had defeated or propitiated all his enemies, and in 1205 was proclaimed, by a great assembly, Khakan or Emperor of Tartary. His capital, a vast assemblage of tents, was at Kara-Korum, in a distant part of Chinese Tartary; and from thence he sent forth mighty armies to conquer the world. This extraordinary man, who could neither read nor write, established laws for the regulation of social life and for the chase; and adopted a religion of pure Theism. His army was divided into Tumans of 10,000 men, Hazarehs of 1,000, Sedehs of 100, and Dehehs of 10, each under a Tatar officer, and they were armed with bows and arrows, swords, and iron maces. Having brought the whole of Tartary under his sway, he conquered China, while his sons, Oktai and Jagatai, were sent [A. D. 1218] with a vast army against Khuwarizm [whose prince had provoked the attack by murdering a large number of merchants who were under the protection of Jingiz]. The country was conquered, though bravely defended by the king's son, Jalalu-'d-Din; 100,000 people were put to the sword, the rest sold as slaves. … The sons of Jingiz-Khan then returned in triumph to their father; but the brave young prince, Jalalu-'d-Din, still held out against the conquerors of his country. This opposition roused Jingiz-Khan to fury; Balk was attacked for having harboured the fugitive prince in 1221, and, having surrendered, the people were all put to death. Nishapur shared the same fate, and a horrible massacre of all the inhabitants took place." Jalalu-'d-Din, pursued to the banks of the Indus and defeated in a desperate battle fought there, swam the liver on horseback, in the face of the enemy, and escaped into India. "The Mongol hordes then overran Kandahar and Multan, Azerbaijan and 'Irak; Fars was only saved by the submission of its Ata-beg, and two Mongol generals marched round the Caspian Sea. Jingiz-Khan returned to Tartary in A. D. 1222, but in these terrible campaigns he lost no less than 200,000 men. As soon as the great conqueror had retired out of Persia, the indefatigable Jalalu-'d-Din recrossed the Indus with 4,000 followers, and passing through Shiraz and Isfaham drove the Mongols out of Tubriz. But he was defeated by them in 1226; and though he kept up the war in Azerbaijan for a short time longer, he was at length utterly routed, and flying into Kurdistan was killed in the house of a friend there, four years afterwards. … Jingiz-Khan died in the year 1227."

In 1224 Jingiz "divided his gigantic empire amongst his sons as follows: China and Mongolia were given to Oktai, whom he nominated as his successor; Tchaghatai received a part of the Uiguric passes as far as Khahrezm, including Turkestan and Transoxania; Djudi had died in the meantime, so Batu was made lord of Kharezm, Desht i-Kiptchak of the pass of Derbend and Tuli was placed over Khorasan, Persia, and India."

"Popularly he [Jingis-Khan] is mentioned with Attila and with Timur as one of the 'Scourges of God.' … But he was far more than a conqueror. … In every detail of social and political economy he was a creator; his laws and his administrative rules are equally admirable and astounding to the student. … He may fairly claim to have conquered the greatest area of the world's surface that was ever subdued by one hand. … Jingis organised a system of intelligence and espionage by which he generally knew well the internal condition of the country he was about to attack. He intrigued with the discontented and seduced them by fair promises. … The Mongols ravaged and laid waste the country all round the bigger towns, and they generally tried to entice a portion of the garrison into an ambuscade. They built regular siege-works armed with catapults; the captives and peasants were forced to take part in the assault; the attack never ceased night or day; relief of troops keeping the garrison in perpetual terror. They employed Chinese and Persians to make their war engines. … They rarely abandoned the siege of a place altogether, and would sometimes continue a blockade for years. They were bound by no oath, and however solemn their promise to the inhabitants who would surrender, it was broken, and a general massacre ensued. It was their policy to leave behind them no body of people, however submissive, who might inconvenience their communications. … His [Jingis'] creed was to sweep away all cities, as the haunts of slaves and of luxury; that his herds might freely feed upon grass whose green was free from dusty feet. It does make one hide one's face in terror to read that from 1211 to 1223, 18,470,000 human beings perished in China and Tangut alone, at the hands of Jingis and his followers."

"He [Jingiz-Khan] was … a military genius of the very first order, and it may be questioned whether either Cæsar or Napoleon can, as commanders, be placed on a par with him. The manner in which he moved large bodies of men over vast distances without an apparent effort, the judgment he showed in the conduct of several wars in countries far apart from each other, his strategy in unknown regions, always on the alert yet never allowing hesitation or over-caution to interfere with his enterprises, the sieges which he brought to a successful termination, his brilliant victories … —all combined, make up the picture of a career to which Europe can offer nothing that will surpass, if indeed she has anything to bear comparison with it."

      See, also,
      CHINA: A. D. 1205-1234;
      KHORASSAN;
      BOKHARA: A. D. 1219;
      SAMARKAND;
      MERV;
      BALKH;
      KHUAREZM.

"Okkodai [or Ogotai or Oktai], the son and successor of Chinghiz, followed up the subjugation of China, extinguished the Kin finally in 1234 and consolidated with his empire all the provinces north of the Great Kiang. … After establishing his power over so much of China as we have said, Okkodai raised a vast army and set it in motion towards the west. One portion was directed against Armenia, Georgia, and Asia Minor, whilst another great host under Batu, the nephew of the Great Khan, conquered the countries north of Caucasus, overran Russia making it tributary, and still continued to carry fire and slaughter westward. One great detachment under a lieutenant of Batu's entered Poland, burned Cracow, found Breslaw in ashes and abandoned by its people, and defeated with great slaughter at Wahlstadt near Lignitz (April 12th, 1241) the troops of Poland, Moravia and Silesia, who had gathered under Duke Henry of the latter province to make head against this astounding flood of heathen. Batu himself with the main body of his army was ravaging Hungary. …

Pesth was now taken and burnt and all its people put to the sword. The rumours of the Tartars and their frightful devastations had scattered fear through Europe, which the defeat at Lignitz raised to a climax. Indeed weak and disunited Christendom seemed to lie at the foot of the barbarians. The Pope to be sure proclaimed crusade, and wrote circular letters, but the enmity between him and the Emperor Frederic II. was allowed to prevent any co-operation, and neither of them responded by anything better than words to the earnest calls for help which came from the King of Hungary. No human aid merited thanks when Europe was relieved by hearing that the Tartar host had suddenly retreated eastward. The Great Khan Okkodai was dead [A. D. 1241] in the depths of Asia, and a courier had come to recall the army from Europe. In 1255 a new wave of conquest rolled westward from Mongolia, this time directed against the Ismaelians or 'Assassins' on the south of the Caspian, and then successively against the Khalif of Baghdad and Syria. The conclusion of this expedition under Hulagu may be considered to mark the climax of the Mongol power. Mangu Khan, the emperor then reigning, and who died on a campaign in China in 1259, was the last who exercised a sovereignty so nearly universal. His successor Kublai extended indeed largely the frontiers of the Mongol power in China [see CHINA: A. D. 1259-1294], which he brought entirely under the yoke, besides gaining conquests rather nominal than real on its southern and southeastern borders, but he ruled effectively only in the eastern regions of the great empire, which had now broken up into four. (1) The immediate Empire of the Great Khan, seated eventually at Khanbalik or Peking, embraced China, Corea, Mongolia, and Manchuria, Tibet, and claims at least over Tunking and countries on the Ava frontier; (2), the Chagatai Khanate, or Middle Empire of the Tartars, with its capital at Almalik, included the modern Dsungaria, part of Chinese Turkestan, Transoxiana, and Afghanistan; (3), the Empire of Kipchak, or the Northern Tartars, founded on the conquests of Batu, and with its chief seat at Sarai, on the Wolga, covered a large part of Russia, the country north of Caucasus, Khwarizm, and a part of the modern Siberia; (4), Persia, with its capital eventually at Tabriz, embraced Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan and part of Asia Minor, all Persia, Arabian Irak, and Khorasan."

      H. Yule,
      Cathay and the way Thither: Preliminary Essay,
      sections 92-94 (volume 1).

"It was under Toushi [or Juchi], son of Tschingis, that the great migration of the Moguls effected an abiding settlement in Russia. … Toushi, with half a million of Moguls, entered Europe close by the Sea of Azof. On the banks of the river Kalka he encountered the united forces of the Russian princes. The death of Toushi for awhile arrested the progress of the Tatar arms. But in 1236, Batu, the son of Toushi, took the command, and all the principalities and cities of Russia, with the exception of Novogorod, were desolated by fire and sword and occupied by the enemy. For two centuries Russia was held cabined, cribbed, confined by this encampment or horde. The Golden Horde of the Deshti Kipzak, or Steppe of the Hollow Tree. Between the Volga and the Don, and beyond the Volga, spreads this limitless region the Deshti Kipzak. It was occupied in the first instance, most probably, by Hun-Turks, who first attracted and then were absorbed by fresh immigrants. From this region an empire took its name. By the river Akhtuba, a branch of the lower Volga, at Great Serai, Batu erected his golden tent; and here it was he received the Russian princes whom he had reduced to vassalage. Here he entertained a king of Armenia; and here, too, he received the ambassadors of S. Louis. … With the exception of Novogorod, which had joined the Hanseatic League in 1276, and rose rapidly in commercial prosperity, all Russia continued to endure, till the extinction of the house of Batu, a degrading and hopeless bondage. When the direct race came to an end, the collateral branches became involved in very serious conflicts; and in 1380, Temnik-Mami was overthrown near the river Don by Demetrius IV., who, with the victory, won a title of honour, Donski, which outlasted the benefits of the victory; although it is from this conflict that Russian writers date the commencement of their freedom. … After an existence of more than 250 years the Golden Horde was finally dissolved in 1480. Already, in 1468, the khanate of Kusan [or Kazan] was conquered and absorbed by the Grand Duke Ivan; and, after the extinction of the horde, Europeans for the first time exacted tribute of the Tatar, and ambassadors found their way unobstructed to Moscow. But the breaking up of the Golden Horde did not carry with it the collapse of all Tatar power in Russia. Rather the effect was to create a concentration of all their residuary resources in the Crimea."

"The Mongol word yurt meant originally the domestic fireplace, and, according to Van Hammer, the word is identical with the German herde and the English hearth, and thence came in a secondary sense to mean house or home, the chief's house being known as Ulugh Yurt or the Great House. An assemblage of several yurts formed an ordu or orda, equivalent to the German hort and the English horde, which really means a camp. The chief camp where the ruler of the nation lived was called the Sir Orda, i. e., the Golden Horde. … It came about that eventually the whole nation was known as the Golden Horde." The power of the Golden Horde was broken by the conquests of Timour (A. D. 1389-1391). It was finally broken into several fragments, the chief of which, the Khanates of Kazan, of Astrakhan, and of Krim, or the Crimea, maintained a long struggle with Russia, and were successively overpowered and absorbed in the empire of the Muscovite.

MONKS.

      See
      AUSTIN CANONS;
      BENEDICTINE ORDERS;
      CAPUCHINS;
      CARMELITE FRIARS;
      CARTHUSIAN ORDER;
      CISTERCIAN ORDER;
      CLAIRVAUX;
      CLUGNY;
      MENDICANT ORDERS;
      RECOLLECTS;
      SERVITES;
      THEATINES;
      TRAPPISTS.

MONMOUTH'S REBELLION.

MONOPHYSITE CONTROVERSY.

"The Council of Chalcedon having decided that our Lord possessed two natures, united but not confused, the Eutychian error condemned by it is supposed to have been virtually reproduced by the Monothelites, who maintained that the two natures were so united as to have but one will. This heresy is ascribed to Heraclius the Greek emperor, who adopted it as a political project for reconciling and reclaiming the Monophysites to the Church, and thus to the empire. The Armenians as a body had held, for a long time, the Monophysite (a form of the Eutychian) heresy, and were then in danger of breaking their allegiance to the emperor, as they had done to the Church; and it was chiefly to prevent the threatened rupture that Heraclius made a secret compromise with some of their principal men. … Neither … the strenuous efforts of the Greek emperors Heraclius and Constans, nor the concession of Honorius the Roman pontiff to the soundness of the Monothelite doctrine, could introduce it into the Church. Heraclius published in A. D. 639 an Ecthesis, or a formula, in which Monotheism was covertly introduced. The sixth general council, held in Constantinople A. D. 680, condemned both the heresy and Honorius, the Roman pontiff who had countenanced it. {2225} 'The doctrine of the Monothelites, thus condemned and exploded by the Council of Constantinople, found a place of refuge among the Mardaites, a people who inhabited the mountains of Libanus and Anti-Libanus, and who, about the conclusion of this century, received the name of Maronites from John Maro, their first bishop-a name which they still retain.' … In the time of the Crusaders, the Maronites united with them in their wars against the Saracens, and subsequently (A. D. 1182) in their faith. After the evacuation of Syria by the Crusaders, the Maronites, as their former allies, had to bear the vengeance of the Saracenic kings; and for a long time they defended themselves as they could, sometimes inflicting serious injury on the Moslem army, and at others suffering the revengeful fury of their enemies. They ultimately submitted to the rule of their Mohammedan masters, and are now good subjects of the sultan. … The Maronites now … are entirely free from the Monothelite heresy, which they doubtless followed in their earlier history; nor, indeed, does there appear a single vestige of it in their histories, theological books, or liturgies. Their faith in the person of Christ and in all the articles of religion is now, as it has been for a long time past, in exact uniformity with the doctrines of the Roman Church."

J. Wortabet, Researches into the Religions of Syria, pages 103-111; with foot-note.

      P. Schaff,
      History of the Christian Church,
      volume 4, chapter 11, sections 109-111.

MONROVIA.

MONS: A. D. 1572.
Capture by Louis of Nassau, recovery by the Spaniards,
and massacre.

MONS TARPEIUS.

MONSIEUR.

Under the old regime, in France, this was the special designation of the elder among the king's brothers.

MONTAGNARDS, OR THE MOUNTAIN.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1791 (OCTOBER); 1792 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER); and after, to 1794-1795 (JULY-APRIL).

MONTANA: A. D. 1803,
Partly or wholly embraced in the Louisiana Purchase.
The question.

Montana received its Territorial organization in 1864, and was
admitted to the Union as a State in 1889.

MONTANISTS.

A name given to the followers of Montanus, who appeared in the 2d century, among the Christians of Phrygia, claiming that the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, "had, by divine appointment, descended upon him for the purpose of foretelling things of the greatest moment that were about to happen, and promulgating a better and more perfect discipline of life and morals. … This sect continued to flourish down to the 5th century."

MONTENEGRO.

See PARLIAMENT, THE ENGLISH: EARLY STAGES IN ITS EVOLUTION;
and ENGLAND: A. D. 1216-1274.

MONTREAL: A. D. 1760.
The surrender of the city and of all Canada to the English.

MOORISH SCHOOLS AND UNIVERSITIES.

MOORS: A. D. 1492-1609.
Persecution and final expulsion from Spain.
The deadly effect upon that country.

"After the reduction … of the last Mohammedan kingdom in Spain, the great object of the Spaniards became to convert those whom they had conquered [in violation of the treaty made on the surrender of Granada]. … By torturing some, by burning others, and by threatening all, they at length succeeded; and we are assured that, after the year 1526, there was no Mohammedan in Spain, who had not been converted to Christianity. Immense numbers of them were baptized by force; but being baptized, it was held that they belonged to the Church, and were amenable to her discipline. That discipline was administered by the Inquisition, which, during the rest of the 16th century, subjected these new Christians, or Moriscoes, as they were now called, to the most barbarous treatment. The genuineness of their forced conversions was doubted; it therefore became the business of the Church to inquire into their sincerity. The civil government lent its aid; and among other enactments, an edict was issued by Philip II., in 1566, ordering the Moriscoes to abandon everything which by the slightest possibility could remind them of their former religion. They were commanded, under severe penalties, to learn Spanish, and to give up all their Arabic books. They were forbidden to read their native language, or to write it, or even to speak it in their own houses. Their ceremonies and their very games were strictly prohibited. They were to indulge in no amusements which had been practised by their fathers; neither were they to wear such clothes as they had been accustomed to. Their women were to go unveiled; and, as bathing was a heathenish custom, an public baths were to be destroyed, and even an baths in private houses. By these and similar measures, these unhappy people were at length goaded into rebellion; and in 1568 they took the desperate step of measuring their force against that of the whole Spanish monarchy. The result could hardly be doubted; but the Moriscoes maddened by their sufferings, and fighting for their all, protracted the contest till 1571, when the insurrection was finally put down. By this unsuccessful effort they were greatly reduced in numbers and in strength; and during the remaining 27 years of the reign of Philip II. we hear comparatively little of them. Notwithstanding an occasional outbreak, the old animosities were subsiding, and in the course of time would probably have disappeared. At all events, there was no pretence for violence on the part of the Spaniards, since it was absurd to suppose that the Moriscoes, weakened in every way, humbled, broken, and scattered through the kingdom, could, even if they desired it, effect anything against the resources of the executive government. {2227} But, after the death of Philip II., that movement began … which, contrary to the course of affairs in other nations, secured to the Spanish clergy in the 17th century, more power than they had possessed in the 16th. The consequences of this were immediately apparent. The clergy did not think that the steps taken by Philip II. against the Moriscoes were sufficiently decisive. … Under his successor, the clergy … gained fresh strength, and they soon felt themselves sufficiently powerful to begin another and final crusade against the miserable remains of the Moorish nation. The Archbishop of Valencia was the first to take the field. In 1602, this eminent prelate presented a memorial to Philip III. against the Moriscoes; and finding that his views were cordially supported by the clergy, and not discouraged by the crown, he followed up the blow by another memorial having the same object. … He declared that the Armada, which Philip II. sent against England in 1588, had been destroyed, because God would not allow even that pious enterprise to succeed, while those who undertook it, left heretics undisturbed at home. For the same reason, the late expedition to Algiers had failed; it being evidently the will of Heaven that nothing should prosper while Spain was inhabited by apostates. He, therefore, exhorted the king to exile all the Moriscoes, except some whom he might condemn to work in the galleys, and others who could become slaves, and labour in the mines of America. This, he added, would make the reign of Philip glorious to all posterity, and would raise his fame far above that of his predecessors, who in this matter had neglected their obvious duty. … That they should all be slain, instead of being banished, was the desire of a powerful party in the Church, who thought that such signal punishment would work good by striking terror into the heretics of every nation. Bleda, the celebrated Dominican, one of the most influential men of his time, wished this to be done, and to be done thoroughly. He said, that, for the sake of example, every Morisco in Spain should have his throat cut; because it was impossible to tell which of them were Christians at heart, and it was enough to leave the matter to God, who knew his own, and who would reward in the next world those who were really Catholics. … The religious scruples of Philip III. forbade him to struggle with the Church; and his minister Lerma would not risk his own authority by even the show of opposition. In 1609 he announced to the king, that the expulsion of the Moriscoes had become necessary. 'The resolution,' replied Philip, 'is a great one; let it be executed.' And executed it was, with unflinching barbarity. About 1,000,000 of the most industrious inhabitants of Spain were hunted out like wild beasts, because the sincerity of their religious opinions was doubtful. Many were slain, as they approached the coast; others were beaten and plundered; and the majority, in the most wretched plight, sailed for Africa. During the passage, the crew, in many of the ships, rose upon them, butchered the men, ravished the women, and threw the children into the sea. Those who escaped this fate, landed on the coast of Barbary, where they were attacked by the Bedouins, and many of them put to the sword. Others made their way into the desert, and perished from famine. Of the number of lives actually sacrificed, we have no authentic account; but it is said, on very good authority, that in one expedition, in which 140,000 were carried to Africa, upwards of 100,000 suffered death in its most frightful forms within a few months after their expulsion from Spain. Now, for the first time, the Church was really triumphant. For the first time there was not a heretic to be seen between the Pyrenees and the Straits of Gibraltar. All were orthodox, and all were loyal. Every inhabitant of that great country obeyed the Church, and feared the king. And from this happy combination, it was believed that the prosperity and grandeur of Spain were sure to follow. … The effects upon the material prosperity of Spain may be stated in a few words. From nearly every part of the country, large bodies of industrious agriculturists and expert artificers were suddenly withdrawn. The best systems of husbandry then known, were practised by the Moriscoes, who tilled and irrigated with indefatigable labour. The cultivation of rice, cotton, and sugar, and the manufacture of silk and paper were almost confined to them. By their expulsion all this was destroyed at a blow, and most of it was destroyed for ever. For the Spanish Christians considered such pursuits beneath their dignity. In their judgment, war and religion were the only two avocations worthy of being followed. To fight for the king, or to enter the Church was honourable; but everything else was mean and sordid. When, therefore, the Moriscoes were thrust out of Spain, there was no one to fill their place; arts and manufactures either degenerated, or were entirely lost, and immense regions of arable land were left uncultivated. … Whole districts were suddenly deserted, and down to the present day have never been repeopled. These solitudes gave refuge to smugglers and brigands, who succeeded the industrious inhabitants formerly occupying them; and it is said that from the expulsion of the Moriscoes is to be dated the existence of those organized bands of robbers, which, after this period, became the scourge of Spain, and which no subsequent government has been able entirely to extirpate. To these disastrous consequences, others were added, of a different, and, if possible, of a still more serious kind. The victory gained by the Church increased both her power and her reputation. … The greatest men, with hardly an exception, became ecclesiastics, and all temporal considerations, all views of earthly policy, were despised and set at nought. No one inquired; no one doubted; no one presumed to ask if all this was right. The minds of men succumbed and were prostrate. While every other country was advancing, Spain alone was receding. Every other country was making some addition to knowledge, creating some art, or enlarging some science, Spain numbed into a death-like torpor, spellbound and entranced by the accursed superstition which preyed on her strength, presented to Europe a solitary instance of constant decay."

ALSO IN: W. H. Prescott, History of the Reign of Philip II., book 5, chapters 1-8 (volume 3).

MOPH.

   The name of the ship which bore William the Conqueror to
   England, and which was the gift of his wife, the Duchess
   Matilda.

MORAVIA: 9th Century.
Conversion to Christianity.
The kingdom of Svatopluk and its obscure destruction.

"Moravia has not even a legendary history. Her name appears for the first time at the beginning of the 9th century, under its Slav form, Morava (German 'March,' 'Moehren'). It is used to denote at the same time a tributary of the Danube and the country it waters; it is met with again in the lower valley of that stream, in Servia, and appears to have a Slav origin. During the 7th and 8th centuries there is no doubt Moravia was divided among several princes, and had a hard struggle against the Avars. The first prince whose name is known was Moïmir, who ruled at the beginning of the 9th century. … During his reign Christianity made some progress in Moravia. … Moïmir tried to withstand the Germans, but was not successful; and in 846 Louis the German invaded his country, deposed him, and made his nephew Rostislav, whom the chroniclers call Rastiz, ruler in his stead. … The new prince, Rostislav, determined to secure both the political and moral freedom of his country. He fortified his frontiers and then declared war against the emperor. He was victorious, and when once peace was secured he undertook a systematic conversion of his people. Thus came about one of the great episodes in the history of the Slavs, and their Church, the mission of the apostles Cyril and Methodius. … After having struggled successfully for some time against the Germans" Rostislav was "betrayed by his nephew and vassal, Svatopluk, into the hands of Karloman, duke of Carinthia and son of Louis the German, who put out his eyes and shut him up in a monastery. Svatopluk believed himself sure of the succession to his uncle as the price of his treachery, but a very different reward fell to his lot, as Karloman, trusting but little in his fidelity to the Germans, threw him also into captivity. The German yoke was, however, hateful to the Moravians; they soon rebelled, and Karloman hoped to avert the danger by releasing Svatopluk and placing him at the head of an army. Svatopluk marched against the Moravians, then suddenly joined his forces to theirs and attacked the Germans. This time the independence of Moravia was secured, and was recognized by the treaty of Forcheim (874). … Thenceforward peace reigned between Svatopluk and Louis the German. … At one time he [Svatopluk] was the most powerful monarch of the Slavs; Rome was in treaty with him, Bohemia gravitated towards the orbit of Moravia, while Moravia held the empire in check. … At this time [891] the kingdom of Svatopluk … included, besides Moravia and the present Austrian Silesia, the subject country of Bohemia, the Slav tribes on the Elbe and the Vistula as far as the neighbourhood of Magdeburg, part of Western Galicia, the country of the Slovaks, and Lower Pannonia." But Svatopluk was ruined by war with his neighbor, Arnulf, duke of Pannonia. The latter "entered into an alliance with Braclav, a Slovene prince, sought the aid of the king of the Bulgarians, and, what was of far graver importance, summoned to his help the Magyars, who had just settled themselves on the Lower Danube. Swabians, Bavarians, Franks, Magyars, and Slovenes rushed simultaneously upon Moravia. Overwhelmed by numbers, Svatopluk made no attempt at resistance; he shut up his troops in fortresses, and abandoned the open country to the enemy, who ravaged it for four whole weeks. Then hostilities ceased; but no durable peace could exist between the two adversaries. War began again in the following year, when death freed Arnulf from Svatopluk. … At his death he left three sons; he chose the eldest, Moïmir II., as his heir, and assigned appanages to each of the others. On his death-bed he begged them to live at peace with one another, but his advice was not followed. … Bohemia soon threw off those bonds which had attached her as a vassal to Svatopluk; the Magyars invaded Moravian Pannonia, and forced Moïmir into an alliance with them. … In the year 900 the Bavarians, together with the Chekhs, invaded Moravia. In 903 the name of Moïmir disappears. As to the cause of his death, as to how it was that suddenly and for ever the kingdom of Moravia was destroyed, the chronicles tell us nothing. Cosmas of Prague shows us Moravia at the mercy of Germans, Chekhs, and Hungarians; then history is silent, towns and castles crumble to pieces, churches are overthrown, the people are scattered."

MORAVIAN OR BOHEMIAN BRETHREN (Unitas Fratrum):
In Saxony and in America.
The Indian Missions.

   "In 1722, and in the seven following years, a considerable
   number of these 'Brethren,' led by Christian David, who were
   persecuted in their homes, were received by Count Zinzendorf
   on his estate at Berthelsdorf in Saxony. They founded a
   village called Herrnhut, or 'the Watch of the Lord.' There
   they were joined by Christians from other places in Germany,
   and, after some time, Zinzendorf took up his abode among them,
   and became their principal guide and pastor. … In 1737, he
   consecrated himself wholly to the service of God in connection
   with the Moravian settlement, and was ordained a bishop. …
   Zinzendorf had before been received into the Lutheran
   ministry. The peculiar fervor which characterized his
   religious work, and certain particulars in his teaching,
   caused the Saxon Government, which was wedded to the
   traditional ways of Lutheranism, to exclude him from Saxony
   for about ten years (1736-1747). He prosecuted his religious
   labors in Frankfort, journeyed through Holland and England,
   made a voyage to the West Indies, and, in 1741, another voyage
   to America.
{2229}
   New branches of the Moravian body he planted in the countries
   which he visited. … It was a church within a church that
   Zinzendorf aimed to establish. It was far from his purpose to
   found a sect antagonistic to the national churches in the
   midst of which the Moravian societies arose. … With a
   religious life remarkable as combining warm emotion with a
   quiet and serene type of feeling, the community of Zinzendorf
   connected a missionary zeal not equalled at that time in any
   other Protestant communion. Although few in number, they sent
   their gospel messengers to all quarters of the globe."

The first settlement of the Moravians in America was planted in Georgia, in 1735. "But Oglethorpe's border war with the Spaniards compelled him to call every man in his colony to arms, and the Moravians, rather than forsake their principles [of non-resistance, and dependence upon prayer], abandoned their lands and escaped to Pennsylvania [1740]. Here some of their brethren were already fixed. Among the refugees was the young David Zeisberger, the future head of the Ohio missions. Bethlehem on the Lehigh became, and is yet, the centre in America of their double system of missions and education. They bought lands, laid out villages and farms, built houses, shops, and mills, but everywhere, and first of all, houses of prayer, in thankfulness for the peace and prosperity at length found. The first mission established by Zinzendorf in the colonies was in 1741, among the Mohican Indians, near the borders of New York and Connecticut. The bigoted people and authorities of the neighborhood by outrages and persecution drove them off, so that they were forced to take refuge on the Lehigh. The brethren established them in a new colony twenty miles above Bethlehem, to which they gave the name of Gnadenhütten (Tents of Grace). The prosperity of the Mohicans attracted the attention and visits of the Indians beyond. The nearest were the Delawares, between whom and the Mohicans there were strong ties of affinity, as branches of the old Lenni Lenape stock. Relations were thus formed between the Moravians and the Delawares. And by the fraternization between the Delawares and Shawanees … and their gradual emigration to the West to escape the encroachments of Penn's people, it occurred that the Moravian missionaries, Zeisberger foremost, accompanied their Delaware and Mohican converts to the Susquehanna in 1765, and again, when driven from there by the cession at Fort Stanwix, journeyed with them across the Alleghanies to Goshgoshink, a town established by the unconverted Delawares far up the Alleghany River." In 1770, having gained some important converts among the Delawares of the Wolf clan, at Kuskuskee, on Big Beaver Creek, they transferred themselves to that place, naming it Friedenstadt. But there they were opposed with such hostility by warriors and white traders that they determined "to plunge a step further into the wilderness, and go to the head chief of the Delawares at Gepelmukpechenk (Stillwater, or Tuscarawi) on the Muskingum. It was near this village that Christian Frederick Post, the brave, enterprising pioneer of the Moravians, had established himself in 1761, with the approbation of the chiefs. … By marriage with an Indian wife he had forfeited his regular standing with the congregation. His intimate acquaintance with the Indians, and their languages and customs, so far gained upon them that in 1762 he was permitted to take Heckewelder to share his cabin and establish a school for the Indian children. But in the autumn the threatened outburst of Pontiac's war had compelled them to flee." Early in 1772 the Moravian colony "was invited by the council at Tuscarawi, the Wyandots west of them approving it, to come with all their Indian brethren from the Alleghany and Susquehanna, and settle on the Muskingum (as the Tuscarawas was then called), and upon any lands that they might choose." The invitation was accepted. "The pioneer party, in the removal from the Beaver to Ohio, consisted of Zeisberger and five Indian families, 28 persons, who arrived at this beautiful ground May 3, 1772. … The site was at the large spring, and appropriately it was named for it Shoenbrun. In August arrived the Missionaries Ettwein and Heckewelder, with the main body of Christian Indians who had been invited from the Alleghany and the Susquehanna, about 250 in number. … This, and further accessions from the east in September, made it advisable to divide the colony into two villages. The second [named Gnadenhütten] was established ten miles below Shoenbrun. … In April, 1773, the remnants of the mission on the Beaver joined their brethren in Ohio. The whole body of the Moravian Indians … was now united and at rest under the shelter of the unconverted but … tolerant Delaware warriors. … The population of the Moravian villages at the close of 1775 was 414 persons. … The calamity of the Moravians was the war of the American Revolution. It developed the dangerous fact that their villages … were close upon the direct line between Pittsburgh and Detroit, the outposts of the two contending forces." The peaceful settlement became an object of hostility to the meaner spirits on both sides. In September, 1781, by order of the British commander at Detroit, they were expelled from their settlement, robbed of all their possessions, and sent to Sandusky. In the following February, a half-starved party of them, numbering 96, who had ventured back to their ravaged homes, for the purpose of gleaning the corn left standing in the fields, were massacred by a brutal American force, from the Ohio. "So perished the Moravian missions on the Muskingum. Not that the pious founders ceased their labors, or that these consecrated scenes knew them no more. But their Indian communities, the germ of their work, the sign of what was to be accomplished by them in the great Indian problem, were scattered and gone, Zeisberger, at their head, labored with the remnants of their congregation for years in Canada. They then transferred themselves temporarily to settlements on the Sandusky, the Huron, and the Cuyahoga rivers. At last he and Heckewelder, with the survivors of these wanderings, went back to their lands on the Tuscarawas, now surrounded by the whites, but fully secured to them by the generosity of Congress."

"The Morea must … have come into general use, as the name of the peninsula [of the Peloponnesus] among the Greeks, after the Latin conquest [of 1204-1205], even allowing that the term was used among foreigners before the arrival of the Franks. … The name Morea was, however, at first applied only to the western coast of the Peloponnesus, or perhaps more particularly to Elis, which the epitome of Strabo points out as a district exclusively Sclavonian, and which, to this day, preserves a number of Sclavonian names. … Originally the word appears to be the same geographical denomination which the Sclavonians of the north had given to a mountain district of Thrace in the chain of Mount Rhodope. In the 14th century the name of this province is written by the Emperor Cantacuzenos, who must have been well acquainted with it personally, Morrha. Even as late as the 14th century, the Morea is mentioned in official documents relating to the Frank principality as a province of the Peloponnesus, though the name was then commonly applied to the whole peninsula."

      G. Finlay,
      History of Greece from its Conquest by the Crusaders,
      chapter 1, section 4.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER); 1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL); 1799 (APRIL-SEPTEMBER), (NOVEMBER); 1800-1801 (MAY-FEBRUARY); and 1804-1805; also, GERMANY: A. D. 1813 (AUGUST).

MORETON BAY DISTRICT.

MORGANATIC MARRIAGES.

"Besides the dowry which was given before the marriage ceremony had been performed, it was customary [among some of the ancient German peoples] for the husband to make his wife a present on the morning after the first night. This was called the 'morgengabe,' or morning gift, the presenting of which, where no previous ceremony had been observed, constituted a particular kind of connexion called matrimonium morganaticam, or 'morganatic marriage. As the liberality of the husband was apt to be excessive, we find the amount limited by the Langobardian laws to one fourth of the bridegroom's substance."

MORISCOES.

This name was given to the Moors in Spain after their nominal and compulsory conversion to Christianity.

MORMAERS, MAARMORS.

   A title, signifying great Maer or Steward, borne by certain
   princes or sub-kings of provinces in Scotland in the 10th and
   11th centuries. The Macbeth of history was Mormaer of Moray.

"Joseph Smith, Jr., who … appears in the character of the first Mormon prophet, and the putative founder of Mormonism and the Church of Latter Day Saints, was born in Sharon, Windsor County, Vermont, December 13, 1805. He was the son of Joseph Smith, Sr., who, with his wife Lucy and their family, removed from Royalton, Vermont, to Palmyra, New York, in the summer of 1816. The family embraced nine children, Joseph, Jr., being the fourth in the order of their ages. … At Palmyra, Mr. Smith, Sr., opened 'a cake and beer shop,' as described by his signboard, doing business on a small scale, by the profits of which, added to the earnings of an occasional day's work on hire by himself and his elder sons, for the village and farming people, he was understood to secure a scanty but honest living for himself and family. … In 1818 they settled upon a nearly wild or unimproved piece of land, mostly covered with standing timber, situate about two miles south of Palmyra. … Little improvement was made upon this land by the Smith family in the way of clearing, fencing, or tillage. … The larger proportion of the time of the Smiths … was spent in hunting and fishing … and idly lounging around the stores and shops in the village. … At this period in the life and career of Joseph Smith, Jr., or 'Joe Smith,' as he was universally named, and the Smith family, they were popularly regarded as an illiterate, whiskey-drinking, shiftless, irreligious race of people—the first named, the chief subject of this biography, being unanimously voted the laziest and most worthless of the generation. … Taciturnity was among his characteristic idiosyncrasies, and he seldom spoke to anyone outside of his intimate associates, except when first addressed by another; and then, by reason of his extravagancies of statement, his word was received with the least confidence by those who knew him best. He could utter the most palpable exaggeration or marvellous absurdity with the utmost apparent gravity. … He was, however, proverbially good-natured, very rarely if ever indulging in any combative spirit toward anyone, whatever might be the provocation, and yet was never known to laugh. Albeit, he seemed to be the pride of his indulgent father, who has been heard to boast of him as the 'genus of the family,' quoting his own expression. Joseph, moreover, as he grew in years, had learned to read comprehensively, in which qualification he was far in advance of his elder brother, and even of his father. … As he … advanced in reading and knowledge, he assumed a spiritual or religious turn of mind, and frequently perused the Bible, becoming quite familiar with portions thereof. … The final conclusion announced by him was, that all sectarianism was fallacious, all the churches on a false foundation, and the Bible a fable. … In September, 1819, a curious stone was found in the digging of a well upon the premises of Mr. Clark Chase, near Palmyra. This stone attracted particular notice on account of its peculiar shape, resembling that of a child's foot. It was of a whitish, glassy appearance, though opaque, resembling quartz. {2231} Joseph Smith, Sr., and his elder sons Alvin and Hyrum, did the chief labor of this well-digging, and Joseph, Jr., who had been a frequenter in the progress of the work, as an idle looker-on and lounger, manifested a special fancy for this geological curiosity, and he carried it home with him. … Very soon the pretension transpired that he could see wonderful things by its aid. … The most glittering sights revealed to the mortal vision of the young impostor, in the manner stated, were hidden treasures of great value, including enormous deposits of gold and silver sealed in earthen pots or iron chests, and buried in the earth in the immediate vicinity of the place where he stood. These discoveries finally became too dazzling for his eyes in daylight, and he had to shade his vision by looking at the stone in his hat! … The imposture was renewed and repeated at frequent intervals from 1820 to 1827, various localities being the scenes of … delusive searches for money [for carrying on which Smith collected contributions from his dupes], as pointed out by the revelations of the magic stone. … Numerous traces of the excavations left by Smith are yet remaining as evidences of his impostures and the folly of his dupes, though most of them have become obliterated by the clearing off and tilling of the lands where they were made." In the summer of 1827 "Smith had a remarkable vision. He pretended that, while engaged in secret prayer, alone in the wilderness, an 'angel of the Lord' appeared to him, with the glad tidings that 'all his sins had been forgiven'; … also that he had received a 'promise that the true doctrine and the fulness of the doctrine and the fulness of the gospel should at some future time be revealed to him.' … In the fall of the same year Smith had yet a more miraculous and astonishing vision than any preceding one. He now arrogated to himself, by authority of 'the spirit of revelation,' and in accordance with the previous 'promises' made to him, a far higher sphere in the scale of human existence, assuming to possess the gift and power of 'prophet, seer, and revelator.' On this assumption he announced to his family friends and the bigoted persons who had adhered to his supernaturalism, that he was 'commanded,' upon a secretly fixed day and hour, to go alone to a certain spot revealed to him by the angel, and there take out of the earth a metallic book of great antiquity in its origin, and of immortal importance in its consequences to the world, which was a record, in mystic letters or characters, of the long-lost tribes of Israel, … who had primarily inhabited this continent, and which no human being besides himself could see and live; and the power to translate which to the nations of the earth was also given to him only, as the chosen servant of God. … Accordingly, when the appointed hour came, the prophet, assuming his practised air of mystery, took in hand his money-digging spade and a large napkin, and went off in silence and alone in the solitude of the forest, and after an absence of some three hours returned, apparently with his sacred charge concealed within the folds of the napkin. … With the book was also found, or so pretended, a huge pair of spectacles in a perfect state of preservation, or the Urim and Thummim, as afterward interpreted, whereby the mystic record was to be translated and the wonderful dealings of God revealed to man, by the superhuman power of Joseph Smith. … The sacred treasure was not seen by mortal eyes, save those of the one anointed, until after the lapse of a year or longer time, when it was found expedient to have a new revelation, as Smith's bare word had utterly failed to gain a convert beyond his original circle of believers. By this amended revelation, the veritable existence of the book was certified to by eleven witnesses of Smith's selection. It was then heralded as the Golden Bible, or Book of Mormon, and as the beginning of a new gospel dispensation. … The spot from which the book is alleged to have been taken is the yet partially visible pit where the money speculators had previously dug for another kind of treasure, which is upon the summit of what has ever since been known as 'Mormon Hill,' now owned by Mr. Anson Robinson, in the town of Manchester, New York. This book … was finally described by Smith and his echoes as consisting of metallic leaves or plates resembling gold, bound together in a volume by three rings running through one edge of them, the leaves opening like an ordinary paper book. … Translations and interpretations were now entered upon by the prophet," and in 1830 the "Book of Mormon" was printed and published at Palmyra, New York, a well-to-do farmer, Martin Harris, paying the expense. "In claiming for the statements herein set forth the character of fairness and authenticity, it is perhaps appropriate to add … that the locality of the malversations resulting in the Mormon scheme is the author's birthplace; that he was well acquainted with 'Joe Smith,' the first Mormon prophet, and with his father and all the Smith family, since their removal to Palmyra from Vermont … ; that he was equally acquainted with Martin Harris and Oliver Cowdery, and with most of the earlier followers of Smith, either as money-diggers or Mormons; that he established at Palmyra, in 1823, and was for many years editor and proprietor of the 'Wayne Sentinel,' and was editorially connected with that paper at the printing by its press of the original edition of the 'Book of Mormon' in 1830; that in the progress of the work he performed much of the reading of the proof-sheets, comparing the same with the manuscript copies, and in the meantime had frequent and familiar interviews with the pioneer Mormons."

   It is believed by many that the groundwork of the Book of
   Mormon was supplied by an ingenious romance, written about
   1814 by the Rev. Solomon Spalding, a Presbyterian minister of
   some learning and literary ability, then living at New Salem
   (now Conneaut), Ohio. This romance, which was entitled "The
   Manuscript Found," purported to narrate the history of a
   migration of the lost ten tribes of Israel to America. It was
   never published; but members of Mr. Spalding's family, and
   other persons, who read it or heard it read, in manuscript,
   claimed confidently, after the appearance of the Book of
   Mormon that the main body of the narrative and the notable
   names introduced in it were identical with those of the
   latter. Some circumstances, moreover, seemed to indicate a
   probability that Mr. Spalding's manuscript, being left during
   several weeks with a publisher named Patterson, at Pittsburgh,
   came there into the hands of one Sidney Rigdon, a young printer,
   who appeared subsequently as one of the leading missionaries
   of Mormonism, and who is believed to have visited Joseph
   Smith, at Palmyra, before the Book of Mormon came to light.
{2232}
   On the other hand, Mormon believers have, latterly, made much
   of the fact that a manuscript romance without title, by
   Solomon Spalding, was found, not many years since, in the
   Sandwich Islands, by President Fairchild of Oberlin College,
   Ohio, and proved to bear no resemblance to the Book of Mormon.
   Spalding is said, however, to have written several romances,
   and, if so, nothing is proved by this discovery.

MORMONISM: A. D. 1830-1846.
   The First Hegira to Kirtland, Ohio, the Second to Missouri,
   the Third to Nauvoo, Illinois.
   The Danites.
   The building of the city and its Temple.
   Hostility of the Gentiles.
   The slaying of the Prophet.

"Immediately after the publication of the Book the Church was duly organized at Manchester. On April 6, 1830, six members were ordained elders—Joseph Smith, Sr., Joseph Smith, Jr., Hyrum Smith, Samuel Smith, Oliver Cowdery and Joseph Knight. The first conference was held at Fayette, Seneca county, in June. A special 'revelation' at this time made Smith's wife 'the Elect Lady and Daughter of God,' with the high-sounding title of 'Electa Cyria.' In later years this lady became disgusted with her husband's religion. … Another revelation was to the effect that Palmyra was not the gathering-place of the Saints, after all, but that they should proceed to Kirtland, in Ohio. Consequently, the early part of 1831 saw them colonized in that place, the move being known as 'The First Hegira.' Still another revelation (on the 6th of June) stated that some point in Missouri was the reliable spot. Smith immediately selected a tract in Jackson county, near Independence. By 1833 the few Mormons who had moved thither were so persecuted that they went into Clay county, and thence, in 1838, into Caldwell county, naming their settlement 'Far West.' The main body of the Mormons, however, remained in Kirtland from 1831 till they were forced to join their Western brethren in 1838. Brigham Young, another native of Vermont, joined at Kirtland in 1832, and was ordained an elder. The conference of elders on May 3, 1833, repudiated the name of Mormons and adopted that of 'Latter-Day Saints.' The first presidency consisted of Smith, Rigdon, and Frederick G. Williams. In May, 1835, the Twelve Apostles—among them Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball and Orson Hyde—left on a mission for proselytes. … The Mormons were driven from Missouri by Governor Boggs's 'Extraordinary Order,' which caused them to gain sympathy as having been persecuted in a slave State. They moved to Hancock county, Illinois, in 1840, and built up Nauvoo [on the Mississippi River, 14 miles above Keokuk] by a charter with most unusual privileges."

F. G. Mather, The Early Days of Mormonism (Lippincott's Magazine, August 1880).

In the midst of the troubles of Smith and his followers in Missouri, and before their removal to Nauvoo, there arose among them "the mysterious and much dreaded band that finally took the name of Danites, or sons of Dan, concerning which so much has been said while so little is known, some of the Mormons even denying its existence. But of this there is no question. Says Burton: 'The Danite band, a name of fear in the Mississippi Valley, is said by anti-Mormons to consist of men between the ages of 17 and 49. They were originally termed Daughters of Gideon, Destroying Angels—the gentiles say devils—and, finally, Sons of Dan, or Danites, from one of whom was prophesied he should be a serpent in the path. They were organized about 1837 under D. W. Patten, popularly called Captain Fearnot, for the purpose of dealing as avengers of blood with gentiles; in fact they formed a kind of death society, desperadoes, thugs, hashshashiyun—in plain English, assassins in the name of the Lord. The Mormons declare categorically the whole and every particular to be the calumnious invention of the impostor and arch apostate, Mr. John C. Bennett. John Hyde, a seceder, states that the Danite band, or the United Brothers of Gideon, was organized on the 4th of July, 1838, and was placed under the command of the apostle David Patten, who for the purpose assumed the name of Captain Fearnot. It is the opinion of some that the Danite band, or Destroying Angels as again they are called, was organized at the recommendation of the governor of Missouri as a means of self-defence against persecutions in that State."

   "The Mormons first attracted national notice about the time
   they quitted Missouri to escape persecution and took refuge in
   Illinois. In that free State a tract of land was granted them
   and a charter too carelessly liberal in terms. The whole body,
   already numbering about 15,000, gathered into a new city of
   their own, which their prophet, in obedience to a revelation,
   named Nauvoo; here a body of militia was formed under the name
   of the Nauvoo legion; and Joe Smith, as mayor, military
   commander, and supreme head of the Church, exerted an
   authority almost despotic. The wilderness blossomed and
   rejoiced, and on a lofty height of this holy city was begun a
   grotesque temple, built of limestone, with huge monolithic
   pillars which displayed carvings of moons and suns. … Nauvoo
   was well laid out, with wide streets which sloped towards
   well-cultivated farms; all was thrift and sobriety, no
   spirituous liquors were drunk, and the colonists here, as in
   their former settlements, furnished the pattern of insect
   industry. The wonderful proselyting work of this new sect
   abroad had already begun, and recruits came over from the
   overplus toilers in the British factory towns. … But there
   was something in the methods of this sect, not to speak of the
   jealousy they excited by their prosperity, which bred them
   trouble here as everywhere else where they came in contact
   with American commonplace life. It was whispered that the
   hierarchy of impostors grew rich upon the toils of their
   simple followers. Polygamy had not yet received the sanction
   of a divine revelation; and yet the first step towards it was
   practised in the theory of 'sealing wives' spiritually, which
   Smith had begun in some mysterious way that it baffled the
   gentile to discover. Sheriffs, too, were forbidden to serve
   civil process in Nauvoo without the written permission of its
   mayor.
{2233}
   All these strange scandals of heathenish pranks, and more,
   besides, stirred up the neighboring gentiles, plain Illinois
   backwoodsmen; and the more so that, besides his 3,000 militia,
   the Mormon prophet controlled 6,000 votes, which, in the close
   Presidential canvass of 1844, might have been enough to decide
   the election. Joe Smith, indeed, whose Church nominated him
   for President, showed a fatal but thoroughly American
   disposition at this time to carry his power into politics.
   This king of plain speech, who dressed as a journeyman
   carpenter, suppressed a newspaper which was set up by seceding
   Mormons. When complaint was made he resisted Illinois process
   and proclaimed martial law; the citizens of the surrounding
   towns armed for a fight. Joe Smith was arrested and thrown
   into jail at Carthage with his brother Hiram. The rumor
   spreading that the governor was disposed to release these
   prisoners, a disorderly band gathered at the jail and shot
   them [June 27, 1844]. Thus perished Smith, the Mormon founder.
   His death at first created terror and confusion among his
   followers, but Brigham Young, his successor, proved a man of
   great force and sagacity. The exasperated gentiles clamored
   loudly to expel these religious fanatics from Illinois as they
   had been expelled from Missouri; and finally, to prevent a
   civil war, the governor of the State took forcible possession
   of the holy city, with its unfinished temple, while the Mormon
   charter of Nauvoo was repealed by the legislature. The Mormons
   now determined [1846] upon the course which was most suited to
   their growth, and left American pioneer society to found their
   New Jerusalem on more enduring foundations west of the Rocky
   Mountains."

      J. Remy and J. Brenchley,
      Journey to Great Salt Lake City,
      book 2, chapters 2-3 (volume 1).

MORMONISM: A. D. 1846-1848.
   The gentile attack on Nauvoo.
   Exodus of "the Saints" into the wilderness of the West.
   Their settlement on the Great Salt Lake.

"During the winter of 1845-46 the Mormons made the most prodigious preparations for removal. All the houses in Nauvoo, and even the temple, were converted into work-shops; and before spring more than 12,000 wagons were in readiness. The people from all parts of the country flocked to Nauvoo to purchase houses and farms, which were sold extremely low, lower than the prices at a sheriff's sale, for money, wagons, horses, oxen, cattle, and other articles of personal property which might be needed by the Mormons in their exodus into the wilderness. By the middle of May it was estimated that 16,000 Mormons had crossed the Mississippi and taken up their line of march with their personal property, their wives and little ones, westward across the continent to Oregon or California; leaving behind them in Nauvoo a small remnant of 1,000 souls, being those who were unable to sell their property, or who having no property to sell were unable to get away. The twelve apostles went first with about 2,000 of their followers. Indictments had been found against nine of them in the circuit court of the United States for the district of Illinois at its December term, 1845, for counterfeiting the current coin of the United States. The United States Marshal had applied to me [the writer being at that time Governor of Illinois] for a militia force to arrest them; but in pursuance of the amnesty agreed on for old offences, believing that the arrest of the accused would prevent the removal of the Mormons, and that if arrested there was not the least chance that any of them would ever be convicted, I declined the application unless regularly called upon by the President of the United States according to law. … It was notorious that none of them could be convicted; for they always commanded evidence and witnesses enough to make a conviction impossible."

"The Saints who had as yet been unable to leave Nauvoo continued to labour assiduously at the completion of the temple, so as to accomplish one of the most solemn prophecies of their well-beloved martyr. The sacred edifice was ultimately entirely finished, at the end of April, 1846, after having cost the Saints more than a million dollars. It was consecrated with great pomp on the 1st and 2nd of May, 1846. … The day after the consecration of the temple had been celebrated, the Mormons withdrew from the building all the sacred articles which adorned it, and satisfied with having done their duty in accomplishing, though to no purpose otherwise, a Divine command, they crossed the Mississippi to rejoin those who had gone before them. Nauvoo was abandoned. There remained within its deserted walls but some hundred families, whom the want of means and the inability to sell their effects had not allowed as yet to start upon the road to emigration. The presence of those who were thus detained, together with the bruit caused by the ceremony of dedication, raised the murmurs of the gentiles, and seemed to keep alive their animosity and alarm. Their eager desire to be entirely rid of the Mormons made them extremely sensitive to every idle story respecting the projects of the latter to return. They imagined that the Saints had only left in detachments to seek recruits among the red-skins, meaning to come back with sufficient force once more to take possession of their property in Illinois. These apprehensions rose to such a pitch that the anti-Mormons plunged into fresh acts of illegality and barbarism. … On the 10th of September, 1846, an army of 1,000 men, possessing six pieces of artillery, started to begin the attack under the direction of a person named Carlin, and of the Reverend Mr. Brockman. Nauvoo had only 300 men to oppose to this force, and but five small cannon, made from the iron of an old steamboat. The fire opened on the afternoon of the 10th, and continued on the 11th, 12th and 13th of September." Every attack of the besiegers was repulsed, until they consented to terms under which the remnant of the Mormons was to evacuate the town at the end of five days. "The Mormons had only three men killed and a few wounded during the whole affair; the loss of their enemies is unknown, but it would seem that it was heavy. It was agreed that a committee of five persons should remain at Nauvoo to attend to the interests of the exiles, and on the 17th of September, while the enemy, to the number of 1,625, entered the city to plunder, the remnant of the Mormons crossed the Mississippi to follow 'the track of Israel towards the west.' … {2234} About the end of June, 1846, the first column of the emigrants arrived on the banks of the Missouri, a little above the point of confluence of this immense river with the Platte, in the country of the Pottawatamies, where it stopped to await the detachments in its rear. This spot, now known by the name of Council Bluffs, was christened Kanesville by the Mormons. … At this place, in the course of July, the federal government made an appeal to the patriotism of the Mormons, and asked them to furnish a contingent of 500 men for the Mexican war. Did the government wish to favour the Saints by affording them an opportunity of making money by taking service, or did it merely wish to test their fidelity? This we cannot decide. … The Saints generally regarded this levy as a species of persecution; however … they furnished a battalion of 520 men, and received $20,000 for equipment from the war department." The head quarters of the emigration remained at Kanesville through the winter of 1846-47, waiting for the brethren who had been left behind. There were several encampments, however, some of them about 200 miles in advance. The shelters contrived were of every kind—huts, tents, and caves dug in the earth. The suffering was considerable and many deaths occurred. The Indians of the region were Pottawatamies and Omahas, both hostile to the United States and therefore friendly to the Mormons, whom they looked upon as persecuted foes of the American nation. "On the 14th of April [1847], Brigham Young and eight apostles, at the head of 143 picked men and 70 carts laden with grain and agricultural implements, started in search of Eden in the far-west. … The 23rd of July, 1847, Orson Pratt, escorted by a small advanced guard, was the first to reach the Great Salt Lake. He was joined the following day by Brigham Young and the main body of the pioneers. That day, the 24th of July, was destined to be afterwards celebrated by the Mormons as the anniversary of their deliverance. … Brigham Young declared, by divine inspiration, that they were to establish themselves upon the borders of the Salt Lake, in this region, which was nobody's property, and wherein consequently his people could follow their religion without drawing upon themselves the hatred of any neighbours. He spent several weeks in ascertaining the nature of the country, and then fixed upon a site for the holy city. … When he had thus laid the foundations of his future empire, he set off on his return to Council Bluffs, leaving on the borders of the Salt Lake the greater portion of the companions who had followed him in his distant search. During the summer, a convoy of 566 waggons, laden with large quantities of grain, left Kanesville and followed upon the tracks of the pioneers. … On their arrival at the spot indicated by the president of the Church, they set to work without a moment's repose. Land was tilled, trees and hedges planted, and grain sown before the coming frost." The main body of the emigrants, led by Brigham Young, moved from the banks of the Missouri about the 1st of May, 1848, and arrived at the Salt Lake the following autumn.

J. Remy and J. Brenchley, Journey to Great-Salt-Lake City, book 2, chapter 4 (volume 1).

"On the afternoon of the 22d [August, 1847] a conference was held, at which it was resolved that the place should be called the City of the Great Salt Lake. The term 'Great' was retained for several years, until changed by legislative enactment. It was so named in contradistinction to Little Salt Lake, a term applied to a body of water some 200 miles to the south."

MOROCCO.

"Both English and foreign glossaries, observes Mr. Douce, uniformly ascribe the origin of this dance to the Moors, although the genuine Moorish or Morisco dance was, no doubt, very different from the European morris. … It has been supposed that the morris-dance was first brought into England in the reign of Edward III., and when John of Gaunt returned from Spain: but it is much more probable that we had it from our Gallic neighbours, or the Flemings."

MORRIS'S PURCHASE.

   The French army invading Normandy, A. D. 1054, was surprised
   by the Normans, in the town of Mortemer and utterly routed.
   The town was destroyed and never rebuilt.

One of the battles in the "Wars of the Roses," fought February 2, 1461, on a small plain called Kingsland Field, near Mortimer's Cross, in Herefordshire, England. The Yorkists, commanded by young Edward, Earl of March (soon afterwards King Edward IV.) were greatly superior in numbers to the Lancastrians, under the Earl of Pembroke, and won a complete victory.

"The name of Moscow appears for the first time in the chronicles at the date of 1147. It is there said that the Grand Prince George Dolgorouki, having arrived on the domain of a boyard named Stephen Koutchko, caused him to be put to death on some pretext, and that, struck by the position of one of the villages situated on a height washed by the Moskowa, the very spot whereon the Kremlin now stands, he built the city of Moscow. … During the century following its foundation, Moscow remained an obscure and insignificant village of Souzdal. The chroniclers do not allude to it except to mention that it was burned by the Tartars (1237), or that a brother of Alexander Nevski, Michael of Moscow, was killed there in a battle with the Lithuanians. The real founder of the principality of the name was Daniel, a son of Alexander Nevski, who had received this small town and a few villages as his appanage. … He was followed, in due course, by his brothers George and Ivan."

MOSLEM.

MOSQUITO INDIANS AND MOSQUITO COAST.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSQUITO, or MOSQUITO INDIANS; also NICARAGUA: A. D. 1850; and CENTRAL AMERICA: A. D. 1821-1871.

This battle was fought A. D. 520 and resulted in a crushing defeat of the West Saxons by the Britons, arresting the advance of the latter in their conquest of southwestern England for a generation. It figures in some legends among the victories of King Arthur.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1791 (OCTOBER); 1792 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER); and after, to 1794-1795 (JULY-APRIL).

MOURU.

Celebrated in the legendary history of Ireland and represented as a fatal defeat of the ancient people in that country called the Firbolgs by the new-coming Tuatha-de-Danaan. "Under the name of the 'Battle of the Field of the Tower' [it], was long a favourite theme of Irish song."

MOZARABES, MOSTARABES.

The Christian people who remained in Africa and southern Spain after the Moslem conquest, tolerated in the practice of their religion, "were called Mostarabes or Mozarabes; they adopted the Arabic language and customs. … The word is from the Arabic 'musta'rab,' which means one 'who tries to imitate or become an Arab in his manners and language.'"

      H. Coppée,
      History of the Conquest of Spain by the Arab-Moors,
      book 4, chapter 3 (volume 1), with foot-note.

MOZART HALL.

MUFTI.

MUGGLETONIANS.

MUGHAL OR MOGUL EMPIRE.

MUGWUMPS.

MULATTO.

MUNERA GLADIATORIA.

MUNICIPAL CONSTITUTIONS AND FORMS.

MUNICIPAL CURIA OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE.

MUNICIPIUM.

"The term Municipium appears to have been applied originally to those conquered Italian towns which Rome included in her dominion without conferring on the people the Roman suffrage and the capacity of attaining the honours of the Roman state. … If the inhabitants of such Municipia had everything Roman except the right to vote and to be eligible to the Roman magistracies, they had Commercium and Connubium. By virtue of the first, such persons could acquire property within the limits of the Roman state, and could dispose of it by sale, gift, and testament. By virtue of the second, they could contract a legal marriage with the daughter of a Roman citizen."

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: DELAWARES, and ALGONQUIAN FAMILY; also, MANHATTAN ISLAND.

MUNYCHIA.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1800-1801 (JUNE-FEBRUARY),
      1806 (JANUARY-OCTOBER);
      GERMANY: A. D. 1806 (OCTOBER), to 1807 (FEBRUARY-JUNE);
      SPAIN: A. D. 1808 (MAY-SEPTEMBER);
      ITALY: A. D. 1808-1809;
      RUSSIA: A. D. 1812;
      GERMANY: A. D. 1812-1813, 1813 (AUGUST), to (OCTOBER);
      ITALY: A. D. 1814, and 1815.

MURCI.

   A name given to degenerate Romans, in the later days of the
   Empire, who escaped military service by cutting off the
   fingers of their right hands.

MURRHINE VASES.

"The highest prices were paid for the so-called Murrhine vases (vasa Murrhina) brought to Rome from the East. Pompey, after his victory over Mithridates, was the first to bring one of them to Rome, which he placed in the temple of the Capitoline Jupiter. Augustus, as is well known, kept a Murrhine goblet from Cleopatra's treasure for himself, while all her gold plate was melted. The Consularis T. Petronius, who owned one of the largest collections of rare vases, bought a basin from Murrha for 300,000 sestertii; before his death he destroyed this matchless piece of his collection, so as to prevent Nero from laying hold of it. Nero himself paid for a handled drinking-goblet from Murrha a million sestertii. Crystal vases also fetched enormous prices. There is some doubt about the material of these Murrhine vases, which is the more difficult to solve, as the only vase in existence which perhaps may lay claim to that name is too thin and fragile to allow of closer investigation. It was found in the Tyrol in 1837.

   Pliny describes the colour of the Murrhine vases as a mixture
   of white and purple; according to some ancient writers, they
   even improved the taste of the wine drunk out of them."

      E. Guhl and W. Koner,
      Life of the Greeks and Romans,
      section 91.

"I believe it is now understood that the murrha of the Romans was not porcelain, as had been supposed from the line, 'Murrheaque in Parthis pocula cocta focis' (Propert. iv. 5. 26.), but an imitation in coloured glass of a transparent stone."

MUSCADINS.

A huge movable covered way which the Romans employed in siege operations. Its construction, of heavy timbers, with a roof-covering of bricks, clay and hides, is described in Cæsar's account of the siege of Massilia.

MUSSULMANS.

MUTINA AND PARMA.

On the final conquest of Cisalpine Gaul by the Romans, about 220 B. C. the Senate planted the colonies of Mutina (Modena) and Parma on the line of the Æmilian Road and assigned the territory of the Apuans to the new colony of Luca (Lucca).

   In 1689 the Parliament (called a Convention at first) which
   settled the English crown upon William of Orange and Mary,
   "passed the first Act for governing the army as a separate and
   distinct body under its own peculiar laws, called 'The Mutiny
   Act.' … The origin of the first Mutiny Act was this. France
   had declared war against Holland, who applied under the treaty
   of Nimeguen to England for troops. Some English regiments
   refused to go, and it was felt that the common law could not
   be employed to meet the exigency. The mutineers were for the
   time by military force compelled to submit, happily without
   bloodshed; but the necessity for soldiers to be governed by
   their own code and regulations became manifest. Thereupon the
   aid of Parliament was invoked, but cautiously.
{2237}
   The first Mutiny Act was very short in enactments and to
   continue only six months. It recited that standing armies and
   courts martial were unknown to English law, and enacted that
   no soldier should on pain of death desert his colours, or
   mutiny. At the expiration of the six months another similar
   Act was passed, also only for six months: and so on until the
   present practice was established of regulating and governing
   the army, now a national institution, by an annual Mutiny Act,
   which is requisite for the legal existence of a recognised
   force, whereby frequent meeting of Parliament is indirectly
   secured, if only to preserve the army in existence."

"These are the two effectual securities against military power: that no pay can be issued to the troops without a previous authorisation by the commons in a committee of supply, and by both houses in an act of appropriation; and that no officer or soldier can be punished for disobedience, nor any court-martial held, without the annual re-enactment of the mutiny bill."

MUTINY OF THE ENGLISH FLEET.

MUTINY OF THE PHILADELPHIA LINE.

MUTINY OF THE SEPOYS.

MYCENÆ.

A race, so-called by the Greeks, who lived anciently on the coast of the Indian Ocean, east of modern Kerman. They were known to the Persians as Maka.

"Æakus was the son of Zeus, born of Ægina, daughter of Asopus, whom the god had carried off and brought into the island to which he gave her name. … Æakus was alone in Ægina: to relieve him from this solitude, Zeus changed all the ants in the island into men, and thus provided him with a numerous population, who, from their origin, were called Myrmidons."

According to the legends, Peleus, Telamon and Phocus were the sons of Æakus; Peleus migrated, with the Myrmidons, or some part of them, to Thessaly, and from there the latter accompanied his son Achilles to Troy.

MYSTICISM. QUIETISM.

"The peculiar form of devotional religion known under these names was not, as most readers are aware, the offspring of the 17th century. It rests, in fact, on a substratum of truth which is coeval with man's being, and expresses one of the elementary principles of our moral constitution. … The system of the Mystics arose from the instinctive yearning of man's soul for communion with the Infinite and the Eternal. Holy Scripture abounds with such aspirations—the Old Testament as well as the New; but that which under the Law was 'a shadow of good things to come,' has been transformed by Christianity into a living and abiding reality. The Gospel responds to these longings for intercommunion between earth and heaven by that fundamental article of our faith, the perpetual presence and operation of God the Holy Ghost in the Church, the collective 'body of Christ,' and in the individual souls of the regenerate. But a sublime mystery like this is not incapable of misinterpretation. … The Church has ever found it a difficult matter to distinguish and adjudicate between what may be called legitimate or orthodox Mysticism and those corrupt, degrading, or grotesque versions of it which have exposed religion to reproach and contempt. Some Mystics have been canonized as saints; others, no less deservedly, have been consigned to obloquy as pestilential heretics. It was in the East—proverbially the fatherland of idealism and romance—that the earliest phase of error in this department of theology was more or less strongly developed. We find that in the 4th century the Church was troubled by a sect called Massalians or Euchites, who placed the whole of religion in the habit of mental prayer; alleging as their authority the Scripture precept 'That men ought always to pray, and not to faint.' They were for the most part monks of Mesopotamia and Syria; there were many of them at Antioch when St. Epiphanius wrote his Treatise against heresies, A. D. 376. They held that every man is from his birth possessed by an evil spirit or familiar demon, who can only be cast out by the practice of continual prayer. They disparaged the Sacraments, regarding them as things indifferent: they rejected manual labor; and, although professing to be perpetually engaged in prayer, they slept, we are told, the greater part of the day, and pretended that in that state they received revelations from above. … The Massalians did not openly separate from the Church; they were condemned, however, by two Councils—one at Antioch in 391, the other at Constantinople in 426. Delusions of the same kind were reproduced from time to time in the Oriental Church; and, as is commonly the case, the originators of error were followed by a race of disciples who advanced considerably beyond them. The Hesychasts, or Quietists of Mount Athos in the 14th century, seem to have been fanatics of an extreme type. They imagined that, by a process of profound contemplation, they could discern internally the light of the Divine Presence—the 'glory of God'—the very same which was disclosed to the Apostles on the Mount of Transfiguration. Hence they were also called Thaborites. {2238} The soul to which this privilege was vouchsafed had no need to practise any of the external acts or rites of religion. … The theory of abstract contemplation, with the extraordinary fruits supposed to be derived from it, travelled in due course into the West, and there gave birth to the far-famed school of the Mystics, of which there were various ramifications. The earliest exponent of the system in France was John Scotus Erigena, the contemporary and friend of Charles the Bald. … Erigena incurred the censures of the Holy See; but the results of his teaching were permanent. … The Mystics, or Theosophists as some style them, attained a position of high renown and influence at Paris towards the close of the 12th century. Here two of the ablest expositors of the learning of the middle age, Hugh and Richard of St. Victor, initiated crowds of ardent disciples into the mysteries of the 'via interna,' and of 'pure love'—that marvellous quality by which the soul, sublimated and etherialized, ascends into the very presence-chamber of the King of kings. … The path thus traced was trodden by many who were to take rank eventually as the most perfect masters of spiritual science; among them are the venerated names of Thomas à Kempis, St. Bonaventure, John Tauler of Strasburg, Gerson, and St. Vincent Ferrier. … But, on the other hand, it is not less true that emotional religion has been found to degenerate, in modern as well as in ancient times, into manifold forms of moral aberration. … To exalt above measure the dignity and privileges of the spiritual element in man carries with it the danger of disparaging the material part of our nature; and this results in the preposterous notion that, provided the soul be absorbed in the contemplation of things Divine, the actions of the body are unimportant and indifferent. How often the Church has combated and denounced this most insidious heresy is well known to all who have a moderate acquaintance with its history. Under the various appellations of Beghards, Fratricelli, Cathari, Spirituals, Albigenses, Illuminati, Guerinets, and Quietists, the self-same delusion has been sedulously propagated in different parts of Christendom, and with the same ultimate consequences. A revival of the last-named sect, the Quietists, took place in Spain about the year 1675, when Michel de Molinos, a priest of the diocese of Saragossa, published his treatise called 'The Spiritual Guide,' or, in the Latin translation, 'Manuductio spiritualis.' His leading principle, like that of his multifarious predecessors, was that of habitual abstraction of the mind from sensible objects, with a view to gain, by passive contemplation, not only a profound realisation of God's presence, but so perfect a communion with Him as to end in absorption into His essence. … Persons of the highest distinction—Cardinals, Inquisitors, nay, even Pope Innocent himself—were suspected of sharing these dangerous opinions. Molinos was arrested and imprisoned, and in due time the Inquisition condemned sixty-eight propositions from his works; a sentence which was confirmed by a Papal bull in August, 1687. Having undergone public penance, he was admitted to absolution; after which, in 'merciful' consideration of his submission and repentance, he was consigned for the rest of his days to the dungeons of the Holy Office. Here he died in November, 1692. … 'The principles of Quietism had struck root so deeply, that they were not to be soon dislodged either by the terrors of the Inquisition, or by the well-merited denunciations of the Vatican. The system was irresistibly fascinating to minds of a certain order. Among those who were dazzled by it was the celebrated Jeanne Marie De la Mothe Guyon," whose ardent propagation of her mystic theology in the court circles of France—where Fenelon, Madame de Maintenon, and other important personages were greatly influenced—gave rise to bitter controversies and agitations. In the end, Madame Guyon was silenced and imprisoned and Fenelon was subjected to humiliating papal censures.

"Towards the seventh century B. C., the name Edomite suddenly disappears, and is used only by some of the Israelitish prophets, who, in doing so, follow ancient traditions. Instead of it is found the hitherto unknown word, Nabathean. Nevertheless the two names, Nabathean and Edomite, undoubtedly refer to the same people, dwelling in the same locality, possessing the same empire, with the same boundaries, and the same capital, Selah [Petra]. Whence arose this change of name? According to an appearances from an internal revolution, of which we have no record, a change in the royal race and in the dominant tribe."

"This remarkable nation [the Nabatheans, or Nabatæans] has often been confounded with its eastern neighbours, the wandering Arabs, but it is more closely related to the Aramæan branch than to the proper children of Ishmael. This Aramæan or, according to the designation of the Occidentals, Syrian stock must have in very early times sent forth from its most ancient settlements about Babylon a colony, probably for the sake of trade, to the northern end of the Arabian gulf; these were the Nabatæans on the Sinaitic peninsula, between the gulf of Suez and Aila, in the region of Petra (Wadi Mousa). In their ports the wares of the Mediterranean were exchanged for those of India; the great southern caravan-route, which ran from Gaza to the mouth of the Euphrates and the Persian gulf, passed through the capital of the Nabatæans—Petra—whose still magnificent rock-palaces and rock-tombs furnish clearer evidence of the Nabatæan civilization than does an almost extinct tradition."

NABOB. NAWAB.

Under the Moghul empire, certain viceroys or governors of provinces bore the title of Nawab, as the Nawab Wuzeer or Vizier of Oude, which became in English speech Nabob, and acquired familiar use in England as a term applied to rich Anglo-Indians.

NAHUA PEOPLES. NAHUATL.

NANTES: A. D. 1793.
   Unsuccessful attack by the Vendeans.
   The crushing of the revolt and the frightful
   vengeance of the Terrorists.
   The demoniac Carrier and his Noyades.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JULY-DECEMBER);
THE CIVIL WAR; and 1793-1794 (OCTOBER-APRIL).

NAO.

NAPATA.

NAPLES: A. D. 1000-1080.
The Norman Conquest.
Grant by the Pope as a fief of the Church.

NAPLES: A. D. 1127. Union of Apulia with Sicily and formation of the kingdom of Naples or the Two Sicilies.

NAPLES: A. D. 1282-1300.
   Separation from Sicily.
   Continuance as a separate kingdom under the House of Anjou.
   Adhesion to the name "Sicily."

NAPLES: A. D. 1312-1313.
Hostilities between King Robert and the Emperor, Henry VII.

NAPLES: A. D. 1313-1328.
King Robert's leadership of the Guelf interest in Italy.
His part in the wars of Tuscany.

NAPLES: A. D. 1343-1389.
   The troubled reign of Joanna I.
   Murder of her husband, Andrew of Hungary.
   Political effects of the Great Schism in the Church.
   War of Charles of Durazzo and Louis of Anjou.
   Interfering violence of Pope Urban VI.

NAPLES: A. D. 1386-1414.
   Civil war between the Durazzo and the Angevin parties.
   Success of Ladislas.
   His capture, loss, and recapture of Rome.

NAPLES: A. D. 1414-1447.
   Renewal of civil war.
   Defeat of the Angevins and acquisition of the
   crown by Alfonso, king of Aragon and Sicily.
   League with Florence and Venice against Milan.

NAPLES: A. D.1447-1454.
Claim of King Alfonso to the duchy of Milan.
War with Milan and Florence.

NAPLES: A. D. 1458.
   Separation of the crown from those of Aragon and Sicily.
   Left to an illegitimate son of Alfonso.
   Revived French claims.

NAPLES: A. D. 1494-1496.
   Invasion and temporary conquest by Charles VIII. of France.
   Retreat of the French.
   Venetian acquisitions in Apulia.

NAPLES: A. D. 1501-1504.
   Perfidious treaty of partition between
   Louis XII. of France and Ferdinand of Aragon.
   Their joint conquest.
   Their quarrel and war.
   The French expelled.
   The Spaniards in possession.

NAPLES: A. D. 1528-1570.
   Under the Spanish viceroys.
   Ravages of the Turks along the coast.
   The blockade and peril of the city.
   Revolt against the Inquisition.
   Alva's repulse of the French.

NAPLES: A. D. 1647-1654.
Revolt of Masaniello.
Undertakings of the Duke of Guise and the French.

NAPLES: A. D. 1734-1735.
   Occupation by the Spaniards.
   Cession to Spain, with Sicily, forming a kingdom for
   Don Carlos, the first of the Neapolitan Bourbons.

NAPLES: A. D. 1742.
The neutrality of the kingdom in the War of the Austrian
Succession enforced by England.

NAPLES: A. D. 1769.
Seizure of Papal territory.
Demand for the suppression of the Order of the Jesuits.

NAPLES: A. D. 1798-1799.
   The king's attack upon the French at Rome.
   His defeat and flight.
   French occupation of the capital.
   Creation of the Parthenopeian Republic.

NAPLES: A. D. 1800-1801.
   The king's assistance to the Allies.
   Saved from Napoleon's vengeance by the intercession
   of the Russian Czar.
   Treaty of Foligno.

NAPLES: A. D. 1805-1806.
   Napoleon's edict of dethronement against the king and queen.
   Its enforcement by French arms.
   Joseph Bonaparte made king of the Two Sicilies.

NAPLES: A. D. 1808.
The crown resigned by Joseph Bonaparte (now king of Spain),
and conferred on Joachim Murat.

NAPLES: A. D. 1808-1809.
   Murat on the throne.
   Expulsion of the English from Capri.
   Popular discontent.
   Rise of the Carbonari.
   Civil war in Calabria.

NAPLES: A. D. 1815.
   Murat's attempt to head an Italian national movement.
   His downfall and fate.
   Restoration of the Bourbon Ferdinand.

NAPLES: A. D. 1820-1821.
   Insurrection.
   Concession of a Constitution.
   Perjury and duplicity of the king.
   Intervention of Austria to overthrow the Constitution.
   Merciless re-establishment of despotism.

NAPLES: A. D. 1820-1822.
The Congresses of Troppau, Laybach and Verona.
Austrian intervention sanctioned.

NAPLES: A. D. 1859-1861.
   Death of Ferdinand II.
   Accession of Francis II.
   The overthrow of his kingdom by Garibaldi.
   Its absorption in the kingdom of Italy.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JULY-DECEMBER);
and 1795 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER), to 1815 (JUNE-AUGUST).

NAPOLEON III.:
His career as conspirator, President of the
French Republic, and Emperor.

"In the year B. C. 118 it was proposed to settle a Roman colony in the south of France at Narbo (Narbonne). … The Romans must have seized some part of this country, or they could not have made a colony, which implies the giving of land to settlers. Narbo was an old native town which existed at least as early as the latter part of the sixth century before the Christian era. … The possession of Narbo gave the Romans easy access to the fertile valley of the Garonne, and it was not long before they took and plundered Tolosa (Toulouse), which is on that river. … Narbo also commanded the road into Spain."

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY; RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1636; and NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1637, 1674-1675, 1675, and 1676-1678.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY: KENTUCKY-TENNESSEE);
      and (FEBRUARY-APRIL: TENNESSEE).

"We find an Otho, Count of Nassau, so long ago as the beginning of the 10th century, employed as general under the Emperor Henry I … in subduing a swarm of savage Hungarians, who for many years had infested Germany. … The same fortunate warrior had a principal hand afterwards in reducing the Vandals, Danes, Sclavonians, Dalmatians, and Bohemians. Among the descendants of Otho of Nassau, Walram I and III more particularly distinguished themselves in the cause of the German Emperors; the former under the victorious Otho I, the latter under Conrad II. It was to these faithful services of his progenitors that, in a great measure, were owing the large possessions of Henry, surnamed the Rich, third in descent from the last mentioned Walram, and grandfather to the brave but unhappy Emperor Adolphus [deposed and slain at the battle of Gelheim, in 1298.]

The accession, by marriage, of Breda, Vianden, and other lordships in the Netherlands, gave the Nassaus such a weight in those provinces that John II of Nassau-Dillemburg, and his son Engelbert II, were both successively appointed Governors of Brabant by the Sovereigns of that State [Charles the Bold, Duke of Burgundy, and his son-in-law, the Emperor Maximilian]. … The last, who was likewise honoured with the commission of Maximilian I's Lieutenant-General in the Low-Countries, immortalized his fame, at the same time that he secured his master's footing there, by the glorious victory of Guinegaste,"—or Guinegate, or the "Battle of the Spurs."

Engelbert II. dying childless, "was succeeded by his brother John, whose two sons, Henry and William, of Nassau, divided the great inheritance after their father's death. William succeeded to the German estates, became a convert to Protestantism, and introduced the Reformation into his dominions. Henry, the eldest son, received the family possessions and titles in Luxembourg, Brabant, Flanders and Holland, and distinguished himself as much as his uncle Engelbert, in the service of the Burgundo-Austrian house. The confidential friend of Charles V., whose governor he had been in that Emperor's boyhood, he was ever his most efficient and reliable adherent. It was he whose influence placed the imperial crown upon the head of Charles. In 1515 he espoused Claudia de Chalons, sister of Prince Philibert of Orange, 'in order,' as he wrote to his father, 'to be obedient to his imperial Majesty, to please the King of France, and more particularly for the sake of his own honor and profit.' His son Rene de Nassau-Chalons succeeded Philibert. The little principality of Orange, so pleasantly situated between Provence and Dauphiny, but in such, dangerous proximity to the seat of the 'Babylonian captivity' of the popes at Avignon, thus passed to the family of Nassau. The title was of high antiquity. Already in the reign of Charlemagne, Guillaume au Court-Nez, or 'William with the Short Nose,' had defended the little town of Orange against the assaults of the Saracens. The interest and authority acquired in the demesnes thus preserved by his valor became extensive, and in process of time hereditary in his race. The principality became an absolute and free sovereignty, and had already descended, in defiance of the Salic law, through the three distinct families of Orange, Baux, and Chalons. In 1544, Prince Rene died at the Emperor's feet in the trenches of Saint Dizier. Having no legitimate children, he left all his titles and estates to his cousin-german, William of Nassau [the great statesman and soldier, afterwards known as William the Silent], son of his father's brother William, who thus at the age of eleven years became William the Ninth of Orange."

The Dutch branch of the House of Nassau is now represented by the royal family of Holland. The possessions of the German branch, in the Prussian province of Hesse-Nassau, after frequent partitioning, was finally gathered into a duchy, which Prussia extinguished and absorbed in 1866.

      ALSO IN:
      E. A. Freeman,
      Orange
      (Macmillan's Magazine, February, 1875).

NAT TURNER'S INSURRECTION.

NATAL: A. D. 1834-1843.
Founding of the colony as a Dutch republic.
Its absorption in the British dominions.

NATIONAL BANK SYSTEM.

NATIONAL LIBRARY OF FRANCE.

NATIONAL REPUBLICAN PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES.

"Among the French a nationality is regarded as the work of history, ratified by the will of man. The elements composing it may be very different in their origin. The point of departure is of little importance; the only essential thing is the point reached. The Swiss nationality is the most complete. It embraces three families of people, each of which speaks its own language. Moreover, since the Swiss territory belongs to three geographical regions, separated by high mountains, Switzerland, which has vanquished the fatality of nature, from both the ethnographical and geographical point of view, is a unique and wonderful phenomenon. But she is a confederation, and for a long time has been a neutral country. Thus her constitution has not been subjected to the great ordeal of fire and sword. France, despite her diverse races—Celtic, German, Roman, and Basque—has formed a political entity that most resembles a moral person. The Bretons and Alsacians, who do not all understand the language of her government, have not been the least devoted of her children in the hour of tribulation. Among the great nations France is the nation par excellence. Elsewhere the nationality blends, or tends to blend, with the race, a natural development and, hence, one devoid of merit. All the countries that have not been able to unite their races into a nation, have a more or less troubled existence. Prussia has not been able to nationalize (that is the proper word to use) her Polish subjects; hence she has a Polish question, not to mention at present any other. England has an Irish question. Both Turkey and Austria have a number of such questions. Groups of people in various parts of the Austrian Empire demand from the Emperor that they may be allowed to live as Germans, Hungarians, Tsechs, Croatians, in fact, even as Italians. They do not revolt against him; on the contrary, each of them offers him a crown. The time is, however, past when a single head can wear several crowns; to-day every crown is heavy. These race claims are not merely a cause of internal troubles; the agitations that they arouse may lead to great wars. Evidently no state will ever interpose between Ireland and England, but, while quarrels take place between Germans and Slavs, there will intervene the two conflicting forces of Pan-Germanism and Pan-Slavism, formidable results and final consequences of ethnographical patriotism. Pan-Germanism and Pan-Slavism are, indeed, not forces officially acknowledged and organized. The Emperor of Germany can honestly deny that he is a Pan-Germanist, and the Tsar that he is a Pan-Slavist. Germans and Slavs of Austria, and Slavs of the Balkans, may, for their part, desire to remain Austrian or independent, as they are to-day. It is none the less true, however, that there is in Europe an old quarrel between two great races, that each of them is represented by a powerful empire, and that these empires cannot forever remain unconcerned about the quarrels of the two races. … The chief application of the principle of nationality has been the formation of the Italian and German nations. In former times the existence, in the centre of the Continent, of two objects of greed was a permanent cause of war. Will the substitution of two important states for German anarchy and Italian polyarchy prove a guaranty of future peace?"

E. Lavisse, General View of the Political History of Europe, chapter 5, sections 6-7.

NATIONS OF THE UNIVERSITIES.

NATIVE STATES OF INDIA.

NATIVI.

NAUARCHI.

The title given in ancient Sparta to the commanders of the fleet. At Athens "the term Nauarchi seems to have been officially applied only to the commanders of the so-called sacred triremes."

NAUCRATIS.

NAUKRARIES.

NAUKRATIS.

"Naukratis was for a long time the privileged port [in Egypt] for Grecian commerce with Egypt. No Greek merchant was permitted to deliver goods in any other part (port), or to enter any other of the mouths of the Nile except the Kanôpic. If forced into any of them by stress of weather, he was compelled to make oath that his arrival was a matter of necessity, and to convey his goods round by sea into the Kanôpic branch to Naukratis; and if the weather still forbade such a proceeding, the merchandise was put into barges and conveyed round to Naukratis by the internal canals of the delta. Such a monopoly, which made Naukratis in Egypt something like Canton in China or Nangasaki in Japan, no longer subsisted in the time of Herodotus. … At what precise time Naukratis first became licensed for Grecian trade, we cannot directly make out. But there seems reason to believe that it was the port to which the Greek merchants first went, so soon as the general liberty of trading with the country was conceded to them; and this would put the date of such grant at least as far back as the foundation of Kyrene, … about 630 B. C., during the reign of Psammetichus. … [About a century later, Amasis] sanctioned the constitution of a formal and organised emporium or factory, invested with commercial privileges, and armed with authority exercised by presiding officers regularly chosen. This factory was connected with, and probably grew out of, a large religious edifice and precinct, built at the joint cost of nine Grecian cities: four of them Ionic,—Chios, Teos, Phokæa and Klazomenæ; four Doric,—Rhodes, Knidus, Halikarnassus, and Phaselis; and one Æolic,—Mitylene. By these nine cities the joint temple and factory was kept up and its presiding magistrates chosen; but its destination, for the convenience of Grecian commerce generally, seems revealed by the imposing title of The Hellênion."

The site of Naukratis has been determined lately by the excavations of Mr. W. M. Flinders Petrie, begun in 1885, the results of which are appearing in the publications of the "Egypt Exploration Fund." The ruins of the ancient city are found buried under a mound called Nebireh. Its situation was west of the Canobic branch of the Nile, on a canal which connected it with that stream.

A naval battle fought near Naulochus, on the coast of Sicily, in which Agrippa, commanding for the triumvir Octavius, defeated and destroyed the fleet of Sextus Pompeius, B. C. 36.

NAUMACHIÆ.

The naumachiæ of the Romans were structures resembling excavated amphitheatres, but having the large central space filled with water, for the representation of naval combats. "The great Naumachia of Augustus was 1,800 feet long and 1,200 feet broad."

NAUPACTUS.

   A treaty, concluded B. C. 217, which terminated what was
   called the Social War, between the Achæan League, joined with
   Philip of Macedonia, and the Ætolian League, in alliance with
   Sparta.

NAUPLIA.

NAURAGHI.

   Won, April 3, 1367, by the English Black Prince over a Spanish
   and French army, in a campaign undertaken to restore Peter the
   Cruel to the throne of Castile.

"No historical subject is wrapt in greater obscurity than the origin and early history of the kingdom of Navarre. Whether, during a great portion of the eighth and ninth centuries, the country was independent or tributary; and, if dependent, whether it obeyed the Franks, the Asturians, or the Arabs, or successively all three, are speculations which have long exercised the pens of the peninsular writers. … It seems undoubted that, in just dread of the Mohammedan domination, the inhabitants of these regions, as well as those of Catalonia, applied for aid to the renowned emperor of the Franks [Charlemagne]; and that he, in consequence, in 778, poured his legions into Navarre, and seized Pamplona. It seems no less certain that, from this period, he considered the country as a fief of his crown; and that his pretensions, whether founded in violence or in the voluntary submission of the natives, gave the highest umbrage to the Asturian kings: the feudal supremacy thenceforth became an apple of discord between the two courts, each striving to gain the homage of the local governors. … Thus things remained until the time of Alfonso III., who … endeavoured to secure peace both with Navarre and France by marrying a princess related to both Sancho Iñigo, count of Bigorre, and to the Frank sovereign, and by consenting that the province should be held as an immovable fief by that count. This Sancho Iñigo, besides his lordship of Bigorre, for which he was the vassal of the French king, had domains in Navarre, and is believed, on apparently good foundation, to have been of Spanish descent. He is said, however, not to have been the first count of Navarre; that his brother Aznar held the fief before him, nominally dependent on king Pepin, but successfully laying the foundation of Navarrese independence. If the chronology which makes Sancho succeed Aznar in 836, and the event itself, be correct, Alfonso only confirmed the count in the lordship. In this case, the only remaining difficulty is to determine whether the fief was held from Charles or Alfonso. … But whichever of the princes was acknowledged for the time the lord paramount of the province, there can be little doubt that both governor and people were averse to the sway of either; both had long aspired to independence, and that independence was at hand. The son of this Sancho Iñigo was Garcia, father of Sancho Garces, and the first king of Navarre [assuming the crown about 885-891]; the first, at least, whom … historic criticism can admit."

NAVARRE: A. D. 1026.
Acquisition of the crown of Castile by King Sancho el Mayor.

   In 1284, the marriage of Jeanne, heiress of the kingdom of
   Navarre and of the counties of Champagne and Brie, to Philip
   IV. of France, united the crown of Navarre to that of France.
   They were separated in 1328, on the death of her last
   surviving son, Charles IV., without male issue. Philip of
   Valois secured the French crown, under the so called Salic
   law, but that of Navarre passed to Jeanne's grand-daughter, of
   her own name.

NAVARRE: A. D. 1442-1521.
   Usurpation of John II. of Aragon.
   The House of Foix and the D'Albrets.
   Conquest by Ferdinand.
   Incorporation in the kingdom of Castile.

Blanche, daughter of Charles III. of Navarre and heiress of the kingdom, married John II. of Aragon, to whom she gave three children, namely, Don Carlos, or Charles, "who, as heir apparent, bore the title of Prince of Viana, and two daughters, Blanche and Eleanor. Don Carlos is known by his virtues and misfortunes. At the death of his mother Blanche [1442], he should have succeeded to the throne of Navarre; but John II. was by no means disposed to relinquish the title which he had acquired by marriage, and Carlos consented to be his father's viceroy. But even this dignity he was not permitted to enjoy unmolested." Persecuted through life, sometimes imprisoned, sometimes in exile, he died at the age of forty, in 1461.

"By the death of Don Carlos, the succession to the crown of Navarre devolved to his sister Blanche, the divorced wife of Henry IV. of Castile; and that amiable princess now became an object of jealousy not only to her father but also to her younger sister, Eleanor, married to the Count of Foix, to whom John II. had promised the reversion of Navarre after his own death. Gaston de Foix, the offspring of this union, had married a sister of Louis XI.; and it had been provided in a treaty between that monarch and John II., that in order to secure the succession of the House of Foix to Navarre, Blanche should be delivered into the custody of her sister. John executed this stipulation without remorse. Blanche was conducted to the Castle of Orthès in Bearn (April 1462), where, after a confinement of nearly two years, she was poisoned by order of her sister Eleanor." After committing this crime, the latter waited nearly fifteen years for the crown which it was expected to win, and then enjoyed it but three weeks. Her father reigned until the 20th of January, 1479, when he died; the guilty daughter soon followed him. "After Eleanor's brief reign … the blood-stained sceptre of Navarre passed to her grandson Phœbus, 1479, who, however, lived only four years, and was succeeded by his sister Catherine. Ferdinand and Isabella [now occupying the thrones of Aragon and Castile] endeavoured to effect a marriage between Catherine and their own heir; but this scheme was frustrated by Magdalen, the queen-mother, a sister of Louis XI. of France, who brought about a match between her daughter and John d'Albret, a French nobleman who had large possessions on the borders of Navarre (1485). Nevertheless the Kings of Spain supported Catherine and her husband against her uncle, John de Foix, viscount of Narbonne, who pretended to the Navarese crown on the ground that it was limited to male heirs; and after the death of John, the alliance with Spain was drawn still closer by the avowed purpose of Louis XII. to support his nephew, Gaston de Foix, in the claims of his father. After the fall of that young hero at Ravenna [see ITALY: A. D. 1510-1513], his pretensions to the throne of Navarre devolved to his sister, Germaine de Foix, the second wife of King Ferdinand [see SPAIN: A. D. 1496-1517], an event which entirely altered the relations between the courts of Spain and Navarre. Ferdinand had now an interest in supporting the claims of the house of Foix-Narbonne; and Catherine, who distrusted him, despatched in May 1512, plenipotentiaries to the French court to negotiate a treaty of alliance." But it was too late. Ferdinand had already succeeded in diverting to Navarre an expedition which his son-in-law, Henry VIII. of England, acting in the Holy League against Louis XII., which Ferdinand now joined (see ITALY: A. D. 1510-1513), had sent against Guienne. With this aid he took possession of Upper Navarre. "In the following year, he effected at Orthès a year's truce with Louis XII. (April 1st 1513), by which Louis sacrificed his ally, the King of Navarre, and afterwards, by renewing the truce, allowed Ferdinand permanently to settle himself in his new conquest. The States of Navarre had previously taken the oath of allegiance to Ferdinand as their King, and on the 15th of June 1515, Navarre was incorporated into the kingdom of Castile by the solemn act of the Cortès. The dominions of John d'Albret and Catherine were now reduced to the little territory of Bearn, but they still retained the title of sovereigns of Navarre." Six years later, in 1521, the French invaded Navarre and overran the whole kingdom. "Pampeluna alone, animated by the courage of Ignatius Loyola, made a short resistance. To this siege, the world owes the Order of the Jesuits. Loyola, whose leg had been shattered by a cannon ball, found consolation and amusement during his convalescence in reading the lives of the saints, and was thus thrown into that state of fanatical exaltation which led him to devote his future life to the service of the Papacy." Attempting to extend their invasion beyond Navarre, the French were defeated at Esquiros and driven back, losing the whole of their conquests.

      T. H. Dyer,
      History of Modern Europe,
      book 1, chapters 4 and 7,
      and book 2, chapter 3 (volume 1).

      ALSO IN:
      W. H. Prescott,
      History of the Reign of Ferdinand and Isabella,
      chapters 2 and 23 (volumes 1 and 3).

NAVARRE: A. D. 1528-1563.
   The kingdom remaining on the French side of the Pyrenees.
   Jeanne d'Albret's Bourbon marriage and the issue of it.
   Establishment of Protestantism in Béarn.

   Besides the Spanish province which Ferdinand the Catholic
   appropriated and joined to Castile, and which gave its name to
   the Kingdom of Navarre, "that kingdom embraced a large tract
   of country lying on the French side of the Pyrenees, including
   the principality of Béarn and the counties of Foix, Armagnac,
   Albret, Bigorre, and Comminges. Catherine de Foix, the heiress
   of this kingdom, had in 1491 carried it by marriage into the
   house of D'Albret. Henry, the second king of Navarre belonging
   to this house, was in 1528 united to Marguerite d'Angoulême,
   the favourite and devoted sister of Francis I. of France.
   Pampeluna, the ancient capital of their kingdom, being in the
   hands of the King of Spain, Henry and Marguerite held their
   Court at Nérac, the chief town of the duchy belonging to the
   family of D'Albret. It was at Nérac that Marguerite, herself
   more than half a Huguenot, opened an asylum to her persecuted
   fellow-countrymen [see PAPACY: A. D. 1521-1535]. Farel,
   Calvin, Beza sought temporary refuge and found glad welcome
   there, while to Lefevre, Clement Marot, and Gerard Roussel it
   became a second home. Marguerite died in 1549, leaving only
   one child, a daughter, who, in the event of her father having
   no issue by any second marriage, became heiress to the crown
   of Navarre. Born in 1528, Jeanne d'Albret had early and bitter
   experience of what heirship to such a crown involved. The
   Emperor Charles V. was believed to have early fixed his eye on
   her as a fit consort for Philip, his son and successor." To
   prevent this marriage, she was shut up for years, by her
   uncle, the French king, Francis I., in the gloomy castle of
   Plessis-les-Tours. When she was twelve years old he affianced
   her to the Duke of Cleves, notwithstanding her vigorous
   protests; but the alliance was subsequently broken off. "The
   next hand offered to Jeanne, and which she accepted, was that
   of Antoine, elder brother of the Prince of Condé, and head of
   the Bourbon family. They were married in 1548, a year after
   the death of Francis I., and a year before that of his sister
   Marguerite, Jeanne's mother. The marriage was an unfortunate
   one. Ambitious, yet weak and vain; frivolous and vacillating,
   yet headstrong and impetuous, faithless to his wife, faithless
   to his principles, faithless to his party, Antoine became the
   butt and victim of the policy of the Court. But though
   unfortunate in so many respects, this marriage gave to France,
   if not the greatest, the most fortunate, the most popular, the
   most beloved of all her monarchs"—namely, Henry IV.—Henry of
   Navarre—the first of the Bourbon dynasty of French kings.
{2245}
   "Antoine of Navarre died at the siege of Rouen in 1562. The
   first use that the Queen made of the increased measure of
   freedom she thus acquired was to publish an edict establishing
   the Protestant and interdicting the exercise of the Roman
   Catholic worship in Béarn. So bold an act by so weak a
   sovereign—by one whose political position was so perilous and
   insecure—drew down upon her the instant and severe
   displeasure of the Pope," who issued against her a Bull of
   excommunication, in October, 1563, and assumed the right to
   dispose of her kingdom. This assumption was more than the
   French Court could permit. "The Pope had to give way, and the
   Bull was expunged from the ecclesiastical ordinances of the
   Pontificate."

NAVARRE: A. D. 1568-1569.
The queen joins the Huguenots in France, with Prince Henry.
Invasion by the French.

NAVARRE: A. D. 1620-1622.
   Protestant intolerance.
   Enforcement of Catholic rights.
   The kingdom incorporated and absorbed in France.

NAVARRE: A. D. 1876. Disappearance of the last municipal and provincial privileges of the old kingdom.

NAVE. NAVIO.

"After the triumph of the parliamentary cause [in the English Civil War], great numbers of the royalists had sought refuge in Virginia, Barbadoes, and the other West India settlements; so that the white population of these dependencies was in general fiercely opposed to the new government, and they might be said to be in a state of rebellion after all the rest of the empire had been reduced to submission and quiet. Barbadoes, indeed, had actually received Lord Willoughby as governor under a commission from Charles II., then in Holland, and had proclaimed Charles as king. It was in these circumstances that the English parliament in 1651, with the view of punishing at once the people of the colonies and the Dutch, who had hitherto enjoyed the greater part of the carrying-trade between the West Indies and Europe, passed their famous Navigation Act, declaring that no merchandise either of Asia, Africa, or America, except only such as should be imported directly from the place of its growth or manufacture in Europe, should be imported into England, Ireland, or any of the plantations, in any but English-built ships, belonging either to English or English-plantation subjects, navigated by English commanders, and having at least three-fourths of the sailors Englishmen. It was also further enacted that no goods of the growth, production, or manufacture of any country in Europe should be imported into Great Britain except in British ships, or in such ships as were the real property of the people of the country or place in which the goods were produced, or from which they could only be, or most usually were, exported. Upon this law, which was re-enacted after the Restoration, and which down to our own day has been generally regarded and upheld as the palladium of our commerce, and the maritime Magna Charta of England, we shall only at present observe that one of its first consequences was undoubtedly the war with Holland which broke out the year after it was passed."

NAVIGATION LAWS: A. D. 1660-1672.
Effect upon the American colonies,
and their relation to Great Britain.

   "The question of the navigation laws was … brought forward
   [in the British Parliament, at the commencement of the session
   of 1849] … with a fair prospect of being settled!" The
   stringency of the original act of 1651 had been "slightly
   mitigated by another act passed in the reign of Charles II.;
   but the modifications thus introduced were of slight
   importance. A farther relaxation, made at the conclusion of
   the war of independence, allowed the produce of the United
   States to be imported in ships belonging to citizens of those
   states. The last amendment of the original law was obtained in
   the year 1825 by Mr. Huskisson, who made some important
   changes in it. The law, then, which the legislature had to
   reconsider in the year 1849 stood thus: the produce of Asia,
   Africa, and America might be imported from places out of
   Europe into the United Kingdom, if to be used therein, in
   foreign as well us in British ships, provided that such ships
   were the ships of the country of which the goods were the
   produce, and from which they were imported. Goods which were
   the produce of Europe, and which were not enumerated in the
   act, might be brought thence in the ships of any country.
   Goods sent to or from the United Kingdom to any of its
   possessions, or from one colony to another, must be carried in
   British ships, or in ships of the country in which they were
   produced and from which they were imported. Then followed some
   stringent definitions of the conditions which constituted a
   vessel a British ship in the sense of the act. These
   restrictions were not without their defenders. Even the great
   founder of economic science, Adam Smith, while admitting that
   the navigation laws were inconsistent with that perfect
   freedom of trade which he contended for, sanctioned their
   continuance on the ground that defence is much more important
   than opulence. But as it was more and more strongly felt that
   these laws were part and parcel of that baneful system of
   monopoly which, under the name of protection, had so long been
   maintained and was now so completely exploded, it began also
   to be seriously doubted whether they were necessary to the
   defence of the nation. … Therefore, on the 14th of February
   in this year, Mr. Labouchere, as president of the board of
   trade, proposed a resolution on the subject couched in the
   following terms: 'That it is expedient to remove the
   restrictions which prevent the free carriage of goods by sea
   to and from the United Kingdom and the British possessions
   abroad, and to amend the laws regulating the coasting trade of
   the United Kingdom, subject nevertheless to such control by
   her Majesty in council as may be necessary; and also to amend
   the laws for the registration of ships and seamen.'
{2246}
   A long debate took place on the question of the second reading
   of the government measure. … 214 members followed Mr.
   Disraeli into the lobby, while 275 voted with the government,
   which therefore had a majority of 61. In the upper house Lord
   Brougham astonished friend and foe by coming forward as the
   strenuous and uncompromising opponent of the ministerial
   measure. … The second reading was carried by a majority of
   10. The smallness of this majority caused some anxiety to the
   supporters of the measure with regard to its ultimate fate;
   but this anxiety was relieved by the withdrawal of the most
   conspicuous opponents of the bill, which consequently passed
   without farther opposition."

A battle was fought in September, B. C. 376, off Naxos, between a Lacedæmonian fleet of 60 triremes and an Athenian fleet of 80. Forty-nine of the former were disabled or captured. "This was the first great victory … which the Athenians had gained at sea since the Peloponnesian war."

"In the partition of the [Byzantine] empire [after the conquest of Constantinople, in 1204, by the Crusaders and the Venetians], the twelve islands of the Archipelago, which had formed the theme of the Egean sea in the provincial division of the Byzantine empire, fell to the share of the crusading barons; but Mark Sanudo, one of the most influential of the Venetian nobles in the expedition, obtained possession of the principal part of the ancient theme—though whether by purchase from the Frank barons to whom it had been allotted, or by grant to himself from the emperor, is not known. Sanudo, however, made his appearance at the parliament of Ravenika as one of the great feudatories of the empire of Romania, and was invested by the emperor Henry with the title of Duke of the Archipelago, or Naxos. It is difficult to say on what precise footing Sanudo placed his relations with the republic. His conduct in the war of Crete shows that he ventured to act as a baron of Romania, or an independent prince, when he thought his personal interests at variance with his born allegiance to Venice. … The new duke and his successors were compelled by their position to acknowledge themselves, in some degree, vassals both of the empire of Romania and of the republic of Venice; yet they acted as sovereign princes." Nearly at the close of the fourteenth century the dukedom passed from the Sanudo family to the Crispo family, who reigned under the protection of Venice until 1537, when the Duke of Naxos was reduced to vassalage by the Turkish sultan Suleiman. Thirty years later, his title and authority were extinguished by the sultan, on the petition of the Greek inhabitants, who could not endure his oppressive and disgraceful government.

      G. Finlay,
      History of Greece from its Conquest by the Crusaders,
      chapter 10, sections 1-3.

NEANDERTHAL MAN.

The race represented by a remarkable human skull and imperfect skeleton found in 1857, in a limestone cave in the Neanderthal, Rhenish Prussia, and thought to be the most primitive race of which any knowledge has yet been obtained.

In the first century of the Roman empire, "Neapolis [modern Naples] had its schools and colleges, as well as Athens; its society abounded in artists and men of letters, and it enjoyed among the Romans the title of the learned, which comprehended in their view the praise of elegance as well as knowledge."

NEAPOLIS AND PALÆPOLIS.

"Palaepolis is mentioned only by Livy: it was an ancient Cumaean colony, the Cumaeans having taken refuge there across the sea. Neapolis derives its name from being a much later settlement of different Greek tribes, and was perhaps not founded till Olymp. 91, about the time of the Athenian expedition to Sicily, and as a fortress of the Greeks against the Sabellians. It is not impossible that the Athenians also may have had a share in it. Both towns, however, were of Chalcidian origin and formed one united state, which at that time may have been in possession of Ischia. Many absurdities have been written about the site of Palaepolis, and most of all by Italian antiquaries. We have no data to go upon except the two statements in Livy, that Palaepolis was situated by the side of Neapolis, and that the Romans [in the second Samnite war] had pitched their camp between the two towns. The ancient Neapolis was undoubtedly situated in the centre of the modern city of Naples above the church of Sta. Rosa; the coast is now considerably advanced. People have sought for Palaepolis likewise within the compass of the modern city. … I alone should never have discovered its true site, but my friend, the Count de Serre, a French statesman, who in his early life had been in the army and had thus acquired a quick and certain miliary eye, discovered it in a walk which I took with him. The town was situated on the outer side of Mount Posilipo, where the quarantine now is."

"Parthenopé was an ancient Greek colony founded by the Chalcidians of Cuma on the northern part of the Bay of Naples. In after years another city sprung up a little to the south, whence the original Parthenopé was called Palæpolis or Old-town, while the new town took the name of Neapolis. The latter preserves its name in the modern Naples." Palæpolis was taken by the Romans, B. C. 327, at the beginning of the second Samnite War, and is heard of no more. Neapolis made peace with them and lived.

NEARDA.

NEBRASKA: A. D. 1854.
   Territorial organization.
   The Kansas-Nebraska Bill.
   Repeal of the Missouri Compromise.

NEGRITO.

"The term Negrito, i. e. 'Little Negro,' [was] long applied by the Spaniards to the dark dwarfish tribes in the interior of Luzon, and some others of the Philippine Islands. Here it will be extended to the dwarfish negroid tribes in the Andaman Islands and interior of Malacca, but to no others."

      A. H. Keane,
      Philology and Ethnology of the Interoceanic Races
      (appendix to Wallace's Hellwald's Australasia),
      section 4.

NEGRO SLAVERY.

NEGRO SUFFRAGE.

The ancient island of Eubœa received from the Venetians the name Negropont. "In the middle ages, Eubœa was called Egripo, a corruption of Euripus, the name of the town built upon the ruins of Chalcis. The Venetians, who obtained possession of the island upon the dismemberment of the Byzantine empire by the Latins, called it Negropont, probably a corruption of Egripo, and 'ponte,' a bridge."

It is among the legends of the Irish that their island was settled, about the time of the patriarch Jacob, by a colony of descendants from Japhet, led by one Nemedius, from whom they and their posterity took the name of Nemedians. The Nemedians were afterwards subjugated by a host of African sea-rovers, known as Fomorians, but were delivered from these in time by a fresh colony of their kindred from the East called the Fir Bolgs.

NEMEAN AND ISTHMIAN GAMES.

"The Nemean and Isthmian [games in ancient. Greece] were celebrated each twice in every Olympiad, at different seasons of the year: the former in the plain of Nemea, in Argolis, under the presidency of Argos; the latter in the Corinthian isthmus, under the presidency of Corinth. These, like the Pythian and Olympic games, claimed a very high antiquity, though the form in which they were finally established was of late institution; and it is highly probable that they were really suggested by the tradition of ancient festivals, which had served to cement an Amphictyonic confederacy."

NEMETACUM.

NEODAMODES.

NEOLITHIC PERIOD.

"There now [in the third century after Christ] arose another school, which from its first beginnings announced itself as a reform and support of the ancient faith, and, consequently, as an enemy of the new religion. This was the Neoplatonic school of Alexandria, founded by Ammonius Saccas and Plotinus, and which was afterwards represented by Porphyrius, Amelius, and Iamblicus. The doctrine of this school was the last, and in many respects the best production of paganism, now in its final struggle; the effort of a society, which acknowledged its own defects, to regenerate and to purify itself. Philosophy, and the religion of the vulgar, hitherto separated and irreconcilable, joined in harmony together for mutual support, and for a new existence. The Neoplatonics endeavoured, therefore, to unite the different systems of philosophy, especially the Pythagorean, Platonic, and Aristotelean, in one body with the principles of oriental learning, and thus to raise an edifice of universal, absolute truth. In the same manner they represented the varied forms of eastern and western religious worship as one entire whole, which had manifested itself indeed in different ways, but at the foundation of which there lay the same true faith. They taught that 'every kind of homage and adoration, which men offer to superior beings, is referred to heroes, demons, or Gods, but, finally, to the one most-high God, the author of all: that these demons are the chiefs and genii of the different parts, elements, and powers of the world, of people, countries, and cities, to obtain whose favour and protection, it behoved men to honour them according to the rites and customs of the ancients.' {2248} It is, therefore, manifest that these philosophers were essentially hostile to the Christian religion,—the exclusive character of which, and tendency to destroy all other religions, stood in direct contrast with their doctrines: and as their school was in its vigour at the very time in which Christianity made its most rapid advances, and had struck Paganism with a mortal wound, they employed themselves especially, and more earnestly, than other philosophers, to maintain their own tenets, and to destroy Christianity. They in nowise, however, desired to defend heathenism, or its worship, in their then degenerate and degrading state: their ideal was a more pure, more noble, spiritualized, polytheism, to establish which was the object which they had proposed to themselves. Whilst, therefore, on the one hand, they preserved the ancient and genuine truths which had sprung from primitive tradition, and purified them from recent errors and deformations; on the other, they adopted many of the doctrines of the hated Christianity, and sought to reform paganism by the aid of light which had streamed upon them from the sanctuary of the Church. This admission and employment of Christian truths are easily explained, if it be true, that two of their chiefs, Ammonius and Porphyrius, had been Christians. It is well known that they received instructions from Christian masters. … This uniformity, or imitation, consists not only in the use of terms, but in essential dogmas. The Neoplatonic idea of three hypostases in one Godhead would not have been heard of, if the Christian doctrine of the Trinity had not preceded it. … Their doctrines respecting the minor Gods, their influence and connexion with the supreme Being, approached near to the Christian dogma of the angels. Nor is the influence of Christianity less evident in the pure and grave morality of the Neoplatonics: in their lessons which teach the purifying of fallen souls, the detachment from the senses, the crucifying … of the affections and passions, it is easy to distinguish the Christian, from the commingled pagan, elements. The Neoplatonics endeavoured to reform polytheism by giving to men a doctrine more pure concerning the Gods, by attributing an allegorical sense to the fables, and a moral signification to the forms and ceremonies of religion: they sought to raise the souls of men to piety, and rejected from their mythology many of the degrading narrations with which it had before abounded. It was their desire also to abolish the sacrifices, for the Gods could only abhor the slaughter, the dismemberment and the burning of animals. But at the same time they reduced to a theory the apparitions of the Gods; they declared magic to be the most divine of sciences; they taught and defended theurgy, or the art of invoking the Gods (those of an inferior order, who were united to matter), and of compelling them to comply with the desires of men."

NERONIA.

Games instituted by Nero, to be conducted in the Greek fashion and to recur periodically, like the Olympian.

A tribe in Belgic Gaul, at the time of Cæsar's conquest, which occupied the country "between the Sambre and the Scheldt (French and Belgic Hainaut, provinces of Southern Brabant, of Antwerp, and part of Eastern Flanders). The writers posterior to Cæsar mention Bagacum (Bavay) as their principal town."

NESTORIAN AND MONOPHYSITE CONTROVERSY.

The great religious controversy of the Christian world in the fourth century, relating to the mystery of the Trinity, having been settled by the triumph of the doctrine of Athanasius over the doctrine of Arius, it was succeeded in the fifth century by a still more violent disputation, which concerned the yet profounder mystery of the Incarnation. To the dogmatists of one party it was wickedness to distinguish the divine nature and the human nature which they believed to be united in Christ; to the dogmatists of the other side it was sin to confound them. Cyril of Alexandria became the implacable leader of the first party. Nestorius, Patriarch of Constantinople, was forced to the front of the battle on the other side and became its martyr. The opponents of Nestorius gained advantages in the contest from the then rapidly growing tendency in the Christian world to pay divine honors to the Virgin Mary as the Mother of God. To Nestorius and those who believed with him, this was abhorrent. "Like can but bear like," said Nestorius in one of his sermons; "a human mother can only bear a human being. God was not born—he dwelt in that which was born." But the mob was too easily charmed with Mariolatry to be moved by reasoning on the subject, and Cyril led the mob, not only in Alexandria, where it murdered Hypatia and massacred Jews at his bidding, but generally throughout the Christian world. A Council called at Ephesus in 431 and recognized as the third Œcumenical Council, condemned Nestorius and degraded him from his episcopal throne; but a minority disputed its procedure and organized a rival Council, which retorted anathemas and excommunications against Cyril and his friends. The emperor at last interfered and dissolved both; but Nestorius, four years later, was exiled to the Libyan desert and persecuted remorselessly until he died. Meantime the doctrine of Cyril had been carried to another stage of development by one of his most ardent supporters, the Egyptian monk Eutyches, who maintained that the human nature of Christ was absorbed in the divine nature. Both forms of the doctrine of one nature in the Son of God seem to have acquired somewhat confusedly the name of Monophysite, though the latter tenet is more often called Eutychian, from the name of its chief promulgator. {2249} It kindled new fires in the controversy. In 449, a second Council at Ephesus, which is called the "Robber Synod" on account of the peculiar violence and indecency of its proceedings, sustained the Monophysites. But two years later, in 451, the vanquished party, supported by Pope Leo the Great, at Rome, succeeded in assembling a Council at Chalcedon which laid down a definition of the Christian faith affirming the existence of two natures in one person, and which nevertheless condemned Nestorianism and Monophysitism, alike. Their success only inflamed the passions of the worshippers of the Virgin as the "Mother of God." "Everywhere monks were at the head of the religious revolution which threw off the yoke of the Council of Chalcedon." In Jerusalem "the very scenes of the Saviour's mercies ran with blood shed in his name by his ferocious self-called disciples." At Alexandria, a bishop was murdered in the baptistery of his church. At Constantinople, for sixty years, there went on a succession of bloody tumults and fierce revolutionary conspiracies which continually shook the imperial throne and disorganized every part of society, all turning upon the theological question of one nature or two in the incarnate Son of God. The Emperor Zeno "after a vain attempt to obtain the opinions of the chief ecclesiastical dignitaries, without assembling a new Council, a measure which experience had shown to exasperate rather than appease the strife, Zeno issued his famous Henoticon, or Edict of Union. … It aimed not at the reconcilement of the conflicting opinions, but hoped, by avoiding all expressions offensive to either party, to allow them to meet together in Christian amity." The Henoticon only multiplied the factions in number and heated the strife between them. The successor of Zeno, Anastasius, became a partisan in the fray, and through much of his reign of twenty-seven years the conflict raged more fiercely than ever. Constantinople was twice, at least, in insurrection. "The blue and green factions of the Circus—such is the language of the times—gave place to these more maddening conflicts. The hymn of the Angels in Heaven [the Trisagion] was the battle-cry on earth." At length the death of Anastasius ended the strife. His successor Justin (A. D. 518), bowed to the authority of the Bishop of Rome—the Pope Hormisdas—and invoked his aid. The Eastern world, exhausted, followed generally the emperor's example in taking the orthodoxy of Rome for the orthodoxy of Christianity. Nestorianism and Monophysitism in their extreme forms were driven from the open field in the Christian world, but both survived and have transmitted their remains to the present day.

H. H. Milman, History of Latin Christianity, book 2, chapters 3-4, book 3, chapter 1, and 3.

      See, also,
      NESTORIANS; JACOBITE CHURCH;
      and MONOTHELITE CONTROVERSY.

"Within the limits of the Roman empire … this sect was rapidly extirpated by persecution [see above, NESTORIAN AND MONOPHYSITE CONTROVERSY]; and even in the patriarchate of Antioch, where, as we have seen, the tenets of Nestorius at first found greatest favour, it had disappeared as early as the time of Justinian [A. D. 527-565]. But another field lay open to it in the Persian kingdom of the Sassanidæ, and in this it ultimately struck its roots deeply. The Chaldæan church, which at the beginning of the fifth century was in a flourishing condition, had been founded by missionaries from Syria; its primate, or Catholicos, was dependent on the patriarch of Antioch, and in respect of language and discipline it was closely connected with the Syrian church. It is not surprising, therefore, to find that some of its members lent a ready ear to the Nestorian doctrines. This was especially the case with the church-teachers of the famous seminary at Edessa in Mesopotamia. … One of their number, Barsumas, who was bishop of the city of Nisibis from 435 to 489, by his long and active labours contributed most of all to the establishment of the Nestorian church in Persia. He persuaded the king Pherozes (Firuz) that the antagonism of his own sect to the doctrine of the established church of the Roman empire would prove a safeguard for Persia. … From that time Nestorianism became the only form of Christianity tolerated in Persia. … The Catholicos of Chaldæa now threw off his dependence on Antioch, and assumed the title of Patriarch of Babylon. The school of Edessa, which in 489 was again broken up by the Greek emperor, Zeno, was transferred to Nisibis, and in that place continued for several centuries to be an important centre of theological learning, and especially of biblical studies. … In the sixth century the Nestorians had established churches from the Persian Gulf to the Caspian Sea, and had preached the Gospel to the Medes, the Bactrians, the Huns, and the Indians, and as far as the coast of Malabar and the island of Ceylon. At a later period, starting from Balk and Samarcand, they spread Christianity among the nomad Tartar tribes in the remote valleys of the Imaus; and the inscription of Siganfu, which was discovered in China, and the genuineness of which is considered to be above suspicion, describes the fortunes of the Nestorian church in that country from the first mission, A. D. 636, to the year in which that monument was set up, A. D. 781. In the ninth century, during the rule of the caliphs at Bagdad, the patriarch removed to that city, and at this period twenty-five metropolitans were subject to him. … From the eleventh century onwards the prosperity of the Chaldæan church declined, owing to the terrible persecutions to which its members were exposed. Foremost among these was the attack of Timour the Tartar, who almost exterminated them. Within the present century their diminished numbers have been still further thinned by frightful massacres inflicted by the Kurds. Their headquarters now are a remote and rugged valley in the mountains of Kurdistan, on the banks of the Greater Zab. … Beyond the boundary which separates Turkey from Persia to the southward of Mount Ararat, a similar community is settled on the shores of Lake Urumia. A still larger colony is found at Mosul, and others … elsewhere in the neighbourhood of the Tigris. … Of their widely extended missions only one fragment now remains, in the Christians of St. Thomas on the Malabar coast of India."

"The north-western corner of the vast plain which extends from the German ocean to the Ural mountains is occupied by the countries called the Netherlands [Low Countries]. This small triangle, enclosed between France, Germany, and the sea, is divided by the modern kingdoms of Belgium and Holland into two nearly equal portions. … Geographically and ethnographically, the Low Countries belong both to Gaul and to Germany. It is even doubtful to which of the two the Batavian island, which is the core of the whole country, was reckoned by the Romans. It is, however, most probable that all the land, with the exception of Friesland, was considered a part of Gaul. Three great rivers—the Rhine, the Meuse, and the Scheld—had deposited their slime for ages among the dunes and sandbanks heaved up by the ocean around their mouths. A delta was thus formed, habitable at last for man. It was by nature a wide morass, in which oozy islands and savage forests were interspersed among lagoons and shallows; a district lying partly below the level of the ocean at its higher tides, subject to constant overflow from the rivers, and to frequent and terrible inundations by the sea. … Here, within a half-submerged territory, a race of wretched icthyophagi dwelt upon 'terpen,' or mounds, which they had raised, like beavers, above the almost fluid soil. Here, at a later day, the same race chained the tyrant Ocean and his mighty streams into subserviency, forcing them to fertilize, to render commodious, to cover with a beneficent network of veins and arteries, and to bind by watery highways with the farthest ends of the world, a country disinherited by nature of its rights. A region, outcast of ocean and earth, wrested at last from both domains their richest treasures. A race, engaged for generations in stubborn conflict with the angry elements, was unconsciously educating itself for its great struggle with the still more savage despotism of man. The whole territory of the Netherlands was girt with forests. An extensive belt of woodland skirted the sea-coast, reaching beyond the mouths of the Rhine. Along the outer edge of this barrier, the dunes cast up by the sea were prevented by the close tangle of thickets from drifting further inward, and thus formed a breastwork which time and art were to strengthen. The groves of Haarlem and the Hague are relics of this ancient forest. The Badahuenna wood, horrid with Druidic sacrifices, extended along the eastern line of the vanished lake of Flevo. The vast Hercynian forest, nine days' journey in breadth, closed in the country on the German side, stretching from the banks of the Rhine to the remote regions of the Dacians, in such vague immensity (says the conqueror of the whole country) that no German, after traveling sixty days, had ever reached, or even heard of, its commencement. On the south, the famous groves of Ardennes, haunted by faun and satyr, embowered the country, and separated it from Celtic Gaul. Thus inundated by mighty rivers, quaking beneath the level of the ocean, belted about by hirsute forests, this low land, nether land, hollow land, or Holland, seemed hardly deserving the arms of the all-accomplished Roman."

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 843-870.
Partly embraced in the kingdom of Lotharingia.
The partitioning.

"It was in the year 922 that Charles the Simple [of France] presented to Count Dirk the territory of Holland, by letters patent. This narrow hook of land, destined, in future ages, to be the cradle of a considerable empire, stretching through both hemispheres, was, thenceforth, the inheritance of Dirk's descendants. Historically, therefore, he is Dirk I., Count of Holland. … From the time of the first Dirk to the close of the 13th century there were nearly four hundred years of unbroken male descent, a long line of Dirks and Florences. This iron-handed, hot-headed, adventurous race, placed as sovereign upon its little sandy hook, making ferocious exertions to swell into large consequence, conquering a mile or two of morass or barren furze, after harder blows and bloodier encounters than might have established an empire under more favorable circumstances, at last dies out. The countship falls to the house of Avennes, Counts of Hainault. Holland, together with Zeland, which it had annexed, is thus joined to the province of Hainault. At the end of another half century the Hainault line expires. William the Fourth died childless in 1355 [1345?]."

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1345-1354.
The Rise of the Hooks and the Kabeljauws, or Cods.

   "On the death of William IV. [Count of Holland] without issue
   in 1345, his sister, married to the Emperor Louis, became
   Countess of Zealand, Holland, Friezland and Hainault. But her
   husband dying soon afterwards, many of the noblesse, whom she
   had offended by the attempt to restrain their excesses,
   instigated her son to assume the sovereignty. In the
   sanguinary struggle which ensued, the people generally adhered
   to the cause of Margaret." They "looked forward to the
   necessities of a female reign as likely to afford them
   opportunities to win further immunities, as the condition of
   their support against the turbulent nobles. Did not these
   live, like the great fish, by devouring the smaller ones? And
   how could they be checked but by the hooks which, though
   insignificant in appearance, when aptly used would be too
   strong for them. Such was the talk of the people; and from
   these household words arose the memorable epithets, which in
   after years were heard in every civic brawl, and above the din
   and death-cry of many a battle-field. Certain of the nobles
   adhered to the cause of the Hooks, while some of the cities,
   among which were Delft, Haarlem, Dort, and Rotterdam,
   supported the Kabeljauws [or Cods].
{2251}
   The community was divided into parties rather than into
   classes. … In the exasperation of mutual injury, the primary
   cause of quarrel was soon forgotten. The Hooks were proud of
   the accession of a lord to their ranks; and the Kabeljauws
   were equally glad of the valuable aid which a wealthy and
   populous town was able to afford. The majority of the
   cities,—perhaps the majority of the inhabitants in all of
   them,—favoured the Hook party, as the preponderance of the
   landowners lay in the opposite scale. But no adherence to
   antagonistic principles, or even a systematic profession of
   them, is traceable throughout the varying struggle. … In
   Friezland the two factions were designated by the
   recriminative epithets of 'Vet-Koopers' and
   'Schieringers,'—terms hardly translatable. In the conflict
   which first marshalled the two parties in hostile array, the
   Hooks were utterly defeated;—their leaders who survived were
   banished, their property confiscated, and their dwellings
   razed to the ground. Margaret was forced to take refuge in
   England, where she remained until a short time previous to her
   death in 1354, when the four provinces acknowledged William V.
   as their undisputed lord. The succeeding reigns are chiefly
   characterised by the incessant struggles of the embittered
   factions. … Whatever progress was made during the latter
   half of the 14th century was municipal and commercial. In a
   national view the government was helpless and inefficient,
   entangled by ambitious family alliances with France, England,
   and Germany, and distracted by the rival powers and
   pretensions of domestic factions. Under the administration of
   the ill-fated Jacoba [or Jacqueline] these evils reached their
   full maturity."

      W. T. McCullagh,
      Industrial History of Free Nations,
      chapter 9 (volume 2).

NETHERLANDS: 14-15th Centuries.
Commercial and industrial superiority.
Advance in learning and art.

"What a scene as compared with the rest of Northern Europe, and especially with England … must have been presented by the Low Countries during the 14th century! In 1370, there are 3,200 woollen-factories at Malines and on its territory. One of its merchants carries on an immense trade with Damascus and Alexandria. Another, of Valenciennes, being at Paris during a fair, buys up an the provisions exposed for sale in order to display his wealth. Ghent, in 1340, contains 40,000 weavers. In 1389, it has 189,000 men bearing arms; the drapers alone furnish 18,000 in a revolt. In 1380, the goldsmiths of Bruges are numerous enough to form in war time an entire division of the army. At a repast given by one of the Counts of Flanders to the Flemish magistrates, the seats provided for the guests being unfurnished with cushions, they quietly folded up their sumptuous cloaks, richly embroidered and trimmed with fur, and placed them on the wooden benches. When leaving the table at the conclusion of the feast, a courtier called their attention to the fact that they were going without their cloaks. The burgomaster of Bruges replied: 'We Flemings are not in the habit of carrying away the cushions after dinner.' … Commines, the French chronicler, writing in the 15th century, says that the traveller, leaving France and crossing the frontiers of Flanders, compared himself to the Israelites when they had quitted the desert and entered the borders of the Promised Land. Philip the Good kept up a court which surpassed every other in Europe for luxury and magnificence. … In all such matters of luxury and display, England of the 16th or 17th century had nothing to compare with the Netherlands a hundred or even two hundred years before. After luxury, come comfort, intelligence, morality, and learning, which develop under very different conditions. In the course of time even Italy was outstripped in the commercial race. The conquest of Egypt by the Turks, and the discovery of a water passage to the Indies, broke up the overland trade with the East, and destroyed the Italian and German cities which had flourished on it. … Passing from the dominion of the House of Burgundy to that of the House of Austria, which also numbered Spain among its vast possessions, proved to them in the end an event fraught with momentous evil. Still for a time, and from a mere material point of view it was an evil not unmixed with good. The Netherlanders were better sailors and keener merchants than the Spaniards, and, being under the same rulers, gained substantial advantages from the close connection. The new commerce of Portugal also filled their coffers; so that while Italy and Germany were impoverished, they became wealthier and more prosperous than ever. … With wealth pouring in from all quarters, art naturally followed in the wake of commerce. Architecture was first developed, and nowhere was its cultivation more general than in the Netherlands."

NETHERLANDS: (Holland and Hainault): A. D. 1417-1430.
The despoiling of Countess Jaqueline.

   In 1417, Count William VI. of Holland, Hainault and Friesland,
   died, leaving no male heirs, but a daughter, Jacoba, or
   Jaqueline, whom most of the nobles and towns of the several
   states had already acknowledged as the heiress of her father's
   sovereignty. Though barely seventeen years of age, the
   countess Jake, as she was sometimes called, wore a widow's
   weeds. She had been married two years before to John, the
   second son of the king of France, who became presently
   thereafter, by his brother's death, the dauphin of France.
   John had died, a few months before Count William's death, and
   the young countess, fair in person and well endowed in mind,
   was left with no male support, to contend with the rapacity of
   an unscrupulous bishop-uncle (John, called The Godless, Bishop
   of Liege), who strove to rob her of her heritage. "Henry V.
   [of England] had then stood her friend, brought about a
   reconciliation, established her rights and proposed a marriage
   between her and his brother John, Duke of Bedford, who was
   then a fine young man of five or six and twenty. … But she
   was a high-spirited, wilful damsel, and preferred her first
   cousin, the Duke of Brabant, whose father was a brother of
   Jean Sans Peur [Duke of Burgundy]. … The young Duke was only
   sixteen, and was a weak-minded, passionate youth. Sharp
   quarrels took place between the young pair; the Duchess was
   violent and headstrong, and accused her husband of allowing
   himself to be governed by favourites of low degree. The Duke
   of Burgundy interfered in vain. … After three years of
   quarrelling, in the July of 1421 Jaqueline rode out early one
   morning, met a knight of Hainault called Escaillon, 'who had
   long been an Englishman at heart,' and who brought her sixty
   horsemen, and galloped off for Calais, whence she came to
   England, where Henry received her with the courtesy due to a
   distressed dame-errant, and she became a most intimate
   companion of the Queen. …
{2252}
   She loudly gave out that she intended to obtain a separation
   from her husband on the plea of consanguinity, although a
   dispensation had been granted by the Council of Constance, and
   'that she would marry some one who would pay her the respect
   due to her rank.' This person soon presented himself in the
   shape of Humfrey, duke of Gloucester, the King's youngest
   brother, handsome, graceful, accomplished, but far less
   patient and conscientious than any of his three elders."
   Benedict XIII., the anti-pope, was persuaded to pronounce the
   marriage of Jaqueline and John of Brabant null and void; "but
   Henry V. knew that this was a vain sentence, and intimated to
   his brother that he would never consent to his espousing the
   Duchess of Brabant; showing him that the wedlock could not be
   legal, and that to claim the lady's inheritance would lead to
   a certain rupture with the Duke of Burgundy, who could not but
   uphold the cause of his cousin of Brabant." Notwithstanding
   these remonstrances, the Duke Humfrey did marry the seductive
   Jaqueline, early in 1424. "He then sent to demand from the
   Duke of Brabant the possession of the lady's inheritance; and
   on his refusal the Hainaulters espoused whichever party they
   preferred and began a warfare among themselves." Soon
   afterwards the godless bishop of Liege died and "bequeathed
   the rights he pretended to have to Hainault, not to his niece,
   but to the Duke of Burgundy. Gloucester in the meantime
   invaded Hainault and carried on a 'bitter war there.' Burgundy
   assembled men-at-arms for its protection; and letters passed
   between the Dukes, ending in a challenge—not between
   Jaqueline's two husbands, who would have seemed the fittest
   persons to have fought out the quarrel, but between Gloucester
   and Burgundy." It was arranged that the question of the
   possession of Hainault should be decided by single combat.
   Humfrey returned to England to make preparations, leaving
   Jaqueline at Mons, with her mother. The latter proved false
   and allowed the citizens of Mons to deliver up the unhappy
   lady to Philip of Burgundy. Her English husband found himself
   powerless to render her much aid, and was possibly indifferent
   to her fate, since another woman had caught his fancy.
   Jaqueline, after a time, escaped from her captivity, and
   revived the war in Hainault, Gloucester sending her 500 men.
   "The Duke of Brabant died, and reports reached her that
   Gloucester had married Eleanor Cobham; but she continued to
   battle for her county till 1428, when she finally came to
   terms with Philippe [of Burgundy], let him garrison her
   fortresses, appointed him her heir, and promised not to marry
   without his consent. A year or two after, however, she married
   a gentleman of Holland called Frank of Burslem, upon which he
   was seized by the Burgundians. To purchase his liberty she
   yielded all her dominions, and only received an annual pension
   until 1436, when she died, having brought about as much strife
   and dissension as any woman of her time."

ALSO IN: E. de Monstrelet, Chronicles (translated by Johnes), book 1, chapters 164, 181, 234, book 2, chapters 22-32, 48-49.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1428-1430.
The sovereignty of the House of Burgundy established.

"Upon the surrender of Holland, Zealand, Friezland, and Hainault by Jacoba, Philip [the duke of Burgundy called Philip the Good] became possessed of the most considerable states of the Netherlands. John, duke of Burgundy, his father, had succeeded to Flanders and Artois, in right of his mother Margaret, sole heiress of Louis van der Male, count of Flanders. In the year 1429, Philip entered into possession of the county of Namur, by the death of Theodore, its last native prince, without issue, of whom he had purchased it during his lifetime for 132,000 crowns of gold. To Namur was added in the next year the neighbouring duchy of Brabant, by the death [A. D. 1430] of Philip (brother of John, who married Jacoba of Holland), without issue; although Margaret, countess-dowager of Holland, aunt of the late duke, stood the next in succession, since the right extended to females, Philip prevailed with the states of Brabant to confer on him, as the true heir, that duchy and Limburg, to which the Margraviate of Antwerp and the lordship of Mechlin were annexed. … The accession of a powerful and ambitious prince to the government of the county was anything but a source of advantage to the Dutch, excepting, perhaps, in a commercial point of view."

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1477.
   The severance from Burgundy.
   Accession of the Duchess Mary.
   The grant of the "Great Privilege."

On the fifth of January, 1477, Charles the Bold of Burgundy came to his end at Nancy, and Louis XI. of France laid prompt and sure hands on the Burgundian duchy, which remained thenceforth united to the French crown. It was the further intention of Louis to secure more or less of the Netherland domain of the late duke, and he began seizures to that end. But the Netherland states much preferred to acknowledge the sovereignty of the young duchess Mary, daughter and sole heiress of Charles the Bold, provided she would make proper terms with them. "Shortly after her accession, the nobles, to whose guardianship she had been committed by Charles before his departure, summoned a general assembly of the states of the Netherlands at Ghent, to devise means for arresting the enterprises of Louis, and for raising funds to support the war with France, as well as to consider the state of affairs in the provinces. … This is the first regular assembly of the states-general of the Netherlands. … Charles, and his father, Philip, had exercised in the Netherlands a species of government far more arbitrary than the inhabitants had until then been accustomed to. … It now appeared that a favourable opportunity offered itself for rectifying these abuses; and the assembly, therefore, made the consideration of them a preliminary to the grant of any supplies for the war. … They insisted so firmly on this resolution that Mary, finding they were determined to refuse any subsidies till their grievances were redressed, consented to grant charters of privileges to all the states of the Netherlands. That of Holland and Zealand [was] commonly called the Great Charter."

C. M. Davies, History of Holland, part 2, chapter 2 (volume 1), with foot-note.

"The result of the deliberations [of the assembly of the states, in 1477] is the formal grant by Duchess Mary of the 'Groot Privilegie,' or Great Privilege, the Magna Charta of Holland. Although this instrument was afterwards violated, and indeed abolished, it became the foundation of the republic. It was a recapitulation and recognition of ancient rights, not an acquisition of new privileges. It was a restoration, not a revolution. Its principal points deserve attention from those interested in the political progress of mankind. 'The duchess shall not marry without consent of the estates of her provinces. All offices in her gift shall be conferred on natives only. No man shall fill two offices. No office shall be farmed. The Great Council and Supreme Court of Holland is re-established. Causes shall be brought before it on appeal from the ordinary courts. It shall have no original jurisdiction of matters within the cognizance of the provincial and municipal tribunals. The estates and cities are guaranteed in their right not to be summoned to justice beyond the limits of their territory. The cities, in common with all the provinces of the Netherlands, may hold diets as often and at such places as they choose. No new taxes shall be imposed but by consent of the provincial estates. Neither the duchess nor her descendants shall begin either an offensive or defensive war without consent of the estates. In case a war be illegally undertaken, the estates are not bound to contribute to its maintenance. In all public and legal documents, the Netherland language shall be employed. The commands of the duchess shall be invalid, if conflicting with the privileges of a city. The seat of the Supreme Council is transferred from Mechlin to the Hague. No money shall be coined, nor its value raised or lowered, but by consent of the estates. Cities are not to be compelled to contribute to requests which they have not voted. The Sovereign shall come in person before the estates, to make his request for supplies.' … Certainly, for the fifteenth century, the 'Great Privilege' was a reasonably liberal constitution. Where else upon earth, at that day, was there half so much liberty as was thus guaranteed?"

"Several husbands were proposed to the Princess of Burgundy, and every one was of opinion there was a necessity of her marrying, to defend those territories that she had left to her, or (by marrying the dauphin), to recover what she had lost.

Several were entirely for this match, and she was as earnest for it as anybody, before the letters she had sent by the Lord of Humbercourt and the chancellor to the king [Louis XI.] were betrayed to the ambassadors from Ghent. Some opposed the match, and urged the disproportion of their age, the dauphin being but nine years old, and besides engaged to the King of England's daughter; and these suggested the son of the Duke of Cleves. Others recommended Maximilian, the emperor's son, who is at present King of the Romans." Duchess Mary made choice presently of Maximilian, then Archduke of Austria, afterwards King of the Romans and finally emperor. The husband-elect "came to Cologne, where several of the princess's servants went to meet him, and carry him money, with which, as I have been told, he was but very slenderly furnished; for his father was the stingiest and most covetous prince, or person, of his time. The Duke of Austria was conducted to Ghent, with about 700 or 800 horse in his retinue, and this marriage was consummated [August 18, 1477], which at first sight brought no great advantage to the subjects of the young princess; for, instead of his supporting her, she was forced to supply him with money. His armies were neither strong enough nor in a condition to face the king's; besides which, the humour of the house of Austria was not pleasing to the subjects of the house of Burgundy, who had been bred up under wealthy princes, that had lucrative offices and employments to dispose of; whose palaces were sumptuous, whose tables were nobly served, whose dress was magnificent, and whose liveries were pompous and splendid. But the Germans are of quite a contrary temper; boorish in their manners and rude in their way of living."

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1482-1493.
Maximilian and the Flemings.
The end of the Hook party in Holland.

   "According to the terms of the marriage treaty between
   Maximilian and Mary, their eldest son, Philip, succeeded to
   the sovereignty of the Netherlands immediately upon the death
   of his mother [March 26, 1482]. As he was at this time only
   four years of age, Maximilian obtained the acknowledgment of
   himself as guardian of the young count's person, and protector
   of his states, by all the provinces except Flanders and
   Guelderland. The Flemings having secured the person of Philip
   at Ghent, appointed a regency." To reduce the Flemings to
   obedience, Maximilian carried on two campaigns in their
   country, during 1484 and 1485, as the result of which Ghent
   and Bruges surrendered. "Maximilian was acknowledged protector
   of Flanders during the minority of Philip, who was delivered
   by the Ghenters into the hands of his father, and by him
   entrusted to the care of Margaret of York, Duchess-dowager of
   Burgundy, until he became of age." Three years later
   (1488)—Maximilian having been, in the meantime, crowned "King
   of the Romans," at Aix la Chapelle, and thus cadetted, so to
   speak, for his subsequent coronation as emperor—the Flemings
   rose again in revolt, Maximilian was at Bruges, and rumor
   accused him of a design to occupy the city with German troops.
   The men of Bruges forestalled the attempt by seizing him
   personally and making him a prisoner. They kept him in durance
   for nearly four months, until he had signed a treaty, agreeing
   to surrender the government of the Netherlands to the young
   Duke Philip, his son; to place the latter under the care of
   the princes of the blood (his relatives on the Burgundian
   side); to withdraw all foreign troops, and to use his
   endeavors to preserve peace with France.
{2254}
   On these terms Maximilian obtained his liberty; but, meantime,
   his father, the Emperor Frederic, had marched an army to the
   frontiers of Brabant for his deliverance, and the very
   honorable King of the Romans, making haste to the shelter of
   these forces, repudiated with alacrity all the engagements he
   had sworn to. His imperial father led the army he had brought
   into Flanders and laid siege to Ghent; but tired of the
   undertaking after six weeks and returned to Germany, leaving
   his forces to prosecute the siege and the war. The commotions
   in Flanders now brought to life the popular party of the
   "Hooks" in Holland, and war broke out in that province. In
   neither part of the Netherlands were the insurgents
   successful. The Flemings had been helped by France, and when
   the French king abandoned them they were forced to buy a peace
   on humiliating terms and for a heavy price in cash. In
   Holland, the revolt languished for a time, but broke out with
   fresh spirit in 1490, excited by an edict which summarily
   altered the value of the coin. In the next year it took the
   name of the "Casembrotspel," or Bread and Cheese War. This
   insurrection was suppressed in 1492, with the help of German
   troops, and proved only disastrous to the province. "It was
   the last effort made for a considerable time by the Hollanders
   against the increasing power and extortion of their counts.
   … The miserable remnant of the Hook or popular party melted
   so entirely away that we hear of them no more in Holland: the
   county, formerly a power respected in itself, was now become a
   small and despised portion of an overgrown state." In 1494,
   Philip having reached the age of seventeen, and Maximilian
   having become emperor by the death of his father, the latter
   surrendered and the former was installed in the government of
   the Netherlands.

      C. M. Davies,
      History of Holland,
      part 2, chapter 3 (volume 1).

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1494-1519.
   Beginning of the Austro-Spanish tyranny.
   Absorption in the vast dominion of Charles V.
   The seventeen Provinces, their independent constitutions and
   their States-General.

"In 1494, Philip, now 17 years of age, became sovereign of the Netherlands. But he would only swear to maintain the privileges granted by his grandfather and great-grandfather, Charles and Philip, and refused to acquiesce in the Great Privilege of his mother. The Estates acquiesced. For a time, Friesland, the outlying province of Holland, was severed from it. It was free, and it chose as its elective sovereign the Duke of Saxony. After a time he sold his sovereignty to the House of Hapsburg. The dissensions of the Estates had put them at the mercy of an autocratic family. Philip of Burgundy, in 1496, married Joanna, daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella. In 1500 his son Charles was born, who was afterwards Charles V., Duke of the Netherlands, but also King of Spain, Emperor of Germany, King of Jerusalem, and, by the grant of Alexander VI., alias Roderic Borgia and Pope, lord of the whole new world. Joanna, his mother, through whom he had this vast inheritance, went mad, and remained mad during her life and his.

Charles not only inherited his mother's and father's sovereignties, but his grandfather's also.

… The peril which the liberties of the Netherlands were now running was greater than ever. They had been drawn into the hands of that dynasty which, beginning with two little Spanish kingdoms [Castile and Aragon], had in a generation developed into the mightiest of monarchies. … Charles succeeded his father Philip as Count of Flanders in 1506. His father, Philip the Handsome, was at Burgos in Castile, where he was attacked by fever, and died when only 28 years of age. Ten years afterwards Charles became King of Spain (1516). When he was 19 years of age (1519) he was elected emperor.

The three nations over whom he was destined to rule hated each other cordially. There was antipathy from the beginning between Flemings and Spaniards. The Netherlands nobles were detested in Spain, the Spaniards in the Low Countries were equally abhorred. … Charles was born in Flanders, and during his whole career was much more a Fleming than a Spaniard. This did not, however, prevent him from considering his Flemish subjects as mainly destined to supply his wants, and submit to his exactions. He was always hard pressed for money. The Germans were poor and turbulent. The conquest and subjection of the Moorish population in Spain had seriously injured the industrial wealth of that country. But the Flemings were increasing in riches, particularly the inhabitants of Ghent. They had to supply the funds which Charles required in order to carry out the operations which his necessities or his policy rendered urgent. He had been taught, and he readily believed, that his subjects' money was his own. Now just as Charles had come to the empire, two circumstances had occurred which have had a lasting influence over the affairs of Western Europe. The first of these was the conquest of Egypt by the Turks under Selim I (1512-20). … Egypt had for nearly two centuries been the only route by which Eastern produce, so much valued by European nations, could reach the consumer. … Now this trade, trifling to be sure to our present experience, was of the highest importance to the trading towns of Italy, the Rhine, and the Netherlands. … But the Netherlands had two industries which saved them from the losses which affected the Germans and Italians. They were still the weavers of the world. They still had the most successful fisheries. … The other cause was the revolt against the papacy" [the Reformation—see PAPACY: A. D. 1516-1517, and after].

   The seventeen provinces comprehended under the name of the
   Netherlands, as ruled by Charles V., were the four duchies of
   Brabant, Limburg, Luxemburg, and Guelderland; the seven
   counties of Artois, Hainault, Flanders, Namur, Zutphen,
   Holland, and Zealand; the five seigniories or lordships of
   Friesland, Mechlin, Utrecht, Overyssel, and Groningen; and the
   margraviate of Antwerp. "Of these provinces, the four which
   adjoined the French border, and in which a French dialect was
   spoken, were called Walloon [see WALLOONS]; in the other
   provinces a dialect, more or less resembling German,
   prevailed, that of the midland ones being Flemish, that of the
   northern, Dutch. They differed still more in their laws and
   customs than in language. Each province was an independent
   state, having its own constitution, which secured more liberty
   to those who lived under it than was then commonly enjoyed in
   most other parts of Europe. …
{2255}
   The only institutions which supplied any links of union among
   the different provinces were the States-General, or assembly
   of deputies sent from each, and the Supreme Tribunal
   established at Mechlin, having an appellate jurisdiction over
   them all. The States-General, however, had no legislative
   authority, nor power to impose taxes, and were but rarely
   convened. … The members of the States-General were not
   representatives chosen by the people, but deputies, or
   ambassadors, from certain provinces. The different provinces
   had also their own States."

      T. H. Dyer,
      History of Modern Europe,
      volume 2, pages 221-222.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1512.
Burgundian provinces included in the Circle of Burgundy.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1521-1555.
   The Reformation in the Provinces.
   The "Placards" and Persecutions of Charles V.
   The Edict of 1550.
   The Planting of the Inquisition.

"The people of the Netherlands were noted not less for their ingenuity shown in the invention of machines and implements, and for their proficiency in science and letters, than for their opulence and enterprise. It was their boast that common laborers, even the fishermen who dwelt in the huts of Friesland, could read and write, and discuss the interpretation of Scripture. … In such a population, among the countrymen of Erasmus, where, too, in previous ages, various forms of innovation and dissent had arisen, the doctrines of Luther must inevitably find an entrance. They were brought in by foreign merchants, 'together with whose commodities,' writes the old Jesuit historian Strada, 'this plague often sails.' They were introduced with the German and Swiss soldiers, whom Charles V. had occasion to bring into the country. Protestantism was also transplanted from England by numerous exiles who fled from the persecution of Mary. The contiguity of the country to Germany and France provided abundant avenues for the incoming of the new opinions. 'Nor did the Rhine from Germany, or the Meuse from France,' to quote the regretful language of Strada, 'send more water into the Low Countries, than by the one the contagion of Luther, by the other of Calvin, was imported into the same Belgic provinces.' The spirit and occupations of the people, the whole atmosphere of the country, were singularly propitious for the spread of the Protestant movement. The cities of Flanders and Brabant, especially Antwerp, very early furnished professors of the new faith. Charles V. issued, in 1521, from Worms, an edict, the first of a series of barbarous enactments or 'Placards,' for the extinguishing of heresy in the Netherlands; and it did not remain a dead letter. In 1523, two Augustinian monks were burned at the stake in Brussels. … The edicts against heresy were imperfectly executed. The Regent, Margaret of Savoy, was lukewarm in the business of persecution; and her successor, Maria, the Emperor's sister, the widowed Queen of Hungary, was still more leniently disposed. The Protestants rapidly increased in number. Calvinism, from the influence of France, and of Geneva, where young men were sent to be educated, came to prevail among them. Anabaptists and other licentious or fanatical sectaries, such as appeared elsewhere in the wake of the Reformation, were numerous; and their excesses afforded a plausible pretext for violent measures of repression against all who departed from the old faith. In 1550, Charles V. issued a new Placard, in which the former persecuting edicts were confirmed, and in which a reference was made to Inquisitors of the faith, as well as to the ordinary judges of the bishops. This excited great alarm, since the Inquisition was an object of extreme aversion and dread. The foreign merchants prepared to leave Antwerp, prices fell, trade was to a great extent suspended; and such was the disaffection excited, that the Regent Maria interceded for some modification of the obnoxious decree. Verbal changes were made, but the fears of the people were not quieted; and it was published at Antwerp in connection with a protest of the magistrates in behalf of the liberties which were put in peril by a tribunal of the character threatened. 'And,' says the learned Arminian historian, 'as this affair of the Inquisition and the oppression from Spain prevailed more and more, all men began to be convinced that they were destined to perpetual slavery.' Although there was much persecution in the Netherlands during the long reign of Charles, yet the number of martyrs could not have been so great as 50,000, the number mentioned by one writer, much less 100,000, the number given by Grotius."

"His hand [that of Charles V.] planted the inquisition in the Netherlands. Before his day it is idle to say that the diabolical institution ever had a place there. The isolated cases in which inquisitors had exercised functions proved the absence and not the presence of the system. … Charles introduced and organized a papal inquisition, side by side with those terrible 'placards' of his invention, which constituted a masked inquisition even more cruel than that of Spain. … The number of Netherlanders who were burned, strangled, beheaded, or buried alive, in obedience to his edicts … has been placed as high as 100,000 by distinguished authorities, and have never been put at a lower mark than 50,000. The Venetian envoy Navigero placed the number of victims in the provinces of Holland and Friesland alone at 30,000, and this in 1546, ten years before the abdication, and five before the promulgation of the hideous edict of 1550. … 'No one,' said the edict [of 1550], 'shall print, write, copy, keep, conceal, sell, buy, or give in churches, streets, or other places, any book or writing made by Martin Luther, John Ecolampadius, Ulrich Zwinglius, Martin Bucer, John Calvin, or other heretics reprobated by the Holy Church; … nor break, or otherwise injure the images of the holy virgin or canonized saints; … nor in his house hold conventicles, or illegal gatherings, or be present at any such in which the adherents of the above-mentioned heretics teach, baptize, and form conspiracies against the Holy Church and the general welfare. … Moreover, we forbid … all lay persons to converse or dispute concerning the Holy Scriptures, openly or secretly, especially on any doubtful or difficult matters, or to read, teach, or expound the Scriptures, unless they have duly studied theology and been approved by some renowned university; … or to preach secretly, or openly, or to entertain any of the opinions of the above-mentioned heretics. … Such perturbators of the general quiet are to be executed, to wit: the men with the sword and the women to be buried alive, if they do not persist in their errors; if they do persist in them they are to be executed with fire; all their property in both cases being confiscated to the crown.'"

The horrible edict further bribed informers, by promising to them half the goods of a convicted heretic, while, at the same time, it forbade, under sharp penalties, any petitioning for pardon in favor of such heretics.

      J. L. Motley,
      The Rise of the Dutch Republic,
      part 1, chapter 1,
      and part 2, chapter 1 (volume 1).

      ALSO IN:
      J. H. Merle d'Aubigne,
      History of the Reformation in Europe in the Time of Calvin,
      book 13, chapters 9-11 (volume 7).

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1547. Pragmatic Sanction of Charles V. changing the Relations of his Burgundian inheritance to the Empire.

In the Germanic diet assembled at Augsburg in 1547, after the Emperor's defeat of the Protestant princes at Muhlberg (see GERMANY: A. D. 1546-1552), he was able to exercise his will almost without opposition and decree arbitrarily whatever he chose. He there "proclaimed the Pragmatic Sanction for the Netherlands, whereby his old Burgundian inheritance was declared by his own law to be indivisible, the succession settled on the house of Hapsburg, it was attached to the German empire as a tenth district, had to pay certain contributions, but was not to be subject to the Imperial Chamber or the Imperial Court of Judicature. He thus secured the personal union of these territories with his house, and made it the duty of the empire to defend them, while at the same time he withdrew them from the jurisdiction of the empire; it was a union by which the private interests of the house of Hapsburg had everything to gain, but which was of no advantage to the empire."

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1555.
   The Abdication of Charles V.
   Accession of Philip II.
   His sworn promises.

"In the autumn of this year [1555] the world was astonished by the declaration of the emperor's intention to resign all his vast dominions, and spend the remainder of his days in a cloister. … On the 25th of October, the day appointed for the ceremony [of the surrender of the sovereignty of the Netherlands], the knights of the Golden Fleece, and the deputies of all the states of the Netherlands assembled at Brussels. … On the day after the emperor's resignation the mutual oaths were taken by Philip and the states of Holland; the former swore to maintain all the privileges which they now enjoyed, including those granted or confirmed at his installation as heir in 1549. He afterwards renewed the promise made by Charles in the month of May preceding, that no office in Holland, except that of stadtholder, should be given to foreigners or to Netherlanders of those provinces in which Hollanders were excluded from offices. In the January of the next year [1556] the emperor resigned the crown of Spain to his son, reserving only an annuity of 100,000 crowns, and on the 7th of September following, having proceeded to Zealand to join the fleet destined to carry him to Spain, he surrendered the imperial dignity to his brother Ferdinand." He then proceeded to the cloister of St. Just, near Piacenza, where he lived in retirement until his death, which occurred August 21, 1558.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1555-1559.
   Opening of the dark and bloody reign of Philip II. of Spain.
   His malignity.
   His perfidy.
   His evil and plotting industry.

"Philip, bred in this [Spanish] school of slavish superstition, taught that he was the despot for whom it was formed, familiar with the degrading tactics of eastern tyranny, was at once the most contemptible and unfortunate of men. … He was perpetually filled with one idea—that of his greatness; he had but one ambition—that of command; but one enjoyment—that of exciting fear. … Deceit and blood were his greatest, if not his only, delights. The religious zeal which he affected, or felt, showed itself but in acts of cruelty; and the fanatic bigotry which inspired him formed the strongest contrast to the divine spirit of Christianity. … Although ignorant, he had a prodigious instinct of cunning. He wanted courage, but its place was supplied by the harsh obstinacy of wounded pride. All the corruptions of intrigue were familiar to him; yet he often failed in his most deep-laid designs, at the very moment of their apparent success, by the recoil of the bad faith and treachery with which his plans were overcharged. Such was the man who now began that terrible reign which menaced utter ruin to the national prosperity of the Netherlands. … Philip had only once visited the Netherlands before his accession to sovereign power. … Every thing that he observed on this visit was calculated to revolt both [his opinions and his prejudices]. The frank cordiality of the people appeared too familiar. The expression of popular rights sounded like the voice of rebellion. Even the magnificence displayed in his honour offended his jealous vanity. From that moment he seems to have conceived an implacable aversion to the country, in which alone, of all his vast possessions, he could not display the power or inspire the terror of despotism. The sovereign's dislike was fully equalled by the disgust of his subjects. … Yet Philip did not at first act in a way to make himself more particularly hated. He rather, by an apparent consideration for a few points of political interest and individual privilege, and particularly by the revocation of some of the edicts against heretics, removed the suspicions his earlier conduct had excited; and his intended victims did not perceive that the despot sought to lull them to sleep, in the hopes of making them an easier prey. Philip knew well that force alone was insufficient to reduce such a people to slavery. He succeeded in persuading the states to grant him considerable subsidies, some of which were to be paid by instalments during a period of nine years. That was gaining a great step towards his designs. … At the same time he sent secret agents to Rome, to obtain the approbation of the pope to his insidious but most effective plan for placing the whole of the clergy in dependence upon the crown. He also kept up the army of Spaniards and Germans which his father had formed on the frontiers of France; and although he did not remove from their employments the functionaries already in place, he took care to make no new appointments to office among the natives of the Netherlands. … To lead his already, deceived subjects the more surely into the snare, he announced his intended departure on a short visit to Spain; and created for the period of his absence a provisional government, chiefly composed of the leading men among the Belgian nobility. {2257} He flattered himself that the states, dazzled by the illustrious illusion thus prepared, would cheerfully grant to this provisional government the right of levying taxes during the temporary absence of the sovereign. He also reckoned on the influence of the clergy in the national assembly, to procure the revival of the edicts against heresy, which he had gained the merit of suspending. … As soon as the states had consented to place the whole powers of government in the hands of the new administration for the period of the king's absence, the royal hypocrite believed his scheme secure, and flattered himself he had established an instrument of durable despotism. … The edicts against heresy, soon adopted [including a re-enactment of the terrible edict of 1550—see above], gave to the clergy an almost unlimited power over the lives and fortunes of the people. But almost all the dignitaries of the church being men of great respectability and moderation, chosen by the body of the inferior clergy, these extraordinary powers excited little alarm. Philip's project was suddenly to replace these virtuous ecclesiastics by others of his own choice [through a creation of new bishoprics], as soon as the states broke up from their annual meeting; and for this intention he had procured the secret consent and authority of the court of Rome. In support of these combinations, the Belgian troops were completely broken up and scattered in small bodies over the country. … To complete the execution of this system of perfidy, Philip convened an assembly of all the states at Ghent, in the month of July, 1559. … Anthony Perrenotte de Granvelle, bishop of Arras [afterwards cardinal], who was considered as Philip's favorite counsellor, but who was in reality no more than his docile agent, was commissioned to address the assembly in the name of his master, who spoke only Spanish. His oration was one of cautious deception." It announced the appointment of Margaret, duchess of Parma, a natural daughter of Charles V., and therefore half-sister of Philip, to preside as regent over the government of the Netherlands during the absence of the sovereign. It also urged with skilful plausibility certain requests for money on the part of the latter. "But notwithstanding all the talent, the caution, and the mystery of Philip and his minister, there was among the nobles one man [William of Nassau, prince of Orange and stadtholder, or governor, of Holland, Zealand, and Utrecht] who saw through all. Without making himself suspiciously prominent, he privately warned some members of the states of the coming danger. Those in whom he confided did not betray the trust. They spread among the other deputies the alarm, and pointed out the danger to which they had been so judiciously awakened. The consequence was, a reply to Philip's demand, in vague and general terms, without binding the nation by any pledge; and an unanimous entreaty that he would diminish the taxes, withdraw the foreign troops, and entrust no official employments to any but natives of the country. The object of this last request was the removal of Granvelle, who was born in Franche-Comte. Philip was utterly astounded at all this. In the first moment of his vexation he imprudently cried out, 'Would ye, then, also bereave me of my place; I, who am a Spaniard?' But he soon recovered his self-command, and resumed his usual mask; expressed his regret at not having sooner learned the wishes of the state; promised to remove the foreign troops within three months; and set off for Zealand, with assumed composure, but filled with the fury of a discovered traitor and a humiliated despot." In August, 1559, he sailed for Spain.

"Crafty, saturnine, atrabilious, always dissembling and suspecting, sombre, and silent like night when brooding over the hatching storm, he lived shrunk within himself, with only the fellowship of his gloomy thoughts and cruel resolves. … There is something terrific in the secrecy, dissimulation and dogged perseverance with which Philip would, during a series of years, meditate and prepare the destruction of one man, or of a whole population, and something still more awful in the icy indifference, the superhuman insensibility, the accumulated cold-blooded energy of hoarded-up vengeance with which, at the opportune moment, he would issue a dry sentence of extermination. … He seemed to take pleasure in distilling, slowly and chemically, the poison which, Python-like, he darted at every object which he detested or feared, or which he considered an obstacle in his path."

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1559-1562.
   The Spanish troops, the new bishoprics,
   and the shadow of the Inquisition.
   The appeal of Brabant to its ancient "Joyeuse Entrée."

   "The first cause of trouble, after Philip's departure from the
   Netherlands, arose from the detention of the Spanish troops
   there. The king had pledged his word … that they should
   leave the country by the end of four months, at farthest. Yet
   that period had long since passed, and no preparations were
   made for their departure. The indignation of the people rose
   higher and higher at the insult thus offered by the presence
   of these detested foreigners. It was a season of peace. No
   invasion was threatened from abroad; no insurrection existed
   at home. … Granvelle himself, who would willingly have
   pleased his master by retaining a force in the country on
   which he could rely, admitted that the project was
   impracticable. 'The troops must be withdrawn,' he wrote, 'and
   that speedily, or the consequence will be an insurrection.'
   … The Prince of Orange and Count Egmont threw up the
   commands intrusted to them by the king. They dared no longer
   hold them, as the minister added, it was so unpopular. … Yet
   Philip was slow in returning an answer to the importunate
   letters of the regent and the minister; and when he did reply,
   it was to evade their request. … The regent, however, saw
   that, with or without instructions, it was necessary to act.
   … The troops were ordered to Zealand, in order to embark for
   Spain. But the winds proved unfavorable. Two months longer
   they were detained, on shore or on board the transports. They
   soon got into brawls with the workmen employed on the dikes;
   and the inhabitants, still apprehensive of orders from the
   king countermanding the departure of the Spaniards, resolved,
   in such an event, to abandon the dikes, and lay the country
   under water! Fortunately, they were not driven to this
   extremity.
{2258}
   In January, 1561, more than a year after the date assigned by
   Philip, the nation was relieved of the presence of the
   intruders. … This difficulty was no sooner settled than it
   was followed by another scarcely less serious." Arrangements
   had been made for "adding 13 new bishoprics to the four
   already existing in the Netherlands. … The whole affair had
   been kept profoundly secret by the government. It was not till
   1561 that Philip disclosed his views, in a letter to some of
   the principal nobles in the council of state. But, long before
   that time, the project had taken wind, and created a general
   sensation through the country. The people looked on it as an
   attempt to subject them to the same ecclesiastical system
   which existed in Spain. The bishops, by virtue of their
   office, were possessed of certain inquisitorial powers, and
   these were still further enlarged by the provisions of the
   royal edicts. … The present changes were regarded as part of
   a great scheme for introducing the Spanish Inquisition into
   the Netherlands. … The nobles had other reasons for opposing
   the measure. The bishops would occupy in the legislature the
   place formerly held by the abbots, who were indebted for their
   election to the religious houses over which they presided. The
   new prelates, on the contrary, would receive their nomination
   from the crown; and the nobles saw with alarm their own
   independence menaced by the accession of an order of men who
   would naturally be subservient to the interests of the
   monarch. … But the greatest opposition arose from the manner
   in which the new dignitaries were to be maintained. This was
   to be done by suppressing the offices of the abbots, and by
   appropriating the revenues of their houses to the maintenance
   of the bishops. … Just before Philip's departure from the
   Netherlands, a bull arrived from Rome authorizing the erection
   of the new bishoprics. This was but the initiatory step. Many
   other proceedings were necessary before the consummation of
   the affair. Owing to impediments thrown in the way by the
   provinces, and the habitual tardiness of the court of Rome,
   nearly three years elapsed before the final briefs were
   expedited by Pius IV."

W. H. Prescott, History of the Reign of Philip II., book 2, chapter 6 (volume 1).

"Against the arbitrary policy embodied in the edicts, the new bishoprics and the foreign soldiery, the Netherlanders appealed to their ancient constitutions. These charters were called 'handvests', in the vernacular Dutch and Flemish, because the sovereign made them fast with his hand. As already stated, Philip had made them faster than any of the princes of his house had ever done, so far as oath and signature could accomplish that purpose, both as hereditary prince in 1549, and as monarch in 1555. … Of these constitutions, that of Brabant, known by the title of the 'joyeuse entrée' 'blyde inkomst,' or blythe entrance, furnished the most decisive barrier against the present wholesale tyranny. First and foremost, the 'joyous entry' provided, 'that the prince of the land should not elevate the clerical state higher than of old has been customary and by former princes settled; unless by consent of the other two estates, the nobility and the cities.' Again, 'the prince can prosecute no one of his subjects, nor any foreign resident, civilly or criminally, except in the ordinary and open courts of justice in the province, where the accused may answer and defend himself with the help of advocates.' Further, 'the prince shall appoint no foreigners to office in Brabant.' Lastly 'should the prince, by force or otherwise, violate any of these privileges, the inhabitants of Brabant, after regular protest entered, are discharged of their oaths of allegiance, and, as free, independent, and unbound people, may conduct themselves exactly as seems to them best.' Such were the leading features, so far as they regarded the points now at issue, of that famous constitution which was so highly esteemed in the Netherlands, that mothers came to the province in order to give birth to their children, who might thus enjoy, as a birthright, the privileges of Brabant. Yet the charters of the other provinces ought to have been as effective against the arbitrary course of the government. 'No foreigner,' said the constitution of Holland, 'is eligible as councillor, financier, magistrate, or member of a court. Justice can be administered only by the ordinary tribunals and magistrates. The ancient laws and customs shall remain inviolable. Should the prince infringe any of these provisions, no one is bound to obey him.' These provisions from the Brabant and Holland charters are only cited as illustrative of the general spirit of the provincial constitutions. Nearly all the provinces possessed privileges equally ample, duly signed and sealed."

      ALSO IN:
      E. E. Crowe,
      Cardinal Granvelle
      (Eminent Foreign Statesmen, volume 1).

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1562-1566.
   Beginning of organized resistance to the tyranny
   and persecution of Philip.
   The signing of the Compromise.
   The League of the Gueux.

   William of Orange now "claimed, in the name of the whole
   country, the convocation of the states-general. This assembly
   alone was competent to decide what was just, legal, and
   obligatory for each province and every town. … The ministers
   endeavored to evade a demand which they were at first
   unwilling openly to refuse. But the firm demeanor and
   persuasive eloquence of the prince of Orange carried before
   them all who were not actually bought by the crown; and
   Granvelle found himself at length forced to avow that an
   express order from the king forbade the convocation of the
   states, on any pretext, during his absence. The veil was thus
   rent asunder, which had in some measure concealed the
   deformity of Philip's despotism. The result was a powerful
   confederacy among all who held it odious, for the overthrow of
   Granvelle, to whom they chose to attribute the king's conduct.
   … Those who composed this confederacy against the minister
   were actuated by a great variety of motives. … It is
   doubtful if any of the confederates except the prince of
   Orange clearly saw that they were putting themselves in direct
   and personal opposition to the king himself. William alone,
   clear-sighted in politics and profound in his views, knew, in
   thus devoting himself to the public cause, the adversary with
   whom he entered the lists. This great man, for whom the
   national traditions still preserve the sacred title of
   'father' (Vader-Willem), and who was in truth not merely the
   parent but the political creator of the country, was at this
   period in his 30th year. … Philip, … driven before the
   popular voice, found himself forced to the choice of throwing
   off the mask at once, or of sacrificing Granvelle.
{2259}
   An invincible inclination for manœuvring and deceit decided
   him on the latter measure; and the cardinal, recalled but not
   disgraced, quitted the Netherlands on the 10th of March, 1564.
   The secret instructions to the government remained unrevoked;
   the president Viglius succeeded to the post which Granvelle
   had occupied; and it was clear that the projects of the king
   had suffered no change. Nevertheless some good resulted from
   the departure of the unpopular minister. The public
   fermentation subsided; the patriot lords reappeared at court;
   and the prince of Orange acquired an increasing influence in
   the council and over the government. … It was resolved to
   dispatch a special envoy to Spain, to explain to Philip the
   views of the council. … The count of Egmont, chosen by the
   council for this important mission, set out for Madrid in the
   month of February, 1565. Philip received him with profound
   hypocrisy; loaded him with the most flattering promises; sent
   him back in the utmost elation: and when the credulous count
   returned to Brussels, he found that the written orders, of
   which he was the bearer, were in direct variance with every
   word which the king had uttered. These orders were chiefly
   concerning the reiterated subject of the persecution to be
   inflexibly pursued against the religious reformers. Not
   satisfied with the hitherto established forms of punishment,
   Philip now expressly commanded that the more revolting means
   decreed by his father in the rigor of his early zeal, such as
   burning, living burial, and the like, should be adopted. …
   Even Viglius was terrified by the nature of Philip's commands;
   and the patriot lords once more withdrew from all share in the
   government, leaving to the duchess of Parma and her ministers
   the whole responsibility of the new measures. They were at
   length put into actual and vigorous execution in the beginning
   of the year 1566. The inquisitors of the faith, with their
   familiars, stalked abroad boldly in the devoted provinces,
   carrying persecution and death in their train. Numerous but
   partial insurrections opposed these odious intruders. Every
   district and town became the scene of frightful executions or
   tumultuous resistance."

In November, 1565, a meeting of Flemish nobles was held at Culenborg House, Brussels, where they formed a league, in which Philip de Marnix, Lord of Ste. Aldegonde, Count Louis of Nassau, a younger brother of the Prince of Orange, and Viscount Brederode, were the foremost leaders. "In a meeting held at Breda, in January 1566, the league promulgated their views in a paper called the Compromise, attributed to the hand of Ste. Aldegonde. The document contained a severe denunciation of the inquisition as an illegal, pernicious and iniquitous tribunal; the subscribers swore to defend one another against any attack that might be made upon them; and declared, at the same time, that they did not mean to throw off their allegiance to the King. … In the course of two months the Compromise was signed by about 2,000 persons, including many Catholics; but only a few of the great nobles could be prevailed on to subscribe it. … The Prince of Orange at first kept aloof from the league, and at this period Egmont, who was of a more impulsive temper, seemed to act the leading part; but the nation relied solely upon William. The latter gave at least a tacit sanction to the league in the spring of 1566, by joining the members of it in a petition to the Regent which he had himself revised."

"The league had its origin in banquets, and a banquet gave it form and perfection. … Brederode entertained the confederates in Kuilemberg House; about 300 guests assembled; intoxication gave them courage, and their audacity rose with their numbers. During the conversation, one of their number happened to remark that he had overheard the Count of Barlaimont whisper in French to the regent, who was seen to turn pale on the delivery of the petitions, that 'she need not be afraid of a band of beggars (gueux).' … Now, as the very name for their fraternity was the very thing which had most perplexed them, an expression was eagerly caught up, which, while it cloaked the presumption of their enterprise in humility, was at the same time appropriate to them as petitioners. Immediately they drank to one another under this name, and the cry 'Long live the gueux!' was accompanied with a general shout of applause. … What they had resolved on in the moment of intoxication they attempted, when sober, to carry into execution. … In a few days, the town of Brussels, swarmed with ash-gray garments, such as were usually worn by mendicant friars and penitents. Every confederate put his whole family and domestics in this dress. Some carried wooden bowls thinly overlaid with plates of silver, cups of the same kind, and wooden knives; in short, the whole paraphernalia of the beggar tribe, which they either fixed round their hats or suspended from their girdles. … Hence the origin of the name 'Gueux,' which was subsequently borne in the Netherlands by all who seceded from popery, and took up arms against the king."

ALSO IN: J. L. Motley, The Rise of the Dutch Republic, part 2, chapters 3-6 (volume 1).

      F. von Raumer,
      History of the 16th and 17th Centuries
      illustrated by original documents,
      letter 16 (volume 1).

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1566-1568.
   Field preaching under arms.
   The riots of the Image-breakers.
   Philip's schemes of revenge.
   Discouragement and retirement of Orange.
   Blindness of Egmont and Horn, and their fate.

"While the Privy Council was endeavouring to obtain a 'Moderation' of the Edicts, and … effected that the heretics should be no longer burnt but hung, and that the Inquisition should proceed 'prudently, and with circumspection,' a movement broke out among the people which mocked at all Edicts. The open country was suddenly covered with thousands of armed noblemen, citizens, and peasants, who assembled in large crowds in the open air to listen to some heretical preacher, Lutheran, Calvinist, or even an Anabaptist, and to hold forbidden services, with prayers and hymns, in the mother tongue. They sallied forth with pistols, arquebuses, flails, and pitchforks; the place of meeting was marked out like a camp, and surrounded by guards; from 10,000 to 20,000 assembled, the armed men outside, the women and children within. {2260} After the immense choir had sung a psalm, one of the excommunicated preachers appeared between two pikes (according to the 'Moderation' a price was set upon the head of everyone of them), and expounded the new doctrine from the Scriptures; the assembly listened in devout silence, and when the service was ended separated quietly, but defiantly. This was repeated day after day throughout the country, and nobody dared to attack the armed field preachers. The Regent was in a painful situation; she was always having it proclaimed that the Edicts were in force, but nobody cared. … It was all in vain unless foreign troops came to enforce obedience, and these she had neither power nor funds to procure. The King hesitated in his usual fashion, and left the Regent to the torments of powerlessness and uncertainty. Meanwhile the universal excitement bore fatal fruit. Instead of the dignified preachings and peaceful assemblies of May, in June and July there were wild excesses and furious mobs. Orange had just persuaded the Regent to permit the field preaching in the open country, if they avoided the towns, when the first great outbreak occurred in Antwerp. Two days after a great procession, on the 18th of August, 1566, at which the Catholic clergy of Antwerp had made a pompous display to the annoyance of the numerous Protestants, the beautiful cathedral was invaded by a furious mob, who destroyed without mercy all the images, pictures, and objects of art that it contained. This demolition of images, the stripping of churches, desecration of chapels, and destruction of all symbols of the ancient faith, spread from Antwerp to other places, Tournay, Valenciennes, &c. It was done with a certain moderation, for neither personal violence nor theft took place anywhere, though innumerable costly articles were lying about. Still, these fanatical scenes not only excited the ire of Catholics, but of every religious man; in Antwerp, especially, the seafaring mob had rushed upon everything that had been held sacred for centuries. In her distress the Regent wished to flee from Brussels, but Orange, Egmont, and Horn compelled her to remain, and induced her to proclaim the Act of the 25th of August, by which an armistice was decided on between Spain and the Beggars. In this the Government conceded the abolition of the Inquisition and the toleration of the new doctrines, and the Beggars declared that for so long as this promise was kept their league was dissolved. In consideration of this, the first men in the country agreed to quell the disturbances in Flanders, Antwerp, Tournay; and Malines, and to restore peace. Orange effected this in Antwerp like a true statesman, who knew how to keep himself above party spirit; but in Flanders, Egmont, on the contrary, went to work like a brutal soldier; he stormed against the heretics like Philip's Spanish executioners, and the scales fell from the eyes of the bitterly disappointed people. Meanwhile a decision had been come to at Madrid. … When at length the irresolute King had determined to proclaim an amnesty, though it was really rather a proscription, and to promise indulgence, while he was assuring the Pope by protocol before notaries that he never would grant any, the news came of the image riots of August, and a report from the Duchess in which she humbly begged the King's pardon for having allowed a kind of religious peace to be extorted from her, but she was entirely innocent; they had forced it from her as a prisoner in her palace, and there was one comfort, that the King was not bound by a promise made only in her name. Philip's rage was boundless. … He was resolved upon fearful revenge, even when he was writing that he should know how to restore order in his provinces by means of grace and mercy. … Well-informed as Orange was, he understood the whole situation perfectly; he knew that while the Regent was heaping flattery upon him, she and Philip were compassing his destruction; that her only object could be to keep the peace until the Spanish preparations were complete, and meanwhile, if possible, to compromise him with the people. He wrote to Egmont, and laid the dangers of their situation before him, and communicated his resolve either to escape Philip's revenge by flight, or to join with his friends in armed resistance to the expected attack of the Spanish army. But Egmont in his unhappy blindness had resolved to side with the Government which was more than ever determined on his destruction, and the meeting at Dendermonde, October, 1566, when Orange consulted him, Louis of Nassau, and Hogstraaten, as to u plan of united action, was entirely fruitless. … Admiral Horn, who had staked large property in the service of the Emperor and King, and had never received the least return in answer to his just demands, gave up his office, and, like a weary philosopher, retired into solitude. Left entirely alone, Orange thought of emigrating; in short, the upper circle of the previous party of opposition no longer existed. But it was not so with the mad leaders of the Beggars. While the zealous inhabitants of Valenciennes, incited by two of the most dauntless Calvinistic preachers, undertook to defend themselves against the royal troops with desperate bravery, Count Brederode went about the country with a clang of sabres, exciting disturbances in order to give the heretics at Valenciennes breathing-time by a happy diversion. … All that Philip wanted to enable him to gain the day was an unsuccessful attempt at revolt. The attack upon images and the Beggars' volunteer march did more for the Government than all Granvella's system; … drove every one who favoured the Catholics and loved peace into the arms of the Government., The reaction set in with the sanguinary defeat of the rebels at Valenciennes, who never again even made an attempt at resistance. Orange gave up the liberties of his country for lost. … Stating that he could never take the new oath of fealty which was required, because it would oblige him to become the executioner of his Protestant countrymen, he renounced his offices and dignities, … made a last attempt to save his friend Egmont, … and retired to Dillenburg, the ancient property of the family. He wished to be spared for better times; he saw the storm coming, and was too cool-headed to offer himself as the first sacrifice. In fact, just when he was travelling towards Germany, Duke Alba [more commonly called Alva], the hangman of the Netherlands, was on his way to his destination." Alva arrived in August, 1567, with an army of 10,000 carefully picked veterans, fully empowered to make the Netherlands a conquered territory and deal with it as such. His first important act was the treacherous seizure and imprisonment of Egmont and Horn. Then the organization of terror began. The imprisonment and the mockery of a trial of the two most distinguished victims was protracted until the 5th of June, 1568, when they were beheaded in the great square at Brussels.

ALSO IN: J. L. Motley, The Rise of the Dutch Republic, part 2, chapters 6-10, and part 3, chapters 1-2.

"In the same despatch of the 9th September [1567], in which the Duke communicated to Philip the capture of Egmont and Horn, he announced to him his determination to establish a new court for the trial of crimes committed during the recent period of troubles. This wonderful tribunal was accordingly created with the least possible delay. It was called the Council of Troubles, but it soon acquired the terrible name, by which it will be forever known in history, of the Blood-Council. It superseded all other institutions. Every court, from those of the municipal magistracies up to the supreme councils of the provinces, were forbidden to take cognisance in future of any cause growing out of the late troubles. The Council of State, although it was not formally disbanded, fell into complete desuetude, its members being occasionally summoned into Alva's private chambers in an irregular manner, while its principal functions were usurped by the Blood-Council. Not only citizens of every province, but the municipal bodies, and even the sovereign provincial Estates themselves, were compelled to plead, like humble individuals, before this new and extraordinary tribunal. It is unnecessary to allude to the absolute violation which was thus committed of all charters, laws, and privileges, because the very creation of the Council was a bold and brutal proclamation that those laws and privileges were at an end. … So well … did this new and terrible engine perform its work, that in less than three months from the time of its erection, 1,800 human beings had suffered death by its summary proceedings; some of the highest, the noblest, and the most virtuous in the land among the number; nor had it then manifested the slightest indication of faltering in its dread career. Yet, strange to say, this tremendous court, thus established upon the ruins of all the ancient institutions of the country, had not been provided with even a nominal authority from any source whatever. The King had granted it no letters patent or charter, nor had even the Duke of Alva thought it worth while to grant any commissions, either in his own name or as Captain-General, to any of the members composing the board. The Blood-Council was merely an informal club, of which the Duke was perpetual president, while the other members were all appointed by himself. Of these subordinate councillors, two had the right of voting, subject, however, in all cases, to his final decision, while the rest of the number did not vote at all. It had not, therefore, in any sense, the character of a judicial, legislative, or executive tribunal, but was purely a board of advice by which the bloody labours of the Duke were occasionally lightened as to detail, while not a feather's weight of power or of responsibility was removed from his shoulders. He reserved for himself the final decision upon all causes which should come before the Council, and stated his motives for so doing with grim simplicity. 'Two reasons,' he wrote to the King, 'have determined me thus to limit the power of the tribunal; the first that, not knowing its members, I might be easily deceived by them; the second, that the men of law only condemn for crimes which are proved; whereas your Majesty knows that affairs of state are governed by very different rules from the laws which they have here.' It being, therefore, the object of the Duke to compose a body of men who would be of assistance to him in condemning for crimes which could not be proved, and in slipping over statutes which were not to be recognised, it must be confessed that he was not unfortunate in the appointments which he made to the office of councillors. … No one who was offered the office refused it. Noircarmes and Berlaymont accepted with very great eagerness. Several presidents and councillors of the different provincial tribunals were appointed, but all the Netherlanders were men of straw. Two Spaniards, Del Rio and Vargas, were the only members who could vote, while their decisions, as already stated, were subject to reversal by Alva. Del Rio was a man without character or talent, a mere tool in the hands of his superiors, but Juan de Vargas was a terrible reality. No better man could have been found in Europe, for the post to which he was thus elevated. To shed human blood was, in his opinion, the only important business and the only exhilarating pastime of life. … It was the duty of the different subalterns, who, as already stated, had no right of voting, to prepare reports upon the cases. Nothing could be more summary. Information was lodged against a man, or against a hundred men, in one document. The Duke sent the papers to the Council, and the inferior councillors reported at once to Vargas. If the report concluded with a recommendation of death to the man or the hundred men in question, Vargas instantly approved it, and execution was done upon the man, or the hundred men, within 48 hours. If the report had any other conclusion, it was immediately sent back for revision, and the reporters were overwhelmed with reproaches by the President. Such being the method of operation, it may be supposed that the councillors were not allowed to slacken in their terrible industry. The register of every city, village, and hamlet throughout the Netherlands showed the daily lists of men, women, and children thus sacrificed at the shrine of the demon who had obtained the mastery over this unhappy land. It was not often that an individual was of sufficient importance to be tried—if trial it could be called—by himself. It was found more expeditious to send them in batches to the furnace. Thus, for example, on the 4th of January, 84 inhabitants of Valenciennes were condemned; on another day, 95 miscellaneous individuals from different places in Flanders; on another, 46 inhabitants of Malines; on another, 35 persons from different localities, and so on. … Thus the whole country became a charnel-house; the death-bell tolled hourly in every village; not a family but was called to mourn for its dearest relatives, while the survivors stalked listlessly about, the ghosts of their former selves, among the wrecks of their former homes. The spirit of the nation, within a few months after the arrival of Alva, seemed hopelessly broken. The blood of its best and bravest had already stained the scaffold; men to whom it had been accustomed to look for guidance and protection, were dead, in prison, or in exile. Submission had ceased to be of any avail, flight was impossible, and the spirit of vengeance had alighted at every fireside. {2262} The mourners went daily about the streets, for there was hardly a house which had not been made desolate. The scaffolds, the gallows, the funeral piles which had been sufficient in ordinary times, furnished now an entirely inadequate machinery for the incessant executions. Columns and stakes in every street, the door-posts of private houses, the fences in the fields, were laden with human carcases, strangled, burned, beheaded. The orchards in the country bore on many a tree the hideous fruit of human bodies. Thus the Netherlands were crushed, and, but for the stringency of the tyranny which had now closed their gates, would have been depopulated."

      J. L. Motley,
      The Rise of the Dutch Republic,
      part 3, chapter 1 (volume 2).

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1568.
Stupendous death-sentence of the Inquisition.
The whole population condemned.

"Early in the year, the most sublime sentence of death was promulgated which has ever been pronounced since the creation of the world. The Roman tyrant wished that his enemies' heads were all upon a single neck, that he might strike them off at a blow; the Inquisition assisted Philip to place the heads of all his Netherland subjects upon a single neck, for the same fell purpose. Upon the 16th February, 1568, a sentence of the Holy Office condemned all the inhabitants of the Netherlands to death as heretics. From this universal doom only a few persons, especially named, were excepted. A proclamation of the King, dated ten days later, confirmed this decree of the Inquisition, and ordered it to be carried into instant execution without regard to age, sex, or condition. This is probably the most concise death-warrant that was ever framed. Three millions of people, men, women, and children, were sentenced to the scaffold in three lines; and as it was well known that these were not harmless thunders, like some bulls of the Vatican, but serious and practical measures which it was intended should be enforced, the horror which they produced may be easily imagined. It was hardly the purpose of Government to compel the absolute completion of the wholesale plan in all its length and breadth, yet in the horrible times upon which they had fallen, the Netherlanders might be excused for believing that no measure was too monstrous to be fulfilled. At any rate, it was certain that when all were condemned, any might at a moment's warning be carried to the scaffold, and this was precisely the course adopted by the authorities. … Under this new decree, the executions certainly did not slacken. Men in the highest and the humblest positions were daily and hourly dragged to the stake. Alva, in a single letter to Philip, coolly estimated the number of executions which were to take place immediately after the expiration of Holy Week, 'at 800 heads.' Many a citizen, convicted of a hundred thousand florins, and of no other crime, saw himself suddenly tied to a horse's tail, with his hands fastened behind him, and so dragged to the gallows. But although wealth was an unpardonable sin, poverty proved rarely a protection. Reasons sufficient could always be found for dooming the starveling laborer as well as the opulent burgher. To avoid the disturbances created in the streets by the frequent harangues or exhortations addressed to the bystanders by the victims on their way to the scaffold, a new gag was invented. The tongue of each prisoner was screwed into an iron ring, and then seared with a hot iron. The swelling and inflammation, which were the immediate result, prevented the tongue from slipping through the ring, and of course effectually precluded all possibility of speech."

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1568-1572.
   The arming of Revolt and beginning of War
   by the Prince of Orange.
   Alva's successes, brutalities, and senseless taxation.
   Quarrels with England and destruction of Flemish trade.

"So unprecedented already was the slaughter that even in the beginning of March 1568, when Alva had been scarcely six months in the country, the Emperor Maximilian, himself a Roman Catholic, addressed a formal remonstrance to the king on the subject, as his dignity entitled him to do, since the Netherlands were a part of the Germanic body. It received an answer which was an insult to the remonstrant from its defiance of truth and common sense, and which cut off all hope from the miserable Flemings. Philip declared that what he had done had been done 'for the repose of the Provinces,' … and almost on the same day he published a new edict, confirming a decree of the Inquisition which condemned all the inhabitants of the Netherlands to death as heretics, with the exception of a few persons who were named [see above]. … In their utter despair, the Flemings implored the aid of the Prince of Orange, who … had quitted the country. … He was now residing at Dillenbourg, in Nassau, in safety from Philip's threats, and from the formal sentence which, in addition to the general condemnation of the whole people, the Council of Blood had just pronounced against him by name. But he resolved that in such an emergency it did not become him to weigh his own safety against the claims his countrymen had on his exertions. After a few weeks energetically spent in levying troops and raising money to maintain them, he published a document which he entitled his 'Justification,' and which stated his own case and that of the Provinces with a most convincing clearness; and at the end of April he took the field at the head of a small force, composed of French Huguenots, Flemish exiles, … and German mercenaries. … Thus in the spring of 1568 began that terrible war which for 40 years desolated what, in spite of great natural disadvantages, had hitherto been one of the most prosperous countries of Europe. … To dwell on many of its details … would require volumes. … And, indeed, the pitched battles were few. At the outset [May 23, 1568] Count Louis of Nassau, the prince's brother, defeated and slew Count Aremberg, the Spanish governor of the province of Groningen, very nearly on the spot [near the convent of Heiliger-Lee, or the Holy Lion] on which, in the palmy days of Rome, the fierce valor of Arminius had annihilated the legions whose loss was so deeply imprinted on the heart of Augustus; and Alva had avenged the disaster by so complete a rout of Louis at Jemmingen, that more than half of the rebel army was slaughtered on the field, and Louis himself only escaped a capture, which would have delivered him to the scaffold, by swimming the Ems, and escaping with a mere handful of troops, all that were left of his army, into Germany. But after dealing this blow … Alva rarely fought a battle in the open field. {2263} He preferred showing the superiority of his generalship by defying the endeavours of the prince and his brothers to bring him to action, miscalculating, indeed, the eventual consequences of such tactics, and believing that the protraction of the war must bring the rebels to his sovereign's feet by the utter exhaustion of their resources; while the event proved that it was Spain which was exhausted by the contest, that kingdom being in fact so utterly prostrated by continued draining of men and treasure which it involved, that her decay may be dated from the moment when Alva reached the Flemish borders. His career in the Netherlands seemed to show that, warrior though he was, persecution was more to his taste than even victory. Victorious, indeed, he was, so far as never failing to reduce every town which he besieged, and to baffle every design of the prince which he anticipated. … Every triumph which he gained was sullied by a ferocious and deliberate cruelty, of which the history of no other general in the world affords a similar example. … Whenever Alva captured a town, he himself enjoined his troops to show no mercy either to the garrison or to the peaceful inhabitants. Every atrocity which greed of rapine, wantonness of lust, and blood-thirsty love of slaughter could devise was perpetrated by his express direction. … He had difficulties to encounter besides those of his military operations, and such as he was less skilful in meeting. He soon began to be in want of money. A fleet laden with gold and silver was driven by some French privateers into an English harbour, where Elizabeth at once laid her hands on it. If it belonged to her enemies, she had a right, she said, to seize it: if to her friends, to borrow it (she had not quite decided in which light to regard the Spaniards, but the logic was irresistible, and her grasp irremovable), and, to supply the deficiency, Alva had recourse to expedients which injured none so much as himself. To avenge himself on the Queen, he issued a proclamation [March, 1569] forbidding all commercial intercourse between the Netherlands and England; … but his prohibition damaged the Flemings more than the English merchants, and in so doing inflicted loss upon himself. … For he at the same time endeavoured to compel the States to impose, for his use, a heavy tax on every description of property, on every transfer of property, and even on every article of merchandise [the tenth penny, or ten per cent.] as often as it should be sold: the last impost, in the Provinces which were terrified into consenting to it, so entirely annihilating trade that it even roused the disapproval of his own council; and that, finding themselves supported by that body, even those Provinces which had complied, retracted their assent. … After a time [1572] he was forced first to compromise his demands for a far lower sum than that at which he had estimated the produce of his taxes, and at last to renounce even that. He was bitterly disappointed and indignant, and began to be weary of his post."

ALSO IN: J. L. Motley, The Rise of the Dutch Republic, part 3, chapters 2-7 (volume 2).

D. Campbell, The Puritan in Holland, England, and America, chapter 3 (volume 1).

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1572.
   The Beggars of the Sea and their capture of Brill.
   Rapid Revolution in Holland and Zealand, but wholly in the
   name of the King and his Stadtholder, William of Orange.
   The Provisional Government organized.

In the spring of 1572, Alva having re-established friendly relations with Queen Elizabeth, all the cruisers of the rebellious Netherlanders—"Beggars of the Sea" as they had styled themselves—were suddenly expelled from English ports, where they had previously found shelter and procured supplies. The consequence was unexpected to those who brought it about, and proved most favorable to the patriotic cause. Desperately driven by their need of some harbor of refuge, the fleet of these adventurers made an attack upon the important seaport of Brill, took it with little fighting and held it stubbornly. Excited by this success, the patriotic burghers of Flushing, on the isle of Walcheren, soon afterwards rose and expelled the Spanish garrison from their town. "The example thus set by Brill and Flushing was rapidly followed. The first half of the year 1572 was distinguished by a series of triumphs rendered still more remarkable by the reverses which followed at its close. … Enkhuizen, the key to the Zuyder Zee, the principal arsenal, and one of the first commercial cities in the Netherlands, rose against the Spanish Admiral, and hung out the banner of Orange on its ramparts. The revolution effected here was purely the work of the people—of the mariners and burghers of the city. Moreover, the magistracy was set aside and the government of Alva repudiated without shedding one drop of blood, without a single wrong to person or property. By the same spontaneous movement, nearly all the important cities of Holland and Zealand raised the standard of him in whom they recognized their deliverer. The revolution was accomplished under nearly similar circumstances everywhere. With one fierce bound of enthusiasm the nation shook, off its chain. Oudewater, Dort, Harlem, Leyden, Gorcum, Loewenstein, Gouda, Medenblik, Horn, Alkmaar, Edam, Monnikendam, Purmerende, as well as Flushing, Veer, and Enkhuizen, all ranged themselves under the government of Orange as lawful stadholder for the King. Nor was it in Holland and Zealand alone that the beacon fires of freedom were lighted. City after city in Gelderland, Overyssel, and the See of Utrecht, all the important towns of Friesland, some sooner, some later, some without a struggle, some after a short siege, some with resistance by the functionaries of government, some by amicable compromise, accepted the garrisons of the Prince and formally recognized his authority. Out of the chaos which a long and preternatural tyranny had produced, the first struggling elements of a new and a better world began to appear. … Not all the conquests thus rapidly achieved in the cause of liberty were destined to endure, nor were any to be retained without a struggle. The little northern cluster of republics, which had now restored its honor to the ancient Batavian name, was destined, however, for a long and vigorous life. From that bleak isthmus the light of freedom was to stream through many years upon struggling humanity in Europe, a guiding pharos across a stormy sea; and Harlem, Leyden, Alkmaar—names hallowed by deeds of heroism such as have not often illustrated human annals, still breathe as trumpet-tongued and perpetual a defiance to despotism as Marathon, Thermopylae, or Salamis. {2264} A new board of magistrates had been chosen in all the redeemed cities by popular election. They were required to take an oath of fidelity to the King of Spain, and to the Prince of Orange as his stadholder; to promise resistance to the Duke of Alva, the tenth penny, and the Inquisition; 'to support every man's freedom and the welfare of the country; to protect widows, orphans, and miserable persons, and to maintain justice and truth.' Diedrich Sonoy arrived on the 2nd June at Enkhuizen. He was provided by the Prince with a commission, appointing him Lieutenant-Governor of North Holland or Waterland. Thus, to combat the authority of Alva, was set up the authority of the King. The stadholderate over Holland and Zealand, to which the Prince had been appointed in 1559, he now reassumed. Upon this fiction reposed the whole provisional polity of the revolted Netherlands. … The people at first claimed not an iota more of freedom than was secured by Philip's coronation oath. There was no pretence that Philip was not sovereign, but there was a pretence and a determination to worship God according to conscience, and to reclaim the ancient political 'liberties' of the land. So long as Alva reigned, the Blood Council, the Inquisition, and martial law, were the only codes or courts, and every charter slept. To recover this practical liberty and these historical rights, and to shake from their shoulders a most sanguinary government, was the purpose of William and of the people. No revolutionary standard was displayed. The written instructions given by the Prince to his lieutenant Sonoy were to 'see that the Word of God was preached, without, however, suffering any hindrance to the Roman Church in the exercise of its religion.' … The Prince was still in Germany, engaged in raising troops and providing funds."

J. L. Motley, The Rise of the Dutch Republic, part 3, chapters 6-7 (volume 2).

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1572-1573.
   Capture of Mons by Louis of Nassau and
   its recovery by the Spaniards.
   Spanish massacres at Mechlin, Zutphen and Naarden.
   The siege and capture of Haarlem.

"While William of Orange was in Germany, raising money and troops, he still directed the affairs of the Netherlands. His prospects were again brightened by the capture, by his gallant brother Louis of Nassau, of the important city of Mons. … This last startling blow forced Alva to immediate action. He at once sent his son, Don Frederic, to lay siege to Mons. Soon after, the Duke of Medina Cœli, Alva's successor as governor of the Netherlands [to whom, however, Alva did not surrender his authority], arrived safely with his fleet, but another Spanish squadron fell with its rich treasures into the hands of the rebels. Alva was now so pressed for money that he agreed to abolish the useless tenth-penny tax, if the states-general of the Netherlands would grant him a million dollars a year. He had summoned the states of Holland to meet at the Hague on the 15th of July, but they met at Dort to renounce his authority, at the summons of William of Orange, who had raised an army in Germany, but was without means to secure the necessary three months' payment in advance. While still owning allegiance to the king, the states recognized Orange as stadtholder, empowered him to drive out the Spanish troops, and to maintain religious freedom. … Treating the Emperor Maximilian's peace orders as useless, the prince marched his army of 24,000 men to the relief of Mons. Most of the Netherland cities on the way accepted his authority, and everything looked favorable for his success, when an unforeseen and terrible calamity occurred. The French king, Charles IX., whose troops had been routed before Mons [by the Spaniards], had promised to furnish further aid to the provinces. Admiral Coligny was to join the forces of Orange with 15,000 men. The frightful massacre of St. Bartholomew in Paris, on the 24th of August, … was a terrible blow to the prince. It broke up all his plans. He had reached the neighborhood of Mons, which he was trying to reinforce, when a night attack was made by the Spaniards on his lines, September 11. … Obliged to leave his gallant brother Louis to his fate in Mons, Orange narrowly escaped being killed on his retreat. … Deserted by the cities that had been so earnest in his cause, sorrowful, but not despairing for his country, William had only his trust in God and his own destiny to sustain him. As Holland was the only province that clung to the hero patriot, he went there expecting and prepared to die for liberty. Louis of Nassau was forced, on the 21st of September, to abandon Mons to the Spaniards, who allowed Noircarmes … to massacre and pillage the inhabitants contrary to the terms of surrender. This wretch killed Catholics and Protestants alike, in order to secure their riches for himself. … The city of Mechlin, which had refused to admit a garrison of his troops, was even more brutally ravaged by Alva in order to obtain gold. … Alva's son, Don Frederic, now proved an apt pupil of his father, by almost literally executing his command to kill every man and burn every house in the city of Zutphen, which had opposed the entrance of the king's troops. The massacre was terrible and complete. The cause of Orange suffered still more by the cowardly flight of his brother-in-law, Count Van den Berg, from his post of duty in the provinces of Gelderland and Overyssel. By this desertion rugged Friesland was also lost to the patriot side. Holland alone held out against the victorious Spaniards. The little city of Naarden at first stoutly refused to surrender, but being weak was obliged to yield without striking a blow. Don Frederic's agent, Julian Romero, having promised that life and property should be spared, the people welcomed him and his soldiers at a grand feast on the 2d of December. Hardly was this over when 500 citizens, who had assembled in the town hall, were warned by a priest to prepare for death. This was the signal for the entrance of the Spanish troops, who butchered everyone in the building. They then rushed furiously through the streets, pillaging and then setting fire to the houses. As the inmates came forth, they were tortured and killed by their cruel foes. … Alva wrote boastfully to the king that 'they had cut the throats of the burghers and all the garrison, and had not left a mother's son alive.' He ascribed this success to the favor of God in permitting the defence of so feeble a city to be even attempted. … As the city of Haarlem was the key to Holland, Don Frederic resolved to capture it at any cost. But the people were so bent upon resistance that they executed two of their magistrates for secretly negotiating with Alva. … {2265} Ripperda, the commandant of the Haarlem garrison, cheered soldiers and people by his heroic counsels, and through the efforts of Orange the city was placed under patriot rule. Amsterdam, which was in the enemy's hands, was ten miles distant, across a lake traversed by a narrow causeway, and the prince had erected a number of forts to command the frozen surface. As a thick fog covered the lake in these December days, supplies of men, provisions, and ammunition were brought into the city in spite of the vigilance of the besiegers. The sledges and skates of the Hollanders were very useful in this work. But against Don Frederic's army of 30,000 men, nearly equalling the entire population of Haarlem, the city with its extensive but weak fortifications had only a garrison of about 4,000. The fact that about 300 of these were respectable women, armed with sword, musket, and dagger, shows the heroic spirit of the people. The men were nerved to fresh exertions by these Amazons, who, led by their noble chief, the Widow Kenau Hasselaer, fought desperately by their side, both within and without the works. The banner of this famous heroine, who has been called the Joan of Arc of Haarlem, is now in the City Hall. A vigorous cannonade was kept up against the city for three days, beginning December 18, and men, women, and children worked incessantly in repairing the shattered walls. They even dragged the statues of saints from the churches to fill up the gaps, to the horror of the superstitious Spaniards. The brave burghers repelled their assaults with all sorts of weapons. Burning coals and boiling oil were hurled at their heads, and blazing pitch-hoops were skilfully caught about their necks. Astonished by this terrible resistance, which cost him hundreds of lives, Don Frederic resolved to take the city by siege." On the last day of January. 1573, Don Frederic having considerably shattered an outwork called the ravelin, ordered a midnight assault, and the Spaniards carried the fort. "They mounted the walls expecting to have the city at their mercy. Judge of their amazement to find a new and stronger fort, shaped like a half-moon, which had been secretly constructed during the siege, blazing away at them with its cannon. Before they could recover from their shock, the ravelin, which had been carefully undermined, blew up, and sent them crushed and bleeding into the air. The Spaniards outside, terrified at these outbursts, retreated hastily to their camp, leaving hundreds of dead beneath the walls. Two assaults of veteran soldiers, led by able generals, having been repelled by the dauntless burghers of Haarlem, famine seemed the only means of forcing its surrender. Starvation in fact soon threatened both besiegers and besieged. Don Frederic wished to abandon the contest, but Alva threatened to disown him as a son if he did so. … There was soon a struggle for the possession of the lake, which was the only means of conveying supplies to the besieged. In the terrible hand-to-hand fight which followed the grappling of the rival vessels, on the 28th of May, the prince's fleet, under Admiral Brand, was totally defeated. … During the month of June the wretched people of Haarlem had no food but linseed and rapeseed, and they were soon compelled to eat dogs, cats, rats, and mice. When these gave out they devoured shoe-leather and the boiled hides of horses and oxen, and tried to allay the pangs of hunger with grass and weeds. The streets were full of the dead and the dying." Attempts at relief by Orange were defeated. "As a last resort the besieged resolved to form a solid column, with the women and children, the aged and infirm, in the centre, to fight their way out; but Don Frederic, fearing the city would be left in ruins, induced them to surrender on the 12th of July, under promise of mercy. This promise was cruelly broken by a frightful massacre of 2,000 people, which gave great joy to Alva and Philip."

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1573-1574.
   Siege and deliverance of Alkmaar.
   Displacement of Alva.
   Battle of Mookerhyde and death of Louis of Nassau.
   Siege and relief of Leyden.
   The flooding of the land.
   Founding of Leyden University.

After the surrender of Haarlem, a mutiny broke out among the Spanish troops that had been engaged in the siege, to whom 28 months' arrears of pay were due. "It was appeased with great difficulty at the end of seven weeks, when Alva determined to make a decisive attack on Holland both by land and water, and with this view commanded his son, Don Frederic di Toledo, to march to the siege of Alkmaar, and repaired in person to Amsterdam. … Don Frederic laid siege to Alkmaar at the head of 16,000 able and efficient troops; within the town were 1,300 armed burghers and 800 soldiers, as many perhaps as it was at that time capable of containing. With this handful of men the citizens of Alkmaar defended themselves no less resolutely than the Haarlemmers had done. The fierce onslaughts of the Spaniards were beaten back with uniform success on the part of the besieged; the women and girls were never seen to shrink from the fight, even where it was hottest, but unceasingly supplied the defenders with stones and burning missiles, to throw amongst their enemies. … But as there were no means of conveying reinforcements to the besieged from without, and their supplies began to fail, they resolved, after a month's siege, on the desperate measure of cutting through the dykes. Some troops sent by Sonnoy having effected this, and opened the sluices, the whole country was soon deluged with water. Don Frederic, astounded at this novel mode of warfare, and fearing that himself and his whole army would be drowned, broke up his camp in haste, and fled, rather than retreated, to Amsterdam. It seemed almost as though the blessing which the Prince of Orange had promised his people had come upon them. The capture of Geertruydenberg, about this time, by one of his lieutenants, was followed by a naval victory, as signal as it was important. The Admiral Bossu, to whom was given the command of the [Spanish] fleet at Amsterdam, having sailed through the Pampus with the design of occupying the Zuyderzee, and thus making himself master of the towns of North Holland, encountered the fleet of those towns, consisting of 24 vessels, commanded by Admiral Dirkson, stationed in the Zuyderzee to await his arrival." After several days of skirmishing, the Dutch fleet forced a close fight, "which lasted with little intermission from the afternoon of the 11th of October to midday of the 12th, during which time two of the royalist ships were sunk and a third captured. {2266} "The remainder fled or surrendered, Bossu, himself, being taken prisoner. "On intelligence of the issue of the battle, Alva quitted Amsterdam in haste and secrecy. This success delivered the towns of North Holland from the most imminent danger, and rendered the possession of Amsterdam nearly useless to the royalists." Alva was now forced to call a meeting of the states-general, in the hope of obtaining a vote of money. "Upon their assembling at Brussels, the states of Holland despatched an earnest and eloquent address, exhorting them to emancipate themselves from Spanish slavery and the cruel tyranny of Alva, which the want of unanimity in the provinces had alone enabled him to exercise. … Their remonstrance appears to have been attended with a powerful effect, since the states-general could neither by threats or remonstrances be induced to grant the smallest subsidy. … Alva, having become heartily weary of the government he had involved in such irretrievable confusion, now obtained his recall; his place was filled by Don Louis de Requesens, grand commander of Castile. In the November of this year, Alva quitted the Netherlands, leaving behind him a name which has become a bye-word of hatred, scorn, and execration. … During the six years that he had governed the Netherlands, 18,000 persons had perished by the hand of the executioner, besides the numbers massacred at Naarden, Zutphen, and other conquered cities." The first undertaking of the new governor was an attempt to raise the siege of Middleburg, the Spanish garrison in which had been blockaded by the Gueux for nearly two years; but the fleet of 40 ships which he fitted out for the purpose was defeated, at Romers-waale, with a loss of ten vessels. "The surrender of Middleburg immediately followed, and with it that of Arnemuyden, which put the Gueux in possession of the principal islands of Zealand, and rendered them masters of the sea." But these successes were counterbalanced by a disaster which attended an expedition led from Germany by Louis of Nassau, the gallant but unfortunate brother of the Prince of Orange. His army was attacked and utterly destroyed by the Spaniards (April 14, 1574) at the village of Mookerheyde, or Mook, near Nimeguen, and both Louis and his brother Henry of Nassau were slain. "After raising the siege of Alkmaar, the Spanish forces, placed under the command of Francesco di Valdez on the departure of Don Frederic di Toledo, had for some weeks blockaded Leyden; but were recalled in the spring of this year to join the rest of the army on its march against Louis of Nassau. From that time the burghers of Leyden … had not only neglected to lay up any fresh stores of corn or other provision, but to occupy or destroy the forts with which the enemy had encompassed the town. This fact coming to the knowledge of Don Louis, he once more dispatched Valdez to renew the siege at the head of 8,000 troops. … Mindful of Haarlem and Alkmaar, the Spanish commander … brought no artillery, nor made any preparations for assault, but, well aware that there were not provisions in the town sufficient for three months, contented himself with closely investing it on all sides, and determined to await the slow but sure effects of famine." In this emergency, the States of Holland "decreed that all the dykes between Leyden and the Meuse and Yssel should be cut through, and the sluices opened at Rotterdam and Schiedam, by which the waters of those rivers, overflowing the valuable lands of Schieland and Rhynland, would admit of the vessels bringing succours up to the very gates of Leyden. The damage was estimated at 600,000 guilders. … The cutting through the dykes was a work of time and difficulty, as well from the labour required as from the continual skirmishes with the enemy. … Even when completed, it appeared as if the vast sacrifice were utterly unavailing. A steady wind blowing from the north-east kept back the waters. … Meanwhile the besieged, who for some weeks heard no tidings of their deliverers, had scarcely hope left to enable them to sustain the appalling sufferings they endured. … 'Then,' says the historian, who heard it from the mouths of the sufferers, 'there was no food so odious but it was esteemed a dainty.' … The siege had now lasted five months. … Not a morsel of food, even the most filthy and loathsome, remained … when, on a sudden, the wind veered to the north-west, and thence to the south-west; the waters of the Meuse rushed in full tide over the land, and the ships rode triumphantly on the waves. The Gueux, attacking with vigour the forts on the dykes, succeeded in driving out the garrisons with considerable slaughter. … On the … 3rd of October … Valdez evacuated all the forts in the vicinity. … In memory of this eventful siege, the Prince and States offered the inhabitants either to found an university or to establish a fair. They chose the former; but the States … granted both: the fair of Leyden was appointed to be held on the 1st of October in every year, the 3rd being ever after held as a solemn festival; and on the 8th of February in the next year, the university received its charter from the Prince of Orange in the name of King Philip. Both proved lasting monuments."

ALSO IN: J. L. Motley, The Rise of the Dutch Republic, part 4, chapters 1-2 (volume 2).

      W. T. Hewett,
      The University of Leiden
      (Harper's Magazine, March, 1881).

      C. M. Yonge,
      Cameos from English History,
      series 5, chapter 16.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1575-1577.
   Congress at Breda.
   Offer of sovereignty to the English Queen.
   Death of Requesens.
   Mutiny of the Soldiery.
   The Spanish Fury.
   Alliance of Northern and Southern provinces under
   the Pacification of Ghent and the Union of Brussels.
   Arrival of Don John of Austria.

"The bankrupt state of Philip II.'s exchequer, and the reverses which his arms had sustained, induced him to accept … the proffered mediation of the Emperor Maximilian, which he had before so arrogantly rejected, and a Congress was held at Breda from March till June 1575. But the insurgents were suspicious, and Philip was inflexible; he could not be induced to dismiss his Spanish troops, to allow the meeting of the States-General, or to admit the slightest toleration in matters of religion; and the contest was therefore renewed with more fury than ever. The situation of the patriots became very critical when the enemy, by occupying the islands of Duyveland and Schouwen, cut off the communication between Holland and Zealand; especially as all hope of succour from England had expired. {2267} Towards the close of the year envoys were despatched to solicit the aid of Elizabeth, and to offer her, under certain conditions, the sovereignty of Holland and Zealand. Requesens sent Champagny to counteract these negociations, which ended in nothing. The English Queen was afraid of provoking the power of Spain, and could not even be induced to grant the Hollanders a loan. The attitude assumed at that time by the Duke of Alençon, in France, also prevented them from entering into any negociations with that Prince. In these trying circumstances, William the Silent displayed the greatest firmness and courage. It was now that he is said to have contemplated abandoning Holland and seeking with its inhabitants a home in the New World, having first restored the country to its ancient state of a waste of waters; a thought, however, which he probably never seriously entertained, though he may have given utterance to it in a moment of irritation or despondency. … The unexpected death of Requesens, who expired of a fever, March 5th 1576, after a few days' illness, threw the government into confusion. Philip II. had given Requesens a carte blanche to name his successor, but the nature of his illness had prevented him from filling it up. The government therefore devolved to the Council of State, the members of which were at variance with one another; but Philip found himself obliged to intrust it 'ad interim' with the administration, till a successor to Requesens could be appointed. Count Mansfeld was made commander-in-chief, but was totally unable to restrain the licentious soldiery. The Spaniards, whose pay was in arrear, had now lost all discipline. After the raising of the siege of Leyden they had beset Utrecht and pillaged and maltreated the inhabitants, till Valdez contrived to furnish their pay. No sooner had Requesens expired than they broke into open mutiny, and acted as if they were entire masters of the country. After wandering about some time and threatening Brussels, they seized and plundered Alost, where they established themselves; and they were soon afterwards joined by the Walloon and German troops. To repress their violence, the Council of State restored to the Netherlanders the arms of which they had been deprived, and called upon them by a proclamation to repress force by force; but these citizen-soldiers were dispersed with great slaughter by the disciplined troops in various rencounters. Ghent, Utrecht, Valenciennes, Maestricht were taken and plundered by the mutineers; and at last the storm fell upon Antwerp, which the Spaniards entered early in November, and sacked during three days. More than 1,000 houses were burnt, 8,000 citizens are said to have been slain, and enormous sums in ready money were plundered. The whole damage was estimated at 24,000,000 florins. The horrible excesses committed in this sack procured for it the name of the 'Spanish Fury.' The government was at this period conducted in the name of the States of Brabant. On the 5th of September, De Hèze, a young Brabant gentleman who was in secret intelligence with the Prince of Orange, had, at the head of 500 soldiers, entered the palace where the Council of State was assembled, and seized and imprisoned the members. William, taking advantage of the alarm created at Brussels by the sack of Antwerp, persuaded the provisional government to summon the States-General, although such a course was at direct variance with the commands of the King. To this assembly all the provinces except Luxemburg sent deputies. The nobles of the southern provinces, although they viewed the Prince of Orange with suspicion, feeling that there was no security for them so long as the Spanish troops remained in possession of Ghent, sought his assistance in expelling them; which William consented to grant only on condition that an alliance should be effected between the northern and the southern, or Catholic provinces of the Netherlands. This proposal was agreed to, and towards the end of September Orange sent several thousand men from Zealand to Ghent, at whose approach the Spaniards, who had valorously defended themselves for two months under the conduct of the wife of their absent general Mondragon, surrendered, and evacuated the citadel. The proposed alliance was now converted into a formal union by the treaty called the Pacification of Ghent, signed November 8th 1576; by which it was agreed, without waiting for the sanction of Philip, whose authority however was nominally recognised, to renew the edict of banishment against the Spanish troops, to procure the suspension of the decrees against the Protestant religion, to summon the States-General of the northern and southern provinces, according to the model of the assembly which had received the abdication of Charles V., to provide for the toleration and practise of the Protestant religion in Holland and Zealand, together with other provisions of a similar character. About the same time with the Pacification of Ghent, all Zealand, with the exception of the island of Tholen, was recovered from the Spaniards. … It was a mistake on the part of Philip II. to leave the country eight months with only an 'ad interim' government. Had he immediately filled up the vacancy … the States could not have seized upon the government, and the alliance established at Ghent would not have been effected, by which an almost independent commonwealth had been erected. But Philip seems to have been puzzled as to the choice of a successor; and his selection, at length, of his brother Don John of Austria [a natural son of Charles V.], caused a further considerable delay. … The state of the Netherlands compelled Don John to enter them, not with the pomp and dignity becoming the lawful representative of a great monarch, but stealthily, like a traitor or conspirator. In Luxemburg alone, the only province which had not joined the union, could he expect to be received; and he entered its capital a few days before the publication of the treaty of Ghent, in the disguise of a Moorish slave, and in the train of Don Ottavio Gonzaga, brother of the Prince of Melfi. Having neither money nor arms, he was obliged to negociate with the provincial government in order to procure the recognition of his authority. At the instance of the Prince of Orange, the States insisted on the withdrawal of the Spanish troops, the maintenance of the treaty of Ghent, an act of amnesty for past offences, the convocation of the States-General, and an oath from Don John that he would respect all the charters and customs of the country. The new governor was violent, but the States were firm, and in January 1577 was formed the Union of Brussels, the professed objects of which were, the immediate expulsion of the Spaniards, and the execution of the Pacification of Ghent; while at the same time the Catholic religion and the royal authority were to be upheld. {2268} This union, which was only a more popular repetition of the treaty of Ghent, soon obtained numberless signatures. … Meanwhile Rodolph II., the new Emperor of Germany, had offered his mediation, and appointed the Bishop of Liege to use his good offices between the parties; who, with the assistance of Duke William of Juliers, brought, or seemed to bring, the new governor to a more reasonable frame of mind. … Don John yielded all the points in dispute, and embodied them in what was called the Perpetual Edict, published March 12th, 1577. The Prince of Orange suspected from the first that these concessions were a mere deception."

ALSO IN: Sir W. Stirling-Maxwell, Don John of Austria, volume 2, chapters 4-5.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1577-1581.
   The administration of Don John.
   Orange's well-founded distrust.
   Emancipation of Antwerp.
   Battle of Gemblours.
   Death of Don John and appointment of Parma.
   Corruption of Flemish nobles.
   Submission of the Walloon provinces.
   Pretensions of the Duke of Anjou.
   Constitution and declared independence of the Dutch Republic.

"It now seemed that the Netherlands had gained all they asked for, and that everything for which they had contended had been conceded. The Blood Council of Alva had almost extirpated the Reformers, and an overwhelming majority of the inhabitants of the Low Countries, with the exception of the Hollanders and Zelanders, belonged to the old Church, provided the Inquisition was done away with, and a religious peace was accorded. But Don John had to reckon with the Prince of Orange. In him William had no confidence. He could not forget the past. He believed that the signatures and concessions of the governor and Philip were only expedients to gain time, and that they would be revoked or set aside as soon as it was convenient or possible to do so. … He had intercepted letters from the leading Spaniards in Don John's employment, in which, when the treaty was in course of signature, designs were disclosed of keeping possession of all the strong places in the country, with the object of reducing the patriots in detail. … Above all, William distrusted the Flemish nobles. He knew them to be greedy, fickle, treacherous, ready to betray their country for personal advantage, and to ally themselves blindly with their natural enemies. … As events proved, Orange was in the right. Hence he refused to recognize the treaty in his own states of Holland and Zeland. As soon as it was published and sent to him, William, after conference with these states, published a severe criticism on its provisions. … In all seeming however Don John was prepared to carry out his engagements. He got together with difficulty the funds for paying the arrears due to the troops, and sent them off by the end of April. He caressed the people and he bribed the nobles. He handed over the citadels to Flemish governors, and entered Brussels on May 1st. Everything pointed to success and mutual good will. But we have Don John's letters, in which he speaks most unreservedly and most unflatteringly of his new friends, and of his designs on the liberties of the Netherlands. And all the while that Philip was soothing and flattering his brother, he had determined on ruining him, and on murdering the man [Escovedo] whom that brother loved and trusted. About this time, too, we find that Philip and his deputy were casting about for the means by which they might assassinate the Prince of Orange, 'who had bewitched the whole people!' An attempt of Don John to get possession of the citadel of Antwerp for himself failed, and the patriots gained it. The merchants of Antwerp 'agreed to find the pay still owing to the soldiers, on condition of their quitting the city. But while they were discussing the terms, a fleet of Zeland vessels came sailing up the Scheldt. Immediately a cry was raised, 'The Beggars are coming,' and the soldiers fled in dismay [August 1, 1577]. Then the Antwerpers demolished the citadel, and turned the statue of Alva again into cannon. After these events, William of Orange put an end to negotiations with Don John. Prince William was in the ascendant. But the Catholic nobles conspired against him, and induced the Archduke Matthias, brother of the German Emperor Rodolph, to accept the place of governor of the Netherlands in lieu of Don John. He came, but Orange was made the Ruwaard of Brabant, with full military power. It was the highest office which could be bestowed on him. The 'Union of Brussels' followed and was a confederation of all the Netherlands. But the battle of Gemblours was fought in February, 1578, and the patriots were defeated. Many small towns were captured, and it seemed that in course of time the governor would recover at least a part of his lost authority. But in the month of September, Don John was seized with a burning fever, and died on October 1st. … The new governor of the Netherlands, son of Ottavio Farnese, Prince of Parma, and of Margaret of Parma, sister of Philip of Spain, was a very different person from any of the regents who had hitherto controlled the Netherlands. He was, or soon proved himself to be, the greatest general of the age, and he was equally, according to the statesmanship of the age, the most accomplished and versatile statesman. He had no designs beyond those of Philip, and during his long career in the Netherlands, from October, 1578, to December, 1592, he served the King of Spain as faithfully and with as few scruples as Philip could have desired. … Parma was religious, but he had no morality whatever. … He had no scruple in deceiving, lying, assassinating, and even less scruple in saying or swearing that he had done none of these things. … He had an excellent judgment of men, and indeed he had experience of the two extremes, of the exceeding baseness of the Flemish nobles, and of the lofty and pure patriotism of the Dutch patriots. Nothing indeed was more unfortunate for the Dutch than the belief which they entertained, that the Flemings who had been dragooned into uniformity, could be possibly stirred to patriotism. Alva had done his work thoroughly. It is possible to extirpate a reformation. But the success of the process is the moral ruin of those who are the subjects of the experiment. Fortunately for Parma, there was a suitor for the Netherland sovereignty, in the person of the very worst prince of the very worst royal family that ever existed in Europe, i. e., the Duke of Anjou, of the house of Valois.

This person was favoured by Orange, probably because he had detected Philip's designs on France, and thought that national jealousy would induce the French government, which was Catherine of Medici, to favour the low countries. Besides, Parma had a faction in every Flemish town, who were known as the Malcontents, who were the party of the greedy and unscrupulous nobles. And, besides Anjou, there was the party of another pretender, John Casimir, of Poland. He, however, soon left them. Parma quickly found in such dissensions plenty of men whom he could usefully bribe. He made his first purchases in the Walloon district, and secured them. The provinces here were Artois, Hainault, Lille, Douay, and Orchies. They were soon permanently reunited to Spain. On January 20, 1570, the Union of Utrecht, which was virtually the Constitution of the Dutch Republic, was agreed to. It was greater in extent on the Flemish side than the Dutch Republic finally remained, less on that of Friesland [comprising Holland, Zeland, Gelderland, Zutphen, Utrecht, and the Frisian provinces]. Orange still had hopes of including most of the Netherland seaboard, and he still kept up the form of allegiance to Philip. The principal event of the year was the siege and capture of Maestricht [with the slaughter of almost its entire population of 34,000]. … Mechlin also was betrayed by its commander, De Bours, who reconciled himself to Romanism, and received the pay for his treason from Parma at the same time. In March, 1580, a similar act of treason was committed by Count Renneberg, the governor of Friesland, who betrayed its chief city, Groningen. … In the same year, 1580, was published the ban of Philip. This instrument, drawn up by Cardinal Granvelle, declared Orange to be a traitor and miscreant, made him an outlaw, put a heavy price on his head (25,000 gold crowns), offered the assassin the pardon of any crime, however heinous, and nobility, whatever be his rank. … William answered the ban by a vigorous appeal to the civilized world. … Renneberg, the traitor, laid siege to Steenwyk, the principal fortress of Drenthe, at the beginning of 1581. … In February, John Norris, the English general, … relieved the town. Renneberg raised the siege, was defeated in July by the same Norris, and died, full of remorse, a few days afterwards. But the most important event in 1581 was the declaration of Dutch Independence formally issued at the Hague on the 26th of July. By this instrument, Orange, though most unwillingly, felt himself obliged to accept the sovereignty over Holland and Zeland, and whatever else of the seven provinces was in the hands of the patriots. The Netherlands were now divided into three portions. The Walloon provinces in the south were reconciled to Philip and Parma. The middle provinces were under the almost nominal sovereignty of Anjou, the northern were under William. … Philip's name was now discarded from public documents … ; his seal was broken, and William was thereafter to conduct the government in his own name. The instrument was styled an 'Act of Abjuration.'"

ALSO IN: J. L. Motley, The Rise of the Dutch Republic, part 5, chapters 4-5, and part 6, chapters 1-4.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1581-1584.
   Refusal of the sovereignty of the United Provinces by Orange.
   Its bestowal upon the Duke of Anjou.
   Base treachery of Anjou.
   The "French Fury" at Antwerp.
   Assassination of the Prince of Orange.

   "What, then, was the condition of the nation, after this great
   step [the Act of Abjuration] had been taken? It stood, as it
   were, with its sovereignty in its hand, dividing it into two
   portions, and offering it, thus separated, to two distinct
   individuals. The sovereignty of Holland and Zealand had been
   reluctantly accepted by Orange. The sovereignty of the United
   Provinces had been offered to Anjou, but the terms of
   agreement with that Duke had not yet been ratified. The
   movement was therefore triple, consisting of an abjuration and
   of two separate elections of hereditary chiefs; these two
   elections being accomplished in the same manner by the
   representative bodies respectively of the united provinces and
   of Holland and Zealand. … Without a direct intention on the
   part of the people or its leaders to establish a republic, the
   Republic established itself. Providence did not permit the
   whole country, so full of wealth, intelligence, healthy
   political action—so stocked with powerful cities and an
   energetic population, to be combined into one free and
   prosperous commonwealth. The factious ambition of a few
   grandees, the cynical venality of many nobles, the frenzy of
   the Ghent democracy, the spirit of religious intolerance, the
   consummate military and political genius of Alexander Farnese,
   the exaggerated self-abnegation and the tragic fate of Orange,
   all united to dissever this group of flourishing and kindred
   provinces. The want of personal ambition on the part of
   William the Silent inflicted, perhaps, a serious damage upon
   his country. He believed a single chief requisite for the
   united states; he might have been, but always refused to
   become that chief; and yet he has been held up for centuries
   by many writers as a conspirator and a self-seeking intriguer.
   … 'These provinces,' said John of Nassau, 'are coming very
   unwillingly into the arrangement with the Duke of Alençon
   [soon afterwards made Duke of Anjou]. The majority feel much
   more inclined to elect the Prince, who is daily, and without
   intermission, implored to give his consent. … He refuses
   only on this account—that it may not be thought that,
   instead of religious freedom for the country, he has been
   seeking a kingdom for himself and his own private advancement.
   Moreover, he believes that the connexion with France will be
   of more benefit to the country and to Christianity.' … The
   unfortunate negotiations with Anjou, to which no man was more
   opposed than Count John, proceeded therefore. In the meantime,
   the sovereignty over the united provinces was provisionally
   held by the national council, and, at the urgent solicitation
   of the states-general, by the Prince. The Archduke Matthias,
   whose functions were most unceremoniously brought to an end by
   the transactions which we have been recording, took his leave
   of the states, and departed in the month of October. … Thus
   it was arranged that, for the present, at least, the Prince
   should exercise sovereignty over Holland and Zealand; although
   he had himself used his utmost exertions to induce those
   provinces to join the rest of the United Netherlands in the
   proposed election of Anjou.
{2270}
   This, however, they sternly refused to do. There was also a
   great disinclination felt by many in the other states to this
   hazardous offer of their allegiance, and it was the personal
   influence of Orange that eventually carried the measure
   through. … By midsummer [1581] the Duke of Anjou made his
   appearance in the western part of the Netherlands. The Prince
   of Parma had recently come before Cambray with the intention
   of reducing that important city. On the arrival of Anjou,
   however, … Alexander raised the siege precipitately and
   retired towards Tournay," to which he presently laid siege,
   and which was surrendered to him in November.

J. L. Motley, The Rise of the Dutch Republic, part 6, chapters 4-5 (volume 3).

Meantime, the Duke of Anjou had visited England, paying court to Queen Elizabeth, whom he hoped to marry, but who declined the alliance after making the acquaintance of her suitor. "Elizabeth made all the reparation in her power, by the honours paid him on his dismissal. She accompanied him as far as Canterbury, and sent him away under the convoy of the earl of Leicester, her chief favourite; and with a brilliant suite and a fleet of fifteen sail. Anjou was received at Antwerp with equal distinction; and was inaugurated there on the 19th of February [1582] as Duke of Brabant, Lothier, Limbourg, and Guelders, with many other titles, of which he soon proved himself unworthy. … During the rejoicings which followed this inauspicious ceremony, Philip's proscription against the Prince of Orange put forth its first fruits. The latter gave a grand dinner in the chateau of Antwerp, which he occupied, on the 18th of March, the birth-day of the duke of Anjou." As he quitted the dining hall, he was shot in the cheek by a young man who approached him with the pretence of offering a petition, and who proved to be the tool of a Spanish merchant at Antwerp, with whom Philip of Spain had contracted for the procurement of the assassination. The wound inflicted was severe but not fatal. "Within three months, William was able to accompany the duke of Anjou in his visits to Ghent, Bruges, and the other chief towns of Flanders; in each of which the ceremony of inauguration was repeated. Several military exploits now took place [the most important of them being the capture of Oudenarde, after a protracted siege, by the Prince of Parma]. … The duke of Anjou, intemperate, inconstant, and unprincipled, saw that his authority was but the shadow of power. … The French officers, who formed his suite and possessed all his confidence, had no difficulty in raising his discontent into treason against the people with whom he had made a solemn compact. The result of their councils was a deep-laid plot against Flemish liberty; and its execution was ere-long attempted. He sent secret orders to the governors of Dunkirk, Bruges, Termonde, and other towns, to seize on and hold them in his name; reserving for himself the infamy of the enterprise against Antwerp. To prepare for its execution, he caused his numerous army of French and Swiss to approach the city." Then, on the 17th of January, 1583, with his body guard of 200 horse, he suddenly attacked and slew the Flemish guards at one of the gates and admitted the troops waiting outside. "The astonished but intrepid citizens, recovering from their confusion, instantly flew to arms. All differences in religion or politics were forgotten in the common danger to their freedom. … The ancient spirit of Flanders seemed to animate all. Workmen, armed with the instruments of their various trades, started from their shops and flung themselves upon the enemy. … The French were driven successively from the streets and ramparts. … The duke of Anjou saved himself by flight, and reached Termonde. His loss in this base enterprise [known as the French Fury] amounted to 1,500; while that of the citizens did not exceed 80 men. The attempts simultaneously made on the other towns succeeded at Dunkirk and Termonde; but all the others failed. The character of the Prince of Orange never appeared so thoroughly great as at this crisis. With wisdom and magnanimity rarely equalled and never surpassed, he threw himself and his authority between the indignation of the country and the guilt of Anjou; saving the former from excess and the latter from execration. The disgraced and discomfited duke proffered to the states excuses as mean as they were hypocritical. … A new treaty was negotiated, confirming Anjou in his former station, with renewed security against any future treachery on his part. He in the mean time retired to France," where he died, June 10, 1584. Exactly one month afterwards (July 10), Prince William was murdered, in his house, at Delft, by Balthazar Gerard, one of the many assassins whom Philip II. and Parma had so persistently sent against him. He was shot as he placed his foot upon the first step of the great stair in his house, after dining in a lower apartment, and he died in a few moments.

ALSO IN: J. A. Froude, History of England: Reign of Elizabeth, chapters 26, 29, 31-32 (volume 5-6).

D. Campbell, The Puritan in Holland, England, and America, chapter 4 (volume 1).

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1584-1585.
   Limits of the United Provinces and the Spanish Provinces.
   The Republican constitution of the United Provinces,
   and the organization of their government.
   Disgraceful surrender of Ghent.
   Practical recovery of Flanders and Brabant by the Spanish king.

At the time of the assassination of the Prince of Orange, "the limit of the Spanish or 'obedient' Provinces, on the one hand, and of the United Provinces on the other, cannot … be briefly and distinctly stated. The memorable treason—or, as it was called, the 'reconciliation' of the Walloon Provinces in the year 1583-4—had placed the Provinces of Hainault, Arthois, Douay, with the flourishing cities, Arras, Valenciennes, Lille, Tournay, and others—all Celtic Flanders, in short—in the grasp of Spain. Cambray was still held by the French governor, Seigneur de Balagny, who had taken advantage of the Duke of Anjou's treachery to the States, to establish himself in an unrecognized but practical petty sovereignty, in defiance both of France and Spain; while East Flanders and South Brabant still remained a disputed territory, and the immediate field of contest. With these limitations, it may be assumed, for general purposes, that the territory of the United States was that of the modern Kingdom of the Netherlands, while the obedient Provinces occupied what is now the territory of Belgium. … {2271} What now was the political position of the United Provinces at this juncture? The sovereignty which had been held by the Estates, ready to be conferred respectively upon Anjou and Orange, remained in the hands of the Estates. There was no opposition to this theory. … The people, as such, claimed no sovereignty. … What were the Estates? … The great characteristic of the Netherland government was the municipality. Each Province contained a large number of cities, which were governed by a board of magistrates, varying in number from 20 to 40. This college, called the Vroedschap (Assembly of Sages), consisted of the most notable citizens, and was a self-electing body—a close corporation—the members being appointed for life, from the citizens at large. Whenever vacancies occurred from death or loss of citizenship, the college chose new members—sometimes immediately, sometimes by means of a double or triple selection of names, the choice of one from among which was offered to the stadtholder [governor, or sovereign's deputy] of the province. This functionary was appointed by the Count, as he was called, whether Duke of Bavaria or of Burgundy, Emperor, or King. After the abjuration of Philip [1581], the governors were appointed by the Estates of each Province. The Sage-Men chose annually a board of senators, or schepens, whose functions were mainly judicial; and there were generally two, and sometimes three, burgomasters, appointed in the same way. This was the popular branch of the Estates. But, besides this body of representatives, were the nobles, men of ancient lineage and large possessions, who had exercised, according to the general feudal law of Europe, high, low, and intermediate jurisdiction upon their estates, and had long been recognized as an integral part of the body politic, having the right to appear, through delegates of their order, in the provincial and in the general assemblies. Regarded as a machine for bringing the most decided political capacities into the administration of public affairs, and for organizing the most practical opposition to the system of religious tyranny, the Netherland constitution was a healthy, and, for the age, an enlightened one. … Thus constituted was the commonwealth upon the death of William the Silent. The gloom produced by that event was tragical. Never in human history was a more poignant and universal sorrow for the death of any individual. The despair was, for a brief season, absolute; but it was soon succeeded by more lofty sentiments. … Even on the very day of the murder, the Estates of Holland, then sitting at Delft, passed a resolution 'to maintain the good cause, with God's help, to the uttermost, without sparing gold or blood.' … The next movement, after the last solemn obsequies had been rendered to the Prince, was to provide for the immediate wants of his family. For the man who had gone into the revolt with almost royal revenues, left his estate so embarrassed that his carpets, tapestries, household linen—nay, even his silver spoons, and the very clothes of his wardrobe—were disposed of at auction for the benefit of his creditors. He left eleven children—a son and daughter by the first wife, a son and daughter by Anna of Saxony, six daughters by Charlotte of Bourbon, and an infant, Frederic Henry, born six months before his death. The eldest son, Philip William, had been a captive in Spain for seventeen years, having been kidnapped from school, in Leyden, in the year 1567. He had already become … thoroughly Hispaniolized under the masterly treatment of the King and the Jesuits. … The next son was Maurice, then 17 years of age. … Grandson of Maurice of Saxony, whom he resembled in visage and character, he was summoned by every drop of blood in his veins to do life-long battle with the spirit of Spanish absolutism, and he was already girding himself for his life's work. … Very soon afterwards the States General established a State Council, as a provisional executive board, for the term of three months, for the Provinces of Holland, Zeeland, Utrecht, Friesland, and such parts of Flanders and Brabant as still remained in the Union. At the head of this body was placed young Maurice, who accepted the responsible position, after three days' deliberation. … The Council consisted of three members from Brabant, two from Flanders, four from Holland, three from Zeeland, two from Utrecht, one from Mechlin, and three from Friesland—eighteen in all. They were empowered and enjoined to levy troops by land and sea, and to appoint naval and military officers; to establish courts of admiralty, to expend the moneys voted by the States, to maintain the ancient privileges of the country, and to see that all troops in service of the Provinces made oath of fidelity to the Union. Diplomatic relations, questions of peace and war, the treaty-making power, were not entrusted to the Council, without the knowledge and consent of the States General, which body was to be convoked twice a year by the State Council. … Alexander of Parma … was swift to take advantage of the calamity which had now befallen the rebellious Provinces. … In Holland and Zeeland the Prince's blandishments were of no avail. … In Flanders and Brabant the spirit was less noble. Those provinces were nearly lost already. Bruges [which had made terms with the King early in 1584] seconded Parma's efforts to induce its sister-city Ghent to imitate its own baseness in surrendering without a struggle; and that powerful, turbulent, but most anarchical little commonwealth was but too ready to listen to the voice of the tempter. … Upon the 17th August [1584] Dendermonde surrendered. … Upon the 7th September Vilvoorde capitulated, by which event the water-communication between Brussels and Antwerp was cut off, Ghent, now thoroughly disheartened, treated with Parma likewise; and upon the 17th September made its reconciliation with the King. The surrender of so strong and important a place was as disastrous to the cause of the patriots as it was disgraceful to the citizens themselves. It was, however, the result of an intrigue which had been long spinning. … The noble city of Ghent—then as large as Paris, thoroughly surrounded with moats, and fortified with bulwarks, ravelins, and counterscarps, constructed of earth, during the previous two years, at great expense, and provided with bread and meat, powder and shot, enough to last a year—was ignominiously surrendered. The population, already a very reduced and slender one for the great extent of the place and its former importance, had been estimated at 70,000. {2272} The number of houses was 35,000, so that, as the inhabitants were soon farther reduced to one-half, there remained but one individual to each house. On the other hand, the 25 monasteries and convents in the town were repeopled. … The fall of Brussels was deferred till March, and that of Mechlin (19th July, 1585), and of Antwerp [see below] (19th August, 1585), till Midsummer of the following year; but the surrender of Ghent foreshadowed the fate of Flanders and Brabant. Ostend and Sluys, however, were still in the hands of the patriots, and with them the control of the whole Flemish coast. The command of the sea was destined to remain for centuries with the new republic."

      J. L. Motley,
      History of the United Netherlands,
      chapter 1 (volume 1).

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1584-1585.
The Siege and surrender of Antwerp.
Decay of the city.

"After the fall of Ghent, Farnese applied himself earnestly to the siege of Antwerp, one of the most memorable recorded in history. The citizens were animated in their defence by the valour and talent of Ste Aldegonde. It would be impossible to detail with minuteness in this general history the various contrivances resorted to on either side for the attack and the defence; and we must therefore content ourselves with briefly adverting to that stupendous monument of Farnese's military genius, the bridge which he carried across the Scheldt, below Antwerp, in order to cut off the communication of the city with the sea and the maritime provinces. From the depth and wideness of the river, the difficulty of finding the requisite materials, and of transporting them to the place selected in the face of an enemy that was superior on the water, the project was loudly denounced by Farnese's officers as visionary and impracticable; yet in spite of all these discouragements and difficulties, as the place seemed unapproachable in the usual way, he steadily persevered, and at last succeeded in an undertaking which, had he failed, would have covered him with perpetual ridicule. The spot fixed upon for the bridge was between Ordam and Kalloo, where the river is both shallower and narrower than at other parts. The bridge consisted of piles driven into the water to such distance as its depth would allow; which was 200 feet on the Flanders side and 900 feet on that of Brabant. The interval between the piles, which was 12 feet broad, was covered with planking; but at the extremities towards the centre of the river the breadth was extended to 40 feet, thus forming two forts, or platforms, mounted with cannon. There was still, however, an interstice in the middle of between 1,000 and 1,100 feet, through which the ships of the enemy, favoured by the wind and tide, or by the night, could manage to pass without any considerable loss, and which it therefore became necessary to fill up. This was accomplished by mooring across it the hulls of 32 vessels, at intervals of about 20 feet apart, and connecting them together with planks. Each vessel was planted with artillery and garrisoned by about 30 men; while the bridge was protected by a flota of vessels moored on each side, above and below, at a distance of about 200 feet. During the construction of the bridge, which lasted half a year, the citizens of Antwerp viewed with dismay the progress of a work that was not only to deprive them of their maritime commerce, but also of the supplies necessary for their subsistence and defence. At length they adopted a plan suggested by Gianbelli, an Italian engineer, and resolved to destroy the bridge by means of fire-ships, which seem to have been first used on this occasion. Several such vessels were sent down the river with a favourable tide and wind, of which two were charged with 6,000 or 7,000 lbs. of gunpowder each, packed in solid masonry, with various destructive missiles. One of these vessels went ashore before reaching its destination; the other arrived at the bridge and exploded with terrible effect. Curiosity to behold so novel a spectacle had attracted vast numbers of the Spaniards, who lined the shores as well as the bridge. Of these 800 were killed by the explosion, and by the implements of destruction discharged with the powder; a still greater number were maimed and wounded, and the bridge itself was considerably damaged. Farnese himself was thrown to the earth and lay for a time insensible. The besieged, however, did not follow up their plan with vigour. They allowed Farnese time to repair the damage, and the Spaniards, being now on the alert, either diverted the course of the fire-ships that were subsequently sent against them, or suffered them to pass the bridge through openings made for the purpose. In spite of the bridge, however, the beleaguered citizens might still have secured a transit down the river by breaking through the dykes between Antwerp and Lillo, and sailing over the plains thus laid under water, for which purpose it was necessary to obtain possession of the counter-dyke of Kowenstyn; but after a partial success, too quickly abandoned by Hohenlohe and Ste Aldegonde, they were defeated in a bloody battle which they fought upon the dyke. Antwerp was now obliged to capitulate; and as Farnese was anxious to put an end to so long a siege, it obtained more favourable terms than could have been anticipated (August 17th 1585). The prosperity of this great commercial city received, however, a severe blow from its capture by the Spaniards. A great number of the citizens, as well as of the inhabitants of Brabant and Flanders, removed to Amsterdam and Middelburg."

The downfall of the prosperity of the great capital "was instantaneous. The merchants and industrious citizens all wandered away from the place which had been the seat of a world-wide traffic. Civilization and commerce departed, and in their stead were the citadel and the Jesuits."

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1585-1586.
   Proffered sovereignty of the United Provinces
   declined by France and England.
   Delusive English succors.
   The queen's treachery and Leicester's incompetency.
   Useless battle at Zutphen.

   "It was natural that so small a State, wasted by its
   protracted struggles, should desire, more earnestly than ever,
   an alliance with some stronger power; and it was from among
   States supposed to have sympathies with Protestants, that such
   an alliance was sought. From the Protestant countries of
   Germany there was no promise of help; and the eyes of the
   Dutch diplomatists were therefore turned towards France and
   England. In France, the Huguenots, having recovered from St.
   Bartholomew, now enjoyed toleration; and were a rising and
   hopeful party, under the patronage of Henry of Navarre.
{2273}
   If the king of France would protect Holland from Philip, and
   extend to its people the same toleration which he allowed his
   own subjects, Holland offered him the sovereignty of the
   united provinces. This tempting offer was declined: for a new
   policy was now to be declared, which united France and Spain
   in a bigoted crusade against the Protestant faith. The League,
   under the Duke de Guise, gained a fatal ascendency over the
   weak and frivolous king, Henry III., and held dominion in
   France. … Nor was the baneful influence of the League
   confined to France: it formed a close alliance with Philip and
   the Pope, with whom it was plotting the overthrow of
   Protestant England, the subjection of the revolted provinces
   of Spain, and the general extirpation of heresy throughout
   Europe. … The only hope of the Netherlands was now in
   England, which was threatened by a common danger; and envoys
   were sent to Elizabeth with offers of the sovereignty, which
   had been declined by France. So little did the Dutch statesmen
   as yet contemplate a republic, that they offered their country
   to any sovereign, in return for protection. Had bolder
   counsels prevailed, Elizabeth might, at once, have saved the
   Netherlands, and placed herself at the head of the Protestants
   of Europe. She saw her own danger, if Philip should recover
   the provinces: but she held her purse-strings with the grasp
   of a miser: she dreaded an open rupture with Spain; and she
   was unwilling to provoke her own Catholic subjects. Sympathy
   with the Protestant cause, she had none. … She desired to
   afford as much assistance as would protect her own realm
   against Philip, at the least possible cost, without
   precipitating a war with Spain. She agreed to send men and
   money: but required Flushing, Brill, and Rammekens to be held
   as a security for her loans. She refused the sovereignty of
   the States: but she despatched troops to the Netherlands, and
   sent her favourite, the Earl of Leicester, to command them. As
   she had taken the rebellious subjects of Spain under her
   protection, Philip retaliated by the seizure of British ships.
   Spanish vengeance was not averted, while the Netherlands
   profited little by her aid."

Leicester sailed for the Hague in the middle of December, 1585, having been preceded by 8,000 English troops, eager to prevent or revenge the fall of Antwerp. "Had there been good faith and resolution, and had Lord Grey, or Sir Richard Bingham, or Sir John Norris been in command, 20,000 Dutch and English troops might have taken the field in perfect condition. The States would have spent their last dollar to find them in everything which soldiers could need. They would have had at their backs the enthusiastic sympathy of the population, while the enemy was as universally abhorred; and Parma, exhausted by his efforts in the great siege, with his chest empty, and his ranks thinned almost to extinction, could not have encountered them with a third of their numbers. A lost battle would have been followed by a renewed revolt of the reconciled Provinces, and Elizabeth, if she found peace so necessary to her, might have dictated her own conditions." But months passed and nothing was done, while Queen Elizabeth was treacherously negotiating with agents of Spain. In the summer of 1586, "half and more than half of the brave men who had come over in the past September were dead. Their places were taken by new levies gathered in haste upon the highways, or by mutinous regiments of Irish kernes, confessed Catholics, and led by a man [Sir William Stanley] who was only watching an opportunity to betray his sovereign. … Gone was now the enthusiasm which had welcomed the landing of Leicester. In the place of it was suspicion and misgiving, distracted councils, and divided purposes. Elizabeth while she was diplomatising held her army idle. Parma, short-handed as he was, treated with his hand upon his sword, and was for ever carving slice on slice from the receding frontiers of the States. At the time of Leicester's installation he was acting on the Meuse. He held the river as far as Venloo. Venloo and Grave were in the hands of the patriots, both of them strong fortresses, the latter especially. … After the fall of Antwerp these two towns were Parma's next object. The siege of Grave was formed in January. In April Colonel Norris and Count Hohenlohe forced the Spanish lines and threw in supplies; but Elizabeth's orders prevented further effort. Parma came before the town in person in June, and after a bombardment which produced little or no effect, Grave, to the surprise of everyone, surrendered. Count Hemart, the governor, was said to have been corrupted, by his mistress. Leicester hanged him; but Hemart's gallows did not recover Grave or save Venloo, which surrendered also three weeks later. The Earl, conscious of the disgrace, yet seeing no way to mend it, … was willing at last to play into his mistress's hands. He understood her [Queen Elizabeth] at last, and saw what she was aiming at. 'As the cause is now followed,' he wrote to her on the 27th of June, 'it is not worth the cost or the danger. … They [the Netherlanders] would rather have lived with bread and drink under your Majesty's protection than with all their possessions under the King of Spain. It has almost broken their hearts to think your Majesty should not care any more for them. But if you mean soon to leave them they will be gone almost before you hear of it. I will do my best, therefore, to get into my hands three or four most principal places in North Holland, so as you shall rule these men, and make war and peace as you list. Part not with Brill for anything. With these places you can have what peace you will in an hour, and have your debts and charges readily answered. But your Majesty must deal graciously with them at present, and if you mean to leave them keep it to yourself.' … No palliation can be suggested, of the intentions to which Leicester saw that she was still clinging, and which he was willing to further in spite of his oath to be loyal to the States. … The incapacity of Leicester … was growing evident. He had been used as a lay figure to dazzle the eyes of the Provinces, while both he and they were mocked by the secret treaty. The treaty was hanging fire. … The Queen had … so far opened her eyes as to see that she was not improving her position by keeping her army idle; and Leicester, that he might not part with his government in entire disgrace, having done absolutely nothing, took the field for a short campaign in the middle of August [1586]. {2274} Parma had established himself in Gelderland, at Zutphen, and Duesberg. The States held Deventer, further down the Issel; but Deventer would probably fall as Grave and Venloo had fallen if the Spaniards kept their hold upon the river; Leicester therefore proposed to attempt to recover Zutphen. Everyone was delighted to be moving. … The Earl of Essex, Sir William Russell, Lord Willoughby, and others who held no special commands, attached themselves to Leicester's staff; Sir Philip Sidney obtained leave of absence from Flushing; Sir John Norris and his brother brought the English contingent of the States army; Sir William Stanley had arrived with his Irishmen; and with these cavaliers glittering about him, and 9,000 men, Leicester entered Gelderland. Duesberg surrendered to him without a blow; Norris surprised a fort outside Zutphen, which commanded the river and straitened the communications of the town." Parma made an attempt, on the morning of September 22, to throw supplies into the town, and Leicester's knights and gentlemen, forewarned of this project by a spy, "Volunteered for an ambuscade to cut off the convoy. … Parma brought with him every man that he could spare, and the ambuscade party were preparing unconsciously to encounter 4,000 of the best troops in the world. They were in all about 500. … The morning was misty. The waggons were heard coming, but nothing could be seen till a party of horse appeared at the head of the train where the ambuscade was lying. Down charged the 500, much as in these late years 600 English lancers charged elsewhere, as magnificently and as uselessly. … Never had been a more brilliant action seen or heard of, never one more absurd and profitless. For the ranks of the Spanish infantry were unbroken, the English could not touch them, could not even approach them, and behind the line of their muskets the waggons passed steadily to the town. … A few, not many, had been killed; but among those whose lives had been flung away so wildly was Philip Sidney. He was struck by a musket ball on his exposed thigh, as he was returning from his last charge," and died a few weeks later. "Parma immediately afterwards entered Zutphen unmolested. … Leicester's presence was found necessary in England. With the natural sympathy of one worthless person for another, he had taken a fancy to Stanley, and chose to give him an independent command; and leaving the government to the Council of the States, and the army again without a chief, he sailed in November for London."

J. A. Froude, History of England: The Reign of Elizabeth, chapter 33 (volume 6).

      ALSO IN:
      Correspondence of Leicester during his
      Government of the Low Countries
      (Camden Society 27).

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1587-1588.
   The ruin of the Spanish Provinces.
   Great prosperity of the United Provinces.
   Siege and capture of Sluys.
   The last of Leicester.

"Though the United Provinces were distracted by domestic dissensions and enfeebled by mutual distrust, their condition, compared with that portion of the Netherlands reduced under the yoke of Spain, was such as to afford matter of deep gratulation and thankfulness. The miseries of war had visited the latter unhappy country in the fullest measure; multitudes of its inhabitants had fled in despair; and the sword, famine, and pestilence, vied with each other in destroying the remainder. … The rich and smiling pastures, once the admiration and envy of the less favoured countries of Europe, were now no more; woods, roads, and fields, were confounded in one tangled mass of copse and brier. In the formerly busy and wealthy towns of Flanders and Brabant, Ghent, Antwerp, and Bruges, members of noble families were seen to creep from their wretched abodes in the darkness of night to beg their bread, or to search the streets for bones and offal. A striking and cheering contrast is the picture presented by the United Provinces. The crops had, indeed, failed there also, but the entire command of the sea which they preserved, and the free importation of corn, secured plentiful supplies. … They continued to carry on, under Spanish colours, a lucrative half-smuggling traffic, which the government of that nation found it its interest to connive at and encourage. The war, therefore, instead of being, as usual, an hindrance to commerce, rather gave it a new stimulus; the ports were crowded with vessels. … Holland and Zealand had now for more than ten years been delivered from the enemy. … The security they thus offered, combined with the freedom of religion, and the activity of trade and commerce, drew vast multitudes to their shores; the merchants and artisans expelled, on account of their religion, from the Spanish Netherlands, transferred thither the advantages of their enterprise and skill. … The population of the towns became so overflowing that it was found impossible to build houses fast enough to contain it. … The miserable condition of the Spanish Netherlands, and the difficulty of finding supplies for his troops, caused the Duke of Parma to delay taking the field until late in the summer [1587]; when, making a feint attack upon Ostend, he afterwards … commenced a vigorous siege of Sluys. In order to draw him off from this undertaking, Maurice, with the Count of Hohenlohe, marched towards Bois-le-Duc. … The danger of Sluys hastened the return of the Earl of Leicester to the Netherlands, who arrived in Ostend with 7,000 foot and 500 horse. … Sluys had been besieged seven weeks, and the garrison was reduced from 1,600 men to scarcely half that number, when Leicester made an attempt to master the fort of Blankenburg, in the neighbourhood of the enemy's camp; but on intelligence that Parma was approaching to give him battle, he hastily retreated to Ostend," and Sluys was surrendered. "The loss of Sluys exasperated the dissensions between Leicester and the States into undisguised and irreconcilable hostility." He was soon afterwards recalled to England, and early in the following year the queen required him to resign his command and governorship in the Netherlands. In the meantime, the English queen had reopened negotiations with Parma, who occupied her attention while his master, Philip II. of Spain, was preparing the formidable Armada which he launched against England the next year

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1588-1593.
   Successes of Prince Maurice.
   Departure of Parma to France.
   His death.
   Appointment of Archduke Albert to the Government.

"The destruction of the great Spanish Armada by the English in 1588 infused new hopes into all the enemies of Spain, and animated the Dutch with such courage, that Maurice led his army against that of the Duke of Parma, and forced him to raise the siege of Bergen-op-Zoom, at that time garrisoned by a portion of Leicester's army under the command of Sir Francis Vere. … The young Stadtholder was induced by this success to surprise the Castle of Blyenbeck, which was yielded to his arms in 1589; and the following year [March 1] he got possession of Breda by a 'ruse de guerre,'"—having introduced 70 men into the town by concealing them in a boat laden with turf. "The Duke of Parma was now recalled from the Low Countries into France [see FRANCE: A. D. 1590], and the old Peter Ernest, Count de Mansfeld, succeeded to the government of the Low Countries. … Maurice defeated the Spanish army in the open field at Caervorden, and took Nimeguen [October 21, 1591] and Zutphen [May 30, 1591; also, Deventer, June 10, of the same year]. … These successes added greatly to the reputation of Count Maurice, who now made considerable progress, so that in the year 1591 the Dutch saw their frontiers extended, and had well-grounded hopes of driving the Spaniards out of Friesland in another campaign. … The death of the Prince of Parma [which occurred December 3, 1592] delivered the Confederates from a formidable adversary; but old Count Mansfeld, at the head of an army of 30,000 men, took the field against them. Maurice, however, in 1593, notwithstanding this covering force, sat down before Gertruydenberg, advantageously situated on the frontier of Brabant." The siege was regarded as a masterpiece of the military art of the day, and the city was brought to surrender at the end of three months. "With the useful aid of Sir Francis Vere and the English, Maurice afterwards took Gronenburg and Grave, which formed part of his own patrimony. The Duke of Parma was succeeded in the government of the Netherlands by the Archduke Albert, a younger son of the Emperor Maximilian, who was married to Isabella, daughter of King Philip."

Sir E. Cust, Lives of the Warriors of the Thirty Years' War: Maurice of Orange-Nassau, pages 25-28.

      ALSO IN:
      C. R. Markham,
      The Fighting Veres,
      part 1, chapters 10-15.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1594-1609.
   Steady decline of Spanish power.
   Sovereignty of the provinces made over to the Infanta
   Isabella and the Archduke, her husband.
   Death of Philip II.
   Negotiations for peace.
   A twelve years' truce agreed upon.
   Acknowledgment of the independence of the republic.

"Philip's French enterprise had failed. The dashing and unscrupulous Henry of Navarre had won his crown, by conforming to the Catholic faith. …

Great was the shock given by his politic apostacy to the religious sentiments of Europe: but it was fatal to the ambition of Philip; and again the Netherlands could count upon the friendship of a king of France. Their own needs were great: but the gallant little republic still found means to assist the Protestant champion against their common enemy, the king of Spain. In the Netherlands the Spanish power was declining. The feeble successors of Parma were no match for Maurice of Nassau and the republican leaders: the Spanish troops were starving and mutinous: the provinces under Spanish rule were reduced to wretchedness and beggary. Cities and fortresses fell, one after another, into the hands of the stadtholder. The Dutch fleet joined that of England in a raid upon Spain itself, captured and sacked Cadiz [see SPAIN: A. D. 1596], raised the flag of the republic on the battlements of that famous city; and left the Spanish fleet burning in the harbour. Other events followed, deeply affecting the fortunes of the republic. Philip at length made peace with Henry of Navarre, and was again free to coerce his revolted provinces. But his accursed rule was drawing to a close. In 1598 he made over the sovereignty of the Netherlands to the Infanta Isabella and her affianced husband, the Archduke Albert, who had cast aside his cardinal's hat, his archbishopric, and his priestly vows of celibacy, for a consort so endowed. Philip had ceased to reign in the Netherlands; and a few months afterwards [September 13, 1598] he closed his evil life, in the odour of sanctity. … The tyrant was dead: the little republic, which he had scourged so cruelly, was living and prosperous. … Far different was the lot of the ill-fated provinces still in the grasp of the tyrant. The land lay waste and desolate: its inhabitants had tied to England or Holland, or were reduced to want and beggary. … That the republic should have outlived its chief oppressor was an event of happy augury: but years of trial and danger were still to be passed through. The victory of Nieuport [gained July 2, 1600, by an army of Dutch and English over the superior forces of the Archduke Albert] raised Prince Maurice's fame, as a soldier, to its highest point; and the gallant defence of Ostend, for upwards of three years [against a siege, conducted by the Spanish general Spinola, to which its garrison finally succumbed in 1604, when the town was a heap of ruins, and after 100,000 men are said to have been sacrificed on both sides] … proved that the courage and endurance of his soldiers had not declined during the protracted war [while Sluys was taken by the Prince the same year]. At sea the Dutch fleets won new victories over the Spaniards and Portuguese; and privateers made constant ravages upon the enemy's commerce. But there were also failures and reverses, on the side of the republic, dissensions among its leaders, and anxieties concerning the attitude of foreign States. And thus, with varied fortunes, this momentous war had now continued for upwards of forty years. … On both sides there was a desire for peace. The Dutch would accept nothing short of unconditional independence: the Spaniards almost despaired of reducing them to subjection, while they dreaded more republican victories at sea, and the extension of Dutch maritime enterprise in the East. Overtures for peace were first made cautiously and secretly by the archdukes ['this was the title of the archduke and archduchess'], and received by the States with grave distrust. Jealous and haughty was the bearing of the republic, in the negotiations which ensued. The states-general, in full session, represented Holland, and received the Spanish envoys. The independence of the States was accepted, on both sides, as the basis of any treaty: but, as a preliminary to the negotiations, the republic insisted upon its formal recognition, as a free and equal State, in words dictated by itself. … {2276} At length an armistice was signed, in order to arrange the terms of a treaty of peace. It was a welcome breathing time: but peace was still beset with difficulties and obstacles. The Spaniards were insincere: they could not bring themselves to treat seriously, and in good faith, with heretics and rebels: they desired the re-establishment of the Church of Rome; and they claimed the exclusive right of trading with the East and West Indies. The councils of the republic were also divided. Barneveldt, the civilian, was bent upon peace: Prince Maurice, the soldier, was burning for the renewal of the war. But Barneveldt and the peace party prevailed, and negotiations were continued. Again and again, the armistice was renewed: but a treaty of peace seemed as remote as ever. At length [April 9, 1609], after infinite disputes, a truce for twelve years was agreed upon. In form it was a truce, and not a treaty of peace: but otherwise the republic gained every point upon which it had insisted. Its freedom and independence were unconditionally recognised: it accepted no conditions concerning religion: it made no concessions in regard to its trade with the Indies. The great battle for freedom was won: the republic was free: its troubles and perils were at an end. Its oppressors had been the first to sue for peace: their commissioners had treated with the states-general at the Hague; and they had yielded every point for which they had been waging war for nearly half a century."

J. L. Motley, History of the United Netherlands, chapters 30-52 (volumes 3-4).

      Douglas Campbell,
      The Puritan in Holland England, and America,
      chapter 18 (volume 2).

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1594-1620.
Rise and growth of Eastern trade.
Formation of the Dutch East India Company.

"Previous to their assertion of national independence, the commerce of the Dutch did not extend beyond the confines of Europe. But new regions of traffic were now to open to their dauntless enterprise. It was in 1594 that Cornelius Houtman, the son of It brewer at Gouda, returned from Lisbon, where, having passed the preceding year, he had seen the gorgeous produce of the East piled on the quays of the Tagus. His descriptions fired the emulation of his friends at Amsterdam, nine of whom agreed to join stock and equip a little flotilla for a voyage round the Cape of Good Hope; Houtman undertook the command, and thus the marvellous commerce of the Dutch in India began. The influence which their trade with India and their settlements there exerted in maturing and extending the greatness of the Dutch, has often been overrated. It was a source, indeed, of infinite pride, and for a time of rapid and glittering profit; but it was attended with serious drawbacks, both of national expenditure and national danger. … From the outset they were forced to go armed. The four ships that sailed on the first voyage of speculation from Amsterdam, in 1595, were fitted out for either war or merchandise. They were about to sail into hitherto interdicted waters; they knew that the Portuguese were already established in the Spice Islands, whither they were bound; and Portugal was then a dependency of Spain. On their arrival at Java, they had, consequently, to encounter open hostility both from Europeans and the natives whom the former influenced against them. At Bali, however, they were better received; and, in 1597, they reached home with a rich cargo of spices and Indian wares. It was a proud and joyous day in Amsterdam when their return was known. … From various ports of Zealand and Holland 80 vessels sailed the following year to America, Africa, and India. Vainly the Portuguese colonists laboured to convince the native princes of the East that the Dutch were a mere horde of pirates with whom no dealings were safe. Their businesslike and punctilious demeanour, and probably, likewise, the judiciously selected cargoes with which they freighted their ships outwards, whereby they were enabled to offer better terms for the silk, indigo, and spice they wished to buy, rapidly disarmed the suspicion of several of the chiefs. … In 1602 the celebrated East India Company was formed under charter granted by the States-General,—the original capital being 6,000,000 guilders, subscribed by the merchants of Delft, Rotterdam, Hoorn, Enkhuysen, Middleberg, but above all Amsterdam. They established factories at many places, both on the continent of India and in the islands; but their chief depot was fixed at Bantam," until, dissatisfied with certain taxes imposed on them by the lord of Bantam, they looked elsewhere for a station. "The sovereign of Java gladly offered them a settlement not above 100 miles distant, with full permission to erect such buildings as they chose, and an engagement that pepper (the chief spice thence exported) should be sent out of his dominions toll-free. These terms were accepted. Jocatra, a situation very propitious for traffic, was chosen as the site of their future factory. Warehouses of stone and mortar quickly rose; and dwellings, to the number of 1,000, were in a short time added. All nations had leave to settle and trade within its walls; and this was the origin of Batavia. In six years the Company sent out 46 vessels, of which 43 returned in due course laden with rich cargoes. … By the books of the Company it appeared that, during the next eleven years, they maintained 30 ships in the Eastern trade, manned by 5,000 seamen. … Two hundred per cent. was divided by the proprietors of the Company's stock on their paid-up capital in sixteen years. … But of all the proud results of their Indian commerce, that which naturally afforded to the Dutch the keenest sense of exultation, was the opportunity it afforded them of thoroughly undermining the once exclusive trade of Spain, not with foreign nations merely, but with her own colonies, and even at home. The infatuated policy of her government had prepared the way for her decline. … In the space of a few years the Dutch had taken and rifled 11 Spanish galleons, 'carkets and other huge ships, and made about 40 of them unserviceable.' So crippled was their colonial trade that, even for their own use, the Spaniards were obliged to buy nutmegs, cloves, and mace, from their hated rivals."

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1603-1619.
   Calvinistic persecution of Arminianism.
   The hunting down of John of Barneveldt by Prince Maurice.
   Synod of Dort.

Calvin's doctrine of predestination was strongly expressed in what was called the Heidelberg Catechism. "A synod of the pastors of Holland had decreed that this must be signed by all their preachers, and be to them what the Thirty-nine Articles are to the English Church and the Confession of Augsburg to the Lutherans. Many preachers hesitated to pledge themselves to doctrines that they did not think Scriptural nor according to primitive faith, and still more, not accordant with the eternal mercy of God. Of these Jacob Hermann, a minister of Amsterdam, or as he Latinised his name, Arminius, was the foremost, and under his influence a number of clergy refused their signature. The University of Leyden in 1603 chose Arminius as their Professor of Theology. The opposite party, in great wrath, insisted on holding a synod, and the States-General gave permission, but at first only on condition that there should be a revision of the confession of faith and catechism. The ministers refused, but the States-General insisted, led by John Barneveldt, then Advocate and Keeper of the Seals, who declared in their name that as 'foster fathers and protectors of the churches to them every right belonged.' It was an Erastian sentiment, but this opinion was held by all reformed governments, including the English, and Barneveldt spoke in the hope of mitigating Calvinistic violence. The Advocate of the States-General was in fact their mouthpiece. They might vote, but no one expressed their decisions at home or abroad save the Advocate; and Barneveldt, both from position and character, was thus the chief manager of civil affairs, and an equal if not a superior power to Maurice of Nassau, the Stadtholder and commander-in-chief, and recently, by the death of his elder brother, Prince of Orange. The question had even been mooted of giving him the sovereignty, but to this Barneveldt was strongly averse. Maurice knew very little about the argument, and his real feelings were Arminian, though jealousy of Barneveldt made him favour the opposite party, whose chief champion was Jacob Gomer, or Gomerus as he called himself. King James, though really holding with the Arminians, disliked Barneveldt, and therefore threw all the weight of England into the scale against them. Arguments were held before Maurice and before the university, in which three champions on the one side were pitted against three on the other, but nothing came of them but a good deal of audacious profanity, till Arminius, in ministering to the sick during a visitation of the plague at Amsterdam, caught the disease and died. He was so much respected that the University of Leyden pensioned his widow. They chose a young Genevese, named Conrad Voorst or Vorstius, as his successor. Voorst had written two books, one on the nature of God, Tractatus Theologicus de Deo, and the other, Exegesis Apologetica, in which (by Fuller's account) there was a considerable amount of materialism, and likewise what amounted to a denial of the Divine Omniscience, being no doubt a reaction from extreme Calvinism. King James met with the book, and was horrified at its statements. He conceived himself bound to interfere both as protector to the States—which he said had been cemented with English blood—and because the University of Leyden was much frequented by the youth of England and Scotland, who often completed their legal studies there. He ordered Sir Ralf Winwood, his ambassador at the Hague, to deliver a sharp remonstrance to the States, and to read them a catalogue of the dangerous and blasphemous errors that he had detected, recommending the States to protest against the appointment, and burn the books. Barneveldt was much distressed, and uncertain whether James really was speaking out of zeal for orthodoxy, or to have an excuse for a quarrel. Letters and arguments passed without number. … Leyden supported the professor it had invited, and, together with Barneveldt, felt that to expel a man whom they had chosen, at the bidding of a foreign sovereign, was almost accepting a yoke like that of the Inquisition. … Maurice, on the other hand, was glad to set the English King against Barneveldt, and to represent that support of the foes of strict Calvinism meant treachery to the Republic and a betrayal to Spain. Winwood, on the King's part, insisted on Vorstius's dismissal and banishment. … Maurice's own preacher, Uytenbogen, wrote a remonstrance on behalf of the Arminians, who were therefore sometimes termed Remonstrants, while the Gomerists, from their answer, were called Counter-Remonstrants. Unfortunately, political jealousy of Barneveldt on the part of Maurice caused the influence of Uytenbogen to decline. Most of the preachers and of the populace held to the Counter-Remonstrants and their old-fashioned Calvinism, most of the nobles and magistrates were Remonstrants. The question began to branch into a second, namely, whether the state had power to control the faith of all its subjects, and whether when it convoked a synod it could control its decisions, or was bound to enforce them absolutely and without question. … Whichever party was predominant in a place turned the other out of church. Appeals were made to the Stadtholder, and he became angry. The States-General at large, with Barneveldt to speak for them, were Remonstrant; the states of Holland were Counter-Remonstrant; and one of the questions thus at issue was how far the power of the general government outweighed that of a particular state. … By steps here impossible to follow, Maurice destroyed the ascendency of Barneveldt, and the reports that the old statesman was playing into the hands of Spain grew more and more current. The magistrates of the Arminian persuasion found themselves depending for protection on the Waartgelders, a sort of burgher militia, who endeavoured to keep the peace between the furious mobs who struggled on either side. Accusations flew about freely that now Maurice, now Barneveldt wanted the sovereignty. England favoured the former; and after Henri IV. was dead, French support little availed the latter, but rather did him harm. Maurice did not scruple to raise the popular cry that there were two factions in Holland, for Orange or for Spain, though he must have known that there never had been a more steady foe of Spain than the old statesman. The public, however, preferred the general to the statesman, and bit by bit Maurice succeeded in exchanging Remonstrant magistrates for Counter-Remonstrant, or, as Barneveldt explained the matter to Sir Dudley Carleton, who had become ambassador from England, Puritan for double Puritan. … Sunday, the 17th of July, 1617, Uytenbogen preached against the assembly of a national synod, knowing well that it would only confirm and narrow the cruel doctrine. Maurice, who was bent on the synod came out in a rage. … {2278} Barneveldt on this moved the States-General to refuse their consent to the synod as inconsistent with their laws. This was carried by a majority, and was called the Sharp Resolve. … The High Council by a majority of one set aside the Sharp Resolve, and decided for the synod. Barneveldt had a severe illness, during which Maurice's influence made progress, assisted by detestable accusations that the Advocate was in league with the Spaniards. At last Maurice mastered Utrecht, hitherto the chief hold of Arminianism. He disbanded the Waartgelders, and when the States-General came together in the summer of 1618, he had all prepared for sweeping his adversaries from his path. On the 29th of August, as Barneveldt was going to take his place at the States-General, he was told by a chamberlain that the Prince wished to speak with him, and in Maurice's ante-room was arrested by a lieutenant of the guard and locked up. In exactly the same manner was arrested his friend and supporter Pensionary Rambolt Hoogenboets, who had protested against the decree by which the High Council reversed that of the States-General, and Hugo Van Groot, or, as he called himself, Hugo Grotius, one of the greatest scholars who ever lived, especially in jurisprudence, and a strong adherent of the Advocate. … The synod met at Dordrecht [or Dort] in January, 1619, and lasted till April. The Calvinists carried the day completely, and Arminians were declared heretics, schismatics, incapable of preaching, or of acting as professors or schoolmasters, unless they signed the Heidelberg Catechism and Netherland Confession, which laid down the hard-and-fast doctrine that predestination excluded all free will on man's part, but divided the human race into vessels of wrath and vessels of mercy, without power on their own part to reverse the doom. … The trial of Barneveldt was going on at the same time with the Synod of Dordrecht after he had been many months in prison. Twenty-four commissioners were appointed, twelve from Holland, and two from each of the other states, and most of them were personal enemies of the prisoner. Before them he was examined day by day for three months, without any indictment; no witnesses, no counsel on either side; nor was he permitted pen and ink to prepare his defence, nor the use of his books and papers." Barneveldt and his family protested against the flagrant injustice and illegality of the so-called trial, but refused to sue for pardon, which Maurice was determined they should do. "It was submission that he wanted, not life"; but as the submission was not yielded he coldly exacted the life. Barneveldt was condemned and sentenced to be beheaded by the sword. The sentence was executed on the same day it was pronounced, May 12, 1619. Grotius was condemned to perpetual imprisonment, but made his escape, by the contrivance of his wife, in 1621.

ALSO IN: J. L. Motley, Life and Death of John of Barneveld, chapters 14-22 (volume 2).

NETHERLANDS: (United Provinces): A. D.1608-1620.
Residence of the exiled Independents who afterwards founded
Plymouth Colony in New England.

NETHERLANDS: (United Provinces): A. D. 1609.
The founding of the Bank of Amsterdam.

NETHERLANDS: (United Provinces): A. D. 1609.
Henry Hudson's voyage of exploration.

NETHERLANDS: (United Provinces): A. D. 1610-1614.
Possession taken of New Netherland (New York).

NETHERLANDS: (United Provinces): A. D. 1621.
Incorporation of the Dutch West India Company.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1621-1633.
   End of the Twelve Years Truce.
   Renewal of war.
   Death of Prince Maurice.
   Reversion of the sovereignty of the Spanish Provinces to
   the king of Spain.

"In 1621, the twelve years' truce being expired, the King of Spain and the Archdukes offered to renew it, on the condition that the States would acknowledge their ancient sovereigns, one of whom, the Archduke Albert, died this year. Even if the States had been inclined to negotiate, the will of Maurice was in the ascendant, and the war was renewed. The Dutch, it is true, were now entirely insulated. James of England was making overtures to Spain and being cajoled. France, who had wished to save Barneveldt, was unfriendly in consequence of the manner in which her intercession had been treated. The Dutch party which was opposed to Maurice was exasperated, and the great counsellor was no more there to advise his country in its emergencies. The safety of Holland lay in the fact that the wars of religion were being waged on a wider and more distant field, for a larger stake, and with larger armies. Not content with murdering Barneveldt, Maurice took care to ruin his family. But at last, and just before his death in 1625, Maurice, in the bitterness of disappointment, said, 'As long as the old rascal was alive, we had counsels and money; now we can find neither one nor the other.' … The memory of Barneveldt was avenged, even though his reputation has not been rehabilitated. Frederic Henry, half-brother of Maurice, was at once made Captain and Admiral-General of the States, and soon after Stadtholder. … Very speedily the controversy which had threatened to tear Holland asunder was silenced by mutual consent, except in synods and presbyteries. In a few years, Holland became, as far as the government was concerned, the most tolerant country in the world, the asylum of those whom bigotry hunted from their native land. Hence it became the favourite abode of those wealthy and enterprising Jews, who greatly increased its wealth by aiding its external and internal commerce."

"Marquis Spinola commenced the campaign by the siege of. Bergen-op-Zoom, with a considerable Spanish army, in 1622, but Maurice was enabled to meet him with the united forces of Mansfeld, Brunswick [see GERMANY: A. D. 1621-1623], and his own, and obliged the Marquis to raise the siege. He afterwards encountered Don Gonsalvo de Cordova, who endeavoured to stay their passage into Germany with a Spanish force near Fleurus; but he also was defeated. After this, however, Prince Maurice could effect nothing considerable, but maintained his ground solely by acting on the defensive during the entire year 1623. … He could not prevent the capture [by Spinola] of Breda, one of the strongest fortifications of the Low Countries. … The mortification at being unable to relieve this place during a long blockade of six months preyed upon the mind of Prince Maurice, whose health had already begun to give way. … An access of fever obliged him to quit the field and withdraw to the Hague, where he died in 1625, at the age of 58 years."

Sir E. Cust, Lives of the Warriors of the Thirty Years' War: Maurice of Orange-Nassau, page 47.

The new Stadtholder, Prince Frederic Henry, made every effort to raise the siege of Breda, but without success, and the place was surrendered (June 2, 1625) to the Spaniards. In the next year little was accomplished on either side; but in 1627 the Prince took Grol, after a siege of less than one month. In 1628 the Dutch Admiral Piet Heyn captured one of the Spanish silver-fleets, with a cargo, largely pure silver, valued at 12,000,000 florins. In 1629 the king of Spain and the Archduchess made overtures of peace, with offers of a renewed truce for 24 years. "But no sooner did the negotiations become public than they encountered general and violent opposition," especially from the West India Company, which found the war profitable, and from the ministers of the church. At the same time the operations of the war assumed more activity. The Prince laid siege to Bois-le-Duc, a Brabant town deemed impregnable, and the Spaniards, to draw him away, invaded Guelderland, and captured Amersfoort, near Utrecht. They laid waste the country, and were compelled to retire, without interrupting the siege of Bois-le-Duc, which presently was surrendered. In 1631 the Prince undertook the siege of Dunkirk, which had long been a rendezvous of pirates, troublesome to the commerce of all the surrounding nations; but on the approach of a Spanish relieving force, the deputies of the States, who had authority over the commander, required him to relinquish the undertaking. In 1632, the Prince achieved a great success, in the siege and reduction of Maestricht, which he accomplished, notwithstanding his lines were attacked by a Spanish army of 24,000 men, and by an army from Germany, under the Imperial general Pappenheim, who brought 16,000 men to assist in raising the siege. In the face of these two armies, Maestricht was forced to capitulate, and the fall of Limburg followed. Peace negotiations were reopened the same year, but came to nothing, and they were followed shortly by the death of the Archduchess Isabella. "At her death, the Netherlands, in pursuance of the terms of the surrender made by Philip II., reverted to the King of Spain, who placed the government, after it had been administered a short time by a commission, in the hands of the Marquis of Aitona, commander-in-chief of the army, until the arrival of his brother Ferdinand, cardinal and archbishop of Toledo [known as 'the Cardinal Infant'], whom he had, during the lifetime of the Archduchess, appointed her successor."

NETHERLANDS: (United Provinces): A. D. 1624-1661.
Conquests in Brazil and their loss.

NETHERLANDS: (United Provinces): A. D. 1635.
Alliance with France against Spain and Austria.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1635-1638.
   The Cardinal Infant in the government
   of the Spanish Provinces.
   His campaigns against the Dutch and French.
   Invasion of France.
   Dutch capture of Breda.

In 1635, the Archduchess Isabella having recently died, it was thought expedient in Spain "that a member of the royal family should be intrusted with the administration of the Netherlands [Spanish Provinces]. This appointment was accordingly conferred on the Cardinal Infant [Ferdinand, son of Philip III.], who was at that time in Italy, where he had collected a considerable army. With this force, amounting to about 12,000 men, he had passed in the preceding year through Germany, on his route to the Netherlands, and, having formed a junction with the Imperialists, under the King of Hungary, he greatly contributed to the victory gained over the Swedes and German Protestants, at Nordlingen. …

The Cardinal Infant entered on the civil and military government of the Spanish Netherlands nearly at the time when the seizure of the Elector of Treves had called forth from France an open declaration of war. By uniting the newly raised troops which he had brought with him from Italy to the veteran legions of the provinces, he found himself at the head of a considerable military force. At the same time, an army of 20,000 French was assembled under the inspection of their king at Amiens, and was intrusted to Chatillon, and Mareschal Brezé the brother-in-law of Richelieu. … It was intended, however, that this army should form a junction with the Dutch at Maestricht, after which the troops of both nations should be placed under the orders of Frederic Henry, Prince of Orange, who had inherited all the military talents of his ancestors. In order to counteract this movement, the Cardinal Infant separated his army into two divisions. One was ordered to confront the Dutch, and the other, under Prince Thomas of Savoy, marched to oppose the progress of the French. This latter division of the Spaniards encountered the enemy at Avein, in the territory of Liege; but though it had taken up a favourable position, it was totally defeated, and forced to retreat to Namur. The French army then continued its march with little farther interruption, and effected its intended union with the Dutch in the neighbourhood of Maestricht. After this junction, the Prince of Orange assumed the command of the allied army, which now stormed and sacked Tillemont, where great cruelties were committed. … The union of the two armies spread terror throughout the Spanish Netherlands, and the outrages practised at Tillemont gave the Catholics a horror at the French name and alliance. … The Flemings, forgetting their late discontents with the Spanish government, now made the utmost efforts against their invaders. … The Spanish prince … contrived to elude a general engagement. … His opponents … were obliged to employ their arms in besieging towns. It was believed for some time that they intended to invest Brussels, but the storm fell on Louvain." The Emperor now sent from Germany a force of 18,000 men, under Piccolomini, "to the succour of the Cardinal Infant. {2280} The slowness of all the operations of the Prince of Orange afforded sufficient time for these auxiliaries to cut off the French supplies of provisions, and advance to the relief of Louvain. On the intelligence of their approach, the half-famished French abandoned the siege, and, after suffering severely in their retreat, retired to recruit at Ruremonde. The Dutch afforded them no assistance, and showed them but little sympathy in their disasters. Though the Dutch hated Spain, they were jealous of France, and dreaded an increase of its power in the Netherlands. … Mareschals Chatillon and Brezé, who were thus in a great measure the victims of the policy of their allies, were under the necessity of leading back beyond the Meuse, to Nimeguen, the wretched remains of their army, now reduced to 9,000 men. … After the departure of the French, the exertions of the Prince of Orange were limited, during this season, to an attempt for the recovery of the strong fortress of Skink, which had recently been reduced by the Spaniards. The Cardinal Infant, availing himself of the opportunity thus presented to him, quickly regained, by aid of the Austrian reinforcements, his superiority in the field. He took several fortresses from the Dutch, and sent to the frontiers of France detachments which levied contributions over great part of Picardy and Champagne. … Encouraged by these successes, Olivarez [the Spanish minister] redoubled his exertions, and now boldly planned invasions of France from three different quarters"—to enter Picardy on the north, Burgundy on the east, and Guienne at the south. "Of all these expeditions, the most successful, at least for a time, was the invasion of Picardy, which, indeed, had nearly proved fatal to the French monarchy. By orders of the Cardinal Infant, his generals, Prince Thomas of Savoy, Piccolomini, and John de Vert, or Wert, … began their march at the head of an army which exceeded 30,000 men, and was particularly strong in cavalry. … No interruption being … offered by the Dutch, the Spanish generals entered Picardy [1636], and seized almost without resistance on La Capelle and Catelet, which the French ministry expected would have occupied their arms for some months. The Count de Soissons, who was already thinking more of his plots against Richelieu than the defence of his country, did nothing to arrest the progress of the Spaniards, till they arrived at the Somme," and there but little. They forced the passage of the river with slight difficulty, and "occupied Roye, to the south of the Somme, on the river Oise; and having thus obtained an entrance into France, spread themselves over the whole country lying between these rivers. The smoke of the villages to which they set fire was seen from the heights in the vicinity of Paris; and such in that capital was the consternation consequent on these events that it seems probable, had the Spanish generals marched straight on Paris, the city would have fallen into their hands." But Prince Thomas was not bold enough for the exploit, and prudently "receded with his army to form the siege of Corbie. This town presented no great resistance to his arms, but the time occupied by its capture allowed the Parisians to recover from their consternation, and to prepare the means of defence." They raised an army of 60,000 men, chiefly apprentices and artisans of the capital, before which Prince Thomas was obliged to retreat. "The French quickly recovered all those fortified places in Picardy which had been previously lost by the incapacity, or, as Richelieu alleged, by the treachery of their governors. But they could not prevent the Spaniards from plundering and desolating the country as they retired. … The Cardinal Infant was obliged to remain on the defensive for some time after his retreat from Picardy to the Netherlands, which were anew invaded by a French force, under the Cardinal La Valette, a younger son of the Duke d'Epernon. But even while restricting his operations to defence, the Infant could not prevent the capture by the French of Ivry and Landreci in Hainault. While opposing the enemy in that quarter, he received intelligence of an unexpected attempt on Breda by the Dutch [1637]. He immediately hastened to its relief; but the Prince of Orange having rapidly collected 6,000 or 7,000 peasants, whom he had employed in forming intrenchments and drawing lines of circumvallation, was so well fortified on the arrival of the Cardinal Infant, who had crossed the Scheldt at Antwerp, and approached with not fewer than 25,000 men, that that Prince, in despair of forcing the enemy's camp, or in any way succouring Breda, marched towards Guelderland. In that province he took Venlo and Ruremonde; but Breda, as he had anticipated, surrendered to the Dutch after a siege of nine weeks. … Its capture greatly relieved the Dutch in Brabant, who now, for many years, had been checked by an enemy in the heart of their territories. … Early in the year 1638, the Infant resumed offensive operations, and again rendered himself formidable to his enemies. He frustrated the attempts which the Dutch had concerted against Antwerp. … In person he beat off the army of the Prince of Orange, who had invested Gueldres; and, about the same time, his active generals; Prince Thomas of Savoy and Piccolomini, compelled the French to raise the siege of St. Omer."

      J. Dunlop,
      Memoirs of Spain from 1621 to 1700,
      volume 1, chapter 4.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1643.
Invasion of France by the Spaniards and their defeat at Rocroi.
Loss of Thionville and the line of the Moselle.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1645-1646.
French campaign in Flanders, under Orleans and Enghien (Conde).
Siege and capture of Dunkirk.

"In 1645, Orleans led the [French] army into Flanders, and began the campaign with the capture of Mardyck. A few weeks of leisurely siege resulted in the conquest of some towns, and by the first of September Gaston sought rest at the Court. As it was now well towards the end of the season, the Hollanders were at last ready to cooperate, and they joined the French under Gassion and Rantzau. But the allied armies did little except march and countermarch, and at the end of the year the Spaniards surprised the French garrison at Mardyck and retook the only place of importance they had lost. … Gaston was, however, well content even with the moderate glory of such warfare. In 1646 he commanded an army of 35,000 men, one portion of which was led by Enghien himself. The Hollanders were under arms unusually early, but they atoned for this by accomplishing nothing. The French laid siege to Courtrai, which in due time surrendered, and they then spent three weeks in a vigorous siege of Mardyck. {2281} This place was finally captured for the second time in fourteen months. It was now late in August, and Orleans was ready to rest from a campaign which had lasted three months. … By the departure of Gaston the Duke of Enghien was left free to attempt some important movement, and his thoughts turned upon the capture of the city of Dunkirk. Dunkirk was situated on the shore of the North Sea, in a position that made it alike important and formidable to commerce. … Its harbor leading to a canal in the city where a fleet might safely enter, and its position near the shores of France and the British Channel, had rendered it a frequent retreat for pirates. The cruisers that captured the ships of the merchants of Havre and Dieppe, or made plundering expeditions along the shores of Picardy and Normandy, found safe refuge in the harbor of Dunkirk. Its name was odious through northern France, alike to the shipper and the resident of the towns along the coast. The ravages of the pirates of Dunkirk are said to have cost France as much as a million a year. … The position of Dunkirk was such that it seemed to defy attack, and the strangeness and wildness of its approaches added terror to its name. It was surrounded by vast plains of sand, far over which often spread the waters of the North Sea, and its name was said to signify the church of the dunes. Upon them the fury of the storms often worked strange changes. What had seemed solid land would be swallowed up in some tempest. What had been part of the ocean would be left so that men and wagons could pass over what the day before had been as inaccessible as the Straits of Dover. An army attempting a siege would find itself on these wild dunes far removed from any places for supplies, and exposed to the utmost severity of storm and weather. Tents could hardly be pitched, and the changing sands would threaten the troops with destruction. The city was, moreover, garrisoned by 3,000 soldiers, and by 3,000 of the citizens and 2,000 sailors. … The ardor of Enghien was increased by these difficulties, and he believed that with skill and vigor the perils of a siege could be overcome. This plan met the warm approval of Mazarin. … Enghien advanced with his army of about 15,000 men, and on the 10th of September the siege began. It was necessary to prevent supplies being received by sea. Tromp, excited to hearty admiration of the genius of the young general, sailed with ten ships into the harbor, and cut off communications. Enghien, in the meantime, was pressing the circumvallation of the city with the utmost vigor. … Half fed, wet, sleepless, the men worked on, inspired by the zeal of their leader. Piccolomini attempted to relieve the city, but he could not force Enghien's entrenchments, except by risking a pitched battle, and that he did not dare to venture. Mines were now carried under the city by the besiegers, and a great explosion made a breach in the wall. The French and Spanish met, but the smoke and confusion were so terrible that both sides at last fell back in disorder. The French finally discovered that the advantage was really theirs, and held the position. Nothing now remained but a final and bloody assault, but Leyde did not think that honor required him to await this. He agreed that if he did not receive succor by the 10th of October, the city should be surrendered. Piccolomini dared not risk the last army in Flanders in an assault on Enghien's entrenchments, and, on October 11th, the Spanish troops evacuated the town. A siege of three weeks had conquered obstacles of man and nature, and destroyed the scourge of French commerce."

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1646-1648.
Final Negotiation of Peace between Spain and the
United Provinces.

   "The late campaign had been so unfortunate [to the Spaniards]
   that they felt their only possibility of obtaining reasonable
   terms, or of continuing the war with the hope of a change in
   fortune, was to break the alliance between Holland and
   France. A long debt of gratitude, assistance rendered in the
   struggle with Spain when assistance was valuable, the treaty
   of 1635 renewed in 1644, forbade Holland making a peace,
   except jointly with France. On the other hand, the
   States-General were weary of war, and jealous of the power and
   ambition of the French. … This disposition was skilfully
   fostered by the Spanish envoys. Pau and Knuyt,
   plenipotentiaries from Holland to the Congress at Münster
   [where, in part, the negotiations of the Peace of Westphalia
   were in progress—see GERMANY: A. D. 1648], were gained to the
   Spanish interest, as Mazarin claimed, by the promise to each
   of 100,000 crowns. But, apart from bribes, the Spanish used
   Mazarin's own plans to alarm the Hollanders. … It was
   intimated to the Hollanders that France was about to make a
   separate peace, that the Spanish Netherlands were to be given
   her, and that perhaps with the hand of the infanta might be
   transferred what claims Spain still made on the allegiance of
   the United Provinces. The French protested in vain they had
   never thought of making any treaty unless Holland joined, and
   that the proposed marriage of Louis with the infanta had been
   idle talk, suggested by the Spanish for the purpose of
   alarming the States-General. The Hollanders were suspicious,
   and they became still more eager for peace. … In the spring
   of 1646, seventy-one proposed articles had been submitted to
   the Spanish for their consideration. The French made repeated
   protests against these steps, but the States-General insisted
   that they were only acting with such celerity as should enable
   them to have the terms of their treaty adjusted as soon as
   those of the French. The successes of 1646 and the capture of
   Dunkirk quickened the desires of the United Provinces for a
   treaty with their ancient enemy. … In December, 1646,
   articles were signed between Spain and Holland, to be inserted
   in the treaty of Münster, when that should be settled upon,
   though the States-General still declared that no peace should
   be made unless the terms were approved by France. Active
   hostilities were again commenced in 1647, but little progress
   was made in Flanders during this campaign. Though the
   Hollanders had not actually made peace with Spain, they gave
   the French no aid. … On January 30, 1648, the treaty was at
   last signed. 'One would think,' wrote Mazarin, 'that for
   eighty years France had been warring with the provinces, and
   Spain had been protecting them. They have stained their
   reputation with a shameful blemish.'
{2282}
   It was eighty years since William of Orange had issued his
   proclamation inviting all the Netherlands to take up arms 'to
   oppose the violent tyranny of the Spaniards.' Unlike the truce
   of 1609, a formal and final peace was now made. The United
   Provinces were acknowledged as free and sovereign states. At
   the time of the truce the Spaniards had only treated with them
   'in quality of, and as holding them for independent
   provinces.' By a provision which had increased the eagerness
   for peace of the burghers and merchants of the United
   Provinces, it was agreed that the Escaut [Scheldt] should be
   closed. The wealth and commerce of Antwerp were thus
   sacrificed for the benefit of Amsterdam. The trade with the
   Indies was divided between the two countries. Numerous
   commercial advantages were secured and certain additional
   territory was ceded to the States-General."

"It had … become a settled conviction of Holland that a barrier of Spanish territory between the United Provinces and France was necessary as a safeguard against the latter. But the idea of fighting to maintain that barrier had not yet arisen, though fighting was the outcome of the doctrine. All that the United Provinces now did, or could do, was simply to back out of the war with Spain, sit still, and look passively upon the conflict between her and France for possession of the barrier, until it should please the two belligerents to make peace."

      J. Geddes,
      History of the Administration of John De Witt,
      book 2, chapter 1, section 1 (volume 1).

NETHERLANDS: (Spanish Provinces): A. D. 1647-1648.
The Spanish war with France.
Siege and Battle of Lens.

"While Condé was at the head of the army of the Netherlands, it at least suffered no disaster; but, while he was affording the enemy a triumph in Spain [by his failure at Lerida,—the army which he left behind him was equally unfortunate].

As he had taken some regiments with him to Spain, it did not exceed 16,000 men; and in 1647 was commanded by the two marshals, Gassion and Rantzau," who exercised the command on alternate days. Both were brave and skilful officers, but they were hostile to one another, and Rantzau was, unfortunately, a drunkard. "The Spanish army had been raised to 22,000 men, and besides being superior in numbers to them, was now under the command of a singularly active leader, the Archduke Leopold. He took town after town before their face; and towards the end of June laid siege to Landrecies. The danger of so important a place stimulated Mazarin to send some strong battalions, including the royal guards, to reinforce the army: and the two marshals made skilful dispositions to surprise the Spanish camp. By a night march of great rapidity, they reached the neighbourhood of the enemy without their presence being suspected; but the next morning, when the attack was to be made, it was Rantzau's turn to command; and he was too helplessly drunk to give the necessary orders. Before he had recovered his consciousness daylight had revealed his danger to the archduke, and he had taken up a position in which he could give battle with advantage. Greatly mortified, the French were forced to draw off, and leave Landrecies to its fate. As some apparent set-off to their losses, they succeeded in taking Dixmude, and one or two other unimportant towns, and were besieging Lens, when Gassion was killed; and though, a few days afterwards, that town was taken, its capture made but small amends. … Though the war was almost at an end in Germany, Turenne was still in that country; and, therefore, the next year there was no one who could be sent to replace Gassion but Condé and Grammont, who fortunately for the prince, was his almost inseparable comrade and adviser. … Though 16,000 men had been thought enough for Gassion and Rantzau, 30,000 were now collected to enable Condé to make a more successful campaign. The archduke had received no reinforcements, and had now only 18,000 men to make head against him; yet with this greatly inferior force he, for a while, balanced Condé's successes; losing Ypres, it is true, but taking Courtrai and Furnes, and defeating and almost annihilating a division with which the prince had detached Rantzau to make an attempt upon Ostend. At last, in the middle of August, he laid siege to Lens, the capture of which had, as we have already mentioned, been the last exploit of the French army in the preceding campaign, and which was now retaken without the garrison making the slightest effort at resistance. But, just as the first intelligence of his having sat down before it reached Condé, he was joined by the Count d'Erlach with a reinforcement of 5,000 men from the German army; and he resolved to march against the archduke in the hope of saving" the place. "He arrived in sight of the town on the 20th of August, a few hours after it had surrendered; and he found the archduke's victorious army in a position which, eager as he was for battle, he could not venture to attack. For Leopold had 18,000 men under arms, and the force that Condé had been able to bring with him did not exceed 14,000, with 18 guns. For the first time in his life he decided on retreating;" but early in the retreat his army was thrown into disorder by an attack from the archduke's cavalry, commanded by General Beck. "All was nearly lost, when Grammont turned the fortune of the day. He was in the van, but the moment that he learnt what was taking place behind him, he halted the advanced guard, and leading it back towards the now triumphant enemy, gave time for those regiments which had been driven in to rally behind the firm line which he presented. … It soon came to be a contest of hard fighting, unvaried by manœuvres on either side; and in hard fighting no troops could stand before those who might be lead by Condé. … At last victory declared for him in every part of his line. He had sustained a heavy loss himself, but less than that of the enemy, who left 3,000 of their number slain upon the field; while 5,000 prisoners, among whom was Beck himself, struck down by a mortal wound, and nearly all their artillery and baggage, attested the reality and greatness of his triumph."

ALSO IN: Sir E. Cust, Lives of the Warriors of the Civil Wars, part 1, pages 149-152.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1647-1650.
Suspension of the Stadtholdership.
Supremacy of the States of Holland.

The fourth stadtholder, William II., who succeeded his father, Frederick Henry, in 1647, "was young and enterprising, and not at all disposed to follow the pacific example of his father. … His attempt at a coup d'état only prepared the way for an interregnum. … He was brother-in-law to the Elector of Brandenburg … and son-in-law to Charles I. of England and Henrietta Maria, the sister of Louis XIII. … The proud descendant of the Stuarts, the Princess Mary, who had been married to him when hardly more than a child, thought it beneath her not to be the wife of a sovereign, and encouraged her husband not to be satisfied to remain merely 'the official of a republic.' Thus encouraged, the son of Frederick Henry cherished the secret purpose of transforming the elective stadtholdership into an hereditary monarchy. … He needed supreme authority to enable him to render assistance to Charles I. … Finding in the opposition of the States an insurmountable obstacle to his wish of intervention, he sought the support of France, … and was now ready to come to an understanding with Mazarin to break the treaty of Munster and wrest the Netherlands from Spain. Mazarin promised in return to help him to assert his authority over the States. … But if William desired war, the United Provinces, and in particular the province of Holland, could not dispense with peace. … The States of Holland … fixed the period for the disbanding of the twenty-nine companies whose dismissal had been promised to them. After twelve days of useless deliberations they issued definite orders to that effect. The step had been provoked, but it was precipitate and might give rise to a legal contest as to their competency. The Prince of Orange, therefore, eager to hasten a struggle from which he expected an easy victory, chose to consider the resolution of the States of Holland as a signal for the rupture of the Union, and the very next day solemnly demanded reparation from the States-General, who in their turn issued a counter order. The Prince made skilful use of the rivalry of power between the two assemblies to obtain for himself extraordinary powers which were contrary to the laws of the Confederation. By the terms of the resolution, which was passed by only four provinces, of which two were represented by but one deputy each, he was authorised to take all measures necessary for the maintenance of order and peace, and particularly for the preservation of the Union. 'The States-General consequently commissioned him to visit the town councils of Holland, accompanied by six members of the States-General and of the Council of State, with all the pomp of a military escort, including a large number of officers. He was charged to address them with remonstrances and threats intended to intimidate the provincial States.' This was the first act of the coup d'état that he had prepared, and his mistake was quickly shown him." The Prince gained nothing by his visitation of the towns. At Amsterdam he was not permitted to enter the place with his following, and he returned to the Hague especially enraged against that bold and independent city. He planned an expedition to take it by surprise; but the citizens got timely warning and his scheme was baffled. He had succeeded, however, in arresting and imprisoning six of the most influential deputies of the Assembly of Holland, and his attitude was formidable enough to extort some concessions from the popular party, by way of compromise. A state of suspicious quiet was restored for the time, which William improved by renewing negotiations for a secret treaty with France. "Arrogating to himself already the right to dispose as he pleased of the republic, he signed a convention with Count d'Estrades, whom he had summoned to the Hague. By this the King of France and the Prince of Orange engaged themselves 'to attack conjointly the Netherlands on May 1, 1651, with an army of 20,000 foot and 10,000 horse, to break at the same time with Cromwell, to re-establish Charles II. as King of England, and to make no treaty with Spain excepting in concert with each other.' The Prince of Orange guaranteed a fleet of 50 vessels besides the land contingent, and in return for his co-operation was promised the absolute possession of the city of Antwerp and the Duchy of Brabant or Marquisate of the Holy Roman Empire. William thus interested France in the success of his cause by making ready to resume the war with Spain, and calculated, as he told his confidants, on profiting by her assistance to disperse the cabal opposed to him. … The internal pacification amounted then to no more than a truce, when three months later the Prince of Orange, having over-fatigued and heated himself in the chase, was seized with small-pox, of which in a few days he died. He was thus carried off at the age of 24, in the full force and flower of his age, leaving only one son, born a week after his father's death. … His attempt at a coup d'état was destined to press heavily and long upon the fate of the posthumous son, who had to wait 22 years before succeeding to his ancestral functions. It closed the succession to him for many years, by making the stadtholdership a standing menace to the public freedom. … The son of William II., an orphan before his birth, and named William like his father, seemed destined to succeed to little more than the paternal name. … Three days after the death of William II., the former deputies, whom he had treated as state prisoners and deprived of all their offices, were recalled to take their seats in the Assembly. At the same time the provincial Town Councils assumed the power of nominating their own magistrates, which had almost always been left to the pleasure of the Stadtholder, and thus obtained the full enjoyment of municipal freedom. The States of Holland, on their side, grasped the authority hitherto exercised in their province by the Prince of Orange, and claimed successively all the rights of sovereignty. The States of Zealand … exhibited the same eagerness to free themselves from all subjection. … Thus, before declaring the stadtholdership vacant, the office was deprived of its prerogatives. To complete this transformation of the government, the States of Holland took the initiative in summoning to the Hague a great assembly of the Confederation, which met at the beginning of the year 1651. … The congress was called upon to decide between two forms of constitution. The question was whether the United Provinces should be a republic governed by the States-General, or whether the government should belong to the States of each province, with only a reservation in favour of the obligations imposed by the Act of Union. Was each province to be sovereign in itself, or subject to the federal power?" The result was a suspension and practical abolition of the stadtholdership. "Freed from the counterbalancing power of the Stadtholder, Holland to a great extent absorbed the federal power, and was the gainer by all that that power lost. … {2284} The States of Holland, … destined henceforward to be the principal instrument of government of the republic, was composed partly of nobles and partly of deputies from the towns. … The Grand Pensionary was the minister of the States of Holland. He was appointed for five years, and represented them in the States-General. … Called upon by the vacancy in the stadtholdership to the government of the United Provinces, without any legal power of enforcing obedience, Holland required a statesman who could secure this political supremacy and use it for her benefit. The nomination of John de Witt as Grand Pensionary placed at her service one of the youngest members of the assembly."

NETHERLANDS: (Spanish Provinces): A. D. 1648.
Still held to form a part of the Empire.

NETHERLANDS: (United Provinces): A. D. 1648-1665.
Prosperity and pre-eminence of the Dutch Republic.
The causes.

"That this little patch of earth, a bog rescued from the waters, warred on ever by man and by the elements, without natural advantages except those of contact with the sea, should in the middle of the seventeenth century have become the commercial centre of Europe, is one of the phenomena of history. But in the explanation of this phenomenon history has one of its most instructive lessons. Philip II. said of Holland, 'that it was the country nearest to hell.' Well might he express such an opinion. He had buried around the walls of its cities more than three hundred thousand Spanish soldiers, and had spent in the attempt at its subjugation more than two hundred million ducats. This fact alone would account for his abhorrence, but, in addition, the republic was in its every feature opposed to the ideal country of a bigot and a despot. The first element which contributed to its wealth, as well as to the vast increase of its population, was its religious toleration. … This, of course, was as incomprehensible to a Spanish Catholic as it was to a High-Churchman or to a Presbyterian in England. That Lutherans, Calvinists, Anabaptists, Jews, and Catholics should all be permitted to live under the same government seemed to the rest of Europe like flying in the face of Providence. Critics at this time occasionally said that the Hollanders cared nothing for religion; that with them theology was of less account than commerce. To taunts like these no reply was needed by men who could point to their record of eighty years of war. This war had been fought for liberty of conscience, but more than all, as the greater includes the less, for civil liberty. During its continuance, and at every crisis, Catholics had stood side by side with Protestants to defend their country, as they had done in England when the Spanish Armada appeared upon her coast. It would have been a strange reward for their fidelity to subject them, as Elizabeth did, to a relentless persecution, upon the pretext that they were dangerous to the State. In addition to the toleration, there were other causes leading to the marvellous prosperity of the republic, which are of particular interest to Americans. In 1659, Samuel Lamb, a prominent and far-seeing London merchant, published a pamphlet, in the form of a letter to Cromwell, urging the establishment of a bank in England similar to the one at Amsterdam. In this pamphlet, which Lord Somers thought worthy of preservation, the author gives the reasons, as they occurred to him, which accounted for the vast superiority of Holland over the rest of Europe as a commercial nation. … As the foundation of a bank for England was the subject of the letter, the author naturally lays particular stress upon that factor, but the other causes which he enumerates as explaining the great trade of the republic are the following: First. The statesmen sitting at the helm in Holland are many of them merchants, bred to trade from their youth, improved by foreign travel, and acquainted with all the necessities of commerce. Hence, their laws and treaties are framed with wisdom. Second. In Holland when a merchant dies, his property is equally divided among his children, and the business is continued and expanded, with all its traditions and inherited experience. In England, on the contrary, the property goes to the eldest son, who often sets up for a country gentleman, squanders his patrimony, and neglects the business by which his father had become enriched. Third. The honesty of the Hollanders in their manufacturing and commercial dealings. When goods are made up in Holland, they sell everywhere without question, for the purchaser knows that they are exactly as represented in quality, weight, and measure. Not so with England's goods. Our manufacturers are so given to fraud and adulteration as to bring their commodities into disgrace abroad. 'And so the Dutch have the pre-eminence in the sale of their manufactures before us, by their true making, to their very files and needles.' Fourth. The care and vigilance of the government in the laying of impositions so as to encourage their own manufactures; the skill and rapidity with which they are changed to meet the shifting wants of trade; the encouragement given by ample rewards from the public treasury for useful inventions and improvements; and the promotion of men to office for services and not for favor or sinister ends. Such were the causes of the commercial supremacy of the Dutch as they appeared to an English merchant of the time, and all modern investigations support his view. … Sir Joshua [Josiah] Child, writing a few years later ['A New Discourse of Trade, page 2, and after—1665], gives a fuller explanation of the great prosperity of the Netherland Republic. He evidently had Lamb's pamphlet before him, for he enumerates all the causes set forth by his predecessor. In addition, he gives several others, as to some of which we shall see more hereafter. Among these are the general education of the people, including the women, religious toleration, care of the poor, low custom duties and high excise, registration of titles to real estate, low interest, the laws permitting the assignment of debts, and the judicial system under which controversies between merchants can be decided at one fortieth part of the expense in England. … Probably, no body of men governing a state were ever more enlightened and better acquainted with the necessities of legislation than were these burghers, merchants, and manufacturers who for two centuries gave laws to Holland. It was largely due to the intelligence displayed by these men that the republic, during the continuance of its war, was enabled to support a burden of taxation such as the world has rarely seen before or since. {2285} The internal taxes seem appalling. Rents were taxed twenty-five per cent.; on all sales of real estate two and a half per cent. were levied, and on all collateral inheritances five per cent. On beer, wine, meat, salt, spirits, and all articles of luxury, the tax was one hundred per cent., and on some articles this was doubled. But this was only the internal taxation, in the way of excise duties, which were levied on everyone, natives and foreigners alike. In regard to foreign commodities, which the republic needed for its support, the system was very different. Upon them there was imposed only a nominal duty of one per cent., while wool, the great staple for the manufacturers, was admitted free. Here the statesmen of the republic showed the wisdom which placed them, as masters of political economy, at least two centuries in advance of their contemporaries."

D. Campbell, The Puritan in Holland, England, and America, volume 2, pages 324-331.

ALSO IN: W. T. McCullagh, Industrial History of Free Nations, volume 2: The Dutch, chapter 12.

NETHERLANDS: (The United Provinces): A. D. 1651-1660.
The rule of Holland, and her Grand Pensionary, John de Witt.

"The Republic had shaken off the domination of a person; it now fell under the domination of a single province. Holland was overwhelmingly preponderant in the federation. She possessed the richest, most populous, and most powerful towns. She contributed more than one-half of the whole federal taxation. She had the right of naming the ambassadors at Paris, Stockholm, and Vienna. The fact that the States General met on her territory—at the Hague—necessarily gave her additional influence and prestige. … With the Stadtholder's power that of the States General also, as representing the idea of centralisation, had largely disappeared. The Provincial Estates of Holland, therefore, under the title of 'Their High Mightinesses,' became the principal power—to such an extent, indeed, that the term 'Holland' had by the time of the Restoration [the English Restoration, A. D. 1660] become synonymous among foreign powers with the whole Republic. Their chief minister was called 'The Grand Pensionary,' and the office had been since 1653 filled by one of the most remarkable men of the time, John de Witt. John de Witt therefore represented, roughly speaking, the power of the merchant aristocracy of Holland, as opposed to the claims of the House of Orange, which were supported by the 'noblesse,' the army, the Calvinistic clergy, and the people below the governing class. Abroad the Orange family had the sympathy of monarchical Governments. Louis XIV. despised the Government of 'Messieurs les Marchands,' while Charles II., at once the uncle and the guardian of the young Prince of the house of Orange, the future William III. of England, and mindful of the scant courtesy which, to satisfy Cromwell, the Dutch had shown him in exile, was ever their bitter and unscrupulous foe. The empire of the Dutch Republic was purely commercial and colonial, and she held in this respect the same position relatively to the rest of Europe that England holds at the present day."

NETHERLANDS: (Spanish Provinces): A. D. 1652.
Recovery of Dunkirk and Gravelines.
Invasion of France. See FRANCE: A. D. 1652.

NETHERLANDS: (The United Provinces): A. D. 1652.
First Settlement at the Cape of Good Hope.
See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1486-1806.

NETHERLANDS: (The United Provinces): A. D. 1652-1654.
War with the English Commonwealth.

NETHERLANDS: (Spanish Provinces): A. D. 1653-1656.
Campaigns of Condé in the service of Spain against France.

NETHERLANDS: (Spanish Provinces): A. D. 1657-1658.
England in alliance with France in the Franco-Spanish War.
Loss of Dunkirk and Gravelines.

NETHERLANDS: (Spanish Provinces): A. D. 1659.
Cessions of territory to France by the Treaty of the Pyrenees.

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1664.
The seizure of New Netherland by the English.

   "A formal declaration of war between Holland and England took
   place in March, 1665. The English nation, jealous of the
   commercial prosperity of Holland, eagerly seconded the views
   of the king against that country, and in regard to the war a
   remarkable degree of union prevailed throughout Great Britain.
   Such, however, was not the case with the Dutch, who were very
   much divided in opinion, and had many reasons to be doubtful
   of the support of France. One of the grand objects of Charles
   II. was undoubtedly … to restore his nephew the Prince of
   Orange to all the power which had been held by his ancestors
   in the United Provinces. But between Holland and England there
   existed, besides numerous other most fertile causes of
   discord, unsettled claims, upon distant territories, rival
   colonies in remote parts of the world, maritime jealousy and
   constant commercial opposition. These were national motives
   for hostility, and affected a large body of the Dutch people.
   But, on the other hand, considerations of general interest
   were set aside by the political factions which divided the
   United Provinces, and which may be classed under the names of
   the Republican and the Monarchical parties. The Monarchical
   party was, of course, that which was attached to the interests
   of the House of Orange. … In the end of 1664, 130 Dutch
   merchantmen had been captured by England; acts of hostility
   had occurred in Guinea, at the Cape de Verd, [in New
   Netherland], and in the West Indies: but Louis [XIV. of
   France] had continued to avoid taking any active part against
   Great Britain, notwithstanding all the representations of De
   Witt, who on this occasion saw in France the natural ally of
   Holland. On the 13th of June [1665], however, a great naval
   engagement took place between the Dutch fleet, commanded by
   Opdam and Van Tromp, and the English fleet, commanded by the
   Duke of York and Prince Rupert. Opdam was defeated and killed;
   Van Tromp saved the remains of his fleet; and on the very same
   day a treaty was concluded between Arlington [the English
   minister] and an envoy of the Bishop of Munster, by which it
   was agreed that the warlike and restless prelate should invade
   the United Provinces with an army of 20,000 men, in
   consideration of sums of money to be paid by England.
{2286}
   This treaty at once called Louis into action, and he notified
   to the Bishop of Munster that if he made any hostile movement
   against the States of Holland he would find the troops of
   France prepared to oppose him. This fact was announced to the
   States by D'Estrades on the 22nd of July, together with the
   information that the French monarch was about to send to their
   assistance a body of troops by the way of Flanders. … Still,
   however, Louis hung back in the execution of his purposes,
   till the aspect of affairs in the beginning of 1666 forced him
   to declare war against England, on the 26th of January in that
   year, according to the terms of his treaty with Holland. …
   The part that France took in the war was altogether
   insignificant, and served but little to free the Dutch from
   the danger in which they were placed. That nation itself made
   vast efforts to obtain a superiority at sea; and in the
   beginning of June, 1666, the Dutch fleet, commanded by De
   Ruyter and Van Tromp, encountered the English fleet, under
   Monk and Prince Rupert, and a battle which lasted for four
   days, with scarcely any intermission, took place. It would
   seem that some advantage was gained by the Dutch; but both
   fleets were tremendously shattered, and retired to the ports
   of their own country to refit. Shortly after, however, they
   again encountered, and one of the most tremendous naval
   engagements in history took place, in which the Dutch suffered
   a complete defeat; 20 of their first-rate men-of-war were
   captured or sunk; and three admirals, with 4,000 men, were
   killed on the part of the States. The French fleet could not
   come up in time to take part in the battle, and all that Louis
   did was to furnish De Witt with the means of repairing the
   losses of the States as rapidly as possible. The energy of the
   grand pensionary himself, however, effected much more than the
   slow and unwilling succour of the French king. With almost
   superhuman exertion new fleets were made ready and manned,
   while the grand pensionary amused the English ministers with
   the prospect of a speedy peace on their own terms; and at a
   moment when England was least prepared, De Ruyter and
   Cornelius de Witt appeared upon the coast, sailed up the
   Thames, attacked and took Sheerness, and destroyed a great
   number of ships of the line. A multitude of smaller vessels
   were burnt; and the consternation was so great throughout
   England, that a large quantity of stores and many ships were
   sunk and destroyed by order of the British authorities
   themselves, while De Ruyter ravaged the whole sea-coast from
   the mouth of the Thames to the Land's End. The negotiations
   for peace, which had commenced at Breda, were now carried on
   upon terms much more advantageous to Holland, and were
   speedily concluded; England, notwithstanding the naval glory
   she had gained, being fully as much tired of the war as the
   States themselves. A general treaty was signed on the 25th of
   July."

"The thunder of the Dutch guns in the Medway and the Thames woke England to a bitter sense of its degradation. The dream of loyalty was roughly broken. 'Everybody now-a-days,' Pepys tells us, 'reflect upon Oliver and commend him: what brave things he did, and made all the neighbour princes fear him.' But Oliver's successor was coolly watching this shame and discontent of his people with the one aim of turning it to his own advantage."

NETHERLANDS: (The Spanish Provinces): A. D. 1667.
The claims and conquests of Louis XIV.
The War of the Queen's Rights.

In 1660 Louis XIV., king of France, was married to the Infanta of Spain, Maria Theresa, daughter of Philip IV., who solemnly renounced at the time, for herself and her posterity, all rights to the Spanish crown. The insincerity and hollowness of the renunciation was proved terribly at a later time by the long "war of the Spanish succession." Meantime Louis discovered other pretended rights in his Spanish wife on which he might found claims for the satisfaction of his territorial greed. These rested on the fact that she was born of her father's first marriage, and that a customary right in certain provinces of the Spanish Netherlands gave daughters of a first marriage priority of inheritance over sons of a second marriage. At the same time, in the laws of Luxembourg and Franche-Comté, which admitted all children to the partition of an inheritance, he found pretext for claiming, on behalf of his wife, one fourth of the former and one third of the principality last named. Philip IV. of Spain died in September, 1665, leaving a sickly infant son under the regency of an incapable and priest-ruled mother, and Louis began quickly to press his claims. Having made his preparations on a formidable scale, he sent forth in May, 1667, to all the courts of Europe, an elaborate "Treatise on the Rights of the Most Christian Queen over divers States of the monarchy of Spain," announcing at the same time his intention to make a "journey" in the Catholic Netherlands—the intended journey being a ruthless invasion, in fact, with 50,000 men, under the command of the great marshal-general, Turenne. The army began its march simultaneously with the announcement of its purpose, crossing the frontier on the 24th of May. Town after town was taken, some without resistance and others after a short, sharp siege, directed by Vauban, the most famous among military engineers. Charleroi was occupied on the 2d of June; Tournay surrendered on the 24th; two weeks later Douai fell; Courtrai endured only four days of siege and Oudenarde but two; Lille was a more difficult prize and held Turenne and the king before it for twenty days. "All Walloon Flanders had again become French at the price of less effort and bloodshed than it had cost, in the Middle Ages, to force one of its places. … September 1, the whole French army was found assembled before the walls of Ghent." But Ghent was not assailed, the French army being greatly fatigued and much reduced by the garrisoning of the conquered places. Louis, accordingly, returned to Saint-Germain, and Turenne, after taking Alost, went into winter quarters. Before the winter passed great changes of circumstance had occurred. The Triple Alliance of England, Holland and Sweden had been formed, Louis had made his secret treaty at Vienna with the Emperor, for the partitioning of the Spanish dominions, and his further "journey" in the Netherlands was postponed.

H. Martin, History of France: Age of Louis XIV. (translated by M. L. Booth), volume 1, chapter 4.

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1668. The Triple Alliance with England and Sweden against the French king.

"The rapid conquests of the French king in Flanders during the last summer had drawn the eyes of Europe towards the seat of war in that country. The pope, Clement IX., through pity for the young king of Spain, and the States, alarmed at the approach of the French arms to their frontier, offered their mediation. To both Louis returned the same answer, that he sought nothing more than to vindicate the rights of his wife; that he should be content to retain possession of the conquests which he had already made, or to exchange them either for Luxembourg, or Franche-comté, with the addition of Aire, St. Omer, Donai, Cambrai, and Charleroi, to strengthen his northern frontier. … But Spain was not sufficiently humbled to submit to so flagrant an injustice. … If it was the interest of England, it was still more the interest of the States, to exclude France from the possession of Flanders. Under this persuasion, sir William Temple, the resident at Brussels, received instructions to proceed to the Hague and sound the disposition of de Witt; and, on his return to London, was despatched back again to Holland with the proposal of a defensive alliance, the object of which should be to compel the French monarch to make peace with Spain on the terms which he had previously offered. … Temple acted with promptitude and address: … he represented the danger of delay; and, contrary to all precedent at the Hague, in the short space of five days—had the constitutional forms been observed it would have demanded five weeks—he negotiated [January, 1668] three treaties which promised to put an end to the war, or, if they failed in that point, to oppose at least an effectual barrier to the further progress of the invader. The first was a defensive alliance by which the two nations bound themselves to aid each other against any aggressor with a fleet of forty men of war, and an army of 6,400 men, or with assistance in money in proportion to the deficiency in men; by the second, the contracting powers agreed by every means in their power to dispose France to conclude a peace with Spain on the alternative already offered, to persuade Spain to accept one part of that alternative before the end of May, and, in case of a refusal, to compel her by war, on condition that France should not interfere by force of arms. These treaties were meant for the public eye: the third was secret, and bound both England and the States, in case of the refusal of Louis, to unite with Spain in the war, and not to lay down their arms till the peace of the Pyrenees were confirmed. On the same day the Swedish ambassadors gave a provisional, and afterwards a positive assent to the league, which from that circumstance obtained the name of the Triple Alliance. Louis received the news of this transaction with an air of haughty indifference. … In consequence of the infirm state of Charles II. of Spain, he had secretly concluded with the emperor Leopold an 'eventual' treaty of partition of the Spanish monarchy on the expected death of that prince, and thus had already bound himself by treaty to do the very thing which it was the object of the allied powers to effect. … The intervention of the emperor, in consequence of the eventual treaty, put an end to the hesitation of the Spanish cabinet; the ambassadors of the several powers met at Aix-la-Chapelle [April-May, 1668]; Spain made her choice; the conquered towns in Flanders were ceded to Louis, and peace was re-established between the two crowns. … The States could ill dissemble their disappointment. They never doubted that Spain, with the choice in her hands, would preserve Flanders, and part with Franche-comté. … The result was owing, it is said, to the resentment of Castel-Rodrigo [the governor of the Spanish Netherlands], who, finding that the States would not join with England to confine France within its ancient limits, resolved to punish them by making a cession, which brought the French frontier to the very neighbourhood of the Dutch territory."

"Dr. Lingard, who is undoubtedly a very able and well-informed writer, but whose great fundamental rule of judging seems to be that the popular opinion on a historical question cannot possibly be correct, speaks very slightingly of this celebrated treaty [of the Triple Alliance]. … But grant that Louis was not really stopped in his progress by this famous league; still it is certain that the world then, and long after, believed that he was so stopped; and that this was the prevailing impression in France as well as in other countries. Temple, therefore, at the very least, succeeded in raising the credit of his country, and lowering the credit of a rival power."

      L. von Ranke,
      History of England, 17th Century,
      book 15, chapter 4 (volume 3).

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1672-1674.
   The war with France and England.
   Murder of the DeWitts.
   Restoration of the Stadtholdership.

   "The storm that had been prepared in secret for Holland began
   to break in 1672. France and England had declared war at once
   by land and sea, without any cause of quarrel, except that
   Louis declared that the Dutch insulted him, and Charles
   complained that they would not lower their flag to his, and
   that they refused the Stadtholdership to his nephew, William
   of Orange. Accordingly, his fleet made a piratical attack on
   the Dutch ships returning from Smyrna, and Louis, with an
   immense army, entered Holland. … They [the French] would
   have attempted the passage of the Yssel, but the Dutch forces,
   under the Prince of Orange, were on the watch, and turned
   towards the Rhine, which was so low, in consequence of a
   drouth, that 2,000 adventurous cavalry were able to cross,
   half wading, half swimming, and gained a footing on the other
   side." This "passage of the Rhine" was absurdly celebrated as
   a great military exploit by the servile flatterers of the
   French king. "The passage thus secured, the King crossed the
   river the next day on a bridge of boats, and rapidly overran
   the adjoining country, taking the lesser towns, and offering
   to the Republic the most severe terms, destructive of their
   independence, but securing the nominal Stadtholdership to the
   Prince of Orange.
{2288}
   The magistrates of Amsterdam had almost decided on carrying
   the keys to Louis, and the Grand Pensionary himself was ready
   to yield; but William, who preferred ruling a free people by
   their own choice to being imposed on them by the conqueror,
   still maintained that perseverance would save Holland, that
   her dykes, when opened, would admit floods that the enemy
   could not resist, and that they had only to be firm. The
   spirit of the people was with him, and in Amsterdam,
   Dordrecht, and the other cities, there were risings with loud
   outcries of 'Orange boven,' Up with Orange, insisting that he
   should be appointed Stadtholder. The magistracy confirmed the
   choice, but Cornelius de Witt, too firm to yield to a popular
   cry, refused to sign the appointment, and thus drew on himself
   the rage of the people. He was arrested under an absurd
   accusation of having bribed a man to assassinate the Prince,
   and … [after torture] was sentenced to exile, whereupon his
   brother [the Grand Pensionary] announced that he should
   accompany him; but while he was with him in his prison at [the
   Hague], the atrocious mob again arose [August 20, 1672], broke
   open the doors, and, dragging out the two brothers, absolutely
   tore them limb from limb."

The Prince of Orange, profiting by the murder of the De Witts, rewarded the murderers, and is smirched by the deed, whether primarily responsible for it or not; but the power which it secured to him was used ably for Holland. The dykes had already been cut, on the 18th of June, and "the sea poured in, placing a waste of water between Louis and Amsterdam, and the province of Holland at least was saved. The citizens worked with the intensest energy to provide for their defence. … Every fourth man among the peasantry was enlisted; mariners and gunners were drawn from the fleet." Meantime, on the 7th of June, the fleet itself, under De Ruyter, had been victorious, in Southwold Bay, or Solebay, over the united fleets of England and France. The victory was indecisive, but it paralyzed the allied navy for a season, and prevented a contemplated descent on Zealand. "All active military operations against Holland were now necessarily at an end. There was not a Dutch town south of the inundation which was not in the hands of the French; and nothing remained for the latter but to lie idle until the ice of winter should enable them to cross the floods which cut them off from Amsterdam. Leaving Turenne in command, Louis therefore returned to St. Germain on August 1." Before winter came, however, the alarm of Europe at Louis' aggressions had brought about a coalition of the Emperor Leopold and the Elector of Brandenburg, to succor the Dutch States. Louis was forced to call Turenne with 16,000 men to Westphalia and Condé with 17,000 to Alsace. "On September 12 the Austrian general Montecuculi, the Duke of Lorraine, and the Grand Elector effected their junction, intending to cross the Rhine and join William;" but Turenne, by a series of masterly movements, forced them to retreat, utterly baffled, into Franconia and Halberstadt. The Elector of Brandenburg, discouraged, withdrew from the alliance, and made peace with Louis, June 6, 1673. The spring of 1673 found the French king advantageously situated, and his advantages were improved. Turning on the Spaniards in their Belgian Netherlands, he laid siege to the important stronghold of Maestricht and it was taken for him by the skill of Vauban, on the 30th of June. But while this success was being scored, the Dutch, at sea, had frustrated another attempt of the Anglo-French fleet to land troops on the Zealand coast. On the 7th of June, and again on the 14th, De Ruyter and Van Tromp fought off the invaders, under Prince Rupert and D'Estrees, driving them back to the Thames. Once more, and for the last time, they made their attempt, on the 21st of August, and were beaten in a battle near the Zealand shore which lasted from daylight until dark. The end of August found a new coalition against Louis formed by treaties between Holland, Spain, the Emperor and the Duke of Lorraine. A little later, the Prince of Orange, after capturing Naarden, effected a junction near Bonn with Montecuculi; who had evaded Turenne. The Electors of Treves and Mayence thereupon joined the coalition and Cologne and Munster made peace. By this time, public opinion in England had become so angrily opposed to the war that Charles was forced to arrange terms of peace with Holland, notwithstanding his engagements with Louis. The tide was now turning fast against France. Denmark had joined the coalition. In March it received the Elector Palatine; in April the Dukes of Brunswick and Lüneburg came into the league; in May the Emperor procured from the Diet a declaration of war in the name of the Empire, and on the 1st of July the Elector of Brandenburg cast in his lot once more with the enemies of France. To effectually meet this new league of his foes, Louis resolved with heroic promptitude to abandon his conquests in the Netherlands. Maestricht and Grave, alone, of the places he had taken, were retained. But Holland still refused to make peace on the terms which the French king proposed, and held her ground in the league.

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1673.
Reconquest of New Netherland from the English.

NETHERLANDS: (The Spanish Provinces): A. D. 1673-1678.
Fresh conquests by Louis XIV.

See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1672-1674, and 1674-1678;
also, NIMEGUEN, PEACE OF.

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1674.
   The Treaty of Westminster.
   Peace with England.
   Relinquishment of New Netherland.

   An offer from the Dutch to restore New Netherland to England
   "was extorted from the necessities of the republic, and its
   engagement with Spain. With the consent of the States General,
   the Spanish ambassador offered advantageous articles to the
   British government. Charles, finding that Louis refused him
   further supplies, and that he could not expect any from
   Parliament, replied that he was willing to accept reasonable
   conditions. … Sir William Temple was summoned from his
   retirement, and instructed to confer with the Spanish
   ambassador at London, the Marquis del Fresno, to whom the
   States General had sent full powers.
{2289}
   In three days all the points were arranged; and a treaty was
   signed at Westminster [February 19, 1674] by Arlington and
   four other commissioners on the part of Great Britain, and by
   Fresno on the part of the United Netherlands. The honor of the
   flag, which had been refused by De Witt, was yielded to
   England; the Treaty of Breda was revived; the rights of
   neutrals guaranteed; and the commercial principles of the
   Triple Alliance renewed. By the sixth article it was
   covenanted that 'all lands, islands, cities, havens, castles
   and fortresses, which have been or shall be taken by one party
   from the other, during the time of this last unhappy war,
   whether in Europe or elsewhere, and before the expiration of
   the times above limited for the duration of hostilities, shall
   be restored to the former Lord and Proprietor in the same
   condition they shall be in at the time that this peace shall
   be proclaimed.' This article restored New Netherland to the
   King of Great Britain. The Treaty of Breda had ceded it to him
   on the principle of 'uti possidetis.' The Treaty of
   Westminster gave it back to him on the principle of reciprocal
   restitution. Peace was soon proclaimed at London and at the
   Hague. The treaty of Westminster delivered the Dutch from fear
   of Charles, and cut off the right arm of Louis, their more
   dreaded foe. England, on her part, slipped out of a disastrous
   war. … By the treaty of Westminster the United Provinces
   relinquished their conquest of New Netherland to the King of
   England. The sovereign Dutch States General had treated
   directly with Charles as sovereign. A question at once arose
   at Whitehall about the subordinate interest of the Duke of
   York. It was claimed by some that James's former American
   proprietorship was revived. … The opinion of counsel having
   been taken, they advised that the duke's proprietorship had
   been extinguished by the Dutch conquest, and that the king was
   now alone seized of New Netherland, by virtue of the Treaty of
   Westminster. … A new patent to the Duke of York was
   therefore sealed. By it the king again conveyed to his brother
   the territories he had held before, and granted him anew the
   absolute powers of government he had formerly enjoyed over
   British subjects, with the like additional authority over 'any
   other person or persons' inhabiting his province. Under the
   same description of boundaries, New Jersey, and all the
   territory west of the Connecticut River, together with Long
   Island and the adjacent islands, and the region of Pemaquid,
   were again included in the grant. The new patent did not, as
   has been commonly, but erroneously stated, 'recite and confirm
   the former.' It did not in any way allude to that instrument.
   It read as if no previous English patent had ever existed. …
   As his colonial lieutenant and deputy, the duke, almost
   necessarily, appointed Major Edmund Andros, whom the king had
   directed in the previous March to receive New Netherland from
   the Dutch."

      J. R. Brodhead,
      History of the State of New York,
      volume 2, chapters 5-6.

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1674-1678.
Continued war of the Coalition against France.

"The enemies of France everywhere took courage. … Louis XIV. embraced with a firm glance the whole position, and, well advised by Turenne, clearly took his resolution. He understood the extreme difficulty of preserving his conquests, and the facility moreover of making others more profitable, while defending his own frontier. To evacuate Holland, to indemnify himself at the expense of Spain, and to endeavor to treat separately with Holland while continuing the war against the House of Austria,—such was the new plan adopted; an excellent plan, the very wisdom of which condemned so much the more severely the war with Holland. … The places of the Zuyder-Zee were evacuated in the course of December by the French and the troops of Munster. … The evacuation of the United Provinces was wholly finished by spring. … Louis resolved to conquer Franche-Comté in person; while Turenne covered Alsace and Lorraine, Schomberg went to defend Roussillon, and Condé labored to strengthen the French positions on the Meuse, by sweeping the enemy from the environs of Liege and Maestricht. On the ocean, the defensive was preserved." Louis entered Franche-Comté at the beginning of May with a small army of 8,000 infantry and 5,000 or 6,000 cavalry, but with Vauban, the great master of sieges, to do his serious work for him. A small corps had been sent into the country in February, and had already taken Gray, Vesoul and Lons-le-Saulnier. Besançon was now reduced by a short siege; Dole surrendered soon afterward, and early in July the subjugation of the province was complete. "The second conquest of Franche-Comté had cost a little more trouble than the first; but it was definitive. The two Burgundies were no more to be separated, and France was never again to lose her frontier of the Jura. … The allies, from the beginning of the year, had projected a general attack against France. They had debated among themselves the design of introducing two great armies, one from Belgium into Champagne, the other from Germany into Alsace and Lorraine; the Spaniards were to invade Roussillon; lastly, the Dutch fleet was to threaten the coasts of France and attempt some enterprise there. The tardiness of the Germanic diet to declare itself" frustrated the first of these plans. Condé, occupying a strong position near Charleroi, from which the allies could not draw him, took quick advantage of an imprudent movement which they made, and routed them by a fierce attack, at the village of Seneffe (August 11, 1674). But William of Orange rallied the flying forces—Dutch, German and Spanish now fighting side by side—so successfully that Condé was repulsed with terrible loss in the end, when he attempted to make his victory complete. The battle was maintained, by the light of the moon, until midnight, and both armies withdrew next morning, badly crippled. Turenne meantime, in June, had crossed the Rhine at Philippsburg and encountered the Imperialists, on the 16th, near Sinsheim, defeated them there and driven them beyond the Neckar. The following month, he again crossed the river and inflicted upon the Palatinate the terrible destruction which made it for the time being a desert, and which is the black blot on the fame of the great soldier. "Turenne ordered his troops to consume and waste cattle, forage, and harvests, so that the enemy's army, when it returned in force, as he foresaw it would do, could find nothing whereon to subsist." In September the city of Strasburg opened its gates to the Imperialists and gave them the control of its fortified bridge, crossing the Rhine. {2290} Turenne, hastening to prevent the disaster, but arriving too late, attacked his enemies, October 4, at the village of Ensisheim and gained an inconclusive victory. Then followed, before the close of the year, the most famous of the military movements of Turenne. The allies having been heavily reinforced, he retired before them into Lorraine, meeting and gathering up reinforcements of his own as he moved. Then, when he had completely deceived them as to his intentions, he traversed the whole length of the Vosges with his army, in December, and appeared suddenly at Belfort, finding their forces scattered and entirely unprepared. Defeating them at Mülhausen December 29, and again at Colmar, January 5, he expelled them from Alsace, and offered to Strasburg the renewal of its neutrality, which the anxious city was glad to accept. "Thus ended this celebrated campaign, the most glorious, perhaps, presented in the military history of ancient France. None offers higher instruction in the study of the great art of war." In the campaign of 1675, which opened in May, Turenne was confronted by Montecuculi, and the two masterly tacticians became the players of a game which has been the wonder of military students ever since. "Like two valiant athletes struggling foot to foot without either being able to overthrow the other, Turenne and Montecuculi manœuvred for six weeks in the space of a few square leagues [in the canton of Ortnau, Swabia] without succeeding in forcing each other to quit the place." At length, on the 27th of July, Turenne found an opportunity to attack his opponent with advantage, in the defile of Salsbach, and was just completing his preparations to do so, when a cannon-ball from one of the enemy's batteries struck him instantly dead. His two lieutenants, who succeeded to the command, could not carry out his plans, but fought a useless bloody battle at Altenheim and nearly lost their army before retreating across the Rhine. Condé was sent to replace Turenne. Before he arrived, Strasburg had again given its bridge to the Imperialists and they were in possession of Lower Alsace; but no important operations were undertaken during the remainder of the year. In other parts of the wide war field the French suffered disaster. Marshal de Crequi, commanding on the Moselle, was badly defeated at Konsaarbrück, August 11, and Treves, which he defended, was lost a few weeks later. The Swedes, also, making a diversion in the north, as allies of France, were beaten back, at Fehrbellin.

But next year (1676) Louis recovered all his prestige. His navy, under the command of Duquesne and Tourville, fought the Dutch and Spaniards on equal terms, and defeated them twice in the Mediterranean, on the Sicilian coast. On land the main effort of the French was directed against the Netherlands. Condé, Bouchain and Aire were taken by siege; and Maestricht was successfully defended against Orange, who besieged it for nearly eight weeks. But Philippsburg, the most important French post on the Rhine, was lost, surrendering to the Duke of Lorraine. Early in 1677, Louis renewed his attacks on the Spanish Netherlands and took Valenciennes March 17, Cambrai April 4, and Saint-Omer April 20, defeating the Prince of Orange at Cassel (April 11) when he attempted to relieve the latter place. At the same time Crequi, unable to defend Lower Alsace, destroyed it—burning the villages, leaving the inhabitants to perish—and prevented the allies, who outnumbered him, from making any advance. In November, when they had gone into winter-quarters, he suddenly crossed the Rhine and captured Freiburg. The next spring (1678) operations began early on the side of the French with the siege of Ghent. The city capitulated, March 9, after a short bombardment. The Spanish governor withdrew to the citadel, but "surrendered, on the 11th, that renowned castle built by Charles V. to hold the city in check. The city and citadel of Ghent had not cost the French army forty men." Ypres was taken the same month. Serious negotiations were now opened and the Peace of Nimeguen, between France and Holland, was signed August 11, followed early the next year by a general peace. The Prince of Orange, who opposed the peace, fought one bootless but bloody battle at Saint-Denis, near Mons, on the 14th of August, three days after it had been signed.

H. Martin, History of France: Age of Louis XIV. (translated by M. L. Booth), volume 1, chapters 5-6.

"It may be doubted whether Europe has fully realised the greatness of the peril she so narrowly escaped on this occasion. The extinction of political and mental freedom, which would have followed the extinction of the Dutch Republic, would have been one of the most disastrous defeats of the cause of liberty and enlightenment possible in the then condition of the world. … The free presses of Holland gave voice to the stilled thought and agony of mankind. And they were the only free presses in the world. But Holland was not only the greatest book mart of Europe, it was emphatically the home of thinkers and the birthplace of ideas. … The two men then living to whose genius and courage the modern spirit of mental emancipation and toleration owes its first and most arduous victories were Pierre Bayle and John Locke. And it is beyond dispute that if the French King had worked his will on Holland, neither of them would have been able to accomplish the task they did achieve under the protection of Dutch freedom. They both were forced to seek refuge in Holland from the bigotry which hunted them down in their respective countries. All the works of Bayle were published in Holland, and some of the earliest of Locke's writings appeared there also; and if the remainder saw the light afterwards in England, it is only because the Dutch, by saving their own freedom, were the means of saving that of England as well. … At least, no one can maintain that if Holland had been annihilated in 1672, the English revolution could have occurred in the form and at the time it did."

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1689.
Invasion of England by the Prince of Orange.
His accession to the English throne.

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1689-1696.
The War of the League of Augsburg, or the Grand Alliance
against Louis XIV.

NETHERLANDS: (The Spanish Provinces): A. D; 1690-1691.
The Battle of Fleurus and the loss of Mons.

NETHERLANDS: (The Spanish Provinces): A. D. 1692.
The loss of Namur and the Battle of Steenkerke.

NETHERLANDS: (The Spanish Provinces): A. D. 1694-1696.
Campaigns without battles.
The recovery of Namur.

A. D. 1698-1700.
The question of the Spanish Succession.
The Treaties of Partition.

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1702.
The Second Grand Alliance against France and Spain.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1702.
The War of the Spanish Succession: The Expedition to Cadiz.
The sinking of the treasure ships in Vigo Bay.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1702-1704.
The War of the Spanish Succession:
Marlborough's first campaigns.

"The campaign [of 1702] opened late in the Low Countries, owing, doubtless, to the death of king William. The elector of Bavaria, and his brother the elector of Cologne, took part with France. About the middle of April, the prince of Nassau-Saarbruck invested Keyserwerth, a place belonging to the latter elector, on the Rhine; whilst Lord Athlone, with the Dutch army, covered the siege, in pursuance of the advice of Lord Marlborough to the states. The place was strong; the French Marshal Boufflers made efforts to relieve it; after a vigorous defence, it was carried by assault, with dreadful carnage, about the middle of June. Boufflers, unable to relieve Keyserwerth, made a rapid, march to throw himself between Athlone and Nimeguen, with the view to carry that place by surprise; was defeated by a forced and still more rapid march of the Dutch, under Athlone, to cover it; and moved upon Cleves, laying the country waste with wanton barbarity along his line of march. Marlborough now arrived to take the command in chief. It was disputed with him by Athlone, who owed his military rank and the honours of the peerage to the favour of king William. Certain representatives of the states, who attended the army under the name of field deputies, thwarted him by their caution and incompetency; the Prussian and Hanoverian contingents refused to move without the orders of their respective sovereigns. Lord Marlborough, with admirable temper and adroitness, and, doubtless, with the ascendant of his genius, surmounted all these obstacles. The Dutch general cheerfully served under him; the confederates were reconciled to his orders; he crossed the Meuse in pursuit of the French; came within a few leagues of Boufflers' lines; and, addressing the Dutch field deputies who accompanied him, said, in a tone of easy confidence, 'I will now rid you of these troublesome neighbours.' Boufflers accordingly retreated,—abandoning Spanish Guelderland, and exposing Venloo, Ruremonde, and even Liege, which he had made a demonstration to cover. The young duke of Burgundy, grandson of Louis XIV., and elder brother of the king of Spain, had commanded the French army in name. He now returned to Versailles; and Boufflers could only look on, whilst Marlborough successively captured Venloo, Ruremonde, and Liege. The navigation of the Meuse and communication with Maestricht was now wholly free; the Dutch frontier was secure; and the campaign terminated with the close of October. … The duke of Marlborough resumed his command in the Low Countries about the middle of spring. He found the French strong and menacing on every side. Marshal Villars had, like Marlborough, fixed the attention of Europe for the first time in the late campaign. He obtained a splendid victory over the prince of Baden at Fredlingen, near the Black Forest. That prince lost 3,000 men, his cannon and the field. … Villars opened this year's campaign by taking Kehl, passed through the Black Forest into Bavaria, and formed a junction with the elector; whilst the prince of Baden was kept in check by a French army under marshal Tallard. … The imperial general, Count Styrum was now moving to join the prince of Baden with 20,000 men. Villars persuaded the elector to cross the Danube and prevent this junction; attacked the imperialists in the plain of Hochstedt near Donawert; and put them to the rout. The capture of Augsburg followed: the road was open to Vienna, and the emperor thought of abandoning the capital. … Holland was once more threatened on her frontier. Marshal Villeroi, liberated by exchange, was again at the head of an army, and, in conjunction with Boufflers, commenced operations for recovering the ground and the strong places from which Marlborough had dislodged the French on the Meuse. The campaign had opened at this point of the theatre of war with the capture of Rheinberg. It was taken by the Prussians before the duke of Marlborough arrived. The duke's first operation was the capture of Bonne. He returned to the main army with the view to engage the French under Villeroi. That marshal abandoned his camp, and retired within his lines of defence on the approach of the English general. Marlborough was prevented from attacking the French by the reluctance of the Dutch generals and the positive prohibition of the Dutch field deputies. … The only fruit of Marlborough's movement was the easy capture of Huy. Boufflers obtained the slight advantage of surprising and defeating the Dutch general Opdam near Antwerp. Marlborough, still embarrassed by the Dutch field deputies, to whose good intentions and limited views he bowed with a facility which only proves the extent of his superiority, closed the campaign with the acquisition of Limburg and Guelders. … In the beginning of … [1704] the emperor, threatened by the French and Bavarians in the very capital of the empire, implored aid from the queen; and on the 19th of April, the duke of Marlborough left England to enter upon a campaign memorable for … [the] victory of Blenheim. … On his arrival at the Hague, he proposed to the states general to alarm France for her frontier by a movement on the Moselle. {2292} Their consent even to this slight hazard for their own security, was not easily obtained. Villeroi, who commanded in Flanders, soon lost sight of him; so rapid or so well masked were his movements; Tallard, who commanded on the Moselle, thought only of protecting the frontier of France; and Marlborough, to the amazement of Europe, whether enemies or allies, passed in rapid succession the Rhine, the Maine, and the Necker. Intercepted letters, and a courier from the prince of Baden, apprised him that the French were about to join the Bavarians through the defiles of the Black Forest, and march upon Vienna. He now threw off the mask, sent a courier to the states, acquainting them that he was marching to the succour of the empire by order of the queen of England, and trusted they would permit their troops to share the glory of his enterprise. The pensionary Heinsius alone was in his confidence; and the states, though taken by surprise, conveyed to him their sanction and confidence with the best grace. He met Prince Eugene for the first time at Mindlesheim. Marlborough and Eugene are henceforth associated in the career of war and victory."

      J. H. Burton,
      History of the Reign of Queen Anne,
      chapters 5-6 (volume 1).

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1704.
The War of the Spanish Succession:
The campaign on the Danube and victory at Blenheim.

After his campaign in Bavaria, with its great victory on the field of Blenheim (see GERMANY: A. D. 1704), Marlborough passed the winter in England and returned in the spring of 1705 to the Low Countries, where he had planned to lead, again, the campaign of the year. Prince Eugene was now in Italy, and the jealous, incapable Prince Louis of Baden, commanding the German army, was the coadjutor on whom he must depend. The latter assented to Marlborough's plans and promised co-operation. The Dutch generals and deputies also were reluctantly brought over to his views, which contemplated an invasion of France on the side of the Moselle. "Slight as were the hopes of any effective co-operation which Prince Louis gave, they were much more than he accomplished. When the time came he declared himself sick, threw up his command and set off to drink the waters of Schlangenbad. Count de Frise whom he named in his place brought to Marlborough only a few ragged battalions, and, moreover, like his principal, showed himself most jealous of the English chief. … Marlborough nevertheless took the field and even singly desired to give battle. But positive instructions from Versailles precluded Villars [the commander of the French] from engaging. He intrenched himself in an extremely strong position at Sirk, where it was impossible for an inferior army to assail him. And while the war was thus unprosperous on the Moselle, there came adverse tidings from the Meuse. Marshal Villeroy had suddenly resumed the offensive, had reduced the fortress of Huy, had entered the city and invested the citadel of Liege." Marlborough, on this news, being applied to for immediate aid by the Dutch General Overkirk—the ablest and best of his colleagues—"set out the very next day on his march to Liege, leaving only a 'sufficient force as he hoped for the security of Treves." Villeroy "at once relinquished his design upon the citadel of Liege and fell back in the direction of Tongres, so that Marlborough and Overkirk effected their junction with ease. Marlborough took prompt measures to re-invest the fortress of Huy, and compelled it to surrender on the 11th of July. Applying his mind to the new sphere before him, Marlborough saw ground to hope that, with the aid of the Dutch troops, he might still make a triumphant campaign. The first object was to force the defensive lines that stretched across the country from near Namur to Antwerp, protected by numerous fortified posts and covered in other places by rivers and morasses, … now defended by an army of at least 60,000 men, under Marshal Villeroy and the Elector of Bavaria. Marlborough laid his plans before Generals Overkirk and Slangenberg as also those civilian envoys whom the States were wont to commission at their armies. But he found to his sorrow that for jealousy and slowness a Dutch deputy was fully a match for a German Margrave." He obtained with great difficulty a nominal assent to his plans, and began the execution of them; but in the very midst of his operations, and when one division of the Dutch troops had successfully crossed the river Dyle, General Slangenberg and the deputies suddenly drew back and compelled a retreat. Then Marlborough's "fertile genius devised another scheme—to move round the sources of the river [Dyle] and to threaten Brussels from the southern side. … On the 15th off August he began his march, as did also Overkirk in a parallel direction, and in two days they reached Genappe near the sources of the Dyle. There uniting in one line of battle they moved next morning towards Brussels by the main chaussée, or great paved road; their head-quarters that day being fixed at Frischermont, near the borders of the forest of Soignies. On the French side the Elector and Villeroy, observing the march of the allies, had made a corresponding movement of their own for the protection of the capital. They encamped behind the small stream of the Ische, their right and rear being partly covered by the forest. Only the day before they had been joined by Marsin from the Rhine, and they agreed to give battle sooner than yield Brussels. One of their main posts was at Waterloo. … It is probable, had a battle now ensued, that it would have been fought on the same, or nearly the same ground as was the memorable conflict a hundred and ten years afterwards. … But the expected battle did not take place." Once more the Dutch deputies and General Slangenberg interfered, refusing to permit their troops to engage; so that Marlborough was robbed of the opportunity for winning a victory which he confidently declared would have been greater than Blenheim. This practically ended the campaign of the year, which had been ruined and wasted throughout by the stupidity, the cowardice and the jealousies of the Dutch deputies and the general who counselled them.

In Spain, a campaign of more brilliancy was carried on by
Charles Mordaunt, Earl of Peterborough, in Catalonia.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1706-1707.
The War of the Spanish Succession:
The Battle of Ramillies and its results.

"The campaign of 1706 was begun unusually late by Marlborough, his long stay on the Continent in the winter and his English political business detaining him in London till the end of April, and when he finally landed at the Hague his plans were still coloured by the remembrance of the gratuitous and intolerable hindrances which he had met with from his allies. … He had made up his mind to operate with Eugene in Italy, which, if he had done, there would probably have been seen what has not been seen for nearly two thousand years—a successful invasion of France from the southeast. But the kings of Prussia and Denmark, and others of the allies whom Marlborough thought he had propitiated, were as recalcitrant as the Dutch, and the vigorous action of Villars against the Margrave of Baden made the States-General more than ever reluctant to lose their sword and shield. So Marlborough was condemned to action on his old line of the Dyle, and this time fortune was less unkind to him. Secret overtures were made which induced him to threaten Namur, and as Namur was of all posts in the Low Countries that to which the French attached most importance, both on sentimental and strategical grounds, Villeroy was ordered to abandon the defensive policy which he had for nearly two years been forced to maintain, and to fight at all hazards. Accordingly the tedious operations which had for so long been pursued in this quarter were exchanged at once for a vigorous offensive and defensive, and the two generals, Villeroy with rather more than 60,000 men, Marlborough with that number or a little less, came to blows at Ramillies (a few miles only from the spot where the lines had been forced the year before) on May 23, 1706, or scarcely more than a week after the campaign had begun. Here, as before, the result is assigned by the French to the fault of the general. … The battle itself was one completely of generalship, and of generalship as simple as it was masterly. It was in defending his position, not in taking it up, that Villeroy lost the battle. … Thirteen thousand of the French and Bavarians were killed, wounded, and taken, and the loss of the allies, who had been throughout the attacking party, was not less than 4,000 men. … The Dutch, who bore the burden of the attack on Ramillies, had the credit of the day's fighting on the allied side, as the Bavarian horse had on that of the French. In hardly any of Marlborough's operations had he his hands so free as at Ramillies, and in none did he carry off a completer victory. … The strong places of Flanders fell before the allied army like ripe fruit. Brussels surrendered and was occupied on the fourth day after the battle, May 28. Louvain and Malines had fallen already. The French garrison precipitately left Ghent, and the Duke entered it on June 2. Oudenarde came in next day; Antwerp was summoned, expelled the French part of its garrison, and capitulated on September 7. And a vigorous siege in less than a month reduced Ostend, reputed one of the strongest places in Europe. In six weeks from the battle of Ramillies not a French soldier remained in a district which the day before that battle had been occupied by a network of the strongest fortresses and a field army of 80,000 men. The strong places on the Lys and the Dender, tributaries of the Scheldt, gave more trouble, and Menin, a small but very important position, cost nearly half the loss of Ramillies before it could be taken. But it fell, as well as Dendermonde and Ath, and nothing but the recrudescence of Dutch obstruction prevented Marlborough from finishing the campaign with the taking of Mons, almost the last place of any importance held by the French north of their own frontier, as that frontier is now understood. But the difficulties of all generals are said to begin on the morrow of victory, and certainly the saying was true in Marlborough's case. … The Dutch were, before all things, set on a strong barrier or zone of territory, studded with fortresses in their own keeping, between themselves and France: the Emperor naturally objected to the alienation of the Spanish-Austrian Netherlands. The barrier disputes were for years the greatest difficulty which Marlborough had to contend with abroad, and the main theme of the objections to the war made by the adverse party at home. … It was in the main due, no doubt, to these jealousies and hesitations, strengthened by the alarm caused by the loss of the battle of Almanza in Spain, and by the threatened invasion of Germany under Villars, that made the campaign of 1707 an almost wholly inactive one. … The campaign of this year is almost wholly barren of any military operations interesting to anyone but the mere annalist of tactics."

   In Spain, several sharp changes of fortune during two years
   terminated in a disastrous defeat of the allies at Almanza in
   April, 1707, by the Duke of Berwick.

      Earl Stanhope,
      History of England: Reign of Queen Anne,
      chapter 7 and 9.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1708-1709.
The War of the Spanish Succession: Oudenarde and Malplaquet.

To the great satisfaction of Marlborough, Prince Eugene of Savoy was sent by the Emperor to co-operate with him, in the spring of 1708. The two generals met in April to discuss plans; after which Eugene returned into Germany to gather up the various contingents that would compose his army. He encountered many difficulties and delays, and was unable to bring his forces to the field until July. Marlborough, meantime, had been placed in a critical situation. "For whilst the English commander and Eugene had formed the plan to unite and overwhelm Vendome, the Court of Versailles had, on its side, contemplated the despatch of a portion of the Army of the Rhine, commanded by the Elector of Bavaria and the Duke of Berwick, so to reinforce Vendome that he might overwhelm Marlborough, and Berwick was actually on his march to carry out his portion of the plan." Prince Eugene crossed the Moselle on the 28th June, "reached Düren the 3rd July, and learning there that affairs were critical, hastened with an escort of Hussars, in advance of his army, to Brussels. On his arrival there, the 6th, he learned that the French had attacked and occupied the city of Ghent, and were then besieging the castle." {2294} The two commanders having met at Assche, to concert their movements, made haste to throw: "a reinforcement into the fortress of Oudenarde, then besieged by the French; and, convinced now that the conquest of that fortress by Vendome would give him an unassailable position, they pushed forward their troops with all diligence to save it. The two armies united on the 8th. On the 9th they set out for Oudenarde, and crossed the Dender on the 10th. Before daybreak of the 11th Marlborough despatched General Cadogan with a strong corps to the Scheldt, to throw bridges over that river near Oudenarde and to reconnoitre the enemy. The main army followed at 7 o'clock." In the battle which ensued, Vendome was hampered by the equal authority of the Duke of Burgundy—the king's grandson—who would not concur with his plans. "One after another the positions occupied by the French soldiers were carried. Then these took advantage of the falling night to make a retreat as hurried and disorderly as their defence had been wanting in tenacity. In no pitched battle, indeed, have the French soldiers less distinguished themselves than at Oudenarde. Fighting under a divided leadership, they were fighting virtually without leadership, and they knew it. The Duke of Burgundy contributed as much as either Marlborough or Eugene to gain the battle of Oudenarde for the Allies." The French army, losing heavily in the retreat, was rallied finally at Ghent. "The Allies, meanwhile, prepared to take advantage of their victory. They were within a circle commanded by three hostile fortresses, Ypres, Lille, and Tournay. After some consideration it was resolved, on the proposition of Eugene, that Lille should be besieged." The siege of Lille, the capital of French Flanders, fortified by the utmost skill and science of Vauban, and held by a garrison of 10,000 men under Marshal Boufflers, was a formidable undertaking. The city was invested on the 13th of August, and defended heroically by the garrison: but Vendome, who would have attacked the besiegers, was paralyzed by the royal youth who shared his command. Lille, the town, was surrendered on the 22d of October and its citadel on the 9th of December. The siege of Ghent followed, and the capitulation of that city, on the 2d of January, 1709, closed the campaign. "The winter of 1709 was spent mainly in negotiations. Louis XIV. was humiliated, and he offered peace on terms which the Allies would have done well to accept." Their demands, however, rose too high, and the war went on. "It had been decided that the campaign in the Netherlands should be continued under the same skilful generals who had brought that of 1708 to so successful an issue. … On the 23rd of [June] … the allied army, consisting of 110,000 men, was assembled between Courtray and Menin. Marlborough commanded the left wing, about 70,000 strong; Eugene the right, about 40,000. Louis, on his side, had made extraordinary efforts. But even with these he had been able to put in the field an army only 80,000 strong [under Marshal Villars]. … Villars had occupied a position between Douai and the Lys, and had there thrown up lines, in the strengthening of which he found daily employment for his troops." Not venturing to attack the French army in its strong position, Marlborough and Eugene began operations by laying siege to Tournay. The town was yielded to them on the 30th of July and the citadel on the 3d of September. They next turned their attention to Mons, which the French thought it necessary to save at any cost. The attempt which the latter made to drive the allied army from the position it had gained between themselves and Mons had its outcome in the terribly bloody battle of Malplaquet—"the bloodiest known till then in modern history. The loss of the victors was greater than that of the vanquished. That of the former amounted to from 18,000 to 20,000 men: the French admitted a loss of 7,000, but German writers raise it to 15,000. Probably it did not exceed 11,000. … The results … were in no way proportionate to its cost. The French army retreated in good order, taking with it all its impedimenta, to a new position as strong as the former. There, under Berwick, who was sent to replace Villars, it watched the movements of the Allies. These resumed, indeed, the siege of Mons [which surrendered on the 20th of October]. … But this was the solitary result of the victory."

H. Martin, History of France: Age of Louis XIV. (translated by M. L. Booth), volume 2, chapters 5-6.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1710-1712.
The War of the Spanish Succession:
The last campaigns of Marlborough.

"As soon as it became clear that the negotiations [at Gertruydenberg] would lead to nothing, Eugene and Marlborough at once began the active business of the campaign. … Marlborough began … with the siege of Douai, the possession of which would be of the greatest importance to him. … In spite of Villars' boasts the French were unable to prevent the capture of Douai. … The campaign of 1710 was full of disappointment to Marlborough. He had hoped to carry the war into the heart of France. But after Douai fell, Villars so placed his army that [Marlborough] … was obliged to content himself with the capture of Bethune, St. Venant, and Aire. Heavy rains and a great deal of illness among his troops prevented further operations. Besides this, his energy was somewhat paralysed by the changes which had taken place in England," where the Duchess of Marlborough and the Whig party had lost the favor of the Queen, and the Tory opponents of Marlborough and the war had come into power.

   "In 1711, in a complicated series of operations round Arras,
   Marlborough, who was now alone, Eugene having been recalled to
   Vienna, completely outgeneraled Villars and broke through his
   lines. But he did not fight, and the sole result of the
   campaign was the capture of Bouchain at the cost of some
   16,000 men, while no serious impression was made on the French
   system of defence. … Lille had cost 14,000; Tournay a number
   not exactly mentioned, but very large; the petty place of Aire
   7,000. How many, malcontent Englishmen might well ask
   themselves, would it cost before Arras, Cambrai, Hesdin,
   Calais, Namur, and all the rest of the fortresses that studded
   the country, could be expected to fall? … Marlborough had
   himself, so to speak, spoilt his audience.
{2295}
   He had given them four great victories in a little more than
   five years; it was perhaps unreasonable, but certainly not
   unnatural, that they should grow fretful when he gave them
   none during nearly half the same time. … The expense of the
   war was frightening men of all classes in England, and,
   independently of the more strictly political considerations,
   … it will be seen that there was some reason for wishing
   Marlborough anywhere but on or near the field of battle. He
   was got rid of none too honourably; restrictions were put upon
   his successor Ormond which were none too honourable either;
   and when Villars, freed from his invincible antagonist, had
   inflicted a sharp defeat upon Eugene at Denain, the military
   situation was changed from one very much in favour of the
   allies to one slightly against them, and so contributed beyond
   all doubt to bring about the Peace of Utrecht."

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1713-1714.
   The Treaties of Utrecht.
   Cession of the Spanish Provinces to the House of Austria.
   Barrier towns secured.

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1713-1715.
Second Barrier Treaty with England.
Barrier arrangements with France and the Emperor.

Connected with the other arrangements concluded in the treaties negotiated at Utrecht, the States, in 1713, signed a new Barrier Treaty with England, "annulling that of 1709, and providing that the Emperor Charles should be sovereign of the Netherlands [heretofore the 'Spanish Provinces,' but now become the 'Austrian Provinces'], which, neither in the whole nor in the part, should ever be possessed by France. The States, on their side, were bound to support, if required, the succession of the Electress of Hanover to the throne of England. … By the treaty concluded between France and the States, it was agreed that … the towns of Menin, Tournay, Namur, Ypres, with Warneton, Poperingen, Comines and Werwyk, Fumes, Dixmuyde, and the fort of Knokke, were to be ceded to the States, as a barrier, to be held in such a manner as they should afterwards agree upon with the Emperor." In the subsequent arrangement, concluded with the Emperor in 1715, "he permitted the boundary on the side of Flanders to be fixed in a manner highly satisfactory to the States, who sought security rather than extent of dominion. By the possession of Namur they commanded the passage of the Sambre and Meuse; Tournay ensured the navigation of the Scheldt; Menin and Warneton protected the Leye; while Ypres and the fort of Knokke kept open the communication with Fumes, Nieuport and Dunkirk. … Events proved the barrier, so earnestly insisted upon, to have been wholly insufficient as a means of defence to the United Provinces, and scarcely worth the labour and cost of its maintenance."

(NETHERLANDS: Holland): A. D. 1713-1725.
    Continued Austro-Spanish troubles.
    The Triple Alliance.
    The Quadruple Alliance.
    The Alliance of Hanover.

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1729-1731.
   The Treaty of Seville.
   The second Treaty of Vienna.
   The Ostend Company abolished.

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1731-1740.
The question of the Austrian Succession.
Guarantee of the Pragmatic Sanction.

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1740-1741.
Beginning of the War of the Austrian Succession.

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1743.
The War of the Austrian Succession: Dutch Subsidies and Troops.

NETHERLANDS: (The Austrian Provinces): A. D. 1745.
The War of the Austrian Succession: Battle of Fontenoy.
French conquests.

In the spring of 1745, while events in the second Silesian War were still threatening to Frederick the Great (see AUSTRIA: A. D. 1744-1745), his allies, the French, though indifferent to his troubles, were doing better for themselves in the Netherlands. They had given to Marshal de Saxe, who commanded there, an army of 76,000 excellent troops. "As to the Allies, England had furnished her full contingent of 28,000 men, but Holland less than half of the 50,000 she had stipulated; there were but eight Austrian squadrons, and the whole body scarcely exceeded 50,000 fighting men. The nominal leader was the young Duke of Cumberland, but subject in a great measure to the control of an Austrian veteran, Marshal Konigsegg, and obliged to consult the Dutch commander, Prince de Waldeck. Against these inferior numbers and divided councils the French advanced in full confidence of victory, and, after various movements to distract the attention of the Allies, suddenly, on the 1st of May, invested Tournay. … To relieve this important city, immediately became the principal object with the Allies; and the States, usually so cautious, nay, timorous in their suggestions, were now as eager in demanding battle. … On the other hand, the Mareschal de Saxe made most skilful dispositions to receive them. Leaving 15,000 infantry to cover the blockade of Tournay, he drew up the rest of his army, a few miles further, in an excellent position, which he strengthened with numerous works; and his soldiers were inspirited by the arrival of the King and Dauphin, who had hastened from Paris to join in the expected action. The three allied generals, on advancing against the French, found them encamped on some gentle heights, with the village of Antoin and the river Scheldt on their right, Fontenoy and a narrow valley in their front, and a small wood named Barre on their left. The passage of the Scheldt, and, if needful, a retreat, were secured by the bridge of Calonne in the rear, by a tête de pont, and by a reserve of the Household Troops. Abbatis were constructed in the wood of Barre; redoubts between Antoin and Fontenoy; and the villages themselves had been carefully fortified and, garrisoned. The narrow space between Fontenoy and Barre seemed sufficiently defended by cross fires, and by the natural ruggedness of the ground: in short, as the French officers thought, the strength of the position might bid defiance to the boldest assailant. {2296} Nevertheless, the Allied chiefs, who had already resolved on a general engagement, drove in the French piquets and outposts on the 10th of May, New Style, and issued orders for their intended attack at daybreak. … At six o'clock on the morning of the 11th, the cannonade began. The Prince of Waldeck, and his Dutch, undertook to carry Antoin and Fontenoy by assault, while the Duke of Cumberland, at the head of the British and Hanoverians, was to advance against the enemy's left. His Royal Highness, at the same time with his own attack, sent General Ingoldsby, with a division, to pierce through the wood of Barre, and storm the redoubt beyond it." Ingoldsby's division and the Dutch troops were both repulsed, and the latter made no further effort. But the British and Hanoverians, leaving their cavalry behind and dragging with them a few field pieces, "plunged down the ravine between Fontenoy and Barre, and marched on against a position which the best Marshals of France had deemed impregnable, and which the best troops of that nation defended. … Whole ranks of the British were swept away, at once, by the murderous fire of the batteries on their left and right. Still did their column, diminishing in numbers not in spirit, steadily press forward, repulse several desperate attacks of the French infantry, and gain ground on its position. … The battle appeared to be decided: already did Marshal Konigsegg offer his congratulations to the Duke of Cumberland; already had Mareschal de Saxe prepared for retreat, and, in repeated messages, urged the King to consult his safety and withdraw, while it was yet time, beyond the Scheldt." The continued inactivity of the Dutch, however, enabled the French commander to gather his last reserves at the one point of danger, while he brought another battery to bear on the head of the advancing British column. "The British, exhausted by their own exertions, mowed down by the artillery in front, and assailed by the fresh troops in flank, were overpowered. Their column wavered—broke—fell back. … In this battle of Fontenoy (for such is the name it has borne), the British left behind a few pieces of artillery, but no standards, and scarce any prisoners but the wounded. The loss in these, and in killed, was given out as 4,041 British, 1,762 Hanoverians, and only 1,544 Dutch; while on their part the French likewise acknowledged above 7,000." As the consequence of the battle of Fontenoy, not only Tournay, but Ghent, likewise, was speedily surrendered to the French. "Equal success crowned similar attempts on Bruges, on Oudenarde, and on Dendermonde, while the allies could only act on the defensive and cover Brussels and Antwerp. The French next directed their arms against Ostend, … which … yielded in fourteen days. … Meanwhile the events in Scotland [the Jacobite rebellion—see SCOTLAND: A. D. 1745-1746] were compelling the British government to withdraw the greater part of their force; and it was only the approach of winter, and the retreat of both armies into quarters, that obtained a brief respite for the remaining fortresses of Flanders."

Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope), History of England, 1713-1783, chapter 26 (volume 3).

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1746-1747.
   The War of the Austrian Succession:
   French conquest of the Austrian provinces.
   Humiliation of Holland.
   The Stadtholdership restored.

   "In the campaign in Flanders in 1746, the French followed up
   the successes which they had achieved in the previous year.
   Brussels, Antwerp, Mons, Charleroi, Namur, and other places
   successively surrendered to Marshal Saxe and the Prince of
   Conti. After the capture of Namur in September, Marshal Saxe,
   reuniting all the French forces, attacked Prince Charles of
   Lorraine at Raucoux [or Roucoux], between Liege and Viset, and
   completely defeated him, October 11; after which both sides
   went into winter quarters. All the country between the Meuse
   and the sea was now in the power of France, Austria retaining
   only Luxemburg and Limburg. … Ever since the year 1745 some
   negociations had been going on between France and the Dutch
   for the reestablishment of peace. The States-General had
   proposed the assembling of a Congress to the Cabinet of
   Vienna, which, however, had been rejected. In September 1746,
   conferences had been opened at Breda, between France, Great
   Britain, and the States-General; but as Great Britain had
   gained some advantages at sea, the negociations were
   protracted, and the Cabinets of London and Vienna had
   endeavoured to induce the Dutch to take a more direct and
   active part in the war. In this state of things the Court of
   Versailles took a sudden resolution to coerce the
   States-General. A manifest was published by Louis XV. April
   17th 1747, filled with those pretexts which it is easy to find
   on such occasions: not, indeed, exactly declaring war against
   the Dutch Republic, but that he should enter her territories
   'without breaking with her'; that he should hold in deposit
   the places he might conquer, and restore them as soon as the
   States ceased to succour his enemies. At the same time Count
   Löwendahl entered Dutch Flanders by Bruges, and seized in less
   than a month Sluys, Ysendick, Sas de Gand, Hulst, Axel, and
   other places. Holland had now very much declined from the
   position she had held a century before. There were indeed many
   large capitalists in the United Provinces, whose wealth had
   been amassed during the period of the Republic's commercial
   prosperity, but the State as a whole was impoverished and
   steeped in debt. … In … becoming the capitalists and
   money-lenders of Europe, they [the Dutch] had ceased to be her
   brokers and carriers. … Holland was no longer the entrepôt
   of nations. The English, the Swedes, the Danes, and the
   Hamburghers had appropriated the greater part of her trade.
   Such was the result of the long wars in which she had been
   engaged. … Her political consideration had dwindled equally
   with her commerce. Instead of pretending as formerly to be the
   arbiter of nations, she had become little more than the
   satellite of Great Britain; a position forced upon her by fear
   of France, and her anxiety to maintain her barriers against
   that encroaching Power. Since the death of William III., the
   republican or aristocratic party had again seized the
   ascendency. William III.'s collateral heir, John William
   Friso, had not been recognised as Stadtholder, and the
   Republic was again governed, as in the time of De Witt, by a
   Grand Pensionary and greffier. The dominant party had,
   however, become highly unpopular.
{2297}
   It had sacrificed the army to maintain the fleet, and the
   Republic seemed to lie at the mercy of France. At the approach
   of the French, consternation reigned in the provinces. The
   Orange party raised its head and demanded the re-establishment
   of the Stadtholdership. The town of Veere in Zealand gave the
   example of insurrection, and William IV. of Nassau-Dietz, who
   was already Stadtholder of Friesland, Groningen and
   Gelderland, was ultimately proclaimed hereditary Stadtholder,
   Captain-General and Admiral of the United Provinces. William
   IV. was the son of John William Friso, and son-in-law of
   George II., whose daughter, Anne, he had married. The French
   threatening to attack Maestricht, the allies under the Duke of
   Cumberland marched to Lawfeld in order to protect it. Here
   they were attacked by Marshal Saxe, July 2nd 1747, and after a
   bloody battle compelled to recross the Meuse. The Duke of
   Cumberland, however, took up a position which prevented the
   French from investing Maestricht. On the other hand, Löwendahl
   [a Swedish general in the French service] carried
   Bergen-op-Zoom by assault., July 16th." The following spring
   (1748), the French succeeded in laying siege to Maestricht,
   notwithstanding the presence of the allies, and it was
   surrendered to them on the 7th of May. "Negociations had been
   going on throughout the winter, and a Congress had been
   appointed to meet at Aix-la-Chapelle, whose first conference
   took place April 24th 1748." The taking of Maestricht was
   intended to stimulate these negotiations for peace, and it
   undoubtedly had that effect. The treaties which concluded the
   war were signed the following October.

ALSO IN: C. M. Davies, History of Holland, part 3, chapter 12, part 4, chapter 1.

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1746-1787.
   The restored Stadtholdership.
   Forty years of peace.
   War with England and trouble with Austria.
   The razing of the Barriers.
   Premature revolutions.

In their extremity, when the provinces of the Dutch Republic were threatened with invasion by the French, a cry for the House of Orange was raised once more. "The jealousies of Provincial magistratures were overborne, and in obedience to the voice of the people a Stadholder again arose. William of Nassau Dietz, the heir to William III., and the successor to a line of Stadholders who had ruled continuously in Friesland since the days of Philip II., was summoned to power. … William IV. had married, as William II. and William III. had done, the daughter of a King of England. As the husband of Anne, the child of George II., he had added to the consideration of his House; and he was now able to secure for his descendants the dignities to which he had himself been elected. The States General in 1747 declared that both male and female heirs should succeed to his honours. The constitution was thus in a measure changed, and the appointment of a hereditary chief magistrate appeared to many … to be a departure from the pure ideal of a Republic. The election of the new Stadholder brought less advantage to his people than to his family. He could not recall the glorious days of the great ancestors who had preceded him. Without abilities for war himself, and jealous of those with whom he was brought in contact, he caused disunion to arise among the forces of the allies. … When the terms at Aix La Chapelle restored their losses to the Dutch and confirmed the stipulations of previous treaties in their favour, it was felt that the Republic was indebted to the exertions of its allies, and not to any strength or successes of its own. It was well for the Republic that she could rest. The days of her greatness had gone by, and the recent struggle had manifested her decline to Europe. … The next forty years were years of peace, … When war again arrived it was again external circumstances [connected with the war between England and her revolted colonies in America] that compelled the Republic to take up arms. … She … contemplated, as it was discovered, an alliance with the American insurgents. The exposure of her designs drew on her a declaration of war from England, which was followed by the temporary loss of many of her colonies both in the East and West Indies. But in Europe the struggle was more equally sustained. The hostile fleets engaged in 1781 off the Dogger Bank; and the Dutch sailors fought with a success that made them claim a victory, and that at least secured them from the consequences of a defeat. The war indeed caused far less injury to the Republic than might have been supposed. … When she concluded peace in 1783, the whole of her lost colonies, with the one exception of Negapatam, were restored to her. But the occasion of the war had been made use of by Austria, and a blow had been meanwhile inflicted upon the United Provinces the fatal effect of which was soon to be apparent. The Emperor Joseph II. had long protested against the existence of the Barrier: and he had seized upon the opportunity to undo by an arbitrary act all that the blood and treasure of Europe had been lavished to secure. 'The Emperor will hear no more of Barriers,' wrote his minister; 'our connection with France has made them needless': and the fortresses for which William III. had schemed and Marlborough had fought, were razed to the ground [1782]. Holland, unable at the moment to resist, withdrew her garrisons in silence; and Joseph, emboldened by his success, proceeded to ask for more [1784]. The rectification of the Dutch frontiers, the opening of the Scheldt, and the release for his subjects from the long-enforced restrictions upon their trade did not appear too much to him. But the spirit of the Dutch had not yet left them. They fired at the vessels which dared to attempt to navigate the Scheldt, and war again appeared imminent. The support of France, however, upon which the Emperor had relied, was now given to the Republic, and Joseph recognized that he had gone too far. The Barrier, once destroyed, was not to be restored; but the claims which had been put forward were abandoned upon the payment of money compensation by the States. The feverous age of revolution was now at hand, and party spirit, which had ever divided the United Provinces, and had been quickened by the intercourse and alliance with America during the war, broke out in an insurrection against the Stadholder [William V.], which drove him from his country, and compelled him to appeal to Prussian troops for his restoration. Almost at the same time, in the Austrian provinces, a Belgic Republic was proclaimed [1787], the result in a great degree of imprudent changes which Joseph II. had enforced. The Dutch returned to their obedience under Prussian threats [and invasion of Holland by an army of 30,000 men—September, 1787], and Belgium under the concessions of Leopold III. But these were the clouds foreshadowing the coming storm, beneath whose fury all Europe was to tremble."

F. C. Schlosser, History of the 18th Century, period 4, chapter 1, section 2, and chapter 2, section 2 (volume 5).

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1748.
Termination and results of the War of the Austrian Succession.
French conquests restored to Austria and to Holland.

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1782.
Recognition of the United States of America.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1792-1793.
   The Austrian provinces occupied
   by the French revolutionary army.
   Determination to annex them to the French Republic.
   Preparations to attack Holland.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1793 (February-April).
   French invasion of Holland.
   Defeat at Neerwinden and retreat.
   Recovery of Belgian provinces by the Austrians.

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1793 (March-September).
The Coalition against Revolutionary France.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1794.
French conquest of the Austrian Provinces.
Holland open to invasion.

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1794-1795.
   Subjugation and occupation by the French.
   Overthrow of the Stadtholdership.
   Establishment of the Batavian Republic, in alliance with France.

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1797.
Naval defeat by the English in the Battle of Camperdown.

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1799.
   English and Russian invasion.
   Capture of the Dutch fleet.
   Ignominious ending of the expedition.
   Capitulation of the Duke of York.
   Dissolution of the Dutch East India Company.

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1801.
Revolution instigated and enforced by Bonaparte.
A new Constitution.

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1802.
The Peace of Amiens.
Recovery of the Cape of Good Hope and Dutch Guiana.

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1806.
Final seizure of Cape Colony by the English.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1806-1810.
Commercial blockade by the English Orders in Council and
Napoleon's Decrees.

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1806-1810.
   The Batavian Republic transformed into the Kingdom of Holland.
   Louis Bonaparte made King.
   His fidelity to the country offensive to Napoleon.
   His abdication.
   Annexation of Holland to the French empire.

"While Bonaparte was the chief of the French republic, he had no objection to the existence of a Batavian republic in the north of France, and he equally tolerated the Cisalpine republic in the south. But after the coronation all the republics, which were grouped like satellites round the grand republic, were converted into kingdoms, subject to the empire, if not avowedly, at least in fact. In this respect there was no difference between the Batavian and Cisalpine republic. The latter having been metamorphosed into the kingdom of Italy, it was necessary to find some pretext for transforming the former into the kingdom of Holland. … The Emperor kept up such an extensive agency in Holland that he easily got up a deputation, soliciting him to choose a king for the Batavian republic. This submissive deputation came to Paris in 1806, to solicit the Emperor, as a favour, to place Prince Louis [Napoleon's brother] on the throne of Holland. … Louis became King of Holland much against his inclination, for he opposed the proposition as much as he dared, alleging as an objection the state of his health, to which certainly the climate of Holland was not favourable; but Bonaparte sternly replied to his remonstrance—'It is better to die a king than live a prince.' He was then obliged to accept the crown. He went to Holland accompanied by Hortense, who, however, did not stay long there. The new king wanted to make himself beloved by his subjects, and as they were an entirely commercial people, the best way to win their affections was … not to adopt Napoleon's rigid laws against commercial intercourse with England. Hence the first coolness between the two brothers, which ended in the abdication of Louis. I know not whether Napoleon recollected the motive assigned by Louis for at first refusing the crown of Holland, namely, the climate of the country, or whether he calculated upon greater submission in another of his brothers; but this is certain, that Joseph was not called from the throne of Naples to the throne of Spain, until after the refusal of Louis. … Before finally seizing Holland, Napoleon formed the project of separating from it Brabant and Zealand, in exchange for other provinces, the possession of which was doubtful: but Louis successfully resisted this first act of usurpation. Bonaparte was too intent on the great business in Spain, to risk any commotion in the north, where the declaration of Russia against Sweden already sufficiently occupied him. He therefore did not insist upon, and even affected indifference to the proposed augmentation of the territory of the empire. … But when he got his brother Joseph recognized, and when he had himself struck an important blow in the Peninsula, he began to change his tone to Louis. On the 20th of December [1808] he wrote to him a very remarkable letter, which exhibits the unreserved expression of that tyranny which he wished to exercise over all his family in order to make them the instruments of his despotism. He reproached Louis for not following his system of policy, telling him that he had forgotten he was a Frenchman, and that he wished to become a Dutchman. Among other things he said: … 'I have been obliged a second time to prohibit trade with Holland. In this state of things we may consider ourselves really at war. In my speech to the legislative body I manifested my displeasure; for I will not conceal from you, that my intention is to unite Holland with France. {2299} This will be the most severe blow I can aim against England, and will deliver me from the perpetual insults which the plotters of your cabinet are constantly directing against me. The mouths of the Rhine, and of the Meuse, ought, indeed, to belong to me. … The following are my conditions:—First, the interdiction of all trade and communication with England. Second. The supply of a fleet of fourteen sail of the line, seven frigates and seven brigs or corvettes, armed and manned. Third, an army of 25,000 men. Fourth. The suppression of the rank of Marshals. Fifth. The abolition of all the privileges of nobility, which is contrary to the constitution. Your Majesty may negotiate on these bases with the Duke de Cadore, through the medium of your minister; but be assured, that on the entrance of the first packet-boat into Holland, I will restore my prohibitions, and that the first Dutch officer who may presume to insult my flag, shall be seized and hanged at the main-yard. Your Majesty will find in me a brother if you prove yourself a Frenchman; but if you forget the sentiments which attach you to our common country, you cannot think it extraordinary that I should lose sight of those which nature has raised between us. In short, the union of Holland and France will be, of all things, most useful to France, Holland and the Continent, because it will be most injurious to England. This union must be effected willingly, or by force.' … Here the correspondence between the two brothers was suspended for a time; but Louis still continued exposed to new vexations on the part of Napoleon. About the end of 1809, the Emperor summoned to Paris the sovereigns who might be called his vassals. Among the number was Louis, who, however, did not shew himself very willing to quit his states. He called a council of his ministers, who were of opinion that for the interest of Holland he ought to make this new sacrifice. He did so with resignation. Indeed, every day passed on the throne was a sacrifice to Louis. … Amidst the general silence of the servants of the empire, and even of the kings and princes assembled in the capital, he ventured to say:—'I have been deceived by promises which were never intended to be kept. Holland is tired of being the sport of France.' The Emperor, who was unused to such language as this, was highly incensed at it. Louis had now no alternative, but to yield to the incessant exactions of Napoleon, or to see Holland united to France. He chose the latter, though not before he had exerted all his feeble power in behalf of the subjects whom Napoleon had consigned to him; but he would not be the accomplice of him who had resolved to make those subjects the victims of his hatred against England. … Louis was, however, permitted to return to his states, to contemplate the stagnating effect of the continental blockade on every branch of trade and industry, formerly so active in Holland. Distressed at witnessing evils to which he could apply no remedy, he endeavoured by some prudent remonstrances to avert the utter ruin with which Holland was threatened. On the 23rd of March, 1810, he wrote … [a] letter to Napoleon. … Written remonstrances were not more to Napoleon's taste than verbal ones at a time when, as I was informed by my friends, whom fortune chained to his destiny, no one presumed to address a word to him, except to answer his questions. … His brother's letter highly roused his displeasure. Two months after he received it, being on a journey in the north, he addressed to Louis from Ostend a letter," followed in a few days by another in which latter he said: "'I want no more phrases and protestations. It is time I should know whether you intend, by your follies, to ruin Holland. I do not choose that you should again send a Minister to Austria, or that you should dismiss the French who are in your service. I have recalled my Ambassador, as I intend only to have a Chargé-d'affaires in Holland. The Sieur Serrurier, who remains there in that capacity, will communicate to you my intentions. My Ambassador shall no longer be exposed to your insults. Write to me no more those set phrases which you have been repeating for the last three years, and the falsehood of which is proved every day. This is the last letter I will ever write to you as long as I live.' … Thus reduced to the cruel alternative of crushing Holland with his own hands, or leaving that task to the Emperor, Louis did not hesitate to lay down his sceptre. Having formed this resolution, he addressed a message to the legislative body of the kingdom of Holland, explaining the motives of his abdication. … The French troops entered Holland under the command of the Duke de Reggio; and that Marshal, who was more King than the King himself, threatened to occupy Amsterdam. Louis then descended from his throne [July 1, 1810]. … Louis bade farewell to the people of Holland in a proclamation, after the publication of which he repaired to the waters of Toeplitz. There he was living in tranquil retirement, when he learnt that his brother had united Holland to the Empire [December 10, 1810]. He then published a protest. … Thus there seemed to be an end of all intercourse between these two brothers, who were so opposite in character and disposition. But Napoleon, who was enraged that Louis should have presumed to protest, and that in energetic terms, against the union of his kingdom with the empire, ordered him to return to France, whither he was summoned in his character of Constable and French Prince. Louis, however, did not think proper to obey this summons, and Napoleon, faithful to his promise of never writing to him again, ordered … [a] letter to be addressed to him by M. Otto, … Ambassador from France to Vienna," saying: "'The Emperor requires that Prince Louis shall return, at the latest, by the 1st of December next, under pain of being considered as disobeying the constitution of the empire and the head of his family, and being treated accordingly.'"

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1813.
   Expulsion of the French.
   Independence regained.
   Restoration of the Prince of Orange.

   "The universal fermentation produced in Europe by the
   deliverance of Germany was not long of spreading to the Dutch
   Provinces.

The yoke of Napoleon, universally grievous from the enormous pecuniary exactions with which it was attended, and the wasting military conscriptions to which it immediately led, had been in a peculiar manner felt as oppressive in Holland, from the maritime and commercial habits of the people, and the total stoppage of all their sources of industry, which the naval war and long-continued blockade of their coasts had occasioned. They had tasted for nearly twenty years of the last drop of humiliation in the cup of the vanquished—that of being compelled themselves to aid in upholding the system which was exterminating their resources, and to purchase with the blood of their children the ruin of their country. These feelings, which had for years existed in such intensity, as to have rendered revolt inevitable but for the evident hopelessness at all former times of the attempt, could no longer be restrained after the battle of Leipsic had thrown down the colossus of French external power, and the approach of the Allied standards to their frontiers had opened to the people the means of salvation.

From the Hansa Towns the flame of independence spread to the nearest cities of the old United Provinces; and the small number of French troops in the country at once encouraged revolt and paved the way for external aid. At this period, the whole troops which Napoleon had in Holland did not exceed 6,000 French, and two regiments of Germans, upon whose fidelity to their colours little reliance could be placed. Upon the approach of the Allied troops under Bulow, who advanced by the road of Munster, and Winzingerode, who soon followed from the same quarter, the douaniers all withdrew from the coast, the garrison of Amsterdam retired, and the whole disposable force of the country was concentrated at Utrecht, to form a corps of observation, and act according to circumstances. This was the signal for a general revolt. At Amsterdam [November 15], the troops were no sooner gone than the inhabitants rose in insurrection, deposed the Imperial authorities, hoisted the orange flag, and established a provisional government with a view to the restoration of the ancient order of things; yet not violently or with cruelty, but with the calmness and composure which attest the exercise of social rights by a people long habituated to their enjoyment. The same change took place, at the same time and in the same orderly manner, at Rotterdam, Dordrecht, Delft, Leyden, Haarlem, and the other chief towns; the people, everywhere, amidst cries of 'Orange Boven' and universal rapture, mounted the orange cockade, and reinstated the ancient authorities. … Military and political consequences of the highest importance immediately followed this uncontrollable outbreak of public enthusiasm. A deputation from Holland waited on the Prince Regent of England and the Prince of Orange, in London: the latter shortly after embarked on board an English line-of-battle ship, the Warrior, and on the 27th landed at Scheveling, from whence he proceeded to the Hague. Meantime the French troops and coast-guards, who had concentrated at Utrecht, seeing that the general effervescence was not as yet supported by any solid military force, and that the people, though they had all hoisted the orange flag, were not aided by any corps of the Allies, recovered from their consternation, and made it general forward movement against Amsterdam. Before they got there, however, a body of 300 Cossacks had reached that capital, where they were received with enthusiastic joy: and this advanced guard was soon after followed by General Benkendorf's brigade, which, after travelling by post from Zwoll to Harderwyk, embarked at the latter plage, and, by the aid of a favourable wind, reached Amsterdam on the 1st December. The Russian general immediately advanced against the forts of Mayder and Halfweg, of which he made himself master, taking twenty pieces of cannon and 600 prisoners; while on the eastern frontier, General Oppen, with Bulow's advanced guards, carried Dornbourg by assault on the 23d, and, advancing against Arnheim, threw the garrison, 3,000 strong, which strove to prevent the place being invested, with great loss back into the town. Next day, Bulow himself came up with the main strength of his corps, and, as the ditches were still dry, hazarded an escalade, which proved entirely successful; the greater part of the garrison retiring to Nimeguen, by the bridge of the Rhine. The French troops, finding themselves thus threatened on all sides, withdrew altogether from Holland: the fleet at the Texel hoisted the orange flag, with the exception of Admiral Verhuel, who, with a body of marines that still proved faithful to Napoleon, threw himself with honourable fidelity into the fort of the Texel. Amsterdam, amidst transports of enthusiasm, received the beloved representative of the House of Orange. Before the close of the year, the tricolour flag floated only on Bergen-op-zoom and a few of the southern frontier fortresses; and Europe beheld the prodigy of the seat of war having been transferred in a single year from the banks of the Niemen to those of the Scheldt."

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1814 (May-June).
Belgium, or the former Austrian provinces and Liege, annexed
to Holland, and the kingdom of the Netherlands created.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1815.
The Waterloo campaign.
Defeat and overthrow of Napoleon.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1830-1832.
   Belgian revolt and acquisition of independence.
   Dissolution of the kingdom of the Netherlands.
   Creation of the kingdom of Belgium.
   Siege of Antwerp citadel.

"In one sense the union" of Belgium with Holland, in the kingdom of the Netherlands created by the Congress of Vienna, "was defensible. Holland enjoyed more real freedom than any other Continental monarchy; and the Belgians had a voice in the government of the united territory. But, in another sense, the union was singularly unhappy. The phlegmatic Dutch Protestant was as indisposed to unite with the light-hearted Roman Catholic Belgian as the languid waters of the Saone with the impetuous torrent of the Rhone. Different as were the rivers, they met at last; and diplomatists probably hoped that Dutch and Belgians would similarly combine. {2301} These hopes were disappointed, and the two people, incapable of union, endeavoured to find independent courses for themselves in separate channels. The grounds of Belgian dislike to the union were intelligible. Belgium had a population of 3,400,000 souls; Holland of only 2,000,000 persons. Yet both countries had an equal representation in the States-General. Belgium was taxed more heavily than Holland, and the produce of taxation went almost entirely into Dutch pockets. The Court, which was Dutch, resided in Holland. The public offices were in Holland. Four persons out of every five in the public service at home were Dutchmen. The army was almost exclusively commanded by Dutchmen. Dutch professors were appointed to educate the Belgian youths in Belgian schools, and a Dutch director was placed over the Bank of Brussels. The Court even endeavoured to change the language of the Belgian race, and to substitute Dutch for French in all judicial proceedings. The Belgians were naturally irritated. … On the 2nd of June, the States-General were dissolved; the elections were peacefully concluded; and the closest observers failed to detect any symptoms of the coming storm on the political horizon. The storm which was to overwhelm the union was, in fact, gathering in another country. The events of July [at Paris] were to shake Europe to the centre. 'On all sides crowns were falling into the gutter,' and the shock of revolution in Paris was felt perceptibly in Brussels. Nine years before the States-General had imposed a mouture, or tax upon flour. The tax had been carried by a very small majority; and the majority had been almost entirely composed of Dutch members. On the 25th of August, 1830, the lower orders in Brussels engaged in a serious riot, ostensibly directed against this tax. The offices of a newspaper, conducted in the interests of the Dutch, were attacked; the house of the Minister of Justice was set on fire; the wine and spirit shops were forced open; and the mob, maddened by liquor, proceeded to other acts of pillage. On the morning of the 26th of August the troops were called out and instructed to restore order. Various conflicts took place between the soldiers and the people; but the former gained no advantage over the rioters, and were withdrawn into the Place Royale, the central square of the town. Relieved from the interference of the military, the mob continued the work of destruction. Respectable citizens, dreading the destruction of their property, organised a guard for the preservation of order. Order was preserved; but the task of preserving it had converted Brussels into an armed camp. It had placed the entire control of the town in the hands of the inhabitants. Men who had unexpectedly obtained a mastery over the situation could hardly be expected to resign the power which events had given to them. They had taken up their arms to repress a mob; victors over the populace, they turned their arms against the Government, and boldly despatched a deputation to the king urging the concession of reforms and the immediate convocation of the States-General. The king had received the news of the events at Brussels with considerable alarm. Troops had been at once ordered to march on the city; and, on the 28th of August, an army of 6,000 men had encamped under its walls. The citizens, however, represented that the entrance of the troops would be a signal for the renewal of the disturbances; and the officer in command in consequence agreed to remain passively outside the walls. The king sent the Prince of Orange to make terms with his insurgent subjects. The citizens declined to admit the prince into the city unless he came without his soldiers. The prince, unable to obtain any modification of this stipulation, was obliged to trust himself to the people alone. It was already evident that the chief town of Belgium had shaken off the control of the Dutch Government. The king, compelled to submit to the demands of the deputation, summoned the States-General for the 13th of September. But this concession only induced the Belgians to raise their demands. They had hitherto only asked for reforms: they now demanded independence, the dissolution of the union, and the independent administration of Belgium. The revolution had originally been confined to Brussels: it soon extended to other towns. Civic guards were organised in Liege, Tournay, Mons, Verviers, Bruges, and other places. Imitating the example of Brussels, they demanded the dissolution of the union between Holland and Belgium. The troops, consisting of a mixed force of Dutch and Belgians, could not be depended on; and the restoration of the royal authority was obviously impossible. On the 13th of September the States-General met. The question of separation was referred to them by the king; and the Deputies leisurely applied themselves to its consideration, in conformity with the tedious rules by which their proceedings were regulated. Long before they had completed the preliminary discussions which they thought necessary the march of events had taken the question out of their hands. On the 19th of September fresh disturbances broke out in Brussels. The civic guard, attempting to quell the riot, was overpowered; and the rioters, elated with their success, announced their intention of attacking the troops, who were encamped outside the city walls. Prince Frederick of Orange, concluding that action was inevitable, at last made up his mind to attack the town. Dividing the forces under his command into six columns, he directed them, on the 23rd of September, against the six gates of the city. … Three of the columns succeeded, after a serious struggle, in obtaining possession of the higher parts of the city; but they were unable to accomplish any decisive victory. For four days the contest was renewed. On the 27th of September, the troops, unable to advance, were withdrawn from the positions which they had won. On the following day the Lower Chamber of the States-General decided in favour of a dissolution of the union. The crown of Belgium was evidently dropping into the gutter; but the king decided on making one more effort to preserve it in his family. On the 4th of October he sent the Prince of Orange to Antwerp, authorising him to form a separate Administration for the southern provinces of the kingdom, and to place himself at the head of it. … Arrangements of this character had, however, already become impossible. On the very day on which the prince reached Antwerp the Provisional Government at Brussels issued an ordonnance declaring the independence of Belgium and the immediate convocation of a National Congress. … {2302} On the 10th of October, the Provisional Government, following up its former ordonnance, issued a second decree, regulating the composition of the National Congress and the qualifications of the electors. On the 12th the elections were fixed for the 27th of October. On the 10th of November the Congress was formally opened; and on the 18th the independence of the Belgian people was formally proclaimed by its authority. … On the 4th of November the Ministers of the five great Continental powers, assembled in London at the invitation of the King of Holland, declared that an armistice should immediately be concluded, and that the Dutch troops should be withdrawn from Belgium. The signature of this protocol, on the eve of the meeting of the National Congress, virtually led to the independence of the Belgian people, which the Congress immediately proclaimed."

It still remained for the Powers to provide a king for Belgium, and to gain the consent of the Dutch and Belgian Governments to the territorial arrangements drawn up for them. The first difficulty was overcome in June, 1831, by the choice of Prince Leopold of Saxe Coburg to be king of Belgium. The second problem was complicated by strong claims on both sides to the Grand Duchy of Luxemburg. The Conference solved it by dividing the disputed territory between Belgium and Holland. The Belgians accepted the arrangement; the King of Holland rejected it, and was coerced by France and England, who expelled his forces from Antwerp, which he still held. A French army laid siege to the citadel, while an English fleet blockaded the river Scheldt. After a bombardment of 24 days, December, 1832, the citadel surrendered; but it was not until April, 1839, the final Treaty of Peace between Belgium and Holland was signed.

      ALSO IN:
      Sir A. Alison,
      History of Europe, 1815-1852,
      chapters 24-25 and 29.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1830-1884.
   Peaceful years of the kingdoms of Belgium and Holland.
   Constitutional and material progress.
   The contest of Catholics and Liberals in Belgium.

"After winning its independence (1830) Belgium has also been free to work out its own career of prosperous development. King Leopold I. during his long reign showed himself the model of a constitutional sovereign in furthering its progress. The first railway on the continent was opened in 1835 between Brussels and Malines, and its railway system is now most complete. Its population between 1830 and 1880 increased by more than one-third, and now is the densest in all Europe, numbering 5,900,000 on an area only twice as large as Yorkshire. … When Napoleon III. seized on power in France all Belgians feared that he would imitate his uncle by seizing Belgium and all land up to the Rhine; but the close connection of King Leopold [brother of Prince Albert, the Prince Consort] with the English royal house and his skilful diplomacy averted the danger from Belgium. The chief internal trouble has been the strife between the liberal and clerical parties. In 1850 there were over 400 monasteries, with some 12,000 monks and nuns, in the land, and the Liberals made strenuous efforts for many years to abolish these and control education; but neither party could command a firm and lasting majority. In the midst of these eager disputes King Leopold I. died (1865), after seeing his kingdom firmly established in spite of ministerial crises every few months. His son Leopold II. has also been a constitutional sovereign. In 1867 the Luxemburg question seemed to threaten the Belgian territory, for Napoleon III. had secretly proposed to Bismarck that France should take Belgium and Luxemburg, as well as all land up to the Rhine, as the price of his friendship to the new German Confederation.

… Again in 1870 the Franco-German war threw a severe strain on Belgium to guard its neutrality, but after Sedan this danger vanished. The strife between the liberal and clerical parties went on as fiercely in Belgium as in France itself, and after the rise and fall of many ministries the Liberals succeeded in closing the convents and gaining control over State education. The constitution is that of a limited monarchy with responsible ministers, Senate, and Chamber of Deputies. The electorate up to 1884 was limited to citizens paying 42 francs a year in direct taxes, but in 1884 it was extended by the clerical party acting for once in connection with the radicals." (On the revised constitution of 1893 see below: 1892-1893.) In the kingdom of the Netherlands (Holland), King William, after he had been forced to recognize Belgian independence, "abdicated [1840] in favour of his son. The latter soon restored a good understanding with Belgium, and improved the finances of his kingdom; so the upheavals of 1848 caused no revolution in Holland, and only led to a thorough reform of its constitution. The Upper House of the States-General consists of members chosen for nine years by the estates or councils of the provinces, those of the lower house by electors having a property qualification. The king's ministers are now responsible to the Parliament. Liberty of the press and of public worship is recognised. The chief questions in Holland have been the reduction of its heavy debt, the increase of its army and navy, the improvement of agriculture and commerce, and the management of large and difficult colonial possessions." Holland "has to manage 28,000,000 subjects over the seas, mostly in Malaysia. She there holds all Java, parts of Borneo, Sumatra, Timor, the Moluccas, Celebes, and the western half of New Guinea; in South America, Dutch Guiana and, the Isle of Curaçoa. It was not till 1862 that the Dutch at a great cost freed the slaves in their West Indian possessions [viz., the islands of Curaçoa, Aruba, St. Martin, Bonaire, St. Eustache, and Saba]; but their rule in Malaysia is still conducted with the main purpose of securing revenue by means of an oppressive labour system. The Dutch claims in Sumatra are contested by the people of Acheen in the northern part of that great island."

"The politico-religious contest between Catholics and Liberals exists to a greater or less degree in all Catholic countries, and even in Protestant ones possessing, like Prussia, Catholic provinces: but nowhere is political life more completely absorbed by this antagonism than in Belgium, nowhere are the lines of the contest more clearly traced. … In order thoroughly to grasp the meaning of our politico-religious strife, we must cast a glance at its origin. We find this in the constitution adopted by the Congress after the Revolution of 1830. {2303} This constitution enjoins and sanctions all the freedom and liberty which has long been the privilege of England, and of the States she has founded in America and Australia. A free press, liberty as regards education, freedom to form associations or societies, provincial and communal autonomy, representative administration—all exactly as in England. How was it that the Congress of 1830, the majority of whose members belonged to the Catholic party, came to vote in favour of principles opposed, not only to the traditions, but also the dogmas of the Catholic Church? This singular fact is explained by the writings of the celebrated priest and author, La Mennais, whose opinions at that time exercised the greatest influence. La Mennais's first book, 'L'Essai sur l'indifference en Matière de Religion,' lowered all human reasoning, and delivered up society to the omnipotent guidance of the Pope. This work, enthusiastically perused by bishops, seminarists, and priests, established the author as an unprecedented authority. When, after the year 1828, he pretended that the Church would regain her former power by separating herself from the State, retaining only her liberty, most of his admirers professed themselves of his opinion. … Nearly all Belgian priests were at that time La Mennaisiens. They accepted the separation of Church and State, and, in their enthusiastic intoxication, craved but liberty to reconquer the world. It was thus that Catholics and Liberals united to vote for Belgium the constitution still in existence after a half-century. In 1832, Pope Gregory XVI., as Veuillot tells us, 'hurled a thunderbolt at the Belgian constitution in its cradle.' In a famous Encyclical, since incessantly quoted, the Pope declared, ex cathedrâ, that modern liberties were a plague, 'a delirium,' from whence incalculable evils would inevitably flow. Shortly afterwards, the true author of the Belgian constitution, La Mennais, having been to Rome in the vain hope of converting the Pope to his views, was repulsed, and, a little later, cast out from the bosom of the Church. The separation was effected. There was an end to that 'union' of Catholics and Liberals which had overthrown King William and founded a new political order in Belgium. It was not, however, till after 1838 that the two parties distinctly announced their antagonism. … The Liberal party is composed of all who, having faith in human reason and in liberty, fear a return to the past, and desire reforms of all sorts. … When Catholics are mentioned as opposed to Liberals, it is as regards their political, not their religious opinions. The Liberals are all, or nearly all, Catholics also; at all events by baptism. … The Catholic party is guided officially by the bishops. It is composed, in the first place, of all the clergy, of the convents and monasteries, and of those who from a sentiment of religious obedience do as they are directed by the bishop of the diocese and the Pope, and also of genuine Conservatives, otherwise called reactionists—that is to say, of those who consider that liberty leads to anarchy, and progress to communism. This section comprises the great mass of the proprietors and cultivators of the soil and the country populations. … We see that in Belgium parties are divided, and fight seriously for an idea; they are separated by no material, but by spiritual interests. The Liberals defend liberty, which they consider menaced by the aims of the Church. The Catholics defend religion, which they look upon as threatened by their adversaries' doctrines. Both desire to fortify themselves against a danger, non-existent yet, but which they foresee. … The educational question, which has been the centre of the political life of the country during the last two years, deserves expounding in detail. Important in itself, and more important still in its consequences, it is everywhere discussed with passion. Primary education was organized here in 1842, by a law of compromise adopted by the two parties, thanks to M. J. B. Nothomb, one of the founders of the Belgian Constitution, who died recently in Berlin, where he had been Belgian Minister for a space of upwards of forty years. This law enacted that every parish should possess schools sufficient for the number of children needing instruction; but it allowed the 'commune' to adopt private schools. The inspection of the public schools and the control of the religious teaching given by the masters and mistresses, was reserved to the clergy. Advanced Liberals began to clamour for the suppression of this latter clause as soon as they perceived the preponderating influence it gave the priests over the lay teachers. The reform of the law of 1842 became the watchword of the Liberal party, and this was ultimately effected in July, 1879; now each parish or village must provide the schools necessary for the children of its inhabitants, and must not give support to any private school. Ecclesiastical inspection is suppressed. Religious instruction may be given by the ministers of the various denominations, in the school buildings, but out of the regular hours. This system has been in force in Holland since the commencement of the present century. Lay instruction only is given by the communal masters and mistresses; no dogmas are taught, but the school is open to the clergy of all denominations who choose to enter, as it is evidently their duty to do. This system, now introduced in Belgium, has been accepted, without giving rise to any difficulties, by both Protestants and Jews, but it is most vehemently condemned by the Catholic priesthood. … In less than a year they have succeeded in opening a private school in every commune and village not formerly possessing one. In this instance the Catholic party has shown a devotedness really remarkable. … At the same time in all the Churches, and nearly every Sunday, the Government schools have been attacked, stigmatized as 'écoles sans Dieu' (schools without God), to be avoided as the plague, and where parents were forbidden to place their children, under pain of committing the greatest sin. Those who disobeyed, and allowed their children still to frequent the communal schools, were deprived of the Sacraments of the Church. They were refused absolution at confession, and the Eucharist, even at Easter. All the schoolmasters and mistresses were placed under the ban of the Church, and the priests often even refused to pronounce a blessing on their marriage. It is only lately that, contrary instructions having been received from Rome, this extreme step is now very rarely resorted to. The Liberal majority in the House has ordered a Parliamentary inquiry—which is still in progress, and the results of which in this last six months, fill the columns of our newspapers—in order to ascertain by what means the clergy succeed in filling their schools. … As a natural consequence of the excessive heat of the conflict, the two parties end by justifying the accusations of their adversaries. {2304} The Liberals become anti-religionists, because religion is—and is daily becoming more and more—anti-liberal; and the Catholics are afraid of liberty, because it is used against their faith, which is, in their opinion, the only true and the necessary foundation of civilization. … The existence in Belgium of two parties so distinctly and clearly separated, offers, however, some compensation: it favours the good working of Parliamentary government."

E. de Laveleye, The Political Condition of Belgium (Contemporary Review, April, 1882), pages 715-724, with foot-note.

NETHERLANDS: (Holland, or the Kingdom of the Netherlands):
A. D. 1887.
Revision of the Constitution.

The constitution of 1848 (see above), in the Kingdom of the Netherlands, was revised in 1887, but in a very conservative spirit. Attempts to make the suffrage universal, and to effect a separation of church and state, were defeated. The suffrage qualification by tax-payment was reduced to ten guilders, and certain classes of lodgers were also admitted to the franchise, more than doubling the total number of voters, which is now estimated to be about 290,000. All private soldiers and non-commissioned officers of the regular army are excluded from the franchise. The upper chamber of the States General is elected as before by the Provincial States, but its membership is raised to fifty. The second chamber, consisting of one hundred members, is chosen directly by the voters. In the new constitution, the succession to the throne is definitely prescribed, in the event of a failure of direct heirs. Three collateral lines of descent are designated, to be accepted in their order as follows: 1. Princess Sophia of Saxony and her issue; 2. the descendants of the late Princess Marian of Prussia; 3. the descendants of the late Princess Mary of Wied. The late king of the Netherlands, William III., died in 1890, leaving only a daughter, ten years old, to succeed him. The young queen, Wilhelmina, is reigning under the regency of her mother.

NETHERLANDS: (Belgium): A. D. 1892-1893.
The revised Belgian Constitution.
Introduction of plural Suffrage.

A great agitation among the Belgian workingmen, ending in a formidable strike, in 1890, was only quieted by the promise from the government of a revision of the constitution and the introduction of universal suffrage. The Constituent Chambers, elected to perform the task of revision, were opened on the 11th of July, 1892. The amended constitution was promulgated on the 7th of September, 1893. It confers the suffrage on every citizen twenty-five years of age or over, domiciled in the same commune for not less than one year, and not under legal disqualification. The new constitution is made especially interesting by its introduction of a system of cumulative or plural voting. One supplementary vote is conferred on every married citizen (or widower), thirty-five years or more of age, having legitimate issue, and paying at least five francs per annum house tax; also on every citizen not less than twenty-five years old who owns real property to the value of 2,000 francs, or who derives an income of not less than 100 francs a year from an investment in the public debt, or from the savings bank. Two supplementary votes are given to each citizen twenty-five years of age who has received certain diplomas or discharged certain functions which imply the possession of a superior education. The same citizen may accumulate votes on more than one of these qualifications, but none is allowed to cast more than three. On the adoption of the new constitution, the Brussels correspondent of the "London Times" wrote to that journal; "This article, which adds to manhood suffrage as it exists in France, Spain, Germany, Switzerland, the United States, and the Australian colonies, the safeguard of a double and triple suffrage accorded to age, marriage, and paternity, as well as to the possession of money saved or inherited, or of a profession, will constitute one of the distinguishing marks of the new Belgian Constitution. As it reposes upon the just principle that votes must be considered in reference to their weight rather than to their numbers, it has had the effect of putting an immediate end to the violent political crisis which disturbed the country. It has been accepted without much enthusiasm, indeed, but as a reasonable compromise. The moderates of all classes, who do not go to war for abstract theories, think that it has a prospect of enduring." An attempt to introduce proportional representation along with the plural suffrage was defeated. The constitution of the Senate raised questions hardly less important than those connected with the elective franchise. Says the correspondent quoted above: "The advanced Radical and Socialist parties had proposed to supplement the Chamber, the political representation of the territorial interests of the country, by a Senate representing its economic interests. The great social forces—capital, labour, and science—in their application to agriculture, industry, and commerce, were each to send their representatives. It may be that this formula, which would have made of the Belgian Senate an Assembly sui generis in Europe, may become the formula of the future. The Belgian legislators hesitated before the novelty of the idea and the difficulty of its application. This combination rejected, there remained for the Senate only the alternative between two systems—namely, to separate that Assembly from the Chamber by its origin or else by its composition. The Senate and the Government preferred the first of these solutions, that is to say direct elections for the Chamber, an election by two degrees for the Senate, either by the members of the provincial councils or by specially elected delegates of the Communes. But these proposals encountered from all the benches in the Chamber a general resistance." The result was a compromise. The Senate consists of 76 members elected directly by the people, and 26 elected by the provincial councils. The term of each is eight years. The Senators chosen by the councils are exempted from a property qualification; those popularly elected are required to be owners of real property yielding not less than 12,000 francs of income, or to pay not less than 1,200 francs in direct taxes. The legislature is empowered to restrict the voting for Senators to citizens thirty years of age or more. {2305} The members of the Chamber of Representatives are apportioned according to population and elected for four years, one half retiring every two years. The Senate and Chamber meet annually in November, and are required to be in session for at least forty days; but the King may convoke extraordinary sessions, and may dissolve the Chambers either separately or together. In case of a dissolution, the constitution requires an election to be held within forty days, and a meeting of the Chambers within two months. Only the Chamber of Representatives can originate money bills or bills relating to the contingent for the army. The executive consists of seven ministries, namely of Finance, of Justice, of Interior and Instruction, of War, of Railways, Posts and Telegraphs, of Foreign Affairs, of Agriculture, Industry and Public Works. The King's Privy Council is a distinct body.

NEUSTRIA.

NEUTRAL RIGHTS.

NEVADA: A. D. 1848-1864.
   Acquisition from Mexico.
   Silver discoveries.
   Territorial and State organization.

"Ceded to the United States at the same time, and, indeed, as one with California [see MEXICO: A. D. 1848], this region of the Spanish domain had not, like that west of the Sierra Nevada, a distinctive name, but was described by local names, and divided into valleys. In March following the treaty with Mexico and the discovery of gold, the inhabitants of Salt Lake valley met and organized the state of Deseret, the boundaries of which included the whole of the recently acquired Mexican territory outside of California, and something more." But Congress, failing to recognize the state of Deseret, created instead, by an act passed on the 9th of September, 1850, the Territory of Utah, with boundaries which embraced Nevada likewise. This association was continued until 1861, when the Territory of Nevada was organized by act of Congress out of western Utah. Meantime the discovery in 1859 of the extraordinary deposit of silver which became famous as the Comstock Lode, and other mining successes of importance, had rapidly attracted to the region a large population of adventurers. It was this which had brought about the separate territorial organization. Three years later the young territory was permitted to frame a state constitution and was admitted into the Union in October, 1864.

   A crushing defeat suffered by an army of the Scots, invading
   England under their young king, David Bruce, who was taken
   prisoner. The battle was fought near Durham, October 17, 1346.

By a royal charter, witnessed by the Deputy-General of Ireland, at Dublin, June 21, 1634, King Charles I. granted to Sir Edmund Plowden and eight other petitioners, the whole of Long Island ("Manitie, or Long Isle"), together with forty leagues square of the adjoining continent, constituting the said domain a county palatine and calling it New Albion, while the island received the name of Isle Plowden. "In this document the boundaries of New Albion are so defined as to include all of New Jersey, Maryland, Delaware, and Pennsylvania embraced in a square, the eastern side of which, forty leagues in length, extended (along the coast) from Sandy Hook to Cape May, together with Long Island, and all other 'isles and islands in the sea within ten leagues of the shores of the said region.' The province is expressly erected into a county palatine, under the jurisdiction of Sir Edmund Plowden as earl, depending upon his Majesty's' royal person and imperial crown, as King of Ireland.'" Subsequently, within the year 1634, the whole of the grant was acquired by and became vested in Plowden and his three sons. Sir Edmund, who died in 1659, spent the remainder of his life in futile attempts to make good his claim against the Swedes on the Delaware and the Dutch, and in exploiting his magnificent title as Earl Palatine of New Albion. The claim and the title seem to have reappeared occasionally among his descendants until some time near the close of the 18th century.

      G. B. Keen,
      Note on New Albion.
      (Narrative and Critical History of America,
      J. Winsor, editor, volume 3, pages 457-468).

      ALSO IN:
      S. Hazard,
      Annals of Pennsylvania,
      pages 36-38 and 108-112.

NEW AMSTERDAM.

Also the name first given to the village out of which grew the city of Buffalo, N. Y.

NEW BRUNSWICK: A. D. 1867.
Embraced in the Confederation of the Dominion of Canada.

NEW CÆSAREA, OR NEW JERSEY.

NEW CASTILE.

NEW ENGLAND.
   [Footnote: The greater part of New England history is given
   elsewhere, as the history of the several New England states,
   and is only indexed in this place, instead of being repeated.]

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1604.
Embraced in the region claimed as Acadia by the French.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1606. Embraced in the grant to the North Virginia Company of Plymouth.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1607-1608.
The Popham Colony on the Kennebec.
The fruitless venture of the Plymouth Company.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1620.
The voyage of the Mayflower and the planting of Plymouth Colony.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1620-1623.
   Incorporation of the Council for New England,
   successor to the Plymouth Company.
   Its great domain and its monopoly of the Fisheries.

"While the king was engaged in the overthrow of the London company [see VIRGINIA: A. D. 1622-1624], its more loyal rival in the West of England [the Plymouth company, or North Virginia branch of the Virginia company] sought new letters-patent, with a great enlargement of their domain. The remonstrances of the Virginia corporation and the rights of English commerce could delay for two years, but not defeat, the measure that was pressed by the friends of the monarch. On the 3d of November, 1620, King James incorporated 40 of his subjects—some of them members of his household and his government, the most wealthy and powerful of the English nobility—as 'The Council established at Plymouth, in the county of Devon, for the planting, ruling, ordering, and governing New England in America.' The territory, which was conferred on them in absolute property, with unlimited powers of legislation and government, extended from the 40th to the 48th degree of north latitude, and from the Atlantic to the Pacific. The grant included the fisheries; and a revenue was considered certain from a duty to be imposed on all tonnage employed in them. The patent placed emigrants to New England under the absolute authority of the corporation, and it was through grants from that plenary power, confirmed by the crown, that institutions the most favorable to colonial independence and the rights of mankind came into being. The French derided the action of the British monarch in bestowing lands and privileges which their own sovereign, seventeen years before, had appropriated. The English nation was incensed at the largess of immense monopolies by the royal prerogative; and in April, 1621, Sir Edwin Sandys brought the grievance before the house of commons. … But the parliament was dissolved before a bill could be perfected. In 1622, five and thirty sail of vessels went to fish on the coasts of New England, and made good voyages. The monopolists appealed to King James, and he issued a proclamation, which forbade any to approach the northern coast of America, except with the leave of their company or of the privy council, In June, 1623, Francis West was despatched as admiral of New England, to exclude such fishermen as came without a license. But they refused to pay the tax which he imposed, and his ineffectual authority was soon resigned."

      G. Bancroft,
      History of the United States
      (Author's last revision),
      part 1, chapter 13 (volume 1).

      ALSO IN:
      C. Deane,
      New England (Narrative and Critical History of America,
      volume 3, chapter 9).

      Sir Ferdinando Gorges,
      Brief Narration
      (Maine Historical Society Collection, volume 2).

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1621-1631.
   The grants made by the Council for New England.
   Settlements planted.
   Nova Scotia, Maine and New Hampshire conferred.

Captain John Mason, a native of King's Lynn, in Norfolk, became governor of Newfoundland in 1615. "While there he wrote a tract entitled 'A Brief Discourse of the Newfoundland,' and sent it to his friend Sir John Scot of Edinburgh, to peruse, and to print if he thought it worthy. It was printed in the year 1620. … In the spring or summer of 1621, Mason returned into England, and immediately found proof of the effect of his little tract. … Sir William Alexander, afterwards Earl of Stirling, immediately sought him out. He had been appointed Gentleman of the Privy Chamber to Prince Henry, honored with Knighthood, and was Master of Requests for Scotland. He invited Mason to his house, where he discussed with him a scheme of Scotch colonization, and he resolved to undertake settling a colony in what is now Nova Scotia. He begged Mason to aid him in procuring a grant of this territory from the Council for New England, it being within their limits. Mason referred him to Sir Ferdinando Gorges, one of the Council and their Treasurer. The king readily recommended Alexander to Gorges, and Gorges heartily approved the plan. In September, 1621, Alexander obtained a Royal Patent for a tract of land which he called New Scotland, a name attractive to his countrymen. This must have been gratifying to Mason, who had urged Scotch emigration in his tract printed only a year before. The Council for New England, established in November, 1620, was now granting and ready to grant to associations or to individuals parcels of its vast domain in America. … The second patent for land granted by the Council was to Captain John Mason, bearing date March 9, 1621-2. It was all the land lying between the Naumkeag and the Merrimac rivers, extending back from the sea-coast to the heads of both of these rivers, with all the islands within three miles of the shore. Mason called this Mariana. This tract of territory lies wholly within the present bounds of Massachusetts. We now arrive at a period when Mason and Gorges have a joint interest in New England. {2307} On the 10th of August, 1622, the Council made a third grant. This was to Gorges and Mason jointly of land lying upon the sea-coast between the Merrimac and the Kennebec rivers, extending three-score miles into the country, with all islands within five leagues of the premises to be, or intended to be, called the Province of Maine. Thus was the territory destined seven years later to bear the name of New Hampshire, first carved from the vast domain of New England, whose boundaries were fixed by the great circles of the heavens. Thus was Capt. Mason joint proprietor of his territory afterwards known as New Hampshire, before a single settler had built a cabin on the Pascataqua. Captain Robert Gorges, son of Sir Ferdinando, was authorized to give the grantees possession of this new Province. Great enthusiasm on the subject of colonization now prevailed in England, extending from the king, through all ranks. … Before the year 1622 closed, the Council issued many patents for land, in small divisions, to persons intending to make plantations. Among the grants, is one to David Thomson and two associates, of land on the Pascataqua. The bounds and extent of this patent are unknown. Only the fact that such a patent was granted is preserved. … The Council for New England, in view of the many intended settlements, as well as the few already made, now proposed to set up a general government in New England. Captain Robert Gorges, recently returned from the Venetian wars, was appointed Governor, with Captain Francis West, Captain Christopher Levett, and the governor of New Plymouth as his Council. Captain Gorges arrived here the middle of September, 1623, having been preceded some months by Captain West, who was Vice-Admiral of New England as well as Councillor. Captain Levett came as late as November. … The next year, 1624, war between England and Spain broke out, and drew off for a while Gorges and Mason from their interests in colonization. Gorges was Captain of the Castle and Island of St. Nicholas, at Plymouth, a post that he had held for thirty years; and he was now wholly taken up with the duties of his office. Mason's services were required as a naval officer of experience. … In 1626 England plunged into a war with France, without having ended the war with Spain. Captain Mason was advanced to be Treasurer and Paymaster of the English armies employed in the wars. There was no time now to think of American colonization. His duties were arduous. … In 1629 peace was made with France, and the war with Spain was coming to an end. No sooner were Gorges and Mason a little relieved from their public duties than they sprang at once to their old New England enterprise. They resolved to push forward their interests. They came to some understanding about a division of their Province of Maine. On the 7th of November, 1629, a day memorable in the history of New Hampshire, the Council granted to Mason a patent of all that part of the Province of Maine lying between the Merrimac and Pascataqua rivers; and Mason called it New Hampshire, out of regard to the favor in which he held Hampshire in England, where he had resided many years. … This grant had hardly been made when Champlain was brought to London, a prisoner, from Canada, by Kirke. The French had been driven from that region. Gorges and Mason procured immediately a grant from the Council of a vast tract of land in the region of Lake Champlain, supposed to be not only a fine country for peltry, but to contain vast mineral wealth. The Province was called Laconia on account of the numerous lakes supposed or known to be there, and was the most northern grant hitherto made by the Council. The patent bears date November 17, 1629, only ten days later than Mason's New Hampshire grant. … For the purpose of advancing the interests of Gorges and Mason in Laconia as well as on the Pascataqua, they joined with them six merchants in London, and received from the Council a grant dated November 3, 1631, of a tract of land lying on both sides of the Pascataqua river, on the sea-coast and within territory already owned by Gorges and Mason in severalty. This patent, called the Pascataqua Patent, covered, on the west side of the river, the present towns of Portsmouth, New Castle, Rye and part of Greenland; on the east side, Kittery, Eliot, the Berwicks, and the western part of Lebanon."

C. W. Tuttle, Captain John Mason (Prince Society Publications, 1887), pages 12-24.

      ALSO IN:
      S. F. Haven,
      Grants under the Great Council for New England
      (Lowell Institute. Lecture: Early History of Massachusetts,
      pages 127-162).

      J. P. Baxter, editor,
      Sir Ferdinando Gorges and his Province of Maine
      (Prince Society Publications 1890).

      J. G. Palfrey,
      History of New England,
      volume 1, page 397, foot-note.

      See, also,
      MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1623-1629;
      and CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1631.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1623-1629.
The Dorchester Company and the royal charter to
the Governor and Company of Massachusetts Bay.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1629-1630.
The immigration of the Governor and Company of
Massachusetts Bay with their charter.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1635. Dissolution of the Council for New England and partitioning of its territorial claims by lot.

"The Council for New England, having struggled through nearly fifteen years of maladministration and ill-luck, had yielded to the discouragements which beset it. By the royal favor, it had triumphed over the rival Virginia Company, to be overwhelmed in its turn by the just jealousy of Parliament, and by dissensions among its members. The Council, having, by profuse and inconsistent grants of its lands, exhausted its common property, as well as its credit with purchasers for keeping its engagements, had no motive to continue its organization. Under these circumstances, it determined on a resignation of its charter to the king, and a surrender of the administration of its domain to a General Governor of his appointment, on the condition that all the territory, a large portion of which by its corporate action had already been alienated to other parties [see above: A. D. 1621-1631], should be granted in severalty by the king to the members of the Council. Twelve associates accordingly proceeded to a distribution of New England among themselves by lot; and nothing was wanting to render the transaction complete, and to transfer to them the ownership of that region, except to oust the previous patentees, of whom the most powerful body were colonists in Massachusetts Bay. To effect this, Sir John Banks, Attorney-General, brought a writ of 'quo warranto' in Westminster Hall against the Massachusetts Company. …

It seemed that, when a few more forms should be gone through, all would be over with the presumptuous Colony. … But … everything went on as if Westminster Hall had not spoken. 'The Lord frustrated their design.' The disorders of the mother country were a safeguard of the infant liberty of New England."

   In the parcelling of New England by lot among the members of
   the Council, the divisions were:
   (1) Between the St. Croix and Pemaquid, to William Alexander.
   (2) From Pemaquid to Sagadahoc,
   in part to the Marquis of Hamilton.
   (3) Between the Kennebec and Androscoggin; and
   (4) from Sagadahoc to Piscataqua, to Sir F. Gorges.
   (5) From Piscataqua to the Naumkeag, to Mason.
   (6) From the Naumkeag round the sea-coast,
   by Cape Cod to Narragansett, to the Marquis of Hamilton.
   (7) From Narragansett to the half-way bound, between that and
   the Connecticut River, and 50 miles up into the country,
   to Lord Edward Gorges.
   (8) From this midway point to the Connecticut River, to the
   Earl of Carlisle.
   (9 and 10) From the Connecticut to the Hudson,
   to the Duke of Lennox.
   (11 and 12) From the Hudson to the limits of the
   Plymouth Company's territory, to Lord Mulgrave.

W. C. Bryant and S. H. Gay, History of the United States, volume 1, page 337, foot-note.

ALSO IN: T. Hutchinson, History of the Colony of Massachusetts Bay, volume 1, pages 48-50.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1636-1639.
The first American constitution.
The genesis of a state.

"The region extending from the bounds of Rhode Island to the banks of the Hudson was at the time of the colonization held in strips of territory mainly by three tribes of the natives, who had long had feuds among themselves and with other tribes. They were the Narragansetts, the Mohegans, and the Pequots. The Mohegans were then tributaries of the Pequots, and were restive under subjection to their fierce and warlike conquerors, who were estimated to number at the time 1,000 fighting men. … The policy of the whites was to aggravate the dissensions of the tribes, and to make alliance with one or more of them. Winthrop records in March, 1631, the visit to Boston of a Connecticut Indian, probably a Mohegan, who invited the English to come and plant near the river, and who offered presents, with the promise of a profitable trade. His object proved to be to engage the interest of the whites against the Pequots. His errand was for the time unsuccessful. Further advances of a similar character were made afterwards, the result being to persuade the English that, sooner or later, they would need to interfere as umpires, and must use discretion in a wise regard to what would prove to be for their own interest. In 1633 the Pequots had savagely mutilated and murdered a party of English traders, who, under Captain Stone, of Virginia, had gone up the Connecticut. The Boston magistrates had instituted measures to call the Pequots to account, but nothing effectual was done. The Dutch had a fort on the river near Hartford, and the English had built one at its mouth. In 1636 several settlements had been made in Connecticut by the English from Cambridge, Dorchester, and other places. John Oldham, of Watertown, had in that year been murdered, while on a trading voyage, by some Indians belonging on Block Island. To avenge this act our magistrates sent Endicott, as general, with a body of 90 men, with orders to kill all the male Indians on that island, sparing only the women and little children. He accomplished his bloody work only in part, but after destroying all the corn-fields and wigwams, he turned to hunt the Pequots on the main. After this expedition, which simply exasperated the Pequots, they made a desperate effort to induce the Narragansetts to come into a league with them against the English. It seemed for a while as if they would succeed in this, and the consequences would doubtless have been most disastrous to the whites. The scheme was thwarted largely through the wise and friendly intervention of Roger Williams, whose diplomacy was made effective by the confidence which his red neighbors had in him. The Narragansett messengers then entered into a friendly league with the English in Boston. All through the winter of 1637 the Pequots continued to pick off the whites in their territory, and they mutilated, tortured, roasted, and murdered at least thirty victims, becoming more and more vindictive and cruel in their doings. There were then in Connecticut some 250 Englishmen, and, as has been said, about 1,000 Pequot 'braves.' The authorities in Connecticut resolutely started a military organization, giving the command to the redoubtable John Mason, a Low-Country soldier, who had recently gone from Dorchester. Massachusetts and Plymouth contributed their quotas, having as allies the Mohegans, of whose fidelity they had fearful misgivings, but who proved constant though not very effective. Of the 160 men raised by Massachusetts, only about 20, under Captain Underhill,—a good fighter, but a sorry scamp,—reached the scene in season to join with Mason in surprising the unsuspecting and sleeping Pequots in one of their forts near the Mystic. Fire, lead, and steel with the infuriated vengeance of Puritan soldiers against murderous and fiendish heathen, did effectively the exterminating work. Hundreds of the savages, in their maddened frenzy of fear and dismay, were shot or run through as they were impaled on their own palisades in their efforts to rush from their blazing wigwams, crowded within their frail enclosures. The English showed no mercy, for they felt none. … A very few of the wretched savages escaped to another fort, to which the victorious English followed them. This, however; they soon abandoned, taking refuge, with their old people and children, in the protection of swamps and thickets. Here, too, the English, who had lost but two men killed, though they had many wounded, and who were now reinforced, pursued and surrounded them, allowing the aged and the children, by a parley, to come out. {2309} The men, however, were mostly slain, and the feeble remnant of them which sought protection among the so-called river Indians, higher up the Connecticut, and among the Mohawks, were but scornfully received,—the Pequot sachem Sassacus, being beheaded by the latter. A few of the prisoners were sold in the West Indies as slaves, others were reduced to the same humiliation among the Mohegans, or as farm and house servants to the English. … But the alliances into which the whites had entered in order to divide their savage foes were the occasions of future entanglements in a tortuous policy, and of later bloody struggles of an appalling character. … In all candor the admission must be made, that the Christian white men … allowed themselves to be trained by the experience of Indian warfare into a savage cruelty and a desperate vengefulness."

G. E. Ellis, The Indians of Eastern Massachusetts (Memorial History of Boston, volume 1, pages 252-254).

"More than 800 [of the Pequots] had been slain in the war, and less than 200 remained to share the fate of captives. These were distributed among the Narragansets and Mohegans, with the pledge that they should no more be called Pequots, nor inhabit their native country again. To make the annihilation of the race yet more complete, their very name was extinguished in Connecticut by legislative act. Pequot river was called the Thames, Pequot town was named New London."

      G. E. Ellis,
      Life of John Mason
      (Library of American Biographies, series 2, volume 3).

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1638.
The purchase, settlement and naming of Rhode Island.
The founding of New Haven Colony.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1640-1644.
The growth of population and the rise of towns.
The end of the Puritan exodus.

"Over 20,000 persons are estimated to have arrived in New England in the fifteen years before the assembling of the Long Parliament [1640]; one hundred and ninety-eight ships bore them over the Atlantic; and the whole cost of their transportation, and of the establishment of the plantation, is computed at about £200,000, or nearly a million of dollars. The progress of settlement had been proportionally rapid. … Hingham was settled in 1634. Newbury, Concord, and Dedham were incorporated in 1635. And from that date to 1643, acts were passed incorporating Lynn, North Chelsea, Salisbury, Rowley, Sudbury, Braintree, Woburn, Gloucester, Haverhill, Wenham, and Hull. West of Worcester, the only town incorporated within the present limits of the state was Springfield, for which an act was passed in 1636. These little municipalities were, in a measure, peculiar to New England; each was sovereign within itself; each sustained a relation to the whole, analogous to that which the states of our Union hold respectively to the central power, or the constitution of the United States; and the idea of the formation of such communities was probably derived from the parishes of England, for each town was a parish, and each, as it was incorporated, was required to contribute to the maintenance of the ministry as the basis of its grant of municipal rights. Four counties were erected at this time: Suffolk, Essex, Middlesex, and Old Norfolk, all which were incorporated in 1643. Each of the first three contained eight towns, and Old Norfolk six."

"Events in England had now [1640] reached a crisis, and the Puritan party, rising rapidly into power, no longer looked to America for a refuge. The great tide of emigration ceased to flow; but the government of Massachusetts went on wisely and strongly under the alternating rule of Winthrop, Dudley, and Bellingham. The English troubles crippled the holders of the Mason and Gorges grants, and the settlements in New Hampshire—whither Wheelwright had gone, and where turbulence had reigned—were gradually added to the jurisdiction of Massachusetts. In domestic matters everything went smoothly. There was some trouble with Bellingham, and Winthrop was again made Governor [1642]. The oath of allegiance to the King taken by the magistrates was abandoned, because Charles violated the privileges of Parliament, and the last vestige of dependence vanished. Massachusetts was divided into counties; and out of a ludicrous contest about a stray pig, in which deputies and magistrates took different sides, grew a very important controversy as to the powers of deputies and assistants, which resulted [1644] in the division of the legislature into two branches, and a consequent improvement in the symmetry and solidity of the political system."

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1640-1655.
Colonizing enterprises of New Haven on the Delaware.

   In May, 1643, "a confederacy, to be known as the United
   Colonies of New England, was entered into at Boston, between
   delegates from Plymouth, Connecticut, and New Haven on the one
   hand, and the General Court of Massachusetts on the other.
   Supposed dangers from the Indians, and their quarrels with the
   Dutch of Manhattan, had induced the people of Connecticut to
   withdraw their formal objections to this measure. Two
   commissioners from each colony were to meet annually, or
   oftener, if necessary; the sessions to be held alternately at
   Boston, Hartford, New Haven, and Plymouth; but Boston was to
   have two sessions for one at each of the other places. The
   commissioners, all of whom must be church members, were to
   choose a president from among themselves, and everything was
   to be decided by six voices out of the eight. No war was to be
   declared by either colony without the consent of the
   commissioners, to whose province Indian affairs and foreign
   relations were especially assigned. The sustentation of the
   'truth and liberties of the Gospel' was declared to be one
   great object of this alliance. All war expenses were to be a
   common charge, to be apportioned according to the number or
   male inhabitants in each colony. Runaway servants and fugitive
   criminals were to be delivered up, a provision afterward
   introduced into the Constitution of the United States; and the
   commissioners soon recommended, what remained ever after the
   practice of New England, and ultimately became, also, a
   provision of the United States Constitution, that judgments of
   courts of law and probates of wills in each colony should have
   full faith and credit in all the others.
{2310}
   The commissioners from Massachusetts, as representing by far
   the most powerful colony of the alliance, claimed an honorary
   precedence, which the others readily conceded. Plymouth,
   though far outgrown by Massachusetts, and even by Connecticut,
   had made, however, some progress. It now contained seven
   towns, and had lately adopted a representative system. But the
   old town of Plymouth was in decay, the people being drawn off
   to the new settlements. Bradford had remained governor, except
   for four years, during two of which he had been relieved by
   Edward Winslow, and the other two by Thomas Prince. New Haven
   was, perhaps, the weakest member of the alliance. Besides that
   town, the inhabitants of which were principally given to
   commerce, there were two others, Milford and Guilford,
   agricultural settlements; Southold, at the eastern extremity
   of Long Island, also acknowledged the jurisdiction of New
   Haven, and a new settlement had recently been established at
   Stamford. … The colony of Connecticut, not limited to the
   towns on the river, to which several new ones had already been
   added, included also Stratford and Fairfield, on the coast of
   the Sound, west of New Haven. … The town of Southampton, on
   Long Island, acknowledged also the jurisdiction of
   Connecticut. Fort Saybrook, at the mouth of the river, was
   still an independent settlement, and Fenwick, as the head of
   it, became a party to the articles of confederation. But the
   next year he sold out his interest to Connecticut, and into
   that colony Saybrook was absorbed. … Gorges's province of
   Maine was not received into the New England alliance, 'because
   the people there ran a different course both in their ministry
   and civil administration.' The same objection applied with
   still greater force to Aquiday and Providence."

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1644.
The chartering of Providence Plantation,
and the Rhode Island Union.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1651-1660.
The disputed jurisdiction in Maine.
The claims of Massachusetts made good.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1660-1665.
Under the Restored Monarchy.
The first collision of Massachusetts with the crown.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1662.
The Union of Connecticut and New Haven by Royal Charter.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1663. The Rhode Island charter, and beginning of boundary conflicts with Connecticut.

   "The Pokanokets had always rejected the Christian faith and
   Christian manners, and their chief had desired to insert in a
   treaty, what the Puritans always rejected, that the English
   should never attempt to convert the warriors of his tribe from
   the religion of their race. The aged Massassoit—he who had
   welcomed the pilgrims to the soil of New England, and had
   opened his cabin to shelter the founder of Rhode Island—now
   slept with his fathers, and Philip, his son, had succeeded him
   as head of the allied tribes. Repeated sales of land had
   narrowed their domains, and the English had artfully crowded
   them into the tongues of land, as 'most suitable and
   convenient for them,' and as more easily watched. The
   principal seats of the Pokanokets were the peninsulas which we
   now call Bristol and Tiverton. As the English villages drew
   nearer and nearer to them, their hunting-grounds were put
   under culture, their natural parks were turned into pastures,
   their best fields for planting corn were gradually alienated,
   their fisheries were impaired by more skilful methods, till
   they found themselves deprived of their broad acres, and, by
   their own legal contracts, driven, as it were, into the sea.
   Collisions and mutual distrust were the necessary consequence.
   There exists no evidence of a deliberate conspiracy on the
   part of all the tribes. The commencement of war was
   accidental; many of the Indians were in a maze, not knowing
   what to do, and disposed to stand for the English; sure proof
   of no ripened conspiracy. But they had the same complaints,
   recollections, and fears: and, when they met, they could not
   but grieve together at the alienation of the domains of their
   fathers. They spurned the English claim of jurisdiction over
   them, and were indignant that Indian chiefs or warriors should
   be arraigned before a jury. And, when the language of their
   anger and sorrow was reported to the men of Plymouth colony by
   an Indian tale-bearer, fear professed to discover in their
   unguarded words the evidence of an organized conspiracy. The
   haughty Philip, who had once before been compelled to
   surrender his 'English arms' and pay an onerous tribute, was,
   in 1674, summoned to submit to an examination, and could not
   escape suspicion. The wrath of his tribe was roused, and the
   informer was murdered. The murderers, in their turn, were
   identified, seized, tried by a jury, of which one half were
   Indians, and, in June, 1675, on conviction, were hanged. The
   young men of the tribe panted for revenge: without delay,
   eight or nine of the English were slain in or about Swansey,
   and the alarm of war spread through the colonies. Thus was
   Philip hurried into 'his rebellion;' and he is reported to
   have wept as he heard that a white man's blood had been shed.
   … What chances had he of success? The English were united;
   the Indians had no alliance, and half of them joined the
   English, or were quiet spectators of the fight: the English
   had guns enough; few of the Indians were well armed, and they
   could get no new supplies: the English had towns for their
   shelter and safe retreat; the miserable wigwams of the natives
   were defenceless: the English had sure supplies of food; the
   Indians might easily lose their precarious stores. They rose
   without hope, and they fought without mercy.
{2311}
   For them as a nation there was no to-morrow. … At the first
   alarm, volunteers from Massachusetts joined the troops of
   Plymouth; on the twenty-ninth of June, within a week from the
   beginning of hostilities, the Pokanokets were driven from
   Mount Hope; and in less than a month Philip was a fugitive
   among the Nipmucks, the interior tribes of Massachusetts. The
   little army of the colonists then entered the territory of the
   Narragansetts, and from the reluctant tribe extorted a treaty
   of neutrality, with a promise to deliver up every hostile
   Indian. Victory seemed promptly assured. But it was only the
   commencement of horrors. Canonchet, the chief sachem of the
   Narragansetts, was the son of Miantonomoh; and could he forget
   his father's wrongs? Desolation extended along the whole
   frontier. Banished from his patrimony where the pilgrims found
   a friend, and from his cabin which had sheltered exiles,
   Philip and his warriors spread through the country, awakening
   their race to a warfare of extermination."

G. Bancroft, History of the United States (author's last revision), part 2, chapter 5 (volume 1).

"At this time, according to loose estimates, there may have been some 36,000 Indians and 60,000 whites in New England; 10,000 of the former fit for war, and 15,000 of the latter capable of bearing arms. … At the outset, the Narragansetts, numbering 2,000 warriors, did not actually second Philip's resistance. But Canonchet, their sachem, might well remember the death of his father Miantonomo [who, taken prisoner in a war with the Mohegans, and surrendered by them to the English, in 1643, with a request for permission to put him to death, was deliberately returned to his savage captors, on advice taken from the ministers at Boston—doomed to death without his knowledge]. … No efforts at conciliation seem to have been made by either party; for the whites felt their superiority (were they not 'the Lord's chosen people?'); and Philip knew the desperate nature of the struggle between united and well-armed whites, and divided uncontrolled savages; yet when the emergency came he met it, and never faltered or plead from that day forth."

      ALSO IN:
      B. Church,
      History of King Philip's War,
      (Prince Society Publication 1867).

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1675 (July-September).
King Philip's War: Savage successes of the Indian enemy.
Increasing rage and terror among the colonists.

The Nipmucks, into whose country Philip retreated, "had already commenced hostilities by attacking Mendon. They waylaid and killed Captain Hutchinson, a son of the famous Mrs. Hutchinson, and 16 out of a party of 20 sent from Boston to Brookfield to parley with them. Attacking Brookfield itself, they burned it, except one fortified house. The inhabitants were saved by Major Willard, who, on information of their danger, came with a troop of horse from Lancaster, thirty miles through the woods, to their rescue. A body of troops presently arrived from the eastward, and were stationed for some time at Brookfield. The colonists now found that by driving Philip to extremity they had roused a host of unexpected enemies. The River Indians, anticipating an intended attack upon them, joined the assailants. Deerfield and Northfield, the northernmost towns on the Connecticut River, settled within a few years past, were attacked and several of the inhabitants killed and wounded. Captain Beers, sent from Hadley to their relief with a convoy of provisions, was surprised near Northfield and slain, with 20 of his men. Northfield was abandoned and burned by the Indians. … Driven to the necessity of defensive warfare, those in command on the river determined to establish a magazine and garrison at Hadley. Captain Lathrop, who had been dispatched from the eastward to the assistance of the river towns, was sent with 80 men, the flower of the youth of Essex county, to guard the wagons intended to convey to Hadley 3,000 bushels of unthreshed wheat, the produce of the fertile Deerfield meadows. Just before arriving at Deerfield, near a small stream still known as Bloody Brook, under the shadow of the abrupt conical Sugar Loaf, the southern termination of the Deerfield mountain, Lathrop fell into an ambush, and, after a brave resistance, perished there with all his company. Captain Moseley, stationed at Deerfield, marched to his assistance, but arrived too late to help him. That town, also, was abandoned, and burned by the Indians. Springfield, about the same time, was set on fire, but was partially saved by the arrival of Major Treat, with aid from Connecticut. Hatfield, now the frontier town on the north, was vigorously attacked, but the garrison succeeded in repelling the assailants. Meanwhile, hostilities were spreading; the Indians on the Merrimac began to attack the towns in their vicinity; and the whole of Massachusetts was soon in the utmost alarm. Except in the immediate neighborhood of Boston, the country still remained an immense forest, dotted by a few openings. The frontier settlements … were mostly broken up, and the inhabitants, retiring towards Boston, spread everywhere dread and intense hatred of 'the bloody heathen.' Even the praying Indians, and the small dependent and tributary tribes, became objects of suspicion and terror. … Not content with realities sufficiently frightful, superstition, as usual, added bugbears of her own. Indian bows were seen in the sky, and scalps in the moon. The northern lights became an object of terror. Phantom horsemen careered among the clouds, or were heard to gallop invisible through the air. The howling of wolves was turned into a terrible omen. The war was regarded as a special judgment in punishment of prevailing sins. … About the time of the first collision with Philip, the Tarenteens, or Eastern Indians, had attacked the settlements in Maine and New Hampshire, plundering and burning the houses, and massacring such of the inhabitants as fell into their hands. This sudden diffusion of hostilities and vigor of attack from opposite quarters, made, the colonists believe that Philip had long been plotting and had gradually matured an extensive conspiracy, into which most of the tribes had deliberately entered, for the extermination of the whites. This belief infuriated the colonists, and suggested some very questionable proceedings. … But there is no evidence of any deliberate concert; nor, in fact, were the Indians united. Had they been so, the war would have been far more serious. The Connecticut tribes proved faithful, and that colony remained untouched. Even the Narragansetts, the most powerful confederacy in New England, in spite of so many former provocations, had not yet taken up arms. But they were strongly suspected of intention to do so, and were accused, notwithstanding their recent assurances, of giving aid and shelter to the hostile tribes."

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1675 (October-December).
King Philip's War: The crushing of the Narragansetts.

"The attitude of the powerful Narragansett tribe was regarded with anxiety. It was known that, so far from keeping their compact to surrender such enemies of the English as should fall into their hands, they had harbored numbers of Philip's dispersed retainers and allies. While the Federal Commissioners were in session at Boston [October], Canonchet, sachem of the Narragansetts, came thither with other chiefs, and promised that the hostile Indians whom they acknowledged to be then under their protection should be surrendered within ten days. But probably the course of events on Connecticut River emboldened them. At all events, they did not keep their engagement. The day for the surrender came and went, and no Indians appeared. If that faithless tribe, the most powerful in New England, should assume active hostilities, a terrible desolation would ensue. The Commissioners moved promptly. The fifth day after the breach of the treaty found them reassembled after a short recess. They immediately determined to raise an additional force of 1,000 men for service in the Narragansett country. They appointed Governor Winslow, of Plymouth, to be commander-in-chief, and desired the colony of Connecticut to name his lieutenant. The General was to place himself at the head of his troops within six weeks, 'a solemn day of prayer and humiliation' being kept through all the colonies meanwhile. … Time was thus given to the Narragansetts to make their peace 'by actual performance of their covenants made with the Commissioners; as also making reparation for all damages sustained by their neglect hitherto, together with security for their further fidelity.' … It is not known whether Philip was among the Narragansetts at this time. Under whatever influence it was, whether from stupidity or from confidence, they made no further attempt at pacification. … The Massachusetts troops marched from Dedham to Attleborough on the day before that which had been appointed by the Commissioners for them to meet the Plymouth levy at the northeastern corner of the Narragansett country. The following day they reached Seekonk: A week earlier, the few English houses at Quinsigamond (Worcester) had been burned by a party of natives; and a few days later, the house of Jeremiah Bull, at Pettyquamscott, which had been designated as the place of general rendezvous for the English, was fired, and ten men and five women and children, who had taken refuge in it, were put to death. … The place where the Narragansetts were to be sought was in what is now the town of South Kingston, 18 miles distant, in a northwesterly direction, from Pettyquamscott, and a little further from that Pequot fort to the southwest, which had been destroyed by the force under Captain Mason forty years before. According to information afterwards received from a captive, the Indian warriors here collected were no fewer than 3,500. They were on their guard, and had fortified their hold to the best of their skill. It was on a solid piece of upland of five or six acres, wholly surrounded by a swamp. On the inner side of this natural defence they had driven rows of palisades, making a barrier nearly a rod in thickness; and the only entrance to the enclosure was over a rude bridge consisting of a felled tree, four or five feet from the ground, the bridge being protected by a block-house. The English [whose forces, after a considerable delay of the Connecticut troops, had been all assembled at Pettyquamscott on Saturday, December 18], breaking up their camp [on the morning of the 19th] while it was yet dark, arrived before the place at one o'clock after noon. Having passed, without shelter, a very cold night, they had made a march of 18 miles through deep snow, scarcely halting to refresh themselves with food. In this condition they immediately advanced to the attack. The Massachusetts troops were in the van of the storming column; next came the two Plymouth companies; and then the force from Connecticut. The foremost of the assailants were received with a well-directed fire," and seven of their captains were killed or mortally wounded. "Nothing discouraged by the fall of their leaders, the men pressed on, and a sharp conflict followed, which, with fluctuating success, lasted for two or three hours. Once the assailants were beaten out of the fort; but they presently rallied and regained their ground. There was nothing for either party but to conquer or die, enclosed together as they were. At length victory declared for the English, who finished their work by setting fire to the wigwams within the fort. They lost 70 men killed and 150 wounded. Of the Connecticut contingent alone, out of 300 men 40 were killed and as many wounded. The number of the enemy that perished is uncertain. … What is both certain and material is that on that day the military strength of the formidable Narragansett tribe was irreparably broken."

J. G. Palfrey, Compendious History of New England, book 3, chapter 3 (volume 2).

   "While the overthrow of the Narragansetts changed the face of
   things, it was far from putting an end to the war. It showed
   that when the white man could find his enemy he could deal
   crushing blows, but the Indian was not always so easy to find.
   Before the end of January Winslow's little army was partially
   disbanded for want of food, and its three contingents fell
   back upon Stonington, Boston, and Plymouth. Early in February
   the Federal Commissioners called for a new levy of 600 men to
   assemble at Brookfield, for the Nipmucks were beginning to
   renew their incursions, and after an interval of six months
   the figure of Philip again appears for a moment upon the
   scene. What he had been doing or where he had been, since the
   Brookfield fight in August, was never known. When in February,
   1676, he reappeared, it was still in company with his allies
   the Nipmucks, in their bloody assault upon Lancaster. On the
   10th of that month at sunrise the Indians came swarming into
   the lovely village.
{2313}
   Danger had already been apprehended, the pastor, Joseph
   Rowlandson, the only Harvard graduate of 1652, had gone to
   Boston to solicit aid, and Captain Wadsworth's company was
   slowly making its way over the difficult roads from
   Marlborough, but the Indians were beforehand. Several houses
   were at once surrounded and set on fire, and men, women, and
   children began falling under the tomahawk. The minister's
   house was large and strongly built, and more than forty people
   found shelter there until at length it took fire and they were
   driven out by the flames. Only one escaped, a dozen or more
   were slain, and the rest, chiefly women and children, taken
   captive. … Among the captives was Mary Rowlandson, the
   minister's wife, who afterward wrote the story of her sad
   experiences. … It was a busy winter and spring for these
   Nipmucks. Before February was over, their exploit at Lancaster
   was followed by a shocking massacre at Medfield. They sacked
   and destroyed the towns of Worcester, Marlborough, Mendon, and
   Groton, and even burned some houses in Weymouth, within a
   dozen miles of Boston. Murderous attacks were made upon
   Sudbury, Chelmsford, Springfield, Hatfield, Hadley,
   Northampton, Wrentham, Andover, Bridgewater, Scituate, and
   Middleborough. On the 18th of April Captain Wadsworth, with 70
   men, was drawn into an ambush near Sudbury, surrounded by 500
   Nipmucks, and killed with 50 of his men; six unfortunate
   captives were burned alive over slow fires. But Wadsworth's
   party made the enemy pay dearly for his victory; that
   afternoon 120 Nipmucks bit the dust. In such wise, by killing
   two or three for one, did the English wear out and annihilate
   their adversaries. Just one month from that day, Captain
   Turner surprised and slaughtered 300 of these warriors near
   the falls of the Connecticut river which have since borne his
   name, and this blow at last broke the strength of the
   Nipmucks. Meanwhile the Narragansetts and Wampanoags had
   burned the towns of Warwick and Providence. After the
   wholesale ruin of the great swamp fight, Canonchet had still
   some 600 or 700 warriors left, and with these, on the 26th of
   March, in the neighbourhood of Pawtuxet, he surprised a
   company of 50 Plymouth men, under Captain Pierce, and slew
   them all, but not until he had lost 140 of his best warriors.
   Ten days later, Captain Denison, with his Connecticut company,
   defeated and captured Canonchet, and the proud son of
   Miantonomo met the same fate as his father. He was handed over
   to the Mohegans and tomahawked. … The fall of Canonchet
   marked the beginning of the end. In four sharp fights in the
   last week of June, Major Talcott of Hartford slew from 300 to
   400 warriors, being nearly all that were left of the
   Narragansetts; and during the month of July Captain Church
   patrolled the country about Taunton, making prisoners of the
   Wampanoags. Once more King Philip, shorn of his prestige,
   comes upon the scene. … Defeated at Taunton, the son of
   Massasoit was hunted by Church to his ancient lair at Bristol
   Neck and there," betrayed by one of his own followers, he was
   surprised on the morning of August 12, and shot as he
   attempted to fly. "His severed head was sent to Plymouth,
   where it was mounted on a pole and exposed aloft upon the
   village green, while the meeting-house bell summoned the
   townspeople to a special service of thanksgiving. … By
   midsummer of 1678 the Indians had been everywhere suppressed,
   and there was peace in the land. … In Massachusetts and
   Plymouth … the destruction of life and property had been
   simply frightful. Of 90 towns, 12 had been utterly destroyed,
   while more than 40 others had been the scene of fire and
   slaughter. Out of this little society nearly 1,000 staunch men
   … had lost their lives, while of the scores of fair women
   and poor little children that had perished under the ruthless
   tomahawk, one can hardly give an accurate account. … But …
   henceforth the red man figures no more in the history of New
   England, except as an ally of the French in bloody raids upon
   the frontier."

ALSO IN: W. Hubbard, History of the Indian Wars in New England, edited by S. G. Drake, volume 1.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1686.
The consolidation of the "Territory and Dominion of
New England" under a royal governor-general.

"It was … determined in the Privy Council that Connecticut, New Plymouth, and Rhode Island should be united with Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Maine, and the Narragansett country, and be made 'one entire government, the better to defend themselves against invasion.' This was good policy for England. It was the despotic idea of consolidation. It was opposed to the republican system of confederation. … Consolidation was indeed the best mode of establishing in his colonies the direct government which Charles had adopted in November, 1684, and which James was now to enforce. … For more than twenty years James had been trying his "'prentice hand" upon New York. The time had now come when he was to use his master hand on New England. … By the advice of Sunderland, James commissioned Colonel Sir Edmund Andros to be captain general and governor-in-chief over his 'Territory and Dominion of New England in America,' which meant Massachusetts Bay, New Plymouth, New Hampshire, Maine, and the Narragansett country, or the King's Province. Andros's commission was drawn in the traditional form, settled by the Plantation Board for those of other royal governors in Virginia, Jamaica, and New Hampshire. Its substance, however, was much more despotic. Andros was authorized, with the consent of a council appointed by the crown, to make laws and levy taxes, and to govern the territory of New England in obedience to its sovereign's Instructions, and according to the laws then in force, or afterward to be established. … To secure Andros in his government, two companies of regular soldiers, chiefly Irish Papists, were raised in London and placed under his orders."

      See, also,
      MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1671-1686;
      and CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1685-1687.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1688.
New York and New Jersey brought under the
governor-generalship of Andros.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1689. The bloodless revolution, arrest of Andros, and proclamation of William and Mary.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1692.
The charter to Massachusetts as a royal province.
Plymouth absorbed.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1696-1749.
Suppression of colonial manufactures.
Oppressive commercial policy of England.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1702-1710.
   Queen Anne's War (the Second Intercolonial War):
   Border incursions by the French and Indians.
   The final conquest of Acadia.

"But a few years of peace succeeded the treaty of Ryswick. First came the contest in Europe over the Spanish succession," and then the recognition of "the Pretender" by Louis XIV. "This recognition was, of course, a challenge to England and preparations were made for war. William III. died in March, 1702, and was succeeded by Anne, the sister of his wife, and daughter of James II. War was declared by England against France, May 15th, 1702. The contest that followed is known in European history as the War of the Spanish Succession; in American history it is usually called Queen Anne's 'War; or the Second Intercolonial War. On one side were France, Spain, and Bavaria; on the other, England, Holland, Savoy, Austria, Prussia, Portugal, and Denmark. It was in this war that the Duke of Marlborough won his fame. To the people of New England, war between France and England meant the hideous midnight war-whoop, the tomahawk and scalping-knife, burning hamlets, and horrible captivity. To provide against it, a conference was called to meet at Falmouth, on Casco Bay, in June, 1703, when Governor Dudley, of Massachusetts, met many of the chiefs of the Abenaquis. The Indians, professing to have no thought of war, promised peace and friendship by their accustomed tokens. … But, as usual, only a part of the tribes had been brought into the alliance," and some lawless provocations by a party of English marauders soon drove the Abenaquis again into their old French Alliance. "By August, 500 French and Indians were assembled, ready for incursions into the New England settlements. They divided into several bands and fell upon a number of places at the same time. Wells, Saco, and Casco were again among the doomed villages, but the fort at Casco was not taken, owing to the arrival of an armed vessel under Captain Southwick. About 150 persons were killed or captured in these attacks." In February, the town of Deerfield, Massachusetts, was destroyed, 47 of the inhabitants were killed and 112 carried away captive. "On the 30th of July, the town of Lancaster was assailed, and a few people were killed, seven buildings burned, and much property destroyed. These and other depredations of war-parties along the coasts filled New England with consternation. … It was … resolved to fit out an expedition for retaliation, and as usual the people of Acadia were selected to expiate the sins of the Indians and Canadians. Colonel Benjamin Church was put in command of 550 men, 14 transports, and 36 whale-boats, convoyed by three ships of war. Sailing from Boston in May, 1704," Church ravaged the lesser French settlements on the Acadian coast, but ventured no attack on Port Royal. "In 1705, 450 men under Subercase—soldiers, Canadian peasants, adventurers, and Indians, well armed, and with rations for twenty days, blankets and tents—set out to destroy the English settlements in Newfoundland, marching on snow-shoes. They took Petit Havre and St. John's, and devastated all the little settlements along the eastern coast, and the English trade was for the time completely broken up. Subercase was made Governor of Acadia in 1706. The following spring New England sent Colonel March to Port Royal with two regiments, but he returned without assaulting the fort. Governor Dudley forbade the troops to land when they came back to Boston, and ordered them to go again. Colonel March was ill, and Colonel Wainwright took command; but after a pretence of besieging the fort for eleven days he retired with small loss, the expedition having cost Massachusetts £2,200. In 1708 a council at Montreal decided to send a large number of Canadians and Indians to devastate New England. But after a long march through the almost impassable mountain region of northern New Hampshire, a murderous attack on Haverhill, in which 30 or 40 were killed, was the only result. … In 1709 a plan was formed in England for the capture of New France by a fleet and five regiments of British soldiers aided by the colonists. But a defeat in Portugal called away the ships destined for America, and a force gathered at Lake Champlain under Colonel Nicholson for a land attack was so reduced by sickness—said to have resulted from the poisoning of a spring by Indians—that they burned their canoes and retreated. The next year, Nicholson was furnished with six ships of war, thirty transports, and one British and four New England regiments for the capture of Port Royal. Subercase had only 260 men and an insufficient supply of provisions." He surrendered after a short bombardment, "and on the 16th of October the starving and ragged garrison marched out to be sent to France. For the last time the French flag was hauled down from the fort, and Port Royal was henceforth an English fortress, which was re-named Annapolis Royal, in honor of Queen Anne."

   "With a change of masters came a change of names. Acadié was
   again called 'Nova Scotia'—the name bestowed upon it by James
   I. in 1621; and Port Royal, 'Annapolis.'"

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1744.
King George's War (the Third Intercolonial War):
Hostilities in Nova Scotia.

"The war that had prevailed for several years between Britain and Spain [see ENGLAND: A. D. 1739-1741], inflicted upon the greater number of the British provinces of America no farther share of its evils than the burden of contributing to the expeditions of Admiral Vernon, and the waste of life by which his disastrous naval campaigns were signalized. Only South Carolina and Georgia had been exposed to actual attack and danger. But this year [1744], by an enlargement of the hostile relations of the parent state, the scene of war was extended to the more northern provinces. The French, though professing peace with Britain, had repeatedly given assistance to Spain; while the British king, as Elector of Hanover, had espoused the quarrel of the emperor of Germany with the French monarch; and after various mutual threats and demonstrations of hostility that consequently ensued between Britain and France, war [the War of the Austrian Succession] was now formally declared by these states against each other.

The French colonists in America, having been apprized of this event before it was known in New England, were tempted to improve the advantage of their prior intelligence by an instant and unexpected commencement of hostilities, which accordingly broke forth without notice or delay in the quarter of Nova Scotia. … On the island of Canso, adjoining the coast of Nova Scotia, the British had formed a settlement, which was resorted to by the fishermen of New England, and defended by a small fortification garrisoned by a detachment of troops from Annapolis. … Duquesnel, the governor of Cape Breton, on receiving intelligence of the declaration of war between the two parent states, conceived the hope of destroying the fishing establishments of the English by the suddenness and vigor of an unexpected attack. His first blow, which was aimed at Canso, proved successful (May 13, 1744). Duvivier, whom he despatched from his headquarters at Louisburg, with a few armed vessels and a force of 900 men, took unresisted possession of this island, burned the fort and houses, and made prisoners of the garrison and inhabitants. This success Duquesnel endeavoured to follow up by the conquest of Placentia in Newfoundland, and of Annapolis in Nova Scotia; but at both these places his forces were repulsed. In the attack of Annapolis, the French were joined by the Indians of Nova Scotia; but the prudent forecast of Shirley, the governor of Massachusetts, had induced the assembly of this province, some time before, to contribute a reinforcement of 200 men for the greater security of the garrison of Annapolis; and to the opportune arrival of the succour thus afforded the preservation of the place was ascribed. … The people of New England were stimulated to a pitch of resentment, apprehension, and martial energy, that very shortly produced an effort of which neither their friends nor their enemies had supposed them to be capable, and which excited the admiration of both Europe and America. … War was declared against the Indians of Nova Scotia, who had assisted in the attack upon Annapolis; all the frontier garrisons were reinforced; new forts were erected; and the materials of defence were enlarged by a seasonable gift of artillery from the king. Meanwhile, though the French were not prepared to prosecute the extensive plan of conquest which their first operations announced, their privateers actively waged a harassing naval warfare that greatly endamaged the commerce of New England. The British fisheries on the coast of Nova Scotia were interrupted; the fishermen declared their intention of returning no more to their wonted stations on that coast; and so many merchant vessels were captured and carried into Louisburg in the course of this summer, that it was expected that in the following year no branch of maritime trade would be pursued by the New England merchants, except under the protection of convoy."

J. Grahame, History [Colonial] of the United States, book 10, chapter 1 (volume 2).

   "Louisburg, on which the French had spent much money [see CAPE
   BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1720-1745], was by far the strongest fort
   north of the Gulf of Mexico. But the prisoners of Canso,
   carried thither, and afterward dismissed on parole, reported
   the garrison to be weak and the works out of repair. So long
   as the French held this fortress, it was sure to be a source
   of annoyance to New England, but to wait for British aid to
   capture it would be tedious and uncertain, public attention in
   Great Britain being much engrossed by a threatened invasion.
   Under these circumstances, Shirley proposed to the General
   Court of Massachusetts the bold enterprise of a colonial
   expedition, of which Louisburg should be the object. After six
   days' deliberation and two additional messages from the
   governor, this proposal was adopted by a majority of one vote.
   A circular letter, asking aid and co-operation, was sent to
   all the colonies as far south as Pennsylvania. In answer to
   this application, urged by a special messenger from
   Massachusetts, the Pennsylvania Assembly … voted £4,000 of
   their currency to purchase provisions. The New Jersey Assembly
   … furnished … £2,000 toward the Louisburg expedition, but
   declined to raise any men. The New York Assembly, after a long
   debate, voted £3,000 of their currency; but this seemed to
   Clinton a niggardly grant, and he sent, besides, a quantity of
   provisions purchased by private subscription, and ten
   eighteen-pounders from the king's magazine. Connecticut voted
   500 men, led by Roger Wolcott, afterward governor, and
   appointed, by stipulation of the Connecticut Assembly, second
   in command of the expedition. Rhode Island and New Hampshire
   each raised a regiment of 300 men; but the Rhode Island troops
   did not arrive till after Louisburg was taken. The chief
   burden of the enterprise, as was to be expected, fell on
   Massachusetts. In seven weeks an army of 3,250 men was
   enlisted, transports were pressed, and bills of credit were
   profusely issued to pay the expense. Ten armed vessels were
   provided by Massachusetts, and one by each of the other New
   England colonies. The command in chief was given to William
   Pepperell, a native of Maine, a wealthy merchant, who had
   inherited and augmented a large fortune acquired by his father
   in the fisheries; a popular, enterprising, sagacious man,
   noted for his universal good fortune, but unacquainted with
   military affairs; except as a militia officer. … The
   enterprise … assumed something of the character of an
   anti-Catholic crusade. One of the chaplains, a disciple of
   Whitfield, carried a hatchet, specially provided to hew down
   the images in the French churches.
{2316}
   Eleven days after embarking at Boston [April, 1745], the
   Massachusetts armament assembled at Casco, to wait there the
   arrival of the Connecticut and Rhode Island quotas, and the
   melting of the ice by which Cape Breton was environed. The New
   Hampshire troops were already there; those from Connecticut
   came a few days after. Notice having been sent to England and
   the West Indies of the intended expedition, Captain Warren
   presently arrived with four ships of war, and, cruising before
   Louisburg, captured several vessels bound thither with
   supplies. Already, before his arrival, the New England
   cruisers had prevented the entry of a French thirty-gun ship.
   As soon as the ice permitted, the troops landed and commenced
   the siege, but not with much skill, for they had no engineers.
   … Five unsuccessful attacks were made, one after another,
   upon an island battery which protected the harbor. In that
   cold, foggy climate, the troops, very imperfectly provided
   with tents, suffered severely from sickness, and more than a
   third were unfit for duty. But the French garrison was feeble
   and mutinous, and when the commander found that his supplies
   had been captured, he relieved the embarrassment of the
   besiegers by offering to capitulate. The capitulation [June
   17] included 650 regular soldiers, and near 1,300 effective
   inhabitants of the town, all of whom were to be shipped to
   France. The island of St. John's presently submitted on the
   same terms. The loss during the siege was less than 150, but
   among those reluctantly detained to garrison the conquered
   fortress ten times as many perished afterward by sickness. In
   the expedition of Vernon and this against Louisburg perished a
   large number of the remaining Indians of New England,
   persuaded to enlist as soldiers in the colonial regiments.
   Some dispute arose as to the relative merits of the land and
   naval forces, which had been joined during the siege by
   additional ships from England. Pepperell, however, was made a
   baronet, and both he and Shirley were commissioned as colonels
   in the British army. Warren was promoted to the rank of rear
   admiral. The capture of this strong fortress, effected in the
   face of many obstacles, shed, indeed, a momentary luster over
   one of the most unsuccessful wars in which Britain was ever
   engaged."

"As far as England was concerned, it [the taking of Louisburg] was the great event of the war of the Austrian succession. England had no other success in that war to compare with it. As things turned out, it is not too much to say that this exploit of New England gave peace to Europe."

"Though it was the most brilliant success the English achieved during the war, English historians scarcely mention it."

      ALSO IN:
      T. C. Haliburton,
      Historical and Statistical Account of Nova Scotia,
      chapter 3 (volume 1).

      F. Parkman,
      The Capture of Louisbourg
      (Atlantic Monthly, March-May, 1891).

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1745-1748.
   King George's War: The mortifying end.
   Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle,
   and restoration of Louisburg to France.

"Elated by their success [at Louisburg], the Provincials now offered to undertake the conquest of Canada; but the Duke of Bedford, to whom Governor Shirley's plan had been submitted, disapproved of it, as exhibiting to the colonists too plainly their own strength. … He therefore advised to place the chief dependence on the fleet and army to be sent from England, and to look on the Americans as useful only when joined with others. Finally, the Whigs determined to send a powerful fleet to Quebec, at the same time that an army should attack Montreal, by the route of Lake Champlain; and so late as April, 1746, orders were issued to the several governors to levy troops without limitation, which, when assembled on the frontiers, the king would pay. From some unknown cause, the plan was abandoned as soon as formed. The general appointed to the chief command was ordered not to embark, but the instructions to enlist troops had been transmitted to America, and were acted on with alacrity. Massachusetts raised 3,500 men to co-operate with the fleet, which, however, they were doomed never to see. After being kept a long time in suspense, they were dispersed, in several places, to strengthen garrisons which were supposed to be too weak for the defenses assigned them. Upward of 3,000 men, belonging to other colonies, were assembled at Albany, undisciplined, without a commissariat, and under no control. After the season for active operations was allowed to pass away, they disbanded themselves, some with arms in their hands demanding pay of their governors, and others suing their captains. In addition to this disgraceful affair, the Provincials had the mortification to have a large detachment of their men cut off in Lower Horton, then known as Minas, situated nearly in the centre of Nova Scotia. The Canadian forces, which had traveled thither to co-operate with an immense fleet expected from France, determining to winter in that province, rendered it a subject of continued anxiety and expense to Massachusetts. Governor Shirley resolved, after again reinforcing the garrison at Annapolis, to drive them from the shores of Minas Basin, where they were seated; and in the winter of the year 1746, a body of troops was embarked at Boston for the former place. After the loss of a transport, and the greatest part of the soldiers on board, the troops arrived, and reembarked for Grand Pré in the district of Minas, in the latter end of December. … The issue was, that being cantoned at too great distances from each other, La Corne, a commander of the French, having intelligence of their situation, forced a march from Schiegnieto, through a most tempestuous snow-storm, and surprised them at midnight. After losing 160 of their men, in killed, wounded and prisoners, the party were obliged to capitulate, not, however, on dishonorable terms, and the French, in their turn, abandoned their post. On the 8th of May, 1749, peace was proclaimed at Boston [according to the terms of the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle, concluded October 7, 1748], much to the mortification of the Provincials; Cape Breton was restored to France; and Louisburg, which had created so much dread, and inflicted such injuries on their commerce, was handed over to their inveterate enemies, to be rendered still stronger by additional fortifications. The French also obtained the islands of St. Pierre and Michelon, on the south coast of Newfoundland, as stations for their fisheries." England reimbursed the colonies to the extent of £183,000 for the expenses of their vain conquest of Louisburg, and £135,000 for their losses in raising troops under the orders that were revoked.

T. C. Haliburton, Rule and Misrule of the English in America, book 3, chapter 1.

      S. G. Drake,
      Particular History of the Five Years French and Indian War,
      chapters 6-9.

      J. G. Palfrey,
      History of New England,
      book 5, chapter 10 (volume 5).

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1750-1753. Dissensions among the colonies at the opening of the great French War.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1754.
The Colonial Congress at Albany.
Franklin's Plan of Union.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1755-1760.
The last Intercolonial, or French and Indian War,
and English conquest of Canada.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1750-1753, to 1760;
      NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1749-1755, 1755;
      OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754, 1754, 1755;
      CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1758-1760.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1761.
Harsh enforcement of revenue laws.
The Writs of Assistance and Otis' speech.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1765-1766.
   The Stamp Act.
   Its effects and its repeal.
   The Stamp Act Congress.
   The Declaratory Act.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1766-1768.
The Townshend duties.
The Circular Letter of Massachusetts.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1768-1770.
The quartering of troops in Boston.
The "Massacre," and the removal of the troops.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1770-1773.
   Repeal of the Townshend duties except on Tea.
   Committees of Correspondence instituted.
   The Tea Ships and the Boston Tea-party.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1770, and 1772-1773;
      and BOSTON: A. D. 1773.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1774.
   The Boston Port Bill, the Massachusetts Act,
   and the Quebec Act.
   The First Continental Congress.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1775.
   The beginning of the War of the American Revolution.
   Lexington.
   Concord.
   The country in arms and Boston under siege.
   Ticonderoga.
   Bunker Hill.
   The Second Continental Congress.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1787-1789.
Formation and adoption of the Federal Constitution.

NEW FOREST.

To create a new royal hunting ground in his English dominion, William the Conqueror ruthlessly demolished villages, manors, chapels, and parish churches throughout thirty miles of country, along the coast side of Hampshire, from the Avon on the west to Southampton Water on the east, and called this wilderness of his making, The New Forest. His son William Rufus was killed in it—which people thought to be a judgment. The New Forest still exists and embraces no less than 66,000 acres, extending over a district twenty miles by fifteen in area, of woodland, heath, bog and rough pasture.

NEW FRANCE.

NEW GRANADA.

NEW HAMPSHIRE:
The aboriginal inhabitants.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1623-1631.
   Gorges' and Mason's grant and the division of it.
   First colonies planted.
   The naming of the province.

NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1641-1679.
The claims of Massachusetts asserted and defeated.

According to its terms, the Massachusetts patent embraced a territory extending northward three miles beyond the head-waters of the Merrimack, and covered, therefore, the greater part of Mason's New Hampshire grant, as well as that of Gorges in Maine. In 1641, when this fact had been ascertained, the General Court of Massachusetts "passed an order (with the consent of the settlers at Dover and Strawberry-bank, on the Piscataqua), 'That from thenceforth, the said people inhabiting there are and shall be accepted and reputed under the Government of the Massachusetts,' etc. Mason had died, and confusion ensued, so that the settlers were mostly glad of the transfer. A long controversy ensued between Mason's heirs and Massachusetts as to the right of jurisdiction. The history of New Hampshire and Maine at this period was much the same. In 1660, at the time of the Restoration, the heirs of Mason applied to the Attorney-General in England, who decided that they had a good title to New Hampshire. The Commissioners who came over in 1664 attempted to re-establish them; but as the settlers favored Massachusetts, she resumed her government when they left. Mason's heirs renewed their claim in 1675, and in 1679 it was solemnly decided against the claim of the Massachusetts Colony, although their grant technically included all lands extending to three miles north of the waters of the Merrimack river. John Cutt was the first President in New Hampshire, and thenceforward, to the American Revolution, New Hampshire was treated as a Royal province, the Governors and Lieutenant-Governors being appointed by the King, and the laws made by the people being subject to his revision."

NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1749-1774.
   Boundary dispute with New York.
   The grants in Vermont, and the struggle of the
   "Green Mountain Boys" to defend them.

NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1754. The Colonial Congress at Albany, and Franklin's Plan of Union.

NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1755-1760.
The French and Indian War, and conquest of Canada.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1750-1753, to 1760;
      NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1749-1755, 1755;
      OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754, 1754, 1755;
      CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1758-1760.

NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1760-1766.
   The question of taxation by Parliament.
   The Sugar Act.
   The Stamp Act and its repeal.
   The Declaratory Act.
   The Stamp Act Congress.

NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1766-1768.
The Townshend duties.
The Circular Letter of Massachusetts.

NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1768-1770.
The quartering of troops in Boston.
The "Massacre" and the removal of the troops.

NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1770-1773.
   Repeal of the Townshend duties except on Tea.
   Committees of Correspondence instituted.
   The Tea Ships and the Boston Tea-party.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1770, and 1772-1773;
and BOSTON: A. D. 1773.

NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1774.
   The Boston Port Bill, the Massachusetts Act,
   and the Quebec Act.
   The First Continental Congress.

NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1775.
   The beginning of the War of the American Revolution.
   Lexington.
   Concord.
   The country in arms and Boston beleaguered.
   Ticonderoga.
   Bunker Hill.
   The Second Continental Congress.

NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1775-1776.
   The end of royal government.
   Adoption of a constitution.
   Declaration of Independence.

The New Hampshire Assembly, called by Governor Wentworth, came together June 12, 1775, in the midst of the excitements produced by news of Lexington and Ticonderoga. Meantime, a convention of the people had been called and was sitting at Exeter. Acting on a demand from the latter, the assembly proceeded first to expel from its body three members whom the governor had called by the king's writ from three new townships, and who were notorious royalists. "One of the expelled members, having censured this proceeding, was assaulted by the populace, and fled for shelter to the governor's house. The people demanded him, and, being refused, they pointed a gun at the governor's door; whereupon the offender was surrendered and carried to Exeter. The governor retired to the fort, and his house was pillaged. He afterwards went on board the Scarborough and sailed for Boston. He had adjourned the assembly to the 28th of September. But they met no more. In September, he issued a proclamation from the Isles of Shoals, adjourning them to April next. This was the closing act of his administration. It was the last receding step of royalty. It had subsisted in the province 95 years. The government of New Hampshire was henceforth to be a government of the people. … The convention which had assembled at Exeter was elected but for six months. Previous to their dissolution in November, they made provisions, pursuant to the recommendations of congress, for calling a new convention, which should be a more full representation of the people. They sent copies of these provisions to the several towns, and dissolved. The elections were forthwith held. The new convention promptly assembled, and drew up a temporary form of government. Having assumed the name of 'House of Representatives,' they adopted a constitution [January, 1776], and proceeded to choose twelve persons to constitute a distinct and a co-ordinate branch of the legislature, by the name of a Council." The constitution provided for no executive. "The two houses assumed to themselves the executive duty during the session, and they appointed a committee of safety to sit in the recess, varying in number from six to sixteen, vested with executive powers. The president of the council was president of the executive committee. … On the 11th of June, 1776, a committee was chosen by the assembly, and another by the council of New Hampshire, 'to make a draught of a declaration of the independence of the united colonies.' On the 15th, the committees of both houses reported a 'Declaration of Independence,' which was adopted unanimously, and a copy sent forthwith to their delegates in congress."

NEW HAVEN: A. D. 1643.
Progress and state of the colony.
The New England Confederation.

NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1610-1664.
The Dutch in possession.
The Patroon colony at Pavonia.

NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1635. Territory assigned to Lord Mulgrave on the dissolution of the Council for New England.

NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1640-1655.
The attempted colonization from New Haven, on the Delaware.

The London merchants who formed the leading colonists of New Haven, and who were the wealthiest among the pioneer settlers of New England, had schemes of commerce in their minds, as well as desires for religious freedom, when they founded their little republic at Quinnipiac. They began with no delay to establish a trade with Barbadoes and Virginia, as well as along their own coasts; and they were promptly on the watch for advantageous openings at which to plant a strong trading-post or two among the Indians. In the winter of 1638-39, one George Lamberton of New Haven, while trafficking Virginia-wards, discovered the lively fur trade already made active on Delaware Bay by the Dutch and Swedes [see DELAWARE: A. D. 1638-1640], and took a hand in it. His enterprising townsmen, when they heard his report, resolved to put themselves at once on some kind of firm footing in the country where this profitable trade could be reached. They formed a "Delaware Company," in which the Governor, the minister, and all the chiefs of the colony were joined, and late in the year 1640 they sent a vessel into Delaware Bay, commanded by Captain Turner, who was one of their number. Captain Turner "was instructed by the Delaware Company to view and purchase lands at the Delaware Bay, and not to meddle with aught that rightfully belonged to the Swedes or Dutch. … But New Haven's captain paid little heed to boundaries. He bought of the Indians nearly the whole southwestern coast of New Jersey, and also a tract of land at Passayunk, on the present site of Philadelphia, and opposite the Dutch fort Nassau. … On the 30th of August, 1641, there was a Town-Meeting at New Haven, which voted to itself authority over the region of the Delaware Bay. The acts of the Delaware Company were approved, and 'Those to whome the affaires of the towne is committed' were ordered to 'Dispose of all the affayres of Delaware Bay.' The first instalment of settlers had previously gone to the Bay. Trumbull says that nearly fifty families removed. As they went by New Amsterdam, Governor Kieft issued an unavailing protest, which was met, however, by fair words. The larger portion of the party settled in a plantation on Varkin's Kill (Ferkenskill, Hog Creek?), near what is now Salem, New Jersey. A fortified trading-house was built or occupied at Passayunk. This was the era of Sir Edmund Plowden's shadowy Palatinate of New Albion, and, if there is any truth in the curious 'Description,' there would seem to be some connection between this fort of the New Haven settlers and Plowden's alleged colony." The Dutch and the Swedes, notwithstanding their mutual jealousies, made common cause against these New England intruders, and succeeded in breaking up their settlements., The exact occurrences are obscurely known, but it is certain that the attempted colonization was a failure, and that, "slowly, through the winter and spring of 1643, the major part of [the settlers] … straggled home to New Haven. … The poverty and distress were not confined to the twoscore households who had risked their persons in the enterprise. The ill-starred effort had impoverished the highest personages in the town, and crippled New Haven's best financial strength. "Yet the scheme of settlement on the Delaware was not abandoned. While claims against the Dutch for damages and for redress of wrongs were vigorously pressed, the town still looked upon the purchased territory as its own, and was resolute in the intention to occupy it. In 1651 a new expedition of fifty persons set sail for the Delaware, but was stopped at Manhattan by Peter Stuyvesant, and sent back, vainly raging at the insolence of the Dutch. All New England shared the wrath of New Haven, but confederated New England was not willing to move in the matter unless New Haven would pay the consequent costs. New Haven seemed rather more than half disposed to take up arms against New Netherland on her own responsibility; but her small quarrel was soon merged in the greater war which broke out between Holland and England. When this occurred, "concerted action on the part of the New Englanders would have given New Holland to the Allies, and extended New Haven's limits to the Delaware, without any one to gainsay or resist. After the Commissioners [of the United Colonies] declared for war, Massachusetts refused to obey, adopted the role of a secessionist, and checked the whole proceeding. New Haven, with whom the proposed war was almost a matter of life and death, was justified in adverting to the conduct of Massachusetts as 'A provoaking sinn against God, and of a scandalous nature before men.' The mutinous schemes of Roger Ludlow and of some New Haven malcontents complicated the problem still more both for Connecticut and New Haven. Finally, just as an army of 800 men was ready [1654] to march upon New Amsterdam, tidings came of a European peace, and New Haven's last chance was gone. But the town did not lose hope." Plans for a new colony were slowly matured through 1654 and 1655, but "the enterprise was completely thwarted by a series of untoward events," the most decisive of which was the conquest of New Sweden by Stuyvesant in October, 1655. "But the dream of Delaware was not forgotten."

      ALSO IN:
      S. Hazard,
      Annals of Pennsylvania,
      pages 57-178.

NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1664-1667.
   The English occupation and proprietary grant to
   Berkeley and Carteret.
   The naming of the province.
   The Newark immigration from New Haven.

"Before the Duke of York was actually in possession of his easily acquired territory [of New Netherlands, or New York—see NEW YORK: A. D. 1664], on the 23d and 24th of June, 1664, he executed deeds of lease and release to Lord John Berkeley, Baron of Stratton, and Sir George Carteret, of Saltrum in Devon, granting to them, their heirs and assigns, all that portion of his tract 'lying and being to the westward of Long Island and Manhitas Island, and bounded on the east part by the main sea, and part by Hudson's river, and hath upon the west, Delaware bay or river, and extending southward to the main ocean as far as Cape May, at the mouth of Delaware bay; and to the northward, as far as the northernmost branch of the said bay or river of Delaware, which is 41° 40' of latitude, and crosseth over thence in a strait line to Hudson's river, in 41° of latitude; which said tract of land is hereafter to be called by the name or names of New Cæsarea, or New Jersey.' The name of 'Cæsarea' was conferred upon the tract in commemoration of the gallant defence of the Island of Jersey, in 1649, by Sir George Carteret, then its governor, against the Parliamentarians; but the people preferred the English name of New Jersey, and the other was consequently soon lost. The grant of the Duke of York from the crown conferred upon him, his heirs and assigns, among other rights appertaining thereto, that most important one of government; the power of hearing and determining appeals being reserved to the king; but, 'relying,' says Chalmers, 'on the greatness of his connection, he seems to have been little solicitous to procure the royal privileges conferred on the proprietors of Maryland and Carolina,' whose charters conferred almost unlimited authority. 'And while as counts-palatine they exercised every act of government in their own names, because they were invested with the ample powers possessed by the prætors of the Roman provinces, he ruled his territory in the name of the king.' In the transfer to Berkeley and Carteret, they, their heirs and assigns, were invested with all the powers conferred upon the duke. … Lord Berkeley and Sir George Carteret, now sole proprietors of New Jersey, on the 10th February 1664, signed a constitution, which they made public under the title of 'The Concessions and agreement of the Lords Proprietors of New Jersey, to and with all and every of the adventurers, and all such as shall settle and plant there.' … On the same day that this instrument was signed, Philip Carteret, a brother to Sir George, received a commission as governor of New Jersey. … The ship Philip, having on board about 30 people, some of them servants, and laden with suitable commodities, sailed from England in the summer, and arrived in safety at the place now known as Elizabethtown Point, or Elizabeth Port, in August of the same year. What circumstance led to the governor's selection of this spot for his first settlement, is not now known, but it was, probably, the fact of its having been recently examined and approved of by others. He landed, and gave to his embryo town the name of Elizabeth, after the lady of Sir George. … Governor Carteret, so soon as he became established at Elizabethtown, sent messengers to New England and elsewhere, to publish the concessions of the proprietors and to invite settlers. In consequence of this invitation and the favorable terms offered, the province soon received large additions to its population."

W. A. Whitehead, East Jersey under the Proprietary Governments (New Jersey Historical. Society Collections., volume 1), period 2.

"In August, 1665, he [Governor Carteret] sent letters to New England offering to settlers every civil and religious privilege. Mr. Treat and some of his friends immediately visited New Jersey. They bent their steps toward the New Haven property on the Delaware Bay, and selected a site for a settlement near what is now Burlington. Returning by way of Elizabeth, they met Carteret, and were by him influenced to locate on the Passaic River. … Early in the spring of 1666, the remnant of the old New Haven, the New Haven of 1638, under the leadership of Robert Treat and Mathew Gilbert, sailed into the Passaic. … In June, 1667, the entire force of the little colony was gathered together in their new abode, to which the name 'Newark' was applied, in honor of Mr. Pierson's English home. [Mr. Pierson was the minister at Branford, in the New Haven colony, and his flock migrated with him to Newark almost bodily.] The Fundamental Agreement was revised and enlarged, the most notable expansion being the following article: 'The planters agree to submit to such magistrates as shall be annually chosen by the Friends from among themselves, and to such Laws as we had in the place whence we came.' Sixty-four men wrote their names under this Bill of Rights, of whom 23 were from Branford, and the remaining 41 from New Haven, Milford, and Guilford. Most of them were probably heads of families, and, in all the company, but six were obliged to make their marks. … It seems to me that, after 1666, the New Haven of Davenport and Eaton must be looked for upon the banks, not of the Quinnipiac, but of the Passaic. The men, the methods, the laws, the officers, that made New Haven Town what it was in 1640, disappeared from the Connecticut Colony, but came to full life again immediately in New Jersey. … Newark was not so much the product as the continuation of New Haven."

      C. H. Levermore,
      The Republic of New Haven,
      chapter 4, section 6.

      ALSO IN:
      Documents Relating to the Colonial History New Jersey,
      volume 1.

NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1673-1682.
   The sale to new Proprietors, mostly Quakers, and
   division of the province into East Jersey and West Jersey.
   The free constitution of West Jersey.

   In 1673 Lord Berkeley, one of the original proprietors, "sold
   his one-half interest in the Province for less than $5,000.
   John Fenwick and Edward Byllinge, two English Quakers, were
   the purchasers. A dispute arose between the new proprietors
   about the division of their property, and William Penn, who
   afterward became the founder of Pennsylvania, was chosen
   arbitrator to settle the difficulty, and succeeded to the
   satisfaction of all parties interested. Fenwick sailed from
   London, in 1675, in the ship 'Griffith,' with his family and a
   small company of Quakers. This was the first English vessel that
   came to New Jersey with immigrants.
{2321}
   The party sailed up the Delaware bay, and, entering a creek,
   landed on its banks three miles and a half from the Delaware.
   This creek, and the settlement founded on it, Fenwick named
   Salem. This was the first English settlement permanently
   established in West Jersey."

In July, 1676, the province was divided, Philip Carteret taking East Jersey, and the successors of Berkeley taking West Jersey. "Thereupon, Carteret, by will, devised his plantation of New Jersey to trustees to be sold for certain purposes, by him stated, in 1681-2. … He had not a peaceable time. Indeed, anything like constant peace was the lot of very few of New Jersey's early Governors. Governor Andros, of New York, disputed Carteret's authority; nay, failing by peaceable means to gain his point, he sent a party of soldiers by night [1678], who dragged Carteret from his bed, carried him to New York, and there kept him close until a day was set on which he was tried before his opponent himself in the New York Courts, and three times acquitted by the jury, who were sent back with directions to convict, but firmly each time refused. The authority of Carteret was confirmed by the Duke of York, and Andros was recalled. … The trustees of Sir George Carteret could not make sale of East Jersey. After ineffectual attempts at private sale they offered it at public auction, and William Penn and eleven associates, most if not all Quakers, bought it for £3,400. It was too heavy a purchase, apparently, for their management. Each sold half his right to another, and so were constituted the twenty-four Proprietors. They procured a deed of confirmation from the Duke of York March 14th, 1682, and then the twenty-four Lords Proprietors by sealed instrument established a council, gave them power to appoint overseers, and displace all officers necessary to manage their property, to take care of their lands, deed them, appoint dividends, settle the rights of particular Proprietors in such dividends, grant warrants of survey, in fine, to do everything necessary for the profitable disposition of all the territory. … The new Proprietors were men of rank. William Penn is known to all the world. With him were James, Earl of Perth, John Drummond, Robert Barclay, famous, like Penn, as a Quaker gentleman, and a controversialist for Quaker belief; David Barclay. … Each Proprietor had a twenty-fourth interest in the property, inheritable, divisible, and assignable, as if it were a farm instead of a province. And by these means the estate has come down to those who now own the property. … In New Jersey … our Legislature has nothing at all to do with our waste or unappropriated land. It all belongs to the Proprietors, to those, namely, who own what are known as Proprietary rights, or rights of Proprietorship, and is subject to the disposition of the Board of Proprietors. … What is left in their control is now [1884] of comparatively slight value."

C. Parker, Address, Bi-Centennial Celebration of the Board of American Proprietors of East New Jersey.

The division line between East Jersey and West Jersey, as established by the agreement between the Proprietors, began at Little Egg Harbor and extended northwestward to a point on the Delaware river in 41 degrees of north latitude. "After this line had been established, John Fenwick's interest in West Jersey was conveyed to John Eldridge and Edmund Warner in fee, and they were admitted into the number of proprietors. In order to establish a government for the Province of West Jersey, provisional authority was given to Richard Hartshore and Richard Guy, residents of East Jersey, and to James Wasse, who was sent especially from England to act on behalf of the proprietors. These persons were commissioned on the 18th of August, 1676, by Byllinge and his trustees, in conjunction with Eldridge and Warner, and full power was given them to conduct the affairs of the government in accordance with instructions from the proprietors. Fenwick, who had founded a settlement at Salem, refused to recognize the transfer of his portion of the Province to Eldridge and Warner, and declared himself to be independent of this new government. It therefore became the first duty of the commissioners to settle this difficulty. All efforts, however, for that purpose failed. The original plan of the government was devised by William Penn and his immediate associates. It was afterward approved by all the proprietors interested in the Province, and was first published on the 3d of March, 1676, as 'The Concessions and Agreements of the proprietors, freeholders and inhabitants of the Province of West Jersey in America.' This constitution declared that no man or number of men on earth had power or authority to rule over men's consciences in religious matters; and that no person or persons within the Province should be in any wise called in question or punished, in person, estate or privilege, on account of opinion, judgment, faith or worship toward God in matters of religion. … That all the inhabitants of the Province should have the right to attend court and be present at all proceedings, 'to the end that Justice may not be done in a corner, nor in any covert manner.' … The executive authority of the government was lodged in the hands of commissioners, to be appointed at first by the proprietors or a majority of them; but after the further settlement of the Province they were to be chosen by the resident proprietors and inhabitants, on the 25th of March of each year. The first election for commissioners occurred in 1680. … One of the most remarkable features in this instrument is the fact that no authority is retained by the proprietary body. 'We put the power in the people,' was the language of the fundamental law."

      ALSO IN:
      W. A. Whitehead,
      East Jersey under the Proprietary Governments,
      pages 66-99.

NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1688.
Joined with New England under the Governorship of Andros.

NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1688-1738.
Extinguishment of the Proprietary political powers.
Union of the two Jerseys in one royal province.

   "In New Jersey, had the proprietary power been vested in the
   people or reserved to one man, it might have survived, but it
   was divided among speculators in land, who, as a body, had
   gain, and not the public welfare, for their end. In April,
   1688, 'the proprietors of East New Jersey had surrendered
   their pretended right of government,' and the surrender had
   been accepted.
{2322}
   In October of the same year, the council of the proprietaries
   of West New Jersey voted to the secretary-general for the
   dominion of New England the custody of 'all records relating
   to government.' Thus the whole province fell, with New York
   and New England, under the government of Andros. At the
   revolution, therefore [the English Revolution of 1688-89], the
   sovereignty over New Jersey had reverted to the crown; and the
   legal maxim, soon promulgated by the board of trade, that the
   domains of the proprietaries might be bought and sold, but not
   their executive power, weakened their attempts at the recovery
   of authority, and consigned the colony to a temporary anarchy.
   A community of husbandmen may be safe for a short season with
   little government. For twelve years, the province was not in a
   settled condition. From June, 1689, to August, 1692, East New
   Jersey had apparently no superintending administration, being,
   in time of war, destitute of military officers as well as of
   magistrates with royal or proprietary commissions. They were
   protected by their neighbors from external attacks: and there
   is no reason to infer that the several towns failed to
   exercise regulating powers within their respective limits. …
   The proprietaries, threatened with the ultimate interference
   of parliament in provinces 'where,' it was said, 'no regular
   government had ever been established,' resolved to resign
   their pretensions. In their negotiations with the crown, they
   wished to insist that there should be a triennial assembly:
   but King William, though he had against his inclination
   approved triennial parliaments for England, would never
   consent to them in the plantations. In 1702, the first year of
   Queen Anne, the surrender took place before the privy council.
   The domain, ceasing to be connected with proprietary powers,
   was, under the rules of private right, confirmed to its
   possessors, and the decision has never been disturbed. The
   surrender of 'the pretended' rights to government being
   completed, the two Jerseys were united in one province; and
   the government was conferred on Edward Hyde, Lord Cornbury,
   who, like Queen Anne, was the grandchild of Clarendon.
   Retaining its separate legislature, the province had for the
   next thirty-six years the same governors as New York. It never
   again obtained a charter: the royal commission of April 1702,
   and the royal instructions to Lord Cornbury, constituted the
   form of its administration. To the governor appointed by the
   crown belonged the power of legislation, with consent of the
   royal council and the representatives of the people. … The
   freemen of the colony were soon conscious of the diminution of
   their liberties."

      G. Bancroft,
      History of the United States
      (author's last revision),
      part 3, chapter 2 (volume 2).

      ALSO IN:
      J. O. Raum,
      History of New Jersey,
      chapter 8 (volume 1).

NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1760-1766.
   The question of taxation by Parliament.
   The Sugar Act.
   The Stamp Act and its repeal.
   The Declaratory Act.
   The First Continental Congress.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1766-1767, to 1774:
and BOSTON: A. D. 1768, to 1773.

NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1774-1776.
End of royal government.
Adoption of a State Constitution.

In the person of William Franklin, unworthy son of Benjamin Franklin, New Jersey was afflicted, at the outbreak of the Revolutionary struggle, with an arbitrary and obstinately royalist governor. Finding the assembly of the colony refractory and independent, he refused to convene it in 1774, when the people desired to send delegates to the Continental Congress. Thereupon a convention was held at New Brunswick; and this body not only commissioned delegates to the general Congress, but appointed a "general committee of correspondence" for the Province. The committee, in May of the following year, called together, at Trenton, a second Provincial Convention, which took to itself the title of the "Provincial Congress of New Jersey," and assumed the full authority of all the branches of the government, providing for the defense of the Province and taking measures to carry out the plans of the Continental Congress. "Governor Franklin convened the Legislature on the 16th of November, 1775. No important business was transacted, and on the 6th of December the Assembly was prorogued by the governor to meet on the 3d of January, 1776, but it never reassembled, and this was the end of Provincial legislation in New Jersey under royal authority. … Though the Provincial Congress of New Jersey had to a great extent assumed the control of public affairs in the Province, it had not renounced the royal authority. … On the 24th of June, a committee was appointed to draft a constitution. … New Jersey was, however, not yet disposed to abandon all hopes of reconciliation with the Crown, and therefore provided in the last article of this constitution that the instrument should become void whenever the king should grant a full redress of grievances, and agree to administer the government of New Jersey in accordance with the constitution of England and the rights of British subjects. But, on the 18th of July, 177[6] the Provincial Congress assumed the title of 'The Convention of the State of New Jersey,' declared the State to be independent of royal authority, and directed that all official papers, acts of Assembly and other public documents should be made in the name and by the authority of the State." Before this occurred, however, Governor Franklin had been placed under arrest, by order of Congress, and sent to Connecticut, where he was released on parole. He sailed immediately for England. "When the State government was organized under the new constitution, the Legislature enacted laws for the arrest and punishment of all persons who opposed its authority."

NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1775.
   The beginning of the War of the American Revolution.
   Lexington.
   Concord.
   Siege of Boston.
   Ticonderoga.
   Bunker Hill.
   The Second Continental Congress.

NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1777-1778.
Withholding ratification from the Articles of Confederation.

NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1778-1783.
   The war on the Hudson, on the Delaware, and in the South.
   Surrender of Cornwallis.
   Peace with Great Britain.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (MAY-JUNE: VIRGINIA)
      THE CAMPAIGNING IN THE SHENANDOAH.

NEW MEXICO: A. D. 1846.
The American conquest and occupation by Kearney's expedition.

"While the heaviest fighting [of the Mexican War] was going on in Old Mexico [see MEXICO: A. D. 1846-1847], the Government [of the United States] easily took possession of New Mexico and California, by means of expeditions organized on the remote frontiers. New Mexico was wanted for the emigration to the Pacific. If we were to have California we must also have the right of way to it. In the hands of the Spaniards, New Mexico barred access to the Pacific so completely that the oldest travelled route was scarcely known to Americans at all, and but little used by the Spaniards themselves. If now we consult a map of the United States it is seen that the thirty-fourth parallel crosses the Mississippi at the mouth of the Arkansas, cuts New Mexico in the middle, and reaches the Pacific near Los Angeles. It was long the belief of statesmen that the great tide of emigration must set along this line, because it had the most temperate climate, was shorter, and would be found freer from hardship than the route by way of the South Pass. This view had set on foot the exploration of the Arkansas and Red Rivers. But if we except the little that Pike and Long had gathered, almost nothing was known about it. Yet the prevailing belief gave New Mexico, as related to California, an exceptional importance. These considerations weighed for more than acquisition of territory, though the notion that New Mexico contained very rich silver-mines undoubtedly had force in determining its conquest. … With this object General Kearney marched from Fort Leavenworth in June, 1846, for Santa Fe, at the head of a force of which a battalion of Mormons formed part. After subduing New Mexico, Kearney was to go on to California, and with the help of naval forces already sent there, for the purpose, conquer that country also. … General Kearney marched by the Upper Arkansas, to Bent's Fort, and from Bent's Fort over the old trail through El Moro and Las Vegas, San Miguel and Old Pecos, without meeting the opposition he expected, or at any time seeing any considerable body of the enemy. On the 18th of August, as the sun was setting, the stars and stripes were unfurled over the palace of Santa Fe, and New Mexico was declared annexed to the United States. Either the home government thought New Mexico quite safe from attack, or, having decided to reserve all its strength for the main conflict, had left this province to its fate. After organizing a civil government, and appointing Charles Bent of Bent's Fort, governor, General Kearney broke up his camp at Santa Fe, September 25. His force was now divided. One part, under Colonel Doniphan, was ordered to join General Wool in Chihuahua. A second detachment was left to garrison Santa Fe, while Kearney went on to California with the rest of his troops. The people everywhere seemed disposed to submit quietly, and as most of the pueblos soon proffered their allegiance to the United States Government, little fear of an outbreak was felt. Before leaving the valley, a courier was met bearing the news that California also had submitted to us without striking a blow. This information decided General Kearney to send back most of his remaining force, while with a few soldiers only he continued his march through what is now Arizona for the Pacific."

A bill to admit New Mexico to the Union as a state was passed by both houses of Congress in 1875, but failed in consequence of an amendment made in the Senate too late for action upon it in the House of Representatives. Attempts to convert the scantily populated territory into a state were then checked for several years. At this writing (July 1894) a bill for organizing and admitting the state of New Mexico has again passed the House of Representatives, and is likely to have a favorable vote in the Senate.

NEW NETHERLAND.

NEW ORANGE.

NEW ORLEANS: A. D. 1763. Reserved from the cession to England in the Treaty of Paris, and transferred with western Louisiana to Spain.

NEW ORLEANS: A. D. 1768-1769.
Revolt against the Spanish rule.
A short-lived Republic and its tragic ending.

NEW ORLEANS: A. D. 1798-1804.
Transferred to France and sold to the United States.
Incorporation as a city.

NEW ORLEANS: A. D. 1815.
Jackson's defense of the city and great victory.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1815 (JANUARY).

NEW PLYMOUTH.

NEW SCOTLAND.

NEW SOUTH WALES: A. D. 1770-1788.
   The discovery.
   The naming.
   The first settlement.

NEW SOUTH WALES: A. D. 1859. Separation of the Moreton Bay District and its erection into the Colony of Queensland.

NEW SPAIN:
The name given at first to Yucatan, and afterwards to
the province won by Cortes.

NEW STYLE.

NEW SWEDEN.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
      IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY, ALGONQUIAN FAMILY, HURONS, &c.,
      HORIKANS; and MANHATTAN ISLAND.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1606. Embraced in the territory granted by King James I. of England to the Plymouth or North Virginia Company.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1609. Discovery and exploration of Hudson River by Hendrik Hudson, in the service of Holland.

"Early in September, 1609, the ship 'Half-Moon,' restlessly skirting the American coast, in the vain quest for a strait or other water route leading to India, came to the mouth of a great lonely river, flowing silently out from the heart of the unknown continent. The 'Half-Moon' was a small, clumsy, high-pooped yacht, manned by a score of Dutch and English sea-dogs, and commanded by an English adventurer then in Dutch pay, and known to his employers as Hendrik Hudson. … Hudson, on coming to the river to which his name was afterward given, did not at first know that it was a river at all; he believed and hoped that it was some great arm of the sea, that in fact it was the Northwest Passage to India, which he and so many other brave men died in vainly trying to discover. … Hudson soon found that he was off the mouth of a river, not a strait; and he spent three weeks in exploring it, sailing up till the shoaling water warned him that he was at the head of navigation, near the present site of Albany. … Having reached the head of navigation the 'Half-Moon' turned her bluff bows southward, and drifted down stream with the rapid current until she once more reached the bay. … Early in October, Hudson set out on his homeward voyage to Holland, where the news of his discovery excited much interest among the daring merchants, especially among those whose minds were bent on the fur-trade. Several of the latter sent small ships across to the newly found bay and river, both to barter with the savages and to explore and report further upon the country. The most noted of these sea-captains who followed Hudson, was Adrian Block."

ALSO IN: R. Juet, Journal of Hudson's Voyage (New York Historical Society Collection, series 2, volume 1).

"The gallant and enterprising people under whose auspices Hudson had achieved his brilliant discovery [of the Hudson River] had just emerged from a long, bloody, but glorious contest for freedom, which they had waged with dogged determination against Spain since 1566. …

It was at this crisis, when peace had at length returned, after an absence of more than forty years, and when numbers of people must, by the transition, have found themselves deprived of their accustomed active employment and habitual excitement, that the intelligence of Hudson's discovery broke on the public, affording to private adventure a new field. … The commodities which abounded among the natives of the newly discovered countries were objects of great demand in Europe. The furs that the rigors of the northern climate rendered indispensable to the inhabitants of Holland, and which they had hitherto obtained through Russian and other traders, were to be had now from the Indians in exchange for the veriest baubles and coarsest goods. Stimulated by these considerations, … a vessel was despatched by some Amsterdam merchants, freighted with a variety of goods, to the Manhattans, in the course of the following year [1610]. The success of this venture seems to have given increased stimulus to the spirit of enterprise. {2325} New discoveries were projected; licenses were granted by the States-General, on the recommendation of the Admiralty, to two ships, the Little Fox and Little Crane, ostensibly to look again for a northerly passage to China; and the cities of Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Hoorn, and Enckhuyzen, as well as several private merchants and citizens, applied for information to the States of Holland and West Friesland, relative to a certain newly discovered navigable river, and the proper course to be steered in proceeding thither. These ships proceeded, on procuring the requisite information, to that quarter early in the ensuing spring; and of so much importance was the country now considered, that the traders erected and garrisoned one or two small forts on the river, for the protection of the fur-trade. … The favorable position of the island of Manhattan for commerce was easily perceived by the Europeans from the first, and it soon became the head-quarters of the traders. Their establishment in that locality consisted now [1613] of four houses, under the superintendence of Hendrick Corstiaensen, who, by means of his trading-boats, visited every creek, inlet, and bay in the neighborhood, where an Indian settlement was to be found, and thus secured for his employers the furs and other valuable produce of the country. But the growing prosperity of the infant post was now fated to experience an unexpected check. Captain Argal, of Virginia, returning in the month of November of this year from a seemingly predatory visit to a settlement which the French had made at Port Royal, in Acadia, touched at the island of Manhattans, with a view, it is said, of looking after a grant of land which he had obtained there from the Virginia Company, and forced Corstiaensen to submit himself and his plantation to the king of England, and to the governor of Virginia under him, and to agree to pay tribute in token of his dependence on the English crown. … Active steps were taken, early in the next year, to obtain an exclusive right to the trade of those distant countries," and in March, 1614, the States General passed an ordinance conferring on those who should discover new lands the exclusive privilege of making four voyages thither before others could have admission to the traffic. This ordinance "excited considerable animation and activity among adventurers. A number of merchants belonging to Amsterdam and Hoorn fitted out and dispatched five ships: namely, the Little Fox, the Nightingale, the Tiger, and the Fortune, the two last under the command of Adriaen Block and Hendrick Corstiaensen, of Amsterdam. The fifth vessel was called the Fortune also; she belonged to Hoorn, and was commanded by Captain Cornelis Jacobsen Mey. The three last-named and now well-known navigators proceeded immediately on an exploring expedition to the mouth of the Great River of the Manhattans, but Block had the misfortune, soon after his arrival there, of losing his vessel, which was accidentally burnt. … He forthwith set about constructing a yacht, 38 feet keel, 44½ feet long, and 11½ feet wide, which, when completed, he called the 'Restless,' significant of his own untiring industry. … In this craft, the first specimen of European naval architecture in these waters, Skipper Block proceeded to explore the coast east of Manhattan Island. He sailed along the East River, to which he gave the name of 'The Hellegat,' after a branch of the river Scheld, in East Flanders; and leaving Long Island, then called Metoac, or 'Sewan-hacky, 'the land of shells,' on the south, he discovered the Housatonick, or river of the Red Mountain." Proceeding eastwardly, Block found the Connecticut River, which he named Fresh River, and ascended it to an Indian village at 41° 48'. Passing out of the Sound, and ascertaining the insular character of Long Island, he gave his own name to one of the two islands off its eastern extremity. After exploring Narragansett Bay, he went on to Cape Cod, and there fell in with Hendrick Corstiaensen's ship. "While these navigators were thus engaged at the east, Captain Cornelis Mey was actively employed in exploring the Atlantic coast farther south. … He reached the great Delaware Bay, … two capes of which still commemorate his visit; one, the most northward, being called after him, Cape Mey; another, Cape Cornelis; while the great south cape was called Hindlopen, after one of the towns in the province of Friesland. … Intelligence of the discoveries made by Block and his associates having been transmitted to Holland, was received there early in the autumn of this year [1614]. The united company by whom they had been employed lost no time in taking the steps necessary to secure to themselves the exclusive trade of the countries thus explored, which was guarantied to them by the ordinance of the 27th of March. They sent deputies immediately to the Hague, who laid before the States General a report of their discoveries, as required by law, with a figurative map of the newly explored countries, which now, for the first time, obtained the name of New Netherland. A special grant in favor of the interested parties was forthwith accorded … to visit and trade with the countries in America lying between 40° and 45° north latitude, of which they strangely claimed to be the first discoverers."

      E. B. O'Callaghan,
      History of New Netherland,
      book 1, chapter 4 (volume 1).

      ALSO IN:
      Documents Relating to Colonial History of New York,
      volume 1, pages 4-12.

B. Fernow, New Netherland (Narrative and Critical History of America, volume 4, chapter 8).

NEW YORK: A. D. 1614-1621.
The first trading monopoly succeeded
by the Dutch West India Company.

   "It was perceived that, to secure the largest return from the
   peltry trade, a factor should reside permanently on the
   Mauritius River [North, or Hudson, as it has been successively
   called], among the Maquaas or Mohawks, and the Mahicans, at
   the head of tide-water. Hendrick Christiaensen, who, after his
   first experiment in company with Adriaen Block, is stated to
   have made 'ten voyages' to Manhattan, accordingly constructed
   [1614] a trading house on 'Castle Island,' at the west side of
   the river, a little below the present city of Albany. … To
   compliment the family of the stadtholder, the little post was
   immediately named Fort Nassau. … It has been confidently
   affirmed that the year after the erection of Fort Nassau, at
   Castle Island, a redoubt was also thrown up and fortified 'on
   an elevated spot' near the southern point of Manhattan Island.
   But the assertion does not appear to be confirmed by
   sufficient authority. … The Holland merchants, who had
   obtained from the States General the exclusive right of
   trading for three years to New Netherland, though united
   together in one company to secure the grant of their charter,
   were not strictly a corporation, but rather 'participants' in
   a specific, limited, and temporary monopoly, which they were
   to enjoy in common. …
{2326}
   On the 1st of January, 1618, the exclusive charter of the
   Directors of New Netherland expired by its own limitation.
   Year by year the value of the returns from the North River had
   been increasing; and the hope of larger gains incited the
   factors of the company to push their explorations further into
   the interior. … No systematic agricultural colonization of
   the country had yet been undertaken. The scattered agents of
   the Amsterdam Company still looked merely to peaceful traffic,
   and the cultivation of those friendly relations which had been
   covenanted with their savage allies on the banks of the
   Tawasentha [where they had negotiated a treaty of friendship
   and alliance with the Five Nations of the Iroquois, in 1617].
   Upon the expiration of their special charter, the merchants
   who had formed the United New Netherland Company applied to
   the government at the Hague for a renewal of their privileges,
   the value of which they found was daily increasing. But the
   States General, who were now contemplating the grant of a
   comprehensive charter for a West India Company avoided a
   compliance with the petition." In June, 1621, "the
   long-pending question of a grand commercial organization was
   finally settled; and an ample charter gave the West India
   Company almost unlimited powers to colonize, govern, and
   defend New Netherland."

      J. R. Brodhead,
      History of the State of New York,
      volume 1, chapters 2-3.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1620.
Embraced in the English patent of the Council for New England.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1621-1646.
   Early operations of the Dutch West India Company.
   The purchase of Manhattan Island.
   The Patroons and their colonies.

"When it became evident that the war [of the United Provinces] with Spain would be renewed, the way was opened for the charter of a company, so often asked and denied. Just before the expiration of the twelve years' truce, April, 1621, the great West India Company was formed, and incorporated by the States General. It was clothed with extraordinary powers and privileges. It could make alliances and treaties, declare war and make peace. Although its field of operations was limited to Africa, the West India Islands, and the continent of America, it could in case of war fight the Spaniards wherever found on land or sea. And finally, it was permitted to colonize unoccupied or subjugated countries. To it especially were committed the care and the colonization of New Netherland. The West India Company, after completing its organization in 1623, began its work in New Netherland by erecting a fort on Manhattan Island [called Fort Amsterdam], and another on the Delaware, and by reconstructing the one at Albany. It sent over to be distributed in these places 30 families, not strictly as colonists, to settle and cultivate the land, but rather as servants of the Company, in charge of their factories, engaged in the purchase and preparation of furs and peltries for shipment. Some of them returned home at the expiration of their term of service, and no other colonists were brought out for several years. The Company found more profitable employment for its capital in fitting out fleets of ships of war, which captured the Spanish treasure-ships, and thus enabled the Company to pay large dividends to its stockholders. In 1626 its agents bought all Manhattan Island of the Indian owners for sixty guilders in goods on which an enormous profit was made; and about the same time they purchased other tracts of land in the vicinity, including Governor's and Staten Islands, on similar terms. The Company was now possessed of lands enough for the accommodation of a large population. They were fertile, and only needed farmers to develop their richness. But these did not come. … Accordingly, in 1629, the managers took up a new line of action. They enacted a statute, termed 'Freedoms and Exemptions,' which authorized the establishment of colonies within their territory by individuals, who were to be known as Patroons, or Patrons. An individual might purchase of the Indian owners a tract of land, on which to plant a colony of fifty souls within four years from the date of purchase. He who established such a colony might associate with himself other persons to assist him in his work, and share the profits, but he should be considered the Patroon, or chief, in whom were centred all the rights pertaining to the position, such as the administration of justice, the appointment of civil and military officers, the settlement of clergymen, and the like. He was a kind of feudal lord, owing allegiance to the West India Company, and to the States General, but independent of control within the limits of his own territory. The system was a modified relic of feudalism. The colonists were not serfs, but tenants for a specified term of years, rendering service to the Patroon for a consideration. When their term of service expired, they were free to renew the contract, make a new one, or leave the colony altogether. The privileges of a Patroon at first were restricted to the members of the company, but in about ten years were extended to others. The directors of the company were the first to improve the opportunity now offered of becoming 'princes and potentates' in the western hemisphere. … In 1630, the agents of Director Killian Van Rensselaer bought a large tract of land on the west side of the Hudson River below Albany, and in July following other tracts on both sides of the river, including the present site of Albany. In July, 1630, Director Michael Paauw bought lands on the west side of the Hudson opposite Manhattan Island, and named his territory Pavonia. A few months later Staten Island was transferred to him, and became a part of his domain. … Killian Van Rensselaer also formed a partnership with several of his brother directors, among whom was the historian De Laet, for the purpose of planting a colony on his lands on the upper Hudson, to be known as the colony of Rensselaerwyck. He seems to have had a clearer perception of what was required for such a work than the other Patroons. The colony was organized in accordance with the charter, and on business principles. Before the colonists left Holland they were assigned to specific places and duties. Civil and military officers were appointed, superintendents and overseers of the various departments were selected, and all were instructed in their duties. The number of the first colonists was respectable. {2327} They were chiefly farmers and mechanics, with their families. On their arrival, May, 1630, farms situated on either side the river were allotted to them, utensils and stock distributed, houses built, and arrangements made for their safety in case the natives should become hostile. Order was maintained, and individual rights respected. They were not long in settling down, each to his allotted work. Year by year new colonists arrived, and more lands were bought for the proprietors. In 1646, when Killian Van Rensselaer, the first Patroon, died, over two hundred colonists had been sent from Holland, and a territory forty-eight by twenty-four miles, besides another tract of 62,000 acres, had been acquired. The West India Company had changed its policy under the direction of new men, and no longer favored the Patroons. The Van Rensselaers were much annoyed, and even persecuted, but they held firmly to their rights under the charter. Their colony was prosperous, and their estate in time became enormous. … Of all the Patroon colonies Rensselaerwyck alone survived. It owed its existence mainly to its management, but largely to its situation, remote from the seat of government, and convenient for the Indian trade."

Soon after the appointment of Wouter Van Twiller, who became governor of New Netherland in 1633, "the little town on Manhattan Island received the name of New Amsterdam … and was invested with the prerogative of 'staple right,' by virtue of which all the merchandise passing up and down the river was subject to certain duties. This right gave the post the commercial monopoly of the whole province."

NEW YORK: A. D. 1635. Territory granted to Lord Lennox and Lord Mulgrave, on the dissolution of the Council for New England.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1638-1647.
The colony thrown open to free immigration and free trade.
Kieft's administration, and the ruinous Indian wars.

"The colony did not thrive. The patroon system kept settlers away, and the paternal government of a trading corporation checked all vigorous and independent growth, while Van Twiller [Wouter Van Twiller, appointed governor in 1633] went steadily from bad to worse. He engaged in childish quarrels with everyone, from the minister down. … This utter misgovernment led at last to Van Twiller's removal. He retired in possession of large tracts of land, which he had succeeded in acquiring, and was replaced [1638] by William Kieft, a bankrupt merchant of bad reputation. Kieft practically abolished the Council, and got all power into his own hands; but he had some sense of order. … Despite his improvements, the place remained a mere trading-post, and would not develope into a colony. The patroons were the curse of the scheme, and too powerful to be overthrown; so they proposed, as a remedy for the existing evils, that their powers and privileges should be greatly enlarged. The Company had bought back some of the lands; but they were still helpless, and the State would do nothing for them. In this crisis they had a return of good sense, and solved the problem by destroying their stifling monopoly. They threw the trade to New Netherlands open to all comers, and promised the absolute ownership of land on the payment of a small quit-rent. The gates were open at last, and the tide of emigration swept in. De Vries who had bought land on Staten Island, came out with a company; while ship followed ship filled with colonists, and English came from Virginia, and still more from New England. Men of property and standing began to turn their attention to the New Netherlands; fine well-stocked farms rapidly covered Manhattan, and healthy progress had at last begun. Thus strengthened, the Company [1640] restricted the patroons to a water-front of one mile and a depth of two, but left them their feudal privileges, benefits which practically accrued to Van Rensselaer, whose colony at Beverwyck had alone, among the manors, thriven and grown at the expense of the Company. The opening of trade proved in one respect a disaster. The cautious policy of the Company was abandoned, and greedy traders who had already begun the business, and were now wholly unrestrained, hastened to make their fortunes by selling arms to the Indians in return for almost unlimited quantities of furs. Thus the Mohawks obtained guns enough to threaten both the Dutch and all the surrounding tribes, and this perilous condition was made infinitely worse by the mad policy of Kieft. He first tried to exact tribute from the Indians near Manhattan, then offered a price for the head of any of the Raritans who had destroyed the settlement of De Vries; and, when a young man was murdered by a Weckquaesgeek, the Governor planned immediate war." Public opinion among the colonists condemned the measures of Kieft, and forced him to accept a council of twelve select-men, chosen at a public meeting; but "the twelve," as they were called, failed to control their governor. Acting on the advice of two or three among them, whose support he had secured, he ordered a cowardly attack upon some fugitive Indians from the River tribes, who had been driven into the settlements by the onslaught of the Mohawks, and whom De Vries and others were trying to protect. "The wretched fugitives, surprised by their supposed protectors, were butchered in the dead of a winter's night [1643], without mercy, and the bloody soldiers returned in the morning to Manhattan, where they were warmly welcomed by Kieft. This massacre lighted up at once the flames of war among all the neighboring tribes of Algonquins. All the outlying farms were laid waste, and their owners murdered, while the smaller settlements were destroyed. Vriesendael alone was spared. {2328} A peace, patched up by De Vries, gave a respite until summer, and the war raged more fiercely than before, the Indians burning and destroying in every direction, while trade was broken up and the crews of the vessels slaughtered." Kieft's life was now in danger from the rage of his own people, and eight men, appointed by public meeting, took control of public affairs, as far as it was possible to do so. Under the command of John Underhill, the Connecticut Indian fighter, who had lately migrated to Manhattan, the war was prosecuted with great vigor and success on Long Island and against the Connecticut Indians who had joined in it; but little headway was made against the tribes on the Hudson, who harassed and ruined the colony. Thus matters went badly for a long period, until, in 1647, the Company in Holland sent out Peter Stuyvesant to take the place of Kieft. "In the interval, the Indian tribes, weary at last of war, came in and made peace. Kieft continued his quarrels; but his power was gone, and he was hated as the principal cause of all the misfortunes of the colony. The results of his miserable administration were certainly disastrous enough. Sixteen hundred Indians had perished in the war; but all the outlying Dutch settlements and farms had been destroyed, and the prosperity of the colony had received a check from which it recovered very slowly. In Connecticut, the English had left the Dutch merely a nominal hold, and had really destroyed their power in the East. On the South river [the Delaware] the Swedes had settled, and, disregarding Kieft's blustering proclamations, had founded strong and growing colonies. … The interests of Holland were at a low ebb."

A more favorable view of Kieft and his administration is taken by Mr. Gerard, who says: "Few proconsuls had a more arduous task in the administration of the government of a province than had Director Kieft. The Roman official had legions at command to sustain his power and to repel attack; and in case of disaster the whole empire was at hand for his support. Kieft, in a far distant province, with a handful of soldiers crowded in a dilapidated fort and a few citizens turbulent and unreliable, surrounded on all sides by savages ever on the alert for rapine and murder, receiving little support from the home government, and having a large territory to defend and two civilized races to contend with, passed the eight years of his administration amid turmoil and dissension within, and such hostile attack from without as to keep the province in continuous peril. The New England colonies were always in a state of antagonism and threatening war. … The Swedes and independent settlers on the South and Schuylkill rivers were constantly making encroachments and threatening the Company's occupancy there, while pretenders under patents and independent settlers, knowing the weakness of the government, kept it disturbed and agitated. What wonder that mistakes were made, that policy failed, that misfortunes came, and that Kieft's rule brought no prosperity to the land? The radical trouble with his administration was that he was under a divided rule—a political governor with allegiance to the States-General, and a commercial Director, as the representative of a great company of traders. The States-General was too busily occupied in establishing its independence and watching the balance of European power to give supervision to the affairs of a province of small political importance—while the Company, looking upon its colony merely as a medium of commercial gain, drew all the profit it could gather from it, disregarded its true interests, and gave it only occasional and grudging support. … Towards the Indians Kieft's dealings were characterized by a rigid regard for their possessory rights; no title was deemed vested and no right was absolutely claimed until satisfaction was made to the native owner. Historians of the period have been almost universal in their condemnation of him for the various contests and wars engaged in with the Indians, and have put on him all responsibility for the revolts. But this is an ex post facto criticism, which, with a false judgment, condemns a man for the results of his actions rather than for the actions themselves. Indeed, without the energy displayed by the Director towards the aborigines, the colony would probably have been annihilated. … Imprudence, rashness, arbitrary action, want of political sagacity may be imputed to Director Kieft, but not excessive inhumanity, nor want of effort, nor unfaithfulness to his employers or to his province. He has been generally condemned, but without sufficient consideration of the trials which he experienced, the anxiety to which he was subject, and the perplexities incident to a government over discontented, ignorant and mutinous subjects, and to the continued apprehension of outside attack. Left mostly to his own resources, and receiving no sympathy and little aid, his motives the subject of attack from both tavern and pulpit, and twice the object of attempted assassination, his rule as a whole, though disastrous, was not dishonorable."

J. W. Gerard, The Administration of William Kieft (Memorial History of the City of New York, volume 1, chapter 6).

      ALSO IN:
      Mrs. Lamb,
      History of the City of New York,
      volume 1, chapters 6-8.

      E. B. O'Callaghan,
      History of New Netherland,
      book 2, chapter 7
      and book 3, chapters 1-9 (volume 1).

Peter Stuyvesant, the director or governor who succeeded Kieft, "took possession of the government on the 11th of May, 1647. On his arrival he was greeted with a hearty and cordial reception by the citizens, to which he responded by reciprocal professions of interest and regard. He had for several years been in the Company's service as Director of their colony at Curaçoa, and was distinguished for his energy and bravery. Having lost a leg in an attack on the Portuguese settlement at St. Martin's, he had been obliged to return to Europe for surgical aid, whence, still retaining his former commission, he was sent to the charge of the Province of New Netherlands. Immediately on his accession he organized a representative Council of nine members from a list of eighteen presented to him by the inhabitants of the province, and gave his assent to various important provisions for the regulation of trade and commerce. By a conciliatory and just treatment of the Indians so recently in revolt he speedily gained their affection and goodwill, and by his judicious measures for their mutual protection restored peace and harmony among all classes."

"The powers of government—executive, legislative, and judicial—which he [Stuyvesant] assumed, were quite extensive, and often arbitrary. Directly or indirectly, he appointed and commissioned all public officers, framed all laws, and decided all important controversies. … He directed churches to be built, installed ministers, and even ordered them when and where to preach. Assuming the sole control of the public lands, he extinguished the Indian title thereto, and allowed no purchase to be made from the natives without his sanction; and granted at pleasure, to individuals and companies, parcels of land, subject to such conditions as he saw fit to impose. In the management of these complicated affairs the Director developed a certain imperiousness of manner and impatience of restraint, due, perhaps, as much to his previous military life as to his personal character. … During the whole of his predecessor's unquiet rule a constant struggle had been going on between the personal prerogative of the Executive and the inherent sentiment of popular freedom which prevailed among the commonalty, leading the latter constantly to seek for themselves the franchises and freedoms of the Fatherland, to which, as loyal subjects, they deemed themselves entitled in New Netherland. The contest was reopened soon after Stuyvesant's installation, and the firmness of both Director and people, in the maintenance of what each jealously considered their rights, gave indication of serious disturbance to the public weal." The governor, at length, in 1647, conceded "a popular representation in the affairs of government. An election was therefore held, at which the inhabitants of Amsterdam, Breuckelen, Amersfoort and Pavonia chose eighteen of 'the most notable, reasonable, honest, and respectable' among them, from whom, according to the custom of the Fatherland, the Director and Council selected 'Nine Men' as an advisory Council; and although their powers and duties were jealously limited and guarded by the Director's Proclamation, yet the appointment of the Nine Men was a considerable gain to the cause of popular rights. … The subsequent history of Stuyvesant's government is a record of quarrels with colonial patroons, with the English in New England, the Swedes on the South River, and last—not least—with his own people. In fact, the government was by no means well adapted to the people or adequate to protect them. The laws were very, imperfect, and the Director and Council either incompetent or indisposed to remedy the serious defects which existed in the administration of civil and criminal justice."

"Director Stuyvesant was recalled to Europe soon after the surrender [to the English—see below], to vindicate his conduct … and … found himself the object of serious charges and most virulent attacks. He returned to this country in 1668, and died on his bouwerie in 1672. … Throughout his chequered life he exhibited a character of high morality, and in his dealings with the Indians an energetic and dignified deportment, which contributed, no doubt, considerably to the success of his arms and policy. Alike creditable to his talents are his negotiations with the neighboring English colonies. His vindications of the rights of his country, on these occasions, betoken a firmness of manner, a sharpness of perception, a clearness of argument and a soundness of judgment, combined with an extent of reading, which few of his contemporaries could equal, and none surpass. … It would afford pleasure were we justified in pronouncing a like panegyric on other parts of his administration; but none can review [his arbitrary resistance to just popular demands] … and his persecution of the Lutherans and other Nonconformists, without reprobating his tyranny, and regretting that a character, so faultless in other respects, should be stained by traits so repulsive as these, and that the powers of a mind so strong should be exerted in opposing rather than promoting civil and religious freedom. The hostility this part of his public conduct evoked redounds most creditably to the character of the settlers, whose struggles for freer institutions cannot fail to win for them our sympathy and regard."

      ALSO IN:
      Remonstrance of New Netherlands
      (Documents Relative to Colonial History of New York,
      volume 1, pages 275-317);
      also volume 13.

B. Fernow, Peter Stuyvesant (Memorial History of the City of New York, volume 1, chapter 7).

To settle the long pending controversy between Dutch and English respecting the territory claimed by each on Long Island and at the mouth of the Connecticut River, Governor Stuyvesant went in person to Hartford, September, 1650, and opened negotiations. His hands were tied from the beginning by instructions from his company to press no claim to the extremity of a quarrel, because the English were too strong in America to be fought with. He assented, therefore, to the appointment of two arbitrators on each side, and he named Englishmen as his arbitrators. "The four agreed upon a settlement of the boundary matter, ignoring all other points in dispute as having occurred under the administration of Kieft. It was agreed that the Dutch were to retain their lands, in Hartford [the post of 'Good Hope,' established in 1633, and which they had continued to hold, in the midst of the spreading English settlement]; that the boundary line between the two peoples on the mainland was not to come within ten miles of the Hudson River, but was to be left undecided for the present, except the first 20 miles from the Sound, which was to begin on the west side of Greenwich Bay, between Stamford and Manhattan, running thence 20 miles north; and that Long Island should be divided by a corresponding line across it, 'from the westernmost part of Oyster Bay,' to the sea. The English thus got the greater part of Long Island, a recognition of the rightfulness of their presence in the Connecticut territory, and at least the initial 20 miles of a boundary line which must, in the nature of things, be prolonged in much the same direction, and which in fact has pretty closely governed subsequent boundary lines on that side of Connecticut. If these seem hard terms for the Dutch, and indicative of treachery on the part of their two English agents, it must be borne in mind that, by the terms of his instructions from his principals, Stuyvesant had to take the best terms he could get. The treaty of Hartford was dated September 19, 1650."

ALSO IN: E. B. O'Callaghan, History of New Netherland, book 4, chapters 1-9 (volume 2).

Division of the Boundary in America (Documents Relative to Colonial History of New York, volume 1, pages 541-577).

"An interesting moment arrived. A new city appeared in the annals of the world. Its birth was announced on the evening of February 2, 1653, at the feast of Candlemas. A proclamation of the governor defined its exceedingly limited powers and named its first officers. It was called New Amsterdam. There was nothing in the significant scene which inspired enthusiasm. It came like a favor grudgingly granted. Its privileges were few, and even those were subsequently hampered by the most illiberal interpretations which could be devised. Stuyvesant made a speech on the occasion, in which he took care to reveal his intention of making all future municipal appointments, instead of submitting the matter to the votes of the citizens, as was the custom in the Fatherland; and he gave the officers distinctly to understand, from the first, that their existence did not in any way diminish his authority, but that he should often preside at their meetings, and at all times counsel them in matters of importance. … A pew was set apart in the church for the City Fathers; and on Sunday mornings these worthies left their homes and families early to meet in the City Hall, from which, preceded by the bell-ringer, carrying their cushions of state, they marched in solemn procession to the sanctuary in the fort. On all occasions of ceremony, secular or religious, they were treated with distinguished attention. Their position was eminently respectable, but it had as yet no emoluments. … There were two burgomasters, Arent van Hattam and Martin Cregier. … There were five schepens,—Paulus Van der Grist, Maximilian Van Gheel, Allard Anthony, Peter Van Couwenhoven, and William Beekman."

The Navigation Act of Cromwell, maintained by the English after the Stuart Restoration, was continually evaded, almost openly, in the British American colonies; and it was with the Dutch at New Amsterdam that the illicit trade of the New Englanders, the Virginians and the Marylanders was principally carried on. "In 1663 the losses to the revenue were so extensive that the framers of the customs … complained of the great abuses which, they claimed, defrauded the revenue of £10,000 a year. The interest of the kingdom was at stake, and the conquest of the New Netherland was resolved upon. … The next concern of the Chancellor [Clarendon] was to secure to the Crown the full benefit of the proposed conquest. He was as little satisfied with the self-rule of the New England colonies as with the presence of Dutch sovereignty on American soil; and in the conquest of the foreigner he found the means to bring the English subject into closer dependence on the King. James Duke of York, Grand Admiral, was the heir to the Crown. … A patent to James as presumptive heir to the crown, from the King his brother, would merge in the crown; and a central authority strongly established over the territory covered by it might well, under favorable circumstances, be extended over the colonies on either side which were governed under limitations and with privileges directly secured by charter from the King. … The first step taken by Clarendon was the purchase of the title conveyed to the Earl of Stirling in 1635 by the grantees of the New England patent. This covered the territory of Pemaquid, between the Saint Croix and the Kennebec, in Maine, and the island of Matowack, or Long Island. … A title being thus acquired by the adroitness of Clarendon, a patent was, on the 12th of March, 1664, issued by Charles II. to the Duke of York, granting him the Maine territory of Pemaquid, all the islands between Cape Cod and the Narrows, the Hudson River, and all the lands from the west side of the Connecticut to the east side of Delaware Bay, together with the islands of Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket. The inland boundary was 'a line from the head of Connecticut River to the source of Hudson River, thence to the head of the Mohawk branch of Hudson River, and thence to the east side of Delaware Bay.' The patent gave to the Duke of York, his heirs, deputies, and assigns, 'absolute power to govern within this domain according to his own rules and discretions consistent with the statutes of England.' In this patent the charter granted by the King to the younger John Winthrop in 1662 for Connecticut, in which it was stipulated that commissioners should be sent to New England to settle the boundaries of each colony, was entirely disregarded. The idea of commissioners for boundaries now developed with larger scope, and the King established a royal commission, consisting of four persons recommended by the Duke of York, whose private instructions were to reduce the Dutch to submission and to increase the prerogatives of the Crown in the New England colonies, which Clarendon considered to be 'already well nigh ripened, to a commonwealth.' Three of these commissioners were officers in the royal army,—Colonel Richard Nicolls, Sir Robert Carr, Colonel George Cartwright. The fourth was Samuel Maverick. … To Colonel Nicolls the Duke of York entrusted the charge of taking possession of and governing the vast territory covered by the King's patent. To one more capable and worthy the delicate trust could not have been confided. … His title under the new commission was that of Deputy-Governor; the tenure of his office, the Duke's pleasure. … When the news of the gathering of the fleet reached the Hague, and explanation was demanded of Downing [the English ambassador] as to the truth of the reports that it was intended for the reduction of the New Netherland, he boldly insisted on the English right to the territory by first possession. To a claim so flimsy and impudent only one response was possible,—a declaration of war. But the Dutch people at large had little interest in the remote settlement, which was held to be a trading-post rather than a colony, and not a profitable post at best. {2331} The West India Company saw the danger of the situation, but its appeals for assistance were disregarded. Its own resources and credit were unequal to the task of defence. Meanwhile the English fleet, composed of one ship of 36, one of 30, a third of 16, and a transport of 10 guns, with three full companies of the King's veterans,—in an 450 men, commanded by Colonels Nicolls, Carr, and Cartwright,—sailed from Portsmouth for Gardiner's Bay on the 15th of May. On the 23d of July Nicolls and Cartwright reached Boston, where they demanded military aid from the Governor and Council of the Colony. Calling upon Winthrop for the assistance of Connecticut, and appointing a rendezvous at the west end of Long Island, Nicolls set sail with his ships and anchored in New Utrecht Bay, just outside of Coney Island, a spot since historical as the landing-place of Lord Howe's troops in 1776. Here Nicolls was joined by militia from New Haven and Long Island. The city of New Amsterdam … was defenceless. The Director, Stuyvesant, heard of the approach of the English at Fort Orange (Albany), whither he had gone to quell disturbances with the Indians. Returning in haste, he summoned his council together. The folly of resistance was apparent to all, and after delays, by which the Director-General sought to save something of his dignity, a commission for a surrender was agreed upon between the Dutch authorities and Colonel Nicolls. The capitulation confirmed the inhabitants in the possession of their property, the exercise of their religion, and their freedom as citizens. The municipal officers were continued in their rule. On the 29th of August, 1664, the articles were ratified … and the city passed under English rule. The first act of Nicolls on taking possession of the fort, in which he was welcomed by the civic authorities, was to order that the city of New Amsterdam be thereafter known as New York, and the fort as Fort James, in honor of the title and name of his lord and patron. At the time of the surrender the city gave small promise of its magnificent future. Its entire population, which did not exceed 1,500 souls, was housed within the triangle at the point of the island. … Nicolls now established a new government for the province. A force was sent up the Hudson under Captain Cartwright, which took possession of Fort Orange, the name of which was changed to Albany, in honor of a title of the Duke of York."

J. A. Stevens, The English in New York (Narrative and Critical History of America, volume 3, chapter 10).

NEW YORK: A. D. 1664. The separation of New Jersey, by grant to Berkeley and Carteret.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1664-1674.
The province as the English received it.
Dutch institutions, their influence and survival.

"In the year 1664, when the government passed to the English, New Netherland is said by the Chevalier Lambrechtsen to have consisted of three cities and thirty villages. Its population was then about ten thousand souls, exclusive of the Indians, who were important auxiliaries for trade and peltries. The inhabitants enjoyed a fair measure of freedom and protection. High roads already existed, and there were numerous owners of flourishing farms, or bouweries, and other real property, while urban life was well policed by proper laws. The treatment by the Dutch of the many English and other aliens who already dwelt within the Dutch territory was rather in advance of the age, while the jurisprudence established here by the Dutch, being largely borrowed from the high civilization of Rome, was certainly superior in refinement to the contemporary feudal and folk law introduced by the English in 1664. Theoretically, the administration of justice conformed to a high standard, and both Dutch and aliens were protected by adequate constitutional guaranties. We cannot for an instant presume that the institutions which half a century had reared were swept into oblivion by a single stroke of the English conquerors in 1664. It would be more rational to suppose that the subsidence of the Dutch institutions was as gradual as the facts demonstrate it to have been. Negro slavery was introduced by the Dutch, but it existed here only under its least objectionable conditions. A large measure of religious liberty was tolerated, although the Dutch Reformed Church was the only one publicly sanctioned. On several occasions delegates of the commonalty were brought into consultation with the Director-General and Council, and thus, to some extent, a principle of representative government was at least recognized, although it was somewhat at variance with the company's standard of colonial government, and savored too much of the English idea and encroachment to be palatable. It must not be forgotten that at home the Dutch were a self-governing people and accustomed to that most important principle of free government—self-assessment in taxation. In common with all commercial peoples, they possessed a sturdy independence of mind and demeanor. There is no proof that these excellent qualities were diminished by transplantation to the still freer air of the new country. New Netherland was not altogether fortunate in its type of government, experience demonstrating that the selfish spirit of a mercantile monopoly is not the fit repository of governmental powers. Yet, on the whole, it must be conceded that the company's government introduced here much that was good and accomplished little that was pernicious. In 1664 it certainly surrendered to the English one of the finest and most flourishing colonies of America, possessing a hardy, vigorous, and thrifty people, well adapted to all the principles of civil and religious freedom. History shows that this people speedily coalesced with all that was good in the system introduced by the English, and sturdily opposed all that was undesirable. … It is certain … that after the overthrow of the Dutch political authority the English proceeded gradually to introduce into New York, by express command, their own laws and customs. Yet it requires a very much more extended examination of original sources than has ever been made to determine absolutely just how much of the English laws and institutions was in force at a particular epoch of colonial history. The subject perplexed the colonial courts, and it is still perplexing."

R. L. Fowler, Constitutional and Legal History, of New York in the 17th Century (Memorial History of the City of New York, volume 1, chapter 14).

"Although the New Netherland became a permanent English colony under the Treaty of Westminster in 1674 [see below], its population remained largely Dutch until nearly the middle of the next century. The prosperity of New York, growing steadily with the progress of trade and the exportation of grains, attracted emigrants from Holland notwithstanding the change of flag. Many families now living on Manhattan Island are descended from Dutchmen who came out after the English occupation. The old names with which we have become familiar in the early annals of New Amsterdam continue in positions of honour and prominence through the English colonial records. In 1673, we find among the city magistrates Johannes van Bruggh, Johannes de Peyster, Ægidius Luyck, Jacob Kip, Laurans van der Spiegel, Wilhelm Beeckman, Guleyn Verplanck, Stephen van Courtlandt. In 1677, Stephanus van Courtlandt is mayor, and Johannes de Peyster deputy mayor. In 1682, Cornelis Steenwyck is mayor; in 1685, the office is filled by Nicholas Bayard; in 1686, by Van Courtlandt again. Abraham de Peyster was mayor from 1691 to 1695; and in his time the following Dutchmen were aldermen: W. Beeckman, Johannes Kip, Brandt Schuyler, Garrett Douw, Arent van Scoyck, Gerard Douw, Rip van Dam, Jacobus van Courtlandt, Samuel Bayard, Jacobus van Nostrandt, Jan Hendricks Brevoort, Jan van Home, Petrus Bayard, Abraham Wendell, John Brevoort. These names recur down to 1717. In 1718, John Roosevelt, Philip van Courtlandt, and Cornelius de Peyster are aldermen. In 1719, Jacobus van Courtlandt is mayor, and among the aldermen are Philip van Courtlandt, Harmanus van Gilder, Jacobus Kip, Frederic Philipse, John Roosevelt, Philip Schuyler. In 1745, Stephen Bayard is mayor. During the last half of the eighteenth century the Dutch names are more and more crowded out by the English. … By the beginning of the nineteenth century, the Dutch names occur only occasionally. These Dutchmen not only preserved their leadership in public affairs, but carried on a large proportion of the city's trade. New York was an English colony, but its greatness was largely built on Dutch foundations. It is often said that the city became flourishing only after the English occupation. This is true, with the qualification that the Dutch trader and the Dutch farmer after that event had greater opportunities for successful activity. … Dutch continued to be the language of New York until the end of the seventeenth century, after which time English contended for the mastery with steady success. In the outlying towns of Long Island and New Jersey and along the Hudson River, Dutch was generally used for a century later. … In New York city the large English immigration, the requirements of commerce, and the frequent intermarriages of Dutch and English families had given to English the predominance by the year 1750. … In New York city the high-stoop house, and the peculiar observance of New Year's Day which continued until 1870, are two familiar relics of Holland. The valuable custom of registering transfers of real estate has been received from the same source."

"At a general meeting held at Hempstead, on Long Island [March 1, 1665], attended by deputies from all the towns, Governor Nichols presently published, on his own and the duke's authority, a body of laws for the government of the new province, alphabetically arranged, collated, and digested, 'out of the several laws now in force in his majesty's American colonies and plantations,' exhibiting indeed, many traces of Connecticut and Massachusetts legislation. … The code [was] known as the 'Duke's Laws,' which Nichols imagined 'could not but be satisfactory even to the most factious Republicans.' A considerable number of immigrants seem to have come in on the strength of it from the neighboring colonies of New England,"

      ALSO IN:
      The Duke of York's Book of Laws,
      compiled and edited by S. George, et al.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1665-1666.
French invasions of the Iroquois country,
under Courcelles and Tracy.

The seizure of New Netherland by the English in 1664 was one of several acts of hostility which preceded an actual declaration of war between England and Holland. The war became formal, however, in the following year, and ended in 1666, ingloriously for England although she retained her American conquests.

Then followed a period of hypocritical alliance on the part of Charles II. with the Dutch, which gave him an opportunity to betray them in 1672, when he joined Louis XIV. of France in a perfidious attack upon the sturdy republic.

   During the second year of this last mentioned war, Cornelis
   Evertsen, worthy son of a famous Dutch admiral, made an
   unexpected reconquest of the lost province. Evertsen "had been
   sent out from Zealand with fifteen ships to harass the enemy
   in the West Indies, which was effectually done. At Martinico
   he fell in with four ships dispatched from Amsterdam, under
   the command of Jacob Binckes. Joining their forces, the two
   commodores followed Krynssen's track to the Chesapeake, where
   they took eight and burned five Virginia tobacco ships, in
   spite of the gallantry of the frigates which were to convoy
   them to England. As they were going out of the James River,
   the Dutch commodores met a sloop from New York," and received
   information from one of its passengers which satisfied them
   that they might easily take possession of the town. "In a few
   days [August 7, 1673] the Dutch fleet, which, with three ships
   of war from Amsterdam, and four from Zealand, was now swelled
   by prizes to 23 vessels, carrying 1,600 men, arrived off Sandy
   Hook. The next morning they anchored under Staten Island." On
   the following day the city, which could make no defense, and
   all the Dutch inhabitants of which were eager to welcome their
   countrymen, was unconditionally surrendered. "The recovery of
   New York by the Dutch was an absolute conquest by an open
   enemy in time of war. … 'Not the smallest' article of
   capitulation, except military honors to the garrison, was
   granted by the victors. …
{2333}
   Their reconquest annihilated British sovereignty over ancient
   New Netherland, and extinguished the duke's proprietary
   government in New York, with that of his grantees in New
   Jersey. Evertsen and Binckes for the time represented the
   Dutch Republic, under the dominion of which its recovered
   American provinces instantly passed, by right of successful
   war. The effete West India Company was in no way connected
   with the transaction. … The name of 'New Netherland' was of
   course restored to the reconquered territory, which was held
   to embrace not only all that the Dutch possessed according to
   the Hartford agreement of 1650, but also the whole of Long
   Island east of Oyster Bay, which originally belonged to the
   province and which the king had granted to the Duke of York.
   … It was, first of all, necessary to extemporize a
   provisional government. No orders had been given to Evertsen
   or Binckes about New Netherland. Its recovery was a lucky
   accident, wholly due to the enterprise of the two commodores;
   upon whom fell the responsibility of governing their conquest
   until directions should come from the Hague." They appointed
   Captain Anthony Colve to be Governor General of the Province.
   "Colve's commission described his government as extending from
   15 miles south of Cape Henlopen to the east end of Long Island
   and Shelter Island, thence through the middle of the Sound to
   Greenwich, and so northerly, according to the boundary made in
   1650, including Delaware Bay and all the intermediate
   territory, as possessed by the English under the Duke of York.
   … The name of the city of New York was … changed to 'New
   Orange,' in compliment to the prince stadtholder. … The
   metropolis being secured, 200 men were sent up the river, in
   several vessels, to reduce Esopus and Albany. No opposition
   was shown." Albany was ordered to be called Willemstadt.

ALSO IN: Mrs. M. J. Lamb, History of the City of New York, volume 1, chapter 14-15.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1674-1675.
Long Island annexed, with attempts against half of
Connecticut.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1684.
Doubtful origin of English claims to the sovereignty of the
Iroquois country.

"Colonel Dongan [governor of New York] was instrumental in procuring a convention of the Five Nations, at Albany, in 1684, to meet Lord Howard of Effingham, Governor of Virginia, at which he (Dongan) was likewise present. This meeting, or council, was attended by the happiest results. … Colonel Dongan succeeded in completely gaining the affections of the Indians, who conceived for him the warmest esteem. They even asked that the arms of the Duke of York might be put upon their castles;—a request which it need not be said was most readily complied with, since, should it afterwards become necessary, the governor might find it convenient to construe it into an act of at least partial submission to English authority, although it has been asserted that the Indians themselves looked upon the ducal insignia as a sort of charm, that might protect them against the French."

NEW YORK: A. D. 1684-1687.
French invasions of the Iroquois country
under De La Barre and De Nonville.

"The year 1686 was distinguished by the granting of the 'Dongan Charter' to the city of New York. It was drafted by Mayor Nicholas Bayard and Recorder James Graham, and was one of the most liberal ever bestowed upon a colonial city. By it, sources of immediate income became vested in the corporation. Subsequent charters added nothing to the city property, save in the matter of ferry rights, in immediate reference to which the charters of 1708 and 1730 were obtained. … The instrument was the basis of a plan of government for a great city."

      ALSO IN:
      M. Benjamin,
      Thomas Dongan and the Granting of the New York Charter
      (Memorial History of the City of New York,
      volume 1, chapter 11).

In April, 1688, Sir Edmund Andros, who had been made Governor-general of all New England in 1686, received a new commission from the King which "constituted him Governor of all the English possessions on the mainland of America, except Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia. The 'Territory and Dominion' of New England was now to embrace the country between the 40th degree of latitude and the River St. Croix, thus including New York and the Jerseys. The seat of government was to be at Boston; and a Deputy-Governor, to reside at New York, was to be the immediate head of the administration of that colony and of the Jerseys. The Governor was to be assisted by a Council consisting of 42 members, of whom five were to constitute a quorum. … The Governor in Council might impose and collect taxes for the support of the government, and might pass laws, which however were, within three months of their enactment, to be sent over to the Privy Council for approval or repeal. … The seal of New York was to be broken, and the seal of New England to be used for the whole jurisdiction. Liberty of conscience was to be allowed, agreeably to the Declaration of Indulgence."

J. G. Palfrey, Compendious History of New England, book 3, chapter 14 (volume 2).

ALSO IN: Mrs. M. J. Lamb, History of the City of New York, volume 1, chapter 18.

      J. R. Brodhead, editor
      Documents Relative to Colonial History of New York,
      volume 3, pages 537-554.

News of the revolution in England which drove James II. from the throne, giving it to his daughter, Mary, and her husband, William of Orange, reached New York, from Virginia, in February, 1689, but was concealed as long as possible from the public by Lieutenant-Governor Nicholson. No disturbance of the authority of the latter occurred until after the people of Boston had risen, in April, and seized the Governor-General, Sir Edmund Andros, stripping his authority from him and casting him into prison. This spirited movement was followed a little later by like action in New York. Two parties had quickly taken form, "one composed of the adherents of James, the other of the friends of William and Mary. The former embraced the aristocratic citizens, including Nicholas Bayard, the commander of the city militia, the members of the council, and the municipal authorities. {2334} The friends of the new monarchs formed a large majority of the citizens. They maintained that the entire fabric of the imperial government, including that of the colonies, had been overthrown by the revolution, and that, as no person was invested with authority in the province, it reverted to the legitimate source of all authority—the people—who might delegate their powers to whomsoever they would. Among the principal supporters of this view was Jacob Leisler, a German by birth, a merchant, the senior captain of one of the five train-bands of the city commanded by Colonel Bayard, and one of the oldest and wealthiest inhabitants. … He was a zealous opponent of the Roman Catholics, and a man of great energy and determination. … Rumors of terrible things contemplated by the adherents of James spread over the town, and produced great excitement. The five companies of militia and a crowd of citizens gathered at the house of Leisler, and induced him to become their leader and guide in this emergency. Colonel Bayard attempted to disperse them, but he was compelled to fly for his life. A distinct line was now drawn between the 'aristocrats,' led by Bayard, Van Cortlandt, Robert Livingston, and others, and the 'democrats'—the majority of the people—who regarded Leisler as their leader and champion. At his suggestion a 'Committee of Safety' was formed, composed of ten members—Dutch, Huguenot, and English. They constituted Leisler 'Captain of the Fort,' and invested him with the powers of commander-in-chief—really chief magistrate—until orders should come from the new monarch. This was the first really republican ruler that ever attained to power in America. He took possession of Fort James and the public funds that were in it, and, in June, 1689, he proclaimed, with the sound of trumpets, William and Mary sovereigns of Great Britain and the colonies. Then he sent a letter to the king, giving him an account of what he had done." Lieutenant-Governor Nicholson made little attempt to assert his authority in the face of these demonstrations, but departed presently for England, "after formally giving authority to his councillors to preserve the peace during his absence, and until their Majesties' pleasure should be made known. … Nicholson's desertion of his post gave Leisler and the Republicans great advantages. He ordered the several counties of the province to elect their civil and military officers. Some counties obeyed, and others did not. The counter influence of Nicholson's councillors was continually and persistently felt, and Leisler and his party became greatly incensed against them, especially against Bayard, who was the chief instigator of the opposition to the 'usurper,' as he called the Republican leader. So hot became the indignation of Leisler and his friends that Bayard was compelled to fly for his life to Albany. The other councillors, alarmed, soon followed him. At Albany they acknowledged allegiance to William and Mary. They set up an independent government, and claimed to be the true and only rulers of the province. In this position they were sustained by the civil authorities at Albany." Leisler's son-in-law, Jacob Milborne, was sent with a force to take possession of their seat of government, but failed to accomplish his mission. "Soon after this event a letter arrived at New York by a special messenger from the British Privy Council, directed to 'Francis Nicholson, Esq., or, in his absence, to such as, for the time being, take care for preserving the peace and administering the laws in His Majesty's province of New York.'" This letter was delivered by the messenger to Leisler. Bayard, who had come to the city in disguise, and attempted to secure the missive, was arrested and imprisoned. "From this time the opposition to Leisler's government assumed an organized shape, and was sleepless and relentless. Leisler justly regarding himself as invested with supreme power by the people and the spirit of the letter from the Privy Council, at once assumed the title of lieutenant-governor; appointed councillors; made a new provincial seal; established courts, and called an assembly to provide means for carrying on war with Canada. … Colonel Henry Sloughter was appointed Governor of New York, but did not arrive until the spring of 1691. Richard Ingoldsby, a captain of foot, arrived early in the year, with a company of regular soldiers, to take possession of and hold the government until the arrival of the governor. He was urged by Leisler's enemies to assume supreme power at once, as he was the highest royal officer in the province. He haughtily demanded of Leisler the surrender of the fort, without deigning to show the governor his credentials. Leisler, of course, refused, and ordered the troops to be quartered in the city. Ingoldsby attempted to take the fort by force, but failed. For several weeks the city was fearfully excited by rival factions—'Leislerians' and 'anti-Leislerians.' On the arrival of Governor Sloughter, in March (1691), Leisler at once loyally tendered to him the fort and the province. Under the influence of the enemies of Leisler, the royal governor responded to this meritorious action by ordering the arrest of the lieutenant-governor; also Milborne, and six other 'inferior insurgents' … , on a charge of high treason." The accused were tried, convicted and sentenced to be hanged; but all except Leisler and Milborne received pardon. These two appealed to the king; but the governor's councillors succeeded in suppressing the appeal. As Sloughter hesitated to sign the death-warrant, they intoxicated him at a dinner party and obtained his signature to the fatal document while his judgment was overcome. Before the drunken governor recovered his senses Jacob Leisler and Jacob Milborne had been hanged. "When the governor became sober, he was appalled at what he had done: He was so keenly stung by remorse and afflicted by delirium tremens that he died a few weeks afterward. Calm and impartial judgment, enlightened by truth, now assigns to Jacob Leisler the high position in history of a patriot and martyr."

"Leisler lacked judgment and wisdom in administrative affairs, but his aims were comprehensive and patriotic. His words are imbued with a reverent spirit, and were evidently the utterances of an honest man. It was his lot to encounter an opposition led by persons who held office under King James. They pursued him with a relentless spirit. … It is the office of history to bear witness to Jacob Leisler's integrity as a man, his loyalty as a subject, and his purity as a patriot."

"The founder of the Democracy of New York was Jacob Leisler. … And Jacob Leisler was truly an honest man, who, though a martyr to the cause of liberty, and sacrificed by injustice, aristocracy, and party malignity, ought to be considered as one in whom New York should take pride—although the ancestors of many of her best men denounced him as a rebel and a traitor."

      ALSO IN:
      C. F. Hoffman,
      The Administration of Jacob Leisler
      (Library of American Biographies,
      series 2, volume 3).

      Papers relating to
      Lieutenant Governor Leisler's Administration
      (O'Callaghan's Documentary History of New York, volume 2).

Documents Relating to Leisler's Administration
(New York Historical Society Collection, 1868).

NEW YORK: A. D. 1689-1697.
   King William's War: The Schenectady massacre.
   Abortive expedition against Montreal.
   French plans of conquest.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1709-1711.
Queen Anne's War: Unsuccessful projects against Montreal.
Capture of Port Royal.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1710.
Colonization of Palatines on the Hudson.
Settlement of Palatine Bridge and German Flats.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1720-1734.
   Conflicts of royal governors with the people.
   Zenger's trial.
   Vindication of the freedom of the press.

"In September 1720, William Burnet, the son of Bishop Burnet and godson of William III., entered upon the government of New York, burdened by instructions from England to keep alive the assembly which had been chosen several years before. This he did, to the great discontent of the people, until it had lasted more than eleven years. … But he was intelligent, and free from avarice. It was he who took possession of Oswego, and he 'left no stone unturned to defeat the French designs at Niagara.' Nevertheless, for all his merit, in 1728, he was transferred to Massachusetts to make way for the groom of the chamber of George II. while he was prince of Wales. At the time when the ministry was warned that 'the American assemblies aimed at nothing less than being independent of Great Britain as fast as they could,' Newcastle sent as governor to New York and New Jersey the dull and ignorant John Montgomerie. Sluggish, yet humane, the pauper chief magistrate had no object in America but to get money; and he escaped contests with the legislatures by giving way to them in all things. … He died in office in 1731. His successor, in 1732, was William Cosby, a brother-in-law of the earl of Halifax, and connected with Newcastle. A boisterous and irritable man, broken in his fortunes, having little understanding and no sense of decorum or of virtue, he had been sent over to clutch at gain. Few men did more to hasten colonial emancipation. … To gain very great perquisites, he followed the precedent of Andros in Massachusetts in the days of the Stuarts, and insisted on new surveys of lands and new grants, in lieu of the old. To the objection of acting against law, he answered: 'Do you think I mind that? I have a great interest in England.' The courts of law were not pliable; and Cosby displaced and appointed judges, without soliciting the consent of the council or waiting for the approbation of the sovereign. Complaint could be heard only through the press. A newspaper was established to defend the popular cause; and, in November 1734, about a year after its establishment, its printer, John Peter Zenger, a German by birth, who had been an apprentice to the famous printer, William Bradford, and afterward his partner, was imprisoned, by an order of the council, on the charge of publishing false and seditious libels. The grand jury would find no bill against him, and the attorney-general filed an information. The counsel of Zenger took exceptions to the commissions of the judges, because they ran during pleasure, and because they had been granted without the consent of council. The angry judge met the objection by disbarring James Alexander who offered it, though he stood at the head of his profession in New York for sagacity, penetration, and application to business. All the central colonies regarded the controversy as their own. At the trial the publishing was confessed; but the aged and venerable Andrew Hamilton, who came from Philadelphia to plead for Zenger, justified the publication by asserting its truth. 'You cannot be admitted,' interrupted the chief justice, 'to give the truth of a libel in evidence.' 'Then,' said Hamilton to the jury, 'we appeal to you for witnesses of the facts. The jury have a right to determine both the law and the fact, and they ought to do so.' 'The question before you,' he added, 'is not the cause of a poor printer, nor of New York alone; it is the cause of liberty.' … The jury gave their verdict, 'Not guilty.' Hamilton received of the common council of New York the franchises of the city for 'his learned and generous defence of the rights of mankind and the liberty of the press.'"

      G. Bancroft,
      History of the United States (Author's last Revision)
      part 3, chapter 15 (volume 2).

ALSO IN: J. Grahame, History of the United States (Colonial), book 10, chapter 1 (volume 2).

      E. Lawrence,
      William Cosby and the Freedom of the Press
      (Memorial History of the City of New York,
      volume 2, chapter 7).

NEW YORK: A. D. 1726. How the Iroquois placed themselves under the protection of England.

"Governour Burnet … assembled the chiefs of the Iroquois at Albany [1726]; he reminded them of all the benefits they had received from England, and all the injuries that had been inflicted by France. He pointed out the evils that would flow to them from a French fort at Niagara, on their territory. The Indians declared their unwillingness to suffer this intrusion of the French, but said they now had not power to prevent it. They called upon the Governour of New York to write to the King of England for help to regain their country from the French of Canada. Burnet seized this opportunity to gain a surrender of their country to England, to be protected for their use. Such a surrender would be used by Europeans for their own purposes; but (in the sense they viewed and represented it), was altogether incomprehensible by the Indian chiefs; and the deputies had no power from the Iroquois confederacy to make any such surrender. … By the treaty of Utrecht … France had acknowledged the Iroquois and their territory to be subject to Great Britain."

NEW YORK: A. D. 1741.
The pretended Negro Plot.
Panic and merciless frenzy of the people.

In 1741, "the city of New York became the scene of a cruel and bloody delusion, less notorious, but not less lamentable than the Salem witchcraft. That city now contained some 7,000 or 8,000 inhabitants, of whom 1,200 or 1,500 were slaves. Nine fires in rapid succession, most of them, however, merely the burning of chimneys, produced a perfect insanity of terror. An indented servant woman purchased her liberty and secured a reward, of £100 by pretending to give information of a plot formed by a low tavern-keeper, her master, and three negroes, to burn the city and murder the whites. This story was confirmed and amplified by an Irish prostitute, convicted of a robbery, who, to recommend herself to mercy, reluctantly turned informer. Numerous arrests had been already made among the slaves and free blacks. Many others followed. The eight lawyers who then composed the bar of New York all assisted by turns on behalf of the prosecution. The prisoners, who had no counsel, were tried and convicted upon most insufficient evidence. The lawyers vied with each other in heaping all sorts of abuse on their heads, and Chief-justice Delancey, in passing sentence, vied with the lawyers. Many confessed to save their lives, and then accused others. Thirteen unhappy convicts were burned at the stake, eighteen were hanged, and seventy-one transported. The war and the religious excitement then prevailing tended to inflame the yet hot prejudices against Catholics. A non-juring schoolmaster, accused of being a Catholic priest in disguise, and of stimulating the negroes to burn the city by promises of absolution, was condemned and executed."

NEW YORK: A. D. 1749-1774.
   The struggle for Vermont.
   The disputed New Hampshire Grants,
   and the Green Mountain Boys who defended them.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1754.
The Colonial Congress at Albany and Franklin's Plan of Union.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1755.
   The French and Indian War: Battle of Lake George.
   Abortive expedition against Niagara.
   Braddock's defeat.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1756-1757.
The French and Indian War:
English loss of Oswego and of Fort William Henry.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1758.
   The French and Indian War:
   Bloody defeat of the English at Ticonderoga.
   Final capture of Louisburg and recovery of Fort Duquesne.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1759.
The French and Indian War:
Niagara, Ticonderoga, Crown Point and Quebec taken.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1760.
The French and Indian War:
Completed English conquest of Canada.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1763-1764.
Pontiac's War.
Sir William Johnson's Treaty with the Indians at Fort Niagara.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1763-1766.
   The question of taxation by Parliament.
   The Sugar Act.
   The Stamp Act and its repeal.
   The Declaratory Act.
   The Stamp Act Congress.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1765-1768.
The Indian treaties of German Flats and Fort Stanwix.
Adjustment of boundaries with the Six Nations.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1766-1767, to 1772-1773,
      and BOSTON: A. D. 1768, to 1773.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1773-1774.
   The Revolutionary spirit abroad.
   The conflict of parties.
   The Vigilance Committee, the Committee of Fifty-One,
   and the Committee of Sixty.

"In 1773 the tax on tea was imposed. On October 25th the Mohawks of New York, a band of the Sons of Liberty, were ordered by their old leaders to be on the watch for the tea ships; and it was merely the chances of time and tide that gave the opportunity of fame first to the Mohawks of Boston. … An 'association' was now circulated for signatures, engaging to boycott, 'not deal with, or employ, or have any connection with' any persons who should aid in landing, or 'selling, or buying tea, so long as it is subject to a duty by Parliament'; and December 17th a meeting of the subscribers was held and a committee of fifteen chosen as a Committee of Correspondence that was soon known as the Vigilance Committee. Letters also were exchanged between the speakers of many of the houses of assembly in the different provinces; and January 20, 1774, the New York Assembly, which had been out of touch with the people ever since the Stamp Act was passed in the year after its election, appointed their Speaker, with twelve others, a standing Committee of Correspondence and Enquiry, a proof that the interest of all classes was now excited. April 15th, the 'Nancy' with a cargo of tea arrived off Sandy Hook, followed shortly by the 'London.' The Committee of Vigilance assembled, and, as soon as Captain Lockyier, of the' Nancy' landed in spite of their warning, escorted him to a pilot boat and set him on board again. … April 23d, the 'Nancy' stood out to sea without landing her cargo, and with her carried Captain Chambers of the 'London,' from which the evening before eighteen chests of tea had been emptied into the sea by the Liberty Boys. The bill closing the port of Boston was enacted March 31st, and a copy of the act reached New York by the ship Samson on the 12th. {2337} Two days later the Committee of Vigilance wrote to the Boston Committee recommending vigorous measures as the most effectual, and assuring them that their course would be heartily supported by their brethren in New York. So rapid had been the march of events that not till now did the merchants and responsible citizens of New York take alarm. Without their concurrence or even knowledge they were being rapidly compromised by the unauthorized action of an irresponsible committee, composed of men who for the most part were noted more for enthusiasm than for judgment, and many of whom had been not unconcerned in petty riots and demonstrations condemned by the better part of the community. … 'The men who at that time called themselves the Committee,' wrote Lieutenant Governor Colden the next month, 'who dictated and acted in the name of the people, were many of them of the lower ranks, and all the warmest zealots of those called the Sons of Liberty. The more considerable merchants and citizens seldom or never appeared among them. … The principal inhabitants, being now afraid that these hot-headed men might run the city into dangerous measures, appeared in a considerable body at the first meeting of the people after the Boston Port Act was published here.' This meeting, convoked by advertisement, was held May 16th, at the house of Samuel Francis, 'to consult on the measures proper to be pursued.' … A committee of fifty, Jay among them, instead of one of twenty-five, as at first suggested, was nominated 'for the approbation of the public,' 'to correspond with our sister colonies on all matters of moment.' Three days later these nominations were confirmed by a public meeting held at the Coffee House, but not until a fifty-first member was added, Francis Lewis, as a representative of the radical party which had been as much as possible ignored. … At the Coffee House again, on May 23d, the Committee of Fifty-one met and organized; they repudiated the letter to Boston from the Committee of Vigilance as unofficial," and prepared a response to another communication just received from Boston, by the famous messenger, Paul Revere. In this reply it was "urged that 'a Congress of Deputies from the Colonies in General is of the utmost moment,' to form 'some unanimous resolutions … not only respecting your [Boston's] deplorable circumstances, but for the security of our common rights;' and that the advisability of a non-importation agreement should be left to the Congress. … The importance of this letter can hardly be exaggerated, for it was the first serious authoritative suggestion of a General Congress to consider 'the common rights' of the colonies in general. … The advice of New York was followed gradually by the other colonies, but even before a Continental Congress was a certainty, the Committee of Fifty-one, with singular confidence, resolved that delegates to it should be chosen, and called a meeting for that purpose for July 19th. … Philip Livingston, John Alsop, James Duane, and John Jay were nominated as delegates to be submitted to the public meeting, July 19th. The people met accordingly at the Coffee House, and after a stormy debate elected the committee's candidates in spite of a strong effort to substitute for Jay, McDougall, the hero of the Liberty Boys." This election, however, was not thought to be an adequate expression of the popular will, and polls were subsequently opened in each ward, on the 28th of July. The result was a unanimous vote for Jay and his colleagues. "Thus, fortunately, at the very inception of the Revolution, before the faintest clatter of arms, the popular movement was placed in charge of the 'Patricians' as they were called, rather than of the 'Tribunes,' as respectively represented by Jay and McDougall."

"The New York Committee of Fifty-One, having accomplished its object, appointed a day for the choice, by the freeholders of the city, of a 'Committee of Observation,' numbering sixty, to enforce in New York the Non-Importation Act of the late Congress; and when this new committee was duly elected and organized, with Isaac Low as chairman, the Fifty-One was dissolved."

      J. A. Stevens,
      The Second Non-importation Agreement
      (Memorial History of the City of New York,
      volume 2, chapter 11).

NEW YORK: A. D. 1774.
   The Boston Port Bill, the Massachusetts Act,
   and the Quebec Act.
   The First Continental Congress.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1775 (April).
Disadvantages experienced by the patriots.
The first provincial Convention held.

   "The republicans of the province of New York, composing by far
   the greater portion of the inhabitants, labored under severe
   disabilities. Acting Governor Colden was a Loyalist, and his
   council held office by the King's will. The assembly, though
   chosen by the people, continued in existence only by the
   King's prerogative. They might be dissolved by the
   representative of the crown (the acting governor) at any
   moment. There was no legally constituted body to form a
   rallying point for the patriots, as in Massachusetts, where
   there was an elective council and an annually elected
   assembly. In all the other colonies there was some nucleus of
   power around which the people might assemble and claim to be
   heard with respect. But in New York they were thrown back upon
   their own resources, and nobly did they preserve their
   integrity and maintain their cause, in spite of every
   obstacle. The whole continent was now moving in the direction
   of rebellion. … The excitement in New York was equally
   intense. Toward the close of the preceding December, the
   Liberty Boys were called to action by the seizure of arms and
   ammunition, which some of them had imported, and had consigned
   to Walter Franklin, a well known merchant. These were seized
   by order of the collector, because, as he alleged, of the want
   of cockets, or custom-house warrants, they having been in
   store several days without them. While they were on their way
   to the custom-house, some of the Sons of Liberty rallied and
   seized them, but before they could be concealed they were
   retaken by government officials and sent on board a man-of-war
   in the harbor. … The republicans failed in their efforts, in
   the New York Assembly, to procure the appointment of delegates
   to the second Continental Congress, to be convened at
   Philadelphia in May. Nothing was left for them to do but to
   appeal to the people.
{2338}
   The General Committee of sixty members, many of them of the
   loyal majority in the assembly, yielding to the pressure of
   popular sentiment, called a meeting of the freeholders and
   freemen of the city at the Exchange, to take into
   consideration the election of delegates to a convention of
   representatives from such of the counties of the province as
   should adopt the measure, the sole object of such convention
   being the choice of proper persons to represent the colony in
   the Continental Congress. This movement was opposed by the
   loyalists. … At first there was confusion. This soon
   subsided, and the meeting proceeded with calmness and dignity
   to nominate eleven persons to represent the city in a
   provincial convention to be held in New York on the 20th
   [April], who were to be instructed to choose delegates to the
   Continental Congress. On the following day the chairman of the
   Committee of Sixty gave notice of the proposed convention on
   the 20th to the chairmen of the committees of correspondence
   in the different counties, advising them to choose delegates
   to the same. There was a prompt response. … The convention
   assembled at the Exchange, in New York, on the 20th, and
   consisted of 42 members [representing seven counties outside
   of New York city]. Colonel Schuyler was at the head of the
   delegation from Albany, and took a leading part in the
   convention. Philip Livingston was chosen president of the
   convention, and John M'Kesson, secretary. This was the first
   provincial convention in New York—the first positive
   expression of the doctrine of popular sovereignty in that
   province. They remained in session three days, and chose for
   delegates to the Continental Congress Philip Livingston, James
   Duane, John Alsop, John Jay, Simon Boerum, William Floyd,
   Henry Wisner, Philip Schuyler, George Clinton, Lewis Morris,
   Francis Lewis, and Robert R. Livingston, to whom were given
   full power, 'or any five of them, to meet the delegates from
   other colonies, and to concert and determine upon such
   measures as shall be judged most effectual for the
   preservation and reestablishment of American rights and
   privileges, and for the restoration of harmony between Great
   Britain and her colonies.' While this convention was in
   session intelligence of the bloodshed at Lexington was on its
   way, but it did not reach New York until the day after the
   adjournment."

NEW YORK: A. D. 1775 (April-May).
   The Beginning of the War of the American Revolution.
   Lexington.
   Concord.
   Action upon the news.
   Ethan Allen at Ticonderoga.
   Siege of Boston.
   Bunker Hill.
   The Second Continental Congress.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1775 (April-September).
   The Sons of Liberty take control of the city.
   The end of royal government.
   Flight of Governor Tryon.

"On Sunday, the 24th of April, 1775, the news of the battle of Lexington reached the city. This was the signal for open hostilities. Business was at once suspended; the Sons of Liberty assembled in large numbers, and, taking possession of the City Hall, distributed the arms that were stored in it, together with a quantity which had been deposited in the arsenal for safe keeping, among the citizens, a party of whom formed themselves into a voluntary corps under the command of Samuel Broome, and assumed the temporary government of the city. This done, they demanded and obtained the keys of the custom house, closed the building and laid an embargo upon the vessels in port destined for the eastern colonies. … It now became necessary to organize some provisional government for the city, and for this purpose, on the 5th of May, a meeting of the citizens was called at the Coffee-House, at which a Committee of One Hundred was chosen and invested with the charge of municipal affairs, the people pledging themselves to obey its orders until different arrangements should be made by the Continental Congress. This committee was composed in part of men inclined to the royalist cause, yet, such was the popular excitement at the time, that they were carried away by the current and forced to acquiesce in the measures of their more zealous colleagues. … The committee at once assumed the command of the city, and, retaining the corps of Broome as their executive power, prohibited the sale of weapons to any persons suspected of being hostile to the patriotic party. … The moderate men of the committee succeeded in prevailing on their colleagues to present a placable address to Lieutenant-Governor Colden, explanatory of their appointment, and assuring him that they should use every effort to preserve the public peace; yet ominous precautions were taken to put the arms of the city in a serviceable condition, and to survey the neighboring grounds with a view to erecting fortifications. … On the 25th of June, Washington entered New York on his way from Mount Vernon to Cambridge to take command of the army assembled there. The Provincial Congress received him with a cautious address. Despite their patriotism, they still clung to the shadow of loyalty; fearing to go too far, they acted constantly under protest that they desired nothing more than to secure to themselves the rights of true-born British subjects. The next morning Washington quitted the city, escorted on his way by the provincial militia. Tryon [Governor Tryon, who had been absent, in England since the spring of 1774, leaving the government in the hands of Lieutenant-Governor Colden, and who now returned to resume it] had entered it the night before, and thus had been brought almost face to face with the rebel who was destined to work such a transformation in his majesty's colonies of America. The mayor and corporation received the returning governor with expressions of joy, and even the patriot party were glad of the change which relieved them from the government of Colden. … Meanwhile, the colony of New York had been ordered by the Continental Congress to contribute her quota of 3,000 men to the general defence, and four regiments were accordingly raised. … The city now presented a curious spectacle, as the seat of two governments, each issuing its own edicts, and denouncing those of the other as illegal authority. It was not long before the two powers came into collision." This was brought about by an order from the Provincial Congress, directing the removal of guns from the Battery. Shots were exchanged between the party executing this order and a boat from the ship of war "Asia"; whereupon the "Asia" cannonaded the town, riddling houses and wounding three citizens. "Hitherto, the governor had remained firm at his post; but finding his position daily growing more perilous, despite the pledges of the corporation for his personal safety, he determined to abandon the city, and took refuge on board the 'Asia.'"

NEW YORK: A. D. 1776 (January-August).
   Flight of Governor Tryon.
   New York City occupied by Washington.
   Battle of Long Island.
   Defeat of the American army.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1776 (September-November).
   The struggle for the city.
   Washington's retreat.
   The British in possession.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1776-1777.
   The Jersey Prison-ship and the Sugar-house Prisons.
   See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
   A. D. 1776-1777 PRISONERS AND EXCHANGES.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1776-1777. WASHINGTON'S RETREAT;
      and 1777 (JANUARY-DECEMBER).

NEW YORK: A. D. 1777.
   Adoption of a Constitution and
   organization of a State government.
   Religious freedom established.

"After the Declaration of Independence, the several colonies proceeded to form State governments, by adopting constitutions. In that business New York moved early. On the 1st of August, 1776, a committee of the 'Convention of the Representatives of New York,' as the provisional government was called, sitting at White Plains, in Westchester County, were appointed to draw up and report a constitution. The committee consisted of the following named gentlemen: John Jay, John Sloss Hobart, William Smith, William Duer, Gouverneur Morris, Robert R. Livingston, John Broome, John Morin Scott, Abraham Yates, Jr., Henry Wisner, Sen., Samuel Townsend, Charles De Witt and Robert Yates. John Jay was the chairman, and to him was assigned the duty of drafting the Constitution. The Convention was made migratory by the stirring events of the war during the ensuing autumn and winter. First they held their sessions at Harlem Heights; then at White Plains; afterward at Fishkill, in Dutchess County, and finally at Kingston, in Ulster County, where they continued from February till May, 1777. There undisturbed the committee on the Constitution pursued their labors, and on the 12th of March, 1777, reported a draft of that instrument. It was under consideration in the Convention for more than a month after that, and was finally adopted on the 20th of April. Under it a State government was established by an ordinance of the Convention, passed in May, and the first session of the Legislature was appointed to meet at Kingston in July." The election of State officers was held in June. Jay and others issued a circular recommending General Schuyler for Governor and General George Clinton for Lieutenant Governor. But Schuyler "declined the honor, because he considered the situation of affairs in his Department too critical to be neglected by dividing his duties. The elections were held in all the Counties excepting New York, Kings, Queens, and Suffolk, then occupied by the British, and Brigadier General George Clinton was elected Governor, which office he held, by successive elections, for eighteen years, and afterward for three years. Pierre Van Courtlandt, the President of the Senate, became Lieutenant Governor. Robert R. Livingston was appointed Chancellor; John Jay Chief Justice; Robert Yates and John Sloss Hobart judges of the Supreme Court, and Egbert Benson attorney-general. So it was that the great State of New York was organized and put into operation at a time when it was disturbed by formidable invasions on its northern, southern, and western frontiers."

The framers of this first constitution of the State of New York "proceeded at the outset to do away with the established church, repealing all such parts of the common law and all such statutes of the province 'as may be construed to establish or maintain any particular denomination of Christians or their ministers.' Then followed a section … which, it is believed, entitles New York to the honor of being the first organized government of the world to assert by constitutional provision the principle of perfect religious freedom. It reads as follows: 'And whereas, we are required by the benevolent principles of rational liberty, not only to expel civil tyranny, but also to guard against that spiritual oppression and intolerance wherewith the bigotry and ambition of weak and wicked priests and princes have scourged mankind, this convention doth further, in the name and by the authority of the good people of this state, ordain, determine, and declare that the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever hereafter be allowed within this state to all mankind.' Thomas Jefferson, to whom Virginia is chiefly indebted for her religious liberty [embodied in her Declaration of Rights, in 1776] derived his religious as well as his political ideas from the philosophers of France. But the men who framed this constitutional provision for New York, which has since spread over most of the United States, and lies at the base of American religious liberty, were not freethinkers, although they believed in freedom of thought. Their Dutch ancestors had practised religious toleration, they expanded toleration into liberty, and in this form transmitted to posterity the heritage which Holland had sent across the sea a century and a half before."

D. Campbell, The Puritan in Holland, England and America, volume 2, pages 251-252.

B. F. Butler, Outline of Constitutional History of New York (New York Historical Society Collections, series 2, volume 2).

NEW YORK: A. D. 1777.
Opposition to the recognition of
the State independence of Vermont.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1777-1778.
   Burgoyne's invasion from Canada and his surrender.
   The Articles of Confederation.
   The alliance with France.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1778.
   The war on the Indian Border.
   Activity of Tories and Savages.
   The Massacre at Cherry Valley.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1780-1783.
   The war in the South.
   The surrender of Cornwallis.
   Peace with Great Britain.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1781. Western territorial claims and their cession to the United States.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1786. Rejection of proposed amendments to the Articles of Confederation.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1786-1799.
   Land-fee of Western New York ceded to Massachusetts.
   The Phelps and Gorham Purchase.
   The Holland Purchase.
   The founding of Buffalo.

The conflicting territorial claims of New York and Massachusetts, caused by the overlapping grants of the English crown, were not all settled by the cession of western claims to the United States which New York made in 1781 and Massachusetts in 1785 (see UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786). "Although the nominal amount in controversy, by these acts, was much diminished, it still left some 19,000 square miles of territory in dispute, but this controversy was finally settled by a convention of Commissioners appointed by the parties, held at Hartford, Connecticut, on the 16th day of December, 1786. According to the stipulations entered into by the convention, Massachusetts ceded to the state of New York all her claim to the government, sovereignty, and jurisdiction of all the territory lying west of the present east line of the state of New York; and New York ceded to Massachusetts the pre-emption right or fee of the land subject to the title of the natives, of all that part of the state of New York lying west of a line beginning at a point in the north line of Pennsylvania, 82 miles west of the north-east corner of said state, and running from thence due north through Seneca lake to lake Ontario; excepting and reserving to the state of New York a strip of land east of and adjoining the eastern bank of Niagara river, one mile wide and extending its whole length. The land, the pre-emption right of which was thus ceded, amounted to about 6,000,000 of acres. In April, 1788, Massachusetts contracted to sell to Nathaniel Gorham of Charlestown, Middlesex county, and Oliver Phelps of Granville, Hampshire county, of said state, their pre-emption right to all the lands in Western New York, amounting to about 6,000,000 acres, for the sum of $1,000,000, to be paid in three annual instalments, for which a kind of scrip Massachusetts had issued, called consolidated securities, was to be received, which was then in market much below par. In July, 1788, Messrs. Gorham and Phelps purchased of the Indians by treaty, at a convention held at Buffalo, the Indian title to about 2,600,000 acres of the eastern part of their purchase from Massachusetts. This purchase of the Indians being bounded west by a line beginning at a point in the north line of the state of Pennsylvania, due south of the corner or point of land made by the confluence of the Kanahasgwaicon (Cannnseraga) creek with the waters of Genesee river; thence north on said meridian line to the corner or point at the confluence aforesaid; thence northwardly along the waters of said Genesee river to a point two miles north of Kanawageras (Cannewagus) village; thence running due west 12 miles; thence running northwardly, so as to be 12 miles distant from the westward bounds of said river, to the shore of lake Ontario. On the 21st day of November, 1788, the state of Massachusetts conveyed and forever quitclaimed to N. Gorham and O. Phelps, their heirs and assigns forever, all the right and title of said state to all that tract of country of which Messrs. Phelps and Gorham had extinguished the Indian title. This tract, and this only, has since been designated as the Phelps and Gorham Purchase. … So rapid were the sales of the proprietors that before the 18th day of November, 1790, they had disposed of about 50 townships [each six miles square], which were mostly sold by whole townships or large portions of townships, to sundry individuals and companies of farmers and others, formed for that purpose. On the 18th day of November, 1790, they sold the residue of their tract (reserving two townships only), amounting to upwards of a million and a quarter acres of land, to Robert Morris of Philadelphia, who soon sold the same to Sir William Pultney, an English gentleman. … This property, or such part of it as was unsold at the time of the decease of Sir William, together with other property which he purchased in his lifetime in its vicinity, is now [1849] called the Pultney Estate. … Messrs. Phelps and Gorham, who had paid about one third of the purchase money of the whole tract purchased of Massachusetts, in consequence of the rise of the value of Massachusetts consolidated stock (in which the payments for the land were to be received) from 20 per cent. to par, were unable further to comply with their engagements." After long negotiations they were permitted to relinquish to the state of Massachusetts all that western section of their purchase of which they had not acquired the Indian title, and this was resold in March, 1791, by Massachusetts, to Samuel Ogden, acting for Robert Morris. Morris made several sales from the eastern portion of his purchase, to the state of Connecticut (investing its school fund) and to others, in large blocks known subsequently as the Ogden Tract, the Cragie Tract, the Connecticut Tract, etc. The remainder or most of it, covering the greater part of western New York, was disposed of to certain gentlemen in Holland, and came to be generally known as the Holland Purchase.

"Much has been written and more has been said about the 'Holland Company.' When people wished to be especially precise, they called it the 'Holland Land Company.' … Yet there never was any such thing as the Holland Company or the Holland Land Company. Certain merchants and others of the city of Amsterdam placed funds in the hands of friends who were citizens of America to purchase several tracts of land in the United States, which, being aliens, the Hollanders could not hold in their own name at that time. One of these tracts, comprising what was afterwards known as the Holland Purchase, was bought from Robert Morris. … In the forepart of 1798 the legislature of New York authorized those aliens to hold land within the State, and in the latter part of that year the American trustees conveyed the Holland Purchase to the real owners." The great territory covered by the Purchase surrounded several Indian "Reservations"—large blocks of land, that is, which the aboriginal Seneca proprietors reserved for their own occupancy when they parted with their title to the rest, which they did at a council held in 1797. One of these Reservations embraced the site now occupied by the city of Buffalo. Joseph Ellicott, the agent of the Holland proprietors, quickly discerned its prospective importance, and made an arrangement with his Indian neighbors by which he secured possession of the ground at the foot of Lake Erie and the head of Niagara River, in exchange for another piece of land six miles away. Here, in 1799, Ellicott began the founding of a town which he called New Amsterdam, but which subsequently took the name of the small stream, Buffalo Creek, on which it grew up, and which, by deepening and enlargement, became its harbor.

ALSO IN: O. Turner, History of the Pioneer Settlement of Phelps' and Gorham's Purchase, part 2.

      H. L. Osgood,
      The Title of the Phelps and Gorham Purchase
      (Rochester Historical Society Publications, volume 1).

NEW YORK: A. D. 1787-1788.
The formation and adoption of the Federal Constitution.
The chief battle ground of the contest.

During the session of the legislature in April, 1799, "emancipation was at last enacted. It was provided that all children born of slave parents after the ensuing 4th of July should be free, subject to apprenticeship, in the case of males till the age of 28, in the case of females till the age of 25, and the exportation of slaves was forbidden. By this process of gradual emancipation there was avoided that question of compensation which had been the secret of the failure of earlier bills. At that time the number of slaves was only 22,000, small in proportion to the total population of nearly a million. So the change was effected peacefully and without excitement."

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER); 1813 (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER); 1813 (DECEMBER); 1814 (JULY-SEPTEMBER); 1814 (SEPTEMBER).

During the first term of De Witt Clinton as governor of the State, the feud in the Democratic Republican party, between his supporters and his opponents, which began in 1812 when he audaciously sought to attain the Presidency, against Madison, assumed a fixed and definite form. "Clinton's Republican adversaries were dubbed 'Bucktails,' from the ornaments worn on ceremonial occasions by the Tammany men, who had long been Clinton's enemies. The Bucktails and their successors were the 'regular' Republicans, or the Democrats as they were later called; and they kept their regularity until, long afterwards, the younger and greater Bucktail leader [Martin Van Buren], when venerable and laden with honors, became the titular head of the Barn-burner defection. The merits of the feud between Bucktails and Clintonians it is now difficult to find. Each accused the other of coquetting with the Federalists; and the accusation of one of them was nearly always true."

J. D. Hammond, History of Political Parties in the State of New York, volume 1, page 450.

"History will assign to Gouverneur Morris the merit of first suggesting a direct and continuous communication from Lake Erie to the Hudson. In 1800, he announced this idea from the shore of the Niagara river to a friend in Europe. … The praise awarded to Gouverneur Morris must be qualified by the fact, that the scheme he conceived was that of a canal with a uniform declination, and without locks, from Lake Erie to the Hudson. Morris communicated his project to Simeon De Witt in 1803, by whom it was made known to James Geddes in 1804. It afterward became the subject of conversation between Mr. Geddes and Jesse Hawley, and this communication is supposed to have given rise to the series of essays written by Mr. Hawley, under the signature of 'Hercules,' in the 'Genesee Messenger,' continued from October, 1807, until March, 1808, which first brought the public mind into familiarity with the subject. These essays, written in a jail, were the grateful return, by a patriot, to a country which punished him with imprisonment for being unable to pay debts owed to another citizen, and displayed deep research, with singular vigor and comprehensiveness of thought, and traced with prophetic accuracy a large portion of the outline of the Erie canal. In 1807, Albert Gallatin, then secretary of the treasury, in pursuance of a recommendation made by Thomas Jefferson, president of the United States, reported a plan for appropriating all the surplus revenues of the general government to the construction of canals and turnpike roads; and it embraced in one grand and comprehensive view, nearly without exception, all the works which have since been executed or attempted by the several states in the Union. … {2342} In 1808, Joshua Forman, a representative in the assembly from Onondaga county, submitted his memorable resolution," referring to the recommendation made by President Jefferson to the federal congress, and directing that "'a joint committee be appointed to take into consideration the propriety of exploring and causing an accurate survey to be made of the most eligible and direct route for a canal, to open a communication between the tide waters of the Hudson river and Lake Erie, to the end that Congress may be enabled to appropriate such sums as may be necessary to the accomplishment of that great national object.'" The committee was appointed, its report was favorable, and the survey was directed to be made. "There was then no civil engineer in the state. James Geddes, a land surveyor, who afterward became one of our most distinguished engineers, by the force of native genius and application in mature years, levelled and surveyed, under instructions from the surveyor-general," several routes to Lake Ontario and to Lake Erie. "Mr. Geddes' report showed that a canal from Lake Erie to the Hudson was practicable, and could be made without serious difficulty. In 1810, on motion of Jonas Platt, of the senate, who was distinguished throughout a pure and well-spent life by his zealous efforts to promote this great undertaking, Gouverneur Morris, De Witt Clinton, Stephen Van Rensselaer, Simeon De Witt, William North, Thomas Eddy, and Peter B. Porter, were appointed commissioners 'to explore the whole route for inland navigation from the Hudson river to Lake Ontario and to Lake Erie.' Cadwallader D. Colden, a contemporary historian, himself one of the earliest and ablest advocates of the canals, awards to Thomas Eddy the merit of having suggested this motion to Mr. Platt, and to both these gentlemen that of engaging De Witt Clinton's support, he being at that time a member of the senate. … The commissioners in March, 1811, submitted their report written by Gouverneur Morris, in which they showed the practicability and advantages of a continuous canal from Lake Erie to the Hudson, and stated their estimate of the cost at $5,000,000. … On the presentation of this report, De Witt Clinton introduced a bill, which became a law on the 8th of April, 1811, under the title of 'An act to provide for the improvement of the internal navigation of this state.' … The act added Robert R. Livingston and Robert Fulton to the board of commissioners, and authorized them to consider all matters relating to such inland navigation, with powers to make application in behalf of the state to Congress, or to any state or territory, to cooperate and aid in the undertaking. … Two of the commissioners, Mr. Morris and Mr. Clinton, repaired to the federal capital, and submitted the subject to the consideration of the President (Mr. Madison) and of Congress. In 1812, the commissioners reported that, although it was uncertain whether the national government would do anything, it certainly would do nothing which would afford immediate aid to the enterprise. … The commissioners then submitted that, having offered the canal to the national government, and that offer having virtually been declined, the state was now at liberty to consult and pursue the maxims of policy, and these seemed to demand imperatively that the canal should be made by herself, and for her own account, as soon as the circumstances would permit. … On the 19th of June, 1812, a law was enacted, reappointing the commissioners and authorizing them to borrow money and deposite it in the treasury, and to take cessions of land, but prohibiting any measures to construct the canals. … From 1812 to 1815, the country suffered the calamities of war, and projects of internal improvement necessarily gave place to the patriotic efforts required to maintain the national security and honor." But after peace had returned, the advocates of the enterprise prevailed with considerable difficulty over its opponents, and "ground was broken for the construction of the Erie canal on the 4th day of July, 1817, at Rome, with ceremonies marking the public estimation of that great event. De Witt Clinton, having just before been elected to the chief magistracy of the state, and being president of the board of canal commissioners, enjoyed the high satisfaction of attending, with his associates, on the auspicious occasion. … On the 26th of October, 1825, the Erie canal was in a navigable condition throughout its entire length, affording an uninterrupted passage from Lake Erie to tidewater in the Hudson. … This auspicious consummation was celebrated by a telegraphic discharge of cannon, commencing at Lake Erie [at Buffalo], and continued along the banks of the canal and of the Hudson, announcing to the city of New York the entrance on the bosom of the canal of the first barge [bearing Governor Clinton and his coadjutors] that was to arrive at the commercial emporium from the American Mediterraneans."

      C. D. Colden,
      Memoir: Celebration of the
      Completion of the New York Canals.

   "The Constitution did not meet the expectations of its
   framers. The cumbrous machinery by which it was sought to
   insure the control of the People, through the supremacy of the
   Assembly, had only resulted in fortifying power practically
   beyond their reach. The Council of Revision was objected to
   because it had exercised the veto power contrary to the spirit
   of the Constitution, which was in harmony with the traditions
   of the Colony from the earliest conflict with the executive
   power; and because the officers who thus interposed their
   objections to the will of the Legislature, holding office for
   good behavior (except the Governor), were beyond the reach of
   the People. It was seen that this power was a dangerous one,
   in a Council so constituted; but it was thought that it could
   be safely intrusted to the Governor alone, as he was directly
   responsible to the People. The Council of Appointment,
   although not vested with any judicial authority, and in fact
   disclaiming it, nevertheless at an early day summoned its
   appointees before it, for the purpose of hearing accusations
   against them, and proving their truth or falsity. At a later
   day, more summary proceedings were resorted to. The office
   thus became very unpopular. Nearly every civil, military, and
   judicial officer of the commonwealth was appointed by this
   Council.
{2343}
   In 1821, 8,287 military and 6,663 civil officers held their
   commissions from it, and this vast system of centralized power
   was naturally very obnoxious. The Legislature, in 1820, passed
   'an act recommending a Convention of the People of this
   State,' which came up for action in the Council of Revision,
   on November 20th of the same year; present, Governor Clinton,
   Chancellor Kent, Chief Justice Spencer, and Justices Yates and
   Woodworth, on which day the Council, by the casting vote of
   the Governor, adopted two objections to it; first, because it
   did not provide for taking the sense of the People on the
   question; and second, because it submitted the new
   Constitution to the People in toto, instead of by sections.
   These objections were referred to a select committee, Michael
   Ulshoeffer, chairman, who submitted their report January 9,
   1821, in opposition to the opinion of the Council, which was
   adopted by the Assembly. The bill, however, failed to pass,
   not receiving a two-third vote. Immediately thereupon a
   committee was appointed to draft a new bill. The committee
   subsequently introduced a bill for submitting the question to
   the people, which passed both Houses; received the sanction of
   the Council of Revision on the 13th of March, and was
   subsequently amended, the amendments receiving the sanction of
   the Council on the third of April. The popular vote on holding
   the Convention was had in April, and resulted as follows: 'For
   Convention' 109,346. 'For No Convention' 34,901. The
   Convention assembled in Albany, August 28, and adjourned
   November 10, 1821. The Council of Revision was abolished, and
   its powers transferred to the Governor. The Council of
   Appointment was abolished without a dissenting voice. The
   principal department officers were directed to be appointed on
   an open separate nomination by the two Houses, and subsequent
   joint ballot. Of the remaining officers not made elective, the
   power of appointment was conferred upon the Governor, by and
   with the advice and consent of the Senate. In 1846, two
   hundred and eighty-nine offices were thus filled. The elective
   franchise was extended. The Constitution was adopted at an
   election held in February, 1822, by the following vote:
   Constitution—For, 74,732: Against, 41,402. … The People
   took to themselves a large portion of the power they had felt
   it necessary, in the exercise of a natural conservatism, to
   intrust to the Assembly. They had learned that an elective
   Governor and an elective Senate are equally their agents, and
   interests which they thought ought to be conserved, they
   intrusted to them, subject to their responsibility to the
   People. The entire Senate were substituted in the place of the
   members who chanced to be the favorites with a majority in the
   Assembly, as a Council to the Governor, and thus the People of
   all the State were given a voice in appointments. The Supreme
   Judicial Tribunal remained the same. The direct sovereignty of
   the People was thus rendered far more effective, and popular
   government took the place of parliamentary administration."

      E. A. Werner,
      Civil List and Constitutional History of New York, 1887,
      pages 126-128.

"The adoption of the new constitution in 1822 placed the political power of the State in the hands of Mr. Van Buren, the recognized representative leader of the Democratic party. Governor Clinton, as the end of his term of service approached, became as powerless as he was in 1816. … William L. Marcy was then State Comptroller, Samuel L. Talcott, Attorney-General; Benjamin Knower, Treasurer; and Edwin Crosswell, editor of the 'Argus' and state printer. These gentlemen, with Mr. Van Buren as their chief, constituted the nucleus of what became the Albany Regency. After adding Silas Wright, Azariah C. Flagg, John A. Dix, James Porter, Thomas W. Olcott, and Charles E. Dudley to their number, I do not believe that a stronger political combination ever existed at any state capital. … Their influence and power for nearly twenty years was almost as potential in national as in state politics."

"Even to our own day, the Albany Regency has been a strong and generally a sagacious influence in its party. John A. Dix, Horatio Seymour, Dean Richmond and Samuel J. Tilden long directed its policy, and from the chief seat in its councils the late secretary of the treasury, Daniel Manning, was chosen in 1885."

"The society of free-masons included a large number of the foremost citizens in all walks of life, and the belief existed that they used their secret ties to advance their ambitions. … This belief was used to create prejudice among those who were not members, and it added fuel to the fires of faction. At this juncture, September 11, 1826, William Morgan, of Batavia, a free-mason, who had announced his intention to print a pamphlet exposing the secrets of masonry, was arrested on a charge of larceny, made by the master of a masonic lodge, but found not guilty, and then arrested for debt, and imprisoned in jail at Canandaigua. He was taken secretly from that jail and conveyed to Fort Niagara, where he was kept until September, when he disappeared. The masons were charged with his abduction, and a body found in the Niagara River was produced as proof that he was drowned to put him out of the way. Thurlow Weed, then an editor in Rochester, was aggressive in charging that Morgan was murdered by the masons, and as late as 1882 he published an affidavit rehearsing a confession made to him by John Whitney, that the drowning was in fact perpetrated by himself and four other persons whom he named, after a conference in a masonic lodge. In 1827, Weed, who was active in identifying the drowned body, was charged with mutilating it, to make it resemble Morgan, and the imputation was often repeated; and the abduction and murder were in turn laid at the door of the anti-masons. The disappearance became the chief topic of partisan discussion. De Witt Clinton was one of the highest officers in the masonic order, and it was alleged that he commanded that Morgan's book should be 'suppressed at all hazards,' thus instigating the murder; but the slander was soon exposed. The state was flooded with volumes portraying masonry as a monstrous conspiracy, and the literature of the period was as harrowing as a series of sensational novels."

"A party soon grew up in Western New York pledged to oppose the election of any Free Mason to public office. The Anti-Masonic Party acquired influence in other States, and began to claim rank as a national political party. On most points its principles were those of the National Republicans. But Clay, as well as Jackson, was a Free Mason, and consequently to be opposed by this party. … In 1832 it even nominated a Presidential ticket of its own, but, having no national principle of controlling importance, it soon after declined."

A. Johnston, History of American Politics, chapter 12, section 3, with foot-note.

"On the 28th of January, 1817, the governor sent a message to the legislature recommending the entire abolition of slavery in the State of New York, to take place on the fourth day of July, 1827. By an act passed some years before, all persons born of parents who were slaves after July 1799, were to be free; males at twenty-eight and females at twenty-five years of age. The present legislature adopted the recommendation of the governor. This great measure in behalf of human rights, which was to obliterate forever the black and foul stain of slavery from the escutcheon of our own favored state, was produced by the energetic action of Cadwallader D. Colden, Peter A. Jay, William Jay, Daniel D. Tompkins and other distinguished philanthropists, chiefly residing in the city of New York. The Society of Friends, who never slumber when the principles of benevolence and a just regard to equal rights call for their action, were zealously engaged in this great enterprise."

J. D. Hammond, History of Political Parties in the State of New York, volume 1, chapter 22.

"The Van Buren party began to be called the Loco-focos, in derision of the fancied extravagance of their financial doctrines. The Loco-foco or Equal Rights party proper was originally a division of the Democrats, strongly anti-monopolist in their opinions, and especially hostile to banks,—not only government banks but all banks,—which enjoyed the privileges then long conferred by special and exclusive charters. In the fall of 1835 some of the Democratic candidates in New York were especially obnoxious to the anti-monopolists of the party. When the meeting to regularly confirm the nominations made in committee was called at Tammany Hall, the anti-monopolist Democrats sought to capture the meeting by a rush up the main stairs. The regulars, however, showed themselves worthy of their regularity by reaching the room up the back stairs. In a general scrimmage the gas was put out. The anti-monopolists, perhaps used to the devices to prevent meetings which might be hostile, were ready with candles and loco-foco matches. The hall was quickly illuminated; and the anti-monopolists claimed that they had defeated the nominations. The regulars were successful, however, at the election; and they and the Whigs dubbed the anti-monopolists the Loco-foco men. … The hatred which Van Buren after his message of September, 1837, received from the banks commended him to the Loco-focos; and in October, 1837, Tammany Hall witnessed their reconciliation with the regular Democrats upon a moderate declaration for equal rights."

NEW YORK: A. D. 1845-1846.
Schism in the Democratic party over Slavery extension.
Hunkers and Barnburners.

During the twenty-five years of the existence of the constitution of 1821, "ten different proposals for amendments were submitted to the electors, who decided against choosing presidential electors by districts, but in favor of extending the franchise, in favor of electing mayors by the people, and in 1846 for no license except in the city of New York. The commonwealth grew not only in population, but in all the elements of progress and prosperity and power, and by the census of 1845 was shown to contain 2,604,495 inhabitants. Legislation had tended to the substitution of rights for privileges granted as favors. The tenure of land, especially under the claims of the patroons, had caused difficulties for which remedies were sought; and the large expenditures for internal improvements, involving heavy indebtedness, prompted demands for safe-guards for the creditor and the taxpayer. The judiciary system had confessedly become independent, and required radical reformation. When, therefore, in 1845, the electors were called upon to decide whether a convention should be held to amend the State constitution, 213,257 voted in the affirmative, against 33,860 in the negative. The convention met June 1, 1846, but soon adjourned until October 9, when it proceeded with its task. John Tracy of Chenango presided; and among the members were Ira Harris of Albany, George 'V. Patterson of Chautauqua, Michael Hoffman and Arphaxed Loomis of Herkimer, Samuel J. Tilden of New York, Samuel Nelson of Otsego, and others eminent at home and in State affairs. The convention dealt radically with the principles of government. The new constitution gave to the people the election of many officers before appointed at Albany. It provided for the election of members of both houses of the legislature by separate districts. Instead of the cumbrous court for the correction of errors, it established an independent court of appeals. It abolished the court of chancery and the circuit courts, and merged both into the supreme court, and defined the jurisdiction of county courts. All judges were to be elected by the people. Feudal tenures were abolished, and no leases on agricultural lands for a longer period than twelve years were to be valid, if any rent or service were reserved. The financial articles established sinking funds for both the canal and general fund debt, forbade the loan of the credit of the State, and limited rigidly the power of the legislature to create debts, except to repel invasion or suppress insurrection, and declared the school and literature funds inviolate. Provision was made for general laws for the formation of corporations. The constitution required the submission to the people once every twenty years of the question whether a convention shall be called or not."

NEW YORK: A. D. 1861 (April).
The speeding of the Seventh Regiment
to the defense of Washington.

"A new levy of 300,000 men was called for in April, 1863, with the alternative of a draft if the quotas were not filled by volunteering. The quota of the city of New York was not filled, and a draft was begun there on Saturday, the 11th of July. There had been premonitions of trouble when it was attempted to take the names and addresses of those subject to call, and in the tenement-house districts some of the marshals had narrowly escaped with their lives. On the morning when the draft was to begin, several of the most widely read Democratic journals contained editorials that appeared to be written for the very purpose of inciting a riot. They asserted that any draft at all was unconstitutional and despotic, and that in this case the quota demanded from the city was excessive, and denounced the war as a 'mere abolition crusade.' It is doubtful if there was any well-formed conspiracy, including any large number of persons, to get up a riot; but the excited state of the public mind, especially among the laboring population, inflammatory handbills displayed in the grog-shops, the presence of the dangerous classes, whose best opportunity for plunder was in time of riot, and the absence of the militia that had been called away to meet the invasion of Pennsylvania, all favored an outbreak. It was unfortunate that the draft was begun on Saturday, and the Sunday papers published long lists of the names that were drawn—an instance of the occasional mischievous results of journalistic enterprise. … When the draft was resumed on Monday, the serious work began. One provost-marshal's office was at the corner of Third Avenue and Forty-Sixth street. It was guarded by sixty policemen, and the wheel was set in motion at ten o'clock. The building was surrounded by a dense, angry crowd, who were freely cursing the draft, the police, the National Government, and 'the nigger.' The drawing had been in progress but a few minutes when there was a shout of 'stop the cars!' and at once the cars were stopped, the horses released, the conductors and passengers driven out, and a tumult created. Then a great human wave was set in motion, which bore down everything before it and rolled into the marshal's office, driving out at the back windows the officials and the policemen, whose clubs, though plied rapidly and knocking down a rioter at every blow, could not dispose of them as fast as they came on. The mob destroyed everything in the office, and then set the building on fire. The firemen came promptly, but were not permitted to throw any water upon the flames. At this moment Superintendent John A. Kennedy, of the police, approaching incautiously and unarmed, was recognized and set upon by the crowd, who gave him half a hundred blows with clubs and stones, and finally threw him face downward into a mud-puddle, with the intention of drowning him. When rescued, he was bruised beyond recognition, and was lifted into a wagon and carried to the police headquarters. The command of the force now devolved upon Commissioner Thomas C. Acton and Inspector Daniel Carpenter, whose management during three fearful days was worthy of the highest praise. Another marshal's office, where the draft was in progress, was at Broadway and Twenty-Ninth street, and here the mob burned the whole block of stores on Broadway between Twenty-Eighth and Twenty-Ninth streets. … In the afternoon a small police force held possession of a gun-factory in Second Avenue for four hours, and was then compelled to retire before the persistent attacks of the rioters, who hurled stones through the windows and beat in the doors. Toward evening a riotous procession passed down Broadway, with drums, banners, muskets, pistols, pitchforks, clubs, and boards inscribed 'No Draft!' Inspector Carpenter, at the head of two hundred policemen, marched up to meet it. His orders were, 'Take no prisoners, but strike quick and hard.' The mob was met at the corner of Amity (or West Third) street. The police charged at once in a compact body, Carpenter knocking down the foremost rioter with a blow that cracked his skull, and in a few moments the mob scattered and fled, leaving Broadway strewn with their wounded and dying. From this time, the police were victorious in every encounter. During the next two days there was almost constant rioting, mobs appearing at various points, both up-town and down-town. The rioters set upon every negro that appeared—whether man, woman, or child—and succeeded in murdering eleven of them. … This phase of the outbreak found its worst expression in the sacking and burning of the Colored Orphan Asylum, at Fifth Avenue and Forty-Fourth street. The two hundred helpless children were with great difficulty taken away by the rear doors while the mob were battering at the front. … One of the saddest incidents of the riot was the murder of Colonel Henry J. O'Brien of the 11th New York Volunteers, whose men had dispersed one mob with a deadly volley. An hour or two later the Colonel returned to the spot alone, when he was set upon and beaten and mangled and tortured horribly for several hours, being at last killed by some frenzied women. … Three days of this vigorous work by the police and the soldiers brought the disturbance to an end. About fifty policemen had been injured, three of whom died; and the whole number of lives destroyed by the rioters was eighteen. The exact number of rioters killed is unknown, but it was more than 1,200. The mobs burned about 50 buildings, destroying altogether between $2,000,000 and $3,000,000 worth of property. Governor Seymour incurred odium by a speech to the rioters, in which he addressed them as his friends, and promised to have the draft stopped; and by his communications to the President, in which he complained of the draft, and asked to have it suspended till the question of its constitutionality could be tested in the courts."

Between 1863 and 1871 the city of New York, and, to a considerable extent, the state at large, fell under the control and into the power of a combination of corrupt politicians commonly known as the Tweed Ring. Its chief was one William Marcy Tweed, of Scotch parentage, who first appeared in public life as an alderman of the city, in 1850. Working himself upward, in the Democratic party, to which he adhered, he attained in 1863 the powerful dignity of Grand Sachem of the Tammany Society and chairman or "Boss" of the general committee of Tammany Hall. "At this time, however, the Tammany 'Ring,' as it afterwards was called, was not completely formed, and Tammany Hall, though by far the most important political organization in the city, was not absolute even in the Democratic party. It had a bitter enemy in Mozart Hall, a political organization led by Fernando Wood, a former mayor of the city. The claims of Mozart Hall were satisfied in this same year, 1863, by granting to its leader the Democratic nomination to Congress. … Soon afterwards Tweed was appointed deputy-commissioner of streets. The 'Ring' was now fast consolidating. The enormous patronage possessed by its members enabled them to control almost all the nominations of the Democratic party to positions in the city. They provided their adherents with places in the city government, and when the supply of places became inadequate, they enlarged the city pay-roll to create new places. By means of the political influence they exerted over the Democratic party in the State, they packed the State legislature with their followers, and placed upon the bench judges on whom they could rely. … In 1865 the Ring obtained control of the mayoralty. Its candidate, John T. Hoffman, was a man of much higher character than his supporters and associates. He was personally honest, but his ambition blinded him to the acts of his political friends. … In 1868 … Hoffman was nominated for governor and was elected. His election was secured by the grossest and most extensive frauds ever perpetrated in the city, e. g. illegal naturalization of foreigners, false registration, repeating of votes, and unfair counting. The mayoralty, left vacant by the promotion of Hoffman, was filled by the election of Hall [A. Oakey Hall], who took his seat on the 1st day of January 1869. As Samuel J. Tilden said, by this election 'the Ring became completely organized and matured.' It controlled the common council of the city and the legislature of the State, and its nominee sat in the gubernatorial chair. Hall was mayor; Sweeny [Peter B. Sweeny, 'the great schemer of the Ring'] was city chamberlain or treasurer of both city and county; Tweed was practically supreme in the street department; Connolly [Richard B.] was city comptroller, and thus had charge of the city finances; the city judiciary was in sympathy with these men." But great as were the power and the opportunities of the Ring, it obtained still more of both through its well-paid creatures in the State legislature, by amendments of the city charter and by acts which gave Tweed and his partners free swing in debt-making for the city. In 1871, the last year of the existence of the Ring, it had more than $48,000,000 of money at its disposal. Its methods of fraud were varied and numerous. "But all the other enterprises of the Ring dwindle into insignificance when compared with the colossal frauds that were committed in the building of the new court-house for the county. When this undertaking was begun, it was stipulated that its total cost should not exceed $250,000; but before the Ring was broken up, upwards of $8,000,000 had been expended, and the work was not completed. … Whenever a bill was brought in by one of the contractors, he was directed to increase largely the total of his charge. … A warrant was then drawn for the amount of the bill as raised; the contractor was paid, perhaps the amount of his original, bill, perhaps a little more; and the difference between the original and the raised bills was divided between the members of the Ring. It is said that about 65 per cent. of the bills actually paid by the county represented fraudulent addition of this sort." The beginning of the end of the reign of the Ring came in July, 1871, when copies of some of the fraudulent accounts, made by a clerk in the auditor's office, came into the possession of the New York Times and were published. "The result of these exposures was a meeting of citizens early in September. … It was followed by the formation of a sort of peaceable vigilance committee, under the imposing title of the 'Committee of Seventy.' This committee, together with Samuel J. Tilden (long a leading Democratic politician, and afterwards candidate for the presidency of the United States), went to work at once, and with great energy, to obtain actual proof of the frauds described by the 'Times.' It was owing mainly to the tireless endeavours of Mr. Tilden … that this work was successful, and that prosecutions were brought against several members of the Ring." The Tammany leaders attempted to make a scapegoat of Connolly; but the latter came to terms with Mr. Tilden, and virtually turned over his office to Mr. Andrew H. Green, of the Committee of Seventy, appointing him deputy-comptroller, with full powers. "This move was a tremendous step forward for the prosecution. The possession of the comptroller's office gave access to papers which furnished almost all the evidence afterwards used in the crusade against the Ring." At the autumn election of 1871 there was a splendid rally of the better citizens, in the city and throughout the state, and the political power of the Ring was broken. "None of the leading actors in the disgraceful drama failed to pay in some measure the penalty of his deeds. Tweed, after a chequered experience in eluding the grasp of justice, died in jail. Connolly passed the remainder of his life in exile. Sweeny left the country and long remained abroad. … Hall was tried and obtained a favourable verdict, but he has chosen to live out of America. Of the judges whose corrupt decisions so greatly aided the Ring, Barnard and M'Cunn were impeached and removed from the bench, while Cardozo resigned his position in time to avoid impeachment. The following figures will give an approximate idea of the amount the Ring cost the city of New York. In 1860, before Tweed came into power, the debt of the city was reported as amounting only to $20,000,000 while the tax rate was about 1.60 per cent. on the assessed valuation of the property in the city liable to taxation. {2347} In the middle of the year 1871, the total debt of the city and the county—which were coterminous, and for all practical purposes the same—amounted to $100,955,333.33, and the tax rate had risen to over 2 per cent. During the last two years and a half of the government of the Ring the debt increased at the rate of $28,652,000 a year."

F. J. Goodnow, The Tweed Ring in New York City (chapter 88 of Bryce's "American Commonwealth," volume 2).

      ALSO IN:
      S. J. Tilden,
      The New York City "Ring": its Origin, Maturity and Fall.

      C. F. Wingate,
      An episode in Municipal Government
      (N. A. Rev., Oct. 1874, January and July, 1875,
      October. 1876).

The constitution of 1846 having provided for its own revision at the end of twenty years, if so willed by the people, the calling of a constitutional convention was approved by popular vote in 1866, and the convention of elected delegates assembled June 4, in the following year. Its final adjournment was not reached until February 28, 1868. The constitution proposed by the convention was submitted to the people in 1869, and rejected, with the exception of the judiciary article, which reorganized the Court of Appeals, and provided for a temporary Commission of Appeals, to determine the cases pending in the Court, where business in arrears had accumulated to a serious extent. The rejection of the constitution framed in 1867 led, in 1872, to the creation by the governor and legislature of a Commission for the revision of the constitution, which met at Albany, December 4, 1872, and adjourned March 15, 1873. Several amendments proposed by the Commission were submitted to popular vote in 1874 and 1876, and were adopted. By the more important of these amendments, colored citizens were admitted to the franchise without property qualifications; a strong, specific enactment for the prevention and punishment of bribery and corruption at elections was embodied in the constitution itself; some changes were made in the provisions for districting the state, after each census, and the pay of members of the legislature was increased to $1,500 per annum; the power of the legislature to pass private bills was limited; the term of the governor was extended from two years to three; the governor was empowered to veto specific items in bills which appropriate money, approving the remainder; the governor was allowed thirty days for the consideration of bills left in his hands at the adjournment of the legislature, which bills become law only upon his approval within that time; a superintendent of public works was created to take the place of the Canal Commissioners previously existing, and a superintendent of state prisons to take the place of the three inspectors of state prisons; a selection of judges from the bench of the Supreme Court of the state to act as Associate Judges of the Court of Appeals was authorized; the loaning or granting of the credit or money of the state, or that of any county, city, town, or village to any association, corporation, or private undertaking was forbidden; corrupt conduct in office was declared to be felony. By an amendment of the constitution submitted by the legislature to the people in 1882, the canals of the state were made entirely free of tolls.

"During the war gold had swollen in value to 285, when the promise of the nation to pay a dollar on demand was only worth thirty-five cents. Thence it had gradually sunk. … All our purchases from foreign nations, all duties on those purchases, and all sales of domestic produce to other nations are payable in gold. There is therefore a large and legitimate business in the purchase and sale of gold, especially in New York, the financial centre of the nation. But a much larger business of a gambling nature had gradually grown up around that which was legitimate. … These gambling operations were based on the rise and fall of gold, and these in turn depended on successful or unsuccessful battles, or on events in foreign nations that could be neither foreseen nor guarded against. The transactions were therefore essentially gambling. … So large was the amount of this speculative business, gathering up all the gold-betting of the nation in a single room, that it more than equalled the legitimate purchase and sale of gold. There were large and wealthy firms who made this their chief business; and prominent among them was the firm of Smith, Gould, Martin & Co., four gentlemen under one partnership name, all wealthy and all accustomed to this business for years. Their joint wealth and business skill made them a power in Wall street. The leading mind of the firm, though not the first named, was Mr. Jay Gould, President of the Erie Railway, joint owner with Colonel James Fisk Jr., of two lines of steamboats, and largely interested in a number of railroads and other valuable properties. Mr. Gould looked upon gold, railroads, and steamboats as the gilded dice wherewith to gamble. … During the spring of 1869 he was a buyer of gold. There was perhaps fifteen millions of that rare currency in New York outside the Sub-Treasury; and he had bought half that amount, paying therefor a bonus of a little more than two millions of dollars. As fast as he had purchased the precious metal he had loaned it out to those who needed it for the payment of duties, and who hoped to repurchase it at a lower rate. And so, though the owner of seven millions, he had none of it in hand; he merely possessed the written acknowledgment of certain leading merchants and brokers that they owed him that amount of specie, which they would repay with interest on demand. Having this amount obtainable at any moment, Mr. Gould had the mercantile community at his mercy. But there was some hundred millions of gold in the Treasury, more or less, and the President of the United States or the Secretary of the Treasury might at any time throw it on the market. On this point it was very desirable to ascertain the opinion of President Grant; more desirable to have constant access to his private ear." In various ways, argumentative influences were brought to bear on President Grant and the Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Boutwell, to persuade them that it was desirable for the country, while the crops were being moved, to hold up the price of gold. One important channel for such influences was supplied by the President's brother-in-law, a retired New York merchant, named Corbin, who was drawn into the speculation and given a share in Gould's gold purchases. {2348} By strenuous exertions, Gould and his associates pushed up the price till "in May it stood at 144 7/8; but as soon as they ceased to buy, the price began to recede until in the latter part of June it again stood at 136. The others were then frightened and sold out. 'All these other fellows deserted me like rats from a ship,' said Gould. But for him to sell out then would involve a heavy loss, and he preferred a gain. He therefore called upon his friend and partner Fisk to enter the financial arena. It is but justice to Mr. Fisk to say that for some time he declined; he clearly saw that the whole tendency of gold was downward. But when Gould made the proposition more palatable by suggesting corruption, Fisk immediately swallowed the bait. … He … entered the market and purchased twelve millions. There is an old adage that there is honor among thieves. This appears not to be true on the Gold Exchange. All Mr. Gould's statements to his own partner were false, except those relating to Corbin and Butterfield. And Mr. Corbin did his best. He not only talked and wrote to the President himself; not only wrote for the New York 'Times,' but when General Grant visited him in New York, he sent Gould to see him so often that the President, unaware of the financial trap set for him, rebuked the door servant for giving Mr. Gould such ready access. But it is worthy of note that neither Corbin, Gould, nor Fisk ever spoke to the President of their personal interest in the matter. They were only patriots urging a certain course of conduct for the good of the country. These speculations as to the advantage to the country of a higher price of gold seem to have had some effect on the Presidential mind; for early in September he wrote to Mr. Boutwell, then at his Massachusetts home, giving his opinion of the financial condition of the country, and suggesting that it would not be wise to lower the price of gold by sales from the Treasury while the crops were moving to the seaboard. Mr. Boutwell therefore telegraphed to the Assistant Secretary at Washington only to sell gold sufficient to buy bonds for the sinking fund. Through Mr. Corbin or in some other way this letter came to the knowledge of the conspirators; for they at once began to purchase and the price began to rise. … On the 13th of September, gold, swelling and falling like the tide, stood at 135½. The clique then commenced their largest purchases, and within nine days had bought enough to hold sixty-six millions—nearly every cent of it fictitious, and only included in promises to pay. On the evening of Wednesday, September 22, the price was 140½; but it had taken the purchase of thirty or forty millions to put it up that five cents. Could it be forced five cents higher, and all sold, the profits would be over ten millions of dollars! It was a stake worth playing for. But the whole mercantile community was opposed to them; bountiful harvests were strong arguments against them; and more than all else, there stood the Sub-Treasury of the United States, with its hundred millions of dollars in its vaults, ready at any time to cast its plethora of wealth on their unfortunate heads. … Corbin, while assuring Gould that there was no danger of any Government sale, and yet himself greatly in trepidation, addressed a letter to General Grant urging him not to interfere with the warfare then raging between the bulls and the bears, nor to allow the Secretary of the Treasury to do so. … The letter would probably have had some effect, but unfortunately the ring overdid their business in the way in which they sent it." The letter was conveyed by a private messenger. The messenger, "Mr. Chapin, delivered his letter, asked General Grant if there was any reply, and being told there was none, started for his home, first telegraphing to his employer, 'Letter delivered all right.' It was a most unfortunate telegraphic message he sent back. He swears that his meaning was that the letter was delivered all right; and so the despatch reads. But the gold gamblers, blinded by the greatness of the stake at risk, interpreted the 'all right' of the message as an answer to the contents of Mr. Corbin's letter—that the President thought the letter all right; and on the strength of that reading Fisk rushed into the market and made numerous purchases of gold. But that very letter, which was intended to be their governmental safeguard, led to their ruin. Carried by special messenger for a day and a half, its urgency that the Administration should sell no gold, coupled with frequent assertions in the newspapers that Mr. Corbin was a great bull in gold, excited General Grant's suspicions. He feared that Corbin was not actuated by patriotic motives alone in this secret correspondence. At the President's suggestion, therefore, Mrs. Grant wrote to her sister, Mrs. Corbin, telling her that rumors had reached them that Mr. Corbin was connected with speculators in New York, and that she hoped if this was so he would at once disengage himself from them; that the President was much distressed at such rumors. On the receipt of this letter, Mr. Corbin was greatly excited." Corbin showed the letter to Gould, and got himself let out of the game, so that he might be able to say to President Grant that he had no interest in gold; but Fisk was not told of the President's suspicions. "On the evening of Wednesday, September 21, it was determined to close the corner within two days." A desperate attack on the market began next morning. Gold opened that day at 39½; it closed at 44. The next day was "Friday, September 24, commonly called Black Friday, either from the black mark it caused on the characters of dealers in gold, or, as is more probable, from the ruin it brought to both sides. The Gold Room was crowded for two hours before the time of business. … Fisk was there, gloating over the prospect of great gains from others' ruin. His brokers were there, noisy and betting on the rapid rise of gold and the success of the corner. All alike were greatly excited, palpitating between hope and fear, and not knowing what an hour might bring forth. … Gold closed on Thursday at 144; Speyers [principal broker of the conspirators] commenced his work on Friday by offering 145, one per cent. higher than the last purchase. Receiving no response, he offered to buy at 146, 147, 148, and 149 respectively, but without takers. Then 150 was offered, and half a million was sold him by Mr. James Brown, who had quietly organized a band of prominent merchants who were determined to meet the gold gamblers on their own ground. … Amid the most tremendous confusion the voices of the excited brokers could be heard slowly bidding up the value of their artificial metal. {2349} Higher and higher rose the tide of speculation; from 156 to 159 there was no offer whatever; amid deep silence Speyers called out, 'Any part of five millions for 160.' 'One million taken at 160,' was the quiet response of James Brown. Further offers were made by the brokers of the clique all the way from 160 to 163½. But Mr. Brown preferred to grapple the enemy by the throat, and he sold Speyers five millions more, making seven millions of gold sold that hour for which Speyers agreed to pay eleven millions in currency. Such figures almost stagger one to read of them! But Speyers continued to buy till before noon he had purchased nearly sixty millions. … As the price rose cent by cent, men's hearts were moved within them as the trees are shaken by the swelling of the wind. But when the first million was taken at 160 a great load was removed, and when the second million was sold there was such a burst of gladness, such a roar of multitudinous voices as that room, tumultuous as it had always been, never heard before. Everybody instantly began to sell, desiring to get rid of all their gold before it had tumbled too deep. And just as the precious metal was beginning to flow over the precipice, the news was flashed into the room that Government had telegraphed to sell four millions. Instantly the end was reached; gold fell to 140, and then down, down, down, to 133. There were no purchasers at any price. … The gold ring had that day bought sixty millions of gold, paying or rather agreeing to pay therefor ninety-six millions of dollars in currency!" But Gould, Fisk & Co., who owned several venal New York judges, placed injunctions and other legal obstacles in the way of a settlement of claims against themselves. "Of course these judicious and judicial orders put an end to all business except that which was favorable to Fisk and Gould. They continued to settle with all parties who owed them money; they were judicially enjoined from settling with those to whom, if their own brokers may be believed, they were indebted, and they have not yet settled with them. … As the settlements between the brokers employed by the ring and their victims were all made in private, there is no means of knowing the total result. But it is the opinion of Mr. James B. Hodskin, Chairman of the Arbitration Committee of the Exchange, and therefore better acquainted with its business than anyone else, that the two days' profits of the clique from the operations they acknowledged and settled for were not less than twelve millions of dollars; and that the losses on those transactions which they refused to acknowledge were not less than twenty millions. The New York 'Tribune' a day or two afterward put the gains of the clique at eleven million dollars. Some months after 'Black Friday' had passed away, Congress ordered an investigation into its causes. … For two or three days the whole business of New York stood still awaiting the result of the corner. … In good-will with all the world, with grand harvests, with full markets on both sides the Atlantic, came a panic that affected all business. Foreign trade came to a stand-still. The East would not send to Europe: the West could not ship to New York. Young men saw millions of dollars made in a few days by dishonesty; they beheld larger profits result from fraud than from long lives of honesty. Old men saw their best-laid plans frustrated by the operations of gamblers. Our national credit was affected by it. Europe was told that our principal places of business were nests of gamblers, and that it was possible for a small clique, aided by our banking institutions, to get possession of all the gold there was in the land; and that when one firm had gone through business transactions to the amount of over one hundred millions of dollars, the courts of the United States would compel the completion of those bargains which resulted in a profit, while those that ended in a loss were forbidden. For two or three months the sale of bonds in Europe was affected by the transactions of that day; and not until the present generation of business men has passed away will the evil influence of Black Friday be entirely lost."

   The Tammany organization was greatly discredited and crippled
   for a time by the exposure and overthrow of Tweed and his
   "ring," in 1871; but after a few years, under the
   chieftainship of John Kelly and Richard Croker, successive
   "grand sachems," it recovered its control of the city
   government so completely that, in 1892, Dr. Albert Shaw was
   justified in describing the latter as follows: "There is in
   New York no official body that corresponds with the London
   Council. The New York Board of Aldermen, plus the Mayor, plus
   the Commissioners who are the appointive heads of a number of
   the working departments such as the Excise, Park, Health and
   Police departments, plus the District Attorney, the Sheriff,
   the Coroners, and other officials pertaining to the county of
   New York as distinct from the city of New York, plus a few of
   the head Tammany bosses and the local Tammany bosses of the
   twenty-four Assembly Districts—all these men and a few other
   officials and bosses, taken together, would make up a body of
   men of about the same numerical strength as the London
   Council; and these are the men who now dominate the official
   life of the great community of nearly eighteen hundred
   thousand souls. In London the 137 councillors fight out every
   municipal question in perfectly open session upon its actual
   merits before the eyes of all London, and of the whole British
   empire. In New York, the governing group discusses nothing
   openly. The Board of Aldermen is an obscure body of
   twenty-five members, with limited power except for mischief,
   its members being almost to a man high Tammany politicians who
   are either engaged directly in the liquor business or are in
   one way or another connected with that interest. So far as
   there is any meeting in which the rulers of New York discuss
   the public affairs of the community, such meetings are held in
   the Tammany wigwam in Fourteenth Street. But Tammany is not an
   organization which really concerns itself with any aspects of
   public questions, either local or general, excepting the
   'spoils' aspect. It is organized upon what is a military
   rather than a political basis, and its machinery extends
   through all the assembly districts and voting precincts of New
   York, controlling enough votes to hold and wield the balance
   of power, and thus to keep Tammany in the possession of the
   offices.
{2350}
   Its local hold is maintained by the dispensing of a vast
   amount of patronage. The laborers on public works, the members
   of the police force and the fire brigades, the employees of
   the Sanitary Department, of the Excise Department, of the
   Street Cleaning and Repair Department and of the Water and
   Dock and Park Departments, the teachers in the public schools
   and the nurses in the public hospitals, all are made to feel
   that their livelihood depends on the favor of the Tammany
   bosses; and they must not only be faithful to Tammany
   themselves, but all their friends and relatives to the
   remotest collateral degree must also be kept subservient to
   the Tammany domination. The following characterization of
   Tammany leadership and method is from the New York Evening
   Post. … 'None of the members occupy themselves with any
   legislation, except such as creates salaried offices and
   contracts in this city, to be got hold of either by capture at
   the polls or "deals" with the Republican politicians here or
   in Albany. When such legislation has been successful, the only
   thing in connection with it which Tammany leaders consider is
   how the salaries shall be divided and what "assessments" the
   places or contracts can stand. If any decent outsider could
   make his way into the inner conferences at which these
   questions are settled, he would hear not the grave discussion
   of the public interests, how to keep streets clean, or how to
   repave them, or how to light them or police them, or how to
   supply the city with water, but stories of drunken or amorous
   adventure, larded freely with curious and original oaths,
   ridicule of reformers and "silk-stockinged" people generally,
   abuse of "kickers," and examination of the claims of gamblers,
   liquor-dealers, and pugilists to more money out of the public
   treasury. In fact, as we have had of late frequent occasion to
   observe, the society is simply an organization of clever
   adventurers, most of them in some degree criminal, for the
   control of the ignorant and vicious vote of the city in an
   attack on the property of the tax-payers. There is not a
   particle of politics in the concern any more than in any
   combination of Western brigands to "hold up" a railroad train
   and get at the express packages. Its sole object is plunder in
   any form which will not attract the immediate notice of the
   police.'"

      A. Shaw,
      Municipal Problems of New York and London
      (Review of Reviews, April 1892).

A bill passed by the legislature of 1892, calling a convention to revise the constitution of the State, provided for the election of 128 delegates by Assembly districts, and 32 at large, but added 9 more whom the Governor should appoint, 3 to represent labor interests, 3 woman-suffrage claims, and 3 the advocates of prohibition. By the legislature of 1893 this act was set aside and a new enactment adopted, making the total number of delegates to the Constitutional Convention 165, all elective, and apportioning five to each senatorial district. The convention assembled at Albany, May 9, 1894. Its labors are unfinished at the time this volume goes to press. Questions of reform in municipal government have claimed the greatest attention.

NEW YORK SOCIETY LIBRARY.

"The traditions of these people [the Maoris] lead to the conclusion that they first came to New Zealand about 600 years ago, from some of the islands between Samoa and Tahiti; but some ethnologists put the migration as far back as 3,000 years. Their language is a dialect of the Polynesian, most resembling that of Rarotonga, but their physical characters vary greatly. Some are fair, with straight hair, and with the best type of Polynesian features; others are dusky brown, with curly or almost frizzly hair, and with the' long and broad arched nose of the Papuan; while others have the coarse thick features of the lower Melanesian races. Now these variations of type cannot be explained unless we suppose the Maoris to have found in the islands an indigenous Melanesian people, of whom they exterminated the men, but took the better-looking of the women for wives; and as their traditions decidedly state that they did find such a race when they first arrived at New Zealand, there seems no reason whatever for rejecting these traditions, which accord with actual physical facts, just as the tradition of a migration from 'Hawaiki,' a Polynesian island, accords with linguistic facts."

Hellwald-Wallace, Australasia (Stanford's Compendium, new issue, 1893), chapter 14, section 9 (volume 1).

NEW ZEALAND: A. D. 1642-1856.
   Discovery.
   Colonization.
   Early dealings with Natives.
   Constitutional organization.

"The honour of the actual discovery of New Zealand must be accorded to the Dutch Navigator, Tasman, who visited it in 1642, discovering Van Dieman's Land during the same voyage. As, however, he does not appear to have landed, the knowledge of the country derived by Europeans from his account of it must have been of very limited extent. … It was our own countryman, Captain Cook, to whom we are so largely indebted for what we now know of the geography of the Pacific, who made us acquainted with the nature of the country and the character of its inhabitants. The aborigines were evidently of a much higher type than those of the Australian continent. They are a branch of the Polynesian race, and according to their own traditions came about 600 years ago from 'Hawaiki,' which ethnologists interpret to mean either Hawaii (the Sandwich Islands), or Savaii in the Samoa group. They are divided into some twenty clans, analogous to those of the Scottish Highlands. Cook's first visit was paid in 1769, but he touched at the islands on several occasions during his subsequent voyages, and succeeded in making, before his final departure, a more or less complete exploration of its coasts. The aborigines were divided into numerous tribes, which were engaged in almost constant wars one with another. … As has been the case in so many distant lands, the first true pioneers of civilization were the missionaries. {2351} In 1814, thirty-seven years after Captain Cook's last visit to New Zealand, a few representatives of the English Church Missionary Society landed in the North Island, less with the intention of colonising than with the hope of converting the natives to Christianity. The first practical steps in the direction of settlement were taken by the New Zealand Land Company, composed of a very strong and influential body of gentlemen headed by Lord Durham, and having much the same ideas as those which actuated the South Australian Colonisation Society. The proposal to found a new Colony was at first bitterly opposed by the Government of the day, but in consequence of the energetic action of the Company, who sent out agents with large funds to purchase land of the natives, the Government ultimately gave way, and despatched as Consul Captain Hobson, who arrived in January 1840. One of his first steps on assuming office was to call a meeting of the natives and explain to them the object of his mission, with the view of entering into a treaty for placing the sovereignty of their island in Her Majesty the Queen. He was not at first successful, the natives fearing that if they acceded to the proposal, their land would be taken from them; but being reassured on this point, the majority of the chiefs ultimately signed the treaty in February of the same year. By the terms of this treaty, called the Treaty of Waitangi, the chiefs, in return for their acknowledgment of the supremacy of the Queen of England, were guaranteed for themselves and their people the exclusive possession of their lands so long as they wished to retain them, and they, on their side, accorded to the Crown the exclusive right of pre-emption over such lands as might, from time to time, come into the market. It will thus be seen that the acquisition of land in New Zealand by European settlers was effected in a manner entirely different from that which obtained in other colonies; for, although the right of pre-emption by the Crown was subsequently waived, no land could be obtained from natives unless they were perfectly willing to part with it. It is true that lands have in some instances been confiscated as a punishment for native insurrections, but, with this exception, all lands have passed from natives to Europeans by the ordinary processes of bargain and sale. Captain Hobson's next action was to place himself in communication with the New Zealand Company's agents, and ascertain what they were doing in the way of colonisation. He found that besides acquiring various blocks of land in the North and South Islands, they had formed a permanent settlement at Wellington, at which they were organising a system of government incompatible with the Queen's authority, which he therefore promptly suppressed. … In June of 1840 the settlement was made a colony by Charter under the Great Seal, Captain Hobson naturally becoming the first Governor. This eminent public servant died at his post in September 1842, being succeeded by Captain R. Fitzroy, who, however, did not reach the Colony till a year afterwards. In the interval occurred that lamentable incident, the massacre of white settlers by the natives at Wairu, in the South Island. Shortly after this the Company made strenuous efforts to obtain a share in the Executive Government, but this was twice disallowed by the Home authorities. Captain Fitzroy's term of office was in all respects a stormy one, the native chiefs rising in rebellion, open and covert, against the terms of the Waitangi treaty. With only 150 soldiers, and destitute of any military facilities, this governor deemed it prudent to come to a compromise with the rebels, fearing the effect upon the minds of the natives generally of the certain defeat which he must sustain in active warfare. Receiving, however, reinforcements from Sidney, Captain Fitzroy took the field, sustaining in his first expedition a decided defeat. Two other expeditions followed this, and at length the success of the British arms was assured, Captain Fitzroy suffering from the irony of fate, since, having been neglected in his peril, he was recalled in the moment of victory. Captain (afterwards Sir George) Grey succeeded to the Governorship in November 1845; having the good fortune to be surrounded by ministers of exceptional ability, and arriving in the Colony at a fortunate turn in its affairs, he takes his place among the successful Governors of New Zealand. Colonel Gore Browne—after an interregnum of nearly two years—succeeded to power, and during his viceroyalty in 1853, responsible government, which, however, did not provide for ministerial responsibility, was inaugurated. … The Home Government shortly afterwards (May 1856) … established responsible government in its fullest form, but unfortunately without any special provisions for the representation of the native races. … Up to 1847 New Zealand remained a Crown Colony, the Government being administered by a Governor appointed by the Crown, an Executive Council, and a Legislative Council. Under this system, the Governor had very large powers, since the only control over him was that exercised by the Home Government. The Executive Council consisted of the Governor and three official members, while the Legislative Council was made up of the Executive Council and three non-official members nominated by the Governor. At that time Auckland was the seat of Government, which has since been moved to Wellington. In 1852, before the expiration of the period over which the provisional charter granted in 1847 was to extend, the Imperial Parliament granted a new constitution to New Zealand (15 & 16 Vic. cap. 72), and in the following year it came into force and is still [1886] operative. The Legislature, under this Constitution, consists of a Governor, a Legislative Council, composed of life members nominated by the Crown, and a House of Representatives elected by the people, under a franchise which practically amounts to household suffrage."

NEW ZEALAND: A. D. 1853-1883.
   Land questions with the Natives.
   The King movement.
   The Maori War.

   "In the course of years, as it was evident to the natives that
   the Europeans were the coming power in the land, suspicion and
   distrust were excited, and at last the tocsin sounded. … It
   was considered that a head was needed to initiate a form of
   Government among the tribes to resist the encroachments daily
   made by the Europeans, and which seemed to threaten the
   national extinction of the native race. The first to endeavour
   to bring about a new order of things was a native chief named
   Matene Te Whiwi, of Otaki.
{2352}
   In 1853 he marched to Taupo and Rotorua, accompanied by a
   number of followers, to obtain the consent of the different
   tribes to the election of a king over the central parts of the
   island, which were still exclusively Maori territory, and to
   organize a form of government to protect the interests of the
   native race. Matene … met with little success. … The
   agitation, however, did not stop, the fire once kindled
   rapidly spread, ardent followers of the new idea sprang up,
   and their numbers soon increased, until finally, in 1854, a
   tribal gathering was convened at Manawapou. … After many
   points had been discussed, a resolution was come to among the
   assembled tribes that no more land should be sold to
   Europeans. A solemn league was entered into by an present for
   the preservation of the native territory, and a tomahawk was
   passed round as a pledge that all would agree to put the
   individual to death who should break it. In 1854 another bold
   stand was made, and Te Heuheu, who exercised a powerful sway
   over the tribes of the interior, summoned a native council at
   Taupo, when the King movement began in earnest. It was there
   decided that the sacred mountain of Tongariro should be the
   centre of a district in which no land was to be sold to the
   government, and that the districts of Hauraki, Waikato,
   Kawhia, Mokau, Taranaki, Whanganui, Rangitikei, and Titiokura,
   should form the outlying portions of the boundary; that no
   roads should be made by the Europeans within the area, and
   that a king should be elected to reign over the Maoris. In
   1857 Kingite meetings were held, … at which it was agreed
   that Potatau Te Wherowhero, the most powerful chief of
   Waikato, should be elected king, under the title of Potatau
   the First, and finally, in June, 1858, his flag was formally
   hoisted at Ngaruawahia. Potatau, who was far advanced in life
   when raised to this high office, soon departed from the scene,
   and was succeeded by his son Matutaera Te Wherowhero, under
   the title of Potatau the Second. The events of the New Zealand
   war need not here be recited, but it may be easily imagined
   that during the continuance of the fighting the extensive area
   of country ruled over by the Maori monarch was kept clear of
   Europeans. But in 1863 and 1864 General Cameron, at the head
   of about 20,000 troops, composed of Imperial and Colonial
   forces, invaded the Waikato district, and drove the natives
   southward and westward, till his advanced corps were at
   Alexandra and Cambridge. Then followed the Waikato
   confiscation of Maori lands and the military settlements. The
   King territory was further broken into by the confiscations at
   Taranaki and the East Coast. … Since the termination of the
   lamentable war between the two races, the King natives have,
   on all occasions, jealously preserved their hostile spirit to
   Europeans. … The New Zealand war concluded, or rather died
   out, in 1865, when the confiscated line was drawn, the
   military settlements formed, and the King natives isolated
   themselves from the Europeans. For ten years it may be said
   that no attempt was mane to negotiate with them. They were not
   in a humour to be dealt with. About 1874 and 1875, however, it
   became evident that something would have to be done. The
   colony had greatly advanced in population, and a system of
   public works had been inaugurated, which made it intolerable
   that large centres of population should be cut off from each
   other by vast spaces of country which Europeans were not
   allowed even to traverse." Then began a series of
   negotiations, which, up to 1883, had borne no fruit.

An act passed in 1887 created four districts in each of which the Maoris elect a member of the House of Representatives. Every adult Maori has a vote in this election. By an act passed in 1893 the elective franchise was extended to women.

NEWARK, NEW JERSEY: The founding of the city by migration from New Haven (1666-1667).

"At the close of 1780, the army was cantoned at three points: at Morristown and at Pompton, in New Jersey, and at Phillipstown, in the Hudson Highlands. Washington established his head-quarters at New Windsor in December, 1780, where he remained until June, 1781, when the French, who had quartered during the winter at Newport and Lebanon, formed a junction with the Americans on the Hudson. In April, 1782, he established his head-quarters at Newburgh, two miles above the village of New Windsor, where he continued most of the time until November, 1783, when the Continental army was disbanded."

NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1501-1578.
The Portuguese, Norman, Breton and Basque fisheries.

   "It is a very curious circumstance, that the country in which
   the Cabots started their idea for a navigation to the
   north-west, and in which they at first proclaimed their
   discovery of the rich fishing-banks near their
   New-found-Isles, did not at once profit by it so much as their
   neighbors, the French and the Portuguese. …
{2353}
   During the first half of the 16th century we hear little of
   English fishing and commercial expeditions to the great banks;
   although they had a branch of commerce and fishery with
   Iceland. … 'It was not until the year 1548 that the English
   government passed the first act for the encouragement of the
   fisheries on the banks of Newfoundland, after which they
   became active competitors in this profitable occupation.'" In
   Portugal, Cortereal's discovery had revealed "the wealth to be
   derived from the fish, particularly cod-fish, which abounded
   on that coast. The fishermen of Portugal and of the Western
   Islands, when this news was spread among them, made
   preparations for profiting by it, and soon extended their
   fishing excursions to the other side of the ocean. According
   to the statement of a Portuguese author, very soon after the
   discoveries by the Cortereals, a Portuguese Fishing Company
   was formed in the harbors of Vianna, Aveiro and Terceira, for
   the purpose of colonizing Newfoundland and making
   establishments upon it. Nay, already, in 1506, three years
   after the return of the last searching expedition for the
   Cortereals, Emanuel gave order, 'that the fishermen of
   Portugal, at their return from Newfoundland, should pay a
   tenth part of their profits at his custom-houses.' It is
   certain, therefore, that the Portuguese fishermen must,
   previous to that time, have been engaged in a profitable
   business. And this is confirmed by the circumstance that they
   originated the name of 'tierra de Bacalhas' [or Bacalhao] (the
   Stockfish-country) and gave currency to it; though the word,
   like the cod-fishery itself, appears to be of Germanic origin.
   …. The nations who followed them in the fishing business
   imitated their example, and adopted the name 'country of the
   Bacalhas' (or, in the Spanish form, Baccallaos), though
   sometimes interchanging it with names of their own invention,
   as the 'Newfoundland: 'Terre neuve,' etc. … They [the
   Portuguese] continued their expeditions to Newfoundland and
   its neighborhood for a long time. They were often seen there
   by later English and other visitors during the course of the
   16th century; for instance, according to Herrera, in 1519;
   again by the English in 1527; and again by Sir Humphrey
   Gilbert in 1583. … The Portuguese engaged in this fishery as
   early as 1501, according to good authorities, and perhaps
   under the charter of Henry VII. In 1578, they had 50 ships
   employed in that trade, and England as many more, and France
   150. … The inhabitants of the little harbors of Normandy and
   Brittany, the great peninsulas of France, … were also among
   the first who profited by the discoveries of the Cabots and
   Cortereals, and who followed in the wake of the Portuguese
   fishermen toward the north-west cod-fish country. … The
   first voyages of the Bretons of St. Malo and the Normans of
   Dieppe to Newfoundland, are said to have occurred as early as
   1504. … They probably visited places of which the Portuguese
   had not taken possession; and we therefore find them at the
   south of Newfoundland, and especially at the island of Cape
   Breton, to which they gave the name, still retained,—the
   oldest French name on the American north-east coast. … The
   Spaniards, and more particularly the mariners and fishermen of
   Biscay, have pretended, like those of Brittany and Normandy,
   that they and their ancestors, from time immemorial, had
   sailed to Newfoundland; and, even before Columbus, had
   established their fisheries there. But the Spanish historian
   Navarette, in more modern times, does not sustain this
   pretension of his countrymen. … We may come to the
   conclusion that, if the fisheries of the Spanish Basques on
   the Banks of Newfoundland and in the vicinity, did not begin
   with the voyage of Gomez [in 1525], they received from it a
   new impulse. … From this time, for more than a century, they
   [the Basques] appeared in these waters every year with a large
   fleet, and took their place upon the banks as equals by the
   side of the Bretons, Normans, and Basques of France, until the
   middle of the 17th century, when rival nations dispossessed
   them of their privileges."

      J. G. Kohl,
      History of the Discovery of Maine
      (Maine Historical Society Collections, series 2, volume 1),
      chapters 6 and 8, with foot-note.

      ALSO IN:
      R. Brown,
      History of Cape Breton,
      chapters 1-2.

NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1583.
Formal possession taken for England by Sir Humphrey Gilbert.

NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1610-1655.
Early English attempts at colonization.
The grants to Lord Baltimore and Sir David Kirke.

"For 27 years after the failure of the Gilbert expedition no fresh attempt was made to establish a colony in the island. During this interval fishermen of various nationalities continued to frequent its shores. … The French were actively engaged in the prosecution of the fisheries in the neighboring seas. Their success in this direction strengthened their desire to gain possession of Newfoundland. Hence it is that in the history of the country France has always been an important factor. Having from time to time held possession of various points of the land, England's persistent rival in these latitudes has given names to many towns, villages, creeks, and harbors. To this day Newfoundland has not completely shaken off French influence. … In 1610 another attempt was made to plant a colony of Englishmen in Newfoundland. John Guy, a merchant, and afterwards mayor of Bristol, published in 1609 a pamphlet on the advantages which would result to England from the establishment of a colony in the island. This publication made such a deep impression on the public mind that a company was formed to carry out the enterprise it suggested. The most illustrious name on the roll was that of Lord Bacon. … The importance of Newfoundland as a site for an English colony did not escape the wide-ranging eye of Bacon. He pronounced its fisheries 'more valuable than all the mines of Peru,' a judgment which time has amply verified. … To this company James I., by letters patent dated April, 1610, made a grant of all the part of Newfoundland which lies between Cape Bonavista in the north and Cape St. Mary. Mr. Guy was appointed governor, and with a number of colonists he landed at Mosquito Harbor, on the north side of Conception Bay, where he proceeded to erect huts. … We have no authentic account of the progress of this settlement, begun under such favourable auspices, but it proved unsuccessful from some unexplained cause. Guy and a number of the settlers returned to England, the rest remaining to settle elsewhere in the New World. {2354} Five years afterwards, in 1615, Captain Richard Whitbourne, mariner, of Exmouth, Devonshire, received a commission from the Admiralty of England to proceed to Newfoundland for the purpose of establishing order among the fishing population and remedying certain abuses which had grown up. … It was shown that there were upwards of 250 English vessels, having a tonnage of 1,500 tons, engaged in the fisheries along the coast. Fixed habitations extended at intervals along the shore from St. John's to Cape Race. … Having done what he could during the active part of his life to promote its interests, on his return to England, in his advanced years, he [Whitbourne] wrote an account of the country, entitled 'A Discourse and Discovery of Newfoundland.' … His book made a great impression at the time. … So highly did King James think of the volume that he ordered a copy to be sent to every parish in the kingdom. The Archbishops of Canterbury and York issued a letter recommending it, with the view of encouraging emigration to Newfoundland. … A year after the departure of Whitbourne, in 1623, by far the most skilfully-organized effort to carry out the settlement of Newfoundland was made, under the guidance of Sir George Calvert, afterwards Lord Baltimore. … When Secretary of State he obtained a patent conveying to him the lordship of the whole southern peninsula of Newfoundland, together with all the islands lying within ten leagues of the eastern shores, as well as the right of fishing in the surrounding waters, all English subjects having, as before, free liberty of fishing. Being a Roman Catholic, Lord Baltimore had in view to provide an asylum for his co-religionists who were sufferers from the intolerant spirit of the times. The immense tract thus granted to him extended from Trinity Bay to Placentia, and was named by him Avalon, from the ancient name of Glastonbury, where, it is believed, Christianity was first preached in Britain. … Lord Baltimore called his Newfoundland province Avalon and his first settlement Verulam. The latter name, in course of time, became corrupted into Ferulam, and then into the modern Ferryland. At this spot, on the eastern coast of Newfoundland, about 40 miles north of Cape Race, Lord Baltimore planted his colony, and built a noble mansion, in which he resided with his family during many years." But after expending some £30,000 upon the establishment of his colony, Lord Baltimore abandoned it, on account of the poor quality of the soil and its exposure to the attacks of the French. Not long afterwards he obtained his Maryland grant [see MARYLAND: A. D. 1632] and resumed the enterprise under more favorable conditions. "Soon after the departure of Lord Baltimore, Viscount Falkland, Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, hoping to permanently increase the scanty population of Newfoundland, sent out a number of emigrants from that country. At a later date, these were so largely reinforced by settlers from Ireland that the Celtic part of the population at this day is not far short of equality in numbers with the Saxon portion. In 1638, Sir David Kirke, one of Britain's bravest sea-captains, arrived in Newfoundland and took up his abode at Ferryland, where Lord Baltimore had lived. Sir David was armed with the powers of a Count Palatine over the island, having obtained from Charles I. a grant of the whole." This was by way of reward for his exploit in taking Quebec

Kirke "governed wisely and used every effort to promote the colonization of the country. His settlement prospered greatly. The Civil War, however, broke out in England, and, Kirke being a staunch loyalist, all his possessions in Newfoundland were confiscated by the victorious Commonwealth. By the aid of Claypole, Cromwell's son-in-law, Kirke eventually got the sequestration removed, and, returning to Ferryland, died there in 1655, at the age of 56. At this time Newfoundland contained a population of 350 families, or nearly 2,000 inhabitants, distributed in 15 small settlements along the eastern coast."

   "With the possession of Cape Breton, Acadia, and the vast
   regions stretching from the gulf of the River St. Lawrence,
   and the mighty lakes, Newfoundland obtained a new value in the
   estimation of the government of France, as it formed one side
   of the narrow entrance to its transatlantic dependencies:
   consequently the pursuit of the fishery by its seamen was
   encouraged, and every opportunity was improved to gain a
   footing in the country itself. This encroaching tendency could
   not, however, be manifested without a protest on the part of
   the somewhat sluggish English, both by private individuals and
   by the government. Charles I. … imposed a tribute of five
   per cent. on the produce taken by foreigners in this fishery,
   to which exaction the French, as well as others, were forced
   to submit. During the distracted time of the Commonwealth, it
   does not appear that the struggling government at home found
   leisure to attend to these distant affairs, though the tribute
   continued to be levied. The Restoration brought to England a
   sovereign who owed much to the monarch of France, to whom he
   was therefore attached by the ties of gratitude, and by the
   desire to find a counterpoise to the refractory disposition of
   which he was in continual apprehension among his own subjects.
   It was not until 1675 that Louis XIV. prevailed on Charles to
   give up the duty of five per cent., and by that time the
   French had obtained a solid footing on the southern coast of
   Newfoundland, so that, with Cape Breton in their possession,
   they commanded both sides of the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Over a
   territory of some 200 miles in extent, belonging to the
   British sovereignty, they had built up imperceptibly an almost
   undisputed dominion. At Placentia, situated in the bay of that
   name, a strong fort was erected, sustained by other forts
   standing at intervals along the shore, and at the same place a
   royal government was established. How real was the authority
   assumed, and how completely was the English sovereignty
   ignored, needs no better proof than is furnished in an
   ordinance issued by Louis in the year 1681, concerning the
   marine of France. In this state paper, Newfoundland is
   reckoned as situate in those seas which are free and common to
   all French subjects, provided that they take a license from
   the admiral for every voyage. …
{2355}
   Thus that period which is regarded as among the most
   humiliating in the annals of our nation,—when the king was a
   pensioner of France, and his ministers received bribes from
   the same quarter, witnessed the partial sliding under this
   alien power of the most ancient of the colonial possessions of
   the Crown. Not less than half of the inhabited coast of
   Newfoundland was thus taken under that despotic rule, which,
   while swaying the councils of England to the furtherance of
   its ambitious designs, was labouring for the subjugation of
   the European continent. The revolution of 1688 broke the spell
   of this encroaching autocracy."

NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1694-1697.
French success in the war with England.
The Treaty of Ryswick and its unsatisfactory terms.

"On the accession of William III. to the throne of England hostilities broke out between the rival nations. In William's declaration of war against the French, Newfoundland holds a prominent place among the alleged causes which led to the rupture of pacific relations. The grievance was tersely set forth in the royal manifesto: 'It was not long since the French took license from the Governor of Newfoundland to fish upon that coast, and paid a tribute for such licenses as an acknowledgement of the sole right of the Crown of England to that island; but of late the encroachments of the French, and His Majesty's subjects trading and fishing there, had been more like the invasions of an enemy than becoming friends, who enjoyed the advantages of that trade only by permission.' Newfoundland now became the scene of military skirmishes, naval battles, and sieges by land and water." In 1692 the English made an unsuccessful attack on Placentia. In 1694, a French fleet, under the Chevalier Nesmond, intended for an attack upon Boston and New York, stopped at Newfoundland on the way and made a descent on the harbor and town of St. John's. Nesmond "was repulsed, and instead of going on to Boston he returned to France. A more determined effort at conquest was made later in the same year. The new expedition was under the command of Iberville and Brouillan, the former being at the head of a Canadian force. The garrison of St. John's was weak in numbers, and, in want of military stores, could only make a feeble resistance; capitulating on easy terms, the troops were shipped to England. The fort and town were burned to the ground, and the victors next proceeded to destroy all the other adjacent English settlements; Carbonear and Bonavista alone proved too strong for them. The English Government at once commenced dispositions for dislodging the invaders; but before anything was attempted the treaty of Ryswick was signed, in 1697. This treaty proved most unfortunate for Newfoundland. It revived in the island the same state of division between France and England which had existed at the beginning of the war. The enemy retired from St. John's and the other settlements which they had forcibly occupied. Their claims upon Placentia and all the other positions on the south-west coast were, however, confirmed. The British inhabitants of Newfoundland were, therefore, once more left open to French attacks, should hostilities be again renewed between the rival powers."

      ALSO IN:
      F. Parkman,
      Count Frontenac and New France under Louis XIV.,
      chapter 18.

      W. Kingsford,
      History of Canada,
      book 4, chapter 7 (volume 2).

NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1713.
Relinquished to Great Britain by the Treaty of Utrecht.
French fishing rights reserved.

In the 12th and 13th articles of the Treaty signed at Utrecht, April 11, 1713, which terminated the War of the Spanish Succession (commonly known in American history as Queen Anne's War) it was stipulated that "All Nova Scotia or Acadié, with its ancient boundaries, as also the city of Port Royal, now called Annapolis Royal, … the island of Newfoundland, with the adjacent islands, … the town and fortress of Placentia, and whatever other places in the island are in possession of the French, shall from this time forward belong of right wholly to Great Britain. … That the subjects of France should be allowed to catch fish and dry them on that part of the island of Newfoundland which stretches from Cape Bonavista to the northern point of the island, and from thence down the western side as far as Point Riché; but that no fortifications or any buildings should be erected there, besides Stages made of Boards, and Huts necessary and usual for drying fish. … But the island of Cape Breton, as also all others, both in the mouth of the river of St. Lawrence and in the gulf of the same name, shall hereafter belong of Right to the King of France, who shall have liberty to fortify any place or places there."

ALSO IN: J. Hatton and M. Harvey, Newfoundland, part 1, chapters 3-4; and part 3, chapter 7.

NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1748.
The islands of St. Pierre and Michelon ceded to France.

NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1763. Ceded to England by the Treaty of Paris, with rights of fishing reserved to France.

NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1778.
French fishery rights on the banks recognized
in the Franco-American Treaty.

NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1783.
American fishing rights conceded in the
Treaty of Peace with the United States.

NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1818.
Fisheries Treaty between Great Britain and the United States.

NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1877.
   The Halifax Fishery award.
   Termination of the Fishery Articles of the Treaty of Washington.
   Renewed fishery disputes.

NEWNHAM HALL.

NEWPORT, Rhode Island: A. D. 1778.
Held by the British.
Failure of French-American attack.

NEWSPAPERS.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (JULY-SEPTEMBER: MISSOURI-ARKANSAS); and 1864 (MARCH-OCTOBER: ARKANSAS-MISSOURI).

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1806 (OCTOBER),
      1806-1807, 1807 (FEBRUARY-JUNE);
      SPAIN: A. D. 1809;
      RUSSIA: A. D. 1812;
      GERMANY: A. D. 1813;
      FRANCE: A. D. 1815, and 1815-1830.

"Colden wrote it [the name] 'O-ni-ag-a-ra,' in 1741, and he must have received it from the Mohawks or Oneidas. It was the name of a Seneca village at the mouth of the Niagara river; located as early as 1650, near the site of Youngstown. It was also the place where the Marquis de Nonville constructed a fort in 1687, the building of which brought this locality under the particular notice of the English. The name of this Indian village in the dialect of the Senecas was 'Ne·ah'-gä,' in Tuscarora 'O-ne·ä'-kars,' in Onondaga 'O-ne-ah'-gä,' in Oneida 'O-ne·ah'-gäle,' and in Mohawk 'O-ne-a'-gä-rä.' These names are but the same word under dialectical changes. It is clear that Niagara was derived from some one of them, and thus came direct from the Iroquois language. The signification of the word is lost, unless it is derived, as some of the present Iroquois suppose, from the word which signifies 'neck,' in Seneca 'O-ne-ah'-ä,' in Onondaga 'O-ne-yä'-ä' and in Oneida 'O-ne-·arle.' The name of this Indian village was bestowed by the Iroquois upon Youngstown; upon the river Niagara, from the falls to the Lake; and upon Lake Ontario."

"It [the name Niagara] is the oldest of all the local geographical terms which have come down to us from the aborigines. It was not at first thus written by the English, for with them it passed through almost every possible alphabetical variation before its present orthography was established. We find its germ in the 'On-gui-aah-ra' of the Neutral Nation, as given by Father L'Allemant in a letter dated in 1641, at the mission station of Sainte Marie, on Lake Huron. … The name of the river next occurs on Sanson's map of Canada, published in Paris in 1656, where it is spelled 'Ongiara.' Its first appearance as Niagara is on Coronelli's map, published in Paris in 1688. From that time to the present, the French have been consistent in their orthography, the numerous variations alluded to occurring only among English writers. The word was probably derived from the Mohawks, through whom the French had their first intercourse with the Iroquois. The Mohawks pronounced it Nyah,-ga-rah', with the primary accent on the first syllable; and the secondary on the last. … The corresponding Seneca name, Nyah'-gaah, was always confined by the Iroquois to the section of the river below the Falls, and to Lake Ontario. That portion of the river above the Falls being sometimes called Gni-gwaah-geh, one of their names for Lake Erie."

      O. H. Marshall,
      The Niagara Frontier
      (Historical Writings, page 283).

NIAGARA: A. D. 1687-1688.
Fort constructed by De Nonville and destroyed a year later.

"We arrived there [at Niagara] on the morning of the 30th [of July, 1687]. We immediately set about choosing a place, and collecting stakes for the construction of the Fort which I had resolved to build at the extremity of a tongue of land, between the river Niagara and Lake Ontario, on the Iroquois side. On the 31st of July and 1st of August we continued this work, which was the more difficult from there being no wood on the place suitable for making palisades, and from its being necessary to draw them up the height. We performed this labor so diligently that the fort was in a state of defence on the last mentioned day. … The 2d day of August, the militia having performed their allotted task, and the fort being in a condition of defence in case of assault, they set out at noon, in order to reach the end of the lake on their return to their own country. On the morning of the 3d, being the next day, I embarked for the purpose of joining the militia, leaving the regular troops under the direction of M. de Vaudreuil to finish what was the most essential, and to render the fort not only capable of defence, but also of being occupied by a detachment of 100 soldiers, which are to winter there under the command of M. Troyes."

Marquis de Nonville, Journal of Expedition against the Senecas (translated in Historical Writings of O. H. Marshall, p. 173).

"De Nonville's journal removes the doubt which has been entertained as to the location of this fortress, some having supposed it to have been first built at Lewiston. … It occupied the site of the present fort on the angle formed by the junction of the Niagara with Lake Ontario. … De Nonville left De Troyes with provisions and munitions for eight months. A sickness soon after broke out in the garrison, by which they nearly all perished, including their commander. … They were so closely besieged by the Iroquois that they were unable to supply themselves with fresh provisions. The fortress was soon after abandoned and destroyed [1688], much to the regret of De Nonville."

      Marquis de Nonville,
      Journal of Expedition against the Senecas
      (translated in Historical Writings of O. H. Marshall, p. 173).
      Foot-notes

      ALSO IN:
      F. Parkman,
      Count Frontenac and New France under Louis XIV.,
      pages 155 and 166.

NIAGARA: A. D. 1725-1726.
   The stone fort built.
   How the French gained their footing.
   Joncaire's wigwam.

   Captain Joncaire "had been taken prisoner when quite young by
   the Iroquois, and adopted into one of their tribes. This was
   the making of his fortune. He had grown up among them,
   acquired their language, adapted himself to their habits, and
   was considered by them as one of themselves. On returning to
   civilized life he became a prime instrument in the hands of
   the Canadian government, for managing and cajoling the
   Indians. … When the French wanted to get a commanding site
   for a post on the Iroquois lands, near Niagara, Joncaire was
   the man to manage it.
{2357}
   He craved a situation where he might put up a wigwam, and
   dwell among his Iroquois brethren. It was granted, of course,
   'for was he not a son of the tribe—was he not one of
   themselves?' By degrees his wigwam grew into an important
   trading post; ultimately it became Fort Niagara."

   "In 1725 the Fort of Niagara was commenced by Chaussegross de
   Léry, on the spot where the wooden structure of de Denonville
   formerly stood; it was built of stone and completed in 1726."

NIAGARA: A. D. 1764.
Sir William Johnson's treaty with the Indians.
Cession of the Four Mile Strip' along both banks of the river.

NIAGARA: A. D. 1783. Retention of the Fort by Great Britain after peace with the United States.

NIAGARA FRONTIER: A. D. 1812-1814.
   The War.
   Queenstown.
   Buffalo.
   Chippewa.
   Lundy's Lane.
   Fort Erie.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER); 1813 (DECEMBER); 1814 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

"Of the bequests made to us of the [German] Popular Poetry of the time of the Hohenstauffen, by far the most important, in fact the most important literary memorial of any kind, is the epic of between nine and ten thousand lines known as the Nibelungen Lied. The manuscripts which have preserved for us the poem come from about the year 1200. For full a thousand years before that, however, many of the lays from which it was composed had been in existence; some indeed proceed from a still remoter antiquity, sung by primitive minstrels when the Germans were at their wildest, untouched by Christianity or civilization. These lays had been handed down orally, until at length a poet of genius elaborated them and intrusted them to parchment."

"In the year 1757, the Swiss Professor Bodmer printed an ancient poetical manuscript, under the title of Chriemhilden Rache und die Kluge (Chriemhilde's Revenge, and the Lament); which may be considered as the first of a series, or stream of publications and speculations still rolling on, with increased current, to the present day. … Some fifteen years after Bodmer's publication, which, for the rest, is not celebrated as an editorial feat, one C. H. Müller undertook a Collection of German Poems from the Twelfth, Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries; wherein, among other articles, he reprinted Bodmer's Chriemhilde and Klage, with a highly remarkable addition prefixed to the former, essential indeed to the right understanding of it; and the whole now stood before the world as one Poem, under the name of the Nibelungen Lied, or Lay of the Nibelungen. It has since been ascertained that the Klage is a foreign inferior appendage; at best related only as epilogue to the main work: meanwhile out of this Nibelungen, such as it was, there soon proceeded new inquiries and kindred enterprises. For much as the Poem, in the shape it here bore, was defaced and marred, it failed not to attract observation: to all open-minded lovers of poetry, especially where a strong patriotic feeling existed, the singular antique Nibelungen was an interesting appearance. Johannes Müller, in his famous Swiss History, spoke of it in warm terms: subsequently, August Wilhelm Schlegel, through the medium of the Deutsche Museum, succeeded in awakening something like a universal popular feeling on the subject; and, as a natural consequence, a whole host of Editors and Critics, of deep and of shallow endeavour, whose labours we yet see in progress. The Nibelungen has now been investigated, translated, collated, commented upon, with more or less result, to almost boundless lengths. … Apart from its antiquarian value, and not only as by far the finest monument of old German art; but intrinsically, and as a mere detached composition, this Nibelungen has an excellence that cannot but surprise us. With little preparation, any reader of poetry, even in these days, might find it interesting. It is not without a certain Unity of interest and purport, an internal coherence and completeness; it is a Whole, and some spirit of Music informs it: these are the highest characteristics of a true Poem. Considering farther what intellectual environment we now find it in, it is doubly to be prized and wondered at; for it differs from those Hero-books, as molten or carved metal does from rude agglomerated ore; almost as some Shakspeare from his fellow Dramatist, whose Tamburlaines and Island Princesses, themselves not destitute of merit, first show us clearly in what pure loftiness and loneliness the Hamlets and Tempests reign. The unknown Singer of the Nibelungen, though no Shakspeare, must have had a deep poetic soul; wherein things discontinuous and inanimate shaped themselves together into life, and the Universe with its wondrous purport stood significantly imaged; overarching, as with heavenly firmaments and eternal harmonies, the little scene where men strut and fret their hour, His Poem, unlike so many old and new pretenders to that name, has a basis and organic structure, a beginning, middle and end; there is one great principle and idea set forth in it, round which all its multifarious parts combine in living union. … With an instinctive art, far different from acquired artifice, this Poet of the Nibelungen, working in the same province with his contemporaries of the Heldenbuch [Hero-book] on the same material of tradition, has, in a wonderful degree, possessed himself of what these could only strive after; and with his 'clear feeling of fictitious truth,' avoid as false the errors and monstrous perplexities in which they vainly struggled. {2358} He is of another species than they; in language, in purity and depth of feeling, in fineness of invention, stands quite apart from them.' The language of the Heldenbuch … was a feeble half-articulate child's-speech, the metre nothing better than a miserable doggerel; whereas here in the old Frankish (Oberdeutsch) dialect of the Nibelungen, we have a clear decisive utterance, and in a real system of verse not without essential regularity, great liveliness, and now and then even harmony of rhythm. … No less striking than the verse and language is the quality of the invention manifested here. Of the Fable, or narrative material of the Nibelungen we should say that it had high, almost the highest merit; so daintily yet firmly is it put together; with such felicitous selection of the beautiful, the essential, and no less felicitous rejection of whatever was unbeautiful or even extraneous. The reader is no longer afflicted with that chaotic brood of Fire-drakes, Giants, and malicious turbaned Turks, so fatally rife in the Heldenbuch: all this is swept away, or only hovers in faint shadows afar off; and free field is open for legitimate perennial interests. Yet neither is the Nibelungen without its wonders; for it is poetry and not prose; here too, a supernatural world encompasses the natural, and, though at rare intervals and in calm manner, reveals itself there. … The whole story of the Nibelungen is fateful, mysterious, guided on by unseen influences; yet the actual marvels are few, and done in the far distance; those Dwarfs, and Cloaks of Darkness, and charmed Treasure-caves, are heard of rather than beheld, the tidings of them seem to issue from unknown space. Vain were it to inquire where that Nibelungen-land specially is: its very name is Nebel-land or Nift-land, the land of Darkness, of Invisibility. The 'Nibelungen Heroes' that muster in thousands and tens of thousands, though they march to the Rhine or Danube, and we see their strong limbs and shining armour, we could almost fancy to be children of the air."

T. Carlyle, The Nibelungen Lied (Critical and Miscellaneous Essays, volume 3).

"The traditions of German heroic poetry extend over more than 300 years, and are drawn from various German tribes. King Ostrogotha reigned over the Goths about the year 250, and was the contemporary of the emperors Philip and Decius. Ermanaric governed the Ostrogoths about 100 years later, and was a very warlike king, ruling over a large extent of territory. The invasion of the Huns drove him to despair, and he fell by his own hand before the year 374. Soon after the year 400 the Burgundians founded a mighty empire in the most fertile part of the Upper Rhine, where Cæsar had already fought with the Germans, near Spiers, Worms, and Mayence. The Roman Aëtius, who ruled Gaul with the aid of his Hun allies, defeated the Burgundians by means of these barbarians in a terrible battle about the year 437; 20,000 men fell, amongst them their king Gundicarius (Gunther). The Burgundians seemed to be annihilated, and soon after retreated to Savoy. About the same time Attila was king of the Huns and Ostrogoths to the terror of the world. His name is Gothic, the arrangements of his court were Gothic, and he reckoned among his knights Theodomer; the king of the Ostrogoths. The West had just learnt all the terror of this 'Scourge of God,' when news came of his sudden death (453), and in the following year his followers succumbed to the attacks of the Germans (454). Twenty-two years later, Odoacer deposed the last shadow of a Roman emperor; and again, twelve years later, Theodoric led the Ostrogoths into Italy and Odoacer fell by his hand. About the same period the Merovingian Clovis founded the kingdom of the Franks; about the year 530 his sons destroyed the Thuringian empire; and his grandson Theodebert extended his kingdom so far, that, starting from Hungary, he planned an attack on the Byzantine emperor. The Merovingians also offered a successful resistance to the Vikings, who were the terror of the North Sea, and who appeared even at the mouths of the Rhine. From another quarter the Longobards in little more than a century reached Italy, having started from Lüneburg, in the neighbourhood of Brunswick, and their King Alboin took possession of the crown of Italy in 568. These wonderful transferences of power, and this rapid founding of new empires, furnished the historical background of the German hero-legends. The fact that the movement was originally against Rome was forgotten; the migration was treated as a mere incident in the internal history of the German nation. There is no trace of chronology. … Legend adheres to the fact of the enmity between Odoacer and Theodoric, but it really confuses Theodoric with his father Theodomer, transplants him accordingly to Attila's court, and supposes that he was an exile there in hiding from the wrath of Odoacer. Attila becomes the representative of everything connected with the Huns. He is regarded as Ermanaric's and Gunther's enemy, and as having destroyed the Burgundians. These again are confused with a mythical race, the Nibelungen, Siegfried's enemies, and thus arose the great and complicated scheme of the Nibelungen legend. … This Middle High-German Epic is like an old church, in the building of which many architects have successively taken part. … Karl Lachmann attempted the work of restoring the Nibelungen lied and analysing its various elements, and accomplished the task, not indeed faultlessly, yet on the whole correctly. He has pointed out later interpolations, which hide the original sequence of the story, and has divided the narrative which remains after the removal of these accretions into twenty songs, some of which are connected, while others embody isolated incidents of the legend. Some of them, but certainly only a few, may be by the same author. … We recognise in most of these songs such differences in conception, treatment, and style, as point to separate authorship. The whole may have been finished in about twenty years, from 1190-1210. Lachmann's theory has indeed been contested. Many students still believe that the poem, as we have it, was the work of one hand; but on this hypothesis no one has succeeded in explaining the strange contradictions which pervade the work, parts of which show the highest art, while the rest is valueless."

LIST OF MAPS AND PLANS.

Two maps of Central Europe, at the abdication of Charles V. (1556), and showing the distribution of Religions about 1618, To follow page 2458

Map of Eastern Europe in 1768, and of Central Europe at the Peace of Campo Formio (1797), To follow page 2554

Map of the Roman Empire at its greatest extent, under Trajan (A. D. 116), To follow page 2712

Four development maps of Spain, 9th, 11th, 12th and 13th centuries, To follow page 2976

   Nicæa, or Nice, in Bithynia, was founded by Antigonus, one of
   the successors of Alexander the Great, and received originally
   the name Antigonea. Lysimachus changed the name to Nicæa, in
   honor of his wife.

"Constantine … determined to lay the question of Arianism [see ARIANISM] before an Œcumenical council. … The council met [A. D. 325] at Nicæa—the 'City of Victory'—in Bithynia, close to the Ascanian Lake, and about twenty miles from Nicomedia. … It was an Eastern council, and, like the Eastern councils, was held within a measurable distance from the seat of government. … Of the 318 bishops … who subscribed its decrees, only eight came from the West, and the language in which the Creed was composed was Greek, which scarcely admitted of a Latin rendering. The words of the Creed are even now recited by the Russian Emperor at his coronation. Its character, then, is strictly Oriental. … Of the 318 members of the Council, we are told by Philostorgius, the Arian historian, that 22 espoused the cause of Arius, though other writers regard the minority as still less, some fixing it at 17, others at 15, others as low as 13. But of those 318 the first place in rank, though not the first in mental power and energy of character, was accorded to the aged bishop of Alexandria. He was the representative of the most intellectual diocese in the Eastern Church. He alone, of all the bishops, was named 'Papa,' or 'Pope.' The 'Pope of Rome' was a phrase which had not yet emerged in history; but 'Pope of Alexandria' was a well-known title of dignity."

      ALSO IN:
      A. P. Stanley,
      Lectures on the History of the Eastern Church,
      lectures 3-5.

NICÆA OR NICE: A. D. 1080.
Acquired by the Turks.
The capital of the Sultan of Roum.

NICÆA OR NICE: A. D. 1096-1097.
Defeat and slaughter of the First Crusaders.
Recovery from the Turks.

Nicaragua was originally the name of a native chief who ruled in the region on the Lake when it was first penetrated by the Spaniards, under Gil Gonzalez, in 1522. "Upon the return of Gil Gonzalez, the name Nicaragua became famous, and besides being applied to the cacique and his town, was gradually given to the surrounding country, and to the lake."

H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States, volume 1, page. 489, foot-note.

NICARAGUA: A. D. 1821-1871.
   Independence of Spain.
   Brief annexation to Mexico.
   Attempted federations and their failure.

NICARAGUA: A. D. 1850.
   The Clayton-Bulwer Treaty.
   Joint protectorate of the United States and
   Great Britain over the proposed inter-oceanic canal.

   "The acquisition of California in May, 1848, by the treaty of
   Guadalupe-Hidalgo, and the vast rush of population, which
   followed almost immediately on the development of the gold
   mines, to that portion of the Pacific coast, made the opening
   of interoceanic communication a matter of paramount importance
   to the United States. In December, 1846, had been ratified a
   treaty with New Granada (which in 1862 assumed the name of
   Colombia) by which a right of transit over the isthmus of
   Panama was given to the United States, and the free transit
   over the isthmus 'from the one to the other sea' guaranteed by
   both of the contracting powers. Under the shelter of this
   treaty the Panama Railroad Company, composed of citizens of
   the United States, and supplied by capital from the United
   States, was organized in 1850 and put in operation in 1855. In
   1849, before, therefore, this company had taken shape, the
   United States entered into a treaty with Nicaragua for the
   opening of a ship-canal from Greytown (San Juan), on the
   Atlantic coast, to the Pacific coast, by way of the Lake of
   Nicaragua. Greytown, however, was then virtually occupied by
   British settlers, mostly from Jamaica, and the whole eastern
   coast of Nicaragua, so far at least as the eastern terminus of
   such a canal was concerned, was held, so it was maintained by
   Great Britain, by the Mosquito Indians, over whom Great
   Britain claimed to exercise a protectorate. That the Mosquito
   Indians had no such settled territorial site; that, if they
   had, Great Britain had no such protectorate or sovereignty
   over them as authorized her to exercise dominion over their
   soil, even if they had any, are positions which … the United
   States has repeatedly affirmed. But the fact that the
   pretension was set up by Great Britain, and that, though it
   were baseless, any attempt to force a canal through the
   Mosquito country, might precipitate a war, induced Mr.
   Clayton, Secretary of State in the administration of General
   Taylor, to ask through Sir H. L. Bulwer, British minister at
   Washington, the administration of Lord John Russell (Lord
   Palmerston being then foreign secretary) to withdraw the
   British pretensions to the coast so as to permit the
   construction of the canal under the joint auspices of the
   United States and of Nicaragua. This the British Government
   declined to do, but agreed to enter into a treaty for a joint
   protectorate over the proposed canal." This treaty, which was
   signed at Washington April 19, 1850, and of which the
   ratifications were exchanged on the 4th of July following, is
   commonly referred to as the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty. Its
   language in the first article is that "the Governments of the
   United States and of Great Britain hereby declare that neither
   the one nor the other will ever obtain or maintain for itself
   any exclusive control over the said ship-canal; agreeing that
   neither will ever erect or maintain any fortifications
   commanding the same, or in the vicinity thereof, or occupy, or
   fortify, or colonize, or assume or exercise any dominion over
   Nicaragua, Costa Rica, the Mosquito coast, or any part of
   Central America; nor will either make use of any protection
   which either affords, or may afford, or any alliance which
   either has or may have to or with any state or people, for the
   purpose of erecting or maintaining any such fortifications, or
   of occupying, fortifying, or colonizing Nicaragua, Costa Rica,
   the Mosquito coast, or any part of Central America, or of
   assuming or exercising dominion over the same;
{2360}
   nor will the United States or Great Britain take advantage of
   any intimacy, or use any alliance, connection, or influence
   that either may possess, with any State or Government through
   whose territory the said canal may pass, for the purpose of
   acquiring or holding, directly or indirectly, for the citizens
   or subjects of the one, any rights or advantages in regard to
   commerce or navigation through the said canal which shall not
   be offered on the same terms to the citizens or subjects of
   the other." Since the execution of this treaty there have been
   repeated controversies between the two governments respecting
   the interpretation of its principal clauses. Great Britain
   having maintained her dominion over the Belize, or British
   Honduras, it has been claimed by the United States that the
   treaty is void, or, has become voidable at the option of the
   United States, on the grounds (in the language of a dispatch
   from Mr. Frelinghuysen, Secretary of State, dated July 19,
   1884) "first, that the consideration of the treaty having
   failed, its object never having been accomplished, the United
   States did not receive that for which they covenanted; and,
   second, that Great Britain has persistently violated her
   agreement not to colonize the Central American coast."

      F. Wharton,
      Digest of the International Law of the United States,
      chapter 6, section 150 f. (volume 2).

      ALSO IN:
      Treaties and Conventions between the United States
      and other Powers (edition of 1889),
      page 440.

"Its geographical situation gave … importance to Nicaragua. It contains a great lake, which is approached from the Atlantic by the river San Juan; and from the west end of the lake there are only 20 miles to the coast of the Pacific. Ever since the time of Cortes there have been projects for connecting the two oceans through the lake of Nicaragua. … Hence Nicaragua has always been thought of great importance to the United States. The political struggles of the state, ever since the failure of the confederation, had sunk into a petty rivalry between the two towns of Leon and Granada. Leon enjoys the distinction of being the first important town in Central America to raise the cry of independence in 1815, and it had always maintained the liberal character which this disclosed. Castellon, the leader of the Radical party, of which Leon was the seat, called in to help him an American named William Walker. Walker, who was born in 1824, was a young roving American who had gone during the gold rush of 1850 to California, and become editor of a newspaper in San Francisco. In those days it was supposed in the United States that the time for engulfing the whole of Spanish America had come. Lopez had already made his descent on Cuba; and Walker, in July, 1853, had organized a band of filibusters for the conquest of Sonora, and the peninsula of California, which had been left to Mexico by the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. This wild expedition … was a total failure; but when Walker came back to his newspapers after an absence of seven months, he found himself a hero. His fame, as we see, had reached Central America; and he at once accepted Castellon's offer. In 1855, having collected a band of 70 adventurers in California, he landed in the country, captured the town of Granada, and, aided by the intrigues of the American consul, procured his own appointment as General-in-Chief of the Nicaraguan army. Walker was now master of the place: and his own provisional President, Rivas, having turned against him, he displaced him, and in 1856 became President himself. He remained master of Nicaragua for nearly two years, levying arbitrary customs on the traffic of the lake, and forming plans for a great military state to be erected on the ruins of Spanish America. One of Walker's first objects was to seize the famous gold-mines of Chontales, and the sudden discovery that the entire sierra of America is a gold-bearing region had a good deal to do with his extraordinary enterprise. Having assured himself of the wealth of the country, he now resolved to keep it for himself, and this proved in the end to be his ruin. The statesmen of the United States, who had at first supposed that he would cede them the territory, now withdrew their support from him: the people of the neighbouring states rose in arms against him, and Walker was obliged to capitulate, with the remains of his filibustering party, at Rivas in 1857. Walker, still claiming to be President of Nicaragua, went to New Orleans, where he collected a second band of filibusters, at the head of whom he again landed near the San Juan river towards the end of the year: this time he was arrested and sent back home by the American commodore. His third and last expedition, in 1860, was directed against Honduras, where he hoped to meet with a good reception at the hands of the Liberal party. Instead of this he fell into the hands of the soldiers of Guardiola, by whom he was tried as a pirate and shot, September 12, 1860."

"Though he never evinced much military or other capacity, Walker, so long as he acted under color of authority from the chiefs of the faction he patronized, was generally successful against the pitiful rabble styled soldiers by whom his progress was resisted. … But his very successes proved the ruin of the faction to which he had attached himself, by exciting the natural jealousy and alarm of the natives who mainly composed it; and his assumption … of the title of President of Nicaragua, speedily followed by a decree reestablishing Slavery in that country, exposed his purpose and insured his downfall. As if madly bent on ruin, he proceeded to confiscate the steamboats and other property of the Nicaragua Transit Company, thereby arresting all American travel to and from California through that country, and cutting himself off from all hope of further recruiting his forces from the throngs of sanguine or of baffled gold-seekers, who might otherwise have been attracted to his standard. Yet he maintained the unequal contest for about two years."

ALSO IN: H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States, volume 3, chapters 16-17.

NICE: A. D. 1542.
   Siege by French and Turks.
   Capture of the town.
   Successful resistance of the citadel.

"To rival the majesty of Rome was the ambition … of Diocletian, who employed his leisure, and the wealth of the east, in the embellishment of Nicomedia, a city placed on the verge of Europe and Asia, almost at an equal distance between the Danube and the Euphrates. By the taste of the monarch, and at the expense of the people, Nicomedia acquired, in the space of a few years, a degree of magnificence which might appear to have required the labour of ages, and became inferior only to Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch, in extent or populousness. … Till Diocletian, in the twentieth year of his reign, celebrated his Roman triumph, it is extremely doubtful whether he ever visited the ancient capital of the empire."

NICOPOLIS.

Augustus gave this name to a city which he founded, B. C. 31, in commemoration of the victory at Actium, on the site of the camp which his army occupied.

The decisive battle in which Pompeius defeated Mithridates and ended the long Mithridatic wars was fought, B. C. 66, in Lesser Armenia, at a place near which Pompeius founded a city called Nicopolis, the site of which is uncertain.

NIHILISM. NIHILISTS.

"In Tikomirov's work on Russia seven or eight pages are devoted to the severe condemnation of the use of the expressions 'nihilism' and 'nihilist.' Nevertheless … they are employed universally, and all the world understands what is meant by them in an approximate and relative way. … It was a novelist who first baptized the party who called themselves at that time, 'new men.' It was Ivan Turguenief, who by the mouth of one of the characters in his celebrated novel, 'Fathers and Sons,' gave the young generation the name of nihilists. But it was not of his coinage; Royer-Collard first stamped it; Victor Hugo had already said that the negation of the infinite led directly to nihilism, and Joseph Lemaistre had spoken of the nihilism, more or less sincere, of the contemporary generations; but it was reserved for the author of 'Virgin Soil' to bring to light and make famous this word; which after making a great stir in his own country attracted the attention of the whole world. The reign of Nicholas I. was an epoch of hard oppression. When he ascended the throne, the conspiracy of the Decembrists broke out, and this sudden revelation of the revolutionary spirit steeled the already inflexible soul of the Czar. Nicholas, although fond of letters and an assiduous reader of Homer, was disposed to throttle his enemies, and would not have hesitated to pluck out the brains of Russia; he was very near suppressing all the universities and schools, and inaugurating a voluntary retrocession to Asiatic barbarism. He did mutilate and reduce the instruction, he suppressed the chair of European political laws, and after the events of 1848 in France he seriously considered the idea of closing his frontiers with a cordon of troops to beat back foreign liberalism like the cholera or the plague. … However, it was under his sceptre, under his systematic oppression, that, by confession of the great revolutionary statesman Herzen, Russian thought developed as never before; that the emancipation of the intelligence, which this very statesman calls a tragic event, was accomplished, and a national literature was brought to light and began to flourish. When Alexander II. succeeded to the throne, when the bonds of despotism were loosened and the blockade with which Nicholas vainly tried to isolate his empire was raised, the field was ready for the intellectual and political strife. … Before explaining how nihilism is the outcome of intelligence, we must understand what is meant by intelligence in Russia. It means a class composed of all those, of whatever profession or estate, who have at heart the advancement of intellectual life, and contribute in every way toward it. It may be said, indeed, that such a class is to be found in every country; but there is this difference,—in other countries the class is not a unit; there are factions, or a large number of its members shun political and social discussion in order to enjoy the serene atmosphere of the world of art, while in Russia the intelligence means a common cause, a homogeneous spirit, subversive and revolutionary withal. … Whence came the revolutionary element in Russia? {2362} From the Occident, from France, from the negative, materialist, sensualist philosophy of the Encyclopædia, imported into Russia by Catherine II.; and later from Germany, from Kantism and Hegelianism, imbibed by Russian youth at the German universities, and which they diffused throughout their own country with characteristic Sclav impetuosity. By 'Pure Reason' and transcendental idealism, Herzen and Bakunine, the first apostles of nihilism, were inspired. But the ideas brought from Europe to Russia soon allied themselves with an indigenous or possibly an Oriental element; namely, a sort of quietist fatalism, which leads to the darkest and most despairing pessimism. On the whole, nihilism is rather a philosophical conception of the sum of life than a purely democratic and revolutionary movement. … Nihilism had no political color about it at the beginning. During the decade between 1860 and 1870 the youth of Russia was seized with a sort of fever for negation, a fierce antipathy toward everything that was,—authorities, institutions, customary ideas, and old-fashioned dogmas. In Turguenief's novel, 'Fathers and Sons,' we meet with Bazarof, a froward, ill-mannered, intolerable fellow, who represents this type. After 1871 the echo of the Paris Commune and emissaries of the Internationals crossed the frontier, and the nihilists began to bestir themselves, to meet together clandestinely, and to send out propaganda. Seven years later they organized an era of terror, assassination, and explosions. Thus three phases have followed upon one another,—thought, word, and deed,—along that road which is never so long as it looks, the road that leads from the word to the act, from Utopia to crime. And yet nihilism never became a political party as we understand the term. It has no defined creed or official programme. The fulness of its despair embraces all negatives and all acute revolutionary forms. Anarchists, federalists, cantonalists, covenanters, terrorists, all who are unanimous in a desire to sweep away the present order, are grouped under the ensign of nihil."

"Out of Russia, an already extended list of revolutionary spirits in this land has attracted the attention and kept curiosity on the alert. We call them Nihilists,—of which the Russian pronunciation is neegilist, which, however, is now obsolete. Confined to the terrorist group in Europe, the number of these persons is certainly very small. Perhaps, as is thought in Russia, there are 500 in all, who busy themselves, even if reluctantly, with thoughts of resorting to bombs and murderous weapons to inspire terror. But it is not exactly this group that is meant when we speak of that nihilistic force in society which extends everywhere, into all circles, and finds support and strongholds at widely spread points. It is indeed not very different from what elsewhere in Europe is regarded as culture, advanced culture: the profound scepticism in regard to our existing institutions in their present form, what we call royal prerogative, church, marriage, property."

"The genuine Nihilism was a philosophical and literary movement, which flourished in the first decade after the Emancipation of the Serfs, that is to say, between 1860 and 1870. It is now (1883] absolutely extinct, and only a few traces are left of it, which are rapidly disappearing. … Nihilism was a struggle for the emancipation of intelligence from every kind of dependence, and it advanced side by side with that for the emancipation of the labouring classes from serfdom. The fundamental principle of Nihilism, properly so-called, was absolute individualism. It was the negation, in the name of individual liberty of all the obligations imposed upon the individual by society, by family life, and by religion. Nihilism was a passionate and powerful reaction, not against political despotism, but against the moral despotism that weighs upon the private and inner life of the individual. But it must be confessed that our predecessors, at least in the earlier days, introduced into this highly pacific struggle the same spirit of rebellion and almost the same fanaticism that characterises the present movement."

      L. Tikhomirov,
      Russia, Political and Social,
      books 6-7 (volume 2).

NIKIAS.

The war which Louis XIV. began in 1672 by attacking Holland, with the co-operation of his English pensioner, Charles II., and which roused against him a defensive coalition of Spain, Germany and Denmark with the Dutch (see NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1672-1674, and 1674-1678), was ended by a series of treaties negotiated at Nimeguen in 1678 and 1679. The first of these treaties, signed August 10, 1678, was between France and Holland. "France and Holland kept what was in their possession, except Maestricht and its dependencies which were restored to Holland. France therefore kept her conquests in Senegal and Guiana. This was all the territory lost by Holland in the terrible war which had almost annihilated her. The United Provinces pledged themselves to neutrality in the war which might continue between France and the other powers, and guaranteed the neutrality of Spain, after the latter should have signed the peace. France included Sweden in the treaty; Holland included in it Spain and the other allies who should make peace within six weeks after the exchange of ratifications. To the treaty of peace was annexed a treaty of commerce, concluded for twenty-five years."

H. Martin, History of France: Age of Louis XIV., (translated by M. L. Booth), volume 1, chapter 6.

   The peace between France and Spain was signed September 17.
   France gave back, in the Spanish Netherlands and elsewhere,
   "Charleroi, Binch, Ath, Oudenarde, and Courtrai, which she had
   gained by the Peace of Aix-la-Chapelle; the town and duchy of
   Limburg, all the country beyond the Meuse, Ghent, Rodenhus,
   and the district of the Waes, Leuze, and St. Ghislain, with
   Puycerda in Catalonia, these having been taken since that
   peace.
{2363}
   But she retained Franche Comté, with the towns of
   Valenciènnes, Bouchain, Condé, Cambrai and the Cambresis,
   Aire, St. Omer, Ypres, Werwick, Warneton, Poperinge, Bailleul,
   Cassel, Bavai, and Maubeuge. … On February 2, 1679, peace was
   declared between Louis, the Emperor, and the Empire. Louis
   gave back Philippsburg, retaining Freiburg with the desired
   liberty of passage across the Rhine to Breisach; in all other
   respects the Treaty of Munster, of October 24, 1648, was
   reestablished. … The treaty then dealt with the Duke of
   Lorraine. To his restitution Louis annexed conditions which
   rendered Lorraine little more than a French province. Not only
   was Nancy to become French, but, in conformity with the treaty
   of 1661, Louis was to have possession of four large roads
   traversing the country, with half a league's breadth of
   territory throughout their length, and the places contained
   therein. … To these conditions the Duke refused to subscribe,
   preferring continual exile until the Peace of Ryswick in 1697,
   when at length his son regained the ancestral estates."
   Treaties between the Emperor and Sweden, between Brandenburg
   and France and Sweden, between Denmark and the same, and
   between Sweden, Spain and Holland, were successively concluded
   during the year 1679. "The effect of the Peace of Nimwegen
   was, … speaking generally, to reaffirm the Peace of
   Westphalia. But … it did not, like the Peace of Westphalia,
   close for any length of time the sources of strife."

NINEVEH.

"In or about the year before Christ 606, Nineveh, the great city, was destroyed. For many hundred years had she stood in arrogant splendor, her palaces towering above the Tigris and mirrored in its swift waters; army after army had gone forth from her gates and returned laden with the spoils of conquered countries; her monarchs had ridden to the high place of sacrifice in chariots drawn by captive kings. But her time came at last. The nations assembled and encompassed her around [the Medes and the Babylonians, with their lesser allies]. Popular tradition tells how over two years lasted the siege; how the very river rose and battered her walls; till one day a vast flame rose up to heaven; how the last of a mighty line of kings, too proud to surrender, thus saved himself, his treasures and his, capital from the shame of bondage. Never was city to rise again where Nineveh had been." The very knowledge of the existence of Nineveh was lost so soon that, two centuries later, when Xenophon passed the ruins, with his Ten Thousand retreating Greeks, he reported them to be the ruins of a deserted city of the Medes and called it Larissa. Twenty-four centuries went by, and the winds and the rains, in their slow fashion, covered the bricks and stones of the desolated Assyrian capital with a shapeless mound of earth. Then came the searching modern scholar and explorer, and began to excavate the mound, to see what lay beneath it. First the French Consul, Botta, in 1842; then the Englishman Layard, in 1845; then the later English scholar, George Smith, and others; until buried Nineveh has been in great part brought to light. Not only the imperishable monuments of its splendid art have been exposed, but a veritable library of its literature, written on tablets and cylinders of clay, has been found and read. The discoveries of the past half-century, on the site of Nineveh, under the mound called Koyunjik, and elsewhere in other similarly-buried cities of ancient Babylonia and Assyria, may reasonably be called the most extraordinary additions to human knowledge which our age has acquired.

ALSO IN: A. H. Layard, Nineveh and its Remains; and Discoveries among the Ruins of Nineveh and Babylon.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY; also, NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1674-1675, 1675, and 1676-1678 KING PHILIP'S WAR.

The famous horse-pastures of the ancient Medes. "Most probably they are to be identified with the modern plains of Khawah and Alishtar, between Behistun and Khorramabad, which are even now considered to afford the best summer pasturage in Persia. … The proper Nisæa is the district of Nishapur in Khorasan, whence it is probable that the famous breed of horses was originally brought."

NISCHANDYIS.

These were a tribe in ancient Gaul whose capital city was
Aginnum, the modern town of Agen on the Garonne.

NIZZA.

NO. NO AMON.

In the open or common field system which prevailed in early England, the fields were divided into long, narrow strips, wherever practicable. In some cases, "little odds and ends of unused land remained, which from time immemorial were called 'no man's land,' or 'anyone's land,' or 'Jack's land,' as the case might be."

"When Livy in his first six books writes of the disputes between the Patres or Patricians and the Plebs about the Public Land, he sometimes designates the Patricians by the name Nobiles, which we have in the form Nobles. A Nobilis is a man who is known. A man who is not known is Ignobilis, a nobody. In the later Republic a Plebeian who attained to a curule office elevated his family to a rank of honour, to a nobility, not acknowledged by any law, but by usage. … The Patricians were a nobility of ancient date. … The Patrician nobility was therefore independent of all office, but the new Nobility and their Jus Imaginum originated in some Plebeian who first of his family attained a curule office. … The true conclusion is that Livy in his first six books uses the word Nobiles improperly, for there is no evidence that this name was given to the Patres before the consulship of L. Sextius."

NOËTIANS AND SABELLIANS.

"At the head of those in this century [the 3d] who explained the scriptural doctrine of the Father, Son, and holy Spirit, by the precepts of reason, stands Noëtus of Smyrna; a man little known, but who is reported by the ancients to have been cast out of the church by presbyters (of whom no account is given), to have opened a school, and to have formed a sect. It is stated that, being wholly unable to comprehend how that God, who is so often in Scripture declared to be one and undivided, can, at the same time, be manifold, Noëtus concluded that the undivided Father of all things united himself, with the man Christ, was born in him, and in him suffered and died. On account of this doctrine his followers were called Patripassians. … After the middle of this century, Sabellius, an African bishop, or presbyter, of Ptolemais, the capital of the Pentapolitan province of Libya Cyrenaica, attempted to reconcile, in a manner somewhat different from that of Noëtus, the scriptural doctrine of Father, Son, and holy Spirit, with the doctrine of the unity of the divine nature." Sabellius assumed "that only an energy or virtue, emitted from the Father of all, or, if you choose, a particle of the person or nature of the Father, became united with the man Christ. And such a virtue or particle of the Father, he also supposed, constituted the holy Spirit."

NOMEN, COGNOMEN, PRÆNOMEN.

NOMES.

A name given by the Greeks to the districts into which Egypt was divided from very ancient times.

NOMOPHYLAKES.

In ancient Athens, under the constitution introduced by Pericles, seven magistrates called Nomophylakes, or "Law-Guardians," "sat alongside of the Proedri, or presidents, both in the senate and in the public assembly, and were charged with the duty of interposing whenever any step was taken or any proposition made contrary to the existing laws. They were also empowered to constrain the magistrates to act according to law."

A legislative commission, elected and deputed by the general assembly of the people, in ancient Athens, to amend existing laws or enact new ones.

      G. F. Schömann,
      Antiquity of Greece: The State,
      part 3, chapter 3.

NONCONFORMISTS,
DISSENTERS, English:
   First bodies organized.
   Persecutions under Charles II. and Anne.-
   Removal of Disabilities.

NONES.

NOPH.

NOREMBEGA.

NORFOLK, VIRGINIA: A. D. 1861 (April).
   Abandoned by the United States commandant.
   Destruction of ships and property.
   Possession taken by the Rebels.

NORFOLK, VIRGINIA: A. D. 1862 (February).
Threatened by the Federal capture of Roanoke Island.

NORFOLK ISLAND PENAL COLONY.

NORICUM.

NORMANDY: A. D. 911-1000.
The solidifying of Rollo's duchy.
The Normans become French.

The first century which passed after the settlement of the Northmen along the Seine saw "the steady growth of the duchy in extent and power. Much of this was due to the ability of its rulers, to the vigour and wisdom with which Hrolf forced order and justice on the new community, as well as to the political tact with which both Hrolf and William Longsword [son and successor of Duke Rollo or Hrolf, A. D. 927-943] clung to the Karolings in their strife with the dukes of Paris. But still more was owing to the steadiness with which both these rulers remained faithful to the Christianity which had been imposed on the northmen as a condition of their settlement, and to the firm resolve with which they trampled down the temper and traditions which their people had brought from their Scandinavian homeland, and welcomed the language and civilization which came in the wake of their neighbours' religion. The difficulties that met the dukes were indeed enormous. … They were girt in by hostile states, they were threatened at sea by England, under Æthelstan a network of alliances menaced them with ruin. Once a French army occupied Rouen, and a French king held the pirates' land at his will; once the German lances were seen from the walls of their capital. Nor were their difficulties within less than those without. The subject population which had been trodden under foot by the northern settlers were seething with discontent. The policy of Christianization and civilization broke the Normans themselves into two parties. … The very conquests of Hrolf and his successor, the Bessin, the Cotentin, had to be settled and held by the new comers, who made them strongholds of heathendom. … But amidst difficulties from within and from without the dukes held firm to their course, and their stubborn will had its reward. … By the end of William Longsword's days all Normandy, save the newly settled districts of the west, was Christian, and spoke French. … The work of the statesman at last completed the work of the sword. As the connexion of the dukes with the Karoling kings had given them the land, and helped them for fifty years to hold it against the House of Paris, so in the downfall of the Karolings the sudden and adroit change of front which bound the Norman rulers to the House of Paris in its successful struggle for the Crown secured the land for ever to the northmen. The close connexion which France was forced to maintain with the state whose support held the new royal line on its throne told both on kingdom and duchy. The French dread of the 'pirates' died gradually away, while French influence spread yet more rapidly over a people which clung so closely to the French crown."

Duke Robert, of Normandy, who died in 1035, was succeeded by his young son William, who bore in youth the opprobrious name of "the Bastard," but who extinguished it in later life under the proud appellation of "the Conqueror." By reason of his bastardy he was not an acceptable successor, and, being yet a boy, it seemed little likely that he would maintain himself on the ducal throne. Normandy, for a dozen years, was given up to lawless strife among its nobles. In 1047 a large part of the duchy rose in revolt, against its objectionable young lord. "It will be remembered that the western part of Normandy, the lands of Bayeux and Coutances, were won by the Norman dukes after the eastern part, the lands of Rouen and Evreux. And it will be remembered that these western lands, won more lately, and fed by new colonies from the North, were still heathen and Danish some while after eastern Normandy had become Christian and French-speaking. Now we may be sure that, long before William's day, all Normandy was Christian, but it is quite possible that the old tongue may have lingered on in the western lands. At any rate there was a wide difference in spirit and feeling between the more French and the more Danish districts, to say nothing of Bayeux, where, before the Normans came, there had been a Saxon settlement. One part of the duchy in short was altogether Romance in speech and manners, while more or less of Teutonic character still clave to the other. So now Teutonic Normandy rose against Duke William, and Romance Normandy was faithful to him. The nobles of the Bessin and Cotentin made league with William's cousin Guy of Burgundy, meaning, as far as one can see, to make Guy Duke of Rouen and Evreux, and to have no lord at all for themselves. … When the rebellion broke out, William was among them at Valognes, and they tried to seize him. But his fool warned him in the night; he rode for his life, and got safe to his own Falaise. All eastern Normandy was loyal; but William doubted whether he could by himself overcome so strong an array of rebels. So he went to Poissy, between Rouen and Paris, and asked his lord King Henry [of France] to help him. So King Henry came with a French army; and the French and those whom we may call the French Normans met the Teutonic Normans in battle at Val-ès-dunes, not far from Caen. It was William's first pitched battle," and he won a decisive victory. "He was now fully master of his own duchy; and the battle of Val-ès-dunes finally fixed that Normandy should take its character from Romance Rouen and not from Teutonic Bayeux. William had in short overcome Saxons and Danes in Gaul before he came to overcome them in Britain. He had to conquer his own Normandy before he could conquer England. … But before long King Henry got jealous of William's power, and he was now always ready to give help to any Norman rebels. … And the other neighbouring princes were jealous of him as well as the King. His neighbours in Britanny, Anjou, Chartres, and Ponthieu, were all against him. But the great Duke was able to hold his own against them all, and before long to make a great addition to his dominions." Between 1053 and 1058 the French King invaded Normandy three times and suffered defeat on every occasion. In 1063 Duke William invaded the county of Maine, and reduced it to entire submission. "From this time he ruled over Maine as well as over Normandy," although its people were often in revolt. "The conquest of Maine raised William's power and fame to a higher pitch than it reached at any other time before his conquest of England."

"The northern pirates, variously called Danes or Normans, according as they came from the islands of the Baltic Sea or the coast of Norway, … descended from the same primitive race with the Anglo-Saxons and the Franks; their language had roots identical with the idioms of these two nations: but this token of an ancient fraternity did not preserve from their hostile incursions either Saxon Britain or Frankish Gaul, nor even the territory beyond the Rhine, then exclusively inhabited by Germanic tribes. The conversion of the southern Teutons to the Christian faith had broken all bond of fraternity between them and the Teutons of the north. In the 9th century the man of the north still gloried in the title of son of Odin, and treated as bastards and apostates the Germans who had become children of the church. … A sort of religious and patriotic fanaticism was thus combined in the Scandinavian with the fiery impulsiveness of their character, and an insatiable thirst for gain. They shed with joy the blood of the priests, were especially delighted at pillaging the churches, and stabled their horses in the chapels of the palaces. … In three days, with an east wind, the fleets of Denmark and Norway, two-sailed vessels, reached the south of Britain. The soldiers of each fleet obeyed in general one chief, whose vessel was distinguished from the rest by some particular ornament. … All equal under such a chief, bearing lightly their voluntary submission and the weight of their mailed armour, which they promised themselves soon to exchange for an equal weight of gold, the Danish pirates pursued the 'road of the swans,' as their ancient national poetry expressed it. Sometimes they coasted along the shore, and laid wait for the enemy in the straits, the bays, and smaller anchorages, which procured them the surname of Vikings, or 'children of the creeks'; sometimes they dashed in pursuit of their prey across the ocean."

"No race of the ancient or modern world have ever taken to the sea with such heartiness as the Northmen. The great cause which filled the waters of Western Europe with their barks was that consolidation and centralization of the kingly power all over Europe which followed after the days of Charlemagne, and which put a stop to those great invasions and migrations by land which had lasted for centuries. Before that time the north and east of Europe, pressed from behind by other nationalities, and growing straitened within their own bounds, threw off from time to time bands of emigrants which gathered force as they slowly marched along, until they appeared in the west as a fresh wave of the barbarian flood. As soon as the west, recruited from the very source whence the invaders came, had gained strength enough to set them at defiance, which happened in the time of Charlemagne, these invasions by land ceased after a series of bloody defeats, and the north had to look for another outlet for the force which it was unable to support at home. Nor was the north itself slow to follow Charlemagne's example. Harold Fairhair, no inapt disciple of the great emperor, subdued the petty kings in Norway one after another, and made himself supreme king. At the same time he invaded the rights of the old freeman, and by taxes and tolls laid on his allodial holding drove him into exile. We have thus the old outlet cut off and a new cause for emigration added. No doubt the Northmen even then had long been used to struggle with the sea, and sea-roving was the calling of the brave, but the two causes we have named gave it a great impulse just at the beginning of the tenth century, and many a freeman who would have joined the host of some famous leader by land, or have lived on a little king at home, now sought the waves as a birthright of which no king could rob him. Either alone, or as the follower of some sea-king, whose realm was the sea's wide wastes, he went out year after year, and thus won fame and wealth. The name given to this pursuit was Viking, a word which is in no way akin to king. It is derived from 'Vik,' a bay or creek, because these sea-rovers lay moored in bays and creeks on the look-out for merchant ships; the 'ing' is a well known ending, meaning, in this case, occupation or calling. Such a sea-rover was called 'Vikingr,' and at one time or another in his life almost every man of note in the North had taken to the sea and lived a Viking life."

"Western viking expeditions have hitherto been ascribed to Danes and Norwegians exclusively. Renewed investigations reveal, however, that Swedes shared widely in these achievements, notably in the acquisition of England, and that, among other famous conquerors, Rolf, the founder of the Anglo-Norman dynasty, issued from their country. … Norwegians, like Swedes, were, in truth, merged in the terms Northmen and Danes, both of which were general to all Scandinavians abroad. … The curlier conversion of the Danes to Christianity and their more immediate contact with Germany account for the frequent application of their name to all Scandinavians."

      W. Roos,
      The Swedish Part in the Viking Expeditions
      (English History Review, April, 1892).

We have hitherto treated the Norwegians, Swedes, and Danes under the common appellation of Northmen; and this is in many ways the most convenient, for it is often impossible to decide the nationality of the individual settlement. Indeed, it would appear probable that the devastating bands were often composed indiscriminately of the several nationalities. Still, in tracing the history of their conquests, we may lay it down as a general rule that England was the exclusive prey of the Danes; that Scotland and the islands to the north as far as Iceland, and to the south as far as Anglesea and Ireland, fell to the Norwegians, and Russia to the Swedes; while Gaul and Germany were equally the spoil of the Norwegians and the Danes. … While England had been overcome by the Danes, the Norwegians had turned their attention chiefly to the north of the British Isles and the islands of the West. Their settlements naturally fell into three divisions, which tally with their geographical position. 1. The Orkneys and Shetlands, lying to the N. E. of Scotland. 2. The isles to the west as far south as Ireland. 3. Iceland and the Faroe Isles.

The Orkneys and Shetlands: Here the Northmen first appear as early as the end of the 8th century, and a few peaceful settlements were made by those who were anxious to escape from the noisy scenes which distracted their northern country. In the reign of Harald Harfagr [the Fairhaired] they assumed new importance, and their character is changed. Many of those driven out by Harald sought a refuge here, and betaking themselves to piracy periodically infested the Norwegian coast in revenge for their defeat and expulsion. These ravages seriously disturbing the peace of his newly acquired kingdom, Harald fitted out an expedition and devoted a whole summer to conquering the Vikings and extirpating the brood of pirates. The country being gained, he offered it to his chief adviser, Rögnwald, Jarl of Möri in Norway, father of Rollo of Normandy, who, though refusing to go himself, held it during his life as a family possession, and sent Sigurd, his brother, there. … Rögnwald next sent his son Einar, and from his time [A. D. 875] we may date the final establishment of the Jarls of Orkney, who henceforth owe a nominal allegiance to the King of Norway. … The close of the 8th century also saw the commencement of the incursions of the Northmen in the west of Scotland, and the Western Isles soon became a favourite resort of the Vikings. In the Keltic annals these unwelcome visitors had gained the name of Fingall, 'the white strangers,' from the fairness of their complexion; and Dugall, the black strangers, probably from the iron coats of mail worn by their chiefs. … By the end of the 9th century a sort of naval empire had arisen, consisting of the Hebrides, parts of the western coasts of Scotland, especially the modern Argyllshire, Man, Anglesea, and the eastern shores of Ireland. This empire was under a line of sovereigns who called themselves the Hy-Ivar (grandsons of Ivar), and lived now in Man, now in Dublin. Thence they often joined their kinsmen in their attacks on England, and at times aspired to the position of Jarls of the Danish Northumbria."

"Under the government of these Norwegian princes [the Hy Ivar] the Isles appear to have been very flourishing. They were crowded with people; the arts were cultivated, and manufactures were carried to a degree of perfection which was then thought excellence. This comparatively advanced state of society in these remote isles may be ascribed partly to the influence and instructions of the Irish clergy, who were established all over the island before the arrival of the Norwegians, and possessed as much learning as was in those ages to be found in any part of Europe, except Constantinople and Rome; and partly to the arrival of great numbers of the provincial Britons flying to them as an asylum when their country was ravaged by the Saxons, and carrying with them the remains of the science, manufactures, and wealth introduced among them by their Roman masters. Neither were the Norwegians themselves in those ages destitute of a considerable portion of learning and of skill in the useful arts, in navigation, fisheries, and manufactures; nor were they in any respect such barbarians as those who know them only by the declamations of the early English writers may be apt to suppose them. The principal source of their wealth was piracy, then esteemed an honourable profession, in the exercise of which these islanders laid all the maritime countries of the west part of Europe under heavy contributions."

D. Macpherson, Geographical Illustrations of Scottish History (Quoted by J. H. Burton, History of Scotland, chapter 15, volume 2, foot-note).

NORMANS: A. D. 787-880.
The so-called Danish invasions and settlements in England.

"In our own English chronicles, 'Dena' or Dane is used as the common term for all the Scandinavian invaders of Britain, though not including the Swedes, who took no part in the attack, while Northman generally means 'man of Norway.' Asser however uses the words as synonymous, 'Nordmanni sive Dani.' Across the channel 'Northman' was the general name for the pirates, and 'Dane' would usually mean a pirate from Denmark. The distinction however is partly a chronological one; as, owing to the late appearance of the Danes in the middle of the ninth century, and the prominent part they then took in the general Wiking movement, their name tended from that time to narrow the area of the earlier term of 'Nordmanni.'"

   Prof. Freeman divides the Danish invasions of England into
   three periods:
   1. The period of merely plundering incursions, which
      began A. D. 787.
   2. The period of actual occupation and settlement, from 866 to
      the Peace of Wedmore, 880.
   3. The later period of conquest, within which England was
      governed by Danish kings, A. D. 980-1042.

   In May, A. D. 841, the Seine was entered for the first time by
   a fleet of Norse pirates, whose depredations in France had
   been previously confined to the coasts. The expedition was
   commanded by a chief named Osker, whose plans appear to have
   been well laid. He led his pirates straight to the rich city
   of Rouen, never suffering them to slacken oar or sail, or to
   touch the tempting country through which they passed, until
   the great prize was struck. "The city was fired and plundered.
   Defence was wholly impracticable, and great slaughter ensued.
   … Osker's three days' occupation of Rouen was remuneratingly
   successful.
{2368}
   Their vessels loaded with spoil and captives, gentle and
   simple, clerks, merchants, citizens, soldiers, peasants, nuns,
   dames, damsels, the Danes dropped down the Seine, to complete
   their devastation on the shores. … The Danes then quitted the
   Seine; having formed their plans for renewing the encouraging
   enterprize,—another time they would do more. Normandy dates
   from Osker's three days' occupation Of Rouen."

Sir F. Palgrave, History of Normandy and England, book 1, chapter 2 (volume 1).

"About the year of Alfred's birth [849] they laid siege to Tours, from which they were repulsed by the gallantry of the citizens, assisted by the miraculous aid of Saint Martin. It is at this siege that Hasting first appears as a leader. His birth is uncertain. In some accounts he is said to have been the son of a peasant of Troyes, the capital of Champagne, and to have forsworn his faith, and joined the Danes in his early youth, from an inherent lust of battle and plunder. In others he is called the son of the jarl Atte. But, whatever his origin, by the middle of the century he had established his title to lead the Northern hordes in those fierce forays which helped to shatter the Carlovingian Empire to fragments. … When the land was bare, leaving the despoiled provinces he again put to sea, and, sailing southwards still, pushed up the Tagus and Guadalquiver, and ravaged the neighbourhoods of Lisbon and Seville. But no settlement in Spain was possible at this time. The Peninsula had lately had for Caliph Abdalrahman the Second, called El Mouzaffer, 'The Victorious,' and the vigour of his rule had made the Arabian kingdom in Spain the most efficient power for defence in Europe. Hasting soon recoiled from the Spanish coasts, and returned to his old haunts. The leaders of the Danes in England, the Sidrocs and Hinguar and Hubba, had, as we have seen, a special delight in the destruction of churches and monasteries, mingling a fierce religious fanaticism with their thirst for battle and plunder. This exceeding bitterness of the Northmen may be fairly laid in great measure to the account of the thirty years of proselytising warfare, which Charlemagne had waged in Saxony, and along all the northern frontier of his empire. … Hasting seems to have been filled with a double portion of this spirit, which he had indulged throughout his career in the most inveterate hatred to priests and holy places. It was probably this, coupled with a certain weariness—commonplace murder and sacrilege having grown tame, and lost their charm—which incited him to the most daring of all his exploits, a direct attack on the head of Christendom, and the sacred city. Hasting then, about the year 860, planned an attack on Rome, and the proposal was well received by his followers. Sailing again round Spain, and pillaging on their way both on the Spanish and Moorish coasts, they entered the Mediterranean, and, steering for Italy, landed in the bay of Spezzia, near the town of Luna. Luna was the place where the great quarries of the Carrara marble had been worked ever since the times of the Cæsars. The city itself was, it is said, in great part built of white marble, and the 'candentia mœnia Lunæ' deceived Hasting into the belief that he was actually before Rome; so he sat down before the town which he had failed to surprise. The hope of taking it by assault was soon abandoned, but Hasting obtained his end by guile. … The priests were massacred, the gates thrown open, and the city taken and spoiled. Luna never recovered its old prosperity after the raid of the Northmen, and in Dante's time had fallen into utter decay. But Hasting's career in Italy ended with the sack of Luna; and, giving up all hope of attacking Rome, he re-embarked with the spoil of the town, the most beautiful of the women, and all the youths who could be used as soldiers or rowers. His fleet was, wrecked on the south coasts of France on its return westward, and all the spoil lost; but the devil had work yet for Hasting and his men, who got ashore in sufficient numbers to recompense themselves for their losses by the plunder of Provence."

NORMANS: A. D. 860-1100.
The discovery and settlement of Iceland.
Development of the Saga literature.

The discovery of Iceland is attributed to a famous Norse Viking named Naddodd, and dated in 860, at the beginning of the reign, in Norway, of Harald Haarfager, who drove out so many adventurers, to seek fortune on the seas. He is said to have called it Snowland; but others who came to the cold island in 870 gave it the harsher name which it still bears. "Within sixty years after the first settlement by the Northmen the whole was inhabited; and, writes Uno Von Troil (p. 64), 'King Harold, who did not contribute a little towards it by his tyrannical treatment of the petty kings and lords in Norway, was obliged at last to issue an order, that no one should sail to Iceland without paying four ounces of fine silver to the Crown, in order to stop those continual emigrations which weakened his kingdom.' … Before the tenth century had reached its half-way period, the Norwegians had fully peopled the island with not less, perhaps, than 50,000 souls. A census taken about A. D. 1100 numbered the franklins who had to pay Thing-tax at 4,500, without including cotters and proletarians."

"About sixty years after the first settlement of the island, a step was taken towards turning Iceland into a commonwealth, and giving the whole island a legal constitution; and though we are ignorant of the immediate cause which led to this, we know enough of the state of things in the island to feel sure, that it could only have been with the common consent of the great chiefs, who, as Priests, presided over the various local Things.

   The first, want was a man who could make a code of laws." The
   man was found in one Ulfljót, who came from a Norwegian family
   long famous for knowledge of the customary law, and who was
   sent to the mother country to consult the wisest of his kin.
   "Three years he stayed abroad; and when he returned, the
   chiefs, who, no doubt, day by day felt more strongly the need
   of a common centre of action as well as of a common code, lost
   no time in carrying out their scheme. … The time of the annual
   meeting was fixed at first for the middle of the month of June,
   but in the year 999 it was agreed to meet a week later, and
   the Althing then met when ten full weeks of summer had passed.
{2369}
   It lasted fourteen days. … In its legal capacity it [the
   Althing] was both a deliberative and executive assembly; both
   Parliament and High Court of Justice in one. … With the
   establishment of the Althing we have for the first time a
   Commonwealth in Iceland."

"The reason why Iceland, which was destitute of inhabitants at the time of its discovery, about the middle of the 9th century, became so rapidly settled and secured so eminent a position in the world's history and literature, must be sought in the events which took place in Norway at the time when Harald Hárfragi (Fairhair), after a long and obstinate resistance, succeeded in usurping the monarchical power. … The people who emigrated to Iceland were for the most part the flower of the nation. They went especially from the west coast of Norway, where the peculiar Norse spirit had been most perfectly developed. Men of the noblest birth in Norway set out with their families and followers to find a home where they might be as free and independent as their fathers had been before them. No wonder then that they took with them the cream of the ancient culture of the fatherland. … Toward the end of the 11th century it is expressly stated that many of the chiefs were so learned that they with perfect propriety might have been ordained to the priesthood [Christianity having been formally adopted by the Althing in the year 1000], and in the 12th century there were, in addition to those to be found in the cloisters, several private libraries in the island. On the other hand, secular culture, knowledge of law and history, and of the skaldic art, were, so to speak, common property. And thus, when the means for committing a literature to writing were at hand, the highly developed popular taste for history gave the literature the direction which it afterward maintained. The fact is, there really existed a whole literature which was merely waiting to be put in writing. … Many causes contributed toward making the Icelanders preeminently a historical people. The settlers were men of noble birth, who were proud to trace their descent from kings and heroes of antiquity, nay, even from the gods themselves, and we do not therefore wonder that they assiduously preserved the memory of the deeds of their forefathers. But in their minds was developed not only a taste for the sagas of the past; the present also received its full share of attention. … Nor did they interest themselves for and remember the events that took place in Iceland only. Reports from foreign lands also found a most hearty welcome, and the Icelanders had abundant opportunity of satisfying their thirst for knowledge in this direction. As vikings, as merchants, as courtiers and especially as skalds accompanying kings and other distinguished persons, and also as varangians in Constantinople, many of them found splendid opportunities of visiting foreign countries. … Such were then the conditions and circumstances which produced that remarkable development of the historical taste with which the people were endowed, and made Iceland the home of the saga."

      F. W. Horn,
      History of the Literature of the Scandinavian North,
      part 1, chapter 1.

"The Icelanders, in their long winter, had a great habit of writing, and were, and still are, excellent in penmanship, says Dahlmann. It is to this fact that any little history there is of the Norse Kings and their old tragedies, crimes, and heroisms, is almost all due. The Icelanders, it seems, not only made beautiful letters on their paper or parchment, but were laudably observant and desirous of accuracy; and have left us such a collection of narratives (Sagas, literally 'Says') as, for quantity and quality, is unexampled among rude nations."

   "One alone among the Scandinavian settlements in Gaul was
   destined to play a real part in history. This was the
   settlement of Rolf or Rollo at Rouen. [The genuine name is
   Hrolfr, Rolf, in various spellings. The French form is Rou,
   sometimes Rous …; the Latin is Rollo.—Foot-note.] This
   settlement, the kernel of the great Norman Duchy, had, I need
   hardly say, results of its own and an importance of its own,
   which distinguish it from every other Danish colony in Gaul.
   But it is well to bear in mind that it was only one colony
   among several, and that, when the cession was made, it was
   probably not expected to be more lasting or more important
   than the others. But, while the others soon lost any
   distinctive character, the Rouen settlement lasted, it grew,
   it became a power in Europe, and in Gaul it became even a
   determining power. … The lasting character of his work at once
   proves that the founder of the Rouen colony was a great man,
   but he is a great man who must be content to be judged in the
   main by the results of his actions. The authentic history of
   Rolf, Rollo, or Rou, may be summed up in a very short space.
   We have no really contemporary narrative of his actions,
   unless a few meagre and uncertain entries in some of the
   Frankish annals may be thought to deserve that name. … I
   therefore do not feel myself at all called upon to narrate in
   detail the exploits which are attributed to Rolf in the time
   before his final settlement. He is described as having been
   engaged in the calling of a Wiking both in Gaul and in Britain
   for nearly forty years before his final occupation of Rouen. …
   The exploits attributed to Rolf are spread over so many years,
   that we cannot help suspecting that the deeds of other
   chieftains have been attributed to him, perhaps that two
   leaders of the same name have been confounded. Among countless
   expeditions in Gaul, England, and Germany, we find Rolf
   charged with an earlier visit to Rouen [A. D. 876], with a
   share in the great siege of Paris [A. D. 885], and with an
   occupation or destruction of Bayeux. But it is not till we
   have got some way into the reign of Charles the Simple, not
   till we have passed several years of the tenth century, that
   Rolf begins clearly to stand out as a personal historic
   reality. He now appears in possession of Rouen, or of whatever
   vestiges of the city had survived his former ravages, and from
   that starting-point he assaulted Chartres. Beneath the walls
   of that city he underwent a defeat [A. D. 911] at the hands of
   the Dukes Rudolf of Burgundy and Robert of Paris, which was
   attributed to the miraculous powers of the great local relic,
   the under-garment of the Virgin.
{2370}
   But this victory, like most victories over the Northmen, had
   no lasting effect. Rolf was not dislodged from Rouen, nor was
   his career of devastation and conquest at all seriously
   checked. But, precisely as in the case of Guthrum in England,
   his evident disposition to settle in the country suggested an
   attempt to change him from a devastating enemy into a
   peaceable neighbour. The Peace of Clair-on-Epte [A. D. 911]
   was the duplicate of the Peace of Wedmore, and King Charles
   and Duke Robert of Paris most likely had the Peace of Wedmore
   before their eyes. A definite district was ceded to Rolf, for
   which he became the King's vassal; he was admitted to baptism
   and received the king's natural daughter in marriage. And,
   just as in the English case, the territory ceded was not part
   of the King's immediate dominions. … The grant to Rolf was
   made at the cost not of the Frankish King at Laon but of the
   French Duke at Paris. The district ceded to Rolf was part of
   the great Neustrian March or Duchy which had been granted to
   Odo [or Eudes] of Paris and which was now held by his brother
   Duke Robert. … It must not be thought that the district now
   ceded to Rolf took in the whole of the later Duchy of
   Normandy. Rouen was the heart of the new state, which took in
   lands on both sides of the Seine. From the Epte to the sea was
   its undoubted extent from the south-east to the north. But the
   western frontier is much less clearly defined. On the one
   hand, the Normans always claimed a certain not very well
   defined superiority over Britanny as part of the original
   grant. On the other hand, it is quite certain that Rolf did
   not obtain immediate possession of what was afterwards the
   noblest portion of the heritage of his descendants. The
   Bessin, the district of Bayeux, was not won till several years
   later, and the Côtentin, the peninsula of Coutances, was not
   won till after the death of Rolf. The district granted to Rolf
   … had—sharing therein the fate of Germany and France—no
   recognized geographical name. Its inhabitants were the
   Northmen, the Northmen of the Seine, the Northmen of Rouen.
   The land itself was, till near the end of the century, simply
   the Land of the Northmen"—the Terra Northmannorum.

ALSO IN: Sir F. Palgrave, History of Normandy and England, book 1, chapters 3-5.

"The discovery of Greenland was a natural consequence of the settlement of Iceland, just as the discovery of America afterward was a natural consequence of the settlement of Greenland. Between the western part of Iceland and the eastern part of Greenland there is a distance of only 45 geographical miles. Hence, some of the ships that sailed to Iceland, at the time of the settlement of this island and later, could in case of a violent east wind, which is no rare occurrence in those regions, scarcely avoid approaching the coast of Greenland sufficiently to catch a glimpse of its jokuls,—nay, even to land on its islands and promontories. Thus it is said that Gunnbjorn, Ulf Krage's son, saw land lying in the ocean at the west of Iceland, when, in the year 876, he was driven out to the sea by a storm. Similar reports were heard, from time to time, by other mariners. About a century later a certain man, by name Erik the Red, … resolved to go in search of the land in the west that Gunnbjorn and others had seen. He set sail in the year 984, and found the land as he had expected, and remained there exploring the country for two years. At the end of this period he returned to Iceland, giving the newly-discovered country the name of Greenland, in order, as he said, to attract settlers, who would be favorably impressed with so pleasing a name. The result was that many Icelanders and Norsemen emigrated to Greenland, and a flourishing colony was established, with Gardar for its capital city, which, in the year 1261, became subject to the crown of Norway. The Greenland colony maintained its connection with the mother countries for a period of no less than 400 years: yet it finally disappeared, and was almost forgotten. Torfæus gives a list of seventeen bishops who ruled in Greenland."

"Take the map and colour with vermilion the provinces, districts and shores which the Northmen visited. The colouring will have to be repeated more than ninety times successively before you arrive at the conclusion of the Carlovingian dynasty. Furthermore, mark by the usual symbol of war, two crossed swords, the localities where battles were fought by or against the pirates: where they were defeated or triumphant, or where they pillaged, burned or destroyed; and the valleys and banks of Elbe, Rhine and Moselle, Scheldt, Meuse, Somme and Seine, Loire, Garonne and Adour, the inland Allier, and all the coasts and coast-lands between estuary and estuary and the countries between the river-streams, will appear bristling as with chevaux-de-frise. The strongly-fenced Roman cities, the venerated Abbeys and their dependent bourgades, often more flourishing and extensive than the ancient seats of government, the opulent seaports and trading towns, were all equally exposed to the Danish attacks, stunned by the Northmen's approach, subjugated by their fury. … They constitute three principal schemes of naval and military operations, respectively governed and guided by the great rivers and the intervening sea-shores. … The first scheme of operations includes the territories between Rhine and Scheldt, and Scheldt and Elbe: the furthest southern point reached by the Northmen in this direction was somewhere between the Rhine and the Neckar. Eastward, the Scandinavians scattered as far as Russia; but we must not follow them there. The second scheme of operations affected the countries between Seine and Loire, and again from the Seine eastward towards the Somme and Oise. These operations were connected with those of the Rhine Northmen. The third scheme of operations was prosecuted in the countries between Loire and Garonne, and Garonne and Adour, frequently flashing towards Spain, and expanding inland as far as the Allier and central France, nay, to the very centre, to Bourges."

Sir F. Palgrave, History of Normandy and England, book 1, chapter 3 (volume 1).

"At the close of the 10th and beginning of the 11th century the battles of Tara and Clontarf overthrew the power of these Norsemen (or Ostmen as they were called) in Ireland, and restored the authority of the native Irish sovereign. About this time they [the 'Hy-Ivar,' or sovereigns of the island-empire of the Northmen—see above: 8-9TH CENTURIES] became Christians, and in the year 1066 we find one of their princes joining Harald Hardrada of Norway in his invasion of England, which ended so disastrously in the battle of Stamford Bridge. Magnus of Norway, thirty-two years later, after subduing the independent Jarls of Shetland and the Orkneys, attempted to reassert his supremacy along the western coast. But after conquering Anglesea, whence he drove out the Normans [from England] who had just made a settlement there, he crossed to Ireland to meet his death in battle. The sovereignty of the Isles was then restored to its original owners, but soon after split into two parts—the Suderies and Norderies (whence the term Sodor and Man), north and south of Ardnamurchan Point. The next glimpse we have of these dominions is at the close of the 12th century, when we find them under a chief named Somarled, who exercised authority in the islands and Argyleshire, and from him the clans of the Highlands and the Western Isles love to trace their ancestry. After his death, according to the Highland traditions, the islands and Argyleshire were divided amongst his three sons. Thus the old Norse empire was finally broken up, and in the 13th century, after another unsuccessful attempt by Haco, King of Norway, to re-establish the authority of the mother kingdom over their distant possessions, an attempt which ended in his defeat at the battle of Largs by the Scottish king, Alexander III., they were ceded to the Scottish kings by Magnus IV., his son, and an alliance was cemented between the two kingdoms by the marriage of Alexander's daughter, Margaret, to Eric of Norway." At the north of Scotland the Jarls of Orkney, in the 11th century, "conquered Caithness and Sutherland, and wrested a recognition of their claim from Malcolm II. of Scotland. Their influence was continually felt in the dynastic and other quarrels of Scotland; the defeat of Duncan, in 1040, by the Jarl of Orkney, contributing not a little to Duncan's subsequent overthrow by Macbeth. They fostered the independence of the north of Scotland against the southern king, and held their kingdom until, in 1355, it passed by the female line to the house of Sinclair. The Sinclairs now transferred their allegiance to their natural master, the King of Scotland; and finally the kingdom of the Orkneys was handed over to James III. as the dowry of his bride, Margaret of Norway."

NORMANS: A. D. 1000-1194.
Conquests and settlement in Southern Italy and Sicily.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
      ALGONQUIAN FAMILY, CHEROKEES,
      IROQUOIS TRIBES OF THE SOUTH,
      SHAWANESE, and TIMUQUANAN FAMILY.

   "An abortive attempt at colonization was made in 1639, and a
   titular governor appeared in Virginia; but this, and a number
   of conflicting claims originating in this patent [to Sir
   Robert Heath], and sufficiently troublesome to the
   proprietaries of a later time, were the only results of the
   grant of Charles I. This action on the part of the Crown, and
   the official information received, did not, however, suffice
   to prevent the Virginia Assembly lending itself to a scheme by
   which possession might be obtained of the neighboring
   territory, or at least substantial benefits realized therefrom
   by their constituents. With this object, they made grants to a
   trading company, which led, however, only to exploration and
   traffic. Other grants of a similar nature followed for the
   next ten years, at the expiration of which a company of
   Virginians made their way from Nansemond to Albemarle, and
   established a settlement there. The Virginian Burgesses
   granted them lands, and promised further grants to all who
   would extend these settlements to the southward. Emigration
   from Virginia began. Settlers, singly and in companies,
   crossed the border, and made scattered and solitary clearings
   within the wilds of North Carolina. Many of these people were
   mere adventurers; but some of them were of more substantial
   stuff, and founded permanent settlements on the Chowan and
   elsewhere. Other eyes, however, as watchful as those of the
   Virginians, were also turned to the rich regions of the South.
{2372}
   New England enterprise explored the American coast from one
   end to the other, in search of lucrative trade and new
   resting-places. After a long acquaintance with the North
   Carolina coast, they bought land of the Indians, near the
   mouth of Cape Fear River, and settled there. For some
   unexplained cause—possibly on account of the wild and
   dangerous character of the scattered inhabitants, who had
   already drifted thither from Virginia, possibly from the
   reason which they themselves gave—the New England colonists
   abandoned their settlement and departed, leaving a written
   opinion of the poor character of the country expressed in very
   plain language and pinned to a post. Here it was found by some
   wanderers from Barbadoes, who were of a different opinion from
   the New Englanders as to the appearance of things; and they
   accordingly repurchased the land from the Indians and began a
   settlement. At this date [1663], therefore, there was in North
   Carolina this infant settlement of the Barbadoes men, on the
   extreme southeastern point of the present State, and in the
   north-eastern corner the Virginia settlers scattered about,
   with here a solitary plantation and there a little group of
   farms, and always a restless van of adventurers working their
   way down the coast and into the interior. … Whatever rights
   the North Carolina settlers may have had in the eyes of the
   Virginians, who had granted them land, or in those of the
   Indians who had sold it, they had none recognized by the
   English King, who claimed to own all that vast region. It may
   be doubted whether anything was known of these early colonists
   in England; and their existence was certainly not regarded in
   the least when Charles II. lavished their territory, and much
   besides, upon a band of his courtiers and ministers."

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1663-1670.
The grant to Monk, Clarendon, Shaftesbury and others.
The organized colonies.

"On the 24th March, 1663, King Charles II. granted to Edward, Earl of Clarendon; George [Monk], Duke of Albemarle; William, Earl of Craven; John, Lord Berkeley; Anthony, Lord Ashley [Earl of Shaftesbury]; Sir George Carteret, Sir John Colleton, and Sir William Berkeley, all the country between the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, between 31° and 36° parallels of latitude, called Carolina, in honor of Charles. [The grant embraced the present States of Georgia, Alabama and Mississippi, as well as the two Carolinas.] In 1663, Sir William Berkeley, Governor of the Colony of Virginia, visited the province, and appointed William Drummond Governor of the Colony of Carolina. … Drummond, at his death in 1667, was succeeded by Stevens as governor. … The first assembly that made laws for Carolina, assembled in the fall of 1669. … A form of government, magnificent in design, and labored in detail, called 'The fundamental constitutions of Carolina,' were drawn up by the celebrated author of the Essay on the Human Understanding, John Locke. … On the death of Governor Stevens, who died in the colony full of years and wealth, the assembly chose Carteret for their governor, and on his return to England soon after, Eastchurch, who then was in Eng]and, was appointed governor, and Miller secretary."

"The earliest grant made to the lords proprietors did not include the whole of the present State of North Carolina. Its northern line fell short of the southern boundary of Virginia by half a degree of latitude. Notwithstanding this, an unwarranted exhibition of authority established virtually the proprietary dominion over this unappropriated territory. … Colonel Byrd of Virginia, who was born not long after the charter of 1665 was made, and who lived during the administration of Berkeley, states, and no doubt truly, that 'Sir William Berkeley, who was one of the grantees, and at that time governor of Virginia, finding a territory of 31 miles in breadth between the inhabited part of Virginia and the above-mentioned boundary of Carolina [36°], advised the Lord Clarendon of it. And his lordship had interest enough with the king to obtain a second patent to include it, dated June 30th, 1665.' By this patent very large powers were granted; so large that, as Chalmers has remarked, 'no one prerogative of the crown was preserved, except only the sovereign dominion. … The existence of the colony from Barbadoes, under Sir John Yeamans, that settled in the old county of Clarendon, from its inception in 1665 to its abandonment in 1690, forms but an episode in the proprietary history of North Carolina. The colony, like all others similarly situated, sought at first to make provision for the supply of bodily wants, in securing food and shelter only; but having done this it next proceeded to make profitable the gifts of Heaven that were around it. Yeamans had brought with him negro slaves from Barbadoes, and so inviting was the new settlement deemed, that in the second year of its existence it contained 800 inhabitants. … But with all this prosperity, the colony on the Cape Fear was not destined to be permanent. The action of the lords proprietors themselves caused its abandonment. … In 1670, the lords proprietors, who seem to have been anxious to proceed more and more to the southward, sent out a considerable number of emigrants to form a colony at Port Royal, now Beaufort, in the present State of South Carolina. The individual who led the expedition was William Sayle, 'a man of experience,' says Chalmers, 'who had been appointed governor of that part of the coast lying southwestward of Cape Carteret.' … Scarcely however, had Sayle carried out his instructions and made his colonists somewhat comfortable, before his constitution yielded to a new and insalubrious climate, and he died. … It was not easy for the proprietors immediately to find a fit successor; and, even had such been at hand, some time must necessarily have elapsed before he could safely reach the scene of his labors. But Sir John Yeamans was near the spot: his long residence had acclimated him, and, as the historian states, he 'had hitherto ruled the plantation around Cape Fear with a prudence which precluded complaint.' He therefore was directed to extend his command from old Clarendon, on the Cape Fear, to the territory which was southwest of Cape Carteret. This was in August, 1671. The shores with the adjacent land, and the streams making into the sea, were by this time very well known to all the dwellers in Carolina, for the proprietors had caused them to be surveyed with accuracy. {2373} On the banks of Ashley River there was good pasturage, and land fit for tillage. The planters of Clarendon, therefore, turned their faces southward, while those from Port Royal travelled northward; and so the colonists from both settlements met on the banks of the Ashley, as on a middle ground, and here in the same year (1671) they laid, 'on the first high land,' the foundations of 'old Charlestown.' In 1679, it was found that 'Oyster Point,' formed by the confluence of Ashley and Cooper rivers, was more convenient for a town than the spot previously selected, and the people, with the encouragement of the lords proprietors, began to remove thither. In the next year (1680) were laid the foundations of the present city of Charleston; thirty houses were built, and it was declared to be the capital of the southern part of the province, and also the port for all commercial traffic. This gradually depopulated old Clarendon. … We now return to trace the fortunes of the settlement on Albemarle, under Stephens. As before stated he entered upon his duties as governor in October, 1667. … His instructions were very full and explicit. The Assembly was to be composed of the governor, a council of twelve, and twelve delegates chosen by the freeholders. Of the twelve councillors, whose advice, by the way, the governor was required always to take and follow, one half was to be appointed by the Assembly, the other half by himself. To this Assembly belonged not only the power to make laws, but a large share of the executive authority also. … In 1669, the first legislature under this constitution assembled. And it is worthy of remark, that at this period, when the province may be said to have had, for the first time, a system of regular government, there was in it a recognition of two great principles which are now part of the political creed of our whole country, without distinction of party. These are, first, that the people are entitled to a voice in the selection of their law-makers; and secondly, that they cannot rightfully be taxed but by their own representatives. … The people, we have reason to believe, were contented and happy during the early part of Stephens' administration. … But this quiet condition of affairs was not to last. We have now reached a period in our history which illustrates the fact, that whatever wisdom may be apparent in the constitution given to the Albemarle colony by the proprietors, on the accession of Stephens, was less the result of deliberation than of a happy accident. … But the time had now come for the proprietors to carry out their magnificent project of founding an empire; and disregarding alike the nature of man, the lessons of experience, and the physical obstacles of an unsubdued wilderness (even not yet entirely reclaimed), they resolved that all should yield to their theories of government, and invoked the aid of philosophy to accomplish an impossibility. Locke was employed to prepare 'the fundamental constitutions.'"

      ALSO IN:
      W. C. Bryant and S. H. Gay,
      Popular History of thee United States,
      volume 2, chapter 12.

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1669-1693.
The Fundamental Constitutions of John Locke,
and their failure.

The royal grant of the Carolinas to Monk, Shaftesbury, Clarendon, and their associates invested them with "all the rights, jurisdiction, royalties, privileges, and liberties within the bounds of their province, to hold, use, and enjoy the same, in as ample a manner as the bishop of Durham did in that county-palatine in England: … Agreeably to these powers, the proprietors proceeded to frame a system of laws for the colony which they projected. Locke, the well-known philosopher, was summoned to this work, and the largest expectations were entertained in consequence of his co-operation. Locke, though subsequently one of the proprietors, was, at the beginning, simply the secretary of the earl of Shaftesbury. The probability is that, in preparing the constitution for the Carolinas, he rather carried out the notions of that versatile nobleman than his own. … The code of laws called the 'Fundamental Constitutions,' which was devised, and which subsequently became unpopular in the colony, is not certainly the work of his hands. It is ascribed by Oldmixon, a contemporary, to the earl of Shaftesbury, one of the proprietors. The most striking feature in this code provided for the creation of a nobility, consisting of land graves, cassiques, and barons. These were to be graduated by the landed estates which were granted with the dignity; the eldest of the proprietary lords was to be the superior, with the title of Palatine, and the people were to be serfs." The tenants, and the issue of the tenants, "were to be transferred with the soil, and not at liberty to leave it, but with the lord's permission, under hand and seal. The whole system was rejected after a few years' experiment. It has been harshly judged as … the crude conception of a mind conversant rather with books than men—with the abstract rather than the practical in government and society. And this judgment is certainly true of the constitutions in the case in which they were employed. They did not suit the absolute conditions of the country, or the class of people which subsequently made their way to it. But contemplating the institution of domestic slavery, as the proprietors had done from the beginning—a large villanage and a wealthy aristocracy, dominating almost without restraint or responsibility over the whole—the scheme was not without its plausibilities. But the feudal tenures were everywhere dying out. The time had passed, even in Europe, for such a system. … The great destitution of the first settlers left them generally without the means of procuring slaves; and the equal necessities, to which all are subject who peril life and fortune in a savage forest and on a foreign shore, soon made the titular distinctions of the few a miserable mockery, or something worse."

   "The constitutions were signed on the 21st of July, 1669;" but
   subsequently revised by the interpolation of a clause, against
   the wishes of Locke, establishing the Church of England. "This
   revised copy of 'the model' was not signed till March, 1670.
   To a colony of which the majority were likely to be
   dissenters, the change was vital; it was scarcely noticed in
   England, where the model became the theme of extravagant
   applause. … As far as depended upon the proprietaries, the
   government was immediately organized with Monk, duke of
   Albemarle, as palatine." But, meantime, the colonists in the
   northern part of the Carolina province had instituted a simple
   form of government for themselves, with a council of twelve,
   and an assembly composed of the governor, the council, and
   twelve delegates from the freeholders of the incipient
   settlements.
{2374}
   The assembly had already met and had framed some important
   laws, which remained "valid in North Carolina for more than
   half a century. Hardly had these laws been established when
   the new constitution was forwarded to Albemarle. Its
   promulgation did but favor anarchy by invalidating the
   existing system, which it could not replace. The
   proprietaries, contrary to stipulations with the colonists,
   superseded the existing government, and the colonists
   resolutely rejected the substitute." Much the same state of
   things appeared in the South Carolina settlements (not yet
   separately named), and successive disorders and revolutionary
   changes made up the history of the pseudo palatinate for many
   years.

G. Bancroft, History of the United States (Author's last revision), part 2, chapter 7 (volume 1).

In 1693, "to conciliate the colonists, and to get rid of the dispute which had arisen as to the binding force of the 'Grand Model,' the proprietors voted that, 'as the people have declared they would rather be governed by the powers granted by the charter, without regard to the fundamental constitutions, it will be for their quiet, and the protection of the well-disposed, to grant their request.' This abrogation of the labors of Locke removed one bone of contention; but as the 'Grand Model' had never been actually carried into effect, the government went on much as before. Each of the proprietaries continued to have his special delegate in the colony, or rather two delegates, one for South Carolina, the other for Albemarle, the eight together constituting the council in either province, over which the governor presided as delegate of the palatine, to whom his appointment belonged."

   The text of the "fundamental constitutions" is printed in
   volume 9 of the 12th edition of Locke's complete works, and in
   volume 10 of several prior editions.

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1688-1729.
Slow progress and unprosperous state of the colony.
End of the Proprietary Government.

In 1688, Carolina (the northern province) being afflicted with a governor, one Seth Sothel, who is accused of every variety of extortion and rapacity, the colonists rose up against him, tried him before their assembly, deposed him from his office and drove him into exile. "The Proprietors demurred to the form of this procedure, but acquiesced in the substance of it, and thereby did something to confirm that contempt for government which was one of the leading characteristics of the colony. During the years which followed, the efforts of the Proprietors to maintain any authority over their Northern province, or to connect it in any way with their Southern territory, were little more than nominal. For the most part the two settlements were distinguished by the Proprietors as 'our colony north-east of Cape Fear,' and 'our colony south-west of Cape Fear.' As early as 1691 we find the expression North Carolina once used. After that we do not meet with it till 1696. From that time onward both expressions are used with no marked distinction, sometimes even in the same document. At times the Proprietors seem to have aimed at establishing a closer connexion between the two colonies by placing them under a single Governor. But in nearly all these cases provision was made for the appointment of separate Deputy-Governors, nor does there seem to have been any project for uniting the two legislative bodies. … In 1720 the first event occurred which throws any clear light from without on the internal life of the colony. In that year boundary disputes arose between Virginia and her southern neighbour and it was found necessary to appoint representatives on each side to settle the boundary line. The chief interest of the matter lies in the notes left to us by one of the Virginia Commissioners [Colonel William Byrd]. … After making all … deductions and checking Byrd's report by that of graver writers, there remains a picture of poverty, indolence, and thriftlessness which finds no counterpart in any of the other southern colonies. That the chief town contained only some fifty poor cottages is little or nothing more than what we find in Maryland or Virginia. But there the import trade with England made up for the deficiencies of colonial life. North Carolina, lacking the two essentials of trade, harbours and a surplus population, had no commercial dealings with the mother country. … The only possessions which abounded were horses and swine, both of which could be reared in droves without any care or attention. … The evils of slavery existed without its counterbalancing advantages. There was nothing to teach those habits of administration which the rich planters of Virginia and South Carolina learnt as part of their daily life. At the same time the colony suffered from one of the worst effects of slavery, a want of manual skill. … In 1729 the faint and meaningless shadow of proprietary government came to an end. The Crown bought up first the shares of seven Proprietors, then after an interval that of the eighth. In the case of other colonies the process of transfer had been effected by a conflict and by something approaching to revolution. In North Carolina alone it seems to have come about with the peaceful assent of all parties. … Without a struggle, North Carolina cast off all traces of its peculiar origin and passed into the ordinary state of a crown colony."

J. A. Doyle, The English in America: Virginia, Maryland and the Carolinas, chapter 12.

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1711-1714.
Indian rising and massacre of colonists.
Subjugation and expulsion of the Tuscaroras.

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1760-1766.
   The question of taxation by Parliament.
   The Stamp Act.
   The First Continental Congress.
   The repeal of the Stamp Act and the Declaratory Act.

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1766-1768.
The Townshend Duties.
The Circular Letter of Massachusetts.

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1766-1771.
The insurrection of the Regulators.
Battle of Alamance.

Complaints of official extortion, which were loud in several of the colonies at about the same period, led to serious results in North Carolina. "Complaints were most rife in the middle counties, a very barren portion of the province, with a population generally poor and ignorant. These people complained, and not without reason—for the poor and ignorant are ever most exposed to oppression—not only that excessive fees were extorted, but that the sheriffs collected taxes of which they rendered no account. They seem also to have held the courts and lawyers—indeed, the whole system for the collection of debts —in great detestation. Presently, under the name of 'Regulators,' borrowed from South Carolina, they formed associations which not only refused the payment of taxes, but assaulted the persons and property of lawyers, judges, sheriffs, and other obnoxious individuals, and even proceeded so far as to break up the sessions of the courts. The common name of Regulators designated, in the two Carolinas, combinations composed of different materials, and having different objects in view. The Assembly of the province took decided ground against them, and even expelled one of their leaders, who had been elected a member. After negotiations and delays, and broken promises to keep the peace, Governor Tryon, at the head of a body of volunteers, marched into the disaffected counties. The Regulators assembled in arms, and an action was fought at Alamance, on the Haw, near the head waters of Cape Fear River, in which some 200 were left dead upon the field. Out of a large number taken prisoners, six were executed for high treason. Though the Regulators submitted, they continued to entertain a deadly hatred against the militia of the lower counties, which had taken part against them. Tryon was presently removed from North Carolina to New York. His successor, Joseph Martin, anxious to strengthen himself against the growing discontents of the province, promised to redress the grievances, and sedulously cultivated the good will of the Regulators, and with such success that they became, in the end, staunch supporters of the royal authority."

      F. L. Hawks,
      Battle of the Alamance
      (Revised History of North Carolina).

See BOSTON: A. D. 1768, to 1773;
and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1770, to 1774.

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1769-1772.
The first settlement of Tennessee.
The Watauga Association.

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1775.
   The beginning of the War of the American Revolution.
   Lexington.
   Concord.
   Action on the news.
   Ticonderoga.
   The Siege of Boston.
   Bunker Hill.
   The Second Continental Congress.

"It has been strenuously claimed and denied that, at a meeting of the people of Mecklenburg County, in North Carolina, on May 20, 1775, resolutions were passed declaring their independence of Great Britain. The facts in the case appear to be these:—On the 31st of May, 1775, the people of this county did pass resolutions quite abreast of the public sentiment of that time, but not venturing on the field of independency further than to say that these resolutions were to remain in force till Great Britain resigned its pretensions. These resolutions were well written, attracted notice, and were copied into the leading newspapers of the colonies, North and South, and can be found in various later works (Lossing's 'Field-Book,' ii, 619, etc.). A copy of the 'South Carolina Gazette' containing them was sent by Governor Wright, of Georgia, to Lord Dartmouth, and was found by Bancroft in the State Paper Office, while in the Sparks MSS. (no. lvi) is the record of a copy sent to the home government by Governor Martin of North Carolina, with a letter dated June 30, 1775. Of these resolutions there is no doubt (Frothingham's 'Rise of the Republic,' 422). In 1793, or earlier, some of the actors in the proceeding, apparently ignorant that the record of these resolutions had been preserved in the newspapers, endeavored to supply them from memory, unconsciously intermingling some of the phraseology of the Declaration of July 4th, in Congress, which gave them the tone of a pronounced independency. Probably through another dimness of memory they affixed the date of May 20, 1775, to them. These were first printed in the 'Raleigh Register,' April 30, 1819. They are found to resemble in some respects the now known resolves of May 31st, as well as the national Declaration in a few phrases. In 1829 Martin printed them, much altered, in his 'North Carolina' (ii, 272) but it is not known where this copy came from. In 1831 the State printed the text of the 1819 copy, and fortified it with recollections and certificates of persons affirming that they were present when the resolutions were passed on the 20th."

      J. Winsor,
      Note in Narrative and Critical History of America,
      volume 6, page 256.

"We are inclined to conjecture that there was a popular meeting at Charlottetown on the 19th and 20th of May, where discussion was had on the subject of independence, and probably some more or less explicit understanding arrived at, which became the basis of the committee's action on the 31st. If so, we make no doubt that J. McN. Alexander was secretary of that meeting. He, probably, in that case, recorded the proceedings, and among them some resolution or resolutions in regard to the propriety of throwing off the British yoke. … It was in attempting to remember the records of that meeting, destroyed by fire, that John McN. Alexander, then an old man, fell into the errors" which led him, in 1800, to certify, as Secretary, a copy of the document called the Mecklenburg Declaration of Independence.

      ALSO IN:
      W. A. Graham,
      Address on the Mecklenburg Declaration, 1875.

      F. L. Hawks,
      The Mecklenburg Declaration
      (Revised History of Georgia).

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1775-1776.
   The arming of the loyalist Highlanders
   and their defeat at Moore's Creek.
   The first colony vote for independence.

   "North Carolina was the first colony to act as a unit in favor
   of independence. It was the fourth in importance of the United
   Colonies. Its Provincial Congress had organized the militia,
   and vested the public authority in a provincial council for
   the whole colony, committees of safety for the districts, and
   county and town committees. A large portion of the people were
   adherents of the crown,—among them a body of Highland
   emigrants, and most of the party of regulators. Governor
   Martin represented, not without grounds, that, if these
   loyalists were supported by a British force, the colony might
   be gained to the royal side.
{2376}
   The loyalists were also numerous in Georgia and South
   Carolina. Hence it was determined by the King to send an
   expedition to the Southern Colonies in the winter, to restore
   the royal authority. This was put under the command of Sir
   Henry Clinton, and ordered to rendezvous at Cape Fear. 'I am
   clear,' wrote George III., 'the first attempt should be made
   on North Carolina, as the Highland settlers are said to be
   well inclined.' Commissions were issued to men of influence
   among them, one being Allan McDonald, the husband of the
   chivalrous Flora McDonald, who became famous by romantic
   devotion to Prince Charles Edward. Donald McDonald was
   appointed the commander. These officers, under the direction
   of the governor, after much secret consultation, enrolled
   about 1,500 men. The popular leaders, however, were informed
   of their designs. The militia were summoned, and took the
   field under Colonel James Moore. At length, when Sir Henry
   Clinton was expected at Cape Fear, General McDonald erected
   the royal standard at Cross Creek, now Fayetteville, and moved
   forward to join Clinton. Colonel Moore ordered parties of the
   militia to take post at Moore's Creek Bridge, over which
   McDonald would be obliged to pass. Colonel Richard Caswell was
   at the head of one of these parties: hence the force here was
   under his command: and this place on the 27th of February
   [1776] became a famous battle-field. The Provincials were
   victorious. They captured a great quantity of military
   supplies, nearly 900 men, and their commander. This was the
   Lexington and Concord of that region. The newspapers
   circulated the details of this brilliant result. The spirit of
   the Whigs run high. … A strong force was soon ready and
   anxious to meet Clinton. Amidst these scenes, the people
   elected delegates to a Provincial Congress, which met, on the
   4th of April [1776], at Halifax. … Attempts were made to
   ascertain the sense of the people on independence. … The
   subject was referred to a committee, of which Cornelius
   Harnett was the chairman. They reported an elaborate preamble
   … and a resolution to empower the delegates in the General
   Congress 'to concur with the delegates in the other colonies
   in declaring independency and forming foreign
   alliances,—reserving to the colony the sole and exclusive
   right of forming a constitution and laws for it,' also 'of
   appointing delegates in a general representation of the
   colonies for such purposes as might be agreed upon.' This was
   unanimously adopted on the 12th of April. Thus the popular
   party carried North Carolina as a unit in favor of
   independence, when the colonies, from New England to Virginia,
   were in solid array against it. The example was warmly
   welcomed by the patriots, and commended for imitation."

      D. L. Swain,
      British Invasion of North Carolina in 1776
      (Revised History of North Carolina).

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1776-1780.
   Independence declared.
   Adoption of State Constitution.
   The war in the North.
   British conquest of Georgia.

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1780-1783.
   The war in the South.
   Greene's campaign.
   King's Mountain.
   The Cowpens.
   Guilford Court House.
   Hobkirk's Hill.
   Eutaw Springs.
   Yorktown.
   Peace.

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1784. Revolt of the Tennessee settlements against their cession to Congress.

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1785-1788.
The state of Franklin organized by the Tennessee settlers.
Its brief and troubled history.

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1787-1789.
Formation and adoption of the Federal Constitution.

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1790.
Renewed cession of western Territory (Tennessee)
to the United States.

See TENNESSEE: A. D. 1785-1796;
also, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786.

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1861 (January-May).
The difficult dragging of the state into Secession.

"A large majority of the people of North Carolina were opposed to secession. They did not regard it as a constitutional right. They were equally opposed to a separation from the Union in resentment of the election of Mr. Lincoln. But the Governor, John W. Ellis, was in full sympathy with the secessionists. He spared no pains to bring the state into line with South Carolina [which had passed her ordinance of Secession December 20, 1860.]

The legislature met on the 20th of November. The governor, in his message, recommended that the legislature should invite a conference with the Southern States, or send delegates to them for the purpose of securing their co-operation. He also recommended the reorganization of the militia, and the call of a state convention. Bills were introduced for the purpose of carrying these measures into effect. … On the 30th of January, a bill for calling a state convention was passed. It provided that no secession ordinance, nor one connecting the state with the Southern Confederacy, would be valid until it should be ratified by a majority of the qualified voters of the state. The vote of the people was appointed to take place on the 28th of February. The delegates were elected on the day named. A large majority of them were Unionists. But, at the same time, the convention itself was voted down. The vote for a convention was 46,671; against a convention, 47,333. The majority against it was 662. This majority against a convention, however, was no criterion of popular sentiment in regard to secession. The true test was the votes received, respectively, by the Union and secession delegates. The former received a majority of nearly 30,000. But the indefatigable governor was not to be balked by the popular dislike for secession. The legislature was called together in extra session on May 1. On the same day they voted to have another election for delegates to a state convention on the 13th of the month. The election took place accordingly, and the delegates convened on the 20th. On the following day the secession ordinance was adopted, and the Confederate Constitution ratified. To save time, and avoid further obstructions, the question of popular approval was taken for granted."

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1861 (April).
Governor Ellis' reply to President Lincoln's call for troops.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (APRIL)
PRESIDENT LINCOLN'S CALL TO ARMS.

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1862 (January-April).
Capture of Roanoke Island, Newbern and Beaufort
by the Union forces.

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1864 (April-May).
Exploits of the ram Albemarle.
Confederate capture of Plymouth.

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1865 (February-March).
Sherman's March.
The Battle of Bentonsville.

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1865 (February-March).
Federal occupation of Wilmington.
Battle of Kinston.

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1865 (May).
Provisional government under
President Johnson's Plan of Reconstruction.

NORTH GERMAN CONFEDERATION.

One of the battles in the English civil wars of the 15th century called the Wars of the Roses, fought July 10, 1460. The royalist party (Lancastrians) were signally defeated, King Henry VI. taken prisoner, and Queen Margaret driven in flight to the north.

NORTHERN CIRCARS, OR SIRKARS.

NORTHMEN.

The northernmost of the kingdoms formed by the Angles in Britain in the 6th century. It embraced the two kingdoms of Bernicia and Deira, sometimes ruled by separate princes, sometimes united, as Northumbria, under one, and extending from the Humber to the Forth.

NORTHWEST FUR COMPANY.

NORTHWEST TERRITORIES OF CANADA.

"The North West Territories comprise all lands [of the Dominion of Canada] not within the limits of any province or of the District of Keewatin. The area of the Territories is about 3,000,000 square miles or four times as great as the area of all the provinces together. The Territories were ceded to Canada by an Order in Council dated the 24th June 1870. …

The southern portion of the territories between Manitoba and British Columbia has been formed into four provisional districts, viz. Assiniboia, Saskatchewan, Alberta and Athabasca. By the Dominion Act 38 Vie. c. 49 executive and legislative powers were conferred on a Lieutenant-Governor and a Council of five members subject to instructions given by Order in Council or by the Canadian Secretary of State."

—————NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Start————

"This northwestern land lay between the Mississippi, the Ohio, and the Great Lakes. It now constitutes five of our large States and part of a sixth [namely, western Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Michigan]. But when independence was declared it was quite as much a foreign territory, considered from the standpoint of the old thirteen colonies, as Florida or Canada; the difference was that, whereas during the war we failed in our attempts to conquer Florida and Canada, we succeeded in conquering the Northwest. The Northwest formed no part of our country as it originally stood; it had no portion in the declaration of independence. It did not revolt; it was conquered. … We made our first important conquest during the Revolution itself."

NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF USA: A. D. 1673-1751.
Early French exploration and occupation.

See CANADA: A. D. 1634-1673; 16611-1687; 1700-1735;
also ILLINOIS: A. D. 1700-1750; and 1751.

NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF USA: A. D. 1748-1763.
Struggle of the French and English for possession.

NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF USA: A. D. 1763.
Cession to Great Britain by the Treaty of Paris.
Possession taken.

NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF USA: A. D. 1763. The king's proclamation excluding settlers, and reserving the whole interior of the continent for the Indians.

"On the 7th of October, 1763, George III. issued a proclamation, providing for four new governments or colonies, namely: Quebec, East Florida, West Florida, and Grenada [the latter embracing 'the island of that name, together with the Grenadines, and the islands of Dominico, St. Vincent and 'Tobago'], and defining their boundaries. The limits of Quebec did not vary materially from those of the present province of that name, and those of East and West Florida comprised the present State of Florida and the country north of the Gulf of Mexico to the parallel of 31° latitude. It will be seen that no provision was made for the government of nine tenths of the new territory acquired by the Treaty of Paris, and the omission was not an oversight, but was intentional. The purpose was to reserve as crown lands the Northwest territory, the region north of the great lakes, and the country between the Alleghanies and the Mississippi, and to exclude them from settlement by the American colonies. They were left, for the time being, to the undisputed possession of the savage tribes. The king's 'loving subjects' were forbidden making purchases of land from the Indians, or forming any settlements 'westward of the sources of the rivers which fall into the sea from the West and Northwest,' 'and all persons who have wilfully or inadvertently seated themselves upon any lands' west of this limit were warned 'forthwith to remove themselves from such settlements.' Certain reasons for this policy were assigned in the proclamation, such as, 'preventing irregularities in the future, and that the Indians may be convinced of our justice,' etc.; but the real explanation appears in the Report of the Lords Commissioners for Trade and Plantations, in 1772, on the petition of Thomas Walpole and others for a grant of land on the Ohio. The report was drawn by Lord Hillsborough, the president of the board. The report states: 'We take leave to remind your lordships of that principle which was adopted by this Board, and approved and confirmed by his Majesty, immediately after the Treaty of Paris, viz.: the confining the western extent of settlements to such a distance from the sea-coasts as that those settlements should lie within reach of the trade and commerce of this kingdom, … and also of the exercise of that authority and jurisdiction which was conceived to be necessary for the preservation of the colonies in a due subordination to, and dependence upon, the mother country. And these we apprehend to have been the two capital objects of his Majesty's proclamation of the 7th of October, 1763. … The great object of colonizing upon the continent of North America has been to improve and extend the commerce, navigation, and manufactures of this kingdom. … It does appear to us that the extension of the fur trade depends entirely upon the Indians being undisturbed in the possession of their hunting-grounds, and that all colonizing does in its nature, and must in its consequences, operate to the prejudice of that branch of commerce. … Let the Savages enjoy their deserts in quiet. Were they driven from their forests the peltry-trade would decrease.' … Such in clear and specific terms was the cold and selfish policy which the British crown and its ministers habitually pursued towards the American colonies; and in a few years it changed loyalty into hate, and brought on the American Revolution."

W. F. Poole, The West, from 1763 to 1783 (Narrative and Critical History of America, volume 6, chapter 9).

"The king's proclamation [of 1763] shows that, in the construction put upon the treaty by the crown authorities, the ceded territory was a new acquisition by conquest. The proclamation was the formal appropriation of it as the king's domain, embracing all the country west of the heads or sources of the rivers falling into the Atlantic."

NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF USA: A. D. 1765-1768.
The Indian Treaties of German Flats and Fort Stanwix.
Boundary arrangement with the Six Nations.

NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF USA: A. D. 1774.
The territorial claims of Virginia.
Lord Dunmore's War.

NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF USA: A. D. 1778-1779.
Its conquest from the British by the Virginian General Clark,
and its organization under the jurisdiction of Virginia.

NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF USA: A. D. 1781-1786.
Cession of the conflicting territorial claims of the States
to the United States.

   "The condition of the northwestern territory had long been
   under the consideration of the House [the Congress of the
   Confederation]. Several committees had been appointed, and
   several schemes listened to, for laying out new States, but it
   was not till the middle of April [1784], that a resolution
   was finally reached. One plan was to divide the ceded and
   purchased lands into seventeen States. Eight of these were to
   lie between the banks of the Mississippi and a north and south
   line through the falls of the Ohio. Eight more were to be
   marked out between this line and a second one parallel to it,
   and passing through the western bank of the mouth of the Great
   Kanawha. What remained was to form the seventeenth State. But
   few supporters were found for the measure, and a committee,
   over which Jefferson presided, was ordered to place before
   Congress a new scheme of division. Chase and Howe assisted
   him; and the three devised a plan whereby the prairie-lands
   were to be parted out among ten new States. The divisions then
   marked down have utterly disappeared, and the names given to
   them become so forgotten that nine tenths of the population
   which has, in our time, covered the whole region with wealthy
   cities and prosperous villages, and turned it from a waste to
   a garden, have never in their lives heard the words
   pronounced. Some were borrowed from the Latin and some from
   the Greek; while others were Latinized forms of the names the
   Indians had given to the rivers. The States were to be, as far
   as possible, two degrees of latitude in width and arranged in
   three tiers. The Mississippi and a meridian through the falls
   of the Ohio included the western tier. The meridian through
   the falls of the Ohio and a second through the mouth of the
   Great Kanawha were the boundaries of the middle tier. Between
   this and the Pennsylvania West Line lay the third tier. That
   vast tract stretching from the 45th parallel of latitude to
   the Lake of the Woods, and dense with forests of pine, of
   hickory, and of oak, they called Sylvania.
{2379}
   It was the northern State of the western tier. To the long
   tongue of land separating the water of Michigan from the
   waters of Erie and Huron they gave the name Cherronesus. A
   narrow strip, not more than two degrees of latitude in width,
   and stretching from Lake Michigan to the Mississippi, was
   called Michigania. As marked down on their rude maps,
   Michigania lay under Sylvania, in the very heart of what is
   now Wisconsin. South of this to the 41st parallel of latitude
   was Assenisipia, a name derived from Assenisipi, the Indian
   title of the river now called the Rock. Eastward, along the
   shore of Lake Erie, the country was named Metropotamia. It
   took the name Mother of Rivers from the belief that within its
   boundary were the fountains of many rivers, the Muskingum, the
   two Miamis of Ohio, the Wabash, the Illinois, the Sandusky,
   and the Miami of the Lake. That part of Illinois between the
   39th and 41st parallels was called, from the river which
   waters it, Illinoia. On to the east was Saratoga, and beyond
   this lay Washington, a broad and level tract shut in by the
   Ohio river, the waters of the lake, and the boundaries of
   Pennsylvania. Under Illinoia and Saratoga, and stretching
   along the Ohio, was the ninth State. Within its confines the
   waters of the Wabash, the Sawane, the Tanissee, the Illinois,
   and the Ohio were mingled with the waters of the Mississippi
   and Missouri. The committee therefore judged that a fitting
   name would be Polypotamia. Pelisipia was the tenth State. It
   lay to the east of Polypotamia, and was named from Pelisipi, a
   term the Cherokees often applied to the river Ohio. At the
   same time that the boundaries of the new States were defined,
   a code of laws was drawn up which should serve as a
   constitution for each State, till 20,000 free inhabitants
   acquired the right of self-government. The code was in no wise
   a remarkable performance, yet there were among its articles
   two which cannot be passed by in silence. One provided for the
   abolition of slavery after the year 1800. The other announced
   that no one holding an hereditary title should ever become a
   citizen of the new States. Each was struck out by the House.
   Yet each is deserving of notice. The one because it was the
   first attempt at a national condemnation of slavery, the other
   because it was a public expression of the dread with which our
   ancestors beheld the growth of the Society of the Cincinnati."

J. B. McMaster, History of the People of the United States, chapter 2 (volume 1).

The report of Jefferson's committee "was recommitted to the same committee on the 17th of March, and a new one was submitted on the 22d of the same month. The second report agreed in substance with the first. The principal difference was the omission of the paragraph giving names to the States to be formed out of the Western Territory." After striking out the clauses prohibiting slavery after the year 1800 and denying citizenship to all persons holding hereditary titles, the Congress adopted the report, April 23, 1784. "Thus the substance of the report of Mr. Jefferson of a plan for the government of the Western Territory (without restrictions as to slavery) became a law, and remained so during 1784 to 1787, when these resolutions were repealed in terms by the passage of the ordinance for the government of the 'Territory of the United States northwest of the river Ohio.'"

NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF USA: A. D. 1786-1788.
   The Ohio Company of Revolutionary soldiers and
   their land purchase.
   The settlement at Marietta.

"The Revolutionary War had hardly closed before thousands of the disbanded officers and soldiers were looking anxiously to the Western lands for new homes, or for means of repairing their shattered fortunes. In June, 1783, a strong memorial was sent to Congress asking a grant of the lands between the Ohio and Lake Erie. Those who lived in the South were fortunate in having immediate access to the lands of Kentucky, Tennessee, and the back parts of Georgia. The strife in Congress over the lands of the Northwest delayed the surveys and the bounties so long that the soldiers of the North almost lost hope." Finally, there "was a meeting of officers and soldiers, chiefly of the Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Connecticut lines, at Boston, March 1, 1786, when they formed a new Ohio Company for the purchase and settlement of Western lands, in shares of $1,000. General Putnam [Rufus], General Samuel H. Parsons, and the Rev. Manasseh Cutler, were made the directors, and selected for their purchase the lands on the Ohio River situated on both sides of the Muskingum, and immediately west of the Seven Ranges. The treasury board in those days were the commissioners of public lands, but with no powers to enter into absolute sales unless such were approved by Congress. Weeks and months were lost in waiting for a quorum of that body to assemble. This was effected on the 11th of July, and Dr. Cutler, deputed by his colleagues, was in attendance, but was constantly baffled in pursuing his objects. … The members were disposed to insert conditions which were not satisfactory to the Ohio Company. But the doctor carried his point by formally intimating that he should retire, and seek better terms with some of the States, which were offering their lands at half the price Congress was to receive. The grant to the Ohio Company, upon the terms proposed, was voted by Congress, and the contract formally signed October 27, 1787, by the treasury board, and by Dr. Cutler and Winthrop Sargent, as agents of the Ohio Company. Two companies, including surveyors, boat-builders, carpenters, smiths, farmers and laborers, 48 persons in all, with their outfit, were sent forward in the following months of December and January, under General Putnam as leader and superintendent. They united in February on the Youghiogheny River and constructed boats. … Embarking with their stores they descended the Ohio, and on the 7th of April, 1788, landed at the Muskingum. On the upper point, opposite Fort Harmar, they founded their town, which at Boston had first been named Adelphia. At the first meeting of the directors, held on the ground July 2d, the name of Marietta was adopted, in honor of the French Queen Marie Antoinette, and compounded of the first and last syllables."

      ALSO IN:
      W. P. and J. P. Cutler,
      Life, Journals and Correspondence
      of Reverend Manasseh Cutler,
      volume 1, chapters 4-7 and 9.

NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF USA: A. D. 1787.
The great Ordinance for its government.
Perpetual Exclusion of Slavery.

"Congress at intervals discussed the future of this great domain, but for a while little progress was made except to establish that Congress could divide the territory as might seem best. Nathan Dane came forward with a motion for a committee to plan some temporary scheme of government. A committee on this point reported (May 10, 1786) that the number of States should be from two to five, to be admitted as States according to Jefferson's proposition, but the question of slavery in them was left open. Nothing definite was done till a committee—Johnson of Connecticut, Pinckney of South Carolina, Smith of New York, Dane of Massachusetts, and Henry of Maryland—reported on April 26, 1787, 'An ordinance for the government of the Western territory,' and after various amendments it was fairly transcribed for a third reading, May 10th. Further consideration was now delayed until July. It was at this point that Manasseh Cutler appeared in New York, commissioned to buy land for the Ohio Company in the region whose future was to be determined by this ordinance, and it was very likely, in part, by his influence that those features of the perfected ordinance as passed five days later, and which has given it its general fame, were introduced. On July 9th the bill was referred to a new committee, of which a majority were Southern men, Carrington of Virginia taking the chairmanship from Johnson; Dane and Smith were retained, but Richard Henry Lee and Kean of South Carolina supplanted Pinckney and Henry. This change was made to secure the Southern support; on the other hand, acquiescence in the wishes of Northern purchasers of lands was essential in any business outcome of the movement. 'Up to this time,' says Poole, 'there were no articles of compact in the bill, no anti-slavery clause, nothing about liberty of conscience or of the press, the right of habeas corpus, or of trial by jury, or the equal distribution of estates. The clause that, "religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall be forever encouraged," was not there.' These omissions were the New England ideas, which had long before this been engrafted on the Constitution of Massachusetts. This new committee reported the bill, embodying all these provisions except the anti-slavery clause, on the 11th, and the next day this and other amendments were made. On the 13th, but one voice was raised against the bill on its final passage, and that came from Yates of New York. Poole intimates that it was the promise of the governorship of the territory under the ordinance which induced St. Clair, then President of Congress, to lend it his countenance. The promise, if such it was, was fulfilled, and St. Clair became the first governor."

J. Winsor and E. Channing, Territorial Acquisitions and Divisions (Narrative and Critical History of America, volume 7, appendix).

      W. F. Poole,
      Doctor Cutler and the Ordinance of 1787
      (North American Review, April, 1876.

      W. P. and J. P. Cutler,
      Life of Manasseh Cutler,
      volume 1, chapter 8.

      J. A. Barrett,
      Evolution of the Ordinance of 1787
      (University of Nebraska, Seminary Papers, 1891).

      J. P. Dunn, editor,
      Slavery Petitions
      (Indiana Historical Society,
      volume 2, number 12).

   The following is the text of the "Ordinance for the Government
   of the Territory of the United States Northwest of the River
   Ohio," commonly known as the "Ordinance of 1787":

"Be it ordained by the United States in Congress assembled, That the said territory, for the purposes of temporary government, be one district, subject, however, to be divided into two districts, as future circumstances may, in the opinion of Congress, make it expedient. Be it ordained by the authority aforesaid, That the estates, both of resident and non-resident proprietors in the said territory, dying intestate, shall descend to, and be distributed among, their children, and the descendants of a deceased child, in equal parts; the descendants of a deceased child or grandchild to take the share of their deceased parent in equal parts among them: And where there shall be no children or descendants, then in equal parts to the next of kin in equal degree; and, among collaterals, the children of a deceased brother or sister of the intestate shall have, in equal parts among them, their deceased parents' share; and there shall, in no case, be a distinction between kindred of the whole and half-blood; saving, in all cases, to the widow of the intestate her third part of the real estate for life, and one-third part of the personal estate; and this law, relative to descents and dower, shall remain in full force until altered by the legislature of the district. And, until the governor and judges shall adopt laws as hereinafter mentioned, estates in the said territory may be devised or bequeathed by wills in writing, signed and sealed by him or her, in whom the estate may be (being of full age,) and attested by three witnesses; and real estates may be conveyed by lease and release, or, bargain and sale, signed, sealed, and delivered by the person, being of full age, in whom the estate may be, and attested by two witnesses, provided such wills be duly proved, and such conveyances be acknowledged, or the execution thereof duly proved, and be recorded within one year after proper magistrates, courts, and registers shall be appointed for that purpose: and personal property may be transferred by delivery; saving, however to the French and Canadian inhabitants, and other settlers of the Kaskaskias, St. Vincents, and the neighboring villages who have heretofore professed themselves citizens of Virginia, their laws and customs now in force among them, relative to the descent and conveyance of property. Be it ordained by the authority aforesaid, That there shall be appointed, from time to time, by Congress, a governor, whose commission shall continue in force for the term of three years, unless sooner revoked by Congress; he shall reside in the district, and have a freehold estate therein in 1,000 acres of land, while in the exercise of his office. There shall be appointed, from time to time, by Congress, a secretary, whose commission shall continue in force for four years unless sooner revoked; he shall reside in the district, and have a freehold estate therein in 500 acres of land, while in the exercise of his office; it shall be his duty to keep and preserve the acts and laws passed by the legislature, and the public records of the district, and the proceedings of the governor in his Executive department; and transmit authentic copies of such acts and proceedings, every six months, to the Secretary of Congress: {2381} There shall also be appointed a court to consist of three judges, any two of whom to form a court, who shall have a common law jurisdiction, and reside in the district, and have each therein a freehold estate in, 500 acres of land while in the exercise of their offices; and their commissions shall continue in force during good behavior. The governor and judges, or a majority of them, shall adopt and publish in the district such laws of the original States, criminal and civil, as may be necessary and best suited to the circumstances of the district, and report them to Congress from time to time: which laws shall be in force in the district until the organization of the General Assembly therein, unless disapproved of by Congress; but, afterwards, the legislature shall have authority to alter them as they shall think fit. The governor, for the time being, shall be commander-in-chief of the militia, appoint and commission all officers in the same below the rank of general officers; all general Officers shall be appointed and commissioned by Congress. Previous to the organization of the General Assembly, the governor shall appoint such magistrates and other civil officers, in each county or township, as he shall find necessary for the preservation of the peace and good order in the same: After the General Assembly shall be organized, the powers and duties of the magistrates and other civil officers, shall be regulated and defined by the said assembly; but all magistrates and other civil officers, not herein otherwise directed, shall, during the continuance of this temporary government, be appointed by the governor. For the prevention of crimes and injuries, the laws to be adopted or made shall have force in all parts of the district, and for the execution of process, criminal and civil, the governor shall make proper divisions thereof; and he shall proceed, from time to time, as circumstances may require, to layout the parts of the district in which the Indian titles shall have been extinguished, into counties and townships, subject, however, to such alterations as may thereafter be made by the legislature. So soon as there shall be 5,000 free male inhabitants of full age in the district, upon giving proof thereof to the governor, they shall receive authority, with time and place, to elect representatives from their counties or townships to represent them in the General Assembly: Provided, That, for every 500 free male inhabitants, there shall be one representative, and so on progressively with the number of free male inhabitants, shall the right of representation increase, until the number of representatives shall amount to 25; after which, the number and proportion of representatives shall be regulated by the legislature: Provided, That no person be eligible or qualified to act as a representative unless he shall have been a citizen of one of the United States three years, and be a resident in the district, or unless he shall have resided in the district three years; and, in either case, shall likewise hold in his own right, in fee simple, 200 acres of land within the same: Provided, also, That a freehold in 50 acres of land in the district, having been a citizen of one of the States, and being resident in the district, or the like freehold and two years residence in the district, shall be necessary to qualify a man as an elector of a representative. The representatives thus elected, shall serve for the term of two years; and, in case of the death of a representative, or removal from office, the governor shall issue a writ to the county or township for which he was a member, to elect another in his stead, to serve for the residue of the term. The General Assembly, or Legislature, shall consist of the governor, legislative council, and a house of representatives. The legislative council shall consist of five members, to continue in office five years, unless sooner removed by Congress; any three of whom to be a quorum: and the members of the council shall be nominated and appointed in the following manner, to wit: As soon as representatives shall be elected, the governor shall appoint a time and place for them to meet together; and, when met, they shall nominate ten persons, residents in the district, and each possessed of a freehold in 500 acres of land, and return their names to Congress; five of whom Congress shall appoint and commission to serve as aforesaid; and, whenever a vacancy shall happen in the council, by death or removal from office, the house of representatives shall nominate two persons, qualified as aforesaid, for such vacancy, and return their names to Congress; one of whom Congress shall appoint and commission for the residue of the term. And every five years, four months at least before the expiration of the time of service of the members of council, the said house shall nominate ten persons, qualified as aforesaid, and return their names to Congress; five of whom Congress shall appoint and commission to serve as members of the council five years, unless sooner removed. And the governor, legislative council, and house of representatives, shall have authority to make laws in all cases, for the good government of the district, not repugnant to the principles and articles in this ordinance established and declared. And all bills, having passed by a majority in the house, and by a majority in the council, shall be referred to the governor for his assent; but no bill, or legislative act whatever, shall be of any force without his assent. The governor shall have power to convene, prorogue, and dissolve the General Assembly, when, in his opinion, it shall be expedient. The governor, judges, legislative council, secretary, and such other officers as Congress shall appoint in the district, shall take an oath or affirmation of fidelity and of office; the governor before the President of Congress, and all other officers before the governor. As soon as a legislature shall be formed in the district, the council and house assembled in one room, shall have authority, by joint ballot, to elect a delegate to Congress, who shall have a seat in Congress, with a right of debating but not of voting during this temporary government. And, for extending the fundamental principles of civil and religious liberty, which form the basis whereon these republics, their laws and constitutions are erected; to fix and establish those principles as the basis of all laws, constitutions, and governments, which forever hereafter shall be formed in the said territory: to provide also for the establishment of States, and permanent government therein, and for their admission to a share in the federal councils on an equal footing with the original States, at as early periods as may be consistent with the general interest: It is hereby ordained and declared by the authority aforesaid, That the following articles shall be considered as articles of compact between the original States and the people and States in the said territory and forever remain unalterable, unless by common consent, to wit:

   Article 1st.
   No person, demeaning himself in a peaceable and orderly
   manner, shall ever be molested on account of his mode of
   worship or religious sentiments, in the said territory.

   Article 2d.
   The inhabitants of the said territory shall always be entitled
   to the benefits of the writ of habeas corpus, and of the trial
   by jury; of a proportionate representation of the people in
   the legislature; and of judicial proceedings according to the
   course of the common law. All persons shall be bailable,
   unless for capital offences, where the proof shall be evident
   or the presumption great. All fines shall be moderate; and no
   cruel or unusual punishments shall be inflicted. No man shall
   be deprived of his liberty or property, but by the judgment of
   his peers or the law of the land: and, should the public
   exigencies make it necessary, for the common preservation, to
   take any person's property, or to demand his particular
   services, full compensation shall be made for the same. And,
   in the just preservation of rights and property, it is
   understood and declared, that no law ought ever to be made, or
   have force in the said territory, that shall, in any manner
   whatever, interfere with or affect private contracts or
   engagements, bona fide, and without fraud, previously formed.

   Article 3d.
   Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good
   government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means
   of education shall forever be encouraged. The utmost good
   faith shall always be observed towards the Indians; their
   lands and property shall never be taken from them without
   their consent; and, in their property, rights, and liberty,
   they shall never be invaded or, disturbed, unless in just and
   lawful wars authorized by Congress; but laws founded in
   justice and humanity, shall, from time to time, be made for
   preventing wrongs being done to them, and for preserving peace
   and friendship with them.

   Article 4th.
   The said territory, and the States which may be formed
   therein, shall forever remain a part of this confederacy of
   the United States of America, subject to the Articles of
   Confederation, and to such alterations therein as shall be
   constitutionally made; and to all the acts and ordinances of
   the United States in Congress assembled, conformable thereto.
   The inhabitants and settlers in the said territory shall be
   subject to pay a part of the federal debts contracted or to be
   contracted, and a proportional part of the expenses of
   government, to be apportioned on them by Congress according to
   the same common rule and measure by which apportionments
   thereof shall be made on the other States; and the taxes, for
   paying their proportion, shall be laid and levied by the
   authority and direction of the legislatures of the district or
   districts, or new States, as in the original States, within
   the time agreed upon by the United States in Congress
   assembled. The legislatures of those districts or new States,
   shall never interfere with the primary disposal of the soil by
   the United States in Congress assembled, nor with any
   regulations Congress may find necessary for securing the title
   in such soil to the bona fide purchasers. No tax shall be
   imposed on lands the property of the United States: and, in no
   case, shall non-resident proprietors be taxed higher than
   residents. The navigable waters leading into the Mississippi
   and St. Lawrence, and the carrying places between the same,
   shall be common highways, and forever free, as well to the
   inhabitants of the said territory as to the citizens of the
   United States, and those of any other States that may be
   admitted into the Confederacy, without any tax, impost, or
   duty, therefor.

   Article 5th.
   There shall be formed in the said territory, not less than
   three nor more than five States; and the boundaries of the
   States, as soon as Virginia shall alter her act of cession,
   and consent to the same, shall become fixed and established as
   follows, to wit: The Western State in the said territory,
   shall be bounded by the Mississippi, the Ohio, and Wabash
   rivers; a direct line drawn from the Wabash and Post St.
   Vincent's, due North, to the territorial line between the
   United States and Canada; and, by the said territorial line,
   to the Lake of the Woods and Mississippi. The middle State
   shall be bounded by the said direct line, the Wabash from Post
   Vincent's, to the Ohio: by the Ohio, by a direct line, drawn
   due North from the mouth of the Great Miami, to the said
   territorial line, and by the said territorial line. The
   Eastern State shall be bounded by the last mentioned direct
   line, the Ohio, Pennsylvania, and the said territorial line:
   Provided, however, and it is further understood and declared,
   that the boundaries of these three States shall be subject so
   far to be altered, that, if Congress shall hereafter find it
   expedient, they shall have authority to form one or two States
   in that part of the said territory which lies North of an East
   and West line drawn through the Southerly bend or extreme of
   Lake Michigan. And, whenever any of the said States shall have
   60,000 free inhabitants therein, such State shall be admitted,
   by its delegates, into the Congress of the United States, on
   an equal footing with the original States in all respects
   whatever, and shall be at liberty to form a permanent
   constitution and State government: Provided, the constitution
   and government so to be formed, shall be republican, and in
   conformity to the principles contained in these articles; and,
   so far as it can be consistent with the general interest of
   the confederacy, such admission shall be allowed at an earlier
   period, and when there may be a less number of free
   inhabitants in the State than 60,000.

   Article 6th.
   There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in
   the said territory, otherwise than in the punishment of
   crimes, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted:
   Provided, always, That any person escaping into the same, from
   whom labor or service is lawfully claimed in any one of the
   original States, such fugitive may be lawfully reclaimed and
   conveyed to the person claiming his or her labor or service as
   aforesaid. Be It ordained by the authority aforesaid, That the
   resolutions of the 23d of April, 1784, relative to the subject
   of this ordinance, be, and the same are hereby, repealed and
   declared null and void. Done by the United States, in Congress
   assembled, the 13th day of July, in the year of our Lord 1787,
   and of their sovereignty and independence the twelfth."

NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1788-1802.
Extinguished by divisions.
Creation of the Territory of Indiana and the State of Ohio.

"Arthur St. Clair was appointed governor by the Congress [of the Confederation] February 1, 1788, and Winthrop Sargent secretary. August 7th, 1789, Congress [under the federal constitution], in view of the new method of appointment of officers as provided in the Constitution, passed an amendatory act to the Ordinance of 1787, providing for the nomination of officers for the Territory by the President. … August 8, 1789, President Washington sent to the Senate the names of Arthur St. Clair for governor, Winthrop Sargent for secretary, and Samuel Holden Parsons, John Cleves Symmes, and William Barton, for judges. … They were all confirmed. President Washington in this message designated the country as 'The Western Territory.' The supreme court was established at Cincinnati (… named by St. Clair in honor of the Society of the Cincinnati, he having been president of the branch society in Pennsylvania). St. Clair remained governor until November 22, 1802. Winthrop Sargent afterwards, in 1798, went to Mississippi as governor of that Territory. William Henry Harrison became secretary in 1797, representing it in Congress in 1799-1800, and he became governor of the Territory of Indiana in 1800. May 7, 1800, Congress, upon petition, divided this [Northwest] Territory into two separate governments. Indiana Territory was created, with its capital at St. Vincennes, and from that portion of the Northwest Territory west of a line beginning opposite the mouth of the Kentucky River in Kentucky, and running north to the Canada line. The eastern portion now became the 'Territory Northwest of the river Ohio,' with its capital at Chillicothe. This portion, November 29, 1802, was admitted into the Union. … The territory northwest of the river Ohio ceased to exist as a political division after the admission of the State of Ohio into the Union, November 29, 1802, although in acts of Congress it was frequently referred to and its forms affixed by legislation to other political divisions."

      ALSO IN:
      J. Burnet,
      Notes on the Settlement of the Northwest Territory,
      chapters 14-20.

NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1790-1795.
   Indian war.
   The disastrous expeditions of Harmar and St. Clair
   and Wayne's decisive victory.
   The Greenville Treaty.

"The Northwestern Indians, at Washington's installation, numbered, according to varying estimates, from 20,000 to 40,000 souls. Of these the Wabash tribes had for years been the scourge of the new Kentucky settlers. So constant, indeed, was bloodshed and retaliation, that the soil of this earliest of States beyond the mountains acquired the name of 'the dark and bloody ground.' A broad river interposed no sufficient barricade to these deadly encounters. … What with their own inadmissible claims to territory, and this continuous war to the knife, all the tribes of the Northwestern country were now so maddened against the United States that the first imperative necessity, unless we chose to abandon the Western settlements altogether, was to chastise the Indians into submission. … Brigadier-General Harmar, who commanded the small force of United States regulars in the Territory, was … a Revolutionary veteran. Our frontier military stations extended as far as Vincennes, on the Wabash, which Major Hamtranck, a Canadian Frenchman, commanded. The British commandant was at Detroit, whence he communicated constantly with the Governor-General of the provinces, Lord Dorchester, by whose instigation the Northwestern Indians at this period were studiously kept at enmity with the United States. … A formidable expedition against the Indians was determined upon by the President and St. Clair [Governor of the Northwest Territory]; and in the fall of the year [1790] General Harmar set out from Fort Washington for the Miami country, with a force numbering somewhat less than 1,500, near three-fourths of whom were militia raised in Western Pennsylvania and Kentucky." Successful at first, the campaign ended in a disastrous defeat on the Maumee.

"The remnant of his army which Harmar led back to Cincinnati [Fort Washington] had the unsubdued savages almost continually at their heels. As a rebuke to the hostile tribes the expedition was an utter failure, a fact which was soon made manifest. Indian attacks on the settlers immediately became bolder. … Every block house in the territory was soon almost in a state of siege. … Washington was authorized to raise an army of 3,000 men for the protection of the Northwest. The command of this army was given to St. Clair. At the same time a corps of Kentucky volunteers was selected and placed under General Charles Scott. The Kentuckians dashed into the Wabash country, scattered the Indians, burned their villages and returned with a crowd of prisoners. The more pretentious expedition of St. Clair was not to be accomplished with so fine a military flourish. Like Harmar's army, that led by St. Clair was feeble in discipline, and disturbed by jealousies. The agents of the Government equipped the expedition in a shameful manner, delivering useless muskets, supplying powder that would scarcely burn, and neglecting entirely a large number of necessary supplies; so that after St. Clair with his 2,300 regulars and 600 militia had marched from Ludlow's Station, north of Cincinnati, he found himself under the necessity of delaying the march to secure supplies. The militia deserted in great numbers. For the purpose of capturing deserters and bringing up belated supplies, one of the best regiments in the army was sent southward. While waiting on one of the branches of the Wabash for the return of this regiment the main force was on the fourth of November, 1791, surrounded and attacked by the lurking Indians. At the first yell of the savages scores of the terrified militia dropped their guns and bolted. St. Clair, who for some days had been too ill to sit upon a horse, now exerted all his strength in an effort to rally the wavering troops. His horses were all killed, and his hat and clothing were ripped by the bullets. But the lines broke, the men scattered and the artillery was captured. Those who stood their ground fell in their tracks till the fields were covered by 600 dead and dying men. At last a retreat was ordered. … For many miles, over a track littered with coats, hats, boots and powder horns, the whooping victors chased the routed survivors of St. Clair's army. It was a ghastly defeat. The face of every settler in Ohio blanched at the news. Kentucky was thrown into excitement and even Western Pennsylvania nervously petitioned for protection. St. Clair was criticised and insulted. A committee of Congress found him without blame. But he had been defeated, and no amount of reasoning could unlink his name from the tragedy of the dark November morning. {2384} Every effort was made to win over the Indians before making another use of force. The Government sent peace messengers into the Northwest. In one manner or another nearly every one of the messengers was murdered. The Indians who listened at all would hear of no terms of peace that did not promise the removal of the whites from the northern side of the Ohio. The British urged the tribes to make this extreme demand. Spain also sent mischief-makers into the camps of the exultant red men. … More bloodshed became inevitable; and in execution of this last resort came one of the most popular of the Revolutionary chieftains—'Mad Anthony' Wayne. Wayne led his army from Cincinnati in October of 1793. He advanced carefully in the path taken by St. Clair, found and buried the bones of St. Clair's 600 lost, wintered at Greenville, and in the summer of 1794 moved against the foe with strong reinforcements from Kentucky. After a preliminary skirmish between the Indians and the troops, Wayne, in accordance with his instructions, made a last offer of peace. The offer was evasively met, and Wayne pushed on. On the morning of Wednesday the twentieth of August, 1794, the 'legion' came upon the united tribes of Indians encamped on the north bank of the Maumee and there, near the rapids of the Maumee, the Indians were forced to face the most alert and vigorous enemy they had yet encountered. The same daring tactics that had carried Stony Point and made Anthony Wayne historic were here directed against the Indian's timber coverts. … Encouraging and marshaling the Indians were painted Canadian white men bearing British arms. Many of these fell in the heaps of dead and some were captured. When Wayne announced his victory he declared that the Indian loss was greater than that incurred by the entire Federal army in the war with Great Britain. Thus ended the Indian reign of terror. After destroying the Indian crops and possessions, in sight of the British fort, Wayne fell back to Greenville and there made the celebrated treaty by which on August 3, 1795, the red men came to a permanent peace with the Thirteen Fires. From Cincinnati to Campus Martius Wayne's victory sent a thrill of relief. The treaty, ceding to the Union two thirds of the present State, guaranteed the safety of all settlers who respected the Indians' rights, and set in motion once more the machinery of immigration."

NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1811.
Harrison's campaign against Tecumseh and his League.
Battle of Tippecanoe.

NORTHWESTERN OR SAN JUAN WATER-BOUNDARY QUESTION.

NORUMBEGA.

"Norembega, or Norumbega, more properly called Arambec (Hakluyt, III. 167), was, in Ramusio's map, the country embraced within Nova Scotia, southern New Brunswick, and a part of Maine. De Laet confines it to a district about the mouth of the Penobscot. Wytfleit and other early writers say that it had a capital city of the same name; and in several old maps this fabulous metropolis is laid down, with towers and churches, on the river Penobscot. The word is of Indian origin."

F. Parkman, Pioneers of France in the New World: Champlain, chapter 1, foot-note.

On Gastaldi's map, of New France, made in 1550, "the name 'La Nuova Francia' is written in very large letters, indicating probably that this name is meant for the entire country. The name 'Terra de Nurumbega' is written in smaller letters, and appears to be attached only to the peninsula of Nova Scotia. Crignon, however, the author of the discourse which this map is intended to illustrate, gives to this name a far greater extent. He says: 'Going beyond the cape of the Bretons, there is a country contiguous to this cape, the coast of which trends to the west a quarter southwest to the country of Florida, and runs along for a good 500 leagues; which coast was discovered fifteen years ago by Master Giovanni da Verrazano, in the name of the king of France and of Madame la Regente; and this country is called by many 'La Francese,' and even by the Portuguese themselves; and its end is toward Florida under 78° W., and 38° N. … The country is named by the inhabitants 'Nurumbega'; and between it and Brazil is a great gulf, in which are the islands of the West Indies, discovered by the Spaniards. From this it would appear that, at the time of the discourse, the entire east coast of the United States, as far as Florida, was designated by the name of Nurumbega. Afterwards, this name was restricted to New England; and, at a later date, it was applied only to Maine, and still later to the region of the Penobscot. … The name 'Norumbega,' or 'Arambec,' in Hakluyt's time, was applied to Maine, and sometimes to the whole of New England."

J. G. Kohl, History of the Discovery of Maine (Maine Historical Society Collection, series 2, volume 1), pages 231 and 283.

   "The story of Norumbega is invested with the charms of fable
   and romance. The name is found in the map of Hieronimus da
   Verrazano of 1529, as 'Aranbega,' being restricted to a
   definite and apparently unimportant locality. Suddenly, in
   1539, Norumbega appears in the narrative of the Dieppe Captain
   as a vast and opulent region, extending from Cape Breton to
   the Cape of Florida. About three years later Allefonsce
   described the 'River of Norumbega,' now identified with the
   Penobscot, and treated the capital of the country as an
   important market for the trade in fur. Various maps of the
   period of Allefonsce confine the name of Norumbega to a
   distinct spot; but Gastaldi's map, published by Ramusio in
   1556,—though modelled after Verrazano's, of which indeed it is
   substantially an extract,—applies the name to the region lying
   between Cape Breton and the Jersey coast. From this time until
   the seventeenth century Norumbega was generally regarded as
   embracing all New England, and sometimes portions of Canada,
   though occasionally the country was known by other names.
{2385}
   Still, in 1582, Lok seems to have thought that the Penobscot
   formed the southern boundary of Norumbega, which he shows on
   his map as an island; while John Smith, in 1620, speaks of
   Norumbega as including New England and the region as far south
   as Virginia. On the other hand Champlain, in 1605, treated
   Norumbega as lying within the present territory of Maine. He
   searched for its capital on the banks of the Penobscot, and as
   late as 1669 Heylin was dreaming of the fair city of
   Norumbega. Grotius, for a time at least, regarded the name as
   of Old Northern origin and connected with 'Norbergia.' It was
   also fancied that a people resembling the Mexicans once lived
   upon the banks of the Penobscot. Those who have labored to
   find an Indian derivation for the name say that it means 'the
   place of a fine city.' At one time the houses of the city were
   supposed to be very splendid, and to be supported upon pillars
   of crystal and silver."

      B. F. De Costa,
      Norumbega and its English Explorers
      (Narrative and Critical History of America,
      volume 3, chapter 6).

      ALSO IN:
      J. Winsor,
      Cartography of North East Coast of America,
      (N. and C. History of America,
      volume 4, chapter 2).

NORWAY.

NOSE MONEY.

A poll-tax levied among the ancient Scandinavians seems to have borne this name because a defaulting tax-payer might suffer the loss of his nose, and the Danes in Ireland are thought to have imposed the same there.

NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1603-1608.
The first French settlements, at Port Royal (Annapolis).

In 1604, after the death of De Chastes, who had sent out Champlain on his first voyage to Canada, Pierre du Guast, Sieur de Monts, took the enterprise in hand and "petitioned the king for leave to colonize La Cadie, or Acadie, a region defined as extending from the 40th to the 46th degree of north latitude, or from Philadelphia to beyond Montreal. … De Monts gained his point. He was made Lieutenant-General in Acadia. … This name is not found in any earlier public document. It was afterwards restricted to the peninsula of Nova Scotia, but the dispute concerning the limits of Acadia was a proximate cause of the war of 1755. The word is said to be derived from the Indian Aquoddiauke, or Aquoddie, supposed to mean the fish called a pollock. The Bay of Passamaquoddy, 'Great Pollock Water,' if we may accept the same authority, derives its name from the same origin, Potter in 'Historical Magazine,' I. 84. This derivation is doubtful. The Micmac word, 'Quoddy,' 'Kady,' or 'Cadie,' means simply a place or region, and is properly used in conjunction with some other noun; as, for example, 'Katakady,' the Place of Eels. … Dawson and Rand, in 'Canadian Antiquarian and Numismatic Journal.'"

F. Parkman, Pioneers of France in the New World: Champlain, chapter 2, and foot-note.

NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1610-1613.
The Port Royal colony revived,
but destroyed by the English of Virginia.

NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1621-1668.
   English grant to Sir William Alexander.
   Cession to France.
   Quarrels of La Tour and D'Aulnay.
   English reconquest and recession to France.

   "In 1621, Sir William Alexander, a Scotchman of some literary
   pretensions, had obtained from King James [through the Council
   for New England, or Plymouth Company—see NEW ENGLAND: A. D.
   1621-1631] a charter, (dated September 10, 1621) for the
   lordship and barony of New Scotland, comprising the territory
   now known as the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.
   Under this grant he made several unsuccessful attempts at
   colonization; and in 1625 he undertook to infuse fresh life
   into his enterprise by parcelling out the territory into
   baronetcies. Nothing came of the scheme, and by the treaty of
   St. Germains, in 1632, Great Britain surrendered to France all
   the places occupied by the English within these limits. Two
   years before this, however, Alexander's rights in a part of
   the territory had been purchased by Claude and Charles de la
   Tour; and shortly after the peace the Chevalier Razilly was
   appointed by Louis XIII. governor of the whole of Acadia. He
   designated as his lieutenants Charles de la Tour for the
   portion east of the St. Croix, and Charles de Menou, Sieur
   d'Aulnay-Charnisé, for the portion west of that river. The
   former established himself on the River St. John, where the
   city of St. John now stands, and the latter at Castine, on the
   eastern shore of Penobscot Bay. Shortly after his appointment,
   La Tour attacked and drove away a small party of Plymouth men
   who had set up a trading-post at Machias; and in 1635 D'Aulnay
   treated another party of the Plymouth colonists in a similar
   way. In retaliation for this attack, Plymouth hired and
   despatched a vessel commanded by one Girling, in company with
   their own barque, with 20 men under Miles Standish, to
   dispossess the French; but the expedition failed to accomplish
   anything. Subsequently the two French commanders quarrelled,
   and, engaging in active hostilities, made efforts (not
   altogether unsuccessful) to enlist Massachusetts in their
   quarrel. For this purpose La Tour visited Boston in person in
   the summer of 1643, and was hospitably entertained. He was not
   able to secure the direct cooperation of( Massachusetts; but
   he was permitted to hire four vessels and a pinnace to aid him
   in his attack on D'Aulnay. The expedition was so far
   successful as to destroy a mill and some standing corn
   belonging to his rival. In the following year La Tour made a
   second visit to Boston for further help; but he was able only
   to procure the writing of threatening letters from the
   Massachusetts authorities to D'Aulnay. Not long after La
   Tour's departure from Boston, envoys from D'Aulnay arrived
   here; and after considerable delay a treaty was signed
   pledging the colonists to neutrality, which was ratified by
   the Commissioners of the United Colonies in the following
   year; but it was not until two years later that it was
   ratified by new envoys from the crafty Frenchman.
{2386}
   In this interval D'Aulnay captured by assault La Tour's fort
   at St. John, securing booty to a large amount; and a few weeks
   afterward Madame la Tour, who seems to have been of a not less
   warlike turn than her husband, and who had "bravely defended
   the fort, died of shame and mortification. La Tour was reduced
   to the last extremities; but he finally made good his losses,
   and in 1653 he married the widow of his rival, who had died
   two or three years before. In 1654, in accordance with secret
   instructions from Cromwell, the whole of Acadia was subjugated
   by an English force from Boston under the command of Major
   Robert Sedgwick, of Charlestown, and Captain John Leverett, of
   Boston. To the latter the temporary government of the country
   was intrusted. Ineffectual complaints of this aggression were
   made to the British government; but by the treaty of
   Westminster, in the following year, England was left in
   possession, and the question of title was referred to
   commissioners. In 1656 it was made a province by Cromwell, who
   appointed Sir Thomas Temple governor, and granted the whole
   territory to Temple and to one William Crown and Stephen de la
   Tour, son of the late governor. The rights of the latter were
   purchased by the other two proprietors, and Acadia remained in
   possession of the English until the treaty of Breda, in 1668,
   when it was ceded to France with undefined limits. Very little
   was done by the French to settle and improve the country."

      C. C. Smith,
      Acadia
      (Narrative and Critical History of America,
      volume 4, chapter 4).

NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1690-1692.
Temporary conquest by the Massachusetts colonists.
Recovery by the French.

      See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714;
      NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1713;
      and CANADA: A. D. 1711-1713.

NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1713-1730.
   Troubles with the French inhabitants—the Acadians.
   Their refusal to swear allegiance.
   Hostilities with the Indians.

"It was evident from the first that the French intended to interpret the cession of Acadia in as restricted a sense as possible, and that it was their aim to neutralize the power of England in the colony, by confining it within the narrowest limits. The inhabitants numbered some 2,500 at the time of the treaty of Utrecht, divided into three principal settlements at Port Royal, Mines, and Chignecto. The priests at these settlements during the whole period from the treaty of Utrecht to the expulsion of the Acadians were, with scarcely an exception, agents of the French Government, in their pay, and resolute opponents of English rule. The presence of a powerful French establishment at Louisburg, and their constant communications with Canada, gave to the political teachings of those priests a moral influence, which went far towards making the Acadians continue faithful to France. They were taught to believe that they might remain in Acadia, in an attitude of scarcely concealed hostility to the English Government, and hold their lands and possessions as neutrals, on the condition that they should not take up arms either for the French or English. … By the 14th article of the treaty of Utrecht, it was stipulated 'that the subjects of the King of France may have liberty to remove themselves within a year to any other place, with all their movable effects. But those who are willing to remain, and to be subject to the King of Great Britain, "are to enjoy the free exercise of their religion according to the usages of the church of Rome, as far as the laws of Great Britain do allow the same.' … It was never contemplated that the Acadians should establish themselves in the country a colony of enemies of British power, ready at all times to obstruct the authority of the government, and to make the possession of Acadia by England merely nominal. … Queen Anne died in August, 1714, and in January, 1715, Messrs. Capoon and Button were commissioned by Governor Nicholson to proceed in the sloop of war Caulfield to Mines, Chignecto, River St. John, Passamaquoddy and Penobscot, to proclaim King George, and to tender and administer the oaths of allegiance to the French inhabitants. The French refused to take the oaths, and some of the people of Mines made the pretence that they intended to withdraw from the colony. … A year later the people of Mines notified Caulfield [Lieutenant-Governor] that they intended to remain in the country, and at this period it would seem that most of the few French inhabitants who actually left the Province had returned. Caulfield then summoned the inhabitants of Annapolis, and tendered them the oath of allegiance, but with no better success than his deputies had met at Mines and Chignecto. … General Phillips, who became Governor of Nova Scotia in 1717, and who arrived in the Province early in 1720, had no more success than his predecessors in persuading the Acadians to take the oaths. Every refusal on their part only served to make them more bold in defying the British authorities. … They held themselves in readiness to take up arms against the English the moment war was declared between the two Crowns, and to restore Acadia to France. But, as there was a peace of thirty years duration between France and England after the treaty of Utrecht, there was no opportunity of carrying this plan into effect. Vaudreuil, Governor of Canada, however, continued to keep the Acadians on the alert by means of his agents, and the Indians were incited to acts of hostility against the English, both in Acadia and Maine. The first difficulty occurred at Canso in 1720, by a party of Indians assailing the English fishermen there. … The Indians were incited to this attack by the French of Cape Breton, who were annoyed at one of their vessels being seized at Canso by a British war vessel for illegal fishing. … The Indians had indeed some reason to be disquieted, for the progress of the English settlements east of the Kennebec filled them with apprehensions. Unfortunately the English had not been always so just in their dealings with them that they could rely entirely on their forbearance. The Indians claimed their territorial rights in the lands over which the English settlements were spreading; the French encouraged them in this claim, alleging that they had never surrendered this territory to the English. While these questions were in controversy the Massachusetts authorities were guilty of an act which did not tend to allay the distrust of the Indians. {2387} This was nothing less than an attempt to seize the person of Father Ralle, the Jesuit missionary at Norridgewock. He, whether justly or not, was blamed for inciting the Indians to acts of hostility, and was therefore peculiarly obnoxious to the English." The attempt to capture Father Ralle, at Norridgewock, which was made in December, 1721, and which failed, exasperated the Indians, and "in the summer of 1722 a war commenced, in which all the Indian tribes from Cape Canso to the Kennebec were involved. The French could not openly take part in the war, but such encouragement and assistance as they could give the Indians secretly they freely supplied." This war continued until 1725, and cost the lives of many of the colonists of New England and Nova Scotia. Its most serious event was the destruction of Norridgewock and the barbarous murder of Father Ralle, by an expedition from Massachusetts in the summer of 1724. In November, 1725, a treaty of peace was concluded, the Indians acknowledging the sovereignty of King George. After the conclusion of the Indian war, the inhabitants of Annapolis River took a qualified oath of allegiance, with a clause exempting them from bearing arms. At Mines and Chignecto they still persisted in their refusal; and when, on the death of George I. and the accession of George II., the inhabitants of Annapolis were called upon to renew their oath, they also refused again. In 1729 Governor Phillips returned to the province and had great success during the next year in persuading the Acadians, with a few exceptions only throughout the French settlements, to take an oath of allegiance without any condition as to the bearing or not bearing of arms. "The Acadians afterwards maintained that when they took this oath of allegiance, it was with the understanding that a clause was to be inserted, relieving them from bearing arms. The statement was probably accurate, for that was the position they always assumed, but the matter seems to have been lost sight of, and so for the time the question of oaths, which had been such a fertile cause of discord in the Province, appeared to be set at rest."

NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1749-1755.
   Futile discussion of boundary questions.
   The Acadian "Neutrals" and their conduct.
   The founding of Halifax.
   Hostilities renewed.

"During the nominal peace which followed the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle, the representatives of the two governments were anxiously engaged in attempting to settle by actual occupation the question of boundaries, which was still left open by that treaty. It professed to restore the boundaries as they had been before the war; and before the war the entire basin of the Mississippi, as well as the tract between the St. Lawrence River and Gulf, the Bay of Fundy, and the Kennebec, was claimed by both nations, with some show of reason, as no convention between them had ever defined the rights of each. Names had been given to vast tracts of land whose limits were but partly defined, or at one time defined in one way, at another time in another, and when these names were mentioned in treaties they were understood by each party according to its own interest. The treaty of 1748, therefore, not only left abundant cause for future war, but left occasion for the continuance of petty border hostilities in time of nominal peace. Commissioners were appointed, French and English, to settle the question of the disputed territory, but the differences were too wide to be adjusted by anything but conquest. While the most important question was that of the great extent of territory at the west, and … both nations were devising means for establishing their claims to it, Acadia, or Nova Scotia, was the scene of a constant petty warfare. The French were determined to restrict the English province to the peninsula now known by that name. The Governor of Canada sent a "few men under Boishebert to the mouth of the St. John's to hold that part of the territory. A little old fort built by the Indians had stood for fifty years on the St. John's at the mouth of the Nerepis, and there the men established themselves. A larger number was sent under La Corne to keep possession of Chignecto, on the isthmus which, according to French claims, formed the northern boundary of English territory. In all the years that England had held nominal rule in Acadia, not a single English settlement had been formed, and apparently not a step of progress had been taken in gaining the loyalty of the inhabitants. A whole generation had grown up during the time; but they were no less devoted to France than their fathers had been. It was said that the king of England had not one truly loyal subject in the peninsula, outside of the fort at Annapolis. … Among the schemes suggested for remedying this state of affairs, was one by Governor Shirley [of Massachusetts], to place strong bands of English settlers in all the important towns, in order that the Government might have friends and influence throughout the country. Nothing came of this; but in 1749 Parliament voted £40,000 for the purpose of settling a colony. … Twenty-five hundred persons being ready to go in less than two months from the time of the first advertisement, the colony was entrusted to Colonel Edward Cornwallis (uncle of the Cornwallis of the Revolutionary War), and he was made Governor of Nova Scotia. Chebucto was selected as the site of the colony, and the town was named Halifax in honor of the president of the Lords of Trade and Plantations [see, also, HALIFAX: A. D. 1749]. … In July, a council was held at Halifax, when Governor Cornwallis gave the French deputies a paper declaring what the Government would allow to the French subjects, and what would be required of them." They were called upon to take the oath of allegiance, so often refused before. They claimed the privilege of taking a qualified oath, such as had been formerly allowed in certain cases, and which exempted them from bearing arms. "They wished to stand as neutrals, and, indeed, were often called so. Cornwallis replied that nothing less than entire allegiance would be accepted. … About a month later the people sent in a declaration with a thousand signatures, stating that they had resolved not to take the oath, but were determined to leave the country. Cornwallis took no steps to coerce them, but wrote to England for instructions." {2388} Much of the trouble with the Acadians was attributed to a French missionary, La Loutre, who was also accused of inciting the Indians to hostilities. In 1750, Major Lawrence was sent to Chignecto, with 400 men, to build a block-house on the little river Messagouche, which the French claimed as their southern boundary. "On the southern bank was a prosperous village called Beaubassin, and La Corne [the French commander] had compelled its inhabitants to take the oath of allegiance to the King of France. When Lawrence arrived, all the inhabitants of Beaubassin, about 1,000, having been persuaded by La Loutre, set fire to their houses, and, leaving behind the fruits of years of industry, turned their backs on their fertile fields, and crossed the river, to put themselves under the protection of La Corne's troops. Many Acadians from other parts of the peninsula also left their homes, and lived in exile and poverty under the French dominion, hoping for a speedy change of masters in Nova Scotia. … In the same year a large French fort, Beau Séjour, was built on the northern side of the Messagouche, and a smaller one, Gaspereaux, at Baie Verte. Other stations were also planted, forming a line of fortified posts from the Gulf of St. Lawrence to the month of the St. John's. … The commission appointed to settle the question of boundaries had broken up without accomplishing any results; and it was resolved by the authorities in Nova Scotia and Massachusetts [1754] that an expedition should be sent against Fort Beau Séjour. … Massachusetts … raised about 2,000 troops for the contemplated enterprise, who were under the command of Lieutenant-Colonel John Winslow. To this force were added about 800 regulars, and the whole was placed under the command of Lieutenant-Colonel Moncton. They reached Chignecto on the 2d of June," 1755. The French were found unprepared for long resistance, and Beau Séjour was surrendered on the 16th. "After Beau Séjour, the smaller forts were quickly reduced. Some vessels sent to the mouth of the St. John's found the French fort deserted and burned. The name of Beau Séjour was changed to Cumberland."

ALSO IN: J. G. Palfrey, History of New England, book 5, chapter 11 (volume 5).

NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1755.
The removal of the Acadians and their dispersion in exile.

"The campaign of the year 1755, which had opened in Nova Scotia with so much success, and which promised a glorious termination, disappointed the expectations and awakened the fears of the Colonists. The melancholy and total defeat of the army under General Braddock, while on his march against Fort du Quesnè, threw a gloom over the British Provinces. Niagara and Crown-point were not only unsubdued, but it was evident that Governor Shirley would have to abandon, for this year at least, the attempt; while Louisburg was reinforced, the savages let loose upon the defenceless settlements of the English, and the tide of war seemed ready to roll back upon the invaders. Amidst this general panic, Governor Lawrence and his Council, aided by Admirals Boscawen and Moystyn, assembled to consider the necessary measures that were to be adopted towards the Acadians, whose character and situation were so peculiar as to distinguish them from every other people who had suffered under the scourge of war. … It was finally determined, at this consultation, to remove and disperse this whole people among the British Colonies; where they could not unite in any offensive measures, and where they might be naturalized to the Government and Country. The execution of this unusual and general sentence was allotted chiefly to the New England Forces, the Commander of which [Colonel Winslow], from the humanity and firmness of his character, was well qualified to carry it into effect. It was, without doubt, as he himself declared, disagreeable to his natural make and temper; and his principles of implicit obedience as a soldier were put to a severe test by this ungrateful kind of duty; which required an ungenerous, cunning, and subtle severity. … They were kept entirely ignorant of their destiny until the moment of their captivity, and were overawed, or allured, to labour at the gathering in of their harvest, which was secretly allotted to the use of their conquerors."

   "Winslow prepared for the embarkation. The Acadian prisoners
   and their families were divided into groups answering to their
   several villages, in order that those of the same village
   might, as far as possible, go in the same vessel. It was also
   provided that the members of each family should remain
   together; and notice was given them to hold themselves in
   readiness. 'But even now,' he writes. 'I could not persuade
   the people I was in earnest.' Their doubts were soon ended.
   The first embarkation took place on the 8th of October [1755].
   … When all, or nearly all, had been sent off from the various
   points of departure, such of the houses and barns as remained
   standing were burned, in obedience to the orders of Lawrence,
   that those who had escaped might be forced to come in and
   surrender themselves. The whole number removed from the
   province, men, women, and children, was a little above 6,000.
   Many remained behind; and while some of these withdrew to
   Canada, Isle St. Jean, and other distant retreats, the rest
   lurked in the woods, or returned to their old haunts, whence
   they waged for several years a guerilla warfare against the
   English. Yet their strength was broken, and they were no
   longer a danger to the province. Of their exiled countrymen,
   one party overpowered the crew of the vessel that carried
   them, ran her ashore at the mouth of the St. John, and
   escaped. The rest were distributed among the colonies from
   Massachusetts to Georgia, the master of each transport having
   been provided with a letter from Lawrence addressed to the
   Governor of the province to which he was bound, and desiring
   him to receive the unwelcome strangers. The provincials were
   vexed at the burden imposed upon them; and though the Acadians
   were not in general ill-treated, their lot was a hard one.
   Still more so was that of those among them who escaped to
   Canada. … Many of the exiles eventually reached Louisiana,
   where their descendants now form a numerous and distinct
   population. Some, after incredible hardship, made their way
   back to Acadia, where, after the peace, they remained
   unmolested. … In one particular the authors of the deportation
   were disappointed in its results.
{2389}
   They had hoped to substitute a loyal population for a
   disaffected one; but they failed for some time to find
   settlers for the vacated lands. … New England humanitarianism,
   melting into sentimentality at a tale of woe, has been unjust
   to its own. Whatever judgment may be passed on the cruel
   measure of wholesale expatriation, it was not put in execution
   till every resource of patience and persuasion had been tried
   in vain."

"The removal of the French Acadians from their homes was one of the saddest episodes in modern history, and no one now will attempt to justify it; but it should be added that the genius of our great poet [Longfellow in 'Evangeline'] has thrown a somewhat false and distorted light over the character of the victims. They were not the peaceful and simple-hearted people they are commonly supposed to have been; and their houses, as we learn from contemporary evidence, were by no means the picturesque, vine-clad, and strongly built cottages described by the poet. The people were notably quarrelsome among themselves, and to the last degree superstitious. They were wholly under the influence of priests appointed by the French bishops. … Even in periods when France and England were at peace, the French Acadians were a source of perpetual danger to the English colonists. Their claim to a qualified allegiance was one which no nation then or now could sanction. But all this does not justify their expulsion in the manner in which it was executed."

C. C. Smith, The Wars on the Seaboard (Narrative and Critical History of America, volume 5, chapter 7).

"We defy all past history to produce a parallel case, in which an unarmed and peaceable people have suffered to such an extent as did the French Neutrals of Acadia at the hands of the New England troops."

      ALSO IN:
      W. B. Reed,
      The Acadian Exiles in Pennsylvania
      (Pennsylvania Historical Society Memoirs,
      volume 6, pages 283-316).

NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1763.
Cession by France to England confirmed in the Treaty of Paris.

NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1782-1784.
Influx of Refugee Loyalists from the United States.

NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1867.
Embraced in the Confederation of the Dominion of Canada.

NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1877-1888.
   The Halifax Fishery Award.
   Termination of the Fishery Articles of the Treaty of Washington.
   Renewed Fishery disputes.

A tribe which, in Roman times, occupied the modern counties of
Kirkcudbright and Wigtown, Scotland.

NOVELS OF JUSTINIAN.

NOVEMBER FIFTH.

NOVGOROD: A. D. 1237-1478.
Prosperity and greatness of the city as a commercial republic.

NOYADES.

"In 143 B. C. the Celtiberians again appeared in the field [resisting the Romans in Spain]; and when, on the death of Viriathus, D. Junius Brutus had pushed the legions to the Atlantic in 137 B. C., and practically subdued Lusitania, the dying spirit of Spanish independence still held out in the Celtiberian fortress city of Numantia. Perched on a precipitous hill by the banks of the upper Douro, occupied only by eight thousand men, this little place defied the power of Rome as long as Troy defied the Greeks. … In 137 B. C. the consul, C. Hostilius Mancinus, was actually hemmed in by a sortie of the garrison, and forced to surrender. He granted conditions of peace to obtain his liberty; but the senate would not ratify them, though the young quæstor, Tiberius Gracchus, who had put his hand to the treaty, pleaded for faith and honour. Mancinus, stripped and with manacles on his hands, was handed over to the Numantines, who, like the Samnite Pontius, after the Caudine Forks, refused to accept him. In 134 B. C. the patience of the Romans was exhausted; Scipio was sent. … The mighty destroyer of Carthage drew circumvallations five miles in length around the stubborn rock, and waited for the result. The Virgilian picture of the fall of Troy is not more moving than are the brave and ghastly facts of the fall of Numantia. The market-place was turned into a funeral pyre for the gaunt, famine-stricken citizens to leap upon. … When the surrender was made only a handful of men marched out."

The Numidian kingdom, over which the Romans, at the end of the second Punic War, had settled their friend Masinissa, passed at his death to his son Micipsa. In 118 B. C. Micipsa died, leaving two young sons, and also a bastard nephew, Jugurtha, whom he feared. He divided the kingdom between these three, hoping to secure the fidelity of Jugurtha to his sons. It was a policy that failed. Jugurtha made sure of what was given to him, and then grasped at the rest. One of his young cousins was soon cleared from his path by assassination; on the other he opened war. This latter, Adherbal by name, appealed to Rome, but Jugurtha despatched agents with money to bribe the senate, and a commission sent over to divide Numidia gave him the western and better half. The commissioners were no sooner out of Africa than he began war upon Adherbal afresh, shut him up in his strong capital, Cirta [B. C. 112], and placed the city under siege. The Romans again interfered, but, he captured Cirta, notwithstanding, and tortured Adherbal to death. The corrupt party at Rome which Jugurtha kept in his pay made every effort to stifle discussion of his nefarious doings; but one bold tribune, C. Memmius, roused the people on the subject and forced the senate to declare war against him. Jugurtha's gold, however, was still effectual, and it paralyzed the armies sent to Africa, by corrupting the venial officers who commanded them. Once, Jugurtha went to Rome, under a safe conduct, invited to testify as a witness against the men whom he had bribed, but really expecting to be able to further his own cause in the city. He found the people furious against him and he only saved himself from being forced to criminate his Roman senatorial mercenaries by buying a tribune, who brazenly vetoed the examination of the Numidian king. Jugurtha being, then, ordered out of Rome, the war proceeded again, and in 109 B. C. the command passed to an honest general, Q. Metellus, who took with him Caius Marius, the most capable soldier of Rome, whose capability was at that time not half understood. Under Metellus the Romans penetrated Numidia to Zama, but failed to take the town, and narrowly escaped a great disaster on the Muthul, where a serious battle was fought. In 107 B. C. Metellus was superseded by Marius, chosen consul for that year and now really beginning his remarkable career. Meantime Jugurtha had gained an ally in Bocchus, king of Mauretania, and Marius, after two campaigns of doubtful result, found more to hope from diplomacy than from war. With the help of Sulla,—his future great rival—who had lately been sent over to his army, in command of a troop of horse, he persuaded the Mauretanian king to betray Jugurtha into his hands. The dreaded Numidian was taken to Rome [B. C. 104], exhibited in the triumph of Marius, and then brutally thrust into the black dungeon called the Tullianum to die of slow starvation. Bocchus was rewarded for his treachery by the cession to him of part of Numidia; Marius, intoxicated with the plaudits of Rome, first saved it from the Cimbri and then stabbed it with his own sword; Sulla, inexplicable harbinger of the coming Cæsars, bided his time.

"The union of the Aryan invaders [of North Africa] with the ancient populations of the coast sprung from Phut gave birth to the Mauri, or Maurusii, whose primitive name it has been asserted was Medes, probably an alteration of the word Amazigh. The alliance of the same invaders with the Getulians beyond the Atlas produced the Numidians. The Mauri were agriculturists, and of settled habits; the Numidians, as their Greek appellation indicates, led a nomadic life."

F. Lenormant, Manual of Ancient History of the East, book 6, chapter 5 (volume 2).

In northern Africa, "on the south and west of the immediate territory of the Carthaginian republic, lived various races of native Libyans who are commonly known by the name of Numidians. But these were in no way, as their Greek name ('Nomads') would seem to imply, exclusively pastoral races. Several districts in their possession, especially in the modern Algeria, were admirably suited for agriculture. Hence they had not only fixed and permanent abodes, but a number of not unimportant cities, of which Hippo and Cirta, the residences of the chief Numidian princes, were the most considerable."

The various peoples of North Africa known anciently and modernly as Libyans, Numidians, or Nomades, Mauri, Mauritanians or Moors, Gaetulians and Berbers, belong ethnographically to one family of men, distinguished alike from the negroes and the Egyptians.

See, also, LIBYANS; CARTHAGE: B. C. 146;
PUNIC WAR, THE SECOND; and NUMIDIA: B. C. 118-104.

NUNCOMAR AND WARREN HASTINGS.

NUREMBERG.

"Nuremberg (Nürnberg) (Norimberga) is situated on the Regnitz, in the centre of Middle Franconia, about 90 miles northwest of Munich, to which it is second in size and importance, with a population of about 90,000. The name is said to be derived from the ancient inhabitants of Noricum, who migrated hither about the year 451, on being driven from their early settlements on the Danube by the Huns. Here they distinguished themselves by their skill in the working of metals, which abound in the neighbouring mountains. Before the eleventh century the history of Nuremberg is enveloped in a mist of impenetrable obscurity, from which it does not emerge until the time of the Emperor Henry III., who issued an edict, dated July 16, 1050, 'ad castrum Noremberc,' a proof that it was a place of considerable importance even at this early period. Nuremberg afterwards became the favourite residence of the Emperor Henry IV."

NUREMBERG: A. D. 1522-1524.
The two diets, and their recesses in favor of the Reformation.

NUREMBERG: A. D. 1529.
Joined in the Protest which gave rise to the name Protestants.

NUREMBERG: A. D. 1632.
   Welcome to Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden.
   Siege by Wallenstein.
   Battle on the Fürth.

NUREMBERG: A. D. 1801-1803.
One of six free cities which survived the Peace of Luneville.

NUREMBERG: A. D. 1806.
Loss of municipal freedom.
Absorption in the kingdom of Bavaria.

In 1474 Charles the Bold, Duke of Burgundy, ambitious to extend his dominions along the left bank of the Rhine, down to the Netherlands, took advantage of a quarrel between the citizens of Cologne and their prince-archbishop, to ally himself with the latter. The citizens of Cologne had appointed Herman of Hesse to be protector of the see, and he had fortified himself at Nuys. Charles, with 60,000 men, laid siege to the place, expecting to reduce it speedily. On the contrary, he wasted months in the fruitless endeavor, and became involved in the quarrel with the Swiss which brought about his downfall. The abortive siege of Nuys was the beginning of his disasters.

OAK BOYS.

OBERPFALZ.

"The Oblates, or Volunteers, established by St. Charles Borromeo in 1578, are a congregation of secular priests. … Their special aim was to give edification to the diocese, and to maintain the integrity of religion by the purity of their lives, by teaching, and by zealously discharging the duties committed to them by their bishop. These devoted ecclesiastics were much loved by St. Charles. … Strange to say, they do not seem to have been much appreciated elsewhere."

OBNUNTIATIO.

OBOLLA.

OBOLUS.

OCCASIONAL CONFORMITY BILL.

OCHLOCRACY.

This term was applied by the Greeks to an unlimited democracy, where rights were made conditional on no gradations of property, and where "provisions were made, not so much that only a proved and worthy citizen should be elected, as that everyone, without distinction, should be eligible for everything."

OCTAVIUS, Caius (afterwards called Augustus), and the founding of the Roman Empire.

ODAL.

ODELSRET.

ODELSTHING.

"Pericles built, at the south-eastern base of the citadel, the Odeum, which differed from the neighbouring theatre in this, that the former was a covered space, in which musical performances took place before a less numerous public. The roof, shaped like a tent, was accounted an imitation of the gorgeous tent pitched of old by Xerxes upon the soil of Attica."

ŒA.

ŒCUMENICAL, OR ECUMENICAL, COUNCIL.

   A general or universal council of the entire Christian Church.
   Twenty such councils are recognized by the Roman Catholic
   Church.

ŒKIST.

The chief-founder of a Greek colonial city,—the leader of a colonizing settlement, —was so entitled.

A battle of some importance in the Corinthian War, fought about B. C. 388, in the valley of the Charander, on the road from Argos to Mantinea. The Lacedæmonians were defeated by the Argives and Athenians.

"The territory [in Italy] known to Greek writers of the fifth century B. C. by the names of Œnotria on the coast of the Mediterranean, and Italia on that of the Gulfs of Tarentum and Squillace, included all that lies south of a line drawn across the breadth of the country, from the Gulf of Poseidonia (Pæstum) and the river Silarus on the Mediterranean Sea, to the north-west corner of the Gulf of Tarentum. It was bounded northwards by the Iapygians and Messapians, who occupied the Salentine peninsula and the country immediately adjoining to Tarentum, and by the Peuketians on the Ionic Gulf. … This Œnotrian or Pelasgian race were the population whom the Greek colonists found there on their arrival. They were known apparently under other names, such as the Sikels [Sicels], (mentioned even in the Odyssey, though their exact locality in that poem cannot be ascertained) the Italians, or Itali, properly so called—the Morgetes,—and the Chaones,—all of them names of tribes either cognate or subdivisional. The Chaones or Chaonians are also found, not only in Italy, but in Epirus, as one of the most considerable of the Epirotic tribes. … From hence, and from some other similarities of name, it has been imagined that Epirots, Œnotrians, Sikels, &c., were all names of cognate people, and all entitled to be comprehended under the generic appellation of Pelasgi. That they belonged to the same ethnical kindred there seems fair reason to presume, and also that in point of language, manners, and character, they were not very widely separated from the ruder branches of the Hellenic race. It would appear, too (as far as any judgment can be formed on a point essentially obscure) that the Œnotrians were ethnically akin to the primitive population of Rome and Latium on one side, as they were to the Epirots on the other; and that tribes of this race, comprising Sikels and Itali properly so called, as sections, had at one time occupied most of the territory from the left bank of the river Tiber southward between the Appenines and the Mediterranean."

OESTERREICH.

ŒTA.

OFFA'S DYKE.

   An earthen rampart which King Offa, of Mercia, in the eighth
   century, built from the mouth of the Wye to the mouth of the
   Tee, to divide his kingdom from Wales and protect it from
   Welsh incursions. A few remains of it are still to be seen.

OGAM.

OGHAM INSCRIPTIONS.

"In the south and south-western counties of Ireland are to be found, in considerable numbers, a class of inscribed monuments, to which the attention of Irish archæologists has been from time to time directed, but with comparatively little result. … They [the inscriptions] are found engraved on pillar stones in that archaic character known to Irish philologists as the Ogham, properly pronounced Oum, and in an ancient dialect of the Gaedhelic (Gaelic). These monuments are almost exclusively found in the counties of Kerry, Cork, and Waterford, numbering, as far as I have been able to ascertain, 147; the rest of Ireland supplies 13. … Again it is worthy of remark, that while 29 Irish counties cannot boast of an Ogham monument, they have been found in England, Wales, and Scotland. In Devonshire, at Fardel, a stone has been discovered bearing not only a fine and well-preserved Ogham inscription, but also one in Romano-British letters. It is now deposited in the British Museum. … The Ogham letters, as found on Megalithic monuments, are formed by certain combinations of a simple short line, placed in reference to one continuous line, called the fleasg, or stem line; these combinations range from one to five, and their values depend upon their being placed above, across, or below the stem line; there are five consonants above, five consonants below, and five consonants across the line, two of which, NG and ST are double, and scarcely ever used. The vowels are represented by oval dots, or very short lines across the stem line. … The characters in general use on the monuments are 18 in number. … It may be expected from me that I should offer some conjecture as to the probable age of this mode of writing. This, I honestly acknowledge, I am unable to do, even approximately. … I am however decided in one view, and it is this, that the Ogham was introduced into Ireland long anterior to Christianity, by a powerful colony who landed on the south-west coast, who spread themselves along the southern and round the eastern shores, who ultimately conquered or settled the whole island, imposing their language upon the aborigines, if such preceded them."

OGLETHORPE'S GEORGIA COLONY.

OGYGIA.

"The words Ohio, Ontario, and Onontio (or Yonnondio)—which should properly be pronounced as if written 'Oheeyo,' 'Ontareeyo,' and 'Ononteeyo'—are commonly rendered 'Beautiful River,' 'Beautiful Lake,' 'Beautiful Mountain.' This, doubtless, is the meaning which each of the words conveys to an Iroquois of the present day, unless he belongs to the Tuscarora tribe. But there can be no doubt that the termination 'īo' (otherwise written 'iyo,' 'iio,' 'eeyo,' etc.) had originally the sense, not of 'beautiful,' but of 'great.' … Ontario is derived from the Huron 'yontare,' or 'ontare,' lake (Iroquois, 'oniatare'), with this termination. … Ohio, in like manner, is derived, as M. Cuoq in the valuable notes to his Lexicon (p. 159) informs us, from the obsolete 'ohia,' river, now only used in the compound form 'ohionha.'"

      See AMERICA, PREHISTORIC;
      AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY,
      ALLEGHANS, DELAWARES, SHAWANESE.

OHIO: (Valley): A. D. 1748-1754. The first movements of the struggle of French and English for possession.

"The close of King George's War was marked by an extraordinary development of interest in the Western country. The Pennsylvanians and Virginians had worked their way well up to the eastern foot-hills of the last range of mountains separating them from the interior. Even the Connecticut men were ready to overleap the province of New York and take possession of the Susquehanna. The time for the English colonists to attempt the Great Mountains in force had been long in coming, but it had plainly arrived. In 1748 the Ingles-Draper settlement, the first regular settlement of English-speaking men on the Western waters, was made at 'Draper's Meadow,' on the New River, a branch of the Kanawha. The same year Dr. Thomas Walker, accompanied by a number of Virginia gentlemen and a party of hunters, made their way by Southwestern Virginia into Kentucky and Tennessee. … The same year the Ohio company, consisting of thirteen prominent Virginians and Marylanders, and one London merchant, was formed. Its avowed objects were to speculate in Western lands, and to carry on trade on an extensive scale with the Indians. It does not appear to have contemplated the settlement of a new colony. The company obtained from the crown a conditional grant of 500,000 acres of land in the Ohio Valley, to be located mainly between the Monongahela and Kanawha Rivers, and it ordered large shipments of goods for the Indian trade from London. … In 1750 the company sent Christopher Gist, a veteran woodsman and trader living on the Yadkin, down the northern side of the Ohio, with instructions, as Mr. Bancroft summarizes them, 'to examine the Western country as far as the Falls of the Ohio; to look for a large tract of good level land; to mark the passes in the mountains; to trace the courses of the rivers; to count the falls; to observe the strength of the Indian nations.' Under these instructions, Gist made the first English exploration of Southern Ohio of which we have any report. The next year he made a similar exploration of the country south of the Ohio, as far as the Great Kanawha. … Gist's reports of his explorations added to the growing interest in the over-mountain country. At that time the Ohio Valley was waste and unoccupied, save by the savages, but adventurous traders, mostly Scotch-Irish, and commonly men of reckless character and loose morals, made trading excursions as far as the River Miami. The Indian town of Pickawillany, on the upper waters of that stream, became a great centre of English trade and influence. Another evidence of the growing interest in the West is the fact that the colonial authorities, in every direction, were seeking to obtain Indian titles to the Western lands, and to bind the Indians to the English by treaties. The Iroquois had long claimed, by right of conquest, the country from the Cumberland Mountains to the Lower Lakes and the Mississippi, and for many years the authorities of New York had been steadily seeking to gain a firm treaty-hold of that country. In 1684, the Iroquois, at Albany, placed themselves under the protection of King Charles and the Duke of York [see NEW YORK: A. D. 1684]; in 1726, they conveyed all their lands in trust to England [see NEW YORK: A. D. 1726], to be protected and defended by his Majesty to and for the use of the grantors and their heirs, which was an acknowledgment by the Indians of what the French had acknowledged thirteen years before at Utrecht. In 1744, the very year that King George's War began, the deputies of the Iroquois at Lancaster, Pennsylvania, confirmed to Maryland the lands within that province, and made to Virginia a deed that covered the whole West as effectually as the Virginian interpretation of the charter of 1609 [see VIRGINIA: A. D. 1744]. … This treaty is of the greatest importance in subsequent history; it is the starting-point of later negotiations with the Indians concerning Western lands. It gave the English their first real treaty-hold upon the West; and it stands in all the statements of the English claim to the Western country, side by side with the Cabot voyages. … There was, indeed, no small amount of dissension among the colonies, and it must not be supposed that they were all working together to effect a common purpose, The royal governors could not agree. There were bitter dissensions between governors and assemblies. Colony was jealous of colony. … Fortunately, the cause of England and the colonies was not abandoned to politicians. The time had come for the Anglo-Saxon column, that had been so long in reaching them, to pass the Endless Mountains; and the logic of events swept everything into the Westward current. In the years following the treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle the French were not idle. Galissonière, the governor of Canada, thoroughly comprehended what was at stake. In 1749 he sent Cèloron de Bienville into the Ohio Valley, with a suitable escort of whites and savages, to take formal possession of the valley in the name of the King of France, to propitiate the Indians, and in all ways short of actual warfare to thwart the English plans. Bienville crossed the portage from Lake Erie to Lake Chautauqua, the easternmost of the portages from the Lakes to the southern streams ever used by the French, and made his way by the Alleghany River and the Ohio as far as the Miami, and returned by the Maumee and Lake Erie to Montreal. His report to the governor was anything but reassuring. He found the English traders swarming in the valley, and the Indians generally well disposed to the English. Nor did French interests improve the two or three succeeding years. The Marquis Duquesne, who succeeded Galissonière, soon discovered the drift of events. He saw the necessity of action; he was clothed with power to act, and he was a man of action, And so, early in the year 1753, while the English governors and assemblies were still hesitating and disputing, he sent a strong force by Lake Ontario and Niagara to seize and hold the northeastern branches of the Ohio. This was a master stroke: unless recalled, it would lead to war; and Duquesne was not the man to recall it. {2394} This force, passing over the portage between Presque Isle and French Creek, constructed Forts Le Bœuf and Venango, the second at the confluence of French Creek and the Alleghany River."

      O. H. Marshall,
      De Celoron's Expedition to the Ohio in 1749
      (Historical Writings, pages 237-274).

The planting of the French at Forts Le Bœuf and Venango "put them during high water in easy communication by boat with the Alleghany River. French tact conciliated the Indians, and where that failed arrogance was sufficient, and the expedition would have pushed on to found new forts, but sickness weakened the men, and Marin, the commander, now dying, saw it was all he could do to hold the two forts, while he sent the rest of his force back to Montreal to recuperate. Late in the autumn Legardeur de Saint-Pierre arrived at Le Bœuf, as the successor of Marin. He had not been long there when on the 11th of December [1753] a messenger from Governor Dinwiddie, of Virginia, with a small escort, presented himself at the fort. The guide of the party was Christopher Gist; the messenger was George Washington, then adjutant-general of the Virginia militia. Their business was to inform the French commander that he was building forts on English territory, and that he would do well to depart peaceably. … At Le Bœuf Washington tarried three days, during which Saint-Pierre framed his reply, which was in effect that he must hold his post, while Dinwiddie's letter was sent to the French commander at Quebec. It was the middle of February, 1754, when Washington reached Williamsburg on his return, and made his report to Dinwiddie. The result was that Dinwiddie drafted 200 men from the Virginia militia, and despatched them under Washington to build a fort at the forks of the Ohio. The Virginia assembly, forgetting for the moment its quarrel with the governor, voted £10,000 to be expended, but only under the direction of a committee of its own. Dinwiddie found difficulty in getting the other colonies to assist, and the Quaker element in Pennsylvania prevented that colony from being the immediate helper which it might, from its position, have become. Meanwhile some backwoodsmen had been pushed over the mountains and had set to work on a fort at the forks. A much larger French force under Contrecœur soon summoned them, and the English retired. The French immediately began the erection of Fort Duquesne [on the site now covered by the city of Pittsburgh]. While this was doing, Dinwiddie was toiling with tardy assemblies and their agents to organize a regiment to support the backwoodsmen. Joshua Fry was to be its colonel, with Washington as second in command. The latter, with a portion of the men, had already pushed forward to Will's Creek, the present Cumberland. Later he advanced with 150 men to Great Meadows, where he learned that the French, who had been reinforced, had sent out a party from their new fort, marching towards him. Again he got word from an Indian —who, from his tributary character towards the Iroquois, was called Half-King, and who had been Washington's companion on his trip to Le Bœuf—that this chieftain with some followers had tracked two men to a dark glen, where he believed the French party were lurking. Washington started with forty men to join Half-King, and under his guidance they approached the glen and found the French. Shots were exchanged. The French leader, Jumonville, was killed, and all but one of his followers were taken or slain. The mission of Jumonville was to scour for English, by order of Contrecœur, now in command of Duquesne, and to bear a summons to any he could find, warning them to retire from French territory. The precipitancy of Washington's attack gave the French the chance to impute to Washington the crime of assassination; but it seems to have been a pretence on the part of the French to cover a purpose which Jumonville had of summoning aid from Duquesne, while his concealment was intended to shield him till its arrival. Rash or otherwise, this onset of the youthful Washington began the war. The English returned to Great Meadows, and while waiting for reinforcements from Fry, Washington threw up some entrenchments, which he called Fort Necessity. The men from Fry came without their leader, who had sickened and died, and Washington, succeeding to the command of the regiment, found himself at the head of 300 men, increased soon by an independent company from South Carolina. Washington again advanced toward Gist's settlement, when, fearing an attack, he sent back for Mackay, whom he had left with a company of regulars at Fort Necessity. Rumors thickening of an advance of the French, the English leader again fell back to Great Meadows, resolved to fight there. It was now the first of July, 1754. Coulon de Villiers, a brother of Jumonville, was now advancing from Duquesne. The attack was made on a rainy day, and for much of the time a thick mist hung between the combatants. After dark a parley resulted in Washington's accepting terms offered by the French, and the English marched out with the honors of war. The young Virginian now led his weary followers back to Will's Creek. … Thus they turned their backs upon the great valley, in which not an English flag now waved."

      J. Winsor,
      The Struggle for the Great Valleys of North America
      (Narrative and Critical History of America,
      volume 5, chapter 8).

      ALSO IN:
      W. Irving,
      Life of Washington,
      volume 1, chapters 7-12.

OHIO: (Valley): A. D. 1755.
   Braddock's defeat.
   The French possess the West and
   devastate the English frontiers.

   "Now the English Government awoke to the necessity of vigorous
   measures to rescue the endangered Valley of the Ohio. A
   campaign was planned which was to expel the French from Ohio,
   and wrest from them some portions of their Canadian territory.
   The execution of this great design was intrusted to General
   Braddock, with a force which it was deemed would overbear all
   resistance.
{2395}
   Braddock was a veteran who had seen the wars of forty years. …
   He was a brave and experienced soldier, and a likely man, it
   was thought, to do the work assigned to him. But that proved a
   sad miscalculation. Braddock had learned the rules of war; but
   he had no capacity to comprehend its principles. In the
   pathless forests of America he could do nothing better than
   strive to give literal effect to those maxims which he had
   found applicable in the well-trodden battlegrounds of Europe.
   The failure of Washington in his first campaign had not
   deprived him of public confidence. Braddock heard such
   accounts of his efficiency that he invited him to join his
   staff. Washington, eager to efface the memory of his defeat,
   gladly accepted the offer. The troops disembarked at
   Alexandria. … After some delay, the army, with such
   reinforcements as the province afforded, began its march.
   Braddock's object was to reach Fort Du Quesne, the great
   centre of French influence on the Ohio. … Fort Du Quesne had
   been built [or begun] by the English, and taken from them by
   the French. It stood at the confluence of the Alleghany and
   Monongahela; which rivers, by their union at this point, form
   the Ohio. It was a rude piece of fortification, but the
   circumstances admitted of no better. … Braddock had no doubt
   that the fort would yield to him directly he showed himself
   before it. Benjamin Franklin looked at the project with his
   shrewd, cynical eye. He told Braddock that he would assuredly
   take the fort if he could only reach it; but that the long
   slender line which his army must form in its march 'would be
   cut like thread into several pieces' by the hostile Indians.
   Braddock 'smiled at his ignorance.' Benjamin offered no
   further opinion. It was his duty to collect horses and
   carriages for the use of the expedition, and he did what was
   required of him in silence. The expedition crept slowly
   forward, never achieving more than three or four miles in a
   day; stopping, as Washington said, 'to level every mole-hill,
   to erect a bridge over every brook.' It left Alexandria on the
   20th April. On the 9th July Braddock, with half his army, was
   near the fort. There was yet no evidence that resistance was
   intended. No enemy had been seen; the troops marched on as to
   assured victory. So confident was their chief that he refused
   to employ scouts, and did not deign to inquire what enemy
   might be lurking near. The march was along a road twelve feet
   wide, in a ravine, with high ground in front and on both
   sides. Suddenly the Indian war-whoop burst from the woods. A
   murderous fire smote down the troops. The provincials, not
   unused to this description of warfare, sheltered themselves
   behind trees and fought with steady courage. Braddock,
   clinging to his old rules, strove to maintain his order of
   battle on the open ground. A carnage, most grim and
   lamentable, was the result. His undefended soldiers were shot
   down by an unseen foe. For three hours the struggle lasted;
   then the men broke and fled in utter rout and panic. Braddock,
   vainly fighting, fell mortally wounded, and was carried off
   the field by some of his soldiers. The poor pedantic man never
   got over his astonishment at a defeat so inconsistent with the
   established rules of war. 'Who would have thought it?' he
   murmured, as they bore him from the field. He scarcely spoke
   again, and died in two or three days. Nearly 800 men, killed
   and wounded, were lost in this disastrous encounter —about
   one-half of the entire force engaged. All the while England
   and France were nominally at peace. But now war was declared."

"The news of the defeat caused a great revulsion of feeling. The highest hopes had been built on Braddock's expedition. … From this height of expectation men were suddenly plunged into the yawning gulf of gloom and alarm. The whole frontier lay exposed to the hatchet and the torch of the remorseless red man. … The apprehensions of the border settlers were soon fully justified. Dumas, who shortly succeeded de Contrecœur in the command at Fort Duquesne, set vigorously to work to put the Indians on the war-path against the defenceless settlements. 'M. de Contrecœur had not been gone a week,' he writes, 'before I had six or seven different war parties in the field at once, always accompanied by Frenchmen. Thus far, we have lost only two officers and a few soldiers; but the Indian villages are full of prisoners of every age and sex. The enemy has lost far more since the battle than on the day of his defeat.' All along the frontier the murderous work went on."

      W. Sargent,
      History of Braddock's Expedition
      (Pennsylvania Historical Society Mem's, volume 5).

OHIO:(Valley): A. D. 1758.
Retirement of the French.
Abandonment of Fort Duquesne.

OHIO:(Valley): A. D. 1763.
Relinquishment to Great Britain by the Treaty of Paris.

OHIO:(Valley): A. D. 1765-1768.
   Indian Treaties of German Flats and Fort Stanwix.
   Pretended cession of lands south of the Ohio.
   The Walpole Company and its proposed Vandalia settlement.

OHIO:(Valley): A. D. 1772-1782.
The Moravian settlement and mission on the Muskingum.

OHIO:(Valley): A. D. 1774.
   Lord Dunmore's War with the Indians.
   The territorial claims of Virginia.
   The wrongs of Logan and his famous speech.

"On the eve of the Revolution, in 1774, the frontiersmen had planted themselves firmly among the Alleghanies. Directly west of them lay the untenanted wilderness, traversed only by the war parties of the red men, and the hunting parties of both reds and whites. No settlers had yet penetrated it, and until they did so there could be within its borders no chance of race warfare. … But in the southwest and the northwest alike, the area of settlement already touched the home lands of the tribes. … It was in the northwest that the danger of collision was most imminent; for there the whites and Indians had wronged one another for a generation, and their interests were, at the time, clashing more directly than ever. Much the greater part of the western frontier was held or claimed by Virginia, whose royal governor was, at the time, Lord Dunmore. {2396} … The short but fierce and eventful struggle that now broke out was fought wholly by Virginians, and was generally known by the name of Lord Dunmore's war. Virginia, under her charter, claimed that her boundaries ran across to the South Seas, to the Pacific Ocean. The king of Britain had graciously granted her the right to take so much of the continent as lay within these lines, provided she could win it from the Indians, French, and Spaniards. … A number of grants had been made with the like large liberality, and it was found that they sometimes conflicted with one another. The consequence was that while the boundaries were well marked near the coast, where they separated Virginia from the long-settled regions of Maryland and North Carolina, they became exceeding vague and indefinite the moment they touched the mountains. Even at the south this produced confusion, … but at the north the effect was still more confusing, and nearly resulted in bringing about an inter-colonial war between Pennsylvania and Virginia. The Virginians claimed all of extreme western Pennsylvania, especially Fort Pitt and the valley of the Monongahela, and, in 1774, proceeded boldly to exercise jurisdiction therein. Indeed a strong party among the settlers favored the Virginian claim. … The interests of the Virginians and Pennsylvanians not only conflicted in respect to the ownership of the land, but also in respect to the policy to be pursued regarding the Indians. The former were armed colonists, whose interest it was to get actual possession of the soil; whereas in Pennsylvania the Indian trade was very important and lucrative. … The interests of the white trader from Pennsylvania and of the white settler from Virginia were so far from being identical that they were usually diametrically opposite. The northwestern Indians had been nominally at peace with the whites for ten years, since the close of Bouquet's campaign. … Each of the ten years of nominal peace saw plenty of bloodshed. Recently they had been seriously alarmed by the tendency of the whites to encroach on the great hunting-grounds south of the Ohio. … The cession by the Iroquois of the same hunting-grounds, at the treaty of Fort Stanwix [see UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765-1768], while it gave the whites a colorable title, merely angered the northwestern Indians. Half a century earlier they would hardly have dared dispute the power of the Six Nations to do what they chose with any land that could be reached by their war parties; but in 1774 they felt quite able to hold their own against their old oppressors. … The savages grew continually more hostile, and in the fall of 1773 their attacks became so frequent that it was evident a general outbreak was at hand. … The Shawnees were the leaders in all these outrages; but the outlaw bands, such as the Mingos and Cherokees, were as bad, and parties of Wyandots and Delawares, as well as of the various Miami and Wabash tribes, joined them. Thus the spring of 1774 opened with everything ripe for an explosion. … The borderers were anxious for a war; and Lord Dunmore was not inclined to baulk them. … Unfortunately the first stroke fell on friendly Indians." Dunmore's agent or lieutenant in the country, one Dr. Conolly, issued an open letter in April which was received by the backwoodsmen as a declaration and authorization of war. One band of these, led by a Maryland borderer, Michael Cresap, proceeded to hostilities at once by ambushing and shooting down some friendly Shawnees who were engaged in trade. This same party then set out to attack the camp of the famous chief Logan, whose family and followers were then dwelling at Yellow Creek, some 50 miles away. Logan was "an Iroquois warrior, who lived at that time away from the bulk of his people, but who was a man of note … among the outlying parties of Senecas and Mingos, and the fragments of broken tribes that dwelt along the upper Ohio. … He was greatly liked and respected by all the white hunters and frontiersmen whose friendship and respect were worth having; they admired him for his dexterity and prowess, and they loved him for his straightforward honesty, and his noble loyalty to his friends." Cresap's party, after going some miles toward Logan's camp, "began to feel ashamed of their mission; calling a halt, they discussed the fact that the camp they were preparing to attack consisted exclusively of friendly Indians, and mainly of women and children; and forthwith abandoned their proposed trip and returned home. … But Logan's people did not profit by Cresap's change of heart. On the last day of April a small party of men, women, and children, including almost all of Logan's kin, left his camp and crossed the river to visit Greathouse [another borderer, of a more brutal type], as had been their custom; for he made a trade of selling rum to the savages, though Cresap had notified him to stop. The whole party were plied with liquor, and became helplessly drunk, in which condition Greathouse and his associated criminals fell on and massacred them, nine souls in all. … At once the frontier was in a blaze, and the Indians girded themselves for revenge. … They confused the two massacres, attributing both to Cresap, whom they well knew as a warrior. … Soon all the back country was involved in the unspeakable horrors of a bloody Indian war," which lasted, however, only till the following October. Governor Dunmore, during the summer, collected some 3,000 men, one division of which he led personally to Fort Pitt and thence down the Ohio, accomplishing nothing of importance. The other division, composed exclusively of backwoodsmen, under General Andrew Lewis, marched to the mouth of the Kanawha River, and there, at Point Pleasant, the cape of land jutting out between the Ohio and the Kanawha, they fought, on the 10th of October, a great battle with the Indians which practically ended the war. This is sometimes called the battle of Point Pleasant, and sometimes the battle of the Great Kanawha. "It was the most closely contested of any battle ever fought with the northwestern Indians; and it was the only victory gained over a large body of them by a force but slightly superior in numbers. … Its results were most important. It kept the northwestern tribes quiet for the first two years of the Revolutionary struggle; and above all it rendered possible the settlement of Kentucky, and therefore the winning of the West. Had it not been for Lord Dunmore's War, it is more than likely that when the colonies achieved their freedom they would have found their western boundary fixed at the Alleghany Mountains." {2397} For some time after peace had been made with the other chiefs Logan would not join in it. When he did yield a sullen assent, Lord Dunmore "was obliged to communicate with him through a messenger, a frontier veteran named John Gibson. … To this messenger Logan was willing to talk. Taking him aside, he suddenly addressed him in a speech that will always retain its place as perhaps the finest outburst of savage eloquence of which we have any authentic record. The messenger took it down in writing, translating it literally." The authenticity of this famous speech of Logan has been much questioned, but apparently with no good ground.

T. Roosevelt, The Winning of the West, volume 1, chapters 8-9. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/11941

      J. R. Gilmore (E. Kirke),
      The Rear-guard of the Revolution,
      chapter 4.

OHIO: (Valley): A. D. 1778-1779.
   Conquest of the Northwest from the British by the Virginia
   General Clark, and its annexation to the Kentucky
   District of Virginia.

OHIO: (Valley): A. D. 1781-1786.
   Conflicting territorial claims of Virginia, New York and
   Connecticut.
   Their cession to the United States,
   except the Western Reserve of Connecticut.

OHIO: (Valley): A: D. 1784.
Included in the proposed States of Metropotamia, Washington,
Saratoga and Pelisipia.

OHIO: (Valley): A. D. 1786-1788. The Ohio Company of Revolutionary soldiers and their settlement at Marietta.

OHIO: (Valley): A. D. 1786-1796.
Western Reserve of Connecticut.
Founding of Cleveland.

In September, 1786, Connecticut ceded to Congress the western territory which she claimed under her charter (see UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786; and PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1753-1799), reserving, however, from the cession a tract "bounded north by the line of 42° 2', or, rather, the international line, east by the western boundary of Pennsylvania, south by the 41st parallel, and west by a line parallel with the eastern boundary and distant from it 120 miles—supposed, at the time, to be equal in extent to the Susquehanna tract given to Pennsylvania, 1782. … This territory Connecticut was said 'to reserve,' and it soon came to be called 'The Connecticut Western Reserve,' 'The Western Reserve,' etc. … On May 11, 1792, the General Assembly quit-claimed to the inhabitants of several Connecticut towns who had lost property in consequence of the incursions into the State made by the British troops in the Revolution, or their legal representatives when they were dead, and to their heirs and assigns, forever, 500,000 acres lying across the western end of the reserve, bounded north by the lake shore. … The total number of sufferers, as reported, was 1,870, and the aggregate losses, £161,548, 11s., 6½. The grant was of the soil only. These lands are known in Connecticut history as 'The Sufferers' Lands,' in Ohio history as 'The Fire Lands.' In 1796 the Sufferers were incorporated in Connecticut, and in 1803 in Ohio, under the title 'The Proprietors of the Half-million Acres of Land lying south of Lake Erie.' … In May, 1793, the Connecticut Assembly offered the remaining part of the Reserve for sale." In September, 1795, the whole tract was sold, without surveyor measurement, for $1,200,000, and the Connecticut School Fund, which amounts to something more than two millions of dollars, consists wholly of the proceeds of that sale, with capitalized interest. "The purchasers of the Reserve, most of them belonging to Connecticut, but some to Massachusetts and New York, were men desirous of trying their fortunes in Western lands. Oliver Phelps, perhaps the greatest land-speculator of the time, was at their head. September 5, 1795, they adopted articles of agreement and association, constituting themselves the Connecticut Land Company. The company was never incorporated, but was what is called to-day a 'syndicate.'" In the spring of 1796 the company sent out a party of surveyors, in charge of its agent, General Moses Cleaveland, who reached "the mouth of the Cuyahoga River, July 22d, from which day there have always been white men on the site of the city that takes its name from him." In 1830 the spelling of the name of the infant city was changed from Cleaveland to Cleveland by the printer of its first newspaper, who found that the superfluous "a" made a heading too long for his form, and therefore dropped it out.

OHIO: (Valley): A. D. 1787.
The Ordinance for the government of the Northwest Territory.
Perpetual exclusion of Slavery.

OHIO: (Valley): A. D. 1790-1795.
   Indian war.
   Disastrous expeditions of Harmar and St. Clair,
   and Wayne's decisive victory.
   The Greenville Treaty.

OHIO: (Territory and State): A. D. 1800-1802. Organized as a separate Territory and admitted to the Union as a State.

OHIO: A. D. 1812-1813.
   Harrison's campaign for the recovery of Detroit.
   Winchester's defeat.
   Perry's naval victory.

OL., OR OLYMP.

OLBIA.

OLD IRONSIDES.

This name was popularly given to the "Constitution," the most famous of the American frigates in the War of 1812-14 with Great Britain.

OLD STYLE.

"The famous maritime laws of Oleron (which is an island adjacent to the coast of France) are usually ascribed to Richard I, though none of the many writers, who have had occasion to mention them, have been able to find any contemporary authority, or even any antient satisfactory warrant for affixing his name to them. They consist of forty-seven short regulations for average, salvage, wreck, &c. copied from the antient Rhodian maritime laws, or perhaps more immediately from those of Barcelona."

OLIGARCHY.

OLISIPO.

See BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1640-1688; and SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1644-1697.

"The Order of Olivetans, or Brethren of St. Mary of Mount Olivet, … was founded in 1313, by John Tolomei of Siena, a distinguished professor of philosophy in his native city, in gratitude for the miraculous restoration of his sight. In company with a few companions, he established himself in a solitary olive-orchard, near Siena, obtained the approbation of John XXII. for his congregation, and, at the command of the latter, adopted the Rule of St. Benedict."

OLLAMHS.

A treaty between Edmund Ironsides and Canute, or Cnut, dividing the English kingdom between them, A. D. 1016. The conference was held on an island in the Severn, called Olney.

   A victory won, in the Peloponnesian War (B. C. 426-5) by the
   Acarnanians and Messenians, under the Athenian general
   Demosthenes, over the Peloponnesians and Ambraciotes, on the
   shore of the Ambracian gulf.

"The Era of the Olympiads, so called from its having originated from the Olympic games, which occurred every fifth year at Olympia, a city in Elis, is the most ancient and celebrated method of computing time. It was first instituted in the 776th year before the birth of our Saviour, and consisted of a revolution of four years. The first year of Jesus Christ is usually considered to correspond with the first year of the 195th olympiad; but as the years of the olympiads commenced at the full moon next after the summer solstice, i. e., about the first of July, … it must be understood that it corresponds only with the six last months of the 195th olympiad. … Each year of an olympiad was luni–solar, and contained 12 or 13 months, the names of which varied in the different states of Greece. The months consisted of 30 and 29 days alternately; and the short year consequently contained 354 days, while the intercalary year had 384. The computation by olympiads … ceased after the 364th olympiad, in the year of Christ 440."

OLYMPIC GAMES.

"The character of a national institution, which the Amphictyonic council affected, but never really acquired, more truly belonged to the public festivals, which, though celebrated within certain districts, were not peculiar to any tribe, but were open and common to all who could prove their Hellenic blood. The most important of these festivals was that which was solemnized every fifth year on the banks of the Alpheus, in the territory of Elis; it lasted four days, and, from Olympia, the scene of its celebration, derived the name of the Olympic contest, or games, and the period itself which intervened between its returns was called an olympiad. The origin of this institution is involved in some obscurity, partly by the lapse of time, and partly by the ambition of the Eleans to exaggerate its antiquity and sanctity. … Though, however, the legends fabricated or adopted by the Eleans to magnify the antiquity and glory of the games deserve little attention, there can be no doubt that, from very early times, Olympia had been a site hallowed by religion; and it is highly probable that festivals of a nature similar to that which afterwards became permanent had been occasionally celebrated in the sanctuary of Jupiter. … Olympia, not so much a town as a precinct occupied by a great number of sacred and public buildings, originally lay in the territory of Pisa, which, for two centuries after the beginning of the olympiads, was never completely subject to Elis, and occasionally appeared as her rival, and excluded her from all share in the presidency of the games. {2399} … It is probable that the northern Greeks were not at first either consulted or expected to take any share in the festival; and that, though never expressly confined to certain tribes, in the manner of an Amphictyonic congress, it gradually enlarged the sphere of its fame and attraction till it came to embrace the whole nation. The sacred truce was proclaimed by officers sent round by the Eleans: it put a stop to warfare, from the time of the proclamation, for a period sufficient to enable strangers to return home in safety. During this period the territory of Elis itself was of course regarded as inviolable, and no armed force could traverse it without incurring the penalty of sacrilege. … It [the festival] was very early frequented by spectators, not only from all parts of Greece itself, but from the Greek colonies in Europe, Africa, and Asia; and this assemblage was not brought together by the mere fortuitous impulse of private interest or curiosity, but was in part composed of deputations which were sent by most cities as to a religious solemnity, and were considered as guests of the Olympian god. The immediate object of the meeting was the exhibition of various trials of strength and skill, which, from time to time, were multiplied so as to include almost every mode of displaying bodily activity. They included races on foot and with horses and chariots; contests in leaping, throwing, wrestling, and boxing; and some in which several of the exercises were combined; but no combats with any kind of weapon. The equestrian contests, particularly that of the four-horsed chariots, were, by their nature, confined to the wealthy; and princes and nobles vied with each other in such demonstrations of their opulence. But the greater part were open to the poorest Greek, and were not on that account the lower in public estimation. … In the games described by Homer valuable prizes were proposed, and this practice was once universal; but, after the seventh olympiad, a simple garland, of leaves of the wild olive, was substituted at Olympia, as the only meed of victory. The main spring of emulation was undoubtedly the celebrity of the festival and the presence of so vast a multitude of spectators, who were soon to spread the fame of the successful athletes to the extremity of the Grecian world. … The Altis, as the ground consecrated to the games was called at Olympia, was adorned with numberless statues of the victors, erected, with the permission of the Eleans, by themselves or their families, or at the expense of their fellow citizens. It was also usual to celebrate the joyful event, both at Olympia and at the victor's home, by a triumphal procession, in which his praises were sung, and were commonly associated with the glory of his ancestors and his country. The most eminent poets willingly lent their aid on such occasions, especially to the rich and great. And thus it happened that sports, not essentially different from those of our village greens, gave birth to masterpieces of sculpture, and called forth the sublimest strains of the lyric muse. … Viewed merely as a spectacle designed for public amusement, and indicating the taste of the people, the Olympic games might justly claim to be ranked far above all similar exhibitions of other nations. It could only be for the sake of a contrast, by which their general purity, innocence, and humanity would be placed in the strongest light, that they could be compared with the bloody sports of a Roman or a Spanish amphitheatre, and the tournaments of our chivalrous ancestors, examined by their side, would appear little better than barbarous shows."

The building of a great temple to Jupiter Olympius was begun at Athens by Peisistratus as early as 530 B. C. Republican Athens refused to carry on a work which would be associated with the hateful memory of the tyrant, and it stood untouched until B. C. 174, when Antiochus Epiphanes employed a Roman architect to proceed with it. He, in turn, left it still unfinished, to be afterwards resumed by Augustus, and completed at last by Hadrian, 650 years after the foundations were laid.

OLYMPUS.

The name Olympus was given by the Greeks to a number of mountains and mountain ranges; but the one Olympus which impressed itself most upon their imaginations, and which seemed to be the home of their gods, was the lofty height that terminates the Cambunian range of mountains at the east and forms part of the boundary between Thessaly and Macedonia. Its elevation is nearly 10,000 feet above the level of the sea and all travelers have seemed to be affected by the peculiar grandeur of its aspect. Other mountains called Olympus were in Elis, near Olympia, where the great games were celebrated, and in Laconia, near Sellasia. There was also an Olympus in the island of Cyprus, and two in Asia Minor, one in Lycia, and a range in Mysia, separating Bithynia from Galatia and Phrygia.

ON.

"A solitary obelisk of red granite, set up at least 4,000 years ago, alone marks the site of On, also called the City of the Sun, in Hebrew Beth-shemesh, in Greek Heliopolis. Nothing else can be seen of the splendid shrine and the renowned university which were the former glories of the place. … The university to which the wise men of Greece resorted perished when a new centre of knowledge was founded in the Greek city of Alexandria. … It was during the temporary independence of the country under native kings, after the first Persian rule, that Plato the philosopher and Eudoxus the mathematician studied at Heliopolis. … The civil name of the town was An, the Hebrew On, the sacred name Pe-Ra, the 'Abode of the Sun.'"

The site of On, or Heliopolis, is near Cairo. There was another city in Upper Egypt called An by the Egyptians, but Hermonthis by the Greeks.

The western division of Canada, formerly called Upper Canada, received the name of Ontario when the Confederation of the Dominion of Canada was formed.

ONTARIO SCHOOL SYSTEM.

OODEYPOOR.

The geographical situation of the land called Ophir in the Bible has been the subject of much controversy. Many recent historians accept, as "conclusively demonstrated," the opinion reached by Lassen in his Indische Alterthumskunde, that the true Ophir of antiquity was the country of Abhira, near the mouths of the Indus, not far from the present province of Guzerat. But some who accept Abhira as being the original Ophir conjecture that the name was extended in use to southern Arabia, where the products of the Indian Ophir were marketed.

A law passed at Rome during the second Punic War (3d century, B. C.), forbidding any woman to wear a gay–colored dress, or more than half an ounce of gold ornament, and prohibiting the use of a car drawn by horses within a mile of any city or town. It was repealed B. C. 194.

OPPIDUM.

Among the Gauls and the Britons a town, or a fortified place, was called an oppidum. As Cæsar explained the term, speaking of the oppidum of Cassivellaunus, in Britain, it signified a "stockade or enclosed space in the midst of a forest, where they took refuge with their flocks and herds in case of an invasion."

OPTIMATES.

"New names came into fashion [in Rome], but it is difficult to say when they were first used. We may probably refer the origin of them to the time of the Gracchi [B. C. 133-121]. One party was designated by the name of Optimates, 'the class of the best.' The name shows that it must have been invented by the 'best,' for the people would certainly not have given it to them. We may easily guess who were the Optimates. They were the rich and powerful, who ruled by intimidation, intrigue, and bribery, who bought the votes of the people and sold their interests. … Opposed to the Optimates were the Populares."

ORACLES OF THE GREEKS.

"Wherever the worship of Apollo had fixed its roots, there were sibyls and prophets; for Apollo is nowhere conceivable without the beneficent light of prophecy streaming out from his abode. The happy situation and moral significance of leading colleges of priests procured a peculiar authority for individual oracles. Among these are the Lycian Patara, the Thymbræan oracle near Troja (to which belongs Cassandra, the most famed of Apollo's prophetesses), the Gryneum on Lesbos, the Clarian oracle near Colophon, and finally the most important of all the oracles of Asia Minor, the Didymæum near Miletus, where the family of the Branchidæ held the prophetic office as a hereditary honorary right. Delos connects the Apolline stations on the two opposite sides of the water: here, too, was a primitive oracle, where Anius, the son of Apollo, was celebrated as the founder of a priestly family of soothsayers. … The sanctuaries of Ismenian Apollo in Thebes were founded, the Ptoïum on the hill which separates the Hylian plain of the sea from the Copæic, and in Phocis the oracle of Abæ. The reason why the fame of all these celebrated seats of Apollo was obscured by that of Delphi lies in a series of exceptional and extraordinary circumstances by which this place was qualified to become a centre, not only of the lands in its immediate neighbourhood, like the other oracles, but of the whole nation. … With all the more important sanctuaries there was connected a comprehensive financial administration, it being the duty of the priests, by shrewd management, by sharing in profitable undertakings, by advantageous leases, by lending money, to increase the annual revenues. … There were no places of greater security, and they were, therefore, used by States as well as by private persons as places of deposit for their valuable documents, such as wills, compacts, bonds, or ready money. By this means the sanctuary entered into business relations with all parts of the Greek world, which brought it gain and influence. The oracles became money-institutions, which took the place of public banks. … It was by their acquiring, in addition to the authority of religious holiness, and the superior weight of mental culture, that power which was attainable by means of personal relations of the most comprehensive sort, as well as through great pecuniary means and national credit, that it was possible for the oracle-priests to gain so comprehensive an influence upon all Grecian affairs. … With the extension of colonies the priests' knowledge of the world increased, and with this the commanding eminence of the oracle-god. … The oracles were in every respect not only the provident eye, not only the religious conscience, of the Greek nation, but they were also its memory."

"The sites selected for these oracles were generally marked by some physical property, which fitted them to be the scenes of such miraculous manifestations. They were in a volcanic region, where gas escaping from a fissure in the earth might be inhaled, and the consequent exhilaration or ecstasy, partly real and partly imaginary, was a divine inspiration. At the Pythian oracle in Delphi there was thought to be such an exhalation. Others have supposed that the priests possessed the secret of manufacturing an exhilarating gas. … In each of the oracular temples of Apollo, the officiating functionary was a woman, probably chosen on account of her nervous temperament;—at first young, but, a love affair having happened, it was decided that no one under fifty should be eligible to the office. The priestess sat upon a tripod, placed over the chasm in the centre of the temple."

"The little, but wealthy and delicious, tract of land, of which Orange is the capital, being about four miles in length and as many in breadth, lies in the Comté Venaissin, bordering upon that of Avignon, within a small distance of the Rhone; and made no inconsiderable part of that ancient and famous Kingdom of Arles which was established by Boso towards the end of the 9th century. …"

"In the beginning of the 9th century, historians tell us of one William, sirnamed Cornet, of uncertain extraction, sovereign of this State, and highly esteemed by the great Emperor Charlemagne, whose vassal he then was. Upon failure of the male descendants of this prince in the person of Rambald IV.; who died in the 13th century, his lands devolved to Tiburga, great aunt to the said Rambald, who brought them in marriage to Bertrand II. of the illustrious house of Baux. These were common ancestors to Raymond V., father to Mary, with whom John IV. of Chalon contracted an alliance in 1386; and it was from them that descended in a direct male line the brave Philibert of Chalon, who, after many signal services rendered the Emperor Charles V., as at the taking of Rome more particularly, had the misfortune to be slain, leaving behind him no issue, in a little skirmish at Pistoya, while he had the command of the siege before Florence. Philibert had one only sister, named Claudia, whose education was at the French court," where, in 1515, she married Henry, of Nassau, whereby the principality passed to that house which was made most illustrious, in the next generation, by William the Silent, Prince of Orange. The Dutch stadtholders retained the title of Princes of Orange until William III. Louis XIV. seized the principality in 1672, but it was restored to the House of Nassau by the Peace of Ryswick.

On the death of William III. it was declared to be forfeited to the French crown, and was bestowed on the Prince of Conti; but the king of Prussia, who claimed it, was permitted, under the Treaty of Utrecht, to bear the title, without possession of the domain.

      ALSO IN:
      E. A. Freeman,
      Orange
      (Historical Essays, volume 4).

ORANGE FREE STATE.

ORCHIAN, FANNIAN, DIDIAN LAWS.

"In the year 181 B. C. [Rome] a law (the Lex Orchia) was designed to restrain extravagance in private banquets, and to limit the number of guests. This law proved ineffectual, and as early as 161 B. C. a far stricter law was introduced by the consul, C. Fannius (the Lex Fannia) which prescribed how much might be spent on festive banquets and common family meals. … The law, moreover, prohibited certain kinds of food and drink. By a law in the year 143 B. C. (the Lex Didia) this regulation was extended over the whole of Italy."

ORCHOMENOS.

   "During the full fervor of the belief that the Divine
   interposition could at all times be had for the asking, almost
   any form of procedure, conducted under priestly observances,
   could assume the position and influence of an ordeal. As early
   as 592, we find Gregory the Great alluding to a simple
   purgatorial oath, taken by a Bishop on the relics of St.
   Peter, in terms which convey evidently the idea that the
   accused, if guilty, had exposed himself to imminent danger,
   and that by performing the ceremony unharmed he had
   sufficiently proved his innocence. But such unsubstantial
   refinements were not sufficient for the vulgar, who craved the
   evidence of their senses, and desired material proof to rebut
   material accusations. In ordinary practice, therefore, the
   principal modes by which the will of Heaven was ascertained
   were the ordeal of fire, whether administered directly, or
   through the agency of boiling water or red-hot iron; that of
   cold water; of bread or cheese; of the Eucharist; of the
   cross; the lot; and the touching of the body of the victim in
   cases of murder.
{2402}
   Some of these, it will be seen, required a miraculous
   interposition to save the accused; others to condemn; some
   depended altogether on volition, others on the purest chance;
   while others, again, derived their power from the influence
   exerted on the mind of the patient. They were all accompanied
   with solemn religious observances. … The ordeal of boiling
   water ('æneum,' 'judicium aquæ ferventis,' 'cacabus,'
   'caldaria') is probably the oldest form in which the
   application of fire was judicially administered in Europe as a
   mode of proof. … A caldron of water was brought to the boiling
   point, and the accused was obliged with his naked hand to find
   a small stone or ring thrown into it; sometimes the latter
   portion was omitted, and the hand was simply inserted, in
   trivial cases to the wrist, in crimes of magnitude to the
   elbow, the former being termed the single, the latter the
   triple ordeal. … The cold-water ordeal ('judicium aquæ
   frigidæ') differed from most of its congeners in requiring a
   miracle to convict the accused, as in the natural order of
   things he escaped. … The basis of this ordeal was the
   superstitious belief that the pure element would not receive
   into its bosom anyone stained with the crime of a false oath."

ORDERS OF KNIGHTHOOD.

ORDINANCE OF 1787.

ORDINANCES OF SECESSION.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1860 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER); 1861 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY).

ORDINANCES OF 1311.

OREGON: A. D: 1803.
Was it embraced in the Louisiana Purchase?
Grounds of American possession.

OREGON: A. D. 1844-1846.
The Boundary dispute with Great Britain and its settlement.

"The territory along the Pacific coast lying between California on the south and Alaska on the north —Oregon as it was comprehensively called—had been a source of dispute for some time between the United States and Great Britain. After some negotiations both had agreed with Russia to recognize the line of 54° 40' as the southern boundary of the latter's possessions; and Mexico's undisputed possession of California gave an equally well marked southern limit, at the 42d parallel. All between was in dispute. The British had trading posts at the mouth of the Columbia, which they emphatically asserted to be theirs; we, on the other hand, claimed an absolutely clear title up to the 49th parallel, a couple of hundred miles north of the mouth of the Columbia, and asserted that for all the balance of the territory up to the Russian possessions our title was at any rate better than that of the British. In 1818 a treaty had been made providing for the joint occupation of the territory by the two powers, as neither was willing to give up its claim to the whole, or at the time at all understood the value of the possession, then entirely unpeopled. This treaty of joint occupancy had remained in force ever since. Under it the British had built great trading stations, and used the whole country in the interests of certain fur companies. The Americans, in spite of some vain efforts, were unable to compete with them in this line; but, what was infinitely more important, had begun, even prior to 1840, to establish actual settlers along the banks of the rivers, some missionaries being the first to come in. … The aspect of affairs was totally changed when in 1842 a huge caravan of over 1,000 Americans made the journey from the frontiers of Missouri, taking with them their wives and their children, their flocks and herds, carrying their long rifles on their shoulders, and their axes and spades in the great canvas-topped wagons. The next year 2,000 more settlers of the same sort in their turn crossed the vast plains, wound their way among the Rocky Mountains through the pass explored by Fremont, Benton's son-in-law, and after suffering every kind of hardship and danger, and warding off the attacks of hostile Indians, descended the western slope of the great water–shed to join their fellows by the banks of the Columbia. When American settlers were once in actual possession of the disputed territory, it became evident that the period of Great Britain's undisputed sway was over. … Tyler's administration did not wish to embroil itself with England; so it refused any aid to the settlers, and declined to give them grants of land, as under the joint occupancy treaty that would have given England offense and cause for complaint. But Benton and the other Westerners were perfectly willing to offend England, if by so doing they could help America to obtain Oregon, and were too rash and headstrong to count the cost of their actions. Accordingly, a bill was introduced providing for the settlement of Oregon, and giving each settler 640 acres, and additional land if he had a family. … It passed the Senate by a close vote, but failed in the House. … The unsuccessful attempts made by Benton and his supporters, to persuade the Senate to pass a resolution, requiring that notice of the termination of the joint occupancy treaty should forthwith be given, were certainly ill-advised. However, even Benton was not willing to go to the length to which certain Western men went, who insisted upon all or nothing. … He sympathized with the effort made by Calhoun while secretary of state to get the British to accept the line of 49° as the frontier; but the British government then rejected this proposition. In 1844 the Democrats made their campaign upon the issue of 'fifty-four forty or fight'; and Polk, when elected, felt obliged to insist upon this campaign boundary. {2403} To this, however, Great Britain naturally would not consent; it was, indeed, idle to expect her to do so, unless things should be kept as they were until a fairly large American population had grown up along the Pacific coast, and had thus put her in a position where she could hardly do anything else. Polk's administration was neither capable nor warlike, however well disposed to bluster; and the secretary of state, the timid, shifty, and selfish politician, Buchanan, naturally fond of facing both ways, was the last man to wish to force a quarrel on a high-spirited and determined antagonist, like England. Accordingly, he made up his mind to back down and try for the line of 49°, as proposed by Calhoun, when in Tyler's cabinet; and the English, for all their affected indifference, had been so much impressed by the warlike demonstrations in the United States, that they in turn were delighted …; accordingly they withdrew their former pretensions to the Columbia River and accepted [June 15, 1846] the offered compromise."

ALSO IN: T. H. Benton, Thirty Years' View, volume 2, chapters 143, and 156-159.

Treaties and Conventions between the United States and other countries (edition of 1889), page 438.

OREGON: A. D. 1859. Admission into the Union, with a constitution excluding free people of color.

"The fact that the barbarism of slavery was not confined to the slave States had many illustrations. Among them, that afforded by Oregon was a signal example. In 1857 she formed a constitution, and applied for admission into the Union. Though the constitution was in form free, it was very thoroughly imbued with the spirit of slavery; and though four fifths of the votes cast were for the rejection of slavery, there were seven eighths for an article excluding entirely free people of color. As their leaders were mainly proslavery, it is probable that the reason why they excluded slavery from the constitution was their fear of defeat in their application for admission. … On the 11th of February, 1859, Mr. Stephens reported from the Committee on Territories a bill for the admission of Oregon as a State. A minority report, signed by Grow, Granger, and Knapp, was also presented, protesting against its admission with a constitution so discriminating against color. The proposition led to an earnest debate;" but the bill admitting Oregon prevailed, by a vote of 114 to 103 in the House and 35 to 17 in the Senate.

      H. Wilson,
      History of the Rise and Fall of the Slave Power,
      volume 2, chapter 49.

See CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 330-1054;
ICONOCLASTIC CONTROVERSY; and FILIOQUE CONTROVERSY.

"The Oriflamme was originally the Banner of the Abbey of St. Denis, and was received by the Counts of the Vexin, as 'Avoués' of that Monastery, whenever they engaged in any military expedition. On the union of the Vexin with the Crown effected by Philip I., a similar connexion with the Abbey was supposed to be contracted by the Kings; and accordingly Louis the Fat received the Banner, with the customary solemnities, on his knees, bare-headed, and ungirt. The Banner was a square Gonfalon of flame-coloured silk, unblazoned, with the lower edge cut into three swallow-tails."

   "The Oriflamme was a flame-red banner of silk; three-pointed
   on its lower side, and tipped with green. It was fastened to a
   gilt spear."

ORLEANISTS.

"The Loire, flowing first northwards, then westwards, protects, by its broad sickle of waters, this portion of Gaul, and the Loire itself is commanded at its most northerly point by that city which, known in Caesar's day as Genabum, had taken the name Aureliani from the great Emperor, the conqueror of Zenobia, and is now called Orleans."

In the summer of 1428 the English, under the Duke of Bedford, having maintained and extended the conquests of Henry V., were masters of nearly the whole of France north of the Loire. The city of Orleans, however, on the north bank of that river, was still held by the French, and its reduction was determined upon. The siege began in October, and after some months of vigorous operations there seemed to be no doubt that the hard-pressed city must succumb. It was then that Joan of Arc, known afterwards as the Maid of Orleans, appeared, and by the confidence she inspired drove the English from the field. They raised the siege on the 12th of May, 1429, and lost ground in France from that day.

ORLEANS, The City: A. D. 1870.
   Taken by the Germans.
   Recovered by the French.
   Again lost.
   Repeated battles.

The Athenians suffered a defeat at the hands of the Spartans in a sea fight at Oropus, B. C. 411, as a consequence of which they lost the island of Eubœa. It was one of the most disastrous in the later period of the Peloponnesian War.

See CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 330-1054; also, ICONOCLASTIC CONTROVERSY, and FILIOQUE CONTROVERSY.

ORTOSPANA.

ORTYGIA.

"The Oscan or Opican race was at one time very widely spread over the south (of Italy]. The Auruncans of Lower Latium belonged to this race, as also the Ausonians, who once gave name to Central Italy, and probably also the Volscians and the Æquians. In Campania the Oscan language was preserved to a late period in Roman history, and inscriptions still remain which can be interpreted by those familiar with Latin."

OSMAN. OSMANLI.

OSMANLIS.

OSRHOËNE, OSROËNE.

A small principality or petty kingdom surrounding the city of Edessa, its capital, in northwestern Mesopotamia. It appears to have acquired its name and some little importance during the period of Parthian supremacy. It was a prince of Osrhoëne who betrayed the ill-fated army of Crassus to the Parthians at Carrhæ. In the reign of Caracalla Osrhoëne was made a Roman province. Edessa, the capital, claimed great antiquity, but is believed to have been really founded by Seleucus. During the first ten or eleven centuries of the Christian era Edessa was a city of superior importance in the eastern world, under dependent kings or princes of its own. It was especially noted for its schools of theology.

OSSA AND PELION.

See NETHERLANDS (AUSTRIAN PROVINCES): A. D. 1745;
and AIX-LA-CHAPELLE: THE CONGRESS.

OSTIA.

Ostia, the ancient port of Rome, at the mouth of the Tiber, was regarded as a suburb of the city and had no independent existence. Its inhabitants were Roman citizens. In time, the maintaining of a harbor at Ostia was found to be impracticable, owing to deposits of silt from the Tiber, and artificial harbors were constructed by the emperors Claudius, Nero and Trajan, about two miles to the north of Ostia. They were known by the names Portus Augusti and Portus Trajani. In the 12th century the port and channel of Ostia were partially restored, for a time, but only to be abandoned again. The ancient city is now represented by a small hamlet, about two miles from the sea shore.

OSTMEN.

OSTRACISM.

"The state [Athens] required means of legally removing persons who, by an excess of influence and adherents, virtually put an end to the equality among the citizens established by law, and thus threatened the state with a revival of party-rule. For this purpose, in the days of Clisthenes, and probably under his influence, the institution of ostracism, or judgment by potsherds, was established. By virtue of it the people were themselves to protect civic equality, and by a public vote remove from among them whoever seemed dangerous to them. For such a sentence, however, besides a public preliminary discussion, the unanimous vote of six thousand citizens was required. The honour and property of the exile remained untouched, and the banishment itself was only pronounced for a term of ten years."

"The procedure (in ostracism] was as follows: —Every year, in the sixth or seventh Prytany, the question was put to the people whether it desired ostracism to be put in force or not. Hereupon of course orators came forward to support or oppose the proposal. The former they could only do by designating particular persons as sources of impending danger to freedom, or of confusion and injury to the commonwealth; in opposition to them, on the other side, the persons thus designated, and anyone besides who desired it, were of course free to deny the danger, and to show that the anxiety was unfounded. If the people decided in favour of putting the ostracism in force, a day was appointed on which it was to take place. On this day the people assembled at the market, where an enclosure was erected with ten different entrances and accordingly, it is probable, the same number of divisions for the several Phylæ. Every citizen entitled to a vote wrote the name of the person he desired to have banished from the state upon a potsherd. … At one of the ten entrances the potsherds were put into the hands of the magistrates posted there, the Prytanes and the nine Archons, and when the voting was completed were counted one by one. The man whose name was found written on at least six thousand potsherds was obliged to leave the country within ten days at latest."

OSTROGOTHS.

OSWEGO: A. D. 1783-1796.
Retained by the English after peace with the United States.
Final surrender.

   One of the tribes in Britain whose territory lay between the
   Roman wall and the Firth of Forth. Mr. Skene thinks they were
   the same people who are mentioned in the 4th century as the
   "Attacotti."

Won by Edmund Ironsides, A. D. 1016, over Cnut, or Canute, the
Danish claimant of the English crown.

Othman, or Osman, founder of the Ottoman or
Osmanli dynasty of Turkish Sultans, 1307-1325.

   Otho, or Otto I. (called the Great),
   King of the East Franks (Germany), 936-973;
   King of Lombardy, and Emperor, 962-973.

Otho II., King of the East Franks (Germany),
King of Italy, and Emperor, 967-983.

Otho Ill., King of the East Franks (Germany), 983-1002;
King of Italy and Emperor, 996-1002.

OTHRYS.

"In 1826 the village of Bytown, now Ottawa, the capital of the Dominion of Canada, was founded. The origin of this beautiful city was this: Colonel By, an officer of the Royal Engineers, came to survey the country with a view of making a canal to connect the tidal waters of the St. Lawrence with the great lakes of Canada. After various explorations, an inland route up the Ottawa to the Rideau affluent, and thence by a ship canal to Kingston on Lake Ontario, was chosen. Colonel By made his headquarters where the proposed canal was to descend, by eight locks, a steep declivity of 90 feet to the Ottawa River. 'The spot itself was wonderfully beautiful.' … It was the centre of a vast lumber-trade, and had expanded by 1858 to a large town."

This famous battle was fought, August 19, 1388, between a small force of Scots, harrying the border, under Earl Douglas and a hastily assembled body of English led by Sir Henry Percy, the famous Hotspur. The English, making a night attack on the Scottish camp, not far from Newcastle, were terribly beaten, and Hotspur was taken prisoner; but Douglas fell mortally wounded. The battle was a renowned encounter of knightly warriors, and greatly interested the historians of the age. It is narrated in Froissart's chronicles (volume 3, chapter 126), and is believed to be the action sung of in the famous old ballad of Chevy Chase, or the "Hunting of the Cheviot."

OTTO.

OTTOMAN EMPIRE.

OTTOMAN GOVERNMENT.

OUDE, OR OUDH.

"Before the British settler had established himself on the peninsula of India, Oude was a province of the Mogul Empire. When that empire was distracted and weakened by the invasion of Nadir Shah [see INDIA: A. D. 1662-1748], the treachery of the servant was turned against the master, and little by little the Governor began to govern for himself. But holding only an official, though an hereditary title, he still acknowledged his vassalage; and long after the Great Mogul had shrivelled into a pensioner and pageant, the Newab–Wuzeer of Oude was nominally his minister. Of the earliest history of British connexion with the Court of the Wuzeer, it is not necessary to write in detail. There is nothing less creditable in the annals of the rise and progress of the British power in the East. The Newab had territory; the Newab had subjects; the Newab had neighbours; more than all, the Newab had money. {2406} But although he possessed in abundance the raw material of soldiers, he had not been able to organise an army sufficient for all the external and internal requirements of the State; and so he was fain to avail himself of the superior military skill and discipline of the white men, and to hire British battalions to do his work. … In truth it was a vicious system, one that can hardly be too severely condemned. By it we established a Double Government of the worst kind. The Political and Military government was in the hands of the Company; the internal administration of the Oude territories still rested with the Newab–Wuzeer. In other words, hedged in and protected by the British battalions, a bad race of Eastern Princes were suffered to do, or not to do, what they liked. … Every new year saw the unhappy country lapsing into worse disorder, with less disposition, as time advanced, on the part of the local Government to remedy the evils beneath which it was groaning. Advice, protestation, remonstrance were in vain. Lord Cornwallis advised, protested, remonstrated: Sir John Shore advised, protested, remonstrated. At last a statesman of a very different temper appeared upon the scene. Lord Wellesley was a despot in every pulse of his heart. But he was a despot of the right kind; for he was a man of consummate vigour and ability, and he seldom made a mistake. The condition of Oude soon attracted his attention; not because its government was bad and its people were wretched, but because that country might either be a bulwark of safety to our own dominions, or A sea of danger which might overflow and destroy us. … It was sound policy to render Oude powerful for good and powerless for evil. To the accomplishment of this it was necessary that large bodies of ill-disciplined and irregularly paid native troops in the service of the Newab-Wuzeer—lawless bands that had been a terror alike to him and to his people—should be forthwith disbanded, and that British troops should occupy their place. … The additional burden to be imposed upon Oude was little less than half a million of money, and the unfortunate Wuzeer, whose resources had been strained to the utmost to pay the previous subsidy, declared his inability to meet any further demands on his treasury. This was what Lord Wellesley expected—nay, more, it was what he wanted. If the Wuzeer could not pay in money, he could pay in money's worth. He had rich lands that might be ceded in perpetuity to the Company for the punctual payment of the subsidy. So the Governor-General prepared a treaty ceding the required provinces, and with a formidable array of British troops at his call, dragooned the Wuzeer into sullen submission to the will of the English Sultan. The new treaty was signed; and districts then yielding a million and a half of money, and now nearly double that amount of annual revenue, passed under the administration of the British Government. Now, this treaty—the last ever ratified between the two Governments—bound the Newab-Wuzeer to 'establish in his reserved dominions such a system of administration, to be carried on by his own officers, as should be conducive to the prosperity of his subjects, and he calculated to secure the lives and properties of the inhabitants,' and he undertook at the same time 'always to advise with and to act in conformity to the counsels of the officers of the East India Company.' But the English ruler knew well that there was small hope of these conditions being fulfilled. … Whilst the counsels of our British officers did nothing for the people, the bayonets of our British soldiers restrained them from doing anything for themselves. Thus matters grew from bad to worse, and from worse to worst. One Governor-General followed another; one Resident followed another; one Wuzeer followed another; but still the great tide of evil increased in volume, in darkness, and in depth. But, although the Newab-Wuzeers of Oude were, doubtless, bad rulers and bad men, it must be admitted that they were good allies. … They supplied our armies, in time of war, with grain; they supplied us with carriage–cattle; better still, they supplied us with cash. There was money in the Treasury of Lucknow, when there was none in the Treasury of Calcutta; and the time came when the Wuzeer's cash was needed by the British ruler. Engaged in an extensive and costly war, Lord Hastings wanted more millions for the prosecution of his great enterprises. They were forthcoming at the right time; and the British Government were not unwilling in exchange to bestow both titles and territories on the Wuzeer. The times were propitious. The successful close of the Nepaul war placed at our disposal an unhealthy and impracticable tract of country at the foot of the Hills. This 'terai' ceded to us by the Nepaulese was sold for a million of money to the Wuzeer, to whose domains it was contiguous, and he himself expanded and bloomed into a King under the fostering sun of British favour and affection."

   "By Lord Wellesley's treaty with the then Nawab-Vizier of
   Oude, that prince had agreed to introduce into his then
   remaining territories, such a system of administration as
   should be conducive to the prosperity of his subjects, and to
   the security of the lives and property of the inhabitants; and
   always to advise with, and act in conformity to the counsel
   of, the officers of the Company's Government. Advantage had
   been taken of this clause, from time to time, to remonstrate
   with the Oude princes on their misgovernment. I have no doubt
   that the charges to this effect were in great measure correct.
   The house of Oude has never been remarkable for peculiar
   beneficence as governors. A work lately published, the
   'Private Life of an Eastern King,' affords, I suppose, a true
   picture of what they may have been as men. Still, the charges
   against them came, for the most part, from interested lips. …
   Certain it is that all disinterested English observers—Bishop
   Heber, for instance—entering Oude fresh from Calcutta, and
   with their ears full of the current English talk about its
   miseries, were surprised to find a well–cultivated country, a
   manly and independent people. … Under Lord Dalhousie's rule,
   however, and after the proclamation of his annexation policy,
   complaints of Oude misgovernment became—at Calcutta—louder
   and louder. Within Oude itself, these complaints were met, and
   in part justified, by a rising Moslem fanaticism. Towards the
   middle of 1855, a sanguinary affray took place at Lucknow"
   between Hindoos and Mussulmans, "in which the King took part
   with his co-religionists, against the advice of Colonel
   Outram, the then Resident. Already British troops near Lucknow
   were held in readiness to act; already the newspapers were
   openly speculating on immediate annexation. … At Fyzabad, new
   disturbances broke out between Hindoos and Moslems.
{2407}
   The former were victorious. A Moolavee, or doctor, of high
   repute, named Ameer Alee, proclaimed the holy war. Troops were
   ordered against him. … The talk of annexation grew riper and
   riper. The Indian Government assembled 16,000 men at Cawnpore.
   For months the Indian papers had been computing what revenue
   Oude yielded to its native prince—what revenue it might yield
   under the Company's management. Lord Dalhousie's successor,
   Lord Canning, was already at Bombay. But the former seems to
   have been anxious to secure for himself the glory of this
   step. The plea—the sole plea—for annexation, was maltreatment
   of their people by the Kings of Oude. … The King had been
   warned by Lord William Bentinck, by Lord Hardinge. He had
   declined to sign a new treaty, vesting the government of his
   country exclusively in the East India Company. He was now to
   be deposed; and all who withheld obedience to the
   Governor-General's mandate were to be rebels (7th February,
   1856). The King followed the example of Pertaub Shean of
   Sattara—withdrew his guns, disarmed his troops, shut up his
   palace. Thus we entered into possession of 24,000 square miles
   of territory, with 3,000,000 to 4,000,000 inhabitants,
   yielding £1,000,000 of revenue. But it was expected by
   officials that it could be made to yield £1,500,000 of
   surplus. Can you wonder that it was annexed?"

      ALSO IN:
      E. Arnold,
      The Marquis of Dalhousie's Administration of British India,
      chapter 25 (volume 2).

See NETHERLANDS (AUSTRIAN PROVINCES): A. D. 1745;
and AIX-LA-CHAPELLE; THE CONGRESS.

OUDH.

S. A. Dunham, History of Spain and Portugal, volume 4, page 238 (American edition).

OVILIA.

A system or constitution of government secured in 1258 by the English barons, under the lead of Earl Simon de Montfort. The king, Henry III., "was again and again forced to swear to it, and to proclaim it throughout the country. The special grievances of the barons were met by a set of ordinances called the Provisions of Westminster, which were produced after some trouble in October 1259."

The new constitution was nominally in force for nearly six years, repeatedly violated and repeatedly sworn to afresh by the king, civil war being constantly imminent. At length both sides agreed to submit the question of maintaining the Provisions of Oxford to the arbitration of Louis IX. of France, and his decision, called the Mise of Amiens, annulled them completely. De Montfort's party thereupon repudiated the award and the civil war called the "Barons' War" ensued.

C. H. Pearson, History of England in the Early and Middle Ages, volume 2, chapter 8.

   "Never was religion in England so uninteresting as it was in
   the earlier part of the 19th century. Never was a time when
   thought was so active, criticism so keen, taste so fastidious;
   and which so plainly demanded a religion intellectual,
   sympathetic, and attractive. This want the Tractarian, or
   Oxford movement, as it is called, attempted to supply. … But
   the Tractarians put before themselves an aim far higher than
   that. They attempted nothing less than to develope and place
   on a firm and imperishable basis what Laud and the Non-Jurors
   had tried tentatively to do; namely, to vindicate the Church
   of England from all complicity with foreign Protestantism, to
   establish her essential identity with the Church of the
   Apostles and Fathers through the mediæval Church, and to place
   her for the first time since the Reformation in her true
   position with regard to the Church in the East and the West. …
   Naturally the first work undertaken was the explanation of
   doctrine. The 'Tracts for the Times,' mainly written by Dr.
   Newman and Dr. Pusey, put before men what the writers believed
   to be the doctrine of the Church of England, with a boldness
   and precision of statement hitherto unexampled. The divine
   Authority of the Church. Her essential unity in all parts of
   the world. The effectiveness of regeneration in Holy Baptism.
   The reality of the presence of our Lord in Holy Communion. The
   sacrificial character of Holy Communion. The reality of the
   power to absolve sin committed by our Lord to the priesthood.
{2408}
   Such were the doctrines maintained in the Tractarian writings.
   … They were, of course, directly opposed to the popular
   Protestantism of the day, as held by the Evangelical party.
   They were equally opposed to the Latitudinarianism of the
   Broad Church party, who—true descendants of Tillotson and
   Burnet—were under the leadership of men like Arnold and
   Stanley, endeavouring to unite all men against the wickedness
   of the time on the basis of a common Christian morality under
   the guardianship of the State, unhampered by distinctive
   creeds or definite doctrines. No two methods could be more
   opposite."

"The two tasks … which the Tractarians set themselves, were to establish first that the authority of the primitive Church resided in the Church of England, and second, that the doctrines of the English Church were really identical with those of pre-Tridentine Christianity. … The Tractarians' second object is chiefly recollected because it produced the Tract which brought their series to an abrupt conclusion [1841]. Tract XC. is an elaborate attempt to prove that the articles of the English Church are not inconsistent with the doctrines of mediæval Christianity; that they may be subscribed by those who aim at being Catholic in heart and doctrine. … Few books published in the present century have made so great a sensation as this famous Tract. … Bagot, Bishop of Oxford, Mr. Newman's own diocesan, asked the author to suppress it. The request placed the author in a singular dilemma. The double object which he had set himself to accomplish became at once impossible. He had laboured to prove that authority resided in the English Church, and authority, in the person of his own diocesan, objected to his interpretation of the articles. For the moment Mr. Newman resolved on a compromise. He did not withdraw Tract XC., but he discontinued the series. … The discontinuance of the Tracts, however, did not alter the position of authority. The bishops, one after another; 'began to charge against' the author. Authority, the authority which Mr. Newman had laboured to establish, was shaking off the dust of its feet against him. The attacks of the bishops made Mr. Newman's continuance in the Church of England difficult. But, long before the attack was made, he had regarded his own position with dissatisfaction." It became intolerable to him when, in 1841, a Protestant bishop of Jerusalem was appointed, who exercised authority over both Lutherans and Anglicans. "A communion with Lutherans, Calvinists, and even Monophysites seemed to him an abominable thing, which tended to separate the English Church further and further from Rome. … From the hour that the see was established, his own lot was practically decided. For a few years longer he remained in the fold in which he had been reared, but he felt like a dying man. He gradually withdrew from his pastoral duties, and finally [in 1845] entered into communion with Rome. … A great movement never perishes for want of a leader. After the secession of Mr. Newman, the control of the movement fell into the hands of Dr. Pusey."

      ALSO IN:
      J. H. Newman,
      History of my Religious Opinions (Apologia pro Vita Sua).

OXFORD UNIVERSITY.

OXGANG.

PACHA.

   The first European to reach the shores of the Pacific Ocean
   was Vasco Nuñez de Balboa, who saw it, from "a peak in Darien"
   on the 25th of September, 1513 (see AMERICA: A. D. 1513-1517).
   "It was not for some years after this discovery that the name
   Pacific was applied to any part of the ocean; and for a long
   time after parts only of it were so termed, this part of it
   retained the original name of South Sea, so called because it
   lay to the south of its discoverer. The lettering of the early
   maps is here significant. All along from this time to the
   middle of the 17th century, the larger part of the Pacific was
   labeled 'Oceanus Indicus Orientalis,' or 'Mar del Sur,' the
   Atlantic, opposite the Isthmus, being called 'Mar del Norte.'
   Sometimes the reporters called the South Sea 'La Otra Mar,' in
   contradistinction to the 'Mare Oceanus' of Juan de la Cosa, or
   the 'Oceanus Occidentalis' of Ptolemy, as the Atlantic was
   then called. Indeed, the Atlantic was not generally known by
   that name for some time yet. Schöner, in 1520, terms it, as
   does Ptolemy in 1513, 'Oceanus Occidentalis'; Grynæus, in
   1532, 'Oceanus Magnus'; Apianus, appearing in the Cosmography
   of 1575, although thought to have been drawn in 1520, 'Mar
   Atlicum.' Robert Thorne, 1527, in Hakluyt's Voy., writes'
   Oceanus Occiden.'; Bordone, 1528, 'Mare Occidentale'; Ptolemy,
   1530, 'Occean Occidentalis'; Ramusio, 1565, Viaggi, iii. 455,
   off Central America, 'Mar del Nort,' and in the great ocean,
   both north and south, 'Mar Ociano'; Mercator, 1569, north of
   the tropic of cancer, 'Oceanius Atlanticvs'; Hondius, 1595,
   'Mar del Nort'; West-Indische Spieghel, 1624, 'Mar del Nort';
   De Laet, 1633, 'Mar del Norte'; Jacob Colon, 1663, 'Mar del
   Nort'; Ogilby, 1671, 'Oceanus Atlanticum,' 'Mar del Norte,'
   and 'Oceanus Æthiopicus'; Dampier, 1699, 'the North or
   Atlantick Sea.' The Portuguese map of 1518, Munich Atlas, iv.,
   is the first upon which I have seen a name applied to the
   Pacific; and there it is given … as 'Mar visto pelos
   Castelhanos,' Sea seen by the Spaniards. … On the globe of
   Johann Schöner, 1520, the two continents of America are
   represented with a strait dividing them at the Isthmus.
{2409}
   The great island of Zipangri, or Japan, lies about midway
   between North America and Asia. North of this island … are the
   words 'Orientalis Oceanus,' and to the same ocean south of the
   equator the words 'Oceanus Orientalis Indicus' are applied.
   Diego Homem, 1558, marks out upon his map a large body of
   water to the north-west of 'Terra de Florida,' and west of
   Canada, and labels it 'Mare leparamantium.' … Colon and Ribero
   call the South Sea 'Mar del Svr.' In Hakluyt's Voy. we find
   that Robert Thorne, in 1527, wrote 'Mare Australe.' Ptolemy,
   in 1530, places near the Straits of Magellan, 'Mare
   pacificum.' Ramusio, 1565, Viaggi, iii. 455, off Central
   America, places 'Mar del Sur,' and off the Straits of
   Magellan, 'Mar Oceano.' Mercator places in his atlas of 1569
   plainly, near the Straits of Magellan, 'El Mar Pacifico,' and
   in the great sea off Central America 'Mar del Zur.' On the map
   of Hondius, about 1595, in Drake's' 'World Encompassed,' the
   general term 'Mare Pacificvm' is applied to the Pacific Ocean,
   the words being in large letters extending across the ocean
   opposite Central America, while under it in smaller letters is
   'Mar del Sur.' This clearly restricts the name South Sea to a
   narrow locality, even at this date. In Hondius' Map, 'Purchas,
   His Pilgrimes,' iv. 857, the south Pacific is called 'Mare
   Pacificum,' and the central Pacific 'Mar del Sur.'"

H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States, volume 1, pages 373-374, foot-note.

PADISCHAH.

PADUA: A. D. 1237-1256:
   The tyranny of Eccelino di Romano.
   The Crusade against him.
   Capture and pillage of the city by its deliverers.

PADUA: A. D. 1328-1338.
   Submission to Can' Grande della Scala.
   Recovery from his successor.
   The founding of the sovereignty of the Carrara family.

PADUA: A. D. 1509-1513.
In the War of the League of Cambrai.
Siege by the Emperor Maximilian.

The name by which the river Po was known to the Romans. Dividing Cisalpine Gaul, as the river did, into two parts, they called the northern part Transpadane and the southern part Cispadane Gaul.

PÆANS.

"The pæans [among the ancient Greeks] were songs of which the tune and words expressed courage and confidence. 'All sounds of lamentation,' … says Callimachus, 'cease when the Ie Pæan, Ie Pæan, is heard.' … Pæans were sung, not only when there was a hope of being able, by the help of the gods, to overcome a great and imminent danger, but when the danger was happily past; they were songs of hope and confidence as well as of thanksgiving for, victory and safety."

K. O. Müller, History of the Literature of Ancient Greece, volume 1, page 27.

"The Pæonians, a numerous and much-divided race, seemingly neither Thracian nor Macedonian nor Illyrian, but professing to be descended from the Teukri of Troy, … occupied both banks of the Strymon, from the neighbourhood of Mount Skomius, in which that river rises, down to the lake near its mouth. … The Pæonians, in their north-western tribes, thus bordered upon the Macedonian Pelagonia, —in their northern tribes upon the Illyrian Dardani and Autariatæ,—in the eastern, southern and south-eastern tribes, upon the Thracians and Pierians."

Darius, king of Persia, is said to have caused a great part of the Pæonians to be transported to a district in Phrygia, but they escaped and returned home.

PAGE.

PAGUS.

The title of an officer who was charged with the general direction of the education and discipline of the young in ancient Sparta.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (JANUARY-JUNE)
KING GEORGE'S WAR MEASURES.

PAINTED CHAMBER.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY: KENTUCKY-TENNESSEE).

The house of the first of the Roman Emperors, Augustus, was on the Palatine Hill, which had been appropriated by the nobility for their residence from the earliest age of the republic. The residence of Augustus was a quite ordinary mansion until A. U. C. 748 (B. C. 6) when it was destroyed by fire. It was then rebuilt on a grander scale, the people contributing, in small individual sums—a kind of popular testimonial—to the cost. Augustus affected to consider it public property, and gave up a large part of it to the recreation of the citizens. His successors added to it, and built more and more edifices connected with it; so that, naturally, it appropriated to itself the name of the hill and came to be known as the Palatium, or Palace.

PALÆOLITHIC PERIOD.

The family which occupied the Greek imperial throne, at Nicæa and at Constantinople, from 1260, when Michael Palæologus seized the crown, until the Empire was extinguished by the Turks in 1453.

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 62 (Genealogical table).

PALÆOPOLIS, PALÆPOLIS.

PALATINATE OF THE RHINE. PALATINE ELECTORATE.

The Palatine Electorate or Palatinate (Pfalz in German), arose
in the breaking up of the old Duchy of Franconia.

      See FRANCONIA;
      also PALATINE COUNTS,
      and GERMANY: A. D. 1125-1152.

PALATINATE OF THE RHINE: A. D. 1214.
Acquisition by the Wittelsbach or Bavarian House.

The House of Wittelsbach (or Wisselbach), which acquired the Duchy of Bavaria in 1180, came also into possession of the Palatinate of the Rhine in 1214 (see BAVARIA: A. D. 1180-1356). In the next century the two possessions were divided. "Rudolph, the elder brother of Louis III. [the emperor, known as Louis the Bavarian] inherited the County Palatine, and formed a distinct line from that of Bavaria for many generations. The electoral dignity was attached to the Palatine branch."

      Sir A. Halliday,
      Annals of the House of Hanover,
      volume I, page 424.

PALATINATE OF THE RHINE: A. D. 1518-1572.
The Protestant Reformation.
Ascendancy of Calvinism.

"The Electors Palatine of the Rhine might be justly regarded, during the whole course of the 16th century, as more powerful princes than those of Brandenburg. The lower Palatine, of which Heidelberg was then the capital, formed a considerable tract of country, situate on the banks of the Rhine and the Neckar, in a fertile, beautiful, and commercial part of Germany. … The upper Palatinate, a detached and distant province situated between Bohemia, Franconia, and Bavaria, which constituted a part of the Electoral dominions, added greatly to their political weight, as members of the Germanic body. … Under Louis V., Luther began to disseminate his doctrines at Heidelberg, which were eagerly and generally imbibed; the moderate character of the Elector, by a felicity rare in that age, permitting the utmost freedom of religious opinion, though he continued, himself, to profess the Catholic faith. His successors, who withdrew from the Romish see, openly declared their adherence to Lutheranism; but, on the accession of Frederic III., a new ecclesiastical revolution took place. He was the first among the Protestant German princes who introduced and professed the reformed religion denominated Calvinism. As the toleration accorded by the 'Peace of religion' to those who embraced the 'Confession of Augsburg,' did not in a strict and legal sense extend to or include the followers of Calvin, Frederic might have been proscribed and put to the Ban of the Empire: nor did he owe his escape so much to the lenity or friendship of the Lutherans, as to the mild generosity of Maximilian II., who then filled the Imperial throne, and who was an enemy to every species of persecution. Frederic III., animated with zeal for the support of the Protestant cause, took an active part in the wars which desolated the kingdom of France under Charles IX.; protected all the French exiles who fled to his court or dominions; and twice sent succours, under the command of his son John Casimir, to Louis, Prince of Condé, then in arms, at the head of the Hugonots."

PALATINATE OF THE RHINE: A. D. 1608.
The Elector at the head of the Evangelical Union.

PALATINATE OF THE RHINE: A. D. 1619-1620.
Acceptance of the crown of Bohemia by the Elector.

PALATINATE OF THE RHINE: A. D. 1621-1623.
   The Elector placed under the ban of the empire.
   Devastation and conquest of his dominions.
   The electoral dignity transferred to the Duke of Bavaria.

PALATINATE OF THE RHINE: A. D. 1631-1632.
Temporary recovery by Gustavus Adolphus.
Obstinate bigotry of the Elector.

PALATINATE OF THE RHINE: A. D. 1632.
   Death of Frederick V.
   Treaty with the Swedes.
   Nominal restoration of the young Elector.

PALATINATE OF THE RHINE: A. D. 1648.
   Division in the Peace of Westphalia.
   Restoration of the Lower Palatinate to the old Electoral Family.
   Annexation of the Upper to Bavaria.
   The recreated electorate.

PALATINATE OF THE RHINE: A. D. 1674.
In the Coalition against Louis XIV.
Ravaged by Turenne.

PALATINATE OF THE RHINE: A. D. 1679-1680.
Encroachments by France upon the territory of the Elector.

PALATINATE OF THE RHINE: A. D. 1686.
The claims of Louis XIV. in the name of the Duchess of Orleans.

PALATINATE OF THE RHINE: A. D. 1690.
The second devastation and the War of the League of Augsburg.

PALATINATE OF THE RHINE: A. D. 1697.
The Peace of Ryswick.
Restitutions by France.

PALATINATE OF THE RHINE: A. D. 1705.
The Upper Palatinate restored to the Elector.

PALATINATE OF THE RHINE: A: D. 1709-1710. Emigration of inhabitants to England, thence to Ireland and America.

PALATINATE OF THE RHINE: A. D. 1714. The Upper Palatinate ceded to the Elector of Bavaria in exchange for Sardinia.

      See MARYLAND: A. D. 1632;
      NEW ALBION;
      MAINE: A. D. 1639;
      NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1610-1655;
      NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1669-1693.

   In Germany, under the early emperors, after the dissolution of
   the dominion of Charlemagne, an office came into existence
   called that of the 'comes palatii'—Count Palatine. This office
   was created in the interest of the sovereign, as a means of
   diminishing the power of the local rulers.
{2411}
   The Counts Palatine were appointed as their coadjutors, often
   with a concurrent and sometimes with a sole jurisdiction.
   Their "functions were more extensive than those of the ancient
   'missi dominici.' Yet the office was different. Under the
   Carlovingian emperors there had been one dignitary with that
   title, who received appeals from all the secular tribunals of
   the empire. The missi dominici were more than his mere
   colleagues, since they could convoke any cause pending before
   the ordinary judges and take cognisance of more serious cases
   even in the first instance. As the missi were disused, and as
   the empire became split among the immediate descendants of
   Louis le Debonnaire, the count palatine (comes palatii) was
   found inadequate to his numerous duties; and coadjutors were
   provided him for Saxony, Bavaria, and Swabia. After the
   elevation of Arnulf, however, most of these dignities ceased;
   and we read of one count palatine only—the count or duke of
   Franconia or Rhenish France. Though we have reason to believe
   that this high functionary continued to receive appeals from
   the tribunals of each duchy, he certainly could not exercise
   over them a sufficient control; nor, if his authority were
   undisputed, could he be equal to his judicial duties. Yet to
   restrain the absolute jurisdiction of his princely vassals was
   no less the interest of the people than the sovereign; and in
   this view Otho I. restored, with even increased powers, the
   provincial counts palatine. He gave them not only the
   appellant jurisdiction of the ancient comes palatii, but the
   primary one of the missi dominici. … They had each a castle,
   the wardenship of which was intrusted to officers named
   burgraves, dependent on the count palatine of the province. In
   the sequel, some of these burgraves became princes of the
   empire."

"The policy of the Norman kings stripped the earls of their official character. They ceased to have local jurisdiction or authority. Their dignity was of a personal nature, and they must be regarded rather as the foremost of the barons, and as their peers, than as a distinct order in the state. … An exception to the general policy of William [the Conqueror] as to earldoms was made in those governments which, in the next century, were called palatine. These were founded in Cheshire, and perhaps in Shropshire, against the Welsh, and in the bishopric of Durham both to oppose the Scots, and to restrain the turbulence of the northern people, who slew Walcher, the first earl bishop, for his ill government. An earl palatine had royal jurisdiction within his earldom. So it was said of Hugh, earl of Chester, that he held his earldom in right of his sword, as the king held all England in right of his crown. All tenants-in–chief held of him; he had his own courts, took the whole proceeds of jurisdiction, and appointed his own sheriff. The statement that Bishop Odo had palatine jurisdiction in Kent may be explained by the functions which he exercised as justiciary."

"The earldom of Chester has belonged to the eldest son of the sovereign since 1396; the palatinate jurisdiction of Durham was transferred to the crown in 1836 by act of Parliament, 6 Will. IV, c. 19."

W. Stubbs, Constitutional History of England, chapter 9, section 98, footnote (volume 1).

"The franchise of a county palatine gave a right of exclusive civil and criminal jurisdiction; so that the king's writ should not run, nor his judges come within it, though judgment in its courts might be reversed by writ of error in the king's bench. The lord might enfeoff tenants to hold by knights' service of himself; he had almost all regalian rights; the lands of those attainted for treason escheated to him; he acted in every thing rather as one of the great feudatories of France or Germany than a subject of the English crown. Such had been the earl of Chester, and only Chester, in England; but in Ireland this dangerous independence was permitted to Strongbow in Leinster, to Lacy in Meath, and at a later time to the Butlers and Geraldines in parts of Munster. Strongbow's vast inheritance soon fell to five sisters, who took to their shares, with the same palatine rights, the counties of Carlow, Wexford, Kilkenny, Kildare, and the district of Leix, since called the Queen's County. In all these palatinates, forming by far the greater portion of the English territories, the king's process had its course only within the lands belonging to the church."

      E. Hallam,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 18 (volume 3).

"The town which in the course of centuries grew up as Rome, in its original form embraced according to trustworthy testimony only the Palatine, or 'square Rome' (Roma quadrata), as it was called in later times from the irregularly quadrangular form of the Palatine hill. The gates and walls that enclosed this original city remained visible down to the period of the empire. … Many traces indicate that this was the centre and original seat of the urban settlement. … The 'festival of the Seven Mounts' ('septimontium'), again, preserved the memory of the more extended settlement which gradually formed round the Palatine. Suburbs grew up one after another, each protected by its own separate though weaker circumvallation and joined to the original ring-wall of the Palatine. … The 'Seven Rings' were, the Palatine itself; the cermalus, the slope of the Palatine in the direction of the morass that in the earliest times extended between it and the Capitoline (velabrum); the Velia, the ridge which connected the Palatine with the Esquiline, but in subsequent times was almost wholly obliterated by the buildings of the empire; the Fagutal, the Oppius, and the Cispius, the three summits of the Esquiline; lastly, the Sucusa, or Subura, a fortress constructed outside of the earthern rampart which protected the new town on the Carinae, in the low ground between the Esquiline and the Quirinal, beneath S. Pietro in Vincoli. These additions, manifestly the results of a gradual growth, clearly reveal to a certain extent the earliest history of the Palatine Rome. … The Palatine city of the Seven Mounts may have had a history of its own; no other tradition of it has survived than simply that of its having once existed. But as the leaves of the forest make room for the new growth of spring, although they fall unseen by human eyes, so has this unknown city of the Seven Mounts made room for the Rome of history."

"The citizens of London [England] were astonished to learn, in May and June, 1709, that 5,000 men, women and children, Germans from the Rhine, were under tents in the suburbs. By October the number had increased to 13,000, and comprised husbandmen, tradesmen, school teachers and ministers. These emigrants had deserted the Palatinate, owing to French oppression and the persecution by their prince, the elector John William, of the House of Newburgh, who had become a devoted Romanist, though his subjects were mainly Lutherans and Calvinists. Professor Henry A. Homes, in a paper treating of this emigration, read before the Albany Institute in 1871, holds that the movement was due not altogether to unbearable persecutions, but largely to suggestions made to the Palatines in their own country by agents of companies who were anxious to obtain settlers for the British colonies in America, and thus give value to the company's lands. The emigrants were certainly seized with the idea that by going to England its government would transport them to the provinces of New York, the Carolinas, and Pennsylvania. Of the latter province they knew much, as many Germans were already there. … Great efforts were made to prevent suffering among these poor people; thousands of pounds were collected for their maintenance from churches and individuals all over England; they were lodged in warehouses, empty dwellings and in barns, and the Queen had a thousand tents pitched for them back of Greenwich, on Blackheath. … Notwithstanding the great efforts made by the English people, very much distress followed this unhappy hegira. … Numbers of the younger men enlisted in the British army serving in Portugal, and some made their own way to Pennsylvania. … The Lord Lieutenant of Ireland petitioned the Queen that some of the people might be sent to him, and by February, 1710, 3,800 had been located across the Irish Sea, in the province of Munster, near Limerick. … Professor Homes recites in his monograph that they 'now number about 12,000 souls, and, under the name of Palatinates, continue to impress a peculiar character upon the whole district they inhabit.' … According to 'Luttrell's Diary,' about one-tenth of the whole number that reached England were returned by the Crown to Germany." A Swiss land company, which had bought 10,000 acres of land from the Lords Proprietors of Carolina, "covenanted with the English authorities for the transfer of about 700 of these poor Heidelberg refugees to the colony. Before the end of the year they had arrived with them at a point in North Carolina where the rivers Neuse and Trent join. Here they established a town, calling it New-Berne, in honor of Berne, Switzerland. … It has not been found possible to properly account for all the 13,000 Palatines who reached England. Queen Anne sent some of them to Virginia, settling them above the falls of the Rappahanock, in Spottsylvania County, from whence they spread into several adjoining counties, and into North Carolina. … After the Irish transportation, the largest number that was moved in one body, and probably the final one under government auspices, was the fleet-load that in the spring of 1710 was despatched to New York. … A fleet of ten ships set sail with Governor Hunter in March, having on board, as is variously estimated, between 3,000 and 4,000 Germans. … The immigrants were encamped on Nut, now Governor's Island, for about three months, when a tract of 6,000 acres of the Livingston patent was purchased for them, 100 miles up the Hudson, the locality now being embraced in Germantown, Columbia County. Eight hundred acres were also acquired on the opposite side of the river at the present location of Saugerties, in Ulster County. To these two points most of the immigrants were removed." But dissatisfaction with their treatment and difficulties concerning land titles impelled many of these Germans to move off, first into Schoharie County, and afterwards to Palatine Bridge, Montgomery County and German Flats, Herkimer County, New York, to both of which places they have affixed the names. Others went into Pennsylvania, which was for many years the favorite colony among German immigrants.

      ALSO IN:
      C. B. Todd,
      Robert Hunter and the Settlement of the Palatines
      (Memorial History of the City of New York,
      volume 2, chapter 4).

"That territory within which the English retreated and fortified themselves when a reaction began to set in after their first success [under Henry II.] in Ireland," acquired the name of the Pale or the English Pale. But "that term did not really come into use until about the beginning of the 16th century. In earlier times this territory was called the English Land. It is generally called Galldacht, or the 'foreigner's territory,' in the Irish annals, where the term Galls comes to be applied to the descendants of the early adventurers, and that of Saxons to Englishmen newly arrived. The formation of the Pale is generally considered to date from the reign of Edward I. About the period of which we are now treating [reign of Henry IV.—beginning of 15th century] it began to be limited to the four counties of Louth, Meath, Kildare, and Dublin, which formed its utmost extent in the reign of Henry VIII. Beyond this the authority of the king of England was a nullity."

PALERMO: A. D. 1848-1849.
Expulsion of the Neapolitan garrison.
Surrender to King "Bomba."

PALERMO: A. D. 1860.
Capture by Garibaldi and his volunteers.
Bombardment by the Neapolitans.

      See
      AMALEKITES;
      AMMONITES;
      AMORITES;
      HITTITES;
      JEWS: EARLY HEBREW HISTORY;
      MOABITES; PHILISTINES; PHŒNICIANS.

After the suppression of the revolt of the Jews in A. D. 130, by Hadrian, the name of their province was changed from Judæa to Syria Palæstina, or Syria of the Philistines, as it had been called by Herodotus six centuries before. Hence the modern name, Palestine.

      See
      EGYPT: about B. C. 1500-1400;
      JEWS;
      JERUSALEM;
      SYRIA;
      CHRISTIANITY;
      MAHOMETAN CONQUEST AND EMPIRE;
      CRUSADES.

PALFREYS, PALAFRENI.

PALI.

"The earlier form of the ancient spoken language [of the Aryan race in India], called Pali or Magadhi, … was introduced into Ceylon by Buddhist missionaries from Magadha when Buddhism began to spread, and is now the sacred language of Ceylon and Burmah, in which all their Buddhist literature is written." The Pali language is thought to represent one of the stages in the development of the Prakrit, or common speech of the Hindus, as separated from the Sanskrit, or language of the learned.

   "The festival named Palilia [at Rome] was celebrated on the
   Palatine every year on the 21st April, in honour of Pales, the
   tutelary divinity of the shepherds, who dwelt on the Palatine.
   This day was held sacred as an anniversary of the day on which
   Romulus commenced the building of the city."

"The Palladium, kept in the temple of Vesta at Rome, was a small figure of Pallas, roughly carved out of wood, about three feet high. Ilos, King of Troy, grandfather of Priam, after building the city asked Zeus to give him a visible sign that he would take it under his special protection. During the night the Palladium fell down from heaven, and was found the next morning outside his tent. The king built a temple for it, and from that time the Trojans firmly believed that as long as they could keep this figure their town would be safe; but if at any time it should be lost or stolen, some dreadful calamity would overtake them. The story further relates that, at the siege of Troy, its whereabouts was betrayed to Diomed, and he and the wily Ulysses climbed the wall at night and carried it off. The Palladium, enraged at finding itself in the Grecian camp, sprang three times in the air, its eyes flashing wildly, while drops of sweat stood on its brow. The Greeks, however, would not give it up, and Troy, robbed of her guardian, was soon after conquered by the Greeks. But an oracle having warned Diomed not to keep it, he, on landing in Italy, gave it to one of Æneas' companions, by whom it was brought into the neighbourhood of the future site of Rome. Another legend relates that Æneas saved it after the destruction of Troy, and fled with it to Italy, where it was afterwards placed by his descendants in the Temple of Vesta, in Rome. Here the inner and most sacred place in the Temple was reserved for it, and no man, not even the chief priest, was allowed to see it except when it was shown on the occasion of any high festival. The Vestals had strict orders to guard it carefully, and to save it in case of fire, as the welfare of Rome depended on its preservation."

"The pallium, or mantle of the Greeks, from its being less cumbersome and trailing than the toga of the Romans, by degrees superseded the latter in the country and in the camp. When worn over armour, and fastened on the right shoulder with a clasp or button, this cloak assumed the name of paludamentum."

PALMERSTON MINISTRIES.

PALMI.

"The outlying city of Palmyra—the name of which is first mentioned during the wars of M. Antony in Syria [B. C. 41]—was certainly at this period [of Augustus, B. C. 31-A. D. 14] independent and preserved a position of neutrality between the Romans and Parthians, while it carried on trade with both. It does not appear however to have as yet risen to a place of great importance, as its name is not mentioned by Strabo. The period of its prosperity dates only from the time of Hadrian."

E. H. Bunbury, History of Ancient Geography, chapter 20, section 1 (volume 2).

   "Amidst the barren deserts of Arabia a few cultivated spots
   rise like islands out of the sandy ocean. Even the name of
   Tadmor, or Palmyra, by its signification in the Syriac as well
   as in the Latin language, denoted the multitude of palm-trees
   which afforded shade and verdure to that temperate region. The
   air was pure, and the soil, watered by some invaluable
   springs, was capable of producing fruits as well as corn. A
   place possessed of such singular advantages, and situated at a
   convenient distance between the gulf of Persia and the
   Mediterranean, was soon frequented by the caravans which
   conveyed to the nations of Europe a considerable part of the
   rich commodities of India. [It has been the opinion of some
   writers that Tadmor was founded by Solomon as a commercial
   station, but the opinion is little credited at present.]
   Palmyra insensibly increased into an opulent and independent
   city, and, connecting the Roman and the Parthian monarchies by
   the mutual benefits of commerce, was suffered to observe an
   humble neutrality, till at length, after the victories of
   Trajan, the little republic sunk into the bosom of Rome, and
   flourished more than one hundred and fifty years in the
   subordinate though honourable rank of a colony." On the
   occasion of the invasion of Syria by the Persian king, Sapor,
   when the Emperor Valerian was defeated and taken prisoner (A.
   D. 260-261), the only effectual resistance opposed to him was
   organized and led by a wealthy senator of Palmyra, Odenathus
   (some ancient writers call him a Saracen prince), who founded,
   by his exploits at that time, a substantial military power.
{2414}
   Aided and seconded by his famous wife, Zenobia, who is one of
   the great heroines of history, he extended his authority over
   the Roman East and defeated the Persian king in several
   campaigns. On his death, by assassination, in 267, Zenobia
   ascended the Palmyrenian throne and ruled with masculine
   firmness of character. Her dominions were extended from the
   Euphrates and the frontiers of Bithynia to Egypt, and are
   said, with some doubtfulness, to have included even that rich
   province, for a time. But the Romans, who had acquiesced in
   the rule of Odenathus, and recognized it, in the day of their
   weakness, now resented the presumption and the power of his
   widowed queen. Perhaps they had reason to fear her ambition
   and her success. Refusing to submit to the demands that were
   made upon her, she boldly challenged the attack of the warlike
   emperor, Aurelian, and suffered defeat in two great, battles,
   fought A. D. 272 or 273, near Antioch and near Emesa. A vain
   attempt to hold Palmyra against the besieging force of the
   Roman, an unsuccessful flight and a capture by pursuing
   horsemen, ended the political career of the brilliant 'Queen
   of the East.' She saved her life somewhat ignobly by giving up
   her counsellors to Aurelian's vengeance. The philosopher
   Longinus was one who perished. Zenobia was sent to Rome and
   figured among the captives in Aurelian's triumph. She was then
   given for her residence a splendid villa at Tibur (Tivoli)
   twenty miles from Rome, and lived quietly through the
   remainder of her days, connecting herself, by the marriage of
   her daughters, with the noble families of Rome. Palmyra, which
   had been spared on its surrender, rashly rose in revolt
   quickly after Aurelian had left its gates. The enraged emperor
   returned and inflicted on the fated city a chastisement from
   which it never rose."

"Palmyrêné, or the Syrian Desert—the tract lying between Cœle-Syria on the one hand, and the valley of the middle Euphrates on the other, and abutting towards the south on the great Arabian Desert, to which it is sometimes regarded as belonging. It is for the most part a hard sandy, or gravelly plain, intersected by low rocky ranges, and either barren or productive only of some sapless shrubs and of a low thin grass. Occasionally, however, there are oases, where the fertility is considerable. Such an oasis is the region about Palmyra itself, which derived its name from the palm groves in the vicinity; here the soil is good, and a large tract is even now under cultivation. … Though large armies can never have traversed the desert even in this upper region, where it is comparatively narrow, trade in ancient times found it expedient to avoid the long 'détour' by the Orontes valley, Aleppo, and Bambuk and to proceed directly from Damascus by way of Palmyra to Thapsacus on the Euphrates."

PALSGRAVE.

"As soon as the [Roman] consul entered upon his military career, he assumed certain symbols of command. The cloak of scarlet or purple which the imperator threw over his corslet was named the paludamentum, and this, which became in later times the imperial robe, he never wore except on actual service."

PALUS MÆOTIS, MÆOTIS PALUS.

PAMLICOS.

PAMPAS. LLANOS.

"In the southern continent [of America], the regions which correspond with the prairies of the United States are the 'pampas' of the La Plata and the 'llanos' of Columbia [both 'pampa' and 'llano' having in Spanish the signification of 'a plain']. … The llanos of Venezuela and New Granada have an area estimated at 154,000 square miles, nearly equal to that of France. The Argentine pampas, which are situated at the other extremity of the continent, have a much more considerable extent, probably exceeding 500,000 square miles. This great central plain … stretches its immense and nearly horizontal surface over a length of at least 1,900 miles, from the burning regions of tropical Brazil to the cold countries of Patagonia."

PAN-IONIC AMPHICTYONY.

PANAMA: A. D. 1509.
Creation of the Province of Castilla del Oro.
Settlement on the Gulf of Uraba.

PANAMA: A. D. 1513-1517.
Vasco Nuñez de Balboa and the discovery of the Pacific.
The malignant rule of Pedrarias Davila.

Originally, Panama was the native name of an Indian fishing village, on the Pacific coast of the Isthmus, the word signifying "a place where many fish are taken." In 1519 the Spaniards founded there a city which they made their capital and chief mart on the Pacific coast.

H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States, volume 1, chapters 10-11 and 15.

PANAMA: A. D. 1671-1680.
Capture, destruction and recapture of the city of Panama
by the Buccaneers.

PANAMA: A. D. 1846-1855.
American right of transit secured by Treaty.
Building of the Panama Railroad.

PANAMA: A. D. 1855.
An independent state in the Colombian Confederation.
Opening of the Panama Railway.

PANAMA CANAL. PANAMA SCANDAL.

"The commencement of an undertaking [projected by Count Ferdinand de Lesseps, the builder of the Suez Canal] for connecting the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, through the Isthmus of Panama, was a natural result of the success achieved by the Suez Canal. Various sites have been proposed from time to time for the construction of a canal across the Isthmus, the most northern being the Tehuantepec route, at a comparatively broad part of the Isthmus, and the most southern the Atrato route, following for some distance the course of the Atrato River. The site eventually selected, in 1879, for the construction of a canal was at the narrowest part of the Isthmus, and where the central ridge is the lowest, known as the Panama route, nearly following the course of the Panama Rail way. It was the only scheme that did not necessarily involve a tunnel or locks. The length of the route between Colon on the Atlantic, and Panama on the Pacific, is 46 miles, not quite half the length of the Suez Canal; but a tide-level canal involved a cutting across the Cordilleras, at the Culebra Pass, nearly 300 feet deep, mainly through rock. The section of the canal was designed on the lines of the Suez Canal, with a bottom width of 72 feet, and a depth of water of 27 feet, except in the central rock cutting, where the width was to be increased to 78¾ feet on account of the nearly vertical sides, and the depth to 29½ feet. … The work was commenced in 1882. … The difficulties and expenses, however, of the undertaking had been greatly under–estimated. The climate proved exceptionally unhealthy, especially when the soil began to be turned up by the excavations. The actual cost of the excavation was much greater than originally estimated; and the total amount of excavation required to form a level canal, which had originally been estimated at 100 million cubic yards, was subsequently computed, on more exact data, at 176½ million cubic yards. The preliminary works were also very extensive and costly; and difficulties were experienced, after a time, in raising the funds for carrying on the works, even when shares were offered at a very great discount. Eventually, in 1887, the capital at the disposal of the company had nearly come to an end; whilst only a little more than one-fifth of the excavation had been completed. … At that period it was determined to expedite the work, and reduce the cost of completing the canal, by introducing locks, and thus diminish the remaining amount of excavation by 85 million cubic yards; though the estimated cost, even with this modification, had increased from £33,500,000 to £65,500,000. … The financial embarrassments, however, of the company have prevented the carrying out of this scheme for completing the canal; and the works are at present [1891] at a standstill, in a very unfinished state."

"It was on December 14, 1888, that the Panama Canal Company stopped payments. Under the auspices of the French Government, a parliamentary inquiry was started in the hope of finding some means of saving the enterprise. Facts soon came to light, which, in the opinion of many, justified a prosecution. The indignation of the shareholders against the Count de Lesseps, his son, and the other Directors, waxed loud. In addition to ruinous miscalculations, these men were charged with corrupt expenditure with a view to influence public opinion. … The gathering storm finally burst on November 21 [1892], when the interpellation in regard to the Canal question was brought forward in the Chamber. M. Delahaye threw out suggestions of corruption against a large number of persons, alleging that 3,000,000 francs had been used by the company to bribe 150 Senators and Deputies. Challenged to give their names, he persisted in merely replying that if the Chamber wanted details, they must vote an inquiry. … It was ultimately agreed, by 311 to 243, to appoint a special Committee of 33 Members to conduct an investigation. The judicial summonses against the accused Directors were issued the same day, charging them with 'the use of fraudulent devices for creating belief in the existence of a chimerical event, the spending of sums accruing from issues handed to them for a fixed purpose, and the swindling of all or part of the fortune of others.' The case being called in the Court of Appeals, November 25, when all of the defendants—M. Ferdinand de Lesseps; Charles, his son; M. Marius Fontanes, Baron Cottu, and M. Eiffel—were absent, it was adjourned to January 10, 1893. … On November 28, the Marquis de la Ferronaye, followed by M. Brisson, the Chairman of the Committee of Inquiry, called the attention of the Government to the rumors regarding the death of Baron Reinach, and pressed the demand of the Committee that the body be exhumed, and the theory of suicide be tested. But for his sudden death, the Baron would have been included in the prosecution. He was said to have received immense sums for purposes of corruption; and his mysterious and sudden death on the eve of the prosecution started the wildest rumors of suicide and even murder. Public opinion demanded that full light be thrown on the episode; but the Minister of Justice said, that, as no formal charges of crime had been laid, the Government had no power to exhume the body. M. Loubet would make no concession in the matter; and, when M. Brisson moved a resolution of regret that the Baron's papers had not been sealed at his death, petulantly insisted that the order of the day 'pure and simple' be passed. This the Chamber refused to do by a vote of 304 to 219. The resignation of the Cabinet immediately followed. … A few days' interregnum followed during which M. Brisson and M. Casimir-Périer successively tried in vain to form a Cabinet. M. Ribot, the Foreign Minister, finally consented to try the task, and, on December 5, the new Ministry was announced. … The policy of the Government regarding the scandal now changed. … In the course of the investigation by the Committee, the most startling evidence of corruption was revealed. It was discovered that the principal Paris papers had received large amounts for puffing the Canal scheme. M. Thierrée, a banker, asserted that Baron Reinach had paid into his bank 3,390,000 francs in Panama funds, and had drawn it out in 26 checks to bearer. … On December 13, M. Rouvier, the Finance Minister, resigned, because his name had been connected with the scandal. … In the meantime, sufficient evidence had been gathered to cause the Government, on December 16, to arrest M. Charles de Lesseps, M. Fontane, and M. Sans-Leroy, Directors of the Canal Company, on the charge, not, as before, of maladministration of the company's affairs, but of corrupting public functionaries. This was followed by the adoption of proceedings against five Senators and five Deputies.

"The trial of the De Lesseps, father and son, MM. Fontane, Cottu, and Eiffel, began January 10, before the court of appeals. MM. Fontane and Eiffel confessed, the latter to the bribery of Hebrard, director of 'Le Temps,' a newspaper, with 1,750,000 francs. On February 14, sentence was pronounced against Ferdinand and Charles De Lesseps, each being condemned to spend five years in prison and to pay a fine of 3,000 francs; MM. Fontane and Cottu, two years and 3,000 francs each; and M. Eiffel, two years and 20,000 francs. … On March 8, the trial of the younger de Lesseps, MM. Fontane, Baihaut, Blondin, and ex-Minister Proust, Senator Beral, and others, on charges of corruption, began before the assize court. … De Lesseps, … with MM. Baihaut and Blondin, was found guilty March 21, and sentenced to one year more of imprisonment. M. Blondin received a two-year sentence; but M. Baihaut was condemned to five years, a fine of 75,000 francs, and loss of civil rights. The others were acquitted."

"On June 15 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment in the first trial on the ground that the acts had been committed more than three years before the institution of proceedings, reversing the ruling of the trial court that a preliminary investigation begun in 1891 suspended the three years' prescription. Fontane and Eiffel were set at liberty, but Charles de Lesseps had still to serve out the sentence for corruption."

The enemies of the Republic had wished to establish the venality of the popular representatives; "they succeeded only in showing the resistance that had been made to a temptation of which the public had not known before the strength and frequency. Instead of proving that many votes had been sold, they proved that many were found ready to buy them, which was very different."

P. De Coubertin, L'Evolution Frarçaise sous la Troisième Republique, page 266.

PANDECTS OF JUSTINIAN.

PANDES.

PANDOURS.

PANICS OF 1837, 1857, 1873, 1893.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1835-1837, 1873, 1893-1894;
      and TARIFF LEGISLATION (UNITED STATES): A. D. 1846-1861.

PANNONIA AND NORICUM.

"The wide extent of territory which is included between the Inn, the Danube, and the Save—Austria, Styria, Carinthia, Carniola, the Lower Hungary, and Sclavonia—was known to the ancients under the names of Noricum and Pannonia. In their original state of independence their fierce inhabitants were intimately connected. Under the Roman government they were frequently united."

Pannonia embraced much the larger part of the territory described above, covering the center and heart of the modern Austro-Hungarian empire. It was separated from Noricum, lying west and northwest of it, by Mons Cetius. For the settlement of the Vandals in Pannonia, and its conquest by the Huns and Goths:

See VANDALS: ORIGIN, &c.; HUNS: A. D. 433-453, and 453; and GOTHS: A. D. 473-474.

PANORMUS.

The modern city of Palermo was of very ancient origin, founded by the Phœnicians and passing from them to the Carthaginians, who made it one of their principal naval stations in Sicily. Its Greek name, Panorma, signified a port always to be depended upon.

"At the same time with his Thermæ, Agrippa [son-in-law and friend of Augustus] built the famous dome, called by Pliny and Dion Cassius, and in the inscription of Severus on the architrave of the building itself, the Pantheon, and still retaining that name, though now consecrated as a Christian church under the name of S. Maria ad Martyres or dell a Rotonda. This consecration, together with the colossal thickness of the walls, has secured the building against the attacks Of time, and the still more destructive attacks of the barons of the Middle Ages. … The Pantheon was always be reckoned among the masterpieces of architecture for solid durability combined with beauty of interior effect. The Romans prided themselves greatly upon it as one of the wonders of their great capital, and no other dome of antiquity could rival its colossal dimensions. … The inscription assigns its completion to the year A. D. 27, the third consulship of Agrippa. … The original name Pantheon, taken in connection with the numerous niches for statues of the gods in the interior, seems to contradict the idea that it was dedicated to any peculiar deity or class of deities. The seven principal niches may have been intended for the seven superior deities, and the eight ædiculæ for the next in dignity, while the twelve niches in the upper ring were occupied by the inferior inhabitants of Olympus. Dion hints at this explanation when he suggests that the name was taken from the resemblance of the dome to the vault of heaven."

"The world has nothing else like the Pantheon. … The rust and dinginess that have dimmed the precious marble on the walls; the pavement, with its great squares and rounds of porphyry and granite, cracked crosswise and in a hundred directions, showing how roughly the troublesome ages have trampled here; the gray dome above, with its opening to the sky, as if heaven were looking down into the interior of this place of worship, left unimpeded for prayers to ascend the more freely: all these things make an impression of solemnity, which Saint Peter's itself fails to produce. 'I think,' said the sculptor, 'it is to the aperture in the dome—that great Eye, gazing heavenward—that the Pantheon owes the peculiarity of its effect.'"

PANTIKAPÆUM.

"The generally received account among Roman Catholics, and one which can claim a long traditional acceptance, is that Peter came to Rome in the second year of Claudius (that is, A. D. 42), and that he held the see twenty-five years, a length of episcopate never reached again until by Pio Nono, who exceeded it. … Now if it is possible to prove a negative at all, we may conclude, with at least high probability, that Peter was not at Rome during any of the time on which the writings of the canonical Scriptures throw much light, and almost certainly that during that time he was not its bishop. We have an Epistle of Paul to the Romans full of salutations to his friends there, but no mention of their bishop. Nor is anything said of work done by Peter in founding that Church. On the contrary, it is implied that no Apostle had as yet visited it; for such is the inference from the passage already cited, in which Paul expresses his wish to see the Roman Christians in order that he might impart some spiritual gift to the end that they might be established. We have letters of Paul from Rome in which no message is sent from Peter; and in the very last of these letters Paul complains of being left alone, and that only Luke was with him. Was Peter one of the deserters? The Scripture accounts of Peter place him in Judæa, in Antioch, possibly in Corinth, but finally in Babylon. … Plainly, if Peter was ever at Rome, it was after the date of Paul's second Epistle to Timothy. Some Protestant controversialists have asserted that Peter was never at Rome; but though the proofs that he was there are not so strong as I should like them to be if I had any doctrine depending on it, I think the historic probability is that he was; though, as I say, at a late period of the history, and not long before his death. … For myself, I am willing, in the absence of any opposing tradition, to accept the current account that Peter suffered martyrdom at Rome. We know with certainty from John xxi. that Peter suffered martyrdom somewhere. If Rome, which early laid claim to have witnessed that martyrdom, were not the scene of it, where then did it take place? Any city would be glad to claim such a connexion with the name of the Apostle, and none but Rome made the claim. … From the question, whether Peter ever visited Rome, we pass now to a very different question, whether he was its bishop. … We think it scandalous when we read of bishops a hundred years ago who never went near their sees. … But if we are to believe Roman theory, the bad example had been set by St. Peter, who was the first absentee bishop. If he became bishop of Rome in the second year of Claudius, he appears never afterwards to have gone near his see until close upon his death. Nay, he never even wrote a letter to his Church while he was away; or if he did, they did not think it worth preserving. Baronius (in Ann. lviii. § 51) owns the force of the Scripture reasons for believing that Peter was not in Rome during any time on which the New Testament throws light. His theory is that, when Claudius commanded all Jews to leave Rome, Peter was forced to go away. And as for his subsequent absences, they were forced on him by his duty as the chief of the Apostles, having care of all the Churches. … These, no doubt, are excellent reasons for Peter's not remaining at Rome; but why, then, did he undertake duties which he must have known he could not fulfil?"

   The Roman Catholic belief as to St. Peter's episcopacy, and
   the primacy conferred by it on the Roman See, is stated by Dr.
   Dollinger as follows: "The time of … [St. Peter's] arrival in
   Rome, and the consequent duration of his episcopacy in that
   city, have been the subjects of many various opinions amongst
   the learned of ancient and modern times; nor is it possible to
   reconcile the apparently conflicting statements of ancient
   writers, unless we suppose that the prince of the apostles
   resided at two distinct periods in the imperial capital.
   According to St. Jerome, Eusebius, and Orosius, his first
   arrival in Rome was in the second year of the reign of
   Claudius (A. D. 42); but he was obliged, by the decree of the
   emperor, banishing all Jews from the city, to return to
   Jerusalem. From Jerusalem he undertook a journey through Asia
   Minor, and founded, or at least, visited, the Churches of
   Pontus, Gallacia, Cappadocia, and Bythinia. To these Churches
   he afterwards addressed his epistle from Rome. His second
   journey to Rome was in the reign of Nero; and it is of this
   journey that Dionysius, of Corinth, and Lactantius, write.
   There, with the blessed Paul, he suffered, in the year 67, the
   death of a martyr. We may now ascertain that the period of
   twenty-five years assigned by Eusebius and St. Jerome, to the
   episcopacy of St. Peter in Rome, is not a fiction of their
   imaginations; for from the second year of Claudius, in which
   the apostle founded the Church of Rome, to the year of his
   death, there intervene exactly twenty-five years. That he
   remained during the whole of this period in Rome, no one has
   pretended. … Our Lord conferred upon his apostle, Peter, the
   supreme authority in the Church. After he had required and
   obtained from him a public profession of his faith, he
   declared him to be the rock, the foundation upon which he
   would build his Church; and, at the same time, promised that
   he would give to him the keys of the kingdom of heaven. … In
   the enumeration of the apostles, frequently repeated by the
   Evangelists, we find that Peter is always the first named:—he
   is sometimes named alone, when the others are mentioned in
   general.
{2418}
   After the ascension of our Lord, it is he who directs and
   governs: he leads the assembly in which a successor to the
   apostle who had prevaricated, is chosen: after the descent of
   the Holy Ghost, he speaks first to the people, and announces
   to them Jesus Christ: he performs the first miracle, and, in
   the name of his brethren, addresses the synedrium: he punishes
   the crime of Ananias: he opens the gates of the Church to the
   Gentiles, and presides at the first council at Jerusalem. …
   The more the Church was extended, and the more its
   constitution was formed, the more necessary did the power with
   which Peter had been invested become,—the more evident was the
   need of a head which united the members in one body, of a
   point and centre of unity. … Succession by ordination was the
   means, by which from the beginning the power left by Christ in
   his Church was continued: thus the power of the apostles
   descended to the bishops, their successors, and thus as Peter
   died bishop of the Church of Rome, where he sealed his
   doctrine with his blood, the primacy which he had received
   would be continued in him by whom he was there succeeded. It
   was not without a particular interposition of Providence that
   this pre-eminence was granted to the city of Rome, and that it
   became the depository of ecclesiastical supremacy. This city,
   which rose in the midway between the east and the west, by its
   position, by its proximity to the sea, by its dignity, as
   capital of the Roman empire, being open on all sides to
   communication even with the most distant nations, was
   evidently more than any other adapted to become the centre of
   the universal Church. … There are not wanting, in the first
   three centuries, testimonies and facts, some of which directly
   attest, and others presuppose, the supremacy of the Roman
   Church and of its bishops."

      J. J. I. Dollinger,
      History of the Church,
      period 1, chapter 1, section 4,
      and chapter 3, section 4 (volume 1).

The historical ground of the claim to supremacy over the Christian Church asserted on behalf of the Roman See is stated by Cardinal Gibbons as follows: "I shall endeavor to show, from incontestable historical evidence, that the Popes have always, from the days of the Apostles, continued to exercise supreme jurisdiction, not only in the Western church, till the Reformation, but also throughout the Eastern church, till the great schism of the ninth century.

1. Take the question of appeals. An appeal is never made from a superior to an inferior court, nor even from one court to another of co-ordinate jurisdiction. We do not appeal from Washington to Richmond, but from Richmond to Washington. Now if we find the See of Rome, from the foundation of Christianity, entertaining and deciding cases of appeal from the Oriental churches; if we find that her decision was final and irrevocable, we must conclude that the supremacy of Rome over all the churches is an undeniable fact. Let me give you a few illustrations: To begin with Pope St. Clement, who was the third successor of St. Peter, and who is laudably mentioned by St. Paul in one of his Epistles. Some dissension and scandal having occurred in the church of Corinth, the matter is brought to the notice of Pope Clement. He at once exercises his supreme authority by writing letters of remonstrance and admonition to the Corinthians. And so great was the reverence entertained for these Epistles, by the faithful of Corinth, that for a century later it was customary to have them publicly read in their churches. Why did the Corinthians appeal to Rome far away in the West, and not to Ephesus so near home in the East, where the Apostle St. John still lived? Evidently because the jurisdiction of Ephesus was local, while that of Rome was universal. About the year 190, the question regarding the proper day for celebrating Easter was agitated in the East, and referred to Pope St. Victor I. The Eastern church generally celebrated Easter on the day on which the Jews kept the Passover; while in the West it was observed then, as it is now, on the first Sunday after the full moon of the vernal equinox. St. Victor directs the Eastern churches, for the sake of uniformity, to conform to the practice of the West, and his instructions are universally followed. Dionysius, Bishop of Rome, about the middle of the third century, having heard that the Patriarch of Alexandria erred on some points of faith, demands an explanation of the suspected Prelate, who, in obedience to his superior, promptly vindicates his own orthodoxy. St. Athanasius, the great Patriarch of Alexandria, appeals in the fourth century, to Pope Julius I., from an unjust decision rendered against him by the Oriental bishops; and the Pope reverses the sentence of the Eastern council. St. Basil, Archbishop of Cæsarea, in the same century, has recourse, in his afflictions, to the protection of Pope Damasus. St. John Chrysostom, Patriarch of Constantinople, appeals in the beginning of the fifth century, to Pope Innocent I., for a redress of grievances inflicted on him by several Eastern Prelates, and by the Empress Eudoxia of Constantinople. St. Cyril appeals to Pope Celestine against Nestorius; Nestorius also appeals to the same Pontiff, who takes the side of Cyril. Theodoret, the illustrious historian and Bishop of Cyrrhus, is condemned by the pseudo-council of Ephesus in 449, and appeals to Pope Leo. … John, Abbot of Constantinople, appeals from the decision of the Patriarch of that city to Pope St. Gregory I., who reverses the sentence of the Patriarch. In 859, Photius addressed a letter to Pope Nicholas I., asking the Pontiff to confirm his election to the Patriarchate of Constantinople. In consequence of the Pope's conscientious refusal, Photius broke off from the communion of the Catholic Church, and became the author of the Greek schism. Here are a few examples taken at random from Church History. We see Prelates most eminent for their sanctity and learning, occupying the highest position in the Eastern church, and consequently far removed from the local influences of Rome, appealing in every period of the early church, from the decisions of their own Bishops and their Councils to the supreme arbitration of the Holy See. If this does not constitute superior jurisdiction, I have yet to learn what superior authority means.

2. Christians of every denomination admit the orthodoxy of the Fathers of the first five centuries of the Church. No one has ever called in question the faith of such men as Basil, Chrysostom, Cyprian, Augustine, Jerome, Ambrose, and Leo. … Now the Fathers of the Church, with one voice, pay homage to the Bishops of Rome as their superiors. …

3. Ecumenical Councils afford another eloquent vindication of Papal supremacy. An Ecumenical or General Council is an assemblage of Prelates representing the whole Catholic Church. … Up to the present time, nineteen Ecumenical Councils have been convened, including the Council of the Vatican. … The first General Council was held in Nicæa, in 325; the second, in Constantinople, in 381; the third, in Ephesus, in 431; the fourth, in Chalcedon, in 451; the fifth, in Constantinople, in 553; the sixth, in the same city, in 680; the seventh, in Nicæa, in 787; and the eighth, in Constantinople, in 809. The Bishops of Rome convoked these assemblages, or at least consented to their convocation; they presided by their legates over all of them, except the first and second councils of Constantinople, and they confirmed all these eight by their authority. Before becoming a law, the acts of the Councils required the Pope's signature.

4. I shall refer to one more historical point in support of the Pope's jurisdiction over the whole Church. It is a most remarkable fact that every nation hitherto converted from Paganism to Christianity, since the days of the Apostles, has received the light of faith from missionaries who were either especially commissioned by the See of Rome, or sent by Bishops in open communion with that See. This historical fact admits of no exception. Let me particularize: Ireland's Apostle is St. Patrick. Who commissioned him? Pope St. Celestine, in the fifth century. St. Palladius is the Apostle of Scotland. Who sent him? The same Pontiff, Celestine. The Anglo-Saxons received the faith from St. Augustine, a Benedictine monk, as all historians Catholic and non-Catholic testify: Who empowered Augustine to preach? Pope Gregory I., at the end of the sixth century. St. Remigius established the faith in France, at the close of the fifth century. He was in active communion with the See of Peter. Flanders received the Gospel in the seventh century from St. Eligius, who acknowledged the supremacy of the reigning Pope. Germany and Bavaria venerate as their Apostle St. Boniface, who is popularly known in his native England by his baptismal name of Winfrid. He was commissioned by Pope Gregory II., in the beginning of the eighth century, and was consecrated Bishop by the same Pontiff. In the ninth century, two saintly brothers, Cyril and Methodius, evangelized Russia, Sclavonia, and Moravia, and other parts of Northern Europe. They recognized the supreme authority of Pope Nicholas I., and of his successors, Adrian II. and John VIII. In the eleventh century, Norway was converted by missionaries introduced from England by the Norwegian King St. Olave. The conversion of Sweden was consummated in the same century by the British Apostles Saints Ulfrid and Eskill. Both of these nations immediately after their conversion commenced to pay Rome-scot, or a small annual tribute to the Holy See,—a clear evidence that they were in communion with the Chair of Peter. All the other nations of Europe, having been converted before the Reformation, received likewise the light of faith from Roman Catholic missionaries, because Europe then recognized only one Christian Chief."

      James, Cardinal Gibbons,
      The Faith of our Fathers,
      chapter 10.

      ALSO IN:
      Francis P. Kenrick, Archbishop of Baltimore,
      The Primacy of the Apostolic See vindicated.

"The first document by which the partisans of the Papal sovereignty justify themselves, is the letter written by St. Clement in the name of the Church at Rome to the Church at Corinth. They assert, that it was written by virtue of a superior authority attached to his title of Bishop of Rome. Now, it is unquestionable, 1st. That St. Clement was not Bishop of Rome when he wrote to the Corinthians. 2d. That in this matter he did not act of his own authority, but in the name of the Church at Rome, and from motives of charity. The letter signed by St. Clement was written A. D. 69, immediately after the persecution by Nero, which took place between the years 64 and 68, as all learned men agree. … It may be seen from the letter itself that it was written after a persecution; if it be pretended that this persecution was that of Domitian, then the letter must be dated in the last years of the first century, since it was chiefly in the years 95 and 96 that the persecution of Domitian took place. Now, it is easy to see from the letter itself, that it was written before that time, for it speaks of the Jewish sacrifices as still existing in the temple of Jerusalem. The temple was destroyed with the city of Jerusalem, by Titus A. D. 70. Hence, the letter must have been written before that year. Besides, the letter was written after some persecution, in which had suffered, at Rome, some very illustrious martyrs. There was nothing of the kind in the persecution of Domitian. The persecution of Nero lasted from the year 64 to the year 68. Hence it follows, that the letter to the Corinthians could only have been written in the year 69, that is to say, twenty-four years before Clement was Bishop of Rome. In presence of this simple calculation what becomes of the stress laid by the partisans of Papal sovereignty, upon the importance of this document as emanating from Pope St. Clement? Even if it could be shown that the letter of St. Clement was written during his episcopate, this would prove nothing, because this letter was not written by him by virtue of a superior and personal authority possessed by him, but from mere charity, and in the name of the Church at Rome. Let us hear Eusebius upon this subject: 'Of this Clement there is one epistle extant, acknowledged as genuine, … which he wrote in the name of the Church at Rome to that of Corinth, at the time when there was a dissension in the latter.' … He could not say more explicitly, that Clement did not in this matter act of his own authority, by virtue of any power he individually possessed. Nothing in the letter itself gives a suspicion of such authority. It thus commences: 'The Church of God which is at Rome, to the Church of God which is at Corinth.' … There is every reason to believe that St. Clement draughted this letter to the Corinthians. From the first centuries it has been considered as his work. It was not as Bishop of Rome, but as a disciple of the Apostles, that he wrote it. … In the second century the question concerning Easter was agitated with much warmth. Many Oriental Churches wished to follow the Judaical traditions, preserved by several Apostles in the celebration of that feast, and to hold it upon the fourteenth day of the March moon; other Eastern Churches, in agreement with the Western Churches according to an equally Apostolic tradition, celebrated the festival of Easter the Sunday following the fourteenth day of the March moon. {2420} The question in itself considered was of no great importance; and yet it was generally thought that all the Churches should celebrate at one and the same time the great Christian festival, and that some should not be rejoicing over the resurrection of the Saviour, while others were contemplating the mysteries of his death. How was the question settled? Did the Bishop of Rome interpose his authority and overrule the discussion, as would have been the case had he enjoyed a supreme authority? Let us take the evidence of History. The question having been agitated, 'there were synods and convocations of the Bishops on this question,' says Eusebius, 'and all unanimously drew up an ecclesiastical decree, which they communicated to all the Churches in all places. … There is an epistle extant even now of those who were assembled at the time; among whom presided Theophilus, Bishop of the Church in Cesarea and Narcissus, Bishop of Jerusalem. There is another epistle' (of the Roman Synod) 'extant on the same question, bearing the name of Victor. An epistle also of the Bishops in Pontus, among whom Palmas, as the most ancient, presided; also of the Churches of Gaul over whom Irenæus presided. Moreover, one from those in Osrhoene, and the cities there. And a particular epistle from Bacchyllus, Bishop of the Corinthians; and epistles of many others who, advancing one and the same doctrine, also passed the same vote.' It is evident that Eusebius speaks of the letter of the Roman synod in the same terms as of the others; he does not attribute it to Bishop Victor, but to the assembly of the Roman Clergy; and lastly, he only mentions it in the second place after that of the Bishops of Palestine. Here is a point irrefragably established; it is that in the matter of Easter, the Church of Rome discussed and judged the question in the same capacity as the other churches, and that the Bishop of Rome only signed the letter in the name of the synod which represented that Church."

"At the time of the Council of Nicæa it was clear that the metropolitans of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch, held a superior rank among their brethren, and had a kind of ill-defined jurisdiction over the provinces of several metropolitans. The fathers of Nicæa recognized the fact that the privileges of these sees were regulated by customs already regarded as primitive, and these customs they confirmed. … The empire was afterwards divided for the purposes of civil government into four Prefectures. … The organization of the Church followed in its main lines that of the empire. It also had its dioceses and provinces, coinciding for the most part with the similarly named political divisions. Not only did the same circumstances which marked out a city for political preeminence also indicate it as a fit centre of ecclesiastical rule, but it was a recognized principle with the Church that the ecclesiastical should follow the civil division. At the head of a diocese was a patriarch, at the head of a province was a metropolitan; the territory of a simple bishop was a parish. … The see of Constantinople … became the oriental counterpart of that of Rome. … But the patriarchal system of government, like every other, suffered from the shocks of time. The patriarch of Antioch had, in the first instance, the most extensive territory, for he claimed authority not only over the civil diocese of the East, but over the Churches in Persia, Media, Parthia, and India, which lay beyond the limits of the empire. But this large organization was but loosely knit, and constantly tended to dissolution. … After the conquests of Caliph Omar the great see of Antioch sank into insignificance. The region subject to the Alexandrian patriarch was much smaller than that of Antioch, but it was better compacted. Here too however the Monophysite tumult so shook its organization that it was no longer able to resist the claims of the patriarch of Constantinople. It also fell under the dominion of the Saracens—a fate which had already befallen Jerusalem. In the whole East there remained only the patriarch of Constantinople in a condition to exercise actual authority. … According to Rufinus's version of the sixth canon of the Council of Nicæa, the Bishop of Rome had entrusted to him the care of the suburbicarian churches [probably including Lower Italy and most of Central Italy, with Sicily, Sardinia and Corsica]. … But many causes tended to extend the authority of the Roman patriarch beyond these modest limits. The patriarch of Constantinople depended largely for his authority on the will of the emperor, and his spiritual realm was agitated by the constant intrigues of opposing parties. His brother of Rome enjoyed generally more freedom in matters spiritual, and the diocese over which he presided, keeping aloof for the most part from controversies on points of dogma, was therefore comparatively calm and united. Even the Orientals were impressed by the majesty of old Rome, and gave great honour to its bishop. In the West, the highest respect was paid to those sees which claimed an Apostle as founder, and among these the Church of St. Peter and St. Paul naturally took the highest place. It was, in fact, the one apostolic see of Western Europe, and as such received a unique regard. … Doubtful questions about apostolic doctrine and custom were addressed certainly to other distinguished bishops, as Athanasius and Basil, but they came more readily and more constantly to Rome, as already the last appeal in many civil matters. We must not suppose however that the Churches of the East were ready to accept the sway of Rome, however they might respect the great city of the West. … The authority of the Roman see increased from causes which are sufficiently obvious to historical enquirers. But the greatest of the Roman bishops were far too wise to tolerate the supposition that their power depended on earthly sanctions. They contended steadfastly that they were the heads of the Church on earth, because they were the successors of him to whom the Lord had given the keys of the kingdom of heaven, St. Peter. And they also contended that Rome was, in the most emphatic sense, the mother-church of the whole West. Innocent I. claims that no Church had ever been founded in Italy, Gaul, Spain, Africa, Sicily, or the Mediterranean islands, except by men who had received their commission from St. Peter or his successors. At the same time, they admitted that the privileges of the see were not wholly derived immediately from its founder, but were conferred by past generations out of respect for St. Peter's see. {2421} But the bishop who most clearly and emphatically asserted the claims of the Roman see to preeminence over the whole Church on earth was no doubt Leo I., a great man who filled a most critical position with extraordinary firmness and ability. Almost every argument by which in later times the authority of the see of St. Peter was supported is to be found in the letters of Leo. … The Empire of the West never seriously interfered with the proceedings of the Roman bishop; and when it fell, the Church became the heir of the empire. In the general crash, the Latin Christians found themselves compelled to drop their smaller differences, and rally round the strongest representative of the old order. The Teutons, who shook to pieces the imperial system, brought into greater prominence the essential unity of all that was Catholic and Latin in the empire, and so strengthened the position of the see of Rome. … It must not however be supposed that the views of the Roman bishops as to the authority of Rome were universally accepted even in the West. Many Churches had grown up independently of Rome and were abundantly conscious of the greatness of their own past. … And in the African Church the reluctance to submit to Roman dictation which had showed itself in Cyprian's time was maintained for many generations. … In Gaul too there was a vigorous resistance to the jurisdiction of the see of St. Peter."

S. Cheetham, History of the Christian Church during the First Six Centuries, pages 181-195.

"A colossal city makes a colossal bishop, and this principle reached its maximum embodiment in Rome. The greatest City of the World made the greatest Bishop of the World. Even when the Empire was heathen the City lifted the Bishop so high that he drew to himself the unwelcome attention of the secular power, and in succession, in consequence, as in no other see, the early Bishops of Rome were martyrs. When the Empire became Christian, Rome's place was recognized as first, and the principle on which that primacy rested was clearly and accurately defined when the Second General Council, acting on this principle, assigned to the new seat of empire, Constantinople, the second place; it was the principle, namely, of honor, based upon material greatness. … The principle of the primacy, as distinguished from the supremacy growing out of Petrine claims was the heart and soul of Gallicanism in contrast to Ultramontanism, and was crushed out even in the Roman communion not twenty years ago."

Rt. Rev. G. F. Seymour, The Church of Rome in her relation to Christian Unity ("History and Teachings of the Early Church," lecture 5).

"'Papa,' that strange and universal mixture of familiar endearment and of reverential awe, extended in a general sense to all Greek Presbyters and all Latin Bishops, was the special address which, long before the names of patriarch or archbishop, was given to the head of the Alexandrian church. … He was the Pope. The Pope of Rome was a phrase which had not yet [at the time of the meeting of the Council of Nicæa, A. D. 325] emerged in history. But Pope of Alexandria was a well-known dignity. … This peculiar Alexandrian application of a name, in itself expressing simple affection, is thus explained:—Down to Heraclas (A. D. 230), the Bishop of Alexandria, being the sole Egyptian Bishop, was called 'Abba' (father), and his clergy 'elders.' From his time more bishops were created, who then received the name of 'Abba,' and consequently the name of 'Papa' ('ab-aba,' pater patrum=grandfather) was appropriated to the primate. The Roman account (inconsistent with facts) is that the name was first given to Cyril, as representing the Bishop of Rome in the Council of Ephesus. (Suicer, in voce). The name was fixed to the Bishop of Rome in the 7th century."

ALSO IN: J. Bingham, Antiquities of the Christian Church, book 2, chapter 2, section 7.

   The following is the succession of the popes, according to
   Roman Catholic authorities, during the first four hundred and
   twenty years:
   "Peter, to the year of Christ 67;
   Linus,
   Anencletus,
   Clement; (to 77?)
   Evaristus,
   Alexander,
   Xystus,
   Telesphorus,
   Hyginus, to 142;
   Pius, to 157;
   Anicetus, to 168;
   Soter, to 177;
   Eleutherius, to 193;
   Victor, to 202;
   Zephyrinus, to 219;
   Callistus, to 223;
   Urban, to 230;
   Pontianus, to 235;
   Anterus, to 236;
   Fabian, to 250;
   Cornelius, from 251 to 252;
   Lucius, to 253;
   Stephan, to 257;
   Xystus II, to 258;
   Dionysius, from 259 to 269;
   Felix, to 274;
   Eutychianus, to 283;
   Caius, to 296;
   Marcellinus, to 304;
   Marcellus, after a vacancy of four years, from 308 to 310;
   Eusebius, from the 20th of May to the 26th of September, 310;
   Melchiades, from 311 to 314;
   Silvester, from 314 to 335. …
   Mark was chosen on the 18th of January 336,
   and died on the 7th of October of the same year.
   Julius I, from 337 to 352, the steadfast defender of St.
   Athanasius. …

The less steadfast Liberius, from 352 to 366, purchased, in 358 his return from exile by an ill-placed condescension to the demands of the Arians. He, however, soon redeemed .the honour which he had forfeited by this step, by his condemnation of the council of Rimini, for which act he was again driven from his Church. During his banishment, the Roman clergy were compelled to elect the deacon Felix in his place, or probably only as administrator of the Roman Church. When Liberius returned to Rome, Felix fled from the city, and died in the country, in 365.

Damasus, from 366 to 384, by birth a Spaniard, had, at the very commencement of his pontificate, to assert his rights against a rival named Ursicinus, who obtained consecration from some bishops a few days after the election of Damasus. The faction of Ursicinus was the cause of much bloodshed. …

Siricius, from 385 to 389, was, although Ursicinus again endeavoured to intrude himself, unanimously chosen by the clergy and people. …

   Anastasius, from 398 to 402; a pontiff, highly extolled by his
   successor, and by St. Jerome, of whom the latter says, that he
   was taken early from this earth, because Rome was not longer
   worthy of him, and that he might not survive the desolation of
   the city by Alaric. He was succeeded by Innocent I, from 402
   to 417. … During the possession of Rome by Alaric [see ROME:
   A. D. 408-410], Innocent went to Ravenna, to supplicate the
   emperor, in the name of the Romans, to conclude a peace with
   the Goths. The pontificate of his successor, the Greek
   Zosimus, was only of twenty one months.
{2422}
   The election of Boniface, from 418 to 422, was disturbed by
   the violence of the archdeacon Eulalius, who had attached a
   small party to his interests. … He was followed by Celestine
   I, from 422 to 432, the combatant of Nestorianism and of
   Semipelagianism. To Sixtus III, from 432 to 440, the
   metropolitans, Helladius of Tarsus, and Eutherius of Tyana,
   appealed, when they were threatened with deposition at the
   peace between St. Cyril and John of Antioch. Leo the Great,
   from 440 to 461, is the first pope of whom we possess a
   collection of writings: they consist of 96 discourses on
   festivals, and 141 epistles. By his high and well-merited
   authority, he saved Rome, in 452, from the devastation of the
   Huns; and induced Attila, named 'the scourge of God,' to
   desist from his invasion of Italy [see HUNS: A. D. 452].
   Again, when, in 457 [455], the Vandal king Geiserich entered
   Rome [see ROME: A. D. 455], the Romans were indebted to the
   eloquent persuasions of their holy bishop for the
   preservation, at least, of their lives."

"For many centuries the bishops of Rome had been comparatively obscure persons: indeed, Leo was the first really great man who occupied the see, but he occupied it under circumstances which tended without exception to put power in his hand. … Circumstances were thrusting greatness upon the see of St. Peter: the glory of the Empire was passing into her hands, the distracted Churches of Spain and Africa, harassed and torn in pieces by barbarian hordes and wearied with heresies, were in no position to assert independence in any matter, and were only too glad to look to any centre whence a measure of organization and of strength seemed to radiate; and the popes had not been slow in rising to welcome and promote the greatness with which the current and tendency of the age was investing them. Their rule seems to have been, more than anything else, to make the largest claim, and enforce as much of it as they could, but the theory of papal power was still indeterminate, vague, unfixed. She was Patriarch of the West —what rights did that give her? … Was her claim … a claim of jurisdiction merely, or did she hold herself forth as a doctrinal authority in a sense in which other bishops were not? In this respect, again, the claim into which Leo entered was indefinite and unformulated. … The Imperial instincts of old Rome are dominant in him, all that sense of discipline, order, government—all the hatred of uniformity, individuality, eccentricity. These are the elements which make up Leo's mind. He is above all things a governor and an administrator. He has got a law of ecclesiastical discipline, a supreme canon of dogmatic truth, and these are his instruments to subdue the troubled world. … The rule which governed Leo's conduct as pope was a very simple one, it was to take every opportunity which offered itself for asserting and enforcing the authority of his see: he was not troubled with historical or scriptural doubts or scruples which might cast a shadow of indecision, 'the pale cast of thought,' on his resolutions and actions. To him the papal authority had come down as the great inheritance of his position; it was identified in his mind with the order, the authority, the discipline, the orthodoxy which he loved so dearly; it suited exactly his Imperial ambition, in a word, his 'Roman' disposition and character, and he took it as his single great weapon against heresy and social confusion."

PAPACY: A. D. 461-604.
The succession of Popes from Leo the Great
to Gregory the Great.

The successor of Leo the Great, "the Sardinian Hilarius, from 461 to 468, had been one of his legates at the council of Ephesus in 449. … The zeal of Simplicius, from 468 to 483, was called into action chiefly by the confusion occasioned in the east by the Monophysites. The same may be said of Felix II (or III) from 483 to 492, in whose election the prefect Basilius concurred, as plenipotentiary of king Odoacer. Gelasius I, from 492 to 496, and Anastasius II, laboured, but in vain, in endeavouring to heal the schism, formed by Acacius, at Constantinople. This schism occasioned a division in Rome at the election of a new pontiff. The senator Festus had promised the emperor that he would enforce the reception of the Henoticon at Rome; and by means of corruption established against the deacon Symmachus, who had in his favour the majority of voices, a powerful party, which chose Laurence as antipope. Again was a double election the cause of bloody strife in the streets of Rome, until the Arian king, Theodoric, at Ravenna, declared for Symmachus, who gave to his rival the bishopric of Luceria. … More tranquil was the pontificate of the succeeding pope, Hormisdas, from 514 to 523, and made illustrious by the restoration of peace, in 519, in the eastern Church.

   John I died at Ravenna, in 519, in prison, into which he was
   cast by the suspicious Theodoric, after his return from
   Constantinople.

   Felix III (or IV) from 526 to 530, was chosen by the Romans,
   at the command of the king. At short intervals, followed
   Boniface II, from 530 to 532; and John II, from 533 to 535.

   Agapite I went, at the desire of the Gothic king, Theodatus,
   to obtain peace from the emperor, to Constantinople, where he
   died in 536.

Sylverius died, in 540, during his second exile, on the island of Palmaria. … Vigilius, who was ordained in 537, and who became lawful pope in 540, was compelled to remain in the east, from 546 to 554, sometimes a prisoner in Constantinople, and sometimes in exile. He died at Syracuse, on his return to Rome, in 555. Pelagius I, from 555 to 560, found difficulty in obtaining an acknowledgement of his election, as, by his condemnation of the three articles, he was considered in the west as a traitor to the council of Chalcedon, and because there existed a suspicion that he was accessory to the death of Vigilius.

John III, from 560 to 573, beheld the commencement of the
Lombard dominion in Italy.

Benedict I, from 574 to 578, and Pelagius II, from 578 to 590, ruled the Church during the melancholy times of the Lombard devastations. One of the most splendid appearances in the series of the Roman pontiffs was that of Gregory the Great, from 590 to 604."

"Pope Pelagius died on the 8th of February, 590. The people of Rome … were at this time in the utmost straits. Italy lay prostrate and miserable under the Lombard invasion; the invaders now threatened Rome itself, and its inhabitants trembled; famine and pestilence within the city produced a climax of distress; an overflow of the Tiber at the time aggravated the general alarm and misery; Gregory himself, in one of his letters, compares Rome at this time to an old and shattered ship, letting in the waves on all sides, tossed by a daily storm, its planks rotten and sounding of wreck. In this state of things all men's thoughts at once turned to Gregory. The pope was at this period the virtual ruler of Rome, and the greatest power in Italy; and they must have Gregory as their pope; for, if anyone could save them, it was he. His abilities in public affairs had been proved; all Rome knew his character and attainments; he had now the further reputation of eminent saintliness. He was evidently the one man for the post; and accordingly he was unanimously elected by clergy, senate, and people. But he shrank from the proffered dignity. There was one way by which he might possibly escape it. No election of a pope could at this time take effect without the emperor's confirmation, and an embassy had to be sent to Constantinople to obtain it. Gregory therefore sent at the same time a letter to the emperor (Mauricius, who had succeeded Tiberius in 582), imploring him to withhold his confirmation; but it was intercepted by the prefect of the city, and another from the clergy, senate, and people sent in its place, entreating approval of their choice. … At length the imperial confirmation of his election arrived. He still refused; fled from the city in disguise, eluding the guards set to watch the gates, and hid himself in a forest cave. Pursued and discovered by means, it is said, of a supernatural light, he was brought back in triumph, conducted to the church of St. Peter, and at once ordained on the 3rd of September, 590. … Having been once placed in the high position he so little coveted, he rose to it at once, and fulfilled its multifarious duties with remarkable zeal and ability. His comprehensive policy, and his grasp of great issues, are not more remarkable than the minuteness of the details, in secular as well as religious matters, to which he was able to give his personal care. And this is the more striking in combination with the fact that, as many parts of his writings show, he remained all the time a monk at heart, thoroughly imbued with both the ascetic principles and the narrow credulity of contemporary monasticism. His private life, too, was still in a measure monastic: the monastic simplicity of his episcopal attire is noticed by his biographer; he lived with his clergy under strict rule, and in 595 issued a synodal decree substituting clergy for the boys and secular persons who had formerly waited on the pope in his chamber."

"Of the immense energy shown by St. Gregory in the exercise of his Principate, of the immense influence wielded by him both in the East and in the West, of the acknowledgment of his Principate by the answers which emperor and patriarch made to his demands and rebukes, we possess an imperishable record in the fourteen books of his letters which have been preserved to us. They are somewhat more than 850 in number. They range over every subject, and are addressed to every sort of person. If he rebukes the ambition of a patriarch, and complains of an emperor's unjust law, he cares also that the tenants on the vast estates of the Church which his officers superintend at a distance should not be in any way harshly treated. … The range of his letters is so great, their detail so minute, that they illuminate his time and enable us to form a mental picture, and follow faithfully that pontificate of fourteen years, incessantly interrupted by cares and anxieties for the preservation of his city, yet watching the beginnings and strengthening the polity of the western nations, and counterworking the advances of the eastern despotism. The divine order of greatness is, we know, to do and to teach. Few, indeed, have carried it out on so great a scale as St. Gregory. The mass of his writing preserved to us exceeds the mass preserved to us from all his predecessors together, even including St. Leo, who with him shares the name of Great, and whose sphere of action the mind compares with his. If he became to all succeeding times an image of the great sacerdotal life in his own person, so all ages studied in his words the pastoral care, joining him with St. Gregory of Nazianzum and St. Chrysostom. The man who closed his life at sixty-four, worn out, not with age, but with labour and bodily pains, stands, beside the learning of St. Jerome, the perfect episcopal life and statesmanship of St. Ambrose, the overpowering genius of St. Augustine, as the fourth doctor of the western Church, while he surpasses them all in that his doctorship was seated on St. Peter's throne. If he closes the line of Fathers, he begins the period when the Church, failing to preserve a rotten empire in political existence, creates new nations; nay, his own hand has laid for them their foundation-stones."

T. W. Allies, The Holy See and the Wandering of the Nations, from St. Leo I. to St. Gregory I., pages 309-335.

PAPACY: A. D. 604-731.

   The succession of Popes.
   Sabinian, A. D. 604-606;
   Boniface III., 607;
   Boniface IV., 608-615;
   Deusdedit, 615-618;
   Boniface V., 619-625;
   Honorius I., 625-638;
   Severinus, 640;
   John IV., 640-642;
   Theodore I., 642-649;
   Martin I., 649-655;
   Eugenius I., 655-657;
   Vitalian, 657-672;
   Adeodatus II., 672-676;
   Donus I., 676-678;
   Agatho, 678-682;
   Leo II., 682-683;
   Benedict II., 684-685;
   John V., 685-686;
   Canon, 686-687;
   Sergius I.,687-701;
   John VI., 701-705;
   John VII., 705-707;
   Sisinnius, 708;
   Constantine, 708-715;
   Gregory II., 715-731.

   The extinguishment of the authority of the Eastern emperors at
   Rome and in Italy began with the revolt provoked by the
   attempts of the iconoclastic Leo, the Isaurian, to abolish
   image-worship in the Christian churches (see ICONOCLASTIC
   CONTROVERSY). The Pope, Gregory II., remonstrated vehemently,
   but in vain. At his signal all central Italy rose in revolt.
   "The exarch was compelled to shut himself up in Ravenna; for
   the cities of Italy, instead of obeying the imperial officers,
   elected magistrates of their own, on whom they conferred, in
   some cases, the title of duke. Assemblies were held, and the
   project of electing an emperor of the West was adopted." But
   another danger showed itself at this juncture which alarmed
   Rome and Italy more than the iconoclastic persecutions of the
   Byzantine emperor. The king of the Lombards took advantage of
   the insurrection to extend his own domains. He invaded the
   exarchate and got actual possession of Ravenna; whereat Pope
   Gregory turned his influence to the Byzantine side, with such
   effect that the Lombards were beaten back and Ravenna
   recovered.
{2424}
   In 731 Gregory II. died and was succeeded by Pope Gregory III.
   "The election of Gregory III. to the papal chair was confirmed
   by the Emperor Leo in the usual form; nor was that pope
   consecrated until the mandate from Constantinople reached
   Rome. This was the last time the emperors of the East were
   solicited to confirm the election of a pope." Leo continued to
   press his severe measures against image-worship, and the pope
   boldly convened at Rome a synod of ninety-three bishops which
   excommunicated the whole body of the Iconoclasts, emperor and
   all. The latter now dispatched a strong expedition to Italy to
   suppress the threatening papal power; but it came to naught,
   and the Byzantine authority was practically at an end,
   already, within the range of papal leadership. "From this
   time, A. D. 733, the city of Rome enjoyed political
   independence under the guidance and protection of the popes;
   but the officers of the Byzantine emperors were allowed to
   reside in the city, justice was publicly administered by
   Byzantine judges, and the supremacy of the Eastern Empire was
   still recognised. So completely, however, had Gregory III.
   thrown off his allegiance, that he entered into negotiations
   with Charles Martel, in order to induce that powerful prince
   to take an active part in the affairs of Italy. The pope was
   now a much more powerful personage than the Exarch of Ravenna,
   for the cities of central Italy, which had assumed the control
   of their local government, intrusted the conduct of their
   external political relations to the care of Gregory, who thus
   held the balance of power between the Eastern emperor and the
   Lombard king. In the year 742, while Constantine V., the son
   of Leo, was engaged with a civil war, the Lombards were on the
   eve of conquering Ravenna, but Pope Zacharias threw the whole
   of the Latin influence into the Byzantine scale, and enabled
   the exarch to maintain his position until the year 751, when
   Astolph, king of the Lombards, captured Ravenna. The exarch
   retired to Naples, and the authority of the Byzantine emperors
   in central Italy ended."

The Lombards, having obtained Ravenna and overturned the throne of the Byzantine exarchs, were now bent on extending their sovereignty over Rome. But the popes found an ally beyond the Alps whose interests coincided with their own. Pepin, the first Carolingian king of the Franks, went twice to their rescue and broke the Lombard power; his son Charlemagne finished the work, and by the acts of both these kings the bishops of Rome were established in a temporal no less than a spiritual principality.

   Gregory III., A. D. 731-741;
   Zacharias, 741-752;
   Stephen I. (or II.), 752;
   Stephen II. (or III.), 752-757;
   Paul I., 757-767;
   Stephen III. (or IV.), 768-772;
   Hadrian I., 772-795;
   Leo III., 795-816.

PAPACY: A. D. 755-774.
Origin of the Papal States.
The Donations of Pepin and Charlemagne.

As the result of Pepin's second expedition to Italy (A. D. 755), "the Lombard king sued for quarter, promised to fulfil the terms of the treaty made in the preceding year, and to give up all the places mentioned in it. Pepin made them all over to the Holy See, by a solemn deed, which was placed in the archives of the Roman Church. … Pepin took such steps as should insure the execution of the Lombard's oath. Ravenna, Rimini, Resaro, Fano, Cesena, Sinigaglia, Jesi, Forlimpopoli, Forli, Castrocaro, Montefeltro, Acerragio, Montelucari, supposed to be the present Nocera, Serravalle, San Marigni, Bobio, Urbino, Caglio, Luccoli, Eugubio, Comacchio and Narni were evacuated by the Lombard troops; and the keys of the 22 cities were laid, with King Pepin's deed of gift, upon the Confession of St. Peter. The independence of the Holy See was established."

"An embassy from the Byzantine emperor asserted, during the negotiation of the treaty, the claims of that sovereign to a restoration of the exarchate; but their petitions and demands failed of effect on 'the steadfast heart of Pippin' [or Pepin], who declared that he had fought alone in behalf of St. Peter, on whose Church he would bestow all the fruits of victory. Fulrad, his abbot, was commissioned to receive the keys of the twenty-two towns his arms had won, and to deposit them as a donation on the grave of the apostle at Rome. Thus the Pope was made the temporal head of that large district … which, with some few changes, has been held by his successors."

"When on Pipin's death the restless Lombards again took up arms and menaced the possessions of the Church, Pipin's son Charles or Charlemagne swept down like a whirlwind from the Alps at the call of Pope Hadrian [774], seized king Desiderius in his capital, assumed himself the Lombard crown, and made northern Italy thenceforward an integral part of the Frankish empire. … Whether out of policy or from that sentiment of reverence to which his ambitious mind did not refuse to bow, he was moderate in claims of jurisdiction, he yielded to the pontiff the place of honour in processions, and renewed, although in the guise of a lord and conqueror, the gift of the Exarchate and Pentapolis, which Pipin had made to the Roman Church twenty years before."

"It is reported, also, … that, jealous of the honor of endowing the Holy See in his own name, he [Charlemagne] amplified the gifts of Pippin by annexing to them the island of Corsica, with the provinces of Parma, Mantua, Venice, and Istria, and the duchies of Spoleto and Beneventum. … This rests wholly upon the assertion of Anastasius; but Karl could not give away what he did not possess, and we know that Corsica, Venice and Beneventum were not held by the Franks till several years later. … Of the nature and extent of these gifts nothing is determined: that they did not carry the right of eminent domain is clear from the subsequent exercise of acts of sovereignty within them by the Frankish monarchs; and the probability is, according to the habits of the times, that the properties were granted only under some form of feudal vassalage."

"Indefinite in their terms, these grants were never meant by the donors to convey full dominion over the districts—that belonged to the head of the Empire—but only as in the case of other church estates, a perpetual usufruct or 'dominium utile.' They were, in fact, mere endowments. Nor had the gifts been ever actually reduced into possession."

"Before the end of the 8th century some apostolical scribe, perhaps the notorious Isidore, composed the decretals and the donation of Constantine, the two magic pillars of the spiritual and temporal monarchy of the popes.

This memorable donation was introduced to the world by an epistle of Adrian I., who exhorts Charlemagne to imitate the liberality and revive the name of the great Constantine. According to the legend, the first of the Christian emperors was healed of the leprosy, and purified in the waters of baptism, by St. Silvester, the Roman bishop; and never was physician more gloriously recompensed. His royal proselyte withdrew from the seat and patrimony of St. Peter, declared his resolution of founding a new capital in the East; and resigned to the popes the free and perpetual sovereignty of Rome, Italy, and the provinces of the West. This fiction was productive of the most beneficial effects. The Greek princes were convicted of the guilt of usurpation: and the revolt of Gregory was the claim of his lawful inheritance. The popes were delivered from their debt of gratitude; and the nominal gifts of the Carlovingians were no more than the just and irrevocable restitution of a scanty portion of the ecclesiastical State."

"But this is not all, although this is what historians, in admiration of its splendid audacity, have chiefly dwelt upon. The edict proceeds to grant to the Roman pontiff and his clergy a series of dignities and privileges, all of them enjoyed by the emperor and his senate, all of them shewing the same desire to make the pontifical a copy of the imperial office. The Pope is to inhabit the Lateran palace, to wear the diadem, the collar, the purple cloak, to carry the sceptre, and to be attended by a body of chamberlains. … The practice of kissing the Pope's foot was adopted in imitation of the old imperial court. It was afterwards revived by the German Emperors."

ALSO IN: M. Gosselin, The Power of the Pope in the Middle Ages, volume 1, page 817.

E. F. Henderson, Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages, book 8, number 8.

PAPACY: A. D. 816-1073.

   The succession of Popes.
   Stephen IV. (or V.), A. D. 816-817;
   Paschal I., 817-:824;
   Eugene II., 824-827;
   Valentine, 827;
   Gregory IV., 827-844;
   Sergius II., 844-847;
   Leo IV., 847-855;
   Benedict III.; 855-858:
   Nicholas I., 858-867;
   Hadrian II., 867-872;
   John VIII., 872-882;
   Marinus: 882-884;
   Hadrian III., 884-885;
   Stephen V. (or VI.), 885-891;
   Formosus, 891-896;
   Boniface VI., 896;
   Stephen VI. (or VII.), 896-897;
   Romanus, 897-898;
   Theodore II., 898;
   John IX., 898-900;
   Benedict IV., 900-908;
   Leo V., 908;
   Sergius III., 904-911;
   Anastasius III., 911-918;
   Lando, 913-914;
   John X., 914-928;
   Leo VI., 928-929;
   Stephen VII. (or VIII.), 929-981;
   John XI., 981-986;
   Leo VII., 936-989;
   Stephen VIII. (or IX.). 989-942:
   Marinus II.,942-946;
   Agapetus II., 946-956;
   John XII., 956-964;
   Leo VIII., antipope, 963-965;
   Benedict V., 964-965;
   John XIII., 965-972;
   Benedict VI., 972-974;
   Donus II., 974-975;
   Benedict VII., 975-984;
   John XIV., 984-985;
   John XV., 985-996;
   Gregory V., 996-999;
   John XVI., antipope, 997-998;
   Sylvester II., 999-1003;
   John XVII., 1003;
   John XVIII., 1003-1009;
   Sergius IV., 1009-1012:
   Benedict VIII., 1012-1024;
   John XIX., 1024-1033;
   Benedict IX., 1033-1044;
   Sylvester III., antipope, 1044;
   Gregory VI., 1044-1046;
   Clement II., 1046-1047;
   Benedict IX., 1047-1048;
   Damasus II., 1048;
   Leo IX., 1049-1054;
   Victor II., 1055-1057;
   Stephen IX. (or X.), 1057-1058:
   Benedict X., antipope, 1058-1059;
   Nicholas II., 1058-1061;
   Alexander II., 1061-1073.

"There existed in each of the national churches, a collection of ecclesiastical laws, or canons, which were made use of as circumstances required. One of these collections was in use in Spain as early as the sixth century, and was subsequently attributed to Isidore, Bishop of Seville. Towards the middle of the ninth century, a new recension of these canons appeared in France, based upon the so–called Isidorian collection, but into which many spurious fragments, borrowed from private collections and bearing upon their face incontestable evidence of the ignorance of their authors, had been introduced. This recension contained also a number of forged documents. There were, altogether, above a hundred spurious decrees of popes, from Clement to Damasus (A. D. 384), not to mention some of other popes, and many false canons of councils. It also contained the forged Deed of Donation ascribed to Constantine [see above: A. D. 774?]. However, these decretals, which, as they stand, are now proved, both by intrinsic and extrinsic arguments, to be impudent forgeries, are nevertheless, in matter of fact, the real utterances of popes, though not of those to whom they are ascribed, and hence the forgery is, on the whole, one of chronological location, and does not affect their essential character."

   "Various opinions exist as to the time at which this
   collection was made, and the precise date of its publication.
   Mabillon supposes the compilation to have been made about A.
   D. 785; and in this opinion he is followed by others. But the
   collection did not appear until after the death of
   Charlemagne. Some think that these Decretals cannot be of an
   earlier date than 829, and Blondel supposed that he discovered
   in them traces of the acts of a council at Paris held in that
   year. All that can be determined is that most probably the
   Decretals were first published in France, perhaps at Mayence,
   about the middle of the ninth century; but it is impossible to
   discover their real author. The spuriousness of these
   Decretals was first exposed by the Magdeburg Centuriators,
   with a degree of historical and critical acumen beyond the age
   in which they lived. The Jesuit Turrianus endeavoured, but in
   vain, to defend the spurious documents against this attack. …
   Of these Epistles none (except two, which appear on other
   grounds to be spurious) were ever heard of before the ninth
   century. They contain a vast number of anachronisms and
   historical inaccuracies.
{2426}
   Passages are quoted from more recent writings, including the
   Vulgate, according to the version of Jerome; and, although the
   several Epistles profess to have been written by different
   pontiffs, the style is manifestly uniform, and often very
   barbarous, such as could not have proceeded from Roman writers
   of the first century. … The success of this forgery would
   appear incredible, did we not take into account the weak and
   confused government of the successors of Charlemagne, in whose
   time it was promulgated; the want of critical acumen and
   resources in that age; the skill with which the pontiffs made
   use of the Decretals only by degrees; and the great authority
   and power possessed by the Roman pontiffs in these times. The
   name of Isidore also served to recommend these documents, many
   persons being ready to believe that they were in fact only a
   completion of the genuine collection of Isidore, which was
   highly esteemed. … The unknown compiler was subsequently
   called Pseudo-Isidorus."

      ALSO IN:
      A. Neander,
      General History of the Christian Religion and Church,
      volume 6 (Bohn's edition), pages 2-8.

      H. H. Milman,
      History of Latin Christianity,
      book 5, chapter 4.

      P. Schaff,
      History of the Christian Church,
      volume 4, chapter 4, section 60.

PAPACY: A. D. 887-1046.
   Demoralization of the Church.
   Degradation of the Holy See.
   Reforms of the Emperor, Henry III.

"No exaggeration is possible of the demoralized state into which the Christian world, and especially the Church of Rome, had fallen in the years that followed the extinction of the Carlovingian line (A. D. 887). The tenth century is even known among Protestants 'par excellence' as the sæculum obscurum, and Baronius expresses its portentous corruption in the vivid remark that Christ was as if asleep in the vessel of the Church. 'The infamies prevalent among the clergy of the time,' says Mr. Bowden [Life of Hildebrand], 'as denounced by Damiani and others, are to be alluded to, not detailed.' … When Hildebrand was appointed to the monastery of St. Paul at Rome, he found the offices of devotion systematically neglected, the house of prayer defiled by the sheep and cattle who found their way in and out through its broken doors, and the monks, contrary to all monastic rule, attended in their refectory by women. The excuse for these irregularities was the destitution to which the holy house was reduced by the predatory bands of Campagna; but when the monastic bodies were rich, as was the case in Germany, matters were worse instead of better. … At the close of the ninth century, Stephen VI. dragged the body of an obnoxious predecessor from the grave, and, after subjecting it to a mock trial, cut off its head and three fingers, and threw it into the Tiber. He himself was subsequently deposed, and strangled in prison. In the years that followed, the power of electing to the popedom fell into the hands of the intriguing and licentious Theodora, and her equally unprincipled daughters, Theodora and Marozia.

These women, members of a patrician family, by their arts and beauty, obtained an unbounded influence over the aristocratic tyrants of the city. One of the Theodoras advanced a lover, and Marozia a son, to the popedom. The grandson of the latter, Octavian, succeeding to her power, as well as to the civil government of the city, elevated himself, on the death of the then Pope, to the apostolic chair, at the age of eighteen, under the title of John XII. (A. D. 956). His career was in keeping with such a commencement. 'The Lateran Palace,' says Mr. Bowden, 'was disgraced by becoming a receptacle for courtezans: and decent females were terrified from pilgrimages to the threshold of the Apostles by the reports which were spread abroad of the lawless impurity and violence of their representative and successor.' … At length he was carried off by a rapid illness, or by the consequences of a blow received in the prosecution of his intrigues. Boniface VII. (A. D. 974), in the space of a few weeks after his elevation, plundered the treasury and basilica of St. Peter of all he could conveniently carry off, and fled to Constantinople. John XVIII. (A. D. 1003) expressed his readiness, for a sum of money from the Emperor Basil, to recognize the right of the Greek Patriarch to the title of ecumenical or universal bishop, and the consequent degradation of his own see; and was only prevented by the general indignation excited by the report of his intention. Benedict IX. (A. D. 1033) was consecrated Pope, according to some authorities, at the age of ten or twelve years, and became notorious for adulteries and murders. At length he resolved on marrying his first cousin; and, when her father would not assent except on the condition of his resigning the popedom, he sold it for a large sum, and consecrated the purchaser as his successor. Such are a few of the most prominent features of the ecclesiastical history of these dreadful times, when, in the words of St. Bruno, 'the world lay in wickedness, holiness had disappeared, justice had perished, and truth had been buried; Simon Magus lording it over the Church, whose bishops and priests were given to luxury and fornication.' Had we lived in such deplorable times as have been above described … we should have felt for certain, that if it was possible to retrieve the Church, it must be by some external power; she was helpless and resourceless; and the civil power must interfere, or there was no hope. So thought the young and zealous emperor, Henry III. (A. D. 1039), who, though unhappily far from a perfect character, yet deeply felt the shame to which the Immaculate Bride was exposed, and determined with his own right hand to work her deliverance. … This well-meaning prince did begin that reformation which ended in the purification and monarchical estate of the Church. He held a Council of his Bishops in 1047; in it he passed a decree that 'Whosoever should make any office or station in the Church a subject of purchase or sale, should suffer deprivation and be visited with excommunication;' at the same time, with regard to his own future conduct, he solemnly pledged himself as follows:—'As God has freely of His mere mercy bestowed upon me the crown of the empire, so will I give freely and without price all things that pertain unto His religion.' This was his first act; but he was aware that the work of reform, to be thoroughly executed, must proceed from Rome, as the centre of the ecclesiastical commonwealth, and he determined, upon those imperial precedents and feudal principles which Charlemagne had introduced, himself to appoint a Pope, who should be the instrument of his general reformation. {2427} The reigning Pope at this time was Gregory VI., and he introduces us to so curious a history that we shall devote some sentences to it. Gregory was the identical personage who had bought the papal office of the profligate Benedict IX. for a large sum, and was consecrated by him, and yet he was far from a bad sort of man after all. … He had been known in the world as John Gratianus; and at the time of his promotion was arch-priest of Rome. 'He was considered,' says Mr. Bowden, 'in those bad times more than ordinarily religious; he had lived free from the gross vices by which the clergy were too generally disgraced.' … He could not be quite said to have come into actual possession of his purchase; for Benedict, his predecessor, who sold it to him, being disappointed in his intended bride, returned to Rome after an absence of three months, and resumed his pontifical station, while the party of his intended father-in-law had had sufficient influence to create a Pope of their own, John, Bishop of Sabina, who paid a high price for his elevation, and took the title of Sylvester III. And thus there were three self-styled Popes at once in the Holy City, Benedict performing his sacred functions at the Lateran, Gregory at St. Peter's, and Sylvester at Santa Maria Maggiore. Gregory, however, after a time, seemed to preponderate over his antagonists; he maintained a body of troops, and with these he suppressed the suburban robbers who molested the pilgrims. Expelling them from the sacred limits of St. Peter's, he carried his arms further, till he had cleared the neighbouring towns and roads of these marauders. … This was the point of time at which the Imperial Reformer made his visitation of the Church and See of the Apostles. He came into Italy in the autumn of 1046, and held a Council at Sutri, a town about thirty miles to the north of Rome. Gregory was allowed to preside; and, when under his auspices the abdication of Benedict had been recorded, and Sylvester had been stripped of his sacerdotal rank and shut up in a monastery for life, Gregory's own turn came" and he was persuaded to pronounce a sentence of condemnation upon himself and to vacate the pontifical chair. "The new Pope whom the Emperor gave to the Church instead of Gregory VI., Clement II., a man of excellent character, died within the year. Damasus II. also, who was his second nomination, died in three or four weeks after his formal assumption of his pontifical duties. Bruno, Bishop of Toul, was his third choice. … And now we are arrived at the moment when the State reformer struck his foot against the hidden rock. … He had chosen a Pope, but 'quis custodiat ipsos custodes'? What was to keep fast that Pope in that very view of the relation of the State to the Church, that plausible Erastianism, as it has since been called, which he adopted himself? What is to secure the Pope from the influences of some Hildebrand at his elbow, who, a young man himself, shall rehearse, in the person of his superior, that part which he is one day to play in his own, as Gregory VII.? Such was the very fact; Hildebrand was with Leo, and thus commences the ecclesiastical career of that wonderful man."

PAPACY: A. D. 1053. Naples and Sicily granted as fiefs of the Church to the sons of Tancred—the Normans.

PAPACY: A. D. 1054.
The Filioque Controversy.
Separation of the Orthodox (Greek) Church.

PAPACY: A. D. 1056-1122.
   Hildebrand and Henry IV.
   The imperious pontifical reign of Gregory VII.
   Empire and Papacy in conflict.
   The War of Investitures.

"Son of a Tuscan carpenter, but, as his name shows, of German origin, Hildebrand had been from childhood a monk in the monastery of Sta Maria, on Mount Aventine, at Rome, where his uncle was abbot, and where he became the pupil of a learned Benedictine archbishop, the famous Laurentius of Amalfi, and formed a tender friendship with St. Odilon of Cluny [or Clugny]. Having early attached himself to the virtuous Pope Gregory VI., it was with indignation that he saw him confounded with two unworthy competitors, and deposed together with them by the arbitrary influence of the emperor at Sutri. He followed the exiled pontiff to France, and, after his death, went to enrol himself among the monks of Cluny, where he had previously resided, and where, according to several writers, he held the office of prior. During a part of his youth, however, he must have lived at the German Court, where he made a great impression on the Emperor Henry III., and on the best bishops of the country, by the eloquence of his preaching. … It was at Cluny that Hildebrand met, in 1049, the new Pope, Bruno, Bishop of Toul. … Bruno himself had been a monk: his cousin, the Emperor Henry III., had, by his own authority, caused him to be elected at Worms, December 1048, and proclaimed under the name of Leo IX. Hildebrand, seeing him already clothed with the pontifical purple, reproached him for having accepted the government of the Church, and advised him to guard ecclesiastical liberty by being canonically elected at Rome. Bruno yielded to this salutary remonstrance; laying aside the purple and the pontifical ornaments, he caused Hildebrand to accompany him to Rome, where his election was solemnly renewed by the Roman clergy and people. This was the first blow given to the usurped authority of the emperor. From that moment Hildebrand was withdrawn from Cluny by the Pope, in spite of the strong resistance of the Abbot St. Hugh. Created Cardinal Subdeacon of the Roman Church, and Abbot of San Paolo fuori le Mura, he went on steadily towards the end he had in view. Guided by his advice, Leo IX., after having renewed his courage at Monte Cassino, prepared several decrees of formal condemnation against the sale of benefices and against the marriage of priests; and these decrees were fulminated in a series of councils on both sides the Alps, at Rome, Verceil, Mayence, and Reims. The enemy, till then calm in the midst of his usurped rule, felt himself sharply wounded. Nevertheless, the simoniacal bishops, accomplices or authors of all the evils the Pope wished to cure, pretended as well as they could not to understand the nature and drift of the pontiff's act. They hoped time would be their friend; but they were soon undeceived. {2428} Among the many assemblies convoked and presided over by Pope Leo IX., the Council of Reims, held in 1094, was the most important. … Henry I., King of France, opposed the holding of this Council with all his might. … The Pope stood his ground: he was only able to gather round him twenty bishops; but, on the other hand, there came fifty Benedictine abbots. Thanks to their support, energetic canons were promulgated against the two great scandals of the time, and several guilty prelates were deposed. They went still further: a decree pronounced by this Council vindicated, for the first time in many years, the freedom of ecclesiastical elections, by declaring that no promotion to the episcopate should be valid without the choice of the clergy and people. This was the first signal of the struggle for the enfranchisement of the Church, and the first token of the preponderating influence of Hildebrand. From that time all was changed. A new spirit breathed on the Church —a new life thrilled the heart of the papacy. … Vanquished and made prisoner by the Normans—not yet, as under St. Gregory VII., transformed into devoted champions of the Church —Leo IX. vanquished them, in turn, by force of courage and holiness, and wrested from them their first oath of fidelity to the Holy See while granting to them a first investiture of their conquests. Death claimed the pontiff when he had reigned five years. … At the moment when the struggle between the papacy and the Western empire became open and terrible, the East, by a mysterious decree of Providence, finally separated itself from Catholic unity. … The schism was completed by Michael Cerularius, whom the Emperor Constantine Monomachius had placed, in 1043, on the patriarchal throne. The separation took place under the vain pretext of Greek and Latin observances on the subject of unleavened bread, of strangled meats, and of the singing of the Alleluia. … Leo IX. being dead, the Romans wished to elect Hildebrand, and only renounced their project at his most earnest entreaties. He then hastened to cross the Alps, and directed his steps to Germany [1054], provided with full authority from the Roman clergy and people to choose, under the eyes of the Emperor Henry III., whoever, among the prelates of the empire, that prince should judge most worthy of the tiara. … Hildebrand selected Gebhard, Bishop of Eichstadt; and in spite of the emperor, who desired to keep near him a bishop who enjoyed his entire confidence—in spite even of Gebhard himself—he carried him off to Rome, where, according to the ancient custom, the clergy proceeded to his election under the name of Victor II. The new Pope, at the risk of his life, adhered to the counsels of Hildebrand, and continued the war made by his predecessor on simoniacal bishops and married priests. … At this crisis [October, 1056] the Emperor Henry III. died in the flower of his age, leaving the throne of Germany to his only son, a child of six years old, but already elected and crowned—the regent being his mother, the Empress Agnes. … Victor II. had scarcely followed the emperor to the tomb [July, 1057] when the Roman clergy hastened, for the first time, to elect a Pope without any imperial intervention. In the absence of Hildebrand, the unanimous choice of the electors fixed on the former chancellor and legate at Constantinople of Leo IX., on Frederic, monk and abbot of Monte Cassino," raised to the throne by the name of Stephen, sometimes numbered as the ninth, but generally as the tenth Pope of that name.

Stephen X. died in the year following his election, and again the papal chair was filled during the absence of Hildebrand from Rome. The new Pope, who took the name of Benedict X., was obnoxious to the reforming party, of which Hildebrand was the head, and the validity of his election was denied. With the support of the imperial court in Germany, Gerard, Bishop of Florence, was raised to the throne, as Nicholas II., and his rival gave way to him. Nicholas II., dying in 1061, was succeeded by Alexander II. elected equally under Hildebrand's influence. On the death of Alexander in 1073, Hildebrand himself was forced against his will, to accept the papal tiara. He "knew well the difficulties that would beset one who should endeavour to govern the Church as became an upright and conscientious Pope. Hence, dreading the responsibility, he protested, but to no purpose, against his own elevation to the papal throne. … Shrinking from its onerous duties, Gregory thought he saw one way still open by which he might escape the burden. The last decree on papal elections contained an article requiring that the Pope-elect should receive the approval of the Emperor of Germany. Gregory, who still assumed only the title of 'Bishop-elect of Rome,' notified Henry IV., King of Germany and Emperor–elect, of what had taken place, and begged him not to approve the action or confirm the choice of the Romans. 'But should you,' he went on to say, 'deny my prayer, I beg to assure you that I shall most certainly not allow your scandalous and notorious excesses to go unpunished.' Several historians, putting this bold declaration beside the decree of Nicholas II. (A. D. 1059), which went on the assumption that the King of Germany did not enjoy the right of approving the Pope-elect until after he had been crowned Emperor, and then, only by a concession made to himself personally, have pronounced it suppositious. But when it is recollected that its authenticity rests upon the combined testimony of Bonizo, Bishop of Sutri, the friend of Hildebrand, and of William, abbot of Metz, as well as on the authority of the Acta Vaticana, it is difficult to see how the objection can be sustained. … Henry IV., on receiving news of Hildebrand's election, sent Count Eberhard, of Nellenburg, as his plenipotentiary to Rome to protest against the proceeding. The politic Hildebrand was careful not to be taken at a disadvantage. 'I have indeed' said he, 'been elected by the people, but against my own will. I would not, however, allow myself to be forced to take priest's orders until my election should have been ratified by the king and the princes of Germany.' Lambert of Hersfeld informs us that Henry was so pleased with this manner of speech that he gave orders to allow the consecration to go on, and the ceremony was accordingly performed on the Feast of the Purification in the following year (A. D. 1074). This is the last instance of a papal election being ratified by an emperor. … Out of respect to the memory of Gregory VI., his former friend and master, Hildebrand, on ascending the papal throne, took the ever–illustrious name of Gregory VII."

"From the most remote Christian antiquity, the marriage of clergymen had been regarded with the dislike, and their celibacy rewarded by the commendation, of the people. … This prevailing sentiment had ripened into a customary law, and the observance of that custom had been enforced by edicts and menaces, by rewards and penalties. But nature had triumphed over tradition, and had proved too strong for Councils and for Popes. When Hildebrand ascended the chair first occupied by a married Apostle, his spirit burned within him to see that marriage held in her impure and unhallowed bonds a large proportion of those who ministered at the altar, and who handled there the very substance of the incarnate Deity. It was a profanation well adapted to arouse the jealousy, not less than to wound the conscience, of the Pontiff. Secular cares suited ill with the stern duties of a theocratic ministry. Domestic affections would choke or enervate in them that corporate passion which might otherwise be directed with unmitigated ardour towards their chief and centre. Clerical celibacy would exhibit to those who trod the outer courts of the great Christian temple, the impressive and subjugating image of a transcendental perfection, too pure not only for the coarser delights of sense, but even for the alloy of conjugal or parental love. It would fill the world with adherents of Rome, in whom every feeling would be quenched which could rival that sacred allegiance. … With such anticipations, Gregory, within a few weeks from his accession, convened a council at the Lateran, and proposed a law, not, as formerly, forbidding merely the marriage of priests, but commanding every priest to put away his wife, and requiring all laymen to abstain from any sacred office which any wedded priest might presume to celebrate. Never was legislative foresight so verified by the result. What the great Council of Nicæa had attempted in vain, the Bishops assembled in the presence of Hildebrand accomplished, at his instance, at once, effectually, and for ever. Lamentable indeed were the complaints, bitter the reproaches, of the sufferers. Were the most sacred ties thus to be torn asunder at the ruthless bidding of an Italian priest? Were men to become angels, or were angels to be brought down from heaven to minister among men? Eloquence was never more pathetic, more just, or more unavailing. Prelate after prelate silenced these complaints by austere rebukes. Legate after legate arrived with papal menaces to the remonstrants. Monks and abbots preached the continency they at least professed. Kings and barons laughed over their cups at many a merry tale of compulsory divorce. Mobs pelted, hooted, and besmeared with profane and filthy baptisms the unhappy victims of pontifical rigour. It was a struggle not to be prolonged —broken hearts pined and died away in silence. Expostulations subsided into murmurs, and murmurs were drowned in the general shout of victory. Eight hundred years have since passed away. Amidst the wreck of laws, opinions, and institutions, this decree of Hildebrand's still rules the Latin Church, in every land where sacrifices are offered on her altars. … With this Spartan rigour towards his adherents, Gregory combined a more than Athenian address and audacity towards his rivals and antagonists. So long as the monarchs of the West might freely bestow on the objects of their choice the sees and abbeys of their states, papal dominion could be but a passing dream, and papal independency an empty boast. Corrupt motives usually determined that choice; and the objects of it were but seldom worthy. Ecclesiastical dignities were often sold to the highest bidder, and then the purchaser indemnified himself by a use no less mercenary of his own patronage; or they were given as a reward to some martial retainer, and the new churchman could not forget that he had once been a soldier. The cope and the coat-of-mail were worn alternately. The same hand bore the crucifix in the holy festival, and the sword in the day of battle. … In the hands of the newly consecrated Bishop was placed a staff, and on his finger a ring, which, received as they were from his temporal sovereign, proclaimed that homage and fealty were due to him alone. And thus the sacerdotal Proconsuls of Rome became, in sentiment at least, and by the powerful obligation of honour, the vicegerents, not of the Pontifex Maximus, but of the Imperator. To dissolve this 'trinoda necessitas' of simoniacal preferments, military service, and feudal vassalage, a feebler spirit would have exhorted, negotiated, and compromised. To Gregory it belonged to subdue men by courage, and to rule them by reverence. Addressing the world in the language of his generation, he proclaimed to every potentate, from the Baltic to the Straits of Calpé, that all human authority being holden of the divine, and God himself having delegated his own sovereignty over men to the Prince of the Sacred College, a divine right to universal obedience was the inalienable attribute of the Roman Pontiffs. … In turning ever the collection of the epistles of Hildebrand, we are every where met by this doctrine asserted in a tone of the calmest dignity and the most serene conviction. Thus he informs the French monarch that every house in his kingdom owed to Peter, as their father and pastor, an annual tribute of a penny, and he commands his legates to collect it in token of the subjection of France to the Holy See. He assures Solomon the King of Hungary, that his territories are the property of the Holy Roman Church. Solomon being incredulous and refractory, was dethroned by his competitor for the Hungarian crown. His more prudent successor, Ladislaus, acknowledged himself the vassal of the Pope, and paid him tribute. … From every part of the European continent, Bishops are summoned by these imperial missives to Rome, and there are either condemned and deposed, or absolved and confirmed in their sees. In France, in Spain, and in Germany, we find his legates exercising the same power; and the correspondence records many a stern rebuke, sometimes for their undue remissness, sometimes for their misapplied severity. The rescripts of Trajan scarcely exhibit a firmer assurance both of the right and the power to control every other authority, whether secular or sacerdotal, throughout the civilized world."

"At first Gregory appeared to desire to direct his weapons against King Philip of France, 'the worst of, the tyrants who enslaved the Church.' … But with a more correct estimate of the circumstances of Germany and the dangers which threatened from Lombardy, he let this conflict drop and turned against Henry IV. The latter had so alienated Saxony and Thuringia by harsh proceedings, that they desired to accuse him to the Pope of oppression and simony. Gregory immediately demanded the dismissal of the councillors who had been excommunicated by his predecessor. His mother, who was devoted to the Pope, sought to mediate, and the Saxon revolt which now broke out (still in 1073) still further induced him to give way. He wrote a submissive letter to the Pope, rendered a repentant confession at Nuremberg in 1074 in the presence of his mother and two Roman cardinals, and, along with the excommunicated councillors, who had promised on oath to surrender all church properties obtained by simony, was received into the communion of the Church. … But … Henry, after overthrowing his enemies, soon returned to his old manner, and the German clergy resisted the interference of the Pope. At the Roman Synod (February, 1075) Gregory then decreed numerous ecclesiastical penalties against resistant German and Lombard bishops, and five councillors of the King were once more laid under the ban on account of simony. But in addition, at a Roman synod of the same year, he carried through the bold law of investiture, which prohibited bishops and abbots from receiving a bishopric or abbacy from the hands of a layman, and prohibited the rulers from conferring investiture on penalty of excommunication. Before the publication of the law Gregory caused confidential overtures to be made to the King, in order, as it seems, to give the King an opportunity of taking measures to obviate the threatening dangers which were involved in this extreme step. At the same time he himself was threatened and entangled on all hands; Robert Guiscard, whom he had previously excommunicated, he once more laid under the ban. … Henry, who in the summer of 1075 still negotiated directly with the Pope through ambassadors, after completely overthrowing the Saxons now ceased to pay any attention. … At Worms (24th January 1076) he caused a great portion of the German bishops to declare the deposition of the Pope who, as was said, was shattering the Empire and degrading the bishops. The Lombard bishops subscribed the decree of deposition at Piacenza and Pavia. Its bearers aroused a fearful storm against themselves at the Lenten Synod of Rome (1076), and Gregory now declared the excommunication and deposition of Henry, and released his subjects from their oath. Serious voices did indeed deny the Pope's right to the latter course; but a portion of the German bishops at once humbled themselves before the Pope, others began to waver, and the German princes, angered over Henry's government, demanded at Tribur in October, 1076, that the King should give satisfaction to the Pope, and the Pope hold judgment on Henry in Germany itself; if by his own fault Henry should remain under the ban for a year's time, another King was to be elected. Henry then resolved to make his peace with the Pope in order to take their weapon out of the hands of the German princes. Before the Pope came to Germany, he hastened in the winter with his wife and child from Besançon, over Mont Cenis, and found a friendly reception in Lombardy, so that the Pope, already on the way to Germany, betook himself to the Castle of Canossa to the Margravine Matilda of Tuscany, fearing an evil turn of affairs from Henry and the Lombards who were hostile to the Pope. But Henry was driven by his threatened position in Germany to seek release from the ban above every thing. This brought him as a penitent into the courtyard of Canossa (January 1077), where Gregory saw him stand from morning till evening during three days before he released him from the ban at the intercession of Matilda."

      W. Moeller,
      History of the Christian Church in the Middle Ages,
      pages 256-258.

"It was on the 25th of January, 1077, that the scene took place, which, as is natural, has seized so strongly upon the popular imagination, and has so often supplied a theme for the brush of the painter, the periods of the historian, the verse of the poet. … The king was bent upon escaping at any sacrifice from the bond of excommunication and from his engagement to appear before the Pontiff, at the Diet summoned at Augsburg for the Feast of the Purification. The character in which he presented himself before Gregory was that of a penitent, throwing himself in deep contrition upon the Apostolic clemency, and desirous of reconciliation with the Church. The Pope, after so long experience of his duplicity, disbelieved in his sincerity, while, as a mere matter of policy, it was in the highest degree expedient to keep him to his pact with the German princes and prelates. … On three successive days did he appear barefooted in the snowy court-yard of the castle, clad in the white garb of a penitent, suing for relief from ecclesiastical censure. It was difficult for Gregory to resist the appeal thus made to his fatherly compassion, the more especially as Hugh, Abbot of Cluny, and the Countess Matilda besought him 'not to break the bruised reed.' Against his better judgment, and in despite of the warnings of secular prudence, the Pope consented on the fourth day to admit to his presence the royal suppliant. … The conditions of absolution imposed upon the king were mainly four: that he should present himself upon a day and at a place, to be named by the Pontiff, to receive the judgment of the Apostolic See, upon the charges preferred by the princes and prelates of Germany, and that he should abide the Pontifical sentence—his subjects meanwhile remaining released from their oath of fealty; that he should respect the rights of the Church and carry out the papal decrees; and that breach of this engagement should entitle the Teutonic magnates to proceed to the election of another king. Such were the terms to which Henry solemnly pledged himself, and on the faith of that pledge the Pontiff, assuming the vestments of religion, proceeded to absolve him with the appointed rites. … So ends the first act in this great tragedy. Gregory's misgivings as to the king's sincerity soon receive too ample justification. 'Fear not,' the Pontiff is reported to have said, with half contemptuous sadness to the Saxon envoys who complained of his lenity to the monarch: 'Fear not, I send him back to you more guilty than he came.' Henry's words to the Pope had been softer than butter; but he had departed with war in his heart. … Soon he lays a plot for seizing Gregory at Mantua, whither the Pontiff is invited for the purpose of presiding over a Council. But the vigilance of the Great Countess foils the proposed treachery. {2431} Shortly the ill-advised monarch again assumes an attitude of open hostility to the Pope. … The Teutonic princes, glad to throw off an authority which they loathe and despise—not heeding the advice to pause given by the Roman legates—proceed at the Diet of Forchein to the election of another king. Their choice falls upon Rudolph of Swabia, who is crowned at Metz on the 20th of March, 1077. The situation is now complicated by the strife between the two rival sovereigns. … At last, in Lent, 1080, Gregory, no longer able to tolerate the continual violation by Henry of the pledges given at Canossa, and greatly moved by tidings of his new and manifold sacrileges and cruelties, pronounces again the sentence of excommunication against him, releasing his subjects from their obedience, and recognizing Rudolph as king. Henry thereupon calls together some thirty simoniacal and incontinent prelates at Brixen, and causes them to go through the form of electing an anti-pope in the person of Guibert, Archbishop of Ravenna, an ecclesiastic some time previously excommunicated by Gregory for grave offences. Then the tide turns in Henry's favour. At the battle of the Elster (15th October, 1080), Rudolph is defeated and mortally wounded, and on the same day the army of the Great Countess is overthrown and dispersed at La Volta in the Mantuan territory. Next year, in the early spring, Henry crosses the Alps and advances towards Rome. … A little before Pentecost Henry appears under the walls of the Papal city, expecting that his party within it will throw open the gates to him; but his expectation is disappointed. … In 1082, the monarch again advances upon Rome and ineffectually assaults it. In the next year he makes a third and more successful attempt, and captures the Leonine city. … On the 21st of March, 1084, the Lateran Gate is opened to Henry by the treacherous Romans, and the excommunicated monarch, with the anti-pope by his side, rides in triumph through the streets. The next day, Guibert solemnly takes possession of St. John Lateran, and bestows the Imperial Crown upon Henry in the Vatican Basilica. Meanwhile Gregory is shut up in the Castle of St. Angelo. Thence, after six weeks, he is delivered by Guiscard, Duke of Calabria, the faithful vassal of the Holy See. But the burning of the city by Guiscard's troops, upon the uprising of the Romans, turns the joy of his rescue into mourning. Eight days afterwards he quits 'the smoking ruins of his once beautiful Rome,' and after pausing for a few days, at Monte Casino, reaches Salerno, where his life pilgrimage is to end."

W. S. Lilly, The Turning-Point of the Middle Ages (Contemporary Review, August, 1882).

Gregory died at Salerno on the 25th of May, 1085, leaving Henry apparently triumphant; but he had inspired the Papacy with his will and mind, and the battle went on. At the end of another generation—in A. D. 1122—the question of investitures was settled by a compromise called the Concordat of Worms. "Both of the contending parties gave up something, but one much more than the other; the Church shadows, the State substance. The more important elections should be henceforth made in the presence of the Emperor, he engaging not to interfere with them, but to leave to the Chapter or other electing body the free exercise of their choice. This was in fact to give over in most instances the election to the Pope; who gradually managed to exclude the Emperor from all share in Episcopal appointments. The temporalities of the See or Abbey were still to be made over to the Bishop or Abbot elect, not, however, any longer by the delivering to him of the ring and crozier, but by a touch of the sceptre, he having done homage for them, and taken the oath of obedience. All this was in Germany to find place before consecration, being the same arrangement that seven years earlier had brought the conflict between Anselm and our Henry I. to an end."

      E. F. Henderson,
      Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages,
      book 4.

      See, also,
      GERMANY: A. D. 973-1122;
      CANOSSA;
      ROME: A. D. 1081-1084.

   "According to the primitive custom of the church, an episcopal
   vacancy was filled up by election of the clergy and people
   belonging to the city or diocese. … It is probable that, in
   almost every case, the clergy took a leading part in the
   selection of their bishops; but the consent of the laity was
   absolutely necessary to render it valid. They were, however,
   by degrees excluded from any real participation, first in the
   Greek, and finally in the western church. … It does not appear
   that the early Christian emperors interfered with the freedom
   of choice any further than to make their own confirmation
   necessary in the great patriarchal sees, such as Rome and
   Constantinople, which were frequently the objects of violent
   competition, and to decide in controverted elections. … The
   bishops of Rome, like those of inferior sees, were regularly
   elected by the citizens, laymen as well as ecclesiastics. But
   their consecration was deferred until the popular choice had
   received the sovereign's sanction. The Romans regularly
   despatched letters to Constantinople or to the exarchs of
   Ravenna, praying that their election of a pope might be
   confirmed. Exceptions, if any, are infrequent while Rome was
   subject to the eastern empire. This, among other imperial
   prerogatives, Charlemagne might consider as his own. … Otho
   the Great, in receiving the imperial crown, took upon him the
   prerogatives of Charlemagne. There is even extant a decree of
   Leo VIII., which grants to him and his successors the right of
   naming future popes. But the authenticity of this instrument
   is denied by the Italians. It does not appear that the Saxon
   emperors went to such a length as nomination, except in one
   instance (that of Gregory V. in 990); but they sometimes, not
   uniformly, confirmed the election of a pope, according to
   ancient custom. An explicit right of nomination was, however,
   conceded to the emperor Henry III. in 1047, as the only means
   of rescuing the Roman church from the disgrace and depravity
   into which it had fallen. Henry appointed two or three very
   good popes. … This high prerogative was perhaps not designed
   to extend beyond Henry himself. But even if it had been
   transmissible to his successors, the infancy of his son Henry
   IV., and the factions of that minority, precluded the
   possibility of its exercise. Nicolas II., in 1059, published a
   decree which restored the right of election to the Romans, but
   with a remarkable variation from the original form.
{2432}
   The cardinal bishops (seven in number, holding sees in the
   neighbourhood of Rome, and consequently suffragans of the pope
   as patriarch or metropolitan) were to choose the supreme
   pontiff, with the concurrence first of the cardinal priests
   and deacons (or ministers of the parish churches of Rome), and
   afterwards of the laity. Thus elected, the new pope was to be
   presented for confirmation to Henry, 'now king, and hereafter
   to become emperor,' and to such of his successors as should
   personally obtain that privilege. This decree is the
   foundation of that celebrated mode of election in a conclave
   of cardinals which has ever since determined the headship of
   the church. … The real author of this decree, and of all other
   vigorous measures adopted by the popes of that age, whether
   for the assertion of their independence or the restoration of
   discipline, was Hildebrand"—afterwards Pope Gregory VII.

      ALSO IN:
      E. F. Henderson,
      Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages,
      book 4, number 1.

"The Countess Matilda, born in 1040, was daughter of Boniface, Marquis of Tuscany, and Beatrice, sister of the Emperor Henry III. On the death of her only brother, without issue, she succeeded to all his dominions, of Tuscany, Parma, Lucca, Mantua and Reggio. Rather late in life, she married Guelpho, son of the Duke of Bavaria—no issue resulting from their union. This princess displayed great energy and administrative ability in the troubled times in which she lived, occasionally appearing at the head of her own troops. Ever a devoted daughter of the Church, she specially venerated Pope Gregory VII., to whom she afforded much material support, in the difficulties by which he was constantly beset. To this Pontiff, she made a donation of a considerable portion of her dominions, for the benefit of the Holy See, A. D. 1077, confirming the same in a deed to Pope Pascal II., in 1102, entituled 'Cartula donationis Comitissæ Mathildis facta S. Gregorio PP. VII., et innovata Paschali PP. II.'; apud Theiner 'Codex Diplomaticus,' etc., tom. 1, p. 10. As the original deed to Gregory VII. is not extant, and the deed of confirmation or renewal does not recite the territories conveyed, there is some uncertainty about their exact limits. However, it is generally thought that they comprised the district formerly known as the Patrimony of Saint Peter, lying on the right bank of the Tiber, and extending from Aquapendente to Ostia. The Countess Matilda died in 1115, aged 75."

   Victor III., A. D. 1086-1087;
   Urban II., 1088-1099;
   Pascal 11., 1099-1118;
   Gelasius 11., 1118-1119;
   Callistus II., 1119-1124;
   Honorius II., 1124-1130;
   Innocent II., 1130-1143;
   Celestine II., 1143-1144;
   Lucius II., 1144-1145;
   Eugene III., 1145-1153;
   Anastasius IV., 1153-1154.

PAPACY: A. D. 1094.
Pope Urban II. and the first Crusade.
The Council of Clermont.

PAPACY: A. D. 1122-1250.
Continued conflict with the Empire.
The Popes and the Hohenstaufen Emperors.

"The struggle about investiture ended, as was to be expected, in a compromise; but it was a compromise in which all the glory went to the Papacy. Men saw that the Papal claims had been excessive, even impossible; but the object at which they aimed, the freedom of the Church from the secularising tendencies of feudalism, was in the main obtained. … But the contest with the Empire still went on. One of the firmest supporters of Gregory VII. had been Matilda, Countess of Tuscany, over whose fervent piety Gregory had thrown the spell of his powerful mind. At her death, she bequeathed her possessions, which embraced nearly a quarter of Italy, to the Holy See [see PAPACY: A. D. 1077-1102]. Some of the lands which she had held were allodial, some were fiefs of the Empire; and the inheritance of Matilda was a fruitful source of contention to two powers already jealous of one another. The constant struggle that lasted for two centuries gave full scope for the development of the Italian towns. … The old Italian notion of establishing municipal freedom by an equilibrium of two contending powers was stamped still more deeply on Italian politics by the wars of Guelfs and Ghibellins. The union between the Papacy and the Lombard Republics was strong enough to humble the mightiest of the Emperors. Frederic Barbarossa, who held the strongest views of the Imperial prerogative, had to confess himself vanquished by Pope Alexander III. [see ITALY: A. D. 1154-1162, to 1174-1183], and the meeting of Pope and Emperor at Venice was a memorable ending to the long struggle; that the great Emperor should kiss the feet of the Pope whom he had so long refused to acknowledge, was an act which stamped itself with dramatic effect on the imagination of men, and gave rise to fables of a still more lowly submission [see VENICE: A. D. 1177]. The length of the strife, the renown of Frederic, the unswerving tenacity of purpose with which Alexander had maintained his cause, all lent lustre to this triumph of the Papacy. The consistent policy of Alexander III., even in adverse circumstances, the calm dignity with, which he asserted the Papal claims, and the wisdom with which he used his opportunities, made him a worthy successor of Gregory VII. at a great crisis in the fortunes of the Papacy. It was reserved, however, for Innocent III. to realise most fully the ideas of Hildebrand. If Hildebrand was the Julius, Innocent was the Augustus, of the Papal Empire. He had not the creative genius nor the fiery energy of his great forerunner; but his clear intellect never missed an opportunity, and his calculating spirit rarely erred from its mark. … On all sides Innocent III. enjoyed successes beyond his hopes. In the East, the crusading zeal of Europe was turned by Venice to the conquest of Constantinople [see CRUSADES: A. D. 1201-1203], and Innocent could rejoice for a brief space in the subjection of the Eastern Church. In the West, Innocent turned the crusading impulse to the interest of the Papal power, by diverting it against heretical sects which, in Northern Italy and the South of France, attacked the system of the Church [see ALBIGENSES]. … Moreover Innocent saw the beginning, though he did not perceive the full importance, of a movement which the reaction against heresy produced within the Church. The Crusades had quickened men's activity, and the heretical sects had aimed at kindling greater fervour of spiritual life. … {2433} By the side of the monastic aim of averting, by the prayers and penitence of a few, God's anger from a wicked world, there grew up a desire for self-devotion to missionary labour. Innocent III. was wise enough not to repulse this new enthusiasm, but find a place for it within the ecclesiastical system. Francis of Assisi gathered round him a body of followers who bound themselves to a literal following of the Apostles, to a life of poverty and labour, amongst the poor and outcast; Dominic of Castile formed a society which aimed at the suppression of heresy by assiduous teaching of the truth. The Franciscan and Dominican orders grew almost at once into power and importance, and their foundation marks a great reformation within the Church [see MENDICANT ORDERS]. The reformation movement of the eleventh century, under the skilful guidance of Hildebrand, laid the foundations of the Papal monarchy in the belief of Europe. The reformation of the thirteenth century found full scope for its energy under the protection of the Papal power; for the Papacy was still in sympathy with the conscience of Europe, which it could quicken and direct. These mendicant orders were directly connected with the Papacy, and were free from all episcopal control. Their zeal awakened popular enthusiasm; they rapidly increased in number and spread into every land. The Friars became the popular preachers and confessors, and threatened to supersede the old ecclesiastical order. Not only amongst the common people, but in the universities as well, did their influence become supreme. They were a vast army devoted to the service of the Pope, and overran Europe in his name. They preached Papal indulgences, they stirred up men to crusades in behalf of the Papacy, they gathered money for the Papal use. … The Emperor Frederic II., who had been brought up under Innocent's guardianship, proved the greatest enemy of the newly-won sovereignty of the Pope. King of Sicily and Naples, Frederic was resolved to assert again the Imperial pretensions of North Italy, and then win back the Papal acquisitions in the centre; if his plan had succeeded, the Pope would have lost his independence and sunk to be the instrument of the house of Hohenstaufen. Two Popes of inflexible determination and consummate political ability were the opponents of Frederic. Gregory IX. and Innocent IV. flung themselves with ardour into the struggle, and strained every nerve till the whole Papal policy was absorbed by the necessities of the strife. …

Frederic II. died [1250], but the Popes pursued with their hostility his remotest descendants, and were resolved to sweep the very remembrance of him out of Italy. To accomplish their purpose, they did not hesitate to summon the aid of the stranger. Charles of Anjou appeared as their champion, and in the Pope's name took possession of the Sicilian kingdom.

By his help the last remnants of the Hohenstaufen house were crushed, and the claims of the Empire to rule over Italy were destroyed for ever. But the Papacy got rid of an open enemy only to introduce a covert and more deadly foe. The Angevin influence became superior to that of the Papacy, and French popes were elected that they might carry out the wishes of the Sicilian king. By its resolute efforts to escape from the power of the Empire, the Papacy only paved the way for a connexion that ended in its enslavement to the influence of France."

      M. Creighton,
      History of the Papacy during the Period of the Reformation,
      volume 1, pages 18-23.

      ALSO IN:
      T. L. Kington,
      History of Frederick II. Emperor of the Romans.

   Hadrian IV., A. D. 1154-1159;
   Alexander III., 1159-1181;
   Lucius III., 1181-1185;
   Urban III., 1185-1187;
   Gregory VIII., 1187;
   Clement III., 1187-1191;
   Celestine III., 1191-1198.

PAPACY: A. D. 1162-1170.
Conflict of Church and State in England.
Becket and Henry II.

PAPACY: A. D. 1198-1216. The establishing of Papal Sovereignty in the States of the Church.

"Innocent III. may be called the founder of the States of the Church. The lands with which Pippin and Charles had invested the Popes were held subject to the suzerainty of the Frankish sovereign and owned his jurisdiction. On the downfall of the Carolingian Empire the neighbouring nobles, calling themselves Papal vassals, seized on these lands; and when they were ousted in the Pope's name by the Normans, the Pope did not gain by the change of neighbours. Innocent III. was the first Pope who claimed and exercised the rights of an Italian prince. He exacted from the Imperial Prefect in Rome the oath of allegiance to himself; he drove the Imperial vassals from the Matildan domain [see TUSCANY: A. D. 685-1115], and compelled Constance, the widowed queen of Sicily, to recognise the Papal suzerainty over her ancestral kingdom. He obtained from the Emperor Otto IV. (1201) the cession of all the lands which the Papacy claimed, and so established for the first time an undisputed title to the Papal States."

      M. Creighton,
      History of the Papacy during the Period of the Reformation,
      volume 1. page 21.

PAPACY: A. D. 1198-1294.
   The succession of Pores.
   Innocent III., A. D. 1198-1216;
   Honorius II., 1216-1227;
   Gregory IX., 1227-1241;
   Celestine IV., 1241;
   Innocent IV., 1243-1204;
   Alexander IV., 1254-1261;
   Urban IV., 1261-1264;
   Clement IV., 1265-1268;
   Gregory X., 1271-1276;
   Innocent V., 1276;
   Hadrian V., 1276;
   John XXI., 1276-1277;
   Nicholas III., 1277-1280;
   Martin IV., 1281-1285;
   Honorius IV., 1285-1287;
   Nicholas IV., 1288-1292;
   Celestine V., 1294.

PAPACY: A. D. 1198-1303.
The acme of Papal power.
The pontificates from Innocent III. to Boniface VIII.

   "The epoch when the spirit of papal usurpation was most
   strikingly displayed was the pontificate of Innocent III. In
   each of the three leading objects which Rome had pursued,
   independent sovereignty, supremacy over the Christian church,
   control over the princes of the earth, it was the fortune of
   this pontiff to conquer. He realized … that fond hope of so
   many of his predecessors, a dominion over Rome and the central
   parts of Italy. During his pontificate Constantinople was
   taken by the Latins; and however he might seem to regret a
   diversion of the crusaders, which impeded the recovery of the
   Holy Land, he exulted in the obedience of the new patriarch
   and the reunion of the Greek church. Never, perhaps, either
   before or since, was the great eastern schism in so fair a way
   of being healed; even the kings of Bulgaria and Armenia
   acknowledged the supremacy of Innocent, and permitted his
   interference with their ecclesiastical institutions.
{2434}
   The maxims of Gregory VII. were now matured by more than a
   hundred years, and the right of trampling upon the necks of
   kings had been received, at least among churchmen, as an
   inherent attribute of the papacy. 'As the sun and the moon are
   placed in the firmament' (such is the language of Innocent),
   'the greater as the light of the day, and the lesser of the
   night, thus are there two powers in the church—the pontifical,
   which, as having the charge of souls, is the greater; and the
   royal, which is the less, and to which the bodies of men only
   are intrusted.' Intoxicated with these conceptions (if we may
   apply such a word to successful ambition), he thought no
   quarrel of princes beyond the sphere of his jurisdiction.
   'Though I cannot judge of the right to a fief,' said Innocent
   to the kings of France and England, 'yet it is my province to
   judge where sin is committed, and my duty to prevent all
   public scandals.' … Though I am not aware that any pope before
   Innocent III. had thus announced himself as the general
   arbiter of differences and conservator of the peace throughout
   Christendom, yet the scheme had been already formed, and the
   public mind was in some degree prepared to admit it. … The
   noonday of papal dominion extends from the pontificate of
   Innocent III. inclusively to that of Boniface VIII.; or, in
   other words, through the 13th century. Rome inspired during
   this age all the terror of her ancient name. She was once more
   the mistress of the world, and kings were her vassals."

      M. Creighton,
      History of the Papacy during the Reformation,
      introduction, chapter 1 (volume 1).

PAPACY: A. D. 1215. The beginning, in Italy, of the Wars of the Guelfs and Ghibellines.

PAPACY: A. D. 1266. Transfer of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies to Charles of Anjou.

PAPACY: A. D. 1268. The Pragmatic Sanction of St. Louis, affirming the rights of the Gallican Church.

PAPACY: A. D. 1275. Ratification of the Donation of Charlemagne and the Capitulation of Otho IV. by Rodolph of Hapsburg.

PAPACY: A. D. 1294-1348.
   The stormy pontificate of Boniface VIII.
   His conflict with Philip IV. of France.
   The "Babylonish Captivity."
   Purchase of Avignon, which becomes the Papal Seat.

Boniface VIII., who came to the Papal throne in 1294, "was a man of so much learning that Petrarch extols him as the wonder of the world. His craft and cruelty, however, were shown in his treatment of Celestine V. [his predecessor], whom he first persuaded to resign the pontificate, five months after his election, on account of his inexperience in politics; and then, having succeeded to the chair, instead of letting the good man return to the cloister for which he panted, he kept him in confinement to the day of his death. His resentment of the opposition of the two cardinals Colonna to his election was so bitter, that not content with degrading them, he decreed the whole family—one of the most illustrious in Rome—to be for ever infamous, and incapable of ecclesiastical dignities. He pulled down their town of Præneste, and ordered the site to be sown with salt to extinguish it, like Carthage, for ever. This pontificate is famous for the institution of the Jubilee, though, according to some accounts, it was established a century before by Innocent III. By a bull dated 22nd February 1300, Boniface granted a plenary remission of sins to all who, before Christmas, in that and every subsequent hundredth year, should visit the churches of St. Peter and St. Paul daily, for 30 days if inhabitants of Rome, and for half that time if strangers. His private enemies, the Colonnas, Frederic of Sicily, who had neglected to pay his tribute, and the abettors of the Saracens, were the only persons excluded. The city was crowded with strangers, who flocked to gain the indulgence; enormous sums were offered at the holy tombs; and the solemnity became so profitable that Clement VI. reduced the period for its observance from 100 years to 50, and later popes have brought it down to 25. Boniface appeared at the jubilee with the spiritual and temporal swords carried before him, the bearers of which proclaimed the text,—'Behold, here are two swords.' … The pope had the pleasure of receiving a … respectful recognition from the barons of Scotland. Finding themselves hard pressed by the arms of Edward I., they resolved to accept a distant, in preference to a neighbouring, master; accordingly, they tendered the kingdom to the pope, pretending that, from the most ancient times, Scotland had been a fief of the holy Roman See. Boniface, eagerly embracing the offer, commanded the archbishop of Canterbury to require the king to withdraw his troops, and submit his pretensions to the apostolic tribunal. … Boniface got no other satisfaction than to be told that the laws of England did not permit the king to subject the rights of his crown to any foreign tribunal. His conflict with the king of France was still more unfortunate. Philip the Fair, like our own Edward I., thought fit to compel the clergy to contribute towards the expenses of his repeated campaigns. The pope thereupon issued a bull entitled 'Clericis laicos' (A. D. 1296), charging the laity with inveterate hostility to the clergy, and prohibiting, under pain of excommunication, any payment out of ecclesiastical revenues without his consent. The king retorted by prohibiting the export of coin or treasure from his dominions, without license from the crown. This was cutting off the pope's revenue at a blow, and so modified his anger that he allowed the clergy to grant a 'free benevolence' to the king, when in urgent need. A few years after (1301), Philip imprisoned a bishop on charge of sedition, when Boniface thundered out his bulls 'Salvator mundi,' and 'Ausculta fili,' the first of which suspended all privileges accorded by the Holy See to the French king and people, and the second, asserting the papal power in the now familiar text from Jeremiah [Jeremiah i. 10], summoned the superior clergy to Rome. Philip burned the bull, and prohibited the clergy from obeying the summons. {2435} The peers and people of France stood by the crown, treating the exhortations of the clergy with defiance. The pope, incensed at this resistance, published the Decretal called 'Unam sanctam,' which affirms the unity of the Church, without which there is no salvation, and hence the unity of its head in the successor of St. Peter. Under the pope are two swords, the spiritual and the material—the one to be used by the church, the other for the church. … The temporal sword is … subject to the spiritual, and the spiritual to God only. The conclusion is, 'that it is absolutely essential to the salvation of every human being that he be subject unto the Roman pontiff.' The king, who showed great moderation, appealed to a general council, and forbad his subjects to obey any orders of Boniface till it should be assembled. The pope resorted to the usual weapons. He drew up a bull for the excommunication of the king; offered France to Albert of Austria, king of the Romans, and wrote to the king of England to incite him to prosecute his war. Meantime, Philip having sent William de Nogaret on an embassy to the pope, this daring envoy conceived the design of making him prisoner. Entering Anagni [the pope's native town and frequent residence, 40 miles from Rome] at the head of a small force, privately raised in the neighbourhood, the conspirators, aided by some of the papal household, gained possession of the palace and burst into the pope's presence. Boniface, deeming himself a dead man, had put on his pontifical robes and crown, but these had little effect on the irreverent intruders. De Nogaret was one of the Albigenses; his companion, a Colonna, was so inflamed at the sight of his persecutor that he struck him on the face with his mailed hand, and would have killed him but for the intervention of the other. The captors unaccountably delaying to carry off their prize, the people of the place rose and rescued the Holy Father. He hastened back to Rome, but died of the shock a month after, leaving a dangerous feud between the Church and her eldest son."

"Boniface has been consigned to infamy by contemporary poets and historians, for the exhibition of some of the most revolting features of the human character. Many of the charges, such as that he did not believe in eternal life; that he was guilty of monstrous heresy; that he was a wizard; and that he asserted that it is no sin to indulge in the most criminal pleasures—are certainly untrue. They are due chiefly to his cruelty to Celestine and the Celestinians, and his severity to the Colonnas, which led the two latter to go everywhere blackening his character. They have been exaggerated by Dante; and they may be ascribed generally to his pride and violence, and to the obstinate determination, formed by a man who 'was born an age too late,' to advance claims then generally becoming unpopular, far surpassing in arrogance those maintained by the most arbitrary of his predecessors. … This victory of Philip over Boniface was, in fact, the commencement of a wide-spread reaction on the part of the laity against ecclesiastical predominance. The Papacy had first shown its power by a great dramatic act, and its decline was shown in the same manner. The drama of Anagni is to be set against the drama of Canossa."

"The next pope, Benedict XI., endeavoured to heal the breach by annulling the decrees of Boniface against the French king, and reinstating the Colonnas; but he was cut off by death in ten months from his election [1304], and it was generally suspected that his removal was effected by poison. … On the death of Benedict, many of the cardinals were for closing the breach with France by electing a French pope; the others insisted that an Italian was essential to the independence of the Holy See. The difference was compromised by the election of the archbishop of Bordeaux, a Frenchman by birth, but owing his preferments to Boniface, and an active supporter of his quarrel against Philip. The archbishop, however, had secretly come to terms with the king, and his first act, as Clement V., was to summon the cardinals to attend him at Lyons, where he resolved to celebrate his coronation. The Sacred College crossed the Alps with undissembled repugnance, and two-and-seventy years elapsed before the Papal court returned to Rome. This period of humiliation and corruption the Italian writers not inaptly stigmatise as the 'Babylonish captivity.' Clement began his pontificate by honourably fulfilling his engagements with the French. He absolved the king and his subjects. … If it be true that the king claimed … the condemnation of Boniface as a heretic, Clement had the manliness to refuse. He ventured to inflict a further disappointment by supporting the claim of Henry of Luxembourg to the empire in preference to the French king's brother. To escape the further importunities of his too powerful ally, the pope removed into the dominions of his own vicar, the king of Naples (A. D. 1309). The place selected was Avignon, belonging to Charles the Lame as count of Provence. … In the 9th century, it [Avignon] passed to the kings of Aries, or Burgundy, but afterwards became a free republic, governed by its own consuls, under the suzerainty of the count of Provence. … The Neapolitan dynasty, though of French origin, was independent of the French crown, when the pope took up his residence at Avignon. Charles the Lame was soon after succeeded by his third son Robert, who, dying in 1343, left his crown to his granddaughter Joanna, the young and beautiful wife of Andrew, prince of Hungary. … In one of her frequent exiles Clement took advantage of her necessities to purchase her rights in Avignon for 80,000 gold florins, but this inadequate price was never paid. The pope placed it to the account of the tribute due to himself from the Neapolitan crown, and having procured a renunciation of the paramount suzerainty of the emperor, he took possession of the city and territory as absolute sovereign (A. D. 1348)."

   The following is the succession of the Popes during the
   Avignon period:
   Boniface VIII., A. D. 1294-1303;
   Benedict XI., 1303-1304;
   Clement V., 1305-1314;
   John XXII., 1316-1334;
   Benedict XII., 1334-1342;
   Clement VI., 1342-1352;
   Innocent VI., 1352-1362;
   Urban V., 1362-1370;
   Gregory XI., 1371-1378.

"The Avignon Popes, without exception, were all more or less dependent upon France. Frenchmen themselves, and surrounded by a College of Cardinals in which the French element predominated, they gave a French character to the government of the Church. This character was at variance with the principle of universality inherent in it and in the Papacy. … The migration to France, the creation of a preponderance of French Cardinals, and the consequent election of seven French Popes in succession, necessarily compromised the position of the Papacy in the eyes of the world, creating a suspicion that the highest spiritual power had become the tool of France. This suspicion, though in many cases unfounded, weakened the general confidence in the Head of the Church, and awakened in the other nations a feeling of antagonism to the ecclesiastical authority which had become French. The bonds which united the States of the Church to the Apostolic See were gradually loosened. … The dark points of the Avignon period have certainly been greatly exaggerated. The assertion that the Government of the Avignon Popes was wholly ruled by the 'will and pleasure of the Kings of France,' is, in this general sense, unjust. The Popes of those days were not all so weak as Clement V., who submitted the draft of the Bull, by which he called on the Princes of Europe to imprison the Templars, to the French King. Moreover, even this Pope, the least independent of the 14th century Pontiffs, for many years offered a passive resistance to the wishes of France, and a writer [Wenck], who has thoroughly studied the period, emphatically asserts that only for a few years of the Pontificate of Clement V. was the idea so long associated with the 'Babylonian Captivity' of the Popes fully realized. The extension of this epithet to the whole of the Avignon sojourn is an unfair exaggeration."

      L. Pastor,
      History of the Popes from the Close of the Middle Ages,
      volume 1, pages 58-60.

PAPACY: A. D. 1314-1347.
Pretension to settle the disputed election of Emperor.
The long conflict with Louis of Bavaria in Germany and Italy.

PAPACY: A. D. 1352-1378.
   Subjugation of the States of the Church
   and the return from Avignon to Rome.
   Revolt and war in the Papal States, supported by Florence.

"Under the pontificate of Innocent VI. the advantages reaped by the Papal See from its sojourn at Avignon seemed to have come to an end. The disturbed condition of France no longer offered them security and repose. … Moreover, the state of affairs in Italy called loudly for the Pope's intervention. … The desperate condition of the States of the Church, which had fallen into the hands of small princes, called for energetic measures, unless the Popes were prepared to see them entirely lost to their authority. Innocent VI. sent into Italy a Spanish Cardinal, Gil Albornoz, who had already shown his military skill in fighting against the Moors. The fiery energy of Albornoz was crowned with success, and the smaller nobles were subdued in a series of hard fought battles. In 1367 Urban V. saw the States of the Church once more reduced into obedience to the Pope." Several motives, accordingly, combined "to urge Urban V., in 1367, to return to Rome amid the cries of his agonised Cardinals, who shuddered to leave the luxury of Avignon for a land which they held to be barbarous. A brief stay in Rome was sufficient to convince Urban V. that the fears of his Cardinals were not unfounded. … After a visit of three years Urban returned to Avignon; his death, which happened three months after his return, was regarded by many as a judgment of God upon his desertion of Rome. Urban V. had returned to Rome because the States of the Church were reduced to obedience; his successor, Gregory XI., was driven to return through dread of losing entirely all hold upon Italy. The French Popes awakened a strong feeling of natural antipathy among their Italian subjects, and their policy was not associated with any of the elements of state life existing in Italy. Their desire to bring the States of the Church immediately under their power involved the destruction of the small dynasties of princes, and the suppression of the democratic liberties of the people. Albornoz had been wise enough to leave the popular governments untouched, and to content himself with bringing the towns under the Papal obedience. But Urban V. and Gregory XI. set up French governors, whose rule was galling and oppressive; and a revolt against them was organised by Florence [1376], who, true to her old traditions, unfurled a banner inscribed only with the word 'Liberty.' The movement spread through all the towns in the Papal States, and in a few months the conquests of Albornoz had been lost. The temporal dominion of the Papacy might have been swept away if Florence could have brought about the Italian league which she desired. But Rome hung back from the alliance, and listened to Gregory XI., who promised to return if Rome would remain faithful. The Papal excommunication handed over the Florentines to be the slaves of their captors in every land, and the Kings of England and France did not scruple to use the opportunity offered to their cupidity. Gregory XI. felt that only the Pope's presence could save Rome for the Papacy. In spite of evil omens—for his horse refused to let him mount when he set out on his journey—Gregory XI. left Avignon; in spite of the entreaties of the Florentines Rome again joyfully welcomed the entry of its Pope in 1377. But the Pope found his position in Italy to be surrounded with difficulties. His troops met with some small successes, but he was practically powerless, and aimed only at settling terms of peace with the Florentines. A congress was called for this purpose, and Gregory XI. was anxiously awaiting its termination that he might return to Avignon, when death seized him, and his last hours were embittered by the thoughts of the crisis that was now inevitable."

      M. Creighton,
      History of the Papacy during the Period of the Reformation,
      introduction, chapter 2 (volume 1).

      ALSO IN:
      H. E. Napier,
      Florentine History,
      book 1, chapter 26 (volume 2).

PAPACY: A. D. 1369-1378.
Dealings with the Free Company of Sir John Hawkwood.
Wars with Milan, Florence and other states.

PAPACY: A. D. 1377-1417.
   Election of Urban VI. and Clement VII.
   The Great Western Schism.
   Battle in Rome and siege and partial
   destruction of Castle St. Angelo.
   The Council of Pisa.
   Forty years of Popes and Anti-Popes.

"For 23 years after Rienzi's death, the seat of the Papal Court remained at Avignon; and during this period Rome and the States of the Church were harried to death by contending factions. … At last Gregory XI. returned, in January, 1377. The keys of the Castle St. Angelo were sent to him at Corneto; the papal Court was re-established in Rome; but he survived only about a year, and died in March, 1378. Then came the election of a new Pope, which was held in the Castle St. Angelo. While the conclave was sitting, a crowd gathered round the place, crying out, 'Romano lo volemo'—we will have a Roman for Pope. Yet, notwithstanding this clamour, Cardinal Prignani, Archbishop of Bari, and a Neapolitan by birth, was finally chosen, under the title of Urban VI.—[this being an intended compromise between the Italian party and the French party in the college of Cardinals]. When Cardinal Orsini presented himself at the window to announce that a new Pope had been elected, the mob below cried out, 'His name, his name!' 'Go to St. Peter's and you will learn,' answered the Cardinal. The people, misunderstanding his answer, supposed him to announce the election of Cardinal Tebaldeschi, who was arch-priest of St. Peter's, and a Roman by birth. This news was received with great joy and acclamation," which turned to rage when the fact was known. Then "the people … broke in to still fiercer cries, rushed to arms, and gathering round the conclave, threatened them with death unless a Roman was elected. But the conclave was strong in its position, and finally the people were pacified, and accepted Urban VI. Such, however, was the fear of the Cardinals, that they were with difficulty persuaded to proceed to the Vatican and perform the ceremonies necessary for the installation of the new Pope. This, however, finally was done, and the Castle was placed in the charge of Pietro Guntellino, a Frenchman, and garrisoned by a Gallic guard, the French Cardinals remaining also within its walls for safety. On the 20th of September they withdrew to Fondi, and in conjunction with other schismatics they afterwards [September 20, 1378] elected an anti-Pope [Robert of Geneva] under the title of Clement VII. Guntellino, who took part with them, on being summoned by Urban to surrender the Castle, refused to do so without the order of his compatriots, the French Cardinals at Avignon. Meantime the papal and anti-papal party assaulted each other, first with citations, censures, and angry words, and then with armed force. The anti-papal party, having with them the Breton and Gascon soldiery, and the Savoyards of the Count of Mountjoy, the anti-Pope's nephew, marched upon the city, overcame the undisciplined party of the Pope, reinforced the Castle St. Angelo, and fortified themselves in the Vatican, ravaging the Campagna on their way. The papal party now besieged the Castle, attacking it with machines and artillery, but for a year's space it held out. Finally, on the 28th of April, 1379, the anti-papal party were utterly routed by Alberico, Count of Palliano and Galeazzo, at the head of the papal, Italian, and imperial forces. Terrible was the bloodshed of this great battle, at which, according to Baronius, 5,000 of the anti-papal army fell. But the Castle still refused to surrender," until famine forced a capitulation. "The damage done to it during this siege must have been very great. In some parts it had been utterly demolished, and of all its marbles not a trace now remained. … After the surrender of the Castle to Urban, such was the rage of the people against it for the injury it had caused them during the siege, that they passed a public decree ordering it to be utterly destroyed and razed to the earth. … In consequence of this decree, an attempt was made to demolish it. It was stripped of everything by which it was adorned, and its outer casing was torn off; but the solid interior of peperino defied all their efforts, and the attempt was given up."

   "Urban was a learned, pious, and austere man; but, in his zeal
   for the reformation of manners, the correction of abuses, and
   the retrenchment of extravagant expenditure, he appears to
   have been wanting in discretion; for immediately after his
   election he began to act with harshness to the members of the
   Sacred College, and he also offended several of the secular
   princes. Towards the end of June, 12 of the cardinals—11
   Frenchmen and one Spaniard—obtained permission to leave Rome,
   owing to the summer heats, and withdrew to Anagni. Here, in a
   written instrument, dated 9th August, 1378, they protested
   against the election, as not having been free, and they called
   on Urban to resign. A few days later, they removed to Fondi,
   in the kingdom of Naples, where they were joined by three of
   the Italians whom they had gained over to their views; and, on
   the 19th of September, the 15 elected an antipope, the French
   Cardinal Robert of Cevennes [more frequently called Robert of
   Geneva], who took the name of Clement VII. and reigned at
   Avignon 16 years, dying September 16, 1394. Thus there were
   two claimants of the Papal throne—Urban holding his court at
   Rome, and Clement residing with his followers at Avignon. The
   latter was strong in the support of the sovereigns of France,
   Scotland, Naples, Aragon, Castile, and Savoy; while the
   remainder of Christendom adhered to Urban. Clement was
   succeeded by Peter de Luna, the Cardinal of Aragon, who, on
   his election, assumed the name of Benedict XIII., and reigned
   at Avignon 23 years—A. D. 1394-1417. This lamentable state of
   affairs lasted altogether 40 years. Urban's successors at
   Rome, duly elected by the Italian cardinals and those of other
   nations acting with them, were:
   Boniface IX., a Neapolitan, A. D. 1389-1404;
   Innocent VII., a native of Sulmona, A. D. 1404-1406;
   Gregory XII., a Venetian, A. D. 1406-1409;
   Alexander V., a native of Candia,
   who reigned ten months, A. D. 1409-1410;
   and John XXIII., a Neapolitan, A. D. 1410-1417.
   …
   Although the Popes above enumerated, as having reigned at
   Rome, are now regarded as the legitimate pontiffs, and, as
   such, are inscribed in the Catalogues of Popes, while Clement
   and Benedict are classed as anti-popes, there prevailed at the
   time much uncertainty on the subject. … In February, 1395,
   Charles VI. of France convoked an assembly of the clergy of
   his dominions, under the presidency of Simon Cramandus,
   Patriarch of Alexandria, in order, if possible, to terminate
   the schism. The assembly advised that the rival Pontiffs,
   Boniface IX. and Benedict XIII., should abdicate.
{2438}
   The same view was taken by most of the universities of
   Europe," but the persons chiefly concerned would not accept
   it. Nor was it found possible in 1408 to bring about a
   conference of the two popes. The cardinals, then, of both
   parties, withdrew support from the factious pontiffs and held
   a general meeting at Leghorn. There they agreed that Gregory
   XII. and Benedict XIII. had equally lost all claim to
   obedience, and they resolved to convoke, on their own
   authority "a General Council, to meet at Pisa, on the 25th of
   March, 1409. Gregory and Benedict were duly informed thereof,
   and were requested to attend the council. … The Council of
   Pisa sat from March 25th to August 7th, 1409. There were
   present 24 cardinals of both 'obediences,' 4 patriarchs, 12
   archbishops, 80 bishops, 87 abbots; the procurators of 102
   absent archbishops and bishops, and of 200 absent abbots; the
   generals of 4 mendicant orders; the deputies of 13
   Universities …; the representatives of over 100 cathedral and
   collegiate chapters, 282 doctors and licentiates of canon and
   civil law; and the ambassadors of the Kings of England,
   France, Poland, Bohemia, Portugal, Sicily, and Cyprus." Both
   claimants of the Papacy were declared unworthy to preside over
   the Church, and forbidden to act as Pope. In June, the
   conclave of cardinals assembled and elected a third Pope—one
   Peter Filargo, a Friar Minor, who took the name of Alexander
   V., but who died ten months afterwards. The cardinals then
   elected as his successor Cardinal Cossa, "a politic worldly
   man, who assumed the name of John XXIII." But, meantime,
   Germany, Naples and some of the other Italian States still
   adhered to Gregory, and Benedict kept the support of Scotland,
   Spain and Portugal. The Church was as much divided as ever.
   "The Council of Pisa … only aggravated the evil which it
   laboured to cure. Instead of two, there were now three
   claimants of the Papal Chair. It was reserved for the General
   Council of Constance to restore union and peace to the
   Church."

"The amount of evil wrought by the schism of 1378, the longest known in the history of the Papacy, can only be estimated, when we reflect that it occurred at a moment, when thorough reform in ecclesiastical affairs was a most urgent need. This was now utterly out of the question, and, indeed, all evils which had crept into ecclesiastical life were infinitely increased. Respect for the Holy See was also greatly impaired, and the Popes became more than ever dependent on the temporal power, for the schism allowed each Prince to choose which Pope he would acknowledge. In the eyes of the people, the simple fact of a double Papacy must have shaken the authority of the Holy See to its very foundations. It may truly be said that these fifty years of schism prepared the way for the great Apostacy of the 16th century."

      L. Pastor,
      History of the Popes from the Close of the Middle Ages,
      volume 1, page 141.

      ALSO IN:
      A. Neander,
      General History of the Christian Religion and Church,
      volume 9, section 1.

      H. H. Milman,
      History of Latin Christianity,
      book 13, chapters 1-5 (volume 6).

      J. Alzog,
      Manual of Universal Church History,
      sections 269-270 (volume 3).

J. C. Robertson, History of the Christian Church, book 8, chapter 5 (volume 7).

   Urban VI., A. D. 1378-1389 (Rome);
   Clement VII., 1378-1394 (Avignon);
   Boniface IX., 1389-1404 (Rome);
   Benedict XIII., 1394-1423 (Avignon);
   Innocent VII., 1404-1406 (Rome);
   Gregory XII., 1406-1415 (Rome);
   Alexander V., 1409-1410 (elected by the Council of Pisa);
   John XXIII., 1410-1415.

PAPACY: A. D. 1386-1414.
Struggle of the Italian Popes against Ladislas of Naples.

PAPACY: A. D. 1414-1418.
   The Council of Constance.
   Election of Martin V.
   Ending of the Great Schism and failure of Church Reform.

"In April, A. D. 1412, the Pope [John XXIII.], to preserve appearances, opened at Rome the council which had been agreed upon at Pisa for the reformation of the Church in her Head and members. Quite a small number of bishops put in an appearance, who, after having condemned the antipopes, and some heretical propositions of Wycliffe and John Huss, hastily adjourned. John, who does not seem to have had any very earnest wish to correct his own life, and who, consequently, could not be expected to be over solicitous about the correction of those of others, was carefully provident to prevent the bishops coming to Rome in excessive numbers. He had come to a secret understanding with Ladislaus, his former enemy, that the latter should have all the roads well guarded. Ladislaus soon turned against the Pope, and forced him to quit Rome, and seek refuge, first at Florence, and next at Bologna (A. D. 1413). From this city John opened communications with the princes of Europe with the purpose of fixing a place for holding the council. … The Emperor Sigismund appointed the city of Constance, where the council did, in fact, convene, November 1, A. D. 1414. … The abuses which prevailed generally throughout the Church, and which were considerably increased by the existence of three rival Popes, and by the various theories on Church government called forth by the controversy, greatly perplexed men's minds, and created much anxiety as to the direction affairs might eventually take. This unsettled state of feeling accounts for the unusually large number of ecclesiastics who attended the council. There were 18,000 ecclesiastics of all ranks, of whom, when the number was largest, 3 were patriarchs, 24 cardinals, 33 archbishops, close upon 150 bishops, 124 abbots, 50 provosts, and 300 doctors in the various degrees. Many princes attended in person. There were constantly 100,000 strangers in the city, and, on one occasion, as many as 150,000, among whom were many of a disreputable character. Feeling ran so high that, as might have been anticipated, every measure was extreme. Owing to the peculiar composition of the Council, at which only a limited number of bishops were present, and these chiefly in the interest of John XXIII., it was determined to decide all questions, not by a majority of episcopal suffrages, but by that of the representatives of the various nations, including doctors. The work about to engage the Council was of a threefold character, viz., 1. To terminate the papal schism; 2. To condemn errors against faith, and particularly those of Huss; and 3. To enact reformatory decrees.

   … It was with some difficulty that John could be induced to
   attend at Constance, and when he did finally consent, it was
   only because he was forced to take the step by the
   representations of others. …
{2439}
   Regarding the Council as a continuation of that of Pisa, he
   naturally thought that he would be recognized as the
   legitimate successor of the Pope chosen by the latter. … All
   questions were first discussed by the various nations, each
   member of which had the right to vote. Their decision was next
   brought before a general conference of nations, and this
   result again before the next session of the Council. This plan
   of organisation destroyed the hopes of John XXIII., who relied
   for success on the preponderance of Italian prelates and
   doctors. … To intimidate John, and subdue his resistance, a
   memorial, written probably by an Italian, was put in
   circulation, containing charges the most damaging to that
   pontiff's private character. … So timely and effective was
   this blow that John was thenceforth utterly destitute of the
   energy and consideration necessary to support his authority,
   or direct the affairs of the Council." In consequence, he sent
   a declaration to the Council that, in order to give peace to
   the Church, he would abdicate, provided his two rivals in the
   Papacy, Gregory XII. and Benedict XIII., would also resign.
   Later, in March, 1415, he repeated this promise under oath.
   The Emperor, Sigismund, was about to set out to Nizza to
   induce the other claimants to resign, when John's conduct gave
   rise to a suspicion that he did not intend to act in good
   faith. He was charged with an intention to escape from the
   Council, with the assistance of Frederic, Duke of Austria. He
   now gave his promise under oath not to depart from the city
   before the Council had dissolved. "But, notwithstanding these
   protestations, John escaped (March 21, 1415), disguised as a
   groom, during a great tournament arranged by the duke, and
   made his way to Schaffhausen, belonging to the latter, thence
   to Laufenburg and Freiburg, thence again to the fortress of
   Brisac, whence he had intended to pass to Burgundy, and on to
   Avignon. That the Council went on with its work after the
   departure of John, and amid the general perplexity and
   confusion, was entirely due to the resolution of the emperor,
   the eloquence of Gerson [of the University of Paris], and the
   indefatigable efforts of the venerable master, now cardinal,
   d'Ailly. The following memorable decrees were passed …: 'A
   Pope can neither transfer nor dissolve a general Council
   without the consent of the latter, and hence the present
   Council may validly continue its work even after the flight of
   the Pope. All persons, without distinction of rank, even the
   Pope himself, are bound by its decisions, in so far as these
   relate to matters of faith, to the closing of the present
   schism, and to the reformation of the Church of God in her
   Head and members. All Christians, not excepting the Pope, are
   under obligation to obey the Council.' … Pope John, after
   getting away safe to Schaffhausen, complained formally of the
   action of the Council towards himself, summoned all the
   cardinals to appear personally before him within six days, and
   sent memorials to the King of France [and others], …
   justifying his flight. Still the Council went on with its
   work; disposed, after a fashion, of the papal difficulty, and
   of the cases of Buss and Jerome of Prague [whom it condemned
   and delivered to the civil authorities, to be burned. …

In the meantime, Frederic, Margrave of Brandenburg, acting under the joint order of Council and Emperor, arrested the fugitive Pope at Freiburg, and led him a prisoner to Radolfzell, near Constance, where 54 (originally 72) charges —some of them of a most disgraceful character—extracted from the testimony of a host of witnesses, were laid before him by a committee of the Council." He attempted no defense, and on May 29, 1415, John XXIII. was formally and solemnly deposed and was kept in confinement for the next three years. In July, Gregory XII. was persuaded to resign his papal claims and to accept the dignity of Cardinal Legate of Ancona. Benedict XIII., more obstinate, refused to give up his pretensions, though abandoned even by the Spaniards, and was deposed, on the 26th of July, 1417. "The three claimants to the papacy having been thus disposed of, it now remained to elect a legitimate successor to St. Peter. Previously to proceeding to an election, a decree was passed providing that, in this particular instance, but in no other, six deputies of each nation should be associated with the cardinals in making the choice." It fell upon Otho Colonna, "a cardinal distinguished for his great learning, his purity of life, and gentleness of disposition." In November, 1417, he was anointed and crowned under the name of Martin V. The Council was formally closed on the 16th of May following, without having accomplished the work of Church reformation which had been part of its intended mission. "Sigismund and the German nation, and for a time the English also, insisted that the question of the reformation of the Church, the chief points of which had been sketched in a schema of 18 articles, should be taken up and disposed of before proceeding to the election of a Pope." But in this they were baffled. "Martin, the newly elected Pope, did not fully carry out all the proposed reforms. It is true, he appointed a committee composed of six cardinals and deputies from each nation, and gave the work into their hands; but their councils were so conflicting that they could neither come to a definite agreement among themselves, nor would they consent to adopt the plan of reform submitted by the Pope."

   The election of Martin V. might have been a source of
   unalloyed happiness to Christendom, if he had at once taken
   the crucial question of Church Reform vigorously in hand; but
   the Regulations of the Chancery issued soon after his
   accession showed that little was to be expected from him in
   this respect. They perpetuated most of the practices in the
   Roman Court which the Synod had designated as abuses. Neither
   the isolated measures afterwards substituted for the universal
   reform so urgently required, nor the Concordats made with
   Germany, the three Latin nations, and England, sufficed to
   meet the exigencies of the case, although they produced a
   certain amount of good. The Pope was indeed placed in a most
   difficult position, in the face of the various and opposite
   demands made upon him, and the tenacious resistance offered by
   interests now long established to any attempt to bring things
   back to their former state. The situation was complicated to
   such a degree that any change might have brought about a
   revolution.
{2440}
   It must also be borne in mind that all the proposed reforms
   involved a diminution of the Papal revenues; the regular
   income of the Pope was small and the expenditure was very
   great. For centuries, complaints of Papal exactions had been
   made, but no one had thought of securing to the Popes the
   regular income they required. … The delay of the reform, which
   was dreaded by both clergy and laity, may be explained, though
   not justified, by the circumstances we have described. It was
   an unspeakable calamity that ecclesiastical affairs still
   retained the worldly aspect caused by the Schism, and that the
   much needed amendment was again deferred."

      L. Pastor,
      History of the Popes, from the Close of the Middle Ages,
      volume 1, pages 209-210.

ALSO IN: H. H. Milman, History of Latin Christianity, book 13, chapters 8-10 (volume 6).

J. C. Robertson, History of the Christian Church, book 8, chapter 8 (volume 7).

PAPACY: A. D. 1431-1448.
The Council of Basle.
Triumph of the Pope and defeat, once more, of Church Reform.

"The Papacy had come forth so little scathed from the perils with which at one time these assemblies menaced it, that a Council was no longer that word of terror which a little before it had been. There was more than one motive for summoning another, if indeed any help was to be found in them. Bohemia, wrapt in the flames of the Hussite War, was scorching her neighbours with fiercer fires than those by which she herself was consumed. The healing of the Greek Schism was not yet confessed to be hopeless, and the time seemed to offer its favourable opportunities. No one could affirm that the restoration of sound discipline, the reformation of the Church in head and in members, had as yet more than begun. And thus, in compliance with the rule laid down at the Council of Constance,—for even at Rome they did not dare as yet openly to set at nought its authority,—Pope Eugenius IV. called a third Council together [1431], that namely of Basle. … Of those who sincerely mourned over the Church's ills, the most part, after the unhappy experience of the two preceding Councils, had so completely lost all faith in these assemblies that slight regard was at first yielded to the summons; and this Council seemed likely to expire in its cradle as so many had done before, as not a few should do after. The number of Bishops and high Church dignitaries who attended it was never great. A democratic element made itself felt throughout all its deliberations; a certain readiness to resort to measures of a revolutionary violence, such as leaves it impossible to say that it had not itself to blame for much of its ill-success. At the first indeed it displayed unlooked-for capacities for work, entering into important negotiations with the Hussites for their return to the bosom of the Church; till the Pope, alarmed at these tokens of independent activity, did not conceal his ill-will, making all means in his power to dissolve the Council. This, meanwhile, growing in strength and in self-confidence, re-affirmed all of strongest which had been affirmed already at Pisa and Constance, concerning the superiority of Councils over Popes; declared of itself that, as a lawfully assembled Council, it could neither be dissolved, nor the place of its meeting changed, unless by its own consent; and, having summoned Eugenius and his Cardinals to take their share in its labours, began the work of reformation in earnest. Eugenius yielded for the time; recalled the Bull which had hardly stopped short of anathematizing the Council; and sent his legates to Basle. Before long, however, he and the Council were again at strife; Eugenius complaining, apparently with some reason, that in these reforms one source after another of the income which had hitherto sustained the Papal Court was being dried up, while no other provision was made for the maintenance of its due dignity, or even for the defraying of its necessary expenses. As the quarrel deepened the Pope removed the seat of the Council to Ferrara (September 18, 1437), on the plea that negotiations with the envoys of the Greek Church would be more conveniently conducted in an Italian city; and afterwards to Florence. The Council refused to stir, first suspending (January 24, 1438), then deposing the Pope (July 7, 1439), and electing another, Felix V., in his stead; this Felix being a retired Duke of Savoy, who for some time past had been playing the hermit in a villa on the shores of the lake of Geneva.

The Council in this extreme step failed to carry public opinion with it. It was not merely that Eugenius denounced his competitor by the worst names he could think of, declaring him a hypocrite, a wolf in sheep's clothing, a Moloch, a Cerberus, a Golden Calf, a second Mahomet, an anti-christ; but the Church in general shrank back in alarm at the prospect of another Schism, to last, it might be, for well-nigh another half century. And thus the Council lost ground daily; its members fell away; its confidence in itself departed; and, though it took long in dying, it did in the end die a death of inanition (June 23, 1448). Again the Pope remained master of the situation, the last reforming Council,—for it was the last,—having failed in all which it undertook as completely and as ingloriously as had done the two which went before."

   "In the year 1438 the Emperor John and the Greek Patriarch
   made their appearance at the council of Ferrara. In the
   following year the council was transferred to Florence, where,
   after long discussions, the Greek emperor, and all the members
   of the clergy who had attended the council, with the exception
   of the Bishop of Ephesus, adopted the doctrine of the Roman
   church concerning the possession of the Holy Ghost, the
   addition to the Nicene Creed, the nature of purgatory, the
   condition of the soul after its separation from the body until
   the day of judgment, the use of unleavened bread in the
   sacrament of the Lord's Supper, and the papal supremacy. The
   union of the two churches was solemnly ratified in the
   magnificent cathedral of Florence on the 6th of July 1439,
   when the Greeks abjured their ancient faith in a vaster
   edifice and under a loftier dome than that of their own
   much-vaunted temple of St. Sophia. The Emperor John derived
   none of the advantages he had expected from the simulated
   union of the churches. Pope Eugenius, it is true, supplied him
   liberally with money, and bore all the expenses both of the
   Greek court and clergy during their absence from
   Constantinople; he also presented the emperor with two
   galleys, and furnished him with a guard of 300 men, well
   equipped, and paid at the cost of the papal treasury; but his
   Holiness forgot his promise to send a fleet to defend
   Constantinople, and none of the Christian princes showed any
   disposition to fight the battles of the Greeks, though they
   took up the cross against the Turks.
{2441}
   On his return John found his subjects indignant at the manner
   in which the honour and doctrines of the Greek church had been
   sacrificed in an unsuccessful diplomatic speculation. The
   bishops who had obsequiously signed the articles of union at
   Florence, now sought popularity by deserting the emperor, and
   making a parade of their repentance, lamenting their
   wickedness in falling off for a time from the pure doctrine of
   the orthodox church. The only permanent result of this
   abortive attempt at Christian union was to increase the
   bigotry of the orthodox, and to furnish the Latins with just
   grounds for condemning the perfidious dealings and bad faith
   of the Greeks. In both ways it assisted the progress of the
   Othoman power. The Emperor John, seeing public affairs in this
   hopeless state, became indifferent to the future fate of the
   empire, and thought only of keeping on good terms with the
   sultan."

G. Finlay, History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires, book 4, chapter 2, section 6 (volume 2).

Pope "Eugenius died, February 23, 1447; … but his successors were able to secure the fruits of the victory [over the Council of Basel] for a long course of years. The victory was won at a heavy cost, both for the Popes and for Christendom; for the Papacy recovered its ascendancy far more as a political than as a religious power. The Pope became more than ever immersed in the international concerns of Europe, and his policy was a tortuous course of craft and intrigue, which in those days passed for the new art of diplomacy. … To revert to a basis of spiritual domination lay beyond the vision of the energetic princes, the refined dilettanti, the dexterous diplomatists, who sat upon the chair of St. Peter during the age succeeding the Council of Basle. Of signs of uneasiness abroad they could not be quite ignorant; but they sought to divert men's minds from the contemplation of so perplexing a problem as Church reform, by creating or fostering new atmospheres of excitement and interest; … or at best (if we may adopt the language of their apologists) they took advantage of the literary and artistic movement then active in Italy as a means to establish a higher standard of civilisation which might render organic reform needless."

      ALSO IN:
      J. E. Darras,
      General History of the Catholic Church, 6th period,
      chapter 4 (volume 3).

PAPACY: A. D. 1447-1455.
   The pontificate of Nicolas V.
   Recovery of character and influence.
   Beginning of the Renaissance.

PAPACY: A. D. 1458.
Election of Pius II., known previously as the learned
Cardinal Æneas Sylvius Piccolomini, historian and diplomatist.

PAPACY: A. D. 1471-1513.
   The darkest age of Papal crime and vice.
   Sixtus IV. and the Borgias.
   The warrior Pontiff, Julius II.

"The impunity with which the Popes escaped the councils held in the early part of the 15th century was well fitted to inspire them with a reckless contempt for public opinion; and from that period down to the Reformation, it would be difficult to parallel among temporal princes the ambitious, wicked, and profligate lives of many of the Roman Pontiffs. Among these, Francesco della Rovere, who succeeded Paul II. with the title of Sixtus IV., was not the least notorious. Born at Savona, of an obscure family, Sixtus raised his nephews, and his sons who passed for nephews, to the highest dignities in Church and State, and sacrificed for their aggrandisement the peace of Italy and the cause of Christendom against the Turks. Of his two nephews, Julian, and Leonard della Rovere, the former, afterwards Pope Julius II., was raised to the purple in the second year of his uncle's pontificate." It was this pope—Sixtus IV.—who had a part in the infamous "Conspiracy of the Pazzi" to assassinate Lorenzo de' Medici and his brother.

"This successor of St. Peter took a pleasure in beholding the mortal duels of his guards, for which he himself sometimes gave the signal. He was succeeded [1484] by Cardinal Gian Batista Cibò, a Genoese, who assumed the title of Innocent VIII. Innocent was a weak man, without any decided principle. He had seven children, whom he formally acknowledged, but he did not seek to advance them so shamelessly as Sixtus had advanced his 'nephews.' … Pope Innocent VIII. [who died July 25, 1492] was succeeded by the atrocious Cardinal Roderigo Borgia, a Spaniard of Valencia, where he had at one time exercised the profession of an advocate. After his election he assumed the name of Alexander VI. Of 20 cardinals who entered the conclave, he is said to have bought the suffrages of all but five; and Cardinal Ascanio Sforza, whom he feared as a rival, was propitiated with a present of silver that was a load for four mules. Alexander's election was the signal for flight to those cardinals who had opposed him. … Pope Alexander had by the celebrated Vanozza, the wife of a Roman citizen, three sons: John, whom he made Duke of Gandia, in Spain; Cæsar and Geoffrey; and one daughter, Lucretia."

   Under the Borgias, "treasons, assassinations, tortures, open
   debauchery, the practice of poisoning, the worst and most
   shameless outrages, are unblushingly and publicly tolerated in
   the open light of heaven. In 1490, the Pope's vicar having
   forbidden clerics and laics to keep concubines, the Pope
   revoked the decree, 'saying that that was not forbidden,
   because the life of priests and ecclesiastics was such that
   hardly one was to be found who did not keep a concubine, or at
   least who had not a courtesan.' Cæsar Borgia at the capture of
   Capua 'chose forty of the most beautiful women, whom he kept
   for himself; and a pretty large number of captives were sold
   at a low price at Rome.' Under Alexander VI., 'all
   ecclesiastics, from the greatest to the least, have concubines
   in the place of wives, and that publicly. If God hinder it
   not,' adds this historian, 'this corruption will pass to the
   monks and religious orders, although, to confess the truth,
   almost all the monasteries of the town have become
   bawd–houses, without anyone to speak against it.' With respect
   to Alexander VI., who loved his daughter Lucretia, the reader
   may find in Burchard the description of the marvellous orgies
   in which he joined with Lucretia and Cæsar, and the
   enumeration of the prizes which he distributed.
{2442}
   Let the reader also read for himself the story of the
   bestiality of Pietro Luigi Farnese, the Pope's son, how the
   young and upright Bishop of Fano died from his outrage, and
   how the Pope, speaking of this crime as 'a youthful levity,'
   gave him in this secret bull 'the fullest absolution from all
   the pains which he might have incurred by human incontinence,
   in whatever shape or with whatever cause.' As to civil
   security, Bentivoglio caused all the Marescotti to be put to
   death; Hippolyto d' Este had his brother's eyes put out in his
   presence; Cæsar Borgia killed his brother; murder is consonant
   with their public manners, and excites no wonder. A fisherman
   was asked why he had not informed the governor of the town
   that he had seen a body thrown into the water; 'he replied
   that he had seen about a hundred bodies thrown into the water
   during his lifetime in the same place, and that no one had
   ever troubled about it.' 'In our town,' says an old historian,
   'much murder and pillage was done by day and night, and hardly
   a day passed but some one was killed.' Cæsar Borgia one day
   killed Peroso, the Pope's favourite, between his arms and
   under his cloak, so that the blood spurted up to the Pope's
   face. He caused his sister's husband to be stabbed and then
   strangled in open day, on the steps of the palace; count, if
   you can, his assassinations. Certainly he and his father, by
   their character, morals, open and systematic wickedness, have
   presented to Europe the two most successful images of the
   devil. … Despotism, the Inquisition, the Cicisbei, dense
   ignorance, and open knavery, the shamelessness and the
   smartness of harlequins and rascals, misery and vermin,—such
   is the issue of the Italian Renaissance."

"It is certain … that the profound horror with which the name of Alexander VI. strikes a modern ear, was not felt among the Italians at the time of his election. The sentiment of hatred with which he was afterwards regarded arose partly from the crimes by which his Pontificate was rendered infamous, partly from the fear which his son Cesare inspired, and partly from the mysteries of his private life which revolted even the corrupt conscience of the 16th century. This sentiment of hatred had grown to universal execration at the time of his death. In course of time, when the attention of the Northern nations had been directed to the iniquities of Rome, and when the glaring discrepancy between Alexander's pretension as a Pope and his conduct as a man had been apprehended, it inspired a legend, which, like all legends, distorts the facts which it reflects. Alexander was, in truth, a man eminently fitted to close an old age and to inaugurate a new, to demonstrate the paradoxical situation of the Popes by the inexorable logic of his practical impiety, and to fuse two conflicting world forces in the cynicism of supreme corruption. … Alexander was a stronger and a firmer man than his immediate predecessors. 'He combined,' says Guicciardini, 'craft with singular sagacity, a sound judgment with extraordinary powers of persuasion; and to all the grave affairs of life he applied ability and pains beyond belief.' His first care was to reduce Rome to order. The old factions of Colonna and Orsini, which Sixtus had scotched, but which had raised their heads again during the dotage of Innocent, were destroyed in his pontificate. In this way, as Machiavelli observed, he laid the real basis for the temporal power of the Papacy. Alexander, indeed, as a sovereign, achieved for the Papal See what Louis XI. had done for the throne of France, and made Rome on its small scale follow the type of the large European monarchies. … Former Pontiffs had raised money by the sale of benefices and indulgences: this, of course, Alexander also practised—to such an extent, indeed, that an epigram gained currency; 'Alexander sells the keys, the altars, Christ. Well, he bought them; so he has a right to sell them.' But he went further and took lessons from Tiberius. Having sold the scarlet to the highest bidder, he used to feed his prelate with rich benefices. When he had fattened him sufficiently, he poisoned him, laid hands upon his hoards, and recommenced the game. … Former Popes had preached crusades against the Turk, languidly or energetically according as the coasts of Italy were threatened. Alexander frequently invited Bajazet to enter Europe and relieve him of the princes who opposed his intrigues in the favour of his children. The fraternal feeling which subsisted between the Pope and the Sultan was to some extent dependent on the fate of Prince Djem, a brother of Bajazet and son of the conqueror of Constantinople, who had fled for protection to the Christian powers, and whom the Pope kept prisoner, receiving 40,000 ducats yearly from the Porte for his jail fee. … Lucrezia, the only daughter of Alexander by Vannozza, took three husbands in succession, after having been formally betrothed to two Spanish nobles. … History has at last done justice to the memory of this woman, whose long yellow hair was so beautiful, and whose character was so colourless. The legend which made her a poison-brewing Mænad, has been proved a lie—but only at the expense of the whole society in which she lived. … It seems now clear enough that not hers, but her father's and her brother's, were the atrocities which made her married life in Rome a byeword. She sat and smiled through all the tempests which tossed her to and fro, until she found at last a fair port in the Duchy of Ferrara. … [On the 12th of August, 1503], the two Borgias invited the Cardinal Carneto to dine with them in the Belvedere of Pope Innocent. Thither by the hands of Alexander's butler they previously conveyed some poisoned wine. By mistake they drank the death-cup mingled for their victim. Alexander died, a black and swollen mass, hideous to contemplate, after a sharp struggle with the poison."

   The long-accepted story of Pope Alexander's poisoning, as
   related above by Mr. Symonds, is now discredited. "The
   principal reason why this picturesque tale has of late been
   generally regarded as a fiction is the apparent impossibility
   of reconciling it with a fact in connexion with Pope
   Alexander's last illness which admits of no dispute, the date
   of its commencement. The historians who relate the poisoning
   unanimously assert that the effect was sudden and
   overpowering, that the pope was carried back to the Vatican in
   a dying state and expired shortly afterwards. The 18th of
   August has hitherto been accepted without dispute as the date
   of his death: it follows, therefore, that the fatal banquet
   must have been on the 17th at the earliest.
{2443}
   But a cloud of witnesses, including the despatches of
   ambassadors resident at the papal court, prove that the pope's
   illness commenced on the 12th, and that by the 17th his
   condition was desperate. The Venetian ambassador and a
   Florentine letter-writer, moreover, the only two contemporary
   authorities who assign a date for the entertainment, state
   that it was given on the 5th or 6th, … which would make it a
   week before the pope was taken ill. … It admits … of absolute
   demonstration that the banquet could not have been given on
   the 12th or even on the 11th, and of proof hardly less cogent
   that the pope did actually die on the 18th. All the evidence
   that any entertainment was ever given, or that any poisoning
   was ever attempted, connects the name of Cardinal Corneto with
   the transaction. He and no other, according to all respectable
   authorities (the statement of late writers that ten cardinals
   were to have been poisoned at once may be dismissed without
   ceremony as too ridiculous for discussion), was the cardinal
   whom Alexander on this occasion designed to remove. Now,
   Cardinal Corneto was not in a condition to partake of any banquet
   either on 11 August or 12 August Giustiniani, the Venetian
   ambassador, who attributes the pope's illness to a fever
   contracted at supper at the cardinal's villa on 5 August,
   says, writing on the 13th, 'All have felt the effects, and
   first of all Cardinal Adrian [Corneto], who attended mass in
   the papal chapel on Friday [11 August], and after supper was
   attacked by a violent paroxysm of fever, which endured until
   the following morning; yesterday [the 12th] he had it again,
   and it has returned to-day.' Evidently, then, the cardinal
   could not give or even be present at an entertainment on the
   12th, and nothing could have happened on that day to throw a
   doubt on the accuracy of Burcardus's statement that the pope
   was taken ill in the morning, which would put any banquet and
   any poisoning during the course of it out of the question. …
   There is, therefore, no reason for discrediting the evidence
   of the two witnesses, the only contemporary witnesses to date,
   who fix the supper to 5 August or 6 August at the latest. It
   is possible that poison may have been then administered which
   did not produce its effects until 12 August; but the
   picturesque statement of the suddenness of the pope's illness
   and the consternation thus occasioned are palpable fictions,
   which so gravely impair the credit of the historians relating
   them that the story of the poisoning cannot be accepted on
   their authority. … The story, then, that Alexander
   accidentally perished by poison which he had prepared for
   another—though not in itself impossible or even very
   improbable—must be dismissed as at present unsupported by
   direct proof or even incidental confirmation of any kind. It
   does not follow that he may not have been poisoned
   designedly."

      R. Garnett,
      The Alleged Poisoning of Alexander VI.
      (English Historical Review, April, 1894).

"Of Pius III., who reigned for a few days after Alexander, no account need be taken. Giuliano della Rovere was made Pope in 1503. Whatever opinion may be formed of him considered as the high-priest of the Christian faith, there can be no doubt that Julius II. was one of the greatest figures of the Renaissance, and that his name, instead of that of Leo X., should by right be given to the golden age of letters and of arts in Rome. He stamped the century with the impress of a powerful personality. It is to him we owe the most splendid of Michael Angelo's and Raphael's masterpieces. The Basilica of St. Peter's, that materialized idea, which remains to symbolize the transition from the Church of the Middle Ages to the modern semi-secular supremacy of Papal Rome, was his thought. No nepotism, no loathsome sensuality, no flagrant violation of ecclesiastical justice stain his pontificate. His one purpose was to secure and extend the temporal authority of the Popes; and this he achieved by curbing the ambition of the Venetians, who threatened to enslave Romagna, by reducing Perugia and Bologna to the Papal sway, by annexing Parma and Piacenza, and by entering on the heritage bequeathed to him by Cesare Borgia. At his death he transmitted to his successors the largest and most solid sovereignty in Italy. But restless, turbid, never happy unless fighting, Julius drowned the peninsula in blood. He has been called a patriot, because from time to time he raised the cry of driving the barbarians from Italy: it must, however, be remembered that it was he, while still Cardinal di San Pietro in Vincoli, who finally moved Charles VIII. from Lyons; it was he who stirred up the League of Cambray [see VENICE: A. D. 1508-1509] against Venice, and who invited the Swiss mercenaries into Lombardy [see ITALY: A. D. 1510-1513]; in each case adding the weight of the Papal authority to the forces which were enslaving his country. … Leo X. succeeded Julius in 1513, to the great relief of the Romans, wearied with the continual warfare of the old 'Pontefice terribile.'"

ALSO IN: J. C. Robertson, History of the Christian Church, book 9, chapter 5 (volume 8).

P. Villari, Life and Times of Machiavelli, introduction, chapter 4 (volume 1); book 1, chapters 6-14 (volumes 2-3).

PAPACY: A. D. 1493. The Pope's assumption of authority to give the New World to Spain.

PAPACY: A. D. 1508-1509.
Pope Julius II. and the League of Cambrai against Venice.

PAPACY: A. D. 1510-1513.
   The Holy League against France.
   The pseudo-council at Pisa.
   Conquests of Julius II.

PAPACY: A. D. 1515-1516.
   Treaty of Leo X. with Francis I. of France.
   Abrogation of the Pragmatic Sanction of Charles VII.
   The Concordat of Bologna.
   Destruction of the liberties of the Gallican Church.

PAPACY: A. D. 1516-1517.
   Monetary demands of the court and family of Pope Leo X.,
   and his financial expedients.
   The theory of Indulgences and their marketability.

"The position which the pope [Leo X.], now absolute lord of Florence and master of Siena, occupied, the powerful alliances he had contracted with the other powers of Europe, and the views which his family entertained on the rest of Italy, rendered it absolutely indispensable for him, spite of the prodigality of a government that knew no restraint, to be well supplied with money. He seized every occasion of extracting extraordinary revenues from the church. The Lateran council was induced, immediately before its dissolution (15th of March, 1517), to grant the pope a tenth of all church property throughout Christendom. Three different commissions for the sale of indulgences traversed Germany and the northern states at the same moment. These expedients were, it is true, resorted to under various pretexts. The tenths were, it was said, to be expended in a Turkish war, which was soon to be declared; the produce of indulgences was for the building of St. Peter's Church, where the bones of the martyrs lay exposed to the inclemency of the elements. But people had ceased to believe in these pretences. … For there was no doubt on the mind of any reasonable man, that all these demands were mere financial speculations. There is no positive proof that the assertion then so generally made —that the proceeds of the sale of indulgences in Germany was destined in part for the pope's sister Maddelena—was true. But the main fact is indisputable, that the ecclesiastical aids were applied to the uses of the pope's family."

L. Ranke, History of the Reformation in Germany, book 2, chapter 1 (volume 1).

"Indulgences, in the earlier ages of the Church, had been a relaxation of penance, or of the discipline imposed by the Church on penitents who had been guilty of mortal sin. The doctrine of penance required that for such sin satisfaction should be superadded to contrition and confession. Then came the custom of commuting these appointed temporal penalties. When Christianity spread among the northern nations, the canonical penances were frequently found to be inapplicable to their condition. The practice of accepting offerings of money in the room of the ordinary forms of penance, harmonized with the penal codes in vogue among the barbarian peoples. At first the priest had only exercised the office of an intercessor. Gradually the simple function of declaring the divine forgiveness to the penitent transformed itself into that of a judge. By Aquinas, the priest is made the instrument of conveying the divine pardon, the vehicle through which the grace of God passes to the penitent. With the jubilees, or pilgrimages to Rome, ordained by the popes, came the plenary indulgences, or the complete remission of all temporal penalties—that is, the penalties still obligatory on the penitent—on the fulfillment of prescribed conditions. These penalties might extend into purgatory, but the indulgence obliterated them all. In the 13th century, Alexander of Hales and Thomas Aquinas set forth the theory of supererogatory merits, or the treasure of merit bestowed upon the Church through Christ and the saints, on which the rulers of the Church might draw for the benefit of the less worthy and more needy. This was something distinct from the power of the keys, the power to grant absolution, which inhered in the priesthood alone. The eternal punishment of mortal sin being remitted or commuted by the absolution of the priest, it was open to the Pope or his agents, by the grant of indulgences, to remit the temporal or terminable penalties that still rested on the head of the transgressor. Thus souls might be delivered forthwith from purgatorial fire. Pope Sixtus IV., in 1477, had officially declared that souls already in purgatory are emancipated 'per modum suffragii'; that is, the work done in behalf of them operates to effect their release in a way analogous to the efficacy of prayer. Nevertheless, the power that was claimed over the dead, was not practically diminished by this restriction. The business of selling indulgences had grown by the profitableness of it. 'Everywhere,' says Erasmus, 'the remission of purgatorial torment is sold; nor is it sold only, but forced upon those who refuse it.' As managed by Tetzel and the other emissaries sent out to collect money for the building of St. Peter's Church, the indulgence was a simple bargain, according to which, on the payment of a stipulated sum, the individual received a full discharge from the penalties of sin or procured the release of a soul from the flames of purgatory. The forgiveness of sins was offered in the market for money."

   The doctrine concerning indulgences which the Roman Catholic
   Church maintains at the present day is stated by one of its
   most eminent prelates as follows: "What then is an Indulgence?
   It is no more than a remission by the Church, in virtue of the
   keys, or the judicial authority committed to her, of a
   portion, or the entire, of the temporal punishment due to sin.
   The infinite merits of Christ form the fund whence this
   remission is derived: but besides, the Church holds that, by
   the communion of Saints, penitential works performed by the
   just, beyond what their own sins might exact, are available to
   other members of Christ's mystical body; that, for instance,
   the sufferings of the spotless Mother of God, afflictions such
   as probably no other human being ever felt in the soul, —the
   austerities and persecutions of the Baptist, the friend of the
   Bridegroom, who was sanctified in his mother's womb, and
   chosen to be an angel before the face of the Christ,—the
   tortures endured by numberless martyrs, whose lives had been
   pure from vice and sin,—the prolonged rigours of holy
   anchorites, who, flying from the temptations and dangers of
   the world, passed many years in penance and contemplation, all
   these made consecrated and valid through their union with the
   merits of Christ's passion,—were not thrown away, but formed a
   store of meritorious blessings, applicable to the satisfaction
   of other sinners. It is evident that, if the temporal
   punishment reserved to sin was anciently believed to be
   remitted through the penitential acts, which the sinner
   assumed, any other substitute for them, that the authority
   imposing or recommending them received as an equivalent, must
   have been considered by it truly of equal value, and as
   acceptable before God. And so it must be now. If the duty of
   exacting such satisfaction devolves upon the Church,—and it
   must be the same now as it formerly was,—she necessarily
   possesses at present the same power of substitution, with the
   same efficacy, and, consequently, with the same effects. And
   such a substitution is what constitutes all that Catholics
   understand by the name of an Indulgence. … Do I then mean to
   say, that during the middle ages, and later, no abuse took
   place in the practise of indulgences? Most certainly not.
{2445}
   Flagrant and too frequent abuses, doubtless, occurred through
   the avarice, and rapacity, and impiety of men; especially when
   indulgence was granted to the contributors towards charitable
   or religious foundations, in the erection of which private
   motives too often mingle. But this I say, that the Church felt
   and ever tried to remedy the evil. … The Council of Trent, by
   an ample decree, completely reformed the abuses which had
   subsequently crept in, and had been unfortunately used as a
   ground for Luther's separation from the Church."

      N. Wiseman,
      Lectures on the Principal Doctrines and
      Practices of the Catholic Church,
      lecture 12.

"In Germany the people were full of excitement. The Church had opened a vast market on earth. The crowd of customers, and the cries and jests of the sellers, were like a fair—and that, a fair held by monks. The article which they puffed off and offered at the lowest price, was, they said, the salvation of souls. These dealers travelled through the country in a handsome carriage, with three outriders, made a great show, and spent a great deal of money. … When the cavalcade was approaching a town, a deputy was dispatched to the magistrate: 'The grace of God and St. Peter is before your gates,' said the envoy; and immediately all the place was in commotion. The clergy, the priests, the nuns, the council, the schoolmasters, the schoolboys, the trade corporations with their banners, men and women, young and old, went to meet the merchants, bearing lighted torches in their hands, advancing to the sound of music and of all the bells, 'so that,' says a historian, 'they could not have received God Himself in greater state.' The salutations ended, the whole cortege moved towards the church, the Pope's bull of grace being carried in advance on a velvet cushion, or on a cloth of gold. The chief indulgence-merchant followed next, holding in his hand a red wooden cross. In this order the whole procession moved along, with singing, prayers, and incense. The organ pealed, and loud music greeted the hawker monk and those who accompanied him, as they entered the temple. The cross he bore was placed in front of the altar; the Pope's arms were suspended from it. … One person especially attracted attention at these sales. It was he who carried the great red cross and played the principal part. He wore the garb of the Dominicans. He had an arrogant bearing and a thundering voice, and he was in full vigour, though he had reached his sixty-third year. This man, the son of a goldsmith of Leipsic, named Dietz, was called John Dietzel, or Tetzel. He had received numerous ecclesiastical honours. He was Bachelor in Theology, prior of the Dominicans, apostolic commissioner and inquisitor, and since the year 1502 he had filled the office of vendor of indulgences. The skill he had acquired soon caused him to be named commissioner-in-chief. … The cross having been elevated and the Pope's arms hung upon it, Tetzel ascended the pulpit, and with a confident air began to extol the worth of indulgences, in presence of the crowd whom the ceremony had attracted to the sacred spot. The people listened with open mouths. Here is a specimen of one of his harangues:—'Indulgences,' he said, 'are the most precious and sublime gifts of God. This cross (pointing to the red cross) has as much efficacy as the cross of Jesus Christ itself. Come, and I will give you letters furnished with seals, by which, even the sins that you may have a wish to commit hereafter, shall be all forgiven you. I would not exchange my privileges for those of St. Peter in heaven; for I have saved more souls by my indulgences than the Apostle by his discourses. There is no sin so great, that an indulgence cannot remit it. Repentance is not necessary. But, more than that; indulgences not only save the living, they save the dead also. Priest! noble! merchant! woman! young girl! young man!—harken to your parents and your friends who are dead, and who cry to you from the depths of the abyss: "We are enduring horrible tortures! A small alms would deliver us. You can give it, and you will not!"' The hearers shuddered at these words, pronounced in the formidable voice of the charlatan monk. 'The very instant,' continued Tetzel, 'the piece of money chinks at the bottom of the strong box, the soul is freed from purgatory, and flies to heaven.' … Such were the discourses heard by astonished Germany in the days when God was raising up Luther. The sermon ended, the indulgence was considered as 'having solemnly established its throne' in that place. Confessionals were arranged, adorned with the Pope's arms; and the people flocked in crowds to the confessors. They were told, that, in order to obtain the full pardon of all their sins, and to deliver the souls of others from purgatory, it was not necessary for them to have contrition of heart, or to make confession by mouth; only, let them be quick and bring money to the box. Women and children, poor people, and those who lived on alms, all of them soon found the needful to satisfy the confessor's demands. The confession being over—and it did not require much time—the faithful hurried to the sale, which was conducted by a single monk. His counter stood near the cross. He fixed his sharp eyes upon all who approached him, scrutinized their manners, their bearing, their dress, and demanded a sum proportioned to the appearance of each. Kings, queens, princes, archbishops, bishops, had to pay, according to regulation, twenty-five ducats; abbots, counts, and barons, ten; and so on, or according to the discretion of the commissioner. For particular sins, too, both Tetzel in Germany, and Samson in Switzerland, had a special scale of prices."

J. N. Merle D'Aubigne, The Story of the! Reformation, part 1, chapter 6 (or History of the Reformation, book 3, chapter 1).

      ALSO IN:
      M. J. Spalding,
      History of the Protestant Reformation,
      part 2, chapter 3.

PAPACY: A. D. 1517.
   Luther's attack upon the Indulgences.
   His 95 Theses nailed to the Wittenberg Church.
   The silent support of Elector Frederick of Saxony.
   The satisfaction of awakened Germany.

   "Wittenberg was an old-fashioned town in Saxony, on the Elbe.
   Its main street was parallel with the broad river, and within
   its walls, at one end of it, near the Elster gate, lay the
   University, founded by the good Elector—Frederic of Saxony—of
   which Luther was a professor; while at the other end of it was
   the palace of the Elector and the palace church of All Saints.
   The great parish church lifted its two towers from the centre
   of the town, a little back from the main street.
{2446}
   This was the town in which Luther had been preaching for
   years, and towards which Tetzel, the seller of indulgences,
   now came, just as he did to other towns, vending his 'false
   pardons'—granting indulgences for sins to those who could pay
   for them, and offering to release from purgatory the souls of
   the dead, if any of their friends would pay for their release.
   As soon as the money chinked in his money-box, the souls of
   their dead friends would be let out of purgatory. This was the
   gospel of Tetzel. It made Luther's blood boil. He knew that
   what the Pope wanted was people's money, and that the whole
   thing was a cheat. This his Augustinian theology had taught
   him, and he was not a man to hold back when he saw what ought
   to be done. He did see it. On the day [October 31] before the
   festival of All Saints, on which the relics of the Church were
   displayed to the crowds of country people who flocked into the
   town, Luther passed down the long street with a copy of
   ninety-five theses or Statements [see text below] against
   indulgences in his hand, and nailed them upon the door of the
   palace church ready for the festival on the morrow. Also on
   All Saints' day he read them to the people in the great parish
   church. It would not have mattered much to Tetzel or the Pope
   that the monk of Wittenberg had nailed up his papers on the
   palace church, had it not been that he was backed by the
   Elector of Saxony."

"As the abuse complained of had a double character, religious and political, or financial, so also political events came in aid of the opposition emanating from religious ideas. Frederick of Saxony [on the occasion of an indulgence proclaimed in 1501] … had kept the money accruing from it in his own dominions in his possession, with the determination not to part with it, till an expedition against the infidels, which was then contemplated, should be actually undertaken; the pope and, on the pope's concession, the emperor, had demanded it of him in vain: he held it for what it really was—a tax levied on his subjects; and after all the projects of a war against the Turks had come to nothing, he had at length applied the money to his university. Nor was he now inclined to consent to a similar scheme of taxation. … The sale of indulgences at Jüterbock and the resort of his subjects thither, was not less offensive to him on financial grounds than to Luther on spiritual. Not that the latter were in any degree excited by the former; this it would be impossible to maintain after a careful examination of the facts; on the contrary, the spiritual motives were more original, powerful, and independent than the temporal, though these were important, as having their proper source in the general condition of Germany. The point whence the great events arose which were soon to agitate the world, was the coincidence of the two. There was … no one who represented the interests of Germany in the matter. There were innumerable persons who saw through the abuse of religion, but no one who dared to call it by its right name and openly to denounce and resist it. But the alliance between the monk of Wittenberg and the sovereign of Saxony was formed; no treaty was negotiated; they had never seen each other; yet they were bound together by an instinctive mutual understanding. The intrepid monk attacked the enemy; the prince did not promise him his aid—he did not even encourage him; he let things take their course. … Luther's daring assault was the shock which awakened Germany from her slumber. That a man should arise who had the courage to undertake the perilous struggle, was a source of universal satisfaction, and as it were tranquillised the public conscience. The most powerful interests were involved in it;—that of sincere and profound piety, against the most purely external means of obtaining pardon of sins; that of literature, against fanatical persecutors, of whom Tetzel was one; the renovated theology against the dogmatic learning of the schools, which lent itself to all these abuses; the temporal power against the spiritual, whose usurpations it sought to curb; lastly, the nation against the rapacity of Rome."

L. Ranke, History of the Reformation in Germany, book 2, chapter 1 (volume 1).

"In the desire and with the purpose of elucidating the truth, a disputation will be held on the underwritten propositions at Wittemberg, under the presidency of the Reverend Father Martin Luther, Monk of the Order of St. Augustine, Master of Arts and of Sacred Theology, and ordinary Reader of the same in that place. He therefore asks those who cannot be present and discuss the subject with us orally, to do so by letter in their absence. In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.

1. Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ in saying: 'Repent ye,' etc., intended that the whole life of believers should be penitence.

   2. This word cannot be understood of sacramental penance, that
   is, of the confession and satisfaction which are performed
   under the ministry of priests.

   3. It does not, however, refer solely to inward penitence; nay
   such inward penitence is naught, unless it outwardly produces
   various mortifications of the flesh.

   4. The penalty thus continues as long as the hatred of
   self—that is, true inward penitence—continues; namely, till
   our entrance into the kingdom of heaven.

5. The Pope has neither the will nor the power to remit any penalties, except those which he has imposed by his own authority, or by that of the canons.

6. The Pope has no power to remit any guilt, except by declaring and warranting it to have been remitted by God; or at most by remitting cases reserved for himself; in which eases, if his power were despised, guilt would certainly remain.

7. God never remits any man's guilt, without at the same time subjecting him, humbled in all things, to the authority of his representative the priest.

8. The penitential canons are imposed only on the living, and no burden ought to be imposed on the dying, according to them.

9. Hence the Holy Spirit acting in the Pope does well for us, in that, in his decrees, he always makes exception of the article of death and of necessity.

   10. Those priests act wrongly and unlearnedly, who, in the
   case of the dying, reserve the canonical penances for
   purgatory.

11. Those tares about changing of the canonical penalty into the penalty of purgatory seem surely to have been sown while the bishops were asleep.

12. Formerly the canonical penalties were imposed not after, but before absolution, as tests of true contrition.

13. The dying pay all penalties by death, and are already dead to the canon laws, and are by right relieved from them.

14. The imperfect soundness or charity of a dying person necessarily brings with it great fear, and the less it is, the greater the fear it brings.

15. This fear and horror is sufficient by itself, to say nothing of other things, to constitute the pains of purgatory, since it is very near to the horror of despair.

16. Hell, purgatory, and heaven appear to differ as despair, almost despair, and peace of mind differ.

17. With souls in purgatory it seems that it must needs be that, as horror diminishes, so charity increases.

18. Nor does it seem to be proved by any reasoning or any scriptures, that they are outside of the state of merit or of the increase of charity.

   19. Nor does this appear to be proved, that they are sure and
   confident of their own blessedness, at least all of them,
   though we may be very sure of it.

   20. Therefore the Pope, when he speaks of the plenary
   remission of all penalties, does not mean simply of all, but
   only of those imposed by himself.

   21. Thus those preachers of indulgences are in error who say
   that, by the indulgences of the Pope, a man is loosed and
   saved from all punishment.

   22. For in fact he remits to souls in purgatory no penalty
   which they would have had to pay in this life according to the
   canons.

   23. If any entire remission of all penalties can be granted to
   anyone, it is certain that it is granted to none but the most
   perfect, that is, to very few.

   24. Hence the greater part of the people must needs be
   deceived by this indiscriminate and high-sounding promise of
   release from penalties.

   25. Such power as the Pope has over purgatory in general, such
   has every bishop in his own diocese, and every curate in his
   own parish, in particular.

26. The Pope acts most rightly in granting remission to souls, not by the power of the keys (which is of no avail in this case) but by the way of suffrage.

27. They preach man, who say that the soul flies out of purgatory as soon as the money thrown into the chest rattles.

28. It is certain that, when the money rattles in the chest, avarice and gain may be increased, but the suffrage of the Church depends on the will of God alone.

29. Who knows whether all the souls in purgatory desire to be redeemed from it, according to the story told of Saints Severinus and Paschal.

30. No man is sure of the reality of his own contrition, much less of the attainment of plenary remission.

31. Rare as is a true penitent, so rare is one who truly buys indulgences—that is to say, most rare.

32. Those who believe that, through letters of pardon, they are made sure of their own salvation, will be eternally damned along with their teachers.

   33. We must especially beware of those who say that these
   pardons from the Pope are that inestimable gift of God by
   which man is reconciled to God.

   34. For the grace conveyed by these pardons has respect only
   to the penalties of sacramental satisfaction, which are of
   human appointment.

   35. They preach no Christian doctrine, who teach that
   contrition is not necessary for those who buy souls out of
   purgatory or buy confessional licences.

   36. Every Christian who feels true compunction has of right
   plenary remission of pain and guilt, even without letters of
   pardon.

   37. Every true Christian, whether living or dead, has a share
   in all the benefits of Christ and of the Church, given him by
   God, even without letters of pardon.

38. The remission, however, imparted by the Pope is by no means to be despised, since it is, as I have said, a declaration of the Divine remission.

39. It is a most difficult thing, even for the most learned theologians, to exalt at the same time in the eyes of the people the ample effect of pardons and the necessity of true contrition.

40. True contrition seeks and loves punishment; while the ampleness of pardons relaxes it, and causes men to hate it, or at least gives occasion for them to do so.

   41. Apostolic pardons ought to be proclaimed with caution,
   lest the people should falsely suppose that they are placed
   before other good works of charity.

   42. Christians should be taught that it is not the mind of the
   Pope that the buying of pardons is to be in any way compared
   to works of mercy.

   43. Christians should be taught that he who gives to a poor
   man, or lends to a needy man, does better than if he bought
   pardons.

44. Because, by a work of charity, charity increases, and the man becomes better; while, by means of pardons, he does not become better, but only freer from punishment.

45. Christians should be taught that he who sees anyone in need, and, passing him by, gives money for pardons, is not purchasing for himself the indulgences of the Pope, but the anger of God.

46. Christians should be taught that, unless they have superfluous wealth, they are bound to keep what is necessary for the use of their own households, and by no means to lavish it on pardons.

47. Christians should be taught that, while they are free to buy pardons, they are not commanded to do so.

48. Christians should be taught that the Pope, in granting pardons, has both more need and more desire that devout prayer should be made for him, than that money should be readily paid.

49. Christians should be taught that the Pope's pardons are useful, if they do not put their trust in them, but most hurtful, if through them they lose the fear of God.

50. Christians should be taught that, if the Pope were acquainted with the exactions of the preachers of pardons, he would prefer that the Basilica of St. Peter should be burnt to ashes, than that it should be built up with the skin, flesh, and bones of his sheep.

51. Christians should be taught that, as it would be the duty, so it would be the wish of the Pope, even to sell, if necessary, the Basilica of St. Peter, and to give of his own money to very many of those from whom the preachers of pardons extract money.

52. Vain is the hope of salvation through letters of pardon, even if a commissary—nay the Pope himself—were to pledge his own soul for them.

53. They are enemies of Christ and of the Pope, who, in order that pardons may be preached, condemn the word of God to utter silence in other churches.

54. Wrong is done to the word of God when, in the same sermon, an equal or longer time is spent on pardons that [than] on it.

55. The mind of the Pope necessarily is that, if pardons, which are a very small matter, are celebrated with single bells, single processions, and single ceremonies, the Gospel, which is a very great matter, should be preached with a hundred bells, a hundred processions, and a hundred ceremonies.

56. The treasures of the Church, whence the Pope grants indulgences, are neither sufficiently named nor known among the people of Christ.

57. It is clear that they are at least not temporal treasures, for these are not so readily lavished, but only accumulated, by many of the preachers.

58. Nor are they the merits of Christ and of the saints, for these, independently of the Pope, are always working grace to the inner man, and the cross, death, and hell to the outer man.

59. St. Lawrence said that the treasures of the Church are the poor of the Church, but he spoke according to the use of the word in his time.

   60. We are not speaking rashly when we say that the keys of
   the Church, bestowed through the merits of Christ, are that
   treasure.

61. For it is clear that the power of the Pope is alone sufficient for the remission of penalties and of reserved cases.

62. The true treasure of the Church is the Holy Gospel of the glory and grace of God.

63. This treasure, however, is deservedly most hateful,
because it makes the first to be last.

64. While the treasure of indulgences is deservedly most
acceptable, because it makes the last to be first.

65. Hence the treasures of the Gospel are nets, wherewith of
old they fished for the men of riches.

66. The treasures of indulgences are nets, wherewith they now fish for the riches of men.

67. Those indulgences, which the preachers loudly proclaim to be the greatest graces, are seen to be truly such as regards the promotion of gain.

68. Yet they are in reality in no degree to be compared to the grace of God and the piety of the cross.

69. Bishops and curates are bound to receive the commissaries of apostolic pardons with all reverence.

70. But they are still more bound to see to it with all their eyes, and take heed with all their ears, that these men do not preach their own dreams in place of the Pope's commission.

71. He who speaks against the truth of apostolic pardons, let him be anathema and accursed.

72. But he, on the other hand, who exerts himself against the wantonness and licence of speech of the preachers of pardons, let him be blessed.

73. As the Pope justly thunders against those who use any kind of contrivance to the injury of the traffic in pardons.

74. Much more is it his intention to thunder against those who, under the pretext of pardons, use contrivances to the injury of holy charity and of truth.

75. To think that Papal pardons have such power that they could absolve a man even if—by an impossibility—he had violated the Mother of God, is madness.

76. We affirm on the contrary that Papal] pardons cannot take away even the least of venial sins, as regards its guilt.

77. The saying that, even if St. Peter were now Pope, he could grant no greater graces, is blasphemy against St. Peter and the Pope.

   78. We affirm on the contrary that both he and any other Pope
   has greater graces to grant, namely, the Gospel, powers, gifts
   of healing, etc. (1 Corinthians xii. 9).

   79. To say that the cross set up among the insignia of the
   Papal arms is of equal power with the cross of Christ, is
   blasphemy.

80. Those bishops, curates, and theologians who allow such discourses to have currency among the people, will have to render an account.

81. This licence in the preaching of pardons makes it no easy thing, even for learned men, to protect the reverence due to the Pope against the calumnies, or, at all events, the keen questionings of the laity.

82. As for instance:—Why does not the Pope empty purgatory for the sake of most holy charity and of the supreme necessity of souls—this being the most just of all reasons—if he redeems an infinite number of souls for the sake of that most fatal thing money, to be spent on building a basilica—this being a very slight reason?

83. Again; why do funeral masses and anniversary masses for the deceased continue, and why does not the Pope return, or permit the withdrawal of the funds bequeathed for this purpose, since it is a wrong to pay for those who are already redeemed?

84. Again; what is this new kindness of God and the Pope, in that for money's sake, they permit an impious man and an enemy of God to redeem a pious soul which loves God, and yet do not redeem that same pious and beloved soul, out of free charity, on account of its own need?

85. Again; why is it that the penitential canons, long since abrogated and dead in themselves in very fact and not only by usage, are yet still redeemed with money, through the granting of indulgences, as if they were full of life?

86. Again; why does not the Pope, whose riches are at this day more ample than those of the wealthiest of the wealthy, build the one basilica of St. Peter with his own money, rather than with that of poor believers?

87. Again; what does the Pope remit or impart to those who, through perfect contrition, have a right to plenary remission and participation?

88. Again; what greater good would the Church receive if the Pope, instead of once, as he does now, were to bestow these remissions and participations a hundred times a day on any one of the faithful?

89. Since it is the salvation of souls, rather than money, that the Pope seeks by his pardons, why does he suspend the letters and pardons granted long ago, since they are equally efficacious.

90. To repress these scruples and arguments of the laity by force alone, and not to solve them by giving reasons, is to expose the Church and the Pope to the ridicule of their enemies, and to make Christian men unhappy.

91. If then pardons were preached according to the spirit and mind of the Pope, all these questions would be resolved with ease; nay, would not exist.

92. Away then with all those prophets who say to the people of
Christ: 'Peace, peace,' and there is no peace.

93. Blessed be all those prophets, who say to the people of
Christ: 'The cross, the cross,' and there is no cross.

94. Christians should be exhorted to strive to follow Christ
their head through pains, deaths, and hells.

95. And thus trust to enter heaven through many tribulations,
rather than in the security of peace."

      H. Wace and C. A. Buchheim,
      First Principles of the Reformation,
      page 6-13.

PAPACY: A. D. 1517-1521.
   Favoring circumstances under which the Reformation in Germany
   gained ground.
   The Bull "Exurge Domine."
   Excommunication of Luther.
   The imperial summons from Worms.

"It was fortunate for Luther's cause that he lived under a prince like the Elector of Saxony. Frederick, indeed, was a devout catholic; he had made a pilgrimage to Palestine, and had filled All Saints' Church at Wittenberg with relics for which he had given large sums of money. His attention, however, was now entirely engrossed by his new university, and he was unwilling to offer up to men like Tetzel so great an ornament of it as Dr. Martin Luther, since whose appointment at Wittenberg the number of students had so wonderfully increased as to throw the universities of Erfurt and Leipsic quite into the shade. … {2449} As one of the principal Electors he was completely master in his own dominions, and indeed throughout Germany he was as much respected as the Emperor; and Maximilian, besides his limited power, was deterred by his political views from taking any notice of the quarrel. Luther had thus full liberty to prepare the great movement that was to ensue. … The contempt entertained by Pope Leo X. for the whole affair was also favourable to Luther; for Frederick might not at first have been inclined to defend him against the Court of Rome. … The Court of Rome at length became more sensible of the importance of Luther's innovations and in August 1518, he was commanded either to recant, or to appear and answer for his opinions at Rome, where Silvester Prierias and the bishop Ghenucci di Arcoli had been appointed his judges. Luther had not as yet dreamt of throwing off his allegiance to the Roman See. In the preceding May he had addressed a letter to the Pope himself, stating his views in a firm but modest and respectful tone, and declaring that he could not retract them. The Elector Frederick, at the instance of the university of Wittenberg, which trembled for the life of its bold and distinguished professor, prohibited Luther's journey to Rome, and expressed his opinion that the question should be decided in Germany by impartial judges. Leo consented to send a legate to Augsburg to determine the cause, and selected for that purpose Cardinal Thomas di Vio, better known by the name of Cajetanus, derived from his native city of Gaeta. … Luther set out for Augsburg on foot provided with several letters of recommendation from the Elector, and a safe conduct from the Emperor Maximilian. … Luther appeared before the cardinal for the first time, October 12th, at whose feet he fell; but it was soon apparent that no agreement could be expected. … Cajetanus, who had at first behaved with great moderation and politeness, grew warm, demanded an unconditional retraction, forbade Luther again to appear before him till he was prepared to make it, and threatened him with the censures of the Church. The fate of Huss stared Luther in the face, and he determined to fly. His patron Staupitz procured him a horse, and on the 20th of October, Langemantel, a magistrate of Augsburg, caused a postern in the walls to be opened for him before day had well dawned. … Cajetanus now wrote to the Elector Frederick complaining of Luther's refractory departure from Augsburg, and requiring either that he should be sent to Rome or at least be banished from Saxony. … So uncertain were Luther's prospects that he made preparations for his departure. … At length, just on the eve of his departure, he received an intimation from Frederick that he might remain at Wittenberg. Before the close of the year he gained a fresh accession of strength by the arrival of Melanchthon, a pupil of Reuchlin, who had obtained the appointment of Professor of Greek in the university. Frederick offered a fresh disputation at Wittenberg; but Leo X. adopted a course more consonant with the pretensions of an infallible Church by issuing a Bull dated November 9th 1518, which, without adverting to Luther or his opinions, explained and enforced the received doctrine of indulgences. It failed, however, to produce the desired effect. … Leo now tried the effects of seduction. Carl Von Miltitz, a Saxon nobleman, canon of Mentz, Treves, and Meissen, … was despatched to the Elector Frederick with the present of a golden rose, and with instructions to put an end, as best he might, to the Lutheran schism. On his way through Germany, Miltitz soon perceived that three fourths of the people were in Luther's favour; nor was his reception at the Saxon Court of a nature to afford much encouragement. … Miltitz saw the necessity for conciliation. Having obtained an interview with Luther at Altenburg, Miltitz persuaded him to promise that he would be silent, provided a like restraint were placed upon his adversaries. … Luther was even induced to address a letter to the Pope, dated from Altenburg, March 3rd 1510, in which, in humble terms, he expressed his regret that his motives should have been misinterpreted, and solemnly declared that he did not mean to dispute the power and authority of the Pope and the Church of Rome, which he considered superior to everything except Jesus Christ alone. … The truce effected by Miltitz lasted only a few months. It was broken by a disputation to which Dr. Eck challenged Bodenstein, a Leipsic professor, better known by the name of Carlstadt. … The Leipsic disputation was preceded and followed by a host of controversies. The whole mind of Germany was in motion, and it was no longer with Luther alone that Rome had to contend. All the celebrated names in art and literature sided with the Reformation; Erasmus, Ulrich von Hutten, Melanchthon, Lucas Cranach, Albert Durer, and others. Hans Sachs, the Meistersänger of Nuremberg, composed in his honour the pretty song called 'the Wittenberg Nightingale.' Silvester von Schaumburg and Franz von Sickingen invited Luther to their castles, in case he were driven from Saxony; and Schaumburg declared that 100 more Franconian knights were ready to protect him. … The Elector Frederick became daily more convinced that his doctrines were founded in Scripture. … Meanwhile, Luther had made great strides in his opinions since the publication of his Theses. … He had begun to impugn many of the principles of the Romish church; and so far from any longer recognising the paramount authority of the Pope, or even of a general council, he was now disposed to submit to no rule but the Bible. The more timid spirits were alarmed at his boldness, and even Frederick himself exhorted him to moderation. It must be acknowledged, indeed, that Luther sometimes damaged his cause by the intemperance of his language; an instance of which is afforded by the remarkable letter he addressed to Leo X., April 6th 1520, as a dedication to his treatise 'De Libertate Christiana.' … The letter just alluded to was, perhaps, the immediate cause of the famous Bull, 'Exurge Domine,' which Leo fulminated against Luther, June 15th 1520. The Bull, which is conceived in mild terms, condemned forty-one propositions extracted from Luther's works, allowed him sixty days to recant, invited him to Rome, if he pleased to come, under a safe conduct, and required him to cease from preaching and writing, and to burn his published treatises. If he did not conform within the above period, he was condemned as a notorious and irreclaimable heretic; all princes and magistrates were required to seize him and his adherents, and to send them to Rome; and all places that gave them shelter were threatened with an interdict. {2450} The Bull was forwarded to Archbishop Albert of Mentz; but in North Germany great difficulty was found in publishing it. … On December 10th Luther consummated his rebellion by taking that final step which rendered it impossible for him to recede. On the banks of the Elbe before the Elster Gate of Wittenberg, … Luther, in the presence of a large body of professors and students, solemnly committed with his own hands to the flames the Bull by which he had been condemned, together with the code of the canon law, and the writings of Eck and Emser, his opponents. … On January 3rd 1521, Luther and his followers were solemnly excommunicated by Leo with bell, book, and candle, and an image of him, together with his writings, was committed to the flames. … At the Diet of Worms which was held soon after, the Emperor [Charles V., who succeeded Maximilian in 1519] having ordered that Luther's books should be delivered up to the magistrates to be burnt, the States represented to him the uselessness and impolicy of such a step, pointing out that the doctrines of Luther had already sunk deep into the hearts of the people; and they recommended that he should be summoned to Worms and interrogated whether he would recant without any disputation. … In compliance with the advice of the States, the Emperor issued a mandate, dated March 6th 1521, summoning Luther to appear at Worms within twenty-one days. It was accompanied with a safe conduct."

ALSO IN: L. von Ranke, History of the Reformation in Germany, book 2 (volume 1).

P. Bayne, Martin Luther: his Life and Work, book 5, chapter 3; book 8, chapter 6 (volumes 1-2).

      P. Schaff,
      History of the Christian Church,
      volume 6, chapter 4.

PAPACY: A. D. 1519-1524.
The sale of Indulgences in Switzerland.
Beginning of the Reformation under Zwingli.

Near the close of the year 1518, Ulric Zwingle, or Zwingli, or Zuinglius, already much respected for his zealous piety and his learning, "was appointed preacher in the collegiate church at Zurich. The crisis of his appearance on this scene was so extraordinary as to indicate to every devout mind a providential dispensation, designed to raise up a second instrument in the work of reformation, and that, almost by the same means which had been employed to produce the first. One Bernhard Samson, or Sanson, a native of Milan, and a Franciscan monk, selected this moment to open a sale of indulgences at Zurich. He was the Tetzel of Switzerland. He preached through many of its provinces, exercising the same trade, with the same blasphemous pretensions and the same clamorous effrontery; and in a land of greater political freedom his impostures excited even a deeper and more general disgust. … He encountered no opposition till he arrived at Zurich. But here appears a circumstance which throws a shade of distinction between the almost parallel histories of Samson and Tetzel. The latter observed in his ministration all the necessary ecclesiastical forms; the former omitted to present his credentials to the bishop of the diocese, and acted solely on the authority of the pontifical bulls: Hugo, Bishop of Constance, was offended at this disrespectful temerity, and immediately directed Zwingle and the other pastors to exclude the stranger from their churches. The first who had occasion to show obedience to this mandate was John Frey, minister of Staufberg. Bullinger, Dean of Bremgarten, was the second. From Bremgarten, after a severe altercation which ended by the excommunication of that dignitary, Samson proceeded to Zurich. Meanwhile Zwingle had been engaged for about two months in rousing the indignation of the people against the same object; and so successfully did he support the instruction of the Bishop, and such efficacy was added to his eloquence by the personal unpopularity of Samson, that the senate determined not so much as to admit him within the gates of the city. A deputation of honour was appointed to welcome the pontifical legate without the walls. He was then commanded to absolve the Dean from the sentence launched against him, and to depart from the canton. He obeyed, and presently turned his steps towards Italy and repassed the mountains. This took place at the end of February, 1519. The Zurichers immediately addressed a strong remonstrance to the Pope, in which they denounced the misconduct of his agent. Leo replied, on the last of April, with characteristic mildness; for though he maintained, as might be expected, the Pope's authority to grant those indulgences, … yet he accorded the prayer of the petition so far as to recall the preacher, and to promise his punishment, should he be convicted of having exceeded his commission. … But Zwingle's views were not such as long to be approved by an episcopal reformer in that [the Roman] church. … He began to invite the Bishop, both by public and private solicitations, with perfect respect but great earnestness, to give his adhesion to the evangelical truth … and to permit the free preaching of the gospel throughout his diocese. … From the beginning of his preaching at Zurich it was his twofold object to instruct the people in the meaning, design, and character of the scriptural writings; and at the same time to teach them to seek their religion only there. His very first proceeding was to substitute the gospel of St. Matthew, as the text-book of his discourses, for the scraps of Scripture exclusively treated by the papal preachers; and he pursued this purpose by next illustrating the Acts of the Apostles, and the epistles of Paul and Peter. He considered the doctrine of justification by faith as the corner-stone of Christianity, and he strove to draw away his hearers from the gross observances of a pharasaical church to a more spiritual conception of the covenant of their redemption. … His success was so considerable, that at the end of 1519 he numbered as many as 2,000 disciples; and his influence so powerful among the chiefs of the commonwealth, that he procured, in the following year, an official decree to the effect: That all pastors and ministers should thenceforward reject the unfaithful devices and ordinances of men, and teach with freedom such doctrines only as rested on the authority of the prophecies, gospels, and apostolical epistles."

"With unflagging zeal and courage Zwingli followed his ideal in politics, viz., to rear a republic on the type of the Greek free states of old, with perfect national independence. Thanks to his influence Zurich in 1521 abolished 'Reislaufen,' and the system of foreign pay [mercenary military service]. This step, however, brought down on the head of Zurich the wrath of the twelve sister republics, which had just signed a military contract with Francis I. … It was only in 1522 that he began to launch pamphlets against the abuses in the Church-fasting, celibacy of the clergy and the like. On the 29th of January, 1523, Zwingli obtained from the Council of Zurich the opening of a public religious discussion in presence of the whole of the clergy of the canton, and representatives of the Bishop of Constance, whose assistance in the debate the Council had invited. In 67 theses, remarkable for their penetration and clearness, he sketched out his confession of faith and plan of reform. … On the 25th of October, 1523, a second discussion initiated the practical consequences of the reformed doctrine—the abrogation of the mass and image worship. Zwingli's system was virtually that of Calvin, but was conceived in a broader spirit, and carried out later on in a far milder manner by Bullinger. … The Council gave the fullest approval to the Reformation. In 1524 Zwingli married Anne Reinhard, the widow of a Zurich nobleman (Meyer von Knonau), and so discarded the practice of celibacy obtaining amongst priests. … In 1524 Zwingli began to effect the most sweeping changes with the view of overthrowing the whole fabric of mediæval superstition. In the direction of reform he went far beyond Luther, who had retained oral confession, altar pictures, &c. The introduction of his reforms in Zurich called forth but little opposition. True, there were the risings of the Anabaptists, but these were the same everywhere. … Pictures and images were removed from the churches, under government direction. … At the Landgemeinden [parish gatherings] called for the purpose, the people gave an enthusiastic assent to his doctrines, and declared themselves ready 'to die for the gospel truth.' Thus a national Church was established, severed from the diocese of Constance, and placed under the control of the Council of Zurich and a clerical synod. The convents were turned into schools, hospitals, and poorhouses."

J. H. Merle D'Aubigné. History of the Reformation, books 8 and 11 (volumes 2-3).

      M. J. Spalding.
      History of the Protestant Reformation,
      part 2, chapter 5.

      P. Schaff,
      History of the Christian Church,
      volume 7, chapters 1-3.

PAPACY: A. D. 1521-1522.
   Luther before the Diet at Worms.
   His friendly abduction and concealment at Wartburg.
   His translation of the Bible.

"On the 2nd of April [1521], the Tuesday after Easter, Luther set out on his momentous journey. He travelled in a cart with three of his friends, the herald riding in front in his coat of arms. … The Emperor had not waited for his appearance to order his books to be burnt. When he reached Erfurt on the way the sentence had just been proclaimed. The herald asked him if he still meant to go on. 'I will go,' he said, 'if there are as many devils in Worms as there are tiles upon the house-tops. Though they burnt Huss, they could not burn the truth.' The Erfurt students, in retaliation, had thrown the Bull into the water. The Rector and the heads of the university gave Luther a formal reception as an old and honoured member; he preached at his old convent, and he preached again at Gotha and at Eisenach. Caietan had protested against the appearance in the Diet of an excommunicated heretic. The Pope himself had desired that the safe–conduct should not be respected, and the bishops had said that it was unnecessary. Manœvres were used to delay him on the road till the time allowed had expired. But there was a fierce sense of fairness in the lay members of the Diet, which it was dangerous to outrage. Franz von Sickingen hinted that if there was foul play it might go hard with Cardinal Caietan—and Von Sickingen was a man of his word in such matters. On the 16th of April, at ten in the morning, the cart entered Worms, bringing Luther in his monk's dress, followed and attended by a crowd of cavaliers. The town's people were all out to see the person with whose name Germany was ringing. As the cart passed through the gales the warder on the walls blew a blast upon his trumpet. … Luther needed God to stand by him, for in all that great gathering he could count on few assured friends. The princes of the empire were resolved that he should have fair play, but they were little inclined to favour further a disturber of the public peace. The Diet sate in the Bishop's palace, and the next evening Luther appeared. The presence in which he found himself would have tried the nerves of the bravest of men: the Emperor, sternly hostile, with his retinue of Spanish priests and nobles; the archbishops and bishops, all of opinion that the stake was the only fitting place for so insolent a heretic; the dukes and barons, whose stern eyes were little likely to reveal their sympathy, if sympathy any of them felt. One of them only, George of Frundsberg, had touched Luther on the shoulder as he passed through the ante–room. 'Little monk, little monk,' he said, 'thou hast work before thee, that I, and many a man whose trade is war, never faced the like of. If thy heart is right, and thy cause good, go on in God's name. He will not forsake thee. A pile of books stood on a table when he was brought forward. An officer of the court read the titles, asked if he acknowledged them, and whether he was ready to retract them. Luther was nervous, not without cause. He answered in a low voice that the books were his. To the other question he could not reply at once. He demanded time. His first appearance had not left a favourable impression; he was allowed a night to consider. The next morning, April 18, he had recovered himself; he came in fresh, courageous, and collected. His old enemy, Eck, was this time the spokesman against him, and asked what he was prepared to do. He said firmly that his writings were of three kinds: some on simple Gospel truth, which all admitted, and which of course he could not retract; some against Papal laws and customs, which had tried the consciences of Christians and had been used as excuses to oppress and spoil the German people. If he retracted these he would cover himself with shame. In a third sort he had attacked particular persons, and perhaps had been too violent. Even here he declined to retract simply, but would admit his fault if fault could be proved. He gave his answers in a clear strong voice, in Latin first, and then in German. {2452} There was a pause, and then Eck said that he had spoken disrespectfully; his heresies had been already condemned at the Council at Constance; let him retract on these special points, and he should have consideration for the rest. He required a plain Yes or No from him, 'without horns.' The taunt roused Luther's blood. His full brave self was in his reply. 'I will give you an answer,' he said, 'which has neither horns nor teeth. Popes have erred and councils have erred. Prove to me out of Scripture that I am wrong, and I submit. Till then my conscience binds me. Here I stand. I can do no more. God help me. Amen.' All day long the storm raged. Night had fallen, and torches were lighted in the hall before the sitting closed. Luther was dismissed at last; it was supposed, and perhaps intended, that he was to be taken to a dungeon. But the hearts of the lay members of the Diet had been touched by the courage which he had shown. They would not permit a hand to be laid on him. … When he had reached his lodging again, he flung up his hands. 'I am through!' he cried. 'I am through! If I had a thousand heads they should be struck off one by one before I would retract.' The same evening the Elector Frederick sent for him, and told him he had done well and bravely. But though he had escaped so far, he was not acquitted. Charles conceived that he could be now dealt with as an obstinate heretic. At the next session (the day following), he informed the Diet that he would send Luther home to Wittenberg, there to be punished as the Church required. The utmost that his friends could obtain was that further efforts should be made. The Archbishop of Treves was allowed to tell him that if he would acknowledge the infallibility of councils, he might be permitted to doubt the infallibility of the Pope. But Luther stood simply upon Scripture. There, and there only, was infallibility. The Elector ordered him home at once, till the Diet should decide upon his fate. … A majority in the Diet, it was now clear, would pronounce for his death. If he was sentenced by the Great Council of the Empire, the Elector would be no longer able openly to protect him. It was decided that he should disappear, and disappear so completely that no trace of him should be discernible. On his way back through the Thuringian Forest, three or four miles from Altenstein, a party of armed men started out of the wood, set upon his carriage, seized and carried him off to Wartburg Castle. There he remained, passing by the name of the Ritter George, and supposed to be some captive knight. The secret was so well kept, that even the Elector's brother was ignorant of his hiding place. Luther was as completely lost as if the earth had swallowed him. … On the 8th of May the Edict of Worms was issued, placing him under the ban of the empire; but he had become 'as the air invulnerable,' and the face of the world had changed before he came back to it: … Luther's abduction and residence at Wartburg is the most picturesque incident in his life. He dropped his monk's gown, and was dressed like a gentleman; he let his beard grow and wore a sword. … The revolution, deprived of its leader, ran wild meanwhile. An account of the scene at Worms, with Luther's speeches, and wood cut illustrations, was printed on broadsheets and circulated in hundreds of thousands of copies. The people were like schoolboys left without a master. Convents and monasteries dissolved by themselves; monks and nuns began to marry; there was nothing else for the nuns to do, turned as they were adrift without provision. The Mass in most of the churches in Saxony was changed into a Communion. But without Luther it was all chaos, and no order could be taken. So great was the need of him, that in December he went to Wittenberg in disguise; but it was not yet safe for him to remain there. He had to retreat to his castle again, and in that compelled retreat he bestowed on Germany the greatest of all the gifts which he was able to offer. He began to translate the Bible into clear vernacular German. … He had probably commenced the work at the beginning of his stay at the castle. In the spring of 1522 the New Testament was completed. In the middle of March, the Emperor's hands now being fully occupied, the Elector sent him word that he need not conceal himself any longer; and he returned finally to his home and his friends. The New Testament was printed in November of that year, and became at once a household book in Germany. … The Old Testament was taken in hand at once, and in two years half of it was roughly finished."

ALSO IN: G. Waddington, History of the Reformation, chapters 13-14 (volume 1).

PAPACY: A. D. 1521-1535.
   Beginning of the Protestant Reform movement in France.
   Hesitation of Francis I.
   His final persecution of the Reformers.

   "The long contest for Gallican rights had lowered the prestige
   of the popes in France, but it had not weakened the Catholic
   Church, which was older than the monarchy itself, and, in the
   feeling of the people, was indissolubly associated with it.
   The College of the Sorbonne, or the Theological Faculty at
   Paris, and the Parliament, which had together maintained
   Gallican liberty, were united in stern hostility to all
   doctrinal innovations. … In Southern France a remnant of the
   Waldenses had survived, and the recollection of the
   Catharists was still preserved in popular songs and legends.
   But the first movements towards reform emanated from the
   Humanist culture. A literary and scientific spirit was
   awakened in France through the lively intercourse with Italy
   which subsisted under Louis XII. and Francis I. By Francis
   especially, Italian scholars and artists were induced in large
   numbers to take up their abode in France. Frenchmen likewise
   visited Italy and brought home the classical culture which
   they acquired there. Among the scholars who cultivated Greek
   was Budæus, the foremost of them, whom Erasmus styled the
   'wonder of France.' After the 'Peace of the Dames' was
   concluded at Cambray, in 1529, when Francis surrendered Italy
   to Charles V., a throng of patriotic Italians who feared or
   hated the Spanish rule, streamed over the Alps and gave a new
   impulse to literature and art. Poets, artists, and scholars
   found in the king a liberal and enthusiastic patron. The new
   studies, especially Hebrew and Greek, were opposed by all the
   might of the Sorbonne, the leader of which was the Syndic,
   Beda. He and his associates were on the watch for heresy, and
   every author who was suspected of overstepping the bounds of
   orthodoxy was immediately accused and subjected to
   persecution.
{2453}
   Thus two parties were formed, the one favorable to the new
   learning, and the other inimical to it and rigidly wedded to
   the traditional theology. The Father of the French
   Reformation, or the one more entitled to this distinction than
   any other, is Jacques Lefèvre. … Lefèvre was honored among the
   Humanists as the restorer of philosophy and science in the
   University. Deeply imbued with a religious spirit, in 1509 he
   put forth a commentary on the Psalms, and in 1512 a commentary
   on the Epistles of Paul. As early as about 1512, he said to
   his pupil Farel: 'God will renovate the world, and you will be
   a witness of it'; and in the last named work; he says that the
   signs of the times betoken that a renovation of the Church is
   near at hand. He teaches the doctrine of gratuitous
   justification, and deals with the Scriptures as the supreme
   and sufficient authority. But a mystical, rather than a
   polemical vein characterizes him; and while this prevented him
   from breaking with the Church, it also blunted the sharpness
   of the opposition which his opinions were adapted to produce.
   One of his pupils was Briçonnet, Bishop of Meaux, who held the
   same view of justification with Lefèvre, and fostered the
   evangelical doctrine in his diocese. The enmity of the
   Sorbonne to Lefèvre and his school took a more aggressive form
   when the writings of Luther began to be read in the University
   and elsewhere. … The Sorbonne [1521] formally condemned a
   dissertation of Lefèvre on a point of evangelical history, in
   which he had controverted the traditional opinion. He, with
   Farel, Gérard Roussel, and other preachers, found an asylum
   with Briçonnet. Lefèvre translated the New Testament from the
   Vulgate, and, in a commentary on the Gospels, explicitly
   pronounced the Bible the sole rule of faith, which the
   individual might interpret for himself, and declared
   justification to be through faith alone, without human works
   or merit. It seemed as if Meaux aspired to become another
   Wittenberg. At length a commission of parliament was appointed
   to take cognizance of heretics in that district. Briçonnet,
   either intimidated, as Beza asserts, or recoiling at the sight
   of an actual secession from the Church, joined in the
   condemnation of Luther and of his opinions, and even
   acquiesced in the persecution which fell upon Protestantism
   within his diocese. Lefèvre fled to Strasburg, was afterwards
   recalled by Francis I., but ultimately took up his abode in
   the court of the King's sister, Margaret, the Queen of
   Navarre. Margaret, from the first, was favorably inclined to
   the new doctrines. There were two parties at the court. The
   mother of the King, Louisa of Savoy, and the Chancellor
   Duprat, were allies of the Sorbonne. … Margaret, on the
   contrary, a versatile and accomplished princess, cherished a
   mystical devotion which carried her beyond Briçonnet in her
   acceptance of the teaching of the Reformers. … Before the
   death of her first husband, the Duke of Alençon, and while she
   was a widow, she exerted her influence to the full extent in
   behalf of the persecuted Protestants, and in opposition to the
   Sorbonne. After her marriage to Henry d'Albret, the King of
   Navarre, she continued, in her own little court and
   principality, to favor the reformed doctrine and its
   professors. …

The drift of her influence appears in the character of her daughter, the heroic Jeanne d'Albret, the mother of Henry IV., and in the readiness of the people over whom Margaret immediately ruled to receive the Protestant faith. … Francis I., whose generous patronage of artists and men of letters gave him the title of 'Father of Science,' had no love for the Sorbonne, for the Parliament, or for the monks. He entertained the plan of bringing Erasmus to Paris, and placing him at the head of an institution of learning. He read the Bible with his mother and sister, and felt no superstitious aversion to the leaders of reform. … The revolt of the Constable Bourbon [see FRANCE: A. D. 1520-1523] made it necessary for Francis to conciliate the clergy; and the battle of Pavia, followed by the captivity of the King, and the regency of his mother, gave a free rein to the persecutors. An inquisitorial court, composed partly of laymen, was ordained by Parliament. Heretics were burned at Paris and in the provinces. Louis de Berquin, who combined a culture which won the admiration of Erasmus, with the religious earnestness of Luther, was thrown into prison." Three times the King interposed and rescued him from the persecutors; but at last, in November, 1529, Berquin was hanged and burned.

"Such scenes [as the execution of Berquin], added to the preaching and dissemination of the Scriptures and religious tracts, caused the desire for reform to spread far and wide. In the autumn of 1534, a violent placard against the mass was posted about Paris, and one was even fixed on the king's own chamber. The cry was soon raised, 'Death! death to the heretics!' Francis had long dallied with the Reformation. … Now … he develops into what was quite contrary to his disposition, a cruel persecutor. A certain bourgeois of Paris, unaffected by any heretical notions, kept in those days a diary of what was going on in Paris, and from this precious document … we learn that between the 13th of November, 1534, and the 13th of March, 1535, twenty so-called Lutherans were put to death in Paris. … The panic caused by the Anabaptist outbreak at Munster may perhaps account for the extreme cruelty, … as the siege was in actual progress at the time. It was to defend the memories of the martyrs of the 29th of January, 1535, and of others who had suffered elsewhere, and to save, if possible, those menaced with a similar fate, that Calvin wrote his 'Institution of the Christian Religion.' A timid, feeble-bodied young student, he had fled from France [1535], in the hope of finding some retreat where he might lose himself in the studies he loved. Passing through Geneva [1536] with the intention of staying there only for a night, he met the indefatigable, ubiquitous, enterprising, courageous Farel, who, taking him by the hand, adjured him to stop and carry on the work in that city. Calvin shrank instinctively, but … was forced to yield. … Calvin once settled at Geneva had no more doubt about his calling than if he had been Moses himself."

      ALSO IN:
      H. M. Baird,
      History of the Rise of the Huguenots of France,
      chapters 2-4 (volume 1).

PAPACY: A. D. 1522-1525.
   The deepening and strengthening of the Lutheran Reformation
   and its systematic organization.
   The two diets of Nuremberg.
   The Catholic League of Ratisbon.
   The formal adoption of the Reformed Religion in Northern Germany.

"Fortunately for the reformation, the emperor was prevented from executing the edict of Worms by his absence from Germany, by the civil commotions in Spain, and still more by the war with Francis I., which extended into Spain, the Low Countries, and Italy, and for above eight years involved him in a continued series of contests and negotiations at a distance from Germany. His brother, Ferdinand, on whom, as joint president of the council of regency, the administration of affairs devolved, was occupied in quelling the discontents in the Austrian territories, and defending his right to the crowns of Hungary and Bohemia; and thus the government of the empire was left to the council of regency, of which several members were inclined to favour innovation, In consequence of these circumstances, the Lutherans were enabled to overcome the difficulties to which innovators of every kind are exposed; and they were no less favoured by the changes at the court of Rome. Leo dying in 1521, Adrian, his successor, who, by the influence of Charles, was raised to the pontifical chair, on the 9th of January, 1522, saw and lamented the corruptions of the church, and his ingenuous, but impolitic confessions, that the whole church, both in its head and members, required a thorough reformation, strengthened the arguments of his opponents. … Nothing, perhaps, proved more the surprising change of opinion in Germany, the rapid increase of those whom we shall now distinguish by the name of Lutherans, and the commencement of a systematic opposition to the church of Rome, than the transactions of the two diets of Nuremberg, which were summoned by the archduke Ferdinand, principally for the purpose of enforcing the execution of the edict of Worms. In a brief dated in November, 1522, and addressed to the first diet, pope Adrian, after severely censuring the princes of the empire for not carrying into execution the edict of Worms, exhorted them, if mild and moderate measures failed, to cut off Luther from the body of the church, as a gangrened and incurable member. … At the same time, with singular inconsistency, he acknowledged the corruptions of the Roman court as the source of the evils which overspread the church, [and] promised as speedy a reformation as the nature of the abuses would admit. … The members of the diet, availing themselves of his avowal, advised him to assemble a council in Germany for the reformation of abuses, and drew up a list of a hundred grievances which they declared they would no longer tolerate, and, if not speedily delivered from such burdens, would procure relief by the authority with which God had intrusted them. … The recess of the diet, published in March, 1523, was framed with the same spirit; instead of threats of persecution, it only enjoined all persons to wait with patience the determination of a free council, forbade the diffusion of doctrines likely to create disturbances, and subjected all publications to the approbation of men of learning and probity appointed by the magistrate. Finally, it declared, that as priests who had married, or monks who had quitted their convents, were not guilty of a civil crime, they were only amenable to an ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and liable at the discretion of the ordinary to be deprived of their ecclesiastical privileges and benefices. The Lutherans derived their greatest advantages from these proceedings, as the gross corruptions of the church of Rome were now proved by the acknowledgment of the pontiff himself. … From this period they confidently appealed to the confession of the pontiff, and as frequently quoted the hundred grievances which were enumerated in a public and authentic act of the Germanic body. They not only regarded the recess as a suspension of the edict of Worms, but construed the articles in their own favour. … Hitherto the innovators had only preached against the doctrines and ceremonies of the Roman church, without exhibiting a regular system of their own." But now "Luther was persuaded, at the instances of the Saxon clergy, to form a regular system of faith and discipline; he translated the service into the German tongue, modified the form of the mass, and omitted many superstitious ceremonies; but he made as few innovations as possible, consistently with his own principles. To prevent also the total alienation or misuse of the ecclesiastical revenues, he digested a project for their administration, by means of an annual committee, and by his writings and influence effected its introduction. Under this judicious system the revenues of the church, after a provision for the clergy, were appropriated for the support of schools; for the relief of the poor, sick, and aged, of orphans and widows; for the reparation of churches and sacred buildings; and for the erection of magazines and the purchase of corn against periods of scarcity. These regulations and ordinances, though not established with the public approbation of the elector, were yet made with his tacit acquiescence, and may be considered as the first institution of a reformed system of worship and ecclesiastical polity; and in this institution the example of the churches of Saxony was followed by all the Lutheran communities in Germany. The effects of these changes were soon visible, and particularly at the meeting of the second diet of Nuremberg, on the 10th of January, 1524. Faber, canon of Strasburgh, who had been enjoined to make a progress through Germany for the purpose of preaching against the Lutheran doctrines, durst not execute his commission, although under the sanction of a safe conduct from the council of regency. Even the legate Campegio could not venture to make his public entry into Nuremberg with the insignia of his dignity, … for fear of being insulted by the populace. … Instead, therefore, of annulling the acts of the preceding diet, the new assembly pursued the same line of conduct. … The recess was, if possible, still more galling to the court of Rome, and more hostile to its prerogatives than that of the former diet. … The Catholics, thus failing in their efforts to obtain the support of the diet, on the 6th of July, 1524, entered into an association at Ratisbon, under the auspices of Campegio, in which the archduke Ferdinand, the duke of Bavaria, and most of the German bishops concurred, for enforcing the edict of Worms. {2455} At the same time, to conciliate the Germans, the legate published 29 articles for, the amendment of some abuses; but these being confined to points of minor importance, and regarding only the inferior clergy, produced no satisfaction, and were attended with no effect. Notwithstanding this formidable union of the Catholic princes, the proceedings of the diet of Nuremberg were but the prelude to more decisive innovations, which followed each other with wonderful rapidity. Frederic the Wise, elector of Saxony, dying in 1525, was succeeded by his brother, John the Constant, who publicly espoused and professed the Lutheran doctrines. The system recently digested by Luther, with many additional alterations, was introduced by his authority, and declared the established religion; and by his order the celebrated Melanchthon drew up an apology in defence of the reformed tenets for the princes who adopted them. Luther himself, who had in the preceding year thrown off the monastic habit, soon after the accession of the new sovereign ventured to give the last proof of his emancipation from the fetters of the church of Rome, by espousing, on the 13th of July, 1525, Catherine Bora, a noble lady, who had escaped from the nunnery at Nimptschen, and taken up her residence at Wittemberg. The example of the elector of Saxony was followed by Philip, landgrave of Hesse Cassel, a prince of great influence and distinguished civil and military talents; by the dukes of Mecklenburgh, Pomerania, and Zell; and by the imperial cities of Nuremberg, Strasburgh, Frankfort, Nordhausen, Magdeburgh, Brunswick, Bremen, and others of less importance. … Albert, margrave of Brandenburgh, grand-master of the Teutonic order, … in 1525, renounced his vow of celibacy, made a public profession of the Lutheran tenets, and, with the consent of Sigismond, king of Poland, secularised Eastern Prussia."

ALSO IN: L. von Ranke, History of the Reformation in Germany, book 3, chapters 2-5 (volume 2).

PAPACY: A. D. 1523-1527.
   The double-dealings of Pope Clement VII. with the emperor
   and the king of France.
   Imperial revenge.
   The sack of Rome.

PAPACY: A. D. 1525-1529.
   The League of Torgau.
   Contradictory action of the Diets at Spires.
   The Protest of Lutheran princes which gave
   rise to the name "Protestants."

"At the Diet of Nuremberg it had been determined to hold an assembly shortly after at Spires for the regulation of ecclesiastical affairs. The princes were to procure beforehand from their councillors and scholars a statement of the points in dispute. The grievances of the nation were to be set forth, and remedies were to be sought for them. The nation was to deliberate and act on the great matter of religious reform. The prospect was that the evangelical party would be in the majority. The papal court saw the danger that was involved in an assembly gathered for such a purpose, and determined to prevent the meeting. At this moment war was breaking out between Charles and Francis. Charles had no inclination to offend the Pope. He forbade the assembly at Spires, and, by letters addressed to the princes individually, endeavored to drive them into the execution of the edict of Worms. In consequence of these threatening movements, the Elector of Saxony and the Landgrave of Hesse entered into the defensive league of Torgau, in which they were joined by several Protestant communities. The battle of Pavia and the capture of Francis I. [see FRANCE: A. D. 1523-1525] were events that appeared to be fraught with peril to the Protestant cause. In the Peace of Madrid (January 14, 1526) both sovereigns avowed the determination to suppress heresy. But the dangerous preponderance obtained by the Emperor created an alarm throughout Europe; and the release of Francis was followed by the organization of a confederacy against Charles, of which Clement was the leading promoter.

This changed the imperial policy in reference to the Lutherans. The Diet of Spires in 1526 unanimously resolved that, until the meeting of a general council, every state should act in regard to the edict of Worms as it might answer to God and his imperial majesty. Once more Germany refused to stifle the Reformation, and adopted the principle that each of the component parts of the Empire should be left free to act according to its own will. It was a measure of the highest importance to the cause of Protestantism. It is a great landmark in the history of the German Reformation. The war of the Emperor and the Pope involved the necessity of tolerating the Lutherans. In 1527, an imperial army, composed largely of Lutheran infantry, captured and sacked the city of Rome. For several months the Pope was held a prisoner. For a number of years the position of Charles with respect to France and the Pope, and the fear of Turkish invasion, had operated to embolden and greatly strengthen the cause of Luther. But now that the Emperor had gained a complete victory in Italy, the Catholic party revived its policy of repression."

   "While Charles and Clement were arranging matters in 1529, a
   new Diet was held at Spires, and the reactionists exerted
   themselves to obtain a reversal of that ordinance of the Diet
   of 1526 which had given to the reformed doctrines a legal
   position in Germany. Had it heen possible, the Papist leaders
   would have forced back the Diet on the old Edict of Worms, but
   in this they were baffled. Then they took up another line of
   defence and aggression. Where the Worms Edict had been
   enforced, it was, they urged, to be maintained; but all
   further propagation of the reformed doctrines, all religious
   innovation whatever, was to be forbidden, pending the
   assemblage of a General Council. … This doom of arrest and
   paralysis —this imperious mandate, 'Hitherto shall ye come,
   but no further,'—could not be brooked by the followers of
   Luther. They possessed the advantage of being admirably led.
   Philip of Hesse supplied some elements of sound counsel that
   were wanting in Luther himself. … Luther regarded with favour
   … the doctrine of passive obedience. It was too much his
   notion that devout Germans, if their Emperor commanded them to
   renounce the truth, should simply die at the stake without a
   murmur. …
{2456}
   The most ripe and recent inquiries seem to prove that it was
   about this very time, when the Evangelical Princes and Free
   Cities of Germany were beginning to put shoulder to shoulder
   and organise resistance, in arms if necessary, to the Emperor
   and the Pope, that Luther composed 'Ein' feste Burg ist unser
   Gott,' a psalm of trust in God, and in God only, as the
   protector of Christians. He took no fervent interest, however,
   in the Diet; and Philip and his intrepid associates derived
   little active support from him. These were inflexibly
   determined that the decree of the majority should not be
   assented to. Philip of Hesse, John of Saxony, Markgraf George
   the Pious of Brandenburg-Anspach, the Dukes of Lunenburg and
   Brunswick, the Prince of Anhalt, and the representatives of
   Strasburg, Nürnberg, and twelve other free cities [Ulm,
   Constance, Reutlingen, Windsheim, Memmingen, Lindau, Kempten,
   Heilbron, Isna, Weissemburgh, Nordlingen, and St. Gallen],
   entered a solemn protest against the Popish resolution. They
   were called Protestants. The name, as is customary with names
   that felicitously express and embody facts, was caught up in
   Germany and passed into every country in Europe and the
   world."

ALSO IN: L. von Ranke, History of the Reformation in Germany, books 4-5 (volumes 2-3).

J. H. Merle D'Aubigne, History of the Reformation, book 10, chapter 14, and book 13, chapter 1-6 (volumes 3-4).

PAPACY: A. D. 1530-1531.
   The Diet at Augsburg.
   Presentation and condemnation of the
   Protestant Confession of Faith.
   The breach with the Reformation complete.

"In the year 1530, Charles V., seeing France prostrate, Italy quelled, and Solyman driven within his own boundaries, determined upon undertaking the decision of the great question of the Reformation. The two conflicting parties were summoned, and met at Augsburg. The sectaries of Luther, known by the general name of protestants, were desirous to be distinguished from the other enemies of Rome, the excesses committed by whom would have thrown odium upon their cause; to be distinguished from the Zwinglian republicans of Switzerland, odious to the princes and to the nobles; above all, they desired not to be confounded with the anabaptists, proscribed by all as the enemies of society and of social order. Luther, over whom there was still suspended the sentence pronounced against him at Worms, whereby he was declared a heretic, could not appear at Augsburg; his place was supplied by the learned and pacific Melancthon, a man timid and gentle as Erasmus, whose friend he continued to be, despite of Luther. The elector, however, conveyed the great reformer as near to the place of convocation as regard to his friend's personal safety rendered advisable. He had him stationed in the strong fortress of Coburg. From this place, Luther was enabled to maintain with ease and expedition a constant intercourse with the protestant ministers. … Melancthon believed in the possibility of effecting a reconciliation between the two parties. Luther, at a very early period of the schism, saw that they were utterly irreconcilable. In the commencement of the Reformation, he had frequently had recourse to conferences and to public disputations. It was then of moment to him to resort to every effort, to try, by all the means in his power, to preserve the bond of Christianity, before he abandoned all hope of so doing. But towards the close of his life, dating from the period of the Diet of Augsburg, he openly discouraged and disclaimed these wordy contests, in which the vanquished would never avow his defeat. On the 26th of August, 1530, he writes: 'I am utterly opposed to any effort being made to reconcile the two doctrines; for it is an impossibility, unless, indeed, the pope will consent to abjure papacy. Let it suffice us that we have established our belief upon the basis of reason, and that we have asked for peace. Why hope to convert them to the truth?' And on the same day (26th August), he tells Spalatin: 'I understand you have undertaken a notable mission—that of reconciling Luther and the pope. But the pope will not be reconciled and Luther refuses. Be mindful how you sacrifice both time and trouble.' … These prophecies were, however, unheeded: the conferences took place, and the protestants were required to furnish their profession of faith. This was drawn up by Melancthon." The Confession, as drawn up by Melancthon, was adopted and signed by five electors, 30 ecclesiastical princes, 23 secular princes, 22 abbots, 32 counts and barons, and 39 free and imperial cities, and has since been known as the Augsburg Confession.

"A difficulty now arose as to the public reading of the Confession in the Diet. The Protestant princes, who had severally signed it, contended against the Catholic princes, that, in fairness, it should be read; and, against the emperor, that, if read at all, it should be read in German, and not in Latin. They were successful in both instances, and the Confession was publicly read in German by Bayer, one of the two chancellors of the Elector of Saxony, during the afternoon session of June 25, held in the chapel of the imperial palace. Campeggio, the Papal Legate, was absent. The reading occupied two hours, and the powerful effect it produced was, in a large measure, due to the rich, sonorous voice of Bayer, and to his distinct articulation and the musical cadence of his periods. Having finished, he handed the Confession to the Emperor, who submitted it for examination to Eck, Conrad Wimpina, Cochlæus, John Faber, and others of the Catholic theologians present in the Diet." These prepared a "Confutation" which was "finally agreed upon and read in a public session of the Diet, held August 3rd, and with which the Emperor and the Catholic princes expressed themselves fully satisfied. The Protestant princes were commanded to disclaim their errors, and return to the allegiance of the ancient faith, and 'should you refuse,' the Emperor added, 'we shall regard it a conscientious duty to proceed as our coronation oath and our office of protector of Holy Church require.' This declaration roused the indignant displeasure of the Protestant princes. Philip of Hesse … excited general alarm by abruptly breaking off the transactions, lately entered upon between the princes and the bishops, and suddenly quitting Augsburg. Charles V. now ordered the controverted points to be discussed in his presence, and appointed seven Protestants and an equal number of Catholics to put forward and defend the views of their respective parties." {2457} Subsequently Melancthon "prepared and published his 'Apology for the Augsburg Confession,' which was intended to be an answer to the 'Confutation' of the Catholic theologians. The Protestant princes laid a copy of the 'Apology' before the emperor, who rejected both it and the Confession. … After many more fruitless attempts to bring about a reconciliation, the emperor, on the 22nd of September, the day previous to that fixed for the departure of the Elector of Saxony, published an edict, in which he stated, among other things, that 'the Protestants have been refuted by sound and irrefragable arguments drawn from Holy Scripture.' 'To deny free-will,' he went on to say, 'and to affirm that faith without works avails for man's salvation, is to assert what is absurdly erroneous; for, as we very well know from past experience, were such doctrines to prevail, all true morality would perish from the earth. But that the Protestants may have sufficient time to consider their future course of action, we grant them from this to the 15th of April of next year for consideration.' On the following day, Joachim, Elector of Brandenburg, speaking in the emperor's name, addressed the evangelic princes and deputies of the Protestant cities as follows: 'His majesty is extremely amazed at your persisting in the assertion that your doctrines are based on Holy Scripture. Were your assertion true, then would it follow that his Majesty's ancestors, including so many kings and emperors, as well as the ancestors of the Elector of Saxony, were heretics!' … The Protestant princes forthwith took their leave of the emperor. On the 13th of October, the 'Recess,' or decree of the Diet, was read to the Catholic States, which on the same day entered into a Catholic League. On the 17th of the same month, sixteen of the more important German cities refused to aid the emperor in repelling the Turks, on the ground that peace had not yet been secured to Germany. The Zwinglian and Lutheran cities were daily becoming more sympathetic and cordial in their relations to each other. Charles V. informed the Holy See, October 23, of his intention of drawing the sword in defence of the faith. The 'Recess' was read to the Protestant princes November 11, and rejected by them on the day following, and the deputies of Hesse and Saxony took their departure immediately after. … The decree was rather more severe than the Protestants had anticipated, inasmuch as the emperor declared that he felt it to be his conscientious duty to defend the ancient faith, and that 'the Catholic princes had promised to aid him to the full extent of their power.' … The appointment of the emperor's brother, Ferdinand, as King of the Romans (1531), gave deep offence to the Protestant princes, who now expressed their determination of withholding all assistance from the emperor until the 'Recess' of Augsburg should have been revoked. Assembling at Smalkald, … they entered into an alliance offensive and defensive, known as the League of Smalkald, on March 29, 1531, to which they severally bound themselves to remain faithful for a period of six years."

F. A. Cox, Life of Melancthon, chapter 8 (giving the text of the "Augsburg Confession").

PAPACY: A. D. 1530-1532.
   Protestant League of Smalkalde and
   alliance with the king of France.
   The Pacification of Nuremberg.

PAPACY: A. D. 1533. Treaty of Pope Clement VII. with Francis I. of France, for the marriage of Catherine d'Medici.

PAPACY: A. D. 1533-1546.
   Mercenary aspects of the Reformation in Germany.
   The Catholic Holy League.
   Preparations for war.

"A well-known sentence in Macaulay's Essay on Ranke's 'History of the Popes' asserts, correctly enough, that in a particular epoch of history 'the Church of Rome, having lost a large part of Europe, not only ceased to lose, but actually regained nearly half of what she had lost.' Any fairly correct use of the familiar phrase 'the Counter-Reformation' must imply that this remarkable result was due to a movement pursuing two objects, originally distinct, though afterwards largely blended, viz., the regeneration of the Church of Rome, and the recovery of the losses inflicted upon her by the early successes of Protestantism. … The earliest continuous endeavour to regenerate the Church of Rome without impairing her cohesion dates from the Papacy of Paul III. [1534-1549], within which also falls the outbreak of the first religious war of the century.

Thus the two impulses which it was the special task of the Counter-Reformation to fuse were brought into immediate contact. The onset of the combat is marked by the formal establishment of the Jesuit Order [1540] as a militant agency devoted alike to both the purposes of the Counter-Reformation, and by the meeting of the Council of Trent [1545] under conditions excluding from its programme the task of conciliation."

"I intend to use this term Counter-Reformation to denote the reform of the Catholic Church, which was stimulated by the German Reformation, and which, when the Council of Trent had fixed the dogmas and discipline of Latin Christianity, enabled the Papacy to assume a militant policy in Europe, whereby it regained a large portion of the provinces that had previously lapsed to Lutheran and Calvinistic dissent. … The centre of the world-wide movement which is termed the Counter-Reformation was naturally Rome. Events had brought the Holy See once more into a position of prominence. It was more powerful as an Italian State now, through the support of Spain and the extinction of national independence, than at any previous period of history. In Catholic Christendom its prestige was immensely augmented by the Council of Trent. At the same epoch, the foreigners who dominated Italy, threw themselves with the enthusiasm of fanaticism into this Revival. Spain furnished Rome with the militia of the Jesuits and with the engines of the Inquisition. The Papacy was thus able to secure successes in Italy which were elsewhere only partially achieved. … In order to understand the transition of Italy from the Renaissance to the Counter-Reformation manner, it will be well to concentrate attention on the history of the Papacy during the eight reigns [1534-1605] of Paul III., Julius III., Paul IV., Pius IV., Pius V., Gregory XIII., Sixtus V., and Clement VIII. In the first of these reigns we hardly notice that the Renaissance has passed away. In the last we are aware of a completely altered Italy."

J. A. Symonds, Renaissance in Italy: The Catholic Reaction, chapter 2, with foot-note (volume 1).

PAPACY: A. D. 1537-1563.
   Popular weakness of the Reformation movement in Italy.
   Momentary inclination towards the Reform at Rome.
   Beginning of the Catholic Reaction.
   The Council of Trent and its consolidating work.

"The conflict with the hierarchy did not take the same form in Italy as elsewhere. … There is no doubt that the masses saw no cause for discontent under it. We have proof that the hierarchy was popular—that among the people, down to the lowest grades, the undiminished splendour of the Papacy was looked upon as a pledge of the power of Italy. But this did not prevent reform movements from taking place. The Humanistic school had its home here; its opposition tendencies had not spared the Church any more than Scholasticism; it had everywhere been the precursor and ally of the intellectual revolt, and not the least in Italy. There were from the first eminent individuals at Venice, Modena, Ferrara, Florence, even in the States of the Church themselves, who were more or less followers of Luther. The cardinals Contarini and Morone, Bembo and Sadolet, distinguished preachers like Peter Martyr, Johann Valdez, and Bernardino Occhino, and from among the princely families an intellectual lady, Renata of Ferrara, were inclined to the new doctrines. But they were leaders without followers; the number of their adherents among the masses was surprisingly small. The Roman Curia, under the Pontificate of Paul III., 1534-49, vacillated in its policy for a time; between 1537-41, the prevailing sentiments were friendly and conciliatory towards Reform. … They were, in fact, gravely entertaining the question at Rome, whether it would not be better to come to terms with Reform, to adopt the practicable part of its programme, and so put an end to the schism which was spreading so fast in the Church. … An honest desire then still prevailed to effect a reconciliation. Contarini was in favour of it with his whole soul. But it proceeded no further than the attempt; for once the differences seemed likely to be adjusted, so far as this was possible; but in 1542, the revulsion took place, which was never again reversed. Only one result remained. The Pope could no longer refuse to summon a council. The Emperor had been urging it year after year; the Pope had acceded to it further than any of his predecessors had done; and, considering the retreat which now took place, this concession was the least that could be demanded. At length, therefore, three years after it was convened, in May, 1542, the council assembled at Trent in December, 1545. It was the Emperor's great desire that a council should be held in Germany, that thus the confidence of the Germans in the supreme tribunal in the great controversy might be gained; but the selection of Trent, which nominally belonged to Germany, was the utmost concession that could be obtained. The intentions of the Emperor and the Pope with regard to the council were entirely opposed to each other. The Pope was determined to stifle all opposition in the bud, while the Emperor was very desirous of having a counterpoise to the Pope's supremacy in council, provided always that it concurred in the imperial programme. … The assembly consisted of Spanish and Italian monks in overwhelming majority, and this was decisive as to its character. When consulted as to the course of business, the Emperor had expressed a wish that those questions on which agreement between the parties was possible should first be discussed. There were a number of questions on which they were agreed, as, for example, Greek Christianity. Even now there are a number of points on which Protestants and Catholics are agreed, and differ from the Eastern Church. If these questions were considered first, the attendance of the Protestants would be rendered very much easier; it would open the door as widely as possible, they would probably come in considerable numbers, and might in time take a part which at least might not be distasteful to the Emperor, and might influence his ideas on Church reform. The thought that they were heretics was half concealed. But Rome was determined to pursue the opposite course, and at once to agitate those questions on which there was the most essential disagreement, and to declare all who would not submit to be incorrigible heretics. … The first subjects of discussion were, the authority of the Scriptures in the text of the Vulgate, ecclesiastical tradition, the right of interpretation, the doctrine of justification. These were the questions on which the old and new doctrines were irreconcilably at variance; all other differences were insignificant in comparison. And these questions were decided in the old Roman Catholic sense; not precisely as they had been officially treated in 1517—for the stream of time had produced some little effect—but in the main the old statutes were adhered to, and everything rejected which departed from them. This conduct was decisive. … Nevertheless some reforms were carried out. Between the time of meeting and adjournment, December, 1545, to the spring of 1547, the following were the main points decided on:

3. Penalties were to be enforced for the neglect of their duties, and various rules were laid down as to the necessary qualifications for the office of a bishop.

   Dispensations, licenses, and privileges were abolished. The
   Church was therefore to be subjected to a reform which
   abolished sundry abuses, without conceding any change in her
   teaching. The course the council was taking excited the
   Emperor's extreme displeasure. … He organized a sort of
   opposition to Rome; his commissaries kept up a good
   understanding with the Protestants, and it was evident that he
   meant to make use of them for an attack on the Pope. This made
   Rome eager to withdraw the assembly from the influence of
   German bishops and imperial agents as soon as possible. A
   fever which had broken out at Trent, but had soon disappeared,
   was made a pretext for transferring the council to Bologna, in
   the spring of 1547. The imperial commissioners protested that
   the decrees of such a hole-and-corner council would be null
   and void. The contest remained undecided for years. Paul III.
   died in the midst of it, in November, 1549, and was succeeded
   by Cardinal del Monte, one of the papal legates at the
   council, as Pope Julius III.
{2459}
   The Emperor at length came to an understanding with him, and
   in May, 1551, the council was again opened at Trent. … The
   assembly remained Catholic; the Protestant elements, which
   were represented at first, all disappeared after the turn of
   affairs in 1552.

After that there was no further thought of an understanding with the heretics. The results for reform were very small indeed. The proceedings were dragging wearily on when a fresh adjournment was announced in 1552. Pope Julius III. died in March, 1555. His successor, the noble Cardinal Cervin, elected as Marcellus II., died after only twenty-two days, and was succeeded by Cardinal Caraffa as Paul IV., 1555-9. … He was the Pope of the restoration. The warm Neapolitan blood flowed in his veins, and he was a fiery, energetic character. He was not in favour of any concessions or abatement, but for a complete breach with the new doctrines, and a thorough exclusiveness for the ancient Church. He was one of the ablest men of the time. As early as in 1542, he had advised that no further concessions should be made, but that the Inquisition, of which indeed he was the creator, should be restored. It was he who decidedly initiated the great Catholic reaction. He established the Spanish Inquisition in Italy, instituted the first Index, and gave the Jesuits his powerful support in the interests of the restoration. This turn of affairs was the answer to the German religious Peace. Since the Protestants no longer concerned themselves about Rome, Rome was about to set her house in order without them, and as a matter of course the council stood still." But in answer to demands from several Catholic princes, "the council was convened afresh by the next Pope, Pius IV. (1559-65), in November, 1560, and so the Council of Trent was opened for the third time in January, 1562. Then began the important period of the council, during which the legislation to which it has given a name was enacted. … The Curia reigned supreme, and, in spite of the remonstrances of the Emperor and of France, decided that the council should be considered a continuation of the previous ones, which meant—'All the decrees aimed against the Protestants are in full force; we have no further idea of coming to terms with them.' The next proceeding was to interdict books and arrange an Index. …

The restoration of the indisputable authority of the Pope was the ruling principle of all the decrees. … The great achievement of the council for the unity of the Catholic Church was this: it formed into a code of laws, on one consistent principle, that which in ancient times had been variable and uncertain, and which had been almost lost sight of in the last great revolution. Controverted questions were replaced by dogmas, doubtful traditions by definite doctrines; a uniformity was established in matters of faith and discipline which had never existed before, and an impregnable bulwark was thus erected against the sectarian spirit and the tendency to innovation. Still when this unity was established upon a solid basis, the universal Church of former times was torn asunder." The Council of Trent was closed December 4, 1563, 18 years after its opening.

      ALSO IN:
      J. A. Symonds,
      Renaissance in Italy: The Catholic Reaction,
      chapters 2-3 (volume l).

   [IMAGE: Map of CENTRAL EUROPE
   AT THE ABDICATION OF CHARLES V (1556).
   AUSTRIAN HAPSBURGS.
   SPANISH HAPSBURGS.
   VENETIAN POSSESSIONS.
   GENOESE POSSESSIONS.
   ECCLESIASTICAL STATES OF THE EMPIRE.
   STATES OF THE CHURCH.]

[IMAGE: CENTRAL EUROPE SHOWING THE DISTRIBUTION OF RELIGIONS ABOUT 1618. LUTHERAN. ZWINGLIAN. CALVINIST. UNITED BRETHREN. CATHOLIC. LANDS RECLAIMED BY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH DURING THE COUNTER REFORMATION SHOWN THUS. GREEK. MOHAMMEDAN.]

PAPACY: A. D. 1545-1550.
   Separation of Parma and Placentia from the States
   of the Church to form a duchy for the Pope's family.
   The Farnese.

PAPACY: A. D. 1555-1603.
The aggressive age of the reinvigorated Church.
Attachment and subserviency to Spain.

Giovanni Piero Caraffa, founder of the Order of the Theatines, was raised to the papal chair in 1555, assuming the title of Paul IV. He "entered on his station with the haughty notions of its prerogatives which were natural to his austere and impetuous spirit. Hence his efforts in concert with France, unsuccessful as they proved, to overthrow the Spanish greatness, that he might extricate the popedom from the galling state of dependence to which the absolute ascendancy of that power in Italy had reduced it. Paul IV. is remarkable as the last pontiff who embarked in a contest which had now become hopeless, and as the first who, giving a new direction to the policy of the holy see, employed all the influence, the arts, and the resources of the Roman church against the protestant cause. He had, during the pontificate of Paul III. [1534-1549], already made himself conspicuous for his persecuting zeal. He had been the principal agent in the establishment of the inquisition at Rome, and had himself filled the office of grand inquisitor. He seated himself in the chair of St. Peter with the detestable spirit of that vocation; and the character of his pontificate responded to the violence of his temper. His mantle descended upon a long series of his successors. Pius IV., who replaced him on his death in 1559; Pius V., who received the tiara in the following year; Gregory XIII., who was elected in 1572, and died in 1585; Sixtus V., who next reigned until 1590; Urban VII., Gregory XIV., and Innocent IX., who each filled the papal chair only a few months; and Clement VIII., whose pontificate commenced in 1592 and extended beyond the close of the century [1603]: all pursued the same political and religious system. Resigning the hope, and perhaps the desire, of re-establishing the independence of their see, they maintained an intimate and obsequious alliance with the royal bigot of Spain; they seconded his furious persecution of the protestant faith; they fed the civil wars of the Low Countries, of France, and of Germany."

"The Papacy and Catholicism had long maintained themselves against these advances of their enemy [the Protestant Reformation], in an attitude of defence it is true, but passive only; upon the whole they were compelled to endure them. Affairs now assumed a different aspect. … It may be affirmed generally that a vital and active force was again manifested, that the church had regenerated her creed in the spirit of the age, and had established reforms in accordance with the demands of the times. {2460} The religious tendencies which had appeared in southern Europe were not suffered to become hostile to herself, she adopted them, and gained the mastery of their movements; thus she renewed her powers, and infused fresh vigour into her system. … The influence of the restored Catholic system was first established in the two southern peninsulas, but this was not accomplished without extreme severities. The Spanish Inquisition received the aid of that lately revived in Rome; every movement of Protestantism was violently suppressed. But at the same time those tendencies of the inward life which renovated Catholicism claimed and enchained as her own, were peculiarly powerful in those countries. "The sovereigns also attached themselves to the interests of the church. It was of the highest importance that Philip II., the most powerful of all, adhered so decidedly to the popedom; with the pride of a Spaniard, by whom unimpeachable Catholicism was regarded as a sign of a purer blood and more noble descent, he rejected every adverse opinion: the character of his policy was however not wholly governed by mere personal feeling. From remote times, and more especially since the regulations established by Isabella, the kingly dignity of Spain had assumed an ecclesiastical character; in every province the royal authority was strengthened by the addition of spiritual power; deprived of the Inquisition, it would not have sufficed to govern the kingdom. Even in his American possessions, the king appeared above all in the light of a disseminator of the Christian and Catholic faith. This was the bond by which all his territories were united in obedience to his rule; he could not have abandoned it, without incurring real danger. The extension of Huguenot opinions in the south of France caused the utmost alarm in Spain; the Inquisition believed itself bound to redoubled vigilance. … The power possessed by Philip in the Netherlands secured to the southern system an immediate influence over the whole of Europe; but besides this, all was far from being lost in other countries. The emperor, the kings of France and Poland, with the duke of Bavaria, still adhered to the Catholic church. On all sides there were spiritual princes whose expiring zeal might be reanimated; there were also many places where Protestant opinions had not yet made their way among the mass of the people. The majority of the peasantry throughout France, Poland, and even Hungary, still remained Catholic. Paris, which even in those days exercised a powerful influence over the other French towns, had not yet been affected by the new doctrines. In England a great part of the nobility and commons were still Catholic; and in Ireland the whole of the ancient native population remained in the old faith. Protestantism had gained no admission into the Tyrolese or Swiss Alps, nor had it made any great progress among the peasantry of Bavaria. Canisius compared the Tyrolese and Bavarians with the two tribes of Israel, 'who alone remained faithful to the Lord.' The internal causes on which this pertinacity, this immovable attachment to tradition, among nations so dissimilar, was founded, might well repay a more minute examination. A similar constancy was exhibited in the Walloon provinces of the Netherlands. And now the papacy resumed a position in which it could once more gain the mastery of all these inclinations, and bind them indissolubly to itself. Although it had experienced great changes, it still possessed the inestimable advantage of having all the externals of the past and the habit of obedience on its side. In the council so prosperously concluded, the popes had even gained an accession of that authority which it had been the purpose of the temporal powers to restrict; and had strengthened their influence over the national churches; they had moreover abandoned that temporal policy by which they had formerly involved Italy and all Europe in confusion. They attached themselves to Spain with perfect confidence and without any reservations, fully returning the devotion evinced by that kingdom to the Roman church. The Italian principality, the enlarged dominions of the pontiff, contributed eminently to the success of his ecclesiastical enterprises; while the interests of the universal Catholic church were for some time essentially promoted by the overplus of its revenues. Thus strengthened internally, thus supported by powerful adherents, and by the idea of which they were the representatives, the popes exchanged the defensive position, with which they had hitherto been forced to content themselves, for that of assailants."

"The first 'Index' of prohibited books published by Papal authority, and therefore, unlike the 'catalogi' previously issued by royal, princely, or ecclesiastical authorities, valid for the whole Church, was that authorised by a bull of Paul IV. in 1559. In 1564 followed the Index published by Pius IV., as drawn up in harmony with the decrees of the Council of Trent, which, after all, appears to be a merely superficial revision of its predecessor. Other Indices followed, for which various authorities were responsible, the most important among them being the Index Expurgatorius, sanctioned by a bull of Clement VIII. in 1595, which proved so disastrous to the great printing trade of Venice."

PAPACY: A. D. 1570-1571.
Holy League with Venice and Spain against the Turks.
Great battle and victory of Lepanto.

PAPACY: A. D. 1572.
Reception of the news of the Massacre of St. Bartholomew's Day.

"The loss which the papal states sustained by the alienation of Parma and Placentia was repaired, before the end of the 16th century, by the acquisition of a duchy little inferior in extent to those territories:—that of Ferrara." With the death, in 1597, of Alfonso II., the persecutor of Tasso, "terminated the legitimate Italian branch of the ancient and illustrious line of Este. But there remained an illegitimate representative of his house, whom he designed for his successor; don Cesare da Este, the grandson of Alfonso I. by a natural son of that duke. The inheritance of Ferrara and Modena had passed in the preceding century to bastards, without opposition from the popes, the feudal superiors of the former duchy. But the imbecile character of don Cesare now encouraged the reigning pontiff, Clement VIII., to declare that all the ecclesiastical fiefs of the house of Este reverted, of right, to the holy see on the extinction of the legitimate line. The papal troops, on the death of Alfonso II., invaded the Ferrarese state; and Cesare suffered himself to be terrified by their approach into an ignominious and formal surrender of that duchy to the holy see. By the indifference of the Emperor Rodolph II., he was permitted to retain the investiture of the remaining possessions of his ancestors: the duchies of Modena and Reggio, over which, as imperial and not papal fiefs, the pope could not decently assert any right. In passing beneath the papal yoke, the duchy of Ferrara, which, under the government of the house of Este, had been one of the most fertile provinces of Italy, soon became a desert and marshy waste. The capital itself lost its industrious population and commercial riches; its architectural magnificence crumbled into ruins, and its modern aspect retains no trace of that splendid court in which literature and art repaid the fostering protection of its sovereigns, by reflecting lustre on their heads."

PAPACY: A. D. 1605-1700.
   The conflict with Venice.
   Opposition of Urban VIII. to the Emperor.
   Annexation of Urbino to the States of the Church.
   Half a century of unimportant history.

"Paul V. (1605-1621) was imbued with mediæval ideas as to the papal authority and the validity of the canon-law. These speedily brought him into collision with the secular power, especially in Venice, which had always maintained an attitude of independence towards the papacy. Ecclesiastical disputes [growing out of a Venetian decree forbidding alienations of secular property in favor of the churches] were aggravated by the fact that the acquisition of Ferrara had extended the papal states to the frontiers of Venice, and that frequent differences arose as to the boundary line between them. The defence of the republic and of the secular authority in church affairs was undertaken with great zeal and ability by Fra Paoli Sarpi, the famous historian of the Council of Trent. Paul V. did not hesitate to excommunicate the Venetians [1606], but the government compelled the clergy to disregard the pope's edict. The Jesuits, Theatines, and Capuchins were the only orders that adhered to the papacy, and they had to leave the city. If Spain had not been under the rule of the pacific Lerma, it would probably have seized the opportunity to punish Venice for its French alliance. But France and Spain were both averse to war, and Paul V. had to learn that the papacy was powerless without secular support. By the mediation of the two great powers, a compromise was arranged in 1607. The Jesuits, however, remained excluded from Venetian territory for another half-century. This was the first serious reverse encountered by the Catholic reaction. …

The attention of the Catholic world was now absorbed in the Austrian schemes for the repression of Protestantism in Germany, which received the unhesitating support both of Paul and of his successor, Gregory XV. [1621-1623]. The latter was a great patron of the Jesuits. Under him the Propaganda was first set on foot. … The pontificate of Urban VIII. (1623-1644) was a period of great importance. He regarded himself rather as a temporal prince than as head of the Church. He fortified Rome and filled his states with troops. The example of Julius II. seemed to find an imitator. Urban was imbued with the old Italian jealousy of the imperial power, and allied himself closely with France. … At the moment when Ferdinand II. had gained his greatest success in Germany he was confronted with the hostility of the pope. Gustavus Adolphus landed in Germany, and by a strange coincidence Protestantism found support in the temporal interests of the papacy. The Catholics were astounded and dismayed by Urban's attitude. … Urban VIII. succeeded in making an important addition to the papal states by the annexation of Urbino, in 1631, on the death of Francesco Maria, the last duke of the Della Rovere family. But in the government of the states he met with great difficulties. … Urban VIII.'s relatives, the Barberini, quarreled with the Farnesi, who had held Parma and Piacenza since the pontificate of Paul III. The pope was induced to claim the district of Castro, and this claim aroused a civil war (1641-1644) in which the papacy was completely worsted. Urban was forced to conclude a humiliating treaty and directly afterwards died. His successors [Innocent X., 1644-1655; Alexander VII., 1655-1667; Clement IX., 1667-1669; Clement X., 1670-1676; Innocent XI., 1676-1689; Alexander VIII., 1689-1691; Innocent XII., 1691-1700] are of very slight importance to the history of Europe. … The only important questions in which the papacy was involved in the latter half of the century were the schism of the Jansenists and the relations with Louis XIV."

ALSO IN: J. E. Darras, General History of the Catholic Church, period 7, chapter 7; period 8, chapters 1-3 (volume 4).

PAPACY: A. D. 1622.
   Founding of the College of the Propaganda.
   [Transcriber's note:
   2022: "Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples."]

   Cardinal Alexander Ludovisio, elected pope on the 9th of
   February, 1621, taking the name of Gregory XV., "had always
   shown the greatest zeal for the conversion of infidels and
   heretics; this zeal inspired the design of founding the
   College of the Propaganda (1622). The origin of the Propaganda
   is properly to be traced to an edict of Gregory XIII., in
   virtue of which a certain number of cardinals were charged
   with the direction of missions to the East, and catechisms
   were ordered to be printed in the less-known languages. But
   the institution was neither firmly established nor provided
   with the requisite funds. Gregory XV. gave it a constitution,
   contributed the necessary funds from his private purse, and as
   it met a want the existence of which was really felt and
   acknowledged, its success was daily more and more brilliant.
{2462}
   Who does not know what the Propaganda has done for
   philological learning? But it chiefly labored, with admirable
   grandeur of conception and energy, to fulfil its great
   mission—the propagation of the Catholic faith—with the most
   splendid results. Urban VIII., the immediate successor of
   Gregory XV., completed the work by the addition of the
   'Collegium de Propaganda Fide,' where youth are trained in the
   study of all the foreign languages, to bear the name of Christ
   to every nation on the globe."

      J. E. Darras,
      General History of the Catholic Church,
      period 7, chapter 7, section. 10 (volume 4).

PAPACY: A. D. 1644-1667.
Pontificates of Innocent X. and Alexander VII.
Growth of Nepotism.

Sixtus V. had "invented a system of nepotism which was so actively followed up by his successors, that even a short reign provided the means of accumulating a brilliant fortune. That pontiff raised one nephew to the rank of cardinal, with a share of the public business and an ecclesiastical income of a hundred thousand crowns. Another he created a marquess, with large estates in the Neapolitan territory. The house of Ferretti thus founded, long maintained a high position, and was frequently represented in the College of Cardinals. The Aldobrandini, founded in like manner by Clement VIII., the Borghesi by Paul V., the Ludovisi by Gregory XV., and the Barberini by Urban VIII., now vied in rank and opulence with the ancient Roman houses of Colonna and Orsini, who boasted that for centuries no peace had been concluded in Christendom in which they were not expressly included. On the death of Urban VIII. (29th July 1644) the Barberini commanded the votes of eight-and-forty cardinals, the most powerful faction ever seen in the conclave. Still, the other papal families were able to resist their dictation, and the struggle terminated in the election of Cardinal Pamfili, who took the name of Innocent X. During the interval of three months, the city was abandoned to complete lawlessness; assassinations in the streets were frequent; no private house was safe without a military guard, and a whole army of soldiers found occupation in protecting the property of their employers. This was then the usual state of things during an interregnum. Innocent X., though seventy-two years of age at his election, was full of energy. He restrained the disorders in the city. … Innocent brought the Barberini to strict account for malpractices under his predecessor, and wrested from them large portions of their ill-gotten gain. So far, however, from reforming the system out of which these abuses sprung, his nepotism exhibited itself in a form which scandalised even the Roman courtiers. The pope brought his sister-in-law, Donna Olimpia Maidalchina, from Viterbo to Rome, and established her in a palace, where she received the first visits of foreign ambassadors on their arrival, gave magnificent entertainments, and dispensed for her own benefit the public offices of the government. … Her daughters were married into the noblest families. Her son, having first been appointed the cardinal-nephew, soon after renounced his orders, married, and became the secular-nephew. The struggle for power between his mother and his wife divided Rome into new factions, and the feud was enlarged by the ambition of a more distant kinsman, whom Innocent appointed to the vacant post of cardinal-nephew. The pontiff sank under a deep cloud from the disorders in his family and the palace, and when he died (5th January, 1655) the corpse laid three days uncared for, till an old canon, who had been long dismissed from his household, expended half-a-crown on its interment. … Fabio Chigi, who came next as Alexander VIII. [VII.] brought to the tottering chair a spotless reputation, and abilities long proved in the service of the church. His first act was to banish the scandalous widow; her son was allowed to retain her palace and fortune. Beginning with the loudest protestations against nepotism, now the best established institution at Rome, in the phrase of the time, the pope soon 'became a man.' The courtiers remonstrated on his leaving his family to live a plain citizen's life at Siena: it might involve the Holy See in a misunderstanding with Tuscany. … The question was gravely proposed in consistory, and the flood-gates being there authoritatively unclosed, the waters of preferment flowed abundantly on all who had the merit to be allied with Fabio Chigi. After discharging this arduous duty, the pope relieved himself of further attention to business, and spent his days in literary leisure. His nephews, however, had less power than formerly, from the growth of the constitutional principle. The cardinals, in their different congregations, with the official secretaries, aspired to the functions of responsible advisers."

PAPACY: A. D. 1682-1693.
Successful contest with Louis XIV. and the Gallican Church.

"It has always been the maxim of the French court, that the papal power is to be restricted by means of the French clergy, and that the clergy, on the other hand, are to be kept in due limits by means of the papal power. But never did a prince hold his clergy in more absolute command than Louis XIV. … The prince of Condé declared it to be his opinion, that if it pleased the king to go over to the Protestant church, the clergy would be the first to follow him. And certainly the clergy of France did support their king without scruple against the pope. The declarations they published were from year to year increasingly decisive in favour of the royal authority. At length there assembled the convocation of 1682. 'It was summoned and dissolved,' remarks a Venetian ambassador, 'at the convenience of the king's ministers, and was guided by their suggestions.' The four articles drawn up by this assembly have from that time been regarded as the manifesto of the Gallican immunities. The first three repeat assertions of principles laid down in earlier times; as, for example, the independence of the secular power, as regarded the spiritual authority; the superiority of councils over the pope; and the inviolable character of the Gallican usages. {2463} But the fourth is more particularly remarkable, since it imposes new limits even to the spiritual authority of the pontiff. 'Even in questions of faith, the decision of the pope is not incapable of amendment, so long as it is without the assent of the church.' We see that the temporal power of the kingdom received support from the spiritual authority, which was in its turn upheld by the secular arm. The king is declared free from the interference of the pope's temporal authority; the clergy are exempted from submission to the unlimited exercise of his spiritual power. It was the opinion of contemporaries, that although France might remain within the pale of the Catholic church, it yet stood on the threshold, in readiness for stepping beyond it. The king exalted the propositions above named into a kind of 'Articles of Faith,' a symbolical book. All schools were to be regulated in conformity with these precepts; and no man could attain to a degree, either in the juridical or theological faculties, who did not swear to maintain them. But the pope also was still possessed of a weapon. The authors of this declaration—the members of this assembly—were promoted and preferred by the king before all other candidates for episcopal offices; but Innocent refused to grant them spiritual institution. They might enjoy the revenues of those sees, but ordination they did not receive; nor could they venture to exercise one spiritual act of the episcopate. These complications were still further perplexed by the fact that Louis XIV. at that moment resolved on that relentless extirpation of the Huguenots, but too well known, and to which he proceeded chiefly for the purpose of proving his own perfect orthodoxy. He believed himself to be rendering a great service to the church. It has indeed been also affirmed that Innocent XI. was aware of his purpose and had approved it, but this was not the fact. The Roman court would not now hear of conversions effected by armed apostles. 'It was not of such methods that Christ availed himself: men must be led to the temple, not dragged into it.' New dissensions continually arose. In the year 1687, the French ambassador entered Rome with so imposing a retinue, certain squadrons of cavalry forming part of it, that the right of asylum, which the ambassadors claimed at that time, not only for their palace, but also for the adjacent streets, could by no means have been easily disputed with him, although the popes had solemnly abolished the usage. With an armed force the ambassador braved the pontiff in his own capital. 'They come with horses and chariots,' said Innocent, 'but we will walk in the name of the Lord.' He pronounced the censures of the church on the ambassador; and the church of St. Louis, in which the latter had attended a solemn high mass, was laid under interdict. The king also then proceeded to extreme measures. He appealed to a general council, took possession of Avignon, and caused the nuncio to be shut up in St. Olon: it was even believed that he had formed the design of creating for Harlai, archbishop of Paris, who, if he had not suggested these proceedings, had approved them, the appointment of patriarch of France. So far had matters proceeded: the French ambassador in Rome excommunicated; the papal nuncio in France detained by force; thirty-five French bishops deprived of canonical institution; a territory of the Holy See occupied by the king: it was, in fact, the actual breaking out of schism; yet did Pope Innocent refuse to yield a single step. If we ask to what he trusted for support on this occasion, we perceive that it was not to the effect of the ecclesiastical censures in France, nor to the influence of his apostolic dignity, but rather, and above all, to that universal resistance which had been aroused in Europe against those enterprises of Louis XIV. that were menacing the existence of its liberties. To this general opposition the pope now also attached himself. … If the pope had promoted the interests of Protestantism by his policy, the Protestants on their side, by maintaining the balance of Europe against the 'exorbitant Power,' also contributed to compel the latter into compliance with the spiritual claims of the papacy. It is true that when this result ensued, Innocent XI. was no longer in existence; but the first French ambassador who appeared in Rome after his death (10th of August, 1689) renounced the right of asylum: the deportment of the king was altered; he restored Avignon, and entered into negotiations. … After the early death of Alexander VIII., the French made all possible efforts to secure the choice of a pontiff disposed to measures of peace and conciliation; a purpose that was indeed effected by the elevation of Antonio Pignatelli, who assumed the tiara with the name of Innocent XII., on the 12th of July, 1691. … The negotiations continued for two years. Innocent more than once rejected the formulas proposed to him by the clergy of France, and they were, in fact, compelled at length to declare that all measures discussed and resolved on in the assembly of 1682 should be considered as not having been discussed or resolved on: 'casting ourselves at the feet of your holiness, we profess our unspeakable grief for what has been done.' It was not until they had made this unreserved recantation that Innocent accorded them canonical institution. Under these conditions only was peace restored. Louis XIV. wrote to the pope that he retracted his edict relating to the four articles. Thus we perceive that the Roman see once more maintained its prerogatives, even though opposed by the most powerful of monarchs."

PAPACY:A. D. 1700-1790.
Effects of the War of the Spanish Succession.
Declining Powers.

   The issue of the War of the Spanish Succession "will serve to
   show us that when the Pope was not, as in his contest with
   Louis XIV., favoured by political events, he could no longer
   laugh to scorn the edicts of European potentates. Charles II.
   of Spain, that wretched specimen of humanity, weak in body,
   and still weaker in mind, haunted by superstitious terrors
   which almost unsettled his reason, was now, in the year 1700,
   about to descend to a premature grave. He was without male
   issue, and was uncertain to whom he should bequeath the
   splendid inheritance transmitted to him by his ancestors. The
   Pope, Innocent XII., who was wholly in the interests of
   France, urged him to bequeath Spain, with its dependencies, to
   Philip, Duke of Anjou, the grandson of Louis XIV., who claimed
   through his grandmother, the eldest sister of Charles.
{2464}
   He would thus prevent the execution of the partition treaty
   concluded between France, England, and Holland, according to
   which the Archduke Charles … was to have Spain, the Indies,
   and the Netherlands, while France took the Milanese, or the
   Province of Lorraine. The Archbishop of Toledo seconded the
   exhortation of the Pope, and so worked on the superstitious
   terrors of the dying monarch that he signed a will in favour
   of the Duke of Anjou, which was the cause of lamentation, and
   mourning, and woe, for twelve years, throughout Europe, from
   the Vistula to the Atlantic Ocean. …

   The Duke of Marlborough's splendid victories of Blenheim and
   Ramillies … placed the Emperor Joseph (1705-11), the brother
   of the Archduke Charles, in possession of Germany and the
   Spanish Netherlands and the victory of Prince Eugene before
   Turin made him supreme in the north of Italy and the kingdom
   of Naples

      See
      GERMANY: A. D. 1704;
      NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1706-1707;
      ITALY: A. D. 1701-1713.

The Pope, Clement XI., was now reduced to a most humiliating position. Political events had occurred … which served to show very plainly that the Pope, without a protector, could not, as in former days, bid defiance to the monarchs of Europe. His undutiful son, the Emperor, compelled him to resign part of his territories as a security for his peaceful demeanour, and to acknowledge the Archduke Charles, the Austrian claimant to the Spanish throne. The peace of Utrecht, concluded in 1713 [see UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714], which produced the dismemberment of the monarchy, but left Philip in the peaceful occupation of the throne of Spain, did indeed release him from that obligation; but it did not restore him to the 'high and palmy state' which he occupied before he was obliged to submit to the Imperial arms. It inflicted a degradation upon him, for it transferred to other sovereigns, without his consent, his fiefs of Sicily and Sardinia. Now, also, it became manifest that the Pope could no longer assert an indirect sovereignty over the Italian States; for, notwithstanding his opposition, it conferred a large extent of territory on the Duke of Savoy, which has, in our day, been expanded into a kingdom under the sceptre of Victor Emmanuel and his successor. We have a further evidence of the decline of the Papacy in the change in the relative position of the States of Europe as Papal and anti-Papal during the eighteenth century, after the death of Louis XIV. The Papal powers of Spain in the sixteenth century, and of France, Spain, and Austria, in the latter half of the seventeenth century, determined the policy of Europe. … On the other hand, England, Prussia, and Russia became, in the eighteenth century, the great leading powers in the world. … The Pope, then, no longer stood at the head of those powers which swayed the destinies of Europe. … The Papacy, from the death of Louis XIV. till the time of the French Revolution, led a very quiet and obscure life. It had no part in any of the great events which during the eighteenth century were agitating Europe, and gained no spiritual or political victories."

PAPACY: A. D. 1713.
The Bull Unigenitus and the Christian doctrines it condemned.

PAPACY: A. D. 1765-1769.
Defense of the Jesuits, on their expulsion from France,
Spain, Parma, Venice, Modena and Bavaria.

PAPACY: A. D. 1789-1810.
Founding of the Roman Episcopate
in the United States of America.

In 1789, the first episcopal see of the Roman Catholic Church in the United States was founded, at Baltimore, by a bull of Pope Pius VI., which appointed Father John Carroll to be its bishop. In 1810, Bishop Carroll "was raised to the dignity of Archbishop, and four suffragan dioceses were created, with their respective sees at Philadelphia, Boston, New York, and Bardstown, in Kentucky."

J. A. Russell, The Catholic Church in the United States (History of the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore, pages 16-18).

PAPACY: A. D. 1790-1791.
Revolution at Avignon.
Reunion of the Province with France.

PAPACY: A. D. 1797.
   Treaty of Tolentino.
   Papal territory taken by Bonaparte to add to the
   Cispadane and Cisalpine Republics.

PAPACY: A. D. 1797-1798.
   French occupation of Rome.
   Formation of the Roman Republic.
   Removal of the Pope.

PAPACY: A. D. 1804.
Journey of the Pope to Paris for the coronation of Napoleon.

PAPACY: A. D. 1808-1814.
   Conflict of Pius VII. with Napoleon.
   French seizure of Rome and the Papal States.
   Captivity of the Pope at Savona and Fontainebleau.
   The Concordat of 1813 and its retraction.

Napoleon "had long been quarrelling with Pius VII., to make a tool of whom he had imposed the concordat on France. The Pope resisted, as the Emperor might have expected, and, not obtaining the price of his compliance, hindered the latter's plans in every way that he could. He resisted as head of the Church and as temporal sovereign of Rome, refusing to close his dominions either to the English or to Neapolitan refugees of the Bourbon party. Napoleon would not allow the Pope to act as a monarch independent of the Empire, but insisted that he was amenable to the Emperor, as temporal prince, just as his predecessors were amenable to Charlemagne. They could not agree, and Napoleon, losing patience, took military possession of Rome and the Roman State."

In February, 1808, "the French troops, who had already taken possession of the whole of Tuscany, in virtue of the resignation forced upon the Queen of Etruria, invaded the Roman territories, and made themselves masters of the ancient capital of the world. They immediately occupied the castle of St. Angelo, and the gates of the city, and entirely dispossessed the papal troops. Two months afterwards, an imperial decree of Napoleon severed the provinces of Ancona, Urbino, Macerata, and Camerino, which had formed part of the ecclesiastical estates, under the gift of Charlemagne, for nearly a thousand years, and annexed them to the kingdom of Italy. The reason assigned for this spoliation was, 'That the actual sovereign of Rome has constantly declined to declare war against the English, and to coalesce with the Kings of Italy and Naples for the defence of the Italian peninsula. The interests of these two kingdoms, as well as of the armies of Naples and Italy, require that their communications should not be interrupted by a hostile power.'"

"The pope protested in vain against such violence. Napoleon paid no attention. … He confiscated the wealth of the cardinals who did not return to the place of their birth. He disarmed nearly all the guards of the Holy Father—the nobles of this guard were imprisoned. Finally, Miollis [the French commander] had Cardinal Gabrielle, pro-Secretary of State, carried off, and put seals upon his papers. On May 17, 1809, a decree was issued by Napoleon, dated from Vienna, proclaiming the union (in his quality of successor to Charlemagne) of the States of the pope with the French Empire, ordaining that the city of Rome should be a free and imperial city; that the pope should continue to have his seat there, and that he should enjoy a revenue of 2,000,000 francs. On June 10, he had this decree promulgated at Rome. On this same June 10, the pope protested against all these spoliations, refused all pensions, and recapitulating all the outrages of which he had cause to complain, issued the famous and imprudent bull of excommunication against the authors, favourers, and executors of the acts of violence against him and the Holy See, but without naming anyone. Napoleon was incensed at it, and on the first impulse he wrote to the bishops of France a letter in which he spoke in almost revolutionary terms 'of him who wished,' said he, 'to make dependent upon a perishable temporal power the eternal interest of consciences, and that of all spiritual affairs.' On the 6th of July, 1809, Pius VII., taken from Rome, after he had been asked if he would renounce the temporal sovereignty of Rome and of the States of the Church, was conducted by General Radet as far as Savone, where he arrived alone, August 10, the cardinals having all been previously transported to Paris. And to complete the spoliation of the pope, Napoleon issued on the 17th of February, 1810, a senatus-consultum which bestowed upon the eldest son of the emperor the title of King of Rome, and even ordained that the emperor should be consecrated a second time at Rome, in the first ten years of his reign. It was while oppressed, captive and deprived of all council, that the pope refused the bulls to all the bishops named by the emperor, and then it was that all the discussions relative to the proper measures to put an end to the viduity of the churches were commenced. … The year 1810, far from bringing any alleviation to the situation of the pope and giving him, according to the wishes and prayers of the ecclesiastic commission, a little more liberty, aggravated, on the contrary, this situation, and rendered his captivity harder. In effect, on February 17, 1810, appeared the senatus-consultum pronouncing the union of the Roman States with the French Empire; the independence of the imperial throne of all authority on earth, and annulling the temporal existence of the popes. This senatus-consultum assured a pension to the pope, but it ordained also that the pope should take oath to do nothing in opposition to the four articles of 1682. … The pope must have consoled himself, … even to rejoicing, that they made the insulting pension they offered him depend upon the taking of such an oath, and it is that which furnished him with a reply so nobly apostolic: that he had no need of this pension, and that he would live on the charity of the faithful. … The rigorous treatment to which the Holy Father was subjected at Savona was continued during the winter of 1811-1812, and in the following spring. At this time, it seems there was some fear, on the appearance of an English squadron, that it might carry off the pope; and the emperor gave the order to transfer him to Fontainebleau. This unhappy old man left Savona, June 10, and was forced to travel day and night. He fell quite ill at the hospice of Mont Cenis; but they forced him none the less to continue his journey. They had compelled him to wear such clothes … as not to betray who he was on the way they had to follow. They took great care also to conceal his journey from the public, and the secret was so profoundly kept, that on arriving at Fontainebleau, June 19, the concierge, who had not been, advised of his arrival, and who had made no preparation, was obliged to receive him in his own lodgings. The Holy Father was a long time before recovering from the fatigue of this painful journey, and from the needlessly rigorous treatment to which they had subjected him. The cardinals not disgraced by Napoleon, who were in Paris, as well as the Archbishop of Tours, the Bishop of Nantes, the Bishop of Evreux, and the Bishop of Treves, were ordered to go and see the pope. … The Russian campaign, marked by so many disasters, was getting to a close. The emperor on his return to Paris, December 18, 1812, still cherished chimerical hopes, and was meditating without doubt, more gigantic projects. Before carrying them out, he wished to take up again the affairs of the Church, either because he repented not having finished with them at Savona, or because he had the fancy to prove that he could do more in a two hours' tête-à–tête with the pope, than had been done by the council, its commissions, and its most able negotiators. He had beforehand, however, taken measures which were to facilitate his personal negotiation. The Holy Father had been surrounded for several months by cardinals and prelates, who, either from conviction or from submission to the emperor, depicted the Church as having arrived at a state of anarchy which put its existence in peril. They repeated incessantly to the pope, that if he did not get reconciled with the emperor and secure the aid of his power to arrest the evil, schism would be inevitable. Finally, the Sovereign pontiff overwhelmed by age, by infirmities, by the anxiety and cares with which his mind was worried, found himself well prepared for the scene Napoleon had planned to play, and which was to assure him what he believed to be a success. {2466} On January 19, 1813, the emperor, accompanied by the Empress Marie Louise, entered the apartment of the Holy Father unexpectedly, rushed to him and embraced him with effusion. Pius VII., surprised and affected, allowed himself to be induced, after a few explanations, to give his approbation to the propositions that were imposed, rather than submitted to him. They were drawn up in eleven articles, which were not yet a compact, but which were to serve as the basis of a new act. On January 24, the emperor and the pope affixed their signatures to this strange paper, which was lacking in the usual diplomatic forms, since they were two sovereigns who had treated directly together. It was said in these articles, that the pope would exercise the pontificate in France, and in Italy;—that his ambassadors and those in authority near him, should enjoy all diplomatic privileges;—that such of his domains which were not disposed of should be free from taxes, and that those which were transferred should be replaced by an income of 2,000,000 francs;—that the pope should nominate, whether in France or in Italy, to episcopal sees which should be subsequently fixed; that the suburban sees should be re-established, and depend on the nomination of the pope, and that the unsold lands of these sees should be restored; that the pope should give bishoprics 'in partibus' to the Roman bishops absent from their diocese by force of circumstances, and that he should serve them a pension equal to their former revenue, until such time as they should be appointed to vacant sees; that the emperor and the pope should agree in opportune time as to the reduction to be made if it took place, in the bishoprics of Tuscany and of the country about Geneva, as well as to the institution of bishoprics in Holland, and in the Hanseatic departments; that the propaganda, the confessional, and the archives should be established in the place of sojourn of the Holy Father; finally, that His Imperial Majesty bestowed his good graces upon the cardinals, bishops, priests, and laymen, who had incurred his displeasure in connection with actual events. … The news of the signing of the treaty occasioned great joy among the people, but it appears that that of the pope was of short duration. The sacrifices he had been led to make were hardly consummated, than he experienced bitter grief; this could but be increased in proportion as the exiled and imprisoned cardinals, Consalvi, Pacca, di Pietro, on obtaining their liberty, received also the authorization to repair to Fontainebleau. What passed then between the Holy Father and these cardinals I do not pretend to know; but it must be that Napoleon had been warned by some symptoms of what was about to happen; for, in spite of the agreement he had made with the pope to consider the eleven articles only as preliminaries which were not to be published, he decided nevertheless to make them the object of a message that the arch-chancellor was charged to submit to the senate. This premature publicity given to an act which the pope so strongly regretted having signed must have hastened his retractation which he addressed to the emperor by a brief, on March 24, 1813. … This time, the emperor, although greatly irritated by the retractation, believed it was to his interest not to make any noise about it, and decided to take outwardly no notice of it. He had two decrees published: one of February 13, and the other of March 25, 1813. By the first, the new Concordat of January 25 was declared state law; by the second, he declared it obligatory upon archbishops, bishops, and chapters, and ordered, according to Article IV. of this Concordat that the archbishops should confirm the nominated bishops, and in case of refusal, ordained that they should be summoned before the tribunals. He restricted anew the liberty that had been given momentarily to the Holy Father, and Cardinal di Pietro returned to exile. Thereupon, Napoleon started, soon after, for that campaign of 1813 in Germany, the prelude to that which was to lead to his downfall. The decrees issued 'ab irato' were not executed, and during the vicissitudes of the campaign of 1813, the imperial government attempted several times to renew with the pope negotiations which failed. Matters dragged along thus, and no one could foresee any issue when, on January 23, 1814, it was suddenly learned that the pope had left Fontainebleau that very day, and returned to Rome. … Murat, who had abandoned the cause of the emperor, and who … had treated with the coalition, was then occupying the States of the Church, and it is evident that Napoleon in his indignation against Murat, preferred to allow the pope to re-enter his States, to seeing them in the hands of his brother-in-law. While Pius VII. was en route and the emperor was fighting in Champagne, a decree of March 10, 1814, announced that the pope was taking possession again of the part of his States which formed the departments of Rome and Trasmania. The lion, although vanquished, would not yet let go all the prey he hoped surely to retake. … The pope arrived on April 30, at Cesena, on May 12, at Ancona, and made his solemn entry into Rome on May 24, 1814."

ALSO IN: D. Silvagni, Rome: its Princes, Priests and People, chapters 35-39 (volume 2).

      C. Botta,
      Italy during the Consulate and Empire of Napoleon,
      chapters 5-8.

      M. de Bourrienne,
      Private Memoirs of Napoleon,
      volume 4, chapters 6 and 11-12.

      Selections from the Letters and Despatches of Napoleon,
      Captain Bingham,
      volumes 2-3.

Memoirs of Napoleon dictated at St. Helena, volume 5 (History Miscellany, volume l).

PAPACY: A. D. 1831-1832.
Revolt of the Papal States, suppressed by Austrian troops.

PAPACY: A. D. 1846-1849.
   Election of Pius IX.
   His liberal reforms.
   Revolution at Rome.
   The Pope's flight.
   His restoration by the French.

"The Reformation had deprived the Church of Rome of an official home on English soil. … But a few people had remained faithful to the Church of their forefathers, and a handful of priests had braved the risks attendant on the discharge of their duties to it. Rome, moreover, succeeded in maintaining some sort of organisation in England. In the first instance her Church was placed under an arch-priest. From 1623 to 1688 it was placed under a Vicar Apostolic, that is a Bishop, nominally appointed to some foreign see, with a brief enabling him to discharge episcopal duties in Great Britain. This policy was not very successful. Smith, the second Vicar Apostolic, was banished in 1629, and, though he lived till 1655, never returned to England. The Pope did not venture on appointing a successor to him for thirty years. … On the eve of the Revolution [in 1688] he divided England into four Vicariates. This arrangement endured till 1840. In that year Gregory XVI. doubled the vicariates, and appointed eight Vicars Apostolic. The Roman Church is a cautious but persistent suitor. She had made a fresh advance; she was awaiting a fresh opportunity. The eight Vicars Apostolic asked the Pope to promote the efficiency of their Church by restoring the hierarchy. The time seemed ripe for the change. … The Pope prepared Apostolic letters, distributing the eight vicariates into eight bishoprics. … The Revolution, occurring immediately afterwards, gave the Pope other things to think about than the re-establishment of the English hierarchy. For two years nothing more was heard of the conversion of vicariates into bishoprics. But the scheme had not been abandoned; and, in the autumn of 1850, the Pope, restored to the Vatican by French bayonets, issued a brief for re–establishing and extending the Catholic faith in England.' England and Wales were divided into twelve sees. One of them, Westminster, was made into an archbishopric; and Wiseman, an Irishman by extraction, who had been Vicar Apostolic of the London District, and Bishop of Melipotamus, was promoted to it. Shortly afterwards a new distinction was conferred upon him, and the new archbishop was made a cardinal. The publication of the brief created a ferment in England. The effect of the Pope's language was increased by a pastoral from the new archbishop, in which he talked of governing, and continuing to govern, his see with episcopal jurisdiction; and by the declaration of an eminent convert that the people of England, who for so many years have been separated from the see of Rome, are about of their own free will to be added to the Holy Church. For the moment, High Churchmen and Low Churchmen forgot their differences in their eagerness to punish a usurpation of what was called the Queen's prerogative. The Prime Minister, instead of attempting to moderate the tempest, added violence to the storm by denouncing, in a letter to the Bishop of Durham, the late aggression of the Pope as 'insolent and insidious, … inconsistent with the Queen's supremacy, with the rights of our bishops and clergy, and with the spiritual independence of the nation.' … Amidst the excitement which was thus occasioned, Parliament met. The Speech from the Throne alluded to the strong feelings excited by 'the recent assumption of ecclesiastical titles conferred by a foreign Power.' … It declared that a measure would be introduced into Parliament to maintain 'under God's blessing, the religious liberty which is so justly prized by the people.' It hardly required such words as these to fan the spreading flame. In the debate on the Address, hardly any notice was taken of any subject except the 'triple tyrant's insolent pretension.' On the first Friday in the session, Russell introduced a measure forbidding the assumption of territorial titles by the priests and prelates of the Roman Catholic Church; declaring all gifts made to them, and all acts done by them, under those titles null and void; and forfeiting to the Crown all property bequeathed to them." Action on the Bill was interrupted in the House by a Ministerial crisis, which ended, however, in the return of Lord John Russell and his colleagues to the administration; but the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill, when it was again brought forward, was greatly changed. In its amended shape the bill merely made it illegal for Roman Catholic prelates to assume territorial titles. According to the criticism of one of the Conservatives, "the original bill … was milk and water; by some chemical process the Government had extracted all the milk." After much debate the emasculated bill became a law, but it was never put into execution.

      J. Stoughton,
      Religion in England, 1800-1850,
      volume 2, chapter 13.

PAPACY: A. D. 1854.
Promulgation of the Dogma of the
Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary.

   "The thought of defining dogmatically the belief of all ages
   and all Catholic nations in the Immaculate Conception of the
   Blessed Virgin dated back to the beginning of his [Pius IX.'s]
   pontificate. By an encyclical letter dated from his exile at
   Gaeta, he had asked the opinion of all the patriarchs,
   primates, archbishops and bishops of the universe as to the
   seasonableness of this definition. The holding of a general
   council is attended with many embarrassments, and cannot be
   freed from the intrigues and intervention of the so-called
   Catholic powers. Pius IX. has initiated a new course. All,
   even the most Gallican in ideas, acknowledge that a definition
   in matters of faith by the pope, sustained by the episcopate,
   is infallible. The rapid means of communication and
   correspondence in modern times, the more direct intercourse of
   the bishops with Rome, makes it easy now for the pope to hear
   the well-considered, deliberate opinion of a great majority of
   the bishops throughout the world. In this case the replies of
   the bishops coming from all parts of the world show that the
   universal Church, which has one God, one baptism, has also one
   faith. As to the dogma there was no dissension, a few doubted
   the expediency of making it an article of faith. These replies
   determined the Holy Father to proceed to the great act, so
   long demanded by [the] Catholic heart. … A number of bishops
   were convoked to Rome for the 8th of December, 1854; a still
   greater number hastened to the Eternal City. … That day the
   bishops assembled in the Vatican to the number of 170, and
   robed in white cape and mitre proceeded to the Sixtine Chapel,
   where the Holy Father soon appeared in their midst." There,
   after befitting ceremonies, the pontiff made formal
   proclamation of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of
   Mary, in the following words: "By the authority of Jesus
   Christ our Lord, of the blessed apostles, Peter and Paul, and
   our own, we declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine
   which holds that the Blessed Virgin Mary, at the first instant
   of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace of the
   Omnipotent God, in virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, the
   Saviour of mankind, was preserved immaculate from all stain of
   original sin, has been revealed by God, and therefore should
   firmly and constantly be believed by all the faithful.
{2468}
   Wherefore, if any shall dare—which God avert—to think
   otherwise than as it has been defined by us, let them know and
   understand that they are condemned by their own judgment, that
   they have suffered shipwreck of the faith, and have revolted
   from the unity of the Church; and besides, by their own act,
   they subject themselves to the penalties justly established,
   if what they think they should dare to signify by word,
   writing, or any other outward means.' … The next day the
   sovereign pontiff assembled the sacred college and the bishops
   in the great consistorial hall of the Vatican, and pronounced
   the allocution which, subsequently published by all the
   bishops, announced to the Catholic world the act of December
   8th."

      A. de Montor,
      The Lives and Times of the Roman Pontiffs,
      volume 2, pages 924-926.

PAPACY: A. D. 1860-1861.
First consequences of the Austro-Italian war.
Absorption of Papal States in the new Kingdom of Italy.

"On the 8th of December 1864, Pius IX. issued his Encyclical [a circular letter addressed by the Pope to all the Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops and Bishops of the Church throughout the world] 'Quanta cura', accompanied by the Syllabus, or systematically arranged collection of errors, condemned from time to time, by himself and his predecessors. The Syllabus comprises 80 erroneous propositions. These are set forth under 10 distinct heads: viz. 1. Pantheism, Naturalism, and Absolute Rationalism; 2. Moderated Rationalism; 3. Indifferentism, Latitudinarianism; 4. Socialism, Communism, Secret Societies, Biblical Societies, Clerico-Liberal Societies; 5. Errors concerning the Church and her rights; 6. Errors concerning Civil Society, as well in itself as in its relations with the Church; 7. Errors concerning Natural and Christian Ethics; 8. Errors concerning Christian marriage; 9. Errors concerning the Civil Princedom of the Roman Pontiff; 10. Errors in relation with Modern Liberalism.

Immediately under each, error are given the two initial words, and the date, of the particular Papal Allocution, Encyclical, Letter Apostolic, or Epistle, in which it is condemned. Whilst, on the one hand, the publication of the Encyclical and Syllabus was hailed by many as the greatest act of the pontificate of Pius IX., on the other hand, their appearance excited the angry feelings, and intensified the hostility, of the enemies of the Church."

The following is a translation of the text of the Encyclical, followed by that of the Syllabus or Catalogue of Errors:

To our venerable brethren all the Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops, and Bishops in communion with the Apostolic See, we, Pius IX., Pope, send greeting, and our apostolic blessing:

You know, venerable brethren, with what care and what pastoral vigilance the Roman Pontiffs, our predecessors—fulfilling the charge intrusted to them by our Lord Jesus Christ himself in the person of the blessed Peter, chief of the apostles —have unfailingly observed their duty in providing food for the sheep and the lambs, in assiduously nourishing the flock of the Lord with the words of faith, in imbuing them with salutary doctrine, and in turning them away from poisoned pastures; all this is known to you, and you have appreciated it. And certainly our predecessors, in affirming and in vindicating the august Catholic faith, truth, and justice, were never animated in their care for the salvation of souls by a more earnest desire than that of extinguishing and condemning by their letters and their constitutions all the heresies and errors which, as enemies of our divine faith, of the doctrines of the Catholic Church, of the purity of morals, and of the eternal salvation of man, have frequently excited serious storms, and precipitated civil and Christian society into the most deplorable misfortunes. For this reason our predecessors have opposed themselves with vigorous energy to the criminal enterprise of those wicked men, who, spreading their disturbing opinions like the waves of a raging sea, and promising liberty when they are slaves to corruption, endeavor by their pernicious writings to overturn the foundations of the Christian Catholic religion and of civil society; to destroy all virtue and justice; to deprave all minds and hearts; to turn away simple minds, and especially those of inexperienced youth, from the healthy discipline of morals; to corrupt it miserably, to draw it into the meshes of error, and finally to draw it from the bosom of the Catholic Church. But as you are aware, venerable brethren, we had scarcely been raised to the chair of St. Peter above our merits, by the mysterious designs of Divine Providence, than seeing with the most profound grief of our soul the horrible storm excited by evil doctrines, and the very grave and deplorable injury caused specially by so many errors to Christian people, in accordance with the duty of our apostolic ministry, and following in the glorious footsteps of our predecessors, we raised our voice, and by the publication of several encyclicals, consistorial letters, allocutions, and other apostolic letters, we have condemned the principal errors of our sad age, re-animated your utmost episcopal vigilance, warned and exhorted upon various occasions all our dear children in the Catholic Church to repel and absolutely avoid the contagion of so horrible a plague. More especially in our first encyclical of the 9th November, 1846, addressed to you, and in our two allocutions of the 9th December, 1854, and the 9th June, 1862, to the consistories, we condemned the monstrous opinions which particularly predominated in the present day, to the great prejudice of souls and to the detriment of civil society—doctrines which not only attack the Catholic Church, her salutary instruction, and her venerable rights, but also the natural, unalterable law inscribed by God upon the heart of man—that of sound reason. But although we have not hitherto omitted to proscribe and reprove the principal errors of this kind, yet the cause of the Catholic Church, the safety of the souls which have been confided to us, and the well-being of human society itself, absolutely demand that we should again exercise our pastoral solicitude to destroy new opinions which spring out of these same errors as from so many sources. {2469} These false and perverse opinions are the more detestable as they especially tend to shackle and turn aside the salutary force that the Catholic Church, by the example of her Divine author and his order, ought freely to exercise until the end of time, not only with regard to each individual man, but with regard to nations, peoples, and their rulers, and to destroy that agreement and concord between the priesthood and the government which have always existed for the happiness and security of religious and civil society, For as you are well aware, venerable brethren, there are a great number of men in the present day who, applying to civil society the impious and absurd principle of naturalism, as it is called, dare to teach that the perfect right of public society and civil progress absolutely require a condition of human society constituted and governed without regard to all considerations of religion, as if it had no existence, or, at least, without making any distinction between true religion and heresy. And, contrary to the teaching of the Holy Scriptures, of the church, and of the fathers, they do not hesitate to affirm that the best condition of society is that in which the power of the laity is not compelled to inflict the penalties of law upon violators of the Catholic religion unless required by considerations of public safety. Actuated by an idea of social government so absolutely false, they do not hesitate further to propagate the erroneous opinion, very hurtful to the safety of the Catholic Church and of souls, and termed "delirium" by our predecessor, Gregory XVI., of excellent memory, namely: "Liberty of conscience and of worship is the right of every man—a right which ought to be proclaimed and established by law in every well-constituted State, and that citizens are entitled to make known and declare, with a liberty which neither the ecclesiastical nor the civil authority can limit, their convictions of whatever kind, either by word of mouth, or through the press, or by other means." But in making these rash assertions they do not reflect, they do not consider, that they preach the liberty of perdition (St. Augustine, Epistle 105, Al. 166), and that "if it is always free to human conviction to discuss, men will never be wanting who dare to struggle against the truth and to rely upon the loquacity of human wisdom, when we know by the example of our Lord Jesus Christ how faith and Christian sagacity ought to avoid this culpable vanity." (St. Leon, Epistle 164, Al. 133, sec. 2, Boll. Ed.) Since also religion has been banished from civil government, since the doctrine and authority of divine revelation have been repudiated, the idea intimately connected therewith of justice and human right is obscured by darkness and lost sight of, and in place of true justice and legitimate right brute force is substituted, which has permitted some, entirely oblivious of the plainest principles of sound reason, to dare to proclaim "that the will of the people, manifested by what is called public opinion or by other means, constitutes a supreme law superior to all divine and human right, and that accomplished facts in political affairs, by the mere fact of their having been accomplished, have the force of law." But who does not perfectly see and understand that human society, released from the ties of religion and true justice, can have no further object than to amass riches, and can follow no other law in its actions than the indomitable wickedness of a heart given up to pleasure and interest? For this reason, also, these same men persecute with so relentless a hatred the religious orders, who have deserved so well of religion, civil society, and letters. They loudly declare that the orders have no right to exist, and in so doing make common cause with the falsehoods of the heretics. For, as taught by our predecessor of illustrious memory, Pius VI., "the abolition of religious houses injures the state of public profession, and is contrary to the counsels of the Gospel, injures a mode of life recommended by the church and in conformity with the Apostolic doctrine, does wrong to the celebrated founders whom we venerate upon the altar, and who constituted these societies under the inspiration of God." (Epistle to Cardinal de la Rochefoucauld, March 10, 1791.) In their impiety these same persons pretend that citizens and the church should be deprived of the opportunity of openly "receiving alms from Christian charity," and that the law forbidding "servile labor on account of divine worship" upon certain fixed days should be abrogated, upon the fallacious pretext that this opportunity and this law are contrary to the principles of political economy. Not content with eradicating religion from public society, they desire further to banish it from families and private life. Teaching and professing these most fatal errors of Socialism and Communism, they declare that "domestic society, or the entire family, derives its right of existence solely from civil law, whence it is to be concluded that from civil law descend all the rights of parents over their children, and, above all, the right of instructing and educating them." By such impious opinions and machinations do these false spirits endeavor to eliminate the salutary teaching and influences of the Catholic Church from the instruction and education of youth, and to infect and miserably deprave by their pernicious errors and their vices the pliant minds of youth. All those who endeavor to trouble sacred and public things, to destroy the good order of society, and to annihilate all divine and human rights, have always concentrated their criminal schemes, attention, and efforts upon the manner in which they might above all deprave and delude unthinking youth, as we have already shown. It is upon the corruption of youth that they p]ace all their hopes. Thus they never cease to attack the clergy, from whom have descended to us in so authentic manner the most certain records of history, and by whom such desirable benefit has been bestowed in abundance upon Christian and civil society and upon letters. They assail them in every shape, going so far as to say of the clergy in general—"that being the enemies of the useful sciences, of progress, and of civilization, they ought to be deprived of the charge of, instructing and educating youth." Others, taking up wicked errors many times condemned, presume with notorious impudence to submit the authority of the church and of this Apostolic See, conferred upon it by God himself, to the judgment of civil authority, and to deny all the rights of this same church and this see with regard to exterior order. {2470} They do not blush to affirm that the laws of the church do not bind the conscience if they are not promulgated by the civil power; that the acts and decrees of the Roman Pontiffs concerning religion and the church require the sanction and approbation, or, at least, the assent, of the civil power; and that the Apostolic constitutions condemning secret societies, whether these exact, or do not exact, an oath of secrecy, and branding with anathema their secretaries and promoters, have no force in those regions of the world where these associations are tolerated by the civil government. It is likewise affirmed that the excommunications launched by the Council of Trent and the Roman Pontiffs against those who invade the possessions of the church and usurp its rights, seek, in confounding the spiritual and temporal powers, to attain solely a terrestrial object; that the church can decide nothing which may bind the consciences of the faithful in a temporal order of things; that the law of the church does not demand that violations of sacred laws should be punished by temporal penalties; and that it is in accordance with sacred theology and the principles of public law to claim for the civil government the property possessed by the churches, the religious orders, and other pious establishments. And they have no shame in avowing openly and publicly the thesis, the principle of heretics from whom emanate so many errors and perverse opinions. They say: "That the ecclesiastical power is not of right divine, distinct and independent from the civil power; and that no distinction, no independence of this kind can be maintained without the church invading and usurping the essential rights of the civil power." Neither can we pass over in silence the audacity of those who, insulting sound doctrines, assert that "the judgments and decrees of the Holy See, whose object is declared to concern the general welfare of the church, its rights, and its discipline, do not claim the acquaintance and obedience under pain of sin and loss of the Catholic profession, if they do not treat of the dogmas of faith and manners." How contrary is this doctrine to the Catholic dogma of the full power divinely given to the sovereign Pontiff by our Lord Jesus Christ, to guide, to supervise, and govern the universal church, no one can fail to see and understand clearly and evidently. Amid so great a diversity of depraved opinions, we, remembering our apostolic duty, and solicitous before all things for our most holy religion, for sound doctrine, for the salvation of the souls confided to us, and for the welfare of human society itself, have considered the moment opportune to raise anew our apostolic voice. And therefore do we condemn and proscribe generally and particularly all the evil opinions and doctrines specially mentioned in this letter, and we wish that they may be held as rebuked, proscribed, and condemned by all the children of the Catholic Church. But you know further, venerable brothers, that in our time insulters of every truth and of all justice, and violent enemies of our religion, have spread abroad other impious doctrines by means of pestilent books, pamphlets, and journals which, distributed over the surface of the earth, deceive the people and wickedly lie. You are not ignorant that in our day men are found who, animated and excited by the spirit of Satan, have arrived at that excess of impiety as not to fear to deny our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, and to attack his divinity with scandalous persistence. We cannot abstain from awarding you well-merited eulogies, venerable brothers, for all the care and zeal with which you have raised your episcopal voice against so great an impiety.

Catalogue of the Principal Errors of Our Time Pointed Out in the Consistorial Allocutions, Encyclical and other Apostolical Letters of Pope Pius IX.

I.–PANTHEISM, NATURALISM, AND ABSOLUTE RATIONALISM.

1. There is no divine power, supreme being, wisdom, and providence distinct from the universality of things, and God is none other than the nature of things, and therefore immutable. In effect, God is in man, and in the world, and all things are God, and have the very substance of God. God is, therefore, one and the same thing with the world, and thence mind is confounded with matter, necessity with liberty of action, true with false, good with evil, just with unjust.

3. Human reason, without any regard to God, is the sole arbiter of true and false, good and evil; it is its own law in itself, and suffices by its natural force for the care of the welfare of men and nations.

4. All the truths of religion are derived from the native strength of human reason, whence reason is the principal rule by which man can and must arrive at the knowledge of all truths of every kind.

(See Encyclicals, "Qui pluribus," November 9, 1840, and "Singulari quidem," March 17, 1850, and Allocution, "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.)

5. Divine revelation is imperfect, and therefore subject to the continual and indefinite progress corresponding to the progress of human reason.

(See Encyclical, "Qui pluribus," November 9, 1846, and Allocution, "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.)

6. Christian faith is in opposition to human reason, and divine revelation is not only useless but even injurious to the perfection of man.

(See Encyclical "Qui pluribus," November 9, 1846, and Allocution, "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.)

7. The prophecies and miracles told and narrated in the sacred books are the fables of poets, and the mysteries of the Christian faith the sum of philosophical investigations. The books of the two Testaments contain fabulous fictions, and Jesus Christ is himself a myth.

(Encyclical, "Qui pluribus," November 9, 1846;
Allocution, "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.)

II. MODERATE RATIONALISM.

8. As human reason is rendered equal to religion itself, theological matters must be treated as philosophical matters.

9. All the dogmas of the Christian religion are indistinctly the object of natural science or philosophy, and human reason, instructed solely by history, is able by its natural strength and principles to arrive at a comprehension of even the most abstract dogmas from the moment when they have been proposed as objective.

      (Letter to Archbishop Frising, "Gravissimus,"
      December 4, 1862.
      Letter to Archbishop Frising, "Tuas libenter,"
      December 21, 1863.)

10. As the philosopher is one thing and philosophy is another, it is the right and duty of the former to submit himself to the authority of which he shall have recognized the truth; but philosophy neither can nor ought to submit to authority.

(Letters to Archbishop Frising, "Gravissimus," December 11, 1862; and, "Tuas libenter," December 21, 1863.)

11. The church not only ought in no way to concern herself with philosophy, but ought further herself to tolerate the errors of philosophy, leaving to it the care of their correction.

12. The decrees of the Apostolic See and of the Roman congregation fetter the free progress of science.

   13. The methods and principles by which the old scholastic
   doctors cultivated theology are no longer suitable to the
   demands of the age and the progress of science.

      (Letter to Archbishop Frising,
      "Tuas libenter,"
      December 21, 1863.)

14. Philosophy must be studied without taking any account of
supernatural revelation.

      (Letter to Archbishop Frising,
      "Tuas libenter,"
      December 21, 1863.)

N. B.—To the rationalistic system are due in great part the errors of Antony Gunther, condemned in the letter to the Cardinal Archbishop of Cologne "Eximiam tuam," June 15, 1847, and in that to the Bishop of Breslau, "Dolore haud mediocri," April 30, 1860.

III.—INDIFFERENTISM, TOLERATION.

15. Every man is free to embrace and profess the religion he
shall believe true, guided by the light of reason.

(Apostolic Letter, "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851;
Allocution, "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.)

      (Encyclical, '"Qui pluribus," November 9, 1846;
      Allocution, "Ubi primum," December 17, 1847;
      Encyclical, "Singulari quidem," March 17, 1856.)

17. At least the eternal salvation may be hoped for of all who
have never been in the true church of Christ.

(Allocution, "Singulari quidem," December 9, 1865;
Encyclical, "Quanto conficiamur mœrore," August 17, 1863.)

18. Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true religion in which it is possible to be equally pleasing to God, as in the Catholic church.

IV.—SOCIALISM, COMMUNISM, CLANDESTINE SOCIETIES, BIBLICAL SOCIETIES, CLERICO-LIBERAL SOCIETIES.

   Pests of this description have been frequently
   rebuked in the severest terms in the
   Encyclical, "Qui pluribus," November 9, 1846;
   Allocution, "Quibus, quantisque," August 20, 1849;
   Encyclical, "Nescitis et vobiscum," December 8, 1849;
   Allocution, "Singulari quidem," December 9, 1854;
   Encyclical, "Quanto conficiamur mœrore," August 10, 1863.

V.-ERRORS RESPECTING THE CHURCH AND HER RIGHTS.

19. The church is not a true and perfect entirely free association; she does not rest upon the peculiar and perpetual rights conferred upon her by her divine founder; but it appertains to the civil power to define what are the rights and limits within which the church may exercise authority.

      (Allocutions, "Singulari quidem," December 9, 1854;
      "Multis gravibus," December 17, 1860;
      "Maxima quidem," June, 1862.)

20. The ecclesiastical power must not exercise its authority without the toleration and assent of the civil government.

21. The church has not the power of disputing dogmatically that the religion of the Catholic church is the only true religion.

22. The obligation which binds Catholic masters and writers does not apply to matters proposed for universal belief as articles of faith by the infallible judgment of the church.

23. The church has not the power of availing herself of force,
or any direct or indirect temporal power.

24. The Roman pontiffs and œcumenical councils have exceeded the limits of their power, have usurped the rights of princes, and have even committed errors in defining matter relating to dogma and morals.

25. In addition to the authority inherent in the episcopate, further temporal power is granted to it by the civil power, either expressly or tacitly, but on that account also revocable by the civil power whenever it pleases.

26. The church has not the natural and legitimate right of
acquisition and possession.

27. The ministers of the church and the Roman pontiff ought to be absolutely excluded from all charge and dominion over temporal affairs.

28. Bishops have not the right of promulgating their apostolical letters without the sanction of the government.

29. Spiritual graces granted by the Roman pontiff must be considered null unless they have been requested by the civil government.

30. The immunity of the church and of ecclesiastical persons derives its origin from civil law.

31. Ecclesiastical jurisdiction for temporal lawsuits, whether civil or criminal, of the clergy, should be abolished, even without the consent and against the desire of the Holy See.

(Allocution, "Acerbissimum," September 27, 1852;
Allocution, "Nunquam fore," December 15, 1856.)

32. The personal immunity exonerating the clergy from military law may be abrogated without violation either of natural right or of equity. This abrogation is called for by civil progress, especially in a society modelled upon principles of liberal government.

   33. It does not appertain to ecclesiastical jurisdiction, by
   any right, and inherent to its essence, to direct doctrine in
   matters of theology.

34. The doctrine of those who compare the sovereign pontiff to a free sovereign acting in the universal church is a doctrine which prevailed in the middle ages.

35. There is no obstacle to the sentence of a general council, or the act of all the nation transferring the pontifical sovereign from the bishopric and city of Rome to some other bishopric in another city.

36. The definition of a national council does not admit of subsequent discussion, and the civil power can require that matters shall remain as they are.

37. National churches can be established without, and
separated from, the Roman pontiff.

(Allocution, "Multis gravibus," December 17, 1860;
"Jamdudum cernimus," March 18, 1861.)

38. Many Roman pontiffs have lent themselves to the division
of the church in Eastern and Western churches.

VI.—ERRORS OF CIVIL SOCIETY, AS MUCH IN THEMSELVES AS CONSIDERED IN THEIR RELATIONS TO THE CHURCH.

39. The state of a republic, as being the origin and source of all rights, imposes itself by its rights, which is not circumscribed by any limit.

40. The doctrine of the Catholic church is opposed to the laws
and interests of society.

(Encyclical, "Qui pluribus," Nov. 9, 1846;
Allocution, "Quibus quantisque," April 20, 1849.)

41. The civil government, even when exercised by a heretic sovereign, possesses an indirect and negative power over religious affairs.

43. The lay power has the authority to destroy, declare, and render null solemn conventions or concordats relating to the use of rights appertaining to ecclesiastical immunity, without the consent of the priesthood, and even against its will.

(Allocution, "In consistoriali," November 1, 1850;
"Multis gravibusque," December 17, 1860.)

44. The civil authority may interfere in matters regarding religion, morality, and spiritual government, whence it has control over the instructions for the guidance of consciences issued, conformably with their mission, by the pastors of the church. Further, it possesses full power in the matter of administering the divine sacraments and the necessary arrangements for their reception.

("In consistoriali," November 1, 1858;
Allocution, "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.)

45. The entire direction of public schools in which the youth of Christian States are educated, save an exception in the case of Episcopal seminaries, may and must appertain to the civil power, and belong to it so far that no other authority shall be recognized as having any right to interfere in the discipline of the schools, the arrangement of the studies, the taking of degrees, or the choice and approval of teachers.

(Allocution, "In consistoriali," Nov. 1, 1850;
"Quibus luctuosissimis," September 5, 1861.)

46. Further, even in clerical seminaries the mode of study
must be submitted to the civil authority.

47. The most advantageous conditions of civil society require that popular schools open without distinction to all children of the people, and public establishments destined to teach young people letters and good discipline, and to impart to them education, should be freed from all ecclesiastical authority and interference, and should be fully subjected to the civil and political power for the teaching of masters and opinions common to the times.

48. This manner of instructing youth, which consists in separating it from the Catholic faith and from the power of the church, and in teaching it above all a knowledge of natural things and the objects of social life, may be perfectly approved by Catholics.

49. The civil power is entitled to prevent ministers of religion and the faithful from communicating freely and mutually with the Roman Pontiff.

50. The lay authority possesses of itself the right of presenting bishops, and may require of them that they take possession of their diocese before having received canonical institution and the Apostolical letter of the Holy See.

51. Further, the lay authority has the right of deposing bishops from their pastoral functions, and is not forced to obey the Roman Pontiff in matters affecting the filling of sees and the institution of bishops.

(Apostolic Letter, "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851;
Allocution, "Acerbissimum.")

52. The government has a right to alter a period fixed by the church for the accomplishment of the religious duties of both sexes, and may enjoin upon all religious establishments to admit nobody to take solemn vows without permission.

53. Laws respecting the protection, rights, and functions of religious establishments must be abrogated; further, the civil government may lend its assistance to all who desire to quit a religious life, and break their vows. The government may also deprive religious establishments of the right of patronage to collegiate churches and simple benefices, and submit their goods to civil competence and administration.

      (Allocution, "Acerbissimum," September 27, 1862;
      "Probe memineritis, " January 22, 1885;
      and "Quum sæpe, " July 26, 1858.)

54. Kings and princes are not only free from the jurisdiction of the church, but are superior to the church even in litigious questions of jurisdiction

VII.—ERRORS IN NATURAL AND CHRISTIAN MORALS.

56. Moral laws do not stand in need of the Divine sanction, and there is no necessity that human laws should be conformable to the laws of nature and receive their sanction from God.

57. Knowledge of philosophical and moral things and civil laws may and must be free from Divine and ecclesiastical authority.

58. No other forces are recognized than those which reside in matter, and which, contrary to all discipline and all decency of morals, are summed up in the accumulation and increase of riches by every possible means and in the satisfaction of every pleasure.

(Allocution, "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.
Encyclical, "Quanto conficiamur," August 10, 1863.)

59. Right consists in material fact. All human duties are vain words, and all human facts have the force of right.

61. The happy injustice of a fact inflicts no injury upon the sanctity of right.

63. It is allowable to withdraw from obedience to legitimate princes and to rise in insurrection against them.

      (Encyclical, "Qui pluribus," November 9, 1846;
      Allocution, "Quisque vestrum," October 4, 1847;
      Encyclical., "Noscitis et nobiscum," December 8, 1849;
      Apostolic Letter, "Cum Catholica," March 25, 1860.)

64. The violation of a solemn oath, even every guilty and shameful action repugnant to the eternal law, is not only undeserving rebuke, but is even allowable and worthy of the highest praise when done for the love of country.

VIII.—ERRORS AS TO CHRISTIAN MARRIAGE.

65. It is not admissible, rationally, that Christ has raised marriage to the dignity of a sacrament.

66. The sacrament of marriage is only an adjunct of the contract, from which it is separable, and the sacrament itself only consists in the nuptial benediction.

67. By the law of nature the marriage tie is not indissoluble, and in many cases divorce, properly so called, may be pronounced by the civil authority.

(Apostolic Letter, August 22, 1852;
Allocution, "Acerbissimum," September 27, 1852.)

68. The church has not the power of pronouncing upon the impediments to marriage. This belongs to civil society, which can remove the existing hindrances.

69. It is only more recently that the church has begun to pronounce upon invalidating obstacles, availing herself, not of her own right, but of a right borrowed from the civil power.

70. The canons of the Council of Trent, which invoke anathema against those who deny the church the right of pronouncing upon invalidating obstacles, are not dogmatic, and must be considered as emanating from borrowed power.

71. The form of the said council, under the penalty of nullity, does not bind in cases where the civil law has appointed another form, and desires that this new form is to be used in marriage.

72. Boniface VIII. is the first who declared that the vow of chastity pronounced at ordination annuls nuptials.

73. A civil contract may very well, among Christians, take the place of true marriage, and it is false, either that the marriage contract between Christians must always be a sacrament, or that the contract is null if the sacrament does not exist.

      (Apostolic Letter, August 22, 1851.;
      Letter to King of Sardinia, September 9, 1852;
      Allocutions, "Acerbissimum," September 27, 1852;
      "Multis gravibusque," December 17, 1860.)

(Apostolic Letter, August 22, 1851;
Allocution, " Acerbissimum," September 27, 1852.)

N. B.—Two other errors are still current upon the abolition of the celibacy of priests and the preference due to the state of marriage over that of virginity. These have been refuted—the first in Encyclical, "Qui pluribus," November 9, 1846; the second in Apostolic Letter, "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.

IX.—ERRORS REGARDING THE CIVIL POWER OF THE SOVEREIGN PONTIFF.

75. The children of the Christian and Catholic Church are not agreed upon the compatibility of the temporal with the spiritual power.

76. The cessation of the temporal power, upon which the Apostolic See is based, would contribute to the happiness and liberty of the church.

   N. B.—Besides these errors explicitly pointed out, still more,
   and those numerous, are rebuked by the certain doctrine which
   all Catholics are bound to respect touching the civil
   government of the Sovereign Pontiff. These doctrines are
   abundantly explained in Allocutions,
      "Quantis quantumque," April 20, 1859,
      and "Si semper antea," May 20, 1850;
      Apostolic Letter, "Quum Catholica Ecclesia," March 26, 1860;
      Allocutions, "Novos" September 28 1860;
      "Jamdudum" March 18, 1861;
      and "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.

X.—ERRORS REFERRING TO MODERN LIBERALISM.

77. In the present day it is no longer necessary that the Catholic religion shall be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other modes of worship.

78. Whence it has been wisely provided by law, in some countries called Catholic, that emigrants shall enjoy the free exercise of their own worship.

79. But it is false that the civil liberty of every mode of worship and the full power given to all of overtly and publicly displaying their opinions and their thoughts conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people and to the propagation of the evil of indifference.

80. The Roman pontiff can and ought to reconcile himself to and agree with progress, liberalism, and modern civilization.

PAPACY: A. D. 1869-1870.
The Œcumenical Council of the Vatican.
Adoption and Promulgation of the Dogma of Papal Infallibility.

   "More than 300 years after the close of the Council of Trent,
   Pope Pius IX., … resolved to convoke a new œcumenical Council.
   … He first intimated his intention, June 26, 1867, in an
   Allocution to 500 Bishops who were assembled at the 18th
   centenary of the martyrdom of St. Peter in Rome. … The call
   was issued by an Encyclical, commencing 'Æterni Patris
   Unigenitus Filius,' in the 23rd year of his Pontificate, on
   the feast of St. Peter and Paul, June 29, 1868. It created at
   once a universal commotion in the Christian world, and called
   forth a multitude of books and pamphlets even before the
   Council convened. …
{2474}
   It was even hoped that the Council might become a general
   feast of reconciliation of divided Christendom; and hence the
   Greek schismatics, and the Protestant heretics and other
   non-Catholics, were invited by two special letters of the Pope
   (September 8, and September 13, 1868) to return on this
   auspicious occasion to 'the only sheepfold of Christ.' … But
   the Eastern Patriarchs spurned the invitation. … The
   Protestant communions either ignored or respectfully declined
   it. Thus the Vatican Council, like that of Trent, turned out
   to be simply a general Roman Council, and apparently put the
   prospect of a reunion of Christendom farther off than ever
   before. While these sanguine expectations of Pius IX., were
   doomed to disappointment, the chief object of the Council was
   attained in spite of the strong opposition of the minority of
   liberal Catholics. This object … was nothing less than the
   proclamation of the personal Infallibility of the Pope, as a
   binding article of the Roman Catholic faith for all time to
   come. Herein lies the whole importance of the Council; all the
   rest dwindles into insignificance, and could never have
   justified its convocation. After extensive and careful
   preparations, the first (and perhaps the last) Vatican Council
   was solemnly opened amid the sound of innumerable bells and
   the cannon of St. Angelo, but under frowning skies and a
   pouring rain, on the festival of the Immaculate Conception of
   the Virgin Mary, December 8, 1869, in the Basilica of the
   Vatican. It reached its height at the fourth public session,
   July 18, 1870, when the decree of Papal Infallibility was
   proclaimed. After this it dragged on a sickly existence till
   October 20, 1870, when it was adjourned till November 11,
   1870, but indefinitely postponed on account of the
   extraordinary change in the political situation of Europe. For
   on the second of September the French Empire, which had been
   the main support of the temporal power of the Pope, collapsed
   with the surrender of Napoleon III., at the old Huguenot
   stronghold of Sedan, to the Protestant King William of
   Prussia, and on the 20th of September the Italian troops, in
   the name of King Victor Emmanuel, took possession of Rome, as
   the future capital of United Italy. Whether the Council will
   ever be convened again to complete its vast labors, like the
   twice interrupted Council of Trent, remains to be seen. But,
   in proclaiming the personal Infallibility of the Pope, it made
   all future œcumenical Councils unnecessary for the definition
   of dogmas and the regulation of discipline. … The acts of the
   Vatican Council, as far as they go, are irrevocable. The
   attendance was larger than at any of its eighteen
   predecessors. … The whole number of prelates of the Roman
   Catholic Church, who are entitled to a seat in an œcumenical
   Council, is 1,037. Of these there were present at the opening
   of the Council 719, viz., 49 Cardinals, 9 Patriarchs, 4
   Primates, 121 Archbishops, 479 Bishops, 57 Abbots and Generals
   of monastic orders. This number afterwards increased to 764,
   viz., 49 Cardinals, 10 Patriarchs, 4 Primates, 105 diocesan
   Archbishops, 22 Archbishops in partibus infidelium, 424
   diocesan Bishops, 98 Bishops in partibus, and 52 Abbots, and
   Generals of monastic orders. Distributed according to
   continents, 541 of these belonged to Europe, 83 to Asia, 14 to
   Africa, 113 to America, 13 to Oceanica. At the proclamation of
   the decree of Papal Infallibility, July 18, 1870, the number
   was reduced to 535, and afterwards it dwindled down to 200 or
   180. Among the many nations represented, the Italians had a
   vast majority of 276, of whom 143 belonged to the former Papal
   States alone. France with a much larger Catholic population,
   had only 84, Austria and Hungary 48, Spain 41, Great Britain
   35, Germany 19, the United States 48, Mexico 10, Switzerland
   8, Belgium 6, Holland 4, Portugal 2, Russia 1. The
   disproportion between the representatives of the different
   nations and the number of their constituents was
   overwhelmingly in favor of the Papal influence."

P. Schaff, History of the Vatican Council (appendix to Gladstone's 'Vatican Decrees' American edition).

The vote taken in the Council on the affirmation of the dogma "showed 400 'placet,' 88 'non placet,' and 60 'placet juxta modum.' Fifty bishops absented themselves from the congregation, preferring that mode of intimating their dissent. … After the votes the Archbishop of Paris proposed that the dissentients should leave Rome in a body, so as not to be present at the public services of the 18th, when the dogma was formally to be promulgated. Cardinal Rauscher, on the other hand, advised that they should all attend, and have the courage to vote 'non placet' in the presence of the Pope. This bold counsel, however, was rejected. … The recalcitrant bishops stayed away to the number of 110. The Pope's partisans mustered 533. When the dogmatic constitution 'De Ecclesia Christi' was put in its entirety to the vote, two prelates alone exclaimed 'non placet.' These were Riccio, Bishop of Casazzo, and Fitzgerald, Bishop of Peticola, or Little Rock, in the United States. A violent thunderstorm burst over St. Peter's at the commencement of the proceedings, and lasted till the close. The Pope proclaimed himself infallible amidst its tumult. … The Bishops in opposition, after renewing their negative vote in writing, quitted Rome almost to a man. … Several of the German bishops who had taken part in the opposition thought that at this juncture it behoved them, for the peace of the Church, and the respect due to the Dogma once declared, to give way at the end of August. They assembled again at Fulda, and pronounced the acceptance of the decree. … Seventeen names were appended to the declaration. Among them was not that of Hefele [Bishop of Rottenburg] who, it was soon made known, was determined under no circumstances to submit to the decision of the Council. His chapter and the theological faculty of Tübingen, declared that they would unanimously support him. A meeting of the Catholic professors of theology, held at Nuremberg, also agreed upon a decided protest against the absolute power and personal infallibility of the Pope. The German opposition, evidently, was far from being quelled. And the Austrian opposition, led by Schwarzenberg, Rauscher and Strossmayer, remained unbroken. By the end of August the members of the Council remaining at Rome were reduced to 80. They continued, however, to sit on through that month and the month of September, discussing various 'Schemes' relative to the internal affairs of the Church."

{2475} But on the 20th of October, after the Italian troops had taken possession of Rome, the Pope, by a Bull, suspended the sittings of the Œcumenical Council. Most of the German bishops who had opposed the dogma of infallibility surrendered to it in the end; but Dr. Döllinger, the Bavarian theologian, held his ground. "He had now become the acknowledged leader of all those who, within the pale of the Romish Church, were disaffected towards the Holy See; but he was to pay for this position of eminence. The Old Catholic movement soon drew upon itself the hostility of the ecclesiastical authorities. On the 19th of April 1871 Dr. Döllinger was formally excommunicated by the Archbishop of Munich, on account of his refusal to retract his opposition to the dogma of infallibility. … A paper war of great magnitude followed the excommunication. Most of the doctor's colleagues in his own divinity school, together with not a few canons of his cathedral, a vast number of the Bavarian lower clergy, and nearly all the laity, testified their agreement with him. The young King of Bavaria, moreover, lent the support of his personal sympathies to Dr. Döllinger's movement. … A Congress of Old Catholics was held at Munich in September, when an Anti-Infallibility League was formed; and the cause soon afterwards experienced a triumph in the election of Dr. Döllinger to the Rectorship of the University of Munich by a majority of fifty-four votes against six. At Cologne in the following year an Old Catholic Congress assembled, and delegates attended from various foreign States. … Dr. Döllinger … was always glad to give the Old Catholic body the benefit of his advice, and he presided over the Congress, mainly of Old Catholics, which was held at Bonn in 1874 to promote the reunion of Christendom; but we believe he never formally joined the Communion, and, at the outset, at any rate, he strongly opposed its constitution as a distinct Church. From the day of his excommunication by the Archbishop of Munich he abstained from performing any ecclesiastical function. He always continued a strict observer of the disciplinary rules and commandments of the Roman Catholic Church. … The Old Catholic movement did not generally make that headway upon the Continent which its sanguine promoters had hoped speedily to witness, though it was helped in Germany by the passing of a Bill for transferring ecclesiastical property to a committee of the ratepayers and communicants in each parish of the empire. When the third synod of the Old Catholics was held at Bonn in June 1876 it was stated by Dr. van Schulte that there were then 35 communities in Prussia, 44 in Baden, 5 in Hesse, 2 in Birkenfeld, 31 in Bavaria, and 1 in Würtemberg. The whole number of persons belonging to the body of Old Catholics was—in Prussia, 17,203; Bavaria, 10,110; Hesse, 1,042; Oldenburg, 249; and Würtemberg, 223. The number of Old Catholic priests in Germany was sixty. Subsequently some advance was recorded over these numbers."

Eminent Persons: Biographies reprinted from the Times, volume 4, pages 213-216.

ALSO IN: Quirinus (Dr. J. I. von Döllinger), Letters from Rome on the Council.

   The following is a translation of the text of the Constitution
   "Pastor æternus" in which the Dogma of Infallibility was
   subsequently promulgated by the Pope:

"Pius Bishop, Servant of the Servants of God, with the approval of the Sacred Council, for an everlasting remembrance. The eternal Pastor and Bishop of our souls, in order to continue for all time the life-giving work of His Redemption, determined to build up the Holy Church, wherein, as in the House of the living God, all faithful men might be united in the bond of one faith and one charity. Wherefore, before he entered into His glory, He prayed unto the Father, not for the Apostles only, but for those also who through their preaching should come to believe in Him, that all might be one even as He the Son and the Father are one. As then the Apostles whom He had chosen to Himself from the world were sent by Him, not otherwise than He Himself had been sent by the Father; so did He will that there should ever be pastors and teachers in His Church to the end of the world. And in order that the Episcopate also might be one and undivided, and that by means of a closely united priesthood the body of the faithful might be kept secure in the oneness of faith and communion, He set Blessed Peter over the rest of the Apostles, and fixed in him the abiding principle of this twofold unity, and its visible foundation, in the strength of which the everlasting temple should arise, and the Church in the firmness of that faith should lift her majestic front to Heaven. And seeing that the gates of hell with daily increase of hatred are gathering their strength on every side to upheave the foundation laid by God's own hand, and so, if that might be, to overthrow the Church; We, therefore, for the preservation, safe–keeping, and increase of the Catholic flock, with the approval of the Sacred Council, do judge it to be necessary to propose to the belief and acceptance of all the faithful, in accordance with the ancient and constant faith of the universal Church, the doctrine touching the institution, perpetuity, and nature of the sacred Apostolic Primacy, in which is found the strength and sureness of the entire Church, and at the same time to inhibit and condemn the contrary errors, so hurtful to the flock of Christ.

CHAPTER 1. Of the institution of the apostolic primacy in Blessed Peter.

   We, therefore, teach and declare that, according to the
   testimony of the Gospel, the primacy of jurisdiction was
   immediately and directly promised to Blessed Peter the
   Apostle, and on him conferred by Christ the Lord. For it had
   been said before to Simon; Thou shalt be called Cephas, and
   afterwards on occasion of the confession made by him; Thou art
   the Christ, the Son of the living God, it was to Simon alone
   that the Lord addressed the words: Blessed art thou, Simon
   Bar-Jona, because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to
   thee, but my Father who is in Heaven. And I say to thee that
   thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and
   the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will
   give to thee the keys of the kingdom of Heaven. And whatsoever
   thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven,
   and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth it shall be loosed
   also in heaven.
{2476}
   And it was upon Simon alone that Jesus after His resurrection
   bestowed the jurisdiction of Chief Pastor and Ruler over all
   His fold in the words: Feed my lambs: feed my sheep. At open
   variance with this clear doctrine of Holy Scripture as it has
   been ever understood by the Catholic Church are the perverse
   opinions of those who, while they distort the form of
   government established by Christ the Lord in His Church, deny
   that Peter in his single person, preferably to all the other
   Apostles, whether taken separately or together, was endowed by
   Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction; or of
   those who assert that the same primacy was not bestowed
   immediately and directly upon Blessed Peter himself, but upon
   the Church, and through the Church on Peter as her Minister.
   If anyone, therefore, shall say that Blessed Peter the Apostle
   was not appointed the Prince of all the Apostles and the
   visible Head of the whole Church Militant; or that the same
   directly and immediately received from the same Our Lord Jesus
   Christ a Primacy of honour only, and not of true and proper
   jurisdiction; let him be anathema.

CHAPTER II. On the perpetuation of the primacy of Peter in the Roman Pontiffs.

That which the Prince of Shepherds and great Shepherd of the sheep, Jesus Christ our Lord, established in the person of the Blessed Apostle Peter to secure the perpetual welfare and lasting good of the Church, must, by the same institution, necessarily remain unceasingly in the Church; which, being founded upon the Rock, will stand firm to the end of the world. For none can doubt, and it is known to all ages, that the holy and Blessed Peter, the Prince and Chief of the Apostles, the pillar of the faith and foundation of the Catholic Church, who received the keys of the kingdom from Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the race of man, continues up to the present time, and ever continues, in his successors the Bishops of the Holy See of Rome, which was founded by Him, and consecrated by His blood, to live and preside and judge. Whence, whosoever succeeds to Peter in this See, does by the institution of Christ Himself obtain the Primacy of Peter over the whole Church. The disposition made by Incarnate Truth therefore remains, and Blessed Peter, abiding through the strength of the Rock in the power that he received, has not abandoned the direction of the Church. Wherefore it has at all times been necessary that every particular Church—that is to say, the faithful throughout the world—should agree with the Roman Church, on account of the greater authority of the princedom which this has received; that all being associated in the unity of that See whence the rights of communion spread to all, as members in the unity of the Head, might combine to form one "connected body. If, then, any should deny that it is by the institution of Christ the Lord, or by divine right, that Blessed Peter should have a perpetual line of successors in the Primacy over the Universal Church, or that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of Blessed Peter in this Primacy; let him be anathema.

CHAPTER III. On the force and character of the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff.

   Wherefore, resting on plain testimonies of the Sacred
   Writings, and in agreement with both the plain and express
   decrees of our predecessors, the Roman Pontiffs, and of the
   General Councils, We renew the definition of the Œcumenical
   Council of Florence, in virtue of which all the faithful of
   Christ must believe that the Holy Apostolic See and the Roman
   Pontiff possesses the Primacy over the whole world, and that
   the Roman Pontiff is the successor of Blessed Peter, Prince of
   the Apostles, and is true Vicar of Christ, and Head of the
   whole Church, and Father and teacher of all Christians; and
   that full power was given to him in Blessed Peter to rule,
   feed, and govern the Universal Church by Jesus Christ our
   Lord: as is also contained in the acts of the General Councils
   and in the Sacred Canons. Further we teach and declare that by
   the appointment of our Lord the Roman Church possesses the
   chief ordinary jurisdiction over all other Churches, and that
   this power of jurisdiction possessed by the Roman Pontiff
   being truly episcopal is immediate; which all, both pastors
   and faithful, both individually and collectively, are bound,
   by their duty of hierarchical submission and true obedience,
   to obey, not merely in matters which belong to faith and
   morals, but also in those that appertain to the discipline and
   government of the Church throughout the world, so that the
   Church of Christ may be one flock under one supreme pastor
   through the preservation of unity both of communion and of
   profession of the same faith with the Roman Pontiff. This is
   the teaching of Catholic truth, from which no one can deviate
   without loss of faith and of salvation. But so far is this
   power of the Supreme Pontiff from being any prejudice to the
   ordinary power of episcopal jurisdiction, by which the Bishops
   who have been set by the Holy Spirit to succeed and hold the
   place of the Apostles feed and govern, each his own flock, as
   true Pastors, that this episcopal authority is really
   asserted, strengthened, and protected by the supreme and
   universal Pastor; in accordance with the words of S. Gregory
   the Great: My honour is the honour of the whole Church. My
   honour is the firm strength of my Brethren, I am then truly
   honoured, when due honour is not denied to each of their
   number. Further, from this supreme power possessed by the
   Roman Pontiff of governing the Universal Church, it follows
   that he has the right of free communication with the Pastors
   of the whole Church, and with their flocks, that these may be
   taught and directed by him in the way of salvation. Wherefore
   we condemn and reject the opinions of those who hold that the
   communication between this supreme Head and the Pastors and
   their flocks can lawfully be impeded; or who represent this
   communication as subject to the will of the secular power, so
   as to maintain that whatever is done by the Apostolic See, or
   by its authority, cannot have force or value, unless it be
   confirmed by the assent of the secular power. And since by the
   divine right of Apostolic primacy, the Roman Pontiff is placed
   over the Universal Church, we further teach and declare that
   he is the supreme judge of the faithful, and that in all
   causes, the decision of which belongs to the Church, recourse
   may be had to his tribunal: and that none may meddle with the
   judgment of the Apostolic See, the authority of which is
   greater than all other, nor can any lawfully depart from its
   judgment. Wherefore they depart from the right course who
   assert that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the
   Roman Pontiffs and an Œcumenical Council, as to an authority
   higher than that of the Roman Pontiff.
{2477}
   If then any shall say that the Roman Pontiff has the office
   merely of inspection or direction, and not full and supreme
   power of jurisdiction over the Universal Church, not alone in
   things which belong to faith and morals, but in those which
   relate to the discipline and government of the Church spread
   throughout the world; or who assert that he possesses merely
   the principal part, and not all the fulness of this supreme
   power; or that this power which he enjoys is not ordinary and
   immediate, both over each and all the Churches and over each
   and all the Pastors and the faithful; let him be anathema.

CHAPTER IV. Concerning the infallible teaching of the Roman Pontiff:

Moreover that the supreme power of teaching is also included in the Apostolic Primacy, which the Roman Pontiff, as successor of Peter, Prince of the Apostles, enjoys over the whole Church, this Holy See has always held, the perpetual practice of the Church attests, and Œcumenical Councils themselves have declared, especially those in which the East with the West met in the union of faith and charity. For the Fathers of the Fourth Council of Constantinople, following in the footsteps of their predecessors, gave forth this solemn profession: The first condition of salvation is to keep the rule of the true faith. And because the sentence of our Lord Jesus Christ cannot be passed by, who said: Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church, these things which have been said are approved by events, because in the Apostolic See the Catholic Religion and her holy solemn doctrine has always been kept immaculate. Desiring, therefore, not to be in the least degree separated from the faith and doctrine of that See, we hope that we may deserve to be in the one communion, which the Apostolic See preaches, in which is the entire and true solidity of the Christian religion. And, with the approval of the Second Council of Lyons, the Greeks professed that the Holy Roman Church enjoy supreme and full Primacy and preeminence over the whole Catholic Church, which it truly and humbly acknowledges that it has received with the plenitude of power from our Lord Himself in the person of blessed Peter, Prince or Head of the Apostles, whose successor the Roman Pontiff is; and as the Apostolic See is bound before all others to defend the truth of faith, so also if any questions regarding faith shall arise, they must be defined by its judgment. Finally, the Council of Florence defined: That the Roman Pontiff is the true Vicar of Christ, and the Head of the whole Church, and the Father and Teacher of all Christians; and that to him in blessed Peter was delivered by our Lord Jesus Christ the full power of feeding, ruling, and governing the whole Church. To satisfy this pastoral duty our predecessors ever made unwearied efforts that the salutary doctrine of Christ might be propagated among all the nations of the earth, and with equal care watched that it might be preserved sincere and pure where it had been received. Therefore the Bishops of the whole world, now singly, now assembled in synod, following the long-established custom of Churches, and the form of the ancient rule, sent word to this Apostolic See of those dangers which sprang up in matters of faith, that there especially the losses of faith might be repaired where faith cannot feel any defect. And the Roman Pontiffs, according to the exigencies of times and circumstances, sometimes assembling Œcumenical Councils, or asking for the mind of the Church scattered throughout the world, sometimes by particular Synods, sometimes using other helps which Divine Providence supplied, defined as to be held those things which with the help of God they had recognised as conformable with the Sacred Scriptures and Apostolic Traditions. For the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter that under His revelation they might make known new doctrine, but that under His assistance they might scrupulously keep and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith delivered through the Apostles. And, indeed, all the venerable Fathers have embraced, and the holy orthodox Doctors have venerated and followed, their Apostolic doctrine; knowing most fully that this See of holy Peter remains ever free from all blemish of error, according to the divine promise of the Lord our Saviour made to the Prince of His disciples: I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not, and thou, at length converted, confirm thy brethren. This gift, then, of truth and never-failing faith was conferred by Heaven upon Peter and his successors in this Chair, that they might perform their high office for the salvation of all; that the whole flock of Christ, kept away by them from the poisonous food of error, might be nourished with the pasture of heavenly doctrine; that the occasion of schism being removed the whole Church might be kept one, and, resting on its foundation, might stand firm against the gates of hell. But since in this very age, in which the salutary efficacy of the Apostolic office is even most of all required, not a few are found who take away from its authority, We judge it altogether necessary solemnly to assert the prerogative which the only-begotten Son of God vouchsafed to join with the supreme pastoral office. Therefore We, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, for the glory of God our Saviour, the exaltation of the Roman Catholic Religion, and the salvation of Christian people, with the approbation of the Sacred Council, teach and define that it is a dogma divinely revealed: that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedrâ, that is, when in discharge of the office of Pastor and Doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the Universal Church, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, enjoys that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer wished that His Church be provided for defining doctrine regarding faith or morals; and that therefore such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church. But if anyone—which may God avert —presume to contradict this Our definition; let him be anathema."

PAPACY: A. D. 1870.
   End of the Temporal Sovereignty.
   Rome made the capital of the Kingdom of Italy.
   The Law of the Papal Guarantees.

   The events which extinguished the temporal sovereignty of the
   Pope and made Rome the capital of the Kingdom of Italy will be
   found narrated under ITALY: A. D. 1870. "The entry of the
   Italian troops into Rome, and its union to Italy … was
   acquiesced in by all the powers of Europe, both Protestant and
   Roman Catholic.
{2478}
   The French Government of National Defence,
   which had succeeded to power after the fall of the Second
   Empire, expressed through M. Jules Favre, the Minister of
   Foreign Affairs, its desire that the Italians should do what
   they liked, and avowed its sympathy with them. … The
   Austro-Hungarian Cabinet was asked by the Papal Court to
   protest against the occupation of Rome. To this the Imperial
   and Royal Government gave a direct refusal, alleging among
   other reasons that 'its excellent relations' with Italy, upon
   which it had 'cause to congratulate itself ever since
   reconciliation had been effected' prevented its acceding to
   the desire of the Vatican. … The Spanish Government of the
   Regency, which succeeded to that of Queen Isabella, adopted
   much the same line of conduct; it praised Signor
   Visconti-Venosta's circular, and spoke of the 'wise and
   prudent' measures it proposed to adopt with regard to the
   Pope. … Baron d'Anethan, at that time Prime Minister of
   Belgium, who was the leader of the conservative or clerical
   party in the country, admitted to the Italian Minister at
   Brussels: 'that speaking strictly, the temporal power was not,
   in truth, an indispensable necessity to the Holy See for the
   fulfilment of its mission in the world.' As to the course
   Belgium would take the Baron said —'If Italy has a territorial
   difficulty to discuss with the Holy See, that is a matter with
   which Belgium has nothing to do, and it would be to disown the
   principles on which our existence reposes if we expressed an
   opinion one way or the other on the subject.' … The Italian
   Chamber elected in March, 1867, was dissolved, and on the 5th
   December, 1870, the newly elected Parliament met in Florence
   for the last time. Among its members now sat those who
   represented Rome and the province, in which it is situated.
   The session of 1871 was occupied with the necessary
   arrangements for the transfer of the capital to Rome, and by
   the discussion of an act defining the position of the Pope in
   relation to the kingdom of Italy. The labours of Parliament
   resulted in the Law of the Papal Guarantees, which, after long
   and full debate in both Houses, received the royal assent on
   the 13th of May, 1871. Its provisions ran as follows:

Article II.—An attack (attentato) directed against the person of the Sovereign Pontiff, and any instigation to commit such attack, is punishable by the same penalties as those established in the case of an attack directed against the person of the king, or any instigation to commit such an attack. Offences and public insults committed directly against the person of the Pontiff by discourses, acts, or by the means indicated in the 1st article of the law on the press, are punishable by the penalties established by the 19th article of the same law. These crimes are liable to public action, and are within the jurisdiction of the court of assizes. The discussion of religious subjects is completely free.

Article III.—The Italian Government renders throughout the territory of the kingdom royal honours to the Sovereign Pontiff, and maintains that pre-eminence of honour recognised as belonging to him by Catholic princes. The Sovereign Pontiff has power to keep up the usual number of guards attached to his person, and to the custody of the palaces, without prejudice to the obligations and duties resulting to such guards from the actual laws of the kingdom.

Article IV.—The endowment of 3,225,000 francs (lire italiane) of yearly rental is retained in favour of the Holy See. With this sum, which is equal to that inscribed in the Roman balance-sheet under the title, 'Sacred Apostolic Palaces, Sacred College, Ecclesiastical Congregations, Secretary of State, and Foreign Diplomatic Office,' it is intended to provide for the maintenance of the Sovereign Pontiff, and for the various ecclesiastical wants of the Holy See for ordinary and extraordinary maintenance, and for the keeping of the apostolic palaces and their dependencies; for the pay, gratifications, and pensions of the guards of whom mention is made in the preceding article, and for those attached to the Pontifical Court, and for eventual expenses; also for the ordinary maintenance and care of the annexed museums and library, and for the pay, stipends, and pensions of those employed for that purpose. The endowment mentioned above shall be inscribed in the Great Book of the public debt, in form of perpetual and inalienable revenue, in the name of the Holy See; and during the time that the See is vacant, it shall continue to be paid, in order to meet all the needs of the Roman Church during that interval of time. The endowment shall remain exempt from any species of government, communal, or provincial tax; and it cannot be diminished in future, even in the case of the Italian Government resolving ultimately itself to assume the expenses of the museums and library.

Article V.—The Sovereign Pontiff, besides the endowment established in the preceding article, will continue to have the use of the apostolic palaces of the Vatican and Lateran with all the edifices, gardens, and grounds annexed to and dependent on them, as well as the Villa of Castel Gondolfo with all its belongings and dependencies. The said palaces, villa, and annexes, like the museums, the library, and the art and archæological collections there existing, are inalienable, are exempt from every tax or impost, and from all expropriation on the ground of public utility.

Article VI.—During the time in which the Holy See is vacant, no judiciary or political authority shall be able for any reason whatever to place any impediment or limit to the personal liberty of the cardinals. The Government provides that the meetings of the Conclave and of the Œcumenical Councils shall not be disturbed by any external violence.

Article VII.—No official of the public authority, nor agent of the public forces, can in the exercise of his peculiar office enter into the palaces or localities of habitual residence or temporary stay of the Sovereign Pontiff, or in those in which are assembled a Conclave or Œcumenical Council, unless authorised by the Sovereign Pontiff, by the Conclave, or by the Council.

Article VIII.—It is forbidden to proceed with visits, perquisitions, or seizures of papers, documents, books, or registers in the offices and pontifical congregations invested with purely spiritual functions.

Article IX.—The Sovereign Pontiff is completely free to fulfil all the functions of his spiritual ministry, and to have affixed to the doors of the basilicas and churches of Rome all the acts of the said ministry.

Article X.—The ecclesiastics who, by reason of their office, participate in Rome in the sending forth of the acts of the spiritual ministry of the Holy See, are not subject on account of those acts to any molestation, investigation, or act of magistracy, on the part of the public authorities. Every stranger invested with ecclesiastical office in Rome enjoys the personal guarantees belonging to Italian citizens in virtue of the laws of the kingdom.

Article XI.—The envoys of foreign governments to the Holy See enjoy in the kingdom all the prerogatives and immunities which belong to diplomatic agents, according to international right. To offences against them are extended the penalties inflicted for offences against the envoys of foreign powers accredited to the Italian Government. To the envoys of the Holy See to foreign Governments are assured throughout the territory of the kingdom the accustomed prerogatives and immunities, according to the same (international) right, in going to and from the place of their mission.

Article XII.—The Supreme Pontiff corresponds freely with the Episcopate and with all the Catholic world without any interference whatever on the part of the Italian Government. To such end he has the faculty of establishing in the Vatican, or any other of his residences, postal and telegraphic offices worked by clerks of his own appointment. The Pontifical post-office will be able to correspond directly, by means of sealed packets, with the post-offices of foreign administrations, or remit its own correspondence to the Italian post-offices. In both cases the transport of despatches or correspondence furnished with the official Pontifical stamp will be exempt from every tax or expense as regards Italian territory. The couriers sent out in the name of the Supreme Pontiff are placed on the same footing in the kingdom, as the cabinet couriers or those of foreign government. The Pontifical telegraphic office will be placed in communication with the network of telegraphic lines of the kingdom, at the expense of the State. Telegrams transmitted by the said office with the authorised designation of 'Pontifical' will be received and transmitted with the privileges established for telegrams of State, and with the exemption in the kingdom from every tax. The same advantages will be enjoyed by the telegrams of the Sovereign Pontiff or those which, signed by his order and furnished with the stamp of the Holy See, shall be presented to any telegraphic office in the kingdom. Telegrams directed to the Sovereign Pontiff shall be exempt from charges upon those who send them.

Article XIII.—In the city of Rome and in the six suburban sees the seminaries, academies, colleges, and other Catholic institutions founded for the education and culture of ecclesiastics, shall continue to depend only on the Holy See, without any interference of the scholastic authorities of the kingdom.

Article XIV.—Every special restriction of the exercise of the right of meeting on the part of the members of the Catholic clergy is abolished.

Article XV.—The Government renounces its right of apostolic legateship (legazia apostolica) in Sicily, and also its right, throughout the kingdom, of nomination or presentation in the collation of the greater benefices. The bishops shall not be required to make oath of allegiance to the king. The greater and lesser benefices cannot be conferred except on citizens of the kingdom, save in the case of the city of Rome, and of the suburban sees. No innovation is made touching the presentation to benefices under royal patronage.

Article XVI.—The royal 'exequatur' and 'placet,' and every other form of Government assent for the publication and execution of acts of ecclesiastical authority, are abolished. However, until such time as may be otherwise provided in the special law of which Art. XVIII. speaks, the acts of these (ecclesiastical) authorities which concern the destination of ecclesiastical property and the provisions of the major and minor benefices, excepting those of the city of Rome and the suburban sees, remain subject to the royal 'exequatur' and 'placet.' The enactments of the civil law with regard to the creation and to the modes of existence of ecclesiastical institutions and of their property remain unaltered.

Article XVII.—In matters spiritual and of spiritual discipline, no appeal is admitted against acts of the ecclesiastical authorities, nor is any aid on the part of the civil authority recognised as due to such acts, nor is it accorded to them. The recognising of the judicial effects, in these as in every other act of these (ecclesiastical) authorities, rests with the civil jurisdiction. However, such acts are without effect if contrary to the laws of the State, or to public order, or if damaging to private rights, and are subjected to the penal laws if they constitute a crime.

Article XVIII.—An ulterior law will provide for the reorganisation, the preservation, and the administration of the ecclesiastical property of the kingdom.

Article XIX.—As regards all matters which form part of the present law, everything now existing, in so far as it may be contrary to this law, ceases to have effect.

The object of this law was to carry out still further than had yet been done the principle of a 'free Church in a free State,' by giving the Church unfettered power in all spiritual matters, while placing all temporal power in the hands of the State. … The Pope and his advisers simply protested against all that was done. Pius IX. shut himself up in the Vatican and declared himself a prisoner. In the meanwhile the practical transfer of the capital from Florence was effected."

   The attitude towards the Italian Government assumed by the
   Papal Court in 1870, and since maintained, is indicated by the
   following, quoted from a work written in sympathy with it:
   "Pius IX. had refused to treat with or in any way recognize
   the new masters of Rome. The Law of Guarantees adopted by the
   Italian Parliament granted him a revenue in compensation for
   the broad territories of which he had been despoiled. He
   refused to touch a single lira of it, and preferred to rely
   upon the generosity of his children in every land, rather than
   to become the pensioner of those who had stripped him of his
   civil sovereignty. His last years were spent within the
   boundaries of the Vatican palace. He could not have ventured
   to appear publicly in the city without exposing himself to the
   insults of the mob on the one hand, or on the other calling
   forth demonstrations of loyalty, which would have been made
   the pretext for stern military repression.
{2480}
   Nor could he have accepted in the streets of Rome the
   protection of the agents of that very power against whose
   presence in the city he had never ceased to protest. Thus it
   was that Pius IX. became, practically, a prisoner in his own
   palace of the Vatican. He had not long to wait for evidence of
   the utter hollowness of the so-called Law of Guarantees. The
   extension to Rome of the law suppressing the religious orders,
   the seizure of the Roman College, the project for the
   expropriation of the property of the Propaganda itself, were
   so many proofs of the spirit in which the new rulers of Rome
   interpreted their pledges, that the change of government
   should not in any way prejudice the Church or the Holy See in
   its administration of the Church. … The very misfortunes and
   difficulties of the Holy See drew closer the bonds that united
   the Catholic world to its centre. The Vatican became a centre
   of pilgrimage to an extent that it had never been before in
   all its long history, and this movement begun under Pius IX.
   has continued and gathered strength under Leo XIII., until at
   length it has provoked the actively hostile opposition of the
   intruded government. Twice during his last years Pius IX.
   found himself the centre of a world-wide demonstration of
   loyalty and affection, first on June 16th, 1871, when he
   celebrated the twenty-fifth anniversary of his coronation, the
   first of all the Popes who had ever reigned beyond the 'years
   of Peter;' and again on June 3rd, 1877, when, surrounded by
   the bishops and pilgrims of all nations, he kept the jubilee
   of his episcopal consecration. … Pius IX. was destined to
   outlive Victor Emmanuel, as he had outlived Napoleon III. …
   Victor Emmanuel died on January 9th, Pius IX. on February 6th
   [1879]. … It had been the hope of the Revolution that, however
   stubbornly Pius IX. might refuse truce or compromise with the
   new order of things, his successor would prove to be a man of
   more yielding disposition. The death of the Pope had occurred
   somewhat unexpectedly. Though he had been ill in the autumn of
   1877, at the New Year he seemed to have recovered, and there
   was every expectation that his life would be prolonged for at
   least some months. The news of his death came at a moment when
   the Italian Government was fully occupied with the changes
   that followed the accession of a new king, and when the
   diplomatists of Europe were more interested in the settlement
   of the conditions of peace between France and Germany than in
   schemes for influencing the conclave. Before the enemies of
   the Church had time to concert any hostile plans of action,
   the cardinals had assembled at the Vatican and had chosen as
   Supreme Pontiff, Cardinal Pecci, the Archbishop of Perugia. He
   assumed the name of Leo XIII., a name now honoured not only
   within the Catholic Church, but throughout the whole civilized
   world. … The first public utterances of the new Pope shattered
   the hopes of the usurpers. He had taken up the standard of the
   Church's rights from the hands of his predecessor, and he
   showed himself as uncompromising as ever Pius IX. had been on
   the question of the independence of the Holy See, and its
   effective guarantee in the Civil Sovereignty of the Supreme
   Pontiff. The hope that the Roman Question would be solved by a
   surrender on the part of Leo XIII. of all that Pius IX. had
   contended for, has been long since abandoned by even the most
   optimist of the Italian party."

PAPACY: A. D. 1873-1887.
The Culturkampf in Germany.
The "May Laws" and their repeal.

PAPACY: A. D. 1892. Mission of an Apostolic Delegate to the United States of America.

In October, 1892, Monsignor Francisco Satolli arrived in the United States, commissioned by the Pope as "Apostolic Delegate," with powers described in the following terms: "'We command all whom it concerns,' says the Head of the Church, 'to recognize in you, as Apostolic Delegate, the supreme power of the delegating Pontiff; we command that they give you aid, concurrence and obedience in all things; that they receive with reverence your salutary admonitions and orders.'"

PAPAL STATES.

PAPER BLOCKADE.

PAPER MONEY.

A people who anciently inhabited the southern coast of the
Euxine, from the mouth of the Kizil-Irmak to Cape Baba.

   Paphlagonia formed part, in succession, of the dominions of
   Lydia, Persia, Pontus, Bithynia, and Rome, but was often
   governed by local princes.

   "In contrast to the Polynesians, both in color of skin and
   shape of skull, are the crispy-haired black dolichocephalic
   Papuans, whose centre is in the large and little-known island
   of New Guinea, from whence they spread over the neighboring
   islands to the southeast, the Louisades, New Caledonia, New
   Britain, Solomon Islands, Queen Charlotte Islands, New
   Hebrides, Loyalty, and Fiji Islands. Turning now to the
   northward, a similar black race is found in the Eta or Ita of
   the Philippenes (Negritos of the Spanish), whom Meyer, Semper,
   Peschel, and Hellwald believe to be closely allied to the true
   Papuan type; and in the interiors of Sumatra, Borneo, Celebes,
   and Gilolo, and in the mountains of Malacca, and at last in
   the Andaman Islands, we find peoples closely related; and
   following Peschel, we may divide the whole of the eastern
   blacks (excepting of course the Australians) into Asiatic and
   Australasian Papuans; the latter inhabiting New Guinea and the
   islands mentioned to the south and east. In other of the
   islands of the South Seas traces of a black race are to be
   found, but so mingled with Polynesian and Malay as to render
   them fit subjects for treatment under the chapters on those
   races.
{2481}
   The name Papua comes from the Malay word papuwah,
   crispy-haired, and is the name which the Malays apply to their
   black neighbors. In New Guinea, the centre of the Papuans, the
   name is not known, nor have the different tribes any common
   name for themselves. In body, conformation of skull, and in
   genera] appearance the Papuans present a very close
   resemblance to the African negroes, and afford a strong
   contrast to the neighboring Polynesians."

J. S. Kingsley, editor, The Standard [now called The Riverside], Natural History, volume 6, page 42.

"The 'parabolani' of Alexandria were a charitable corporation, instituted during the plague of Gallienus, to visit the sick and to bury the dead. They gradually enlarged, abused, and sold the privileges of their order. Their outrageous conduct under the reign of Cyril [as patriarch of Alexandria] provoked the emperor to deprive the patriarch of their nomination and to restrain their number to five or six hundred. But these restraints were transient and ineffectual."

PARACELSUS.

"De Azara tells us that the river Paraguay derives its name from the Payaguas tribe of Indians, who were the earliest navigators on its waters. Some writers deduce the origin of its title from an Indian cacique, called Paraguaio, but Azara says, this latter word has no signification in any known idiom of the Indians, and moreover there is no record of a cacique ever having borne that name."

PARAGUAY: A. D. 1515-1557.
Discovery and exploration of La Plata.
Settlement and early years of the peculiar colony.

The Rio de la Plata, or River of Silver, was discovered in 1515 by the Spanish explorer, Juan de Solis, who landed incautiously and was killed by the natives. In 1519 this "Sweet Sea," as Solis called it, was visited again by Magellan, in the course of the voyage which made known the great strait which bears his name. The first, however, to ascend the important river for any distance, and to attempt the establishing of Spanish settlements upon it, was Sebastian Cabot, in 1526, after he had become chief pilot to the king of Spain. He sailed up the majestic stream to the junction of the Paraguay and the Parana, and then explored both channels, in turn, for long distances beyond. "Cabot passed the following two years in friendly relations with the Guaranis, in whose silver ornaments originated the name of La Plata, and thence of the Argentine Republic, the name having been applied by Cabot to the stream now called the Paraguay. That able and sagacious man now sent to Spain two of his most trusted followers with an account of Paraguay and its resources, and to seek the authority and reinforcements requisite for their acquisition. Their request was favourably received, but so tardily acted on that in despair the distinguished navigator quitted the region of his discoveries after a delay of five years." In 1534, the enterprise abandoned by Cabot was taken up by a wealthy Spanish courtier, Don Pedro de Mendoza, who received large powers, and who fitted out an expedition of 2,000 men, with 100 horses, taking with him eight priests. Proceeding but a hundred miles up the Plata, Mendoza founded a town on its southwestern shore, which, in compliment to the fine climate of the region, he named Buenos Ayres. As long as they kept at peace with the natives, these adventurers fared well; but when war broke out, as it did ere long, they were reduced to great straits for food. Mendoza, broken down with disappointments and hardships, resigned his powers to his lieutenant, Ayolas, and sailed for home, but died on the way. Ayolas, with part of his followers, ascended to a point on the Paraguay some distance above its junction with the Parana, where he founded a new city, calling it Asuncion. This was in 1537; and Ayolas perished that same year in an attempt to make his way overland to Peru. The survivors of the colony were left in command of an officer named Irala, who proved to be a most capable man. The settlement at Buenos Ayres was abandoned and all concentrated at Asuncion, where they numbered 600 souls. In 1542 they were joined by a new party of 400 adventurers from Spain, who came out with Cabeza de Vaca—a hero of strange adventures in Florida—now appointed Adelantado of La Plata. Cabeza de Vaca had landed with part of his forces on the Brazilian coast, at a point eastward from Asuncion, and boldly marched across country, making an important exploration and establishing friendly relations with the Guaranis. But he was not successful in his government, and the discontented colonists summarily deposed him, shipping him off to Spain, with charges against him, and restoring Irala to the command of their affairs. This irregularity seems to have been winked at by the home authorities, and Irala was scarcely interfered with for a number of years. "The favourable reports which had reached Spain of the climate and capabilities of Paraguay were such as to divert thither many emigrants who would otherwise have turned their faces toward Mexico or Peru. It was the constant endeavour of Irala to level the distinctions which separated the Spaniards from the natives and to encourage intermarriages between them. This policy, in the course of time, led to a marked result,—namely, to that singular combination of outward civilization and of primitive simplicity which was to be found in the modern Paraguayan race until it was annihilated under the younger Lopez. … Irala, in fact, created a nation. The colony under his administration became numerous and wealthy. … He was the life and soul of the colony, and his death, which occurred in 1557 at the village of Ita, near Asuncion, when he had attained the age of 70 years, was lamented alike by Spaniards and Guaranis. … The Spaniards brought with them few if any women, and if a certain proportion of Spanish ladies arrived later they were not in sufficient numbers to affect the general rule, which was that the Spanish settlers were allied to Guarani wives. Thus was formed the modern mixed Paraguayan race. In a very short time, therefore, by means of the ties of relationship, a strong sympathy grew up between the Spaniards and the Guaranis, or those of Guarani blood, and a recognition of this fact formed the basis of the plan of government founded by the great Irala. {2482} The lot of the natives of Paraguay, as compared with the natives of the other Spanish dominions in the New World, was far from being a hard one. There were no mines to work. The Spaniards came there to settle, rather than to amass fortunes with which to return to Europe. The country was abundantly fertile, and such wealth as the Spaniards might amass consisted in the produce of their fields or the increase of their herds, which were amply sufficient to support them. Consequently, all they required of the natives, for the most part, was a moderate amount of service as labourers or as herdsmen."

R. G. Watson, Spanish and Portuguese South America, volume 1, chapters 5 and 16.

PARAGUAY: A. D. 1608-1873.
   The rule of the Jesuits.
   The Dictatorship of Dr. Francia and of Lopez I. and Lopez II.
   Disastrous War with Brazil.

"Under Spanish rule, from the early part of the 16th century as a remote dependency of Peru, and subsequently of Buenos Ayres, Paraguay had been almost entirely abandoned to the Jesuits [see JESUITS: A. D. 1542-1649] as a virgin ground on which to try the experiment of their idea of a theocratic government. The Loyola Brethren, first brought in in 1608, baptized the Indian tribes, built towns, founded missions [and communities of converts called Reductions, meaning that they had been reduced into the Christian faith], gave the tamed savages pacific, industrious, and passively obedient habits, married them by wholesale, bidding the youth of the two sexes stand up in opposite rows, and saving them the trouble of a choice by pointing out to every Jack his Jenny; drilled and marshalled them to their daily tasks in processions and at the sound of the church bells, headed by holy images; and in their leisure hours amused them with Church ceremonies and any amount of music and dancing and merry-making. They allowed each family a patch of ground and a grove of banana and other fruit trees for their sustenance, while they claimed the whole bulk of the land for themselves as 'God's patrimony,' bidding those well-disciplined devotees save their souls by slaving with their bodies in behalf of their ghostly masters and instructors. With the whole labouring population under control, these holy men soon waxed so strong as to awe into subjection the few white settlers whose estates dated from the conquest; and by degrees, extending their sway from the country into the towns, and even into the capital, Asuncion, they set themselves above all civil and ecclesiastical authority, snubbing the intendente of the province and worrying the bishop of the diocese. Driven away by a fresh outburst of popular passions in 1731, and brought back four years later by the strong hand of the Spanish Government, they made common cause with it, truckled to the lay powers whom they had set at naught, and shared with them the good things which they had at first enjoyed undivided. All this till the time of the general crusade of the European powers against their order, when they had to depart from Paraguay as well as from all other Spanish dominions in 1767. In the early part of the present century, when the domestic calamities of Spain determined a general collapse of her power in the American colonies, Paraguay raised its cry for independence, and constituted itself into a separate Republic in 1811. But, although the party of emancipation was the strongest and seized the reins of government, there were still many among the citizens who clung to their connection with the mother country, and these were known as Peninsulares; and there were many more who favoured the scheme of a federal union of Paraguay with the Republics of the Plate, and these went by the name of Porteños, owing to the importance they attached to the dependence of their country on Buenos Ayres (the puerto or harbour), the only outlet as well as the natural head of the projected confederation.

   All these dissenters were soon disposed of by the ruthless
   energy of one man, Juan Gaspar Rodriguez, known under the name
   of Dr. Francia. This man, the son of a Mamaluco, or Brazilian
   half-caste, with Indian blood in his veins, a man of stern,
   gloomy and truculent character, with a mixture of scepticism
   and stoicism, was one of those grim, yet grotesque, heroes
   according to Mr. Carlyle's heart whom it is now the fashion to
   call 'Saviours of society.' A Doctor of Divinity, issuing from
   the Jesuit seminary at Cordova, but practising law at
   Asuncion, he made his way from the Municipal Council to the
   Consular dignity of the New Republic, and assumed a
   Dictatorship, which laid the country at his discretion …
   (1814-1840), wielding the most unbounded power till his death,
   at the advanced age of 83. With a view, or under pretext of
   stifling discontent and baffling conspiracy within and warding
   off intrigue or aggression from without, he rid himself of his
   colleagues, rivals, and opponents, by wholesale executions,
   imprisonments, proscriptions, and confiscations, and raised a
   kind of Chinese wall all round the Paraguayan territory,
   depriving it of all trade or intercourse, and allowing no man
   to enter or quit his dominions without an express permission
   from himself. Francia's absolutism was a monomania, though
   there was something like method in his madness. There were
   faction and civil strife and military rule in Paraguay for
   about a twelvemonth after his death. In the end, a new
   Constitution, new Consuls—one of whom, Carlos Antonio Lopez, a
   lawyer, took upon himself to modify the Charter in a strictly
   despotic sense, had himself elected President, first for ten
   years, then for three, and again for ten more, managing thus
   to reign alone and supreme for 21 years (1841-1862). On his
   demise he bequeathed the Vice-Presidency to his son, Francisco
   Solano Lopez, whom he had already trusted with the command of
   all the forces, and who had no difficulty in having himself
   appointed President for life in an Assembly where there was
   only one negative vote. The rule of Francia in his later
   years, and that of the first Lopez throughout his reign,
   though tyrannical and economically improvident, had not been
   altogether unfavourable to the development of public
   prosperity. The population, which was only 97,480 in 1796 and
   400,000 in 1825, had risen to 1,337,431 at the census of 1857.
   Paraguay had then a revenue of 12,441,323f., no debt, no paper
   money, and the treasury was so full as to enable Lopez II. to
   muster an army of 62,000 men, with 200 pieces of artillery, in
   the field and in his fortresses.
{2483}
   Armed with this two-edged weapon, the new despot, whose
   perverse and violent temper bordered on insanity, corrupted by
   several years' dissipation in Paris, and swayed by the
   influence of a strong and evil-minded woman, flattered also by
   the skill he fancied he had shown when he played at soldiers
   as his father's general in early youth, had come to look upon
   himself as a second Napoleon, and allowed himself no rest till
   he had picked a quarrel with all his neighbours and engaged in
   a war with Brazil and with the Republics of the Plate, which
   lasted five years (1865-1870).

At the end of it nearly the whole of the male population had been led like sheep to the slaughter; and the tyrant himself died 'in the last ditch,' not indeed fighting like a man, but killed like a dog when his flight was cut off, and not before he had sacrificed 100,000 of his combatants, doomed to starvation, sickness, and unutterable hardship a great many of the scattered and houseless population (400,000, as it is calculated), and so ruined the country that the census of 1873 only gave 221,079 souls, of whom the females far more than doubled the males."

      T. J. Page,
      La Plata, the Argentine Confederation and Paraguay,
      chapters 27-30.

      J. E. Darras,
      General History of the Catholic Church,
      period 7, chapter 7 (volume 4).

Since the death of Lopez, the republic of Paraguay has enjoyed a peaceful, uneventful history and has made fair progress in recovery from its prostration. The Brazilian army of occupation was withdrawn in 1876. Under a new constitution, the executive authority is entrusted to a president, elected for four years, and the legislative to a congress of two houses, senate and deputies. Don Juan G. Gonzales entered, in 1890, upon a presidential term which expires in 1894.

The official vessel of the ancient Athenian government, for the conveyance of despatches and other official service.

The parasang was an ancient Persian measure of distance, about which there is no certain knowledge. Xenophon and Herodotus represented it as equivalent to 30 Greek stadia; but Strabo regarded it as being of variable length. Modern opinion seems to incline toward agreement with Strabo, and to conclude that the parasang was a merely rough estimate of distance, averaging, according to computations by Colonel Chesney and others, something less than three geographical miles. The modern farsang or farsakh of Persia is likewise an estimated distance, which generally, however, overruns three geographical miles.

The name given by Herodotus to a people who anciently occupied the territory of modern Baluchistan.

The anniversary of the foundation of Rome, originally a
shepherds' festival. It was celebrated on the 21st of April.

A small island in the Seine, which now forms an almost insignificant part of the great French capital, was the site of a rude town called Lutetia, or Luketia, or Lucotecia, when Cæsar extended the dominion of Rome over that part of Gaul. It was the chief town or stronghold of the Parisii, one of the minor tribes of the Gallic people, who were under the protection of the more powerful Senones and who occupied but a small territory. They were engaged in river traffic on the Seine and seem to have been prosperous, then and afterwards. "Strabo calls this p]ace Lucototia; Ptolemy, Lucotecia; Julian, Luketia; Ammianus calls it at first Lutetia, and afterward Parisii, from the name of the people. It is not known when nor why the designation was changed, but it is supposed to have been changed during the reign of Julian. Three laws in the Theodosian Code, referred to Valentinian and Valens, for the year 365, bear date at Parisii, and since then this name has been preserved in all the histories and public records."

Before Julian ("the Apostate") became emperor, while, as Cæsar (355-361), he governed Gaul, his favorite residence, when not in camp or in the field, was at the city of the Parisii, which he called his "dear Luketia." The change of name to Parisii (whence resulted the modern name of Paris) is supposed to have taken place during his subsequent reign. "Commanding the fruitful valleys of the Seine, the Marne, and the Oise, the earliest occupants were merchants and boatmen, who conducted the trade of the rivers, and as early as the reign of Tiberius had formed a powerful corporation. During the revolts of the Bagauds in the third century, it acquired an unhappy celebrity as the stronghold from which they harassed the peace of the surrounding region. Subsequently, when the advances of the Germans drove the government from Trèves, the emperors selected the town of the Parisii as a more secure position. They built a palace there, and an entrenched camp for the soldiers; and very soon afterward several of those aqueducts and amphitheatres which were inseparable accompaniments of Roman life. It was in that palace, which the traveller still regards with curiosity in those mouldering remains of it known as the 'Palais des Thermes,' that Julian found his favorite residence."

Clovis, the Frank conqueror—founder of the kingdom of the united Frank tribes in Gaul—fixed his residence first at Soissons [486], after he had overthrown Syagrius. "He afterwards chose Paris for his abode, where he built a church dedicated to the apostles St. Peter and St. Paul. But the epoch at which that town passed into his power is uncertain."

"France was heavily afflicted: a fearfully cold year was followed by another still colder and more inclement. The North wind blew incessantly all through the Winter, all through the pale and leafless Spring. The roots of the vines were perished by the frost—the wolves starved out of their forests, even in Aquitaine. … Meanwhile the Danish hosts were in bright activity. Regner Lodbrok and his fellows fitted out their fleet, ten times twelve dragons of the sea. Early in the bleak Spring they sailed, and the stout-built vessels ploughed cheerily through the crashing ice on the heaving Seine. … Rouen dared not offer any opposition. The Northmen quietly occupied the City: we apprehend that some knots or bands of the Northmen began even now to domicile themselves there, it being scarcely possible to account for the condition of Normandy under Rollo otherwise than by the supposition, that the country had long previously received a considerable Danish population. Paris, the point to which the Northmen were advancing by land and water, was the key of France, properly so–called. Paris taken, the Seine would become a Danish river: Paris defended, the Danes might be restrained, perhaps expelled. The Capetian 'Duchy of France,' not yet created by any act of State, was beginning to be formed through the increasing influence of the future Capital. … Fierce as the Northmen generally were, they exceeded their usual ferocity. … With such panic were the Franks stricken, that they gave themselves up for lost. Paris island, Paris river, Paris bridges, Paris towers, were singularly defensible: the Palaisdes-Thermes, the monasteries, were as so many castles. Had the inhabitants, for their own sakes, co-operated with Charles-le-Chauve [who had stationed himself with a small army at Saint-Denis], the retreat of the Danes would have been entirely cut off; but they were palsied in mind and body; neither thought of resistance nor attempted resistance, and abandoned themselves to despair. On Easter Eve [March 28, 845] the Danes entered Paris. … The priests and clerks deserted their churches: the monks fled, bearing with them their shrines: soldiers, citizens and sailors abandoned their fortresses, dwellings and vessels: the great gate was left open, Paris emptied of her inhabitants, the city a solitude. The Danes hied at once to the untenanted monasteries: all valuable objects had been removed or concealed, but the Northmen employed themselves after their fashion. In the church of Saint-Germain-des-pres, they swarmed up the pillars and galleries, and pulled the roof to pieces: the larchen beams being sought as excellent ship-timber. In the city, generally, they did not commit much devastation. They lodged themselves in the empty houses, and plundered all the moveables. … The Franks did not make any attempt to attack or dislodge the enemy, but a more efficient power compelled the Danes to retire from the city; disease raged among them, dysentery—a complaint frequently noticed, probably occasioned by their inordinate potations of the country-wine." Under these circumstances, Regner Lodbrok consented to quit Paris on receiving 7,000 pounds of silver,—a sum reckoned to be equivalent to 520,000 livres. "This was the first Danegeld paid by France, an unhappy precedent, and yet unavoidable: the pusillanimity of his subjects compelled Charles to adopt this disgraceful compromise."

Sir F. Palgrave, History of Normandy and England, book 1, chapter 3 (volume 1).

"The Seine as well as the future Duchy of France being laid open to the Northmen [A. D. 857], Paris, partially recovered from Regner Lodbrok's invasion, was assailed with more fell intent. The surrounding districts were ravaged, and the great monasteries, heretofore sacked, were now destroyed. Only three churches were found standing—Saint-Denis, Saint-Germain-des-près, and Saint-Etienne or Notre-Dame —these having redeemed themselves by contributions to the enemy; but Saint-Denis made a bad bargain. The Northmen did not hold to their contract, or another company of pirates did not consider it as binding: the monastery was burnt to a shell, and a most heavy ransom paid for the liberation of Abbot Louis, Charlemagne's grandson by his daughter Rothaida. Sainte-Genevieve suffered most severely amongst all; and the pristine beauty of the structure rendered the calamity more conspicuous and the distress more poignant. During three centuries the desolated grandeur of the shattered ruins continued to excite sorrow and dread. … Amongst the calamities of the times, the destruction of the Parisian monasteries seems to have worked peculiarly on the imagination." After this destructive visitation, the city had rest for only three years. In 861 a fresh horde of Danish pirates, first harrying the English coast and burning Winchester, swept then across the channel and swarmed over the country from Scheldt to Seine. Amiens, Nimeguen, Bayeux and Terouenne were all taken, on the way, and once more on Easter Day (April 6, 861) the ruthless savages of the North entered Paris. Saint-Germain-des-près, spared formerly, was now set on fire, and the city was stripped of its movable goods. King Charles the Bald met the enemy on this occasion, as before, with bribes, gave a fief to Jarl Welland, the Danish leader, and presently got him settled in the country as a baptized Christian and a vassal.

Sir F. Palgrave, History of Normandy and England, book 1, chapter 3 (volume 1).

   "In November, 885, under the reign of Charles the Fat, after
   having, for more than forty years, irregularly ravaged France,
   they [the Northmen] resolved to unite their forces in order at
   length to obtain possession of Paris, whose outskirts they had
   so often pillaged without having been able to enter the heart
   of the place, in the Ile de la Cité, which had originally been
   and still was the real Paris. Two bodies of troops were set in
   motion; one, under the command of Rollo, who was already
   famous amongst his comrades, marched on Rouen; the other went
   right up the course of the Seine, under the orders of
   Siegfried, whom the Northmen called their king. Rollo took
   Rouen, and pushed on at once for Paris. …
{2485}
   On the 25th of November, 885, all the forces of the Northmen
   formed a junction before Paris; 700 huge barks covered two
   leagues of the Seine, bringing, it is said, more than 30,000
   men. The chieftains were astonished at sight of the new
   fortifications of the city, a double wall of circumvallation,
   the bridges crowned with towers, and in the environs the
   ramparts of the abbeys of St. Denis and St. Germain solidly
   rebuilt. … Paris had for defenders two heroes, one of the
   Church and the other of the Empire [Bishop Gozlin, and Eudes,
   lately made Count of Paris]. … The siege lasted thirteen
   months, whiles pushed vigorously forward, with eight several
   assaults; whiles maintained by close investment. … The bishop,
   Gozlin, died during the siege. Count Eudes quitted Paris for a
   time to go and beg aid of the emperor; but the Parisians soon
   saw him reappear on the heights of Montmartre with three
   battalions of troops, and he re-entered the town, spurring on
   his horse and striking right and left with his battle-axe
   through the ranks of the dumfounded besiegers. The struggle
   was prolonged throughout the summer, and when, in November,
   886, Charles the Fat at last appeared before Paris, 'with a
   large army of all nations,' it was to purchase the retreat of
   the Northmen at the cost of a heavy ransom, and by allowing
   them to go and winter in Burgundy, 'whereof the inhabitants
   obeyed not the emperor.'"

   "Nothing is more certain than that Paris never became the
   capital of France until after the accession of the third
   dynasty. Paris made the Capets, the Capets made Paris."

      Sir F. Palgrave,
      History of Normandy and England,
      volume 1, page 280.

"During the few short intervals of peace which had occurred in the hitherto troubled reign of Philip [A. D. 1180-1199], he had not been unmindful of the civil improvement of his people; and the inhabitants of his capital are indebted to his activity for the first attempts to rescue its foul, narrow, and mud-embedded streets from the reproach which its Latin name 'Lutetia' very justly implied. Philip expended much of the treasure, hitherto devoted solely to the revels of the court, in works of public utility, in the construction of paved causeways and aqueducts, in founding colleges and hospitals, in commencing a new city wall, and in the erection of the Cathedral of Nôtre-Dame."

At the beginning of the reign of Charles VI. a tumult broke out in Paris, caused by the imposition of a general tax on merchandise of all kinds. "The Parisians ran to the arsenal, where they found mallets of lead intended for the defence of the town, and under the blows from which the greater part of the collectors of the new tax perished. From the weapons used the insurgents took the name of Maillotins. Reims, Châlons, Orleans, Blois, and Rouen rose at the example of the capital. The States-General of the Langue d' Oil were then convoked at Compiegne, and separated without having granted anything. The Parisians were always in arms, and the dukes [regents during the minority of the young king], powerless to make them submit, treated with them, and contented themselves with the offer of 100,000 livres. The chastisement was put off for a time." The chastisement of Paris and of the other rebellious towns was inflicted in 1382 (see FLANDERS: A. D. 1382) after the king and his uncles had subdued the Flemings at Rosebecque.

      E. de Bonnechose,
      History of France,
      epoch 2, book 2, chapter 5.

PARIS: A. D. 1410-1415.
The reign of the Cabochiens.
The civil war of Armagnacs and Burgundians.

PARIS: A. D. 1588-1589.
   Insurrection of the Catholic League.
   The Day of Barricades.
   Siege of the city by the king and Henry of Navarre.

PARIS: A. D. 1590.
   The siege by Henry IV.
   Horrors of famine and disease.
   Relief by the Duke of Parma.

PARIS: A. D. 1636.
Threatening invasion of Spaniards from the Netherlands.
The capital in peril.

PARIS: A. D. 1652.
The Battle of Porte St. Antoine
and the massacre of the Hotel de Ville.

PARIS: A. D. 1815.
The English and Prussian armies in the city.
Restoration of the art-spoils of Napoleon.

PARIS: A. D. 1848 (February).
Revolution.
Abdication and flight of Louis Philippe.

PARIS: A. D. 1848 (March-June).
Creation of the Ateliers Nationaux.
Insurrection consequent on closing them.

PARIS: A. D. 1871 (March-May).
   The insurgent Commune.
   Its Reign of Terror.
   Second Siege of the city.

"There is no doubt that in the earliest Teutonic assemblies every freeman had his place. … But how as to the great assembly of all, the Assembly of the Wise, the Witenagemót of the whole realm [of early England]? No ancient record gives us any clear or formal account of the constitution of that body. It is commonly spoken of in a vague way as a gathering of the wise, the noble, the great men. But alongside of passages like these, we find other passages which speak of it in a way which implies a far more popular constitution. … It was in fact a body, democratic in ancient theory, aristocratic in ordinary practice, but to which any strong popular impulse could at any time restore its ancient democratic character. … Out of this body, whose constitution, by the time of the Norman Conquest, had become not a little anomalous, and not a little fluctuating, our Parliament directly grew. Of one House of that Parliament we may say more; we may say, not that it grew out of the ancient Assembly, but that it is absolutely the same by personal identity. The House of Lords not only springs out of, it actually is, the ancient Witenagemót. I can see no break between the two. … An assembly in which at first every freeman had a right to appear has, by the force of circumstances, step by step, without any one moment of sudden change, shrunk up into an Assembly wholly hereditary and official, an Assembly to which the Crown may summon any man, but to which, it is now strangely held, the Crown cannot refuse to summon the representatives of any man whom it has once summoned. As in most other things, the tendency to shrink up into a body of this kind began to show itself before the Norman Conquest, and was finally confirmed and established through the results of the Norman Conquest. But the special function of the body into which the old national Assembly has changed, the function of 'another House,' an Upper House, a House of Lords as opposed to a House of Commons, could not show itself till a second House of a more popular constitution had arisen by its side. Like everything else in our English polity, both Houses in some sort came of themselves. Neither of them was the creation of any ingenious theorist. … Our Constitution has no founder; but there is one man to whom we may give all but honours of a founder, one man to whose wisdom and self-devotion we owe that English history has taken the course which it has taken for the last 600 years. … That man, the man who finally gave to English freedom its second and more lasting shape, the hero and martyr of England in the greatest of her constitutional struggles, was Simon of Montfort, Earl of Leicester. If we may not call him the founder of the English Constitution, we may at least call him the founder of the House of Commons. … When we reach the 13th century, we may look on the old Teutonic constitution as having utterly passed away. Some faint traces of it indeed we may find here and there in the course of the 12th century; … but the regular Great Council, the lineal representatives of the ancient Mycel Gemót or Witenagemót, was shrinking up into a body not very unlike our House of Lords. … The Great Charter secures the rights of the nation and of the national Assembly as against arbitrary legislation and arbitrary taxation on the part of the Crown. But it makes no change in the constitution of the Assembly itself. … The Great Charter in short is a Bill of Rights; it is not what, in modern phrase, we understand by a Reform Bill. But, during the reigns of John and Henry III., a popular element was fast making its way into the national Councils in a more practical form. The right of the ordinary freeman to attend in person had long been a shadow; that of the ordinary tenant-in-chief was becoming hardly more practical; it now begins to be exchanged for what had by this time become the more practical right of choosing representatives to act in his name. Like all other things in England, this right has grown up by degrees and as the result of what we might almost call a series of happy accidents. Both in the reign of John and in the former part of the reign of Henry, we find several instances of knights from each county being summoned. Here we have the beginning of our county members and of the title which they still bear, of knights of the Shire. Here is the beginning of popular representation, as distinct from the gathering of the people in their own persons; but we need not think that those who first summoned them had any conscious theories of popular representation. The earliest object for which they were called together was probably a fiscal one; it was a safe and convenient way of getting money. The notion of summoning a small number of men to act on behalf of the whole was doubtless borrowed from the practice in judicial proceedings and in inquests and commissions of various kinds, in which it was usual for certain select men to swear on behalf of the whole shire or hundred. We must not forget … that our judicial and our parliamentary institutions are closely connected. … But now we come to that great change, that great measure of Parliamentary Reform, which has left to all later reformers nothing to do but to improve in detail. We come to that great act of the patriot Earl which made our popular Chamber really a popular Chamber. … {2487} When, after the fight of Lewes, Earl Simon, then master of the kingdom with the King in his safe keeping, summoned his famous Parliament [A. D. 1264-5], he summoned, not only two knights from every county, but also two citizens from every city and two burgesses from every borough. … Thus was formed that newly developed Estate of the Realm which was, step by step, to grow into the most powerful of all, the Commons' House of Parliament."

      A. Bissett,
      Short History of English Parliament,
      chapters 2-3.

      See, also,
      WITENAGEMOT; ENGLAND: A. D. 1216-1274;
      and KNIGHTS OF THE SHIRE.

In 1244, "as had happened just one hundred years previously in France, the name 'parliamentum' occurs for the first time [in England] (Chron. Dunst., 1244; Matth. Paris, 1246), and curiously enough, Henry III. himself, in a writ addressed to the Sheriff of Northampton, designates with this term the assembly which originated the Magna Charta: 'Parliamentum Runemede, quod fuit inter Dom. Joh., Regem patrem nostrum et barones suos Angliæ' (Rot. Claus., 28 Hen. III.). The name 'parliament' now occurs more frequently, but does not supplant the more indefinite terms 'concilium,' 'colloquium,' etc."

H. Gneist, History of the English Constitution, chapter 19, and foot-note, 2a (volume 1).

"The name given to these sessions of Council [the national councils of the 12th century] was often expressed by the Latin 'colloquium': and it is by no means unlikely that the name of Parliament, which is used as early as 1175 by Jordan Fantosme, may have been in common use. But of this we have no distinct instance in the Latin Chroniclers for some years further, although when the term comes into use it is applied retrospectively."

An English Parliament, or Great Council, assembled at Oxford A. D. 1258, so-called by the party of King Henry III. from whom it extorted an important reorganization of the government, with much curtailment of the royal power.

W. Stubbs, Constitutional History of England, chapter 14, section 176 (volume 2).

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1264.
   Simon de Montfort's Parliament.
   See ENGLAND: A. D. 1216-1274;
   and PARLIAMENT, THE ENGLISH: EARLY STAGES IN ITS EVOLUTION.

   The English parliament of 1376 was called the Good Parliament;
   although most of the good work it undertook to do was undone
   by its successor.

      W. Stubbs,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 16 (volume 2).

In 1387, King Richard II. was compelled by a great armed demonstration, headed by five powerful nobles, to discard his obnoxious favorites and advisers, and to summon a Parliament for dealing with the offenses alleged against them. "The doings of this Parliament [which came together in February, 1388] are without a parallel in English history,—so much so that the name 'Wonderful Parliament' came afterwards to be applied to it. With equal truth it was also called 'the Merciless Parliament.'" It was occupied for four months in the impeachment and trial of ministers, judges, officers of the courts, and other persons, bringing a large number to the block.

"This assembly [A. D. 1404, reign of Edward IV.] acquired its ominous name from the fact that in the writ of summons the king, acting upon the ordinance issued by Edward III in 1372, directed that no lawyers should be returned as members. He had complained more than once that the members of the House of Commons spent more time on private suits than on public business."

W. Stubbs, Constitutional History of England, chapter 18, section 634 (volume 3).

   The English Parliament of 1425-1426 was so-called because of
   the quarrels in it between the parties of Duke Humfrey, of
   Gloucester, and of his uncle, Bishop Beaufort.

In 1614, James I. called a Parliament which certain obsequious members promised to manage for him and make docile to his royal will and pleasure. "They were spoken of at Court as the Undertakers. Both the fact and the title became known, and the attempt at indirect influence was not calculated to improve the temper of the Commons. They at once proceeded to their old grievances, especially discussing the legality of the impositions (as the additions to the customs were called) and of monopolies. In anger at the total failure of his scheme, James hurriedly dissolved the Parliament before it had completed a single piece of business. The humour of the time christened this futile Parliament 'the Addled Parliament.'"

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1660-1740. Rise and development of the Cabinet as an organ of Parliamentary government.

In 1693, a bill which passed both Houses, despite the opposition of King William, provided that the Parliament then sitting should cease to exist on the next Lady Day, and that no future Parliament should last longer than three years. The king refused his assent to the enactment; but when a similar bill was passed the next year he suffered it to become a law.

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1707.
Becomes the Parliament of Great Britain.
Representation of Scotland.

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1771.
Last struggle against the Press.
Freedom of reporting secured.

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1883.
Act to prevent Corrupt and Illegal Practices at Elections.

PARLIAMENT OF FLORENCE.

PARLIAMENT OF ITALIAN FREE CITIES.

PARLIAMENT OF PARIS.

"When the Carlovingian Monarchy had given place, first to Anarchy and then to Feudalism, the mallums, and the Champs de Mai, and (except in some southern cities) the municipal curiæ also disappeared. But in their stead there came into existence the feudal courts. Each tenant in capite of the crown held within his fief a Parliament of his own free vassals. … There was administered the seigneur's 'justice,' whether haute, moyenne, or basse. There were discussed all questions immediately affecting the seigneurie or the tenants of it. There especially were adopted all general regulations which the exigencies of the lordship were supposed to dictate, and especially all such as related to the raising tailles or other imposts. What was thus done on a small scale in a minor fief, was also done, though on a larger scale, in each of the feudal provinces, and on a scale yet more extensive in the court or Parliament holden by the king as a seigneur of the royal domain. … This royal court or Parliament was, however, not a Legislature in our modern sense of that word. It was rather a convention, in which, by a voluntary compact between the king as supreme suzerain and the greater seigneurs as his feudatories, an ordonnance or an impost was established, either throughout the entire kingdom, or in some seigneuries apart from the rest. From any such compact any seigneur might dissent on behalf of himself and his immediate vassals or, by simply absenting himself, might render the extension of it to his own fief impossible. … Subject to the many corrections which would be requisite to reduce to perfect accuracy this slight sketch of the origin of the great council or Parliament of the kings of France, such was, in substance, the constitution of it at the time of the accession of Louis IX. [A. D. 1226]. Before the close of his eventful reign, that monarch had acquired the character and was in full exercise of the powers of a law-giver, and was habitually making laws, not with the advice and consent of his council or Parliament, but in the exercise of the inherent prerogative which even now they began to ascribe to the French crown. … With our English prepossessions, it is impossible to repress the wonder, and even the incredulity, with which we at first listen to the statement that the supreme judicial tribunal of the kingdom could be otherwise than the zealous and effectual antagonist of so momentous an encroachment." The explanation is found in a change which had taken place in the character of the Parliament, through which its function and authority became distinctly judicial and quite apart from those of a council or a legislature. When Philip Augustus went to the Holy Land, he provided for the decision of complaints against officers of the crown by directing the queen-mother and the archbishop of Rheims, who acted as regents, to hold an annual assembly of the greater barons. "This practice had become habitual by the time of Louis IX. For the confirmation and improvement of it, that monarch ordered that, before the day of any such assemblage, citations should be issued, commanding the attendance, not, as before, of the greater barons exclusively, but of twenty-four members of the royal council or Parliament. Of those twenty-four, three only were to be great barons, three were to be bishops, and the remaining eighteen were to be knights. But as these members of the royal council did not appear to St. Louis to possess all the qualifications requisite for the right discharge of the judicial office, he directed that thirty-seven other persons should be associated to them. Of those associates, seventeen were to be clerks in holy orders, and twenty légistes, that is, men bred to the study of the law. The function assigned to the légistes was that of drawing up in proper form the decrees and other written acts of the collective body. To this body, when thus constituted, was given the distinctive title of the Parliament of Paris." By virtue of their superior education and training, the légistes soon gathered the business of the Parliament into their own hands; the knights and barons found attendance a bore and an absurdity. "Ennui and ridicule … proved in the Parliament of Paris a purge quite as effectual as that which Colonel Pride administered to the English House of Commons. The conseiller clercs were soon left to themselves, in due time to found, and to enjoy, what began to be called 'La Noblesse de la Robe.' Having thus assumed the government of the court, the légistes next proceeded to enlarge its jurisdiction. … By … astute constructions of the law, the Parliament had, in the beginning of the 14th century, become the supreme legal tribunal within the whole of that part of France which was at that time attached to the crown." In the reign of Philip the Long (1316-1322) the Parliament and the royal council became practically distinct bodies; the former became sedentary at Paris, meeting nowhere else, and its members were required to be constantly resident in Paris. {2489} By 1345 the parliamentary counselors, as they were now called, had acquired life appointments, and in the reign of Charles VI. (1380-1422) the seats in the Parliament of Paris became hereditary. "At the period when the Parliament of Paris was acquiring its peculiar character as a court of justice, the meetings of the great vassals of the crown, to co-operate with the king in legislation, were falling into disuse. The king … had begun to originate laws without their sanction; and the Parliament, not without some show of reason, assumed that the right of remonstrance, formerly enjoyed by the great vassals, had now passed to themselves. … If their remonstrance was disregarded, their next step was to request that the projected law might be withdrawn. If that request was unheeded, they at length formally declined to register it among their records. Such refusals were sometimes but were not usually successful. In most instances they provoked from the king a peremptory order for the immediate registration of his ordinance. To such orders the Parliament generally submitted."

"It appears that the opinion is unfounded which ascribes to the States [the 'States-General'] and the Parliaments a different origin. Both arose out of the National Assemblies held at stated periods in the earliest times of the monarchy [the 'Champs de Mars' and 'Champs de Mai']. … Certainly in the earliest part of [the 13th] century there existed no longer two bodies, but only one, which had then acquired the name of Parliament. The stated meetings under the First race were called by the name of Mallum or Mallus, sometimes Placitum [also Plaid], sometimes Synod. Under the Second race they were called Colloquium also. The translation of this term (and it is said also of Mallum) into Parliament occurs not before the time of Louis VI. (le Gros); but in that of Louis VIII., at the beginning of the 13th century, it became the usual appellation. There were then eleven Parliaments, besides that of Paris, and all those bodies had become merely judicial, that of Paris exercising a superintending power over the other tribunals. … After [1334] … the Parliament was only called upon to register the Ordinances. This gave a considerable influence to the Parliament of Paris, which had a right of remonstrance before registry; the Provincial Parliaments only could remonstrate after registry. … The Parliament of Paris, besides remonstrating, might refuse to register; and though compellable by the King holding a Bed of Justice, which was a more solemn meeting of the Parliament attended by the King's Court in great state [see BED OF JUSTICE), yet it cannot be doubted that many Ordinances were prevented and many modified in consequence of this power of refusal."

      Lord Brougham,
      History of England and France under the House of Lancaster,
      note 66.

   For an account of the conflict between the Parliament of Paris
   and the crown which immediately preceded the French
   Revolution.

PARMA: A. D. 1545-1592.
Alienation from the Holy See and erection, with Placentia,
into a duchy, for the House of Farnese.

   "Paul III. was the last of those ambitious popes who rendered
   the interests of the holy see subordinate to the
   aggrandizement of their families. The designs of Paul, himself
   the representative of the noble Roman house of Farnese, were
   ultimately successful; since, although partially defeated
   during his life, they led to the establishment of his
   descendants on the throne of Parma and Placentia for nearly
   200 years. … He gained the consent of the sacred college to
   alienate those states from the holy see in 1545, that he might
   erect them into a duchy for his natural son, Pietro Luigi
   Farnese; and the Emperor Charles V. had already, some years
   before, to secure the support of the papacy against France,
   bestowed the hand of his natural daughter, Margaret, widow of
   Alessandro de' Medici, upon Ottavio, son of Pietro Luigi, and
   grandson of Paul III. Notwithstanding this measure, Charles V.
   was not subsequently, however, the more disposed to confirm to
   the house of Farnese the investiture of their new possessions,
   which he claimed as part of the Milanese duchy; and he soon
   evinced no friendly disposition towards his own son-in-law,
   Ottavio. Pietro Luigi, the first duke of Parma, proved
   himself, by his extortions, his cruelties, and his
   debaucheries, scarcely less detestable than any of the ancient
   tyrants of Lombardy. He thus provoked a conspiracy and
   insurrection of the nobles of Placentia, where he resided; and
   he was assassinated by them at that place in 1547, after a
   reign of only two years. The city was immediately seized in
   the imperial name by Gonzaga, governor of Milan. … To deter
   the emperor from appropriating Parma also to himself, [Paul
   III.] could devise no other expedient than altogether to
   retract his grant from his family, and to reoccupy that city
   for the holy see, whose rights he conceived that the emperor
   would not venture to invade." But after the death of Paul
   III., the Farnese party, commanding a majority in the
   conclave. "by raising Julius III. to the tiara [1550],
   obtained the restitution of Parma to Ottavio from the
   gratitude of the new pope. The prosperity of the ducal house
   of Farnese was not yet securely established. The emperor still
   retained Placentia, and Julius III. soon forgot the services
   of that family. In 1551, the pope leagued with Charles V. to
   deprive the duke Ottavio of the fief which he had restored to
   him. Farnese was thus reduced … to place himself under the
   protection of the French; and this measure, and the indecisive
   war which followed, became his salvation. He still preserved
   his throne when Charles V. terminated his reign; and one of
   the first acts of Philip II., when Italy was menaced by the
   invasion of the duke de Guise [1556], was to win him over from
   the French alliance, and to secure his gratitude, by yielding
   Placentia again to him.
{2490}
   But a Spanish garrison was still left in the citadel of that
   place; and it was only the brilliant military career of
   Alessandro Faroese, the celebrated prince of Parma, son of
   duke Ottavio, which finally consummated the greatness of his
   family. Entering the service of Philip II., Alessandro
   gradually won the respect and favour of that gloomy monarch;
   and at length, in 1585, as a reward for his achievements, the
   Spanish troops were withdrawn from his father's territories.
   The duke Ottavio closed his life in the following year; but
   Alessandro never took possession of his throne. He died at the
   head of the Spanish armies in the Low Countries in 1592; and
   his son Ranuccio quietly commenced his reign over the duchy of
   Parma and Placentia under the double protection of the holy
   see and the monarchy of Spain."

PARMA: A. D. 1635-1637.
Desolation of the duchy by the Spaniards.
The French alliance renounced.

   In the War of the Austrian Succession, Parma was taken by
   Spain in 1745; recovered by Austria in the following year (see
   ITALY: A. D. 1746-1747); but surrendered by Maria Theresa to
   the infant of Spain in 1748.

PARMA: A. D. 1831.
Revolt and expulsion of Marie Louise.
Her restoration by Austria.

PARMA: A. D. 1859-1861.
End of the duchy.
Absorption in the new kingdom of Italy.

PARNASSUS.

"On the western coast of India, from the Gulf of Cambay to Bombay, we find from one hundred to one hundred and fifty thousand families whose ancestors migrated thither from Iran. The tradition among them is, that at the time when the Arabs, after conquering Iran and becoming sovereigns there, persecuted and eradicated the old religion [of the Avesta], faithful adherents of the creed fled to the mountains of Kerman. Driven from these by the Arabs (in Kerman and Yezd a few hundred families are still found who maintain the ancient faith), they retired to the island of Hormuz (a small island close by the southern coast, at the entrance to the Persian Gulf). From hence they migrated to Din (on the coast of Guzerat), and then passed over to the opposite shore. In the neighbourhood of Bombay and in the south of India inscriptions have been found which prove that these settlers reached the coast in the tenth century of our era. At the present time their descendants form a considerable part of the population of Surat, Bombay, and Ahmadabad; they call themselves, after their ancient home, Parsees, and speak the later Middle Persian."

This name was given among the Spartans to a class of young men, sons of Spartan women who had married outside the exclusive circle of the Spartiatæ. The latter refused, even when Sparta was most pressingly in need of soldiers, to admit these "sons of maidens," as they stigmatized them, to the military body. The Parthenii, becoming numerous, were finally driven to emigrate, and found a home at Tarentum, Italy.

"Pericles had occasion to erect on the highest point of the Acropolis, in place of the ancient Hecatompedon, a new festive edifice and treasure-house, which, by blending intimately together the fulfilment of political and religious ends, was to serve to represent the piety and artistic culture, the wealth and the festive splendour—in fine, all the glories which Athens had achieved by her valour and her wisdom. …

The architect from whose design, sanctioned by Pericles and Phidias, the new Hecatompedon was erected, was Ictinus, who was seconded by Callicrates, the experienced architect of the double line of walls. It was not intended to build an edifice which should attract attention by the colossal nature of its proportions or the novelty of its style. The traditions of the earlier building were followed, and its dimensions were not exceeded by more than 50 feet. In a breadth of 100 feet the edifice extended in the form of a temple, 226 feet from east to west; and the height, from the lowest stair to the apex of the pediment, amounted only to 65 feet. … The Hecatompedon, or Parthenon (for it went by this name also as the house of Athene Parthenos), was very closely connected with the festival of the Panathenæa, whose splendour and dignity had gradually risen by degrees together with those of the state. … The festival commenced with the performances in the Odeum, where the masters of song and recitation, and the either and flute-players, exhibited their skill, the choral songs being produced in the theatre. Hereupon followed the gymnastic games, which, besides the usual contests in the stadium, foot-race, wrestling-matches, &c., also included the torch-race, which was held in the Ceramicus outside the Dipylum, when no moon shone in the heavens; and which formed one of the chief attractions of the whole festival."

PARTHENON: A. D. 1687. Destructive explosion during the siege of Athens by the Venetians.

PARTHENOPÉ.

PARTHIA, AND THE PARTHIAN EMPIRE.

"The mountain chain, which running southward of the Caspian, skirts the great plateau of Iran, or Persia, on the north, broadens out after it passes the south-eastern corner of the sea, into a valuable and productive mountain-region. Four or five' distinct ranges here run parallel to one another, having between them latitudinal valleys, with glens transverse to their courses. The sides of the valleys are often well wooded; the flat ground at the foot of the hills is fertile; water abounds; and the streams gradually collect into rivers of a considerable size. The fertile territory in this quarter is further increased by the extension of cultivation to a considerable distance from the base of the most southern of the ranges, in the direction of the Great Iranic desert. … It was undoubtedly in the region which has been thus briefly described that the ancient home of the Parthians lay. … Parthia Proper, however, was at no time coextensive with the region described. A portion of that region formed the district called Hyrcania; and it is not altogether easy to determine what were the limits between the two. The evidence goes, on the whole, to show that while Hyrcania lay towards the west and north, the Parthian country was that towards the south and east, the valleys of the Ettrek and Gurghan constituting the main portions of the former, while the tracts east and south of those valleys, as far as the sixty-first degree of E. longitude, constituted the latter. If the limits of Parthia Proper be thus defined, it will have nearly corresponded to the modern Persian province of Khorasan. … The Turanian character of the Parthians, though not absolutely proved, appears to be in the highest degree probable. If it be accepted, we must regard them as in race closely allied to the vast hordes which from a remote antiquity have roamed over the steppe region of Upper Asia, from time to time bursting upon the south and harassing or subjugating the comparatively unwarlike inhabitants of the warmer countries. We must view them as the congeners of the Huns, Bulgarians and Comans of the ancient world; of the Kalmucks, Ouigurs, Usbegs, Eleuts, &c., of the present day. … The Parthians probably maintained their independence from the time of their settlement in the district called after their name until the sudden arrival in their country of the great Persian conqueror, Cyrus, [about 554 B. C.]. … When the Persian empire was organised by Darius Hystaspis into satrapies, Parthia was at first united in the same government with Chorasmia, Sogdiana and Aria. Subsequently, however, when satrapies were made more numerous, it was detached from these extensive countries, and made to form a distinct government, with the mere addition of the comparatively small district of Hyrcania." The conquests of Alexander included Parthia within their range, and, under the new political arrangements which followed Alexander's death, that country became for a time part of the wide empire of the Seleucidæ, founded by Seleueus Nicator,—the kingdom of Syria as it was called. But about 250 B. C. a successful revolt occurred in Parthia, led by one Arsaces, who founded an independent kingdom and a dynasty called the Arsacid.

Under succeeding kings, especially under the sixth of the line, Mithridates I. (not to be confused with the Mithridatic dynasty in Pontus), the kingdom of Parthia was swollen by conquest to a great empire, covering almost the whole territory of the earlier Persian empire, excepting in Asia Minor and Syria. On the rise of the Roman power, the Parthians successfully disputed with it the domination of the east, in several wars (see ROME: B. C. 57-52), none of which were advantageous to the Romans, until the time of Trajan.

Trajan (A. D. 115-117—see ROME: A. D. 96-138) "undertook an expedition against the nations of the East. … The success of Trajan, however transient, was rapid and specious. The degenerate Parthians, broken by intestine discord, fled before his arms. He descended the river Tigris in triumph, from the mountains of Armenia to the Persian gulf. He enjoyed the honour of being the first, as he was the last, of the Roman generals who ever navigated that remote sea. His fleets ravaged the coasts of Arabia. … Every day the astonished senate received the intelligence of new names and new nations that acknowledged his sway. … But the death of Trajan soon clouded the splendid prospect. … The resignation of all the eastern conquests of Trajan was the first measure of his [successor Hadrian's] reign. He [Hadrian] restored to the Parthians the election of an independent sovereign, withdrew the Roman garrisons from the provinces of Armenia, Mesopotamia and Assyria; and, in compliance with the precept of Augustus, once more established the Euphrates as the frontier of the empire."

   In the reign of Marcus Aurelius Antoninus at Rome, the
   Parthian king Vologeses III. (or Arsaces XXVII.) provoked the
   Roman power anew by invading Armenia and Syria. In the war
   which followed, the Parthians were driven from Syria and
   Armenia; Mesopotamia was occupied; Seleucia, Ctesiphon and
   Babylon taken; and the royal palace at Ctesiphon burned (A. D.
   165). Parthia then sued for peace, and obtained it by ceding
   Mesopotamia, and allowing Armenia to return to the position of
   a Roman dependency. Half a century later the final conflict of
   Rome and Parthia occurred. "The battle of Nisibis [A. D. 217],
   which terminated the long contest between Rome and Parthia,
   was the fiercest and best contested which was ever fought
   between the rival powers. It lasted for the space of three
   days. … Macrinus [the Roman emperor, who commanded] took to
   flight among the first; and his hasty retreat discouraged his
   troops, who soon afterwards acknowledged themselves beaten and
   retired within the lines of their camp.
{2492}
   Both armies had suffered severely. Herodian describes the
   heaps of dead as piled to such a height that the manœuvres of
   the troops were impeded by them, and at last the two
   contending hosts could scarcely see one another. Both armies,
   therefore, desired peace." But the peace was purchased by Rome
   at a heavy price. After this, the Parthian monarchy was
   rapidly undermined by internal dissensions and corruptions,
   and in A. D. 226 it was overthrown by a revolt of the
   Persians, who claimed and secured again, after five centuries
   and a half of subjugation, their ancient leadership among the
   races of the East. The new Persian Empire, or Sassanian
   monarchy, was founded by Artaxerxes I. on the ruins of the
   Parthian throne.

      G. Rawlinson,
      The Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy,
      chapters 3-21.

PARTHIAN HORSE. PARTHIAN ARROWS.

"Fleet and active coursers, with scarcely any caparison but a headstall and a single rein, were mounted by riders clad only in a tunic and trousers, and armed with nothing but a strong bow and a quiver full of arrows. A training begun in early boyhood made the rider almost one with his steed; and he could use his weapons with equal ease and effect whether his horse was stationary or at full gallop, and whether he was advancing towards or hurriedly retreating from his enemy. … It was his ordinary plan to keep constantly in motion when in the presence of an enemy, to gallop backwards and forwards, or round and round his square or column, never charging it, but at a moderate interval plying it with his keen and barbed shafts."

      See COVENANTERS;
      also SCOTLAND: A. D. 1557, 1581, 1638, 1644-1645,
      and 1660-1661, to 1681-1689.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1789-1792; 1812;
and 1814 (DECEMBER) THE HARTFORD CONVENTION.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1848.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1880.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1559-1561, to 1598-1599;
      1620-1622, to 1627-1628;
      1661-1680; 1681-1698; 1702-1710.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1791 (OCTOBER);
      1792 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER);
      and after, to 1794-1705 (JULY-APRIL).

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1825-1828.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1854-1855.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765
      THE ORGANIZATION OF THE SONS OF LIBERTY,
      and 1864 (OCTOBER).

      See RAPPAREES; ENGLAND: A. D. 1680;
      CONSERVATIVE PARTY;
      and TORIES OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION.

PARTITIONS OF POLAND.

PASARGADÆ.

One of the tribes of the ancient Persians, from which came the royal race of the Achæmenids.

PASCUA.

SEE FRANCE: A. D. 1798-1799 (AUGUST-APRIL).

PATARENES. PATERINI.

About the middle of the 11th century, there appeared at Milan a young priest named Ariald who caused a great commotion by attacking the corruptions of clergy and people and preaching repentance and reform. The whole of Milan became "separated into two hotly contending parties. This controversy divided families; it was the one object which commanded universal participation. The popular party, devoted to Ariald and Landulph [a deacon who supported Ariald], was nicknamed 'Pataria', which in the dialect of Milan signified a popular faction; and as a heretical tendency might easily grow out of, or attach itself to, this spirit of separatism so zealously opposed to the corruption of the clergy, it came about that, in the following centuries, the name Patarenes was applied in Italy as a general appellation to denote sects contending against the dominant church and clergy—sects which, for the most part, met with great favour from the people."

A. Neander, General History of the Christian Religion and Church (Bohn's edition), volume 6, page 67.

      W. Moeller,
      History of the Christian Church in the Middle Ages,
      page 253, foot-note.

During the fierce controversy of the 11th century over the question of celibacy for the clergy (see PAPACY: A. D. 1056-1122), the party in Milan which supported Pope Gregory VII. (Hildebrand) in his inflexible warfare against the marriage of priests were called by their opponents Patarines.

PATCHINAKS. UZES. COMANS.

The Patchinaks, or Patzinaks, Uzes and Comans were successive swarms of Turkish nomads which came into southeastern Europe during the 10th, 11th and 12th centuries, following and driving each other into the long and often devastated Danubian provinces of the Byzantine empire, and across the Balkans. The wars of the empire with the Patchinaks were many and seriously exhausting. The Comans are said to have been Turcomans, with the first part of their true name dropped off.

PATER PATRATUS.

PATER PATRIÆ.

"The first individual, belonging to an epoch strictly historical, who received this title was Cicero, to whom it was voted by the Senate after the suppression of the Catilinarian conspiracy."

"It was not long after the dissolution of the Jewish state [consequent on the revolt suppressed by Titus] that it revived again in appearance, under the form of two separate communities mostly dependent upon each other: one under a sovereignty purely spiritual, the other partly temporal and partly spiritual,—but each comprehending all the Jewish families in the two great divisions of the world. At the head of the Jews on this side of the Euphrates appeared the Patriarch of the West: the chief of the Mesopotamian community assumed the striking but more temporal title of 'Resch-Glutha,' or' Prince of the Captivity. The origin of both these dignities, especially of the Western patriarchate, is involved in much obscurity."

PATRIARCHS.

"Introduced by Constantine at a time when its original meaning had been long forgotten, it was designed to be, and for a while remained, the name not of an office but of a rank, the highest after those of emperor and consul. As such, it was usually conferred upon provincial governors of the first class, and in time also upon barbarian potentates whose vanity the Roman court might wish to flatter. Thus Odoacer, Theodoric, the Burgundian king Sigismund, Clovis himself, had all received it from the Eastern emperor: so too in still later times it was given to Saracenic and Bulgarian princes. In the sixth and seventh centuries an invariable practice seems to have attached it to the Byzantine viceroys of Italy, and thus, as we may conjecture, a natural confusion of ideas had made men take it to be, in some sense, an official title, conveying an extensive though undefined authority, and implying in particular the duty of overseeing the Church and promoting her temporal interests. It was doubtless with such a meaning that the Romans and their bishop bestowed it upon the Frankish kings, acting quite without legal right, for it could emanate from the emperor alone, but choosing it as the title which bound its possessor to render to the church support and defence against her Lombard foes."

The territory over which the Pope formerly exercised and still
claims temporal sovereignty.

PATRIPASSIANS.

PATRONS OF HUSBANDRY.

"After a pretty long obscurity the Manichean theory revived with some modification in the western parts of Armenia, and was propagated in the 8th and 9th centuries by a sect denominated Paulicians. Their tenets are not to be collected with absolute certainty from the mouths of their adversaries, and no apology of their own survives. There seems however to be sufficient evidence that the Paulicians, though professing to acknowledge and even to study the apostolical writings, ascribed the creation of the world to an evil deity, whom they supposed also to be the author of the Jewish law, and consequently rejected all the Old Testament. … Petrus Siculus enumerates six Paulician heresies.

   1. They maintained the existence of two deities, the one evil,
      and the creator of this world; the other good, … the author
      of that which is to come.
   2. They refused to worship the Virgin, and asserted that
      Christ brought his body from heaven.
   3. They rejected the Lord's Supper.
   4. And the adoration of the cross.
   5. They denied the authority of the Old Testament, but
      admitted the New, except the epistles of St. Peter, and,
      perhaps, the Apocalypse.
   6. They did not acknowledge the order of priests.

There seems every reason to suppose that the Paulicians, notwithstanding their mistakes, were endowed with sincere and zealous piety, and studious of the Scriptures. … These errors exposed them to a long and cruel persecution, during which a colony of exiles was planted by one of the Greek emperors in Bulgaria. From this settlement they silently promulgated their Manichean creed over the western regions of Christendom. A large part of the commerce of those countries with Constantinople was carried on for several centuries by the channel of the Danube. This opened an immediate intercourse with the Paulicians, who may be traced up that river through Hungary and Bavaria, or sometimes taking the route of Lombardy, into Switzerland and France. In the last country, and especially in its southern and eastern provinces, they became conspicuous under a variety of names; such as Catharists, Picards, Paterins, but, above all, Albigenses. It is beyond a doubt that many of these sectaries owed their origin to the Paulicians; the appellation of Bulgarians was distinctively bestowed upon them; and, according to some writers, they acknowledged a primate or patriarch resident in that country. … It is generally agreed that the Manicheans from Bulgaria did not penetrate into the west of Europe before the year 1000; and they seem to have been in small numbers till about 1140. … I will only add, in order to obviate cavilling, that I use the word Albigenses for the Manichean sects, without pretending to assert that their doctrines prevailed more in the neighbourhood of Albi than elsewhere. The main position is that a large part of the Languedocian heretics against whom the crusade was directed had imbibed the Paulician opinions. If anyone chooses rather to call them Catharists, it will not be material."

PAVIA: A. D. 568-571.
Siege by the Lombards.
Made capital of the Lombard kingdom.

PAVIA: A. D. 1524-1525.
Siege and Battle.
Defeat and capture of Francis I., of France.

PEABODY EDUCATION FUND.

PEACE OF AUGUSTUS, AND PEACE OF VESPASIAN.

PEACE OF THE DAMES, THE LADIES' PEACE.

PEAGE, PEAKE.

PEC-SÆTAN.

The popular name of an old Roman road in England, which runs
from Brancaster, on the Wash, via Colchester, to London.

PEDIÆI. THE PEDION.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1834-1837, 1837-1839, 1841-1842, to 1846;
      TARIFF LEGISLATION (ENGLAND): A. D. 1842, and 1845-1846;
      MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1844.

PEEP-O'-DAY BOYS.

PEHLEVI LANGUAGE.

"Under the Arsacids, the Old Persian passed into Middle Persian, which at a later time was known by the name of the Parthians, the tribe at that time supreme in Persia. Pahlav and Pehlevi mean Parthian, and, as applied to language, the language of the Parthians, i. e. of the Parthian era. … In the latest period of the dominion of the Sassanids, the recent Middle Persian or Parsec took the place of Pehlevi."

PEKIN: A. D. 1860.
English and French forces in the city.
The burning of the Summer Palace.

PELAGIANISM.

"Pelagianism was … the great intellectual controversy of the church in the fifth century, as Arianism had been in the fourth. … Everyone is aware that this controversy turned upon the question of free-will and of grace, that is to say, of the relations between the liberty of man and the Divine power, of the influence of God upon the moral activity of men. … About the year 405, a British monk, Pelagius (this is the name given him by the Greek and Latin writers; his real name, it appears, was Morgan), was residing at Rome. There has been infinite discussion as to his origin, his moral character, his capacity, his learning; and, under these various heads, much abuse has been lavished upon him; but this abuse would appear to be unfounded, for judging from the most authoritative testimony, from that of St. Augustin himself, Pelagius was a man of good birth, of excellent education, of pure life. A resident, as I have said, at Rome, and now a man of mature age, without laying down any distinct doctrines, without having written any book on the subject, Pelagius began, about the year I have mentioned, 405, to talk much about free-will, to insist urgently upon this moral fact, to expound it. There is no indication that he attacked any person about the matter, or that he sought controversy; he appears to have acted simply upon the belief that human liberty was not held in sufficient account, had not its due share in the religious doctrines of the period. These ideas excited no trouble in Rome, scarcely any debate. Pelagius spoke freely; they listened to him quietly. His principal disciple was Celestius, like him a monk, or so it is thought at least, but younger. … In 411 Pelagius and Celestius are no longer at Rome; we find them in Africa, at Hippo and at Carthage. … Their doctrines spread. … The bishop of Hippo began to be alarmed; he saw in these new ideas error and peril. … Saint Augustin was the chief of the doctors of the church, called upon more than any other to maintain the general system of her doctrines. … You see, from that time, what a serious aspect the quarrel took: everything was engaged in it, philosophy, politics, and religion, the opinions of Saint Augustin and his business, his self-love and his duty. He entirely abandoned himself to it." In the end, Saint Augustin and his opinions prevailed. The doctrines of Pelagius were condemned by three successive councils of the church, by three successive emperors and by two popes—one of whom was forced to reverse his first decision. His partisans were persecuted and banished. "After the year 418, we discover in history no trace of Pelagius. The name of Celestius is sometimes met with until the year 427; it then disappears. These two men once off the scene, their school rapidly declined."

F. Guizot, History of Civilization (translated by Hazlitt), volume 2, lecture. 5.

      ALSO IN:
      P. Schaff,
      History of the Christian Church, period 3,
      chapter 9.

Under this name we have vague knowledge of a people whom the Greeks of historic times refer to as having preceded them in the occupancy of the Hellenic peninsula and Asia Minor, and whom they looked upon as being kindred to themselves in race. "Such information as the Hellenes … possessed about the Pelasgi, was in truth very scanty. They did not look upon them as a mythical people of huge giants—as, for example, in the popular tales of the modern Greeks the ancestors of the latter are represented as mighty warriors, towering to the height of poplar trees. There exist no Pelasgian myths, no Pelasgian gods, to be contrasted with the Greeks. … Thucydides, in whom the historic consciousness of the Hellenes finds its clearest expression, also regards the inhabitants of Hellas from the most ancient times, Pelasgi as well as Hellenes, as one nation. … And furthermore, according to his opinion genuine sons of these ancient Pelasgi continued through all times to dwell in different regions, and especially in Attica.

"It is inevitable that modern historians should take widely divergent views of a nation concerning which tradition is so uncertain. Some writers, among whom is Kiepert, think that the Pelasgi were a Semitic tribe, who immigrated into Greece. This theory, though it explains their presence on the coast, fails to account for their position at Dodona and in Thessaly. … In another view, which has received the assent of Thirlwall and Duncker, Pelasgian is nothing more than the name of the ancient inhabitants of the country, which subsequently gave way to the title Achaean, as this in its turn was supplanted by the term Hellenes. … We have no evidence to support the idea of a Pelasgic Age as a period of simple habits and agricultural occupations, which slowly gave way before the more martial age of the Achaeans. The civilization of the 'Achaean Age' exists only in the epic poems, and the 'Pelasgic Age' is but another name for the prehistoric Greeks, of whose agriculture we know nothing."

      See, also,
      DORIANS AND IONIANS;
      ŒNOTRIANS;
      ARYANS;
      ITALY: ANCIENT.

PELLA.

A new Macedonian capital founded by Archelaus, the ninth of
the kings of Macedonia.

PELOPIDS. PELOPONNESUS.

"Among the ancient legendary genealogies, there was none which figured with greater splendour, or which attracted to itself a higher degree of poetical interest and pathos, than that of the Pelopids:—Tantalus, Pelops, Atreus and Thyestes, Agamemnon and Menelaus and Ægisthus, Helen and Klytaemnestra, Orestes and Elektra and Hermione. Each of these characters is a star of the first magnitude in the Grecian hemisphere. … Pelops is the eponym or name-giver of the Peloponnesus: to find an eponym for every conspicuous local name was the invariable turn of Grecian retrospective fancy. The name Peloponnesus is not to be found either in the Iliad or the Odyssey, nor any other denomination which can be attached distinctly and specially to the entire peninsula. But we meet with the name in one of the most ancient post-Homeric poems of which any fragments have been preserved—the Cyprian Verses. … The attributes by which the Pelopid Agamemnon and his house are marked out and distinguished from the other heroes of the Iliad, are precisely those which Grecian imagination would naturally seek in an eponymus—superior wealth, power, splendour and regality."

"Of the … family of myths … that of Pelops [is] especially remarkable as attaching itself more manifestly and decisively than any other Heroic myth to Ionia and Lydia. We remember the royal house of Tantalus enthroned on the banks of the Sipylus, and intimately associated with the worship of the Phrygian Mother of the Gods. Members of this royal house emigrate and cross to Hellas from the Ionian ports; they bring with them bands of adventurous companions, a treasure of rich culture and knowledge of the world, arms and ornaments, and splendid implements of furniture, and gain a following among the natives, hitherto combined in no political union. … This was the notion formed by men like Thucydides as to the epoch occasioned by the appearance of the Pelopidæ in the earliest ages of the nation; and what element in this notion is either improbable or untenable. Do not all the traditions connected with Achæan princes of the house of Pelops point with one consent over the sea to Lydia?"

The name of one of the parties in Chilean politics, supposed to have some resemblance to the English Whigs.

PELUSIUM.

"Behind, as we enter Egypt [from the east] is the treacherous Lake Serbonis; in front the great marsh broadening towards the west; on the right the level melancholy shore of the almost tideless Mediterranean. At the very point of the angle stood of old the great stronghold Pelusium, Sin, in Ezekiel's days, 'the strength of Egypt' (xxx. 15). The most eastward Nile-stream flowed behind the city, and on the north was a port commodious enough to hold an ancient fleet. … As the Egyptian monarchy waned, Pelusium grew in importance, for it was the strongest city of the border. Here the last king of the Saïte line, Psammeticus III, son of Amasis, awaited Cambyses. The battle of Pelusium, which crushed the native power, may almost take rank among the decisive battles of the world. Had the Persians failed, they might never have won the command of the Mediterranean, without which they could scarcely have invaded Greece. Of the details of the action we know nothing."

It was at Pelusium that Pompey, defeated and flying from
Cæsar, was assassinated.

PEMAQUID PATENT.

   The first battle fought, A. D. 1016, between the English king
   Edmund, or Eadmund, Ironsides, and his Danish rival Cnut, or
   Canute, for the crown of England. The Dane was beaten.

PENACOOK INDIANS.

PENAL LAWS AGAINST THE IRISH CATHOLICS.

A former forest in Lancashire, England, which was popularly believed to be the resort of "Lancashire Witches."

PENDRAGON.

In ancient Thessaly there was "a class of serfs, or dependent cultivators, corresponding to the Laconian Helots, who, tilling the lands of the wealthy oligarchs, paid over a proportion of its produce, furnished the retainers by which these great families were surrounded, served as their followers in the cavalry, and were in a condition of villanage,—yet with the important reserve that they could not be sold out of the country, that they had a permanent tenure in the soil, and that they maintained among one another the relations of family and village. This … order of men, in Thessaly called the Penestæ, is assimulated by all ancient authors to the Helots of Luconia."

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862
      MARCH-MAY: VIRGINIA;
      MAY: VIRGINIA,
      JUNE: VIRGINIA,
      JUNE-JULY: VIRGINIA,
      JULY-AUGUST: VIRGINIA.

PENNAMITE AND YANKEE WAR.

PENNSYLVANIA.
The aboriginal inhabitants and their relations to the white
colonists.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1632.
Partly embraced in the Maryland grant to Lord Baltimore.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1641.
The settlement from New Haven, on the site of Philadelphia.

   "William Penn was descended from a long line of sailor
   ancestors. His father, an admiral in the British navy, had
   held various important naval commands, and in recognition of
   his services had been honored by knighthood. A member of
   Parliament, and possessed of a considerable fortune, the path
   of worldly advancement seemed open and easy for the feet of
   his son, who had received a liberal education at Oxford,
   continued in the schools of the Continent. Beautiful in
   person, engaging in manner, accomplished in manly exercises
   and the use of the sword, fortune and preferment seemed to
   wait the acceptance of William Penn. But at the very outset of
   his career the Divine voice fell upon his ears as upon those
   of St. Paul." He became a follower of George Fox, and one of
   the people known as Quakers or Friends. "Many trials awaited
   the youthful convert. His father cast him off. He underwent a
   considerable imprisonment in the Tower for 'urging the cause
   of freedom with importunity.' … In time these afflictions
   abated. The influence of his family saved him from the heavier
   penalties which fell upon many of his co-religionists. His
   father on his death-bed reinstated him as his heir. 'Son
   William,' said the dying man, 'if you and your friends keep to
   your plain way of preaching and living, you will make an end
   of the priests.' Some years later we find him exerting an
   influence at Court which almost amounted to popularity. It is
   evident that, with all his boldness of opinion and speech,
   Penn possessed a tact and address which gave him the advantage
   over most of his sect in dealings with worldly people. … In
   1680 his influence at Court and with moneyed men enabled him
   to purchase a large tract of land in east New Jersey, on which
   to settle a colony of Quakers, a previous colony having been
   sent out three years before to west New Jersey. Meanwhile a
   larger project filled his mind. His father had bequeathed to
   him a claim on the Crown for £16,000. Colonial property was
   then held in light esteem, and, with the help of some powerful
   friends, Penn was enabled so to press his claim as to secure
   the charter for that valuable grant which afterward became the
   State of Pennsylvania, and which included three degrees of
   latitude by five of longitude, west from the Delaware. 'This
   day,' writes Penn, January 5, 1681, 'my country was confirmed
   to me by the name of Pennsylvania, a name the king [Charles
   II.] would give it in honour of my father. I chose New Wales,
   being as this a pretty hilly country. I proposed (when the
   Secretary, a Welshman, refused to have it called New Wales)
   Sylvania, and they added Penn to it, and though I much opposed
   it, and went to the King to have it struck out and altered, he
   said 'twas past, and he would take it upon him. … I feared
   lest it should be looked upon as a vanity in me, and not as a
   respect of the King, as it truly was, to my father, whom he
   often mentions with praise.'
{2499}
   'In return for this grant of 26,000,000 of acres of the best
   land in the universe, William Penn, it was agreed, was to
   deliver annually at Windsor Castle two beaver-skins, pay into
   the King's treasury one fifth of the gold and silver which the
   province might yield, and govern the province in conformity
   with the laws of England and as became a liege of England's
   King. He was to appoint judges and magistrates, could pardon
   all crimes except murder and treason, and whatsoever things he
   could lawfully do himself, he could appoint a deputy to do, he
   and his heirs forever.' The original grant was fantastically
   limited by a circle drawn twelve miles distant from Newcastle,
   northward and westward, to the beginning of the 40th degree of
   latitude. This was done to accommodate the Duke of York, who
   wished to retain the three lower counties as an appanage to
   the State of New York. A few months later he was persuaded to
   renounce this claim, and the charter of Penn was extended to
   include the western and southern shores of the Delaware Bay
   and River from the 43rd degree of latitude to the Atlantic. …
   The charter confirmed, a brief account of the country was
   published, and lands offered for sale on the easy terms of 40
   shillings a hundred acres, and one shilling's rent a year in
   perpetuity. Numerous adventurers, many of them men of wealth
   and respectability, offered. The articles of agreement
   included a provision as to 'just and friendly conduct toward
   the natives.' … In April, 1681, he sent forward 'young Mr.
   Markham,' his relative, with a small party of colonists to
   take possession of the grant, and prepare for his own coming
   during the following year. … In August, 1682, Penn himself
   embarked."

"The charter [to Penn], which is given complete in Hazard's Annals, consists of 23 articles, with a preamble. … The grant comprises all that part of America, islands included, which is bounded on the east by the Delaware River from a point on a circle twelve miles northward of New Castle town to the 43° north latitude if the Delaware extends so far; if not, as far as it does extend, and thence to the 43° by a meridian line. From this point westward five degrees of longitude on the 43° parallel; the western boundary to the 40th parallel, and thence by a straight line to the place of beginning. … Grants Penn rights to and use of rivers, harbors, fisheries, etc. … Creates and constitutes him Lord Proprietary of the Province, saving only his allegiance to the King, Penn to hold directly of the kings of England, 'as of our castle of Windsor in the county of Berks, in free and common socage, by fealty only, for all services, and not in capite, or by Knight's service, yielding and paying therefore to us, our heirs and successors, two beaver-skins.' … Grants Penn and his successors, his deputies and lieutenants, 'free, full, and absolute power' to make laws for raising money for the public uses of the Province, and for other public purposes at their discretion, by and with the advice and consent of the people or their representatives in assembly. … Grants power to appoint officers, judges, magistrates, etc., to pardon offenders."

Before the departure from England of the first company of colonists, Penn drew up a Frame of Government which he submitted to them, and to which they gave their assent and approval by their signatures, he signing the instrument likewise. The next year this Frame of Government was published by Penn, with a preface, "containing his own thoughts upon the origin, nature, object, and modes of Government. … The Frame, which followed this preface, consisted of twenty-four articles; and the Laws, which were annexed to the latter, were forty. By the Frame the government was placed in the Governor and Freemen of the province, out of whom were to be formed two bodies; namely, a Provincial Council and a General Assembly. These were to be chosen by the Freemen; and though the Governor or his Deputy was to be perpetual President, he was to have but a treble vote. The Provincial Council was to consist of seventy-two members. One third part, that is, twenty-four of them, were to serve for three years, one third for two, and the other third for one; so that there might be an annual succession of twenty-four new members, each third part thus continuing for three years and no longer. It was the office of this Council to prepare and propose bills, to see that the laws were executed, to take care of the peace and safety of the province, to settle the situation of ports, cities, market towns, roads, and other public places, to inspect the public treasury, to erect courts of justice, institute schools, and reward the authors of useful discovery. Not less than two thirds of these were necessary to make a quorum; and the consent of not less than two thirds of such quorum in all matters of moment. The General Assembly was to consist the first year of all the freemen, and the next of two hundred. These were to be increased afterwards according to the increase of the population of the province. They were to have no deliberative power; but, when bills were brought to them from the Governor and Provincial Council, to pass or reject them by a plain Yes or No. They were to present sheriffs and justices of the peace to the Governor, a double number for his choice of half. They were to be elected annually. All elections of members, whether to the Provincial Council or General Assembly, were to be by ballot. And this Charter or Frame of Government was not to be altered, changed, or diminished in any part or clause of it, without the consent of the Governor, or his heirs or assigns, and six parts out of seven of the Freemen both in the Provincial Council and General Assembly. With respect to the Laws, which I said before were forty in number, I shall only at present observe of them that they related to whatever may be included under the term 'Good Government of the Province'; some of them to liberty of conscience; others to civil officers and their qualifications; others to offences; others to legal proceedings, such as pleadings, processes, fines, imprisonments, and arrests; others to the natural servants and poor of the province. With respect to all of them it may be observed, that, like the Frame itself, they could not be altered but by the consent of the Governor, or his heirs, and the consent of six parts out of seven of the two bodies before mentioned."

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1682.
Acquisition by Penn of the claims of the Duke of York to
Delaware.

"During the negotiations between New Netherland and Maryland in 1659, the Dutch insisted that, as Lord Baltimore's patent covered only savage or uninhabited territory, it could not affect their own possession of the Delaware region. Accordingly, they held it against Maryland until it was taken from them by the Duke of York in 1664. But James's title by conquest had never been confirmed to him by a grant from the king; and Cecilius Calvert, the second Lord Baltimore, insisted that Delaware belonged to Maryland. To quiet controversy, the duke had offered to buy off Baltimore's claim, to which he would not agree. Penn afterward refused a large offer by Fenwick 'to get of the duke his interest in Newcastle and those parts' for West Jersey. Thus stood the matter when the Pennsylvania charter was sealed. Its proprietor soon found that his province, wholly inland, wanted a front on the sea. As Delaware was 'necessary' to Pennsylvania, Penn 'endeavored to get it' from the duke by maintaining that Baltimore's pretension 'was against law, civil and common.' Charles Calvert, the third Lord Baltimore, was 'very free' in talking against the Duke of York's rights; but he could not circumvent Penn. The astute Quaker readily got from James a quit-claim of all his interest in the territory included within the proper bounds of Pennsylvania. After a struggle, Penn also gained the more important conveyances [August, 1682] to himself of the duke's interest in all the region within a circle of twelve miles diameter around Newcastle, and extending southward as far as Cape Henlopen. The triumphant Penn set sail the next week. At Newcastle he received from James's agents formal possession of the surrounding territory, and of the region farther south."

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1682-1685.
   Penn's arrival in his province.
   His treaty with the Indians.
   The founding of Philadelphia.

Penn sailed, in person, for his province on the 1st of September, 1682, on the ship "Welcome," with 100 fellow passengers, mostly Friends, and landed at Newcastle after a dreary voyage, during which thirty of his companions had died of smallpox. "Next day he called the people together in the Dutch court-house, when he went through the legal forms of taking possession. … Penn's great powers being legally established, he addressed the people in profoundest silence. He spoke of the reasons for his coming—the great idea which he had nursed from his youth upwards—his desire to found a free and virtuous state, in which the people should rule themselves. … He spoke of the constitution he had published for Pennsylvania as containing his theory of government; and promised the settlers on the lower reaches of the Delaware, that the same principles should be adopted in their territory. Every man in his provinces, he said, should enjoy liberty of conscience and his share of political power. … The people listened to this speech with wonder and delight. … They had but one request to make in answer; that he would stay amongst them and reign over them in person. They besought him to annex their territory to Pennsylvania, in order that the white settlers might have one country, one parliament, and one ruler. He promised, at their desire, to take the question of a union of the two provinces into consideration, and submit it to an assembly then about to meet at Upland. So he took his leave. Ascending the Delaware … the adventurers soon arrived at the Swedish town of Upland, then the place of chief importance in the province. … Penn changed the name from Upland to Chester, and as Chester it is known. Markham and the three commissioners had done their work so well that in a short time after Penn's arrival, the first General Assembly, elected by universal suffrage, was ready to meet. … As soon as Penn had given them assurances similar to those which he had made in Newcastle, they proceeded to discuss, amend, and accept the Frame of Government and the Provisional Laws. The settlers on the Delaware sent representatives to this Assembly, and one of their first acts was to declare the two Provinces united. The constitution was adopted without important alteration; and to the forty laws were added twenty-one others, and the infant code was passed in form. … Penn paid some visits to the neighbouring seats of government in New York, Maryland, and the Jerseys. At West River, Lord Baltimore came forth to meet him with a retinue of the chief persons in the province. … It was impossible to adjust the boundary, and the two proprietors separated with the resolution to maintain their several rights. … The lands already bought from the Redmen were now put up for sale at four-pence an acre, with a reserve of one shilling for every hundred acres as quit-rent; the latter sum intended to form a state revenue for the Governor's support. Amidst these sales and settlements he recollected George Fox, for whose use and profit he set aside a thousand acres of the best land in the province. … Penn was no less careful for the Redskins. Laying on one side all ceremonial manners, he won their hearts by his easy confidence and familiar speech. He walked with them alone into the forests. He sat with them on the ground to watch the young men dance. He joined in their feasts, and ate their roasted hominy and acorns. … Having now become intimate with Taminent and other of the native kings, who had approved these treaties, seeing great advantages in them for their people, he proposed to hold a conference with the chiefs and warriors, to confirm the former treaties and form a lasting league of peace. On the banks of the Delaware, in the suburbs of the rising city of Philadelphia, lay a natural amphitheatre, used from time immemorial as a place of meeting for the native tribes. The name of Sakimaxing—now corrupted by the white men into Shackamaxon—means the place of kings. At this spot stood an aged elm-tree, one of those glorious elms which mark the forests of the New World. It was a hundred and fifty-five years old; under its spreading branches friendly nations had been wont to meet; and here the Redskins smoked the calumet of peace long before the pale-faces landed on those shores. Markham had appointed this locality for his first conference, and the land commissioners wisely followed his example. {2501} Old traditions had made the place sacred to one of the contracting parties,—and when Penn proposed his solemn conference, he named Sakimaxing [or Shackamaxon] as a place of meeting with the Indian kings. Artists have painted, poets sung, philosophers praised this meeting of the white men and the red [October 14, 1682]. … All being seated, the old king announced to the Governor that the natives were prepared to hear and consider his words. Penn then rose to address them. … He and his children, he went on to say, never fired the rifle, never trusted to the sword; they met the red men on the broad path of good faith and good will. They meant no harm, and had no fear. He read the treaty of friendship, and explained its clauses. It recited that from that day the children of Onas and the nations of the Lenni Lenapé should be brothers to each other,—that all paths should be free and open—that the doors of the white men should be open to the red men, and the lodges of the red men should be open to the white men,—that the children of Onas should not believe any false reports of the Lenni Lenape, nor the Lenni Lenape of the children of Onas, but should come and see for themselves, … that if any son of Onas were to do any harm to any Redskin, or any Redskin were to do harm to a son of Onas, the sufferer should not offer to right himself, but should complain to the chiefs and to Onas, that justice might be declared by twelve honest men, and the wrong buried in a pit with no bottom,—that the Lenni Lenape should assist the white men, and the white men should assist the Lenni Lenape, against all such as would disturb them or do them hurt; and, lastly, that both Christians and Indians should tell their children of this league and chain of friendship, that it might grow stronger and stronger, and be kept bright and clean, without rust or spot, while the waters ran down the creeks and rivers, and while the sun and moon and stars endured. He laid the scroll on the ground. The sachems received his proposal for themselves and for their children. No oaths, no seals, no mummeries, were used; the treaty was ratified on both sides with yea,—and, unlike treaties which are sworn and sealed, was kept. When Penn had sailed, he held a note in his mind of six things to be done on landing:

(1) to organize his government; (2) to visit Friends in Delaware, Pennsylvania and New Jersey; (3) to conciliate the Indians; (4) to see the Governor of New York, who had previously governed his province; (5) to fix the site for his capital city; (6) to arrange his differences with Lord Baltimore.

The subject of his chief city occupied his anxious thought, and Markham had collected information for his use. Some people wished to see Chester made his capital; but the surveyor, Thomas Holme, agreed with Penn that the best locality in almost every respect was the neck of land lying at the junction of the Delaware and the Skuylkill rivers. … The point was known as Wicocoa. … The land was owned by three Swedes, from whom Penn purchased it on their own terms; and then, with the assistance of Holme, he drew his plan. … Not content to begin humbly, and allow house to be added to house, and street to street, as people wanted them, he formed the whole scheme of his city—its name, its form, its streets, its docks, and open spaces—fair and perfect in his mind, before a single stone was laid. According to his original design, Philadelphia was to cover with its houses, squares, and gardens, twelve square miles. … One year from the date of Penn's landing in the New World, a hundred houses had been built; two years later there were six hundred houses."

ALSO IN: J. T. Scharf and T. Westcott, History of Philadelphia, volume 1, chapter 9.

      W. C. Bryant and S. H. Gay,
      Popular History of the United States,
      volume 2, chapter 20.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1685.
The Maryland Boundary question.
Points in dispute with Lord Baltimore.

"The grant to Penn confused the old controversy between Virginia and Lord Baltimore as to their boundary, and led to fresh controversies. The question soon arose: What do the descriptions, 'the beginning of the fortieth,' and 'the beginning of the three and fortieth degree of northern latitude,' mean? If they meant the 40th and 43rd parallels of north latitude, as most historians have held, Penn's province was the zone, three degrees of latitude in width, that leaves Philadelphia a little to the south and Syracuse a little to the north; but if those descriptions meant the belts lying between 39° and 40°, and 42° and 43°, as some authors have held, then Penn's southern and northern boundaries were 39° and 42° north. A glance at the map of Pennsylvania will show the reader how different the territorial dispositions would have been if either one of these constructions had been carried out. The first construction would avoid disputes on the south, unless with Virginia west of the mountains; on the north it would not conflict with New York, but would most seriously conflict with Connecticut and Massachusetts west of the Delaware. The second construction involved disputes with the two southern colonies concerning the degree 39-40 to the farthest limit of Pennsylvania, and it also overlapped Connecticut's claim to the degree 41-42. Perhaps we cannot certainly say what was the intention of the king, or Penn's first understanding; but the Quaker proprietary and his successors adopted substantially the second construction, and thus involved their province in the most bitter disputes. The first quarrel was with Lord Baltimore. It has been well said that this 'notable quarrel' 'continued more than eighty years; was the cause of endless trouble between individuals; occupied the attention not only of the proprietors of the respective provinces, but of the Lords of Trade and Plantations, of the High Court of Chancery, and of the Privy Councils of at least three monarchs; it greatly retarded the settlement and development of a beautiful and fertile country, and brought about numerous tumults, which sometimes ended in bloodshed.'"

   "As the Duke of York claimed, by right of conquest, the
   settlements on the western shores of the Bay of Delaware, and
   had, by his deed of 1682, transferred to William Penn his
   title to that country, embracing the town of Newcastle and
   twelve miles around it (as a reasonable portion of land
   attached to it), and as far down as what was then called Cape
   Henlopen; an important subject of controversy was the true
   situation of that cape, and the ascertainment of the southern
   and western boundaries of the country along the bay, as
   transferred by the Duke's deed. …
{2502}
   After two personal interviews in America, the Proprietaries
   separated without coming to any arrangement and with mutual
   recriminations and dissatisfaction. And they each wrote to the
   Lords of Plantations excusing themselves and blaming the
   other. … At length, in 1685, one important step was taken
   toward the decision of the conflicting claims of Maryland and
   Pennsylvania, by a decree of King James' Council, which
   ordered, 'that for a voiding further differences, the tract of
   land lying between the Bay of Delaware and the eastern sea, on
   the one side, and the Chesapeake Bay on the other, be divided
   into equal parts, by a line from the latitude of Cape Henlopen
   to the 40th degree of north latitude, the southern boundary of
   Pennsylvania by Charter; and that the one half thereof, lying
   towards the Bay of Delaware and the eastern sea, be adjudged
   to belong to his majesty, and the other half to Lord
   Baltimore, as comprised in his charter.' … This decree of King
   James, which evidently exhibits a partiality towards the
   claims of Penn, in decreeing the eastern half of the peninsula
   to his majesty, with whom Lord Baltimore could not presume,
   and indeed had declined to dispute, instead of to the
   Proprietary himself, by no means removed the difficulties
   which hung over this tedious, expensive, and vexatious
   litigation. For … there existed as much uncertainty with
   respect to the true situation of Cape Henlopen and the
   ascertainment of the middle of the Peninsula, as any points in
   contest."

J. Dunlop, Memoir on the Controversy between William Penn and Lord Baltimore, (Pennsylvania Historical Society Memoirs, volume 1).

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1692-1696.
   Keith's schism.
   Penn deprived of his government, but restored.
   Early resistance to the proprietary yoke.

"While New England and New York were suffering from war, superstition, and the bitterness of faction, Pennsylvania was not without internal troubles. These troubles originated with George Keith, a Scotch Quaker, formerly surveyor-general of East Jersey, and at this time master of the Quaker school at Philadelphia, and champion of the Quakers against Cotton Mather and the Boston ministers. Pressing the doctrines of non-resistance to their logical conclusion, Keith advanced the opinion that Quaker principles were not consistent with the exercise of political authority. He also attacked negro slavery as inconsistent with those principles. There is no surer way of giving mortal offense to a sect or party than to call upon it to be consistent with its own professed doctrines. Keith was disowned by the yearly meeting, but he forthwith instituted a meeting of his own, to which he gave the name of Christian Quakers. In reply to a 'Testimony of Denial' put forth against him, he published an 'Address,' in which he handled his adversaries with very little ceremony. He was fined by the Quaker magistrates for insolence, and Bradford, the only printer in the colony, was called to account for having published Keith's address. Though he obtained a discharge, Bradford, however, judged it expedient to remove with his types to New York, which now [1692] first obtained a printing press. The Episcopalians and other non-Quakers professed great sympathy for Keith, and raised a loud outcry against Quaker intolerance. Keith himself presently embraced Episcopacy, went to England, and took orders there. The Quaker magistrates were accused of hostility to the Church of England, and in the alleged maladministration of his agents, joined with his own suspected loyalty, a pretense was found for depriving Penn of the government—a step taken by the Privy Council without any of the forms, or, indeed, any authority of law, though justified by the opinions of some of the leading Whig lawyers of that day." Governor Fletcher of New York was now authorized for a time to administer the government of Pennsylvania and Delaware. "He accordingly visited Philadelphia, and called an Assembly in which deputies from both provinces were present. Penn's frame of government was disregarded, the Assembly being modeled after that of New York. Fletcher hoped to obtain a salary for himself and some contributions toward the defense of the northern frontier. The Quakers, very reluctant to vote money at all, had special scruples about the lawfulness of war. They were also very suspicious of designs against their liberties, and refused to enter on any business until the existing laws and liberties of the province had been first expressly confirmed. This concession reluctantly made, Fletcher obtained the grant of a small sum of money, not, however, without stipulating that it 'should not be dipped in blood.' … The suspicions against Penn soon dying away, the administration of his province was restored to him [1694]. But the pressure of his private affairs—for he was very much in debt—detained him in England, and he sent a commission to Markham [his relative and representative in Pennsylvania] to act as his deputy. An Assembly called by Markham refused to recognize the binding force of Penn's frame of government, which, indeed, had been totally disregarded by Fletcher. To the restrictions on their authority imposed by that frame they would not submit. A second Assembly [1696] proved equally obstinate, and, as the only means of obtaining a vote of the money required of the province toward the defense of New York, Markham was obliged to agree to a new act of settlement, securing to the Assembly the right of originating laws. A power of disapproval was reserved, however, to the proprietary, and this act never received Penn's sanction."

ALSO IN: G. E. Ellis, Life of Penn, chapter 10 (Library of American Bibliographies, series 2, volume 12).

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1701-1718.
   The new Charter of Privileges and
   the city charter of Philadelphia.
   The divorcing of Delaware.
   Differences with the Proprietary.
   The death of Penn.

It was not until 1699 that Penn returned to his domain after an absence of fifteen years, and his brief stay of two years was not made wholly agreeable to him. Between him and his colonists there were many points of friction, as was inevitable under the relationship in which they stood to one another. The assembly of the province would not be persuaded to contribute to the fortification of the northern frontier of the king's dominions (in New York) against the French and Indians. Penn's influence, however, prevailed upon that body to adopt measures for suppressing both piracy and illicit trade. {2503} With much difficulty, moreover, he settled with his subjects the terms of a new constitution of government, or Charter of Privileges, as it was called. The old Frame of Government was formally abandoned and the government of Pennsylvania was now organized upon an entirely new footing. "The new charter for the province and territories, signed by Penn, October 25, 1701, was more republican in character than those of the neighboring colonies. It not only provided for an assembly of the people with great powers, including those of creating courts, but to a certain extent it submitted to the choice of the people the nomination of some of the county officers. The section concerning liberty of conscience did not discriminate against the members of the Church of Rome. The closing section fulfilled the promise already made by Penn, that in case the representatives of the two territorial districts [Pennsylvania proper, held under Penn's original grant, and the Lower Counties, afterwards constituting Delaware, which he acquired from the Duke of York] could not agree within three years to join in legislative business, the Lower Counties should be separated from Pennsylvania. On the same day Penn established by letters-patent a council of state for the province, 'to consult and assist the proprietary himself or his deputy with the best of their advice and council in public affairs and matters relating to the government and the peace and well-being of the people; and in the absence of the proprietary, or upon the deputy's absence out of the province, his death, or other incapacity, to exercise all and singular the powers of government.' The original town and borough of Philadelphia, having by this time 'become near equal to the city of New York in trade and riches,' was raised, by patent of the 25th of October, 1701, to the rank of a city, and, like the province, could boast of having a more liberal charter than her neighbors; for the municipal officers were to be elected by the representatives of the people of the city, and not appointed by the governor, as in New York. The government of the province had been entrusted by Penn to Andrew Hamilton, also governor for the proprietors in New Jersey, with James Logan as provincial secretary, to whom was likewise confided the management of the proprietary estates, thus making him in reality the representative of Penn and the leader of his party. Hamilton died in December, 1702; but before his death he had endeavored in vain to bring the representatives of the two sections of his government together again. The Delaware members remained obstinate, and finally, while Edward Shippen, a member of the council and first mayor of Philadelphia, was acting as president, it was settled that they should have separate assemblies, entirely independent of each other. The first separate assembly for Pennsylvania proper met at Philadelphia, in October, 1703, and by its first resolution showed that the Quakers, so dominant in the province, were beginning to acquire a taste for authority, and meant to color their religion with the hue of political power." In December, 1703, John Evans, a young Welshman, appointed deputy-governor by Penn, arrived at Philadelphia, and was soon involved in quarrels with the assemblies. "At one time they had for ground the refusal of the Quakers to support the war which was waging against the French and Indians on the frontiers. At another they disagreed upon the establishment of a judiciary. These disturbances produced financial disruptions, and Penn himself suffered therefrom to such an extent that he was thrown into a London prison, and had finally to mortgage his province for £6,000. The recall of Evans in 1709, and the appointment of Charles Gookin in his stead, did not mend matters. Logan, Penn's intimate friend and representative, was finally compelled to leave the country; and, going to England (1710), he induced Penn to write a letter to the Pennsylvania assembly, in which he threatened to sell the province to the crown, a surrender by which he was to receive £12,000. The transfer was in fact prevented by an attack of apoplexy from which Penn suffered in 1712. The epistle, however, brought the refractory assembly to terms." In 1717 Gookin involved himself in fresh troubles and was recalled. Sir William Keith was then appointed—"the last governor commissioned by Penn himself; for the great founder of Pennsylvania died in 1718. … After Penn's death his heirs went to law among themselves about the government and proprietary rights in Pennsylvania."

B. Fernow, Middle Colonies (Narrative and Critical History of America, volume 5, chapter 3).

ALSO IN: G. E. Ellis, Life of Penn (Library of American Biographies, series 2, volume 12), chapters 11-12.

Penn and Logan Correspondence
(Pennsylvania Historical Society Memoirs, volumes 9-10).

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1740-1741.
First settlements and missions of the Moravian Brethren.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1748-1754. First movements beyond the mountains to dispute possession with the French.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1753-1799.
Connecticut claims and settlements in the Wyoming Valley.
The Pennamite and Yankee War.

"The charter bounds [of Connecticut] extended west to the Pacific Ocean [see CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1662-1664]: this would have carried Connecticut over a strip covering the northern two fifths of the present State of Pennsylvania. Stuart faithlessness interfered with this doubly. Almost immediately after the grant of the charter, Charles granted to his brother James the Dutch colony of New Netherland, thus interrupting the continuity of Connecticut. Rather than resist the king's brother, Connecticut agreed and ratified the interruption. In 1681 a more serious interference took place. Charles granted to Penn the province of Pennsylvania, extending westward five degrees between the 40th and 43rd parallels of north latitude." Under the final compromise of Penn's boundary dispute with Lord Baltimore the northern line of Pennsylvania was moved southward to latitude 42° instead of 43°; but it still absorbed five degrees in length of the Connecticut western belt. {2504} "The territory taken from Connecticut by the Penn grant would be bounded southerly on the present map by a straight line entering Pennsylvania about Stroudsburg, just north of the Delaware Water Gap, and running west through Hazelton, Catawissa, Clearfield, and New Castle, taking in all the northern coal, iron, and oil fields. It was a royal heritage, but the Penns made no attempt to settle it, and Connecticut until the middle of the 18th century had no energy to spare from the task of winning her home territory 'out of the fire, as it were, by hard blows and for small recompense.' This task had been fairly well done by 1750, and in 1753 a movement to colonize in the Wyoming country was set on foot in Windham county. It spread by degrees until the Susquehanna Company was formed the next year, with nearly 700 members, of whom 638 were of Connecticut. Their agents made a treaty with the Five Nations July 11, 1754, by which they bought for £2,000 a tract of land beginning at the 41st degree of latitude, the southerly boundary of Connecticut; thence running north, following the line of the Susquehanna at a distance of ten miles from it, to the present northern boundary of Pennsylvania; thence 120 miles west; thence south to the 41st degree and back to the point of beginning. In May, 1755, the Connecticut general assembly expressed its acquiescence in the scheme, if the king should approve it; and it approved also a plan of Samuel Hazard, of Philadelphia, for another colony, to be placed west of Pennsylvania, and within the chartered limits of Connecticut. The court might have taken stronger ground than this; for, at the meeting of commissioners from the various colonies at Albany, in 1754, the representatives of Pennsylvania being present, no opposition was made to a resolution that Connecticut and Massachusetts, by charter right, extended west to the South Sea. The formation of the Susquehanna Company brought out objections from Pennsylvania, but the company sent out surveyors and plotted its tract. Settlement was begun on the Delaware River in 1757, and in the Susquehanna purchase in 1762. This was a temporary settlement, the settlers going home for the winter. A permanent venture was made the next year on the flats below Wilkes Barre, but it was destroyed by the Indians the same year. In 1768 the company marked out five townships, and sent out forty settlers for the first, Kingston. Most of them, including the famous Captain Zebulon Butler, had served in the French and Indian War; and their first step was to build the 'Forty Fort.' The Penns, after their usual policy, had refused to sell lands, but had leased plots to a number of men on condition of their 'defending the lands from the Connecticut claimants.' The forty Connecticut men found these in possession when they arrived in February, 1769, and a war of writs and arrests followed for the remainder of the year. The Pennsylvania men had one too powerful argument, in the shape of a four-pounder gun, and they retained possession at the end of the year. Early in 1770 the forty reappeared, captured the four-pounder, and secured possession. For a time in 1771 the Pennsylvania men returned, put up a fort of their own, and engaged in a partisan warfare; but the numbers of the Connecticut men were rapidly increasing, and they remained masters until the opening of the Revolution, when they numbered some 3,000. … But for the Revolution, the check occasioned by the massacre [of 1778—see UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778 (JULY)], and the appearance of a popular government in place of the Penns, nothing could have prevented the establishment of Connecticut's authority over all the regions embraced in her western claims. … The articles of confederation went into force early in 1781. One of their provisions empowered congress to appoint courts of arbitration to decide disputes between States as to boundaries. Pennsylvania at once availed herself of this, and applied for a court to decide the Wyoming dispute. Connecticut asked for time, in order to get papers from England; but congress overruled the motion, and ordered the court to meet at Trenton in November, 1782. After forty-one days of argument, the court came to the unanimous conclusion that Wyoming, or the Susquehanna district, belonged to Pennsylvania and not to Connecticut." Connecticut yielded to the decision at once; but, in 1786, when, following New York and Virginia, she was called upon to make a cession of her western territorial claims to congress (see UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786) she compensated herself for the loss of the Susquehanna district by reserving from the cession "a tract of about the same length and width as the Wyoming grant, west of Pennsylvania, in northeastern Ohio …; and this was the tract known as the Western Reserve of Connecticut. It contained about 3,500,000 acres. … The unfortunate Wyoming settlers, deserted by their own State, and left to the mercy of rival claimants, had a hard time of it for years. The militia of the neighboring counties of Pennsylvania was mustered to enforce the writs of Pennsylvania courts; the property of the Connecticut men was destroyed, their fences were cast down, and their rights ignored; and the 'Pennamite and Yankee War' began. … The old Susquehanna Company was reorganized in 1785-86, and made ready to support its settlers by force. New Yankee faces came crowding into the disputed territory. Among them was Ethan Allen, and with him came some Green Mountain Boys." It was not until 1799 that the controversy came to an end, by the passage of an act which confirmed the title of the actual settlers.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1754.
Building of Fort Duquesne by the French.
The first armed collision in the western valley.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1754.
The Colonial Congress at Albany, and Franklin's Plan of Union.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1755.
   The opening of the French and Indian War.
   Braddock's defeat.
   The frontier ravaged.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1755-1760.
French and Indian War.
Conquest of Canada and the west.

See CANADA: A. D.1755, 1756, 1756-1757, 1758, 1759, 1760;
and NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1755.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1757-1762.
The question of taxation in dispute with the proprietaries.
Franklin's mission to England.

"For a long while past the relationship between the Penns, unworthy sons of the great William, and now the proprietaries, on the one side, and their quasi subjects, the people of the Province, upon the other, had been steadily becoming more and more strained, until something very like a crisis had [in 1757] been reached. As usual in English and Anglo-American communities, it was a quarrel over dollars, or rather over pounds sterling, a question of taxation, which was producing the alienation. At bottom, there was the trouble which always pertains to absenteeism; the proprietaries lived in England, and regarded their vast American estate, with about 200,000 white inhabitants, only as a source of revenue. … The chief point in dispute was, whether or not the waste lands, still directly owned by the proprietaries, and other lands let by them at quitrents, should be taxed in the same manner as like property of other owners. They refused to submit to such taxation; the Assembly of Burgesses insisted. In ordinary times the proprietaries prevailed; for the governor was their nominee and removable at their pleasure; they gave him general instructions to assent to no law taxing their holdings, and he naturally obeyed his masters. But since governors got their salaries only by virtue of a vote of the Assembly, it seems that they sometimes disregarded instructions, in the sacred cause of their own interests. After a while, therefore, the proprietaries, made shrewd by experience, devised the scheme of placing their unfortunate sub-rulers under bonds. This went far towards settling the matter. Yet in such a crisis and stress as were now present in the colony … it certainly seemed that the rich and idle proprietaries might stand on the same footing with their poor and laboring subjects. They lived comfortably in England upon revenues estimated to amount to the then enormous sum of £20,000 sterling; while the colonists were struggling under unusual losses, as well as enormous expenses, growing out of the war and Indian ravages. At such a time their parsimony, their 'incredible meanness,' as Franklin called it, was cruel as well as stupid. At last the Assembly flatly refused to raise any money unless the proprietaries should be burdened like the rest. All should pay together, or all should go to destruction together. The Penns too stood obstinate, facing the not less resolute Assembly. It was indeed a deadlock! Yet the times were such that neither party could afford to maintain its ground indefinitely. So a temporary arrangement was made, whereby of £60,000 sterling to be raised the proprietaries agreed to contribute £5,000, and the Assembly agreed to accept the same in lieu or commutation for their tax. But neither side abandoned its principle. Before long more money was needed, and the dispute was as fierce as ever. The burgesses now thought that it would be well to carry a statement of their case before the king in council and the lords of trade. In February, 1757, they named their speaker, Isaac Norris, and Franklin to be their emissaries 'to represent in England the unhappy situation of the Province,' and to seek redress by an act of Parliament. Norris, an aged man, begged to be excused; Franklin accepted. … A portion of his business also was to endeavor to induce the king to resume the Province of Pennsylvania as his own. A clause in the charter had reserved this right, which could be exercised on payment of a certain sum of money. The colonists now preferred to be an appanage of the crown rather than a fief of the Penns." In this latter object of his mission Franklin did not succeed; but he accomplished its main purpose, procuring, after long delays, from the board of trade, a decision which subjected the proprietary estate to its fair share of taxation. He returned home after an absence of five years.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1760-1767.
Settlement of the Maryland boundary dispute.
Mason and Dixon's line.

The decision of 1685 (see above), in the boundary dispute between the proprietaries of Pennsylvania and Maryland, "formed the basis of a settlement between the respective heirs of the two proprietaries in 1732. Three years afterward, the subject became a question in chancery; in 1750 the present boundaries were decreed by Lord Hardwicke; ten years later, they were, by agreement, more accurately defined; and, in 1761, commissioners began to designate the limit of Maryland on the side of Pennsylvania and Delaware. In 1763, Charles Mason and Jeremiah Dixon, two mathematicians and surveyors [sent over from England by the proprietaries], were engaged to mark the lines. In 1764, they entered upon their task, with good instruments and a corps of axe men; by the middle of June, 1765, they had traced the parallel of latitude to the Susquehannah; a year later, they climbed the Little Alleghany; in 1767, they carried forward their work, under an escort from the Six Nations, to an Indian war-path, 244 miles from the Delaware River. Others continued Mason and Dixon's line to the bound of Pennsylvania on the south-west."

G. Bancroft, History of the United States (Author's last revision), part 2, chapter 16.

"The east and west line which they [Mason and Dixon] ran and marked … is the Mason and Dixon's line of history, so long the boundary between the free and the slave States. Its precise latitude is 39° 43' 26.3" north. The Penns did not, therefore, gain the degree 39-40, but they did gain a zone one-fourth of a degree in width, south of the 40th degree, to their western limit, because the decision of 1760 controlled that of 1779, made with Virginia. … Pennsylvania is narrower by nearly three-fourths of a degree than the charter of 1681 contemplated. No doubt, however, the Penns considered the narrow strip gained at the south more valuable than the broad one lost at the north."

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1763-1766.
   The question of taxation by Parliament.
   The Sugar Act.
   The Stamp Act and its repeal.
   The Declaratory Act.
   The Stamp Act Congress.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1766-1768.
The Townshend duties.
The Circular Letter of Massachusetts.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1768.
The boundary treaty with the Six Nations at Fort Stanwix.

See BOSTON: A. D. 1768, to 1773;
and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1770, to 1774.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1774.
The western territorial claims of Virginia pursued.
Lord Dunmore's War with the Indians.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1775.
   The Beginning of the War of the American Revolution.
   Lexington.
   Concord.
   Action taken upon the news.
   Ticonderoga.
   Bunker Hill.
   The Second Continental Congress.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1776.
The end of royal and proprietary government.
Adoption of a State Constitution.

"Congress, on the 15th of May, 1776, recommended … 'the respective Assemblies and conventions of the United Colonies, where no government sufficient to the exigencies of their affairs has been hitherto established, to adopt such government as shall, in the opinion of the representatives of the people, best conduce to the happiness and safety of their constituents in particular, and America in general.' A diversity of opinion existed in the Province upon this resolution. … The Assembly referred the resolve of Congress to a committee, but took no further action, nor did the committee ever make a report. 'The old Assembly,' says Westcott, 'which had adjourned on the 14th of June, to meet on the 14th of August, could not obtain a quorum, and adjourned again to the 23d of September. It then interposed a feeble remonstrance against the invasion of its prerogatives by the Convention, but it was a dying protest. The Declaration of Independence had given the old State Government a mortal blow, and it soon expired without a sigh—thus ending forever the Proprietary and royal authority in Pennsylvania.' In the meantime, the Committee of Correspondence for Philadelphia issued a circular to all the county committees for a conference in that city on Tuesday, the 18th day of June. … The Conference at once unanimously resolved, 'That the present government of this Province is not competent to the exigencies of our affairs, and that it is necessary that a Provincial Convention be called by this Conference for the express purpose of forming a new government in this Province on the authority of the people only.' Acting upon these resolves, preparations were immediately taken to secure a proper representation in the Convention. … Every voter was obliged to take an oath of renunciation of the authority of George III., and one of allegiance to the State of Pennsylvania, and a religious test was prescribed for all members of the Convention. … The delegates to the Convention to frame a constitution for the new government consisted of the representative men of the State—men selected for their ability, patriotism, and personal popularity. They met at Philadelphia, on the 15th of July, … and organized by the selection of Benjamin Franklin, president, George Ross, vice-president, and John Morris and Jacob Garrigues, secretaries. … On the 28th of September, the Convention completed its labors by adopting the first State Constitution, which went into immediate effect, without a vote of the people. … The legislative power of the frame of government was vested in a General Assembly of one House, elected annually. The supreme executive power was vested in a President, chosen annually by the Assembly and Council, by joint ballot—the Council consisting of twelve persons, elected in classes, for a term of three years. A Council of Censors, consisting of two persons from each city and county, was to be elected in 1783, and in every seventh year thereafter, whose duty it was to make inquiry as to whether the Constitution had been preserved inviolate during the last septennary, and whether the executive or legislative branches of the government had performed their duties."

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1776-1777.
   The Declaration of Independence.
   The struggle for the Hudson and the Delaware.
   Battles of the Brandywine and Germantown.
   The British in Philadelphia.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 and 1777;
and PHILADELPHIA: A. D. 1777-1778.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1777-1779.
   The Articles of Confederation.
   The alliance with France.
   British evacuation of Philadelphia.
   The war on the northern border.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1780-1783.
   The treason of Arnold.
   The war in the south.
   Surrender of Cornwallis.
   Peace with Great Britain.

"In every part of the United States except Pennsylvania, and in by far the larger number of the counties of that state, the officers of the Federal Government had been able to carry the excise law [passed in March, 1791, on the recommendation of Hamilton], unpopular as it generally was, into execution; but resistance having been made in a few of the western counties, and their defiance of law increasing with the forbearance of the Government in that State, prosecutions had been ordered against the offenders. In July, the Marshal of the District, Lenox, who, was serving the process, and General Neville, the Inspector, were attacked by a body of armed men, and compelled to desist from the execution of their official duties. The next day, a much larger number, amounting to 500 men, assembled, and endeavored to seize the person of General Neyille. Failing in that, they exacted a promise from the Marshal that he would serve no more process on the west side of the Alleghany; and attacking the Inspector's house, they set fire to it, and destroyed it with its contents. On this occasion, the leader of the assailants was killed, and several of them wounded. Both the Inspector and Marshal were required to resign; but they refused, and sought safety in flight. {2507} A meeting was held a few days later, at Mingo Creek meeting-house, which recommended to all the townships in the four western counties of Pennsylvania, and the neighboring counties of Virginia, to meet, by their delegates, at Parkinson's ferry, on the Monongahela, on the 14th of August, 'to take into consideration the situation of the western country.' Three days after this meeting, a party of the malcontents seized the mail, carried it to Canonsburg, seven miles distant, and there opened the letters from Pittsburg to Philadelphia, to discover who were hostile to them. They then addressed a circular letter to the officers of the militia in the disaffected counties, informing them of the intercepted letters, and calling on them to rendezvous at Braddock's Field on the 1st of August, with arms in good order, and four days' provision. … This circular was signed by seven persons, but the prime mover was David Bradford, a lawyer, who was the prosecuting attorney of Washington County. In consequence of this summons, a large body of men, which has been estimated at from five to seven thousand, assembled at Braddock's Field on the day appointed. … Bradford took upon himself the military command, which was readily yielded to him. … Bradford proposed the expulsion from Pittsburg of several persons whose hostility had been discovered by the letters they had intercepted; but his motion was carried only as to two persons, Gibson and Neville, son of the Inspector. They then decided to proceed to Pittsburg. Some assented to this, to prevent the mischief which others meditated. But for this, and the liberal refreshments furnished by the people of Pittsburg, it was thought that the town would have been burnt. … The President issued a proclamation reciting the acts of treason, commanding the insurgents to disperse, and warning others against abetting them. He, at the same time, wishing to try lenient measures, appointed three Commissioners to repair to the scene of the insurrection, to confer with the insurgents, and to offer them pardon on condition of a satisfactory assurance of their future obedience to the laws. … Governor Mifflin followed the example of the President in appointing Commissioners to confer with the insurgents, with power to grant pardons, and he issued an admonitory proclamation, after which he convened the Legislature to meet on the 3d of November. The Federal and the State Commissioners reached the insurgent district while the convention at Parkinson's ferry was in session. It assembled on the 14th of August, and consisted of 226 delegates, all from the western counties of Pennsylvania, except six from Ohio County in Virginia. They appointed Cook their Chairman, and Albert Gallatin, Secretary, though he at first declined the appointment. … The Commissioners required … an explicit assurance of submission to the laws; a recommendation to their associates of a like submission; and meetings of the citizens to be held to confirm these assurances. All public prosecutions were to be suspended until the following July, when, if there had been no violation of the law in the interval, there should be a general amnesty. These terms were deemed reasonable by the subcommittee: but before the meeting of sixty took place, a body of armed men entered Brownsville, the place appointed for the meeting, and so alarmed the friends of accommodation, that they seemed to be driven from their purpose. Gallatin, however, was an exception; and the next day, he addressed the committee of sixty in favor of acceding to the proposals of the Commissioners; but nothing more could be effected than to pass a resolution that it would be to the interest of the people to accept those terms, without any promise or pledge of submission. … On the whole, it was the opinion of the well–disposed part of the population, that the inspection laws could not be executed in that part of the State; and that the interposition of the militia was indispensable. The Commissioners returned to Philadelphia, and on their report the President issued a second proclamation, on the 25th of September, in which he announced, the march of the militia, and again commanded obedience to the laws. The order requiring the militia to march was promptly obeyed in all the States except Pennsylvania, in which some pleaded defects in the militia law; but even in that State, after the Legislature met, the Governor was authorised to accept the services of volunteers. … The news that the militia were on the march increased the numbers of the moderate party. … Bradford, who was foremost in urging resistance to the law, was the first to seek safety in flight. He sought refuge in New Orleans. A second convention was called to meet at Parkinson's ferry on the second of October. A resolution of submission was passed, and a committee of two was appointed to convey it to the President at Carlisle. … On the return of the committee, the Parkinson ferry convention met for the third time, and resolutions were passed, declaring the sufficiency of the civil authorities to execute the laws; affirming that the excise duties would be paid, and recommending all delinquents to surrender themselves. … Lee, then, as Commander-in-chief, issued a proclamation granting an amnesty to all who had submitted to the laws; and calling upon the inhabitants to take the oath of allegiance to the United States. Orders were issued and executed to seize those offenders who had not signed the declaration of submission, and send them to Philadelphia; and thus was this purpose of resisting the execution of the excise law completely defeated, and entire order restored in less than four months from the time of the burning of Neville's house, which was the first overt act of resistance. It was, however, deemed prudent to retain a force of 2,500 militia during the winter, under General Morgan, to prevent a return of that spirit of disaffection which had so long prevailed in Pennsylvania."

      T. Ward,
      The Insurrection of 1794
      (Memoirs of Pennsylvania Historical Society, volume 6).

      J. B. McMaster,
      History of the People of the United States,
      chapter 9 (volume 2).

PENNY POSTAGE.

PENTAPOLIS IN AFRICA.

The five exercises of running, leaping, wrestling, throwing the diskos, and throwing the spear, formed what the Greeks called the pentathlon. "At the four great national festivals all these had to be gone through on one and the same day, and the prize was awarded to him only who had been victorious in all of them."

PEPIN.

"The peplum constituted the outermost covering of the body. Among the Greeks it was worn in common by both sexes, but was chiefly reserved for occasions of ceremony or of public appearance, and, as well in its texture as in its shape, seemed to answer to our shawl. When very long and ample, so as to admit of being wound twice round the body—first under the arms, and the second time over the shoulders—it assumed the name of diplax. In rainy or cold weather it was drawn over the head. At other times this peculiar mode of wearing it was expressive of humility or of grief."

PEQUOTS. PEQUOT WAR.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY, and SHAWANESE: also, NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1637.

"'Perduellis,' derived from 'duellum' e. q. 'bellum,' properly speaking signifies 'a public enemy,' and hence Perduellio was employed [among the Romans] in legal phraseology to denote the crime of hostility to one's native country, and is usually represented as corresponding, in a general sense, to our term High Treason."

PEREGRINI.

"The term 'Peregrinus,' with which in early times 'Hostis' (i. e. stranger) was synonymous, embraced, in its widest acceptation, everyone possessed of personal freedom who was not a Civis Romanus. Generally, however, Peregrinus was not applied to all foreigners indiscriminately, but to those persons only, who, although not Cives, were connected with Rome."

PERGAMUM, PERGAMUS.

This ancient city in northwestern Asia Minor, within the province of Mysia, on the north of the river Caïcus, became, during the troubled century that followed the death of Alexander, first the seat of an important principality, and then the capital of a rich and flourishing kingdom, to which it gave its name. It seems to have owed its fortunes to a great deposit of treasures—part of the plunder of Asia—which Lysimachus, one of the generals and successors of Alexander, left for safe keeping within its walls, under the care of an eunuch, named Philetærus. This Philetærus found excuses, after a time, for renouncing allegiance to Lysimachus, appropriating the treasures and using them to make himself lord of Pergamum. He was succeeded by a nephew, Eumenes, and he in turn by his cousin Attalus. The latter, "who had succeeded to the possession of Pergamum in 241 [B. C.], met and vanquished the Galatians in a great battle, which gave him such popularity that he was able to assume the title of king, and extend his influence far beyond his inherited dominion. … The court of Pergamum continued to flourish till it controlled the larger part of Asia Minor. In his long reign this king represented almost as much as the King of Egypt the art and culture of Hellenism. His great victory over the Galatians was celebrated by the dedication of so many splendid offerings to various shrines, that the Pergamene school made a distinct impression upon the world's taste. Critics have enumerated seventeen remaining types, which appear to have come from statues of that time—the best known is the so–called 'Dying Gladiator,' who is really a dying Galatian. … Perhaps the literature of the court was even more remarkable. Starting on the model of Alexandria, with a great library, Attalus was far more fortunate than the Ptolemies in making his university the home of Stoic philosophy."

From the assumption of the crown by Attalus I. the kingdom of Pergamus existed about a century. Its last king bequeathed it to the Romans in 133 B. C. and it became a Roman province. Its splendid library of 200,000 volumes was given to Cleopatra a century later by Antony, and was added to that of Alexandria. The name of the city is perpetuated in the word parchment, which is derived therefrom. Its ruins are found at a place called Bergamah.

      See, also,
      SELEUCIDÆ; B. C. 224-187;
      ALEXANDRIA: B. C. 282-246;
      and ROME: B. C. 47-46.

PERIPLUS.

The term periplus, in the usage of Greek and Roman writers, signified a voyage round the coast of some sea. Example: "The Periplus of the Erythrean Sea."

"The name 'Perizzites,' where mentioned in the Bible, is not meant to designate any particular race, but country people, in contradistinction to those dwelling in towns."

PERMANENT SETTLEMENT OF BENGAL LAND REVENUE.

"There had dwelt in the valley of the Peneus [Thessaly] from the earliest times a Pelasgic nation, which offered up thanks to the gods for the possession of so fruitful a territory at the festival of Peloria. … Larissa was the ancient capital of this nation. But at a very early time the primitive inhabitants were either expelled or reduced to subjection by more northern tribes. Those who had retired into the mountains became the Perrhæbian nation, and always retained a certain degree of independence. In the Homeric catalogue the Perrhæbians are mentioned as dwelling on the hill Cyphus, under Olympus."

Dr. Curtius is of the opinion that the Dorians were a subdivision of the Perrhæbians.

PERSARGADÆ.

PERSARMENIA.

   While the Persians possessed Armenia Major, east of the
   Euphrates, and the Romans held Armenia Minor, west of that
   river, the former region was sometimes called Persarmenia.

See ROME: A. D. 64-68; 96-138; 192-284; 303-305; and CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 100-312.

Although Persepolis was surrendered to him on his approach to it (B. C. 331), Alexander the Great determined to destroy the city. "In this their home the Persian kings had accumulated their national edifices, their regal sepulchres, the inscriptions commemorative of their religious or legendary sentiment, with many trophies and acquisitions arising out of their conquests. For the purposes of the Great King's empire, Babylon, or Susa, or Ekbatana, were more central and convenient residences; but Persepolis was still regarded as the heart of Persian nationality. It was the chief magazine, though not the only one, of those annual accumulations from the imperial revenue, which each king successively increased, and which none seems to have ever diminished. … After appropriating the regal treasure—to the alleged amount of 120,000 talents in gold and silver (=£27,600,000 sterling) —Alexander set fire to the citadel. … The persons and property of the inhabitants were abandoned to the licence of the soldiers, who obtained an immense booty, not merely in gold and silver, but also in rich clothing, furniture, and ostentatious ornaments of every kind. The male inhabitants were slain, the females dragged into servitude; except such as obtained safety by flight, or burned themselves with their property in their own houses."

"Persia Proper seems to have corresponded nearly to that province of the modern Iran which still bears the ancient name slightly modified, being called Farsistan or Fars. … Persia Proper lay upon the gulf to which it has given name, extending from the mouth of the Tab (Oroatis) to the point where the gulf joins the Indian Ocean. It was bounded on the west by Susiana, on the north by Media Magna, on the east by Mycia, and on the south by the sea. Its length seems to have been about 450, and its average width about 250 miles. … The earliest known capital of the region was Pasargadæ, or Persagadæ, as the name is sometimes written, of which the ruins still exist near Murgab, in latitude 30° 15', longitude 53° 17'. Here is the famous tomb of Cyrus. … At the distance of thirty miles from Pasargadæ, or of more than forty by the ordinary road, grew up the second capital, Persepolis. … The Empire, which, commencing from Persia Proper, spread itself, toward the close of the sixth century before Christ, over the surrounding tracts, [extended from the Caspian Sea and the Indian Desert to the Mediterranean and the Propontis]. … The earliest appearance of the Persians in history is in the inscriptions of the Assyrian kings, which begin to notice them about the middle of the ninth century, B. C. At this time Shalmanezer II. [the Assyrian king] found them in south-western Armenia, where they were in close contact with the Medes, of whom, however, they seem to have been wholly independent. … It is not until the reign of Sennacherib that we once more find them brought into contact with the power which aspired to be mistress of Asia. At the time of their re-appearance they are no longer in Armenia, but have descended the line of Zagros and reached the districts which lie north and north-east of Susiana. … It is probable that they did not settle into an organized monarchy much before the fall of Nineveh. … The history of the Persian 'Empire' dates from the conquest of Astyages [the Median king] by Cyrus, and therefore commences with the year B. C. 558 [or, according to Sayce, B. C. 549 —see below]."

PERSIA: B. C. 549-521.
   The founding of the empire by Cyrus the Great, King of Elam.
   His conquest of Media, Persia, Lydia, and Babylonia.
   The restoration of the Jews.
   Conquest of Egypt by Kambyses.

"It was in B. C. 549 that Astyages was overthrown [see MEDIA]. On his march against Kyros [Cyrus] his own soldiers, drawn probably from his Aryan subjects, revolted against him and gave him into the hands of his enemy. 'The land of Ekbatana and the royal city' were ravaged and plundered by the conqueror; the Aryan Medes at once acknowledged the supremacy of Kyros, and the empire of Kyaxares was destroyed. Some time, however, was still needed to complete the conquest; the older Medic population still held out in the more distant regions of the empire, and probably received encouragement and promises of help from Babylonia. In B. C. 546, however, Kyros marched from Arbela, crossed the Tigris, and destroyed the last relics of Median independence. … The following year saw the opening of the campaign against Babylonia [see BABYLONIA: B. C. 625-539]. But the Babylonian army, encamped near Sippara, formed a barrier which the Persians were unable to overcome; and trusting, therefore, to undermine the power of Nabonidos by secret intrigues with his subjects, Kyros proceeded against Krœsos. A single campaign sufficed to capture Sardes and its monarch, and to add Asia Minor to the Persian dominions [see LYDIANS, and ASIA MINOR: B. C. 724-539]. The Persian conqueror was now free to attack Babylonia. Here his intrigues were already bearing fruit. The Jewish exiles were anxiously expecting him to redeem them from captivity, and the tribes on the sea coast were ready to welcome a new master. In B. C. 538 the blow was struck. The Persian army entered Babylonia from the south. The army of Nabonidos was defeated at Rata in June; on the 14th of that month Sippara opened its gates, and two days later Gobryas, the Persian general, marched into Babylon itself 'without battle and fighting.' … In October Kyros himself entered his new capital in triumph."

"The history of the downfall of the great Babylonian Empire, and of the causes, humanly speaking, which brought about a restoration of the Jews, has recently been revealed to us by the progress of Assyrian discovery. We now possess the account given by Cyrus himself, of the overthrow of Nabonidos, the Babylonian king, and of the conqueror's permission to the captives in Babylonia to return to their homes. The account is contained in two documents, written, like most other Assyrian and Babylonian records, upon clay, and lately brought from Babylonia to England by Mr. Rassam. One of these documents is a tablet which chronicles the events of each year in the reign of Nabonidos, the last Babylonian monarch, and continues the history into the first year of Cyrus, as king of Babylon. The other is a cylinder, on which Cyrus glorifies himself and his son Kambyses, and professes his adherence to the worship of Bel-Merodach, the patron-god of Babylon. The tablet-inscription is, unfortunately, somewhat mutilated, especially at the beginning and the end, and little can be made out of the annals of the first five years of Nabonidos, except that he was occupied with disturbances in Syria. In the sixth year the record becomes clear and continuous. … The inscriptions … present us with an account of the overthrow of the Babylonian Empire, which is in many important respects very different from that handed down to us by classical writers. We possess in them the contemporaneous account of one who was the chief actor in the events he records, and have ceased to be dependent upon Greek and Latin writers, who could not read a single cuneiform character, and were separated by a long lapse of time from the age of Nabonidos and Cyrus. Perhaps the first fact which will strike the mind of the reader with astonishment is that Cyrus does not call himself and his ancestors kings of Persia, but of Elam. The word used is Anzan or Ansan, which an old Babylonian geographical tablet explains as the native name of the country which the Assyrians and Hebrews called Elam. This statement is verified by early inscriptions found at Susa and other places in the neighbourhood, and belonging to the ancient monarchs of Elam, who contended on equal terms with Babylonia and Assyria until they were at last conquered by the Assyrian king Assur-bani-pal, and their country made an Assyrian province. In these inscriptions they take the imperial title of 'king of Anzan.' The annalistic tablet lets us see when Cyrus first became king of Persia. In the sixth year of Nabonidos (B. C. 549) Cyrus is still king of Elam; in the ninth year he has become king of Persia. Between these two years, therefore, he must have gained possession of Persia either by conquest or in some peaceable way. When he overthrew Astyages his rule did not as yet extend so far. At the same time Cyrus must have been of Persian descent, since he traces his ancestry back to Teispes, whom Darius, the son of Hystaspes, in his great inscription on the sacred rock of Behistun, claims as his own forefather. … The fact that Susa or Shushan was the original capital of Cyrus explains why it remained the leading city of the Persian Empire; and we can also now understand why it is that in Isaiah xxi. 2, the prophet bids Elam and Media, and not Persia and Media, 'go up' against Babylon. That Cyrus was an Elamite, however, is not the only startling revelation which the newly-discovered inscriptions have made to us. We learn from them that he was a polytheist who worshipped Bel-Merodach and Nebo, and paid public homage to the deities of Babylon. We have learned a similar fact in regard to his son Kambyses from the Egyptian monuments. These have shown us that the account of the murder of the sacred bull Apis by Kambyses given by Herodotus is a fiction; a tablet accompanying the huge granite sarcophagus of the very bull he was supposed to have wounded has been found with the image of Kambyses sculptured upon it kneeling before the Egyptian god. The belief that Cyrus was a monotheist grew out of the belief that he was a Persian, and, like other Persians, a follower of the Zoroastrian faith; there is nothing in Scripture to warrant it. Cyrus was God's shepherd only because he was His chosen instrument in bringing about the restoration of Israel. … The first work of Cyrus was to ingratiate himself with the conquered population by affecting a show of zeal and piety towards their gods, and with the nations which had been kept in captivity in Babylonia, by sending them and their deities back to their homes. {2511} Among these nations were the Jews, who had perhaps assisted the king of Elam in his attack upon Nabonidos. Experience had taught Cyrus the danger of allowing a disaffected people to live in the country of their conquerors. He therefore reversed the old policy of the Assyrian and Babylonian kings, which consisted in transporting the larger portion of a conquered population to another country, and sought instead to win their gratitude and affection by allowing them to return to their native lands. He saw, moreover, that the Jews, if restored from exile, would not only protect the southwestern corner of his empire from the Egyptians, but would form a base for his intended invasion of Egypt itself. … The number of exiles who took advantage of the edict of Cyrus, and accompanied Zerubbabel to Jerusalem, amounted to 42,360. It is probable, however, that this means only the heads of families; if so, the whole body of those who left Babylon, including women and children, would have been about 200,000. … The conquest of Babylonia by Cyrus took place in the year 538 B. C. He was already master of Persia, Media, and Lydia; and the overthrow of the empire of Nebuchadnezzar extended his dominions from the mountains of the Hindu Kush on the east to the shores of the Mediterranean on the west. Egypt alone of the older empires of the Oriental world remained independent, but its doom could not be long delayed. The career of Cyrus had indeed been marvellous. He had begun as the king only of Anzan or Elam, whose power seemed but 'small' and contemptible to his neighbour the great Babylonian monarch. But his victory over the Median king Astyages and the destruction of the Median Empire made him at once one of the most formidable princes in Western Asia. Henceforth the seat of his power was moved from Susa or Shushan to Ekbatana, called Achmetha in Scripture, Hagmatan in Persian, the capital of Media. … The conquest of Media was quickly followed by that of Persia, which appears to have been under the government of a collateral branch of the family of Cyrus. Henceforward the king of Elam becomes also the king of Persia. The empire of Lydia, which extended over the greater part of Asia Minor, fell before the army of Cyrus about B. C. 540. … The latter years of the life of Cyrus were spent in extending and consolidating his power among the wild tribes and unknown regions of the Far East. When he died, all was ready for the threatened invasion of Egypt. This was carried out by his son and successor Kambyses, who had been made 'king of Babylon' three years before his father's death, Cyrus reserving to himself the imperial title of 'King of the world.' … As soon as Kambyses became sole sovereign, Babylon necessarily took rank with Shushan and Ekbatana. It was the third centre of the great empire, and in later days the Persian monarchs were accustomed to make it their official residence during the winter season. … Kambyses was so fascinated by his new province that he refused to leave it. The greater part of his reign was spent in Egypt, where he so thoroughly established his power and influence that it was the only part of the empire which did not rise in revolt at his death. … Soon after his father's death he stained his hands with the blood of his brother Bardes, called Smerdis by Herodotus, to whom Cyrus had assigned the eastern part of his empire. Bardes was put to death secretly at Susa, it is said. … A Magian, Gaumata or Gomates by name, who resembled Bardes in appearance, came forward to personate the murdered prince, and Persia, Media, and other provinces at once broke into rebellion against their long-absent king. When the news of this revolt reached Kambyses he appointed Aryandes' satrap of Egypt, and, if we may believe the Greek accounts, set out to oppose the usurper. He had not proceeded far, however, before he fell by his own hand. The false Bardes was now master of the empire. Darius, in his inscription on the rock of Behistun, tells us that 'he put to death many people who had known Bardes, to prevent its being known that he was not Bardes, son of Cyrus.' At the same time he remitted the taxes paid by the provinces, and proclaimed freedom for three years from military service. But he had not reigned more than seven months before a conspiracy was formed against him. Darius, son of Hystaspes, attacked him at the head of the conspirators, in the land of Nisæa in Media, and there slew him, on the 10th day of April, B. C. 521. Darius, like Kambyses, belonged to the royal Persian race of Akhæmenes."

      A. H. Sayce,
      Introduction to the Books of Ezra, Nehemiah and Esther,
      chapters 1 and 3.

PERSIA: B. C. 521-493.
   The reign of Darius I.
   His Indian and Scythian expeditions.
   The Ionian revolt and its suppression.
   Aid given to the insurgents by Athens.

   "Darius I., the son of Hystaspes, is rightly regarded as the
   second founder of the Persian empire. His reign is dated from
   the first day of the year answering to B. C. 521; and it
   lasted 36 years, to December 23, B. C. 486. … Throughout the
   Behistun Inscription Darius represents himself as the
   hereditary champion of the Achaemenids, against Gomates and
   all other rebels. … It is 'by the grace of Ormazd' that he
   does everything. … This restoration of the Zoroastrian
   worship, and the putting down of several rebellions, are the
   matters recorded in the great trilingual inscription at
   Behistun, which Sir Henry Rawlinson dates, from internal
   evidence, in the sixth year of Darius (B. C. 516). … The
   empire of which Darius became king embraced, as he says, the
   following provinces: 'Persia, Susiana, Babylonia, Assyria,
   Arabia, Egypt; those which are of the sea (the islands),
   Saparda, Ionia, Media, Armenia, Cappadocia, Parthia, Zarangia,
   Aria, Chorasmia, Bactria, Sogdiana, Gandaria, the Sacae,
   Sattagydia, Arachotia, and Mecia: in all twenty-three
   provinces.' … All the central provinces constituting the
   original empire, from the mountains of Armenia to the head of
   the Persian Gulf, as well as several of those of the Iranian
   table-land, had to be reconquered. … Having thus restored the
   empire, Darius pursued new military expeditions and conquests
   in the true spirit of its founder. To the energy of youth was
   added the fear that quiet might breed new revolts; and by such
   motives, if we may believe Herodotus, he was urged by Queen
   Atossa —at the instigation of the Greek physician,
   Democedes—to the conquest of Greece; while he himself was
   minded to construct a bridge which should join Asia to Europe,
   and so to carry war into Scythia.
{2512}
   It seems to have been according to an Oriental idea of right,
   and not as a mere pretext, that he claimed to punish the
   Scythians for their invasion of Media in the time of Cyaxares.
   So he contented himself, for the present, with sending spies
   to Greece under the guidance of Democedes, and with the
   reduction of Samos. The Scythian expedition, however, appears
   to have been preceded by the extension of the empire eastward
   from the mountains of Afghanistan—the limit reached by Cyrus—
   over the valley of the Indus. … The part of India thus added
   to the empire, including the Punjab and apparently Scinde,
   yielded a tribute exceeding that of any other province. … The
   Scythian Expedition of Darius occupies the greater part of the
   Fourth Book of Herodotus. … The great result of the
   expedition, in which the king and his army narrowly escaped
   destruction, was the gaining of a permanent footing in Europe
   by the conquest of Thrace and the submission of Macedonia. …
   It was probably in B. C. 508 that Darius, having collected a
   fleet of 600 ships from the Greeks of Asia, and an army of
   700,000 or 800,000 men from an the nations of his empire,
   crossed the Hellespont by a bridge of boats, and marched to
   the Danube, conquering on his way the Thracians within, and
   the Getæ beyond, the Great Balkan. The Danube was crossed by a
   bridge formed of the vessels of the Ionians, just above the
   apex of its Delta. The confusion in the geography of Herodotus
   makes it as difficult as it is unprofitable to trace the
   direction and extent of the march, which Herodotus carries
   beyond the Tanais (Don), and probably as far north as 50° lat.
   The Scythians retreated before Darius, avoiding a pitched
   battle, and using every stratagem to detain the Persians in
   the country till they should perish from famine." Darius
   retreated in time to save his army. "Leaving his sick behind,
   with the campfires lighted and the asses tethered, to make the
   enemy believe that he was still in their front, he retreated
   in the night. The pursuing Scythians missed his line of march,
   and came first to the place where the Ionian ships bridged the
   Danube. Failing to persuade the Greek generals to break by the
   same act both the bridge and the yoke of Darius, they marched
   back to encounter the Persian army. But their own previous
   destruction of the wells led them into a different route; and
   Darius got safe, but with difficulty, to the Danube. … The
   Hellespont was crossed by means of the fleet with which the
   strait had been guarded by Megabazus, or, more probably,
   Megabyzus; and the second opportunity was barred against a
   rising of the Greek colonies. … He left Megabazus in Europe
   with 80,000 troops to complete the reduction of all Thrace."
   Megabazus not only executed this commission, but reduced the
   kingdom of Macedonia to vassalage before returning to his
   master, in B. C. 506.

"Darius returned to Susa, leaving the western provinces in profound peace under the government of his brother Artaphernes. A trifling incident lighted the flame of rebellion. One of those political conflicts, which we have seen occurring throughout Greece, broke out in Naxos, an island of the Cyclades (B. C. 502). The exiles of the oligarchical party applied for aid to Aristagoras, the tyrant of Miletus, who persuaded Artaphernes to send an expedition against Naxos. The Persian commander, incensed by the interference of Aristagoras on a point of discipline, warned the Naxians, and so caused the failure of the expedition and ruined the credit of Aristagoras, who saw no course open to him but revolt. … With the consent of the Milesian citizens, Aristagoras seized the tyrants who were on board of the fleet that had returned from Naxos; he laid down his own power; popular governments were proclaimed in all the cities and islands; and Ionia revolted from Darius (B. C. 501). Aristagoras went to Sparta … and tried to tempt the king, Cleomenes, by displaying the greatness of the Persian empire; but his admission that Susa was three months' journey from the sea ruined his cause. He had better success at Athens; for the Athenians knew that Artaphernes had been made their enemy by Hippias. They voted twenty ships in aid of the Ionians, and the squadron was increased by five ships of the Eretrians. Having united with the Ionian fleet, they disembarked at Ephesus, marched up the country, and surprised Sardis, which was accidentally burnt during the pillage. Their forces were utterly inadequate to hold the city; and their return was not effected without a severe defeat by the pursuing army. The Athenians reembarked and sailed home, while the Ionians dispersed to their cities to make those preparations which should have preceded the attack. Their powerful fleet gained for them the adhesion of the Hellespontine cities as far as Byzantium, of Caria, Caunus, and Cyprus; but this island was recovered by the Persians within a year. The Ionians protracted the insurrection for six years. Their cause was early abandoned by Aristagoras, who fled to the coast of Thrace and there perished. … The fate of the revolt turned at last on the siege of Miletus. The city was protected by the Ionian fleet, for which the Phoenician navy of Artaphernes was no match. But there was fatal disunion and want of discipline on board, and the defection of the Samians gave the Persians an easy victory off Lade (B. C. 495). Miletus suffered the worst horrors of a storm, and the other cities and islands were treated with scarcely less severity. This third subjugation of Ionia inflicted the most lasting blow on the prosperity of the colonies (B. C. 493). Throughout his narrative of these events, Herodotus declares his opinion of the impolicy of the interference of the Athenians. The ships they voted, he says, were the beginning of evils both to the Greeks and the barbarians. When the news of the burning of Sardis was brought to Darius, he called for his bow, and shot an arrow towards the sky, with a prayer to Auramazda for help to revenge himself on the Athenians. Then he bade one of his servants repeat to him thrice, as he sat down to dinner, the words, 'Master, remember the Athenians.' Upon the suppression of the Ionian revolt, he appointed his son-in-law Mardonius to succeed Artaphernes, enjoining him to bring these insolent Athenians and Eretrians to Susa."

PERSIA: B. C. 492-491.
First expedition against Greece and its failure.
Wrathful preparations of the king for subjugation of the Greeks.

PERSIA: B. C. 486-405.
   From Xerxes I. to Artaxerxes II.
   The disastrous invasion of Greece.
   Loss of Egypt.
   Recovery of Asia Minor.
   Decay of the empire.

"Xerxes I, who succeeded Darius, B. C. 486, commenced his reign by the reduction of Egypt, B. C. 485, which he entrusted to his brother, Achæmenes. He then provoked and chastised a rebellion of the Babylonians, enriching himself with the plunder of their temples. After this he turned his attention to the invasion of Greece [where he experienced the disastrous defeats of Salamis, Platæa and Mycale.

… It was now the turn of the Greeks to retaliate on their prostrate foe. First under the lead of Sparta and then under that of Athens they freed the islands of the Ægean from the Persian yoke, expelled the Persian garrisons from Europe, and even ravaged the Asiatic coast and made descents on it at their pleasure. For twelve years no Persian fleet ventured to dispute with them the sovereignty of the seas; and when at last, in B. C. 466, a naval force was collected to protect Cilicia and Cyprus, it was defeated and destroyed by Cimon at the Eurymedon.

Soon after this Xerxes' reign came to an end. This weak prince, … on his return to Asia, found consolation for his military failure in the delights of the seraglio, and ceased to trouble himself much about affairs of State. … The bloody and licentious deeds which stain the whole of the later Persian history commence with Xerxes, who suffered the natural penalty of his follies and his crimes when, after reigning twenty years, he was murdered by the captain of his guard, Artabanus, and Aspamitres, his chamberlain. … Artabanus placed on the throne the youngest son of Xerxes, Artaxerxes I [B. C. 465]. … The eldest son, Darius, accused by Artabanus of his father's assassination, was executed; the second, Hystaspes, who was satrap of Bactria, claimed the crown; and, attempting to enforce his claim, was defeated and slain in battle. About the same time the crimes of Artabanus were discovered, and he was put to death. Artaxerxes then reigned quietly for nearly forty years. He was a mild prince, possessed of several good qualities; but the weakness of his character caused a rapid declension of the empire under his sway. The revolt of Egypt [B. C. 460-455] was indeed suppressed after a while, through the vigorous measures of the satrap of Syria, Megabyzus; and the Athenians, who had fomented it, were punished by the complete destruction of their fleet, and the loss of almost all their men.

… Bent on recovering her prestige, Athens, in B. C. 449, despatched a fleet to the Levant, under Cimon, which sailed to Cyprus and laid siege to Citium. There Cimon died; but the fleet, which had been under his orders, attacked and completely defeated a large Persian armament off Salamis, besides detaching a squadron to assist Amyrtæus, who still held out in the Delta. Persia, dreading the loss of Cyprus and Egypt, consented to an inglorious peace [the much disputed 'Peace of Cimon,' or 'Peace of Callias'

… Scarcely less damaging to Persia was the revolt of Megabyzus, which followed. This powerful noble … excited a rebellion in Syria [B. C. 447], and so alarmed Artaxerxes that he was allowed to dictate the terms on which he would consent to be reconciled to his sovereign. An example was thus set of successful rebellion on the part of a satrap, which could not but have disastrous consequences. … The disorders of the court continued, and indeed increased, under Artaxerxes I, who allowed his mother Amestris, and his sister Amytis, who was married to Megabyzus, to indulge freely the cruelty and licentiousness of their dispositions. Artaxerxes died B. C. 425, and left his crown to his only legitimate son, Xerxes II. Revolutions in the government now succeeded each other with great rapidity. Xerxes. II, after reigning forty-five days, was assassinated by his half-brother, Secydianus, or Sogdianus, an illegitimate son of Artaxerxes, who seized the throne, but was murdered in his turn, after a reign of six months and a half, by another brother, Ochus. Ochus, on ascending the throne, took the name of Darius, and is known in history as Darius Nothus. He was married to Parysatis, his aunt, a daughter of Xerxes I., and reigned nineteen years, B. C. 424-405, under her tutelage. His reign … was on the whole disastrous. Revolt succeeded to revolt; and, though most of the insurrections were quelled, it was at the cost of what remained of Persian honour and self-respect. Corruption was used instead of force against the rebellious armies. … The revolts of satraps were followed by national outbreaks, which, though sometimes quelled, were in other instances successful. In B. C. 408, the Medes, who had patiently acquiesced in Persian rule for more than a century, made an effort to shake off the yoke, but were defeated and reduced to subjection. Three years later, B. C. 405, Egypt once more rebelled, under Nepherites, and succeeded in establishing its independence. The Persians were expelled from Africa, and a native prince seated himself on the throne of the Pharaohs. It was some compensation for this loss, and perhaps for others towards the north and north-east of the empire, that in Asia Minor the authority of the Great King was once more established over the Greek cities. It was the Peloponnesian War, rather than the Peace of Callias, which had prevented any collision between the great powers of Europe and Asia for 37 years. Both Athens and Sparta had their hands full; and though it might have been expected that Persia would have at once taken advantage of the quarrel to reclaim at least her lost continental dominion, yet she seems to have refrained, through moderation or fear, until the Athenian disasters in Sicily encouraged her to make an effort. She then invited the Spartans to Asia, and by the treaties which she concluded with them, and the aid which she gave them, reacquired without a struggle all the Greek cities of the coast [B. C. 412]. … Darius Nothus died B. C. 405, and was succeeded by his eldest son, Arsaces, who on his accession took the name of Artaxerxes. Artaxerxes II, called by the Greeks Mnemon, on account of the excellence of his memory, had from the very first a rival in his brother Cyrus."

      ALSO IN:
      G. Rawlinson,
      The Five Great Monarchies,
      volume 3: Persia, chapter 7.

PERSIA: B. C. 413.
   Tribute again demanded from the Greek cities in Asia Minor.
   Hostility to Athens.
   Subsidies to her enemies.

PERSIA: B. C. 401-400. The expedition of Cyrus the Younger, and the Retreat of the Ten Thousand.

Cyrus the Younger, so called to distinguish him from the great founder of the Persian empire, was the second son of Darius Nothus, king of Persia, and expected to succeed his father on the throne through the influence of his mother, Parysatis. During his father's life he was appointed satrap of Lydia, Phrygia and Cappadocia, with supreme military command in all Asia Minor. On the death of Darius, B. C. 404, Cyrus found himself thwarted in his hopes of the succession, and laid plans at once for overthrowing the elder brother, Artaxerxes, who had heen placed on the throne. He had acquired an extensive acquaintance with the Greeks and had had much to do with them, in his administration of Asia Minor, during the Peloponnesian War. That acquaintance had produced in his mind a great opinion of their invincible qualities in war, and had shown him the practicability of forming, with the means which he commanded, a compact army of Greek mercenaries which no Persian force could withstand. He executed his plan of gathering such a column of Greek soldiers, without awakening his brother's suspicions, and set out upon his expedition from Sardes to Susa, in March B. C. 401. As he advanced, finding himself unopposed, the troops of Artaxerxes retreating before him, he and his Asiatic followers grew rash in their confidence, and careless of discipline and order. Hence it happened that when the threatened Persian monarch did confront them, with a great army, at Cunaxa, on the Euphrates, in Babylonia, they were taken by surprise and routed, and the pretender, Cyrus, was slain on the field. The Greeks—who numbered about 13,000, but whose ranks were soon thinned and who are famous in history as the Ten Thousand,—stood unshaken, and felt still equal to the conquest of the Persian capital, if any object in advancing upon it had remained to them. But the death of Cyrus left them in a strange situation,—deserted by every Asiatic ally, without supplies, without knowledge of the country, in the midst of a hostile population. Their own commander, moreover, had been slain, and no one held authority over them. But they possessed what no other people of their time could claim—the capacity for self-control. They chose from their ranks a general, the Athenian Xenophon, and endowed him with all necessary powers. Then they set their faces homewards, in a long retreat from the lower Euphrates to the Euxine, from the Euxine to the Bosporus, and so into Greece. "Although this eight months' military expedition possesses no immediate significance for political history, yet it is of high importance, not only for our knowledge of the East, but also for that of the Greek character; and the accurate description which we owe to Xenophon is therefore one of the most valuable documents of antiquity. … This army is a typical chart, in many colours, of the Greek population—a picture, on a small scale, of the whole people, with all its virtues and faults, its qualities of strength and its qualities of weakness, a wandering political community which, according to home usage, holds its assemblies and passes its resolutions, and at the same time a wild and not easily manageable hand of free–lances. … And how very remarkable it is, that in this mixed multitude of Greeks it is an Athenian who by his qualities towers above all the rest, and becomes the real preserver of the entire army! The Athenian Xenophon had only accompanied the expedition as a volunteer, having been introduced by Proxenus to Cyrus, and thereupon moved by his sense of honour to abide with the man whose great talents he admired. … The Athenian alone possessed that superiority of culture which was necessary for giving order and self-control to the band of warriors, barbarized by their selfish life, and for enabling him to serve them in the greatest variety of situations as spokesman, as general, and as negotiator; and to him it was essentially due that, in spite of their unspeakable trials, through hostile tribes and desolate snow-ranges, 8,000 Greeks after all, by wanderings many and devious, in the end reached the coast. They fancied themselves safe when, at the beginning of March, they had reached the sea at Trapezus. But their greatest difficulties were only to begin here, where they first again came into contact with Greeks." Sparta, then supreme in Greece, feared to offend the Great King by showing any friendliness to this fugitive remnant of the unfortunate expedition of Cyrus. The gates of her cities were coldly shut against them, and they were driven to enter the service of a Thracian prince, in order to obtain subsistence. But another year found Sparta involved in war with Persia, and the surviving Cyreans, as they came to be called, were then summoned to Asia Minor for a new campaign against the enemy they hated most.

PERSIA: B. C. 399-387.
    War with Sparta.
    Alliance with Athens, Thebes, Corinth and Argos.
    The Peace of Antalcidas.
    Recovery of Ionian cities.

PERSIA: B. C. 366.
Intervention in Greece solicited by Thebes.
The Great King's rescript.

PERSIA: B. C. 323-150.
Under the Successors of Alexander.
In the empire of the Seleucidæ.

PERSIA: B. C. 150-A. D. 226.
   Embraced in the Parthian empire.
   Recovery of national independence.
   Rise of the Sassanian monarchy.

   "About B. C. 163, an energetic [Parthian] prince, Mithridates
   I., commenced a series of conquests towards the West, which
   terminated (about B. C. 150) in the transference from the
   Syro-Macedonian to the Parthian rule of Media Magna, Susiana,
   Persia, Babylonia, and Assyria Proper. It would seem that the
   Persians offered no resistance to the progress of the new
   conqueror. … The treatment of the Persians by their Parthian
   lords seems, on the whole, to have been marked by moderation.
   … It was a principle of the Parthian governmental system to
   allow the subject peoples, to a large extent, to govern
   themselves.
{2515}
   These people generally, and notably the Persians, were ruled
   by native kings, who succeeded to the throne by hereditary
   right, had the full power of life and death, and ruled very
   much as they pleased, so long as they paid regularly the
   tribute imposed upon them by the 'King of Kings,' and sent him
   a respectable contingent when he was about to engage in a
   military expedition."

"The formidable power of the Parthians … was in its turn subverted by Ardshir, or Artaxerxes, the founder of a new dynasty, which, under the name of Sassanides [see SASSANIAN DYNASTY], governed Persia till the invasion of the Arabs. This great revolution, whose fatal influence was soon experienced by the Romans, happened in the fourth year of Alexander Severus [A. D. 226]. … Artaxerxes had served with great reputation in the armies of Artaban, the last king of the Parthians; and it appears that he was driven into exile and rebellion by royal ingratitude, the customary reward for superior merit. His birth was obscure, and the obscurity equally gave room to the aspersions of his enemies and the flattery of his adherents. If we credit the scandal of the former, Artaxerxes sprang from the illegitimate commerce of a tanner's wife with a common soldier. The latter represents him as descended from a branch of the ancient kings of Persia. … As the lineal heir of the monarchy, he asserted his right to the throne, and challenged the noble task of delivering the Persians from the oppression under which they groaned above five centuries, since the death of Darius. The Parthians were defeated in three great battles. In the last of these their king Artaban was slain, and the spirit of the nation was for ever broken. The authority of Artaxerxes was solemnly acknowledged in a great assembly held at Balkh in Khorasun."

The revolution in Asia which subverted the Parthian empire and brought into existence a new Persian monarchy—the monarchy of the Sassanides—occurred A. D. 226. The founder of the new throne, Artaxerxes, no sooner felt firm in his seat than he sent an imposing embassy to bear to the Roman emperor—then Alexander Severus —his haughty demand that all Asia should be yielded to him and that Roman arms and Roman authority should be withdrawn to the western shores of the Ægean and the Propontis. This was the beginning of a series of wars, extending through four centuries and ending only with the Mahometan conquests which swept Roman and Persian power, alike, out of the contested field. The first campaigns of the Romans against Artaxerxes were of doubtful result. In the reign of Sapor, son of Artaxerxes, the war was renewed, with unprecedented humiliation and disaster to the Roman arms. Valerian, the emperor, was surrounded and taken prisoner, after a bloody battle fought near Edessa (A. D. 260),—remaining until his death a captive in the hands of his insolent conqueror and subjected to every indignity.

Syria was overrun by the Persian armies, and its splendid capital, Antioch, surprised, pillaged, and savagely wrecked, while the inhabitants were mostly slain or reduced to slavery. Cilicia and Cappadocia were next devastated in like manner. Cæsarea, the Cappadocian capital, being taken after an obstinate siege, suffered pillage and unmerciful massacre. The victorious career of Sapor, which Rome failed to arrest, was cheeked by the rising power of Palmyra (see PALMYRA). Fifteen years later, Aurelian, who had destroyed Palmyra, was marching to attack Persia when he fell by the hands of domestic enemies and traitors. It was not until A. D. 283, in the reign of Carus, that Rome and Persia crossed swords again. Carus ravaged Mesopotamia, captured Seleucia and Ctesiphon and passed beyond the Tigris, when he met with a mysterious death and his victorious army retreated. A dozen years passed before the quarrel was taken up again, by Diocletian.

That vigorous monarch sent one of his Cæsars—Galerius—into the field, while he stationed himself at Antioch to direct the war. In his first campaign (A. D. 297), Galerius was defeated, on the old fatal field of Carrhæ. In his second campaign (A. D. 297-298) he won a decisive victory and forced on the Persian king, Narses, a humiliating treaty, which renounced Mesopotamia, ceded five provinces beyond the Tigris, made the Araxes, or Aboras, the boundary between the two empires, and gave other advantages to the Romans. There was peace, then, for forty years, until another Sapor, grandson of Narses, had mounted the Persian throne. Constantine the Great was dead and his divided empire seemed less formidable to the neighboring power. "During the long period of the reign of Constantius [A. D. 337-361] the provinces of the East were afflicted by the calamities of the Persian war. … The armies of Rome and Persia encountered each other in nine bloody fields, in two of which Constantius himself commanded in person. The event of the day was most commonly adverse to the Romans." In the great battle of Singara, fought A. D. 348, the Romans were victors at first, but allowed themselves to be surprised at night, while plundering the enemy's camp, and were routed with great slaughter. Three sieges of Nisibis, in Mesopotamia—the bulwark of Roman power in the East—were among the memorable incidents of these wars. In 338, in 346, and again in 350, it repulsed the Persian king with shame and loss. Less fortunate was the city of Amida [modern Diarbekir], in Armenia, besieged by Sapor, in 350. It was taken, at the last, by storm, and the inhabitants put to the sword. On the accession of Julian, the Persian war was welcomed by the ambitious young emperor as an opportunity for emulating the glory of Alexander, after rivalling that of Cæsar in Gaul. In the early spring of 363, he led forth a great army from Antioch, and traversed the sandy plains of Mesopotamia to the Persian capital of Ctesiphon, reducing and destroying the strong cities of Perisabor and Maogamalcha on his march. Finding Ctesiphon too strong in its fortifications to encourage a siege, he crossed the Tigris, burned his fleet and advanced boldly into the hostile country beyond. It was a fatal expedition. Led astray by perfidious guides, harassed by a swarm of enemies, and scantily supplied with provisions, the Romans were soon forced to an almost desperate retreat. If Julian had lived, he might possibly have sustained the courage of his men and rescued them from their situation; but he fell, mortally wounded, in repelling one of the incessant attacks of the Persian cavalry. {2516} An officer named Jovian was then hastily proclaimed emperor, and by his agency an ignominious treaty was arranged with the Persian king. It gave up all the conquests of Galerius, together with Nisibis, Singara and other Roman strongholds in Mesopotamia; on which hard terms the Roman army was permitted to recross the Tigris and find a refuge in regions of its own. The peace thus shamefully purchased endured for more than half-a-century. Religious fanaticism kindled war afresh, A. D. 422, between Persia and the eastern empire; but the events are little known. It seems to have resulted, practically, in the division of Armenia which gave Lesser Armenia to the Romans as a province and made the Greater Armenia, soon afterwards, a Persian satrapy, called Persarmenia. The truce which ensued was respected for eighty years. In the year 502, while Anastasius reigned at Constantinople and Kobad was king of Persia, there was a recurrence of war, which ended, however, in 505, without any territorial changes. The unhappy city of Amida was again captured in this war, after a siege of three months, and 80,000 of its inhabitants perished under the Persian swords. Preparatory to future conflicts, Anastasius now founded and Justinian afterwards strengthened the powerfully fortified city of Dara, near Nisibis. The value of the new outpost was put to the proof in 526, when hostilities again broke out. The last great Roman general, Belisarius, was in command at Dam during the first years of this war, and finally held the general command. In 529 he fought a great battle in front of Dara and won a decisive victory. The next year he suffered a defeat at Sura and in 532 the two powers arranged a treaty of peace which they vauntingly called "The Endless Peace"; but Justinian (who was now emperor) paid 11,000 pounds of gold for it. "The Endless Peace" was so quickly ended that the year 540 found the Persian king Chosroes, or Nushirvan, at the head of an army in Syria ravaging the country and despoiling the cities. Antioch, just restored by Justinian, after an earthquake which, in 526, had nearly levelled it with the ground, was stormed, pillaged, half burned, and its streets drenched with blood. The seat of war was soon transferred to the Caucasian region of Colchis, or Lazica (modern Mingrelia), and became what is known in history as the Lazic War [see LAZICA], which was protracted until 561, when Justinian consented to a treaty which pledged the empire to pay 30,000 pieces of gold annually to the Persian king, while the latter surrendered his claim to Colchis. But war broke out afresh in 572 and continued till 591, when the armies of the Romans restored to the Persian throne another Chosroes, grandson of the first, who had fled to them from a rebellion which deposed and destroyed his unworthy father. Twelve years later this Chosroes became the most formidable enemy to the empire that it had encountered in the East. In successive campaigns he stripped from it Syria and Palestine, Egypt, Cyrenaica, and the greater part of Asia Minor, even to the shores of the Bosphorus. Taking the city of Chalcedon in 616, after a lengthy siege, he established a camp and army at that post, within sight of Constantinople, and held it for ten years, insulting and threatening the imperial capital. But he found a worthy antagonist in Heraclius, who became emperor of the Roman East in 610, and who proved himself to be one of the greatest of soldiers. It was twelve years after the beginning of his reign before Heraclius could gather in hand, from the shrunken and exhausted empire, such resources as would enable him to turn aggressively upon the Persian enemy. Then, in three campaigns, between 622 and 627, he completely reversed the situation. After a decisive battle, fought December 1, A. D. 627, on the very site of ancient Nineveh, the royal city of Dastagerd was taken and spoiled, and the king, stripped of all his conquests and his glory, was a fugitive.

A conspiracy and an assassination soon ended his career and his son made peace. It was a lasting peace, as between Romans and Persians; for eight years afterwards the Persians were in their death struggle with the warriors of Mahomet.

ALSO IN: E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapters 18, 24-25, 40, 42, 46.

Khulagu, or Houlagou, grandson of Jingis Khan, who extinguished the caliphate at Bagdad, A. D. 1258, and completed the Mongol conquest of Persia and Mesopotamia (see BAGDAD: A. D. 1258), "received the investiture of his conquests and of the country south of the Oxus. He founded an empire there, known as that of the Ilkhans. Like the Khans of the Golden Horde, the successors of Batu, they for a long time acknowledged the suzerainty of the Khakan of the Mongols in the East."

Khulagu "fixed his residence at Maragha, in Aderbijan, a beautiful town, situated on a fine plain watered by a small but pure stream, which, rising in the high mountains of Sahund, flows past the walls of the city, and empties itself in the neighbouring lake of Oormia. … At this delightful spot Hulakoo [or Khulagu] appears to have employed his last years in a manner worthy of a great monarch. Philosophers and astronomers were assembled from every part of his dominions, who laboured in works of science under the direction of his favourite, Nasser-u-deen." The title of the Ilkhans, given to Khulagu and his successors, signified simply the lords or chiefs (the Khans). Their empire was extinguished in 1393 by the conquests of Timour.

"It was under Sultan Ghazan, who reigned from 1294 to 1303, that Mahometanism again became the established religion of Persia. In the second year of his reign, Ghazan Khan publicly declared his conversion to the faith of the Koran. … After Sultan Ghazan the power of the Mongolian dynasty in Persia rapidly declined. The empire soon began to break in pieces. … The royal house became extinct, while another branch of the descendants of Hulaku established themselves at Bagdad. At last Persia became a mere scene of anarchy and confusion, utterly incapable of offering any serious resistance to the greatest of Mussulman conquerors, the invincible and merciless Timour."

PERSIA: A. D. 1499-1887.
   The founding of the Sefavean dynasty.
   Triumph of the Sheahs.
   Subjugation by the Afghans.
   Deliverance by Nadir Shah.
   The Khajar dynasty.

"At an early period in the rise of Islamism, the followers of Mohammed became divided on the question of the succession to the caliphate, or leadership, vacated by the death of Mohammed. Some, who were in majority, believed that it lay with the descendants of the caliph, Moawiyeh, while others as firmly clung to the opinion that the succession lay with the sons of Alee and Fatimeh, the daughter of the prophet, Hassan and Houssein, and their descendants. In a desperate conflict on the banks of the Euphrates, nearly al the male descendants of the prophet were slain [see MAHOMETAN CONQUEST &c.: A. D. 680], and almost the entire Mohammedan peoples, from India to Spain, thenceforward became Sunnees—that is, they embraced belief in the succession of the line of the house of Moawiyeh, called the Ommiades. But there was an exception to this uniformity of belief. The Persians, as has been seen, were a people deeply given to religious beliefs and mystical speculations to the point of fanaticism. Without any apparent reason many of them became Sheahs [or Shiahs], or believers in the claims of the house of Alee and Fatimeh [see ISLAM]. … Naturally for centuries the Sheahs suffered much persecution from the Sunnees, as the rulers of Persia, until the 15th century, were generally Sunnees. But this only stimulated the burning zeal of the Sheahs, and in the end resulted in bringing about the independence of Persia under a dynasty of her own race. In the 14th century there resided at Ardebil a priest named the Sheikh Saifus, who was held in the highest repute for his holy life. He was a lineal descendant of Musa, the seventh Holy Imam. His son, Sadr-ud-Deen, not only enjoyed a similar fame for piety, but used it to such good account as to become chieftain of the province where he lived. Junaid, the grandson of Sadr-ud–Deen, had three sons, of whom the youngest, named Ismail, was born about the year 1480. When only eighteen years of age, the young Ismail entered the province of Ghilan, on the shores of the Caspian, and by the sheer force of genius raised a small army, with which he captured Baku. His success brought recruits to his standard, and at the head of 16,000 men he defeated the chieftain of Alamut, the general sent against him, and, marching on Tabreez, seized it without a blow. In 1499 Ismail, the founder of the Sefavean dynasty, was proclaimed Shah of Persia. Since that period, with the exception of the brief invasion of Mahmood the Afghan, Persia has been an independent and at times a very powerful nation. The establishment of the Sefavean dynasty also brought about the existence of a Sheah government, and gave great strength to that sect of the Mohammedans, between whom and other Islamites there was always great bitterness and much bloodshed. Ismail speedily carried his sway as far as the Tigris in the southwest and to Kharism and Candahar in the north and east. He lost one great battle with the Turks under Selim II. at Tabreez [or Chaldiran—see TURKS: A. D. 1481-1520], but with honor, as the Persians were outnumbered; but it is said he was so cast down by that event he never was seen to smile again. He died in 1524, leaving the record of a glorious reign. His three immediate successors, Tahmasp, Ismail II., and Mohammed Khudabenda, did little to sustain the fame and power of their country, and the new empire must soon have yielded to the attacks of its enemies at home and abroad, if a prince of extraordinary ability had not succeeded to the throne when the new dynasty seemed on the verge of ruin. Shah Abbass, called the Great, was crowned in the year 1586, and died in 1628, at the age of seventy, after a reign of forty-two years [see TURKS: A. D. 1623-1640]. This monarch was one of the greatest sovereigns who ever sat on the throne of Persia. … It was the misfortune of Persia that the Sefavean line rapidly degenerated after the death of Shah Abbass. … Taking advantage of the low state of the Sefavean dynasty, Mahmood, an Afghan chieftain, invaded Persia in 1722 with an army of 50,000 men. Such was the condition of the empire that he had little difficulty in capturing Ispahan, although it had a population of 600,000. He slaughtered every male member of the royal family except Houssein the weak sovereign, his son Tahmasp, and two grandchildren; all the artists of Ispahan and scores of thousands besides were slain. That magnificent capital has never recovered from the blow. Mahmood died in 1725, and was succeeded by his cousin Ashraf. But the brief rule of the Afghans terminated in 1727. Nadir Kuli, a Persian soldier of fortune, or in other words a brigand of extraordinary ability, joined Tahmasp II., who had escaped and collected a small force in the north of Persia. Nadir marched on Ispahan and defeated the Afghans in several battles; Ashraf was slain and Tahmasp II. was crowned. But Nadir dethroned Tahmasp II. in 1732, being a man of vast ambition as well as desire to increase the renown of Persia; and he caused that unfortunate sovereign to be made way with some years later. Soon after Nadir Kuli proclaimed himself king of Persia with the title of Nadir Kuli Khan. Nadir was a man of ability equal to his ambition. He not only beat the Turks with comparative ease, but he organized an expedition that conquered Afghanistan and proceeded eastward until Delhi fell into his hands, with immense slaughter. …

   He was assassinated in 1747. Nadir Kuli Khan was a man of
   great genius, but he died too soon to establish an enduring
   dynasty, and after his death civil wars rapidly succeeded each
   other until the rise of the present or Khajar dynasty, which
   succeeded the reign of the good Kerim Khan the Zend, who
   reigned twenty years at Shiraz. Aga Mohammed Khan, the founder
   of the Khajar dynasty, succeeded in 1794 in crushing the last
   pretender to the throne, after a terrible civil war, and once
   more reunited the provinces of Persia under one sceptre. …
{2518}
   Aga Mohammed Khan was succeeded, after his assassination, by
   his nephew Feth Alee Shah, a monarch of good disposition and
   some ability. It was his misfortune to be drawn into two wars
   with Russia, who stripped Persia of her Circassian provinces,
   notwithstanding the stout resistance made by the Persian
   armies. Feth Alec Shah was succeeded by his grandson Mohammed
   Shah, a sovereign of moderate talents. No events of unusual
   interest mark his reign, excepting the siege of Herat which
   was captured in the present reign from the Afghans. He died in
   1848, and was succeeded by his son Nasr-ed-Deen Shah, the
   present (1887), sovereign of Persia."

ALSO IN: C. R. Markham, General Sketch of the History of Persia, chapters 10-20.

Nasr-ed-Deen is still, in 1894, the reigning sovereign. He is
blessed with a family of four sons and fifteen daughters.

PERSIAN SIBYL.

PERSONAL LIBERTY LAWS.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1860 (DECEMBER)
PRESIDENT BUCHANAN'S SURRENDER.

"There was a chief in the territory to the south of the Gulf of San Miguel, on the Pacific coast" named Biru, and this country was visited by Gaspar de Morales and Francisco Pizarro in 1515. For the next ten years Biru was the most southern land known to the Spaniards; and the consequence was that the unknown regions farther south, including the rumored empire abounding in gold, came to be designated as Biru, or Peru. It was thus that the land of the Yncas got the name of Peru from the Spaniards, some years before it was actually discovered."

C. H. Markham, Narrative and Critical History of America, volume 2, chapter 8.

PERU:
The aboriginal inhabitants and their civilization.
The extraordinary paternal despotism of the Incas.

"The bulk of the population [of Peru] is composed of the aboriginal Indians, the natives who had been there from time immemorial when America was discovered. The central tribe of these Indians was that of the Yncas, inhabiting the region in the Sierra which has already been described as the Cuzco section. Such a country was well adapted for the cradle of an imperial tribe. … The Ynca race was originally divided into six tribes, whose lands are indicated by the rivers which formed their limits. Of these tribes the Yncas themselves had their original seat between the rivers Apurimac and Paucartampu, with the lovely valley of the Vilcamayu bisecting it. The Canas dwelt in the upper part of that valley up to the Vilcañota Pass, and on the mountains on either side. The Quichuas were in the valleys round the head waters of the Apurimac and Abancay. The Chancas extended from the neighbourhood of Ayacucho (Guamanga) to the Apurimac. The Huancas occupied the valley of the Xauxa up to the saddle of the Cerro Pasco, and the Rucanas were in the mountainous region between the central and western cordilleras. These six tribes eventually formed the conquering Ynca race. Their language was introduced into every conquered province, and was carefully taught to the people, so that the Spaniards correctly called it the 'Lengua General' of Peru. This language was called Quichua, after the tribe inhabiting the upper part of the valleys of the Pachachaca and Apurimac. Their territory consisted chiefly of uplands covered with long grass, and the name has been derived from the abundance of straw in this region. 'Quehuani' is to twist; 'quehuasca' is the participle; and 'ychu' is straw. Together, 'Quehuasca-Ychu,' or twisted straw, abbreviated into Quichua. The name was given to the language by Friar San Tomas in his grammar published in 1500, who perhaps first collected words among the Quichuas and so gave it their name, which was adopted by all subsequent grammarians. But the proper name would have been the Ynca language. The aboriginal people in the basin of Lake Titicaca were called Collas, and they spoke a language which is closely allied to the Quichua. … The Collas were conquered by the Yncas in very remote times, and their language, now incorrectly called Aymara, received many Quichua additions; for it originally contained few words to express abstract ideas, and none for many things which are indispensable in the first beginnings of civilized life. One branch of the Collas (now called Aymaras) was a savage tribe inhabiting the shores and islands of Lake Titicaca, called Urus. … The Ynca and Colla (Aymara) tribes eventually combined to form the great armies which spread the rule of Ynca sovereigns over a much larger extent of country. … In the happy days of the Yncas they cultivated many of the arts, and had some practical knowledge of astronomy. They had domesticated all the animals in their country capable of domestication, understood mining and the working of metals, excelled as masons, weavers, dyers, and potters, and were good farmers. They brought the science of administration to a high pitch of perfection, and composed imaginative songs and dramas of considerable merit. … The coast of Peru was inhabited by a people entirely different from the Indians of the Sierra. There are some slight indications of the aborigines having been a diminutive race of fishermen who were driven out by the more civilized people, called Yuncas. … The Yncas conquered the coast valleys about a century before the discovery of America, and the Spaniards completed the destruction of the Yunca people."

"In the minuter mechanical arts, both [the Aztecs of Mexico and the Incas of Peru] showed considerable skill; but in the construction of important public works, of roads, aqueducts, canals, and in agriculture in all its details, the Peruvians were much superior. Strange that they should have fallen so far below their rivals in their efforts after a higher intellectual culture, in astronomical science, more especially, and in the art of communicating thought by visible symbols. … We shall look in vain in the history of the East for a parallel to the absolute control exercised by the Incas over their subjects. … It was a theocracy more potent in its operation than that of the Jews; for, though the sanction of the law might be as great among the latter, the law was expounded by a human lawgiver, the servant and representative of Divinity. But the Inca was both the lawgiver and the law. He was not merely the representative of Divinity, or, like the Pope, its vicegerent, but he was Divinity itself. The violation of his ordinance was sacrilege. Never was there a scheme of government enforced by such terrible sanctions, or which bore so oppressively on the subjects of it. For it reached not only to the visible acts, but to the private conduct, the words, the very thoughts of its vassals. … Under this extraordinary polity, a people advanced in many of the social refinements, well skilled in manufactures and agriculture, were unacquainted … with money. They had nothing that deserved to be called property. They could follow no craft, could engage in no labor, no amusement, but such as was specially provided by law. They could not change their residence or their dress without a license from the government. They could not even exercise the freedom which is conceded to the most abject in other countries, that of selecting their own wives. The imperative spirit of despotism would not allow them to be happy or miserable in any way but that established by law. The power of free agency—the inestimable and inborn right of every human being—was annihilated in Peru."

W. H. Prescott, History of the Conquest of Peru, book 1, chapter 5 (volume 1).

ALSO IN: The Standard Natural History (J. S. Kingsley, edition.), volume 6, pages 215-226.

      E. J. Payne,
      History of the New World called America,
      book 2 (volume 1).

"The Inca empire had attained its greatest extension and power precisely at the period of the discovery by Columbus, under the reign of Huayna Capac, who, rather than Huascar or Atahualpa, should be called the last of the Incas. His father, the Inca Tupac Yupanqui, had pushed his conquests on the south, beyond the great desert of Atacama, to the river Maule in Chili; while, at the same time, Huayna Capac himself had reduced the powerful and refined kingdom of the Sciris of Quito [see ECUADOR], on the north. From their great dominating central plateau, the Incas had pressed down to the Pacific, on the one hand, and to the dense forests of the Amazonian valleys on the other. Throughout this wide region and over all its nations, principalities, and tribes, Huayna Capac at the beginning of the 16th century ruled supreme. His empire extended from four degrees above the equator to the 34th southern parallel of latitude, a distance of not far from 3,000 miles; while from east to west it spread, with varying width, from the Pacific to the valleys of Paucartambo and Chuquisaca, an average distance of not far from 400 miles, covering an area, therefore, of more than one million square miles, equal to about one-third of the total area of the United States, or to the whole of the United States to the eastward of the Mississippi river. … In the islands of Lake Titicaca, if tradition be our guide, were developed the germs of Inca civilization. Thence, it is said, went the founders of the Inca dynasty, past the high divide between the waters flowing into the lake and those falling into the Amazon, and skirting the valley of the river Vilcanota for more than 200 miles, they established their seat in the bolson [valley] of Cuzco. … It is not only central in position, salubrious and productive, but the barriers which separate it from the neighboring valleys are relatively low, with passes which may be traversed with comparative ease; while they are, at the same time, readily defensible. The rule of the first Inca seems not to have extended beyond this valley, and the passes leading into it are strongly fortified, showing the direction whence hostilities were anticipated in the early days of the empire, before the chiefs of Cuzco began their career of conquest and aggregation, reducing the people of the bolson of Anta in the north, and that of Urcos in the south. … The survey of the monuments of Peru brings the conviction that the ancient population was not nearly so numerous as the accounts of the chroniclers would lead us to suppose. From what I have said, it will be clear that but a small portion of the country is inhabitable, or capable of supporting a considerable number of people. The rich and productive valleys and bolsones are hardly more than specks on the map; and although there is every evidence that their capacities of production were taxed to the very utmost, still their capacities were limited. The ancient inhabitants built their dwellings among rough rocks, on arid slopes of hills, and walled up their dead in eaves and clefts, or buried them among irreclaimable sands, in order to utilize the scanty cultivable soil for agriculture. They excavated great areas in the deserts until they reached moisture enough to support vegetation, and then brought guano from the islands to fertilize these sunken gardens. They terraced up every hill and mountain–side, and gathered the soil from the crevices of the rocks to fill the narrow platforms, until not a foot of surface, on which could grow a single stalk of maize or a single handful of quinoa, was left unimproved. China, perhaps Japan and some portions of India, may afford a parallel to the extreme utilization of the soil which was effected in Peru at the time of the Inca Empire. No doubt the Indian population lived, as it still lives, on the scantiest fare, on the very minimum of food; but it had not then, as now, the ox, the hog, the goat, and the sheep, nor yet many of the grains and fruits which contribute most to the support of dense populations. … The present population of the three states which were wholly or in part included in the Inca Empire—namely, Equador, Peru and Bolivia—does not exceed five millions. I think it would be safe to estimate the population under the Inca rule at about double that number, or perhaps somewhere between ten and twelve millions; notwithstanding Las Casas, the good, but not very accurate, Bishop of Chiapa tells us that, 'in the Province of Peru alone the Spaniards killed above forty millions of people.'"

"In the spring of 1528, Pizarro and one of his comrades, taking with them some natives of Peru and some products of that country, set out [from Panama] to tell their tale at the court of Castile. Pizarro … found the Emperor Charles V. at Toledo, and met with a gracious reception. … His tales of the wealth which he had witnessed were the more readily believed in consequence of the experiences of another Spaniard whom he now met at court, the famous conqueror of Mexico. Yet affairs in Spain progressed with proverbial slowness, and it was not until the expiry of a year from the date of his arrival in the country that the capitulation was signed defining the powers of Pizarro. By this agreement he was granted the right of discovery and conquest in Peru, or New Castile, with the titles of Captain-general of the province and Adelantado, or lieutenant-governor. He was likewise to enjoy a considerable salary, and to have the right to erect certain fortresses under his government, and, in short, to exercise the prerogatives of a viceroy. Almagro was merely appointed commander of the fortress of Tumbez, with the rank of Hidalgo; whilst Father Luque became bishop of the same place. … Pizarro, on his part, was bound to raise within six months a force of 250 men; whilst the government on theirs engaged to furnish some assistance in the purchase of artillery and stores." Thus commissioned, Pizarro left Seville in January, 1530, hastening back to Panama, accompanied or followed by four half-brothers, who were destined to stormy careers in Peru. Naturally, his comrade and partner Almagro was ill pleased with the provision made for him, and the partnership came near to wreck; but some sort of reconciliation was brought about, and the two adventurers joined hands again in preparations for a second visit to Peru, with intentions boding evil to the unhappy natives of that too bountiful land. It was early in January 1531 that Pizarro sailed southward from the Isthmus for the third and last time.

      R. G. Watson,
      Spanish and Portuguese South America,
      volume 1, chapters 6-7.

"Pizarro sailed from Panama on the 28th of December, 1531, with three small vessels carrying one hundred and eighty-three men and thirty-seven horses. In thirteen days he arrived at the bay of San Mateo, where he landed the horses and soldiers to march along the shore, sending back the ships to get more men and horses at Panama and Nicaragua. They returned with twenty-six horses and thirty more men. With this force Pizarro continued his march along the sea-coast, which was well peopled; and on arriving at the bay of Guayaquil, he crossed over in the ships to the island of Puna. Here a devastating war was waged with the unfortunate natives, and from Puna the conqueror proceeded again in his ships to the Peruvian town of Tumbez. The country was in a state of confusion, owing to a long and desolating war of succession between Huascar and Atahualpa, the two sons of the great Ynca Huayna Capac, and was thus an easy prey to the invaders. Huascar had been defeated and made prisoner by the generals of his brother, and Atahualpa was on his way from Quito to Cusco, the capital of the empire, to enjoy the fruits of his victory. He was reported to be at Caxamarca, on the eastern side of the mountain; and Pizarro, with his small force, set out from Tumbez on the 18th of May, 1532. … The first part of Pizarro's march was southward from Tumbez, in the rainless coast region. After crossing a vast desert he came to Tungarara, in the fertile valleys of the Chira, where he founded the city of San Miguel, the site of which was afterwards removed to the valley of Piura. The accountant Antonio Navarro and the royal treasurer Riquelme were left in command at San Miguel, and Pizarro resumed his march in search of the Ynca Atahualpa on the 24th of September, 1532. He detached the gallant cavalier, Hernando de Soto, into the sierra of Huancabamba, to reconnoitre, and pacify the country. De Soto rejoined the main body after an absence of about ten days. The brother of Atahualpa, named Titu Atauchi, arrived as an envoy, with presents, and a message to the effect that the Ynca desired friendship with the strangers. Crossing the vast desert of Sechura, Pizarro reached the fertile valley of Motupe, and marched thence to the foot of the cordilleras in the valley of the Jequetepeque. Here he rested for a day or two, to arrange the order for the ascent. He took with him forty horses and sixty foot, instructing Hernando de Soto to follow him with the main body and the baggage. News arrived that the Ynca Atahualpa had reached the neighborhood of Caxamarca about three days before, and that he desired peace. Pizarro pressed forward, crossed the cordillera, and on Friday, the 15th of November, 1532, he entered Caxamarca with his whole force. Here he found excellent accommodation in the large masonry buildings, and was well satisfied with the strategic position. Atahualpa was established in a large camp outside, where Hernando de Soto had an interview with him. Atahualpa announced his intention of visiting the Christian commander, and Pizarro arranged and perpetrated a black act of treachery. He kept all his men under arms. The Ynca, suspecting nothing, came into the great square of Cusco in grand regal procession. He was suddenly attacked and made prisoner, and his people were massacred. The Ynca offered a ransom, which he described as gold enough to fill a room twenty-two feet long and seventeen wide, to a height equal to a man's stature and a half. He undertook to do this in two months, and sent orders for the collection of golden vases and ornaments in all parts of the empire. Soon the treasure began to arrive, while Atahualpa was deceived by false promises, and he beguiled his captivity by acquiring Spanish and learning to play at chess and cards. Meanwhile Pizarro sent an expedition under his brother Hernando, to visit the famous temple of Pachacamac on the coast; and three soldiers were also despatched to Cusco, the capital of the empire, to hurry forward the treasure. They set out in February, 1533, but behaved with so much imprudence and insolence at Cusco as to endanger their own lives and the success of their mission. Pizarro therefore ordered two officers of distinction, Hernando de Soto and Pedro del Barco, to follow them and remedy the mischief which they were doing. On Easter eve, being the 14th of April, 1533, Almagro arrived at Caxamarca with a reinforcement of 150 Spaniards and 84 horses. {2521} On the 3rd of May it was ordered that the gold already arrived should be melted down for distribution; but another large instalment came on the 14th of June. An immense quantity consisted of slabs, with holes at the corners, which had been torn off the walls of temples and palaces; and there were vessels and ornaments of all shapes and sizes. After the royal fifth had been deducted, the rest was divided among the conquerors. The total sum of 4,605,670 ducats would be equal to about £3,500,000 of modern money. After the partition of the treasure, the murder of the Ynca was seriously proposed as a measure of good policy. The crime was committed by order of Pizarro, and with the concurrence of Almagro and the friar Valverde. It was expected that the sovereign's death would be followed by the dispersion of his army, and the submission of the people. This judicial murder was committed in the square of Caxamarca on the 29th of August, 1533. Hernando de Soto was absent at the time, and on his return he expressed the warmest indignation. Several other honorable cavaliers protested against the execution. Their names are even more worthy of being remembered than those of the heroic sixteen who crossed the line on the sea-shore at Gallo."

      C. R. Markham,
      Pizarro and the Conquest and Settlement of Peru and Chili
      (Narrative and Critical History of America,
      volume 2, chapter 8).

      ALSO IN:
      W. H. Prescott,
      History of the Conquest of Peru,
      book 3, chapters 1-8 (volume 1).

"The feud between the Pizarros and the Almagros, which forms the next great series of events in American history, is one of the most memorable quarrels in the world. … This dire contest in America destroyed almost every person of any note who came within its influence, desolated the country where it originated, prevented the growth of colonization, and changed for the worse the whole course of legislation for the Spanish colonies. Its effects were distinctly visible for a century afterward. … There were no signs, however, of the depth and fatality of this feud between the Pizarros and Almagros at the period immediately succeeding the execution of Atahuallpa. That act of injustice having been perpetrated, Pizarro gave the royal borla [a peculiar head-dress worn by the reigning Incas, described as a tassel of fine crimson wool] to a brother of the late Inca [who died two months later, of shame and rage at his helpless position], and set out from Cassamarca on his way to Cusco. It was now time to extend his conquests and to make himself master of the chief city in Peru." After a slight resistance, the Spaniards entered "the great and holy city of Cusco," the capital of the Incas, on the 15th of November, 1533. According to the Spanish descriptions it was a remarkable city, constructed with great regularity, having paved streets, with a stone conduit of water running through the middle of each, with grand squares and many splendid palaces and temples. "In Cusco and its environs, including the whole valley which could be seen from the top of the tower, it is said that there were 'a hundred thousand' houses. Among these were shops, and store–houses, and places for the reception of tribute. … The great Temple of the Sun had, before the Spaniards rifled Cusco, been a building of singular gorgeousness. The interior was plated with gold; and on each side of the central image of the Sun were ranged, the embalmed bodies of the Incas, sitting upon their golden thrones raised upon pedestals of gold. All round the outside of the building, at the top of the walls, ran a coronal of gold about three feet in depth." For three years the Spaniards held undisturbed possession of Cusco, reducing it to the forms of a Spanish municipality, converting the great Temple of the Sun into a Dominican monastery and turning many palaces into cathedrals and churches. In the meantime, Fernando Pizarro, one of the four brothers of the conqueror, returned from his mission to Spain, whither he had been sent with full accounts of the conquest and with the king's fifth of its spoils. He brought back the title of Marquis for Francisco, and a governor's commission, the province placed under him to be called New Castile. For Pizarro's associate and partner, Almagro, there was also a governorship, but it was one which remained to be conquered. He was authorized to take possession and govern a province, which should be called New Toledo, beginning at the southern boundary of Pizarro's government and extending southward 200 leagues. This was the beginning of quarrels, which Pizarro's brothers were accused of embittering by their insolence. Almagro claimed Cusco, as lying within the limits of his province. Pizarro was engaged in founding a new capital city near the coast, which he began to build in 1535, calling it Los Reyes, but which afterwards received the name of Lima; he would not, however, give up Cusco. The dispute was adjusted in the end, and Almagro set out for the conquest of his province (Chile), much of which had formed part of the dominions of the Inca, and for the subduing of which he commanded the aid of a large army of Peruvians, under two chiefs of the royal family. A few months after this, in the spring of 1536, the nominally reigning Inca, Manco, escaped from his Spanish masters at Cusco, into the mountains, and organized a furious and formidable rising, which brought the Spaniards, both at Cusco and Los Reyes, into great peril, for many months. Before the revolt had been overcome, Almagro returned, unsuccessful and disappointed, from his expedition into Chile, and freshly determined to assert and enforce his claim to Cusco. It is said that he endeavored, at first, to make common cause with the Inca Manco; but his overtures were rejected. He then attacked the Inca and defeated him; marched rapidly on Cusco, arriving before the city April 18, 1537; surprised the garrison while negotiations were going on and gained full possession of the town. Fernando and Gonzalo, two brothers of the Marquis Pizarro, were placed in prison. The latter sent a force of 500 men, under his lieutenant, Alvarado, against the intruder; but Alvarado was encountered on the way and badly beaten. In November there was a meeting brought about, between Pizarro and Almagro, in the hope of some compromise, but they parted from it in sharper enmity than before. Meantime, the younger Pizarro had escaped from his captivity at Cusco, and Fernando had been released. In the spring of 1538 Fernando led an army against the Almagristas, defeated them (April 6, 1538) in a desperate battle near Cusco and entered the city in triumph. {2522} Almagro was taken prisoner, subjected to a formal trial, condemned and executed. The Pizarros were now completely masters of the country and maintained their domination for a few years, extending the Spanish conquests into Chile under Pedro de Valdivia, and exploring and occupying other regions. But in 1541, old hatreds and fresh discontents came to a head in a plot which bore fruit in the assassination of the governor, the Marquis Pizarro, now past 70 years of age. A young half-caste son of old Almagro was installed in the governorship by the conspirators, and when, the next year, a new royally commissioned governor, Vaca de Castro, arrived from Spain, young Almagro was mad enough to resist him. His rebellion was overcome speedily and he suffered death. Vaca de Castro was superseded in 1544 by a viceroy, Blasco Nuñez Vela, sent out by the emperor, Charles V., to enforce the "New Laws," lately framed in Spain, under the influence of Las Casas, to protect the natives, by a gradual abolition of the "repartimientos" and "encomiendas." A rebellion occurred, in which Gonzalo Pizarro took the lead, and the Spanish government was forced to annul the "New Laws." Pizarro, however, still refused to submit, and was only overcome after a civil war of two years, which ended in his defeat and death. This closed the turbulent career of the Pizarro brothers in Peru; but the country did not settle into peace until after some years.

PERU: A. D. 1539-1541.
Gonzalo Pizarro's expedition to the head waters of the Amazon
and Orellana's voyage down the great river.

"When the President la Gasca had conquered Gonsalo Pizarro and returned to Spain, a peaceful viceroy arrived in Peru, sprung from one of the noblest families of the peninsula. This was Don Antonio de Mendoza. … Don Antonio died in 1551, after a very brief enjoyment of his power; but from this date, during the whole period of the rule of kings of the Austrian House, the Peruvian Viceroyalty was always filled by members of the greatest families of Spain. … At an immense distance from the mother country, and ruling at one time nearly the whole of South America, including the present republics of Venezuela, New Granada, Ecuador, Peru, Chile, Bolivia, and La Plata, the court of the Viceroys was surrounded by regal pomp and magnificence. … The archbishop of Lima ranked next to the viceroy, and filled his post during his absence from the capital. … It was not long after the conquest before the inquisition, that fearful engine of the despotic power of Spain, was established in Peru. … The Indians were exempted from its jurisdiction in theory, but whether, in practice, this unfortunate and persecuted people always escaped may be considered as doubtful. It was only in the beginning of the present century, and shortly before the commencement of the war of independence, that this fearful tribunal was abolished." Under the senseless government of Philip II. the seeds of decay and ruin were planted in every part of the Spanish empire. "Though receiving from the silver mines of Peru and Mexico the largest revenue of any sovereign in Europe, his coffers were always empty, and of $35,000,000 received from America in 1595, not one rial remained in Spain in 1596. … Then followed the reigns of his worthless descendants and their profligate ministers; and fast and heedlessly did they drive this unfortunate country on the high road to ruin and poverty. On the establishment of the Bourbon kings of Spain in 1714, a more enlightened policy began to show itself in the various measures of government; and the trade to the colonies, which had hitherto been confined by the strictest monopoly, was slightly opened. At this time, the commerce of Peru and Mexico was carried on by what was called the 'flota,' consisting of three men-of-war and about fifteen merchant-vessels, of from 400 to 1,000 tons. Every kind of manufactured article of merchandise was embarked on board this fleet, so that all the trading ports of Europe were interested in its cargo, and Spain itself sent out little more than wines and brandy. The flota sailed from Cadiz, and was not allowed to break bulk on any account during the voyage. Arriving at Vera Cruz, it took in, for the return voyage, cargoes of silver, cocoa, indigo, cochineal, tobacco, and sugar; and sailed to the rendezvous at Havannah, where it awaited the galleons from Porto Bello, with all the riches of Peru. The galleons were vessels of about 500 tons; and an immense fair, which collected merchants from all parts of South America, was commenced at Porto Bello on their arrival." About the middle of the 18th century, "a marked change appears to have come over the colonial policy of Spain; and the enlightened government of the good Count Florida Blanca, who was prime minister for 20 years, introduced a few attempts at administrative reform, not before they were needed, into the colonial government. The enormous viceroyalty of Peru, long found to be too large for a single command, was divided; and viceroys were appointed in La Plata and New Granada, while another royal audience was established at Quito. The haughty grandees of Spain also ceased to come out to Peru; and in their places practical men, who had done good service as captains-general of Chile, were appointed viceroys, such as Don Manuel Amat, in 1761, and Don Agustin Jaurequi, in 1780. At last, Don Ambrosio O'Higgins, whose father was a poor Irish adventurer, who kept a little retail shop in the square at Lima, became viceroy of Peru, and was created Marquis of Osorno. … His son, the famous General O'Higgins, was one of the liberators of Chile. O'Higgins was followed in the viceroyalty by the Marquis of Aviles, and in 1806, Don Jose Abascal, an excellent ruler, assumed the reins of government. … But the rule of Spain was drawing to a close. The successor of Abascal, General Pezuela, was the last viceroy who peacefully succeeded. … Many things had tended to prepare the minds of the Creole population for revolt. The partial opening of foreign trade by Florida Blanca; the knowledge of their own enslaved condition, obtained through the medium of their increasing intercourse with independent states; and, finally, the invasion of the mother country by Napoleon's armies, brought popular excitement in South America to such a height that it required but a spark to ignite the inflammable materials."

The natives of Spanish descent had received heroic examples of revolt from the Inca Peruvians. "In November, 1780, a chief named Tupac Amaru rose in rebellion. His original object was to obtain guarantees for the due observance of the laws and their just administration. But when his moderate demands were only answered by cruel taunts and brutal menaces, he saw that independence or death were the only alternatives. He was a descendant of the ancient sovereigns, and he was proclaimed Ynca of Peru. A vast army joined him, as if by magic, and the Spanish dominion was shaken to its foundations. The insurrection all but succeeded, and a doubtful war was maintained for two years and a half. It lasted until July, 1783, and the cruelties which followed its suppression were due to the cowardly terror of panic-stricken tyrants. Tupac Amaru did not suffer in vain. … From the cruel death of the Ynca date the feelings which resulted in the independence of Peru. In 1814, another native chief, named Pumacagua, raised the cry of independence at Cuzco, and the sons of those who fell with Tupac Amaru flocked in thousands to his standard. The patriot army entered Arequipa in triumph, and was joined by many Spanish Americans, including the enthusiastic young poet, Melgar. Untrained valor succumbed to discipline, and in March, 1815, the insurrection was stamped out, but with less cruelty than disgraced the Spanish name in 1783."

PERU: A. D. 1820-1826.
   The Struggle for Independence.
   Help from Chile and Colombia.
   San Martin and Bolivar, the Liberators.
   The decisive battle of Ayacucho.

"The great struggle for independence in the Spanish provinces of South America had been elsewhere, for the most part, crowned with success before Peru became the theatre for important action. Here the Spaniards maintained possession of their last stronghold upon the continent, and, but for assistance from the neighbouring independent provinces, there would hardly have appeared a prospect of overthrowing the viceroyal government. … In the month of August, 1820, independence having been established in Chili [see CHILE: A. D. 1810-1818], an army of between 4,000 and 5,000 men was assembled at Valparaiso for the purpose of breaking up the royalist strongholds of Peru, and of freeing that province from the dominion of Spain. The command was held by General Jose de San Martin, the emancipator of Chili, to whose exertions the expedition was mainly attributable. Such vessels of war as could be procured were fitted out and placed under command of Lord Cochrane. In the month following, the whole force was landed and quartered at Pisco, on the Peruvian coast, without opposition from the royalist forces, which retreated to Lima, about 100 miles northward. An attempt at negotiation having failed, the army of invasion was again in motion in the month of October. The naval force anchored off Callao, where, on the night of November 5th, Lord Cochrane [afterwards Lord Dundonald], commanding in person, succeeded in cutting out and capturing the Spanish frigate Esmerelda, which lay under the protection of the guns of the fort, and in company with a number of smaller armed vessels. This exploit is considered as one of the most brilliant achievements of the kind on record. The main body of the Chilian troops was transported to Huara, about 75 miles north of the capital. … As San Martin, after some months' delay at Huara, advanced upon Lima, the city was thrown into the utmost confusion. The Spanish authorities found it necessary to evacuate the place. … The general [San Martin] entered the city on the 12th of July, 1821, unaccompanied by his army, and experienced little difficulty in satisfying the terrified inhabitants as to his good faith and the honesty of his intentions. All went on prosperously for the cause, and on the 28th the independence of Peru was formally proclaimed, amid the greatest exhibition of enthusiasm on the part of the populace. On the 3rd of the ensuing month San Martin assumed the title of Protector of Peru. No important military movements took place during a considerable subsequent period. The fortress at Callao remained in possession of the royalists" until the 21st of September, when it capitulated. "The independent army remained at Lima, for the most part unemployed, during a number of months subsequent to these events, and their presence began to be felt as a burden by the inhabitants. In April, 1822, a severe reverse was felt in the surprise and capture, by Canterac [the viceroy], of a very considerable body of the revolutionary forces, at Ica. … An interview took place in the month of July, of this year [1821], between the Protector and the great champion of freedom in South America, Bolivar, then in the full pride of success in the northern provinces. The result of the meeting was the augmentation of the force at Lima by 2,000 Columbian troops. During San Martin's absence the tyranny of his minister, Monteagudo, who made the deputy protector, the Marquis of Truxillo, a mere tool for the execution of his private projects, excited an outbreak, which was only quelled by the arrest and removal of the offending party. In the succeeding month the first independent congress was assembled at the capital, and San Martin, having resigned his authority, soon after took his departure for Chili. Congress appointed a junta of three persons to discharge the duties of the executive. Under this administration the affairs of the new republic fell into great disorder." In June, 1823, the Spanish viceroy regained possession of Lima, but withdrew his troops from it again a month later. Nevertheless, "all hopes of success in the enterprise of the revolution now seemed to rest upon the arrival of foreign assistance, and this was fortunately at hand. Simon Bolivar, the liberator of Venezuela, and the most distinguished of the champions of freedom in South America, had so far reduced the affairs of the recently constituted northern states [see COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1810-1819; and 1819-1830] to order and security, that he was enabled to turn his attention to the distressed condition of the Peruvian patriots. He proceeded at once to the scene of action, and entered Lima on the 1st of September, 1823. … He was received with great rejoicing, and was at once invested with supreme power, both civil and military. … {2524} In February, 1824, an insurrection of the garrison at Callao resulted in the recapture of this important stronghold by the Spaniards, and a few weeks later the capital shared the same fate. The revolutionary congress broke up, after declaring its own dissolution and the confirmation of Bolivar's authority as supreme dictator. This gloomy state of affairs only served to call forth the full energies of the great general. He had under his command about 10,000 troops, the majority of whom were Columbians, stationed near Patavilca. The available forces of the royalists were at this period numerically far superior to those of the patriots." An action which did not become general took place on the plains of Junin, but no decisive engagement occurred until the 9th of December, 1824, "when the decisive battle of Ayacucho, one of the most remarkable in its details and important in its results ever fought in South America, gave a deathblow to Spanish power in Peru. The attack was commenced by the royalists, under command of the viceroy. Their numbers very considerably exceeded those of the patriots, being set down at over 9,000, while those of the latter fell short of 6,000. … After a single hour's hard fighting, the assailants were routed and driven back to the heights of Condorcanqui, where, previous to the battle, they had taken a position. Their loss was 1,400 in killed and 700 wounded. The patriots lost in killed and wounded a little less than 1,000." Before the day closed, Canterac, the viceroy, entered the patriot camp and arranged the terms of a capitulation with General Sucre—who had commanded in the battle and won its honors, Bolivar not being present. "His whole remaining army became prisoners of war, and by the terms of the capitulation all the Spanish forces in Peru were also bound to surrender." A strong body of Spanish troops held out, however, in Upper Peru (afterwards Bolivia) until April, 1825, and the royalists who had taken refuge at Callao endured with desperate obstinacy a siege which was protracted until January, 1826, when most of them had perished of hunger and disease. "Bolivar was still clothed with the powers of a dictator in Peru. … He was anxious to bring about the adoption by the Peruvians of the civil code known as the Bolivian constitution, but it proved generally unsatisfactory. While he remained in the country, it is said, 'the people overwhelmed him with professions of gratitude, and addressed him in language unsuitable to any being below the Deity.' A reaction took place notwithstanding, and numbers were found ready to accuse this truly great man of selfish personal ambition."

PERU: A. D. 1825-1826.
The founding of the Republic of Bolivia in upper Peru.
The Bolivian Constitution.

"Bolivar reassembled the deputies of the Congress of Lower Peru, February 10, 1825, and in his message to that body resigned the dictatorship, adding, 'I felicitate Peru on her being delivered from whatever is most dreadful on earth; from war by the victory of Ayacucho, and from despotism by my resignation. Proscribe for ever, I entreat you, this tremendous authority, which was the sepulchre of Rome.' On the same occasion he also said; 'My continuance in this republic is an absurd and monstrous phenomenon; it is the approbrium of Peru;' with other expressions equally strong; while at the same time, at the pressing solicitation of the Congress, he consented, notwithstanding his many declarations of reluctance, to remain at the head of the republic. Nothing could exceed the blind submissiveness of this Congress to Bolivar. After investing him with dictatorial authority for another year, they voted him a grant of a million of dollars, which he twice refused, with a disinterestedness that does him the greatest honor. … Liberality of feeling, and entire freedom from rapacity of spirit, must be admitted as prominent traits in his character. After continuing in session about a month, the Congress came to a resolution, that as they had granted absolute and unconditional power to Bolivar, in regard to all subjects, whether legislative or executive, it was unnecessary, and incompatible with his authority, that they should continue to exercise their functions; and they accordingly separated. Bolivar, being left without check or control in the government, after issuing a decree for installing a new Congress at Lima the ensuing year, departed from Lima in April, for the purpose of visiting the interior provinces of Upper and Lower Peru. … There is reason to believe, that the flattering reception, with which he was greeted on this tour, largely contributed to foster those views of ambition respecting Peru, which he betrayed in the sequel. Certain it is, at least, that the extravagant gratitude of the inhabitants of Peru, gave him occasion to assume the task of a legislator, and thus to bring his political principles more directly before the world. When the victory of Ayacucho left the provinces of Upper Peru free to act, the great question presented to their consideration was, whether Upper Peru should be united to Lower Peru, or reannexed to Buenos Ayres, or constitute an independent state. Under the auspices of the Liberator and of Sucre [Bolivar's chief of staff], a general assembly was convened at Chuquisaco in August, 1825, which declared the will of the people to be, that Upper Peru should become a separate republic, and decreed that it should be called Bolivia in honor of the Liberator. Here their functions should properly have ceased, with the fulfilment of the object for which they met. Regardless, however, of the limited extent of their powers, they proceeded to exercise the authority of a general Congress. They conferred the supreme executive powers on Bolivar, so long as he should reside within the territory of the republic. Sucre was made captain-general of the army, with the title of Grand Marshal of Ayacucho, and his name was bestowed upon the capital. Medals, statues, and pictures were bountifully and profusely decreed, in honor of both Sucre and Bolivar. To the latter was voted a million of dollars, as an acknowledgment of his preeminent services to the country. With the same characteristic magnanimity, which he displayed on a like occasion in Lower Peru, he refused to accept the grant for his own benefit, but desired that it might be appropriated to purchasing the emancipation of about a thousand negroes held in servitude in Bolivia. Finally, they solicited Bolivar to prepare for the new republic a fundamental code, that should perpetuate his political principles in the very frame and constitution of the state. {2525} Captivated by the idea of creating a nation, from its very foundation, Bolivar consented to undertake the task, if, indeed, which has been confidently asserted to be the case, he did not himself procure the request to be made. The Liberator left Chuquisaca in January, 1826, and returned to Lima, to assist at the installation of the Congress summoned to meet there in February. He transmitted the form of a constitution for Bolivia from Lima, accompanied with an address, bearing date May 25, 1826. Of this extraordinary instrument, we feel at a loss to decide in what terms to speak. Bolivar has again and again declared, that it contains his confession of political faith. He gave all the powers of his mind to its preparation; he proclaimed it as the well-weighed result of his anxious meditations. … This constitution proposes a consolidated or central, not a federal, form of government; and thus far it is unobjectionable. Every ten citizens are to name an elector, whose tenure of office is four years. The Legislative power is to be vested in three branches, called tribunes, senators, and censors. Tribunes are to be elected for four years, senators for eight, and censors for life. So complicated is the arrangement proposed for the enactment of laws by means of this novel legislature, and so arbitrary and unnatural the distribution of powers among the several branches, that it would be impracticable for any people, having just notions of legislative proceedings, to conduct public business in the projected mode; and much more impracticable for men, like the South Americans, not at all familiar with the business of orderly legislation. But the most odious feature in the constitution relates to the nature and appointment of the executive authority. It is placed in the hands of a president, elected in the first instance by the legislative body, holding his office for life, without responsibility for the acts of his administration, and having the appointment of his successor. The whole patronage of the state, every appointment of any importance, from the vice-president and secretaries of state down to the officers of the revenue, belongs to him; in him is placed the absolute control of all the military force of the nation, it being at the same time specially provided, that a permanent armed force shall be constantly maintained. For the mighty power, the irresistible influence, which this plan imparts to the executive, the only corresponding security, assured to the people, is the inviolability of persons and property. The constituent Congress of Bolivia assembled at Chuquisaca, May 25, 1826, and passively adopted the proposed constitution to the letter, as if it had been a charter granted by a sovereign prince to his subjects, instead of a plan of government submitted to a deliberative assembly for their consideration. It took effect accordingly, as the constitution of Bolivia, and was sworn to by the people; and General Sucre was elected president for life under it, although one of its provisions expressly required, that the president should be a native of Bolivia."

      C. Cushing,
      Bolivar and the Bolivian Constitution
      (N. A. Rev., January 1830).

PERU: A. D. 1826-1876.
   Retirement of Bolivar.
   Attempted confederation with Bolivia and war with Chile.
   The succession of military presidents.
   Abolition of Slavery.
   War with Spain.

"As Bolivar … was again prevailed upon [1826] by the Peruvians to accept the dictatorship of the northern republic, and was at the same time President of the United States of Colombia, he was by far the most powerful man on the continent of America. For a time it was supposed that the balance of power on the southern continent was falling into Colombian hands. … But the power of Bolivar, even in his own country, rested on a tottering basis. Much more was this the case in the greater Vice-royalty. The Peruvian generals, who ruled the opinion of the country, were incurably jealous of him and his army, and got rid of the latter as soon as they could clear off the arrears of pay. They looked upon the Code Bolivar itself as a badge of servitude, and were not sorry when the domestic disturbances of Colombia summoned the Dictator from among them [September, 1826]. The Peruvians, who owed a heavy debt, both in money and gratitude, to Colombia, now altogether repudiated Bolivar, his code, and his government; and the Bolivians followed their example by expelling Sucre and his Colombian troops (1828). The revolution which expelled the Colombian element was mainly a national and military one: but it was no doubt assisted by whatever of liberalism existed in the country. Bolivar had now shown himself in Colombia to be the apostle of military tyranny, and he was not likely to assume another character in Peru. The ascendeney of Colombia in the Perus was thus of short duration; but the people of the two Perus only exchanged Colombian dictatorship for that of the generals of their own nation."

   "A Peruvian Congress met in 1827, after General Bolivar had
   returned to Colombia, and elected Don José Lamar, the leader
   of the Peruvian infantry at Ayacucho, as President of the
   Republic; but his defeat in an attempt to wrest Guayaquil from
   Colombia led to his fall, and Agustin Gamarra, an Ynca Indian
   of Cuzco, succeeded him in 1829. Although successful soldiers
   secured the presidential chair, the administration in the
   early days of the Republic contained men of rank, and others
   of integrity and talent. … General Gamarra served his regular
   term of office, and after a discreditable display of sedition
   he was succeeded in 1834 by Don Luis José Orbegoso. Then
   followed an attempt to unite Peru and Bolivia in a
   confederation. The plan was conceived by Don Andres Santa
   Cruz, an Ynca Indian of high descent, who had been President
   of Bolivia since 1829. Orbegoso concurred, and the scheme,
   which had in it some elements of hopefulness and success, was
   carried out, but not without deplorable bloodshed. The
   Peru-Bolivian Confederation was divided into three
   States—North Peru, South Peru, and Bolivia. During the
   ascendancy of Santa Cruz, Peru enjoyed a period of peace and
   prosperity. But his power excited the jealousy of Chile, and
   that Republic united with Peruvian malcontents, headed by
   General Gamarra, to destroy it. A Chilian army landed, and
   Santa Cruz was hopelessly defeated in the battle of Yungay,
   which was fought in the Callejon de Huaylas, on the banks of
   the river Santa, on January 20th, 1839. A Congress assembled
   at the little town of Huancayo, in the Sierra, which
   acknowledged Gamarra as President of the Republic, and
   proclaimed a new Constitution on November 16th, 1839. But the
   new state of things was of short duration.
{2526}
   On the pretext of danger from the party of Santa Cruz, war was
   declared upon Bolivia, which resulted in the defeat of the
   Peruvians at the battle of Yngavi, near the banks of Lake
   Titicaca, on November 20th, 1841, and the death of Gamarra. A
   very discreditable period of anarchy ensued, during which
   Gamarra's generals fought with each other for supremacy, which
   was ended by the success of another Indian, and on April 19th,
   1845, General Don Ramon Castilla was proclaimed Constitutional
   President of Peru. … Uneducated and ignorant, his
   administrative merits were small, but his firm and vigorous
   grasp of power secured for Peru long periods of peace. … At
   the end of Castilla's term of office General Echenique
   succeeded him; but in 1854 Castilla placed himself at the head
   of a revolution, and again found himself in power. A new
   Constitution was promulgated in 1856; the tribute of the
   Indians and negro slavery were abolished, and a grant of
   $1,710,000 was voted as compensation to the owners of slaves.
   The mass of the people ceased to be taxed. The revenue was
   entirely derived from sales of guano, customs duties,
   licences, and stamps. … When Castilla retired from office in
   1862, he was succeeded by General San Roman, an old Ynca
   Indian of Puno, whose father had fought under Pumacagua. The
   Republic had then existed for 40 years, during which time it
   had been torn by civil or external wars for nine years and had
   enjoyed 81 years of peace and order. Very great advances had
   been made in prosperity during the years of peace. … General
   San Roman died in 1863, his Vice President, General Pezet, was
   replaced [through a revolution] by Colonel Don Mariano Ignacio
   Prado, and a war with Spain practically ended with the repulse
   of the Spanish fleet from Callao au May 2nd, 1866. The war was
   unjust, the pretext being the alleged ill-treatment of some
   Spanish immigrants at an estate called Talambo, in the coast
   valley of Jequetepeque, which might easily have been arranged
   by arbitration. But the success at Callao aroused the
   enthusiasm of the people and excited strong patriotic
   feelings. Colonel Don Jose Balta was elected President of Peru
   on August 2nd, 1868, the present Constitution having been
   proclaimed on August 31st, 1867. The Senate is composed of
   Deputies of the Provinces, with a property qualification, and
   the House of Representatives of members nominated by electoral
   colleges of provinces and districts, one member for every
   20,000 inhabitants. The district colleges choose deputies to
   the provincial colleges, who elect the representatives to
   Congress. There are 44 senators and 110 representatives.
   Executive power is in the hands of a President and
   Vice–President, elected for four years, with a Cabinet of five
   Ministers. … The government of Colonel Balta entered upon a
   career of wild extravagance, and pushed forward the execution
   of railways and other public works with feverish haste,
   bringing ruin upon the country. … It is sad that a wretched
   military outbreak, in which the President was killed on July
   26th, 1872, should have given it a tragic termination. … On
   August 2nd, 1872, Don Manuel Pardo became Constitutional
   President of Peru. He was the first civilian that had been
   elected. … He came to the helm at a period of great financial
   difficulty, and he undertook a thankless but patriotic task. …
   He was the best President that Peru has ever known. When his
   term of office came to an end, he was peacefully succeeded, on
   August 2nd, 1876, by General Don Mariano Ignacio Prado."

Since the close of the war with Chile, Peru has been slowly recovering from its destructive effects. General Caceres became President in 1886, and was succeeded in 1890 by General Remigio Morales Bermudez, whose term expires in 1894.

Upper Peru and Lower Peru of the older Spanish viceroyalty are represented, at the present time, the former by the Republic of Bolivia, the latter by the Republic of Peru.

In the second year of the triumvirate of Octavius, Antony and Lepidus, Antony being in the east, his wife Fulvia and his brother fomented a revolt in Italy against Octavius, which forced the latter for a time to quit Rome. But his coolness, with the energy and ability of his friend Agrippa, overcame the conspiracy. The army of the insurgents was blockaded in Perusia (modern Perugia) and sustained a siege of several months, so obstinate that the whole affair came to be called the war of Perusia. The siege was distinguished by a peculiar horror; for the slaves of the city were deliberately starved to death, being denied food and also denied escape, lest the besiegers should learn of the scarcity within the walls.

PERUVIAN QUIPU.

PESO DE ORO.

PESTILENCE.

PETALISM.

A vote of banishment which the ancient Syracusans brought into practice for a time, in imitation of the Ostracism of the Athenians,—(see OSTRACISM). The name of the citizen to be banished was written, at Syracuse, on olive-leaves, instead of on shells, as at Athens. Hence the name, petalism.

PETER,
Latin Emperor at Constantinople (Romania), A. D. 1217-1219.
Peter I. (called The Great), Czar of Russia, 1689-1725.

PETER'S PENCE.

King Offa, of the old English kingdom of Mercia, procured, by a liberal tribute to Rome, a new archbishopric for Lichfield, thus dividing the province of Canterbury. "This payment … is probably the origin of the Rom-feoh, or Peter's pence, a tax of a penny on every hearth, which was collected [in England] and sent to Rome from the beginning of the tenth century, and was a subject of frequent legislation. But the archiepiscopate of Lichfield scarcely survived its founder."

W. Stubbs, Constitutional History of England, chapter 8, section 86 (volume 1).

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (JUNE: VIRGINIA), (JULY: VIRGINIA),
      (AUGUST: VIRGINIA); 1865 (MARCH-APRIL: VIRGINIA).

PETIT SERJEANTY.

PETROBRUSIANS. HENRICIANS.

"The heretic who, for above twenty years, attempted a restoration of a simple religion in Southern France, the well-known Pierre de Bruys, a native of Gap or Embrun, … warred against images and all other visible emblems of worship; he questioned the expediency of infant baptism, the soundness of the doctrine of transubstantiation, and opposed prayers for the dead; but he professed poverty for himself, and would have equally enforced it upon all the ministers of the altar. He protested against the payment of tithes; and it was, most probably, owing to this last, the most heinous of all offences, that he was, towards 1130, burnt with slow fire by a populace maddened by the priests, at St. Gilles, on the Rhone. … His followers rallied … and changed their name of Petrobrusians into that of Henricians, when the mantle of their first master rested on the shoulders of Henry, supposed by Mosheim [Eccles. History, volume 2] to have been an Italian Eremite monk."

A Gallic tribe established in the ancient Périgord, the modern
French department of the Dordogne.

"The Peucini derived their name from the little island Peuce (Piczino) at the mouth of the Danube. Pliny (iv. 14) speaks of them as a German people bordering on the Daci. They would thus stretch through Moldavia from the Carpathian Mountains to the Black Sea. Under the name Bastarnæ they are mentioned by Livy (xl. 57, 58) as a powerful people, who helped Philip, king of Macedonia, in his wars with the Romans. Plutarch ('Life of Paullus Æmilius,' ch. ix.) says they were the same as the Galatæ, who dwelt round the Ister (Danube). If so, they were Gauls, which Livy also implies."

This is the name given to the only copy which has survived of a Roman official road-chart. "Tables of this kind were not maps in the proper sense of the term, but were rather diagrams drawn purposely out of proportion, on which the public roads were projected in a panoramic view. The latitude and longitude and the positions of rivers and mountains were disregarded so far as they might interfere with the display of the provinces, the outlines being flattened out to suit the shape of a roll of parchment; but the distances between the stations were inserted in numerals, so that an extract from the record might be used as a supplement to the table of mileage in the road-book. The copy now remaining derives its name from Conrad Peutinger of Augsburg, in whose library it was found on his death in 1547. It is supposed to have been brought to Europe from a monastery in the Latin kingdom of Jerusalem, and to have been a copy taken by some thirteenth century scribe from an original assigned to the beginning of the fourth century or the end of the third.'

PEVENSEY.

The landing-place of William the Conqueror, September 28,
A. D. 1066, when he came to win the crown of England.

PFALZ. PFALZGRAF.

PHACUSEH.

"We are wholly at a loss to explain the reasons that led the Greeks in early times … to treat the Phæacians [of Homer's Odyssey] as a historical people, and to identify the Homeric Scheria with the island of Corcyra [modern Corfu]. … We must … be content to banish the kindly and hospitable Phæacians, as well as the barbarous Cyclopes and Læstrygones, to that outer zone of the Homeric world, in which everything was still shrouded in a veil of marvel and mystery."

"The main body, the phalanx—or quadruple phalanx, as it was sometimes called, to mark that it was formed of four divisions, each bearing the same name—presented a mass of 18,000 men, which was distributed, at least by Alexander, into six brigades of 3,000 each, formidable in its aspect, and, on ground suited to its operations, irresistible in its attacks. The phalangite soldier wore the usual defensive armour of the Greek heavy infantry, helmet, breast-plate, and greaves; and almost the whole front of his person was covered with the long shield called the aspis. His weapons were a sword, long enough to enable a man in the second rank to reach an enemy who had come to close quarters with the comrade who stood before him, and the celebrated spear, known by the Macedonian name sarissa, four and twenty feet long. The sarissa, when couched, projected eighteen feet in front of the soldier, and the space between the ranks was such that those of the second rank were fifteen, those of the third twelve, those of the fourth nine, those of the fifth six, and those of the sixth three feet in advance of the first line; so that the man at the head of the file was guarded on each side by the points of six spears. The ordinary depth of the phalanx was of sixteen ranks. The men who stood too far behind to use their sarissas, and who therefore kept them raised until they advanced to fill a vacant place, still added to the pressure of the mass. As the efficacy of the phalanx depended on its compactness, and this again on the uniformity of its movements, the greatest care was taken to select the best soldiers for the foremost and hindmost ranks—the frames, as it were, of the engine. The bulk and core of the phalanx consisted of Macedonians; but it was composed in part of foreign troops."

Phalaris is said to have been a rich man who made himself tyrant of the Greek city of Agrigentum in Sicily, about 570 B. C., and who distinguished himself above all others of his kind by his cruelties. He seems to have been especially infamous in early times on account of his brazen bull. "This piece of mechanism was hollow, and sufficiently capacious to contain one or more victims enclosed within it, to perish in tortures when the metal was heated: the cries of these suffering prisoners passed for the roarings of the animal. The artist was named Perillus, and is said to have been himself the first person burnt in it by order of the despot."

At a later time Phalaris was represented as having been a man of culture and letters, and certain Epistles were ascribed to him which most scholars now regard as forgeries. The famous treatise of Bentley is thought to have settled the question.

PHALERUM.

"The reduction of Constantinople, in 1453, was mainly achieved by the extraordinary exploit of Mahomet II. in transporting his galleys from the Bosphorus to the interior of the harbour, by dragging them over land from Dolma Bactche, and again launching them opposite to the quarter denominated the Phanar, from a lantern suspended over the gate which there communicates with the city. The inhabitants of this district, either from terror or treachery, are said to have subsequently thrown open a passage to the conqueror; and Mahomet, as a remuneration, assigned them for their residence this portion of Constantinople, which has since continued to be occupied by the Patriarch and the most distinguished families of the Greeks. It is only, however, within the last century and a half that the Phanariots have attained any distinction beyond that of merchants and bankers, or that their name, from merely designating their residence, has been used to indicate their diplomatic employments."

The title Pharaoh which was given to the kings of ancient Egypt, "appears on the monuments as piraa, 'great house,' the palace in which the king lived being used to denote the king himself, just as in our own time the 'porte' or gate of the palace has become synonymous with the Turkish Sultan."

PHARAOHITES.

PHELPS' AND GORHAM'S PURCHASE.

PHERÆ.

A town in ancient Thessaly which acquired an evil fame in Greek history, during the fourth century, B. C., by the power and the cruelty of the tyrants who ruled it and who extended their sway for a time over the greater part of Thessaly. Jason and Alexander were the most notorious of the brood.

The city of Philadelphia, founded by Attalus Philadelphus of Pergamum, in eastern Lydia, not far from Sardes, was one in which Christianity flourished at an early day, and which prospered for several centuries, notwithstanding repeated calamities of earthquake. It was the last community of Greeks in Asia Minor which retained its independence of the Turks. It stood out for two generations in the midst of the Seljouk Turks, after all around it had succumbed. The brave city was finally taken by the Ottoman sultan, Bayezid, or Bajazet, about 1390. The Turks then gave it the name Alashehr.

G. Finlay, History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires, book 4, chapter 2, section 4 (volume 2).

PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania: A. D. 1641.-
The first settlement, by New Haven colonists.

PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania: A. D. 1719-1729.
The first newspapers.
Franklin's advent.

PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania: A. D. 1765.
Patriotic self-denials.
Non-importation agreements.

PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania: A. D. 1775.
Reception of the news of Lexington and Concord.

PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania: A. D. 1777.
The British army in the city.
Removal of Congress to York.

PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania: A. D. 1777-1778.
   The gay winter with the British in the city.
   The Battle of the Kegs.
   The Mischianza.

"The year 1778 found the British at Philadelphia in snug quarters, unembarrassed by the cares of the field, and, except for occasional detachments, free from other military duties than the necessary details of garrison life. The trifling affairs that occurred during the remainder of the season served rather as a zest to the pleasures which engaged them than as a serious occupation. … No sooner were they settled in their winter-quarters than the English set on foot scenes of gayety that were long remembered, and often with regret, by the younger part of the local gentry. … Of all the band, no one seems to have created such a pleasing impression or to have been so long admiringly remembered as André. His name in our own days lingered on the lips of every aged woman whose youth had seen her a belle in the royal lines. … The military feats about Philadelphia, in the earlier part of 1778, were neither numerous or important. Howe aimed at little more than keeping a passage clear for the country-people, within certain bounds, to come in with marketing. The incident known as the Battle of the Kegs was celebrated by Hopkinson in a very amusing song that, wedded to the air of Maggy Lander, was long the favorite of the American military vocalists; but it hardly seems to have been noticed at Philadelphia until the Whig version came in. The local newspapers say that, in January, 1778, a barrel floating down the Delaware being taken up by some boys exploded in their hands, and killed or maimed one of them. A few days after, some of the transports fired a few guns at several other kegs that appeared on the tide; but no particular notice of the occurrence was taken. These torpedoes were sent down in the hope that they would damage the shipping." When Howe was displaced from the command and recalled, his officers, among whom he was very popular, resolved "to commemorate their esteem for him by an entertainment not less novel than splendid. This was the famous Mischianza [or Meschianza] of the 18th of May, 1778; the various nature of which is expressed by its name, while its conception is evidently taken from Lord Derby's fête champêtre at The Oaks, June 9th, 1774, on occasion of Lord Stanley's marriage to the Duke of Hamilton's daughter. … The regatta, or aquatic procession, in the Mischianza was suggested by a like pageant on the Thames, June 23rd, 1775. … A mock tournament—perhaps the first in America—was a part of the play."

ALSO IN: J. T. Scharf and T. Westcott, History of Philadelphia, chapter 17 (volume 1).

PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania: A. D. 1780-1784. Founding of the Pennsylvania Bank and the Bank of North America.

PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania: A. D. 1787.
The sitting of the Federal Constitutional Convention.

PHILADELPHIA LIBRARY COMPANY.

   Philip II., King of the Two Sicilies, 1554-1598;
   Duke of Burgundy, 1555-1598;
   King of Spain, 1556-1598;
   King of Portugal, 1580-1598.

Philip III., King of Spain, Portugal and the Two Sicilies, and Duke of Burgundy, 1598-1621.

Philip of Macedonia in 356 B. C. took from the Thasians the rich gold-mining district of Pangæus, on the left bank of the Strymon on the border of Thrace, and settled a colony there in what afterwards became the important city of Philippi.

"One small nation alone, of all which dwelt on the land claimed by Israel, permanently refused to amalgamate itself with the circumcised peoples,—namely the uncircumcised Philistines. They occupied the lots which ought to have been conquered by Dan and Simeon, and had five principal cities, Gaza, Askelon, Ashdod, Gath and Ekron, of which the three first are on the sea-coast. Ashdod and Gaza were places of great strength, capable of long resisting the efforts of Egyptian and Greek warfare. The Philistines cannot have been a populous nation, but they were far more advanced in the arts of peace and war than the Hebrews. Their position commanded the land traffic between Egypt and Canaan, and gave them access to the sea; hence perhaps their wealth and comparatively advanced civilization. Some learned men give credit to an account in Sanchoniathon, that they came from Crete." They gave their name to Palestine.

"Where the Philistines came from, and what they originally were, is not clear. That they moved up the coast from Egypt is certain; that they came from Kaphtor is also certain. But it by no means follows, as some argue, that Kaphtor and Egypt are the same region. … It appears more safe to identify Kaphtor with" Crete. "But to have traced the Philistines to Crete is not to have cleared up their origin, for early Crete was full of tribes from both east and west. … Take them as a whole, and the Philistines appear a Semitic people."

      ALSO IN:
      Dean Stanley,
      Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church,
      lecture 16.

Phlius, the chief city of the small mountain state of Phliasia, in the northeastern corner of Peloponnesus, adjoining Argos and Arcadia, made an heroic effort, B. C. 380, to maintain its liberties against Sparta. Under a valiant leader, Delphion, it endured a siege which lasted more than an entire year. When forced to surrender, in the end, it was treated with terrible severity by the Spartan king, Agesilaus.

"The citizens of Phocæa had been the last on the coast-line of Ionia [see ASIA MINOR: THE GREEK COLONIES] to settle down to a condition of tranquillity. They had no building-ground but a rocky peninsula, where they found so little space over which to spread at their ease that this very circumstance made them a thorough people of sailors. In accordance with their local situation they had turned to the waters of the Pontus, established settlements on the Dardanelles and the Black Sea, and taken part in the trade with Egypt. Here however they were unable to hold their own by the side of the Milesians, … and the Phocæans accordingly saw themselves obliged to look westward and to follow the direction of Chalcidian navigation. … It was thus that the Ionian Phocæans came into the western sea. Being forced from the first to accustom themselves to long and distant voyages, instead of the easy summer trips of the other maritime cities, they became notably bold and heroic sailors. They began where the rest left off; they made voyages of discovery into regions avoided by others; they remained at sea even when the skies already showed signs of approaching winter and the observation of the stars became difficult. They built their ships long and slim, in order to increase their agility; their merchant vessels were at the same time men-of-war. … They entered those parts of the Adriatic which most abound in rocks, and circumnavigated the islands of the Tyrrhenian sea in spite of the Carthaginian guard–ships; they sought out the bays of Campania and the mouths of the Tiber and Arnus; they proceeded farther, past the Alpine ranges, along the coast as far as the mouth of the Rhodanus, and finally reached Iberia, with whose rich treasures of precious metals they had first become acquainted on the coast of Italy. … During the period when Ionia began to be hard pressed by the Lydians, the Phocæans, who had hitherto contented themselves with small commercial settlements, in their turn proceeded to the foundation of cities in Gaul and Iberia. The month of the Rhodanus [the Rhone] was of especial importance to them for the purposes of land and sea trade. … Massalia [modern Marseilles], from the forty-fifth Olympiad [B. C. 600] became a fixed seat of Hellenic culture in the land of the Celts, despite the hostility of the piratical tribes of Liguria and the Punic fleet. Large fisheries were established on the shore; and the stony soil in the immediate vicinity of the city itself was converted into vine and olive plantations. The roads leading inland were made level, which brought the products of the country to the mouth of the Rhone; and in the Celtic towns were set up mercantile establishments, which collected at Massalia the loads of British tin, of inestimable value for the manufacture of copper, while wine and oil, as well as works of art, particularly copper utensils, were supplied to the interior. A totally new horizon opened for Hellenic inquiry."

PHOCIS: B. C. 357-346.
   Seizure of Delphi.
   The Ten Years Sacred War with Thebes.
   Intervention of Philip of Macedon.
   Heavy punishment by his hand.

   "The traditions of the Phœnicians collected at Tyre itself by
   Herodotus …; those of the inhabitants of Southern Arabia
   preserved by Strabo; and, finally, those still current in
   Babylonia during the first centuries of the Christian era,
   when the Syro-Chaldee original of the book of 'Nabathæan
   Agriculture' was revised—all agree in stating that the
   Canaanites at first lived near the Cushites, their brethren in
   race, on the banks of the Erythræan Sea, or Persian Gulf, on
   that portion of the coast of Bahrein designated El Katif on
   our modern maps of Arabia. Pliny speaks of a land of Canaan in
   this neighbourhood, in his time. … According to Tragus
   Pompeius, the Canaanites were driven from their first
   settlements by earthquakes, and then journeyed towards
   Southern Syria.
{2531}
   The traditions preserved in 'Nabathæan Agriculture' state, on
   the contrary, that they were violently expelled, in
   consequence of a quarrel with the Cushite monarchs of Babylon
   of the dynasty of Nimrod; and this is also the account given
   by the Arabian historians. … The entry of the Canaanites into
   Palestine, and their settlement in the entire country situated
   between the sea and the valley of Jordan, must … be placed
   between the period when the twelfth dynasty governed Egypt and
   that when the Elamite king, Chedorlaomer, reigned as suzerain
   over all the Tigro-Euphrates basin. This brings us
   approximately between 2400 and 2300 B. C. … The Sidonians
   formed the first settlement, and always remained at the head
   of the Phœnician nation, which, at all periods of its history,
   even when joined by other peoples of the same race, called
   itself both 'Canaanite' and 'Sidonian.' … The Greek name,
   Phœnicians, of unknown origin, must not be applied to the
   whole of the nations of the race of Canaan who settled in
   Southern Syria; it belongs to the Canaanites of the sea coast
   only, who were always widely separated from the others.
   Phœnicia, in both classical history and geography, is merely
   that very narrow tract of land, hemmed in by mountains and
   sea, extending from Aradus on the north to the town of Acco on
   the south."

"Renan sums up the evidence when he says: 'The greater number of modern critics admit it as demonstrated, that the primitive abode of the Phœnicians must be placed on the Lower Euphrates, in the centre of the great commercial and maritime establishments of the Persian Gulf, conformably to the unanimous witness of antiquity.' The date, the causes, and the circumstances of the migration are involved in equal obscurity. The motive for it assigned by Justin is absurd, since no nation ever undertook a long and difficult migration on account of an earthquake. If we may resort to conjecture we should b inclined to suggest that the spirit of adventure gave the first impulse, and that afterwards the unexampled facilities for trade, which the Mediterranean coast was found to possess, attracted a continuous flow of immigrants from the sea of the Rising to that of the Setting Sun."

"The campaigns which the Pharaohs undertook against Syria and the land of the Euphrates after the expulsion of the Shepherds could not leave these cities [Sidon and others] unmoved. If the Zemar of the inscriptions of Tuthmosis III. is Zemar (Simyra) near Aradus, and Arathutu is Aradus itself, the territories of these cities were laid waste by this king in his sixth campaign (about the year 1580 B. C.); if Arkatu is Arka, south of Aradus, this place must have been destroyed in his fifteenth campaign (about the year 1570 B. C.). Sethos I. (1440-1400 B. C.) subdued the land of Limanon (i. e. the region of Lebanon). and caused cedars to be felled there. One of his inscriptions mentions Zor, i. e. Tyre, among the cities conquered by him. The son and successor of Sethos I., Ramses II., also forced his way in the first decades of the fourteenth century as far as the coasts of the Phenicians. At the mouth of the Nahr el Kelb, between Sidon and Berytus, the rocks on the coast display the memorial which he caused to be set up in the second and third year of his reign in honour of the successes obtained in this region. In the fifth year of his reign Ramses, with the king of the Cheta, defeats the king of Arathu in the neighbourhood of Kadeshu on the Orontes, and Ramses III., about the year 1310 B. C., mentions beside the Cheta who attack Egypt the people of Arathu, by which name in the one case as in the other, may be meant the warriors of Aradus. If Arathu, like Arathutu, is Aradus, it follows, from the position which Ramses II. and III. give to the princes of Arathu, that beside the power to which the kingdom of the Hittites had risen about the middle of the fifteenth century B. C., and which it maintained to the end of the fourteenth, the Phenician cities had assumed an independent position. The successes of the Pharaohs in Syria come to an end in the first decades of the fourteenth century. Egypt makes peace and enters into a contract of marriage with the royal house of the Cheta. … The overthrow of the kingdom of the Hittites, which succumbed to the attack of the Amorites soon after the year 1300 B. C., must have had a reaction on the cities of the Phenicians. Expelled Hittites must have been driven to the coast-land, or have fled thither, and in the middle of the thirteenth century the successes gained by the Hebrews who broke in from the East, over the Amorites, the settlement of the Hebrews on the mountains of the Amorites [see JEWS: CONQUEST OF CANAAN], must again have thrown the vanquished, i. e. the fugitives of this nation, towards the coast. With this retirement of the older strata of the population of Canaan to the coast is connected the movement which from this period emanates from the coasts of the Phenicians, and is directed towards the islands of the Mediterranean and the Ægean. It is true that on this subject only the most scanty statements and traces, only the most legendary traditions have come down to us, so that we can ascertain these advances only in the most wavering outlines. One hundred miles to the west off the coast of Phenicia lies the island of Cyprus. … The western writers state that before the time of the Trojan war Belus had conquered and subjugated the island of Cyprus, and that Citium belonged to Belus. The victorious Belus is the Baal of the Phenicians. The date of the Trojan war is of no importance for the settlement of the Phenicians in Cyprus, for this statement is found in Virgil only. More important is the fact that the settlers brought the Babylonian cuneiform writing to Cyprus. … The settlement of the Sidonians in Cyprus must therefore have taken place before the time in which the alphabetic writing, i. e. the writing specially known as Phenician, was in use in Syria, and hence at the latest before 1100 B. C. … In the beginning of the tenth century B. C. the cities of Cyprus stood under the supremacy of the king of Tyre. The island was of extraordinary fertility. The forests furnished wood for ship-building; the mountains concealed rich veins of the metal which has obtained the name of copper from this island. Hence it was a very valuable acquisition, an essential strengthening of the power of Sidon in the older, and Tyre in the later period. … {2532} As early as the fifteenth century B. C., we may regard the Phenician cities as the central points of a trade branching east and west, which must have been augmented by the fact that they conveyed not only products of the Syrian land to the Euphrates and the Nile, but could also carry the goods which they obtained in exchange in Egypt to Babylonia, and what they obtained beyond the Euphrates to Egypt. At the same time the fabrics of Babylon and Egypt roused them to emulation, and called forth an industry among the Phenicians which we see producing woven stuffs, vessels of clay and metal, ornaments and weapons, and becoming preeminent in the colouring of stuffs with the liquor of the purple-fish which are found on the Phenician coasts. This industry required above all things metals, of which Babylonia and Egypt were no less in need, and when the purple-fish of their own coasts were no longer sufficient for their extensive dyeing, colouring-matter had to be obtained. Large quantities of these fish produced a proportionately small amount of the dye. Copper-ore was found in Cyprus, gold in the island of Thasos, and purple-fish on the coasts of Hellas. When the fall of the kingdom of the Hittites and the overthrow of the Amorite princes in the south of Canaan augmented the numbers of the population on the coast, these cities were no longer content to obtain those possessions of the islands by merely landing and making exchanges with the inhabitants. Intercourse with semi-barbarous tribes must be protected by the sword. Good harbours were needed. … Thus arose protecting forts on the distant islands and coasts, which received the ships of the native land. … In order to obtain the raw material necessary for their industry no less than to carry off the surplus of population, the Phenicians were brought to colonise Cyprus, Rhodes, Crete, Thera, Melos, Oliarus, Samothrace, Imbros, Lemnos and Thasos. In the bays of Laconia and Argos, in the straits of Eubœa, purple–fish were found in extraordinary quantities. … We may conclude that the Phenicians must have set foot on Cyprus about the year 1250 B. C., and on the islands and coasts of Hellas about the year 1200 B. C. Thucydides observes that in ancient times the Phenicians had occupied the promontories of Sicily and the small islands lying around Sicily, in order to carry on trade with the Sicels. Diodorus Siculus tells us that when the Phenicians extended their trade to the western ocean they settled in the island of Melite (Malta), owing to its situation in the middle of the sea and excellent harbours, in order to have a refuge for their ships. … On Sardinia also, as Diodorus tells us, the Phenicians planted many colonies. The mountains of Sardinia contained iron, silver, and lead. … The legend of the Greeks makes Heracles, i. e. Baal Melkarth, lord of the whole West. As a fact, the colonies of the Phenicians went beyond Sardinia in this direction. Their first colonies on the north coast of Africa appear to have been planted where the shore runs out nearest Sicily; Hippo was apparently regarded as the oldest colony. In the legends of the coins mentioned above Hippo is named beside Tyre and Citium as a daughter of Sidon. … Ityke (atak, settlement, Utica), on the mouth of the Bagradas (Medsherda), takes the next place after this Hippo, if indeed it was not founded before it. Aristotle tells us that the Phenicians stated that Ityke was built 287 years before Carthage, and Pliny maintains that Ityke was founded 1,178 years before his time. As Carthage was founded in the year 846 B. C. [see CARTHAGE] Ityke, according to Aristotle's statement, was built in the year 1133 B. C. With this the statement of Pliny agrees. He wrote in the years 52-77 A. D., and therefore he places the foundation of Ityke in the year 1126 or 1100 B. C. About the same time, i. e. about the year 1100 B. C., the Phenicians had already reached much further to the west. … When their undertakings succeeded according to their desire and they had collected great treasures, they resolved to traverse the sea beyond the pillars of Heracles, which is called Oceanus. First of all, on their passage through these pillars, they founded upon a peninsula of Europe a city which they called Gadeira. … This foundation of Gades, which on the coins is called Gadir and Agadir, i. e. wall, fortification, the modern Cadiz, and without doubt the most ancient city in Europe which has preserved its name, is said to have taken place in the year 1100 B. C. If Ityke was founded before 1100 B. C. or about that time, we have no reason to doubt the founding of Gades soon after that date. Hence the ships of the Phenicians would have reached the ocean about the time when Tiglath Pilesar I. left the Tigris with his army, trod the north of Syria, and looked on the Mediterranean."

"The typical Phœnician colony was only a trading station, inhabited by dealers, who had not ceased to be counted as citizens of the parent State. … In Phœnicia itself the chief object of public interest was the maintenance and extension of foreign trade. The wealth of the country depended on the profits of the merchants, and it was therefore the interest of the Government to encourage and protect the adventures of the citizens. Unlike the treasures or curiosities imported by the fleets of royal adventurers, Phœnician imports were not intended to be consumed within the country, but to be exchanged for the most part for other commodities. The products of all lands were brought to market there, and the market people, after supplying all their own wants in kind, still had commodities to sell at a profit to the rest of the world. The Government did not seek to retain a monopoly of this profit; on the contrary, private enterprise seems to have been more untrammelled than at any time before the present century. But individuals and the State were agreed in desiring to retain a monopoly of foreign traffic as against the rest of the world, hence the invention of 'Phœnician lies' about the dangers of the sea, and the real dangers which 'Tyrian seas' came to possess for navigators of any other nation. … Phœnician traders were everywhere first in the field, and it was easy for them to persuade their barbarous customers that foreigners of any other stock were dangerous and should be treated as enemies. They themselves relied more on stratagem than on open warfare to keep the seas, which they considered their own, free from other navigators. … Silver and gold, wool and purple, couches inlaid with ivory, Babylonish garments and carpets, unguents of all sorts, female slaves and musicians, are indicated by the comic poets as forming part of the typical cargo of a Phœnician merchantman, the value of which in many cases would reach a far higher figure than a small ship-owner or captain could command. {2533} As a consequence, a good deal of banking or money-lending business was done by the wealthy members of the great Corporation of Merchants and Ship-owners. The Phœnicians had an evil reputation with the other nations of the Mediterranean for sharp practices, and the custom of lending money at interest was considered, of course wrongly, a Phœnician invention, though it is possible that they led the way in the general substitution of loans at interest for the more primitive use of antichretic pledges. … To the Greeks the name Phœnician seems to have called up the same sort of association as those which still cling to the name of Jew in circles which make no boast of tolerance; and it is probable enough that the first, like the second, great race of wandering traders was less scrupulous in its dealings with aliens than compatriots. … So far as the Punic race may be supposed to have merited its evil reputation, one is tempted to account for the fact by the character of its principal staples. All the products of all the countries of the world circulated in Phœnician merchantmen, but the two most considerable, and most profitable articles of trade in which they dealt were human beings and the precious metals. The Phœnicians were the slave-dealers and the money-changers of the Old World. And it is evident that a branch of trade, which necessarily follows the methods of piracy, is less favourable to the growth of the social virtues than the cultivation of the ground, the domestication of animals, or the arts and manufactures by which the products of nature are applied to new and varied uses. Compared with the trade in slaves, that in metals—gold, silver, copper and tin—must seem innocent and meritorious; yet the experience of ages seems to show that, somehow or other, mining is not a moralizing industry. … Sidon was famous in Homer's time for copper or bronze, and Tyre in Solomon's for bronze (the 'brass' of the Authorized Version); and the Phœnicians retailed the work of all other metallurgists as well as their own, as they retailed the manufactures of Egypt and Babylonia, and the gums and spices of Arabia. … Two things are certain with regard to the continental commerce of Europe before the written history of its northern countries begins. Tin and umber were conveyed by more than one route from Cornwall and the North Sea to Mediterranean ports. In the latter case the traders proceeded up the Rhine and the Aar, along the Jura to the Rhone, and thence down to Marseilles; and also across the Alps, by a track forking off, perhaps at Grenoble, into the valley of the Po, and so to the Adriatic. … Apart from the Phœnician sea trade, Cornish tin was conveyed partly by water to Armorica and to Marseilles through the west of France; but also to the east of England' (partly overland by the route known later as the Pilgrims' Way), and from the east of Kent, possibly to the seat of the amber trade, as well as to a route through the east of France, starting from the short Dover crossing."

"The epigraphic texts left us by the Phœnicians are too short and dry to give us any of those vivid glimpses into the past that the historian loves. When we wish to make the men of Tyre and Sidon live again, when we try to see them as they moved in those seven or eight centuries during which they were supreme in the Mediterranean, we have to turn to the Greeks, to Herodotus and Homer, for the details of our picture; it is in their pages that we are told how these eastern traders made themselves indispensable to the half-savage races of Europe. … The Phœnicians carried on their trade in a leisurely way. It consisted for the most part in exchanging their manufactured wares for the natural produce of the countries they visited; it was in conformity with the spirit of the time, and, although it inspired distrust, it was regular enough in its methods. Stories told by both Homer and Herodotus show them to us as abductors of women and children, but in the then state of the world even deeds like those described would soon be forgotten, and after a time the faithless traders would be readmitted for the sake of the wares they brought. … Seeing how great their services were to the civilization of Greece and Rome, and how admirable were those virtues of industry, activity, and splendid courage that they brought to their work, how is it that the classic writers speak of the Phœnicians with so little sympathy? and why does the modern historian, in spite of his breadth and freedom from bias, find it difficult to treat them even with justice? It is because, in spite of their long relations with them, the peoples of Greece and Italy never learnt to really know the Phœnicians or to understand their language, and, to answer the second question, because our modern historians are hardly better informed. Between Greece and Rome on the one hand and Phœnicia and Carthage on the other, there was a barrier which was never beaten down. They traded and fought, but they never concluded a lasting and cordial peace; they made no effort to comprehend each other's nature, but retained their mutual, ignorant antipathy to the very end. … That full justice has never been done to the Phœnicians is partly their own fault. They were moved neither by the passion for truth nor by that for beauty; they cared only for gain, and thanks to the condition of the world at the time they entered upon the scene, they could satisfy that lust to the full. In the barter trade they carried on for so many centuries the advantage must always have been for the more civilized, and the Phœnicians used and abused that advantage. Tyre and Sidon acquired prodigious wealth; the minds of their people were exclusively occupied with the useful; they were thinking always of the immediate profit to themselves in every transaction; and to such a people the world readily denies justice, to say nothing of indulgence. … No doubt it may be said that it was quite without their goodwill that the Phœnicians helped other nations to shake off barbarism and to supply themselves with the material of civilized life. That, of course, is true, but it does not diminish the importance of the results obtained through their means. Phœnicia appropriated for herself all the inventions and recipes of the old eastern civilizations and by more than one happy discovery, and especially by the invention of the alphabet, she added to the value of the treasure thus accumulated. Whether she meant it or not, she did, as a fact, devote her energies to the dissemination of all this precious knowledge from the very day on which she entered into relations with those tribes on the Grecian islands and on the continent of Europe which were as yet strangers to political life. … {2534} At the time of their greatest expansion, the true Phœnicians numbered, at the very most, a few hundreds of thousands. It was with such scanty numbers that they contrived to be present everywhere, to construct ports of refuge for their ships, factories for their merchants and warehouses for their goods. These 'English of antiquity,' as they have been so well called, upheld their power by means very similar to those employed by England, who has succeeded for two centuries in holding together her vast colonial empire by a handful of soldiers and a huge fleet of ships. The great difference lies in the fact that Tyre made no attempt to subjugate and govern the nations she traded with."

The ascendancy among Phœnician cities passed at some early day from Sidon to Tyre, and the decline of the former has been ascribed to an attack from the Philistines of Ascalon, which occurred about 1250 or 1200 B. C. But the explanation seems questionable.

About 850 B. C. "the military expeditions of the Assyrians began to reach Southern Syria, and Phœnician independence seems to have been lost. We cannot be sure that the submission was continuous; but from the middle of the ninth till past the middle of the eighth century there occur in the contemporary monuments of Assyria plain indications of Phœnician subjection, while there is no evidence of resistance or revolt. … About B. C. 743 the passive submission of Phœnicia to the Assyrian yoke began to be exchanged for an impatience of it, and frequent efforts were made, from this date till Nineveh fell, to re-establish Phœnician independence. These efforts for the most part failed; but it is not improbable that finally, amid the troubles under which the Assyrian empire succumbed, success crowned the nation's patriotic exertions, and autonomy was recovered. … Scarcely, however, had Assyria fallen when a new enemy appeared upon the scene. Nechoh of Egypt, about B. C. 608, conquered the whole tract between his own borders and the Euphrates. Phœnicia submitted or was reduced, and remained for three years an Egyptian dependency. Nebuchadnezzar, in B. C. 605, after his defeat of Nechoh at Carchemish, added Phœnicia to Babylon; and, though Tyre revolted from him eight years later, B. C. 598, and resisted for thirteen years all his attempts to reduce her, yet at length she was compelled to submit, and the Babylonian yoke was firmly fixed on the entire Phœnician people. It is not quite certain that they did not shake it off upon the death of the great Babylonian king; but, on the whole, probability is in favour of their having remained subject till the conquest of Babylon by Cyrus, B. C. 538."

"It appears to have been only a few years after Nebuchadnezzar's triumphant campaign against Neco that renewed troubles broke out in Syria. Phœnicia revolted under the leadership of Tyre; and about the same time Jehoiakim, the Jewish king, having obtained a promise of aid from the Egyptians, renounced his allegiance. Upon this, in his seventh year (B. C. 598), Nebuchadnezzar proceeded once more into Palestine at the head of a vast army, composed partly of his allies, the Medes, partly of his own subjects. He first invested Tyre; but finding that city too strong to be taken by assault, he left a portion of his army to continue the siege, while he himself pressed forward against Jerusalem. … The siege of Tyre was still being pressed at the date of the second investment of Jerusalem. … Tyre, if it fell at the end of its thirteen years' siege, must have been taken in the very year which followed the capture of Jerusalem, B. C. 585. … It has been questioned whether the real Tyre, the island city, actually fell on this occasion (Heeren, As. Nat. volume ii. page 11, E. T.; Kenrick, Phœnicia, page 390), chiefly because Ezekiel says, about B. C. 570, that Nebuchadnezzar had 'received no wages for the service that he served against it.' (Ezekiel xxix. 18.) But this passage may be understood to mean that he had had no sufficient wages. Berosus expressly stated that Nebuchadnezzar reduced all Phœnicia."

"The commerce of Phœnicia appears to have reached its greatest height about the time of the rise of the Chaldæan power at Babylon. Its monopoly may have been more complete in earlier times, but the range of its traffic was more confined. Nebuchadnezzar was impelled to attempt its conquest by a double motive—to possess himself of its riches and to become master of its harbours and its navy. The prophet Ezekiel (chapter 27), foretelling his siege of Tyre, has drawn a picture of its commerce, which is the most valuable document for its commercial history that has come down to us. … Directly or indirectly, the commerce of Tyre, in the beginning of the sixth century before Christ, thus embraced the whole known world. By means of the Arabian and the Persian gulfs it communicated with India and the coast of Africa towards the equator. On the north its vessels found their way along the Euxine to the frozen borders of Scythia. Beyond the Straits of Gibraltar, its ships, or those of its colony of Gades, visited the British isles for tin, if they did not penetrate into the Baltic to bring back amber. Ezekiel says nothing of the voyages of the Tyrians in the Atlantic ocean, which lay beyond the limits of Jewish geography; but it is probable that they had several centuries before passed the limits of the Desert on the western coast of Africa, and by the discovery of one of the Canaries had given rise to the Greek fable of the Islands of the Blessed."

      G. Rawlinson,
      History of Phœnicia,
      chapters 9, and 14, section 2.

PHOENIX CLUBS.

"The Phokians [in ancient Greece] were bounded on the north by the little territories called Doris and Dryopis, which separated them from the Malians,—on the northeast, east and south-west by the different branches of Lokrians,—and on the south-east by the Bœotians. They touched the Eubœan sea … at Daphnus, the point where it approaches nearest to their chief town, Elateia; their territory also comprised most part of the lofty and bleak range of Parnassus, as far as its southerly termination, where a lower portion of it, called Kirphis, projects into the Corinthian Gulf, between the two bays of Antikyra and Krissa; the latter, with its once fertile plain, was in proximity to the sacred rock of the Delphian Apollo. Both Delphi and Krissa originally belonged to the Phokian race. But the sanctity of the temple, together with Lacedæmonian aid, enabled the Delphians to set up for themselves, disavowing their connexion with the Phokian brotherhood. Territorially speaking, the most valuable part of Phokis consisted in the valley of the river Kephisus. … It was on the projecting mountain ledges and rocks on each side of this river that the numerous little Phokian towns were situated. Twenty-two of them were destroyed and broken up into villages by the Amphiktyonic order, after the second Sacred War."

PHRATRIÆ.

PHRYGIAN SIBYL.

PHRYGIANS. MYSIANS.

"When the Assyrians in the thirteenth century [B. C.] advanced past the springs of the Euphrates into the western peninsula [of Asia Minor], they found, on the central table-land, a mighty body of native population—the Phrygians. The remains of their language tend to show them to have been the central link between the Greeks and the elder Aryans. They called their Zeus Bagalus ('baga' in ancient Persian signifying God; 'bhaga,' in Sanscrit, fortune), or Sabazius, from a verb common to Indian and Greek, and signifying 'to adore.' They possessed the vowels of the Greeks, and in the terminations of words changed the 'm' into 'n.' Kept off from the sea, they, it is true, lagged behind the coast tribes in civilization, and were regarded by these as men slow of understanding and only suited for inferior duties in human society. Yet they too had a great and independent post of their own, which is mirrored in the native myths of their kings. The home of these myths is especially in the northern regions of Phrygia, on the banks of the springs which feed the Sangarius, flowing in mighty curves through Bithynia into Pontus. Here traditions survived of the ancient kings of the land, of Gordius and Midas."

"As far us any positive opinion can be formed respecting nations of whom we know so little, it would appear that the Mysians and Phrygians are a sort of connecting link between Lydians and Karians on one side, and Thracians (European as well as Asiatic) on the other—a remote ethnical affinity pervading the whole. Ancient migrations are spoken of in both directions across the Hellespont and the Thracian Bosphorus. It was the opinion of some that Phrygians, Mysians and Thracians had immigrated into Asia from Europe. … On the other hand, Herodotus speaks of a vast body of Teukrians and Mysians who, before the Trojan war, had crossed the strait from Asia into Europe. … The Phrygians also are supposed by some to have originally occupied an European soil on the borders of Macedonia, … while the Mysians are said to have come from the northeastern portions of European Thrace south of the Danube, known under the Roman empire by the name of Mœsia. But with respect to the Mysians there was also another story, according to which they were described as colonists emanating from the Lydians. … And this last opinion was supported by the character of the Mysian language, half Lydian and half Phrygian."

The Mysians occupied the north-western corner of Asia Minor, including the region of the Troad. "In the works of the great Greek writers which have come down to us, notably, in the histories of Herodotus and Thucydides, the Phrygians figure but little. To the Greeks generally they were known but as the race whence most of their slaves were drawn, as a people branded with the qualities of slaves, idleness, cowardice, effeminacy. … From the Phrygians came those orgiastic forms of religious cult which were connected with the worship of Dionysus and of the Mother of the Gods, orgies which led alike to sensual excess and to hideous self–mutilations, to semi-religious frenzy and bestial immoralities, against which the strong good sense of the better Greeks set itself at all periods, though it could not deprive them of their attractions for the lowest of the people. And yet it was to this race sunk in corruption, except when roused by frenzy, that the warlike Trojan stock belonged. Hector and Aeneas were Phrygians; and the most manly race of the ancient world, the Romans, were proud of their supposed descent from shepherds of Phrygia."

PHUT.

PHYLÆ. PHRATRIÆ. GENTES.

"In all Greek states, without exception, the people was divided into tribes or Phylæ, and those again into the smaller subdivisions of Phratriæ and gentes, and the distribution so made was employed to a greater or less extent for the common organisation of the State."

   The four Attic tribes were called, during the later period of
   that division, the Geleontes, Hopletes, Ægikoreis, and
   Argadeis. "It is affirmed, and with some etymological
   plausibility, that the denominations of these four tribes must
   originally have had reference to the occupations of those who
   bore them,—the Hopletes being the warriour-class, the
   Ægikoreis goatherds, the Argadeis artisans, and the Geleontes
   (Teleontes or Gedeontes) cultivators. Hence some authors have
   ascribed to the ancient inhabitants of Attica an actual
   primitive distribution into hereditary professions or castes,
   similar to that which prevailed in India and Egypt. If we
   should even grant that such a division into castes might
   originally have prevailed, it must have grown obsolete long
   before the time of Solon; but there seem no sufficient grounds
   for believing that it ever did prevail. … The four tribes, and
   the four names (allowing for some variations of reading), are
   therefore historically verified. But neither the time of their
   introduction, nor their primitive import, are ascertainable
   matters. …
{2536}
   These four tribes may be looked at either as religious and
   social aggregates, in which capacity each of them comprised
   three Phratries and ninety Gentes; or as political aggregates,
   in which point of view each included three Trittyes and twelve
   Naukraries. Each Phratry contained thirty Gentes; each Trittys
   comprised four Naukraries: the total numbers were thus 360
   Gentes and 48 Naukraries. Moreover, each gens is said to have
   contained thirty heads of families, of whom therefore there
   would be a total of 10,800. … That every Phratry contained an
   equal number of Gentes, and every Gens an equal number of
   families, is a supposition hardly admissible without better
   evidence than we possess. But apart from this questionable
   precision of numerical scale, the Phratries and Gentes
   themselves were real, ancient and durable associations among
   the Athenian people, highly important to be understood. The
   basis of the whole was the house, hearth or family,—a number
   of which, greater or less, composed the Gens, or Genos. This
   Gens was therefore a clan, sept, or enlarged, and partly
   factitious, brotherhood. … All these phratric and gentile
   associations, the larger as well as the smaller, were founded
   upon the same principles and tendencies of the Grecian mind—a
   coalescence of the idea of worship with that of ancestry, or
   of communion in certain special religious rites with communion
   of blood, real or supposed. The god, or hero, to whom the
   assembled members offered their sacrifices, was conceived as
   the primitive ancestor, to whom they owed their origin. … The
   revolution of Kleisthenes in 509 B. C. abolished the old
   tribes for civil purposes, and created ten new tribes,—leaving
   the Phratries and Gentes unaltered, but introducing the local
   distribution according to demes or cantons, as the foundation
   of his new political tribes. A certain number of demes
   belonged to each of the ten Kleisthenean tribes (the demes in
   the same tribes were not usually contiguous, so that the tribe
   was not coincident with a definite circumscription), and the
   deme, in which every individual was then registered, continued
   to be that in which his descendants were also registered. …
   The different Gentes were very unequal in dignity, arising
   chiefly from the religious ceremonies of which each possessed
   the hereditary and exclusive administration, and which, being
   in some cases considered as of preeminent sanctity in
   reference to the whole city, were therefore nationalized. Thus
   the Eumolpidæ and Kerykes, who supplied the Hierophant and
   superintended the mysteries of the Eleusinian Demeter—and the
   Butadæ, who furnished the priestess of Athene Polias as well
   as the priest of Poseidon Erechtheus in the acropolis—seem to
   have been reverenced above all the other Gentes. When the name
   Butadæ was selected in the Kleisthenean arrangement as the
   name of a deme, the holy Gens so called adopted the
   distinctive denomination of Eteobutadæ, or 'The true Butadæ.'"

PHYLARCH.

PHYLE.

PIACENZA.

PI-BESETH.

"The reforming movement of Bohemia [15th century] had drawn thither persons from other countries whose opinions were obnoxious to the authorities of the church. Among these, the most remarkable were known by the name of Picards,—apparently a form of the word 'beghards' [see BEGUINES], which … was then widely applied to sectaries. These Picards appear to have come from the Low Countries."

PICARDY. PICARDS.

"Whimsical enough is the origin of the name of Picards, and from thence of Picardie, which does not date earlier than A. D. 1200. It was an academical joke, an epithet first applied to the quarrelsome humour of those students in the university of Paris who came from the frontier of France and Flanders."

See FRANCE; A. D. 1794 (MARCH-JULY); 1794-1795 (OCTOBER-MAY); 1795 (JUNE-DECEMBER); 1797 (SEPTEMBER); 1804-1805.

PICKAWILLANY.

PICTAVI.

   "The Pictones [of ancient Gaul], whose name is represented by
   Poitou, and the Santones (Saintonge) occupied the coast
   between the lower Loire and the great aestuary of the
   Garonne."

PICTS AND SCOTS.

PICTURE-WRITING.

"There was one special court [in London, during the Middle Ages], which met to decide disputes arising on market-days, or among travellers and men of business, and which reminds us of the old English tendency to decide quickly and definitely, without entering into any long written or verbal consideration of the question at issue; and this was known as the Pie-powder Court, a corruption of the old French words. 'pieds poudres,' the Latin 'pedes pulverizati,' in which the complainant and the accused were supposed not to have shaken the dust from off their feet."

PIECES OF EIGHT.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (MAY-JUNE: VIRGINIA)
      THE CAMPAIGNING IN THE SHENANDOAH.

PIEGANS.

PIKE'S PEAK MINING REGION.

PILGRIMS. PILGRIM FATHERS.

In American history, the familiar designation of the little company of English colonists who sailed for the New World in the Mayflower, A. D. 1620, seeking religious freedom, and who landed at Plymouth Rock.

The Roman spear was called the pilum. "It was, according to [Polybius], a spear having a very large iron head or blade, and this was carried by a socket to receive the shaft. … By the soldiers of the legions, to whom the use of the pilum was restricted, this weapon was both hurled from the hand as a javelin, and grasped firmly, as well for the charge as to resist and beat down hostile attacks."

PINE TREE MONEY.

Between 1652 and 1684 the colony of Massachusetts coined silver shillings and smaller coins, which bore on their faces the rude figure of a pine tree, and are called "pine tree money."

PINEROLO.

PIPE ROLLS.

PIPPIN, OR PEPIN, of Heristal,
Austrasian Mayor of the Palace, and Duke of the Franks,
A. D. 687-714.

   Pippin, or Pepin, the Short,
   Duke and Prince of the Franks, 741-752;
   King, 752-768.

PIQUETS AND ZINGLINS.

This was the important harbor of Athens, constructed and fortified during and after the Persian wars; a work which the Athenians owed to the genius and energy of Themistocles. The name was sometimes applied to the whole peninsula in which the Piræus is situated, and which contained two other harbors—Munychia and Zea. Phalerum, which had previously been the harbor of Athens, lay to the east. The walls built by Themistocles "were carried round the whole of the peninsula in a circumference of seven miles, following the bend of its rocky rim, and including the three harbour-bays. At the mouths of each of the harbours a pair of towers rose opposite to one another at so short a distance that it was possible to connect them by means of chains: these were the locks of the Piræus. The walls, about 16 feet thick, were built without mortar, of rectangular blocks throughout, and were raised to a height of 30 feet by Themistocles, who is said to have originally intended to give them double that height."

PISA, Italy:
   Origin of the city.
   Early growth of its commerce and naval power.
   Conquest of Sardinia.

   Strabo and others have given Pisa a Grecian origin. "Situated
   near the sea upon the triangle formed in past ages, by the
   confluence of the two rivers, the Arno and the Serchio; she
   was highly adapted to commerce and navigation; particularly in
   times when these were carried on with small vessels. We
   consequently find that she was rich and mercantile in early
   times, and frequented by all the barbarous nations. … Down to
   the end of the fifteenth century, almost all the navigation of
   the nations of Europe, as well as those of Asia and Africa,
   which kept a correspondence and commerce with the former, was
   limited to the Mediterranean, Adriatic, Archipelago, and
   Euxine seas; and the first three Italian republics, Pisa,
   Genoa, and Venice, were for a long time mistresses of it.
   Pisa, as far back as the year 925, was the principal city of
   Tuscany, according to Luitprand. In the beginning of the
   eleventh century, that is, in the year 1004, we find in the
   Pisan annals, that the latter waged war with the Lucchese and
   beat them; this is the first enterprise of one Italian city
   against another, which proves that she already acted for
   herself, and was in great part, if not wholly, liberated from
   the dominion of the Duke of Tuscany.
{2538}
   In the Pisan annals, and in other authors, we meet with a
   series of enterprises, many of which are obscurely related, or
   perhaps exaggerated. Thus we find that in the year 1005, in an
   expedition of the Pisans against the maritime city of Reggio,
   Pisa being left unprovided with defenders, Musetto, king, or
   head, of the Saracens, who occupied Sardinia, seized the
   opportunity of making an invasion; and having sacked the city,
   departed, or was driven out of it. … It was very natural for
   the Pisans and Genoese, who must have been in continual fear
   of the piracies and invasions of the barbarians as long as
   they occupied Sardinia, to think seriously of exterminating
   them from that country: the pope himself sent the Bishop of
   Ostia in haste to the Pisans as legate, to encourage them to
   the enterprise: who, joining with the Genoese, conquered
   Sardinia [1017] by driving out the Saracens; and the pope, by
   the right he thought he possessed over all the kingdoms of the
   earth, invested the Pisans with the dominion; not however
   without exciting the jealousy of the Genoese, who, as they
   were less powerful in those times, were obliged to yield to
   force. The mutual necessity of defence from the common enemy
   kept them united; the barbarians having disembarked in the
   year 1020 in Sardinia under the same leader, they were again
   repulsed, and all their treasure which remained a booty of the
   conquerors, was conceded to the Genoese as an indemnity for
   the expense."

PISA: A. D. 1063-1293.
   Architectural development.
   Disastrous war with Genoa.
   The great defeat at Meloria.
   Count Ugolino and his fate.
   War with Florence and Lucca.

"The republic of Pisa was one of the first to make known to the world the riches and power which a small state might acquire by the aid of commerce and liberty. Pisa had astonished the shores of the Mediterranean by the number of vessels and galleys that sailed under her flag, by the succor she had given the crusaders, by the fear she had inspired at Constantinople, and by the conquest of Sardinia and the Balearic Isles. Pisa was the first to introduce into Tuscany the arts that ennoble wealth: her dome, her baptistery, her leaning tower, and her Campo Santo, which the traveller's eye embraces at one glance, but does not weary of beholding, had been successively built from the year 1063 to the end of the 12th century. These chefs-d'œuvre had animated the genius of the Pisans; the great architects of the 13th century were, for the most part, pupils of Nicolas di Pisa. But the moment was come in which the ruin of this glorious republic was at hand; a deep-rooted jealousy, to be dated from the conquest of Sardinia, had frequently, during the last two centuries, armed against each other the republics of Genoa and Pisa: a new war between them broke out in 1282. It is difficult to comprehend how two simple cities could put to sea such prodigious fleets as those of Pisa and Genoa. In 1282, Ginicel Sismondi commanded 30 Pisan galleys, of which he lost the half in a tempest, on the 9th of September; the following year, Rosso Sismondi commanded 64; in 1284, Guido Jacia commanded 24, and was vanquished. The Pisans had recourse the same year to a Venetian admiral, Alberto Morosini, to whom they intrusted 103 galleys: but whatever efforts they made, the Genoese constantly opposed a superior fleet. This year [1284], however, all the male population of the two republics seemed assembled on their vessels; they met on the 6th of August, 1284, once more before the Isle of Meloria, rendered famous 43 years before by the victory of the Pisans over the same enemies [when the Ghibelline friendship of Pisa for the Emperor Frederick II. induced her to intercept and attack, on the 3d of May, 1241, a Genoese fleet which conveyed many prelates to a great council called by Pope Gregory IX. with hostile intentions towards the Emperor, and which the latter desired to prevent]. Valor was still the same, but fortune had changed sides; and a terrible disaster effaced the memory of an ancient victory. While the two fleets, almost equal in number, were engaged, a reinforcement of 30 Genoese galleys, driven impetuously by the wind, struck the Pisan fleet in flank: 7 of their vessels were instantly sunk, 28 taken. 5,000 citizens perished in the battle, and 11,000 who were taken prisoners to Genoa preferred death in captivity rather than their republic should ransom them, by giving up Sardinia to the Genoese. This prodigious loss ruined the maritime power of Pisa; the same nautical knowledge, the same spirit of enterprise, were not transmitted to the next generation. All the fishermen of the coast quitted the Pisan galleys for those of Genoa. The vessels diminished in number, with the means of manning them; and Pisa could no longer pretend to be more than the third maritime power in Italy. While the republic was thus exhausted by this great reverse of fortune, it was attacked by the league of the Tuscan Guelphs; and a powerful citizen, to whom it had intrusted itself, betrayed his country to enslave it. Ugolino was count of the Gherardesca, a mountainous country situated along the coast, between Leghorn and Piombino: he was of Ghibeline origin, but had married his sister to Giovan di Gallura, chief of the Guelphs of Pisa and of Sardinia. From that time he artfully opposed the Guelphs to the Ghibelines." The Pisans, thinking him to be the person best able to reconcile Pisa with the Guelph league "named Ugolino captain-general for ten years: and the new commander did, indeed, obtain peace with the Guelph league; but not till he had caused all the fortresses of the Pisan territory to be opened by his creatures to the Lucchese and Florentines. … From that time he sought only to strengthen his own despotism." In July, 1288, there was a rising of the Pisans against him; his palace was stormed and burned; and he, his two sons and two grandsons, were dragged out of the flames, to be locked in a tower and starved to death—as told in the verse of Dante. "The victory over count Ugolino, achieved by the most ardent of the Ghibelines,. redoubled the enthusiasm and audacity of that party; and soon determined them to renew the war with the Guelphs of Tuscany. … Guido de Montefeltro was named captain. He had acquired a high reputation in defending Forli against the French forces of Charles of Anjou; and the republic had not to repent of its choice. He recovered by force of arms all the fortresses which Ugolino had given up to the Lucchese and Florentines. The Pisan militia, whom Montefeltro armed with cross-bows, which he had trained them to use with precision, became the terror of Tuscany. The Guelphs of Florence and Lucca were glad to make peace in 1293."

In 1290, when Pisa was in her greatest distress, Genoa suddenly joined again in the attack on her ancient rival. She sent an expedition under Conrad d'Oria which entered the harbor of Pisa, pulled down its towers, its bridge and its forts, and carried away the chain which locked the harbor entrance. The latter trophy was only restored to Pisa in recent years.

PISA: A. D. 1311-1313.
Welcome to the Emperor Henry VII.
Aid to his war against Florence.

PISA: A. D. 1313-1328.
   Military successes under Uguccione della Faggiuola.
   His tyranny and its overthrow.
   Subjection to Castruccio Castracani and the deliverance.

PISA: A. D. 1341.
Defeat of the Florentines before Lucca.
Acquisition of that city.

PISA: A. D. 1399-1406.
   Betrayal to Visconti of Milan.
   Sale to the Florentines.
   Conquest by them and subsequent decline.

PISA: A. D. 1494-1509.
   Delivered by the French.
   The faithlessness of Charles VIII.
   Thirteen years of struggle against Florence.
   Final surrender.

"The Florentine conquest was the beginning of 90 years of slavery for Pisa —a terrible slavery, heavy with exaggerated imports, bitter with the tolerated plunder of private Florentines, humiliating with continual espionage. … Pisa was the Ireland of Florence, captive and yet unvanquished. … At last a favourable chance was offered to the Pisans. … In the autumn of 1494, the armies of Charles VIII. poured into Italy [see ITALY: A. D. 1494-1496]. It had been the custom of the Florentines, in times of war and danger, to call the heads of every Pisan household into Florence, as hostages for the good behaviour of their families and fellow citizens. But in the autumn of 1494, Piero de' Medici who forgot everything, who had forgotten to garrison his frontier, forgot to call the Pisan hostages to Florence, although the French were steadily advancing on Tuscany, and the Pisans eager to rebel. … The French army and the hope of liberty entered the unhappy city hand in hand [November 8, 1494]. … That night the Florentines in Pisa—men in office, judges, merchants, and soldiers of the garrison—were driven at the sword's point out of the rebellious city. … Twenty-four hours after the entry of the French, Pisa was a free republic, governed by a Gonfalonier, six Priors, and a Balia of Ten, with a new militia of its own, and, for the first time in eight and eighty years, a Pisan garrison in the ancient citadel." All this was done with the assent of the King of France and the promise of his protection. But when he passed on to Florence, and was faced there by the resolute Capponi, he signed a treaty in which he promised to give back Pisa to Florence when he returned from Naples. He returned from Naples the next summer (1495), hard pressed and retreating from his recent triumphs, and halted with his army at Pisa. There the tears and distress of the friendly Pisans moved even his soldiers to cry out in protestation against the surrender of the city to its former bondage. Charles compromised by a new treaty with the Florentines, again agreeing to deliver Pisa to them, but stipulating that they should place their old rivals on equal terms with themselves, in commerce and in civil rights. But Entragues, the French governor whom Charles had left in command at Pisa, with a small garrison, refused to carry out the treaty. He assisted the Pisans in expelling a force with which the Duke of Milan attempted to secure the city, and then, on the 1st of January, 1496, he delivered the citadel which he held into the hands of the Pisan signory. "During thirteen years from this date the shifting fortunes, the greeds and jealousies of the great Italian cities, fostered an artificial liberty in Pisa. Thrown like a ball from Milan to Venice, Venice to Maximilian, Max again to Venice, and thence to Cæsar Borgia, the unhappy Republic described the whole circle of desperate hope, agonized courage, misery, poverty, cunning, and betrayal."

In 1509 the Pisans, reduced to the last extremity by the obstinate siege which the Florentines had maintained, and sold by the French and Spaniards, who took pay from Florence (see VENICE: A. D. 1508-1509) for abandoning their cause, opened their gates to the Florentine army.

ALSO IN: T. A. Trollope, History of the Commonwealth of Florence, book 8, chapter 6 and book 9, chapters 1-10.

PISA: A. D. 1512.
The attempted convocation of a Council by Louis XII. of France.

PISTICS.

PITHECUSA.

PITTSBURGH: A. D. 1758.
Fort Duquesne abandoned by the French, occupied by the
English, and named in honor of Pitt.

PITTSBURGH: A. D. 1763.
Siege of Fort Pitt by the Indians.
Bouquet's relieving expedition.

PLACENTIA: A. D. 1515. Restored to the duchy of Milan, and with it to the king of France.

PLACENTIA: A. D. 1545-1592.
Union with Parma in the duchy created for the House of Farnese.

PLACENTIA: A. D. 1814. The duchy conferred on Marie Louise, the ex-empress of Napoleon.

PLACITUM. PLAID.

PLAGUE. PESTILENCE. EPIDEMICS:

"Within the space of less than thirty years [from B. C. 405] we read of four distinct epidemic distempers, each of frightful severity, as having afflicted Carthage and her armies in Sicily, without touching either Syracuse or the Sicilian Greeks. Such epidemics were the most irresistible of all enemies to the Carthaginians. … Upon what physical conditions the frequent repetition of such a calamity depended, together with the remarkable fact that it was confined to Carthage and her armies—we know partially in respect to the third of the four cases [when it was attributable in some degree to the situation of the Carthaginian camp on low, marshy ground, at a season when hot days alternated with chill nights] but not at all in regard to the others."

PLAGUE: A. D. 78-266.
Plague after the destruction of Herculaneum and Pompeii.
Plagues of Orosius, Antoninus, and Cyprian.

"On the cessation of the eruption of Vesuvius, which began on the 23d of August, A. D. 78, and which buried Herculaneum, Stabiæ and Pompeii in ashes, there arose … a destructive plague, which for many days in succession slew 10,000 men daily." The plague of Orosius (so called because Orosius, who wrote in the 5th century, described it most fully) began in the year A. D. 125. It was attributed to immense masses of grasshoppers which were swept by the winds, that year, from Africa into the Mediterranean Sea, and which were cast back by the waves to putrefy in heaps on the shore. "'In Numidia, where at that time Micipsa was king, 800,000 men perished, while in the region which lies most contiguous to the sea-shore of Carthage and Utica, more than 200,000 are said to have been cut down. In the city of Utica itself, 80,000 soldiers, who had been ordered here for the defence of all Africa, were destroyed.' … The plague of Antoninus (A. D. 164-180) visited the whole Roman Empire, from its most eastern to its extreme western boundaries, beginning at the former, and spreading thence by means of the troops who returned from putting down a rebellion in Syria. In the year 166 it broke out for the first time in Rome, and returned again in the year 168. … The plague depopulated entire cities and districts, so that forests sprung up in places before inhabited. … In its last year it appears to have raged again with especial fury, so that in Rome … 2,000 men often died in a single day. With regard to the character of this plague, it has been considered sometimes smallpox, sometimes petechial typhus, and again the bubo-plague. The third so-called plague, that of Cyprian, raged about A. D. 251-266. … For a long time 500 died a day in Rome. … After its disappearance Italy was almost deserted. … It has been assumed that this plague should be considered either a true bubo-plague, or smallpox."

   "Niebuhr has expressed the opinion that 'the ancient world
   never recovered from the blow inflicted upon it by the plague
   which visited it in the reign of M. Aurelius.'"

"The fatal disease which depopulated the earth in the time of Justinian and his successors first appeared in the neighbourhood of Pelusium, between the Serbonian bog and the eastern channel of the Nile. From thence, tracing as it were a double path, it spread to the east, over Syria, Persia, and the Indies, and penetrated to the west, along the coast of Africa, and over the continent of Europe. In the spring of the second year, Constantinople, during three or four months, was visited by the pestilence; and Procopius, who observed its progress and symptoms with the eyes of a physician, has emulated the skill and diligence of Thucydides in the description of the plague of Athens. … The fever was often accompanied with lethargy or delirium; the bodies of the sick were covered with black pustules or carbuncles, the symptoms of immediate death; and in the constitutions too feeble to produce an eruption, the vomiting of blood was followed by a mortification of the bowels. … Youth was the most perilous season; and the female sex was less susceptible than the male. … It was not till the end of a calamitous period of fifty-two years [A. D. 542-594] that mankind recovered their health, or the air resumed its pure and salubrious quality. … During three months, five and at length ten thousand persons died each day at Constantinople; … many cities of the east were left vacant; … in several districts of Italy the harvest and the vintage withered on the ground. The triple scourge of war, pestilence, and famine, afflicted the subjects of Justinian; and his reign is disgraced by a visible decrease of the human species, which has never been repaired in some of the fairest countries of the globe."

"Nothing is known of the origin of small-pox; but it appears to have come originally from the East, and to have been known in China and Hindostan from time immemorial. … 'It seems to have reached Constantinople by way of Egypt about the year 569.' From Constantinople it spread gradually over the whole of Europe, reaching England about the middle of the 13th century."

"One great calamity in the age of Constantine [the Byzantine emperor Constantine V., called Copronymus], appears to have travelled over the whole habitable world; this was the great pestilence, which made its appearance in the Byzantine empire as early as 745. It had previously carried off a considerable portion of the population of Syria, and the Caliph Yezid III. perished of the disease in 744. From Syria it visited Egypt and Africa, from whence it passed into Sicily. After making great ravages in Sicily and Calabria, it spread to Greece; and at last, in the year 747, it broke out with terrible violence in Constantinople, then probably the most populous city in the universe. It was supposed to have been introduced, and dispersed through Christian countries, by the Venetian and Greek ships employed in carrying on a contraband trade in slaves with the Mohammedan nations, and it spread wherever commerce extended. … This plague threatened to exterminate the Hellenic race." After it had disappeared, at the end of a year, "the capital required an immense influx of new inhabitants. To fill up the void caused by the scourge, Constantine induced many Greek families from the continent and the islands to emigrate to Constantinople."

      G. Finlay,
      History of the Byzantine Empire, from 716 to 1057,
      book 1, chapter 1, section 3.

"The peace of Bretigni [England and France, A. D. 1360], like the capture of Calais, was followed by a pestilence that turned the national rejoicings into mourning. But the 'Children's Plague,' as it was called, from the fact that it was most deadly to the young, was fortunately not a return of the Black Death, and did not approach it in its effects. It numbered, however, three prelates and the Duke of Lancaster among its victims, and caused such anxiety in London that the courts of law were adjourned from May to October. France felt the scourge more severely. It ravaged the country for three years, and was especially fatal at Paris and at Avignon. In Ireland, where the pestilence lingered on into the next year, and proved very deadly, it was mistaken for scrofula, a circumstance which probably shows that it attacked the glands and the throat."

   "The effects of the Black Death had not yet subsided, and the
   graves of millions of its victims were scarcely closed, when a
   strange delusion arose in Germany. … It was a convulsion which
   in the most extraordinary manner infuriated the human frame,
   and excited the astonishment of contemporaries for more than
   two centuries, since which time it has never reappeared. It
   was called the dance of St. John or of St. Vitus, on account
   of the Bacchantic leaps by which it was characterized, and
   which gave to those affected, whilst performing their wild
   dance, and screaming and foaming with fury, all the appearance
   of persons possessed. It did not remain confined to particular
   localities, but was propagated by the sight of the sufferers,
   like a demoniacal epidemic, over the whole of Germany and the
   neighbouring countries to the north-west, which were already
   prepared for its reception by the prevailing opinions of the
   times. So early as the year 1374, assemblages of men and women
   were seen at Aix-la–Chapelle who had come out of Germany, and
   who, united by one common delusion, exhibited to the public
   both in the streets and in the churches the following strange
   spectacle. They formed circles hand in hand, and appearing to
   have lost all control over their senses, continued dancing,
   regardless of the by-standers, for hours together in wild
   delirium, until at length they fell to the ground in a state
   of exhaustion. They then complained of extreme oppression, and
   groaned as if in the agonies of death, until they were swathed
   in cloths, bound tightly round their waists, upon which they
   again recovered, and remained free from complaint until the
   next attack. This practice of swathing was resorted to on
   account of the tympany which followed these spasmodic ravings,
   but the by-standers frequently relieved patients in a less
   artificial manner, by thumping and trampling upon the parts
   affected.
{2542}
   While dancing they neither saw nor heard, being insensible to
   external impressions through the senses, but were haunted by
   visions, their fancies conjuring up spirits whose names they
   shrieked out; and some of them afterwards asserted that they
   felt as if they had been immersed in a stream of blood, which
   obliged them to leap so high. … Where the disease was
   completely developed, the attack commenced with epileptic
   convulsions. Those affected fell to the ground senseless,
   panting and labouring for breath. They foamed at the mouth,
   and suddenly springing up began their dance amidst strange
   contortions. Yet the malady doubtless made its appearance very
   variously, and was modified by temporary or local
   circumstances. … It was but a few months ere this demoniacal
   disease had spread from Aix-Ia-Chapelle, where it appeared in
   July, over the neighbouring Netherlands. In Liege, Utrecht,
   Tongres, and many other towns of Belgium, the dancers appeared
   with garlands in their hair, and their waists girt with
   cloths, that they might, as soon as the paroxysm was over,
   receive immediate relief on the attack of the tympany. This
   bandage was, by the insertion of a stick, easily twisted
   tight: many, however, obtained more relief from kicks and
   blows, which they found numbers of persons ready to
   administer. … A few months after this dancing malady had made
   its appearance at Aix-la-Chapelle, it broke out at Cologne,
   where the number of those possessed amounted to more than five
   hundred, and about the same time at Metz, the streets of which
   place are said to have been filled with eleven hundred
   dancers. Peasants left their ploughs, mechanics their
   workshops, housewives their domestic duties, to join the wild
   revels, and this rich commercial city became the scene of the
   most ruinous disorder. … The dancing mania of the year 1374
   was, in fact, no new disease, but a phenomenon well known in
   the middle ages, of which many wondrous stories were
   traditionally current among the people."

      J. F. C. Hecker,
      Epidemics of the Middle Ages: The Dancing Mania,
      chapter 1.

PLAGUE: A. D. 1485-1593.
The Sweating Sickness in England.
Plague, Small-pox and Grippe in Europe.

"For centuries no infection had visited England, which in fearful rapidity and malignancy could be compared with the 'sudor Anglicus,' as it was at first called, from the notion that its attacks were confined to Englishmen. People sitting at dinner, in the full enjoyment of health and spirits, were seized with it and died before the next morning. An open window, accidental contact in the streets, children playing before the door, a beggar knocking at the rich man's gate, might disseminate the infection, and a whole family would be decimated in a few hours without hope or remedy. Houses and villages were deserted. … Dr. Caius, a physician who had studied the disease under its various aspects, gives the following account of its appearance: 'In the year of our Lord God 1485, shortly after the 7th day of August, at which time King Henry VII. arrived at Milford in Wales out of France, and in the first year of his reign, there chanced a disease among the people lasting the rest of that month and all September, which for the sudden sharpness and unwont cruelness passed the pestilence. For this commonly giveth in four, often seven, sometime nine, sometime eleven and sometime fourteen days, respite to whom it vexeth. But that immediately killed some in opening their windows, some in playing with children in their street doors, some in one hour, many in two, it destroyed. … This disease, because it most did stand in sweating from the beginning until the ending, was called here The Sweating Sickness; and because it first began in England, it was named in other countries The English Sweat.' From the same authority we learn that it appeared in 1506, again in 1517 from July to the middle of December, then in 1528. It commenced with a fever, followed by strong internal struggles of nature, causing sweat. … It was attended with sharp pains in the back, shoulders and extremities, and then attacked the liver. … It never entered Scotland. In Calais, Antwerp and Brabant it generally singled out English residents and visitors. … In consequence of the peculiarity of the disease in thus singling out Englishmen, and those of a richer diet and more sanguine temperament, various speculations were set afloat as to its origin and its best mode of cure. Erasmus attributed it to bad houses and bad ventilation, to the clay floors, the unchanged and festering rushes with which the rooms were strewn, and the putrid offal, bones and filth which reeked and rotted together in the unswept and unwashed dining halls and chambers."

"In the middle of the 16th century the English sweating sickness disappeared from the list of epidemic diseases. On the other hand, the plague, during the whole 16th century, prevailed more generally, and in places more fatally, than ever before. … In 1500-1507 it raged in Germany, Italy, and Holland, in 1528 in Upper Italy, 1534 in Southern France, 1562-1568 pretty generally throughout Europe. … The disease prevailed again in 1591. It is characteristic of the improvement in the art of observation of this century that the plague was declared contagious and portable, and accordingly measures of isolation and disinfection were put in force against it, though without proving in any degree effectual. With a view to disinfection, horn, gunpowder, arsenic with sulphur or straw moistened with wine, etc., were burned in the streets. … Small-pox (first observed or described in Germany in 1493) and measles, whose specific nature was still unknown to the physicians of the West, likewise appeared in the 16th century. … The Grippe (influenza), for the first time recognizable with certainty as such, showed itself in the year 1510, and spread over all Europe. A second epidemic, beginning in 1557, was less widely extended. On the other hand, in 1580 and 1593 it became again pandemic, while in 1591 Germany alone was visited."

"The bubo–plague, 'the disease of barbarism' and especially of declining nations, in the 18th century still often reached the north of Europe, though it maintained its chief focus and head-quarters in the south-west [south-east?]. Thus from 1703 forward, as the result of the Russo-Swedish war, it spread from Turkey to Sweden, Denmark, Poland and Prussia, so that in 1709, the coldest year of the 18th century, more than 300,000 human beings died in East Prussia in spite of the intense cold, and in Dantzic alone more than 30,000. Obliquing to the west, the plague reached Styria and Bohemia, and was carried by a ship to Regensburg in 1714, but by means of strict quarantine regulations was prevented from spreading to the rest of Germany. A hurricane swept the disease, as it were, out of all Europe. Yet six years later it appeared anew with devastating force in southern France" and was recurrent at intervals, in different parts of the continent, throughout the century. "Epidemics of typhus fever … showed themselves at the beginning of the century in small numbers, but disappeared before the plague. … The first description of typhoid fever—under the designation of 'Schleimfieber' (morbus mucosus)—appeared in the 18th century. … Malaria in the last century still gave rise to great epidemics. Of course all the conditions of life favored its prevalence. … La Grippe (influenza) appeared as a pandemic throughout almost all Europe in the years 1709, 1729, 1732, 1742, and 1788; in almost all America in 1732, 1737, 1751, 1772, 1781, and 1798; throughout the eastern hemisphere in 1781, and in the entire western hemisphere in 1761 and 1789; throughout Europe and America in 1767. It prevailed as an epidemic in France in the years 1737, 1775, and 1779; in England in 1758 and 1775, and in Germany in 1800. … Diphtheria, which in the 17th century had showed itself almost exclusively in Spain and Italy, was observed during the 18th in all parts of the world. … Small-pox had attained general diffusion. … Scarlet fever, first observed in the 17th century, had already gained wide diffusion. … Yellow fever, first recognized in the 16th century, and mentioned occasionally in the 17th, appeared with great frequency in the 18th century, but was mostly confined, as at a later period, to America."

Cholera "has its origin in Asia, where its ravages are as great as those of yellow fever in America. It is endemic or permanent in the Ganges delta, whence it generally spreads every year over India. It was not known in Europe until the beginning of the century; but since that time we have had six successive visitations. … In 1817 there was a violent outbreak of cholera at Jessore, India. Thence it spread to the Malay Islands, and to Bourbon (1819); to China and Persia (1821); to Russia in Europe, and especially to St. Petersburg and Moscow (1830). In the following year it overran Poland, Germany, and England [thence in 1832 to Ireland and America], and first appeared in Paris on January 6, 1832. … In 1849, the cholera pursued the same route. Coming overland from India through Russia, it appeared in Paris on March 17, and lasted until October. In 1853, cholera, again coming by this route, was less fatal in Paris, although it lasted for a longer time—from November, 1853, to December, 1854. The three last epidemics, 1865, 1873, and 1884, … came by the Mediterranean Sea."

A seventh visitation of cholera in Europe occurred in 1892. Its route on this occasion was from the Punjab, through Afghanistan and Persia into Russia and across the Mediterranean to Southern France. Late in the summer the epidemic appeared in various parts of Austria and Germany and was frightfully virulent in the city of Hamburg. In England it was confined by excellent regulations to narrow limits. Crossing the Atlantic late in August, it was arrested at the harbor of New York, by half-barbarous but effectual measures of quarantine, and gained no footing in America.

PLAID. PLACITUM.

PLAINS OF ABRAHAM.

PLATÆA.

Platæa, one of the cities of the Bœotian federation in ancient Greece, under the headship of Thebes, was ill–used by the latter and claimed and received the protection of Athens. This provoked the deep-seated and enduring enmity of Thebes and Bœotia in general towards Athens, while the alliance of the Athenians and Platæans was lasting and faithful.

The first act in the Peloponnesian War (B. C. 431) was the surprising of the city of Platæa, the one ally of Athens in Bœotia, by a small force from her near neighbor and deadly enemy, Thebes. The Thebans were admitted by treachery at night and thought themselves in possession of the town. But the Platæans rallied before daybreak and turned the tables upon the foe. Not one of the Thebans escaped.

"We are now prepared to understand the origin of a distinct body of people which grew up alongside of the patricians of the Roman state during the latter part of the regal period and after its close. These were the plebeians (plebs, 'the crowd,' cf. 'pleo,' to fill) who dwelt in the Roman territory both within and without the walls of the city. They did not belong to the old clans which formed the three original tribes, nor did they have any real or pretended kinship with them, nor, for that matter, with one another, except within the ordinary limits of nature. They were, at the outset, simply an ill–assorted mass of residents, entirely outside of the orderly arrangement which we have described. There were three sources of this multitude:

I. When the city grew strong enough, it began to extend its boundaries, and first at the expense of the cantons nearest it, between the Tiber and the Anio. When Rome conquered a canton, she destroyed the walls of its citadel. Its inhabitants were sometimes permitted to occupy their villages as before, and sometimes were removed to Rome. In either case, Rome was henceforth to be their place of meeting and refuge, and they themselves, instead of being reduced to the condition of slaves, were attached to the state as non-citizens.

II. The relation of guest-friendship so called, in ancient times, could be entered into between individuals with their families and descendants, and also between individuals and a state, or between two states. Provision for such guest–friendship was undoubtedly made in the treaties which bound together Rome on the one side and the various independent cities of its neighborhood on the other. … The commercial advantages of Rome's situation attracted to it, in the course of time, a great many men from the Latin cities in the vicinity, who remained permanently settled there without acquiring Roman citizenship.

III. A third constituent element of the 'plebs' was formed by the clients ('the listeners,' 'cluere') [see CLIENTES]. … In the beginning of the long struggle between the patricians and plebeians, the clients are represented as having sided with the former. … Afterward, when the lapse of time had weakened their sense of dependence on their patrons, they became, as a body, identified with the plebeians."

Originally having no political rights, the Roman plebeians were forced to content themselves with the privilege they enjoyed of engaging in trade at Rome and acquiring property of their own. But as in time they grew to outnumber the patricians, while they rivalled the latter in wealth, they struggled with success for a share in the government and for other rights of citizenship. In the end, political power passed over to them entirely, and the Roman constitution became almost purely democratic, before it perished in anarchy and revolution, giving way to imperialism.

PLEBISCITA.

Resolutions passed by the Roman plebeians in their Comitia
Tributa, or Assembly of the Tribes, were called "plebiscita."

In modern France the term "plebiscite" has been applied to a general vote of the people, taken upon some single question, like that of the establishment of the Second Empire.

PLOWDEN'S COUNTY PALATINE.

PLYMOUTH, Massachusetts: A. D. 1605.
Visited by Champlain, and the harbor named Port St. Louis.

PLYMOUTH, Massachusetts: A. D. 1620.
Landing of the Pilgrims.
Founding of the Colony.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (APRIL-MAY: NORTH CAROLINA),
      and (OCTOBER: NORTH CAROLINA).

PLYMOUTH COMPANY: A. D. 1615.
Unsuccessful undertakings with Captain John Smith.

PLYMOUTH ROCK.

"The place of meeting [of the general assemblies of the people in ancient Athens] in earlier times is stated to have been in the market; in the historical period the people met there only to vote on proposals of ostracism, at other times assembling in the so-called Pnyx. As regards the position of this latter, a point which quite recently has become a matter of considerable dispute, the indications given by the ancient authorities appear to settle this much at any rate with certainty, that it was in the neighbourhood of the market, and that of the streets running out of the market one led only into the Pnyx."

   "The Pnyx was an artificial platform on the north-eastern side
   of one of the rocky heights which encircled Athens on the
   west, and along the crest of which is still traced the ancient
   enclosure of the Asty. In shape this platform differed only
   from a circular sector of about 155 degrees, inasmuch as the
   radii forming the angle were about 200 feet in length, while
   the distance from the angle to the middle of the curve was
   about 240 feet. On this latter side, or towards the Agora, the
   platform was bounded by a wall of support, which is about
   sixteen feet high in the middle or highest part, and is
   composed of large blocks, of various sizes, and for the most
   part quadrangular. In the opposite direction the platform was
   bounded by a vertical excavation in the rock, which, in the
   parts best preserved, is from twelve to fifteen feet high.
{2545}
   The foot of this wall inclines towards the angle of the
   sector, thereby showing that originally the entire platform
   sloped towards this point as a centre, such being obviously
   the construction most adapted to an assembly which stood or
   sat to hear an orator placed in the angle. At this angle rose
   the celebrated [bema], or pulpit, often called the rock. … It
   was a quadrangular projection of the rock, eleven feet broad,
   rising from a graduated basis. The summit is broken; its
   present height is about twenty feet. On the right and left of
   the orator there was an access to the summit of the bema by a
   flight of steps, and from behind by two or three steps from an
   inclosure, in which are several chambers cut in the rock,
   which served doubtless for purposes connected with that of the
   Pnyx itself. … The area of the platform was capable of
   containing between seven and eight thousand persons, allowing
   a square yard to each."

POCKET BOROUGHS.

PODESTAS.

"About the end of the 12th century a new and singular species of magistracy was introduced into the Lombard cities. During the tyranny of Frederic I. [Frederick Barbarossa] he had appointed officers of his own, called podestas, instead of the elective consuls. It is remarkable that this memorial of despotic power should not have excited insuperable alarm and disgust in the free republics. But, on the contrary, they almost universally, after the peace of Constance, revived an office which had been abrogated when they first rose in rebellion against Frederic. From experience, as we must presume, of the partiality which their domestic factions carried into the administration of justice, it became a general practice to elect, by the name of podesta, a citizen of some neighbouring state as their general, their criminal judge, and preserver of the peace. … The podesta was sometimes chosen in a general assembly, sometimes by a select number of citizens. His office was annual, though prolonged in peculiar emergencies. He was invariably a man of noble family, even in those cities which excluded their own nobility from any share in the government. He received a fixed salary, and was compelled to remain in the city after the expiration of his office for the purpose of answering such charges as might be adduced against his conduct. He could neither marry a native of the city, nor have any relation resident within the district, nor even, so great was their jealousy, eat or drink in the house of any citizen. The authority of these foreign magistrates was not by any means alike in all cities. In some he seems to have superseded the consuls, and commanded the armies in war. In others, as Milan and Florence, his authority was merely judicial."

Limonum, a town of the Gauls, acquired later the name of
Pictavi, which has become in modern times Poitiers.

A battle was fought September 19, 1356, near the city of Poitiers, in France, by the English, under the "Black Prince," the famous son of Edward III., with the French commanded personally by their king, John II. The advantage in numbers was on the side of the French, but the position of the English was in their favor, inasmuch as it gave little opportunity to the cavalry of the French, which was their strongest arm. The English archers won the day, as in so many other battles of that age. The French were sorely beaten and their king was taken prisoner.

     See RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1636;
     AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY;
     NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1674-1675, 1675, 1676-1678.

"The word Pole is not older than the tenth century, and seems to have been originally applied, not so much to the people as to the region they inhabited; 'polska' in the Slavonic tongue signifying a level field or plain."

   "The Poles were a nation whose name does not occur in history
   before the middle of the tenth century; and we owe to
   Christianity the first intimations that we have regarding this
   people. Mieczislaus [or Miceslaus] I., the first duke or
   prince of the Poles of whom we possess any authentic accounts,
   embraced Christianity (966) at the solicitation of his spouse,
   Dambrowka, sister of Boleslaus II., duke of Bohemia. Shortly
   after, the first bishopric in Poland, that of Posen, was
   founded by Otho the Great. Christianity did not, however, tame
   the ferocious habits of the Poles, who remained for a long
   time without the least progress in mental cultivation. Their
   government, as wretched as that of Bohemia, subjected the
   great body of the nation to the most debasing servitude.
{2546}
   The ancient sovereigns of Poland were hereditary. They ruled
   most despotically, and with a rod of iron; and, although they
   acknowledged themselves vassals and tributaries of the German
   emperors, they repeatedly broke out into open rebellion,
   asserted their absolute independence, and waged a successful
   war against their masters. Boleslaus, son of Mieczislaus I.,
   took advantage of the troubles which rose in Germany on the
   death of Otho III., to possess himself of the Marches of
   Lusatia and Budissin, or Bautzen, which the Emperor Henry II.
   afterwards granted him as fiefs. This same prince, in despite
   of the Germans, on the death of Henry II. (1025), assumed the
   royal dignity. Mieczislaus II., son of Boleslaus, after having
   cruelly ravaged the country situate between the Oder, the
   Elbe, and the Saal, was compelled to abdicate the throne, and
   also to restore those provinces which his father had wrested
   from the Empire. The male descendants of Mieczislaus I.
   reigned in Poland until the death of Casimir the Great (1370).
   This dynasty of kings is known by the name of the Piasts, or
   Piasses, so called from one Piast, alleged to have been its
   founder."

POLAND: 13-14th Centuries.
Growing power and increasing dominion.
Encroachments on Russia.

POLAND: A. D. 1333-1572.
The union with Lithuania and the reign of the Jagellon dynasty.
Conquest of Prussia and its grant to Grandmaster Albert.

Casimir III., or Casimir the Great, the last Polish king of the Piast line, ascended the throne in 1333. "Polish historians celebrate the good deeds of this king for the internal prosperity of Poland—his introduction of a legal code, his just administration, his encouragement of learning, and his munificence in founding churches, schools, and hospitals. The great external question of his reign was that of the relations of Poland to the two contiguous powers of Lithuania and the Teutonic Knights of Prussia and the Baltic provinces. On the one hand, Poland, as a Christian country, had stronger ties of connexion with the Teutonic Knights than with Lithuania. On the other hand, ties of race and tradition connected Poland with Lithuania; and the ambitious policy of the Teutonic Knights, who aimed at the extension of their rule at the expense of Poland and Lithuania, and also jealously shut out both countries from the Baltic coast, and so from the advantages of commerce, tended to increase the sympathy between the Poles and the Lithuanians. A happy solution was at length given to this question. Casimir, dying in 1370, left no issue but a daughter, named Hedvige; and the Crown of Poland passed to his nephew Louis of Anjou, at that time also King of Hungary.

Louis, occupied with the affairs of Hungary, neglected those of Poland, and left it exposed to the attacks of the Lithuanians. He became excessively unpopular among the Poles; and, after his death in 1384, they proclaimed Hedvige Queen of Poland. In 1386, a marriage was arranged between this princess and Jagellon, Duke of Lithuania—Jagellon agreeing to be baptized, and to establish Christianity among his hitherto heathen subjects. Thus Poland and Lithuania were united; and a new dynasty of Polish kings was founded, called the dynasty of the Jagellons. The rule of this dynasty, under seven successive kings (1386-1572) constitutes the flourishing epoch of Polish history, to which at the present day the Poles look fondly back when they would exalt the glory and greatness of their country. … The effect of the union of Poland and Lithuania was at once felt in Europe. The first Jagellon, who on his baptism took the name of Uladislav II., and whom one fancies as still a sort of rough half-heathen by the side of the beautiful Polish Hedvige, spent his whole reign (1386-1434) in consolidating the union and turning it to account. He defended Lithuania against the Tartar hordes then moving westward before the impulse of the conquering Tamerlane. But his chief activity was against the Teutonic Knights. … He engaged in a series of wars against the knights, which ended in a great victory gained over them at Tannenburg in 1410. By this victory the power of the knights was broken for the time, and their territories placed at the mercy of the Poles. During the reign of Uladislav III., the second of the Jagellons (1434-1444), the knights remained submissive, and that monarch was able to turn his arms, in conjunction with the Hungarians, against a more formidable enemy—the Turks—then beginning their invasions of Europe. Uladislav III. having been slain in battle against the Turks at Varna, the Teutonic Knights availed themselves of the confusion which followed, to try to recover their power. By this time, however, their Prussian subjects were tired of their rule; Dantzic, Elbing, Thorn, and other towns, as well as the landed proprietors and the clergy of various districts, formed a league against them; and, on the accession of Casimir IV., the third of the Jagellons, to the Polish throne (1447), all Western Prussia revolted from the knights and placed itself under his protection. A terrific war ensued, which was brought to a close in 1466 by the peace of Thorn. By this notable treaty, the independent sovereignty of the Teutonic order in the countries they had held for two centuries was extinguished—the whole of Western Prussia, with the city of Marienburg, and other districts, being annexed to the Polish crown, with guarantees for the preservation of their own forms of administration; and the knights being allowed to retain certain districts of Eastern Prussia, only as vassals of Poland. Thus Poland was once more in possession of that necessity of its existence as a great European state—a seaboard on the Baltic. Exulting in an acquisition for which they had so long struggled, the Poles are said to have danced with joy as they looked on the blue waves and could call them their own. Casimir IV., the hero of this important passage in Polish history, died in 1492; and, though during the reigns of his successors—John Albertus (1492-1501), and Alexander (1501-1506)—the Polish territories suffered some diminution in the direction of Russia, the fruits of the treaty of Thorn were enjoyed in peace. In the reign of the sixth of the Jagellonidæ, however—Sigismund I. (1506-1547)—the Teutonic Knights made an attempt to throw off their allegiance to Poland. {2547} The attempt was made in singular circumstances, and led to a singular conclusion. The grand-master of the Teutonic order at this time was Albert of Brandenburg …, a descendant [in the Anspach branch] of that astute Hohenzollern family which in 1411 had possessed itself of the Marquisate of Brandenburg. Albert, carrying out a scheme entertained by the preceding grand-master, refused homage for the Prussian territories of his order to the Polish king Sigismund, and even prepared to win back what the order had lost by the treaty of Thorn. Sigismund, who was uncle to Albert, defeated his schemes, and proved the superiority of the Polish armies over the forces of the once great but now effete order. Albert found it his best policy to submit, and this he did in no ordinary fashion. The Reformation was then in the first flush of its progress over the Continent, and the Teutonic Order of Knights, long a practical anachronism in Europe, was losing even the slight support it still had in surrounding public opinion, as the new doctrines changed men's ideas. What was more, the grand-master himself imbibed Protestant opinions and was a disciple of Luther and Melancthon. He resolved to bring down the fabric of the order about his ears and construct for himself a secular principality out of its ruins. Many of the knights shared or were gained over to his views; so he married a princess, and they took themselves wives—all becoming Protestants together, with the exception of a few tough old knights who transferred their chapter to Mergentheim in Würtemberg, where it remained, a curious relic, till the time of Napoleon. The secularization was formally completed at Cracow in April, 1525. There, in a square before the royal palace, on a throne emblazoned with the arms of Poland and Lithuania—a white eagle for the one, and a mounted knight for the other—the Polish king Sigismund received … the banner of the order, the knights standing by and agreeing to the surrender. In return, Sigismund embraced the late grand-master as Duke of Prussia, granting to him and the knights the former possessions of the order, as secular vassals of the Polish crown. The remainder of Sigismund's reign was worthy of this beginning; and at no time was Poland more flourishing than when his son, Sigismund II., the seventh of the Jagellonidæ, succeeded him on the throne. During the wise reign of this prince (1547-1572), whose tolerant policy in the matter of the great religious controversy then agitating Europe is not his least title to credit, Poland lost nothing of her prosperity or her greatness; and one of its last transactions was the consummation of the union between the two nations of Poland and Lithuania by their formal incorporation into one kingdom at the Diet of Lublin (July 1, 1569). But, alas for Poland, this seventh of the Jagellonidæ was also the last, and, on his death in 1572, Poland entered on that career of misery and decline, with the reminiscences of which her name is now associated."

POLAND: A. D. 1573.
Election of Henry of Valois to the throne.
The Pacta Conventa.

On the election of Henry of Valois, Duke of Anjou, to the Polish throne (see FRANCE: A. D. 1573-1576), he was required to subscribe to a series of articles, known as the Pacta Conventa (and sometimes called the Articles of Henry), which were intended to be the basis of all future covenants between the Poles and their elective sovereigns. The chief articles of the Pacta Conventa were the following:

"1. That the king should not in the remotest degree attempt to influence the senate in the choice of a successor; but should leave inviolable to the Polish nobles the right of electing one at his decease.

2. That he should not assume the title of 'master' and 'heir' of the monarchy, as borne by all preceding kings.

4. That he should not declare war, or dispatch the nobles on
any expedition, without the previous sanction of the diet.

6. That he should not have any authority to appoint ambassadors to foreign courts.

7. That in case of different opinions prevailing among the senators, he should espouse such only as were in accordance with the laws, and clearly advantageous to the nation.

8. That he should be furnished with a permanent council, the members of which (16 in number; viz. 4 bishops, 4 palatines, and 8 castellans) should be changed every half year, and should be selected by the ordinary diets.

9. That a general diet should be convoked every two years, or oftener, if required.

12. That the king should neither marry nor divorce a wife without the permission of the diet.

The violation of any one of these articles, even in spirit, was to be considered by the Poles as absolving them from their oaths of allegiance, and as empowering them to elect another ruler."

POLAND: A. D. 1574-1590.
   Disgraceful abandonment of the throne by Henry of Valois.
   Election of Stephen Batory.
   His successful wars with Russia, and his death.
   Election of Sigismund III., of Sweden.

The worthless French prince, Henry of Valois, whom the Poles had chosen to be their king, and whom they crowned at Cracow, on the 21st of February, 1574, "soon sighed for the banks of the Seine: amidst the ferocious people whose authority he was constrained to recognize, and who despised him for his imbecility, he had no hope of enjoyment. To escape their factions, their mutinies, their studied insults, he shut himself up within his palace, and, with the few countrymen whom he had been permitted to retain near his person, he abandoned himself to idleness and dissipation. … By the death of his brother [Charles IX. king of France], who died on the 30th of May, 1574, he was become heir to the crown of the Valois. His first object was to conceal the letters which announced that event, and to flee before the Poles could have any suspicion of his intention. The intelligence, however, transpired through another channel. {2548} His senators advised him to convoke a diet, and, in conformity with the laws, to solicit permission of a short absence while he settled the affairs of his new heritage. Such permission would willingly have been granted him, more willingly still had he proposed an eternal separation; but he feared the ambition of his brother the duke of Alençon, who secretly aspired to the throne; and he resolved to depart without it. He concealed his extraordinary purpose with great art," and achieved a most contemptible success in carrying it out,—stealing away from his kingdom like a thief, on the night of the 18th of June. "Some letters found on a table in his apartment attempted to account for his precipitate departure by the urgency of the troubles in his hereditary kingdom; yet he did not reach Lyons till the following year. In a diet assembled at Warsaw, it was resolved that if the king did not return by the 12th of May, 1575, the throne should be declared vacant. Deputies were sent to acquaint him with the decree. … After the expiration of the term, the interregnum was proclaimed in the diet of Stenzyca, and a day appointed for a new election. After the deposition of Henry [now become Henry III. of France], no less than five foreign and two native princes were proposed as candidates for the crown. The latter, however, refused to divide the suffrages of the republic, wisely preferring the privilege of electing kings to the honour of being elected themselves. The primate, many of the bishops, and several palatines, declared in favour of an Austrian prince; but the greater portion of the diet (assembled on the plains opposite to Warsaw) were for the princess Anne, sister of Sigismund Augustus, whose hand they resolved to confer on Stephen Batory, duke of Transylvania. Accordingly, Stephen was proclaimed king by Zamoyski, starost of Beltz, whose name was soon to prove famous in the annals of Poland. On the other hand, Uchanski the primate nominated the emperor Maximilian, who was proclaimed by the marshal of the crown: this party, however, being too feeble to contend with the great body of the equestrian order, despatched messengers to hasten the arrival of the emperor; but Zamoyski acted with still greater celerity. While his rival was busied about certain conditions, which the party of the primate forced on Maximilian, Batory arrived in Poland, married the princess, subscribed to every thing required from him, and was solemnly crowned. A civil war appeared inevitable, but the death of Maximilian happily averted the disaster. … But though Poland and Lithuania thus acknowledged the new king, Prussia, which had espoused the interests of the Austrian, was less tractable. The country, however, was speedily reduced to submission, with the exception of Dantzic, which not only refused to own him, but insisted on its recognition by the diet as a free and independent republic. … Had the Dantzickers sought no other glory than that of defending their city, had they resolutely kept within their entrenchments, they might have beheld the power of their king shattered against the bulwarks below them; but the principles which moved them pushed them on to temerity. … Their rashness cost them dear; the loss of 8,000 men compelled them again to seek the shelter of their walls, and annihilated their hope of ultimate success. Fortunately they had to deal with a monarch of extraordinary moderation. … Their submission [1577] disarmed his resentment, and left him at liberty to march against other enemies. During this struggle of Stephen with his rebellious subjects, the Muscovites had laid waste Livonia. To punish their audacity, and wrest from their grasp the conquests they had made during the reign of his immediate predecessors, was now his object. … Success every where accompanied him. Polotsk, Sakol, Turowla, and many other places, submitted to his arms. The investiture of the duchy (Polotsk, which the Muscovites had reduced in the time of Sigismund I.) he conferred on Gottard duke of Courland. On the approach of winter he returned, to obtain more liberal supplies for the ensuing campaign. Nothing can more strongly exhibit the different characters of the Poles and Lithuanians than the reception he met from each. At Wilna his splendid successes procured him the most enthusiastic welcome; at Warsaw they caused him to be received with sullen discontent. The Polish nobles were less alive to the glory of their country than to the preservation of their monstrous privileges, which, they apprehended, might be endangered under so vigilant and able a ruler. With the aid, however, of Zamoyski and some other leading barons, he again wrung a few supplies from that most jealous of bodies, a diet. … Stephen now directed his course towards the province of Novogorod: neither the innumerable marshes, nor the vast forests of these steppes, which had been untrodden by soldier's foot since the days of Witold, could stop his progress; he triumphed over every obstacle, and, with amazing rapidity, reduced the chief fortified towns between Livonia and that ancient mistress of the North. But his troops were thinned by fatigue, and even victory; reinforcements were peremptorily necessary; and though in an enfeebled state of health, he again returned to collect them. … The succeeding campaign promised to be equally glorious, when the tsar, by adroitly insinuating his inclination to unite the Greek with the Latin church, prevailed on the pope to interpose for peace. To the wishes of the papal see the king was ever ready to pay the utmost deference. The conditions were advantageous to the republic. If she surrendered her recent conquests—which she could not possibly have retained—she obtained an acknowledgment of her rights of sovereignty over Livonia; and Polotsk, with several surrounding fortresses, was annexed to Lithuania." Stephen Batory died in 1586, having vainly advised the diet to make the crown hereditary, and avert the ruin of the nation. The interregnum which ensued afforded opportunity for a fierce private war between the factions of the Zborowskis and the Zamoyskis. Then followed a disputed election of king, one party proclaiming the archduke Maximilian of Austria, the other Sigismund, prince royal of Sweden—a scion of the Jagellonic family—and both sides resorting to arms. Maximilian was defeated and taken prisoner, and only regained his freedom by relinquishing his claims to the Polish crown.

POLAND: A. D. 1578-1652.
   Anarchy organized by the Nobles.
   The extraordinary Constitution imposed by them on the country.
   The Liberum Veto and its effects.

"On the death of the last Jagellon, 1573, at a time when Bohemia and Hungary were deprived of the power of electing their kings, when Sweden renounced this right in favour of its monarchs, Poland renewed its privilege in its most comprehensive form. At a time when European monarchs gradually deprived the great feudal barons of all share in the administration of the law, … the Polish nobles destroyed the last vestiges of the royal prerogative. … In the year 1578 the kings lost the right of bestowing the patent of nobility, which was made over to the diet. The kings had no share in the legislation, as the laws were made in every interregnum. As soon as the throne became vacant by the death of a king, and before the diet appointed a successor, the nobles of the provinces assembled to examine into the administration of the late king and his senate. Any law that was not approved of could be repealed and new arrangements proposed, which became law if the votes of the diet were unanimous. This unanimity was most easily obtained when a law threatened the individual or when the royal prerogative was to be decreased. … The king had no share in the administration, and even the most urgent circumstances did not justify his acting without the co-operation of the senate [which consisted of 17 archbishops and bishops, 33 palatines or woiwodes—'war-leaders'—who were governors of provinces or palatinates, and 85 castellans, who were originally commanders in the royal cities and fortresses, but who had become, like the woiwodes, quite independent of the king]. The senate deprived the king of the power of making peace or war. … If there was a hostile invasion, war became a matter of course, but it was carried on, on their own account, by the palatines most nearly concerned, and often without the assistance of the king. … Bribery, intrigue and party spirit were the only means of influence that could be employed by a king, who was excluded from the administration, who was without domains, without private property or settled revenue, who was surrounded by officers he could not depose and by judges who could be deposed, and who was, in short, without real power of any sort. The senate itself was deprived of its power, and the representatives of the nobles seized upon the highest authority. … They alone held the public offices and the highest ecclesiastical benefices. They filled the seats of the judges exclusively, and enjoyed perfect immunity from taxes, duties, &c. … Another great evil from which the republic suffered was the abuse of the liberum veto, which, dangerous as it was in itself, had become law in 1652." This gave the power of veto to every single voice in the assemblies of the nobles, or in the meetings of the deputies who represented them. Nothing could be adopted without entire unanimity; and yet deputies to the diet were allowed no discretion. "They received definite instructions as to the demands they were to bring forward and the concessions they were to make. … One step only was wanting before unanimity of votes became an impossibility, and anarchy was completely organized. This step was taken when individual palatines enjoined their deputies to oppose every discussion at the diet, till their own proposals had been heard and acceded to. Before long, several deputies received the same instructions, and thus the diet was in fact dissolved before it was opened. Other deputies refused to consent to any proposals, if those of their own province were not accepted; so that the veto of one deputy in a single transaction could bring about the dissolution of the entire diet, and the exercise of the royal authority was thus suspended for two years [since the diet could only be held every other year, to last no longer than a fortnight, and to sit during daylight, only]. … No law could be passed, nothing could be resolved upon. The army received no pay. Provinces were desolated by enemies, and none came to their aid. Justice was delayed, the coinage was debased; in short, Poland ceased for the next two years to exist as a state. Every time that a rupture occurred in the diet it was looked on as a national calamity. The curse of posterity was invoked on that deputy who had occasioned it, and on his family. In order to save themselves from popular fury, these deputies were accustomed to hand in their protest in writing, and then to wander about, unknown and without rest, cursed by the nation."

"It was not till 1652 … that this principle of equality, or the free consent of every individual Pole of the privileged class to every act done in the name of the nation, reached its last logical excess. In that year, the king John Casimir having embroiled himself with Sweden, a deputy in the Diet was bold enough to use the right which by theory belonged to him, and by his single veto, not only arrest the preparations for a war with Sweden, but also quash all the proceedings of the Diet. Such was the first case of the exercise of that liberum veto of which we hear so much in subsequent Polish history, and which is certainly the greatest curiosity, in the shape of a political institution, with which the records of any nation present us. From that time every Pole walked over the earth a conscious incarnation of a power such as no mortal man out of Poland possessed—that of putting a spoke into the whole legislative machinery of his country, and bringing it to a dead lock by his own single obstinacy; and, though the exercise of the power was a different thing from its possession, yet every now and then a man was found with nerve enough to put it in practice. … There were, of course, various remedies for this among an inventive people. One, and the most obvious and most frequent, was to knock the vetoist down and throttle him; another, in cases where he had a party at his back, was to bring soldiers round the Diet and coerce it into unanimity. There was also the device of what were called confederations; that is, associations of the nobles independent of the Diet, adopting decrees with the sanction of the king, and imposing them by force on the country. These confederations acquired a kind of legal existence in the intervals between the Diets."

POLAND: A. D. 1586-1629.
   Election of Sigismund of Sweden to the throne.
   His succession to the Swedish crown and his deposition.
   His claims and the consequent war.

POLAND: A. D. 1590-1648.
   Reigns of Sigismund III. and Ladislaus IV.
   Wars with the Muscovites, the Turks and the Swedes.
   Domestic discord in the kingdom.

"The new king, who was elected out of respect for the memory of the house of Jaguello (being the son of the sister of Sigismond Augustus), was not the kind of monarch Poland at that time required. … He was too indolent to take the reins of government into his own hands, but placed them in those of the Jesuits and his German favourites. Not only did he thereby lose the affections of his people, but he also lost the crown of Sweden, to which, at his father's death, he was the rightful heir. This throne was wrested from him by his uncle Charles, the brother of the late king.

This usurpation by Charles was the cause of a war between Sweden and Poland, which, although conducted with great skill by the illustrious generals Zamoyski and Chodkiewicz, terminated disastrously for Poland, for, after this war, a part of Livonia remained in the hands of the Swedes." During the troubled state of affairs at Moscow which followed the death, in 1584, of Ivan the Terrible, Sigismond interfered and sent an army which took possession of the Russian capital and remained in occupation of it for some time.

"As a consequence … the Muscovites offered the throne of the Czar to Ladislas, the eldest son of the King of Poland, on condition that he would change his religion and become a member of 'the Orthodox Church.' Sigismond III., who was a zealous Catholic, and under the influence of the Jesuits, wishing rather to convert the Muscovites to the Catholic Church, would not permit Ladislas to change his faith—refused the throne of the Czar for his son. … By the peace concluded at Moscow, 1619, the fortress of Smolenski and a considerable part of Muscovy remained in the hands of the Poles. … Sigismond III., whose reign was so disastrous to Poland, kept up intimate relations with the house of Austria. The Emperor invited him to take part with him … in what is historically termed 'the Thirty Years' War.' Sigismond complied with this request, and sent the Emperor of Austria some of his Cossack regiments. … Whilst the Emperor was on the one hand engaged in 'the Thirty Years' War,' he was on the other embroiled with Turkey. The Sultan, in revenge for the aid which the Poles had afforded the Austrians, entered Moldavia with a considerable force. Sigismond III. sent his able general Zolkiewski against the Turks, but as the Polish army was much smaller than that of the Turks, it was defeated on the battlefield of Cecora [1621], in Moldavia, [its] general killed, and many of his soldiers taken prisoners. After this unfortunate campaign … the Sultan Osman, at the head of 300,000 Mussulmans, confident in the number and valour of his army, marched towards the frontier of Poland with the intention of subjugating the entire kingdom. At this alarming news a Diet was convoked in all haste, at which it was determined that there should be a 'levée en masse,' in order to drive away the terrible Mussulman scourge. But before this levée en masse could be organized, the Hetman Chodkiewicz, who had succeeded Zolkiewski as commander-in-chief, crossed the river Dniester with 35,000 soldiers and 30,000 Cossacks, camped under the walls of the fortress of Chocim [or Kotzim, or Khotzim, or Choczim] and there awaited the enemy, to whom, on his appearance, he gave battle [September 28, 1622], and, notwithstanding the disproportion of the two armies, the Turks were utterly routed. The Moslems left on the battlefield, besides the dead, guns, tents, and provisions. … After this brilliant victory a peace was concluded with Turkey; and I think I am justified in saying that, by this victory, the whole of Western Europe was saved from Mussulman invasion. … The successful Polish general unhappily did not long survive his brilliant victory. … While these events were taking place in the southern provinces, Gustavus Adolphus, who had succeeded to the throne of Sweden, marched into the northern province of Livonia, where there were no Polish troops to resist him (all having been sent against the Turks), and took possession of this Polish province.

Gustavus Adolphus, however, proposed to restore it to Poland on condition that Sigismond III. would renounce all claim to the crown of Sweden, to which the Polish sovereign was the rightful heir. But in this matter, as in all previous ones, the Polish king acted with the same obstinacy, and the same disregard for the interests of the kingdom. He would not accept the terms offered by Gustavus Adolphus, and by his refusal Poland lost the entire province of Livonia with the exception of the city of Dynabourg." Sigismond III. died in 1632, and his eldest son, Ladislas IV., "was immediately elected King of Poland, a proceeding which spared the kingdom all the miseries attendant on an interregnum. In 1633, after the successful campaign against the Muscovites, in which the important fortified city of Smolensk, as well as other territory, was taken, a treaty advantageous to Poland was concluded. Soon afterwards, through the intervention of England and France, another treaty was made between Poland and Sweden by which the King of Sweden restored to Poland a part of Prussia which had been annexed by Sweden. Thus the reign of Ladislas IV, commenced auspiciously with regard to external matters. … Unhappily the bitter quarrels of the nobles were incessant; their only unanimity consisted in trying to foil the good intentions of their kings." Ladislas IV. died in 1648, and was succeeded by his brother, John Casimir, who had entered the Order of the Jesuits some years before, and had been made a cardinal by the Pope, but who was now absolved from his vows and permitted to marry.

POLAND: A. D. 1610-1612.
Intervention in Russia.
Occupation of and expulsion from Moscow.

POLAND: A. D. 1648-1654.
The great revolt of the Cossacks.
Their allegiance transferred to the Russian Czar.

   Since 1320, the Cossacks of the Ukraine had acknowledged
   allegiance, first, to the Grand Duke of Lithuania, and
   afterwards to the king of Poland on the two crowns becoming
   united in the Jagellon family [see COSSACKS]. They had long
   been treated by the Poles with harshness and insolence, and in
   the time of the hetman Bogdan Khmelnitski, who had personally
   suffered grievous wrongs at the hands of the Poles, they were
   ripe for revolt (1648). "His standard was joined by hordes of
   Tatars from Bessarabia and the struggle partook to a large
   extent of the nature of a holy war, as the Cossacks and
   Malo-Russians generally were of the Greek faith, and their
   violence was directed against the Roman Catholics and Jews.
{2551}
   It would be useless to encumber our pages with the details of
   the brutal massacres inflicted by the infuriated peasants in
   this jacquerie; unfortunately their atrocities had been
   provoked by the cruelties of their masters. Bogdan succeeded
   in taking Lemberg, and became master of all the palatinate,
   with the exception of Zamosc, a fortress into which the Polish
   authorities retreated. On the election of John Casimir as king
   of Poland, he at once opened negotiations with the successful
   Cossack, and matters were about to be arranged peacefully.
   Khmelnitski accepted the 'bulava' of a hetman which was
   offered him by the king. The Cossacks demanded the restoration
   of their ancient privileges, the removal of the detested
   Union—as the attempt to amalgamate the Greek and Latin
   Churches was called—the banishment of the Jesuits from the
   Ukraine, and the expulsion of the Jews, with other conditions.
   They were rejected, however, as impossible, and Prince
   Wisniowiecki, taking advantage of the security into which the
   Cossacks were lulled, fell upon them treacherously and
   defeated them with great slaughter. All compromise now seemed
   hopeless, but the desertion of his Tatar allies made Bogdan
   again listen to terms at Zborow. The peace, however, was of
   short duration, and on the 28th of June, 1651, at the battle
   of Beresteczko in Galicia, the hosts of Bogdan were defeated
   with great slaughter. After this engagement Bogdan saw that he
   had no chance of withstanding the Poles by his own resources,
   and accordingly sent an embassy to Moscow in 1652, offering to
   transfer himself and his confederates to the allegiance of the
   Tsar. The negotiations were protracted for some time, and were
   concluded at Pereiaslavl, when Bogdan and seventeen,
   Malo-Russian regiments took the oath to Buturlin, the Tsar's
   commissioner. Quite recently a monument has been erected to
   the Cossack chief at Kiev, but he seems, to say the least, to
   have been a man of doubtful honesty. Since this time the
   Cossacks have formed an integral part of the Russian Empire."

POLAND: A. D. 1656-1657.
Rapid and ephemeral conquest by Charles X. of Sweden.
Loss of the Feudal overlordship of Prussia.

See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1644-1697;
and BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1640-1688.

POLAND: A. D. 1668-1696.
   Abdication of John Casimir.
   War with the Turks.
   Election and reign of John Sobieski.

"In 1668, John Casimir, whose disposition had always been that of a monk rather than that of a king, resigned his throne, and retired to France, where he died as Abbe de St. Germain in 1672. He left the kingdom shorn of a considerable part of its ancient dominions; for, besides that portion of it which had been annexed to Muscovy, Poland sustained another loss in this reign by the erection of the Polish dependency of Brandenburg [Prussia] into an independent state—the germ of the present Prussian kingdom. For two years after the abdication of John Casimir, the country was in a state of turmoil and confusion, caused partly by the recent calamities, and partly by intrigues regarding the succession; but in 1670, a powerful faction of the inferior nobles secured the election of Michael Wisniowiecki, an amiable but silly young man. His election gave rise to great dissatisfaction among the Polish grandees; and it is probable that a civil war would have broken out, had not the Poles been called upon to use all their energies against their old enemies the Turks. Crossing the south-eastern frontier of Poland with an immense army, these formidable foes swept all before them. Polish valour, even when commanded by the greatest of Polish geniuses, was unable to check their progress; and in 1672 a dishonourable treaty was concluded, by which Poland ceded to Turkey a section of her territories, and engaged to pay to the sultan an annual tribute of 22,000 ducats. No sooner was this ignominious treaty concluded, than the Polish nobles became ashamed of it; and it was resolved to break the peace, and challenge Turkey once more to a decisive death-grapple. Luckily, at this moment Wisniowiecki died; and on the 20th of April 1674, the Polish diet elected, as his successor, John Sobieski—a name illustrious in the history of Poland. … He was of a noble family, his father being castellan of Cracow, and the proprietor of princely estates; and his mother being descended from Zalkiewski, one of the most celebrated generals that Poland had produced. … In the year 1660, he was one of the commanders of the Polish army sent to repel the Russians, who were ravaging the eastern provinces of the kingdom. A great victory which he gained at Slobadyssa over the Muscovite general Sheremetoff, established his military reputation, and from that time the name of Sobieski was known over all Eastern Europe. His fame increased during the six years which followed, till he outshone all his contemporaries. He was created by his sovereign, John Casimir, first the Grand-marshal, and afterwards the Grand-hetman of the kingdom; the first being the highest civil, and the second the highest military, dignity in Poland, and the two having never before been held in conjunction by the same individual. These dignities, having once been conferred on Sobieski, could not be revoked; for, by the Polish constitution, the king, though he had the power, to confer honours, was not permitted to resume them. … When John Casimir abdicated the throne, Sobieski, retaining his office of Grand-hetman under his successor, the feeble Wisniowiecki, was commander-in-chief of the Polish forces against the Turks. In the campaigns of 1671 and 1672, his successes against this powerful enemy were almost miraculous. But all his exertions were insufficient, in the existing condition of the republic, to deliver it from the terror of the impetuous Mussulmans. In 1672, as we have already informed our readers, a disgraceful truce was concluded between the Polish diet and the sultan. … When … Sobieski, as Grand-hetman, advised the immediate rupture of the dishonourable treaty with the Turks, [the] approval was unanimous and enthusiastic. Raising an army of 30,000 men, not without difficulty, Sobieski marched against the Turks. He laid siege to the fortress of Kotzim, garrisoned by a strong Turkish force, and hitherto deemed impregnable. The fortress was taken; the provinces of Moldavia and Walachia yielded; the Turks hastily retreated across the Danube; and 'Europe thanked God for the most signal success which, for three centuries, Christendom had gained over the Infidel.' {2552} While the Poles were preparing to follow up their victory, intelligence reached the camp that Wisniowiecki was dead. He had died of a surfeit of apples sent him from Danzig. The army returned home, to be present at the assembling of the diet for the election of the new sovereign. The diet had already met when Sobieski, and those of the Polish nobles who had been with him, reached Warsaw. The electors were divided respecting the claims of two candidates, both foreigners—Charles of Lorraine, who was supported by Austria; and Philip of Neuburg, who was supported by Louis XIV. of France. Many of the Polish nobility had become so corrupt, that foreign gold and foreign influence ruled the diet. In this case, the Austrian candidate seemed to be most favourably received; but, as the diet was engaged in the discussion, Sobieski entered, and taking his place in the diet, proposed the Prince of Condé. A stormy discussion ensued, in the midst of which the cry of 'Let a Pole rule over Poland,' was raised by one of the nobles, who further proposed that John Sobieski should be elected. The proposition went with the humour of the assembly, and Sobieski, under the title of John III., was proclaimed king of Poland (1674). Sobieski accepted the proffered honour, and immediately set about improving the national affairs, founding an institution for the education of Polish nobles, and increasing the army. … After several battles of lesser moment with his Turkish foes, Sobieski prepared for a grand effort; but before he could mature his plans, the Pasha of Damascus appeared with an army of 300,000 men on the Polish frontier, and threatened the national subjugation. With the small force he could immediately collect, amounting to not more than 10,000 soldiers, Sobieski opposed this enormous force, taking up his position in two small villages on the banks of the Dniester, where he withstood a bombardment of 20 days. Food and ammunition had failed, but still the Poles held out. Gathering the balls and shells which the enemy threw within their entrenchments, they thrust them into their own cannons and mortars, and dashed them back against the faces of the Turks, who surrounded them on all sides at the distance of a musket–shot. The besiegers were surprised, and slackened their fire. At length, early in the morning of the 14th of October 1676, they saw the Poles issue slowly out of their entrenchments in order of battle, and apparently confident of victory. A superstitious fear came over them at such a strange sight. No ordinary mortal, they thought, could dare such a thing; and the Tartars cried out that it was useless to fight against the wizard king. The pasha himself was superior to the fears of his men; but knowing that succours were approaching from Poland, he offered an honourable peace, which was accepted, and Sobieski returned home in triumph. Seven years of peace followed. These were spent by Sobieski in performing his ordinary duties as king of Poland—duties which the constant jealousies and discords of the nobles rendered by no means easy. … It was almost a relief to the hero when, in 1683, a threatened invasion of Christendom by the Turks called him again to the field. … After completely clearing Austria of the Turks, Sobieski returned to Poland, again to be harassed with political and domestic annoyances.

… Clogged and confined by an absurd system of government, to which the nobles tenaciously clung, his genius was prevented from employing itself with effect upon great national objects. He died suddenly on Corpus Christi Day, in the year 1696; and 'with him,' says the historian, 'the glory of Poland descended to the tomb.' On the death of Sobieski, the crown of Poland was disposed of to the highest bidder. The competitors were James Sobieski, the son of John; the Prince of Conti; the Elector of Bavaria; and Frederick Augustus, Elector of Saxony. The last was the successful candidate, having bought over one half of the Polish nobility, and terrified the other half by the approach of his Saxon troops. He had just succeeded to the electorate of Saxony, and was already celebrated as one of the strongest and most handsome men in Europe. Augustus entertained a great ambition to be a conqueror, and the particular province which he wished to annex to Poland was Livonia, on the Baltic—a province which had originally belonged to the Teutonic Knights, for which the Swedes, Poles, and Russians had long contended; but which had now, for nearly a century, been in the possession of Sweden."

POLAND: A. D. 1696-1698.
Disputed Election of a King.
The crown gained by Augustus of Saxony.

On the death of Sobieski, Louis XIV., of France, put forward the Prince of Conti as a candidate for the vacant Polish throne. "The Emperor, the Pope, the Jesuits and Russia united in supporting the Elector Augustus of Saxony. The Elector had just abjured, in view of the throne of Poland, and the Pope found it quite natural to recompense the hereditary chief of the Lutheran party for having reëntered the Roman Church. The Jesuits, who were only too powerful in Poland, feared the Jansenist relations of Conti. As to the young Czar Peter, he wished to have Poland remain his ally, his instrument against the Turk and the Swede, and feared lest the French spirit should come to reorganize that country. He had chosen his candidate wisely: the Saxon king was to begin the ruin of Poland! The financial distress of France did not permit the necessary sacrifices, in an affair wherein money was to play an important part, to be made in time. The Elector of Saxony, on the contrary, exhausted his States to purchase partisans and soldiers. The Prince de Conti had, nevertheless, the majority, and was proclaimed King at Warsaw, June 27, 1697; but the minority proclaimed and called the Elector, who hastened with Saxon troops, and was consecrated King of Poland at Cracow (September 15). Conti, retarded by an English fleet that had obstructed his passage, did not arrive by sea till September 26 at Dantzic, which refused to receive him. The prince took with him neither troops nor money. The Elector had had, on the contrary, all the time necessary to organize his resources. The Russians were threatening Lithuania. Conti, abandoned by a great part of his adherents, abandoned the undertaking, and returned to France in the month of November. … In the following year Augustus of Saxony was recognized as King of Poland by all Europe, even by France."

POLAND: A. D. 1700. Aggressive league with Russia and Denmark against Charles XII. of Sweden.

POLAND: A. D. 1701-1707.
   Subjugation by Charles XII. of Sweden.
   Deposition of Augustus from the throne.
   Election of Stanislaus Leczinski.

POLAND: A. D. 1709.
Restoration of Augustus to the throne.
Expulsion of Stanislaus Leczinski.

POLAND: A. D. 1720.
   Peace with Sweden.
   Recognition of Augustus.
   Stanislaus allowed to call himself king.

POLAND: A. D. 1732-1733.
   The election to the throne a European question.
   France against Russia, Austria and Prussia.
   Triumph of the three powers.
   The crown renewed to the House of Saxony.

"It became clear that before long a struggle would take place for the Crown of Poland, in which the powers of Europe must interest themselves very closely. Two parties will compete for that uneasy throne: on the one side will stand the northern powers, supporting the claims of the House of Saxony, which was endeavouring to make the Crown hereditary and to restrict it to the Saxon line; on the other side we shall find France alone, desiring to retain the old elective system, and to place on the throne some prince, who, much beholden to her, should cherish French influences, and form a centre of resistance against the dominance of the northern powers. England stands neutral: the other powers are indifferent or exhausted. With a view to the coming difficulty, Russia, Austria, and Prussia, made a secret agreement in 1732, by which they bound themselves to resist all French influences in Poland. With this pact begins that system of nursing and interferences with which the three powers pushed the 'sick man of the North' to its ruin; it is the first stage towards the Partition-treaties. Early in 1733 Augustus II of Poland died: the Poles dreading these powerful neighbours, and drawn, as ever, by a subtle sympathy towards France, at once took steps to resist dictation, declared that they would elect none but a native prince, sent envoys to demand French help, and summoned Stanislaus Leczinski to Warsaw. Leczinski had been the protege of Charles XII, who had set him on the Polish throne in 1704; with the fall of the great Swede the little Pole also fell (1712); after some vicissitudes he quietly settled at Weissenburg, whence his daughter Marie went to ascend the throne of France as spouse of Louis XV (1725). Now in 1733 the national party in Poland re-elected him their king, by a vast majority of votes: there was, however, an Austro-Russian faction among the nobles, and these, supported by strong armies of Germans and Russians, nominated Augustus III of Saxony to the throne: he had promised the Empress Anne to cede Courland to Russia, and Charles VI he had won over by acknowledging the Pragmatic Sanction. War thus became inevitable: the French majority had no strength with which to maintain their candidate against the forces of Russia and Austria; and France, instead of affording Stanislaus effective support at Warsaw, declared war against Austria. The luckless King was obliged to escape from Warsaw, and took refuge in Danzig, expecting French help: all that came was a single ship and 1,500 men, who, landing at the mouth of the Vistula, tried in vain to break the Russian lines. Their aid thus proving vain, Danzig capitulated, and Stanislaus, a broken refugee, found his way, with many adventures, back to France; Poland submitted to Augustus III."

      G. W. Kitchin,
      History of France,
      book 6, chapter 2 (volume 3).

POLAND: A. D. 1763-1773.
The First Partition and the events which led to it.
The respective shares of Russia, Austria and Prussia.

"In 1762, Catherine II. ascended the throne of Russia. Everybody knows what ambition filled the mind of this woman; how she longed to bring two quarters of the globe under her rule, or under her influence; and how, above all, she was bent on playing a great part in the affairs of Western Europe. Poland lay between Europe and her empire; she was bound, therefore, to get a firm footing in Poland. … On the death of Augustus III., therefore, she would permit no foreign prince to mount the throne of Poland, but selected a native Polish nobleman, from the numerous class of Russian hirelings, and cast her eye upon a nephew of the Czartoriskys, Stanislaus Poniatowsky, a former lover of her own. Above all things she desired to perpetuate the chronic anarchy of Poland, so as to ensure the weakness of that kingdom. … A further desire in Catherine's mind arose from her own peculiar position in Russia at that time. She had deposed her Imperial Consort, deprived her son of the succession, and ascended the throne without the shadow of a title. During the first years of her reign, therefore, her situation was extremely critical." She desired to render herself popular, and "she could find nothing more in accordance with the disposition of the Russians … than the protection of the Greek Catholics in Poland. Incredible as it may seem, the frantic fanaticism of the Polish rulers had begun, in the preceding twenty or thirty years, to limit and partially to destroy, by harsh enactments, the ancient rights of the Nonconformists. … In the year 1763 a complaint was addressed to Catherine by Konisky, the Greek Bishop of Mohilev, that 150 parishes of his diocese had been forcibly Romanised by the Polish authorities. The Empress resolved to recover for the dissenters in Poland at least some of their ancient rights, and thus secure their eternal devotion to herself, and inspire the Russian people with grateful enthusiasm. At this time, however, King Augustus III. was attacked by his last illness. A new king must soon be elected at Warsaw, upon which occasion all the European Powers would make their voices heard. Catherine, therefore, in the spring of 1763, first sounded the Cabinets of Vienna and Berlin, in order, if possible, to gain common ground and their support for her diplomatic action. {2554} The reception which her overtures met with at the two courts was such as to influence the next ten years of the history of Poland and Europe. … At Vienna, ever since Peter III. had renounced the Austrian alliance, a very unfavourable feeling towards Russia prevailed. … The result was that Austria came to no definite resolution, but returned a sullen and evasive reply. It was far otherwise with Frederick II. of Prussia. That energetic and clear-sighted statesman had his faults, but indecision had never been one of them. He agreed with Catherine in desiring that Poland should remain weak. On the other hand, he failed not to perceive that an excessive growth of Russia, and an abiding Russian occupation of Poland, might seriously threaten him. Nevertheless, he did not waver a moment. … He needed a powerful ally. … Russia alone was left, and he unhesitatingly seized her offered hand. … It was proposed to him that six articles should be signed, with certain secret provisions, by which were secured the election of a native for the throne of Poland, the maintenance of the Liberum Veto (i. e., of the anarchy of the nobles), and the support of the Nonconformists; while it was determined to prevent in Sweden all constitutional reforms. Frederick, who was called upon to protect the West Prussian Lutherans, just as the aid of Catherine had been sought by the Greek Bishop of Mohilev, made no objection. After the death of King Augustus III. of Poland, in October, 1763, Frederick signed the above treaty, April 11th, 1764. This understanding between the two Northern Powers caused no small degree of excitement at Vienna. It was immediately feared that Prussia and Russia would at once seize on Polish provinces. … This anxiety, however, was altogether premature. No one at St. Petersburg wished for a partition of Poland, but for increased influence over the entire Polish realm, Frederick II., for his part, did not aim at any territorial extension, but would abandon Poland for the time to Russia, that he might secure peace for his country by a Russian alliance. … Meanwhile, matters in Poland proceeded according to the wishes of Catherine. Her path was opened to her by the Poles themselves. It was at the call of the Czartoriskys [a wealthy and powerful Polish family], that a Russian army corps of 10,000 men entered the country, occupied Warsaw, and put down the opposing party. It was under the same protection that Stanislaus Poniatowsky was unanimously elected King, on September 1st, 1764. But the Czartoriskys were too clever. They intended, after having become masters of Poland by the help of Russia, to reform the constitution, to establish a regular administration, to strengthen the Crown, and finally to bow the Russians out of the kingdom." The Czartoriskys were soon at issue with the Russian envoy, who commanded the support of all their political opponents, together with that of all the religious Nonconformists, both in the Greek Church and among the Protestants. The King, too, went over to the latter, bought by a Russian subsidy. But this Russian confederation was speedily broken up, when the question of granting civil equality to the Nonconformists came up for settlement. The Russians carried the measure through by force and the act embodying it was signed March 5, 1768. "It was just here that the conflagration arose which first brought fearful evils upon the country itself, and then threatened all Europe with incalculable dangers. At Bar, in Podolia, two courageous men, Pulawski and Krasinski, who were deeply revolted at the concession of civil rights to heretics, set on foot a new Confederation to wage a holy war for the unity and purity of the Church. … The Roman Catholic population of every district joined the Confederation. … A terrible war began in the southern provinces. … The war on both sides was carried on with savage cruelty; prisoners were tortured to death; neither person nor property was spared. Other complications soon arose. … When … the Russians, in eager pursuit of a defeated band of Confederates, crossed the Turkish frontier, and the little town of Balta was burnt during an obstinate fight, … the Sultan, in an unexpected access [excess?] of fury, declared war against Russia in October, 1768, because, as he stated in his manifesto, he could no longer endure the wrong done to Poland.

   Thus, by a sudden turn of affairs, this Polish question had
   become a European question of the first importance; and no one
   felt the change more deeply than King Frederick II. He knew
   Catherine well enough to be sure that she would not end the
   war now begun with Turkey, without some material gain to
   herself. It was equally plain that Austria would never leave
   to Russia territorial conquests of any great extent in Turkey.
   … The slightest occurrence might divide all Europe into two
   hostile camps; and Germany would, as usual, from her central
   position, have to suffer the worst evils of a general war.
   Frederick II. was thrown into the greatest anxiety by this
   danger, and he meditated continually how to prevent the
   outbreak of war. The main question in his mind was how to
   prevent a breach between Austria and Russia. Catherine wanted
   to gain more territory, while Austria could not allow her to
   make any conquests in Turkey. Frederick was led to inquire
   whether greater compliance might not be shown at Vienna, if
   Catherine, instead of a Turkish, were to take a Polish
   province, and were also to agree, on her part, to an
   annexation of Polish territory by Austria?" When this
   scheme—put forward as one originating with Count Lynar, a
   Saxon diplomatist—was broached at St. Petersburg, it met with
   no encouragement; but subsequently the same plan took shape in
   the mind of the young Emperor Joseph II., and he persuaded his
   mother, Maria Theresa, to consent to it. Negotiations to that
   end were opened with the Russian court. "After the foregoing
   proceedings, it was easy for Russia and Prussia to come to a
   speedy agreement. On February 17, 1772, a treaty was signed
   allotting West Prussia to the King, and the Polish territories
   east of the Dneiper and Duna to the Empress. The case of
   Austria was a more difficult one. … The treaty of partition
   was not signed by the three Powers until August, 1772. … The
   Prussian and Austrian troops now entered Poland on every side,
   simultaneously with the Russians. The bands of the
   Confederates, which had hitherto kept the Russians on the
   alert, now dispersed without further attempt at resistance. As
   soon as external tranquillity had been restored, a Diet was
   convened, in order at once to legalise the cession of the
   provinces to the three Powers by a formal compact, and to
   regulate the constitutional questions which had been unsettled
   since the revolt of the Confederation of Bar.
{2555}
   It took some time to arrive at this result, and many a bold
   speech was uttered by the Poles; but it is sad to think that
   the real object of every discussion was the fixing the amount
   of donations and pensions which the individual senators and
   deputies were to receive from the Powers for their votes.
   Hereupon the act of cession was unanimously passed. … The
   Liberum Veto, the anarchy of the nobles, and the impotence of
   the Sovereign, were continued."

      H. von Sybel,
      The First Partition of Poland
      (Fortnightly Review, July, 1874, volume 22).

"One's clear belief … is of two things: First, that, as everybody admits, Friedrich had no real hand in starting the notion of Partitioning Poland;—but that he grasped at it with eagerness as the one way of saving Europe from War: Second, what has been much less noticed, that, under any other hand, it would have led Europe to War; and that to Friedrich is due the fact that it got effected without such accompaniment. Friedrich's share of Territory is counted to be in all, 9,465 English square miles; Austria's, 62,500; Russia's, 87,500, between nine and ten times the amount of Friedrich's,—which latter, however, as an anciently Teutonic Country, and as filling-up the always dangerous gap between his Ost-Preussen and him, has, under Prussian administration, proved much the most valuable of the Three; and, next to Silesia, is Friedrich's most important acquisition. September 13th, 1772, it was at last entered upon,—through such waste-weltering confusions, and on terms never yet unquestionable. Consent of Polish Diet was not had for a year more; but that is worth little record."

[IMAGE: EASTERN EUROPE IN 1768 A. D. SHOWING SUBSEQUENT CHANGES DURING THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY. PARTITION OF POLAND ETC.

HOHENZOLLERN (PRUSSIA). HABSBURG(AUSTRIA). RUSSIAN. POLISH. TURKISH. VENETIAN. THE TERRITORY WON BEFORE THE CLOSE OF THE CENTURY BY THE THREE POWERS PRUSSIA. AUSTRIA AND RUSSIA SHOWN IN BORDER LINES OF THEIR RESPECTIVE COLORS.]

[IMAGE: CENTRAL EUROPE AT THE PEACE OF CAMPO FORMIO (1797). AUSTRIAN PRUSSIAN RUSSIAN FRENCH SWEDISH DANISH PAPAL STATES ECCLESIASTICAL STATES OF THE EMPIRE. THE BOUNDARY OF THE EMPIRE SHOWN BY THE HEAVY RED LINE.]

POLAND: A. D. 1791-1792.
The reformed Constitution of 1791
and its Russian strangulation.

"After the first Partition of Poland was completed in 1776, that devoted country was suffered for sixteen years to enjoy an interval of more undisturbed tranquillity than it had known for a century. Russian armies ceased to vex it. The dispositions of other foreign powers became more favourable. Frederic II now entered on that spotless and honourable portion of his reign, in which he made a just war for the defence of the integrity of Bavaria, and of the independence of Germany. … Attempts were not wanting to seduce him into new enterprises against Poland. … As soon as Frederic returned to counsels worthy of himself, he became unfit for the purposes of the Empress, who, in 1780, refused to renew her alliance with him, and found a more suitable instrument of her designs in the restless character, and shallow understanding, of Joseph II, whose unprincipled ambition was now released from the restraint which his mother's scruples had imposed on it. … Other powers now adopted a policy, of which the influence was favourable to the Poles. Prussia, as she receded from Russia, became gradually connected with England, Holland, and Sweden; and her honest policy in the care of Bavaria placed her at the head of all the independent members of the Germanic Confederacy. Turkey declared war against Russia; and the Austrian Government was disturbed by the discontent and revolts which the precipitate innovations of Joseph had excited in various provinces of the monarchy. A formidable combination against the power of Russia was in process of time formed. … In the treaty between Prussia and the Porte, concluded at Constantinople in January, 1790, the contracting parties bound themselves to endeavour to obtain from Austria the restitution of those Polish provinces to which she had given the name of Galicia. During the progress of these auspicious changes, the Polish nation began to entertain the hope that they might at length be suffered to reform their institutions, to provide for their own quiet and safety, and to adopt that policy which might one day enable them to resume their ancient station among European nations. From 1778 to 1788, no great measures had been adopted; but no tumults disturbed the country: reasonable opinions made some progress, and a national spirit was slowly reviving. The nobility patiently listened to plans for the establishment of a productive revenue and a regular army; a disposition to renounce their dangerous right of electing a king made perceptible advances; and the fatal law of unanimity had been so branded as an instrument of Russian policy, that in the Diets of these ten years no nuncio was found bold enough to employ his negative. … In the midst of these excellent symptoms of public sense and temper, a Diet assembled at Warsaw in October 1788, from whom the restoration of the republic was hoped, and by whom it would have been accomplished, if their prudent and honest measures had not been defeated by one of the blackest acts of treachery recorded in the annals of mankind. … The Diet applied itself with the utmost diligence and caution to reform the State. They watched the progress of popular opinion, and proposed no reformation till the public seemed ripe for its reception." On the 3d of May, 1791, a new Constitution, which had been outlined and discussed in the greater part of its provisions, during most of the previous two years, was reported to the Diet. That body had been doubled, a few months before, by the election of new representatives from every Dietine, who united with the older members, in accordance with a law framed for the occasion. By this double Diet, the new Constitution was adopted on the day of its presentation, with only twelve dissentient voices. "Never were debates and votes more free: these men, the most hateful of apostates, were neither attacked, nor threatened, nor insulted." The new Constitution "confirmed the rights of the Established Church, together with religious liberty, as dictated by the charity which religion inculcates and inspires. It established an hereditary monarchy in the Electoral House of Saxony; reserving to the nation the right of choosing a new race of Kings, in case of the extinction of that family. The executive power was vested in the King, whose ministers were responsible for its exercise. The Legislature was divided into two Houses, the Senate and the House of Nuncios, with respect to whom the ancient constitutional language and forms were preserved. The necessity of unanimity [the Liberum Veto] was taken away, and, with it, those dangerous remedies of Confederation and Confederate Diets which it had rendered necessary. {2556} Each considerable town received new rights, with a restoration of all their ancient privileges. The burgesses recovered the right of electing their own magistrates. … All the offices of the State, the law, the church, and the army, were thrown open to them. The larger towns were empowered to send deputies to the Diet, with a right to vote on all local and commercial subjects, and to speak on all questions whatsoever. An these deputies became noble, as did every officer of the rank of captain, and every lawyer who filled the humblest office of magistracy, and every burgess who acquired a property in land paying £5 of yearly taxes. … Industry was perfectly unfettered. … Numerous paths to nobility were thus thrown open. Every art was employed to make the ascent easy. … Having thus communicated political privileges to hitherto disregarded freemen, … the constitution extended to all serfs the full protection of law, which before was enjoyed by those of the Royal demesnes; and it facilitated and encouraged voluntary manumission. … The storm which demolished this noble edifice came from abroad. … The remaining part of the year 1791 passed in quiet, but not without apprehension. On the 9th of January, 1792, Catharine concluded a peace with Turkey at Jassy; and, being thus delivered from all foreign enemies, began once more to manifest intentions of interfering in the affairs of Poland. … A small number of Polish nobles furnished her with that very slender pretext with which she was always content. Their chiefs were Rzewuski … and Felix Potocki. … These unnatural apostates deserted their long-suffering country at the moment when, for the first time, hope dawned on her. … They were received by Catharine with the honours due from her to the betrayers of their country. On the 12th of May, 1792, they formed a Confederation at Targowitz. On the 18th, the Russian minister at Warsaw declared that the Empress, 'called on by many distinguished Poles who had confederated against the pretended constitution of 1791, would, in virtue of her guarantee, march an army into Poland to restore the liberties of the Republic.'" The hope, meantime, of help from Prussia, which had been pledged to Poland by a treaty of alliance in March, 1790, was speedily and cruelly deceived. "Assured of the connivance of Prussia, Catharine now poured an immense army into Poland, along the whole line of frontier, from the Baltic to the neighbourhood of the Euxine. The spirit of the Polish nation was unbroken. … A series of brilliant actions [especially at Polonna and Dubienka] occupied the summer of 1792, in which the Polish army [under Poniatowski and Kosciusko], alternately victorious and vanquished, gave equal proofs of unavailing gallantry. Meantime Stanislaus … on the 4th of July published a proclamation declaring that he would not survive his country. But, on the 22d of the same month … [he] declared his accession to the Confederation of Targowitz; and thus threw the legal authority of the republic into the hands of that band of conspirators. The gallant army, over whom the Diet had intrusted their unworthy King with absolute authority, were now compelled, by his treacherous orders, to lay down their arms. … Such was the unhappy state of Poland during the remainder of the year 1792," while the Empress of Russia and the King of Prussia were secretly arranging the terms of a new Treaty of Partition.

Sir J. Mackintosh, Account of the Partition of Poland (Edinburgh Review, November, 1822; reprinted in Miscellaneous Works).

ALSO IN: H. Von Sybel, History of the French Revolution, book 2, chapters 1 and 6, book 4, chapter 1, and book 6 (volumes 1-2).

      A. Gielgud,
      The Centenary of the Polish Constitution
      (Westminster Review, volume 135, page 547).

F. C. Schlosser, History of the 18th Century, volume 6, division 1, chapter 2, section 4.

POLAND: A. D. 1793-1796.
The Second and Third Partitions.
Extinction of Polish nationality.

   "The Polish patriots, remaining in ignorance of the treaty of
   partition, were unconscious of half their misfortunes. The
   King of Prussia in his turn crossed the western frontier
   [January, 1793], announcing in his manifesto that the troubles
   of Poland compromised the safety of his own States, that
   Dantzig had sent corn to the French revolutionaries, and that
   Great Poland was infested by Jacobin clubs, whose intrigues
   were rendered doubly dangerous by the continuation of the war
   with France. The King of Prussia affected to see Jacobins
   whenever it was his interest to find them. The part of each of
   the powers was marked out in advance. Russia was to have the
   eastern provinces, with a population of 3,000,000, as far as a
   line drawn from the eastern frontier of Courland, which,
   passing Pinsk, ended in Gallicia, and included Borissof,
   Minsk, Sloutsk, Volhynia, Podolia, and Little Russia. Prussia
   had the long-coveted cities of Thorn and Dantzig, as well as
   Great Poland, Posen, Gnezen, Kalisch, and Czenstochovo. If
   Russia still only annexed Russian or Lithuanian territory,
   Prussia for the second time cut Poland to the quick, and
   another million and a half of Slavs passed under the yoke of
   the Germans. It was not enough to despoil Poland, now reduced
   to a territory less extensive than that occupied by Russia; it
   was necessary that she should consent to the spoliation—that
   she should legalise the partition. A diet was convoked at
   Grodno, under the pressure of the Russian bayonets," and by
   bribery as well as by coercion, after long resistance, the
   desired treaty of cession was obtained. "The Polish troops who
   were encamped on the provinces ceded to the Empress, received
   orders to swear allegiance to her; the army that remained to
   the republic consisted only of 15,000 men." Meantime,
   Kosciuszko, who had won reputation in the war of the American
   Revolution, and enhanced it in the brief Polish struggle of
   1792, was organizing throughout Poland a great revolt,
   directing the work from Dresden, to which city he had retired.
   "The order to disband the army hastened the explosion.
   Madalinski refused to allow the brigade that he commanded to
   be disarmed, crossed the Bug, threw himself on the Prussian
   Provinces, and then fell back on Cracow. At his approach, this
   city, the second in Poland, the capital of the ancient kings,
   rose and expelled the Russian garrison. Kosciuszko hastened to
   the scene of action, and put forth the 'act of insurrection,'
   in which the hateful conduct of the co-partitioners was
   branded, and the population called to arms. Five thousand
   scythes were made for the peasants, the voluntary offerings of
   patriots were collected, and those of obstinate and lukewarm
   people were extracted by force." On the 17th of April, 1794,
   the inhabitants of Warsaw rose and expelled the Russian
   troops, who left behind, on retreating, 4,000 killed and
   wounded, 2,000 prisoners, and 12 cannon.
{2557}
   "A provisional government installed itself at Warsaw, and sent
   a courier to Kosciuszko." But Russian, Prussian and Austrian
   armies were fast closing in upon the ill-armed and outnumbered
   patriots. The Prussians took Cracow; the Russians mastered
   Wilna; the Austrians entered Lublin; and Kosciuszko, forced to
   give battle to the Russians, at Macciowice, October 10, was
   beaten, and, half dead from many wounds, was left a prisoner
   in the hands of his enemies. Then the victorious Russian army,
   under Souvorof, made haste to Warsaw and carried the suburb of
   Praga by storm. "The dead numbered 12,000; the prisoners only
   one." Warsaw, in terror, surrendered, and Poland, as an
   independent state, was extinguished. "The third treaty of
   partition, forced on the Empress by the importunity of
   Prussia, and in which Austria also took part, was put in
   execution [1705-1706]. Russia took the rest of Lithuania as
   far as the Niemen (Wilna, Grodno, Kovno, Novogrodek, Slonim),
   and the rest of Volhynia to the Bug (Vladimir, Loutsk, and
   Kremenetz). … Besides the Russian territory, Russia also
   annexed the old Lithuania of the Jagellons, and finally
   acquired Courland and Samogitia. Prussia had all Eastern
   Poland, with Warsaw; Austria had Cracow, Sandomir, Lublin, and
   Chelm."

      ALSO IN:
      R. N. Bain,
      The Second Partition of Poland
      (English Historical Review, April, 1801).

H. von Sybel, History of the French Revolution, book 7, chapter 5, book 9, chapter 3 (volume 3); and book 10, chapters 2-4 (volume 4).

POLAND: A. D. 1807.
Prussian provinces formed into the grand duchy of Warsaw,
and given to the king of Saxony.

POLAND: A. D. 1809.
Cession of part of Bohemia, Cracow, and western Galicia,
by Austria, to the grand duchy of Warsaw.

POLAND: A. D. 1812. Fresh attempt to re-establish the kingdom, not encouraged by Napoleon.

POLAND: A. D. 1814-1815.
   The Polish question in the Congress of Vienna.
   The grand duchy of Warsaw given to Russia.
   Constitution granted by the Czar.

POLAND: A. D. 1830-1832.
   Rising against the Russian oppressor.
   Courageous struggle for independence.
   Early victories and final defeat.
   Barbarity of the conqueror.

"Poland, like Belgium and the Romagna, had felt the invigorating influence of the Revolution of July [in France]. The partition of Poland had been accomplished in a dark period of the preceding century. It was almost universally regarded in Western Europe as a mistake and a crime. It was a mistake to have removed the barrier which separated Russia from the West; it was a crime to have sacrificed a free and brave people to the ambition of a relentless autocrat. … The cause of freedom was identified with the cause of Poland, 'and freedom shrieked' when Poland's champion 'fell.' The statesmen, however, who parcelled out Europe amongst the victorious autocrats in 1815 were incapable of appreciating the feelings which had inspired the Scotch poet. Castlereagh, indeed, endeavoured to make terms for Poland. But he did not lay much stress on his demands. He contented himself with obtaining the forms of constitutional government for the Poles. Poland, constituted a kingdom, whose crown was to pass by hereditary succession to the Emperors of Russia, was to be governed by a resident Viceroy, assisted by a Polish Diet. Constantine, who had abdicated the crown of Russia in his brother's favour, was Viceroy of Poland. … He was residing at Warsaw when the news of the glorious days of July reached Poland. The Poles were naturally affected by the tidings of a revolution which had expelled autocracy from France. Kosciusko—the hero of 1794—was their favourite patriot. The cadets at the Military School in Warsaw, excited at the news, drank to his memory. Constantine thought that young men who dared to drink to Kosciusko deserved to be flogged. The cadets, learning his decision, determined on resisting it. Their determination precipitated a revolution which, perhaps, under any circumstances, would have occurred. Every circumstance which could justify revolt existed in Poland. The Constitution provided for the regular assembly of the Diet: the Diet had not been assembled for five years. The Constitution declared that taxes should not be imposed on the Poles without the consent of their representatives: for fifteen years no budget had been submitted to the Diet. The Constitution provided for the personal liberty of every Pole: the Grand Duke seized and imprisoned the wretched Poles at his pleasure. The Constitution had given Poland a representative government; and Constantine, in defiance of it, had played the part of an autocrat. The threat of punishment, which Constantine pronounced against the military cadets, merely lighted the torch which was already prepared. Eighteen young men, armed to the teeth, entered the Grand Duke's palace and forced their way into his apartments. Constantine had just time to escape by a back staircase. His flight saved his life. … The insurrection, commenced in the Archduke's palace, soon spread. Some of the Polish regiments passed over to the insurgents. Constantine, who displayed little courage or ability, withdrew from the city; and, on the morning of the 30th of November [1830], the Poles were in complete possession of Warsaw. They persuaded Chlopicki, a general who had served with distinction under Suchet in Spain, to place himself at their head. … Raised to the first position in the State, his warmest counsellors urged him to attack the few thousand men whom Constantine still commanded. Chlopicki preferred negotiating with the Russians. The negotiation, of course, failed. … Chlopicki—his own well-intentioned effort having failed—resigned his office; and his fellow countrymen invested Radziwil with the command of their army, and placed Adam Czartoryski at the head of the Government. In the meanwhile Nicholas was steadily preparing for the contest which was before him. Diebitsch, who had brought the campaign of 1820 to a victorious conclusion, was entrusted with the command of the Russian army. … Three great military roads converge from the east upon Warsaw. {2558} The most northerly of these enters Poland at Kovno, crosses the Narew, a tributary of the Bug, at Ostrolenka, and runs down the right bank of the first of these rivers; the central road crosses the Bug at Brzesc and proceeds almost due west upon Warsaw; the most southerly of the three enters Poland from the Austrian frontier, crosses the Vistula at Gora, and proceeds along its west bank to the capital. Diebitsch decided on advancing by all three routes on Warsaw. … Diebitsch, on the 20th of February, 1831, attacked the Poles; on the 25th he renewed the attack. The battle on the 20th raged round the village of Grochow; it raged on the 25th round the village of Praga. Fought with extreme obstinacy, neither side was able to claim any decided advantage. The Russians could boast that the Poles had withdrawn across the Vistula. The Poles could declare that their retreat had been conducted at leisure, and that the Russians were unable or unwilling to renew the attack. Diebitsch himself, seriously alarmed at the situation into which he had fallen, remained for a month in inaction at Grochow. Before the month was over Radziwil, who had proved unequal to the duties of his post, was superseded in the command of the Polish army by Skrzynecki. On the 30th of March, Skrzynecki crossed the Vistula at Praga, and attacked the division of the Russian army which occupied the forest of Waver, near Grochow. The attack was made in the middle of the night. The Russians were totally defeated; they experienced a loss of 5,000 in killed and wounded, and 6,000 prisoners. Crippled by this disaster, Diebitsch fell back before the Polish army. Encouraged by his success, Skrzynecki pressed forward in pursuit. The great central road by which Warsaw is approached crosses the Kostczyn, a tributary of the Bug, near the little village of Iganie, about half-way between Russia and Warsaw. Eleven days after the victory of the 30th of March the Russians were again attacked by the Poles at Iganie. The Poles won a second victory. The Russians, disheartened at a succession of reverses, scattered before the attack; and the cause of Poland seemed to have been already won by the gallantry of her children and the skill of their generals. Diebitsch, however, defeated at Grochow and Iganie, was not destroyed. … Foregoing his original intention of advancing by three roads on Warsaw, he determined to concentrate his right on the northern road at Ostrolenka, his left, on the direct road at Siedlice. It was open to Skrzynecki to renew the attack, where Diebitsch expected it, and throw himself on the defeated remnants of the Russian army at Siedlice. Instead of doing so he took advantage of his central situation to cross the Bug and throw himself upon the Russian right at Ostrolenka. … Skrzynecki had reason to hope that he might obtain a complete success before Diebitsch could by any possibility march to the rescue. He failed. Diebitsch succeeded in concentrating his entire force before the destruction of his right wing had been consummated. On the 26th of May, Skrzynecki found himself opposed to the whole Russian army. Throughout the whole of that day the Polish levies gallantly struggled for the victory. When evening came they remained masters of the field which had been the scene of the contest. A negative victory of this character, however, was not the object of the great movement upon the Russian right. The Polish general, his army weakened by heavy losses, resolved on retiring upon Warsaw. Offensive operations were over: the defensive campaign had begun. Victory with the Poles had, in fact, proved as fatal as defeat. The Russians, relying upon their almost illimitable resources, could afford to lose two men for every one whom Poland could spare. … It happened, too, that a more fatal enemy than even war fell upon Poland in the hour of her necessity. The cholera, which had been rapidly advancing through Russia during 1830, broke out in the Russian army in the spring of 1831. The prisoners taken at Iganie communicated the seeds of infection to the Polish troops. Both armies suffered severely from the disease; but the effects of it were much more serious to the cause of Poland than to the cause of Russia. … A fortnight after the battle of Ostrolenka, Diebitsch, who had advanced his head-quarters to Pultusk, succumbed to the malady. In the same week Constantine, the Viceroy of Poland, and his Polish wife, also died. … Diebitsch was at once succeeded in the command by Paskievitsch, an officer who had gained distinction in Asia Minor. … On the 7th of July, Paskievitsch crossed the Vistula at Plock, and threatened Warsaw from the rear. … Slowly and steadily he advanced against the capital. On the 6th of September he attacked the devoted city. Inch by inch the Russians made their way over the earthworks which had been constructed in its defence. On the evening of the 7th the town was at their mercy; on the 8th it capitulated. … The news of its fall reached Paris on the 15th of September. The news of Waterloo had not created so much consternation in the French capital. Business was suspended; the theatres were closed. The cause of Poland was in every mind, the name of Poland on every tongue. … On the 26th of February, 1832, Nicholas, promulgated a new organic statute for the government of Poland, which he had the insolence to claim for Russia by the right of conquest of 1815. A draft of the statute reached Western Europe in the spring of 1832. About the same time stories were received of the treatment which the Russians were systematically applying to the ill-fated country. Her schools were closed; her national libraries and public collections removed; the children of the Poles were carried into Russia; their fathers Were swept into the Russian army; whole families accused of participation in the rebellion were marched into the interior of the empire; columns of Poles, it was stated, could be seen on the Russian roads linked man to man by bars of iron; and little children, unable to bear the fatigues of a long journey, were included among them; the dead bodies of those who had perished on the way could be seen on the sides of the Russian roads. The wail of their wretched mothers—"Oh, that the Czar could be drowned in our tears!'—resounded throughout Europe."

POLAND: A. D. 1846.
   Insurrection in Galicia suppressed.
   Extinction of the republic of Cracow.
   Its annexation to Austria.

"In 1860 broke out the last great Polish insurrection, in all respects a very ill–advised attempt. On the 29th of November of that year, on the occasion of the 30th anniversary of the revolution of 1830, national manifestations, taking a religious form, took place in the Warsaw churches. … On the 25th of February, 1861, on the anniversary of the battle of Grochow, the Agricultural Society of that city, presided over by Count Zamojski, held a meeting for the purpose of presenting a petition to the Emperor to grant a constitution. Although the Tsar did not concede this demand, he decreed by an ukase of the 26th of March a council of state for the kingdom, elective councils in each government, and municipal councils in Warsaw and the chief cities. Moreover, the Polish language was to be adopted in all the schools of the kingdom. … On the 8th of April the people appeared in crowds in front of the castle of the Viceroy, and when they refused to disperse, were fired upon by the soldiers. About 200 persons were killed in this unfortunate affair, and many more wounded. The viceroyalty of Count Lambert was not successful in conciliating the people; he was succeeded by Count Lüders, who was reactionary in his policy. An attempt was made in June, 1862, on the life of the Count in the Saxon Garden (Saksonski Sad), and he was soon afterwards recalled; his place being taken by the Grand Duke Constantine, who was chiefly guided by the Marquis Wielopolski, an unpopular but able man. Two attempts were made upon the life of the Grand Duke, the latter of which was nearly successful; the life of Wielopolski was also several times in danger. … On the night of June 15, 1863, a secret conscription was held, and the persons considered to be most hostile to the Government were taken in their beds and forcibly enlisted. Out of a population of 180,000 the number thus seized at Warsaw was 2,000; soon after this the insurrection broke out. Its proceedings were directed by a secret committee, styled Rzad (Government), and were as mysterious as the movements of the celebrated Fehmgerichte. The Poles fought under enormous difficulties. Most of the bands consisted of undisciplined men, unfamiliar with military tactics, and they had to contend with well–organised troops. Few of them had muskets; the generality were armed only with pikes, scythes, and sticks. … The bands of the insurgents were chiefly composed of priests, the smaller landowners, lower officials, and peasants who had no land, but those peasants who possessed any land refused to join. Many showed but a languid patriotism on account of the oppressive laws relating to the poorer classes, formerly in vigour in Poland, of which the tradition was still strong. The war was only guerilla fighting, in which the dense forests surrounding the towns were of great assistance to the insurgents. The secret emissaries of the revolutionary Government were called stiletcziki, from the daggers which they carried. They succeeded in killing many persons who had made themselves obnoxious to the national party. … No quarter was given to the chiefs of the insurgents; when captured they were shot or hanged. … When the Grand Duke Constantine resigned the viceroyalty at Warsaw he was succeeded by Count Berg. … By May, 1864, the insurrection was suppressed, but it had cost Poland dear. All its old privileges were now taken away; henceforth all teaching, both in the universities and schools, must be in the Russian language. Russia was triumphant, and paid no attention to the demands of the three Great Powers, England, France, and Austria. Prussia had long been silently and successfully carrying on her plan for the Germanisation of Posen, and on the 8th of February, 1863, she had concluded a convention with Russia with a view of putting a stop to the insurrection. Her method throughout has been more drastic; she has slowly eliminated or weakened the Polish element, carefully avoiding any of those reprisals which would cause a European scandal."

By an imperial ukase, February 23, 1868, the government of
Poland was absolutely incorporated with that of Russia.

POLEMARCH.

POLETÆ. POLETERIUM.

"Every thing which the state (Athens) sold, or leased; revenues, real property, mines, confiscated estates, in which is to be included also the property of public debtors, who were in arrear after the last term of respite, and the bodies of the aliens under the protection of the state, who had not paid the sum required for protection, and of foreigners who had been guilty of assuming the rights of citizenship, or of the crime called apostasion; all these, I say, together with the making of contracts for the public works, at least in certain cases and periods, were under the charge of the ten poletæ, although not always without the coöperation of other boards of officers. Each of the tribes appointed one of the members of this branch of the government, and their sessions were held in the edifice called the Poleterium."

      A. Boeckh,
      Public Economy of Athens (Lamb's translation),
      book 2, chapter 3.

POLLICES.

   "This celebrated personage was not, in the strict sense of the
   word, a traveller. He was one of those professional
   politicians of the Middle Ages who are familiar to the student
   of Italian history. The son of a travelling Venetian merchant,
   who had already passed many years in Tartary, and been
   regarded with welcome and consideration by the Grand Khan
   himself, he was taken at an early age to the Grand Khan's
   court, and apprenticed, as it were, to the Grand Khan's
   service. The young adventurer possessed in a high degree that
   subtlety and versatility which opinion attributes to his
   nation. Profiting by his opportunities, he soon succeeded in
   transmuting himself into a Tartar.
{2560}
   He adopted the Tartar dress, studied the Tartar manners, and
   mastered the four languages spoken in the Grand Khan's
   dominions. Kublai appears first to have employed him as a
   secretary, and then to have sent him on confidential missions:
   and during a service of seventeen years Marco was engaged in
   this way, in journeys by land and sea, in every part of the
   Grand Khan's empire and dependencies. More than this, he
   travelled on his own account, everywhere, it would appear,
   recording his notes and observations, partly for his own use,
   and partly for the information or entertainment of his master.
   These notes and observations were given to the world of Europe
   under the following circumstances. After a residence of
   seventeen years, Marco obtained permission to revisit Venice,
   accompanied by his father and uncle. Not long after his
   return, he was taken in a sea-fight with the Genoese, and
   committed to prison. To relieve the ennui of his confinement,
   he procured his rough notes from Venice, and dictated to a
   fellow–prisoner the narrative which passes under his name.
   This narrative soon became known to the world: and from its
   publication may be dated that intense and active interest in
   the East which has gone on steadily increasing ever since. The
   rank and dignified character of this famous adventurer, the
   romance of his career, the wealth which he amassed, the extent
   of his observations, the long series of years they had
   occupied, the strange and striking facts which he reported,
   and the completeness and perspicuity of his narrative,
   combined to produce a marked effect on the Italian world.
   Marco Polo was the true predecessor of Columbus. From an early
   time we find direct evidence of his influence on the process
   of exploration. … Wherever the Italian captains went, the fame
   of the great Venetian's explorations was noised abroad: and,
   as we shall presently see, the Italian captains were the chief
   directors of navigation and discovery in every seaport of
   Western Europe. The work dictated by Marco Polo to his
   fellow-captive, though based upon his travels both in form and
   matter, is no mere journal or narrative of adventure. A brief
   account of his career in the East is indeed prefixed, and the
   route over which he carries his reader is substantially that
   chronologically followed by himself; for he takes his reader
   successively overland to China, by way of the Black Sea,
   Armenia, and Tartary, backwards and forwards by land and sea,
   throughout the vast dominions of the Grand Khan, and finally
   homeward by the Indian Ocean, touching by the way at most of
   those famous countries which bordered thereon. Yet the book is
   no book of travels. It is rather a Handbook to the East for
   the use of other European travellers, and was clearly compiled
   as such and nothing more. Perhaps no compiler has ever laid
   down a clearer or more practical plan, adopted a more
   judicious selection of facts, or relieved it by a more
   attractive embroidery of historical anecdote. … It is not here
   to the purpose to dwell on his notices of Armenia, Turcomania,
   and Persia: his descriptions of the cities of Bagdad, Ormus,
   Tabriz, and many others, or to follow him to Kashmir,
   Kashghar, and Samarkhand, and across the steppes of Tartary.
   The main interest of Marco Polo lies in his description of the
   Grand Khan's Empire, and of those wide-spread shores, all
   washed by the Indian Ocean, which from Zanzibar to Japan went
   by the general name of India. … The Pope alone, among European
   potentates of the 15th century, could be ranked as approaching
   in state and dignity to the Tartar sovereign of China. For any
   fair parallel, recourse must be had to the Great Basileus of
   Persia: and in the eyes of his Venetian secretary the Grand
   Khan appeared much as Darius or Cyrus may have appeared to the
   Greek adventurers who crowded his court, and competed for the
   favour of a mighty barbarian whom they at once flattered and
   despised."

"Adam of Bremen first mentions these Pomeranians [east of the Oder], and he mentions them as Slavonians, the Oder being their boundary to the West. On the east they were conterminous with the Prussians. Their name is Slavonic, 'po'='on' and 'more'='sea,'='coastmen.' All their antiquities and traditions are equally so; in other words there is neither evidence, nor shadow of evidence, of their ever having dispossessed an older Germanic population. Nor are they wholly extinct at the present moment. On the promontories which project into the Gulf of Dantzig we find the Slavonic Kassub, Cassubitæ, or Kaszeb. Their language approaches the Polish."

"The pomerium was a hallowed space, along the whole circuit of the city, behind the wall, where the city auspices were taken, over which the augurs had full right, and which could never be moved without their first consulting the will of the gods. The pomerium which encircled the Palatine appears to have been the space between the wall and the foot of the hill."

POMPÆ.

The solemn processions of the ancient Athenians, on which they expended great sums of money, were so called.

POMPEII.

"Pompeii was a maritime city at the mouth of the river Sarnus, the most sheltered recess of the Neapolitan Crater. Its origin was lost in antiquity, and the tradition that it was founded by Hercules, together with the other spot [Herculaneum] which bore the name of the demigod, was derived perhaps from the warm springs with which the region abounded. The Greek plantations on the Campanian coast had been overrun by the Oscans and Samnites; nevertheless the graceful features of Grecian civilization were still everywhere conspicuous, and though Pompeii received a Latin name, and though Sulla, Augustus, and Nero had successively endowed it with Roman colonists, it retained the manners and to a great extent the language of the settlers from beyond the sea."

Pompeii, and the neighboring city of Herculaneum, were overwhelmed by a volcanic eruption from Mount Vesuvius, on the 23rd of August, A. D. 79. They were buried, but did not perish; they were death-stricken, but not destroyed; and by excavations, which began at Pompeii A. D. 1748, they have been extensively uncovered, and made to exhibit to modern times the very privacies and secrets of life in a Roman city of the age of Titus.

PONDICHERRY: A. D. 1674-1697.
   Founded by the French.
   Taken by the Dutch.
   Restored to France.

PONKAS.

PONS ÆLII.

A Roman bridge and military station on the Tyne, where
Newcastle is now situated.

PONTIAC'S WAR (A. D. 1763-1764).

"With the conquest of Canada and the expulsion of France as a military power from the continent, the English colonists were abounding in loyalty to the mother country, were exultant in the expectation of peace, and in the assurance of immunity from Indian wars in the future; for it did not seem possible that, with the loose system of organization and government common to the Indians, they could plan and execute a general campaign without the co–operation of the French as leaders. This feeling of security among the English settlements was of short duration. A general discontent pervaded all the Indian tribes from the frontier settlements to the Mississippi, and from the great lakes to the Gulf of Mexico. The extent of this disquietude was not suspected, and hence no attempt was made to gain the goodwill of the Indians. There were many real causes for this discontent. The French had been politic and sagacious in their intercourse with the Indian. They gained his friendship by treating him with respect and justice. They came to him with presents, and, as a rule, dealt with him fairly in trade. They came with missionaries, unarmed, heroic, self-denying men. … Many Frenchmen married Indian wives, dwelt with the native tribes, and adopted their customs. To the average Englishman, on the other hand, Indians were disgusting objects; he would show them no respect, nor treat them with justice except under compulsion. … The French had shown little disposition to make permanent settlements; but the English, when they appeared, came to stay, and they occupied large tracts of the best land for agricultural purposes. The French hunters and traders, who were widely dispersed among the native tribes, kept the Indians in a state of disquietude by misrepresenting the English, exaggerating their faults, and making the prediction that the French would soon recapture Canada and expel the English from the Western territories. Pontiac, the chief of the Ottawas [see CANADA: A. D. 1760], was the Indian who had the motive, the ambition, and capacity for organization which enabled him to concentrate and use all these elements of discontent for his own malignant and selfish purposes. After the defeat of the French, be professed for a time to be friendly with the English, expecting that, under the acknowledged supremacy of Great Britain, he would be recognized as a mighty Indian prince, and be assigned to rule over his own, and perhaps a confederacy of other tribes. Finding that the English government had no use for him, he was indignant, and he devoted all the energies of his vigorous mind to a secret conspiracy of uniting the tribes west of the Alleghanies to engage in a general war against the English settlements ['The tribes thus banded together against the English comprised, with a few unimportant exceptions, the whole Algonquin stock, to whom were united the Wyandots, the Senecas, and several tribes of the lower Mississippi. The Senecas were the only members of the Iroquois confederacy who joined in the league, the rest being kept quiet by the influence of Sir William Johnson.'

… His scheme was to make a simultaneous attack on all the Western posts in the month of May, 1763; and each attack was assigned to the neighboring tribes. His summer home was on a small island at the entrance of Lake St. Clair; and being near Detroit, he was to conduct in person the capture of that fort. On the 6th of May, 1763, Major Gladwin, in command at Detroit, had warning from an Indian girl that the next day an attempt would be made to capture the fort by treachery. When Pontiac, on the appointed morning, accompanied by 60 of his chiefs, with short guns concealed under their blankets, appeared at the fort, and, as usual, asked for admission, he was startled at seeing the whole garrison under arms, and that his scheme of treachery had miscarried. For two months the savages assailed the fort, and the sleepless garrison gallantly defended it, when they were relieved by the arrival of a schooner from Fort Niagara, with 60 men, provisions, and ammunition. Fort Pitt, on the present site of Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, was in command of Captain Ecuyer, another trained soldier, who had been warned of the Indian conspiracy by Major Gladwin in a letter written May 5th. Captain Ecuyer, having a garrison of 330 soldiers and backwoodsmen, immediately made every preparation for defence. On May 27th, a party of Indians appeared at the fort under the pretence of wishing to trade, and were treated as spies. {2562} Active operations against Fort Pitt were postponed until the smaller forts had been taken. Fort Sandusky was captured May 16th; Fort St. Joseph (on the St. Joseph River, Michigan), May 25th; Fort Ouatanon (now Lafayette, Indiana), May 31st; Fort Michillimaekinac (now Mackinaw, Michigan), June 2d; Fort Presqu' Isle (now Erie, Pennsylvania), June 17th; Fort Le Bœuf (Erie County, Pennsylvania), June 18th; Fort Venango (Venango County, Pennsylvania), June 18th; and the posts at Carlisle and Bedford, Pennsylvania, on the same day. No garrison except that at Presqu' Is]e had warning of danger. The same method of capture was adopted in each instance. A small party of Indians came to the fort with the pretence of friendship, and were admitted. Others soon joined them, when the visitors rose upon the small garrisons, butchered them, or took them captive. At Presqu' Isle the Indians laid siege to the fort for two days, when they set it on fire. At Venango no one of the garrison survived to give an account of the capture. On June 22d, a large body of Indians surrounded Fort Pitt and opened fire on all sides, but were easily repulsed. … The Indians departed next day and did not return until July 26th," when they laid siege to the fort for five days and nights, with more loss to themselves than to the garrison. They "then disappeared, in order to intercept the expedition of Colonel Bouquet, which was approaching from the east with a convoy of provisions for the relief of Fort Pitt. It was fortunate for the country that there was an officer stationed at Philadelphia who fully understood the meaning of the alarming reports which were coming in from the Western posts. Colonel Henry Bouquet was a gallant Swiss officer who had been trained in war from his youth, and whose personal accomplishments gave an additional charm to his bravery and heroic energy. He had served seven years in fighting American Indians, and was more cunning than they in the practice of their own artifices. General Amherst, the commander-in–chief, was slow in appreciating the importance and extent of the Western conspiracy; yet he did good service in directing Colonel Bouquet to organize an expedition for the relief of Fort Pitt. The promptness and energy with which this duty was performed, under the most embarrassing conditions, make the expedition one of the most brilliant episodes in American warfare. The only troops available for the service were about 500 regulars recently arrived from the siege of Havana, broken in health." At Bushy Run, 25 miles east of Fort Pitt, Bouquet fought a desperate battle with the savages, and defeated them by the stratagem of a pretended retreat, which drew them into an ambuscade. Fort Pitt was then reached in safety. "On the 29th of July Detroit was reinforced by 280 men under Captain Dalzell, who in June had left Fort Niagara in 22 barges, with several cannon and a supply of provisions and ammunition. The day after his arrival, Captain Dalzell proposed, with 250 men, to make a night attack on Pontiac's camp and capture him. Major Gladwin discouraged the attempt, but finally, against his judgment, consented. Some Canadians obtained the secret and carried it to Pontiac, who waylaid the party in an ambuscade [at a place called Bloody Bridge ever since]. Twenty of the English were killed and 39 wounded. Among the killed was Captain Dalzell himself. Pontiac could make no use of this success, as the fort was strongly garrisoned and well supplied. … Elsewhere there was nothing to encourage him." His confederation begun to break, and in November he was forced to raise the siege of Detroit. "There was quietness on the frontiers during the winter of 1763-64. In the spring of 1764 scattered war parties were again ravaging the borders. Colonel Bouquet was recruiting in Pennsylvania, and preparing an outfit for his march into the valley of the Ohio. In June, Colonel Bradstreet, with a force of 1,200 men, was sent up the great lakes," where he made an absurd and unauthorized treaty with some of the Ohio Indians. He arrived at Detroit on the 26th of August. "Pontiac had departed, and sent messages of defiance from the banks of the Maumee." Colonel Bouquet had experienced great difficulty in raising troops and supplies and it was not until September, 1764, that he again reached Fort Pitt. But before two months passed he had brought the Delawares and Shawanees to submission and had delivered some 200 white captives from their hands. Meantime, Sir William Johnson, in conjunction with Bradstreet, had held conferences with a great council of 2,000 warriors at Fort Niagara, representing Iroquois, Ottawas, Ojibways, Wyandots and others, and had concluded several treaties of peace. By one of these, with the Senecas, a strip of land four miles wide on each side of Niagara River, from Erie to Ontario, was ceded to the British government. "The Pontiac War, so far as battles and campaigns were concerned, was ended; but Pontiac was still at large and as untamed as ever. His last hope was the Illinois country, where the foot of an English soldier had never trod;" and there he schemed and plotted without avail until 1765. In 1769 he was assassinated, near St. Louis.

W. F. Poole, The West, 1763-1783 (Narrative and Critical History of America, volume 6, chapter 9).

      W. L. Stone,
      Life and Times of Sir William Johnson,
      volume 2, chapters 9-12.

      J. R. Brodhead,
      Documents Relative to Colonial History New York,
      volume 7.

The Pope is often alluded to as the Roman Pontiff, the term implying an analogy between his office and that of the Pontifex Maximus of the ancient Romans.

PONTIFICAL INDICTIONS.

PONTUS.

PONTUS EUXINUS, EUXINUS PONTUS.

"It has been often said and often denied that the monasteries supplied the want which the poor law, two generations after the dissolution of these bodies, enforced. That the monasteries were renowned for their almsgiving is certain. The duty of aiding the needy was universal. Themselves the creatures of charity, they could not deny to others that on which they subsisted. … {2563} It is possible that these institutions created the mendicancy which they relieved, but it cannot be doubted that they assisted much which needed their help. The guilds which existed in the towns were also found in the country villages. … They were convenient instruments for charity before the establishment of a poor law, and they employed no inconsiderable part of their revenues, collected from subscriptions and from lands and tenements, in relieving the indigent and treating poor strangers hospitably. … Before the dissolution of the monasteries, but when this issue was fairly in view, in 1536, an attempt was made to secure some legal provision for destitution. The Act of this year provides that the authorities in the cities and boroughs should collect alms on Sundays and holy days, that the ministers should on all occasions, public and private, stir up the people to contribute to a common fund, that the custom of giving doles by private persons should be forbidden under penalty, and that the church-wardens should distribute the alms when collected. The Act, however, is strictly limited to free gifts, and the obligations of monasteries, almshouses, hospitals, and brotherhoods are expressly maintained. … There was a considerable party in England which was willing enough to see the monasteries destroyed, root and branch, and one of the most obvious means by which this result could be attained would be to allege that all which could be needed for the relief of destitution would be derived from the voluntary offerings of those who contributed so handsomely to the maintenance of indolent and dissolute friars. The public was reconciled to the Dissolution by the promise made that the monastic estates should not be converted to the king's private use, but be devoted towards the maintenance of a military force, and that therefore no more demands should be made on the nation for subsidies and aids. Similarly when the guild lands and chantry lands were confiscated at the beginning of Edward's reign, a promise was made that the estates of these foundations should be devoted to good and proper uses, for erecting grammar schools, for the further augmentation of the universities, and the better provision for the poor and needy. They were swept into the hands of Seymour and Somerset, of the Dudleys and Cecils, and the rest of the crew who surrounded the throne of Edward. It cannot, therefore, I think, be doubted that this violent change of ownership, apart from any considerations of previous practice in these several institutions, must have aggravated whatever evils already existed. … The guardians of Edward attempted, in a savage statute passed in the first year of his reign, to restrain pauperism and vagabondage by reducing the landless and destitute poor to slavery, by branding them, and making them work in chains. The Act, however, only endured for two years. In the last year of Edward's reign two collectors were to be appointed in every parish, who were to wait on every person of substance and inquire what sums he will give weekly to the relief of the poor. The promises are to be entered in a book, and the collectors were authorized to employ the poor in such work as they could perform, paying them from the fund. Those who refused to aid were to be first exhorted by the ministers and church wardens, and if they continued obstinate were to be denounced to the bishop, who is to remonstrate with such uncharitable folk. … In the beginning of Elizabeth's reign (5, cap. 3) the unwilling giver, after being exhorted by the bishop, is to be bound to appear before the justices, in quarter sessions, where, if he be still obdurate to exhortation, the justices are empowered to tax him in a weekly sum, and commit him to prison till he pays. … There was only a step from the process under which a reluctant subscriber to the poor law was assessed by the justices and imprisoned on refusal, to the assessment of all property under the celebrated Act of 43 Elizabeth [1601], cap. 3. The law had provided for the regular appointment of assessors for the levy of rates, for supplying work to the able-bodied, for giving relief to the infirm and old, and for binding apprentices. It now consolidates the experience of the whole reign, defines the kind of property on which the rate is to be levied, prescribes the manner in which the assessors shall be appointed, and inflicts penalties on parties who infringe its provisions. It is singular that the Act was only temporary. It was, by the last clause, only to continue to the end of the next session of parliament. It was, however, renewed, and finally made perpetual by 16 Car. I., cap. 4. The economical history of labour in England is henceforward intimately associated with this remarkable Act. … The Act was to be tentative, indeed, but in its general principles it lasted till 1835. … The effect of poor law relief on the wages of labour was to keep them hopelessly low, to hinder a rise even under the most urgent circumstances."

"In February 1834 was published perhaps the most remarkable and startling document to be found in the whole range of English, perhaps, indeed, of all, social history. It was the Report upon the administration and practical operation of the Poor Laws by the Commissioners who had been appointed to investigate the subject. … It was their rare good fortune not only to lay bare the existence of abuses and trace them to their roots, but also to propound and enforce the remedies by which they might be cured."

"The poor-rate had become public spoil. The ignorant believed it an inexhaustible fund which belonged to them. To obtain their share, the brutal bullied the administrators, the profligate exhibited their bastards which must be fed, the idle folded their arms and waited till they got it; ignorant boys and girls married upon it; poachers, thieves, and prostitutes extorted it by intimidation; country justices lavished it for popularity, and guardians for convenience. This was the way the fund went. As for whence it arose—it came, more and more every year, out of the capital of the shopkeeper and the farmer, and the diminishing resources of the country gentleman. … Instead of the proper number of labourers to till his lands—labourers paid by himself—the farmer was compelled to take double the number, whose wages were paid partly out of the rates; and these men, being employed by compulsion on him, were beyond his control—worked or not as they chose —let down the quality of his land, and disabled him from employing the better men who would have toiled hard for independence. These better men sank down among the worse; the rate-paying cottager, after a vain struggle, went to the pay-table to seek relief; the modest girl might starve, while her bolder neighbour received 1s. 6d. per week for every illegitimate child. {2564} Industry, probity, purity, prudence– all heart and spirit—the whole soul of goodness —were melting down into depravity and social ruin, like snow under the foul internal fires which precede the earthquake. There were clergymen in the commission, as well as politicians and economists; and they took these things to heart, and laboured diligently to frame suggestions for a measure which should heal and recreate the moral spirit as well as the economical condition of society in England. To thoughtful observers it is clear that the … grave aristocratic error … of confounding in one all ranks below a certain level of wealth was at the bottom of much poor-law abuse, as it has been of the opposition to its amendment. … Except the distinction between sovereign and subject, there is no social difference in England so wide as that between the independent labourer and the pauper; and it is equally ignorant, immoral, and impolitic to confound the two. This truth was so apparent to the commissioners, and they conveyed it so fully to the framers of the new poor-law, that it forms the very foundation of the measure. … Enlightened by a prodigious accumulation of evidence, the commissioners offered their suggestions to government; and a bill to amend the poor-law was prepared and proposed to the consideration of parliament early in 1834. … If one main object of the reform was to encourage industry, it was clearly desirable to remove the impediments to the circulation of labour. Settlement by hiring and service was to exist no longer; labour could freely enter any parish where it was wanted, and leave it for another parish which might, in its turn, want hands. In observance of the great principle that the independent labourer was not to be sacrificed to the pauper, all administration of relief to the able-bodied at their own homes was to be discontinued as soon as possible; and the allowance system was put an end to entirely. … Henceforth, the indigent must come into the workhouse for relief, if he must have it. … The able-bodied should work—should do a certain amount of work for every meal. They might go out after the expiration of twenty-four hours; but while in the house they must work. The men, women, and children must be separated; and the able-bodied and infirm. … In order to a complete and economical classification in the workhouses, and for other obvious reasons, the new act provided for unions of parishes. … To afford the necessary control over such a system … a central board was indispensable, by whose orders, and through whose assistant-commissioners, everything was to be arranged, and to whom all appeals were to be directed. … Of the changes proposed by the new law, none was more important to morals than that which threw the charge of the maintenance of illegitimate children upon the mother. … The decrease of illegitimate births was what many called wonderful, but only what the framers of the law had anticipated from the removal of direct pecuniary inducement to profligacy, and from the awakening of proper care in parents of daughters, and of reflection in the women themselves. … On the 14th of August 1834, the royal assent was given to the Poor–law Amendment Act, amidst prognostications of utter failure from the timid, and some misgivings among those who were most confident of the absolute necessity of the measure. … Before two years were out, wages were rising and rates were falling in the whole series of country parishes; farmers were employing more labourers; surplus labour was absorbed; bullying paupers were transformed into steady working-men; the decrease of illegitimate births, chargeable to the parish, throughout England, was nearly 10,000, or nearly 13 per cent.; … and, finally, the rates, which had risen nearly a million in their annual amount during the five years before the poor-law commission was issued, sank down, in the course of the five years after it, from being upwards of seven millions to very little above four."

H. Martineau, A History of the Thirty Years Peace, book 4, chapter 7 (volume 2).

"The new Poor Law was passed by Parliament in 1834; and the oversight of its administration was placed in the hands of a special board of commissioners, then known as the Central Poor Law Board. This board, which was not represented in Parliament, was continued until 1847. In that year it was reconstructed and placed under the presidency of a minister with a seat in the House of Commons—a reconstruction putting it on a political level with the Home Office and the other important Government Departments at Whitehall. The Department was henceforward known as the Poor Law Board, and continued to be so named until 1871, when there was another reconstruction. This time the Poor Law Board took over from the Home Office various duties in respect of municipal government and public health, and from the Privy Council the oversight of the administration of the vaccination laws and other powers, and its title was changed to that of the Local Government Board. Since then hardly a session of Parliament has passed in which its duties and responsibilities have not been added to, until at the present time the Local Government Board is more directly in touch with the people of England and Wales than any other Government Department. There is not a village in the land which its inspectors do not visit or to which the official communications of the Board are not addressed."

POOR MEN OF LYONS. POOR MEN OF LOMBARDY.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (JULY-AUGUST: VIRGINIA);
      (AUGUST: VIRGINIA);
      and (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER: VIRGINIA).

POPULARES.

PORNOCRACY AT ROME.

PORT JACKSON: A. D. 1770-1788.
   The discovery.
   The naming.
   The first settlement.

PORT MAHON.

PORT PHILLIP DISTRICT.

PORT ROYAL,
   The Jansenists: A. D. 1602-1660.
   The monastery under Mère Angelique
   and the hermits of the Port Royal Valley.
   Their acceptance of the doctrines of Jansenius.
   Their conflict with the Jesuits.

"The monastery of Port Royal … was founded in the beginning of the 13th century, in the reign of Philip Augustus; and a later tradition claimed this magnificent monarch as the author of its foundation and of its name. … But this is the story of a time when, as it has been said, 'royal founders were in fashion.' More truly, the name is considered to be derived from the general designation of the fief or district in which the valley lies, Porrois—which, again, is supposed to be a corruption of Porra or Borra, meaning a marshy and woody hollow. The valley of Port Royal presents to this day the same natural features which attracted the eye of the devout solitary in the seventeenth century. … It lies about eighteen miles west of Paris, and seven or eight from Versailles, on the road to Chevreuse. … The monastery was founded, not by Philip Augustus, but by Matthieu, first Lord of Marli, a younger son of the noble house of Montmorency. Having formed the design of accompanying the crusade proclaimed by Innocent III. to the Holy Land, he left at the disposal of his wife, Mathilde de Garlande, and his kinsman, the Bishop of Paris, a sum of money to devote to some pious work in his absence. They agreed to apply it to the erection of a monastery for nuns in this secluded valley, that had already acquired a reputation for sanctity in connection with the old chapel dedicated to St. Lawrence, which attracted large numbers of worshippers. The foundations of the church and monastery were laid in 1204. They were designed by the same architect who built the Cathedral of Amiens, and ere long the graceful and beautiful structures were seen rising in the wilderness. The nuns belonged to the Cistercian order. Their dress was white woollen, with a black veil; but afterwards they adopted as their distinctive badge a large scarlet cross on their white scapulary, as the symbol of the 'Institute of the Holy Sacrament.' The abbey underwent the usual history of such institutions. Distinguished at first by the strictness of its discipline and the piety of its inmates, it became gradually corrupted with increasing wealth, till, in the end of the sixteenth century, it had grown notorious for gross and scandalous abuses. … But at length its revival arose out of one of the most obvious abuses connected with it. The patronage of the institution, like that of others, had been distributed without any regard to the fitness of the occupants, even to girls of immature age. In this manner the abbey of Port Royal accidentally fell to the lot of one who was destined by her ardent piety to breathe a new life into it, and by her indomitable and lofty genius to give it an undying reputation. Jacqueline Marie Arnauld—better known by her official name, La Mère Angélique—was appointed abbess of Port Royal when she was only eight years of age. She was descended from a distinguished family belonging originally to the old noblesse of Provence, but which had migrated to Auvergne and settled there. Of vigorous healthiness, both mental and physical, the Arnaulds had already acquired a merited position and name in the annals of France. In the beginning of the sixteenth century it found its way to Paris in the person of Antoine Arnauld, Seigneur de la Mothe, the grandfather of the heroine of Port Royal. … Antoine Arnauld married the youthful daughter of M. Marion, the Avocat-general. … The couple had twenty children, and felt, as may be imagined, the pressure of providing for so many. Out of this pressure came the remarkable lot of two of the daughters. The benefices of the Church were a fruitful field of provision, and the avocat-general, the maternal grandfather of the children, had large ecclesiastical influence. The result was the appointment not only of one daughter to the abbey of Port Royal, but also of a younger sister, Agnes, only six years of age, to the abbey of St Cyr, about six miles distant from Port Royal. … At the age of eleven, in the year 1602, Angélique was installed Abbess of Port Royal. Her sister took the veil at the age of seven. … The remarkable story of Angélique's conversion by the preaching of a Capucin friar in 1608, her strange contest with her parents which followed, the strengthening impulses in different directions which her religious life received, first from the famous St Francis de Sales, and finally, and especially, from the no less remarkable Abbé de St Cyran, all belong to the history of Port Royal."

"The numbers at the Port Royal had increased to eighty, and the situation was so unhealthy that there were many deaths. In 1626 they moved to Paris, and the abbey in the fields remained for many years deserted. M. Zamet, a pious but not a great man, for a while had the spiritual charge of the Port Royal, but in 1634 the abbé of St. Cyran became its director. To his influence is due the position it took in the coming conflict of Jansenism, and the effects of his teachings can be seen in the sisters, and in most of the illustrious recluses who attached themselves to the monastery. St. Cyran had been an early associate of Jansenius, whose writings became such a fire-brand in the Church. As young men they devoted the most of five years to an intense study of St. Augustine. It is said Jansenius read all of his works ten times, and thirty times his treatises against the Pelagians. The two students resolved to attempt a reformation in the belief of the Church, which they thought was falling away from many of the tenets of the father. {2566} Jansenius was presently made bishop of Ypres by the Spanish as a reward for a political tract, but he pursued his studies in his new bishopric. … In 1640, the Augustinus appeared, in which the bishop of Ypres sought, by a full reproduction of the doctrines of St. Augustine, to bring the Church back from the errors of the Pelagians to the pure and severe tenets of the great father. The doctrine of grace, the very corner–stone of the Christian faith, was that which Jansenius labored to revive. Saint Augustine had taught that, before the fall of our first parents, man, being in astute of innocence, could of his own free will do works acceptable to God; but after that his nature was so corrupted, that no good thing could proceed from it, save only as divine grace worked upon him. This grace God gave as He saw fit, working under his eternal decrees, and man, except as predestined and elected to its sovereign help, could accomplish no righteous act, and must incur God's just wrath. But the Pelagians and semi-Pelagians had departed from this doctrine, and attributed a capacity to please God, to man's free will and the deeds proceeding from it—a belief which could but foster his carnal pride and hasten his damnation. The Jesuits were always desirous to teach religion so that it could most easily be accepted, and they had inclined to semi-Pelagian doctrines, rather than to the difficult truths of St. Augustine. Yet no one questioned his authority. The dispute was as to the exact interpretation of his writings. Jansenius claimed to have nothing in his great book save the very word of Augustine, or its legitimate result. The Jesuits replied that his writings contained neither the doctrine of Augustine nor the truth of God. They appealed to the Pope for the condemnation of these heresies. Jansenius had died before the publication of his book, but his followers, who were soon named after him, endeavored to defend his works from censure. … It was not until 1653 that the influence of the Jesuits succeeded in obtaining the condemnation of the offending book. In that year, Innocent X. issued a bull, by which he condemned as heretical five propositions contained in the Augustinus. … The members of the Port Royal adopted the Jansenist cause. Saint Cyran had been a fellow worker with Jansenius, and he welcomed the Augustinus as a book to revive and purify the faith of the Church. … The rigid predestinarianism of Jansen had a natural attraction for the stern zeal of the Port Royal. The religion of the convent and of those connected with it bordered on asceticism. They lived in the constant awe of God, seeking little communion with the world, and offering to it little compromise. … An intense and rigorous religious life adopts an intense and rigorous belief. The Jansenists resembled the English and American Puritans. They shared their Calvinistic tenets and their strict morality. A Jansenist, said the Jesuits, is a Calvinist saying mass. No accusation was more resented by those of the Jansenist party. They sought no alliance with the Protestants. Saint Cyran and Arnauld wrote prolifically against the Calvinists. They were certainly separated from the latter by their strong devotion to two usages of the Catholic Church which were especially objectionable to Protestants—the mass and the confessional. … In 1647, Mother Angelique with some of the sisters returned to Port Royal in the Fields. The convent at Paris continued in close relations with it, but the abbey in the fields was to exhibit the most important phases of devotional life. Before the return of the sisters, this desolate spot had begun to be the refuge for many eminent men, whose careers became identified with the fate of the abbey. 'We saw arrive,' writes one of them, 'from diverse provinces, men of different professions, who, like mariners that had suffered shipwreck, came to seck the Port.' M. le Maitre, a nephew of Mother Angelique, a lawyer of much prominence, a counsellor of state, a favorite of the chancellor and renowned for his eloquent harangues, abandoned present prosperity and future eminence, and in 1638 built a little house, near the monastery, and became the first of those who might be called the hermits of the Port Royal. Not taking orders, nor becoming a member of any religious body, he sought a life of lonely devotion in this barren place. … Others gradually followed, until there grew up a community, small in numbers, but strong in influence, united in study, in penance, in constant praise and worship. Though held together by no formal vows, few of those who put hand to the plough turned back from the work. They left their beloved retreat only when expelled by force, and with infinite regret. The monastery itself had become dilapidated. It was surrounded by stagnant waters, and the woods near by were full of snakes. But the recluses found religious joy amid this desolation. … As their numbers increased they did much, however, to improve the desolate retreat they had chosen. … Some of the recluses cultivated the ground. Others even made shoes, and the Jesuits dubbed them the cobblers. They found occupation not only in such labors and in solitary meditation, but in the more useful work of giving the young an education that was sound in learning and grounded in piety. The schools of the Port Royal had a troubled existence of about fifteen years. Though they rarely had over fifty pupils, yet in this brief period they left their mark. Racine, Tillemont, and many others of fruitful scholarship and piety were among the pupils who were watched and trained by the grave anchorites with a tender and fostering care. … The judicious teachers of the Port Royal taught reading in French, and in many ways did much to improve the methods of French instruction and scholarship. The children were thoroughly trained also in Greek and Latin, in logic and mathematics. Their teachers published admirable manuals for practical study in many branches. 'They sought,' says one, 'to render study more agreeable than play or games.' The jealousy of the Jesuits, who were well aware of the advantages of controlling the education of the young, at last obtained the order for the final dispersion of these little schools, and in 1660 they were closed for ever. Besides these manuals for teaching, the literature of the Port Royal comprised many controversial works, chief among them the forty-two volumes of Arnauld. It furnished also a translation of the Bible by Saci, which, though far from possessing the merits of the English version of King James, is one of the best of the many French translations. But the works of Blaise Pascal were the great productions of the Port Royal, as he himself was its chief glory. The famous Provincial Letters originated from the controversy over Jansenism, though they soon turned from doctrinal questions to an attack on the morality of the Jesuits that permanently injured the influence of that body."

      ALSO IN:
      M. A. Schimmelpenninck,
      Select Memoirs of Port Royal.

PORT ROYAL: A. D. 1702-1715.
   Renewed persecution.
   Suppression and destruction of the Monastery.
   The odious Bull Unigenitus, and its tyrannical enforcement.

"The Jesuits had been for some time at a low ebb, in the beginning of the 18th century, the Cardinal de Noailles, Archbishop of Paris, then ruling the King through Madame de Maintenon, and himself submitting to the direction of Bossuet. The imprudence of the Jansenists, their indefatigable spirit of dispute, restored to their enemies the opportunity to retrieve their position. In 1702, forty Sorbonne doctors resuscitated the celebrated question of fact concerning the five propositions of Jansenius, and maintained that, in the presence of the decisions of the Church on points of fact and not of dogma, a respectful silence sufficed without internal acquiescence. Some other propositions of a Jansenistic tendency accompanied this leading question. Bossuet hastened to interfere to stifle the matter, and to induce the doctors to retract. … Thirty-nine doctors retracted out of forty. The King forbade the publication thenceforth of anything concerning these matters, but, in his own name, and that of Philip V. [of Spain, his grandson], entreated Pope Clement XI. to renew the constitutions of his predecessors against Jansenism. … Clement XI. responded to the King's wishes by a Bull which fell in the midst of the assembly of the clergy in 1705. Cardinal de Noailles, who presided, made reservations against the infallibility of the Church in affairs of fact. The assembly, animated with a Gallican spirit, accepted the Bull, but established that the constitutions of the Popes bind the whole Church only when they have been accepted by the bodies of the pastors,' and that this acceptance on the part of the bishops is made 'by way of judgment.' The court of Rome was greatly offended that the bishops should claim to 'judge' after it, and this gave rise to long negotiations: the King induced the bishops to offer to the Pope extenuating explanations. The Jesuits, however, regained the ascendency at Versailles, and prepared against Cardinal de Noailles a formidable engine of war." The Cardinal had given his approval, some years before, to a work—"Moral Reflections on the New Testament"—published by Father Quesnel, who afterwards became a prominent Jansenist. The Jesuits now procured the condemnation of this work, by the congregation of the Index, and a decree from the Pope prohibiting it. "This was a rude assault on Cardinal de Noailles. The decree, however, was not received in France, through a question of form, or rather, perhaps, because the King was then dissatisfied with the Pope, on account of the concessions of Clement XI. to the House of Austria. The Jansenists gained nothing thereby. At this very moment, a terrible blow was about to fall on the dearest and most legitimate object of their veneration." The nuns of Port-Royal of the Fields having refused to subscribe to the papal constitution of 1705, the Pope had subjected them to the Abbess of Port-Royal of Paris, "who did not share their Augustinian faith (1708). They resisted. Meanwhile, Father La Chaise [the King's confessor] died, and Le Tellier succeeded him. The affair was carried to the most extreme violence. Cardinal de Noailles, a man of pure soul and feeble character, was persuaded, in order to prove that he was not a Jansenist, to cruelty, despite himself, towards the rebellious nuns. They were torn from their monastery and dispersed through different convents (November, 1709). The illustrious abbey of Port-Royal, hallowed, even in the eyes of unbelievers, by the name of so many great men, by the memory of so much virtue, was utterly demolished, by the order of the lieutenant of police, D'Argenson. Two years after, as if it were designed to exile even the shades that haunted the valley, the dead of Port-Royal were exhumed, and their remains transferred to a village cemetery (at Magny). Noailles, while he entered into this persecution, took the same course, nevertheless, as the nuns of Port-Royal, by refusing to retract the approbation which he had given to the 'Moral Reflections.' Le Tellier caused him to be denounced to the King. … The King prohibited Quesnel's book by a decree in council (November 11, 1711), and demanded of the Pope a new condemnation of this book, in a form that could be received in France. The reply of Clement XI. was delayed until September 8, 1713; this was the celebrated Unigenitus Bull, the work of Le Tellier far more than of the Pope, and which, instead of the general terms of the Bull of 1708, expressly condemned 101 propositions extracted from the 'Moral Reflections.' … The Bull dared condemn the very words of St. Augustine and of St. Paul himself; there were propositions, on other matters than grace, the condemnation of which was and should have been scandalous, and seemed veritably the triumph of Jesuitism over Christianity; for example, those concerning the necessity of the love of God. It had dared to condemn this: 'There is no God, there is no religion, where there is not charity.' This was giving the pontifical sanction to the Jesuitical theories most contrary to the general spirit of Christian theology. It was the same with the maxims relative to the Holy Scriptures. The Pope had anathematized the following propositions: 'The reading of the Holy Scriptures is for all. Christians should keep the Sabbath-day holy by reading the Scriptures; it is dangerous to deprive them of these.' And also this: 'The fear of unjust excommunication should not prevent us from doing our duty.' This was overturning all political Gallicanism." The acceptance of the Bull was strongly but vainly resisted. The King and the King's malignant confessor spared no exercise of their unbridled power to compel submission to it. "It was endeavored to stifle by terror public opinion contrary to the Bull: exiles, imprisonments, were multiplied from day to day." And still, when Louis XIV. died, on the 1st day of September, 1715, the struggle was not at an end.

"It is now time that I should say something of the infamous bull Unigenitus, which by the unsurpassed audacity and scheming of Father Le Tellier and his friends was forced upon the Pope and the world. I need not enter into a very lengthy account of the celebrated Papal decree which has made so many martyrs, depopulated our schools, introduced ignorance, fanaticism, and misrule, rewarded vice, thrown the whole community into the greatest confusion, caused disorder everywhere, and established the most arbitrary and the most barbarous inquisition; evils which have doubled within the last thirty years. I will content myself with a word or two, and will not blacken further the pages of my Memoirs. … It is enough to say that the new bull condemned in set terms the doctrines of St. Paul, … and also those of St. Augustin, and of other fathers; doctrines which have always been adopted by the Popes, by the Councils, and by the Church itself. The bull, as soon as published, met with a violent opposition in Rome from the cardinals there, who went by sixes, by eights, and by tens, to complain of it to the Pope. … He protested … that the publication had been made without his knowledge, and put off the cardinals with compliments, excuses, and tears, which last he could always command. The constitution had the same fate in France as in Rome. The cry against it was universal."

Duke of Saint Simon, Memoirs (abridged translation by St. John), volume 3, chapter 6.

"Jansenism … laid hold upon all ecclesiastical bodies with very few exceptions, it predominated altogether in theological literature; all public schools that were not immediately under the Jesuits, or, as in Spain, under the Inquisition, held Jansenist opinions, at least so far as the majority of their theologians were concerned. In Rome itself this teaching was strongly represented amongst the cardinals." Fenelon declared "that nobody knew—now that the controversy and the condemnations had gone on for sixty years—in what the erroneous doctrine exactly consisted; for the Roman court stuck fast to the principle of giving no definition of what ought to be believed, so that the same doctrine which it apparently rejected in one form, was unhesitatingly accepted at Rome itself when expressed in other though synonymous terms. … The same thing which under one name was condemned, was under another, as the teaching of the Thomists or Augustinians, declared to be perfectly orthodox. … Just because nobody could tell in what sense such propositions as those taken from the works of Jansenius or Quesnel were to be rejected, did they become valuable; for the whole question was turned into one of blind obedience and submission, without previous investigation. The Jesuit D'Aubenton, who as Tellier's agent in Rome had undertaken to procure that the passages selected from Quesnel's book should be condemned, repeatedly informed his employer that at Rome everything turned upon the papal infallibility; to get this passed whilst the king was ready to impose, by force of arms, upon the bishops and clergy the unquestioning acceptance of the papal constitution, was the only object."

ALSO IN: W. H. Jarvis, History of the Church of France, volume 2, chapters 5-7.

      F. Rocquain,
      The Revolutionary Spirit preceding the French Revolution,
      chapter 1.

PORT ROYAL, Nova Scotia: A. D. 1603-1613.
Settled by the French, and destroyed by the English.

PORT ROYAL, Nova Scotia: A. D. 1710. Final conquest by the English and change of name to Annapolis Royal.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1861 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER: SOUTH CAROLINA-GEORGIA).

PORTOBELLO: A. D. 1668.

PORTUGAL:
   Early history.
   Mistaken identification with ancient Lusitania.
   Roman, Gothic, Moorish and Spanish conquests.
   The county of Henry of Burgundy.

   "The early history of the country, which took the name of
   Portugal from the county which formed the nucleus of the
   future kingdom, is identical with that of the rest of the
   Iberian peninsula, but deserves some slight notice because of
   an old misconception, immortalized in the title of the famous
   epic of Camoens, and not yet entirely eradicated even from
   modern ideas. Portugal, like the rest of the peninsula, was
   originally inhabited by men of the prehistoric ages. … There
   seems to be no doubt that the Celts, the first Aryan
   immigrants, were preceded by a non-Aryan race, which is called
   by different writers the Iberian or Euskaldunac nation, but
   this earlier race speedily amalgamated with the Celts, and out
   of the two together were formed the five tribes inhabiting the
   Iberian peninsula, which Strabo names as the Cantabrians, the
   Vasconians, the Asturians, the Gallicians and the Lusitanians.
   It is Strabo, also, who mentions the existence of Greek
   colonies at the mouth of the Tagus, Douro, and Minho, and it
   is curious to note that the old name of Lisbon, Olisipo, was
   from the earliest times identified with that of the hero of
   the Odyssey, and was interpreted to mean the city of Ulysses.
   …
{2569}
   The Carthaginians, though they had colonies all over the
   peninsula, established their rule mainly over the south and
   east of it, having their capital at Carthagena or Nova
   Carthago, and seem to have neglected the more barbarous
   northern and western provinces. It was for this reason that
   the Romans found far more difficulty in subduing these latter
   provinces. … In 189 B. C. Lucius Æmilius Paullus defeated the
   Lusitanians, and in 185 B. C. Gaius Calpurnius forced his way
   across the Tagus. There is no need here to discuss the gradual
   conquest by the Romans of that part of the peninsula which
   includes the modern kingdom of Portugal, but it is necessary
   to speak of the gallant shepherd Viriathus, who sustained a
   stubborn war against the Romans from 149 B. C. until he was
   assassinated in 139 B. C., because he has been generally
   claimed as the first national hero of Portugal. This claim has
   been based upon the assumed identification of the modern
   Portugal with the ancient Lusitania [see LUSITANIA, an
   identification which has spread its roots deep in Portuguese
   literature, and has until recently been generally accepted. …
   The Celtic tribe of Lusitanians dwelt, according to Strabo, in
   the districts north of the Tagus, while the Lusitania of the
   Latin historians of the Republic undoubtedly lay to the south
   of that river, though it was not used as the name of a
   province until the time of Augustus, when the old division of
   the peninsula into Hispania Citerior and Hispania Ulterior was
   superseded by the division into Betica, Tarraconensis, and
   Lusitania. Neither in this division, nor in the division of
   the peninsula into the five provinces of Tarraconensis,
   Carthaginensis, Betica, Lusitania, and Gallicia, under
   Hadrian, was the province called Lusitania coterminous with
   the modern kingdom of Portugal. Under each division the name
   was given to a district south of the Tagus. … It is important
   to grasp the result of this misconception, for it emphasizes
   the fact that the history of Portugal for many centuries is
   merged in that of the rest of the Iberian peninsula, and
   explains why it is unnecessary to study the wars of the
   Lusitanians with the Roman Republic, as is often done in
   histories of Portugal. Like the rest of the peninsula Portugal
   was thoroughly Latinized in the days of the Roman Empire;
   Roman 'coloniæ', and 'municipia' were established in places
   suited for trade, such as Lisbon and Oporto. … Peaceful
   existence under the sway of Rome continued until the beginning
   of the 5th century, when the Goths first forced their way
   across the Pyrenees. …

The Visigothic Empire left but slight traces in Portugal." The Mohammedan conquest by the Arab-Moors, which began early in the 8th century, extended to Portugal, and for a general account of the struggle in the peninsula between Christians and Moslems during several succeeding centuries the reader is referred to SPAIN: A. D. 711-713, and after. "In 997 Bermudo II., king of Gallicia, won back the first portion of modern Portugal from the Moors by seizing Oporto and occupying the province now known as the Entre Minho e Douro. … In 1055 Ferdinand 'the Great,' king of Leon, Castile, and Gallicia, invaded the Beira; in 1057 he took Lamego and Viseu; and in 1064 Coimbra, where he died in the following year. He arranged for the government of his conquests in the only way possible under the feudal system, by forming them into a county, extending to the Mondego, with Coimbra as its capital. The first count of Coimbra was Sesnando, a recreant Arab vizir, who had advised Ferdinand to invade his district and had assisted in its easy conquest. … But though Sesnando's county of Coimbra was the great frontier county of Gallicia, and the most important conquest of Ferdinand 'the Great,' it was not thence that the kingdom which was to develop out of his dominions was to take its name. Among the counties of Gallicia was one called the 'comitatus Portucalensis,' because it contained within its boundaries the famous city at the mouth of the Douro, known in Roman and Greek times as the Portus Cale, and in modern days as Oporto, or 'The Port.' This county of Oporto or Portugal was the one destined to give its name to the future kingdom, and was held at the time of Ferdinand's death by Nuno Mendes, the founder of one of the most famous families in Portuguese history. Ferdinand 'the Great' was succeeded in his three kingdoms of Castile, Leon, and Gallicia, by his three sons, Sancho, Alfonso, and Garcia, the last of whom received the two counties of Coimbra and Oporto as fiefs of Gallicia, and maintained Nuno Mendes and Sesnando as his feudatories." Wars between the three sons ensued, as the result of which "the second of them, Alfonso of Leon, eventually united all his father's kingdoms in 1073, as Alfonso VI." This Alfonso was now called upon to encounter a new impulse of Mohammedan aggression, under a new dynasty, that of the Almoravides

"The new dynasty collected great Moslem armies, and in 1086 Yusuf Ibn Teshfin routed Alfonso utterly at the battle of Zalaca, and reconquered the peninsula up to the Ebro. … Alfonso tried to compensate for this defeat and his loss of territory in the east of his dominions by conquests in the west, and in 1093 he advanced to the Tagus and took Santarem and Lisbon, and made Sueiro Mendes, count of the new district. But these conquests he did not hold for long. … In 1093 Seyr, the general of the Almoravide caliph Yusuf, took Evora from the Emir of Badajoz; in 1094 he took Badajoz itself, and killed the emir; and retaking Lisbon and Santarem forced his way up to the Mondego. To resist this revival of the Mohammedan power, Alfonso summoned the chivalry of Christendom to his aid. Among the knights who joined his army eager to win their spurs, and win dominions for themselves, were Count Raymond of Toulouse and Count Henry of Burgundy. To the former, Alfonso gave his legitimate daughter, Urraca, and Gallicia; to the latter, his illegitimate daughter Theresa, and the counties of Oporto and Coimbra, with the title of Count of Portugal. The history of Portugal now becomes distinct from that of the rest of the peninsula, and it is from the year 1095 that the history of Portugal commences. The son of Henry of Burgundy was the great monarch Affonso Henriques, the hero of his country and the founder of a great dynasty."

PORTUGAL: A. D. 1095-1325.
   The county made independent and raised to the rank of a kingdom.
   Completion of conquests from the Moors.
   Limits of the kingdom established.

Count Henry of Burgundy waged war for seven years with his Moorish neighbors; then went crusading to Palestine for two years. On his return in 1105 he made common cause with his brother-in-law and brother-adventurer, Count Raymond of Gallicia, against the suspected intention of King Alfonso to declare his bastard, half-Moorish son, Sancho, the heir to his dominions. "This peaceful arrangement had no result, owing to the death of Count Raymond in 1107, followed by that of young Sancho at the battle of Uclés with the Moors, in 1108, and finally by the death of Alfonso VI. himself in 1109. The king's death brought about the catastrophe. He left all his dominions to his legitimate daughter, Urraca, with the result that there was five years of fierce fighting between Henry of Burgundy, Alfonso Raimundes, the son of Count Raymond, Alfonso I. of Aragon, and Queen Urraca. … While they fought with each other the Mohammedans advanced. … On May 1, 1114, Count Henry died, … leaving his wife Theresa as regent during the minority of his son Affonso Henriques, who was but three years old. Theresa, who made the ancient city of Guimaraens her capital, devoted all her energies to building up her son's dominions into an independent state; and under her rule, while the Christian states of Spain were torn by internecine war, the Portuguese began to recognize Portugal as their country, and to cease from calling themselves Gallicians. This distinction between Portugal and Gallicia was the first step towards the formation of a national spirit, which grew into a desire for national independence." The regency of Theresa, during which she was engaged in many contests, with her half-sister Urraca and others, ended in 1128. In the later years of it she provoked great discontent by her infatuation with a lover to whom she was passionately devoted. In the end, her son headed a revolt which expelled her from Portugal. The son, Affonso Henriques, assumed the reins of government at the age of seventeen years. In 1130 he began a series of wars with Alfonso VII. of Castile, the aim of which was to establish the independence of Portugal. These wars were ended in 1140 by an agreement, "in consonance with the ideas of the times, to refer the great question of Portuguese Independence to a chivalrous contest. In a great tournament, known as the Tourney of Valdevez, the Portuguese knights were entirely successful over those of Castile, and in consequence of their victory Affonso Henriques assumed the title of King of Portugal. This is the turning-point of Portuguese history, and it is a curious fact that the independence of Portugal from Gallicia was achieved by victory in a tournament and not in war. Up to 1136, Affonso Henriques had styled himself Infante, in imitation of the title borne by his mother; from 1136 to 1140 he styled himself Principe, and in 1140 he first took the title of King." A little before this time, on the 25th of July, 1139, Affonso had defeated the Moors in a famous and much magnified battle—namely that of Orik or Ourique—"which, until modern investigators examined the facts, has been considered to have laid the foundations of the independence of Portugal. Chroniclers, two centuries after the battle, solemnly asserted that five kings were defeated on this occasion, that 200,000 Mohammedans were slain, and that after the victory the Portuguese soldiers raised Affonso on their shields and hailed him as king. This story is absolutely without authority from contemporary chronicles, and is quite as much a fiction as the Cortes of Lamego, which has been invented as sitting in 1143 and passing the constitutional laws on which Vertot and other writers have expended so much eloquence. … It was not until the modern school of historians arose in Portugal, which examined documents and did not take the statements of their predecessors on trust, that it was clearly pointed out that Affonso Henriques won his crown by his long struggle with his Christian cousin, and not by his exploits against the Moors."

   "The long reign of Affonso I., an almost uninterrupted period
   of war, is the most brilliant epoch in the history of the
   Portuguese conquests. Lisbon, which had already under its
   Moorish masters become the chief city of the west, was taken
   in 1147, and became at once the capital of the new kingdom.
   The Tagus itself was soon passed. Large portions of the modern
   Estremadura and Alemtejo were permanently annexed. The distant
   provinces of Algarve and Andalucia were overrun; and even
   Seville trembled at the successes of the Portuguese. It was in
   vain that Moorish vessels sailed from Africa to chastise the
   presumption of their Christian foes; their ships were routed
   off Lisbon by the vessels of Affonso; their armies were
   crushed by a victory at Santarem [1184], the last, and perhaps
   the most glorious of the many triumphs of the King. … Every
   conquest saw the apportionment of lands to be held by military
   tenure among the conquerors; and the Church, which was here
   essentially a militant one, received not only an endowment for
   its religion but a reward for its sword. The Orders of St.
   Michael and of Avis [St. Benedict of Avis] which were founded
   had a religious as well as a military aspect. Their members
   were to be distinguished by their piety not less than by their
   courage, and were to emulate the older brotherhoods of
   Jerusalem and of Castile. … Sancho I. [who succeeded his
   father Affonso in 1185], though not adverse to military fame,
   endeavoured to repair his country's wounds; and his reign, the
   complement of that of Affonso, was one of development rather
   than of conquest. … The surname of El Povoador, the Founder,
   is the indication of his greatest work. New towns and villages
   arose, new wealth and strength were given to the rising
   country. Affonso II. [1211] continued what Sancho had begun;
   and the enactment of laws, humane and wise, are a testimony of
   progress, and an honourable distinction to his reign." But
   Affonso II. provoked the hostility of an arrogant and too
   powerful clergy, and drew upon himself a sentence of
   excommunication from Rome. "The divisions and the weakness
   which were caused by the contest between the royal and
   ecclesiastical authority brought misery upon the kingdom. The
   reign of Sancho II. [who succeeded to the throne in 1223] was
   more fatally influenced by them even than that of his father.
   … The now familiar terrors of excommunication and interdict
   were followed [1245] by a sentence of deposition from Innocent
   IV.; and Sancho, weak in character, and powerless before a
   hostile priesthood and a disaffected people, retired to end
   his days in a cloister of Castile. The successor to Sancho was
   Affonso III.
{2571}
   He had intrigued for his brother's crown; he had received the
   support of the priesthood, and he had promised them their
   reward in the extension of their privileges"; but his
   administration of the government was wise and popular. He died
   in 1279. "The first period of the history of Portugal is now
   closed. Up to this time, each reign, disturbed and enfeebled
   though it may have been, had added something to the extent of
   the country. But now the last conquest from the Moors had been
   won. On the south, the impassable barrier of the ocean; on the
   east, the dominions of Castile, confined the kingdom. … The
   crusading days were over. … The reign of Denis, who ruled from
   1279 to 1325, is at once the parallel to that of Affonso I. in
   its duration and importance, the contrast to it in being a
   period of internal progress instead of foreign conquest. …
   That Denis should have been able to accomplish as much as he
   did, was the wonder even of his own age. … Successive reigns
   still found the country progressing."

ALSO IN: E. McMurdo, History of Portugal, volume 1, books 1-4, and volume 2, book 1.

PORTUGAL: A. D. 1383-1385.
The founding of the new dynasty, of the House of Avis.

"The legitimate descent of the kings of Portugal from Count Henry, of the house of Burgundy, terminated with Ferdinand (the son of Peter I.) … in 1383. After wasting the resources of his people in the vain support of his claims to the crown of Castile, exposing Lisbon to a siege, and the whole country to devastation, this monarch gave his youthful daughter in marriage to the natural enemy of Portugal, John I., at that time the reigning king of Castile. … It was agreed between the contracting parties that the male issue of this connection should succeed to the Portuguese sceptre, and, that failing, that it should devolve into the hands of the Castilian monarch. Fortunately, however, the career of this Spanish tyrant was short, and no issue was left of Beatrix, for whom the crown of Portugal could be claimed; and therefore all the just pretensions of the Spaniard ceased. The marriage had scarcely been concluded, when Ferdinand died. It had been provided by the laws of the constitution, that in a case of emergency, such as now occurred, the election of a new sovereign should immediately take place. The legal heir to the crown, Don Juan [the late king's brother], the son of Pedro and Ignes de Castro, whose marriage had been solemnly recognised by an assembly of the states, was a prisoner at this time in the hands of his rival, the king of Castile. The necessity of having a head to the government appointed without delay, opened the road to the throne for John, surnamed the Bastard, the natural son of Don Pedro, by Donna Theresa Lorenzo, a Galician lady. Availing himself of the natural aversion by which the Portuguese were influenced against the Castilians, he seized the regency from the hands of the queen-dowager, … successfully defended Lisbon, and forced the Spaniards to retire into Spain after their memorable defeat on the plain of Aljubarota. … This battle … completely established the independence of the Portuguese monarchy. John was, in consequence, unanimously elected King by the Cortes, assembled at Coimbra in 1385. … In aid of his natural talents John I. had received an excellent education from his father, and during his reign exhibited proofs of being a profound politician, as well as a skilful general. … He became the founder of a new dynasty of kings, called the house of 'Avis,' from his having been grand master of that noble order. The enterprises, however, of the great Prince Henry, a son of John I., form a distinguishing feature of this reign."

PORTUGAL: A. D. 1415-1460.
   The taking of Ceuta.
   The exploring expeditions of Prince Henry the Navigator
   down the African coast.

"King John [the First] had married an English wife, Philippa Plantagenet—a grand-daughter of our King Edward III., thoroughly English, too, on her mother's side, and not without a dash of Scottish blood, for her great-great-grandmother was a Comyn of Broghan. King John of Portugal was married to his English wife for twenty-eight years, they had five noble sons and a daughter (who was Duchess of Burgundy and mother of Charles the Bold); and English habits and usages were adopted at the Portuguese Court. We first meet with Prince Henry and his brothers, Edward and Peter, at the bed-side of their English mother. The king had determined to attack Ceuta, the most important seaport on the Moorish coast; and the three young princes were to receive knighthood if they bore themselves manfully, and if the place was taken. Edward, the eldest, was twenty-four, Peter twenty-three, and Henry just twenty-one. He was born on March 4th, 1394. There were two other brothers, John and Ferdinand, but they were still too young to bear arms. Their mother had caused three swords to be made with which they were to be girt as knights; and the great fleet was being assembled at Lisbon. But the Queen was taken ill, and soon there was no hope. Husband and sons gathered round her death-bed. When very near her end she asked: 'How is the wind?' she was told that it was northerly. 'Then,' she said, 'You will all sail for Ceuta on the feast of St. James.' A few minutes afterwards she died, and husband and sons sailed for Ceuta on St. James's day, the 25th of July, 1415, according to her word. … Ceuta was taken after a desperate fight. It was a memorable event, for the town never again passed into the hands of the Moors unto this day. … From the time of this Ceuta expedition Prince Henry set his mind steadfastly on the discovery of Guinea and on the promotion of commercial enterprise. During his stay at Ceuta he collected much information respecting the African coast. … His first objects were to know what was beyond the farthest cape hitherto reached on the coast of Africa, to open commercial relations with the people, and to extend the Christian faith. Prince Henry had the capacity for taking trouble. He undertook the task, and he never turned aside from it until he died. To be close to his work he came to live on the promontory of Sagres, near Cape St. Vincent, and not far from the seaport of Lagos. He was twenty-four years old when he came to live at this secluded spot, in December, 1418; and he died there in his sixty-seventh year. … He established a school at Sagres for the cultivation of map-drawing and the science of navigation. At great expense he procured the services of Mestre Jacome from Majorca, a man very learned in the art of navigation, as it was then understood, and he erected an observatory. … {2572} My readers will remember that during the time of the Crusades a great order of knighthood was established, called the Templars, which became very rich and powerful, and held vast estates in most of the countries of Europe. At last the kings became jealous of their prosperity and, in the days of our Edward II. and of the French Philip IV., their wealth was confiscated, and the order of Knights Templars was abolished in all countries except Portugal. But King Dionysius of Portugal refused either to rob the knights or to abolish the order. In the year 1319 he reformed the order, and changed the name, calling it the Order of Christ, and he encircled the white cross of the Templars with a red cross as the future badge of the knights. They retained their great estates. Prince Henry was appointed, by his father, Grand Master of the Order of Christ in the year 1419. He could imagine no nobler nor more worthy employment for the large revenues of the Order than the extension of geographical discovery. Thus were the funds for his costly expeditions supplied by the Order of Chivalry of which he was Grand Master. When Prince Henry first began to send forth expeditions along the coast of Africa, the farthest point to the southward that had been sighted was Cape Bojador. The discovery of the extreme southern point of Africa, and of a way thence to India, was looked upon then exactly as the discovery of the North Pole is now. Fools asked what was the use of it. Half-hearted men said it was impossible. Officials said it was impractical. Nevertheless, Prince Henry said that it could be done, and that, moreover it should be done. … In 1434 he considered that the time had come to round Cape Bojador. He selected for the command of the expedition an esquire of his household named Gil Eannes, who was accompanied by John Diaz, an experienced seaman of a seafaring family at Lagos, many of whose members became explorers. Prince Henry told them that the current which they feared so much was strongest at a distance of about three to five miles from the land. He ordered them, therefore, to stand out boldly to sea. 'It was a place before terrible to all men,' but the Prince told them that they must win fame and honour by following his instructions. They did so, rounded the Cape, and landed on the other side. There they set up a wooden cross as a sign of their discovery. … The Prince now equipped a larger vessel than had yet been sent out, called a varinel, propelled by oars as well as sails. Many were the eager volunteers among the courtiers at Sagres. Prince Henry's cup-bearer, named Alfonso Gonsalves Baldaya, was selected to command the expedition, and Gil Eannes—he who first doubled Cape Bojador—went with it in a smaller vessel. … They sailed in the year 1436, and, having rounded Cape Bojador without any hesitation, they proceeded southward along the coast for 120 miles, until they reached an estuary called by them Rio d'Ouro. … During the five following years Prince Henry was much engaged in State affairs. The disastrous expedition to Tangiers took place, and the imprisonment of his young brother Ferdinand by the Moors, whose noble resignation under cruel insults and sufferings until he died at Fez, won for him the title of the 'Constant Prince.' But in 1441 Prince Henry was able to resume the despatch of vessels of discovery. In that year he gave the command of a small ship to his master of the wardrobe, Antam Gonsalves. … He [Gonsalves] was followed in the same year by Nuno Tristram. … Tristram discovered a headland which, from its whiteness, he named Cape Blanco. … The next discovery was that of the island of Arguin, south of Cape Blanco, which was first visited in 1443 by Nuño Tristram in command of a caravel. … The next voyage of discovery was one of great importance, because it passed the country of the Moors, and, for the first time, entered the land of the Negroes. Dinis Diaz, who was selected for this enterprise by the Prince, sailed in 1446 with the resolution of beating all his predecessors. He passed the mouth of the river Senegal, and was surprised at finding that the people on the north bank were Moors, while to the south they were all blacks; of a tribe called Jaloffs. Diaz went as far as a point which he called Cabo Verde. In the following years several expeditions, under Lanzarote and others, went to Arguin and the Senegal; until, in 1455, an important voyage under Prince Henry's patronage was undertaken by a young Venetian named Alvise (Luigi) Cadamosto. … They sailed on March 22, 1455, and went first to Porto Santo and Madeira. From the Canary Islands they made sail for Cape Blanco, boldly stretching across the intervening sea and being for some time quite out of sight of land. Cadamosto had a good deal of intercourse with the Negroes to the south of the Senegal, and eventually reached the mouth of the Gambia whence he set out on his homeward voyage. The actual extent of the discoveries made during the life of Prince Henry was from Cape Bojador to beyond the mouth of the Gambia. But this was only a small part of the great service he performed, not only for his own country, but for the whole civilised world. He organised discovery, trained up a generation of able explorers, so that from his time progress was continuous and unceasing. … Prince Henry, who was to be known to all future generations as 'the Navigator,' died at the age of sixty-six at Sagres, on Thursday, the 13th of November, 1460."

      ALSO IN:
      R. H. Major,
      Life of Prince Henry of Portugal, the Navigator.

PORTUGAL: A. D. 1463-1498.
   The Pope's gift of title to African discoveries.
   Slow southward progress of exploration.
   The rounding of the Cape of Good Hope.
   Vasco da Gama's voyage.

   "In order to secure his triumphs, Prince Henry procured a bull
   from Pope Eugenius IV., which guaranteed to the Portuguese all
   their discoveries between Cape Nun, in Morocco, and India.
   None of his commanders approached within six or eight degrees
   of the equator. … By the year 1472, St. Thomas, Annobon, and
   Prince's Islands were added to the Portuguese discoveries, and
   occupied by colonists; and at length the equator was crossed.
   Fernando Po having given his name to an island in the Bight of
   Biafra, acquired possession of 500 leagues of equatorial
   coast, whence the King of Portugal took the title of Lord of
   Guinea. The subsequent divisions of this territory into the
   Grain Coast, named from the cochineal thence obtained, and
   long thought to be the seed of a plant, Gold Coast, Ivory
   Coast, and Slave Coast, indicate by their names the nature of
   the products of those lands, and the kind of traffic.
{2573}
   Under King John II., after an inactive period of eight or ten
   years, Diego Cam (1484) pushed forward fearlessly to latitude
   22° south, erecting at intervals on the shore, pillars of
   stone, which asserted the rights of his sovereign to the
   newly-found land. For the first time, perhaps, in history, men
   had now sailed under a new firmament. They lost sight of a
   part of the old celestial constellations, and were awe-struck
   with the splendours of the Southern Cross, and hosts of new
   stars. Each successive commander aimed at outdoing the deeds
   of his predecessor. Imaginary perils, which had frightened
   former sailors, spurred the Portuguese to greater daring.
   Bartholomew Diaz, in 1486, was sent in command of an
   expedition of three ships, with directions to sail till he
   reached the southernmost headland of Africa. Creeping on from
   cape to cape, he passed the furthest point touched by Diego
   Cam, and reached about 29° south latitude. Here driven out of
   his course by rough weather, he was dismayed on again making
   land to find the coast trending northward. He had doubled the
   Cape without knowing it, and only found it out on returning,
   disheartened by the results of his voyage. Raising the banner
   of St. Philip on the shore of Table Bay, Diaz named the
   headland the Cape of Tempests, which the king, with the
   passage to India in mind, changed to that of the Cape of Good
   Hope. By a curious coincidence, in the same year Covillan [see
   ABYSSINIA: 15-19TH CENTURIES] … learnt the fact that the Cape
   of Good Hope, the Lion of the Sea, or the Head of Africa,
   could be reached across the Indian Ocean."

"Pedro de Covilho had sent word to King John II., from Cairo, by two Jews, Rabbi Abraham and Rabbi Joseph, that there was a south cape of Africa which could be doubled. They brought with them an Arabic map of the African coast. … Covilho had learned from the Arabian mariners, who were perfectly familiar with the east coast, that they had frequently been at the south of Africa, and that there was no difficulty in passing round the continent that way. … Vasco de Gama set sail July 9, 1497, with three ships and 160 men, having with him the Arab map. King John had employed his Jewish physicians, Roderigo and Joseph, to devise what help they could from the stars. They applied the astrolabe to marine use, and constructed tables. These were the same doctors who had told him that Columbus would certainly succeed in reaching India, and advised him to send out a secret expedition in anticipation, which was actually done, though it failed through want of resolution in its captain. Encountering the usual difficulties, tempestuous weather and a mutinous crew, who conspired to put him to death, De Gama succeeded, November 20, in doubling the Cape. On March 1 he met seven small Arab vessels, and was surprised to find that they used the compass, quadrants, sea-charts, and 'had divers maritime mysteries not short of the Portugals.' With joy he soon after recovered sight of the northern stars, for so long unseen. He now bore away to the north-east, and on May 19, 1498, reached Calicut, on the Malabar coast. The consequences of this voyage were to the last degree important. The commercial arrangements of Europe were completely dislocated; Venice was deprived of her mercantile supremacy [see VENICE: 15-17TH CENTURIES]; the hatred of Genoa was gratified; prosperity left the Italian towns; Egypt, hitherto supposed to possess a pre-eminent advantage as offering the best avenue to India, suddenly lost her position; the commercial monopolies so long in the hands of the European Jews were broken down. The discovery of America and passage of the Cape were the first steps of that prodigious maritime development soon exhibited by Western Europe. And since commercial prosperity is forthwith followed by the production of men and concentration of wealth, and, moreover, implies an energetic intellectual condition, it appeared before long that the three centres of population, of wealth, of intellect, were shifting westwardly. The front of Europe was suddenly changed; the British Islands, hitherto in a sequestered and eccentric position, were all at once put in the van of the new movement."

      ALSO IN:
      G. Correa,
      The Three Voyages of Vasco da Gama
      (Hakluyt Society, 1869).

PORTUGAL: A. D. 1490.
Alliance with Castile and Aragon in the conquest of Granada.

PORTUGAL: A. D. 1494.
The Treaty of Tordesillas.
Amended partition of the New World with Spain.

PORTUGAL: A. D. 1500-1504.
Discovery, exploration and first settlement of Brazil.

PORTUGAL: A. D. 1524.
Disputes with Spain in the division of the New World.
The Congress at Badajos.

PORTUGAL: A. D. 1579-1580.
   Disastrous invasion of Morocco by Sebastian.
   His death in battle.
   Disputed succession to the throne.
   The claim of Philip II. of Spain established by force of arms.

   "Under a long succession of Kings who placed their glory in
   promoting the commerce of their subjects and extending their
   discoveries through the remotest regions of the globe,
   Portugal had attained a degree of importance among the
   surrounding nations, from which the narrow limits of the
   kingdom, and the neighbourhood of the Spanish monarchy, seemed
   for ever to exclude her. … John III., the last of those great
   monarchs under whose auspices the boundaries of the known
   world had been enlarged, was succeeded in the throne of
   Portugal [1557] by his grandson Sebastian, a child of only
   three years old.
{2574}
   As the royal infant advanced to manhood, his subjects might,
   without flattery, admire his sprightly wit, his manly form,
   his daring spirit, and his superior address, in all the
   accomplishments of a martial age. But the hopes which these
   splendid qualities inspired were clouded by an intemperate
   thirst of fame. … He had early cherished the frantic project
   of transporting a royal army to India, and of rivalling the
   exploits of Alexander; but from this design he was diverted,
   not by the difficulties that opposed it, nor by the
   remonstrances of his counsellors, but by the distractions of
   Africa, which promised to his ambition a nearer and fairer
   harvest of glory. On the death of Abdalla, King of Morocco,
   his son, Muley Mahomet, had seized upon the crown, in contempt
   to an established law of succession, that the kingdom should
   devolve to the brother of the deceased monarch. A civil war
   ensued, and Mahomet, defeated in several battles, was
   compelled to leave his uncle Muley Moluc, a prince of great
   abilities and virtues, in possession of the throne." Mahomet
   escaped to Lisbon, and Sebastian espoused his cause. He
   invaded Morocco [see MAROCCO: THE ARAB CONQUEST AND SINCE]
   with a force partly supplied by his uncle, Philip II.; of
   Spain, and partly by the Prince of Orange, engaged the Moors
   rashly in battle (the battle of Alcazar, or the Three Kings,
   1579), and perished on the field, his army being mostly
   destroyed or made captive. "An aged and feeble priest was the
   immediate heir to the unfortunate Sebastian; and the Cardinal
   Henry, the great uncle to the late monarch, ascended the
   vacant throne." He enjoyed his royal dignity little more than
   a twelvemonth, dying in 1580, leaving the crown in dispute
   among a crowd of claimants.

"The candidates were seven in number: the duchess of Braganza, the king of Spain, the duke of Savoy, Don Antonio, prior of Crato, the duke of Parma, Catherine of Medicis, and the sovereign pontiff. The four first were grand-children of Emanuel the Great, father of Henry. The duchess of Braganza was daughter of Prince Edward, Emanuel's second son; Philip was the son of the Empress Isabella, his eldest daughter; the duke of Savoy, of Beatrix, his younger daughter; and Don Antonio was a natural son of Lewis, who was a younger son of Emanuel, and brother to the present king [cardinal Henry]. The duke of Parma was great–grandson of Emanuel, by a daughter of the above-mentioned Prince Edward. The Queen-mother of France founded her claim on her supposed descent from Alphonso III., who died about 300 years before the present period; and the Pope pretended that Portugal was feudatory to the see of Rome, and belonged to him, since the male heirs in the direct line were extinct." The other candidates held small chances against the power and convenient neighborhood of Philip of Spain. "Philip's agents at the court of Lisbon allowed that if the duchess of Braganza's father had been alive, his title would have been indisputable; but they maintained that, since he had died without attaining possession of the throne, nothing but the degree of consanguinity to Emanuel ought to be regarded; and that, as the duchess and he were equal in that respect, the preference was due to a male before a female. And they farther insisted, that the law which excludes strangers from inheriting the crown was not applicable to him, since Portugal had formerly belonged to the kings of Castile." Promptly on the death of the cardinal-king Henry, the Spanish king sent an army of 35,000 men, under the famous duke of Alva, and a large fleet under the Marquis of Santa Croce, to take possession of what he claimed as his inheritance. Two battles sufficed for the subjugation of Portugal:—one fought on the Alcantara, August 25, 1580, and the other a little later on the Douro. The kingdom submitted, but with bitter feelings, which the conduct of Alva and his troops had intensified at every step of their advance. "The colonies in America, Africa, and the Indies, which belonged to the crown of Portugal, quickly followed the example of the mother country; nor did Philip find employment for his arms in any part of the Portuguese dominions but the Azores," which, supported by the French, were not subdued until the following year.

PORTUGAL: A. D. 1594-1602.
Beginning of the rivalry of the Dutch in East India trade.

PORTUGAL: A. D. 1624-1661.
War with the Dutch.
Loss and recovery of parts of Brazil.

PORTUGAL: A. D. 1637-1668.
   Crisis of discontent with the Spanish rule.
   A successful revolution.
   National independence recovered.
   The House of Braganza placed on the throne.

"A spirit of dissatisfaction had long been growing amongst the Portugueze. Their colonies were neglected; a great part of Brazil, and a yet larger portion of their Indian empire, had fallen into the hands of the Dutch; Ormus, and their other possessions in the Persian Gulph, had been conquered by the Persians; their intercourse with their remaining colonies was harassed and intercepted; their commerce with the independent Indian states, with China and with Japan, was here injured and there partially destroyed, by the enterprising merchants and mariners of Holland; whilst at home the privileges secured to them as the price of their submission, were hourly, if not flagrantly, violated by their Spanish masters. The illegal imposition of a new tax by the king's sole authority, in 1637, had provoked a partial revolt in the southern provinces, where the duke of Braganza, grandson of Catherine [whose right to the throne was forcibly put aside by Philip II. of Spain in 1580,—see, PORTUGAL: A. D. 1579-1580], was proclaimed king. He refused the proffered dignity, and assisted in quelling the rebellion. He was thanked by Philip and at once recompensed, and, as it was hoped, ensnared, by an appointment to be general–in-chief of Portugal. But the flame was smothered, not extinguished. … The vice-queen, Margaret, duchess-dowager of Mantua, a daughter of Philip II.'s youngest daughter, Catherine, saw the gathering tempest, and forewarned the court of Madrid of the impending danger. Her information was treated, like herself, with contempt by Olivarez. One measure, however, he took, probably in consequence; and that one finally decided the hesitating conspirators to delay no longer. He ordered a large body of troops to be raised in Portugal, the nobles to arm their vassals, and all, under the conduct of the duke of Braganza, to hasten into Spain, in order to attend the king, who was about to march in person against the rebellious Catalans. {2575} Olivarez hoped thus at once to overwhelm Catalonia and Roussillon, and to take from Portugal the power of revolting, by securing the intended leader, and draining the country of the warlike portion of its population. The nobles perceived the object of this command, and resolved to avoid compliance by precipitating their measures. Upon the 12th of October, 1640, they assembled to the number of 40 at the house of Don Antonio d' Almeida. At this meeting they determined to recover their independence, and dispatched Don Pedro de Mendoza as their deputy, to offer the crown and their allegiance to the duke of Braganza, who had remained quietly upon his principal estate at Villa Viçosa. The duke hesitated, alarmed, perhaps, at the importance of the irrevocable step he was called upon to take. But his high-spirited duchess, a daughter of the Spanish duke of Medina-Sidonia, observing to him, that a wretched and dishonourable death certainly awaited him at Madrid; at Lisbon, as certainly glory, whether in life or death, decided his acceptance. Partisans were gained on all sides, especially in the municipality of Lisbon; and the secret was faithfully kept, for several weeks, by at least 500 persons of both sexes, and all ranks. During this interval, the duke of Braganza remained at Villa Viçosa, lest his appearance at Lisbon should excite suspicion; and it seems that, however clearly the vice-queen had perceived the threatening aspect of affairs, neither she nor her ministers entertained any apprehension of the plot actually organized. The 1st of December was the day appointed for the insurrection. Early in the morning the conspirators approached the palace in four well-armed bands," and easily mastered the guard. From the windows of the palace they "proclaimed liberty and John IV." to a great concourse of people who had speedily assembled. Finding Vasconcellos, the obnoxious secretary to 'the vice–queen, hidden in a closet, they slew him and flung his body into the street. The vice-queen, seeing herself helpless, submitted to the popular will and signed mandates addressed to the Spanish governors and other officers commanding castles and fortifications in Portugal, requiring their surrender. "The archbishop of Lisbon was next appointed royal-lieutenant. He immediately dispatched intelligence of the event to the new king, and sent messengers to every part of Portugal with orders for the proclamation of John IV., and the seizure of all Spaniards. … Obedience was prompt and general. … John was crowned on the 15th of December, and immediately abolished the heavy taxes imposed by the king of Spain, declaring that, for his own private expenses, he required nothing beyond his patrimonial estates. He summoned the Cortes to assemble in January, when the three estates of the kingdom solemnly confirmed his proclamation as king, or 'acclamation,' as the Portugueze term it. … In the islands, in the African settlements, with the single exception of Ceuta, which adhered to Spain, and in what remained of Brazil and India, King John was proclaimed, the moment intelligence of the revolution arrived, the Spaniards scarcely any where attempting to resist. … In Europe, the new king was readily acknowledged by all the states at war with the house of Austria." The first attempts made by the Spanish court to regain its lost authority in Portugal took chiefly the form of base conspiracies for the assassination of the new king. War ensued, but the "languid and desultory hostilities produced little effect beyond harassing the frontiers. Portugal was weak, and thought only of self-defence; Spain was chiefly intent upon chastizing the Catalans." The war was prolonged, in fact, until 1668, when it was terminated by a treaty which recognized the independence of Portugal, but ceded Ceuta to Spain. The only considerable battles of the long war were those of Estremos, or Ameixal, in 1663, and Villa Viçosa, 1665, in which the Portuguese were victors, and which were practically decisive of the war.

Portugal joined the Grand Alliance against France and Spain, in the War of the Spanish Succession, in 1703, and entered at that time into an important treaty with England. This is known as the Methuen Treaty—"called after the name of the ambassador who negotiated it—and that treaty, and its effect upon the commerce of England and the habits of her people lasted through five generations, even to the present time. The wines of Portugal were to be admitted upon the payment of a duty 33½ per cent. less than the duty paid upon French wines; and the woolen cloths of England, which had been prohibited in Portugal for twenty years, were to be admitted upon terms of proportionate advantage. Up to that time the Claret of France had been the beverage of the wine-drinkers of England. From 1703 Port established itself as what Defoe calls 'our general draught.' In all commercial negotiations with France the Methuen Treaty stood in the way; for the preferential duty was continued till 1831. France invariably pursued a system of retaliation. It was a point of patriotism for the Englishman to hold firm to his Port."

PORTUGAL: A. D. 1757-1759.
Expulsion of the Jesuits and suppression of the order.

PORTUGAL: A. D. 1807.
   Napoleon's designs against the kingdom.
   His delusive treaty for its partition with Spain.
   French invasion and flight of the royal family to Brazil.

   "One of the first steps taken by Napoleon, after his return to
   Paris, … [after the Peace of Tilsit-see GERMANY: A. D. 1807
   (JUNE-JULY)] was, in the month of August, to order the French
   and Spanish ambassadors conjointly, to declare to the
   prince–regent of Portugal, that he must concur in the
   continental system, viz. shut his ports against English
   commerce, confiscate all English property, and imprison all
   English subjects to be found within his dominions, or they
   were instructed immediately to leave Lisbon.
{2576}
   The prince and his ministers dared not openly resist the
   French emperor's will, even whilst the wiser part of the
   cabinet were convinced that the very existence of the country
   depended upon British commerce. In this extremity, and relying
   upon the friendly forbearance of England, they strove to
   pursue a middle course. Don John professed his readiness to
   exclude British ships of all descriptions from his ports, but
   declared that his religious principles would not allow him to
   seize the subjects and property of a friendly state in the
   midst of peace, and that prudence forbade his offending
   England until a Portugueze squadron, then at sea, should have
   returned safely home. … Napoleon punished this imperfect
   obedience, by seizing all Portugueze vessels in ports under
   his control, and ordering the French and Spanish legations to
   leave Lisbon. The Portugueze ambassadors were, at the same
   time, dismissed from Paris and Madrid. A French army was, by
   this time, assembled near the foot of the Pyrenees, bearing
   the singular title of army of observation of the Gironde; and
   General Junot … was appointed to its command. … Spain was
   endeavouring to share in the spoil, not to protect the victim.
   A treaty, the shameless iniquity of which can be paralleled
   only by the treaties between Austria, Russia, and Prussia for
   the partition of Poland, had been signed at Fontainebleau, on
   the 27th of October. … By this treaty Charles surrendered to
   Napoleon his infant grandson's kingdom of Etruria (King Louis
   I. had been dead some years), over which he had no right
   whatever, and bargained to receive for him in its stead the
   small northern provinces of Portugal, Entre Minho e Douro and
   Tras os Montes, under the name of the kingdom of Northern
   Lusitania, which kingdom the young monarch was to hold in
   vassalage of the crown of Spain. The much larger southern
   provinces, Alemtejo and Algarve, were to constitute the
   principality of the Algarves, for Godoy, under a similar
   tenure. And the middle provinces were to be occupied by
   Napoleon until a general peace, when, in exchange for
   Gibraltar, Trinidad, and any other Spanish possession
   conquered by England, they might be restored to the family of
   Braganza, upon like terms of dependence. The Portugueze
   colonies were to be equally divided between France and Spain.
   In execution of this nefarious treaty, 10,000 Spanish troops
   were to seize upon the northern, and 6,000 upon the southern
   state. … On the 18th of October, Junot, in obedience to his
   master's orders, crossed the Pyrenees, and, being kindly
   received by the Spaniards, began his march towards the
   Portugueze frontiers, whilst the Spanish troops were equally
   put in motion towards their respective destinations. … The
   object of so much haste was, to secure the persons of the
   royal family, whose removal to Brazil had not only been talked
   of from the beginning of these hostile discussions, but was
   now in preparation, and matter of public notoriety. … The
   reckless haste enjoined by the emperor, and which cost almost
   as many lives as a pitched battle, was very near attaining its
   end. … The resolution to abandon the contest being adopted,
   the prince and his ministers took every measure requisite to
   prevent a useless effusion of blood. A regency, consisting of
   five persons, the marquess of Abrantes being president, was
   appointed to conduct the government, and negotiate with Junot.
   On the 26th a proclamation was put forth, explaining to the
   people that, as Napoleon's enmity was rather to the sovereign
   than the nation, the prince-regent, in order to avert the
   calamities of war from his faithful subjects, would transfer
   the seat of government to Brazil, till the existing troubles
   should subside, and strictly charging the Portugueze, more
   especially the Lisbonians, to receive the French as friends.
   On the 27th the whole royal family proceeded to Belem, to
   embark for flight, on the spot whence, about three centuries
   back, Vasco de Gama had sailed upon his glorious enterprise. …
   The ships set sail and crossed the bar, almost as the French
   advance guard was entering Lisbon. Sir Sidney Smith escorted
   the royal family, with four men-of-war, safely to Rio Janeiro,
   the capital of Brazil, leaving the remainder of his squadron
   to blockade the mouth of the Tagus."

      H. Martineau,
      History of England, 1800-1815,
      book 2, chapter 1.

PORTUGAL: A. D. 1808.
   Wellington's first campaign in the Peninsula.
   The Convention of Cintra.
   French evacuation of Portugal.

PORTUGAL: A. D. 1809 (February-December).
   Wellington's retreat and fresh advance.
   The French checked.
   Passage of the Douro.
   Battle of Talavera.

PORTUGAL: A. D. 1809-1812.
   Wellington's Lines of Torres Vedras.
   French invasion and retreat.
   English advance into Spain.

PORTUGAL: A. D. 1820-1824.
Revolution and Absolutist reaction.
Separation and independence of Brazil.

"Ever since 1807 Portugal had not known a court. On the first threat of French invasion the Regent had emigrated to the Brazils, and he had since lived and ruled entirely in the great Transatlantic colony. The ordinary conditions of other countries had been reversed. Portugal had virtually become a dependency of her own colony. The absence of the court was a sore trial to the pride of the Portuguese. An absent court had few supporters. It happened, too, that its ablest defender had lately left the country. … In April 1820 [Marshal] Beresford sailed for the Brazils. He did not return till the following October; and the revolution had been completed before his return. On the 24th of August the troops at Oporto determined on establishing a constitutional government, and appointed a provisional Junta with this object. The Regency which conducted the affairs of the country at Lisbon denounced the movement as a nefarious conspiracy. But, however nefarious the conspiracy might be, the defection of the army was so general that resistance became impossible. On the 1st of September the Regency issued a proclamation promising to convene the Cortes. {2577} The promise, however, did not stop the progress of the insurrection. The Junta which had been constituted at Oporto marched at the head of the troops upon Lisbon. The troops at Lisbon and in the south of Portugal threw off their allegiance, and established a Junta of their own. The Junta at Lisbon were, for the moment, in favour of milder measures than the Junta of Oporto. But the advocates of the more extreme course won their ends. The Oporto troops, surrounding the two Juntas, which had been blended together, compelled them to adopt the Spanish constitution; in other words, to sanction the election of one deputy to the Cortes for every 30,000 persons inhabiting the country. … When the revolution of 1820 had occurred John VI., King of Portugal, was quietly ruling in his transatlantic dominions of Brazil. Portugal had been governed for thirteen years from Rio de Janeiro; and the absence of the Court from Lisbon had offended the Portuguese and prepared them for change. After the mischief had been done John VI. was persuaded to return to his native country, leaving his eldest son, Dom Pedro, Regent of Brazil in his absence. Before setting out on his journey he gave the prince public instructions for his guidance, which practically made Brazil independent of Portugal; and he added private directions to the prince, in case any emergency should arise which should make it impracticable to preserve Brazil for Portugal, to place the crown on his own head, and thus save the great Transatlantic territory for the House of Braganza. Leaving these parting injunctions with his son, John VI. returned to the old kingdom which he had deserted nearly fourteen years before. He reached Lisbon, and found the Constitutionalists in undisputed possession of power. He found also that the action of the Constitutionalists in Portugal was calculated to induce Brazil to throw off the authority of the mother country. The Cortes in Portugal insisted on the suppression of the supreme tribunals in Brazil, on the establishment of Provincial Juntas, and on the return of the Regent to Portugal. The Brazilians declined to adopt measures which they considered ruinous to their dignity, and persuaded the Regent to disobey the orders of the Cortes. A small body of Portuguese troops quartered in Brazil endeavoured to overawe the prince, but proved powerless to do so. In May 1822 the prince was persuaded to declare himself Perpetual Defender of the Brazils. In the following September the Brazilians induced him to raise their country to the dignity of an empire, and to declare himself its constitutional emperor. The news that the Brazilians had declared themselves an independent empire reached Europe at a critical period. Monarchs and diplomatists were busily deliberating at Verona on the affairs of Spain and of the Spanish colonies. No one, however, could avoid comparing the position of Portugal and Brazil with that of Spain and her dependencies. … The evident determination of France to interfere in Spain created anxiety in Portugal. The Portuguese Cortes apprehended that the logical consequence of French interference in the one country was French interference in the other. … The position of a French army on the Spanish frontier roused the dormant spirits of the Portuguese Absolutists. In February 1823 a vast insurrection against the Constitution broke out in Northern Portugal. The insurgents, who in the first instance obtained considerable success, were with difficulty defeated. But the revolt had been hardly quelled before the Absolutists recovered their flagging spirits. Every step taken by the Duc d' Angoulême in his progress from the Bidassoa to Madrid [see SPAIN: A. D. 1814-1827] raised their hopes of ultimate success. The king's second son, the notorious Dom Miguel, fled from his father's palace and threw in his lot with the insurgents. For a moment the king stood firm and denounced his son's proceedings. But the reaction which had set in was too strong to be resisted. The Cortes was closed, a new Ministry appointed, and autocracy re-established in Portugal. The re-establishment of autocracy in Portugal marked the commencement of a series of intrigues in which this country [England] was deeply interested. One party in the new Government, with M. de Palmella at its head, was disposed to incline to moderate measures and to listen to the advice which it received from the British Ministry and from the British Ambassador, Sir Edward Thornton. Another party, of which M. de Subsérra was the representative, was in favour of an intimate union with France, and ready to listen to the contrary counsels of M. de Neuville, the French Minister at Lisbon. M. de Palmella, despairing of founding a settled form of government amidst the disorders which surrounded him on every side, applied to the British Ministry for troops to give stability to the Administration. The demand arrived in London in July 1823. … The demand for troops was refused, but a British squadron was sent to the Tagus, with a view of affording the King of Portugal the moral support of the British nation and a secure asylum in the event of any danger to his person. Many months elapsed before the King of Portugal had occasion to avail himself of the possible asylum which was thus afforded to him. … The evident leanings of M. de Palmella towards moderate measures, however, alarmed the Portuguese Absolutists. Ever since the revolution of 1823 Dom Miguel had held the command of the army; and, on the night of the 29th of April, 1824, the prince suddenly ordered the arrest of the leading personages of the Government, and, under the pretext of suppressing an alleged conspiracy of Freemasons, called on the army to liberate their king, and to complete the triumph of the previous year. For nine days the king was a mere puppet in the hands of his son, and Dom Miguel was virtually master of Lisbon. On the 9th of May the king was persuaded by the foreign ministers in his capital to resume his authority; to retire on board the 'Windsor Castle,' a British man-of-war; to dismiss Dom Miguel from his command, and to order his attendance upon him. The prince, 'stricken with a sudden futuity,' obeyed his father's commands, and was prevailed upon to go into voluntary exile. The revolution of 1824 terminated with his departure, and Portugal again enjoyed comparative tranquillity."

PORTUGAL: A. D. 1824-1889.
   Return of John VI. to Brazil.
   Abdication of the Portuguese throne by Dom Pedro,
   after granting a constitution.
   Usurpation of Dom Miguel.
   Civil war and factious conflicts.
   Establishment of Parliamentary government, and Peace.

"At the close of 1824 the king returned to Brazil to spend his last days in peace. On reaching Rio de Janeiro, he recognized Dom Pedro as Emperor of Brazil, and on the 6th of March, 1826, John VI. died in the country of his choice. By his will, John VI. left the regency of Portugal to his daughter Isabel Maria, to the disgust of Dom Miguel, who had fully expected in spite of his conduct that Portugal would be in some manner bequeathed to him, and that Dom Pedro would be satisfied with the government of Brazil. The next twenty-five years are the saddest in the whole history of Portugal. The establishment of the system of parliamentary government, which now exists, was a long and difficult task. … The keynote of the whole series of disturbances is to be found in the pernicious influence of the army. … The army was disproportionately large for the size and revenue of the country; there was no foreign or colonial war to occupy its energies, and the soldiers would not return to the plough nor the officers retire into private life. The English Cabinet at this juncture determined to maintain peace and order, and in 1826, a division of 5,000 men was sent under the command of Lieutenant-General Sir William Clinton to garrison the chief towns. The accession of Pedro IV. to the throne was hailed with joy in Portugal, though looked on with suspicion in Brazil. He justified his reputation by drawing up a charter, containing the bases for a moderate parliamentary government of the English type, which he sent over to Portugal, by the English diplomatist, Lord Stuart de Rothesay. Then to please his Brazilian subjects, he abdicated the throne of Portugal in favour of his daughter, Donna Maria da Gloria, a child of seven years old, on condition that on attaining a suitable age she should marry her uncle, Dom Miguel, who was to swear to observe the new constitution. The Charter of 1826 was thankfully received by the moderate parliamentary party; Clinton's division was withdrawn; Palmella remained prime minister; and in the following year, 1827, Dom Pedro destroyed the effect of his wise measures by appointing Dom Miguel to be regent of Portugal in the name of the little queen. Dom Miguel was an ambitious prince, who believed that he ought to be king of Portugal; he was extremely popular with the old nobility, the clergy, and the army, with all who disliked liberal ideas, and with the beggars and the poor who were under the influence of the mendicant orders. He was declared Regent in July, 1827, and in May, 1828, he summoned a Cortes of the ancient type, such as had not met since 1697, which under the presidency of the Bishop of Viseu offered him the throne of Portugal. He accepted, and immediately exiled all the leaders of the parliamentary, or, as it is usually called, the Chartist, party, headed by Palmella, Saldanha, Villa Flor, and Sampaio. They naturally fled to England, where the young queen was stopping on her way to be educated at the court of Vienna, and found popular opinion strongly in their favour. But the Duke of Wellington and his Tory Cabinet refused to countenance or assist them. … Meanwhile the reign of Dom Miguel had become a Reign of Terror; arrests and executions were frequent; thousands were deported to Africa, and in 1830 it was estimated that 40,000 persons were in prison for political offences. He ruled in absolute contempt of all law, and at different times English, French, and American fleets entered the Tagus to demand reparation for damage done to commerce, or for the illegal arrest of foreigners. The result of this conduct was that the country was hopelessly ruined, and the chartist and radical parties, who respectively advocated the Charter of 1826 and the Constitution of 1822, agreed to sink their differences, and to oppose the bigoted tyrant. … Dom Pedro, who had devoted his life to the cause of parliamentary government, resigned his crown in 1831 [see BRAZIL: A. D. 1825-1865] to his infant son, and left Brazil to head the movement for his daughter's cause. … In July, 1832, the ex-emperor with an army of 7,500 men arrived at Oporto, where he was enthusiastically welcomed, and Dom Miguel then laid siege to the city. European opinion was divided between the two parties; partisans of freedom and of constitutional government called the Miguelites 'slaves of a tyrant,' while lovers of absolutism, alluding to the loans raised by the ex-emperor, used to speak of the 'stock-jobbing Pedroites.' The siege was long and protracted." The Miguelites finally sustained several heavy defeats, both on land and at sea, and Lisbon was triumphantly entered by the Chartists in July, 1833. "The year 1834 was one of unbroken success for the Chartists. England and France recognized Maria da Gloria as Queen of Portugal, and the ministry of Queen Isabella of Spain, knowing Dom Miguel to be a Carlist, sent two Spanish armies under Generals Rodil and Serrano to the help of Dom Pedro. … Finally the combined Spanish and Portuguese armies surrounded the remnant of the Miguelites at Evora Monte, and on the 26th of May, 1834, Dom Miguel surrendered. By the Convention of Evora Monte, Dom Miguel abandoned his claim to the throne of Portugal, and in consideration of a pension of £15,000 a year promised never again to set foot in the kingdom. … Dom Pedro, who had throughout the struggle been the heart and soul of his daughter's party, had thus the pleasure of seeing the country at peace, and a regular parliamentary system in operation, but he did not long survive, for on the 24th of September, 1834, he died at Queluz near Lisbon, of an illness brought on by his great labours and fatigues, leaving a name, which deserves all honour from Portuguese and Brazilians alike. Queen Maria da Gloria was only fifteen, when she thus lost the advantage of her father's wise counsel and steady help, yet it might have been expected that her reign would be calm and prosperous. But neither the queen, the nobility, nor the people, understood the principles of parliamentary government. … The whole reign was one of violent party struggles, for they hardly deserve to be called civil wars, so little did they involve, which present a striking contrast to the peaceable constitutional government that at present prevails. … In 1852 the Charter was revised to suit all parties; direct voting, one of the chief claims of the radicals, was allowed, and the era of civil war came to an end. {2579} Maria da Gloria did not long survive this peaceful settlement, for she died on the 15th of November, 1853, and her husband the King-Consort, Ferdinand II, assumed the regency until his eldest son Pedro V. should come of age. The era of peaceful parliamentary government, which succeeded the stormy reign of Maria II., has been one of material prosperity for Portugal. … The whole country, and especially the city of Lisbon, was during this reign, on account of the neglect of all sanitary precautions, ravaged by cholera and yellow fever, and it was in the midst of one of these outbreaks, on the 11th of November, 1861, that Pedro V., who had refused to leave his pestilence-stricken capital, died of cholera, and was followed to the grave by two of his younger brothers, Dom Ferdinand and Dom John. At the time of Pedro's death, his next brother and heir, Dom Luis, was travelling on the continent, and his father, Ferdinand II., who long survived Queen Maria da Gloria … assumed the regency until his return; soon after which King Luis married Maria Pia, younger daughter of Victor Emmanuel, king of Italy. … The reign of King Luis was prosperous and peaceful, and the news of his death on October 9, 1889, was received with general regret. … Luis I. was succeeded on the throne by his elder son, Dom Carlos, or Charles I., a young man of twenty-six, who married in 1886, the Princess Marie Amélie de Bourbon, the eldest daughter of the Comte de Paris. His accession was immediately followed by the revolution of the 15th of November, 1889, in Brazil, by which his great uncle, Pedro II., Emperor of Brazil, was dethroned and a republican government established in that country."

PORTUS AUGUSTI AND PORTUS TRAJANI.

PORTUS CALE.

PORTUS ITIUS.

The port on the French coast from which Cæsar sailed on both his expeditions to Britain. Boulogne, Ambleteuse, Witsand and Calais have all contended for the honor of representing it in modern geography; but the serious question seems to be between Boulogne and Witsand, or Wissant.

PORTUS LEMANIS.

An important Roman port in Britain, at the place which still preserves its name—Lymne.

PORTUS MAGNUS.

An important Roman port in Britain, the massive walls of which are still seen at Porchester (or Portchester).

POST. POSTAGE. POST–OFFICE.

"The little that is known of the post-system of the [Roman] empire is summed up in a few words in Becker's 'Handbuch,' iii. i. 304: 'The institution of Augustus, which became the basis of the later System known to us from the writings of the Jurists, consisted of a military service which forwarded official despatches from station to station by couriers, called in the earlier imperial period speculatories. (Liv. xxxi. 24.; Suet. Calig. 44.; Tac. Hist. ii. 73.) Personal conveyance was confined (as in the time of the republic) to officials: for this purpose the mutationes (posts) and mansiones (night quarters) were assigned, and even palatia erected at the latter for the use of governors and the emperor himself. Private individuals could take advantage of these state posts within the provinces by a special license (diploma) of the governor, and at a later period of the emperor only.' Under the republic senators and high personages could obtain the posts for their private use, as a matter of privilege."

C. Merivale, History of the Romans under the Empire, chapter 34 (volume 4), foot-note.

"According to Professor Friedländer in his interesting work, 'Darstellungen aus der Sittengeschiehte Roms,' great progress was made by the Romans, in the fourth and fifth centuries, in their method of postal communication. Their excellent roads enabled them to establish rapid mule and horse posts as well as carts, and it is even stated that special 'postal ships' (Post schiffe) were kept in readiness at the principal sea-ports. These advanced postal arrangements, like many other traces of Roman civilization, survived longest in Gaul; but even there the barbarism of the people, and the constant wars in which they were engaged, gradually extinguished, first the necessity, and then, as a natural consequence, the means of postal communication, until we find, at a much later period, all European countries alike, for lack of any organized system, making use of pilgrims, friars, pedlars, and others, to convey their correspondence from one place to another. The first attempt of any importance, to rescue postal communication from the well-nigh hopeless condition into which it had for centuries fallen, was made in Germany in 1380, by the order of Teutonic Knights, who established properly equipped post-messengers for home and international service. An improvement and extension of this plan was carried out by Francis von Thaxis in the year 1516, when a postal line from Brussels to Vienna, via Kreuznach, was established. It is true that, shortly before this, there is some record of Louis XI. of France having started, for State postal purposes, what were termed cavaliers du roy; but these were only allowed to be used for private purposes by privileged individuals, part of whose privilege, by the way, consisted in paying to Louis an enormous fee. It is to Francis von Thaxis that must be accorded the title of the first postal reformer. So eager was his interest in the work he had undertaken, that, in order to gain the right of territorial transit through several of the small states of Germany where his plans were strongly opposed, he actually agreed for a time to carry the people's letters free of charge, an instance of generosity, for a parallel of which we look in vain in the history of the Post Office. The mantle of this reformer seems, strangely enough, to have fallen in turn upon many of his descendants, who not only in Germany, but also in Spain, Austria, Holland, and other countries, obtained concessions for carrying on the useful work started by Francis von Thaxis. {2580} One of the Thaxis family, at a later date, was created a prince of Germany, and took the name of Thurm und Taxis; and from him is descended the princely line bearing that name which flourishes at the present day. Another member of the family was created a grandee of Spain, and has the honor of being immortalized by Schiller in his 'Don Carlos.' The first establishment of an organized system of postal communication in England is wrapt in some obscurity. During the reign of John post-messengers were, for the first time, employed by the king; these messengers were called nuncii; and in the time of Henry I. these nuncii were also found in the service of some of the barons. In Henry III.'s reign they had so far become a recognized institution of the State that they were clothed in the royal livery. Mr. Lewins, in his interesting work, 'Her Majesty's Mails,' states that several private letters are still in existence, dating back as far as the reign of Edward II., which bear the appearance of having been carried by the nuncii of that period, with 'Haste, post haste!' written across them. … Edward IV., towards the end of the fifteenth century, during the time that he was engaged in war with Scotland, had the stations for postal relays placed within a few miles of each other all the way from London to the royal camp, and by this means managed to get his despatches carried nearly a hundred miles a day. … No improvement is recorded in the postal service in this country from the period last referred to until the reign of Henry VIII. This king, we are told, appointed a 'master of the posts,' in the person of Sir Brian Tuke, who really seems to have made great efforts to exercise a proper control over the horse-posts, and to bring some sort of organization to bear on his department. Poor Tuke, however, was not rewarded with much success. … James I. established a regular post for inland letters, and Charles I., recognizing, no doubt, the financial importance of the Post Office, declared it in 1637, by royal proclamation, to be State property. It was, however, during the Protectorate, twenty years later, that the first act of Parliament relating to the formation of a State Post Office was passed. This statute was entitled, 'An Act for the settling of the postage of England, Scotland, and Ireland.' … The first trace which can be found of a regular tariff of postal charges is in the reign of Charles I., and even regarded by the light of to-day these charges cannot be held to be exorbitant; for example, a single letter from London, for any distance under eighty miles, was charged twopence; fourpence up to one hundred and forty miles; sixpence for any greater distance in England, and eightpence to all parts of Scotland."

Postal Communication, Past and Present (National Review; copied in Littell's Living Age, July 30, 1887).

"A penny post was established in London, in 1683, two years before the death of Charles II., for the conveyance of letters and parcels within the City, by Robert Murray, an upholsterer by trade, who, like a great many others, was dissatisfied with the Government, which, in its anxiety to provide for the postal requirements of the country, had entirely neglected the City and suburbs. The post, established by Murray at a vast expense, was ultimately handed over to a William Docwray, whose name is now well known in the annals of Post Office history. The arrangements of the new penny post were simple, and certainly liberal enough. All letters or parcels not exceeding a pound weight, or any sum of money not exceeding £10 in value, or parcel not worth more than £10, could be conveyed at a cost of one penny; or within a radius of ten miles from a given centre, for the charge of twopence. Several district offices were opened in various parts of London, and receiving houses were freely established in all the leading thoroughfares. … The deliveries in the City were from six to eight daily, while from three to four were found sufficient to supply the wants of the suburbs. The public appreciated and supported the new venture, and it soon became a great commercial success, useful to the citizens, and profitable to the proprietor. No sooner, however, did a knowledge of this fact reach the ears of those in authority over the General Post Office, than the Duke of York, acting under instructions, and by virtue of the settlement made to him, objected to its being continued, on the ground that it was an invasion of his legal rights. … The authorities … applied to the court of King's Bench, wherein it was decided that the new or so-called penny post was an infraction of the privileges of the authorities of the General Post Office, and the royal interest, and that consequently it, with all its organization, profits, and advantages, should be handed over to, and remain the property of, the royal establishment. … Post-paid envelopes were in use in France in the time of Louis XIV. Pelisson states that they originated in 1653 with M. de Velayer, who established, under royal authority, a private penny-post in Paris. He placed boxes at the corners of the principal streets to receive the letters, which were obliged to be enclosed in these envelopes. They were suggested to the Government by Mr. Charles Whiting in 1830, and the eminent publisher, the late Mr. Charles Knight, also proposed stamped covers for papers. Dr. T. E. Gray, of the British Museum, claimed the credit of suggesting that letters should be prepaid by the use of stamps as early as 1834."

   "On the morning of the 10th of January, 1840, the people of
   the United Kingdom rose in the possession of a new power—the
   power of sending by the post a letter not weighing more than
   half an ounce upon the prepayment of one penny, and this
   without any regard to the distance which the letter had to
   travel. … To the sagacity and the perseverance of one man, the
   author of this system, the high praise is due, not so much
   that he triumphed over the petty jealousies and selfish fears
   of the post-office authorities, but that he established his
   own convictions against the doubts of some of the ablest and
   most conscientious leaders of public opinion. … Mr. Rowland
   Hill in 1837 published his plan of a cheap and uniform
   postage. A Committee of the House of Commons was appointed in
   1837, which, continued its inquiries throughout the session of
   1838, and arrived at the conviction that 'the mode recommended
   of charging and collecting postage, in a pamphlet published by
   Mr. Rowland Hill,' was feasible, and deserving of a trial
   under legislative sanction. … Lord Ashburton, although an
   advocate of Post-office Reform, held that the reduction to a
   penny would wholly destroy the revenue. Lord Lowther, the
   Postmaster-General, thought twopence the smallest rate that
   would cover the expenses.
{2581}
   Colonel Maberly, the secretary to the post office, considered
   Mr. Hill's plan a most preposterous one, and maintained that
   if the rates were to be reduced to a penny, the revenue would
   not recover itself for forty or fifty years. … Public opinion,
   however, had been brought so strongly to bear in favour of a
   penny rate, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Spring
   Rice, on the 5th of July, 1839, proposed a resolution, 'that
   it is expedient to reduce the postage on letters to one
   uniform rate of a penny postage, according to a certain amount
   of weight to be determined—that the parliamentary privilege
   of franking should be abolished, and that official franking be
   strictly limited—the House pledging itself to make good any
   deficiency that may occur in the revenue from such reduction
   of the postage.' A Bill was accordingly passed to this effect
   in the House of Commons, its operation being limited in its
   duration to one year, and the Treasury retaining the power of
   fixing the rates at first, although the ultimate reduction was
   to be to one penny. This experimental measure reduced all
   rates above fourpence to that sum, leaving those below
   fourpence unaltered. With this complication of charge the
   experiment could not have a fair trial, and accordingly on the
   10th of January, 1840, the uniform half-ounce rate became by
   order of the Treasury one penny. … In 1840 the number of
   letters sent through the post had more than doubled, and the
   legislature had little hesitation in making the Act of 1839
   permanent, instead of its duration being limited to the year
   which would expire in October. A stamped envelope, printed
   upon a peculiar paper, and bearing an elaborate design, was
   originally chosen as the mode of rendering prepayment
   convenient to the sender of a letter. A simpler plan soon
   superseded this attempt to enlist the Fine Arts in a plain
   business operation. The plan of prepaying letters by affixing
   a stamp bearing the head of the ruler of the country, came
   into use here in May, 1840 [see, also, ENGLAND: A. D. 1840].
   The habit of prepayment by postage stamps has now become so
   universal throughout the world, that in 1861 the system was
   established in eighty different countries or colonies."

The first postal system in the American colonies was privately established in New England in 1676, by John Heyward, under authority from the General Court of the colony of Massachusetts. "In 1683 the government of Penn established a postal system for the Colony of Pennsylvania. In 1700 Colonel J. Hamilton organized 'his postal establishment for British America' including all the English colonies, but soon after disposed of his right to the English crown. In 1710 the English Parliament established by law the first governmental postal system with the general office at New York, which continued until in 1776 the Continental Congress adopted and set in action the postal system proposed by Franklin, who was appointed the first Postmaster General. The first law of the Federal Congress continued this system in operation as sufficient for the public wants, but the postal service was not finally settled until the act of 1792. This law (1792) fixed a tariff which with unimportant changes remained in force until the adoption of the system of Uniform Postage in the United States. Single, double and triple letters were charged 8, 16 and 24 cents respectively when sent to other countries, and four cents plus the internal postage when arriving from foreign countries. The internal postage between offices in the United States was 6, 8, 10, 15, 17, 20, 22 and 25 cents for distances of 30, 60, 100, 150, 200, 250, 350, or 400 miles respectively for single letters, and double, triple, etc., this for double, triple, etc. letters. A single letter was defined by the law to be a single sheet or piece of paper, a double letter, two sheets or pieces of paper, etc. … The earliest letters which we have seen, consist of single sheets of paper folded and addressed upon the sheet. An envelope would have subjected them to double postage."

By an act of March 3, 1845, the postage rates in the United States were reduced to two—namely, 5 cents for 300 miles or under, and 10 cents for longer distances. Six years later (March 3, 1851) the minimum rate for half an ounce became 3 cents (if prepaid) with the distance covered by it extended to 3,000 miles; if not prepaid, 5 cents. For distances beyond 3,000 miles, these rates were doubled. In 1856 prepayment was made compulsory; and by an act signed March 3, 1863, the 3 cent rate for half–ounce letters was extended to all distances in the United States.

In 1883 the rate in the United States was reduced to 2 cents for all distances, on letters not exceeding half an ounce. In 1885 the weight of a letter transmissible for 2 cents was increased to one ounce. The use of postage stamps was first introduced in the United States under an act of Congress passed in March, 1847. Stamped envelopes were first provided in 1853. The first issue of postal cards was on the 1st of May, 1873, under an act approved June 8, 1872. The registry system was adopted July 1, 1855. Free delivery of letters in the larger cities was first undertaken on the 1st of July 1863.

      D. M. Dickinson,
      Progress and the Post
      (North American Review, October, 1889).

      ALSO IN:
      Annual Report of the Postmaster-General
      of the United States, 1893,
      pages 543-558
      (Description of all Postage Stamps and
      Postal Cards issued).

   The postal money-order system, though said to be older in
   practical existence, was regularly instituted and organized in
   England, in its present form, in 1859. It was adopted in the
   United States five years later, going into operation in
   November, 1864.

      D. M. Dickinson,
      Progress and the Post
      (North American Review, October, 1889).

POSTAL SAVINGS BANKS.

   Postal savings banks were first brought into operation in
   England in 1861. "One shilling is the smallest sum that can be
   deposited. The Government has, however, … issued blank forms
   with spaces for twelve penny postage-stamps, and will receive
   one of these forms with twelve stamps affixed as a deposit.
   This plan was suggested by the desire to encourage habits of
   saving among children, and by the success of penny banks in
   connection with schools and mechanics' institutes. No one can
   deposit more than £30 in one year, or have to his credit more
   than £150 exclusive of interest. When the principal and
   interest together amount to £200, interest ceases until the
   amount has been reduced below £200.
{2582}
   Interest at two and a half per cent is paid, beginning the
   first of the month following the deposit and stopping the last
   of the month preceding the withdrawal, but no interest is paid
   on any sum less than a pound or not a multiple of a pound. The
   interest is added to the principal on the 31st of December of
   each year. … The English colonies … have established postal
   savings-banks of a similar character. … The Canadian system …
   went into operation in 1868. … Influenced by the success of
   the English system of postal savings-banks, the governments on
   the Continent of Europe have now nearly all made similar
   provisions for the investment of the surplus earnings of the
   people. The Italian system … went into operation February 20,
   1876. … In France the proposal to establish postal
   savings-banks was frequently discussed, but not adopted until
   March 1881, although the ordinary savings-banks had for
   several years been allowed to use the post-offices as places
   for the receipt and repayment of deposits. … The Austrian
   postal savings-banks were first opened January 12, 1883. … The
   Belgian system has been [1885] in successful operation for
   more than fifteen years; that of the Netherlands was
   established some three years ago; while Sweden has just
   followed her neighbors, Denmark and Norway, in establishing
   similar institutions. In 1871 Postmaster-General Creswel
   recommended the establishment of postal savings depositories
   in connection with the United States post-offices, and two
   years later he discussed the subject very fully in his annual
   report. Several of his successors have renewed his
   recommendation;" but no action has been taken by Congress.

      D. B. King,
      Postal Savings-Banks
      (Popular Science Monthly, December, 1885).

"The States of the continent of Europe were the first to appreciate the advantages of governmental control of the telegraph. … From the beginning they assumed the erection and management of the telegraph lines. It may be said that in taking control of the telegraphs the monarchical governments of the Old World were actuated as much by the desire to use them for the maintenance of authority as by the advantages which they offered for the service of the people. To a certain extent this is doubtless true, but it is none the less true that the people have reaped the most solid benefits, and that the tendency has been rather to liberalize government than to maintain arbitrary power. … The greatest progress and the best management have alike been shown in those countries where the forms of government are most liberal, as in Switzerland and Belgium. … In Great Britain the telegraph was at first controlled by private parties. … In July, 1868, an act was passed 'to enable Her Majesty's Postmaster-General to acquire, work, and maintain electric telegraphs.' … The rate for messages was fixed throughout the kingdom at one shilling for twenty words, excluding the address and signature. This rate covered delivery within one mile of the office of address, or within its postal delivery." The lines of the existing telegraph companies were purchased on terms which were commonly held to be exorbitant, and Parliament, changing its original intention, conferred on the post-office department a monopoly of the telegraphs. Thus "the British postal telegraph was from the first handicapped by an enormous interest charge, and to some extent by the odium which always attaches to a legal monopoly. But notwithstanding the exorbitant price paid for the telegraph, the investment has not proved an unprofitable one."

      N. P. Hill,
      Speech in the Senate of the United States,
      January 14, 1884, on a Bill to Establish Postal Telegraphs,
      ("Speeches and Papers," pages 200-215).

The Postal Union, which now embraces most of the civilized and semi-civilized countries of the world, was formed originally by a congress of delegates, representing the principal governments of Europe, and the United States of America, which assembled at Berne, Switzerland, in September, 1874. A treaty was concluded at that time, which established uniform rates of postage (25 centimes, or 5 cents, on half-ounce letters), between the countries becoming parties to it, and opening the opportunity for other states to join in the same arrangement. From year to year since, the Postal Union has been widened by the accession of new signatories to the treaty, until very few regions of the globe where any postal system exists lie now outside of it. The late accessions to the Postal Union have been North Borneo, the German East African Protectorate, and the British Australasian Colonies, in 1801; Natal and Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1802; the South African Republic (Transvaal) in 1803. By the action of an international postal congress, held at Vienna, in 1801, a kind of international clearing-house for the Postal Union was established at Berne, Switzerland, and the settlement of accounts between its members has been greatly facilitated thereby.

POSTUMIAN ROAD.

One of the great roads of the ancient Romans. It led from
Genoa to Aquileia, by way of Placentia, Cremona and Verona.

POTESTAS.

The civil power with which a Roman magistrate was invested was technically termed potestas.

The powers and prerogatives of the ancient tribunitian office, without the office itself, being conferred upon Augustus and his successors, became the most important element, perhaps, of the finally compacted sovereignty of the Roman emperors.

The city of Potidæa, a Corinthian colony founded on the long peninsula of Pallene which projects from the Macedonian coast, but which had become subject to Athens, revolted from the latter B. C. 432, and was assisted by the Corinthians. This was among the quarrels which led up to the Peloponnesian War. The Athenians reduced the city and expelled the inhabitants after a siege of three years.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1861 (JULY-NOVEMBER); 1862 (MARCH-JULY), and after.

POTTAWATOMIES.

POUNDAGE.

POYNING'S ACTS.

PRÆFECTS. PREFECTS. PRÉFÊTS.

Præneste, the ancient city of the Latins, held against Sulla, in the first civil war, by young Marius, was surrendered after the battle at the Colline Gate of Rome. Sulla ordered the male inhabitants to be put to the sword and gave up the town to his soldiers for pillage.

PRÆNOMEN. NOMEN. COGNOMEN.

PRÆTOR.

PRÆTORIAN GUARDS. PRÆTORIANS.

"The commander–in-chief of a Roman army was attended by a select detachment, which, under the name of 'Cohors Praetoria,' remained closely attached to his person in the field, ready to execute his orders, and to guard him from any sudden attack. … Augustus, following his usual line of policy, retained the ancient name of 'Praetoriae Cohortes,' while he entirely changed their character. He levied in Etruria, Umbria, ancient Latium, and the old Colonies, nine or ten Cohorts, consisting of a thousand men each, on whom he bestowed double pay and superior privileges. These formed a permanent corps, who acted as the Imperial Life Guards, ready to overawe the Senate, and to suppress any sudden popular commotion."

The Prætorian Guard had been quartered, during the reign of Augustus, and during the early years of the reign of Tiberius, in small barracks at various points throughout the city, or in the neighboring towns. Sejanus, the intriguing favorite of Tiberius, being commander of the formidable corps, established it in one great permanent camp, "beyond the north-eastern angle of the city, and between the roads which sprang from the Viminal and Colline gates." This was done A. D. 23.

Severus, whose first act on reaching Rome had been to disarm and disband the insolent Guard which murdered Pertinax and sold the empire to Julianus, had no thought of dispensing with the institution. There was soon in existence a new organization of Prætorians, increased to four times the ancient number and picked from all the legions of the frontiers.

"By the prudent measures of Diocletian, the numbers of the Prætorians were insensibly reduced, their privileges abolished, and their place supplied by two faithful legions of Illyricum, who, under the new titles of Jovians and Herculians, were appointed to perform the service of the imperial guards. … They were old corps stationed at Illyricum; and, according to the ancient establishment, they each consisted of 6,000 men. They had acquired much reputation by the use of the plumbatæ, or darts loaded with lead."

Restored and augmented by Maxentius, during his brief reign, the Prætorians were finally abolished and their fortified camp destroyed, by Constantine, after his victory in the civil war of A. D. 312.

PRÆTORIAN PRÆFECTS.

"As the government degenerated into military despotism, the Prætorian præfect, who in his origin had been a simple captain of the guards, was placed not only at the head of the army, but of the finances, and even of the law. In every department of administration he represented the person, and exercised the authority, of the emperor. The first præfect who enjoyed and abused this immense power was Plautianus, the favourite minister of Severus. … They [the Prætorian præfects) were deprived by Constantine of all military command as soon as they had ceased to lead into the field, under their immediate orders, the flower of the Roman troops; and at length, by a singular revolution, the captains of the guards were transformed into the civil magistrates of the provinces. According to the plan of government instituted by Diocletian, the four princes had each their Prætorian præfect; and, after the monarchy was once more united in the person of Constantine, he still continued to create the same number of four præfects, and intrusted to their care the same provinces which they already administered.

1. The Præfect of the East stretched his ample jurisdiction" from the Nile to the Phasis and from Thrace to Persia.

"2. The important provinces of Pannonia, Dacia, Macedonia, and Greece, acknowledged the authority of the Præfect of Illyricum.

3. The power of the Præfect of Italy" extended to the Danube, and over the islands of the Mediterranean and part of Africa.

"4. The Præfect of the Gauls comprehended under that plural denomination the kindred provinces of Britain and Spain, and … to the foot of Mount Atlas.

… Rome and Constantinople were alone excepted from the jurisdiction of the Prætorian præfects. … A perfect equality was established between the dignity of the two municipal, and that of the four Prætorian præfects."

"In the very early days of Rome, before even Consuls had a being, the two chief magistrates of the republic bore the title of Praetors. Some remembrance of this fact lingering in the speech of the people gave always to the term Prætorium (the Praetor's house) a peculiar majesty, and caused it to be used as the equivalent of palace. So in the well-known passages of the New Testament, the palace of Pilate the Governor at Jerusalem, of Herod the King at Caesarea, of Nero the Emperor at Rome, are all called the Praetorium. From the palace the troops who surrounded the person of the Emperor took their well-known name, 'the Praetorian Guard.'"

PRAGMATIC SANCTION.

"No two words convey less distinct meaning to English ears than those which form this title: nor are we at all prepared to furnish an equivalent. Perhaps 'a well considered Ordinance' may in some degree represent them: i. e. an Ordinance which has been fully discussed by men practised in State Affairs. But we are very far from either recommending or being satisfied with such a substitute. The title was used in the Lower [the Byzantine] Empire, and Ducange ad v. describes 'Pragmaticum Rescriptum seu Pragmatica Sanctio' to be that which 'ad hibitâ diligente causæ cognitione, ex omnium Procerum consensu in modum sententiæ lecto, a Principe conceditur.'"

"Pragmatic Sanction being, in the Imperial Chancery and some others, the received title for Ordinances of a very irrevocable nature, which a sovereign makes, in affairs that belong wholly to himself, or what he reckons his own rights."

"This word [pragmatic] is derived from the Greek 'pragma,' which means 'a rule.'"

E. de Bonnechose, History of France, volume 1, epoch 2, book 1, chapter 5, foot-note.

PRAGUE: A. D. 1620.
Battle of the White Mountain.
Abandonment of crown and capital by Frederick.

PRAGUE: A. D. 1648.
   Surprise and capture of the Kleinsite by the Swedes.
   Siege of the older part of the city.
   The end of the Thirty Years War.

PRAGUE: A. D. 1757.
   Battle.
   Prussian victory
   Siege.
   Relief by Count Daun.

PRAGUERIE.

The commotions produced by John Huss, at Prague, in the beginning of the 15th century, gave the name Praguerie, at that period, to all sorts of popular disturbances.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER: MISSOURI-ARKANSAS).

PRAKRITA.

PRECIEUSES.

PREFECTS. PRÉFÊTS. PRÆFECTS.

PREMIER. PRIME MINISTER.

PREMONSTRATENSIAN ORDER.

This was the most important branch of the Regular Canons of St. Augustine, founded by St. Norbert, a German nobleman, who died in 1134. It took its name from Pre-montre, in Picardy, where the first house was established.

ALSO IN: J. Alzog, Manual of Universal Church History, section 243 (volume 2).

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1643 (JULY), and (JULY-SEPTEMBER); 1646 (MARCH); 1647 (APRIL-AUGUST); (AUGUST-DECEMBER); 1648.

PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

"The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years, and, together with the Vice-President, chosen for the same term, be elected as follows: Each State shall appoint, in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress [and these electors, meeting in their respective States, shall vote for President and Vice-President, transmitting certified lists of their votes to the President of the Senate of the United States, who shall count them in the presence of the two Houses of Congress; and if no person is elected President by a majority of all the votes cast, then the House of Representatives shall elect a President from the three persons who received the highest numbers of the votes cast by the electors, the representation from each State having one vote in such election]. … No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States. … The President shall be Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offences against the United States, except in cases of impeachment. He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law; but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers as they think proper in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments. The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session. He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the Union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States. The President, Vice-President, and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

The provisions of the Constitution regarding the Presidential succession, in case of the death or resignation of both President and Vice-President, are: 'In case of the removal of the President from office, or of his death, resignation, or inability to discharge the powers and duties of the said office, the same shall devolve on the Vice-President, and the Congress may by law provide for the case of removal, death, resignation, or inability both of the President and Vice-President, declaring what officer shall then act as President, and such officer shall act accordingly until the disability be removed or a President shall be elected.'

In pursuance of the power thus granted to it in the last half of this section, Congress in 1792 passed an act declaring that in case of the death, resignation, etc., of both the President and Vice-President, the succession should be first to the President of the Senate and then to the Speaker of the House. This order was changed by the act of 1886, which provided that the succession to the presidency should be as follows:

1. President. 2. Vice-President. 3. Secretary of State. 4. Secretary of the Treasury. 5. Secretary of War. 6. Attorney General. 7. Postmaster General. 8. Secretary of the Navy. 9. Secretary of the Interior.

In all cases the remainder of the four-years' term shall be served out. This act also regulated the counting of the votes of the electors by Congress, and the determination of who were legally chosen electors.

      J. Story,
      Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States,
      book 3, chapters 36-37 (volume 3).

PRESIDIO.

PRESS-GANG.

   "About the middle of the eleventh century stories began to be
   circulated in Europe as to a Christian nation of north-eastern
   Asia, whose sovereign was at the same time king and priest,
   and was known by the name of Prester John. Amid the mass of
   fables with which the subject is encumbered, it would seem to
   be certain that, in the very beginning of the century, the
   Khan of the Keraït, a tribe whose chief seat was at Karakorum,
   between Lake Baikal and the northern frontier of China, was
   converted to Nestorian Christianity—it is said, through the
   appearance of a saint to him when he had lost his way in
   hunting. By means of conversation with Christian merchants, he
   acquired some elementary knowledge of the faith, and, on the
   application of Ebed-Jesu, metropolitan of Maru, to the
   Nestorian patriarch Gregory, clergy were sent, who baptized
   the king and his subjects, to the number of 200,000. Ebed-Jesu
   consulted the patriarch how the fasts were to be kept, since
   the country did not afford any corn, or anything but flesh and
   milk; and the answer was, that, if no other Lenten provisions
   were to be had, milk should be the only diet for seasons of
   abstinence. The earliest western notice of this nation is
   given by Otho of Freising, from the relation of an Armenian
   bishop who visited the court of pope Eugenius III. This report
   is largely tinctured with fable, and deduces the Tartar
   chief's descent from the Magi who visited the Saviour in His
   cradle.
{2586}
   It would seem that the Nestorians of Syria, for the sake of
   vying with the boasts of the Latins, delighted in inventing
   tales as to the wealth, the splendour, and the happiness of
   their convert's kingdom; and to them is probably to be
   ascribed an extravagantly absurd letter, in which Prester John
   is made to dilate on the greatness and the riches of his
   dominions, the magnificence of his state and the beauty of his
   wives, and to offer the Byzantine emperor, Manuel, if he be of
   the true faith, the office of lord chamberlain in the court of
   Karakorum. In 1177 Alexander III. was induced by reports which
   a physician named Philip had brought back from Tartary, as to
   Prester John's desire to be received into communion with the
   pope, to address a letter to the king, recommending Philip as
   a religions instructor. But nothing is known as to the result
   of this; and in 1202 the Keraït kingdom was overthrown by the
   Tartar conqueror Genghis Khan. In explanation of the story as
   to the union of priesthood with royalty in Prester John, many
   theories have been proposed, of which two may be mentioned
   here: that it arose out of the fact of a Nestorian priest's
   having got possession of the kingdom on the death of a khan;
   or that, the Tartar prince's title being compounded of the
   Chinese 'wang' (king) and the Mongol 'khan,' the first of
   these words was confounded by the Nestorians of Syria with the
   name John, and the second with 'cohen' (a priest). … The
   identification of Prester John's kingdom with Abyssinia was a
   mistake of Portuguese explorers some centuries later."

J. C. Robertson, History of the Christian Church, book 6, chapter 11, with foot-note (volume 5).

ALSO IN: Colonel H. Yule, Note to 'The Book of Marco Polo,' volume 1, pages 204-209.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY: KENTUCKY-TENNESSEE).

PRETAXATION.

PRICE'S RAID.

PRIDE'S PURGE.

PRIMATES. METROPOLITANS. PATRIARCHS.

In the early organization of the Christian Church, the bishops of every province found it necessary "to make one of themselves superior to all the rest, and invest him with certain powers and privileges for the good of the whole, whom they therefore named their primate, or metropolitan, that is, the principal bishop of the province. … Next in order to the metropolitans or primates were the patriarchs; or, as they were at first called, archbishops and exarchs of the diocese. For though now an archbishop and a metropolitan be generally taken for the same, to wit, the primate of a single province; yet anciently the name archbishop was a more extensive title, and scarce given to any but those whose jurisdiction extended over a whole imperial diocese, as the bishop of Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, &c."

T. Bingham, Antiquities of the Christian Church, book 2, chapters 16-17 (volume 1).

PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND.

"Prince Edward's Island, the smallest province of the Dominion [of Canada], originally called St. John's Island, until 1770 formed part of Nova Scotia. The first Governor was Walter Patterson. … The first assembly met in 1773." In 1873 Prince Edward Island consented to be received into the Confederation of the Dominion of Canada—the latest of the provinces to accede to the Union, except Newfoundland, which still (1894) remains outside.

PRINCE OF THE CAPTIVITY.

PRINCE OF WALES.

PRINCEPS SENATUS.

"As the title of imperator conferred the highest military rank upon Augustus and his successors, so did that of princeps senatus, or princeps (as it came to be expressed by an easy but material abridgment), convey the idea of the highest civil preeminence consistent with the forms of the old constitution. In ancient times this title had been appropriated to the first in succession of living censorii, men who had served the office of censor; and such were necessarily patricians and senators. The sole privilege it conferred was that of speaking first in the debates of the senate; a privilege however to which considerable importance might attach from the exceeding deference habitually paid to authority and example by the Roman assemblies. … The title of princeps was modest and constitutional; it was associated with the recollection of the best ages of the free state and the purest models of public virtue; it could not be considered beyond the deserts of one who was undoubtedly the foremost man of the nation. … The popularity which the assumption of this republican title conferred upon the early emperors may be inferred from the care with which it is noted, and its constitutional functions referred to by the writers of the Augustan age and that which succeeded it. But it was an easy and natural step in the progress of political ideas to drop the application of the title, and contract it from prince of the senate, to prince merely. The original character of the appellation was soon forgotten, and the proper limits of its privileges confounded in the more vague and general prerogative which the bare designation of first or premier seemed to imply."

ALSO IN: E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 3, note by Dr. W. Smith.

PRINCIPES.

PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1430-1456.
   The invention of movable type.
   Rival claims for Coster and Gutenberg.
   The first Printed Book.

"Before arriving at the movable type placed side by side, and forming phrases, which appears to us to-day so simple and so ordinary, many years passed. It is certain that long before Gutenberg a means was found of cutting wood and metal in relief and reproducing by application the image traced. … Remembering that the numerous guilds of 'tailleurs d' images,' or sculptors in relief, had in the Middle Ages the specialty of carving ivories and of placing effigies on tombs, it can be admitted without much difficulty that these people one day found a means of multiplying the sketches of a figure often asked for, by modelling its contour in relief on ivory or wood, and afterwards taking a reproduction on paper or parchment by means of pressure. When and where was this discovery produced? We cannot possibly say; but it is certain that playing cards were produced by this means, and that from the year 1423 popular figures were cut in wood, as we know from the St. Christopher of that date belonging to Lord Spencer. … It is a recognised fact that the single sheet with a printed figure preceded the xylographic book, in which text and illustration were cut in the same block. This process did not appear much before the second quarter of the 15th century, and it was employed principally for popular works which were then the universal taste. The engraving also was nothing more than a kind of imposition palmed off as a manuscript; the vignettes were often covered with brilliant colours and gold, and the whole sold as of the best quality. … An attempt had been made to put some text at the foot of the St. Christopher of 1423, and the idea of giving more importance to the text was to the advantage of the booksellers. … At the epoch of the St. Christopher, in 1423, several works were in vogue in the universities, the schools, and with the public. … To find a means of multiplying these treatises at little cost was a fortune to the inventor. It is to be supposed that many artisans of the time attempted it; and without doubt it was the booksellers themselves, mostly mere dealers, who were tempted to the adventure by the sculptors and wood-cutters. But none had yet been so bold as to cut in relief a series of blocks with engravings and text to compose a complete work. That point was reached very quickly when some legend was engraved at the foot of a vignette, and it may be thought that the 'Donatus' [i. e. the Latin Syntax of Ælius Donatus] was the most ancient of books so obtained among the 'Incunabuli,' as we now call them, a word that signifies origin or cradle. The first books then were formed of sheets of paper or parchment, laboriously printed from xylographic blocks, that is to say wooden blocks on which a 'tailleur d' images' had left in relief the designs and the letters of the text. He had thus to trace his characters in reverse, so that they could be reproduced as written; he had to avoid faults, because a phrase once done, well or ill, lasted. It was doubtless this difficulty of correction that gave the idea of movable types. … This at least explains the legend of Laurent Coster, of Haarlem, who, according to Hadrian Junius, his compatriot, discovered by accident the secret of separate types while playing with his children. And if the legend of which we speak contains the least truth, it must be found in the sense above indicated, that is in the correction of faults, rather than in the innocent game of a merchant of Haarlem. … Movable type, the capital point of printing, the pivot of the art of the Book, developed itself little by little, according to needs, when there was occasion to correct an erroneous inscription; but, in any case, its origin is unknown. Doubtless to vary the text, means were found to replace entire phrases by other phrases, preserving the original figures; and thus the light dawned upon these craftsmen, occupied in the manufacture and sale of their books. According to Hadrian Junius, Laurent Janszoon Coster (the latter name signifying 'the discoverer') published one of the celebrated series of works under the general title of 'Speculum' which was then so popular, … the 'Speculum Humanæ Salvationis.' … Junius, as we see, attributes to Laurent Coster the first impression of the 'Speculum,' no longer the purely xylographic impression of the 'Donatus' from an engraved block, but that of the more advanced manner in movable types [probably between 1430 and 1440]. In point of fact, this book had at least four editions, similar in engravings and body of letters, but of different text. It must then be admitted that the fount was dispersed, and typography discovered. … All the xylographic works of the 15th century may be classed in two categories: the xylographs, rightly so called, or the block books, such as the 'Donatus,' and the books with movable types, like the 'Speculum,' of which we speak. … The movable types used, cut separately in wood, were not constituted to give an ideal impression. We can understand the cost that the execution of these characters must have occasioned, made as they were one by one, without the possibility of ever making them perfectly uniform. Progress was to substitute for this irregular process types that were similar, identical, easily produced, and used for a long time without breaking. Following on the essays of Laurent Coster, continuous researches bore on this point. … Here history is somewhat confused. Hadrian Junius positively accuses one of Laurent Coster's workmen of having stolen the secrets of his master and taken flight to Mayence, where he afterwards founded a printing office. According to Junius, the metal type was the discovery of the Dutchman, and the name of the thief was John. Who was this John? Was it John Gænsefleisch, called Gutenberg, or possibly John Fust? But it is not at all apparent that Gutenberg, a gentleman of Mayence, exiled from his country, was ever in the service of the Dutch inventor. As to Fust, we believe his only intervention in the association of printers of Mayence was as a money-lender, from which may be comprehended the unlikelihood of his having been with Coster, the more so as we find Gutenberg retired to Strasbourg, where he pursued his researches. There he was, as it were, out of his sphere, a ruined noble whose great knowledge was bent entirely on invention. Doubtless, like many others, he may have had in his hands one of the printed works of Laurent Coster, and conceived the idea of appropriating the infant process. {2588} In 1439 he was associated with two artisans of the city of Strasbourg, ostensibly in the fabrication of mirrors, which may be otherwise understood as printing of 'Speculums,' the Latin word signifying the same thing. … Three problems presented themselves to him. He wanted types less fragile than wooden types and less costly than engraving. He wanted a press by the aid of which he could obtain a clear impression on parchment or paper. He desired also that the leaves of his books should not be anopistograph, or printed only on one side. … Until then, and even long after, the xylographs were printed 'au frotton,' or with a brush, rubbing the paper upon the forme coated with ink, thicker than ordinary ink. He dreamed of something better. In the course of his work John Gutenberg returned to Mayence. The idea of publishing a Bible, the Book of books, had taken possession of his heart. … The cutting of his types had ruined him. … In this unhappy situation, Gutenberg made the acquaintance of a financier of Mayence, named Fust, … who put a sum of 1,100 florins at his disposal to continue his experiments. Unfortunately this money disappeared, it melted away, and the results obtained were absolutely ludicrous. … About this time a third actor enters on the scene. Peter Schoeffer, of Gernsheim, a writer, introduced into the workshop of Gutenberg to design letters, benefited by the abortive experiments, and taking up the invention at its dead-lock, conducted it to success. John of Tritenheim, called Trithemius, the learned abbot of Spanheim, is the person who relates these facts; but as he got his information from Schoeffer himself, too much credence must not be given to his statements. Besides, Schoeffer was not at all an ordinary artisan. If we credit a Strasbourg manuscript written by his hand in 1449, he was a student of the 'most glorious university of Paris.'" How much Schoeffer contributed to the working out of the invention is a matter of conjecture; but in 1454 it was advanced to a state in which the first known application of it in practical use was made. This was in the printing of copies of the famous letters of indulgence which Pope Nicholas V. was then selling throughout Europe. Having the so far perfected invention in hand, Fust and Schoeffer (the latter now having married the former's granddaughter) wished to rid themselves of Gutenberg. "Fust had a most easy pretext, which was to demand purely and simply from his associate the sums advanced by him, and which had produced so little. Gutenberg had probably commenced his Bible, but, in face of the claims of Fust, he had to abandon it altogether, types, formes, and press. In November, 1455, he had retired to a little house outside the city, where he tried his best, by the aid of foreign help, to establish a workshop, and to preserve the most perfect secrecy. Relieved of his company, Fust and Schoeffer were able to take up the impression of the Bible and to complete it without him. … One thing is certain: that the Bible of Schoeffer, commenced by Gutenberg or not, put on sale by Fust and Schoeffer alone about the end of 1455 or beginning of 1456, proves to be the first completed book. … It is now called the Mazarine Bible, from the fact that the copy in the Mazarin Library was the first to give evidence concerning it. The book was put on sale at the end of 1455 or beginning of 1456, for a manuscript note of a vicar of St. Stephen at Mayence records that he finished the binding and illuminating of the first volume on St. Bartholomew's Day [June 13], 1456, and the second on the 15th of August. … All these remarks show that the printers did not proclaim themselves, and were making pseudo-manuscripts. … Many of the copies are illuminated with as much care and beauty as if they were the finest manuscripts. … Copies are by no means uncommon, most of the great libraries having one, and many are in private collections."

"The general consent of all nations in ascribing the honour of the invention of printing to Gutenberg seems at first sight a very strong argument in his favour; but if Gutenberg were not the first to invent and use movable types, but the clever man who brought to perfection what already existed in a crude state, we can quite imagine his fame to have spread everywhere as the real inventor. As a master in the art of printing, Gutenberg's name was known in Paris so early as 1472. … Mr. Hessels … believes that the Coster mentioned in the archives as living in Haarlem, 1436-83, was the inventor of types, and that, taken as a whole, the story as told by Junius is substantially correct. Personally I should like to wait for more evidence. There is no doubt that the back-bone of the Dutch claim lies in the pieces and fragments of old books discovered for the most part in the last few decades, and which give support to, at the same time that they receive support from, the Cologne Chronicler. … These now amount to forty-seven different works. Their number is being added to continually now that the attention of librarians has been strongly called to the importance of noting and preserving them. They have been catalogued with profound insight by Mr. Hessels, and for the first time classified by internal evidence into their various types and classes. But, it may well be asked, what evidence is there that all these books were not printed long after Gutenberg's press was at work? … The earliest book of Dutch printing bears date 1473, and not a single edition out of all the so-called Costeriana has any printer's name or place or date. To this the reply is, that these small pieces were school-books or absies and such-like works, in the production of which there was nothing to boast of, as there would be in a Bible. Such things were at all times 'sine ulla nota,' and certain to be destroyed when done with, so that the wonder would be to find them so dated, and the very fact of their bearing a date would go far to prove them not genuine. These fragments have been nearly all discovered in 15th-century books, printed mostly' in various towns of Holland. … Mr. Hessels quotes forty-seven different books as 'Costeriana,' which include four editions of the Speculum, nineteen of Donatus, and seven of Doctrinale. The Donatuses are in five different types, probably from five different Dutch presses. Compared with the earliest dated books of 1473 and onwards, printed in Holland, they have nothing in common, while their brotherhood to the Dutch MSS. and block-books of about thirty years earlier is apparent. Just as astronomers have been unable to explain certain aberrations of the planets without surmising a missing link in the chain of their knowledge, so is it with early typography. That such finished works as the first editions of the Bible and Psalter could be the legitimate predecessors of the Costeriana, the Bruges, the Westminster press, and others, I cannot reconcile with the internal evidence of their workmanship. But admit the existence of an earlier and much ruder school of typography, and all is plain and harmonious."

      W. Blades,
      Books in Chains, and other Bibliographical Papers,
      pages 149-158.

      ALSO IN:
      J. H. Hessels,
      Gutenberg: was he the Inventor of Printing?

      C. H. Timperley,
      Encyclopœdia of Literature and Typographical Anecdote,
      pages 101-120.

      H. N. Humphreys,
      History of the Art of Printing,
      chapters 3-4.

After the Mazarine Bible, "then follows the Kalendar for the year 1457, most probably printed at the end of 1456. Then again the printed dates, August 14, 1457 and 1459, with place (Mentz) in the colophons of the Psalter issued by Fust and Schoeffer; the printed year 1460 (with Mentz added) in the Catholicon [a Latin Grammar and Dictionary]. &c. &c. So that, with the exception of 1458, there is no interruption in Mentz printing from the moment that we see it begin there. As regards the printed psalter, its printers are mentioned distinctly in the book itself; but the other books just mentioned are assumed to have been issued by the same two Mentz printing-offices which are supposed to be already at work there in 1454, though the 1460 Catholicon and some of the other works are ascribed by some to other printers. By the side of these dates, we find already a Bible completed in 1460 by Mentelin at Strassburg, according to a MS. note in the copy preserved at Freiburg. … Assuming then, for a moment, that Mentz is the starting-point, we see printing spread to Strassburg in 1460; to Bamberg in 1461; to Subiaco in 1465; in 1466 (perhaps already in 1463) it is established at Cologne; in 1467 at Eltville, Rome; in 1468 at Augsburg, Basle, Marienthal; in 1469 at Venice; 1470 at Nuremberg, Verona, Foligno, Trevi, Savigliano, Paris; 1471 at Spire, Bologna, Ferrara, Florence, Milan, Naples, Pavia, Treviso; 1472 at Esslingen, Cremona, Mantua, Padua, Parma, Monreale, Fivizano, Verona; 1473 at Laugingen, Ulm (perhaps here earlier), Merseburg, Alost, Utrecht, Lyons, Brescia, Messina; 1474 at Louvain, Genoa, Como, Savona, Turin, Vicenza; 1475 at Lubeck, Breslau, Blaubeuren, Burgdorf, Modena, Reggio, Cagli, Caselle or Casale, Saragossa; 1476 at Rostock, Bruges (here earlier?), Brussels; 1477 at Reichenstein, Deventer, Gouda, Delft, Westminster; 1478 at Oxford, St. Maartensdyk, Colle, Schussenried, Eichstadt; 1479 at Erfurt, Würzburg, Nymegen, Zwolle, Poitiers; 1480 at London [?], Oudenaarde, Hasselt, Reggio; 1481 at Passau, Leipzig, Magdeburg, Treves, Urach; 1482 at Reutlingen, Memmingen, Metz, Antwerp; 1483 at Leiden, Kuilenburg, Ghent, Haarlem; 1484 at Bois-le–Duc, Siena; 1485 at Heidelberg, Regensburg; 1486 at Munster, Stuttgart; 1487 at Ingolstadt; 1488 at Stendal; 1489 at Hagenau, &c."

      J. H. Hessels,
      Haarlem the Birth-place of Printing, not Mentz,
      chapter 4.

PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1469-1515.
The early Venetian printers.
The Aldine Press.

"One of the famous first race of German printers, John of Spires, arrived at Venice in the year 1469, and immediately brought his art into full play; producing within the first three months his fine edition of the 'Letters of Cicero.' a masterpiece of early printing. … The success of John of Spires as a printer was at once recognized by the Venetian Republic; and Pasquale Malipiero, the reigning Doge, granted a patent conferring upon him the sole right of printing books within the territory of Venice. … But the enterprising printer did not live to enjoy the privilege," and it was not continued to any of his family, "On the withdrawal of the monopoly several new printers set up their Presses in the city, among whom was the celebrated Jenson, the ingenious Frenchman who was sent by Charles VII. to acquire the art at Mayence. … John Emeric, of Udenheim, was another of the German printers who immediately succeeded John and Vindelin of Spires; and still more successful, though somewhat later, in the field, was Erard Ratdolt. … He [Ratdolt] is said to have been the first to adopt a regular form of Title at all approaching our modern conception of a Book-Title; and he also took the lead in the production of those beautifully-engraved initials for which the books printed in Italy towards the close of the 15th century are famous. His most splendid work is undoubtedly the 'Elements of Euclid, with the Commentaries of Campanus.' … Nicholas Jenson was the most renowned of those who followed the earliest German printers in Venice, until his works were partially eclipsed by those of the Aldi. … In 1470 he [Jenson] had … completed his preparations, and the first four works which issued from his Venetian press appeared in that year. … These works were printed with Roman characters of his own engraving, more perfect in form than those of any previous printer. His types are in fact the direct parents of the letters now in general use, which only differ from them in certain small details dependent solely on fashion. … This celebrated printer died in September of the year 1481. … Andrea Torresani and others continued Jenson's Association, making use of the same types. Torresani was eventually succeeded in the same establishment by the celebrated Aldo Manuccio, who, having married his daughter, adopted the important vocation of printer, and became the first of those famous 'Aldi,' as they are commonly termed, whose fame has not only absorbed that of all the earlier Venetian printers, but that of the early printers of every other Italian seat of the art. … It was Manuccio who, among many other advances in this art, first invented the semi-cursive style of character now known as 'Italic'; and it is said that it was founded upon a close imitation of the careful handwriting of Petrarch, which, in fact, it closely resembles. This new type was used for a small octavo edition of 'Virgil,' issued in 1501, on the appearance of which he obtained from Pope Leo X. a letter of privilege, entitling him to the sole use of the new type which he had invented." The list of the productions of the elder Aldus and his son Paul "comprises nearly all the great works of antiquity, and of the best Italian authors of their own time. From their learning and general accomplishments, the Aldi might have occupied a brilliant position as scholars and authors, but preferred the useful labour of giving correctly to the world the valuable works of others. The Greek editions of the elder Aldus form the basis of his true glory, especially the 'Aristotle,' printed in 1405, a work of almost inconceivable labour and perseverance."

"Aldus and his studio and all his precious manuscripts disappeared during the troubled years of the great Continental war in which all the world was against Venice [see VENICE: A. D. 1508-1500]. In 1510, 1511, and 1512, scarcely any book proceeded from his press. … After the war Aldus returned to his work with renewed fervour. 'It is difficult,' says Renouard, 'to form an idea of the passion with which he devoted himself to the reproduction of the great works of ancient literature. If he heard of the existence anywhere of a manuscript unpublished, or which could throw a light upon an existing text, he never rested till he had it in his possession. He did not shrink from long journeys, great expenditure, applications of all kinds.' … It is not in this way however that the publisher, that much questioned and severely criticised middleman, makes a fortune. And Aldus died poor. His privileges did not stand him in much stead, copyright, especially when not in books but in new forms of type, being non-existent in his day. In France and Germany, and still nearer home, his beautiful Italic was robbed from him, copied on all sides, notwithstanding the protection granted by the Pope and other princes as well as by the Venetian Signoria. His fine editions were printed from, and made the foundation of foreign issues which replaced his own. How far his princely patrons stood by him to repair his losses there seems no information. His father-in-law, Andrea of Asola, a printer who was not so fine a scholar, but perhaps more able to cope with the world, did come to his aid, and his son Paolo Manutio, and his grandson Aldo il Giovane, as he is called, succeeded him in turn."

PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1476-1491.
Introduction in England.
The Caxton Press.

"It was probably at the press of Colard Mansion, in a little room over the porch of St. Donat's at Bruges, that William Caxton learned the art which he was the first to introduce into England. A Kentish boy by birth, but apprenticed to a London mercer, Caxton had already spent thirty years of his manhood in Flanders as Governor of the English gild of Merchant Adventurers there, when we find him engaged as copyist in the service of Edward's sister, Duchess Margaret of Burgundy. But the tedious process of copying was soon thrown aside for the new art which Colard Mansion had introduced into Bruges. … The printing-press was the precious freight he brought back to England in 1476 after an absence of five-and-thirty years. Through the next fifteen, at an age when other men look for ease and retirement, we see him plunging with characteristic energy into his new occupation. His 'red pale' or heraldic shield marked with a red bar down the middle invited buyers to the press he established in the Almonry at Westminster, a little enclosure containing a chapel and almshouses near the west front of the church, where the alms of the abbey were distributed to the poor. … Caxton was a practical man of business, … no rival of the Venetian Aldi or of the classical printers of Rome, but resolved to get a living from his trade, supplying priests with service books and preachers with sermons, furnishing the clerk with his 'Golden Legend' and knight and baron with 'joyous and pleasant histories of chivalry.' But while careful to win his daily bread, he found time to do much for what of higher literature lay fairly to hand. He printed all the English poetry of any moment which was then in existence. His reverence for that 'worshipful man, Geoffrey Chaucer,' who 'ought to be eternally remembered,' is shown not merely by his edition of the 'Canterbury Tales,' but by his reprint of them when a purer text of the poem offered itself. The poems of Lydgate and Gower were added to those of Chaucer. The Chronicle of Brut and Higden's 'Polychronicon' were the only available works of an historical character then existing in the English tongue, and Caxton not only printed them but himself continued the latter up to his own time. A translation of Boethius, a version of the Eneid from the French, and a tract or two of Cicero, were the stray first-fruits of the classical press in England. Busy as was Caxton's printing-press, he was even busier as a translator than as a printer. More than four thousand of his printed pages are from works of his own rendering. The need of these translations shows the popular drift of literature at the time; but keen as the demand seems to have been, there is nothing mechanical in the temper with which Caxton prepared to meet it. A natural, simple-hearted taste and enthusiasm, especially for the style and forms of language, breaks out in his curious prefaces. … But the work of translation involved a choice of English which made Caxton's work important in the history of our language. He stood between two schools of translation, that of French affectation and English pedantry. It was a moment when the character of our literary tongue was being settled, and it is curious to see in his own words the struggle over it which was going on in Caxton's time. 'Some honest and great clerks have been with me and desired me to write the most curious terms that I could find;' on the other hand, 'some gentlemen of late blamed me, saying that in my translations I had over many curious terms which could not be understood of common people, and desired me to use old and homely terms in my translations.' 'Fain would I please every man,' comments the good-humoured printer, but his sturdy sense saved him alike from the temptations of the court and the schools. His own taste pointed to English, but 'to the common terms that be daily used' rather than to the English of his antiquarian advisers. 'I took an old book and read therein, and certainly the English was so rude and broad I could not well understand it,' while the Old-English charters which the Abbot of Westminster lent as models from the archives of his house seemed 'more like to Dutch than to English.' To adopt current phraseology however was by no means easy at a time when even the speech of common talk was in a state of rapid flux. … Coupling this with his long absence in Flanders we can hardly wonder at the confession he makes over his first translation, that 'when all these things came to fore me, after that I had made and written a five or six quires, I fell in despair of this work, and purposed never to have continued therein, and the quires laid apart, and in two years after laboured no more in this work.' He was still however busy translating when he died [in 1491]. {2591} All difficulties in fact were lightened by the general interest which his labours aroused. When the length of the 'Golden Legend' makes him 'half desperate to have accomplished it' and ready to 'lay it apart,' the Earl of Arundel solicits him in no wise to leave it and promises a yearly fee of a buck in summer and a doc in winter, once it were done. 'Many noble and divers gentle men of this realm came and demanded many and often times wherefore I have not made and imprinted the noble history of the San Graal.' … Caxton profited in fact by the wide literary interest which was a mark of the time."

"Contemporary with Caxton were the printers Lettou and Machlinia, … who carried on business in the city of London, where they established a press in 1480. Machlinia had previously worked under Caxton. … Wynkyn de Worde … in all probability … was one of Caxton's assistants or workmen, when the latter was living at Bruges, but without doubt he was employed in his office at Westminster until 1491, when he commenced business on his own account, having in his possession a considerable quantity of Caxton's type. Wynkyn de Worde, who was one of the founders of the Stationers' Company, died in 1534, after having printed no less than 410 books known to bibliographers, the earliest of which bearing a date is the 'Liber Festivalis,' 4to, 1493."

      C. H. Timperley,
      Encyclopœdia of Literary and Typographical Anecdote,
      pages 138-194.

      T. C. Hansard,
      History and Process of Printing
      ("The Five Black Arts," chapter 1).

PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1496-1598.
The Estienne or Stephanus Press in Paris.

"With the names of Aldus and Elzevir we are all acquainted; the name of Estienne, or Stephanus, has a less familiar sound to English ears, though the family of Parisian printers was as famous in its day as the great houses of Venice and Leyden. The most brilliant member of it was the second Henry, whose story forms a melancholy episode in French literary history of the 16th century. … The Estiennes are said to have come of a noble Provençal family, but nothing is exactly known of their descent. The art of printing was not much more than fifty years old when Henry Estienne, having learnt his trade in Germany, came to Paris, and set up his press [about 1496] in the Rue Saint Jean de Beauvais, opposite the school of Canon Law. There for some twenty years he laboured diligently, bringing out in that time no less than 120 volumes, chiefly folios. The greater number of these are theological and scholastic works; among the few modern authors on the list is the name of Erasmus. Henry Estienne died in 1520 leaving three sons. Robert, the second of them, was born probably in 1503. The boys all being minors, the business passed into the hands of their mother, who in the following year married Simon de Colines, her late husband's foreman, and perhaps partner. … Robert worked with De Colines for five or six years before he went into business on his own account in the same street." It was he who first gave celebrity to the name and the press. "The spell of the Renaissance had early fallen upon the young printer, and it held him captive almost till the end of his life." He married "the daughter of the learned Flemish printer Jodocus Badius, notable for her culture and her beauty. Latin was the ordinary language of the household. The children learned it in infancy from hearing it constantly spoken. … At one time ten foreign scholars lived in Estienne's house to assist him in selecting and revising his manuscripts and in correcting his proofs. … Both Francis [King Francis I.] and his sister Marguerite of Navarre had a great regard for Robert, and often visited the workshop; to that royal patronage the printer was more than once indebted for his liberty and his life." His danger came from the bigoted Sorbonne, with whom he brought himself into collision by printing the Bible with as careful a correction of the text as he had performed in the case of the Latin classics. After the death of Francis I., the peril of the printer's situation became more serious, and in 1550 he fled to Geneva, renouncing the Roman Catholic faith. He died there in 1559.

The second Henry Estienne, son of Robert, either did not accompany his father to Geneva, or soon returned to Paris, and founded anew the Press of his family, bringing to it even more learning than his father, with equal laboriousness and zeal. He died at Lyons in 1598.

PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1535-1709.
   Introduction in America.
   The first Spanish printing in Mexico.
   The early Massachusetts Press.
   Restrictions upon its freedom.

"The art of printing was first introduced into Spanish America, as early as the middle of the 16th century. The historians whose works I have consulted are all silent as to the time when it was first practiced on the American continent; … but it is certain that printing was executed, both in Mexico and Peru, long before it made its appearance in the British North American colonies. [The precise date of the introduction of printing into Mexico was for a long time in doubt. … When Mr. Thomas wrote his 'History of Printing in America,' early works on America were rare, and it is probable that there was not one in the country printed in either America or Europe in the 16th century, except the copy of Molina's dictionary; now many of the period may be found in our great private libraries. The dictionary of Molina, in Mexican and Spanish, printed in Mexico, in 1571, in folio, was, by many, asserted and believed to be the earliest book printed in America. … No one here had seen an earlier book until the 'Doctrina Christiana,' printed in the house of Juan Cromberger, in the city of Mexico, in the year 1544, was discovered. Copies of this rare work were found in two well known private libraries in New York and Providence. For a long time the honor was awarded to this as the earliest book printed in America. But there is now strong evidence that printing was really introduced in Mexico nine years before that time, and positive evidence, by existing books, that a press was established in 1540. Readers familiar with early books relating to Mexico have seen mention of a book printed there as early as 1535, … the 'Spiritual Ladder' of St John Climacus. … It seems that no copy of the 'Spiritual Ladder' has ever been seen in recent times, and the quoted testimonials are the only ones yet found which refer to it.

Note by Hon. John R. Bartlett, appendix A., giving a 'List of Books printed in Mexico between the years 1540 and 1560 inclusive.'

… In January, 1639, printing was first performed in that part of North America which extends from the Gulf of Mexico to the Frozen ocean. For this press our country is chiefly indebted to the Rev. Mr. Glover, a nonconformist minister, who possessed a considerable estate. … Another press, with types, and another printer, were, in 1660, sent over from England by the corporation for propagating the gospel among the Indians in New England. This press, &c., was designed solely for the purpose of printing the Bible, and other books, in the Indian language. On their arrival they were carried to Cambridge, and employed in the printing house already established in that place. … The fathers of Massachusetts kept a watchful eye on the press; and in neither a religious nor civil point of view were they disposed to give it much liberty. … In 1662, the government of Massachusetts appointed licensers of the press; and afterward, in 1664, passed a law that 'no printing should be allowed in any town within the jurisdiction, except in Cambridge'; nor should any thing be printed there but what the government permitted through the agency of those persons who were empowered for the purpose. … In a short time, this law was so far repealed as to permit the use of a press at Boston. … It does not appear that the press, in Massachusetts, was free from legal restraints till about the year 1755 [see PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1704-1729]. … Except in Massachusetts, no presses were set up in the colonies till near the close of the 17th century. Printing then [1686] was performed in Pennsylvania [by William Bradford], 'near Philadelphia' [at Shackamaxon, now Kensington], and afterward in that city, by the same press which, in a few years subsequent, was removed to New York.

See PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1685-1693; also PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1692-1696.

   The use of types commenced in Virginia about 1681; in 1682 the
   press was prohibited. In 1709 a press was established at New
   London, in Connecticut."

      I. Thomas,
      History of Printing in America,
      2nd edition. (Translated and Collection
      of the American Antiquity Society, volume 5),
      volume 1, pages 1-17.

      ALSO IN:
      J. L. Bishop,
      History of American Manufactures,
      volume 1, chapter 7.

PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1612-1650.
   Origin of printed newspapers.
   The newspaper defined.
   Its earliest appearances in Germany and Italy.

"Lally-Tollendal, in his 'Life of Queen Elizabeth,' in the 'Biographie Universelle' (vol. xiii, published in 1815, p. 56) … remarks that 'as far as the publication of an official journal is concerned, France can claim the priority by more than half a century; for in the Royal Library at Paris there is a bulletin of the campaign of Louis XII. in Italy in 1509.' He then gives the title of this 'bulletin,' from which it clearly appears that it is not a political journal, but an isolated piece of news—a kind of publication of which there are hundreds in existence of a date anterior to 1588 [formerly supposed to be the date of the first English newspaper—see PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1622-1702], and of which there is no doubt that thousands were issued. There is, for instance, in the British Museum a French pamphlet of six printed leaves, containing an account of the surrender of Granada to Ferdinand and Isabella on the 'first of January last past' (le premier jour de janvier dernierement passe), in the year 1492; and there are also the three editions of the celebrated letter of Columbus, giving the first account of the discovery of America, all printed at Rome in 1493. Nay, one of the very earliest productions of the German press was an official manifesto of Diether, Archbishop of Cologne, against Count Adolph of Nassau, very satisfactorily proved to have been printed at Mentz in 1462. There is among the German bibliographers a technical name for this class of printed documents, which are called 'Relations.' In fact, in order to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion with regard to the origin of newspapers, it is requisite, in the first place, to settle with some approach to precision what a newspaper is. Four classes of publications succeeded to each other from the 15th to the 19th century, to which the term has by different writers been applied:

2nd. Accounts in one publication of several public transactions of recent occurrence, only connected together by having taken place about the same period, so as at one time to form the 'news of the day.'

3rd. Accounts similar to those of the second class, but issued in a numbered series.

4th. Accounts similar to those of the second class, but issued
not only in a numbered series, but at stated intervals.

   The notices of the surrender of Granada and the discovery of
   America belong to the first class, and so also do the last
   dying speeches, which are in our own time cried about the
   streets. These surely are not newspapers. The Times and Daily
   News [London] belong to the fourth class, and these, of
   course, are newspapers. … Are not, in fact, all the essentials
   of a newspaper comprised in the definition of the second
   class, which it may be as well to repeat: 'Accounts in one
   publication of several public transactions of recent
   occurrence, only connected together by having taken place
   about the same period, so as at one time to form the news of
   the day'? Let us take an instance. There is preserved in the
   British Museum a collection of several volumes of interesting
   publications issued in Italy between 1640 and 1650, and
   containing the news of the times. They are of a small folio
   size, and consist in general of four pages, but sometimes of
   six, sometimes only of two. There is a series for the month of
   December, 1644, consisting entirely of the news from Rome. The
   first line of the first page runs thus:—'Di Roma,' with the
   date, first of the 3rd, then of the 10th, then the 17th, then
   the 24th, and lastly the 31st of December, showing that a
   number was published every week, most probably on the arrival
   of the post from Rome. The place of publication was Florence,
   and the same publishers who issued this collection of the news
   from Rome, sent forth in the same month of December, 1644, two
   other similar gazettes, at similar intervals, one of the news
   from Genoa, the other of the news from Germany and abroad.
   That this interesting series of publications, which is well
   worthy of a minute examination and a detailed description, is
   in reality a series of newspapers, will, I believe, be
   questioned by very few; but each individual number presents no
   mark by which, if separately met with, it could be known to
   form part of a set. …
{2593}
   The most minute researches on the history of newspapers in
   Germany are, as already mentioned, those of Prutz, who has
   collected notices of a large number of the 'relations,' though
   much remains to be gleaned. There are, for instance, in Van
   Heusde's Catalogue of the Library at Utrecht (Utrecht, 1835,
   folio), the titles of nearly a hundred of them, all as early
   as the sixteenth century; and the British Museum possesses a
   considerable quantity, all of recent acquisition. Prutz has no
   notice of the two that have been mentioned, and, like all
   preceding writers, he draws no distinction between the
   publications of the first class and the second. The view that
   he takes is, that no publication which does not answer to the
   definition of what I have termed the fourth class is entitled
   to the name of a newspaper. There was in the possession of
   Professor Grellman a publication called an 'Aviso,' numbered
   as '14,' and published in 1612, which has been considered by
   many German writers as their earliest newspaper, but Prutz
   denies that honour to it, on the ground of there being no
   proof that it was published at stated intervals. In the year
   1615 Egenolph Emmel, of Frankfort-on-the-Main, issued a weekly
   intelligencer, numbered in a series, and this, according to
   Prutz, is the proper claimant. Its history has been traced
   with some minuteness in a separate dissertation by
   Schwarzkopf, who has also the credit of having published in
   1795 the first general essay on newspapers of any value, and
   to have followed up the subject in a series of articles in the
   Allgemeine Litterarische Anzeiger. … The claims of Italy have
   yet to be considered. Prutz dismisses them very summarily,
   because, as he says, the Venetian gazettes of the sixteenth
   century, said to be preserved at Florence, are in manuscript,
   and it is essential to the definition of a newspaper that it
   should be printed. These Venetian gazettes have never, so far
   as I am aware, been described at all; they may be mere
   'news-letters,' or they may be something closely approaching
   to the modern newspaper. But I am strongly inclined to believe
   that something of the second class of Italian origin will turn
   up in the great libraries of Europe when further research is
   devoted to the subject. … The existence of these 'gazettes' in
   so many languages furnishes strong ground for supposing that
   the popularity of newspapers originated in Italy."

      T. Watts,
      The fabricated "Earliest English Newspaper"
      (Gentleman's Magazine, 1850, reprinted in the Gentleman's
      Magazine Library; Bibliographical Notes, pages 146-150).

"Just as the house of Aldus waned and expired, that of the great Dutch printers, the Elzevirs, began obscurely enough at Leyden in 1583. The Elzevir's were not, like Aldus, ripe scholars and men of devotion to learning. Aldus laboured for the love of noble studies; the Elzevirs were acute, and too often 'smart' men of business. The founder of the family was Louis (born at Louvain, 1540, died 1617). But it was in the second and third generations that Bonaventura and Abraham Elzevir began to publish at Leyden their editions in small duodecimo. Like Aldus, these Elzevirs aimed at producing books at once handy, cheap, correct, and beautiful in execution. Their adventure was a complete success. The Elzevirs did not, like Aldus, surround themselves with the most learned scholars of their time. Their famous literary adviser, Heinsius, was full of literary jealousies, and kept students of his own calibre at a distance. The classical editions of the Elzevirs, beautiful, but too small in type for modern eyes, are anything but exquisitely correct. … The ordinary marks of the Elzevirs were the sphere, the old hermit, the Athena, the eagle, and the burning faggot. But all little old books marked with spheres are not Elzevirs, as many booksellers suppose. Other printers also stole the designs for the tops of chapters, the Aegipan, the Siren, the head of Medusa, the crossed sceptres, and the rest. In some cases the Elzevirs published their books, especially when they were piracies, anonymously. When they published for the Jansenists, they allowed their clients to put fantastic pseudonyms on the title pages. But, except in four cases, they had only two pseudonyms used on the titles of books published by and for themselves. These disguises are 'Jean Sambix' for Jean and Daniel Elzevir, at Leyden, and 'for the Elzevirs of Amsterdam, 'Jacques le Jeune.' The last of the great representatives of the house, Daniel, died at Amsterdam, 1680. Abraham, an unworthy scion, struggled on at Leyden till 1712. The family still prospers, but no longer prints, in Holland."

"Though Elzevirs have been more fashionable than at present, they are still regarded by novelists as the great prize of the book collector. You read in novels about 'priceless little Elzevirs,' about books 'as rare as an old Elzevir.' I have met, in the works of a lady novelist (but not elsewhere) with an Elzevir 'Theocritus.' The late Mr. Hepworth Dixon introduced into one of his romances a romantic Elzevir Greek Testament, 'worth its weight in gold.' Casual remarks of this kind encourage a popular delusion that all Elzevirs are pearls of considerable price."

PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1622-1702.
The first printed Newspaper and
the first daily Newspaper in England.

   "Up to 1839 (when Mr. Watts, of the British Museum, exposed
   the forgery) the world was led to believe that the first
   English newspaper appeared in 1588." Mr. Watts "ascertained
   that 'The English Mercurie,' which Mr. George Chalmers first
   discovered on the shelves of the British Museum, and which was
   said to have been 'imprinted in London by her highness's
   printer, 1588,' was a forgery, for which the second Earl of
   Hardwicke appears to be answerable." As to the actual date of
   the appearance of the first printed newspaper in England, "Mr.
   Knight Hunt, in his 'Fourth Estate,' speaks confidently. …
   'There is now no reason to doubt,' he says, 'that the puny
   ancestor of the myriads of broad sheets of our time was
   published in the metropolis in 1622; and that the most
   prominent of the ingenious speculators who offered the novelty
   to the world, was one Nathaniel Butter.' As the printing press
   had then been at work in England for a century and a half,
   Caxton having established himself in Westminster Abbey in
   1471, and as manuscript news-letters had been current for many
   years previous to 1622, one cannot help wondering that the
   inventive wits of that age should have been so slow in finding
   out this excellent mode of turning Faust's invention to
   profitable account.
{2594}
   Butter's journal was called—'The Weekly Newes,' a name which
   still survives, although the original possessor of that title
   has long since gone the way of all newspapers. The first
   number in the British Museum collection bears date the 23rd of
   May, 1622, and contains 'news from Italy, Germanie,' &c. The
   last number made its appearance on the 9th of January, 1640; a
   memorable year, in which the Short Parliament, dismissed by
   King Charles 'in a huff,' after a session of three weeks, was
   succeeded by the Long Parliament, which unlucky Charles could
   not manage quite so easily. … It was nearly a century after
   'The Weekly Newes' made its first appearance, before a daily
   newspaper was attempted. When weekly papers had become firmly
   established, some of the more enterprising printers began to
   publish their sheets twice, and ultimately three times a week.
   Thus at the beginning of last century we find several papers
   informing the public that they are 'published every Tuesday,
   Thursday, and Saturday morning.' One of the most respectable
   looking was entitled 'The New State of Europe,' or a 'True
   Account of Public Transactions and Learning.' It consisted of
   two pages of thin, coarse paper … and contained altogether
   about as much matter as there is in a single column of the
   'Times' of 1855. The custom at that period was to publish the
   newspaper on a folio or quarto sheet, two pages of which were
   left blank to be used for correspondence. This is expressly
   stated in a standing advertisement in the 'New State of
   Europe,' in which the names of certain booksellers are given
   'where any person may have this paper with a blank half sheet
   to write their own private affairs.' … The first number of the
   'Daily Courant' [the first daily newspaper in England] was
   published on the 11th of March, 1702, just three days after
   the accession of Queen Anne. … As regards the form and size of
   the new journal, the 'author' condescends to give the
   following information, with a growling remark at the
   impertinence of the 'Postboys,' 'Postmen,' 'Mercuries,' and
   'Intelligencers' of that day:—'This "Courant" (as the title
   shows) will be published Daily, being designed to give all the
   Material News as soon as every Post arrives, and is confined
   to half the compass to save the Publick at least half the
   Impertinences of ordinary Newspapers.' In addition to the
   Prospectus we have quoted, the first number of the 'Daily
   Courant' contains only nine paragraphs, five of which were
   translated from the 'Harlem Courant,' three from the 'Paris
   Gazette,' and one from the 'Amsterdam Courant.' They all
   relate to the war of the Spanish Succession then waging, or to
   the attempts making by diplomats to settle the affairs of the
   Continent at some kind of Vienna or Utrecht Conference. After
   adhering for several weeks to the strict rule of giving only
   one page of news, and those entirely foreign, the 'Courant'
   begins to show certain symptoms of improvement. The number for
   April 22, contains two pages of news and advertisements. … The
   alteration in the getting-up of the 'Courant' was owing to a
   change of proprietorship. The paper had now come into the
   hands of 'Sam Buckley, at the Dolphin, Little Britain.' … Mr.
   Samuel Buckley, who continued to publish and conduct the
   'Daily Courant' for many years, was a notable man among London
   publishers, as we find from various references to him in the
   fugitive literature of that age."

PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1631.
The first printed Newspaper in France.
Dr. Renandot and his "Gazette."

"The first Frenchman to found a printed newspaper was Dr. Théophraste Renaudot, who obtained the King's privilege for the 'Gazette de France' in 1631. … He was a shrewd man, born at London in 1567, brought up in Paris, but graduate of the Faculty of Montpellier. In 1612, being then twenty-six, he returned to the capital, and somehow got appointed at once doctor to the King. But there was no salary attached to this post, which was in his case purely honorary, and so Renaudot opened a school, though the fact that he, a mere provincial doctor, had obtained a medical appointment at court, was very sore to the Paris Faculty of Medicine, who began to annoy him from that moment. Renaudot, however, was a man far ahead of his contemporaries in sagacity, patience, learning and humanity. Petty spite did not disturb him, or at least it did not deter him from executing any of the numerous plans he had in mind for the welfare of his contemporaries. … This extraordinary man not only inaugurated in France an Estate, Professional and Servants' Agency, as well as an office for private sales and exchanges, but further laid the basis of the Poste Restante, Parcels Delivery, Post-Office Directory, Tourist's Guide and Money Order Office; besides affording an outlet to troubled spirits like those who correspond through the agony column of 'The Times.' It is not surprising that his office in the Rue de la Calandre should soon have been all too small for its multifarious duties and that his original staff of six clerks should, in less than three months, have swelled to fifty. Richelieu, in sheer admiration at the man, sent for him and thanked him for the services he was rendering the King's subjects. He also offered him money to extend his offices, and this Renaudot accepted, but only as a loan. It was his custom to levy a commission of six deniers per livre (franc) on the sales he effected, and by means of these and other receipts he soon repaid the Cardinal every penny that had been advanced to him. But he did more than this. Finding that his registers were not always convenient modes of reference, by reason of the excessive crowds which pressed round them, he brought out a printed advertiser, which is almost the exact prototype of a journal at present well known in London. It was called 'Feuille du Bureau d'Adresses,' and appeared every Saturday, at the price of 1 sou. Opinions differ as to whether this paper preceded the 'Gazette de France,' or was issued simultaneously with it. Probably it was first published in manuscript form, but came out in print at least six months before the 'Gazette,' for a number bearing the date of June 14th, 1631, shows a periodical in full organisation and containing indirect references to advertisements which must have appeared several weeks before. At all events this 'Feuille' was purely an advertisement sheet—a forerunner of the 'Petites Affiches' which were reinvented in 1746—it was in no sense a newspaper. … It is clear that from the moment he started his 'Feuille du Bureau d'Adresses,' Renaudot must have conceived the possibility of founding a news-sheet. … The manuscript News Letters had attained, by the year 1630, to such a pitch of perfection, and found such a ready sale, that the notion of further popularising them by printing must have suggested itself to more than one man before it was actually put into practice. {2595} But the great bar was this, that nothing could be printed without the King's privilege, and this privilege was not lightly granted. … Renaudot, who had no wish to publish tattle, had no reason to fear censorship. He addressed himself to Richelieu, and craved leave to start a printed newspaper under royal patronage. The politic Cardinal was quite shrewd enough to see how useful might be to him an organ which would set information before the public in the manner he desired, and in that manner alone; so he granted all Renaudot wished, in the form of 'letters patent,' securing him an entire monopoly of printing newspapers, and moreover he conferred on his protégé the pompous title of Historiographer of France. The first number of the 'Gazette de France' appeared on Friday, May 30, 1631. Its size was four quarto pages, and its price one sol parisis, i. e. ½d., worth about l½d. modern money. … The first number contained no preface or address, nothing in the way of a leading article, but plunged at once in medias res, and gave news from nineteen foreign towns or countries, but oddly enough, not a line of French intelligence. … The bulk of the matter inserted was furnished direct by Richelieu from the Foreign Office, and several of the paragraphs were written in his own hand. … The publication of the 'Gazette' was continued uninterruptedly from week to week but the press of matter was so great that Renaudot took to issuing a Supplement with the last number of every month. In this he condensed the reports of the preceding numbers, corrected errors, added fresh news, and answered his detractors. … At the end of the year 1631 he suppressed his monthly Supplement, increased the 'Gazette' to eight pages, and announced that for the future he would issue supplements as they were needed. It seems they were needed pretty often, for towards the beginning of the year 1633 Renaudot published Supplements, under the title of 'Ordinaries and Extraordinaries,' as often as twice, and even three times in one week. In fact whenever a budget of news arrived which would nowadays justify a special edition, the indefatigable editor set his criers afoot with a fresh printed sheet, shouting, 'Buy the "Extraordinary," containing the account of the superb burial of the King of Denmark!' or, 'Buy and read of the capture of the beautiful island of Curaçoa in the Indies by the Dutch from the Spaniards!' Renaudot understood the noble art of puffing. He dressed his criers in red, and gave them a trumpet apiece to go and bray the praises of the 'Gazette' on the off days, when the paper did not appear. … On the death of Renaudot, he was succeeded by his sons Eusèbe and Isaac, who in their turn bequeathed the Gazette' to Eusèbe junior, son of the elder brother, who took orders and consequently left no progeny. After this the 'Gazette' became Government property. … In 1762 the 'Gazette' was annexed to the Foreign Office Department. … The 'Gazette de France' continued to appear under royal patronage until May 1st, 1792, when its official ties were snapped and it came out as a private and republican journal with the date 'Fourth Year of Freedom.' The 'Gazette' has flourished with more or less brilliancy ever since, and has been for the last fifty years a legitimist organ, read chiefly in the provinces."

PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1637.
Archbishop Laud's Star-Chamber restriction of printing.

On the 11th of July, 1637, "Archbishop Laud procured a decree to be passed in the star chamber, by which it was ordered, that the master printers should be reduced to twenty in number; and that if any other should secretly, or openly, pursue the trade of printing, he should be set in the pillory, or whipped through the streets, and suffer such other punishment as the court should inflict upon him; that none of the master printers should print any book or books of divinity, law, physic, philosophy, or poetry, till the said books, together with the titles, epistles, prefaces, tables, or commendatory verses, should be lawfully licensed, on pain of losing the exercise of his art, and being proceeded against in the star chamber, &c.; that no person should reprint any book without a new license; that every merchant, bookseller, &c., who should import any book or books, should present a catalogue of them to the archbishop or bishop, &c., before they were delivered, or exposed to sale, who should view them, with power to seize those that were schismatical; and, that no merchant, &c., should print or cause to be printed abroad, any book, or books, which either entirely or for the most part, were written in the English tongue, nor knowingly import any such books, upon pain of being proceeded against in the star chamber, or high commission court. … That there should be four founders of letters for printing, and no more. That the archbishop of Canterbury, or the bishop of London, with six other high commissioners, shall supply the places of those four as they shall become void. That no master founder shall keep above two apprentices at one time. That all journeymen founders be employed by the masters of the trade; and that all the idle journeymen be compelled to work upon pain of imprisonment, and such other punishment as the court shall think fit. That no master founder of letters shall employ any other person in any work belonging to casting and founding of letters than freemen and apprentices to the trade, save only in putting off the knots of metal hanging at the end of the letters when they are first cast; in which work, every master founder may employ one boy only, not bound to the trade."

C. H. Timperley, Encyclopœdia of Literary and Typographical Anecdote, page 490.

PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1647.
Renewed ordinance, in England, against the printers.

   "An ordinance of parliament passed the house of lords on this
   day [September 30, 1647], that no person shall make, write,
   print, sell, publish or utter, or cause to be made, &c., any
   book, pamphlet, treatise, ballad, libel, sheet, or sheets of
   news whatsoever (except the same be licensed by both or either
   house of parliament,) under the penalty of 40s. and an
   imprisonment not exceeding forty days, if he can not pay it:
   if a printer, he is to pay a fine of only 20s., or suffer
   twenty days' imprisonment, and likewise to have his press and
   implements of printing broken in pieces. The book-seller, or
   stationer, to pay 10s., or suffer ten days' imprisonment,—and,
   lastly, the hawker, pedlar, or ballad-singer, to forfeit all
   his printed papers exposed to sale, and to be whipped as a
   common rogue in the parish where he shall be apprehended.
{2596}
   Early in the following year, the committee of estates in
   Scotland passed an act prohibiting the printing under the pain
   of death, any book, declaration, or writing, until these were
   first submitted to their revisal. … One of the consequences of
   these persecutions was the raising up of a new class of
   publishers, those who became noted for what was called
   'unlawful and unlicensed books.' Sparkes, the publisher of
   Prynne's Histriomastix, was of this class. The presbyterian
   party in parliament, who thus found the press closed on them,
   vehemently cried out for its freedom; and it was imagined,
   that when they ascended into power, the odious office of a
   licenser of the press would have been abolished; but these
   pretended friends of freedom, on the contrary, discovered
   themselves as tenderly alive to the office as the old
   government, and maintained it with the extremest vigour. Both
   in England and Scotland, during the civil wars, the party in
   power endeavoured to crush by every means the freedom of the
   press."

      C. H. Timperley,
      Encyclopœdia of Literary and Typographical Anecdote,
      page 506.

PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1654-1694.
   Freedom of the press under Cromwell.
   Censorship under the restored Stuarts.
   Roger L'Estrange and the first news reporters.

"During the Protectorate of Cromwell the newspaper press knew … what it was to enjoy the luxury of freedom. The natural result was that a very great increase took place in the number of new political journals. Most of them, however, had only a very brief existence. Many of their number could not boast of a longer life than six or seven months—nay, many of them not so much as even that term of life. But, as might have been expected, from what was known of the antecedents of Charles II., the freedom of the press, which previously existed, came to an immediate end on his ascending the throne. Hardly had he done so, than an edict was issued, prohibiting the publication of any journal except the London Gazette, which was originally printed at Oxford, and called the Oxford Gazette,—the Court being then resident there on account of the plague raging in London at the time, 1665, when it was commenced, and for some time afterwards. This was an act of pure despotism. But Government at this time reserved to itself the right —a right which there was none to dispute—to publish a broad sheet in connexion with the London Gazette, whenever they might deem it expedient, which should contain either foreign or domestic matters of interest,—of the knowledge of which some of the King's subjects might wish to be put in early possession. … The newspapers of the seventeenth century were permitted, until the time of Charles II., to be published without being licensed by the Government of the day; but in the reign of that despotic sovereign, a law was passed [1662] prohibiting the publication of any newspaper without being duly licensed. … Sir John Birkenhead, … one of the three men whom Disraeli the elder called the fathers of the English press, was appointed to the office of Licenser of the Press. But he was soon succeeded by Sir Roger l'Estrange."

Roger L'Estrange "is remarkable for having been the writer of the best newspapers which appeared before the age of Queen Anne, and, at the same time, a most bitter enemy to the freedom of the press. He was appointed licenser or censor in 1663, and in the same year was given authority to publish all newspapers, periodicals, and pamphlets, not exceeding two sheets in size. He appears to have looked upon his newspaper as a noxious thing, suffered to exist only that an income might be created for him in return for the labour of purging the press. Yet he spared no pains to make his Public Intelligencer readable, and if we may trust his letters now preserved at the State Paper Office, expended in the first year more than £500 on 'spyes for collecting intelligence.' Three years afterwards he estimated the profits at £400 a year. … He sent paid correspondents, or 'spyes' as they were called, to all parts of the country, and even induced some respectable persons, under promise of concealing their names, to contribute occasional paragraphs; these persons were for the most part repaid by sending to them their newspapers and letters free of postage. Another set of 'spyes' was employed in picking up the news of the town on Paul's Walk or in the taverns and coffee–houses. L'Estrange printed about sixteen reams of his Intelligencer weekly, which were for the most part sold by the mercury-women who cried them about the streets. One Mrs. Andrews is said to have taken more than one-third of the whole quantity printed. … Advantage was taken of a slip in the weekly intelligence to deprive L'Estrange of his monopoly in favour of the new Oxford Gazette, published in the winter of 1665 and transferred to London in the ensuing spring. The Gazette was placed under the control of Williamson, then a rising under-Secretary of State, under whose austere influence nothing was suffered to appear which could excite or even amuse the public. … L'Estrange has not been a favourite with historians, and we confess that his harsh measures towards the press are apt to raise a feeling of repugnance. … But he was certainly an enthusiastic and industrious writer, who raised the tone of the press, even while taking pains to fetter its liberty. When he lost his monopoly, that era of desolation began which Macaulay has so forcibly described. The newspapers became completely sterile, omitting events even of such importance as the trial of the seven bishops, and were supplanted in popular favour by the manuscript news-letters, which were, in fact, the only journals of importance. On the day after the abdication of James II. three fresh newspapers appeared, and many more burst out after the appearance of the official journal under the style of the Orange Gazette. But it was not until 1694 that the king was induced to abolish the censorship and to permit free trade in news; 'he doubted much,' says Hume, 'of the salutary effects of such unlimited freedom.' The newspapers increased and multiplied exceedingly for the eighteen years between the abolition of the office of licenser and the passing of the Stamp Act, in 1712, by which a halfpenny tax was laid on every half-sheet of intelligence."

PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1685-1693.
William Bradford and his Press in Philadelphia and New York.

William Bradford, a young printer, of the Society of Friends, came to Philadelphia in the autumn of 1685, and established himself in business. "His first publication was 'Kalendarium Pennsilvaniense, or America's Messenger; Being an Almanack for the Year of Grace 1686.' This brought him a summons before the Governor and Council, for referring to the Proprietary, in the table of chronology, ns 'Lord Penn;' and, on his appearance, he was ordered to blot out the objectionable title, and forbidden to print anything without license from the Provincial Council. In 1687 he was cautioned by the Philadelphia meeting not to print anything touching the Quakers without its approval. Two years later he was again called before the Governor, and Council—this time for printing the charter of the province. The spirited report, in his own handwriting, of his examination on this occasion, is now preserved in the collection of the New York Historical Society. Disappointed at the non-fulfilment of Penn's promise of the government printing and the failure of his scheme for printing an English Bible, which, although indorsed by the meeting, found few subscribers, and harassed by both the civil and religious authorities, Bradford determined to leave the province," which he did, with his family, sailing to England in 1689. He was induced, however, by promises of increased business and a yearly salary of £40, to return. In 1692, having become one of the supporters of George Keith, and having printed Keith's "Appeal", he was arrested and imprisoned.

This occurred in August, and his trial followed in December. The jury disagreed, and he was held for appearance at the next court. "In the meantime the dissensions in the province aroused by the Keithian schism had led to the abrogation of Penn's charter by the crown, and the appointment of Benjamin Fletcher to be Royal Governor of Pennsylvania as well as New York." This change led to the dropping of proceedings against Bradford, and to his removal from Philadelphia to New York, whither he seems to have been invited. His removal was undoubtedly prompted by a resolution which the Provincial Council of New York adopted on the 23d of March, 1693: "That if a Printer will come and settle in the city of New York for the printing of our Acts of Assembly and Publick Papers, he shall be allowed the sum of £40 current money of New York per annum for his salary and have the benefit of his printing besides what serves the publick." "Bradford's first warrant for his salary as 'Printer to King William and Queen Mary, at the City of New York,' was dated October 12, 1693, and was for six months, due on the 10th preceding," showing that he had established himself in the colony more hospitable to his art as early as the 10th of April, 1693. "What was the first product of his press is a matter of doubt. It may have been, as Dr. Moore suggests, the 'Journal of the Late Actions of the French at Canada,' or 'New England's Spirit of Persecution Transmitted to Pennsilvania'"—which was a report of his own trial at Philadelphia—or it may have been an Act of the New York Assembly—one of three which his press produced early that year, but the priority among which is uncertain.

C. R Hildeburn, Printing in New York in the 17th Century (Memorial History of the City of New York, volume 1, chapter 15.)

      ALSO IN:
      I. Thomas,
      History of Printing in America,
      2d edition, volume 1.

PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1695.
Expiration of the Censorship law in England.
Quick multiplication of Newspapers.

"While the Licensing Act was in force there was no newspaper in England except the 'London Gazette,' which was edited by a clerk in the office of the Secretary of State, and which contained nothing but what the Secretary of State wished the nation to know. There were indeed many periodical papers: but none of those papers could be called a newspaper. Welwood, a zealous Whig, published a journal called the Observator: but his Observator, like the Observator which Lestrange had formerly edited, contained, not the news, but merely dissertations on politics. A crazy bookseller, named John Dunton, published the Athenian Mercury: but the Athenian Mercury merely discussed questions of natural philosophy, of casuistry and of gallantry. A fellow of the Royal Society, named John Houghton, published what he called a Collection for the Improvement of Industry and Trade: but his Collection contained little more than the prices of stocks, explanations of the modes of doing business in the City, puffs of new projects, and advertisements of books, quack medicines, chocolate, Spa water, civet cats, surgeons wanting ships, valets wanting masters, and ladies wanting husbands. If ever he printed any political news, he transcribed it from the Gazette. The Gazette was so partial and so meagre a chronicle of events that, though it had no competitors, it had but a small circulation. … But the deficiencies of the Gazette were to a certain extent supplied in London by the coffeehouses, and in the country by the news-letters. On the third of May 1695 the law which had subjected the press to a censorship expired. Within a fortnight, a stanch old Whig, named Harris, who had, in the days of the Exclusion Bill, attempted to set up a newspaper entitled Intelligence Domestic and Foreign, and who had been speedily forced to relinquish that design, announced that the Intelligence Domestic and Foreign, suppressed fourteen years before by tyranny, would again appear. Ten days later was printed the first number of the English Courant. Then came the Packet Boat from Holland and Flanders, the Pegasus, the London Newsletter, the London Post, the Flying Post, the Old Postmaster, the Postboy, and the Postman. The history of the newspapers of England from that time to the present day is a most interesting and instructive part of the history of the country. At first they were small and mean-looking. … Only two numbers came out in a week; and a number contained little more matter than may be found in a single column of a daily paper of our time."

   "There was not a newspaper published in the English colonies,
   throughout the extensive continent of North America, until the
   24th of April, 1704. John Campbell, a Scotchman, who was a
   bookseller and postmaster in Boston, was the first who began
   and established a publication of this kind. It was entitled
   'The Boston News-Letter.' … It is printed on half a sheet of
   pot paper, with a small pica type, folio.
{2598}
   The first page is filled with an extract from 'The London
   Flying Post,' respecting the pretender. … The queen's speech
   to both houses of parliament on that occasion, a few articles
   under the Boston head, four short paragraphs of marine
   intelligence from New York, Philadelphia, and New London, and
   one advertisement, form its whole contents. The advertisement
   is from Campbell, the proprietor of the paper." In 1719, a
   rival paper was started in Boston, called the "Gazette," and
   in 1721, a third, founded by James Franklin, took the name of
   "The New England Courant." Meantime there had appeared at
   Philadelphia, on the 22nd of December, 1719,—only one day
   later than the second of the Boston newspapers—"The American
   Weekly Mercury," printed by Andrew Bradford, son of William
   Bradford. The same printer, Andrew Bradford, removing to New
   York, brought out "The New York Gazette," the first newspaper
   printed in that city, in October, 1725.

"In 1740, the number of newspapers in the English colonies on the continent had increased to eleven, of which one appeared in South Carolina, one in Virginia, three in Pennsylvania—one of them being in German—one in New York, and the remaining five in Boston. … The New England 'Courant,' the fourth American periodical, was, in August 1721, established by James Franklin as an organ of independent opinion. Its temporary success was advanced by Benjamin, his brother and apprentice, a boy of fifteen, who wrote for its columns, worked in composing the types as well as printing off the sheets, and, as carrier, distributed the papers to the customers. The sheet satirized hypocrisy, and spoke of religious knaves as of all knaves the worst. This was described as tending 'to abuse the ministers of religion in a manner which was intolerable.' … In July 1722, a resolve passed the council, appointing a censor for the press of James Franklin; but the house refused its concurrence. The ministers persevered; and, in January 1723, a committee of inquiry was raised by the legislature. Benjamin, being examined, escaped with an admonition; James, the publisher, refusing to discover the author of the offence, was kept in jail for a month; his paper was censured as reflecting injuriously on the reverend ministers of the gospel; and, by vote of the house and council, he was forbidden to print it, 'except it be first supervised.' Vexed at the arbitrary proceedings, Benjamin Franklin, then but seventeen years old, in October 1723, sailed clandestinely for New York. Finding there no employment, he crossed to Amboy; went on foot to the Delaware; for want of a wind, rowed in a boat from Burlington to Philadelphia; and bearing marks of his labor at the oar, weary, hungry, having for his whole stock of cash a single dollar, the runaway apprentice—the pupil of the free schools of Boston, rich in the boundless hope of youth and the unconscious power of modest genius—stepped on shore to seek food and occupation. On the deep foundations of sobriety, frugality and industry, the young journeyman built his fortunes and fame; and he soon came to have a printing-office of his own. … The assembly of Pennsylvania chose him its printer. He planned a newspaper [the 'Pennsylvania Gazette']; and, when (1729] he became its proprietor and editor, he defended freedom of thought and speech, and the inalienable power of the people."

G. Bancroft, History of the United States of America, part 3, chapter 15 (volume 2).

      B. Franklin,
      Life by Himself,
      edited by J. Bigelow,
      part 1.

PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1709-1752.
The Periodicals of the Essayists.
The "Tatler," "Spectator," and their successors.

"In the spring of 1709, Steele [Sir Richard] formed a literary project, of which he was far indeed from foreseeing the consequences. Periodical papers had during many years been published in London. Most of these were political; but in some of them questions of morality, taste, and love-casuistry had been discussed. The literary merit of these works was small indeed; and even their names are now known only to the curious. Steele had been appointed gazetteer by Sunderland, at the request, it is said, of Addison; and thus had access to foreign intelligence earlier and more authentic than was in those times within the reach of an ordinary news-writer. This circumstance seems to have suggested to him the scheme of publishing a periodical paper on a new plan. It was to appear on the days on which the post left London for the country, which were, in that generation, the Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays. It was to contain the foreign news, accounts of theatrical representations, and the literary gossip of Will's and of the Grecian. It was also to contain remarks on the fashionable topics of the day, compliments to beauties, pasquinades on noted sharpers, and criticisms on popular preachers. The aim of Steele does not appear to have been at first higher than this. … Issac Bickerstaff, Esquire, Astrologer, was an imaginary person, almost as well known in that age as Mr. Paul Pry or Mr. Pickwick in ours. Swift had assumed the name of Bickerstaff in a satirical pamphlet against Partridge, the almanac-maker. Partridge had been fool enough to publish a furious reply. Bickerstaff had rejoined in a second pamphlet still more diverting than the first. All the wits had combined to keep up the joke, and the town was long in convulsions of laughter. Steele determined to employ the name which this controversy had made popular; and, in April, 1709, it was announced that Isaac Bickerstaff, Esquire, Astrologer, was about to publish a paper called the 'Tatler.' Addison had not been consulted about this scheme; but as soon as he heard of it, he determined to give it his assistance. The effect of that assistance cannot be better described than in Steele's own words. 'I fared,' he said, 'like a distressed prince who calls in a powerful neighbour to his aid. I was undone by my auxiliary. When I had once called him in, I could not subsist without dependence on him.' 'The paper,' he says elsewhere, 'was advanced indeed. It was raised to a greater thing than I intended it.'"

   "Steele, on the 12th of April 1709, issued the first number of
   the 'Tatler.' … This famous newspaper, printed in one folio
   sheet of 'tobacco paper' with 'scurvy letter,' ran to 271
   numbers, and abruptly ceased to appear in January 1711. It
   enjoyed an unprecedented success, for, indeed, nothing that
   approached it had ever before been issued from the periodical
   press in England. The division of its contents was thus
   arranged by the editor: 'All accounts of gallantry, pleasure,
   and entertainment shall be under the article of White's
   Chocolate House; poetry under that of Will's Coffee-House;
   learning under the title of Grecian; foreign and domestic news
   you will have from St. James's Coffee-House; and what else I
   shall on any other subject offer shall be dated from my own
   apartment.'
{2599}
   The political news gradually ceased to appear. … Of the 271
   'Tatlers,' 188 were written by Steele, 42 by Addison, and 36
   by both conjointly. Three were from the pen of John Hughes. …
   These, at least, are the numbers usually given, but the
   evidence on which they are based is slight. It rests mainly
   upon the indications given by Steele to Tickell when the
   latter was preparing his edition of Addison's Works. The
   conjecture may be hazarded that there were not a few Tatlers
   written by Addison which he was not anxious to claim as his
   particular property. … Addison, … remained Steele's firm
   friend, and less than two months after the cessation of the
   'Tatler' there appeared the first number of a still more
   famous common enterprise, the 'Spectator,' on the 1st of March
   1711. It was announced to appear daily, and was to be composed
   of the reflections and actions of the members of an imaginary
   club, formed around 'Mr. Spectator.' In this club the most
   familiar figure is the Worcestershire Knight, Sir Roger de
   Coverley, the peculiar property of Addison. … The 'Spectator'
   continued to appear daily until December 1712. It consisted of
   555 numbers, of which Addison wrote 274, Steele 236, Hughes
   19, and Pope 1 (The Messiah, 'Spectator' 378). Another
   contributor was Eustace Budgell (1685-1736), Addison's cousin.
   … The 'Spectator' enjoyed so very unequivocal a success that
   it has puzzled historians to account for its discontinuance.
   In No. 517 Addison killed Sir Roger de Coverley 'that nobody
   else might murder him.' This shows a voluntary intention to
   stop the publication, which the Stamp Act itself had not been
   able to do by force."

      E. Gosse,
      A History of Eighteenth Century Literature,
      chapter 6.

"After this, in 1713, came the 'Guardian'; and in 1714 an eighth volume of the 'Spectator' was issued by Addison alone. He was also the sole author of the 'Freeholder,' 1715, which contains the admirable sketch of the 'Tory Foxhunter.' Steele, on his side, followed up the 'Guardian' by the 'Lover,' the 'Reader,' and half-a–dozen abortive efforts; but his real successes, as well as those of Addison, were in the three great collections for which they worked together. … Between the 'Guardian' of 1713 and the 'Rambler' of 1750-2 there were a number of periodical essayists of varying merit. It is scarcely necessary to recall the names of these now forgotten 'Intelligencers,' 'Moderators,' 'Remembrancers,' and the like, the bulk of which were political. Fielding places one of them, the 'Freethinker' of Philips, nearly on a level with 'those great originals the "Tatlers" and the "Spectators;"' but the initial chapters to the different books of 'Tom Jones' attract us more forcibly to the author's own 'Champion,' written in conjunction with the Ralph who 'makes night hideous' in the 'Dunciad.' … Another of Fielding's enterprises in the 'Spectator' vein was the 'Covent Garden Journal,' 1752. … Concurrently with the 'Covent Garden Journal' appeared the final volume of Johnson's 'Rambler,' a work upon the cardinal defect of which its author laid his finger, when in later life, he declared it to be 'too wordy.' Lady Mary said in her smart way that the 'Rambler' followed the 'Spectator' as a pack horse would do a hunter. … In the twenty-nine papers which Johnson wrote for Hawkesworth's 'Adventurer,' the 'Rambler' style is maintained. In the 'Idler,' however, which belongs to a later date, when its author's mind was unclouded, and he was comparatively free from the daily pressure" of necessity, he adopts a simpler and less polysyllabic style."

PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1712.
The first Stamp Tax on Newspapers in England.

   The first stamp tax on newspapers in England went into effect
   on the 12th day of August, 1712. "An act had passed the
   legislature, that 'for every pamphlet or paper contained in
   half a sheet, or lesser piece of paper so printed, the sum of
   one halfpenny sterling: and for every such pamphlet or paper
   being larger than half a sheet, and not exceeding one whole
   sheet, so printed, a duty after the rate of one penny sterling
   for every sheet printed thereof.' This act, which was to curb
   the licentiousness of the press, was to be in force for the
   space of thirty-two years, to be reckoned from the 10th day of
   June, 1712. Addison, in the 'Spectator' of this day, says,
   'this is the day on which many eminent authors will probably
   publish their last works. I am afraid that few of our weekly
   historians, who are men that above all others delight in war,
   will be able to subsist under the weight of a stamp duty in an
   approaching peace. In short, the necessity of carrying a
   stamp, and the impracticability of notifying a bloody battle,
   will, I am afraid, both concur to the sinking of these thin
   folios which have every other day related to us the history of
   Europe for several years last past. A facetious friend of
   mine, who loves a pun, calls this present mortality among
   authors, "the fall of the leaf.'" On this tax Dean Swift thus
   humorously alludes in his Journal to Stella, as follows
   (August 7):—'Do you know that all Grub-street is dead and gone
   last week? No more Ghosts or murders now for love or money. I
   plied it close the last fortnight, and published at least
   seven papers of my own, besides some of other people's; but
   now every single half-sheet pays a halfpenny to the queen. The
   'Observator' is fallen; the 'Medleys' are jumbled together
   with the 'Flying Post'; the 'Examiner' is deadly sick; the
   'Spectator' keeps up and doubles its price; I know not how
   long it will hold. Have you seen the red stamp the papers are
   marked with? Methinks the stamping is worth a half-penny.' The
   stamp mark upon the newspapers was a rose and thistle joined
   by the stalks, and enclosing between the Irish shamrock, the
   whole three were surmounted by a crown. … It is curious to
   observe what an effect this trifling impost had upon the
   circulation of the most favourite papers. Many were entirely
   discontinued, and several of those which survived were
   generally united into one publication. The bill operated in a
   directly contrary manner to what the ministers had
   anticipated; for the opposition, who had more leisure, and
   perhaps more acrimony of feeling, were unanimous in the
   support of their cause. The adherents of ministers, who were
   by no means behind the opposition in their proficiency in the
   topic of defamation, were, it seems, not so strenuously
   supported; and the measure thus chiefly destroyed those whom
   it was Bolinbroke's interest to protect.
{2600}
   For some reason, which we have not been able to trace, the
   stamp-duties were removed shortly after their imposition, and
   were not again enforced until 1725. In order to understand how
   so small a duty as one halfpenny should operate so strongly
   upon these periodical publications, we must look at the price
   at which they were vended at that period. The majority of them
   were published at a penny, many at a halfpenny, and some were
   even published so low as a farthing."

      C. H. Timperley,
      Encyclopædia of Literary and Typographical Anecdote,
      pages 601-602.

"Until Louis XVI. was dethroned, Paris was officially supposed to possess but three periodicals: the 'Gazette de France' for politics, 'Le Journal des Savants' for literature and science, and the 'Mercure de France' for politics, literature, and social matters mingled. For a time these monopolies were respected, but only for a very short time. … During the Regency of the Duke of Orleans (1715-23), the 'Gazette de France,' 'Mercure,' and 'Journal des Savants' combined to bring an action for infringement against all the papers then existing, but they were non-suited on a technical objection; and this was their last attempt at asserting their prerogative."

PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1734.
Zenger's trial in New York.
Determination of the freedom of the Press.

PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1771.
Freedom of Parliamentary reporting won in England.

   "In 1777 there appeared the 'Journal de Paris,' which only
   deserves notice from its being the first daily paper issued in
   France."

PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1784-1813.
The earliest daily Newspapers in the United States.

"The first daily newspaper published in the United States was the 'American Daily Advertiser.' It was issued in Philadelphia in 1784, by Benjamin Franklin Bache, afterwards of the Aurora. When the seat of national government was in Philadelphia, it shared the confidence and support of Jefferson with the 'National Gazette.' It was strong in its opposition to the Federal section of the administration of Washington, and to all the measures originating with Hamilton. Zachariah Poulson became its proprietor and publisher in 1802, and it was known as 'Poulson's Advertiser,' and we believe he continued its publisher till October 28, 1839, when the establishment was sold to Brace and Newbold, the publishers of a new paper called the 'North American.' The name after that was the 'North American and Daily Advertiser.' … The 'New York Daily Advertiser,' the second real journal in the United States, was published in 1785. It was commenced on the 1st of March by Francis Childs & Co. … On the 29th of July, 1786, the 'Pittsburg (Pennsylvania) Gazette,' the first newspaper printed west of the Alleghany Mountains, appeared, and in 1796 the 'Post' was issued. … 'The United States Gazette' was started in New York in 1789 by John Fenno, of Boston. Its original name was 'Gazette of the United States.' It was first issued in New York, because the seat of the national government was then in that city. When Congress removed to Philadelphia in 1790, the 'Gazette' went with that body. In 1792 it was the special organ of Alexander Hamilton. … Noah Webster, the lexicographer of America, was a lawyer in 1793, and had an office in Hartford, Connecticut. 'Washington's administration was then violently assailed by the 'Aurora,' 'National Gazette,' and other organs of the Republican Party, and by the partisans of France. Jefferson was organizing the opposition elements, and Hamilton was endeavoring to strengthen the Federal party. Newspapers were established on each side as the chief means of accomplishing the objects each party had in view. Noah Webster was considered, in this state of affairs, the man to aid the Federalists journalistically in New York. He was, therefore, induced to remove to that city and take charge of a Federal organ. On the 9th of December, 1793, he issued the first number of a daily paper, which was named the 'Minerva.' According to its imprint, it appeared 'every day, Sundays excepted, at four o'clock, or earlier if the arrival of the mail will permit.' … With the 'Minerva' was connected a semi-weekly paper called the 'Herald.' … The names of 'Minerva' and 'Herald' were shortly changed to those of 'Commercial Advertiser' and 'New York Spectator,' and these names have continued. … The 'Commercial Advertiser' is the oldest daily newspaper in the metropolis. Of the hundreds of daily papers started in New York, from the time of Bradford's Gazette in 1725 to the 'Journal of Commerce' in 1827, there are now [1872] only two survivors—the 'Evening Post' and the 'Commercial Advertiser.' … The first prominent daily paper issued in New England was the Boston Daily Advertiser, the publication of which was commenced on the 3d of March, 1813. There was a daily paper begun in that city on the 6th of October, 1796, by Alexander Martin, and edited by John O'Ley Burk, one of the 'United Irishmen.' It lived about six months. It was called the Polar Star and Boston Daily Advertiser. Another was attempted on the 1st of January, 1798, by Caleb P. Wayne, who was afterwards editor of the United States Gazette of Philadelphia. This second daily paper of Boston was named the Federal Gazette and Daily Advertiser. It lived three months. The third attempt at a daily paper in the capital of Massachusetts was a success. It was published by William W. Clapp, afterwards of the Saturday Evening Gazette, and edited by Horatio Biglow."

      F. Hudson,
      Journalism in the United States,
      pages 175-194, and 378.

PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1785-1812.
The founding of "The Times," in London.
The beginning of "leading articles."

The newspaper afterwards famous as "The Times" was started, in 1785, under the name of the "Daily Universal Register," and did not adopt the title of "The Times" until the 1st of January, 1788.

"All the newspapers that can be said to have been distinguished in any way till the appearance of the 'Times' were distinguished by some freak of cleverness. … The 'Times' took up a line of its own from the first day of its existence. The proprietors staked their fortunes upon the general character of their paper, upon the promptitude and accuracy of its intelligence, upon its policy, upon the frank and independent spirit of its comments on public men. … The chief proprietor of the 'Times' was John Walter—a man who knew nothing or next to nothing of newspaper work, but who knew precisely what the public wanted in a newspaper, and possessed, with this instinct and intelligence, the determination and enterprise which constitute the character of a successful man of business. {2601} He saw how a newspaper ought to be conducted, and he thought he saw how, by the development of a new idea in printing, he could produce the 'Times' a good deal cheaper than any of its contemporaries. The whole English language, according to Mr. Walter, consisted of about 90,000 words; but by separating the particles and omitting the obsolete words, technical terms, and common terminations, Mr. Walter believed it to be possible to reduce the stock in common use to about 50,000, and a large proportion of these words, with all the common terminations, he proposed to have cast separately, so that the compositor, with a slip of MS. before him to set in type, might pick up words or even phrases instead of picking up one by one every letter of every word in his copy, and thus, of course, save a good deal of time. The idea was impracticable, utterly impracticable, because the number of words required to carry out the system must in itself be so great that no case of type that a printer could stand before would hold them all, even if the printer 'learn his boxes' with a case of some 4,000 or 5,000 compartments before him; but it took a good many years, a good many experiments, and the expenditure of some thousands of pounds to convince Mr. Walter that the failure was not due to the perversity of his printers but to the practical difficulties which surrounded his conception. John Walter was far more successful in the general conduct of the 'Times' as a newspaper than he was in the management of the 'Times' printing office. He set all the printers in London by the ears with his whim about logographic printing. But he had a very clear conception of what a national newspaper ought to be, and with the assistance of a miscellaneous group of men, who, as they are sketched for us by Henry Crabb Robinson, were apparently far more picturesque than practical, John Walter made the 'Times' what the 'Times' has been for nearly a century, pre-eminently and distinctly a national newspaper. The 'Times,' in its original shape, consisted merely of the day's news, a few advertisements, some market quotations, perhaps a notice of a new book, a few scraps of gossip, and in the session, a Parliamentary report. The 'Morning Chronicle' had the credit … of inventing the leading article, as it had the credit of inventing Parliamentary reporting. The 'Morning Chronicle,' on the 12th of May, 1791, published a paragraph, announcing that 'the great and firm body of the Whigs of England, true to their principles, had decided on the dispute between Mr. Fox and Mr. Burke, in favor of Mr. Fox, as the representative of the pure doctrines of Whiggery,' and that in consequence of this resolution Mr. Burke would retire from Parliament. It was very short, but this paragraph is the nearest approximation that is to be found in the newspapers of that time to a leading article, and appearing as it did in the part of the 'Morning Chronicle' where a year or two afterwards the leading articles were printed, Mr. Wingrove Cooke cites it as the germ of the leaders which, when they became general, gave a distinctive colour and authority to newspapers as independent organs of opinion and criticism. The idea soon became popular; and in the 'Morning Post' and the 'Courier' the leading article, developed as it was by Coleridge and Macintosh into a work of art, often rivalling in argument, wit, and eloquence the best speeches in Parliament, became the object of quite as much interest as the Parliamentary reports themselves. The 'Times,' knowing how to appropriate one by one all the specialties of its contemporaries, and to improve upon what it appropriated, was one of the first newspapers to adopt the idea of leading articles, and in adopting that idea, to improve upon it by stamping its articles with a spirit of frankness and independence which was all its own. … The reign of John Walter, practically the founder of the 'Times,' ended in the year 1812, and upon his death his son, the second John Walter, took possession of Printing House Square, and, acting in the spirit of his father, with ampler means, soon made the 'Times' the power in the State that it has been from that day to this."

PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1830-1833.
The first Penny Papers in the United States.

"The Penny Press of America dates from 1833. There were small and cheap papers published in Boston and Philadelphia before and about that time. The Bostonian was one. The Cent, in Philadelphia, was another. The latter was issued by Christopher C. Cornwall in 1830. These and all similar adventures were not permanent. Most of them were issued by printers when they had nothing else to do. Still they belonged to the class of cheap papers. The idea came from the illustrated Penny Magazine, issued in London in 1830. … The Morning Post was the first penny paper of any pretensions in the United States. It was started on New-Year's Day, 1833, as a two-cent paper, by Dr. Horatio David Shepard, with Horace Greeley and Francis V. Story as partners, printers, and publishers. … After one week's trial, with the exhaustion of the capital, the original idea of Dr. Shepard, his dream of the previous year 1832 was attempted, and the price reduced to one cent; but it was too late. … This experiment, however, was the seed of the Cheap Press. It had taken root. On Tuesday, the 3d of September, in the same year 1833, the first number of the Sun was issued by Benjamin H. Day."

PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1853-1870.
   Extinction of taxes on Newspapers in England.
   The beginning of Penny Papers.
   Rise of the provincial daily press.

"In 1853 the advertisement duty was repealed; in 1855 the obligatory newspaper stamp was abolished, and in 1861, with the repeal of the paper duty, the last check upon the unrestrained journalism was taken away. As a matter of course, the resulting increase in the number of newspapers has been very great as well as the resulting diminution in their price. … When it was seen that the trammels of journalism were about to be loosed the penny paper came into existence. The 'Daily Telegraph,' the first newspaper published at that price, was established in June, 1855, and is now one of the most successful of English journals."

"With the entire freedom from taxation began the modern era of the daily press. At this time [1861] London had nine or ten daily newspapers, with the 'Times' in the lead. Of these, six or seven still survive, and are holding their own with competitors of more recent origin. Up to the time of the abolition of the stamp duties, London was the only city which had a daily press; but between 1855 and 1870 a large number of newspapers published in the provincial cities, which had hitherto been issued in weekly or bi-weekly form, made their appearance as daily journals. With only one or two exceptions, all the prosperous provincial morning papers of to-day were originally weeklies, and as such had long occupied the ground they now hold as dailies."

"It would be wrong to speak of the Newspaper Press of Germany as the fourth estate. In the land which gave Gutenberg and the art of printing to the world, the Press has not yet established a claim to a title so imposing. To the growth and power of a Free Press are needed liberal laws and institutions, with freedom of political opinion and civil action for the subject. Hitherto these fundamental conditions have been absent. During the last fifty years little has been done to liberate the newspaper, to give it free play, to unmuzzle it. It is the misfortune of the German Press that the special laws for the regulation of newspapers and serial publications have been evolved from a system of legislation which was devised in times of great political unrest and agitation. … Liberty of the Press has been one of the leading political watchwords of the reform party during the last three-quarters of a century. Yet though the Press does not stand where it stood at the beginning of the century, when even visiting cards could not be printed without the solemn assent of the public censor, and when objectionable prints were summarily suppressed at the mere beck of a Minister or his subordinate, little ground has been won since the severer features of the measures passed in 1854 for the repression of democratic excesses were abandoned. The constitution of Prussia says that 'Every Prussian has the right to express his opinion freely by word, writing, print, or pictorial representation' (Article 27). But this right is superseded by the provision of the imperial constitution (Article 41, Section 16) which reserves to the Empire the regulation of the Press, and by a measure of May 7th, 1874, which gives to this provision concrete form. This is the Press Law of Germany to-day. The law does, indeed, concede, in principle at least, the freedom of the Press (Pressfreiheit), and it abolishes the formal censorship. But a severe form of control is still exercised by the police, whose authority over the Press is greater in reality than it seems to be from the letter of the statute. It is no longer necessary, as it once was, and still is in Russia, to obtain sanction for the issue of each number before it is sent into the world, but it is the legal duty of a publisher to lay a copy of his journal before the police authority directly it reaches the press. This an informal censor revises, and in the event of any article being obnoxious he may order the immediate confiscation of the whole issue, or a court of law, which in such matters works very speedily, may do so for him. As the police and judicial authorities have wide discretion in the determination of editorial culpability, this power of confiscation is felt to be a harsh one. While the Socialist Law existed the powers of the police were far more extensive than now, and that they were also real is proved by the wholesale extermination of newspapers of Socialistic tendencies which took place between the years 1878 and 1890. Since that law disappeared, however, Socialist journals have sprung up again in abundance, though the experience gained by their conductors in the unhappy past does not enable them to steer clear of friction with the authorities. The police, too, regulates the public sale of newspapers and decides whether they shall be cried in the street or not. In Berlin special editions cannot be published without the prior sanction of this authority. … So frequent are prosecutions of editors that many newspapers are compelled to maintain on their staffs batches of Sitzredakteure, or 'sitting editors,' whose special function is to serve in prison (colloquially sitzen=sit) the terms of detention that may be awarded for the too liberal exercise of the critical faculty. … Some measure of the public depreciation of newspapers is due to the fact that they are largely in Hebrew hands. In the large towns the Press is, indeed, essentially a Jewish institution."

PRINTING AND THE PRESS:
American Periodicals founded before 1870 and existing in 1894.

The following is a carefully prepared chronological list of important newspapers and other periodicals, still published (1894) in the United States and Canada, which have existed for a quarter of a century or more, having been founded before 1870. The * before a title indicates that the information given has been obtained directly from the publisher. For some of the periodicals not so marked, the dates of beginning have been taken from their own files. In other cases, where publishers have neglected to answer a request for information, the facts have been borrowed from Rowell's American Newspaper Directory:

   * Quebec Gazette (French and English), weekly; ran many years
   as tri-weekly, in English; discontinued for about 16 years;
   now resumed as Quebec Gazette in connection with Quebec
   Morning Chronicle (founded 1847).

   1766 or 1767.
   * Connecticut Herald and Post Boy
   (New Haven); various names;
   now Connecticut Herald and Weekly Journal.

   1768.
   * Essex Gazette; changes of name and place; suspended;
   revived at Salem, Massachusetts, as Salem Mercury, 1786;
   became semi-weekly, 1796; became Salem Daily Gazette, 1892.

   1771.
   * Pennsylvania Packet and General Advertiser
   (Philadelphia), weekly;
   became Pennsylvania Packet and American Daily Advertiser,
   daily, 1784;
   consolidated with North American (founded 1839), 1839;
   consolidated with United States Gazette (established 1789,
   see 1789, Gazette of the U. S.),
   as North American and United States Gazette, 1847;
   became North American, 1876.

   1773.
   * Maryland Journal and Baltimore Advertiser;
   merged in Baltimore American, 1799.

   1778.
   * Gazette (Montreal), weekly; now daily and weekly;
   since 1870 absorbed Telegraph and Daily News.

   1785.
   *Falmouth (Maine) Gazette and Weekly Advertiser;
   Cumberland Gazette, 1786;
   Gazette of Maine, 1790;
   Eastern Herald, 1792;
   Eastern Herald and Gazette of Maine, 1796;
   Jenks' Portland Gazette, 1798;
   Portland Gazette and Maine Advertiser, 1805;
   Portland Advertiser, semi-weekly, 1823; daily, 1831.
   * Journal (Poughkeepsie, New York); established to take the
   place of New York Journal, published at Poughkeepsie, 1778-1783;
   consolidated with Eagle (founded 1828—see 1828,
   Dutchess Intelligencer), as Journal and Eagle;
   became Eagle after a few years.

   1786.
   Hampshire Gazette (Northampton, Massachusetts).
   Pittsburgh Commercial Gazette.

   1789.
   * Gazette of the United States (New York);
   removed to Philadelphia, 1790; daily, 1793;
   became The Union, or United States Gazette and True American;
   merged in North American, 1847.
   Berkshire County Eagle (Pittsfield, Massachusetts), weekly.

   1793.
   Gazette (Cincinnati), weekly; added daily,
   Commercial Gazette, 1841.
   Minerva (New York), daily, and Herald, semi-weekly;
   became Commercial Advertiser, and New York Spectator.
   Newburyport (Massachusetts) Herald.
   Utica Gazette; consolidated with Herald (founded 1847),
   as Morning Herald and Gazette.

   1796.
   * Sentinel of Freedom (Newark), weekly;
   added Newark Daily Advertiser, daily, 1832.

   1801.
   New York Evening Post.
   Ægis and Gazette (Worcester), weekly;
   added Evening Gazette, 1843.

   1805.
   Missionary Herald (Boston), monthly.
   * Quebec Mercury, tri-weekly; became daily about 1860.

   1806.
   * Precurser (Montpelier), weekly;
   became Vermont Watchman, 1807, weekly.

   1807.
   * New Bedford (Massachusetts) Mercury, weekly;
   added daily, 1831.

   1808.
   * Cooperstown(New York) Federalist;
   became Freeman's Journal, weekly, 1820.
   Le Canadien (Montreal).
   St. Louis Republic, weekly; added daily, 1835.

   1809.
   * New Hampshire Patriot (Concord, New Hampshire);
   consolidated with People (founded 1868)
   as People and Patriot, 1878, daily and weekly.
   Montreal Herald.

   1811.
   * Buffalo Gazette, weekly;
   became Niagara Patriot, weekly, 1818;
   became Buffalo Patriot, weekly, July 10, 1821;
   added Buffalo Commercial Advertiser, daily, 1835.
   * Western Intelligencer;
   Western Intelligencer and Columbus Gazette, 1814;
   became Ohio State Journal, 1825; daily, 1839.

   1812.
   * Columbian Weekly Register (New Haven);
   added Evening Register, daily, 1848.

   1816.
   * Boston Recorder; merged in Congregationalist, weekly, 1867.
   Knoxville Tribune, weekly; added daily, 1865.
   Rochester Union and Advertiser, weekly; added daily, 1826.

   1819.
   * Cleveland Herald;
   consolidated with Evening News (founded 1868), 1885.
   See 1848. Cleveland Leader.
   Arkansas Gazette (Little Rock).
   * Oswego Palladium, weekly; added daily about 1860.

   1820.
   Nova Scotian (Halifax), weekly;
   added Chronicle, 3 times a week, 1845;
   added Morning Chronicle, 1865.
   * Manufacturers' and Farmers' Journal
   (Providence), semi-weekly; added Daily Journal, 1829.

   1821.
   * Christian Register (Boston), weekly.
   Indianapolis Sentinel.
   Mobile Register.

   1822.
   Broome Republican (Binghamton, New York), weekly;
   added Republican, daily, 1849.
   * Old Colony Memorial (Plymouth, Massachusetts), weekly;
   has absorbed Plymouth Rock, and Old Colony Sentinel.

   1823.
   Auburn (New York) News and Democrat, weekly;
   added Bulletin, daily, 1870.
   Zion's Herald (Boston), weekly.
   * New Hampshire Statesman (Concord), weekly;
   consolidated with Independent Democrat (founded 1845),
   as Independent Statesman, 1871; added daily,
   Concord Evening Monitor, 1864.
   * Western Censor and Emigrant's Guide (Indianapolis);
   became Indianapolis Journal, weekly,
   and semi-weekly during session of the Legislature;
   became weekly and daily, 1850.
   * Observer (New York), weekly.
   * Register (New York), weekly; became Examiner, 1855.
   Poughkeepsie News-Telegraph, weekly;
   added News-Press, daily, 1852.

   1824.
   * Springfield (Massachusetts) Republican, weekly;
   added daily, 1844.

   1825.
   Kennebec Journal, weekly; added daily, 1870.
   * Rome (New York) Republican, weekly; became Telegram;
   became Sentinel, 1837; added daily, 1852-1860;
   added daily, 1881.

   1826.
   Detroit Free Press, weekly; added daily, 1835.
   * Lowell Courier, weekly; added daily, 1845;
   weekly now called Lowell Weekly Journal.
   * La Minerve (Montreal), daily and weekly.
   Christian Advocate (New York), weekly.
   Journal of the Franklin Institute (Philadelphia), monthly.
   * St. Lawrence Republican (Potsdam, New York) weekly;
   removed to Canton, N. Y., 1827; removed to Ogdensburg, 1830,
   and consolidated with St. Lawrence Gazette (founded 1815);
   purchased by Ogdensburg Journal (founded 1855), daily, 1858;
   both papers continue.
   Rochester Democrat; consolidated with
   Chronicle (founded 1868) as Democrat and Chronicle.

   1827.
   * Youth's Companion (Boston), weekly.
   * Independent News Letter (Cleveland);
   became Advertiser, 1832; became Plain Dealer, 1842.
   Columbus (Ohio) Press.
   New York Journal of Commerce.

   1828.
   * Orleans Republican (Albion, New York), weekly.
   Burlington (Vermont) Free Press, weekly, added daily, 1844.
   Montgomery (Alabama) Advertiser.
   * Dutchess Intelligencer (Poughkeepsie, New York);
   consolidated with Dutchess Republican, as Poughkeepsie Eagle,
   weekly, 1833; consolidated with Poughkeepsie Journal
   (see 1785, Journal), as Journal and Eagle, 1844; now Eagle;
   added daily, 1860.

   1829.
   * Auburn (New York) Journal, weekly;
   added Daily Advertiser, 1844.
   * Northwestern Journal (Detroit), weekly;
   semi-weekly, then 3 times a week, 1835;
   became Daily Advertiser, 1836;
   consolidated with Tribune (founded 1849), as
   Advertiser and Tribune, 1862;
   consolidated with Daily Post (founded 1866),
   as Post and Tribune, 1877; became Tribune, 1885.
   * Elmira Gazette, weekly, added daily, 1860.
   Philadelphia Inquirer.
   * Providence Daily Journal.
   * Syracuse Standard; successor to Onondaga Standard.

   1830.
   * Albany Evening Journal.
   * Boston Transcript.
   Louisville Journal; consolidated with Courier
   (founded 1843) and Democrat (founded 1844),
   under name of Louisville Courier-Journal, 1868.
   * Evangelist (New York), weekly.
   * Sunday School Journal (Philadelphia), weekly;
   merged in Sunday School Times, 1859.

   1831.
   Orleans American (Albion, New York), weekly.
   * Boston Daily Post.
   Presbyterian (Philadelphia), weekly.
   Illinois State Journal (Springfield), weekly;
   added daily, 1848.

   1832.
   * Patriot (Montpelier, Vermont);
   consolidated with Argus (founded 1851, Bellows Falls),
   as Argus and Patriot, weekly, 1862.
   * Herald (New Haven), daily; various names;
   became Journal and Courier, 1849.
   Morning Journal and Courier (New Haven).

   1833.
   * Catholic Intelligencer (Boston), weekly;
   successor to Jesuit; became Pilot, 1836.
   * Boston Mercantile Journal; now Boston Journal.
   * The Sun (New York).

   1834.
   Bangor Whig and Courier.
   * Western Christian Advocate (Cincinnati), weekly.
   * British Whig (Kingston, Ontario), daily, 1849.
   * New Yorker Staats-Zeitung, weekly; added daily, 1845
   Anzeiger des Westens (St. Louis).

   1835.
   * New York Herald.
   Schenectady Reflector, weekly; added Evening Star, 1855.
   Troy Morning Telegram.

   1836.
   * Miner's Express, weekly;
   merged in Dubuque Herald (founded 1853), now daily and weekly.
   * Public Ledger and Daily Transcript (Philadelphia).
   * Illinois State Register (Vandalia), weekly;
   absorbed People's Advocate, 1836;
   removed to Springfield, 1839;
   absorbed Illinois Republican, 1839; added daily, 1848.
   * Toledo Blade, weekly; added daily, 1848.

   1837.
   * Sun (Baltimore), daily and weekly.
   Buffalo Demokrat und Weltbürger.
   Burlington (Iowa) Gazette.
   * Cincinnati Times, daily and weekly;
   daily consolidated with Star (founded 1872),
   daily and weekly, as Cincinnati Times-Star, 1880.
   Southern Christian Advocate (Columbia, South Carolina), weekly.
   Jackson (Mississippi) Clarion, weekly.
   * Milwaukee Sentinel, weekly;
   absorbed Gazette and became Sentinel-Gazette, 1846;
   dropped "Gazette," 1851; daily 1844.
   * New Orleans Picayune.

   1838.
   Bangor Commercial.
   * Philadelphia Demokrat.
   * St. Louis Evening Gazette;
   became Evening Mirror, 1847;
   became New Era, 1848;
   became Intelligencer, 1849;
   became Evening News, 1857;
   consolidated with Dispatch, 1867;
   consolidated with Evening Post, as Post Dispatch, 1878.

   1839.
   * Iowa Patriot (Burlington), weekly;
   became Hawkeye and Iowa Patriot;
   has been, at various times, semi-weekly, and daily;
   now Burlington Hawkeye, daily and weekly.
   * Christliche Apologete (Cincinnati), weekly.
   * Madison Express, weekly;
   became Wisconsin Express, 1848; daily, 1851;
   consolidated with a new paper, Statesman, as Palladium,
   daily and weekly, 1852;
   became Wisconsin State Journal, 1852.
   Freeman's Journal and Catholic Register (New York), weekly.
   * North American (Philadelphia);
   absorbed Pennsylvania Packet
   (see 1771, Pennsylvania Packet), 1839.
   Western State Journal (Syracuse), weekly;
   became Syracuse Journal, 1844; added daily, 1846;
   absorbed Evening Chronicle, 1856; added semi-weekly, 1893.

   1840.
   Chicago Tribune.
   * Appeal Memphis);
   consolidated with Avalanche (founded 1857),
   as Appeal-Avalanche, 1890 (?);
   consolidated with Commercial (founded 1889),
   as Commercial Appeal, 1894.
   * Union and Evangelist (Uniontown, Pennsylvania);
   became Evangelist and Observer at Pittsburgh;
   succeeded by Cumberland Presbyterian,
   about 1846, at Uniontown; removed to Brownsville;
   then to Waynesburg; to Alton, Illinois, in 1868;
   and to Nashville, Tennessee, in 1874;
   here consolidated with Banner of Peace
   (founded, Princeton, Kentucky, 1840;
   removed to Lebanon, Tennessee, 1843; then to Nashville).
   * Roman Citizen, weekly; became Rome Semi-Weekly Citizen, 1888.

   1841.
   * Brooklyn Eagle.
   * Prairie Farmer (Chicago), weekly.
   * New York Tribune.
   * Pittsburgh Chronicle;
   consolidated with Pittsburgh Telegraph (founded 1873), as
   Pittsburgh Chronicle Telegraph, 1884.
   Reading Eagle, weekly; added daily, 1868.

   1842.
   * Daily Mercantile Courier and Democratic Economist (Buffalo);
   became Daily Courier and Economist, 1843;
   became Buffalo Courier, daily, 1845.
   * Cincinnati Enquirer, daily and semi-weekly.
   * Galveston News.
   Rural New Yorker (New York), weekly.
   * Preacher (Pittsburgh), weekly;
   became United Presbyterian, 1854.

   1843.
   * Albany Daily Knickerbocker;
   consolidated with Press (founded 1877), as
   Daily Press and Knickerbocker, 1877.
   * Steuben Courier (Bath, New York).

   1844.
   Chicago Evening Journal.
   * Woechentlicher Seebote (Milwaukee);
   became Der Seebote, daily and Woechentlicher Seebote.
   * American Baptist (New York);
   became Baptist Weekly;
   has absorbed Gospel Age;
   became Christian Inquirer, weekly, 1888.
   * Churchman (New York), weekly.
   *New Yorker Demokrat; New Yorker Journal, 1862;
   consolidated as New Yorker Zeitung, 1878.
   Eclectic Magazine of Foreign Literature (New York), monthly.
   Ledger (New York), weekly.
   Oswego Times.
   * Globe (Toronto).

   1845.
   * Binghamton Democrat, weekly; added daily, 1864.
   * Buffalo Morning Express.
   * Independent Democrat (Concord, New Hampshire).
   See 1823, New Hampshire Statesman.
   Montreal Witness, weekly; added daily, 1860.
   Scientific American (New York), weekly.
   * St. Joseph (Missouri) Gazette, daily and weekly.

   1846.
   * Boston Herald, daily and weekly.
   * Evening News (Hamilton, Ontario), daily and weekly;
   successor to Journal and Express, semi-weekly;
   became Banner and Railway Chronicle, 1852 or 1853;
   became Evening Times, 1858.
   * Hamilton (Ontario) Spectator, semi-weekly; added daily, 1852.
   Keokuk (Iowa) Gate City.
   * Bankers' Magazine (New York), monthly.
   * Newport (Rhode Island) Daily News.
   Pittsburgh Dispatch.

   1847.
   * Albany Morning Express.
   New England Historical and Genealogical Register (Boston),
   quarterly.
   Boston Traveller.
   Illinois Staats-Zeitung (Chicago).
   * Lewiston (Maine) Weekly Journal;
   added Evening Journal, 1861.
   London (Ontario) Free Press, weekly; added daily, 1859.
   * Evening Wisconsin Milwaukee).
   Iron Age (New York), weekly.
   Toledo Commercial.
   Utica Morning Herald; consolidated with Gazette (founded 1793),
   as Morning Herald and Gazette.

   1848.
   * Massachusetts Teacher;
   afterwards, with College Courant (founded 1866, New Haven),
   Rhode Island Schoolmaster (founded 1855),
   and Connecticut School Journal,
   formed Journal of Education (founded 1875, Boston).
   * Williamsburg Times; became Brooklyn Daily Times, 1854.
   * Cleveland Leader, daily;
   added, by purchase, Evening News (founded 1868), 1869;
   purchased Cleveland Herald (founded 1819), and consolidated it
   with Evening News, as News and Herald, 1885.
   Des Moines Leader.
   * Independent (New York), weekly.

   1849.
   * Congregationalist (Boston), weekly;
   absorbed Boston Recorder (founded 1816), 1867.
   * Detroit Tribune; consolidated with Post, 1877.
   See 1829, Northwestern Journal.
   * Irish American (New York), weekly.
   * Water Cure Journal (New York);
   became Herald of Health, 1863;
   became Journal of Hygiene and Herald of Health, m., 1893.
   * St. Paul Pioneer, weekly; daily, 1854;
   consolidated with St. Paul Press (founded 1860), daily,
   as Pioneer Press, 1875.
   Wilkesbarre Leader, weekly; added daily, 1879.

   1850.
   * Buffalo Christian Advocate, weekly.
   Kansas City (Missouri) Times.
   Mirror and American (Manchester, New Hampshire).
   Harper's New Monthly Magazine (New York).
   * Oregonian (Portland), weekly; added daily, 1861.
   Richmond Dispatch.
   * Deseret News (Salt Lake City), weekly;
   added semi-weekly, 1865; added daily, 1867.
   * Morning News (Savannah, Georgia), daily and weekly;
   absorbed Savannah Republican (founded 1802),
   and Savannah Daily Advertiser (founded 1866), 1874.
   * Watertown (New York) Weekly Reformer;
   added Daily Times, 1860.

   1851.
   La Crosse Morning Chronicle.
   * Union Democrat (Manchester, New Hampshire), weekly;
   added Manchester Union, daily, 1863.
   * Argus (Bellows Falls); consolidated with Patriot,
   at Montpelier, under name of Argus and Patriot, weekly, 1862.
   * New York Times, daily and weekly.
   * Rochester Beobachter, weekly; 3 times a week, 1855;
   daily, 1863; consolidated with Abendpost (founded 1880),
   as Rochester Abendpost und Beobachter, daily and weekly, 1881.
   St. Joseph (Mo.) Herald.
   * Troy (New York) Times, daily.

   1852.
   Wächter am Erie (Cleveland).
   St. Louis Globe–Democrat.
   Wheeling Intelligencer (Wheeling, West Virginia).

   1853.
   Elmira Advertiser.
   Frank Leslie's Illustrated Weekly (New York).
   Richmond Anzeiger.
   San Francisco Evening Post.
   Toledo Express.
   Washington Evening Star.
   * Record of the Times (Wilkesbarre), weekly;
   added Wilkesbarre Record, daily, 1873.

   1854.
   * Deutsche Zeitung (Charleston, South Carolina),
   semi-weekly and weekly;
   suspended during four years of Civil War.
   Chicago Times, daily and weekly.
   * American Israelite (Cincinnati), weekly.
   * Kansas City (Missouri) Journal, weekly; added daily, 1864.
   La Crosse Republican and Leader.
   Herold (Milwaukee).
   * Nebraska City News.
   * Anzeiger des Nordens (Rochester);
   became Rochester Volksblatt, weekly, 1859, added daily, 1863.

   1855.
   * Ogdensburg Journal, daily;
   purchased St. Lawrence Republican (founded 1826), weekly, 1858.

   1856.
   * Albany Times; absorbed Evening Courier, 1861;
   consolidated with Evening Union (founded 1882),
   as Albany Times-Union, daily and weekly, 1891.
   * Buffalo Allgemeine Zeitung, weekly;
   succeeded by Buffalo Freie Presse, daily 3 months,
   then semi-weekly; daily, 1872.
   * Iowa State Register (Des Moines), weekly; added daily, 1861.
   Dubuque Times.
   * Western Railroad Gazette (Chicago), weekly;
   became Railroad Gazette; removed to New York, 1871.
   San Francisco Call.
   * Scranton Republican, weekly; added daily, 1867.

   1857.
   Baltimore News.
   Atlantic Monthly (Boston).
   * Banner of Light (Boston), weekly.
   Leavenworth Times.
   New Haven Union.
   Harper's Weekly (New York).
   * Jewish Messenger (New York), weekly.
   * Scottish American (New York), weekly.
   Philadelphia Press.
   Courrier du Canada (Quebec).
   Westliche Post (St. Louis).
   Syracuse Courier.

   1858.
   Hartford Evening Post; Connecticut Post, weekly.
   Nebraska Press (Nebraska City), daily and weekly.
   Rochester Post-Express.

   1859.
   * Boston Commercial Bulletin, weekly.
   * Rocky Mountain News (Denver), weekly; added daily, 1860.
   Kansas City (Missouri) Post (German).
   * Sunday School Times (Philadelphia), weekly;
   succeeded Sunday School Journal (founded 1830);
   absorbed Sunday School Workman (founded 1870), 1871;
   absorbed National Sunday School Teacher (founded 1866), 1882.
   St. John (New Brunswick) Globe.

   1862.
   * New Yorker Journal. See 1844, New Yorker Demokrat.
   * Maine State Press (Portland), weekly;
   Portland Press, daily.
   Raleigh News and Observer.
   St. John (New Brunswick) Telegraph, weekly;added daily, 1869.

   1863.
   * Brooklyn Daily Union;
   consolidated with Brooklyn Daily Standard (founded 1884),
   as Brooklyn Standard Union, 1887.
   London (Ontario) Advertiser.
   * New Orleans Times;
   consolidated with Democrat (founded 1876),
   as New Orleans Times–Democrat, 1881, all daily and weekly.
   Army and Navy Journal (New York), weekly.
   Portland (Oregon) Evening Telegram.
   Providence Evening Bulletin.
   * Sioux City Journal, weekly; added daily, 1870.
   * Wheeling Register.

   1864.
   * Concord (New Hampshire) Evening Monitor, daily;
   issued in connection with Independent Statesman
   (see 1823, New Hampshire Statesman).
   Reading Post (German), weekly; added daily, 1867.
   * Springfield (Massachusetts) Union.

   1865.
   Albany Evening Post.
   * Skandinaven (Chicago), weekly; daily, 1871.
   Halifax Morning Chronicle.
   Florida Times-Union (Jacksonville).
   Memphis Public Ledger.

* Catholic World (New York City), monthly. [https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/39367 (first of many)]

   * Commercial and Financial Chronicle (New York), weekly;
   absorbed Hunt's Merchants' Magazine, 1870.
   Nation (New York), weekly
   Norfolk Virginian.
   * Daily Herald (Omaha, Nebraska); consolidated with
   Evening World (founded 1885), as World-Herald, 1889.
   * Index (Petersburg, Virginia);
   consolidated with Appeal (successor to Express,
   founded in 1848), as Index-Appeal, 1873.
   Philadelphia Abend Post.
   San Antonio Express.
   * San Francisco Chronicle.
   * Union (Schenectady), daily, and weekly.

   1866.
   * Denver Tribune;
   consolidated with Denver Republican (founded 1878),
   under name of Tribune-Republican, 1884;
   became Denver Republican, daily and weekly.
   * Christian at Work (New York), weekly;
   became Christian Work, 1894;
   has absorbed The Continent, The Manhattan Magazine,
   Every Thursday, and others.
   Engineering and Mining Journal (New York), weekly.
   Sanitarian (New York), monthly.

   1867.
   * Advance (Chicago), weekly.
   * Evening Journal (Jersey City).
   * Nebraska Commonwealth (Lincoln), weekly; became
   Nebraska State Journal, weekly, 1869; added daily, 1870.
   * Democrat (Madison, Wisconsin), daily and weekly.
   Minneapolis Tribune.
   * Le Monde (Montreal).
   Engineering News (New York), weekly.
   Harper's Bazaar (New York), weekly.
   American Naturalist (Philadelphia), monthly.
   * L'Evenement (Quebec).
   * Seattle Intelligencer, weekly; daily, 1876;
   consolidated with Post (founded 1878), daily,
   under name of Post-Intelligencer, 1881.
   Vicksburg Commercial Herald, weekly; added daily, 1869.
   Wilmington (North Carolina) Messenger.
   * Morning Star (Wilmington, North Carolina).

   1868.
   Atlanta Constitution.
   * Buffalo Volksfreund, daily and weekly.
   * People (Concord, New Hampshire).
   See 1809, New Hampshire Patriot.
   Lippincott's Magazine (Philadelphia), monthly.
   St. Paul Dispatch.
   * San Diego Union, weekly; added daily, 1871.
   Troy Press.

   1869.
   * Evening Star (Montreal);
   became Montreal Evening Star, then Montreal Daily Star;
   added Family Herald and Weekly Star, weekly.
   * Christian Union (New York), weekly; became The Outlook, 1893.
   Manufacturer and Builder (New York), monthly.
   * Ottawa Free Press, daily and weekly.
   Scranton Times, daily and weekly.

PRIOR. PRIORY.

"These were cells of foreign abbeys, founded upon estates which English proprietors had given to the foreign houses."

PRIORS OF THE FLORENTINE GUILDS.

PRISAGE.

PRISONS AND PRISON-PENS,
   Confederate.
   Libby.
   Belle Isle.
   Andersonville.

"The Libby, which is best known, though also used as a place of confinement for private soldiers, is generally understood to be the officers' prison. It is a row of brick buildings, three stories high, situated on the canal [in Richmond, Virginia], and overlooking the James river, and was formerly a tobacco warehouse. … The rooms are 100 feet long by 40 feet broad. In six of these rooms, 1,200 United States officers, of all grades, from the Brigadier-General to the Second-Lieutenant, were confined for many months, and this was all the space that was allowed them in which to cook, eat, wash, sleep, and take exercise. … Ten feet by two were all that could be claimed by each man—hardly enough to measure his length upon; and even this was further abridged by the room necessarily taken for cooking, washing and clothes-drying. At one time they were not allowed the use of benches, chairs, or stools, nor even to fold their blankets and sit upon them, but those who would rest were obliged to huddle on their haunches, as one of them expresses it, 'like so many slaves on the middle passage.' After awhile this severe restriction was removed, and they were allowed to make chairs and stools for themselves, out of the barrels and boxes which they had received from the North. They were overrun with vermin in spite of every precaution and constant ablutions. Their blankets, which averaged one to a man, and sometimes less, had not been issued by the rebels, but had been procured in different ways; sometimes by purchase, sometimes through the Sanitary Commission. The prisoners had to help themselves from the refuse accumulation of these articles. … The prison did not seem to be under any general and uniform army regulations, but the captives were subject to the caprices of Major Turner, the officer in charge, and Richard Turner, inspector of the prison. It was among the rules that no one should go within three feet of the windows, a rule which seems to be general in all Southern prisons of this character. … Often by accident, or unconsciously, an officer would go near a window, and be instantly shot at without warning. The reports of the sentry's musket were heard almost every day, and frequently a prisoner fell either killed or wounded. It was even worse with a large prison near by, called the Pemberton Buildings, which was crowded with enlisted men. … The daily ration in the officers' quarter of Libby Prison was a small loaf of bread about the size of a man's fist, made of Indian meal. Sometimes it was made from wheat flour, but of variable quality. It weighed a little over half a pound. With it was given a piece of beef weighing two ounces. … But there is a still lower depth of suffering to be exposed. The rank of the officers, however disregarded in most respects, induced some consideration, but for the private soldiers there seemed to be no regard whatever, and no sentiment which could restrain. It is to this most melancholy part of their task that the Commissioners now proceed. Belle Isle is a small island in the James river, opposite the Tredegar Iron–works, and in full sight from the Libby windows. … The portion on which the prisoners are confined is low, sandy, and barren, without a tree to cast a shadow, and poured upon by the burning rays of a Southern sun. Here is an enclosure, variously estimated to be from three to six acres in extent, surrounded by an earthwork about three feet high, with a ditch on either side. … The interior has something of the look of an encampment, a number of Sibley tents being set in rows, with 'streets' between. These tents, rotten, torn, full of holes,—poor shelter at any rate,—accommodated only a small proportion of the number who were confined within these low earth walls. The number varied at different periods, but from 10,000 to 12,000 men have been imprisoned in this small space at one time, turned into the enclosure like so many cattle, to find what resting place they could. … Thousands had no tents, and no shelter of any kind. Nothing was provided for their accommodation. Lumber was plenty in a country of forests, but not a cabin or shed was built. … Every day, during the winter season, numbers were conveyed away stiff and stark, having fallen asleep in everlasting cold. … They were fed as the swine are fed. A chunk of corn-bread, 12 or 14 ounces in weight, half-baked, full of cracks as if baked in the sun, musty in taste, containing whole grains of corn, fragments of cob, and pieces of husks; meat often tainted, suspiciously like mule–meat, and a mere mouthful at that; two or three spoonfuls of rotten beans; soup thin and briny, often with worms floating on the surface. None of these were given together, and the whole ration was never one-half the quantity necessary for the support of a healthy man."

V. Mott, and others, Report of United States Sanitary Commission Com. of Inquiry on the Sufferings of Prisoners of War in the hands of the Rebel Authorities, chapters 2-3.

   The little hamlet of Anderson, so named, in 1853, after John
   W. Anderson, of Savannah, but called Andersonville by the Post
   Office Department, is situated in the heart of the richest
   portion of the cotton and corn-growing region of Georgia, on
   the Southwestern Railroad, 62 miles south from Macon and 9
   miles north of Americus. "Here, on the 27th day of November,
   1863, W. S. Winder, a captain in the rebel army, and who was
   selected for the purpose, came and located the grounds, for a
   'Confederate States Military Prison.' … When the site was
   definitely established, it was found to be covered with a
   thick growth of pines and oaks. … It was … suggested to W. S.
   Winder by a disinterested spectator of his preliminary
   proceedings … that the shade afforded by the trees would prove
   grateful protections to the prisoners. The reply was
   characteristic of the man and prophetic of their future fate.
   'That is just what I am not going to do! I will make a pen
   here for the d—d Yankees, where they will rot faster than they
   can be sent!' … The trees were leveled to the ground, and the
   space was cleared. … No buildings, barracks, houses, or huts
   of any kind were built.
{2608}
   The canopy of the sky was the only covering." In March, 1864,
   John H. Winder, father of the W. S. Winder mentioned above,
   became commandant of the post, and with him came Henry Wirz,
   as superintendent of the prison. These two names are linked in
   infamy with the horrors of the Andersonville Prison-Pen. "The
   stockade at Andersonville was originally built, as we learn
   from many sources, with a capacity for 10,000, its area being
   about 18 acres. It continued without enlargement until the
   month of June, 1864, when it was increased about one third,
   its area then, as shown by actual survey, being 23½ acres. …
   From Colonel Chandler's Inspection Report [the report of a
   Confederate official], dated August 5th, 1864, I quote the
   following: 'A railing around the inside of the stockade, and
   about 20 feet from it, constitutes the 'dead line,' beyond
   which prisoners are not allowed to pass. A small stream passes
   from west to east through the inclosure, about 150 yards from
   its southern limit, and furnishes the only water for washing
   accessible to the prisoners. Bordering this stream, about
   three quarters of an acre in the centre of the inclosure are
   so marshy as to be at present unfit for occupation, reducing
   the available present area to about 23½ acres, which gives
   somewhat less than six square feet to each prisoner'; and, he
   remarks, 'even this is being constantly reduced by the
   additions to their number.' … Dr. Joseph Jones, Professor of
   Chemistry in the Medical College of Georgia, … went to
   Andersonville under the direction of the surgeon general of
   the Confederacy, pursuant to an order dated Richmond,
   Virginia, August 6th, 1864. … Dr. Jones proceeds to give a
   table illustrating the mean strength of prisoners confined in
   the stockade. … His table … shows the following as the mean
   result: March, 7,500; April, 10,000; May, 15,000; June,
   22,291; July, 29,030; August, 32,899. He says: 'Within the
   circumscribed area of the stockade the Federal prisoners were
   compelled to perform all the offices of life, cooking,
   washing, urinating, defecation, exercise, and sleeping.' …
   'The low grounds bordering the stream were covered with human
   excrement and filth of all kinds, which in many cases appeared
   to be alive with working maggots. An indescribable sickening
   stench arose from the fermenting mass of human dung and
   filth.' And again: 'There were nearly 5,000 seriously-ill
   Federals in the stockade and Confederate States Military
   Prison Hospital, and the deaths exceeded 100 per day. … I
   visited 2,000 sick within the stockade, lying under some long
   sheds which they had built at the northern portion for
   themselves. At this time only one medical officer was in
   attendance.'" At the close of the war, Wirz, the inhuman
   jailor of Andersonville was tried for his many crimes before a
   military commission, over which General Lewis Wallace
   presided, was condemned and was hanged, at Andersonville,
   November 10, 1865. His superior officer, Winder, escaped the
   earthly tribunal by dying of a gangrenous disorder, which had
   been caused, without doubt, by the poisoned air of the place.

"There can be no accurate count of the mortality in rebel prisons. The report made by the War Department to the 40th Congress shows that about 188,000 Union soldiers were captured by the Confederates; that half of them were paroled, and half confined in prison; of this number 36,000 died in captivity. The Union armies, on the other hand, captured 476,000 Confederates: of these 227,000 were retained as prisoners, and 30,000 died. While the percentage of mortality in Northern prisons was 13 in the hundred, that in rebel prisons was 38."

Report of Special Commission on Treatment of Prisoners (H.R. Report No. 45, 40th Cong., 3d Session).

ALSO IN: J. McElroy, Andersonville. [https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/4257 (volume 1)]

A. B. Isham, H. M. Davidson and H. B. Furness,
Prisoners of War and Military Prisons.

"The war [of 1812-14] lasted about three years, and the result was, as near as I have been able to ascertain, a loss to Great Britain of about 2,000 ships and vessels of every description, including men-of-war and merchantmen. Eighteen hundred sail are recorded as having been taken, burnt, sunk, or destroyed. To this number may be added 200 more, which were either destroyed or considered too insignificant to be reported; making an aggregate of 2,000 sail of British shipping captured by our little navy, with the aid of privateers and letters-of-marque. … I have not had sufficient time in giving this summary to ascertain, precisely, what proportion of these 2,000 vessels were captured by the United States government ships; but, at a rough estimate, should judge one-third part of the whole number, leaving two-thirds, or, say, 1330 sail, to have been taken by American privateers and private-armed vessels. I have found it difficult to ascertain the exact number of our own vessels taken and destroyed by the English; but, from the best information I can obtain, I should judge they would not amount to more than 500 sail. It must be recollected that the most of our losses occurred during the first six months of the war. After that period, we had very few vessels afloat, except privateers and letters-of–marque."

PRIVATEERS. LETTERS OF MARQUE.

"Until lately all maritime states have … been in the habit of using privateers, which are vessels belonging to private owners, and sailing under a commission of war [such commissions being denominated letters of marque and reprisal] empowering the person to whom it is granted to carry on all forms of hostility which are permissible at sea by the usages of war. … Universally as privateers were formerly employed, the right to use them has now almost disappeared from the world. It formed part of the Declaration adopted at the Congress of Paris in 1856 with reference to Maritime Law that 'privateering is and remains abolished'; and all civilised states have since become signataries of the Declaration, except the United States, Spain, and Mexico. For the future privateers can only be employed by signataries of the Declaration of Paris during war with one of the last-mentioned states."

"There is a distinction between a privateer and a letter of marque in this, that the former are always equipped for the sole purpose of war, while the latter may be a merchantman, uniting the purposes of commerce to those of capture. In popular language, however, all private vessels commissioned for hostile purposes, upon the enemy's property, are called letters of marque."

PRIVILEGE OF UNION AND GENERAL PRIVILEGE OF ARAGON.

PRIVILEGIUM MAJUS, THE.

PRIVY COUNCIL, THE.

"It was in the reign of Henry VI. that the King's Council first assumed the name of the 'Privy Council,' and it was also during the minority of this King that a select Council was gradually emerging from out of the larger body of the Privy Council, which ultimately resulted in the institution of our modern Cabinet.

From the accession of Henry VII. to the reign of Charles I. the Privy Council was wholly subservient to the royal will, and the instrument of unconstitutional and arbitrary proceedings. The first act of the Long Parliament was to deprive the Council of most of its judicial power, leaving, however, its constitution and political functions unchanged. Since the Revolution of 1688 the Privy Council has dwindled into comparative insignificance, when contrasted with its original authoritative position. Its judicial functions are now restrained within very narrow limits. The only relic of its ancient authority in criminal matters is its power of taking examinations, and issuing commitments for treason. It still, however, continues to exercise an original jurisdiction in advising the Crown concerning the grant of charters, and it has exclusively assumed the appellate jurisdiction over the colonies and dependencies of the Crown, which formerly appertained to the Council in Parliament. Theoretically, the Privy Council still retains its ancient supremacy, and in a constitutional point of view is presumed to be the only legal and responsible Council of the Crown. … As her Majesty can only act through her privy councillors, or upon their advice, all the higher and more formal acts of administration must proceed from the authority of the Sovereign in Council, and their performance be directed by orders issued by the Sovereign at a meeting of the Privy Council specially convened for that purpose. No rule can be laid down defining those political acts of the Crown which may be performed upon the advice of particular ministers, or those which must be exercised only 'in Council'—the distinction depends partly on usage and partly on the wording of Acts of Parliament. … The ancient functions of the Privy Council are now performed by committees, excepting those formal measures which proceed from the authority of her Majesty in Council. The acts of these committees are designated as those of the Lords of the Council. These Lords of Council (who are usually selected by the Lord President of the Council, of whom more hereafter) constitute a high court of record for the Investigation of all offences against the Government, and of such other extraordinary matters as may be brought before them. … If the matter be one properly cognisable by a legal tribunal, it is referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. This committee, which is composed of the Lord President, the Lord Chancellor, and such members of the Privy Council as from time to time hold certain high judicial offices, has jurisdiction in appeals from all colonial courts: it is also the supreme court of maritime jurisdiction, and the tribunal wherein the Crown exercises its judicial supremacy in ecclesiastical cases. The Privy Council has also to direct local authorities throughout the kingdom in matters affecting the preservation of the public health. A committee of the Privy Council is also appointed to provide 'for the general management and superintendence of Education,' and subject to this committee is the Science and Art Department for the United Kingdom. … Formerly meetings of the Council were frequently held, but they now seldom occur oftener than once in three or four weeks, and are always convened to assemble at the royal residence for the time being. The attendance of seven Privy Councillors used to be regarded as the quorum necessary to constitute a Council for ordinary purposes of state, but this number has been diminished frequently to only three. No Privy Councillor presumes to attend upon any meeting of the Privy Council unless specially summoned. The last time the whole Council was convoked was in 1839. Privy Councillors are appointed absolutely, without patent or grant, at the discretion of the Sovereign. Their number is unlimited. … Since the separate existence of the Cabinet Council, meetings of the Privy Council for purposes of deliberation have ceased to be held. The Privy Council consists ordinarily of the members of the Royal Family, the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, the Bishop of London, all the Cabinet Ministers, the Lord Chancellor, the chief officers of the Royal Household, the Judges of the Courts of Equity, the Chief Justices of the Courts of Common Law, and some of the Puisne Judges, the Ecclesiastical and Admiralty Judges and the Judge-Advocate, the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, the Speaker of the House of Commons, the Ambassadors and the Chief Ministers Plenipotentiary, the Governors of the chief colonies, the Commander-in-Chief, the Vice-President of the Committee of Council for Education, certain other officials I need not particularise, and occasionally a Junior Lord of the Admiralty, though it is not usual for Under Secretaries of State or Junior Lords of the Treasury or Admiralty to have this rank conferred upon them. A seat in the Privy Council is sometimes given to persons retiring from the public service, who have filled responsible situations under the Crown, as an honorary distinction. A Privy Councillor is styled Right Honourable, and he takes precedence of all baronets, knights, and younger sons of viscounts and barons."

A board of ten provisional councillors, instituted at Athens during the later period of the Peloponnesian War, after the great calamity at Syracuse. It was intended to introduce a conservative agency into the too democratic constitution of the state; to be "a board composed of men of mature age, who should examine all proposals and motions, after which only such among the latter as this board had sanctioned and approved should come before the citizens. This new board was, at the same time, in urgent cases itself to propose the necessary measures."

PROCONSUL AND PROPRÆTOR, ROMAN.

"If a Consul was pursuing his operations ever so successfully, he was liable to be superseded at the year's close by his successor in the Consulship: and this successor brought with him new soldiers and new officers; everything, it would seem, had to be done over again. This was always felt in times of difficulty, and the constitutional usages were practically suspended. … In the year 328 B. C. the Senate first assumed the power of decreeing that a Consul or Prætor might be continued in his command for several successive years, with the title of Proconsul, or Proprætor, the power of these officers being, within their own district, equal to the power of the Consul or Prætor himself. The Proconsul also was allowed to keep part of his old army, and would of course continue his Tribunes and Centurions in office. … Almost all the great successes of Marcellus and Scipio were gained in Proconsular commands."

PROCURATOR. PROCTOR.

PROHIBITIONISTS.

A party in American politics which contends for the enactment of laws to prohibit the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors.

PROPHESYINGS.

In the early part of the reign of Queen Elizabeth, among those English reformers who were subsequently known as Puritans, "the clergy in several dioceses set up, with encouragement from their superiors, a certain religious exercise, called prophesyings. They met at appointed times to expound and discuss together particular texts of Scripture, under the presidency of a moderator appointed by the bishop, who finished by repeating the substance of their debate, with his own determination upon it. These discussions were in public, and it was contended that this sifting of the grounds of their faith, and habitual argumentation, would both tend to edify the people, very little acquainted as yet with their religion, and supply in some degree the deficiencies of learning among the pastors themselves." The prophesyings, however, were suppressed by the queen and Archbishop Parker.

ALSO IN: J. B. Marsden, History of the Early Puritans, chapter 4. sections 7-25.

"The Hebrew word 'Nabi' is derived from the verb 'naba.' … The root of the verb is said to be a word signifying 'to boil or bubble over,' and is thus taken from the metaphor of a fountain bursting forth from the heart of man, into which God has poured it. Its actual meaning is 'to pour forth excited utterances,' as appears from its occasional use in the sense of 'raving.' Even to this day, in the East, the ideas of prophet and madman are closely connected. The religious sense, in which, with these exceptions, the word is always employed, is that of 'speaking' or 'singing under a divine afflatus or impulse,' to which the peculiar form of the word, as just observed, lends itself. … It is this word that the Seventy translated by a Greek term not of frequent usage in classical authors, but which, through their adoption of it, has passed into all modern European languages; namely, the word … Prophet. … The English words 'prophet,' 'prophecy,' 'prophesying,' originally kept tolerably close to the Biblical use of the word. The celebrated dispute about 'prophesyings,' in the sense of 'preachings,' in the reign of Elizabeth, and the treatise of Jeremy Taylor on 'The Liberty of Prophesying,' i. e. the liberty of preaching, show that even down to the seventeenth century the word was still used, as in the Bible, for 'preaching,' or 'speaking according to the will of God.' In the seventeenth century, however, the limitation of the word to the sense of 'prediction' had gradually begun to appear. … The Prophet then was 'the messenger or interpreter of the Divine will.'"

Dean Stanley, Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church, lecture 19 (volume 1).

The small sea which intervenes between the Pontus Euxinus (Black Sea) and the Ægean. So-called by the Greeks; now called the Sea of Marmora.

PROTECTIVE TARIFFS.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1516-1517, 1517, 1517-1521, 1521-1522, 1522-1525, 1525-1529, 1530-1531, 1537-1563; also, GERMANY: A. D. 1517-1523, and 1530-1532, to 1552-1561;

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1519-1524;
      SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1528-1531;
      and GENEVA: A. D. 1536-1564.

PROTOSEVASTOS.

"The colonization of Narbo [Narbonne, B. C. 118] may be considered as the epoch when the Romans finally settled the province of southern Gallia, which they generally named Gallia Provincia, and sometimes simply Provincia. From the time of Augustus it was named Narbonensis Provincia, and sometimes Gallia Braccata. It comprehended on the east all the country between the Rhone and the Alps. The most northeastern town in the Provincia was Geneva in the territory of the Allobroges. Massilia, the ally of Rome, remained a free city. On the west side of the Rhone, from the latitude of Lugdunum (Lyon), the Cevenna, or range of the Cévennes, was the boundary of the Provincia. … The limits of the Provincia were subsequently extended to Carcaso (Carcassone) and Tolosa (Toulouse); and it will appear afterwards that some additions were made to it even on the other side of the Cévennes. This country is a part of France which is separated by natural boundaries from the rest of that great empire, and in climate and products it is Italian rather than French. In the Provincia the Romans have left some of the noblest and most enduring of their great works."

"The fair region which we now call Provence, nearly the earliest formed and quite the latest lost 'Provincia' of Rome, that region in which the Latin spirit dwelt so strongly that the Roman nobles thought of migrating thither in 401, when Alaric first invaded Italy, refused to submit to the rule of the upstart barbarian [Odovacar, or Odoacer, who subverted the Western Empire in 476]. The Provençals sent an embassy to Constantinople to claim the protection of Zeno for the still loyal subjects of the Empire." But Zeno "inclined to the cause of Odovacar. The latter, however, who perhaps thought that he had enough upon his hands without forcing his yoke on the Provençals, made over his claim to Euric king of the Visigoths, whose influence was at this time predominant in Gaul."

Out of the wreck of the Visigothic kingdom in Gaul, when it was overthrown by the Frank king, Clovis, the Ostrogothic king of Italy, Theodoric, seems to have secured Provence. Eleven years after the death of Theodoric, and on the eve of the subversion of his own proudly planted kingdom, in 536, his successor Witigis, or Vitigis, bought the neutrality of the Franks by the cession to them of all the Ostrogothic possessions in Gaul, which were Provence and part of Dauphiné.

T. Hodgkin, Italy and her Invaders, book 4, chapter 3 (volume 3), and book 5, chapter 3 (volume 4).

"Southern France, … after having been the inheritance of several of the successors of Charlemagne, was elevated in 870 to the rank of an independent kingdom, by Bozon, who was crowned at Mantes under the title of King of Arles, and who reduced under his dominion Provence, Dauphiny, Savoy, the Lyonnese, and some provinces of Burgundy. The sovereignty of this territory exchanged, in 943, the title of King for that of Count, under Bozon II.; but the kingdom of Provence was preserved entire, and continued in the house of Burgundy, of which Bozon I. was the founder. This noble house became extinct in 1092, in the person of Gilibert, who left only two daughters, between whom his possessions were divided. One of these, Faydide, married Alphonso, Count of Toulouse; and the other, Douce, became the wife of Raymond Berenger, Count of Barcelona. … The accession of Raymond Berenger, Count of Barcelona and husband of Douce, to the throne of Provence, gave a new direction to the national spirit, by the mixture of the Catalans with the Provençals. … Raymond Berenger and his successors introduced into Provence the spirit both of liberty and chivalry, and a taste for elegance and the arts, with all the sciences of the Arabians. The union of these noble sentiments gave birth to that poetical spirit which shone out, at once, over Provence and all the south of Europe, like an electric flash in the midst of the most palpable darkness, illuminating all things by the brightness of its flame."

J. C. L. S. de Sismondi, Literature of the South of Europe, chapter 3 (volume l).

"At the accession of Philippe Auguste [crowned as joint-king of France, 1179, succeeded his father, 1180], the greater part of the south of France was holden, not of him, but of Pedro of Arragon, as the supreme suzerain.

To the Arragonese king belonged especially the counties of Provence, Forcalquier, Narbonne, Beziers, and Carcassonne. His supremacy was acknowledged by the Counts of Bearn, of Armagnac, of Bigorre, of Comminges, of Foix, of Roussillon, and of Montpellier; while the powerful Count of Toulouse, surrounded by his estates and vassals, maintained with difficulty his independence against him. To these extensive territories were given the names sometimes of Provence, in the larger and less exact use of that word, and sometimes of Languedoc, in allusion to the rich, harmonious, picturesque, and flexible language which was then vernacular there.

   They who used it called themselves Provençaux or Aquitanians,
   to indicate that they were not Frenchmen, but members of a
   different and indeed of a hostile nation. Tracing their
   descent to the ancient Roman colonists and to the Gothic
   invaders of Southern Gaul, the Provençaux regarded with a
   mixture of contempt, of fear, and ill will, the inhabitants of
   the country north of the Loire, who had made far less progress
   than themselves, either in civil liberty, or in the arts and
   refinements of social life. … Toulouse, Marseilles, Arles,
   Beziers, and many other of their greater cities, emulous of
   the Italian republics, with whom they traded and formed
   alliances, were themselves living under a government which was
   virtually republican. Each of these free cities being,
   however, the capital of one of the greater lords among whom
   the whole of Aquitaine was parceled out, became the seat of a
   princely and luxurious court.
{2612}
   A genial climate, a fertile soil, and an active commerce,
   rendered the means of subsistence abundant even to the poor,
   and gave to the rich ample resources for indulging in all the
   gratifications which wealth can purchase. … They lived as if
   life had been one protracted holiday. Theirs was the land of
   feasting, of gallantry, and of mirth. … They refined and
   enhanced the pleasures of appetite by the pleasures of the
   imagination. They played with the stern features of war in
   knightly tournaments. They parodied the severe toils of
   justice in their courts of love. They transferred the poet's
   sacred office and high vocation to the Troubadours, whose
   amatory and artificial effusions posterity has willingly let
   die, notwithstanding the recent labours of MM. Raynouard and
   Fauriel to revive them."

"In the south of France, more particularly, peace, riches, and a court life, had introduced, amongst the nobility, an extreme laxity of manners. Gallantry seems to have been the sole object of their existence. The ladies, who only appeared in society after marriage, were proud of the celebrity which their lovers conferred on their charms. They were delighted with becoming the objects of the songs of their Troubadour; nor were they offended at the poems composed in their praise, in which gallantry was often mingled with licentiousness. They even themselves professed the Gay Science, 'el Gai Saber,' for thus poetry was called; and, in their turn, they expressed their feelings in tender and impassioned verses. They instituted Courts of Love, where questions of gallantry were gravely debated and decided by their suffrages. They gave, in short, to the whole south of France the character of a carnival, affording a singular contrast to the ideas of reserve, virtue, and modesty, which we usually attribute to those good old times."

J. C. L. S. de Sismondi, Literature of the South of Europe, chapter 3 (volume 1).

PROVENCE: A. D. 1536-1546.
   Invasion by Charles V.
   Defensive wasting of the country.
   Massacre of Waldenses.

PROVISIONS OF OXFORD AND WESTMINSTER.

PROXENI.

In ancient Sparta, "the so-called Proxeni, whose number was fluctuating, served as the subordinates of the kings in their diplomatic communication with foreign States."

      G. Schömann,
      Antiquity of Greece: The State,
      part 3, chapter 1, section 9.

"Five–hundred miles, and more, to the east of Brandenburg, lies a Country then [10th century] as now called Preussen (Prussia Proper), inhabited by Heathens, where also endeavours at conversion are going on, though without success hitherto. … Part of the great plain or flat which stretches, sloping insensibly, continuously, in vast expanse, from the Silesian Mountains to the amber–regions of the Baltic; Preussen is the seaward, more alluvial part of this,—extending west and east, on both sides of the Weichsel (Vistula), from the regions of the Oder river to the main stream of the Memel. 'Bordering-on-Russia' its name signifies: Bor-Russia, B'russia, Prussia; or—some say it was only on a certain inconsiderable river in those parts, river Reussen, that it 'bordered,' and not on the great Country, or any part of it, which now in our days is conspicuously its next neighbour. Who knows?—In Henry the Fowler's time, and long afterwards, Preussen was a vehemently Heathen country; the natives a Miscellany of rough Serbic Wends, Letts, Swedish Goths, or Dryasdust knows not what;—very probably a sprinkling of Swedish Goths, from old time, chiefly along the coasts. Dryasdust knows only that these Preussen were a strong-boned, iracund herdsman-and-fisher people; highly averse to be interfered with, in their religion especially. Famous otherwise, through all the centuries, for the amber they had been used to fish, and sell in foreign parts. … Their knowledge of Christianity was trifling; their aversion to knowing anything of it was great."

   The first Christian missionary who ventured among the savage
   heathen of Prussia Proper was Adalbert, bishop of Prague, who
   fell a martyr to his zeal in 997. For two centuries after that
   tragedy they were little disturbed in their paganism; but
   early in the 13th century a Pomeranian monk named Christian
   succeeded in establishing among them many promising churches.
   The heathen party in the country, however, was enraged by the
   progress of the Christians and rose furiously against them,
   putting numerous converts to the sword. "Other agencies were
   now invoked by Bishop Christian, and the 'Order of Knights
   Brethren of Dobrin,' formed on the model of that which we have
   already encountered in Livonia, was bidden to coerce the
   people into the reception of Christianity. But they failed to
   achieve the task assigned them, and then it was that the
   famous 'Order of Teutonic Knights,' united with the 'Brethren
   of the Sword' in Livonia, concentrated their energies on this
   European crusade. Originally instituted for the purpose of
   succouring German pilgrims in the Holy Land, the 'Order of
   Teutonic Knights,' now that the old crusades had become
   unpopular, enrolled numbers of eager adventurers determined to
   expel the last remains of heathenism from the face of Europe.
   After the union of the two Orders had been duly solemnized at
   Rome, in the presence of the Pope, in the year A. D. 1238,
   they entered the Prussian territory, and for a space of nearly
   fifty years continued a series of remorseless wars against the
   wretched inhabitants.
{2613}
   Slowly but surely they made their way into the very heart of
   the country, and secured their conquests by erecting castles,
   under the shadow of which rose the towns of Culm, Thorn,
   Marienwerder, and Elbing, which they peopled with German
   colonists. The authority of the Order knew scarcely any
   bounds. Themselves the faithful vassals of the Pope, they
   exacted the same implicit obedience, alike from the German
   immigrant, or colonist, and the converted Prussians. … In A.
   D. 1243 the conquered lands were divided by the Pope into
   three bishoprics, Culm, Pomerania, and Ermeland, each of which
   was again divided into three parts, one being subject to the
   bishop, and the other two to the brethren of the Order."

"None of the Orders rose so high as the Teutonic in favour with mankind. It had by degrees landed possessions far and wide over Germany and beyond, … and was thought to deserve favour from above. Valiant servants, these; to whom Heaven had vouchsafed great labours and unspeakable blessings. In some fifty or fifty-three years they had got Prussian Heathenism brought to the ground; and they endeavoured to tie it well down there by bargain and arrangement. But it would not yet lie quiet, nor for a century to come; being still secretly Heathen; revolting, conspiring ever again, ever on weaker terms, till the Satanic element had burnt itself out, and conversion and composure could ensue."

PRUSSIA: A. D. 1466-1618.
   Conquest and annexation to the Polish crown.
   Surrender by the Teutonic Knights.
   Erection into a duchy.
   Union with the electorate of Brandenburg.

PRUSSIA: A. D. 1626-1629.
Conquests of Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden
in his war with Poland.

PRUSSIA: A. D. 1656-1688.
   Complete sovereignty of the duchy acquired by
   the Great Elector of Brandenburg.
   His curbing of the nobles.

In the last year of the 17th century, Europe was on the verge of the great War of the Spanish Succession. The Emperor was making ready to contest the will by which Charles II. of Spain had bequeathed his crown to Philip, Duke of Anjou, grandson of Louis XIV. of France.

   "He did not doubt that he would speedily involve England,
   Holland, and the Germanic diet in his quarrel. Already several
   German princes were pledged to him; he had gained the Duke of
   Hanover by an elector's hat, and a more powerful prince, the
   Elector of Brandenburg, by a royal crown. By a treaty of
   November 16, 1700, the Emperor had consented to the erection
   of ducal Prussia into a kingdom, on condition that the new
   King should furnish him an aid of 10,000 soldiers. The Elector
   Frederick III. apprised his courtiers of this important news
   at the close of a repast, by drinking 'to the health of
   Frederick I. King of Prussia'; then caused himself to be
   proclaimed King at Konigsberg, January 15, 1701."

      H. Martin,
      History of France: Age of Louis XIV.
      (translated by M. L. Booth),
      volume 2, chapter 5.

PRUSSIA: A. D. 1713.
Neufchatel and Spanish Guelderland acquired.
Orange relinquished.

   The later history of Prussia, under Frederick William,
   Frederick the Great, and their successors, will be found
   included in that of GERMANY.

"The Old Prussian, a member of the Lithuanic family of languages, was spoken here as late as the 16th century, remains of which, in the shape of a catechism, are extant. This is the language of the ancient Æstyi, or 'Men of the East,' which Tacitus says was akin to the British, an error arising from the similarity of name, since a Slavonian … would call the two languages by names so like as 'Prytskaia' and 'Brytskaia,' and a German … by names so like as 'Pryttisc' and 'Bryttisc.' The Guttones, too, of Pliny, whose locality is fixed from the fact of their having been collectors of the amber of East Prussia and Courland, were of the same stock."

PRYDYN.

PRYTANES. PRYTANEUM.

The Council of Four Hundred, said to have been instituted at Athens by Solon, "was divided into sections, which, under the venerable name of prytanes, succeeded each other throughout the year as the representatives of the whole body. Each section during its term assembled daily in their session house, the prytaneum, to consult on the state of affairs, to receive intelligence, information, and suggestions, and instantly to take such measures as the public interest rendered it necessary to adopt without delay. … According to the theory of Solon's constitution, the assembly of the people was little more than the organ of the council, as it could only act upon the propositions laid before it by the latter."

"Clisthenes … enlarged the number of the senate, 50 being now elected by lot from each tribe, so as to make in all 500. Each of these companies of 50 acted as presidents of both the senate and the assemblies, for a tenth part of the year, under the name of Prytanes: and each of these tenth parts, of 35 or 36 days, so as to complete a lunar year, was called a Prytany."

PRYTANIS.

A title frequently recurring among the Greeks was that of Prytanis, which signified prince, or supreme ruler. "Even Hiero, the king or tyrant of Syracuse, is addressed by Pindar as Prytanis. At Corinth, after the abolition of the monarchy, a Prytanis, taken from the ancient house of the Bacchiadæ, was annually appointed as supreme magistrate

   … The same title was borne by the supreme magistrate in the
   Corinthian colony of Corcyra. … In Rhodes we find in the time
   of Polybius a Prytany lasting for six months."

PSALTER OF CASHEL. PSALTER OF TARA.

PSEPHISM.

PTOLEMY'S CANON.

   An important chronological list of Chaldean, Persian,
   Macedonian and Egyptian kings, compiled or continued by
   Claudius Ptolemæus, an Alexandrian mathematician and
   astronomer in the reign of the Second Antoninus.

PUBLIC MEALS.

PUBLICANI.

PUEBLOS.

The Spanish word pueblo, meaning town, village, or the inhabitants thereof, has acquired a special signification as applied, first, to the sedentary or village Indians of New Mexico and Arizona, and then to the singular villages of communal houses which they inhabit.

"The purely civic colonies of California were called pueblos to distinguish them from missions or presidios. The term pueblo, in its most extended meaning, may embrace towns of every description, from a hamlet to a city. … However, in its special significance, a pueblo means a corporate town."

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1861 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER: SOUTH CAROLINA—GEORGIA).

The descendants of the first Crusaders who remained in the East and married Asiatic women are represented as having been a very despicable half-breed race. They were called the Pullani. Prof. Palmer suggests a derivation of the name from "fulani," anybodies. Mr. Keightley, on the contrary, states that before the crusading colonists overcame their prejudice against Oriental wives, women were brought to them from Apulia, in Italy. Whence the name Pullani, applied indiscriminately to an the progeny of the Latin settlers.

PUNIC.

The adjective Punicus, derived from the name of the Phœnicians, was used by the Romans in a sense which commonly signified "Carthaginian,"—the Carthaginians being of Phœnician origin. Hence "Punic Wars," "Punic faith," etc., the phrase "Punic faith" being an imputation of faithlessness and treachery.

When Pyrrhus quitted Italy he is said to have exclaimed, "How fair a battle–field are we leaving to the Romans and Carthaginians." He may easily have had sagacity to foresee the deadly struggle which Rome and Carthage would soon be engaged in, and he might as easily have predicted, too, that the beginning of it would be in Sicily. Rome had just settled her supremacy in the whole Italian peninsula; she was sure to covet next the rich island that lies so near to it. In fact, there was bred quickly in the Roman mind such an eagerness to cross the narrow strait that it waited only for the slenderest excuse. A poor pretext was found in the year 264 B. C. and it was so despicably poor that the proud Roman senators turned over to the popular assembly of the Comitia the responsibility of accepting it. There came to Rome from Messene, in Sicily—or Messana, as the Romans called the city—an appeal. It did not come from the citizens of Messene, but from a band of freebooters who had got possession of the town. These were mercenaries from Campania (lately made Roman territory by the Samnite conquest) who had been in the pay of Agathocles of Syracuse. Disbanded on that tyrant's death, they had treacherously seized Messene, slain most of the male inhabitants, taken to themselves the women, and settled down to a career of piracy and robbery, assuming the name of Mamertinl,—children of Mamers, or Mars. Of course, all Sicily, both Greek and Carthaginian, was roused against them by the outrages they committed. Being hard pressed, the Mamertines invoked, as Italians, the protection of Rome; although one party among them appears to have preferred an arrangement of terms with the Carthaginians. {2615} The Roman Senate, being ashamed to extend a friendly hand to the Mamertine cutthroats, but not having virtue enough to decline an opportunity for fresh conquests, referred the question to the people at large. The popular vote sent an army into Sicily, and Messene, then besieged by Hiero of Syracuse on one side and by a Carthaginian army on the other, was relieved of both. The Romans thereon proceeded, in two aggressive campaigns, against Syracusans and Carthaginians alike, until Hiero bought peace with them, at a heavy cost, and became their half-subject ally for the remainder of his life. The war with the Carthaginians was but just commenced. Its first stunning blow was struck at Agrigentum, the splendid city of Phalaris, which the Carthaginians had destroyed, B. C. 405, which Timoleon had rebuilt, and which one of the Hannibals ("son of Gisco") now seized upon for his stronghold. In a great battle fought under the walls of Agrigentum (B. C. 262) Hannibal lost the city and all but a small remnant of his army. But the successes of the Romans on land were worth little to them while the Carthaginians commanded the sea. Hence they resolved to create a fleet, and are said to have built a hundred ships of the quinquereme order and twenty triremes within sixty days, while rowers for them were trained by all imitative exercise on land. The first squadron of this improvised navy was trapped at Lipara and lost; the remainder was successful in its first encounter with the enemy. But where naval warfare depended on good seamanship the Romans were no match for the Carthaginians. They contrived therefore a machine for their ships, called the Corvus, or raven, by which, running straight on the opposing vessel, they were able to grasp it by the throat, so to speak, and force fighting at close quarters. That accomplished, they were tolerably sure of victory. With their corvus they half annihilated the Carthaginian fleet in a great sea-fight at Mylæ, B. C. 260, and got so much mastery of the sea that they were able to attack their Punic foes even in the island of Sardinia, but without much result. In 257 B. C. another naval battle of doubtful issue was fought at Tyndaris, and the following year, in the great battle of Ecnomus, the naval power of the Carthaginians, for the time being, was utterly crushed. Then followed the invasion of Carthaginian territory by Regulus, his complete successes at first, his insolent proposal of hard terms, and the tremendous defeat which overwhelmed him at Adis a little later, when he, himself, was taken prisoner. The miserable remnant of the Roman army which held its ground at Clypea on the African coast was rescued the next year (B. C. 255) by a new fleet, but only to be destroyed on the voyage homeward, with 260 ships, in a great storm on the south coast of Sicily. Then Carthaginians reappeared in Sicily and the war in that unhappy island was resumed. In 254 B. C. the Romans took the strong fortified city of Panormus. In 253, having built and equipped another fleet, they were robbed of it again by a storm at sea, and the Carthaginians gained ground and strength in Sicily. In 251 the Roman consul, Cæcilius Metellus, drove them back from the walls of Panormus and inflicted on them so discouraging a defeat, that they sent Regulus, their prisoner, on parole, with an embassy, to solicit peace at Rome. How Regulus advised his countrymen against peace, and how he returned to Carthage to meet a cruel death—the traditional story is familiar to all readers, but modern criticism throws doubt upon it. In 250 B. C. the Romans undertook the siege of Lilybæum, which, with the neighboring port of Drepana, were the only strongholds left to the Carthaginians. The siege then commenced was one of the most protracted in history, for when the First Punic War ended, nine years later, Lilybæum was still resisting, and the Romans only acquired it with all the rest of Sicily, under the terms of the treaty of peace. Meantime the Carthaginians won a bloody naval victory at Drepana (B. C. 249) over the Roman fleet, and the latter, in the same year, had a third fleet destroyed on the coast by relentless storms. In the year 247 B. C. the Carthaginian command in Sicily was given to the great Hamilcar, surnamed Barca, who was the father of a yet greater man, the Hannibal who afterwards brought Rome very near to destruction. Hamilcar Barca, having only a few mutinous mercenary soldiers at his command, and almost unsupported by the authorities at Carthage, established himself, first, on the rocky height of Mount Ercte, or Hercte, near Panormus, and afterwards on Mount Eryx, and harassed the Romans for six years. The end came at last as the consequence of a decisive naval victory near the Ægatian Isles, which the Romans achieved, with a newly built fleet, in March B. C. 241. The Carthaginians, discouraged, proposed peace, and purchased it by evacuating Sicily and paying a heavy war indemnity. Thus Rome acquired Sicily, but the wealth and civilization of the great island had been ruined beyond recovery.

Between the First Punic War and the Second there was an interval of twenty-three years. Carthage, meantime, had been brought very near to destruction by the Revolt of the Mercenaries and had been saved by the capable energy of Hamilcar Barca.

Then the selfish faction which hated Hamilcar had regained power in the Punic capital, and the Barcine patriot could do no more than obtain command of an army which he led, on his own responsibility, into Spain, B. C. 237. The Carthaginians had inherited from the Phœnicians a considerable commerce with Spain, but do not seem to have organized a control of the country until Hamilcar took the task in hand. Partly by pacific influences and partly by force, he established a rule, rather personal than Carthaginian, which extended over nearly all southern Spain. With the wealth that he drew from its gold and silver mines he maintained his army and bought or bribed at Carthage the independence he needed for the carrying out of his plans. He had aimed from the first, no doubt, at organizing resources with which to make war on Rome. Hamilcar was killed in battle, B. C. 228, and his son-in-law, Hasdrubal, who succeeded him, lived only seven years more. Then Hannibal, the son of Hamilcar, in his twenty–sixth year, was chosen to the command in Spain. {2616} He waited two years, for the settling of his authority and for making all preparations complete, and then he threw down a challenge to the Romans for the war which he had sworn to his father that he would make the one purpose of his life. The provocation of war was the taking of the city of Saguntum, a Greek colony on the Spanish coast, which the Romans had formed an alliance with. It was taken by Hannibal after a siege of eight months and after most of the inhabitants had destroyed themselves, with their wealth. When Rome declared war it was with the expectation, no doubt, that Spain and Africa would be the battle grounds. But Hannibal did not wait for her attack. He led his Spanish army straight to Italy, in the early summer of B. C. 218, skirting the Pyrenees and crossing the Alps. The story of his passage of the Alps is familiar to every reader. The difficulties he encountered were so terrible and the losses sustained so great that Hannibal descended into Italy with only 20,000 foot and 6,000 horse, out of 50,000 of the one and 9,000 of the other which he had led through Gaul. He received some reinforcement and co-operation from the Cisalpine Gauls, but their strength had been broken by recent wars with Rome and they were not efficient allies. In the first encounter of the Romans with the dread invader, on the Ticinus, they were beaten, but not seriously. In the next, on the Trebia, where Scipio, the consul, made a determined stand, they sustained an overwhelming defeat. This ended the campaign of B. C. 218. Hannibal wintered in Cisalpine Gaul and passed the Apennines the following spring into Etruria, stealing a march on the Roman army, under the popular consul Flaminius, which was watching to intercept him. The latter pursued and was caught in ambush at Lake Trasimene, where Flaminius and 15,000 of his men were slain, while most of the survivors of the fatal field were taken prisoners and made slaves. Rome then seemed open to the Carthaginian, but he knew, without doubt, that his force was not strong enough for the besieging of the city, and he made no attempt. What he aimed at was the isolating of Rome and the arraying of Italy against her, in a great and powerfully handled combination of the jealousies and animosities which he knew to exist. He led his troops northward again, after the victory of Lake Trasimene, across the mountains to the Adriatic coast, and rested them during the summer. When cooler weather came he moved southward along the coast into Apulia. The Romans meantime had chosen a Dictator, Q. Fabius Maximus, a cautious man, whose plan of campaign was to watch and harass and wear out the enemy, without risking a battle. It was a policy which earned for him the name of "The Cunctator," or Lingerer. The Roman people were discontented with it, and next year (B. C. 216) they elected for one of the consuls a certain Varro who had been one of the mouth-pieces of their discontent. In opposition to his colleague, Æmilius Paullus, Varro soon forced a battle with Hannibal at Cannæ, in Apulia, and brought upon his countrymen the most awful disaster in war that they ever knew. Nearly 50,000 Roman citizens were left dead on the field, including eighty senators, and half the young nobility of the state. From the spoils of the field Hannibal was said to have sent three bushels of golden rings to Carthage, stripped from the fingers of Roman knights. Rome reeled under the blow, and yet haughtily refused to ransom the 20,000 prisoners in Hannibal's hands, while she met the discomfited Varro with proud thanks, because "he had not despaired of the Republic." Capua now opened its gates to Hannibal and became the headquarters of his operations. The people of Southern Italy declared generally in his favor; but he had reached and passed, nevertheless, the crowning point of his success. He received no effective help from Carthage; nor from his brother in Spain, who was defeated by the elder Scipios, that same year (B. C. 216) at Ibera, just as he had prepared to lead a fresh army into Italy. On the other hand, the energies of the Romans had risen with every disaster. Their Latin subjects continued faithful to them; but they lost at this time an important ally in Sicily, by the death of the aged Hiero of Syracuse, and the Carthaginians succeeded in raising most of the island against them. The war in Sicily now became for a time more important than that in Italy, and the consul Marcellus, the most vigorous of the Roman generals, was sent to conduct it. His chief object was the taking of Syracuse and the great city sustained another of the many dreadful sieges which it was her fate to endure. The siege was prolonged for two years, and chiefly by the science and the military inventions of the famous mathematician, Archimides. When the Romans entered Syracuse at last (B. C. 212) it was to pillage and slay without restraint, and Archimides was one of the thousands cut down by their swords. Meantime, in Italy, Tarentum had been betrayed to Hannibal, but the Romans still held the citadel of the town. They had gained so much strength in the field that they were now able to lay siege to Capua and Hannibal was powerless to relieve it. He attempted a diversion by marching on Rome, but the threat proved idle and Capua was left to its fate. The city surrendered soon after (B. C. 211) and the merciless conquerors only spared it for a new population. For three or four years after this the war in Italy was one of minor successes and reverses on both sides, but Hannibal lost steadily in prestige and strength. In Spain, Hannibal's brother, Hasdrubal, had opportunely beaten and slain (B. C. 212) both the elder Scipios; but another and greater Scipio, P. Cornelius, son of Publius, had taken the field and was sweeping the Carthaginians from the peninsula. Yet, despite Scipio's capture of New Carthage and his victories, at Bæcula, and elsewhere, Hasdrubal contrived, in some unexplained way, in the year 208, B. C., to cross the Pyrenees into Gaul and to recruit reinforcements there for a movement on Italy. The next spring he passed the Alps and brought his army safely into Cisalpine Gaul; but his dispatches to Hannibal fell into the hands of the Romans and revealed his plans. The swift energy of one of the consuls, C. Claudius Nero, brought about a marvellous concentration of Roman forces to meet him, and he and his army perished together in an awful battle fought on the banks of the Metaurus, in Umbria. The last hopes of Hannibal perished with them; but he held his ground in the extreme south of Italy and no Roman general dared try to dislodge him. When Scipio returned next year (B. C. 206) and reported the complete conquest of Spain, he was chosen consul with the understanding that he would carry the war into Africa, though the senate stood half opposed. {2617} He did so in the early months of the year 204 B. C. crossing from Sicily with a comparatively small armament and laying siege to Utica. That year he accomplished nothing, but during the next winter he struck a terrible blow, surprising and burning the camps of the Carthaginians and their Numidian allies and slaughtering 40,000 of their number. This success was soon followed by another, on the Great Plains, which lie 70 or 80 miles to the southwest of Carthage. The Numidian king, Syphax, was now driven from his throne and the kingdom delivered over to an outlawed prince, Massinissa, who became, thenceforth, the most useful and unscrupulous of allies to the Romans. Now pushed to despair, the Carthaginians summoned Hannibal to their rescue. He abandoned Italy at the call and returned to see his own land for the first time since as a boy he left it with his father. But even his genius could not save Carthage with the means at his command. The long war was ended in October of the year 202 B. C. by the battle which is called the battle of Zama, though it was fought at some distance westward of that place. The Carthaginian army was routed utterly, and Hannibal himself persuaded his countrymen to accept a peace which stripped them of their ships and their trade, their possessions in Spain and all the islands, and their power over the Numidian states, besides wringing from them a war indemnity of many millions. On those hard terms, Carthage was suffered to exist a few years longer.

"Everything has a meaning in India, and the Panjab is only another name for the Five Rivers which make the historic Indus. They rise far back among the western Himalayas, bring down their waters from glaciers twenty-five miles in length, and peaks 26,000 feet high, and hurl their mighty torrent into one great current, which is thrown at last into the Arabian Sea. It is a fertile region, not less so than the Valley of the Ganges. This Panjab is the open door, the only one by which the European of earlier days was able to descend upon the plains of India for conquest and a new home. … In the Panjab every foot of the land is a romance. No one knows how many armies have shivered in the winds of the hills of Afghanistan, and then pounced down through the Khaibar Pass into India, and overspread the country, until the people could rise and destroy the stranger within the gates. Whenever a European invader of Asia has reached well into the continent, his dream has always been India. That country has ever been, and still is, the pearl of all the Orient. Its perfect sky in winter, its plenteous rains in summer, its immense rivers, its boundless stores of wealth, an its enduring industries, which know no change, have made it the dream of every great conqueror."

"In form, the country is a great triangle, its base resting on the Himalayan chain and Cashmere, and its apex directed due south–west. … The five streams which confer its name, counting them from north to south, are the Upper Indus, the Jhelum, the Chenab, the Ravee and the Sutlej, the Indus and Sutlej constituting respectively the western and eastern boundary. … The four divisions enclosed by the five convergent streams are called doabs—lands of two waters. … Besides the territory thus delineated, the Punjab of the Sikhs included Cashmere, the Jummoo territory to Spiti and Tibet, the trans-Indus frontier and the Hazara highlands in the west; and to the east the Jullundhur Doab with Kangra and Noorpoor. These last, with the frontier, are better known as the cis- and trans-Sutlaj states."

      E. Arnold,
      The Marquis of Dalhousie's Administration of British India,
      chapter 2 (volume 1).

   The Sikhs established their supremacy in the Punjab in the
   18th century, and became a formidable power, under the famous
   Runjet Singh, in the early part of the 19th century. (The
   English conquest of the Sikhs and annexation of the Punjab to
   British India took place in 1849.

"Under the name of Punt, the old inhabitants of Kemi [ancient Egypt] meant a distant land, washed by the great ocean, full of valleys and hills, abounding in ebony and other rich woods, in incense, balsam, precious metals, and costly stones; rich also in beasts, as cameleopards, hunting leopards, panthers, dog-headed apes, and long-tailed monkeys. … Such was the Ophir of the Egyptians, without doubt the present coast of the Somauli land in sight of Arabia, but separated from it by the sea. According to an old obscure tradition, the land of Punt was the original seat of the gods. From Punt the holy ones had travelled to the Nile valley, at their head Amon, Horus, Hathor."

   "When, in 1603, James I. became king of England, he found his
   Protestant subjects divided into three classes,—Conformists,
   or High Ritualists; Nonconformists, or Broad-Church Puritans;
   and Separatists, popularly called Brownists [and subsequently
   called Independents]. The Conformists and the Puritans both
   adhered to the Church of England, and were struggling for its
   control. … The Puritans objected to some of the ceremonies of
   the Church, such as the ring in marriage, the sign of the
   cross in baptism, the promises of god-parents, the showy
   vestments, bowing in the creed, receiving evil-livers to the
   communion, repetitions, and to kneeling at communion as if
   still adoring the Host, instead of assuming an ordinary
   attitude as did the apostles at the Last Supper. The majority
   of the lower clergy and of the middle classes are said to have
   favored Puritanism. … Dr. Neal says that the Puritan body took
   form in 1564, and dissolved in 1644.
{2618}
   During that term of eighty years the Puritans were ever 'in
   and of the Church of England'; as Dr. Prince says in his
   Annals (1736), those who left the Episcopal Church 'lost the
   name of Puritans and received that of the Separatists.' … The
   Separatists, unlike the Puritans, had no connection with the
   National Church, and the more rigid of them even denied that
   Church to be scriptural, or its ministrations to be valid. …
   The Pilgrim Fathers, the founders of our Plymouth, the pioneer
   colony of New England, were not Puritans. They never were
   called by that name, either by themselves or their
   contemporaries. They were Separatists, slightingly called
   Brownists, and in time became known as Independents or
   Congregationalists. As Separatists they were oppressed and
   maligned by the Puritans. They did not restrict voting or
   office-holding to their church-members. They heartily welcomed
   to their little State all men of other sects, or of no sects,
   who adhered to the essentials of Christianity and were ready
   to conform to the local laws and customs. … Though their faith
   was positive and strong, they laid down no formal creed."

"The reader of this history must have remarked that 'Puritan' and 'Separatist' were by no means convertible terms; that, in point of fact, they very often indicated hostile parties, pitted against each other in bitter controversies. And the inquiry may have arisen—How is this? Were not the Separatists all Puritans? … The term 'Puritan' was originally applied to all in the church of England who desired further reformation—a greater conformity of church government and worship to primitive and apostolic usages. But after awhile the term became restricted in its application to those who retained their respect for the church of England, and their connection with it, notwithstanding its acknowledged corruptions; in distinction from those who had been brought to abandon both their respect for that church and their connection with it, under the conviction that it was hopelessly corrupt, and could never be reformed. The Separatists, then, were indeed all Puritans, and of the most thorough and uncompromising kind. They were the very essence—the oil of Puritanism. But the Puritans were by no means all Separatists; though they agreed with them in doctrinal faith, being all thoroughly Calvinistic in their faith."

      ALSO IN:
      G. E. Ellis,
      The Puritan Age and Rule in the Colony of Massachusetts Bay,
      chapter 3.

D. Campbell, The Puritan in Holland, England, and America, chapter 16 (volume 2).

PURITANS: A. D. 1629.
Incorporation of the Governor and Company of Massachusetts Bay.

PUTEOLI.

The maritime city of Puteoli, which occupied the site of the modern town of Pozzuoli, about 7 miles from Naples, became under the empire the chief emporium of Roman commerce in Italy. The vicinity of Puteoli and its neighbor Baiæ was one of the favorite resorts of the Roman nobility for villa residence. It was at Puteoli that St. Paul landed on his journey to Rome.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (APRIL-MAY), (MAY-AUGUST); 1776 (AUGUST), (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).

PYLÆ CASPIÆ.

CILICIAN GATES.

PYRAMID.

"The name 'pyramid'—first invented by the ancients to denote the tombs of the Egyptian kings, and still used in geometry to this day—is of Greek origin. The Egyptians themselves denoted the pyramid—both in the sense of a sepulchre and of a figure in Solid Geometry—by the word 'abumir;' while, on the other hand, the word' Pir-am-us' is equivalent to the 'edge of the pyramid,' namely, the four edges extending from the apex of the pyramid to each corner of the quadrangular base."

PYRRHIC DANCE.

A spirited military dance, performed in armor, which gave much delight to the Spartans, and is said to have been taught to children only five years old. It was thought to have been invented by the Cretans.

PYTHIAN GAMES.

According to the Greek legend, a monstrous serpent, or dragon, Pytho, or Python, produced from the mud left by the deluge of Deucalion, lived in a great cavern of Mount Parnassus until slain by the god Apollo. The scene of the exploit became the principal seat of the worship of Apollo, the site of his most famous temple, the home of the oracle which he inspired. The temple and its seat were originally called Pytho; the cavern, from which arose mephitic and intoxicating vapors was called the Pythium; the priestess who inhaled those vapors and uttered the oracles which they were supposed to inspire, was the Pythia; Apollo, himself, was often called Pythius. Subsequently, town, temple and oracle were more commonly known by the name of Delphi.

A treacherous outrage of peculiar blackness, committed by a worthless Roman officer on the frontier, in 374, provoked the Quadi to invade the province of Pannonia. They overran it with little opposition, and their success encouraged inroads by the neighboring Sarmatian tribes. In the following year, the Emperor Valentinian led a retaliatory expedition into the country of the Quadi and revenged himself upon it with unmerciful severity. At the approach of winter he returned across the Danube, but only to wait another spring, when his purpose was to complete the annihilation of the offending Quadi. The latter, thereupon, sent ambassadors to humbly pray for peace. The choleric emperor received them, but their presence excited him to such rage that a blood vessel was ruptured in his body and he died on the spot.

A famous military position in northern Italy, formed by the strong fortresses at Peschiera, Verona, Mantua, and Legnano, bears this name. "The Quadrilateral … fulfils all the requirements of a good defensive position, which are to cover rearward territory, to offer absolute shelter to a defending army whenever required, and to permit of ready offensive: first, by the parallel course of the Mincio and Adige; secondly, by the fortresses on these rivers; thirdly, by passages offered at fortified points which insure the command of the rivers."

QUADRUPLE ALLIANCE (A. D. 1718).

QUÆSTIO PERPETUA.

In the later Roman empire, "the Quaestor had the care of preparing the Imperial speeches, and was responsible for the language of the laws. … His office is not unlike that of the Chancellor of a mediaeval monarch."

"Probably created as assistants to the consuls in the first year of the republic. At first two; in 421 B. C., four; in 241, eight; in 81, twenty; in 45, forty. Thrown open to plebeians in 421 B. C. Elected in the Comitia Tributa. The quæstor's office lasted as long as the consul's to whom he was attached."

"We have seen how the care of the city's treasures had been intrusted to two city quæstors, soon after the abolition of the monarchy. In like manner, soon after the fall of the decemvirate, the expenditures connected with military affairs, which had hitherto been in the hands of the consuls, were put under the control of new patrician officers, the military quæstors, who were to accompany the army on its march."

      ALSO IN:
      W. Ihne,
      Researches into the History of the Roman Constitution,
      pages 70-84.

QUÆSTORS OF THE FLEET.

"The religious movement which began with the wandering preacher George Fox … grew into the Society of Friends, or, as they came to be commonly called, 'The Quakers.' George Fox was born in 1624, the year before Charles I. came to the throne: and he was growing up to manhood all through the troubled time of that king's reign, while the storms were gathering which at last burst forth in the civil wars. It was not much that he knew of all this, however. He was growing up in a little out-of-the-way village of Leicestershire—Fenny Drayton—where his father was 'by profession a weaver.'" While he was still a child, the companions of George Fox "laughed at his grave, sober ways, yet they respected him, too; and when, by-and-by, he was apprenticed to a shoemaker, his master found him so utterly trustworthy, and so true and unbending in his word, that the saying began to go about, 'If George says "verily" there is no altering him.' … He was more and more grieved at what seemed to him the lightness and carelessness of men's lives. He felt as if he were living in the midst of hollowness and hypocrisy. … His soul was full of great thoughts of something better and nobler than the common religion, which seemed so poor and worldly. … He wandered about from place to place—Northampton, London, various parts of Warwickshire —seeking out people here and there whom he could hear of as very religious, and likely to help him through his difficulties. … After two years of lonely, wandering life, he began to see a little light. It came to his soul that all these outward forms, and ceremonies, and professions that people were setting up and making so much ado about as 'religion,' were nothing in themselves; that priestly education and ordination was nothing—did not really make a man any nearer to God; that God simply wanted the hearts and souls of all men to be turned to Him, and the worship of their own thought and feeling. And with the sense of this there arose within him a great loathing of all the formalism, and priestcraft, and outward observances of the Churches. … But he did not find peace yet. … He writes: 'My troubles continued, and I was often under great temptations; I fasted much and walked abroad in solitary places many days.' … It was a time like Christ's temptations in the wilderness, or Paul's three years in Arabia, before they went forth to their great life-mission. But to him, as to them, came, at last, light and peace and an open way. … A voice seemed to come to him which said, 'There is one, even Christ Jesus, that can speak to thy condition.' 'And when I heard it,' he says, 'my heart did leap for joy.' Fixing his mind upon Christ, all things began to be clearer to him; he saw the grand simple truth of a religion of spirit and life. {2620} … It was at Dukinfield, near Manchester, in 1647, that he began to speak openly to men of what was in his heart. … In those days, when he was wandering away from men, and shrinking with a sort of horror from the fashions of the world, he had made himself a strong rough suit of leather, and this for many years was his dress. Very white and clean indeed was the linen under that rough leather suit, for he hated all uncleanness either of soul or body; and very calm and clear were his eyes, that seemed to search into men's souls, and quailed before no danger, and sometimes lighted up with wonderful tenderness. A tall, burly man he was, too, of great strength. … Everywhere he saw vanity and worldliness, pretence and injustice. It seemed laid upon him that he must testify against it all. He went to courts of justice, and stood up and warned the magistrates to do justly; he went to fairs and markets, and lifted up his voice against wakes, and feasts and plays, and also against people's cozening and cheating. … He testified against great things and small, bade men not swear, but keep to 'yea' and 'nay,' and this in courts of justice as everywhere else; he spoke against lip-honour—that men should give up using titles of compliment, and keep to plain 'thee' and 'thou'; 'for surely,' he said, 'the way men address God should be enough from one to another.' But all this was merely the side-work of his life, flowing from his great central thought of true, pure life in the light of the Spirit of God. That was his great thought, and that he preached most of all; he wanted men to give up all their forms, and come face to face with the Spirit of God, and so worship Him and live to Him. Therefore he spoke most bitterly of all against all priestcraft. … Gradually followers gathered to him; little groups of people here and there accepted his teachings—began to look to him as their leader. He did not want to found a sect; and as for a church—the Church was the whole body of Christ's faithful people everywhere; so those who joined him would not take any name as a sect or church. They simply called themselves 'friends'; they used no form of worship, but met together, to wait upon the Lord with one another; believing that His Spirit was always with them, and that, if anything was to be said, He would put it into their hearts to say it." From the first, Fox suffered persecution at the hands of the Puritans. They "kept imprisoning him for refusing to swear allegiance to the Commonwealth; again and again he suffered in this way: in Nottingham Castle, in 1648; then, two years later, at Derby, for six months, at the end of which time they tried to force him to enter the army; but he refused, and so they thrust him into prison again, this time into a place called the Dungeon, among 30 felons, where they kept him another half-year. Then, two years later, in 1653, he was imprisoned at Carlisle, in a foul, horrible hole. … He was again imprisoned in Launceston gaol, for eight long months. After this came a quieter time for him; for he was taken before Cromwell, and Cromwell had a long conversation with him. … During Cromwell's life he was persecuted no more, but with the restoration of Charles II. his dangers and sufferings began again. … His followers caught his spirit, and no persecutions could intimidate them. … They made no secret of where their meetings were to be, and at the time there they assembled. Constables and informers might be all about the place, it made no difference; they went in, sat down to their quiet worship; if anyone had a word to say he said it. The magistrates tried closing the places, locked the doors, put a band of soldiers to guard them. The Friends simply gathered in the street in front, held their meetings there; went on exactly as if nothing had happened. They might all be taken off to prison, still it made no difference. … Is it wonderful that such principles, preached with such noble devotion to truth and duty, rapidly made way? By the year 1665, when Fox had been preaching for 18 years, the Society of Friends numbered 80,000, and in another ten years it had spread more widely still, and its founder had visited America, and travelled through Holland and Germany, preaching his doctrine of the inward light, and everywhere founding Meetings. Fox himself did not pass away until [1690] he had seen his people past all the days of persecution."

"At a time when personal revelation was generally believed, it was a pardonable self-delusion that he [Fox] should imagine himself to be commissioned by the Divinity to preach a system which could only be objected to as too pure to be practised by man: This belief, and an ardent temperament, led him and some of his followers into unseasonable attempts to convert their neighbours, and unseemly intrusions into places of worship for that purpose, which excited general hostility against them, and exposed them to frequent and severe punishments. … Although they, like most other religious sects, had arisen in the humble classes of society, … they had early been joined by a few persons of superior rank and education. … The most distinguished of their converts was William Penn, whose father, Admiral Sir William Penn, had been a personal friend of the King [James II.], and one of his instructors in naval affairs."

"At one of the interviews between G. Fox and Gervas Bennet—one of the magistrates who had committed him at Derby—the former bade the latter 'Tremble at the word of the Lord'; whereupon Bennet called him a Quaker. This epithet of scorn well suited the tastes and prejudices of the people, and it soon became the common appellation bestowed on Friends."

QUAKERS: A. D. 1688-1776.
Early growth of anti-slavery sentiment in the Society.

QUANTRELL'S GUERRILLAS.

"When Jacques Cartier sailed up the St. Lawrence, in 1535, he found an Indian village called Stadacona occupying the site of the present city of Quebec. "The Indian name Stadacona had perished before the time of Champlain, owing, probably, to the migration of the principal tribe and the succession of others." The name Quebec, afterwards given to the French settlement on the same ground, is said by some to be likewise of Indian origin, having reference to the narrowing of the river at that point. "Others give a Norman derivation for the word: it is said that Quebec was so–called after Caudebec, on the Seine." La Potherie says that the Normans who were with Cartier, when they saw the high cape, cried "Quel bec!" from which came the name Quebec. "Mr. Hawkins terms this 'a derivation entirely illusory and improbable,' and asserts that the word is of Norman origin. He gives an engraving of a seal belonging to William de la Pole, earl of Suffolk, dated in the 7th of Henry V., or A. D. 1420. The legend or motto is 'Sigillum Willielmi de la Pole, Comitis Suffolckiæ, Domine de Hamburg et de Quebec.'"

QUEBEC, CITY: A. D. 1629-1632. Capture by the English, brief occupation and restoration to France.

QUEBEC, CITY: A. D. 1690. Unsuccessful attack by Sir Williams Phips and the Massachusetts colonists.

QUEBEC, CITY: A. D. 1711.
Threatened by the abortive expedition of Admiral Walker.

QUEBEC, CITY: A. D. 1775-1776.
Unsuccessful siege by the Americans.
Death of Montgomery.

On the formation of the confederated Dominion of Canada, in 1867, the eastern province formerly called Lower Canada received the name of Quebec.

QUEEN ANNE'S BOUNTY.

"Her Majesty's [Queen Anne's] birthday, which was the 6th of February, falling this year [1704] on a Sunday, its celebration had been postponed till the next day. On that day, then, as well beseeming her pious and princely gift, Sir Charles Hedges as Secretary of State brought down to the House of Commons a message from the Queen, importing that Her Majesty desired to make a grant of her whole revenue arising out of the First Fruits and Tenths for the benefit of the poorer clergy. These First Fruits and Tenths had been imposed by the Popes some centuries ago for the support of the Holy Wars, but had been maintained long after those wars had ceased.

The broad besom of Henry VIII. had swept them from the Papal to the Royal treasury, and there they continued to flow. In the days of Charles II. they had been regarded as an excellent fund out of which to provide for the female favourites of His Majesty and their numerous children. … Upon the Queen's message the Commons returned a suitable address, and proceeded to pass a bill enabling Her Majesty to alienate this branch of the revenue, and to create a corporation by charter to apply it for the object she desired. … This fund has ever since and with good reason borne the name of 'Queen Anne's Bounty.' Its application has been extended to the building of parsonage-houses as well as to the increase of poor livings."

QUEEN ANNE'S WAR.

The wide-ranging conflict which is known in European history as the War of the Spanish Succession, appears in American history more commonly under the name of Queen Anne's War.

QUEENSLAND.

John Randolph of Virginia. "had been one of the Republican leaders while the party was in opposition [during the second administration of Washington and the administration of John Adams, as Presidents of the United States], but his irritable spirit disqualified him for heading an Administration party. He could attack, but could not defend. He had taken offense at the President's [Jefferson's] refusal to make him Minister to England, and immediately took sides with the Federalists [1805] followed by a number of his friends, though not sufficient to give the Federalists a majority. … The Randolph faction, popularly called 'Quids,' gave fresh life to the Federalists in Congress, and made them an active and useful opposition party."

QUIETISM.

QUINNIPIACK.

QUIPU. WAMPUM.

"The Peruvians adopted a … unique system of records, that by means of the quipu. This was a base cord, the thickness of the finger, of any required length, to which were attached numerous small strings of different colors, lengths, and textures, variously knotted and twisted one with another. Each of these peculiarities represented a certain number, a quality, quantity, or other idea, but what, not the most fluent quipu reader could tell unless he was acquainted with the general topic treated of. Therefore, whenever news was sent in this manner a person accompanied the bearer to serve as verbal commentator, and to prevent confusion the quipus relating to the various departments of knowledge were placed in separate storehouses, one for war, another for taxes, a third for history, and so forth. On what principle of mnemotechnics the ideas were connected with the knots and colors we are totally in the dark; it has even been doubted whether they had any application beyond the art of numeration. Each combination had, however, a fixed ideographic value in a certain branch of knowledge, and thus the quipu differed essentially from the Catholic rosary, the Jewish phylactery, or the knotted strings of the natives of North America and Siberia, to all of which it has at times been compared. The wampum used by the tribes of the North Atlantic coast was, in many respects, analogous to the quipu. In early times it was composed chiefly of bits of wood of equal size, but different colors. These were hung on strings which were woven into belts and bands, the hues, shapes, sizes, and combinations of the strings hinting their general significance. Thus the lighter shades were invariable harbingers of peaceful or pleasant tidings, while the darker portended war and danger. The substitution of beads or shells in place of wood, and the custom of embroidering figures in the belts were, probably, introduced by European influence."

"The Palatine city was not the only one that in ancient times existed within the circle afterwards enclosed by the Servian walls; opposite to it, in its immediate vicinity, there lay a second city on the Quirinal. … Even the name has not been lost by which the men of the Quirinal distinguished themselves from their Palatine neighbours. As the Palatine city took the name of 'the Seven Mounts,' its citizens called themselves the 'mount-men' ('montani'), and the term 'mount,' while applied to the other heights belonging to the city, was above all associated with the Palatine; so the Quirinal height—although not lower, but on the contrary somewhat higher, than the former—as well as the adjacent Viminal, never in the strict use of the language received any other name than 'hill' ('collis'). … Thus the site of the Roman commonwealth was still at this period occupied by the Mount-Romans of the Palatine and the Hill-Romans of the Quirinal as two separate communities confronting each other and doubtless in many respects at feud. … That the community of the Seven Mounts early attained a great preponderance over that of the Quirinal may with certainty be inferred."

QUIRITES.

In early Rome the warrior-citizens, the full burgesses, were so-called. "The king, when he addressed them, called them 'lance-men' (quirites). … We need not … regard the name Quirites as having been originally reserved for the burgesses on the Quirinal. … It is indisputably certain that the name· Quirites denoted from the first, as well as subsequently, simply the full burgess."

   The term quirites, in fact, signified the citizens of Rome as
   a body. Whether it originally meant "men of the spear," as
   derived from a Sabine word, is a question in some dispute.

QUIVIRA.

RABBLING.

RAB-SHAKEH.

The title of the chief minister of the Assyrian kings. The
Rab-Shakah of Sennacherib demanded the surrender of Jerusalem.

   "In the year 406, Italy was suddenly overrun by a vast
   multitude composed of Vandals, Sueves, Burgunds, Alans, and
   Goths, under the command of a king named Radagais. To what
   nation this king belonged is not certain, but it seems likely
   that he was an Ostrogoth from the region of the Black Sea, who
   had headed a tribe of his countrymen in a revolt against the
   Huns.
{2623}
   The invading host is said to have consisted of 200,000
   warriors, who were accompanied by their wives and families.
   These barbarians were heathens, and their manners were so
   fierce and cruel that the invasion excited far more terror
   than did that of Alaric. … Stilicho [the able minister and
   general of the contemptible Emperor of the West, Honorius]
   found it hard work to collect an army capable of opposing this
   savage horde, and Radagais had got as far as Florence before
   any resistance was offered to him. But while he was besieging
   that city, the Roman general came upon him, and, by
   surrounding his army with earthworks, compelled him to
   surrender. The barbarian king was beheaded, and those of the
   captives whose lives were spared were sold into slavery."

RÆTIA.

RAGA, RAGHA, RHAGES.

"The Median city next in importance to the two Ecbatanas was Raga or Rhages, near the Caspian Gates, almost at the extreme eastern limits of the territory possessed by the Medes. The great antiquity of this place is marked by its occurrence in the Zendavesta among the primitive settlements of the Arians. Its celebrity during the time of the Empire is indicated by the position which it occupies in the romances of Tobit and Judith. … Rhages gave name to a district; and this district may be certainly identified with the long narrow tract of fertile territory intervening between the Elburz mountain-range and the desert, from about Kasvin to Khaar, or from longitude 50° to 52° 30'. The exact site of the city of Rhages within this territory is somewhat doubtful. All accounts place it near the eastern extremity; and, as there are in this direction ruins of a town called Rhei or Rhey, it has been usual to assume that they positively fix the locality. But … there are grounds for placing Rhages very much nearer to the Caspian Gates."

RAGÆ.

RAGMAN'S ROLL.

RAJA, RAJAH. MAHARAJA.

RAJPOOTS, RAJPUTS. RAJPOOTANA.

"The Rajpoots, or sons of Rajas, are the noblest and proudest race in India, … They claim to be representatives of the Kshatriyas; the descendants of those Aryan warriors who conquered the Punjab and Hindustan in times primeval. To this day they display many of the characteristics of the heroes of the Maha Bharata and Ramayana. They form a military aristocracy of the feudal type. … The Rajpoots are the links between ancient and modern India. In days of old they strove with the kings of Magadha for the suzerainty of Hindustan from the Indus to the lower Gangetic valley. They maintained imperial thrones at Lahore and Delhi, at Kanouj and Ayodhya. In later revolutions their seats of empire have been shifted further west and south, but the Rajpoot kingdoms still remain as the relics of the old Aryan aristocracy. … The dynasties of Lahore and Delhi faded away from history, and perchance have reappeared in more remote quarters of India. The Rajpoots still retain their dominion in the west, whilst their power and influence have been felt in every part of India; and to this day a large Rajpoot element characterizes the populations, not only of the Punjab and Hindustan, but of the Dekhan and Peninsula. The Rajpoot empire of a remote antiquity is represented in the present day by the three kingdoms of Meywar, Marwar, and Jeypore. Meywar, better known as Chittore or Udaipore, is the smallest but most important of the three. It forms the garden of Rajpootana to the eastward of the Aravulli range. Westward of the range is the dreary desert of Marwar. Northward of Meywar lies the territory of Jeypore, the intermediate kingdom between Meywar and the Mussulmans. … In former times the sovereigns of Meywar were known as the Ranas of Chittore; they are now known as the Ranas of Udaipore. They belong to the blue blood of Rajpoot aristocracy."

"Everywhere [in the central region of India] Rajput septs or petty chiefships may still be found existing in various degrees of independence. And there are, of course, Rajput Chiefs outside Rajputana altogether, though none of political importance. But Rajputana proper, the country still under the independent rule of the most ancient families of the purest clans, may now be understood generally to mean the great tract that would be crossed by two lines, of which one should be drawn on the map of India from the frontier of Sind Eastward to the gates of Agra; and the other from the Southern border of the Punjab Government near the Sutlej Southward and South-Eastward until it meets the broad belt of Maratha States under the Guicowar, Holkar, and Scindia, which runs across India from Baroda to Gwalior. This territory is divided into nineteen States, of which sixteen are possessed by Rajput clans, and the Chief of the clan or sept is the State's ruler. To the Sesodia clan, the oldest and purest blood in India, belong the States of Oodeypoor, Banswarra, Pertabgarh, and Shahpura; to the Rathore clan, the States of Jodhpoor and Bikanir; Jeypoor and Ulwar to the Kuchwaha, and so on."

   The marquise de Rambouillet, who drew around herself, at
   Paris, the famous coterie which took its name from her
   hospitable house, was the daughter of a French nobleman, Jean
   de Vivonne, sieur de Saint-Gohard, afterwards first marquis de
   Pisani, who married a Roman lady of the noble family of the
   Strozzi. Catherine de Vivonne was born of this union in 1588,
   and in 1600, when less than twelve years old, became the wife
   of Charles d'Angennes, vidame du Mans afterwards marquis de
   Rambouillet. Her married life was more than half a century in
   duration; she was the mother of seven children, and she
   survived her husband thirteen years.
{2624}
   During the minority of the husband the ancient residence of
   his family had been sold, and from 1610 to 1617 the marquis
   and marquise were engaged in building a new Hôtel de
   Rambouillet, which the latter is credited with having, in
   great part, designed. Her house being finished, she opened it
   "to her friends and acquaintances, and her receptions, which
   continued until the Fronde (1648), brought together every
   evening the choicest society of the capital, and produced a
   profound influence upon the manners and literature of the day.
   The marquise ceased attending court some years before the
   death of Henry IV., her refinement and pure character finding
   there an uncongenial atmosphere. The marquise was not alone a
   woman of society, but was carefully educated and fond of
   literature. Consequently the reunions at the Hôtel de
   Rambouillet were distinguished by a happy combination of rank
   and letters. Still more important was the new position assumed
   by the hostess and the ladies who frequented her house. Until
   the XVIIth century the crudest views prevailed as to the
   education and social position of woman. It was at the Hôtel de
   Rambouillet that her position as the intellectual companion of
   man was first recognized, find this position of equality, and
   the deferential respect which followed it, had a powerful
   influence in refining the rude manners of men of rank whose
   lives had been passed in camps, and of men of letters who had
   previously enjoyed few opportunities for social polish. The
   two classes met for the first time on a footing of equality,
   and it resulted in elevating the occupation of letters, and
   imbuing men of rank with a fondness for intellectual pursuits.
   The reunions at the Hôtel de Rambouillet began, as has been
   said, about 1617, and extend until the Fronde (1648) or a few
   years later. This period Larroumet ('Précieuses Ridicules,'
   page 14) divides into three parts: from 1617 to about 1629;
   from 1630 to 1640; and from 1640 to the death of the marquise
   in 1665. During the first period the habitués of the Hôtel de
   Rambouillet were": the marquis du Vigean, the maréchal de
   Souvré, the duke de la Tremoïlle, Richelieu (then bishop of
   Luçon), the cardinal de la Valette, the poets Malherbe, Racan,
   Gombauld, Chapelain, Marino, the preacher Cospeau, Godeau, the
   grammarian Vaugelas, Voiture, Balzac, Segrais, Mlle. Paulet,
   the princess de Montmorency, Mlle. du Vigean, and the
   daughters of the marquise de Rambouillet, "of whom the eldest,
   Julie d'Angennes, until her marriage in 1645 to the marquis de
   Montausier, was the soul of the reunions of the Hôtel de
   Rambouillet. The second period was that of its greatest
   brilliancy. To the illustrious names just mentioned must be
   added": the great Condé, the marquis de Montausier,
   Saint-Évremond, La Rochefoucald, Sarrasin, Costar, Patru,
   Conrart, Georges de Scudéry, Mairet, Colletet, Ménage,
   Benscrade, Cotin, Desmarets, Rotrou, Scarron, P. Corneille,
   Bossuet, Mlle. de Bourbon, later duchesse de Longueville,
   Mlle. de Coligny, Mme. Aubry, and Mlle. de Scudéry, "yet
   unknown as a writer. After 1640 the Hôtel de Rambouillet began
   to decline; but two names of importance belong to this period:
   Mme. de la Fayette, and Mme. de Sévigné. … Voiture died in
   1648, the year which witnessed the outbreak of the Fronde,
   after which the reunions at the Hôtel de Rambouillet virtually
   ceased. … Until the time of Roederer ['Mémoire pour servir à
   l'histoire de la société polie en France'] it was generally
   supposed that the word 'Précieuse' was synonymous with Hôtel
   de Rambouillet, and that it was the marquise and her friends
   whom Molière intended to satirize. Roederer endeavored to show
   that it was not the marquise but her bourgeois imitators, the
   circle of Mlle. de Scudéry …; Victor Cousin attempts to prove
   that it was neither the marquise nor Mlle. de Scudéry, but the
   imitators of the latter. … The editor of Molière in the
   'Grands Écrivains de la France,' M. Despois (volume 2, page 4)
   believes that the Hôtel de Rambouillet, including Mlle. de
   Scudéry, was the object of Moliere's satire, although he had
   no intention of attacking any particular person among the
   'Précieuses,' but confined himself to ridiculing the
   eccentricities common to them all. It is with this last view
   that the editor of the present work unhesitatingly agrees, for
   reasons which he hopes some day to give in detail in an
   edition of the two plays of Molière mentioned above
   ['Precieuses Ridicules,' and 'Les Femmes Savantes']. From
   Paris the influence of the 'Précieuses' spread into the
   provinces, doubtless with all the exaggerations of an
   unskilful imitation."

      T. F. Crane,
      Introduction to "La Société Française au
      Dix-Septième Siècle."

The nineteenth dynasty of Egyptian kings, sprung from Rameses
I. [in the] fourteenth to twelfth centuries B. C.

RAMOTH-GILEAD.

   The strong fortress of Ramoth-Gilead, on the frontier of
   Samaria and Syria, was the object and the scene of frequent
   warfare between the Israelites and the Arameans of Damascus.
   It was there that king Ahab of Samaria, in alliance with
   Judah, was killed in battle, fighting against Ben-hadad of
   Damascus.

      ALSO IN:
      Dean Stanley,
      Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church,
      lecture 33.

RANAS OF UDAIPORE OR CHITTORE.

RANTERS. MUGGLETONIANS.

"'These [the Ranters] made it their business,' says Baxter, 'to set up the Light of Nature under the name of Christ in Man, and to dishonour and cry down the Church, the Scripture, and the present Ministry, and our worship and ordinances; and called men to hearken to Christ within them. But withal they conjoined a cursed doctrine of Libertinism, which brought them to all abominable filthiness of life. They taught, as the Familists, that God regardeth not the actions of the outward man, but of the heart, and that to the pure all things are pure.' … Of no sect do we hear more in the pamphlets and newspapers between 1650 and 1655, though there are traces of them of earlier date. … Sometimes confounded with the Ranters, but really distinguishable, were some crazed men, whose crazes had taken a religious turn, and whose extravagances became contagious.—Such was a John Robins, first heard of about 1650, when he went about, sometimes as God Almighty, sometimes as Adam raised from the dead. … One heard next, in 1652, of two associates, called John Reeve and Ludovick Muggleton, who professed to be 'the two last Spiritual Witnesses (Revelation xi.) and alone true Prophets of the Lord Jesus Christ, God alone blessed to all eternity,' They believed in a real man-shaped God, existing from all eternity, who had come upon earth as Jesus Christ, leaving Moses and Elijah to represent him in Heaven." Muggleton died in 1698, "at the age of 90, leaving a sect called The Muggletonians, who are perhaps not extinct yet."

RAPES OF SUSSEX.

"The singular division of Sussex [England] into six 'rapes' [each of which is subdivided into hundreds] seems to have been made for military purposes. The old Norse 'hreppr' denoted a nearly similar territorial division."

"The 'reebning,' or mensuration by the rope or line, supplied the technical term of 'hrepp' to the glossary of Scandinavian legislation: archæologists have therefore pronounced an opinion that the 'Rapes' of Sussex, the divisions ranging from the Channel shore to the Suthrige border, were, according to Norwegian fashion, thus plotted out by the Conqueror."

RAPID INDIANS.

RAPPAREES. TORIES.

"Ejected proprietors [in Ireland, 17th and 18th centuries] whose names might be traced in the annals of the Four Masters, or around the sculptured crosses of Clonmacnoise, might be found in abject poverty hanging around the land which had lately been their own, shrinking from servile labour as from an intolerable pollution, and still receiving a secret homage from their old tenants. In a country where the clan spirit was intensely strong, and where the new landlords were separated from their tenants by race, by religion, and by custom, these fallen and impoverished chiefs naturally found themselves at the head of the discontented classes; and for many years after the Commonwealth, and again after the Revolution, they and their followers, under the names of tories and rapparees, waged a kind of guerrilla war of depredations upon their successors. After the first years of the 18th century, however, this form of crime appears to have almost ceased; and although we find the names of tories and rapparees on every page of the judicial records, the old meaning was no longer attached to them, and they had become the designations of ordinary felons, at large in the country."

"The distinction between the Irish foot soldier and the Irish Rapparee had never been very strongly marked. It now disappeared [during the war in Ireland between James II. and William of Orange—A. D. 1691]. Great part of the army was turned loose to live by marauding."

   "The Rapparee was the lowest of the low people. … The Rapparee
   knew little difference between friend and foe; receiving no
   mercy, they gave none."

Sir J. Dalrymple, Memoirs or Great Britain and Ireland, part 2, book 5 (volume 3).

"Political disaffection in Ireland has been the work, on the one hand, of the representatives of the old disinherited families—the Kernes, and Gallowglasses of one age, the Rapparees of the next, the houghers and ravishers of a third; on the other, of the restless aspirations of the Catholic clergy."

RAS. RASENNA.

RASCIA.

RASCOL. RASKOL. RASKOLNIKS.

RATÆ, RAGÆ.

A Roman town in Britain—"one of the largest and most important of the midland cities, adorned with rich mansions and temples, and other public buildings. Its site is now occupied by the town of Leicester."

RATHS.

"Of those ancient Raths, or Hill-fortresses, which formed the dwellings of the old Irish chiefs, and belonged evidently to a period when cities were not yet in existence, there are to be found numerous remains throughout the country. This species of earthen work is distinguished from the artificial mounds, or tumuli, by its being formed upon natural elevations, and always surrounded by a rampart,"

An ancient tribe "whose origin is perhaps German, established on both banks of the Rhine, towards the elbow which that river forms at Bâle."

Henry, the second emperor of the Latin empire of Romania, or empire of Constantinople, convened a general parliament or high-court of all his vassals, at Ravenika, in 1209, for the determining of the feudal relations of all the subjects of the empire. Ravenika is in ancient Chalkidike, some fifty miles from Thessalonica.

      G. Finlay,
      History of Greece from its Conquest by the Crusaders,
      chapter 4, section 4.

"The houses of Ravenna, whose appearance may be compared to that of Venice, were raised on the foundation of wooden piles. The adjacent country, to the distance of many miles, was a deep and impassable morass; and the artificial causeway which connected Ravenna with the continent might be easily guarded, or destroyed, on the approach of a hostile army. These morasses were interspersed, however, with vineyards; and though the soil was exhausted by four or five crops, the town enjoyed a more plentiful supply of wine than of fresh water. The air, instead of receiving the sickly and almost pestilential exhalations of low and marshy grounds, was distinguished, like the neighbourhood of Alexandria, as uncommonly pure and salubrious; and this singular advantage was ascribed to the regular tides of the Adriatic. … This advantageous situation was fortified by art and labour; and, in the twentieth year of his age, the Emperor of the West [Honorius, A. D. 395-423] anxious only for his personal safety, retired to the perpetual confinement of the walls and morasses of Ravenna. The example of Honorius was imitated by his feeble successors, the Gothic kings, and afterwards the exarchs, who occupied the throne and palace of the emperors; and till the middle of the eighth century Ravenna was considered as the seat of government and the capital of Italy."

RAVENNA: A. D. 490-493.
   Siege and capture by Theodoric.
   Murder of Odoacer.
   Capital of the Ostrogothic kingdom.

"The usual residence of Theodoric was Ravenna, with which city his name is linked as inseparably as those of Honorius or Placidia. The letters of Cassiodorus show his zeal for the architectural enrichment of this capital. Square blocks of stone were to be brought from Faenza, marble pillars to be transported from the palace on the Pincian Hill: the most skilful artists in mosaic were invited from Rome, to execute some of those very works which we still wonder at in the basilicas and baptisteries of the city by the Ronco. The chief memorials of his reign which Theodoric has left at Ravenna are a church, a palace, and a tomb."

RAVENNA: A. D. 1512.
   Taken by the French.
   Battle before the city.
   Defeat of the Spaniards.

RAVENSPUR.

The landing place of Henry of Lancaster, July 4, 1399, when he came back from banishment to demand the crown of England from Richard II. It is on the coast of Yorkshire.

REBECCAITES. DAUGHTERS OF REBECCA.

Between 1839 and 1844, a general outbreak occurred in Wales against what were thought to be the excessive tolls collected on the turnpike roads. Finding that peaceful agitation was of no avail the people determined to destroy the turnpike gates, and did so very extensively, the movement spreading from county to county. They applied to themselves the Bible promise given to the descendants of Isaac's wife, that they should possess the "gate" of their enemies, and were known as the Daughters, or Children of Rebecca, or Rebeccaites. Their proceedings assumed at last a generally riotous and lawless character, and were repressed by severe measures. At the same time Parliament removed the toll-gate grievance by an amended law.

RECESS.

An ascetic religious association, or order, formed among the Israelites, under the influence of the prophet Elijah, or after his death. Like the monks of a later time, they mostly withdrew into the desert. "The vow of their order was so strict that they were not allowed to possess either vineyards or corn-fields or houses, and they were consequently rigidly confined for means of subsistence to the products of the wilderness."

RECOLLECTS, RÉCOLLETS.

   This name is borne by a branch of the Franciscan order of
   friars, to indicate that the aim of their lives is the
   recollection of God and the forgetfulness of worldly things.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1865-1866 (DECEMBER-JUNE),
      1866-1867 (OCTOBER-MARCH), 1867 (MARCH).

      See, also:
      SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1865-1876;
      TENNESSEE: A. D. 1865-1866;
      LOUISIANA: A. D. 1865-1867.

"A confederation of relief societies in different countries, acting under the Geneva Convention, carries on its work under the sign of the Red Cross. The aim of these societies is to ameliorate the condition of wounded soldiers in the armies in campaign on land or sea. The societies had their rise in the conviction of certain philanthropic men, that the official sanitary service in wars is usually insufficient, and that the charity of the people, which at such times exhibits itself munificently, should be organized for the best possible utilization. An international public conference was called at Geneva, Switzerland, in 1863, which, though it had not an official character, brought together representatives from a number of Governments. At this conference a treaty was drawn up, afterwards remodeled and improved, which twenty-five Governments have signed. The treaty provides for the neutrality of all sanitary supplies, ambulances, surgeons, nurses, attendants, and sick or wounded men, and their safe conduct, when they bear the sign of the organization, viz: the Red Cross. Although the Convention which originated the organization was necessarily international, the relief societies themselves are entirely national and independent; each one governing itself and making its own laws according to the genius of its nationality and needs. It was necessary for recognizance and safety, and for carrying out the general provisions of the treaty, that a uniform badge should be agreed upon. The Red Cross was chosen out of compliment to the Swiss Republic, where the first convention was held, and in which the Central Commission has its headquarters. The Swiss colors being a white cross on a red ground, the badge chosen was these colors reversed. There are no 'members of the Red Cross,' but only members of societies whose sign it is. There is no 'Order of the Red Cross.' The relief societies use, each according to its convenience, whatever methods seem best suited to prepare in times of peace for the necessities of sanitary service in times of war. They gather and store gifts of money and supplies; arrange hospitals, ambulances, methods of transportation of wounded men, bureaus of information, correspondence, &c. All that the most ingenious philanthropy could devise and execute has been attempted in this direction. In the Franco–Prussian war this was abundantly tested. … This society had its inception in the mind of Monsieur Henri Dunant, a Swiss gentleman, who was ably seconded in his views by Monsieur Gustave Moynier and Dr. Louis Appia, of Geneva."

RED LEGS.

RED RIVER COMPANY AND SETTLEMENT. RIEL'S REBELLION.

RED RIVER EXPEDITION.

The later period of the French Reign of Terror, when the guillotine was busiest, is sometimes so called.

REDEMPTIONERS.

"Redemptioners, or term slaves, as they were sometimes called, constituted in the early part of the 18th century a peculiar feature of colonial society. They were recruited from among all manner of people in the old world, and through this channel Europe emptied upon America, not only the virtuous poor and oppressed of her population, but the vagrants, felons, and the dregs of her communities. … There were two kinds of redemptioners: 'indented servants,' who had bound themselves to their masters for a term of years previous to their leaving the old country; and 'free–willers,' who, being without money and desirous of emigrating, agreed with the captains of ships to allow themselves and their families to be sold on arrival, for the captain's advantage, and thus repay costs of passage and other expenses."

The members of the congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer, founded by St. Alphonsus Maria de Liguori, in 1732, are commonly known as Redemptorists. The congregation is especially devoted to apostolic work among neglected classes of people. It has monasteries in several parts of Europe.

REEVE.

REFERENDARIUS.

"A popular vote under the name Referendum was known in the valleys of Graubunden and Wallis as early as the 16th century. Here existed small federations of communities who regulated certain matters of general concern by means of assemblies of delegates from each village. These conventions were not allowed to decide upon any important measure finally, but must refer the matter to the various constituencies. If a majority of these approved, the act might be passed at the next assembly. {2628} This primitive system lasted till the French invasion of 1798, and was again established in Graubünden in 1815. The word Referendum was also used by the old federal diets, in which there were likewise no comprehensive powers of legislation. If not already instructed the delegates must vote 'ad referendum' and carry all questions to the home government. The institution as now known is a product of this century. It originated in the canton of St. Gallen in 1830, where at the time the constitution was undergoing revision. As a compromise between the party which strove for pure democracy and that desiring representative government, it was provided that all laws should be submitted to popular vote if a respectable number of voters so demanded. Known at first by the name Veto, this system slowly found its way into several of the German-speaking cantons, so that soon after the adoption of the federal constitution five were employing the optional Referendum. Other forms of popular legislation were destined to find wider acceptance, but at present [1891] in eight states, including three of the Romance tongue, laws must be submitted on request. … The usual limit of time during which the petition must be signed is 30 days. These requests are directed to the Executive Council of the state, and that body is obliged, within a similar period after receiving the same, to appoint a day for the vote. The number of signers required varies from 500 in the little canton Zug to 6,000 in St. Gallen, or from one-tenth to one–fifth of all the voters. Some states provide that in connection with the vote on the bill as a whole, an expression may be taken on separate points. Custom varies as to the number of votes required to veto a law. Some fix the minimum at a majority of those taking part in the election, and others at a majority of all citizens, whether voting or not. In case the vote is against the bill, the matter is referred by the Executive Council to the legislature. This body, after examining into the correctness of the returns, passes a resolution declaring its own act to be void. By means of the Initiative or Imperative Petition, the order of legislation just described is reversed, since the impulse to make law is received from below instead of above. The method of procedure is about as follows: Those who are interested in the passage of a new law prepare either a full draft of such a bill or a petition containing the points desired to be covered, with the reasons for its enactment, and then bring the matter before the public for the purpose of obtaining signatures. Endorsement may be given either by actually signing the petition or by verbal assent to it. The latter form of consent is indicated either in the town meetings of the communes or by appearing before the official in charge of the petition and openly asking that his vote be given for it. If, in the various town meetings of the canton taken together, a stated number of affirmative votes are given for the petition, the effect is the same as if the names of voters had been signed. … The number of names required is about the same in proportion to the whole body of voters as for the Optional Referendum. The requisite number of signatures having been procured, the petition is carried to the legislature of the canton. This body must take the matter into consideration within a specified time (Solothurn, two months), and prepare a completed draft in accordance with the request. It may also at the same time present an alternate proposition which expresses its own ideas of the matter, so that voters may take their choice. In any case the legislature gives an opinion on the project, as to its desirability or propriety, and the public has thus a report of its own select committee for guidance. The bill is then submitted to the voters, and on receiving the assent of a majority, and having been promulgated by the executive authority, becomes a law of the land."

"Between 1874 and 1886, the federal legislature passed 113 laws and resolutions which were capable of being submitted to the referendum. Of these only 19 were subjected to the popular vote, and of these last 13 were rejected and 6 adopted. The strong opposing views, which are held in Switzerland regarding the expediency of the referendum, indicate that this is one of the features of the government which is open to future discussion."

"A plébiscite is a mass vote of the French people by which a Revolutionary or Imperial Executive obtains for its policy, or its crimes, the apparent sanction or condonation of France. Frenchmen are asked at the moment, and in the form most convenient to the statesmen or conspirators who rule in Paris, to say 'Aye' or 'No' whether they will, or will not, accept a given Constitution or a given policy. The crowd of voters are expected to reply in accordance to the wishes or the orders of the Executive, and the expectation always has met, and an observer may confidently predict always will meet, with fulfilment. The plébiscite is a revolutionary, or at least abnormal, proceeding. It is not preceded by debate. The form and nature of the question to be submitted to the nation is chosen and settled by the men in power. Rarely, indeed, when a plébiscite has been taken, has the voting itself been either free or fair. Taine has a strange tale to tell of the methods by which a Terrorist faction, when all but crushed by general odium, extorted from the country by means of the plébiscite a sham assent to the prolongation of revolutionary despotism. The credulity of partisanship can nowadays hardly induce even Imperialists to imagine that the plébiscites which sanctioned the establishment of the Empire, which declared Louis Napoleon President for life, which first re-established Imperialism, and then approved more or less Liberal reforms, fatal at bottom to the Imperial system, were the free, deliberate, carefully considered votes of the French nation given after the people had heard all that could be said for and against the proposed innovation. … The essential characteristics, however, the lack of which deprives a French plébiscite of all moral significance, are the undoubted properties of the Swiss Referendum. When a law revising the Constitution is placed before the people of Switzerland, every citizen throughout the land has enjoyed the opportunity of learning the merits and demerits of the proposed alteration. The subject has been 'threshed out,' as the expression goes, in Parliament; the scheme, whatever its worth, has received the deliberately given approval of the elected Legislature; it comes before the people with as much authority in its favour as a Bill which in England has passed through both Houses."

"A judgment of the referendum must be based on the working of the electoral machinery, on the interest shown by the voters, and on the popular discrimination between good and bad measures. The process of invoking and voting on a referendum is simple and easily worked, if not used too often. Although the Assembly has, in urgent cases, the constitutional right to set a resolution in force at once, it always allows from three to eight months' delay so as to permit the opponents of a measure to lodge their protests against it. Voluntary committees take charge of the movement, and, if a law is unpopular, little difficulty is found in getting together the necessary thirty thousand or fifty thousand signatures. Only thrice has the effort failed when made. When, as in 1882, the signatures run up to 180,000, the labor is severe, for every signature is examined by the national executive to see whether it is attested as the sign manual of a voter; sometimes, in an interested canton, as many as 70 per cent. of the voters have signed the demand. The system undoubtedly leads to public discussion: newspapers criticise; addresses and counter addresses are issued; cantonal councils publicly advise voters; and of late the federal Assembly sends out manifestoes against pending initiatives. The federal Executive Council distributes to the cantons enough copies of the proposed measure, so that one may be given to each voter. The count of the votes is made by the Executive Council as a returning-board. Inasmuch as the Swiss are unfamiliar with election frauds, and there has been but one very close vote in the national referenda, the count is not difficult, but there are always irregularities, especially where more than one question is presented to the voters at the same time. What is the effect of the popular votes, thus carried out? The following table, based on official documents, shows the results for the twenty years, 1875-1894;

   (a.) Constitutional amendments
        proposed by the Assembly
        (referendum obligatory) 1 6 7

   (b.) Constitutional amendments
        proposed by popular initiative 2 1 *4
        (50,000 signatures)

Making allowances for cases where more than one question has been submitted at the same time, there have been twenty-four popular votes in twenty years. In addition, most of the cantons have their own local referenda; in Zurich, for example, in these twenty years, more than one hundred other questions have been placed before the sovereign people. These numbers are large in themselves, but surprising in proportion to the total legislation. Out of 158 general acts passed by the federal Assembly from 1874 to 1892, 27 were subjected to the referendum; that is, about one-sixth are reviewed and about one-tenth are reversed. Constitutional amendments usually get through sooner or Inter, but more than two-thirds of the statutes attacked are annulled. To apply the system on such a scale in any State of our Union is plainly impossible; thirty-nine–fortieths of the statute-book must still rest, as now, on the character of the legislators. Nevertheless it may be worth while to excise the other fortieth, if experience shows that the people are more interested and wiser than their representatives, when a question is put plainly and simply before them. I must own to disappointment over the use made by the Swiss of their envied opportunity. On the twenty referenda between 1879 and 1891 the average vote in proportion to the voters was but 58.5 per cent.; in only one case did it reach 67 per cent.; and in one case—the patent law of 1887—it fell to about 40 per cent. in the Confederation, and to 9 per cent. in Canton Schwyz. On the serious and dangerous question of recognizing the right to employment, this present year, only about 56 per cent. participated. In Zurich there is a compulsory voting law, of which the curious result is that on both national and cantonal referenda many thousands of blank ballots are cast. The result of the small vote is that laws, duly considered by the national legislature and passed by considerable majorities, are often reversed by a minority of the voters. The most probable reason for this apathy is that there are too many elections—in some cantons as many as fifteen a year. Whatever the cause, Swiss voters are less interested in referenda than Swiss legislators in framing bills. … 'I am a friend of the referendum,' says an eminent member of the Executive Council, 'but I do not like the initiative.' The experience of Switzerland seems to show four things: that the Swiss voters are not deeply interested in the referendum; that the referendum is as likely to kill good as bad measures; that the initiative is more likely to suggest bad measures than good; that the referendum leads straight to the initiative. The referendum in the United States would therefore probably be an attempt to govern great communities by permanent town meeting."

      Prof. A. B. Hart,
      Vox Populi in Switzerland
      (Nation, September 13, 1894).

      ALSO IN:
      A. L. Lowell,
      The Referendum in Switzerland and America
      (Atlantic Monthly, April, 1894).

See PAPACY: A. D. 1516-1517, 1517, 1517-1521, 1521-1522, 1522-1525, 1525-1529, 1530-1531, 1537-1563; also GERMANY: A. D. 1517-1523, 1530-1532, 1533-1546, 1546-1552, 1552-1561; also PALATINATE OF THE RHINE; A. D. 1518-1572.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1519-1524;
      SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1528-1531;
      and GENEVA: A. D. 1504-1535; and 1536-1564.

REGED.

REGENSBURG.

See RATISBON-under which name the town is more commonly known to English readers.

In the legendary history of the Roman kings it is told that the last of the Tarquins strove long to regain his throne, with the help of the Etruscans first, afterwards of the Latins, and that the question was finally settled in a great battle fought with the latter, near the Lake Regillus, in which the Romans were helped by Castor and Pollux, in person.

REGULATORS OF NORTH CAROLINA.

REGULBIUM.

One of the fortified Roman towns in Britain on the Kentish coast,—modern Reculver.

REICHSTAG.

REIS EFFENDI.

REMONSTRANTS AND COUNTER-REMONSTRANTS.

REMOVAL OF THE DEPOSITS.

"The word Renaissance has of late years received a more extended significance than that which is implied in our English equivalent—the Revival of Learning. We use it to denote the whole transition from the Middle Ages to the Modern World; and though it is possible to assign certain limits to the period during which this transition took place, we cannot fix on any dates so positively as to say—between this year and that the movement was accomplished. To do so would be like trying to name the days on which spring in any particular season began and ended. Yet we speak of spring as different from winter and from summer. … By the term Renaissance, or new birth, is indicated a natural movement, not to be explained by this or that characteristic, but to be accepted as an effort of humanity for which at length the time had come, and in the onward progress of which we still participate. The history of the Renaissance is not the history of arts, or of sciences, or of literature, or even of nations. It is the history of the attainment of self-conscious freedom by the human spirit manifested in the European races. It is no mere political mutation, no new fashion of art, no restoration of classical standards of taste. The arts and the inventions, the knowledge and the books which suddenly became vital at the time of the Renaissance, had long lain neglected on the shores of the Dead Sea which we call the Middle Ages. It was not their discovery which caused the Renaissance. But it was the intellectual energy, the spontaneous outburst of intelligence, which enabled mankind at that moment to make use of them. The force then generated still continues, vital and expansive, in the spirit of the modern world. … The reason why Italy took the lead in the Renaissance was, that Italy possessed a language, a favourable climate, political freedom, and commercial prosperity, at a time when other nations were still semi-barbarous. … It was … at the beginning of the 14th century, when Italy had lost indeed the heroic spirit which we admire in her Communes of the 13th, but had gained instead ease, wealth, magnificence, and that repose which springs from long prosperity, that the new age at last began. … The great achievements of the Renaissance were the discovery of the world and the discovery of man. Under these two formulæ may be classified all the phenomena which properly belong to this period. The discovery of the world divides itself into two branches—the exploration of the globe, and the systematic exploration of the universe which is in fact what we call Science. Columbus made known America in 1492; the Portuguese rounded the Cape in 1497; Copernicus explained the solar system in 1507. It is not necessary to add anything to this plain statement. … In the discovery of man … it is possible to trace a twofold process. Man in his temporal relations, illustrated by Pagan antiquity, and man in his spiritual relations, illustrated by Biblical antiquity: these are the two regions, at first apparently distinct, afterwards found to be interpenetrative, which the critical and inquisitive genius of the Renaissance opened for investigation. In the former of these regions we find two agencies at work, art and scholarship. … Through the instrumentality of art, and of all the ideas which art introduced into daily life, the Renaissance wrought for the modern world a real resurrection of the body. … It was scholarship which revealed to men the wealth of their own minds, the dignity of human thought, the value of human speculation, the importance of human life regarded as a thing apart from religious rules and dogmas. … The Renaissance opened to the whole reading public the treasure-houses of Greek and Latin literature. At the same time the Bible in its original tongues was rediscovered. Mines of Oriental learning were laid bare for the students of the Jewish and Arabic traditions. What we may call the Aryan and the Semitic revelations were for the first time subjected to something like a critical comparison. With unerring instinct the men of the Renaissance named the voluminous subject-matter of scholarship 'Litteræ Humaniores,' the more human literature, the literature that humanises [hence the term Humanism]. … Not only did scholarship restore the classics and encourage literary criticism; it also restored the text of the Bible, and encouraged theological criticism. In the wake of theological freedom followed a free philosophy, no longer subject to the dogmas of the Church. … On the one side Descartes, and Bacon, and Spinoza, and Locke are sons of the Renaissance, champions of new-found philosophical freedom; on the other side, Luther is a son of the Renaissance, the herald of new-found religious freedom."

"The Renaissance, so far as painting is concerned, may be said to have culminated between the years 1470 and 1550. These dates, it must be frankly admitted, are arbitrary; nor is there anything more unprofitable than the attempt to define by strict chronology the moments of an intellectual growth so complex, so unequally progressive, and so varied as that of Italian art. All that the historian can hope to do, is to strike a mean between his reckoning of years and his more subtle calculations based on the emergence of decisive genius in special men. An instance of such compromise is afforded by Lionardo da Vinci, who belongs, as far as dates go, to the last half of the fifteenth century, but who must on any estimate of his achievement, be classed with Michael Angelo among the final and supreme masters of the full Renaissance. To violate the order of time, with a view to what may here be called the morphology of Italian art, is, in his case, a plain duty. Bearing this in mind, it is still possible to regard the eighty years above mentioned as a period no longer of promise and preparation but of fulfilment and accomplishment. Furthermore, the thirty years at the close of the fifteenth century may be taken as one epoch in this climax of the art, while the first half of the sixteenth forms a second. Within the former falls the best work of Mantegna, Perugino, Francia, the Bellini, Signorelli, Fra Bartolommeo. To the latter we may reckon Michael Angelo, Raphael, Giorgione, Correggio, Titian, and Andrea del Sarto. Lionardo da Vinci, though belonging chronologically to the former epoch, ranks first among the masters of the latter; and to this also may be given Tintoretto, though his life extended far beyond it to the last years of the century."

"It would be difficult to find any period in the history of modern Europe equal in importance with that distinguished in history under the name of the Renaissance. Standing midway between the decay of the Middle Ages and the growth of modern institutions, we may say that it was already dawning in the days of Dante Alighieri, in whose immortal works we find the synthesis of a dying age and the announcement of the birth of a new era. This new era—the Renaissance—began with Petrarch and his learned contemporaries, and ended with Martin Luther and the Reformation, which event not only produced signal changes in the history of those nations which remained Catholic, but transported beyond the Alps the centre of gravity of European culture."

   On the communication of the movement of the Renaissance to
   France and Europe in general, as a notable consequence of the
   invasion of Italy by Charles VIII.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1494-1496.
      See, also,
      ITALY: 14TH CENTURY, and 15-16TH CENTURIES;
      FLORENCE: A. D. 1469-1492;
      VENICE: 16TH CENTURY;
      FRANCE: A. D. 1492-1515, and 16TH CENTURY;
      EDUCATION: RENAISSANCE;
      ENGLAND: 10-16TH CENTURIES.

[Transcriber's note: For additional commentary on the
Renaissance by James J. Walsh, see:

RÉNE
(called The Good), Duke of Anjou and Lorraine and
Count of Provence, A. D. 1434-1480.

REPARTIMIENTOS. ENCOMIENDAS.

Columbus, as governor of Hispaniola (Hayti), made an arrangement "by which the caciques in their vicinity, instead of paying tribute, should furnish parties of their subjects, free Indians, to assist the colonists in the cultivation of their lands: a kind of feudal service, which was the origin of the repartimientos, or distributions of free Indians among the colonists, afterwards generally adopted, and shamefully abused, throughout the Spanish colonies; a source of intolerable hardships and oppressions to the unhappy natives, and which greatly contributed to exterminate them from the island of Hispaniola. Columbus considered the island in the light of a conquered country, and arrogated to himself all the rights of a conqueror, in the name of the sovereigns for whom he fought."

"The words 'repartimiento' and 'encomienda' are often used indiscriminately by Spanish authors; but, speaking accurately, 'repartimiento' means the first apportionment of Indians,—'encomienda' the apportionment of any Spaniard's share which might become 'vacant' by his death or banishment."

Sir A. Helps, Spanish Conquest in America, book 6, chapter 2, foot-note, (volume 1).

"'Repartimiento,' a distribution; 'repartir,' to divide; 'encomienda,' a charge, a commandery; 'encomendar,' to give in charge; 'encomendero,' he who holds an encomienda. In Spain an encomienda, as here understood, was a dignity in the four military orders, endowed with a rental, and held by certain members of the order. It was acquired through the liberality of the crown as a reward for services in the wars against the Moors. The lands taken from the Infidels were divided among Christian commanders; the inhabitants of those lands were crown tenants, and life-rights to their services were given these commanders. In the legislation of the Indies, encomienda was the patronage conferred by royal favor over a portion of the natives, coupled with the obligation to teach them the doctrines of the Church, and to defend their persons and property. … The system begun in the New World by Columbus, Bobadilla, and Ovando was continued by Vasco Nuñez, Pedrarias, Cortés, and Pizarro, and finally became general."

REPETUNDÆ.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT, 1884.

REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT.

"This [representative government] is the great distinction between free states of the modern type, whether kingly or republican, and the city-commonwealths of old Greece. It is the great political invention of Teutonic Europe, the one form of political life to which neither Thucydides, Aristotle, nor Polybios ever saw more than the faintest approach. In Greece it was hardly needed, but in Italy a representative system would have delivered Rome from the fearful choice which she had to make between anarchy and despotism."

"Examples of nearly every form of government are to be found in the varied history of Greece: but nowhere do we find a distinct system of political representation. There is, indeed, a passage in Aristotle which implies a knowledge of the principles of representation. He speaks of 'a moderate oligarchy, in which men of a certain census elect a council entrusted with the deliberative power, but bound to exercise this power agreeably to established laws.' There can be no better definition of representation than this: but it appears to express his theoretical conception of a government, rather than to describe any example within his own experience. Such a system was incompatible with the democratic constitutions of the city republics: but in their international councils and leagues, we may perceive a certain resemblance to it. There was an approach to representation in the Amphictyonic Council, and in the Achaian League; and the several cities of the Lycian League had a number of votes in the assembly, proportioned to their size—the first example of the kind—being a still nearer approximation to the principles of representation. But it was reserved for later ages to devise the great scheme of representative government, under which large States may enjoy as much liberty as the walled cities of Greece, and individual citizens may exercise their political rights as fully as the Athenians, without the disorders and perils of pure democracy."

"The most interesting, and on the whole the most successful, experiments in popular government, are those which have frankly recognised the difficulty under which it labours. At the head of these we must place the virtually English discovery of government by Representation, which caused Parliamentary institutions to be preserved in these islands from the destruction which overtook them everywhere else, and to devolve as an inheritance upon the United States."

"To find the real origin of the modern representative system we must turn to the assemblies of the second grade in the early German states. In these the freemen of the smaller locality—the Hundred or Canton—came together in a public meeting which possessed no doubt legislative power over matters purely local, but whose most important function seems to have been judicial—a local court, presided over by a chief who suggested and announced the verdict, which, however, derived its validity from the decision of the assembly, or, in later times, of a number of their body appointed to act for the whole. Those local courts, probably, as has been suggested, because of the comparatively restricted character of the powers which they possessed, were destined to a long life. On the continent they lasted until the very end of the middle ages, when they were generally overthrown by the introduction of the Roman law, too highly scientific for their simple methods. In England they lasted until they furnished the model, and probably the suggestion, for a far more important institution—the House of Commons. How many grades of these local courts there were on the continent below the national assembly is a matter of dispute. In England there was clearly a series of three. The lowest was the township assembly, concerned only with matters of very slight importance and surviving still in the English vestry meeting and the New England town-meeting. Above this was the hundred's court formed upon a distinctly representative principle, the assembly being composed, together with certain other men, of four representatives sent from each township. Then, third, the tribal assembly of the original little settlement, or, the small kingdom of the early conquest, seems to have survived when this kingdom was swallowed up in a larger one, and to have originated a new grade in the hierarchy of assemblies, the county assembly or shire court. At any rate, whatever may have been its origin, and whatever may be the final decision of the vigorously disputed question, whether in the Frankish state there were any assemblies or courts for the counties distinct from the courts of the hundreds, it is certain that courts of this grade came into existence in England and were of the utmost importance there. In them, too, the representative principle was distinctly expressed, each township of the shire being represented, as in the hundred's court, by four chosen representatives. These courts, also, pass essentially unchanged through the English feudal and absolutist period, maintaining local self-government and preserving more of the primitive freedom than survived elsewhere. We shall see more in detail, at a later point, how the representative principle originating in them is transferred to the national legislature, creating our modern national representative system—the most important single contribution to the machinery of government made in historic times, with the possible exception of federal government."

For an account of the rise and development of the representative system in the English Parliament.

   A battle, fought A. D. 241, in which Sapor I. the Persian
   king, was defeated by the Roman emperor Gordian, in
   Mesopotamia.

RESEN.

RESIDENCIA.

"Residencia was the examination or account taken of the official acts of an executive or judicial officer [Spanish] during the term of his residence within the province of his jurisdiction, and while in the exercise of the functions of his office. … While an official was undergoing his residencia it was equivalent to his being under arrest, as he could neither exercise office nor, except in certain cases specified, leave the place."

REVIVAL OF LEARNING.

      See
      EUROPE (volume 2, pages 1098-1099):
      ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849:
      GERMANY: A. D. 1848 (MARCH), to 1848-1850;
      AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848, to 1848-1850;
      HUNGARY: A. D. 1847-1849;
      FRANCE: A. D. 1841-1848, and 1848.

"The Alps from the Simplon pass to the sources of the Drave were occupied by the Rhætians. Beyond the Inn and the Lake of Constance, the plain which slopes gently towards the Danube was known by the name of Vindelicia. Styria, the Kammergut of Salzburg, and the southern half of the Austrian Archduchy, belonged to the tribes of Noricum, while the passes between that country and Italy were held by the Carnians." The Roman conquest of this Alpine region was effected in the years 16 and 15 B. C. by the two stepsons of the Emperor Augustus, Tiberius and Drusus. In addition to the people mentioned above, the Camuni, the Vennones, the Brenni and the Genauni were crushed. "The free tribes of the eastern Alps appear then for the first time in history, only to disappear again for a thousand years."

RHAGES.

Rhegium, an important Greek city, in the extreme south of Italy, on the strait which separates the peninsula from Sicily, incurred the hostility of the tyrant of Syracuse, the elder Dionysius, by scornfully refusing him a bride whom he solicited. The savage-tempered despot made several attempts without success to surprise the town, and finally laid siege to it with a powerful army and fleet. The inhabitants resisted desperately for eleven months, at the end of which time (B. C. 387) they were starved into surrender. "Dionysius, on entering Rhegium, found heaps of unburied corpses, besides 6,000 citizens in the last stage of emaciation. All these captives were sent to Syracuse, where those who could provide a mina (about £3. 17s.) were allowed to ransom themselves, while the rest were sold as slaves. After such a period of suffering, the number of those who retained the means of ransom was probably very small."

RHETRÆ.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1805-1806; 1806 (JANUARY-AUGUST); 1813 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER); and FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH).

The Rhine League was one of several Bunds, or confederations formed among the German trading towns in the middle ages, for the common protection of their commerce. It comprised the towns of southwest Germany and the Lower Rhine provinces. Prominent among its members were Cologne, Wessel and Munster. Cologne, already a large and flourishing city, the chief market of the trade of the Rhine lands, was a member, likewise, of the Hanseatic League.

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1631-1636.
   Roger Williams in Massachusetts.
   His offenses against Boston Puritanism.
   His banishment.

On the 5th of February, 1631, "the ship Lyon arrived at Nantasket, with twenty passengers and a large store of provisions. Her arrival was most timely, for the [Massachusetts] colonists were reduced to the last exigencies of famine. Many had already died of want, and many more were rescued from imminent peril by this providential occurrence. A public fast had been appointed for the day succeeding that on which the ship reached Boston. It was changed to a general thanksgiving. There was another incident connected with the arrival of this ship, which made it an era, not only in the affairs of Massachusetts, but in the history of America. She brought to the shores of New England the founder of a new State, the exponent of a new philosophy, the intellect that was to harmonize religious differences, and soothe the asperities of the New World; a man whose clearness of mind enabled him to deduce, from the mass of crude speculations which abounded in the 17th century, a proposition so comprehensive, that it is difficult to say whether its application has produced the most beneficial result upon religion, or morals, or politics. This man was Roger Williams, then about thirty-two years of age. He was a scholar, well versed in the ancient and some of the modern tongues, an earnest inquirer after truth, and an ardent friend of popular liberty as well for the mind as for the body. As a 'godly minister,' he was welcomed to the society of the Puritans, and soon invited by the church in Salem to supply the place of the lamented Higginson, as an assistant to their pastor Samuel Skelton. The invitation was accepted, but the term of his ministry was destined to be brief. The authorities at Boston remonstrated with those at Salem against the reception of Williams. The Court at its next session addressed a letter to Mr. Endicott to this effect: 'That whereas Mr. Williams had refused to join with the congregation at Boston, because they would not make a public declaration of their repentance for having communion with the churches of England, while they lived there; and, besides, had declared his opinion that the magistrate might not punish the breach of the Sabbath, nor any other offence, as it was a breach of the first table; therefore they marvelled that they would choose him without advising with the council, and withal desiring him, that they would forbear to proceed till they had conferred about it.' This attempt of the magistrates of Boston to control the election of a church officer at Salem, met with the rebuke it so richly merited. The people were not ignorant of the hostility their invitation had excited; yet on the very day the remonstrance was written, they settled Williams as their minister. The ostensible reasons for this hostility are set forth in the letter above cited. That they were to a great extent the real ones cannot be questioned. The ecclesiastical polity of the Puritans sanctioned this interference. Their church platform approved it. Positive statute would seem to require it. Nevertheless, we cannot but think that, underlying all this, there was a secret stimulus of ambition on the part of the Boston Court to strengthen its authority over the prosperous and, in some respects, rival colony of Salem. … As a political measure this interference failed of its object. The people resented so great a stretch of authority, and the church disregarded the remonstrance. … What could not as yet be accomplished by direct intervention of the Court was effected in a surer manner. The fearlessness of Williams in denouncing the errors of the times, and especially the doctrine of the magistrate's power in religion, gave rise to a system of persecution which, before the close of the summer, obliged him to seek refuge beyond the jurisdiction of Massachusetts in the more liberal colony of the Pilgrims. At Plymouth 'he was well accepted as an assistant in the ministry to Mr. Ralph Smith, then pastor of the church there.' The principal men of the colony treated him with marked attention. … The opportunities there presented for cultivating an intimate acquaintance with the chief Sachems of the neighboring tribes were well improved, and exerted an important influence, not only in creating the State of which he was to be the founder, but also in protecting all New England amid the horrors of savage warfare. Ousamequin, or Massasoit, as he is usually called, was the Sachem of the Wampanoags, called also the Pokanoket tribe, inhabiting the Plymouth territory. His seat was at Mount Hope, in what is now the town of Bristol, R. I. With this chief, the early and steadfast friend of the English, Williams established a friendship which proved of the greatest service at the time of his exile."

S. G. Arnold, History of the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, volume 1, chapter 1.

Williams "remained at Plymouth, teaching in the church, but supporting himself by manual labor, nearly two years. His ministry was popular in the main and his person universally liked. Finally, however, he advanced some opinions which did not suit the steady-going Plymouth elders, and therefore, departing 'something abruptly,' he returned to Salem. There he acted as assistant to Mr. Skelton, the aged pastor of the church, and when Mr. Skelton died, less than a year later, became his successor. At Salem he was again under the surveillance of the rulers and elders of the Bay, and they were swift to make him sensible of it. He had written in Plymouth, for the Plymouth Governor and Council a treatise on the Massachusetts Patent, in which he had maintained his doctrine that the King could not give the settlers a right to take away from the natives their land without paying them for it. He was not a lawyer but an ethical teacher, and it was doubtless as such that he maintained this opinion. In our day its ethical correctness is not disputed. It has always been good Rhode Island doctrine. He also criticised the patent because in it King James claimed to be the first Christian prince who discovered New England, and because he called Europe Christendom or the Christian World. Williams did not scruple to denounce these formal fictions in downright Saxon as lies. He does not appear to have been, at any period of his life, a paragon of conventional propriety. A rumor of the treatise got abroad, though it remained unpublished. The patent happened to be a sensitive point with the magistrates. {2635} It had been granted in England to an English trading company, and its transfer to Massachusetts was an act of questionable legality. Moreover it was exceedingly doubtful whether the rulers, in exercising the extensive civil jurisdiction which they claimed under it, did not exceed their authority. They were apprehensive of proceedings to forfeit it, and therefore were easily alarmed at any turning of attention to it. When they heard of the treatise they sent for it, and, having got it, summoned the author 'to be censured.' He appeared in an unexpectedly placable mood, and not only satisfied their minds in regard to some of its obscurer passages, but offered it, since it had served its purpose, to be burnt. The magistrates, propitiated by his complaisance, appeared to have accepted the offer as equivalent to a promise of silence, though it is impossible that he, the uncompromising champion of aboriginal rights, can ever have meant to give, or even appear to give, such a promise. Accordingly when they heard soon afterwards that he was discussing the patent they were deeply incensed, though it was doubtless the popular curiosity excited by their own indiscreet action which elicited the discussion. Their anger was aggravated by another doctrine then put forth by him, namely, that an oath ought not to be tendered to an unregenerate, or, as we should say, an unreligious man, because an oath is an act of worship, and cannot be taken by such a man without profanation. … He also taught that an oath being an act of worship, could not properly be exacted from anyone against his will, and that even Christians ought not to desecrate it by taking it for trivial causes. … The magistrates again instituted proceedings against him, at first subjecting him to the ordeal of clerical visitation, then formally summoning him to answer for himself before the General Court. At the same time the Salem church was arraigned for contempt in choosing him as pastor while he was under question. The court, however, did not proceed to judgment, but allowed them both further time for repentance. It so happened that the inhabitants of Salem had a petition before the court for 'some land at Marblehead Neck, which they did challenge as belonging to their town.' The court, when the petition came up, refused to grant it until the Salem church should give satisfaction for its contempt, thus virtually affirming that the petitioners had no claim to justice even, so long as they adhered to their recusant pastor. Williams was naturally indignant. He induced his church—'enchanted his church,' says Cotton Mather—to send letters to the sister churches, appealing to them to admonish the magistrates and deputies of their 'heinous sin.' He wrote the letters himself. His Massachusetts contemporaries say he was 'unlamblike.' Undoubtedly they heard no gentle bleating in those letters, but rather the reverberating roar of the lion chafing in his rage. The churches repelled the appeal; and then turning to the Salem church, besieged it only the more assiduously, laboring with it, nine with one, to alienate it from its pastor. What could the one church do,—with the magistracy against it, the clergy against it, the churches and the people against it, muttering their vague anathemas, and Salem town suffering unjustly on its account,—what could it do but yield? It yielded virtually if not yet in form; and Williams stood forth alone in his opposition to the united power of Church and State. … The fateful court day came at last. The court assembles, magistrates and deputies, with the clergy to advise them. Williams appears, not to be tried, but to be sentenced unless he will retract. He reaffirms his opinions. Mr. Hooker, a famous clerical dialectician, is chosen to dispute with him, and the solemn mockery of confutation begins. … Hour after hour, he argues unsubdued, till the sun sinks low and the weary court adjourns. On the morrow [Friday, October 9, 1635], still persisting in his glorious 'contumacy,' he is sentenced, the clergy all save one advising, to be banished, or, to adopt the apologetic but felicitous euphemism of his great adversary, John Cotton, 'enlarged' out of Massachusetts. He was allowed at first six weeks, afterwards until spring, to depart. But in January the magistrates having heard that he was drawing others to his opinion, and that his purpose was to erect a plantation about Narragansett Bay, 'from whence the infection would easily spread,' concluded to send him by ship, then ready, to England [see MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1636]. The story is familiar how Williams, advised of their intent, baffled it by plunging into the wilderness, where, after being 'sorely tost for one fourteen weeks, in a bitter winter season, not knowing what bread or bed did mean,' he settled with the opening spring, on the east bank of the Seekonk, and there built and planted."

      T. Durfee,
      Historical Discourse: Two hundred and fiftieth
      Anniversary of the Settlement of Providence, 1886.

   "The course pursued towards Roger Williams was not
   exceptional. What was done to him had been done in repeated
   instances before. Within the first year of its settlement the
   colony had passed sentence of exclusion from its territory
   upon no less than fourteen persons. It was the ordinary method
   by which a corporate body would deal with those whose presence
   no longer seemed desirable. Conceiving themselves to be by
   patent the exclusive possessors of the soil,—soil which they
   had purchased for the accomplishment of their personal and
   private ends,—the colonists never doubted their competency to
   fix the terms on which others should be allowed to share in
   their undertaking. … While there is some discrepancy in the
   contemporary accounts of this transaction, there is entire
   agreement on one point, that the assertion by Roger Williams
   of the doctrine of 'soul-liberty' was not the head and front
   of his offending. Whatever was meant by the vague charge in
   the final sentence that he had 'broached and divulged new and
   dangerous opinions, against the authority of magistrates,' it
   did not mean that he had made emphatic the broad doctrine of
   the entire separation of church and state. We have his own
   testimony on this point. In several allusions to the subject
   in his later writings,—and it can hardly be supposed that in a
   matter which he felt so sorely his memory would have betrayed
   him,—he never assigns to his opinion respecting the power of
   the civil magistrate more than a secondary place. He
   repeatedly affirms that the chief causes of his banishment
   were his extreme views regarding separation, and his
   denouncing of the patent. Had he been himself conscious of
   having incurred the hostility of the Massachusetts colony for
   asserting the great principle with which he was afterwards
   identified, he would surely have laid stress upon it. …
{2636}
   It is … clear that in the long controversy it had become
   covered up by other issues, and that his opponents, at least,
   did not regard it as his most dangerous heresy. So far as it
   was a mere speculative opinion it was not new. … To upbraid
   the Puritans as unrelenting persecutors, or extol Roger
   Williams as a martyr to the cause of Religious liberty, is
   equally wide of the real fact. On the one hand, the
   controversy had its origin in the passionate and precipitate
   zeal of a young man whose relish for disputation made him
   never unwilling to encounter opposition, and on the other, in
   the exigencies of a unique community, where the instincts of a
   private corporation had not yet expanded into the more liberal
   policy of a body politic. If we cannot impute to the colony
   any large statesmanship, so neither can we wholly acquit Roger
   Williams of the charge of mixing great principles with some
   whimsical conceits. The years which he passed in Massachusetts
   were years of discipline and growth, when he doubtless already
   cherished in his active brain the germs of the principles
   which he afterwards developed; but the fruit was destined to
   be ripened under another sky."

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1636.
   The wanderings of the exiled Roger Williams.
   His followers.
   The settlement at Providence.

The little that is known of the wanderings of Roger Williams after his banishment from Salem, until his settlement at Providence, is derived from a letter which he wrote more than thirty years afterwards (June 22, 1670) to Major Mason, the hero of the Pequot War. In that letter he says: "When I was unkindly and unchristianly, as I believe, driven from my house and land and wife and children, (in the midst of a New England winter, now about thirty-five years past,) at Salem, that ever honored Governor, Mr. Winthrop, privately wrote to me to steer my course to Narragansett Bay and Indians, for many high and heavenly and public ends, encouraging me, from the freeness of the place from any English claims or patents. I took his prudent motion as a hint and voice from God, and waving all other thoughts and motions, I steered my course from Salem (though in winter snow, which I feel yet) unto these parts, wherein I may say Peniel, that is, I have seen the face of God. … I first pitched, and began to build and plant at Seekonk, now Rehoboth, but I received a letter from my ancient friend, Mr. Winslow, then Governor of Plymouth, professing his own and others love and respect to me, yet lovingly advising me, since I was fallen into the edge of their bounds, and they were loath to displease the Bay, to remove but to the other side of the water, and then he said, I had the country free before me, and might be as free as themselves, and we should be loving neighbors together. These were the joint understandings of these two eminently wise and Christian Governors and others, in their day, together with their counsel and advice as to the freedom and vacancy of this place, which in this respect, and many other Providences of the Most Holy and Only Wise, I called Providence. … Some time after, the Plymouth great Sachem, (Oufamaquin,) upon occasion affirming that Providence was his land, and therefore Plymouth's land, and some resenting it, the then prudent and godly Governor, Mr. Bradford, and others of his godly council, answered, that if, after due examination, it should be found true what the barbarian said, yet having to my loss of a harvest that year, been now (though by their gentle advice) as good as banished from Plymouth as from the Massachusetts, and I had quietly and patiently departed from them, at their motion to the place where now I was, I should not be molested and tossed up and down again, while they had breath in their bodies; and surely, between those, my friends of the Bay and Plymouth, I was sorely tossed, for one fourteen weeks, in a bitter winter season, not knowing what bread or bed did mean, beside the yearly loss of no small matter in my trading with English and natives, being debarred from Boston, the chief mart and port of New England."

"According to the weight of authority, and the foregoing extract, when Williams left Salem he made his way from there by sea, coasting, probably, from place to place during the 'fourteen weeks' that 'he was sorely tossed,' and holding intercourse with the native tribes, whose language he had acquired, as we have before stated, during his residence at Plymouth. Dr. Dexter and Professer Diman interpret this and other references differently, and conclude that the journey must have been by land. See Dexter, page 62, note; Nar. Club Pub., Vol. II, page 87. Perhaps the true interpretation is that the journey was partly by sea and partly by land; that is, from the coast inward—to confer with the natives—was by land, and the rest by sea."

Mr. Hider, the well-known critical student of Rhode Island history, has commented on the above passage in Mr. Straus's work as follows: "The distance from Salem by sea to Seekonk was across Massachusetts Bay, Cape Cod Bay, the Atlantic Ocean, Vineyard Sound, Buzzard's Bay, the Atlantic Ocean again, and Narragansett Bay,—a distance scarcely less than 500 miles, in and out, by the line of the coast; all of which had to be covered either in a birch bark canoe or in a shallop; if in a canoe, then to be paddled, but if in a shallop, where did Williams get it, and what became of it? history does not answer. If Williams was in a boat sailing into Narragansett Bay, 'the pleasure of the Most High to direct my steps into the Bay' would become a positive absurdity unless the Most High meant that Williams should jump overboard! He certainly could have taken no steps in a boat. But if Williams was in a boat, what sense could there be in his saying 'I was sorely tossed for one fourteen weeks, in a bitter (hyperbole again) winter season, not knowing what bread or bed did mean.' Did they not have beds in boats, nor bread? As to the expression in the Cotton Letter, it was his soul and not his body, which was exposed to poverties, &c.; observe the quotation. … When Mr. Straus in his foot-note, speaks of Williams's journey, 'partly by sea and partly by land, that is from the coast inward, to confer with the natives,' he is dealing solely with the imagination. No such conference ever took place."

It was the opinion of Prof. Gammell that, when Roger Williams fled from Salem, "he made his way through the forest to the lodges of the Pokanokets, who occupied the country north from Mount Hope as far as Charles River. Ousemaguin, or Massasoit, the famous chief of this tribe, had known Mr. Williams when he lived in Plymouth, and had often received presents and tokens of kindness at his hands; and now, in the days of his friendless exile, the aged chief welcomed him to his cabin at Mount Hope, and extended to him the protection and aid he required. He granted to him a tract of land on the Seekonk River, to which, at the opening of spring, he repaired, and where 'he pitched and began to build and plant ' [near the beautiful bend in the river, now known as 'Manton's Cove,' a short distance above the upper bridge, directly eastward of Providence.—Foot-note]. At this place, also, at the same time, he was joined by a number of his friends from Salem. … But scarcely had the first dwelling been raised … when he was again disturbed, and obliged to move still further from Christian neighbors and the dwellings of civilized men," as related in his letter quoted above. "He accordingly soon abandoned the fields which he had planted, and the dwelling he had begun to build, and embarked in a canoe upon the Seekonk River, in quest of another spot where, unmolested, he might rear a home and plant a separate colony. There were five others, who, having joined him at Seekonk, bore him company." Coasting along the stream and "round the headlands now known as Fox Point and India Point, up the harbor, to the mouth of the Mooshausic River," he landed, and, "upon the beautiful slope of the hill that ascends from the river, he descried the spring around which he commenced the first 'plantations of Providence.' It was in the latter part of June, 1636, as well as can be ascertained, that Roger Williams and his companions began the settlement at the mouth of the Mooshausic River. A little north of what is now the centre of the city, the spring is still pointed out, which drew the attention of the humble voyagers from Seekonk. Here, after so many wanderings, was the weary exile to find a home, and to lay the foundations of a city, which should be a perpetual memorial of pious gratitude to the superintending Providence which had protected him and guided him to the spot. … The spot at which he had landed … was within the territory belonging to the Narragansetts. Canonicus, the aged chief of the tribe, and Miantonomo, his nephew, had visited the colonies of Plymouth and Massachusetts Bay, while Williams resided there, and had learned to regard him, in virtue of his being a minister, as one of the sachems of the English. He had also taken special pains to conciliate their good-will and gain their confidence. … Indeed, there is reason to believe that, at an early period after his arrival in New England, on finding himself so widely at variance with his Puritan brethren, he conceived the design of withdrawing from the colonies, and settling among the Indians, that he might labor as a missionary. … In all his dealings with the Indians, Mr. Williams was governed by a strict regard to the rights which, he had always contended, belonged to them as the sole proprietors of the soil. … It was by his influence, and at his expense, that the purchase was procured from Canonicus and Miantonomo, who partook largely of the shyness and jealousy of the English so common to their tribe. He says, 'It was not thousands nor tens of thousands of money that could have bought of them an English entrance into this bay.'"

W. Gammell, Life of Roger Williams (Library of American Biographies, series 2, volume 4), chapters 6-7.

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1636-1661,
Sale and gift of lands by the Indians to Roger Williams.
His conveyance of the same to his associates.

"The first object of Mr. Williams would naturally be, to obtain from the sachems a grant of land for his new colony. He probably visited them, and received a verbal cession of the territory, which, two years afterwards, was formally conveyed to him by a deed, This instrument may properly be quoted here. 'At Narraganset, the 24th of the first month, commonly called March, the second year of the plantation or planting at Moshassuck, or Providence [1638]; Memorandum, that we, Canonicus and Miantinomo, the two chief sachems of Narraganset, having two years since sold unto Roger Williams the lands and meadows upon the two fresh rivers, called Moshassuck and Wanasquatucket, do now, by these presents, establish and confirm the bounds of these lands, from the river and fields of Pawtucket, the great hill of Notaquoncanot, on the northwest, and the town of Mashapaug, on the west. We also in consideration of the many kindnesses and services he hath continually done for us, both with our friends of Massachusetts, as also at Connecticut, and Apaum, or Plymouth, we do freely give unto him all that land from those rivers reaching to Pawtuxet river; as also the grass and meadows upon the said Pawtuxet river. In witness whereof, we have hereunto set our hands. [The mark (a bow) of Canonicus. The mark (an arrow) of Miantonomo]. In the presence of [The mark of Sohash. The mark of Alsomunsit].' … The lands thus ceded to Mr. Williams he conveyed to twelve men, who accompanied, or soon joined, him, reserving for himself an equal part only." Twenty-three years later, on the 20th of December, 1661, he executed a more formal deed of conveyance to his associates and their heirs of the lands which had unquestionably been partly sold and partly given to himself personally by the Indians. This latter instrument was in the following words. "'Be it known unto all men by these presents, that I, Roger Williams, of the town of Providence, in the Narraganset Bay, in New England, having, in the year one thousand six hundred thirty-four, and in the year one thousand six hundred thirty-five had several treaties with Canonicus and Miantinomo, the two chief sachems of the Narraganset, and in the end purchased of them the lands and meadows upon the two fresh rivers called Moshassuck and Wanasquatucket, the two sachems having, by a deed under their hands, two years after the sale thereof, established and confirmed the bounds of these lands from the rivers and fields of Pawtucket, the great hill of Notaquoncanot on the northwest, and the town of Mashapaug on the west, notwithstanding I had the frequent promise of Miantinomo, my kind friend, that it should not be land that I should want about these bounds mentioned, provided that I satisfied the Indians there inhabiting. I having made covenant of peaceable neighborhood with all the sachems and natives round about us, and having, of a sense of God's merciful Providence unto me in my distress, called the place Providence, I desired it might be for a shelter for persons distressed for conscience. {2638} I then considering the condition of divers of my distressed countrymen, I communicated my said purchase unto my loving friends, John Throckmorton, William Arnold, William Harris, Stukely Westcott, John Greene, Senior, Thomas Olney, Senior, Richard Waterman, and others, who then desired to take shelter here with me, and in succession unto so many others as we should receive into the fellowship and society of enjoying and disposing of the said purchase; and besides the first that were admitted, our town records declare, that afterwards we received Chad Brown, William Field, Thomas Harris, Senior, William Wickenden, Robert Williams, Gregory Dexter, and others, as our town book declares; and whereas, by God's merciful assistance, I was the procurer of the purchase, not by monies nor payment, the natives being so shy and jealous that monies could not do it, but by that language, acquaintance and favor with the natives, and other advantages, which it pleased God to give me, and also bore the charges and venture of all the gratuities, which I gave to the great sachems and other sachems and natives round about us, and lay engaged for a loving and peaceable neighborhood with them, to my great charge and travel; it was therefore thought fit by some loving friends, that I should receive some loving consideration and gratuity, and it was agreed between us, that every person, that should be admitted into the fellowship of enjoying land and disposing of the purchase, should pay thirty shillings unto the public stock; and first, about thirty pounds should be paid unto myself, by thirty shillings a person, as they were admitted; this sum I received, and in love to my friends, and with respect to a town and place of succor for the distressed as aforesaid, I do acknowledge the said sum and payment as full satisfaction; and whereas in the year one thousand six hundred and thirty-seven, so called, I delivered the deed subscribed by the two aforesaid chief sachems, so much thereof as concerneth the aforementioned lands, from myself and from my heirs, unto the whole number of the purchasers, with all my power, right and title therein, reserving only unto myself one single share equal unto any of the rest of that number; I now again, in a more formal way, under my hand and seal, confirm my former resignation of that deed of the lands aforesaid, and bind myself, my heirs, my executors, my administrators and assigns, never to molest any of the said persons already received, or hereafter to be received, into the society of purchasers, as aforesaid; but that they, their heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, shall at all times quietly and peaceably enjoy the premises and every part thereof, and I do further by these presents bind myself, my heirs, my executors, my administrators and assigns never to lay any claim, nor cause any claim to be laid, to any of the lands aforementioned, or unto any part or parcel thereof, more than unto my own single share, by virtue or pretence of any former bargain, sale or mortgage whatsoever, or jointures, thirds or entails made by me, the said Roger Williams, or of any other person, either for, by, through or under me. In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and seal, the twentieth day of December, in the present year one thousand six hundred sixty-one. Roger Williams.' … From this document, it appears, that the twelve persons to whom the lands, on the Moshassuck and Wanasquatucket rivers, were conveyed by Mr. Williams, did not pay him any part of the thirty pounds, which he received; but that the sum of thirty shillings was exacted of every person who was afterwards admitted, to form a common stock. From this stock, thirty pounds were paid to Mr. Williams, for the reasons mentioned in the instrument last quoted."

"Williams was banished in 1636 and settled at Providence. The Pequot war took place the next year following. The Pequots were a powerful tribe of Indians, dwelling … in the valley of the Thames at the easterly end of Connecticut, and holding the lands west to the river of that name. The parties to this war were, the Massachusetts, Plymouth, and Connecticut colonies, assisted by the Narragansett and Mohegan tribes of Indians on one side, against the Pequots, single-handed, on the other. The Pequots undertook to make an alliance with the Narragansetts and the Mohegans (Hubbard's Indian Wars, 1677, page 118), and but for Williams would have succeeded, (Narr. Club, volume 6, page 269). Williams had obtained a powerful influence over Canonicus and Miantinomi, the great Sachems of the Narragansetts, (Narr. Club, volume 6, page 17,) and Massachusetts having just banished him, sent at once to him to prevent if possible this alliance, (Narr. Club, volume 6, page 269). By his influence a treaty of alliance was made with Miantinomi, Williams being employed by both sides as a friend, the treaty was deposited with him and he was made interpreter by Massachusetts for the Indians upon their motion, (Winthrop's Hist. N. E., 1853, volume 1, page 237). The Narragansetts, the Mohegans, the Niantics, the Nipmucs, and the Cowesets, were by this treaty either neutrals or fought actively for the English in the war."

S. S. Rider, Political results of the Banishment of Williams (Book Notes, volume 8, number 17).

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1638-1640.
The purchase, the settlement, and the naming of the island.
The founding of Newport.

Early in the spring of 1638, while Mrs. Anne Hutchinson was undergoing imprisonment at Boston (see MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1636-1638), "Mr's. Hutchinson's husband, Coddington, John Clarke, educated a physician, and other principal persons of the Hutchinsonian party, were given to understand that, unless they removed of their own accord, proceedings would be taken to compel them to do so. They sent, therefore, to seck a place of settlement, and found one in Plymouth patent; but, as the magistrates of that colony declined to allow them an independent organization, they presently purchased of the Narragansets, by the recommendation of Williams, the beautiful and fertile Is]and of Aquiday [or Aquetnet, or Aquidneck]. The price was 40 fathoms of white wampum; for the additional gratuity of ten coats and twenty hoes, the present inhabitants agreed to remove. The purchasers called it the Isle of Rhodes—a name presently changed by use to Rhode Island. Nineteen persons, having signed a covenant 'to incorporate themselves into a body politic,' and to submit to 'our Lord Jesus Christ,' and to his 'most perfect and absolute laws,' began a settlement at its northern end, with Coddington as their judge or chief magistrate, and three elders to assist him. They were soon joined by others from Boston; but those who were 'of the rigid separation, and savored Anabaptism,' removed to Providence, which now began to be well peopled."

"This little colony increased rapidly, so that in the following spring some of their number moved to the south-west part of the island and began the settlement of Newport. The northern part of the island which was first occupied was called Portsmouth. Both towns, however, were considered, as they were in fact, as belonging to the same colony. To this settlement, also, came Anne Hutchinson with her husband and family after they had been banished from Massachusetts. There is no record that in this atmosphere of freedom she occasioned any trouble or disturbance. Here she led a quiet and peaceable life until the death of her husband in 1642, when she removed to the neighborhood of New York, where she and all the members of her family, sixteen in number, were murdered by the Indians, with the exception of one daughter, who was taken into captivity. In imitation of the form of government which existed under the judges of Israel, during the period of the Hebrew Commonwealth, the two settlements, Rhode Island and Portsmouth, chose Coddington to be their magistrate, with the title of Judge, and a few months afterward they elected three elders to assist him. This form of government continued until 1640."

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1638-1647.
   The Constitution of Providence Plantation.
   The charter and the Union.
   Religious liberty as understood by Roger Williams.

"The colonists of Plymouth had formed their social compact in the cabin of the Mayflower. The colonists of Providence formed theirs on the banks of the Mooshausick. 'We, whose names are hereunder,' it reads, 'desirous to inhabit in the town of Providence, do promise to subject ourselves in active or passive obedience to all such orders or agreements as shall be made for public good for the body, in an orderly way, by the major assent of the present inhabitants, masters of families, incorporated together into a town fellowship, and such others as they shall admit unto them only in civil things.' Never before, since the establishment of Christianity, has the separation of Church from State been definitely marked out by this limitation of the authority of the magistrate to civil things; and never, perhaps, in the whole course of history, was a fundamental principle so vigorously observed. Massachusetts looked upon the experiment with jealousy and distrust, and when ignorant or restless men confounded the right of individual opinion in religious matters with a right of independent action in civil matters, those who had condemned Roger Williams to banishment, eagerly proclaimed that no well ordered government could exist in connection with liberty of conscience. … Questions of jurisdiction also arose. Massachusetts could not bring herself to look upon her sister with a friendly eye, and Plymouth was soon to be merged in Massachusetts. It was easy to foresee that there would he bickerings and jealousies, if not open contention between them. Still the little Colony grew apace. The first church was founded in 1639. To meet the wants of an increased population the government was changed, and five disposers or selectmen charged with the principal functions of administration, subject, however, to the superior authority of monthly town meetings; so early and so naturally did municipal institutions take root in English colonies. A vital point was yet untouched. Williams, indeed, held that the Indians, as original occupants of the soil, were the only legal owners of it, and carrying his principle into all his dealings with the natives, bought of them the land on which he planted his Colony. The Plymouth and Massachusetts colonists, also, bought their land of the natives, but in their intercourse with the whites founded their claim upon royal charter. They even went so far as to apply for a charter covering all the territory of the new Colony. Meanwhile two other colonies had been planted on the shores of the Narragansett Bay: the Colony of Aquidnick, on the Island of Rhode Island, and the colony of Warwick. The sense of a common danger united them, and, in 1643, they appointed Roger Williams their agent to repair to England and apply for a royal charter. It has been treasured up as a bitter memory that he was compelled to seek a conveyance in New York, for Massachusetts would not allow him to pass through her territories. His negotiations were crowned with full success. … He found the King at open war with the Parliament, and the administration of the colonies entrusted to the Earl of Warwick and a joint committee of the two Houses. Of the details of the negotiation little is known, but on the 14th of March of the following year [1644], a 'free and absolute charter was granted as the Incorporation of Providence Plantations in Narragansett Bay in New England.' … Civil government and civil laws were the only government and laws which it recognized; and the absence of any allusion to religious freedom in it shows how firmly and wisely Williams avoided every form of expression which might seem to recognize the power to grant or to deny that inalienable right. … Yet more than three years were allowed to pass before it went into full force as a bond of union for the four towns. Then, in May, 1647, the corporators met at Portsmouth in General Court of Election, and, accepting the charter, proceeded to organize a government in harmony with its provisions. Warwick, although not named in the charter, was admitted to the same privileges with her larger and more flourishing sisters. This new government was in reality a government of the people, to whose final decision in their General Assembly all questions were submitted. 'And now,' says the preamble to the code, … 'it is agreed by this present Assembly thus incorporate and by this present act declared, that the form of government established in Providence Plantations is Democratical.'"

"The form of government being settled, they now prepared such laws as were necessary to enforce the due administration of it: but the popular approbation their laws must receive, before they were valid, made this a work of time; however, they were so industrious in it, that in the month of May, 1647, they completed a regular body of laws, taken chiefly from the laws of England, adding a very few of their own forming, which the circumstances and exigencies of their present condition required. {2640} These laws, for securing of right, for determining controversies, for preserving order, suppressing vice, and punishing offenders, were, at least, equal to the laws of any of the neighbouring colonies; and infinitely exceeded those of all other Christian countries at that time in this particular,—that they left the conscience free, and did not punish men for worshipping God in the way, they were persuaded, he required. … It was often objected to Mr. Williams, that such great liberty in religious matters, tended to licentiousness, and every kind of disorder: To such objections I will give the answer he himself made, in his own words [Letter to the Town of Providence, January, 1654-5]. 'Loving Friends and Neighbours, It pleaseth God yet to continue this great liberty of our town meetings, for which, we ought to be humbly thankful, and to improve these liberties to the praise of the Giver, and to the peace and welfare of the town and colony, without our own private ends. I thought it my duty, to present you with this my impartial testimony, and answer to a paper sent you the other day from my brother,—"That it is blood-guiltiness, and against the rule of the gospel, to execute judgment upon transgressors, against the private or public weal." That ever I should speak or write a tittle that tends to such an infinite liberty of conscience, is a mistake; and which I have ever disclaimed and abhorred. To prevent such mistakes, I at present shall only propose this case.—There goes many a ship to sea, with many a hundred souls in one ship, whose weal and wo is common; and is a true picture of a commonwealth, or an human combination, or society. It hath fallen out sometimes, that both Papists and Protestants, Jews and Turks, may be embarked into one ship. Upon which supposal, I do affirm, that all the liberty of conscience that ever I pleaded for, turns upon these two hinges, that none of the Papists, Protestants, Jews, or Turks, be forced to come to the ship's prayers or worship; nor, secondly, compelled from their own particular prayers or worship, if they practise any. I further add, that I never denied that, notwithstanding this liberty, the commander of the ship ought to command the ship's course; yea, and also to command that justice, peace, and sobriety, be kept and practised, both among the seamen and all the passengers. If any seamen refuse to perform their service, or passengers to pay their freight;—if any refuse to help in person or purse, towards the common charges, or defence;—if any refuse to obey the common laws and orders of the ship, concerning their common peace and preservation;—if any shall mutiny and rise up against their commanders, and officers;—if any shall preach or write, that there ought to be no commanders, nor officers, because all are equal in Christ, therefore no masters, nor officers, no laws, nor orders, no corrections nor punishments—I say I never denied, but in such cases, whatever is pretended, the commander or commanders may judge, resist, compel, and punish such transgressors, according to their deserts and merits. This, if seriously and honestly minded, may, if it so please the Father of lights, let in some light, to such as willingly shut not their eyes. I remain, studious of our common peace and liberty,—Roger Williams.' This religious liberty was not only asserted in words, but uniformly adhered to and practised; for in the year. 1656, soon after the Quakers made their first appearance in New England, and at which most of these colonies were greatly alarmed and offended;. Those at that time called the four united colonies, which were the Massachusetts, Plymouth, Connecticut, and New Haven, wrote to this colony, to join with them in taking effectual methods to suppress them, and prevent their pernicious doctrines being spread and propagated in the country.—To this request the Assembly of this colony gave the following worthy answer; 'We shall strictly adhere to the foundation principle on which this colony was first settled;. to wit, that every man who submits peaceably to the civil authority, may peaceably worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, without molestation.' And not to the people of the neighbouring governments only, was this principle owned; but it was asserted in their applications to the ruling powers in the mother country; for in the year 1659, in an address of this colony to Richard Cromwell, then lord protector of England, Scotland, and Ireland, there is this paragraph,—'May it please your highness to know, that this poor colony of Providence Plantations, mostly consists of a birth and breeding of the providence of the Most High.—We being an outcast people, formerly from our mother nation, in the bishops' days; and since from the rest of the New English over-zealous colonies: Our frame being much like the present frame and constitution of our dearest mother England; bearing with the several judgments, and consciences, each of other, in all the towns of our colony.—The which our neighbour colonies do not; which is the only cause of their great offence against us.' But as every human felicity has some attendant misfortune, so the people's enjoyment of very great liberty, hath ever been found to produce some disorders, factions, and parties amongst them. … It must be confessed, the historians and ministers of the neighbouring colonies, in all their writings for a long time, represented the inhabitants of this colony as a company of people who lived without any order, and quite regardless of all religion; and this, principally, because they allowed an unlimited liberty of conscience, which was then interpreted to be profane licentiousness, as though religion could not subsist without the support of human laws, and Christians must cease to be so, if they suffered any of different sentiments to live in the same country with them. Nor is it to be wondered at, if many among them that first came hither, being tinctured with the same bitter spirit, should create much disturbance; nor that others, when got clear of the fear of censure and punishment should relax too much, and behave as though they were become indifferent about religion itself. With people of both these characters, the fathers of this colony had to contend. …In this age it seemed to be doubted whether a civil government could be kept up and supported without some particular mode of religion was established by its laws, and guarded by penalties and tests: And for determining this doubt, by an actual trial, appears to have been the principal motive with King Charles the Second, for granting free liberty of conscience to the people of this colony, by his charter of 1663,—in which he makes use of these words: 'That they might hold forth a lively experiment, that a most flourishing civil state may stand, and best be maintained, and that amongst our English subjects, with a full liberty in religious concernments. And that true piety, rightly grounded on gospel principles, will give the best and greatest security to sovereignty, and will lay in the hearts of men the strongest obligations to true loyalty.'"

      Stephen Hopkins,
      Historical Account of the Planting and Growth of Providence
      (Massachusetts Historical Society Collections,
      2d Series, volume 9).

      ALSO IN:
      S. G. Arnold,
      History of Rhode Island,
      volume 1, chapter 4.

"There can be little doubt, as to what were the religious tenets of the first settlers of Providence. At the time of their removal here, they were members of Plymouth and Massachusetts churches. Those churches, as it respects government, were Independent or Congregational, in doctrine, moderately Calvinistic and with regard to ceremonies, Pedobaptists. The settlers of Providence, did not cease to be members of those churches, by their removal, nor did the fact of their being members, constitute them a church, after it. They could not form themselves into a church of the faith and order of the Plymouth and Massachusetts churches, until dismissed from them; and after such dismissal, some covenant or agreement among themselves was necessary in order to effect it. That they met for public worship is beyond a doubt; but such meetings, though frequent and regular, would not make them a church. Among the first thirteen, were two ordained ministers, Roger Williams and Thomas James. That they preached to the settlers is quite probable, but there is no evidence of any intent to form a church, previous to March 1689. When they did attempt it, they had ceased to be Pedobaptists, for Ezekiel Holyman, a layman, had baptized Roger Williams, by immersion, and Mr. Williams afterwards had baptized Mr. Holyman and several others of the company, in the same manner. By this act they disowned the churches of which they had been members, and for this, they were soon excommunicated, by those churches. After being thus baptized, they formed a church and called Mr. Williams to be their pastor. This was the first church gathered in Providence. It has continued to the present day, and is now known as The First Baptist Church. … Mr. Williams held the pastoral office about four years, and then resigned the same. Mr. Holyman was his colleague. … A letter of Richard Scott, appended to 'A New England Fire-Brand Quenched,' and published about 1678, states that Mr. Williams left the Baptists and turned Seeker, a few months after he was baptized. Mr. Scott was a member of the Baptist church for some time, but at the date of this letter, had united with the Friends. According to Mr. Williams' new views as a Seeker, there was no regularly constituted church on earth, nor any person authorized to administer any church ordinance, nor could there be, until new apostles should be sent by the Great Head of the church, for whose coming he was seeking. He was not alone in these opinions. Many in his day believed that the ministry and ordinances of the christian church were irretrievably lost, during the papal usurpation. It has been supposed, by some, that Mr. Williams held these opinions while in Massachusetts, and that this was the reason he denied the church of England to be a true church, and withdrew from his connexion with the Salem church. Aside from the statement of Mr. Scott, above quoted, that Mr. Williams turned Seeker, after he joined the Baptists and walked with them some months, the supposition is shown to be groundless, by his administering baptism in Providence, as before stated, and joining with the first Baptist church there. These acts he could not have performed, had he then been a Seeker."

   "Among the supporters of Mrs. Hutchinson, after her arrival at
   Aquedneck, was a sincere and courageous, but incoherent and
   crotchetty man named Samuel Gorton. In the denunciatory
   language of that day he was called a 'proud and pestilent
   seducer,' or, fas the modern newspaper would say, a 'crank.'
   It is well to make due allowances for the prejudice so
   conspicuous in the accounts given by his enemies, who felt
   obliged to justify their harsh treatment of him. But we have
   also his own writings from which to form an opinion as to his
   character and views. … Himself a London clothier, and thanking
   God that he had not been brought up in 'the schools of human
   learning,' he set up as a preacher without ordination, and
   styled himself 'professor of the mysteries of Christ.' He
   seems to have cherished that doctrine of private inspiration
   which the Puritans especially abhorred. … Gorton's temperament
   was such as to keep him always in an atmosphere of strife.
   Other heresiarchs suffered persecution in Massachusetts, but
   Gorton was in hot water everywhere. His arrival in any
   community was the signal for an immediate disturbance of the
   peace. His troubles began in Plymouth, where the wife of the
   pastor preferred his teachings to those of her husband. In
   1638 he fled to Aquedneck, where his first achievement was a
   schism among Mrs. Hutchinson's followers, which ended in some
   staying to found the town of Portsmouth while others went away
   to found Newport. Presently Portsmouth found him intolerable,
   flogged and banished him, and after his departure was able to
   make up its quarrel with Newport. He next made his way with a
   few followers to Pawtuxet, within the jurisdiction of
   Providence, and now it is the broad-minded and gentle Roger
   Williams who complains of his 'bewitching and madding poor
   Providence.' … Williams disapproved of Gorton, but was true to
   his principles of toleration and would not take part in any
   attempt to silence him. But in 1641 we find thirteen leading
   citizens of Providence, headed by William Arnold, sending a
   memorial to Boston, asking for assistance and counsel in
   regard to this disturber of the peace. How was Massachusetts
   to treat such an appeal? She could not presume to meddle with
   the affair unless she could have permanent jurisdiction over
   Pawtuxet; otherwise she was a mere intruder. … Whatever might
   be the abstract merits of Gorton's opinions, his conduct was
   politically dangerous; and accordingly the jurisdiction over
   Pawtuxet was formally conceded to Massachusetts.
{2642}
   Thereupon that colony, assuming jurisdiction, summoned Gorton
   and his men to Boston, to prove their title to the lands they
   occupied. They of course regarded the summons as a flagrant
   usurpation of authority, and instead of obeying it they
   withdrew to Shawomet [Warwick], on the western shore of
   Narragansett bay, where they bought a tract of land from the
   principal sachem of the Narragansetts, Miantonomo."

"Soon afterward, by the surrender to Massachusetts of a subordinate Indian chief, who claimed the territory … purchased by Gorton of Miantonomi [or Miantonomo], that Government made a demand of jurisdiction there also; and as Gorton refused their summons to appear at Boston, Massachusetts sent soldiers, and captured the inhabitants in their homes, took them to Boston, tried them, and sentenced the greater part of them to imprisonment for blasphemous language to the Massachusetts authorities. They were finally liberated, and banished; and as Warwick was included in the forbidden territory, they went to Rhode Island. Gorton and two of his friends soon afterward went to England." Subsequently, when, in 1647, the government of Providence Plantations was organized under the charter which Roger Williams had procured in England in 1644, "Warwick, whither Gorton and his followers had now returned, though not named in the charter, was admitted to its privileges."

C. Deane, New England (Narrative and Critical History of America, volume 3, chapter 9).

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1651-1652.
   Coddington's usurpation.
   Second mission of Roger Williams to England.
   Restoration of the Charter.
   First enactment against Slavery.

In 1651, William Coddington, who had been chosen President some time before, but who had gone to England without legally entering the office, succeeded by some means in obtaining from the Council of State a commission which appointed him governor of Rhode Island and Connecticut for life, with a council of six to assist him in the government. This apparently annulled the charter of the colony. Again the colony appealed to Roger Williams to plead its cause in England and again he crossed the ocean, "obtaining a hard-wrung leave to embark at Boston. … In the same ship went John Clarke, as agent for the Island towns, to ask for the revocation of Coddington's commission. On the success of their application hung the fate of the Colony. Meanwhile the Island towns submitted silently to Coddington's usurpation, and the main-land towns continued to govern themselves by their old laws, and meet and deliberate as they had done before in their General Assembly. It was in the midst of these dangers and dissensions that on the 19th of May, in the session of 1652, it was 'enacted and ordered … that no black mankind or white being forced by covenant, bond or otherwise shall be held to service longer than ten years,' and that 'that man that will not let them go free, or shall sell them any else where to that end that they may be enslaved to others for a longer time, hee or they shall forfeit to the Colonie forty pounds.' This was the first legislation concerning slavery on this continent. If forty pounds should seem a small penalty, let us remember that the price of a slave was but twenty. If it should be objected that the act was imperfectly enforced, let us remember how honorable a thing it is to have been the first to solemn]y recognize a great principle. Soul liberty had borne her first fruits. … Welcome tidings came in September, and still more welcome in October. Williams and Clarke … had obtained, first, permission for the colony to act under the charter until the final decision of the controversy, and a few weeks later the revocation of Coddington's commission. The charter was fully restored."

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1660-1663.
The Charter from Charles II,
and the boundary conflicts with Connecticut.

   "At its first meeting after the King [Charles II.] came to
   enjoy his own again, the government of Rhode Island caused him
   to be proclaimed, and commissioned Clarke [agent of the colony
   in England] to prosecute its interests at court, which he
   accordingly proceeded to do. … He was intrusted with his suit
   about a year before Winthrop's arrival in England; but
   Winthrop [the younger, who went to England on behalf of
   Connecticut] had been there several months, attending to his
   business, before he heard anything of the designs of Clarke.
   His charter of Connecticut had passed through the preliminary
   forms, and was awaiting the great seal, when it was arrested
   in consequence of representations made by the agent from Rhode
   Island. … Winthrop, in his new charter, had used the words
   'bounded on the east by the Narrogancett River, commonly
   called Narrogancett Bay, where the said river falleth into the
   sea.' To this identity between Narragansett River and
   Narragansett Bay Clarke objected, as will be presently
   explained. A third party was interested in the settlement of
   the eastern boundary of Connecticut. This was the Atherton
   Company, so called from Humphrey Atherton of Dorchester, one
   of the partners. They had bought of the natives a tract of
   land on the western side of Narragansett Bay; and when they
   heard that Connecticut was soliciting a charter, they
   naturally desired that their property should be placed under
   the government of that colony, rather than under the unstable
   government of Rhode Island. Winthrop, who was himself one of
   the associates, wrote from London that the arrangement he had
   made accorded with their wish. Rhode Island, however,
   maintained that the lands of the Atherton purchase belonged to
   her jurisdiction. … When Winthrop thought that he had secured
   for Connecticut a territory extending eastward to Narragansett
   Bay, Clarke had obtained for Rhode Island the promise of a
   charter which pushed its boundary westward to the Paucatuck
   River, so as to include in the latter colony a tract 25 miles
   wide, and extending in length from the southern border of
   Massachusetts to the sea. The interference of the charters
   with each other endangered both. The agents entered into a
   negotiation which issued, after several months, in a
   composition effected by the award of four arbiters. Two
   articles of it were material. One was that Paucatuck River
   should 'be the certain bounds between the two colonies, which
   said river should, for the future, be also called, alias,
   Narrogansett, or Narrogansett River.' The other allowed the
   Atherton Company to choose 'to which of those colonies they
   would belong.' The undesirable consequences of a dispute were
   thus averted; though to say that 'Paucatuck River' meant
   Narragansett Bay was much the same as to give to the Thames
   the name of the British Channel; and if the agreement between
   the agents should stand, Connecticut would be sadly curtailed
   of her domain."
{2643}
   On the 8th of July, 1663, "Clarke's charter, which the King
   probably did not know that he had been contradicting, passed
   the seals. It created 'a body corporate and politic, in fact
   and name, by the name of the Governor and Company of the
   English Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations in
   New England in America.' Similar to the charter of Connecticut
   in grants marked by a liberality hitherto unexampled, it added
   to them the extraordinary provision that 'no person within the
   said colony, at any time thereafter, should be anywise
   molested, punished, disquieted, or called in question, for any
   difference of opinion in matters of religion which did not
   actually disturb the civil peace of the said colony.' …
   Matters were now all ripe for a conflict of jurisdiction
   between Rhode Island and Connecticut. Using the privilege of
   choice secured by the compact between the agents, the Atherton
   Company elected to place their lands, including a settlement
   known by the name of Wickford, under the government of the
   latter colony. Rhode Island enacted that all persons presuming
   to settle there without her leave should be 'taken and
   imprisoned for such their contempt.' … This proved to be the
   beginning of a series of provocations and reprisals between
   the inharmonious neighbors."

J. G. Palfrey, Compendious History of New England, book 2, chapter 12 (volume 2).

Roger Williams, having given all to his colony, seems to have died without property, dependent upon his children. His son, Daniel, in a letter written in 1710, says: "He never gave me but about three acres of land, and but a little afore he deceased. It looked hard, that out of so much at his disposing, that I should have so little, and he so little. … If a covetous man had that opportunity as he had, most of this town would have been his tenants." "Of the immediate cause and exact time of Mr. Williams' death we are not informed. It is certain, however, that he died at some time between January 16, 1682-3, and May 10, 1683. … He was in the 84th year of his age."

"We call those great who have devoted their lives to some noble cause, and have thereby influenced for the better the course of events. Measured by that standard, Roger Williams deserves a high niche in the temple of fame, alongside of the greatest reformers who mark epochs in the world's history. He was not the first to discover the principles of religious liberty, but he was the first to proclaim them in all their plenitude, and to found and build up a political community with those principles as the basis of its organization. The influence and effect of his 'lively experiment' of religious liberty and democratic government upon the political system of our country, and throughout the civilized world, are admirably stated by Professor Gervinus in his 'Introduction to the History of the Nineteenth Century.' He says: 'Roger Williams founded in 1636 a small new society in Rhode Island, upon the principles of entire liberty of conscience, and the uncontrolled power of the majority in secular affairs. The theories of freedom in Church and State, taught in the schools of philosophy in Europe, were here brought into practice in the government of a small community. It was prophesied that the democratic attempts to obtain universal suffrage, a general elective franchise, annual parliaments, entire religious freedom, and the Miltonian right of schism would be of short duration. But these institutions have not only maintained themselves here, but have spread over the whole union. They have superseded the aristocratic commencements of Carolina and of New York, the high-church party in Virginia, the theocracy in Massachusetts, and the monarchy throughout America; they have given laws to one quarter of the globe, and, dreaded for their moral influence, they stand in the background of every democratic struggle in Europe.'"

"Roger Williams, as all know, was the prophet of complete religious toleration in America. … That as no man he was 'conscientiously contentious' I should naturally be among the last to deny; most men who contribute materially towards bringing about great changes, religious or moral, are 'conscientiously contentious.' Were they not so they would not accomplish the work they are here to do."

"The world, having at last nearly caught up with him, seems ready to vote—though with a peculiarly respectable minority in opposition—that Roger Williams was after all a great man, one of the true heroes, seers, world–movers, of these latter ages. Perhaps one explanation of the pleasure which we take in now looking upon him, as he looms up among his contemporaries in New England, may be that the eye of the observer, rather fatigued by the monotony of so vast a throng of sages and saints, all quite immaculate, all equally prim and still in their Puritan starch and uniform, all equally automatic and freezing, finds a relief in the easy swing of this man's gait, the limberness of his personal movement, his escape from the pasteboard proprieties, his spontaneity, his impetuosity, his indiscretions, his frank acknowledgments that he really had a few things yet to learn. Somehow, too, though he sorely vexed the souls of the judicious in his time, and evoked from them words of dreadful reprehension, the best of them loved him; for indeed this headstrong, measureless man, with his flashes of Welsh fire, was in the grain of him a noble fellow; 'a man,' as Edward Winslow said, 'lovely in his carriage.' … From his early manhood even down to his late old age. Roger Williams stands in New England a mighty and benignant form, always pleading for some magnanimous idea, some tender charity, the rectification of some wrong, the exercise of some sort of forbearance toward men's bodies or souls. It was one of his vexatious peculiarities, that he could do nothing by halves—even in logic. Having established his major and his minor premises, he utterly lacked the accommodating judgment which would have enabled him to stop there and go no further whenever it seemed that the concluding member of his syllogism was likely to annoy the brethren. To this frailty in his organization is due the fact that he often seemed to his contemporaries an impracticable person, presumptuous, turbulent, even seditious."

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1686. The consolidation of New England under Governor-general Andros.

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1754. The Colonial Congress at Albany, and Franklin's Plan of Union.

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1760-1766.
   The question of taxation by Parliament.
   The Sugar Act.
   The Stamp Act and its repeal.
   The Declaratory Act.
   The Stamp Act Congress.

Brown University was founded in 1764, especially in the interest of the Baptist Church, and with aid from that denomination in other parts of the country. It was placed first at Warren, but soon removed to Providence, where it was named in honor of its chief benefactor, John Brown.

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1766-1768.
The Townshend Duties.
The Circular Letter of Massachusetts.

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1768-1770.
The quartering of troops in Boston.
The "Massacre" and the removal of the troops.

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1770-1773.
   Repeal of the Townshend duties, except on Tea.
   Committees of Correspondence instituted.
   The Tea Ships and the Boston Tea-party.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1770, and 1772-1773;
and BOSTON: A. D. 1773.

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1772.
The destruction of the Gaspe.
The first overt act of the Revolution.

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1774.
   The Boston Port Bill, the Massachusetts Act,
   and the Quebec Act.-
   The First Continental Congress.

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1775.-
   The beginning of the War of the American Revolution.
   Lexington.
   Concord.
   The country in arms and Boston beleaguered.-
   Ticonderoga.
   Bunker Hill.
   The Second Continental Congress.

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1776.
   Allegiance to the king renounced.
   State independence declared.
   The British occupation.

"The last Colonial Assembly of Rhode Island met on the 1st of May. On the 4th, two months before the Congressional Declaration of Independence, it solemnly renounced its allegiance to the British crown, no longer closing its session with 'God save the King,' but taking in its stead as expressive of their new relations, 'God save the United Colonies.' … The Declaration of Independence by Congress was received with general satisfaction, and proclaimed with a national salute and military display. At Providence the King's arms were burned, and the Legislature assumed its legal title, 'The State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations.' … From the 4th of May, 1776, the Declaration of Independence of Rhode Island, to the battle of Tiverton Heights, on the 29th of August, 1778, she lived with the enemy at her door, constantly subject to invasion by land and by water, and seldom giving her watch-worn inhabitants the luxury of a quiet pillow. … In November … a British fleet took possession of her waters, a British army of her principal island. The seat of government was removed to Providence."

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1776-1783.
The War of Independence to the end.
Peace with Great Britain.

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1778.
Failure of attempts to drive the British from Newport.

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1783-1790.
   After the War of Independence.
   Paper-money.
   Opposition to the Federal Constitution.
   Tardy entrance into the Union.
   Rhode Island emerged from the war of independence bankrupt.

   "The first question was how to replenish the exhausted
   treasury. The first answer was that money should be created by
   the fiat of Rhode Island authorities. Intercourse with others
   was not much thought of. Fiat money would be good at home. So
   the paper was issued by order of the Legislature which had
   been chosen for that purpose. A 'respectable minority' opposed
   the insane measure, but that did not serve to moderate the
   insanity. When the credit of the paper began to fall, and
   traders would not receive it, laws were passed to enforce its
   reception at par. Fines and punishments were enacted for
   failure to receive the worthless promises. Starvation, stared
   many in the face. Now it was the agricultural class against
   the commercial class; and the former party had a large
   majority in the state and General Assembly. When dealers
   arranged to secure trade outside the state, that they might
   not be compelled to handle the local paper currency, it was
   prohibited by act. When three judges decided that the law
   compelling men to receive this 'money' was unconstitutional,
   they were brought before that august General Assembly, and
   tried and censured for presuming to say that constitutional
   authority was higher than legislative authority. At last,
   however, that lesson was learned, and the law was repealed.
   Before this excitement had subsided the movement for a new
   national Constitution began. But what did Rhode Island want of
   a closer bond of union with other states? … She feared the
   'bondage' of a centralized government. She had fought for the
   respective liberties of the other colonies, as an assistant in
   the struggle. She had fought for her own special, individual
   liberty as a matter of her own interest.
{2645}
   Further her needs were comparatively small as to governmental
   machinery, and taxation must be small in proportion; and she
   did not wish to be taxed to support a general government. … So
   when the call was made for each state to hold a convention to
   elect delegates to a Constitutional Convention, Rhode Island
   paid not the slightest attention to it. All the other states
   sent delegates, but Rhode Island sent none; and the work of
   that convention, grand and glorious as it was, was not shared
   by her. … The same party that favored inflation, or paper
   money, opposed the Constitution; and that party was in the
   majority and in power. The General Assembly had been elected
   with this very thing in view. Meanwhile the loyal party, which
   was found mostly in the cities and commercial centres, did all
   in its power to induce the General Assembly to call a
   convention; but that body persistently refused. Once it
   suggested a vote of the people in their own precincts; but
   that method was a failure. As state after state came into the
   Union, the Union party, by bonfire, parade, and loud
   demonstration, celebrated the event."

      G. L. Harney,
      How Rhode Island received the Constitution
      (New England Magazine, May, 1890).

"The country party was in power, and we have seen that elsewhere as well as in Rhode Island, it was the rural population that hated change. The action of the other states had been closely watched and their objections noted. One thing strikes a Rhode Islander very peculiarly in regard to the adoption of the federal constitution. The people were not to vote directly upon it, but only second-hand through delegates to a state convention. No amendment to our state constitution, even at this day, can be adopted without a majority of three-fifths of all the votes cast, the voting being directly on the proposition, and a hundred years ago no state was more democratic in its notions than Rhode Island. Although the Philadelphia Convention had provided that the federal constitution should be ratified in the different states by conventions of delegates elected by the people for that purpose, upon the call of the General Assembly, yet this did not accord with the Rhode Island idea, so in February, 1788, the General Assembly voted to submit the question whether the constitution of the United States should be adopted, to the voice of the people to be expressed at the polls on the fourth Monday in March. The federalists fearing they would be out-voted, largely abstained from voting, so the vote stood two hundred and thirty-seven for the constitution, and two thousand seven hundred and eight against it, there being about four thousand voters in the state at that time. Governor Collins, in a letter to the president of Congress written a few days after the vote was taken, gives the feeling then existing in Rhode Island, in this wise:—'Although this state has been singular from her sister states in the mode of collecting the sentiments of the people upon the constitution, it was not done with the least design to give any offence to the respectable body who composed the convention, or a disregard to the recommendation of Congress, but upon pure republican principles, founded upon that basis of all governments originally derived from the body of the people at large. And although, sir, the majority has been so great against adopting the Constitution, yet the people, in general, conceive that it may contain some necessary articles which could well be added and adapted to the present confederation. They are sensible that the present powers invested with Congress are incompetent for the great national government of the Union, and would heartily acquiesce in granting sufficient authority to that body to make, exercise and enforce laws throughout the states, which would tend to regulate commerce and impose duties and excise, whereby Congress might establish funds for discharging the public debt.' A majority of the voters of the country was undoubtedly against the constitution, but convention after convention was carried by the superior address and management of its friends. Rhode Island lacked great men, who favored the constitution, to lead her. … The requisite number of states having ratified the constitution, a government was formed under it April 30, 1789. Our General Assembly, at its September session in that year, sent a long letter to Congress explanatory of the situation in Rhode Island, and its importance warrants my quoting a part of it. 'The people of this state from its first settlement,' ran the letter, 'have been accustomed and strongly attached to a democratical form of government. They have viewed in the new constitution an approach, though perhaps but small, toward that form of government from which we have lately dissolved our connection at so much hazard and expense of life and treasure,—they have seen with pleasure the administration thereof from the most important trusts downward, committed to men who have highly merited and in whom the people of the United States place unbounded confidence. Yet, even on this circumstance, in itself so fortunate, they have apprehended danger by way of precedent. Can it be thought strange, then, that with these impressions, they should wait to see the proposed system organized and in operation, to see what further checks and securities would be agreed to and established by way of amendments, before they would adopt it as a constitution of government for themselves and their posterity? … Rhode Island never supposed she could stand alone. In the words of her General Assembly in the letter just referred to:—'They know themselves to be a handful, comparatively viewed.' This letter, as well as a former one I have quoted from, showed that she, like New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New York, Virginia, and North Carolina, hoped to see the constitution amended. Like the latter state she believed in getting the amendments before ratification, and so strong was the pressure for amendments that at the very first session of Congress a series of amendments was introduced and passed for ratification by the states, and Rhode Island, though the last to adopt the constitution, was the ninth state to ratify the first ten amendments to that instrument now in force; ratifying both constitution and amendments at practically the same time. One can hardly wonder at the pressure for amendments to the original constitution when the amendments have to be resorted to for provisions that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free use thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances; that excessive bail should not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted; for right of trial by jury in civil cases; and for other highly important provisions."

      H. Rogers,
      Rhode Island's Adoption of the Federal Constitution
      (Rhode Island Historical Society, 1890).

The convention which finally accepted for Rhode Island and ratified the federal constitution met at South Kingston, in March, 1790, then adjourned to meet at Newport in May, and there completed its work.

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1841-1843.
The Dorr Rebellion.
The old Charter replaced by a State Constitution.

The old colonial charter of Rhode Island remained unchanged until 1843. Its property qualification of the right of suffrage, and the inequality of representation in the legislature which became more flagrant as the state and its cities increased in population, became causes of great popular discontent. The legislature turned a deaf ear to all demands for a democratic basis of government, and in 1841 a serious attempt was made by a resolute party to initiate and carry through a revision of the constitution independently of legislative action. A convention was held in October of that year which framed a constitution and submitted it to the vote of the people. It was adopted by a majority of the votes cast, and, in accordance with its provisions, an election was held the following April. Thomas Wilson Dorr was chosen Governor, and on the 3d of May, 1842, the new government was formally inaugurated by its supporters at Providence, where they were in the majority. "If Mr. Dorr and his officers, supported by the armed men then at their command, had taken possession of the State House, Arsenal, and other state property, and acted as if they had confidence in themselves and their cause, the result might have been different. This was the course desired and advocated by Mr. Dorr, but he was overruled by more timid men, who dared go just far enough to commit themselves, disturb the peace of the state, and provoke the Law and Order government, but not far enough to give themselves a chance of success. While the People's government was being organized in Providence, the regularly elected General Assembly met on the same day at Newport, inaugurated the officers as usual, and passed resolutions declaring that an insurrection existed in the state and calling on the President for aid, which was … declined with good advice as to amnesty and concession, which was not heeded. On the following day a member of the People's legislature was arrested under the Algerine law, and this arrest was followed by others, which in turn produced a plentiful crop of resignations from that body. … At the request of his legislature, Mr. Dorr now went to Washington and unsuccessfully tried to secure the aid and countenance of President Tyler. … During Mr. Dorr's absence, both parties were pushing on military preparations. … The excitement at this time was naturally great, though many were still inclined to ridicule the popular fears, and the wildest rumors filled the air." On the 18th, the Dorr party made an attempt to gain possession of the state arsenal, but it failed rather ignominiously, and Dorr himself fled to Connecticut. One more abortive effort was made, by others less sagacious than himself, to rally the supporters of the Constitution, in an armed camp, formed at Chepachet; but the party in power confronted it with a much stronger force, and it dispersed without firing a gun. This was the end of the "rebellion." "In June, 1842, while the excitement was still at its height, the General Assembly had called still another convention, which met in September and … framed the present constitution, making an extension of the suffrage nearly equivalent to that demanded by the suffrage party previous to 1841. In November this constitution was adopted, and in May, 1843, went into effect with a set of officers chosen from the leaders of the Landholders' party, the same men who had always ruled the state. … Early in August, Governor Dorr, who had remained beyond the reach of the authorities, against his own will and in deference to the wishes of his friends who still hoped, issued an address explaining and justifying his course and announcing that he should soon return to Rhode Island. Accordingly, on October 31, he returned to Providence, without concealment, and registered himself at the principal hotel. Soon afterwards, he was arrested and committed to jail, without bail, to await trial for treason. … The spirit in which this trial was conducted does no credit to the fairness or magnanimity of the court or of the Law and Order party. Under an unusual provision of the act, although all Dorr's acts had been done in Providence County, he was tried in Newport, the most unfriendly county in the state. … Every point was ruled against Mr. Dorr, and the charge to the jury, while sound in law, plainly showed the opinion and wishes of the court. It was promptly followed by a verdict of guilty, and on this verdict Mr. Dorr, on June 25, just two years from his joining the camp at Chepachet, was sentenced to imprisonment for life. … Declining an offer of liberation if he would take the oath to support the new constitution, Mr. Dorr went to prison and remained in close confinement until June, 1845, when an act of amnesty was passed, and he was released. A great concourse greeted him with cheers at the prison gates, and escorted him with music and banners to his father's house, which he had not entered since he began his contest for the establishment of the People's constitution. The newspapers all over the country, which favored his cause, congratulated him and spoke of the event as an act of tardy justice to a martyr in the cause of freedom and popular rights. … But Mr. Dorr's active life was over. He had left the prison broken in health and visibly declining to his end. The close confinement, dampness, and bad air had shattered his constitution, and fixed upon him a disease from which he never recovered. He lived nine years longer but in feeble health and much suffering."

      C. H. Payne,
      The Great Dorr War
      (New England Magazine, June, 1890).

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1888.
Constitutional Amendment.
The qualification of the Suffrage.

"The adoption of the Amendment to the Constitution of Rhode Island, at the recent election, relating to the elective franchise, brings to a close a political struggle which began in earnest in 1819. Hence it has been in progress about 80 years. It makes, or will ultimately make, great political changes here. … It may not be inopportune, upon the consummation of so great a political change, to note briefly some of the steps by which the change came to pass. … The qualifications of electors was not defined by the charter. That power was given to the General Assembly. A property qualification was first introduced into the laws in 1665, and has ever since been and now is in part retained. It was not at first specified to be land, but men of competent estates, without regard to the species of property, 'may be admitted to be freemen.' Even so accurate a scholar as the late Judge Potter, has erred in his statement of the case. He says that by the act of March, 1663-4, all persons were required to be of 'competent estate.' This is not correct. The proposition was made two years subsequent to the establishment of the charter, and was made by the King of England, and sent by him by commissioners to Rhode Island and was then adopted and enacted by the General Assembly. … This qualification was made to depend only on land, by the act of the General Assembly of February 1723-4, and was a purely Rhode Island measure (Digest. of Rhode Island, 1730, p. 110). From that time until the present, covering a period of nearly 165 years, this qualification has in some measure remained. The value was then (in 1723) fixed at £100, and practically, it was never changed. It was raised or lowered from time to time to meet the fluctuation of paper money. Sometimes it was in 'old tenor' and sometimes in 'lawful money,' both of which were in paper, and reckoned usually in pounds, shillings and pence. In 1760, the amount was £40 lawful money. In 1763 'lawful money' was defined to be gold or silver. After the decimal system came into use, the mode of reckoning was changed into dollars. Thus in £40 are 800 shillings, which at six shillings to the dollar, which was then New England currency, is equal to $133.33; by the law of 1798 the sum was made $134, and so it has always since remained, and so under the recent amendment it remains as a qualification of an elector, who can vote on a question of expenditure, or the levying of a tax. … There was practically no change in the qualifications required of a man to become an elector from the earliest times down to 1842. In 1819 a serious attempt was made to obtain a constitution. A convention was called and a constitution was framed and submitted to the people, that is, to the Freemen, for adoption; but the General Assembly enacted that a majority of three-fifths should be required for its adoption. This was the origin of the three-fifth restriction in the present constitution. It did not enlarge the suffrage; a proposition to that end received only 3 votes against 61, nor was it of any general benefit, and it was as well that it failed. The political disabilities of men were confined to two classes, to wit: The second son, and other younger sons of freemen, and those other native American citizens of other states who had moved into Rhode Island, and therein acquired a residence. To these two classes, although possessed of abundant personal property, and upon which the state levied and collected taxes, and from whom the state exacted military service, the right to vote was denied, because among their possessions there was no land. It was taxation without representation, the very principle upon which the Revolution had been fought. In 1828 more than one-half the taxes paid in Providence were paid by men who could not vote upon any question. In 1830, in North Providence, there were 200 freemen and 579 native men, over twenty-one years, who were disfranchised. … There were in 1832 five men in Pawtucket who had fought the battles for Rhode Island through the Revolution, but who, possessing no land, had never been able to vote upon any question. … In another respect a great wrong was done. It was in the representation of the towns in the General Assembly. Jamestown had a representative for every eighteen freemen. Providence, one to every 275. Smithfield, one in every 206. Fifty dollars in taxes, in Burrington, had the same power in the representation that $750 had in Providence. The minority of legal voters actually controlled the majority. … Such then was the political condition of men in Rhode Island in 1830. There were about 8,000 Freemen and about 13,000 unenfranchised Americans with comparatively no naturalized foreigners among them. The agitation of the question did not cease. In 1829 it was so violent that the General Assembly referred the question to a committee, of which Benjamin Hazard was the head, and which committee made a report, always since known as Hazard's Report, which it was supposed would quiet forever the agitation. But it did not; for five years later a convention was called and a portion of a constitution framed. The question of foreigners was first seriously raised by Mr. Hazard in this report. By this term Mr. Hazard intended not only citizens of countries outside of the United States, but he intended American citizens of other American States. He would deny political rights to a man born in Massachusetts, who came to dwell in Rhode Island, in the same way that he would deny them to a Spaniard. A Massachusetts man must live here one year, the Spaniard three, but both must own land. These ideas were formulated in the constitution of 1834 as far as it went. … Fortunately it fell through and by the most disgraceful of actions; and its history when written will form one of the darkest chapters in Rhode Island history. This discrimination against foreign born citizens, that is, men born in countries outside of the United States, became more pointed in the proposed Landholders' Constitution of November 1841. A native of the United States could vote on a land qualification, or if he paid taxes upon other species of property. A foreigner must own land and he could not vote otherwise. This Constitution was defeated. Then came the People's Constitution, (otherwise known as the Dorr Constitution). It made no restrictions upon foreigners; it admitted all citizens of the United States upon an equal footing; negroes were excluded in both documents. This Constitution never went into effect. Then came the present Constitution, adopted in September, 1842, by which all the disabilities complained of were swept away with the exception of the discrimination in the case of foreigners. By it negroes were admitted, but foreigners were required to hold lands, as all the various propositions had provided with the single exception of the People's Constitution. Now comes the amendment recently adopted, and parallel with it I have reproduced the section relating to the same matter from the People's Constitution:

Qualification of Electors under Amendment
(Bourn) to Constitution, adopted April, 1888.

Section 1. Every male citizen of the United States of the age of 21 years, who has had his residence and home in this State for two years, and in the town or city in which he may offer to vote six months next preceding the time of his voting, and whose name shall be registered in the town or city where he resides on or before the last day of December, in the year next preceding to the time of his voting, shall have a right to vote in the election of all civil officers and on all questions in all legally organized town or ward meetings: Provided, that no person shall at any time be allowed to vote in that election of the City Council of any city, or upon any proposition to impose a tax, or for the expenditure of money in any town or city, unless he shall within the year next preceding have paid a tax assessed upon his property therein, valued at least at one hundred and thirty-four dollars.

Section 1. Every white male citizen of the United States of the age of twenty-one years, who has resided in this State for one year, and in any town, city or district of the same for six months next preceding the election at which he offers to vote, shall be an elector of all officers, who are elected, or may hereafter be made eligible by the people. **

Section 4. No elector who is not possessed of, and assessed for ratable property in his own right to the amount of one hundred and fifty dollars, or, who shall have neglected, or refused to pay any tax assessed upon him in any town or city or district, for one year preceding the * * meeting at which he shall offer to vote, shall be entitled to vote on any question of taxation, or the expenditure of any public moneys. * *

Section 7. There shall be a strict registration of all qualified voters * * * and no person shall be permitted to vote whose name has not been entered upon the list of voters before the polls are opened.

It thus appears that the people of Rhode Island have at last adopted an amendment to the Constitution, more liberal in its qualifications of electors, than the terms asked by Mr. Dorr, in 1842. … All that was asked by Mr. Dorr, and even by those of his party, more radical than himself, has been granted, and even more. And yet they were denounced with every species of vile epithet as Free Suffrage Men."

      S. S. Rider,
      The End of a great Political Struggle in Rhode Island
      (Book Notes, volume 5, paged 53-57).

RHODES.

The island of Rhodes, with its picturesque capital city identical in name, lying in the Ægean Sea, near the southwestern corner of Asia Minor, has a place alike notable in the history of ancient and mediæval times; hardly less of a place, too, in prehistoric legends and myths. It has been famed in every age for a climate almost without defect. Among the ancients its Doric people [see ASIA MINOR: THE GREEK COLONIES] were distinguished for their enterprise in commerce, their rare probity, their courage, their refinement, their wealth, their liberality to literature and the arts. In the middle ages all this had disappeared, but the island and the city had become the seat of the power of the Knights of St. John—the last outpost of European civilization in the east, held stoutly against the Turks until 1522. The unsuccessful siege of Rhodes, B. C. 305 or 304, by Demetrius, the son of Antigonus, was one of the great events of ancient military history. It "showed not only the power but the virtues of this merchant aristocracy. They rebuilt their shattered city with great magnificence. They used the metal of Demetrius's abandoned engines for the famous Colossus [see below], a bronze figure of the sun about 100 feet high, which, however, was thrown down and broken by the earthquake of B. C. 227, and lay for centuries near the quays, the wonder of all visitors. … It is said that the Saracens sold the remnants of this statue for old metal when they captured Rhodes. … It was doubtless during the same period that Rhodes perfected that system of marine mercantile law which was accepted not only by all Hellenistic states, but acknowledged by the Romans down to the days of the empire. … We do not know what the detail of their mercantile system was, except that it was worked by means of an active police squadron, which put down piracy, or confined it to shipping outside their confederacy, and also that their persistent neutrality was only abandoned when their commercial interests were directly attacked. In every war they appear as mediators and peace-makers. There is an allusion in the 'Mercator' of Plautus to young men being sent to learn business there, as they are now sent to Hamburg or Genoa. The wealth and culture of the people, together with the stately plan of their city, gave much incitement and scope to artists in bronze and marble, as well as to painters, and the names of a large number of Rhodian artists have survived on the pedestals of statues long since destroyed. But two famous works—whether originals or copies seems uncertain—still attest the genius of the school, the 'Laocoon,' now in the Vatican, and the 'Toro Farnese.'"

RHODES: B. C. 378-357.
   In the new Athenian Confederacy.
   Revolt and secession.
   The Social War.

One of the memorable sieges of antiquity was that in which the brave, free citizens of Rhodes held their splendid town (B. C. 305) for one whole year against the utmost efforts of Demetrius, called Poliorcetes, or "the Besieger," son of Antigonus, the would-be successor of Alexander (see MACEDONIA: B. C. 310-301). Demetrius was a remarkable engineer, for his age, and constructed machinery for the siege which was the wonder of the Grecian world. His masterpiece was the Helepolis, or "city-taker," —a wooden tower, 150 feet high, sheathed with iron, travelling on wheels and moved by the united strength of 3,400 men. He also assailed the walls of Rhodes with battering rams, 150 feet long, each driven by 1,000 men. But all his ingenious appliances failed and he was forced in the end to recognize the independence of the valiant Rhodians.

RHODES: B. C. 191.
   Alliance with Rome.
   War with Antiochus the Great.
   Acquisition of territory in Caria and Lycia.

At the beginning of his first war with the Romans, B. C. 88, Mithridates made a desperate attempt to reduce the city of Rhodes, which was the faithful ally of Rome. But the Rhodians repelled all his assaults, by sea and by land, and he was forced to abandon the siege.

RHODES: A. D. 1310.
Conquest and occupation by the
Knights Hospitallers of St. John.

RHODES: A. D. 1522.
Siege and conquest by the Turks.
Surrender and withdrawal of the Knights of St. John.

"In the elementary works for the instruction of young people, we find frequent mention of the Colossus of Rhodes. The statue is always represented with gigantic limbs, each leg resting on the enormous rocks which face the entrance to the principal port of the Island of Rhodes; and ships in full sail passed easily, it is said, between its legs; for, according to Pliny the ancient, its height was 70 cubits. This Colossus was reckoned among the seven wonders of the world, the six others being, as is well known, the hanging gardens of Babylon, devised by Nitocris, wife of Nebuchadnezzar; the pyramids of Egypt; the statue of Jupiter Olympus; the Mausoleum of Halicarnassus; the temple of Diana at Ephesus; and the Pharos of Alexandria, completely destroyed by an earthquake in 1303. Nowhere has any authority been found for the assertion that the Colossus of Rhodes spanned the entrance to the harbour of the island and admitted the passage of vessels in full sail between its wide-stretched limbs. … The following is the real truth concerning the Colossus." After the abandonment of the siege of Rhodes, in 305, by Demetrius Poliorcetes, "the Rhodians, inspired by a sentiment of piety, and excited by fervent gratitude for so signal a proof of the divine favour, commanded Charès to erect a statue to the honour of their deity [the sun-god Helios]. An inscription explained that the expenses of its construction were defrayed out of the sale of the materials of war left by Demetrius on his retreat from the island of Rhodes. This statue was erected on an open space of ground near the great harbour, and near the spot where the pacha's seraglio now stands; and its fragments, for many years after its destruction, were seen and admired by travellers."

   During their occupation of the island, the Knights
   Hospitallers of St. John of Jerusalem were commonly called
   Knights of Rhodes, as they were afterwards called Knights of
   Malta.

"The Ri or king, who was at the head of the tribe [the 'tuath,' or tribe, in ancient Ireland], held that position not merely by election, but as the representative in the senior line of the common ancestor, and had a hereditary claim to their obedience. As the supreme authority and judge of the tribe he was the Ri or king. This was his primary function. … As the leader in war he was the 'Toisech' or Captain."

RIBBON SOCIETIES. RIBBONISM.

RICHMOND, VIRGINIA: A. D. 1862.
McClellan's Peninsular Campaign against the Confederate capital.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (MARCH-MAY: VIRGINIA);
      (MAY: VIRGINIA);
      (JUNE: VIRGINIA);
      (JUNE-JULY: VIRGINIA);
      and (JULY-AUGUST: VIRGINIA).

RICHMOND, VIRGINIA: A. D. 1865 (APRIL).
   Abandonment by the Confederate army and government.
   Destructive conflagration.
   President Lincoln in the city.

RIDINGS OF YORKSHIRE.

   The name Ridings is a corruption of the word Trithings, or
   'Thirds,' which was applied to the large divisions of
   Yorkshire and Lincolnshire (England) in the time of the
   Angles.

RIEL'S REBELLION.

RIENZI'S REVOLUTION.

In France, and several other continental European countries, political parties in the legislative bodies are named according to the positions of the seats which they occupy in their respective chambers. The extreme conservatives gather at the right of the chair of the presiding officer, and are known, accordingly, as "The Right." The extreme radicals similarly collected on the opposite side of the chamber, are called "The Left." Usually, there is a moderate wing of each of these parties which partially detaches itself and is designated, in one case, "The Right Center," and in the other, "The Left Center"; while, midway between all these divisions, there is a party of independents who take the name of "The Center."

      See
      SCANDINAVIAN STATES (DENMARK-ICELAND): A. D. 1849-1874;
      and CONSTITUTION OF SWEDEN.

RIGSRET.

RIMMON.

"The name of Rimmon, which means pomegranate,' occurs frequently in the topography of Palestine, and was probably derived from the culture of this beautiful tree."

RINGS OF THE AVARS.

"On the death of Clovis, his son, Theodoric, was king of the eastern Franks; that is to say, of the Ripuarian Franks; he resided at Metz. To him is generally attributed the compilation of their law. … According to this tradition, then, the law of the Ripuarians should be placed between the years 511 and 534. It could not have, like the Salic, the pretension of ascending to the right-hand bank of the Rhine, and to ancient Germany. … I am inclined to believe that it was only under Dagobert I., between the years 628 and 638, that it took the definite form under which it has reached us."

ROANOKE: A. D. 1585-1590.
The first attempts at English settlement in America.
The lost colony.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1780 (JULY); 1781 (JANUARY-MAY);
      1781 (MAY-OCTOBER).

ROCHELLE:
   Early Importance.
   Expulsion of the English.
   Grant of Municipal independence.

"Rochelle had always been one of the first commercial places of France; it was well known to the English under the name of the White Town, as they called it, from its appearance when the sun shone and was reflected from its rocky coasts. It was also much frequented by the Netherlanders. … The town had … enjoyed extraordinary municipal franchises ever since the period of the English wars.

It had by its own unaided power revolted from the English dominion [1372], for which Charles V., in his customary manner, conferred upon the townsfolk valuable privileges,—among others, that of independent jurisdiction in the town and its liberties. The design of Henry II. to erect a citadel within their walls they had been enabled fortunately to prevent, through the favour of the Chatillons and the Moutmorencies. Rochelle exhibited Protestant sympathies at an early period."

L. von Ranke, Civil Wars and Monarchy if France, in the 16th and 17th Centuries, chapter 14.

      ALSO IN:
      H. M. Baird,
      History of the Rise of the Huguenots of France,
      volume 2, page 270-273.

ROCHELLE: A. D. 1568.
Becomes the headquarters of the Huguenots.
Arrival of the Queen of Navarre.

ROCHELLE: A. D. 1620-1622.
Huguenot revolt in support of Navarre and Bearn.
The unfavorable Peace of Montpelier.

ROCHELLE: A. D. 1627-1628.
   Revolt in alliance with England.
   Siege and surrender.
   Richelieu's dyke.
   The decay of the city.

One of two Roman towns in Britain called Durobrivæ is identified in site with the modern city of Rochester. It derived its Saxon name—originally "Hrofescester"—"according to Bede, from one of its early rulers or prefects named Hrof, who, for some circumstance or other, had probably gained greater notoriety than most persons of his class and rank."

RODNEY'S NAVAL VICTORY.

RODOLPH.

ROGATION.

With reference to the legislation of the Romans, "he word Rogatio is frequently used to denote a Bill proposed to the people. … After a Rogatio was passed it became a Lex; but in practice Rogatio and Lex were used as convertible terms, just as Bill and Law are by ourselves."

ROIS FAINÉANS.

ROLLS OF THE PIPE. ROLLS OF THE CHANCERY.

ROMA QUADRATA.

ROMAGNA.

   The old exarchate of Ravenna, "as having been the chief seat
   of the later Imperial power in Italy, got the name of Romania,
   Romandiola, or Romagna."

ROMAN AUGURS.

ROMAN CALENDAR. ROMAN YEAR.

ROMAN CAMPAGNA, OR CAMPANIA.

ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH.

"While Pompeius, Cæsar, Augustus and others extended the Latin rights to many provincial communities, they were careful to give the full Roman qualification [the 'privileges of Quiritary proprietorship, which gave not merely the empty title of the suffrage, but the precious immunity from tribute or land-tax'] to persons only. Of such persons, indeed, large numbers were admitted to citizenship by the emperors. The full rights of Rome were conferred on the Transalpine Gauls by Claudius, and the Latin rights on the Spaniards by Vespasian; but it was with much reserve that any portions of territory beyond Italy were enfranchised, and rendered Italic or Quiritary soil, and thus endowed with a special immunity. … The earlier emperors had, indeed, exercised a jealous reserve in popularizing the Roman privileges; but from Claudius downwards they seem to have vied with one another in the facility with which they conferred them as a boon, or imposed them as a burden. … The practice of purchasing Civitas was undoubtedly common under Claudius. … Neither Hadrian, as hastily affirmed by St. Chrysostom, nor his next successor, as has been inferred from a confusion of names, was the author of the decree by which the Roman franchise was finally communicated to all the subjects of the empire. Whatever the progress of enfranchisement may have been, this famous consummation was not effected till fifty years after our present date, by the act of Autoninus Caracalla [A. D. 211-217]."

ROMAN CITY FESTIVAL.

The "Roman chief festival or festival of the city (ludi maximi, Romani) … was an extraordinary thanksgiving festival celebrated in honour of the Capitoline Jupiter and the gods dwelling along with him, ordinarily in pursuance of a vow made by the general before battle, and therefore usually observed on the return home of the burgess-force in autumn. A festal procession proceeded toward the Circus staked off between the Palatine and Aventine. … In each species of contest there was but one competition, and that between not more that two competitors."

ROMAN COINAGE AND MONEY.

ROMAN COMITIA.

ROMAN CONSULS.

ROMAN CONTIONES.

ROMAN DECEMVIRS.

ROMAN EDUCATION.

ROMAN EMPIRE, THE HOLY: A. D. 963.
Founded by Otto the Great.
Later Origin of the Name.

"The Holy Roman Empire, taking the name in the sense which it commonly bore in later centuries, as denoting the sovereignty of Germany and Italy vested in a Germanic prince, is the creation of Otto the Great. Substantially, it is true, as well as technically, it was a prolongation of the Empire of Charles [Charlemagne]; and it rested (as will be shewn in the sequel) upon ideas essentially the same as those which brought about the coronation of A. D. 800. … This restored Empire, which professed itself a continuation of the Carolingian, was in many respects different. It was less wide, including, if we reckon strictly, only Germany proper and two-thirds of Italy; or counting in subject but separate kingdoms, Burgundy, Bohemia, Moravia, Poland, Denmark, perhaps Hungary. Its character was less ecclesiastical. Otto exalted indeed the spiritual potentates of his realm, and was earnest in spreading Christianity among the heathen: he was master of the Pope and De·fender of the Holy Roman Church. But religion held a less important place in his mind and his administration. … It was also less Roman. … Under him the Germans became not only a united nation, but were at once raised on a pinnacle among European peoples as the imperial race, the possessors of Rome and Rome's authority. While the political connection with Italy stirred their spirit, it brought with it a knowledge and culture hitherto unknown." It was not until the reign of Frederick Barbarossa that the epithet "Holy" was prefixed to the title of the revived Roman Empire. "Of its earlier origin, under Conrad II (the Salic), which some have supposed, there is no documentary trace, though there is also no proof to the contrary. So far as is known it occurs first in the famous Privilege of Austria, granted by Frederick in the fourth year of his reign, the second of his empire. … Used occasionally by Henry VI and Frederick II, it is more frequent under their successors. William, Richard, Rudolf, till after Charles IV's time it becomes habitual, for the last few centuries indispensable. Regarding the origin of so singular a title many theories have been advanced. … We need not, however, be in any great doubt as to its true meaning and purport. … Ever since Hildebrand had claimed for the priesthood exclusive sanctity and supreme jurisdiction, the papal party had not ceased to speak of the civil power as being, compared with that of their own chief, merely secular, earthly, profane. It may be conjectured that, to meet this reproach, no less injurious than insulting, Frederick or his advisers began to use in public documents the expression 'Holy Empire'; thereby wishing to assert the divine institution and religious duties of the office he held. … It is almost superfluous to observe that the beginning of the title 'Holy' has nothing to do with the beginning of the Empire itself. Essentially and substantially, the Holy Roman Empire was, as has been shewn already, the creation of Charles the Great. Looking at it more technically, as the monarchy, not of the whole West, like that of Charles, but of Germany and Italy, with a claim, which was never more than a claim, to universal sovereignty, its beginning is fixed by most of the German writers, whose practice has been followed in the text, at the coronation of Otto the Great. But the title was at least one, and probably two centuries later."

Otto, or Otho, the Great, the second of the Saxon line of Germanic kings, crossed the Alps and made himself master of the distracted kingdom of Italy in 951, on the invitation of John XII, who desired his assistance against the reigning king of Italy, Berengar II, and who offered him the imperial coronation (there had been no acknowledged emperor for forty years) as his reward. He easily reduced Berengar to vassalage, and, after receiving the imperial crown from Pope John, he did not scruple to depose that licentious and turbulent pontiff, by the voice of a synod which he convoked in St. Peter's, and to seat another in his place. Three revolts in the city of Rome, which were stirred up by the deposed pope, the emperor suppressed with a heavy hand, and he took away from the city all its forms of republican liberty, entrusting the government to the pope as his viceroy.

      See, also,
      ITALY: A. D. 843-951;
      GERMANY: A. D. 936-973;
      and ROMANS: KING OF THE.

ROMAN EMPIRE, THE HOLY: 13th Century.
   Its degradation after the fall of the Hohenstaufen.
   The Great Interregnum.
   Election of Rudolf of Hapsburg.

ROMAN EQUESTRIAN ORDER.

ROMAN FAMILY AND PERSONAL NAMES.

ROMAN FETIALES.

ROMAN INDICTION.

"Roman Law as taught in the writings of the Roman jurists is a science, a science of great perfection, a science so perfect as to almost approach the harmonious finish of art. But Roman Law is not only a marvellous system of the legal customs and concepts of the Romans; its value is not restricted to students of Roman Law; it has an absolute value for students of any law whatever. In other words the Romans outstripped all other nations, both ancient and modern, in the scientific construction of legal problems. They alone offer that curious example of one nation's totally eclipsing the scientific achievements of all other nations. By law, however, we here understand not all branches of law, as constitutional, criminal, pontifical, and private law, together with jurisprudence. By Roman Law we mean exclusively Roman Private Law. The writings of Roman jurists on constitutional and criminal law have been superseded and surpassed by the writings of more modern jurists. Their writings on questions of Private Law, on the other hand, occupy a unique place; they are, to the present day, considered as the inexhaustible fountain-head, and the inimitable pattern of the science of Private Law. … A Roman lawyer, and even a modern French or German lawyer—French and German Private Law being essentially Roman Law—were, and are, never obliged to ransack whole libraries of precedents to find the law covering a given case. They approach a case in the manner of a physician: carefully informing themselves of the facts underlying the case, and then eliciting the legal spark by means of close meditation on the given data according to the general principles of their science. The Corpus juris civilis is one stout volume. This one volume has sufficed to cover billions of cases during more than thirteen centuries. The principles laid down in this volume will afford ready help in almost every case of Private Law, because they emanate from Private Law alone, and have no tincture of non–legal elements."

"'The Responsa prudentum,' or answers of the learned in the law, consisted of explanations of authoritative written documents. It was assumed that the written law was binding, but the responses practically modified and even overruled it. A great variety of rules was thus supposed to be educed from the Twelve Tables [see ROME: B. C. 451-449], which were not in fact to be found there. They could be announced by any jurisconsult whose opinions might, if he were distinguished, have a binding force nearly equal to enactments of the legislature. The responses were not published by their author, but were recorded and edited by his pupils, and to this fact the world is indebted for the educational treatises, called Institutes or Commentaries, which are among the most remarkable features of the Roman system. The distinction between the 'responses' and the 'case law' of England should be noticed. The one consists of expositions by the bar, and the other by the bench. It might have been expected that such a system would have popularized the law. This was not the fact. Weight was only attached to the responses of conspicuous men who were masters of the principles as well as details of jurisprudence. The great development of legal principles at Rome was due to this method of producing law. Under the English system no judge can enunciate a principle until an actual controversy arises to which the rule can be applied; under the Roman theory, there was no limit to the question to which a response might be given, except the skill and ingenuity of the questioner. Every possible phase of a legal principle could thus be examined, and the result would show the symmetrical product of a single master mind. This method of developing law nearly ceased at the fall of the republic. The Responses were systematized and reduced into compendia. The right to make responses was limited by Augustus to a few jurisconsults. The edict of the Prætor became a source of law, and a great school of jurists, containing such men as Ulpian, Paulus, Gaius, and Papinian, arose, who were authors of treatises rather than of responses."

"Apart from the more general political conditions on which jurisprudence also, and indeed jurisprudence especially depends, the causes of the excellence of the Roman civil law lie mainly in two features: first, that the plaintiff and defendant were specially obliged to explain and embody in due and binding form the grounds of the demand and of the objection to comply with it; and secondly, that the Romans appointed a permanent machinery for the edictal development of their law, and associated it immediately with practice. By the former the Romans precluded the pettifogging practices of advocates, by the latter they obviated incapable law-making, so far as such things can be prevented at all; and by means of both in conjunction they satisfied, as far as is possible, the two conflicting requirements, that law shall constantly be fixed, and that it shall constantly be in accordance with the spirit of the age. … This state [Rome], which made the highest demands on its burgesses and carried the idea of subordinating the individual to the interest of the whole further than any state before or since has done, only did and only could do so by itself removing the barriers to intercourse and unshackling liberty quite as much as it subjected it to restriction. In permission or in prohibition the law was always absolute. … A contract did not ordinarily furnish a ground of action, but where the right of the creditor was acknowledged, it was so all-powerful that there was no deliverance for the poor debtor, and no humane or equitable consideration was shown towards him. It seemed as if the law found a pleasure in presenting on all sides its sharpest spikes, in drawing the most extreme consequences, in forcibly obtruding on the bluntest understanding the tyrannic nature of the idea of right. The poetical form and the genial symbolism, which so pleasingly prevail in the Germanic legal ordinances, were foreign to the Roman; in his law all was clear and precise; no symbol was employed, no institution was superfluous. It was not cruel; everything necessary was performed without tedious ceremony, even the punishment of death; that a free man could not be tortured was a primitive maxim of Roman law, to obtain which other peoples have had to struggle for thousands of years. Yet this law was frightful in its inexorable severity, which we cannot suppose to have been very greatly mitigated by humanity in practice, for it was really the law of the people; more terrible than Venetian piombi and chambers of torture was that series of living entombments which the poor man saw yawning before him in the debtors' towers of the rich. But the greatness of Rome was involved in, and was based upon, the fact that the Roman people ordained for itself and endured a system of law, in which the eternal principles of freedom and of subordination, of property and of legal redress, reigned and still at the present day reign unadulterated and unmodified."

"Though hard to realise, and especially so for Englishmen, it is true that modern Europe owes to the Romans its ancient inherited sense of the sacredness of a free man's person and property, and its knowledge of the simplest and most rational methods by which person and property may be secured with least inconvenience to the whole community. The nations to come after Rome were saved the trouble of finding out all this for themselves; and it may be doubted whether any of them had the requisite genius. We in England, for example, owe the peculiar cumbrousness of our legal system to the absence of those direct Roman influences, which, on the continent, have simplified and illuminated the native legal material."

"In all the lands which had obeyed Rome, and were included in the nominal supremacy of the revived Western Empire, it [Roman Law] acquired a prevalence and power not derived from the sanction of any distinct human authority. No such authority was for the time being strong enough to compete in men's esteem and reverence with the shadow of majesty that still clung to the relics of Roman dominion. Thus the Roman law was not merely taken as (what for many purposes and in many states it really was) a common groundwork of institutions, ideas, and method, standing towards the actual rules of a given community somewhat in the same relation as in the Roman doctrine ius gentium to ius civile; but it was conceived as having, by its intrinsic reasonableness, a kind of supreme and eminent virtue, and as claiming the universal allegiance of civilised mankind. If I may use a German term for which I cannot find a good English equivalent, its principles were accepted not as ordained by Cæsar, but as in themselves binding on the Rechtsbewusstsein of Christendom. They were part of the dispensation of Roman authority to which the champions of the Empire in their secular controversy with the Papacy did not hesitate to attribute an origin no less divine than that of the Church itself. Even in England (though not in English practice, for anything I know) this feeling left its mark. In the middle of the thirteenth century, just when our legal and judicial system was settling into its typical form, Bracton copied whole pages of the Bolognese glossator Azo. On the Continent, where there was no centralised and countervailing local authority, the Roman law dwarfed everything else. Yet the law of the Corpus Juris and the glossators was not the existing positive law of this or that place: the Roman law was said to be the common law of the Empire, but its effect was always taken as modified by the custom of the country or city. 'Stadtrecht bricht Landrecht, Landrecht bricht gemein Recht.' Thus the main object of study was not a system of actually enforced rules, but a type assumed by actual systems as their exemplar without corresponding in detail to any of them. Under such conditions it was inevitable that positive authority should be depreciated, and the method of reasoning, even for practical purposes, from an ideal fitness of things, should be exalted, so that the distinction between laws actually administered and rules elaborated by the learned as in accordance with their assumed principles was almost lost sight of."

"In some of the nations of modern Continental Europe (as, for example, in France), the actual system of law is mainly of Roman descent; and in others of the same nations (as, for example in the States of Germany), the actual system of law, though not descended from the Roman, has been closely assimilated to the Roman by large importations from it. Accordingly, in most of the nations of modern Continental Europe, much of the substance of the actual system, and much of the technical language in which it is clothed, is derived from the Roman Law, and without some knowledge of the Roman Law, the technical language is unintelligible; whilst the order or arrangement commonly given to the system, imitates the exemplar of a scientific arrangement which is presented by the Institutes of Justinian. Even in our own country, a large portion of the Ecclesiastical and Equity, and some (though a smaller) portion of the Common, Law, is derived immediately from the Roman Law, or from the Roman through the Canon. Nor has the influence of the Roman Law been limited to the positive law of the modern European nations. For the technical language of this all-reaching system has deeply tinctured the language of the international law or morality which those nations affect to observe. … Much has been talked of the philosophy of the Roman Institutional writers. Of familiarity with Grecian philosophy there are few traces in their writings, and the little that they have borrowed from that source is the veriest foolishness: for example, their account of Jus naturale, in which they confound law with animal instincts; law, with all those wants and necessities of mankind which are causes of its institution. Nor is the Roman law to be resorted to as a magazine of legislative wisdom. The great Roman Lawyers are, in truth, expositors of a positive or technical system. Not Lord Coke himself is more purely technical. Their real merits lie in their thorough mastery of that system; in their command of its principles; in the readiness with which they recall, and the facility and certainty with which they apply them. In support of my own opinion of these great writers I shall quote the authority of two of the most eminent Jurists of modern times. 'The permanent value of the Corpus Juris Civilis,' says Falck, 'does not lie in the Decrees of the Emperors, but in the remains of juristical literature which have been preserved in the Pandects. Nor is it so much the matter of these juristical writings, as the scientific method employed by the authors in explicating the notions and maxims with which they have to deal, that has rendered them models to all succeeding ages, and pre-eminently fitted them to produce and to develope those qualities of the mind which are requisite to form a Jurist.' And Savigny says, 'It has been shown above, that, in our science, all results depend on the possession of leading principles; and it is exactly this possession upon which the greatness of the Roman jurists rests. The notions and maxims of their science do not appear to them to be the creatures of their own will; they are actual beings, with whose existence and genealogy they have become familiar from long and intimate intercourse. {2655} Hence their whole method of proceeding has a certainty which is found nowhere else except in mathematics, and it may be said without exaggeration that they calculate with their ideas. If they have a case to decide, they begin by acquiring the most vivid and distinct perception of it, and we see before our eyes the rise and progress of the whole affair, and all the changes it undergoes. It is as if this particular case were the germ whence the whole science was to be developed. Hence, with them, theory and practice are not in fact distinct; their theory is so thoroughly worked out as to be fit for immediate application, and their practice is uniformly ennobled by scientific treatment. In every principle they see a case to which it may be applied; in every case, the rule by which it is determined; and in the facility with which they pass from the general to the particular and the particular to the general, their mastery is indisputable.' In consequence of this mastery of principles, of their perfect consistency ('elegantia') and of the clearness of the method in which they are arranged, there is no positive system of law which it is so easy to seize as a whole. The smallness of its volume tends to the same end."

"A glance at the history of those countries in Europe that did not adopt Roman Law will prove and illustrate the political origin of the 'reception' of this law in Germany and France still more forcibly. The Kingdom of Hungary never adopted the theory or practice of Roman Law. This seems all the more strange since Hungary used Latin as the official language of her legislature, laws, and law–courts down to the first quarter of this century. A country so intensely imbued with the idiom of Rome would seem to be quite likely to adopt also the law of Rome. This, however, the Hungarians never did. Their law is essentially similar to the common law of England, in that it is derived mainly from precedents and usage. The unwillingness of the Hungarians to adopt Roman Law was based on a political consideration. Roman Law, they noticed, requires a professional and privileged class of jurists who administer law to the exclusion of all other classes. In German territories the privileged class of civilians were in the service of the rulers. But it so happened that ever since 1526 the ruler, or at least the nominal head of Hungary, was a foreigner: the Archduke of Austria, or Emperor of Germany. Hence to introduce Roman Law in Hungary would have been tantamount to surrendering the law of the country to the administration of foreigners, or of professors, who had a vital interest to work in the interest of their foreign employer, the Archduke of Austria. Consequently the Hungarians prudently abstained from the establishment of numerous Universities, and persistently refused to adopt Roman Law, the scientific excellence of which they otherwise fully acknowledged. For, the Hungarians always were, and to the present moment still are, the only nation on the continent who maintained an amount of political liberty and self·government quite unknown to the rest of continental Europe, particularly in the last two centuries. The same reason applies to England. England never adopted Roman Law, because it was against the interests of English liberty to confide the making and interpretation of law to the hands of a privileged class of jurists. As said before, Roman Law cannot be adopted unless you adopt a privileged class of professional jurists into the bargain. The hatred of the English was not so much a hatred of civil law, but of the civilians. These jurists develop law on the strength of theoretical principles, and actual cases are not decided according to former judgments given in similar cases, but by principles obtained through theoretico-practical speculation. Hence there is no division of questions of law and fact in civil cases; nor is there, in a system of Roman Private Law, any room for juries, and thus law is taken completely out of the hands of the people. This, however, the English would not endure, and thus they naturally fell to confiding their law to their judges. English common law is judge-made law."

ROMAN LEGION.

ROMAN LIBRARIES.

ROMAN MEDICAL SCIENCE.

ROMAN PEACE.

The benefits conferred upon the world by the universal dominion of Rome were of quite inestimable value. First of these benefits, … was the prolonged peace that was enforced throughout large portions of the world where chronic warfare had hitherto prevailed. The 'pax romana' has perhaps been sometimes depicted in exaggerated colours; but as compared with all that had preceded, and with all that followed, down to the beginning of the nineteenth century, it deserved the encomiums it has received."

      J. Fiske,
      American Political Ideas viewed from the
      Standpoint of Universal History,
      lecture 2.

ROMAN PONTIFICES.

ROMAN PRÆTORS.

ROMAN PROCONSUL AND PROPRÆTOR.

ROMAN ROADS IN BRITAIN.

"Four principal lines of road have been popularly known as 'the four Roman ways.' In the time of Edward the Confessor, and probably much earlier, there were four roads in England protected by the king's peace. These were called Watlinge-strete, Fosse, Hickenilde-strete, and Ermine-strete. Watling-street runs from London to Wroxeter. The Fosse from the sea coast near Seaton in Devonshire to Lincoln. The Ikenild·street from Iclingham near Bury St. Edmund's in Suffolk, to Wantage in Berkshire, and on to Cirencester and Gloucester. The Erming-street ran through the Fenny district of the east of England. These streets seem to have represented a combination of those portions of the Roman roads which in later times were adopted and kept in repair for the sake of traffic. … The name of 'Watling-street' became attached to other roads, as the Roman road beyond the Northumbrian wall, which crossed the Tyne at Corbridge and ran to the Frith of Forth at Cramond, bears that name; and the Roman road beyond Uriconium (Wroxeter) to Bravinium (Leintwarden) Salop, is also called Watling-street. The street in Canterbury through which the road from London to Dover passes is known as Watling-street, and a street in London also bears that name. … Two lines of road also bear the name of the Icknield-street, or Hikenilde-street; but there is some reason to believe that the Icknield-street was only a British trackway and never became a true Roman road."

"In the fifth year after the Conquest, inquisition was made throughout the kingdom into the ancient laws and customs of England. … From this source we learn, that there were, at that time in England four great roads protected by the King's Peace, of which two ran lengthways through the island, and two crossed it, and that the names of the four were respectively, Watlinge-strete, Fosse, Hikenilde-strete and Erming-strete. These are the roads which are popularly but incorrectly known as 'the four Roman ways.' … The King's Peace was a high privilege. Any offence committed on these high ways was tried, not in the local court, where local influence might interfere with the administration of justice, but before the king's own officers."

ROMAN ROADS IN ITALY.

      See
      ÆMILIAN WAY;
      APPIAN WAY;
      AURELIAN ROAD:
      CASSIAN ROAD;
      POSTUMIAN ROAD;
      and ROME: B. C. 295-191.

ROMAN SENATE.

ROMAN VESTALS.

ROMAN WALLS IN BRITAIN.

There were two great fortified walls constructed by the Romans in Britain, but the name is most often applied to the first one, which was built under the orders of the Emperor Hadrian, from the Solway to the Tyne, 70 miles long and from 18 to 19 feet high, of solid masonry, with towers at intervals and with ditches throughout. In the reign of Antoninus Pius a second fortified line, farther to the north, extending from the Forth to the Clyde, was constructed. This latter was a rampart of earth connecting numerous forts. Hadrian's wall was strengthened at a later time by Severus and is sometimes called by his name. Popularly it is called "Graham's Dike." Both walls were for the protection of Roman Britain from the wild tribes of Caledonia.

The new feudal empire, constituted by the Crusaders and the Venetians, after their conquest of Constantinople, and having the great and venerable but half ruined capital of the Byzantines for its seat, received the name of the Empire of Romania. The reign of its first emperor, the excellent Baldwin of Flanders, was brought to a tragical end in little more than a year from his coronation. Summoned to quell a revolt at Adrianople, he was attacked by the king of Bulgaria, defeated, taken prisoner and murdered within a year by his savage captor. He was succeeded on the throne by his brother Henry, a capable, energetic and valiant prince; but all the ability and all the vigor of Henry could not give cohesion and strength to an empire which was false in its constitution and predestined to decay. On Henry's death, without children (A. D. 1216), his sister Yoland's husband, Peter of Courtenay, a French baron, was elected emperor; but that unfortunate prince, on attempting to reach Constantinople by a forced march through the hostile Greek territory of Epirus, was taken captive and perished in an Epirot prison. His eldest son, Philip of Namur, wisely refused the imperial dignity; a younger son, Robert, accepted it, and reigned feebly until 1228, when he died. Then the venerable John de Brienne, ex-king of Jerusalem, was elected emperor-regent for life, the crown to pass on his death to Baldwin of Courtenay, a young brother of Robert. "John de Brienne died in 1237, after living to witness his empire confined to a narrow circuit round the walls of Constantinople. Baldwin II. prolonged the existence of the empire by begging assistance from the Pope and the king of France; and he collected the money necessary for maintaining his household and enjoying his precarious position, by selling the holy relics preserved by the Eastern Church [such, for example, as the crown of thorns, the bonds, the sponge and the cup of the crucifixion, the rod of Moses, etc.]. He was fortunate in finding a liberal purchaser in St. Louis. … At length, in the year 1261, a division of the Greek army [of the empire of Nicæa] surprised Constantinople, expelled Baldwin, and put an end to the Latin power, without the change appearing to be a revolution of much importance beyond the walls of the city."

      G. Finlay,
      History of Greece from its Conquest by the Crusaders,
      chapter 4.

In the last days of the sham empire, Baldwin II. maintained his court "by tearing the copper from the domes of the public buildings erected by the Byzantine emperors, which he coined into money, and by borrowing gold from Venetian bankers, in whose hands he placed his eldest son Philip as a pledge."

      G. Finlay,
      History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires, from 716 to 1453,
      book 4, chapter 1, section 3 (volume 2).

Henry II.,—St. Henry by canonization—the last of the German emperors of the House of Saxony (A. D. 1002-1024), abstained from styling himself "Emperor," for some years, until he had gone to Rome and received the imperial crown from the hands of the Pope. Meantime he invented and assumed the title of King of the Romans. His example was followed by his successors. The King of the Romans in later history was Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire in embryo.

   "It was not till the reign of Maximilian that the actual
   coronation at Rome was dispensed with, and the title of
   Emperor taken immediately after the election."

Romanus I. (colleague of Constantine VII.),
Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or Greek), 919-944.

IN WHICH THE DOMINANT CONDITIONS AND INFLUENCES ARE DISTINGUISHED BY COLORS.

Physical or material. (orange)
Social and political. (green)
Intellectual, moral and religious. (brown)

Three Latin and Sabine tribes of an early day established their settlements on neighboring hills, by the banks of the Tiber, in the midland of Italy, which is the midland of the Mediterranean or midland sea. They were throned, as it were, at the center of the only wide dominion in which a virile and energetic civilization could rise in ancient times.

The union of these three tribes formed the patrician nucleus of Rome. Around them gathered another population of kindred blood, which acquired a certain footing of association with them, but not immediately on equal terms. The precedence and superiority of the primal families, in rank and in rights, was jealously maintained, and the later-coming plebs were received into a pseudo-citizenship which carried more burdens than privileges with it.

By what impulse of character, or through what favor of circumstance, at the beginning, this infant city-state grew masterful in war, over all its neighbors, none can tell. But as it did so, the sturdy plebeian populace which fought its battles resented more and more the greedy monopoly of offices and of conquered lands to which the patricians clung, and a struggle between classes occurred which shaped the domestic politics of Rome for more than two centuries.

Before that contest came to the surface of history, the oligarchy of the city had cast out the kings which were its early chiefs, and had put two yearly-chosen consuls in their place, thus founding the great Roman Republic, with a purely aristocratic constitution. Then the battle of the plebs for equality of rights and powers was promptly opened, and the long, significant process of the democratizing of the state began. By their first victory the commons seemed, for their own leadership and defense, a remarkable magistracy, protected by sanctities and armed with powers which never have been used in government elsewhere, before or since. With that great tribunician authority, invincible when capably and boldly wielded, they won their way, step by step, to equality in the high offices and sacred colleges of the state; to legislative equality in their assembly; to legality of intermarriage with the patrician class; and to participation in the public lands.

B. C. 480-275. Conquest of Italy.
B. C. 264-202. Punic wars
B. C. 214-146. Expanding Dominion.

But while plebs and patricians thus strove with each other at home, they were united against their neighbors in many wars, which seldom turned to their disadvantage. Æquians, Volscians, Etruscans, Latin allies, Samnites, Gauls, Greeks of south Italy, yielded in turn to their arms, until the whole Italian peninsula had been brought under Roman rule. Then followed intrusion in Sicily, collision with Carthage in that island, and the half century of Punic wars, which tried the Republic to the extremity of its powers, but which left it with no rival in the Mediterranean world, From that time the career of Roman conquest was rapidly pursued in widening fields. Sicily, Spain, Greece, Macedonia, Asia Minor, Southern Gaul, Northern Africa, submitted as provinces to the proconsuls of Rome.

But the health of the commonwealth waned as its greatness waxed. It was corrupted by the spoils of conquest and the streams of tribute money that flowed from three continents into its hands. It was leprous in its whole system with the infection of slavery.

A middle class had practically disappeared. Freemen had been driven from industrial callings by servile competition; the small farms of rural Rome had been swallowed up in great slave worked estates; public lands had been drawn by one trick of law or another, into private hands. The greater mass of the common people had degenerated to a worthless mob. The democratic power which their ancestors won still belonged to them, but they had lost the sense and the spirit to exercise it, except fitfully and threateningly, for purposes that were generally base. A new nobility had risen out of the plebeian ranks; the senate, reinforced by it, and helped by the exigencies of the long period of war, had recovered control of government, keeping ascendancy over the mob by political arts and bribes.

B. C. 133-121. The Gracchi.
B. C. 90-88. The Social War,
B. C. 88-45. Civil Wars.

Thus came the fatal time when demagogues played with the passions of that fickle mob which bore the awful sovereignty of Rome in its keeping; and when patriots were forced to be as demagogues, if they sought to lift Roman citizenship from its muddy degradation. In the undertakings of the Gracchi, perhaps something of both demagogue and patriot was combined; but what they did only shook the decaying political fabric and unsettled it more. The extension of Roman citizenship to the Italian allies, which Caius Gracchus contended for, and which might have grounded the Republic on broad bases of nationality, was yielded in the next generation, but too late, and after a ruinous war. From the embers of that fiery Social War broke the flames of civil strife in which the old constitution was finally consumed. Marius, Sulla, Pompeius, Cæsar, were distinguished among its destroyers; Cicero and Cato earned their immortality in its defense.

By the genius of Cæsar a new sovereignty—an imperial autocracy—was founded, on the ruins of the shattered Republic. By the shrewdness of his wise nephew, Octavius, its enduring organization was shaped. The mighty fabric of the Roman Empire which then arose, to dominate the world for centuries, and to dominate the history of the world perhaps forever, owed its greatness altogether to the effective organization of government which it embodied. It inherited all the corruptions and diseases in society which had sickened and destroyed the Republic; but it extinguished factions at the seat of power, established authority there, and perfected a radiating mechanism of provincial administration such as had not been known in human experience before. Hence, emperors might be madmen or fiends or fools, as many among them were, and Rome might be a sink of all vices and miseries, as it commonly was, and the whole Empire might be grievously oppressed, as it seldom failed to be; but the working of the administrative system went on, with little disturbance or change,—so mighty and irresistible in its machinery that it seemed to mankind like a part of the natural world, and they lost the ability to think of any different political state.

Christianity, springing up in Judæa within the first century of the Empire, spread through and around it like an interlacing vine,—sweet and wholesome in its early fruits, strong as a bond, powerful as a regenerating influence. But when the ecclesiasticism of a politically fashioned Church had been grafted on the Christian vine, it bore then the evil seeds of new corruption, new discord, new maladies for the Roman world.

So there came, at last, a time when the long-enduring frame of Roman government could no longer bear the increasing dead-weight of social paralysis within and the increasing pressure of barbaric enemies from without. Of real vitality in the Empire there had been little for half-a-century before its fall in the West.

It survived in the East, because its Greek capital was more impregnable, and more commandingly placed for the continued centralization of a waning power; and because habit and routine have more potency in the Eastern than in the Western world.

Even Western Europe obeyed again, after more than four centuries, the obstinate habit of homage to Rome, when it restored the Empire of the Cæsars, though less in fact than in name.

ROME:
   The beginning of the City-State and the origin of its name.
   The three tribes of original Romans who formed
   the Patrician order.-
   The Plebs and their inferior citizenship.

"About fourteen miles up from the mouth of the river Tiber, hills of moderate elevation rise on both banks of the stream, higher on the right, lower on the left bank. With the latter group there has been closely associated for at least two thousand five hundred years the name of the Romans. We are unable, of course, to tell how or when that name arose; this much only is certain, that in the oldest form of it known to us the inhabitants of the canton are called not Romans, but (by a shifting of sound that frequently occurs in the earlier period of a language, but fell very early in abeyance in Latin) Ramnians (Ramnes), a fact which constitutes an expressive testimony to the immemorial antiquity of the name. Its derivation cannot be given with certainty; possibly Ramnes may mean 'foresters,' or 'bushmen.' But they were not the only dwellers on the hills by the bank of the Tiber. In the earliest division of the burgesses of Rome a trace has been preserved of the fact that that body arose out of the amalgamation of three cantons once probably independent, the Ramnians, Tities, and Luceres, into a single commonwealth—in other words, out of such a 'synoikismos' as that from which Athens arose in Attica. The great antiquity of this threefold division of the community is perhaps best evinced by the fact that the Romans, in matters especially of constitutional law, regularly used the forms tribuere ('to divide into three') and tribus ('a third') in the general sense of 'to divide' and 'a part,' and the latter expression (tribus) like our 'quarter,' early lost its original signification of number. … That the Ramnians were a Latin stock cannot be doubted, for they gave their name to the new Roman commonwealth, and therefore must have substantially determined the nationality of the united community. Respecting the origin of the Luceres nothing can be affirmed, except that there is no difficulty in the way of our assigning them, like the Ramnians, to the Latin stock. The second of these communities, on the other hand, is with one consent derived from Sabina. … And, as in the older and more credible traditions, without exception, the Tities take precedence of the Ramnians, it is probable that the intruding Tities compelled the older Ramnians to accept the 'synoikismos.' … Long, in all probability, before an urban settlement arose on the Tiber, these Ramnians, Tities, and Luceres, at first separate, afterwards united, had their stronghold on the Roman hills, and tilled their fields from the surrounding villages. The 'wolf festival' (Lupercalia), which the gens of the Quinctii celebrated on the Palatine hill, was probably a tradition from these primitive ages—a festival of husbandmen and shepherds, which more than any other preserved the homely pastimes of patriarchal simplicity, and, singularly enough, maintained itself longer than all the other heathen festivals in Christian Rome. From these settlements the later Rome arose."

"Rome did not seem to be a single city; it appeared like a confederation of several cities, each one of which was attached by its origin to another confederation. It was the centre where the Latins, Etruscans, Sabellians, and Greeks met. Its first king was a Latin; the second, a Sabine; the fifth was, we are told, the son of a Greek; the sixth was an Etruscan. Its language was composed of the most diverse elements. The Latin predominated, but Sabellian roots were numerous, and more Greek radicals were found in it than in any other of the dialects of Central Italy. As to its name, no one knew to what language that belonged. According to some, Rome was a Trojan word; according to others, a Greek word. There are reasons for believing it to be Latin, but some of the ancients thought it to be Etruscan. The names of Roman families also attest a great diversity of origin. … The effect of this mixing of the most diverse nations was, that from the beginning Rome was related to all the peoples that it knew. It could call itself Latin with the Latins, Sabine with the Sabines, Etruscan with the Etruscans, and Greek with the Greeks. Its national worship was also an assemblage of several quite different worships, each one of which attached it to one of these nations."

"The whole history of the world has been determined by the geological fact that at a point a little below the junction of the Tiber and the Anio the isolated hills stand nearer to one another than most of the other hills of Latium. On a site marked out above all other sites for dominion, the centre of Italy, the centre of Europe, as Europe then was, a site at the junction of three of the great nations of Italy, and which had the great river as its highway to lands beyond the bounds of Italy, stood two low hills, the hill which bore the name of Latin Saturn, and the hill at the meaning of whose name of Palatine scholars will perhaps guess for ever. These two hills, occupied by men of two of the nations of Italy, stood so near to one another that a strait choice indeed was laid on those who dwelled on them. They must either join together on terms closer than those which commonly united Italian leagues, or they must live a life of border warfare more ceaseless, more bitter, than the ordinary warfare of Italian enemies. Legend, with all likelihood, tells us that warfare was tried; history, with all certainty, tells us that the final choice was union. The two hills were fenced with a single wall; the men who dwelled on them changed from wholly separate communities into tribes of a single city. Changes of the same kind took place on not a few spots of Greece and Italy; not a few of the most famous cities of both lands grew on this wise out of the union of earlier detached settlements. But no other union of the kind, not even that which called Sparta into being out of five villages of an older day, could compare in its effects on all later time with the union of those two small hill-fortresses into a single city. For that city was Rome; the hill of Saturn became the site of Rome's capitol. the scene of her triumphs, the home of her patron gods. The hill on the other side of the swampy dale became the dwelling-place of Rome's Cæsars, and handed on its name of Palatium as the name for the homes of all the kings of the earth. {2658} Around those hills as a centre, Latium, Italy, Mediterranean Europe, were gathered in, till the world was Roman, or rather till the world was Rome. … Three tribes, settlers on three hills, were the elements of which the original commonwealth was made. Whether there was anything like a nobility within the tribes themselves, whether certain houses had any precedence, any preferences in the disposal of offices, we have no means of judging. That certain houses are far more prominent in legend and history than others may suggest such a thought, but does not prove it. But one thing is certain; these three tribes, these older settlers, were the original Roman people, which for a while numbered no members but themselves. They were the patres, the fathers, a name which in its origin meant no more than such plain names as goodman, housefather, and the like. In the Roman polity the father only could be looked on as a citizen in the highest sense; his children, his grand-children, were in his power, from which, just like slaves, they could be released only by his own special act. Such was the origin of the name fathers, patres, patricians, a name round which such proud associations gathered, as the three tribes who had once been the whole Roman people shrank up into a special noble class in the midst of a new Roman people which grew up around them, but which they did not admit to the same rights as themselves. The incorporation of a third tribe marks the end of the first period of Roman history. These were the Luceres of the Cœlian, admitted perhaps at first with rights not quite on a level with those of the two earlier tribes, the Ramnes of the Palatine, the oldest Romans of all, and the Tities of the Capitoline or hill of Saturn. The oldest Roman people was now formed. No fourth tribe was ever admitted; the later tribes of Rome, it must be remembered, are a separate division which have nothing to do with these old patrician tribes. And it must have been a most rare favour for either individuals or whole houses to be received into any of the three original tribes. … Now, if the privileged body of citizens is small, and if circumstances tend to make the settlement of non-privileged residents large, here is one of the means by which a privileged order in the narrower sense, a nobility in the midst of a nation or people may arise. An order which takes in few or no new members tends to extinction; if it does not die out, it will at least sensibly lessen. But there is no limit to the growth of the non-privileged class outside. Thus the number of the old burghers will be daily getting smaller, the number of the new residents will be daily getting larger, till those who once formed the whole people put on step by step the character of an exclusive nobility in the midst of the extended nation which has grown up around them. By this time they have acquired all the attributes of nobility, smallness of numbers, antiquity, privilege. And their possession of the common land—a possession shared constantly by a smaller number—is likely to give them a fourth attribute which, vulgarly at least, goes to swell the conception of nobility, the attribute of wealth. … Thus around the original people of Rome, the populus, the patres, the three ancient tribes, the settlers on the three earliest hills of Rome, arose a second people, the plebs. The whole history of Rome is a history of incorporation. The first union between the Capitoline and Palatine hills was the first stage of the process which at last made Romans of all the nations round the Mediterranean sea. But the equal incorporation of which that union was the type had now ceased, not to begin again for ages. Whatever amount of belief we give to the legends of Roman wars and conquests under the kings, we can hardly doubt that the territory of several neighbouring towns was incorporated with the Roman state, and that their people, whether they removed to Rome or went on occupying their own lands elsewhere, became Romans, but not as yet full Romans. They were Romans in so far as they ceased to be members of any other state, in so far as they obeyed the laws of Rome, and served in the Roman armies. But they were not Romans in the sense of being admitted into the original Roman body; they had no votes in the original Roman assembly; they had no share in its public land; they were not admissible to the high offices of the state. They had an organization of their own; they had their own assemblies, their own magistrates, their own sacred rights, different in many things from those of the older Roman People. And we must remember that, throughout the Roman history, when any town or district was admitted to any stage, perfect or imperfect, of Roman citizenship, its people were admitted without regard to any distinctions which had existed among them in their elder homes. The patricians of a Latin town admitted to the Roman franchise became plebeians at Rome. Thus from the beginning, the Roman plebs contained families which, if the word 'noble' has any real meaning, were fully as noble as any house of the three elder tribes. Not a few too of the plebeians were rich; rich and poor, they were the more part land-owners; no mistake can be greater than that which looks on the Roman plebs as the low multitude of a town. As we first see them, the truest aspect of them is that of a second nation within the Roman state, an inferior, a subject, nation, shut out from all political power, subject in many things to practical oppression, but which, by its very organization as a subject nation, was the more stirred up to seek, and the better enabled to obtain, full equality with the elder nation to which it stood side by side as a subject neighbour."

E. A. Freeman, The Practical Bearings of European History (Lectures to American Audiences), page 278-278, and 285-292.

"That the central position of Rome, in the long and narrow peninsula of Italy, was highly favourable to her Italian dominion, and that the situation of Italy was favourable to her dominion over the countries surrounding the Mediterranean, has been often pointed out. But we have yet to ask what launched Rome in her career of conquest, and, still more, what rendered that career so different from those of ordinary conquerors? … About the only answer that we get to these questions is race. The Romans, we are told, were by nature a peculiarly warlike race. 'They were the wolves of Italy,' says Mr. Merivale, who may be taken to represent fairly the state of opinion on this subject. … {2659} But the further we inquire, the more reason there appears to be for believing that peculiarities of race are themselves originally formed by the influence of external circumstances on the primitive tribe; that, however marked and ingrained they may be, they are not congenital and perhaps not indelible. … Thus, by ascribing the achievements of the Romans to the special qualities of their race, we should not be solving the problem, but only stating it again in other terms. … What if the very opposite theory to that of the she-wolf and her foster-children should be true? What if the Romans should have owed their peculiar and unparalleled success to their having been at first not more warlike, but less warlike than their neighbours? It may seem a paradox, but we suspect that in their imperial ascendency is seen one of the earliest and not least important steps in that gradual triumph of intellect over force, even in war, which has been an essential part of the progress of civilization. The happy day may come when Science in the form of a benign old gentleman with a bald head and spectacles on nose, holding some beneficent compound in his hand, will confront a standing army, and the standing army will cease to exist. That will be the final victory of intellect. But in the meantime, our acknowledgements are due to the primitive inventors of military organization and military discipline. They shivered Goliath's spear. A mass of comparatively unwarlike burghers, unorganized and undisciplined, though they may be the hope of civilization from their mental and industrial qualities, have as little of collective as they have of individual strength in war; they only get in each other's way, and fall singly victims to the prowess of a gigantic barbarian. He who first thought of combining their force by organization, so as to make their numbers tell, and who taught them to obey officers, to form regularly for action, and to execute united movements at the word of command, was, perhaps, as great a benefactor of the species as he who grew the first corn, or built the first canoe. What is the special character of the Roman legends, so far as they relate to war? Their special character is that they are legends not of personal prowess but of discipline. Rome has no Achilles. The great national heroes, Camillus, Cincinnatus, Papirius Cursor, Fabius Maximus, Manlius, are not prodigies of personal strength and valour, but commanders and disciplinarians. The most striking incidents are incidents of discipline. The most striking incident of all is the execution by a commander of his own son for having gained a victory against orders. 'Disciplinam militarem,' Manlius is made to say, 'qua stetit ad hanc diem Romana res.' Discipline was the great secret of Roman ascendency in war. … But how came military discipline to be so specially cultivated by the Romans? … Dismissing the notion of occult qualities of race, we look for a rational explanation in the circumstances of the plain which was the cradle of the Roman Empire. It is evident that in the period designated as that of the kings, when Rome commenced her career of conquest, she was, for that time and country, a great and wealthy city. This is proved by the works of the kings, the Capitoline Temple, the excavation for the Circus Maximus, the Servian Wall, and above all the Cloaca Maxima. Historians have indeed undertaken to give us a very disparaging picture of the ancient Rome. … But the Cloaca Maxima is in itself conclusive evidence of a large population, of wealth, and of a not inconsiderable degree of civilization. Taking our stand upon this monument, and clearing our vision entirely of Romulus and his asylum, we seem dimly to perceive the existence of a deep prehistoric background, richer than is commonly supposed in the germs of civilization,—a remark which may in all likelihood be extended to the background of history in general. Nothing surely can be more grotesque than the idea of a set of wolves, like the Norse pirates before their conversion to Christianity, constructing in their den the Cloaca Maxima. That Rome was comparatively great and wealthy is certain. We can hardly doubt that she was a seat of industry and commerce, and that the theory which represents her industry and commerce as having been developed subsequently to her conquests is the reverse of the fact. Whence, but from industry and commerce, could the population and the wealth have come? Peasant farmers do not live in cities, and plunderers do not accumulate. Rome had around her what was then a rich and peopled plain; she stood at a meeting-place of nationalities; she was on a navigable river, yet out of the reach of pirates; the sea near her was full of commerce, Etruscan, Greek, and Carthaginian. … Her patricians were financiers and money-lenders. … Even more decisive is the proof afforded by the early political history of Rome. … The institutions which we find existing in historic times must have been evolved by some such struggle between the orders of patricians and plebeians as that which Livy presents to us. And these politics, with their parties and sections of parties, their shades of political character, the sustained interest which they imply in political objects, their various devices and compromises, are not the politics of a community of peasant farmers, living apart each on his own farm and thinking of his own crops: they are the politics of the quick-witted and gregarious population of an industrial and commercial city. … Of course when Rome had once been drawn into the career of conquest, the ascendency of the military spirit would be complete; war, and the organization of territories acquired in war, would then become the great occupation of her leading citizens; industry and commerce would fall into disesteem, and be deemed unworthy of the members of the imperial race. … Even when the Roman nobles had become a caste of conquerors and pro-consuls, they retained certain mercantile habits; unlike the French aristocracy, and aristocracies generally, they were careful keepers of their accounts, and they showed a mercantile talent for business, as well as a more than mercantile hardness, in their financial exploitation of the conquered world. Brutus and his contemporaries were usurers like the patricians of the early times. No one, we venture to think, who has been accustomed to study national character, will believe that the Roman character was formed by war alone: it was manifestly formed by war combined with business."

      Goldwin Smith,
      The Greatness of the Romans
      (Contemporary Review, May, 1878).

   A distinctly contrary theory of the primary character and
   early social state of the Romans is presented in the
   following: "The Italians were much more backward than the
   Greeks, for their land is turned to the west, to Spain, to
   Gaul, to Africa, which could teach them nothing, while Greece
   is turned to the east, to the coasts along which the
   civilisations of the Nile and the Tigris spread through so
   many channels.
{2660}
   Besides, the country itself is far less stimulating to its
   inhabitants: compared to Greece, Italy is a continental
   country whose inhabitants communicate more easily by land than
   by sea, except in the two extreme southern peninsulas, which
   characteristically were occupied by Greek colonies whose
   earlier development was more brilliant than that of the mother
   country. … The equable fertility of the land was itself a
   hindrance. As far back as we can form any conjecture, the bulk
   of the people were shepherds or husbandmen; we cannot trace a
   time like that reflected in the Homeric poems, when high-born
   men of spirit went roving in their youth by land and sea, and
   settled down in their prime with a large stock of cattle and a
   fair stud of horses, to act as referees in peace and leaders
   in war to the cottars around. … Other differences less
   intelligible to us were not less weighty: the volcanic
   character of the western plain of central Italy, the want of a
   fall to the coast (which caused some of the watercourses to
   form marshes, and made the Tiber a terror to the Romans for
   its floods), told in ways as yet untraced ou the character of
   the inhabitants. For one thing the ancient worship of Febris
   and Mefitis indicates a constant liability to fever; then the
   air of Greece is lighter than the air of Italy, and this may
   be the reason that it was more inspiring. … Italian indigenous
   literature was of the very scantiest; its oldest element was
   to be found in hymns, barely metrical, and so full of
   repetitions as to dispense with metre. The hymns were more
   like spells than psalms, the singers had an object to gain
   rather than feelings to express. The public hymns were prayers
   for blessing: there were private chants to charm crops out of
   a neighbour's field, and bring other mischief to pass against
   him. Such 'evil songs' were a capital offence, though there
   was little, perhaps, in their form to suggest a distinction
   whether the victim was being bewitched or satirised. The
   deliberate articulate expression of spite seemed a guilt and
   power of itself. Besides these there were dirges at funerals,
   ranging between commemoration of the deceased and his
   ancestors, propitiation of the departed spirit, and simple
   lamentation. There were songs at banquets in praise of ancient
   worthies. … We find no trace of any poet who composed what
   free-born youths recited at feasts; probably they extemporised
   without training and attained no mastery. If a nation has
   strong military instincts, we find legendary or historical
   heroes in its very oldest traditions; if a nation has strong
   poetical instincts, we find the names of historical or
   legendary poets. In Italy we only meet with nameless fauns and
   prophets, whose inspired verses were perhaps on the level of
   Mother Shipton."

      G. A. Simcox,
      A History of Latin Literature,
      volume 1, introduction.

"Great doubts have been entertained, as well by ancient historians as by modern chronologists, respecting this era. Polybius fixes it to the year B. C. 751; Cato, who has been followed by Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Solinus, and Eusebius, to B. C. 752; Fabius Pictor, to B. C. 747; Archbishop Usher, to B. C, 748; and Newton, to B. C. 627: Terentius Varro, however, refers it to B. C. 753; which computation was adopted by the Roman emperors, and by Plutarch, Tacitus, Dion, Aulus Gellius, Censorinus, Onuphrius, Baroius, bishop Beveridge, Stranchius, Dr. Playfair, and by most modern chronologists: Livy, Cicero, Pliny, and Velleius Paterculus occasionally adopted both the Varronian and Catonian computations. Dr. Hales has, however, determined, from history and astronomy, that the Varronian computation is correct, viz. B. C. 753."

ROME: B. C. 753-510.
   The legendary period of the kings.
   Credibility of the Roman annals.
   Probable Etruscan domination.

   "It may … be stated, as the result of this inquiry, that the
   narrative of Roman affairs, from the foundation of the city to
   the expulsion of the Tarquins, is formed out of traditionary
   materials. At what time the oral traditions were reduced into
   writing, and how much of the existing narrative was the
   arbitrary supplement of the historians who first framed the
   account which has descended to us, it is now impossible to
   ascertain, … The records of them, which were made before the
   burning of Rome, 300 B. C., were doubtless rare and meagre in
   the extreme; and such as there were at this time chiefly
   perished in the conflagration and ruin of the city. It was
   probably not till after this period—that is to say, about 120
   years after the expulsion of the kings—and above 350 years
   after the era assigned for the foundation of the city, that
   these oral reports—these hearsay stories of many
   generations—began to be entered in the registers of the
   pontifices. … The history of the entire regal period, as
   respects both its external attestation and its internal
   probability, is tolerably uniform in its character. … Niebuhr,
   indeed, has drawn a broad line between the reigns of Romulus
   and Numa on the one hand, and those of the five last kings on
   the other. The former he considers to be purely fabulous and
   poetical; the latter he regards as belonging to the
   mythico-historical period, when there is a narrative resting
   on a historical basis, and most of the persons mentioned are
   real. But it is impossible to discover any ground, either in
   the contents of the narrative; or in its external evidence, to
   support this distinction. Romulus, indeed, from the form of
   his name, appears to be a mere personification of the city of
   Rome, and to have no better claim to a real existence than
   Hellen, Danaus, Ægyptus, Tyrrhenus, or Italus. But Numa
   Pompilius stands on the same ground as the remaining kings,
   except that he is more ancient; and the narrative of all the
   reigns, from the first to the last, seems to be constructed on
   the same principles. That the names of the kings after Romulus
   are real, is highly probable; during the latter reigns, much
   of the history seems to be in the form of legendary
   explanations of proper names. … Even with respect to the
   Tarquinian family, it may be doubted whether the similarity of
   their name to that of the city of Tarquinii was not the origin
   of the story of Demaratus and the Etruscan origin. The
   circumstance that the two king Tarquins were both named
   Lucius, and that it was necessary to distinguish them by the
   epithets of Priscus and Superbus, raises a presumption that
   the names were real.
{2661}
   Müller indeed regards the names of the two Tarquins as merely
   representing the influence exercised by the Etruscan city of
   Tarquinii in Rome at the periods known as their reigns. … The
   leading feature of the government during this period is that
   its chief was a king, who obtained his office by the election
   of the people, and the confirmation of the Senate, in the same
   manner in which consuls and other high magistrates were
   appointed after the abolition of royalty; but that, when once
   fully elected, he retained his power for life. In the mode of
   succession, the Roman differed from the early Greek kings,
   whose office was hereditary. The Alban kings, likewise, to
   whom the Roman kings traced their origin, are described as
   succeeding by inheritance and not by election. … The
   predominant belief of the Romans concerning their regal
   government was, that the power of the kings was limited by
   constitutional checks; that the chief institutions of the
   Republic, namely, the Senate and the Popular Assembly, existed
   in combination with the royalty, and were only suspended by
   the lawless despotism of the second Tarquin. Occasionally,
   however, we meet with the idea that the kings were absolute."

Sir G. C. Lewis, Inquiry into the Credibility of Early Roman History, chapter 11, sections 39-40 (volume 1).

"Of the kings of Rome we have no direct contemporary evidence; we know them only from tradition, and from the traces they left behind them in the Republican constitution which followed. But the 'method of survivals' has here been applied by a master-hand [Mommsen]; and we can be fairly sure, not only of the fact that monarchy actually existed at Rome, but even of some at least of its leading characteristics. Here we have kingship no longer denoting, as in Homer, a social position of chieftaincy which bears with it certain vaguely-conceived prerogatives, but a clearly defined magistracy within the fully realised State. The rights and duties of the Rex are indeed defined by no documents, and the spirit of the age still seems to be obedience and trust; but we also find the marks of a formal customary procedure, which is already hardening into constitutional practice, and will in time further harden into constitutional law. The monarchy has ceased to be hereditary, if it ever was so; and the method of appointment, though we are uncertain as to its exact nature, is beyond doubt regulated with precision, and expressed in technical terms."

"The analogy of other states, no less than the subsequent constitution of Rome, which always retained the marks of its first monarchical complexion, leaves us in no doubt that kings once reigned in Rome, and that by a determined uprising of the people they were expelled, leaving in the Roman mind an ineradicable hatred of the very name. We have to be content with these hard facts, extracted from those thrilling stories with which Livy adorns the reign and the expulsion of Tarquinius Superbus."

   The names of the kings, with the dates assigned to them, are
   as follows:
   Romulus, B. C. 753-717;
   Numa Pompilius, B. C. 715-673;
   Tullus Hostilius, B. C. 673-642;
   Ancus Martius, B. C. 641-617;
   Lucius Tarquinius Priscus, B. C. 616-579;
   Servius Tullius, B. C. 578-535;
   Tarquinius Superbus, B. C. 534-510.

According to the legend of early Rome, Romulus attracted inhabitants to the city he had founded by establishing within its walls a sanctuary or refuge, for escaped slaves, outlaws and the like. But he could not in a fair way procure wives for these rough settlers, because marriage with them was disdained by the reputable people of neighboring cities. Therefore he arranged for an imposing celebration of games at Rome, in honor of the god Consus, and invited his neighbors, the Sabines, to witness them. These came unsuspectingly with their wives and daughters, and, when they were absorbed in the show, the Romans, at a given signal, rushed on them and carried off such women as they chose to make captive. A long and obstinate war ensued, which was ended by the interposition of the women concerned, who had become reconciled to their Roman husbands and satisfied to remain with them.

"We cannot … agree with Niebuhr, who thinks he can discover some historical facts through this legendary mist. As he supposes, the inhabitants of the Palatine had not the right of intermarriage ('connubium') with their Sabine neighbours on the Capitoline and the Quirinal. This inferiority of the Palatine Romans to the Sabines of the Capitoline and Quirinal hills caused discontent and war. The right of intermarriage was obtained by force of arms, and this historical fact lies at the bottom of the tale of the rape of the Sabines. Such a method of changing legends into history is of very doubtful utility. It seems more natural to explain the legend from the customs at the Roman marriage ceremonies"—in which the pretence of forcible abduction was enacted.

   "With the reign of the fifth king, Tarquinius Priscus, a
   marked change takes place. The traditional accounts of the
   last three kings not only wear a more historical air than
   those of the first four, but they describe something like a
   transformation of the Roman city and state. Under the rule of
   these latter kings the separate settlements were for the first
   time enclosed with a rampart of colossal size and extent. The
   low grounds were drained, and a forum and circus elaborately
   laid out; on the Capitoline Mount a temple was erected, the
   massive foundations of which were an object of wonder even to
   Pliny. … The kings increase in power and surround themselves
   with new splendour. Abroad, Rome suddenly appears as a
   powerful state ruling far and wide over southern Etruria and
   Latium. These startling changes are, moreover, ascribed to
   kings of alien descent, who one and all ascend the throne in
   the teeth of established constitutional forms. Finally, with
   the expulsion of the last of them—the younger Tarquin—comes a
   sudden shrinkage of power. At the commencement of the republic
   Rome is once more a comparatively small state, with hostile
   and independent neighbours at her very doors. It is difficult
   to avoid the conviction that the true explanation of this
   phenomenon is to be found in the supposition that Rome during
   this period passed under the rule of powerful Etruscan lords.
   Who the people were whom the Romans knew as Etruscans and the
   Greeks as Tyrrhenians is a question, which, after centuries of
   discussion, still remains unanswered; nor in all probability
   will the answer be found until the lost key to their language
   has been discovered. That they were regarded by the Italic
   tribes, by Umbrians, Sabellians, and Latins, as intruders is
   certain. Entering Italy, as they probably did from the north
   or northeast, they seem to have first of all made themselves
   masters of the rich valley of the Po and of the Umbrians who
   dwelt there.
{2662}
   Then crossing the Apennines, they overran Etruria proper as
   far south as the banks of the Tiber, here too reducing to
   subjection the Umbrian owners of the soil. In Etruria they
   made themselves dreaded, like the Northmen of a later time, by
   sea as well as by land. … We find the Etruscan power
   encircling Rome on all sides, and in Rome itself a tradition
   of the rule of princes of Etruscan origin. The Tarquinii come
   from South Etruria; their name can hardly be anything else
   than the Latin equivalent of the Etruscan Tarchon, and is
   therefore possibly a title (='lord' or 'prince') rather than a
   proper name. … That Etruria had, under the sway of Etruscan
   lords, forged ahead of the country south of the Tiber in
   wealth and civilisation is a fact which the evidence of
   remains has placed beyond doubt. It is therefore significant
   that the rule of the Tarquins in Rome is marked by an outward
   splendour which stands in strong contrast to the primitive
   simplicity of the native kings. … These Etruscan princes are
   represented, not only as having raised Rome for the time to a
   commanding position in Latium, and lavished upon the city
   itself the resources of Etruscan civilisation, but also the
   authors of important internal changes. They are represented as
   favouring new men at the expense of the old patrician
   families, and as reorganising the Roman army on a new footing,
   a policy natural enough in military princes of alien birth."

Lucius Tarquinius Superbus, or Tarquin the Proud, son of Tarquinius Priscus and son-in-law of Servius Tullius, brought about the assassination of the latter, and mounted the throne. "Lucius Tarquin, having thus seized the kingdom (for he had not the consent either of the Senators or of the Commons to his deed), bare himself very haughtily, so that men called him Tarquin the Proud. First, lest some other, taking example by him, should deal with him as he had dealt with Tullius, he had about him a company of armed men for guards. And because he knew that none loved him, he would have them fear him. To this end he caused men to be accused before him. And when they were so accused, he judged them by himself, none sitting with him to see that right was done. Some he slew unjustly, and some he banished, and some he spoiled of their goods. And when the number of the Senators was greatly diminished by these means (for he laid his plots mostly against the Senators, as being rich men and the chief of the State), he would not choose any into their place, thinking that the people would lightly esteem them if there were but a few of them. Nor did he call them together to ask their counsel, but ruled according to his own pleasure, making peace and war, and binding treaties or unbinding, with none to gainsay him. Nevertheless, for a while he increased greatly in power and glory. He made alliance with Octavius Mamilius, prince of Tusculum, giving him his daughter in marriage; nor was there any man greater than Mamilius in all the cities of the Latins; and Suessa Pometia, that was a city of the Volsei, he took by force, and finding that the spoil was very rich (for there were in it forty talents of gold and silver), he built with the money a temple to Jupiter on the Capitol, very great and splendid, and worthy not only of his present kingdom but also of that great Empire that should be thereafter. Also he took the city of Gabii by fraud. … By such means did King Tarquin increase his power. Now there was at Rome in the days of Tarquin a noble youth, by name Lucius Junius, who was akin to the house of Tarquin, seeing that his mother was sister to the King. This man, seeing how the King sought to destroy all the chief men in the State (and, indeed, the brother of Lucius had been so slain), judged it well so to bear himself that there should be nothing in him which the King should either covet or desire. Wherefore he feigned foolishness, suffering all that he had to be made a prey; for which reason men gave him the name of Brutus, or the Foolish. Then he bided his time, waiting till the occasion should come when he might win freedom for the people." In a little time "there came to Brutus an occasion of showing what manner of man he was. Sextus, the King's son, did so grievous a wrong to Lucretia, that was the wife of Collatinus, that the woman could not endure to live, but slew herself with her own hand. But before she died she called to her her husband and her father and Brutus, and bade them avenge her upon the evil house of Tarquin. And when her father and her husband sat silent for grief and fear, Brutus drew the knife wherewith she slew herself from the wound, and held it before him dripping with blood, and cried aloud, 'By this blood I swear, calling the Gods to witness, that I will pursue with fire and sword and with all other means of destruction Tarquin the Proud, with his accursed wife and all his race; and that I will suffer no man hereafter to be king in this city of Rome.' And when he had ended he bade the others swear after the same form of words. This they did and, forgetting their grief, thought only how they might best avenge this great wrong that had been done. First they carried the body of Lucretia, all covered with blood, into the marketplace of Collatia (for these things happened at Collatia), and roused all the people that saw a thing so shameful and pitiful, till all that were of an age for war assembled themselves carrying arms. Some of them stayed behind to keep the gates of Collatia, that no one should carry tidings of the matter to the King, and the rest Brutus took with him with all the speed that he might to Rome. There also was stirred up a like commotion, Brutus calling the people together and telling them what a shameful wrong the young Tarquin had done. Also he spake to them of the labours with which the King wore them out in the building of temples and palaces and the like, so that they who had been in time past the conquerors of all the nations round about were now come to be but his hewers of wood and drawers of water. Also he set before them in what shameful sort King Tullius had been slain, and how his daughter had driven her chariot over the dead body of her father. With suchlike words he stirred up the people to great wrath, so that they passed a decree that there should be no more kings in Rome, and that Lucius Tarquin with his wife and his children should be banished. {2663} After this Brutus made haste to the camp and stirred up the army against the King. And in the meanwhile Queen Tullia fled from her palace, all that saw her cursing her as she went. As for King Tarquin, when he came to the city he found the gates shut against him; thereupon he returned and dwelt at Cære that is in the land of Etruria, and two of his sons with him; but Sextus going to Gabii, as to a city which he had made his own, was slain by the inhabitants. The King and his house being thus driven out, Brutus was made consul with one Collatinus for his colleague."

ALSO IN: B. G. Niebuhr, Lectures on the History of Rome, lectures 8-9 (volume 1).

"However much the history of the expulsion of the last Tarquinius, 'the proud,' may have been interwoven with anecdotes and spun out into a romance, it is not in its leading outlines to be called in question. … The royal power was by no means abolished, as is shown by the fact that, when a vacancy occurred, a 'temporary king' (interrex) was nominated as before. The one life-king was simply replaced by two year-kings, who called themselves generals (prætores), or judges (iudices), or merely colleagues (consules) [consules are those who 'leap or dance together.' Foot-note]. The collegiate principle, from which this last—and subsequently most current—name of the annual kings was derived, assumed in their case an altogether peculiar form. The supreme power was not entrusted to the two magistrates conjointly, but each consul possessed and exercised it for himself as fully and wholly as it had been possessed and exercised by the king; and, although a partition of functions doubtless took place from the first—the one consul for instance undertaking the command of the army, and the other the administration of justice—that partition was by no means binding, and each of the colleagues was legally at liberty to interfere at any time in the province of the other.

… This peculiarly Latin, if not peculiarly Roman, institution of co-ordinate supreme authorities … manifestly sprang out of the endeavour to retain the regal power in legally undiminished fulness. … A similar course was followed in reference to the termination of their tenure of office. … They ceased to be magistrates, not upon the expiry of the set term, but only upon their publicly and solemnly demitting their office: so that, in the event of their daring to disregard the term and to continue their magistracy beyond the year, their official acts were nevertheless valid, and in the earlier times they scarcely even incurred any other than a moral responsibility."

"No revolution can be undertaken and completed with success if the mass of the people is not led on by some superior intellect. At the dissolution of an existing legal authority the only authority remaining is personal and de facto, which in proportion to the danger of the position is more or less military and dictatorial. The Romans especially acknowledged the necessity, when circumstances required it, of submitting to the unlimited power of a dictator. Such a chief they found, at the time of the revolution, in Brutus. Collatinus also may, during a certain time, have stood in a similar manner at the head of the state, probably from less pure motives than Brutus, in consequence of which he succumbed to the movement which he in part may have evoked. After Brutus, Valerius Publicola was the recognised supreme head and the arbiter of events in Rome with dictatorial power, until his legislation made an end of the interregnum, and with all legal forms founded the true and genuine republic with two annual consuls. The dictatorship is found in the Latin cities as a state of transition between monarchy and the yearly prætorship; and we may conjecture that also in Rome the similar change in the constitution was effected in a similar way. In important historical crises the Romans always availed themselves of the absolute power of a dictator, as in Greece, with similar objects, Aesymnetae were chosen. … How long the dictatorial constitution lasted must remain undecided; for we must renounce the idea of a chronology of that time. It appears to me not impossible that the period between the expulsion of the kings and the Valerian laws, which is our authorities is represented as a year, may have embraced ten years, or much more."-

      W. Ihne,
      Researches into the History of the Roman Constitution,
      page 61.

"The republic seems to have been first regularly established by the Valerian laws, of which, unfortunately, we can discover little more than half obliterated traces in the oldest traditions of the Romans. According to the story, P. Valerius was chosen as consul after the banishment of Tarquinius Collatinus, and remained alone in office after the death of his colleague, Brutus, without assembling the people for the election of a second consul. This proceeding excited a suspicion in the minds of the people, that he intended to take sole possession of the state, and to re-establish royal power. But these fears proved groundless. Valerius remained in office with the sole design of introducing a number of laws intended to establish the republic on a legal foundation, without the danger of any interference on the part of a colleague. The first of these Valerian laws threatened with the curse of the gods anyone who, without the consent of the people, should dare to assume the highest magistracy. … The second law of Valerius … prescribe that in criminal trials, where the life of a citizen was at stake, the sentence of the consul should be subject to an appeal to the general assembly of the people. This Valerian law of appeal was the Roman Habeas Corpus Act."

      See, also,
      CONSUL, ROMAN;
      COMITIA CURIATA;
      COMITIA CENTURIATA;
      CENSORS;
      QUÆSTORS, ROMAN;
      SENATE, ROMAN.

ROME: B. C. 494-492.
   The first secession of the Plebs.
   Origin of the Tribunes of the Plebs, and the Ædiles.
   Original and acquired power of the Tribunes.
   The two Roman peoples and their antagonism.

   "The struggle [of plebeians against patricians in early Rome]
   opens with the debt question. We must realize all along how
   the internal history is affected by the wars without. The
   debtors fall into their difficulties through serving in the
   field during the summer; for of course the army is a citizen
   army and the citizens are agriculturists. Two patrician
   families take the side of the poor, the Horatii and the
   Valerii.
{2664}
   Manius Valerius Publicola, created dictator, promises the
   distressed farmers that, if they will follow him in his
   campaign against the Sabines, he will procure the relaxation
   of their burdens. They go and return victorious. But Appius
   Claudius (whose family had but recently migrated to Rome, a
   proud and overbearing Sabine stock) opposed the redemption of
   the dictator's promise. The victorious host, forming a seventh
   of the arm-bearing population, instantly marched out of the
   gate of the city, crossed the river Anio, and took up a
   station on the Sacred Mount [Mons Sacer]. They did not mean to
   go back again; they were weary of their haughty masters. … At
   last a peace is made—a formal peace concluded by the fetiales:
   they will come back if they may have magistrates of their own.
   This is the origin of the tribunes of the plebs [B. C. 492]. …
   The plebs who marched back that day from the Sacred Mount had
   done a deed which was to have a wonderful issue in the history
   of the world; they had dropped a seed into the soil which
   would one day spring up into the imperial government of the
   Cæsars. The 'tribunicia potestas,' with which they were
   clothing their new magistrates, was to become a more important
   element in the claims of the emperors than the purple robe of
   the consuls."

"The tribunes of the people were so essentially different from all the other magistrates that, strictly speaking, they could hardly be called magistrates at all. They were originally nothing but the official counsel of the plebs—but counsel who possessed a veto on the execution of any command or any sentence of the patrician authorities. The tribune of the people had no military force at his disposal with which to inforce his veto. … There is no more striking proof of the high respect for law which was inherent in the Roman people, than that it was possible for such a magistracy to exercise functions specially directed against the governing class. … To strengthen an official authority which was so much wanting in physical strength, the Romans availed themselves of the terrors of religion. … The tribunes were accordingly placed under the special protection of the Deity. They were declared to be consecrated and inviolable ('sacrosancti'), and whoever attacked them, or hindered them in the exercise of their functions, fell a victim to the avenging Deity, and might be killed by anyone without fear of punishment."

"The tribune had no political authority. Not being a magistrate, he could not convoke the curies or the centuries [see COMITIA CURIATA and COMITIA CENTURIATA]. He could make no proposition in the senate; it was not supposed, in the beginning, that he could appear there. He had nothing in common with the real city—that is to say, with the patrician city, where men did not recognize any authority of his. He was not the tribune of the people; he was the tribune of the plebs. There were then, as previously, two societies in Rome—the city and the plebs; the one strongly organized, having laws, magistrates, and a senate; the other a multitude, which remained without rights and laws, but which found in its inviolable tribunes protectors and judges. In succeeding years we can see how the tribunes took courage, and what unexpected powers they assumed. They had no authority to convoke the people, but they convoked them. Nothing called them to the senate; they sat at first at the door of the chamber; later they sat within. They had no power to judge the patricians; they judged them and condemned them. This was the result of the inviolability attached to them as sacrosancti. Every other power gave way before them. The patricians were disarmed the day they had pronounced, with solemn rites, that whoever touched a tribune should be impure. The law said, 'Nothing shall be done against a tribune.' If, then, this tribune convoked the plebs, the plebs assembled, and no one could dissolve this assembly, which the presence of the tribune placed beyond the power of the patricians and the laws. If the tribune entered the senate, no one could compel him to retire. If he seized a consul, no one could take the consul from his hand. Nothing could resist the boldness of a tribune. Against a tribune no one had any power, except another tribune. As soon as the plebs thus had their chiefs, they did not wait long before they had deliberative assemblies. These did not in any manner resemble those of the patricians. The plebs, in their comitia, were distributed into tribes; the domicile, not religion or wealth, regulated the place of each one. The assembly did not commence with a sacrifice; religion did not appear there. They knew nothing of presages, and the voice of an augur, or a pontiff, could not compel men to separate. It was really the comitia of the plebs, and they had nothing of the old rules, or of the religion of the patricians. True, these assemblies did not at first occupy themselves with the general interests of the city; they named no magistrates, and passed no laws. They deliberated only on the interests of their own order, named the plebeian chiefs, and carried plebiscita. There was at Rome, for a long time, a double series of decrees—senatusconsulta for the patricians, plebiscita for the plebs. The plebs did not obey the senatusconsulta, nor the patricians the plebiscita. There were two peoples at Rome. These two peoples, always in presence of each other, and living within the same walls, still had almost nothing in common. A plebeian could not be consul of the city, nor a patrician tribune of the plebs. The plebeian dill not enter the assembly by curies, nor the patrician the assembly of the tribes. They were two peoples that did not even understand each other, not having—so to speak—common ideas. … The patricians persisted in keeping the plebs without the body politic, and the plebs established institutions of their own. The duality of the Roman population became from day to day more manifest. And yet there was something which formed a tie between these two peoples: this was war. The patricians were careful not to deprive themselves of soldiers. They had left to the plebeians the title of citizens, if only to incorporate them into the legions. They had taken care, too, that the inviolability of the tribunes should not extend outside of Rome, and for this purpose had decided that a tribune should never go out of the city. In the army, therefore, the plebs were under control; there was no longer a double power; in presence of the enemy Rome became one."

It is supposed that the tribunes were originally two in number; but later there were five, and, finally, ten. The law which created their office was "deposited in a temple, under the charge of two plebeian magistrates specially appointed for the purpose and called Aediles or 'housemasters.' These aediles were attached to the tribunes as assistants, and their jurisdiction chiefly concerned such minor cases as were settled by fines."

T. Mommsen, History of the Roman Republic (abridged by Bryant and Hendy), chapter 7.

"Besides the tribunes, who stood over against the consuls, two plebeian ædiles were appointed, who might balance the patrician quæstors. Their name seems borrowed from the temple (Ædes Cereris) which is now built on the cattle market between the Palatine and the river to form a religious centre for the plebeian interest, as the ancient temple of Saturn was already a centre for the patrician interest. The goddess of bread is to preside over the growth of the democracy. The duty of ædiles is, in the first instance, to keep the public buildings in repair; but they acquire a position not unlike that of police-officers."

The office of the curule ædiles (two in number, who were elected in "comitia tributa") was instituted in 366 B. C. These were patricians at first; but in 304 B. C. the office was thrown open in alternate years to the plebeians, and in 91 B. C. all restrictions were removed. The curule ædiles had certain judicial functions, and formed with the plebeian ædiles a board of police and market administration, having oversight also of the religious games.

ALSO IN: Sir G. C. Lewis, Credibility of Early Roman History, chapter 12, part 1.

The wars of the Romans with the neighboring Volscians stretched over a period of some forty years (B. C. 489-450) and ended in the disappearance of the latter from history. The legend of Coriolanus (Caius Marcius, on whom the added name was bestowed because of his valiant capture of the Volscian town of Corioli) is connected with these wars; but modern critics have stripped it of all historic credit and left it only a beautiful romance.

ROME: B. C. 472-471.-
The Publilian Law of Volero.
Exclusion of Patricians from the Comitia Tributa.

"Volero Publilius was chosen one of the Tribunes for … [B. C. 472]; and he straightway proposed a law, by which it was provided that the Tribunes and Ædiles of the plebs should be elected by the plebeians themselves at the Assembly of the Tribes in the Forum, not at the Assembly of the Centuries in the Field of Mars. This is usually called the Publilian Law of Volero. For a whole year the patricians succeeded in putting off the law. But the plebeians were determined to have it."

"The immediate consequence of the tribuneship of the people was the organisation of the assembly of tribes, the 'comitia tributa,' whereby they lost their former character as factional or party meetings and were raised to the·dignity and functions of assemblies of the Roman people. … The circumstances which, in 471 B. C., led to the passing of the Publilian law, seem to indicate that even at that time the attempt was made by the patricians to change the original character of the tribuneship of the people, and to open it to the patrician class. The patricians intruded themselves in the assembly of the plebeians, surely not for the purpose of making a disturbance as it is represented, but to enforce a contested right, by which they claimed to take part in the comitia of tribes. … This question was decided by the Publilian law, which excluded the patricians from the comitia tributa and specified the privileges of these comitia, now admitted to be purely plebeian. … These were the right of meeting together unmolested in separate purely plebeian comitia, the right of freely and independently electing their representatives, the right of discussing and settling their own affairs, and in certain matters of passing resolutions [plebiscita] which affected the whole community. These resolutions were, of course, not binding on the state, they had more the character of petitions than enactments, but still they were the formal expression of the will of a great majority of the Roman people, and as such they could not easily be set aside or ignored by the patrician government."

In the war of the Romans with the Volscians, the former were so hard pressed that "it became necessary to receive men and cattle within the walls or Rome, just as at Athens in the Peloponnesian war; and this crowding together of men and beasts produced a plague [B. C. 466-403]. … It is probable that the great pestilence which, thirty years later, broke out in Greece and Carthage, began in Italy as early as that time. The rate of mortality was fearful; it was a real pestilence, and not a mere fever. … Both consuls fell victims to the disease, two of the four augurs, the curio maximus, the fourth part of the senators, and an immense number of citizens of all classes."

"Alternating with the raids [of the Romans] against the Volsci are the almost yearly campaigns with the Æqui, who would pour down their valleys and occupy Mount Algidus, threatening Tusculum and the Latin Way which led to Rome. It was on one of these occasions, when the republic too was engaged with Sabines to the north, and Volscians to the south, that the Consul Minucius [B. C. 458] found himself hemmed in on the mountainside by the Æqui. Very beautiful and very characteristic is the legend which veils the issue of the danger. L. Quinctius Cincinnatus, ruined by a fine imposed upon his son, is tilling his little farm across the Tiber, when the messengers of the Senate come to announce that he is made dictator. With great simplicity he leaves his plough, conquers the Æqui, and returns to his furrows again."

ROME: B. C. 456.
   The Icilian Law.
   The early process of legislation illustrated.
   Persuasiveness of Plebeian Petitions.

"The process of legislation in early times has been preserved to us in a single instance in which Dionysius has followed the account derived by him from an ancient document. The case is that of the Lex Icilia de Aventino publicando (B. C. 456), an interlude in the long struggle over the Terentilian law.

This Lex Icilia was preserved, as Dionysius tells us, on a brazen column in the temple of Diana on the Aventine. It seems unlikely that the original tablet in such a situation should have survived the burning of the city by the Gauls. Yet a record so important to the plebs would doubtless be at once restored, and the restoration would show at least the belief prevalent at this very early period (B. C. 389) as to the proper procedure in case of such a law. 'Icilius,' says Dionysius (X. 31), 'approached the consuls then in office and the senate, and requested them to pass the preliminary decree for the law that he proposed, and to bring it before the people.' By threatening to arrest the consuls he compelled them to assemble the senate, and Icilius addressed the senate on behalf of his bill. Finally the senate consented … (Dionys. X. 32). Then, after auspices and sacrifices, 'the law was passed by the comitia centuriata, which were convened by the consuls.' … Now here we have an order of proceeding under which the plebs have a practical initiative in legislation, and in which, nevertheless, each of the powers of the state acts in a perfectly natural and constitutional manner. … The formal legislative power lies solely with the populus Romanus. The vote of the corporation of the plebs is not then in early times strictly a legislative process at all. It is merely a strong and formal petition; an appeal to the sovereign assembly to grant their request. But this sovereign assembly can only be convened and the question put to it by a consul. If the consuls are unfavourable to the bill, they can refuse to put it to the vote at all. In any case, unless, like Sp. Cassius, they were themselves revolutionists, they would not think of doing so save on the recommendation of their authorised advisers. … The senate is assembled and freely dis·cusses the law. An adverse vote justifies the consuls in their resistance. Then follow tedious manœuvres. The senate treat with members of the college of tribunes to procure their veto; they urge the necessity of a military expedition, or, as a last resource, advise the appointment of a dictator. Such is the general picture we get from Livy's story. If by these means they can tide over the tribune's year of office, the whole process has to be gone through again. The senate have the chance of a lucky accident in getting one of the new tribunes subservient to them; or sometimes (as in the case of the proposal to remove to Veii) they may persuade the plebs itself to throw out the tribunician rogatio when again introduced (Livy, v. 30). On the other hand the tribunes may bring to bear their reserved power of impeding all public business; and the ultima ratio lies with the plebeians, who have the power of secession in their hands. In practice, however, the senate is nearly always wise enough to yield before the plebs is driven to play this its last card. Their yielding is expressed by their backing the petition of the plebs and recommending the consuls to put the question of its acceptance to the populus. With this recommendation on the part of the senate the struggle is generally at an end. It is still in the strict right of the consuls to refuse to put the question to the comitia. Livy (iii. 19) gives us one instance in the matter of the Terentilian law, when the senate is disposed to yield, and the consul 'non in plebe coercendâ quam senatu castigando vehementior fuit.' But a consul so insisting on his right would incur enormous personal responsibility, and expose himself, unsheltered by public opinion, to the vengeance of the plebs when he went out of office. When the consul too has yielded, and the question is actually put to the vote of the sovereign (generally in its comitia centuriata), the controversy has been long ago thoroughly threshed out. Though it is only at this stage that legislation in the strict sense of the word commences, yet no instance is recorded of a refusal on the part of the sovereign people to assent to the petition of the plebs backed by the recommendation of the senate."

      J. L. Strachan-Davidson,
      Plebeian Privilege at Rome
      (English Historical Review, April, 1886).

On the bearings of this proceeding on the subsequently adopted
Valerio-Horatian, Publilian, and Hortensian laws.

   Not long after the establishment of the tribuneship, "the
   plebeians felt the necessity of putting an end to the
   exclusive possession of the laws which the patricians enjoyed,
   and to make them the common property of the whole nation. This
   could only be done by writing them down and making them
   public. A proposal was accordingly made in the assembly of the
   tribes by the tribune C. Terentilius Arsa (462 B. C.) to
   appoint a commission for the purpose of committing to writing
   the whole of the laws. … It is not wonderful that the
   patricians opposed with all their strength a measure which
   would wrest a most powerful weapon out of their hands. … The
   contest for the passing of the bill of Terentilius lasted,
   according to tradition, not less than ten years, and all means
   of open and secret opposition and of partial concession were
   made use of to elude the claims of the popular party. … After
   a ten years' struggle it [the motion for a commission] was
   passed into law. It proposed that a commission of ten men,
   being partly patricians and partly plebeians, should be
   appointed, for the purpose of arranging the existing law into
   a code. At the same time the consular constitution was to be
   suspended, and the ten men to be intrusted with the government
   and administration of the commonwealth during the time that
   they acted as legislators. By the same law the plebeian
   magistracy of the tribunes of the people ceased likewise, and
   the ten men became a body of magistrates intrusted with
   unlimited authority. … The patricians did not act entirely in
   good faith. … They carried the election of ten patricians. …
   Having, however, obtained this advantage over the credulity of
   their opponents, the patricians made no attempt to use it
   insolently as a party victory. The decemvirs proceeded with
   wisdom and moderation. Their administration, as well as their
   legislation, met with universal approval. They published on
   ten tables the greater part of the Roman law, and after these
   laws had met with the approbation of the people, they were
   declared by a decision of the people to be binding. Thus the
   first year of the decemvirate passed, and so far the
   traditional story is simple and intelligible."
{2667}
   The part of the tradition which follows is largely rejected by
   modern critical historians. It relates that when decemvirs
   were chosen for another year, to complete their work, Appius
   Claudius brought about the election, with himself, of men whom
   he could control, and then established a reign of terror which
   surpassed the worst tyranny of the kings, refusing to abdicate
   when the year expired. The tragic story of Virginia connects
   itself with this terrible oppression, and with the legend of
   its downfall. In the end, the Roman people delivered
   themselves, and secured the permanent authority of the code of
   laws, which had been enlarged from ten to twelve Tables.

   "The Twelve Tables were considered as the foundation of all
   law, and Cicero always mentions them with the utmost
   reverence. But only fragments remain."

"The most celebrated system of jurisprudence known to the world begins, as it ends, with a code. From the commencement to the close of its history, the expositors of Roman Law consistently employed language which implied that the body of their system rested on the Twelve Decemviral [Tables, and therefore on a basis of written law. Except in one particular, no institutions anterior to the Twelve Tables were recognised at Rome. The theoretical descent of Roman jurisprudence from a code, the theoretical ascription of English law to immemorial unwritten tradition, were the chief reasons why the development of their system differed from the development of ours. Neither theory corresponded exactly with the facts, but each produced consequences of the utmost importance. … The ancient Roman code belongs to a class of which almost every civilised nation in the world can show a sample, and which, so far as the Roman and Hellenic worlds were concerned, were largely diffused over them at epochs not widely distant from one another. They appeared under exceedingly similar circumstances, and were produced, to our knowledge, by very similar causes. … In Greece, in Italy, on the Hellenised sea-board of Western Asia, these codes all made their appearance at periods much the same everywhere, not, I mean, at periods identical in point of time, but similar in point of the relative progress of each community. Everywhere, in the countries I have named, laws engraven on tablets and published to the people take the place of usages deposited with the recollection of a privileged oligarchy. … The ancient codes were doubtless originally suggested by the discovery and diffusion of the art of writing. It is true that the aristocracies seem to have abused their monopoly of legal knowledge; and at all events their exclusive possession of the law was a formidable impediment to the success of those popular movements which began to be universal in the western world. But, though democratic sentiment may have added to their popularity, the codes were certainly in the main a direct result of the invention of writing. Inscribed tablets were seen to be a better depositary of law, and a better security for its accurate preservation, than the memory of a number of persons however strengthened by habitual exercise. … Among the chief advantages which the Twelve Tables and similar codes conferred on the societies which obtained them, was the protection which they afforded against the frauds of the privileged oligarchy and also against the spontaneous depravation and debasement of the national institutions. The Roman Code was merely an enunciation in words of the existing customs of the Roman people. Relatively to the progress of the Romans in civilization, it was a remarkably early code, and it was published at a time when Roman society had barely emerged from that intellectual condition in which civil obligation and religious duty are inevitably confounded."

On the overthrow of the tyranny of the Decemvirs, at Rome, B. C. 449, L. Valerius Potitus and M. Horatius Barbatus, being elected consuls, brought about the passage of certain laws, known as the Valerio-Horatian Laws. These renewed an old law (the Valerian Law) which gave to every Roman citizen an appeal from the supreme magistrate to the people, and they also made the plebiscita, or resolutions of the assembly of the tribes, authoritative laws, binding on the whole body politic.

   See a discussion of the importance of the last mentioned of
   these laws, in its relations to the subsequent Publilian and
   Hortensian laws.

ROME: B. C. 445-400.
   The Canuleian Law.
   Creation of the Consular Tribunes.
   Progress of the Plebs toward Political Equality.

"The year 449 had not taken from the patricians all their privileges. Rome has still two classes, but only one people, and the chiefs of the plebs, sitting in the senate, are meditating, after the struggle to obtain civil equality, to commence another to gain political equality. … Two things maintained the insulting distinction between the two orders: the prohibition of marriage between patricians and plebeians, and the tenure of all the magisterial officers by those who formed since the origin of Rome the sovereign people of the 'patres.' In 445 B. C. the tribune Canuleius demanded the abolition of the prohibition relative to marriages, and his colleagues, a share in the consulate. This was a demand for political equality." The Canuleian law legalizing marriages between patricians and plebeians was conceded, but not until a third "secession" of the plebeians had taken place. The plebeian demand for a share in the consulate was pacified for the time by a constitutional change which formed out of the consulate three offices: "the quæstorship, the censorship and the consular tribunate. The two former are exclusively patrician. The military [or consular] tribunes, in reality proconsuls confined, with one exception, to the command of the legions, could now be chosen without distinction, from the two orders. But the law, in not requiring that every year a fixed number of them be plebeians, allowed them to be all patricians; and they remained so for nearly fifty years. In spite of such skilful precautions, the senate did not give up the consulate. It held in reserve and pure from all taint the patrician magistracy, hoping for better days. … The constitution of 444 B. C. authorized the nomination of plebeians to the consular tribunate; down to 400 B. C. none obtained it; and during the seventy-eight years that this office continued, the senate twenty-four times nominated consuls, that is to say, it attempted, and succeeded, one year in three, in re-establishing the ancient form of government. {2668} These perpetual oscillations encouraged the ambitious hopes of a rich knight, Spurius Mælius (439 B. C.). He thought that the Romans would willingly resign into his hands their unquiet liberty, and during a famine he gave very liberally to the poor. The senate became alarmed at this alms-giving which was not at all in accordance with the manners of that time, and raised to the dictatorship Cincinnatus, who, on taking office, prayed the gods not to grant that his old age should prove a cause of hurt or damage to the republic. Summoned before the tribunal of the dictator, Mælius refused to appear, and sought protection against the lictors amongst the crowd which filled the Forum. But the master of the horse, Serv. Ahala, managed to reach him, and ran him through with his sword. In spite of the indignation of the people, Cincinnatus sanctioned the act of his lieutenant, caused the house of the traitor to be demolished, and the 'præfectus annonæ,' Minucius Augurinus, sold, for an 'as' per 'modius,' the corn amassed by Mælius. Such is the story of the partisan of the nobles [Livy]; but at that epoch to have dreamt of reestablishing royalty would have been a foolish dream in which Spurius could not have indulged. Without doubt he had wished to obtain, by popular favour, the military tribunate, and in order to intimidate the plebeian candidates, the patricians overthrew him by imputing to him the accusation which Livy complacently details by the mouth of Cincinnatus, of having aimed at royalty. The crowd always can be cajoled by words, and the senate had the art of concentrating on this word 'royalty' all the phases of popular hatred. The move succeeded; during the eleven years following the people nine times allowed consuls to be nominated. There was, however, in 433 B. C. a plebeian dictator, Mamercus Æmilius, who reduced the tenure of censorship to 18 months. These nine consulships gave such confidence to the nobles that the senate itself had to suffer from the proud want of discipline shown by the consuls of the year 428 B. C. Though conquered by the Æquians, they refused to nominate a dictator. To overcome their resistance the senate had recourse to the tribunes of the people, who threatened to drag the consuls to prison. To see the tribunitian authority protecting the majesty of the senate was quite a new phenomenon. From this day the reputation of the tribunate equalled its power, and few years passed without the plebeians obtaining some new advantage. Three years earlier the tribunes, jealous of seeing the votes always given to the nobles, had proscribed the white robes, which marked out from a distance, to all eyes, the patrician candidate: This was the first law against undue canvassing. In 430 a law put an end to arbitrary valuations of penalties payable in kind. In 427 the tribunes, by opposing the levies, obliged the senate to carry to the comitia centuriata the question of the war against Veii. In 423 they revived the agrarian law, and demanded that the tithe should be more punctually paid in the future by the occupiers of domain land, and applied to the pay of the troops. They miscarried this time: but in 421 it seemed necessary to raise the number of quæstors from two to four; the people consented to it only on the condition that the quæstorship be accessible to the plebeians. Three years later 3,000 acres of the lands of Labicum were distributed to fifteen hundred plebeian families. It was very little: so the people laid claim in 414 to the division of the lands of Bola, taken from the Æquians. A military tribune, Postumius, being violently opposed to it, was slain in an outbreak of the soldiery. This crime, unheard of in the history of Roman armies, did harm to the popular cause; there was no distribution of lands, and for five years the senate was able to nominate the consuls. The patrician reaction produced another against it which ended in the thorough execution of the constitution of the year 444. An Icilius in 412, a Mænius in 410 B. C. took up again the agrarian law, and opposed the levy. The year following three of the Icilian family were named as tribunes. It was a menace to the other order. The patricians understood it, and in 410 three plebeians obtained the quæstorship. In 405 pay was established for the troops, and the rich undertook to pay the larger portion of it. Finally, in 400, four military tribunes out of six were plebeians. The chiefs of the people thus obtained the public offices and even places in the senate, and the poor obtained an indemnity which supported their families while they served with the colours. All ambitions, all desires, are at present satisfied. Calm and union returned to Rome; we can see it in the vigour of the attacks on external foes."

"Veii lay about ten miles from Rome, between two small streams which meet a little below the city and run down into the Tiber, falling into it nearly opposite to Castel Giubileo, the ancient Fidenæ. Insignificant in point of size, these little streams, however, like those of the Campagna generally, are edged by precipitous rocky cliffs, and thus are capable of affording a natural defence to a town built on the table-land above and between them. The space enclosed by the walls of Veii was equal to the extent of Rome itself, so long as the walls of Servius Tullius were the boundary of the city. … In the magnificence of its public and private buildings Veii is said to have been preferred by the Roman commons to Rome: and we know enough of the great works of the Etruscans to render this not impossible."

"Rome and Veii, equals in strength and size, had engaged in periodical conflicts from time immemorial. … But the time had come for the final struggle with Veii. … How the siege lasted for ten years [B. C. 406-396]; how, at the bidding of a captured Tuscan seer, the Alban Lake was drained (and is not the tunnel which drained it visible to-day?); how Camillus, the dictator, by a tunnel underground took the city, and fore·stalled the sacrifice; how Juno came from Veii, and took up her abode upon the Aventine; how Camillus triumphed; and how the nemesis fell upon him, and he was banished—all this and more is told by Livy in his matchless way. It is an epic, and a beautiful epic."

At the time of the conquest of Veii, there was a proposal that half the inhabitants of Rome should remove to the empty city, and found a new state. It was defeated with difficulty. A little later, when the Gauls had destroyed Rome, its citizens, having found Veii a strong and comfortable place of refuge, were nearly persuaded to remain there and not rebuild their former home. Thus narrowly was the "Eternal City" saved to history.

"Before the time we are now speaking of, there had been a great movement in these Celtic nations [of Gael and Cymri]. Two great swarms went out from Gaul. Of these, one crossed the Alps into Italy; the other, moving eastward, in the course of time penetrated into Greece. … It is supposed that the Gael who dwelt in the eastern parts of Gaul, being oppressed by Cymric tribes of the west and north, went forth to seck new homes in distant lands. … At all events, it is certain that large bodies of Celts passed over the Alps before and after this time, and having once tasted the wines and eaten the fruits of Italy, were in no hurry to return from that fair land into their own less hospitable regions. We read of one swarm after another pressing into the land of promise; parties of Lingones, whose fathers lived about Langres in Champagne; Boians, whose name is traced in French Bourbon and Italian Bologna; Senones, whose old country was about Sens, and who have left record of themselves in the name of Senigaglia (Sena Gallica) on the coast of the Adriatic. … They overran the rich plains of Northern Italy, and so occupied the territory which lies between the Alps, the Apennines and the Adriatic [except Liguria] that the Romans called this territory Gallia Cisalpina, or Hither Gaul. The northern Etruscans gave way before these fierce barbarians, and their name is heard of no more in those parts. Thence the Gauls crossed the Apennines into southern Etruria, and while they were ravaging that country they first came in contact with the sons of Rome. The common date for this event is 300 B. C. … The tribe which took this course were of the Senones, as an authors say, and therefore we may suppose they were Gaelic; but it has been thought they were mixed with Cymri, since the name of their king or chief was Brennus, and Brenhin is Cymric for a king." The Romans met the invaders on the banks of the Alia, a little stream from the Sabine Hills which flows into the Tiber, and were terribly defeated there. The Gauls entered Rome and found, as the ancient story is, only a few venerable senators, sitting in their chairs and robes of state, whom they slew, because one of the senators resented the stroking of his beard by an insolent barbarian. The remaining inhabitants had withdrawn into the Capitol, or taken refuge at Veii and Cære. After pillaging and burning the city, the Gauls laid siege to the Capitol, and strove desperately for seven months to overcome its defenders by arms or famine. In the end they retreated, without success, but whether bribed, or driven, or weakened by sickness, is matter of uncertainty. The Romans cherished many legends connected with the siege of the Capitol,—like that, for example, of the sentinel and the sacred geese. "Thirty years after the first irruption (361 B. C.), we hear that another host of Senonian Gauls burst into Latium from the north, and, in alliance with the people of Tibur, ravaged the lands of Rome, Latium and Campania. For four years they continued their ravages, and then we hear of them no more. A third irruption followed, ten years later [B. C. 347], of still more formidable character. At that time, the Gauls formed a stationary camp on the Alban Hills and kept Rome in perpetual terror. … After some months they poured southwards, and disappear from history."

   "C. Licinius Stolo and L. Sextius … being Tribunes of the
   Plebs together in the year 376 B. C. promulgated the three
   bills which have ever since borne the name of the Licinian
   Rogations. These were:

I. That of all debts on which interest had been paid, the sum of the interest paid should be deducted from the principal, and the remainder paid off in three successive years.

II. That no citizen should hold more than 500 jugera (nearly 320 acres) of the Public Land, nor should feed on the public pastures more than 100 head of larger cattle and 500 of smaller, under penalty of a heavy fine.

III. That henceforth Consuls, not Consular Tribunes, should always be elected, and that one of the two Consuls must be a Plebeian."

The patricians made a desperate resistance to the adoption of these proposed enactments for ten years, during most of which long period the operations of government were nearly paralyzed by the obstinate tribunes, who inflexibly employed their formidable power of veto to compel submission to the popular demand. In the end they prevailed, and the Licinian rogations became Laws.

   "Licinius evidently designed reuniting the divided members of
   the plebeian body. Not one of them, whether rich or poor, but
   seems called back by these bills to stand with his own order
   from that time on. If this supposition was true, then Licinius
   was the greatest leader whom the plebeians ever had up to the
   time of Cæsar. But from the first he was disappointed. The
   plebeians who most wanted relief cared so little for having
   the consulship opened to the richer men of their estate that
   they would readily have dropped the bill concerning it, lest a
   demand should endanger their own desires. In the same temper
   the more eminent men of the order, themselves among the
   creditors of the poor and the tenants of the domain, would
   have quashed the proceedings of the tribunes respecting the
   discharge of debt and the distribution of land, so that they
   carried the third bill only, which would make them consuls
   without disturbing their possessions. While the plebeians
   continued severed from one another, the patricians drew
   together in resistance to the bills. Licinius stood forth
   demanding, at once, all that it had cost his predecessors
   their utmost energy to demand, singly and at long intervals,
   from the patricians. … The very comprehensiveness of his
   measures proved the safeguard of Licinius. Had he preferred
   but one of these demands, he would have been unhesitatingly
   opposed by the great majority of the patricians. On the other
   hand he would have had comparatively doubtful support from the
   plebs." In the end, after a struggle of ten years duration,
   Licinius and Sextius carried their three bills, together with
   a fourth, brought forward later, which opened to the plebeians
   the office of the duumvirs, who consulted the Sibyline books.
{2670}
   "It takes all the subsequent history of Rome to measure the
   consequences of the Revolution achieved by Licinius and
   Sextius; but the immediate working of their laws could have
   been nothing but a disappointment to their originators and
   upholders. … For some ten years the law regarding the
   consulship was observed, after which it was occasionally
   violated, but can still be called a success. The laws of
   relief, as may be supposed of all such sumptuary enactments,
   were violated from the first. No general recovery of the
   public land from those occupying more than five hundred jugera
   ever took place. Consequently there was no general division of
   land among the lack-land class. Conflicting claims and
   jealousy on the part of the poor must have done much to
   embarrass and prevent the execution of the law. No system of
   land survey to distinguish between 'ager publicus' and 'ager
   privatus' existed. Licinius Stolo himself was afterwards
   convicted of violating his own law. The law respecting debts
   met with much the same obstacles. The causes of embarrassment
   and poverty being much the same and undisturbed, soon
   reproduced the effects which no reduction of interest or
   installment of principal could effectually remove. … These
   laws, then, had little or no effect upon the domain question
   or the re-distribution of land. They did not fulfil the
   evident expectation of their author in uniting the plebeians
   into one political body. This was impossible. What they did do
   was to break up and practically abolish the patriciate.
   Henceforth were the Roman people divided into rich and poor
   on]y."

      A. Stephenson,
      Public Lands and Agrarian Laws of the Roman Republic
      (Johns Hopkins University Studies, 9th series, numbers 7-8).

"By the establishment of the prætorship (366 B. C.) the office of chief judge was separated as a distinct magistracy from the consulship. … The prætor was always looked upon as the colleague of the consuls. He was elected in the same manner as the consuls by centuriate comitia, and, moreover, under the same auspices. He was furnished with the imperium, had lictors and fasces. He represented the consuls in town by assembling the senate, conducting its proceedings, executing its decrees. … Up to the time of the first Punic war one prætor only was annually elected. Then a second was added to conduct the jurisdiction between citizens and foreigners. A distinction was now made between the city prætor (prætor urbanus), who was always looked upon as having a higher dignity, and the foreign prætor (prætor peregrinus). On the final establishment of the two provinces of Sicily and Sardinia, probably 227 B. C., two new prætors were appointed to superintend the regular government of those provinces, and still later on two more were added for the two provinces of Spain. The number of annual prætors now amounted to six, and so it remained until the legislation of Sulla."

When the Romans had made themselves dominant in middle Italy, and the Samnites [see SAMNITES] in southern Italy, the question which of the two peoples should be masters of the peninsula at large was sure to demand settlement. About the middle of the fourth century, B. C., it began to urge the two rivals into collision, and the next two generations of Romans were busied chiefly with Samnite Wars, of which they fought three, with brief intervals to divide them, and at the end of which the Samnite name had been practically erased from history. The first hostilities grew out of a quarrel between the Samnites of the mountains and their degenerate countrymen of Capua and Campania. The latter sought help from the Romans, and, according to the Romans, surrendered their city to them in order to secure it; but this is obviously untrue. The First Samnite War, which followed this (B. C. 343-341), had no definite result, and seems to have been brought to an end rather abruptly by a mutiny in the Roman army and by trouble between Rome and her Latin allies. According to the Roman annals there were three great battles fought in this war, one on Mount Gaurus, and two elsewhere; but Mommsen and other historians entirely distrust the historic details as handed down. The Second or Great Samnite War occurred after an interval of fifteen years, during which time the Romans had conquered all Latium, reducing their Latin kinsmen from confederates to subjects. That accomplished, the Romans were quite ready to measure swords again with their more important rivals in the south. The long, desperate and doubtful war which ensued was of twenty-two years duration (B. C. 326-304). In the first years of this war victory was with the Romans and the Samnites sued for peace; but the terms offered were too hard fur them and they fought on. Then Fortune smiled on them and gave them an opportunity to inflict on their haughty enemy one of the greatest humiliations that Rome in all her history ever suffered. The entire Roman army, commanded by the two consuls of the year, was caught in a mountain defile (B. C. 321), at a place called the Caudine Forks, and compelled to surrender to the Samnite genera], C. Pontius. The consuls and other officers of the Romans signed a treaty of peace with Pontius, and all were then set free, after giving up their armor and their cloaks and passing "under the yoke." But the Roman senate refused to ratify the treaty, and gave up those who had signed it to the Samnites. The latter refused to receive the offered prisoners and vainly demanded a fulfilment of the treaty. Their great victory had been thrown away, and, although they won another important success at Lautulæ, the final result of the war which they were forced to resume was disastrous to them. After twenty-two years of obstinate fighting they accepted terms (B. C. 304) which stripped them of all their territory on the sea-coast, and required them to acknowledge the supremacy of Rome. The peace so purchased lasted less than six years. The Samnites were tempted (B. C. 298) while the Romans had a war with Etruscans and Gauls on their hands, to attempt the avenging of their humiliations. Their fate was decided at the battle of Sentinum (B. C. 295), won by the old consul, Q. Fabius Maximus, against the allied Samnites and Gauls, through the heroic self-sacrifice of his colleague, P. Decius Mus [imitating his father, of the same name.]

The Samnites struggled hopelessly on some five years longer and submitted finally in 290 B. C. Their great leader, Pontius, was put to death in the dungeons of the state prison under the Capitoline.

"In the second year of the Latin war (340 B. C.) the Plebeian Consul, Q. Publilius Philo, being named Dictator by his Patrician colleague for some purpose now unknown, proposed and carried three laws still further abridging the few remaining privileges of the Patrician Lords. The first Publilian law enacted that one of the Censors, as one of the Consuls, must be a Plebeian. … The second gave fuller sanction to the principle already established, that the Resolutions of the Plebeian Assembly should have the force of law. The third provided that all laws passed at the Comitia of the Centuries or of the Tribes should receive beforehand the sanction of the Curies."

See a discussion of these laws in their relation to the preceding Valerio-Horatian law, and the subsequent Hortensian laws.

ROME: B. C. 286.

ROME: B. C. 339-338.
   Subjugation of the Latins.
   Grant of pseudo-citizenship.
   The real concession of the next century and its effects.

A league between the Romans and their kinsmen and neighbors, the Latins, of Tibur, Præneste, Lanuvium, Aricia, Velitræ, and other towns, as well as with the Hernicans, existed during a century and a half, from the treaty of Sp. Cassius, B. C. 493, according to the Roman annals. At first, the members of the league stood together on fairly equal terms fighting successful wars with the Volscians, the Æquians and the Etruscans. But all the time the Romans contrived to be the greater gainers by the alliance, and as their power grew their arrogance increased, until the Latin allies were denied almost all share in the conquests and the spoils which they helped to win. The discontent which this caused fermented to an outbreak after the first of the Samnite wars. The Latins demanded to be admitted to Roman citizenship and to a share in the government of the state. Their demand was haughtily and even insultingly refused, and a fierce, deadly war between the kindred peoples ensued (B. C. 339-338). The decisive battle of the war was fought under Mount Vesuvius, and the Romans were said to have owed their victory to the self-sacrifice of the plebeian consul, P. Decius Mus, who, by a solemn ceremony, devoted himself and the army of the enemy to the infernal gods, and then threw himself into the thick of the fight, to be slain. The Latin towns were all reduced to dependence upon Rome,—some with a certain autonomy left to them, some with none. "Thus, isolated, politically powerless, socially dependent on Rome, the old towns of the Latins, once so proud and so free, became gradually provincial towns of the Roman territory. … The old Latium disappeared and a new Latium took its place, which, by means of Latin colonies, carried the Roman institutions, in the course of two centuries, over the whole peninsula."

"The Latins, being conquered, surrendered,—that is to say, they gave up to the Romans their cities, their worships, their laws, and their lands. Their position was cruel. A consul said in the senate that, if they did not wish Rome to be surrounded by a vast desert, the fate of the Latins should be settled with some regard to clemency. Livy does not clearly explain what was done. If we are to trust him, the Latins obtained the right of Roman citizenship without including in the political privileges the right of suffrage, or in the civil the right of marriage. We may also note, that these new citizens were not counted in the census. It is clear that the senate deceived the Latins in giving them the name of Roman citizens. This title disguised a real subjection, since the men who bore it had the obligations of citizens without the rights. So true is this, that several Latin cities revolted, in order that this pretended citizenship might be withdrawn. A century passed, and, without Livy's notice of the fact, we might easily discover that Rome had changed her policy. The condition of the Latins having the rights of citizens, without suffrage and without connubium, no longer existed. Rome had withdrawn from them the title of citizens, or, rather, had done away with this falsehood, and had decided to restore to the different cities their municipal governments, their laws, and their magistracies. But by a skilful device Rome opened a door which, narrow as it was, permitted subjects to enter the Roman city. It granted to every Latin who had been a magistrate in his native city the right to become a Roman citizen at the expiration of his term of office. This time the gift of this right was complete and without reserve; suffrage, magistracies, census, marriage, private law, all were included. … By being a citizen of Rome, a man gained honor, wealth, and security. The Latins, therefore, became eager to obtain this title, and used all sorts of means to acquire it. One day, when Rome wished to appear a little severe, she found that 12,000 of them had obtained it through fraud. Ordinarily, Rome shut her eyes, knowing that by this means her population increased, and that the losses of war were thus repaired. But the Latin cities suffered; their richest inhabitants became Roman citizens, and Latium was impoverished. The taxes, from which the richest were exempt as Roman citizens, became more and more burdensome, and the contingent of soldiers that had to be furnished to Rome was every year more difficult to fill up."

ROME: B. C. 312.
   The censorship of Appius Claudius.
   His admission of the freedmen to the Tribes.
   The building of the Appian Way.

   "Appius Claudius, … afterwards known as Appius the Blind, …
   was elected Censor [B. C. 312], … and, as was usual, entered,
   with his colleague, Plautius Decianus, upon the charge of
   filling the vacancies which had occurred within the Senate
   since the last nominations to that body by the preceding
   Censors. The new elections were always made, it appears, from
   certain lists of citizens who had either borne great offices
   or possessed high rank; but Appius, determined from the
   beginning to secure his authority, either for his own sake or
   for that of his faction, through any support he could command,
   now named several of the lowest men in Rome as Senators,
   amongst whom he even admitted some sons of freedmen, who, as
   such, were scarcely to be considered to be absolutely free,
   much less to be worthy of any political advancement.
{2672}
   The nomination, backed by a powerful party, out of rather than
   in the Senate, and vainly, if not feebly, opposed by Plautius
   Decianus, who resigned his office in disgust at his colleague,
   was carried, but was set aside in the following year by the
   Consuls, who could call such Senators as they pleased, and
   those only, as it seems, to their sessions. Appius, still
   keeping his place, was soon after assailed by some of the
   Tribunes, now the representatives, as must be remembered, of
   the moderate party, rather than of the Plebeian estate. At
   this the Censor admitted all the freedmen in Rome to the
   Tribes, amongst which he distributed them in such a manner as
   promised him the most effectual support. Appius, however, was
   not wholly absorbed in mere political intrigues. A large
   portion of his energy and his ambition was spent upon the Way
   [Appian Way] and the Aqueduct which have borne his name to our
   day, and which, in his own time, were undertakings so vast as
   to obtain for him the name of 'the Hundred-handed.' He was an
   author, a jurist, a philosopher, and a poet, besides. … Cneius
   Flavius, the son of a freedman, one, therefore, of the
   partisans on whom the Censor and his faction were willing to
   lavish pretended favor in return for unstinted support, was
   employed by Appius near his person, in the capacity of private
   secretary. Appius, who, as already mentioned, was a jurist and
   an author, appears to have compiled a sort of manual
   concerning the business-days of the Calendar and the forms of
   instituting or conducting a suit before the courts; both these
   subjects being kept in profound concealment from the mass of
   the people, who were therefore obliged, in case of any legal
   proceeding, to resort first to the Pontiff to learn on what
   day, and next to the Patrician jurist to inquire in what form,
   they could lawfully manage their affairs before the judicial
   tribunals. This manual was very likely given to Flavius to
   copy; but it could scarcely have been with the knowledge, much
   less with the desire, of his employer, that it was published.
   … But Flavius stood in a position which tempted him, whether
   he were generous or designing, to divulge the secrets of the
   manual he had obtained; and it may very well have been from a
   desire to conciliate the real party of the Plebeians, which
   ranked above him, as a freedman, that he published his
   discoveries. He did not go unrewarded, but was raised to
   various offices, amongst them to the tribuneship of the
   Plebeians, and finally to the curule ædileship, in which his
   disclosures are sometimes represented as having been made. …
   The predominance of the popular party is plainly attested in
   the same year by the censorship of Fabius Rullianus and Decius
   Mus, the two great generals, who, succeeding to Appius
   Claudius, removed the freedmen he had enrolled amongst all the
   Tribes into four Tribes by themselves."

      S. Eliot,
      The Liberty of Rome: Rome,
      book 2, chapter 8 (volume 2).

In the year 300 B. C., "Quintus and Cneius Ogulnius appear in the tribuneship, as zealous champions of the popular party against the combination of the highest and the lowest classes. Instead, however, of making any wild attack upon their adversaries, the Tribunes seem to have exerted themselves in the wiser view of detaching the populace from its Patrician leaders, in order to unite the severed forces of the Plebeians upon a common ground. … A bill to increase the number of the Pontiffs by four, and that of the Augurs by five new incumbents, who should then, and, as was probably added, thenceforward, be chosen from the Plebeians, was proposed by the Tribunes. … Though some strenuous opposition was made to its passage, it became a law. The highest places of the priesthood, as well as of the civil magistracies, were opened to the Plebeians, whose name will no longer serve us as it has done, so entirely have the old distinctions of their estate from that of the Patricians been obliterated. The Ogulnii did not follow up the success they had gained, and the alliance between the lower Plebeians and the higher Patricians was rather cemented than loosened by a law professedly devised to the advantage of the upper classes of the Plebeians."

   Early in the 3d century B. C. the Gauls on the southern side
   of the Alps, being reinforced from Transalpine Gaul, again
   entered Roman territory, encouraged and assisted by the
   Samnites, who were then just engaging in their third war with
   Rome. A Roman legion which first encountered them in Etruria,
   under Scipio Barbatus, was annihilated, B. C. 295. But the
   vengeance of Rome overtook them before that year closed, at
   Sentinum, where the consuls Fabius and Decius ended the war at
   one blow. The Gauls were quiet after this for ten years; but
   in 285 B. C. the Senonian tribes invaded Etruria again and
   inflicted an alarming defeat on the Romans at Arretium. They
   also put to death some Roman ambassadors who were sent to
   negotiate an exchange of prisoners; after which the war of
   Rome against them was pushed to extermination. The whole race
   was destroyed or reduced to slavery and Roman colonies were
   established on its lands. The Boian Gauls, between the
   Apennines and the Po, now resented this intrusion on Gallic
   territory, but were terribly defeated at the Vadimonian Lake
   and sued for peace. This peace was maintained for nearly sixty
   years, during which time the Romans were strengthening
   themselves beyond the Apennines, with a strong colony at
   Ariminum (modern Rimini) on the Adriatic Sea, with thick
   settlements in the Senonian country, and with a great road—the
   Via Flaminia—in process of construction from Rome northwards
   across the Apennines, through Umbria and along the Adriatic
   coast to Ariminum. The Boians saw that the yoke was being
   prepared for them, and in 225 B. C. they made a great effort
   to break it. In the first encounter with them the Romans were
   beaten, as in previous wars, but at the great battle of
   Telamon, fought soon afterwards, the Gallic hosts were almost
   totally destroyed. The next year the Boians were completely
   subjugated, and in 223 and 222 B. C. the Insubrians were
   likewise conquered, their capital Mediolanum (Milan) occupied,
   and all north Italy to the Alps brought under Roman rule,
   except as the Ligurians in the mountains were still unsubdued
   and the Cenomanians and the Veneti retained a nominal
   independence as allies of Rome.
{2673}
   But Hannibal's invasion of Italy, occurring soon after,
   interrupted the settlement and pacification of the Gallic
   country and made a reconquest necessary after the war with the
   Carthaginians had been ended. The new Roman fortified colony
   of Placentia was taken by the Gauls and most of the
   inhabitants slain. The sister colony of Cremona was besieged,
   but resisted until relieved. Among the battles fought, that of
   Comum, B. C. 196, appears to have been the most important. The
   war was prolonged until 191 B. C., after which there appears
   to have been no more resistance to Roman rule among the
   Cisalpine Gauls.

W. Ihne, History of Rome, book 3, chapters 12-13; book 4. chapter 5; book 5, chapter 7.

"About the year 286 B. C. the mass of the poorer citizens [of Rome], consisting (as may be guessed) chiefly of those who had lately been enfranchised by Appius, left the city and encamped in an oak-wood upon the Janiculum. To appease this last Secession, Q. Hortensius was named Dictator, and he succeeded in bringing back the people by allowing them to enact several laws upon the spot. One of these Hortensian laws was probably an extension of the Agrarian law of Curius, granting not seven but fourteen jugera (about 9 acres) to each of the poorer citizens. Another provided for the reduction of debt. But that which is best known as the Hortensian law was one enacting that all Resolutions of the Tribes should be law for the whole Roman people. This was nearly in the same terms as the law passed by Valerius and Horatius at the close of the Decemvirate, and that passed by Publilius Philo the Dictator, after the conquest of Latium. Hortensius died in his Dictatorship,—an unparalleled event, which was considered ominous. Yet with his death ended the last Secession of the People."

"It is impossible to suppose that the assembly of the plebs advanced at a single step from the meeting of a private corporation to be the delegated alter ego of the sovereign populus Romanus. We may be sure that the right of the plebs to legislate for the nation was accorded under checks and qualifications, long before they were invested with this absolute authority. We find, in fact, two occasions prior to the Hortensian law, on which the legislative competency of the plebs is said to have been recognised. The first of these is the Valerio-Horatian Law of B. C. 449 [see ROME: B. C. 449], the year after the decemvirate, the second the law of the dictator Publilius Philo, B. C. 339 [see ROME: B. C. 340]. Unfortunately the historians describe these laws in words which merely repeat the contents of the Hortensian law. … Some modern writers have been disposed to get over the difficulty by the conjecture that the laws of Publilius Philo and Hortensius were only re-enactments of that of Valerius and Horatius, and that the full powers of the plebs date back to the year B. C. 449. Mommsen's arguments against this view appear to me conclusive. Why should the jurists universally refer the powers exercised by the plebs to a mere re-enactment, rather than to the original source of their authority? … Niebuhr believes that the law of Valerius and Horatius gave the plebs legislative authority, subject to the consent of a sort of upper house, the general assembly of the patrician body; he identifies this assembly with the 'comitia curiata.' … Mommsen's method of dealing with the question" is to strike out the Valerio-Horatian law and that of Publilius Philo from the series of enactments relating to the plebs. "He believes that both these laws regulated the proceedings of the 'comitia populi tributa,' and are transferred by a mere blunder of our authorities to the 'concilium plebis tributum.' … But the supposition of a possible blunder is too small a foundation on which to establish such an explanation. … I believe that, for the purpose of showing how the legislative power of the plebs may gradually have established itself, the known powers of the sovereign 'populus,' of the magistrates of the Roman people, and of the senate, will supply us with sufficient material; and that the assumptions of the German historians are therefore unnecessary. … I imagine … that the law of Valerius and Horatius simply recognised de jure the power which Icilius [see ROME: B. C. 456] had exercised de facto: that is to say, it ordered the consul to bring any petition of the plebs at once to the notice of the senate, and empowered the tribune to plead his cause before the senate; perhaps it went further and deprived the consul of his right of arbitrarily refusing to accede to the recommendation of the senate, if such were given, and directed that he should in such case convene the comitia and submit the proposal to its vote. If this restriction of the power of the consul removed the first obstacle in the way of tribunician bills supported by the vote of the plebs, another facility still remained to be given. The consul might be deprived of the opportunity of sheltering himself behind the moral responsibility of the senate. Does it not suggest itself as a plausible conjecture that the law of Publilius Philo struck out the intervening senatorial deliberation and compelled the consul to bring the petition of the plebs immediately before the 'comitia populi Romani'? If such were the tenor of the Publilian law, it would be only a very slight inaccuracy to describe it as conferring legislative power on the plebs. … The Hortensian law which formally transferred the sovereign power to the plebs would thus be a change greater de jure than de facto. … This power, if the theory put forward in these pages be correct, was placed within the reach of the plebeians by the law of Valerius and Horatius, and was fully secured to them by the law of Publilius Philo."

      J. L. Strachan-Davidson,
      The Growth of Plebeian Privilege at Rome
      (English Historical Review, April, 1886).

   "With the passing of the Lex Hortensia the long struggle
   between the orders came to an end. The ancient patrician
   gentes remained, but the exclusive privileges of the
   patriciate as a ruling order were gone. For the great offices
   of state and for seats in the senate the plebeians were by law
   equally eligible with patricians. The assemblies, whether of
   people or plebs, were independent of patrician control. In
   private life inter-marriages between patricians and plebeians
   were recognised as lawful, and entailed no disabilities on the
   children. Finally, great as continued to be the prestige
   attaching to patrician birth, and prominent as was the part
   played in the subsequent history by individual patricians and
   by some of the patrician houses, the plebs were now in numbers
   and even in wealth the preponderant section of the people.
{2674}
   Whatever struggles might arise in the future, a second
   struggle between patricians and plebeians was an
   impossibility. Such being the case, it might have been
   expected that the separate organisation, to which the victory
   of the plebs was largely due, would, now that the reason for
   its existence was gone, have disappeared. Had this happened,
   the history of the republic might have been different. As it
   was, this plebeian machinery—the plebeian tribunes,
   assemblies, and resolutions—survived untouched, and lived to
   play a decisive part in a new conflict, not between patricians
   and plebeians, but between a governing class, itself mainly
   plebeian, and the mass of the people, and finally to place at
   the head of the state a patrician Cæsar. Nor was the promise
   of a genuine democracy, offered by the opening of the
   magistracies and the Hortensian law, fulfilled. For one
   hundred and fifty years afterwards the drift of events was in
   the opposite direction, and when the popular leaders of the
   first century B. C. endeavoured to make government by the
   people a reality, it was already too late."

The conquest of the Samnites by the Romans, which was completed in 290 B. C., extended the power of the latter to the very gates of the Greek cities on the Tarentine gulf, of which Tarentum was the chief. At once there arose a party in Tarentum which foresaw the hopelessness of resistance to Roman aggression and favored a spontaneous submission to the supremacy of the formidable city on the Tiber. The patriotic party which opposed this humiliation looked abroad for aid, and found an eager ally in the Molossian king of Epirus, the adventurous and warlike Pyrrhus (see EPIRUS), who sprang from the family of Olympias, mother of Alexander the Great. In the autumn of 282 B. C., the inevitable war between Rome and Tarentum broke out, and early in 280 B. C. Pyrrhus landed a powerful army in Italy, comprising 20,000 heavy-armed foot-soldiers, 3,000 horse, 2,000 archers and 20 elephants. The Romans met him soon after at Heraclea, on the coast. It was the first collision of the Roman legion and the Macedonian phalanx, and the first encounter of the Latin soldier with the huge war-beast of the Asiatics. Pyrrhus won a bloody victory, but won it at such cost that it terrified him. He tried at once to arrange a peace, but the proud Romans made no terms with an invader. Next year he inflicted another great defeat upon them near Asculum, in Apulia; but nothing seemed to come of it, and the indomitable Romans were as little conquered as ever. Then the restless Epirot king took his much shaken army over to Sicily and joined the Greeks there in their war with the Carthaginians. The latter were driven out of all parts of the island except Lilybæum; but failing, after a long siege, to reduce Lilybæum, Pyrrhus lost the whole fruits of his success. The autumn of 276 B. C. found him back again in Italy, where the Romans, during his absence of three years, had recovered much ground. Next year, in the valley of Beneventum, they had their revenge upon him for Heraclea and Asculum, and he was glad to take the shattered remains of his army back to Greece. His career of ambition and adventure was ended three years afterwards, under the walls of Argos, by a tile which a woman flung down upon his head.

   In due time all Magna Græcia succumbed to the dominion of
   Rome, and the commerce and wealth of Tarentum passed over
   under Roman auspices to the new port of Brundisium, on the
   Adriatic side of the same promontory.

ROME: B. C. 275.
   Union of Italy under the sovereignty of the republic.
   Differing relations of the subject communities to the
   sovereign state.
   Roman citizenship as variously qualified.

"For the first time Italy was united into one state under the sovereignty of the Roman community. What political privileges the Roman community on this occasion withdrew from the various other Italian communities and took into its own sole keeping, or in other words, what conception of political power is to be associated with this sovereignty of Rome, we are nowhere expressly informed. … The only privileges that demonstrably belonged to it were the right of making war, of concluding treaties, and of coining money. No Italian community could declare war against any foreign state, or even negotiate with it, or coin money for circulation. On the other hand, every war and every state-treaty resolved upon by the Roman people were binding in law on all the other Italian communities, and the silver money of Rome was legally current throughout all Italy. It is probable that formerly the general rights of the leading community extended no further. But to these rights there was necessarily attached a prerogative of sovereignty that practically went far beyond them. The relations, which the Italians sustained to the leading community, exhibited in detail great inequalities. In this point of view, in addition to the full burgesses of Rome, there were three different classes of subjects to be distinguished. The full franchise itself, in the first place, was extended as far as was possible, without wholly abandoning the idea of an urban commonwealth in the case of the Roman commune. Not only was the old burgess-domain extended by individual assignation far into Etruria on the one hand and into Campania on the other, but, after the example was first set in the case of Tusculum, a great number of communities more or less remote were gradually incorporated with the Roman state and merged in it completely. … Accordingly the Roman burgess-body probably extended northward as far as the neighbourhood of Caere, eastward to the Apennines, and southward as far as, or beyond, Formiae. In its case, however, we cannot use the term 'boundaries' in a strict sense. Isolated communities within this region, such as Tibur, Praeneste, Signia, and Norba, had not the Roman franchise; others beyond its bounds, such as Sena, possessed it; and it is probable that families of Roman farmers were already dispersed throughout all Italy, either altogether isolated or associated in villages. Among the subject communities the most privileged and most important class was that of the Latin towns, which now embraced but few of the original participants in the Alban festival (and these, with the exception of Tibur and Praeneste, altogether insignificant communities), but on the other hand obtained accessions equally numerous and important in the autonomous communities founded by Rome in and even beyond Italy —the Latin colonies, as they were called—and was always increasing in consequence of new settlements of the same nature. {2675} These new urban communities of Roman origin, but with Latin rights, became more and more the real buttresses of the Roman rule. These Latins, however, were by no means those with whom the battles of the lake Regillus and Trifanum had been fought. … The Latins of the later times of the republic, on the contrary, consisted almost exclusively of communities, which from the beginning had honoured Rome as their capital and parent city; which, settled amidst peoples of alien language and of alien habits, were attached to Rome by community of language, of law, and of manners; which, as the petty tyrants of the surrounding districts, were obliged doubtless to lean on Rome for their very existence, like advanced posts leaning upon the main army. … The main advantage enjoyed by them, as compared with other subjects, consisted in their equalization with burgesses of the Roman community so far as regarded private rights—those of traffic and barter as well as those of inheritance. The Roman franchise was in future conferred only on such citizens of these townships as had filled a public magistracy in them: in that case, however, it was, apparently from the first, conferred without any limitation of rights. … The two other classes of Roman subjects, the subject Roman burgesses and the non-Latin allied communities, were in a far inferior position. The communities having the Roman franchise without the privilege of electing or being elected (civitas sine suffragio), approached nearer in form to the full Roman burgesses than the Latin communities that were legally autonomous. Their members were, as Roman burgesses, liable to all the burdens of citizenship, especially to the levy and taxation, and were subject to the Roman census; whereas, as their very designation indicates, they had no claim to its honorary rights. They lived under Roman laws, and had justice administered by Roman judges; but the hardship was lessened by the fact that their former common law was, after undergoing revision by Rome, restored to them as Roman local law, and a 'deputy' (praefectus) annually nominated by the Roman praetor was sent to them to conduct its administration. In other respects these communities retained their own administration, and chose for that purpose their own chief magistrates. … Lastly, the relations of the non-Latin allied communities were subject, as a matter of course, to very various rules, just as each particular treaty of alliance had defined them. Many of these perpetual treaties of alliance, such as that with the Hernican communities and those with Neapolis, Nola, and Heraclea, granted rights comparatively comprehensive, while others, such as the Tarentine and Samnite treaties, probably approximated to despotism. … The central administration at Rome solved the difficult problem of preserving its supervision and control over the mass of the Italian communities liable to furnish contingents, partly by means of the four Italian quaestors, partly by the extension of the Roman censorship over the whole of the dependent communities. The quaestors of the fleet, along with their more immediate duty, had to raise the revenues from the newly acquired domains and to control the contingents of the new allies; they were the first Roman functionaries to whom a residence and district out of Rome were assigned by law, and they formed the necessary intermediate authority between the Roman senate and the Italian communities. … Lastly, with this military administrative union of the whole peoples dwelling to the south of the Apennines, as far as the Iapygian promontory and the straits of Rhegium, was connected the rise of a new name common to them all—that of 'the men of the toga' (togati), which was their oldest designation in Roman state law, or that of the 'Italians,' which was the appellation originally in use among the Greeks and thence became universally current. … As the Gallic territory down to a late period stood contrasted in law with the Italian, so the 'men of the toga' were thus named in contrast to the Celtic 'men of the hose' (braccati); and it is probable that the repelling of the Celtic invasions played an important diplomatic part as a reason or pretext for centralizing the military resources of Italy in the hands of the Romans. … The name Italia, which originally and even in the Greek authors of the 5th century—in Aristotle for instance—pertained only to the modern Calabria, was transferred to the whole land of these wearers of the toga. The earliest boundaries of this great armed confederacy led by Rome, or of the new Italy, reached on the western coast as far as the district of Leghorn south of the Arnus, on the east as far as the Aesis north of Ancona. …The new Italy had thus become a political unity; it was also in the course of becoming a national unity."

"The ten years preceding the First Punic War were probably a time of the greatest physical prosperity which the mass of the Roman people ever knew. Within twenty years two agrarian laws had been passed on a most extensive scale, and the poorer citizens had received besides what may be called a large dividend in money out of the lands which the state had conquered. In addition to this, the farming of the state domains, or of their produce, furnished those who had money with abundant opportunities of profitable adventure. … No wonder, then, that war was at this time popular. … But our 'pleasant vices' are ever made instruments to scourge us; and the First Punic War, into which the Roman people forced the senate to enter, not only in its long course bore most heavily upon the poorer citizens, but, from the feelings of enmity which it excited in the breast of Hamilcar, led most surely to that fearful visitation of Hannibal's sixteen years' invasion of Italy, which destroyed for ever, not indeed the pride of the Roman dominion, but the well-being of the Roman people."

   "The occasion of the First Punic War was dishonourable to
   Rome. Certain mercenary soldiers had seized Messana in Sicily,
   destroyed the citizens, and held possession against the
   Syracusans, 284 B. C. They were beaten in the field, and
   blockaded in Messana by Hiero, king of Syracuse, and then,
   driven to extremity, sent a deputation to Rome, praying that
   'the Romans, the sovereigns of Italy, would not suffer an
   Italian people to be destroyed by Greeks and Carthaginians,'
   264 B. C. It was singular that such a request should be made
   to the Romans, who only six years before had chastised the
   military revolt of their brethren Mamertines in Rhegium,
   taking the city by storm, scourging and beheading the
   defenders, and then restoring the old inhabitants (270 B. C.).
{2676}
   The senate was opposed to the request of the Messana
   deputation; but the consuls and the people of Rome, already
   jealous of Carthaginian influence in Sicily and the
   Mediterranean, resolved to protect the Mamertine buccaneers
   and to receive them as their friends and allies. Thus
   dishonestly and disgracefully did the Romans depart from their
   purely Italian and continental policy, which had so well
   succeeded, to enter upon another system, the results of which
   no one then could foresee. Some excuse may be found in the
   fact that the Carthaginians had been placed by their partisans
   in Messana in possession of the citadel, and this great rival
   power of Carthage was thus brought unpleasantly near to the
   recent conquered territory of Rome. The fear of Carthaginian
   influence overcame the natural reluctance to an alliance with
   traitors false to their military oath, the murderers and
   plunderers of a city which they were bound to protect. Thus
   began 'the First Punic War, which lasted, without
   intermission, 22 years, a longer space of time than the whole
   period occupied by the wars of the French Revolution.' In this
   war Duilius won the first naval battle near Mylæ (Melarro).
   Regulus invaded Africa proper, the territory of Carthage, with
   great success, until beaten and taken prisoner at Zama,
   256-255 B. C. The war was carried on in Sicily and on the sea
   until 241 B. C., when peace was made on conditions that the
   Carthaginians should evacuate Sicily and make no war upon
   Hiero, king of Sicily (the ally of the Romans), that they
   should pay 3,200 Euboic talents (about £110,000) within ten
   years, 241 B. C. The effects of an exhausting war were soon
   overcome by ancient nations, so that both Rome and Carthage
   rapidly recovered, 'because wars in those days were not
   maintained at the expense of posterity.' Rome had to check the
   Illyrian pirates and to complete the conquest of Cisalpine
   Gaul and the Ligurians 238-221 B. C. Meanwhile the
   Carthaginians, hampered by a three years' rebellion of its
   mercenary troops, quietly permitted the Romans to take
   possession of Corsica and Sardinia, and agreed to pay 1,200
   talents as compensation to Roman merchants. On the other hand,
   measures were in process to re-establish the Carthaginian
   power; the patriotic party, the Barcine family, under
   Hamilcar, commenced the carrying out of the extensions and
   consolidations of the territories in Spain."

"Twenty-three years passed between the end of the first Punic War and the beginning of the second. But in the meanwhile the Romans got possession, rather unfairly, of the islands of Sardinia and Corsica, which Carthage had kept by the peace. On the other hand a Carthaginian dominion was growing up in Spain under Hamilcar Barkas, one of the greatest men that Carthage ever reared, his son-in-law Hasdrubal, and his son Hannibal, the greatest man of all, and probably the greatest general that the world ever saw. Another quarrel arose between Carthage and Rome, when Hannibal took the Spanish town of Saguntum, which the Romans claimed as an ally. War began in 218, and Hannibal carried it on by invading Italy by land. This was one of the most famous enterprises in all history. Never was Rome so near destruction as in the war with Hannibal. He crossed the Alps and defeated the Romans in four battles, the greatest of which was that of Cannae in B. C. 216."

E. A. Freeman, Outlines of History (or General Sketch of European History), chapter 3.

   "The first battle was fought (218) on the river Ticinus, which
   runs into the Padus from the north. The Romans were driven
   back, and Hannibal passed the Padus. Meanwhile another Roman
   army had come up, and its general, the consul, Tiberius
   Sempronius Longus, wanted to fight at once. The little river
   of the Trebbia lay between the two armies, and on a cold
   morning the Roman general marched his soldiers through the
   water against Hannibal. The Romans were entirely beaten, and
   driven out of Gaul. All northern Italy had thus passed under
   Hannibal's power, and its people were his friends; so next
   year, 217, Hannibal went into Etruria, and marched south
   towards Rome itself, plundering as he went. The Roman consul,
   Caius Flaminius Nepos, went to meet him, and a battle was
   fought on the shores of the Lake Trasimenus. It was a misty
   day, and the Romans, who were marching after Hannibal, were
   surrounded by him and taken by surprise: they were entirely
   beaten, and the consul was killed in battle. Then the Romans
   were in great distress, and elected a dictator, Quintus Fabius
   Maximus. He saw that it was no use to fight battles with
   Hannibal, so he followed him about, and watched him, and did
   little things against him when he could; so he was called
   'Cunctator,' or 'the Delayer.' But, although this plan of
   waiting was very useful, the Romans did not like it, for
   Hannibal was left to plunder as he thought fit, and there was
   always danger that the other Italians would join him against
   Rome. So next year, 216, the Romans made a great attempt to
   get rid of him. They sent both the consuls with an army twice
   as large as Hannibal's, but again they were defeated at Cannæ.
   They lost 70,000 men, while Hannibal only lost 6,000; all
   their best soldiers were killed, and it seemed as though they
   had no hope left. But nations are not conquered only by the
   loss of battles. Hannibal hoped, after the battle of Cannæ,
   that the Italians would all come to his side, and leave Rome.
   Some did so, but all the Latin cities, and all the Roman
   colonies held by Rome. So long as this was the case, Rome was
   not yet conquered. Hannibal could win battles very quickly,
   but it would take him a long time to besiege all the cities
   that still held to Rome, and for that he must have a larger
   army. But he could not get more soldiers,—the Romans had sent
   an army into Spain, and Hannibal's brother, Hasdrubal, was
   busy fighting the Romans there, and could not send any troops
   to Italy. The Carthaginians also would not send any, for they
   were becoming afraid of Hannibal, and they did not know
   anything about Italy. So they answered his letters, asking for
   more men, by saying, that if he had won such great battles, he
   ought not to want any more troops.
{2677}
   At Cannæ, then, Hannibal had struck his greatest blow: he
   could do no more. The Romans had learned to wait, and be
   careful: so they fought no more great battles, but every year
   they grew stronger and Hannibal grew weaker. The chief town
   that had gone over to Hannibal's side was Capua, but in 211
   the Romans took it again, and Hannibal was not strong enough
   to prevent them. The chief men of Capua were so afraid of
   falling into the hands of the Romans that they all poisoned
   themselves. After this all the Italian cities that had joined
   Hannibal began to leave him again."

In the eighth year of the Second Punic War (B. C. 211), when fortune had begun to desert the arms of Hannibal—when Capua, his ally and mainstay in Italy was under siege by the Romans and he was powerless to relieve the doomed senators and citizens—the Carthaginian commander made a sudden march upon Rome. He moved his army to the gates of his great enemy, "not with any hope of taking the city, but with the hope that the Romans, panic-stricken at the realization of a fear they had felt for five years past, would summon the consuls from the walls of Capua. But the cool head of Fabius, who was in Rome, guessed the meaning of that manœuvre, and would only permit one of the consuls, Flaccus, to be recalled. Thus the leaguer of the rebel city was not broken. Hannibal failed in his purpose, but he left an indelible impression of his terrible presence upon the Roman mind. Looming through a mist of romantic fable, unconquerable, pitiless, he was actually seen touching the walls of Rome, hurling with his own hand a spear into the sacred Pomoerium. He had marched along the Via Latina, driving crowds of fugitives before him, who sought refuge in the city. … He had fixed his camp on the Anio, within three miles of the Esquiline. To realize the state of feeling in Rome during those days of panic would be to get at the very heart of the Hannibalic war. The Senate left the Curia and sat in the Forum, to reassure, by their calm composure, the excited crowds. Fabius noticed from the battlements that the ravagers spared his property. It was a cunning attempt on the part of Hannibal to bring suspicion on him; but he forthwith offered the property for sale; and such was the effect of his quiet confidence that the market price even of the land on which the camp of the enemy was drawn never fell an 'as.' … Hannibal marched away into the Sabine country, and made his way back to Tarentum, Rome unsacked, Capua unrelieved."

ROME: B. C. 211-202.
   The Second Punic War:
   Defeat of Hasdrubal at the Metaurus.
   The war in Africa.
   The end at Zama.
   Acquisition of Spain.

"The conquest of Capua was the turning point in the war. Hannibal lost his stronghold in Campania and was obliged to retire to the southern part of Italy. Rome was gaining everywhere. The Italians who had joined Hannibal began to lose confidence. Salapia and many towns in Samnium were betrayed to the Romans. But when Fulvius, the proconsul who commanded in Apulia, appeared before Herdonea, which he hoped to gain possession of by treachery, Hannibal marched from Bruttium, attacked the Roman army, and gained a brilliant victory. In the following year the Romans recovered several places in Lucania and Bruttium, and Fabius Maximus crowned his long military career with the recapture of Tarentum (B. C. 209). The inhabitants were sold as slaves; the town was plundered and the works of art were sent to Rome. The next year Marcellus, for the fifth time elected to the consulship, was surprised near Venusia and killed. … The war had lasted ten years, yet its favorable conclusion seemed far off. There were increasing symptoms of discontent among the allies, while the news from Spain left little doubt that the long prepared expedition of Hasdrubal over the Alps to join his brother in Italy was at last to be realized. Rome strained every nerve to meet the impending danger. The number of legions was increased from twenty-one to twenty-three. The preparations were incomplete, when the news came that Hasdrubal was crossing the Alps by the same route which his brother had taken eleven years before. The consuls for the new year were M. Livius Salinator and G. Claudius Nero. Hannibal, at the beginning of spring, after reorganizing his force in Bruttium, advanced northward, encountered the consul Nero at Grumentum, whence, after a bloody but indecisive battle, he continued his march to Canusium. Here he waited for news from his brother. The expected despatch was intercepted by Nero, who formed the bold resolution of joining his colleague in the north, and with their united armies crushing Hasdrubal while Hannibal was waiting for the expected despatch. Hasdrubal had appointed a rendezvous with his brother in Umbria, whence with their united armies they were both to advance on Narnia and Rome. Nero, selecting from his army 7,000 of the best soldiers and 1,000 cavalry, left his camp so quietly that Hannibal knew nothing of his departure. Near Sena he found his colleague Livius, and in the night entered his camp that his arrival might not be known to the Carthaginians. Hasdrubal, when he heard the trumpet sound twice from the Roman camp and saw the increased numbers, was no longer ignorant that both consuls were in front of him. Thinking that his brother had been defeated, he resolved to retire across the Metaurus and wait for accurate information. Missing his way, wandering up and down the river to find a ford, pursued and attacked by the Romans, he was compelled to accept battle. Although in an unfavorable position, a deep river in his rear, his troops exhausted by marching all night, still the victory long hung in suspense. Hasdrubal displayed all the qualities of a great general, and when he saw that all was lost, he plunged into the thickest of the battle and was slain. The consul returned to Apulia with the same rapidity with which he had come. He announced to Hannibal the defeat and death of his brother by casting Hasdrubal's head within the outposts and by sending two Carthaginian captives to give him an account of the disastrous battle. {2678} 'I foresee the doom of Carthage,' said Hannibal sadly, when he recognized the bloody head of his brother. This battle decided the war in Italy. Hannibal withdrew his garrisons from the towns in southern Italy, retired to the peninsula of Bruttium, where for four long years, in that wild and mountainous country, with unabated courage and astounding tenacity, the dying lion clung to the land that had been so long the theatre of his glory. … The time had come to carry into execution that expedition to Africa which Sempronius had attempted in the beginning of the war. Publius Scipio, on his return from Spain, offered himself for the consulship and was unanimously elected. His design was to carry the war into Africa and in this way compel Carthage to recall Hannibal. … The senate finally consented that he should cross from his province of Sicily to Africa, but they voted no adequate means for such an expedition. Scipio called for volunteers. The whole of the year B. C. 205 passed away before he completed his preparations. Meanwhile the Carthaginians made one last effort to help Hannibal. Mago, Hannibal's youngest brother, was sent to Liguria with 14,000 men to rouse the Ligurians and Gauls to renew the war on Rome; but having met a Roman army under Quintilius Varus, and being wounded in the engagement which followed, his movements were so crippled that nothing of importance was accomplished. In the spring of B. C. 204 Scipio had completed his preparations. He embarked his army from Lilybæum, and after three days landed at the Fair Promontory near Utica. After laying siege to Utica all summer, he was compelled to fall back and entrench himself on the promontory. Masinissa had joined him immediately on his arrival. By his advice Scipio planned a night attack on Hasdrubal, the son of Gisgo, and Syphax, who were encamped near Utica. This enterprise was completely successful. A short time afterwards Hasdrubal and Syphax were again defeated. Syphax fled to Numidia, where he was followed by Lælius and Masinissa and compelled to surrender. These successes convinced the Carthaginians that with the existing forces the Roman invasion could not long be resisted. Therefore they opened negotiations for peace with Scipio, in order probably to gain time to recall their generals from Italy. The desire of Scipio to bring the war to a conclusion induced him to agree upon preliminaries of peace, subject to the approval of the Roman senate and people. … Meanwhile the arrival of Hannibal at Hadrumetum had so encouraged the Carthaginians that the armistice had been broken before the return of the ambassadors from Rome. All hopes of peace by negotiation vanished, and Scipio prepared to renew the war, which, since the arrival of Hannibal, had assumed a more serious character. The details of the operations which ended in the battle of Zama are but imperfectly known. The decisive battle was fought on the river Bagradas, near Zama, on the 19th of October, B. C. 202. Hannibal managed the battle with his usual skill. His veterans fought like the men who had so often conquered in Italy, but his army was annihilated. The elephants were rendered unavailing by Scipio's skillful management. Instead of the three lines of battle, with the usual intervals, Scipio arranged his companies behind each other like the rounds of a ladder. Through these openings the elephants could pass without breaking the line. This battle terminated the long struggle. … Hannibal himself advised peace."

"Scipio prepared as though he would besiege the city, but his heart also inclined to peace. … The terms which he offered were severe enough, and had the Carthaginians only realised what they involved, they would surely have asked to be allowed to meet their fate at once. They were to retain indeed their own laws and their home domain in Africa; but they were to give up all the deserters and prisoners of war, all their elephants, and all their ships of the line but ten. They were not to wage war, either in Africa or outside of it, without the sanction of the Roman Senate. They were to recognise Massinissa as the king of Numidia, and, with it, the prescriptive right which he would enjoy of plundering and annoying them at his pleasure, while they looked on with their hands tied, not daring to make reprisals. Finally, they were to give up all claim to the rich islands of the Mediterranean and to the Spanish kingdom, the creation of the Barcides, of which the fortune of war had already robbed them; and thus shorn of the sources of their wealth, they were to pay within a given term of seven years a crushing war contribution! Henceforward, in fact, they would exist on sufferance only, and that the sufferance of the Romans. … The conclusion of the peace was celebrated at Carthage by a cruel sight, the most cruel which the citizens could have beheld, except the destruction of the city itself—the destruction of their fleet. Five hundred vessels, the pride and glory of the Phœnician race, the symbol and the seal of the commerce, the colonisation, and the conquests of this most imperial of Phœnician cities, were towed out of the harbour and were deliberately burned in the sight of the citizens."

ROME: B. C. 191.
   War with Antiochus the Great of Syria.
   First conquests in Asia Minor bestowed on the
   king of Pergamum and the Republic of Rhodes.

   "The victories of the last half-century seemed to promise ease
   and wealth to Rome. She was to live on the spoils and revenue
   from the conquered countries. Not only did they pay a fixed
   tax to her exchequer, but the rich lands of Capua, the royal
   domain lands of the kings of Syracuse and of Macedonia, became
   public property, and produced a large annual rent. It was
   found possible in 167 to relieve citizens from the property
   tax or tributum, which was not collected again until the year
   after the death of Julius Caesar. But the sudden influx of
   wealth had the usual effect of raising the standard of
   expense; and new tastes and desires required increased means
   for their gratification. All manner of luxuries were finding
   their way into the city from the East.
{2679}
   Splendid furniture, costly ornaments, wanton dances and music
   for their banquets, became the fashion among the Roman nobles;
   and the younger men went to lengths of debauchery and
   extravagance hitherto unknown. The result to many was
   financial embarrassment, from which relief was sought in
   malversation and extortion. The old standard of honour in
   regard to public money was distinctly lowered, and cases of
   misconduct and oppression were becoming more common and less
   reprobated. … The fashionable taste for Greek works of art, in
   the adornment of private houses, was another incentive to
   plunder, and in 149 it was for the first time found necessary
   to establish a permanent court or 'quaestio' for cases of
   malversation in the provinces. Attempts were indeed made to
   restrain the extravagance which was at the root of the evil.
   In 184 Cato, as censor, had imposed a tax on the sale of
   slaves under twenty above a certain price, and on personal
   ornaments above a certain value; and though the 'lex Oppia,'
   limiting the amount of women's jewelry, had been repealed in
   spite of him in 195, other sumptuary laws were passed. A 'lex
   Orchia' in 182 limited the number of guests, a 'lex Fannia' in
   161 the amount to be spent on banquets; while a 'lex Didia' in
   143 extended the operation of the law to all Italy. And though
   such laws, even if enforced, could not really remedy the evil,
   they perhaps had a certain effect in producing a sentiment;
   for long afterwards we find overcrowded dinners regarded as
   indecorous and vulgar. Another cause, believed by some to be
   unfavourably affecting Roman character, was the growing
   influence of Greek culture and Greek teachers. For many years
   the education of the young, once regarded as the special
   business of the parents, had been passing into the hands of
   Greek slaves or freedmen. … On the superiority of Greek
   culture there was a division of opinion. The Scipios and their
   party patronised Greek philosophy and literature. … This
   tendency, which went far beyond a mere question of literary
   taste, was opposed by a party of which M. Porcius Cato was the
   most striking member. … In Cato's view the reform needed was a
   return to the old ways, before Rome was infected by Greece."

      E. S. Shuckburgh,
      History of Rome to the Battle of Actium,
      chapter 32.

ROME: B. C. 159-133.
   Decline of the Republic.
   Social and economic causes.
   The growing system of Slavery and its effects.
   Monopoly of land by capitalists.
   Extinction of small cultivators.
   Rapid decrease of citizens.

"In the Rome of this epoch the two evils of a degenerate oligarchy and a democracy not yet developed but already cankered in the bud were interwoven in a manner pregnant with fatal results. According to their party names, which were first heard during this period, the ' Optimates' wished to give effect to the will of the best, the 'Populares' to that of the community; but in fact there was in the Rome of that day neither a true aristocracy nor a truly self-determining community. Both parties contended alike for shadows. … Both were equally affected by political corruption, and both were in fact equally worthless. … The commonwealth was politically and morally more and more unhinged, and was verging towards its total dissolution. The crisis with which the Roman revolution was opened arose not out of this paltry political conflict, but out of the economic and social relations which the Roman government allowed, like everything else, simply to take their course"; and which had brought about "the depreciation of the Italian farms; the supplanting of the petty husbandry, first in a part of the provinces and then in Italy, by the farming of large estates; the prevailing tendency to devote the latter in Italy to the rearing of cattle and the culture of the olive and vine; finally, the replacing of the free labourers in the provinces as in Italy by slaves. … Before we attempt to describe the course of this second great conflict between labour and capital, it is necessary to give here some indication of the nature and extent of the system of slavery. We have not now to do with the old, in some measure innocent, rural slavery, under which the farmer either tilled the field along with his slave, or, if he possessed more land than he could manage, placed the slave … over a detached farm. … What we now refer to is the system of slavery on a great scale, which in the Roman state, as formerly in the Carthaginian, grew out of the ascendancy of capital. While the captives taken in war and the hereditary transmission of slavery sufficed to keep up the stock of slaves during the earlier period, this system of slavery was, just like that of America, based on the methodically prosecuted hunting of man. … No country where this species of game could be hunted remained exempt from visitation; even in Italy it was a thing by no means unheard of, that the poor free man was placed by his employer among the slaves. But the Negroland of that period was western Asia, where the Cretan and Cilician corsairs, the real professional slave-hunters and slave-dealers, robbed the coasts of Syria and the Greek islands; and where, emulating their feats, the Roman revenue-farmers instituted human hunts in the client states and incorporated those whom they captured among their slaves. … At the great slave market in Delos, where the slave-dealers of Asia Minor disposed of their wares to Italian speculators, on one day as many as 10,000 slaves are said to have been disembarked in the morning and to have heen all sold before evening. … In whatever direction speculation applied itself, its instrument was invariably man reduced in the eye of the law to a brute. Trades were in great part carried on by slaves, so that the proceeds belonged to the master. The levying of the public revenues in the lower departments was regularly conducted by the slaves of the associations that leased them. Servile hands performed the operations of mining, making pitch, and others of a similar kind; it became early the custom to send herds of slaves to the Spanish mines. … The tending of cattle was universally performed by slaves. … But far worse in every respect was the plantation system proper—the cultivation of the fields by a band of slaves not unfrequent]y branded with iron, who with shackles on their legs performed the labours of the field under overseers during the day, and were locked up together by night in the common, frequently subterranean, labourers' prison. This plantation system had migrated from the East to Carthage, … and seems to have been brought by the Carthaginians to Sicily. … {2680} The abyss of misery and woe which opens before our eyes in this most miserable of all proletariates, we leave to be fathomed by those who venture to gaze into such depths; It is very possible that, compared with the sufferings of the Roman slaves, the sum of all Negro suffering is but a drop. Here we are not so much concerned with the distress of the slaves themselves as with the perils which it brought upon the Roman state. …

The capitalists continued to buy out the small landholders, or indeed, if they remained obstinate, to seize their fields without title of purchase. … The landlords continued mainly to employ slaves instead of free labourers, because the former could not like the latter be called away to military service; and thus reduced the free proletariate to the same level of misery with the slaves. They continued to supersede Italian grain in the market of the capital, and to lessen its value over the whole peninsula, by selling Sicilian slave-corn at a mere nominal price. … After 595 [B. C. 159], … when the census yielded 328,000 citizens capable of bearing arms, there appears a regular falling off, for the list in 600 [B. C. 154] stood at 324,000, that in 607 [B. C. 147] at 322,000, that in 623 [B. C. 131] at 319,000 burgesses fit for service—an alarming result for a period of profound peace at home and abroad. If matters were to go on at this rate, the burgess-body would resolve itself into planters and slaves; and the Roman state might at length, as was the case with the Parthians, purchase its soldiers in the slave-market. Such was the external and internal condition of Rome, when the state entered on the 7th century of its existence. Wherever the eye turned, it encountered abuses and decay; the question could not but force itself on every sagacious and well disposed man, whether this state of things were not capable of remedy or amendment."

"Carthage, bound hand and foot by the treaty of 201 B. C., was placed under the jealous watch of the loyal prince of Numidia, who himself willingly acknowledged the suzerainty of Rome. But it was impossible for this arrangement to be permanent. Every symptom of reviving prosperity at Carthage was regarded at Rome with feverish anxiety, and neither the expulsion of Hannibal in 195 B. C. nor his death in 183 B. C. did much to check the growing conviction that Rome would never be secure while her rival existed. It was therefore with grim satisfaction that many in the Roman senate watched the increasing irritation of the Carthaginians under the harassing raids and encroachments of their favoured neighbour, Masinissa, and waited for the moment when Carthage should, by some breach of the conditions imposed upon her, supply Rome with a pretext for interference. At last in 151 B. C. came the news that Carthage, in defiance of treaty obligations, was actually at war with Masinissa. The anti-Carthaginian party in the senate, headed by M. Porcius Cato, eagerly seized the opportunity; in spite of the protests of Scipio Nasica and others, war was declared, and nothing short of the destruction of their city itself was demanded from the despairing Carthaginians. This demand, as the senate, no doubt, foresaw, was refused, and in 149 B. C. the siege of Carthage began. During the next two years little progress was made, but in 147 P. Cornelius Scipio Æmilianus, son of L. Æmilius Paulus, conqueror of Macedonia, and grandson by adoption of the conqueror of Hannibal, was, at the age of 37, and though only a candidate for the ædileship, elected consul and given the command in Africa. In the next year (146 B. C.) Carthage was taken and razed to the ground. Its territory became the Roman province of Africa, while Numidia, now ruled by the three sons of Masinissa, remained as an allied state under Roman suzerainty, and served to protect the new province against the raids of the desert tribes. Within little more than a century from the commencement of the first Punic war, the whole of the former dominions of Carthage had been brought under the direct rule of Roman magistrates, and were regularly organised as Roman provinces."

   "At the close of a century first of deadly struggle and then
   of rapid and dazzling success, Rome found herself the supreme
   power in the civilised world. … We have now to consider how
   this period of conflict and conquest had affected the
   victorious state. Outwardly the constitution underwent but
   little change. It continued to be in form a moderate
   democracy. The sovereignty of the people finally established
   by the Hortensian law remained untouched in theory. It was by
   the people in assembly that the magistrates of the year were
   elected, and that laws were passed; only by 'order of the
   people' could capital punishment be inflicted upon a Roman
   citizen. For election to a magistracy, or for a seat in the
   senate, patrician and plebeian were equally eligible. But
   between the theory and the practice of the constitution there
   was a wide difference. Throughout this period the actually
   sovereign authority in Rome was that of the senate, and behind
   the senate stood an order of nobles (nobiles), who claimed and
   enjoyed privileges as wide as those which immemorial custom
   had formerly conceded to the patriciate. The ascendency of the
   senate, which thus arrested the march of democracy in Rome,
   was not, to any appreciable extent, the result of legislation.
   It was the direct outcome of the practical necessities of the
   time, and when these no longer existed, it was at once and
   successfully challenged in the name and on the behalf of the
   constitutional rights of the people. Nevertheless, from the
   commencement of the Punic wars down to the moment when with
   the destruction of Carthage in 146 B. C. Rome's only rival
   disappeared, this ascendency was complete and almost
   unquestioned. It was within the walls of the senate-house, and
   by decrees of the senate, that the foreign and the domestic
   policy of the state were alike determined. … Though the
   ascendency of the senate was mainly due to the fact that
   without it the government of the state could scarcely have
   been carried on, it was strengthened and confirmed by the
   close and intimate connection which existed between the senate
   and the nobility. This 'nobility' was in its nature and origin
   widely different from the old patriciate.
{2681}
   Though every patrician was of course 'noble,' the majority of
   the families which in this period styled themselves noble were
   not patrician but plebeian, and the typical nobles of the time
   of the elder Cato, of the Gracchi, or of Cicero, the Metelli,
   Livii, or Licinii were plebeians. The title nobilis was
   apparently conceded by custom to those plebeian families one
   or more of whose members had, after the opening of the
   magistracies, been elected to a curule office, and which in
   consequence were entitled to place in their halls, and to
   display at their funeral processions the 'imagines' of these
   distinguished ancestors. The man who, by his election to a
   curule office thus ennobled his descendants, was said to be
   the 'founder of his family,' though himself only a new man. …
   Office brought wealth and prestige, and both wealth and
   prestige were freely employed to exclude 'new men' and to
   secure for the 'noble families' a monopoly of office. The
   ennobled plebeians not only united with the patricians to form
   a distinct order, but outdid them in pride and arrogance. …
   The establishment of senatorial ascendency was not the only
   result of this period of growth and expansion. During the same
   time the foundations were laid of the provincial system, and
   with this of the new and dangerous powers of the proconsuls."

"The great struggle against Hannibal left the Senate the all but undisputed government of Rome. Originally a mere consulting board, assessors of the king or consul, the Senate had become the supreme executive body. That the government solely by the comitia and the magistrates should by experience be found wanting was as inevitable at Rome as at Athens. Rome was more fortunate than Athens in that she could develop a new organism to meet the need. The growth of the power of the Senate was all the more natural and legitimate the less it possessed strict legal standing-ground. But the fatal dualism thus introduced into the constitution—the Assembly governing de jure, and the Senate governing de facto—made all government after a time impossible. The position of the Senate being, strictly speaking, an unconstitutional one, it was open to any demagogue to bring matters of foreign policy or administration before an Assembly which was without continuity, without special knowledge, and in which there was no debate. Now, if the Senate governed badly, the Assembly 'could not govern at all;' and there could be, in the long run, but one end to the constant struggle between the two sources of authority."

"The first systematic attack upon the senatorial government is connected with the names of Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus, and its immediate occasion was an attempt to deal with no less a danger than the threatened disappearance of the class to which of all others Rome had owed most in the past. For, while Rome had been extending her sway westward and eastward, and while her nobles and merchants were amassing colossal fortunes abroad, the small landholders throughout the greater part of Italy were sinking deeper into ruin under the pressure of accumulated difficulties. The Hannibalic war had laid waste their fields and thinned their numbers, nor when peace returned to Italy did it bring with it any revival of prosperity. The heavy burden of military service still pressed ruinously upon them, and in addition they were called upon to compete with the foreign corn imported from beyond the sea, and with the foreign slave-labour purchased by the capital of the wealthier men. … The small holders went off to follow the eagles or swell the proletariate of the cities, and their holdings were left to run waste or merged in the vineyards, oliveyards, and above all in the great cattle-farms of the rich, while their own place was taken by slaves. The evil was not equally serious in all parts of Italy. It was least felt in the central highlands, in Campania, and in the newly settled fertile valley of the Po. It was worst in Etruria and in southern Italy; but everywhere it was serious enough to demand the earnest attention of Roman statesmen. Of its existence the government had received plenty of warning in the declining numbers of able-bodied males returned at the census, in the increasing difficulties of recruiting for the legions, in servile out-breaks in Etruria and Apulia."

   The earlier agrarian laws which the Roman plebeians had wrung
   from the patricians (the Licinian Law and similar ones—see
   ROME: B. C. 376-367; also AGRARIAN LAWS) had not availed to
   prevent the absorption, by one means and another, of the
   public domain—the "ager publicus," the conquered land which
   the state had neither sold nor given away—into the possession
   of great families and capitalists, who held it in vast blocks,
   to be cultivated by slaves. Time had almost sanctioned this
   condition of things, when Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus, elder
   of the two famous brothers called "The Gracchi," undertook in
   133 B. C. a reformation of it. As one of the tribunes of the
   people that year, he brought forward a law which was intended
   to enforce the provisions of the Licinian Law of 367 B. C., by
   taking away from the holders of public land what they held in
   excess of 500 jugera (about 320 acres) each. Three
   commissioners, called Triumviri, were to be appointed to
   superintend the execution of the law and to redistribute the
   land recovered, among needy citizens. Naturally the proposal
   of this act aroused a fierce opposition in the wealthy class
   whose ill-gotten estates were threatened by it. One of the
   fellow-tribunes of Tiberius was gained over by the opposition
   and used the power of his veto to prevent the taking of a vote
   upon the bill. Then Gracchus, to overcome the obstacle, had
   recourse to an unconstitutional measure. The obstinate tribune
   was deposed from his office by a vote of the people, and the
   law was then enacted. For the carrying out of his measure, and
   for his own protection, no less, Tiberius sought a re-election
   to the tribunate, which was contrary to usage, if not against
   positive law. His enemies raised a tumult against him on the
   day of election and he was slain, with three hundred of his
   party, and their corpses were flung into the Tiber. Nine years
   later, his younger brother, Caius Gracchus, obtained election
   to the tribune's office and took up the work of democratic
   political reform which Tiberius had sacrificed his life in
   attempting. His measures were radical, attacking the powers
   and privileges of the ruling orders. But mixed with them were
   schemes of demagoguery which did infinite mischief to the
   Roman people and state.
{2682}
   He carried the first frumentarian law (lex frumentaria) as it
   was called, by which corn was bought with public money, and
   stored, for sale to Roman citizens at a nominal price. After
   three years of power, through the favor of the people, he,
   too, in 121 B. C. was deserted by them and the party of the
   patricians was permitted to put him to death, with a great
   number of his supporters.

"Caius, it is said, was the first Roman statesman who appointed a regular distribution of corn among the poorer citizens, requiring the state to buy up large consignments of grain from the provinces, and to sell it again at a fixed rate below the natural price. The nobles themselves seem to have acquiesced without alarm in this measure, by which they hoped to secure the city from seditious movements in time of scarcity; but they failed to foresee the discouragement it would give to industry, the crowds of idle and dissipated citizens it would entice into the forum, the appetite it would create for shows, entertainments and largesses, and the power it would thus throw into the hands of unprincipled demagogues. Caius next established customs duties upon various articles of luxury imported into the city for the use of the rich: he decreed the gratuitous supply of clothing to the soldiers, who had hitherto been required to provide themselves out of their pay; he founded colonies for the immediate gratification of the poorer citizens, who were waiting in vain for the promised distribution of lands: he caused the construction of public granaries, bridges and roads, to furnish objects of useful labour to those who were not unwilling to work. Caius himself, it is said, directed the course and superintended the making of the roads, some of which we may still trace traversing Italy in straight lines from point to point, filling up depressions and hollowing excrescences in the face of the country, and built upon huge substructions of solid masonry. Those who most feared and hated him confessed their amazement at the magnificence of his projects and the energy of his proceedings; the people, in whose interests he toiled, were filled with admiration and delight, when they saw him attended from morning to night by crowds of contractors, artificers, ambassadors, magistrates, soldiers, and men of learning, to all of whom he was easy of access, adapting his behaviour to the condition of each in turn: thus proving, as they declared, the falsehood of those who presumed to call him violent and tyrannical. … By these innovations Caius laid a wide basis of popularity. Thereupon he commenced his meditated attack upon the privileged classes. We possess at least one obscure intimation of a change he effected or proposed in the manner of voting by centuries, which struck at the influence of the wealthier classes. He confirmed and extended the Porcian law, for the protection of citizens against the aggression of the magistrates without a formal appeal to the people. Even the powers of the dictatorship, to which the senate had been wont to resort for the coercion of its refractory opponents, were crippled by these provisions; and we shall see that no recourse was again had to this extraordinary and odious appointment till the oligarchy had gained for a time a complete victory over their adversaries. Another change, even more important, was that by which the knights were admitted to the greater share, if not, as some suppose, to the whole, of the judicial appointments. … As long as the senators were the judges, the provincial governors, who were themselves senators, were secure from the consequence of impeachment. If the knights were to fill the same office, it might be expected that the publicani, the farmers of the revenues abroad would be not less assured of impunity, whatever were the enormity of their exactions. … It was vain, indeed, to expect greater purity from the second order of citizens than from the first. If the senators openly denied justice to complainants, the knights almost as openly sold it. This was in itself a grievous degradation of the tone of public morality; but this was not all the evil of the tribune's reform. It arrayed the two privileged classes of citizens in direct hostility to one another. 'Caius made the republic double-headed,' was the profound remark of antiquity. He sowed the seeds of a war of an hundred years. Tiberius had attempted to raise up a class of small proprietors, who, by the simplicity of their manners and moderation of their tastes, might form, as he hoped, a strong conservative barrier between the tyranny of the nobles and the envy of the people; but Caius, on the failure of this attempt, was content to elevate a class to power, who should touch upon both extremes of the social scale,—the rich by their wealth, and the poor by their origin. Unfortunately this was to create not a new class, but a new party. … One direct advantage, at all events, Caius expected to derive, besides the humiliation of his brother's murderers, from this elevation of the knights: he hoped to secure their grateful co-operation towards the important object he next had in view: this was no less than the full admission of the Latins and Italians to the right of suffrage."

ROME: B. C. 125-121.
Conquest of the Salyes and Allobroges in Gaul.
Treaty of friendship with the Ædui.

ROME: B. C. 118-99.
   Increasing corruption of government.
   The Jugurthine War.
   Invasion and defeat of the Cimbri and Teutones.
   The power of Marius.

"After the death of Caius Gracchus, the nobles did what they pleased in Rome. They paid no more attention to the Agrarian Law, and the state of Italy grew worse and worse. … The nobles cared nothing for Rome's honour, but only for their own pockets. They governed badly, and took bribes from foreign kings, who were allowed to do what they liked if they could pay enough. This was especially seen in a war that took place in Africa. After Carthage had been destroyed, the greatest state in Africa was Numidia. The king of Numidia was a friend of the Roman people, and had fought with them against Carthage. So Rome had a good deal to do with Numidia, and the Numidians often helped Rome in her wars. In 118 a king of Numidia died, and left the kingdom to his two sons and an adopted son named Jugurtha. Jugurtha determined to have the kingdom all to himself, so he murdered one of the sons and made war upon the other, who applied to Rome for help.

The Senate was bribed by Jugurtha, and did all it could to please him; at last, however, Jugurtha besieged his brother in Cirta, and when he took the city put him and all his army to death (112). After this the Romans thought they must interfere, but the Senate for more money were willing to let Jugurtha off very easily. He came to Rome to excuse himself before the people, and whilst he was there he had a Numidian prince, of whom he was afraid, murdered in Rome itself. But his bribes were stronger than the laws. … The Romans declared war against Jugurtha, but he bribed the generals, and for three years very little was done against him. At last, in 108, a good general, who would not take bribes, Quintus Metellus, went against him and defeated him. Metellus would have finished the war, but in 106 the command was taken from him by Caius Marius the consul. This Caius Marius was a man of low birth, but a good soldier. He had risen in war by his bravery, and had held magistracies in Rome. He was an officer in the army of Metellus, and was very much liked by the common soldiers, for he was a rough man like themselves, and talked with them, and lived as they did. … Marius left Africa and went to Rome to try and be made consul in 106. He found fault with Metellus before the people, and said that he could carry on the war better himself. So the people made him consul, and more than that, they said that he should be general in Africa instead of Metellus. … Marius finished the war in Africa, and brought Jugurtha in triumph to Italy in 104. … When it was over, Marius was the most powerful man in Rome. He was the leader of the popular party, and also the general of the army. The army had greatly changed since the time of Hannibal. The Roman soldiers were no longer citizens who fought when their country wanted them, and then went back to their work. But as wars were now constantly going on, and going on too in distant countries, this could no longer be the case, and the army was full of men who took to a soldier's life as a trade. Marius was the favourite of these soldiers: he was a soldier by trade himself, and had risen in consequence to power in the state. Notice, then, that when Marius was made consul, it was a sign that the government for the future was to be carried on by the army, as well as by the people and the nobles. Marius was soon wanted to carry on another war. Two great tribes of barbarians from the north had entered Gaul west of the Alps, and threatened to drive out the Romans, and even attack Italy. They came with their wives and children, like a wandering people looking for a home. … At first these Cimbri defeated the Roman generals in southern Gaul, where the Romans had conquered the country along the Rhone, and made it a province, which is still called the province, or Provence. The Romans, after this defeat, were afraid of another burning of their city by barbarians, so Marius was made consul again, and for the next five years he was elected again and again. … In the year 102 the Teutones and the Cimbri marched to attack Italy, but Marius defeated them in two great battles.

Afterwards when he went back to Rome in triumph he was so powerful that he could have done what he chose in the state. The people were very grateful to him, the soldiers were very fond of him, and the nobles were very much afraid of him. But Marius did not think much of the good of the state: he thought much more of his own greatness, and how he might become a still greater man. So, first, he joined the party of the people, and one of the tribunes. Lucius Appuleius Saturninus, brought forward some laws like those of Caius Gracchus, and Marius helped him. But there were riots in consequence, and the Senate begged Marius to help them in putting down the riots. For a time Marius doubted what to do, but at last he armed the people, and Saturninus was killed (99). But now neither side liked Marius, for he was true to neither, and did only what he thought would make himself most powerful. So for the future Marius was not likely to be of much use in the troubles of the Roman state."

ROME: B. C. 90-88.
   Demands of the Italian Socii for Roman citizenship.
   The Marsian or Social War.
   Rise of Sulla.

"It is a most erroneous though widely prevalent opinion that the whole of Italy was conquered by the force of Roman arms, and joined to the empire [of the Republic] against its will. Roman valour and the admirable organization of the legions, it is true, contributed to extend the dominion of Rome, but they were not nearly so effective as the political wisdom of the Roman senate. … The subjects of Rome were called by the honourable name of allies (Socii). But the manner in which they had become allies was not always the same. It differed widely according to circumstances. Some had joined Rome on an equal footing by a free alliance ('fœdus æquum'). which implied nothing like subjection. … Others sought the alliance of Rome as a protection from pressing enemies or troublesome neighbours. … On the whole, the condition of the allies, Latin colonies as well as confederated Italians, seems to have been satisfactory, at least in the earlier period. … But even the right of self-government which Rome had left to the Italian communities proved an illusion in all cases where the interests of the ruling town seemed to require it. A law passed in Rome, nay, a simple senatorial decree, or a magisterial order, could at pleasure be applied to the whole of Italy. Roman law gradually took the place of local laws, though the Italians had no part in the legislation of the Roman people, or any influence on the decrees of the Roman senate and magistrates. … All public works in Italy, such as roads, aqueducts, and temples, were carried out solely for the benefit of Rome. … Not in peace only, but also in the time of war, the allies were gradually made to feel how heavily the hand of Rome weighed upon them. … In proportion as with the increase of their power the Romans felt more and more secure and independent of the allies, they showed them less consideration and tenderness, and made them feel that they had gradually sunk from their former position of friends to be no more than subjects." There was increasing discontent among the Italian allies, or Socii, with this state of things, especially after the time of the Gracchi, when a proposal to extend the Roman citizenship and franchise to them was strongly pressed. {2684} In the next generation after the murder of Caius Gracchus, there arose another political reformer, Marcus Livius Drusus, who likewise sought to have justice done to the Italians, by giving them a voice in the state which owed its conquests to their arms. He, too, was killed by the political enemies he provoked; and then the allies determined to enforce their claims by war. The tribes of the Sabellian race—Marsians, Samnites, Hirpenians, Lucanians, and their fellows—organized a league, with the town of Corfinium (its name changed to Italica) for its capital, and broke into open revolt. The prominence of the Marsians in the struggle caused the war which ensued to be sometimes called the Marsian War; it was also called the Italian War, but, more commonly, the Social War. It was opened, B. C. 90, by a horrible massacre of Roman citizens residing at Asculum, Picenum,—a tragedy for the guilt of which that town paid piteously the next year, when it was taken at the end of a long siege and after a great battle fought under its walls. But the Romans had suffered many defeats before that achievement was reached. At the end of the first year of the war they had made no headway against the revolt, and it is the opinion of Ihne and other historians that "Rome never was so near her destruction," and that "her downfall was averted, not by the heroism of her citizens, as in the war of Hannibal, but by a reversal" of her "policy of selfish exclusion and haughty disdain." A law called the Julian Law, because proposed by the consul L. Julius Cæsar, was adopted B. C. 90, which gave the Roman franchise to the Latins, and to all the other Italian communities which had so far remained faithful. Soon afterward two of the new tribunes carried a further measure, the Plautio-Papirian Law, which offered the same privilege to any Italian who, within two months, should present himself before a Roman magistrate to claim it. These concessions broke the spirit of the revolt and the Roman armies began to be victorious. Sulla, who was in the field, added greatly to his reputation by successes at Nola (where his army honored him by acclaim with the title of Imperator) and at Bovianum, which he took. The last important battle of the war was fought on the old blood-drenched plain of Cannæ, and this time the victory was for Rome. After that, for another year, some desperate towns and remnants of the revolted Socii held out, but their resistance was no more than the death throes of a lost cause.

W. Ihne, History of Rome, book 6, chapter 9, with foot-note, and book 7, chapters 13-14.

ROME: B. C. 88-78.
   Rivalry of Marius and Sulla.
   War with Mithridates.
   Civil war.
   Successive proscriptions and reigns of terror.
   Sulla's dictatorship.

The political diseases of which the Roman Republic was dying made quick progress in the generation that passed between the murder of Caius Gracchus and the Social War. The Roman rabble which was nominally sovereign and the oligarchy which ruled actually, by combined bribery and brow-beating of the populace, had both been worse corrupted and debased by the increasing flow of tribute and plunder from provinces and subject states. Rome had familiarized itself with mob violence, and the old respect for authority and for law was dead. The soldier with an army at his back need not stand any longer in awe of the fasces of a tribune or a consul. It was a natural consequence of that state of things that the two foremost soldiers of the time, Caius Marius and L. Cornelius Sulla (or Sylla, as often written,) should become the recognized chiefs of the two opposing factions of the day. Marius was old, his military glory was waning, he had enjoyed six consulships and coveted a seventh; Sulla was in the prime of life, just fairly beginning to show his surpassing capabilities and entering on his real career. Marius was a plebeian of plebeians and rude in all his tastes; Sulla came from the great Cornelian gens, and refined a little the dissoluteness of his life by studies of Greek letters and philosophy. Marius was sullenly jealous; Sulla was resolutely ambitious. A new war, which promised great prizes to ambition and cupidity, alike, was breaking out in the east,—the war with Mithridates. Both Marius and Sulla aspired to the command in it; but Sulla had been elected one of the consuls for the year 88 B. C. and, by custom and law, would have the conduct of the war assigned to him. Marius, however, intrigued with the demagogues and leaders of the mob, and brought about a turbulent demonstration and popular vote, by which he could claim to be appointed to lead the forces of the state against Mithridates. Sulla fled to his army, in camp at Nola, and laid his case before the officers and men. The former, for the most part, shrank from opposing themselves to Rome; the latter had no scruples and demanded to be led against the Roman mob. Sulla took them at their word, and marched them straight to the city. For the first time in its history (by no means the last) the great capital was forcibly entered by one of its own armies. There was some resistance, but not much. Sulla paralyzed his opponents by his energy, and by a threat to burn the city if it did not submit. Marius and his chief partisans fled. Sulla contented himself with outlawing twelve, some of whom were taken and put to death. Marius, himself, escaped to Africa, after many strange adventures, in the story of which there is romance unquestionably mixed. Sulla (with his colleague in harmony with him) fulfilled the year of his consulate at Rome and then departed for Greece to conduct the war against Mithridates. In doing so, he certainly knew that he was giving up the government to his enemies; but he trusted his future in a remarkable way, and the necessity, for Rome, of confronting Mithridates was imperative. The departure of Sulla was the signal for fresh disorders at Rome. Cinna, one of the new consuls, was driven from the city, and became the head of a movement which appealed to the "new citizens," as they were called, or the "Italian party"—the allies who had been enfranchised as the result of the Social War. Marius came back from exile to join it. Sertorius and Carbo were other leaders who played important parts. Presently there were four armies beleaguering Rome, and after some unsuccessful resistance the gates were opened to them, by order of the Roman senate. Cinna, the consul, was nominally restored to authority, but Marius was really supreme, and Marius was implacable in his sullen rage. {2685} Rome was treated like a conquered city. The public and private enemies of Marius and of all who chose to call themselves Marians, were hunted down and slain. To stop the massacre, at last, Sertorius—the best of the new masters of Rome—was forced to turn his soldiers against the bands of the assassins and to slaughter several thousands of them. Then some degree of order was restored and there was the quiet in Rome of a city of the dead. The next year Marius realized his ambition for a seventh consulship, but died before the end of the first month of it. Meantime, Sulla devoted himself steadily to the war against Mithridates [see MITHRIDATIC WARS], watching from afar the sinister course of events at Rome, and making no sign. It was not until the spring of 83 B. C., four years after his departure from Italy and three years after the death of Marius, that he was ready to return and settle accounts with his enemies. On landing with his army in Italy he was joined speedily by Pompey, Crassus, and other important chiefs. Cinna had been killed by mutinous soldiers; Carbo and young Marius were the leaders of the "Italian party." There was a fierce battle at Sacriportus, near Præneste, with young Marius, and a second with Carbo at Clusium. Later, there was another furious fight with the Samnites, under the walls of Rome, at the Colline Gate, where 50,000 of the combatants fell. Then Sulla was master of Rome. Every one of his suspected friends in the senate had been butchered by the last orders of young Marius. His retaliation was not slow; but he pursued it with a horrible deliberation. He made lists, to be posted in public, of men who were marked for death and whom anybody might slay. There are differing accounts of the number doomed by this proscription; according to one annalist the death-roll was swelled to 4,700 before the reign of terror ceased. Sulla ruled as a conqueror until it pleased him to take an official title, when he commanded the people to elect him Dictator, for such term as he might judge to be fit. They obeyed. As Dictator, he proceeded to remodel the Roman constitution by a series of laws which were adopted at his command. One of these laws enfranchised 10,000 slaves and made them citizens. Another took a way from the tribunes a great part of their powers; allowed none but members of the senate to be candidates for the office, and no person once a tribune to hold a curule office. Others reconstructed the senate, adding 300 new members to its depleted ranks, and restored to it the judicial function which C. Gracchus had transferred to the knights; they also restored to it the initiative in legislation. Having remodeled the Roman government to his liking, Sulla astounded his friends and enemies by suddenly laying down his dictatorial powers and retiring to private life at his villa, near Puteoli, on the Bay of Naples. There he wrote his memoirs, which have been lost, and gave himself up to the life of pleasure which was even dearer to him than the life of power. But he enjoyed it scarcely a year, when he died, B. C. 78. His body, taken to Rome, was burned with pomp.

ROME: B. C. 80.
The throne of Egypt bequeathed to the Republic
by Ptolemy Alexander.

ROME: B. C. 78-68.
   Danger from the legionaries.
   Rising power of Pompeius.
   Attempt of Lepidus.
   Pompeius against Sertorius in Spain.
   Insurrection of Spartacus and the Gladiators.
   The second Mithridatic War, and war in Armenia.

   "The Roman legionary, … drawn from the dregs of the populace,
   and quartered through the best years of his life in Greece and
   Asia, in Spain and Gaul, lived solely upon his pay, enhanced
   by extortion or plunder. His thirst of rapine grew upon him.
   He required his chiefs to indulge him with the spoil of cities
   and provinces; and when a foreign enemy was not at hand, he
   was tempted to turn against the subjects of the state, or, if
   need be, against the state itself. … Marius and Sulla, Cinna
   and Carbo had led the forces of Rome against Rome herself. …
   The problem which thus presented itself to the minds of
   patriots—how, namely, to avert the impending dissolution of
   their polity under the blows of their own defenders—was indeed
   an anxious and might well appear a hopeless one. It was to the
   legions only that they could trust, and the legions were
   notoriously devoted to their chiefs. … The triumph of Sulla
   had been secured by the accession to his side of Pompeius
   Strabo, the commander of a large force quartered in Italy.
   These troops had transferred their obedience to a younger
   Pompeius, the son of their late leader. Under his auspices
   they had gained many victories; they had put down the Marian
   faction, headed by Carbo, in Sicily, and had finally secured
   the ascendency of the senate on the shores of Africa. Sulla
   had evinced some jealousy of their captain, who was young in
   years, and as yet had not risen above the rank of Eques; but
   when Pompeius led his victorious legions back to Italy, the
   people rose in the greatest enthusiasm to welcome him, and the
   dictator, yielding to their impetuosity, had granted him a
   triumph and hailed him with the title of 'Magnus.' Young as he
   was, he became at once, on the abdication of Sulla, the
   greatest power in the commonwealth. This he soon caused to be
   known and felt. The lead of the senatorial party had now
   fallen to Q. Lutatius Catulus and M. Æmilius Lepidus, the
   heads of two of the oldest and noblest families of Rome. The
   election of these chiefs to the consulship for the year 676 of
   the city (B. C. 78) seemed to secure for the time the
   ascendency of the nobles, and the maintenance of Sulla's
   oligarchical constitution bequeathed to their care. … But
   there were divisions within the party itself which seemed to
   seize the opportunity for breaking forth. Lepidus was inflamed
   with ambition to create a faction of his own, and imitate the
   career of the usurpers before him. … But he had miscalculated
   his strength. Pompeius disavowed him, and lent the weight of
   his popularity and power to the support of Catulus; and the
   senate hoped to avert an outbreak by engaging both the consuls
   by an oath to abstain from assailing each other. During the
   remainder of his term of office Lepidus refrained from action;
   but as soon as he reached his province, the Narbonensis in
   Gaul, he developed his plans, summoned to his standard the
   Marians, who had taken refuge in great numbers in that region,
   and invoked the aid of
   the Italians, with the promise of restoring to them the lands
   of which they had been dispossessed by Sulla's veterans.
{2686}
   With the aid of M. Junius Brutus, who commanded in the
   Cisalpine, he made an inroad into Etruria, and called upon the
   remnant of its people, who had been decimated by Sulla, to
   rise against the faction of their oppressors. The senate, now
   thoroughly alarmed, charged Catulus with its defence; the
   veterans, restless and dissatisfied with their fields and
   farms, crowded to the standard of Pompeius. Two Roman armies
   met near the Milvian bridge, a few miles to the north of the
   city, and Lepidus received a check, which was again and again
   repeated, till he was driven to flee into Sardinia, and there
   perished shortly afterwards of fever. Pompeius pursued Brutus
   into the Cisalpine. … The remnant of [Lepidus'] troops was
   carried over to Spain by Perperna, and there swelled the
   forces of an abler leader of the same party, Q. Sertorius."
   Sertorius had established himself strongly in Spain, and
   aspired to the founding of an independent state; but after a
   prolonged struggle he was overcome by Pompeius and
   assassinated by traitors in his own ranks.

"Pompeius had thus recovered a great province for the republic at the moment when it seemed on the point of being lost through the inefficiency of one of the senatorial chiefs. Another leader of the dominant party was about to yield him another victory. A war was raging in the heart of Italy. A body of gladiators had broken away from their confinement at Capua under the lead of Spartacus, a Thracian captive, had seized a large quantity of arms, and had made themselves a retreat or place of defence in the crater of Mount Vesuvius. …

The consuls were directed to lead the legions against them, but were ignominiously defeated [B. C. 72]. In the absence of Pompeius in Spain and of Lucullus in the East, M. Crassus was the most prominent among the chiefs of the party in power. This illustrious noble was a man of great influence, acquired more by his wealth, for which he obtained the surname of Dives, than for any marked ability in the field or in the forum; but he had a large following of clients and dependents, who … now swelled the cry for placing a powerful force under his orders, and entrusting to his hands the deliverance of Italy. The brigands themselves were becoming demoralized by lack of discipline. Crassus drove them before him to the extremity of the peninsula. … Spartacus could only save a remnant of them by furiously breaking through the lines of his assailants. This brave gladiator was still formidable, and it was feared that Rome itself might be exposed to his desperate attack. The senate sent importunate messages to recall both Pompeius and Lucullus to its defence. … Spartacus had now become an easy prey, and the laurels were quickly won with which Pompeius was honoured by his partial countrymen. Crassus was deeply mortified, and the senate itself might feel some alarm at the redoubled triumphs of a champion of whose loyalty it was not secure. But the senatorial party had yet another leader, and a man of more ability than Crassus, at the head of another army. The authority of Pompeius in the western provinces was balanced in the East by that of L. Licinius Lucullus, who commanded the forces of the republic in the struggle which she was still maintaining against Mithridates. … The military successes of Lucullus fully justified the choice of the government." He expelled Mithridates from all the dominions which he claimed and drove him to take refuge with the king of Armenia. "The kingdom of Armenia under Tigranes III. was at the height of its power when Clodius, the brother-in-law of Lucullus, then serving under him, was despatched to the royal residence at Tigranocerta to demand the surrender of Mithridates. … The capital of Armenia was well defended by its position among the mountains and the length and severity of its winter season. It was necessary to strike once for all [B. C. 61)]. Lucullus had a small but well-trained and well-appointed army of veterans. Tigranes surrounded and encumbered himself with a vast cloud of undisciplined barbarians, the flower of whom, consisting of 17,000 mailed cavalry, however formidable in appearance, made but a feeble resistance to the dint of the Roman spear and broadsword. When their ranks were broken they fell back upon the inert masses behind them, and threw them into hopeless confusion. Tigranes made his escape with dastardly precipitation. A bloody massacre ensued. … In the following year Lucullus advanced his posts still further eastward. … But a spirit of discontent or lassitude had crept over his own soldiers. … He was constrained to withdraw from the siege of Artaxata, the furthest stronghold of Tigranes, on the banks of the Araxes, and after crowning his victories with a successful assault upon Nisibis, he gave the signal for retreat, leaving the destruction of Mithridates still unaccomplished. Meanwhile the brave proconsul's enemies were making head against him at Rome."

Lucullus "wished to consummate the ruin of Tigranes, and afterwards to carry his arms to Parthia. He had not this perilous glory. Hitherto, his principal means of success had been to conciliate the people, by restraining the avidity both of his soldiers and of the Italian publicans. The first refused to pursue a war which only enriched the general; the second wrote to Rome, where the party of knights was every day regaining its ancient ascendancy. They accused of rapacity him who had repressed theirs. All were inclined to believe, in short, that Lucullus had drawn enormous sums from the towns which he preserved from the soldiers and publicans. They obtained the appointment of a successor, and by this change the fruit of this conquest was in a great measure lost. Even before Lucullus had quitted Asia, Mithridates re-entered Pontus, invaded Cappadocia, and leagued himself more closely with the pirates."

"It was imagined at Rome that Mithridates was as good as conquered, and that a new province of Bithynia and Pontus was awaiting organisation. … Ten commissioners as usual had been despatched to assist. … Lucullus had hoped before their arrival to strike some blow to recover his losses; but Marcius Rex had refused his appeal for help from Cilicia, and his own troops had … declined to march … when they learnt that the command was about to pass from Lucullus to Glabrio."

G. Long, Decline of the Roman Republic, volume 2, chapters 30-33, and volume 3, chapters 1-5.

ROME: B. C. 69-63.
   The drift towards revolution.
   Pompeius in the East.
   His extraordinary commission.
   His enlargement of the Roman dominions.
   His power.
   Ambitions and projects of Cæsar.
   Consulship of Cicero.

"To a superficial observer, at the close of the year 70 B. C., it might possibly have seemed that the Republic had been given a new lease of life. … And, indeed, for two or three years this promising condition of things continued. The years 69 and 68 B. C. must have been tolerably quiet ones, for our authorities have very little to tell us of them. … Had a single real statesman appeared on the scene at this moment, or even if the average senator or citizen had been possessed of some honesty and insight, it was not impossible that the government might have been carried on fairly well even under republican forms. But there was no leading statesman of a character suited to raise the whole tone of politics; and there was no general disposition on the part of either Senate or people to make the best of the lull in the storm, to repair damages, or to set the ship on her only true course. So the next few years show her fast drifting in the direction of revolution; and the current that bore her was not a local one, or visible to the eye of the ordinary Roman, but one of world-wide force, whose origin and direction could only be perceived by the highest political intelligence. It was during these years that Cæsar was quietly learning the business of government, both at home and in the provinces. … Cæsar was elected quæstor in 69 B. C., and served the office in the following year. It fell to him to begin his acquaintance with government in the province of Further Spain, and thus began his lifelong connection with the peoples of the West. … On his return to Rome, which must have taken place about the beginning of 67 B. C., Cæsar was drawn at once into closer connection with the man who, during the next twenty years, was to be his friend, his rival, and his enemy. Pompeius was by this time tired of a quiet life. … Both to him and his friends, it seemed impossible to be idle any longer. There was real and abundant reason for the employment of the ablest soldier of the day. The audacity of the pirates was greater than ever.

Lucullus, too, in Asia, had begun to meet with disasters, and was unable, with his troops in a mutinous temper, to cope with the combined forces of the kings of Armenia and Pontus. … In this year, 67 B. C., a bill was proposed by a tribune, Gabinius, in the assembly of the plebs, in spite of opposition in the Senate, giving Pompeius exactly that extensive power against the pirates which he himself desired, and which was really necessary if the work was to be done swiftly and completely. He was to have exclusive command for three years over the whole Mediterranean, and over the resources of the provinces and dependent states. For fifty miles inland in every province bordering on these seas—i. e., in the whole Empire—he was to exercise an authority equal to that of the existing provincial governor. He was to have almost unlimited means of raising both fleets and armies, and was to nominate his own staff of twenty·five 'legati' (lieutenant-generals), who were all to have the rank of prætor. Nor was this all; for it was quite understood that this was only part of a plan which was to place him at the head of the armies in Asia Minor, superseding the able but now discredited Lucullus. In fact, by another law of Gabinius, Lucullus was recalled, and his command given to one of the consuls of the year, neither of whom, as was well known, was likely to wield it with the requisite ability. whichever consul it might be, he would only be recognised as keeping the place warm for Pompeius. … Pompeius left Rome in the spring of 67 B. C., rapidly cleared the seas of piracy, and in the following year superseded Lucullus in the command of the war against Mithridates [with the powers given him by the Gabinian Law prolonged and extended by another, known as the Manilian Law]. He did not return till the beginning of 61 B. C. At first sight it might seem as though his absence should have cleared the air, and left the political leaders at Rome a freer hand. But the power and the resources voted him, and the unprecedented success with which he used them, made him in reality as formidable to the parties at home as he was to the peoples of the East. He put an end at last to the power of Mithridates, received the submission of Tigranes of Armenia, and added to the Roman dominion the greater part of the possessions of both these kings. The sphere of Roman influence now for the first time reached the river Euphrates, and the Empire was brought into contact with the great Parthian kingdom beyond it. Asia Minor became wholly Roman, with the exception of some part of the interior, which obedient kinglets were allowed to retain. Syria was made a Roman province. Pompeius took Jerusalem, and added Judæa to Syria. …

The man to whom all this was due became at once the leading figure in the world. It became clear that when his career of conquest was over yet another task would devolve on him, if he chose to accept it—the re-organisation of the central government at Rome. … His gathered power overhung the state like an avalanche ready to fall; and in the possible path of an avalanche it is waste of time and labour to build any solid work. So these years, for Cæsar as for the rest, are years of plotting and intrigue on one side, and of half-hearted government on the other. … He was elected to the curule-ædileship—the next above the quæstorship in the series of magistracies—and entered on his office on January 1, 65 B. C. … Cæsar's political connection with Crassus at this time is by no means clear. The two were sailing the same course, and watching Pompeius with the same anxiety; but there could not have been much in common between them, and they were in fact rapidly getting in each other's way. The great money-lender, however, must have been in the main responsible for the enormous expenditure which Cæsar risked in this ædileship and the next three years. … At the close of the year 64 B. C., on the accession to office of a new board of tribunes, … an agrarian bill on a vast scale was promulgated by the tribune Servilius Rullus. {2688} The two most startling features of this were: first, the creation of a board of ten to carry out its provisions, each member of which was to be invested with military and judicial powers like those of the consuls and prætors; and secondly, the clauses which entrusted this board with enormous financial resources, to be raised by the public sale of all the territories and property acquired since the year 88 B. C., together with the booty and revenues now in the hands of Pompeius. The bill included, as its immediate object, a huge scheme of colonisation for Italy, on the lines of the Gracchan agrarian bills. … But it was really an attack on the weak fortress of senatorial government, in order to turn out its garrison, and occupy and fortify it in the name of the democratic or Marian party, against the return of the new Sulla, which was now thought to be imminent. The bill may also have had another and secondary object—namely, to force the hand of the able and ambitious consul [Cicero] who would come into office on January 1, 63; at any rate it succeeded in doing this, though it succeeded in nothing else. Cicero's great talents, and the courage and skill with which he had so far for the most part used them, had made him already a considerable power in Rome; but no one knew for certain to which party he would finally attach himself. … On the very first day of his office he attacked the bill in the Senate and exposed its real intention, and showed plainly that his policy was to convert Pompeius into a pillar of the constitution, and to counteract all democratic plots directed against him. … Whether it was his eloquence, or the people's indifference, that caused the bill to be dropped, can only be matter of conjecture; but it was withdrawn at once by its proposer, and the whole scheme fell through. This was Cicero's first and only real victory over Cæsar. … It was about this time, in the spring of 63 B. C., that the office of Pontifex Maximus became vacant by the death of old Metellus Pius, and Cæsar at once took steps to secure it for himself. The chances in his favour were small, but the prize was a tempting one. Success would place him at the head of the whole Roman religious system. … He was eligible, for he had already been for several years one of the college of pontifices, but as the law of election stood, a man so young and so democratic would have no chance against candidates like the venerable conservative leader Catulus, and Cæsar's own old commander in the East, Servilius Isauricus, both of whom were standing. Sulla's law, which placed the election in the hands of the college itself—a law framed expressly to exclude persons of Cæsar's stamp—must be repealed, and the choice vested once more in the people. The useful tribune Labienus was again set to work, the law was passed, and on March 6th Cæsar was elected by a large majority. … The latter part of this memorable year was occupied with a last and desperate attempt of the democratic party to possess themselves of the state power while there was yet time to forestall Pompeius. This is the famous conspiracy of Catilina; it was an attack of the left wing on the senatorial position, and the real leaders of the democracy took no open or active part in it."

The conspiracy organized against the senatorial government of Rome by L. Sergius Catilina, B. C. 63, owes much of its prominence in Roman history to the preservation of the great speeches in which Cicero exposed it, and by which he rallied the Roman people to support him in putting it down. Cicero was consul that year, and the official responsibility of the government was on his shoulders. The central conspirators were a desperate, disreputable clique of men, who had everything to gain and nothing to lose by revolution. Behind them were all the discontents and malignant tempers of demoralized and disorganized Rome; and still behind these were suspected to be, darkly hidden, the secret intrigues of men like Cæsar and Crassus, who watched and waited for the expiring breath of the dying republic. Cicero, having made a timely discovery of the plot, managed the disclosure of it with great adroitness and won the support of the people to his proceedings against the conspirators. Catiline made his escape from Rome and placed himself' at the head of a small army which his supporters had raised in Etruria; but he and it were both destroyed in the single battle fought. Five of his fellow-conspirators were hastily put to death without trial, by being strangled in the Tullianum.

ROME: B. C. 63-58.
   Increasing disorders in the capital.
   The wasted opportunities of Pompeius.
   His alliance with Cæsar and Crassus.
   The First Triumvirate.
   Cæsar's consulship.
   His appointment to the command in Cisalpine Gaul.
   Exile of Cicero.

"Recent events had fully demonstrated the impotence of both the Senate and the democratic party; neither was strong enough to defeat the other or to govern the State. There was no third party—no class remaining out of which a government might be erected; the only alternative was monarchy—the rule of a single person. Who the monarch would be was still uncertain; though, at the present moment, Pompeius was clearly the only man in whose power it lay to take up the crown that offered itself. … For the moment the question which agitated all minds was whether Pompeius would accept the gift offered him by fortune, or would retire and leave the throne vacant. … In the autumn of 63 B. C. Quintus Metellus Nepos arrived in the capital from the camp of Pompeius, and got himself elected tribune with the avowed purpose of procuring for Pompeius the command against Catilina by special decree, and afterwards the consulship for 61 B. C. … The aristocracy at once showed their hostility to the proposals of Metellus, and Cato had himself elected tribune expressly for the purpose of thwarting him. But the democrats were more pliant, and it was soon evident that they had come to a cordial understanding with the general's emissary. Metellus and his master both adopted the democratic view of the illegal executions [of the Catilinarians]; and the first act of Cæsar's prætorship was to call Catulus to account for the moneys alleged to have been embezzled by him in rebuilding the Capitoline temple and to transfer the superintendence of the works to Pompeius. … On the day of voting, Cato and another of the tribunes put their veto upon the proposals of Metellus, who disregarded it. {2689} There were conflicts of the armed bands of both sides, which terminated in favour of the government. The Senate followed up the victory by suspending Metellus and Cæsar from their offices. Metellus immediately departed for the camp of Pompeius; and when Cæsar disregarded the decree of suspension against himself, the Senate had ultimately to revoke it. Nothing could have been more favourable to the interests of Pompeius than these late events. After the illegal executions of the Catilinarians, and the acts of violence against Metellus, he 'could appear at once as the defender of the two palladia of Roman liberty'—the right of appeal, and the inviolability of the tribunate,—and as the champion of the party of order against the Catilinarian band. But his courage was unequal to the emergency; he lingered in Asia during the winter of 63-62 B. C., and thus gave the Senate time to crush the insurrection in Italy, and deprived himself of a valid pretext for keeping his legions together. In the autumn of 62 B. C. he landed at Brundisium, and, disbanding his army, proceeded to Rome with a small escort. On his arrival in the city in 61 B. C. he found himself in a position of complete isolation; he was feared by the democrats, hated by the aristocracy, and distrusted by the wealthy class. He at once demanded for himself a second consulship, the confirmation of all his acts in the East, and the fulfilment of the promise he had made to his soldiers to furnish them with lands. But each of these demands was met with the most determined opposition. … His promise of lands to his soldiers was indeed ratified, but not executed, and no steps were taken to provide the necessary funds and lands. … From this disagreeable position, Pompeius was rescued by the sagacity and address of Cæsar, who saw in the necessities of Pompeius the opportunity of the democratic party. Ever since the return of Pompeius, Cæsar had grown rapidly in influence and weight. He had been prætor in 62 B. C., and, in 61, governor in Farther Spain, where he utilized his position to free himself from his debts, and to lay the foundation of the military position he desired for himself. Returning in 60 B. C., he readily relinquished his claim to a triumph, in order to enter the city in time to stand for the consulship. … It was quite possible that the aristocracy might be strong enough to defeat the candidature of Cæsar, as it had defeated that of Catilina; and again, the consulship was not enough; an extraordinary command, secured to him for several years, was necessary for the fulfilment of his purpose. Without allies such a command could not be hoped for; and allies were found where they had been found ten years before, in Pompeius and Crassus, and in the rich equestrian class. Such a treaty was suicide on the part of Pompeius; … but he had drifted into a situation so awkward that he was glad to be released from it on any terms. … The bargain was struck in the summer of 60 B. C. [forming what became known in Roman history as the First Triumvirate]. Cæsar was promised the consulship and a governorship afterwards; Pompeius, the ratification of his arrangements in the East, and land for his soldiers; Crassus received no definite equivalent, but the capitalists were promised a remission of part of the money they had undertaken to pay for the lease of the Asiatic taxes. … Cæsar was easily elected consul for 59 B. C. All that the exertions of the Senate could do was to give him an aristocratic colleague in Marcus Bibulus. Cæsar at once proceeded to fulfil his obligations to Pompeius by proposing an agrarian law. All remaining Italian domain land, which meant practically the territory of Capua, was to be given up to allotments, and other estates in Italy were to be purchased out of the revenues of the new Eastern provinces. The soldiers were simply recommended to the commission, and thus the principle of giving rewards of land for military service was not asserted. The execution of the bill was to be entrusted to a commission of twenty. … At length all these proposals were passed by the assembly [after rejection by the Senate], and the commission of twenty, with Pompeius and Crassus at their head, began the execution of the agrarian law. Now that the first victory was won, the coalition was able to carry out the rest of its programme without much difficulty. … It was determined by the confederates that Cæsar should be invested by decree of the people with a special command resembling that lately held by Pompeius. Accordingly the tribune Vatinius submitted to the tribes a proposal which was at once adopted. By it Cæsar obtained the governorship of Cisalpine Gaul, and the supreme command of the three legions stationed there, for five years, with the rank of proprætor for his adjutants. His jurisdiction extended southwards as far as the Rubicon, and included Luca and Ravenna. Subsequently the province of Narbo was added by the Senate, on the motion of Pompeius. … Cæsar had hardly laid down his consulship when it was proposed, in the Senate, to annul the Julian laws. …

The regents determined to make examples of some of the most determined of their opponents." Cicero was accordingly sent into exile, by a resolution of the tribes, and Cato was appointed to an odious public mission, which carried him out of the way, to Cyprus.

T. Mommsen, History of the Roman Republic, (abridged by Bryan and Hendy), chapter 33.

ROME: B. C. 57-52.
   Effect of Cæsar's Gallic victories.
   Return of Cicero from exile.
   New arrangements of the Triumvirs.
   Cæsar's Proconsulship extended.
   The Trebonian Law.
   Disaster and death of Crassus at Carrhæ.
   Increasing anarchy in the city.

"In Rome the enemies of Cæsar … were awed into silence [by his victorious career in Gaul], and the Senate granted the unprecedented honour of fifteen days' 'supplicatio' to the gods for the brilliant successes in Gaul. Among the supporters of this motion was, as Cæsar learnt in the winter from the magistrates and senators who came to pay court to him at Ravenna, M. Tullius Cicero. From the day of his exile the efforts to secure his return had begun, but it was not until the 4th of August that the Senate, led by the consul, P. Lentulus Spinther, carried the motion for his return, in spite of the violence of the armed gang of Clodius, and summoned all the country tribes to crowd the comitia on Campus Martius, and ratify the senatus consultum. {2690} The return of the great orator to the country which he had saved in the terrible days of 63 B. C. was more like a triumph than the entrance of a pardoned criminal. … But he had come back on sufferance; the great Three must be conciliated. … Cicero, like many other optimates in Rome, was looking for the beginnings of a breach between Pompeius, Crassus and Cæsar, and was anxious to nourish any germs of opposition to the triple-headed monarchy. He pleaded against Cæsar's friend Vatinius, and he gave notice of a motion for checking the action of the agrarian law in Campania. But these signs of an independent opposition were suddenly terminated by a humiliating recantation; for before entering upon his third campaign Cæsar crossed the Apennines, and appeared at the Roman colony of Lucca. … Two hundred senators crowded to the rendezvous, but arrangements were made by the Three very independently of Senate in Rome or Senate in Lucca. It was agreed that Pompeius and Crassus should hold a joint consulship again next year, and before the expiration of Cæsar's five years they were to secure his reappointment for another five. … Unfortunate Cicero was awed, and in his other speeches of this year tried to win the favor of the great men by supporting their proposed provincial arrangements, and pleading in defence of Cæsar's friend and protege, L. Balbus." In the year 55 B. C. the Trebonian Law was passed, "which gave to Crassus and Pompeius, as proconsular provinces, Syria and Spain, for the extraordinary term of five years. In this repeated creation of extraordinary powers in favor of the coalition of dynasts, Cato rightly saw an end of republican institutions. … Crassus … started in 54 B. C., at the head of seven legions, in face of the combined opposition of tribunes and augurs, to secure the eastern frontier of Roman dominion by vanquishing the Parthian power, which, reared on the ruins of the kingdom of the Seleucids, was now supreme in Ctesiphon and Seleucia. Led into the desert by the Arab Sheikh Abgarus, acting as a traitor, the Roman army was surrounded by the fleet Parthian horsemen, who could attack and retreat, shooting their showers of missiles all the time. In the blinding sand and sun of the desert near Carrhæ [on the river Belik, one of the branches of the Euphrates, the supposed site of the Haran of Biblical history], Crassus experienced a defeat which took its rank with Cannæ and the Arausio. A few days afterwards (June 9th, 53 B. C.) he was murdered in a conference to which the commander of the Parthian forces invited him. … The shock of this event went through the Roman world, and though Cassius, the lieutenant of Crassus, retrieved the honour of the Roman arms against the Parthians in the following year, that agile people remained to the last unconquered, and the Roman boundary was never to advance further to the east. Crassus, then, was dead, and Pompeius, though he lent Cæsar a legion at the beginning of the year, was more ready to assume the natural antagonism to Cæsar, since the death of his wife Julia in September, 54 B. C., had broken a strong tie with his father-in-law. Further, the condition of the capital seemed reaching a point of anarchy at which Pompeius, as the only strong man on the spot, would have to be appointed absolute dictator. In 53 B. C. no consuls could, in the violence and turmoil of the comitia, be elected until July, and the year closed without any elections having taken place for 52 B. C. T. Annius Milo, who was a candidate for the consulship, and P. Clodius, who was seeking the prætorship, turned every street of Rome into a gladiatorial arena." In January Clodius was killed. "Pompeius was waiting in his new gardens near the Porta Carmentalis, until a despairing government should invest him with dictatorial power; he was altogether too timid and too constitutional to seize it. But with Cato in Rome no one dared mention the word dictator. Pompeius, disappointed, was named sole consul on the 4th of February [B. C. 52], and by July he had got as his colleague his new father-in-law, Metellus."

ROME: B. C. 52-50.
   Rivalry of Pompeius and Cæsar.
   Approach of the crisis.
   Cæsar's legions in motion towards the capital.

"Cæsar had long ago resolved upon the overthrow of Pompey, as had Pompey, for that matter, upon his. For Crassus, the fear of whom had hitherto kept them in peace, having now been killed in Parthia, if the one of them wished to make himself the greatest man in Rome, he had only to overthrow the other; and if he again wished to prevent his own fall, he had nothing for it but to be beforehand with him whom he feared. Pompey had not been long under any such apprehensions, having till lately despised Cæsar, as thinking it no difficult matter to put down him whom he himself had advanced. But Cæsar had entertained this design from the beginning against his rivals, and had retired, like an expert wrestler, to prepare himself apart for the combat. Making the Gallic wars his exercise-ground, he had at once improved the strength of his soldiery, and had heightened his own glory by his great actions, so that he was looked on as one who might challenge comparison with Pompey. Nor did he let go any of those advantages which were now given him, both by Pompey himself and the times, and the ill government of Rome, where all who were candidates for office publicly gave money, and without any shame bribed the people, who, having received their pay, did not contend for their benefactors with their bare suffrages, but with bows, swords and slings. So that after having many times stained the place of election with the blood of men killed upon the spot, they left the city at last without a government at all, to be carried about like a ship without a pilot to steer her; while all who had any wisdom could only be thankful if a course of such wild and stormy disorder and madness might end no worse than in a monarchy. Some were so bold as to declare openly that the government was incurable but by a monarchy, and that they ought to take that remedy from the hands of the gentlest physician, meaning Pompey, who, though in words he pretended to decline it, yet in reality made his utmost efforts to be declared dictator. {2691} Cato, perceiving his design, prevailed with the Senate to make him sole consul [B. C. 52], that with the offer of a more legal sort of monarchy he might be withheld from demanding the dictatorship. They over and above voted him the continuance of his provinces, for he had two, Spain and all Africa, which he governed by his lieutenants, and maintained armies under him, at the yearly charge of a thousand talents out of the public treasury. Upon this Cæsar also sent and petitioned for the consulship, and the continuance of his provinces. Pompey at first did not stir in it, but Marcellus and Lentulus opposed it, who had always hated Cæsar, and now did everything, whether fit or unfit, which might disgrace and affront him. For they took away the privilege of Roman citizens from the people of New Comum, who were a colony that Cæsar had lately planted in Gaul; and Marcellus, who was then consul, ordered one of the senators of that town, then at Rome, to be whipped [B. C. 51], and told him he laid that mark upon him to signify he was no citizen of Rome, bidding him, when he went back again, to show it to Cæsar. After Marcellus's consulship, Cæsar began to lavish gifts upon all the public men out of the riches he had taken from the Gauls; discharged Curio, the tribune, from his great debts; gave Paulus, then consul, 1,500 talents, with which he built the noble court of justice adjoining the forum, to supply the place of that called the Fulvian. Pompey, alarmed at these preparations, now openly took steps, both by himself and his friends, to have a successor appointed in Cæsar's room, and sent to demand back the soldiers whom he had lent him to carry on the wars in Gaul. Cæsar returned them, and made each soldier a present of 250 drachmas. The officer who brought them home to Pompey, spread amongst the people no very fair or favorable report of Cæsar, and flattered Pompey himself with false suggestions that he was wished for by Cæsar's army; and though his affairs here were in some embarrassment through the envy of some, and the ill state of the government, yet there the army was at his command, and if they once crossed into Italy, would presently declare for him; so weary were they of Cæsar's endless expeditions, and so suspicious of his designs for a monarchy. Upon this Pompey grew presumptuous, and neglected all warlike preparations, as fearing no danger. … Yet the demands which Cæsar made had the fairest colors of equity imaginable. For he proposed to lay down his arms, and that Pompey should do the same, and both together should become private men, and each expect a reward of his services from the public. For that those who proposed to disarm him, and at the same time to confirm Pompey in all the power he held, were simply establishing the one in the tyranny which they accused the other of aiming at. When Curio made these proposals to the people in Cæsar's name, he was loudly applauded, and some threw garlands towards him, and dismissed him as they do successful wrestlers, crowned with flowers. Antony, being tribune, produced a letter sent from Cæsar on this occasion, and read it, though the consuls did what they could to oppose it. But Scipio, Pompey's father-in-law, proposed in the Senate, that if Cæsar did not lay down his arms within such a time, he should be voted an enemy; and the consuls putting it to the question, whether Pompey should dismiss his soldiers, and again, whether Cæsar should disband his, very few assented to the first, but almost all to the latter. But Antony proposing again, that both should lay down their commissions, all but a very few agreed to it. Scipio was upon this very violent, and Lentulus the consul cried aloud, that they had need of arms, and not of suffrages, against a robber; so that the senators for the present adjourned, and appeared in mourning as a mark of their grief for the dissension. Afterwards there came other letters from Cæsar, which seemed yet more moderate, for he proposed to quit everything else, and only to retain Gaul within the Alps, Illyricum, and two legions, till he should stand a second time for consul. Cicero, the orator, who was lately returned from Cilicia, endeavored to reconcile differences, and softened Pompey, who was willing to comply in other things, but not to allow him the soldiers. At last Cicero used his persuasions with Cæsar's friends to accept of the provinces and 6,000 soldiers only, and so to make up the quarrel. And Pompey was inclined to give way to this, but Lentulus, the consul, would not hearken to it, but drove Antony and Curio out of the senate-house with insults, by which he afforded Caesar [then at Ravenna] the most plausible pretence that could be, and one which he could readily use to inflame the soldiers, by showing them two persons of such repute and authority, who were forced to escape in a hired carriage in the dress of slaves. For so they were glad to disguise themselves, when they fled out of Rome. There were not about him at that time [November, B. C. 50] above 300 horse, and 5,000 foot: for the rest of his army, which was left behind the Alps, was to be brought after him by officers who had received orders for that purpose. But he thought the first motion towards the design which he had on foot did not require large forces at present, and that what was wanted was to make this first step suddenly, and so as to astound his enemies with the boldness of it. … Therefore, he commanded his captains and other officers to go only with their swords in their hands, without any other arms, and make themselves masters of Ariminum, a large city cf Gaul, with as little disturbance and bloodshed as possible. He committed the care of these forces to Hortensius, and himself spent the day in public as a stander-by and spectator of the gladiators, who exercised before him. A little before night he attended to his person, and then went into the hall, and conversed for some time with those he had invited to supper, till it began to grow dusk, when he rose from table, and made his excuses to the company, begging them to stay till he came back, having already given private directions to a few immediate friends, that they should follow him, not all the same way, but some one way, some another. He himself got into one of the hired carriages, and drove at first another way, but presently turned towards Ariminum."

ROME: B. C. 50-49.
   Cæsar's passage of the Rubicon.
   Flight of Pompeius and the Consuls from Italy.
   Cæsar at the capital.

"About ten miles from Ariminum, and twice that distance from Ravenna, the frontier of Italy and Gaul was traced by the stream of the Rubicon. This little river, red with the drainage of the peat mosses from which it descends [and evidently deriving its name from its color], is formed by the union of three mountain torrents, and is nearly dry in the summer, like most of the water courses on the eastern side of the Appenines. In the month of November the winter flood might present a barrier more worthy of the important position which it once occupied; but the northern frontier of Italy had long been secure from invasion, and the channel was spanned by a bridge of no great dimensions. … The ancients amused themselves with picturing the guilty hesitation with which the founder of a line of despots stood, as they imagined, on the brink of the fatal river [in the night of the 27th of November, B. C. 50, corrected calendar, or January 15, B. C. 49, without the correction], and paused for an instant before he committed the irrevocable act, pregnant with the destinies of a long futurity. Cæsar, indeed, in his Commentaries, makes no allusion to the passage of the Rubicon, and, at the moment of stepping on the bridge, his mind was probably absorbed in the arrangements he had made for the march of his legions or for their reception by his friends in Ariminum."

After the crossing of the Rubicon there were still more, messages between Cæsar and Pompey, and the consuls supporting the latter. "Each demands that the other shall first abandon his position. Of course, all these messages mean nothing. Cæsar, complaining bitterly of injustice, sends a portion of his small army still farther into the Roman territory. Marc Antony goes to Arezzo with five cohorts, and Cæsar occupies three other cities with a cohort each. The marvel is that he was not attacked and driven back by Pompey. We may probably conclude that the soldiers, though under the command of Pompey, were not trustworthy as against Cæsar. As Cæsar regrets his two legions, so no doubt do the two legions regret their commander. At any rate, the consular forces, with Pompey and the consuls and a host of senators, retreat southwards to Brundusium—Brindisi—intending to leave Italy. … During this retreat, the first blood in the civil war is spilt at Corfinium, a town which, if it now stood at all, would stand in the Abruzzi. Cæsar there is victor in a small engagement, and obtained possession of the town. The Pompeian officers whom he finds there he sends away, and allows them even to carry with them money which he believes to have been taken from the public treasury. Throughout his route southward the soldiers of Pompey—who had heretofore been his soldiers—return to him. Pompey and the consuls still retreat, and still Cæsar follows them, though Pompey had boasted, when first warned to beware of Cæsar, that he had only to stamp upon Italian soil and legions would arise from the earth ready to obey him. He knows, however, that away from Rome, in her provinces, in Macedonia and Achaia, in Asia and Cilicia, in Sicily, Sardinia, and Africa, in Mauritania and the two Spains, there are Roman legions which as yet know no Cæsar. It may be better for Pompey that he should stamp his foot somewhere out of Italy. At any rate he sends the obedient consuls and his attendant senators over to Dyrrhachium in Illyria with a part of his army, and follows with the remainder as soon as Cæsar is at his heels. Cæsar makes an effort to intercept him and his fleet, but in that he fails. Thus Pompey deserts Rome and Italy,—and never again sees the imperial city or the fair land. Cæsar explains to us why he does not follow his enemy and endeavour at once to put an end to the struggle. Pompey is provided with shipping and he is not; and he is aware that the force of Rome lies in her provinces. Moreover, Rome may be starved by Pompey, unless he, Cæsar, can take care that the corn-growing countries, which are the granaries of Rome, are left free for the use of the city."

Turning back from Brundisium, Cæsar proceeded to Rome to take possession of the seat of government which his enemies had abandoned to him. He was scrupulous of legal forms, and, being a proconsul, holding military command, did not enter the city in person. But he called together, outside of the walls, such of the senators as were in Rome and such as could be persuaded to return to the city, and obtained their formal sanction to various acts. Among the measures so authorized was the appropriation of the sacred treasure stored up in the vaults of the temple of Saturn. It was a consecrated reserve, to be used for no purpose except the repelling of a Gallic invasion which had been, for many generations, the greatest dread of Rome. Cæsar claimed it, because he had put an end to that fear, by conquering the Gauls. His stay at Rome on this occasion (April, B. C. 49) was brief, for he needed to make haste to encounter the Pompeian legions in Spain, and to secure the submission of all the west before he followed Pompeius into the Eastern world.

ROME: B. C. 49.
Cæsar's first campaign against the Pompeians in Spain.
His conquest of Massilia.

   In Spain, all the strong forces of the country were commanded
   by partisans of Pompeius and the Optimate party. Cæsar had
   already sent forward C. Fabius from Southern Gaul with three
   legions, to take possession of the passes of the Pyrenees and
   the principal Spanish roads. Following quickly in person, he
   found that his orders had been vigorously obeyed. Fabius was
   confronting the Pompeian generals, Afranius and Petreius at
   Ilerda (modern Lerida in Catalonia), on the river Sicoris
   (modern Segre), where they made their stand. They had five
   legions of well-trained veterans, besides native auxiliaries
   to a considerable number. Cæsar's army, with the
   reinforcements that he had added to it, was about the same.
   The Pompeians had every advantage of position, commanding the
   passage of the river by a permanent bridge of stone and
   drawing supplies from both banks. Cæsar, on the other hand,
   had great difficulty in maintaining his communications, and
   was placed in mortal peril by a sudden flood which destroyed
   his bridges. Yet, without any general battle, by pure
   strategic skill and by resistless energy, he forced the
   hostile army out of its advantageous position, intercepted its
   retreat and compelled an unconditional surrender. This Spanish
   campaign, which occupied but forty days, and which was
   decisive of the contest for all Spain, was one of the finest
   of Cæsar's military achievements.
{2693}
   The Greek city of Massilia (modern Marseilles), still
   nominally independent and the ally of Rome, although
   surrounded by the Roman conquests in Gaul, had seen fit to
   range itself on the side of Pompeius and the Optimates, and to
   close its gates in the face of Cæsar, when he set out for his
   campaign in Spain. He had not hesitated to leave three legions
   of his moderate army before the city, while he ordered a fleet
   to be built at Arelates (Arles), for coöperation in the siege.
   Decimus Brutus commanded the fleet and Trebonius was the
   general of the land force. The siege was made notable by
   remarkable engineering operations on both sides, but the
   courage of the Massiliots was of no long endurance. When Cæsar
   returned from his Spanish campaign he found them ready to
   surrender. Notwithstanding they had been guilty of a great act
   of treachery during the siege, by breaking an armistice, he
   spared their city, on account, he said, of its name and
   antiquity. His soldiers, who had expected rich booty, were
   offended, and a dangerous mutiny, which occurred soon
   afterwards at Placentia, had this for its main provocation.

      Cæsar,
      The Civil War,
      book 1, chapters 36-81,
      and book 2, chapters 1-22.

ROME: B. C. 48.
The war in Epirus and Thessaly.
Cæsar's decisive victory at Pharsalia.

Having established his authority in Italy, Gaul and Spain, and having legalized it by procuring from the assembly of the Roman citizens his formal election to the consulship, for the year A. U. 706 (B. C. 48), Cæsar prepared to follow Pompeius and the Senatorial party across the Adriatic. As the calendar then stood, it was in January that he arrived at Brundisium to take ship; but the season corresponded with November in the calendar as Cæsar, himself, corrected it soon afterwards. The vessels at his command were so few that he could transport only 15,500 of his troops on the first expedition, and it was with that number that he landed at Palæste on the coast of Epirus. The sea was swarming with the fleets of his enemies, and, although he escaped them in going, his small squadron was caught on the return voyage and many of its ships destroyed. Moreover, the Pompeian cruisers became so vigilant that the second detachment of his army, left behind at Brundisium, under Marcus Antonius, found no opportunity to follow him until the winter had nearly passed. Meantime, with his small force, Cæsar proceeded boldly into Macedonia to confront Pompeius, reducing fortresses and occupying towns as he marched. Although his great antagonist had been gathering troops in Macedonia for months, and now numbered an army of some 90,000 or 100,000 men, it was Cæsar, not Pompeius, who pressed for a battle, even before Mark Antony had joined him. As soon as the junction had occurred he pushed the enemy with all possible vigor. But Pompeius had no confidence in his untrained host. He drew his whole army into a strongly fortified, immense camp, on the sea coast near Dyrrhachium, at a point called Petra, and there he defied Cæsar to dislodge him. The latter undertook to wall him in on the land-side of his camp, by a line of ramparts and towers seventeen miles in length. It was an undertaking too great for his force. Pompeius made a sudden flank movement which disconcerted all his plans, and so defeated and demoralized his men that he was placed in extreme peril for a time. Had the Senatorial chief shown half of Cæsar's energy at that critical moment, the cause of Cæsar would probably have been lost. But Pompeius and his party took time to rejoice over their victory, while Cæsar framed plans to repair his defeat. He promptly abandoned his lines before the enemy's camp and fell back into the interior of the country, to form a junction with certain troops which he had previously sent eastward to meet reënforcements then coming to Pompeius. He calculated that Pompeius would follow him, and Pompeius did so. The result was to give Cæsar, at last, the opportunity he had been seeking for months, to confront with his tried legions the motley levies of his antagonist on an open field. The decisive and ever memorable battle was fought in Thessaly, on the plain of Pharsalia, through which flows the river Enipeus, and overlooking which, from a contiguous height, stood anciently the city of Pharsalus. It was fought on the 9th of August, in the year 48 before Christ. It was a battle quickly ended. The foot-soldiers of Pompeius out-numbered those of Cæsar at least as two to one; but they could not stand the charge which the latter made upon them. His cavalry was largely composed of the young nobility of Rome, and Cæsar had few horsemen with which to meet them; but he set against them a strong reserve of his sturdy veterans on foot, and they broke the horsemen's ranks. The defeat was speedily a rout; there was no rallying. Pompeius fled with a few attendants and made his way to Alexandria, where his tragical fate overtook him. Some of the other leaders escaped in different directions. Some, like Brutus, submitted to Cæsar, who was practically the master, from that hour, of the Roman realm, although Thapsus had still to be fought.

ROME: B. C. 48-47.
   Pursuit or Pompeius to Egypt.
   His assassination.
   Cæsar at Alexandria, with Cleopatra.
   The rising against him.
   His peril.
   His deliverance.

ROME: B. C. 47-46.
   Cæsar's overthrow or Pharnaces at Zela.
   His return to Rome.
   The last stand or his opponents in Africa.
   Their defeat at Thapsus.

   At the time when Cæsar was in a difficult position at
   Alexandria, and the subjects of Rome were generally uncertain
   as to whether their yoke would be broken or not by the pending
   civil war, Pharnaces, son of the vanquished Pontic king,
   Mithridates, made an effort to recover the lost kingdom of his
   father. He himself had been a traitor to his father, and had
   been rewarded for his treason by Pompeius, who gave him the
   small kingdom of Bosporus, in the Crimea. He now thought the
   moment favorable for regaining Pontus, Cappadocia and Lesser
   Armenia. Cæsar's lieutenant in Asia Minor, Domitius Calvinus,
   marched against him with a small force, and was badly defeated
   at Nicopolis (B. C. 48), in Armenia Minor.
{2694}
   As a consequence, Cæsar, on being extricated from Alexandria,
   could not return to Rome, although his affairs there sorely
   needed him, until he had restored the Roman authority in Asia
   Minor. As soon as he could reach Pharnaces, although his army
   was small in numbers, he struck and shattered the flimsy
   throne at a single blow. The battle was fought (B. C. 47) at
   Zela, in Pontus, where Mithridates had once gained a victory
   over the Romans. It was of this battle that Cæsar is said to
   have written his famous 'Veni, vidi, vici.' "Plutarch says
   that this expression was used in a letter to one Amintius; the
   name is probably a mistake. Suetonius asserts that the three
   words were inscribed on a banner and carried in Cæsar's
   triumph. Appian and Dion refer to them as notorious."

After defeating Pharnaces at Zela, destroying his army, "Cæsar passed on through Galatia and Bithynia to the province of Asia proper, settling affairs in every centre; and leaving the faithful Mithridates [of Pergamum—See ALEXANDRIA: B. C. 48-47] with the title of King of the Bosphorus, as a guarantee for the security of these provinces, he sailed for Italy, and arrived at Tarentum before anyone was aware of his approach. If he had really wasted time or lost energy in Egypt, he was making up for it now. On the way from Tarentum to Brundisium he met Cicero, who had been waiting for him here for nearly a year. He alighted, embraced his old friend, and walked with him some distance. The result of their talk was shown by Cicero's conduct for the rest of Cæsar's lifetime; he retired to his villas, and sought relief in literary work, encouraged doubtless by Cæsar's ardent praise. The magical effect of Cæsar's presence was felt throughout Italy; all sedition ceased, and Rome, which had been the scene of riot and bloodshed under the uncertain rule of Antonius, was quiet in an instant. The master spent three months in the city, working hard. He had been a second time appointed dictator while he was in Egypt, and probably without any limit of time, space or power; and he acted now without scruple as an absolute monarch. Everything that had to be done he saw to himself. Money was raised, bills were passed, the Senate recruited, magistrates and provincial governors appointed. But there was no time for any attempt at permanent organisation; he must wrest Africa from his enemies. … He quelled a most serious mutiny, in which even his faithful tenth legion was concerned, with all his wonderful skill and knowledge of human nature; sent on all available forces to Sicily, and arrived himself at Lilybæum in the middle of December."

The last stand of Cæsar's opponents as a party—the senatorial party, or the republicans, as they are sometimes called—was made in Africa, on the old Carthaginian territory, with the city of Utica for their headquarters, and with Juba, the Numidian king, for their active ally. Varus, who had held his ground there, defeating and slaying Cæsar's friend Curio, was joined first by Scipio, afterwards by Cato, Labienus and other leaders, Cato having led a wonderful march through the desert from the Lesser Syrtis. In the course of the year of respite from pursuit which Cæsar's occupations elsewhere allowed them, they gathered and organized a formidable army. It was near the end of the year 47 B. G. that Cæsar assembled his forces at Lilybæum, in Sicily, and sailed with the first detachment for Africa. As happened so often to him in his bold military adventures, the troops which should follow were delayed by storms, and he was exposed to imminent peril before they arrived. But he succeeded in fortifying and maintaining a position on the coast, near Ruspina, until they came. As soon as they reached him he offered battle to his adversaries, and found presently an opportunity to force the fighting upon them at Thapsus, a coast town in their possession, which he attacked. The battle was decided by the first charge of Cæsar's legionaries, which swept everything—foot-soldiers, cavalry and elephants —before it. The victors in their ferocity gave no quarter and slaughtered 10,000 of the enemy, while losing from their own ranks but fifty men. The decisive battle of Thapsus was fought on the 6th of April, B. C. 46, uncorrected calendar, or February 6th, as corrected later. Scipio, the commander, fled to Spain, was intercepted on the voyage, and ended his own life. The high-minded, stoical Cato committed suicide at Utica, rather than surrender his freedom to Cæsar. Juba, the Numidian king, likewise destroyed himself in despair; his kingdom was extinguished and Numidia became a Roman province. A few scattered leaders of revolt still disputed Cæsar's supremacy, but his power was firmly fixed.

ROME: B. C. 45:
Cæsar's last campaign against the Pompeians in Spain.
His victory at Munda.

After Thapsus, Cæsar had one more deadly and desperate battle to fight for his sovereignty over the dominions of Rome. Cnæus Pompeius, son of Pompeius Magnus, with Labienus and Varus, of the survivors of the African field, had found disaffection in Spain, out of which they drew an army, with Pompeius in command. Cæsar marched in person against this new revolt, crossing the Alps and the Pyrenees with his customary celerity. After a number of minor engagements had been fought, the decisive battle occurred at Munda, in the valley of the Guadalquiver (modern Munda, between Honda and Malaga), on the 17th of March, B. C. 45. "Never, it is said, was the great conqueror brought so near to defeat and destruction;" but he won the day in the end, and only Sextus Pompeius survived among the leaders of his enemies. The dead on the field were 30,000.

ROME: B. C. 45-44.
   The Sovereignty of Cæsar and his titles.
   His permanent Imperatorship.
   His unfulfilled projects.

"At Home, official enthusiasm burst forth anew at the tidings of these successes [in Spain]. The Senate decreed fifty days of supplications, and recognized Cæsar's right to extend the pomœrium, since he had extended the limits of the Empire. … After Thapsus he was more than a demi-god; after Munda he was a god altogether. A statue was raised to him in the temple of Quirinus with the inscription: 'To the invincible God,' and a college of priests, the Julian, was consecrated to him. … On the 18th September the dictator appeared at the gates of Rome, but he did not triumph till the beginning of October. {2695} This time there was no barbarian king or chieftain to veil the victories won over citizens. But Cæsar thought he had no longer need to keep up such consideration; since he was now the State, his enemies, whatever name they bore, must be enemies of the State. … It was expected that Cæsar, having suffered so many outrages, would now punish severely, and Cicero, who had always doubted his clemency, believed that tyranny would break out as soon as the tyrant was above fear. But jealousies, recollections of party strifes, did not reach to the height of Cæsar. … He restored the statues of Sylla; he replaced that of Pompey on the rostra. … He pardoned Cassius, who had tried to assassinate him, the consularis Marcellus who had stirred up war against him, and Quintus Ligarius who had betrayed him in Africa. As a temporary precaution, however, he forbade to the Pompeians, by a 'lex Hirtia,' admission to the magistracy. For his authority, Cæsar sought no new forms. … Senate, comitia, magistracies existed as before; but he centred public action in himself alone by combining in his own hands all the republican offices. The instrument which Cæsar used in order to give to his power legal sanction was the Senate. In former times, the general, after the triumph; laid aside his title of imperator and imperium, which included absolute authority over the army, the judicial department and the administrative power; Cæsar, by a decree of the Senate, retained both during life, with the right of drawing freely from the treasury. His dictatorship and his office of præfectus morum were declared perpetual; the consulship was offered him for ten years, but he would not accept it; the Senate wished to join executive to electoral authority by offering him the right of appointment in all curule and plebeian offices; he reserved for himself merely the privilege of nominating half the magistracy. The Senate had enjoined the members chosen to swear, before entering on office, that they would undertake nothing contrary to the dictator's acts, these having the force of law. Further, they gave to his person the legal inviolability of the tribunes, and in order to ensure it, knights and senators offered to serve as guards, while the whole Senate took an oath to watch over his safety. To the reality of power were added the outward signs. In the Senate, at the theatre, in the circus, on his tribunal, he sat, dressed in the royal robe, on a throne of gold, and his effigy was stamped on the coins, where the Roman magistrates had not yet ventured to engrave more than their names. They even went as far as talking of succession, as in a regular monarchy. His title of imperator and the sovereign pontificate were transmissible to his legitimate or adopted children. … Cæsar was not deceived by the secret perfidy which prompted such servilities, and he valued them as they deserved. But his enemies found in them fresh reasons for hating the great man who had saved them. … The Senate had … sunk from its character of supreme council of the Republic into that of a committee of consultation, which the master often forgot to consult. The Civil war had decimated it; Cæsar appointed to it brave soldiers, even sons of freedmen who had served him well, and a considerable number of provincials, Spaniards, Gauls of Gallia Narbonensis, who had long been Romans. He had so many services to reward that his Senate reached the number of 900 members. … One day the Senate went in a body to the temple of Venus Genetrix to present to Cæsar certain decrees drawn up in his honor. The demi-god was ill and dared not leave his couch. This was imprudent, for the report spread that he had not deigned to rise. … The higher nobles remained apart, not from honours, but from power; but they forgot neither Pharsalia nor Thapsus. They would have consented to obey on condition of having the appearance of commanding. This disguised obedience is for an able government more convenient than outward servility. A few concessions made to vanity obtain tranquil possession of power. This was the policy of Augustus, but it is not that of great ambitions or of a true statesman. These pretences leave everything doubtful; nothing is settled; and Cæsar wished to lay the foundations of a government which should bring a new order of things out of a chaos of ruins. Unless we are paying too much attention to mere anecdotes, he desired the royal diadem. … It is difficult not to believe that Cæsar considered the constituting of a monarchical power as the rational achievement of the revolution which he was carrying out. In this way we could explain the persistence of his friends in offering him a title odious to the Romans, who were quite ready to accept a monarch, but not monarchy. … In order to attain to this royal title … he must mount still higher, and this new greatness he would seek in the East. … It was meet that he should wipe out the second military humiliation of Rome after effacing the first; that he should avenge Crassus."

"Cæsar was born to do great things, and had a passion after honor. … It was in fact a sort of emulous struggle with himself, as it had been with another, how he might outdo his past actions by his future. In pursuit of these thoughts he resolved to make war upon the Parthians, and when he had subdued them, to pass through Hyrcania; thence to march along by the Caspian Sea to Mount Caucasus, and so on about Pontus, till he came into Scythia; then to overrun all the countries bordering upon Germany, and Germany itself; and so to return through Gaul into Italy, after completing the whole circle of his intended empire, and bounding it on every side by the ocean. While preparations were making for this expedition, he proposed to dig through the isthmus on which Corinth stands; and appointed Anienus to superintend the work. He had also a design of diverting the Tiber, and carrying it by a deep channel directly from Rome to Circeii, and so into the sea near Tarracina, that there might be a safe and easy passage for all merchants who traded to Rome. Besides this, he intended to drain all the marshes by Pomentium and Setia, and gain ground enough from the water to employ many thousands of men in tillage. He proposed further to make great mounds on the shore nearest Rome, to hinder the sea from breaking in upon the land, to clear the coast at Ostia of all the hidden rocks and shoals that made it unsafe for shipping, and to form ports and harbors fit to receive the large number of vessels that would frequent them. These things were designed without being carried into effect; but his reformation of the calendar [See CALENDAR, JULIAN], in order to rectify the irregularity of time, was not only projected with great scientific ingenuity, but was brought to its completion, and proved of very great use."

"The question of the kingship was over; but a vague alarm had been created, which answered the purpose of the Optimates. Cæsar was at their mercy any day. They had sworn to maintain all his acts. They had sworn, after Cicero's speech, individually and collectively to defend his life. Cæsar, whether he believed them sincere or not, had taken them at their word, and came daily to the Senate unarmed and without a guard. … There were no troops in the city. Lepidus, Cæsar's master of the horse, who had been appointed governor of Gaul, was outside the gates with a few cohorts; but Lepidus was a person of feeble character, and they trusted to be able to deal with him. Sixty senators, in all, were parties to the immediate conspiracy. Of these, nine tenths were members of the old faction whom Cæsar had pardoned, and who, of all his acts, resented most that he had been able to pardon them. They were the men who had stayed at home, like Cicero, from the fields of Thapsus and Munda, and had pretended penitence and submission that they might take an easier road to rid themselves of their enemy. Their motives were the ambition of their order and personal hatred of Cæsar; but they persuaded themselves that they were animated by patriotism, and as, in their hands, the Republic had been a mockery of liberty, so they aimed at restoring it by a mock tyrannicide. … One man only they were able to attract into coöperation who had a reputation for honesty, and could be conceived, without absurdity, to be animated by a disinterested purpose. Marcus Brutus was the son of Cato's sister Servilia, the friend, and a scandal said the mistress, of Cæsar. That he was Cæsar's son was not too absurd for the credulity of Roman drawing-rooms. Brutus himself could not have believed in the existence of such a relation, for he was deeply attached to his mother; and although, under the influence of his uncle Cato, he had taken the Senate's side in the war, he had accepted afterwards not pardon only from Cæsar, but favors of many kinds, for which he had professed, and probably felt, some real gratitude. … Brutus was perhaps the only member of the senatorial party in whom Cæsar felt genuine confidence. His known integrity, and Cæsar's acknowledged regard for him, made his accession to the conspiracy an object of particular importance. … Brutus, once wrought upon, became with Cassius the most ardent in the cause which assumed the aspect to him of a sacred duty. Behind them were the crowd of senators of the familiar faction, and others worse than they, who had not even the excuse of having been partisans of the beaten cause; men who had fought at Cæsar's side till the war was over, and believed, like Labienus, that to them Cæsar owed his fortune, and that he alone ought not to reap the harvest. … The Ides of March drew near. Cæsar was to set out in a few days for Parthia. Decimus Brutus was going, as governor, to the north of Italy, Lepidus to Gaul, Marcus Brutus to Macedonia, and Trebonius to Asia Minor. Antony, Cæsar's colleague in the consulship, was to remain in Italy. Dolabella, Cicero's son-in-law, was to be consul with him as soon as Cæsar should have left for the East. The foreign appointments were all made for five years, and in another week the party would be scattered. The time for action had come, if action there was to be. … An important meeting of the Senate had been called for the Ides (the 15th) of the month. The Pontifices, it was whispered, intended to bring on again the question of the Kingship before Cæsar's departure. The occasion would be appropriate. The Senate-house itself was a convenient scene of operations. The conspirators met at supper the evening before at Cassius's house. Cicero, to his regret, was not invited. The plan was simple, and was rapidly arranged. Cæsar would attend unarmed. The senators not in the secret would be unarmed also. The party who intended to act were to provide themselves with poniards, which could be easily concealed in their paper boxes. So far all was simple; but a question rose whether Cæsar only was to be killed, or whether Antony and Lepidus were to be dispatched along with him. They decided that Cæsar's death would be sufficient. … Antony and Lepidus were not to be touched. For the rest the assassins had merely to be in their places in the Senate in good time. When Cæsar entered, Trebonius was to detain Antony in conversation at the door. The others were to gather about Cæsar's chair on pretence of presenting a petition, and so could make an end. A gang of gladiators were to be secreted in the adjoining theatre to be ready should any unforeseen difficulty present itself. … Strange stories were told in after years of the uneasy labors of the elements that night. … Calpurnia dreamt her husband was murdered, and that she saw him ascending into heaven, and received by the hand of God. In the morning (March 15th) the sacrifices were again unfavorable. Cæsar was restless. Some natural disorder affected his spirits, and his spirits were reacting on his body. Contrary to his usual habit, he gave way to depression. He decided, at his wife's entreaty, that he would not attend the Senate that day. The house was full. The conspirators were in their places with their daggers ready. Attendants came in to remove Cæsar's chair. It was announced that he was not coming. Delay might be fatal. They conjectured that he already suspected something. A day's respite, and all might be discovered. His familiar friend whom he trusted —the coincidence is striking—was employed to betray him. Decimus Brutus, whom it was impossible for him to distrust, went to entreat his attendance. … Cæsar shook off his uneasiness, and rose to go. As he crossed the hall his statue fell and shivered on the stones. Some servant, perhaps, had heard whispers, and wished to warn him. As he still passed on, a stranger thrust a scroll into his hand, and begged him to read it on the spot. It contained a list of the conspirators, with a clear account of the plot. He supposed it to be a petition and placed it carelessly among his other papers. The fate of the Empire hung upon a thread, but the thread was not broken. … Cæsar entered and took his seat. {2697} His presence awed men, in spite of themselves, and the conspirators had determined to act at once, lest they should lose courage to act at all. He was familiar and easy of access. They gathered round him. … One had a story to tell him; another some favor to ask. Tullius Cimber, whom he had just made governor of Bithynia, then came close to him, with some request which he was unwilling to grant. Cimber caught his gown, as if in entreaty, and dragged it from his shoulders. Cassius, who was standing behind, stabbed him in the throat. He started up with a cry and caught Cassius's arm. Another poniard entered his breast, giving a mortal wound. He looked round, and seeing not one friendly face, but only a ring of daggers pointing at him, he drew his gown over his head, gathered the folds about him that he might fall decently, and sank down without uttering another word. … The Senate rose with shrieks and confusion, and rushed into the Forum. The crowd outside caught the words that Cæsar was dead, and scattered to their houses. Antony, guessing that those who had killed Cæsar would not spare himself, hurried off into concealment. The murderers, bleeding some of them from wounds which they had given one another in their eagerness, followed, crying that the tyrant was dead, and that Rome was free; and the body of the great Cæsar was left alone in the house where a few weeks before Cicero told him that he was so necessary to his country that every senator would die before harm should reach him."

"Was Cæsar, upon the whole, the greatest of men? Dr. Beattie once observed, that if that question were left to be collected from the suffrages already expressed in books, and scattered throughout the literature of all nations, the scale would be found to have turned prodigiously in Cæsar's favor, as against any single competitor; and there is no doubt whatsoever, that even amongst his own countrymen, and his own contemporaries, the same verdict would have been returned, had it been collected upon the famous principle of Themistocles, that he should be reputed the first, whom the greatest number of rival voices had pronounced the second."

"The founder of the Roman Empire was a very great man. With such genius and such fortune it is not surprising that he should be made an idol. In intellectual stature he was at least an inch higher than his fellows, which is in itself enough to confound all our notions of right and wrong. He had the advantage of being a statesman before he was a soldier, whereas Napoleon was a soldier before he was a statesman. His ambition coincided with the necessity of the world, which required to be held together by force; and, therefore, his Empire endured for four hundred, or, if we include its Eastern offset, for fourteen hundred years, while that of Napoleon crumbled to pieces in four. But unscrupulous ambition was the root of his character. It was necessary, in fact, to enable him to trample down the respect for legality which still hampered other men. To connect him with any principle seems to me impossible. He came forward, it is true, as the leader of what is styled the democratic party, and in that sense the empire which he founded may be called democratic. But to the gamblers who brought their fortunes to that vast hazard table, the democratic and aristocratic parties were merely rouge and noir. The social and political equity, the reign of which we desire to see, was, in truth, unknown to the men of Cæsar's time. It is impossible to believe that there was an essential difference of principle between one member of the triumvirate and another. The great adventurer had begun by getting deeply into debt, and had thus in fact bound himself to overthrow the republic. He fomented anarchy to prepare the way for his dictatorship. He shrank from no accomplice however tainted, not even from Catiline; from no act however profligate or even cruel. … The noblest feature in Cæsar's character was his clemency. But we are reminded that it was ancient, not modern clemency, when we find numbered among the signal instances of it his having cut the throats of the pirates before he hanged them, and his having put to death without torture (simplici morte punivit) a slave suspected of conspiring against his life. Some have gone so far as to speak of him as the incarnation of humanity. But in the whole history of Roman conquest will you find a more ruthless conqueror? A million of Gauls we are told perished by the sword. Multitudes were sold into slavery. The extermination of the Eburones went to the verge even of ancient licence. The gallant Vercingetorix, who had fallen into Cæsar's hands under circumstances which would have touched any but a depraved heart, was kept by him a captive for six years, and butchered in cold blood on the day of the triumph. The sentiment of humanity was then undeveloped. Be it so, but then we must not call Cæsar the incarnation of humanity. Vast plans are ascribed to Cæsar at the time of his death, and it seems to be thought that a world of hopes for humanity perished when he fell. But if he had lived and acted for another century, what could he have done with those moral and political materials but found, what he did found, a military and sensualist empire. A multitude of projects are attributed to him by writers, who, we must remember, are late, and who make him ride a fairy charger with feet like the hands of a man. Some of these projects are really great, such as the codification of the law, and measures for the encouragement of intellect and science; others are questionable, such as the restoration of commercial cities from which commerce had departed; others, great works to be accomplished by an unlimited command of men and money, are the common dreams of every Nebuchadnezzar. … Still Cæsar was a very great man, and he played a dazzling part, as all men do who come just at the fall of an old system, when society is as clay in the hands of the potter, and found a new system in its place; while the less dazzling task of making the new system work, by probity and industry, and of restoring the shattered allegiance of a people to its institutions, descends upon unlaurelled heads. But that the men of his time were bound to recognise in him a Messiah, to use the phrase of the Emperor of the French, and that those who opposed him were Jews crucifying their Messiah is an impression which I venture to think will in time subside."

Goldwin Smith, The Last Republicans of Rome (Macmillan's Magazine, April, 1868).

ALSO IN: T. Arnold, History of the Later Roman Commonwealth, chapter 9 (volume 2).

ROME: B. C. 44.
   After Cæsar's death.
   Flight of "the Liberators."
   Mark Antony in power.-
   Arrival and wise conduct of Cæsar's heir, the young Octavius.

The assassins of Cæsar were not long in discovering that Rome gave no applause to their bloody deed. Its first effect was a simply stupefying consternation. The Senators fled,—the forum and the streets were nearly emptied. When Brutus attempted an harangue his hearers were few and silent. In gloomy alarm, he made haste, with his associates, to take refuge on the heights of the capitol. During the night which followed, a few senators, who approved the assassination—Cicero among the number—climbed the hill and held council with them in their place of retreat. The result was a second attempt made, on the following day, to rouse public feeling in their favor by speeches in the forum. The demonstration was again a failure, and the "liberators," as they wished to be deemed, returned with disappointment to the capitol. Meantime, the surviving consul, who had been Cæsar's colleague for the year, M. Antonius—known more commonly as Mark Antony—had acted with vigor to secure power in his own hands. He had taken possession of the great treasure which Cæsar left, and had acquired his papers. He had come to a secure understanding, moreover, with Lepidus, Cæsar's Master of Horse, who controlled a legion quartered near by, and who really commanded the situation, if his energy and his abilities had been equal to it. Lepidus marched his legion into the city, and its presence preserved order. Yet, with all the advantage in their favor, neither Antony nor Lepidus took any bold attitude against Cæsar's murderers. On the contrary, Antony listened to propositions from them and consented, as consul, to call a meeting of the Senate for deliberation on their act. At that meeting he even advocated what might be called a decree of oblivion, so far as concerned the striking down of Cæsar, and a confirmation of all the acts executed and unexecuted, of the late Imperator. These had included the recent appointment of Brutus, Cassius and other leaders among the assassins to high proconsular commands in the provinces. Of course the proposed measure was acceptable to them and their friends, while Antony, having Cæsar's papers in his possession, expected to gain everything from it. Under cover of the blank confirmation of Cæsar's acts, he found in Cæsar's papers a ground of authority for whatever he willed to do, and was accused of forging without limit where the genuine documents failed him. At the same time, taking advantage of the opportunity that was given to him by a public funeral decreed to Cæsar, he delivered an artful oration, which infuriated the people and drove the bloodstained "liberators" in terror from the city. But in many ways Antonius weakened the strong position which his skilful combinations had won for him. In his undisguised selfishness he secured no friends of his own; he alienated the friends of Cæsar by his calm indifference to the crime of the assassins of Cæsar, while he harvested for himself the fruits of it; above all, he offended and insulted the people by his impudent appropriation of Cæsar's vast hoard of wealth. The will of the slain Imperator had been read, and it was known that he had bequeathed three hundred sesterces—nearly £3 sterling, or $15—to every citizen of Rome. The heir named to the greater part of the estate was Cæsar's favorite grand-nephew (grandson of his younger sister, Julia) Caius Octavius, who became, by the terms of the will, his adopted son, and who was henceforth to bear the name Caius Julius Cæsar Octavianus. The young heir, then but eighteen years of age, was at Apollonia, in Illyria, at the quarters of a considerable force which Cæsar had assembled there. With wonderful coolness and prudence for his age, he declined proposals to lead the army to Rome, for the assertion of his rights, but went quietly thither with a few friends, feeling the public pulse as he journeyed. At Rome he demanded from Antony the moneys which Cæsar had left, but the profligate and reckless consul had spent them and would give no account. By great exertions Octavius raised sufficient means on his own account to pay Cæsar's legacy to the Roman citizens, and thereby he consolidated a popular feeling in his own favor, against Antony, which placed him, at once, in important rivalry with the latter. It enabled him presently to share the possession of power with Antony and Lepidus, in the Second Triumvirate, and, finally, to seize the whole sovereignty which Cæsar intended to bequeath to him.

      ALSO IN:
      G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 5, chapter 34.

ROME: B. C. 44-42.
   Destruction of the Liberators.
   Combination of Antony, Octavius and Lepidus.
   The Second Triumvirate.

   Mark Antony's arrangement of peace with the murderers of
   Cæsar, on the basis of a confirmation in the Senate of all
   Cæsar's acts, gave to Marcus Brutus the government of
   Macedonia, to Decimus Brutus that of Cisalpine Gaul, and to
   Cassius that of Syria, since Cæsar had already named them to
   those several commands before they slew him. But Antony
   succeeded ere long in procuring decrees from the Senate,
   transferring Macedonia to his brother, and Syria to Dolabella.
   A little later he obtained a vote of the people giving
   Cisalpine Gaul to himself, and cancelling the commission of
   Decimus Brutus. His consular term was now near its expiration
   and he had no intention to surrender the power he had enjoyed.
   An army in northern Italy would afford the support which his
   plans required. But, before those plans were ripe, his
   position had grown exceedingly precarious. The Senate and the
   people were alike unfriendly to him, and alike disposed to
   advance Octavius in opposition. The latter, without office or
   commission, had already, in the lawless manner of the time, by
   virtue of the encouragement given to him, collected an army of
   several legions under his personal banner. Decimus Brutus
   refused to surrender the government of Gaul, and was supported
   by the best wishes of the Senate in defying Antony to wrest it
   from him. The latter now faced the situation boldly, and,
   although two legions brought from Epirus went over to
   Octavius, he collected a strong force at Ariminum, marched
   into Cisalpine Gaul and blockaded Decimus Brutus in Mutina
   (modern Modena). Meantime, new consuls, Hirtius and Pansa, had
   taken office at Rome, and the Senate, led by Cicero, had
   declared its hostility to Antony.
{2699}
   Octavius was called upon to join the new consuls with his
   army, in proceeding against the late consul—now treated as a
   public enemy, though not so pronounced. He did so, and two
   battles were fought, on the 15th of April, B. C. 43, at Forum
   Gallorum, and on the 27th of the same month under the walls of
   Mutina, which forced Antony to retreat, but which cost Rome
   the lives of both her consuls. Antony retired across the Alps
   and joined his old friend Lepidus in Transalpine Gaul.
   Octavius declined to follow. Instead of doing so, he sent a
   military deputation to Rome to demand the consulship, and
   quickly followed it with his army when the demand had been
   refused. The demonstration proved persuasive, and he was
   elected consul, with his half-brother for colleague. His next
   business was to come to terms with Antony and Lepidus, as
   against the Liberators and their friends. A conference was
   arranged, and the three new masters of Rome met in October, B.
   C. 43, on an island near Bononia (modern Bologna),
   constituting themselves a commission of three—a triumvirate
   —to settle the affairs of the commonwealth. They framed a
   formal contract of five years' duration; divided the powers of
   government between themselves; named officials for the
   subordinate places; and—most serious proceeding of
   all—prepared a proscription list, as Sulla had done, of
   enemies to be put out of the way. It was an appalling list of
   300 senators (the immortal Cicero at their head) and 2,000
   knights. When the work of massacre in Rome and Italy had been
   done, and when the terrified Senate had legalized the
   self-assumed title and authority of the triumvirs, these
   turned their attention to the East, where M. Brutus and
   Cassius had established and maintained themselves in power.
   Decimus Brutus was already slain, after desertion by his army
   and capture in attempted flight. In the summer of the year 42
   B. C., Antony led a division of the joint army of the
   triumvirate across the sea and through Macedonia, followed
   soon after by Octavius with additional forces. They were met
   at Philippi, and there, in two great battles, fought with an
   interval of twenty days between, the republic of Rome was
   finally done to death. "The battle of Philippi, in the
   estimation of the Roman writers, was the most memorable
   conflict in their military annals. The numbers engaged on
   either side far exceed all former experience. Eighty thousand
   legionaries alone were counted on the one side, and perhaps
   120,000 on the other—at least three times as many as fought at
   Pharsalia." Both Cassius and Brutus died by their own hands.
   There was no more opposition to the triumvirs, except from
   Sextus Pompeius, last survivor of the family of the great
   Pompeius, who had created for himself at sea a little
   half-piratical realm, and who forced the three to recognize
   him for a time as a fourth power in the Roman world. But he,
   too, perished, B. C. 35. For seven years, from B. C. 42 to B.
   C. 36, Antony ruled the East, Octavius the West, and Lepidus
   reigned in Africa.

The battles of Philippi, which delivered the whole Roman world to Antony, Octavius and Lepidus (the Triumvirs), were fought in the summer of 42 B. C. The battle of Actium, which made Octavius—soon to be named Augustus—the single master of a now fully founded Empire, was fought on the 2d of September, B. C. 31. In the interval of eleven years, Octavius, governing Rome, Italy, and the provinces of the West, had steadily consolidated and increased his power, gaining the confidence, the favor and the fear of his subject people. Antony, oppressing the East, had consumed his energies and his time in dalliance with Cleopatra, and had made himself the object of hatred and contempt. Lepidus, who had Africa for his dominion to begin with, had measured swords with Octavius and had been summarily deposed, in the year 36 B. C. It was simply a question of time as to when Antony, in his turn, should make room for the coming monarch. Already, in the year after Philippi, the two sovereign-partners had been at the verge of war. Antony's brother and his wife, Fulvia, had raised a revolt in Italy against Octavius, and it had been crushed at Perusia, before Antony could rouse himself to make a movement in support of it. He did make a formidable demonstration at last; but the soldiers of the two rivals compelled them on that occasion to patch up a new peace, which was accomplished by a treaty negotiated at Brundisium and sealed by the marriage of Antony to Octavia, sister of Octavius. This peace was maintained for ten years, while the jealousies and animosities of the two potentates grew steadily more bitter. It came to an end when Octavius felt strong enough to defy the superior resources, in money, men and ships, which Antony held at his command. The preparations then made on both sides for the great struggle were stupendous and consumed a year. It was by the determination of Antony that the war assumed chiefly a naval character; but Octavius, not Antony, forced the sea-fight when it came. His smaller squadrons sought and attacked the swarming fleets of Egypt and Asia, in the Ambracian gulf, where they had been assembled. The great battle was fought at the inlet of the gulf, off the point, or "acte," of a tongue of land, projecting from the shores of Acarnania, on which stood a temple to Apollo, called the Actium. Hence the name of the battle. The cowardly flight of Cleopatra, followed by Antony, ended the conflict quickly, and the Antonian fleet was entirely destroyed. The deserted army, on shore, which had idly watched the sea-fight, threw down its arms, when the flight of Antonius was known. Before Octavius pursued his enemy into Egypt and to a despairing death, he had other work to do, which occupied him for nearly a year. But he was already sure of the sole sovereignty that he claimed. The date of the battle of Actium "has been formally recorded by historians as signalizing the termination of the republic and the commencement of the Roman monarchy."

ROME: B. C. 31-A. D. 14.
   The settlement of the Empire by the second Cæsar,
   Octavius, called Augustus.
   His organization of government.

"Power and repute had passed away from the old forms of the Republic. The whole world lay at the feet of the master of many legions; it remained only to define the constitutional forms in which the new forces were to work. But to do this was no easy task. The perplexities of his position, the fears and hopes that crossed his mind, are thrown into dramatic form by the historian Dion Cassius, who brings a scene before our fancy in which Octavianus listens to the conflicting counsels of his two great advisers, Agrippa and Mæcenas. … There is little doubt that schemes of resignation were at some time discussed by the Emperor and by his circle of advisers. It is even possible, as the same writer tells us, that he laid before the Senators at this time some proposal to leave the helm of state and let them guide it as of old. … The scene, if ever really acted, was but an idle comedy. … It is more probable that he was content with some faint show of resistance when the Senate heaped their honours on his head, as afterwards when, more than once, after a ten years' interval, they solemnly renewed the tenure of his power. But we cannot doubt his sincerity in one respect—in his wish to avoid the kingly title and all the odious associations of the same. … He shrank also from another title, truly Roman in its character, but odious since the days of Sulla; and though the populace of Rome, when panic-struck by pestilence and famine, clamoured to have him made dictator, … yet nothing would induce him to bear the hateful name. But the name of Cæsar he had taken long ago, after his illustrious uncle's death, and this became the title first of the dynasty and then of the imperial office.

Besides this he allowed himself to be styled Augustus, a name which roused no jealousy and outraged no Roman sentiment, yet vaguely implied some dignity and reverence from its long association with the objects of religion. …

With this exception he assumed no new symbol of monarchic power, but was satisfied with the old official titles, which, though charged with memories of the Republic, yet singly corresponded to some side or fragment of absolute authority. The first of these was Imperator, which served to connect him with the army. … The title of the tribunician power connected the monarch with the interests of the lower orders. … The Emperor did not, indeed, assume the tribunate, but was vested with the tribunician power which overshadowed the annual holders of the office. It made his person sacred. … The 'princeps senatus' in old days had been the foremost senator of his time. … No one but the Emperor could fill this position safely, and he assumed the name henceforth to connect him with the Senate, as other titles seemed to bind him to the army and the people. For the post of Supreme Pontiff, Augustus was content to wait awhile, until it passed by death from the feeble hands of Lepidus. He then claimed the exclusive tenure of the office, and after this time Pontifex Maximus was always added to the long list of imperial titles. … Besides these titles to which he assumed an exclusive right he also filled occasionally and for short periods most of the republican offices of higher rank, both in the capital and in the country towns. He took from time to time the consular power, with its august traditions and imposing ceremonial. The authority of censor lay ready to his hands when a moral reform was to be set on foot, … or when the Senate was to be purged of unworthy members and the order of equites or knights to be reviewed and its dignity consulted. Beyond the capital the pro-consular power was vested in him without local limitations. … The offices of state at Rome, meantime, lasted on from the Republic to the Empire, unchanged in name, and with little seeming change of functions. Consuls, Prætors, Quæstors, Tribunes, and Ædiles rose from the same classes as before, and moved for the most part in the same round of work, though they had lost for ever their power of initiative and real control. … They were now mainly the nominees of Cæsar, though the forms of popular election were still for a time observed. … The consulship was entirely reserved for his nominees, but passed rapidly from hand to hand, since in order to gratify a larger number it was granted at varying intervals for a few months only. … It was part of the policy of Augustus to disturb as little as possible the old names and forms of the Republic. … But besides these he set up a number of new offices, often of more real power, though of lower rank. … The name præfectus, the 'préfêt' of modern France, stood in earlier days for the deputy of any officer of state charged specially to execute some definite work. The præfects of Cæsar were his servants, named by him and responsible to him, set to discharge duties which the old constitution had commonly ignored. The præfect of the city had appeared in shadowy form under the Republic to represent the consul in his absence. Augustus felt the need, when called away from Rome, to have some one there whom he could trust to watch the jealous nobles and control the fickle mob. His trustiest confidants, Mæcenas and Agrippa, filled the post, and it became a standing office, with a growing sphere of competence, overtopping the magistracies of earlier date. The præfects of the prætorian cohorts first appeared when the Senate formally assigned a body-guard to Augustus later in his reign. …

   Next to these in power and importance came the præfects of the
   watch—the new police force organised by Augustus as a
   protection against the dangers of the night, and of the corn
   supplies of Rome, which were always an object of especial care
   on the part of the imperial government. … The title
   'procurator,' which has come down to us in the form of
   'proctor,' was at first mainly a term of civil law, and was
   used for a financial agent or attorney. The officers so called
   were regarded at the first as stewards of the Emperor's
   property or managers of his private business. … The agents of
   the Emperor's privy purse throughout the provinces were called
   by the same title, but were commonly of higher rank and more
   repute. Such in its bare outline was the executive of the
   imperial government. We have next to see what was the position
   of the Senate. … It was one of the first cares of Augustus to
   restore its credit. At the risk of odium and personal danger
   he more than once revised the list, and purged it of unworthy
   members, summoning eminent provincials in their place. … The
   functions also of the Senate were in theory enlarged. … But
   the substance of power and independence had passed away from
   it forever. Matters of great moment were debated first, not in
   the Senate House, but in a sort of Privy Council formed by the
   trusted advisers of the Emperor. …
{2701}
   If we now turn our thoughts from the centre to the provinces
   we shall find that the imperial system brought with it more
   sweeping changes and more real improvement. … Augustus left to
   the Senate the nominal control of the more peaceful provinces,
   which needed little military force. … The remaining countries,
   called imperial provinces, were ruled by generals, called
   'legati,' or in some few cases by proctors only. They held
   office during the good pleasure of their master. … There are
   signs that the imperial provinces were better ruled, and that
   the transference of a country to this class from the other was
   looked upon as a real boon, and not as an empty honour. Such
   in its chief features was the system of Augustus. … This was
   his constructive policy, and on the value of this creative
   work his claims to greatness must be based."

"The arrangement undoubtedly satisfied the requirements of the moment. It saved, at least in appearance, the integrity of the republic, while at the same time it recognised and legalised the authority of the man, who was already by common consent 'master of all things'; and this it effected without any formal alteration of the constitution, without, the creation of any new office, and by means of the old constitutional machinery of senate and assembly. But it was an arrangement avowedly of an exceptional and temporary character. The powers voted to Augustus were, like those voted to Pompey in 67 B. C., voted only to him, and, with the exception of the tribunician power, voted only for a limited time. No provision was made for the continuance of the arrangement, after his death, in favour of any other person. And though in fact the powers first granted to Augustus were granted in turn to each of the long line of Roman Cæsars, the temporary and provisional character impressed upon the 'principate' at its birth clung to it throughout. When the princeps for the time being died or was deposed, it was always in theory an open question whether any other citizen should be invested with the powers he had held. Who the man should be, or how he should be chosen, were questions which it was left to circumstances to answer, and even the powers to be assigned to him were, strictly speaking, determined solely by the discretion of the senate and people in each case. It is true that necessity required that some one must always be selected to fill the position first given to Augustus; that accidents, such as kinship by blood or adoption to the last emperor, military ability, popularity with the soldiers or the senate, determined the selection; and that usage decided that the powers conferred upon the selected person should be in the main those conferred upon Augustus. But to the last the Roman emperor was legally merely a citizen whom the senate and people had freely invested with an exceptional authority for special reasons. Unlike the ordinary sovereign, he did not inherit a great office by an established law of succession; and in direct contrast to the modern maxim that 'the king never dies,' it has been well said that the Roman 'principate,' died with the princeps. Of the many attempts made to get rid of this irregular, intermittent character, none were completely successful, and the inconveniences and dangers resulting from it are apparent throughout the history of the empire."

      ALSO IN:
      W. T. Arnold,
      The Roman System of Provincial Administration,
      chapter 3.

      C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans under the Empire,
      chapters 30-34 (volume 3-4).

ROME: A. D. 14-37.
   Reign of Tiberius.
   Increasing vices and cruelties of his rule.
   Campaigns of Germanicus in Germany.
   His death.
   The Delatores and their victims.
   Malignant ascendancy of Sejanus.
   The Prætorians quartered at Rome.

   Augustus had one child only, a daughter, Julia, who was
   brought to him by his second wife Scribonia; but on his last
   marriage, with Livia, divorced wife of Tiberius Claudius Nero
   (divorced by his command), he had adopted her two sons,
   Tiberius and Drusus. He gave his daughter Julia in marriage,
   first, to his nephew, Marcellus, the son of his sister
   Octavia, by her first husband, C. Marcellus. But Marcellus
   soon died, without offspring, and Julia became the spouse of
   the emperor's friend and counsellor, Agrippa, to whom she bore
   three sons, Caius, Lucius, and Agrippa Posthumus (all of whom
   died before the end of the life of Augustus), and two
   daughters. Thus the emperor was left with no male heir in his
   own family, and the imperial succession fell to his adopted
   son Tiberius—the eldest son of his wife Livia and of her first
   husband, Tiberius Claudius Nero. There were suspicions that
   Livia had some agency in bringing about the several deaths
   which cleared her son's way to the throne. When Augustus died,
   Tiberius was "in his 56th year, or at least at the close of
   the 55th. … He had by this time acquired a perfect mastery in
   dissembling his lusts, and his mistrust. … He was anxious to
   appear as a moral man, while in secret he abandoned himself to
   lusts and debaucheries of every kind. … In accordance with
   this character, Tiberius now played the farce which is so
   admirably but painfully described by Tacitus; he declined
   accepting the imperium, and made the senate beg and intreat
   him to accept it for the sake of the public good. In the end
   Tiberius yielded, inasmuch as he compelled the senate to
   oblige him to undertake the government. This painful scene
   forms the beginning of Tacitus' Annals. The early part of his
   reign is marked by insurrections among the troops in Pannonia
   and on the Rhine. … Drusus [the son of Tiberius] quelled the
   insurrection in Illyricum, and Germanicus [the emperor's
   nephew, son of his brother Drusus, who had died in Germany, B.
   C. 9], that on the Rhine; but, notwithstanding this, it was in
   reality the government that was obliged to yield. … The reign
   of Tiberius, which lasted for 23 years, that is till A. D. 37,
   is by no means rich in events; the early period of it only is
   celebrated for the wars of Germanicus in Germany. … The war of
   Germanicus was carried into Germany as far as the river Weser
   [see GERMANY. A. D. 14-16], and it is surprising to see that
   the Romans thought it necessary to employ such numerous armies
   against tribes which had no fortified towns. …
{2702}
   The history of his reign after the German wars becomes more
   and more confined to the interior and to his family. He had an
   only son, Drusus, by his first wife Agrippina; and Germanicus,
   the son of his brother Drusus, was adopted by him. Drusus must
   have been a young man deserving of praise; but Germanicus was
   the adored darling of the Roman people, and with justice: he
   was the worthy son of a worthy father, the hero of the German
   wars. … Germanicus had declined the sovereignty, which his
   legions had offered to him after the death of Augustus, and he
   remained faithful to his adopted father, although he certainly
   could not love him. Tiberius, however, had no faith in virtue,
   because he himself was destitute of it; he therefore
   mistrusted Germanicus, and removed him from his victorious
   legions." He sent him "to superintend the eastern frontiers
   and provinces. On his arrival there he was received with the
   same enthusiasm as at Rome; but he died very soon afterwards,
   whether by a natural death or by poison is a question upon
   which the ancients themselves are not agreed. … In the reign
   of Augustus, any offence against the person of the imperator
   had, by some law with which we are not further acquainted,
   been made a 'crimen majestatis,' as though it had been
   committed against the republic itself. This 'crimen' in its
   undefined character was a fearful thing; for hundreds of
   offences might be made to come within the reach of the law
   concerning it. All these deplorable cases were tried by the
   senate, which formed a sort of condemning machine set in
   motion by the tyrant, just like the national convention under
   Robespierre. … In the early part of Tiberius' reign, these
   prosecutions occurred very rarely; but there gradually arose a
   numerous class of denouncers ('delatores'), who made it their
   business to bring to trial anyone whom the emperor disliked."

This was after the death of the emperor's mother, Livia, whom he feared, and who restrained his worst propensities. After her influence was removed, "his dark and tyrannical nature got the upper hand: the hateful side of his character became daily more developed, and his only enjoyment was the indulgence of his detestable lust. … His only friend was Aelius Sejanus, a man of equestrian rank. … His character bore the greatest resemblance to that of his sovereign, who raised him to the office of præfectus praetorio. … Sejanus increased the number of the praetorian cohorts, and persuaded Tiberius to concentrate them in the neighbourhood of Rome, in the 'castrum praetorianum,' which formed us it were the citadel outside the wall of Servius Tullius, but in the midst of the present city. The consequences of this measure render it one of the most important events in Roman history; for the praetorians now became the real sovereigns, and occupied a position similar to that which the Janissaries obtained in Algeria: they determined the fate of the empire until the reign of Diocletian. …

The influence of Sejanus over Tiberius increased every day, and he contrived to inspire his imperial friend with sufficient confidence to go to the island of Capreae. While Tiberius was there indulging in his lusts, Sejanus remained at Rome and governed as his vicegerent. … Prosecutions were now instituted against all persons of any consequence at Rome; the time when Tiberius left the capital is the beginning of the fearful annals of his reign." The tyrannical proceedings of Sejanus "continued for a number of years, until at length he himself incurred the suspicion of Tiberius," and was put out of the way. "But a man worse even than he succeeded; this was Macro, who had none of the great qualities of Sejanus, but only analogous vices. … The butchery at Rome even increased. … Caius Caesar, the son of Germanicus, commonly known by the name of Caligula, formed with Macro a connexion of the basest kind, and promised him the high post of 'praefectus praetorio' if he would assist him in getting rid of the aged monarch. Tiberius was at the time severely ill at a villa near cape Misenum. He fell into a state of lethargy, and everybody believed him to be dead. He came to life again however; on which he was suffocated, or at least his death was accelerated in some way, for our accounts differ on this point. Thus Tiberius died in the 23d year of his reign, A. D. 37, at the age of 78."

C. Merivale, History of the Romans under the Empire, chapters 42-46 (volume 5).

Cains Cæsar, son of Germanicus, owed his nickname, Caligula, to the soldiers of his father's command, among whom he was a great favorite in his childhood. The name was derived from "Caliga," a kind of foot covering worn by the common soldiers, and is sometimes translated "Little Boots." "Having … secured the imperial power, he fulfilled by his elevation the wish of the Roman people, I may venture to say, of all mankind: for he had long been the object of expectation and desire to the greater part of the provincials and soldiers, who had known him when a child; and to the whole people of Rome, from their affection for the memory of Germanicus, his father, and compassion for the family almost entirely destroyed. … Immediately on his entering the city, by the joint acclamations of the senate, and people, who broke into the senate-house, Tiberius's will was set aside, it having left his other grandson, then a minor, coheir with him; the whole government and administration of affairs was placed in his hands; so much to the joy and satisfaction of the public that, in less than three months after, above 160,000 victims are said to have been offered in sacrifice. … To this extraordinary love entertained for him by his countrymen was added an uncommon regard by foreign nations. … Caligula himself inflamed this devotion by practising all the arts of popularity. … He published accounts of the proceedings of the government—a practice which had been introduced by Augustus, but discontinued by Tiberius. He granted the magistrates a full and free jurisdiction, without any appeal to himself. He made a very strict and exact review of the Roman knights, but conducted it with moderation; publicly depriving of his horse every knight who lay under the stigma of any thing base and dishonourable. … He attempted likewise to restore to the people their ancient right of voting in the choice of magistrates. … He twice distributed to the people a bounty of 300 sesterces a man, and as often gave a splendid feast to the senate and the equestrian order, with their wives and children. … {2703} He frequently entertained the people with stage-plays of various kinds, and in several parts of the city, and sometimes by night, when he caused the whole city to be lighted. … He likewise exhibited a great number of circensian games from morning until night; intermixed with the hunting of wild beasts from Africa. … Thus far we have spoken of him as a prince. What remains to be said of him bespeaks him rather a monster than a man. … He was strongly inclined to assume the diadem, and change the form of government from imperial to regal; but being told that he far exceeded the grandeur of kings and princes, he began to arrogate to himself a divine majesty. He ordered all the images of the gods which were famous either for their beauty or the veneration paid them, among which was that of Jupiter Olympius, to be brought from Greece, that he might take the heads off, and put on his own. Having continued part of the Palatium as far as the Forum, and the temple of Castor and Pollux being converted into a kind of vestibule to his house, he often stationed himself between the twin brothers, and so presented himself to be worshipped by all votaries; some of whom saluted him by the name of Jupiter Latialis. He also instituted a temple and priests, with choicest victims, in honour of his own divinity. … The most opulent persons in the city offered themselves as candidates for the honour of being his priests, and purchased it successively at an immense price. … In the day-time he talked in private to Jupiter Capitolinus; one while whispering to him, and another turning his ear to him. … He was unwilling to be thought or called the grandson of Agrippa, because of the obscurity of his birth. … He said that his mother was the fruit of an incestuous commerce maintained by Augustus with his daughter Julia. … He lived in the habit of incest with an his sisters. … Whether in the marriage of his wives, in repudiating them, or retaining them, he acted with greater infamy, it is difficult to say." Some senators, "who had borne the highest offices in the government, he suffered to run by his litter in their togas for several miles together, and to attend him at supper, sometimes at the head of his couch, sometimes at his feet, with napkins. Others of them, after he had privately put them to death, he nevertheless continued to send for, as if they were still alive, and after a few days pretended that they had laid violent hands upon themselves. … When flesh was only to be had at a high price for feeding his wild beasts reserved for the spectacles, he ordered that criminals should be given them to be devoured; and upon inspecting them in a row, while he stood in the middle of the portico, without troubling himself to examine their cases he ordered them to be dragged away, from 'bald-pate to bald-pate' [a proverbial expression, meaning, without distinction.—Translator's foot-note]. … After disfiguring many persons of honourable rank, by branding them in the face with hot irons, he condemned them to the mines, to work in repairing the high-ways, or to fight with wild beasts; or tying them, by the neck and heels, in the manner of beasts carried to slaughter, would shut them up in cages, or saw them asunder. … He compelled parents to be present at the execution of their sons. … He generally prolonged the sufferings of his victims by causing them to be inflicted by slight and frequently repeated strokes; this being his well-known and constant order: . Strike so that he may feel himself die.' … Being incensed at the people's applauding a party at the Circensian games in opposition to him, he exclaimed, 'I wish the Roman people had but one neck.' … He used also to complain aloud of the state of the times, because it was not rendered remarkable by any public calamities. … He wished for some terrible slaughter of his troops, a famine, a pestilence, conflagrations, or an earthquake. Even in the midst of his diversions, while gaming or feasting, this savage ferocity, both in his language and actions, never forsook him. Persons were often put to the torture in his presence, whilst he was dining or carousing. A soldier, who was an adept in the art of beheading, used at such times to take off the heads of prisoners, who were brought in for that purpose. … He never had the least regard either to the chastity of his own person, or that of others. … Besides his incest with his sisters … there was hardly any lady of distinction with whom he did not make free. … Only once in his life did he take an active part in military affairs. … He resolved upon an expedition into Germany. … There being no hostilities, he ordered a few Germans of his guard to be carried over and placed in concealment on the other side of the Rhine, and word to be brought him after dinner that an enemy was advancing with great impetuosity. This being accordingly done, he immediately threw himself, with his friends, and a party of the pretorian knights, into the adjoining wood, where, lopping branches from the trees, and forming trophies of them, he returned by torch-light, upbraiding those who did not follow him with timorousness and cowardice. … At last, as if resolved to make war in earnest, he drew up his army upon the shore of the ocean, with his balistæ and other engines of war, and while no one could imagine what he intended to do, on a sudden commanded them to gather up the sea shells, and fill their helmets and the folds of their dress with them, calling them 'the spoils of the ocean due to the Capitol and the Palatium.' As a monument of his success he raised a lofty tower. … He was crazy both in body and mind, being subject, when a boy, to the falling sickness. … What most of all disordered him was want of sleep, for he seldom had more than three or four hours' rest in a night; and even then his sleep was not sound."

ALSO IN: C. Merivale, History of the Romans under the Empire, chapters 47-48 (volume 5).

ROME: A. D. 41.
   The murder of Caligula.
   Elevation of Claudius to the throne by the Prætorians.
   Beginning of the domination of the soldiery.

"If we may believe our accounts, the tyrant's overthrow was due not to abhorrence of his crimes or indignation at his assaults on the Roman liberties, so much as to resentment at a private affront. Among the indiscretions which seem to indicate the partial madness of the wretched Caius, was the caprice with which he turned from his known foes against his personal friends and familiars. … No one felt himself secure, neither the freedmen who attended on his person, nor the guards who watched over his safety. {2704} Among these last was Cassius Chærea, tribune of a prætorian cohort, whose shrill woman's voice provoked the merriment of his master, and subjected him to injurious insinuations. Even when he demanded the watchword for the night the emperor would insult him with words and gestures. Chærea resolved to wipe out the affront in blood. He sought Callistus and others … and organized with them and some of the most daring of the nobles a plot against the emperor's life. … The festival of the Palatine games was fixed on for carrying the project into effect. Four days did Caius preside in the theatre, surrounded by the friends and guards who were sworn to slay him, but still lacked the courage. On the fifth and last, the 24th of January 794 [A. D. 41], feeling indisposed from the evening's debauch, he hesitated at first to rise. His attendants, however, prevailed on him to return once more to the shows; and as he was passing through the vaulted passage which led from the palace to the Circus, he inspected a choir of noble youths from Asia, who were engaged to perform upon the stage. … Caius was still engaged in conversation with them when Chærea and another tribune, Sabinus, made their way to him: the one struck him on the throat from behind with his sword, while the other was in the act of demanding the watchword. A second blow cleft the tyrant's jaw. He fell, and drawing his limbs together to save his body, still screamed, 'I live! I live!' while the conspirators thronging over him, and crying, 'again! again!' hacked him with thirty wounds. The bearers of his litter rushed to his assistance with their poles, while his body-guard of Germans struck wildly at the assassins, and amongst the crowd which surrounded them, killed, it was said, more than one senator who had taken no part in the affair. … When each of the conspirators had thrust his weapon into the mangled body, and the last shrieks of its agony had been silenced, they escaped with all speed from the corridor in which it lay; but they had made no dispositions for what was to follow, and were content to leave it to the consuls and senate, amazed and unprepared, to decide on the future destiny of the republic. … Some cohorts of the city guards accepted the orders of the consuls, and occupied the public places under their direction. At the same time the consuls, Sentins Saturninus and Pomponins Secundus, the latter of whom had been substituted for Caius himself only a few days before, convened the senate. … The first act of the sitting was to issue an edict in which the tyranny of Caius was denounced, and a remission of the most obnoxious of his taxes proclaimed, together with the promise of a donative to the soldiers. The fathers next proceeded to deliberate on the form under which the government should be henceforth administered. On this point no settled principles prevailed. Some were ready to vote that the memory of the Cæsars should be abolished, their temples overthrown, and the free state of the Scipios and Catos restored; others contended for the continuance of monarchy in another family, and among the chiefs of nobility more than one candidate sprang up presently to claim it. The debate lasted late into the night; and in default of any other specific arrangement, the consuls continued to act as the leaders of the commonwealth. … But while the senate deliberated, the prætorian guards had resolved. … In the confusion which ensued on the first news of the event, several of their body had flung themselves furiously into the palace, and begun to plunder its glittering chambers. None dared to offer them any opposition; the slaves and freedmen fled or concealed themselves. One of the inmates, half hidden behind a curtain in an obscure corner, was dragged forth with brutal violence; and great was the intruders' surprise when they recognised him as Claudius, the long despised and neglected uncle of the murdered emperor. He sank at their feet almost senseless with terror: but the soldiers in their wildest mood still respected the blood of the Cæsars, and instead of slaying or maltreating the suppliant, the brother of Germanicus, they hailed him, more in jest perhaps than earnest, with the title of Imperator, and carried him off to their camp. … In the morning, when it was found that the senate had come to no conclusion, and that the people crowding about its place of meeting were urging it with loud cries to appoint a single chief, and were actually naming him as the object of their choice, Claudius found courage to suffer the prætorians to swear allegiance to him, and at the same time promised them a donative of 15,000 sesterces apiece. … The senators assembled once again in the temple of Jupiter; but now their numbers were reduced to not more than a hundred, and even these met rather to support the pretensions of certain of their members, who aspired to the empire … than to maintain the cause of the ancient republic. But the formidable array of the prætorians, who had issued from their camp into the city, and the demonstrations of the popular will, daunted all parties in the assembly. … Presently the Urban cohorts passed over, with their officers and colours, to the opposite side. All was lost; the prætorians, thus reinforced, led their hero to the palace, and there he commanded the senate to attend upon him. Nothing remained but to obey and pass the decree, which had now become a formal act of investiture, by which the name and honours of Imperator were bestowed upon the new chief of the commonwealth. Such was the first creation of an emperor by the military power of the prætorians. … Surrounded by drawn swords Claudius had found courage to face his nephew's murderers, and to vindicate his authority to the citizens, by a strong measure of retribution, in sending Chærea and Lupus, with a few others of the blood-embrued, to immediate execution. … Claudius was satisfied with this act of vigour, and proceeded, with a moderation but little expected, to publish an amnesty for all the words and acts of the late interregnum. Nevertheless for thirty days he did not venture to come himself into the Curia. … The personal fears, indeed, of the new emperor contributed, with a kindly and placable disposition, to make him anxious to gain his subjects' good-will by the gentleness and urbanity of his deportment. … His proclamation of amnesty was followed by the pardon of numerous exiles and criminals, especially such as were suffering under sentence for the crime of majestas. … The popularity of the new prince, though manifested, thanks to his own discretion, by no such grotesque and impious flatteries as attended on the opening promise of Caius, was certainly not less deeply felt. … {2705} The confidence indeed of the upper classes, after the bitter disappointment they had so lately suffered, was not to be so lightly won. The senate and knights might view their new ruler with indulgence, and hope for the best; but they had been too long accustomed to regard him as proscribed from power by constitutional unfitness, as imbecile in mind, and which was perhaps in their estimation even a worse defect, as misshapen and half-developed in physical form, to anticipate from him a wise or vigorous administration. … In another rank he would have been exposed perhaps in infancy; as the son of Drusus and Antonia he was permitted to live: but he became from the first an object of disgust to his parents, who put him generally out of their sight, and left him to grow up in the hands of hirelings without judgment or feeling. … That the judgment of one from whom the practical knowledge of men and things had been withheld was not equal to his learning, and that the infirmities of his body affected his powers of decision, his presence of mind, and steadfastness of purpose, may easily be imagined: nevertheless, it may be allowed that in a private station, and anywhere but at Rome, Claudius would have passed muster as a respectable, and not, perhaps, an useless member of society. The opinion which is here given of this prince's character may possibly be influenced in some degree by the study of his countenance in the numerous busts still existing, which represent it as one of the most interesting of the whole imperial series. If his figure, as we are told, was tall, and when sitting appeared not ungraceful, his face, at least in repose, was eminently handsome. But it is impossible not to remark in it an expression of pain and anxiety which forcibly arrests our sympathy. It is the face of an honest and well-meaning man, who feels himself unequal to the task imposed upon him. … There is the expression of fatigue both of mind and body, which speaks of midnight watches over books, varied with midnight carouses at the imperial table, and the fierce caresses of rival mistresses. There is the glance of fear, not of open enemies, but of pretended friends; the reminiscence of wanton blows, and the anticipation of the deadly potion. Above all, there is the anxious glance of dependence, which seems to cast about for a model to imitate, for ministers to shape a policy, and for satellites to execute it. The model Claudius found was the policy of the venerated Augustus; but his ministers were the most profligate of women, and the most selfish of emancipated slaves. … The commencement of the new reign was marked by the renewed activity of the armies on the frontiers."

C. Merivale, History of the Romans under the Empire, chapters 48-49 (volume 5).

ROME: A. D. 47-54.
   The wives of Claudius, Messalina and Agrippina.
   Their infamous and terrible ascendancy.
   Murder of the emperor.
   Advent of Nero.

The wife of Claudius was "Valeria Messalina, the daughter of his cousin Barbatus Messala, a woman whose name has become proverbial for infamy. His most distinguished freedmen were the eunuch Posidus; Felix, whom he made governor of Judæa, and who had the fortune to be the husband of three queens; and Callistus, who retained the power which he had acquired under Caius. But far superior in point of influence to these were the three secretaries (as we may term them), Polybius, Narcissus, and Pallas. … The two last were in strict league with Messalina; she only sought to gratify her lusts; they longed for honours, power, and wealth. … Their plan, when they would have anyone put to death, was to terrify Claudius … by tales of plots against his life. … Slaves and freedmen were admitted as witnesses against their masters; and, though Claudius had sworn, at his accession, that no freeman should be put to the torture, knights and senators, citizens and strangers, were tortured alike. … Messalina now set no bounds to her vicious courses. Not content with being infamous herself, she would have others so; and she actually used to compel ladies to prostitute themselves even in the palace, and before the eyes of their husbands, whom she rewarded with honours and commands, while she contrived to destroy those who would not acquiesce in their wives' dishonour." At length (A. D. 48) she carried her audacity so far as to go publicly through a ceremony of marriage with one of her lovers. This nerved even the weak Claudius to resolution, and she was put to death. The emperor then married his niece, Julia Agrippina, the daughter of Germanicus. "The woman who had now obtained the government of Claudius and the Roman empire was of a very different character from the abandoned Messalina. The latter had nothing noble about her; she was the mere bond-slave of lust, and cruel and avaricious only for its gratification; but Agrippina was a woman of superior mind, though utterly devoid of principle. In her, lust was subservient to ambition; it was the desire of power, or the fear of death, and not wantonness, that made her submit to the incestuous embraces of her brutal brother Caius, and to be prostituted to the companions of his vices. It was ambition and parental love that made her now form an incestuous union with her uncle. … The great object of Agrippina was to exclude Britannicus [the son of Claudius by Messalina], and obtain the succession for her own son, Nero Domitius, now a boy of twelve years of age. She therefore caused Octavia [daughter of Claudius] to be betrothed to him, and she had the philosopher Seneca recalled from Corsica, whither he had been exiled by the arts of Messalina, and committed to him the education of her son, that he might be fitted for empire. In the following year (51) Claudius, yielding to her influence, adopted him." But, although Britannicus was thrust into the background and treated with neglect, his feeble father began after a time to show signs of affection for him, and Agrippina, weary of waiting and fearful of discomfiture, caused poison to be administered to the old emperor in his food (A. D. 54). "The death of Claudius was concealed till all the preparations for the succession of Nero should be made, and the fortunate hour marked by the astrologers be arrived. He then (October 13) issued from the palace, … and, being cheered by the cohort which was on guard, he mounted a litter and proceeded to the camp. He addressed the soldiers, promising them a donative, and was saluted emperor. The senate and provinces acquiesced without a murmur in the will of the guards. Claudius was in his 64th year when he was poisoned."

ALSO IN: C. Merivale, History of the Romans under the Empire, chapter 50 (volume 5).

ROME: A. D. 54-64.
   The atrocities of Nero.
   The murder of his mother.
   The burning of the city.

"Nero … was but a variety of the same species [as Caligula]. He also was an amateur, and an enthusiastic amateur, of murder. But as this taste, in the most ingenious hands, is limited and monotonous in its modes of manifestation, it would be tedious to run through the long Suetonian roll-call of his peccadilloes in this way. One only we shall cite, to illustrate the amorous delight with which he pursued any murder which happened to be seasoned highly to his taste by enormous atrocity, and by almost unconquerable difficulty. … For certain reasons of state, as Nero attempted to persuade himself, but in reality because no other crime had the same attractions of unnatural horror about it, he resolved to murder his mother Agrippina. This being settled, the next thing was to arrange the mode and the tools. Naturally enough, according to the custom then prevalent in Rome, he first attempted the thing by poison. The poison failed: for Agrippina, anticipating tricks of this kind, had armed her constitution against them, like Mithridates; and daily took potent antidotes and prophylactics. Or else (which is more probable) the emperor's agent in such purposes, fearing his sudden repentance and remorse, … had composed a poison of inferior strength. This had certainly occurred in the case of Britannicus, who had thrown off with ease the first dose administered to him by Nero," but who was killed by a second more powerful potion. "On Agrippina, however, no changes in the poison, whether of kind or strength, had any effect; so that, after various trials, this mode of murder was abandoned, and the emperor addressed himself to other plans. The first of these was some curious mechanical device, by which a false ceiling was to have been suspended by bolts above her bed; and in the middle of the night, the bolt being suddenly drawn, a vast weight would have descended with a ruinous destruction to all below. This scheme, however, taking air from the indiscretion of some amongst the accomplices, reached the ears of Agrippina. … Next, he conceived the idea of an artificial ship, which, at the touch of a few springs, might fall to pieces in deep water. Such a ship was prepared, and stationed at a suitable point. But the main difficulty remained, which was to persuade the old lady to go on board." By complicated stratagems this was brought about. "The emperor accompanied her to the place of embarkation, took a most tender leave of her, and saw her set sail. It was necessary that the vessel should get into deep water before the experiment could be made; and with the utmost agitation this pious son awaited news of the result. Suddenly a messenger rushed breathless into his presence, and horrified him by the joyful information that his august mother had met with an alarming accident; but, by the blessing of Heaven, had escaped safe and sound, and was now on her road to mingle congratulations with her affectionate son. The ship, it seems, had done its office; the mechanism had played admirably; but who can provide for everything? The old lady, it turned out, could swim like a duck; and the whole result had been to refresh her with a little sea-bathing. Here was worshipful intelligence. Could any man's temper be expected to stand such continued sieges? … Of a man like Nero it could not be expected that he should any longer dissemble his disgust, or put up with such repeated affronts. He rushed upon his simple congratulating friend, swore that he had come to murder him, and as nobody could have suborned him but Agrippina, he ordered her off to instant execution. And, unquestionably, if people will not be murdered quietly and in a civil way, they must expect that such forbearance is not to continue for ever; and obviously have themselves only to blame for any harshness or violence which they may have rendered necessary. It is singular, and shocking at the same time, to mention, that, for this atrocity, Nero did absolutely receive solemn congratulations from all orders of men. With such evidences of base servility in the public mind, and of the utter corruption which they had sustained in their elementary feelings, it is the less astonishing that he should have made other experiments upon the public patience, which seem expressly designed to try how much it would support. Whether he were really the author of the desolating fire which consumed Rome for six days and seven nights [A. D. 64], and drove the mass of the people into the tombs and sepulchres for shelter, is yet a matter of some doubt. But one great presumption against it, founded on its desperate imprudence, as attacking the people in their primary comforts, is considerably weakened by the enormous servility of the Romans in the case just stated: they who could volunteer congratulations to a son for butchering his mother (no matter on what pretended suspicions), might reasonably be supposed incapable of any resistance which required courage, even in a case of self-defence or of just revenge. … The great loss on this memorable occasion was in the heraldic and ancestral honours of the city. Historic Rome then went to wreck for ever. Then perished the 'domus priscorum ducum hostilibus ad-huc spoliis adornatæ'; the 'rostral' palace; the mansion of the Pompeys; the Blenheims and the Strathfieldsayes of the Scipios, the Marcelli, the Paulli, and the Cæsars; then perished the aged trophies from Carthage and from Gaul; and, in short, as the historian sums up the lamentable desolation, 'quidquid visendum atque memorabile ex antiquitate duraverat.' And this of itself might lead one to suspect the emperor's hand as the original agent; for by no one act was it possible so entirely and so suddenly to wean the people from their old republican recollections. … In any other sense, whether for health or for the conveniences of polished life, or for architectural magnificence, there never was a doubt that the Roman people gained infinitely by this conflagration. For, like London, it arose from its ashes with a splendour proportioned to its vast expansion of wealth and population; and marble took the place of wood. For the moment, however, this event must have been felt by the people as an overwhelming calamity. {2707} And it serves to illustrate the passive endurance and timidity of the popular temper, and to what extent it might be provoked with impunity, that in this state of general irritation and effervescence Nero absolutely forbade them to meddle with the ruins of their own dwellings—taking that charge upon himself, with a view to the vast wealth which he anticipated from sifting the rubbish."

ROME: A. D. 64-68.
The first persecution of Christians.
The fitting end of Nero.

"Nero was so secure in his absolutism, he had hitherto found it so impossible to shock the feelings of the people or to exhaust the terrified adulation of the Senate, that he was usually indifferent to the pasquinades which were constantly holding up his name to execration and contempt. But now [after the burning of Rome] he felt that he had gone too far, and that his power would be seriously imperilled if he did not succeed in diverting the suspicions of the populace. He was perfectly aware that when the people in the streets cursed those who set fire to the city, they meant to curse him. If he did not take some immediate step he felt that he might perish, as Gaius [Caligula], had perished before him, by the dagger of the assassin. It is at this point of his career that Nero becomes a prominent figure in the history of the Church. It was this phase of cruelty which seemed to throw a blood-red light over his whole character, and led men to look on him as the very incarnation of the world-power in its most demoniac aspect—as worse than the Antiochus Epiphanes of Daniel's Apocalypse—as the Man of Sin whom (in language figurative, indeed, yet awfully true) the Lord should slay with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming. For Nero endeavoured to fix the odious crime of having destroyed the capital of the world upon the most innocent and faithful of his subjects—upon the only subjects who offered heartfelt prayers on his behalf—the Roman Christians. … Why he should have thought of singling out the Christians, has always been a curious problem, for at this point St. Luke ends the Acts of the Apostles, perhaps purposely dropping the curtain, because it would have been perilous and useless to narrate the horrors in which the hitherto neutral or friendly Roman Government began to play so disgraceful a part. Neither Tacitus, nor Suetonius, nor the Apocalypse, help us to solve this particular problem. The Christians had filled no large space in the eye of the world. Until the days of Domitian we do not hear of a single noble or distinguished person who had joined their ranks. … The slaves and artisans, Jewish and Gentile, who formed the Christian community at Rome, had never in any way come into collision with the Roman Government. … That the Christians were entirely innocent of the crime charged against them was well known both at the time and afterwards. But how was it that Nero sought popularity and partly averted the deep rage which was rankling in many hearts against himself, by torturing men and women, on whose agonies he thought that the populace would gaze not only with a stolid indifference, but even with fierce satisfaction? Gibbon has conjectured that the Christians were confounded with the Jews, and that the detestation universally felt for the latter fell with double force upon the former. Christians suffered even more than the Jews because of the calumnies so assiduously circulated against them, and from what appeared to the ancients to be the revolting absurdity of their peculiar tenets. 'Nero,' says Tacitus, 'exposed to accusation, and tortured with the most exquisite penalties, a set of men detested for their enormities, whom the common people called Christians. Christus, the founder of this sect, was executed during the reign of Tiberius by the Procurator Pontius Pilate, and the deadly superstition, suppressed for a time, began to burst out once more, not only throughout Judaea, where the evil had its root, but even in the City, whither from every quarter all things horrible or shameful are drifted, and find their votaries.' The lordly disdain which prevented Tacitus from making any inquiry into the real views and character of the Christians, is shown by the fact that he catches up the most baseless allegations against them. … The masses, he says, called them 'Christians;' and while he almost apologises for staining his page with so vulgar an appellation, he merely mentions in passing, that, though innocent of the charge of being turbulent incendiaries, on which they were tortured to death, they were yet a set of guilty and infamous sectaries, to be classed with the lowest dregs of Roman criminals. But the haughty historian throws no light on one difficulty, namely, the circumstances which led to the Christians being thus singled out. The Jews were in no way involved in Nero's persecution. … The Jews were by far the deadliest enemies of the Christians; and two persons of Jewish proclivities were at this time in close proximity to the person of the Emperor. One was the pantomimist Aliturus, the other was Poppaea, the harlot Empress. … If, as seems certain, the Jews had it in their power during the reign of Nero more or less to shape the whisper of the throne, does not historical induction drive us to conclude with some confidence that the suggestion of the Christians as scapegoats and victims came from them? … Tacitus tells us that 'those who confessed were first seized, and then on their evidence a huge multitude were convicted, not so much on the charge of incendiarism as for their hatred to mankind.' Compressed and obscure as the sentence is, Tacitus clearly means to imply by the 'confession' to which he alludes the confession of Christianity; and though he is not sufficiently generous to acquit the Christians absolutely of all complicity in the great crime, he distinctly says that they were made the scapegoats of a general indignation. The phrase—'a huge multitude'—is one of the few existing indications of the number of martyrs in the first persecution, and of the number of Christians in the Roman Church. When the historian says that they were convicted on the charge of 'hatred against mankind' he shows how completely he confounds them with the Jews, against whom he elsewhere brings the accusation of 'hostile feelings towards all except themselves.' Then the historian adds one casual but frightful sentence—a sentence which flings a dreadful light on the cruelty of Nero and the Roman mob. {2708} He adds, 'And various forms of mockery were added to enhance their dying agonies. Covered with the skins of wild beasts, they were doomed to die by the mangling of dogs, or by being nailed to crosses; or to be set on fire and burnt after twilight by way of nightly illumination. Nero offered his own gardens for this show, and gave a chariot race, mingling with the mob in the dress of a charioteer, or actually driving about among them. Hence, guilty as the victims were, and deserving of the worst punishments, a feeling of compassion towards them began to rise, as men felt that they were being immolated not for any advantage to the commonwealth, but to glut the savagery of a single man.' Imagine that awful scene, once witnessed by the silent obelisk in the square before St. Peter's at Rome! … Retribution did not linger, and the vengeance fell at once on the guilty Emperor and the guilty city. The air was full of prodigies. There were terrible storms; the plague wrought fearful ravages. Rumours spread from lip to lip. Men spoke of monstrous births; of deaths by lightning under strange circumstances; of a brazen statue of Nero melted by the flash; of places struck by the brand of heaven in fourteen regions of the city; of sudden darkenings of the sun. A hurricane devastated Campania; comets blazed in the heavens; earthquakes shook the ground. On all sides were the traces of deep uneasiness and superstitious terror. To all these portents, which were accepted as true by Christians as well as by Pagans, the Christians would give a specially terrible significance.… In spite of the shocking servility with which alike the Senate and the people had welcomed him back to the city with shouts of triumph, Nero felt that the air of Rome was heavy with curses against his name. He withdrew to Naples, and was at supper there on March 19, A. D. 68, the anniversary of his mother's murder, when he heard that the first note of revolt had been sounded by the brave C. Julius Vindex, Præfect of Farther Gaul. He was so far from being disturbed by the news, that he showed a secret joy at the thought that he could now order Gaul to be plundered. For eight days he took no notice of the matter. … At last, when he heard that Virginius Rufus had also rebelled in Germany, and Galba in Spain, he became aware of the desperate nature of his position. On receiving this intelligence he fainted away, and remained for some time unconscious. He continued, indeed, his grossness and frivolity, but the wildest and fiercest schemes chased each other through his melodramatic brain. … Meanwhile he found that the palace had been deserted by his guards, and that his attendants had robbed his chamber even of the golden box in which he had stored his poison. Rushing out, as though to drown himself in the Tiber, he changed his mind, and begged for some quiet hiding-place in which to collect his thoughts. The freedman Phaon offered him a lowly villa about four miles from the city. Barefooted, and with a faded coat thrown over his tunic, he hid his head and face in a kerchief, and rode away with only four attendants. … There is no need to dwell on the miserable spectacle of his end, perhaps the meanest and most pusillanimous which has ever been recorded. The poor wretch who, without a pang, had caused so many brave Romans and so many innocent Christians to be murdered, could not summon up resolution to die. … Meanwhile a courier arrived for Phaon. Nero snatched his despatches out of his hand, and read that the Senate had decided that he should be punished in the ancestral fashion as a public enemy. Asking what the ancestral fashion was, he was informed that he would be stripped naked and scourged to death with rods, with his head thrust into a fork. Horrified at this, he seized two daggers, and after theatrically trying their edges, sheathed them again, with the excuse that the fatal moment had not yet arrived! Then he bade Sporus begin to sing his funeral song, and begged some one to show him how to die. … The sound of horses' hoofs then broke on his ears, and, venting one more Greek quotation, he held the dagger to his throat. It was driven home by Epaphroditus, one of his literary slaves. … So died the last of the Cæsars! And as Robespierre was lamented by his landlady, so even Nero was tenderly buried by two nurses who had known him in the exquisite beauty of his engaging childhood, and by Acte, who had inspired his youth with a genuine love."

      ALSO IN:
      T. W. Allies,
      The Formation of Christendom,
      chapter 10 (volume 2).

ROME: A. D. 68-96.
   End of the Julian line.
   The "Twelve Cæsars" and their successors.
   A logical classification.

"In the sixth Caesar [Nero] terminated the Julian line. The three next princes in the succession were personally uninteresting; and, with a slight reserve in favor of Otho, … were even brutal in the tenor of their lives and monstrous; besides that the extreme brevity of their several reigns (all three, taken conjunctly, having held the supreme power for no more than twelve months and twenty days) dismisses them from all effectual station or right to a separate notice in the line of Caesars. Coming to the tenth in the succession, Vespasian, and his two sons, Titus and Domitian, who make up the list of the twelve Caesars, as they are usually called, we find matter for deeper political meditation and subjects of curious research. But these emperors would be more properly classed with the five who succeed them—Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, and the two Antonines; after whom comes the young ruffian, Commodus, another Caligula or Nero, from whose short and infamous reign Gibbon takes up his tale of the decline of the empire. And this classification would probably have prevailed, had not the very curious work of Suetonius, whose own life and period of observation determined the series and cycle of his subjects, led to a different distribution. But as it is evident that, in the succession of the first twelve Caesars, the six latter have no connection whatever by descent, collaterally, or otherwise, with the six first, it would be a more logical distribution to combine them according to the fortunes of the state itself, and the succession of its prosperity through the several stages of splendour, declension, revival, and final decay. Under this arrangement, the first seventeen would belong to the first stage; Commodus would open the second; Aurelian down to Constantine or Julian would fill the third; and Jovian to Agustulus would bring up the melancholy rear."

ROME: A. D. 69.
   Galba, Otho, Vitellius.
   Vespasian.
   The Vitellian conflict.

On the overthrow and death of Nero, June, A. D. 68, the veteran soldier Galba, proclaimed imperator by his legions in Spain, and accepted by the Roman senate, mounted the imperial throne. His brief reign was terminated in January of the following year by a sudden revolt of the prætorian guard, instigated by Salvius Otho, one of the profligate favorites of Nero, who had betrayed his former patron and was disappointed in the results. Galba was slain and Otho made emperor, to reign, in his turn, for a brief term of three months. Revolt against Otho was quick to show itself in the provinces, east and west. The legions on the Rhine set up a rival emperor, in the person of their commander, Aulus Vitellius, whose single talent was in gluttony, and who had earned by his vices the favor of four beastly rulers, from Tiberius to Nero, in succession. Gaul having declared in his favor, Vitellius sent forward two armies by different routes into Italy. Otho met them, with such forces as he could gather, at Bedriacum, between Verona and Cremona, and suffered there a defeat which he accepted as decisive. He slew himself, and Vitellius made his way to Rome without further opposition, permitting his soldiers to plunder the country as they advanced. But the armies of the east were not disposed to accept an emperor by the election of the armies of the west, and they, too, put forward a candidate for the purple. Their choice was better guided, for it fell on the sturdy soldier, Titus Flavius Vespasianus, then commanding in Judea. The advance corps of the forces supporting Vespasian (called "Flavians," or "Flavianites") entered Cisalpine Gaul from Illyricum in the autumn of 69, and encountered the Vitellians at Bedriacum, on the same field where the latter had defeated the Othonians a few weeks before. The Vitellians were defeated. Cremona, a flourishing Roman colony, which capitulated to the conquerors, was perfidiously given up to a merciless soldiery and totally destroyed,—one temple, alone, escaping. Vitellius, in despair, showed an eagerness to resign the throne, and negotiated his resignation with a brother of Vespasian, residing in Rome. But the mob of fugitive Vitellian soldiers which had collected in the capital interposed violently to prevent this abdication. Flavius Sabinus—the brother of Vespasian—took refuge, with his supporters, in the Capitolium, or temple of Jupiter, on the Capitoline Hill. But the sacred precincts were stormed by the Vitellian mob, the Capitol—the august sanctuary of Rome—was burned and Sabinus was slain. The army which had won the victory for Vespasian at Bedriacum, commanded by Antonius Primus, soon appeared at the gates of the city, to avenge this outrage. The unorganized force which attempted opposition was driven before it in worse disorder. Victors and vanquished poured into Rome together, slaughtering and being slaughtered in the streets. The rabble of the city joined in the bloody hunt, and in the plundering that went with it. "Rome had seen the conflicts of armed men in the streets under Sulla and Cinna, but never before such a hideous mixture of levity and ferocity." Vitellius was among the slain, his brief reign ending on the 21st of December, A. D. 69. Vespasian was still in the east, and did not enter Rome until the summer of the following year.

"Unfortunately Tacitus fails us … at this point, and this time completely. Nothing has been saved of his 'Histories' from the middle of the year 70, and we find ourselves reduced to the mere biographies of Suetonius, to the fragments of Dion, to the abridgments of Aurelius Victor and Eutropius. The majestic stream from which we have drawn and which flowed with brimming banks is now only a meagre thread of water. Of all the emperors Vespasian is the one who loses the most by this, for he was, says S. Augustine, a very good prince and very worthy of being beloved. He came into power at an age when one is no longer given to change, at 60 years. He had never been fond of gaming or debauchery, and he maintained his health by a frugal diet, even passing one day every month without eating. His life was simple and laborious. … He had no higher aim than to establish order in the state and in the finances; but he accomplished this, and if his principate, like all the others, made no preparations for the future, it did much for the present. It was a restorative reign, the effects of which were felt for several generations; this service is as valuable as the most brilliant victories. Following the example of the second Julius, the first of the Flavians resolved to seek in the senate the support of his government. This assembly, debased by so many years of tyranny, needed as much as it did a century before to be submitted to a severe revision. … Vespasian acted with resolution. Invested with the title of censor in 73, with his son Titus for colleague, he struck from the rolls of the two orders the members deemed unworthy, replaced them by the most distinguished persons of the Empire, and, by virtue of his powers as sovereign pontiff, raised several of them to the patriciate. A thousand Italian or provincial families came to be added to the 200 aristocratic families which had survived, and constituted with these the higher Roman society, from which the candidates for all civil, military, and religious functions were taken. … This aristocracy, borrowed by Vespasian from the provincial cities, where it had been trained to public affairs, where it had acquired a taste for economy, simplicity, and order, brought into Rome pure morals. … It will furnish the great emperors of the second century, the skilled lieutenants who will second them, and senators who will hereafter conspire only at long intervals. … To the senate, thus renewed and become the true representation of the Empire, Vespasian submitted all important matters. … Suetonius renders him this testimony, that it would be difficult to cite a single individual unjustly punished in his reign, at least unless it were in his absence or without his knowledge. He loved to dispense justice himself in the Forum. … The legions, who had made and unmade five emperors in two years, were no longer attentive to the ancient discipline. He brought them back to it. … The morals of the times were bad; he did more than the laws to reform them—he set good examples. … {2710} Augustus had raised two altars to Peace; Vespasian built a temple to her, in which he deposited the most precious spoils of Jerusalem; and … the old general closed, for the sixth time, the doors of the temple of Janus. He built a forum surrounded by colonnades, in addition to those already existing, and commenced, in the midst of the city, the vast amphitheatre, a mountain of stone, of which three-fourths remain standing to-day. … A colossal statue raised near by for Nero, but which Vespasian consecrated to the Sun, gave it its name, the Coliseum. … We have no knowledge of the wars of Vespasian, except that three times in the year 71 he assumed the title of 'imperator,' and three times again the following year. But when we see him making Cappadocia an imperial proconsular province with numerous garrisons to check the incursions which desolated it; and, towards the Danube, extending his influence over the barbarians even beyond the Borysthenes; when we read in Tacitus that Velleda, the prophetess of the Bructeri, was at that time brought a captive to Rome; that Cerialis vanquished the Brigantes and Frontinus the Silures, we must believe that Vespasian made a vigorous effort along the whole line of his outposts to impress upon foreign nations respect for the Roman name. … Here is the secret of that severe economy which appeared to the prodigal and light-minded a shameful stinginess. … Vespasian … was 69 years old, and was at his little house in the territory of Reate when he felt the approach of death. 'I feel that I am becoming a god,' he said to those around him, laughing in advance at his apotheosis. … 'An emperor,' he said, 'ought to die standing.' He attempted to rise and expired in this effort, on the 23rd of June, 79. The first plebeian emperor has had no historian, but a few words of his biographer suffice for his renown: 'rem publicam stabilivit et ornavit,' 'by him the State was strengthened and glorified.' … Vespasian being dead, Titus assumed the title of Augustus. … His father had prepared him for this by taking him as associate in the Empire; he had given to him the title of Cæsar, the censorship, the tribunitian power, the prefecture of the prætorium, and seven consulates. Coming into power at the age of maturity, rich in experience and satiated with pleasures by his very excesses, he had henceforth but one passion, that of the public welfare. At the outset he dismissed his boon companions; in his father's lifetime he had already sacrificed to Roman prejudices his tender sentiments for the Jewish queen Berenice, whom he had sent back to the East. In taking possession of the supreme pontificate he declared that he would keep his hands pure from blood, and he kept his word: no one under his reign perished by his orders." It was during the short reign of Titus that Herculaneum and Pompeii were overwhelmed by an eruption of Vesuvius (August 23, A. D. 79), while other calamities afflicted Italy. "Pestilence carried off thousands of people even in Rome [see PLAGUE: A. D. 78-266]; and at last a conflagration, which raged three days, consumed once more the Capitol, the library of Augustus, and Pompey's theatre. To Campania Titus sent men of consular rank with large sums of money, and he devoted to the relief of the survivors the property that had fallen to the treasury through the death of those who had perished in the disaster without leaving heirs. At Rome he took upon himself the work of repairing everything, and to provide the requisite funds he sold the furniture of the imperial palace. … This reign lasted only 26 months, from the 23rd of June, A. D. 79, to the 13th of September, A. D. 81. As Titus was about to visit his paternal estate in the Sabine territory he was seized by a violent fever, which soon left no hope of his recovery. There is a report that he partly opened the curtains of his litter and gazed at the sky with eyes full of tears and reproaches. 'Why,' he exclaimed, 'must I die so soon? In all my life I have, however, but one thing to repent.' What was this? No one knows." Titus was succeeded by his brother Domitian, then thirty years old. "The youth of Domitian had been worthy of the times of Nero, and he had wearied his father and brother by his intrigues. Nevertheless he was sober, to the extent of taking but one meal a day, and he had a taste for military exercises, for study and poetry, especially since the elevation of his family. Vespasian had granted him honours, but no power, and, at the death of Titus, he had only the titles of Cæsar and Prince of the Youth. In his hurry to seize at last that Empire so long coveted, he abandoned his dying brother to rush to Rome, to the camp of the prætorians. … On the day of their coronation there are few bad princes. Almost all begin well, but, in despotic monarchies, the majority end badly, particularly when the reigns are of long duration. … Domitian reigned 15 years, one year longer than Nero, and his reign reproduced the same story: at first it wise government, then every excess. Happily the excesses did not come till late. … Fully as vain as the son of Agrippina, Domitian heaped every title upon his own head and decreed deification to himself. His edicts stated: 'Our lord and our god ordains … ' The new god did not scorn vulgar honours. … He was consul 17 times, and 22 times did he have himself proclaimed 'imperator' for victories that had not always been gained. He recalled Nero too by his fondness for shows and for building. … There were several wars under Domitian, all defensive excepting the expedition against the Catti [see CHATTI], which was only a great civil measure to drive away the hostile marauders from the frontier. If Pliny the Younger and Tacitus are to be believed, these wars were like those which Caligula waged: Domitian's victories were defeats; his captives, purchased slaves; his triumphs, audacious falsehoods. Suetonius is not so severe. … Domitian's cruelty appeared especially, and perhaps we should say only, after the revolt of a person of high rank, Antonius Saturninus, who pretended to be a descendant of the triumvir. … He was in command of two legions in Germany whom he incited to revolt, and he called the Germans to his aid. An unexpected thaw stopped this tribe on the right bank of the Rhine, while Appius Norbanus Maximus, governor of Aquitania, crushed Antonius on the opposite shore. … This revolt must belong to the year 93, which, as Pliny says, is that in which Domitian's great cruelties began. … Domitian lived in a state of constant alarm; every sound terrified him, every man seemed to him an assassin, every occurrence was an omen of evil." He endured this life of gloomy terror for three years, when his dread forebodings were realized, and he was murdered by his own attendants, September 18, A. D. 96.

      ALSO IN:
      Suetonius,
      Lives of the Twelve Cæsars: Vespasian, Titus, Domitian.

      C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans under the Empire,
      chapters 57-60 (volumes 6-7).

ROME: A. D. 96-138.
   Brief reign of Nerva.-
   Adoption and succession of Trajan.
   His persecution of Christians.
   His conquests beyond the Danube and in the east.
   Hadrian's relinquishment of them.

"On the same day on which Domitian was assassinated, M. Cocceius Nerva was proclaimed Emperor by the Prætorians, and confirmed by the people. He owed his elevation principally to Petronius, Prefect of the Prætorians, and Parthenius, chamberlain to the late Emperor. He was of Cretan origin, and a native of Narni in Umbria, and consequently the first Emperor who was not of Italian descent. … He was prudent, upright, generous, and of a gentle temper; but a feeble frame and weak constitution, added to the burden of 64 years, rendered him too reserved, timid, and irresolute for the arduous duties of a sovereign prince. … The tolerant and reforming administration of the new Emperor soon became popular. Rome breathed again after the bloody tyranny under which she had been trampled to the dust. The perjured 'delator' was threatened with the severest penalties. The treacherous slave who had denounced his master was put to death. Exiles returned to their native cities, and again enjoyed their confiscated possessions. … Determined to administer the government for the benefit of the Roman people, he (Nerva) turned his attention to the question of finance, and to the burdensome taxation which was the fruit of the extravagance of his predecessors. … He diminished the enormous sums which were lavished upon shows and spectacles, and reduced, as far as was possible, his personal and household expenses. … It was not probable that an Emperor of so weak and yielding a character, notwithstanding his good qualities as a prince and a statesman, would be acceptable to a licentious and dominant soldiery. But a few months had elapsed when a conspiracy was organized against him by Calpurnius Crassus. It was, however, discovered; and the ringleader, having confessed his crime, experienced the Emperor's usual generosity, being only punished by banishment to Tarentum. … Meanwhile the Prætorians, led on by Ælianus Carperius, who had been their Prefect under Domitian, besieged Nerva in his palace, with cries of vengeance upon the assassins of his predecessor, murdered Petronius and Parthenius, and compelled the timid Emperor publicly to express his approbation of the deed, and to testify his obligation to them for wreaking vengeance on the guilty. … Nerva was in declining years, and, taught by circumstances that he was unequal to curb or cope with the insolence of the soldiery, adopted Trojan as his son and successor [A. D. 97]. Soon after, he conferred upon him in the Senate the rank of Cæsar, and the name of Germanicus, and added the tribuneship and the title of Emperor. This act calmed the tumult, and was welcomed with the unanimous consent of the Senate and the people. … Soon after the adoption of Trajan he died of a fit of ague which brought on fever, at the gardens of Sallust, after a reign of sixteen months, in the sixty-sixth year of his age [A. D. 98]. … The choice which Nerva had made proved a fortunate one. M. Ulpius Nerva Trajanus was a Spaniard, a native of Italica, near Seville. … He was of an ancient and distinguished family, and his father had filled the office of consul. Although a foreigner, he was a Roman in habits, sympathies, and language; for the south of Spain had become so completely Roman that the inhabitants generally spoke Latin. When a young man he had distinguished himself in a war against the Parthians. … At the time of his adoption by Nerva he was in command of a powerful army in Lower Germany, his head-quarters being at Cologne. He was in the prime of life, possessed of a robust constitution, a commanding figure, and a majestic countenance. He was a perfect soldier, by taste and education, and was endowed with all the qualities of a general. … He was a strict disciplinarian, but he knew all his veterans, spoke to them by their names, and never let a gallant action pass unrewarded. … The news of Nerva's death was conveyed to him at Cologne by his cousin Hadrian, where he immediately received the imperial power. During the first year of his reign he remained with the army in Germany, engaged in establishing the discipline of the troops and in inspiring them with a love of their duty. … The ensuing year he made his entry into Rome on foot, together with his empress, Pompeia Plotina, whose amiability and estimable character contributed much to the popularity of her husband. Her conduct, together with that of his sister, Marciana, exercised a most beneficial influence upon Roman society. They were the first ladies of the imperial court who by their example checked the shameless licentiousness which had long prevailed amongst women of the higher classes. … The tastes and habits of his former life led to a change in the peaceful policy which had so long prevailed. The first war in which he was engaged was with the Dacians, who inhabited the country beyond the Danube. …

   A few years of peace ensued, which Trajan endured with patient
   reluctance; and many great public works undertaken during the
   interval show his genius for civil as well as for military
   administration. … But his presence was soon required in the
   East, and he joyfully hailed the opportunity thus offered him
   for gaining fresh laurels. The real object of this expedition
   was ambition—the pretext, that Exedarius, or Exodares, king of
   Armenia, had received the crown from the king of Parthia,
   instead of from the Emperor of Rome, as Tiridates had from the
   hands of Nero. For this insult he demanded satisfaction.
   Chosroes, the king of Parthia, at first treated his message
   with contempt; but afterwards, seeing that war was imminent,
   he sent ambassadors with presents to meet Trajan at Athens,
   and to announce to him the deposition of Exedarius, and to
   entreat him to confer the crown of Armenia upon Parthamasiris,
   or Parthamaspes. Trajan received the ambassadors coldly, told
   them that he was on his march to Syria, and would there act as
   he thought fit. Accordingly he crossed into Asia, and marched
   by way of Cilicia, Syria, and Seleucia to Antioch.
{2712}
   The condemnation of the martyr bishop St. Ignatius marked his
   stay in that city [A. D. 115]. It seems strange that the
   persecution of the Christians should have met with countenance
   and support from an emperor like Trajan; but the fact is, the
   Roman mind could not separate the Christian from the Jew. The
   religious distinction was beneath their notice; they
   contemplated the former merely as a sect of the latter. The
   Roman party in Asia were persuaded that the Jews were
   meditating and preparing for insurrection; and the rebellions
   of this and the ensuing reign proved that their apprehensions
   were not unreasonable. Hence, at Antioch, the imperial
   influence was on the side of persecution; and hence when
   Pliny, the gentle governor of Pontus and Bithynia, wrote to
   Trajan for instructions respecting the Christians in his
   province, his 'rescript' spoke of Christianity as a dangerous
   superstition, and enjoined the punishment of its professors if
   discovered, although he would not have them sought for. Having
   received the voluntary sub·mission of Abgarns, prince of
   Osrhoene in Mesopotamia, he marched against Armenia.
   Parthamasiris, who had assumed the royal state, laid his
   diadem at his feet, in the hopes that he would return it to
   him as Nero had to Tiridates. Trajan claimed his kingdom as a
   province of the Roman people, and the unfortunate monarch lost
   his life in a useless struggle for his crown. This was the
   commencement of his triumphs: he received the voluntary
   submission of the kings of Iberia, Sarmatia, the Bosphorus,
   Colchis, Albania; and he assigned kings to most of the
   barbarous tribes that inhabited the coast of the Euxine. Still
   he proceeded on his career of conquest. He chastised the king
   of Adiabene, who had behaved to him with treachery, and took
   possession of his dominions, subjugated the rest of
   Mesopotamia, constructed a bridge of boats over the Tigris,
   and commenced a canal to unite the two great rivers of
   Assyria. His course of conquest was resistless; he captured
   Seleucia, earned the title of Parthicus by taking Ctesiphon,
   the capital of Parthia [A. D. 116], imposed a tribute on
   Mesopotamia, and reduced Assyria to the condition of a Roman
   province. He returned to winter at Antioch, which was in the
   same winter almost destroyed by an earthquake. Trajan escaped
   through a window, not without personal injury. … The river
   Tigris bore the victorious Emperor from the scene of his
   conquest down to the Persian Gulf; he subjugated Arabia Felix,
   and, like a second Alexander, was meditating and even making
   preparations for an invasion of India by sea; but his
   ambitious designs were frustrated by troubles nearer at hand.
   Some of the conquered nations revolted, and his garrisons were
   either expelled or put to the sword. He sent his generals to
   crush the rebels; one of them, Maximus, was conquered and
   slain; the other, Lusius Quietus, gained considerable
   advantages and was made governor of Palestine, which had begun
   to be in a state of insurrection.

He himself marched to punish the revolted Hagareni (Saracens), whose city was called Atra, in Mesopotamia. … Trajan laid siege to it, but was obliged to raise the siege with great loss. Soon after this he was seized with illness. … Leaving his army therefore to the care of Hadrian, whom he had made governor of Syria, he embarked for Rome at the earnest solicitation of the Senate. On arriving at Selinus in Cilicia (afterwards named Trajanopolis), he was seized with diarrhœa, and expired in the twentieth year of his reign [August, A. D. 117]. … He died childless, and it is said had not intended to nominate a successor, following in this the example of Alexander. Hadrian owed his adoption to Plotina. … Dio positively asserts that she concealed her husband's death for some days, and that the letter informing the Senate of his last intentions was signed by her, and not by Trajan. Hadrian received the despatches declaring his adoption on the 9th of August, and those announcing Trajan's death two days afterwards. … As soon as he was proclaimed Emperor at Antioch, he sent an apologetic despatch to the Senate requesting their assent to his election; the army, he said, had chosen him without waiting for their sanction, lest the Republic should remain without a prince. The confirmation which he asked for was immediately granted. … The state of Roman affairs was at this moment a very critical one, and did not permit the new Emperor to leave the East. Emboldened by the news of Trajan's illness, the conquered Parthians had revolted and achieved some great successes; Sarmatia on the north, Mauritania, Egypt, and Syria on the south, were already in a state of insurrection. The far-sighted prudence of Hadrian led him to fear that the empire was not unlikely to fall to pieces by its own weight, and that the Euphrates was its best boundary. It was doubtless a great sacrifice to surrender all the rich and populous provinces beyond that river which had been gained by the arms of his predecessor. It was no coward fear or mean envy of Trajan which prompted Hadrian, but he wisely felt that it was worth any price to purchase peace and security. Accordingly he withdrew the Roman armies from Armenia, Assyria and Mesopotamia, constituted the former of these an independent kingdom, surrendered the two latter to the Parthians, and restored their deposed king Chosroes to his throne. … After taking these measures for establishing peace in the East, he left Catilius Severus governor of Syria, and returned by way of Illyria to Rome, where he arrived the following year. … A restless curiosity, which was one of the principal features in his character, would not permit him to remain inactive at Rome; he determined to make a personal survey of every province throughout his vast dominions, and for this reason he is so frequently represented on medals as the Roman Hercules. He commenced his travels with Gaul, thence he proceeded to Germany, where he established order and discipline amongst the Roman forces, and then crossed over to Britain. … It would be uninteresting to give a mere catalogue of the countries which he visited during the ensuing ten years of his reign. In the fifteenth winter of it he arrived in Egypt, and rebuilt the tomb of Pompey the Great at Pelusium. Thence he proceeded to Alexandria which was at that period the university of the world. … He had scarcely passed through Syria when the Jews revolted, and continued in arms for three years. …

Hadrian spent the winter at Athens, where he gratified his architectural taste by completing the temple of Jupiter Olympius. … Conscious … of the infirmities of disease and of advancing years, he adopted L. Aurelius Verus, a man of pleasure and of weak and delicate health, totally unfit for his new position. … Age and disease had now so altered his [Hadrian's] character that he became luxurious, self-indulgent, suspicious, and even cruel: Verus did not live two years, and the Emperor then adopted Titus Antoninus, on condition that he should in his turn adopt M. Annius Verus, afterwards called M. Aurelius, and the son of Aurelius Verus." Hadrian's malady "now became insupportably painful, his temper savage even to madness, and many lives of senators and others were sacrificed to his fury. His sufferings were so excruciating that he was always begging his attendants to put him to death. At last he went to Baiæ, where, setting at defiance the prescriptions of his physicians, he ate and drank what he pleased. Death, therefore, soon put a period to his sufferings, in the sixty-third year of his age and the twenty-first of his restless reign [A. D. 138]. Antoninus was present at his death, his corpse was burnt at Puteoli (Pozzuoli), and his ashes deposited in the mausoleum (moles Hadriani) which he had himself built, and which is now the Castle of St. Angelo."

ALSO IN: C. Merivale, History of the Romans under the Empire, chapters 63-66 (volume 7).

      T. Arnold and others,
      History of the Roman Empire
      (Encyclopædia Metropolitana).
      chapters 4-6.

[IMAGE:
THE ROMAN EMPIRE AT ITS GREATEST EXTENT UNDER TRAJAN (116)
SHOWING ACQUISITIONS OF TERRITORY FROM THE ACCESSION OR AUGUSTUS.
ROMAN TERRITORY AT THE ACCESSION OF AUGUSTUS.
TERRITORY ACQUIRED TO THE ACCESSION or TRAJAN.

THE TEMPORARY CONQUESTS OF TRAJAN ARE SHOWN BY THE BORDER COLOR.

THE ACQUISITIONS OF THE DIFFERENT EMPERORS ARE INDICATED BY THE LETTERING.]

"On the death of Hadrian in A. D. 138, Antoninus Pius succeeded to the throne, and, in accordance with the late Emperor's conditions, adopted Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Commodus. Marcus had been betrothed at the age of 15 to the sister of Lucius Commodus, but the new Emperor broke off the engagement, and betrothed him instead to his daughter Faustina. The marriage, however, was not celebrated till seven years afterwards, A. D. 146. The long reign of Antoninus Pius is one of those happy periods that have no history. An almost unbroken peace reigned at home and abroad. Taxes were lightened, calamities relieved, informers discouraged; confiscations were rare, plots and executions were almost unknown. Throughout the whole extent of his vast domain the people loved and valued their Emperor, and the Emperor's one aim was to further the happiness of his people. He, too, like Aurelius, had learnt that what was good for the bee was good for the hive. … He disliked war, did not value the military title of Imperator, and never deigned to accept a triumph. With this wise and eminent prince, who was as amiable in his private relations as he was admirable in the discharge of his public duties, Marcus Aurelius spent the next 23 years of his life. … There was not a shade of jealousy between them; each was the friend and adviser of the other, and, so far from regarding his destined heir with suspicion, the Emperor gave him the designation 'Cæsar,' and heaped upon him all the honours of the Roman commonwealth. It was in vain that the whisper of malignant tongues attempted to shake this mutual confidence. … In the year 161, when Marcus was now 40 years old. Antoninus Pius, who had reached the age of 75, caught a fever at Lorium. Feeling that his end was near, he summoned his friends and the chief men of Rome to his bedside, and there (without saying a word about his other adopted son, who is generally known by the name of Lucius Verus) solemnly recommended Marcus to them as his successor; and then, giving to the captain of the guard the watchword of 'Equanimity,' as though his earthly task was over he ordered to be transferred to the bedroom of Marcus the little golden statue of Fortune, which was kept in the private chamber of the Emperors as an omen of public prosperity. The very first act of the new Emperor was one of splendid generosity, namely, the admission of his adoptive brother Lucius Verus into the fullest participation of imperial honours. … The admission of Lucius Verus to a share of the Empire was due to the innate modesty of Marcus. As he was a devoted student, and cared less for manly exercises, in which Verus excelled, he thought that his adoptive brother would be a better and more useful general than himself, and that he could best serve the State by retaining the civil administration, and entrusting to his brother the management of war. Verus, however, as soon as he got away from the immediate influence and ennobling society of Marcus, broke loose from all decency, and showed himself to be a weak and worthless personage. … Two things only can be said in his favour; the one, that, though depraved, he was wholly free from cruelty; and the other, that he had the good sense to submit himself entirely to his brother. … Marcus had a large family by Faustina, and in the first year of his reign his wife bore twins, of whom the one who survived became the wicked and detested Emperor Commodus. As though the birth of such a child were in itself an omen of ruin, a storm of calamity began at once to burst over the long tranquil State. An inundation of the Tiber … caused a distress which ended in wide-spread famine. Men's minds were terrified by earthquakes, by the burning of cities, and by plagues of noxious insects. To these miseries, which the Emperors did their best to alleviate, was added the horror of wars and rumours of wars. The Parthians, under their king Vologeses, defeated and all but destroyed a Roman army, and devastated with impunity the Roman province of Syria. The wild tribes of the Catti burst over Germany with fire and sword; and the news from Britain was full of insurrection and tumult. Such were the elements of trouble and discord which overshadowed the reign of Marcus Aurelius from its very beginning down to its weary close. As the Parthian war was the most important of the three, Verus was sent to quell it, and but for the ability of his generals—the greatest of whom was Avidius Cassius—would have ruined irretrievably the fortunes of the Empire. These generals, however, vindicated the majesty of the Roman name [A. D. 165-166 —see PARTHIA], and Verus returned in triumph, bringing back with him from the East the seeds, of a terrible pestilence which devastated the whole Empire [see PLAGUE: A. D. 78-266] and by which, on the outbreak of fresh wars, Verus himself was carried off at Aquileia. … Marcus was now the undisputed lord of the Roman world. … But this imperial elevation kindled no glow of pride or self-satisfaction in his meek and chastened nature. He regarded himself as being in fact the servant of all. … He was one of those who held that nothing should be done hastily, and that few crimes were worse than the waste of time. {2714} It is to such views and such habits that we owe the composition of his works. His 'Meditations' were written amid the painful self-denial and distracting anxieties of his wars with the Quadi and the Marcomanni [A. D. 168-180,—see SARMATIAN AND MARCOMANNIAN WARS OF MARCUS AURELIUS], and he was the author of other works which unhappily have perished. Perhaps of all the lost treasures of antiquity there are few which we should feel a greater wish to recover than the lost autobiography of this wisest of Emperors and holiest of Pagan men. … The Court was to Marcus a burden; he tells us himself that Philosophy was his mother, Empire only his stepmother; it was only his repose in the one that rendered even tolerable to him the burdens of the other. … The most celebrated event of the war [with the Quadi] took place in a great victory … which he won in A. D. 174, and which was attributed by the Christians to what is known as the 'Miracle of the Thundering Legion.' …

To the gentle heart of Marcus all war, even when accompanied with victories, was eminently distasteful; and in such painful and ungenial occupations no small part of his life was passed. … It was his unhappy destiny not to have trodden out the embers of this [the Sarmatian] war before he was burdened with another far more painful and formidable. This was the revolt of Avidius Cassius, a general of the old blunt Roman type, whom, in spite of some ominous warnings, Marcus both loved and trusted. The ingratitude displayed by such a man caused Marcus the deepest anguish; but he was saved from all dangerous consequences by the wide-spread affection which he had inspired by his virtuous reign. The very soldiers of the rebellious general fell away from him, and, after he had been a nominal Emperor for only three months and six days, he was assassinated by some of his own officers. … Marcus travelled through the provinces which had favoured the cause of Avidius Cassius, and treated them all with the most complete and indulgent forbearance. … During this journey of pacification, he lost his wife Faustina, who died suddenly in one of the valleys of Mount Taurus. History … has assigned to Faustina a character of the darkest infamy, and it has even been made a charge against Aurelius that he overlooked or condoned her offences. … No doubt Faustina was unworthy of her husband; but surely it is the glory and not the shame of a noble nature to be averse from jealousy and suspicion. … 'Marcus Aurelius cruelly persecuted the Christians.' Let us briefly consider this charge. … Marcus in his 'Meditations' alludes to the Christians once only, and then it is to make a passing complaint of the indifference to death, which appeared to him, as it appeared to Epictetus, to arise, not from any noble principles, but from mere obstinacy and perversity. That he shared the profound dislike with which Christians were regarded is very probable. That he was a cold-blooded and virulent persecutor is utterly unlike his whole character. … The true state of the case seems to have been this: The deep calamities in which during the whole reign of Marcus the Empire was involved, caused wide-spread distress, and roused into peculiar fury the feelings of the provincials against men whose atheism (for such they considered it to be) had kindled the anger of the gods. … Marcus, when appealed to, simply let the existing law take its course. … The martyrdoms took place in Gaul and Asia Minor, not in Rome. … The persecution of the churches in Lyons and Vienne happened in A. D. 177. Shortly after this period fresh wars recalled the Emperor to the North. … He was worn out with the toils, trials and travels of his long and weary life. He sunk under mental anxieties and bodily fatigues, and after a brief illness died in Pannonia, either at Vienna or at Sirmium, on March 17, A. D. 180, in the 59th year of his age and the 20th of his reign."

"One moment, thanks to him, the world was governed by the best and greatest man of his age. Frightful decadences followed; but the little casket which contained the 'Thoughts' on the banks of the Granicus was saved. From it came forth that incomparable book in which Epictetus was surpassed, that Evangel of those who believe not in the supernatural, which has not been comprehended until our day. Veritable, eternal Evangel, the book of 'Thoughts,' which will never grow old, because it asserts no dogma."

C. Merivale, History of the Romans under the Empire, chapters 67-68 (volume 7).

      G. Long,
      Thoughts of the Emperor M. Aurelius Antoninus,
      introduction.

"If a man were called to fix the period in the history of the world during which the condition of the human race was most happy and prosperous, he would, without hesitation, name that which elapsed from the death of Domitian to the accession of Commodus. The vast extent of the Roman empire was governed by absolute power, under the guidance of virtue and wisdom. The armies were restrained by the firm but gentle hand of four successive emperors whose characters and authority commanded involuntary respect. … It has been objected to Marcus, that he sacrificed the happiness of millions to a fond partiality for a worthless boy; and that he chose a successor in his own family rather than in the republic. Nothing, however, was neglected by the anxious father, and by the men of virtue and learning whom he summoned to his assistance, to expand the narrow mind of young Commodus, to correct his growing vices, and to render him worthy of the throne for which he was designed. … The beloved son of Marcus succeeded to his father, amidst the acclamations of the senate and armies; and when he ascended the throne, the happy youth saw round him neither competitor to remove, nor enemies to punish. In this calm elevated station it was surely natural that he should prefer the love of mankind to their detestation, the mild glories of his five predecessors to the ignominious fate of Nero and Domitian. Yet Commodus was not, as he has been represented, a tiger born with an insatiate thirst of human blood, and capable, from his infancy, of the most inhuman actions. Nature had formed him of a weak, rather than a wicked disposition. His simplicity and timidity rendered him the slave of his attendants, who gradually corrupted his mind. His cruelty, which at first obeyed the dictates of others, degenerated into habit, and at length became the ruling passion of his soul. … {2715} During the three first years of his reign, the forms, and even the spirit, of the old administration were maintained by those faithful counsellors to whom Marcus had recommended his son, and for whose wisdom and integrity Commodus still entertained a reluctant esteem. The young prince and his profligate favorites revelled in all the license of sovereign power; but his hands were yet unstained with blood; and he had even displayed a generosity of sentiment, which might perhaps have ripened into solid virtue. A fatal incident decided his fluctuating character. One evening, as the emperor was returning to the palace through a dark and narrow portico in the amphitheatre, an assassin, who waited his passage, rushed upon him with a drawn sword, loudly exclaiming, 'The senate sends you this.' The menace prevented the deed; the assassin was seized by the guards, and immediately revealed the authors of the conspiracy. It had been formed, not in the State, but within the walls of the palace. … But the words of the assassin sunk deep into the mind of Commodus, and left an indelible impression of fear and hatred against the whole body of the senate. Those whom he had dreaded as importunate ministers he now suspected as secret enemies. The Delators, a race of men discouraged, and almost extinguished, under the former reigns, again became formidable as soon as they discovered that the emperor was desirous of finding disaffection and treason in the senate. … Suspicion was equivalent to proof; trial to condemnation. The execution of a considerable senator was attended with the death of all who might lament or revenge his fate; and when Commodus had once tasted human blood, he became incapable of pity or remorse. … Pestilence and famine contributed to fill up the measure of the calamities of Rome. … His cruelty proved at last fatal to himself. He had shed with impunity the noblest blood of Rome: he perished as soon as he was dreaded by his own domestics. Marcia, his favorite concubine, Eclectus, his chamberlain, and Lætus, his Prætorian præfect, alarmed by the fate of their companions and predecessors, resolved to prevent the destruction which every hour hung over their heads, either from the mad caprice of the tyrant, or the sudden indignation of the people. Marcia seized the occasion of presenting a draught of wine to her lover, after he had fatigued himself with hunting some wild beasts. Commodus retired to sleep; but whilst he was laboring with the effects of poison and drunkenness, a robust youth, by profession a wrestler, entered his chamber, and strangled him without resistance" (December 31, A. D. 192).

ROME: A. D. 192-284.
   From Commodus to Diocletian.
   Twenty-three Emperors in the Century.
   Thirteen murdered by their own soldiers or servants.
   Successful wars of Severus, Aurelian, and Probus.

On the murder of Commodus, "Helvius Pertinax, the prefect of the city, a man of virtue, was placed on the throne by the conspirators, who would fain justify their deed in the eyes of the world, and their choice was confirmed by the senate. But the Prætorians had not forgotten their own power on a similar occasion; and they liked not the virtue and regularity of the new monarch. Pertinax was, therefore, speedily deprived of throne and life. Prætorian insolence now attained its height. Regardless of the dignity and honour of the empire, they set it up to auction. The highest bidder was a senator, named Didius Julianus [March, 193]. … The legions disdained to receive an emperor from the life-guards. Those of Britain proclaimed their general Clodius Albinus; those of Asia, Pescennius Niger: the Pannonian legions, Septimius Severus. This last was a man of bravery and conduct: by valour and stratagem he successively vanquished his rivals [defeating Albinus in an obstinate battle at Lyons, A. D: 197, and finishing the subjugation of his rivals in the east by reducing Byzantium after a siege of three years]. He maintained the superiority of the Roman arms against the Parthians and Caledonians.

   His reign was vigorous and advantageous to the state; but he
   wanted either the courage or the power to fully repress the
   license and insubordination of the soldiery. Severus left the
   empire [A. D. 211] to his two sons. Caracalla, the elder, a
   prince of violent and untamable passions, disdained to share
   empire with any. He murdered his brother and colleague, the
   more gentle Geta, and put to death all who ventured to
   disapprove of the deed. A restless ferocity distinguished the
   character of Caracalla; he was ever at war, now on the banks
   of the Rhine, now on those of the Euphrates. His martial
   impetuosity daunted his enemies; his reckless cruelty
   terrified his subjects. … During a Parthian war Caracalla gave
   offence to Macrinus, the commander of his body-guard, who
   murdered him [A. D. 217). Macrinus seized the empire, but had
   not power to hold it. He and his son Diadumenianus [after
   defeat in battle at Immæ, near Antioch] … were put to death by
   the army, who proclaimed a supposed son [and actually a second
   cousin] of their beloved Caracalla. This youth was named
   Elagabalus, and was priest of the Sun in the temple of Emesa,
   in Syria. Every vice stained the character of this licentious
   effeminate youth, whose name is become proverbial for sensual
   indulgence: he possessed no redeeming quality, had no friend,
   and was put to death by his own guards, who, vicious as they
   were themselves, detested vice in him. Alexander Severus,
   cousin to Elagabalus, but of a totally opposite character,
   succeeded that vicious prince [A. D. 222]. All estimable
   qualities were united in the noble and accomplished Alexander.
   … The love of learning and virtue did not in him smother
   military skill and valour; he checked the martial hordes of
   Germany, and led the Roman eagles to victory against the
   Sassanides, who had displaced the Arsacides in the dominion
   over Persia, and revived the claims of the house of Cyrus over
   Anterior Asia. Alexander, victorious in war, beloved by his
   subjects, deemed he might venture on introducing more regular
   discipline into the army. The attempt was fatal, and the
   amiable monarch lost his life in the mutiny that resulted [A.
   D. 235]. Maximin, a soldier, originally a Thracian shepherd,
   distinguished by his prodigious size, strength and appetite, a
   stranger to all civic virtues and all civic rules, rude,
   brutal, cruel, and ferocious, seated himself on the throne of
   the noble and virtuous prince, in whose murder he had been the
   chief agent. At Rome, the senate conferred the vacant dignity
   on Gordian, a noble, wealthy and virtuous senator, and on his
   son of the same name, a valiant and spirited youth.
{2716}
   But scarcely were they recognized when the son fell in an
   engagement, and the father slew himself [A. D. 237]. Maximin
   was now rapidly marching towards Rome, full of rage and fury.
   Despair gave courage to the senate; they nominated Balbinus
   and Pupienus [Maximus Pupienus], one to direct the internal,
   the other the external affairs. Maximin had advanced as far as
   Aquileia [which he besieged without success], when his
   horrible cruelties caused an insurrection against him, and he
   and his son, an amiable youth, were murdered [A. D. 238]. The
   army was not, however, willing to acquiesce in the claim of
   the senate to appoint an emperor. Civil war was on the point
   of breaking out [and Balbinus and Pupienus were massacred by
   the Prætorians], when the conflicting parties agreed in the
   person of the third Gordian, a boy of but thirteen years of
   age [A. D. 238]. Gordian III. was … chiefly guided by his
   father-in-law, Misitheus, who induced him to engage in war
   against the Persians. In the war, Gordian displayed a courage
   worthy of any of his predecessors; but he shared what was now
   become the usual fate of a Roman emperor. He was murdered by
   Philip, the captain of his guard [A. D. 244]. Philip, an
   Arabian by birth, originally a captain of freebooters, seized
   on the purple of his murdered sovereign. Two rivals arose and
   contended with him for the prize, but accomplished nothing. A
   third competitor, Decius, the commander of the army of the
   Danube, defeated and slew him near Verona [A. D. 249]. During
   the reign of Philip, Rome attained her thousandth year."

T. Keightley, Outlines of History (Lardner's Cabinet Cyclopœdia), part 1, chapter 9.

"Decius is memorable as the first emperor who attempted to extirpate the Christian religion by a general persecution of its professors. His edicts are lost; but the records of the time exhibit a departure from the system which had been usually observed by enemies of the church since the days of Trajan. The authorities now sought out Christians; the legal order as to accusations was neglected; accusers ran no risk; and popular clamour was admitted instead of formal information. The long enjoyment of peace had told unfavourably on the church. … When, as Origen had foretold, a new season of trial came, the effects of the general relaxation were sadly displayed. On being summoned, in obedience to the emperor's edict, to appear and offer sacrifice, multitudes of Christians in every city rushed to the forum. … It seemed, says St. Cyprian, as if they had long been eager to find an opportunity for disowning their faith. The persecution was especially directed against the bishops and clergy. Among its victims were Fabian of Rome, Babylas of Antioch, and Alexander of Jerusalem; while in the lines of other eminent men (as Cyprian, Origen, Gregory Thaumaturgus, and Dionysius of Alexandria) the period is marked by exile or other sufferings. The chief object, however, was not to inflict death on the Christians, but to force them to recantation. With this view they were subjected to tortures, imprisonment and want of food; and under such trials the constancy of many gave way. Many withdrew into voluntary banishment; among these was Paul, a young man of Alexandria, who took up his abode in the desert of the Thebaid, and is celebrated as the first Christian hermit."

J. C. Robertson, History of the Christian Church, book 1, chapter 6 (volume 1).

"This persecution [of Decius] was interrupted by an invasion of the Goths, who, for the first time, crossed the Danube in considerable numbers, and devastated Mœsia.

Decius marched against them, and gained some important advantages; but in his last battle, charging into the midst of the enemy to avenge the death of his son, he was overpowered and slain (A. D. 251). A great number of the Romans, thus deprived of their leader, fell victims to the barbarians; the survivors, grateful for the protection afforded them by the legions of Gallus, who commanded in the neighbourhood, proclaimed that general emperor. Gallus concluded a dishonourable peace with the Goths, and renewed the persecutions of the Christians. His dastardly conduct provoked general resentment; the provincial armies revolted, but the most dangerous insurrection was that headed by Æmilianus, who was proclaimed emperor in Mœsia. He led his forces into Italy, and the hostile armies met at Interamna (Terni); but just as an engagement was about to commence, Gallus was murdered by his own soldiers (A. D. 253), and Æmilianus proclaimed emperor. In three months Æmilianus himself met a similar fate, the army having chosen Valerian, the governor of Gaul, to the sovereignty. Valerian, though now sixty years of age, possessed powers that might have revived the sinking fortunes of the empire, which was now invaded on all sides. The Goths, who had formed a powerful monarchy on the lower Danube and the northern coasts of the Black Sea, extended their territories to the Borysthenes (Dneiper) and Tanais (Don): they ravaged Mœsia, Thrace and Macedon; while their fleets … devastated the coasts both of the European and Asiatic provinces.

The great confederation of the Franks became formidable on the lower Rhine, and not less dangerous was that of the Allemanni on the upper part of that river.

The Carpians and Sarmatians laid Mœsia waste; while the Persians plundered Syria, Cappadocia, and Cilicia. Gallienus, the emperor's son, whom Valerian had chosen for his colleague, and Aurelian, destined to succeed him in the empire, gained several victories over the Germanic tribes; while Valerian marched in person against the Scythians and Persians, who had invaded Asia. He gained a victory over the former in Anatolia, but, imprudently passing the Euphrates, he was surrounded by Sapor's army near Edessa … and was forced to surrender at discretion (A. D. 259).

During nine years Valerian languished in hopeless captivity, the object of scorn and insult to his brutal conqueror, while no effort was made for his liberation by his unnatural son. Gallienus succeeded to the throne. … At the moment of his accession, the barbarians, encouraged by the captivity of Valerian, invaded the empire on all sides. Italy itself was invaded by the Germans, who advanced to Ravenna, but they were forced to retire by the emperor.

Gallienus, after this exertion, sunk into complete inactivity: his indolence roused a host of competitors for the empire in the different provinces, commonly called 'the thirty tyrants,' though the number of pretenders did not exceed 19. … Far the most remarkable of them was Odenatus, who assumed the purple at Palmyra, gained several great victories over the Persians, and besieged Sapor in Ctesiphon. … But this great man was murdered by some of his own family; he was succeeded by his wife, the celebrated Zenobia, who took the title of Queen of the East. Gallienus did not long survive him; he was murdered while besieging Aureolus, one of his rivals, in Mediolanum (Milan); but before his death he transmitted his rights to Claudius, a general of great reputation (A. D. 268). Most of the other tyrants had previously fallen in battle or by assassination. Marcus Aurelius Claudius, having conquered his only rival, Aureolus, marched against the Germans and Goths, whom he routed with great slaughter

He then prepared to march against Zenobia, who had conquered Egypt; but a pestilence broke out in his army, and the emperor himself was one of its victims (A. D. 270). … His brother was elected emperor by acclamation; but in 17 days he so displeased the army, by attempting to revive the ancient discipline, that he was deposed and murdered. Aurelian, a native of Sirmium in Pannonia, was chosen emperor by the army; and the senate, well acquainted with his merits, joyfully confirmed the election. He made peace with the Goths, and led his army against the Germans, who had once more invaded Italy.

Aurelian was at first defeated; but he soon retrieved his loss, and cut the whole of the barbarian army to pieces. His next victory was obtained over the Vandals, a new horde that had passed the Danube; and having thus secured the tranquility of Europe, he marched to rescue the eastern provinces from Zenobia," whom he vanquished and brought captive to Rome.

This accomplished, the vigorous emperor proceeded to the suppression of a formidable revolt in Egypt, and then to the recovery of Gaul, Spain, and Britain, "which had now for thirteen years been the prey of different tyrants. A single campaign restored these provinces to the empire; and Aurelian, returning to Rome, was honoured with the most magnificent triumph that the city had ever beheld. … But he abandoned the province of Dacia to the barbarians, withdrawing all the Roman garrisons that had been stationed beyond the Danube. Aurelian's virtues were sullied by the sternness and severity that naturally belongs to a peasant and a soldier. His officers dreaded his inflexibility," and he was murdered, A. D. 275, by some of them who had been detected in peculations and who dreaded his wrath. The senate elected as his successor Marcus Claudius Tacitus, who died after a reign of seven months. Florian, a brother of Tacitus, was then chosen by the senate; but the Syrian army put forward a competitor in the person of its commander, Marcus Aurelius Probus, and Florian was presently slain by his own troops. "Probus, now undisputed master of the Empire, led his troops from Asia to Gaul, which was again devastated by the German tribes; he not only defeated the barbarians, but pursued them into their own country, where he gained greater advantages than any of his predecessors.

Thence he passed into Thrace, where he humbled the Goths; and, returning to Asia, he completely subdued the insurgent Isaurians, whose lands he divided among his veterans," and commanded peace on his own terms from the king of Persia. But even the power with which Probus wielded his army could not protect him from its licentiousness, and in a sudden mutiny (A. D. 282) he was slain. Carus, captain of the prætorian guards, was then raised to the throne by the army, the senate assenting. He repelled the Sarmatians and defeated the Persians, who had renewed hostilities; but he died, A. D. 283, while besieging Ctesiphon. His son Numerianus was chosen his successor; "but after a few months' reign, he was assassinated by Aper, his father-in-law and captain of his guards. The crime, however, was discovered, and the murderer put to death by the army. Dioclesian, said to have been originally a slave, was unanimously saluted Emperor by the army. He was proclaimed at Chalcedon, on the 17th of December, A. D. 284; an epoch that deserves to be remembered, as it marks the beginning of a new era, called 'the Era of Dioclesian,' or 'the Era of Martyrs,' which long prevailed in the church, and is still used by the Copts, the Abyssinians, and other African nations."

ALSO IN: E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapters 5-12 (volume 1).

ROME: A. D. 238-267. Naval incursions and ravages of the Goths in Greece and Asia Minor.

ROME: A. D. 284-305.
   Reconstitution of the Empire by Diocletian.
   Its division and subdivision between
   two Augusti and two Cæsars.
   Abdication of Diocletian.

   "The accession of Diocletian to power marks a new epoch in the
   history of the Roman empire. From this time the old names of
   the republic, the consuls, the tribunes, and the Senate
   itself, cease, even if still existing, to have any political
   significance. The government becomes avowedly a monarchical
   autocracy, and the officers by whom it is administered are
   simply the nominees of the despot on the throne. The empire of
   Rome is henceforth an Oriental sovereignty. Aurelian had
   already introduced the use of the Oriental diadem. The
   nobility of the empire derive their positions from the favor
   of the sovereign; the commons of the empire, who have long
   lost their political power, cease to enjoy even the name of
   citizens. The provinces are still administered under the
   imperial prefects by the magistrates and the assemblies of an
   earlier date, but the functions of both the one and the other
   are confined more strictly than ever to matters of police and
   finance. Hitherto, indeed, the Senate, however intrinsically
   weak, had found opportunities for putting forth its claims to
   authority. … The chosen of the legions had been for some time
   past the commander of an army, rather than the sovereign of
   the state. He had seldom quitted the camp, rarely or never
   presented himself in the capital. … The whole realm might
   split asunder at any moment into as many kingdoms as there
   were armies, unless the chiefs of the legions felt themselves
   controlled by the strength or genius of one more eminent than
   the rest. …
{2718}
   The danger of disruption, thus far averted mainly by the awe
   which the name of Rome inspired, was becoming yearly more
   imminent, when Diocletian arose to re-establish the organic
   connection of the parts, and breathe a new life into the heart
   of the body politic. The jealous edict of Gallienus … had
   forbidden the senators to take service in the army, or to quit
   the limits of Italy. The degradation of that once illustrious
   order, which was thus rendered incapable of furnishing a
   candidate for the diadem, was completed by its indolent
   acquiescence in this disqualifying ordinance. The nobles of
   Rome relinquished all interest in affairs which they could no
   longer aspire to conduct. The emperors, on their part, ceased
   to regard them as a substantive power in the state; and in
   constructing his new imperial constitution Diocletian wholly
   overlooked their existence. … While he disregarded the
   possibility of opposition at Rome, he contrived a new check
   upon the rivalry of his distant lieutenants, by associating
   with himself three other chiefs, welded together by strict
   alliance into one imperial family, each of whom should take up
   his residence in a separate quarter of the empire, and combine
   with all the others in maintaining their common interest. His
   first step was to choose a single colleague in the person of a
   brave soldier of obscure origin, an Illyrian peasant, by name
   Maximianus, whom he invested with the title of Augustus in the
   year 286. The associated rulers assumed at the same time the
   fanciful epithets of Jovius and Herculius, auspicious names,
   which made them perhaps popular in the camps, where the
   commanding genius of the one and the laborious fortitude of
   the other were fully recognized. Maximianus was deputed to
   control the legions in Gaul, to make head against domestic
   sedition, as well as against the revolt of Carausius, a
   pretender to the purple in Britain, while Diocletian
   encountered the enemies or rivals who were now rising up in
   various quarters in the East.

His dangers still multiplied, and again the powers of the state were subdivided to meet them. In the year 292 Diocletian created two Cæsars; the one, Galerius, to act subordinately to himself in the East; the other, Constantius Chlorus, to divide the government of the western provinces with Maximian. The Cæsars were bound more closely to the Augusti by receiving their daughters in marriage; but though they acknowledged each a superior in his own half of the empire, and admitted a certain supremacy of Diocletian over all, yet each enjoyed kingly rule in his own territories, and each established a court and capital, as well as an army and a camp. Diocletian retained the wealthiest and most tranquil portion of the realm, and reigned in Nicomedia [see NICOMEDIA] over Asia Minor, Syria, and Egypt; while he intrusted to the Cæsar Galerius, established at Sirmium, the more exposed provinces on the Danube. Maximian occupied Italy, the adjacent islands, and Africa, stationing himself, however, not in Rome, but at Milan. Constantius was required to defend the Rhenish frontier; and the martial provinces of Gaul, Spain, and Britain were given him to furnish the forces necessary for maintaining that important trust. The capital of the Western Cæsar was fixed at Treves. Inspired with a common interest, and controlled by the ascendency of Diocletian himself, all the emperors acted with vigor in their several provinces. Diocletian recovered Alexandria and quieted the revolt of Egypt.

Maximian routed the unruly hordes of Maurentia, and overthrew a pretender to sovereignty in that distant quarter. Constantius discomfited an invading host of Alemanni, kept in check Carausius, who for a moment had seized upon Britain, and again wrested that province from Allectus, who had murdered and succeeded to him. Galerius brought the legions of Illyria to the defence of Syria against the Persians, and though once defeated on the plains of Carrhæ, at last reduced the enemy to submission.

Thus victorious in every quarter, Diocletian celebrated the commencement of his twentieth year of power with a triumph at the ancient capital, and again taking leave of the imperial city, returned to his customary residence at Nicomedia. The illness with which he was attacked on his journey suggested or fixed his resolution to relieve himself from his cares, and on May 1, in the year 305, being then fifty-nine years of age, he performed the solemn act of abdication at Morgus, in Mæsia, the spot where he had first assumed the purple at the bidding of his soldiers. Strange to say, he did not renounce the object of his ambition alone. On the same day a similar scene was enacted by his colleague Maximian at Milan; but the abdication of Maximian was not, it is said, a spontaneous sacrifice, but imposed upon him by the influence or authority of his elder and greater colleague. Diocletian had established the principle of succession by which the supreme power was to descend. Having seen the completion of all his arrangements, and congratulated himself on the success, thus far, of his great political experiments, he crowned his career of moderation and self-restraint by strictly confining himself during the remainder of his life to the tranquil enjoyment of a private station. Retiring to the residence he had prepared for himself at Salona, he found occupation and amusement in the cultivation of his garden."

"Dreams concerning the overthrow of the Empire had long been cast into the forms of prophecies amongst the Christians. … There were some to repeat the predictions and to count the proofs of overthrow impending upon the Empire. But there were more, far more, to desire its preservation. Many even laboured for it. The number of those holding offices of distinction at the courts and in the armies implies the activity of a still larger number in inferior stations. … Never, on the other hand, had the generality of Christians been the objects of deeper or more bitter suspicions. … By the lower orders, they would be hated as conspiring against the customs of their province or the glories of their race. By men of position and of education, they would be despised as opposing every interest of learning, of property, and of rank. Darker still were the sentiments of the sovereigns. {2719} By them the Christians were scorned as unruly subjects, building temples without authority, appointing priests without license, while they lived and died for principles the most adverse to the laws and to the rulers of the Empire. … Everywhere they were advancing. Everywhere they met with reviving foes. At the head of these stood the Cæsar, afterwards the Emperor Galerius. He who had been a herdsman of Dacia was of the stamp to become a wanton ruler. He showed his temper in his treatment of the Heathen. He showed it still more clearly in his hostility towards the Christians. … He turned to Diocletian. The elder Emperor was in the mood to hear his vindictive son-in-law. Already had Diocletian fulminated his edicts against the Christians. Once it was because his priests declared them to be denounced in an oracle from Apollo, as opposing the worship of that deity. At another time, it was because his soothsayers complained of the presence of his Christian attendants as interfering with the omens on which the Heathen depended. Diocletian was superstitious. But he yielded less to his superstition as a man than to his imperiousness as a sovereign, when he ordered that all employed in the imperial service should take part in the public sacrifices under pain of scourging and dismissal. … At this crisis he was accosted by Galerius. Imperious as he was, Diocletian was still circumspect. … Galerius urged instant suppression. 'The world,' replied his father-in-law, 'will be thrown into confusion, if we attack the Christians.' But Galerius insisted. Not all the caution of the elder Emperor was proof against the passions thus excited by his son-in-law. The wives of Diocletian and Galerius, both said to have been Christians, interceded in vain. Without consulting the other sovereigns, it was determined between Diocletian and Galerius to sound the alarum of persecution throughout their realms. Never had persecution begun more fearfully. Without a note of warning, the Christians of Nicomedia were startled, one morning, by the sack and demolition of their church. … Not until the next day, however, was there any formal declaration of hostilities. An edict then appeared commanding instant and terrible proceedings against the Christians. Their churches were to be razed. Their Scriptures were to be destroyed. They themselves were to be deprived of their estates and offices. … Some days or weeks, crowded with resistance as well as suffering, went by. Suddenly a fire broke out in the palace at Nicomedia. It was of course laid at the charge of the Christians. … Some movements occurring in the eastern provinces were also ascribed to Christian machinations. … The Empresses, suspected of sharing the faith of the sufferers, were compelled to offer public sacrifice. Fiercer assaults ensued. A second edict from the palace ordered the arrest of the Christian priests. A third commanded that the prisoners should be forced to sacrifice according to the Heathen ritual under pain of torture. When the dungeons were filled, and the racks within them were busy with their horrid work, a fourth edict, more searching and more pitiless than any, was published. By this the proper officers were directed to arrest every Christian whom they could discover, and bring him to one of the Heathen temples. … Letters were despatched to demand the co-operation of the Emperor Maximian and the Cæsar Constantius. The latter, it is said, refused; yet there were no limits that could be set to the persecution by any one of the sovereigns. … None suffered more than the Christians in Britain. … The intensity of the persecution was in no degree diminished by the extent over which it spread. … Some were thrown into dungeons to renounce their faith or to die amidst the agonies of which they had no fear. Long trains of those who survived imprisonment were sent across the country or beyond the sea to labour like brutes in the public mines. In many cities the streets must have been literally blocked up with the stakes and scaffolds where death was dealt alike to men and women and little children. It mattered nothing of what rank the victims were. The poorest slave and the first officer of the imperial treasury were massacred with equal savageness. … The memory of man embraces no such strife, if that can be called a strife in which there was but one side armed, but one side slain."

ROME: A. D. 305-323.
   The wars of Constantine and his rivals.
   His triumph.
   His reunion of the Empire.

   On the abdication of Diocletian and Maximian, Constantius and
   Galerius, who had previously held the subordinate rank of
   Cæsars, succeeded to the superior throne, as Augusti. A nephew
   of Galerius, named Maximin, and one Severus, who was his
   favorite, were then appointed Cæsars, to the exclusion of
   Constantine, son of Constantius, and Maxentius, son of
   Maximian, who might have naturally expected the elevation.
   Little more than a year afterwards, Constantius died, in
   Britain, and Constantine was proclaimed Augustus and Emperor,
   in his place, by the armies of the West. Galerius had not
   courage to oppose this military election, except so far as to
   withhold from Constantine the supreme rank of Augustus, which
   he conferred on his creature, Severus. Constantine acquiesced,
   for the moment, and contented himself with the name of Cæsar,
   while events and his own prudence were preparing for him a far
   greater elevation. In October, 306, there was a successful
   rising at Rome against Severus, Maxentius was raised to the
   throne by the voice of the feeble senate and the people, and
   his father, Maximian, the abdicated monarch, came out of his
   retirement to resume the purple, in association at first, but
   afterwards in rivalry with his son. Severus was besieged at
   Ravenna and, having surrendered, was condemned to death.
   Galerius undertook to avenge his death by invading Italy, but
   retreated ignominiously. Thereupon he invested his friend
   Licinius with the emblems and the rank of the deceased
   Severus. The Roman world had then six emperors—each claiming
   the great title of "Augustus": Galerius, Licinius, and Maximin
   in the East (including Africa), making common cause against
   Maximian, Maxentius and Constantine in the West. The first, in
   these combinations, to fall out, were the father and son,
   Maximian and Maxentius, both claiming authority in Italy. The
   old emperor appealed to his former army and it declared
   against him.
{2720}
   He fled, taking shelter, first, with his enemy Galerius, but
   soon repairing to the court of Constantine, who had married
   his daughter Fausta. A little later, the dissatisfied and
   restless old man conspired to dethrone his son-in-law and was
   put to death. The next year (May, A. D. 311) Galerius died at
   Nicomedia, and his dominions were divided between Licinius and
   Maximin. The combinations were now changed, and Constantine
   and Licinius entered into an alliance against Maxentius and
   Maximin. Rome and Italy had wearied by this time of Maxentius,
   who was both vicious and tyrannical, and invited Constantine
   to deliver them. He responded by a bold invasion of Italy,
   with a small army of but 40,000 men; defeated the greater army
   of Maxentius at Turin; occupied the imperial city of Milan;
   took Verona, after a siege and a desperate battle fought
   outside its walls, and finished his antagonist in a third
   encounter (October 28, A. D. 312), at Saxa Rubra, within nine
   miles of Rome. Maxentius perished in the flight from this
   decisive field and Constantine possessed his dominions. In the
   next year, Maximin, rashly venturing to attack Licinius, was
   defeated near Heraclea, on the Propontis, and died soon
   afterwards. The six emperors of the year 308 were now (A. D.
   313) reduced to two, and the friendship between them was
   ostentatious. But it endured little longer than a single year.
   Licinius was accused of conspiring against Constantine, and
   the latter declared war. The first battle was fought near
   Cibalis, in Pannonia, the second on the plain of Mardia, in
   Thrace, and Constantine was the victor in both. Licinius sued
   for peace and obtained it (December, A. D. 315) by the cession
   of all his dominion in Europe, except Thrace. For eight years,
   Constantine was contented with the great empire he then
   possessed. In 323 he determined to grasp the entire Roman
   world. Licinius opposed him with a vigor unexpected and the
   war was prepared for on a mighty scale. It was practically
   decided by the first great battle, at Hadrianople, on the 3d
   of July, 323. Licinius, defeated, took refuge in Byzantium,
   which Constantine besieged. Escaping from Byzantium into Asia,
   Licinius fought once more at Chrysopolis and then yielded to
   his fate. He died soon after. The Roman empire was again
   united and Constantine was its single lord.

ROME: A. D. 313.
Constantine's Edict of Milan.
Declared toleration of Christianity.

After the extension of the sovereignty of Constantine over the Italian provinces as well as Gaul and the West, he went, in January, A. D. 313, to Milan, and there held a conference with Licinius, his eastern colleague in the empire. One of the results of that conference was the famous Edict of Milan, which recognized Christianity and admitted it to a footing of equal toleration with the paganisms of the empire—in terms as follows: "Wherefore, as I, Constantine Augustus, and I, Licinius Augustus, came under favourable auspices to Milan, and took under consideration all affairs that pertained to the public benefit and welfare, these things among the rest appeared to us to be most advantageous and profitable to all. We have resolved among the first things to ordain, those matters by which reverence and worship to the Deity might be exhibited. That is, how we may grant likewise to the Christians, and to all, the free choice to follow that mode of worship which they may wish. That whatsoever divinity and celestial power may exist may be propitious to us, and to all that live under our government. Therefore, we have decreed the following ordinance as our will, with a salutary and most correct intention, that no freedom at all shall be refused to Christians, to follow or to keep their observances or worship. But that to each one power be granted to devote his mind to that worship which he may think adapted to himself. That the Deity may in all things exhibit to us His accustomed favour and kindness. … And this we further decree, with respect to the Christians, that the places in which they were formerly accustomed to assemble, concerning which also we formerly wrote to your fidelity, in a different form, that if any persons have purchased these, either from our treasurer, or from any other one, these shall restore them to the Christians, without money and without demanding any price. … They who as we have said restore them without valuation and price may expect their indemnity from our munificence and liberality."

ROME: A. D. 323.
   The conversion of Constantine.
   His Christianity.
   His character.

   "The alleged supernatural conversion of Constantine has
   afforded a subject of doubt and debate from that age to the
   present. Up to the date of his war against Maxentius, the
   Emperor believed, like his father, in one god, whom he
   represented to himself, not with the attributes of Jupiter,
   best and greatest, father of gods and men, but under the form
   of Apollo, with the attributes of the glorified youth of
   manhood, the god of light and life. … His conversion to
   Christianity took place at the period of the war with
   Maxentius. The chief contemporary authorities on the subject
   are Lactantius and Eusebius. Lactantius, an African by birth,
   was a rhetorician (or, as we should call him, professor) at
   Nicomedia, of such eminence that Constantine entrusted to him
   the education of his eldest son, Crispus. Writing before the
   death of Licinius, i. e. before the year 314 A. D., or within
   two, or at most three, years of the event, Lactantius says,
   'Constantine was admonished in his sleep to mark the celestial
   sign of God on the shields, and so to engage in the battle. He
   did as he was commanded and marked the name of Christ on the
   shields by the letter X drawn across them, with the top
   circumflexed. Armed with this sign his troops proceed,' etc.
   Eusebius, Bishop of Cæsarea, the historian of the early
   Church, the most learned Christian of his time, was, after
   Constantine's conquest of the East, much about the court, in
   the confidence of the Emperor, and one of his chief advisers
   in ecclesiastical matters. In his 'Life of Constantine',
   published twenty-six years after the Emperor's death, he gives
   us an interesting account of the moral process of the
   Emperor's conversion.
{2721}
   Reflecting on the approaching contest with Maxentius, and
   hearing of the extraordinary rites by which he was
   endeavouring to win the favour of the gods, 'being convinced
   that he needed some more powerful aid than his military forces
   could afford him, on account of the wicked and magical
   enchantments which were so diligently practised by the tyrant,
   he began to seek for divine assistance. … And while he was
   thus praying with fervent entreaty, a most marvellous sign
   appeared to him from heaven, the account of which it might
   have been difficult to receive with credit, had it been
   related by any other person. But since the victorious emperor
   himself long afterwards declared it to the writer of this
   history, when he was honoured with his acquaintance and
   society, and confirmed his statement by an oath, who could
   hesitate to credit the relation, especially since the
   testimony of after time has established its truth? He said
   that at mid-day, when the sun was beginning to decline, he
   saw, with his own eyes, the trophy of a cross of light in the
   heavens, above the sun, and bearing the inscription, "Conquer
   by this." At this sight he himself was struck with amazement,
   and his whole army also, which happened to be following him on
   some expedition, and witnessed the miracle. He said, moreover,
   that he doubted within himself what the import of this
   apparition could be. And while he continued to ponder and
   reason on its meaning, night imperceptibly drew on; and in his
   sleep the Christ of God appeared to him with the same sign
   which he had seen in the heavens, and commanded him to procure
   a standard made in the likeness of that sign, and to use it as
   a safeguard in all engagements with his enemies.'" The
   standard which is said to have had this origin was the famous
   Labarum.

"He [Constantine] was not lacking in susceptibility to certain religious impressions; he acknowledged the peculiar providence of God in the manner in which he had been delivered from dangers, made victorious over all his pagan adversaries, and finally rendered master of the Roman world. It flattered his vanity to be considered the favourite of God, and his destined instrument to destroy the empire of the evil spirits (the heathen deities). The Christians belonging to court were certainly not wanting on their part to confirm him in this persuasion. … Constantine must indeed have been conscious that he was striving not so much for the cause of God as for the gratification of his own ambition and love of power; and that such acts of perfidy, mean revenge, or despotic jealousy, as occurred in his political course, did not well befit an instrument and servant of God, such as he claimed to be considered. … Even Eusebius, one of the best among the bishops at his court, is so dazzled by what the emperor had achieved for the outward extension and splendour of the church, as to be capable of tracing to the purest motives of a servant of God all the acts which a love of power that would not brook a rival had, at the expense of truth and humanity, put into the heart of the emperor in the war against Licinius. … Bishops in immediate attendance on the emperor so far forgot indeed to what master they belonged, that, at the celebration of the third decennium of his reign (the tricennalia), one of them congratulated him as constituted by God the ruler over all in the present world, and destined to reign with the Son of God in the world to come, The feelings of Constantine himself were shocked at such a parallel."

      A. Neander,
      General History of the Christian Religion and Church,
      period 2, section. 1, A.

"As he approached the East, he [Constantine] adopted oriental manners; he affected the gorgeous purple of the monarchs of Persia; he decorated his head with false hair of different colours, and with a diadem covered with pearls and gems. He substituted flowing silken robes, embroidered with flowers, for the austere garb of Rome, or the unadorned purple of the first Roman emperors. He filled his palace with eunuchs, and lent an ear to their perfidious calumnies; he became the instrument of their base intrigues, their cupidity, and their jealousy. He multiplied spies, and subjected the palace and the empire, alike, to a suspicious police. He lavished the wealth of Rome on the sterile pomp of stately buildings. … He poured out the best and noblest blood in torrents, more especially of those nearly connected with himself. The most illustrious victim of his tyranny was Crispus, his son by his first wife, whom he had made the partner of his empire, and the commander of his armies. … In a palace which he had made a desert, the murderer of his father-in-law, his brothers-in-law, his sister, his wife, his son, and his nephew, must have felt the stings of remorse, if hypocritical priests and courtier bishops had not lulled his conscience to rest. We still possess the panegyric in which they represent him as a favourite of Heaven, a saint worthy of our highest veneration; we have also several laws by which Constantine atoned for all his crimes, in the eyes of the priests, by heaping boundless favours on the church. The gifts he bestowed on it, the immunities he granted to persons and to property connected with it, soon directed ambition entirely to ecclesiastical dignities. The men who had so lately been candidates for the honours of martyrdom, now found themselves depositaries of the greatest wealth and the highest power. How was it possible that their characters should not undergo a total change?"

J. C. L. de Sismondi, History of the Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 4 (volume 1).

ROME: A. D. 330.
Transference of the capital of the Empire to
Byzantium (Constantinople).

ROME: A. D. 337-361.
   Redivision of the Empire.
   Civil wars between the sons of Constantine
   and their successors.
   Elevation of Julian to the throne.

Before the death of Constantine, "his three sons, Constantine, Constantius, and Constans, had already been successively raised to the rank of Cæsar about the tenth, twentieth, and thirtieth years of his reign. The royal family contained also two other young princes, sons of Dalmatius, one of the half-brothers of Constantine; the elder of these nephews of the Emperor was called Dalmatius, after his father, the other Hanniballianus. … Constantine shared—not the Empire, but—the imperial power among his three sons. The eldest, Constantine, was to hold the first rank among the three Augusti, and to take the western Gallic provinces under his especial administration; Constantius was to take the east, viz., Asia, Syria, and Egypt; Constans was to take the central portion of the Empire, Italy, Africa, and Western Illyricum."

The father of these three princes was no sooner dead (A. D. 337) than they made haste to rid themselves of all the possible rivals in a family which seemed too numerous for peace. Two uncles and seven cousins—including Dalmatius and Hannibalianus—with other connections by marriage and otherwise, were quickly put out of the way under one and another pretence and with more or less mockery of legal forms. The three brothers then divided the provinces between them on much the same plan as before; but Constantine, the eldest, now reigned in the new capital of his father, which bore his name. There was peace between them for three years. It was broken by Constantine, who demanded the surrender to him of a part of the dominions of Constans. War ensued and Constantine was killed in one of the earliest engagements of it. Constans took possession of his dominions, refusing any share of them to Constantius, and reigned ten years longer, when he was destroyed, A. D. 350, by a conspiracy in Gaul, which raised to his throne one Magnentius, a soldier of barbarian extraction. Magnentius was acknowledged in Gaul and Italy; but the troops in Illyricum invested their own general, Vetranio, with the purple. Constantius, in the East, now roused himself to oppose these rebellions, and did so with success. Vetranio, an aged man, was intimidated by artful measures and driven to surrender his unfamiliar crown. Magnentius advanced boldly to meet an enemy whom he despised, and was defeated in a great battle fought September 21, A. D. 351, at Mursa (Essek, in modern Hungary, on the Drave). Retreating to Italy, and from Italy to Gaul, he maintained the war for another year, but slew himself finally in despair and the empire had a single ruler, once more. The sole emperor, Constantius, now found his burden of power too great, and sought to share it. Two young nephews had been permitted to live, when the massacre of the house of Constantine occurred, and he turned to these. He raised the elder, Gallus, to the rank of Cæsar, and gave him the government of the præfecture of the East. But Gallus conducted himself like a Nero and was disgraced and executed in little more than three years. The younger nephew, Julian, escaped his brother's fate by great prudence of behavior and by the friendship of the Empress Eusebia. In 355, he, in turn, was made Cæsar and sent into Gaul. Distinguishing himself there in several campaigns against the Germans (see GAUL: A. D. 355-361), he provoked the jealousy of Constantius and of the eunuchs who ruled the imperial court. To strip him of troops, four Gallic legions were ordered to the East, for the Persian war. They rose in revolt, at Paris, proclaimed Julian emperor and forced him to assume the dangerous title. He promptly sent an embassy to Constantius asking the recognition and confirmation of this procedure; but his overtures were rejected with disdain. He then declared war, and conducted an extraordinary expedition into Illyricum, through the Black Forest and down the Danube, occupying Sirmium and seizing the Balkan passes before he was known to have left Gaul. But the civil war so vigorously opened was suddenly arrested at this stage by the death of Constantius (A. D. 361), and Julian became sole emperor without more dispute. He renounced Christianity and is known in history as Julian the Apostate.

ROME: A. D. 350-361.
Extensive abandonment of Gaul to the Germans.
Its recovery by Julian.

"Heathenism still possessed a latent power greater than those supposed who persuaded the Emperors that now it could be easily extirpated. The state of affairs in the West differed from that in the East. In the West it was principally the Roman aristocracy, who with few exceptions still adhered to their ancient religion, and with them the great mass of the people. In the East, on the contrary, Christianity had made much more progress among the masses, and a real aristocracy could scarcely be said to exist. In its stead there was an aristocracy of learning, whose hostility was far more dangerous to Christianity than the aversion of the Roman nobility. The youth still thronged to the ancient and illustrious schools of Miletus, Ephesus, Nicomedia, Antioch, and above all Athens, and the teachers in these schools were almost without exception heathen. … There the ancient heathen spirit was imbibed, and with it a contempt for barbarian Christianity. The doctrinal strife in the Christian Church was held up to ridicule, and, alas! with too much reason. For, according to the Emperor's favor and caprice, one doctrine stood for orthodoxy to-day and another to-morrow. To-day it was decreed that Christ was of the same essence with the Father, and all who refused to acknowledge this were deposed and exiled. Tomorrow the court theology had swung round, it was decreed that Christ was a created being, and now it was the turn of the other party to go into banishment. The educated heathen thought themselves elevated far above all this in their classic culture. With what secret anger they beheld the way in which the temples were laid waste, the works of art broken to pieces, the memorials of an age of greatness destroyed, and all in favor of a barbarian religion destitute of culture. The old rude forms of Heathenism, indeed, they themselves did not desire, but the refined Heathenism of the Neoplatonic school seemed to them not merely the equal but the superior of Christianity. … These were the sources of the re-action against Christianity. Their spirit was embodied in Julian. In him it ascended for the last time the imperial throne, and made the final attempt to stop the triumphal progress of Christianity. But it succeeded only in giving to the world irresistible evidence that the sceptre of the spirit of Antiquity was forever broken. … What influenced Julian was chiefly enthusiasm for Greek culture. Even in a religious aspect Polytheism seemed to him superior to Monotheism, because more philosophic. Neoplatonism filled the whole soul of the young enthusiast, and seemed to him to comprehend all the culture of the ancient world in a unified system. But of course his vanity had a great share in the matter, for he naturally received the most devoted homage among the Hellenists, and his rhetorical friends did not stint their flattery. … He made his entry … [into Constantinople) as a declared heathen. Although at the beginning of his campaign he had secretly sacrificed to Bellona, yet he had attended the church in Vienne. {2723} But on the march he put an end to all ambiguity, and publicly offered sacrifices to the ancient gods. The Roman Empire once more had a heathen Emperor. At first all was joy; for as universally as Constantius was hated, Julian was welcomed as a deliverer. Even the Christians joined in this rejoicing. They too had found the arbitrary government of the last few years hard enough to bear. And if some who looked deeper began to feel anxiety, they consoled themselves by the reflection that even a heathen Emperor could not injure the Church so much as a Christian Emperor who used his power in promoting whatever seemed to him at the time to be orthodoxy in the dogmatic controversies of the age. And Julian proclaimed, not the suppression of Christianity, but only complete religious liberty. He himself intended to be a heathen, but no Christian should be disturbed in his faith. Julian was certainly thoroughly in earnest in this. To be a persecutor of the Church, was the last thing he would have thought of. Besides, he was much too fully persuaded of the untruth of Christianity and the truth of Heathenism to persecute. Julian was an enthusiast, like all the rhetoricians and philosophers who surrounded him. He regarded himself as called by a divine voice to the great work of restoring Heathenism, and this was from the beginning avowedly his object. And he was no less firmly convinced that this restoration would work itself out without any use of force; as soon as free scope was given to Heathenism it would, by its own powers, overcome Christianity. … The Emperor himself was evidently in all respects a heathen from sincere conviction. In this regard at least he was honest and no hypocrite. The flagrant voluptuousness, which had corrupted the court, was banished, and a large number of useless officials dismissed. The life of the court was to be simple, austere, and pure. Men had never before seen an Emperor who conducted himself with such simplicity, whose table was so economically supplied, and who knew no other employments than hard work, and devoted worship of the gods. A temple was built in the palace, and there Julian offered a daily sacrifice. Often he might be seen serving at the sacrifice himself, carrying the wood and plunging the knife into the victim with his own hand. He remembered every festival which should be celebrated, and knew how to observe the whole half-forgotten ritual most punctiliously. He was equally zealous in performing the duties of his office as Pontifex Maximus. Everywhere he revived the ancient worship which had fallen into neglect. Here a closed temple was re-opened, there a ruined shrine restored, images of the gods were set up again, and festivals which had ceased to be celebrated, were restored. … Soon conversions became plentiful; governors, officials, soldiers, made themselves proficient in the ancient cultus; and even a bishop, Pegasius of New Ilium, whom Julian had previously learned to know as a secret friend of the gods, when he had heen the Emperor's guide to the classic sites of Troy, changed his religion, and from a Christian bishop became a heathen high-priest. … The dream of a restoration of Heathenism nevertheless soon began to prove itself a dream. Though now surrounded by heathen only, Julian could not help feeling that he was really isolated in their midst. He himself was naturally a mystic, and lived in his ideals. His Heathenism was one purified by poetic feeling. But there was little or nothing of this to be found actually existing. His heathen friends were courtiers, who agreed with him without inward conviction. … He was far too serious and severely moral for their tastes. They preferred the theatre to the temple, they liked amusement best, and found the daily attendance at worship and the monotonous ceremonies and sacrifices very dull. A measurably tolerant Christian Emperor would doubtless have suited them better than this enthusiastically pious heathen. Blinded as Julian was by his ideal views, he soon could not escape the knowledge that things were not going well. If Heathenism was to revive, it must receive new life within. The restoration must be also a reformation. Strangely enough Julian felt compelled to borrow from Christianity the ways and means for such a reformation. The heathen priests, like the Christian, were to instruct the people, and exhort them to holy living. The heathen, like the Christians, were to care for the poor. … While new strength was thus to be infused into Heathenism, other measures were adopted to weaken Christianity. An imperial edict, June 17, A. D. 362, forbade the Christians to act as teachers of the national literature, the ancient classics. It was, the Emperor explained, a contradiction for Christians to expound Homer, Thucydides, or Demosthenes, when they regarded them as godless men and aliens. He would not compel them to change their convictions, but also he could not permit the ancient writers to be expounded by those who took them to task for impiety. … This, of course, was not a persecution, if the use of force alone makes a persecution, yet it was a persecution, and in a sense a worse one than any which went before. Julian tried to deprive the Christians of that which should be common to all men,—education. … Nevertheless he had to confess to himself that the restoration of Heathenism was making no progress worth speaking of. … He spent his whole strength, he sacrificed himself, he lived only for the Empire over which Providence had made him lord, and yet found himself alone in his endeavor. Even his heathen friends, the philosophers and rhetoricians, kept at a distance. … With such thoughts as these, Julian journeyed to Antioch, in Syria, in order to make preparations there for the great campaign he purposed to make against the Persians. There new disappointments awaited him. He found the shrines of his gods forsaken and desolate. … The temple of Apollo was restored with the greatest splendor. Julian went there to offer a sacrifice to the god. He expected to find a multitude of worshippers, but no one even brought oil for a lamp or incense to burn in honor of the deity. Only an old man approached to sacrifice a goose. … Shortly afterwards, the newly restored temple burned down in the night. Now the Emperor's wrath knew no bounds. He ascribed the guilt to the Christians; and although the temple, as is probable, caught fire through the fault of a heathen philosopher, who carried a dedicatory lamp about in it without due precautions, many Christians were arrested and tortured. The Church had its martyrs once more; and Julian, discontented with himself and the whole world besides, advanced to new measures. {2724} The cathedral of Antioch was closed and its property confiscated. Julian decreed that the Christians, whose God had forbidden them to kill, should not be intrusted with any office with which judicial functions were connected. … Julian himself became more and more restless. He hurried from temple to temple, brought sacrifice after sacrifice; he knelt for hours before his gods and covered their statues with kisses. Then at night he sat in the silence at his writing-table, and gave vent to his bitterness and disgust with every thing. Then he wrote his works full of brilliant wit, thought out and expressed with Greek refinement, but full of bitterest hatred especially against the Galileans and their Carpenter's Son. … Finally, his immense preparations for the campaign against the Persians were finished. Julian started, after finally setting over the Antiochians a wretch as governor, with the remark that the man did not deserve to be a governor, but they deserved to be governed by such a one."

      B. L. Gildersleeve,
      The Emperor Julian
      (Essays and Studies, pages 355-400).

      Gregory Nazianzen,
      Invectives against Julian, and Libanius,
      Funeral Oration upon Julian,
      translated by C. W. King.

ROME: A. D. 363.
   The Persian expedition of Julian.
   His death.
   Jovian made Emperor by the retreating army.

ROME: A. D. 363-379.
   Christianity reascendant.
   Secret hostility of Paganism.
   Reign of Valentinian and Valens.
   Approach of the Huns.
   The struggle with the Goths.
   Elevation of Theodosius to the throne.

When Julian's successor, Jovian, "who did not reign long enough to lead back to Constantinople the army which he had marched from the banks of the Tigris, made public profession of Christianity, he, at the same time, displaced a great number of brave officers and able functionaries, whom Julian had promoted in proportion to their zeal for paganism. From that period, up to the fall of the empire, a hostile sect, which regarded itself as unjustly stripped of its ancient honours, invoked the vengeance of the gods on the heads of the government, exulted in the public calamities, and probably hastened them by its intrigues, though inextricably involved in the common ruin. The pagan faith, which was not attached to a body of doctrine, nor supported by a corporation of priests, nor heightened by the fervour of novelty, scarcely ever displayed itself in open revolt, or dared the perils of martyrdom; but pagans still occupied the foremost rank in letters:—the orators, the philosophers (or, as they were otherwise called, sophists), the historians, belonged, almost without an exception, to the ancient religion. It still kept possession of the most illustrious schools, especially those of Athens and Alexandria; the majority of the Roman senate were still attached to it; and in the breasts of the common people, particularly the rural population, it maintained its power for several centuries, branded, however, with the name of magic. … Less than eight months after his elevation to the throne, on the 17th of February, 364, Jovian died in a small town of Galatia. After the expiration of ten days, the army which he was leading home from Persia, at a solemn assembly held at Nice, in Bithynia, chose as his successor the son of a captain from a little village of Pannonia, the count Valentinian, whom his valour and bodily prowess had raised to one of the highest posts of the army. … Spite of his savage rudeness, and the furious violence of his temper, the Roman empire found in him an able chief at the moment of its greatest need. Unhappily, the extent of the empire required, at least, two rulers. The army felt this, and demanded a second. … Valentinian … chose his brother. Valens, with whom he shared his power, had the weak, timid, and cruel character which ordinarily distinguishes cowards. Valentinian, born in the West, … reserved the government of it to himself. He ceded to his brother a part of Illyricum on the Danube, and the whole of the East. He established universal toleration by law, and took no part in the sectarian controversies which divided Christendom. Valens adopted the Arian faith, and persecuted the orthodox party. The finances of the empire demanded a reform, which neither of the emperors was in a condition to undertake. They wanted money, and they were ignorant where to seek the long exhausted sources of public wealth. … Vast provinces in the interior were deserted; enlistments daily became more scanty and difficult; the magistrates of the 'curiæ' or municipalities, who were responsible both for the contributions and the levies of their respective towns, sought by a thousand subterfuges to escape the perilous honour of the magistrature. …

During the twelve years that Valentinian reigned over the West (A. D. 364-376), he redeemed his cruelties by several brilliant victories. …

Valentinian had undertaken the defence of Gaul in person, and generally resided at Treves, then the capital of that vast prefecture; but at the time he was thus occupied, invasions not less formidable had devastated the other provinces of the West. …

   At this period Valens reigned over the Greeks, whose language
   he did not understand (A. D. 364-378). His eastern frontier
   was menaced by the Persians, his northern by the Goths. …
   Armenia and Iberia became subject to Persia; but as the people
   of both these countries were Christian, they remained faithful
   to the interests of Rome, though conquered by her enemy. … The
   dominion of the Goths extended along the shores of the Danube
   and the Black Sea, and thirty years had elapsed since they had
   made any incursion into the Roman territory. But during that
   period they had gone on increasing in greatness and in power.
   … Spite of the formidable neighbourhood of the Goths and the
   Persians—spite of the cowardice and the incapacity of
   Valens—the East had remained at peace, protected by the mere
   name of Valentinian, whose military talents, promptitude, and
   severity were known to all the barbarian tribes. But the
   career of this remarkable man, so dreaded by his enemies and
   by his subjects, had now reached its term." He died in a fit
   of rage, from the bursting of a blood-vessel in his chest,
   November 17, A. D. 375. "His two sons,—Gratian, who was
   scarcely come to manhood, and Valentinian, still a
   child,—shared the West between them. …
{2725}
   Never, however, was the empire in greater need of an able and
   vigorous head. The entire nation of the Huns, abandoning to
   the Sienpi its ancient pastures bordering on China, had
   traversed the whole north of Asia by a march of 1,300
   leagues." The Goths, overwhelmed and flying before them,
   begged permission to cross the Danube and take refuge in Mœsia
   and Thrace. They were permitted to do so; but such extortions
   and outrages were practiced on them, at the same time, that
   they were exasperated to a passionate hatred. This bore fruit
   in a general rising in 377. Two years of war ensued, marked by
   two great battles, that of Ad Salices, or The Willows, which
   neither side could fully claim, and that of Adrianople, August
   9, 378, in which Valens perished, and more than 60,000 of his
   soldiers fell.

"The forces of the East were nearly annihilated at the terrible battle of Adrianople. … The Goths … advanced, ravaging all around them, to the foot of the walls of Constantinople; and, after some unimportant skirmishes, returned westward through Macedonia, Epirus, and Dalmatia. From the Danube to the Adriatic, their passage was marked by conflagration and blood. … No general in the East attempted to take advantage of the anarchy in favour of his own ambition; no army offered the purple to its chief; all dreaded the responsibility of command at so tremendous a crisis. All eyes were turned on the court of Treves, the only point whence help was hoped for. But Gratian, eldest son of Valentinian, and emperor of the West, was only 19. He … marched upon Illyricum with his army, when he learned the event of the battle of Adrianople, and the death of Valens, who had been so eager to secure the undivided honours of victory, that he would not wait for his arrival. Incapable of confronting such a tempest, he retreated to Sirmium. The news of an invasion of the Allemans into Gaul recalled him to the defence of his own territory. Danger started up on every hand at once. The empire stood in need of a new chief, and one of approved valour. Gratian had the singular generosity to choose from among his enemies, and from a sense of merit alone. Theodosius, the Spaniard, his father's general, who had successively vanquished the Scots and afterwards the Moors, and who had been unjustly condemned to the scaffold at the beginning of Gratian's reign, had left a son 33 years of age, who bore his name. The younger Theodosius had distinguished himself in the command he held in Mœsia, but was living in retirement and disgrace on his estates in Spain, when, with, the confidence of a noble mind, Gratian chose him out, presented him to the army on the 19th of January, 379, and declared him his colleague, and emperor of the East."

ALSO IN: T. Hodgkin, Italy and Her Invaders, introduction, and book 1, chapter 1.

ROME: A. D. 379-395.
   Theodosius and the Goths.
   His Trinitarian Edict.
   Revolt of Maximus.
   Death of Gratian.
   Overthrow of Maximus by Theodosius.
   Usurpation of Eugenius, and his fall.
   Death of Theodosius.

   "The first duty that Theodosius had to undertake was to
   restore the self-confidence and trust in victory of the Roman
   army, terribly shaken as these qualities had been by the
   disastrous rout of Hadrianople. This he accomplished by waging
   a successful guerilla war with the Gothic marauders. Valens
   had played into the hands of the barbarians by risking
   everything on one great pitched battle. Theodosius adopted the
   very opposite policy. He outmanoeuvred the isolated and
   straggling bands of the Goths, defeated them in one skirmish
   after another that did not deserve the name of a battle, and
   thus restored the courage and confidence of the Imperial
   troops. By the end of 379 he seems to have succeeded in
   clearing the territory south of the Balkan range of the
   harassing swarms of the barbarians. In February, 380, he fell
   sick at Thessalonica (which was his chief basis of operations
   throughout this period), and this sickness, from which he did
   not fully recover for some months, was productive of two
   important results, (1) his baptism as a Trinitarian Christian,
   (2) a renewal of the war against fresh swarms of barbarians.
   (1) Theodosius appears up to this point of his career not to
   have definitively ranged himself on either side of the great
   Arian controversy, though he had a hereditary inclination
   towards the Creed of Nicaea. Like his father, however, he had
   postponed baptism in accordance with the prevalent usage of
   his day: but now upon a bed of sickness which seemed likely to
   be one of death, he delayed no longer, but received the rite
   at the hands of Ascholius, the Catholic Bishop of
   Thessalonica. Before he was able to resume his post at the
   head of the legions, he published his celebrated Edict: 'To
   the people of Constantinople.—We desire that all the nations
   who are governed by the rule of our Clemency shall practise
   that religion which the Apostle Peter himself delivered to the
   Romans, and which it is manifest that the pontiff Damasus, and
   Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, a man of Apostolic sanctity, do
   now follow: that according to the discipline of the Apostles
   and the teaching of the Evangelists they believe in the one
   Godhead of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, in equal Majesty, and
   in the holy Trinity. We order all who follow this law to
   assume the name of Catholic Christians, decreeing that all
   others, being mad and foolish persons, shall bear the infamy
   of their heretical dogmas, and that their Conventicles shall
   not receive the name of Churches: to be punished first by
   Divine vengeance, and afterwards by that exertion of our power
   to chastise which we have received from the decree of heaven.'
   Thus then at length the Caesar of the East was ranged on the
   side of Trinitarian orthodoxy. Constantine in the latter part
   of his reign, Constantius, Valens, had all been Arians or
   semi-Arians, some of them bitter in their heterodoxy. Julian
   had been a worshipper of the gods of Olympus. Thus for nearly
   two generations the influence of the Court of Constantinople
   had been thrown into the scale against the teaching of
   Athanasius, which was generally accepted throughout the
   Western realm. Now by the accession of Theodosius to the
   Trinitarian side, religious unity was restored to the Empire:
   but at the same time a chasm, an impassable chasm, was opened
   between the Empire itself and its new Teutonic guests, nearly
   all of whom held fast to the Arian teaching of their great
   Apostle Ulfilas. (2) The other consequence of the sickness of
   Theodosius was, as I have said, a fresh incursion of barbarian
   hordes, swarming across the Danube and climbing all the high
   passes of the Balkans.
{2726}
   The work of clearing the country of these marauders had to be
   all done over again. … At length, in the closing months of
   380, the provinces south of the Balkans (Macedonia and Thrace)
   were once more cleared of their barbarian intruders. Peace, in
   which Gratian concurred, was concluded with the Goths who
   still doubtless abounded in Moesia. …

The insurrection at Antioch [A. D. 387] displayed the character of Theodosius in a favourable light, as a strong but merciful and magnanimous ruler of men. Very different was the effect on his fame of the insurrection which broke out three years later (390) in the Macedonian city of Thessalonica. …

In the year 383 a military revolt broke out in Britain against the young Emperor Gratian. … The army revolted and proclaimed Magnus Clemens Maximus, Emperor. He was, like Theodosius, a native of Spain, and though harsh and perhaps rapacious, a man of ability and experience, not unworthy of the purple if he had come to it by lawful means. Gratian on his side had evidently given some real cause for dissatisfaction to his subjects. … Hence it was that when Maximus with the army of Britain landed in Gaul, he shook down the fabric of his power without difficulty. Gratian, finding himself deserted by his troops, escaped from the battle-field, but was overtaken and killed at Lyons. For more than four years, Maximus, satisfied with ruling over the three great Western provinces which had fallen to the share of Gratian, maintained at any rate the appearance of harmony with his two colleagues. … At length, in the autumn of 387, Maximus deemed that the time had come for grasping the whole Empire of the West. Lulling to sleep the suspicions of Valentinian and his mother by embassies and protestations of friendship, he crossed the Alps with an army and marched towards Aquileia, where the young Emperor was then dwelling in order to be as near as possible to the dominions of his friendly colleague and protector. Valentinian did not await the approach of his rival, but going down to the port of Grado, took ship and sailed for Thessalonica, his mother and sisters accompanying him. The Emperor and the Senate of Constantinople met the Imperial fugitives at Thessalonica, and discussed the present position of affairs. … What the entreaties of the mother might have failed to effect, the tears of the daughter [Galla] accomplished. Theodosius, whose wife Flaccilla had died two years before (385), took Galla for his second wife, and vowed to avenge her wrongs and replace her brother on the throne. He was some time in preparing for the campaign, but, when it was opened, he conducted it with vigour and decision. His troops pressed up the Save valley, defeated those of Maximus in two engagements, entered Aemona (Laybach) in triumph, and soon stood before the walls of Aquileia [July, 388], behind which Maximus was sheltering himself. … A mutiny among the troops of Maximus did away with the necessity for a siege," and the usurper, betrayed and delivered to Theodosius, was speedily put to death. Theodosius "handed over to Valentinian II. the whole of the Western Empire, both his own especial share and that which had formerly been held by his brother Gratian. The young Emperor was now 17 years of age; his mother, Justina, had died apparently on the eve of Theodosius's victory, and he governed, or tried to govern alone." But one of his Frankish generals, named Arbogast, gathered all the power of the government into his hands, reduced Valentinian to helpless insignificance, and finally, in May, 392, caused him to be strangled. "The Frankish general, who durst not shock the prejudices of the Roman world by himself assuming the purple, hung that dishonoured robe upon the shoulders of a rhetorician, a confidant, and almost a dependent of his own, named Eugenius. This man, like most of the scholars and rhetoricians of the day, had not abjured the old faith of Hellas. As Arbogast also was a heathen, though worshipping Teutonic rather than Olympian gods, this last revolution looked like a recurrence to the days of Julian, and threatened the hardly-won supremacy of Christianity." Again Theodosius was summoned to the rescue of the West, and, after two years of careful preparation, marched against Eugenius by the same route that he had taken before. The two armies met at a place "half-way between Aemona and Aquileia, where the Julian Alps are crossed, and where a little stream called the Frigidus (now the Wipbach) burst suddenly from a limestone hill." The battle was won by Theodosius after a terrible struggle, lasting two days (September 5-6, A. D. 394). Eugenius was taken prisoner and put to death; Arbogast fell by his own hand. "Theodosius, who was still in the prime of life, had now indeed 'the rule of the world,' without a rival or a colleague except his own boyish sons. … Had his life been prolonged, as it well might have been for twenty or thirty years longer, many things might have gone differently in the history of the world. But, little more than four months after the victory of the Frigidus, Theodosius died [January 17, A. D. 395] of dropsy, at Milan."

ALSO IN: F. W. Farrar, Lives of the Fathers, chapter 15: Ambrose and Theodosius (volume 2).

   Until the year 384, "paganism was still the constitutional
   religion of the [Roman] senate. The hall or temple in which
   they assembled was adorned by the statue and altar of Victory.
   … The senators were sworn on the altar of the goddess to
   observe the laws of the emperor and of the empire; and a
   solemn offering of wine and incense was the ordinary prelude
   of their public deliberations. The removal of this ancient
   monument was the only injury which Constantius had offered to
   the superstition of the Romans. The altar of Victory was again
   restored by Julian, tolerated by Valentinian, and once more
   banished from the senate by the zeal of Gratian. But the
   emperor yet spared the statues of the gods which were exposed
   to the public veneration: four hundred and twenty-four temples
   or chapels still remained to satisfy the devotion of the
   people, and in every quarter of Rome the delicacy of the
   Christians was offended by the fumes of idolatrous sacrifice.
   But the Christians formed the least numerous party in the
   senate of Rome." The senate addressed several petitions to
   Gratian, to the young Valentinian, and to Theodosius for the
   restoration of the altar of Victory.
{2727}
   They were supported by the eloquence of the orator Symmachus,
   and opposed by the energy of Ambrose, the powerful Archbishop
   of Milan. The question is said to have been, in the end,
   submitted to the senate, itself, by the Emperor Theodosius (A.
   D. 388)—he being present in person—"Whether the worship of
   Jupiter or that of Christ should be the religion of the
   Romans? The liberty of suffrages, which he affected to allow,
   was destroyed by the hopes and fears that his presence
   inspired. … On a regular division of the senate, Jupiter was
   condemned and degraded by the sense of a very large majority."

"The religious liberty of the Pagans, though considerably abridged by Gratian, was yet greater than had been allowed by the laws of Constantine and his immediate successors. The priests and vestals were deprived of their immunities; the revenues of the temples were confiscated for the service of the State; but the heathen rites of their forefathers were still allowed to those who were conscientiously attached to them, provided they abstained from nocturnal sacrifices and magical incantations. But when Theodosius, in the early part of his reign, prohibited the immolation of victims, their superstition was attacked in its most vital part, and, in the course of a few years, the success of his measures against heresy, and his triumph over Maximus, emboldened him to proceed to steps of a still more decisive kind, and to attempt the entire subversion of the already tottering fabric of paganism. A commission was issued to the præfect of the East, directing him to close all heathen temples within his jurisdiction; and while the imperial officers were engaged in this task, assisted by the clergy, and especially by the monks, with a vigour not always strictly legal, Theodosius gradually increased the rigour of his legislative prohibitions. A law was passed in the year 391, declaring that to enter a heathen temple, with a religious purpose, was an offence liable to a fine of fifteen pounds of gold; and in the following year, not only all public, but even all private and domestic, exercise of heathen rites was interdicted under the severest penalties. In some few instances, the intemperate and tumultous proceedings of the monks in destroying the temples, excited the opposition of the fanatical heathen peasantry, and at Alexandria a serious commotion, fatal to many Christians, was occasioned by the injudicious measures of the patriarch Theophilus. But, generally speaking, the pagans showed little disposition to incur the rigorous penalties of the laws, still less to become martyrs for a religion so little calculated to inspire real faith or fortitude. Some show of zeal in the cause of paganism was made at Rome, where the votaries of the ancient superstition still had a strong party, both among the senate and populace. But the eloquent exertions of Symmachus, the champion of heathenism, were easily baffled by Ambrose, who encountered him with equal ability, better argument, and a confident reliance on the support of his sovereign; and not long after, a more important victory was gained, in an enactment by the senate, carried, through the influence of Theodosius, by an overwhelming majority, that Christianity should for the future be the sole religion of the Roman State. This decisive measure sealed the ruin of paganism in Rome and its dependencies. The senators and nobles hastened to conform, nominally at least, to the dominant religion; the inferior citizens followed their example, and St. Jerome was in a little while able to boast that every heathen altar in Rome was forsaken, and every temple had become a place of desolation."

      ALSO IN:
      P. Schaff,
      History of the Christian Church,
      period 3, chapter 1, section 7 (volume 2).

ROME: A. D. 394-395.
   Final division of the Empire between the sons of Theodosius.
   Arcadius in the East, Honorius in the West.
   Ministries of Rufinus and Stilicho.
   Advent of Alaric the Visigoth.

"The division of the Empire between East and West on the accession of the sons of Theodosius [A. D. 395], though it was possibly meant to be less complete than some preceding partitions, proved to be the final one. It is worth while to indicate the line of division, which is sufficiently accurately traced for us in the Notitia. In Africa it was the well-known frontier marked by 'the Altars of the Philaeni,'. which separated Libya (or Cyrenaica) on the East from Africa Tripolitana on the West. Modern geographers draw exactly the same line (about 19° E. of Greenwich) as the boundary of Barca and Tripoli. On the Northern shore of the Mediterranean the matter is a little more complicated. Noricum, Pannonia, Savia, and Dalmatia belonged to the West, and Dacia—not the original but the later province of Dacia—to the East. This gives us for the frontier of the Western Empire the Danube as far as Belgrade, and on the Adriatic the modern town of Lissa. The inland frontier is traced by geographers some 60 miles up the Save from Belgrade, then southwards by the Drina to its source, and so across the mountains to Lissa. Thus Sclavonia, Croatia, and Dalmatia in the Austrian Empire, and Croatia, most of Bosnia, Herzegovina, and Montenegro in the state which was lately called Turkey in Europe, belonged to the Western Empire. The later province of Dacia, which fell to the Eastern share, included Servia (Old and New), the south-east corner of Bosnia, the north of Albania, and the west of Bulgaria. By this partition the Prefecture of Illyricum, as constituted by Diocletian, was divided into two nearly equal parts. … What makes the subject somewhat perplexing to the student is the tendency to confuse Illyricum the 'province' and Illyricum the 'prefecture,'" the latter of which embraced, in modern geographical terms, Servia, Western Bulgaria, Macedon, Epirus and Greece.

T. Hodgkin, Italy and Her Invaders, book 1, chapter 4, note C, and chapter 3 (volume 1).

   "This decree for a partition, published by Theodosius shortly
   before his death, appears to have been generally expected and
   approved. The incapacity of Arcadius and Honorius, of whom the
   former had only attained his 18th and the latter his 11th
   year, had not then been discovered. These princes showed more
   and more clearly, as time went on, that they inherited no
   share of their father's abilities, their weakness being such
   as to render their sovereignty little more than nominal. … It
   was never intended that the two jurisdictions should be
   independent of each other, but rather that the Emperors should
   be colleagues and coadjutors, the defenders of one
   commonwealth. …
{2728}
   At the time of the decree, belief in the unity and immortality
   of the 'Sancta Respublica Romana' was universal. … Enactments
   were invariably made in the names of both Emperors; and, so
   often as a vacancy of either throne occurred, the title of the
   Caesar elect remained incomplete until his elevation had been
   approved and confirmed by the occupant of the other. …
   Theodosius left the Roman world in peace, and provided with a
   disciplined army sufficient, if rightly directed, for its
   defence; but his choice of the men to whom he confided the
   guidance of his sons was unfortunate. Rufinus, to whom the
   guardianship of Arcadius was entrusted, by birth a Gascon,
   owed his advancement to his eloquence as an advocate, and his
   plausible duplicity had so far imposed on the confiding nature
   of Theodosius as to obtain for him the prefecture of the East.
   Stilicho, the guardian of Honorius, was by descent a Vandal,
   and is styled by St. Jerome a semi-barbarian. … His military
   abilities, combined with a prepossessing exterior, induced
   Theodosius to confer upon him the chief command of the
   imperial forces, and the hand of his niece, Serena."

"Stilicho … was popular with the army, and for the present the great bulk of the forces of the Empire was at his disposal; for the regiments united to suppress Eugenius had not yet been sent back to their various stations. Thus a struggle was imminent between the ambitious minister who had the ear of Arcadius, and the strong general who held the command and enjoyed the favour of the army. … It was the cherished project of Rufinus to unite Arcadius with his only daughter. … But he imprudently made a journey to Antioch, in order to execute vengeance personally on the count of the East, who had offended him; and during his absence from Byzantium an adversary stole a march on him. This adversary was the eunuch Eutropius, the lord chamberlain. … Determining that the future Empress should be bound to himself and not to Rufinus, he chose Eudoxia, a girl of singular beauty, the daughter of a distinguished Frank, but herself of Roman education. … Eutropius showed a picture of the Frank maiden to the Emperor, and engaged his affections for her; the nuptials were arranged by the time Rufinus returned to Constantinople, and were speedily celebrated (27th April 395). This was a blow to Rufinus, but he was still the most powerful man in the East. The event which at length brought him into contact with Stilicho was the rising of the Visigoths, who had been settled by Theodosius in Moesia and Thrace. … Under the leadership of Alaric they raised the ensign of revolt, and spread desolation in the fields and homesteads of Macedonia, Moesia, and Thrace, even advancing close to the walls of Constantinople. …

It was impossible to take the field against the Goths, because there were no forces available, as the eastern armies were still with Stilicho in the West. Arcadius therefore was obliged to summon Stilicho to send or bring them back immediately, to protect his throne. This summons gave that general the desired opportunity to interfere in the politics of Constantinople; and having, with energetic celerity, arranged matters on the Gallic frontier, he marched overland through Illyricum, and confronted Alaric in Thessaly, whither the Goth had traced his devastating path from the Propontis. … It seems that before Stilicho arrived, Alaric had experienced a defeat at the hands of garrison soldiers in Thessaly; at all events he shut himself up in a fortified camp and declined to engage with the Roman general. In the meantime Rufinus induced Arcadius to send a peremptory order to Stilicho to despatch the eastern troops to Constantinople and depart himself whence he had come; the Emperor resented, or pretended to resent, the presence of his cousin as an officious interference. Stilicho yielded so readily that his willingness seems almost suspicious. … He consigned the eastern soldiers to the command of a Gothic captain, Gainas, and himself departed to Salona, allowing Alaric to proceed on his wasting way into the lands of Hellas." When Gainas and his army arrived at the gates of Constantinople, the Emperor came out to meet them, with Rufinus by his side. The troops suddenly closed round the latter and murdered him. "We can hardly suppose that the lynching of Rufinus was the fatal inspiration of a moment, but whether it was proposed or approved of by Stilicho, or was a plan hatched among the soldiers on their way to Constantinople, is uncertain."

ROME: A. D. 396-398.
   Commission of Alaric under the Eastern Empire.
   Suppression of the revolt of Gildo in Africa.
   Commanding position of Stilicho.

"For the next five or six years the chief power over the feeble soul of Arcadius was divided between three persons, his fair Frankish Empress Eudoxia, Eutropius, the haggard old eunuch who had placed her on the throne, and Gainas the Goth, commander of the Eastern army. Again, in the year 306, did Stilicho, now commanding only the Western forces, volunteer to deliver Greece from the Visigoths. The outset of the campaign was successful. The greater part of Peloponnesus was cleared of the invader, who was shut up in the rugged mountain country on the confines of Elis and Arcadia. The Roman army was expecting soon to behold him forced by famine to an ignominious surrender, when they discovered that he had pierced the lines of circumvallation at an unguarded point, and marched with all his plunder northwards to Epirus. What was the cause of this unlooked-for issue of the struggle? … The most probable explanation … is that Fabian caution co-operated with the instinct of the Condottiere against pushing his foe too hard. There was always danger for Rome in driving Alaric to desperation: there was danger privately for Stilicho if the dead Alaric should render him no longer indispensable. Whatever might be the cause, by the end of 396 Alaric was back again in his Illyrian eyrie, and thenceforward whatever threats might be directed towards the East the actual weight of his arms was felt only by the West. Partly, at least, this is to be accounted for by the almost sublime cowardice of the ministers of Arcadius, who rewarded his Grecian raids by clothing him with the sacred character of an officer of the Empire in their portion of Illyricum.

The precise title under which he exercised jurisdiction is not stated. … During an interval of quiescence, which lasted apparently about four years, the Visigothic King was using the forms of Roman law, the machinery of Roman taxation, the almost unbounded authority of a Roman provincial governor, to prepare the weapon which was one day to pierce the heart of Rome herself. The Imperial City, during the first portion of this interval, was suffering the pang's of famine. … Since the foundation of Constantinople … Egypt had ceased to nourish the elder Rome. … Rome was thus reduced to an almost exclusive dependence on the harvests of Africa proper (that province of which Carthage was the capital), of Numidia, and of Mauretania. … But this supply … in the year 397 was entirely stopped by the orders of Gildo, who had made himself virtual master of these three provinces." The elder Theodosius had suppressed in 374 a revolt in Mauretania headed by one Firmus. "The son of a great sheep-farmer, Nabal, he [Firmus] had left behind him several brothers, one of whom, Gildo, had in the year 386 gathered up again some portion of his brother's broken power. We find him, seven years later (in 393), holding the rank of Count of Africa in the Roman official hierarchy. … He turned to his own account the perennial jealousy existing between the ministers of the Eastern and Western Courts, renounced his allegiance to Rome, and preferred to transfer it to Constantinople. What brought matters to a crisis was his refusal to allow the grain crops of 397 to be conveyed to Rome. … The Roman Senate declared war in the early winter months of 398 against Gildo. Stilicho, who, of course, undertook the fitting out of the expedition, found a suitable instrument for Rome's chastisement in one who had had cruel wrongs of his own to avenge upon Gildo. This was yet another son of Nabal, Mascezel." Mascezel, at the head of nearly 40,000 men, accomplished the overthrow of his brother, who slew himself, or was slain, when he fell into Roman hands. "Thus the provinces of Africa were for the time won back again for the Empire of the West, and Rome had her corn again. … The glory and power of Stilicho were now nearly at their highest point. Shortly before the expedition against Gildo he had given his daughter Maria in marriage to Honorius, and the father-in-law of the Emperor might rightly be deemed to hold power with a securer grasp than his mere chief minister."

      T. Hodgkin,
      Italy and her Invaders,
      book 1, chapter 4 (volume 1).

ROME: A. D. 400-403.
First Gothic invasion of Italy under Alaric.
Stilicho's repulse of the invaders.

ROME: A. D. 400-518.
   The Eastern Empire.
   Expulsion of Gothic soldiery from Constantinople.
   Conflict of John Chrysostom and the Empress Eudoxia.
   Reigns of Theodosius II., Pulcheria, Marcianus,
   Leo I., Zeno, and Anastasius.
   Persistent vitality of the Byzantine government.

"While Alaric's eyes were turned on Italy, but before he had actually come into conflict with Stilicho, the Court of Constantinople had been the seat of grave troubles. Gainas, the Gothic 'Magister militum' of the East, and his creature, the eunuch Eutropius, had fallen out, and the man of war had no difficulty in disposing of the wretched harem-bred Grand Chamberlain. … The Magister militum now brought his army over to Constantinople, and quartered it there to overawe the emperor. It appeared quite likely that ere long the Germans would sack the city; but the fate that befell Rome ten years later was not destined for Constantinople. A mere chance brawl put the domination of Gainas to a sudden end [July, A. D. 400]. … The whole population turned out with extemporized arms and attacked the German soldiery. … Isolated bodies of the Germans were cut off one by one, and at last their barracks were surrounded and set on fire. The rioters had the upper hand; 7,000 soldiers fell, and the remnant thought themselves lucky to escape. Gainas at once declared open war on the empire, but … he was beaten in the field and forced to fly across the Danube, where he was caught and beheaded by Uldes, king of the Huns. … The departure of Alaric and the death of Gainas freed the Eastern Romans from the double danger that [had] impended over them. … The weak Arcadius was enabled to spend the remaining seven years of his life in comparative peace and quiet. His court was only troubled by an open war between his spouse, the Empress Ælia Eudoxia, and John Chrysostom, the Patriarch of Constantinople. John was a man of saintly life and apostolic fervour, but rash and inconsiderate alike in speech and action. … The patriarch's enemies were secretly supported by the empress, who had taken offence at the outspoken way in which John habitually denounced the luxury and insolence of her court. She favoured the intrigues of Theophilus, Patriarch of Alexandria, against his brother prelate, backed the Asiatic clergy in their complaints about John's oppression of them, and at last induced the Emperor to allow the saintly patriarch to be deposed by a hastily-summoned council, the 'Synod of the Oak,' held outside the city. The populace rose at once to defend their pastor; riots broke out, Theodosius was chased back to Egypt, and the Emperor, terrified by an earthquake which seemed to manifest the wrath of heaven, restored John to his place. Next year, however, the war between the empress and the patriarch broke out again. … The Emperor, at his wife's demand, summoned another council, which condemned Chrysostom, and on Easter Day, A. D. 404, seized the patriarch in his cathedral by armed force, and banished him to Asia. That night a fire, probably kindled by the angry adherents of Chrysostom, broke out in St. Sophia, which was burnt to the ground. From thence it spread to the neighbouring buildings, and finally to the Senate-house, which was consumed with all the treasures of ancient Greek art of which Constantine had made it the repository. Meanwhile the exiled John was banished to a dreary mountain fastness in Cappadocia, and afterwards condemned to a still more remote prison at Pityus on the Euxine. He died on his way thither. … The feeble and inert Arcadius died in A. D. 408, at the early age of thirty-one; his imperious consort had preceded him to the grave, and the empire of the East was left to Theodosius II., a child of seven years, their only son. … The little emperor was duly crowned, and the administration of the East undertaken in his name by the able Anthemius, who held the office of Praetorian Praefect. History relates nothing but good of this minister; he made a wise commercial treaty with the king of Persia; he repelled with ease a Hunnish invasion of Moesia; he built a flotilla on the Danube, where Roman war-ships had not been seen since the death of Valens, forty years before; he reorganized the corn supply of Constantinople; and did much to get back into order and cultivation the desolated north-western lands of the Balkan Peninsula. … {2730} The empire was still more indebted to him for bringing up the young Theodosius as an honest and god-fearing man. The palace under Anthemius' rule was the school of the virtues; the lives of the emperor and his three sisters, Pulcheria, Arcadia, and Marina, were the model and the marvel of their subjects. Theodosius inherited the piety and honesty of his grandfather and namesake, but was a youth of slender capacity, though he took some interest in literature, and was renowned for his beautiful penmanship. His eldest sister, Pulcheria, was the ruling spirit of the family, and possessed unlimited influence over him, though she was but two years his senior. When Anthemius died in A. D. 414, she took the title of Augusta, and assumed the regency of the East. Pulcheria was an extraordinary woman: on gathering up the reins of power she took a vow of chastity, and lived as a crowned nun for thirty-six years; her fear had been that, if she married, her husband might cherish ambitious schemes against her brother's crown; she therefore kept single herself and persuaded her sisters to make a similar vow. Austere, indefatigable, and unselfish, she proved equal to ruling the realms of the East with success, though no woman had ever made the attempt before. When Theodosius came of age he refused to remove his sister from power, and treated her as his colleague and equal. By her advice he married in A. D. 421, the year that he came of age, the beautiful and accomplished Athenaïs, daughter of the philosopher Leontius. … Theodosius' long reign passed by in comparative quiet. Its only serious troubles were a short war with the Persians, and a longer one with Attila, the great king of the Huns, whose empire now stretched over all the lands north of the Black Sea and Danube, where the Goths had once dwelt. In this struggle the Roman armies were almost invariably unfortunate. The Huns ravaged the country as far as Adrianople and Philippopolis, and had to be bought off by the annual payment of 700 lbs. of gold [£31,000]. … The reconstruction of the Roman military forces was reserved for the successors of Theodosius II. He himself was killed by a fall from his horse in 450 A. D., leaving an only daughter, who was married to her cousin Valentinian III., Emperor of the West. Theodosius, with great wisdom, had designated as his successor, not his young son-in-law, a cruel and profligate prince, but his sister Pulcheria, who at the same time ended her vow of celibacy and married Marcianus, a veteran soldier and a prominent member of the Senate. The marriage was but formal, for both were now well advanced in years: as a political expedient it was all that could be desired. The empire had peace and prosperity under their rule, and freed itself from the ignominious tribute to the Huns. Before Attila died in 452, he had met and been checked by the succours which Marcianus sent to the distressed Romans of the West. When Marcianus and Pulcheria passed away, the empire came into the hands of a series of three men of ability. They were all bred as high civil officials, not as generals; all ascended the throne at a ripe age; not one of them won his crown by arms, all were peaceably designated either by their predecessors, or by the Senate and army. These princes were Leo I. (457-474), Zeno (474-491), Anastasius (491-(18). Their chief merit was that they guided the Roman Empire in the East safely through the stormy times which saw its extinction in the West. While, beyond the Adriatic, province after province was being lopped off and formed into a new Germanic kingdom, the emperors who reigned at Constantinople kept a tight grip on the Balkan Peninsula and on Asia, and succeeded in maintaining their realm absolutely intact. Both East and West were equally exposed to the barbarian in the fifth century, and the difference of their fate came from the character of their rulers, not from the diversity of their political conditions."

"In spite of the dissimilarity of their personal conduct, the general policy of their government [i. e. of the six emperors between Arcadius and Justinian] is characterised by strong features of resemblance. … The Western Empire crumbled into ruins, while the Eastern was saved, in consequence of these emperors having organised the system of administration which has been most unjustly calumniated, under the name of Byzantine. The highest officers, and the proudest military commanders, were rendered completely dependent on ministerial departments and were no longer able to conspire or rebel with impunity. The sovereign was no longer exposed to personal danger, nor the treasury to open peculation. But, unfortunately, the central executive power could not protect the people from fraud with the same ease as it guarded the treasury; and the emperors never perceived the necessity of intrusting the people with the power of defending themselves from the financial oppression of the subaltern administration."

ROME: A. D. 404-408.
   The Western Empire: The last gladiatorial show.
   Retreat of Honorius and the imperial court to Ravenna.
   Invasion of Radagaisus.
   Alliance with Alaric the Goth.
   Fall and death of Stilicho.

   "After the retreat of the barbarians, Honorius was directed to
   accept the dutiful invitation of the senate, and to celebrate
   in the imperial city the auspicious era of the Gothic victory
   and of his sixth consulship. The suburbs and the streets, from
   the Milvian bridge to the Palatine mount, were filled by the
   Roman people, who, in the space of a hundred years, had only
   thrice been honoured with the presence of their sovereigns
   [whose residence had been at Constantinople, at Treves, or at
   Milan]. … The emperor resided several months in the capital. …
   The people were repeatedly gratified by the attention and
   courtesy of Honorius in the public games. … In these games of
   Honorius, the inhuman combats of gladiators polluted for the
   last time the amphitheatre of Rome. … The recent danger to
   which the person of the emperor had been exposed in the
   defenceless palace of Milan urged him to seek a retreat in
   some inaccessible fortress of Italy, where he might securely
   remain, while the open country was covered by a deluge of
   barbarians; … and in the 20th year of his age the Emperor of
   the West, anxious only for his personal safety, retired to the
   perpetual confinement of the walls and morasses of Ravenna.
{2731}
   The example of Honorius was imitated by his feeble successors,
   the Gothic kings, and afterwards the exarchs, who occupied the
   throne and palace of the emperors; and till the middle of the
   8th century Ravenna was considered as the seat of government
   and the capital of Italy. The fears of Honorius were not
   without foundation, nor were his precautions without effect.
   While Italy rejoiced in her deliverance from the Goths, a
   furious tempest was excited among the nations of Germany, who
   yielded to the irresistible impulse that appears to have been
   gradually communicated from the eastern extremity of the
   continent of Asia [by the invasion of the Huns, which Gibbon
   considers to have been the impelling cause of the great
   avalanche of barbarians from the north that swept down upon
   Italy under Radagaisus in 406. …

Many cities of Italy were pillaged or destroyed; and the siege of Florence by Radagaisus is one of the earliest events in the history of that celebrated republic, whose firmness checked and delayed the unskilful fury of the barbarians." Stilicho came to the relief of the distressed city, "and the famished host of Radagaisus was in its turn besieged." The barbarians, surrounded by well guarded entrenchments, were forced to surrender, after many had perished from want of food. The chief was beheaded; his surviving followers were sold as slaves. Meantime, Alaric, the Gothic king, had been taken into the pay of the Empire. "Renouncing the service of the Emperor of the East, Alaric concluded with the Court of Ravenna a treaty of peace and alliance, by which he was declared master-general of the Roman armies throughout the præfecture of Illyricum; as it was claimed, according to the true and ancient limits, by the minister of Honorius." This arrangement with Alaric caused great dissatisfaction in the army and among the people, and was a potent cause of the fall and death of Stilicho, which occurred A. D. 408. He was arrested and summarily executed, at Ravenna, on the mandate of his ungrateful and worthless young master, whose trembling throne he had upheld for thirteen years.

ROME: A. D. 406-500.
   The breaking of the Rhine barrier.
   The great Teutonic invasion and occupation
   of the Western Empire.

"Up to the year 406 the Rhine was maintained as the frontier of the Roman Empire against the numerous barbarian races and tribes that swarmed uneasily in central Europe. From the Flavian Emperors until the time of Probus (282), the great military line from Coblenz to Kehlheim on the Danube had been really defended, though often overstepped and always a strain on the Romans, and thus a tract of territory (including Baden and Würtemberg) on the east shore of the Upper Rhine, the titheland as it was called, belonged to the Empire. But in the fourth century it was as much as could be done to keep off the Alemanni and Franks who were threatening the provinces of Gaul. The victories of Julian and Valentinian produced only temporary effects. On the last day of December 406 a vast company of Vandals, Suevians, and Alans crossed the Rhine. The frontier was not really defended; a handful of Franks who professed to guard it for the Romans were easily swept aside, and the invaders desolated Gaul at pleasure for the three following years. Such is the bare fact which the chroniclers tell us, but this migration seems to have been preceded by considerable movements on a large scale along the whole Rhine frontier, and these movements may have agitated the inhabitants of Britain and excited apprehensions there of approaching danger. Three tyrants had been recently elected by the legions in rapid succession; the first two, Marcus and Gratian, were slain, but the third Augustus, who bore the auspicious name of Constantine, was destined to play a considerable part for a year or two on the stage of the western world.

It seems almost certain that these two movements, the passage of the Germans across the Rhine and the rise of the tyrants in Britain, were not without causal connection; and it also seems certain that both events were connected with the general Stilicho. The tyrants were elevated in the course of the year 406, and it was at the end of the same year that the Vandals crossed the Rhine. Now the revolt of the legions in Britain was evidently aimed against Stilicho. … There is direct contemporary evidence … that it was by Stilicho's invitation that the barbarians invaded Gaul; he thought that when they had done the work for which he designed them he would find no difficulty in crushing them or otherwise disposing of them. We can hardly avoid supposing that the work which he wished them to perform was to oppose the tyrant of Britain—Constantine, or Gratian, or Marcus, whoever was tyrant then; for it is quite certain that, like Maximus, he would pass into Gaul, where numerous Gallo-Roman adherents would flock to his standards. Stilicho died before Constantine was crushed, and the barbarians whom he had so lightly summoned were still in the land, harrying Gaul, destined soon to harry and occupy Spain and seize Africa. From a Roman point of view Stilicho had much to answer for in the dismemberment of the Empire; from a Teutonic point of view, he contributed largely to preparing the way for the foundation of the German kingdoms."

J. B. Bury, A History of the Later Roman Empire, book 2, chapter 6 (volume 1).

   "If modern history must have a definite beginning, the most
   convenient beginning for it is the great Teutonic invasion of
   Gaul in the year 407. Yet the nations of modern Europe do not
   spring from the nations which then crossed the Rhine, or from
   any intermixture between them and the Romans into whose land
   they made their way. The nations which then crossed the Rhine
   were the Vandals, Suevians, and Alans. … None of these nations
   made any real settlements in Gaul; Gaul was to them simply the
   high road to Spain. There they did settle, though the Vandals
   soon forsook their settlement, and the Alans were soon rooted
   out of theirs. The Suevian kept his ground for a far longer
   time; we may, if we please, look on him as the Teutonic
   forefather of Leon, while we look on the Goth as the Teutonic
   forefather of Castile. Here we have touched one of the great
   national names of history; the Goth, like the Frank, plays
   quite another part in Western Europe from the Alan, the
   Suevian, and the Vandal. … Now both Franks and Goths had
   passed into the Empire long before the invasion of 407. One
   branch of the Franks … was actually settled on Roman lands,
   and, as Roman subjects, did their best to withstand the great
   invasion.
{2732}
   What then makes that invasion so marked an epoch? … The answer
   is that the invasion of 407 not only brought in new elements,
   but put the existing elements into new relations to one
   another. Franks and Goths put on a new character and begin a
   new life. The Burgundians pass into Gaul, not as a road to
   Spain, but as a land in which to find many homes. They press
   down to the south-eastern corner of the land, while the Frank
   no longer keeps himself in his north-eastern corner, while in
   the south-west the Goth is settled as for a while the liegeman
   of Cæsar, and in the north-west a continental Britain springs
   into being. Here in truth are some of the chiefest elements of
   the modern world, and though none of them are among the
   nations that crossed the Rhine in 407, yet the new position
   taken by all of them is the direct consequence of that
   crossing. In this way, in Gaul and Spain at least, the joint
   Vandal, Alan, and Suevian invasion is the beginning of the
   formation of the modern nations, though the invading nations
   themselves form no element in the later life of Gaul and only
   a secondary element in the later life of Spain. The later life
   of these lands, and that of Italy also, has sprung of the
   settlement of Teutonic nations in a Roman land, and of the
   mutual influences which Roman and Teuton have had on one
   another. Roman and Teuton lived side by side, and out of their
   living side by side has gradually sprung up a third thing
   different from either, a thing which we cannot call either
   Roman or Teutonic, or more truly a thing which we may call
   Roman and Teutonic and some other things as well, according to
   the side of it which we look at. This third thing is the
   Romance element in modern Europe, the Romance nations and
   their Romance tongues."

"The true Germanic people who occupied Gaul were the Burgundians, the Visigoths, and the Franks. Many other people, many other single bands of Vandals, Alani, Suevi, Saxons, &c., wandered over its territory; but of these, some only passed over it, and the others were rapidly absorbed by it; these are partial incursions which are without any historical importance. The Burgundians, the Visigoths, and the Franks, alone deserve to be counted among our ancestors. The Burgundians definitively established themselves in Gaul between the years 406 and 413; they occupied the country between the Jura, the Saone, and the Duranee; Lyons was the centre of their dominion. The Visigoths, between the years 412 and 450, spread themselves over the provinces bounded by the Rhone, and even over the left bank of the Rhone to the south of the Durance, the Loire, and the Pyrenees: their king resided at Toulouse. The Franks, between the years 481 and 500, advanced in the north of Gaul, and established themselves between the Rhine, the Scheldt, and the Loire, without including Brittany and the western portions of Normandy; Clovis had Soissons and Paris for his capitals. Thus, at the end of the fifth century, was accomplished the definitive occupation of the territory of Gaul by the three great German tribes. The condition of Gaul was not exactly the same in its various parts, and under the dominion of these three nations. There were remarkable differences between them. The Franks were far more foreign, German, and barbarous, than the Burgundians and the Goths. Before their entrance into Gaul, these last had had ancient relations with the Romans; they had lived in the eastern empire, in Italy; they were familiar with the Roman manners and population. We may say almost as much for the Burgundians. Moreover, the two nations had long been Christians. The Franks, on the contrary, arrived from Germany in the condition of pagans and enemies. Those portions of Gaul which they occupied became deeply sensible of this difference, which is described with truth and vivacity in the seventh of the 'Lectures upon the History of France,' of M. Augustin Thierry. I am inclined, however, to believe that it was less important than has been commonly supposed. If I do not err, the Roman provinces differed more among themselves than did the nations which had conquered them. You have already seen how much more civilized was southern than northern Gaul, how much more thickly covered with population, towns, monuments, and roads. Had the Visigoths arrived in as barbarous a condition as that of the Franks, their barbarism would yet have been far less visible and less powerful in Gallia Narbonensis and in Aquitania; Roman civilization would much sooner have absorbed and altered them. This, I believe, is what happened; and the different effects which accompanied the three conquests resulted rather from the differences of the conquered than from that of the conquerors."

   "The invasion of the barbarians was not like the torrent which
   overwhelms, but rather like a slow, persistent force which
   undermines, disintegrates, and crumbles. The Germans were not
   strangers to the Roman Empire when they began their conquests.
   … It is well known that many of the Roman Emperors were
   barbarians who had been successful soldiers in the Imperial
   army; that military colonies were established on the frontiers
   composed of men of various races under the control of Roman
   discipline; that the Goths, before they revolted against the
   authority of the Emperor, were his chosen troops; that the
   great Alaric was a Roman general; that the shores of the
   Danube and the Rhine, which marked the limits of the Empire,
   were lined with cities which were at the same time Roman
   colonies and peopled with men of the Teutonic races. When the
   barbarians did actually occupy the territory their movement
   seems at first to have been characterized by a strange mixture
   of force with a sentiment of awe and reverence for the Roman
   name. In Italy and in Gaul they appropriated to themselves
   two-thirds of the lands, but they sought to govern their
   conquests by means of the Roman law and administration, a
   machine which proved in their hands, by the way, a rather
   clumsy means of government. They robbed the provincials of all
   the movable property they possessed, but the suffering they
   inflicted is said not to have been as great as that caused by
   the exactions of the Roman taxgatherer. The number of armed
   invaders has doubtless been exaggerated. The whole force of
   the Burgundian tribe, whose territory, in the southeast of
   modern France, extended to the Rhone at Avignon, did not, it
   is said, exceed sixty thousand in all, while the armed bands
   of Clovis, who changed the destinies not only of Gaul but of
   Europe, were not greater than one-tenth of that number.
{2733}
   The great change in their life was, as I have said, that they
   ceased to be wanderers; they became, in a measure at least,
   fixed to the soil; and in contrast with the Romans, they
   preferred to live in the country and not in the towns. In this
   they followed their Teutonic habits, little knowing what a
   mighty change this new distribution of population was to cause
   in the social condition of Europe. They retained, too, their
   old military organization, and, after attempts more or less
   successful to use the Roman administration for the ordinary
   purposes of government, they abandoned it, and ruled the
   countries they conquered by simple military force, under their
   Dukes and Counts, the Romans generally being allowed in their
   private relations to govern themselves by the forms of the
   Roman law."

"The coming in of the Germans brought face to face the four chief elements of our civilization: the Greek with its art and science, much of it for the time forgotten; the Roman with its political institutions and legal ideas, and furnishing the empire as the common ground upon which all stood; the Christian with its religious and moral ideas; and the German with other political and legal ideas, and with a reinforcement of fresh blood and life. By the end of the sixth century these all existed side by side in the nominal Roman empire. It was the work of the remaining centuries of the middle ages to unite them into a single organic whole—the groundwork of modern civilization. But the introduction of the last element, the Germans, was a conquest—a conquest rendered possible by the inability of the old civilization any longer to defend itself against their attack. It is one of the miracles of history that such a conquest should have occurred, the violent occupation of the empire by the invasion of an inferior race, with so little destruction of civilization, with so complete an absorption, in the end, of the conqueror by the conquered. It must be possible to point out some reasons why the conquest of the ancient world by the Germans was so little what was to be expected. In a single word, the reason is to be found in the impression which the world they had conquered made upon the Germans. They conquered it, and they treated it as a conquered world. They destroyed and plundered what they pleased, and it was not a little. They took possession of the land and they set up their own tribal governments in place of the Roman. And yet they recognized, in a way, even the worst of them, their inferiority to the people they had overcome. They found upon every side of them evidences of a command over nature such as they had never acquired: cities, buildings, roads, bridges, and ships; wealth and art, skill in mechanics and skill in government, the like of which they had never known; ideas firmly held that the Roman system of things was divinely ordained and eternal; a church strongly organized and with an imposing ceremonial, officered by venerable and saintly men, and speaking with an overpowering positiveness and an awful authority that did not yield before the strongest barbarian king. The impression which these things made upon the mind of the German must have been profound. In no other way can the result be accounted for. Their conquest was a physical conquest, and as a physical conquest it was complete, but it scarcely went farther. In government and law there was little change for the Roman; in religion and language, none at all. Other things, schools and commercial arrangements for instance, the Germans would have been glad to maintain at the Roman level if they had known how. Half unconsciously they adopted the belief in the divinely founded and eternal empire, and in a vague way recognized its continuance after they had overthrown it."

      See, also,
      GAUL: A. D. 406-409, 5-8TH CENTURIES,
      and 5-10TH CENTURIES.

ROME: A. D. 408-410.
   The three sieges and
   the sacking of the Imperial city by Alaric.
   Death of the Gothic chieftain.

Having rid himself of the great minister and general whose brain and arm were the only hope of his dissolving empire, Honorius proceeded to purge his army and the state of barbarians and heretics. He "removed all who professed religious opinions different from his own, from every public office; … and, to complete the purification of his army, ordered a general massacre of all the women and children of the barbarians, whom the soldiers in his service had delivered up as hostages. In one day and hour these innocent victims were given up to slaughter and their property to pillage. These hostages had been left in all the Italian cities by the barbarian confederates, as a guarantee for their fidelity to Rome; when they learned that the whole had perished, in the midst of peace, in contempt of all oaths, one furious and terrific cry of vengeance arose, and 30,000 soldiers, who had been the faithful servants of the empire, at once passed over to the camp of Alaric [then in Illyria], and urged him to lead them on to Rome. Alaric, in language the moderation of which Honorius and his ministers ascribed to fear, demanded reparation for the insults offered him, and strict observance of the treaties concluded with him. The only answer he obtained was couched in terms of fresh insult, and contained an order to evacuate all the provinces of the empire." On this provocation, Alaric crossed the Alps, in October, A. D. 408, meeting no resistance till he reached Ravenna. He threatened that city, at first, but the contemptible Emperor of the West was safe in his fen-fastness, and the Goth marched on to Rome. He "arrived before Rome [in the autumn of A. D. 408] 619 years after that city had been threatened by Hannibal. During that long interval her citizens had never looked down from her walls upon the banner of an enemy [a foreign invader] waving in their plains. … Alaric did not attempt to take Rome by assault: he blockaded the gates, stopped the navigation of the Tiber, and soon famine took possession of a city which was eighteen miles in circumference and contained above a million of inhabitants. … At length, the Romans had recourse to the clemency of Alaric; and, by means of a ransom of five thousand pounds of gold and a great quantity of precious effects, the army was induced to retire into Tuscany." The standard of Alaric was now joined by 40,000 barbarian slaves, who escaped from their Italian masters, and by a large reinforcement of Goths from the Danube, led by the brother-in-law of Alaric, Ataulphus, or Athaulphus (Adolphus, in its modern form) by name. The Visigothic king offered peace to the empire if it would relinquish to him a kingdom in Noricum, Dalmatia and Venetia, with a yearly payment of gold; in the end his demands fell until they extended to Noricum, only. {2734} But the fatuous court at Ravenna refused all terms, and Alaric marched back to Rome. Once more, however, he spared the venerable capital, and sought to attain his ends by requiring the senate to renounce allegiance to Honorius and to choose a new emperor. He was obeyed and Priscus Attalus, the præfect of the city, was formally invested with the purple. This new Augustus made Alaric and Ataulphus his chief military officers, and there was peace for a little time. But Attalus, unhappily, took his elevation with seriousness and did not recognize the commands that were hidden in the advice which he got from his Gothic patron. Alaric found him to be a fool and stripped his purple robe from his shoulders within less than a year. Then, failing once more to negotiate terms of peace with the worthless emperor shut up in Ravenna, he laid siege to Rome for the third time—and the last. "On the 24th of April, 410, the year 1163 from the foundation of the august city, the Salarian gate was opened to him in the night, and the capital of the world, the queen of nations, was abandoned to the fury of the Goths. Yet this fury was not without some tinge of pity; Alaric granted a peculiar protection to the churches, which were preserved from all insult, together with their sacred treasures, and all those who had sought refuge within their walls. While he abandoned the property of the Romans to pillage, he took their lives under his protection; and it is affirmed that only a single senator perished by the sword of the barbarians. The number of plebeians who were sacrificed appears not to have been thought a matter of sufficient importance even to be mentioned. At the entrance of the Goths, a small part of the city was given up to the flames; but Alaric soon took precautions for the preservation of the rest of the edifices. Above all, he had the generosity to withdraw his army from Rome on the sixth day, and to march it into Campania, loaded, however, with an immense booty. Eleven centuries later, the army of the Constable de Bourbon showed less veneration." Alaric survived the sack of Rome but a few months, dying suddenly in the midst of preparations that he made for invading Sicily. He was buried in the bed of the little river Bisentium, which flows past the town of Cozenza, the stream being diverted for the purpose and then turned back to its course.

ROME: A. D. 410-419.
   Treaty with the Visigoths.
   Their settlement in Aquitaine.
   Founding of their kingdom of Toulouse.

ROME: A. D. 423-450.
   Death of Honorius.
   Reign of Valentinian III. and his mother Placidia.
   Legal separation of the Eastern and Western Empires.

The disastrous reign of Honorius, emperor of the West, was ended by his death in 423. The nearest heir to the throne was his infant nephew, Valentinian, son of his sister Placidia. The latter, after being a captive in the hands of the Goths and after sharing the Visigothic throne for some months, as wife of king Ataulphus, had been restored to her brother on her Gothic husband's death. Honorius forced her, then, to marry his favorite, the successful general, Constantius, whom he raised to the rank of Augustus and associated with himself on the throne of the West. But Constantius soon died, leaving his widow with two children—a daughter and a son. Presently, on some quarrel with Honorius, Placidia withdrew from Ravenna and took refuge at Constantinople, where her nephew Theodosius occupied the Eastern throne. She and her children were there when Honorius died, and in their absence the Western throne was usurped by a rebel named John, or Joannes, the Notary, who reigned nearly two years. With the aid of forces from the Eastern Empire he was unseated and beheaded and the child Valentinian was invested with the imperial purple, A. D. 425. For the succeeding twenty-five years his mother, Placidia, reigned in his name. As compensation to the court at Constantinople for the material aid received from it, the rich province of Dalmatia and the troubled provinces of Pannonia and Noricum, were now severed from the West and ceded to the Empire of the East. At the same time, the unity of the Roman government was formally and finally dissolved. "By a positive declaration, the validity of all future laws was limited to the dominions of their peculiar author; unless he should think proper to communicate them, subscribed with his own hand, for the approbation of his independent colleague."

ROME: A. D. 441-446.
Destructive invasion of the Eastern Empire by the Huns.
Cession of territory and payment of tribute to Attila.

ROME: A. D. 452.
   Attila's invasion of Italy.
   The frightful devastation of his hordes.
   Origin of Venice.

   "The sufferings and the ignominy of the Roman empire were
   increased by a new calamity which happened in the year of
   Valentinian's death [murdered by an usurper, Petronius Maximus
   A. D. 455]. Eudoxia, the widow of that emperor, who had
   afterwards become [through compulsion] the wife of Maximus,
   avenged the murder of her first husband by plotting against
   her second; reckless how far she involved her country in the
   ruin. She invited to Rome Genseric, king of the Vandals, who,
   not content with having conquered and devastated Africa, made
   every effort to give a new direction to the rapacity of his
   subjects, by accustoming them to maritime warfare, or, more
   properly speaking, piracy.
{2735}
   His armed bands, who, issuing from the shores of the Baltic,
   had marched over the half of Europe, conquering wherever they
   went, embarked in vessels which they procured at Carthage, and
   spread desolation over the coasts of Sicily and Italy. On the
   12th of June, 455, they landed at Ostia. Maximus was killed in
   a seditious tumult excited by his wife. Defence was
   impossible; and, from the 15th to the 29th of June, the
   ancient capital of the world was pillaged by the Vandals with
   a degree of rapacity and cruelty to which Alaric and the Goths
   had made no approach. The ships of the pirates were moored
   along the quays of the Tiber, and were loaded with a booty
   which it would have been impossible for the soldiers to carry
   off by land."

"On the whole, it is clear from the accounts of all the chroniclers that Gaiseric's [or Genseric's] pillage of Rome, though insulting and impoverishing to the last degree, was in no sense destructive to the Queen of cities. Whatever he may have done in Africa, in Rome he waged no war on architecture, being far too well employed in storing away gold and silver and precious stones, and all manner of costly merchandise in those insatiable hulks which were riding at anchor by Ostia. Therefore, when you stand in the Forum of Rome or look upon the grass-grown hill which was once the glorious Palatine, blame if you like the Ostrogoth, the Byzantine, the Lombard, above all, the Norman, and the Roman baron of the Middle Ages, for the heart-breaking ruin that you see there, but leave the Vandal uncensured, for, notwithstanding the stigma conveyed in the word 'vandalism,' he is not guilty here."

ROME: A. D. 455-476.
   Barbarian masters and imperial puppets.
   From Count Ricimer to Odoacer.
   The ending of the line of Roman Emperors in the West,
   called commonly the Fall of the Western Empire.

"After the death of Valentinian III., the unworthy grandson of the great Theodosius [March 16, A. D. 455], the first thought of the barbarian chiefs was, not to destroy or usurp the Imperial name, but to secure to themselves the nomination of the emperor. Avitus, chosen in Gaul under the influence of the West Gothic King of Toulouse, Theoderic II., was accepted for a time as the western emperor, by the Roman Senate and by the Court of Constantinople. But another barbarian, Ricimer the Sueve, ambitious, successful, and popular, had succeeded to the command of the 'federated' foreign bands which formed the strength of the imperial army in Italy. Ricimer would not be a king, but he adopted as a settled policy the expedient, or the insulting jest, of Alaric. … He deposed Avitus, and probably murdered him. Under his direction, the Senate chose Majorian. Majorian was too able, too public-spirited, perhaps too independent, for the barbarian Patrician; Majorian, at a moment of ill-fortune was deposed and got rid of." After Majorian, one Severus (A. D. 461-467), and after Severus a Greek, Anthemius (A. D. 467-472), nominated at Constantinople, wore the purple at the command of Count Ricimer. When, after five years of sovereignty, Anthemius quarreled with his barbarian master, the latter chose a new emperor—the senator Olybrius—and conducted him with an army to the gates of Rome, in which the imperial court had once more settled itself. Anthemius, supported by the majority of the senate and people, resisted, and Rome sustained a siege of three months. It was taken by storm, on the 11th of July, A. D. 472, and suffered every outrage at the hands of the merciless victors. Anthemius was slain and his enemy, Ricimer, died a few weeks later. Olybrius followed the latter to the grave in October. Ricimer's place was filled by his nephew, a refugee Burgundian king, Gundobad, who chose for emperor an unfortunate officer of the imperial guard, named Glycerius. Glycerius allowed himself to be deposed the next year by Julius Nepos and accepted a bishopric in place of the throne; but later circumstances gave the emperor-bishop an opportunity to assassinate his supplanter and he did not hesitate to do so. By this time, the real power had passed to another barbarian "patrician" and general, Orestes, former secretary of Attila, and Orestes proclaimed his own son emperor. To this son "by a strange chance, as if in mockery of his fortune, had been given the names of the first king and the first emperor of Rome, Romulus Augustus, soon turned in derision into the diminutive 'Augustulus.' But Orestes failed to play the part of Ricimer. A younger and more daring barbarian adventurer, Odoacer the Herule, or Rugian, bid higher for the allegiance of the army. Orestes was slain, and the young emperor was left to the mercy of Odoacer. In singular and significant contrast to the common usage when a pretender fell, Romulus Augustulus was spared. He was made to abdicate in legal form; and the Roman Senate, at the dictation of Odoacer, officially signified to the Eastern emperor, Zeno, their resolution that the separate Western Empire should cease, and their recognition of the one emperor at Constantinople, who should be supreme over West and East. Amid the ruin of the empire and the state, the dethroned emperor passed his days, in such luxurious ease as the times allowed, at the Villa of Lucullus at Misenum; and Odoacer, taking the Teutonic title of king, sent to the emperor at Constantinople the imperial crown and robe which were to be worn no more at Rome or Ravenna for more than three hundred years. Thus in the year 476 ended the Roman empire, or rather, the line of Roman emperors, in the West."

   "When, at Odoacer's bidding, Romulus Augustulus, the boy whom
   a whim of fate had chosen to be the last native Cæsar of Rome,
   had formally announced his resignation to the senate, a
   deputation from that body proceeded to the Eastern court to
   lay the insignia of royalty at the feet of the Eastern Emperor
   Zeno. The West, they declared, no longer required an Emperor
   of its own; one monarch sufficed for the world; Odoacer was
   qualified by his wisdom and courage to be the protector of
   their state, and upon him Zeno was entreated to confer the
   title of patrician and the administration of the Italian
   provinces. The Emperor granted what he could not refuse, and
   Odoacer, taking the title of King ['not king of Italy, as is
   often said'—foot-note], continued the consular office,
   respected the civil and ecclesiastical institutions of his
   subjects, and ruled for fourteen years as the nominal vicar of
   the Eastern Emperor.
{2736}
   There was thus legally no extinction of the Western Empire at
   all, but only a reunion of East and West. In form, and to some
   extent also in the belief of men, things now reverted to their
   state during the first two centuries of the Empire, save that
   Byzantium instead of Rome was the centre of the civil
   government. The joint tenancy which had been conceived by
   Diocletian, carried further by Constantine, renewed under
   Valentinian I. and again at the death of Theodosius, had come
   to an end; once more did a single Emperor sway the sceptre of
   the world, and head an undivided Catholic Church."

J. B. Bury, History of the Later Roman Empire, preface and book 3, chapter 5 (volume 1).

ROME: A. D. 476.
Causes of the decay of the Empire
and the significance of its fall in the West.

"Thus in the year 476 ended the Roman empire, or rather, the line of Roman emperors, in the West. Thus it had become clear that the foundations of human life and society, which had seemed under the first emperors eternal, had given way. The Roman empire was not the 'last word' in the history of the world; but either the world was in danger of falling into chaos, or else new forms of life were yet to appear, new ideas of government and national existence were to struggle with the old for the mastery. The world was not falling into chaos. Europe, which seemed to have lost its guidance and its hope of civilization in losing the empire, was on the threshold of a history far grander than that of Rome, and was about to start in a career of civilization to which that of Rome was rude and unprogressive. In the great break-up of the empire in the West, some parts of its system lasted, others disappeared. What lasted was the idea of municipal government, the Christian Church, the obstinate evil of slavery. What disappeared was the central power, the imperial and universal Roman citizenship, the exclusive rule of the Roman law, the old Roman paganism, the Roman administration, the Roman schools of literature. Part of these revived; the idea of central power under Charles the Great, and Otto his great successor; the appreciation of law, though not exclusively Roman law; the schools of learning. And under these conditions the new nations—some of mixed races, as in France, Spain, and Italy; others simple and homogeneous, as in Germany, England, and the Scandinavian peninsula —begin their apprenticeship of civilization."

"The simple facts of the fall of the Empire are these. The Imperial system had been established … to protect the frontier. This it did for two centuries with eminent success. But in the reign of Marcus Aurelius … there occurred an invasion of the Marcomanni, which was not repulsed without great difficulty, and which excited a deep alarm and foreboding throughout the Empire. In the third century the hostile powers on every frontier began to appear more formidable. The German tribes, in whose discord Tacitus saw the safety of the Empire, present themselves now no longer in separate feebleness, but in powerful confederations. We hear no more the insignificant names of Chatti and Chauci; the history of the third century is full of Alemanni, Franks, and Goths. On the eastern frontier, the long decayed power of the Parthians now gives place to a revived and vigorous Persian Empire. The forces of the Empire are more and more taxed to defend it from these powerful enemies. … It is evident that the Roman world would not have steadily receded through centuries before the barbaric, had it not been decidedly inferior in force. To explain, then, the fall of the Empire, it is necessary to explain the inferiority in force of the Romans to the barbarians. This inferiority of the Romans, it is to be remembered, was a new thing. At an earlier time they had been manifestly superior. When the region of barbarism was much larger; when it included warlike and aggressive nations now lost to it, such as the Gauls; and when, on the other hand, the Romans drew their armies from a much smaller area, and organized them much less elaborately, the balance had inclined decidedly the other way. In those times the Roman world, in spite of occasional reverses, had on the whole steadily encroached on the barbaric. … Either, therefore, a vast increase of power must have taken place in the barbaric world, or a vast internal decay in the Roman. Now the barbaric world had actually received two considerable accessions of force. It had gained considerably, through what influences we can only conjecture, in the power and habit of co-operation. As I have said before, in the third century we meet with large confederations of Germans, whereas before we read only of isolated tribes. Together with this capacity of confederation we can easily believe that the Germans had acquired new intelligence, civilization, and military skill. Moreover, it is practically to be considered as a great increase of aggressive force, that in the middle of the fourth century they were threatened in their original settlements by the Huns. The impulse of desperation which drove them against the Roman frontier was felt by the Romans as a new force acquired by the enemy. But we shall soon see that other and more considerable momenta must have been required to turn the scale. … We are forced, … to the conclusion that the Roman Empire, in the midst of its greatness and civilization, must have been in a stationary and unprogressive, if not a decaying condition. Now what can have been the cause of this unproductiveness or decay? It has been common to suppose a moral degeneration in the Romans, caused by luxury and excessive good fortune. To support this it is easy to quote the satirists and cynics of the imperial time, and to refer to such accounts as Ammianus gives of the mingled effeminacy and brutality of the aristocracy of the capital in the fourth century. But the history of the wars between Rome and the barbaric world does not show us the proofs we might expect of this decay of spirit. We do not find the Romans ceasing to be victorious in the field, and beginning to show themselves inferior in valor to their enemies. The luxury of the capital could not affect the army. … Nor can it be said that luxury corrupted the generals, and through them the army. On the contrary, the Empire produced a remarkable series of capable generals. … Whatever the remote and ultimate cause may have been, the immediate cause to which the fall of the Empire can be traced is a physical, not a moral, decay. {2737} In valor, discipline, and science, the Roman armies remained what they had always been, and the peasant emperors of Illyricum were worthy successors of Cincinnatus and Caius Marius. But the problem was how to replenish those armies. Men were wanting; the Empire perished for want of men. The proof of this is in the fact that the contest with barbarism was carried on by the help of barbarian soldiers. … It must have been because the Empire could not furnish soldiers for its own defence, that it was driven to the strange expedient of turning its enemies and plunderers into its defenders. … Nor was it only in the army that the Empire was compelled to borrow men from barbarism. To cultivate the fields whole tribes were borrowed. From the time of Marcus Aurelius, it was a practice to grant lands within the Empire, sometimes to prisoners of war, sometimes to tribes applying for admission. … The want of any principle of increase in the Roman population is attested at a much earlier time. In the second century before Christ, Polybius bears witness to it; and the returns of the census from the Second Punic War to the time of Augustus show no steady increase in the number of citizens that cannot be accounted for by the extension of citizenship to new classes. … Precisely as we think of marriage, the Roman of Imperial times thought of celibacy,—that is, as the most comfortable but the most expensive condition of life. Marriage with us is a pleasure for which a man must be content to pay; with the Romans it was an excellent pecuniary investment, but an intolerably disagreeable one. Here lay, at least in the judgment of Augustus, the root of the evil. To inquire into the causes of this aversion to marriage in this place would lead me too far. We must be content to assume that, owing partly to this cause and partly to the prudential check of infanticide, the Roman population seems to have been in ordinary times almost stationary. The same phenomenon had shown itself in Greece before its conquest by the Romans. There the population had even greatly declined; and the shrewd Polybius explains that it was not owing to war or plague, but mainly to a general repugnance to marriage, and reluctance to rear large families, caused by an extravagantly high standard of comfort. … Perhaps enough has now been said to explain that great enigma, which so much bewilders the reader of Gibbon; namely, the sharp contrast between the age of the Autonines and the age which followed it. A century of unparalleled tranquillity and virtuous government is followed immediately by a period of hopeless ruin and dissolution. A century of rest is followed, not by renewed vigor, but by incurable exhaustion. Some principle of decay must clearly have been at work, but what principle? We answer: it was a period of sterility or barrenness in human beings; the human harvest was bad. And among the causes of this barrenness we find, in the more barbarous nations, the enfeeblement produced by the too-abrupt introduction of civilization, and universally the absence of industrial habits, and the disposition to listlessness which belongs to the military character."

"At no period within the sphere of historic records was the commonwealth of Rome anything but an oligarchy of warriors and slave-owners, who indemnified themselves for the restraint imposed on them by their equals in the forum by aggression abroad and tyranny in their households. The causes of its decline seem to have little connexion with the form of government established in the first and second centuries. They were in full operation before the fall of the Republic, though their baneful effects were disguised and perhaps retarded by outward successes, by extended conquests, and increasing supplies of tribute or plunder. The general decline of population throughout the ancient world may be dated even from the second century before our era. The last age of the Republic was perhaps the period of the most rapid exhaustion of the human race; but its dissolution was arrested under Augustus, when the population recovered for a time in some quarters of the empire, and remained at least stationary in others. The curse of slavery could not but make itself felt again, and demanded the destined catastrophe. Whatever evil we ascribe to the despotism of the Cæsars, we must remark that it was Slavery that rendered political freedom and constitutional government impossible. Slavery fostered in Rome, as previously at Athens, the spirit of selfishness and sensuality, of lawlessness and insolence, which cannot consist with political equality, with political justice, with political moderation. The tyranny of the emperors was … only the tyranny of every noble extended and intensified. The empire became no more than an ergastulum or barracoon [slave prison] on a vast scale, commensurate with the dominions of the greatest of Roman slaveholders. … We have noticed already the pestilence which befell Italy and many of the provinces in the reign of Aurelius. There is reason to believe that this scourge was no common disorder, that it was of a type new at least in the West, and that, as a new morbific agent, its ravages were more lasting, as well as more severe, than those of an ordinary sickness. … At another time, when the stamina of ancient life were healthier and stronger, such a visitation might possibly have come and gone, and, however fatal at the moment, have left no lasting traces; but periods seem to occur in national existence when there is no constitutional power of rallying under casual disorders. The sickness which in the youth of the commonwealth would have dispelled its morbid humours and fortified its system, may have proved fatal to its advancing years, and precipitated a hale old age into palsied decrepitude. The vital powers of the empire possessed no elasticity; every blow now told upon it with increasing force; the blows it slowly or impatiently returned were given by the hands of hired barbarians, not by the strength of its own right arm. Not sickness alone, but famines, earthquakes, and conflagrations, fell in rapid succession upon the capital and the provinces. Such casualties may have occurred at other periods not less frequently or disastrously; but these were observed, while the others passed unnoticed, because the courage of the nation was now broken no less than its physical vigour, and, distressed and terrified, it beheld in every natural disorder the stroke of fate, the token of its destined dissolution. Nor indeed was the alarm unfounded. These transient faintings and sicknesses were too truly the symptoms of approaching collapse. The long line of northern frontier, from Odessus to the island of the Batavi, was skirted by a fringe of fire, and through the lurid glare loomed the wrathful faces of myriads, Germans, Scythians, and Sarmatians, all armed for the onslaught in sympathy or concert."

"Under the humane pretext of gratifying the world with a flattering title, an Antoninus, in one of his edicts, called by the name of Roman citizens the tributaries of the Roman empire, those men whom a proconsul might legally torture, flog with rods, or crush with labour and taxes. Thus the power of that formerly inviolable title, before which the most shameless tyranny stopped short, was contradicted; thus perished that ancient safety-cry which made the executioners fall back; I am a Roman citizen. From that period Rome no longer existed; there was a court and provinces: we do not understand by that word what it now signifies in the vulgar languages, but what it signified primitively in the Roman language, a country conquered by arms; we mean to say, that the primitive distinction between conquering Rome and those it had conquered, then became established between the men in the palace and those out of the palace; that Rome itself lived only for one family, and a handful of courtiers, as formerly the nations it had conquered had only lived by it. It was then that the name of subjugated, subjecti, which our language has corrupted into that of subjects, was transported from the conquered inhabitants of the East or Gaul, to the victorious inhabitants of Italy, attached in future to the yoke of a small number of men, as these had been attached to their yoke; the property of those men, as well as the others, had been their property, worthy, in a word, of the degrading title of subjects, subjecti, which must be taken literally. Such was the order of things which had been gradually forming since the time of Augustus; each emperor gloried in hastening the moment of its perfection; Constantine gave it the finishing stroke. He effaced the name of Rome from the Roman standards, and put in its place the symbol of the religion which the empire had just embraced. He degraded the revered name of the civil magistrature below the domestic offices of his house. An inspector of the wardrobe took precedence of the consuls. The aspect of Rome importuned him; he thought he saw the image of liberty still engraved on its old walls; fear drove him thence; he fled to the coasts of Byzantia, and there built Constantinople, placing the sea as a barrier between the new city of the Cæsars and the ancient city of the Brutus. If Rome had been the home of independence, Constantinople was the home of slavery; from thence issued the dogmas of passive obedience to the Church and throne; there was but one right—that of the empire; but one duty—that of obedience. The general name of citizen, which was equivalent, in language, to men living under the same law, was replaced by epithets graduated according to the credit of the powerful or the cowardice of the weak. The qualifications of Eminence, Royal Highness, and Reverence, were bestowed on what was lowest and most despicable in the world. The empire, like a private domain, was transmitted to children, wives, and sons-in-law; it was given, bequeathed, substituted; the universe was exhausting itself for the establishment of the family; taxes increased immoderately; Constantinople alone was exempted; that privilege of Roman liberty was the price of its infamy. The rest of the cities and nations were treated like beasts of burden, which are used without scruple, flogged when they are restive, and killed when there is cause to fear them. Witness the population of Antioch, condemned to death by the pious Theodosius; and that of Thessalonica, entirely massacred by him for a tax refused, and an unfortunate creature secured from the justice of his provosts. Meanwhile savage and free nations armed against the enslaved world, as if to chastise it for its baseness. Italy, oppressed by the empire, soon found pitiless revengers in its heart. Rome was menaced by the Goths. The people, weary of the imperial yoke, did not defend themselves. The men of the country, still imbued with the old Roman manners and religion, those men, the only ones whose arms were still robust and souls capable of pride, rejoiced to see among them free men and gods resembling the ancient gods of Italy. Stilico, the general to whom the empire entrusted its defence, appeared at the foot of the Alps; he called to arms, and no one arose; he promised liberty to the slaves, he lavished the treasures of the fisc; and out of the immense extent of the empire, he only assembled 40,000 men, the fifth part of the warriors that Hannibal had encountered at the gates of free Rome."

A. Thierry, Narratives of the Merovingian Era and Historical Essays, essay 13.

"It was not the division into two empires, nor merely the power of external enemies, that destroyed the domination of Rome. Republican Rome had ended in monarchy by the decadence of her institutions and customs, by the very effect of her victories and conquests, by the necessity of giving to this immense dominion a dominus. But after she had begun to submit to the reality of a monarchy, she retained the worship of republican forms. The Empire was for a long time a piece of hypocrisy; for it did not dare to give to its rulers the first condition of stability, a law of succession. The death of every emperor was followed by troubles, and the choice of a master of the world was often left to chance. At length the monarchy had to be organized, but thenceforth it was absolute, without restraint or opposition. Its proposed aim was to exploit the world, an aim which in practice was carried to an extreme. Hence it exhausted the orbis romanus."

ROME: A. D. 488.
Theodoric the king of the Ostrogoths authorized and
commissioned by the Emperor Zeno to conquer a kingdom in Italy.

   It was in the autumn of the year 488 that Theodoric,
   commissioned by the Eastern Emperor, Zeno, to wrest Italy from
   Odoacer (or Odovacar), broke up his camp or settlement on the
   Danube, in the neighborhood of Sistova, and moved towards the
   west. The movement was a national migration—of wives and
   children as well as of warriors—and the total number is
   estimated at not less than 200,000. Following the course of
   the Danube, the Gothic host met with no opposition until it
   came to Singidunum, near the junction of the Save. There, on
   the banks of a stream called the Ulca, they fought a great
   battle with the Gepidæ, who held possession of Pannonia, and
   who disputed their advance.
{2739}
   Victorious in this encounter, Theodoric pushed on, along the
   course of the Save; but the movement of his cumbrous train was
   so slow and the hardships of the march so great, that nearly a
   year passed before he had surmounted the passes of the Julian
   Alps and entered Italy. He found Odoacer waiting to give him
   battle on the Isonzo; but the forces of the latter were not
   courageous enough or not faithful enough for their duty, and
   the invading Goths forced the passage of the stream on the
   28th of August, 489. Odoacer retreated to Verona, followed by
   Theodoric, and there, on the 30th of September, a great and
   terrible battle was fought, from which not many of the Rugian
   and Herulian troops of Odoacer escaped. Odoacer, himself, with
   some followers, got clear of the rout and made their way to
   the safe stronghold of Ravenna. For a time, Odoacer's cause
   seemed abandoned by all who had supported him; but it was a
   treacherous show of submission to the victor. Theodoric, ere
   long, found reactions at work which recruited the forces of
   his opponent and diminished his own. He was driven to retreat
   to Ticinum (Pavia) for the winter. But having solicited and
   received aid from the Visigoths of southern Gaul, he regained,
   in the summer of 490 (August 11) in a battle on the Adda, not
   far from Milan, all the ground that he had lost, and more.
   Odoacer was now driven again into Ravenna, and shut up within
   its walls by a blockade which was endured until February in
   the third year afterwards (493), when famine compelled a
   surrender. Theodoric promised life to his rival and respect to
   his royal dignity; but he no sooner had the old self-crowned
   king Odoacer in his power than he slew him with his own hand.
   Notwithstanding this savagery in the inauguration of it, the
   reign of the Ostrogothic king in Italy appears to have been,
   on the whole, wise and just, with more approximation to the
   chivalric half-civilization of later mediæval times than
   appears in the government of any of his Gothic or German
   neighbors. "Although Theoderic did not care to run the risk of
   offending both his Goths and the Court of Constantinople by
   calling himself Cæsar or Emperor, yet those titles would have
   exactly expressed the character of his rule—so far at least as
   his Roman subjects were concerned. When the Emperor Anastasius
   in 497 acknowledged him as ruler of Italy, he sent him the
   purple cloak and the diadem of the Western emperors; and the
   act showed that Anastasius quite understood the difference
   between Theodoric's government and that of Odovacar. In fact,
   though not in name, the Western empire had been restored with
   much the same institutions it had under the best of the
   Cæsars." The reign of Theodoric, dating it, as he did, from
   his first victory on Italian soil, was thirty-seven years in
   duration. When he died, August 30, A. D. 526, he left to his
   grandson, Athalaric, a kingdom which extended, beyond Italy,
   over Rhætia, Noricum, Pannonia and Illyricum (the modern
   Austrian empire south and west of the Danube), together with
   Provence in southern Gaul and a district north of it embracing
   much of modern Dauphiné. His government extended, likewise,
   over the Visigothic kingdom, as guardian of its young king,
   his grandson. But this great kingdom of the heroic Ostrogoth
   was not destined to endure. One who lived the common measure
   of life might have seen the beginning of it and the end. It
   vanished in one quarter of a century after he who founded it
   was laid away in his great tomb at Ravenna, leaving nothing to
   later history which can be counted as a survival of it,—not
   even a known remnant of the Ostrogothic race.

"Theodoric professed a great reverence for the Roman civilization. He had asked for and obtained from the Emperor Anastasius the imperial insignia that Odovakar had disdainfully sent back to Constantinople, and he gave up the dress of the barbarians for the Roman purple. Although he lived at Ravenna he was accustomed to consult the Roman senate, to whom he wrote: 'We desire, conscript fathers, that the genius of liberty may look with favor upon your assembly.' He established a consul of the West, three prætorian prefects, and three dioceses,—that of northern Italy, that of Rome, and that of Gaul. He retained the municipal government, but appointed the decurions himself. He reduced the severity of the taxes, and his palace was always open to those who wished to complain of the iniquities of the judges. … Thus a barbarian gave back to Italy the prosperity which she had lost under the emperors. The public buildings, aqueducts, theatres, and baths were repaired, and palaces and churches were built. The uncultivated lands were cleared and companies were formed to drain the Pontine marshes and the marshes of Spoleto. The iron mines of Dalmatia and a gold mine in Bruttii were worked. The coasts were protected from pirates by numerous flotillas. The population increased greatly. Theodoric, though he did not know how to write, gathered around him the best literary merit of the time,—Boethius, the bishop Ennodius, and Cassiodorus. The latter, whom he made his minister, has left us twelve books of letters. Theodoric seems in many ways like a first sketch of Charlemagne. Though himself an Arian, he respected the rights of the Catholics from the first. … When, however, the Emperor Justin I. persecuted the Arians in the East, he threatened to retaliate, and as a great commotion was observed among his Italian subjects, he believed that a conspiracy was being formed against himself. … The prefect Symmachus and his son-in-law, Boethius, were implicated. Theodoric confined them in the tower of Pavia, and it was there that Boethius wrote his great work, The Consolations of Philosophy. They were both executed in 525. Theodoric, however, finally recognized their innocence, and felt such great regret that his reason is said to have been unbalanced and that remorse hastened his end."

   "The personal greatness of Theodoric overshadowed Emperor and
   Empire; from his palace at Ravenna, by one title or another,
   by direct dominion, as guardian, as elder kinsman, as
   representative of the Roman power, as head by natural
   selection of the whole Teutonic world, he ruled over all the
   western lands save one; and even to the conquering Frank he
   could say, Thus far shalt thou come and no further. In true
   majesty such a position was more than Imperial; moreover there
   was nothing in the rule of Theodoric which touched the Roman
   life of Italy. … As far as we can see, it was the very
   greatness of Theodoric which kept his power from being
   lasting.
{2740}
   Like so many others of the very greatest of men, he set on
   foot a system which he himself could work, but which none but
   himself could work. He sought to set up a kingdom of Goths and
   Romans, under which the two nations should live side by side,
   distinct but friendly, each keeping its own law and doing its
   own work. And for one life-time the thing was done. Theodoric
   could keep the whole fabric of Roman life untouched, with the
   Goth standing by as an armed protector. He could as he said,
   leave to the Roman consul the honours of government and take
   for the Gothic king only the toils. Smaller men neither could
   nor would do this. … It was the necessary result of his
   position that he gave Italy one generation of peace and
   prosperity such as has no fellow for ages on either side of
   it, but that, when he was gone, a fabric which had no
   foundation but his personal qualities broke down with a
   crash."

      ALSO IN:
      E. A. Freeman,
      The Goths at Ravenna
      (Historical Essays, volume 3, chapter 4).

      T. Hodgkin,
      Italy and Her Invaders,
      book 4, chapters 6-13 (volume 3).

"In the year after the great Theoderic died (526), the most famous in the time of Eastern emperors, since Constantine, began his long and eventful reign (527-567). Justinian was born a Slavonian peasant, near what was then Sardica, and is now Sofia; his original Slave name, Uprawda, was latinized into Justinian, when he became an officer in the imperial guard. Since the death of the second Theodosius (450), the Eastern emperors had been, as they were continually to be, men not of Roman or Greek, but of barbarian or half barbarian origin, whom the imperial city and service attracted, naturalized, and clothed with civilized names and Roman character. Justinian's reign, so great and so unhappy, was marked by magnificent works, the administrative organization of the empire, the great buildings at Constantinople, the last and grandest codification of Roman law.

But it was also marked by domestic shame, by sanguinary factions, by all the vices and crimes of a rapacious and ungrateful despotism.

Yet it seemed for a while like the revival of the power and fortune of Rome. Justinian rose to the highest ideas of imperial ambition; and he was served by two great masters of war, foreigners in origin like himself, Belisarius the Thracian, and Narses the Armenian, who were able to turn to full account the resources, still enormous, of the empire, its immense riches, its technical and mechanical skill, its supplies of troops, its military traditions, its command of the sea. Africa was wrested from the Vandals;

Italy from the successors of Theoderic [see below]; much of
Spain from the West Goths."

"In spite of the brilliant events which have given the reign of Justinian a prominent place in the annals of mankind, it is presented to us in a series of isolated and incongruous facts. Its chief interest is derived from the biographical memorials of Belisarius, Theodora, and Justinian; and its most instructive lesson has been drawn from the influence which its legislation has exercised on foreign nations. The unerring instinct of mankind has however fixed on this period as one of the greatest eras in man's annals. The actors may have been men of ordinary merit, but the events of which they were the agents effected the mightiest revolutions in society. The frame of the ancient world was broken to pieces, and men long looked back with wonder and admiration at the fragments which remained, to prove the existence of a nobler race than their own. The Eastern Empire, though too powerful to fear any external enemy, was withering away from the rapidity with which the State devoured the resources of the people. … The life of Belisarius, either in its reality or its romantic form, has typified his age. In his early youth, the world was populous and wealthy, the empire rich and powerful. He conquered extensive realms and mighty nations and led kings captive to the footstool of Justinian, the lawgiver of civilisation. Old age arrived; Belisarius sank into the grave suspected and impoverished by his feeble and ungrateful master; and the world, from the banks of the Euphrates to those of the Tagus, presented the awful spectacle of famine and plague, of ruined cities, and of nations on the brink of extermination. The impression on the hearts of men was profound."

ROME: A. D. 535-553.
   Fall of the Gothic kingdom of Theodoric.
   Recovery of Italy by the Emperor Justinian.
   The long Gothic siege of Rome.
   The siege, capture and pillage by Totila.
   The forty days of lifeless desolation in the great city.

On the death of the great Theodoric, the Ostrogothic crown passed, not to his daughter, Amalasuntha, but to her son, Athalaric, a child of eight or ten years. The boy-king died at the age of sixteen, and Amalasuntha assumed the regal power and title, calling one of her cousins, named Theodatus, or Theodahad, to the throne, to share it with her. She had powerful enemies in the Gothic court and the ungrateful Theodatus was soon in conspiracy with them. Amalasuntha and her partisans were overcome, and the unhappy queen, after a short imprisonment on a little island in the lake of Bolsena, was put to death. These dissensions in the Gothic kingdom gave encouragement to the Eastern emperor, the ambitious Justinian, to undertake the reconquest of Italy. His great general, Belisarius, had just vanquished the Vandals and restored Carthaginian Africa to the imperial domain.

   With far smaller forces than that achievement demanded,
   Belisarius was now sent against the Goths. He landed, first,
   in Sicily (A. D. 535), and the whole island was surrendered to
   him, almost without a blow. The following spring (having
   crossed to Carthage meantime and quelled a formidable revolt),
   he passed the straits from Messina and landed his small army
   in Italy. Marching northwards, he encountered his first
   opposition at Neapolis—modern Naples—where he was detained
   for twenty days by the stout resistance of the city.
{2741}
   It was surprised, at length, by a storming party which crept
   through one of the aqueducts of the town, and it suffered
   fearfully from the barbarians of the Roman army before
   Belisarius could recover control of his savage troops. Pausing
   for a few months to organize his easy conquest of southern
   Italy, he received, before he marched to Rome, the practical
   surrender of the capital. On the 9th of December, 536, he
   entered the city and the Gothic garrison marched out. The
   Goths, meantime, had deposed the cowardly Theodatus and raised
   to the throne their most trusty warrior, Witigis. They
   employed the winter of 537 in gathering all their available
   forces at Ravenna, and in the spring they returned to Rome,
   150,000 strong, to expel the Byzantine invader. Belisarius had
   busily improved the intervening months, and the long-neglected
   fortifications of the city were wonderfully restored and
   improved. At the beginning of March, the Goths were thundering
   at the gates of Rome; and then began the long siege, which
   endured for a year and nine days, and which ended in the
   discomfiture of the huge army of the besiegers. Their retreat
   was a flight and great numbers were slain by the pursuing
   Romans. "The numbers and prowess of the Goths were rendered
   useless by the utter incapacity of their commander. Ignorant
   how to assault, ignorant how to blockade, he allowed even the
   sword of Hunger to be wrested from him and used against his
   army by Belisarius. He suffered the flower of the Gothic
   nation to perish, not so much by the weapons of the Romans as
   by the deadly dews of the Campagna." After the retreat of the
   Goths from Rome, the conquest of Italy would have been quickly
   completed, no doubt, if the jealousy of Justinian had not
   hampered Belisarius, by sending the eunuch Narses—who proved
   to be a remarkable soldier, in the end—to divide the command
   with him. As it was, the surrender to Belisarius of the Gothic
   capital, Ravenna, by the Gothic king, Witigis, in the spring
   of 540, seemed to make the conquest an accomplished fact. The
   unconquered Gothic warriors then held but two important
   cities—Verona and Pavia. Milan they had retaken after losing
   it, and had practically destroyed, massacring the inhabitants.

But now they chose a new king, Ildibad, who reigned promisingly for a year and was slain; then another, who wore the crown but five months; and, lastly, they found a true royal chief in the knightly young warrior Baduila, or Totila, by whose energy and valor the Gothic cause was revived. Belisarius had been recalled by his jealous master, and the quarrels of eleven generals who divided his authority gave every opportunity to the youthful king. Defeating the Roman armies in two battles, at Faenza and in the valley of Mugello, near Florence, he crossed the Apennines, passed by Rome, besieged and took Naples and Cumæ and overran all the southern provinces of Italy, in 542 and 543, finding everywhere much friendliness among the people, whom the tax-gatherers of Justinian had alienated by their merciless rapacity. In 544, Belisarius, restored to favor and command only because of the desperate need of his services, came back to Italy to recover what his successors had lost; but he came almost alone. Without adequate troops, he could only watch, from Ravenna, and circumscribe a little, the successes of his enterprising antagonist. The latter, having strengthened his position well, in central as well as in southern Italy, applied himself to the capture of Rome. In May, 546, the Gothic lines were drawn around the city and a blockade established which soon produced famine and despair. An attempt by Belisarius to break the leaguer came to naught, and Rome was betrayed to Totila on the 17th of December following. He stayed the swords of his followers when they began to slay, but gave them full license to plunder. When the great city had been stripped and most of its inhabitants had fled, he resolved to destroy it utterly; but he was dissuaded from that most barbarous design by a letter of remonstrance from Belisarius. Contenting himself, then, with throwing down a great part of the walls, he withdrew his whole army—having no troops to spare for an adequate garrison—and took with him every single surviving inhabitant (so the historians of the time declare), so that Rome, for the space of six weeks or more (January and February, 547), was a totally deserted and silent city. At the end of that time, Belisarius threw his army inside of the broken walls, and repaired them with such celerity that Totila was baffled when he hastened back to expel the intruders. Three times the Goths attacked and were repulsed; the best of their warriors were slain; the prestige of their leader was lost. But, once more, jealousies and enmities at Constantinople recalled Belisarius and the Goths recovered ground. In 549 they again invested Rome and it was betrayed to them, as before, by a part of the garrison. Totila now made the great city—great even in its ruins—his capital, and exerted himself to restore its former glories. His arms for a time were everywhere successful. Sicily was invaded and stripped of its portable wealth. Sardinia and Corsica were occupied; the shores of Greece were threatened. But in 552 the tide of fortune was turned once more in favor of Justinian,—this time by his second great general, the eunuch Narses. In one decisive battle fought that year, in July, at a point on the Flaminian Way where it crosses the Apennines, the army of the Goths was broken and their king was slain. The remnant which survived crowned another king, Teias; but, he, too, perished, the following March, in a battle fought at the foot of Mount Vesuvius, and the Ostrogothic kingdom was at an end. Rome was already recovered—the fifth change of masters it had undergone during the war—and one by one, all the strong places in the hands of the Goths were given up. The restoration of Italy to the Empire was complete.

T. Hodgkin, Italy and Her Invaders, book 4, chapter 16; book 5, chapters 1-24.

   "Of all ages in history the sixth is the one in which the
   doctrine that the Roman Empire came to an end at some time in
   the fifth sounds most grotesque. Again the Roman armies march
   to victory, to more than victory, to conquest, to conquests
   more precious than the conquests of Cæsar or of Trajan, to
   conquests which gave back Rome herself to her own Augustus. We
   may again be met with the argument that we have ourselves used
   so often; that the Empire had to win back its lost provinces
   does indeed prove that it had lost them; but no one seeks to
   prove that the provinces had not been lost; what the world is
   loth to understand is that there was still life enough in the
   Roman power to win them back again.
{2742}
   I say the Roman power; what if I said the Roman commonwealth?
   It may startle some to hear that in the sixth century, nay in
   the seventh, the most common name for the Empire of Rome is
   still 'respublica.' No epithet is needed; there is no Deed to
   say that the 'respublica' spoken of is 'respublica Romano.' It
   is the Republic which wins back Italy, Africa, and Southern
   Spain from their Teutonic masters. … The point of the
   employment of the word lies in this, that it marks the
   unbroken being of the Roman state; in the eyes of the men of
   the sixth century the power which won back the African
   province in their own day was the same power which had first
   won it well-nigh seven hundred years before. The consul
   Belisarius was the true successor of the consul Scipio."

J. B. Bury, History of the Later Roman Empire, book 4, chapters 5-7 (volume 1).

On the final overthrow and annihilation of the Gothic monarchy in Italy by the decisive victories of the eunuch Narses, its throne at Ravenna was occupied by a line of vice-royal rulers, named exarchs, who represented the Eastern Roman emperor, being appointed by him and exercising authority in his name. "Their jurisdiction was soon reduced to the limits of a narrow province; but Narses himself, the first and most powerful of the exarchs, administered above fifteen years the entire kingdom of Italy. … A duke was stationed for the defence and military command of each of the principal cities; and the eye of Narses pervaded the ample prospect from Calabria to the Alps. The remains of the Gothic nation evacuated the country or mingled with the people. … The civil state of Italy, after the agitation of a long tempest, was fixed by a pragmatic sanction, which the emperor promulgated at the request of the pope. Justinian introduced his own jurisprudence into the schools and tribunals of the West. … Under the exarchs of Ravenna, Rome was degraded to the second rank. Yet the senators were gratified by the permission of visiting their estates in Italy, and of approaching without obstacle the throne of Constantinople: the regulation of weights and measures was delegated to the pope and senate; and the salaries of lawyers and physicians, of orators and grammarians, were destined to preserve or rekindle the light of science in the ancient capital. … During a period of 200 years Italy was unequally divided between the kingdom of the Lombards and the exarchate of Ravenna. … Eighteen successive exarchs were invested, in the decline of the empire, with the full remains of civil, of military and even of ecclesiastical power. Their immediate jurisdiction, which was afterwards consecrated as the patrimony of St. Peter, extended over the modern Romagna, the marshes or valleys of Ferrara and Commachio, five maritime cities from Rimini to Ancona, and a second inland Pentapolis, between the Adriatic coast and the hills of the Apennine. Three subordinate provinces—of Rome, of Venice, and of Naples—which were divided by hostile lands from the palace of Ravenna, acknowledged, both in peace and war, the supremacy of the exarch. The duchy of Rome appears to have included the Tuscan, Sabine, and Latin conquests of the first 400 years of the city, and the limits may be distinctly traced along the coast, from Civita Vecchio, to Terracina, and with the course of the Tiber from Ameria and Narni to the port of Ostia. The numerous islands from Grado to Chiozza composed the infant dominion of Venice; but the more accessible towns on the continent were overthrown by the Lombards, who beheld with impotent fury a new capital rising from the waves. The power of the dukes of Naples was circumscribed by the bay and the adjacent isles, by the hostile territory of Capua, and by the Roman colony of Amalphi. … The three islands of Sardinia, Corsica, and Sicily still adhered to the empire. … Rome was oppressed by the iron sceptre of the exarchs, and a Greek, perhaps a eunuch, insulted with impunity the ruins of the Capitol. But Naples soon acquired the privilege of electing her own dukes; the independence of Amalphi was the fruit of commerce; and the voluntary attachment of Venice was finally ennobled by an equal alliance with the Eastern empire."

[IMAGE: EUROPE AT THE DEATH OF THE EMPEROR JUSTINIAN 565 A. D. EAST ROMAN EMPIRE RACE DIVISIONS CELTIC PEOPLES. SLAVIC PEOPLES. LITHUANIAN PEOPLES. URAL ALTAIC PEOPLES. SCANDINAVIANS. ANGLES, SAXONS, JUTES ETC. THE GERMANIC STATES AND PEOPLES ALL APPEAR IN DIFFERENT SHADES OF PINK.]

ROME: A. D. 565-628.
   Decline of the Eastern Empire.
   Thickening calamities.
   Reigns of Justinus II., Tiberius Constantinus, Maurice,
   and Phocas.
   Brief brightening of events by Heraclius.
   His campaigns against the Persians.

   "The thirty years which followed the death of Justinian are
   covered by three reigns, those of Justinus II. (565-578),
   Tiberius Constantinus (578-582), and Maurice (582-602). These
   three emperors were men of much the same character as the
   predecessors of Justinian; each of them was an experienced
   official of mature age, who was selected by the reigning
   emperor as his most worthy successor. … Yet under them the
   empire was steadily going down hill: the exhausting effects of
   the reign of Justinian were making themselves felt more and
   more, and at the end of the reign of Maurice a time of chaos
   and disaster was impending, which came to a head under his
   successor. … The misfortunes of the Avaric and Slavonic war
   [see AVARS] were the cause of the fall of the Emperor Maurice.
   … Maurice sealed his fate when, in 602, he issued orders for
   the discontented army of the Danube to winter north of the
   river, in the waste marshes of the Slavs. The troops refused
   to obey the order, and chased away their generals. Then
   electing as their captain an obscure centurion, named Phocas,
   they marched on Constantinople. Maurice armed the city
   factions, the 'Blues' and 'Greens,' and strove to defend
   himself. But when he saw that no one would fight for him, he
   fled across the Bosphorus with his wife and children, to seck
   refuge in the Asiatic provinces, where he was less unpopular
   than in Europe. Soon he was pursued by orders of Phocas, whom
   the army had now saluted as emperor, and caught at Chalcedon.
   The cruel usurper had him executed, along with all his five
   sons, the youngest a child of only three years of age. … For
   the first time since Constantinople had become the seat of
   empire the throne had been won by armed rebellion and the
   murder of the legitimate ruler. …
{2743}
   Phocas was a mere brutal soldier—cruel, ignorant, suspicious,
   and reckless, and in his incapable hands the empire began to
   fall to pieces with alarming rapidity. He opened his reign
   with a series of cruel executions of his predecessor's
   friends, and from that moment his deeds of bloodshed never
   ceased. … The moment that Phocas had mounted the throne,
   Chosroës of Persia declared war on him, using the hypocritical
   pretext that he wished to revenge Maurice, for whom he
   professed a warm personal friendship. This war was far
   different from the indecisive contests in the reigns of
   Justinian and Justin II. In two successive years the Persians
   burst into North Syria and ravaged it as far as the sea; but
   in the third they turned north and swept over the hitherto
   untouched provinces of Asia Minor. In 608 their main army
   penetrated across Cappadocia and Galatia right up to the gates
   of Chalcedon. The inhabitants of Constantinople could see the
   blazing villages across the water on the Asiatic shore. … Plot
   after plot was formed in the capital against Phocas, but he
   succeeded in putting them all down, and slew the conspirators
   with fearful tortures. For eight years his reign continued. …
   Africa was the only portion of the Roman Empire which in the
   reign of Phocas was suffering neither from civil strife nor
   foreign invasion. It was well governed by the aged exarch
   Heraclius, who was so well liked in the province that the
   emperor had not dared to depose him. Urged by desperate
   entreaties from all parties in Constantinople to strike a blow
   against the tyrant, and deliver the empire from the yoke of a
   monster, Heraclius at last consented." He sent his son—who
   bore the same name, Heraclius—with a fleet, to Constantinople.
   Phocas was at once abandoned by his troops and was given up to
   Heraclius, whose sailors slew him. "Next day the patriarch and
   the senate hailed Heraclius [the younger] as emperor, and he
   was duly crowned in St. Sophia on October 5, A. D. 610. … Save
   Africa and Egypt and the district immediately around the
   capital, all the provinces were overrun by the Persian, the
   Avar and the Slav. The treasury was empty, and the army had
   almost disappeared, owing to repeated and bloody defeats in
   Asia Minor. Heraclius seems at first to have almost despaired.
   … For the first twelve years of his reign he remained at
   Constantinople, endeavouring to reorganize the empire, and to
   defend at any rate the frontiers of Thrace and Asia Minor. The
   more distant provinces he hardly seems to have hoped to save,
   and the chronicle of his early years is filled with the
   catalogue of the losses of the empire. … In 614 the Persian
   army appeared before the holy city of Jerusalem, took it after
   a short resistance and occupied it with a garrison. But the
   populace rose and slaughtered the Persian troops, when
   Shahrbarz had departed with his main army. This brought him
   back in wrath: he stormed the city and put 90,000 Christians
   to the sword, only sparing the Jewish inhabitants. Zacharias,
   Patriarch of Jerusalem, was carried into captivity, and with
   him went what all Christians then regarded as the most
   precious thing in the world—the wood of the 'True Cross'. …

The horror and rage roused by the loss of the 'True Cross' and the blasphemies of King Chosroës brought about the first real outburst of national feeling that we meet in the history of the Eastern Empire. … Heraclius made no less than six campaigns (A. D. 622-627) in his gallant and successful attempt to save the half-ruined empire. He won great and well-deserved fame, and his name would be reckoned among the foremost of the world's warrior-kings if it had not been for the misfortunes which afterwards fell on him in his old age. His first campaign cleared Asia Minor of the Persian hosts, not by a direct attack, but by skilful strategy. … In his next campaigns Heraclius endeavoured to liberate the rest of the Roman Empire by a similar plan: he resolved to assail Chosroës at home, and force him to recall the armies he kept in Syria and Egypt to defend his own Persian provinces. In 623-4 the Emperor advanced across the Armenian mountains and threw himself into Media. … Chosroës … fought two desperate battles to cover Ctesiphon. His generals were defeated in both, but the Roman army suffered severely. Winter was at hand, and Heraclius fell back on Armenia. In his next campaign he recovered Roman Mesopotamia. … But 626 was the decisive year of the war. The obstinate Chosroës determined on one final effort to crush Heraclius, by concerting a joint plan of operations with the Chagan of the Avars. While the main Persian army watched the emperor in Armenia, a great body under Shahrbarz slipped south of him into Asia Minor and marched on the Bosphorus. At the same moment the Chagan of the Avars, with the whole force of his tribe and of his Slavonic dependents, burst over the Balkans and beset Constantinople on the European side. The two barbarian hosts could see each other across the water, and even contrived to exchange messages, but the Roman fleet, sailing incessantly up and down the strait, kept them from joining forces. … In the end of July 80,000 Avars and Slavs, with all sorts of siege implements, delivered simultaneous assaults along the land front of the city, but they were beaten back with great slaughter." They suffered even more on trying to encounter the Roman galleys with rafts. "Then the Chagan gave up the siege in disgust and retired across the Danube." Meantime Heraclius was wasting Media and Mesopotamia, and next year he ended the war by a decisive victory near Nineveh, as the result of which he took the palace of Dastagerd, "and divided among his troops such a plunder as had never been seen since Alexander the Great captured Susa. … In March, 628, a glorious peace ended the 26 years of the Persian war. Heraclius returned to Constantinople in the summer of the same year with his spoils, his victorious army, and his great trophy, the 'Holy Wood.' … The quiet for which he yearned was to be denied him, and the end of his reign was to be almost as disastrous as the commencement. The great Saracen invasion was at hand, and it was at the very moment of Heraclius' triumph that Mahomet sent out his famous circular letter to the kings of the earth, inviting them to embrace Islam."

ALSO IN: J. B. Bury, History of the Later Roman Empire, book 4, part 2, and book 5, chapters 1-3 (volume 2).

ROME: A. D. 568-573.
   Invasion of the Lombards.
   Their conquest of northern Italy.
   Their kingdom.

ROME: A. D. 590-640.
Increasing influence and importance of the Bishop of Rome.
Circumstances under which his temporal authority grew.

"The fall of the shadowy Empire of the West, and the union of the Imperial power in the person of the ruler of Constantinople, brought a fresh accession of dignity and importance to the Bishop of Rome. The distant Emperor could exercise no real power over the West. The Ostrogothic kingdom in Italy scarcely lasted beyond the lifetime of its great founder Theodoric. The wars of Justinian only served to show how scanty were the benefits of the Imperial rule. The invasion of the Lombards united all dwellers in Italy in an endeavour to escape the lot of servitude and save their land from barbarism. In this crisis it was found that the Imperial system had crumbled away, and that the Church alone possessed a strong organisation. In the decay of the old municipal aristocracy the people of the towns gathered round their bishops, whose sacred character inspired some respect in the barbarians, and whose active charity lightened the calamities of their flocks. In such a state of things Pope Gregory the Great raised the Papacy [A. D. 590] to a position of decisive eminence, and marked out the course of its future policy. The piety of emperors and nobles had conferred lands on the Roman Church, not only in Italy, but in Sicily, Corsica, Gaul, and even in Asia and Africa, until the Bishop of Rome had become the largest landholder in Italy. To defend his Italian lands against the incursions of the Lombards was a course suggested to Gregory by self-interest; to use the resources which came to him from abroad as a means of relieving the distress of the suffering people in Rome and Southern Italy was a natural prompting of his charity. In contrast to this, the distant Emperor was too feeble to send any effective help against the Lombards, while the fiscal oppression of his representatives added to the miseries of the starving people. The practical wisdom, administrative capacity, and Christian zeal of Gregory I. led the people of Rome and the neighbouring regions to look upon the Pope as their head in temporal as well as in spiritual matters. The Papacy became a national centre to the Italians, and the attitude of the Popes towards the Emperor showed a spirit of independence which rapidly passed into antagonism and revolt. Gregory I. was not daunted by the difficulties nor absorbed by the cares of his position at home. When he saw Christianity threatened in Italy by the heathen Lombards, he boldly pursued a system of religious colonisation. While dangers were rife at Rome, a band of Roman missionaries carried Christianity to the distant English, and in England first was founded a Church which owed its existence to the zeal of the Roman bishop. Success beyond all that he could have hoped for attended Gregory's pious enterprise. The English Church spread and flourished, a dutiful daughter of her mother-church of Rome. England sent forth missionaries in her turn, and before the preaching of Willibrod and Winifred heathenism died away in Friesland, Franconia, and Thuringia. Under the new name of Boniface, given him by Pope Gregory II., Winifred, as Archbishop of Mainz, organised a German Church, subject to the successor of S. Peter. The course of events in the East also tended to increase the importance of the See of Rome. The Mohammedan conquests destroyed the Patriarchates of Antioch and Jerusalem, which alone could boast of an apostolical foundation. Constantinople alone remained as a rival to Rome; but under the shadow of the Imperial despotism it was impossible for the Patriarch of Constantinople to lay claim to spiritual independence. The settlement of Islam in its eastern provinces involved the Empire in a desperate struggle for its existence. Henceforth its object no longer was to reassert its supremacy over the West, but to hold its ground against watchful foes in the East. Italy could hope for no help from the Emperor, and the Pope saw that a breach with the Empire would give greater independence to his own position, and enable him to seek new allies elsewhere."

      M. Creighton,
      History of the Papacy during the Period of the Reformation,
      introduction, chapter 1 (volume 1).

      ALSO IN:
      T. W. Allies,
      The Holy See and the Wandering of the Nations,
      chapter 5.

      See, also,
      CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 553-800;
      and PAPACY: A. D. 461-604, and after.

ROME: A. D. 632-709.
   The Eastern Empire.
   Its first conflicts with Islam.
   Loss of Syria, Egypt, and Africa.

   The period between the death of Heraclius and the advent of
   Leo III. (the Isaurian) is covered, in the Eastern Empire, by
   the following reigns:

   Constantine III. and Heracleonas (641);
   Constans II. (641-668);
   Constantine IV. (668-685);
   Justinian II. (685-711);
   Leontius and Absimarus (usurpers, who interrupted the reign
   of Justinian II. from 695 to 698 and from 698 to 704);
   Philippicus (711-713);
   Anastasius II. (713-716);
   Theodosius III. (716-717).

ROME: A. D. 717-800.
The Eastern Roman Empire: should it take
the name of the Byzantine Empire?—and when?

"The precise date at which the eastern Roman empire ceased to exist has been variously fixed. Gibbon remarks, 'that Tiberius [A. D. 578-582] by the Arabs, and Maurice [A. D. 582-602] by the Italians, are distinguished as the first of the Greek Cæsars, as the founders of a new dynasty and empire.' But if manners, language, and religion are to decide concerning the commencement of the Byzantine empire, the preceding pages have shown that its origin must be carried back to an earlier period; while, if the administrative peculiarities in the form of government be taken as the ground of decision, the Roman empire may be considered as indefinitely prolonged with the existence of the title of Roman emperor, which the sovereigns of Constantinople continued to retain as long as Constantinople was ruled by Christian princes. … The period … at which the Roman empire of the East terminated is decided by the events which confined the authority of the imperial government to those provinces where the Greeks formed the majority of the population; and it is marked by the adoption of Greek as the language of the government, by the prevalence of Greek civilisation, and by the identification of the nationality of the people, and the policy of the emperors with the Greek church. For, when the Saracen conquests had severed from the empire all those provinces which possessed a native population distinct from the Greeks, by language, literature, and religion, the central government of Constantinople was gradually compelled to fall back on the interests and passions of the remaining inhabitants, who were chiefly Greeks. … {2745} Yet, as it was by no means identified with the interests and feelings of the native inhabitants of Hellas, it ought correctly to be termed Byzantine, and the empire is, consequently, justly called the Byzantine empire. … Even the final loss of Egypt, Syria, and Africa only reveals the transformation of the Roman empire, when the consequences of the change begin to produce visible effects on the internal government. The Roman empire seems, therefore, really to have terminated with the anarchy which followed the murder of Justinian II. [A. D. 711], the last sovereign of the family of Heraclius; and Leo III., or the Isaurian [A. D. 717-741], who identified the imperial administration with ecclesiastical forms and questions, must be ranked as the first of the Byzantine monarchs, though neither the emperor, the clergy, nor the people perceived at the time the moral change in their position, which makes the establishment of this new era historically correct. Under the sway of the Heraclian family [A. D. 610-711], the extent of the empire was circumscribed nearly within the bounds which it continued to occupy during many subsequent centuries. … The geographical extent of the empire at the time of its transition from the Roman to the Byzantine empire affords evidence of the influence which the territorial changes produced by the Saracen conquests exercised in conferring political importance on the Greek race. The frontier towards the Saracens of Syria commenced at Mopsuestia in Cilicia, the last fortress of the Arab power. It ran along the chains of Mounts Amanus and Taurus to the mountainous district to the north of Edessa and Nisibis, called, after the time of Justinian, the Fourth Armenia, of which Martyropolis was the capital. It then followed nearly the ancient limits of the empire until it reached the Black Sea, a short distance to the east of Trebizond. … In Europe, Mount Hæmus [the Balkans] formed the barrier against the Bulgarians, while the mountainous ranges which bound Macedonia to the north-west, and encircle the territory of Dyrrachium, were regarded as the limits of the free Sclavonian states. … Istria, Venice, and the cities on the Dalmatian coast, still acknowledged the supremacy of the empire. … In the centre of Italy, the exarchate of Ravenna still held Rome in subjection, but the people of Italy were entirely alienated. … The cities of Gaëta, Naples, Amalfi, and Sorento, the district of Otranto, and the peninsula to the south of the ancient Sybaris, now called Calabria, were the only parts [of southern Italy] which remained under the Byzantine government. Sicily, though it had begun to suffer from the incursions of the Saracens, was still populous and wealthy."

Dissenting from the view presented above, Professor Freeman says: "There is no kind of visible break, such as is suggested by the change of name, between the Empire before Leo and the Empire after him. The Emperor of the Romans reigned over the land of Romania after him as well as before him. … Down to the fall of Constantinople in the East, down to the abdication of Francis II. in the West, there was no change of title; the Emperor of the Romans remained Emperor of the Romans, however shifting might be the extent of his dominions. But from 800 to 1453 there were commonly two, sometimes more, claimants of the title. The two Empires must be distinguished in some way; and, from 800 to 1204, 'Eastern' and 'Western' seem the simplest forms of distinction. But for 'Eastern' it is just as easy, and sometimes more expressive, to say 'Byzantine'; only it is well not to begin the use of either name as long as the Empire keeps even its nominal unity. With the coronation of Charles the Great [800] that nominal unity comes to an end. The Old Rome passes away from even the nominal dominion of the prince who reigns in the New."

ROME: A. D. 728-733.
   Beginnings of Papal Sovereignty.
   The Iconoclastic controversy.
   Rupture with the Byzantine Emperor.
   Practical independence assumed by the Pope.

ROME: A. D. 754-774.
   Struggle of the Popes against the Lombards.
   Their deliverance by Pippin and Charlemagne.
   Fall of the Lombard kingdom.

ROME: A. D. 843-951.
The breaking up of Charlemagne's Empire
and founding of the Holy Roman Empire.

      See ITALY: A. D. 843-951;
      FRANKS: A. D. 814-962;
      and GERMANY: A. D. 814-843, to 936-973.

"A fleet of Saracens from the African coast presumed to enter the mouth of the Tiber, and to approach a city which even yet, in her fallen state, was revered as the metropolis of the Christian world. The gates and ramparts were guarded by a trembling people; but the tombs and temples of St. Peter and St. Paul were left exposed in the suburbs of the Vatican and of the Ostian Way. Their invisible sanctity had protected them against the Goths, the Vandals, and the Lombards; but the Arabs disdained both the Gospel and the legend; and their rapacious spirit was approved and animated by the precepts of the Koran. The Christian idols were stripped of their costly offerings. … In their course along the Appian Way, they pillaged Fundi and besieged Gaeta." The diversion produced by the siege of Gaeta gave Rome a fortunate respite. In the interval, a vacancy occurred on the papal throne, and Pope Leo IV. by unanimous election, was raised to the place. His energy as a temporal prince saved the great city. He repaired its walls, constructed new towers and barred the Tiber by an iron chain. He formed an alliance with the cities of Gaeta, Naples, and Amalfi, still vassals of the Greek empire, and brought their galleys to his aid. When, therefore, in 849, the Saracens from Africa returned to the attack, they met with a terrible repulse. An opportune storm assisted the Christians in the destruction of their fleet, and most of the small number who escaped death remained captives in the hands of the Romans and their allies.

ROME: A. D. 903-964.
   The reign of the courtesans and their brood.
   Interference of Otho the Great.
   His revival of the Empire.

"During these changes [in the breaking up of the empire of Charlemagne], Rome became a sort of theocratic democracy, governed by women and priests; a state of things which, in the barbarism of the middle ages, was only possible at Rome. Theodora, a woman of patrician descent, equally celebrated for her beauty and her daring, obtained great power in Rome, which she prolonged by the charms of her two daughters. The city of Saint Peter was ruled by this trio of courtesans. The mother, Theodora, by her familiar commerce with several of the Roman barons, had obtained possession of the castle of Saint Angelo, at the entrance of Rome, on one of the principal bridges over the Tiber; and she had made it an abode of pleasure and a fortress, whence she corrupted and oppressed the Church. Her daughters, Marozia and Theodora, disposed of the pontificate by their own arts, or through their lovers, and occasionally bestowed it on the lovers themselves. Sergius III., after a contested election and seven years' exile, was recalled to the see of Rome by the interest of Marozia, by whom he had had a son, who afterwards became Pope. The younger Theodora was no less ambitious and influential than her sister. She loved a young clerk of the Roman Church, for whom she had first obtained the bishopric of Bologna, and then the archbishopric of Ravenna. Finding it irksome to be separated from him by a distance of 200 miles, she procured his nomination to the papacy, in order to have him near her; and he was elected Pope in 912, under the title of John X. … After a pontificate of fourteen years, John was displaced by the same means to which he owed his elevation." Marozia, who had married Guy, Duke of Tuscany, conspired with her husband against the Pope and he was put out of the way. That accomplished, "Marozia allowed the election of two Popes successively, whose pontificate was obscure and short; and then she raised to the papal see a natural son of hers, it is said, by Pope Sergius III., her former lover. This young man took the name of John XI., and Marozia, his mother, having soon after lost her husband, Guy, was sought in marriage by Hugh, King of Italy, and his brother by the mother's side. But it would appear that the people of Rome were growing weary of the tyranny of this shameless and cruel woman." King Hugh was driven from Rome by a revolt, in which another son of Marozia, named Alberic, took the lead. "Alberic, the leader of this popular rising, was proclaimed consul by the Romans, who still clung to the traditions of the republic; he threw his mother, Marozia, into prison, and set a guard over his brother, Pope John; and thus, invested with the popular power, he prepared to defend the independence of Rome against the pretensions of Hugh and the forces of Lombardy. Alberic, master of Rome under the title of patrice and senator, exercised, during twenty-three years, all the rights of sovereignty. The money was coined with his image, with two sceptres across; he made war and peace, appointed magistrates and disposed of the election and of the power of the Popes, who, in that interval, filled the See of Rome, John XI., Leo VII., Stephen IX., Martin III., and Agapetus II. The name of this subject and imprisoned papacy was none the less revered beyond the limits of Rome. … Alberic died lord of Rome, and had bequeathed his power to his son Octavian; who, two years afterwards, on the death of Agapetus II., caused himself, young as he was, to be named Pope by those who already acknowledged him as patrice."

"He [Octavian] was elected Pope on the 23d of March, A. D. 956. His promotion was a disgraceful calamity. He brought to the chair of St. Peter only the vices and dissolute morals of a young debauchee; and though Luitprand must have exaggerated the disorders of this Pope, yet there remains enough of truth in the account to have brought down the scandal of the pontificate through succeeding ages, like a loud blasphemy, which makes angels weep and hell exult. Octavian assumed the name of John XII. This first example of a change of name on ascending the pontifical chair has since passed into a custom with all the Sovereign Pontiffs."

Abbé J. E. Darras, General History of the Catholic Church, period 4, chapter 7.

Finding it hard to defend his independence against the king of Italy, Pope John XII. made the mistake, fatal to himself, of soliciting help from the German king Otho the Great. Otho came, made himself master of Italy, revived the empire of Charlemagne, was crowned with the imperial crown of Rome, by the Pope, and then purged the Roman See by causing the bestial young pope who crowned him to be deposed.

The state of things at Rome described in the above has been
fitly styled by some writers "a pornocracy."

ROME: A. D. 962-1057.
Futile attempts of the German Emperors to reform the Papacy.
Chronic disorganization of the city.

"It had not been within the power of the Emperor Otto I. to establish a permanent reformation in Rome. … The previous scandalous scenes were renewed, and a slight amelioration of things under the Popes Gregory V. and Silvester II., whom Otto III. placed on the papal throne [A. D. 997-1003], was but transitory. … For the third time it became necessary for an emperor, in this instance Henry III., to constitute himself the preserver and purifier of the papacy, first at Sutri and afterwards at Rome. At that period the papal chair was occupied within twelve years by five German popes [Clement II. to Victor II.—A. D. 1046-1057], since amongst the Roman clergy no fitting candidate could be found. These popes, with one exception, died almost immediately, poisoned by the unhealthy atmosphere of Rome; one only, Leo IX., under Hildebrand's guidance, left any lasting trace of his pontificate, and laid the foundation of that Gregorian system which resulted in papal supremacy. … Rome was assuming more and more the character of a sacerdotal city; the old wealthy patrician families had either disappeared or migrated to Constantinople; and as the seat of government was either at Constantinople or Ravenna, there was no class of state officials in Rome. But the clergy had become rich upon the revenues of the vast possessions of St. Peter. … Without manufactures, trade, or industry of their own, the people of Rome were induced to rely upon exactions levied upon the foreigner, and upon profits derived from ecclesiastical institutions. … Hence the unvarying sameness in the political history of Rome from the 5th to the 15th century."

NINTH CENTURY.

CONTEMPORANEOUS EVENTS.

812. Civil war between the sons of the Caliph Haroun al Raschid;
siege of Bagdad.

814. Death of Charlemagne, and accession of Louis the Pious,
his only surviving son.

826. Grant of a county between the Rhine and Moselle to Harold of Jutland, by the Emperor.

833. Second rebellion of the Emperor's sons; the "Field of Lies"; deposition of the Emperor Louis the Pious. Death of the Caliph Mamun, son of Haroun al Raschid.

836. Burning of Antwerp and ravaging of Flanders by the Northmen.
Death of Ecgberht, the first king of all the English.

840. Third rebellion of the sons of the Frankish Emperor
Louis the Pious; his death; civil war.

843. Conquest by the Mahometans of Messina in Sicily. Partition Treaty of Verdun between the sons of the Emperor Louis the Pious; formation of the realms of Louis the German and Charles the Bald, which grew into the kingdoms of Germany and France.

855. Death of Lothaire, Emperor of the Franks, and civil war between his sons. First footing of the Danes established in England.

851. Deposition of Ignatius, Patriarch of Constantinople, and elevation of Photius.

861. Formation of the Duchy of France; origin of the House of Capet. Paris surprised by the Northmen.

863. Papal decree against the Eastern Patriarch, Photius. Creation of the County of Flanders by Charles the Bald.

871. Moslem fortress of Bari, in southern Italy, surrendered to the Franks and Greeks. Accession of Alfred the Great to the throne of Wessex.

815. Death of Louis II., Emperor of the Franks and king of Italy; imperial coronation of Charles the Bald.

817. Death of the Emperor, Charles the Bald, and accession of Louis the Stammerer. Founding of the kingdom of Provence by Count Boso.

880. Ravages of the Northmen in Germany; battles of the Ardennes and Ebbsdorf. Defeat of the Danes by the English King Alfred at Ethandun; Peace of Wedmore. [Uncertain date.]

888. Death of Charles the Fat and final disruption of the Empire of the Franks; founding of the kingdom of Transjurane Burgundy. The crown of France in dispute between Eudes, Count of Paris, and the Caroling heir, Charles the Simple.

899. Death of the Emperor Arnulf;
accession of Louis the Child to the German throne.

TENTH CENTURY.

CONTEMPORANEOUS EVENTS.

A.D.
901. Death of the English king, Alfred the Great, and accession
of his son, Edward the Elder.
Founding of the Samanide dynasty in Khorassan.

911. Death of the Emperor Louis the Child, extinguishing the Carolingian dynasty in Germany, and election of Conrad the Franconian. Defeat of the Northmen at Chartres in France; cession of Normandy to Rollo.

914. Elevation of John X. to the papal throne by the courtesan, Theodora. [Uncertain date.]

919. Election of the Saxon Duke, Henry the Fowler, to the kingship of Germany. Establishment of the Danish kingdom of Dublin.

923. The crown of France disputed with Charles the Simple by Rudolph, of Burgundy.

924. Devastation of Germany by the Hungarians; truce agreed upon for nine years. Lapse of the imperial title on the death of Berengar. Commendation of Scotland to the West Saxon King.

925. Death of the English king, Edward the Elder,
and accession of his son Ethelstan.

928. Overthrow and imprisonment of Pope John X.
by the courtesan Marozia. [Uncertain date.]

936. Election of Otho, called the Great, to the throne of Germany. Death of Rudolph of Burgundy and restoration of the Carolingians to the French throne.

937. Ethelstan's defeat of Danes, Britons and Scots at the battle of Brunnaburgh. Invasion of France by the Hungarians.

951. First expedition of Otho the Great into Italy;
founding of the Holy Roman Empire (afterwards so called).

954. Death of Alberic, tyrant of Rome, his son, Octavian, succeeding him. Death of the Carolingian king of France, Louis IV., called "d'Outremer"; accession of Lothaire.

955. Germany invaded by the Hungarians; their decisive defeat on the Lech. Death of the English king, Edred, and accession of his nephew, Edwig.

957. Revolt against the English king Edwig; division of the kingdom with his brother Edgar. [Uncertain date.]

959. Death of Edwig and accession of Edgar; Abbot Dunstan made Archbishop of Canterbury.

962. Imperial coronation of Otho the Great at Rome;
revival of the Western Empire.

964. Expulsion of Pope Leo VIII.; return and death of John XII.; siege and capture of Rome by the Emperor.

965. Death of Pope Leo VIII.; election, expulsion, and forcible restoration of John XIII.

969. Murder of the Eastern Emperor Nicephorus Phocas by John Zimisces, his successor.

972. Marriage of Otho, the Western Emperor's son, to the Byzantine princess, Theophano. Death of Pope John XIII., and election of Pope Benedict VI.

975. Election of Pope Benedict VII. Death of the English king Edgar; accession of his son Edward the Martyr.

979. Death of Edward the Martyr; accession of Ethelred the Unready. [Uncertain date.]

983. Death of the Emperor Otho II.; accession of Otho III. to the German throne, under the regency of his mother, Theophano. First visit of Erik the Red to Greenland.

987. Death of Louis V., the last of the Carolingian kings;
election of Hugh Capet.

988. Death of Dunstan, Archbishop of Canterbury.
Cherson acquired by the Romans.

996. Death of Hugh Capet, king of France; accession of his son, Robert II. Death of Pope John XV.; election of Gregory V. Imperial coronation of Otho III.

997. Insurrection of peasants in Normandy. Rebellion of Crescentius in Rome; expulsion of the Pope.

998. Overthrow of Crescentius at Rome.
Excommunication of King Robert of France.

1000. Expectations of the end of the world.
      Pilgrimages of the Emperor Otho.
      Royal title conferred on Duke Stephen of Hungary,
      by the Pope.
      Christianity formally adopted in Iceland.

Four years after his humiliation of himself before the pope at Canossa (see CANOSSA), Henry IV. ("King of the Romans" and claiming the imperial coronation, which the pope refused him), entered Italy with an army to enforce his demands. He had recovered his authority in Germany; the rival set up against him was slain; northern Italy was strong in his support. For three successive years Henry marched his army to the walls of Rome and made attempts to enter, by force, or intrigue, or by stress of blockade, and every year, when the heats of summer came, he found himself compelled to withdraw. At last, the Romans, who had stood firm by Gregory VII., tired of the siege, or the gold which purchased their fidelity (some say) gave out, and they opened their gates. Pope Gregory took refuge in his impregnable Castle of St. Angelo, and Henry, bringing with him the anti-pope whom his partisans had set up, was crowned by the latter in the Church of St. Peter. But the coveted imperial crown was little more than settled upon his head when news came of the rapid approach of Robert Guiscard, the Norman conqueror of southern Italy, with a large army, to defend the legitimate pope. Henry withdrew from Rome in haste and three days afterwards Robert Guiscard's army was under its walls. The Romans feared to admit these terrible champions of their pope; but the vigilance and valor of the Normans surprised a gate, and the great city was in their power. They made haste to conduct Gregory to his Lateran Palace and to receive his blessing; then they "spread through the city, treating it with an the cruelty of a captured town, pillaging, violating, murdering, wherever they met with opposition. The Romans had been surprised, not subdued. For two days and nights they brooded over their vengeance; on the third day they broke out in general insurrection. … The Romans fought at advantage, from their possession of the houses and their knowledge of the ground. They were gaining the superiority; the Normans saw their peril. The remorseless Guiscard gave the word to fire the houses. … The distracted inhabitants dashed wildly into the streets, no longer endeavouring to defend themselves, but to save their families. They were hewn down by hundreds. … Nuns were defiled, matrons forced, the rings cut from their living fingers. Gregory exerted himself, not without success, in saving the principal churches. It is probable, however, that neither Goth nor Vandal, neither Greek nor German, brought such desolation on the city as this capture by the Normans. From this period dates the desertion of the older part of the city, and its gradual extension over the site of the modern city, the Campus Martius. … Many thousand Romans were sold publicly as slaves; many carried into the remotest parts of Calabria." When Guiscard withdrew his destroying army from the ruins of Rome, Gregory went with him and never returned. He died not long after at Salerno.

      See, also,
      GERMANY: A. D. 973-1122,
      and PAPACY: A. D. 1056-1122.

Arnold of Brescia—so-called from his native city in Lombardy—was a disciple of Abelard, and not so much a religious as a political reformer. "On all the high mysterious doctrines of the Church, the orthodoxy of Arnold was unimpeachable; his personal life was that of the sternest monk; he had the most earnest sympathy with the popular religion. … He would reduce the clergy to their primitive and apostolic poverty; confiscate all their wealth, escheat all their temporal power. … His Utopia was a great Christian republic, exactly the reverse of that of Gregory VII." In 1145, Arnold was at Rome, where his doctrines had gone before him, and where the citizens had already risen in rebellion against the rule of the pope. "His eloquence brought over the larger part of the nobles to the popular side; even some of the clergy were infected by his doctrines. The re~public, under his influence, affected to resume the constitution of elder Rome. … The Capitol was rebuilt and fortified; even the church of St. Peter was sacrilegiously turned into a castle. The Patrician took possession of the Vatican, imposed taxes, and exacted tribute by violence from the pilgrims. Rome began again to speak of her sovereignty of the world." The republic maintained itself until 1155, when a bolder pope —the Englishman, Adrian or Hadrian IV.—had mounted the chair of St. Peter, and confronted Arnold with unflinching hostility. The death of one of his Cardinals, killed in a street tumult, gave the pope an opportunity to place the whole city under an interdict. "Religion triumphed over liberty. The clergy and the people compelled the senate to yield. Hadrian would admit of no lower terms than the abrogation of the republican institutions; the banishment of Arnold and his adherents. The republic was at an end, Arnold an exile; the Pope again master in Rome." A few months later, Arnold of Brescia, a prisoner in the hands of Frederick Barbarossa, then coming to Rome for the imperial crown, was given up to the Pope and was executed in some summary way, the particulars of which are in considerable dispute.

ROME: A. D. 1198-1216. The establishing of Papal Sovereignty in the States of the Church.

ROME: A. D. 1215. The beginning in Italy of the strife of the Guelphs and Ghibellines.

ROME: 13-14th Centuries.
The turbulence of the Roman nobles.
The strife of the Colonna and the Ursini.

"In the beginning of the 11th century Italy was exposed to the feudal tyranny, alike oppressive to the sovereign and the people. The rights of human nature were vindicated by her numerous republics, who soon extended their liberty and dominion from the city to the adjacent country. The sword of the nobles was broken; their slaves were enfranchised; their castles were demolished; they assumed the habits of society and obedience. … But the feeble and disorderly government of Rome was unequal to the task of curbing her rebellious sons, who scorned the authority of the magistrate within and without the walls. It was no longer a civil contention between the nobles and plebeians for the government of the state. The barons asserted in arms their personal independence; their palaces and castles were fortified against a siege; and their private quarrels were maintained by the numbers of their vassals and retainers. In origin and affection they were aliens to their country; and a genuine Roman, could such have been produced, might have renounced these haughty strangers, who disdained the appellation of citizens, and proudly styled themselves the princes of Rome. After a dark series of revolutions, all records of pedigree were lost; the distinction of surnames was abolished; the blood of the nations was mingled in a thousand channels; and the Goths and Lombards, the Greeks and Franks, the Germans and Normans, had obtained the fairest possessions by royal bounty or the prerogative of valour. … It is not my design to enumerate the Roman families which have failed at different periods, or those which are continued in different degrees of splendour to the present time. The old consular line of the Frangipani discover their name in the generous act of breaking or dividing bread in a time of famine; and such benevolence is more truly glorious than to have enclosed, with their allies the Corsi, a spacious quarter of the city in the chains of their fortifications. The Savelli, as it should seem a Sabine race, have maintained their original dignity; the obsolete surname of the Capizucchi is inscribed on the coins of the first senators; the Conti preserve the honour, without the estate, of the counts of Signia; and the Annibaldi must have been very ignorant, or very modest, if they had not descended from the Carthaginian hero. But among, perhaps above, the peers and princes of the city, I distinguish the rival houses of Colonna and Ursini [or Orsini]. … About the end of the thirteenth century the most powerful branch [of the Colonna] was composed of an uncle and six brothers, all conspicuous in arms or in the honours of the Church. Of these Peter was elected senator of Rome, introduced to the Capitol in a triumphant car, and hailed in some vain acclamations with the title of Cæsar; while John and Stephen were declared Marquis of Ancona and Count of Romagna by Nicholas IV., a patron so partial to their family that he has been delineated in satirical portraits, imprisoned, as it were, in a hollow pillar. After his decease their haughty behaviour provoked the displeasure of the most implacable of mankind. The two cardinals, the uncle and the nephew, denied the election of Boniface VIII.; and the Colonna were oppressed for a moment by his temporal and spiritual arms. He proclaimed a crusade against his personal enemies; their estates were confiscated; their fortresses on either side of the Tiber were besieged by the troops of St. Peter and those of the rival nobles; and after the ruin of Palestrina, or Præneste, their principal seat, the ground was marked with a ploughshare, the emblem of perpetual desolation. …

Some estimate may be formed of their wealth by their losses, of their losses by the damages of 100,000 gold florins which were granted them against the accomplices and heirs of the deceased pope. All the spiritual censures and disqualifications were abolished by his prudent successors; and the fortune of the house was more firmly established by this transient hurricane. … But the first of the family in fame and merit was the elder Stephen, whom Petrarch loved and esteemed as a hero superior to his own times and not unworthy of ancient Rome. … Till the ruin of his declining age, the ancestors, the character, and the children of Stephen Colonna exalted his dignity in the Roman republic and at the Court of Avignon. The Ursini migrated from Spoleto; the sons of Ursus, as they are styled in the twelfth century, from some eminent person who is only known as the father of their race. But they were soon distinguished among the nobles of Rome by the number and bravery of their kinsmen, the strength of their towers, the honours of the senate and sacred college, and the elevation of two popes, Celestin III. and Nicholas III., of their name and lineage. … The Colonna embraced the name of Ghibellines and the party of the empire; the Ursini espoused the title of Guelphs and the cause of the Church. The eagle and the keys were displayed in their adverse banners; and the two factions of Italy most furiously raged when the origin and nature of the dispute were long since forgotten. After the retreat of the popes to Avignon they disputed in arms the vacant republic; and the mischiefs of discord were perpetuated by the wretched compromise of electing each year two rival senators. By their private hostilities the city and country were desolated."

"Had things been left to take their natural course, one of these families, the Colonna, for instance, or the Orsini, would probably have ended by overcoming its rivals, and have established, as was the case in the republics of Romagna and Tuscany, a 'signoria,' or local tyranny, like those which had once prevailed in the cities of Greece. But the presence of the sacerdotal power, as it had hindered the growth of feudalism, so also it stood in the way of such a development as this, and in so far aggravated the confusion of the city."

ROME: A. D. 1305-1377.
   Withdrawal of the Papal court from Rome
   and settlement at Avignon.
   The "Babylonish Captivity."

"The Holy City had no government. She was no longer the Imperial Rome, nor the Pontifical Rome. The Teutonic Cæsars had abandoned her. The Popes had also fled from the sacred hill of the Vatican to the slimy Gallic city, Avignon. … The real masters of the city were the princes or barons, who dwelt in their fortified castles in the environs, or their strong palaces within. The principal among them were masters of different parts of the city. The celebrated old family of the Colonnas reigned, it may be said, over the north of the city, towards the Quirinal. … The new family of the Orsini extended their sway along the Tiber from the Campo-di-Fiore, to the Church of St. Peter, comprising the castle of St. Angelo. The Savelli, less powerful, possessed a part of the Aventine, with the theatre of Marcellus, and the Conti, the huge tower which bears their name, on Cæsar's Forum. Other members of the nobility, in the country, were possessors of small fortified cities, or castles. … Rome, subjected to such a domination, had become almost deserted. The population of the seven-hilled city had come down to about 30,000 souls. When the barons were at peace with each other, which, however, was a rare occurrence, they combined to exercise their tyranny over the citizens and the serfs, to rob and plunder the farmers, travellers, and pilgrims. Petrarch wrote to the Pope at this period, that Rome had become the abode of demons, the receptacle of all crimes, a hell for the living. … Rienzi was then 28 years old. … His function of notary (assessore) to the Roman tribunals, would seem to infer that he was considered a peaceful, rational citizen. It appears, however, that he brought in the exercise of his official duties, the excited imagination and generosity of heart which characterized his nature. He gloried in being surnamed the Consul of orphans, of widows, and of the poor. His love for the humble soon became blended with an intense hatred for the great: one of his brothers was killed accidentally by a Roman baron, without his being able to obtain any satisfaction. … Rienzi had always been noted for his literary and poetical taste; he was considered as deeply versed in the knowledge of antiquity, and as the most skilful in deciphering and explaining the numerous inscriptions with which Rome abounded. … The least remains of antiquity became for him a theme of declamatory addresses to the people, on the present state of Rome, on the iniquities that surrounded him. Followed by groups that augmented daily, and which listened to him with breathless interest, he led them from ruin to ruin, to the Forum, to the tombs of the Christian martyrs, thus associating every glory, and made the hearts of the people throb by his mystical eloquence. … No remedy being brought to the popular grievances, an insurrection broke out. The senator was expelled; thirteen good men (buoni uomini) were installed in the Capitol and invested with dictatorial powers. It was a Guelfic movement; Rienzi was mixed with it; but without any preeminent participation. This new government resolved to send an embassy to the Pope, at Avignon, and Rienzi formed part of it. Such was the first real public act in the life of Cola di Rienzi. The embassy was joined by Petrarch. … The Pope would not hear of leaving his new splendid palace, and the gentle population of Avignon, for the heap of ruins and the human turbulence of Rome." But "Cardinal Aymeric was named to represent the Pope at Rome, as Legate, and a Colonna and an Orsini invested with the senatorial dignity, in order to restore order in the Eternal City, in the name of the Pontiff. Rienzi indulged in the most extravagant exultation. He wrote a highly enthusiastic address to the Roman people. But his illusion was not of long duration. The new Legate only attended to the filling of the Papal Treasury. The nobility, protected by the new senators, continued their course of tyranny. Rienzi protested warmly against such a course of iniquities, in the council. One day he spoke with a still greater vehemence of indignation, when one of the members of the council struck him in the face, others hissed out at him sneeringly, calling him the Consul of orphans and widows. From that day he never appeared at any of its meetings; his hatred had swollen, and must explode. … He went straight to the people (popolo minuto), and prepared a revolution. To render his exhortations to the people more impressive, he made use of large allegorical pictures, hastily drawn, and which form a curious testimony of his mystical imagination, as well as of his forensic eloquence. … Finally, he convoked the people at the Capitol for the 20th of May, 1347, the day of Pentecost, namely, under the invocation of the Holy Ghost. Rienzi had heard, with fervour, thirty masses during the preceding night. On that day he came out at 12 o'clock armed, with his head uncovered, followed by 25 partisans; three unfurled standards were carried before him, bearing allegorical pictures. This time his address was very brief—merely stating, that from his love for the Pope and the salvation of the people, he was ready to encounter any danger. He then read the laws which were to insure the happiness of Rome. They were, properly speaking, a summary of reforms, destined to relieve the people from their sufferings, and intended to realize, what he proclaimed, must become the good state [or Good Estate], il buono stato. … By this outline of a new constitution, the people were invested, with the property and government of the city as well as of its environs; the Pontifical See, bereft of the power it had exercised during several centuries; and the nobility deprived of what they considered as their property, to assist the public poverty. The revolution could not be more complete; and it is needless to add, that Rienzi was clamorously applauded, and immediately invested with full powers to realize and organize the buono stato, of which he had given the programme. He declined the title of Rector, and preferred the more popular name of Tribune. Nothing was fixed as to the duration of this extraordinary popular magistracy. The new government was installed at the Capitol, the Senators expelled, and the whole revolution executed with such rapidity, that the new Tribune might well be strengthened in his belief that he was acting under the protection of the Holy Ghost. He was careful, nevertheless, not to estrange the Pontifical authority, and requested that the apostolical vicar should be offered to be adjoined to him, which the prelate accepted, however uncertain and perilous the honour appeared to be. {2750} During the popular enthusiasm, old Stephen Colonna, with the more formidable of the barons, who had been away, returned to Rome in haste; he expressed publicly his scorn, and when the order came from Rienzi for him to quit the city, he replied that he would soon come and throw that madman out of one of the windows of the Capitol. Rienzi ordered the bells to be rung, the people instantly assembled in arms, and that proudest of the barons was obliged to fly to Palestrina. The next day it was proclaimed that all the nobles were to come, to swear fealty to the Roman people, and afterwards withdraw to their castles, and protect the public roads. John, the son of old Colonna, was the first who presented himself at the Capitol, but it was with the intention of braving and insulting the Tribune. When he beheld the popular masses in close array, he felt awed, and took the oath to protect the people—protect the roads—succour the widows and orphans, and obey the summons of the Tribune. The Orsini, Savelli, Gaetani, and many others, came after him and followed his example. Rienzi, now sole master, without opponents, gave a free course to the allurements of authority. … The tolls, taxes, and imposts which pressed upon the people were abolished by Rienzi, in the first instance, and afterwards, the taxes on the bridges, wine, and bread; but he endeavoured to compensate such an enormous deficit by augmenting the tax on salt, which was not yet unpopular, besides an impost on funded property. He was thus making hasty, serious, even dangerous engagements with the people, which it might not be in his power to keep. … For the present, calmness and security were reigning in the city. … The Tribune received the congratulations of all the ambassadors; the changes he had effected appeared miraculous. … He believed implicitly that he was the founder of a new era. The homage profusely lavished upon him by all the Italian Republics, and even by despotic sovereigns confirmed him in his conviction. … One nobleman alone, the Prefect of Vico, secretly supported by the agent of the Pontifical patrimony, refused to submit and to surrender the three or four little cities in his jurisdiction. Rienzi led rapidly against him an army of 8,000 men, and attacked the rebellious Prefect so suddenly and skilfully, that the latter surrendered unconditionally. This success inflamed the head and imagination of Rienzi, and with it commenced the mystical extravagances and follies which could not fail to cause his ruin."

Prof. De Vericour, Rienzi, the last of the Tribunes Dublin University Magazine, 1860.

"Rienzi's head was turned by his success. He assumed the pomp of a sovereign. He distributed titles, surrounded himself with ceremonies, and multiplied feasts and processions. … He desired to be ennobled, and to have the title of Knight, as well as Tribune. To celebrate his installation as Knight, a splendid series of ceremonies was arranged," at the end of which he "made an address, in which he cited the Pope, and Lewis of Bavaria, and Charles of Bohemia, to give reasons for any claims they had on Rome; and pointing his sword to three points of the compass, he exclaimed, 'This is mine, and this is mine, and this is mine.' … Folly had quite got the better of him now, and his vanity was leading him swiftly to ruin. … Shortly afterwards he issued a proclamation that he had discovered a conspiracy against the people and himself, and declared that he would cut off the heads of all those concerned in it. The conspirators were seized and brought forward, and among them were seen the chief of the princely families of Rome. Solemn preparations were made for their execution, when Rienzi, suddenly and without reason, not only pardoned them all, but conferred upon them some of the most important charges and offices of the state. No sooner were these nobles and princes free out of Rome than they began seriously to conspire to overthrow Rienzi and his government. They assembled their soldiers, and, after devastating the country, threatened to march upon Rome itself. The Tribune, who was no soldier, attempted to intimidate his enemies by threats; but finding that the people grew clamorous for action, he at last took up arms, and made a show of advancing against them. But after a few days, during which he did nothing except to destroy still more of the Campagna, he returned to Rome, clothed himself in the Imperial robes,. and received a legate from the Pope. … His power soon began to crumble away under him; and when, shortly afterwards, he endeavoured to prevail upon the people to rise and drive out the Count of Minorbino, who had set his authority at defiance, he found that his day was past. … He then ordered the trumpets of silver to sound, and, clothed in all his pomp, he marched through Rome, accompanied by his small band of soldiers, and on the 15th October, 1347, intrenched himself in the Castle St. Angelo. Still the influence of his name and his power was so great, that it was not till three days after that the nobles ventured to return to Rome, and then they found that Cola's power had vanished. It faded away like a carnival pageant, as that gay procession entered the Castle St. Angelo. There he remained until the beginning of March, and then fled, and found his way to Civita Vecchia, where he stayed with a nephew of his for a short time. But his nephew having been arrested, he again returned to Rome secretly, and was concealed in Castle St. Angelo by one of the Orsini who was friendly to him and his party. … Cola soon after fled to Naples, fearing lest he should be betrayed into the hands of the Cardinals. Rome now fell into a state of anarchy and confusion even worse than when he assumed the reins of power. Revolutions occurred. Brigandage was renewed. … In 1353 Rienzi returned with Cardinal Albornos, the legate of the Pope. He was received with enthusiasm, and again installed in power. But he was embarrassed in all his actions by the Cardinal, who sought only to make use of him, while he himself exercised all the power. The title of Senator of Rome was conferred on him, and the people forgave him. … But Rienzi had lost the secret of his power in losing his enthusiasm. … At last, in October 1353, a sedition broke out, and the mob rushed to the Capitol with cries of 'Death to the traitor Rienzi!' … He appeared on the balcony clothed in his armour as Knight, and, with the standard of the people in his hand, demanded to be heard. But the populace refused to listen to him. … At last he decided to fly. Tearing off his robes, he put on the miserable dress of the porter, rushed down the flaming stairs and through the burning chambers, … and at last reached the third floor. … At this very moment his arm was seized, and a voice said, 'Where are you going?' He saw that all was lost. {2751} But, at bay, he did nothing mean. Again there was a flash of heroic courage, not unworthy of him. He threw off his disguise, and disdaining all subterfuges, said, 'I am the Tribune!' He was then led out through the door … to the base of the basalt lions, where he had made his first great call upon the people. Standing there, undaunted by its tumultuous cries, he stood for an hour with folded arms, and looked around upon the raging crowd. At last, profiting by a lull of silence, he lifted his voice to address them, when suddenly an artisan at his side, fearing perhaps the result of his eloquence, and perhaps prompted by revenge, plunged his pike in his breast, and he fell. The wild mob rushed upon his corpse."

ALSO IN: H. H. Milman, History of Latin Christianity, book 12, chapters 10-11 (volume 5).

ROME: A. D. 1377-1379.
   Return of the Papal court.
   Election of Urban VI. and the Great Schism.
   Battles in the city.
   Siege and partial destruction of Castle St. Angelo.

ROME: A. D. 1405-1414.
   Rising in the city and flight of Pope Innocent VII.
   Sacking of the Vatican.
   Surrender of the city to Ladislas, king of Naples.
   Expulsion of the Neapolitans and their return.

ROME: A. D. 1447-1455.
   The pontificate of Nicolas V.
   Building of the Vatican Palace and
   founding of the Vatican Library.
   The Porcaro revolt.

ROME: A. D. 1526. The city taken and the Vatican plundered by the Colonnas and the Spaniards.

ROME: A. D. 1527.
   The capture and the sacking of the city
   by the army of Constable Bourbon.
   Captivity of the Pope.

"A numerous, powerful, and wealthy aristocracy surrounded the papal throne; the families already established imposed restraints ou those that were but newly rising; from the self-reliance and authoritative boldness of monarchy, the ecclesiastical sovereignty was passing to the deliberation, sobriety, and measured calmness of aristocratic government. … There still flourished those old and long-renowned Roman races, the Savelli, Conti, Orsini, Colonna, and Gaetani. … The Colonna and Orsini made it their boast, that for centuries no peace had been concluded between the princes of Christendom, in which they had not been included by name. But however powerful these houses may have been in earlier times, they certainly owed their importance in those now before us to their connection with the Curia and the popes. … Under Innocent X., there existed for a considerable time, as it were, two great factions, or associations of families. The Orsini, Cesarini, Borghesi, Aldobrandini, Ludovisi, and Giustiniani were with the Pamfili; while opposed to them, was the house of Colonna and the Barberini. … In the middle of the seventeenth century there were computed to be fifty noble families in Rome of three hundred years standing, thirty-five of two hundred, and sixteen of one hundred years. None were permitted to claim a more ancient descent, or were generally traced to an obscure, or even a low origin. … But by the side of the old families there rose up various new ones. All the cardinals and prelates of the Curia proceeded according to the pope's example, and each in proportion to his means employed the surplus of his ecclesiastical revenue for the aggrandizement of his kindred, the foundation of a new family. There were others which had attained to eminence by judicial appointments, and many were indebted for their elevation to being employed as bankers in the affairs of the Dataria. Fifteen families of Florence, eleven from Genoa, nine Portuguese, and four French, are enumerated as having risen to more or less consideration by these means, according to their good fortune or talents; some of them, whose reputation no longer depended on the affairs of the day, became monarchs of gold; as for example, the Guicciardini and Doni, who connected themselves, under Urban VIII., with the Giustiniani, Primi, and Pallavicini. But even, without affairs of this kind, families of consideration were constantly repairing to Rome, not only from Urbino, Rieti, and Bologna, but also from Parma and Florence. … Returns of the Roman population are still extant, and by a comparison of the different years, we find a most remarkable result exhibited, as regards the manner in which that population was formed. Not that its increase was upon the whole particularly rapid, this we are not authorized to assert. In the year 1600 the inhabitants were about 110,000; fifty-six years afterwards they were somewhat above 120,000, an advance by no means extraordinary; but another circumstance here presents itself which deserves attention. At an earlier period, the population of Rome had been constantly fluctuating. Under Paul IV. it had decreased from 80,000 to 50,000; in a score or two of years it had again advanced to more than 100,000. And this resulted from the fact that the court was then formed principally of unmarried men, who had no permanent abode there. But, at the time we are considering, the population became fixed into settled families. This began to be the case towards the end of the sixteenth century, but took place more particularly during the first half of the seventeenth. … After the return of the popes from Avignon, and on the close of the schism, the city, which had seemed on the point of sinking into a mere village, extended itself around the Curia. But it was not until the papal families had risen to power and riches—until neither internal discords nor external enemies were any longer to be feared, and the incomes drawn from the revenues of the church or state secured a life of enjoyment without the necessity for labour, that a numerous permanent population arose in the city."

ROME: A. D. 1797-1798.
   French intrigues and occupation of the city.
   Formation of the Roman Republic.
   Expulsion of the Pope.

ROME: A. D. 1808-1809.
   Napoleon's quarrel with the Pope.
   Captivity of Pius VII.
   French occupation.
   Declared to be a free and imperial city.

ROME: A. D. 1831-1832.
Revolt of the Papal States, suppressed by Austrian troops.

ROME: A. D. 1846-1849.
   Liberal reforms of Pope Pius IX.
   His breach with the extremists.
   Revolution, and flight of the Pope.
   Intervention of France.
   Garibaldi's defense of the city.
   Its capture and occupation by the French.
   Overthrow of the Roman Republic.

ROME: A. D. 1859-1861.
First consequences of the Austro-Italian war.
Absorption of the Papal States in the new kingdom of Italy.

ROME: A. D. 1867-1870.
   Garibaldi's attempt.
   His defeat at Mentana.
   Italian troops in the city.
   The king of Italy takes possession of his capital.

ROME: A. D. 1870-1871.
End of Papal Sovereignty.
Occupation of the city as the capital of the kingdom of Italy.

ROMMANY.

ROMULUS AUGUSTULUS, The last Roman Emperor of the old line, in the West, A. D. 475-476.

ROOF OF THE WORLD.

The Pamir high plateau, which is a continuation of the Bolor range, is called by the natives "Bamiduniya," or the Roof of the World.

ROSAS, OR ROSES: A. D. 1645-1652.
Siege and capture by the French.
Recovery by the Spaniards.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1861 (JULY-NOVEMBER);
      and 1861 (AUGUST-DECEMBER: WEST VIRGINIA).

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER: TENNESSEE)
      ROSECRANS'S ADVANCE;
      and (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER: TENNESSEE)

ROSETTA STONE.

"The Rosetta Stone is a fragment of a stela discovered in the year 1799 by M. Boussard, a French artillery officer, while digging entrenchments round the town of that name. It contains a copy of a decree made by the priests of Egypt, assembled at Memphis, in honour of Ptolemy Epiphanes. This decree is engraved on the stone in three languages, or rather in three different writings. The first is the hieroglyphic, the grand old writing of the monuments; the second is the demotic character as used by the people; and the third is the Greek. But the text in Greek character is the translation of the two former. Up to this time, hieroglyphs had remained an impenetrable mystery even for science. But a corner of the veil was about to be lifted: in proceeding from the known to the unknown, the sense at all events was at length to be arrived at of that mysterious writing which had so long defied all the efforts of science. Many erudite scholars tried to solve the mystery, and Young, among others, very nearly brought his researches to a satisfactory issue. But it was Champollion's happy lot to succeed in entirely tearing a way the veil. Such is the Rosetta Stone, which thus became the instrument of one of the greatest discoveries which do honour to the nineteenth century."

ROSICRUCIANS. ILLUMINATI.

"About the year 1610, there appeared anonymously a little book, which excited great sensation throughout Germany. It was entitled, The Discovery of the Brotherhood of the Honourable Order of the Rosy Cross, and dedicated to all the scholars and magnates of Europe. It commenced with an imaginary dialogue between the Seven Sages of Greece, and other worthies of antiquity, on the best method of accomplishing a general reform in those evil times. {2753} The suggestion of Seneca is adopted, as most feasible, namely a secret confederacy of wise philanthropists, who shall labour everywhere in unison for this desirable end. The book then announces the actual existence of such an association. One Christian Rosen Kreuz, whose travels in the East had enriched him with the highest treasures of occult lore, is said to have communicated his wisdom, under a vow of secrecy, to eight disciples, for whom he erected a mysterious dwelling-place called The Temple of the Holy Ghost. It is stated further, that this long-hidden edifice had been at last discovered, and within it the body of Rosen Kreuz, untouched by corruption, though, since his death, 120 years had passed away. The surviving disciples of the institute call on the learned and devout, who desire to co-operate in their projects of reform, to advertise their names. They themselves indicate neither name nor place of rendezvous. They describe themselves as true Protestants. They expressly assert that they contemplate no political movement in hostility to the reigning powers. Their sole aim is the diminution of the fearful sum of human suffering, the spread of education, the advancement of learning, science, universal enlightenment, and love. Traditions and manuscripts in their possession have given them the power of gold-making, with other potent secrets; but by their wealth they set little store. They have arcana, in comparison with which the secret of the alchemist is a trifle. But all is subordinate, with them, to their one high purpose of benefiting their fellows both in body and soul. … I could give you conclusive reasons, if it would not tire you to hear them, for the belief that this far-famed book was written by a young Lutheran divine named Valentine Andreä. He was one of the very few who understood the age, and had the heart to try and mend it. … This Andreä writes the Discovery of the Rosicrucian Brotherhood, a jeu-d'esprit with a serious purpose, just as an experiment to see whether something cannot be done by combined effort to remedy the defect and abuses—social, educational, and religious, so lamented by all good men. He thought there were many Andreäs scattered throughout Europe—how powerful would be their united systematic action! … Many a laugh, you may be sure, he enjoyed in his parsonage with his few friends who were in the secret, when they found their fable everywhere swallowed greedily as unquestionable fact. On all sides they heard of search instituted to discover the Temple of the Holy Ghost. Printed letters appeared continually, addressed to the imaginary brotherhood, giving generally the initials of the candidate, where the invisibles might hear of him, stating his motives and qualifications for entrance into their number, and sometimes furnishing samples of his cabbalistic acquirements. Still, no answer. Not a trace of the Temple. Profound darkness and silence, after the brilliant flash which had awakened so many hopes. Soon the mirth grew serious. Andreä saw with concern that shrewd heads of the wrong sort began to scent his artifice, while quacks reaped a rogue's harvest from it. … A swarm of impostors pretended to belong to the Fraternity, and found a readier sale than ever for their nostrums. Andreä dared not reveal himself. All he could do was to write book after book to expose the folly of those whom his handiwork had so befooled, and still to labour on, by pen and speech, in earnest aid of that reform which his unhappy stratagem had less helped than hindered. … Confederacies of pretenders appear to have been organized in various places; but Descartes says he sought in vain for a Rosicrucian lodge in Germany. The name Rosicrucian became by degrees a generic term, embracing every species of occult pretension,—arcana, elixirs, the philosopher's stone, theurgic ritual, symbols, initiations. In general usage the term is associated more especially with that branch of the secret art which has to do with the creatures of the elements. … And from this deposit of current mystical tradition sprang, in great measure, the Freemasonry and Rosicrucianism of the 18th century,—that golden age of secret societies. Then flourished associations of every imaginable kind, suited to every taste. … Some lodges belonged to Protestant societies, others were the implements of the Jesuits. Some were aristocratic, like the Strict Observance; others democratic, seeking in vain to escape an Argus-eyed police. Some—like the Illuminati under Weishaupt Knigge, and Von Zwackh, numbering (among many knaves) not a few names of rank, probity, and learning—were the professed enemies of mysticism and superstition. Others existed only for the profitable juggle of incantations and fortune-telling. … The best perished at the hands of the Jesuits, the worst at the hands of the police."

ALSO IN: F. C. Schlosser, History of the 18th Century, volume 4, pages 483-504.

      T. Frost,
      The Secret Societies of the European Revolution,
      volume 1, chapter 1.

      A. P. Marras,
      Secret Fraternities of the Middle Ages,
      chapter 8.

One of the minor battles fought in the Scottish "war of
independence," with success to the Scots, A. D. 1302.

"The Syrian populations, who, to the north of the Canaanites [17th century B. C.], occupied the provinces called in the Bible by the general name of Aram, as far as the river Euphrates, belonged to the confederation of the Rotennu, or Retennu, extending beyond the river and embracing all Mesopotamia ( Naharaina). … The Rotennu had no well-defined territory, nor even a decided unity of race. They already possessed powerful cities, such as Nineveh and Babylon, but there were still many nomadic tribes within the ill-defined limits of the confederacy. Their name was taken from the city of Resen, apparently the most ancient, and originally the most important, city of Assyria. The germ of the Rotennu confederation was formed by the Semitic Assyro-Chaldæan people, who were not yet welded into a compact monarchy."

ROTTEN BOROUGHS.

ROUMANIA.

See TURKS: A. D. 1878, TREATIES OF SAN STEFANO AND MADRID; and BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: A. D. 1878, to 1878-1886.

ROUND TOWERS OF IRELAND.

"At various periods between the sixth and twelfth centuries (some of them still later, but the greater number, perhaps, in the ninth and tenth centuries), were erected those singular buildings, the round towers, which have been so enveloped in mystery by the arguments and conjectures of modern antiquaries. … The real uses of the Irish round towers, both as belfries and as ecclesiastical keeps or castles, have been satisfactorily established by Dr. Petrie, in his important and erudite work on the ecclesiastical architecture of Ireland. … These buildings were well contrived to supply the clergy with a place of safety for themselves, the sacred vessels, and other objects of value, during the incursions of the Danes, and other foes; and the upper stories, in which there were four windows, were perfectly well adapted for the ringing of the largest bells then used in Ireland."

ROUNDHEADS.

The Parliamentary or popular party in the great English civil war were called Roundheads because they generally wore their hair cut short, while the Cavaliers of the king's party held to the fashion of flowing locks. According to the Parliamentary clerk Rushworth, the first person who applied the name was one David Hyde, who threatened a mob of citizens which surrounded the Houses of Parliament on the 27th of December, 1641, crying "No Bishops," that he would "cut the throats of these round-headed dogs."

      ALSO IN:
      Mrs. Hutchinson,
      Memoirs of Colonel Hutchinson (1642).

A people, counted among the Sarmatians, who occupied anciently the region between the Don and the Dnieper, —afterwards encroaching on Dacian territory. They were among the barbarians who troubled the Roman frontier earliest, and were prominent in the wars which disturbed the reign of Marcus Aurelius. Later, they disappeared in the flood of Gothic and Hunnish invasion, partly by absorption, it is supposed, and partly by extermination.

"Herodotus describes the great road of the Persian period from Ephesos by the Cilician Gates to Susa. It was called the 'Royal Road,' because the service of the Great King passed along it; and it was, therefore, the direct path of communication for all government business. … It is an accepted fact that in several other cases roads of the Persian Empire were used by the Assyrian kings long before the Persian time, and, in particular, that the eastern part of the 'Royal Road,' from Cilicia to Susa, is much older than the beginning of the Persian power. … Herodotus represents it as known to Aristagoras, and therefore, existing during the 6th century, B. C., and the Persians had had no time to organise a great road like this before 500; they only used the previously existing road. Moreover, the Lydian kings seem to have paid some attention to their roads, and perhaps even to have measured them, as we may gather from Herodotus's account of the roads in the Lycus valley, and of the boundary pillar erected by Crœsus at Kydrara."

Rudolph I., King of Germany-called Emperor
(the first of the House of Hapsburg), 1273-1291.

Rudolph II., Archduke of Austria and King of Hungary, 1576-1606;
King of Bohemia and Germanic Emperor, 1576-1612.

RUGBY SCHOOL.

A coast tribe in ancient Germany who seem to have occupied the extreme north of Pomerania and who probably gave their name to the Isle of Rugen.

   In the fifth century, after the breaking up of the empire of
   Attila, the Hun, a people called the Rugii, and supposed to be
   the same, were occupying a region embraced in modern Austria.
   There were many Rugians among the barbarian auxiliaries in the
   Roman army, and some of the annalists place among the number
   Odoacer, who gave the extinguishing blow to the empire.

RULE OF ST. BENEDICT.

RUNNYMEDE.

RUPERT'S LAND.

RUSCINO.

RUSSIA: A. D. 862.
Scandinavian Origin of the name and the National Organization.

"'In the year 859,' says Nestor [the oldest Russian chronicler, a monk of Kiev, who wrote early in the 12th century] 'came the Varangians from beyond the sea and demanded tribute from the Chud and from the Slavonians, the Meria, the Ves, and the Krivichi; but the Khazars took tribute of the Polians, the Severians and of the Viatichi.' Then he continues: 'In the year 862 they drove the Varangians over the sea, and paid them no tribute, and they began to govern themselves, and there was no justice among them, and clan rose against clan, and there was internal strife between them, and they begun to make war upon each other. And they said to each other: Let us seek for a prince who can reign over us and judge what is right. And they went over the sea to the Varangians, to Rus, for so were these Varangians called: they were called Rus as others are called Svie (Swedes), others Nurmane (Northmen, Norwegians), others Angliane (English, or Angles of Sleswick?), others Gote (probably the inhabitants of the island of Gothland). The Chud, the Slavonians, the Krivichi, and the Ves said to Rus: Our land is large and rich, but there is no order in it; come ye and rule and reign over us. And three brothers were chosen with their whole clan, and they took with them all the Rus, and they came. And the eldest, Rurik, settled in Novgorod, and the second, Sineus, near Bielo-ozero, and the third, Truvor, in Izborsk. And the Russian land, Novgorod, was called after these Varangians; they are the Novgorodians of Varangian descent; previously the Novgorodians were Slavonians. But after the lapse of two years Sineus and his brother Truvor died and Rurik assumed the government and divided the towns among his men, to one Polotsk, to another Rostov, to another Bielo-ozero.' Such is Nestor's naive description of the foundation of the Russian state. If it be read without prejudice or sophistical comment, it cannot be doubted that the word Varangians is used here as a common term for the inhabitants of Scandinavia, and that Rus was meant to be the name of a particular Scandinavian tribe; this tribe, headed by Rurik and his brothers, is said to have crossed the sea and founded a state whose capital, for a time, was Novgorod, and this state was the nucleus of the present Russian empire. Next, Nestor tells us that in the same year two of Rurik's men, 'who were not of his family,' Askold and Dir, separated themselves from him with the intention to go to Constantinople. They went down the Dnieper; but when they arrived at Kiev, the capital of the Polians, who at that time were tributary to the Khazars, they preferred to stay there, and founded in that town an independent principality. Twenty years after, in 882, this principality was incorporated by Rurik's successor, Oleg: by a stratagem he made himself master of the town and killed Askold and Dir, and from this time Kiev, 'the mother of all Russian towns,' as it was called, remained the capital of the Russian state and the centre of the Russian name. … From the time historical critics first became acquainted with Nestor's account, that is to say from the beginning of the last century, until about fifteen or twenty years ago [written in 1877], scarcely anyone ventured to doubt the accuracy of his statement. Plenty of evidence was even gradually produced from other sources to corroborate in the most striking manner the tradition of the Russian chronicles."

      V. Thomsen,
      Relations between Ancient Russia and Scandinavia,
      lecture 1.

   "The first Russian naval expedition against Constantinople in
   865 would probably have been followed by a series of
   plundering excursions, like those carried on by the Danes and
   Normans on the coasts of England and France, had not the
   Turkish tribe called the Patzinaks rendered themselves masters
   of the lower course of the Dnieper, and become instruments in
   the hands of the emperors to arrest the activity of the bold
   Varangians. The northern rulers of Kief were the same rude
   warriors that infested England and France, but the Russian
   people was then in a more advanced state of society than the
   mass of the population in Britain and Gaul. The majority of
   the Russians were freemen; the majority of the inhabitants of
   Britain and Gaul were serfs.
{2756}
   The commerce of the Russians was already so extensive as to
   influence the conduct of their government, and to modify the
   military ardour of their Varangian masters. … After the defeat
   in 865, the Russians induced their rulers to send envoys to
   Constantinople to renew commercial intercourse, and invite
   Christian missionaries to visit their country; and no
   inconsiderable portion of the people embraced Christianity,
   though the Christian religion continued long after better
   known to the Russian merchants than to the Varangian warriors.
   The commercial relations of the Russians with Cherson and
   Constantinople were now carried on directly, and numbers of
   Russian traders took up their residence in these cities. The
   first commercial treaty between the Russians of Kief and the
   Byzantine empire was concluded in the reign of Basil I. The
   intercourse increased from that time."

      G. Finlay,
      History of the Byzantine Empire, from 716 to 1057,
      book 2, chapter 2, section 1.

RUSSIA: A. D. 907-1043.
Wars, commerce and church connection with the Byzantines.

"Under Wladimir I. (980-1015), and under Jaroslaf I. (1019-1054), the power of the grand-duchy of Kiew was respectable. But Jaroslaf having divided it between his sons conduced to enfeeble it. In the 12th century, the supremacy passed from the grand-duchy of Kiew to the grand-duchy of Wladimir, without extricating Russia from division and impotence. The law of primogeniture not existing in Russia, where it was not introduced into the Czarean family until the 14th century, the principalities were incessantly divided."

"It must not be forgotten that the oldest Russia was formed mainly of lands which afterwards passed under the rule of Poland and Lithuania. … The Dnieper, from which Russia was afterwards cut off, was the great central river of the elder Russia; of the Don and the Volga she held only the upper course. The northern frontier barely passed the great lakes of Ladoga and Onega, and the Gulf of Finland itself. It seems not to have reached what was to be the Gulf of Riga, but some of the Russian princes held a certain supremacy over the Finnish and Lettish tribes of that region. In the course of the 11th century, the Russian state, like that of Poland, was divided among princes of the reigning family, acknowledging the superiority of the great prince of Kief. In the next century the chief power passed from Kief to the northern Vladimir on the Kiasma. Thus the former Finnish land of Susdal on the upper tributaries of the Volga became the cradle of the second Russian power. Novgorod the Great, meanwhile, under elective princes, claimed, like its neighbour Pskof, to rank among commonwealths. Its dominion was spread far over the Finnish tribes to the north and east; the White Sea, and, far more precious, the Finnish Gulf, had now a Russian seaboard. It was out of Vladimir and Novgorod that the Russia of the future was to grow. Meanwhile a crowd of principalities, Polotsk, Smolensk, the Severian Novgorod, Tchernigof, and others, arose on the Duna and Dnieper. Far to the east arose the commonwealth of Viatka, and on the frontiers of Poland and Hungary arose the principality of Halicz or Galicia, which afterwards grew for a while into a powerful kingdom. Meanwhile in the lands on the Euxine the old enemies, Patzinaks and Chazars, gave way to the Cumans, known in Russian history as Polovtzi and Parthi. They spread themselves from the Ural river to the borders of Servia and Danubian Bulgaria, cutting off Russia from the Caspian. In the next century Russians and Cumans—momentary allies—fell before the advance of the Mongols, commonly known in European history as Tartars. Known only as ravagers in the lands more to the west, over Russia they become overlords for 250 years. All that escaped absorption by the Lithuanian became tributary to the Mongol. Still the relation was only a tributary one; Russia was never incorporated in the Mongol dominion, as Servia and Bulgaria were incorporated in the Ottoman dominion. But Kief was overthrown; Vladimir became dependent; Novgorod remained the true representative of free Russia in the Baltic lands."

RUSSIA: A. D. 1235.
Formation of the grand-duchy of Lithuania,
embracing a large area of Russian territory.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1237-1480.
   Prosperity and greatness of Novgorod as a commercial republic.
   Two centuries of Tartar domination.
   Growing power of Lithuania and Poland.
   Rise of the Duchy of Moscow,
   the nucleus of the future Russian Empire.

   "Alone among the cities the ancient Novgorod has boasted its
   exemption from plunder [at the hands of the Tartars]. The
   great city, though fallen since the days of Rurik from being
   the capital of an Empire, had risen to the dignity of a
   Republic. It had found wealth in trade; and at successive
   epochs had introduced the riches of Constantinople to the
   North, the merchandise of the great Hanse Towns to the South.
   It had profited by the example, and had emulated the
   prosperity, of the rich cities of Germany. It had striven also
   to attain their freedom; and, though still continuing to
   acknowledge a vague allegiance to the Russian Princes, it had
   been able, by its wealth and its remoteness from control, to
   win or to assume privileges, until it had resembled Bremen or
   Lubeck in the sovereignty of its assemblies, and had surpassed
   those cities by the assumption of a style declaratory of its
   independence. It boasted further of a prince, St. Alexander
   Nevsky, to whom a glorious victory over the Swedes had already
   given a name, and whose virtues were hereafter to enrol him
   among the Saints; and it had a defence in the marshes and
   forests which surrounded it and which had already once
   deterred the invaders. But even the great city could not
   continue to defy the Tartar horde, and its submission is at
   once the last and most conclusive proof of the supremacy of
   their power. Thenceforth the nation felt the bitterness of
   servitude. The Tartars did not occupy the country they had
   conquered; they retired to establish their settlements upon
   the Volga, where they became known as the Golden Horde: but
   they exacted the tribute and the homage of the Russian
   Princes. …
{2757}
   Five centuries have been unable to obliterate the traces which
   this period has imprinted upon the national character. The
   Tartars oppressed and extorted tribute from the Russian
   princes; the princes in their turn became the oppressors and
   extortioners of their people. Deceit and lying, the refuge of
   the weak, became habitual. Increasing crime and increasing
   punishments combined to brutalise the people. The vice of
   drunkenness was universal. Trade indeed was not extinguished;
   and religion prospered so abundantly that of all the many
   monasteries of Russia there are but few that do not owe their
   origin to this time. … Meanwhile the provinces of the West
   were falling into the hands of other enemies. The Tartar wave
   had swept as far as Poland, but it had then recoiled, and had
   left the countries westward of the Dnieper to their fate. All
   links of the connection that had bound these regions to the
   Princes of Vladimir, were now broken. Vitepsk, Polotsk,
   Smolensk, and even provinces still nearer Moscow, were
   gradually absorbed by the growing power of Lithuania, which,
   starting from narrow limits between the Dwina and the Niemen,
   was destined to overshadow Russia.

The provinces of the South for a time maintained a certain unity and independence under the name of the Duchy of Halicz or Kief; but these also, through claims of inheritance or feudal right, became eventually merged in the dominions of their neighbours. Poland obtained Black Russia, which has never since returned to its earlier masters. Lithuania acquired Volhynia and Red Russia, and thus extended her wide empire from the Baltic as far as the Red Sea. Then came the union of these powers by the acceptance in 1383 of the Grand Duke Jagellon as King of Poland; and all hopes for the Russian princes of recovering their possessions seemed lost. The ancient empire of Yaroslaf was thus ended; and its history is parted from that of mediæval Russia by the dark curtain of two centuries in which the Russian people were a race but not a nation. The obscure descendants of Rurik still occupied his throne, and ruled with some appearance of hereditary succession. They even chose this period of their weakness to solace their vanity by the adoption of the style of Sovereigns of All the Russias. But they were the mere vassals of the Golden Horde. … It was not until the reign of Dimitry IV., that any sign was shown of reviving independence. Time, by weakening the Tartars, had then brought freedom nearer to the Russians. The Horde, which had been united under Bati, when it had first precipitated itself upon Europe, had become divided by the ambition of rebellious Khans, who had aspired to establish their independent power; and the Russians had at length a prince who was able to profit by the weakness of his enemies. Dimitry, who reigned from 1362 to 1389, is celebrated as having checked the divisions which civil strife and appanages had inflicted upon his country, and as having also gloriously repulsed the Lithuanians from the walls of Moscow, now rising to be his capital. But his greatest deed, and that by which he lives in the remembrance of every Russian, is his victory upon the Don, which gave to him thenceforth the name of Donskoi. The Tartars, indignant at his prominence, had united with the Lithuanians. For the first time the Russians turned against their tyrants, and found upon the field of Khoulikof [1383] that their freedom was still possible. They did not achieve indeed for many years what they now began to hope. Their strength was crippled by renewed attacks of Tartars from the south and of Lithuanians from the west; and they could not dare to brave the revengeful enmity of the Horde. For a hundred years they still paid tribute, and the successors of Dimitry still renewed their homage at the camp upon the Volga. But progress gradually was made. The Grand Prince Vassili Dimitrievitch [1389-1425] was able to extend his rule over a territory that occupied the space of six or seven of the modern governments round Moscow; and though the country, under Vassili Vassilievitch [1425-1462], became enfeebled by a renewal of civil strife, the increasing weakness of the Tartar power continued to prepare the way for the final independence that was accomplished by the close of the 15th century. The reign of Ivan III. became the opening of a new epoch in Russian history. He restored his people, long sunk out of the gaze of Europe, to a place among its nations, and recalled them in some degree from the barbarism of the East to the intercourse and civilization of the West. The Russia of old time was now no more; but the Grand Prince, or Duke of Moscow, as he was called, was still the heir of Rurik and of Yaroslaf, and in the growth of his Duchy their Empire reappeared. … Without the fame of a warrior, but with the wisdom of a statesman, with a strong hand and by the help of a long reign, he built up out of the fragments that surrounded Him an Empire that exceeded vastly that of his immediate predecessor. … The fall of the republic of Novgorod [1478] and the final extinction of the Golden Horde, are the events which are most prominent. Riches had been the bane of the great city. They had fostered insolence, but they had given a distaste for war. The citizens had often rebelled; they had accepted the protection of Lithuania, and had later meditated, and even for a time accomplished, a union with Poland. But they had had no strength to defend the liberty to which they had aspired. … When Ivan advanced, determined, as he said, to reign at Novgorod as he reigned at Moscow, they were unable to repel or to endure a siege, and they surrendered themselves into his hand. Once he had pardoned them; now their independence was taken from them. Their assembly was dissolved; their great bell, the emblem of their freedom, was carried to Moscow. The extinction of the Golden Horde was due to time and policy, rather than to any deeds which have brought glory to the Russian people.

   Released in this manner from the most dangerous both of
   domestic and of foreign foes the power of Ivan rapidly
   advanced. The broad province of Penn, that had begun to boast
   a half accomplished independence, had been early forced to
   acknowledge her subjection. The Khan of Kazan was now made
   tributary; and the rule of Ivan was extended from the Oural to
   the Neva. Provinces, as important, though less extensive, were
   acquired in the south. The Russian princes and cities that had
   preserved their independence were all, with the one exception of
   Riazan, compelled to acknowledge the sovereignty of Moscow. …
{2758}
   At the same time the Lithuanians were thrust back. Their
   greatness had gone by; and the territories of Tula, Kalouga,
   and Orel now ceasing to own allegiance to a declining power,
   were incorporated with the rising Empire. That Empire had
   already reached the Dnieper, and was already scheming to
   recover the ancient capital of its princes."

"The invasion of the Mongols, in the beginning of the 13th century, snapped the thread of Russia's destinies. … Nature, after preparing the invasion, herself marked its bounds. The Tatars, now masters of the steppes in the southeast, which felt to them very much like home, grew ill at ease as soon as they began to lose themselves in the forests of the north. They did not settle there. These regions were too European to suit their half-nomadic habits, and they cared more for tribute-payers than for subjects. So the 'kniazes' received their principalities back from the hands of the Mongols—as fiefs. They had to submit to the presence near their person of a sort of Tatar 'residents,'—the 'baskàks,' whose duty it was to take the census and to collect the taxes. They were compelled to take the long, long journey to the 'Horde,' often encamped in the heart of Asia, in order to receive their investiture from the successors of Djinghiz, and ended by becoming the vassals of a vassal of the 'Great-Khan.' At this price Russia retained her religion, her dynasties, and—thanks to her clergy and her princes—her nationality. Never yet was nation put through such a school of patience and abject submission. … Under this humiliating and impoverishing domination the germs of culture laid in the old principalities withered up. … The Tatar domination developed in the Russians faults and faculties of which their intercourse with Byzance had already brought them the germs, and which, tempered by time, have since contributed to develop their diplomatic gifts. … The oppression by man, added to the oppression by the climate, deepened certain traits already sketched in by nature in the Great-Russian's soul. Nature inclined him to submission, to endurance, to resignation; history confirmed these inclinations. Hardened by nature, he was steeled by history. One of the chief effects of the Tatar domination and all that makes up Russian history, is the importance given to the national worship. … The domination of an enemy who was a stranger to Christianity fortified the sufferers' attachment to their worship. Religion and native land were merged into one faith, took the place of nationality and kept it alive. It was then that the conception sprang up which still links the quality of Russian to the profession of Greek orthodoxy, and makes of the latter the chief pledge of patriotism. … Upon Russia's political sovereignty the Tatar domination had two parallel effects: it hastened national unity and it strengthened autocracy. The country which, under the appanage system, was falling to pieces, was bound together by foreign oppression as by a chain of iron. Having constituted himself suzerain of the 'Grand-Kniazes,' whom he appointed and dethroned at will, the Khan conferred on them his authority. The Asiatic tyranny of which they were the delegates empowered them to govern tyrannically. Their despotism over the Russians was derived from their servitude under the Tatars. … Every germ of free government, whether aristocratic or democratic, was stifled. Nothing remained but one power, the 'Velíki-Kniaz,' the autocrat,—and such now, after more than 500 years, still is the basis of the state."

A. Leroy-Beaulieu, The Empire of the Tsars and the Russians, part 1, book 4, chapter 3.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1533-1682.
   From Ivan the Terrible to Peter the Great.
   The Poles at Moscow.
   Origin of the dynasty of the Romanoffs.

   "Apart from the striking and appalling character of Ivan
   himself, whom Mickiewicz, the Polish poet, calls, in his
   lectures on the Slavonians, 'the most finished tyrant known in
   history—frivolous and debauched like Nero, stupid and
   ferocious like Caligula, full of dissimulation like Tiberius
   or Louis XI.,' the reign of Ivan the Terrible is interesting
   as marking the beginning of the intercourse between Russia and
   Western Europe, and especially between Russia and England. The
   natural approach to Russia from the west was, of course,
   through Poland; but the Poles impeded systematically, and for
   political reasons, the introduction of arts and artificers
   into Russia, and Sigismund wrote a letter to Elizabeth,
   warning her against the Muscovite power as a danger to
   civilization, only not formidable for the moment because it
   was still semi-barbarous. Ivan the Terrible was the third of
   the independent Tsars; and already under Ivan, sometimes
   called the 'Great'—to whom indeed belongs the honour of having
   finally liberated Russia from the Tartar yoke—endeavours had
   been made to enter into relations with various European
   nations. Foreigners, too, were encouraged to visit Russia and
   settle there. The movement of foreigners towards Russia
   increased with each succeeding reign; and beginning with the
   first Tsar of Muscovy it became much more marked under the
   third, that Ivan the Terrible, under whose reign the mariners
   in the service of the English company of 'merchant
   adventurers' entered the White Sea, and, in their own
   language, 'discovered' Russia. Russia was, indeed, until that
   time, so far as Western Europe was concerned, an unknown land,
   cut off from Western civilization for political and warlike
   reasons by the Poles, and for religious reasons by the
   Catholic Church. On the 18th of March, 1584, Ivan was sitting
   half dressed, after his bath, 'solacing himself and making
   merie with pleasant songs, as he used to doe.' He called for
   his chess-board, had placed the men, and was just setting up
   the king, when he fell back in a swoon and died. … The death
   of Ivan was followed by strong dislike against the English at
   Moscow; and the English diplomatist and match-maker, Sir
   Jerome Bowes, after being ironically informed that 'the
   English king was dead,' found himself seized and thrown into
   prison. He was liberated through the representations of
   another envoy, who pointed out that it would be imprudent to
   excite Elizabeth's wrath; and though for a time intercourse
   between Russia and Western Europe was threatened, through the
   national hatred of foreigners as manifested by the councillors
   of the Tsar, yet when the weak-minded Feodor fell beneath the
   influence of his brother-in-law Boris Godounoff, the previous
   policy, soon to become traditional, of cultivating relations
   with Western Europe, was resumed. …
{2759}
   Nineteen years have yet to pass before the election of the
   first of the Romanoffs to the throne; for strange as it may
   seem, the first member of the dynasty of the Romanoffs was
   chosen and appointed to the imperial rule by an assembly
   representing the various estates. Meanwhile the order of
   succession had been broken. Several pretenders to the throne
   had appeared, one of whom, Demetrius, distinctively known as
   the 'Imposter,' attained for a time supreme power. Demetrius,
   married to a Polish lady, Marina Mniszek, was aided by her
   powerful family to maintain his position in Moscow; for the
   Mniszeks assembled and sent to the Russian capital a body of
   4,000 men. Then Ladislas [son of the king] of Poland
   interfered, and after a time [1610] Moscow fell beneath the
   power of the Poles.

Soon, however, the national feeling of Russia was aroused. A butcher, or cattle dealer of Nijni Novgorod, named Minin, whose patriotism has made him one of the most popular figures in Russian history, got together the nucleus of a national army, and called upon the patriotic nobleman, Prince Pojarski, to place himself at its head. Pojarski and Minin marched together to Moscow, and their success in clearing the capital of the foreign invaders [1612] is commemorated by a group of statuary which stands in the principal square of Moscow. … Among the tombs of the metropolitans buried in … [the cathedral of the Assumption at Moscow] are those of Philaret and Hermogenes, who were thrown into prison by the Poles for refusing to consent to the accession of Ladislas, the Polish prince, to the Russian throne. Hermogenes died soon after his arrest. Philaret, at the expulsion of the Poles, was carried away captive by them in their retreat from Moscow (1612), and was kept nine years a prisoner in Poland. On his return to Russia, he found his son, Michael Feodorovitch, elected to the throne. The belief, then, of the Russian people in Michael's patriotism, seems to have been founded on a knowledge of the patriotism of his father. The surname of the metropolitan who had defied the Polish power and had suffered nine years' imprisonment in Poland was Romanoff; Philaret was the name he had adopted on becoming a monk. His baptismal name was Feodor, and hence the patronymic Feodorovitch attached to the name of Michael, the first of the Romanoffs. There is little to say about the reign of Michael Feodorovitch, the circumstances having once been set forth under which he was elected to the vacant throne; and his son and successor, Alexis Michailovitch, is chiefly remembered as father of Peter the Great."

RUSSIA: A. D. 1547. Assumption of the title, Czar, or Tzar, by the Grand Prince of Moscow.

"In January 1547, Ivan [IV., known as Ivan the Terrible] ordered the Metropolitan Macarius to proceed with his coronation. He assumed at the ceremony not only the title of Grand Prince, but that of Tzar. The first title no longer answered to the new power of the sovereign of Moscow, who counted among his domestics, princes and even Grand Princes. The name of Tzar is that which the books in the Slavonic language, ordinarily read by Ivan, give to the kings of Judæa, Assyria, Egypt, Babylon, and to the emperors of Rome and Constantinople. Now, was not Ivan in some sort the heir of the Tzar Nebuchadnezzar, the Tzar Pharaoh, the Tzar Ahasuerus, and the Tzar David, since Russia was the sixth empire spoken of in the Apocalypse? Through his grandmother Sophia Palæologus, he was connected with the family of the Tzars of Byzantium; through his ancestor Vladimir Monomachus, he belonged to the Porphyrogeniti; and through Constantine the Great, to Cæsar. … We may imagine what prestige was added to the dignity of the Russian sovereign by this dazzling title, borrowed from Biblical antiquity, from Roman majesty, from the orthodox sovereigns of Byzantium."

"This title [Czar] … is not a corruption of the word 'Cæsar,' as many have supposed [see CÆSAR, THE TITLE], but is an old Oriental word which the Russians acquired through the Slavonic translation of the Bible, and which they bestowed at first on the Greek emperors, and afterwards on the Tartar Khans. In Persia it signifies throne, supreme authority; and we find it in the termination of the names of the kings of Assyria and Babylon, such as Phalassar, Nabonasser, &c.—Karamsin."

"Von Hammer, in his last note to his 31st book, says, 'The title Czar or Tzar is an ancient title of Asiatic sovereigns. We find an instance of it in the title 'The Schar,' of the sovereign of Gurdistan; and in that of Tzarina … of the Scythians.'"

RUSSIA: A. D. 1569-1571.
   First collision with the Turks.
   Their repulse from Astrakhan.-
   Moscow stormed and sacked by the Crim Tartars.
   Peace with the Porte.

   At the time (1566) of the accession of Selim II. to the
   Ottoman throne, the Russians "had been involved in fierce and
   frequent wars with the Sultan's vassals, the Crim Tartars; but
   the Porte had taken no part in these contests. But the bold
   genius of the Vizier Sokolli now attempted the realisation of
   a project, which, if successful, would have barred the
   southern progress of Russia, by firmly planting the Ottoman
   power on the banks of the Don and the Volga, and along the
   shores of the Caspian Sea. … Sokclli proposed to unite the
   rivers Don and Volga by a canal, and then send a Turkish
   armament up the sea of Azoph and the Don, thence across by the
   intended channel to the Volga, and then down the latter river
   into the Caspian; from the southern shores of which sea the
   Ottomans might strike at Tabriz and the heart of the Persian
   power. … Azoph already belonged to the Turks, but in order to
   realise the great project entertained it was necessary to
   occupy Astrakhan also. Accordingly, 3,000 Janissaries and
   20,000 horse were sent [1569] to besiege Astrakhan, and a
   cooperative force of 30,000 Tartars was ordered to join them,
   and to aid in making the canal. 5,000 Janissaries and 3,000
   pioneers were at the same time sent to Azoph to commence and
   secure the great work at its western extremity. But the
   generals of Ivan the Terrible did their duty to their stern
   master ably in this emergency. The Russian garrison of
   Astrakhan sallied on its besiegers, and repulsed them with
   considerable loss.
{2760}
   And a Russian army, 15,000 strong, under Prince Serebinoff,
   came suddenly on the workmen and Janissaries near Azoph, and
   put them to head-long flight. It was upon this occasion that
   the first trophies won from the Turks came into Russian hands.
   An army of Tartars, which marched to succour the Turks, was
   also entirely defeated by Ivan's forces; and the Ottomans,
   dispirited by their losses and reverses, withdrew altogether
   from the enterprise. … Russia was yet far too weak to enter on
   a war of retaliation with the Turks. She had subdued the
   Tartar Khanates of Kasan and Astrakhan; but their kinsmen of
   the Crimea were still formidable enemies to the Russians, even
   without Turkish aid. It was only two years after the Ottoman
   expedition to the Don and Volga that the Khan of the Crimea
   made a victorious inroad into Russia, took Moscow by storm,
   and sacked the city (1571). The Czar Ivan had, in 1570, sent
   an ambassador, named Nossolitof, to Constantinople, to
   complain of the Turkish attack on Astrakhan, and to propose
   that there should be peace, friendship, and alliance between
   the two empires. … The Russian ambassador was favourably
   received at the Sublime Porte, and no further hostilities
   between the Turks and Russians took place for nearly a
   century."

RUSSIA: A. D. 1613-1617.
War with Sweden.
Cession of territory, including the site of St. Petersburg.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1652.
Allegiance of the Cossacks of the Ukraine transferred from the
King of Poland to the Czar.

"In the reign of Alexis took place the great revision of the Bible, carried out by the energy of Nicon, the Patriarch, who, finding that the church-books were full of ridiculous blunders caused by ignorant copyists, procured a quantity of the best Greek manuscripts from Mount Athos, and other places. In 1655, and the following year, he summoned two councils of the church, at which the newly translated service-books were promulgated and the old ones called in. In consequence of this change, a great schism took place in the Russian Church, a number of people attaching a superstitious veneration to the old books, errors and all. Thus was formed the large sect of the Staro-obriadtsi or Raskolniks, still existing in Russia, who have suffered great persecutions at many periods of her history."

"The most important innovation, which afterwards became the symbol and the war-cry of the religious rebellion, referred to the position of the fingers in making the sign of the cross. The Russians of Nicon's time when they crossed themselves held two fingers together, while the Oriental churches and the Greeks enjoined their adherents to cross themselves with three fingers united into one point. The two-fingered cross of the Muscovites was used in the Orient only for giving the priestly benediction. … Patriarch Nicon was anxious to return to ancient traditions. Reserving the two-fingered cross for priestly benedictions only, he re-established the three-fingered Greek cross, or, as his opponents called it, 'the pinch-of-snuff cross,' for the private act of devotion. Then, too, in certain cases, for instance in stamping the round wafers, he introduced the use of the equilateral, four-sided cross. … The Russians celebrated the mass on seven wafers, while the Greeks and Orientals used only five. In the processions of the Church the Russians were in the habit of first turning their steps westward—going with the sun; the Greeks marched eastward—against the sun. In all these points Patriarch Nicon conformed to the traditions of the Greek mother-church. In conformity with this rule, moreover, he directed that the hallelujahs should be 'trebled,' or sung thrice, as with the Greeks, the Russians having up till then only 'doubled' it—singing, instead of the third hallelujah, its Russian equivalent, 'God be praised.' Finally, or we should rather say above all, Nicon introduced a fresh spelling of the name of Jesus. The fact is that, probably in consequence of the Russian habit of abbreviating some of the commonest scriptural names, the second letter in the name Jesus had been dropped altogether; it was simply spelt Jsus, without any sign of abbreviation. Patriarch Nicon corrected this orthographical error, replacing the missing letter. Was this all? Yes, this was all. As far as doctrinal matters were concerned, nothing more serious was at stake in the great religious schism of the 17th century, known by the name of the Rascol. And yet it was for these trifles—a letter less in a name, a finger more in a cross, the doubling instead of the trebling of a word—that thousands of people, both men and women, encountered death on the scaffold or at the stake. It was for these things that other scores of thousands underwent the horrible tortures of the knout, the strappado, the rack, or had their bodies mutilated, their tongues cut, their hands chopped off."

      Stepniak,
      The Russian Peasantry
      (American edition),
      pages 237-239.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1686-1696.
   War of the Holy League against the Turks.
   Capture of Azov.
   First foothold on the Black Sea acquired.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1697-1704. Peter the Great: his travels in pursuit of knowledge; his apprenticeship to the useful arts; his civilizing work in Muscovy.

"Many princes before [Peter the Great] had renounced crowns, wearied out with the intolerable load of public affairs; but no man had ever divested himself of the royal character, in order to learn the art of governing better: this was a stretch of heroism which was reserved for Peter the Great alone. He left Russia in [1697], having reigned as yet but [a few] years, and went to Holland disguised under a common name, as if he had been a menial servant of that same Lefort, whom he sent in quality of ambassador-extraordinary to the States-General. As soon as he arrived at Amsterdam, he enrolled his name among the shipwrights of the admiralty of the Indies, and wrought in the yard like the other mechanics. At his leisure hours he learned such parts of the mathematics as are useful to a prince,—fortification, navigation, and the art of drawing plans. He went into the workmen's shops, and examined all their manufactures: nothing could escape his observation. {2761} From thence he passed over into England, where having perfected himself in the art of ship-building, he returned to Holland, carefully observing every thing that might turn to the advantage of his country. At last, after two years of travel and labor, to which no man but himself would have willingly submitted, he again made his appearance in Russia, with all the arts of Europe in his train. Artists of every kind followed him in abundance. Then were seen, for the first time, large Russian ships in the Baltic, and on the Black Sea and the ocean. Stately buildings, of a regular architecture, were raised among the Russian huts. He founded colleges; academies, printing-houses, and libraries. The cities were brought under a regular police. The dress and customs of the people were gradually changed, though not without some difficulty; and the Muscovites learned by degrees the true nature of a social state. Even their superstitious rites were abolished; the dignity of the patriarch was suppressed; and the czar declared himself the head of the Church. This last enterprise, which would have cost a prince less absolute than Peter both his throne and his life, succeeded almost without opposition, and insured to him the success of all his other innovations. After having humbled an ignorant and a barbarous clergy, he ventured to make a trial of instructing them, though, by that means, he ran the risk of rendering them formidable. … The czar not only subjected the Church to the State, after the example of the Turkish emperors, but, what was a more masterly stroke of policy, he dissolved a militia of much the same nature with that of the janizaries: and what the sultans had attempted in vain, he accomplished in a short time: he disbanded the Russian janizaries, who were called Strelitz, and who kept the czars in subjection. These troops, more formidable to their masters than to their neighbors, consisted of about 30,000 foot, one half of which remained at Moscow, while the other was stationed upon the frontiers. The pay of a Strelitz was no more than four roubles a year; but this deficiency was amply compensated by privileges and extortions. Peter at first formed a company of foreigners, among whom he enrolled his own name, and did not think it below him to begin the service in the character of a drummer, and to perform the duties of that mean office; so much did the nation stand in need of examples! By degrees he became an officer. He gradually raised new regiments; and, at last, finding himself master of a well-disciplined army, he broke the Strelitz, who durst not disobey. The cavalry were nearly the same with that of Poland, or France, when this last kingdom was no more than an assemblage of fiefs. The Russian gentlemen were mounted at their own expense, and fought without discipline, and sometimes without any other arms than a sabre or a bow, incapable of obeying, and consequently of conquering. Peter the Great taught them to obey, both by the example he set them and by the punishments he inflicted; for he served in the quality of a soldier and subaltern officer, and as czar he severely punished the Boyards, that is, the gentlemen, who pretended that it was the privilege of their order not to serve but by their own consent. He established a regular body to serve the artillery, and took 500 bells from the churches to found cannon. … He was himself a good engineer; but his chief excellence lay in his knowledge of naval affairs: he was an able sea-captain, a skilful pilot, a good sailor, an expert shipwright, and his knowledge of these arts was the more meritorious, as he was born with a great dread of the water. In his youth he could not pass over a bridge without trembling. … He caused a beautiful harbor to be built at the mouth of the Don, near Azof, in which he proposed to keep a number of galleys; and some time after, thinking that these vessels, so long, light, and flat, would probably succeed in the Baltic, he had upwards of 300 of them built at his favorite city of Petersburg. He showed his subjects the method of building ships with fir only, and taught them the art of navigation. He had even learned surgery, and, in a case of necessity, has been known to tap a dropsical person. He was well versed in mechanics, and instructed the artists. … He was always travelling up and down his dominions, as much as his wars would allow him; but he travelled like a legislator and natural philosopher, examining nature everywhere, endeavoring to correct or perfect her; sounding with his own hands the depths of seas and rivers, repairing sluices, visiting docks, causing mines to be searched for, assaying metals, ordering accurate plans to be drawn, in the execution of which he himself assisted. He built, upon a wild and uncultivated spot, the imperial city of Petersburg. … He built the harbor of Cronstadt, on the Neva, and Sainte-Croix, on the frontiers of Persia; erected forts in the Ukraine and Siberia; established offices of admiralty at Archangel, Petersburg, Astrakhan, and Azof; founded arsenals, and built and endowed hospitals. All his own houses were mean, and executed in a bad taste; but he spared no expenses in rendering the public buildings grand and magnificent. The sciences, which in other countries have been the slow product of so many ages, were, by his care and industry, imported into Russia in full perfection. He established an academy on the plan of the famous societies of Paris and London. … Thus it was that a single man changed the face of the greatest empire in the universe. It is however a shocking reflection, that this reformer of mankind should have been deficient in that first of all virtues, the virtue of humanity. Brutality in his pleasures, ferocity in his manners, and cruelty in his punishments, sullied the lustre of so many virtues. He civilized his subjects, and yet remained himself a barbarian. He would sometimes with his own hands execute sentences of death upon the unhappy criminals; and, in the midst of a revel, would show his dexterity in cutting off heads."

      A. Leroy-Beaulieu,
      The Empire of the Tsars,
      part 1, book 4, chapter 4.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1699.
The Peace of Carlowitz with the Sultan.
Possession of Azov confirmed.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1700.
   Aggressive league with Poland and Denmark
   against Charles XII. of Sweden.
   Defeat at Narva.

"Immediately after the capture of Nyenskanz [1703], a council of war was convened to consider the question of defending and utilising the mouth of the Neva, and whether it would be better to strengthen the little fort which had just been taken, or to seek a fit site for a commercial town nearer the sea. The latter course was decided upon. Near its mouth the Neva takes a sharp turn and divides into three or four branches, which by subsequent redivision form a number of islands, large and small. These marshy islands, overgrown with forests and thickets, and liable to be covered with water during the westerly winds, were inhabited by a few Finnish fishermen, who were accustomed to abandon their mud huts at the approach of high water, and seek a refuge on the higher ground beyond. It was on the first of these islands, called by the Finns Yanni-Saari, or Hare Island, where the river was still broad and deep, that Peter laid the foundation of a fortress and a city, named St. Petersburg, after his patron saint. … For this work many carpenters and masons were sent from the district of Novgorod, who were aided by the soldiers. Wheelbarrows were unknown (they are still little used in Russia), and in default of better implements the men scraped up the earth with their hands, and carried it to the ramparts on pieces of matting or in their shirts. Peter wrote to Ramodanofsky, asking him to send the next summer at least 2,000 thieves and criminals destined for Siberia, to do the heavy work under the direction of the Novgorod carpenters. At the same time with the construction of the bastions, a church was built in the fortress and dedicated to St. Peter and St. Paul. … Just outside of the fortress Peter built for himself a small hut, which he called his palace. It was about fifty-five feet long by twenty wide, built of logs roofed with shingles, and contained only three rooms, lighted by little windows set in leaden frames. In respect for this, his earliest residence in St. Petersburg, Peter subsequently had another building erected outside of it to preserve it from the weather, and in this state it still remains, an object of pilgrimage to the curious and devout. … In spite of disease and mortality among the men, in spite of the floods, which even in the first year covered nearly the whole place and drowned some who were too ill to move, the work went on. But in its infancy St. Petersburg was constantly in danger from the Swedes, both by sea and land. … St. Petersburg was the apple of Peter's eye. It was his 'paradise,' as he often calls it in his letters. It was always an obstacle, and sometimes the sole obstacle, to the conclusion of peace. Peter was willing to give up all he had conquered in Livonia and Esthonia, and even Narva, but he would not yield the mouth of the Neva. Nevertheless, until the war with Sweden had been practically decided by the battle of Poltava, and the position of St. Petersburg had been thus secured, although it had a certain importance as a commercial port, and as the fortress which commanded the mouth of the Neva, it remained but a village. The walls of the fortress were finally laid with stone, but the houses were built of logs at the best, and for many years, in spite of the marshy soil, the streets remained unpaved. If fate had compelled the surrender of the city, there would not have been much to regret. Gradually the idea came to Peter to make it his capital. In 1714 the Senate was transported thither from Moscow, but wars and foreign enterprises occupied the Tsar's attention, and it was not until 1718 that the colleges or ministries were fully installed there, and St. Petersburg became in fact the capital of the Empire."

RUSSIA: A. D. 1707-1718.
   Invasion by Charles XII. of Sweden.
   His ruinous defeat at Pultowa.
   His intrigues with the Turks.
   Unlucky expedition of the Czar into Moldavia.
   Russian conquests in the north.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1721.
   The Peace of Nystad with Sweden.
   Livonia and other conquests of Peter the Great secured.
   Finland given up.

[IMAGE: CENTRAL EUROPE IN 1715 AFTER THE TREATIES OF UTRECHT AND RASTADT.

FRANCE.[IN 1643] ACQUIRED BY FRANCE UNDER LOUIS XIV. HABSBURG POSSESSIONS. HOHENZOLLERN POSSESSIONS. DANISH POSSESSIONS. HOUSE OF HOLSTEEN-GOTTORP. ECCLESIASTICAL STATES OF THE EMPIRE. STATES OF THE CHURCH. THE BOUNDARY OF THE EMPIRE IS SHOWN BY THE HEAVY RED LINE.]

[IMAGE: EASTERN EUROPE IN 1715. SHOWING SOME PRIOR AND SUBSEQUENT CHANGES. HABSBURG POSSESSIONS. HOHENZOLLERN POSSESSIONS. VENETIAN POSSESSIONS. DANISH AND NORWEGIAN POSSESSIONS. SWEDISH POSSESSIONS. RUSSIA. POLAND. THE EASTERN BOUNDARY UP THE EMPIRE IS SHOWN BY THE HEAVY RED LINE.]

RUSSIA: A. D. 1725-1739.
   The reigns of Catherine I., Peter II., and Anne Ivanovna.
   Fruitless war with Turkey.
   Depredations in the Crimea.

   "The death of Peter found the Russian Court divided into two
   powerful factions. The reactionary party, filled with Russians
   of the old school, who had looked upon the reforms of Peter
   with no favourable eye, such as the Golitsins and the
   Dolgorukis, were anxious to raise to the throne Peter, the son
   of Alexis [Peter the Great's son, whom he had caused to be put
   to death], a mere boy; whereas the party of progress, led by
   Menshikov, wished that Catherine, the Tsar's widow, should
   succeed. … The party of reform finally triumphed. Catherine
   was elected the successor of her husband, and the chief
   authority fell into the hands of Alexander Menshikov. … The
   brief reign of Catherine is distinguished only by two events
   which added any glory to Russia. The Academy of Sciences was
   founded in 1726, and Behring, a Dane, was sent on an exploring
   expedition to Kamchatka. He has left his name indelibly
   written on the geography of the world. … The Empress died on
   the 17th of May, 1727, a little more than two years after her
   accession to the throne, aged about 39 years. … A ukase of
   Peter permitted Catherine to choose her successor. She
   accordingly nominated Peter, the son of the unfortunate
   Alexis, and, in default of Peter and his issue, Elizabeth and
   Anne, her daughters. Anne died in 1728, the year after her
   mother; she had married Karl Friedrich, the Duke of Holstein,
   … and was the mother of the unfortunate Peter III. Menshikov
   was appointed the guardian of the young Tsar till he had
   reached the age of 17." In four months Menshikov was in
   disgrace and the young Tsar had signed a ukase which condemned
   him to Siberian banishment. He died in 1729, and was followed
   to the grave a year later by the boy autocrat whose fiat had
   been his ruin. On the death of Peter II., the will of
   Catherine, in favor of her daughters, was set aside, and the
   Council of the Empire conferred the crown on Anne [Anne
   Ivanovna], the widowed Duchess of Courland, who was a daughter
   of Ivan, elder brother of Peter the Great. An attempt was made
   to impose on her a constitution, somewhat resembling the Pacta
   Conventa of the Poles, but she evaded it. "The Empress threw
   herself entirely into the hands of German favourites,
   especially a Courlander of low extraction, named Biren, said
   to have been the son of a groom. … The Empress was a woman of
   vulgar mind, and the Court was given up to unrefined orgies. …
{2763}
   Her reign was not an important one for Russia either as
   regards internal or foreign affairs. The right of
   primogeniture which had been introduced into the Russian law
   of real property by Peter the Great, was abolished; it was
   altogether alien to the spirit of Slavonic institutions. A
   four years' war with Turkey led to no important results."

"The Russians could have no difficulty in finding a pretence for the war [with Turkey], because the khan of the Turkish allies and dependents, the Tatars on the coast of the Black Sea and the Sea of Asof, and in the Crimea, could never wholly restrain his wandering hordes from committing depredations and making incursions into the neighbouring pasture-lands of Russia. … In 1735 a Russian corps marched into the Crimea, ravaged a part of the country, and killed a great number of Tatars; but having ventured too far without a sufficient stock of provisions, they were obliged to retreat, and sustained so great a loss in men that what had been accomplished bore no proportion to this misfortune. The almost total failure of this first attempt, which had cost the Russians 10,000 men, by no means deterred them from pursuing their designs of conquest. Count Munich marched with a large army from the Ukraine into the Crimea (1730). The Tatars … suffered the Russian troops to advance unmolested, thinking themselves safe behind their entrenchments. … But entrenchments of that kind were unable to resist the impetuosity of the Russian troops. They were surmounted; the Tatars repulsed; and a great part of the Crimea lay at the mercy of the conquerors. In the month of June they entered the Crimean fortress of Perekop. The Russian troops now retaliated the devastations committed by the Tatars in the Empire; but they found it impossible to remain long. … Whatever the army was in want of had to be fetched with extreme difficulty from the Ukraine; so that Munich at length found himself, towards autumn, under the necessity of withdrawing with his troops by the shortest way to the Ukraine. … While Munich was in the Crimea, endeavouring to chastise the Tatars for their depredations, Lascy had proceeded with another army against Asof. The attack proved successful; and on the 1st of July the fort of Asof had already submitted to his arms. … The Ottomans published a manifesto against Russia, but they were neither able afterwards to protect the Crimea nor Moldavia, for they were soon threatened with an attack from Austria also. By the treaty with Russia, the emperor was bound to furnish 30,000 auxiliaries in case of a war with the Turks; but a party in the Austrian cabinet persuaded the emperor that it would be more advantageous to make war himself. … In the year 1737 a new expedition was undertaken from the Ukraine at an immense cost. … A new treaty had been concluded with Austria before this campaign, in which the two empires agreed to carry on the war in common, according to a stipulated plan. In order to gain a pretence for the war, Austria had previously acted as if she wished to force her mediation upon the Turks. The first year's campaign was so unfortunate that the Austrians were obliged to give up all idea of prosecuting their operations, and to think of the protection and defence of their own frontiers." But "the Russians were every where victorious, and made the names of their armies a terror both in the east and the west. Lascy undertook a new raid into the Crimea. Munich first threatened Bender, then reduced Otchakof without much difficulty, and left a few troops behind him when he withdrew … who were there besieged by a large combined army of Turks and Tatars, supported by a fleet. The Russians not only maintained the fortress, which was, properly speaking, untenable, but they forced the Turks to retire with a loss of 10,000 men. The Russian campaign in 1738 was as fruitless, and cost quite as many men, as the Austrian, but it was at least the means of bringing them some military renown." In 1739, the Russians, under Munich, advanced in the direction of Moldavia, violating Polish territory. "The Turkish and Tatar army which was opposed to the Russians was beaten and routed [at Stavoutchani] on the first attack. … Immediately afterwards the whole garrison, struck with a panic, forsook the fortress of Khotzim, which had never been once attacked, and it was taken possession of by the Russians, who were astonished at the ease of the conquest. Jassy was also taken, and Munich even wished to attack Bender, when the news of the peace of Belgrade … made him infuriate, because he saw clearly enough that Russia alone was not equal to carry on the war. … By the peace of Belgrade, Austria not only suffered shame and disgrace, but lost all the possessions which had been gained by Eugene in the last war, her best military frontier, and her most considerable fortresses. … By virtue of this treaty, Austria restored to Turkey Belgrade, Shabacz, the whole of Servia, that portion of Bosnia which had been acquired in the last war, and Austrian Vallachia. Russia was also obliged to evacuate Khotzim and Otchakof; the fortifications of the latter were, however, blown up; as well as those of Perekop; Russia retained Asof, and a boundary line was determined, which offered the Russians the most favourable opportunities for extending their vast empire southward, at the cost of the Tatars and Turks."

RUSSIA: A. D. 1726-1740.
The question of the Austrian Succession.
Guarantee of the Pragmatic Sanction.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1740-1762.
Two regencies and two revolutions.
The reign of Empress Elizabeth.

   The Empress Anne died in 1740. Her deceased sister, Catherine,
   had left a daughter, Anna, married to Anthony Ulrich, Prince
   of Brunswick, and this daughter had an infant son, Ivan. By
   the will of the Empress the child Ivan was named as her
   successor, and Biren was appointed Regent. He enjoyed the
   regency but a short time, when he was overcome by a palace
   conspiracy and sent in banishment to Siberia. The mother of
   the infant Czar was now made Regent; but her rule was brief.
   Another revolution, in the latter part of 1741, consigned her,
   with her son and husband, to a prison, and raised the Princess
   Elizabeth, second daughter of Peter the Great, to the Russian
   throne. "The Empress Anna might have ruled without control,
   and probably have transmitted the throne to her son Ivan, had
   Elizabeth been left to the quiet enjoyment
   of her sensual propensities.
{2764}
   Elizabeth indulged without concealment or restraint in amours
   with subalterns, and even privates of the guard whose barracks
   lay near her residence; she was addicted, like them, to strong
   drink, and had entirely gained their favour by her good humour
   and joviality. Her indolence made her utterly averse to
   business, and she would never have thought of encumbering
   herself with the cares of government had she not been
   restricted in her amusements, reproved for her behaviour, and,
   what was worst of all, threatened with a compulsory marriage
   with the ugly and disagreeable Anthony Ulrich, of Brunswick
   Bevern, brother of the Regent's husband. At the instigation,
   and with the money, of the French ambassador, La Chétardie, a
   revolution was effected. … Elizabeth, in the manifest which
   she published on the day of her accession, declared that the
   throne belonged to her by right of birth, in face of the
   celebrated ukase issued by her father in 1722, which empowered
   the reigning sovereign to name his successor. … On
   communicating her accession to the Swedish Government [which
   had lately declared war and invaded Finland with no success],
   she expressed her desire for peace, and her wish to restore
   matters to the footing on which they had been placed by the
   Treaty of Nystadt. The Swedes, who took credit for having
   assisted the revolution which raised her to the throne,
   demanded from the gratitude of the Empress the restitution of
   all Finnland, with the town of Wiborg and part of Carelia; but
   Elizabeth, with whom it was a point of honour to cede none of
   the conquests of her father, would consent to nothing further
   than the re-establishment of the Peace of Nystadt. On the
   renewal of the war the Swedes were again unsuccessful in every
   rencounter, as they had been before."

"This war had no result except to show the weakness of the Sweden of Charles XII. against regenerate Russia. The Scandinavian armies proved themselves very unworthy of their former reputation. Elizabeth's generals, Lascy and Keith, subdued all the forts in Finland. At Helsingfors 17,000 Swedes laid down their arms before a hardly more numerous Russian force. By the treaty of Abo [August 17, 1743], the Empress acquired South Finland as far as the river Kiümen, and caused Adolphus Frederic, Administrator of the Duchy of Holstein, and one of her allies, to be elected Prince Royal of Sweden, in place of the Prince Royal of Denmark. … In her internal policy … Elizabeth continued the traditions of the great Emperor. She developed the material prosperity of the country, reformed the legislation, and created new centres of population; she gave an energetic impulse to science and the national literature; she prepared the way for the alliance of France and Russia, emancipated from the German yoke; while in foreign affairs she put a stop to the threatening advance of Prussia." Elizabeth died in January, 1762.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1755.
Intrigue with Austria and Saxony against Frederick the Great.
Causes of the Seven Years War.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1761-1762.
   Brief reign of Peter III.
   His peace with Frederick the Great.
   His deposition and death.
   His queen, Catherine II., on the throne.

   "Charles Peter Ulric, duke of Holstein Gottorp, whom Elizabeth
   had nominated her successor, who had embraced the Greek
   religion, and who, at his baptism, had received the name of
   Peter Fedorovitch, had arrived at St. Petersburg immediately
   after her accession: he was then in his fourteenth year. The
   education of this unfortunate prince was neglected. … Military
   exercises were the only occupation for which he had any
   relish, and in them he was indulged. … His potations, which
   were frequent and long, were encouraged by his companions;
   and, in a few years, he became a complete bacchanalian." In
   1744 the young prince was married to "Sophia Augusta, daughter
   of the prince of Anhalt Zerbst, who, on her conversion to the
   Greek faith,—a necessary preliminary to her marriage,—had
   received the baptismal name of Catherine. This union was
   entitled to the more attention, as in its consequences it
   powerfully affected, not only the whole of Russia, but the
   whole of Europe. Shortly before its completion, Peter was
   seized with the small-pox, which left hideous traces on his
   countenance. The sight of him is said so far to have affected
   Catherine that she fainted away. But though she was only in
   her sixteenth year, ambition had already over her more
   influence than the tender passion, and she smothered her
   repugnance. Unfortunately, the personal qualities of the
   husband were not of a kind to remove the ill impression: if he
   bore her any affection, which appears doubtful, his manners
   were rude, even vulgar. … What was still worse, she soon
   learned to despise his understanding; and it required little
   penetration to foresee that, whatever might be his title after
   Elizabeth's death, the power must rest with Catherine. Hence
   the courtiers in general were more assiduous in their
   attentions to her than to him,—a circumstance which did not
   much dispose him for the better. Finding no charms in his new
   domestic circle, he naturally turned to his boon companions;
   his orgies became frequent; and Catherine was completely
   neglected. Hence her indifference was exchanged into absolute
   dislike. … Without moral principles; little deterred by the
   fear of worldly censure, in a court where the empress herself
   was any thing but a model of chastity; and burning with hatred
   towards her husband,—she soon dishonoured his bed." Elizabeth
   died on the 29th of December, 1761, and Peter III. succeeded
   to the throne without opposition. The plotting against him on
   behalf of his wife, had long been active, but no plans were
   ripe for execution. He was suffered to reign for a year and a
   half; but the power which he received at the beginning slipped
   quickly away from him. He was humane in disposition, and
   adopted some excellent measures. He suppressed the secret
   chancery—an inquisitorial court said to be as abominable as
   the Spanish inquisition. He emancipated the nobles from the
   servility to the crown which Peter the Great had imposed on
   them.
{2765}
   He improved the discipline of the army, and gave encouragement
   to trade. But the good will which these measures might have
   won for him was more than cancelled by his undisguised
   contempt for Russia and the Russians, and especially for their
   religion, and by his excessive admiration for Frederick the
   Great, of Prussia, with whom his predecessor had been at war
   [but with whom he entered into alliance.]

The clergy and the army were both alienated from him, and were easily persuaded to support the revolution, which Catherine and her favorites planned for his overthrow. Their scheme was carried out on the morning of the 19th of July, 1762, when Peter was in the midst of one of his orgies at Oranienbaum, some miles from the capital. Catherine went to the barracks of the troops, and regiment after regiment declared for her. "Accompanied by about 2,000 soldiers, with five times that number of citizens, who loudly proclaimed her sovereign of Russia, she went to the church of Our Lady of Kasan. Here every thing was prepared for her reception: the archbishop of Novogorod, with a host of ecclesiastics, awaited her at the altar; she swore to observe the laws and religion of the empire; the crown was solemnly placed on her head; she was proclaimed sole monarch of Russia, and the grand-duke Paul her successor." The dethroned czar, when the news of these events reached him, doubted and hesitated until he lost even the opportunity to take to flight. On the day following Catherine's coronation he signed an act of abdication. Within a week he was dead. According to accounts commonly credited, he was poisoned, and then strangled, because the poison did its deadly work too slowly. "Whether Catherine commanded this deed of blood, has been much disputed. There can be little doubt that she did. None of the conspirators would have ventured to such an extremity unless distinctly authorised by her." Two years later Catherine added another murder to her crimes by directing the assassination of Ivan, who had been dethroned as an infant by Elizabeth in 1741, and who had grown to manhood in hopeless imprisonment.

      History of Russia
      (Lardner's Cabinet Cyclopedia),
      volume 2, chapter 10.

      ALSO IN:
      History of the Reign of Peter III. and Catherine II.,
      volume 1.

      A. Rabbe and J. Duncan,
      History of Russia,
      volume 1, pages 203-221.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1762-1796.
   Character and reign of Catherine II.
   Partition of Poland.
   Wars with the Turks.
   Acquisition of the Crimea and part of the Caucasus.
   Extension of boundaries to the Dnieper.

"Thus was inaugurated the reign of Catherine II., a woman whose capacities were early felt to be great, but were great for evil as well as for good. … She was without scruple in the gratification of her passions, and without delicacy in their concealment; and a succession of lovers, installed ostentatiously in her palace, proclaimed to the world the shamelessness of their mistress. Yet she was great undoubtedly as a sovereign. With a clear and cultivated intellect, with high aims and breadth of views, and fearless because despising the opinions of others, she could plan and she could achieve her country's greatness; and in the extended dominions and improved civilization which she bequeathed to her successor is found a true claim to the gratitude of her subjects. The foreign transactions of the reign begin with the history of Poland. With Frederick of Prussia, Catherine may be said to have shared both the scheme of partition and the spoils that followed.

If it is doubtful which originated the transaction, there is at least no doubt but that Russian policy had prepared the way for such a measure. … The war with Turkey [see TURKS: A. D. 1768-1774] was closed with equal profit and yet greater glory to the Russian Empire. The Russian armies had fought and conquered upon the soil of Moldavia, and had invaded and occupied the Crimea. At the same time the Russian fleets, no longer confining themselves to the Baltic or Black Seas, had sailed round Europe, and had appeared in the Archipelago. An insurrection of the Greeks had aided their design; and for a time the Bosphorus and Constantinople had been threatened. The great Empress of the North had dazzled Europe by the vastness of her power and designs; and Turkey, exhausted and unequal to further contest, was constrained to purchase peace. The possession of Azof, Kertch, Yenikale, and Kinburn, the free navigation of the Euxine and the Mediterranean, were the immediate gains of Russia. A stipulation for the better treatment of the Principalities, and for the rights of remonstrance, both in their behalf, and in that of the Greek church at Constantinople, gave the opening for future advantages. Another clause assured the independence of the Khan of the Crimea, and of the Tartars inhabiting the northern shores of the Black Sea. Under the name of liberty, these tribes were now, like Poland, deprived of every strength except their own; and the way was prepared for their annexation by Russia. The Peace of Kainardji, as this settlement was called, was signed in 1774. Within ten years dissensions had arisen within the Crimea, and both Turks and Russians had appeared upon the scene. The forces of Catherine passed the isthmus as allies of the reigning Khan; but they remained to receive his abdication, and to become the masters of his country.

At the same time the Kuban was entered and subdued by Souvarof, and thus already the Caucasus was reached. Catherine was now at the height of her power. In a triumphant progress she visited her new dominions, and gave the august name of Sebastopol to a new city which was already destined to be the scourge of the Turkish Empire. She believed herself to be upon the road to Constantinople; and, in the interviews which she held with the Emperor Joseph II., she began to scheme for the partition of Turkey, as she had done for that of Poland. … The Empress now found herself assailed in two distinct quarters. Gustavus III. of Sweden, allying with the Sultan, invaded Finland; and in her palace at St. Petersburg the Empress heard the Swedish guns.

   She was relieved, however, on the north by the dissension in
   the Swedish army, which compelled the King to an inglorious
   retreat; and she became able to give an undivided attention to
   the affairs of the south. While an Austrian army, which
   supported her, was threatening the north-west of Turkey, her
   own forces conquered in the north-east. Under Souvarof the
   town of Oczakof was taken, and the battle of Rimnik was won.
{2766}
   Ismail, that gave the key of the Danube, next fell, and in the
   horrors of its fall drew forth a cry from Europe. The triumph
   of Catherine was assured; but already the clouds of revolution
   had risen in the west; Austria, too busy with the affairs of
   the Netherlands, had withdrawn from the fight; and the Empress
   herself, disquieted, and satisfied for the time with her
   successes, concluded the Peace of Jassy, which extended her
   frontiers to the Dniester, and gave her the coast on which so
   soon arose the rich city of Odessa. The acquisitions of
   Catherine upon the south were completed. Those upon the west
   had still to receive important additions. Poland, already once
   partitioned was again to yield new provinces to Russia.

The internal government of the Empire was meant undoubtedly to rival these foreign successes, but unhappily fell short of them. … The long meditated secularization of the estates of the clergy was at last accomplished; the freedom of the serfs was now first urged; and, as a unique experiment in Russian history, the convoking of a kind of States General was made to discuss the project. But both project and parliament came to nothing. … There was much that was unreal in everything, and Europe, as well as the great Empress herself, was deceived. And so it came to pass that at the close of the reign there was the spectacle of much that had been begun but little finished. Before the death of Catherine [1796], in fact, her greatness may be said to have passed away."

"The activity of Catherine was prodigious, and her autocratic instincts extremely strong, and these impulses, affected by the French doctrines, which we must not forget set up despotism, if enlightened, as the perfection of wisdom, made her government attempt to accomplish all things and to meddle in every department of the national life. She tried to force civilisation into premature growths; established modern institutions of many kinds in a backward and half-barbaric empire; arranged industrial and economic projects and works in the minutest details; and rigidly prescribed even court dress and fashions. Ségur thus describes this omni-present and ubiquitous interference:—'It is sought to create at the same time a third estate, to attract foreign commerce, to establish all kinds of manufactures, to extend agriculture, to increase paper money, to raise the exchanges, to reduce the interest of money, to found cities, to people deserts, to cover the Black Sea with a new navy, to conquer one neighbour and circumvent another, and finally to extend Russian influence all over Europe.' These liberal reforms and grand aspirations came, however, for the most part to nothing; and Catherine's internal government grew by degrees into a grievous, cruel and prying despotism. … The antithesis of the liberalism in words and of the tyranny in deeds in Catherine's reign may be attributed to four main causes. She gradually found out that reform and progress were impossible in the Russian Empire—half Asiatic, backward and corrupt—and she swung back to the old tyranny of the past. The great rising of the serfs under Pugacheff, too—a servile outbreak of the worst kind —changed to a great extent the type of her government, and gave it a harsh and cruel complexion:—'The domestic policy of Catherine bore, until the end, the traces of those terrible years, and showed, as it were, the bloody cicatrices of the blows given and received in a death struggle.' … The foreign policy of Catherine was more successful than her government and administration at home, and the reasons are sufficiently plain. She found grand opportunities to extend her power in the long quarrels between France and England, in the alliance she maintained with Frederick the Great—an alliance she clung to, though she felt the burden—in the instability and weakness of the Austrian councils, in the confusion and strife of the French Revolution, above all in the decay of Islam; and Russia justly hailed her as a great conqueror. … The Muscovite race would not see her misdeeds in the march of conquest she opened for it; and her reputation has steadily increased in its eyes. 'The spirit of the people passes, in its fulness, into her. It was this that enabled her to make a complete conquest of her empire, and by this we do not mean the power which she wrested from the weakness, the cowardice, and the folly of Peter III.; but the position which this German woman attained at the close of her life, and especially after her death, in the history, and the national life, and development of a foreign and hostile race. For it may be said that it is since her death, above all, that she has become what she appears now—the sublime figure, colossal alike and splendid, majestic and attractive, before which incline, with an equal impulse of gratitude, the humble Moujik and the man of letters, who shakes the dust of reminiscences and legends already a century old.' In one particular, Catherine gave proof of being far in advance of the ideas of her day, and of extraordinary craft and adroitness. She anticipated the growing power of opinion in Europe, and skilfully turned it to her side by the patronage of the philosophers of France. In Napoleon's phrase, she did not spike the battery, she seized it and directed its fire; she had Voltaire, Diderot, and D'Alembert, admiring mouthpieces, to apologise for, nay to extol, her government. This great force had prodigious influence in throwing a glamour over the evil deeds of her reign, and in deceiving the world as to parts of her conduct: —'All this forms part of a system—a system due to the wonderful intuition of a woman, born in a petty German court, and placed on the most despotic throne of Europe; due, too—and so better—to her clear apprehension of the great power of the modern world—public opinion. It is, we do not hesitate to believe and affirm, because Catherine discovered this force, and resolved to make use of it, that she was able to play the part she played in history. Half of her reputation in Europe was caused by the admiration of Voltaire, solicited, won, managed by her with infinite art, nay, paid for when necessary.'"

"In 1781 Catherine had already sent to Grimm the following resume of the history of her reign, set forth by her new secretary and factotum, Besborodko, in the fantastic form of an inventory:

   Governments instituted according to the new form, 29;
   Towns built, 144;
   Treaties made, 30;
   Victories won, 78;
   Notable edicts, decreeing laws, 88;
   Edicts on behalf of the people, 123;
   Total, 492.

Four hundred and ninety-two active measures! This astonishing piece of book-keeping, which betrays so naïvely all that there was of romantic, extravagant, childish, and very feminine, in the extraordinary genius that swayed Russia, and in some sort Europe, during thirty-four years, will no doubt make the reader smile. It corresponds, however, truly enough, to a sum-total of great things accomplished under her direct inspiration. … In the management of men … she is simply marvellous. She employs all the resources of a trained diplomatist, of a subtle psychologist, and of a woman who knows the art of fascination; she employs them together or apart, she handles them with unequalled 'maestria.' If it is true that she sometimes takes her lovers for generals and statesmen, it is no less true that she treats on occasion her generals and statesmen as lovers. When the sovereign can do nothing, the Circe intervenes. If it avails nothing to command, to threaten, or to punish, she becomes coaxing and wheedling. Towards the soldiers that she sends to death, bidding them only win for her victory, she has delicate attentions, flattering forethought, adorable little ways. … Should fortune smile upon the efforts she has thus provoked and stimulated, she is profusely grateful: honours, pensions, gifts of money, of peasants, of land, rain upon the artisans of her glory. But she does not abandon those who have had the misfortune to be unlucky. … Catherine's art of ruling was not, however, without its shortcomings, some of which were due to the mere fact of her sex, whose dependences and weaknesses she was powerless to overcome. 'Ah!' she cried one day, 'if heaven had only granted me breeches instead of petticoats, I could do anything. It is with eyes and arms that one rules, and a woman has only ears.' The petticoats were not solely responsible for her difficulties. We have already referred to a defect which bore heavily upon the conduct of affairs during her reign: this great leader of men, who knew so well how to make use of them, did not know how to choose them. … It seems that her vision of men in general was disturbed, in this respect, by the breath of passion which influenced all her life. The general, the statesman, of whom she had need, she seemed to see only through the male whom she liked or disliked. … These mistakes of judgment were frequent. But Catherine did more than this, and worse. With the obstinacy which characterised her, and the infatuation that her successes gave her, she came little by little to translate this capital defect into a 'parti pris,' to formulate it as a system; one man was worth another, in her eyes, so long as he was docile and prompt to obey. … And her idea that one man is worth as much as another causes her, for a mere nothing, for a word that offends her, for a cast of countenance that she finds unpleasing, or even without motive, for the pleasure of change and the delight of having to do with some one new, as she avows naïvely in a letter to Grimm, to set aside, disgraced or merely cashiered, one or another of her most devoted servants."

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1790-1791;
      1791 (JULY-SEPTEMBER);
      1793 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER).

RUSSIA: A. D. 1798-1799.
The war of the Second Coalition against Revolutionary France.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1799.
   Suwarrow's victorious campaign in Italy
   and failure in Switzerland.
   Anglo-Russian invasion of Holland.
   Its disastrous ending.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (APRIL-SEPTEMBER);
(AUGUST-DECEMBER); and (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER).

RUSSIA: A. D. 1800.
Desertion of the Coalition by the Czar.
His alliance with Napoleon.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1800-1801.
   War with England.
   The Northern Maritime League and its sudden overthrow
   at Copenhagen by the British fleet.
   Peace with England.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1801.
Paul's despotism and assassination.
Accession of Alexander I.

   The Emperor Paul's "choice of his Ministers was always
   directed by one dominant idea—that of surrounding himself with
   servants on whom he could entirely rely; for from the moment
   of his accession he foresaw and dreaded a Palace revolution. …
   He erred in the selection, and especially in the extent, of
   the means which he employed to save his life and his power;
   they only precipitated his deplorable end. Among the men whom
   he suspected, he persecuted some with implacable rigour, while
   he retained others at their posts and endeavoured to secure
   their fidelity by presents; this, however, only made them
   ungrateful. Never was there a sovereign more terrible in his
   severity, or more liberal when he was in a generous mood. But
   there was no certainty in his favour. A single word uttered
   intentionally or by accident in a conversation, the shadow of
   a suspicion, sufficed to make him persecute those whom he had
   protected. The greatest favourites of to-day feared to be
   driven from the Court on the morrow, and banished to a distant
   province. Yet the Emperor wished to be just. … All who
   belonged to the Court or came before the Emperor were thus in
   a state of continual fear." This fear, and the hatred which it
   inspired, produced in due time a conspiracy, headed by Counts
   Panin and Pahlen, of the Emperor's Council. Purporting to have
   for its object only the deposition of the Czar, the conspiracy
   was known and acquiesced in by the heir to the throne, the
   Grand-Duke Alexander, who had been persuaded to look upon it
   as a necessary measure for rescuing Russia from a demented
   ruler. "Paul was precipitating his country into incalculable
   disasters, and into a complete disorganisation and
   deterioration of the Government machine. … Although everybody
   sympathised with the conspiracy, nothing was done until
   Alexander had given his consent to his father's deposition."
   Then it was hurried to its accomplishment. The conspirators,
   including a large number of military and civil officials,
   supped together, on the evening of March 3, 1801. At midnight,
   most of them being then intoxicated, they went in a body to
   the palace, made their way to the Emperor's
   bed-chamber—resisted by only one young valet—and found him, in
   his night-clothes, hiding in the folds of a curtain. "They
   dragged him out in his shirt, more dead than alive; the terror
   he had inspired was now repaid to him with usury. …
{2768}
   He was placed on a chair before a desk. The long, thin, pale,
   and angular form of General Bennigsen [a Hanoverian officer,
   just admitted to the conspiracy, but who had taken the lead
   when others showed signs of faltering], with his hat on his
   head and a drawn sword in his hand, must have seemed to him a
   terrible spectre. 'Sire,' said the General, 'you are my
   prisoner and have ceased to reign; you will now at once write
   and sign a deed of abdication in favour of the Grand-Duke
   Alexander.' Paul was still unable to speak, and a pen was put
   in his hand. Trembling and almost unconscious, he was about to
   obey, when more cries were heard. General Bennigsen then left
   the room, as he has often assured me, to ascertain what these
   cries meant, and to take steps for securing the safety of the
   palace and of the Imperial family. He had only just gone out
   when a terrible scene began. The unfortunate Paul remained
   alone with men who were maddened by a furious hatred of him. …
   One of the conspirators took off his official scarf and tied
   it round the Emperor's throat. Paul struggled. … But the
   conspirators seized the hand with which he was striving to
   prolong his life, and furiously tugged at both ends of the
   scarf. The unhappy emperor had already breathed his last, and
   yet they tightened the knot and dragged along the dead body,
   striking it with their bands and feet." When Alexander learned
   that an assassination instead of a forced abdication had
   vacated the throne for him, he "was prostrated with grief and
   despair. … The idea of having caused the death of his father
   filled him with horror, and he felt that his reputation had
   received a stain which could never be effaced. … During the
   first years of his reign, Alexander's position with regard to
   his father's murderers was an extremely difficult and painful
   one. For a few months he believed himself to be at their
   mercy, but it was chiefly his conscience and a feeling of
   natural equity which prevented him from giving up to justice
   the most guilty of the conspirators. … The assassins all
   perished miserably."

      Prince Adam Czartoryski,
      Memoirs,
      volume 1, chapters 9 and 11.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1806-1807.
   War with Napoleon in aid of Prussia.
   Battle of Eylau.
   Treaty of Bartenstein with Prussia.
   Decisive defeat at Friedland.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1806 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER);
1806-1807; and 1807 (FEBRUARY-JUNE).

RUSSIA: A. D. 1807.
   Ineffective operations of England as an ally against Turkey.
   Treaty of Tilsit.
   Secret understandings of Napoleon with the Czar.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1807-1810.
   Northern fruits of the Peace of Tilsit.
   English seizure of the Danish fleet.
   War with England and Sweden.
   Conquest of Finland.
   Peculiar annexation of the Grand Duchy to the Empire.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1809-1812.
   War with Turkey.
   Treaty of Bucharest.
   Acquisition of Bessarabia.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1810.
   Grievances against France.
   Desertion of the Continental System.
   Resumption of commerce with Great Britain.
   Rupture with Napoleon.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1812 (June-September).
   Napoleon's invasion.
   Battles of Smolensk and Borodino.
   The French advance to Moscow.

"With the military resources of France, which then counted 130 departments, with the contingents of her Italian kingdoms, of the Confederation of the Rhine, of the Grand Duchy of Warsaw, and with the auxiliary forces of Prussia and Austria, Napoleon could bring a formidable army into the field. On the first of June the Grand Army amounted to 678,000 men, 356,000 of whom were French, and 322,000 foreigners. It included not only Belgians, Dutchmen, Hanoverians, Hanseats, Piedmontese, and Romans, then confounded under the name of Frenchmen, but also the Italian army, the Neapolitan army, the Spanish regiments, natives of Germany. … Besides Napoleon's marshals, it had at its head Eugene, Viceroy of Italy; Murat, King of Naples; Jerome, King of Westphalia; the princes royal and heirs of nearly all the houses in Europe. The Poles alone in this war, which recalled to them that of 1612, mustered 60,000 men under their standards. Other Slavs from the Illyrian provinces, Carinthians, Dalmatians, and Croats, were led to assault the great Slav empire. It was indeed the 'army of twenty nations,' as it is still called by the Russian people. Napoleon transported all these races from the West to the East by a movement similar to that of the great invasions, and swept them like a human avalanche against Russia. When the Grand Army prepared to cross the Niemen, it was arranged thus:—To the left, before Tilsit, Macdonald with 10,000 French and 20,000 Prussians under General York of Wartenburg; before Kovno, Napoleon with the corps of Davoust, Oudinot, Ney, the Guard commanded by Bessières, the immense reserve cavalry under Murat—in all a total of 180,000 men; before Pilony, Eugène with 50,000 Italians and Bavarians; before Grodno, Jerome Bonaparte, with 60,000 Poles, Westphalians and Saxons, &c. We must add to these the 30,000 Austrians of Schwartzenberg, who were to fight in Gallicia as mildly against the Russians as the Russians had against the Austrians in 1809. Victor guarded the Vistula and the Oder with 30,000 men, Augereau the Elbe with 50,000. Without reckoning the divisions of Macdonald, Schwartzenberg, Victor, and Augereau, it was with about 290,000 men, half of whom were French, that Napoleon marched to cross the Niemen and threaten the centre of Russia. Alexander had collected on the Niemen 90,000 men, commanded by Bagration; on the Bug, tributary to the Vistula, 60,000 men, commanded by Barclay de Tolly; those were what were called the Northern army and the army of the South. On the extreme right, Wittgenstein with 30,000 men was to oppose Macdonald almost throughout the campaign; on the extreme left, to occupy the Austrian Schwartzenberg as harmlessly as possible, Tormassof was placed with 40,000. {2769} Later this latter army, reinforced by 50,000 men from the Danube, became formidable, and was destined, under Admiral Tchitchagof, seriously to embarrass the retreat of the French. In the rear of all these forces was a reserve of 80,000 men—Cossacks and militia. … In reality, to the 290,000 men Napoleon had mustered under his hand, the Emperor of Russia could only oppose the 150,000 of Bagration and Barclay de Tolly. … At the opening of the campaign the head-quarters of Alexander were at Wilna. … They deliberated and argued much. To attack Napoleon was to furnish him with the opportunity he wished; to retire into the interior, as Barclay had advised in 1807, seemed hard and humiliating. A middle course was sought by adopting the scheme of Pfühl—to establish an intrenched camp at Drissa, on the Dwina, and to make it a Russian Torres Vedras. The events in the Peninsula filled all minds. Pfühl desired to act like Wellington at Torres Vedras." But his intrenched camp was badly placed; it was easily turned, and was speedily abandoned when Napoleon advanced beyond the Niemen, which he did on the 24th of June. The Russian armies fell back. "Napoleon made his entry into Wilna, the ancient capital of the Lithuanian Gedimin. He had said in his second proclamation, 'The second Polish war has begun!' The Diet of Warsaw had pronounced the re-establishment of the kingdom of Poland, and sent a deputation to Wilna to demand the adhesion of Lithuania, and to obtain the protection of the Emperor. … Napoleon, whether to please Austria, whether to preserve the possibility of peace with Russia, or whether he was afraid to make Poland too strong, only took half measures. He gave Lithuania an administration distinct from that of Poland. … A last attempt to negotiate a peace had failed. … Napoleon had proposed two unacceptable conditions—the abandonment of Lithuania, and the declaration of war against Great Britain. If Napoleon, instead of plunging into Russia, had contented himself with organising and defending the ancient principality of Lithuania, no power on earth could have prevented the reestablishment of the Polish-Lithuanian State within its former limits. The destinies of France and Europe would have been changed. … Napoleon feared to penetrate into the interior; he would have liked to gain some brilliant success not far from the Lithuanian frontier, and seize one of the two Russian armies. The vast spaces, the bad roads, the misunderstandings, the growing disorganisation of the army, caused all his movements to fail. Barclay de Tolly, after having given battle at Ostrovno and Vitepsk, fell back on Smolensk; Bagration fought at Mohilef and Orcha, and in order to rejoin Barclay retreated to Smolensk. There the two Russian generals held council. Their troops were exasperated by this continual retreat, and Barclay, a good tactician, with a clear and methodical mind, did not agree with Bagration, impetuous, like a true pupil of Souvorof. The one held firmly for a retreat, in which the Russian army would become stronger and stronger, and the French army weaker and weaker, as they advanced into the interior; the other wished to act on the offensive, full of risk as it was. The army was on the side of Bagration, and Barclay, a German of the Baltic provinces, was suspected and all but insulted. He consented to take the initiative against Murat, who had arrived at Krasnoé, and a bloody battle was fought (August 14). On the 16th, 17th, and 18th of August, another desperate fight took place at Smolensk, which was burnt, and 20,000 men perished. Barclay still retired, drawing with him Bagration. In his retreat Bagration fought Ney at Valoutina; it was a lesser Eylau: 15,000 men of both armies remained on the field of battle. Napoleon felt that he was being enticed into the interior of Russia. The Russians still retreated, laying waste all behind them. … The Grand Army melted before their very eyes. From the Niemen to Wilna, without ever having seen the enemy, it had lost 50,000 men from sickness, desertion and marauding; from Wilna to Mohilef nearly 100,000. … In the Russian army, the discontent grew with the retreating movement; … they began to murmur as much against Bagration as against Barclay. It was then that Alexander united the two armies under the supreme command of Koutouzof. … Koutouzof halted at Borodino. He had then 72,000 infantry, 18,000 regular cavalry, 7,000 Cossacks, 10,000 opoltchénié or militiamen, and 640 guns served by 14,000 artillerymen or pioneers; in all, 121,000 men. Napoleon had only been able to concentrate 86,000 infantry, 28,000 cavalry, and 587 guns, served by 16,000 pioneers or artillerymen. … On the 5th of September the French took the redoubt of Chevardino; the 7th was the day of the great battle: this was known as the battle of Borodino among the Russians, as that of the Moskowa in the bulletins of Napoleon, though the Moskowa flows at some distance from the field of carnage. … The battle began by a frightful cannonade of 1,200 guns, which was heard 30 leagues round. Then the French, with an irresistible charge, took Borodino on one side and the redoubts on the other; Ney and Murat crossed the ravine of Semenevskoé, and cut the Russian army nearly in two. At ten o'clock the battle seemed won, but Napoleon refused to carry out his first success by employing the reserve, and the Russian generals had time to bring up new troops in line. They recaptured the great redoubt, and Platof, the Cossack, made an incursion on the rear of the Italian army; an obstinate fight took place at the outworks. At last Napoleon made his reserve troops advance; again Murat's cavalry swept the ravine; Caulaincourt's cuirassiers assaulted the great redoubt from behind, and flung themselves on it like a tempest, while Eugène of Italy scaled the ramparts. Again the Russians had lost their outworks. Then Koutouzof gave the signal to retreat. … The French had lost 30,000 men, the Russians 40,000. … Koutouzof retired in good order, announcing to Alexander that they had made a steady resistance, but were retreating to protect Moscow." But after a council of war, he decided to leave Moscow to its fate, and the retreating Russian army passed through and beyond the city, and the French entered it at their heels.

"The facts prove beyond doubt that Napoleon did not foresee the danger of an advance upon Moscow, and that Alexander I. and the Russian generals never dreamed of trying to draw him into the heart of the country. Napoleon was led on, not by any plan,—a plan had never been thought of,—but by the intrigues, quarrels, and ambition of men who unconsciously played a part in this terrible war and never foresaw that the result would be the safety of Russia. … Amid these quarrels and intrigues, we are trying to meet the French, although ignorant of their whereabouts. The French encounter Neverovski's division, and approach the walls of Smolensk. It is impossible not to give battle at Smolensk. We must maintain our communications. The battle takes place, and thousands of men on both sides are killed. Contrary to the wishes of the tsar and the people, our generals abandon Smolensk. The inhabitants of Smolensk, betrayed by their governor, set fire to the city, and, with this example to other Russian towns, they take refuge in Moscow, deploring their losses and sowing on every side the seeds of hate against the enemy. Napoleon advances and we retreat, and the result is that we take exactly the measures necessary to conquer the French."

Count L. Tolstoi, The Physiology of War: Napoleon and the Russian Campaign, chapter 1.

      Count P. de Segur,
      History of the Expedition to Russia,
      books 1-8 (volumes 1-2).

"With rapid steps the French army advanced towards the heights whence they hoped to perceive at length the great city of Moscow; and, if the Russians were filled with the utmost sadness, the hearts of the French were equally inspired with feelings of joy and triumph, and the most brilliant illusions. Reduced from 420,000 (which was its number at the passage of the Niemen) to 100,000, and utterly exhausted, our army forgot all its troubles on its approach to the brilliant capital of Muscovy. … Imagination … was strongly excited within them at the idea of entering Moscow, after having entered all the other capitals of Europe with the exception of London, protected by the sea. Whilst Prince Eugene advanced on the left of the army, and Prince Poniatowski on its right, the bulk of the army, with Murat at its head, Davout and Ney in the centre, and the Guard in the rear, followed the great Smolensk road. Napoleon was in the midst of his troops, who, as they gazed upon him and drew near to Moscow, forgot the days of discontent, and uttered loud shouts in honour of his glory and their own. The proposal submitted by Miloradovitch was readily accepted, for the French had no desire to destroy Moscow, and it was agreed that not a shot should be fired during the evacuation, on condition that the Russian army should continue to defile across the city without a moment's halt. … The Russian rear-guard defiled rapidly to yield the ground to our advanced guard, and the King of Naples, followed by his staff and a detachment of cavalry, plunged into the streets of Moscow, and, traversing by turns the humblest quarters and the wealthiest, perceived everywhere the most profound solitude, and seemed to have entered a city of the dead. … The information which was now obtained—that the whole population of the city had fled—saddened the exultation of the commanders of our advanced guard, who had flattered themselves that they would have had the pleasure of surprising the inhabitants by their kindness. … On the morning of the 15th September, Napoleon entered Moscow, at the head of his invincible legions, but passed through a deserted city, and his soldiers were now, for the first time on entering a capital, the sole witnesses of their own glory. Their feelings on the occasion were sad ones. As soon as Napoleon had reached the Kremlin, he hastened to ascend the lofty tower of the great Ivan, and to survey from its elevation the magnificent city he had conquered. … A sullen silence, broken only by the tramp of the cavalry, had replaced that populous life which during the very previous evening had rendered the city one of the most animated in the world. The army was distributed through the various quarters of Moscow, Prince Eugene occupying the northwest quarter, Marshal Davout the southwest, and Prince Poniatowski the southeast. Marshal Ney, who had traversed Moscow from west to east, established his troops in the district comprised between the Riazan and Wladimir roads; and the Guard was naturally posted at the Kremlin and in its environs. The houses were full of provisions of every kind, and the first necessities of the troops were readily satisfied. The Superior officers were received at the gates of palaces by numerous servants in livery, eager in offering a brilliant hospitality; for the owners of these palaces, perfectly unaware that Moscow was about to perish, had taken great pains, although they fully shared the national hatred against the French, to procure protectors for their rich dwellings by receiving into them French officers. … From their splendid lodgings, the officers of the French army wandered with equal delight through the midst of the city, which resembled a Tartar camp sown with Italian palaces. They contemplated with wonder the numerous towns of which the capital is composed, and which are placed in concentric circles, the one within the other. … A few days before, Moscow had contained a population of 300,000 souls, of whom scarcely a sixth part now remained, and of these the greater number were concealed in their houses or prostrated at the foot of the altars. The streets were deserts, and only echoed with the footsteps of our soldiers. … But although the solitude of the city was a source of great vexation to them, they had no suspicion of any approaching catastrophe, for the Russian army, which alone had hitherto devastated their country, had departed, and there appeared to be no fear of fire. The French army hoped, therefore, to enjoy comfort in Moscow, to obtain, probably, peace by means of its possession, and at least good winter-cantonments in case the war should be prolonged. But, on the afternoon they had entered, columns of flame arose from a vast building containing … quantities of spirits, and just as our soldiers had almost succeeded in mastering the fire in this spot, a violent conflagration suddenly burst forth in a collection of buildings called the Bazaar, situated to the northeast of the Kremlin, and containing the richest magazines, abounding in stores of the exquisite tissues of India and Persia, the rarities of Europe, colonial produce, and precious wines. The troops of the Guard immediately hastened up and attempted to subdue the flames; but their energetic efforts were unfortunately unsuccessful, and the immense riches of the establishment fell a prey to the fire, with the exception of some portions which our men were able to snatch from the devouring element. {2771} This fresh accident was again attributed to natural causes, and considered as easily explicable in the tumult of an evacuation. During the night of the 15th of September, however, a sudden change came over the scene; for then as though every species of misfortune were to fall at the same moment on the ancient Muscovite capital, the equinoctial gales suddenly arose with the extreme violence usual to the season and in countries where widespread plains offer no resistance to the storm. This wind, blowing first from the east, carried the fire to the west into the streets comprised between the Iwer and Smolensk routes, which were the most beautiful and the richest in all Moscow. Within some hours the fire, spreading with frightful rapidity, and throwing out long arrows of flame, spread to the other westward quarters. And soon rockets were observed in the air, and wretches were seized in the act of spreading the conflagration. Interrogated under threat of instant death, they revealed the frightful secret,—the order given by Count Rostopschin for the burning of the city of Moscow as though it had been a simple village on the Moscow route. This information filled the whole army with consternation. Napoleon ordered that military commissions should be formed in each quarter of the city for the purpose of judging, shooting, and hanging incendiaries taken in the act, and that all the available troops should be employed in extinguishing the flames. Immediate recourse was had to the pumps, but it was found they had been removed; and this latter circumstance would have proved, if indeed any doubt on the matter had remained, the terrible determination with which Moscow had been given to the flames. In the mean time, the wind, increasing in violence every moment, rendered the efforts of the whole army ineffectual, and, suddenly changing, with the abruptness peculiar to equinoctial gales, from the east to the northwest, it carried the torrent of flame into quarters which the hands of the incendiaries had not yet been able to fire. After having blown during some hours from the northwest, the wind once more changed its direction, and blew from the southwest, as though it had a cruel pleasure in spreading ruin and death over the unhappy city, or, rather, over our army. By this change of the wind to the southwest the Kremlin was placed in extreme peril. More than 400 ammunition wagons were in the court of the Kremlin, and the arsenal contained some 400,000 pounds of powder. There was imminent danger, therefore, that Napoleon with his Guard, and the palace of the Czars, might be blown up into the air. … Napoleon, therefore, followed by some of his lieutenants, descended from the Kremlin to the quay of the Moskowa, where he found his horses ready for him, and had much difficulty in threading the streets, which, towards the northwest (in which direction he proceeded), were already in flames. The terrified army set out from Moscow. The divisions of Prince Eugene and Marshal Ney fell back upon the Zwenigarod and St. Petersburg roads, those of Marshal Davout fell back upon the Smolensk route, and, with the exception of the Guard, which was left around the Kremlin to dispute its possession with the flames, our troops drew back in horror from before the fire, which, after flaming up to heaven, darted back towards them as though it wished to devour them. The few inhabitants who had remained in Moscow, and had hitherto lain concealed in their dwellings, now fled, carrying away such of their possessions as they valued most highly, uttering lamentable cries of distress, and, in many instances, falling victims to the brigands whom Rostopochin had let loose, and who now exulted in the midst of the conflagration, as the genius of evil in the midst of chaos. Napoleon took up his quarters at the Château of Petrowskoié, a league's distance from Moscow on the St. Petersburg route, in the centre of the cantonments of the troops under Prince Eugene, awaiting there the subsidence of the conflagration, which had now reached such a height that it was beyond human power either to increase or extinguish it. As a final misfortune the wind changed on the following day from southwest to direct west, and then the torrents of flame were carried towards the eastern quarters of the city, the streets Messnitskaia and Bassmanaia, and the summer palace. As the conflagration reached its terrible height, frightful crashes were heard every moment,—roofs crushing inward, and stately façades crumbling headlong into the streets as their supports became consumed in the flames. The sky was scarcely visible through the thick cloud of smoke which overshadowed it, and the sun was only apparent as a blood-red globe. For three successive days—the 16th, the 17th, and the 18th of September—this terrific scene continued, and in unabated intensity. At length, after having devoured four-fifths of the city, the fire ceased, gradually quenched by the rain, which, as is usually the case, succeeded the violence of the equinoctial gales. As the flames subsided, only the spectre, as it were, of what had once been a magnificent city was visible; and, indeed, the Kremlin, and about a fifth part of the city, were alone saved,—their preservation being chiefly due to the exertions of the Imperial Guard. As the inhabitants of Moscow themselves entered the ruins, seeking what property still remained in them undestroyed, it was scarcely possible to prevent our soldiers from acting in the same manner. … Of this horrible scene the chiefest horror of all remains to be told: the Russians had left 15,000 wounded in Moscow, and, incapable of escaping, they had perished, victims of Rostopschin's barbarous patriotism."

      J. Philippart,
      Northern Campaigns, 1812-1813,
      volume 1, pages 81-115.

   "Napoleon waited in vain for propositions from the Czar; his
   own were scornfully rejected. Meanwhile the Russians were
   reorganizing their armies, and winter set in. On the 13th of
   October, the first frost gave warning that it was time to
   think of the retreat, which the enemy, already on the French
   flank, was threatening to cut off. Leaving Mortier with 10,000
   men in the Kremlin, the army quitted Moscow on the 19th of
   October, thirty-five days after it had entered the city. It
   still numbered 80,000 fighting men and 600 cannons, but was
   encumbered with camp-followers and vehicles. At
   Malo-Jaroslavetz a violent struggle took place on the 24th.
   The town was captured and recaptured seven times. It was
   finally left in the hands of the French. Here, however, the
   route changed.
{2772}
   The road became increasingly difficult, the cold grew intense,
   the ground was covered with snow, and the confusion in the
   quartermaster's department was terrible. When the army reached
   Smolensk, there were only 50,000 men in the ranks (November
   9). Napoleon had taken minute precautions to provide supplies
   and reinforcements all along his line of retreat; but the
   heedlessness of his subalterns, and the difficulty of being
   obeyed at such distances and in such a country, rendered his
   foresight useless. At Smolensk, where he hoped to find
   provisions and supplies, everything had been squandered.
   Meanwhile there was not a moment to lose; Wittgenstein, with
   the army of the North, was coming up on the French right.
   Tchitchagof was occupying Minsk behind the Beresina, with the
   army which had just come from the banks of the Danube. Kutusof
   was near at hand. The three Russian armies proposed to unite
   and bar the Beresina, which the French were obliged to cross.
   The French began their march, but the cold became suddenly
   intense; all verdure had disappeared, and there being no food
   for the horses, they died by the thousand. The cavalry was
   forced to dismount; it became necessary to destroy or abandon
   a large portion of the cannon and ammunition. The enemy
   surrounded the French columns with a cloud of Cossacks, who
   captured all stragglers. On the following days the temperature
   moderated. Then arose another obstacle,—the mud, which
   prevented the advance; and the famine was constant. Moreover,
   the retreat was one continuous battle. Ney, 'the bravest of
   the brave,' accomplished prodigies of valor. At Krasnoi the
   Emperor himself was obliged to charge at the head of his
   guard. When the Beresina was reached, the army was reduced to
   40,000 fighting men, of whom one-third were Poles. The
   Russians had burned the bridge of Borisof, and Tchitchagof, on
   the other shore, barred the passage. Fortunately a ford was
   found. The river was filled with enormous blocks of ice;
   General Eblé and his pontoniers, plunged in the water up to
   their shoulders, built and rebuilt bridges across it. Almost
   all the pontoniers perished of cold or were drowned. Then,
   while on the right of the river Ney and Oudinot held back the
   army of Tchitchagof, and Victor on the left that of
   Wittgenstein, the guard, with Napoleon, passed over. Victor,
   after having killed or wounded 10,000 of Wittgenstein's
   Russians, passed over during the night. When, in the morning,
   the rear-guard began to cross the bridges, a crowd of
   fugitives rushed upon them. They were soon filled with a
   confused mass of cavalry, infantry, caissons, and fugitives.
   The Russians came up and poured a shower of shells upon the
   helpless crowd. This frightful scene has ever since been
   famous as the passage of the Beresina. The governor of Minsk
   had 24,000 dead bodies picked up and burned. Napoleon
   conducted the retreat towards Wilna, where the French had
   large magazines. At Smorgoni he left the army, to repair in
   all haste to Paris, in order to prevent the disastrous effects
   of the last events, and to form another army. The army which
   he had left struggled on under Murat. The cold grew still more
   intense, and 20,000 men perished in three days. Ney held the
   enemy a long time in check with desperate valor; be was the
   last to recross the Niemen (December 20). There the retreat
   ended, and with it this fatal campaign. Beyond that river the
   French left 300,000 soldiers, either dead or in captivity."

"Thousands of horses soon lay groaning on the route, with great pieces of flesh cut off their necks and most fleshy parts by the passing soldiery for food; whilst thousands of naked wretches were wandering like spectres, who seemed to have no sight or sense, and who only kept reeling on till frost, famine, or the Cossack lance put an end to their power of motion. In that wretched state no nourishment could have saved them. There were continual instances, even amongst the Russians, of their lying down, dozing, and dying within a quarter of an hour after a little bread had been supplied. All prisoners, however, were immediately and invariably stripped stark naked and marched in columns in that state, or turned adrift to be the sport and the victims of the peasantry, who would not always let them, as they sought to do, point and hold the muzzles of the guns against their own heads or hearts to terminate their suffering in the most certain and expeditious manner; for the peasantry thought that this mitigation of torture 'would be an offence against the avenging God of Russia, and deprive them of his further protection.' A remarkable instance of this cruel spirit of retaliation was exhibited on the pursuit to Wiazma. Milaradowitch, Beningsen, Korf, and the English General, with various others, were proceeding on the high-road, about a mile from the town, where they found a crowd of peasant-women, with sticks in their hands, hopping round a felled pine-tree, on each side of which lay about sixty naked prisoners, prostrate, but with their heads on the tree, which those furies were striking in accompaniment to a national air or song which they were yelling in concert; while several hundred armed peasants were quietly looking on as guardians of the direful orgies. When the cavalcade approached, the sufferers uttered piercing shrieks, and kept incessantly crying 'La mort, la mort, la mort!' Near Dorogobouche a young and handsome Frenchwoman lay naked, writhing in the snow, which was ensanguined all around her. On hearing the sound of voices she raised her head, from which extremely long black, shining hair flowed over the whole person. Tossing her arms about with wildest expression of agony, she kept frantically crying, 'Rendez moi mon enfant'—Restore me my babe. When soothed sufficiently to explain her story, she related, 'That on sinking from weakness, a child newly born had been snatched away from her; that she had been stripped by her associates, and then stabbed to prevent her falling alive into the hands of their pursuers.' … The slaughter of the prisoners with every imaginable previous mode of torture by the peasantry still continuing, the English General sent off a despatch to the Emperor Alexander' to represent the horrors of these outrages and propose a check.' The Emperor by an express courier instantly transmitted an order 'to prohibit the parties under the severest menaces of his displeasure and punishment;' at the same time he directed 'a ducat in gold to be paid for any prisoner delivered up by peasant or soldier to any civil authority for safe custody.' The order was beneficial as well as creditable, but still the conductors were offered a higher price for their charge, and frequently were prevailed on to surrender their trust, for they doubted the justifiable validity of the order. {2773} Famine also ruthlessly decimated the enemy's ranks. Groups were frequently overtaken, gathered round the burning or burnt embers of buildings which had afforded cover for some wounded or frozen; many in these groups were employed in peeling off with their fingers and making a repast of the charred flesh of their comrades' remains. The English General having asked a grenadier of most martial expression, so occupied, 'if this food was not loathsome to him?' 'Yes,' he said, 'it was; but he did not eat it to preserve life—that he had sought in vain to lose—only to lull gnawing agonies.' On giving the grenadier a piece of food, which happened to be at command, he seized it with voracity, as if he would devour it whole; but suddenly checking himself, he appeared suffocating with emotion: looking at the bread, then at the donor, tears rolled down his cheeks; endeavouring to rise, and making an effort as if he would catch at the hand which administered to his want, he fell back and had expired before he could be reached. Innumerable dogs crouched on the bodies of their former masters, looking in their faces, and howling their hunger and their loss; whilst others were tearing the still living flesh from the feet, hands, and limbs of moaning wretches who could not defend themselves, and whose torment was still greater, as in many cases their consciousness and senses remained unimpaired. The clinging of the dogs to their masters' corpses was most remarkable and interesting. At the commencement of the retreat, at a village near Selino, a detachment of fifty of the enemy had been surprised. The peasants resolved to bury them alive in a pit: a drummer boy bravely led the devoted party and sprang into the grave. A dog belonging to one of the victims could not be secured; every day, however, the dog went to the neighbouring camp, and came back with a bit of food in his mouth to sit and moan over the newly-turned earth. It was a fortnight before he could be killed by the peasants, afraid of discovery. The peasants showed the English General the spot and related the occurrence with exultation, as if they had performed a meritorious deed. The shots of the peasantry at stragglers or prisoners rang continuously through the woods; and altogether it was a complication of misery, of cruelty, of desolation, and of disorder, that can never have been exceeded in the history of mankind. Many incidents and crimes are indeed too horrible or disgusting for relation."

General Sir R. Wilson, Narrative of Events during the Invasion of Russia, pages 255-261.

When Napoleon abandoned the army, at Smorghoni, on the 6th of December, the King of Naples was left in command. "They marched with so much disorder and precipitation that it was only when they arrived at Wilna that the soldiers were informed of a departure as discouraging as it was unexpected. 'What!' said they among themselves, 'is it thus that he abandons those of whom he calls himself the father? Where then is that genius, who, in the height of prosperity, exhorted us to bear our sufferings patiently? He who lavished our blood, is he afraid to die with us? Will he treat us like the army of Egypt, to whom, after having served him faithfully, he became indifferent, when, by a shameful flight, he found himself free from danger?' Such was the conversation of the soldiers, which they accompanied by the most violent execrations. Never was indignation more just, for never were a class of men so worthy of pity. The presence of the emperor had kept the chiefs to their duty, but when they heard of his departure, the greater part of them followed his example, and shamefully abandoned the remains of the regiments with which they had been intrusted. … The road which we followed presented, at every step, brave officers, covered with rags, supported by branches of pine, their hair and beards stiffened by the ice. These warriors, who, a short time before, were the terror of our enemies, and the conquerors of Europe, having now lost their fine appearance, crawled slowly along, and could scarcely obtain a look of pity from the soldiers whom they had formerly commanded. Their situation became still more dreadful, because all who had not strength to march were abandoned, and every one who was abandoned by his comrades, in an hour afterwards inevitably perished. The next day every bivouac presented the image of a field of battle. … The soldiers burnt whole houses to avoid being frozen. We saw round the fires the half-consumed bodies of many unfortunate men, who, having advanced too near, in order to warm themselves, and being too weak to recede, had become a prey to the flames. Some miserable beings, blackened with smoke, and besmeared with the blood of the horses which they had devoured, wandered like ghosts round the burning houses. They gazed on the dead bodies of their companions, and, too feeble to support themselves, fell down, and died like them. … The route was covered with soldiers who no longer retained the human form, and whom the enemy disdained to make prisoners. Every day these miserable men made us witnesses of scenes too dreadful to relate. Some had lost their hearing, others their speech, and many, by excessive cold and hunger, were reduced to a state of frantic stupidity, in which they roasted the dead bodies of their comrades for food, or even gnawed their own hands and arms. Some were so weak that, unable to lift a piece of wood, or roll a stone towards the fires which they had kindled, they sat upon the dead bodies of their comrades, and, with a haggard countenance, steadfastly gazed upon the burning coals. No sooner was the fire extinguished, than these living spectres, unable to rise, fell by the side of those on whom they had sat. We saw many who were absolutely insane. To warm their frozen feet, they plunged them naked into the middle of the fire. Some, with a convulsive laugh, threw themselves into the flames, and perished in the most horrid convulsions, and uttering the most piercing cries; while others, equally insane, immediately followed them, and experienced the same fate."

      E. Labaume,
      Circumstantial Narrative of the Campaign in Russia,
      part 2, book 5.

ALSO IN: Count P. de Segur, History of the Expedition to Russia, books 9-12 (volume 2).

Earl Stanhope, The French Retreat from Moscow (Historical Essays; and, also, Quarterly Review., October 1867, volume 123).

RUSSIA: A. D. 1812-1813.
   Treaty of Kalisch with Prussia.
   The War of Liberation in Germany.
   Alliance of Austria.
   The driving of the French beyond the Rhine.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1814 (January-April).
The Allies in France and in possession of Paris.
Fall of Napoleon.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1814-1815.
   The Congress of Vienna.
   Acquisitions in Poland.
   Surrender of Eastern Galicia.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1815.
   Napoleon's return from Elba.
   The Quadruple Alliance.
   The Waterloo campaign and its results.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1830-1832.
Polish revolt and its suppression.
Barbarous treatment of the insurgents.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1831-1846.
   Joint occupation of Cracow.
   Extinction of the republic.
   Its annexation to Austria.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1853-1854.
Causes of the Crimean War with Turkey, England and France.

"The immediate cause of the war which broke out in 1853 was a dispute which had arisen between France and Russia upon the custody of the Holy Places in Jerusalem. The real cause was the intention of Russia to hasten the dismemberment of the Turkish Empire. Nicholas, in a memorable conversation, actually suggested to the British ambassador at St. Petersburg that England should receive Egypt and Crete as her own portion of the spoil. This conversation, which took place in January 1853, was at once reported to the British Government. It undoubtedly prepared the way for future trouble. … It had the effect of rendering the British Ministry suspicious of his intentions, at a moment when a good understanding with this country was of the first importance to the Czar of Russia. There can, then, be very little doubt that Nicholas committed a grave error in suggesting a partition, which may have seemed reasonable enough to Continental statesmen, but which was regarded with horror by England. Almost at the same moment he affronted France by declining to call Napoleon 'Monsieur mon frère.' … Nicholas had the singular indiscretion to render a British ministry suspicious of him, and a French emperor angry with him, in the same month. Napoleon could easily avenge the affront. … The Greek and Latin Churches both claimed the right of protecting the Holy Places of Palestine. Both appealed to a Mahometan arrangement in support of their claim: each declined to admit the pretensions of the other. The Latin Church in Palestine was under the protection of France; the Greek Church was under the protection of Russia; and France and Russia had constantly supported, one against the other, these rival claims. In the beginning of 1853 France renewed the controversy. She even threatened to settle the question by force. The man whom Nicholas would not call 'mon frère' was stirring a controversy thick with trouble for the Czar of Russia. It happened, moreover, that the controversy was one which, from its very nature, was certain to spread. Nearly eighty years before, by the Treaty of Kainardji, the Porte had undertaken to afford a constant protection to its Christian subjects, and to place a new Greek Church at Constantinople, which it undertook to erect, 'and the ministers who officiated at it under the specific protection of the Russian Empire.' The exact meaning of this famous article had always been disputed. In Western Europe it had been usually held that it applied only to the new Greek Church at Constantinople, and the ministers who officiated at it. But Russian statesmen had always contended that its meaning was much wider; and British statesmen of repute had supported the contention. The general undertaking which the Porte had given to Russia to afford a constant protection to its Christian subjects gave Russia —so they argued—the right to interfere when such protection was not afforded. In such a country as Turkey, where chronic misgovernment prevailed, opportunity was never wanting for complaining that the Christians were inadequately protected. The dispute about the Holy Places was soon superseded by a general demand of Russia for the adequate protection of the Christian subjects of the Porte; In the summer of 1853 the demand took the shape of an ultimatum; and, when the Turkish ministers declined to comply with the Russian demand, a Russian army crossed the Pruth and occupied the Principalities. In six months a miserable quarrel about the custody of the Holy Places had assumed dimensions which were clearly threatening war. At the advice of England the Porte abstained from treating the occupation of the Principalities as an act of war; and diplomacy consequently secured an interval for arranging peace. The Austrian Government framed a note, which is known as the Vienna Note, as a basis of a settlement. England and the neutral powers assented to the note; Russia accepted it; and it was then presented to the Porte. But Turkey, with the obstinacy which has always characterised its statesmen, declined to accept it. War might even then have been prevented if the British Government had boldly insisted on its acceptance, and had told Turkey that if she modified the conditions she need not count on England's assistance. One of the leading members of Lord Aberdeen's Ministry wished to do this, and declared to the last hour of his life that this course should have been taken. {2775} But the course was not taken. Turkey was permitted, or, according to Baron Stockmar, encouraged to modify the Vienna Note; the modifications were rejected by Russia; and the Porte, on the 26th of September, delivered an ultimatum, and on the 4th of October 1853 declared war. These events excited a very widespread indignation in this country. The people, indeed, were only imperfectly acquainted with the causes which had produced the quarrel; many of them were unaware that the complication had been originally introduced by the act of France; others of them failed to reflect that the refusal of the Porte to accept a note which the four Great Powers—of which England was one—had agreed upon was the immediate cause of hostilities. Those who were better informed thought that the note was a mistake, and that the Turk had exercised a wise discretion in rejecting it; while the whole nation instinctively felt that Russia, throughout the negotiations, had acted with unnecessary harshness. In October 1853, therefore, the country was almost unanimously in favour of supporting the Turk. The events of the next few weeks turned this feeling into enthusiasm. The Turkish army, under Omar Pasha, proved its mettle by winning one or two victories over the Russian troops. The Turkish fleet at Sinope was suddenly attacked and destroyed. Its destruction was, undoubtedly, an act of war: it was distorted into an act of treachery; a rupture between England and Russia became thenceforward inevitable; and in March 1854 England and France declared war."

RUSSIA: A. D. 1854 (September).
   The Crimean War: Landing of the Allies.
   Battle of the Alma.
   Sufferings of the invading army.

"England, then, and France entered the war as allies. Lord Raglan, formerly Lord Fitzroy Somerset, an old pupil of the Great Duke in the Peninsular War, and who had lost his right arm serving under Wellington at Waterloo, was appointed to command the English forces. Marshal St. Arnaud, a bold, brilliant soldier of fortune, was intrusted by the Emperor of the French with the leadership of the soldiers of France. The allied forces went out to the East and assembled at Varna, on the Black Sea shore, from which they were to make their descent on the Crimea. The war, meantime, had gone badly for the Emperor of Russia in his attempt to crush the Turks. The Turks had found in Omar Pasha a commander of remarkable ability and energy; and they had in one or two instances received the unexpected aid and counsel of clever and successful Englishmen. … The invasion of the Danubian provinces was already, to all intents, a failure. Mr. Kinglake and other writers have argued that but for the ambition of the Emperor of the French and the excited temper of the English people the war might well have ended then and there. The Emperor of Russia had found, it is contended, that he could not maintain an invasion of European Turkey; his fleet was confined to its ports in the Black Sea, and there was nothing for him but to make peace. But we confess we do not see with what propriety or wisdom the allies, having entered on the enterprise at all, could have abandoned it at such a moment, and allowed the Czar to escape thus merely scotched. … The allies went on. They sailed from Varna for the Crimea. … There is much discussion as to the original author of the project for the invasion of the Crimea. The Emperor Napoleon has had it ascribed to him; so has Lord Palmerston; so has the Duke of Newcastle; so, according to Mr. Kinglake, has the 'Times' newspaper. It does not much concern us to know in whom the idea originated, but it is of some importance to know that it was essentially a civilian's and not a soldier's idea. It took possession almost simultaneously, as far as we can observe, of the minds of several statesmen, and it had a sudden fascination for the public. The Emperor Nicholas had raised and sheltered his Black Sea fleet at Sebastopol. That fleet had sallied forth from Sebastopol to commit what was called the massacre of Sinope. Sebastopol was the great arsenal of Russia. It was the point from which Turkey was threatened; from which, it was universally believed, the embodied ambition of Russia was one day to make its most formidable effort of aggression. Within the fence of its vast sea-forts the fleet of the Black Sea lay screened. From the moment when the vessels of England and France entered the Euxine the Russian fleet had withdrawn behind the curtain of these defences, and was seen upon the open waves no more. If, therefore, Sebastopol could be taken or destroyed, it would seem as if the whole material fabric, put together at such cost and labor for the execution of the schemes of Russia, would be shattered at a blow. … The invasion of the Crimea, however, was not a soldier's project. It was not welcomed by the English or the French commander. It was undertaken by Lord Raglan out of deference to the recommendations of the Government; and by Marshal St. Arnaud out of deference to the Emperor of the French, and because Lord Raglan, too, did not see his way to decline the responsibility of it. The allied forces were, therefore, conveyed to the south-western shore of the Crimea, and effected a landing in Kalamita Bay, a short distance north of the point at which the river Alma runs into the sea. Sebastopol itself lies about 30 miles to the south; and then, more southward still, divided by the bulk of a jutting promontory from Sebastopol, is the harbor of Balaklava. The disembarkation began on the morning of September 14th, 1854. It was completed on the fifth day; and there were then some 27,000 English, 30,000 French, and 7,000 Turks landed on the shores of Catherine the Great's Crimea. The landing was effected without any opposition from the Russians. On September 19th, the allies marched out of their encampments and moved southward in the direction of Sebastopol. They had a skirmish or two with a reconnoitring force of Russian cavalry and Cossacks; but they had no business of genuine war until they reached the nearer bank of the Alma. The Russians, in great strength, had taken up a splendid position on the heights that fringed the other side of the river. The allied forces reached the Alma about noon on September 20th. They found that they had to cross the river in the face of the Russian batteries armed with heavy guns on the highest point of the hills or bluffs, of scattered artillery, and of dense masses of infantry which covered the hills. The Russians were under the command of Prince Mentschikoff. {2776} It is certain that Prince Mentschikoff believed his position unassailable, and was convinced that his enemies were delivered into his hands when he saw the allies approach and attempt to effect the crossing of the river. … The attack was made with desperate courage on the part of the allies, but without any great skill of leadership or tenacity of discipline. It was rather a pell-mell sort of fight, in which the headlong courage and the indomitable obstinacy of the English and French troops carried all before them at last. A study of the battle is of little profit to the ordinary reader. It was an heroic scramble. There was little coherence of action between the allied forces. But there was happily an almost total absence of generalship on the part of the Russians. The soldiers of the Czar fought stoutly and stubbornly, as they have always done; but they could not stand up against the blended vehemence and obstinacy of the English and French. The river was crossed, the opposite heights were mounted, Prince Mentschikoff's great redoubt was carried, the Russians were driven from the field, the allies occupied their ground; the victory was to the Western Powers. … The Russians ought to have been pursued. They themselves fully expected a pursuit. They retreated in something like utter confusion. … But there was no pursuit. Lord Raglan was eager to follow up the victory; but the French had as yet hardly any cavalry, and Marshal St. Arnaud would not agree to any further enterprise that day. Lord Raglan believed that he ought not to persist; and nothing was done. … Except for the bravery of those who fought, the battle was not much to boast of. … At this distance of time it is almost touching to read some of the heroic contemporaneous descriptions of the great scramble of the Alma. … Very soon, however, a different note came to be sounded. The campaign had been opened under conditions differing from those of most campaigns that went before it. Science had added many new discoveries to the art of war. Literature had added one remarkable contribution of her own to the conditions amidst which campaigns were to be carried on. She had added the 'special correspondent.' … When the expedition was leaving England it was accompanied by a special correspondent from each of the great daily papers of London. The 'Times' sent out a representative whose name almost immediately became celebrated—Mr. William Howard Russell, the 'preux chevalier' of war correspondents in that day, as Mr. Archibald Forbes of the 'Daily News' is in this. … Mr. Russell soon saw that there was confusion; and he had the soundness of judgment to know that the confusion was that of a breaking-down system. Therefore, while the fervor of delight in the courage and success of our army was still fresh in the minds of the public at home, while every music-hall was ringing with the cheap rewards of valor, in the shape of popular glorifications of our commanders and our soldiers, the readers of the 'Times' began to learn that things were faring badly indeed with the conquering army of the Alma. The ranks were thinned by the ravages of cholera. The men were pursued by cholera to the very battle-field, Lord Raglan himself said. … The hospitals were in a wretchedly disorganized condition. Stores of medicines and strengthening food were decaying in places where no one wanted them or could well get at them, while men were dying in hundreds among our tents in the Crimea for lack of them. The system of clothing, of transport, of feeding, of nursing—everything had broken down. Ample provisions had been got together and paid for; and when they came to be needed no one knew where to get at them. The special correspondent of the 'Times' and other correspondents continued to din these things into the ears of the public at home. Exultation began to give way to a feeling of dismay. The patriotic anger against the Russians was changed for a mood of deep indignation against our own authorities and our own war administration. It soon became apparent to everyone that the whole campaign had been planned on the assumption that it was to be like the career of the hero whom Byron laments, 'brief, brave, and glorious.' Our military authorities here at home—we do not speak of the commanders in the field—had made up their minds that Sebastopol was to fall, like another Jericho, at the sound of the war-trumpets' blast. Our commanders in the field were, on the contrary, rather disposed to overrate than to underrate the strength of the Russians. … It is very likely that if a sudden dash had been made at Sebastopol by land and sea, it might have been taken almost at the very opening of the war. But the delay gave the Russians full warning, and they did not neglect it. On the third day after the battle of the Alma the Russians sank seven vessels of their Black Sea fleet at the entrance of the harbor of Sebastopol. This was done full in the sight of the allied fleets, who at first, misunderstanding the movements going on among the enemy, thought the Russian squadron were about to come out from their shelter and try conclusions with the Western ships. But the real purpose of the Russians became soon apparent. Under the eyes of the allies the seven vessels slowly settled down and sank in the water, until at last only the tops of their masts were to be seen; and the entrance of the harbor was barred as by sunken rocks against any approach of an enemy's ship. There was an end to every dream of a sudden capture of Sebastopol."

Four days after the battle of the Alma the allies reached the Belbek, so close to Sebastopol that "it became a matter of necessity to decide upon their next step. It appears to have been the wish of the English at once to take advantage of their victory and assault the north side. It is now known that such a step would almost certainly have been successful. … But again St. Arnaud offered objections." It was then determined "to undertake a flank march round the head of the harbour, and to take possession of the heights on the south. It was a difficult operation, for the country was unknown and rough, and while in the act of marching the armies were open to any assault upon their left flank. It was however carried out unmolested. … On the 26th the English arrived at the little landlocked harbour of Balaclava, at the foot of the steep hills forming the eastern edge of the plateau. The fleet, duly warned of the operation, had already arrived. … {2777} Canrobert … had now succeeded the dying St. Arnaud. … A similar question to that which had arisen on the 24th now again rose. Should Sebastopol be attacked at once or not? Again it would appear that Lord Raglan, Sir Edmund Lyons, and others, were desirous of immediate assault. Again the French, more instructed in the technical rules of war, and supported by the opinion of Sir John Burgoyne, who commanded the English Engineers, declined the more vigorous suggestion, and it was determined at least to wait till the siege guns from the fleet were landed, and the artillery fire of the enemy weakened, in preparation for the assault. In the light of subsequent knowledge, and perhaps even with the knowledge then obtainable if rightly used, it appears that in all the three instances mentioned the bolder less regular course would have been the true wisdom. For Menschikoff had adopted a somewhat strange measure of defence. He had given up all hopes of using his fleet to advantage. He had caused some of his vessels to be sunk at the entrance of the harbour, which was thus closed; and having drawn the crews, some 18,000 in number, from the ships, he had intrusted to them the defence of the town, and had marched away with his whole army. The garrison did not now number more than 25,000, and they were quite unfit—being sailors—for operations in the field. The defences were not those of a regular fortress, but rather of an entrenched position. … There were in Sebastopol two men who, working together, made an extraordinary use of their opportunities. Korniloff, the Admiral, forcing himself to the front by sheer nobleness of character and enthusiasm, found in Colonel von Todleben, at that time on a voluntary mission in the town, an assistant of more than common genius. … The decision of the allies to await the landing of their siege train was more far-reaching than the generals at the time conceived, although some few men appear to have understood its necessary result. It in fact changed what was intended to be a rapid coup de main into a regular siege—and a regular siege of an imperfect and inefficient character, because the allied forces were not strong enough to invest the town. … Preparation had not been made to meet the change of circumstances. The work thrown upon the administration was beyond its powers; the terrible suffering of the army during the ensuing winter was the inevitable result. … The bombardment of the suburb, including the Malakoff and the Redan, fell to the English; the French undertook to carry it out against the city itself, directing their fire principally against the Flagstaff battery. … Slowly the siege trains were landed and brought into position in the batteries marked out by the engineers. … It was not till the 16th of October that these preparations were completed. … The energy of Korniloff and the skill of Todleben had by this time roused the temper of the garrison, and had rendered the defences far more formidable; and in the beginning of October means had been taken to persuade Menschikoff to allow considerable bodies of troops to return to the town. … On the 17th the great bombardment began. The English batteries gained the mastery over those opposed to them, but the efforts of the French, much reduced by the fire of the besieged, were brought to a speedy conclusion by a great explosion within their lines. Canrobert sent word to Lord Raglan that he should be unable to resume the fire for two days. The attack by the fleet had been to little purpose. … Every day till the 25th of October the fire of the allies was continued. But under cover of this fire (always encountered by the ceaseless energy of Todleben) the change had begun, and the French were attacking the Flagstaff bastion by means of regular approaches. On that day the siege was somewhat rudely interrupted. The presence of the Russian army outside the walls and the defect in the position of the allies became evident."

RUSSIA: A. D. 1854 (October-November).
The Crimean War: Balaclava and Inkermann.

"The Russian general soon showed that he was determined not to allow the allies to carry on their operations against the town undisturbed. Large parties of Russian soldiers had for some time been reconnoitring in the direction of Balaclava, showing that an attack in that quarter was meditated. At length, on the 25th of October, an army of 30,000 Russians advanced against the English position, hoping to get possession of the harbours and to cut the allies off from their supplies, or at any rate to destroy the stores which had already been landed. The part of the works on which the Russian troops first came was occupied by redoubts, defended by a body of Turkish recruits, recently arrived from Tunis, who, after offering a very feeble resistance, fled in confusion. But when the Russians, flushed with this first success, attempted to pursue the advantage they had gained, they soon encountered a very different foe in the Highlanders, commanded by Sir Colin Campbell, who bore the brunt of the Russian attack with great firmness. The British cavalry particularly distinguished themselves in this action, routing a far superior force of Russian cavalry. It was in the course of this engagement that the unfortunate blunder occurred, in consequence of which 607 men [the 'Light Brigade' immortalized by Tennyson] galloped forth against an army, and only 198 came back, the rest having been killed, wounded, or made prisoners. A long, unsatisfactory controversy was carried on some time after, having for its object to decide who was to blame for throwing away, in this foolish manner, the lives of so many gallant men. It seems that the orders were not very clearly expressed, and that the general—Lord Lucan—by whom they were received, misapprehended them more completely than a man in his position ought to have done. In the end, the Russians were forced to retire, without having effected their object: but as they retained some portion of the ground that had been occupied by the allies at the commencement of the battle, they too claimed the victory, and Te-Deums were sung all over Russia in honour of this fragmentary success. However, the Russian commander did not abandon the hope of being able to obtain possession of Balaclava. On the very day following the affair which has just been related, the Russians within the town made a sortie with a force of about 6,000 men: but near the village of Inkermann they encountered so strong a resistance from a far inferior force, that they were obliged to retreat. {2778} The Russian army at Balaclava had been prepared to coöperate with them; but the promptitude and vigour with which the allies repelled the sortie prevented the Russians from entrenching themselves at Inkermann, and thus frustrated the plan of a combined attack on the allied position which had probably been formed. The village of Inkermann, which was the scene of this skirmish, shortly after witnessed a more deadly and decisive contest. It was on the morning of Sunday, November 5th, that the approach of the Russian army was heard, while it was still concealed from view by the mists which overhung the British position. That army had been greatly increased by the arrival of large reinforcements, and every effort had been made to exalt the courage of the soldiers: they had been stimulated by religious services and exhortations, as well as by an abundant supply of ardent spirits; and they came on in the full confidence that they would be able to sweep the comparatively small British force from the position it occupied. That position was the centre of a grand attack made by the whole Russian army. The obscurity prevented the generals of the allies from discovering what was going on, or from clearly discerning, among a series of attacks on different parts of their position, which were real, and which were mere feints. There was a good deal of confusion in both armies; but the obscurity, on the whole, favoured the Russians, who had received their instructions before they set out, and were moving together in large masses. It was, in fact, a battle fought pell-mell, man against man, and regiment against regiment, with very little guidance or direction from the commanding officers, and consequently one in which the superior skill of the British gave them little advantage. The principal point of attack throughout was the plateau of Inkermann, occupied by the Guards and a few British regiments, who maintained a long and unequal struggle against the main body of the Russian army. It was, in fact, a hand-to-hand contest between superior civilization on the one hand, and superior numbers on the other, in which it is probable that the small British force would have been eventually swept off the field. Bosquet, the ablest of the French generals, with a soldier's instinct at once divined, amid all the obscurity, turmoil, and confusion, that the British position was the real point of attack; and therefore, leaving a portion of his force to defend his own position, he marched off to Inkermann, and never halted till his troops charged the Russians with such fury that they drove them down the hill, and decided the fate of the battle in favour of the allies. … Meanwhile Mr. Sidney Herbert, the minister at war, had succeeded in inducing Miss Florence Nightingale, well known in London for her skilful and self-denying benevolence, to go out and take charge of the military hospitals in which the wounded soldiers were received. Everything connected with the hospitals there was in a state of the most chaotic confusion. The medical and other stores which had been sent out were rotting in the holds of vessels, or in places where they were not wanted. Provisions had been despatched in abundance, and yet nothing could be found to support men who were simply dying from exhaustion. The system of check and counter-check, which had been devised to prevent waste and extravagance in the time of peace, proved to be the very cause of the most prodigious waste, extravagance, and inefficiency in the great war in which England was now embarked. The sort of dictatorial authority which had been conferred on Miss Nightingale, supported by her own admirable organising and administrative ability, enabled her to substitute order for confusion, and procure for the multitudes of wounded men who came under her care the comforts as well as the medical attendance they needed. She arrived at Scutari with her nurses on the very day of the battle of Inkermann. Winter was setting-in in the Crimea with unusual rigour and severity."

      ALSO IN:
      E. H. Nolan,
      Illustrated History of the War against Russia,
      chapters 40-48 (volume 1).

"Everywhere unsuccessful in Europe, the Russians were more fortunate in Asia. Towards the close of 1854, the Turkish army at Kars was in a wretched and demoralised condition. Its unsatisfactory state, and the reverses it had experienced, resulting, it was well known, from the misconduct of the Turkish officials, induced the British government to appoint Colonel Williams as a commissioner to examine into the causes of previous failures, and endeavour to prevent a repetition of them. … Colonel Williams, attended only by major Teesdale and Dr. Sandwith, arrived at Kars at the latter end of September, 1854, where he was received with the honour due to his position. Kars, in past times considered the key of Asia Minor, is 'a true Asiatic town in all its picturesque squalor,' and has a fortress partly in ruins, but once considered most formidable. On inspecting the Turkish army there, Colonel Williams found the men in rags; their pay fifteen and even eighteen months in arrear; the horses half-starved; discipline so relaxed that it could be scarcely said to exist; and the officers addicted to the lowest vices and most disorderly habits. … Though treated with an unpardonable superciliousness and neglect by Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, the British ambassador at Constantinople, Colonel Williams succeeded in promoting a proper discipline, and in securing the men from being plundered by their officers. In the January of 1855, the Turkish government granted Colonel Williams the rank of terik, or general in the Ottoman army, together with the title of Williams Pasha. The inactivity of the Russian army at Gumri excited much surprise; but notwithstanding the condition of the Turks, they permitted spring to pass away, and summer to arrive, before active hostilities were resumed. … During this period, the Turks at Kars had been employed, under the direction of colonel Lake, in throwing up fortifications around the town, which gradually assumed the appearance of a formidably intrenched camp. Early in June the Russians left Gumri, and encamped within five leagues of Kars. They were estimated at 40,000 men; while the Turkish troops amounted to about 15,000 men, who had been familiarised with defeat, and scourged by fever and the scurvy. In addition to this, their provisions were insufficient to enable them to sustain a siege of any considerable duration, and their stock of ammunition was very low The Russians made a partial attack on the town on the 16th of June, but they met with a repulse. … The road to Erzeroum was in their possession, and the supplies intended for the Turks fell into their hands. {2779} In effect, they had blockaded Kars by drawing a cordon of troops around it. A period of dreary inaction followed this movement of the Russians, broken only by trivial skirmishes at the outposts. Want was already felt within the town, and the prospect of surrender or starvation was imminent. … Omar Pasha, and a large body of Turkish troops from the Crimea, had landed at Batoum, and it was expected that they would soon arrive to raise the siege of Kars. This circumstance, occurring shortly after the arrival of the news of the fall of Sebastopol, induced many of the officers of the besieged army to believe that the Russians were about to retire. This surmise was strengthened by the fact, that, for several days, large convoys of heavily laden waggons were observed leaving the Russian camp. General Williams, however, was not deceived by this artifice, and correctly regarded it as the prelude to an extensive attack upon Kars. An hour before dawn on the 29th of September, the tramp of troops and the rumble of artillery wheels was heard in the distance, and the Turkish garrison made hurried preparations to receive the foe. Soon the dim moonlight revealed a dark moving mass in the valley. It was an advancing column of the enemy, who had hoped to take the Turks by surprise. In this they were deceived; for no sooner were they within range, than a crushing shower of grape informed them that the Moslems were on the alert. The battle commenced almost immediately. The assailants rushed up the hill with a shout, and advanced in close column on the breastworks and redoubts. From these works a murderous fire of musketry and rifles was poured forth, aided by showers of grape from the great guns. This told with terrible effect upon the dense masses of the foe, who fell in heaps. … Riddled with shot, the Russians were completely broken, and sent headlong down the hill, leaving hundreds of dead behind them. … Had not the Turkish cavalry been destroyed by starvation—a circumstance which rendered pursuit impossible—the Russian army might have been almost annihilated. The Turks had obtained an unequivocal victory, after a battle of nearly seven hours' duration. Their loss did not exceed 463 killed, of whom 101 were townspeople, and 631 wounded. That of the Russians was enormous; 6,300 of them were left dead upon the field, and it is said that they carried 7,000 wounded off the ground. Though the Russians had suffered a severe reverse, they were not driven from the position they held prior to the battle … and were enabled to resume the blockade of the city with as much strictness as before. The sufferings of the unhappy garrison and inhabitants of Kars form one of the most terrible pictures incidental to this war. Cholera and famine raged within the town; and those who were enfeebled by the last frequently fell victims to the first. The hospitals were crowded with the sick and wounded, but the nourishment they required could not be obtained. The flesh of starved horses had become a luxury, and the rations of the soldiers consisted only of a small supply of coarse bread, and a kind of broth made merely of flour and water. … Children dropt and died in the streets; and every morning skeleton-like corpses were found in various parts of the camp. The soldiers deserted in large numbers, and discipline was almost at an end. … As all hope of relief from Selim Pasha or Omar Pasha had expired, general Williams resolved to put an end to these miseries by surrendering the town to the foe. … Articles of surrender were signed on the 25th of November. … The fall of Kars was a disgrace and a scandal to all who might have contributed to prevent it."

RUSSIA: A. D. 1854-1856.
   Unfruitful peace negotiations at Vienna.
   Renewed bombardment of Sebastopol.
   Battle of the Tchernaya.
   Repulse of the English from the Redan.
   Taking of the Malakhoff by the French.
   The congress at Paris.
   Peace.

In November, 1854, the Czar, Nicholas I., authorized Gortschakoff, his Minister at Vienna, to signify to the Western Powers his willingness to conclude peace on the basis of "the four points" which the latter had laid down in the previous spring. These "four points" were as follows:

"(1) The protectorate which Russia had hitherto exercised over the Principalities was to be replaced by a collective guarantee;

(2) the navigation of the mouths of the Danube was to be freed from all impediments;

(3) the treaty of 1841 was to be revised in the interests of
the European equilibrium; and

(4) Russia was to renounce all official protectorate over the
Sultan's subjects, of whatever religion they might be. …

The Czar's new move was not entirely successful. It did not prevent Austria from concluding a close arrangement with the Western Powers, and it induced her, in concert with France and England, to define more strictly the precise meaning attached to the four points. With some disappointment, Russia was doomed to find that every successive explanation of these points involved some fresh sacrifice on her own part. The freedom of the lower Danube, she was now told, could not be secured unless she surrendered the territory between that river and the Pruth which she had acquired at the treaty of Adrianople; the revision of the treaty of 1841, she was assured, must put an end to her preponderance in the Black Sea. These new exactions, however, did not deter the Czar from his desire to treat. By no other means was it possible to prevent Austria from taking part against him; and a conference, even if it ultimately proved abortive, would in the interim confine her to neutrality. Under these circumstances, Nicholas consented to negotiate. … The conference which it was decided to hold in December did not assemble till the following March. The negotiation which had been agreed to by Aberdeen, was carried out under Palmerston; and, with the double object of temporarily ridding himself of an inconvenient colleague, and of assuring the presence of a statesman of adequate rank at the conference, Palmerston entrusted its conduct to Russell. While Russell was on his way to Vienna, an event occurred of momentous importance. Sore troubled at the events of the war, alarmed at the growing strength of his enemies, the Emperor of Russia had neither heart nor strength to struggle against a slight illness. His sudden death [March 2, 1855] naturally made a profound impression on the mind of Europe. … {2780} Alexander, his successor, a monarch whose reign commenced with disaster and ended with outrage, at once announced his adherence to the policy of his father. His accession, therefore, did not interrupt the proceedings of the Conference; and, in the first instance, the diplomatists who assembled at Vienna succeeded in arriving at a welcome agreement. On the first two of the four points all the Powers admitted to the Conference were substantially in accord. On the third point no such agreement was possible. The Western Powers were determined that an effectual limitation should be placed on the naval strength of Russia in the Black Sea; and they defined this limit by a stipulation that she should not add to the six ships of war which they had ascertained she had still afloat. Russia, on the contrary, regarded any such condition as injurious to her dignity and her rights, and refused to assent to it. Russia, however, did not venture on absolutely rejecting the proposal of the allies. Instead of doing so, she offered either to consent to the opening of the Dardanelles and the Bosphorus to the ships of war of all nations, or to allow the Sultan a discretion in determining whether he would open them to the vessels either of the Western Powers or of Russia. The Western Powers, however, were firm in their determination to prevent the fleets of Russia from passing into the Mediterranean, and refused the alternative. With its rejection the Conference practically terminated. After its members separated, however, Buol, the Austrian Minister, endeavoured to evolve from the Russian offer a possible compromise. …The rejection of the Austrian alternative necessitated the continuance of the war. But the struggle was resumed under conditions very different from those on which it had previously been conducted. Austria, indeed, considered that the rejection of her proposal released her from the necessity of actively joining the Western Powers, and, instead of taking part in the war, reduced her armaments. But the Western Powers obtained other aid. The little State of Sardinia sent a contingent to the Crimea; later on in the year Sweden joined the alliance. Fresh contingents of troops rapidly augmented the strength of the French and English armies, and finer weather as well as better management banished disease from the camp. Under these circumstances the bombardment was renewed in April. In May a successful attack on Kertch and Yenikale, at the extreme east of the Crimea, proved the means of intercepting communication between Sebastopol and the Caucasian provinces, and of destroying vast stores intended for the sustenance of the garrison. In June the French, to whose command Pelissier, a Marshal of more robust fibre than Canrobert, had succeeded, made a successful attack on the Mamelon, while the English concurrently seized another vantage-ground. Men at home, cheered by the news of these successes, fancied that they were witnessing the beginning of the end. Yet the end was not to come immediately. A great assault, delivered on the 18th of June, by the French on the Malakhoff, by the English on the Redan, failed; and its failure, among other consequences, broke the heart· of the old soldier [Lord Raglan] who for nine months had commanded the English army. … His capacity as a general does not suffer from any comparison with that of his successor, General Simpson. That officer had been sent out to the Crimea in the preceding winter; he had served under Raglan as chief of the staff; and he was now selected for the command. He had, at least, the credit which attaches to any military man who holds a responsible post in the crisis of an operation. For the crisis of the campaign had now come. On both sides supreme efforts were made to terminate the struggle. On the 16th of August the Russian army in force crossed the Tchernaya, attacked the French lines, but experienced a sharp repulse. On the 8th of September the assault of June was repeated; and though the British were again driven back from the Redan, the French succeeded in carrying the Malakhoff. The Russians, recognising the significance of the defeat, set Sebastopol and their remaining ships on fire, and retreated to the northern bank of the harbour. After operations, which had lasted for nearly a year, the allies were masters of the south side of the city. It is, perhaps, unnecessary to prolong any further the narrative of operations which had little influence on history. The story of the defence of Kars and of the bombardment of Sweaborg have an interest of their own. But they had no effect on the events which followed or on the peace which ensued. Soon after, the Vienna Conference was dissolved, indeed, it became evident that the war was approaching its close. The cost and the sacrifices which it involved were making the French people weary of the struggle, and the accidental circumstances, which gave them in August and September the chief share in the glory, disposed them to make peace. The reasons which made the French, however, eager for peace, did not apply to the English. They, on the contrary, were mortified at their failures. Their expectations had been raised by the valour of their army at Alma, at Balaklava, and at Inkerman. But, since the day of Inkerman, their own share in the contest had added no new page of splendour to the English story. The English troops had taken no part in the battle of the Tchernaya; their assaulting columns had been driven back on the 18th of June; they had been repulsed in the final attack on the Redan; and the heroic conduct of their own countrymen at Kars had not prevented the fall of that fortress. Men at home, anxious to account for the failure of their expectations, were beginning to say that England is like the runner, never really ripe for the struggle till he has gained his second wind. They were reluctant that she should retire from the contest at the moment when, having repaired her defective administration and reinforced her shattered army, she was in a position to command a victory. Whatever wishes, however, individual Englishmen might entertain, responsible statesmen, as the autumn wore on, could not conceal from themselves the necessity of finding some honourable means for terminating the war. In October the British Cabinet learned with dismay that the French Emperor had decided on withdrawing 100,000 men from the Crimea. About the same time the members of the Government learned with equal alarm that, if war were to be continued at all, the French public were demanding that France should secure some advantage in Poland, in Italy, and on the left bank of the Rhine. In November the French ministry took a much more extreme course, and concerted with Austria terms of peace without the knowledge of England. … {2781} It was impossible any longer to depend on the co-operation of France, and … it was folly to continue the struggle without her assistance. The protocol which Austria had drawn up, and to which France had assented, was, with some modifications, adopted by Britain and presented, as an ultimatum, to Russia by Austria. In the middle of January, 1856, the ultimatum was accepted by Russia; a Congress at which Clarendon, as Foreign Minister, personally represented his country, was assembled at Paris. The plenipotentiaries, meeting on the 25th of February, at once agreed on a suspension of hostilities. Universally disposed towards peace, they found no difficulty in accommodating differences which had proved irreconcilable in the previous year, and on the 30th of March, 1856, peace was signed. The peace which was thus concluded admitted the right of the Porte to participate in the advantages of the public law of Europe; it pledged all the contracting parties, in the case of any fresh misunderstanding with the Turk, to resort to mediation before using force. It required the Sultan to issue and to communicate to the Powers a firman ameliorating the condition of his Christian subjects; it declared that the communication of the firman gave the Powers no right, either collectively or separately, to interfere between the Sultan and his subjects; it neutralised the Black Sea, opening its waters to the mercantile marine of every nation, but, with the exception of a few vessels of light draught necessary for the service of the coast, closing them to every vessel of war; it forbade the establishment or maintenance of arsenals on the shores of the Euxine; it established the free navigation of the Danube; it set back the frontier of Russia from the Danube; it guaranteed the privileges and immunities of the Principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia; it similarly guaranteed the privileges of Servia, though it gave the Sultan the right of garrison in that province; and it undertook that Russia and Turkey should restore the conquests which they had made in Asia [Kars, etc.] one from another during the war. Such were the terms on which the war was terminated. Before the plenipotentiaries separated they were invited by Walewski, the Foreign Minister and first representative of France, to discuss the condition of Greece, of the Roman States, and of the two Sicilies; to condemn the licence to which a free press was lending itself in Belgium; and to concert measures for the mitigation of some of the worst evils of maritime war."

ALSO IN: E. Hertslet, The Map of Europe by Treaty, volume 2, documents 263-272.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1859-1876.
Conquests in Central Asia.
Subjugation of Bokhara, Khiva and Khokand.

"The original cause of Russia's appearance in Central Asia or Turkestan may be considered either the turbulence of the Kirghiz tribes, or the ambitions and clearly defined policy of Peter the Great. … Although the Czarina Anne received in 1734 the formal surrender of all the Kirghiz hordes, it was not until the present century had far advanced that the Russian Government could so much as flatter itself that it had effectually coerced them. … When the Kirghiz were subjugated Russia found no difficulty in reaching the lower course of the Jaxartes, on which [in 1849] … she established her advanced post at Kazala, or Fort No. 1. With her ultimate task thus simplified, nothing but the Crimean War prevented Russia's immediate advance up the Jaxartes into Turkestan. … The conquest of the Khanate of Turkestan began with the siege and capture of the forts Chulak Kurgan and Yani Kurgan in 1859; its successful progress was shown by the fall of the fortified towns of Turkestan and Auliata in 1864; and it was brought to a conclusion with the storming of Tashkent in 1865. The conquest of this Khanate, which had been united early in the century with that of Khokand, was thus speedily achieved, and this rapid and remarkable triumph is identified with the name of General Tchernaieff."

   "Khudayar Khan, the ruler of Khokand, a noted coward even in
   Central Asia, had soon lost his spirits, and implored
   Muzaffar-ed-din-Khan for assistance. Bokhara, reputed at that
   time the very stronghold of moral and material strength in
   Central Asia, was soon at hand with an army outnumbering the
   Russian adventurers ten or fifteen times; an army in name
   only, but consisting chiefly of a rabble, ill-armed, and
   devoid of any military qualities. By dint of preponderating
   numbers, the Bokhariots succeeded so far as to inflict a loss
   upon the daring Russian general at Irdjar, who, constrained to
   retreat upon Tashkend, was at once deposed by his superiors in
   St. Petersburg, and, instead of praises being bestowed upon
   him for the capture of Tashkend, he had to feel the weight of
   Russian ingratitude. His successor, General Romanovsky, played
   the part of a consolidator and a preparer, and as soon as this
   duty was fulfilled he likewise was superseded by General
   Kauffmann, a German from the Baltic Russian provinces, uniting
   the qualities of his predecessors in one person, and doing
   accordingly the work entrusted to him with pluck and luck in a
   comparatively short time. In 1868 the Yaxartes valley,
   together with Samarkand, the former capital of Timur, fell
   into the hands of Russia, and General Kauffmann would have
   proceeded to Bokhara, and even farther, if
   Muzaffar-ed-din-Khan … had not voluntarily submitted and
   begged for peace. At the treaty of Serpul, the Emir was
   granted the free possession of the country which was left to
   him, beginning beyond Kermineh, as far as Tchardjui in the
   south. … Of course the Emir had to pledge himself to be a true
   and faithful ally of Russia. He had to pay the heavy war
   indemnity. … he had to place his sons under the tutorship of
   the Czar in order to be brought up at St. Petersburg. … and
   ultimately he had to cede three points on his southern
   frontier—namely, Djam, Kerki, and Tchardjui. … Scarcely five
   years had elapsed when Russia … cast her eyes beyond the Oxus
   upon the Khan of Khiva. … A plea for a 'casus belli' was soon
   unearthed. … The Russian preparations of war had been ready
   for a long time, provisions were previously secured on
   different points, and General Kauffmann, notoriously fond of
   theatrical pageantries, marched through the most perilous
   route across bottomless sands from the banks of the Yaxartes
   to the Oxus [1873]. …
{2782}
   Without fighting a single battle, the whole country on the
   Lower Oxus was conquered. Russia again showed herself
   magnanimous by replacing the young Khan upon the paternal
   throne, after having taken away from him the whole country on
   the right bank of the Oxus, and imposed upon his neck the
   burden of a war indemnity which will weigh him down as long as
   he lives, and cripple even his successors, if any such are to
   come after him. Three more years passed, when Russia … again
   began to extend the limits of her possessions in the Yaxartes
   Valley towards the East. In July, 1876, one of the famous
   Russian embassies of amity was casually (?) present at the
   Court of Khudayar Khan at Khokand, when suddenly a rebellion
   broke out, endangering not only the lives of the Russian
   embassy but also of the allied ruler. No wonder, therefore,
   that Russia had to take care of the friend in distress. An
   army was despatched to Khokand, the rebellion was quelled,
   and, as a natural consequence, the whole Khanate incorporated
   into the dominions of the Czar. The Khokandians, especially
   one portion of them called the Kiptchaks, did not surrender so
   easily as their brethren in Bokhara and Khiva. The struggle
   between the conquerer and the native people was a bloody and
   protracted one; and the butchery at Namangan, an engagement in
   which the afterwards famous General Skobeleff won his spurs,
   surpasses all the accounts hitherto given of Russian cruelty.
   Similar scenes occurred in Endidjan and other places, until
   the power of the Kiptchaks, noted for their bravery all over
   Central Asia, was broken, and 'peace,' a pendant to the famous
   tableau of Vereshtchagin, 'Peace at Shipka,' prevailed
   throughout the valleys of Ferghana, enabling the Russian eagle
   to spread his wings undisturbedly over the whole of Central
   Asia, beginning from the Caspian Sea in the west to the Issyk
   Kul in the east, and from Siberia to the Turkoman sands in the
   south."

RUSSIA: A. D. 1869·1881.
   Advance in Central Asia from the Caspian.
   Capture of Geok Tepe.
   Subjugation of the Turkomans.
   Occupation of Merv.

"Down to 1869 the Russian advance into Central Asia was conducted from Orenburg and the various military posts of Western Siberia. Year by year the frontier was pushed to the southward, and the map of the Asiatic possessions of Russia required frequent revision. The long chain of the Altai Mountains passed into the control of the Czar; the Aral Sea became a Russian lake; and vast territories with a sparse population were brought under Russian rule. … The Turcoman country extends westward as far as the Caspian Sea. To put a stop to the organized thieving of the Turcomans, and more especially to increase the extent of territory under their control, and open the land route to India, the Russians occupied the eastern shore of the Caspian in 1869. A military expedition was landed at Krasnovodsk, where it built a fort, and took permanent possession of the country in the name of the Czar. Points on the eastern coast of the Caspian had been occupied during the time of Peter the Great, and again during the reign of Nicholas I., but the occupation of the region was only temporary. The force which established itself at Krasnovodsk consisted of a few companies of infantry, two sotnias of Cossacks, and half a dozen pieces of artillery. Three men who afterwards obtained considerable prominence in the affairs of Central Asia, and one of whom gained a world-wide reputation as a soldier, were attached to this expedition. The last was Skobeleff, the hero of Plevna and the Russo-Turkish campaign of 1877-78. The others were Stolietoff' and Grodekoff. … The Yomut Turcomans in the Caspian region made no resistance; they are far less warlike than the Tekke Turcomans farther to the east, who afterwards became the defenders of Geok Tepe. … From 1869 to 1873 there were numerous skirmishes and reconnoitrings, during which the steppes were pretty well explored as far as Kizil-Arvat. General Stolietoff' was in command until 1872, when he was succeeded by Colonel Markusoff, who pushed his explorations to the wells of Igdy, then bending to the southwest, he passed Kizil·Arvat on his return to Krasnovodsk. There appeared to be no obstacle to a Russian advance into the heart of the country. But when General Lomakin was ordered there during the years between 1873 and 1879, he found that beyond Kizil-Arvat were the Tekke Turcomans, who seemed determined to make a decided opposition to the Muscovite designs. … He advanced with 4,000 men and reached Geok Tepe without resistance, but no sooner was he in front of it than the Turcomans fell upon him. He was severely defeated and made a hasty retreat to Krasnovodsk with the remnant of his army. General Tergukasoff was next appointed to the command, but when he saw the difficulties confronting him he resigned. He was succeeded by General Petrussovitch under the chief command of Skobeleff. Thus from Stolietoff to Skobeleff there were no fewer than seven generals who had tried to conquer the Tekke Turcomans. Skobeleff, seeing the vast difficulties of the situation, matured a skilful and scientific plan of operations, for which he obtained the imperial sanction. … Skobeleff's first work [1880] was to secure a safe transport, establish a regular line of steamers across the Caspian, to build suitable docks, secure 20,000 camels, and build a railway from Michaelovsk to Kizil-Arvat. Michaelovsk is a small bay near Krasnovodsk and better suited as a harbor than the latter place. Skobeleff's first reconnoitring convinced him that Geok Tepe could only be taken by a regular siege. … Geok Tepe, sometimes called Goek Tepe ('The Green Hills'), is situated on the Akhal oasis, in the Turcoman steppes, 387 versts (250 miles), east of the Caspian Sea. The chain of hills called the Kopet·Dag, lies south and southwest of Geok Tepe, and on the other side it touches the sandy desert of Kara Kum, with the hill of Geok on the east. The Turcomans, or rather the Tekke Turcomans, who held it are the most numerous of the nomad tribes in that region. {2783} They are reported to count about 100,000 kibitkas, or tents; reckoning 5 persons to a kibitka, this would give them a strength of half a million. Their great strength in numbers and their fighting abilities enabled them to choose their position and settle on the most fertile oases along the northern border of Persia for centuries. These oases have been renowned for their productiveness, and in consequence of the abundance of food, the Tekkes were a powerful race of men, and were feared throughout all that part of Asia. … The fortress of Geok Tepe at the time of the Russian advance consisted of walls of mud 12 or 15 feet high towards the north and west, and 6 or 8 feet thick. In front of these walls was a ditch, 6 feet deep, supplied by a running stream, and behind the walls was a raised platform for the defenders. The space between the first and second interior wall was from 50 to 60 feet wide, and occupied by the kibitkas of the Tekke Turcomans and their families. The second wall was exactly like the outer one." The Russian siege was opened at the beginning of the year 1881. "The first parallel, within 800 yards of the walls, was successfully cut by January 4th. From that date it was a regular siege, interrupted occasionally by sallies of the Tekkes within the fort or attacks by those outside. In one of these fights General Petrussovitch was killed. The besieging army was about 10,000 strong, while the besieged were from 30,000, to 40,000. … Throughout the siege the Turcomans made frequent sallies and there was almost continuous fighting. Sometimes the Turcomans drove the Russians from the outposts, and if they had been as well armed as their besiegers it is highly probable that Skobeleff would have fared no better than did Lomakin in his disastrous campaign. … The storming columns were ordered to be ready for work on January 24th. … At 7 o'clock in the morning of the 24th, Gaidaroff advanced to attack the first fortification on the south front, supported by 36 guns. The wall had already been half crumbled down by an explosion of powder and completely broken by the firing of a dynamite mine. At 11.20 the assault took place, and during the action the mine on the east front was exploded. It was laid with 125 cwt: of gunpowder, and in its explosion completely buried hundreds of Tekkes. … About 1.30 P. M. Gaidaroff carried the southwestern part of the walls, and a battle raged in the interior. Half an hour later the Russians were in possession of Denghil-Tepe, the hill redoubt commanding the fortress of Geok Tepe. The Tekkes then seemed to be panic-stricken, and took to flight leaving their families and all their goods behind. … The ditches to Geok Tepe were filled with corpses, and there were 4, 000 dead in the interior of the fortress. The loss of the enemy was enormous. In the pursuit the Russians are said to have cut down no less than 8,000 fugitives. The total loss of the Tekkes during the siege, capture, and pursuit was estimated at 40,000. … Skobeleff pushed on in pursuit as far as Askabad, the capital of the Akhal Tekkes, 27 miles east of Geok Tepe, and from Askabad he sent Kuropatkin with a reconnoitring column half-way across the desert to Merv. Skobeleff wanted to capture Merv; but … he did not feel strong enough to make the attempt. Kuropatkin was recalled to Askabad, which remained the frontier post of the Russians for several months, until circumstances favored the advance upon Sarakhs and the Tejend, and the subsequent swoop upon Merv, with its bloodless capture [February, 1884]. The siege and capture of Geok Tepe was the most important victory ever achieved by the Russians in Central Asia. It opened the way for the Russian advance to the frontier of India, and carried the boundaries of the empire southward to those of Persia. In the interest of humanity, it was of the greatest importance, as it broke up the system of man-stealing and its attendant cruelties, which the Turcomans had practised for centuries. The people of Northern Persia no longer live in constant terror of Turcoman raids; the slave markets of Central Asia are closed, and doubtless forever."

"There is a vast tract of country in Central Asia that offers great possibilities for settlement. Eastern Afghan, and Western Turkestan, with an area of 1,500,000 square miles, have a population which certainly does not exceed 15,000,000, or ten to the square mile. Were they peopled as the Baltic provinces of Russia are—no very extreme supposition—they would support 90,000,000. It is conceivable that something like this may be realized at no very distant date, when railroads are carried across China, and when water—the great want of Turkestan—is provided for by a system of canalisation and artesian wells. Meanwhile it is important to observe that whatever benefit is derived from an increase of population in these regions will mostly fall to China. That empire possesses the better two-thirds of Turkestan, and can pour in the surplus of a population of 400,000,000. Russia can only contribute the surplus of a population of about 100,000,000; and though the Russian is a fearless and good colonist, there are so many spaces in Russia in Europe to be filled up, so many growing towns that need workmen, so many counter-attractions in the gold bearing districts of Siberia, that the work of peopling the outlying dependencies of the empire is likely to be very gradual. Indeed it is reported that Russia is encouraging Chinese colonists to settle in the parts about Merv."

      ALSO IN:
      General Skobeleff,
      Siege and Assault of Denghil-Tépé
      (Geok-Tépé): Official Report.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1877-1878.
   Successful war with Turkey.
   Siege and reduction of Plevna.
   Threatening advance towards Constantinople.-
   Treaty of San Stefano.
   Congress and Treaty of Berlin.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1879-1881.
Nihilist attempts against the life of the Czar Alexander II.
His assassination.

In November, 1879, "the Czar paid his annual visit to the memorial church at Sevastopol, when a requiem was celebrated, and he left the Crimea on November 30. The following evening, as his train was entering Moscow, followed by another carrying his baggage, an explosion took place under the baggage train from a mine of dynamite below the rails, which destroyed one carriage, and threw seven more off the line: He was informed of the cause of the noise he had just heard, as he stepped on to the platform at Moscow, and it proved to be another Nihilist outrage [see NIHILISM], designed chiefly by an ex-Jew, who escaped to France, and by Sophia Perovsky, who was afterwards concerned in the Emperor's death. A similar mine, of which the wire was accidentally cut by a passing cart before the train arrived, had been laid further south at Alexandrovsk; and another nearer to Odessa was discovered in time by the officials, who reversed the usual position of the Imperial trains, thereby probably saving the Czar's life. He telegraphed the same night to the Empress at Cannes that he had arrived safely at Moscow, but did not mention his escape, which she learned from the newspapers, and from her attendants. In her weak, nervous state, it is not surprising that the effect was most injurious. … Another plot was discovered to blow up the landing stage at Odessa when the Emperor embarked for Yalta on his way from Warsaw in September; but the arrest of the conspirators frustrated a scheme by which hundreds as well as the sovereign might have perished. … The Revolutionary Committee put forth a circular acknowledging their part in the explosion, and calling on the people to aid them against the Czar. … A formal sentence of death was forwarded to him at Livadia by the Revolutionary Committee in the autumn of 1879; and December 1 was evidently selected for the Moscow attempt, being the anniversary of the death of Alexander I.; therefore a fatal day for monarchs in the eyes of the Nihilists. The Empress continued very ill, and her desire to return to Russia increased. At last it was decided to gratify her, as her case was pronounced hopeless. … The Emperor joined her in the train three stations before she arrived at St. Petersburg, and drove alone with her in the closed carriage, in which she was removed from the station to the Winter Palace. Only a fortnight later [February 17, 1880], a diabolical attempt was made to destroy the whole Imperial family. The hours when they assembled in the dining-room were well known. … The Empress was confined to her room, only kept alive by an artificial atmosphere being preserved in her apartment, which was next to the dining-room. Her only surviving brother, Prince Alexander of Hesse-Darmstadt, had arrived the same evening on a visit, and his letter to his wife on the occasion describes the result of the plot: … 'We were proceeding through a large corridor to His Majesty's rooms, when suddenly a fearful thundering was heard. The flooring was raised as if by an earthquake, the gas lamps were extinguished, and we were left in total darkness. At the same time a horrible dust and the smell of gunpowder or dynamite filled the corridor. Some one shouted to us that the chandelier had fallen down in the saloon where the table was laid for the dinner of the Imperial family. I hastened thither with the Czarovitz and the Grand-Duke Vladimir, while Count Adlerberg, in doubt as to what might happen next, held back the Emperor. We found all the windows broken, and the walls in ruins. A mine had exploded under the room. The dinner was delayed for half an hour by my arrival, and it was owing to this that the Imperial family had not yet assembled in the dining-hall.' One of the Princes remarked that it was a gas explosion; but the Emperor, who fully retained his composure, said, 'O no, I know what it is;' and it was subsequently stated that for several weeks past he had found a sealed black-bordered letter on his table every morning, always containing the same threat, that he should not survive the 2nd of March, the twenty-fifth anniversary of his accession. His first care was to see that his daughter was safe, and he then asked her to go to the Empress, and prevent her from being alarmed, while he personally inspected the scene of the catastrophe. General Todleben was of opinion that 144 lbs. of dynamite must have been used; and one of the cooks —a foreigner—and another official disappeared; but none of those concerned in the plot was arrested at that time. Subsequent information showed that the explosion was intended for the 2nd of March, but hastened on account of the arrest of some one acquainted with the plot. It was caused by machinery placed in the flue, and set for 6 P. M. It killed and wounded two servants and thirty-three brave soldiers of the Finnish Guard, who were assembled in the hall under the dining-room and above the flue where the dynamite was laid. … The Russian and foreign newspapers teemed with advice to the Emperor to grant a constitution, or abdicate in order to save his life; and it is reported that in a Council of his Ministers and relations he offered to hand over the sceptre at once to his eldest son, if they agreed that it would be best for their own safety, and for Russia; but that he was earnestly requested to continue in power. However this might be, he took an extraordinary and decisive step. He appointed an Armenian, General Melikof, a man of 56 years of age, distinguished in the war with Turkey, and subsequently as Governor of Charkof, to be the temporary dictator of the Empire, with almost absolute powers, and over the six Governors-General who in 1879 were established throughout Russia. The Commission was for six months. … The explosion in the Winter Palace caused the greatest panic in St. Petersburg, and people would no longer take tickets for the opera, till they ascertained that the Emperor was not likely to be there. … The sad condition of the Empress, who lingered, hardly conscious, between life and death, the incessant Nihilist circulars which day after day were found among his clothes, or on his writing table, with the real attempts made to poison him in letters and other ways, and of assassins to penetrate into the Palace under the guise of sweeps, petitioners, fire-lighters, and guards, the danger to which his nearest relations were exposed, and the precautions which he looked upon as a humiliation that were taken to ensure his safety, added to the cares of Empire, must have rendered his [the Emperor's] existence hardly tolerable. It is not surprising that at last he desired to be left to take his chance. … He was again seen driving in the streets in an open droschky, with only his coachman and one Cossack. … In May the Court usually repaired to Gateschina for the summer manœuvres of the troops. … The Empress, having somewhat rallied, desired to go as usual to Gateschina. … But early in the morning of June 3, she passed quietly away in her sleep. … {2785} It has been since ascertained that the Nihilists had planned to blow up the bridge over which the funeral procession must pass, so as to destroy all the mourners, including the foreign princes, the Imperial hearse, and the numerous guards and attendants; but a tremendous storm of rain and wind on the previous night and morning, which raised the Neva to a level with its banks, and threatened to postpone the ceremony, prevented the last measures being taken to secure the success of the plot. … On March 2, the Emperor, as usual, attended the Requiem Mass for his father, and the service to celebrate his own accession to the throne. During the last week of his life, he lived in comparative retirement, as it was Lent, and he was preparing for the Holy Communion, which he received with his sons on the morning of Saturday, March 12. At 12 that day, Melikof came to tell him of the capture of one of the Nihilists concerned in the explosion in the Winter Palace. This man refused to answer any questions, except that his capture would not prevent the Emperor's certain assassination, and that his Majesty would never see another Easter. Both Melikof and the Czarovitz begged the Emperor in vain not to attend the parade the next day. … After the Parade [Sunday, March 13, 1881] the Emperor drove with his brother Michael to the Michael Palace, the abode of their cousin, the widowed Grand-Duchess Catherine; and, leaving his brother there, he set off about two o'clock by the shortest way to the Winter Palace, along the side of the Catherine Canal. There, in the part where the road runs between the Summer Garden and the Canal, a bombshell was hurled under the Imperial carriage, and exploded in a shower of snow, throwing down two of the horses of the escort, tearing off the back of the carriage, and breaking the glass, upsetting two lamp-posts, and wounding one of the Cossacks, and a baker's boy who was passing with a basket on his head. As soon as he saw the two victims lying on the pavement, the Emperor called to the coachman to stop, but the last only drove on faster, having received private orders from the Emperor's family to waive all ceremony, and to prevent his master from going into dangerous situations, or among crowds. However, the Emperor pulled the cord round the coachman's arm till he stopped; and then, in spite of the man's request to let himself be driven straight home, got out to speak to the sufferers, and to give orders for their prompt removal to the hospital, as the thermometer was below zero. … The Emperor gave his directions, and seeing the man who had thrown the bomb in the grasp of two soldiers, though still struggling to point a revolver at his sovereign, he asked his name, on which the aid-de-camp replied: 'He calls himself Griaznof, and says he is a workman.' The Emperor made one or two more remarks, and then turned to go back to his carriage. It was observed he was deadly pale, and walked very slowly; and as splashes of blood were found in the carriage, it was afterwards supposed that he had already received slight wounds. Several men had been placed at different points of the road with explosive bombs, and hearing the first explosion, two of these hurried up to see the effect. One of them flung a bomb at the Emperor's feet when he had gone a few paces towards his carriage, and it exploded, blowing off one leg, and shattering the other to the top of the thigh, besides mortally wounding the assassin himself, who fell with a shriek to the ground, and injuring twenty foot passengers. The other accomplice, according to his own evidence, put down his bomb, and instinctively ran forward to help the Emperor, who did not utter a sound, though his lips moved as if in prayer. He was supporting himself with his back against a buttress by grasping the rails on the canal. His helmet was blown off, his clothes torn to rags, and his orders scattered about on the snow, while the windows of houses 150 yards distant were broken by the explosion, which raised a column of smoke and snow, and was heard even at the Anitchkof Palace. … Besides his shattered limbs, the Emperor had a frightful gash in the abdomen, his left eyelid was burnt, and his sight gone, his right hand was crushed, and the rings broken. … The Emperor expired from loss of blood at five-and-twenty minutes to four. … More than twenty persons were killed and injured by the two bombs."

RUSSIA: A. D. 1881-1894.
   Character and reign of Alexander III.
   Persecution of Jews and unorthodox Christians.
   Hostility to western civilization.

"According to an apparently authentic report in the Cracow paper 'Czas,' confirmed by later publications, the Emperor Alexander II. had signed the very morning of the day on which he was murdered a Ukase addressed to the Senate, by which a committee was to be appointed for realising Count Loris Melikow's project of a general representative assembly composed of delegates from the provincial assemblies. On March 20th Alexander III. convoked a grand council of the principal dignitaries, asking their opinion on Loris Melikow's proposal. A lively discussion took place, of which the 'Czas' gives a detailed account. … The Emperor, thanking the members, said that the majority had declared for the convening of an assembly elected by the nation for discussing the affairs of the State, adding, 'I share this opinion of the majority, and wish that the reform Ukase shall be published as under the patronage of my father, to whom the initiative of this reform is due.' The Ukase, however, was not published, Podobenoszew and Ignatiew having succeeded in discrediting it in the eyes of the Czar, asserting that it would only create excitement and increase the existing fermentation. On May 13th a manifesto appeared, in which the Czar declared his will 'to keep firmly the reins in obedience to the voice of God, and, in the belief in the force and truth of autocratic power, to fortify that power and to guard it against all encroachments.' A few days later Count Ignatiew, the head of the Slavophil party, was appointed Minister of the Interior, and by-and-by the other more liberal Ministers of Alexander II. disappeared. By far the most important personage under the present government is Podobenoszew, High Procurator of the Holy Synod, an office equivalent to a Minister of Public Worship for the State Church. Laborious and of unblemished integrity, this man is a fanatic by conviction. Under Alexander II., who was too much of a European to like him, he had but a secondary position, but under his pupil, the present Emperor, he has become all-powerful, the more so because his orthodoxy wears the national garb, and he insists that the break-down of the Nicolas I. system was only caused through governing with Ministers of German origin. {2786} He is seconded by Count Tolstoi, the Minister of Internal Affairs (who replaced the more liberal Saburow), to whom belong the questions concerning the foreign, i. e., non-orthodox, confessions. These two, supported by the Minister of Justice, Manasseïn, have enacted persecutions against Catholics, Uniates, Protestants, and Jews [see JEWS: 19TH CENTURY], which seem incredible in our age, but which are well attested. Thousands of persons who have committed no wrong other than that of being faithful to their inherited creed have been driven from their homes, and exiled to Siberia, or to distant regions without any means of livelihood. As regards Catholics, these measures are principally directed against the clergy; but the Uniates, i. e., the Catholics who have the Slav liturgy, are unsparingly deported if they refuse to have their children baptised by an orthodox Pope, and this is done with men, women, and children, peasants and merchants. Twenty thousand Uniates alone have been removed from the western provinces to Szaratow. Those who remain at home have Cossacks quartered upon them, and all sorts of compulsory means are used to stamp out this sect. … It is pretty certain that Alexander III. is ignorant of the atrocities committed in his name, for he is not a man to sanction deliberate injustice or to tolerate persons of manifest impurity in important offices. Though the Czar insists upon having personally honest Ministers, mere honesty is not sufficient for governing a great empire. Truth does not penetrate to the ear of the autocrat; the Russian Press does not reflect public opinion with its currents, but is simply the speaking-tube of the reigning coterie, which has suppressed all papers opposed to it, while the foreign Press is only allowed to enter mutilated by the censorship. Some people have, indeed, the privilege to read foreign papers in their original shape, but the Autocrat of All the Russias does not belong to them. … The Emperor is peaceful and will not hear of war: he has, in fact, submitted to many humiliations arising from Russia's conduct towards Bulgaria. … With all this, however, he is surrounded by Panslavists and allows them to carry on an underground warfare against the Balkan States. … He is strongly opposed to all Western ideas of civilisation, very irritable, and unflinching in his personal dislikes, as he has shown in the case of Prince Alexander of Battenberg; and, with his narrow views, he is unable to calculate the bearing of his words and actions, which often amount to direct provocation against his neighbours. If, nevertheless, tolerable relations with England, Austria, and Germany have been maintained, this is for the most part the merit of M. de Giers, the Foreign Secretary, an unpretending, cautious, and personally reliable man of business, whose influence with the Czar lies in the cleverness with which he appears not to exercise any."

      Professor Geffcken,
      Russia under Alexander III.
      (New Review, September, 1891).

      ALSO IN:
      H. von Samson-Himmelstierna,
      Russia under Alexander III.

The Czar Alexander III. died on the 1st of November, 1894, at Livadia, and the accession of his eldest son, who ascends the throne as Nicholas II., was officially proclaimed at St. Petersburg on the following day. The new autocrat was born in 1868. He is to wed the Princess Alix of Hesse Darmstadt.

"Little Russia consists of the governments of Podolia, Volhynia, Kief, Tchernigof, Poltava, and Kharkof. … To protect Poland from Tartar raids, the Polish king entrusted to the keeping of the Cossacks the whole south-east frontier of Poland, the former Grand Duchy of Kief, which acquired the name of Ukraine, 'borderland,' and also of Little Russia, in contradistinction to the Grand Duchy of Moscow or Great Russia. …

The provinces of Moghilef, Minsk, and Vitebsk are popularly known by the name of White Russia. … The peaceful, industrious, good tempered White Russians are descendants of the old Slav race of the Krevitchi. … The name of 'the land of the Krevitchi,' by which White Russia was called in the 11th century, died out on the rise of the Principalities of Polotsk, Misteslavsk, and Minsk, which belonged first to Kief, next to Lithuania, and later still to Poland."

"The epithet of 'White,' applied also to the Muscovite Russians in the sense of 'free,' at the time when they were rescued from the Tatar yoke, has been the special designation of the Russians of the Upper Dnieper only since the end of the 14th century. At first applied by the Poles to all the Lithuanian possessions torn from the Muscovites, it was afterwards used in a more restricted sense. Catherine II. gave the name of White Russia to the present provinces of Vitebsk and Moghilov, and Nicholas abolished the expression altogether, since when it has lost all its political significance, while preserving its ethnical value. … The term 'White' is generally supposed to refer to the colour of their dress in contradistinction to the 'Black Russians,' between the Pripet and Niemen, who form the ethnical transition from the Little to the White Russians. … The terms Little Russia (Malo-Russia, Lesser Russia), Ukrania, Ruthenia, have never had any definite limits, constantly shifting with the vicissitudes of history, and even with the administrative divisions. … The name itself of Little Russia appears for the first time in the Byzantine chronicles of the 13th century in association with Galicia and Volhynia, after which it was extended to the Middle Dnieper, or Kiyovia. In the same way Ukrania—that is 'Frontier'—was first applied to Podolia to distinguish it from Galicia, and afterwards to the southern provinces of the Lithuanian state, between the Bug and Dnieper."

RUSSIAN AMERICA.

   The Ruteni were a Gallic tribe, who bordered on the Roman
   Gallia Provincia, between the Cevennes and the Cadurci
   occupying the district of France called Rouergue before the
   Revolution.

RUTUPIÆ.

The principal Kentish seaport of Roman Britain; now
Richborough. It was celebrated for its oysters.

RUWARD OF BRABANT.

"This office was one of great historical dignity, but somewhat anomalous in its functions. … A Ruward was not exactly dictator, although his authority was universal. He was not exactly protector, nor governor, nor stadholder. His functions … were commonly conferred on the natural heir to the sovereignty—therefore more lofty than those of ordinary stadholders."

SABBATHAISTS.

A Jewish sect, believers in the Messianic pretensions of one Sabbathai Sevi, of Smyrna, who made an extraordinary commotion in the Jewish world about the middle of the 17th century, and who finally embraced Mahometanism.

The Roman historians—Dionysius, Plutarch, Livy, and others— gave credit to traditions of a long and dangerous war, or series of wars, with the Sabines, following the expulsion of the Tarquins from Rome and the founding of the Republic. But modern skeptical criticism has left little ground for any part of the story of these wars. It seems to have been derived from the chronicles of an ancient family, the Valerian family, and, as a recent writer has said, it is suspicious that "a Valerius never holds a magistracy but there is a Sabine war." Ihne conjectures that some annalist of the Valerian family used the term Sabine in relating the wars of the Romans with the Latins, and with the Tarquins, struggling to regain their lost throne, and that this gave a start to the whole fictitious narrative of Sabine wars.

"The greatest of the Italian nations was the Sabellian. Under this name we include the Sabines, who are said by tradition to have been the progenitors of the whole race, the Samnites, the Picenians, Vestinians, Marsians, Marrucinians, Pelignians, and Frentanians. This race seems to have been naturally given to a pastoral life, and therefore fixed their early settlements in the upland valleys of the Apennines. Pushing gradually along this central range, they penetrated downwards towards the Gulf of Tarentum; and as their population became too dense to find support in their native hills, bands of warrior youths issued forth to settle in the richer plains below. Thus they mingled with the Opican and Pelasgian races of the south, and formed new tribes known by the names of Apulians, Lucanians, and Campanians. These more recent tribes, in turn, threatened the Greek colonies on the coast. … It is certain that the nation we call Roman was more than half Sabellian. Traditional history … attributes the conquest of Rome to a Sabine tribe. Some of her kings were Sabine; the name borne by her citizens was Sabine; her religion was Sabine; most of her institutions in war and peace were Sabine; and therefore it may be concluded that the language of the Roman people differed from that of Latium Proper by its Sabine elements, though this difference died out again as the Latin communities were gradually absorbed into the territory of Rome.'

SABRINA.

SAC AND SOC.

A term used in early English and Norman times to signify grants of jurisdiction to individual land-owners. The manorial court-leets were the products of these grants.

"The Sacæ were neighbours of the Hyrcanians, the Parthians, and the Bactrians in the steppes of the Oxus. Herodotus tells us that the Sacæ were a nation of the tribe of the Scyths, and that their proper name was Amyrgians; the Persians called all the Scythians Sacæ."

SACERDOTES.

These were the public priests of the ancient Romans, who performed the 'sacra publica' or religious rites for the people, at public expense.

      E. Guhl and W. Koner.
      Life of the Greeks and Romans,
      section 103.

SACHEM. SAGAMORE.

   "Each totem of the Lenape [or Delaware Indians of North
   America] recognized a chieftain, called sachem, 'sakima,' a
   word found in most Algonkin dialects, with slight variations
   (Chip., 'ogima,' Cree, 'okimaw, Pequot, 'sachimma '), and
   derived from a root 'ŏki,' signifying above in space, and, by
   a transfer frequent in all languages, above in power. …
{2789}
   It appears from Mr. Morgan's inquiries, that at present and of
   later years, 'the office of sachem is hereditary in the gens,
   but elective among its members.' Loskiel, however, writing on
   the excellent authority of Zeisberger, states explicitly that
   the chief of each totem was selected and inaugurated by those
   of the remaining two. By common and ancient consent, the chief
   selected from the Turtle totem was head chief of the whole
   Lenape nation. The chieftains were the 'peace chiefs.' They
   could neither go to war themselves, nor send nor receive the
   war belt—the ominous string of dark wampum, which indicated
   that the tempest of strife was to be let loose. … War was
   declared by the people at the instigation of the 'war
   captains,' valorous braves of any birth or family who had
   distinguished themselves by personal prowess."

"At the institution of the League [of the Iroquois] fifty permanent sachemships were created, with appropriate names; and in the sachems who held these titles were vested the supreme powers of the confederacy. … The sachems themselves were equal in rank and authority, and instead of holding separate territorial jurisdictions, their powers were joint, and coextensive with the League. As a safeguard against contention and fraud, each sachem was 'raised up' and invested with his title by a council of all the sachems, with suitable forms and ceremonies. … The sachemships were distributed unequally between the five nations, but without thereby giving to either a preponderance of political power. Nine of them were assigned to the Mohawk nation, nine to the Oneida, fourteen to the Onondaga, ten to the Cayuga and eight to the Seneca. The sachems united formed the Council of the League, the ruling body, in which resided the executive, legislative and judicial authority."

"The New England Indians had functionaries; … the higher class known as sachems, the subordinate, or those of inferior note or smaller jurisdiction, as sagamores. … This is the distinction commonly made (Hutchinson, Massachusetts, I. 410). But Williamson Maine, I. 494) reverses it; Dudley (Letter to the Countess of Lincoln) says, 'Sagamore, so are the kings with us called, as they are sachems southward' (that is, in Plymouth); and Gookin (Massachusetts Historical Collection., 1. 154) speaks of the two titles of office as equivalent."

SACRAMENTARIANS.

SACRED BAND OF CARTHAGE.

SACRED BAND OF THEBES.

The southwestern extremity of Spain—Cape St. Vincent—was anciently called the Sacred Promontory, and supposed by early geographers to be the extreme western point of the known world.

SACRED ROADS IN GREECE.

"After the chariot races came into vogue [at the sacred festivals and games] these equally necessitated good carriage roads, which it was not easy to make in a rocky locality like Delphi. Thus arose the sacred roads, along which the gods themselves were said to have first passed, as Apollo once came through pathless tracks to Delphi. … Hence the art of road-making and of building bridges, which deprived the wild mountain streams of their dangers, took its first origin from the national sanctuaries, especially from those of Apollo. While the foot-paths led across the mountain ridges, the carriage-roads followed the ravines which the water had formed. The rocky surface was leveled, and ruts hollowed out which, carefully smoothed, served as tracks in which the wheels rolled on without obstruction. This style of roads made it necessary, in order to a more extended intercourse, to establish an equal gauge, since otherwise the festive as well as the racing chariots would have been prevented from visiting the various sanctuaries. And since as a matter of fact, as far as the influence of Delphi extended in the Peloponnesus and in central Greece, the same gauge of 5 ft. 4 in. demonstrably prevailed, not merely the extension, but also the equalization, of the net-work of Greek roads took its origin from Delphi."

The Phocians, B. C. 449, counting on the support of Athens, whose allies they were, undertook to acquire possession of the sacred and wealthy city of Delphi. The Spartans sent an army to the defense of the sanctuary and expelled them;· whereupon the Athenians sent another and restored them.

SACRED WAY AT ATHENS.

   The road which led from the great gate of Athens called
   Dipylum straight to Eleusis, along which the festive
   processions moved, was called the Sacred Way.

"There is a tradition that the name of Sadducee was derived from Zadok, a disciple of Antigonus of Socko. But the statement is not earlier than the seventh century after the Christian Era, and the person seems too obscure to have originated so widespread a title. It has been also ingeniously conjectured that the name, as belonging to the whole priestly class, is derived from the famous high priest of the time of Solomon. But of this there is no trace in history or tradition. It is more probable that, as the Pharisees derived their name from the virtue of Isolation (pharishah) from the Gentile world on which they most prided themselves, so the Sadducees derived theirs from their own special virtue of Righteousness (zadikah), that is, the fulfillment of the Law, with which, as its guardians and representatives of the law, they were specially concerned. The Sadducees—whatever be the derivation of the word—were less of a sect than a class."

"At the time when we first meet with them [the Sadducees] in history, that is to say, under Jonathan the Asmonean [B. C. 159-144—see JEWS: B. C. 166-40], they were, though in a modified form, the heirs and successors of the Hellenists [see JEWS: B. C. 332-167]. … Hellenism was conquered under the Asmoneans, and beaten out of the field, and a new gush of Jewish patriotism and zeal for the law had taken its place. The Sadducees, who from the first appear as a school suited for the times, including the rich and educated statesmen, adopted the prevailing tone among the people. They took part in the services and sacrifices of the temple, practised circumcision, observed the Sabbath, and so professed to be real Jews and followers of the law, but the law rightly understood, and restored to its simple text and literal sense. They repudiated, they said, the authority of the new teachers of the law (now the Pharisees), and of the body of tradition with which they had encircled the law. In this tradition they of course included all that was burdensome to themselves. … The peculiar doctrines of the Sadducees obviously arose from the workings of the Epicurean philosophy, which had found special acceptance in Syria. They admitted indeed the creation, as it seems, but denied all continuous operation of God in the world. … The Sadducees proved they were real followers of Epicurus, by denying the life of the soul after death. The soul, they said, passes away with the body. … The mass of the people stood aloof from the Sadducees, whom they regarded with mistrust and aversion."

      J. J. I. Döllinger,
      The Gentile and the Jew in the
      Courts of the Temple of Christ,
      volume 2, page 302-303.

      ALSO IN:
      E. Schürer,
      History of the Jewish People in the Time of Christ,
      section 26 (division 2, volume 2).

SAGAMORE.

A nomadic people, described by Herodotus, who wandered on the western borders of the great Iranian desert—the desert region of modern Persia.

SAGAS.

SAGUENAY.

SAIM.

The town of St. Albans, in England, was the scene of two battles in the lamentable Wars of the Roses. The first collision of the long conflict between Lancaster and York occurred in its streets on the 23d of May, 1455, when King Henry VI. was taken prisoner by the Duke of York and 5,000 to 8,000 of his supporters were slain. Six years later, on the 17th of February, 1461, the contending forces met again in the streets of St. Albans with a different result. The Yorkists were put to flight by the Lancastrians under Queen Margaret.

SAINT ALBANS CONFEDERATE RAID.

SAINT ALBANS FENIAN RAID.

"To keep pace with other sovereigns, who affected forming orders of knighthood, in which they themselves should preside, like Arthur at his round table, or Charlemagne among his paladins, James [IV. of Scotland, A. D. 1488-1513] established the order of Saint Andrew, assuming the badge of the thistle, which since that time has been the national emblem of Scotland."

SAINT AUGUSTINE, Florida: A. D. 1740.
Unsuccessful attack by the English of Georgia and Carolina.

When James II., driven from England by the Revolution of 1688, took refuge in France, he was received with great hospitality by Louis XIV., who assigned to the exiled king the palace of Saint-Germains for his residence, with a pension or allowance which enabled him to maintain a regal court of imposing splendor. "There was scarcely in all Europe a residence more enviably situated than that which the generous Lewis had assigned to his suppliants. The woods were magnificent, the air clear and salubrious, the prospects extensive and cheerful. No charm of rural life was wanting; and the towers of the greatest city of the Continent were visible in the distance. The royal apartments were richly adorned with tapestry and marquetry, vases of silver, and mirrors in gilded frames. A pension of more than 40,000 pounds sterling was annually paid to James from the French treasury. He had a guard of honour composed of some of the finest soldiers in Europe. … But over the mansion and the domain brooded a constant gloom, the effect, partly of bitter regrets and of deferred hopes, but chiefly of the abject superstition which had taken complete possession of his own mind, and which was affected by all those who aspired to his favour. His palace wore the aspect of a monastery. … Thirty or forty ecclesiastics were lodged in the building; and their apartments were eyed with envy by noblemen and gentlemen who had followed the fortunes of their Sovereign, and who thought it hard that, when there was so much room under his roof, they should be forced to sleep in the garrets of the neighbouring town. … All the saints of the royal household were praying for each other and backbiting each other from morning to night."

"Of the British Monarchy the official and diplomatic seat is St. James', a dingy and shabby pile of brick, which by its meanness, compared with the Tuileries and Versailles, aptly symbolizes the relation of the power which built it to that of the Monarchy of Louis XIV. … At St. James' are still held the Levees. But those rooms having been found too small for the prodigiously increasing crowds of ladies, foreign and colonial, who pant, by passing under the eye of Royalty, to obtain the baptism of fashion, the Drawing-Rooms are now held in Buckingham Palace. … The modern town residence of Royalty, Buckingham Palace, is large without being magnificent, and devoid of interest of any kind, historical or architectural."

SAINT JEAN D'ACRE.

"Some historians of the order of St. Lazarus have traced its origin to a supposed association of Christians in the first century against the persecution of their Jewish and Pagan enemies. This account is fabulous. It appears certain, however, that in very early times Christian charity founded establishments for the sick. … Lazarus became their tutelary saint and the buildings were styled Lazarettos. One of those hospitals was in existence at Jerusalem at the time of the first crusade. It was a religious order, as well as a charitable institution, and followed the rule of St. Augustin. For purposes of defence against the Muselman tyrants, the members of the society became soldiers, and insensibly they formed themselves into distinct bodies of those who attended the sick, and those who mingled with the world. The cure of lepers was their first object, and they not only received lepers into their order, for the benefit of charity, but their grand master was always to be a man who was afflicted with the disorder, the removal whereof formed the purpose of their institution. The cavaliers who were not lepers, and were in a condition to bear arms, were the allies of the Christian kings of Palestine. … The habits of those knights is not known; it only appears that the crosses on their breasts were always green, in opposition to those of the knights of St. John, which were white, and the red crosses of the Templars. … But neither the names nor the exploits of the knights of St. Lazarus often appear in the history of the Crusades."

SAINT LEGER'S EXPEDITION.

"St. Louis had arisen out of the transfer of the east bank of
the Mississippi to Great Britain.

Rather than live as aliens, under English laws, many French settlers went with Pierre Laclede, across the Mississippi, to a place already nicknamed by them Pain Court, where, in February, 1764, they founded a new town with the name of St. Louis, in honor of Louis XV. These people were mostly French Canadians."

SAINT LOUIS, MISSOURI: A. D. 1861.
Events at the outbreak of the rebellion.
The capture of Camp Jackson.

A fierce naval fight, April 24, 1293, off St. Mahé, on the coast of Brittany, between English and French fleets, both of which were put afloat without open authority from their respective governments. The French were beaten with a loss of 8,000 men and 180 ships.

C. H. Pearson, History of England during the Early and Middle Ages, volume 2, chapter 13.

"Louis XI. [of France] determined on instituting an order of chivalry himself. It was to be select in its membership, limited in its number, generous in its professions, and he fondly hoped the Garter and Fleece would soon sink into insignificance compared to the Order of Saint Michael. The first brethren were named from the highest families in France; the remaining great feudatories, who had preserved some relics of their hereditary independence, were fixed upon to wear this mark of the suzerain's friendship. But when they came to read the oaths of admission, they found that the Order of St. Michael was in reality a bond of stronger obligation than the feudal laws had ever enjoined. It was a solemn association for the prevention of disobedience to the sovereign. … The brotherhood of noble knights sank, in the degrading treatment of its founder, into a confederation of spies."

A British Order of Knighthood, founded in 1818, "for the purpose of bestowing marks of Royal favour on the most meritorious of the Ionians [then under the protection of Great Britain] and Maltese, as well as on British subjects who may have served with distinction in the Ionian Isles or the Mediterranean Sea."

SAINT PAUL'S SCHOOL.

SAINT PETER'S CHURCH AT ROME.

"The first church which existed on or near the site of the present building was the oratory founded in A. D. 90, by Anacletus, bishop of Rome, who is said to have been ordained by St. Peter himself, and who thus marked the spot where many Christian martyrs had suffered in the circus of Nero, and where St. Peter was buried after his crucifixion. In 306 Constantine the Great yielded to the request of Pope Sylvester, and began the erection of a basilica on this spot, labouring with his own hands at the work. … Of the old basilica, the crypt is now the only remnant. … Its destruction was first planned by Nicholas V. (1450), but was not carried out till the time of Julius II., who in 1506 began the new St. Peter's from designs of Bramante. … The next Pope, Leo X., obtained a design for a church in the form of a Latin cross from Raphael, which was changed, after his death (on account of expense) to a Greek cross, by Baldassare Peruzzi, who only lived to complete the tribune. Paul III. (1534) employed Antonio di Sangallo as an architect, who returned to the design of a Latin cross, but died before he could carry out any of his intentions. Giulio Romano succeeded him and died also. Then the pope, 'being inspired by God,' says Vasari, sent for Michael Angelo, then in his seventy-second year, who continued the work under Julius III., returning to the plan of a Greek cross, enlarging the tribune and transepts, and beginning the dome on a new plan, which he said would 'raise the Pantheon in the air.' … The present dome is due to Giacomo della Porta, who brought the great work to a conclusion in 1590, under Sixtus V. … The church was dedicated by Urban VIII., November 18th, 1626; the colonnade added by Alexander VII., 1667, the sacristy by Pius VI., in 1780. The building of the present St. Peter's extended altogether over 176 years, and its expenses were so great that Julius II. and Leo X. were obliged to meet them by the sale of indulgences, which led to the Reformation. The expense of the main building alone has been estimated at £10,000,000. The annual expense of repairs is £6,300."

This, the Hungarian national order of knighthood, was founded by Maria Theresa, on the day (May 5, 1764) when the Archduke, afterwards the Emperor Joseph II., was crowned King of Rome.

"This was a little body of men who had formed themselves into a semi-religious order on the model of the Hospitallers. In the third Crusade, one William, an English priest, chaplain to Ralph de Diceto, Dean of S. Paul's, had devoted himself to the work of burying the dead at Acre, as the Hospitallers had given themselves at first to the work of tending the sick. He had built himself a little chapel there, and bought ground for a cemetery; like a thorough Londoner of the period, he had called it after S. Thomas the Martyr; and, somehow or other, as his design was better known, the family of the martyr seem to have approved of it; the brother-in-law and sister of Becket became founders and benefactors, and a Hospital of S. Thomas the Martyr of Canterbury, of Acre, was built in London itself on the site of the house where the martyr was born. … They [the knights] had their proper dress and cross: according to Favin their habit was white, and the cross a full red cross charged with a white scallop; but the existing cartulary of the order describes the habit simply as a mantle with a cross of red and white. … The Chronicle of the Teutonic knights, in relating the capture of Acre, places the knights of S. Thomas at the head of the 5,000 soldiers whom the king of England had sent to Palestine, and Herman Corner, who however wrote a century later, mentions them amongst the defenders of Acre. We know from their cartulary that they had lands in Yorkshire, Middlesex, Surrey, and Ireland."

      W. Stubbs,
      Seventeen Lectures on the Study of Medieval and Modern History,
      lecture 8.

SAINT VALERY.

The port, at the mouth of the Somme, from which the fleet of William the Conqueror sailed for England, September 27, A. D. 1066.

SAIONES.

"The Saiones were apparently a class of men peculiar to the Ostrogothic monarchy [of Theodoric, in Italy]. More honoured than the Roman lictor (who was but a menial servant of the magistrate), but hardly perhaps rising to the dignity of a sheriff or a marshal, they were, so to speak, the arms by which Royalty executed its will. If the Goths had to be summoned to battle with the Franks, a Saio carried round the stirring call to arms. If a Prætorian Prefect was abusing his power to take away his neighbour's lands by violence, a Saio was sent to remind him that under Theodoric not even Prætorian Prefects should be allowed to transgress the law. … The Saiones seem to have stood in a special relation to the King. They are generally called 'our Saiones,' sometimes 'our brave Saiones,' and the official virtue which is always credited to them (like the 'Sublimity' or the 'Magnificence' of more important personages) is 'Your Devotion.' One duty which was frequently entrusted to the Saio was the 'tuitio' of some wealthy and unwarlike Roman. It often happened that such a person, unable to protect himself against the rude assaults of sturdy Gothic neighbours, appealed to the King for protection. … The chief visible sign of the King's protection, and the most effective guarantee of its efficiency, was the stout Gothic soldier who as Saio was quartered in the wealthy Roman's house."

An important list of Egyptian kings, found by M. Mariette and now preserved in the Museum of Cairo.

F. Lenormant, Manual of Ancient History of the East, book 3, chapter 1 (volume 1).

   Among the revolutions which attended the breaking up of the
   empire of the Seljuk Turks was one that brought about the rise
   to power in Syria and Mesopotamia of a vigorous and capable
   soldier named Zenghi or Zengui. Zenghi and his son Noureddin
   acquired a wide dominion, with its capital, as it enlarged,
   shifting from Mossoul to Aleppo, from Aleppo to Damascus, and
   they were the first formidable enemies with whom the
   Christians of the Crusade settlements in Syria had to contend.
   The dynasty of sultans which they founded was one of those
   called Atabecks, or Atabegs, signifying "governors of the
   prince." Having found an opportunity (A. D. 1162-1168) to
   interfere in the affairs of Egypt, where the Fatimite caliphs
   were still nominally reigning, Noureddin sent thither one of
   his most trusted officers, Shiracouh, or Shirkoh, a Koord, and
   Shiracouh's nephew, Saladin,—then a young man, much addicted
   to elegant society and the life of pleasure, at Damascus.
   Shiracouh established his master's authority in Egypt—still
   leaving the puppet caliph of the Fatimites on his throne—and
   he was succeeded by Saladin, as the representative of the
   sultan Noureddin, and grand vizier of the caliph. But in 1171,
   the latter, being on his death-bed, was quietly deposed and
   the sovereignty of the Abbaside caliph of Bagdad was
   proclaimed. "This great 'coup d'etat,' which won Egypt over to
   the Orthodox Mohammedan sect, and ultimately enabled Saladin
   to grasp the independent sovereignty of the country, was
   effected, as an Arab historian quaintly observes, 'so quietly,
   that not a brace of goats butted over it.'"
{2793}
   Saladin had now developed great talents as a ruler, and great
   ambitions, as well. On the death of Nouraddin, in 1174, he was
   prepared to seize the sultan's throne, and succeeded, after a
   short period of civil war, in making himself master of the
   whole Atabeg dominion. From that he went on to the conquest of
   Jerusalem, and the expulsion of the Christians from all
   Palestine, except Tyre and a small strip of coast. By his
   defense of that conquest against the crusaders of the Third
   Crusade, and by the decided superiority of character which he
   evinced, compared with his Christian antagonists, Richard Cœur
   de Lion and the rest, Saladin acquired surpassing renown in
   the western world and became a great figure in history. He
   died at Damascus, in March, 1193, in his fifty-seventh year.
   The dynasty which he founded was called the Ayoubite (or
   Aiyubite) dynasty, from the name of Saladin's father, Ayoub
   (Job), a native Koord of Davin.

"Saladin gave no directions respecting the order of succession, and by this want of foresight prepared the ruin of his empire. One of his sons, Alaziz, who commanded in Egypt, caused himself to be proclaimed sultan of Cairo; another took possession of the sovereignty of Aleppo, and a third of the principality of Amath. Malek-Adel [called Seïf Eddin, the Sword of Religion, by which latter name, in the corrupted form Saphadin, he was known commonly to the crusaders], the brother of Saladin, assumed the throne of Mesopotamia and the countries in the neighbourhood of the Euphrates. The principal emirs, and all the princes of the race of the Ayoubites, made themselves masters of the cities and provinces of which they held the command. Afdhal [Almelek Alafdhal], eldest son of Saladin, was proclaimed sultan of Damascus. Master of Syria, and of the capital of a vast empire, sovereign of Jerusalem and Palestine, he appeared to have preserved something of the power of his father; but all fell into disorder and confusion." After some years of disorder and of war between the brothers, Malek Adel, or Saphadin, the more capable uncle of the young princes, gathered the reins of power into his hands and reunited most of the provinces of Saladin's empire. On his death, in 1217, the divisions and the disorder reappeared. The Ayoubite dynasty, however, held the throne at Cairo (to the dominion of which Palestine belonged) until 1250, when the last of the line was killed by his Mamelukes. The lesser princes of the divided empire were swept away soon after by the Mongol invasion.

"In England and in France, in order to defray expenses [of the Third Crusade], a tax called the Tithe of Saladin, consisting of a tenth part of all their goods, was levied on every person who did not take the Cross. … In every parish the Tithe of Saladin was raised in the presence of a priest, a Templar, a Hospitaller, a king's man, a baron's man and clerk, and a bishop's clerk."

SALAMIS, Greece: B. C. 610-600.
War of Athens and Megara for possession of the island.

SALCES, OR SALSAS: A. D. 1639-1640.
Siege and capture by the French.
Recovery by the Spaniards.

SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1631-1636.
Ministry and banishment of Roger Williams.

   "A greatly exaggerated importance has been attributed to the
   Salic Law. You are acquainted with the reason of this error;
   you know that at the accession of Philippe-le-Long, and during
   the struggle of Philippe· de-Valois and Edward III. for the
   crown of France, the Salic law was invoked in order to prevent
   the succession of women, and that, from that time, it has been
   celebrated by a crowd of writers as the first source of our
   public law, as a law always in vigor, as the fundamental law
   of monarchy. Those who have been the most free from this
   illusion, as, for example, Montesquieu, have yet experienced,
   to some degree, its influence, and have spoken of the Salic
   law with a respect which it is assuredly difficult to feel
   towards it when we attribute to it only the place that it
   really holds in our history. … I pray you to recall that which
   I have already told you touching the double origin and the
   incoherence of the barbarous laws; they were, at once,
   anterior and posterior to the invasion; at once, German and
   Germano-Roman: they belonged to two different conditions of
   society. This character has influenced all the controversies
   of which the Salic law has been the object; it has given rise
   to two hypotheses: according to one, this law was compiled in
   Germany, upon the right bank of the Rhine, long before the
   conquest, and in the language of the Franks. … According to
   the other hypothesis, the Salic law was, on the contrary,
   compiled after the conquest, upon the left bank of the Rhine,
   in Belgium or in Gaul, perhaps in the seventh century, and in
   Latin. … I believe, however, that the traditions which,
   through so many contradictions and fables, appear in the
   prefaces and epilogues annexed to the law, … indicate that,
   from the eighth century, it was a general belief, a popular
   tradition, that the customs of the Salian Franks were
   anciently collected. …
{2794}
   We are not obliged to believe that the Salic law, such as we
   have it, is of a very remote date, nor that it was compiled as
   recounted, nor even that it was ever written in the German
   language; but that it was connected with customs collected and
   transmitted from generation to generation, when the Franks
   lived about the mouth of the Rhine, and modified, extended,
   explained, reduced into law, at various times, from that epoch
   down to the end of the eighth century—this, I think, is the
   reasonable result to which this discussion should lead. … At
   the first aspect it is impossible not to be struck with the
   apparent utter chaos of the law. It treats of all things—of
   political law, of civil law, of criminal law, of civil
   procedure, of criminal procedure, of rural jurisdiction, all
   mixed up together without any distinction or classification. …
   When we examine this law more closely, we perceive that it is
   essentially a penal regulation. … I say nothing of the
   fragments of political law, civil law, or civil procedure,
   which are found dispersed through it, nor even of that famous
   article which orders that 'Salic land shall not fall to woman;
   and that the inheritance shall devolve exclusively on the
   males.' No person is now ignorant of its true meaning. … When,
   in the fourteenth century, they invoked the Salic law, in
   order to regulate the succession to the crown, it had
   certainly been a long time since it had been spoken of, except
   in remembrance, and upon some great occasion."

E. F. Henderson, Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages, book 2, number 1.

Louis X., surnamed Hutin, king of France, died in 1316, leaving a daughter, Jeanne, and his queen with child. The late king's brother, Philip the Long, became regent; but when the queen bore a son and the child died, this Philip "hastened to Rheims, filled the Cathedral with his own followers, and compelled the archbishop to consecrate him King [Philip V.]. Thence he returned to Paris, assembled the citizens, and, in the presence of a great concourse of barons and notables of the realm, declared that no female could succeed to the crown of France. Thus began the so-called Salic Law of France, through the determined violence of an unscrupulous man. The lawyers round the throne, seeking to give to the act of might the sanction of right, bethought them of that passage in the law of the Salian Franks which declares 'That no part or heritage of Salic land can fall to a woman'; and it is from this that the law obtained the name of 'the Salic Law.'"

"In this contest [after the death of Louis X., as mentioned above], every way memorable, but especially on account of that which sprung out of it, the exclusion of females from the throne of France was first publicly discussed. … It may be fairly inferred that the Salic law, as it was called, was not so fixed a principle at that time as has been contended. But however this may be, it received at the accession of Philip the Long a sanction which subsequent events more thoroughly confirmed. Philip himself leaving only three daughters, his brother Charles [IV.] mounted the throne; and upon his death the rule was so unquestionably established, that his only daughter was excluded by the count of Valois, grandson of Philip the Bold. This prince first took the regency, the queen-dowager being pregnant, and, upon her giving birth to a daughter, was crowned king [Philip of Valois]. No competitor or opponent appeared in France; but one more formidable than any whom France could have produced was awaiting the occasion to prosecute his imagined right with all the resources of valour and genius, and to carry desolation over that great kingdom with as little scruple as if he was preferring a suit before a civil tribunal." This was King Edward III. of England, whose mother Isabel was the sister of the last three French kings, and who claimed through her a right to the French crown.

SALINÆ.

A Roman town in Britain, celebrated for its salt-works and salt-baths. Its site is occupied by modern Droitwich.

William the Conqueror, while establishing feudalism in England, "broke into its 'most essential attribute, the exclusive dependence of a vassal upon his lord,' by requiring in accordance with the old English practice, that all landowners, mesne tenants as well as tenants-in-chief, should take the oath of fealty to the King. This was formally decreed at the celebrated Gemot held on Salisbury Plain, on the 1st of August, 1086, at which the Witan and all the landowners of substance in England whose vassals soever they were, attended, to the number, it is reported, of 60,000. The statute, as soon as passed, was carried into immediate effect."

SALLUVIANS.

"Amidst the decay of the empire in the third century Dalmatia suffered comparatively little; indeed, Salonae probably only reached at that time its greatest prosperity. This, it is true, was occasioned partly by the fact that the regenerator of the Roman state, the emperor Diocletian, was by birth a Dalmatian, and allowed his efforts, aimed at the decapitalising of Rome, to redound chiefly to the benefit of the capital of his native land; he built alongside of it the huge palace from which the modern capital of the province takes the name Spalato, within which it has for the most part found a place, and the temples of which now serve it as cathedral and as baptistery. Diocletian, however, did not make Salonae a great city for the first time, but, because it was such, chose it for his private residence; commerce, navigation, and trade must at that time in these waters have been concentrated chiefly at Aquileia and at Salonae, and the city must have been one of the most populous and opulent towns of the west."

      T. G. Jackson,
      Dalmatia, the Quarnero and Istria,
      chapters 1-2 and 10-12 (volumes 1-2).

SALONICA.

The kingdom obtained by Boniface, Marquis of Montferrat, in the partition of the Byzantine Empire after its conquest by the Crusaders, A. D. 1204, comprised the province of Macedonia, with Thessalonica for its capital, and was called the kingdom of Saloniki. Its duration was brief. In 1222 the neighboring Greek despot of Epirus took Thessalonica and conquered the whole kingdom. He then assumed the title of emperor of Thessalonica, in rivalry with the Greek emperors of Nicæa and Trebizond. The title of king of Saloniki was cherished by the family of Montferrat for some generations; but those who claimed it never made good their title by possession of the kingdom.

      G. Finlay,
      History of Greece from the Conquest by the Crusaders,
      chapter 5.

SALOPIAN WARE.

Pottery manufactured by the Romans in Britain from the clay of the Severn valley. Two sorts are found in considerable abundance—one white, the other a light red color.

SALYES, SALLUVIANS.

The Salyes or Saluvii or Salluvians, named Salvii Yalli in Livy's Epitome, "were Ligurians or a mixed race of Celts and Ligurians. They perhaps occupied part of the coast east of Massilia: they certainly extended inland behind that town to the Rhone on the west and to the north as far as the river Druentia (Durance). They occupied the wide plain which you may see from the highest point of the great amphitheatre of Arelate (Arles) stretching east from Tarascon and the Rhone as far as the eye can reach." The Salyes were dangerous to Massilia and in 125 B. C. the latter appealed to the Romans, as allies. The latter responded promptly and sent Flaccus, one of the consuls, to deal with the Salyes. He defeated them; but in two or three years they were again in arms, and consul C. Sextius Calvinius was sent against them. "The Salyes were again defeated and their chief city taken, but it is uncertain whether this capital was Arelate (ArIes) or the place afterwards named Aquae Sextiae (Aix). … The Roman general found in this arid country a pleasant valley well supplied with water from the surrounding hills, and here he established the colony named Aquae Sextiae." The chiefs of the conquered Salyes took refuge with the Allobroges, and that led to the subjugation of the latter (see ALLOBROGES).

"The foundation of a colony [by Hadrian] at Juvavium, or Salzburg, which received the name of Forum Hadriani, attests the vigilance which directed his view from the Rhine to the Salza, and the taste, I would willingly add, which selected for a town to bear his name the most enchanting site in central Europe."

SALZWEDEL.

"As the vigour of the Khalifate began to pass away, and effeminate luxury crept imperceptibly into the palaces of Baghdad, the distant lieutenants gradually aspired to independence. At length, in 868 A. D., one Ya' kub-bin-Lais, the son of a brasier in Sistan, rose in rebellion, subdued Balkh, Kabul, and Fars, but died on his march to Baghdad. In former days he would have been treated as an audacious rebel against the authority of the Vicar of God; now the degenerate Khalifah appointed his brother 'Amr his lieutenant on the death of Ya' kub [A. D. 877], and allowed him to govern Fars, as the founder of the Saffary, or Brasier, dynasty. Ever fearful of the power of 'Amr, the Khalifah at length instigated a Tatar lord, named Isma'il Samany, to raise an army against the Saffaris, in Khurasan. 'Amr marched against him, and crossed the Oxus, but he was entirely defeated; and laughed heartily at a dog, who ran away with the little pot that was preparing the humble meal of the fallen king. That morning it had taken thirty camels to carry his kitchen retinue. 'Amr was sent to Baghdad, and put to death in 901 A. D. Isma'il, who traced his descent from a Persian noble who had rebelled against Khusru Parviz, now founded the Samany [or Samanide] dynasty, which ruled over Khurasan and the north of Persia, with their capital at Bukhara. The Dailamy [or Dilemite or Bouide] dynasty ruled in Fars and the south of Persia during the same period. To the Samanians Persia owes the restoration of its nationality, which had been oppressed and trodden under foot by the Arabian conquerors." The Samanide dynasty was overthrown in 998 by the founder of the Gaznevide Empire, which succeeded.

This was the battle in which the Roman emperor Julian was killed (June 26, A. D. 363), during the retreat from his ill·starred expedition beyond the Tigris, against the Persians.

SAMARCAND.

When Jingis Khan, the Mongol conqueror and devastator of Central Asia, invaded the Khahrezmian Empire, Samarkand was its capital and its most important city. "The fugitive Khahrezmian prince had left behind him for the defence 110,000 men—i. e., 60,000 Turks and 50,000 Tadjiks—with twenty elephants." But the Turkish mercenaries deserted in a body and the town was surrendered after a siege of three days. "The flourishing city of Samarkand and the fortress were laid even with the ground; and the inhabitants; stripped of all they possessed, shared the fate of their brethren of Bokhara. Those who had contrived to escape were lured back by false promises; all capable of bearing arms were compulsorily enrolled in the Mongolian army; the artistic gardeners of the place were sent off to the far East, where they were wanted to adorn the future Mongolo-Chinese capital with pleasure-grounds, after the fashion of those of Samarkand, and the celebrated artisans, especially the silk and cotton weavers, were either distributed as clever and useful slaves amongst the wives and relations of Djenghiz, or else carried with him to Khorasan. A few were sent as slaves to his sons Tchagatai and Oktai, who were then marching on Khahrezm. This was the end, in the year 618 (1221), of Samarkand, which Arabian geographers have described as the most brilliant and most flourishing spot on the face of the earth."

"Samarkand was not only the capital of Trans-Oxiana, but also one of the greatest entrepots of commerce in the world. Three miles in circumference, it was surrounded with a wall having castles at intervals, and pierced by twelve iron gates."

SAMARIA.
SAMARITANS:
   Early history.
   The Kingdom of Israel.
   Overthrow by the Assyrians.

After the capture of the city of Samaria (B. C. 722) and the deportation of a large part of its inhabitants by the Assyrian conqueror (see as above), "these districts remained for many years in a condition of such desolation that they were overrun with wild beasts. In the meantime King Asarhaddon, whom we suppose to be Asarhaddon II., having reduced afresh several refractory towns about twenty years after the death of Sennacherib, and wishing to inflict on their inhabitants the favourite punishment of his predecessors, transported large bodies of their heathen populations into these deserted regions. … A great number of the settlers in Samaria, the former capital, appear to have come from the Babylonian city of Cuthah, from which arose the name of Cutheans, often applied in derision to the Samaritans by the later Jews. Other settlers were sent from Babylon itself," and "from the cities on the west of the Euphrates, Hamath, Ivah, and Sepharvaim."

In the second and third generations after the return of the Judæans from exile, there began to be connections formed by marriage with the neighboring peoples. These peoples, "particularly the Samaritans, had given up idolatry, and were longing earnestly and truly to take part in the divine service at Jerusalem. They were, in fact, proselytes to the religion of Judæa; and were they always to be sternly repulsed? The principal Judæan families determined to admit the foreigners into the community, and the high priest of that time, either Jehoiakim or his son Eliashib, was ready to carry these wishes into effect. Marriages were therefore contracted with the Samaritans and other neighbouring people." But when Ezra and his party came from Babylon (B. C. 459-458) bringing an access of religious zeal and narrower interpretations of the law, these marriages were condemned, and those who had contracted them were forced to repudiate their foreign wives and the children borne by such. This cruelly fanatical action changed the friendly feeling of the Samaritans to hatred. Their leader, Sanballat, was a man of power, and he began against the restored Judæans a war which drove them from Jerusalem. It was not until Nehemiah came from Susa, with the authority of King Artaxerxes to rebuild the walls, that they recovered the city. "The strict observance of the Law enjoined by Ezra was followed out by Nehemiah; he strengthened the wall of separation between Judæans and Gentiles so securely that it was almost impossible to break through it." Sanballat, whose son-in-law, a priest, had been exiled on account of his Samaritan marriage, now "cunningly conceived the plan of undermining the Judæan community, by the help of its own members. How would it be were he to raise a temple to the God of Israel, in rivalry to the one which held sway in Jerusalem?" He executed his plan and the Samaritan temple was raised on Mount Gerizim. Thus "the Samaritans had their temple, around which they gathered; they had priests from the house of Aaron; they compared Mount Gerizim … to Mount Moriah; they drew the inference from the Book of the Law that God had designed Mount Gerizim as a site for a sanctuary, and they proudly called themselves Israelites. Sanballat and his followers being intent upon attracting a great many Judæans to their community, tempted them with the offer of houses and land, and in every way helped to support them. Those who had been guilty of crime and who feared punishment, were received with open arms by the Samaritans. Out of such elements a new semi-Judæan community or sect was formed. Their home was in the somewhat limited district of Samaria, the centre of which was either the city that gave its name to the province or the town of Shechem. The members of the new community became an active, vigorous, intelligent people, as if Sanballat, the founder, had breathed his spirit into them. … They actually tried to argue away the right of the Judæans to exist as a community. They declared that they alone were the descendants of Israel, and they denied the sanctity of Jerusalem and its Temple, affirming that everything achieved by the Judæan people was a debasement of the old Israelite character. … Upon the Judæan side, the hatred against their Samaritan neighbours was equally great. … The enmity between Jerusalem and Samaria that existed in the time of the two kingdoms blazed out anew; it no longer bore a political character, but one of a religious tendency."

"While the Hebrew writers unanimously represent the Samaritans as the descendants of the Cuthæan colonists introduced by Esarhaddon, a foreign and idolatrous race, their own traditions derive their regular lineage from Ephraim and Manasseh, the sons of Joseph. The remarkable fact, that this people have preserved the book of the Mosaic law in the ruder and more ancient character, while the Jews, after the return from Babylonia, universally adopted the more elegant Chaldean form of letters, strongly confirms the opinion that, although by no means pure and unmingled, the Hebrew blood still predominated in their race. In many other respects, regard for the Sabbath and even for the sabbatic year, and the payment of tithes to their priests, the Samaritans did not fall below their Jewish rivals in attachment to the Mosaic polity. The later events in the history of the kings of Jerusalem show that the expatriation of the ten tribes was by no means complete and permanent: is it then an unreasonable supposition, that the foreign colonists were lost in the remnant of the Israelitish people, and, though perhaps slowly and imperfectly weaned from their native superstitions, fell by degrees into the habits and beliefs of their adopted country? … Whether or not it was the perpetuation of the ancient feud between the two rival kingdoms, from this period [of the return from the captivity in Babylonia] the hostility of the Jews and Samaritans assumed its character of fierce and implacable animosity. No two nations ever hated each other with more unmitigated bitterness."

After the submission of Palestine to Alexander the Great (B. C. 332), Samaria "rebelled and murdered the Macedonian governor, Andromachus. Alexander expelled the inhabitants, and planted a Macedonian colony in their room—another heathen element in the motley population of Samaria."

One of the measures of King Herod, for strengthening himself outside of Jerusalem, was "the rebuilding of Samaria, which he did (B. C. 25) on a scale of great magnificence and strength, and peopled it partly with his soldiers, partly with the descendants of the old Samaritans, who hoped to see their temple likewise restored." He changed the name of Samaria, however, to Sebaste—the August.

The Christian zeal of the Emperor Justinian [A. D. 527-565] induced him to undertake the forcible conversion of all unbelievers in his empire. Among others, the Samaritans of Palestine were offered "the alternative of baptism or rebellion. They chose the latter: under the standard of a desperate leader they rose in arms, and retaliated their wrongs on the lives, the property, and the temples of a defenceless people. The Samaritans were finally subdued by the regular forces of the East; 20,000 were slain, 20,000 were sold by the Arabs to the infidels of Persia and India, and the remains of that unhappy nation atoned for the crime of treason by the sin of hypocrisy. It has been computed that 100,000 Roman subjects were extirpated in the Samaritan war, which converted the once fruitful province into a desolate and smoking wilderness."

SAMARKAND.

A great military engine, in ancient sieges, was a species of huge covered ladder, supported by two ships lashed together and floated up against the sea wall of the besieged town. The Greeks called it a Sambuca. Mithridates brought one into use when besieging Rhodes, B. C. 88, but with disastrous failure.

SAMIAN WARE.

An elegant species of Roman pottery, red in color, which was in great repute among the ancients.

"The Samnite nation [see ITALY: ANCIENT], which, at the time of the expulsion of the Tarquins from Rome, had doubtless already been for a considerable period in possession of the hill-country which rises between the Apulian and Campanian plains and commands them both, had hitherto found its further advance impeded on the one side by the Daunians, … on the other by the Greeks and Etruscans. But the fall of the Etruscan power towards the end of the third, and the decline of' the Greek colonies in the course of' the fourth century [B. C.], made room for them towards the west and south; and now one Samnite host after another marched down to, and even moved across, the south Italian seas. They first made their appearance in the plain adjoining the bay, with which the name of the Campanians has been associated from the beginning of the fourth century; the Etruscans there were suppressed, and the Greeks were confined within narrower bounds; Capua was wrested from the former [B. C. 424] Cumæ from the latter [B. C. 420]. About the same time, perhaps even earlier, the Lucanians appeared in Magna Graecia. … Towards the end of the fourth century mention first occurs of the separate confederacy of the Bruttii, who had detached themselves from the Lucanians—not, like the other Sabellian stocks, as a colony, but through a quarrel—and had become mixed up with many foreign elements. The Greeks of Lower Italy tried to resist the pressure of the barbarians. … But even the union of Magna Graecia no longer availed; for the ruler of Syracuse, Dionysius the Elder, made common cause with the Italians against his countrymen. … In an incredibly short time the circle of flourishing cities was destroyed or laid desolate. Only a few Greek settlements, such as Neapolis, succeeded with difficulty, and more by means of treaties than by force of arms, in preserving their existence and their nationality. Tarentum alone remained thoroughly independent and powerful. … About the period when Veii and the Pomptine plain came into the hands of Rome, the Samnite hordes were already in possession of all Lower Italy, with the exception of a few unconnected Greek colonies, and of the Apulo-Messapian coast."

SAMOA.

Samoa is the native name of the group of twelve volcanic islands in central Polynesea formerly known as the Navigator Islands. Their place on the chart is between the parallels of 13° and 15° south latitude, and 168° and 173° west longitude. The total area of the islands is about 1,700 square miles. The population consists of about 36,000 natives and a few hundred foreigners, English, American and German. The islands are said to have been first visited by the Dutch navigator, Roggewein, in 1722. A Christian mission was first established upon them in 1830, by the London Missionary Society. After some years the trade of the islands became important, and German traders acquired an influence which they seem to have used to bring about a state of civil war between rival kings. The United States, Great Britain and Germany, at length, in 1879, by joint action, intervened, and, after ten years more of disturbed and unsatisfactory government, the affairs of Samoa were finally settled at a conference of the three Powers held in Berlin in 1889. A treaty was signed by which they jointly guarantee the neutrality of the islands, with equal rights of residence, trade and personal protection to the citizens of the three signatory Powers. They recognize the independence of the Samoan Government, and the free right of the natives to elect their chief or king and choose the form of their government. The treaty created a supreme court, with jurisdiction over all questions arising under it. It stopped the alienation of lands by the natives, excepting town lots in Apia, the capital town; and it organized a municipal government for Apia, with an elected council under the presidency of a magistrate appointed by the three Powers. Other articles impose customs duties on foreign importations, and prohibit the sale of intoxicating liquors to the natives.

G. H. Bates, Some Aspects of the Samoan Question, and Our Relations to Samoa (The Century, April and May, 1889).

SAMOS. SAMIANS.

The island now called Samo, lying close to the coast of Asia Minor, in the part of the Ægean Sea which was anciently known as the Icarian Sea. It is of considerable size, being about eighty miles in circumference. The narrow strait which separates it from the mainland is only about three-fourths of a mile wide. The ancient Samians were early and important members of the Ionian confederacy [see ASIA MINOR: THE GREEK COLONIES] and acquired an early prominence among Greek communities in navigation, commerce, colonizing enterprise and advancement in the arts. Shortly before the Persian wars, in the last half of the sixth century B. C. the island became subject to a profoundly able and ambitious usurper, Polycrates, the most famous of all the Greek "tyrants" of the age, and under whom Samos rose to great power and great splendor of development. "Samos was at that time the brilliant centre of all Ionia, as far as the latter was yet untouched by the barbarians. For such a position she was preeminently fitted: for nowhere had the national life of the Ionians attained to so many-sided and energetic a development as on this particular island. … An unwearying impulse for inventions was implanted in these islanders, and at the same time a manly and adventurous spirit of discovery, stimulated by the dangers of unknown seas. … Under Polycrates, Samos had become a perfectly organized piratical state; and no ship could quietly pursue its voyages without having first purchased a safe-conduct from Samos. … But Polycrates intended to be something more than a freebooter. After he had annihilated all attempts at resistance, and made his fleet the sole naval power of the Archipelago, he began to take steps for creating a new and lasting establishment. The defenceless places on the coast had to buy security by the regular payment of tribute; under his protection they united into a body, the interests and affairs of which came more and more to find their centre in Samos, which from a piratical state became the federal capital of an extensive and brilliant empire of coasts and islands."

Two of the great works of Polycrates in Samos, the aqueduct, for which a mountain was tunnelled, and the harbor breakwater, were among the wonders of antiquity. The Heræum, or temple of Here, was a third marvel. After the death of Polycrates, treacherously murdered by the Persians, Samos became subject to Persia. At a later time it came under the sovereignty of Athens, and its subsequent history was full of vicissitudes. It retained considerable importance even to Roman times.

SAMOS: B. C. 413.
Overthrow of the oligarchy.
Concession of freedom and alliance by Athens.

The winter of B. C. 33-32. before the battle of Actium, was passed by Mark Antony at Samos, in company with Cleopatra, the Queen of Egypt. "The delicious little island was crowded with musicians, dancers and stage players; its shores resounded with the wanton strains of the flute and tabret."

SAMOSATA.

SAMOTHRACE.

A mountainous island in the northern part of the Ægean sea, so elevated that its highest point is over 5,000 feet above the sea level. In ancient times it derived its chief importance from the mysteries of the little understood worship of the Cabiri, of which it seems to have been the chief seat.

"The temple and mysteries of Samothrace formed a point of union for many men from all countries: for a great portion of the world at that time, the temple of Samothrace was like the Caaba of Mecca, the tomb of the prophet at Medina, or the Holy Sepulchre at Jerusalem. Samothrace and Dodona were to the Pelasgian nations what perhaps Delphi and Delos were to the Hellenic world."

SAN.

SAN DOMINGO, OR HAYTI.

SAN FRANCISCO: A. D. 1772-1776.
First exploration and naming of the Bay.
Founding of the Mission.

SAN JUAN OR NORTHWESTERN WATER-BOUNDARY QUESTION.

The treaty of 1846 which settled the Oregon boundary question left still in dispute the water-boundary between the territory of the United States and Vancouver's Island. Provision for submitting the determination of this San Juan water-boundary question, as it was called, to the Emperor of Germany was made in the Treaty of Washington.

"The Emperor, it appears, referred the arguments on both sides to three experts, Dr. Grimm, Dr. Kiepert, and Dr. Goldschmidt, personages among the most eminent of his subjects in jurisprudence and in science, upon whose report he decided, on the 21st of October, 1872, in the terms of the reference, that the claim of the United States to have the line drawn through the Canal de Haro is most in accordance with the true interpretation of the treaty concluded on the 15th of June, 1846, between Great Britain and the United States. 'This Award,' says the President's Message of December 2, 1872, 'confirms the United States in their claim to the important archipelago of islands lying between the continent and Vancouver's Island, which for more than 26 years … Great Britain had contested, and leaves us, for the first time in the history of the United States as a nation, without a question of disputed boundary between our territory and the possessions of Great Britain on this continent.'"

The Haro Archipelago, which formed the subject of dispute, is a group of many islands, mostly small, but containing one of considerable importance, namely the island of San Juan. The combined area of the islands is about 170 square miles. The archipelago is bounded on the north by the Canal de Haro and the Gulf of Georgia, on the east by Rosario Strait, on the west by the Canal de Haro, on the south by the Straits of Fuca. The entrance to the strait called the Canal de Haro is commanded by the Island of San Juan, which has, therefore, been called "'the Cronstadt of the Pacific.' Its position is such that a few batteries, skilfully placed, would render it almost impregnable." Hence the importance attached to the possession of this island, and especially on the part of Great Britain, looking to the future of British Columbia. By the decision of the Emperor of Germany the entire Archipelago became part of the recognized territory of the United States.

   "The Republic of San Marino is a survival unique in the
   political world of Europe. … The sovereign independence of San
   Marino is due to a series of happy accidents which were
   crystallised into a sentiment. The origin of the State is
   ascribed to a Dalmatian saint who fled from the early
   persecutions at Rome and dwelt in a hermitage on Mount
   Titanus. But it is impossible to believe that there was no
   earlier population. The mountain is a detached block standing
   free of the Apennines,—a short twelve miles from the
   sea-coast, easily defensible and commanding a fertile
   undulating district. The hill-villages must have existed
   before the towns of the coast. As old as Illyrian pirates were
   the highland townships of Verrucchio, San Leo, Urbino, Osimo,
   Loretto, and above all San Marino. Yet, but for the saint and
   his noble benefactress Felicitá, San Marino would have shared
   the fate of other highland communes. This lady was a Countess
   Matilda on a small scale. She gave to the young congregation
   the proprietorship of the mountain, and the lower table-land
   was acquired by subsequent purchase and by the generosity of
   Pope Æneas Sylvius. But Felicitá could not give
   sovereignty,—she could give no more than she possessed. The
   sovereignty had rested with the Roman Republic—the Empire—the
   Goths —the Greeks—the Germans. The Papacy itself had as much
   claim to San Marino as to anything which it possessed. It was
   included at all events in the donation of Pepin. In the
   Pontificate of John XXII. the Bishop of Feltro, who claimed
   the ownership of the town, proposed to sell it, partly because
   he needed money to restore his church, partly because the
   Sammarinesi were rebellious subjects,—'not recognising
   superiors here on earth, and perchance not believing upon a
   superior in heaven.' Yet the Papacy appears in the 13th
   century to have accepted a judicial decision as to the
   sovereign independence of the Republic, and Pius II.
   considerably increased its territory in 1463 at the expense of
   Sigismund Malatesta. The sovereignty of San Marino is
   therefore almost as complete a puzzle as that of the
   mysterious Royaume d' Yvetot. … The Malatestas, originally
   lords of the neighboring upland fortress of Verrucchio would
   willingly have made the whole ridge the backbone of their
   State of Rimini. But this very fact secured for the
   Sammarinesi the constant friendship of the lords of Urbino. …
   Neither power could allow the other to appropriate so
   invaluable a strategic position. … The existing constitution
   is a living lesson on medieval history. … Theoretically,
   sovereignty in the last resort belongs to the people, and of
   old this was practically exercised by the Arengo, which thus
   has some correspondence in meaning and functions to the
   Florentine Parlamento. The Sammarinesi, however, were wiser
   than the Florentines. When the increase of population and
   territory rendered a gathering of the whole people an
   incompetent engine of legislation, the Arengo was not allowed
   to remain as a mischievous survival with ill-defined authority
   at the mercy of the governmental wire-pullers. The prerogatives
   which were reserved to the Arengo were small but definite. …
   It was after the accession of territory granted by Pius II. in
   1465 that the constitution of the State was fundamentally
   altered. …
{2800}
   The people now delegated its sovereignty to the Council, which
   was raised to 60 members. … In 1600 an order of Patricians was
   established, to which was given one-third of the
   representation, and the Council now consists of 20 'nobili,'
   20 'artisti,' artisans and shopkeepers, and 20 'contadini,'
   agriculturists. The harmony of the Republic is undisturbed by
   general elections, for the Council is recruited by
   co-optation. … At the head of the Executive stand the two
   Captains Regent. To them the statutes assign the sovereign
   authority and the power of the sword. … They draw a small
   salary, and during their six months of office are free from
   all State burdens."

      E. Armstrong,
      A Political Survival
      (Macmillan's Magazine, January, 1891).

"Between this miniature country and its institutions there is a delicious disproportion. The little area of thin soil has for centuries maintained a complicated government. … There is a national post-office; there is an army of nine hundred and fifty men and eight officers; there are diplomatic agents in Paris and Montevideo, and consuls in various European cities. Services rendered to the State or to science may be rewarded by knighthood, and so late as 1876 San Marino expressed its gratitude to an English lady for her gift of a statue of liberty, by making her Duchess of Acquaviva. Titles are by no means the most undemocratic part of the republic. On examination it is seen to be in fact an oligarchy. … Yet an oligarchy among yeoman farmers is a very different thing from an oligarchy among merchant princes. San Marino may be compared with colonial Massachusetts. The few voters have always really represented the mass of the people. It has been a singularly united, courageous, honorable, public·spirited, and prudent people. Union was possible because it was and is a poor community, in which there were no powerful families to fight and expel each other, or exiles to come back with an enemy's army. The courage of the people is shown by their hospitality to Garibaldi when he was fleeing after his defeat of 1849. An excellent moral fibre was manifested when, in 1868, the Republic refused to receive the gambling establishments which had been made illegal in other countries. The new town-hall is a monument to the enlightened public spirit of the San Marinese, as well as to their taste. That the State is prudent is shown by its distinction, almost unique in Europe, of having no public debt. Other little states in Europe have had similar good qualities, yet have long since been destroyed. Why has San Marino outlived them all? … The perpetuation of the government is due in the first place to it singular freedom from any desire to extend its borders. The outlying villages have been added by gift or by their own free will; and when, in 1797, General Bonaparte invited the San Marinese to make their wishes known, 'if any part of the adjacent territory is absolutely necessary to you,' the hard-headed leaders declined 'an enlargement which might in time compromise their liberty.' On the other hand, the poor town had nothing worth plundering, and annexation was so difficult a task that Benedict XIV. said of Cardinal Alberoni's attempt in 1739: 'San Marino is a tough bread-crust; the man who tries to bite it gets his teeth broken.' Nevertheless, even peaceful and inoffensive communities were not safe during the last twelve centuries, without powerful protectors. The determining reason for the freedom of San Marino since 1300 has been the friendship of potentates, first of the neighboring Dukes of Urbino, then of the Popes, then of Napoleon, then of Italy. … When the kingdom of Italy was formed in 1860, no one cared to erase from the map a state which even the Pope had spared, and in which Europe was interested. Hence the San Marinese retained a situation comparable with that of the native states in India. A 'consolato' of the Italian Government resides in the town; the schools are assimilated to the Italian system; appeals may be had from the courts to the Italian upper courts, and precautions are taken to prevent the harboring of refugee criminals. Yet of the old sovereignty four important incidents are retained. San Marino has a post-office, a kind of national plaything; but the rare and beautiful stamps are much prized by collectors, and doubtless the sale helps the coffers of the state. The San Marinese manage, and well manage, their own local affairs, without any annoying interference from an Italian prefect. They owe no military service to Italy, and their own militia is no burden. Above all, they pay no taxes to Italy. If I were an Italian, I should like to be a San Marinese."

      A. B. Hart,
      The Ancient Commonwealth of San Marino
      (The Nation, February 1, 1894).

The name given by Columbus to the little island in the Bahama group which he first discovered, and the identity of which is in dispute.

SAN SALVADOR, Central America: A. D. 1821-1871.
   Independence of Spain.
   Brief annexation to Mexico.
   Attempted Federations and their failure.

SANCHO II. (called The Great), King of Navarre, 970-1035; and I. of Castile, 1026-1035.

SANDEMANIANS.

Robert Sandeman "was a Scotchman who held peculiar religious views: such as—that an intellectual belief would ensure salvation, without faith; and that this intellectual belief was certain to induce Christian virtues. He held these so strongly and urgently that he made a small sect; and in 1764 he came to Connecticut, and founded churches at Danbury and at some other places, where his followers were called 'Sandemanians,' and where some traces of them exist still. … The followers of Robert Sandeman were nearly all Loyalists [at the time of the American Revolution], and many of them emigrated from Connecticut to New Brunswick."

SANDJAKS, SANJAKS.

SANGALA.

An ancient city in the Punjab, India, which was the easternmost of all the conquests of Alexander the Great. He took the town by storm (B. C. 326), slaying 17,000 of the inhabitants and taking 70,000 captives.

"Beside the priesthood [of the Jewish church], ever since the time of Ezra, there had been insensibly growing a body of scholars, who by the time of Herod had risen to a distinct function of the State. Already under John Hyrcanus there was a judicial body known as the House of Judgment (Beth Din). To this was given the Macedonian title of Synedrion [or Synhedrion], transformed into the barbarous Hebrew word Sanhedrim, or Sanhedrin."

"The Sanhedrin was the great court of judicature; it judged of all capital offences against the law; it had the power of inflicting punishment by scourging and by death. … The Great Sanhedrin was a court of appeal from the inferior Sanhedrins of twenty-three judges established in the other towns. The Sanhedrin was probably confined to its judicial duties —it was a plenary court of justice, and no more during the reigns of the later Asmonean princes, and during those of Herod the Great and his son Archelaus. … When Judæa became a Roman province, the Sanhedrin either, as is more likely, assumed for the first time, or recovered its station as a kind of senate or representative body of the nation. … At all events, they seem to have been the channel of intercourse between the Roman rulers and the body of the people. It is the Sanhedrin, under the name of the chief priests, scribes, and elders of the people, who take the lead in all the transactions recorded in the Gospels. Jesus Christ was led before the Sanhedrin, and by them denounced before the tribunal of Pilate."

"Soon after Mr. Lincoln issued his proclamation [April 15, 1861, at the outbreak of the American Civil War] … calling for 75,000 soldiers, many good men and women instituted what they termed 'Soldiers' Aid Societies.' At first the government did not look upon these with approval, under an apprehension that they might interfere with the discipline and efficiency of the armies. Certain physicians and clergymen who had interested themselves in these charitable undertakings perceived how much good could be accomplished by a more extensive and thorough organization. Seeking no remuneration, they applied to the government to give them recognition and moral support, and, after some difficulty, this being secured, they organized themselves and were recognized as 'the United States Sanitary Commission.' The Reverend Henry W. Bellows, D. D., was its president. Their intention was to aid by their professional advice the medical department of the government service; but soon, the field opening out before them, their operations were greatly enlarged. From being simply an advisory, they became more and more an executive body. … The Sanitary Commission now entered on an extraordinary career of usefulness. It ranged itself in affiliation with the government medical bureau. It gathered supporters from all classes of the people. … Soon the commission had an independent transportation of its own. It had hospital transports, wagons, ambulances, railroad ambulances, cars. Ingenious men devised for it inventions of better litters, better stretchers, better ambulances. It secured comfortable transportation for the wounded soldier from the battle-field to the hospital. On the railroad it soon had its hospital cars, with kitchen, dispensary, and a surgeon's car in the midst. As its work increased, so did its energies and the singular efficiency of its organization. It divided its services into several departments of duty.

(1.) Its preventive service, or sanitary inspection department, had a corps of medical inspectors, who examined thoroughly troops in the field, and reported their condition and needs to its own officers and to the government. It had also a corps of special hospital inspectors, who visited the general hospitals of the army, nearly 300 in number, their reports being confidential, and sent to the surgeon general of the army.

(2.) Its department of general relief. This consisted of twelve branches of the general commission, having depots in the large towns, each branch having from 150 to 1,200 auxiliaries engaged in obtaining supplies. These were sent to the main depot, and there assorted, repacked, and dispatched. One of these branches, the 'Woman's Central Association,' collected stores to the value of over a million of dollars; another, the Northwestern, at Chicago, furnished more than a quarter of a million. Care was taken to have no waste in the distribution. Soldiers of all the states were equally supplied; and even wounded enemies left on the field, or sick and abandoned in the hospitals, were tenderly cared for.

(3.) Its department of special relief. This took under its charge soldiers not yet under, or just out of the care of the government; men on sick leave, or found in the streets, or left by their regiments. For such it furnished 'homes.' About 7,500 men were, on an average, thus daily or nightly accommodated. It also had 'lodges' wherein a sick soldier might stay while awaiting his pay from the paymaster general, or, if unable to reach a hospital, might stop for a time. Still more, it had 'Homes for the Wives, Mothers, and Children of Soldiers.' where those visiting the wounded or sick man to minister to his necessities might find protection, defense, food, shelter. It had its 'Feeding Stations,' where a tired and hungry soldier passing by could have a gratuitous meal. On the great military lines these stations were permanently established. On the chief rivers, the Mississippi, the Cumberland, the Potomac, it had 'sanitary steamers' for transmitting supplies and transporting the sick and wounded. It established 'agencies' to see that no injustice was done to any soldier; that the soldier, his widow, his orphan, obtained pensions, back pay, bounties, or whatever money was due; that any errors in their papers were properly corrected, and especially that no sharper took advantage of them. It instituted hospital directories by which the friends of a soldier could obtain information without cost as to his place and condition, if within a year he had been an inmate of any hospital. It had such a record of not less than 900,000 names. Whenever permitted to do so, it sent supplies to the United States prisoners of war in confinement at Andersonville, Salisbury, Richmond. …

(4.) Its department of field relief. The duty of this was to minister to the wounded on the field of battle; to furnish bandages, cordials, nourishment; to give assistance to the surgeons, and to supply any deficiencies it could detect in the field hospitals. It had a chief inspector for the armies of the East; another for the Military Department of the Mississippi, with a competent staff for each.

(5.) Its auxiliary relief corps. This supplied deficiencies in personal attendance and work in the hospitals, or among the wounded on the field. Between May, 1864, when it was first organized, and January, 1865, it gave its services to more than 75,000 patients. It waited on the sick and wounded; wrote letters for them, gave them stationery, postage stamps, newspapers, and whiled away the heavy hours of suffering by reading magazines and books to them. To the Sanitary Commission the government gave a most earnest support; the people gave it their hearts. They furnished it with more than three millions of dollars in money, of which one million came from the Pacific States; they sent it nine millions' worth of supplies. From fairs held in its interest very large sums were derived. One in New York yielded a million and a quarter of dollars; one in Philadelphia more than a million. In towns comparatively small, there were often collected at such fairs more than twenty thousand dollars. … The Christian Commission emulated the noble conduct of the United States Sanitary Commission. It, too, received the recognition and countenance of the government. Its object was to promote the physical and spiritual welfare of soldiers and sailors. Its central office was in Philadelphia, but it had agencies in all the large towns. 'It aided the surgeon, helped the chaplain, followed the armies in their marches, went into the trenches and along the picket-line. Wherever there was a sick, a wounded, a dying man, an agent of the Christian Commission was near by.' It gave Christian burial whenever possible; it marked the graves of the dead. It had its religious services, its little extemporized chapels, its prayer-meetings. The American Bible Society gave it Bibles and Testaments; the Tract Society its publications. The government furnished its agents and supplies free transportation; it had the use of the telegraph for its purposes. Steamboat and railroad companies furthered its objects with all their ability. It distributed nearly five millions of dollars in money and supplies."

SANITARY SCIENCE AND LEGISLATION.

SANJAKS, SANDJAKS.

The Declaration affixed by the Cameronians to the market-cross of Sanquhar, in 1680, renouncing allegiance to King Charles II.

SANSCULOTTES.

SANSKRIT.

"The name Sanskrit as applied to the ancient language of the Hindus is an artificial designation for a highly elaborated form of the language originally brought by the Indian branch of the great Aryan race into India. This original tongue soon became modified by contact with the dialects of the aboriginal races who preceded the Aryans, and in this way converted into the peculiar language ('bhasha') of the Aryan immigrants who settled in the neighbourhood of the seven rivers of the Panjab and its outlying districts ('Sapta-Sindhavas'=in Zand 'Hapta Hendu'). The most suitable name for the original language thus moulded into the speech of the Hindus is Hindu-i (= Sindhu-i), its principal later development being called Hindi, just as the Low German dialect of the Saxons when modified in England was called Anglo-Saxon. But very soon that happened in India which has come to pass in all civilized countries. The spoken language, when once its general form and character had been settled, separated into two lines, the one elaborated by the learned, the other popularized and variously provincialized by the unlearned. In India, however, … this separation became more marked, more diversified, and progressively intensified. Hence, the very grammar which with other nations was regarded only as a means to an end, came to be treated by Indian Pandits as the end itself, and was subtilized into an intricate science, fenced around by a bristling barrier of technicalities. The language, too, elaborated 'pari passu' with the grammar, rejected the natural name of Hindu-i, or 'the speech of the Hindus,' and adopted an artificial designation, viz. Sanskrita, 'the perfectly constructed speech,' … to denote its complete severance from vulgar purposes, and its exclusive dedication to religion and literature; while the name Prakrita—which may mean 'the original' as well as 'the derived' speech—was assigned to the common dialect."

SANTA HERMANDAD.

SARACENIC EMPIRE.

SARACENIC SCHOOLS.

"From Mecca to the Euphrates, the Arabian tribes were confounded by the Greeks and Latins under the general appellation of Saracens. … The name which, used by Ptolemy and Pliny in a more confined, by Ammianus and Procopius in a larger, sense, has been derived, ridiculously, from Sarah, the wife of Abraham, obscurely from the village of Saraka, … more plausibly from the Arabic words which signify a thievish character, or Oriental situation. … Yet the last and most popular of these etymologies is refuted by Ptolemy (Arabia, p. 2. 18. in Hudson, tom. iv.), who expressly remarks the western and southern position of the Saracens, then an obscure tribe on the borders of Egypt. The appellation cannot, therefore, allude to any national character; and, since it was imposed by strangers, it must be found, not in the Arabic, but in a foreign language."

"Dr. Clarke (Travels, volume ii., page 391) after expressing contemptuous pity for Gibbon's ignorance, derives the word from Zara, Zaara, Sara, the Desert, whence Saraceni, the children of the Desert. De Marlès adopts the derivation from Sarrik, a robber, History des Arabes, volume 1, page 36; St. Martin from Scharkioun, or Sharkün, Eastern, volume xi., page 55."

The Kadmonites "are undoubtedly what their name expresses, Orientals, Saracens, otherwise B'ne Kedem,' or Suns of the East; a name restricted in practice to the cast contiguous to Palestine, and comprising only the Arabian nations dwelling between Palestine and the Euphrates. … The name Saraceni was in use among the Romans long before Islam, apparently from the time of Trajan's and Hadrian's wars."

H. Ewald, History of Israel, introduction, section 4, with foot-note (volume 1).

In the Middle Ages the term Saracen became common in its application to the Arabs, and, in fact, to the Mahometan races pretty generally.

SARAGOSSA: A. D. 1808-1809.
Siege and capture by the French.
Extraordinary defense of the city.

SARANGIANS.

The name given by Herodotus to a warlike people who dwelt anciently on the shores of the Hamun and in the Valley of the Hilmend—southwestern Afghanistan. By the later Greeks they were called Zarangians and Drangians; by the Persians Zaraka.

SARCEES (TINNEH).

"The name of the island 'Sardo' is derived with probability from the Phœnician, and describes its resemblance to the human footstep. … Diodorus reckons this island among the places to which the Phœnicians sent colonies, after they had enriched themselves by the silver of Spain. … What the primitive population of the island was, which the Phœnicians found there when they touched at its southern ports on their way to Spain, whether it had come from the coast of Italy, or Africa, we can only conjecture. In historical times it appears to have been derived from three principal sources,—immigrations from Africa, represented by the traditions of Sardus and Aristæus; from Greece, represented by Iolaus, and from the south and south-east of Spain, represented by Norax. … The name Norax has evidently a reference to those singular remains of ancient architecture, the Nuraghi of Sardinia,—stone towers in the form of a truncated cone, with a spiral staircase in the thickness of the wall, which to the number of 3,000 are scattered over the island, chiefly in the southern and western parts. Nothing entirely analogous to these has been found in any other part of the world; but they resemble most the Athalayas [or Talajots] of Minorca, whose population was partly Iberian, partly Libyan. … The Carthaginians, at the time when their naval power was at its height, in the sixth and fifth centuries B. C., subdued all the level country, the former inhabitants taking refuge among the mountains, where their manners receded towards barbarism."

SARDINIA: A. D. 1719.

Given up by Spain and acquired by the Duke of Savoy in
exchange for Sicily, giving its name to his kingdom.

SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1742.
The king joins Austria in the War of the Austrian Succession.

SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1743.
The Bourbon Family Compact against the king.

SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1774.
The War of the Austrian Succession:
French and Spanish invasion of Piedmont.

SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1745.
The War of the Austrian Succession:
Overwhelming reverses.

SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1746-1747.
The War of the Austrian Succession:
The French and Spaniards driven out.

SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1748.
Termination and results of the War of the Austrian Succession.

SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1792.
Annexation of Savoy and Nice to the French Republic.

SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1793.
Joined in the Coalition against Revolutionary France.

SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1796.
   Submission to the French under Bonaparte.
   Treaty of peace.
   Cession of Savoy to the Republic.

SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1798.
Piedmont taken by the French.
Its sovereignty relinquished by the king.

SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1814-1815.
   The king recovers his kingdom.
   Annexation of Genoa.
   Cession of part of Savoy to France.

SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1820-1821.
Abortive revolutionary rising and war with Austria.
The defeat at Novara.

SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1831.
Death of Charles Felix.
Accession of Charles Albert.

SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1848-1849.
   Alliance with insurgent Lombardy and Venetia.
   War with Austria.
   Defeat.
   Abdication of Charles Albert.
   Accession of Victor Emmanuel II.

SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1855.
In the Alliance of the Crimean War against Russia.

SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1856-1870.
   The great work of Count Cavour and King Victor Emmanuel.
   Liberation of the whole Peninsula and
   creation of the kingdom of Italy.

SARDIS.

When Cyrus the Great founded the Persian empire by the overthrow of that of the Medes, B. C. 558, his first enterprise of conquest, outside of the Median dominion, was directed against the kingdom of Lydia, then, under its famous king Crœsus, dominant in Asia Minor and rapidly increasing in wealth and power. After an indecisive battle, Crœsus retired to his capital city, Sardis, which was then the most splendid city of Asia Minor, and was followed by Cyrus, who captured and plundered the town, at the end of a siege of only fourteen days. The fall of Sardis was the fall of the Lydian kingdom, which was absorbed into the great empire of Persia.

Fifty-eight years later (about 500 B. C.) at the beginning of the Ionian Revolt, when the Greek cities of Asia Minor attempted to throw off the Persian yoke, Sardis was again plundered and burned by an invading force of Ionians and Athenians.

   This was a severe defeat inflicted by the Scots upon an
   English force, invading Scottish territory, under Lord Percy.
   The English lost 3,000 men and Percy was taken prisoner.

SARMATIA. SARMATIANS.

"The Scythians of the time of Herodotus were separated only by the river Tanais [modern Don] from the Sarmatians, who occupied the territory for several days' journey north-cast of the Palus Mæôtis; on the south, they were divided by the Danube from the section of Thracians called Getæ. Both these nations were nomadic, analogous to the Scythians in habits, military efficiency, and fierceness. Indeed, Herodotus and Hippokrates distinctly intimate that the Sarmatians were nothing but a branch of Scythians, speaking a Scythian dialect, and distinguished from their neighbours on the other side of the Tanais chiefly by this peculiarity,—that the women among them were warriors hardly less daring and expert than the men."

The Sarmatians ultimately gave their name to the whole region of northeastern Europe, and some writers have considered them to be, not Scythic or Mongolic in race, but progenitors of the modern Slavonic family. "By Sarmatia [Tacitus] seems to have understood what is now Moldavia and Wallachia, and perhaps part of the south of Russia."

SARMATIAN AND MARCOMANNIAN WARS OF MARCUS AURELIUS.

It was during the reign of Marcus Aurelius Antoninus that the inroads of the barbarians along the Danubian frontier of the Roman Empire began to be seriously frequent and bold. "It is represented as a simultaneous, and even a combined attack, of all the races on the northern frontier, who may be ranged under the three national divisions of Germans, Scythians, and Sarmatians; though we may question the fact of an actual league among tribes so many, so various, and so distant." The Marcomanni and the Quadi on the upper Danube, and the Sarmatian tribes on the lower, were the prominent intruders, and the campaigns which Aurelius conducted against them, A. D. 167-180, are generally called either the Marcomannian or the Sarmatian Wars. During these thirteen years, the noblest of all monarchs surrendered repeatedly the philosophic calm which he loved so well, and gave himself to the hateful business of frontier war, vainly striving to arrest in its beginning the impending flood of barbaric invasion. Repeatedly, he won the semblance of a peace with the unrelenting foe, and as repeatedly it was broken. He died in his soldier's harness, at Vindobona (Vienna), and happily did not live to witness the peace . which Rome, in the end, stooped to buy from the foes she had no more strength to overcome.

   A Roman road running through Wales, called by the Welsh the
   Sarn Helen, or road of Helen, from a notion that the Empress
   Helena caused it to be made.

One of the victories of the Emperor Heraclius,
A. D. 625, in his war with the Persians.

SASSANIAN DYNASTY.

Artaxerxes I., who resurrected the Persian empire, or called a new Persian empire into existence, A. D. 226, by the overthrow of the Parthian monarchy and the subjection of its dominions, founded a dynasty which took the name of the Sassanian, or the family of the Sassanidæ, from one Sasan, who, according to some accounts was the father, according to others a remoter progenitor of Artaxerxes. This second Persian monarchy is, itself, often called the Sassanian, to distinguish it from the earlier Achæmenian Persian empire.

SATRAP. SATRAPIES.

Darius Hystaspis "has been well called 'the true founder of the Persian state.' He found the Empire a crude and heterogeneous mass of ill-assorted elements, hanging loosely together by the single tie of subjection to a common head; he left it a compact and regularly organized body, united on a single well-ordered system, permanently established everywhere. … It was the first, and probably the best, instance of that form of government which, taking its name from the Persian word for provincial ruler, is known generally as the system of 'satrapial' administration. Its main principles were, in the first place, the reduction of the whole Empire to a quasi-uniformity by the substitution of one mode of governing for several; secondly, the substitution of fixed and definite burthens on the subject in lieu of variable and uncertain calls; and thirdly, the establishment of a variety of checks and counterpoises among the officials to whom it was necessary that the crown should delegate its powers. … The authority instituted by Darius was that of his satraps. He divided the whole Empire into a number of separate governments—a number which must have varied at different times, but which seems never to have fallen short of twenty. Over each government he placed a satrap, or supreme civil governor, charged with the collection and transmission of the revenue, the administration of justice, the maintenance of order, and the general supervision of the territory. These satraps were nominated by the king at his pleasure from any class of his subjects, and held office for no definite term, but simply until recalled, being liable to deprivation or death at any moment, without other formality than the presentation of the royal 'firman.' While, however, they remained in office they were despotic—they represented the Great King, and were clothed with a portion of his majesty. … They wielded the power of life and death. They assessed the tribute on the several towns and villages within their jurisdiction at their pleasure, and appointed deputies—called sometimes, like themselves, satraps—over cities or districts within their province, whose office was regarded as one of great dignity. … Nothing restrained their tyranny but such sense of right as they might happen to possess, and the fear of removal or execution if the voice of complaint reached the monarch."

"The Saturnalia, first celebrated in Rome at the dedication [of the temple of Saturn, on the southern slope of the Capitoline Hill] … extended originally over three, but finally over seven days, during which all social distinctions were ignored; slaves were admitted to equality with their masters; and the chains which the emancipated from slavery used to hang, as thanksgiving, on or below the statue of the god, were taken down to intimate that perfect freedom had been enjoyed by all alike under the thrice-happy Saturnian reign. Varro mentions the practice of sending wax tapers as presents during this festival; and when we remember the other usage of suspending wax masks, during the Saturnalia, in a chapel beside the temple of the beneficent Deity, the analogies between these equalizing fêtes and the modern Carnival become more apparent."

SAUCY CASTLE.

A notable defeat inflicted upon the invading Northmen or Danes in 881 by the French king Louis III., one of the last of the Carolingian line. The battle is commemorated in a song which is one of the earliest specimens of Teutonic verse.

Sir F. Palgrave, History of Normandy and England, book 1, chapter 4 (volume 1).

SAVANNAH: A. D. 1861.
Threatened by the Union forces, in occupation of the islands
at the mouth of the river.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1861 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER: SOUTH
      CAROLINA-GEORGIA).

SAVANNAH: A. D. 1862.
Reduction of Fort Pulaski by the national forces,
and sealing up of the port.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: 11-15th Centuries.
   Rise and growth of the dominions of the Savoyard princes,
   in Italy and the Burgundian territory.
   Creation of the duchy.
   Assumption of the title of Princes of Piedmont.

   "The cradle of the Savoyard power lay in the Burgundian lands
   immediately bordering upon Italy and stretching on both sides
   of the Alps. It was to their geographical position, as holding
   several great mountain passes, that the Savoyard princes owed
   their first importance, succeeding therein in some measure to
   the Burgundian kings themselves. The early stages of the
   growth of the house are very obscure; and its power does not
   seem to have formed itself till after the union of Burgundy
   with the Empire. But it seems plain that, at the end of the
   11th century, the Counts of Maurienne, which was their
   earliest title, held rights of sovereignty in the Burgundian
   districts of Maurienne, Savoy strictly so called, Tarantaise,
   and Aosta. … The early Savoyard possessions reached to the
   Lake of Geneva, and spread on both sides of the inland mouth
   of the Rhone. The power of the Savoyard princes in this region
   was largely due to their ecclesiastical position as advocates
   of the abbey of Saint Maurice. Thus their possessions had a
   most irregular outline, nearly surrounding the lands of
   Genevois and Faucigny. A state of this shape, like Prussia in
   a later age and on a greater scale, was, as it were,
   predestined to make further advances. But for some centuries
   those advances were made much more largely in Burgundy than in
   Italy. The original Italian possessions of the House bordered
   on their Burgundian counties of Maurienne and Aosta, taking in
   Susa and Turin. This small marchland gave its princes the
   sounding title of Marquesses in Italy. … In the 12th and 13th
   centuries, the princes of Savoy were still hemmed in, in their
   own corner of Italy, by princes of equal or greater power, at
   Montferrat, at Saluzzo, at Iverea, and at Biandrate. And it
   must be remembered that their position as princes at once
   Burgundian and Italian was not peculiar to them. … The Italian
   dominions of the family remained for a long while quite
   secondary to its Burgundian possessions. … The main object of
   Savoyard policy in this region was necessarily the acquisition
   of the lands of Faucigny and the Genevois. But the final
   incorporation of those lands did not take place till they were
   still more completely hemmed in by the Savoyard dominions
   through the extension of the Savoyard power to the north of
   the Lake. This began early in the 13th century [1207] by a
   royal grant of Moudon to Count Thomas of Savoy. Romont was
   next won, and became the centre of the Savoyard power north of
   the Lake. Soon after, through the conquests of Peter of Savoy
   [1263-1268], who was known as the Little Charlemagne and who
   plays a part in English as well as in Burgundian history,
   these possessions grew into a large dominion, stretching along
   a great part of the shores of the Lake of Neufchâtel and
   reaching as far north as Murten or Morat. … This new dominion
   north of the Lake was, after Peter's reign, held for a short
   time by a separate branch of the Savoyard princes as Barons of
   Vaud; but in the middle of the 14th century, their barony came
   into the direct possession of the elder branch of the house.
   The lands of Faucigny and the Genevois were thus altogether
   surrounded by the Savoyard territory. Faucigny had passed to
   the Dauphins of the Viennois, who were the constant rivals of
   the Savoyard counts, down to the time of the practical
   transfer of their dauphiny to France. Soon after that
   annexation, Savoy obtained Faucigny, with Gex and some other
   districts beyond the Rhone, in exchange for some small
   Savoyard possessions within the dauphiny.
{2807}
   The long struggle for the Genevois, the county of Geneva, was
   ended by its purchase in the beginning of the 15th century
   [1401]. This left the city of Geneva altogether surrounded by
   Savoyard territory, a position which before long altogether
   changed the relations between the Savoyard counts and the
   city. Hitherto, in the endless struggles between the Genevese
   counts, bishops, and citizens, the Savoyard counts … had often
   been looked on by the citizens as friends and protectors. Now
   that they had become immediate neighbours of the city, they
   began before long to be its most dangerous enemies. The
   acquisition of the Genevois took place in the reign of the
   famous Amadeus, the Eighth, the first Duke of Savoy, who
   received that rank by grant of King Siegmund [1417], and who
   was afterwards the Anti-pope Felix.

In his reign the dominions of Savoy, as a power ruling on both sides of the Alps, reached their greatest extent. But the Savoyard power was still pre-eminently Burgundian, and Chambery was its capital. The continuous Burgundian dominion of the house now reached from the Alps to the Saône, surrounding the lake of Geneva and spreading on both sides of the lake of Neufchâtel. Besides this continuous Burgundian dominion, the House of Savoy had already become possessed [1388] of Nizza, by which their dominions reached to the sea. … After the 15th century, the Burgundian history of that house consists of the steps spread over more than 300 years by which this great dominion was lost. The real importance of the house of Savoy in Italy dates from much the same time as the great extension of its power in Burgundy. … During the 14th century, among many struggles with the Marquesses of Montferrat and Saluzzo, the Angevin counts of Provence, and the lords of Milan, the Savoyard power in Italy generally increased. … Before the end of the reign of Amadeus [the Eighth—1391-1451], the dominions of Savoy stretched as far as the Sesia, taking in Biella, Santhia and VerceIli. Counting Nizza and Aosta as Italian, which they now practically were, the Italian dominions of the House reached from the Alps of Wallis to the sea. But they were nearly cut in two by the dominions of the Marquesses of Montferrat, from whom however the Dukes of Savoy now claimed homage. … Amadeus, the first Duke of Savoy, took the title of Count of Piedmont, and afterwards that of Prince. His possessions were now fairly established as a middle state, Italian and Burgundian, in nearly equal proportions."

ALSO IN: A. Gallenga, History of Piedmont, volume 1, chapters 6-9, volume 2, chapters 1-6.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1452-1454.
Alliance with Venice and Naples.
War with Milan and Florence.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1504-1535.
Struggles with the independent burghers of Geneva.
Loss of the Vidommate.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1536-1544. Conquest by the French and restoration to the Duke by the Treaty of Crespy.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1559-1580.
   End of the French occupation.
   Recovery of his dominions by Emanuel Philibert.
   His reconstruction of the state.
   Treaties with the Swiss.
   War with the Waldenses.
   Tolerant Treaty of Cavour.
   Settlement of government at Turin.

   "The history of Piedmont begins where the history of Italy
   terminates. At the Peace of Chateau-Cambresis], in 1559,
   Piedmont was born again.

Under Amadeus VIII. Savoy bade fair to become a State of the very first order. In the course of a century it had sunk to a third-rate power. … Piedmont, utterly prostrated by five-and-twenty years of foreign occupation, laid waste by the trampling of all the armies of Europe, required now the work of a constructive genius, and Emanuel Philibert was providentially fitted for the task. No man could better afford to be pacific than the conqueror of St. Quintin. …

After the battle of St. Quintin, Emanuel Philibert had France at his discretion. Had his counsels been instantly followed, the Spanish army would have dictated its own terms before or within the walls of Paris. … The reconciliation of France with the hero who had alarmed and humbled her seemed, nevertheless, to be sincere." Under the terms of the treaty, the Duke of Savoy's dominions, occupied by the French, were to be restored to him, except that Turin, Chieri, Chivasso, Pinerolo, and Villanova d' Asti, with part of their territories, "were to be occupied for three years, or until the settlement of the differences between the two Courts, chiefly with regard to the dowry of Louisa of Savoy, mother of Francis I., the original cause of dispute. … So long as France insisted on keeping the five above-mentioned places, Spain was also empowered to retain Asti and Vercelli." Philip II., however, gave up VerceIli and "contented himself with the occupation of Asti and Santia." The differences with France proved hard of settlement, and it was not until 1574 that "Emanuel Philibert found himself in possession of all his Subalpine dominions. No words can describe the meanness and arrogance by which the French aggravated this prolonged usurpation of their neighbour's territories. … Had Emanuel Philibert put himself at the head of one of [the factions which fought in France at this time] … he might have paid back … the indignities he had had to endure; but his mission was the restoration of his own State, not the subjugation of his neighbour's. … The same moderation and longanimity which enabled Emanuel Philibert to avoid a collision with France, because be deemed it unreasonable, equally distinguished him in his relations with his neighbours of Italy. There was now, alas! no Italy; the country had fallen a prey to the Spanish branch of the House of Austria, and the very existence of Mantua, Parma, Tuscany, etc., was at the mercy of Philip II. … This 'most able and most honest of all the princes of his line' was fully aware of the importance of his position as the 'bulwark of Italy,' and felt that on his existence hung the fate of such states in the Peninsula as still aspired to independence. 'I know full well,' he said in a moment of cordial expansion, 'that these foreigners are all bent on the utter destruction of Italy, and that I may be the first immolated; but my fall can be indifferent to no Italian state, and least of all to Venice.' Full of these thoughts, he was unwearied in his endeavours to secure the friendship of that republic. … The same instinctive dread of the crushing ascendancy of Spain and France, which made Emanuel Philibert cling to the Venetian alliance, equally urged him to settle, no matter at what cost, the differences with the other old allies of his house—the Swiss. The Pays de Vaud, Gex, Chablais, and Lower Valais were still in the power of the confederates.

It was not without a murmur that the Duke of Savoy could part with so fair a portion of his forefathers' inheritance; but it was not long ere he learnt to resign all hope of its recovery. A new generation had sprung up in those provinces, amongst whom all loyalty to Savoy had died off. The Bernese had introduced the Reformation into the conquered lands. … Political freedom went hand in hand with religious innovation. … Geneva was the very head-quarters of reform; it was proud of the appellation of the 'Rome of Calvinism.' … Emanuel Philibert, ill-supported by Spain and thwarted by France, laid aside all ideas of an appeal to force, and trusted his cause to negotiation. There was happily division in the enemy's camp; religious difference had set the old forest cantons into opposition with Berne and her Protestant associates. The Duke of Savoy made a treaty at Lucerne (November 11, 1560) with Schwytz, Uri, Unterwald, Zug, Lucerne, Soleure, and even Zurich; and these promised their good offices with their Protestant brethren in behalf of Savoy. Lengthy and somewhat stormy conferences ensued, the result of which was the treaty of Lausanne (October 30, 1564); by the terms of which Berne retained Vaud, and Friburg Romont, and Savoy only recovered Gex and Chablais. At a later period (March 4th, 1569) Valais also came to terms at Thonon; it gave up its own share of Chablais, but remained in possession of Lower Valais. By the recovery of Gex and Chablais Savoy now encompassed Geneva on all sides, and caused that town incessant uneasiness; but the Duke … was … earnestly bent on peace, and he reassured the Genevese by new treaties, signed at Berne (May 5th, 1570), by which he engaged to give no molestation to Geneva. These same treaties bound Savoy to allow freedom of conscience and worship to those of her subjects who had embraced Protestantism during the Swiss occupation; and we hear, in fact, of no persecutions in the provinces round the Leman in Emanuel Philibert's lifetime; but it is important to inquire how that Prince dealt in these matters with his subjects in general. … We hear from several authorities that 'the Piedmontese were more than half Protestants.' The Waldensian ministers reckoned their sectaries at the foot of the Alps at 800,000. … The Waldenses considered the prevalence of the new tenets as their own triumph. From 1526 to 1530 they entered into communication with the Reformers, and modified their own creed and worship in accordance with the new ideas, identifying themselves especially with the disciples of Calvin. … Their valleys became a refuge for all persecuted sectaries, amongst whom there were turbulent spirits, who stirred up those simple and loyal mountaineers to mutiny and revolt. Although they thus called down upon themselves the enmity of all the foes to Protestantism, these valleys continued nevertheless to be looked upon as a privileged district, and their brethren of other provinces found there a safe haven from the storms which drove them from their homes." In 1559, the Duke issued his edict of Nice, "intended not so much to suppress heresy as to repress it." The Waldenses "assumed a mutinous attitude," and "applied for succour to the Huguenot chiefs of the French provinces." Then the Duke sent 4,000 foot and 200 horse into the valleys, under the Count de la Trinita, and a fierce and sanguinary war ensued. "Its horrors were aggravated by foreign combatants, as the ranks of La Trinita were swelled by both French and Spanish marauders; and the Huguenots of France, and even some Protestant volunteers from Germany, fought with the Waldenses. … But it was not for the interest of the Duke of Savoy that his subjects should thus tear each other to pieces. After repeated checks La Trinita met with, … a covenant was signed at Cavour on the 5th of June, 1561. The Waldenses were allowed full amnesty and the free exercise of their worship within their own territory. … Within those same boundaries they consented to the erection of Catholic churches, and bound themselves to a reciprocal toleration of Roman rites. … The Treaty of Cavour satisfied neither party. It exposed the Duke to the loud reprimands of Rome, France and Spain, no less than to the bitter invectives of all his clergy …; and, on the other hand the Waldenses … again and again placed themselves in opposition to the authorities deputed to rule over them. … In his leniency towards the sectaries of the valleys, Emanuel Philibert was actuated by other motives besides the promptings of a naturally generous soul. … His great schemes for the regeneration of the country could only find their development in a few years of profound peace. … Whatever may be thought of the discontent to which his heavy taxes gave rise among the people, or his stern manners among the nobles, it is a beautiful consoling fact that the establishment of despotism in Piedmont did not cost a single drop of blood, that the prince subdued and disciplined his people by no other means than the firmness of his iron will. … The great work for which Piedmont will be eternally indebted to the memory of this great prince was the nationalization of the State. He established the seat of government at Turin, recalled to that city the senate which had been first convoked at Carignano, and the university which had been provisionally opened at Mondovi. Turin, whose bishop had been raised to metropolitan honours in 1515, had enjoyed comparative security under the French, who never lost possession of it from 1536 to 1562. It dates its real greatness and importance from Emanuel Philibert's reign, when the population … rose to 17,000 souls. … It was not without great bitterness that the transalpine provinces of Savoy submitted to the change, and saw the dignity and ascendancy of a sovereign state depart from them." Emanuel Philibert died in 1580, and was succeeded by his son, Charles Emanuel.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1580-1713.
   Vicissitudes of a century and a quarter.
   Profitable infidelities in war.
   The Duke wins Sicily and the title of King.

Emanuel Philibert, by his "well-timed policy of peace, … was enabled to leave his duchy immensely strengthened to his son Charles Emanuel (1580-1630). The new duke was much more active in his policy. His marriage with a daughter of Philip II. bound him to the side of Spain and he supported the cause of the League in France. With the help of the Catholic party he seized the vacant marquisate of Saluzzo, and thus involved himself in a long quarrel with Henry IV. In 1601 the pence of Lyons confirmed the duke in the possession of Saluzzo, in exchange for which he ceded Bresse on the Rhone frontier to Henry. All attempts made to recover Geneva for Savoy proved unsuccessful. Before his death the restless Charles Emanuel brought forward another claim to the marquisate of Montferrat. This had been held since 1533 by the dukes of Mantua, whose male line became extinct in 1627. The duke did not live to see the settlement of the Mantuan succession, but his son, Victor Amadeus I., obtained great part of Montferrat by the treaty of Cherasco (1631). Richelieu had now acquired Pinerolo and Casale for France and this effected a complete change in the policy of Savoy. Victor Amadeus was married to Christine, a daughter of Henry IV., and he and his successor remained till nearly the end of the century as faithful to France as his predecessors had been to Spain. Charles Emanuel II., who succeeded as a minor on the early death of his father, was at first under the guardianship of his mother, and when he came of age remained in the closest alliance with Louis XIV. His great object was to secure the Italian position which Savoy had assumed, by the acquisition of Genoa. But the maritime republic made a successful resistance both to open attack and to treacherous plots. Victor Amadeus II., who became duke in 1675, was married to a daughter of Philip of Orleans. But Louis XIV. had begun to treat Savoy less as an ally than as a dependency, and the duke, weary of French domination, broke off the old connexion, and in 1690 joined the League of Augsburg against Louis. His defection was well-timed and successful, for the treaty of Ryswick (1697) gave him the great fortresses of Pinerolo and Casale, which had so long dominated his duchy. In the war of the Spanish succession he first supported Louis and afterwards turned against him. His faithlessness was rewarded in the peace of Utrecht [1713] with the island of Sicily and the title of king. Within a few years, however, he was compelled to exchange Sicily for Sardinia."

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1600.
French invasion.
Cession of territory to France.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1602-1603.
Abortive attempt upon Geneva.
Treaty of St. Julien with that city.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1620-1626.
   The Valtelline War.
   Alliance with France.
   Unsuccessful attempt against Genoa.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1627-1631.
   War over the succession to the duchy of Mantua.
   French invasion.
   Extension of territory.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1635-1659.
   Alliance with France against Spain.
   Civil war and foreign war.-
   Sieges of Turin.
   Territory restored.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1695-1696.
Desertion of the Grand Alliance by the Duke.
Treaty with France.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1717-1719. Sicily exchanged by the Duke for Sardinia, with the title of King.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1798.
Piedmont taken by the French.
Its sovereignty relinquished by the King of Sardinia.

SAWÂD, THE.

"The name Sawâd is given by the Arab writers to the whole fertile tract between the Euphrates and the Desert, from Hit to the Persian Gulf."

SAXON HEPTARCHY.

The title of the Roman officer who had military command of the coast of Britain, between the Wash and the Isle of Wight, which was most exposed to the ravages of the Saxons.

   "In the reign of Caracalla [A. D. 212-217] Rome first heard of
   the Goths and Alemanni; a little more than half a century
   later the Franks appear; and about the same time the Saxons,
   who had been named and placed geographically by Ptolemy [A. D.
   130-160], make their first mark in history. They are found
   employed in naval and piratical expeditions on the coasts of
   Gaul in A. D. 287. Whatever degree of antiquity we may be
   inclined to ascribe to the names of these nations, and there
   is no need to put a precise limit to it, it can scarcely be
   supposed that they sprang from insignificance and obscurity to
   strength and power in a moment.
{2810}
   It is far more probable that under the names of Frank and
   Saxon in the fourth century had been sunk the many better
   known earlier names of tribes who occupied the same seats. …
   The Cherusci, the Marsi, the Dulgibini and the Chauci may have
   been comprehended under the name of Saxons. … Whilst the
   nations on the Lower Rhine were all becoming Franks, those
   between the Rhine and the Oder were becoming Saxons; the name
   implied as yet no common organisation, at the most only an
   occasional combination for attack or defence."

"The hypothesis respecting the Saxons is as follows: The name Saxon was to the Kelts of Britain what German was to those of Gaul. Or, if not, what Suevi was—a name somewhat more specific. It probably applied to the Germans of the sea-coast, and the water-systems of the Lower Rhine, Weser, Lower Elbe, and Eyder; to Low Germans on the Rhine, to Frisians and Saxons on the Elbe, and to North Frisians on the Eyder. All the Angles were Saxons, but all the Saxons were not Angles. The reasoning in favour of this view is as follows:—That Saxon was a Britannic term is undenied. The Welsh and Gaels call us Saxons at the present moment. The Romans would take their name for certain Germans as they found it with the Britons. The Britons and Romans using the same name would be as two to one in favour of the Keltic name taking ground. It would be Roman and Keltic against a German name single-handed. The only question is whether the name Saxon was exclusively Britannic (Keltic), i. e., not German also. … I think, upon the whole, that Saxon was a word like 'Greek,' i. e., a term which, in the language of the Hellenes, was so very special, partial, and unimportant, as to have been practically a foreign term, or, at least, anything but a native name; whilst in that of the Romans it was one of general and widely extended import. Hence, mutatis mutandis, it is the insignificant Saxones of the neck of the Cimbric Chersonese, and the three Saxon islands, first mentioned by Ptolemy, who are the analogues of the equally unimportant Græci of Epirus; and these it was whose name eventually comprised populations as different as the Angles, and the Saxons of Saxony, even as the name Græcus in the mouth of a Roman comprised Dorians, Æolians, Macedonians, Athenians, Rhodians, &c. In this way the name was German; but its extended import was Keltic and Roman."

"At the end of a long letter, written by Sidonius [Apolinaris, Bishop, at Clermont, in Auvergne, A. D. 471-488] to his friend Nammatius [an officer of the Channel fleet of the Romans, then chiefly occupied in watching and warding off the Saxon pirates], after dull compliments and duller banter, we suddenly find flashed upon us this life-like picture, by a contemporary hand, of the brothers and cousins of the men, if not of the very men themselves who had fought at Aylesford under Hengest and Horsa, or who were slowly winning the kingdom of the South Saxons: 'Behold, when I was on the point of concluding this epistle in which I have already chattered on too long, a messenger has suddenly arrived from Saintonge with whom I have spent some hours in conversing about you and your doings, and who constantly affirms that you have just sounded your trumpet on board the fleet, and that with the duties of a sailor and a soldier combined you are roaming along the winding shores of the Ocean, looking out for the curved pinnaces of the Saxons. When you see the rowers of that nation you may at once make up your mind that everyone of them is an arch-pirate, with such wonderful unanimity do all at once command, obey, teach, and learn their one chosen business of brigandage. For this reason I ought to warn you to be more than ever on your guard in this warfare. Your enemy is the most truculent of all enemies. Unexpectedly he attacks, when expected he escapes, he despises those who seek to block his path, he overthrows those who are off their guard, he always succeeds in cutting off the enemy whom he follows, while he never fails when he desires to effect his own escape. Moreover, to these men a shipwreck is capital practice rather than an object of terror. The dangers of the deep are to them, not casual acquaintances, but intimate friends. For since a tempest throws the invaded off their guard, and prevents the invaders from being descried from afar, they hail with joy the crash of waves on the rocks, which gives them their best chance of escaping from other enemies than the elements. Then again, before they raise the deep-biting anchor from the hostile soil, and set sail from the Continent for their own country, their custom is to collect the crowd of their prisoners together, by a mockery of equity to make them cast lots which of them shall undergo the iniquitous sentence of death, and then at the moment of departure to slay every tenth man so selected by crucifixion, a practice which is the more lamentable because it arises from a superstitious notion that they will thus ensure for themselves a safe return. Purifying themselves as they consider by such sacrifices, polluting themselves as we deem by such deeds of sacrilege, they think the foul murders they thus commit are acts of worship to their gods, and they glory in extorting cries of agony instead of ransoms from these doomed victims.'"

In the allied army of Romans and barbarians which count Aetius brought together to encounter the Hun, Attila, on the great and terrible battlefield of Chalons, July, 451, there is mention of the "Saxones." "How came our fathers thither; they, whose homes were in the long sandy levels of Holstein? As has been already pointed out, the national migration of the Angles and Saxons to our own island had already commenced, perhaps in part determined by the impulse northward of Attila's own subjects. Possibly, like the Northmen, their successors, the Saxons may have invaded both sides of the English Channel at once, and may on this occasion have been standing in arms to defend against their old foe some newly-won possessions in Normandy or Picardy."

SAXONS: A. D. 528-729.
Struggles against the Frank dominion, before Charlemagne.

"In the time of Charlemagne, the possessions of this great league [the Saxons] were very extensive, stretching, at one point, from the banks of the Rhine nearly to the Oder, and on the other hand, from the North Sea to the confines of Hesse and Thuringia. Warlike in their habits, vigorous in body, active and impatient in mind, their geographical situation, operating together with their state of barbarism, rendered them pirates, extending the predatory excursions, common to all the northern tribes, to the sea as well as to the land. … They held, from an early period, greater part of the islands scattered round the mouths of the German rivers; and, soon beginning to extend their dominion, they captured, at different times, all those on the coast of France and in the British sea. Not contented, however, with this peculiar and more appropriate mode of warfare, the Saxons who remained on land, while their fellow-countrymen were sweeping the ocean, constantly turned their arms against the adjacent continental countries, especially after the conquest of Britain had, in a manner, separated their people, and satisfied to the utmost their maritime cupidity in that direction. Surpassing all nations, except the early Huns, in fierceness, idolaters of the most bloody rites, insatiable of plunder, and persevering in the purpose of rapine to a degree which no other nation ever knew, they were the pest and scourge of the north. Happily for Europe, their government consisted of a multitude of chiefs, and their society of a multitude of independent tribes, linked together by some bond that we do not at present know, but which was not strong enough to produce unity and continuity of design. Thus they had proceeded from age to age, accomplishing great things by desultory and individual efforts; but up to the time of Charlemagne, no vast and comprehensive mind, like that of Attila, had arisen amongst them, to combine all the tribes under the sway of one monarch, and to direct all their energies to one great object. It was for neighbouring kings, however, to remember that such a chief might every day appear. … Such was the state of the Saxons at the reunion of the French [or Frank] monarchy under Charlemagne; and it would seem that the first step he proposed to himself, as an opening to all his great designs, was completely to subdue a people which every day ravaged his frontier provinces, and continually threatened the very existence of the nations around."

For generations before Charlemagne—from the period, in fact, of the sons of Clovis, early in the sixth century—the Frank kings had claimed supremacy over the Saxons and counted them among the tributaries of their Austrasian or German monarchy. Repeatedly, too, the Saxons had been forced to submit themselves and acknowledge the yoke, in terms, while they repudiated it in fact. When Charlemagne took in hand the conquest of this stubborn and barbarous people, he seems to have found the task as arduous as though nothing had been done in it before him. His first expedition into their country was undertaken in 772, when he advanced with fire and sword from the Rhine at Mayence to the Diemel in the Hessian country. It was on this occasion that he destroyed, near the head-waters of the Lippe, the famous national idol and fane of the Saxons called the Irminsul or Herminsaule supposed to be connected with the memory of Hermann, the Cheruscan patriot chief who destroyed the Roman legions of Varus. The campaign resulted in the submission of the Saxons, with a surrender of hostages to guarantee it. But in 774 they were again in arms, and the next summer Charlemagne swept their country to beyond the Weser with the besom of destruction. Once more they yielded and gave hostages, who were taken to Frank monasteries and made Christians of. But the peace did not last a twelvemonth, and there was another great campaign in 776, which so terrified the turbulent heathen that they accepted baptism in large numbers, and a wholesale conversion took place at Paderborn in May, 777. But a chief had risen at last among the Saxons who could unite them, and who would not kneel to Charlemagne nor bow his head to the waters of baptism. This was Wittekind, a Westphalian, brother-in-law of the king of the Danes and friend of the Frisian king, Ratbod. While Charlemagne was in Spain, in 778, Wittekind roused his countrymen to a rising which cleared their land of crosses, churches, priests and Frank castles at one sweep. From that time until 785 there were campaigns every year, with terrible carnage and destruction in the Saxon country and industrious baptising of the submissive. At Badenfield, at Bockholz, near Zutphen, and at Detmold, there were fierce battles in which the Saxons suffered most; but; at Sonnethal, on the Weser (the Dachtelfield), in 782, the Franks were fearfully beaten and slaughtered. Charlemagne took a barbarous vengeance for this reverse by beheading no less than 4,500 Saxon prisoners at Verden, on the Aller. Three years later, the country of the Saxons having been made, for the most part, a famine-smitten desert, they gave up the struggle. Even Wittekind accepted Christianity, became a monk—a missionary—a canonized saint— and disappeared otherwise from history. According to legend, the blood of more than 200,000 Saxons had "changed the very color of the soil, and the brown clay of the Saxon period gave way to the red earth of Westphalia." For seven years the Saxons were submissive and fought in Charlemagne's armies against other foes. Then there was a last despairing attempt to break the conqueror's yoke, and another long war of twelve years' duration. It ended in the practical annihilation of the Saxons as a distinct people in Germany. Many thousands of them were transplanted to other regions in Gaul and elsewhere; others escaped to Denmark and were absorbed into the great rising naval and military power of the Northmen. The survivors on their own soil were stripped of their possessions. "The Saxon war was conducted with almost unparalleled ferocity."

SAXONS OF BAYEUX.

"The district of Bayeux, occupied by a Saxon colony in the latest days of the old Roman Empire, occupied again by a Scandinavian colony as the result of its conquest by Rolf [or Rollo, the Northman], has retained to this day a character which distinguishes it from every other Romance-speaking portion of the Continent. The Saxons of Bayeux preserved their name and their distinct existence under the Frankish dominion; we can hardly doubt that the Scandinavian settlers found some parts at least of the district still Teutonic, and that nearness of blood and speech exercised over them the same influence which the same causes exercised over the Scandinavian settlers in England. Danes and Saxons coalesced into one Teutonic people, and they retained their Teutonic language and character long after Rouen had become, in speech at least, no less French than Paris. With their old Teutonic speech, the second body of settlers seem to have largely retained their old Teutonic religion, and we shall presently find Bayeux the centre of a heathen and Danish party in the Duchy, in opposition to Rouen, the centre of the new speech and the new creed. The blood of the inhabitants of the Bessin must be composed of nearly the same elements, mingled in nearly the same proportions, as the blood of the inhabitants of the Danish districts of England."

"The great duchy of Saxony [as it existed under the Carolingian empire and after the separation of Germany from France] consisted of three main divisions, Westfalia, Engern or Angria, and Eastfalia. Thuringia to the south-east, and the Frisian lands to the north-west, may be looked on as in some sort appendages to the Saxon duchy. The duchy was also capable of any amount of extension towards the east, and the lands gradually won from the Wends on this side were all looked on as additions made to the Saxon territory. But the great Saxon duchy was broken up at the fall of Henry the Lion [A. D. 1191]. The archiepiscopal Electors of Köln received the title of Dukes of Westfalia and Engern. But in the greater part of those districts the grant remained merely nominal, though the ducal title, with a small actual Westfalian duchy, remained to the electorate till the end. From these lands the Saxon name may be looked on as having altogether passed away. The name of Saxony, as a geographical expression, clave to the Eastfalian remnant of the old duchy, and to Thuringia and the Slavonic conquests to the east. In the later division of Germany these lands formed the two circles of Upper and Lower Saxony; and it was within their limits that the various states arose which have kept on the Saxon name to our own time. From the descendants of Henry the Lion himself, and from the allodial lands which they kept, the Saxon name passed away, except so far as they became part of the Lower-Saxon circle. They held their place as princes of the Empire, no longer as Dukes of Saxony, but as Dukes of Brunswick, a house which gave Rome one Emperor and England a dynasty of kings. After some of the usual divisions, two Brunswick principalities finally took their place on the map, those of Lüneburg and Wolfenbüttel, the latter having the town of Brunswick for its capital. The Lüneburg duchy grew. Late in the seventeenth century it was raised to the electoral rank, and early in the next century it was finally enlarged by the acquisition of the bishoprics of Bremen and Verden. Thus was formed the Electorate, and afterwards Kingdom, of Hannover, while the simple ducal title remained with the Brunswick princes of the other line."

The Saxons were still unreconciled to the transfer of the imperial dignity from their own ducal family to the House of Franconia, when the third of the Franconian emperors, Henry IV., came to the throne while still a boy. His long minority encouraged them to a habit of independent feeling, while his rash and injudicious measures when he grew to manhood provoked their raging enmity. They were still a turbulent, wild people, and he undertook to force the yoke of the empire on their necks, by means of garrisoned fortresses and castles, distributed through their land. The garrisons were insolent, the people were not meek, and in 1073 a furious revolt broke out. "'All Saxony,' says a chronicler, 'revolted, as one man, from the king,' and marched, 80,000 strong, to the Hartzburg, a stately citadel near Goslar, which the king had built for a residence upon a commanding height. After useless negotiations, Henry made a narrow escape by flight. When he then summoned his princes around him, no one came; and here and there it began to be said that he must be entirely abandoned and another monarch chosen. In this extremity, the cities alone remained faithful to the emperor, who for some time lay sick almost to death in his loyal city of Worms." Henry's energy, and the great abilities which he possessed, enabled him to recover his command of resources and to bring a strong army into the field against the Saxons, in the early summer of 1075. They offered submission and he might have restored peace to his country in an honorable way; but his headstrong passions demanded revenge. "After a march of extraordinary rapidity, he fell suddenly upon the Saxons and their allies, the Thuringians, on the meadows of the Unstrutt, at Langensalza, near Hohenburg. His army drawn up in an order resembling that which Otto the Great had formed on the Lech [against the Hungarians], obtained, after a fierce hand-to-hand fight of nine hours, a bloody victory. When the Saxons finally yielded and fled, the battle became a massacre. … It is asserted that of the foot-soldiers, who composed the mass of the Saxon army of 60,000, hardly any escaped; though of the noblemen, who had swift horses, few were slain. But it was a battle of Germans with Germans, and on the very evening of the struggle, the lamentations over so many slain by kindred hands could not be suppressed in the emperor's own camp. Yet for the time the spirit of Saxon independence was crushed. Henry was really master of all Germany, and seemed to have established the imperial throne again." But little more than a year afterwards, Henry, under the ban of the great Pope Gregory VII., with whom he had quarrelled, was again deserted by his subjects. Again he recovered his footing and maintained a civil war until his own son deposed him, in 1105. The next year he died.

In an account given elsewhere of the origin of the Guelf and Ghibelline parties and their names (see GUELFS AND GHIBELLINES), the circumstances under which Henry the Proud, in 1138, was stripped of the duchy of Saxony, and the duchy of Bavaria, have been briefly related. This Duke Henry the Proud died soon after that event, leaving a son who acquired the name of Henry the Lion. The Emperor Conrad, whose hostility to the father had been the cause of his ruin, now restored to the son, Henry the Lion, his duchy of Saxony, but required him to renounce the Bavarian duchy. But Conrad, dying in 1152, was succeeded on the imperial throne by his nephew, Frederick Barbarossa, who entertained a friendly feeling for the young Duke of Saxony, and who restored to him, in 1156, the whole of his father's forfeited possessions, Bavaria included. By his own warlike energies, Henry the Lion extended his dominions still further, making a conquest of the Obotrites, one of the tribes of heathen Slaves or Wends who occupied the Mecklenburg region on the Baltic. He was, now, the most powerful of the princes of the Germanic empire, and one of the most powerful in Europe. But he used his power haughtily and arbitrarily and raised up many enemies against himself. At length there arose a quarrel between the Emperor and Duke Henry, which the latter embittered by abruptly quitting the emperor's army, in Italy, with all his troops, at a time when (A. D. 1175) the latter was almost ruined by the desertion. From that moment Henry the Lion was marked, as his father had been, for ruin. Accusations were brought against him in the diet; he was repeatedly summoned to appear and meet them, and he obstinately refused to obey the summons. At length, A. D. 1178, he was formally declared to be a rebel to the state, and the "imperial ban" was solemnly pronounced against him. "This sentence placed Henry without the pale of the laws, and his person and his states were at the mercy of everyone who had the power of injuring them. The archbishop of Cologne, his ancient enemy, had the ban promulgated throughout Saxony, and at his command Godfrey, Duke of Brabant; Philip, Count of Flanders; Otho, Count of Guelders; Thierry, Lord of Cleves; William of Juliers, with the Lords of Bonn Senef, Berg, and many others, levied forces, and joining the archbishop, entered Westphalia, which they overran and laid waste, before he was aware of their intentions." This was the beginning of a long struggle, in which Henry made a gallant resistance; but the odds were too heavily against him. His friends and supporters gradually fell away, his dominions were lost, one by one, and in 1183 he took refuge in England, at the court of Henry II., whose daughter Matilda he had married. After an exile of three years he was permitted to return to Germany and his alodial estates in Saxony were restored to him. The imperial fiefs were divided. The archbishop of Cologne received the greater part of Westphalia, and Angria. Bernard, Count of Anhalt, got the remainder of the old Saxon duchy, with its ducal title. When Henry the Lion died, in 1195, the alodial possessions that he had recovered were divided between his three sons.

   Fifty years afterwards these were converted into imperial
   fiefs and became the two duchies of the house of Brunswick,
   —Lüneburg and Wolfenbüttel, afterwards Hanover and
   Brunswick—the princes of which represented the old house of
   Saxony and inherited the name of Guelf.

      See, also,
      SAXONY: THE OLD DUCHY; GERMANY: A. D. 1138-1268;
      ITALY: A. D. 1174-1183.

SAXONY: A. D. 1180-1553.
   The later Duchy and Electorate.
   The House of Wettin.
   Its Ernestine and Albertine lines, and their many branches.

"When Henry the Lion was deprived of the Duchy of Saxony in 1180, it [reduced to a small district around Lauenberg] was given to Bernhard, the youngest son of Albert the Bear, Elector of Brandenburg, and it continued with his descendants in the male line till 1422, when it was sold by the Emperor Sigismond to Frederick, surnamed the Warlike, Margrave of Misnia, descended in the female line from the Landgraves of Thuringen."

   This line has been known as the House of Wettin, taking that
   name from Dedo, count of Wettin, who was the first margrave of
   Misnia, or Meissen; being invested with the dignity in 1048.
   "The Wettin line of Saxon princes, the same that yet endures
   [1855], known by sight to every English creature (for the high
   individual, Prince Albert, is of it), had been lucky enough to
   combine in itself, by inheritance, by good management, chiefly
   by inheritance and mere force of survival, all the Three
   separate portions and divided dignities of that country: the
   Thüringen Landgraviate, the Meissen Markgraviate, and the
   ancient Duchy and Electorate of Saxony; and to become very
   great among the Princes of the German Empire. … Through the
   earlier portion of the 15th century, this Saxon House might
   fairly reckon itself the greatest in Germany, till Austria,
   till Brandenburg gradually rose to overshadow it. Law of
   primogeniture could never be accepted in that country; nothing
   but divisions, redivisions, coalescings, splittings, and
   never-ending readjustments and collisions were prevalent in
   consequence; to which cause, first of all, the loss of the
   race by Saxony may be ascribed." In 1464, Frederick II. was
   succeeded by his two sons, Ernest and Albert. These princes
   governed their country conjointly for upwards of 20 years, but
   then made a partition from which began the separation of the
   Ernestine and Albertine lines that continued ever afterwards
   in the House of Saxony. "Ernest, the elder of those two …
   boys, became Kurfürst (Elector); and got for inheritance,
   besides the 'inalienable properties' which lie round
   Wittenberg, … the better or Thuringian side of the Saxon
   country—that is, the Weimar, Gotha, Altenburg, &c.
   Principalities: —while the other youth, Albert, had to take
   the 'Osterland (Easternland), with part of Meissen,' what we
   may in general imagine to be (for no German Dryasdust will do
   you the kindness to say precisely) the eastern region of what
   is Saxony in our day. These Albertines, with an inferior
   territory, had, as their main towns, Leipzig and Dresden, a
   Residenz-Schloss (or sublime enough Ducal Palace) in each
   city, Leipzig as yet the grander and more common one. There,
   at Leipzig chiefly, I say, lived the august younger or
   Albertine Line. …
{2814}
   As for Ernst, the elder, he and his lived chiefly at
   Wittenberg, as I perceive; there or in the neighbourhood was
   their high Schloss; distinguished among palaces. But they had
   Weimar, they had Altenburg, Gotha, Coburg,—above all, they had
   the Wartburg, one of the most distinguished Strong Houses any
   Duke could live in, if he were of frugal and heroic turn. …
   Ernst's son was Frederick the Wise, successor in the Kur
   (Electorship) and paternal lands; which, as Frederick did not
   marry and there was only one other brother, were not further
   divided on this occasion. Frederick the Wise, born in 1463,
   was that ever-memorable Kurfürst who saved Luther from the
   Diet of Worms in 1521.

He died in 1525, and was succeeded by his brother, John the Steadfast. … He also was a wise and eminently Protestant man. He struggled very faithfully for the good Cause, during his term of sovereignty; died in 1532 (14 years before Luther), having held the Electorate only seven years. … His son was Johann Friedrich, the Magnanimous by epithet (der Grossmüthige), under whom the Line underwent sad destinies; lost the Electorship, lost much; and split itself after him into innumerable branches, who are all of a small type ever since." In the Albertine Line, Albert's eldest son, "successor in the eastern properties and residences, was Duke George of Saxony,—called 'of Saxony,' as all those Dukes, big and little, were and still are,—Herzog Georg von Sachsen: of whom, to make him memorable, it is enough to say that he was Luther's Duke George! Yes, this is he with whom Luther had such wrangling and jangling. … He was strong for the old religion, while his cousins went so valiantly ahead for the new. … George's brother, Henry, succeeded; lived only for two years; in which time all went to Protestantism in the eastern parts of Saxony, as in the western. This Henry's eldest son, and first successor, was Moritz, the 'Maurice' known in English Protestant books; who, in the Schmalkaldic League and War, played such a questionable game with his Protestant cousin, of the elder or Ernestine Line,—quite ousting said cousin, by superior jockeyship, and reducing his Line and him to the second rank ever since.

This cousin was Johann Friedrich the Magnanimous … whom we left above waiting for that catastrophe. … Duke Moritz got the Electorship transferred to himself; Electorship, with Wittenberg and the 'inalienable lands and dignities.' … Moritz kept his Electorship, and, by cunning jockeying, his Protestantism too; got his Albertine or junior Line pushed into the place of the Ernestine or first; in which dishonourably acquired position it continues to this day [1855]; performing ever since the chief part in Saxony, as Electors, and now as Kings of Saxony. … The Ernestine, or honourable Protestant line is ever since in a secondary, diminished, and as it were, disintegrated state, a Line broken small; nothing now but a series of small Dukes, Weimar, Gotha, Coburg, and the like, in the Thuringian region, who, on mere genealogical grounds, put Sachsen to their name: Sachsen-Coburg, Sachsen-Weimar, &c. [Anglicised, Saxe-Coburg, etc.]."

      ALSO IN:
      F. Shoberl,
      Historical Account of the House of Saxony.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1516-1517, to 1517-1521,
      1521-1522, 1522-1525, 1525-1529, 1530-1531;
      also, GERMANY: A. D. 1530-1532, and after.

SAXONY: A. D. 1525.
The Lutheran doctrines and system formally established
in the electorate.

SAXONY: A. D. 1546-1547.
Treachery of Maurice of Saxony.
Transfer of the electorate to him.

SAXONY: A. D. 1619. Adhesion of the Elector to the Emperor Ferdinand, against Frederick of Bohemia and the Evangelical Union.

SAXONY: A. D. 1631.
   Ignoble trepidations of the Elector.
   His final alliance with Gustavus Adolphus.
   The battle of Breitenfeld.

SAXONY: A. D. 1634.
Desertion of the Protestant cause.
The Elector's alliance with the Emperor.

SAXONY: A. D. 1645.
Forced to a treaty of neutrality with the Swedes and French.

SAXONY: A. D. 1706.
Invasion by Charles XII. of Sweden.
Renunciation of the Polish crown, by the Elector Augustus.

SAXONY: A. D. 1733. Election of Augustus III. to the Polish throne, enforced by Russia and Austria.

SAXONY: A. D. 1740.
The War of the Austrian Succession:
Claims of the Elector upon Austrian territory.

SAXONY: A. D. 1741.
The War of the Austrian Succession:
Alliance against Austria.

SAXONY: A. D. 1745.
   The War of the Austrian Succession: Alliance with Austria.
   Subjugation by Prussia.
   The Peace of Dresden.

SAXONY: A. D. 1755.
Intrigues with Austria and Russia against Prussia.
Causes of the Seven Years War.

SAXONY: A. D. 1759-1760.
Occupied by the Austrians.
Mostly recovered by Frederick.

SAXONY: A. D. 1763.
The end and results of the Seven Years War.
The electorate restored.

SAXONY: A. D. 1806.

The Elector, deserting Prussia, becomes the subject-ally of
Napoleon, and is made a king.

SAXONY: A. D. 1813.
   Occupied by the Allies.
   Regained by the French.
   Humiliating submission of the king to Napoleon.
   French victory at Dresden and defeat at Leipsic.
   Desertion from Napoleon's army by the Saxons.
   The king a prisoner in the hands of the Allies.
   French surrender of Dresden.

SAXONY: A. D. 1814-1815.
The Saxon question in the Congress of Vienna.
The king restored, with half of his dominions lost.

SAXONY: A. D. 1866.
   The Seven Weeks War.
   Indemnity to Prussia.
   Union with the North German Confederation.
   See GERMANY: A. D. 1866.

"Before the introduction or general diffusion of writing, it is evident that a class of men whose sole occupation was to commit to memory and preserve the laws, usages, precedents, and details of all those civil affairs and rights, and to whose fidelity in relating former transactions implicit confidence could be given, must of necessity have existed in society—must have been in every locality. … This class [among the Scandinavian peoples of the North of Europe] were the Scalds—the men who were the living books, to be referred to in every case of law or property in which the past had to be applied to the present. Before the introduction of Christianity, and with Christianity the use of written documents, and the diffusion, by the church establishment, of writing in every locality, the scald must have been among the pagan landowners what the parish priest and his written record were in the older Christianised countries of Europe. … The scalds in these Christianised countries were merely a class of wandering troubadours, poets, story-tellers, minnesingers. … The scalds of the north disappeared at once when Christian priests were established through the country. They were superseded in their utility by men of education, who knew the art of writing; and the country had no feudal barons to maintain such a class for amusement only. We hear little of the scalds after the first half of the 12th century."

      S. Laing,
      The Heimskringla: Preliminary Dissertation,
      chapter 1.

"At the dawn of historical times we find the skalds practising their art everywhere in the North. … The oldest Norwegian skalds, like 'Starkad' and 'Brage the Old,' are enveloped in mythic darkness, but already, in the time of Harald Fairhair (872-930), the song-smiths of the Scandinavian North appear as thoroughly historical personages. In Iceland the art of poetry was held in high honor, and it was cultivated not only by the professional skalds, but also by others when the occasion presented itself. … When the Icelander had arrived at the age of maturity, he longed to travel in foreign lands. As a skald he would then visit foreign kings and other noblemen, where he would receive a most hearty welcome. … These Icelandic skalds became a very significant factor in the literary development of the North during the greater part of the middle ages."

      F. W. Horn,
      History of the Literature of the Scandinavian North,
      part 1, chapter 1.

SCANDERBEG'S WAR WITH THE TURKS.

"Those who lean implicitly on the chief props supplied by the Old Norse literature for the early history and genealogy of the North lean on very unsafe supports. The fact is, we must treat these genealogies and these continuous histories as compilations made up from isolated and detached traditions—epics in which some individual or some battle was described, and in which the links and the connections between the pieces have been supplied according to the ingenuity of the compilers; in which the arrangement and chronology are to a large extent arbitrary; and in which it has been a great temptation to transfer the deeds of one hero to another of the same name. Under these circumstances what is a modern historian to do? In the first place he must take the contemporary chronicles—Frank, English, and Irish—as his supreme guides, and not allow their statements to be perverted by the false or delusive testimony of the sagas, and where the two are at issue, sacrifice the latter without scruple, while in those cases where we have no contemporary and independent evidence then to construct as best we can our story from the glimmers of light that have reached us."

H. H. Howorth, Early History of Sweden (Royal Historical Society, Transactions, volume 9).

"Scandinavia is not a very convenient word. Norway and Sweden it suits; because, in Norway and Sweden, the geographical boundaries coincide with the phenomena of language and blood. But Denmark is not only divided from them by water, but is in actual contact with Germany. More than this, it is connected with the Empire: Holstein being German and Imperial, Sleswick partly German though not Imperial. … Generically, a Scandinavian is a German. Of the great German stock there are two divisions—the Scandinavian or Norse, and the Teutonic or German Proper. Of the Germans Proper, the nearest congeners to the Scandinavians are the Frisians; and, after them, the Saxons. … At present the languages of Sweden and Denmark, though mutually intelligible, are treated as distinct: the real differences being exaggerated by differences of orthography, and by the use on the part of the Swedes of the ordinary Italian alphabet, whilst the Danes prefer the old German black-letter. The literary Norwegian is Danish rather than Swedish. Meanwhile, the old language, the mother-tongue, is the common property of all, and so is the old literature with its Edda and Sagas; though … the Norwegians are the chief heroes of it. The language in which it is embodied is preserved with but little alteration in Iceland; so that it may fairly be called Icelandic, though the Norwegians denominate it Old Norse. …

The histories of the three countries are alike in their general character though different in detail. Denmark when we have got away from the heroic age into the dawn of the true historical period, is definitely separated from Germany in the parts about the Eyder—perhaps by the river itself. It is Pagan and Anti-Imperial; the Danes being, in the eyes of the Carlovingians, little better than the hated Saxons. Nor is it ever an integral part of the Empire; though Danish and German alliances are common. They end in Holstein being Danish, and in its encroaching on Sleswick and largely influencing the kingdom in general. As being most in contact with the civilization of the South, Denmark encroaches on Sweden, and, for a long time, holds Skaane and other Swedish districts. Indeed, it is always a check upon the ambition of its northern neighbour. Before, then, that Sweden becomes one and indivisible, the Danes have to be ejected from its southern provinces. Norway, too, when dynastic alliances begin and when kingdoms become consolidated, is united with Denmark. … In the way of language the Scandinavians are Germans—the term being taken in its wider and more general sense. Whether the blood coincide with the language is another question; nor is it an easy one. The one point upon which most ethnologists agree, is the doctrine that, in Norway and Sweden (at least), or in the parts north of the Baltic, the Germans are by no means aboriginal; the real aborigines having been congeners of either the Laps or the Fins; who, at a time anterior to the German immigrations, covered the whole land from the North Cape to the Naze in Norway, and from Tornea to Ystadt in Sweden. Towards these aborigines the newer occupants comported themselves much as the Angles of England comported themselves towards the Britons. At the same time, in both Britain and Scandinavia the extent to which the two populations intermarried or kept separate is doubtful. It may be added that, in both countries, there are extreme opinions on each side of the question."

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: 8-9th Centuries.
Explorations, ravages and conquests of the Vikings.

"At the end of the 8th century, … within the two Scandinavian peninsulas, the three Scandinavian nations were fast forming. A number of kindred tribes were settling down into the kingdoms of Denmark, Norway and Sweden, which, sometimes separate, sometimes united, have existed ever since. Of these three, Denmark, the only one which had a frontier towards the Empire, was naturally the first to play a part in general European history. In the course of the 10th century, under the half-mythical Gorm, and his successors Harold and Sven, the Danish kingdom itself, as distinguished from other lands held in aftertimes by its kings, reached nearly its full historical extent in the two peninsulas and the islands between them. Halland and Skane or Scania, it must always be remembered, are from the beginning at least as Danish as Zealand and Jutland. The Eider remained the frontier towards the Empire, save during part of the 10th and 11th centuries, when the Danish frontier withdrew to the Dannewerk, and the laud between the two boundaries formed the Danish March of the Empire. Under Cnut the old frontier was restored. The name of Northmen, which the Franks used in a laxer way for the Scandinavian nations generally, was confined to the people of Norway. These were formed into a single kingdom under Harold Harfraga late in the 9th century. The Norwegian realm of that day stretched far beyond the bounds of the later Norway, having an indefinite extension over tributary Finnish tribes as far as the White Sea. The central part of the eastern side of the northern peninsula, between Denmark to the south and the Finnish nations to the north, was held by two Scandinavian settlements which grew into the Swedish kingdom. These were those of the Swedes strictly so called, and of the Geatas or Gauts. This last name has naturally been confounded with that of the Goths, and has given the title of 'King of the Goths' to the princes of Sweden. Gothland, east and west, lay on each side of Lake Wettern. Swithiod or Svealand, Sweden proper, lay on both sides of the great arm of the sea whose entrance is guarded by the modern capital. The union of Svealand and Gothland made up the kingdom of Sweden. Its early boundaries towards both Denmark and Norway were fluctuating. Wermeland, immediately to the north of Lake Wenern, and Jamteland farther to the north, were long a debatable land. At the beginning of the 12th century Wermeland passed finally to Sweden, and Jamteland for several ages to Norway. Bleking again, at the southeast corner of the Peninsula, was a debatable land between Sweden and Denmark which passed to Denmark. For a land thus bounded the natural course of extension by land lay to the north, along the west coast of the Gulf of Bothnia. In the course of the 11th century at the latest, Sweden began to spread itself in that direction over Helsingland. Sweden had thus a better opportunity than Denmark and Norway for extension of her own borders by land. Meanwhile Denmark and Norway, looking to the west, had their great time of Oceanic conquest and colonization in the 9th and 10th centuries."

"Till about the year of Grace 860 there were no kings in Norway, nothing but numerous jarls,—essentially kinglets,—each presiding over a kind of republican or parliamentary little territory; generally striving each to be on some terms of human neighbourhood with those about him, but, in spite of 'Fylke Things' (Folk Things)—little parish parliaments —and small combinations of these, which had gradually formed themselves, often reduced to the unhappy state of quarrel with them. Harald Haarfagr was the first to put an end to this state of things, and become memorable and profitable to his country by uniting it under one head and making a kingdom of it; which it has continued to be ever since. His father, Halfdan the Black, had already begun this rough but salutary process, … but it was Harald the Fairhaired, his son, who conspicuously carried it on and completed it. Harald's birth-year, death-year, and chronology in general, are known only by inference and computation; but, by the latest reckoning, he died about the year 933 of our era, a man of 83. The business of conquest lasted Harald about twelve years (A. D. 860-872?), in which he subdued also the Vikings of the out-islands, Orkneys, Shetlands, Hebrides, and Man. Sixty more years were given him to consolidate and regulate what he had conquered, which he did with great judgment, industry, and success. His reign altogether is counted to have been of over 70 years. … These were the times of Norse colonization; proud Norsemen flying into other lands, to freer scenes,—to Iceland, to the Faroe Islands, which were hitherto quite vacant (tenanted only by some mournful hermit, Irish Christian fakir, or so); still more copiously to the Orkney and Shetland Isles, the Hebrides and other countries where Norse squatters and settlers already were. Settlement of Iceland, we say, settlement of the Faroe Islands, and, by far the notablest of all, settlement of Normandy by Rolf the Ganger (A. D. 876?)."

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1018-1397.
   The empire of Canute and its dissolution.
   Disturbed state of the Three Kingdoms.
   The Folkungas in Sweden.
   Rise of Denmark.
   The reign of Queen Margaret and the Union of Calmar.

"A Northern Empire … for a time seemed possible when Canute the Great arose. King by inheritance of England and of Denmark, he was able by successful war to add almost the whole of Norway to his dominions.

The definite incorporation of Sleswig under treaty with the Emperor Conrad, and the submission of the Wendish tribes, appeared to open for him a way on to the continent. … Had men with like capacity succeeded to his throne, the world might have beheld an Empire of the North as well as of the East and West. But the kingdoms of the great Danish monarch fell asunder on his death and his successors sink again into insignificance. Another century passes before a bright page illumines their obscure annals. The names of Waldemar the Great [1157-1182], of Canute VI. [1182-1202] and Waldemar the Victorious [1202-1241] his sons, are then found attracting the attention of Europe. Again their kingdom seemed about to raise itself to be a continental power. They sallied forth from their peninsula, they again conquered the Wends; the southern shores of the Baltic, even as far as Courland and Esthonia, were made to tremble at the Danish arms. … But the greatness was again but temporary. Waldemar the Victorious, surprised and made a prisoner in Germany, beheld his empire returning to its fragments. Regaining his liberty he tried to regain his power, but a disastrous battle at Bornhoved in 1227 gave a death-blow to his ambition. An alliance of the petty princes who feared his greatness prevailed against him, and Denmark relapsed again into decline. Many causes now contributed to the downfall of the kingdom. By the fatal policy of Waldemar it was divided among his sons. … While anarchy increased within the country, new enemies arose around it. The Norwegians in a war that lasted for long years harassed it. The necessities of Christopher obliged him to pledge Scania, Halland, and Bleking to Sweden. A formidable foe too was now appearing in the Hanseatic League [see HANSA TOWNS], whose rise had followed upon the fall of Waldemar's power. The rich cities of Lubeck and Hamburg had seized the opportunity to assert their freedom. … Harassed by foreign enemies and by strife with his own nobles, Christopher [the Second, who came to the throne in 1319] at last was driven from his kingdom. A count of Holstein, known as the Black Geert, became for fourteen years the virtual sovereign, and imposed upon the country his nephew, Waldemar III., the heir of the rebellious house of Sleswig, as a titular King. Dismembered and in anarchy, the country had sunk low, and it was not until the assassination of Black Geert, in 1340, that any hope appeared of its recovery." In Sweden the national history had its real beginning, perhaps, in the days of St. Eric, who reigned from 1155 to 1160. "In this reign the spread of Christianity became the spread of power. Eric … earned his title from his definite establishment of the new faith. … The remaining sovereigns of his line can hardly be said to have contributed much towards the advancement of their country, and it was reserved for a new dynasty to carry on the work of the earlier kings. A powerful family had risen near the throne, and, retaining the old tribal rank of Jarls, had filled almost the position of mayors of the palace. The death of Eric Ericson without children removed the last obstacle to their ambition. The infant son of Birger Jarl was elected to the vacant throne, and the transfer of the royal title to the family [known as the Folkungas] that had long held royal power seemed as natural to the Swedes as it had done earlier to the Franks. As regent for his child, Birger upheld and added to the greatness of his country; he became the conspicuous figure of the 13th century in the North; he is the founder of Stockholm, the conqueror of the Finns, the protector of the exiled princes of Russia, the mediator in differences between Norway and Denmark. His sceptred descendants however did not equal their unsceptred sire. The conquest of Finland was indeed completed by Torkel Knutson at the close of the 13th century, and shed some lustre upon the reign of King Birger, but the quarrels of succeeding princes among themselves disgraced and distracted the country." {2818} In Norway, "the conquests of Harold Harfager had secured the crown to a long line of his descendants; but the strife of these descendants among themselves, and the contests which were provoked by the attempts of successive sovereigns, with imprudent zeal, to enforce the doctrines of Christianity upon unwilling subjects, distracted and weakened the kingdom. A prey to anarchy, it fell also a prey to its neighbours. In the 10th century it belonged for a time to Denmark; Sweden joined later in dismembering it; and Canute the Great was able to call himself its King. These were times indeed in which conquests and annexations were often more rapid than lasting, and a King of Norway soon reigned in his turn over Denmark. Yet there is no doubt that the Norwegians suffered more than they inflicted, and were from the first the weakest of the three nations. … Wars, foreign and domestic, that have now no interest, exhausted the country; the plague of 1348 deprived it of at least one half its population. Its decline had been marked, upon the extinction of its royal dynasty in 1319, by the election of Swedish princes to fill its throne; and after the reign of two stranger Kings it sank forever from the list of independent kingdoms. Drifting through anarchy and discord the three kingdoms had sunk low. Denmark was first to raise herself from the abasement, and the reign of a fourth Waldemar not only restored her strength but gave her a pre-eminence which she retained until the days of Gustavus Adolphus. The new sovereign, a younger son of Christopher II., was raised to the throne in 1340, and no competitor, now that Black Geert was dead, appeared to dispute it with him." Waldemar gave up, on the one hand, his claims to Scania, Halland, and Bleking (which he afterwards reclaimed and repossessed), as well as the distant possessions in Esthonia, while he bought back Jutland and the Isles, on the other. "The isle of Gothland, and Wisby its rich capital, the centre of the Hanseatic trade within the Baltic, were plundered and annexed [1361], giving the title thenceforward of King of the Goths to the Danish monarchs. This success indeed was paid for by the bitter enmity of the Hansa, and by a war in which the pride of Denmark was humbled to the dust beneath the power of the combined cities. Copenhagen was pillaged [1362]; and peace was only made by a treaty [1363] which confirmed all former privileges to the conquerors, which gave them for fifteen years possession of the better part of Scania and its revenues, and which humbly promised that the election of all sovereigns of Denmark should thenceforth he submitted for their approval. Yet Waldemar has left behind him the reputation of a prudent and successful prince, and his policy prepared the way for the greatness of his successors. At his death in 1375 two daughters, on behalf of their children, became claimants for his throne. The youngest, Margaret, had married Hako, King of Norway, the son of a deposed King of Sweden [the last of the Folkungas, or Folkungers]; and the attractive prospect of a union between the two kingdoms, supported by her own prudent and conciliatory measures, secured the election of her son Olaf. As regent for her child, who soon by the death of his father became King of Norway as well as of Denmark, she showed the wisdom of a ruler, and won the affections of her subjects; and when the death of Olaf himself occurred in 1387 she was rewarded in both kingdoms by the formal possession of the sceptres which she had already shown herself well able to hold. Mistress in Denmark and in Norway, she prepared to add Sweden to her dominions. Since the banishment of the Folkungas, Albert Duke of Mecklenburg had reigned as King." But Sweden preferred Margaret, and she easily expelled Albert from the throne, defeating him and making him a prisoner, in 1389. A few years later, "her nephew, Eric, long since accepted in Denmark and in Norway as her successor, and titularly King, was now [1397] at a solemn meeting of the states at Calmar crowned Sovereign of the Three Kingdoms. At a later meeting the Union, since known as that of Calmar, was formally voted, and the great work of her life was achieved."

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: 14-15th Centuries.
Power and influence of the Hanseatic League.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1397-1527.
   Under the Union of Calmar until its dissolution.
   The brutality of Christian II. and his overthrow.
   Gustavus Vasa and his elevation to the throne of Sweden.
   The introduction of the Reformation.

The most noteworthy articles of the Union of Calmar, by which Norway, Sweden and Denmark were united together, in 1397, under the Danish queen Margaret, were the following: "That the right of electing a sovereign should be exercised in common by the three kingdoms; that a son of the reigning king, if there were any, should be preferred; that each kingdom should be governed by its own laws; and that all should combine for the common defence. But this confederacy, which seemed calculated to promote the power and tranquility of Scandinavia, proved the source of much discontent and jealousy and of several bloody wars. Margaret was succeeded on her death in 1412 by Eric of Pomerania, the son of her niece. … Eric's reign was turbulent. In 1438 the Danes, and in the following year the Swedes, renounced their allegiance; and Eric fled to the island of Gothland, where he exercised piracy till his death. The Danes elected in Eric's stead Christopher of Bavaria, son of his sister Catharine; … but after Christopher's death in 1448 the union was dissolved. The Danes now elected for their king Count Christian of Oldenburg; while the Swedes chose Charles Knutson. But in the following year Charles was compelled to resign Norway to Denmark, and in 1457 he lost Sweden itself through an insurrection led by the Archbishop of Upsala. Christian I. of Denmark was chosen in his place and crowned at Upsala, June 19th; and in the following year all the councillors of the three kingdoms, assembled at Skarn, recognised Christian's son John as his successor. Christian I. became a powerful monarch by inheriting Schleswic and Holstein from his uncle. He had, however, to contend for a long period with Charles Knutson for the throne of Sweden, and after Charles's death in 1470, with Sten Sture, of a noble family in Dalecarlia, to whom Charles, with the approbation of the Swedes, had left the administration of the kingdom. In October 1471 a battle was fought on the Brunkeberg, a height now enclosed in the city of Stockholm, in which the Danish King was defeated, though he continued to hold the southern provinces of Sweden. {2819} Christian died in 1481 and was succeeded by his son John. The Swedes in 1483 acknowledged the supremacy of Denmark by renewing the Union of Calmar; yet … John could never firmly establish himself in that country. … King John of Denmark died in 1513. … It was during the reign of Christian II. [his son and successor] that Denmark first began to have any extensive connections with the rest of Europe. In the year of his accession, he allied himself with the Wendish, or northeastern towns of the Hanseatic League, whose metropolis was Lübeck; and he subsequently formed alliances with Russia, France, England, and Scotland, with the view of obtaining their aid in his contemplated reduction of Sweden. … In 1517 Trolle [Archbishop of Upsala] had levied open war against the administrator, Sten Sture, in which Christian supported him with his fleet; but Sten Sture succeeded in capturing Trolle. … In the next year (1518) Christian again appeared near Stockholm with a fleet and army, in which were 2,000 French sent by Francis I. Christian was defeated by Sten Sture in a battle near Bränkirka. … The Archbishop of Upsala having proceeded to Rome to complain of Sten Sture, the Pope erected in Denmark an ecclesiastical tribunal, which deposed the administrator and his party, and laid all Sweden under an interdict. This proceeding, however, served to pave the way for the acceptance in Sweden of the Lutheran reformation; though it afforded Christian II. a pretence for getting up a sort of crusade against that country. … Early in 1520 … Sture was defeated and wounded in a battle fought on the ice of Lake Asunden, near Bogesund in West Gothland. … Sten Sture, in spite of his wound, hastened to the defence of Stockholm, but expired on the way in his sledge on Malar Lake, February 3rd 1520. The Swedes were defeated in a second battle near Upsala, after which a treaty was concluded to the effect that Christian should reign in Sweden, agreeably to the Union of Calmar, but on condition of' granting an entire amnesty. Christian now proceeded to Stockholm, and in October was admitted into that city by Sture's widow, who held the command. Christian at first behaved in the most friendly manner …; yet he had no sooner received the crown than he took the most inhuman vengeance on his confiding subjects. … The city was abandoned to be plundered by the soldiers like a place taken by storm. Orders were despatched to Finland to proceed in a similar manner; while the King's progress through the southern provinces was everywhere marked by the erection of gallowses. These cruelties … occasioned insurrections in all his dominions. That in Sweden was led by Gustavus Ericson, … a young man remarkable alike by his origin, connections, talent and courage; whose family, for what reason is unknown, afterwards assumed the name of Vasa, which was borne neither by himself nor by his forefathers." Gustavus, who had been a hostage in Christian's hands; had escaped from his captivity, in 1519, taking refuge at Lübeck. In May, 1520, he secretly entered Sweden, remaining in concealment. A few months later his father perished, among the victims of the Danish tyrant, and Gustavus fled to Dalecarlia, "a district noted for its love of freedom and hatred of the Danes. Here he worked in peasant's clothes, for daily wages, in hourly danger from his pursuers, from whom he had many narrow escapes. … The news of Christian's inhumanity procured Gustavus Vasa many followers; he was elected as their leader by a great assembly of the people at Mora, and found himself at the head of 5,000 men," out of whom he made good soldiers, although they were wretchedly armed. "In June, 1521, he invested Stockholm; but the siege, for want of proper artillery and engineering skill, was protracted two years. During this period his command was legally confirmed in a Herrendag, or assembly of the nobles, at Wadstena, "August 24th 1521; the crown was proffered to him, which he declined, but accepted the office of Regent. The Danes were now by degrees almost entirely expelled from Sweden; and Christian II., so far from being able to relieve Stockholm, found himself in danger of losing the Danish crown," which he did, in fact, in 1523, through a revolution that placed on the throne his uncle, Duke Frederick of Holstein. "The Union of Calmar was now entirely dissolved. The Norwegians claimed to exercise the right of election like the Danes; and when Frederick called upon the Swedish States to recognise his title in conformity with the Union, they replied that it was their intention to elect Gustavus Ericson for their king; which was accordingly done at the Diet of Strengnäs, June 7th 1523. Three weeks after Stockholm surrendered to Gustavus." The dethroned Christian II. escaped to the Netherlands, where he found means to equip an expedition with which he invaded Norway, in 1531. It left him a prisoner in the hands of the Danes, who locked him up in the castle of Sonderburg until his death, which did not occur until 1559. "Meanwhile, in Sweden, Gustavus was consolidating his power, partly by moderation and mildness, partly by examples of necessary severity. He put himself at the head of the Reformation, as Frederick I. also did in Denmark. … Luther's doctrines had been first introduced into Sweden in 1519, by two brothers, Olaus and Lawrence Petri, who had studied under the great apostle of reform at Wittenberg. The Petris soon attracted the attention of Gustavus, who gave them his protection, and entered himself into correspondence with Luther. … As in other parts of Europe, the nobles were induced to join the movement from the prospect of sharing the spoils of the church; and in a great Diet at Westeräs in 1527, the Reformation was introduced.

      ALSO IN:
      P. B. Watson,
      The Swedish Revolution under Gustavus Vasa.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES:
(Denmark and Norway): A. D. 1523.
Accession of Frederick I.

   (Sweden): A. D. 1523-1604.
   The reigns of Gustavus Vasa and his sons.
   Wars with Russia and Denmark.
   The Baltic question.
   Prince Sigismund elected king of Poland and
   his consequent loss of the Swedish crown,
   Resulting hostilities.

"Gustavus Vasa, the founder of his dynasty, was not a very religious man. He had determined to make Sweden a Lutheran country for two main reasons: first, because he wanted the lands of the Church, both in order to enrich the crown and also to attach the nobles to his cause; secondly, because, as he said, the 'priests were all unionists in Sweden'—that is, they all wished to maintain the union of the three Scandinavian kingdoms which he had broken, and they were, therefore, irreconcilably hostile to his dynasty. Three other great services were rendered to Sweden by Gustavus I.:

(1) at the Diet of Westeräs, in 1544, the hereditary character of the monarchy was definitely declared. This was a great victory over the nobles, who in nearly all the Northern and Eastern Kingdoms of Europe—and in Sweden itself at a later time—succeeded in erecting an oligarchy, which oppressed the peasants and crippled the activity of the State.

(2) Again, by his consistent favouring of the middle classes, and his conclusion of commercial treaties with Russia, France, and the Netherlands, he became the founder of Swedish commerce, and dealt a serious blow at the Baltic supremacy of the Hanseatic League.

(3) And lastly, he appears as the founder of that policy of territorial aggression (toward the South and East), which, however we may judge of its morality in this age of peace, was certainly looked upon then as the prime duty of all Kings, and which in the case of Sweden was the direct path toward the great part which she was destined to play in the 17th century.

His first enemy was Russia, a recently consolidated State, already bordering on the half-Polish province of Livonia and the Swedish province of Finland; already extending her flanks to the Caucasus and the Don on the south and to the White Sea on the north. … The wars of Ivan the Terrible (1534-84) for Finland and Livonia were unsuccessful, and the chief interest which they possess for us is that in 1561, the year after the death of Gustavus I., his son Eric acquired for Sweden the province of Esthonia, which appears to have previously fluctuated between dependence on Denmark and on Russia. This was the first of the so-called 'Baltic provinces' of Sweden; herewith began the exclusion of Russia from the 'Dominium Maris Baltici.' But this possession brought Eric face to face with Poland, a country which was disputing with Russia the possession of Livonia. Poland, under the last of the great Jaghellon line, was already displaying the fatal tendency to anarchy which at last devoured her. … Poland turned for help to the King of Denmark, in whom Eric, with keen insight, recognised the most dangerous foe for Sweden. In 1563 Eric concluded peace with Russia, and the nations of the North began to assume their natural relation to each other. The Baltic question rapidly became an European one. English sympathies were with Sweden and Russia; Spain and the Emperor as naturally took the other side, and suggested to the King of Denmark, Frederick II. (1559-1588), that he should ask for the hand of Mary Stuart; to counteract which King Eric indulged in an elaborate flirtation with Elizabeth. The powers of North Germany took sides in the war (1565), but the war itself produced but little result. The able Eric displayed symptoms of insanity and was extremely unpopular with the Swedish nobles, and Denmark was as yet too powerful an enemy for Sweden to overthrow. In 1567 Eric was deposed by a revolution, the fruit of which was reaped by his brother John. When the great Gustavus I. was dying, and could no longer speak, he made a sign that he wished to write, and wrote half a sentence of warning to his people: 'Rather die a hundred times than abandon the Gospel. …' Then his hand failed, and he dropped back dead. He was not, I have said, a particularly religious man, but he marked out the true path for Sweden. Now in 1567 a certain reaction set in: many of the nobles, who had felt the yoke of Gustavus heavy and of Eric heavier, seemed ready to drift back to Catholicism, and John's reign (1567-1590) was one of reaction in many ways. John never openly went over to Catholicism, but he cast off all the Lutheranism that he dared to cast off. He made peace with Denmark and war with Russia; thereby he allowed the former country to develop her trade and foreign relations enormously and rapidly, and made the task of his successors doubly hard. Above all, he originated, by his marriage with Catherine Jaghellon, the disastrous connexion with Poland. That unhappy country, 'the fatal byword for all years to come' of genuine anarchy, had just closed its period of prosperity. The last of the Jaghellon Kings died in 1572, and the elected King, Stephen Bathori, died in 1586. Ivan the Terrible sought the crown of Poland. … John of Sweden, on the other hand, saw an opening for the House of Vasa. His son Sigismund was, by dint of bribes and intrigue, elected King of Poland. But he had to become a Catholic. … The union of Sweden with Poland, which would necessarily follow, if Sigismund succeeded his father on the Swedish throne, would be almost certainly a Catholic union. … Sweden was still a free country, in the sense of being governed in a parliamentary way with the consent of the four estates, Nobles, Clergy, Citizens, and Peasants. Whatever the Riddarhus might think upon the subject, the three non-noble estates were red-hot Protestants and would have no Catholic king. Even the nobles were only induced to consent to Sigismund becoming King of Poland without forfeiting his right to succeed in Sweden, by the grant of extravagant privileges, practically so great, had they been observed, as to emasculate the Vasa monarchy. Luckily the people had a deliverer at hand. Charles, Duke of Sudermania, the youngest of the sons of Gustavus I., lived wholly in the best traditions of his father's policy. He might be relied upon to head an insurrection, if necessary. Even before John's death in 1590 murmurs began to be heard that he had been an usurper—was his son necessarily the heir? These murmurs increased, when in 1593, after waiting three years, Sigismund came home to claim his kingdom, with a present of 20,000 crowns from the Pope in his pocket, 'to defray the cost of the restoration of Catholicism in Sweden.' Duke Charles had already prepared his plans when the King arrived; there seems little doubt that he was playing a game, and for the crown. We are not concerned with his motives, it is sufficient to know that they corresponded with the interests of his country. In 1593, just before Sigismund had landed, Charles had been chosen Regent and President of the Council of State. … When Sigismund went back to Poland at the end of the year 1594, he could not prevent Charles being chosen to administer the kingdom in his absence, and Diet after Diet subsequently confirmed the power of the Regent. {2821} The peasants of Dalecarlia, the great province of the centre, which had first come forward to the support of Gustavus I. in 1520, sent up a petition to the effect that there ought to be only one king in Sweden, and that Sigismund had forfeited the crown. Charles himself had been unwilling to lead a revolution, until it became apparent that Sigismund was massing troops and raising money in Poland for an attack upon his native land. In 1597 the civil war may be said to have begun; in the following year Sigismund landed (with only 5,000 Polish troops) and was utterly defeated near Linköping (on September 25, 1598). On the next day a treaty was concluded by which Sigismund was acknowledged as King, but promised to send away his foreign troops and maintain Protestantism. It was obviously a mere effort to gain time, and in the following year on failing to keep the condition, which he never had the remotest intention of keeping, he was formally deposed (July, 1599). The contest, however, was by no means over, and it led to that perpetual hostility between Sweden and Poland which played such an important part in the history of Northern Europe in the 17th century. … In 1604 Charles was solemnly crowned King; that was the second birthday of the Vasa monarchy; the crown was entailed upon his eldest son, Gustavus Adolphus, and his descendants, being Protestants, and the descendants of Sigismund were forever excluded. 'Every prince who should deviate from the Confession of Augsburg should ipso facto lose the crown. Anyone who should attempt to effect any change of religion should be declared an enemy and a traitor. Sweden should never be united with another kingdom under one crown; the King must live in Sweden.'"

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark and Norway): A. D. 1534.
Accession of Christian III.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark and Norway): A. D. 1559.
Accession of Frederick II.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark and Norway): A. D. 1588.
Accession of Christian IV.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1611-1629.
The Danish, Russian and Polish wars of Gustavus Adolphus.

On the death of Charles in 1611 his son, Gustavus Adolphus, did not immediately assume the title of king. "Sweden remained without a sovereign for two months; for, according to the will of the deceased king, the queen and his nephew (Duke John), with six councillors of state, were to rule till the wishes of the people could be made known in the customary manner. After an interregnum of two months, the Diet opened at Nyköping. … Duke John was the son of Sigismund, King of Poland, had been brought up in Sweden, and might be considered as having some just claim to the throne. The queen-mother and Duke John laid down the tutelage and the regency. … Nine days later the young king, in the presence of the representatives of the estates of Sweden, received the reins of government. … He was then in the first month of his 18th year. He took charge of the kingdom when it was in a critical condition. Since the death of Gustavus Vasa, his grandfather, a period of more than 50 years, Sweden had not enjoyed a single year of peace. In that long space of time, there had been constant dissensions and violence. … Sweden was much constrained and embarrassed by her boundaries, and by the jealousies and hostile feelings of her neighbours on the north and the south. Denmark and Norway were united in a kind of dual government under the same king; and both alike were opposed to the growth of Swedish power, and were in continual dispute with her in respect to territory, as well as to the naval and commercial uses of the adjacent seas. Those provinces in the south which are now the most productive and valuable of Sweden, then belonged to Denmark, or were in dispute between the two countries. On the east, Russia and Poland embarrassed and threatened her." During the first year of his reign Gustavus devoted his energies to the war with Denmark. He fought at a disadvantage. His resources were unequal to those of the Danes. His capital, Stockholm, was once attacked by a Danish fleet and in serious peril. But he secured an advantageous peace in the spring of 1613. "Sweden renounced some of its conquests and pretensions, and the Danes gave up to Sweden the city of Calmar on the Baltic, and at the end of six years were to surrender to Sweden its city of Elfsborg on the North Sea; the latter agreeing to pay to the Danes 1,000,000 thalers for the surrender. … At the death of Charles IX., and the ascension of Gustavus to the throne, Sweden was in a state of war with Russia, and was so to continue for several years; though hostilities were not all the time prosecuted with vigor, and were some of the time practically suspended. … The Swedes held possession of a large area of what is now Russian territory, as well as important towns and fortresses. The extensive country of Finland, which makes to-day so important a province of Russia, had been united with Sweden nearly five centuries, as it continued to be nearly two hundred years longer. But towns and territory, also a long distance within the lines of the Russian population, were then in the power of the Swedish forces. The troubles and dissensions relative to the succession, and extreme dislike to the Poles, had caused a numerous party to seek a Swedish prince for its sovereign, and to this end had sent an embassy to Stockholm near the date of the death of Charles IX. Finding that the young Gustavus had acceded to the crown of his father, this Russian party desired to secure for the Russian throne Charles Philip, a younger brother of Gustavus. The Swedish king did not show eagerness to bring this plan to success; but, the war being terminated with Denmark, he was resolved to draw what advantage he could from the weakened condition of Russia, to the advancement and security of the interests of Sweden. In July, 1613, the Russians chose for czar Michael Romanoff, then sixteen years of age. … Gustavus proceeded to push military operations with as much vigor as possible. … For four years more the war between these two countries continued; … the advantages being generally on the side of the Swedes, though they were not always successful in important sieges." Finally, through the mediation of English agents, terms of peace were agreed upon. "The treaty was signed February, 1617. Russia yielded to Sweden a large breadth of territory, shutting herself out from the Baltic; the land where St. Petersburg now stands becoming Swedish territory. … {2822} The next important work in hand was to deal with Poland. … At the death of Charles IX. an armistice had been signed, which was to continue until July, 1612. This was thrice extended, the last time to January, 1616. The latter date had not been reached when the Polish partisans began to intrigue actively in Sweden, and those Swedes who still adhered to the religion and the dynastic rights of Sigismund could not be otherwise than secretly or openly stirred. Sigismund was not only supported by the power of Poland, and by his strong show of legal title to the Swedish crown, but there were strong influences on his side in European high political and religious quarters. He was united to the house of Hapsburg by the bonds of relationship ns well as of theology. Philip III. of Spain, and he who afterwards became Ferdinand II. of Austria, were his brothers-in-law. … Sigismund came then to the resolution to make war for the possession of Sweden. He was promised enrolment of troops in Germany, the Spaniards had engaged to arm a fleet in his support, and the estates of Poland were to furnish their quota. … Efforts were made to stir up revolt against Gustavus in his own kingdom," and he promptly declared war. "During the year 1617 hostilities were prosecuted on both sides with much vigor, and loss of life. Towns and strong positions were taken, and invasions and sudden attacks were made on both sides; the advantages being generally with the Swedes, though not decisive. During the winter of 1618 the Poles invaded Livonia and Esthonia, carrying pillage and fire in their march, and then retiring." Gustavus would not allow his generals to retaliate. "'We wish not,' he said, 'to war against the peasant, whom we had rather protect than ruin.'" In 1618 there was an armistice, with peace negotiations which failed, and the war began anew. In August, 1621, Gustavus laid siege to Riga with a strong fleet and army, and met with an obstinate resistance; but the place was surrendered to him at the end of nearly six weeks. Again the belligerents agreed to an armistice, and "the year 1624 is declared by the Swedish historians to have been the only one in which Gustavus Adolphus was able to devote all his labors and cares to the interior administration of his country. In the following year the war was renewed. The third campaign of the Swedish king against Poland was terminated by the completion of the conquest of Livonia; and the possession of Courland assured to him Riga, the object of his special care." The decisive battle of the campaign was fought at Wallhof, January 7, 1626. The king of Sweden then "resolved to transport the theatre of war from the banks of the Duna to those of the Vistula, to attack Poland at the heart, and approach Germany. Here commences that part of the war of Poland which is called also the war of Prussia. … He [Gustavus] realized the need of a port in Eastern Prussia; and the elector of Brandenburg, his brother-in-law, was invested, with that duchy under the suzerainty of Poland. Gustavus did not allow these considerations to arrest his course. … June 26 the king arrived before Pillau, and possessed himself of that city without much resistance, the garrison being small. … Braunsberg capitulated June 30. July I, Flanenberg surrendered, and Elbing on the 6th, which was followed by Marienberg on the 8th; the last a well-fortified city. Many towns of less importance were likewise soon captured. Gustavus rapidly pushed aside all resistance, and soon reached the frontiers of Pomerania." In the engagements of the campaign of 1627 the king was twice wounded—once by a musket-ball in the groin, and the second time by a ball that entered near the neck and lodged at the upper corner of the right shoulder-blade. In June, 1629, "there was a heated engagement at Stum, in which Gustavus ran great danger, his force being inferior to the enemy." In September of that year "an armistice was concluded for six years between the belligerent kingdoms. Five cities which had been conquered by Swedish arms were given up to Poland, and three others delivered to the elector of Brandenburg, to be held during the armistice. Gustavus was to continue to occupy Pillau and three other towns of some importance. Liberty of conscience was to be accorded to Protestants and Catholics, and commerce was declared free between the two nations."

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark): A. D. 1625-1630.
   The Protestant Alliance.
   Engagement of King Christian IV. in the Thirty Years War.
   The Treaty of Lübeck.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1628.
Gustavus Adolphus' first interference in the war in Germany.
The relief of Stralsund.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1630-1632.
The campaigns of Gustavus Adolphus in Germany.
His death.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1632.
Full powers given to Oxenstiern in Germany.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1638-1640.
The planting of a colony in America, on the Delaware.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1640-1645.
Campaigns of Baner and Torstenson in Germany.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1643-1645.
   War between Sweden and Denmark.
   Torstenson's conquest of Holstein and Schleswig.
   The Peace of Bromsebro.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1644-1697.
   Reign and abdication of Queen Christina.
   Wars of Charles X. and Charles XI. with Poland
   and Denmark and in Germany.
   Establishment of absolutism.

"Christina, the only child and successor of Gustavus Adolphus, had been brought up by her aunt, Katerina, the Princess Palatine, until the death of the latter in 1639, and in the year 1644, when she reached the age of eighteen, the regency was absolved, and she began to rule in her own name. She had inherited much of her father's talent, and was perhaps the most learned and accomplished woman of her time. {2823} She had received the education of a man. … She had great taste for the fine arts and for the pursuits of science; but while she encouraged scientific men at her court, she also spent money too recklessly in rewarding artistic merit of all kinds. … As a dangerous drawback to her many splendid qualities, she had all the waywardness, caprice, restlessness of mind, fickleness and love of display for which her beautiful mother, Maria Eleanora of Brandenburg, had been noted. She lavished crown lands and the money of the state upon favourites. … In the meanwhile the national Estates had been split up into parties, the aristocrats being led by Axel Oxenstjerna, and the democrats, with whom the queen sided, by Johan Skytte. The clergy struggled to maintain their independence under the oppressive patronage of the nobles, and the peasants agitated to recover some of the power which the great Gustavus Vasa had granted them, but which his successors had by degrees taken from them. The kingdom was in a ferment, and a civil war seemed to be unavoidable. The council urged upon the queen to marry, and her cousin, Karl Gustaf of the Palatinate, entreated her to fulfil the promise which she had given him in earlier years of choosing him for her husband. At length … she proposed him for her successor. … After much opposition, Karl Gustaf was declared successor to the throne in the event of the queen having no children of her own. … The few years of Christina's reign after her solemn coronation were disquieted by continued dissensions in the diet, attempts at revolts, and by a general distress, which was greatly increased by her profuse wastefulness and her reckless squandering of the property of the crown. As ear]y as the year 1648 she had conceived the idea of abdicating, but, being hindered by her old friends and councillors, she deferred carrying out her wishes till 1654." In that year the abdication was formally accomplished, and she left the country at once, travelling through Europe. In 1655 she renounced Protestantism and entered the Roman Catholic Church. "At the death [1660] of her cousin and successor, Karl X. Gustaf, as he was called by the Swedes, and who is known to us as Charles X., she returned to Sweden and claimed the crown for herself; but neither then, nor in 1667, when she renewed her pretensions, would the council encourage her hopes, and, after a final attempt to gain the vacant throne of Poland in 1668, she gave up all schemes of ever reigning again, and retired to Rome, where she died in 1689 at the age of sixty-three. … The short reign of Charles X., from 1655 to 1660, was a time of great disorder and unquiet in Sweden. … He resolved to engage the people in active war. … The ill-timed demand of the Polish king, Johan Kasimir, to be proclaimed the true heir to Christina's throne, drew the first attack upon Poland. Charles X. was born to be a soldier and a conqueror, and the success and rapidity with which he overran all Poland, and crushed the Polish army in a three days' engagement at Warsaw in 1656, showed that he was a worthy pupil and successor of his uncle, the great Gustavus Adolphus. But it was easier for him to make conquests than to keep them, and when the Russians, in their jealousy of the increasing power of Sweden, took part in the war, and began to attack Livonia and Esthonia, while an imperial army advanced into Poland to assist the Poles, who, infuriated at the excesses of the Swedish soldiers, had risen en masse against them, Charles saw the expediency of retreating; and, leaving only a few detachments of troops to watch his enemies, he turned upon Denmark. This war, which was closed by the peace signed at Roeskilde in 1658, enriched Sweden at the expense of Denmark, and gave to the former the old provinces of Skaania, Halland and Bleking, by which the Swedish monarchy obtained natural and well-defined boundaries. The success of this first Danish war, in which Denmark for a time lay crushed under the power of the Swedish king, emboldened him to renew his attacks, and between 1658 and 1660 Charles X. made war five times on the Danish monarch; more than once laid siege to Copenhagen; and, under his able captain, Wrangel, nearly destroyed the Danish fleet. At the close of 1659, when it seemed as if Denmark must be wholly subjugated by Sweden, the English and Dutch, alarmed at the ambition of the Swedish king, sent an allied fleet into the Cattegat to operate with the Danes." Charles, checked in his operations, was preparing to carry the war into Norway, when he died suddenly, in the winter of 1660, and peace was made by the treaty of Oliva. "By the early death of Charles X., Sweden was again brought under the rule of a regency, for his son and successor, Charles XI., was only four years old when he became king. … Every department of the government was left to suffer from mismanagement, the army and navy were neglected, the defences of the frontiers fell into decay, and the public servants were unable to procure their pay. To relieve the great want of money, the regency accepted subsidies, or payments of money from foreign states to maintain peace towards them, and hired out troops to serve in other countries. In this state of things the young king grew up without receiving any very careful education. … Charles was declared of age in his 18th year. … He was not left long in the enjoyment of mere exercises of amusement, for in 1674 Louis XIV. of France, in conformity with the treaty which the regents had concluded with him, called upon the young Swedish king to help him in the war which he was carrying on against the German princes.

   Charles sent an army into Germany, which advanced without
   opposition into the heart of Brandenburg, but before these
   forces could form a junction with the French troops then
   encamped in the Rhinelands, the Elector came upon them
   unawares at Fehrbellin [June 18, 1675] and defeated them. The
   losses of the Swedes on this occasion were not great, but the
   result of their defeat was to give encouragement to the old
   rivals of Sweden; and early in 1675 both Holland and Denmark
   declared war against the Swedish king, who, finding that he
   had been left by the regency almost without army, navy, or
   money, resolved for the future to take the management of
   public affairs entirely into his own hands." When he "began
   the war by a sea engagement with the enemy off Oeland, he
   found that his ships of war had suffered as much as the
   land-defences from the long-continued neglect of his regents.
   The Danes, under their great admiral, Niels Juel, and
   supported by a Dutch squadron, beat the Swedish fleet, many of
   whose ships were burnt or sunk.
{2824}
   This defeat was atoned for by a victory on land, gained by
   Charles himself in 1676, over the Danes on the snow-covered
   hills around the town of Lund. Success was not won without
   heavy cost, for after a most sanguinary fight, continued from
   daybreak till night, King Charles, although master of the
   field, found that more than half his men had been killed. The
   Danes, who had suffered fully as much, were forced to retreat,
   leaving Lund in the hands of the Swedes; and although they
   several times repeated the attempt, they failed in recovering
   the province of Skaania, which was the great object of their
   ambition. In Germany the fortune of war did not favor the
   Swedes, although they fought gallantly under their general,
   Otto Königsmark; [Stettin was surrendered after a long siege
   in 1677, and Stralsund in 1678] and Charles XI. was glad to
   enter into negotiations for taking part in the general peace
   which France was urging upon all the leading powers of Europe,
   and which was signed at the palace of St. Germains, in 1679,
   by the representatives of the respective princes. Sweden
   recovered the whole of Pomerania, which had been occupied
   during the war by Austria and Brandenburg, and all Swedish and
   Danish conquests were mutually renounced. … At the close of
   this war Charles XI. began in good earnest to put his kingdom
   in order." By sternly reclaiming crown-lands which had been
   wantonly alienated by former rulers, and by compelling other
   restitutions, Charles broke the power of the nobles, and so
   humbled the National Estates that they "proclaimed him, in a
   diet held in 1693, to be an absolute sovereign king, 'who had
   the power and right to rule his kingdom as he pleased.'" He
   attained an absolutism, in fact, which was practically
   unlimited. He died in 1697, leaving three children, the eldest
   of whom, who succeeded him, was the extraordinary Charles XII.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1646-1648.
Last campaigns of the Thirty Years War in Germany.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark and Norway): A. D. 1648.
Accession of Frederick III.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1648.
The Peace of Westphalia.
Acquisition of part of Pomerania and other German territory.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1655.
Conquest of the Delaware colony by the Dutch.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1668.
Triple Alliance with Holland and England against Louis XIV.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark and Norway): A. D. 1670.
Accession of Christian V.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark): A. D. 1674-1679.
In the coalition to resist Louis XIV.

      See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND):
      A. D. 1672-1674, and 1674-1678;
      also, NIMEGUEN, PEACE OF.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1686.
The League of Augsburg against Louis XIV.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1697-1700.
   The conspiracy of three sovereigns against Charles XII.
   and how he met it
   First campaigns of the young king, in Denmark and Russia.

"Charles XII, at his accession to the throne, found himself the absolute and undisturbed master, not only of Sweden and Finland, but also of Livonia, Carelia, Ingria, Wismar, Viborg, the Islands of Rügen and Oesel, and the finest part of Pomerania, together with the duchy of Bremen and Verden,—all of them the conquests of his ancestors. … The beginning of the king's reign gave no very favorable idea of his character. It was imagined that he had been more ambitious of obtaining the supreme power than worthy of possessing it. True it is, he had no dangerous passion; but his conduct discovered nothing but the sallies of youth and the freaks of obstinacy. He seemed to be equally proud and lazy. The ambassadors who resided at his court took him even for a person of mean capacity, and represented him as such to their respective masters. The Swedes entertained the same opinion of him: nobody knew his real character: he did not even know it himself, until the storm that suddenly arose in the North gave him an opportunity of displaying his great talents, which had hitherto lain concealed. Three powerful princes, taking the advantage of his youth, conspired his ruin almost at the same time. The first was his own cousin, Frederick IV, king of Denmark: the second, Augustus, elector of Saxony and King of Poland; Peter the Great, czar of Muscovy, was the third, and most dangerous. … The founder of the Russian empire was ambitious of being a conqueror. … Besides, he wanted a port on the east side of the Baltic, to facilitate the execution of all his schemes. He wanted the province of Ingria, which lies to the northeast of Livonia. The Swedes were in possession of it, and from them he resolved to take it by force. His predecessors had had claims upon Ingria, Esthonia, and Livonia; and the present seemed a favorable opportunity for reviving these claims, which had lain buried for a hundred years, and had been cancelled by the sanction of treaties. He therefore made a league with the King of Poland, to wrest from young Charles XII all the territories that are bounded by the Gulf of Finland, the Baltic Sea, Poland, and Muscovy. The news of these preparations struck the Swedes with consternation, and alarmed the council." But the effect on the young King was instantly and strangely sobering. He assumed the responsibilities of the situation at once, and took into his own hands the preparations for war. From that moment "he entered on a new course of life, from which he never afterwards deviated in one single instance. Full of the idea of Alexander and Cæsar, he proposed to imitate those two conquerors in every thing but their vices. No longer did he indulge himself in magnificence, sports, and recreations: he reduced his table to the most rigid frugality. He had formerly been fond of gayety and dress; but from that time he was never clad otherwise than as a common soldier. He was supposed to have entertained a passion for a lady of his court: whether there was any foundation for this supposition does not appear; certain it is, he ever after renounced all commerce with women, not only for fear of being governed by them, but likewise to set an example of continence to his soldiers. … {2825} He likewise determined to abstain from wine during the rest of his life. … He began by assuring the Duke of Holstein, his brother-in-law, of a speedy assistance. Eight thousand men were immediately sent into Pomerania, a province bordering upon Holstein, in order to enable the duke to make head against the Danes. The duke indeed had need of them. His dominions were already laid waste, the castle of Gottorp taken, and the city of Tönningen pressed by an obstinate siege, to which the King of Denmark had come in person. … This spark began to throw the empire into a flame. On the one side, the Saxon troops of the King of Poland, those of Brandenburg Wolfenbüttel, and Hesse Cassel, advanced to join the Danes. On the other, the King of Sweden's 8,000 men, the troops of Hanover and Zell, and three Dutch regiments, came to the assistance of the duke. While the little country of Holstein was thus the theatre of war, two squadrons, the one from England and the other from Holland, appeared in the Baltic. … They joined the young King of Sweden, who seemed to be in danger of being crushed. … Charles set out for his first campaign on the 8th day of May, new style, in the year 1700, and left Stockholm, whither he never returned. … His fleet consisted of three-and-forty vessels. … He joined the squadrons of the allies," and made a descent upon Copenhagen. The city surrendered to escape bombardment, and in less than six weeks Charles had extorted from the Danish King a treaty of peace, negotiated at Travendahl, which indemnified the Duke of Holstein for all the expenses of the war and delivered him from oppression. For himself, Charles asked nothing. "Exactly at the same time, the King of Poland invested Riga, the capital of Livonia; and the czar was advancing on the east at the head of nearly 100,000 men." Riga was defended with great skill and determination, and Augustus was easily persuaded to abandon the siege on the remonstrance of the Dutch, who had much merchandise in the town. "The only thing that Charles had now to do towards the finishing of his first campaign, was to march against his rival in glory, Peter Alexiovitch." Peter had appeared before Narva on the 1st of October, at the head of 80,000 men, mostly undisciplined barbarians, "some armed with arrows, and others with clubs. Few of them had guns; none of them had ever seen a regular siege; and there was not one good cannoneer in the whole army. … Narva was almost without fortifications: Baron Horn, who commanded there, had not 1,000 regular troops; and yet this immense army could not reduce it in six weeks. It was now the 15th of November, when the czar learned that the King of Sweden had crossed the sea with 200 transports, and was advancing to the relief of Narva. The Swedes were not above 20,000 strong." But the czar was not confident. He had another army marching to his support, and he left the camp at Narva to hasten its movements. Charles' motions were too quick for him. He reached Narva on the 30th of November, after a forced march, with a vanguard of only 8,000 men, and at once, without waiting for the remainder of his army to come up, he stormed the Russian intrenchments. "The Swedes advanced with fixed bayonets, having a furious shower of snow on their backs, which drove full in the face of the enemy." The victory was complete. "The Swedes had not lost above 600 men. Eight thousand Muscovites had been killed in their intrenchments: many were drowned; many had crossed the river," and 30,000 who held a part of the camp at nightfall, surrendered next morning. When czar Peter, who was pressing the march of his 40,000 men, received news of the disaster at Narva, he turned homeward, and set himself seriously to the work of drilling and disciplining his troops. "The Swedes," he said phlegmatically, "will teach us to beat them."

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark and Norway): A. D. 1699.
Accession of Frederick IV.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1701-1707.
   Invasion and subjugation of Poland and Saxony by Charles XII.
   Deposition of Augustus from the Polish throne.
   Charles at the summit of his career.

"Whilst Peter, abandoning all the provinces he had invaded, retreated to his own dominions, and employed himself in training his undisciplined serfs, Charles prepared to take the field against his only remaining adversary, the King of Poland. Leaving Narva, where he passed the winter, he entered Livonia, and appeared in the neighbourhood of Riga, the very place which the Poles and Saxons had in vain besieged. Dreading the storm that now approached, Augustus had entered into a closer alliance with the czar; and at an interview which took place at Birsen, a small town in Lithuania, it was agreed that each should furnish the other with a body of 50,000 mercenaries, to be paid by Russia. … The Saxon army, having failed in their attempt on Riga, endeavoured to prevent the Swedes from crossing the Dwina; but the passage was effected under cover of a thick cloud of smoke from the burning of wet straw, and by means of large boats with high wooden parapets along the sides, to protect the soldiers from the fire of the enemy, who were driven from their intrenchments with the loss of 2,000 killed and 1,500 prisoners. Charles immediately advanced to Mittau, the capital of Courland, the garrison of which, with all the other towns and forts in the duchy, surrendered at discretion. He next passed into Lithuania, conquering wherever he came, and driving 20,000 Russians before him with the utmost precipitation. On reaching Birsen, it gave him no little satisfaction, as he himself confessed, to enter in triumph the very town where, only a few months before, Augustus and the czar had plotted his destruction. It was here that he formed the daring project of dethroning the King of Poland by means of his own subjects, whose notions of liberty could not tolerate the measures of a despotic government. … The fate of Augustus, already desperate, was here consummated by the treachery of the primate Radziewiski, who caused it to be immediately notified to all the palatines, that no alternative remained but to submit to the will of the conqueror. The deserted monarch resolved to defend his crown by force of arms; the two kings met near Clissau (July 13, 1702), where after a bloody battle fortune again declared for the Swedes. Charles halted not a moment on the field of victory, but marched rapidly to Cracow in pursuit of his antagonist. {2826} That city was taken without firing a shot, and taxed with a contribution of 100,000 rix-dollars. The fugitive prince obtained an unexpected respite of six weeks, his indefatigable rival having had his thigh-bone fractured by an accidental fall from his horse. The interval was spent in hostile preparations, but the recovery of Charles overturned all the schemes of his enemies, and the decisive battle of Pultusk (May 1, 1703) completed the humiliation of the unfortunate Augustus. At the instigation of the faithless cardinal, the diet at Warsaw declared (February 14, 1704) that the Elector of Saxony was incapable of wearing the crown, which was soon after bestowed on Stanislaus Leczinski, the young palatine of Posnania. Count Piper strongly urged his royal master to assume the sovereignty himself. … But the splendours of a diadem had few charms in the eyes of a conqueror who confessed that he felt much more pleasure in bestowing thrones upon others than in winning them for himself. Having thus succeeded in his favourite project, Charles resumed his march to complete the entire conquest of the kingdom. Every where had fortune crowned the bold expeditions of this adventurous prince. Whilst his generals and armies were pursuing their career from province to province, he had himself opened a passage for his victorious troops into Saxony and the imperial dominions. His ships, now masters of the Baltic, were employed in transporting to Sweden the prisoners taken in the wars. Denmark, bound up by the treaty of Travendhal, was prevented from offering any active interference; the Russians were kept in check towards the east by a detachment of 30,000 Swedes; so that the whole region was kept in awe by the sword of the conqueror, from the German Ocean almost to the mouth of the Borysthenes, and even to the gates of Moscow. The Czar Peter in the mean time, having carried Narva by assault, and captured several towns and fortresses in Livonia, held a conference with Augustus at Grodno, where the two sovereigns concerted their plans for attacking the Scandinavian invaders in their new conquests, with a combined army of 60,000 men, under Prince Menzikoff and General Schullemberg. Had the fate of the contest depended on numerical superiority alone, Charles must have been crushed before the overwhelming power of his enemies; but his courage and good fortune prevailed over every disadvantage. The scattered hordes of Muscovy were overthrown with so great celerity, that one detachment after another was routed before they learned the defeat of their companions. Schullemberg, with all his experience and reputation, was not more successful, having been completely beaten by Renschild, the Parmenio of the northern Alexander, in a sanguinary action (February 12, 1706), at the small town of Travenstadt, near Punitz, a place already fatal to the cause of Augustus. … The reduction of Saxony, which Charles next invaded, obliged Augustus to implore peace on any terms. The conditions exacted by the victor were, that he should renounce for ever the crown of Poland; acknowledge Stanislaus as lawful king; and dissolve his treaty of alliance with Russia. The inflexible temper of Charles was not likely to mitigate the severity of these demands, but their rigour was increased in consequence of the defeat of General Meyerfeld, near Kalisch, by Prince Menzikoff—the first advantage which the Muscovites had gained over the Swedes in a pitched battle. … The numerous victories of Charles, and the arbitrary manner in which he had deposed the King of Poland, filled all Europe with astonishment. Some states entertained apprehensions of his power, while others prepared to solicit his friendship. France, harassed by expensive wars in Spain, Italy, and the Netherlands, courted his alliance with an ardour proportioned to the distressing state of her affairs. Offended at the declaration issued against him by the diet of Ratisbon, and resenting an indignity offered to Baron de Stralheim, his envoy at Vienna, he magnified these trivial affronts into an occasion of quarrelling with the emperor, who was obliged to succumb, and among other mortifying concessions, to grant his Lutheran subjects in Silesia the free exercise of their religious liberties as secured by the treaties of Westphalia. … The ambitious prince was now in the zenith of his glory; he had experienced no reverse, nor met with any interruption to his victories. The romantic extravagance of his views increased with his success. One year, he thought, will suffice for the conquest of Russia. The court of Rome was next to feel his vengeance, as the pope had dared to oppose the concession of religious liberty to the Silesian Protestants. No enterprise at that time appeared impossible to him."

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1707-1718.
   Charles XII. in Russia.
   His ruinous defeat at Pultowa.
   His refuge among the Turks.
   His fruitless intrigues.
   His return to Sweden.
   His death.

"From Saxony, Charles marched back into Poland [September, 1707], where Peter was making some ineffectual efforts to revive the party of Augustus. Peter retired before his rival, who had, however, the satisfaction of defeating an army of 20,000 Russians [at Golowstschin, in the spring of 1708], strongly intrenched. Intoxicated by success, he rejected the czar's offers of peace, declaring that he would treat at Moscow; and without forming any systematic plan of operations, he crossed the frontiers, resolved on the destruction of that ancient city. Peter prevented the advance of the Swedes, on the direct line, by destroying the roads and desolating the country; Charles, after having endured great privations, turned off towards the Ukraine, whither he had been invited by Mazeppa, the chief of the Cossacks, who, disgusted by the conduct of the czar, had resolved to throw off his allegiance. In spite of all the obstacles that nature and the enemy could throw in his way, Charles reached the place of rendezvous; but he had the mortification to find Mazeppa appear in his camp as a fugitive rather than an ally, for the czar had discovered his treason, and disconcerted his schemes by the punishment of his associates. A still greater misfortune to the Swedes was the loss of the convoy and the ruin of the reinforcement they had expected from Livonia, General Lewenhaupt, to whose care it was entrusted, had been forced into three general engagements by the Russians; and though he had eminently distinguished himself by his courage and conduct, he was forced to set fire to his wagons to prevent their falling into the hands of the enemy. {2827} Undaunted by these misfortunes, Charles continued the campaign even in the depth of a winter so severe that 2,000 men were at once frozen to death almost in his presence. At length he laid siege to Pultowa, a fortified city on the frontiers of the Ukraine, which contained one of the czar's principal magazines. The garrison was numerous and the resistance obstinate; Charles himself was dangerously wounded in the heel whilst viewing the works; and while he was still confined to his tent he learned that Peter was advancing with a numerous army to raise the siege. Leaving 7,000 men to guard the works, Charles ordered his soldiers to march and meet the enemy, while he accompanied them in a litter (July 8, 1709). The desperate charge of the Swedes broke the Russian cavalry, but the infantry stood firm, and gave the horse an opportunity of rallying in the rear. In the meantime the czar's artillery made dreadful havoc in the Swedish line; and Charles, who had been forced to abandon his cannon in his forced marches, in vain contended against this formidable disadvantage. After a dreadful combat of more than two hours' duration, the Swedish army was irretrievably ruined; 8,000 of their best troops were left dead on the field, 6,000 were taken prisoners, and about 12,000 of the fugitives were soon after forced to surrender on the banks of the Dnieper, from want of boats to cross the river. Charles, accompanied by about 300 of his guards, escaped to Bender, a Turkish town in Bessarabia, abandoning all his treasures to his rival, including the rich spoils of Poland and Saxony. Few victories have ever had such important consequences as that which the czar won at Pultowa; in one fatal day Charles lost the fruits of nine years' victories; the veteran army that had been the terror of Europe was completely ruined; those who escaped from the fatal field were taken prisoners, but they found a fate scarcely better than death; for they were transported by the czar to colonize the wilds of Siberia; the elector of Saxony re-entered Poland and drove Stanislaus from the throne; the kings of Denmark and Prussia revived old claims on the Swedish provinces, while the victorious Peter invaded not only Livonia and Ingria, but a great part of Finland. Indeed, but for the interference of the German emperor and the maritime powers, the Swedish monarchy would have been rent in pieces. Charles, in his exile, formed a new plan for the destruction of his hated rival; he instigated the Turks to attempt the conquest of Russia, and flattered himself that he might yet enter Moscow at the head of a Mohammedan army. The bribes which Peter lavishly bestowed on the counsellors of the sultan, for a time frustrated these intrigues; but Charles, through his friend Poniatowski, informed the sultan of his vizier's corruption, and procured the deposition of that minister. … The czar made the most vigorous preparations for the new war by which he was menaced (A. D. 1711). The Turkish vizier, on the other hand, assembled all the forces of the Ottoman Empire in the plains of Adrianople. Demetrius Cantemir, the hospodar of Moldavia, believing that a favourable opportunity presented itself for delivering his country from the Mohammedan yoke, invited the czar to his aid; and the Russians, rapidly advancing, reached the northern banks of the Pruth, near Yassi, the Moldavian capital. Here the Russians found that the promises of Prince Cantemir were illusory," and they were soon so enveloped by the forces of the Turks that there seemed to be no escape for them. But the czarina, Catherine —the Livonian peasant woman whom Peter had made his wife—gathered up her jewels and all the money she could find in camp, and sent them as a gift to the vizier, whereby he was induced to open negotiations. "A treaty [known as the Treaty of the Pruth] was concluded on terms which, though severe [requiring the Russians to give up Azof], were more favourable than Peter, under the circumstances, could reasonably have hoped; the Russians retired in safety, and Charles reached the Turkish camp, only to learn the downfall of all his expectations. A new series of intrigues in the court of Constantinople led to the appointment of a new vizier; but this minister was little inclined to gratify the king of Sweden; on the contrary, warned by the fate of his predecessors, he resolved to remove him from the Ottoman empire (A. D. 1713). Charles continued to linger; even after he had received a letter of dismissal from the sultan's own hand, he resolved to remain, and when a resolution was taken to send him away by force, he determined, with his few attendants, to dare the whole strength of the Turkish empire. After a fierce resistance, he was captured and conveyed a prisoner to Adrianople. … Another revolution in the divan revived the hopes of Charles, and induced him to remain in Turkey, when his return to the North would probably have restored him to his former eminence. The Swedes, under General Steenbock, gained one of the most brilliant victories that had been obtained during the war, over the united forces of the Danes and Saxons, at Gadebusch [November 20, 1712], in the duchy of Mecklenburg; but the conqueror sullied his fame by burning the defenceless town of Altona [January 19, 1713] an outrage which excited the indignation of all Europe." He soon after met with reverses and was compelled to surrender his whole army. "The czar in the meantime pushed forward his conquests on the side of Finland; and the glory of his reign appeared to be consummated by a naval victory obtained over the Swedes near the island of Oeland. … Charles heard of his rival's progress unmoved; but when he learned that the Swedish senate intended to make his sister regent and to make peace with Russia and Denmark, he announced his intention of returning home." He traversed Europe incognito, making the journey of 1,100 miles, mostly on horseback, in seventeen days, "and towards the close of the year [1714] reached Stralsund, the capital of Swedish Pomerania. Charles, at the opening of the next campaign, found himself surrounded with enemies (A. D. 1715). Stralsund itself was besieged by the united armies of the Prussians, Danes, and Saxons, while the Russian fleet, which now rode triumphant in the Baltic, threatened a descent upon Sweden. After an obstinate defence, in which the Swedish monarch displayed all his accustomed bravery, Stralsund was forced to capitulate, Charles having previously escaped in a small vessel to his native shores. All Europe believed the Swedish monarch undone; it was supposed he could no longer defend his own dominions, when, to the inexpressible astonishment of everyone, it was announced that he had invaded Norway. {2828} His attention, however, was less engaged by the war than by the gigantic intrigues of his new favourite, Goertz, who, taking advantage of a coolness between the Russians and the other enemies of Sweden, proposed that Peter and Charles should unite in strict amity, and dictate the law to Europe. … While the negotiations were yet in progress, Charles invaded Norway a second time, and invested the castle of Frederickshall in the very depth of winter. But while engaged in viewing the works he was struck by a cannon-ball, and was dead before any of his attendants came to his assistance [December 11, 1718]. The Swedish senate showed little grief for the loss

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1719-1721.
   Constitutional changes.
   Treaties of Peace ending the Great Northern War.
   Swedish cessions of Territory.

"An assembly of the States was summoned in February [1719], and completely altered the constitution. Sweden was declared an elective kingdom, and the government was vested in a council of 24 members, divided into eight colleges, who were invested with a power so absolute that their elected queen was reduced to a mere shadow. In short, the ancient oligarchy was restored, and Sweden became the prey of a few noble families. … In November a treaty was signed at Stockholm between Sweden and Great Britain, by which the Duchies of Bremen and Verden were ceded to George I. [as Elector of Hanover] in consideration of a payment of one million rix-dollars. By another treaty in January 1720, George engaged to support Sweden against Denmark and Russia, and to pay a yearly subsidy of $300,000 during the war. About the same time an armistice was concluded with Poland till a definitive treaty should be arranged on the basis of the Peace of Oliva. Augustus was to be recognised as King of Poland; but Stanislaus was to retain the royal title during his life, and to receive from Augustus a million rix-dollars. Both parties were to unite to check the preponderance of the Czar, whose troops excited great discontent and suspicion by their continued presence in Poland. On February 1st a peace was concluded with Prussia under the mediation of France and Great Britain. The principal articles of this treaty were that Sweden ceded to Prussia, Stettin, the Islands of Wollin and Usedom, and all the tract between the Oder and Peene, together with the towns of Damm and Golnau beyond the Oder. The King of Prussia, on his side, engaged not to assist the Czar, and to pay two million rix-dollars to the Queen of Sweden. The terms of a peace between Sweden and Denmark were more difficult of arrangement. … By the Treaty of Stockholm, June 12th 1720, the King of Denmark restored to Sweden, Wismar, Stralsund, Rügen, and all that he held in Pomerania; Sweden paying 600,000 rix-dollars and renouncing the freedom of the Sound. Thus the only territorial acquisition that Denmark made by the war was the greater part of the Duchy of Schleswig, the possession of which was guaranteed to her by England and France. Sweden and Russia were now the only Powers that remained at war. … At length, through the mediation of France, conferences were opened in May 1721, and the Peace of Nystad was signed, September 10th. … The only portion of his conquests that [Peter] relinquished was Finnland, with the exception of a part of Carelia; but as, by his treaty with Augustus II., at the beginning of the war, he had promised to restore Livonia to Poland if he conquered it, he paid the Crown of Sweden $2,000,000 in order to evade this engagement by alleging that he had purchased that province."

ALSO IN: F. C. Schlosser, History of the 18th Century, period 1, division 1, chapter 2, section 3.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1720.
Accession of Frederick of Hesse-Cassel,
husband of Ulrica Eleonora.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1720-1792.
   Wars with Russia and Prussia.
   Humiliating powerlessness of the king.
   The parties of the Hats and the Caps.
   A constitutional Revolution.
   Assassination of Gustavus III.

Ulrica Eleonora, the sister of Charles XII., resigned the crown in 1720, in favor of her husband, Prince of Hesse, who became king under the title of Frederick I. His reign witnessed the conquest of Finland and the cession (1743) of a part of that province to Russia.

   On his death in 1751, Adolphus Frederick, bishop of Lubeck,
   and administrator of Holstein, was raised to the throne.
   "Though his personal qualities commanded respect, his reign
   was a disastrous one. He had the folly to join the coalition
   of Russia, Poland, Austria, and France against the king of
   Prussia. Twenty thousand Swedes were marched into Pomerania,
   on the pretext of enforcing the conditions of the treaty of
   Westphalia, but with the view of recovering the districts
   which had been ceded to Prussia after the death of Charles
   XII. They reduced Usedom and Wollin, with the fortresses on
   the coast; but this success was owing to the absence of the
   Prussians. When, in 1758, Schwald, the general of Frederic the
   Great, was at liberty to march with 30,000 men into Pomerania,
   he recovered the places which had been lost, and forced the
   invaders to retire under the cannon of Stralsund. The
   accession of the tsar Peter was still more favourable to
   Frederic. An enthusiastic admirer of that prince, he soon
   concluded a treaty with him. Sweden was forced to follow the
   example; and things remained, at the peace of Hubertsburg, in
   the same condition as before the war. Scarcely was Sweden at
   harmony with her formidable enemy, when she became agitated by
   internal commotions. We have alluded to the limitations set to
   the royal authority after the death of Charles XII., and to
   the discontent it engendered in the breasts of the Swedish
   monarchs. While they strove to emancipate themselves from the
   shackles imposed upon them, the diet was no less anxious to
   render them more enslaved. That diet, consisting of four
   orders, the nobles, the clergy, the burghers, and the
   peasants, was often the scene of tumultuous proceedings: it
   was rarely tranquil; yet it enjoyed the supreme legislative
   authority.
{2829}
   It was also corrupt; for impoverished nobles and needy
   tradesmen had a voice, no less than the wealthiest members.
   All new laws, all ordinances, were signed by the king; yet he
   had no power of refusal; he was the mere registrar-general. …
   The king had sometimes refused to sign ordinances which he
   judged dangerous to the common weal: in 1756 an act was
   passed, that in future a stamp might be used in lieu of the
   sign-manual, whenever he should again refuse. More intolerable
   than all this was the manner in which the diet insisted on
   regulating the most trifling details of the royal household.
   This interference was resented by some of the members,
   belonging to what was called the 'Hat' party, who may be
   termed the tories of Sweden. Opposed to these were the 'Caps,'
   who were for shackling the crown with new restrictions, and of
   whom the leaders were undoubtedly in the pay of Russia. … As
   Russia was the secret soul of the Caps, so France endeavoured
   to support the Hats, whenever the courts of St. Petersburgh
   and St. Germains were hostile to each other. Stockholm
   therefore was an arena in which the two powers struggled for
   the ascendancy." Gustavus III., who succeeded his father
   Adolphus Frederic in 1771, was able with the help of French
   money and influence, and by winning to his support the burgher
   cavalry of the capital, to overawe the party of the Caps, and
   to impose a new constitution upon the country. The new
   constitution "conferred considerable powers on the sovereign;
   enabled him to make peace, or declare war, without the consent
   of the diet; but he could make no new law, or alter any
   already made, without its concurrence; and he was bound to
   ask, though not always to follow, the advice of his senate in
   matters of graver import. The form of the constitution was not
   much altered; and the four orders of deputies still remained.
   On the whole, it was a liberal constitution. If this
   revolution was agreeable to the Swedes themselves, it was
   odious to Catherine II., who saw Russian influence annihilated
   by it." The bad feeling between the two governments which
   followed led to war, in 1787, when Russia was engaged at the
   same time in hostilities with the Turks. The war was unpopular
   in Sweden, and Gustavus was frustrated in his ambitious
   designs on Finland. Peace was made in 1790, each party
   restoring its conquests, "so that things remained exactly as
   they were before the war." On the 16th March, 1792, Gustavus
   III. was assassinated, being shot at a masquerade ball, by one
   Ankerstrom, whose motives have remained always a mystery.
   Suspicion attached to others, the king's brother included, but
   nothing to justify it is proved. The murdered king was
   succeeded by his son Gustavus IV., who had but just passed the
   age of three years.

      S. A. Dunham,
      History of Denmark, Sweden and Norway,
      book 3, chapter 4 (volume 3).

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark and Norway): A. D. 1730.
Accession of Christian VI.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark and Norway): A. D. 1746.
Accession of Frederick V.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark and Norway): A. D. 1766.
Accession of Christian VII.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1801-1802.
   The Northern Maritime League.
   English bombardment of Copenhagen
   and summary extortion of peace.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1805.
Joined in the Third Coalition against France.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1806.
In the Russo-Prussian alliance against Napoleon.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1807-1810. Northern fruits of the conspiracy of the two Emperors at Tilsit. Bombardment of Copenhagen and seizure of the Danish Fleet by the English. War of Russia and Denmark with Sweden, and conquest of Finland. Deposition of the Swedish king.

On the 7th of July, 1807, Napoleon and Alexander I. of Russia, meeting on a raft, moored in the river Nieman, arranged the terms of the famous Treaty of Tilsit.

   "There were Secret Articles in this Treaty of Tilsit in which
   England had a vital interest. These secret articles are not to
   be found in any collection of State Papers; but Napoleon's
   diplomatists have given a sufficient account of them to enable
   us to speak of them with assurance. Napoleon would not part
   with Constantinople; but he not only gave up Turkey as a whole
   to be dealt with as Alexander pleased, but agreed to unite his
   efforts with Alexander to wrest from the Porte all its
   provinces but Roumelia, if within three months she had not
   made terms satisfactory to Alexander. In requital for this, if
   England did not before the 1st of November make terms
   satisfactory to Napoleon, on the requisition of Russia, the
   two Emperors were to require of Sweden, Denmark, and Portugal,
   to close their ports against the English, and were to unite
   their forces in war against Great Britain. … In the month of
   May, the Duke of Portland had had an audience of the Prince of
   Wales at Carlton House, at which he had heard a piece of news
   from the Prince which it deeply concerned him, as Prime
   Minister, to know. The Prince Regent of Portugal had sent
   secret information that Napoleon wanted to invade our shores
   with the Portuguese and Danish fleets. The Portuguese had been
   refused. It was for us to see to the Danish. Mr. Canning lost
   no time in seeing to it: and while the Emperors were
   consulting at Tilsit, he was actively engaged in disabling
   Denmark from injuring us. When he had confidential information
   of the secret articles of the Tilsit Treaty, his proceedings
   were hastened, and they were made as peremptory as the
   occasion required. He endured great blame for a long time on
   account of this peremptoriness; and he could not justify
   himself because the government were pledged to secrecy. … Mr.
   Jackson, who had been for some years our envoy at the Court of
   Berlin, was sent to Kiel, to require of the Crown Prince (then
   at Kiel), who was known to be under intimidation by Napoleon,
   that the Danish navy should be delivered over to England, to
   be taken care of in British ports, and restored at the end of
   the war. The Crown Prince refused, with the indignation which
   was to be expected. … Mr. Jackson had been escorted, when he
   went forth on his mission, by 20 ships of the line, 40
   frigates and other assistant vessels, and a fleet of
   transports, conveying 27,000 land troops.
{2830}
   Admiral Gambier commanded the naval, and Lord Cathcart the
   military expedition. These forces had been got ready within a
   month, with great ability, and under perfect secrecy; and
   before the final orders were given, ministers had such
   information of the secret articles of the Treaty of Tilsit as
   left them no hesitation whatever about seizing the Danish
   fleet, if it was not lent quietly. … When, therefore, Mr.
   Jackson was indignantly dismissed by the Crown Prince, no time
   was to be lost in seizing the fleet. … On the 15th [of August]
   the forces were landed at Wedbeck, for their march upon
   Copenhagen, and the fleet worked up before the city. Once
   more, an attempt was made to avoid extremities. … The Crown
   Prince replied by a proclamation, amounting to a declaration
   of war. … And now the affair was decided. There could be no
   doubt as to what the end must be. … By the 1st of September,
   however, Stralsund was occupied by the French; and part of the
   British force was detached to watch them; and this proved that
   it would have been fatal to lose time. By the 8th of
   September, all was over; the Danish navy and arsenal were
   surrendered. One fourth of the buildings of the city were by
   that time destroyed; and In one street 500 persons were killed
   by the bombardment. … Efforts were made to conciliate the
   Danes after all was over; but, as was very natural, in vain. …
   Almost as soon as the news of the achievement reached England,
   the victors brought the Danish fleet into Portsmouth harbour.
   One of the most painful features of the case is the
   confiscation which ensued, because the surrender was not made
   quietly. At the moment of the attack, there were Danish
   merchantmen in our waters, with cargoes worth £2,000,000.
   These we took possession of; and, of course, of the navy which
   we had carried off."

In fulfilment of the agreements of the Treaty of Tilsit, early in August, 1807, "a show was made by Russia of offering her mediation to Great Britain for the conclusion of a general peace; but as Mr. Canning required, as a pledge of the sincerity of the Czar, a frank communication of the secret articles at Tilsit, the proposal fell to the ground." Its failure was made certain by the action of England in taking possession by force of the Danish fleet. On the 5th of November, upon the peremptory demand of Napoleon, war was accordingly declared against Great Britain by the Czar. "Denmark had concluded (October 16) an alliance, offensive and defensive, with France, and Sweden was now summoned by Russia to join the Continental League. But the King, faithful to his engagements [with England], resolutely refused submission; on which war was declared against him early in 1808, and an overwhelming force poured into Finland, the seizure of which by Russia had been agreed on at Tilsit."

Epitome of Alison's History of Europe, sections 455-456 (chapter 51, volume. 11, of complete work).

In November, 1808, Finland was virtually given up to Alexander; and Sweden was thus deprived of her great granary, and destined to ruin. England had of late aided her vigourously, driving the Russian navy into port, and blockading them there; and sending Sir John Moore, with 10,000 men, in May, when France, Russia, and Denmark, were all advancing to crush the gallant Swedes. Sir John Moore found the King in what he thought a very wild state of mind, proposing conquests, when he had not forces enough for defensive operations. All agreement in their views was found to be impossible: the King resented the Englishman's caution; Sir John Moore thought the King so nearly mad that he made off in disguise from Stockholm, and brought back his troops, which had never been landed. … After the relinquishment of Finland, the Swedish people found they could endure no more. Besides Finland, they had lost Pomerania: they were reduced to want; they were thinned by pestilence as well as by war; but the King's ruling idea was to continue the conflict to the last. … As the only way to preserve their existence, his subjects gently deposed him, and put the administration of affairs into the hands of his aged uncle, the Duke of Sudermania. The poor King was arrested on the 13th of March, 1809, as he was setting out for his country seat, … and placed in imprisonment for a short time. His uncle, at first called Regent, was soon made King. … Peace was made with Russia in September, 1809, and with France in the following January. Pomerania was restored to Sweden, but not Finland; and she had to make great sacrifices. … She was compelled to bear her part in the Continental System of Napoleon, and to shut her ports against all communications with England."

   "The invasion by the Tzar Alexander I. in 1808 led to the
   complete separation of Finland and the other Swedish lands
   east of the gulf of Bothnia from the Swedish crown. Finland
   was conquered and annexed by the conqueror; but it was annexed
   after a fashion in which one may suppose that no other
   conquered land ever was annexed. In fact one may doubt whether
   'annexed' is the right word. Since 1809 the crowns of Russia
   and Finland are necessarily, worn by the same person; the
   Russian and the Finnish nation have necessarily the same
   sovereign. But Finland is not incorporated with Russia; in
   everything but the common sovereign Russia and Finland are
   countries foreign to one another. And when we speak of the
   crown and the nation of Finland, we speak of a crown and a
   nation which were called into being by the will of the
   conqueror himself. … The conqueror had possession of part of
   the Swedish dominions, and he called on the people of that
   part to meet him in a separate Parliament, but one chosen in
   exactly the same way as the existing law prescribed for the
   common Parliament of the whole. … In his new character of
   Grand Duke of Finland, the Tzar Alexander came to Borga, and
   there on March 27th, 1809, fully confirmed the existing
   constitution, laws, and religion of his new State. The
   position of that State is best described in his own words.
   Speaking neither Swedish nor Finnish, and speaking to hearers
   who understood no Russian, the new Grand Duke used the French
   tongue. Finland was 'Placé désormais au rang des nations'; it
   was a 'Nation, tranquille au dehors, libre dans l'intérieur.'
   [Finland was 'Placed henceforth in the rank of the nations; it
   was a Nation tranquil without, free within.'] And it was a
   nation of his own founding.
{2831}
   The people of Finland had ceased to be a part of
   the Swedish nation; they had not become a part of the
   Russian nation; they had become a nation by themselves.
   All this, be it remembered, happened before the formal cession
   of the lost lands by Sweden to Russia. This was not made till
   the Peace of Frederikshamn on September 17th of the same year.
   The treaty contained no stipulation for the political rights
   of Finland; their full confirmation by the new sovereign was
   held to be enough. Two years later, in 1811, the boundary of
   the new State was enlarged. Alexander, Emperor of all the
   Russias and Grand Duke of Finland, cut off from his empire,
   and added to his grand duchy, the Finnish districts which had
   been ceded by Sweden to Russia sixty years before. The
   boundary of his constitutional grand duchy was brought very
   near indeed to the capital of his despotic empire."

      ALSO IN:
      General Monteith, editor,
      Narrative of the Conquest of Finland,
      by a Russian Officer (with appended documents).

      C. Joyneville,
      Life and Times of Alexander I.,
      volume 2, chapter 2.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark and Norway): A. D. 1808.
Accession of Frederick VI.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1810. Election of Bernadotte to be Crown Prince and successor to the throne.

The new king, lately called to the throne, being aged, "the eyes of the people were fixed on the successor, or Crown Prince, who took upon himself the chief labour of the government, and appears to have given satisfaction to the nation. But his government was of short duration. On the 28th of .May 1810, while reviewing some troops, he suddenly fell from his horse and expired on the spot, leaving Sweden again without any head excepting the old King. This event agitated the whole nation, and various candidates were proposed for the succession of the kingdom. Among these was the King of Denmark, who, after the sacrifices he had made for Buonaparte, had some right to expect his support. The son of the late unfortunate monarch, rightful heir of the crown, and named like him Gustavus, was also proposed as a candidate. The Duke of Oldenburg, brother-in-law of the Emperor of Russia, had partizans. To each of these candidates there lay practical objections. To have followed the line of lawful succession, and called Gustavus to the throne, (which could not be forfeited by his father's infirmity, so far as he was concerned,) would have been to place a child at the head of the state, and must have inferred, amid this most arduous crisis, all the doubts and difficulties of choosing a regent. Such choice might, too, be the means, at a future time, of reviving his father's claim to the crown. The countries of Denmark and Sweden had been too long rivals, for the Swedes to subject themselves to the yoke of the King of Denmark; and to choose the Duke of Oldenburg would have been, in effect, to submit themselves to Russia, of whose last behaviour towards her Sweden had considerable reason to complain. In this embarrassment they were thought to start a happy idea, who proposed to conciliate Napoleon by bestowing the ancient crown of the Goths upon one of his own Field Marshals, and a high noble of his empire, namely, John Julian Baptiste Bernadotte, Prince of Ponte Corvo. This distinguished officer was married to a sister of Joseph Buonaparte's wife, (daughter of a wealthy and respectable individual, named Clary,) through whom he had the advantage of an alliance with the Imperial family of Napoleon, and he had acquired a high reputation in the north of Europe, both when governor of Hanover, and administrator of Swedish Pomerania. On the latter occasion, Bernadotte was said to have shown himself in a particular manner the friend and protector of the Swedish nation; and it was even insinuated that he would not be averse to exchange the errors of Popery for the reformed tenets of Luther. The Swedish nation fell very generally into the line of policy which prompted this choice. … It was a choice, sure, as they thought, to be agreeable to him upon whose nod the world seemed to depend. Yet, there is the best reason to doubt, whether, in preferring Bernadotte to their vacant throne, the Swedes did a thing which was gratifying to Napoleon. The name of the Crown Prince of Sweden elect, had been known in the wars of the Revolution, before that of Buonaparte had been heard of. Bernadotte had been the older, therefore, though certainly not the better soldier. On the 18th Brumaire, he was so far from joining Buonaparte in his enterprise against the Council of Five Hundred, notwithstanding all advances made to him, that he was on the spot at St. Cloud armed and prepared, had circumstances permitted, to place himself at the head of any part of the military, who might be brought to declare for the Directory. And although, like everyone else, Bernadotte submitted to the Consular system, and held the government of Holland under Buonaparte, yet then, as well as under the empire, he was always understood to belong to a class of officers, whom Napoleon employed indeed, and rewarded, but without loving them, or perhaps relying on them more than he was compelled to do, although their character was in most instances a warrant for their fidelity. These officers formed a comparatively small class, yet comprehending some of the most distinguished names in the French army. … Reconciled by necessity to a state of servitude which they could not avoid, this party considered themselves as the soldiers of France, not of Napoleon, and followed the banner of their country rather than the fortunes of the Emperor. Without being personally Napoleon's enemies, they were not the friends of his despotic power. … Besides the suspicion entertained by Napoleon of Bernadotte's political opinions, subjects of positive discord had recently arisen between them. … But while such were the bad terms betwixt the Emperor and his general, the Swedes, unsuspicious of the true state of the case, imagined, that in choosing Bernadotte for successor to their throne, they were paying to Buonaparte the most acceptable tribute. And, notwithstanding that Napoleon was actually at variance with Bernadotte, and although, in a political view, he would much rather have given his aid to the pretensions of the King of Denmark, he was under the necessity of reflecting, that Sweden retained a certain degree of independence; that the sea separated her shores from his armies; and that, however willing to conciliate him, the Swedes were not in a condition absolutely to be compelled to receive laws at his hand. {2832} It was necessary to acquiesce in their choice, since he could not dictate to them; and by doing so he might at the same time exhibit another splendid example of the height to which his service conducted his generals. … We have, however, been favoured with some manuscript observations … which prove distinctly, that while Napoleon treated the Crown Prince Elect of Sweden with fair language, he endeavoured by underhand intrigues to prevent the accomplishment of his hopes. The Swedes, however, remained fixed in their choice, notwithstanding the insinuations of Desaugier, the French envoy, whom Napoleon afterwards affected to disown and recall, for supporting in the diet of Orebro the interest of the King of Denmark, instead of that of Bernadotte. Napoleon's cold assent, or rather an assurance that he would not dissent, being thus wrung reluctantly from him, Bernadotte, owing to his excellent character among the Swedes, and their opinion of his interest with Napoleon, was chosen Crown Prince of Sweden by the States of that kingdom, 21st August 1810."

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1813.
Joined with the new Coalition against Napoleon.
Participation in the War of Liberation.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1813-1814.
   The Peace of Kiel.
   Cession of Norway to Sweden and
   of Swedish Pomerania to Denmark.

"The Danes, having been driven out of Holstein by Bernadotte [see GERMANY: A. D. 1813 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER)], concluded an armistice December 18th, and, finally, the Peace of Kiel, January 14th 1814, by which Frederick VI. ceded Norway to Sweden; reserving, however, Greenland, the Ferroe Isles, and Iceland, which were regarded as dependencies of Norway. Norway, which was anciently governed by its own kings, had remained united with Denmark ever since the death of Olaf V. in 1387. Charles XIII., on his side, ceded to Denmark Swedish Pomerania and the Isle of Rugen. This treaty founded the present system of the North. Sweden withdrew entirely from her connection with Germany, and became a purely Scandinavian Power. The Norwegians, who detested the Swedes, made an attempt to assert their independence under the conduct of Prince Christian Frederick, cousin-german and heir of Frederick VI. of Denmark. Christian Frederick was proclaimed King of Norway; but the movement was opposed by Great Britain and the Allied Powers from considerations of policy rather than justice; and the Norwegians found themselves compelled to decree the union of Norway and Sweden in a storting, or Diet, assembled at Christiania, November 4th 1814. Frederick VI. also signed a peace with Great Britain at Kiel, January 14th 1814. All the Danish colonies, except Heligoland, which had been taken by the English, were restored."

      T. H. Dyer,
      History of Modern Europe,
      book 7, chapter 16 (volume 4).

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1814.
The Allies in France and in possession of Paris.
Fall of Napoleon.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Norway): A. D. 1814-1815.
The Norwegian constitution under the union with Sweden.

"When, by the treaty of Kiel in 1814, Norway was taken from Denmark, and handed over to Sweden, the Norwegians roused them·selves to once more assert their nationality. The Swedes appeared in force, by land and sea, upon the frontiers of Norway. It was not, however, until the latter country had been guaranteed complete national independence that she consented to a union of the countries under the one crown. The agreement was made, and the constitution of Norway granted on the 17th of May 1814, at which date the contemporary history of Norway begins. … The Fundamental Law of the constitution (Grundlöv), which almost every peasant farmer now-a-days has framed and hung up in the chief room of his house, bears the date the 4th of November 1814. The Act of Union with Sweden is dated the 6th of August 1815. The union of the two states is a union of the crown alone. … Sweden and Norway form, like Great Britain, a hereditary limited monarchy. One of the clauses in the Act of Union provides that the king of the joint countries must reside for a certain part of the year in Norway. But, as a matter of fact, this period is a short one. In his absence, the king is represented by the Council of State (Statsraad), which must be composed entirely of Norwegians, and consist of two Ministers of State (Cabinet Ministers), and nine other Councillors of State. As with us, the king personally can do no wrong; the responsibility for his acts rests with his ministers. Of the State Council, or Privy Council (above spoken of), three members, one a Cabinet Minister, and two ordinary members of the Privy Council, are always in attendance upon the king, whether he is residing in Norway or Sweden. The rest of the Council forms the Norwegian Government resident in the country. All functionaries are appointed by the king, with the ad·vice of this Council of State. The officials, who form what we should call the Government (as distinguished from what we should call the Civil Service), together with the préfets (Amtmen) and the higher grades of the army are, nominally, removable by the king; but, If removed, they continue to draw two-thirds of their salary until their case has come before Parliament (the Stor-thing, Great Thing), which decides upon their pensions. … In 1876 the number of electors to the Storthing were under 140,000, not more than 7.7 per cent. of the whole population. So that the franchise was by no means a very wide one. … In foreign affairs only does Norway not act as an independent nation. There is a single foreign minister for the two countries and he is usually a Swede. For the purposes of internal administration, Norway is divided into twenty districts, called Amter—which we may best translate 'Prefectures.' Of these, the two chief towns of the country, Christiania (with its population of 150,000) and Bergen (population about 50,000) form each a separate Amt."

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden and Norway): A. D. 1818.
Accession of Charles XIV. (Bernadotte).

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark): A. D. 1848-1862.
The Schleswig-Holstein question.
First war with Prussia.

"The two Duchies of Schleswig and Holstein lie to the south of modern Denmark. Holstein, the more southern of the two, is exclusively German in its population. Schleswig, the more northern, contains a mixed population of Danes and Germans. In the course of the 14th century Schleswig was conquered by Denmark, but ceded to Count Gerard of Holstein—the Constitution of Waldemar providing that the two Duchies should be under one Lord, but that they should never be united to Denmark. This is the first fact to realise in the complex history of the Schleswig-Holstein question. The line of Gerard of Holstein expired in 1375. It was succeeded by a branch of the house of Oldenburg. In 1448 a member of this house, the nephew of the reigning Duke, was elected to the throne of Denmark. The reigning Duke procured in that year a confirmation of the compact that Schleswig should never be united with Denmark. Dying without issue in 1459, the Duke was succeeded, by the election of the Estates, by his nephew Christian I. of Denmark. In electing Christian, however, the Estates compelled him in 1460 to renew the compact confirmed in 1448. And, though Duchies and Crown were thenceforward united, the only link between them was the sovereign. Even this link could possibly be severed. For the succession in the Duchy was secured to the male heir in direct contradiction of the law of Denmark. … It would complicate this narrative if stress were laid on the various changes in the relations between Kingdom and Duchies which were consequent on the unsettled state of Europe during the three succeeding centuries. It is sufficient to say that, by a treaty made in 1773, the arrangements concluded more than 300 years before were confirmed. Schleswig-Holstein reverted once more to the King of Denmark under exactly the same conditions as in the time of Christian I., who had expressly recognised that he governed them as Duke, that is, by virtue of their own law of succession. Such an arrangement was not likely to be respected amidst the convulsions which affected Europe in the commencement of the present century. In 1806 Christian VII. took advantage of the disruption of the German Empire formally to incorporate the Duchies into his Kingdom. No one was in a position to dispute the act of the monarch. In 1815, however, the King of Denmark, by virtue of his rights in Holstein and Lauenburg, joined the Confederation of the Rhine; and the nobility of Holstein, brought in this way into fresh connection with Germany, appealed to the German Diet. But the Diet, in the first quarter of the 19th century, was subject to influences opposed to the rights of nationalities. It declined to interfere, and the union of Duchies and Kingdom was maintained. Christian VII. was succeeded in 1808 by his son Frederick VI., who was followed in 1839 by his cousin Christian VIII. The latter monarch had only one son, afterwards Frederick VII., who, though twice married, had no children. On his death, if no alteration had been made, the crown of Denmark would have passed to the female line—the present reigning dynasty —while the Duchies, by the old undisputed law, would have reverted to a younger branch, which descended through males to the house of Augustenburg. With this prospect before them it became very desirable for the Danes to amalgamate the Duchies; and in the year 1844 the Danish Estates almost unanimously adopted a motion that the King should proclaim Denmark, Schleswig, Holstein, and Lauenburg one indivisible State. In 1846 the King put forth a declaration that there was no doubt that the Danish law of succession prevailed in Schleswig. He admitted that there was more doubt respecting Holstein. But he promised to use his endeavours to obtain the recognition of the integrity of Denmark as a collective State. Powerless alone against the Danes and their sovereign, Holstein appealed to the Diet; and the Diet took up the quarrel, and reserved the right of enforcing its legitimate authority in case of need. Christian VIII. died in .January 1848. His son, Frederick VII., the last of his line, grasped the tiller of the State at a critical moment. Crowns, before a month was over, were tumbling off the heads of half the sovereigns of Europe; and Denmark, shaken by these events, felt the full force of the revolutionary movement. Face to face with revolution at home and Germany across the frontier, the new King tried to cut instead of untying the Gordian knot. He separated Holstein from Schleswig, incorporating the latter in Denmark but allowing the former under its own constitution to form part of the German Confederation. Frederick VII. probably hoped that the German Diet would be content with the half-loaf which he offered it. The Diet., however, replied to the challenge by formally incorporating Schleswig in Germany, and by committing to Prussia the office of mediation.

   War broke out, but the arms of Prussia were crippled by the
   revolution which shook her throne. The sword of Denmark, under
   these circumstances, proved victorious; and the Duchies were
   ultimately compelled to submit to the decision which force had
   pronounced. These events gave rise to the famous protocol
   which was signed in London, in August 1850, by England,
   France, Austria, Russia, Sweden, and Denmark. This document
   settled the question, so far as diplomacy could determine it,
   in the interests of Denmark. The unity of Denmark, Schleswig,
   Holstein and Lauenburg was secured by a uniform law of
   succession, and their internal affairs were placed, as far as
   practicable, under a common administration. The protocol of
   1850 was signed by Lord Palmerston during the Russell
   Administration. It was succeeded by the treaty of 1852, which
   was concluded by Lord Malmesbury. This treaty, to which all
   the great powers were parties, was the logical consequence of
   the protocol. Under it the succession to Kingdom and Duchies
   was assigned to Prince Christian of Glücksburg, the present
   reigning King of Denmark. The integrity of the whole Danish
   Monarchy was declared permanent; but the rights of the German
   Confederation with respect to Holstein and Schleswig were
   reserved.
{2834}
   The declaration was made in accordance with the views of
   Russia, England, and France; the reservation was inserted in
   the interests of the German powers; and in a manifesto, which
   was communicated to the German Courts, the King of Denmark
   laid down elaborate rules for the treatment and government of
   the Duchies. Thus, while the succession to the Danish throne
   and the integrity of Denmark had been secured by the protocol
   of 1850 and the treaty of 1852, the elaborate promises of the
   Danish King, formally communicated to the German powers, had
   given the latter a pretext for contending that these pledges
   were at least as sacred as the treaty. And the next ten years
   made the pretext much more formidable than it seemed in 1852.
   … The Danes endeavoured to extricate themselves from a
   constantly growing embarrassment by repeating the policy of
   1848, by granting, under what was known as the Constitution of
   1855, autonomous institutions to Holstein, by consolidating
   the purely Danish portions of the Monarchy, and by
   incorporating Schleswig, which was partly Danish and partly
   German, in Denmark. But the German inhabitants of Schleswig
   resented this arrangement. They complained of the suppression
   of their language and the employment of Danish functionaries,
   and they argued that, under the engagements which had been
   contracted between 1851 and 1852, Holstein had a voice in
   constitutional changes of this character. This argument added
   heat to a dispute already acute. For it was now plain that,
   while the German Diet claimed the right to interfere in
   Holstein, Holstein asserted her claim to be heard on the
   affairs of the entire Kingdom."

In the first period of the war of 1848-9, the only important battle was fought at Duppeln, June 5, 1848. The Prussians were superior in land forces, but the Danes were able to make use of a flotilla of gunboats in defending their strong position. "After a useless slaughter, both parties remained nearly in the same position as they had occupied at the commencement of the conflict." The war was suspended in August by an armistice—that of Malmö—but was renewed in the April following. "On the 20th April [1849] the Prussians invaded Jutland with 48 battalions, 48 guns, and 2,000 horse; and the Danish generals, unable to make head against such a crusade, retired through the town of Kolding, which was fortified and commanded an important bridge that was abandoned to the invaders. The Danes, however, returned, and after a bloody combat dislodged the Prussians, but were finally obliged to evacuate it by the fire of the German mortars, which reduced the town to ashes. On the 3d May the Danes had their revenge, in the defeat of a large body of the Schleswig insurgents by a Danish corps near the fortress of Fredericia, with the loss of 340 men. A more important advantage was gained by them on the 6th July," over the Germans who were besieging Fredericia. "The loss of the Germans in this disastrous affair was 96 officers and 3,250 men killed and wounded, with their whole siege-artillery and stores. … This brilliant victory was immediately followed by the retreat of the Germans from nearly the whole of Jutland. A convention was soon after concluded at Berlin, which established an armistice for six months," and which was followed by the negotiations and treaties described above. But hostilities were not yet at an end; for the insurgents of Schleswig and Holstein remained in arms, and were said to receive almost open encouragement and aid from Prussia. Their army, 32,000 strong, occupied Idstedt and Wedelspang. They were attacked at the former place, on the 25th of July, 1850, by the Danes, and defeated after a bloody conflict. "The loss on both sides amounted to nearly 8,000 men, or about one in eight of the troops engaged; a prodigious slaughter, unexampled in European war since the battle of Waterloo. Of these, nearly 3,000, including 85 officers, were killed or wounded on the side of the Danes, and 5,000 on that of the insurgents, whose loss in officers was peculiarly severe."

From 1855 to 1862 the history of Denmark was uneventful. But in the next year King Frederick VII. died, and the Treaty of London, which had settled the succession upon Prince Christian of Glücksburg, failed to prevent the reopening of the Schleswig-Holstein question.

      A Forgotten War
      (Spectator, September 22, 1894, reviewing Count von
      Moltke's "Geschichte des Krieges gegen Dänemark, 1848-49 ").

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark-Iceland): A. D. 1849-1874.
The Danish constitution.
Relations of Iceland to Denmark.

Denmark became a constitutional monarchy in 1849. The principal provisions of the Constitution are these: Every king of Denmark, before he can assume the government of the monarchy, must deliver a written oath that he will observe the constitution. He alone is invested with the executive power, but the legislative he exercises conjointly with the Assembly (Rigsdag). He can declare war and make peace, enter and renounce alliances. But he cannot, without the consent of the Assembly, sign away any of the possessions of the kingdom or encumber it with any State obligations. … The king's person is sacred and inviolable; he is exempt from all responsibility. The ministers form the Council of State, of which the king is the president, and where, by right, the heir-apparent has a seat. The king has an absolute veto. The Rigsdag (Assembly) meets every year, and cannot be prorogued till the session has lasted for two months at least. It consists of two Chambers—the Upper Chamber, 'Landsting,' and the Lower Chamber, 'Folketing.' The Upper Chamber consists of 66 members, twelve of which are Crown-elects for life, seven chosen by Copenhagen, and one by the so-called Lagting of Faro. The 46 remaining members are voted in by ten electoral districts, each of which comprises from one to three Amts, or rural governorships, with the towns situated within each of them included. The elections are arranged on the proportional or minority system. In Copenhagen and in the other towns one moiety of electors is chosen out of those who possess the franchise for the Lower House, the other moiety is selected from among those who pay the highest municipal rates. In every rural commune one elector is chosen by all the enfranchised members of the community. … The Lower House is elected for three years, and consists of 102 members; consequently there are 102 electorates or electoral districts. … The Lower House is elected by manhood suffrage. {2835} Every man thirty years old has a vote, provided there be no stain on his character, and that he possesses the birthright of a citizen within his district, and has been domiciled for a year within it before exercising his right of voting, and does not stand in such a subordinate relation of service to private persons as not to have a home of his own. … The two Chambers of the Rigsdag stand, as legislative bodies, on an equal footing, both having the right to propose and to alter laws. … At present [1891] this very Liberal Constitution is not working smoothly. As was to be expected, two parties have gradually come into existence—a Conservative and a Liberal, or, as they are termed after French fashion, the Right and the Left. The country is governed at present arbitrarily against an opposition in overwhelming majority in the Lower House. The dispute between the Left and the Ministry does not really turn so much upon conflicting views with regard to great public interests, as upon the question whether Denmark has, or has not, to have parliamentary government. … The Right represents chiefly the educated and the wealthy classes; the Left the mass of the people, and is looked down upon by the Right. … I said in the beginning that I would tell you how the constitutional principle has been applied to Iceland. I have only time briefly to touch upon that matter. In 1800 the old Althing (All Men's Assembly, General Diet), which had existed from 930, came to an end. Forty-five years later it was re-established by King Christian VIII. in the character of a consultative assembly. … The Althing at once began to direct its attention to the question—What Iceland's proper position should be in the Danish monarchy when eventually its anticipated constitution should be carried out. The country had always been governed by its special laws; it had a code of laws of its own, and it had never been ruled, in administrative sense, as a province of Denmark. Every successive king had, on his accession to the throne, issued a proclamation guaranteeing to Iceland due observance of the country's laws and traditional privileges. Hence it was found entirely impracticable to include Iceland under the provisions of the charter for Denmark; and a royal rescript of September 23, 1848, announced that with regard to Iceland no measures for settling the constitutional relation of that part of the monarchy would be adopted until a constitutive assembly in the country itself 'had been heard' on the subject. Unfortunately, the revolt of the duchies intervened between this declaration and the date of the constitutive assembly which was fixed for 1851. The Government took fright, being unfortunately quite in the dark about the real state of public opinion in the distant dependency. … The Icelanders only wanted to abide by their laws, and to have the management of their own home affairs, but the so-called National-Liberal Government wanted to incorporate the country as a province in the kingdom of Denmark proper. This idea the Icelanders really never could understand as seriously meant. … The constitutive assembly was brusquely dissolved by the Royal Commissary when he saw that it meant to insist on autonomy for the Icelanders in their own home affairs. And from 1851 to 1874 every successive Althing (but one) persisted in calling on the Government to fulfil the royal promise of 1848. It was no doubt due to the very loyal, quiet, and able manner in which the Icelanders pursued their case, under the leadership of the trusted patriot, Jon Sigurdsson, that in 1874 the Government at last agreed to give Iceland the constitution it demanded. But instead of frankly meeting the Icelandic demands in full, they were only partially complied with, and from the first the charter met with but scanty popularity."

      E. Magnusson,
      Denmark and Iceland
      (National Life and Thought, chapter 12).

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark): A. D. 1864.
Reopening of the Schleswig-Holstein question.
Austro-Prussian invasion and conquest of the duchies.

By a census taken, at the close of 1890, the population of Sweden was found to be 4,784,981, and that of Norway 2,000,917. The population of Denmark, according to a census taken in February, 1890, was 2,185,335.

SCHAH, SHAH.

SCHAMYL'S WAR WITH THE RUSSIANS.

SCHARNHORST'S MILITARY REFORMS IN PRUSSIA.

SCHEPENS.

SCHILL'S RISING.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1377-1417, and 1414-1418; also, ITALY: A. D. 1343-1389, and 1386-1414.

SCHISM ACT.

See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (DENMARK): A. D. 1848-1862, and GERMANY: A. D. 1861-1866, and 1866.

An ancient Egyptian measure of length which is supposed, as in the case of the Persian parasang, to have been fixed by no standard, but to have been merely a rude estimate of distance.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (JULY-SEPTEMBER: MISSOURI-ARKANSAS),
      and (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER: MISSOURI-ARKANSAS).

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (MAY: GEORGIA), to (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER: GEORGIA).

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (NOVEMBER: TENNESSEE), and (DECEMBER: TENNESSEE).

SCHOLARII.

SCHOLASTICISM. SCHOOLMEN.

"Charlemagne took great care to attract distinguished foreigners into his states, and … among those who helped to second intellectual development in Frankish Gaul, many came from abroad. … He not only strove to attract distinguished men into his states, but he protected and encouraged them wherever he discovered them. More than one Anglo-Saxon abbey shared his liberality; and learned men who, after following him into Gaul, wished to return to their country, in no way became strangers to him. … Alcuin fixed himself there permanently. He was born in England, at York, about 735. The intellectual state of Ireland and England was then superior to that of the continent; letters and schools prospered there more than anywhere else. … The schools of England, and particularly that of York, were superior to those of the continent. That of York possessed a rich library, where many of the works of pagan antiquity were found; among others, those of Aristotle, which it is a mistake to say were first introduced to the knowledge of modern Europe by the Arabians, and the Arabians only; for from the fifth to the tenth century, there is no epoch in which we do not find them mentioned in some library, in which they were not known and studied by some men of letters. … In 780, on the death of archbishop Ælbert, and the accession of his successor, Eanbald, Alcuin received from him the mission to proceed to Rome for the purpose of obtaining from the pope and bringing to him the 'pallium.' In returning from Rome, he came to Parma, where he found Charlemagne. … The emperor at once pressed him to take up his abode in France. After some hesitation, Alcuin accepted the invitation, subject to the permission of his bishop, and of his own sovereign. The permission was obtained, and in 782 we find him established in the court of Charlemagne, who at once gave him three abbeys, those of Ferrieres in Gatanois, of St. Loup at Troyes, and of St. Josse in the county of Ponthieu. From this time forth, Alcuin was the confidant, the councillor, the intellectual prime minister, so to speak, of Charlemagne. … From 782 to 796, the period of his residence in the court of Charlemagne, Alcuin presided over a private school, called 'The School of the Palace,' which accompanied Charlemagne wherever he went, and at which were regularly present all those who were with the emperor. … It is difficult to say what could have been the course of instruction pursued in this school; I am disposed to believe that to such auditors Alcuin addressed himself generally upon all sorts of topics as they occurred; that in the 'Ecole du Palais,' in fact, it was conversation rather than teaching, especially so called, that went on; that movement given to mind, curiosity constantly excited and satisfied, was its chief merit."

SCHOOLS.

SCHOUT AND SCHEPENS.

The chief magistrate and aldermen of the chartered towns of
Holland were called the Schout and the Schepens.

"In every tribunal there is a Schout or sheriff, who convenes the judges, and demands from them justice for the litigating parties; for the word 'schout' is derived from 'schuld,' debt, and he is so denominated because he is the person who recovers or demands common debts, according to Grotius."

Van Leeuwen, Commentaries on Roman Dutch Law, quoted in O'Callaghan's History of New Netherland, volume 1, page 101, foot-note, and volume 2, page 212.

SCHUYLER, Fort (Late Fort Stanwix): A. D. 1777.
Defense against the British and Indians under St. Leger.

SCINDE, SINDH.

"Sindh is the Sanskrit word Sindh or Sindhu, a river or ocean. It was applied to the river Indus, the first great body of water encountered by the Aryan invaders. … Sindh, which is part of the Bombay Presidency, is bounded on the north and west by the territories of the khan of Khelat, in Beluchistan; the Punjab and the Bahawalpur State lie on the north-east. … Three-fourths of the people are Muhammadans and the remainder Hindus." Sindh was included in the Indian conquests of Mahmud of Ghazni, Akbar, and Nadir Shah.

   "In 1748 the country became an appanage of Kabul, as part of
   the dowry bestowed by the reigning emperor upon Timur, son of
   Ahmed Shah Durani, who founded the kingdom of Afghanistan. …
   The connection of the British government with Sindh had its
   origin in A. D. 1758, when Ghulam Shah Kalhora … granted a
   'purwanah,' or permit, to an officer in the East India
   Company's service for the establishment of a factory in the
   province. … In their relations with the British government the
   Amirs throughout displayed much jealousy of foreign
   interference. Several treaties were made with them from time
   to time.
{2837}
   In 1836, owing to the designs of Ranjit Singh on Sindh, which,
   however, were not carried out because of the interposition of
   the British government, more intimate connection with the
   Amirs was sought. Colonel Pottinger visited them to negotiate
   for this purpose. It was not, however, till 1838 that a short
   treaty was concluded, in which it was stipulated that a
   British minister should reside at Haidarabad. At this time the
   friendly alliance of the Amirs was deemed necessary in the
   contemplated war with Afghanistan which the British government
   was about to undertake, to place a friendly ruler on the
   Afghan throne. The events that followed led to the occupation
   of Karachi by the British, and placed the Amirs in subsidiary
   dependence on the British government. New treaties became
   necessary, and Sir Charles Napier was sent to Haidarabad to
   negotiate. The Beluchis were infuriated at this proceeding,
   and openly insulted the officer, Sir James Outram, at the
   Residency at Haidarabad. Sir Charles Napier thereupon attacked
   the Amir's forces at Meanee, on 17th February, 1843, with
   2,800 men, and twelve pieces of artillery, and succeeded in
   gaining a complete victory over 22,000 Beluchis, with the
   result that the whole of Sindh was annexed to British India."

SCIO.

SCIR-GEREFA.

"The Scironian Way led from Megara to Corinth, along the eastern shore of the isthmus. At a short distance from Megara it passed along the Scironian rocks, a long range of precipices overhanging the sea, forming the extremity of a spur which descends from Mount Geranium. This portion of the road is now known as the 'Kaki Scala,' and is passed with some difficulty. The way seems to have been no more than a footpath until the time of Adrian, who made a good carriage road throughout the whole distance. There is but one other route by which the isthmus can be traversed. It runs inland, and passes over a higher portion of Mount Geranium, presenting to the traveller equal or greater difficulties."

SCLAVENES. SCLAVONIC PEOPLES.

SCLAVONIC.

SCODRA, OR SKODRA.·

The Scordiscans, called by some Roman writers a Thracian people, but supposed to have been Celtic, were settled in the south of Pannonia in the second century, B. C. In B. C. 114 they destroyed a Roman army under consul C. Portius Cato. Two years later consul M. Livius Drusus drove them across the Danube.

E. H. Bunbury, History of Ancient Geography, chapter 18, section 1 (volume 2).

SCOT AND LOT.

"Paying scot and lot; that is, bearing their rateable proportion in the payments levied from the town for local or national purposes."

W. Stubbs, Constitutional History of England, chapter 20, section 745 (volume 3).

SCOTCH HIGHLAND AND LOWLAND.

"If a line is drawn from a point on the eastern bank of Loch Lomond, somewhat south of Ben Lomond, following in the main the line of the Grampians, and crossing the Forth at Aberfoil, the Teith at Callander, the Almond at Crieff, the Tay at Dunkeld, the Ericht at Blairgowrie, and proceeding through the hills of Brae Angus till it reaches the great range of the Mounth, then crossing the Dee at Ballater, the Spey at lower Craigellachie, till it reaches the Moray Firth at Nairn—this forms what was called the Highland Line and separated the Celtic from the Teutonic-speaking people. Within this line, with the exception of the county of Caithness which belongs to the Teutonic division, the Gaelic language forms the vernacular of the inhabitants."

In 1607, six counties in the Irish province of Ulster, formerly belonging to the earls of Tyrone and Tyrconnel, were confiscated by the English crown. The two earls, who had submitted and had been pardoned, after a long rebellion during the reign of queen Elizabeth, had now fled from new charges of treason, and their great estates were forfeited.

   These estates, thus acquired by King James, the first of the
   Stuarts, were "parcelled out among a body of Scotch and
   English, brought over for the purpose. The far greater number
   of these plantations were from the lower part of Scotland, and
   became known as 'Scotch-Irish.' Thus a new population was
   given to the north of Ireland, which has changed its history.
   The province of Ulster, with fewer natural advantages than
   either Munster, Leinster, or Connaught, became the most
   prosperous, industrious and law-abiding of all Ireland. … But
   the Protestant population thus transplanted to the north of
   Ireland was destined to suffer many … persecutions. … In 1704,
   the test-oath was imposed, by which everyone in public
   employment was required to profess English prelacy. It was
   intended to suppress Popery, but was used by the Episcopal
   bishops to check Presbyterianism. To this was added burdensome
   restraints on their commerce, and extortionate rents from
   their landlords, resulting in what is known as the Antrim
   evictions. There had been occasional emigrations from the
   north of Ireland from the plantation of the Scotch, and one of
   the ministers sent over in 1683, Francis Makemie, had
   organized on the eastern shore of Maryland and in the
   adjoining counties of Virginia the first Presbyterian churches
   in America. But in the early part of the eighteenth century
   the great movement began which transported so large a portion
   of the Scotch-Irish into the American colonies, and, through
   their influence, shaped in a great measure the destinies of
   America. Says the historian Froude: 'In the two years which
   followed the Antrim evictions, thirty-thousand Protestants
   left Ulster for a land where there was no legal robbery, and
   where those who sowed the seed could reap the harvest.'
   Alarmed by the depletion of the Protestant population, the
   Toleration Act was passed, and by it, and further promises of
   relief, the tide of emigration was checked for a brief period.
{2838}
   In 1728, however, it began anew, and from 1729 to 1750, it was
   estimated that 'about twelve thousand came annually from
   Ulster to America.' So many had settled in Pennsylvania before
   1729 that James Logan, the Quaker president of that colony,
   expressed his fear that they would become proprietors of the
   province. … This bold stream of emigrants struck the American
   continent mainly on the eastern border of Pennsylvania, and
   was, in great measure, turned southward through Maryland,
   Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina, reaching and
   crossing the Savannah river. It was met at various points by
   counter streams of the same race, which had entered the
   continent through the seaports of the Carolinas and Georgia.
   Turning westward the combined flood overflowed the mountains
   and covered the rich valley of the Mississippi beyond. As the
   Puritans or Round-heads of the south, but freed from
   fanaticism, they gave tone to its people and direction to its
   history. … The task would be almost endless to simply call the
   names of this people [the Scotch-Irish] in the South who have
   distinguished themselves in the annals of their country. Yet
   some rise before me, whose names demand utterance in any
   mention of their people —names which the world will not
   willingly let die. Among the statesmen they have given to the
   world are Jefferson, Madison, Calhoun, Benton. Among the
   orators, Henry, Rutledge, Preston, McDuffie, Yancy. Among the
   poets, the peerless Poe. Among the jurists, Marshall,
   Campbell, Robertson. Among the divines, Waddell, the
   Alexanders, Breckinridge, Robinson, Plummer, Hoge, Hawks,
   Fuller, McKendree. Among the physicians, McDowell, Sims,
   McGuire. Among the inventors, McCormick. Among the soldiers,
   Lee, the Jacksons, the Johnstons, Stuart. Among the sailors,
   Paul Jones, Buchanan. Presidents from the South,
   seven—Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Jackson, Taylor, Polk,
   Johnson."

      W. W. Henry,
      The Scotch Irish of the South,
      (Proceedings of the Scotch-Irish Congress, 1889).

"Full credit has been awarded the Roundhead and the Cavalier for their leadership in our history; nor have we been altogether blind to the deeds of the Hollander and the Huguenot; but it is doubtful if we have wholly realized the importance of the part played by that stern and virile people, the Irish whose preachers taught the creed of Knox and Calvin. These Irish representatives of the Covenanters were in the west almost what the Puritans were in the northeast, and more than the Cavaliers were in the south. Mingled with the descendants of many other races, they nevertheless formed the kernel of the distinctively and intensely American stock who were the pioneers of our people in their march westward, the vanguard of the army of fighting settlers, who with axe and rifle won their way from the Alleghanies to the Rio Grande and the Pacific. … They … made their abode at the foot of the mountains, and became the outposts of civilization. … In this land of hills, covered by unbroken forest, they took root and flourished, stretching in a broad belt from north to south, a shield of sinewy men thrust in between the people of the seaboard and the red warriors of the wilderness. All through this region they were alike; they had as little kinship with the Cavalier as with the Quaker; the west was won by those who have been rightly called the Roundheads of the south, the same men who, before any others, declared for American independence. The two facts of most importance to remember in dealing with our pioneer history are, first, that the western portions of Virginia and the Carolinas were peopled by an entirely different stock from that which had long existed in the tide-water regions of those colonies; and, secondly, that, except for those in the Carolinas who came from Charleston, the immigrants of this stock were mostly from the north, from their great breeding ground and nursery in western Pennsylvania. That these Irish Presbyterians were a bold and hardy race is proved by their at once pushing past the settled regions, and plunging into the wilderness as the leaders of the white advance. They were the first and last set of immigrants to do this; all others have merely followed in the wake of their predecessors. But, indeed, they were fitted to be Americans from the very start; they were kinsfolk of the Covenanters; they deemed it a religious duty to interpret their own Bible, and held for a divine right the election of their own clergy. For generations, their whole ecclesiastic and scholastic systems had been fundamentally democratic."

SCOTCH MILE ACT.

   "The name of Scotia, or Scotland, whether in its Latin or its
   Saxon form, was not applied to any part of the territory
   forming the modern kingdom of Scotland till towards the end of
   the tenth century. Prior to that period it was comprised in
   the general appellation of Britannia, or Britain, by which the
   whole island was designated in contradistinction from that of
   Hibernia, or Ireland. That part of the island of Britain which
   is situated to the north of the Firths of Forth and Clyde
   seems indeed to have been known to the Romans as early as the
   first century by the distinctive name of Caledonia, and it
   also appears to have borne from an early period another
   appellation, the Celtic form of which was Albu, Alba, or
   Alban, and Its Latin form Albania. The name of Scotia,
   however, was exclusively appropriated to the island of
   Ireland. Ireland was emphatically Scotia, the 'patria,' or
   mother-country of the Scots; and although a colony of that
   people had established themselves as early as the beginning of
   the sixth century in the western districts of Scotland, it was
   not till the tenth century that any part of the present
   country of Scotland came to be known under that name. …
{2839}
   From the tenth to the twelfth or thirteenth centuries the name
   of Scotia, gradually superseding the older name of Alban, or
   Albania, was confined to a district nearly corresponding with
   that part of the Lowlands of Scotland which is situated on the
   north of the Firth of Forth. … The three propositions—

   2d, That when applied to Scotland it was considered a new name
   superinduced upon the older designation of Alban or Albania;
   and;

   3d, That the Scotia of the three succeeding centuries was
   limited to the districts between the Forth, the Spey, and
   Drumalban,—lie at the very threshold of Scottish history."

"Cæsar tells us that the inhabitants of Britain in his day painted themselves with a dye extracted from woad; by the time, however, of British independence under Carausius and Allectus, in the latter part of the third century, the fashion had so far fallen off in Roman Britain that the word 'Picti,' Picts, or painted men, had got to mean the peoples beyond the Northern wall. … Now, all these Picts were natives of Britain, and the word Picti is found applied to them for the first time, in a panegyric by Eumenius, in the year 296; but in the year 360 another painted people appeared on the scene. They came from Ireland, and, to distinguish these two sets of painted foes from one another, Latin historians left the painted natives to be called Picti, as had been done before, and for the painted invaders from Ireland they retained, untranslated, a Celtic word of the same (or nearly the same) meaning, namely 'Scotti.' Neither the Picts nor the Scotti probably owned these names, the former of which is to be traced to Roman authors, while the latter was probably given the invaders from Ireland by the Brythons, whose country they crossed the sea to ravage. The Scots, however, did recognize a national name, which described them as painted or tattooed men. … This word was Cruithnig, which is found applied equally to the painted people of both islands. … The eponymus of all the Picts was Cruithne, or Cruithneehan, and we have a kindred Brythonic form in Prydyn, the name by which Scotland once used to be known to the Kymry."

A different view of the origin and signification of these names is maintained by Dr. Guest.

Prof. Freeman looks upon the question as unsettled. He says: "The proper Scots, as no one denies, were a Gaelic colony from Ireland. The only question is as to the Picts or Caledonians. Were they another Gaelic tribe, the vestige of a Gaelic occupation of the island earlier than the British occupation, or were they simply Britons who had never been brought under the Roman dominion? The geographical aspect of the case favours the former belief, but the weight of philological evidence seems to be on the side of the latter."

E. A. Freeman, History of the Norman Conquest of England, chapter 2, section 1, foot-note.

SCOTLAND: 6-7th Centuries.
Part included in the English Kingdom of Northumberland.

   "Out of these Celtic and Teutonic races [Picts, Scots, Britons
   of Strathclyde, and Angles] there emerged in that northern
   part of Britain which eventually became the territory of the
   subsequent monarchy of Scotland, four kingdoms within definite
   limits and under settled forms of government; and as such we
   find them in the beginning of the 7th century, when the
   conflict among these races, which succeeded the departure of
   the Romans from the island, and the termination of their power
   in Britain, may be held to have ceased and the limits of these
   kingdoms to have become settled. North of the Firths of Forth
   and Clyde were the two kingdoms of the Scots of Dalriada on
   the west and of the Picts on the east. They were separated
   from each other by a range of mountains termed by Adamnan the
   Dorsal ridge of Britain, and generally known by the name of
   Drumalban. … The colony [of Dalriada] was originally founded
   by Fergus Mor, son of Erc, who came with his two brothers
   Loarn and Angus from Irish Dalriada in the end of the 5th
   century [see DALRIADA], but the true founder of the Dalriadic
   kingdom was his great grandson Aedan, son of Gabran. … The
   remaining districts north of the Firths of Forth and Clyde
   formed the kingdom of the Picts. … The districts south of the
   Firths of Forth and Clyde, and extending to the Solway Firth
   on the west and to the Tyne on the east, were possessed by the
   two kingdoms of the Britons [afterwards Strathclyde], on the
   west and of the Angles of Bernicia on the east. The former
   extended from the river Derwent in Cumberland in the south to
   the Firth of Clyde in the north, which separated the Britons
   from the Scots of Dalriada. … The Angles of Bernicia … were
   now in firm possession of the districts extending along the
   east coast as far as the Firth of Forth, originally occupied
   by the British tribe of the Ottadeni and afterwards by the
   Picts, and including the counties of Berwick and Roxburgh and
   that of East Lothian or Haddington, the rivers Esk and Gala
   forming here their western boundary. … In the centre of
   Scotland, where it is intersected by the two arms of the sea,
   the Forth and the Clyde, and where the boundaries of these
   four kingdoms approach one another, is a territory extending
   from the Esk to the Tay, which possessed a very mixed
   population and was the scene of most of the conflicts between
   these four states." About the middle of the 7th century, Osuiu
   or Oswiu, king of Northumberland (which then included
   Bernicia), having overcome the Mercians, "extended his sway
   not only over the Britons but over the Picts and Scots; and
   thus commenced the dominion of the Angles over the Britons of
   Alclyde, the Scots of Dalriada, and the southern Picts, which
   was destined to last for thirty years. … In the meantime the
   little kingdom of Dalriada was in a state of complete
   disorganisation. We find no record of any real king over the
   whole nation of the Scots, but each separate tribe seems to
   have remained isolated from the rest under its own chief,
   while the Britons exercised a kind of sway over them, and
   along with the Britons they were under subjection to the
   Angles."
{2840}
   In 685, on an attempt being made to throw off the yoke of the
   Angles of Northumbria, King Ecgfrid or Ecgfrith, son of Oswiu,
   led an army into the country of the Picts and was there
   defeated crushingly and slain in a conflict styled variously
   the battle of Dunnichen, Duin Nechtain, and Nechtan's Mere.
   The effect of the defeat is thus described by Bede; "'From
   that time the hopes and strength of the Anglic kingdom began
   to fluctuate and to retrograde, for the Picts recovered the
   territory belonging to them which the Angles had held, and the
   Scots who were in Britain and a certain part of the Britons
   regained their liberty, which they have now enjoyed for about
   forty-six years.'"

"The Pictish kingdom had risen fast to greatness after the victory of Nectansmere in 685. In the century which followed Ecgfrith's defeat, its kings reduced the Scots of Dalriada from nominal dependence to actual subjection, the annexation of Angus and Fife carried their eastern border to the sea, while to the south their alliance with the Northumbrians in the warfare which both waged on the Welsh extended their bounds on the side of Cumbria or Strath·Clyde. But the hour of Pictish greatness was marked by the extinction of the Pictish name. In the midst of the 9th century the direct line of their royal house came to an end, and the under-king of the Scots of Dalriada, Kenneth Mac Alpin, ascended the Pictish throne in right of his maternal descent. For fifty years more Kenneth and his successors remained kings of the Picts. At the moment we have reached, however [the close of the 9th century], the title passed suddenly away, the tribe which had given its chief to the throne gave its name to the realm, and 'Pict-land' disappeared from history to make room first for Alban or Albania, and then for 'the land of the Scots.'"

It appears however that, before the kingdom of Alban was known, there was a period during which the realm established by the successors of Kenneth Mac Alpin, the Scot, occupying the throne of the Picts, was called the kingdom of Scone, from the town which became its capital. "It was at Scone too that the Coronation Stone was 'reverently kept for the consecration of the kings of Alban,' and of this stone it was believed that 'no king was ever wont to reign in Scotland unless he had first, on receiving the royal name, sat upon this stone at Scone.' … Of its identity with the stone now preserved in the coronation chair at Westminster there can be no doubt. It is an oblong block of red sandstone, some 26 inches long by 16 inches broad, and 10½ inches deep. … Its mythic origin identifies it with the stone which Jacob used as a pillow at Bethel, … but history knows of it only at Scone." Some time near the close of the 9th century "the kingdom ceased to be called that of Scone and its territory Cruithentuath, or Pictavia its Latin equivalent, and now became known as the kingdom of Alban or Albania, and we find its kings no longer called kings of the Picts but kings of Alban."

SCOTLAND: 10-11th Centuries. The forming of' the modern kingdom and its relations to England.

"The fact that the West-Saxon or English Kings, from Eadward the Elder [son of Alfred the Great] onwards, did exercise an external supremacy over the Celtic princes of the island is a fact too clear to be misunderstood by anyone who looks the evidence on the matter fairly in the face. I date their supremacy over Scotland from the reign of Eadward the Elder, because there is no certain earlier instance of submission on the part of the Scots to any West-Saxon King. … The submission of Wales [A. D. 828] dates from the time of Ecgberht; but it evidently received a more distinct and formal acknowledgement [A. D. 922] in the reign of Eadward. Two years after followed the Commendation of Scotland and Strathclyde. … I use the feudal word Commendation, because that word seems to me better than any other to express the real state of the case. The transaction between Eadward and the Celtic princes was simply an application, on an international scale, of the general principle of the Comitatus. … A man 'chose his Lord'; he sought some one more powerful than himself, with whom he entered into the relation of Comitatus; as feudal ideas strengthened, he commonly surrendered his allodial land to the Lord so chosen, and received it back again from him on a feudal tenure. This was the process of Commendation, a process of everyday occurrence in the case of private men choosing their Lords, whether those Lords were simple gentlemen or Kings. And the process was equally familiar among sovereign princes themselves. … There was nothing unusual or degrading in the relation; if Scotland, Wales, Strathclyde, commended themselves to the West-Saxon King, they only put themselves in the same relation to their powerful neighbour in which every continental prince stood in theory, and most of them in actual fact, to the Emperor, Lord of the World. … The original Commendation to the Eadward of the tenth century, confirmed by a series of acts of submission spread over the whole of the intermediate time, is the true justification for the acts of his glorious namesake [Edward I.] in the thirteenth century. The only difference was that, during that time, feudal notions had greatly developed on both sides; the original Commendation of the Scottish King and people to a Lord had changed, in the ideas of both sides, into a feudal tenure of the land of the Scottish Kingdom. But this change was simply the universal change which had come over all such relations everywhere. … But it is here needful to point out two other distinct events which have often been confounded with the Commendation of Scotland, a confusion through which the real state of the case has often been misunderstood. … It is hard to make people understand that there have not always been Kingdoms of England and Scotland, with the Tweed and the Cheviot Hills as the boundaries between them. It must be borne in mind that in the tenth century no such boundaries existed, and that the names of England and Scotland were only just beginning to be known. At the time of the Commendation the country which is now called Scotland was divided among three quite distinct sovereignties. {2841} North of the Forth and Clyde reigned the King of Scots, an independent Celtic prince reigning over a Celtic people, the Picts and Scots, the exact relation between which two tribes is a matter of perfect indifference to my present purpose. South of the two great firths the Scottish name and the Scottish dominion were unknown. The south-west part of modern Scotland formed part of the Kingdom of the Strathclyde Welsh, which up to 924 was, like the Kingdom of the Scots, an independent Celtic principality. The south-eastern part of modern Scotland, Lothian in the wide sense of the word, was purely English or Danish, as in language it remains to this day. It was part of the Kingdom of Northumberland, and it had its share in all the revolutions of that Kingdom. In the year 924 Lothian was ruled by the Danish Kings of Northumberland, subject only to that precarious superiority on the part of Wessex which had been handed on from Ecgberht and Ælfred. In the year 924, when the three Kingdoms, Scotland, Strathclyde and Northumberland, all commended themselves to Eadward, the relation was something new on the part of Scotland and Strathclyde; but on the part of Lothian, as an integral part of Northumberland, it was only a renewal of the relation which had been formerly entered into with Ecgberht and Ælfred. … The transactions which brought Scotland, Strathclyde, and Lothian into their relations to one another and to the English Crown were quite distinct from each other. They were as follows:—First, the Commendation of the King and people of the Scots to Eadward in 924. Secondly, the grant of Cumberland by Eadmund to Malcolm in 945. … In 945 the reigning King [of Cumberland, or Strathclyde] revolted against his over-lord Eadmund; he was overthrown and his Kingdom ravaged; it was then granted on tenure of military service to his kinsman Malcolm King of Scots. … The southern part of this territory was afterwards … annexed to Eng]and; the northern part was retained by the Scottish Kings, and was gradually, though very gradually, incorporated with their own Kingdom. The distinction between the two states seems to have been quite forgotten in the 13th century." The third transaction was "the grant of Lothian to the Scottish kings, either under Eadgar or under Cnut. … The date of the grant of Lothian is not perfectly clear. But whatever was the date of the grant, there can be no doubt at all as to its nature. Lothian, an integral part of England, could be granted only as any other part of England could be granted, namely to be held as part of England, its ruler being in the position of an English Earl. … But in such a grant the seeds of separation were sown. A part of the Kingdom which was governed by a foreign sovereign, on whatever terms of dependence, could not long remain in the position of a province governed by an ordinary Earl. … That the possession of Lothian would under all ordinary circumstances remain hereditary, must have been looked for from the beginning. This alone would distinguish Lothian from all other Earldoms. … It was then to be expected that Lothian, when once granted to the King of Scots, should gradually be merged in the Kingdom of Scotland. But the peculiar and singular destiny of this country could hardly have been looked for. Neither Eadgar nor Kenneth could dream that this purely English or Danish province would become the historical Scotland. The different tenures of Scotland and Lothian got confounded; the Kings of Scots, from the end of the eleventh century, became English in manners and language; they were not without some pretensions to the Crown of England, and not without some hopes of winning it. They thus learned to attach more and more value to the English part of their dominions, and they laboured to spread its language and manners over their original Celtic territory. They retained their ancient title of Kings of Scots, but they became in truth Kings of English Lothian and of Anglicized Fife. A state was thus formed, politically distinct from England, and which political circumstances gradually made bitterly hostile to England, a state which indeed retained a dark and mysterious Celtic background, but which, as it appears in history, is English in laws, language and manners, more truly English indeed, in many respects, than England itself remained after the Norman Conquest."

E. A. Freeman, History of the Norman Conquest of England, chapter 3, section. 4.

"The mixed population of Picts and Scots had now become to a great extent amalgamated, and under the influence of the dominant race of the Scots were identified with them in name. Their power was now to be further consolidated, and their influence extended during the thirty years' reign of a king who proved to be the last of his race, and who was to bequeath the kingdom, under the name of Scotia, to a new line of kings. This was Malcolm, the son of Kenneth, who slew his predecessor, Kenneth, the son of Dubh, at Monzievaird. … With Malcolm the descendants of Kenneth Mac Alpin, the founder of the Scottish dynasty, became extinct in the male line."

   Malcolm was succeeded by his daughter's son, Duncan. "There is
   little noticeable in his [Duncan's] life but its conclusion.
   He had made vain efforts to extend his frontiers southward
   through Northumberland, and was engaged in a war with the
   holders of the northern independent states at his death in the
   year 1039. … He was slain in 'Bothgowan,' which is held to be
   Gaelic for 'a smith's hut.' The person who slew him, whether
   with his own hand or not, was Macbeda, the Maarmor of Ross, or
   of Ross and Moray; the ruler, in short, of the district
   stretching from the Moray Frith and Loch Ness northwards. The
   place where the smith's hut stood is said to have been near
   Elgin. This has not been very distinctly established; but at
   all events it was near if not actually within the territory
   ruled by Macbeda, and Duncan was there with aggressive
   designs. The maarmor's wife was Gruach, a granddaughter of
   Kenneth IV. If there was a grandson of Kenneth killed by
   Malcolm, this was his sister. But whether or not she had this
   inheritance of revenge, she was, according to the Scots
   authorities, the representative of the Kenneth whom the
   grandfather of Duncan had deprived of his throne and his life.
   … The deeds which raised Macbeda and his wife to power were
   not to appearance much worse than others of their day done for
   similar ends. However he may have gained his power, he
   exercised it with good repute, according to the reports
   nearest to his time.
{2842}
   It is among the most curious of the antagonisms that sometimes
   separate the popular opinion of people of mark from anything
   positively known about them, that this man, in a manner sacred
   to splendid infamy, is the first whose name appears in the
   ecclesiastical records both as a king of Scotland and a
   benefactor of the Church; and is also the first who, as king
   of Scotland, is said by the chroniclers to have offered his
   services to the Bishop of Rome. The ecclesiastical records of
   St. Andrews tell how he and his queen made over certain lands
   to the Culdees of Lochleven, and there is no such fact on
   record of any earlier king of Scotland. Of his connection with
   Rome, it is a question whether he went there himself. … That
   he sent money there, however, was so very notorious as not
   only to be recorded by the insular authorities, but to be
   noticed on the Continent as a significant event. … The reign
   of this Macbeda or Macbeth forms a noticeable period in our
   history. He had a wider dominion than any previous ruler,
   having command over all the country now known as Scotland,
   except the Isles and a portion of the Western Highlands. …
   With him, too, ended that mixed or alternative regal
   succession which, whether it was systematic or followed the
   law of force, is exceedingly troublesome to the inquirer. …
   From Macbeth downwards … the rule of hereditary succession
   holds, at all events to the extent that a son, where there is
   one, succeeds to his father. Hence this reign is a sort of
   turning-point in the constitutional history of the Scottish
   crown."

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1066-1093.
   Effects of the Norman Conquest of England.
   Civilization and growth of the Northern Kingdom.
   Reign of Malcolm III.

"The Norman Conquest of England produced a great effect upon their neighbours. In the first place, a very great number of the Saxons who fled from the cruelty of William the Conqueror, retired into Scotland, and this had a considerable effect in civilizing the southern parts of that country; for if the Saxons were inferior to the Normans in arts and in learning, they were, on the other hand, much superior to the Scots, who were a rude and very ignorant people. These exiles were headed and accompanied by what remained of the Saxon royal family, and particularly by a young prince named Edgar Etheling, who was a near kinsman of Edward the Confessor, and the heir of his throne, but dispossessed by the Norman Conqueror. This prince brought with him to Scotland two sisters, named Margaret and Christian. They were received with much kindness by Malcolm III., called Canmore [Ceanmore] (or Great Head), who remembered the assistance which he had received from Edward the Confessor. … He himself married the Princess Margaret (1068), and made her the Queen of Scotland. … When Malcolm, King of Scotland, was thus connected with the Saxon royal family of England, he began to think of chasing away the Normans, and of restoring Edgar Etheling to the English throne. This was an enterprise for which he had not sufficient strength; but he made deep and bloody inroads into the northern parts of England, and brought away so many captives, that they were to be found for many years afterwards in every Scottish village, nay, in every Scottish hovel. No doubt, the number of Saxons thus introduced into Scotland tended much to improve and civilize the manners of the people. … Not only the Saxons, but afterwards a number of the Normans themselves, came to settle in Scotland, … and were welcomed by King Malcolm. He was desirous to retain these brave men in his service, and for that purpose he gave them great grants of land, to be held for military services; and most of the Scottish nobility are of Norman descent. And thus the Feudal System was introduced into Scotland as well as England, and went on gradually gaining strength, till it became the general law of the country, as indeed it was that of Europe at large. Malcolm Canmore, thus increasing in power, and obtaining re-enforcements of warlike and civilized subjects, began greatly to enlarge his dominions. At first he had resided almost entirely in the province of Fife, and at the town of Dunfermline, where there are still the ruins of a small tower which served him for a palace. But as he found his power increase, he ventured across the Frith of Forth, and took possession of Edinburgh, and the surrounding country, which had hitherto been accounted part of England. The great strength of the castle of Edinburgh, situated upon a lofty rock, led him to choose that town frequently for his residence, so that in time it became the metropolis, or chief city of Scotland. This king Malcolm was a brave and wise prince, though without education. He often made war upon King William the Conqueror of England, and upon his son and successor, William, who, from his complexion, was called William Rufus, that is, Red William. Malcolm was sometimes beaten in these wars, but he was more frequently successful; and not only made a complete conquest of Lothian, but threatened also to possess himself of the great English province of Northumberland, which he frequently invaded." Malcolm Canmore was killed in battle at Alnwick Castle (1093), during one of his invasions of English territory.

Sir W. Scott, Tales of a Grandfather (Scotland); abridged by E. Ginn, chapter 4.

      ALSO IN:
      J. H. Burton,
      History of Scotland,
      volume 1, chapter 11.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1093-1153.
   Successors of Malcolm III.
   The reign of David I.
   His civilizing work and influence.

   "Six sons and two daughters were the offspring of the marriage
   between Malcolm and Margaret. Edward, the eldest, perished
   with his father, and Ethelred, created Abbot of Dunkeld and
   Earl of Fife, appears to have survived his parents for a very
   short time: Edmund died in an English cloister, a penitent and
   mysterious recluse; Edgar, Alexander, and David, lived to
   wear, in succession, the crown of Scotland. Of the two
   daughters, Editha … became the queen of Henry of England. …
   Three parties may be said to have divided Scot·land at the
   period of Malcolm's death." One of these parties, inspired
   with jealousy of the English influence which had come into the
   kingdom with queen Margaret, succeeded in raising Donald Bane,
   a brother of the late king Malcolm, to the throne. Donald was
   soon displaced by Edmund, who is sometimes said to have been
   an illegitimate son of Malcolm; and in 1097 Edmund was
   dethroned by Edgar, the son of Malcolm and Margaret. Edgar,
   dying in 1107, was succeeded by Alexander I., and he, in 1124,
   by David I.
{2843}
   The reign of David was contemporary with the dark and troubled
   time of Stephen in England, and he took an unfortunate part in
   the struggle between Stephen and the Empress Matilda,
   suffering a dreadful defeat in the famous Battle of the
   Standard (see STANDARD, BATTLE OF). But "the whole of the
   north of England beyond the Tees" was "for several years …
   under the influence, if not under the direct authority, of the
   Scottish king, and the comparative prosperity of this part of
   the kingdom, contrasting strongly with the anarchy prevailing
   in every other quarter, naturally inclined the population of
   the northern counties to look with favour upon a continuance
   of the Scottish connection. … Pursuing the policy inaugurated
   by his mother [the English princess Margaret] …, he
   encouraged the resort of foreign merchants to the ports of
   Scotland, insuring to native traders the same advantages which
   they had enjoyed during the reign of his father; whilst he
   familiarized his Gaelic nobles, in their attendance upon the
   royal court, with habits of luxury and magnificence, remitting
   three years' rent and tribute—according to the account of his
   contemporary Malmesbury—to all his people who were willing to
   improve their dwellings, to dress with greater elegance, and
   to adopt increased refinement in their general manner of
   living. Even in the occupations of his leisure moments he
   seems to have wished to exercise a softening influence over
   his countrymen, for, like many men of his character, he was
   fond of gardening, and he delighted in indoctrinating his
   people in the peaceful arts of horticulture, and in the
   mysteries of planting and of grafting. For similar reasons he
   sedulously promoted the improvement of agriculture, or rather,
   perhaps, directed increased attention to it; for the Scots of
   that period were still a pastoral, and, in some respects, a
   migratory people. … David hoped to convert the lower orders
   into a more settled and industrious population; whilst he
   enjoined the higher classes to 'live like noblemen' upon their
   own estates, and not to waste the property of their
   neighbours. … In consequence of these measures feudal castles
   began, ere long, to replace the earlier buildings of wood and
   wattles rudely fortified by earthworks; and towns rapidly grew
   up around the royal castles and about the principal localities
   of commerce. … The prosperity of the country during the last
   fifteen years of his reign [he died in 1153] contrasted
   strongly with the miseries of England under the disastrous
   rule of Stephen; Scotland became the granary from which her
   neighbour's wants were supplied; and to the court of
   Scotland's king resorted the knights and nobles of foreign
   origin, whom the commotions of the Continent had hitherto
   driven to take refuge in England."

      E. W. Robertson,
      Scotland under her Early Kings,
      volume 1, chapters 6-8.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1174-1189.
Captivity of William the Lion, his oath of fealty to the
English king, and his release from it.

In 1174, on the occasion of a general conspiracy of rebellion against Henry II., contrived at Paris, headed by his wife and sons, and joined by great numbers of the nobles throughout his dominions, both in England and in France, William the Lion, king of Scotland, was induced to assist the rebellion by the promise of Northumberland for himself. Henry was in France until July, 1174, when he was warned that "only his own presence could retrieve England, where a Scotch army was pouring in from the north, while David of Huntingdon headed an army in the midland counties, and the young prince was preparing to bring over fresh forces from Gravelines. Henry crossed the channel in a storm, and, by advice of a Norman bishop, proceeded at once to do penance at Becket's shrine. On the day of his humiliation, the Scotch king, William the Lion, was surprised at Alnwick and captured. This, in fact, ended the war, for David of Huntingdon was forced to return into Scotland, where the old feud of Gael and Saxon had broken out. The English rebels purchased peace by a prompt submission. In less than a month Henry was able to leave England to itself." The king of Scotland was taken as a prisoner to Falaise, in Normandy, where he was detained for several months. "By advice of a deputation of Scotch prelates and barons he at last consented to swear fealty to Henry as his liege lord, and to do provisional homage for his son. His chief vassals guaranteed this engagement; hostages were given; and English garrisons received into three Scotch towns, Roxburgh, Berwick, and Edinburgh. Next year [1175] the treaty was solemnly ratified at York."

C. H. Pearson, History of England during the Early and Middle Ages, volume 1, chapter 31.

This engagement of fealty on the part of William the Lion is often referred to as the Treaty of Falaise. Fourteen years afterwards, when Henry's son, Richard, Cœur de Lion, had succeeded to the throne, the Scotch king was absolved from it. "Early in December [1189], while Richard was at Canterbury on his way to the sea [preparing to embark upon his crusade], William the Lion came to visit him, and a bargain was struck to the satisfaction of both parties. Richard received from William a sum of 10,000 marks, and his homage for his English estates, as they had been held by his brother Malcolm; in return, he restored to him the castles of Roxburgh and Berwick, and released him and his heirs for ever from the homage for Scotland itself, enforced by Henry in 1175."

   "The western Highlands and Islands formed the original
   territory of the Scots. But we have seen how the Norwegians
   and Danes, seizing Shetland and Orkney, spread themselves over
   the western Archipelago, even as far south as Man, thereby
   putting an end, for 300 years, to the intercommunication
   between the mainlands of Scotland and Ireland. These islands
   long formed a sort of maritime community, sometimes under the
   active authority of the kings of Norway, sometimes connected
   with the Norwegian settlers in Ireland—Ostmen, as they were
   called; sometimes partially ruled by kings of Man, but more
   generally subject to chieftains more or less powerful, who,
   when opportunity offered, made encroachments even on the
   mainland. …
{2844}
   Alexander II. seems to have determined to bring this sort of
   interregnum to a close, and he was engaged in an expedition
   for that purpose when he died at the little island of Kerrera,
   near Oban. His son, as he advanced to manhood, appears to have
   revived the idea of completely re-annexing the Islands.
   Complaints were made by the islanders to Haco, king of Norway,
   of aggressions by the earl of Ross and other mainland
   magnates, in the interest of the king of Scots; and Haco, who
   was at once a powerful and a despotic monarch, resolved to
   vindicate his claims as suzerain of the isles. … Haco
   accordingly fitted out a splendid fleet, consisting of 100
   vessels, mostly of large size, fully equipped, and crowded
   with gallant soldiers and seamen. … On the 10th of July, 1263,
   'the mightiest armament that ever left the shores of Norway
   sailed from the haven of Herlover.' … The island chieftains,
   Magnus of the Orkneys, Magnus, king of Man, Dougal MacRoderic,
   and others, met the triumphant fleet, swelling its numbers as
   it advanced amongst the islands. Most of the chiefs made their
   peace with Haco; though there were exceptions. … The invading
   fleet entered the Clyde, numbering by this time as many as 160
   ships. A squadron of 60 sail proceeded up Loch-long; the crews
   drew their boats across the narrow isthmus at Tarbet, launched
   on Loch-lomond, and spread their ravages, by fire and sword,
   over the Lennox and Stirlingshire. … The alarm spread over the
   surrounding country, and gradually a Scottish army began to
   gather on the Ayrshire side of the firth. … Whether
   voluntarily, or from stress of weather, some portion of the
   Norwegians made a landing near Largs, on the Ayrshire coast,
   opposite to Bute. These being attacked by the Scots,
   reinforcements were landed, and a fierce but desultory
   struggle was kept up, with varying success, from morning till
   night. Many of the ships were driven ashore. Most of the
   Norwegians who had landed were slain. The remainder of the
   fleet was seriously damaged. … Retracing its course among the
   islands, on the 20th of October it reached Kirkwall in Orkney,
   where king Haco expired on 15th December. Such was the result
   of an expedition which had set out with such fair promises of
   success."

"In the Norse annals our famous Battle of Largs makes small figure, or almost none at all, among Hakon's battles and feats. … Of Largs there is no mention whatever in Norse books. But beyond any doubt, such is the other evidence, Hakon did land there; land and fight, not conquering, probably rather beaten; and very certainly 'retiring to his ships,' as in either case he behooved to do! It is further certain he was dreadfully maltreated by the weather on those wild coasts; and altogether credible, as the Scotch records bear, that he was so at Largs very specially. The Norse Records or Sagas say merely he lost many of his ships by the tempests, and many of his men by land fighting in various parts,—tacitly including Largs, no doubt, which was the last of these misfortunes to him. … To this day, on a little plain to the south of the village, now town, of Largs, in Ayrshire, there are seen stone cairns and monumental heaps, and, until within a century ago, one huge, solitary, upright stone; still mutely testifying to a battle there—altogether clearly to this battle of King Hakon's; who by the Norse records, too, was in these neighbourhoods at that same date, and evidently in an aggressive, high kind of humour."

      ALSO IN:
      J. H. Burton,
      History of Scotland,
      chapter 15 (volume 2).

      See, also,
      NORMANS.
      NORTHMEN: 8-9TH CENTURIES,
      and 10-13TH CENTURIES.

Three years after the battle of Largs, "in 1266, Magnus IV., the new King [of Norway], by formal treaty ceded to the King of Scots Man and all the Western Isles, specially reserving Orkney and Shetland to the crown of Norway. On the other hand, the King of Scots agreed to pay down a ransom for them of a thousand marks, and an annual rent of a hundred marks."

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1286.
Accession of Queen Margaret (called The Maid of Norway)
who died on her way to Scotland in 1290.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1290-1305.
   Death of the Maid of Norway.
   Reign of John Balliol.
   English conquest by Edward I.
   Exploits of Wallace.

   Alexander III. of Scotland, dying in 1286, left only an infant
   granddaughter to inherit his crown. This was the child of his
   daughter Margaret, married to the king of Norway and dead
   after her first confinement. The baby queen, known in Scottish
   history as the Maid of Norway, was betrothed in her sixth year
   to Prince Edward of England, son of Edward I., and all looked
   promising for an early union of the Scottish and English
   crowns. "But this project was abruptly frustrated by the
   child's death on her voyage to Scotland, and with the rise of
   claimant after claimant of the vacant throne Edward was drawn
   into far other relations to the Scottish realm. Of the
   thirteen pretenders to the throne of Scotland, only three
   could be regarded as serious claimants. By the extinction of
   the line of William the Lion, the right of succession passed
   to the daughters of his brother David. The claim of John
   Balliol, Lord of Galloway, rested on his descent from the
   eldest of these; that of Robert Bruce, Lord of Annandale, on
   his descent from the second; that of John Hastings, Lord of
   Abergavenny, on his descent from the third. … All the rights
   of a feudal suzerain were at once assumed by the English King;
   he entered into the possession of the country as into that of
   a disputed fief to be held by its overlord till the dispute
   was settled. … Scotland was thus reduced to the subjection
   which she had experienced under Henry II. … The commissioners
   whom he named to report on the claims to the throne were
   mainly Scotch; a proposal for the partition of the realm among
   the claimants was rejected as contrary to Scotch law, and the
   claim of Balliol as representative of the elder branch was
   finally preferred to that of his rivals. The castles were at
   once delivered to the new monarch, and Balliol did homage to
   Edward with full acknowledgment of the services due to him
   from the realm of Scotland. For a time there was peace." But,
   presently, Edward made claims upon the Scotch nobles for
   service in his foreign wars which were resented and
   disregarded. He also asserted for his courts a right of
   hearing appeals from the Scottish tribunals, which was angrily
   denied. Barons and people were provoked to a hostility that
   forced Balliol to challenge war. He obtained from the pope
   absolution from his oath of fealty and he entered into a
   secret alliance with the king of France.
{2845}
   In the spring of 1296 Edward invaded Scotland, carried Berwick
   by storm, slaughtered 8,000 of its citizens, defeated the
   Scots with great slaughter at Dunbar, occupied Edinburgh,
   Stirling and Perth, and received, in July, the surrender of
   Balliol, who was sent to imprisonment in the Tower of London.
   "No further punishment, however, was exacted from the
   prostrate realm. Edward simply treated it as a fief, and
   declared its forfeiture to be the legal consequence of
   Balliol's treason. It lapsed in fact to the overlord, and its
   earls, barons and gentry swore homage in Parliament at Berwick
   to Edward as their king. … The government of the new
   dependency was intrusted to Warenne, Earl of Surrey, at the
   head of an English Council of Regency. … The disgraceful
   submission of their leaders brought the people themselves to
   the front. … The genius of an outlaw knight, William Wallace,
   saw in their smouldering discontent a hope of freedom for his
   country, and his daring raids on outlying parties of the
   English soldiery roused the country at last into revolt. Of
   Wallace himself, of his life or temper, we know little or
   nothing; the very traditions of his gigantic stature and
   enormous strength are dim and unhistorical. But the instinct
   of the Scotch people has guided it aright in choosing Wallace
   for its national hero. He … called the people itself to arms."
   At Stirling, in September, 1297, Wallace caught the English
   army in the midst of its passage of the Forth, cut half of it
   in pieces and put the remainder to flight. At Falkirk, in the
   following July, Edward avenged himself upon the forces of
   Wallace with terrible slaughter, and the Scottish leader
   narrowly escaped. In the struggle which the Scots still
   maintained for several years, he seems to have borne no longer
   a prominent part. But when they submitted, in 1303, Wallace
   refused Edward's offered amnesty; he was afterwards captured,
   sent to London for trial, and executed, his head being placed
   on London Bridge, according to the barbarous custom of the
   time.

C. H. Pearson, History of England during the Early and Middle Ages, volume 2, chapters 12-13.

After the submission of Scotland in 1303, King Edward of England "set to work to complete the union of the two kingdoms. In the meantime Scotland was to be governed by a Lieutenant aided by a council of barons and churchmen. It was to be represented in the English parliament by ten deputies,—four churchmen, four barons, and two members of the commons, one for the country north of the Firths, one for the south. These members attended one parliament at Westminster, and an ordinance was issued for the government of Scotland. … But the great difficulty in dealing with the Scots was that they never knew when they were conquered, and, just when Edward hoped that his scheme for union was carried out, they rose in arms once more. The leader this time was Robert Bruce, Lord of Annandale, Earl of Carrick in right of his mother, and the grandson and heir of the rival of Balliol. He had joined Wallace, but had again sworn fealty to Edward at the Convention of Irvine, and had since then received many favours from the English king. Bruce signed a bond with William Lamberton, Bishop of St. Andrews, who had also been one of Wallace's supporters. In this bond each party swore to stand by the other in all his undertakings, no matter what, and not to act without the knowledge of the other. … This bond became known to Edward; and Bruce, afraid of his anger, fled from London to Dumfries. There in the Church of the Grey Friars he had an interview with John Comyn of Badenoch, called the Red Comyn, who, after Balliol and his sons, was the next heir to the throne. … What passed between them cannot be certainly known, as they met alone"—but Comyn was slain. "By this murder and sacrilege Bruce put himself at once out of the pale of the law and of the Church, but by it he became the nearest heir to the crown, after the Balliols. This gave him a great hold on the people, whose faith in the virtue of hereditary succession was strong, and on whom the English yoke weighed heavily. On March 27, 1306, Bruce was crowned [at Scone] with as near an imitation of the old ceremonies as could be compassed on such short notice. The actual crowning was done by Isabella, Countess of Buchan, who, though her husband was a Comyn, and, as such, a sworn foe of Bruce, came secretly to uphold the right of her own family, the Macduffs, to place the crown on the head of the King of Scots. Edward determined this time to put down the Scots with rigour. … All who had taken any part in the murder of the Red Comyn were denounced as traitors, and death was to be the fate of all persons taken in arms. Bruce was excommunicated by a special bull from the Pope. The Countess of Buchan was confined in a room, made like a cage, in one of the towers of Berwick Castle. One of King Robert's sisters was condemned to a like punishment. His brother Nigel, his brother-in-law Christopher Seaton, and three other nobles were taken prisoners, and were put to death as traitors. … Edward this time made greater preparations than ever. All classes of his subjects from all parts of his dominions were invited to join the army, and he exhorted his son, Edward Prince of Wales, and 300 newly-created knights, to win their spurs worthily in the reduction of contumacious Scotland. It was well for Scotland that he did not live to carry out his vows of vengeance. He died at Burgh-on-the-Sands, July 30th. His death proved a turning-point in the history of Scotland, for, though the English still remained in possession of the strongholds, Edward II. took no effective steps to crush the rebels. He only brought the army raised by his father as far as Cumnock in Ayrshire, and retreated without doing anything."

"It is extremely difficult to give distinctness and chronological sequence to the events in Scotland from 1306 to 1310: the conditions are indeed antagonistic to distinctness. We have a people restless and feverishly excited to efforts for their liberty when opportunity should come, but not yet embodied in open war against their invaders, and therefore doing nothing distinct enough to hold a place in history. … The other prominent feature in the historical conditions was the new-made king [Robert Bruce], … a tall strong man, of comely, attractive, and commanding countenance. … He is steady and sanguine of temperament; his good spirits and good-humour never fail, and in the midst of misery and peril he can keep up the spirits of his followers by chivalrous stories and pleasant banter. … The English were driven out of the strong places one by one—sometimes by the people of the district. We hear of the fall of Edinburgh, Roxburgh, Linlithgow, Perth, Dundee, Rutherglen, and Dumfries. … In the beginning of the year 1309 Scotland was so far consolidated as to be getting into a place in European diplomacy. The King of France advised his son-in-law, Edward II., to agree to a souffrance or truce with the Scots. … While the negotiations with France went on, countenance still more important was given to the new order of things at home. The clergy in council set forth their adherence to King Robert, with the reasons for it. … This was an extremely important matter, for it meant, of course, that the Church would do its best to protect him from all ecclesiastical risk arising from the death of Comyn. … A crisis came at last which roused the Government of England to a great effort. After the fortresses had fallen one by one, Stirling Castle still held out. It was besieged by Edward Bruce [brother of Robert] before the end of the year 1313. Mowbray, the governor, stipulated that he would surrender if not relieved before the Feast of St. John the Baptist in the following year, or the 24th of June. The taking of this fortress was an achievement of which King Edward [I.] was prouder than of anything else he had done in the invasions of Scotland. … That the crowning acquisition of their mighty king should thus be allowed to pass away, and stamp emphatically the utter loss of the great conquest he had made for the English crown, was a consummation too humiliating for the chivalry of England to endure without an effort. Stirling Castle must be relieved before St. John's Day, and the relieving of Stirling Castle meant a thorough invasion and resubjection of Scotland." On both sides the utmost efforts were made,—the one to relieve the Castle, the other to strengthen its besiegers. "On the 23d of June [1314] the two armies were visible to each other. If the Scots had, as it was said, between 30,000 and 40,000 men, it was a great force for the country at that time to furnish. Looking at the urgency of the measures taken to draw out the feudal array of England, to the presence of the Welsh and Irish, and to a large body of Gascons and other foreigners, it is easy to be believed that the army carried into Scotland might be, as it was said to be, 100,000 in all. The efficient force, however, was in the mounted men, and these were supposed to be about equal in number to the whole Scottish army." The Scots occupied a position of great strength and advantage (on the banks of the Bunnock Burn), which they had skilfully improved by honeycombing all the flat ground with hidden pits, to make it impassable for cavalry. The English attacked them at daybreak on the 24th of June, and suffered a most ignominious and awful defeat. "The end was rout, confused and hopeless. The pitted field added to the disasters; for though they avoided it in their advance, many horsemen were pressed into it in the retreat, and floundered among the pitfalls. Through all the history of her great wars before and since, never did England suffer a humiliation deep enough to approach even comparison with this. Besides the inferiority of the victorious army, Bannockburn is exceptional among battles by the utter helplessness of the defeated. There seems to have been no rallying point anywhere. … None of the parts of that mighty host could keep together, and the very chaos among the multitudes around seems to have perplexed the orderly army of the Scots. The foot-soldiers of the English army seem simply to have dispersed at all points, and the little said of them is painfully suggestive of the poor wanderers having to face the two alternatives—starvation in the wilds, or death at the hands of the peasantry. The cavalry fled right out towards England. … Stirling Castle was delivered up in terms of the stipulation."

"The defeated army … left dead upon the field about 30,000 men, including 200 knights and 700 esquires."

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1314-1328.
After Bannockburn.
The consequences of the battle in different views.

"A very general impression exists, especially among Englishmen, that the defeat at Bannockburn put an end to the attempted subjugation of Scotland. This is a mistake. … No doubt the defeat was of so decisive a character as to render the final result all but certain. But it required many others, though of a minor kind, to bring about the conviction described by Mr. Froude [that the Scotch would never stoop to the supremacy inflicted upon Wales]; and it was yet fourteen long years till the treaty of Northampton."

   "No defeat, however crushing, ever proved half so injurious to
   any country as the victory of Bannockburn did to Scotland.
   This is the testimony borne by men whose patriotism cannot be
   called in question. … It drove from Scotland the very elements
   of its growing civilization and its material wealth. The
   artisans of North Britain were at that time mostly English.
   These retired or were driven from Scotland, and with them the
   commercial importance of the Scottish towns was lost. The
   estates held by Englishmen in Scotland were confiscated, and
   the wealth which through the hands of these proprietors had
   found its way from the southern parts of the kingdom and
   fertilized the more barren soil of the north, at once ceased.
   The higher and more cultured clergy were English; these
   retired when the severance of Scotland from England was
   effected, and with them Scottish scholarship was almost
   extinguished, and the budding literature of the north
   disappeared. How calamitous was the period which followed upon
   Bannockburn may be partially estimated by two significant
   facts. Of the six princes who had nominal rule in Scotland
   from the death of Robert III. to James VI., not one died a
   natural death. Of the ten kings whose names are entered on the
   roll of Scottish history from the death of Robert Bruce, seven
   came to the throne whilst minors, and James I. was detained in
   England for nineteen years. The country during these long
   minorities, and the time of the captivity of James, was
   exposed to the strife commonly attendant on minorities.…
{2847}
   The war commenced by Bruce lingered for almost three
   centuries, either in the shape of formal warfare proclaimed by
   heralds and by the ceremonials usually observed at the
   beginning of national strife, or in the informal but equally
   destructive hostilities which neighbours indulge in, and which
   partake of the bitterness of civil war. … For three centuries
   the lands south of the Tweed, and almost as far as the Tyne at
   its mouth, were exposed to the ceaseless ravages of
   moss-troopers. … For a while men were killed, and women
   outraged and murdered, and children slain without pity, and
   houses plundered and then burnt, and cattle swept off the
   grazing lands between Tweed and Tyne, until none cared, unless
   they were outlaws, to occupy any part of the country within a
   night's ride of the borders of Scotland. The sufferers in
   their turn soon learned to recognize no law save that of
   might, and avenged their wrongs by inflicting like wrongs upon
   others; and thus there grew up along the frontiers of either
   country a savage population, whose occupation was murder and
   plunder, and whose sole wealth was what they had obtained by
   violence. … The war, indeed, which has been called a war of
   independence, and fills so large a part of the annals of
   England and Scotland during the Middle Ages, was successful so
   far as its main object was concerned, the preservation of
   power in the hands of 'barbarous chieftains who neither feared
   the king nor pitied the people'; the war was a miserable
   failure if we regard the well-being of the people themselves
   and the progress of the nation."

On the other side: "It [the battle of Bannockburn] put an end for ever to all hopes upon the part of England of accomplishing the conquest of her sister country. … Nor have the consequences of this victory been partial or confined. Their duration throughout succeeding centuries of Scottish history and Scottish liberty, down to the hour in which this is written, cannot be questioned; and without launching out into any inappropriate field of historical speculation, we have only to think of the most obvious consequences which must have resulted from Scotland becoming a conquered province of England; and if we wish for proof, to fix our eyes on the present condition of Ireland, in order to feel the reality of all that we owe to the victory at Bannockburn, and to the memory of such men as Bruce, Randolph, and Douglas."

"It is impossible, even now, after the lapse of more than 570 years, to read any account of that battle—or still more to visit the field—without emotion. For we must remember all the political and social questions which depended on it. For good or for evil, tremendous issues follow on the gain or on the loss of national independence. … Where the seeds of a strong national civilisation, of a strong national character, and of intellectual wealth have been deeply sown in any human soil, the preservation of it from conquest, and from invasion, and from foreign rule, is the essential condition of its yielding its due contribution to the progress of the world. Who, then, can compute or reckon up the debt which Scotland owes to the few and gallant men who, inspired by a splendid courage and a noble faith, stood by The Bruce in the War of Independence, and on June 24, 1314, saw the armies of the invader flying down the Carse of Stirling?"

"As many causes contributed to bring government earlier to perfection in Eng]and than in Scotland; as the rigour of the feudal institutions abated sooner, and its defects were supplied with greater facility in the one kingdom than in the other; England led the way in all these changes, and burgesses and knights of the shire appeared in the parliaments of that nation, before they were heard of in ours. Burgesses were first admitted into the Scottish parliaments by Robert Bruce [A. D. 1326]; and in the preamble to the laws of Robert III. they are ranked among the constituent members of that assembly. The lesser barons were indebted to James I. [A. D. 1427] for a statute exempting them from personal attendance, and permitting them to elect representatives: the exemption was eagerly laid hold on, but the privilege was so little valued that, except one or two instances, it lay neglected during one hundred and sixty years; and James VI. first obliged them to send representatives regularly to parliament. A Scottish parliament, then, consisted anciently of great barons, of ecclesiastics, and a few representatives of boroughs. Nor were these divided, as in Eng]and, into two houses, but composed one assembly, in which the lord chancellor presided. … The great barons, or lords of parliament, were extremely few; even so late as the beginning of the reign of James VI. they amounted only to 53. The ecclesiastics equalled them in number, and, being devoted implicitly to the crown, … rendered all hopes of victory in any struggle desperate. … As far back as our records enable us to trace the constitution of our parliaments, we find a committee distinguished by the name of lords of articles. It was their business to prepare and to digest all matters which were to be laid before the parliament. There was rarely any business introduced into parliament but what had passed through the channel of this committee. … This committee owed the extraordinary powers vested in it to the military genius of the ancient nobles, too impatient to submit to the drudgery of civil business. … The lords of articles, then, not only directed all the proceedings of parliament, but possessed a negative before debate. That committee was chosen and constituted in such a manner as put this valuable privilege entirely in the king's hands. It is extremely probable that our kings once had the sole right of nominating the lords of articles. They came afterwards to be elected by the parliament, and consisted of an equal number out of each estate."

   In 1327 King Edward III. of England collected a splendid army
   of 60,000 men for his first campaign against the Scots. After
   several weeks of tiresome marching and countermarching, in
   vain attempts to bring the agile Scots to an engagement, or to
   stop the bold ravages of Douglas and Randolph, who led them,
   the young king abandoned his undertaking in disgust.
{2848}
   He next "convoked a parliament at York, in which there
   appeared a tendency on the part of England to concede the main
   points on which proposals for peace had hitherto failed, by
   acknowledging the independence of Scotland and the legitimate
   sovereignty of Bruce." A truce was presently agreed upon,
   "which it was now determined should be the introduction to a
   lasting peace. As a necessary preliminary, the English
   statesmen resolved formally to execute a resignation of all
   claims of dominion and superiority which had been assumed over
   the kingdom of Scotland, and agreed that all muniments or
   public instruments asserting or tending to support such a
   claim should be delivered up. This agreement was subscribed by
   the king on the 4th of March, 1328. Peace was afterwards
   concluded at Edinburgh the 17th of March, 1328, and ratified
   at a parliament held at Northampton, the 4th of May, 1328. It
   was confirmed by a match agreed upon between the princess
   Joanna, sister to Edward III., and David, son of Robert I.,
   though both were as yet infants. Articles of strict amity were
   settled betwixt the nations, without prejudice to the effect
   of the alliance between Scotland and France. … It was
   stipulated that all the charters and documents carried from
   Scotland by Edward I. should be restored, and the king of
   England was pledged to give his aid in the court of Rome
   towards the recall of the excommunication awarded against king
   Robert. Lastly, Scotland was to pay a sum of £20,000 in
   consideration of these favourable terms. The borders were to
   be maintained in strict order on both sides, and the fatal
   coronation-stone was to be restored to Scotland. There was
   another separate obligation on the Scottish side, which led to
   most serious consequences in the subsequent reign. The seventh
   article of the Peace of Northampton provided that certain
   English barons … should be restored to the lands and heritages
   in Scotland, whereof they had been deprived during the war, by
   the king of Scots seizing them into his own hand. The
   execution of this article was deferred by the Scottish king,
   who was not, it may be conceived, very willing again to
   introduce English nobles as landholders into Scotland. The
   English mob, on their part, resisted the removal of the fatal
   stone from Westminster, where it had been deposited. … The
   deed called Ragman's Roll, being the list of the barons and
   men of note who subscribed the submission to Edward I. in
   1296, was, however, delivered up to the Scots."

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1332-1333.
   The Disinherited Barons.
   Balliol's invasion.
   Siege of Berwick and battle of Halidon Hill.

   Until his death, in 1329, King Robert Bruce evaded the
   enforcement of that provision of the Treaty of Northampton
   which pledged him to restore the forfeited estates of English
   nobles within the Scottish border. His death left the crown to
   a child of seven years, his son David, under the regency of
   Randolph, Earl of Murray, and the regent still procrastinated
   the restoration of the estates in question. At length, in
   1332, the "disinherited barons," as they were called,
   determined to prosecute their claim by force of arms, and they
   made common cause with Edward Balliol, son of the ex-king of
   Scotland, who had been exiled in France. The English king,
   Edward III. would not openly give countenance to their
   undertaking, nor permit them to invade Scotland across the
   English frontier; but he did nothing to prevent their
   recruiting in the northern counties an army of 3,300 men,
   which took ship at Ravenspur, in Yorkshire, and landed on the
   coast of Fifeshire, under Balliol's command. Marching
   westward, the invaders "finally took up a strong position in
   the heart of the country, with the river Earn in their front.
   Just before this crisis, the wise and capable Regent,
   Randolph, Earl of Murray, had died, and the great Sir James
   Douglas, having gone with King Robert's heart to offer it at
   the shrine of the Holy Sepulchre, had perished on his way, in
   conflict with the Moors of Spain. The regency had devolved
   upon the Earl of Mar, a man wanting both in energy and in
   military capacity; but so strong was the national antipathy to
   Balliol, as representing the idea of English supremacy, that
   Mar found no difficulty in bringing an army of 40,000 men into
   the field against him. He drew up over against the enemy on
   the northern bank of the Earn, on Dupplin Moor, while the Earl
   of March, with forces scarcely inferior to the Regent's,
   threatened the flank of the little army of the invaders.
   Balliol, however, was not wanting in valour or generalship,
   and there were, as usual, traitors in the Scotch army, one of
   whom led the English, by a ford which he knew, safe across the
   river in the darkness of the night. They threw themselves upon
   the scattered, over-secure, and ill-sentinelled camp of the
   enemy with such a sudden and furious onslaught, that the huge
   Scottish army broke up into a panic-stricken and disorganised
   crowd and were slaughtered like sheep, the number of the slain
   four times exceeding that of the whole of Balliol's army,
   which escaped with the loss of thirty men. The invaders now
   took possession of Perth, which the Earl of March forthwith
   surrounded, by land and water, and thought to starve into
   submission; but Balliol's ships broke through the blockade on
   the Tay, and the besiegers, despairing of success, marched off
   and disbanded without striking another blow. Scotland having
   been thus subdued by a handful of men, the nobles one by one
   came to make their submission. Young King David and his
   affianced bride were sent over to France for security, and
   Edward Balliol was crowned King at Scone on September 24,
   1332, two months after his disembarkation in Scotland. As
   Balliol was thus actual (de facto) King of Scotland, Edward
   could now form an alliance with him without a breach of the
   treaty; and there seemed to be many arguments in favour of
   espousing his cause. The young Bruce and his dynasty
   represented the troublesome spirit of Scottish independence,
   and were closely allied with France, whose king, as will be
   seen, lost no opportunity of stimulating and supporting the
   party of resistance to England. Balliol, on the other hand,
   admitted in a secret despatch to Edward that the success of
   the expedition was owing to that King's friendly
   non-intervention, and the aid of his subjects; offered to hold
   Scotland 'as his man,' doing him homage for it as an English
   fief; and, treating the princess Joan's hastily formed union
   with David as a mere engagement, proposed to marry her himself
   instead. The King, as always, even on less important issues
   than the present, consulted his Parliament. …
{2849}
   Balliol in the meanwhile, having dismissed the greater part of
   his English auxiliaries, was lying unsuspicious of danger at
   Annan, when his camp was attacked in the middle of the night
   by a strong body of cavalry under Murray, son of the wise
   Regent, and Douglas, brother of the great Sir James. The
   entrenchments were stormed in the darkness; noble, vassal and
   retainer were slaughtered before they were able to organise
   any resistance, and Balliol himself barely escaped with his
   life across the English border." In the following year,
   however, Edward restored his helpless vassal, invading
   Scotland in person, besieging Berwick, and routing and
   destroying, at Halidon Hill, a Scotch army which came to its
   relief.

"Throughout the whole country of Scotland, only four castles and a small tower acknowledged the sovereignty of David Bruce, after the battle of Halidon; and it is wonderful to see how, by their efforts, the patriots soon afterwards changed for the better that unfavourable and seemingly desperate state of things. In the several skirmishes and battles which were fought all over the kingdom, the Scots, knowing the country, and having the good-will of the inhabitants, were generally successful, as also in surprising castles and forts, cutting off convoys of provisions which were going to the English, and destroying scattered parties of the enemy; so that, by a long and incessant course of fighting, the patriots gradually regained what they lost in great battles. … You may well imagine that, during those long and terrible wars which were waged, when castles were defended and taken, prisoners made, many battles fought, and numbers of men wounded and slain, the state of the country of Scotland was most miserable. There was no finding refuge or protection in the law. … All laws of humanity and charity were transgressed without scruple. People were found starved to death in the woods with their families, while the country was so depopulated and void of cultivation that the wild deer came out of the remote forests, and approached near to cities and the dwellings of men. … Notwithstanding the valiant defence maintained by the Scots, their country was reduced to a most disastrous state, by the continued wars of Edward III., who was a wise and warlike King as ever lived. Could he have turned against Scotland the whole power of his kingdom, he might probably have effected the complete conquest, which had been so long attempted in vain. But while the wars in Scotland were at the hottest, Edward became also engaged in hostilities with France, having laid claim to the crown of that kingdom. … The Scots sent an embassy to obtain money and assistance from the French; and they received supplies of both, which enabled them to recover their castles and towns from the English. Edinburgh Castle was taken from the invaders by a stratagem. … Perth, and other important places, were also retaken by the Scots, and Edward Baliol retired out of the country, in despair of, making good his pretensions to the crown. The nobles of Scotland, finding the affairs of the kingdom more prosperous, now came to the resolution of bringing back from France, where he had resided for safety, their young King, David II., and his consort, Queen Joanna. They arrived in 1341. David II. was still a youth, neither did he possess at any period of life the wisdom and talents of his father, the great King Robert. The nobles of Scotland had become each a petty prince on his own estates; they made war on each other as they had done upon the English, and the poor King possessed, no power of restraining them. Edward III. being absent in France, and in the act of besieging Calais, David was induced, by the pressing and urgent counsels of the French King, to renew the war, and profit by the King's absence from England. The young King of Scotland raised, accordingly, a large army, and, entering England on the west frontier, he marched eastward towards Durham, harassing and wasting the country with great severity; the Scots boasting that, now the King and his nobles were absent, there were none in England to oppose them, save priests and base mechanics. But they were greatly deceived. The lords of the northern counties of England, together with the Archbishop of York, assembled a gallant army. They defeated the vanguard of the Scots and came upon the main body by surprise. … The Scottish army fell fast into disorder. The King himself fought bravely in the midst of his nobles and was twice wounded with arrows. At length he was captured. …The left wing of the Scottish army continued fighting long after the rest were routed, and at length made a safe retreat. It was commanded by the Steward of Scotland and the Earl of March. Very many of the Scottish nobility were slain; very many made prisoners. The King himself was led in triumph through the streets of London, and committed to the Tower a close prisoner. This battle was fought at Neville's Cross, near Durham, on 17th October, 1346. Thus was another great victory gained by the English over the Scots. It was followed by farther advantages, which gave the victors for a time possession of the country from the Scottish Border as far as the verge of Lothian. But the Scots, as usual, were no sooner compelled to momentary submission, than they began to consider the means of shaking off the yoke. Edward III. was not more fortunate in making war on Scotland in his own name, than when he used the pretext of supporting Baliol. He marched into East-Lothian in spring, 1355, and committed such ravages that the period was long marked by the name of the Burned Candlemas, because so many towns and villages were burned. But the Scots had removed every species of provisions which could be of use to the invaders, and avoided a general battle, while they engaged in a number of skirmishes. In this manner Edward was compelled to retreat out of Scotland, after sustaining much loss. After the failure of this effort, Edward seems to have despaired of the conquest of Scotland, and entered into terms for a truce, and for setting the King at liberty. Thus David II. at length obtained his freedom from the English, after he had been detained in prison eleven years. The latter years of this King's life have nothing very remarkable. He died in 1370."

Sir W. Scott, Tales of a Grandfather (Scotland); abridged by E. Ginn, chapters 14-15.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1370. The accession of Robert II. the first of the Stewart or Stuart Dynasty.

On the death of David II. of Scotland (son of Robert Bruce) A. D. 1370, he was succeeded on the throne by his nephew, "Robert the High Steward of Scotland," whose mother was Marjory, daughter of Robert Bruce. The succession had been so fixed by act of the Scottish Parliament during "good King Robert's" life. The new King Robert began the Stewart line, as a royal dynasty. "The name of his family was Allan, or Fitz Allan, but it had become habitual to call them by the name of the feudal office held by them in Scotland, and hence Robert II. was the first of the Steward, or, as it came to be written, the Stewart dynasty. They obtained their feudal influence through the office enjoyed by their ancestors at the Court of Scotland—the office of Steward."

   Robert II.,
   Robert III.,
   James I.,
   James II.,
   James III.,
   James IV.,
   James V.,
   Mary,
   James VI.

The grandmother of Mary, the great grandmother of James VI., was Margaret Tudor, of the English royal family—sister of Henry VIII. The death of Queen Elizabeth in 1603 left the English throne with no nearer heir than the Scottish King James. He, therefore, united the two crowns and became James I. of England, as well as James VI. of Scotland. His successors of the dynasty in England were Charles I., before the Rebellion and Commonwealth, then Charles II., James II., Mary (of the joint reign of William and Mary), and Anne. The Hanoverian line, which succeeded, was derived from the Stuart, through a daughter of James I.—Elizabeth of Bohemia.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1400-1436.
Homildon Hill and Shrewsbury.
The captivity of James I.

From 1389 to 1399 there was a truce between England and Scotland, and the Scotch borderers watched impatiently for the termination of it, that they might be let loose on the northern English counties, "like hounds let off the leash. It was asserted on the part of England, indeed, that they did not wait for the conclusion. Ten years of peaceful husbandry had prepared a harvest for them, and they swept it off in the old way—the English borderers retaliating by an invasion of the Lowlands. The political aspect again became menacing for Scotland. The conditions which rendered peace almost a necessity for England had ceased with a revolution. It was no longer Richard II., but Henry IV., who reigned; and he began his reign by a great invasion of Scotland." He marched with a large army (A. D. 1400) as far as Leith and threatened Edinburgh Castle, which was stoutly defended by the Scottish king's son; but the expedition was fruitless of results. Henry, however, gained the adhesion of the Earl of March, one of the most powerful of the Scottish nobles, who had received an unpardonable affront from the Duke of Albany, then regent of Scotland, and who joined the English against his country in consequence. In the autumn of 1402 the Scotch retaliated Henry's invasion by a great plundering expedition under Douglas, which penetrated as far as Durham. The rievers were returning, laden with plunder, when they were intercepted by Hotspur and the traitor March, at Homildon Hill, near Wooler, and fearfully beaten, a large number of Scotch knights and lords being killed or taken prisoner. Douglas and others among the prisoners of this battle were subsequently released by Hotspur, in defiance of the orders of King Henry, and they joined him with a considerable force when he raised his standard of revolt. Sharing the defeat of the rebellious Percys, Douglas was again taken prisoner at Shrewsbury, A. D. 1403. Two years later the English king gained a more important captive, in the person of the young heir to the Scottish throne, subsequently King James I., who was taken at sea while on a voyage to France. The young prince (who became titular king of Scotland in 1406, on his father's death) was detained at the English court nineteen years, treated with friendly courtesy by Henry IV. and Henry V. and educated with care. He married Jane Beaufort, niece of Henry IV., and was set free to return to his kingdom in 1424, prepared by his English training to introduce in Scotland a better system of government and more respectful ideas of law. The reforms which he undertook gave rise to fear and hatred among the lawless lords of the north, and they rid themselves of a king who troubled them with too many restraints, by assassinating him, on the 20th of February, 1436.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1411.
Battle of Harlaw.
Defeat of the Lord of the Isles and the Highland clans.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1437-1460.
   Reign of James II.
   Feuds in the kingdom.
   The Douglases.

   James II. was crowned (1437) at six years of age. "Sir
   Alexander Livingstone became guardian of his person; Sir
   William Crichton, Chancellor of his kingdom; and Archibald,
   fifth Earl of Douglas, … nephew of the late King, became
   Lieutenant-General. The history of the regency is the history
   of the perpetual strife of Livingstone and Crichton with each
   other and with the Earl of Douglas, who had become 'very
   potent in kine and friendis.' His 'kine and friend is' now
   spread over vast territories in southern Scotland, including
   Galloway and Annandale, and in France he was Lord of
   Longueville and possessor of the magnificent duchy of
   Touraine. The position the Douglases occupied in being nearly
   related to the house of Baliol (now extinct) and to the house
   of Comyn placed them perilously near the throne; but there was
   a greater peril still, and this lay in the very dearness of
   the name of Douglas to Scotland. … To the Queen-mother had
   been committed by Parliament the care of her son, but as
   Crichton, the Chancellor, seemed disposed to take this charge
   upon himself, she determined to outwit him and to fulfil her
   duties. Accordingly, saying she was bound on a pilgrimage, she
   contrived to pack the boy up in her luggage, and carried him
   off to Stirling Castle.
{2851}
   He was soon, however, brought back to Edinburgh by those in
   power, and then they executed a wicked plot for the
   destruction of William, who, in 1439, had, at the age of
   sixteen, succeeded his father, Archibald, as Earl of Douglas.
   The Earl and his brother … were executed, and for a time it
   would appear that the mightiness of the Douglases received a
   shock. … The Queen-mother had been early thrust out of the
   regency by Livingstone and Crichton. Distrusted because she
   was by birth one 'of our auld enemies of England'; separated
   from her son; still comparatively young, and needing a strong
   protector, she gave her hand to Sir James Stewart, the Black
   Knight of Lorn. … After her second marriage she sinks out of
   notice, but enough is told to make it apparent that neglect
   and suffering accompanied the last years of the winning Jane
   Beaufort, who had stolen the heart of the King of Scots at
   Windsor Castle. … The long minority of James, and the first
   years of his brief reign, were too much occupied in strife
   with the Douglases to leave time for good government. … When
   there was peace, the King and his Parliament enacted many good
   laws. … Although the Wars of the Roses left the English little
   time to send armies to Scotland, and although there were no
   great hostilities with England, yet during this reign a great
   Scottish army threatened England, and a great English army
   threatened Scotland. James was on the side of the House of
   Lancaster; and 'the only key to the complicated understanding
   of the transactions of Scotland during the Wars of the two
   Roses is to recollect that the hostilities of James were
   directed, not against England, but against the successes of
   the House of York.' … Since the Battle of Durham, the frontier
   fortress of Roxburgh had been in English hands; and when, in
   1460, it was commanded by the great partisan of York, the Earl
   of Warwick, James laid siege to it in person. Artillery had
   been in use for some time, and years before we hear of the
   'cracks of war.' Still many of the guns were novelties, and,
   curious to study the strange new machinery of death, 'more
   curious than became the majesty of ane King,' James ventured
   too near 'ane misframed gun.' It burst, and one of its oaken
   wedges striking him, he fell to the ground, and 'died hastlie
   thairafter,' being in the thirtieth year of his age. … King
   James III., who was eight years old, was crowned at the
   Monastery of Kelso in 1460."

James III., who was an infant at the time of his father's death, developed a character, as he came to manhood, which the rude nobles of his court and kingdom could not understand. "He had a dislike to the active sports of hunting and the games of chivalry, mounted on horseback rarely, and rode ill. … He was attached to what are now called the fine arts of architecture and music; and in studying these used the instructions of Rogers, an English musician, Cochrane, a mason or architect, and Torphichen, a dancing-master. Another of his domestic minions was Hommil, a tailor, not the least important in the conclave, if we may judge from the variety and extent of the royal wardrobe, of which a voluminous catalogue is preserved. Spending his time with such persons, who, whatever their merit might be in their own several professions, could not be fitting company for a prince, James necessarily lost the taste for society of a different description, whose rank imposed on him a certain degree of restraint. … The nation, therefore, with disgust and displeasure, saw the king disuse the society of the Scottish nobles, and abstain from their counsel, to lavish favours upon and be guided by the advice of a few whom the age termed base mechanics. In this situation, the public eye was fixed upon James's younger brothers, Alexander duke of Albany, and John earl of Mar." The jealousy and suspicion of the king were presently excited by the popularity of his brothers and he caused them to be arrested (1478). Mar, accused of having dealings with witches, was secretly executed in prison and his earldom was sold to the king's favourite, Cochrane, who had amassed wealth by a thrifty use of his influence and opportunities. Albany escaped to France and thence to England, where he put himself forward as a claimant of the Scottish throne, securing the support of Edward IV. by offering to surrender the hard-won independence of the kingdom. An English army, under Richard of Gloucester (afterwards King Richard III.) was sent into Scotland to enforce his claim. The Scotch king assembled his forces and advanced from Edinburgh as far as Lauder (1482), to meet the invasion. At Lauder, the nobles, having becoming deeply exasperated by the arrogant state which the ex-architect assumed as Earl of Mar, held a meeting which resulted in the sudden seizure and hanging of all the king's favourites on Lauder Bridge. "All the favourites of the weak prince perished except a youth called Ramsay of Balmain, who clung close to the king's person," and was spared. Peace with Albany and his English allies was now arranged, on terms which made the duke lieutenant-general of the kingdom; but it lasted no more than a year. Albany became obnoxious and fled to England again. The doings of the king were still hateful to his nobles and people and a continual provocation of smouldering wrath. In 1488, the discontent broke out in actual rebellion, and James was easily defeated in a battle fought at Sauchie Burn, between Bannockburn and Stirling. Flying from the battlefield, he fell from his horse and was taken, badly injured, into the house of a miller near by, where he disclosed his name. "The consequence was, that some of the rebels who followed the chase entered the hut and stabbed him to the heart. The persons of the murderers were never known, nor was the king's body ever found."

ALSO IN: C. M. Yonge, Cameos from English History, series 3, chapters 18 and 22.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1502. The marriage which brought the crown of England to the Stuarts.

"On the 8th of August 1502 the ceremony of marriage between King James [IV. of Scotland] and Margaret, Princess of England [daughter of Henry VII. and sister of Henry VIII.], was celebrated in the Chapel of Holyrood. A union of crowns and governments might be viewed as a possible result of such a marriage; but there had been others between Scotland and England whence none followed. It was long ere such a harvest of peace seemed likely to arise from this union—it seemed, indeed, to be so buried under events of a contrary tenor that it was almost forgotten; yet, a hundred and one years later, it sent the great-grandson of James IV. to be King of England."

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1502-1504.
The Highlands brought to order.
Suppression of the independent Lordship of the Isles.

"The marriage of James in 1502 with the Princess Margaret, daughter of Henry VII., helped to prolong the period of tranquillity. But, in fact, his energetic administration of justice had, almost from the beginning of his reign, restored confidence, and re-awakened in his subjects an industrial activity, that had slumbered since the death of Alexander III. Everywhere he set his barons the novel task of keeping their territories in order. The Huntlys in the North, the Argylls in the West, were made virtual viceroys of the Highlands; the Douglasses were charged with maintaining the peace of the Borders; and at length the formidable Lordship of the Isles, which had been the source of all the Celtic troubles of Scotland since the days of Somerled, was broken up in 1504, after a series of fierce revolts, and the claim to an independent sovereignty abandoned forever. Henceforth the chieftains of the Hebrides held their lands of the Crown, and were made responsible for the conduct of their clans."

In 1513, while Henry VIII. of England, who had joined the Holy League against France, was engaged in the latter country, besieging Terouenne, he received an embassy from James IV., king of Scotland, his brother-in-law. "French intrigues, and the long-standing alliance between the nations, had induced James to entertain the idea of a breach with England. Causes of complaint were not wanting. There was a legacy due from Henry VII.; Sir Robert Ker, the Scotch Warden of the Marches, had been killed by a Heron of Ford, and the murderer found refuge in England; Andrew Barton, who, licensed with letters of marque against the Portuguese in revenge for the death of his father, had extended his reprisals to general piracy, had been captured and slain by Lord Thomas and Sir Edward Howard, and the Scotch King demanded justice for the death of his captain. To these questions, which had been long unsettled, an answer was now imperiously demanded. Henry replied with scorn, and the Scotch King declared war. The safety of England had been intrusted to the Earl of Surrey, who, when James crossed the border, was lying at Pontefract. Without delay, he pushed forward northward, and, challenging James to meet him on the Friday next following, came up with him when strongly posted on the hill of Flodden, with one flank covered by the river Till, the other by an impassable morass, and his front rendered impregnable by the massing of his artillery. Ashamed, after his challenge, to avoid the combat, Surrey moved suddenly northward, as though bound for Scotland, but soon marching round to the left, he crossed the Till near its junction with the Tweed, and thus turned James's position. The Scots were thus compelled to fight [September 9, 1513]. On the English right, the sons of Surrey with difficulty held their own. In the centre, where Surrey himself was assaulted by the Scotch King and his choicest troops, the battle inclined against the English; but upon the English left the Highlanders were swept away by the archers, and Stanley, who had the command in that wing, fell on the rear of the successful Scotch centre, and determined the fortune of the day. The slaughter of the Scotch was enormous, and among the number of the slain was James himself, with all his chief nobility."

"There lay slain on the fatal field of Flodden twelve Scottish earls, thirteen lords, and five eldest sons of peers—fifty chiefs, knights, and men of eminence, and about 10,000 common men. Scotland had sustained defeats in which the loss had been numerically greater, but never one in which the number of the nobles slain bore such a proportion to those of the inferior rank. The cause was partly the unusual obstinacy of the long defence, partly that when the common people began … to desert their standards, the nobility and gentry were deterred by shame and a sense of honour from following their example."

   James V. of Scotland, who was the nephew of Henry VIII. of
   England—the son of Henry's sister, Margaret Tudor—gave offense
   to his proud and powerful uncle (A. D. 1541) by excusing
   himself from a meeting which had been arranged to take place
   between the two kings, and for which Henry had taken the
   trouble to travel to York. It was the eager wish of the
   English king to persuade his royal nephew to take possession
   of the property of the monasteries of Scotland, in imitation
   of his own example. The appointed meeting was for the further
   urging of these proposals, more especially, and it had been
   frustrated through the influence of the Catholic clergy with
   young King James,—very much to the disgust of many among the
   Scottish nobles, as well as to the wrath of King Henry. Whence
   came results that were unexpectedly sad. Henry determined to
   avenge himself for the slight that had been put upon him, and,
   having made his preparations for war, he issued a manifesto,
   alleging various injuries which gave color to his declaration
   of hostilities. "He even revived the old claim to the
   vassalage of Scotland, and he summoned James to do homage to
   him as his liege lord and superior. He employed the Duke of
   Norfolk, whom he called the scourge of the Scots, to command
   in the war." After some preliminary raiding expeditions, the
   Duke of Norfolk advanced to the border with 20,000 men, or
   more. "James had assembled his whole military force at Fala
   and Sautrey, and was ready to advance as soon as he should be
   informed of Norfolk's invading his kingdom. The English passed
   the Tweed at Berwick, and marched along the banks of the river
   as far as Kelso; but hearing that James had collected near
   30,000 men, they repassed the river at that village, and
   retreated into their own country. The King of Scots, inflamed
   with a desire of military glory, and of revenge on his
   invaders, gave the signal for pursuing them, and carrying the
   war into England.
{2853}
   He was surprised to find that his nobility, who were in
   general disaffected on account of the preference which he had
   given to the clergy, opposed this resolution, and refused to
   attend him in his projected enterprise. Enraged at this
   mutiny, he reproached them with cowardice, and threatened
   vengeance; but still resolved, with the forces which adhered
   to him, to make an impression on the enemy. He sent 10,000 men
   to the western borders, who entered England at Solway-frith
   [or Solway Moss]; and he himself followed them at a small
   distance, ready to join them upon occasion." At the same time,
   he took the command of his little army away from Lord Maxwell,
   and conferred it on one of his favorites, Oliver Sinclair.
   "The army was extremely disgusted with this alteration, and
   was ready to disband; when a small body of English appeared,
   not exceeding 500 men, under the command of Dacres and
   Musgrave. A panic seized the Scots, who immediately took to
   flight, and were pursued by the enemy. Few were killed in this
   rout, for it was no action; but a great many were taken
   prisoners, and some of the principal nobility." The effect of
   this shameful disaster upon the mind of James was so
   overwhelming that he took to his bed and died in a few days.
   While he lay upon his deathbed, his queen gave birth to a
   daughter, who inherited his crown, and who played in
   subsequent history the unfortunate role of Mary, Queen of
   Scots."

Immediately on the death of James V., Henry VIII. of England began a most resolute undertaking to secure the hand of the infant queen Mary for his own infant son. Scotland, however, was averse to the union, and resisted all the influences which the English king could bring to bear. Enraged by his failure, Henry despatched the Earl of Hertford, in May 1544, with a military and naval force, commissioned to do the utmost destructive work in its power, without attempting permanent conquest, for which it was not adequate. The expedition landed at Newhaven and seized the town of Leith, before Cardinal Beaton or Beatoun, then governing Scotland in the name of the Regent, the Earl of Arran, had learned of its approach. "The Cardinal immediately deserted the capital and fled in the greatest dismay to Stirling. The Earl of Hertford demanded the unconditional surrender of the infant Queen, and being informed that the Scottish capital and nation would suffer every disaster before they would submit to his ignominious terms, he marched immediately with his whole forces upon Edinburgh. … The English army entered by the Water-gate without opposition, and assaulted the Nether Bow Port, and beat it open on the second day, with a terrible slaughter of the citizens. They immediately attempted to lay siege to the Castle. … Baffled in their attempts on the fortress, they immediately proceeded to wreak their vengeance on the city. They set it on fire in numerous quarters, and continued the work of devastation and plunder till compelled to abandon it by the smoke and flames, as well as the continual firing from the Castle. They renewed the work of destruction on the following day; and for three successive days they returned with unabated fury to the smoking ruins, till they had completely effected their purpose. The Earl of Hertford then proceeded to lay waste the surrounding country with fire and sword. … This disastrous event forms an important era in the history of Edinburgh; if we except a portion of the Castle, the churches, and the north-west wing of Holyrood Palace, no building anterior to this date now exists in Edinburgh. … The death of Henry VIII. in 1547 tended to accelerate the renewal of his project for enforcing the union of the neighbouring kingdoms, by the marriage of his son with the Scottish Queen. Henry, on his deathbed, urged the prosecution of the war with Scotland; and the councillors of the young King Edward VI. lost no time in completing their arrangements for the purpose. … In the beginning of September, the Earl of Hertford, now Duke of Somerset, and Lord Protector of England, during the minority of his nephew Edward VI., again entered Scotland at the head of a numerous army; while a fleet of about 60 sail co-operated with him, by a descent on the Scottish coast. At his advance, he found the Scottish army assembled in great force to oppose him. … After skirmishing for several days with various success in the neighbourhood of Prestonpans, where the English army was encamped,—a scene long afterwards made memorable by the brief triumph of Mary's hapless descendant, Charles Stuart,—the two armies at length came to a decisive engagement on Saturday the 10th of September 1547, long after known by the name of 'Black Saturday.' The field of Pinkie, the scene of this fatal contest, lies about six miles distant from Edinburgh. … The Scots were at first victorious, and succeeded in driving back the enemy, and carrying off the royal standard of England; but being almost destitute of cavalry … they were driven from the field, after a dreadful slaughter, with the loss of many of their nobles and leaders, both slain and taken prisoners." Notwithstanding their severe defeat, the Scots were still stubbornly resolved that their young queen should not be won by such savage wooing; and the English returned home, after burning Leith and desolating the coast country once more. Next year the royal maid of Scotland, then six years old, was betrothed to the dauphin of France and sent to the French court to be reared. So the English scheme of marriage was frustrated in a decisive way. Meantime, the Scots were reinforced by 8,000 French and 1,000 Dutch troops, and expelled the English from most of the places they held in the country.

J. A. Froude, History of England, chapter 22 (volume 4) and chapters 24-25 (volume 5).

Cardinal Beatoun [who had acquired practical control of the government, although the Earl of Arran was nominally Regent] had not used his power with moderation, equal to the prudence by which he attained it. Notwithstanding his great abilities, he had too many of the passions and prejudices of an angry leader of a faction, to govern a divided people with temper. His resentment against one party of the nobility, his insolence towards the rest, his severity to the reformers, and, above all, the barbarous and illegal execution of the famous George Wishart, a man of honourable birth and of primitive sanctity, wore out the patience of a fierce age; and nothing but a bold hand was wanting to gratify the public wish by his destruction. Private revenge, inflamed and sanctified by a false zeal for religion, quickly supplied this want. Norman Lesly, the eldest son of the earl of Rothes, had been treated by the cardinal with injustice and contempt. It was not the temper of the man, or the spirit of the times, quietly to digest an affront. … The cardinal, at that time, resided in the castle of St. Andrew's, which he had fortified at great expense, and, in the opinion of the age, had rendered it impregnable. His retinue was numerous, the town at his devotion, and the neighbouring country full of his dependents. In this situation, sixteen persons undertook to surprise his castle, and to assassinate himself; and their success was equal to the boldness of the attempt. … His death was fatal to the catholic religion, and to the French interest in Scotland. The same zeal for both continued among a great party in the nation, but when deprived of the genius and authority of so skilful a leader, operated with less effect." The sixteen conspirators, having full possession of the castle of St. Andrew's, were soon joined by friends and sympathizers—John Knox being one of the party—until 150 men were within the walls. They stood a siege for five months and only surrendered to a force sent over by the king of France, on being promised their lives. They were sent as prisoners to France, and the castle of St. Andrew's was demolished.

In Scotland, the kings of the house of Stuart "obtained a decisive influence over the appointment to the high dignities in the Church, but this proved advantageous neither to the Church nor, at last, to themselves. … The French abuses came into vogue here also: ecclesiastical benefices fell to the dependents of the court, to the younger sons of leading houses, often to their bastards: they were given or sold 'in commendam,' and then served only for pleasure and gain: the Scotch Church fell into an exceedingly scandalous and corrupt state. It was not so much disputed questions of doctrine as in Germany, nor again the attempt to keep out Papal influence as in England, but mainly aversion to the moral corruption of the spirituality which gave the first impulse to the efforts at reformation in Scotland. We find Lollard societies among the Scots much later than in England: their tendencies spread through wide circles, owing to the anti-clerical spirit of the century, and received fresh support from the doctrinal writings that came over from Germany. But the Scotch clergy was resolved to defend itself with all its might. … It persecuted all with equal severity as tending to injure the stability of holy Church, and awarded the most extreme penalties. To put suspected heretics to death by fire was the order of the day; happy the man who escaped the unrelenting persecution by flight, which was only possible amid great peril. These two causes, an undeniably corrupt condition, and relentless punishment of those who blamed it as it well deserved, gave the Reform movement in Scotland, which was repressed but not stifled, a peculiar character of exasperation and thirst for vengeance. Nor was it without a political bearing, in Scotland as elsewhere. In particular, Henry VIII. proposed to his nephew, King James V., to remodel the Church after his example: and a part of the nobility, which was already favourably disposed towards England, would have gladly seen this done. But James preferred the French pattern to the English: he was kept firm in his Catholic and French sympathies by his wife, Mary of Guise, and by the energetic Archbishop Beaton. Hence he became involved in the war with England in which he fell, and after this it occasionally seemed, especially at the time of the invasions by the Duke of Somerset, as if the English, and in connexion with them the Protestant, sympathies would gain the ascendancy. But national feelings were still stronger than the religious. Exactly because England defended and recommended the religious change it failed to make way in Scotland. Under the regency of the Queen dowager, with some passing fluctuations, the clerical interests on the whole kept the upper hand. … It is remarkable how under these unfavourable circumstances the foundation of the Scotch Church was laid. Most of the Scots who had fled from the country were content to provide for their subsistence in a foreign land and improve their own culture. But there was one among them who did not reconcile himself for one moment to this fate. John Knox was the first who formed a Protestant congregation in the besieged fortress of S. Andrew's; when the French took the place in 1547 he was made prisoner and condemned to serve in the galleys. … After he was released, he took a zealous share in the labours of the English Reformers under Edward VI., but was not altogether content with the result; after the King's death he had to fly to the continent. He went to Geneva, where he became a student once more and tried to fill up the gaps in his studies, but above all he imbibed, or confirmed his knowledge of, the views which prevailed in that Church. … A transient relaxation of ecclesiastical control in Scotland made it possible for him to return thither … towards the end of 1555: without delay he set his hand to form a church-union, according to his ideas of religious independence, which was not to be again destroyed by any state power. … Sometimes in one and sometimes in another of the places of refuge which he found, he administered the Communion to little congregations according to the Reformed rite; this was done with greater solemnity at Easter 1556, in the house of Lord Erskine of Dun, one of those Scottish noblemen who had ever promoted literary studies and the religious movement as far as lay in his power. A number of people of consequence from the Mearns (Mearnshire) were present. But they were not content with partaking the Communion; following the mind of their preacher they pledged themselves to avoid every other religious community, and to uphold with all their power the preaching of the Gospel. In this union we may see the origin of the Scotch Church, properly so called. … {2855} At Erskine's house met together also Lord Lorn, afterwards Earl of Argyle, and the Prior of S. Andrew's, subsequently Earl of Murray; in December 1557 Erskine, Lorn, Murray, Glencairn (also a friend of Knox), and Morton, united in a solemn engagement, to support God's word and defend his congregation against every evil and tyrannical power even unto death. When, in spite of this, another execution took place which excited universal aversion, they proceeded to an express declaration, that they would not suffer any man to be punished for transgressing a clerical law based on human ordinances. What the influence of England had not been able to effect was now produced by antipathy to France. The opinion prevailed that the King of France wished to add Scotland to his territories, and that the Regent gave him aid thereto. When she gathered the feudal army on the borders in 1557 (for the Scots had refused to contribute towards enlisting mercenaries) to invade England according to an understanding with the French, the barons held a consultation on the Tweed, in consequence of which they refused their co-operation for this purpose. … It was this quarrel of the Regent with the great men of the country that gave an opportunity to the lords who were combined for the support of religion to advance with increasing resolution."

L. Von Ranke, History of England principally in the 17th Century, book 3, chapter 2 (volume 1).

      G. Stuart,
      History of the Establishment of the
      Reformation of Religion in Scotland,
      books 1-2.

In 1556 John Knox withdrew from Scotland and returned to Geneva—whether through fear of increasing dangers, or for other reasons, is a question in dispute. The following year he was solicited to come back to the Scottish field of labor, by those nobles who favored the reformation, and he gave up his Genevan congregation for the purpose of obeying their summons. "In the beginning of October he proceeded to Dieppe; but while he waited there for a vessel to convey him to Scotland, he received other letters which dashed all his hopes, by counselling him to remain where he was. The Reformers had suddenly changed their minds. … Sitting down in his lodging at Dieppe, Knox wrote a letter to the lords whose faith had failed, after inviting him to come to their help. … With it he despatched another addressed to the whole nobility of Scotland, and others to particular friends. … The letters of Knox had an immediate and powerful effect in stimulating the decaying zeal of the Reforming nobles. Like a fire stirred up just when ready to die out among its own ashes, it now burned more brightly than ever. Meeting at Edinburgh in the month of December, they drew up a bond which knit them into one body, pledged them to a definite line of conduct and gave consistency and shape to their plans. They had separated from the Roman communion; they now formed themselves into an opposing phalanx. This document is known in our Church history as the first Covenant, and is so important that we give it entire:

'We, perceiving how Satan, in his members, the anti-christs of our time, cruelly do rage, seeking to overthrow and destroy the gospel of Christ and His congregation, ought, according to our bounden duty, to strive in our Master's cause, even unto the death, being certain of the victory in Him. The which our duty being well considered, we do promise before the Majesty of God and His congregation, that we, by His grace, shall, with all diligence, continually apply our whole power, substance, and our very lives, to maintain, set forward, and establish the most blessed Word of God and His congregation; and shall labour, at our possibility, to have faithful ministers, truly and purely to administer Christ's gospel and sacraments to His people. We shall maintain them, nourish them, and defend them, the whole congregation of Christ, and every member thereof, at our whole powers and waging of our lives, against Satan and all wicked power that doth intend tyranny or trouble against the foresaid congregation. Unto the which holy word and congregation we do join us, and so do forsake and renounce the congregation of Satan, with all the superstitious abomination and idolatry thereof; and, moreover, shall declare ourselves manifestly enemies thereto, by this our faithful promise before God, testified to His congregation by our subscription to these presents, at Edinburgh, the 3rd day of December 1557 years. God called to witness—A., Earl of Argyle, Glencairn, Morton, Archibald, Lord of Lorn, John Erskine of Dun,' &c.

From the time that the Reformers had resolved to refrain from being present at mass, they had been in the habit of meeting among themselves for the purpose of worship. … Elders and deacons were chosen to superintend the affairs of these infant communities. Edinburgh has the honour of having given the example, and the names of her first five elders are still preserved. The existence of these small Protestant 'congregations,' scattered over the country, probably led the lords to employ the word so frequently in their bond, and this again led to their being called the Lords of the Congregation. It was a bold document to which they had thus put their names. It was throwing down the gauntlet to all the powers of the existing Church and State."

      ALSO IN:
      John Knox,
      History of the Reformation in Scotland
      (Works, volume 1), book 1.

      D. Calderwood,
      History of the Kirk of Scotland, 1557
      (volume 1).

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1558.
Marriage of Mary Stuart to the Dauphin of France.
Contemplated union of Crowns.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1558-1560.
Rebellion and triumph of the Lords of the Congregation.
The Geneva Confession adopted.

   "In 1558 the burning of an old preacher, Walter Mill, at St.
   Andrew's, aroused the Lords of the Congregation, as the
   signers of the Covenant now called themselves. They presented
   their demands to the regent [the queen-dowager, Mary of
   Guise], and some time was spent in useless discussion. But the
   hands of the Reformers were strengthened by Elizabeth's
   accession in England, and on May 2, 1559, the leading spirit
   of the Scottish Reformation, John Knox, returned to Scotland.
   … Knox's influence was soon felt in the course of affairs. In
   May, 1559, the regent, stirred to action by the Cardinal of
   Lorraine, summoned the reformed clergy to Stirling. They came,
   but surrounded by so many followers, that the regent was
   afraid, and promised that, if they would disperse, she would
   proceed no further. They agreed; but scarcely were they gone
   before Mary caused the preachers to be tried and condemned in
   their absence.
{2856}
   Knox's anger broke out in a fierce sermon against idolatry,
   preached at Perth. The people of the town rose and destroyed
   the images in the churches, and tore down all architectural
   ornaments which contained sculpture. The example of Perth was
   followed elsewhere, and the churches of Scotland were soon
   robbed of their old beauty. From this time we must date the
   decay of the fine ecclesiastical buildings of Scotland, whose
   ruins still bear witness to their former splendour. … The
   Lords of the Congregation were now in open rebellion against
   the regent, and war was on the point of breaking out. It was,
   however, averted for a time by the mediation of a few moderate
   men, amongst whom was Lord James Stewart, an illegitimate son
   of the late king, known in later history as the Earl of
   Murray. Both parties agreed to lay down their arms, and submit
   their disputes to a meeting of the Estates of the Realm, while
   the regent promised not to molest the people of Perth, or
   garrison the town with French soldiers. She kept the letter
   only of her promise; for she hired native troops with French
   money, and proceeded to punish the people of Perth. This
   perfidy gave strength to the Congregation. They again took up
   arms, seized Edinburgh, summoned a parliament, and deposed the
   regent (October, 1559). This was a bold step; but without help
   from England it could not be maintained. As the regent was
   strong in French troops, the Congregation must ally with
   England. Elizabeth wished to help them; but her course was by
   no means clear. To ally with rebels fighting against their
   lawful sovereign was a bad example for one in Elizabeth's
   position to set. … At last, in January, 1560, a treaty was
   made at Berwick, between Elizabeth and the Duke of
   Chatelherault [better known as the Earl of Arran, who had
   resigned the regency of Scotland in favor of Mary of Guise,
   and received from the French king the duchy of Chatelherault],
   the second person in the Scottish realm. Elizabeth undertook
   to aid the Scottish lords in expelling the French, but would
   only aid them so long as they acknowledged their queen. And
   now a strange change had come over Scotland. The Scots were
   fighting side by side with the English against their old
   allies the French. Already their religious feelings had
   overcome their old national animosities; or, rather, religion
   itself had become a powerful element in their national spirit.
   … But meanwhile affairs in France took a direction favourable
   to the Reformers. … The French troops were needed at home, and
   could no longer be spared for Scotland. The withdrawal of the
   French made peace necessary in Scotland, and by the treaty of
   Edinburgh (July, 1560), it was provided that henceforth no
   foreigners should be employed in Scotland without the consent
   of the Estates of the Realm. Elizabeth's policy was rewarded
   by a condition that Mary and Francis II. should acknowledge
   her queen of England, lay aside their own pretensions, and no
   longer wear the British arms. Before the treaty was signed the
   queen-regent died (June 20), and with her the power of France
   and the Guises in Scotland was gone for the present. The
   Congregation was now triumphant, and the work of Reformation
   was quickly carried on. A meeting of the Estates approved of
   the Geneva Confession of Faith, abjured the authority of the
   Pope, and forbade the administration, or presence at the
   administration, of the mass, on pain of death for the third
   offence (August 25, 1560). … The plans of the Guises were no
   longer to be carried on in Scotland and Eng]and by armed
   interference, but by the political craft and cunning of their
   niece, Mary of Scotland [now widowed by the death, December 4,
   1560, of her husband, the young French king, Francis II.], who
   had been trained under their influence."

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1561-1568.
The reign of Mary.
Differing views of her conduct and character.

In August, 1561, Queen Mary returned from her long residence in France, to undertake the government of a country of which she was the acknowledged sovereign, but of which she knew almost nothing. "She was now a widow, so the Scots were freed from the fear they had felt of seeing their country sink into a province of France. The people, who had an almost superstitious reverence for kingship, which was very inconsistent with their contempt for kingly authority, welcomed her with open arms. … They had yet to find out that she had come back to them French in all but birth, gifted with wit, intellect, and beauty, but subtle beyond their power of searching, and quite as zealous for the old form of religion as they were for the new one. The Queen, too, who came thus as a stranger among her own people, had to deal with a state of things unknown in former reigns. Hitherto the Church had taken the side of the Crown against the nobles; now both [the Reformed Church and the Lords of the Congregation] were united against the Crown, whose only hope lay in the quarrels between these ill-matched allies. The chief cause of discord between them was the property of the Church. The Reformed ministers fancied that they had succeeded, not only to the Pope's right of dictation in all matters, public and private, but to the lands of the Church as well. To neither of these claims would the Lords agree. They were as little inclined to submit to the tyranny of presbyters as to the tyranny of the Pope. They withstood the ministers who wished to forbid the Queen and her attendants hearing mass in her private chapel, and they refused to accept as law the First, Book of Discipline, a code of rules drawn up by the ministers for the guidance of the new Church. As to the land, much of it had already passed into the hands of laymen, who, with the lands, generally bore the title of the Church dignitary who had formerly held them. The Privy Council took one-third of what remained to pay the stipends of the ministers, while the rest was supposed to remain in the hands of the Churchmen in possession, and, as they died out, it was to fall in to the Crown. Lord James Stewart, Prior of St. Andrews, whom the Queen created Earl of Murray, was the hope of the Protestants, but in the north the Romanists were still numerous and strong. Their head was the Earl of Huntly, chief of the Gordons, who reigned supreme over most of the north." One of the first proceedings of the Queen was to join the Earl of Murray in hostilities which pursued the Earl of Huntly and his son to their death. {2857} And yet they were the main pillars of the Church which she was determined to restore! "The most interesting question now for all parties was, whom the Queen would marry. Many foreign princes were talked of, and Elizabeth suggested her own favourite, the Earl of Leicester, but Mary settled the matter herself by falling in love with her own cousin, Henry Stewart, Lord Darnley." Murray opposed the marriage with bitterness, and took up arms against it, but failed of support and fled to England. The wretched consequences of Mary's union with the handsome but worthless Darnley are among the tragedies of history which all the world is acquainted with. She tired of him, and inflamed his jealousy, with that of all her court, by making a favorite of her Italian secretary, David Rizzio. Rizzio was brutally murdered, in her presence, March 9, 1566, by a band of conspirators, to whom Darnley had pledged his protection. The Queen dissembled her resentment until she had power to make it effective, flying from Edinburgh to Dunbar, meantime. When, within a month, she returned to the capital, it was with a strong force, brought to her support by James Hepburn, Earl of Bothwell. The murderers of Rizzio were outlawed, and Darnley, while recovering from an attack of smallpox, was killed (February 9, 1567) by the blowing up of a house, outside of Edinburgh, in which the Queen had placed him. "It was commonly believed that Bothwell was guilty of the murder, and it was suspected that he had done it to please the Queen and with her consent. This suspicion was strengthened by her conduct. She made no effort to find out the murderer and to bring him to punishment, and on the day of the funeral she gave Bothwell the feudal superiority over the town of Leith." In May, three months after Darnley's death, she married the Earl of Bothwell,—who had freed himself from an earlier tie by hasty divorce. This shameless conduct caused a rising of the barons, who occupied Edinburgh in force. Bothwell attempted to oppose them with an army; but there was no battle. The Queen surrendered herself, at Carberry, June 15, 1567; Bothwell escaped, first to Orkney, and then to Denmark, where he died about ten years later. "Just a month after her third marriage the Queen was brought back to Edinburgh, to be greeted by the railings of the mob, who now openly accused her as a murderess. … From Edinburgh she was taken to a lonely castle built on a small island in the centre of Loch Leven. A few days later a casket containing eight letters was produced. These letters, it was said, Bothwell had left behind him in his flight, and they seemed to have been written by Mary to him while Darnley was ill in Glasgow. If she really wrote them, they proved very plainly that she had planned the murder with Bothwell. They are called the 'casket letters,' from the box or casket in which they were found. The confederate barons acted as if they were really hers. The Lord Lindsay and Robert Melville were sent to her at Loch Leven, and she there signed the demission of the government to her son, and desired that Murray should be the first regent." The infant king, James VI., was crowned at Stirling; and Murray, recalled from France, became regent. Within a year Mary escaped from her prison, reasserted her right of sovereignty, and was supported by a considerable party. Defeated in a battle fought at Langside, May 13, 1568, she then fled to England, and received from Elizabeth the hospitality of a prison. She was confined in various castles and manor-houses, ending her life, after many removes, at Fotheringay, where she was executed February 8, 1587.

"In spite of all the prurient suggestions of writers who have fastened on the story of Mary's life as on a savoury morsel, there is no reason whatever for thinking that she was a woman of licentious disposition, and there is strong evidence to the contrary. There was never anything to her discredit in France. … The charge of adultery with Rizzio is dismissed as unworthy of belief even by Mr. Froude, the severest of her judges. Bothwell indeed she loved, and, like many another woman who does not deserve to be called licentious, she sacrificed her reputation to the man she loved. But the most conclusive proof that she was no slave to appetite is afforded by her nineteen years' residence in England, which began when she was only twenty-five. During almost the whole of that time she was mixing freely in the society of the other sex, with the fullest opportunity for misconduct had she been so inclined. It is not to be supposed that she was fettered by any scruples of religion or morality. Yet no charge of unchastity is made against her. … That Darnley was murdered by Bothwell is not disputed. That Mary was cognisant of the plot and lured him to the shambles, has been doubted by few investigators at once competent and unbiased. She lent herself to this part not without compunction. Bothwell had the advantage over her that the loved has over the lover; and he used it mercilessly for his headlong ambition, hardly taking the trouble to pretend that he cared for the unhappy woman who was sacrificing everything for him. He in fact cared more for his lawful wife, whom he was preparing to divorce, and to whom he had been married only six months. … What brought sudden and irretrievable ruin on Mary was not the murder of Darnley, but the infatuation which made her the passive instrument of Bothwell's presumptuous ambition."

   "Constitutionally, Mary was not a person likely to come under
   the sway of a violent and absorbing passion. Her whole nature
   was masculine in its moderation, its firmness, its
   magnanimity. She was tolerant, uncapricious, capable of
   carrying out a purpose steadily, yet with tact and policy. She
   was never hysterical, never fanciful. With her, love was not
   an engrossing occupation; on the contrary, to Mary, as to most
   men, it was but the child and plaything of unfrequent leisure.
   Her lovers went mad about her, but she never went mad about
   her lovers. She sent Chatelar to the scaffold. She saw Sir
   John Gordon beheaded. She admitted Rizzio to a close intimacy.
   Rizzio was her intellectual mate, the depository of her state
   secrets, her politic guide and confidant: but the very
   notoriety of her intercourse with him showed how innocent and
   unsexual it was in its nature,—the frank companionship of
   friendly statesmen.
{2858}
   Had she been Rizzio's mistress, nay, even had love in the
   abstract been a more important matter to her than it was, she
   would have been more cautious and discreet; however important
   the public business which they were transacting might have
   been, she would hardly have kept the Italian secretary in her
   boudoir half the night. Her marriage with Darnley was not
   exclusively a love-match: it was a marriage to which her
   judgment, as well as her heart, consented. Her love-letters
   abound in pretty trifles: her business letters are clear,
   strong, rapid, brilliantly direct. By the fantastic irony of
   fate this masculine unsentimental career has been translated
   into an effeminate love-story,—the truth being, as I have had
   to say again and again, that no woman ever lived to whom love
   was less of a necessity. This was the strength of Mary's
   character as a queen—as a woman, its defect. A love-sick girl,
   when her castle in the air was shattered, might have come to
   hate Darnley with a feverish feminine hatred; but the sedate
   and politic intelligence of the Queen could only have been
   incidentally affected by such considerations. She knew that,
   even at the worst, Darnley was a useful ally, and the motives
   which induced her to marry him must have restrained her from
   putting him forcibly away. Yet when the deed was done, it is
   not surprising that she should have acquiesced in the action
   of the nobility. Bothwell, again, was in her estimation a
   loyal retainer, a trusted adviser of the Crown; but he was
   nothing more. Yet it need not surprise us that after her
   forcible detention at Dunbar, she should have resolved to
   submit with a good grace to the inevitable. Saving Argyle and
   Huntley, Bothwell was the most powerful of her peers. He was
   essentially a strong man; fit, it seemed, to rule that
   turbulent nobility. He had been recommended to her acceptance
   by the unanimous voice of the aristocracy, Protestant and
   Catholic. … On a woman of ardent sentimentality these
   considerations would have had little effect: they were exactly
   the considerations which would appeal to Mary's masculine
   common-sense. Yet, though she made what seemed to her the best
   of a bad business, she was very wretched."

"To establish the genuineness of the Casket Letters is necessarily to establish that Mary was a co-conspirator with Bothwell in the murder of her husband. … The expressions in the letters are not consistent with an innocent purpose, or with the theory that she brought Darnley to Edinburgh in order to facilitate the obtaining of a divorce. Apart even from other corroborative evidence, the evidence of the letters, if their genuineness be admitted, is sufficient to establish her guilt. Inasmuch, however, as her entire innocence is not consistent with other evidence, it can scarcely be affirmed that the problem of the genuineness of the letters has an absolutely vital bearing on the character of Mary. Mr. Skelton, who does not admit the genuineness of the letters, and who may be reckoned one of the most distinguished and ingenious defenders of Mary in this country, has taken no pains to conceal his contempt for what he terms the 'theory of the ecclesiastics'—that Mary, during the whole progress of the plot against Darnley's life, was 'innocent as a child, immaculate as a saint.' He is unable to adopt a more friendly attitude towards her than that of an apologizer, and is compelled to attempt the assumption of a middle position—that she was neither wholly innocent nor wholly guilty; that, ignorant of the details and method of the plot, she only vaguely guessed that it was in progress, and failed merely in firmly and promptly forbidding its execution. But in a case of murder a middle position—a position of even partial indifference—is, except in very peculiar circumstances, well-nigh impossible; in the case of a wife's attitude to the murder of her husband, the limit of impossibility is still more nearly approached; but when the wife possesses such exceptional courage, fertility of resource, and strength of will as were possessed by Mary, the impossibility may be regarded as absolute. Besides, as a matter of fact, Mary was not indifferent in the matter. She had long regarded her husband's conduct with antipathy and indignation; she did not conceal her eager desire to be delivered from the yoke of marriage to him; and she had abundant reasons, many of which were justifiable, for this desire. … The fatal weakness … of all such arguments as are used to establish either Mary's absolute or partial innocence of the murder is, that they do not harmonize with the leading traits of her disposition. She was possessed of altogether exceptional decision and force of will; she was remarkably wary and acute; and she was a match for almost any of her contemporaries in the art of diplomacy. She was not one to be concussed into a course of action to which she had any strong aversion."

"The beauties of her person, and graces of her air, combined to make her the most amiable of women; and the charms of her address and conversation aided the impression which her lovely figure made on the hearts of all beholders. Ambitious and active in her temper, yet inclined to cheerfulness and society; of a lofty spirit, constant and even vehement in her purpose, yet polite, and gentle, and affable in her demeanour; she seemed to partake only so much of the male virtues as to render her estimable, without relinquishing those soft graces which compose the proper ornament of her sex. In order to form a just idea of her character, we must set aside one part of her conduct, while she abandoned herself to the guidance of a profligate man; and must consider these faults, whether we admit them to be imprudences or crimes, as the result of an inexplicable, though not uncommon, inconstancy in the human mind, of the frailty of our nature, of the violence of passion, and of the influence which situations, and sometimes momentary incidents, have on persons whose principles are not thoroughly confirmed by experience and reflection. Enraged by the ungrateful conduct of her husband, seduced by the treacherous counsels of one in whom she reposed confidence, transported by the violence of her own temper, which never lay sufficiently under the guidance of discretion, she was betrayed into actions which may with some difficulty be accounted for, but which admit of no apology, nor even of alleviation. An enumeration of her qualities might carry the appearance of a panegyric: an account of her conduct must in some parts wear the aspect of severe satire and invective. Her numerous misfortunes, the solitude of her long and tedious captivity, and the persecutions to which she had been exposed on account of her religion, had wrought her up to a degree of bigotry during her later years; and such were the prevalent spirit and principles of the age, that it is the less wonder if her zeal, her resentment, and her interest uniting, induced her to give consent to a design which conspirators, actuated only by the first of these motives, had formed against the life of Elizabeth."

"More books have been written about Mary Stuart than exist as to all the Queens in the world; yet, so greatly do those biographies vary in their representations of her character, that at first it seems scarcely credible how any person could be so differently described. The triumph of a creed or party has unhappily been more considered than the development of facts, or those principles of moral justice which ought to animate the pen of the Historian; and, after all the literary gladiatorship that has been practised in this arena for some three hundred years, the guilt or innocence of Mary Queen of Scots is still under consideration, for party feeling and sectarian hate have not yet exhausted their malice. … If the opinions of Mary Stuart's own sex were allowed to decide the question at issue, a verdict of not guilty would have been pronounced by an overwhelming majority of all readers, irrespective of creed or party. Is, then, the moral standard erected by women for one another, lower than that which is required of them by men? Are they less acute in their perceptions of right and wrong, or more disposed to tolerate frailties? The contrary has generally been proved. With the exception of Queen Elizabeth, Catharine de Medicis, Lady Shrewsbury, and Margaret Erskine (Lady Douglas), of infamous memory, Mary Stuart had no female enemies worthy of notice. It is a remarkable fact that English gold could not purchase witnesses from the female portion of the household of the Queen of Scots. None of the ladies of the Court, whether Protestant or Catholic, imputed crime at any time to their mistress. In the days of her Royal splendour in France Queen Mary was attended by ladies of ancient family and unsullied honour, and, like true women, they clung to her in the darkest hour of her later adversity, through good and evil report they shared the gloom and sorrow of her prison life."

S. H. Burke, Historical Portraits of the Tudor Dynasty and the Reformation Period, volume 4, chapter 7.

"Mary Stuart was in many respects the creature of her age, of her creed, and of her station; but the noblest and most noteworthy qualities of her nature were independent of rank, opinion, or time. Even the detractors who defend her conduct on the plea that she was a dastard and a dupe are compelled in the same breath to retract this implied reproach, and to admit, with illogical acclamation and incongruous applause, that the world never saw more splendid courage at the service of more brilliant intelligence; that a braver if not 'a rarer spirit never did steer humanity.' A kinder or more faithful friend, a deadlier or more dangerous enemy, it would be impossible to dread or to desire. Passion alone could shake the double fortress of her impregnable heart and ever active brain. The passion of love, after very sufficient experience, she apparently and naturally outlived; the passion of hatred and revenge was as inextinguishable in her inmost nature as the emotion of loyalty and gratitude. Of repentance it would seem that she knew as little as of fear; having been trained from her infancy in a religion where the Decalogue was supplanted by the Creed. Adept as she was in the most exquisite delicacy of dissimulation, the most salient note of her original disposition was daring rather than subtlety. Beside or behind the voluptuous or intellectual attractions of beauty and culture, she had about her the fresher charm of a fearless and frank simplicity, a genuine and enduring pleasure in small and harmless things no less than in such as were neither. … For her own freedom of will and of way, of passion and of action, she cared much; for her creed she cared something; for her country she cared less than nothing. She would have flung Scotland with England into the hellfire of Spanish Catholicism rather than forego the faintest chance of personal revenge. … In the private and personal qualities which attract and attach a friend to his friend and a follower to his leader, no man or woman was ever more constant and more eminent than Mary Queen of Scots."

      C. M. Yonge,
      Cameos of English History,
      series 4, chapter 32,
      and series 5, chapters 1, 2, 5 and 6.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1568-1572.
Distracted state of the kingdom.
The Reformed Church and John Knox.

During the whole minority of the young king, James VI., Scotland was torn by warring factions. Murray, assassinated in 1570, was succeeded in the regency by the Earl of Lennox, who was killed in a fight the next year. The Earl of Mar followed him, and Morton held the office next. "The civil commotions that ensued on Murray's assassination were not wholly adverse to the reformed cause, as they gave it an overwhelming influence with the king's party, which it supported. On the other hand they excused every kind of irregularity. There was a scramble for forfeited estates and the patrimony of the kirk, from which latter source the leaders of both parties rewarded their partisans. … The church … viewed with alarm the various processes by which the ecclesiastical revenues were being secularised. Nor can it be doubted that means, by which the evil might be stayed, were the subject of conference between committees of the Privy Council and General Assembly. The plan which was actually adopted incorporated in the reformed church the spiritual estate, and reintroduced the bishops by their proper titles, subject to stringent conditions of qualification. …

Knox, whose life had been attempted in March 1570-1, had been constrained to retire from Edinburgh and was at St. Andrews when the new platform was arranged. On the strength of certain notices that are not at all conclusive, it has been strenuously denied that he was a party to it even by consent. … There are facts, however, to the contrary. … On the evidence available Knox cannot be claimed as the advocate of a divine right, either of presbytery or episcopacy. … With fast-failing strength he returned to Edinburgh towards the end of August." On the 24th of November, 1572, he died.

"It seems to me hard measure that this Scottish man [John Knox], now after three-hundred years, should have to plead like a culprit before the world; intrinsically for having been, in such way as it was then possible to be, the bravest of all Scotchmen! Had he been a poor Half-and-half, he could have crouched into the corner, like so many others; Scotland had not been delivered; and Knox had been without blame. He is the one Scotchman to whom, of all others, his country and the world owe a debt. He has to plead that Scotland would forgive him for having been worth to it any million 'unblamable' Scotchmen that need no forgiveness. He bared his breast to the battle; had to row in French galleys, wander forlorn in exile, in clouds and storms; was censured, shot-at through his windows; had a right sore fighting life; if this world were his place of recompense, he had made but a bad venture of it. I cannot apologise for Knox. To him it is very indifferent, these two-hundred-and-fifty years or more, what men say of him."

"Altogether, if we estimate him [Knox], as we are alone entitled to do, in his historical position and circumstances, Knox appears a very great and heroic man—no violent demagogue, or even stern dogmatist—although violence and sternness and dogmatism were all parts of his character. These coarser elements mingled with but did not obscure the fresh, living, and keenly sympathetic humanity beneath. Far inferior to Luther in tenderness and breadth and lovableness, he is greatly superior to Calvin in the same qualities. You feel that he had a strong and loving heart under all his harshness, and that you can get near to it, and could have spent a cheery social evening with him in his house at the head of the Canon gate, over that good old wine that he had stored in his cellar, and which he was glad and proud to dispense to his friends. It might not have been a very pleasant thing to differ with him even in such circumstances; but, upon the whole, it would have been a pleasanter and safer audacity than to have disputed some favourite tenet with Calvin. There was in Knox far more of mere human feeling and of shrewd worldly sense, always tolerant of differences; and you could have fallen back upon these, and felt yourself comparatively safe in the utterance of some daring sentiment. And in this point of view it deserves to be noticed that Knox alone of the reformers, along with Luther, is free from all stain of violent persecution. Intolerant he was towards the mass, towards Mary, and towards the old Catholic clergy; yet he was no persecutor. He was never cruel in act, cruel as his language sometimes is, and severe as were some of his judgments. Modern enlightenment and scientific indifference we have no right to look for in him. His superstitions about the weather and witches were common to him with all men of his time. … As a mere thinker, save perhaps on political subjects, he takes no rank; and his political views, wise and enlightened as they were, seem rather the growth of his manly instinctive sense than reasoned from any fundamental principles. Earnest, intense, and powerful in every practical direction, he was not in the least characteristically reflective or speculative. Everywhere the hero, he is nowhere the philosopher or sage.—He was, in short, a man for his work and time—knowing what was good for his country there and then, when the old Catholic bonds had rotted to the very heart. A man of God, yet with sinful weaknesses like us all. There is something in him we can no longer love,—a harshness and severity by no means beautiful or attractive; but there is little in him that we cannot in the retrospect heartily respect, and even admiringly cherish."

"All the miseries of civil war desolated the kingdom. Fellow-citizens, friends, brothers, took different sides, and ranged themselves under the standards of the contending factions. In every county, and almost in every town and village, 'king's men' and 'queen's men' were names of distinction. Political hatred dissolved all natural ties, and extinguished the reciprocal good-will and confidence which hold mankind together in society. Religious zeal mingled itself with these civil distinctions, and contributed not a little to heighten and to inflame them. The factions which divided the kingdom were, in appearance, only two; but in both these there were persons with views and principles so different from each other that they ought to be distinguished. With some, considerations of religion were predominant, and they either adhered to the queen because they hoped by her means to reestablish popery, or they defended the king's authority as the best support of the protestant faith. Among these the opposition was violent and irreconcilable. … As Morton, who commanded the regent's forces [1572, during the regency of Mar], lay at Leith, and Kirkaldy still held out the town and castle of Edinburgh [for the party of the queen], scarce a day passed without a skirmish. … Both parties hanged the prisoners which they took, of whatever rank or quality, without mercy and without trial. Great numbers suffered in this shocking manner; the unhappy victims were led by fifties at a time to execution; and it was not till both sides had smarted severely that they discontinued this barbarous practice." In 1573, Morton, being now regent, made peace with one faction of the queen's party, and succeeded, with the help of a siege train and force which Queen Elizabeth sent him from England, in overcoming the other faction which held Edinburgh and its castle. Kirkaldy was compelled to surrender after a siege of thirty-three days, receiving promises of protection from the English commander, in spite of which he was hanged.

      ALSO IN:
      J. H. Burton,
      History of Scotland,
      chapters 53-56 (volume 5).

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1572.
   Episcopacy restored.
   The Concordat of Leith.
   The Tulchan Bishops.

   "On the 12th of January, 1572, a Convention of the Church
   assembled at Leith. By whom it was convened is unknown. It was
   not a regular Assembly, but it assumed to itself 'the
   strength, force, and effect of a General Assembly,' and it was
   attended by 'the superintendents, barons, commissioners to
   plant kirks, commissioners of provinces, towns, kirks, and
   ministers.' …
{2861}
   By the 1st of February the joint committees
   framed a concordat, of which the following articles were the
   chief;

1. That the names of archbishops and bishops, and the bounds of dioceses, should remain as they were before the Reformation, at the least till the majority of the king, or till a different arrangement should be made by the parliament; and that to every cathedral church there should be attached a chapter of learned men; but that the bishops should have no more power than was possessed by the superintendents, and should like them be subject to the General Assemblies.

2. That abbots and friars should be continued as parts of the Spiritual Estate of the realm. …

Such was the famous concordat agreed upon by the Church and State in Scotland in 1572. … The Church had in vain … struggled to get possession of its patrimony. It had in vain argued that the bishoprics and abbacies should be dissolved, and their revenues applied for the maintenance of the ministry, the education of the youthhead, and the support of the poor. The bishoprics and abbacies were maintained as if they were indissoluble. Some of them were already gifted to laymen, and the ministers of the Protestant Church were poorly paid out of the thirds of benefices. The collection of these even the regent had recently stopped, and beggary was at the door. What was to be done? The only way of obtaining the episcopal revenues was by reintroducing the episcopal office. … The ministers regarded archbishops, bishops, deans and chapters as things lawful, but not expedient—'they sounded ·of papistry'; but now, under the pressure of a still stronger expediency, they received them into the Church. … Knox yielded to the same necessity under which the Church had bowed. … It was a mongrel prelacy that was thus introduced into Scotland—a cross betwixt Popery and Presbytery. It was not of the true Roman breed. It was not even of the Anglican. It could not pretend to the apostolical descent."

"The new dignitaries got from the populace the name of the Tulchan bishops. A tulchan, an old Scots word of unknown origin, was applied to a stuffed calf-skin which was brought into the presence of a recently-calved cow. It was an agricultural doctrine of that age, and of later times, that the presence of this changeling induced the bereaved mother easily to part with her milk. To draw what remained of the bishops' revenue, it was expedient that there should be bishops; but the revenues were not for them, but for the lay lords, who milked the ecclesiastical cow."

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1581.
The Second Covenant, called also The First National Covenant.

"The national covenant of Scotland was simply an abjuration of popery, and a solemn engagement, ratified by a solemn oath, to support the protestant religion. Its immediate occasion was a dread, too well founded—a dread from which Scotland was never entirely freed till the revolution—of the re-introduction of popery. It was well known that Lennox was an emissary of the house of Guise, and had been sent over to prevail on the young king to embrace the Roman Catholic faith. … A conspiracy so dangerous at all times to a country divided in religious sentiment, demanded a counter-combination equally strict and solemn, and led to the formation of the national covenant of Scotland. This was drawn up at the king's request, by his chaplain, John Craig. It consisted of an abjuration, in the most solemn and explicit terms, of the various articles of the popish system, and an engagement to adhere to and defend the reformed doctrine and discipline of the reformed church of Scotland. The covenanters further pledged themselves, under the same oath, 'to defend his majesty's person and authority with our goods, bodies, and lives, in the defence of Christ's evangel, liberties of our country, ministration of justice, and punishment of iniquity, against all enemies within the realm or without.' This bond, at first called 'the king's confession,' was sworn and subscribed by the king and his household, for example to others, on the 28th of January 1581; and afterwards, in consequence of an order in council, and an act of the general assembly, it was cheerfully subscribed by all ranks of persons through the kingdom; the ministers zealously promoting the subscription in their respective parishes."

"The two favourites [Lennox and Arran], by their ascendant over the king, possessed uncontrolled power in the kingdom, and exercised it with the utmost wantonness." The provocation which they gave brought about, at length, a combination of nobles, formed for the purpose of removing the young king from their influence. Invited to Ruthven Castle in August, 1582, by its master, Lord Ruthven, lately created Earl of Gowrie, James found there a large assemblage of the conspirators and was detained against his will. He was afterwards removed to Stirling, and later to the palace of Holyrood, but still under restraint. This continued until the following June, when the king effected his escape and Arran recovered his power. Lennox had died meantime in France. All those concerned in what was known as the Raid of Ruthven were proclaimed guilty of high treason and fled the country. The clergy gave great offense to the king by approving and sustaining the Raid of Ruthven. He never forgave the Church for its attitude on this occasion.

   "James was bent upon destroying a form of Church government
   which he imagined to be inconsistent with his own kingly
   prerogatives. The General Assembly rested upon too popular a
   basis; they were too independent of his absolute will; they
   assumed a jurisdiction which he could not allow. The ministers
   were too much given to discuss political subjects in the
   pulpit—to speak evil of dignities—to resist the powers that
   were ordained of God. … On the 22d of May, 1584, the
   Parliament assembled. … A series of acts were passed almost
   entirely subversive of the rights hitherto enjoyed by the
   Church. By one, the ancient jurisdiction of the Three Estates
   was ratified,—and to speak evil of any one of them was
   declared to be treason; thus were the bishops hedged about. By
   another, the king was declared to be supreme in all causes and
   over all persons, and to decline his judgment was pronounced
   to be treason; thus was the boldness of such men as Melville
   to be chastised.
{2862}
   By a third, all convocations except those specially licensed
   by the king were declared to be unlawful; thus were the courts
   of the Church to be shorn of their power. By a fourth, the
   chief jurisdiction of the Church was lodged in the hands of
   the Episcopal body; for the bishops must now do what the
   Assemblies and presbyteries had hitherto done. By still
   another act, it was provided 'that none should presume,
   privately or publicly, in sermons, declamations, or familiar
   conferences, to utter any false, untrue, or slanderous
   speeches, to the reproach of his Majesty or council, or meddle
   with the affairs of his Highness and Estate, under the pains
   contained in the acts of parliament made against the makers
   and reporters of lies.' … The parliament registered the
   resolves of the king; for though Scottish barons were
   turbulent, Scottish parliaments were docile, and seldom
   thwarted the reigning power. But the people sympathized with
   the ministers; the acts became known as the Black Acts; and
   the struggle between the court and the Church, which lasted
   with some intermissions for more than a century, was begun."

The parliament of 1587 passed an act which "annexed to the crown such lands of the church as had not been inalienably bestowed upon the nobles or landed gentry; these were still considerable, and were held either by the titular bishops who possessed the benefices, or were granted to laymen by rights merely temporary. The only fund reserved for the clergy who were to serve the cure was the principal mansion house, with a few acres of glebe land. The fund from which their stipends were to be paid was limited to the tithes. … The crown … was little benefited by an enactment which, detaching the church lands from all connection with ecclesiastical persons, totally ruined the order of bishops, for the restoration of whom, with some dignity and authority, king James, and his successor afterwards, expressed considerable anxiety."

"On the morning of the 5th of August, 1600, as James was setting out hunting from Falkland Palace, he was met by Alexander Ruthven, the younger brother of the Earl of Gowrie [both being sons of the Gowrie of the ' Raid of Ruthven'], who told him with a great air of mystery that he had discovered a man burying a pot of money in a field, and that he thought the affair so suspicious that he had taken him prisoner, and begged the King to come to Gowrie House in Perth to see him. James went, taking with him Mar, Lennox, and about twenty other gentlemen. After dinner Alexander took the King aside, and, when his attendants missed him, they were told that he had gone back to Falkland. They were preparing to follow him there when some of them heard cries from a turret. They recognized the King's voice, and they presently saw his head thrust out of a window, calling for help. They had much ado to make their way to him, but they found him at last in a small room struggling with Alexander, while a man dressed in armour was looking on. Alexander Ruthven and Gowrie were both killed in the scuffle which followed. A tumult rose in the town, for the Earl had been Provost and was very popular with the towns-folk, and the King and his followers had to make their escape by the river. The doom of traitors was passed on the dead men, and their name was proscribed, but as no accomplice could be discovered, it was hard to say what was the extent or object of their plot. The whole affair was very mysterious, the only witnesses being the King himself and Henderson the man in armour. Some of the ministers thought it so suspicions that they refused to return thanks for the King's safety, as they thought the whole affair an invention of his own." Eight years later, however, some letters were discovered which seemed to prove that there had really been a plot to seize the King's person.

After his accession to the English throne, James became more deeply enamoured of Episcopacy, and of its ecclesiastical and ceremonial incidents, than before, and more determined to force them on the Scottish church. He worked to that end with arbitrary insolence and violence, and with every kind of dishonest intrigue, until he had accomplished his purpose completely. Not only were his bishops seated, with fair endowments and large powers restored, but he had them ordained in England, to ensure their apostolic legitimacy. When this had been done, he resolved to impose a liturgy upon the Church, with certain ordinances of his own framing. The five articles in which the latter were embodied became for two years the subject of a most bitter and heated struggle between the court and its bishops on one side, with most of the general clergy on the other. At length, in August, 1618, an Assembly made up at Perth proved subservient enough to submit to the royal brow-beating and to adopt the five articles. These Five Articles of Perth, as they are known, enjoined kneeling at the communion, observance of five holidays, and episcopal confirmation; and they authorized the private dispensation both of baptism and of the Lord's Supper. The powers of the court of high commission were actively brought into play to enforce them.

   "Now we are summoned to a sadder subject; from the sufferings
   of a private person [John Williams, bishop of Lincoln, pursued
   and persecuted by Laud] to the miseries and almost mutual]
   ruin of two kingdoms, England and Scotland. I confess, my
   hands have always been unwilling to write of that cold
   country, for fear my fingers should be frostbitten therewith;
   but necessity to make our story entire puts me upon the
   employment. Miseries, caused from the sending of the Book of
   Service or new Liturgy thither, which may sadly be termed a
   'Rubric' indeed, dyed with the blood of so many of both
   nations, slain on that occasion.
{2863}
   It seems the design began in the reign of king James; who
   desired and endeavoured an uniformity of public prayers
   through the kingdom of Scotland. … In the reign of king
   Charles, the project being resumed (but whether the same book
   or no, God knoweth), it was concluded not to send into
   Scotland the same Liturgy of England 'totidem verbis,' lest
   this should be misconstrued a badge of dependence of that
   church on ours. It was resolved also, that the two Liturgies
   should not differ in substance, lest the Roman party should
   upbraid us with weighty and material differences. A similitude
   therefore not identity being resolved of, it was drawn up with
   some, as they termed them, insensible alterations, but such as
   were quickly found and felt by the Scotch to their great
   distaste. … The names of sundry saints, omitted in the
   English, are inserted into the Scotch Calendar (but only in
   black letters), on their several days. … Some of these were
   kings, all of them natives of that country. … But these Scotch
   saints were so far from making the English Liturgy acceptable,
   that the English Liturgy rather made the saints odious unto
   them. … No sooner had the dean of Edinburgh begun to read the
   book in the church of St. Giles, Sunday, July 23rd, in the
   presence of the Privy Council, both the archbishops, divers
   bishops, and magistrates of the city, but presently such a
   tumult was raised that, through clapping of hands, cursing,
   and crying, one could neither hear nor be heard. The bishop of
   Edinburgh endeavoured in vain to appease the tumult; when a
   stool, aimed to be thrown at him [according to popular
   tradition by an old herb-woman named Jenny Geddes], had
   killed, if not diverted by one present; so that the same book
   had occasioned his death and prescribed the form of his
   burial; and this hubbub was hardly suppressed by the lord
   provost and bailiffs of Edinburgh. This first tumult was
   caused by such, whom I find called 'the scum of the city,'
   considerable for nothing but their number. But, few days
   after, the cream of the nation (some of the highest and best
   quality therein) engaged in the same cause, crying out, 'God
   defend all those who will defend God's cause! and God confound
   the service-book and all the maintainers of it!'"

"One of the most distinct and familiar of historical traditions attributes the honour of flinging the first stool, and so beginning the great civil war, to a certain Jenny or Janet Geddes. But a search among contemporary writers for the identification of such an actor on the scene, will have the same inconclusive result that often attends the search after some criminal hero with a mythical celebrity when he is wanted by the police. … Wodrow, on the authority of Robert Stewart—a son of the Lord Advocate of the Revolution—utter]y dethrones Mrs. Geddes: 'He tells me that it's the constantly-believed tradition that it was Mrs. Mean, wife to John Mean, merchant in Edinburgh, that cast the first stool when the service was read in the New Kirk, Edinburgh, 1637; and that many of the lasses that carried on the fray were prentices in disguise, for they threw stools to a great length.'"

"Nobles, ministers, gentlemen, and burghers from every district poured into Edinburgh to take part in a national resistance to these innovations [of the Service Book], and an appeal was made from the whole body assembled in the capital, not only against the Service Book, but also against the Book of Canons and the conduct of the bishops. Instead, however, of granting redress of these grievances, the King issued a series of angry and exasperating proclamations, commanding the crowds of strangers in the capital to return immediately to their own homes, and instructing the Council and the Supreme Courts of Law to remove to Linlithgow. But instead of obeying the injunction to leave Edinburgh, the multitudes there continued to receive accessions from all parts of the country. … In answer to the complaint of the Council that their meeting in such numbers was disorderly and illegal, the supplicants offered to choose a limited number from each of the classes into which they were socially divided—nobles, lesser barons, burgesses, and clergy—to act as their representatives. This was at once very imprudently agreed to by the Council. A committee of four was accordingly selected by each of these classes, who were instructed to reside in the capital, and were empowered to take all necessary steps to promote their common object. They had also authority to assemble the whole of their constituents should any extraordinary emergency arise. The opponents of the new Canons and Service Book were thus organised with official approval into one large and powerful body, known in history as 'The Tables,' which speedily exercised an important influence in the country. As soon as this arrangement was completed, the crowds of supplicants who thronged the metropolis returned to their own homes, leaving the committee of sixteen to watch the progress of events." But the obstinacy of the King soon brought affairs to a crisis, and early in 1638 the deputies of The Tables "resolved to summon the whole body of supplicants to repair at once to the capital in order to concert measures for their common safety and the furtherance of the good cause. The summons was promptly obeyed, and after full deliberation it was resolved, on the suggestion of Johnstone of Warriston, that in order to strengthen their union against the enemies of the Protestant faith they should renew the National Covenant, which had been originally drawn up and sworn to at a time [A. D. 1581] when the Protestant religion was in imminent peril, through the schemes of France and Spain, and the plots of Queen Mary and the Roman Catholics in England and Scotland. The original document denounced in vehement terms the errors and devices of the Romish Church, and an addition was now made to it, adapting its declarations and pledges to existing circumstances."

   "It was in the Greyfriars' Church at Edinburgh that it [the
   National Covenant] was first received, on February 28, 1638.
   The aged Earl of Sutherland was the first to sign his name.
   Then the whole congregation followed. Then it was laid on the
   flat grave-stone still preserved in the church-yard. Men and
   women crowded to add their names. Some wept aloud, others
   wrote their names in their own blood; others added after their
   names 'till death.' For hours they signed, till every corner
   of the parchment was filled, and only room left for their
   initials, and the shades of night alone checked the continual
   flow.
{2864}
   From Greyfriars' church-yard it spread to the whole of
   Scotland. Gentlemen and noblemen carried copies of it 'in
   their portmanteaus and pockets, requiring and collecting
   subscriptions publicly and privately.' Women sat in church all
   day and all night, from Friday till Sunday, in order to
   receive the Communion with it. None dared to refuse their
   names."

"The confession of faith of the Kirk of Scotland, subscribed at first by the King's Majesty and his household in the year of God 1580; thereafter by persons of all ranks in the year 1581, by ordinance of the Lords of the secret council, and acts of the General Assembly; subscribed again by all sorts of persons in the year 1590, by a new ordinance of council, at the desire of the General Assembly; with a general band for the maintenance of the true religion, and the King's person, and now subscribed in the year 1638, by us noblemen, barons, gentlemen, burgesses, ministers, and commons under subscribing; together with our resolution and promises for the causes after specified, to maintain the said true religion, and the King's Majesty, according to the confession aforesaid, and Acts of Parliament; the tenure whereof here followeth: 'We all, and every one of us underwritten, do protest, that after long and due examination of our own consciences in matters of true and false religion, we are now thoroughly resolved of the truth, by the word and spirit of God; and therefore we believe with our hearts, confess with our mouths, subscribe with our hands, and constantly affirm before God and the whole world, that this only is the true Christian faith and religion, pleasing God, and bringing salvation to man, which now is by the mercy of God revealed to the world by the preaching of the blessed evangel, and received, believed, and defended by many and sundry notable kirks and realms, but chiefly by the Kirk of Scotland, the King's Majesty, and three estates of this realm, as God's eternal truth and only ground of our salvation; as more particularly is expressed in the confession of our faith, established and publicly confirmed by sundry Acts of Parliament; and now of a long time hath been openly professed by the King's Majesty, and whole body of this realm, both in burgh and land. To the which confession and form of religion we willingly agree in our consciences in all points, as unto God's undoubted truth and verity, grounded only upon His written Word; and therefore we abhor and detest all contrary religion and doctrine, but chiefly all kind of papistry in general and particular heads, even as they are now damned and confuted by the Word of God and Kirk of Scotland. But in special we detest and refuse the usurped authority of that Roman Antichrist upon the Scriptures of God, upon the Kirk, the civil magistrate, and consciences of men; all his tyrannous laws made upon indifferent things against our Christian liberty; his erroneous doctrine against the sufficiency of the written Word, the perfection of the law, the office of Christ and His blessed evangel; his corrupted doctrine concerning original sin, our natural inability and rebellion to God's law, our justification by faith only, our imperfect sanctification and obedience to the law, the nature, number, and use of the holy sacraments; his five bastard sacraments, with all his rites, ceremonies, and false doctrine, added to the ministration of the true sacraments, without the Word of God; his cruel judgments against infants departing without the sacrament; his absolute necessity of baptism; his blasphemous opinion of transubstantiation or real presence of Christ's body in the elements, and receiving of the same by the wicked, or bodies of men; his dispensations, with solemn oaths, perjuries, and degrees of marriage, forbidden in the Word; his cruelty against the innocent divorced; his devilish mass; his blasphemous priesthood; his profane sacrifice for the sins of the dead and the quick; his canonization of men, calling upon angels or saints departed, worshipping of imagery, relics, and crosses, dedicating of kirks, altars, days, vows to creatures; his purgatory, prayers for the dead, praying or speaking in a strange language; with his processions and blasphemous litany, and multitudes of advocates or mediators; his manifold orders, auricular confession; his desperate and uncertain repentance; his general and doubtsome faith; his satisfaction of men for their sins; his justification by works, "opus operatum," works of supererogation, merits, pardons, perigrinations and stations; his holy water, baptizing of bells, conjuring of spirits, crossing, saning, anointing, conjuring, hallowing of God's good creatures, with the superstitious opinion joined therewith; his worldly monarchy and wicked hierarchy; his three solemn vows, with all his shavelings of sundry sorts; his erroneous and bloody decrees made at Trent, with all the subscribers and approvers of that cruel and bloody band conjured against the Kirk of God. And finally, we detest all his vain allegories, rites, signs, and traditions, brought in the Kirk without or against the Word of God, and doctrine of this true reformed Kirk, to which we join ourselves willingly, in doctrine, religion, faith, discipline, and life of the holy sacraments, as lively members of the same, in Christ our head, promising and swearing, by the great name of the Lord our God, that we shall continue in the obedience of the doctrine and discipline of this Kirk, and shall defend the same according to our vocation and power all the days of our lives, under the pains contained in the law, and danger both of body and soul in the day of God's fearful judgment. And seeing that many are stirred up by Satan and that Roman Antichrist, to promise, swear, subscribe, and for a time use the holy sacraments in the Kirk, deceitfully against their own consciences, minding thereby, first under the external cloak of religion, to corrupt and subvert secretly God's true religion within the Kirk; and afterwards, when time may serve, to become open enemies and persecutors of the same, under vain hope of the Pope's dispensation, devised against the Word of God, to his great confusion, and their double condemnation in the day of the Lord Jesus. {2865} We therefore, willing to take away all suspicion of hypocrisy, and of such double dealing with God and his Kirk, protest and call the Searcher of all hearts for witness, that our minds and hearts do fully agree with this our confession, promise, oath, and subscription: so that we are not moved for any worldly respect, but are persuaded only in our consciences, through the knowledge and love of God's true religion printed in our hearts by the Holy Spirit, as we shall answer to Him in the day when the secrets of all hearts shall be disclosed. And because we perceive that the quietness and stability of our religion and Kirk doth depend upon the safety and good behaviour of the King's Majesty, as upon a comfortable instrument of God's mercy granted to this country for the maintenance of His Kirk, and ministration of justice among us, we protest and promise with our hearts under the same oath, handwrit, and pains, that we shall defend his person and authority with our goods, bodies, and lives, in the defence of Christ His evangel, liberties of our country, ministration of justice, and punishment of iniquity, against all enemies within this realm or without, as we desire our God to be a strong and merciful defender to us in the day of our death, and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ; to Whom, with the Father and the Holy Spirit, be all honour and glory eternally. Like as many Acts of Parliament not only in general do abrogate, annul, and rescind all laws, statutes, acts, constitutions, canons civil or municipal, with all other ordinances and practick penalties whatsoever, made in prejudice of the true religion, and professors thereof, or of the true Kirk discipline, jurisdiction, and freedom thereof; or in favours of idolatry and superstition; or of the papistical kirk (as Act 3. Act 31. Parliament 1. Act 23. Parliament 11. Act 114. Parliament 12, of K. James VI), that papistry and superstition may be utter]y suppressed, according to the intention of the Acts of Parliament reported in Act 5. Parliament 20. K. James VI. And to that end they ordained all papists and priests to be punished by manifold civil and ecclesiastical pains, as adversaries to God's true religion preached, and by law established within this realm (Act 24. Parliament 11. K. James VI) as common enemies to all Christian government (Act 18. Parliament 16. K. James VI), as rebellers and gainstanders of our Sovereign Lord's authority (Act 47. Parliament 3. K. James VI, and as idolaters, Act 104. Parliament 7. K. James VI), but also in particular (by and attour the confession of faith) do abolish and condemn the Pope's authority and jurisdiction out of this land, and ordains the maintainers thereof to be punished (Act 2. Parliament 1. Act 51. Parliament 3. Act 106. Parliament 7. Act 114. Parliament 12. of K. James VI); do condemn the Pope's erroneous doctrine, or any other erroneous doctrine repugnant to any of the Articles of the true and Christian religion publicly preached, and by law established in this realm; and ordains the spreaders or makers of books or libels, or letters or writs of that nature, to be punished (Act 46. Parliament 3. Act 106. Parliament 7. Act 24. Parliament 11. K. James VI); do condemn all baptism conform to the Pope's kirk, and the idolatry of the Mass; and ordains all sayers, wilful hearers, and concealers of the Mass, the maintainers, and resetters of the priests, Jesuits, trafficking Papists, to be punished without exception or restriction (Act 5. Parliament 1. Act 120. Parliament 12. Act 164. Parliament 13. Act 193. Parliament 14. Act 1. Parliament 19. Act 5. Parliament 20. K. James VI); do condemn all erroneous books and writs containing erroneous doctrine against the religion presently professed, or containing superstitious rights or ceremonies papistical, whereby the people are greatly abused; and ordains the home-bringers of them to be punished (Act 25. Parliament 11. K. James VI); do condemn the monuments and dregs of bygone idolatry, as going to crosses, observing the festival days of saints, and such other superstitious and papistical rites, to the dishonour of God, contempt of true religion, and fostering of great errors among the people, and ordains the users of them to be punished for the second fault as idolaters (Act 104. Parliament 7. K. James VI). Like us many Acts of Parliament are conceived for maintenance of God's true and Christian religion, and the purity thereof in doctrine and sacraments of the true Church of God, the liberty and freedom thereof in her national synodal assemblies, presbyteries, sessions, policy, discipline, and jurisdiction thereof, as that purity of religion and liberty of the Church was used, professed, exercised, preached, and confessed according to the reformation of religion in this realm. (As for instance: Act 99. Parliament 7. Act 23. Parliament 11. Act 114. Parliament 12. Act 160. Parliament 13. K. James VI, ratified by Act 4. K. Charles.) So that Act 6. Parliament 1. and Act 68. Parliament 6. of K. James VI, in the year of God 1579, declare the ministers of the blessed evangel, whom God of His mercy had raised up or hereafter should raise, agreeing with them that then lived in doctrine and administration of the sacraments, and the people that professed Christ, as He was then offered in the evangel, and doth communicate with the holy sacraments (as in the reformed Kirks of this realm they were presently administered) according to the confession of faith to be the true and holy Kirk of Christ Jesus within this realm, and discerns and declares all and sundry, who either gainsays the word of the evangel, received and approved as the heads of the confession of faith, professed in Parliament in the year of God 1560, specified also in the first Parliament of K. James VI, and ratified in this present parliament, more particularly do specify; or that refuses the administration of the holy sacraments as they were then ministrated, to be no members of the said Kirk within this realm and true religion presently professed, so long as they keep themselves so divided from the society of Christ's body. And the subsequent Act 69. Parliament 6. K. James VI, declares that there is no other face of Kirk, nor other face of religion than was presently at that time by the favour of God established within this realm, which therefore is ever styled God's true religion, Christ's true religion, the true and Christian religion, and a perfect religion, which by manifold Acts of Parliament all within this realm are bound to profess to subscribe the Articles thereof, the confession of faith, to recant all doctrine and errors repugnant to any of the said Articles (Act 4 and 9. Parliament 1. Act 45. 46. 47. Parliament 3. Act 71. Parliament 6. Act 106. Parliament 7. Act 24. Parliament 11. Act 123. Parliament 12. Act 194 and 197. Parliament 14 of King James VI). And all magistrates, sheriffs, &c., on the one part, are ordained to search, apprehend, and punish all contraveners (for instance, Act 5. Parliament 1. Act 104. Parliament 7. Act 25. Parliament 11. K. James VI), and that, notwithstanding of the King's Majesty's licences on the contrary, which are discharged and declared to be of no force, in so far as they tend in any ways to the prejudice and hindrance of the execution of the Acts of Parliament against Papists and adversaries of the true religion (Act 106. Parliament 7. K. James VI). {2866} On the other part, in Act 47. Parliament 3. K. James VI, it is declared and ordained, seeing the cause of God's true religion and His Highness's authority are so joined as the hurt of the one is common to both; and that none shall be reputed as loyal and faithful subjects to our Sovereign Lord or his authority, but be punishable as rebellers and gainstanders of the same, who shall not give their confession and make profession of the said true religion; and that they, who after defection shall give the confession of their faith of new, they shall promise to continue therein in time coming to maintain our Sovereign Lord's authority, and at the uttermost of their power to fortify, assist, and maintain the true preachers and professors of Christ's religion, against whatsoever enemies and gainstanders of the same; and namely, against all such of whatsoever nation, estate, or degree they be of, that have joined or bound themselves, or have assisted or assists to set forward and execute the cruel decrees of Trent, contrary to the preachers and true professors of the Word of God, which is repeated word by word in the Articles of Pacification at Perth, the 23d February, 1572, approved by Parliament the last of April 1573, ratified in Parliament 1578, and related Act 123. Parliament 12. of K. James VI., with this addition, that they are bound to resist all treasonable uproars and hostilities raised against the true religion, the King's Majesty and the true professors. Like as an lieges are bound to maintain the King's Majesty's royal person and authority, the authority of Parliaments, without which neither any laws or lawful judicatories can be established (Act 130. Act 131. Parliament 8. K. James VI), and the subject's liberties, who ought only to live and be governed by the King's laws, the common laws of this realm allanerly (Act 48. Parliament 3. K. James I, Act 79. Parliament 6. K. James VI, repeated in Act 131. Parliament 8. K. James VI), which if they be innovated or prejudged the commission anent the union of the two kingdoms of Scotland and England, which is the sole Act of 17 Parliament James VI, declares such confusion would ensue as this realm could be no more a free monarchy, because by the fundamental laws, ancient privileges, offices, and liberties of this kingdom, not only the princely authority of His Majesty's royal descent hath been these many ages maintained; also the people's security of their lands, livings, rights, offices, liberties and dignities preserved; and therefore for the preservation of the said true religion, laws and liberties of this kingdom, it is statute by Act 8. Parliament 1. repeated in Act 99. Parliament 7. ratified in Act 23. Parliament 11 and 14. Act of K. James VI and 4 Act of K. Charles, that all Kings and Princes at their coronation and reception of their princely authority, shall make their faithful promise by their solemn oath in the presence of the Eternal God, that during the whole time of their lives they shall serve the same Eternal God to the utmost of their power, according as He hath required in His most Holy Word, contained in the Old and New Testaments, and according to the same Word shall maintain the true religion of Christ Jesus, the preaching of His Holy Word, the due and right ministration of the sacraments now received and preached within this realm (according to the confession of faith immediately preceding); and shall abolish and gainstand all false religion contrary to the same; and shall rule the people committed to their charge according to the will and commandment of God revealed in His aforesaid Word, and according to the lowable laws and constitutions received in this realm, no ways repugnant to the said will of the Eternal God; and shall procure to the utmost of their power, to the Kirk of God, and whole Christian people, true and perfect peace in all time coming; and that they shall be careful to root out of their Empire all heretics and enemies to the true worship of God, who shall be convicted by the true Kirk of God of the aforesaid crimes. Which was also observed by His Majesty at his coronation in Edinburgh, 1633, as may be seen in the Order of the Coronation. In obedience to the commands of God, conform to the practice of the godly in former times, and according to the laudable example of our worthy and religious progenitors, and of many yet living amongst us, which was warranted also by act of council, commanding a general band to be made and subscribed by His Majesty's subjects of all ranks for two causes: one was, for defending the true religion, as it was then reformed, and is expressed in the confession of faith above written, and a former large confession established by sundry acts of lawful general assemblies and of Parliament unto which it hath relation, set down in public catechisms, and which had been for many years with a blessing from heaven preached and professed in this Kirk and kingdom, as God's undoubted truth grounded only upon His written Word. The other cause was for maintaining the King's Majesty, his person and estate: the true worship of God and the King's authority being so straitly joined, as that they had the same friends and common enemies, and did stand and fall together. And finally, being convinced in our minds; and confessing with our mouths, that the present and succeeding generations in this land are bound to keep the aforesaid national oath and subscription inviolable:—We noblemen, barons, gentlemen, burgesses, ministers, and commons under subscribing, considering divers times before, and especially at this time, the danger of the true reformed religion of the King's honour, and of the public of the kingdom, by the manifold innovations and evils generally contained and particularly mentioned in our late supplications, complaints, and protestations, do hereby profess, and before God, His angels and the world, solemnly declare, that with our whole hearts we agree and resolve all the days of our life constantly to adhere unto and to defend the aforesaid true religion, and forbearing the practice of all novations already introduced in the matters of the worship of God, or approbation of the corruptions of the public government of the Kirk, or civil places and power of kirkmen till they be tried and allowed in free assemblies and in Parliaments, to labour by all means lawful to recover the purity and liberty of the Gospel as it was established and professed before the aforesaid novations; and because, after due examination, we plainly perceive and undoubtedly believe that the innovations and evils contained in our supplications, complaints and protestations have no warrant of the Word of God, are contrary to the articles of the aforesaid confessions, to the intention and meaning of the blessed reformers of religion in this land, to the above-written Acts of Parliament, and do sensibly tend to the reestablishing of the popish religion and tyranny, and to the subversion and ruin of the true reformed religion, and of our liberties, laws and estates; we also declare that the aforesaid confessions are to be interpreted, and ought to be understood of the aforesaid novations and evils, no less than if everyone of them had been expressed in the aforesaid confessions; and that we are obliged to detest and abhor them, amongst other particular heads of papistry abjured therein. {2867} And therefore from the knowledge and conscience of our duty to God, to our King and country, without any worldly respect or inducement so far as human infirmity will suffer, wishing a further measure of the grace of God for this effect, we promise and swear by the great name of the Lord our God, to continue in the profession and obedience of the aforesaid religion; that we shall defend the same, and resist all these contrary errors and corruptions according to our vocation, and to the utmost of that power that God hath put into our hands, all the days of our life. And in like manner, with the same heart we declare before God and men, that we have no intention or desire to attempt anything that may turn to the dishonour of God or the diminution of the King's greatness and authority; but on the contrary we promise and swear that we shall to the utmost of our power, with our means and lives, stand to the defence of our dread Sovereign the King's Majesty, his person and authority, in the defence and preservation of the aforesaid true religion, liberties and laws of the kingdom; as also to the mutual defence and assistance everyone of us of another, in the same cause of maintaining the true religion and His Majesty's authority, with our best counsels, our bodies, means and whole power, against all sorts of persons whatsoever; so that whatsoever shall be done to the least of us for that cause shall be taken as done to us all in general, and to everyone of us in particular; and that we shall neither directly or indirectly suffer ourselves to be divided or withdrawn by whatsoever suggestion, combination, allurement or terror from this blessed and loyal conjunction; nor shall cast in any let or impediment that may stay or hinder any such resolution as by common consent shall be found to conduce for so good ends; but on the contrary shall by all lawful means labour to further and promote the same; and if any such dangerous and divisive motion be made to us by word or writ, we and everyone of us shall either suppress it or (if need be) shall incontinently make the same known, that it may be timously obviated. Neither do we fear the foul aspersions of rebellion, combination or what else our adversaries from their craft and malice would put upon us, seeing what we do is so well warranted, and ariseth from an unfeigned desire to maintain the true worship of God, the majesty of our King, and the peace of the kingdom for the common happiness of ourselves and posterity. And because we cannot look for a blessing from God upon our proceedings, except with our profession and subscription, we join such a life and conversation as beseemeth Christians who have renewed their covenant with God: we therefore faithfully promise, for ourselves, our followers, and all other under us, both in public, in our particular families and personal carriage, to endeavour to keep ourselves within the bounds of Christian liberty, and to be good examples to others of all godliness, soberness and righteousness, and of every duty we owe to God and man; and that this our union and conjunction may be observed without violation we call the living God, the searcher of our hearts to witness, who knoweth this to be our sincere desire and unfeigned resolution, as we shall answer to Jesus Christ in the great day, and under the pain of God's everlasting wrath, and of infamy, and of loss of all honour and respect in this world; most humbly beseeching the Lord to strengthen us by His Holy Spirit for this end, and to bless our desires and proceedings with a happy success, that religion and righteousness may flourish in the land, to the glory of God, the honour of our King, and peace and comfort of us all.' In witness whereof we have subscribed with our hands all the premises, &c."

   In November, 1638, a General Assembly was convened at Glasgow,
   with the consent of the king, and was opened by the Marquis of
   Hamilton as Royal Commissioner. But when the Assembly took in
   hand the trial of the bishops, Hamilton withdrew and ordered
   the members to disperse. They paid no heed to the order, but
   deposed the bishops and excommunicated eight of them. "The
   Canons and the Liturgy were then rejected, and all acts of the
   Assemblies held since 1606 were annulled. In the North, where
   Huntly was the King's lieutenant, the Covenant had not been
   received, and the Tables resolved to enforce it with the
   sword. Scotland was now full of trained soldiers just come
   back from Germany, where they had learnt to fight in the
   Thirty Years' war, and as plenty of money had been collected
   among the Covenanters, an army was easily raised. Their banner
   bore the motto, 'For Religion, the Covenant, and the Country,'
   and their leader was James Graham, Earl of Montrose, one of
   the most zealous among the champions of the cause. … While
   Montrose had been thus busy for the Covenant in the North, the
   King had been making ready to put down his rebellious Scottish
   subjects with the sword. Early in May a fleet entered the
   Forth under the command of Hamilton. But the Tables took
   possession of the strongholds, and seized the ammunition which
   had been laid in for the King. They then raised another army
   of 22,000 foot and 1,200 horse, and placed at its head
   Alexander Leslie, a veteran trained in the German war. Their
   army they sent southwards to meet the English host which the
   King was bringing to reduce Scotland. The two armies faced
   each other on opposite banks of the Tweed. The Scots were
   skilfully posted on Dunse Law, a hill commanding the Northern
   road. To pass them without fighting was impossible, and to
   fight would have been almost certain defeat. The King seeing
   this agreed to treat. By a treaty called the Pacification of
   Berwick, it was settled that the questions at issue between
   the King and the Covenanters should be put to a free Assembly,
   that both armies should be disbanded, and that the strongholds
   should be restored to the King (June 9, 1639). The Assembly
   which met at Edinburgh repeated and approved all that had been
   done at Glasgow. When the Estates met for the first time in
   the New Parliament-house, June 2, 1640, they went still
   further, for they not only confirmed the Acts of the
   Assemblies, but ordered every one to sign the Covenant under
   pain of civil penalties.
{2868}
   Now for the first time they acted in open defiance of the
   King, to whom hitherto they had professed the greatest loyalty
   and submission. Three times had they been adjourned by the
   King, who had also refused to see the Commissioners whom they
   sent up to London. Now they met in spite of him, and, as in
   former times of troubles and difficulties, they appealed to
   France for help. When this intrigue with the French was found
   out, the Lord Loudon, one of their Commissioners, was sent to
   the Tower, and the English Parliament was summoned to vote
   supplies for putting down the Scots by force of arms."

ALSO IN: S. R. Gardiner, History of England, 1603-1641, chapters 88-89 (volume 9).

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1643.
The Solemn League and Covenant with the English Parliament.

At the beginning of the conflict between Charles I. and the Covenanters, James Graham, the brilliant and accomplished Earl of Montrose, attached himself to the latter, but soon deserted their cause and gave himself with great earnestness to that of the court. For his reward, he was raised to the dignity of Marquis of Montrose. After the great defeat of Prince Rupert at Marston Moor, Montrose obtained a commission to raise forces among the Highlanders and proved to be a remarkably successful leader of these wild warriors. Along with his Highlanders he incorporated a body of still wilder Celts, received from Ireland. On the 1st of September, 1644, Montrose attacked an army of the Covenanters, 6,000 foot and horse, at Tippermuir, "totally routed them, and took their artillery and baggage, without losing a man. Perth immediately surrendered to Montrose, and he had some further successes; but threatened by a superior force under the Marquis of Argyll, he retreated northwards into Badenoch, and thence sweeping down into Argyllshire, he mercilessly ravaged the country of the Campbells. Exasperated with the devastation of his estates, Argyll marched against Montrose, who, not waiting to be attacked, surprised the army of the Covenanters at Inverlochy, 2d February, 1645, and totally defeated them, no fewer than 1,500 of the clan Campbell perishing in the battle, while Montrose lost only four or five men. Brilliant as were these victories, they had no abiding influence in quenching this terrible civil war. It was a game of winning and losing; and looking to the fact that the Scotch generally took the side of the Covenant, the struggle was almost hopeless. Still Montrose was undaunted. After the Inverlochy affair, he went southwards through Elgin and Banff into Aberdeenshire, carrying everything before him. Major-general Baillie, a second-rate Covenanting commander, and his lieutenant, General Hurry, were at Brechin, with a force to oppose him; but Montrose, by a dexterous movement, eluded them, captured and pillaged the city of Dundee, and escaped safely into the Grampians. On the 4th May, he attacked, and by extraordinary generalship routed Hurry at Auldearn, near Nairn. After enjoying a short respite with his fierce veterans in Badenoch, he again issued from his wilds, and inflicted a still more disastrous defeat on Baillie, at Alford, in Aberdeenshire, July 2. There was now nothing to prevent his march south, and he set out with a force of from 5,000 to 6,000 men." Overtaken by Baillie at Kilsyth, he once more defeated that commander overwhelmingly. "The number of slain was upwards of 6,000, with very few killed on the side of the royalists. The victory so effected, 15th August 1645, was the greatest Montrose ever gained. His triumph was complete, for the victory of Kilsyth put him in possession of the whole of Scotland. The government of the country was broken up; every organ of the recent administration, civil and ecclesiastical, at once vanished. The conqueror was hailed as 'the great Marquis of Montrose.' Glasgow yielded him tribute and homage; counties and burghs compounded for mercy. The city of Edinburgh humbly deprecated his vengeance, and implored his pardon and forgiveness." But, if the conquest of Scotland was complete for the moment, it came too late. The battle of Naseby had been fought two months before the battle of Kilsyth, and the king's cause was lost. It was in vain that Charles sent to his brilliant champion of the north a commission as Lieutenant-governor of Scotland. Montrose's army melted away so rapidly that when, in September, he marched south, leading his forlorn hope to the help of the king in England, he had but 700 foot and 200 mounted gentlemen. The small force was intercepted and surprised at Philiphaugh (September 13, 1645) by Leslie, with 4,000 horse. Montrose, after fighting with vain obstinacy until no more fighting could be done, made his escape, with a few followers. Most of his troops, taken prisoners, were massacred a few days afterwards, cold-bloodedly, in the courtyard of Newark Castle; and the deed is said to have been due, not to military, but to clerical malignity.

      P. Bayne,
      The Chief Actors in the Puritan Revolution,
      chapter 7.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1646-1647.
Flight of King Charles to the Scots army
and his surrender to the English Parliament.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1650 (MARCH-JULY).
Scottish loyalty revived.
Charles II. accepted as a "Covenant King."

   "The Scots had begun the great movement whose object was at
   once to resist the tyranny of the Stuarts and the tyranny of
   Rome, and which was destined to result in incalculable
   consequences for Europe. But now they retraced their steps,
   and put themselves in opposition to the Commonwealth of
   England. They wanted a leader. 'With Oliver Cromwell born a
   Scotchman,' says Carlyle; 'with a Hero King and a unanimous
   Hero Nation at his back, it might have been far otherwise.
   With Oliver born Scotch, one sees not but the whole world
   might have become Puritan.' Without shutting our eyes to the
   truth there may be in this pas·sage, we find the cause of this
   northern war elsewhere. In spiritual things the Scots
   acknowledged Jesus Christ as their king; in temporal, they
   recognized Charles II.
{2869}
   They had no wish that the latter should usurp the kingdom of
   the former; but they also had no desire that Cromwell should
   seize upon the Stuarts' throne. They possessed a double
   loyalty—one towards the heavenly king, and another to their
   earthly sovereign. They had cast off the abuses of the latter,
   but not the monarchy itself. They accordingly invited the
   prince, who was then in Holland, to come to Scotland, and take
   possession of his kingdom. … Charles at this time was
   conniving at Montrose, who was spreading desolation throughout
   Scotland; and the young king hoped by his means to recover a
   throne without having to take upon himself any embarrassing
   engagement. But when the marquis was defeated, he determined
   to surrender to the Scottish parliament. One circumstance had
   nearly caused his ruin. Among Montrose's papers was found a
   commission from the king, giving him authority to levy troops
   and subdue the country by force of arms. The indignant
   parliament immediately recalled their commissioner from
   Holland; but the individual to whom the order was addressed
   treacherously concealed the document from his colleagues, and
   by showing it to none but the prince, gave him to understand
   that he could no longer safely temporize. Charles being thus
   convinced hurried on board, and set sail for Scotland,
   attended by a train of unprincipled men. The most serious
   thinkers in the nation saw that they could expect little else
   from him than duplicity, treachery, and licentiousness. It has
   been said that the Scotch compelled Charles to adopt their
   detested Covenant voluntarily. Most certainly the political
   leaders cannot be entirely exculpated of this charge; but it
   was not so with the religious part of the government. When he
   declared his readiness to sign that deed on board the ship,
   even before he landed, Livingston, who doubted his sincerity,
   begged him to wait until he had reached Scotland, and given
   satisfactory proofs of his good faith. But it was all to no
   effect. … If Charles Stuart had thought of ascending his
   native throne only, Cromwell and the English would have
   remained quiet; but he aimed at the recovery of the three
   kingdoms, and the Scotch were disposed to aid him. Oliver
   immediately saw the magnitude of the danger which threatened
   the religion, liberty, and morals of England, and did not
   hesitate."

ALSO IN: A. Bisset, Omitted Chapters of the History of England, volume 1, chapter 5.

      P. Bayne,
      The Chief Actors in the Puritan Revolution,
      chapter 6.

War with Scotland having been determined upon by the English Council of State, and Fairfax having declined the command, Cromwell was recalled from Ireland to head the army. "He passed the Tweed with an army of 16,000 men on the 16th of July. The Scots had placed themselves under the command of the old Earl of Leven and of David Leslie. As yet their army was a purely Covenanting one. By an act of the Scotch Church, called the Act of Classes, all known Malignants, and the Engagers (as those men were called who had joined Hamilton's insurrection), had been removed from the army. The country between the Tweed and Edinburgh had been wasted; and the inhabitants, terrified by ridiculous stories of the English cruelty, had taken flight; but Cromwell's army, marching by the coast, was supplied by the fleet. He thus reached the immediate neighbourhood of Edinburgh; but Leslie skilfully availed himself of the advantages of the ground and refused to be brought to an engagement. It became necessary for Cromwell to withdraw towards his supplies. He fell back to Dunbar, which lies upon a peninsula, jutting out into the Firth of Forth. The base of this peninsula is at a little distance encircled by high ground, an offshoot of the Lammermuir Hills. These heights were occupied by the Scotch army, as was also the pass through which the road to Berwick lies. Cromwell was therefore apparently shut up between the enemy and the sea, with no choice but to retire to his ships or surrender. Had Leslie continued his cautious policy, such might have been the event. A little glen, through which runs a brook called the Broxburn, separated the two enemies. Between it and the high grounds lay a narrow but comparatively level tract. Either army attacking the other must cross this glen. There were two convenient places for passing it: one, the more inland one, towards the right of the English, who stood with their back to the sea, was already in the hands of the Scotch. Could Leslie secure the other, at the mouth of the glen, he would have it in his power to attack when he pleased. The temptation was too strong for him; be gradually moved his army down from the hills towards its own right flank, thereby bringing it on the narrow ground between the hill and the brook, intending with his right to secure the passage at Broxmouth, Cromwell and Lambert saw the movement, saw that it gave them a corresponding advantage if they suddenly crossed the glen at Broxmouth, and fell upon Leslie's right wing, while his main body was entangled in the narrow ground before mentioned. The attack was immediately decided upon, and [next morning] early on the 3rd of September carried out with perfect success. The Scotch horse of the right wing were driven in confusion back upon their main body, whom they trampled under foot, and the whole army was thus rolled back upon itself in inextricable confusion."

"The pursuit extended over a distance of eight miles, and the total loss of the Scots amounted to 3,000 killed and 10,000 prisoners, while 30 guns and 15,000 stand of arms were taken; the casualties of the English army did not exceed 20 men. Of the prisoners, 5,000, being wounded, old men or boys, were allowed to return home; the remaining 5,000 were sent into England, whence, after enduring terrible hardships, they were, as had been the prisoners taken at Preston, sold either as slaves to the planters or as soldiers to the Venetians. On the day following that of the battle, Lambert pushed on to Edinburgh with six regiments of horse and one of foot; Cromwell himself, after a rest of a few days, advanced on the capital, which at once surrendered to the victors. The example thus set was followed by Leith, but Edinburgh Castle still held out [until the following December] against the English. The remnant of the Scottish army (but 1,300 horse remained of the 6,000 who took part in the battle) retired on Stirling, while Charles himself took up his residence at Perth."

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1651 (August).
Charles' rash advance into England.
Cromwell's pursuit and crushing victory at Worcester.

"Lesley was gathering the wreck of his army about him at Stirling. Charles, with the Scottish authorities, had retired to Perth. The Presbyterian party became divided; and the royalists obtained a higher influence in the direction of the national policy. Charles, without further question of his real intentions, was crowned at Scone on the 1st of January, 1651. After a three months' blockade, and then a bombardment, Edinburgh Castle was surrendered to Cromwell on the 18th of December. He had little to do to make himself master of Scotland on the south of the Forth. On the 4th of February the army marched towards Stirling, but returned without any result, driven to the good quarters of Edinburgh by terrible storms of sleet and snow. The Lord-General became seriously ill through this exposure. But on the 5th of June he was out again; and at the end of the month was vigorously prosecuting the campaign. The Scottish army was entrenched at Stirling. The king had been invited to take its command in person. Cromwell, on the 2nd of August, had succeeded in possessing himself of Perth. At that juncture the news reached him that the royal camp at Stirling was broken up, on the 31st of July; and that Charles was on his march southward, at the head of 11,000 men, his lieutenant-general being David Lesley. Argyll was opposed to this bold resolution, and had retired to Inverary. Charles took the western road by Carlisle; and when on English ground issued a proclamation offering pardon to those who would return to their allegiance—exempting from his promised amnesty Bradshaw, Cromwell, and Cook. He was also proclaimed king of England, at the head of his army: and similar proclamation was made at Penrith and other market-towns. Strict discipline was preserved, and although the presence of Scots in arms was hateful to the people, they were not outraged by any attempts at plunder. Charles, however, had few important accessions of strength. There was no general rising in his favour. The gates of Shrewsbury were shut against him. At Warrington, his passage of the Mersey was opposed by Lambert and Harrison, who had got before him with their cavalry. On the 22nd of August Charles reached Worcester, the parliamentary garrison having evacuated the city. He there set up his standard, and a summons went forth for all male subjects of due age to gather round their Sovereign Lord, at the general muster of his forces on the 26th of August. An inconsiderable number of gentlemen came, with about 200 followers. Meanwhile Cromwell had marched rapidly from Scotland with 10,000 men, leaving behind him 6,000 men under Monk. The militias of the counties joined him with a zeal which showed their belief that another civil war would not be a national blessing. On the 28th of August the General of the Commonwealth was close to Worcester, with 30,000 men." On the 3d of September (the anniversary of the victory of Dunbar, won just a year before), he attacked the royalist army and made an end of it. "'We beat the enemy from hedge to hedge [he wrote to parliament] till we beat him into Worcester. The enemy then drew all his forces on the other side the town, all but what he had lost; and made a very considerable fight with us, for three hours' space; but in the end we beat him totally, and pursued him to his royal fort, which we took,—and indeed have beaten his whole army.' The prisoners taken at the battle of Worcester, and in the subsequent flight, exceeded 7,000. They included some of the most distinguished leaders of the royalists in England and Scotland. Courts-martial were held upon nine of these; and three, amongst whom was the earl of Derby, were executed." Charles Stuart escaped by flight, with his long cavalier locks cut close and his royal person ignobly disguised, wandering and hiding for six weeks before he reached the coast and got ship for France. The story of his adventures—his concealment in the oak at Boscobel, his ride to Bristol as a serving man, with a lady on the pillion behind him, &c., &c.,—has been told often enough.

ALSO IN: T. Carlyle, Oliver Cromwell's Letters and Speeches, part 6, letters 96-124.

      A. Bisset,
      Omitted Chapters of English History,
      chapters 10-11 (volume 2).

When Cromwell followed Charles and his Scottish army into England, to destroy them at Worcester, he left Monk in Scotland, with a few thousand men, and that resolute general soon completed the conquest of the kingdom. He met with most resistance at Dundee. "Dundee was a town well fortified, supplied with a good garrison under Lumisden, and full of all the rich furniture, the plate, and money of the kingdom, which had been sent thither as to a place of safety. Monk appeared before it: and having made a breach, gave a general assault. He carried the town; and, following the example and instructions of Cromwell, put all the inhabitants to the sword, in order to strike a general terror into the kingdom. Warned by this example, Aberdeen, St. Andrew's, Inverness, and other towns and forts, yielded, of their own accord, to the enemy. … That kingdom, which had hitherto, through all ages, by means of its situation, poverty, and valour, maintained its independence, was reduced to total subjection."

   In 1654, "Cromwell completed another work which the Long
   Parliament and the Barebone Parliament had both undertaken and
   left unfinished. Under favour of the discussions which had
   arisen between the great powers of the Commonwealth, the
   Scottish royalists had once more conceived hopes, and taken up
   arms. … The insurrection, though chiefly confined to the
   Highlands, descended occasionally to ravage the plains; and
   towards the beginning of February, 1654, Middleton had been
   sent from France, by Charles II., to attempt to give, in the
   king's name, that unity and consistency of action in which it
   had until then been deficient.
{2871}
   No sooner had he been proclaimed Protector, than Cromwell took
   decisive measures to crush these dangers in their infancy: he
   despatched to Ireland his second son, Henry, an intelligent,
   circumspect, and resolute young man, and to Scotland, Monk,
   whom that country had already once recognized as her
   conqueror. Both succeeded in their mission. … Monk, with his
   usual prompt and intrepid boldness, carried the war into the
   very heart of the Highlands, established his quarters there,
   pursued the insurgents into their most inaccessible retreats,
   defeated Middleton and compelled him to re-embark for the
   Continent, and, after a campaign of four months, returned to
   Edinburgh at the end of August, 1654, and began once more,
   without passion or noise, to govern the country which he had
   twice subjugated. Cromwell had reckoned beforehand on his
   success, for, on the 12th of April, 1654, at the very period
   when he ordered Monk to march against the Scottish insurgents,
   be had, by a sovereign ordinance, incorporated Scotland with
   England, abolished all monarchical or feudal jurisdiction in
   the ancient realm of the Stuarts, and determined the place
   which its representatives, as well as those of Ireland, should
   occupy in the common Parliament of the new State."

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1660-1666.
The restored King and the restored prelatical Church.
The oppression of the Covenanters.

"In Scotland the restoration of the Stuarts had been hailed with delight; for it was regarded as the restoration of national independence. And true it was that the yoke which Cromwell had imposed was, in appearance, taken away, that the Scottish Estates again met in their old hall at Edinburgh, and that the Senators of the College of Justice again administered the Scottish law according to the old forms. Yet was the independence of the little kingdom necessarily rather nominal than real: for, as long as the King had England on his side, he had nothing to apprehend from disaffection in his other dominions. He was now in such a situation that he could renew the attempt which had proved destructive to his father without any danger of his father's fate. … The government resolved to set up a prelatical church in Scotland. The design was disapproved by every Scotchman whose judgment was entitled to respect. … The Scottish Parliament was so constituted that it had scarcely ever offered any serious opposition even to Kings much weaker than Charles then was. Episcopacy, therefore, was established by law. As to the form of worship, a large discretion was left to the clergy. In some churches the English Liturgy was used. In others, the ministers selected from that Liturgy such prayers and thanksgivings as were likely to be least offensive to the people. But in general the doxology was sung at the close of public worship, and the Apostles' Creed was recited when baptism was administered. By the great body of the Scottish nation the new Church was detested both as superstitious and as foreign; as tainted with the corruptions of Rome, and as a mark of the predominance of England. There was, however, no general insurrection. The country was not what it had been twenty-two years before. Disastrous war and alien domination had tamed the spirit of the people. … The bulk of the Scottish nation, therefore, sullenly submitted, and, with many misgivings of conscience, attended the ministrations of the Episcopal clergy, or of Presbyterian divines who had consented to accept from the government a half toleration known by the name of the Indulgence. But there were, particularly in the western lowlands, many fierce and resolute men who held that the obligation to observe the Covenant was paramount to the obligation to obey the magistrate. These people, in defiance of the law, persisted in meeting to worship God after their own fashion. The Indulgence they regarded, not as a partial reparation of the wrongs inflicted by the State on the Church, but as a new wrong, the more odious because it was disguised under the appearance of a benefit. Persecution, they said, could only kill the body; but the black Indulgence was deadly to the soul. Driven from the towns, they assembled on, heaths and mountains. Attacked by the civil power, they without scruple repelled force by force. At every conventicle they mustered in arms. They repeatedly broke out into open rebellion. They were easily defeated and mercilessly punished: but neither defeat nor punishment could subdue their spirit. Hunted down like wild beasts, tortured till their bones were beaten fiat, imprisoned by hundreds, hanged by scores, exposed at one time to the license of soldiers from England, abandoned at another time to the mercy of troops of marauders from the Highlands, they still stood at bay, in a mood so savage that the boldest and mightiest oppressor could not but dread the audacity of their despair."

The Scottish Parliament by which Episcopacy was established at the king's bidding is known as the Drunken Parliament. "Every man of them, with one exception, is said to have been intoxicated at the time of passing it [October 1, 1662]. Its effect was that 350 ministers were ejected from their livings. The apparatus of ecclesiastical tyranny was completed by a Mile Act, similar to the Five Mile Act of England, forbidding any recusant minister to reside within twenty miles of his own parish, or within three miles of a royal borough."

"The violence of the drunken parliament was finally shown in the absurdity of what was called the 'Act Rescissory,' by which every law that had been passed in the Scottish parliament during twenty-eight years was wholly annulled. The legal foundations of Presbytery were thus swept away."

ALSO IN: J. Aikman, Annals of the Persecution in Scotland, volume 1, books 2-5.

   "A new Parliament was assembled [October 19, 1669] at
   Edinburgh, and Lauderdale was sent down commissioner. … It
   were endless to recount every act of violence and arbitrary
   authority exercised during Lauderdale's administration. All
   the lawyers were put from the bar, nay banished, by the king's
   order, twelve miles from the capital, and by that means the
   whole justice of the kingdom was suspended for a year, till
   these lawyers were brought to declare it as their opinion that
   all appeals to Parliament were illegal. A letter was procured
   from the king, for expelling twelve of the chief magistrates
   of Edinburgh, and declaring them incapable of an public
   office, though their only crime had been their want of
   compliance with Lauderdale. …
{2872}
   The private deportment of Lauderdale was as insolent and
   provoking as his public administration was violent and
   tyrannical. Justice likewise was universally perverted by
   faction and interest: and from the great rapacity of that
   duke, and still more of his duchess, all offices and favours
   were openly put to sale. No one was allowed to approach the
   throne who was not dependent on him; and no remedy could be
   hoped for or obtained against his manifold oppressions. … The
   law enacted against conventicles had called them seminaries of
   rebellion. This expression, which was nothing but a flourish
   of rhetoric, Lauderdale and the privy council were willing to
   understand in a literal sense; and because the western
   counties abounded in conventicles, though otherwise in
   profound peace, they pretended that these counties were in a
   state of actual war and rebellion. They made therefore an
   agreement with some highland chieftains to call out their
   clans, to the number of 8,000 men; to these they joined the
   guards, and the militia of Angus: and they sent the whole to
   live at free quarters upon the lands of such as had refused
   the bonds [engaging them as landlords to restrain their
   tenants from attending conventicles] illegally required of
   them. The obnoxious counties were the most populous and most
   industrious in Scotland. The highlanders were the people the
   most disorderly and the least civilized. It is easy to imagine
   the havoc and destruction which ensued. … After two months'
   free quarter, the highlanders were sent back to their hills,
   loaded with the spoils and the execrations of the west. … Lest
   the cry of an oppressed people should reach the throne, the
   council forbad, under severe penalties, all noblemen or
   gentlemen of landed property to leave the kingdom. … It is
   reported that Charles, after a full hearing of the debates
   concerning Scottish affairs, said, 'I perceive that Lauderdale
   has been guilty of many bad things against the people of
   Scotland; but I cannot find that he has acted anything
   contrary to my interest.'"

"The public indignation which these measures [under Lauderdale] roused was chiefly directed against the Archbishop of St. Andrews [Dr. James Sharp], who was generally regarded as their author or instigator, and was doubly obnoxious as the Judas of the Presbyterian Church." On the 3d of May, 1679, the Archbishop was dragged from his carriage on Magus Moor, three miles from St. Andrews, and murdered, by a band of twelve Covenanters, headed by Hackston of Rathillet, and Balfour of Burley, his brother-in-law. "The great body of the Presbyterians, though doubtless thinking that 'the loon was weel away,' condemned this cruel and bloody deed as a foul murder; and they could not fail to see that it would greatly increase the severity of the persecution against their party. … It was now declared a treasonable act to attend a conventicle, and orders were issued to the commanders of the troops in the western district to disperse all such meetings at the point of the sword. … Towards the end of May preparations were made to hold a great conventicle on a moor in the parish of Avondale, near the borders of Lanarkshire. The day selected for the service was the first of June. No secret was made of the arrangement, and it became known to John Graham of Claverhouse, the 'Bloody Claverhouse,' as he was called, who commanded a body of dragoons, stationed at Glasgow, for the purpose of suppressing the Covenanters in that district. … Having been apprised of the intended meeting, he hastened towards the spot at the head of his own troop of horse and two companies of dragoons. … The Covenanters had assembled on the farm of Drumclog, in the midst of a high and moorland district out of which rises the wild craggy eminence of Loudoun Hill, in whose vicinity Robert Bruce gained his first victory. … The preacher, Thomas Douglas, had proceeded only a short way with his sermon when a watchman posted on an adjoining height fired his gun as a signal that the enemy was approaching. The preacher paused in his discourse, and closed with the oft-quoted words—'You have got the theory; now for the practice.' The women and children were sent to the rear. The armed men separated from the rest of the meeting and took up their position. … Claverhouse and his dragoons were descending the slope of the opposite eminence, called Calder Hill, and with a loud cheer they rushed towards the morass and fired a volley at the Covenanters. It was returned with great effect, emptying a number of saddles. The dragoons made several unsuccessful attempts to cross the marsh, and flanking parties sent to the right and to the left were repulsed with considerable loss. At this juncture John Nisbet [an old soldier of the Thirty Years' War] cried out, 'Jump the ditch and charge the enemy.' The order was instantly obeyed. Balfour, at the head of the horsemen, and Cleland, with a portion of the infantry, crossed the marsh and attacked the dragoons with such fury that they were thrown into confusion and took to flight, leaving from forty to fifty of their number dead on the field. Claverhouse himself had his horse killed under him and narrowly escaped his pursuers. … The victory at Drumclog roused the whole country. Great numbers poured in to join the victors, and in a short time their ranks had swelled to upwards of 6,000 men."

   "The King was for suppressing the insurrection immediately by
   forces from England to join those in Scotland, and the Duke of
   Monmouth to command them all. … The Duke of Monmouth, after a
   friendly parting with the King, who had been displeased with
   him, set out from London, June 18, for Scotland, where he
   arrived in three days, with an expedition considered
   incredible, and took the command. The Covenanters were 5,000
   or 6,000 strong, and had taken up a position six miles from
   Hamilton, at Bothwell Bridge, which they barricaded and
   disputed the Duke's passage. These Covenanters were
   irresolute. An attempt to negotiate was made, but they were
   told that no proposal could be received from rebels in arms.
   One half hour was allowed. The Covenanters went on consuming
   their time in theological controversy, considering 'the Duke
   to be in rebellion against the Lord and his people.'
{2873}
   While thus almost unprepared, they were entirely defeated in
   an action, 22d of June, which, in compliment to the Duke of
   Monmouth, was too proudly called the battle of Bothwell
   Bridge. Four hundred Covenanters were killed, and 1,200 made
   prisoners. Monmouth was evidently favourable to them. … The
   Duke would not let the dragoons pursue and massacre those (as
   Oldmixon calls them) Protestants. … The same historian adds,
   that the Duke of York talked of Monmouth's expedition to
   Scotland, as a courting the people there, and their friends in
   England, by his sparing those that were left alive; and that
   Charles himself said to Monmouth, 'If I had been there, we
   would not have had the trouble of prisoners.' The Duke
   answered, 'I cannot kill men in cold blood; that's work only
   for butchers.' The prisoners who promised to live peaceably
   were set at liberty; the others, about 270, were transported
   to our plantations, but were all cast away at sea! The Duke of
   Lauderdale's creatures pressed the keeping the army some time
   in Scotland, with a design to have them eat it up; but the
   Duke of Monmouth sent home the militia, and put the troops
   under discipline; so that all the country was sensible he had
   preserved them from ruin. The Duke asked the King to grant an
   indemnity for what was past, and liberty to the Covenanters to
   hold their meetings under the King's license; but these
   softening measures fell with Monmouth, and rage and slaughter
   again reigned when the Duke of York obtained the government of
   Scotland."

      ALSO IN:
      J. H. Burton,
      History of Scotland,
      chapter 79 (volume 7).

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1681-1689.
   The pitiless rule of James II.
   The hunting of the Cameronians.
   Claverhouse's brutalities.

In 1681 the government of Scotland was committed to the king's brother, the duke of York (afterwards James II.), as viceroy. "Succeeding the duke of Monmouth, who was universally beloved, he was anxious to exhibit as a statesman that capacity which he thought he had given sufficient proof of as a general and as a naval commander. In assuming the direction of the affairs of Scotland, he at first affected moderation; but at a very early period an occasion presented itself for displaying severity; he was then pitiless. A few hundred presbyterians, under the conduct of two ministers, Cameron and Cargill, having taken arms and declared that they would acknowledge neither the king nor the bishops, he sent the troops against them. The insurgents, who called themselves Cargillites and Cameronians, were beaten, and a great number of them killed. The prisoners, taken to Edinburgh, were tortured and put to death. The duke was present at the executions, which he witnessed with an unmoved countenance, and as though they were curious experiments."

"Unlike the English Puritans, the great majority of the Scottish Presbyterians were staunch supporters of monarchy. … Now, however, owing to the 'oppression which maketh a wise man mad,' an extreme party arose among them, who not only condemned the Indulgence and refused to pay cess, but publicly threw off their allegiance to the King, on the ground of his violation of his coronation oath, his breach of the Covenant which he solemnly swore to maintain, his perfidy, and his 'tyranny in matters civil.' A declaration to this effect was publicly read, and then affixed (June 22d, 1680) to the market cross of Sanquhar in Dumfriesshire, by Richard Cameron and Donald Cargill, two of the most distinguished Covenanting ministers, accompanied by an armed party of about twenty persons. … These acts of the 'Society men,' or Cameronians, as they were called after their leader, afforded the government a plausible pretext for far more severe measures than they had yet taken against the Hillmen, whom they hunted for several weeks through the moors and wild glens of Ayr and Galloway."

"He [James II.], whose favourite theme had been the injustice of requiring civil functionaries to take religious tests, established in Scotland, when he resided there as Viceroy, the most rigorous religious test that has ever been known in the empire. He, who had expressed just indignation when the priests of his own faith were hanged and quartered, amused himself with hearing Covenanters shriek and seeing them writhe while their knees were beaten flat in the boots. In this mood he became King, and he immediately demanded and obtained from the obsequious Estates of Scotland, as the surest pledge of their loyalty, the most sanguinary law that has ever in our islands been enacted against Protestant Nonconformists. With this law the whole spirit of his administration was in perfect harmony. The fiery persecution, which had raged when he ruled Scotland as vicegerent, waxed hotter than ever from the day on which he he came sovereign. Those shires in which the Covenanters were most numerous were given up to the license of the army. … Preeminent among the bands which oppressed and wasted these unhappy districts were the dragoons commanded by John Graham of Claverhouse. The story ran that these wicked men used in their revels to play at the torments of hell, and to call each other by the names of devils and damned souls. The chief of this Tophet, a soldier of distinguished courage and professional skill, but rapacious and profane, of violent temper and obdurate heart, has left a name which, wherever the Scottish race is settled on the face of the globe, is mentioned with a peculiar energy of hatred. To recapitulate all the crimes by which this man, and men like him, goaded the peasantry of the Western Lowlands into madness, would be an endless task."

ALSO IN: J. Cunningham, History of the Church of Scotland, volume 2, chapter 6.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1688-1690.
   The Revolution.
   Fall of the Stuarts and their Bishops.
   Presbyterianism finally restored and established.

   "At the first prospect of invasion from Holland [by William of
Orange], James had ordered the regiments on duty in Scotland to
   march southward. The withdrawal of the troops was followed by
   outbreaks in various parts. In Glasgow the Covenanters rose,
   and proclaimed the Prince of Orange king. In Edinburgh riots
   broke out. The chapel of Holyrood Palace was dismantled, and
   the Romish bishops and priests fled in fear for their lives.
   On hearing that William had entered into London, the leading
   Whigs, under the Duke of Hamilton, repaired thither, and had
   an interview with him. He invited them to meet in Convention.
   This they accordingly did, and on January 9, 1689, it was
   resolved to request William to summon a meeting of the
   Scottish Estates for the 14th of March, and in the interim to
   administer the government. To this William consented. The
   Estates of Scotland met on the appointed day. All the bishops,
   and a great number of the peers were adherents of James. After
   a stormy debate, the Duke of Hamilton was elected President.
   But the minority (Jacobites) was a large one. … The Duke of
   Gordon still held Edinburgh Castle for James, and when the
   minority found it hopeless to carry their measures, he
   proposed they should with him withdraw from Edinburgh and hold
   a rival Convention at Stirling. But these intentions were
   discovered, many Jacobites were arrested, and many others,
   amongst them Viscount Dundee, escaped to the Highlands. In the
   end, the crown was offered to William and Mary on the same
   terms on which it had been offered by the English Convention.
   The offer was accompanied by a claim of rights, almost
   identical with the English declaration, but containing the
   additional clause, that 'prelacy was a great and insupportable
   grievance.' On April 11, 1689, William and Mary were solemnly
   proclaimed at the Cross of Edinburgh. It was high time some
   form of government should be settled, for, throughout the
   Lowlands, scenes of mob violence were daily witnessed. The
   Presbyterians, so long down-trodden, rose in many a parish.
   The Episcopal clergy were ejected, in some cases with
   bloodshed. The 'rabbling,' as it is called in Scotch history,
   continued for some months, until the Presbyterian Church was
   reinstated by law as the Established Church of Scotland, in
   June 1690."

"Episcopacy was now thrown down; but Presbytery was yet to be built up. … Months passed away, and the year 1690 began. King William was quite prepared to establish Presbytery, but he was most unwilling to abolish patronage. Moreover, he was desirous that the foundations of the new Church should be as widely laid as possible, and that it should comprehend all the ministers of the old Church who chose to conform to its discipline. But he began to see that some concession was necessary, if a Church was to be built up at all. On the 25th of April the Parliament met which was to give us the Establishment which we still enjoy. Its first act was to abolish the Act 1669, which asserted the king's supremacy over all persons and in all causes. Its second act was to restore all the Presbyterian ministers who had been ejected from their livings for not complying with Prelacy. This done, the parliament paused in its full career of ecclesiastical legislation, and abolished the Lords of the Articles, who for so many centuries had managed the whole business of the Scotch Estates, and ordained that the electors of commissioners to the Estates should take the Oath of Allegiance before exercising the franchise. The next act forms the foundation of our present Establishment. It ratifies the 'Westminster Confession of Faith'; it revives the Act 1592; it repeals all the laws in favour of Episcopacy; it legalizes the ejections of the western rabble; it declares that the government of the Church was to be vested in the ministers who were outed for nonconformity, on and after the 1st January 1661, and were now restored, and those who had been or should be admitted by them; it appoints the General Assembly to meet; and empowers it to nominate visitors to purge out all insufficient, negligent, scandalous, and erroneous ministers, by due course of ecclesiastical process. In this act the Presbyterians gained all that they could desire, as Presbytery was established, and the government of the Church was placed entirely in their hands. By this act, the Westminster Confession became the creed of the Church, and is recorded at length in the minutes of the parliament. But the Catechisms and the 'Directory of Worship' are not found by its side. A pamphleteer of the day declares that the Confession was read amid much yawning and weariness, and, by the time it was finished, the Estates grew restive, and would hear no more. It is at least certain that the Catechisms and Directory are not once mentioned, though the Presbyterian ministers were very anxious that they should. From this it would appear that, while the State has fixed the Church's faith, it has not fixed the Church's worship. … The Covenants were utterly ignored, though there were many in the Church who would have wished them revived."

      J. Cunningham,
      Church History of Scotland,
      volume 2, chapter 7.

   "The duke of Gordon still held out the castle of Edinburgh for
   James; and the viscount Dundee [Graham of Claverhouse], the
   soul of the Jacobite party in Scotland, having collected a
   small but gallant army of Highlanders, threatened with
   subjection the whole northern part of the kingdom. Dundee, who
   had publicly disavowed the authority of the Scottish
   convention, had been declared an outlaw by that assembly; and
   general Mackay was sent against him with a body of regular
   troops. The castle of Blair being occupied by the adherents of
   James, Mackay resolved to attempt its reduction. The viscount,
   apprised of the design of his antagonist, summoned up all his
   enterprising spirit, and by forced marches arrived at Athol
   before him. He was soon [July 27, 1689] informed that Mackay's
   vanguard had cleared the pass of Killicranky; a narrow defile,
   formed by the steep sides of the Grampian hills, and a dark,
   rapid, and deep river. Though chagrined at this intelligence
   he was not disconcerted. He despatched Sir Alexander Maclean
   to attack the enemy's advanced party while he himself should
   approach with the main body of the Highlanders. But before
   Maclean had proceeded a mile, Dundee received information that
   Mackay had marched through the pass with his whole army. He
   commanded Maclean to halt, and boldly advanced with his
   faithful band, determined to give battle to the enemy."
   Mackay's army, consisting of four thousand five hundred foot,
   and two troops of horse, was formed in eight battalions, and
   ready for action when Dundee came in view. His own brave but
   undisciplined followers, of all ranks and conditions, did not
   exceed 3,300 men. "These he instantly ranged in hostile array.
{2875}
   They stood inactive for several hours in sight of the enemy,
   on the steep side of a hill, which faced the narrow plain
   where Mackay had formed his line, neither party choosing to
   change its ground. But the signal for battle was no sooner
   given, than the Highlanders rushed down the hill in deep
   columns; and having discharged their muskets with effect, they
   had recourse to the broadsword, their proper weapon, with
   which they furiously attacked the enemy. Mackay's left wing
   was instantly broken, and driven from the field with great
   slaughter by the Macleans, who formed the right of Dundee's
   army. The Macdonalds, who composed his left, were not equally
   successful: Colonel Hasting's regiment of English foot
   repelled their most vigorous efforts, and obliged them to
   retreat. But Maclean and Cameron, at the head of part of their
   respective clans, suddenly assailed this gallant regiment in
   flank, and put it to the rout. Two thousand of Mackay's army
   were slain; and his artillery, baggage, ammunition,
   provisions, and even king William's Dutch standard, fell into
   the hands of the Highlanders. But their joy, like a smile upon
   the cheek of death, delusive and insincere, was of short
   duration. Dundee was mortally wounded by a musket shot as he
   was pursuing the fugitives; he expired soon after his victory,
   and with him perished the hopes of James in Scotland. The
   castle of Edinburgh had already surrendered to the convention;
   and the Highlanders, discouraged by the loss of a leader whom
   they loved and almost adored, gradually dispersed themselves,
   and returned to their savage mountains, to bewail him in their
   songs. His memory is still dear to them; he is considered as
   the last of their heroes; and his name, even to this day, is
   seldom mentioned among them without a sigh or a tear."

After the victory and death of Dundee at Killiecrankie, the command of his Highlanders had devolved upon Cannon, an Irish officer. "With an army increased to 4,000 men, he continued to coast along the Grampians, followed by Mackay; the one afraid to descend from the mountains, and the other to quit, with his cavalry, the advantage of the open plains. Returning by a secret march to Dunkeld [August 21], he surrounded the regiment of Cameronians, whose destruction appeared so inevitable that they were abandoned by a party of horse to their fate. But the Cameronians, notwithstanding the loss of Cleland, their gallant commander, defended themselves … with such desperate enthusiasm that the highlanders, discouraged by the repulse, and incapable of persevering fortitude, dispersed and returned to their homes."

A scheme, originating with Lord Breadalbane, for the pacifying of the Highlanders, was approved by King William and acted upon, in 1691. It offered a free pardon and a sum of money to all the chiefs who would take the oath of allegiance to William and Mary before the first of January, 1692, and it contemplated the extirpation of such clans as refused. "The last man to submit to government was Macdonald of Glenco. Towards the end of December he applied to the governor of Fort William, who refused, as not being a civil magistrate, to administer the oaths; but dispatched him in haste, with an earnest recommendation to the Sheriff of Argyle. From the snows and other interruptions which he met with on the road, the day prescribed for submission had elapsed, before he reached Inverary, the county town. The benefit of the indemnity was strictly forfeited; the sheriff was moved, however, by his tears and entreaties, to receive his oath of allegiance, and to certify the unavoidable cause of his delay. But his oath was industriously suppressed, by the advice particularly of Stair the president; the certificate was erased from the list presented to the privy council; and it appears that an extensive combination was formed for his destruction. The earl of Breadalbane, whose lands he had plundered, and … Dalrymple, the secretary, … persuaded William that Glenco was the chief obstacle to the pacification of the highlands. Perhaps they concealed the circumstance that he had applied within due time for the oaths to government, and had received them since. But they procured instructions, signed, and for their greater security, countersigned by the king himself, to proceed to military execution against such rebels as had rejected the indemnity, and had refused to submit on assurance of their lives. As these instructions were found insufficient, they obtained an additional order, signed, and also countersigned, by the king, 'that if Glenco and his clan could well be separated from the rest, it would be a proper vindication of public justice to extirpate that sect of thieves.' But the directions given by Dalrymple far exceeded even the king's instructions. … Glenco, assured of an indemnity, had remained at home, unmolested for a month, when a detachment arrived from Fort William, under Campbell of Glenlyon, whose niece was married to one of his sons. The soldiers were received on assurance of peace and friendship; and were quartered among the inhabitants of the sequestered vale. Their commander enjoyed for a fortnight the daily hospitality of his nephew's table. They had passed the evening at cards together, and the officers were to dine with his father next day. Their orders arrived that night, to attack their defenceless hosts while asleep at midnight, and not to suffer a man, under the age of seventy, to escape their swords. From some suspicious circumstances the sons were impressed with a sudden apprehension of danger, and discovered their approach; but before they could alarm their father, the massacre spread through the whole vale. Before the break of day, a party, entering as friends, shot Glenco as he rose from his bed. His wife was stript naked by the soldiers, who tore the rings with their teeth from her fingers; and she expired next morning with horror and grief. Nine men were bound and deliberately shot at Glenlyon's quarters; his landlord was shot by his orders, and a young boy, who clung to his knees for protection, was stabbed to death. At another part of the vale the inhabitants were shot while sitting around their fire; women perished with their children in their arms; an old man of eighty was put to the sword; another, who escaped to a house for concealment, was burnt alive. {2876} Thirty-eight persons were thus inhumanly massacred by their inmates and guests. The rest, alarmed by the report of musquetry, escaped to the hills, and were preserved from destruction by a tempest that added to the horrors of the night. … The carnage was succeeded by rapine and desolation. The cattle were driven off or destroyed. The houses, to fulfil Dalrymple's instructions, were burnt to the ground; and the women and children, stript naked, were left to explore their way to some remote and friendly habitation, or to perish in the snows. The outcry against the massacre of Glenco was not confined to Scotland; but, by the industry of the Jacobites, it resounded with every aggravation through Europe. Whether the inhuman rigour or the perfidious execution of the orders were considered, each part of the bloody transaction discovered a deliberate, treacherous, and an impolitic cruelty, from which the king himself was not altogether exempt. Instead of the terror which it was meant to inspire, the horror and universal execration which it excited rendered the highlanders irreconcilable to his government, and the government justly odious to his subjects."

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1695-1699.
The Darien scheme.
King William urges a Union of the kingdoms.

"The peace of Ryswic was succeeded by an event which had well nigh created a civil war between Scotland and England. As the writers of no nation are more marked by grandeur and meanness of composition in the same person, and the actors in public life by grandeur and meanness of character in the same person, than those of England; so the proceedings of the national assembly of England, the noblest that ever was on earth, except that of Rome, are often tinctured with a strange mixture of the great and the little. Of this truth an instance appeared at this time, in the proceedings of parliament with regard to the Scots colony of Darien, settled by Mr. Paterson. … Paterson, having examined the places, satisfied himself that on the isthmus of Darien there was a tract of country running across from the Atlantic to the South Sea, which the Spaniards had never possessed, and inhabited by a people continually at war with them; … that the two seas were connected by a ridge of hills, which, by their height, created a temperate climate; … that roads could be made with ease along the ridge, by which mules, and even carriages, might pass from the one sea to the other in the space of a day, and that consequently this passage seemed to be pointed out by the finger of nature, as a common centre, to connect together the trade and intercourse of the universe. … By this obscure Scotsman a project was formed to settle, on this neglected spot, a great and powerful colony, not as other colonies have for the most part been settled, by chance, and unprotected by the country from whence they went, but by system, upon foresight, and to receive the ample protection of those governments to whom he was to offer his project. And certainly no greater idea has been formed since the time of Columbus. … Paterson's original intention was to offer his project to England, as the country which had the most interest in it." Receiving no encouragement, however, in London, nor in Holland, nor Germany, to which countries he repaired, he returned finally to Scotland, and there awakened the interest of several influential gentlemen, including Mr. Fletcher of Salton, the Marquis of Tweddale, Lord Stair, and others. "These persons, in June 1695, procured a statute from parliament, and afterwards a charter from the crown in terms of it, for creating a trading company to Africa and the new world, with power to plant colonies and build forts, with consent of the inhabitants, in places not possessed by other European nations. Paterson, now finding the ground firm under him, … threw his project boldly upon the public, and opened a subscription for a company. The frenzy of the Scots nation to sign the solemn league and covenant never exceeded the rapidity with which they ran to subscribe to the Darien company. The nobility, the gentry, the merchants, the people, the royal burghs, without the exception of one, most of the other public bodies, subscribed. Young women threw their little fortunes into the stock, widows sold their jointures to get the command of money for the same purpose. Almost in an instant £400,000 were subscribed in Scotland, although it be now known that there was not at that time above £800,000 of cash in the kingdom. … The English subscribed £300,000, and the Dutch and Hamburghers £200,000 more. … In the mean time, the jealousy of trade, which has done more mischief to the trade of England than all other causes put together, created an alarm in England; and the houses of lords and commons, without previous inquiry or reflection, on the 13th December of the year 1695, concurred in a joint address to the King against the establishment of the Darien company, as detrimental to the interest of the East India company. Soon after, the commons impeached some of their own countrymen for being instrumental in erecting the company. … The King's answer was 'that he had been ill-advised in Scotland.' He soon after changed his Scottish ministers, and sent orders to his resident at Hamburgh to present a memorial to the senate, in which he disowned the company, and warned them against all connections with it. … The Scots, not discouraged, were rather animated by this oppression; for they converted it into a proof of the envy of the English, and of their consciousness of the great advantages which were to flow to Scotland from the colony. The company proceeded to build six ships in Holland, from 36 to 60 guns, and they engaged 1,200 men for the colony; among whom were younger sons of many of the noble and most ancient families of Scotland, and sixty officers who had been disbanded at the peace." The first colony sailed from Leith, July 26, 1698, and arrived safely at Darien in two months. They "fixed their station at Acta, calling it New St. Andrew, … and the country itself New Caledonia. … The first public act of the colony was to publish a declaration of freedom of trade and religion to all nations. This luminous idea originated with Paterson. {2877} But the Dutch East India company having pressed the King, in concurrence with his English subjects, to prevent the settlement of Darien, orders had been sent from England to the governors of the West Indian and American colonies, to issue proclamations against giving assistance, or even to hold correspondence with the colony; and these were more or less harshly expressed, according to the tempers of the different governors. The Scots, trusting to far different treatment, and to the supplies which they expected from those colonies, had not brought provisions enough with them; they fell into diseases, from bad food, and from want of food. … They lingered eight months, awaiting, but in vain, for assistance from Scotland, and almost all of them either died out or quitted the settlement. Paterson, who had been the first that entered the ship at Leith, was the last who went on board at Darien." To complete the destruction of the undertaking, the Spanish government, which had not moved in opposition before, now bestirred itself against the Scottish company, and entered formal complaints at London (May 3, 1699). "The Scots, ignorant of the misfortunes of their colony, but provoked at this memorial [of Spain], sent out another colony soon after of 1,300 men, to support an establishment which was now no more." This last colony, after gallant fighting and great suffering, was expelled from Darien by a Spanish expedition, and "not more than thirty, saved from war, shipwreck, or disease, ever saw their own country again. … While the second colony of the Scots were exposing themselves, far from their country, in the cause, mediately or immediately, of all who spoke the English language, the house of lords of England were a second time addressing the King at home against the settlement itself. … He answered the address of the lords, on the 12th of February 1699, in the following words: 'His Majesty does apprehend that difficulties may too often arise, with respect to the different interests of trade between his two kingdoms, unless some way he found out to unite them more nearly and completely; and therefore his Majesty takes this opportunity of putting the house of peers in mind of what he recommended to his parliament soon after his accession to the throne, that they would consider of an union between the two kingdoms.'"

ALSO IN: J. H. Burton, History of the Reign of Queen Anne, chapter 4 (volume l).

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1703-1704.
   Hostility to England.
   The Act of Security.
   The Scottish Plot.

"This Parliament of 1703 was not in a temper of conciliation towards England. Glencoe and Darien were still watchwords of strife. The failure of the negotiations for Union necessarily produced exasperation. Whilst Marlborough was fighting the battles of the Allies, the Scottish Parliament manifested a decided inclination to the interests of France, by removing restrictions on the importation of French wines. The 'Act for the Security of the Kingdom' was a more open declaration not only of the independence of Scotland, but of her disposition to separate wholly from England—to abrogate, on the first opportunity, that union of the crowns which had endured for a century. The Act of Settlement, by which the crown of England was to pass in the Protestant line to the electress Sophia and her descendants, was not to be accepted; but, on the demise of queen Anne without issue, the Estates of Scotland were to name a successor from the Protestant descendants of the Stuart line, and that successor was to be under conditions to secure 'the religious freedom and trade of the nation from English or any foreign influence.' For four months this matter was vehemently debated in the Scottish Parliament. The Act of Security was carried, but the Lord High Commissioner refused his assent. Following this legislative commotion came what was called in England the Scottish plot—a most complicated affair of intrigue and official treachery, with some real treason at the bottom of it. [This Scottish Plot, otherwise called the Queensberry Plot, was a scheme to raise the Highland clans for the Pretender, abortively planned by one Simon Fraser.] The House of Lords in England took cognizance of the matter, which provoked the highest wrath in Scotland, that another nation should interfere with her affairs. … When the Scottish Estates reassembled in 1704 they denounced the proceedings of the House of Lords, as an interference with the prerogative of the queen of Scotland; and they again passed the Security Act. The royal assent was not now withheld; whether from fear or from policy on the part of the English ministry is not very clear. The Parliament of England then adopted a somewhat strong measure of retaliation. The queen was addressed, requesting her to put Carlisle, Newcastle, Tynemouth, and Hull in a state of defence, and to send forces to the border. A Statute was passed which in the first place provided for a treaty of Union; and then enacted that until the Scottish Parliament should settle the succession to the crown in the same line as that of the English Act of Settlement, no native of Scotland, except those domiciled in England, or in the navy or army, should acquire the privileges of a natural-born Englishman; and prohibiting all importations of coals, cattle, sheep, or linen from Scotland. It was evident that there must be Union or War."

ALSO IN: J. H. Burton, History of the Reign of Queen Anne, chapters 4 and 7 (volume 1).

   To avert war between Scotland and England by a complete
   political Union of the two kingdoms in one became now the
   greatest object of the solicitude of the wiser statesmen on
   both sides. They used their influence to so good an effect
   that, in the spring of 1706, thirty-one Commissioners on the
   part of each kingdom were appointed to negotiate the terms of
   Union. The Commissioners held their first meeting on the 16th
   of April, and were in session until the 22d of July, when the
   Articles of Union agreed upon by them received the signature
   of twenty-seven of the English and twenty-six of the Scots. On
   the 16th of the following January (1707) these Articles were
   ratified with amendments by the Scottish Parliament. The
   English Parliament adopted them as amended a month later, and
   on the 6th of March the Union was perfected by the royal
   assent, given solemnly by the Queen, in presence of the Lords
   and Commons of England. "It was agreed that Great Britain
   should be the designation of the united island; the name of
   Scotland to be merged in the name of North Britain. It was
   agreed that the Crosses of St. George and St. Andrew should be
   conjoined in the flag of the united kingdom.
{2878}
   It was agreed that the arms of the two countries—the three
   lions passant and guardant Or, and the lion rampant Or, within
   a double tressure flory and counterflory, Gules—should be
   quartered with all heraldic honours. It was agreed that the
   united kingdom should have a new Great Seal. As regards the
   House of Commons, the English party proposed that Scotland
   should be represented by 38 members. Even Scottish writers
   have observed that if taxation be taken as the measure of
   representation, and if it be remembered that the Scots of that
   time had asked and been allowed to limit their share of the
   Land-tax to one-fortieth of the share of England, it would
   follow that, as an addition to the 513 members of Parliament
   returned by England, Scotland was entitled to demand no more
   than 13. But even 38 seemed by no means adequate to the claims
   on other grounds of that ancient and renowned kingdom. The
   Scottish Commissioners stood out for an increase, and the
   English Commissioners finally conceded 45. The Peers of
   England were at this juncture 185 and the Peers of Scotland
   154. It was intended that the latter should send
   representatives to the former, and the proportion was settled
   according to the precedent that was just decided. The 45
   members from Scotland when added to the 513 from England would
   make one-twelfth of the whole; and 16 Peers from Scotland when
   added to the 185 from England would also make about
   one-twelfth of the whole. Sixteen was therefore the number
   adopted; and the mode of election both of Commoners and Peers
   was left to be determined by the Parliament of Scotland,
   before the day appointed for the Union, that is the first of
   May 1707. By this treaty Scotland was to retain her heritable
   jurisdiction, her Court of Session and her entire system of
   law. The Presbyterian Church as by law established was to
   continue unaltered, having been indeed excluded from debate by
   the express terms of the Commission."

ALSO IN: J. H. Burton, History of the Reign of Queen Anne, chapter 7 (volume 1).

      H. Hallam,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 17 (volume 3).

   The text of the Act of Union may be found in the
      Parliamentary History,
      volume 6, appendix 2.

"In Scotland it [the Union] was regarded with an almost universal feeling of discontent and dishonour. The Jacobite party, who had entertained great hopes of eluding the act for settling the kingdom upon the family of Hanover, beheld them entirely blighted; the Whigs, or Presbyterians, found themselves forming part of a nation in which Prelacy was an institution of the state; the Country party, who had nourished a vain but honourable idea of maintaining the independence of Scotland, now saw it, with all its symbols of ancient sovereignty, sunk and merged under the government of England. All the different professions and classes of men saw each something in the obnoxious treaty which affected their own interest. … There was, therefore, nothing save discontent and lamentation to be heard throughout Scotland, and men of every class vented their complaints against the Union the more loudly, because their sense of personal grievances might be concealed, and yet indulged under popular declamations concerning the dishonour done to the country. … Almost all the dissenting and Cameronian ministers were anti-unionists, and some of the more enthusiastic were so peculiarly vehement, that long after the controversy had fallen asleep, I have heard my grandfather say (for your grandfather, Mr. Hugh Littlejohn, had a grandfather in his time), that he had heard an old clergyman confess he could never bring his sermon, upon whatever subject, to a conclusion, without having what he called a 'blaud,' that is a slap, at the Union. … The detestation of the treaty being for the present the ruling passion of the times, all other distinctions of party, and even of religious opinions in Scotland, were laid aside, and a singular coalition took place, in which Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Cavaliers, and many friends of the revolution, drowned all former hostility in the predominant aversion to the Union. … For a time almost all the inhabitants of Scotland were disposed to join unanimously in the Restoration, as it was called, of James the Second's son to the throne of his fathers; and had his ally, the King of France, been hearty in his cause, or his Scottish partisans more united among themselves, or any leader amongst them possessed of distinguished talent, the Stewart family might have repossessed themselves of their ancient domain of Scotland, and perhaps of England also." Early in 1708 an attempt was made to take advantage of this feeling in Scotland, on behalf of the Pretender, by a naval and military expedition from France, fitted out by the French king. It was vulgarly frustrated by an attack of measles, which prostrated the Stuart adventurer (the Chevalier de St. George) at Dunkirk, until the English government had warning enough to be too well prepared.

   In 1715 "there were Jacobite risings both in Scotland and in
   England. Early in September John Erskine, Earl of Mar—who some
   years before had been a Whig and helped to bring about the
   Union—raised the standard of rebellion in Braemar, and in a
   short time found himself in command of a large Highland army.
   But Mar was very slow in his movements, and lingered for six
   weeks in Perth. The Duke of Argyle, famous as both a warrior
   and a statesman, was sent from London to deal with this
   danger; and, going to Stirling, used the time which Mar was
   wasting in gathering round him soldiers and loyal Low-landers.
   While things stood thus in the far north a few hundred
   Jacobites took up arms in Northumberland under Mr. Forster and
   Lord Derwentwater. Joining with some Southern Scots raised by
   Lord Kenmure, and some Highlanders whom Mar had sent to their
   aid, they marched to Preston, in Lancashire. The fate of the
   two risings was settled on the same day. At Preston the
   English Jacobites and their Scottish allies had to give
   themselves up to a small body of soldiers under General
   Carpenter. At Sheriffmuir, about eight miles north of
   Stirling, the Highlanders, whom Mar had put in motion at last,
   met Argyle's little army in battle, and, though not utterly
   beaten, were forced to fall back to Perth. There Mar's army
   soon dwindled to a mere handful of men. Just when things
   seemed at the worst the Pretender himself landed in Scotland.
{2879}
   But he altogether lacked the daring and high spirit needful to
   the cause at the time; and his presence at Perth did not even
   delay the end, which was now sure. Late in January 1716
   Argyle's troops started from Stirling northwards; and the
   small Highland force broke up from Perth and went to Montrose.
   Thence James Edward and Mar slipped away unnoticed, and sailed
   to France; and the Highlanders scampered off to their several
   homes. Of the rebels that were taken prisoners about forty
   were tried and put to death; and many were sent beyond the
   seas. Derwentwater and Kenmure were beheaded; the other
   leaders of rank either were forgiven or escaped from prison."

      Earl Stanhope,
      History of England, 1713-1783,
      chapters 5-6 (volume l).

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1745-1746.
The Young Pretender's invasion.
The last rising of the Jacobites.

"As early as 1744 Charles Edward [known as 'the Young Pretender'], the grandson of James II., was placed by the French government at the head of a formidable armament. But his plan of a descent on Scotland was defeated by a storm which wrecked his fleet, and by the march of the French troops which had sailed in it to the war in Flanders. In 1745, however, the young adventurer again embarked with but seven friends in a small vessel and landed on a little island of the Hebrides. For three weeks he stood almost alone; but on the 29th of August the clans rallied to his standard in Glenfinnan. … His force swelled to an army as he marched through Blair Athol on Perth, entered Edinburgh in triumph, and proclaimed 'James the Eighth' at the Town Cross: and two thousand English troops who marched against him under Sir John Cope were broken and cut to pieces on the 21st of September by a single charge of the clansmen at Preston Pans. Victory at once doubled the forces of the conqueror. The Prince was now at the head of 6,000 men; but all were still Highlanders. … After skilfully evading an army gathered at Newcastle, he marched through Lancashire, and pushed on the 4th of December as far as Derby. But here all hope of success came to an end. Hardly a man had risen in his support as he passed through the districts where Jacobitism boasted of its strength. … Catholics and Tories abounded in Lancashire, but only a single squire took up arms. … The policy of Walpole had in fact secured England for the House of Hanover. The long peace, the prosperity of the country, and the clemency of the Government, had done their work. … Even in the Highlands the Macleods rose in arms for King George, while the Gordons refused to stir, though roused by a small French force which landed at Montrose. To advance further south was impossible, and Charles fell rapidly back on Glasgow; but the reinforcements which he found there raised his army to 9,000 men, and on the 23rd January, 1746, he boldly attacked an English army under General Hawley, which had followed his retreat and had encamped near Falkirk. Again the wild charge of his Highlanders won victory for the Prince, but victory was as fatal as defeat. The bulk of his forces dispersed with their booty to the mountains, and Charles fell sullenly back to the north before the Duke of Cumberland. On the 16th of April the armies faced one another on Culloden Moor, a few miles eastward of Inverness. The Highlanders still numbered 6,000 men, but they were starving and dispirited. … In a few moments all was over, and the Stuart force was a mass of hunted fugitives. Charles himself after strange adventures escaped [in the disguise of a female servant, attending the famous Flora Macdonald] to France. In England fifty of his followers were hanged; three Scotch lords, Lovat, Balmerino, and Kilmarnock, brought to the block; and forty persons of rank attainted by Act of Parliament. More extensive measures of repression were needful in the Highlands. The feudal tenures were abolished. The hereditary jurisdictions of the chiefs were bought up and transferred to the Crown. The tartan, or garb of the Highlanders, was forbidden by law. These measures, followed by a general Act of Indemnity, proved effective for their purpose."

ALSO IN: Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope), History of England, 1713-1783, chapters 26-29 (volume 3).

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1832.
Representation in Parliament increased by the Reform Bill.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1843.
The Disruption of the Church.
Formation of the Free Church.

   "Lay patronage was … inconsistent with the conception and the
   fundamental principles of the Presbyterian Church, and she
   opposed and rejected it, and fought against it. It was
   abolished shortly after the Revolution of 1688, but again
   restored by the British Parliament in 1712, contrary to the
   letter and the spirit of the Treaty of Union, and to all
   conceptions of a wise policy toward the Scottish nation. … An
   internal struggle arose between the party who held firmly to
   these sentiments and the new party—called 'the Moderate
   party.' … In the middle of the 18th century the opposite views
   of the popular and the moderate parties had become distinct.
   The chief point of polity in dispute was the settlement of
   ministers in parishes against the wishes of the congregations.
   Cases of this character were constantly coming before the
   presbyteries and general assemblies; and in 1733 it was on
   matters arising from such cases that a secession took place. …
   In 1773 there were upwards of two hundred dissenting
   congregations, besides Episcopalians and Roman Catholics. … As
   an attempt to redress the evils involved in patronage, the
   popular party proposed, in the assembly of 1833, that when a
   majority of a congregation objected to the minister presented
   by the patron, the presbytery should not proceed with the
   settlement. … It was on this reasonable regulation [passed
   into an act, called the Veto Act, by the Assembly of 1834]
   that the struggle which issued in the Disruption was fought,
   although there were other principles involved in the
   conflict."
{2880}
   In 1839, a case arising in the parish church of Auchterarder,
   in Perthshire, led to a decision in the Court of Session
   against the legality of the Veto Act, and this decision, on
   appeal, was affirmed by the House of Lords. "For several years
   the country rang with the clamour and talk of non-intrusion
   and spiritual independence, and the excitement was intense.
   Pamphlets, speeches and ballads were circulated through the
   kingdom in hundreds of thousands. The engrossing subject
   attracted the attention of every household, and many a family
   became divided in religious sentiments." Finally, in 1843,
   finding no prospect of legislation from Parliament to free the
   Church of Scotland from the odious fetters of patronage, the
   popular party resolved upon a general secession from it. This
   occurred in a memorable scene at the opening of the Assembly,
   in Edinburgh, on the 18th of May, 1843. The Moderator of the
   body, Dr. Welsh, read a protest against further proceedings in
   the Assembly, because of certain acts, sanctioned by the
   Government of the country, which had infringed on the
   liberties of the constitution of the Church. He then left the
   chair and walked out of the church. "Instantly Dr. Chalmers,
   Dr. Gordon, and the whole of those in the left side of the
   Church, rose and followed him. Upwards of two hundred
   ministers walked out, and they were joined outside by three
   hundred clergymen and other adherents. Dr. Welsh wore his
   Moderator's dress, and when he appeared on the street, and the
   people saw that principle had risen above interest, shouts of
   triumph rent the air such as had not been heard in Edinburgh
   since the days of the Covenant. They walked through Hanover
   Street to Canonmills, where a large hall was erected for the
   reception of the disestablished assembly. They elected Dr.
   Chalmers Moderator, and formed the first General Assembly of
   'The Free Church of Scotland.' Four hundred and seventy-four
   ministers left the Establishment in 1843; they were also
   joined by two hundred probationers, nearly one hundred
   theological students of the University of Edinburgh, three
   fourths of those in Glasgow, and a majority of those in
   Aberdeen. The Disruption was an accomplished fact."

"It is not every nation, it is not every age, which can produce the spectacle of nearly 500 men leaving their homes, abandoning their incomes, for the sake of opinion. It is literally true that disruption was frequently a sentence of poverty, and occasionally of death, to the ministers of the Church. Well, then, might a great Scotchman of that time [Lord Jeffrey] say that he was proud of his country, proud of the heroism and self-denial of which her pastors proved capable. But well also might a Scotchman of the present time say that he was proud of the success which Voluntaryism achieved. It was the good fortune of the Church that in the hour of her trial she had a worthy leader. Years before, while ministering to a poor congregation in Glasgow, Chalmers had insisted on the cardinal doctrine that the poor should be made to help themselves. He applied the same principle to the Scotch Church. He … called on his friends around him to 'organise, organise, organise.' It is not, however, the Church alone which deserves commendation. The nation supported the Church. … In the four years which succeeded the disruption, the Free Church raised £1,254,000, and built 654 churches. Her ministrations were extended to every district and almost every parish in the land."

"In 1874 the Patronage Act of 1712 was repealed, but it was too late to be of much use, and Scottish Presbyterianism remains split up into different camps. Some of the older secessions were in 1847 joined together to form the United Presbyterian Church, mostly distinguished from the Free Church by its upholding as a theory the 'Voluntary Principle.'"

W. Hanna, Memoirs of Thomas Chalmers, volume 3, chapter 18 and volume 4, chapters 6-25.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1884.
Enlargement of the Suffrage.
Representation of the People Act.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1812 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER);
      1814 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

SCOTTI. SCOTS.

"The Scribes or 'Lawyers,' that is, the learned in the Pentateuch. … It is evident that in the Scribes, rather than in any of the other functionaries of the Jewish Church, is the nearest original of the clergy of later times."

"The learned men after Ezra were called 'Sopherim' (singular 'Sopher'), Scribes; because to be a skilled writer was the first criterion of a man of learning. To transcribe the authenticated Law as deposited in the temple was one of the Scribe's occupations. His next occupations were to read, expound and teach it. The text was without vowel points, without divisions of words, verses and chapters; hence it was nearly hieroglyphic, so that the correct reading thereof was traditional, and had to be communicated from master to disciple. As the Great Synod legislated by expounding and extending the Law, these additions also had to be taught orally."

SCRUPULA.

SCRUTIN DE LISTE.

A term applied in France to the mode of electing deputies by a general ticket in each department—that is, in groups—instead of singly, in separate districts.

SCUTAGE.

The origin of this tax is implied in its title; it was derived from the 'service of the shield' (scutum)—one of the distinguishing marks of feudal tenure—whereby the holder of a certain quantity of land was bound to furnish to his lord the services of a fully-armed horseman for forty days in the year. The portion of land charged with this service constituted a 'knight's fee,' and was usually reckoned at the extent of five hides, or the value of twenty pounds annually."

SCUTUM.

A long wooden shield, covered with leather, having the form of a cylinder cut in half, which the Romans are said to have adopted from the Samnites.

The Scyri were a tribe known to the Greeks as early as the second century B. C. They were then on the shores of the Black Sea. In the fifth century of the Christian era, after the breaking up of the Hunnish empire of Attila, they appeared among the people occupying the region embraced in modern Austria,—on the Hungarian borders. They seem to have spoken the Gothic language.

The city of Argos was the scene of a terrible outbreak of mob violence (B. C. 370) consequent on the discovery of an oligarchical conspiracy to overturn the democratic constitution. The furious multitude, armed with clubs, slew twelve hundred of the more prominent citizens, including the democratic leaders who tried to restrain them. "This was the rebellion at Argos known under the name of the Scytalism (cudgelling): an event hitherto unparalleled in Greek history,—so unprecedented, that even abroad it was looked upon as an awful sign of the times, and that the Athenians instituted a purification of their city, being of opinion that the whole Hellenic people was polluted by these horrors."

"Their name, unnoticed by Homer, occurs for the first time in the Hesiodic poems. When the Homeric Zeus in the Iliad turns his eye away from Troy towards Thrace, he sees, besides the Thracians and Mysians, other tribes, whose names cannot be made out, but whom the poet knows as milk-eaters and mare-milkers. The same characteristic attributes, coupled with that of 'having waggons for their dwelling-houses,' appear in Hesiod connected with the name of the Scythians. … Herodotus, who personally visited the town of Olbia, together with the inland regions adjoining to it, and probably other Grecian settlements in the Euxine (at a time which we may presume to have been about 450-440 B. C.)—and who conversed with both Scythians and Greeks competent to give him information—has left us far more valuable statements respecting the Scythian people, dominion, and manners, as they stood in his day. His conception of the Scythians, as well as that of Hippokrates, is precise and well-defined—very different from that of the later authors, who use the word almost indiscriminately to denote all barbarous Nomads. His territory called Scythia is a square area, twenty days' journey or 4,000 stadia (somewhat less than 500 English miles) in each direction—bounded by the Danube (the course of which river he conceives in a direction from Northwest to Southeast), the Euxine, and the Palus Mæotis with the river Tanais, on three sides respectively—and on the fourth or north side by the nations called Agathyrsi, Neuri, Androphagi and Melanchlæni. … The whole area was either occupied by or subject to the Scythians. And this name comprised tribes differing materially in habits and civilization. The great mass of the people who bore it, strictly Nomadic in their habits—neither sowing nor planting, but living only on food derived from animals, especially mare's-milk and cheese—moved from place to place, carrying their families in waggons covered with wicker and leather, themselves always on horseback with their flocks and herds, between the Borysthenes [the Dnieper] and the Palus Mæotis [sea of Azov]. … It is the purely Nomadic Scythians whom he [Herodotus] depicts, the earliest specimens of the Mongolian race (so it seems probable) known to history, and prototypes of the Huns and Bulgarians of later centuries."

"The Scythians Proper of Herodotus and Hippocrates extended from the Danube and the Carpathians on the one side, to the Tanais or Don upon the other. The Sauromatæ, a race at least half-Scythic, then succeeded, and held the country from the Tanais to the Wolga. Beyond this were the Massagetæ, Scythian in dress and customs, reaching down to the Jaxartes on the east side of the Caspian. In the same neighbourhood were the Asiatic Scyths or Sacæ, who seem to have bordered upon the Bactrians."

"The Athenian State also possessed slaves of its own. Such slaves were, first of all, the so-called Scythæ or archers, a corps at first of 300, then of 600 or even 1,200 men, who were also called Speusinii, after a certain Speusinus, who first (at what time is uncertain) effected the raising of the corps. They served as gendarmes or armed police, and their guard-house was at first in the market, afterwards in the Areopagus. They were also used in war, and the corps of Hippotoxotæ or mounted archers 200 strong, which is named in the same connection with them, likewise without doubt consisted of slaves."

SEBASTE.

   "The Greeks translated the name of Augustus into Sebastos …,
   in consequence of which a colony founded by Augustus on the
   shores of the Black Sea was called Sebastopolis."

SEBASTOPOL: A. D. 1854-1855.
Siege and capture by the English, French, and Sardinians.

SECESH.

SECESSION, AMERICAN WAR OF.

SECESSIONS OF THE ROMAN PLEBS.

During the prolonged struggle of the plebeians of Rome to extort civil and political rights from the originally governing order, the patricians, they gained their end on several occasions by marching out in a body from the city, refusing military service and threatening to found a new city. The first of these secessions was about 494 B. C. when they wrung from the patricians the extraordinary concession of the Tribunate.

The second was B. C. 449, when the tyranny of the Decemvirs was overthrown. The third was four years later, on the demand for the Canuleian Law. The last was B. C. 286, and resulted in the securing of the Hortensian Laws.

SECULAR CLERGY.

The secular clergy of the monastic ages "was so called because it lived in the world, in the 'siècle.' It was composed of all the ecclesiastics who were not under vows in a religious community. The ecclesiastical members of communities, or inhabitants of convents, composed the 'regular clergy.'"

The Ludi Sæculares, or secular games, at Rome, were supposed to celebrate points of time which marked the successive ages of the city. According to tradition, the first age was determined by the death of the last survivor of those who were born in the year of the founding of Rome. Afterwards, the period became a fixed one; but whether it was 100 or 110 years is a debated question. At all events, during the period of the empire, the secular games were celebrated five times (by Augustus, Claudius, Domitian, Severus and Philip) with irregularity, as suited the caprice of the emperors. The last celebration was in the year A. U. 1000—A. D. 247.

The Segni were a tribe in ancient Gaul who occupied a region on the Rhine supposed to be indicated by the name of the modern small town of Sinei or Segnei, a small town in the territory of Namur on the Meuse above Liège.

SEGONTIUM.

"One of the most important Roman towns in Wales, the walls of which are still visible at Caer Seiont, near Caernarvon, on the coast of the Irish Sea."

One of the tribes of Gaul which occupied the ancient Forez (departments of the Rhone and the Loire) and extended to the left bank of the Saone.

SELAH.

SELECTMEN.

In 1665 the General Court or Town Meeting of Plymouth Colony enacted that "'in every Towne of this Jurisdiction there be three or five Celectmen chosen by the Townsmen out of the freemen such as shal be approved by the Court; for the better managing of the afaires of the respective Townships; and that the Celect men in every Towne or the major parte of them are heerby Impowered to heare and determine all debtes and differences arising between pson and pson within theire respective Townships not exceeding forty shillings,' &c. … The origin of the title 'Selectmen' it is difficult to determine. It may possibly be referred to the tun-gerefa of the old Anglo-Saxon township, who, with 'the four best men,' was the legal representative of the community, or to the 'probi homines' of more ancient times. The prefix 'select' would seem to indicate the best, the most approved, but, as in the Massachusetts Colony, they were called, as early as 1642. 'selected townsmen,' it is probable that without reference to any historic type they were merely the men appointed, chosen, selected from the townsmen, to have charge of town affairs."

SELEUCIA.

   Seleucia, about forty-five miles from Babylon, on the Tigris,
   was one of the capitals founded by Seleucus Nicator. "Many
   ages after the fall of [the Macedonian or Seleucid Empire in
   Asia] … Seleucia retained the genuine characters of a Grecian
   colony—arts, military virtue, and the love of freedom.
{2883}
   The independent republic was governed by a senate of three
   hundred nobles; the people consisted of 600,000 citizens; the
   walls were strong, and, as long as concord prevailed among the
   several orders of the State, they viewed with contempt the
   power of the Parthian; but the madness of faction was
   sometimes provoked to implore the dangerous aid of the common
   enemy, who was posted almost at the gates of the colony." The
   Parthian capital, Ctesiphon, grew up at a distance of only
   three miles from Seleucia. "Under the reign of Marcus, the
   Roman generals penetrated as far as Ctesiphon and Seleucia.
   They were received as friends by the Greek colony; they
   attacked as enemies the seat of the Parthian kings; yet both
   cities experienced the same treatment. The sack and
   conflagration of Seleucia, with the massacre of 300,000 of the
   inhabitants, tarnished the glory of the Roman triumph."

The struggle for power which broke out after his death among the successors of Alexander the Great (see MACEDONIA: B. C. 323-316 to 297-280) may be regarded as having been brought to a close by the battle of Ipsus. "The period of fermentation was then concluded, and something like a settled condition of things brought about. A quadripartite division of Alexander's dominions was recognised, Macedonia, Egypt, Asia Minor, and Syria (or south-western Asia) becoming thenceforth distinct political entities. … Of the four powers thus established, the most important … was the kingdom of Syria (as it was called), or that ruled for 247 years by the Seleucidæ. Seleucus Nicator, the founder of this kingdom, was one of Alexander's officers, but served without much distinction through the various campaigns by which the conquest of the East was effected. At the first distribution of provinces (B. C. 323) among Alexander's generals after his death, he received no share; and it was not until B. C. 320, when upon the death of Perdiccas a fresh distribution was made at Triparadisus, that his merits were recognised, and he was given the satrapy of Babylon. … Seleucus led the flower of the eastern provinces to the field of Ipsus (B. C. 301), and contributed largely to the victory, thus winning himself a position among the foremost potentates of the day. By the terms of the agreement made after Ipsus, Seleucus was recognised as monarch of an the Greek conquests in Asia, with the sole exceptions of Lower Syria and Asia Minor. The monarchy thus established extended from the Holy Land and the Mediterranean on the west, to the Indus valley and the Bolor mountain-chain upon the east, and from the Caspian and Jaxartes towards the north, to the Persian gulf and Indian Ocean towards the south. It comprised Upper Syria, Mesopotamia, parts of Cappadocia and Phrygia, Armenia, Assyria, Media, Babylonia, Susiana, Persia, Carmania, Sagartia, Hyrcania, Parthia, Bactria, Sogdiana, Aria, Zarangia, Arachosia, Sacastana, Gedrosia, and probably some part of India."

The original capital of the great Empire of Seleucus was Babylon; but not satisfied with it he founded and built the city of Seleucia, about forty miles from Babylon, on the Tigris. Even there he was not content, and, after the battle of Ipsus, he created, within a few years, the magnificent city of Antioch, in the valley of the Orontes, and made it his royal residence. This removal of the capital from the center of his dominions to the Syrian border is thought to have been among the causes which led to the disintegration of the kingdom. First Bactria, then Parthia, fell away, and the latter, in time, absorbed most of the Seleucid empire.

SELEUCIDÆ:B. C. 281-224.
Wars with the Ptolemies and civil wars.
Decay of the empire.

"Antiochus Soter, the son of Seleucus, who had succeeded to his father [murdered B. C. 281—see MACEDONIA: B. C. 297-280] at the age of 40, received the surname of Soter [Saviour] from his complete victory [time and place unknown] over the Gauls at the time when they had crossed the Bosporus [see GALATIA]. … He reigned little more (?) than twenty years. At the beginning of his reign, Antiochus carried on wars with Antigonus and Ptolemy Ceraunus [see MACEDONIA: B. C. 277-244], which, however, were soon brought to a close. The war with Antigonus had commenced as early as the time of Demetrius; it was a maritime war, in which nothing sufficiently important was done; both parties felt that it was only a useless waste of strength, and soon concluded peace. Antiochus was wise enough altogether to abstain from interfering in the affairs of Europe. In Asia he apparently enlarged the dominion of his father, and his magnificent empire extended from the mountains of Candahar as far as the Hellespont; but many parts of it, which his father had left him in a state of submission, asserted their independence, as e. g., Cappadocia and Pontus under Ariarathes, and so also Armenia and several other countries in the midst of his empire; and he was obliged to be satisfied with maintaining a nominal supremacy in those parts. There can be no doubt that in his reign Bactria also became independent under a Macedonian king. Even Seleucus had no longer ruled over the Indian states, which, having separated from the empire, returned to their own national institutions. With Ptolemy Philadelphus [Egypt] he at first concluded peace, and was on good terms with him; but during the latter years of his reign he was again involved in war with him, although Ptolemy undoubtedly was far more powerful; and this war was protracted until the reign of his son Antiochus. … The Egyptians carried on the war on the offensive against Asia Minor, where they already possessed a few places, and principally at sea. The Syrians conquered Damascus, though otherwise the war was unfavourable to them; they did not carry it on with energy, and the Egyptians at that time conquered Ephesus, the coast of Ionia, Caria, Pamphylia, and probably Cilicia also; the Cyclades likewise fell into their hands about that period. … On the death of Antiochus Soter (Olymp. 129, 3) [B. C. 252] the government passed into the hands of his surviving son, … Antiochus Theos, one of the most detestable Asiatic despots." Peace with Egypt was brought about by the marriage of Antiochus Theos to Berenice, daughter of Ptolemy Philadelphus; but in order to marry her he was obliged to divorce and send away his wife Laudice, or Laodice. {2884} After Ptolemy Philadelphus died, however (B. C. 248), Laodice returned, "recovered her whole influence, and Berenice, with her child, was sent to Antioch"—the royal residence of Antiochus then being at Ephesus. The next year Antiochus, who had been ill for a long time—"in a perpetual state of intoxication"—died, perhaps of poison. Laodice "caused a waxen image of him to be placed in a bed, and thus deceived the courtiers, who were obliged to stand at a respectful distance," while she, "with her sons, took possession of the government, and adopted measures to rid herself of Berenice. But the citizens of Antioch sided with Berenice, and … she for a time remained in possession of Antioch. … But she was betrayed by the nobles …; her child was dragged from her arms and murdered before her eyes; she then fled into the temple at Daphne, and was herself murdered there in the asylum. The two brothers, Seleucus Callinicus and Antiochus Hierax, then assumed the crown; but they seem to have divided the empire, and Antiochus obtained Asia Minor. … Ptolemy Euergetes, the third among the Ptolemies, and the last in the series that deserves praise, now rose in just indignation at the fate of his unhappy sister (Olymp. 133, 3) [B. C. 246]. He marched out with all the forces of his empire, and wherever he went the nations declared in his favour. … 'All the Ionian, Cilician, and other towns, which were already in arms to support Berenice,' joined Euergetes, and he traversed the whole of the Syrian empire. … He himself proceeded as far as Babylon. Media, Persia, and the upper satrapies, southern Chorassan and Sistan as far as Cabul, all of which belonged to Syria, submitted to him. He was equally successful in Asia Minor: the acropolis of Sardes, a part of Lydia, and Phrygia Major, alone maintained themselves. Even the countries on the coast of Thrace … were conquered by the Egyptians. … Seleucus Callinicus, in the meantime, probably maintained himself in the mountainous districts of Armenia, in Aderbidjan. 'His brother, Antiochus, deserted him, and negotiated with Ptolemy.' In the conquered countries, Ptolemy everywhere exercised the rights of a conqueror in the harsh Egyptian manner. … While he was thus levying contributions abroad, an insurrection broke out in Egypt, which obliged him to return." He, thereupon, divided his conquests, "retaining for himself Syria as far as the Euphrates, and the coast districts of Asia Minor and Thrace, so that he had a complete maritime empire. The remaining territories he divided into two states: the country beyond the Euphrates was given, according to St. Jerome on Daniel (xi. 7 foll.), to one Xanthippus, who is otherwise unknown, and western Asia was left to Antiochus Hierax. It would seem that after this he never visited those countries again. After he had withdrawn, a party hostile to him came forward to oppose him. … The confederates formed a fleet, with the assistance of which, and supported by a general insurrection of the Asiatics, who were exasperated against the Egyptians on account of their rapacity, Seleucus Callinicus rallied again. He recovered the whole of upper Asia, and for a time he was united with his brother Antiochus Hierax. … Ptolemy being pressed on all sides concluded a truce of ten years with Seleucus on the basis 'uti possidetis.' Both parties seem to have retained the places which they possessed at the time, so that all the disadvantage was on the side of the Seleucidae, for the fortified town of Seleucia, e. g., remained in the hands of the Egyptians, whereby the capital was placed in a dangerous position. 'A part of Cilicia, the whole of Caria, the Ionian cities, the Thracian Chersonesus, and several Macedonian towns likewise continued to belong to Egypt.' During this period, a war broke out between the brothers Seleucus and Antiochus. … The war between the two brothers lasted for years: its seat was Asia Minor. … 'Seleucus established himself in upper Asia, where the Parthians, who during the war between the brothers had subdued Sistan and lower Chorassan, were in the possession of Media, Babylonia and Persia.'" In the end, Antiochus was overcome, and fled into Thrace. "But there he was taken prisoner by a general of Euergetes, 'and orders were sent from Alexandria to keep him in safe custody'; for in the mean time a peace had been concluded between Seleucus and Ptolemy, by which the Egyptian empire in its immense extent was strengthened again." Antiochus Hierax then escaped and took refuge among the Gauls, but was murdered for the jewels that he carried with him. "Notwithstanding its successful enterprises, Egypt had been shaken by the war to its foundations and had lost its strength. … The empire was already in a state of internal decay, and even more so than that of Syria. The death of Euergetes [B. C. 221] decided its downfall. 'But in Syria too the long wars had loosened the connection among the provinces more than ever, and those of Asia Minor, the jewels of the Syrian crown, were separated from the rest. For while Seleucus was in Upper Asia, Achaeus, his uncle, availed himself of the opportunity of making himself an independent satrap in western Asia.' Seleucus did not reign long after this. He was succeeded by his son Seleucus Ceraunus (Olymp. 138, 2) [B. C. 227] who marched against the younger Achaeus, but was murdered by a Gaul named Apaturius, at the instigation of the same Achaeus (Olymp. 130, 1) [B. C. 224]. He had reigned only three years, and resided in western Asia. He was succeeded by his younger brother Antiochus, surnamed the Great. … Under Antiochus the Syrian empire revived again and acquired a great extent, especially in the south. Although he was not a great man, his courtiers, not without reason, gave him the surname of the Great, because he restored the empire. This happened at the time when Antigonus Doson [king of Macedonia] died. Achaeus, in Asia Minor, was in a state of insurrection; the satrap of Media was likewise revolting, and the Syrian empire was confined to Syria, Babylonia, and Persia. During this confusion, new sovereigns ascended the thrones everywhere. In Macedonia, Philip succeeded; in Egypt, Ptolemy Philopator; in Media, Molon; and in Bactria a consolidated Macedonian dynasty had already established itself."

SELEUCIDÆ:B. C. 224-187.
   The reign of Antiochus the Great.
   His early successes.
   His disastrous war with the Romans.
   His diminished kingdom.
   His death.

Antiochus the Great first proved his military talents in the war against the rebellious brothers Molo and Alexander, the satraps of Media and Persia (B. C. 220). "He next renewed the old contest with Egypt for the possession of Cœle-Syria and Palestine, and was forced to cede those provinces to Ptolemy Philopator, as the result of his decisive defeat at Raphia, near Gaza, in the same year in which the battle of the Trasimene lake (between Hannibal and the Romans] was fought (B. C. 217). Meanwhile, Achæus, the governor of Asia Minor, had raised the standard of independence; but after an obstinate resistance he was defeated and taken at Sardis, and put to death by Antiochus (B. C. 214). This success in the West encouraged Antiochus, like his father, to attempt the reconquest of the East, and with greater appearance at least of success. But a seven years' war (B. C. 212-205) only resulted in his acknowledgment of the independence of the Parthian monarchy (B. C. 205). The same year witnessed not only the crisis of the Hannibalic War, but the death of Ptolemy Philopator; and the opportunity offered by the latter event effectually withdrew Antiochus from direct participation in the great conflict. The league which he made with Philip [Philip V., king of Macedonia, who had then just concluded a peace with the Romans, ending the 'First Macedonian War'—see GREECE: B. C. 214-146], instead of being a well-concerted plan for the exclusion of the Romans from Asia, was only intended to leave him at liberty to pursue his designs against Egypt, while Philip bore the brunt of the war with Attalus [king of Pergamus, or Pergamum] and the Romans. During the crisis of the Macedonian War, he prosecuted a vigorous attack upon Cilicia, Cœle-Syria, and Palestine, while the Romans hesitated to engage in a new contest to protect the dominions of their youthful ward [Ptolemy V. Epiphanes, the infant king of Egypt, whose guardians had placed him under the protection of the Roman senate]. At length a decisive victory over the Egyptians at Panium, the hill whence the Jordan rises, was followed by a peace which gave the coveted provinces to Antiochus [see JEWS: B. C. 332-167], while the youthful Ptolemy was betrothed to Cleopatra, the daughter of the Syrian king (B. C. 198). It must not be forgotten that, the transference of these provinces from Egypt, which had constantly pursued a tolerant policy towards the Jews, led afterwards to the furious persecution of that people by Antiochus Epiphanes, and their successful revolt under the Maccabees [see JEWS: B. C. 166-40]. The time seemed now arrived for Antiochus to fly to the aid of Philip, before he should be crushed by the Romans; but the Syrian king still clung to the nearer and dearer object of extending his power over the whole of Asia Minor. … He collected a great army at Sardis, while his fleet advanced along the southern shores of Asia Minor, so that he was brought into collision both with Attalus and the Rhodians, the allies of Rome. … Though the Rhodians succeeded in protecting the chief cities of Caria, and Antiochus was repelled from some important places by the resistance of the inhabitants, he became master of several others, and among the rest of Abydos on the Hellespont. Even the conquest of his ally Philip was in the first instance favourable to his progress; for the hesitating policy of the Romans suffered him to occupy the places vacated by the Macedonian garrisons." It was not until 191 B. C. that the fatuity of the Syrian monarch brought him into collision with the legions of Rome. He had formed an alliance with the Ætolians in Greece, and he had received into his camp the fugitive Carthaginian, Hannibal; but petty jealousies forbade his profiting by the genius of the great unfortunate soldier. He entered Greece with a small force in 192 B. C., occupied the pass of Thermopylæ, and entrenched himself there, waiting reinforcements which did not come to him. Even the Macedonians were arrayed against him. Early in the following year he was attacked in this strong position by the Roman consul Manius Acilius Glabrio, Despite the immense advantages of the position he was defeated overwhelmingly and his army almost totally destroyed (B. C. 191). He fled to Chalcis and from Chalcis to Asia; but he had not escaped the long arm of wrathful Rome, now roused against him. For the first time, a Roman army crossed the Hellespont and entered the Asiatic world, under the command of the powerful Scipios, Africanus and his brother. At the same time a Roman fleet, in co-operation with the navy of Rhodes, swept the coasts of Asia Minor. After some minor naval engagements, a great battle was fought off the promontory of Myonnesus, near Ephesus, in which the Syrians lost half their fleet (B. C. 190). … On land Antiochus fared no better. A vast and motley host which he gathered for the defense of his dominions was assailed by L. Scipio at Magnesia, under Mount Sipylus (B. C. 190), and easily destroyed, some 50,000 of its dead being left on the field. This ended the war and stripped Antiochus of all his former conquests in Asia Minor. Much of the territory taken from him was handed over to the king of Pergamum, faithful ally and friend of Rome; some to the republic of Rhodes, and some was left undisturbed in its political state, as organized in the minor states of Cappadocia, Bithynia and the rest. "As the battle of Magnesia was the last, in ancient history, of those unequal conflicts, in which oriental armies yielded like unsubstantial shows to the might of disciplined freedom, so it sealed the fate of the last of the great oriental empires; for the kingdom left to the heirs of Seleucus was only strong enough to indulge them in the luxuries of Antioch and the malignant satisfaction of persecuting the Jews. All resistance ceased in Asia Minor; that great peninsula was ceded as far as the Taurus and the Halys, with whatever remained nominally to Antiochus in Thrace; and, with characteristic levity, he thanked the Romans for relieving him of the government of too large a kingdom. … Never, perhaps, did a great power fall so rapidly, so thoroughly, and so ignominiously as the kingdom of the Seleucidæ under this Antiochus the Great. He himself was soon afterwards slain by the indignant inhabitants of Elymaïs at the head of the Persian Gulf, on occasion of the plundering of a temple of Bel, with the treasures of which he had sought to replenish his empty coffers (B. C. 187), … The petty princes of Phrygia soon submitted to the power and exactions of the new lords of Western Asia; but the powerful Celtic tribes of Galatia made a stand in the fastnesses of Mount Olympus." They were overcome, however, and the survivors driven beyond the Halys. "That river, fixed by the treaty with Antiochus as the eastern limit of Roman power, in Asia, was respected as the present terminus of their conquests, without putting a bound to their influence." {2886} Eumenes, king of Pergamus, "was justly rewarded for his sufferings and services by the apportionment of the greater part of the territories ceded by Antiochus to the aggrandizement of his kingdom. Pergamus became the most powerful state of Western Asia, including nearly the whole of Asia Minor up to the Halys and the Taurus, except Bithynia and Galatia on the one side, and on the other Lycia and the greater part of Caria, which went to recompense the fidelity of the Rhodians; and to these Asiatic possessions were added, in Europe, the Thracian Chersonese and the city of Lysimachia."

SELEUCIDÆ:B. C. 150.
Conquest by the Parthians of Media, Persia, Susiana,
Babylonia and Assyria.

SELEUCIDÆ:B. C. 64.
Pompeius in the East.
Syria absorbed in the dominion of Rome.

In 64, B. C. having finished the Mithridatic War, driving the Pontic king across the Euxine into the Crimea, Pompeius Magnus marched into Syria to settle affairs in that disordered region.

He had received from the Roman senate and people, under the Manilian Law, an extraordinary commission, with supreme powers in Asia, and by virtue of this authority he assumed to dispose of the eastern kingdoms at will. The last of the Seleucid kings of Syria was deprived of his throne at Pompey's command, and Syria was added to the dominions of Rome. He then turned his attention to Judæa.

A tribe which, in Roman times, occupied the modern county of
Dumfries, Scotland.

SELJUKS.

SELLA CURULIS.

The last and decisive battle in what was called the Kleomenic War—fought B. C. 221. The war had its origin in the resistance of Sparta, under the influence of its last heroic king, Kleomenes, to the growing power of the Achaian League, revived and extended by Aratos. In the end, the League, to defeat Kleomenes, was persuaded by Aratos to call in Antigonus Doson, king of Macedonia, and practically to surrender itself, as an instrument in his hands, for the subjugation of Sparta and all Peloponnesus. The deed was accomplished on the field of Sellasia. Kleomenes fled to Egypt; "Sparta now, for the first time since the return of the Hêrakleids, opened her gates to a foreign conqueror."

SEMINOLES.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SEMINOLES, and MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY; also, FLORIDA: A. D. 1816-1818, 1835-1843.

"The 'Semitic Race' owes its name to a confusion of ethnology with philology. A certain family of speech, composed of languages closely related to one another and presupposing a common mother-tongue, received the title of 'Semitic' from the German scholar Eichhorn. There was some justification for such a name. The family of speech consists of Hebrew and Phoenician, of Aramaic, of Assyrian and Babylonian, of Arabian, of South Arabian and of Ethiopic or Ge'ez. Eber, Aram, and Asshur were all sons of Shem, and the South Arabian tribes claimed descent from Joktan. In default of a better title, therefore, 'Semitic' was introduced and accepted in order to denote the group of languages of which Hebrew and Aramaic form part. But whatever justification there may have been for speaking of a Semitic family of languages there was none for speaking of a Semitic race. To do so was to confound language and race, and to perpetuate the old error which failed to distinguish between the two. Unfortunately, however, when scholars began to realise the distinction between language and race, the mischief was already done. 'The Semitic race' had become, as it were, a household term of ethnological science. It was too late to try to displace it; all we can do is to define it accurately and distinguish it carefully from the philological term, 'the Semitic family of speech.' … There are members of the Semitic race who do not speak Semitic languages, and speakers of Semitic languages who do not belong to the Semitic race. … It is questionable whether the Phoenicians or Canaanites were of purely Semitic ancestry, and yet it was from them that the Israelites learned the language which we call Hebrew. … Northern Arabia was the early home of the Semitic stock, and it is in Northern Arabia that we still meet with it but little changed. … The Bedawin of Northern Arabia, and to a lesser extent the settled population of the Hijaz, may therefore be regarded as presenting us with the purest examples of the Semitic type. But even the Bedawin are not free from admixture."

"The following is a scheme of the divisions of the Semitic race. It is based partly upon the evidence afforded by linguistic affinity, and partly upon geographical and historical distribution:

   A. Northern Semites.
      I. Babylonian:
         a. Old Babylonian
         b. Assyrian
         c. Chaldæan

It should be said with regard to the foregoing classification, that it has been made as general as possible, since it is a matter of great difficulty to make clear-cut divisions on an exact ethnological basis. If a linguistic classification were attempted, a scheme largely different would have to be exhibited. … Again it should be observed that the mixture of races which was continually going on in the Semitic world is not and cannot be indicated by our classification. The Babylonians, for example, received a constant accession from Aramæans encamped on their borders, and even beyond the Tigris; but these, as well as non-Semitic elements from the mountains and plains to the east, they assimilated in speech and customs. The same general remark applies to the Aramæans of Northern Mesopotamia and Syria, while the peoples of Southern and Eastern Palestine, and in fact all the communities that bordered on the Great Desert, from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean, were continually absorbing individuals or tribes of Arabian stock. Finally, it must be remarked that in some sub-divisions it is necessary to use a geographical instead of a properly racial distinction; and that is, of course, to be limited chronologically. Thus, for instance, it is impossible to devise a single strictly ethnological term for the two great divisions of the Aramæans. It is now pretty generally admitted that the home of the Semitic race, before its separation into the historical divisions, was Northern Arabia. … The historical distribution of the several families is thus best accounted for. … While among the Southern Semites the various Arab tribes remained for the most part in their desert home for thousands of years as obscure Bedawin, and the Sabæans cultivated the rich soil of the southwest and the southern coast of Arabia, and there developed cities and a flourishing commerce, and the nearly related Ethiopians, migrating across the Red Sea, slowly built up in Abyssinia an isolated civilization of their own, those branches of the race with which we are immediately concerned, after a lengthened residence in common camping grounds, moved northward and westward to engage in more important enterprises. The Babylonians, occupying the region which the Bible makes known to us as the scene of man's creation, and which historical research indicates to have been the seat of the earliest civilization, made their home on the lands of the Lower Euphrates and Tigris, converting them through canalization and irrigation into rich and powerful kingdoms finally united under the rule of Babylon. Before the union was effected, emigrants from among these Babylonians settled along the Middle Tigris, founded the city of Asshur, and later still the group of cities known to history as Nineveh. The Assyrians then, after long struggles, rose to pre-eminence in Western Asia, till after centuries of stern dominion they yielded to the new Babylonian regime founded by the Chaldæans from the shores of the Persian Gulf. The Canaanites, debarred from the riches of the East, turned northwestward at an unknown early date, and while some of them occupied and cultivated the valleys of Palestine, others seized the maritime plain and the western slope of Lebanon. On the coast of the latter region they took advantage of the natural harbours wanting in the former, and tried the resources and possibilities of the sea. As Phœnicians of Sidon and Tyre, they became the great navigators and maritime traders for the nations, and sent forth colonies over the Mediterranean. …

Meanwhile the pasture lands between the Tigris and the Euphrates and between the southern desert and the northern mountains were gradually being occupied by the Aramæans, who advanced with flocks and herds along the Euphrates. … While the bulk of the Aramæans adhered to the old pastoral life among the good grazing districts in the confines of the desert, a large number, favoured by their intermediate position between urban and nomadic settlements, addicted themselves to the carrying trade between the East and the West. … This remarkable people, however, never attained to political autonomy on a large scale in their Mesopotamian home, to which for long ages they were confined. After the decline of the Hettite principalities west of the Euphrates [see HITTITES], to which they themselves largely contributed, they rapidly spread in that quarter also. They mingled with the non-Semitic Hettite inhabitants of Carchemish and Hamath, formed settlements along the slopes of Amanus and Anti-Lebanon, and created on the northeast corner of Palestine a powerful state with Damascus as the centre, which was long a rival of Israel, and even stood out against the might of Assyria. Thus the Aramæans really acted a more prominent political part to the west than they did to the east of the Euphrates, and accordingly they have been popularly most closely associated with the name 'Syria.' At the same time they did not abandon their old settlements between the Rivers. … As the latest of the historical divisions of the race to form an independent community, the Hebraic family made their permanent settlement in and about Palestine.

   Their common ancestors of the family of Terah emigrated from
   Southern Babylonia more than two thousand years before the
   Christian era. It is highly probable that they were of Aramæan
   stock."

      J. F. McCurdy,
      History, Prophecy and the Monuments,
      book 1, chapter 2 (volume 1).

"The Hebrews … divided the country of Aram [between the
[Mediterranean and the Euphrates] into several regions;

   1st Aram Naharaim, or 'Aram of the two rivers,' that is, the
   Mesopotamia of the Greeks, between the Euphrates and the
   Tigris;

2d Aram properly so called, that is, Syria, whose most ancient
and important city was Damascus; and

3d Aram Zobah, or the region in which in later times was formed the kingdom of Palmyra."

F. Lenormant and E. Chevalier, Manual of the Ancient History of the East, book 1, chapter 4.

"The Semitic home is distinguished by its central position in geography—between Asia and Africa, and between the Indian Ocean and the Mediterranean, which is Europe; and the rôle in history of the Semitic race has been also intermediary. The Semites have been the great middlemen of the world. Not second-rate in war, they have risen to the first rank in commerce and religion. They have been the carriers between East and West, they have stood between the great ancient civilizations and those which go to make up the modern world; while by a higher gift, for which their conditions neither in place nor in time fully account, they have been mediary between God and man, and proved the religious teachers of the world, through whom have come its three highest faiths, its only universal religions."

"If we ask what the Semitic peoples have contributed to this organic and living whole which is called civilization, we shall find, in the first place, that, in polity, we owe them nothing at all. Political life is perhaps the most peculiar and native characteristic of the Indo-European nations. These nations are the only ones that have known liberty, that have reconciled the State with the independence of the individual. … In art and poetry what do we owe to them? In art nothing. These tribes have but little of the artist; our art comes entirely from Greece. In poetry, nevertheless, without being their tributaries, we have with them more than one bond of union. The Psalms have become in some respects one of our sources of poetry. Hebrew poetry has taken a place with us beside Greek poetry, not as having furnished a distinct order of poetry, but as constituting a poetic ideal, a sort of Olympus where in consequence of an accepted prestige everything is suffused with a halo of light. … Here again, however, all the shades of expression, all the delicacy, all the depth is our work. The thing essentially poetic is the destiny of man; his melancholy moods, his restless search after causes, his just complaint to heaven. There was no necessity of going to strangers to learn this. The eternal school here is each man's soul. In science and philosophy we are exclusively Greek. The investigation of causes, knowledge for knowledge's own sake, is a thing of which there is no trace previous to Greece, a thing that we have learned from her alone. Babylon possessed a science, but it had not that pre-eminently scientific principle, the absolute fixedness of natural law. … We owe to the Semitic race neither political life, art, poetry, philosophy, nor science. What then do we owe to them? We owe to them religion. The whole world, if we except India, China, Japan, and tribes altogether savage, has adopted the Semitic religions. The civilized world comprises only Jews, Christians, and Mussulmans. The Indo-European race in particular, excepting the Brahmanic family and the feeble relics of the Parsees, has gone over completely to the Semitic faiths. What has been the cause of this strange phenomenon? How happens it that the nations who hold the supremacy of the world have renounced their own creed to adopt that of the people they have conquered? The primitive worship of the Indo-European race … was charming and profound, like the imagination of the nations themselves. It was like an echo of nature, a sort of naturalistic hymn, in which the idea of one sole cause appears but occasionally and uncertainly. It was a child's religion, full of artlessness and poetry, but destined to crumble at the first demand of thought. Persia first effected its reform (that which is associated with the name of Zoroaster) under influences and at an epoch unknown to us. Greece, in the time of Pisistratus, was already dissatisfied with her religion, and was turning towards the East. In the Roman period, the old pagan worship had become utterly insufficient. It no longer addressed the imagination; it spoke feebly to the moral sense. The old myths on the forces of nature had become changed into fables, not unfrequently amusing and ingenious; but destitute of all religious value. It is precisely at this epoch that the civilized world finds itself face to face with the Jewish faith. Based upon the clear and simple dogma of the divine unity, discarding naturalism and pantheism by the marvellously terse phrase: 'In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth,' possessing a law, a book, the depository of grand moral precepts and of an elevated religious poetry, Judaism had an incontestable superiority, and it might have been foreseen then that some day the world would become Jewish, that is to say would forsake the old mythology for Monotheism."

      E. Renan,
      Studies of Religious History and Criticism,
      pages 154-160.

"The Babylonians were … the first of the Semites to enter the arena of history, and they did so by virtue of the civilization to which they attained in and through their settlements on the Lower Euphrates and Tigris. … The unrivalled fertility of the soil of Babylonia was the result not only of the quality of the soil, but of the superadded benefits of the colossal system of drainage and canalization which was begun by the ingenuity of the first civilized inhabitants. Of the natural elements of fertility, the Euphrates contributed by far the larger share. … The … formations of clay, mud, and gypsum, comprising elements of the richest soil, are found in such profusion in Babylonia that in the days of ancient civilization it was the most fruitful portion of the whole earth with the possible exception of the valley of the Nile. It was roughly reckoned by Herodotus to equal in productiveness half the rest of Asia. … The rise of the Semites in Babylonia, like all other origins, is involved in obscurity. The earliest authentic records, drawn as they are from their own monuments, reveal this gifted race as already in possession of a high degree of civilization, with completed systems of national religion, a language already long past its formative period, and a stage of advancement in art that testifies to the existence of a wealthy class of taste and leisure, to whom their nomadic ancestry must have been little more than a vague tradition. The same records also show this Semitic people to have extended their sway in Western Asia as far as the Mediterranean coastland many centuries before Phœnicians or Hebrews or Hettites came before the world in any national or corporate form. Questions of deep interest arise in connection with such facts as these. It is asked: Did the Babylonian Semites develop the elements of their civilization alone, or did they inherit that of another race? … In the absence of direct evidence to the contrary, we are entitled to assume that the same race who in historical times gave proof of high mental endowments reached their unique level of intellectual attainment by a process of self-education. A contrary opinion is held by many scholars of high rank. I refer to the well-known theory that the Semitic Babylonians acquired their civilization from another people who preceded them in the occupation and cultivation of the country.

This hypothetical race is named Sumerian from the term Sumer, generally, but erroneously, supposed to be the designation of Southern Babylonia. With this in the Inscriptions is coupled the name of Akkad, another geographical term properly connoting Northern Babylonia. This appellation has given rise to the name 'Akkadian;' used by most of these modern authorities to designate a supposed subdivision of the same people, speaking a dialect of the main Sumerian language. … The Sumerian theory has played a great role in linguistic and ethnological research during the last twenty years. The general aspect of the supposed language led at once to its being classed with the agglutinative families of speech, and the inevitable 'Turanian' conveniently opened its hospitable doors. … While we are … obliged, until further light shall have been cast upon the subject, to assume that the earliest type of Babylonian culture was mainly of Semitic origin, it would be rash to assert that people of that race were the sole occupants of the lower River country in prehistoric times, or that they received no important contributions to their development from any outside races. … It … remains for us to assume it to be possible that an antecedent or contemporanous people bore a small share with the Semites in the early development of the country, and that, as a result of their contact with the stronger race, they bequeathed to it some of the elements of the surviving religion, mythology, and popular superstition."

J. F. McCurdy, History, Prophecy and the Monuments, book 2, chapter 1 (volume 1).

"As to the ancient history of Babylon, it is well to learn to be patient and to wait. The progress of discovery and decipherment is so rapid, that what is true this year is shown to be wrong next year. … This is no discredit to the valiant pioneers in this glorious campaign. On the contrary it speaks well for their perseverance and for their sense of truth. I shall only give you one instance to show what I mean by calling the ancient periods of Babylonian history also constructive rather than authentic. My friend Professor Sayce claims 4000 B. C. as the beginning of Babylonian literature. Nabonidus, he tells us (Hibbert Lectures, page 21), in 550 B. C. explored the great temple of the Sun god at Sippara. This temple was believed to have been founded by Naram Sin, the son of Sargon. Nabonidus, however, lighted upon the actual foundation-stone—a stone, we are told, which had not been seen by any of his predecessors for 3,200 years. On the strength of this the date of 3,200 + 550 years, that is, 3750 B. C., is assigned to Naram Sin, the son of Sargon. These two kings, however, are said to be quite modern, and to have been preceded by a number of so-called Proto-Chaldæan kings, who spoke a Proto-Chaldæan language, long before the Semitic population had entered the land. It is concluded, further, from some old inscriptions on diorite, brought from the Peninsula of Sinai to Chaldæa, that the quarries of Sinai, which were worked by the Egyptians at the time of their third dynasty, say six thousand years ago, may have been visited about the same time by these Proto-Chaldæans. 4000 B. C., we are told, would therefore be a very moderate initial epoch for Babylonian and Egyptian literature. I am the very last person to deny the ingeniousness of these arguments, or to doubt the real antiquity of the early civilization of Babylon or Egypt. All I wish to point out is, that we should always keep before our eyes the constructive character of this ancient history and chronology. To use a foundation-stone, on its own authority, as a stepping-stone over a gap of 3,200 years, is purely constructive chronology, and as such is to be carefully distinguished from what historians mean by authentic history, as when Herodotus or Thucydides tells us what happened during their own lives or before their own eyes."

F. Max Müller, On the "Enormous Antiquity" of the East (Nineteenth Century, 1891).

"Dr. Tiele rejects the name 'Accadian,' which has been adopted by so many Assyriologists, and is strongly indisposed to admit Turanian affinities. Yet he is so_far from accepting the alternative theory of Halévy and Guyard, that this so-called Accadian, or Sumerian, is only another way of writing Assyrian, that he can scarcely comprehend how a man of learning and penetration can maintain such a strange position. He seems to consider a positive decision in the present stage of the inquiry premature; but pronounces the hypothesis which lies at the basis of the Accadian theory, namely, that the peculiarities of the cuneiform writing are explicable only by the assumption that it was originally intended for another language than the Assyrian, to be by far the most probable. He calls this language, which may or may not have been non-Semitic, 'Old Chaldee,' because what was later on called Chaldaea 'was certainly its starting-point in Mesopotamia.' The superiority of this name to 'Accadian' or 'Sumerian' is not very obvious, as the name 'Chaldee' is not found before the ninth century B. C., while the oldest title of the Babylonian kings is 'king of Sumir and Accad.' In the interesting account of the provinces and cities of Babylonia and Assyria, … two identifications which have found much favour with Assyriologists are mentioned in a very sceptical way. The 'Ur' of Abraham is generally believed, with Schrader, to be the 'El Mughair' of the Arabs. Dr. Tiele coldly observes that this identification, though not impossible, is not proved. Again, the tower of Babel is identified by Schrader either with Babil on the left side of the river, or with Birs Nimrud (Borsippa) on the right side. Dr. Tiele considers the latter site impossible, because Borsippa is always spoken of as a distinct place, and was too distant from Babylon for the supposed outer wall of the great city to enclose it. He also rejects Schrader's theory that the name Nineveh in later times included Dur Sargon (Khorsabad), Resen, and Calah, as well as Nineveh proper. The history is divided into four periods:

1. The old Babylonian period, from the earliest days down to the time when Assyria was sufficiently strong and independent to contend with Babylon on equal terms.

2. The first Assyrian period down to the accession of
Tiglath-pileser II. in 745 B. C.

In treating of the first period, Dr. Tiele makes no attempt to deal with the Deluge Tablets as a source of historical knowledge, putting them on one side apparently as purely mythical. He despairs of tracing Babylonian culture to its earliest home. The belief that it originated on the shores of the Persian Gulf seems to him uncertain, but he is not able to fill the gap with any other satisfactory hypothesis. Babylonian history begins for him with Sargon I., whom he regards as most probably either of Semitic descent or a representative of Semitic sovereignty. He is sceptical about the early date assigned to this king by Nabunahid, the thirty-eighth century B. C., and is disposed to regard the quaint story of his concealment when an infant in a basket of reeds as a solar myth; but he is compelled to admit as solid fact the amazing statements of the inscriptions about his mighty empire 'extending from Elam to the coast of the Mediterranean and the borders of Egypt, nay, even to Cyprus.' So early as 1850 B. C., he thinks, the supremacy of Babylon had been established for centuries."

Review of Dr. Tiele's History of Babylonia and Assyria
(Academy, January 1, 1887).

      ALSO IN:
      The Earliest History of Babylonia
      (Quarterly Review, October, 1894, reviewing
      "Découvertes en Chaldée, par Ernest de Sarsec).

"It is with the reign of Hammurabi that the importance of Babylonia—the country owning Babel as its capital—begins. … Hammurabi (circ. 2250 B. C.) is the sixth on the Babylonian list [i. e. a list of kings found among the inscriptions recovered from the mounds of ruined cities in Mesopotamia]. The great majority of the inscriptions of his long reign of fifty-five years refer to peaceful works." As, for example, "the famous canal inscription: 'I am Hammurabi, the mighty king, king of Ka-dingirra (Babylon), the king whom the regions obey, the winner of victory for his lord Merodach, the shepherd, who rejoices his heart. When the gods Anu and Bel granted me to rule the people of Sumer and Akkad, and gave the sceptre into my hand, I dug the canal called "Hammurabi, the blessing of the people," which carries with it the overflow of the water for the people of Sumer and Akkad. I allotted both its shores for food. Measures of corn I poured forth. A lasting water supply I made for the people of Sumer and Akkad. I brought together the numerous troops of the people of Sumer and Akkad, food and drink I made for them; with blessing and abundance I gifted them. In convenient abodes I caused them to dwell. Thenceforward I am Hammurabi, the mighty king, the favourite of the great gods. With the might accorded me by Merodach I built a tall tower with great entrances, whose summits are high like … at the head of the canal "Hammurabi, the blessing of the people." I named the tower Sinmuballit tower, after the name of my father, my begetter. The statue of Sinmuballit, my father, my begetter, I set up at the four quarters of heaven.' … Rings bearing the legend 'Palace of Hammurabi' have been found in the neighbourhood of Bagdad, and presumably indicate the existence of a royal residence there."

"The canal to which this king boasts of having given his name, the 'Nahar-Hammourabi,' was called in later days the royal canal, 'Nahar Malcha.' Herodotus saw and admired it, its good condition was an object of care to the king himself, and we know that it was considerably repaired by Nebuchadnezzar. When civilization makes up its mind to re-enter upon that country, nothing more will be needed for the re-awakening in it of life and reproductive energy, than the restoration of the great works undertaken by the contemporaries of Abraham and Jacob."

G. Perrot and C. Chipiez, History of Art in Chaldæa and Assyria, volume 1, page 40.

"After a reign of fifty-five years, Chammurabi [or Hammurabi] bequeathed the crown of Babylon and the united kingdoms of Babylonia to his son Samsu-iluna (B. C. 2209-2180). This ruler, reigning in the spirit of his father, developed still further the national system of canalization. … Five kings after Chammurabi, till 2098 B. C., complete the list of the eleven kings of this first dynasty, who reigned in all 304 years. The epoch made memorable by the deeds and enterprise of Chammurabi is followed by a period of 368 years, of the occurrences of which absolutely nothing is known, except the names and regnal years of another list of eleven kings reigning in the city of Babylon. … The foreign non-Semitic race, which for nearly six centuries (c. 1730-1153), from this time onward, held a controlling place in the affairs of Babylonia, are referred to in the inscriptions by the name Kassē. These Kasshites came from the border country between Northern Elam and Media, and were in all probability of the same race as the Elamites. The references to them make them out to be both mountaineers and tent-dwellers. … The political sway of the foreign masters was undisputed, but the genius of the government and the national type of culture and forms of activity were essentially unchanged. … Through century after century, and millennium after millennium, the dominant genius of Babylonia remained the same. It conquered all its conquerors, and moulded them to its own likeness by the force of its manifold culture, by the appliances as well as the prestige of the arts of peace. … The Babylonians were not able to maintain perpetually their political autonomy or integrity, not because they were not brave or patriotic," but because "they were not, first and foremost, a military people. Their energies were mainly spent in trade and manufacture, in science and art. … The time which the native historiographers allow to the new [Kasshite] dynasty is 577 years. … This Kasshite conquest of Babylonia … prevented the consolidation of the eastern branch of the Semites, by alienating from Babylonia the Assyrian colonists. … Henceforth there was almost perpetual rivalry and strife between Assyria and the parent country. Henceforth, also, it is Assyria that becomes the leading power in the West."

J. F. McCurdy, History, Prophecy and the Monuments, book 2, chapter 3, and book 4, chapter 1 (volume 1).

   "The Kassites gave a dynasty to Babylonia which lasted for 576
   years (B. C. 1806-1230). The fact that the rulers of the
   country were Kassites by race, and that their army largely
   consisted of Kassite troops, caused the neighbouring
   populations to identify the Babylonians with their conquerors
   and lords. Hence it is that in the tablets of Tel el-Amarna,
   the Canaanite writers invariably term the Babylonians the
   'Kasi.' The 'Kasi' or Cush, we are told, had overrun Palestine
   in former years and were again threatening the Egyptian
   province. In calling Nimrod, therefore, a son of Cush the Book
   of Genesis merely means that he was a Babylonian. But the
   designation takes us back to the age of the Tel el-Amarna
   tablets. It was not a designation which could have belonged to
   that later age, when the Babylonians were known to the
   Israelites as the 'Kasdim' only. Indeed there is a passage in
   the Book of Micah (chapter 5) which proves plainly that in
   that later age 'the land of Nimrod' was synonymous not with
   Babylonia but with Assyria. The Nimrod of Genesis must have
   come down to us from the time when the Kassite dynasty still
   reigned over Babylonia. …
{2891}
   Nimrod was not satisfied with his Babylonian dominions. 'Out
   of that land he went forth into Assyria, and builded Nineveh,
   and Rehoboth 'Ir (the city boulevards), and Calah and Resen.'
   … The city of Asshur had been long in existence when Nimrod
   led his Kassite followers to it, and so made its
   'high-priests' tributary to Babylon. It stood on the high-road
   to the west, and it is not surprising, therefore, that the
   Kassite kings, after making themselves masters of the future
   kingdom of Assyria, should have continued their victorious
   career as far as the shores of the Mediterranean. We may
   conjecture that Nimrod was the first of them who planted his
   power so firmly in Palestine as to be remembered in the
   proverbial lore of the country, and to have introduced that
   Babylonian culture of which the Tel el-Amarna tablets have
   given us such abundant evidence."

      A. H. Sayce,
      The Higher Criticism, and the Verdict of the Monuments,
      chapter 3.

It was during the Kasshite domination in Babylonia that Ahmes, founder of the eighteenth dynasty in Egypt, expelled the Hyksos intruders from that country; and "his successors, returning upon Asia the attack which they had thence received, subjugating, or rather putting to ransom, all the Canaanites of Judea, Phœnicia, and Syria, crossed the Euphrates and the Tigris.

Nineveh twice fell into their power, and the whole Semitic world became vassal to the Pharaohs. The influence of Egypt was real though temporary, but in the reciprocal dealings which were the result of the conquests of the Tutnes [or Thothmes] and the Amenhoteps, the share of the Semites was on the whole the larger. Marriages with the daughters of kings or vassal governors brought into Egypt and established Asiatic types, ideas, and customs on the Theban throne. Amenhotep IV. was purely Semitic; he endeavoured to replace the religion of Ammon by the sun-worship of Syria. In 1887 were discovered the fragments of a correspondence exchanged between the kings of Syria, Armenia, and Babylonia, and the Pharaohs Amenhotep III. and IV.

All these letters are written in cuneiform character and in Semitic or other dialects; it is probable that the answers were drawn up in the same character and in the same languages. For the rest, the subjugated nations had soon recovered. Saryoukm I. had reconstituted the Chaldean empire; the Assyrians, ever at war on their eastern and western frontiers, had more than once crossed the Upper Euphrates and penetrated Asia Minor as far as Troad, where the name Assaracus seems to be a relic of an Assyrian dynasty. The Hittites or Khetas occupied the north of Syria; and when Ramses II., Sesostris, desired in the 15th century to renew the exploits of his ancestors, he was checked at Kadech by the Hittites and forced to retreat after an undecided battle. The great expansion of Egypt was stopped, at least towards the north. The Semitic peoples, on the contrary, were everywhere in the ascendant."

"According to all appearance it was the Egyptian conquest about sixteen centuries B. C., that led to the partition of Mesopotamia. Vassals of Thothmes and Rameses, called by Berosus the 'Arab kings,' sat upon the throne of Babylon. The tribes of Upper Mesopotamia were farther from Egypt, and their chiefs found it easier to preserve their independence. At first each city had its own prince, but in time one of these petty kingdoms absorbed the rest, and Nineveh became the capital of an united Assyria. As the years passed away the frontiers of the nation thus constituted were pushed gradually southwards until all Mesopotamia was brought under one sceptre. This consummation appears to have been complete by the end of the fourteenth century, at which period Egypt, enfeebled and rolled back upon herself, ceased to make her influence felt upon the Euphrates. Even then Babylon kept her own kings, but they had sunk to be little more than hereditary satraps receiving investiture from Nineveh. Over and over again Babylon attempted to shake off the yoke of her neighbour; but down to the seventh century her revolts were always suppressed, and the Assyrian supremacy re-established after more or less desperate conflicts. During nearly half a century, from about 1060 to 1020 B. C., Babylon seems to have recovered the upper hand. The victories of her princes put an end to what is called the First Assyrian Empire. But after one or two generations a new family mounted the northern throne, and, toiling energetically for a century or so to establish the grandeur of the monarchy, founded the Second Assyrian Empire. The upper country regained its ascendency by the help of military institutions whose details now escape us, although their results may be traced throughout the later history of Assyria. From the tenth century onwards the effects of these institutions become visible in expeditions made by the armies of Assyria, now to the shores of the Persian Gulf or the Caspian, and now through the mountains of Armenia into the plains of Cappadocia, or across the Syrian desert to the Lebanon and the coast cities of Phœnicia. The first princes whose figured monuments—in contradistinction to mere inscriptions—have come down to us, belonged to those days. The oldest of all was Assurnazirpal, whose residence was at Calach (Nimroud). The bas-reliefs with which his palace was decorated are now in the Louvre and the British Museum, most of them in the latter. … To Assurnazirpal's son Shalmaneser III. belongs the obelisk of basalt which also stands in the British Museum. … Shalmaneser was an intrepid man of war. The inscriptions on his obelisk recall the events of thirty-one campaigns waged against the neighbouring peoples under the leadership of the king himself. … Under the immediate successors of Shalmaneser the Assyrian prestige was maintained at a high level by dint of the same lavish bloodshed and truculent energy; but towards the eighth century it began to decline. There was then a period of languor and decadence, some echo of which, and of its accompanying disasters, seems to have been embodied by the Greeks in the romantic tale of Sardanapalus. No shadow of confirmation for the story of a first destruction of Nineveh is to be found in the inscriptions, and, in the middle of the same century, we again find the Assyrian arms triumphant under the leadership of Tiglath Pileser II., a king modelled after the great warriors of the earlier days. This prince seems to have carried his victorious arms as far east as the Indus, and west as the frontiers of Egypt. {2892} And yet it was only under his second successor, Saryoukin, or, to give him his popular name, Sargon, the founder of a new dynasty, that Syria, with the exception of Tyre, was brought into complete submission after a great victory over the Egyptians (721-704). … His son Sennacherib equalled him both as a soldier and as a builder. He began by crushing the rebels of Elam and Chaldæa with unflinching severity; in his anger he almost exterminated the inhabitants of Babylon, the perennial seat of revolt; but, on the other hand, he repaired and restored Nineveh. Most of his predecessors had been absentees from the capital, and had neglected its buildings. … He chose a site well within the city for the magnificent palace which Mr. Layard has been the means of restoring to the world. This building is now known as Kouyoundjik, from the name of the village perched upon the mound within which the buildings of Sennacherib were hidden. Sennacherib rebuilt the walls, the towers, and the quays of Nineveh at the same time, so that the capital, which had never ceased to be the strongest and most populous city of the empire, again became the residence of the king—a distinction which it was to preserve until the fast approaching date of its final destruction. The son of Sennacherib, Esarhaddon, and his grandson, Assurbanipal [long identified with the Sardanapalus of the Greeks; but Prof. Sayce now finds the Sardanapalus of Greek romance in a rebel king, Assur-dain-pal, who reigned B. C. 827-820, and whose name and history fit the tale], pushed the adventures and conquests of the Assyrian arms still farther. They subdued the whole north of Arabia, and invaded Egypt more than once. … There was a moment when the great Semitic Empire founded by the Sargonides touched even the Ægæan, for Cyges, king of Lydia, finding himself menaced by the Cimmerians, did homage to Assurbanipal, and sued for help against those foes to all civilization."

G. Perrot and C. Chipiez, A History of Art in Chaldæa and Assyria, chapter 1, section 5 (volume 1).

"The power of Assurbanipal was equal to the task of holding under control the subjects of Assyria at all points. He boasts of having compelled the king of Tyre to drink sea-water to quench his thirst. The greatest opposition he met with was in Elam, but this too he was able to suppress. … Assurbanipal says that he increased the tributes, but that his action was opposed by his own brother, whom he had formerly maintained by force of arms in Babylon, This brother now seduced a great number of other nations and princes from their allegiance. … The king of Babylon placed himself, so to speak, at their head. … The danger was immensely increased when the king set up by Assurbanipal in Elam joined the movement. It was necessary to put an end to this revolt, and this was effected for once without much difficulty. … Thereupon the rebellious brother in Babylon has to give way. The gods who go before Assurbanipal have, as he says, thrust the king of Babylon into a consuming fire and put an end to his life. His adherents … are horribly punished. … The provinces which joined them are subjected to the laws of the Assyrian gods. Even the Arabs, who have sided with the rebels, bow before the king, whilst of his power in Egypt it is said that it extended to the sources of the Nile. His dominion reached even to Asia Minor. … Assyria is the first conquering power which we encounter in the history of the world. The most effective means which she brought to bear in consolidating her conquests consisted in the transportation of the principal inhabitants from the subjugated districts to Assyria, and the settlement of Assyrians in the newly acquired provinces. … The most important result of the action of Assyria upon the world was perhaps that she limited or broke up the petty sovereignties and the local religions of Western Asia. … It was … an event which convulsed the world when this power, in the full current of its life and progress, suddenly ceased to exist. Since the 10th century every event of importance had originated in Assyria; in the middle of the 7th she suddenly collapsed. … Of the manner in which the ruin of Nineveh was brought about we have nowhere any authentic record. … Apart from their miraculous accessories, the one circumstance in which … [most of the accounts given] agree, is that Assyria was overthrown by the combination of the Medes and Babylonians. Everything else that is said on the subject verges on the fabulous; and even the fact of the alliance is doubtful, since Herodotus, who lived nearest to the period we are treating of, knows nothing of it, and ascribes the conquest simply to the Medes."

      L. von Ranke,
      Universal History: The Oldest Historical Group of Nations,
      chapter 3.

The story, briefly told, of the alliance by which the Assyrian monarchy is said to have been overthrown, is as follows: About 626 or 625, B. C., a new revolt broke out in Babylonia, and the Assyrian king sent a general named Nabu-pal-usur or Nabopolassar to quell it. Nabu-pal-usur succeeded in his undertaking, and seems to have been rewarded by being made governor of Babylon. But his ambition aimed higher, and he mounted the ancient Babylonian throne, casting off his allegiance to Assyria and joining her enemies. "He was wise enough to see that Assyria could not be completely crushed by one nation, and he therefore made a league with Pharaoh Necho, of Egypt, and asked the Median king, Cyaxares, to give his daughter, Amytes, to Nebuchadnezzar, his son, to wife. Thus a league was made, and about B. C. 609 the kings marched against Assyria. They suffered various defeats, but eventually the Assyrian army was defeated, and Shalman, the brother of the king of Assyria, [was] slain. The united kings then besieged Nineveh. During the siege the river Tigris rose and carried away the greater part of the city wall. The Assyrian king gathered together his wives and property in the palace, and setting fire to it, all perished in the flames. The enemies went into the city and utterly destroyed all they could lay their hands upon. With the fall of Nineveh, Assyria as a power practically ceased to exist." About 608 B. C. Nebuchadnezzar succeeded his father on the throne. "When he had become established in the kingdom he set his various captives, Jews, Phœnicians, Syrians, and Egyptians, at work to make Babylon the greatest city in the world. And as a builder he remains almost unsurpassed."

"The Babylon of Nebuchadnezzar occupied a square of which each side was nearly fifteen miles in length, and was bisected by the Euphrates diagonally from northwest to southeast. This square was enclosed by a deep moat, flooded from the river. The clay excavated in digging the moat, moulded into bricks and laid in bitumen, formed the walls of the city. These walls, more than 300 feet high and more than 70 thick, and protected by parapets, afforded a commodious driveway along their top of nearly 60 miles, needing only aerial bridges over the Euphrates river. The waters of the river were forced to flow through the city between quays of masonry which equaled the walls in thickness and height. The walls were pierced at equal intervals for a hundred gates, and each gateway closed with double leaves of ponderous metal, swinging upon bronze posts built into the wall. Fifty broad avenues, crossing each other at right angles, joined the opposite gates of the city, and divided it into a checkerboard of gigantic squares. The river quays were pierced by 25 gates like those in the outer walls. One of the streets was carried across the river upon an arched bridge, another ran in a tunnel beneath the river bed, and ferries plied continually across the water where the other streets abutted. The great squares of the city were not all occupied by buildings. Many of them were used as gardens and even farms, and the great fertility of the soil, caused by irrigation, producing two and even three crops a year, supplied food sufficient for the inhabitants in case of siege. Babylon was a vast fortified province rather than a city. … There is a curious fact which I do not remember to have seen noticed, and of which I will not here venture to suggest the explanation. Babylon stands in the Book of Revelation as the emblem of all the abominations which are to be destroyed by the power of Christ. But Babylon is the one city known to history which could have served as a model for John's description of the New Jerusalem: 'the city lying four square,' 'the walls great and high,' the river which flowed through the city, 'and in the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river the tree of life, bearing twelve manner of fruits;' 'the foundations of the wall of the city garnished with all manner of precious stones,' as the base of the walls inclosing the great palace were faced with glazed and enameled bricks of brilliant colors, and a broad space left that they might be seen,—these characteristics, and they are all unique, have been combined in no other city."

"Undoubtedly, one of the important results already obtained from the study of the native chronicles of Babylon is the establishment, on grounds apart from the question of the authenticity of the Book of Daniel, of the historical character of Belshazzar. The name of this prince had always been a puzzle to commentators and historians. The only native authority on Babylonian history—Berosus—did not appear to have mentioned such a person. … According to the extracts from the work of Berosus preserved for us in the writings of these authors, the following is the history of the last King of Babylon. His name was Nabonidus, or Nabonedus, and he first appears as the leader of a band of conspirators who determined to bring about a change in the government. The throne was then occupied by the youthful Laborosoarchod (for this is the corrupt Greek form of the Babylonian Lâbâshi-Marduk), who was the son of Neriglissar, and therefore, through his mother, the grandson of the great Nebuchadnezzar; but, in spite of his tender age, the new sovereign who had only succeeded his father two months before, had already given proof of a bad disposition. … When the designs of the conspirators had been carried out, they appointed Nabonidus king in the room of the youthful son of Neriglissar. … We next hear that in the seventeenth year of Nabonidus, Cyrus, who had already conquered the rest of Asia, marched upon Babylon, B. C. 538.

The native forces met the Persians in battle, but were put to flight, with their king at their head, and took refuge behind the ramparts of Borsippa. Cyrus thereupon entered Babylon, we are told, and threw down her walls. … Herodotus states that the last king of Babylon was the son of the great Nebuchadnezzar—to give that monarch his true name—for in so doing he bears out, so far as his testimony is of any value, the words of the Book of Daniel, which not only calls Belshazzar son of Nebuchadnezzar, but also introduces the wife of the latter monarch as being the mother of the ill-fated prince who closed the long line of native rulers. Such being the only testimony of secular writers, there was no alternative but to identify Belshazzar with Nabonidus. … Yet the name Nabonidus stood in no sort of relation to that of Belshazzar; and the identification of the two personages was, undoubtedly, both arbitrary and difficult. The cuneiform inscriptions brought to Europe from the site of Babylon and other ancient cities of Chaldæa soon changed the aspect of the problem. … Nabonidus, or, in the native form, Nabu naïd, that is to say, 'Nebo exalts,' is the name given to the last native king of Babylon in the contemporary records inscribed on clay. This monarch, however, was found to speak of his eldest son as bearing the very name preserved in the Book of Daniel, and hitherto known to us from that source alone. … 'Set the fear of thy great godhead in the heart of. Belshazzar, my firstborn son, my own offspring; and let him not commit sin, in order that he may enjoy the fulness of life.' … 'Belshazzar, my firstborn son, … lengthen his days; let him not commit sin. …' These passages provide us, in an unexpected manner, with the name which had hitherto been known from the Book of Daniel, and from that document alone; but we were still in the dark as to the reason which could have induced the author to represent Belshazzar as king of Babylon. … In 1882 a cuneiform inscription was for the first time interpreted and published by Mr. Pinches; it had been disinterred among the ruins of Babylon by Mr. Hormuzd Russam. This document proved to contain the annals of the king whose fate we have just been discussing—namely, Nabonidus. Though mutilated in parts, it allowed us to learn some portions of his history, both before and during the invasion of Babylonia by Cyrus; and one of the most remarkable facts that it added to our knowledge was that of the regency—if that term may be used—of the king's son during the absence of the sovereign from the Court and army. Here, surely, the explanation of the Book of Daniel was found: Belshazzar was, at the time of the irruption of the Persians, acting as his father's representative; he was commanding the Babylonian army and presiding over the Babylonian Court. When Cyrus entered Babylon, doubtless the only resistance he met with was in the royal palace, and there it was probably slight. In the same night Belshazzar was taken and slain."

B. T. A. Evetts, New Light on the Bible and the Holy Land, chapter 11, part 2.

Cyrus the Great, in whose vast empire the Babylonian kingdom was finally swallowed up, was originally "king of Anzan in Elam, not of Persia. Anzan had been first occupied, it would appear, by his great-grandfather Teispes the Achaemenian. The conquest of Astyages and of his capital Ekbatana took place in B. C. 549, and a year or two later Cyrus obtained possession of Persia." Then, B. C. 538, came the conquest of Babylonia, invited by a party in the country hostile to its king, Nabonidos. Cyrus "assumed the title of 'King of Babylon,' thus claiming to be the legitimate descendant of the ancient Babylonian kings. He announced himself as the devoted worshipper of Bel and Nebo, who by the command of Merodach had overthrown the sacrilegious usurper Nabonidos, and he and his son accordingly offered sacrifices to ten times the usual amount in the Babylonian temples, and restored the images of the gods to their ancient shrines. At the same time he allowed the foreign populations who had been deported to Babylonia to return to their homes along with the statues of their gods. Among these foreign populations, as we know from the Old Testament, were the Jews."

SEMITIC LANGUAGES.

"There is no stronger or more unchanging unity among any group of languages than that which exists in the Semitic group. The dead and living languages which compose it hardly differ from each other so much as the various Romance or Sclavonic dialects. Not only are the elements of the common vocabulary unchanged, but the structure of the word and of the phrase has remained the same. … The Semitic languages form two great branches, each subdivided into two groups. The northern branch comprehends the Aramaic-Assyrian group and the Canaanitish group; the southern … includes the Arabic group, properly so called, and the Himyarite group. The name Aramaic is given to two dialects which are very nearly allied—Chaldean and Syriac. … The Aramaic which was spoken at the time of Christ was divided into two sub-dialects: that of Galilee, which resembled the Syriac pronunciation, and that of Jerusalem, of which the pronunciation was more marked and nearer to Chaldean. Jesus and his disciples evidently spoke the dialect of their country. … Syriac, in its primitive state, is unknown to us, as also Syro-Chaldean. … Assyrian is a discovery of this century. … To the Canaanitish group belong Phœnician, Samaritan, the languages of the left bank of the Jordan, notably Moabite. … and lastly, Hebrew. The first and the last of these dialects are almost exactly alike. … Arabic, being the language of Islam, has deeply penetrated all the Mussulman nations, Turkish, Persian, and Hindustani. … Himyarite reigned to the south of Arabic; it was the language of the Queen of Sheba, and is now well known through a great number of inscriptions, and is perhaps still spoken under the name of Ekhili in the district of Marah. … It is in Abyssinia that we must seek for the last vestiges of Himyarite. Several centuries before our era, the African coast of the Red Sea had received Semitic colonies, and a language known as Ghez or Ethiopian."

"The Semnones were the chief Suevic clan. Their settlements seem to have been between the Elbe and Oder, coinciding as nearly as possible with Brandenburg, and reaching possibly into Prussian Poland."-

SEMPRONIAN LAWS.

The laws proposed and carried at Rome by the Gracchi, who were of the Sempronian gens, are often so referred to.

A little island called Sena—modern Sein—off the extreme western coast of Brittany, is mentioned by Pomponius Mela as the site of a celebrated oracle, consulted by Gaulish navigators and served by nine virgin priestesses.

E. H. Bunbury, History of Ancient Geography, chapter 23, section 2 (volume 2).

"In prehistoric times, the clans which subsequently united to form cantons had each possessed a monarchical constitution of its own. When the clan governments were merged in that of the canton, the monarchs ('reges') of these clans became senators, or elders, in the new community. In the case of Rome the number of senators was three hundred, because in the beginning, as tradition said, there were three hundred clans. In regal times the king appointed the senators. Probably, at first, he chose one from each clan, honoring in this way some man whose age had given him experience and whose ability made his opinion entitled to consideration. Afterward, when the rigidity of the arrangement by clans was lost, the senators were selected from the whole body of the people, without any attempt at preserving the clan representation. Primarily the senate was not a legislative body. When the king died without having nominated his successor, the senators served successively as 'interreges' ('kings for an interval'), for periods of five days each, until a 'rex' was chosen. … This general duty was the first of the senate's original functions. Again, when the citizens had passed a law at the suggestion of the king, the senate had a right ('patrum auctoritas') to veto it, if it seemed contrary to the spirit of the city's institutions. Finally, as the senate was composed of men of experience and ability, the king used to consult it in times of personal doubt or national danger."

Of the Roman Senate as it became in the great days of the Republic—at the close of the Punic Wars and after—the following is an account: "All the acts of the Roman Republic ran in the name of the Senate and People, as if the Senate were half the state, though its number seems still to have been limited to Three Hundred members. The Senate of Rome was perhaps the most remarkable assembly that the world has ever seen. Its members held their seats for life; once Senators always Senators, unless they were degraded for some dishonourable cause. But the Senatorial Peerage was not hereditary. No father could transmit the honour to his son. Each man must win it for himself. The manner in which seats in the Senate were obtained is tolerably well ascertained. Many persons will be surprised to learn that the members of this august body, all —or nearly all—owed their places to the votes of the people. In theory, indeed, the Censors still possessed the power really exercised by the Kings and early Consuls, of choosing the Senators at their own will and pleasure. But official powers, however arbitrary, are always limited in practice; and the Censors followed rules established by ancient precedent. … The Senate was recruited from the lists of official persons. … It was not by a mere figure of speech that the minister of Pyrrhus called the Roman Senate 'an Assembly of Kings.' Many of its members had exercised Sovereign power; many were preparing to exercise it. The power of the Senate was equal to its dignity. … In regard to legislation, they [it] exercised an absolute control over the Centuriate Assembly, because no law could be submitted to its votes which had not originated in the Senate. … In respect to foreign affairs, the power of the Senate was absolute, except in declaring War or concluding treaties of Peace,—matters which were submitted to the votes of the People. They assigned to the Consuls and Prætors their respective provinces of administration and command; they fixed the amount of troops to be levied every year from the list of Roman citizens, and of the contingents to be furnished by the Italian allies. They prolonged the command of a general or superseded him at pleasure. … In the administration of home affairs, all the regulation of religious matters was in their hands. … All the financial arrangements of the State were left to their discretion. … They might resolve themselves into a High Court of Justice for the trial of extraordinary offences."

"The Senate is composed of two Senators from each State, and these Senators are chosen by the State Legislatures. The representation is then equal, each State having two Senators and each Senator having one vote; and no difference is made among the States on account of size, population, or wealth. The Senate is not, strictly speaking, a popular body, and the higher qualifications demanded of its members, and the longer period of service, make it the more important body of the two. The Senate is presumedly more conservative in its action, and acts as a safeguard against the precipitate and changing legislation that is more characteristic of the House of Representatives, which, being chosen directly by the people, and at frequent intervals, is more easily affected by and reflects the prevailing temper of the times. The Senate is more intimately connected with the Executive than is the lower body. The President must submit to the Senate for its approval the treaties he has contracted with foreign powers; he must ask the advice and consent of the Senate in the appointment of ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States whose appointments have not been otherwise provided for. … The Senate has sole power to try all impeachments, but it cannot originate proceedings of impeachment. … In case a vacancy occurs when the State Legislature is not in session, the governor may make a temporary appointment; but at the next meeting of the Legislature the vacancy must be filled in the usual way. The presiding officer of the Senate is the Vice-President of the United States. He is elected in the same manner as the President, for were he chosen from the Senate itself, the equality of representation would be broken. He has no vote save when the Senate is equally divided, and his powers are very limited."

      J. Story,
      Commentaries on the Constitution,
      chapter 10 (volume 2).

      J. Bryce,
      The American Commonwealth,
      chapters 10-12 (volume 1).

SENATUS-CONSULTUM. SENATUS-DECRETUM.

"A proposition sanctioned by a majority of the [Roman] Senate, and not vetoed by one of the Tribunes of the Plebs, who might interrupt the proceedings at any stage, was called Senatus-Consultum or Senatus-Decretum, the only distinction between the terms being that the former was more comprehensive, since Senatus-Consultum might include several orders or Decreta."

SENNACHIES.

   A strong tribe in ancient Gaul whose territory was between the
   Loire and the Marne. Their chief town was Agedincum—modern
   Sens.

      Napoleon III.,
      History of Cæsar,
      book 3, chapter 2, foot-note.

   The Senones were also prominent among the Gauls which crossed
   the Alps, settled Cisalpine Gaul and contested northern Italy
   with the Romans.

SEPARATISTS.

Jews descended from those who were expelled from Spain in 1492 are called the Sephardim.

SEPHARVAIM.

SEPT, OR CLAN.

SEPTA.

SEPTEMBER MASSACRES AT PARIS.

"We have in the Septuagint, a Greek version of the Hebrew Old Testament, the first great essay in translation into Greek, a solitary specimen of the ordinary language spoken and understood in those days [at Alexandria 3d century B. C.]. There is a famous legend of the origin of the work by order of the Egyptian king, and of the perfect agreement of all the versions produced by the learned men who had been sent at his request from Judæa. Laying aside these fables, it appears that the books were gradually rendered for the benefit of the many Jews settled in Egypt, who seem to have been actually forgetting their old language. Perhaps Philadelphus gave an impulse to the thing by requiring a copy for his library, which seems to have admitted none but Greek books."

      ALSO IN:
      W. Robertson Smith,
      The Old Testament in the Jewish Church,
      lecture 4.

      F. W. Farrar,
      History of Interpretation (
      Bampton Lectures, 1885), lecture 3.

SERAI.

See ALEXANDRIA: B. C. 282-246, and A. D. 389; also LIBRARIES, ANCIENT: ALEXANDRIA.

"The Serapeum is one of the edifices of Memphis [Egypt] rendered famous by a frequently quoted passage of Strabo, and by the constant mention made of it on the Greek papyri. It had long been sought for, and we had the good fortune to discover it in 1851. Apis, the living image of Osiris revisiting the earth, was a bull who, while he lived, had his temple at Memphis (Mitrahenny), and, when dead, had his tomb at Sakkarah. The palace which the bull inhabited in his lifetime was called the Apieum; the Serapeum was the name given to his tomb."

"There is no doubt whatever of the antiquity of this Order, yet it is very difficult to arrive at the exact date of the foundation. General opinion, though without positive proof, ascribes its origin, about the year 1280, to King Magnus I. [of Sweden], who is said to have instituted it at the persuasion of the Maltese Knights. Another account ascribes the foundation to Magnus's grandson, Magnus Erichson. … King Frederick I. revived the Order, as also those of the Sword and North Star, on the 28th April, 1748."

SERBONIAN BOG.

"There is a lake between Cœlo-Syria and Egypt, very narrow, but exceeding deep, even to a wonder, two hundred furlongs in length, called Serbon: if any through ignorance approach it they are lost irrecoverably; for the channel being very narrow, like a swaddling-band, and compassed round with vast heaps of sand, great quantities of it are cast into the lake, by the continued southern winds, which so cover the surface of the water, and make it to the view so like unto dry land, that it cannot possibly be distinguished; and therefore many, unacquainted with the nature of the place, by missing their way, have been there swallowed up, together with whole armies. For the sand being trod upon, sinks down and gives way by degrees, and like a malicious cheat, deludes and decoys them that come upon it, till too late, when they see the mischief they are likely to fall into, they begin to support and help one another, but without any possibility either of returning back or escaping certain ruin."

According to Dr. Brugsch, the lake Serbon, or Sirbonis, so graphically described by Diodorus, but owing its modern celebrity to Milton's allusion (Paradise Lost, ii. 502-4), is in our days almost entirely dried up. He describes it as having been really a lagoon, on the northeastern coast of Egypt, "divided from the Mediterranean by a long tongue of land which, in ancient times, formed the only road from Egypt to Palestine." It is Dr. Brugsch's theory that the exodus of the Israelites was by this route and that the host of Pharaoh perished in the Serbonian quicksands.

SERES.

SERFDOM. SERFS.

SERJEANTS-AT-LAW.

SERVI.

SERVIA.

SERVIAN CONSTITUTION.

The first important modification of the primitive Roman constitution, ascribed to King Servius Tullius.

The order of the "Religious Servants of the Holy Virgin," better known as Servites, was founded in 1233 by seven Florentine merchants. It spread rapidly in its early years, and has a considerable number of houses still existing.

SESQUIPES.

SEVASTOS.

   The Greek form, in the Byzantine Empire, of the title of
   "Augustus." "It was divided into four gradations, sevastos,
   protosevastos, panhypersevastos, and sevastokrator."

      G. Finlay,
      History Byzantine and Greek Empires, 716-1453,
      book 3, chapter 2, section 1.

SEVEN CHAMPIONS OF CHRISTENDOM, The.
   St. George, for England,
   St. Denis, for France,
   St. James, for Spain,
   St. Anthony, for Italy,
   St. Andrew, for Scotland,
   St. Patrick, for Ireland, and
   St. David, for Wales,
   were called, in mediæval times, the Seven Champions of
   Christendom.

SEVEN CITIES OF CIBOLA.

"The seven hills were not occupied all at once, but one after the other, as they were required. The Palatine held the 'arx' of the primitive inhabitants, and was the original nucleus of the town, round which a wall or earthern rampart was raised by Romulus. The hill of Saturn, afterwards the Capitoline, is said to have been united, after the death of Titus Tatius, by Romulus; who drew a second wall or earthern rampart round the two hills. The Aventine, which was chiefly used as a pasture ground, was added by Ancus Martius, who settled the population of the conquered towns of Politorium, Tellena, and Ficana upon it. According to Livy, the Cælian Hill was added to the city by Tullus Hostilius. The population increasing, it seemed necessary to further enlarge the city. Servius Tullius, Livy tells us, added two hills, the Quirinal and the Viminal, afterwards extending it further to the Esquiline, where, he says, to give dignity to the place, he dwelt himself. The city having reached such an extent, a vast undertaking was planned by the king, Servius, to protect it. A line of wall [the Servian Wall] was built to encircle the seven hills over which the city had extended."

SEVEN WISE MEN OF GREECE.

   "The name and poetry of Solon, and the short maxims, or
   sayings, of Phokylidês, conduct us to the mention of the Seven
   Wise Men of Greece. Solon was himself one of the seven, and
   most if, not all of them were poets, or composers in verse. To
   most of them is ascribed also an abundance of pithy repartees,
   together with one short saying, or maxim, peculiar to each,
   serving as a sort of distinctive motto. … Respecting this
   constellation of Wise Men—who, in the next century of Grecian
   history, when philosophy came to be a matter of discussion and
   argumentation, were spoken of with great eulogy—all the
   statements are confused, in part even contradictory. Neither
   the number nor the names are given by all authors alike.
   Dikæarchus numbered ten, Hermippus seventeen: the names of
   Solon the Athenian, Thalês the Milesian, Pittakus the
   Mitylenean, and Bias the Prienean, were comprised in all the
   lists —and the remaining names as given by Plato were
   Kleobulus of Lindus in Rhodes, Myson of Chênæ, and Cheilon of
   Sparta. We cannot certainly distribute among them the sayings,
   or mottoes, upon which in later days the Amphiktyons conferred
   the honour of inscription in the Delphian temple:
   'Know thyself,'
   'Nothing too much,'
   'Know thy opportunity,'
   'Suretyship is the precursor of ruin.'

… Dikæarchus, however, justly observed that these seven or ten persons were not wise men, or philosophers, in the sense which those words bore in his day, but persons of practical discernment in reference to man and society,—of the same turn of mind as their contemporary the fabulist Æsop, though not employing the same mode of illustration. Their appearance forms an epoch in Grecian history, inasmuch as they are the first persons who ever acquired an Hellenic reputation grounded on mental competency apart from poetical genius or effect—a proof that political and social prudence was beginning to be appreciated and admired on its own account."

SEVEN WONDERS OF THE WORLD.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1750-1753, to 1760;
      NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1749-1755, and 1755;
      OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754, 1754, and 1755;
      CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1758-1760.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1755;
      ENGLAND: A. D. 1758 (JUNE-AUGUST),
      and 1759 (AUGUST-NOVEMBER).

SEVEN YEARS WAR:
The Treaties which ended the war.
The Peace of Paris and the Peace of Hubertsburg.

Negotiations for a peace between England, France, and Spain were brought to a close by the signing of preliminaries at Fontainebleau, November 3, 1762. In the course of the next month, a conference for the arrangement of terms between Prussia, Austria and Saxony was begun at Hubertsburg, a hunting-seat of the Elector of Saxony, between Leipsic and Dresden. "The definitive Peace of Paris, between France, Spain, England, and Portugal, was signed February 10th 1763. Both France and England abandoned their allies, and neither Austria nor Prussia was mentioned in the treaty." But it was stipulated that all territories belonging to the Elector of Hanover, the Landgrave of Hesse, and the Count of Lippe Bücheburg should be restored to them. "France ceded to England Nova Scotia, Canada, and the country east of the Mississippi as far as the Iberville. A line drawn through the Mississippi, from its source to its mouth, was henceforth to form the boundary between the possessions of the two nations, except that the town and island of New Orleans were not to be included in this cession. France also ceded the island of Cape Breton, with the isles and coasts of the St. Lawrence, retaining, under certain restrictions, the right of fishing at Newfoundland, and the isles of St. Peter and Miquelon. In the West Indies she ceded Grenada and the Grenadines, and three of the so-called neuter islands, namely, Dominica, St. Vincent, and Tobago, retaining the fourth, St. Lucie. Also in Africa, the river Senegal, recovering Goree; in the East Indies, the French settlements on the coast of Coromandel made since 1749, retaining previous ones. She also restored to Great Britain Natal and Tabanouly, in Sumatra, and engaged to keep no troops in Bengal. In Europe, besides relinquishing her conquests in Germany, she restored Minorca, and engaged to place Dunkirk in the state required by former treaties. Great Britain, on her side, restored Belle Isle, and in the West Indies, Martinique, Guadaloupe, Marie Galante, and La Desirade. Spain ceded to Great Britain Florida and all districts east of the Mississippi, recovering the Havannah and all other British conquests. British subjects were to enjoy the privilege of cutting logwood in the Bay of Honduras. … With regard to the Portuguese colonies, matters were to be placed in the same state as before the war. … By way of compensation for the loss of Florida, France, by a private agreement, made over to Spain New Orleans and what remained to her of Louisiana. The Peace of Hubertsburg, between Austria, Prussia, and Saxony, was signed February 15th 1763. Marie Theresa renounced all pretensions she might have to any of the dominions of the King of Prussia, and especially those which had been ceded to him by the treaties of Breslau and Berlin; and she agreed to restore to Prussia the town and county of Glatz, and the fortresses of Wesel and Gelders. The Empire was included in the peace, but the Emperor was not even named. … In the peace with the Elector of Saxony, Frederick engaged speedily to evacuate that Electorate and to restore the archives, &c.; but he would give no indemnification for losses suffered. The Treaty of Dresden, of 1745, was renewed."

"Of the Peace-Treaties at Hubertsburg, Paris and other places, it is not necessary that we say almost anything. … The substance of the whole lies now in Three Points. … The issue, as between Austria and Prussia, strives to be, in all points, simply 'As-you-were'; and, in all outward or tangible points, strictly is so. After such a tornado of strife as the civilised world had not witnessed since the Thirty-Years War. Tornado springing doubtless from the regions called Infernal; and darkening the upper world from south to north, and from east to west for Seven Years long;—issuing in general 'As-you-were'! Yes truly, the tornado was Infernal; but Heaven, too, had silently its purposes in it. Nor is the mere expenditure of men's diabolic rages, in mutual clash as of opposite electricities, with reduction to equipoise, and restoration of zero and repose again after seven years, the one or the principal result arrived at. Inarticulately, little dreamt on at the time by any bystander, the results, on survey from this distance, are visible as Threefold. Let us name them one other time:

1°. There is no taking of Silesia from this man; no clipping him down to the orthodox old limits; he and his Country have palpably outgrown these. Austria gives-up the problem: 'We have lost Silesia!' Yes; and, what you hardly yet know,—and what, I perceive, Friedrich himself still less knows,— Teutschland has found Prussia. Prussia, it seems, cannot be conquered by the whole world trying to do it; Prussia has gone through its Fire-Baptism, to the satisfaction of gods and men; and is a Nation henceforth. In and of poor dislocated Teutschland, there is one of the Great Powers of the World henceforth; an actual Nation. And a Nation not grounding itself on extinct Traditions, Wiggeries, Papistries, Immaculate Conceptions; no, but on living Facts, —Facts of Arithmetic, Geometry, Gravitation, Martin Luther's Reformation, and what it really can believe in:—to the infinite advantage of said Nation and of poor Teutschland henceforth. …

2°. In regard to England. Her Jenkins's-Ear Controversy is at last settled. Not only liberty of the Seas, but, if she were not wiser, dominion of them; guardianship of liberty for all others whatsoever: Dominion of the Seas for that wise object. America is to be English, not French; what a result is that, were there no other! Really a considerable Fact in the History of the World. Fact principally due to Pitt, as I believe, according to my best conjecture, and comparison of probabilities and circumstances. For which, after all, is not everybody thankful, less or more? O my English brothers, O my Yankee half-brothers, how oblivious are we of those that have done us benefit! …

3°. In regard to France. It appears, noble old Teutschland, with such pieties and unconquerable silent valours, such opulences human and divine, amid its wreck of new and old confusions, is not to be cut in Four, and made to dance to the piping of Versailles or another. Far the contrary! To Versailles itself there has gone forth, Versailles may read it or not, the writing on the wall: 'Thou art weighed in the balance, and found wanting' (at last even 'found wanting')! France, beaten, stript, humiliated; sinful, unrepentant, governed by mere sinners and, at best, clever fools ('fous pleins d'esprit'),—collapses, like a creature whose limbs fail it; sinks into bankrupt quiescence, into nameless fermentation, generally into dry-rot."

SEVEN YEARS WAR:
The death and misery of the war summed up by Frederick the
Great.

"Prussia enumerated 180,000 men, whom she had been deprived of by the war. Her armies had fought 16 pitched battles. The enemy had beside almost totally destroyed three large corps; that of the convoy of Olmutz, that of Maxen, and that of Fouquet at Landshut; exclusive of the garrison of Breslau, two garrisons of Schweidnitz, one of Torgau, and one of Wittenberg, that were taken with these towns. It was further estimated that 20,000 souls perished in the kingdom of Prussia by the ravages of the Russians; 6,000 in Pomerania; 4,000 in the New March and 3,000 in the electorate of Brandenbourg. The Russian troops had fought four grand battles, and it was computed that the war had cost them 120,000 men, including part of the recruits that perished, in coming from the frontiers of Persia and China, to join their corps in Germany. The Austrians had fought ten regular battles. Two garrisons at Schweidnitz and one at Breslau had been taken; and they estimated their loss at 140,000 men. The French made their losses amount to 200,000; the English with their allies to 160,000; the Swedes to 25,000; and the troops of the circles to 28,000. … From the general picture which we have sketched, the result is that the governments of Austria, France, and even England, were overwhelmed with debts, and almost destitute of credit; but that the people, not having been sufferers in the war, were only sensible of it from the prodigious taxes which had been exacted by their sovereigns. Whereas, in Prussia, the government was possessed of money, but the provinces were laid waste and desolated, by the rapacity and barbarity of enemies. The electorate of Saxony was, next to Prussia, the province of Germany that had suffered the most; but this country found resources, in the goodness of its soil and the industry of its inhabitants, which are wanting to Prussia throughout her provinces, Silesia excepted. Time, which cures and effaces all ills, will no doubt soon restore the Prussian states to their former abundance, prosperity, and splendor. Other powers will in like manner recover, and other ambitious men will arise, excite new wars, and incur new disasters. Such are the properties of the human mind; no man benefits by example."

Frederick II., History of the Seven Years War (Posthumous Works, volume 3), chapter 17.

"Seville was a prosperous port under the Phœnicians; and was singularly favored by the Scipios. In 45 B. C., Julius Cæsar entered the city; he enlarged it, strengthened and fortified it, and thus made it a favorite residence with the patricians of Rome, several of whom came to live there; no wonder, with its perfect climate and brilliant skies. It was then called Hispalis."

SEWAN.

SHAH, OR SCHAH.

SHAHPUR.

One of the capitals of the later Persian empire, the ruins of which exist near Kazerun, in the province of Fars. It was built by Sapor I., the second of the Sassanian kings, and received his name.

"From the time of the first settlements until the age of the Revolution, if there were any communistic societies founded, [in the United States] I have met with no account of them. The first which has had a long life, was that of the Shakers, or Shaking Quakers, as they were at first called, on account of their bodily movements in worship. The members of this sect or society left England in 1774, and have prospered ever since. It has now multiplied into settlements—twelve of them in New York and New England—in regard to which we borrow the following statistics from Dr. Nordhoff's book on communistic societies in the United States, published in 1875. Their property consists of 49,335 acres of land in home farms, with other real estate. The value of their houses and personal property is not given. The population of all the communities consists of 695 male and 1,189 female adults, with 531 young persons under twenty-one, of whom 192 are males and 339 females, amounting in all to 2,415 in 1874. The maximum of population was 5,069, a decline to less than half, for which we are not able to account save on the supposition that there are permanent causes of decay now at work within the communities. … The Shakers were at their origin a society of enthusiasts in humble life, who separated from the Quakers about the middle of the eighteenth century. Ann Lee, one of the members, on account of spiritual manifestations believed to have been made to her, became an oracle in the body, and in 1773 she declared that a revelation from heaven instructed her to go to America. The next year she crossed the sea, with eight others, and settled in the woods of Watervliet, near Albany. She preached, and was believed to have performed remarkable cures. From her … [was] derived the rule of celibacy. … She died in 1784, as the acknowledged head of the church; and had afterward nearly equal honors paid to her with the Saviour. Under the second successor of Ann Lee almost all the societies in New York and New England were founded; and under the third, a woman named Lucy Wright, whose leadership lasted nearly thirty years, those in Ohio and Kentucky. … After 1830 the Shakers founded no new society. Dr. Nordhoff gives the leading doctrines of the Shakers, which are, some of them, singular enough. They hold that God is a dual person, male and female; that Adam, created in his image, was dual also; that the same is true of all angels and spirits; and that Christ is one of the highest spirits, who appeared first in the person of Jesus and afterward in that of Ann Lee. There are four heavens and four hells. Noah went to the first heaven, and the wicked of his time to the first hell. The second heaven was called Paradise, and contained the pious Jews until the appearance of Christ. The third, that into which the Apostle Paul was caught, included all that lived until the time of Ann Lee. The fourth is now being filled up, and 'is to supersede all the others.' They hold that the day of judgment, or beginning of Christ's kingdom on earth, began with the establishment of their church, and will go on until it is brought to its completion. … In regard to marriage and property they do not take the position that these are crimes; but only marks of a lower order of society. The world will have a chance to become pure in a future state as well as here. They believed in spiritual communication and possession."

      ALSO IN:
      C. Nordhoff,
      The Communistic Societies of the United States,
      pages 117-232.

SHAMANISM.

That part of the low-land of the Palestine seacoast which stretched northward from Philistia to the promontory of Mt. Carmel. It was assigned to the tribe of Dan.

An Egyptian name "in which science has for a long time and with perfect certainty recognized the Bedouins of the highest antiquity. They inhabited the great desert between Egypt and the land of Canaan and extended their wanderings sometimes as far as the river Euphrates."

SHAWMUT.

SHAWNEES, OR SHAWANESE.

SHAYS REBELLION.

SHEADINGS.

SHEBA.

"The name of Sheba is still to be recognised in the tribe of
Benu-es-Sab, who inhabit a portion of Oman" (Southern Arabia).

      F. Lenormant,
      Manual of the Ancient History of the East,
      book 7, chapter 1.

"Queipo is of opinion that the talent, the larger unit of Egyptian weight for monetary purposes, and for weighing the precious metals, was equal to the weight of water contained in the cube of 2/3 of the royal or sacred cubit, and thus equivalent to 42.48 kilos, or 113.814 lbs. troy. He considers this to have been the weight of the Mosaic talent taken by the Hebrews out of Egypt. It was divided into fifty minas, each equal to 849.6 grammes, or 13,111 English grains; and the mina into fifty shekels, each equal to 14.16 grammes, or 218.5 English grains. … There appears to be satisfactory evidence from existing specimens of the earliest Jewish coins that the normal weight of the later Jewish shekel of silver was 218.5 troy grains, or 14.16 grammes."

SHELBURNE MINISTRY, and the negotiation of peace between England and the United States.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1782-1783;
      AND UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1782 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1861-1862 (DECEMBER-APRIL,: VIRGINIA);
      1862 (MAY-JUNE: VIRGINIA), (SEPTEMBER: MARYLAND),
      (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER: VIRGINIA);
      A. D. 1864 (MAY-JUNE: VIRGINIA),
      (JULY: VIRGINIA-MARYLAND), and (AUGUST-OCTOBER:VIRGINIA).

A crushing defeat of the army of king Hazael of Damascus by
Shalmanezer, king of Assyria, B. C. 841.

The name given by the Jews to the tract of low-lying coast which the Philistines occupied.

SHEPHERD KINGS.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER: TENNESSEE)
      ROSECRANS' ADVANCE, and (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER: TENNESSEE).

SHERIFF. SCIRGEREFA.

"The Scirgerefa is, as his name denotes, the person who stands at the head of the shire, 'pagus' or county: he is also called Scirman or Scirigman. He is properly speaking the holder of the county court, scirgemot, or folcmot, and probably at first was its elected chief. But as this gerefa was at first the people's officer, he seems to have shared the fate of the people, and to have sunk in the scale as the royal authority gradually rose: during the whole of our historical period we find him exercising only a concurrent jurisdiction, shared in and controlled by the ealdorman on the one hand and the bishop on the other. … The sheriff was naturally the leader of the militia, posse comitatus, or levy of the free men, who served under his banner, as the different lords with their dependents served under the royal officers. … In the earliest periods, the office was doubtless elective, and possibly even to the last the people may have enjoyed theoretically, at least, a sort of concurrent choice. But I cannot hesitate for a moment in asserting that under the consolidated monarchy, the scirgerefa was nominated by the king, with or without the acceptance of the county-court, though this in all probability was never refused."

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY: KENTUCKY-TENNESSEE).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (JULY: MISSISSIPPI).

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863-1864 (DECEMBER-APRIL; TENNESSEE-MISSISSIPPI).

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864
(MAY: GEORGIA), and (MAY-SEPTEMBER: GEORGIA).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER; GEORGIA), and (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER: GEORGIA).

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D.1865 (FEBRUARY-MARCH: THE CAROLINAS), and (APRIL 26TH).

The second battle fought between Cnut, or Canute, and Edmund Ironsides for the English crown. It was in Wiltshire, A. D. 1016.

SHERWOOD FOREST.

"The name of Sherwood or Shirewood is, there can be no reasonable doubt," says Mr. Llewellyn Jewett, "derived from the open-air assemblies, or folk-moots, or witenagemotes of the shire being there held in primitive times." The Forest once covered the whole county of Nottingham and extended into both Yorkshire and Derbyshire, twenty-five miles one way by eight or ten the other. It was a royal forest and favorite hunting resort of both Saxon and Norman kings; but is best known as the scene of the exploits of the bold outlaw Robin Hood. Few vestiges of the great forest now remain.

SHINAR.

SHIP OF THE LINE.

In the time of wooden navies, "a ship carrying not less than 74 guns upon three decks, and of sufficient size to be placed in line of battle," was called a "ship of the line," or a "line-of-battle ship."

SHIP-MONEY.

SHIRE. SHIREMOOT.

"The name scir or shire, which marks the division immediately superior to the hundred, merely means a subdivision or share of a larger whole, and was early used in connexion with an official name to designate the territorial sphere appointed to the particular magistracy denoted by that name. So the diocese was the bishop's scire. … The historical shires or counties owe their origin to different causes. … The sheriff or scir-gerefa, the scir-man of the laws of Ini, was the king's steward and judicial president of the shire. … The sheriff held the shiremoot, according to Edgar's law, twice in the year. Although the ealdorman and bishop sat in it to declare the law secular and spiritual, the sheriff was the constituting officer."

W. Stubbs, Constitutional History of England, chapter 5, sections 48-50 (volume 1).

SHOGUN.

SHREWSBURY SCHOOL.

SHUMIR, OR SUMIR.

SHUPANES. GRAND SHUPANES.

SHUSHAN.

SIAM.

"The people known to Europeans as the 'Siamese,' but who call themselves 'Thai,' that is 'Free Men,' have exercised the greatest civilising influence on the aboriginal populations of the interior. Within the historic period Siam has also generally held the most extensive domain beyond the natural limits of the Menam basin. Even still, although hemmed in on one side by the British possessions, on the other by the French protectorate of Camboja, Siam comprises beyond the Menam Valley a considerable part of the Malay Peninsula, and draws tribute from numerous people in the Mekong and Salwen basins. But this State, with an area about half as large again as that of France, has a population probably less than 6,000,000. … The inhabitants of Siam, whether Shans, Laos, or Siamese proper, belong all alike to the same Thai stock, which is also represented by numerous tribes in Assam, Manipur, and China. The Shans are very numerous in the region of the Upper Irrawaddi and its Chinese affluents, in the Salwen Valley and in the portion of the Sittang basin included in British territory. … The Lovas, better known by the name of Laos or Laotians, are related to the Shans, and occupy the north of Siam. … They form several 'kingdoms,' all vassals of the King of Siam. … The Siamese, properly so called, are centred chiefly in the Lower Menam basin and along the seaboard. Although the most civilised they are not the purest of the Thai race. … Siam or Sayam is said by some natives to mean 'Three,' because the country was formerly peopled by three races now fused in one nation. Others derive it from saya, 'independent,' sama, 'brown,' or samo, 'dark'. … The Siamese are well named 'Indo-Chinese,' their manners, customs, civil and religious institutions, all partaking of this twofold character. Their feasts are of Brahmanical origin, while their laws and administration are obviously borrowed from the Chinese. … About one-fourth of the inhabitants of Siam had from various causes fallen into a state of bondage about the middle of the present century. But since the abolition of slavery in 1872, the population has increased, especially by Chinese immigration. … The 'Master of the World,' or 'Master of Life,' as the King of Siam is generally called, enjoys absolute power over the lives and property of his subjects. … A second king, always nearly related to the first, enjoys the title and a few attributes of royalty. But he exercises no power. … British having succeeded to Chinese influence, most of the naval and military as well as of the custom-house officers are Englishmen."

The former capital of Siam was Ayuthia, a city founded A. D. 1351, and now in ruins. "Anterior to the establishment of Ayuthia … the annals of Siam are made up of traditional legends and fables, such as most nations are fond of substituting in the place of veracious history. … There are accounts of intermarriages with Chinese princesses, of embassies and wars with neighbouring States, all interblended with wonders and miraculous interpositions of Indra and other divinities; but from the time when the city of Ayuthia was founded by Phaja-Uthong, who took the title of Phra-Rama-Thibodi, the succession of sovereigns and the course of events are recorded with tolerable accuracy."

"For centuries the Siamese government paid tribute to China; but since 1852 this tribute has been refused. In 1855 the first commercial treaty with a European power (Great Britain) was concluded."

ALSO IN: A. R. Colquhoun, Amongst the Shans, introduction by T. de La Couperie, and sup. by H. S. Hallett.

Siberia was scarcely known to the Russians before the middle of the 16th century. The first conquest of a great part of the country was achieved in the latter part of that century by a Cossack adventurer named Yermac Timoseef, who began his attack upon the Tartars in 1578. Unable to hold what he had won, Yermac offered the sovereignty of his conquests to the Czar of Muscovy, who took it gladly and sent reinforcements. The conquests of Yermac were lost for a time after his death, but soon recovered by fresh bodies of Muscovite troops sent into the country. "This success was the forerunner of still greater acquisitions. The Russians rapidly extended their conquests; wherever they appeared, the Tartars were either reduced or exterminated; new towns were built and colonies planted. Before a century had elapsed, that vast tract of country now called Siberia, which stretches from the confines of Europe to the Eastern Ocean, and from the Frozen Sea to the frontiers of China, was annexed to the Russian dominions."

      W. Coxe,
      Russian Discoveries between Asia and America,
      part 2, chapter 1.

SIBYLS. SIBYLLINE BOOKS.

"Tarquinius [Tarquinius Superbus, the last of the kings of "Rome] built a mighty temple, and consecrated it to Jupiter, and to Juno, and to Minerva, the greatest of the gods of the Etruscans. At this time there came a strange woman to the king and offered him nine books of the prophecies of the Sibyl for a certain price. "When the king refused them, the woman went and burnt three of the books, and came back and offered the six at the same price which she had asked for the nine; but they mocked at her and would not take the books. Then she went away and burnt three more, and came back and asked still the same price for the remaining three. At this the king was astonished, and asked of the augurs what he should do. They said that he had done wrong in refusing the gift of the gods, and bade him by all means to buy the books that were left. So he bought them; and the woman who sold them was seen no more from that day forwards. Then the books were put into a chest of stone, and were kept under ground in the Capitol, and two men were appointed to keep them, and were called the two men of the sacred books."

"Collections of prophecies similar to the Sibylline books are met with not only among the Greeks, but also among the Italians —Etruscans as well as those of Sabellian race. The Romans had the prophecies of the Marcii ('Carmina Marciana,' Hartung, 'Religion der Römer,' i. 139); prophetic lines ('sortes') of the nymph Albunea had come down to Rome from Tibur in a miraculous manner (Marquardt, 'Röm. Alterth., iv. 299). There existed likewise Etruscan 'libri fatales' (Livy, v. 45; Cicero, 'De Divin., i. 44, 100), and prophecies of the Etruscan nymph Begoe (quæ artem scripserat fulguritorum apud Tuscos. Lactant, 'Instit.,' i. 6, 12). Such books as these were kept in the Capitol, together with the Sibylline books, in the care of the Quindecemveri sacris faciundis. They are all called without distinction 'libri fatales' and 'Sibylline' books, and there seems to have been little difference between them."

"Every schoolboy is familiar with the picturesque Roman legend of the Sibyl. It is variously told in connection with the elder and the later Tarquin, the two Etruscan kings of Rome; and the scene of it is laid by some in Cumæ, where Tarquinius Superbus spent the last years of his life in exile—and by others in Rome. … The original books of the Cumæan Sibyl were written in Greek, which was the language of the whole of the south of Italy at that time. The oracles were inscribed upon palm leaves; to which circumstance Virgil alludes in his description of the sayings of the Cumæan Sibyl being written upon the leaves of the forest. They were in the form of acrostic verses. … It is supposed that they contained not so much predictions of future events, as directions regarding the means by which the wrath of the gods, as revealed by prodigies and calamities, might be appeased. They seem to have been consulted in the same way as Eastern nations consult the Koran and Hafiz. … The Cumæan Sibyl was not the only prophetess of the kind. There were no less than ten females, endowed with the gift of prevision, and held in high repute, to whom the name of Sibyl was given. We read of the Persian Sibyl, the Libyan, the Delphic, the Erythræan, the Hellespontine, the Phrygian, and the Tiburtine. With the name of the last-mentioned Sibyl tourists make acquaintance at Tivoli. … Clement of Alexandria does not scruple to call the Cumæan Sibyl a true prophetess, and her oracles saving canticles. And St. Augustine includes her among the number of those who belong to the 'City of God.' And this idea of the Sibyls' sacredness continued to a late age in the Christian Church. She had a place in the prophetic order beside the patriarchs and prophets of old."

"Either under the seventh or the eighth Ptolemy there appeared at Alexandria the oldest of the Sibylline oracles, bearing the name of the Erythræan Sibyl, which, containing the history of the past and the dim forebodings of the future, imposed alike on the Greek, Jewish, and Christian world, and added almost another book to the Canon. When Thomas of Celano composed the most famous hymn of the Latin Church he did not scruple to place the Sibyl on a level with David; and when Michel Angelo adorned the roof of the Sixtine Chapel, the figures of the weird sisters of Pagan antiquity are as prominent as the seers of Israel and Judah. Their union was the result of the bold stroke of an Alexandrian Jew."

A. P. Stanley, Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church, lecture 47 (volume 3).

SICAMBRI, SIGAMBRI, SUGAMBRI.

SICELIOTES AND ITALIOTES.

   The inhabitants of the ancient Greek colonies in southern
   Italy (Magna Graecia) and Sicily were known as Siceliotes and
   Italiotes, to distinguish them from the native Siceli and
   Itali.

      H. G. Liddell,
      History of Rome,
      book 3, chapter 25 (volume 1).

SICELS. SICANIANS.

    The date of the first known Greek settlement in Sicily is
    fixed at B. C. 735. It was a colony led from the Eubœan city
    of Chalcis and from the island of Naxos, which latter gave
    its name to the town which the emigrants founded on the
    eastern coast of their new island home. "Sicily was at this
    time inhabited by at least four distinct races: by Sicanians,
    whom Thucydides considers as a tribe of the Iberians, who,
    sprung perhaps from Africa, had overspread Spain and the
    adjacent coasts, and even remote islands of the
    Mediterranean; by Sicels, an Italian people, probably not
    more foreign to the Greeks than the Pelasgians, who had been
    driven out of Italy by the progress of the Oscan or Ausonian
    race, and in their turn had pressed the Sicanians back toward
    the southern and western parts of the island, and themselves
    occupied so large a portion of it as to give their name to
    the whole. Of the other races, the Phœnicians were in
    possession of several points on the coast, and of some
    neighbouring islets, from which they carried on their
    commerce with the natives.
{2904}
   The fourth people, which inhabited the towns of Eryx and
   Egesta, or Segesta, at the western end of the island, and bore
   the name of Elymians, was probably composed of different
   tribes, varying in their degrees of affinity to the Greeks. …
   The Sicels and the Phœnicians gradually retreated before the
   Greeks. … But the Sicels maintained themselves in the inland
   and on the north coast, and the Phœnicians, or Carthaginians,
   who succeeded them, established themselves in the west, where
   they possessed the towns of Motya, Solus, and Panormus,
   destined, under the name of Palermo, to become the capital of
   Sicily."

"Sicilian history begins when the great colonizing nations of antiquity, the Phœnicians and the Greeks, began to settle in Sicily. … It was a chief seat for the planting of colonies, first from Phœnicia and then from Greece. It is the presence of these Phœnician and Greek colonies which made the history of Sicily what it was. These settlements were of course made more or less at the expense of the oldest inhabitants of the island, those who were there before the Phœnicians and Greeks came to settle. … Phœnician and Greek settlers could occupy the coasts, but only the coasts; it was only at the corners that they could at all spread from sea to sea. A great inland region was necessarily left to the older inhabitants. But there was no room in Sicily, as there was in Asia, for the growth of great barbarian powers dangerous to the settlers. Neither Phœnician nor Greek was ever able to occupy or conquer the whole island; but neither people stood in any fear of being conquered or driven out, unless by one another. But instead of conquest came influence. Both Phœnicians and Greeks largely influenced the native inhabitants. In the end, without any general conquest, the whole island became practically Greek. … Carthage at a later time plays so great a part in Sicilian history that we are tempted to bring it in before its time, and to fancy that the Phœnician colonies in Sicily were, as they are sometimes carelessly called, Carthaginian colonies. This is not so; the Phœnician cities in Sicily did in after times become Carthaginian dependencies: but they were not founded by Carthage. We cannot fix an exact date for their foundation, nor can we tell for certain how far they were settled straight from the old Phœnicia and how far from the older Phœnician cities in Africa. But we may be sure that their foundation happened between the migration of the Sikels in the 11th century B. C. and the beginning of Greek settlement in the 8th. And we may suspect that the Phœnician settlements in the east of Sicily were planted straight from Tyre and Sidon, and those in the west from the cities in Africa. We know that all round Sicily the Phœnicians occupied small islands and points of coast which were fitted for their trade, but we may doubt whether they anywhere in Eastern Sicily planted real colonies, cities with a territory attached to them. In the west they seem to have done so. For, when the Greeks began to advance in Sicily, the Phœnicians withdrew to their strong posts in the western part of the island, Motya, Solous, and Panormos. There they kept a firm hold till the time of Roman dominion. The Greeks could never permanently dislodge them from their possessions in this part. Held, partly by Phœnicians, partly by Sikans and Elymians who had been brought under Phœnician influence, the northwestern corner of Sicily remained a barbarian corner. … The greatest of all Phœnician settlements in Sicily lay within the bay of which the hill of Solous is one horn, but much nearer to the other horn, the hill of Herkte, now Pellegrino. Here the mountains fence in a wonderfully fruitful plain, known in after times as the Golden Shell (conca d'oro). In the middle of it there was a small inlet of the sea, parted into two branches, with a tongue of land between them, guarded by a small peninsula at the mouth. There could be no better site for Phœnician traders. Here then rose a Phœnician city, which, though on the north coast of Sicily, looks straight towards the rising sun. It is strange that we do not know its Phœnician name; in Greek it was called Panormos, the All-haven, a name borne also by other places. This is the modern Palermo, which, under both Phœnicians and Saracens, was the Semitic head of Sicily, and which remained the capital of the island under the Norman kings. … Thus in Sicily the East became West and the West East. The men of Asia withdrew before the men of Europe to the west of the island, and thence warred against the men of Europe to the east of them. In the great central island of Europe they held their own barbarian corner. It was the land of Phœnicians, Sikans, and Elymians, as opposed to the eastern land of the Greeks and their Sikel subjects and pupils. … For a long time Greek settlement was directed to the East rather than to the West. And it was said that, when settlement in Italy and Sicily did begin, the earliest Greek colony, like the earliest Phœnician colony, was the most distant. It was believed that Kyme, the Latin Cumæ in Campania, was founded in the 11th century B. C. The other plantations in Italy and Sicily did not begin till the 8th. Kyme always stood by itself, as the head of a group of Greek towns in its own neighbourhood and apart from those more to the south, and it may very well be that some accident caused it to be settled sooner than the points nearer to Greece. But it is not likely to have been settled 300 years earlier. Most likely it was planted just long enough before the nearer sites to suggest their planting. Anyhow, in the latter half of the 8th century B. C. Greek settlement to the West, in Illyria, Sicily, and Italy, began in good earnest. It was said that the first settlement in Sicily came of an accident. Chalkis in Euboia was then one of the chief sea-faring towns of Greece. Theokles, a man of Chalkis, was driven by storm to the coast of Sicily. He came back, saying that it was a good land and that the people would be easy to conquer. So in 735 B. C. he was sent forth to plant the first Greek colony in Sicily. The settlers were partly from Chalkis, partly from the island of Naxos. So it was agreed that the new town should be called Naxos, but that Chalkis should count as its metropolis. So the new Naxos arose on the eastern coast of Sicily, on a peninsula made by the lava. It looked up at the great hill of Tauros, on which Taormina now stands. The Greek settlers drove out the Sikels and took so much land as they wanted. They built and fortified a town, and part of their walls may still be seen. … Naxos, as the beginning of Greek settlement in Sicily, answers to Ebbsfleet, the beginning of English settlement in Britain."

During the same year in which Xerxes invaded Greece (B. C. 480), the Greeks in Sicily were equally menaced by an appalling invasion from Carthage. The Carthaginians, invited by the tyrant of Himera, who had been expelled from that city by a neighbor tyrant, sent 300,000 men it is said, to reinstate him, and to strengthen for themselves the slender footing they already had in one corner of the island. Gelo, the powerful tyrant of Syracuse, came promptly to the aid of the Himerians, and defeated the Carthaginians with terrible slaughter. Hamilcar the commander was among the slain. Those who escaped the sword were nearly all taken prisoners and made slaves. The fleet which brought them over was destroyed, and scarcely a ship returned to Carthage to bear the deplorable tidings.

SICILY: B. C. 415-413.
Siege of Syracuse by the Athenians.
Its disastrous failure.

The quarrels of the city of Egesta, in Sicily, with its neighbors, brought about the fatal expedition from Athens against Syracuse, B. C. 415. Six years later, in the same protracted quarrel, Egesta appealed to Carthage for help, against the city of Selinus, and thus invited the first of the Hannibals to revenge terribly the defeat and death of his grandfather Hamilcar, at Himera, seventy years before. Hannibal landed an army of more than one hundred thousand savage mercenaries in Sicily, in the spring of 409 B. C. and laid siege to Selinus with such vigor that the city was carried by storm at the end of ten days and most of its inhabitants slain. The temples and walls of the town were destroyed and it was left a deserted ruin. "The ruins, yet remaining, of the ancient temples of Selinus, are vast and imposing; characteristic as specimens of Doric art during the fifth and sixth centuries B. C. From the great magnitude of the fallen columns, it has been supposed that they were overthrown by an earthquake. But the ruins afford distinct evidence that these columns have been first undermined, and then overthrown by crowbars. This impressive fact, demonstrating the agency of the Carthaginian destroyers, is stated by Niebuhr." From Selinus, Hannibal passed on to Himera and, having taken that city in like manner, destroyed it utterly. The women and children were distributed as slaves; the male captives were slain in a body on the spot where Hamilcar fell—a sacrifice to his shade. A new town called Therma was subsequently founded by the Carthaginians on the site of Himera. Having satisfied himself with revenge, Hannibal disbanded his army, glutted with spoil, and returned home. But three years later he invaded Sicily again, with an armament even greater than before, and the great city of Agrigentum was the first to fall before his arms. "Its population was very great; comprising, according to one account, 20,000 citizens, among an aggregate total of 200,000 males—citizens, metics, and slaves; according to another account, an aggregate total of no less than 800,000 persons; numbers unauthenticated, and not to be trusted further than as indicating a very populous city. … Its temples and porticos, especially the spacious temple of Zeus Olympus—its statues and pictures—its abundance of chariots and horses—its fortifications—its sewers—its artificial lake of near a mile in circumference, abundantly stocked with fish—all these placed it on a par with the most splendid cities of the Hellenic world." After a siege of some duration Agrigentum was evacuated and most of its inhabitants escaped. The Carthaginians stripped it of every monument of art, sending much away to Carthage and destroying more. Hannibal had died of a pestilence during the siege and his colleague Imilkon succeeded him in command. Having quartered his army at Agrigentum during the winter, he attacked the cities of Gela and Kamarina in the spring, and both were believed to have been betrayed to him by the tyrant of Syracuse, Dionysius, who had then just established himself in power. A treaty of peace was presently concluded between Dionysius and Imilkon, which gave up all the south of Sicily, as well as Selinus, Himera, and Agrigentum, to the Carthaginians, and made Gela and Kamarina tributary to them. The Carthaginian army had been half destroyed by pestilence and the disease, carried home by its survivors, desolated Carthage and the surrounding country.

SICILY: B. C. 397-396. Dionysius, the Tyrant of Syracuse, and his war with the Carthaginians.

Dionysius, the Syracusan despot, was the aggressor in a fresh war with Carthage which broke out in 383 B. C. The theatre of war extended from Sicily to southern Italy, where Dionysius had made considerable conquests, but only two battles of serious magnitude were fought—both in Sicily. Dionysius was the victor in the first of these, which was a desperate and sanguinary struggle, at a place called Kabala. The Carthaginian commander, Magon, was slain, with 10,000 of his troops, while 5,000 were made captive. The survivors begged for peace and Dionysius dictated, as a first condition, the entire withdrawal of their forces from Sicily. While negotiations were in progress, Magon's young son, succeeding to his father's command, so reorganized and reinspirited his army as to be able to attack the Syracusans and defeat them with more terrific slaughter than his own side had experienced a few days before. This battle, fought at Kronium, reversed the situation, and forced Dionysius to purchase a humiliating peace at heavy cost.

SICILY: B. C. 264-241.
   The Mamertines in Messene.
   First war of Rome and Carthage.-
   Evacuation of the island by the Carthaginians.
   The Romans in possession.

SICILY: B. C. 216-212.
Alliance with Hannibal and revolt against Rome.
The Roman siege of Syracuse.

"Sicily, which had been for a generation subjected, first to the devastations and then to the rule of the Vandal king [in Africa], was now by a formal treaty, which must have been nearly the last public act of Gaiseric [or Genseric, who died A. D. 477] ceded to Odovacar [or Odoacer, who extinguished the Western Roman Empire and was the first barbarian king of Italy], all but a small part, probably at the western end of the island, which the Vandal reserved to himself. A yearly tribute was to be the price of this concession; but, in the decay of the kingdom under Gaiseric's successors, it is possible that this tribute was not rigorously enforced, as it is also almost certain that the reserved portion of the island, following the example of the remainder, owned the sway of Odovacar."

Under Theodoric the Ostrogoth, who overthrew Odoacer and reigned in Italy from 493 until 525, Sicily was free both from invasion and from tribute and shared with Italy the benefits and the trials of the Gothic supremacy.

The conquest of Sicily from the Byzantine empire, by the Saracens, was instigated in the first instance and aided by an influential Syracusan named Euphemios, whom the Emperor Michael had undertaken to punish for abduction of a nun. Euphemios invited the African Saracens to the island, and Ziadet Allah, the Aglabite sovereign who had established himself in power at Cairowan or Kairwan, felt strong enough to improve the opportunity. In June 827 the admiral of the Moslems formed a junction with the ships which Euphemios had set afloat, and the Saracens landed at Mazara. The Byzantines were defeated in a battle near Platana and the Saracens occupied Girgenti. Having gained this foothold they waited some time for reinforcements, which came, at last, in a naval armament from Spain and troops from Africa. "The war was then carried on with activity: Messina was taken in 831; Palermo capitulated in the following year; and Enna was besieged, for the first time, in 836. The war continued with various success, as the invaders received assistance from Africa, and the Christians from Constantinople. The Byzantine forces recovered possession of Messina, which was not permanently occupied by the Saracens until 843. … At length, in the year 859, Enna was taken by the Saracens. Syracuse, in order to preserve its commerce from ruin, had purchased peace by paying a tribute of 50,000 byzants; and it was not until the reign of Basil I, in the year 878, that it was compelled to surrender, and the conquest of Sicily was completed by the Arabs. Some districts, however, continued, either by treaty or by force of arms, to preserve their municipal independence, and the exclusive exercise of the Christian religion, within their territory, to a later period."

      G. Finlay,
      History of the Byzantine Empire, from 716 to 1057,
      book 1, chapter 3, section 1.

"Syracuse preserved about fifty years [after the landing of the Saracens in Sicily] the faith which she had sworn to Christ and to Cæsar. In the last and fatal siege her citizens displayed some remnant of the spirit which had formerly resisted the powers of Athens and Carthage. They stood above twenty days against the battering-rams and catapultæ, the mines and tortoises of the besiegers; and the place might have been relieved, if the mariners of the imperial fleet had not been detained at Constantinople in building a church to the Virgin Mary. … In Sicily the religion and language of the Greeks were eradicated; and such was the docility of the rising generation that 15,000 boys were circumcised and clothed on the same day with the son of the Fatimite caliph. The Arabian squadrons issued from the harbours of Palermo, Biserta, and Tunis; a hundred and fifty towns of Calabria and Campania were attacked and pillaged; nor could the suburbs of Rome be defended by the name of the Cæsars and apostles. Had the Mahometans been united, Italy must have fallen an easy and glorious accession to the empire of the prophet."

A hundred and fifty years after the fall of Syracuse Basil II. undertook its recovery, but death overcame him in the midst of his plans. "Ten years later, the Byzantine general Maniakes commenced the reconquest of Sicily in a manner worthy of Basil himself, but the women and eunuchs who ruled at Constantinople procured his recall; affairs fell into confusion, and the prize was eventually snatched from both parties by the Normans of Apulia."

SICILY: A. D. 1127-1194.
Union with Apulia in the kingdom of Naples or the Two Sicilies.
Prosperity and peace.

SICILY: A. D. 1266. Invasion and conquest of the kingdom of the Sicilies by Charles of Anjou.

SICILY: A. D. 1282-1300.
   The Massacre of the Sicilian Vespers.
   Separation from the kingdom of Naples.
   Transfer to the House of Aragon.

SICILY: A. D. 1442. Reunion of the crowns of Sicily and Naples, or the Two Sicilies, by Alphonso of Aragon.

SICILY: A. D. 1458. Separation of the crown of Naples from those of Aragon and Sicily.

SICILY: A. D. 1718-1719.
Retaken by Spain, again surrendered, and acquired by
Austria in exchange for Sardinia.

SICILY: A. D. 1734-1735.
   Occupation by the Spaniards.
   Cession to Spain, with Naples,
   forming a kingdom for Don Carlos.

SICILY: A. D. 1848-1849.
   Patriotic rising.
   A year of independence.
   Subjugation of the insurgents by King "Bomba."

SICILY: A. D. 1860-1861.
Liberation by Garibaldi.
Absorption in the new kingdom of Italy.

SICYON, SIKYON.

"Sicyon was the starting point of the Ionic civilization which pervaded the whole valley of the Asopus [a river which flows from the mountains of Argolis to the Gulf of Corinth, in northeastern Peloponnesus]; the long series of kings of Sicyon testifies to the high age with which the city was credited. At one time it was the capital of all Asopia as well as of the shore in front of it, and the myth of Adrastus has preserved the memory of this the historic glory of Sicyon. The Dorian immigration dissolved the political connection between the cities of the Asopus. Sicyon itself had to admit Dorian families." The ascendancy which the Dorian invaders then assumed was lost at a later time. The old Ionian population of the country dwelling on the shores of the Corinthian gulf, engaged in commerce and fishing, acquired superior wealth and were trained to superior enterprise by their occupation. In time they overthrew the Doric state, under the lead of a family, the Orthagoridæ, which established a famous tyranny in Sicyon (about 670 B. C.). Myron and Clisthenes, the first two tyrants of the house, acquired a great name in Greece by their wealth, by their liberal encouragement of art and by their devotion to the sanctuaries at Olympus and at Delphi.

About 346 B. C., Ochus, king of Persia, having subdued a revolt in Cyprus, proceeded against the Phœnician cities, which had joined in it. Sidon was betrayed to him by its prince, and he intimated his intention to take signal revenge on the city; whereupon the Sidonians "took the desperate resolution, first of burning their fleet that no one might escape—next, of shutting themselves up with their families, and setting fire each man to his own house. In this deplorable conflagration 40,000 persons are said to have perished; and such was the wealth destroyed, that the privilege of searching the ruins was purchased for a large sum of money."

SIEBENBÜRGEN.

The early name given to the principality of Transylvania, and having reference to seven forts erected within it.

"The way in which this city conducted its government for a long course of years [in the Middle Ages] justified Varchi in calling it 'a jumble, so to speak, and chaos of republics, rather than a well-ordered and disciplined commonwealth.' The discords of Siena were wholly internal. They proceeded from the wrangling of five factions, or Monti, as the people of Siena called them. The first of these was termed the Monte de' Nobili; for Siena had originally been controlled by certain noble families. … The nobles split into parties among themselves. … At last they found it impossible to conduct the government, and agreed to relinquish it for a season to nine plebeian families chosen from among the richest and most influential. This gave rise to the Monte de' Nove. … In time, however, their insolence became insufferable. The populace rebelled, deposed the Nove, and invested with supreme authority 12 other families of plebeian origin. The Monte de' Dodici, created after this fashion, ran nearly the same course as their predecessors, except that they appear to have administered the city equitably. Getting tired of this form of government, the people next superseded them by 16 men chosen from the dregs of the plebeians, who assumed the title of Riformatori. This new Monte de' Sedici or de' Riformatori showed much integrity in their management of affairs, but, as is the wont of red republicans, they were not averse to bloodshed. Their cruelty caused the people, with the help of the surviving patrician houses, together with the Nove and the Dodici, to rise and shake them off. The last governing body formed in this diabolical five-part fugue of crazy statecraft received the name of Monte del Popolo, because it included all who were eligible to the Great Council of the State. Yet the factions of the elder Monti still survived; and to what extent they had absorbed the population may be gathered from the fact that, on the defeat of the Riformatori, 4,500 of the Sienese were exiled. It must be borne in mind that with the creation of each new Monte a new party formed itself in the city, and the traditions of these parties were handed down from generation to generation. At last, in the beginning of the 16th century, Pandolfo Petrucci, who belonged to the Monte de' Nove, made himself in reality, if not in name, the master of Siena, and the Duke of Florence later on in the same century [1557]) extended his dominion over the republic."

SIERRA LEONE.

"During the war of the [American] Revolution a large number of blacks, chiefly runaway slaves, ranged themselves under the British banner. At the close of the war a large number of these betook themselves to Nova Scotia with the view of making that their future home; while others followed the army, to which they had been attached, to London. It was soon ascertained that the climate of Nova Scotia was too severe for those who had gone there; and those who followed the army to London, when that was disbanded, found themselves in a strange land, without friends and without the means of subsistence. In a short time they were reduced to the most abject want and poverty; and it was in view of their pitiable condition that Dr. Smeathman and Granville Sharp brought forward the plan of colonizing them on the coast of Africa. They were aided in this measure by the Government. The first expedition left England in 1787, and consisted of 400 blacks and about 60 whites, most of whom were women of the most debased character. … On their arrival at Sierra Leone a tract of land of 20 miles square was purchased from the natives of the country, and they immediately commenced a settlement along the banks of the river. In less than a year their number was reduced more than one half, owing, in some measure, to the unhealthiness of the climate, but more perhaps to their own irregularities. Two years afterward they were attacked by a combination of natives, and had nigh been exterminated. About this time the 'Sierra Leone Company' was formed to take charge of the enterprise. Among its directors were enrolled the venerable names of Wilberforce, Clarkson, Thornton, and Granville Sharp. The first agent sent out by the Company to look after this infant colony found the number of settlers reduced to about 60. In 1791 upward of 1,100 colored emigrants were taken from Nova Scotia to Sierra Leone. About the same time as many as a hundred whites embarked in England for the same place. … In 1798 it is said that Free-town had attained to the dimensions of a full-grown town. … About the same time the colony was farther reinforced by the arrival of more than 500 Maroons from the Island of Jamaica. These Maroons were no better in character than the original founders of the colony, and no little disorder arose from mixing up such discordant elements. These were the only emigrations of any consequence that ever joined the colony of Sierra Leone from the Western hemisphere. Its future accessions … came from a different quarter. In 1807 the slave-trade was declared piracy by the British Government, and a squadron was stationed on the coast for the purpose of suppressing it. About the same time the colony of Sierra Leone was transferred to the Government, and has ever since been regarded as a Crown colony. The slaves taken by the British cruisers on the high seas have always been taken to this colony and discharged there; and this has been the main source of its increase of population from that time."

See FRANCE: A. D. 1789 (JUNE); 1790; 1791 (OCTOBER); 1795 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER); 1799 (NOVEMBER), and (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER).

SIGAMBRI, SICAMBRI.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1861 (JULY-SEPTEMBER: MISSOURI);
      1862 (JANUARY-MARCH: MISSOURI-ARKANSAS).

SIGISMUND,
SIGMUND,
   King of Hungary, A. D. 1386-1437;
   King of Germany, 1410-1437;
   Emperor, 1433-1437;
   King of Bohemia, 1434-1437.

SIKANS. SIKELS.

"The founder of the Sikh religion was Nanak [or Nanuk], son of a petty Hindu trader named Kalu. Nanak was born in the vicinity of Lahor in the year 1469. A youth much given to reflection, he devoted himself at an early period of his life to a study of the rival creeds then prevailing in India, the Hindu and the Muhammadan. Neither satisfied him. … After wandering through many lands in search of a satisfying truth, Nanak returned to his native country with the conviction that he had failed. He had found, he said, many scriptures and many creeds; but he had not found God. Casting off his habit of an ascetic, he resumed his father's trade, married, became the father of a family, and passed the remainder of his life in preaching the doctrine of the unity of one invisible God, of the necessity of living virtuously, and of practising toleration towards others. He died in 1539, leaving behind him a reputation without spot, and many zealous and admiring disciples eager to perpetuate his creed. The founder of a new religion, Nanak, before his death, had nominated his successor—a man of his own tribe named Angad. Angad held the supremacy for twelve years, years which he employed mainly in committing to writing the doctrines of his great master and in enforcing them upon his disciples. Angad was succeeded by Ummar Das, a great preacher. He, and his son-in-law and successor, Ram Das, were held in high esteem by the emperor Akbar. But it was the son of Ram Das, Arjun, who established on a permanent basis the new religion. … He fixed the seat of the chief Guru, or high priest of the religion, and of his principal followers, at Amritsar, then an obscure hamlet, but which, in consequence of the selection, speedily rose into importance. {2909} Arjun then regulated and reduced to a systematic tax the offerings of his adherents, to be found even then in every city and village in the Panjab and the cis-satlaj territories. … The real successor of Arjun was his son, Hur Govind. Hur Govind founded the Sikh nation. Before his time the followers of the Guru had been united by no tie but that of obedience to the book. Govind formed them into a community of warriors. He did away with many of the restrictions regarding food, authorised his followers to eat flesh, summoned them to his standard, and marched with them to consolidate his power. A military organisation based upon a religious principle, and directed by a strong central authority, will always become powerful in a country the government of which is tainted with decay. The ties which bound the Mughul empire together were already loosening under the paralysing influence of the bigotry of Aurangzile, when, in 1675, Govind, fourth in succession to the Hur Govind to whom I have adverted, assumed the mantle of Guru of the Sikhs. … Govind still further simplified the dogmas of the faith. Assembling his followers, he announced to them that thenceforward the doctrines of the 'Khalsa,' the saved or liberated, alone should prevail. There must be no human image or resemblance of the One Almighty Father; caste must cease to exist; before Him all men were equal; Muhammadanism was to be rooted out; social distinctions, all the solaces of superstition, were to exist no more; they should call themselves 'Singh' and become a nation of soldiers. The multitude received Govind's propositions with rapture. By a wave of the hand he found himself the trusted leader of a confederacy of warriors in a nation whose institutions were decaying. About 1695, twelve years before the death of Aurangzile, Govind put his schemes into practice. He secured many forts in the hill-country of the Panjab, defeated the Mughul troops in several encounters, and established himself as a thorn in the side of the empire." But more than half a century of struggle with Moghul, Afghan and Mahratta disputants was endured before the Sikhs became masters of the Panjab. When they had made their possession secure, they were no longer united. They were "divided into 12 confederacies or misls, each of which had its chief equal in authority to his brother chiefs, … and it was not until 1784 that a young chieftain named Maha Singh gained, mainly by force of arms, a position which placed him above his fellows." The son of Maha Singh was Ranjit Singh, or Runjet Singh, who established his sovereignty upon a solid footing, made terms with his English neighbors (see INDIA: A. D. 1805-1816), and extended his dominions by the capture of Multan in 1818, by the conquest of Kashmere in 1819-20, and by the acquisition of Peshawar in 1823.

The wars of the Sikhs with the English, in 1845-6, and 1848-9, the conquest and annexation of their country to British India, and the after-career in exile of Dhuleep Singh, the heir, are related under INDIA: A. D. 1845-1849, and 1849-1893.

SIKSIKAS, SISIKAS.

SIKYON.

SILBURY HILL.

SILESIA: A. D. 1706.
Rights of the Protestants asserted and enforced by
Charles XII. of Sweden.

SILESIA: A. D. 1757.
Overrun by the Austrians.
Recovered by Frederick the Great.

The part which Frederick the Great took in the War of the Austrian Succession, in 1740-1741, when he invaded and took possession of Silesia, and in 1743-1745 when he resumed arms to make his conquest secure, is commonly called the First Silesian War and the Second Silesian War.

A very ancient and most important inscription which was discovered in 1880 on the wall of a rock-cut channel leading into the so-called Pool of Siloam, at Jerusalem. It relates only to the excavating of the tunnel which carries water to the Pool, "yet its importance epigraphically and philologically is immense. … It shows us that several centuries must have elapsed, during which the modifications of form which distinguish the Phoenician, the Moabite and the Hebrew scripts gradually developed, and that the Hebrews, therefore, would probably have been in possession of the art of writing as early at least as the time of Solomon."

SILPHIUM.

An ancient tribe in southern Wales, supposed by some to represent a mixture of the Celtic and pre-Celtic inhabitants of Britain.

SILVER-GRAYS.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1873, 1878, 1890-1893; also MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1848-1893, and 1853-1874.

SIN. SINÆ.

SINDH.

SINGIDUNUM.

SINIM.

SION.

SIRBONIS LAKE.

SIRIS. SIRITIS. THURII. METAPONTIUM. TARENTUM.

"Between the point [on the Tarentine gulf, southeastern Italy] where the dominion of Sybaris terminated on the Tarentine side, and Tarentum itself, there were two considerable Grecian settlements—Siris, afterwards called Herakleia, and Metapontium. The fertility and attraction of the territory of Siris, with its two rivers, Akiris and Sins, were well-known even to the poet Archilochus (660 B. C.). but we do not know the date at which it passed from the indigenous Chonians, or Chaonians into the hands of Greek settlers. … At the time of the invasion of Greece by Xerxes, the fertile territory of Siritis was considered as still open to be colonised; for the Athenians, when their affairs appeared desperate, had this scheme of emigration in reserve as a possible resource. … At length, after the town of Thurii had been founded by Athens [B. C. 443, under the administration of Perikles; the historian Herodotus and the orator Lycias being among the settlers], in the vicinity of the dismantled Sybaris, the Thurians tried to possess themselves of the Siritid territory, but were opposed by the Tarentines. According to the compromise concluded between them, Tarentum was recognised as the metropolis of the colony, but joint possession was allowed both to Tarentines and Thurians. The former transferred the site of the city, under the new name Herakleia, to a spot three miles from the sea, leaving Siris as the place of maritime access to it. About twenty-five miles eastward of Siris, on the coast of the Tarentine gulf, was situated Metapontium, a Greek town, … planted on the territory of the Chonians, or Œnotrians; but the first colony is said to have been destroyed by an attack of the Samnites, at what period we do not know. It had been founded by some Achæan settlers. … The fertility of the Metapontine territory was hardly less celebrated than that of the Siritid. Farther eastward of Metapontium, again at the distance of about twenty-five miles, was situated the great city of Taras, or Tarentum, a colony from Sparta founded after the first Messenian war, seemingly about 707 B. C. … The Tarentines … stand first among the Italiots, or Italian Greeks, from the year 400 B. C. down to the supremacy of the Romans."

SIRMIUM.

Sirmium (modern Mitrovitz, on the Save) was the Roman capital of Pannonia, and an important center of all military operations in that region.

SIX NATIONS OF INDIANS.

SKALDS.

SKINNERS.

SKUPTCHINA.

SKYTALISM.

The term slave, in its signification of a servile state, is derived undoubtedly from the name of the Slavic or Sclavic people. "This conversion of a national into an appellative name appears to have arisen in the eighth century, in the Oriental France [Austrasia], where the princes and bishops were rich in Sclavonian captives, not of the Bohemian (exclaims Jordan), but of Sorabian race. From thence the word was extended to general use, to the modern languages, and even to the style of the last Byzantines."

SLAVE RISING UNDER SPARTACUS.

SLAVE WARS IN SICILY AND ITALY.

After the Romans became masters of Sicily the island was filled rapidly with slaves, of which a vast number were being continually acquired in the Roman wars of conquest. Most of these slaves were employed as shepherds and herdsmen on great estates, the owners of which gave little attention to them, simply exacting in the most merciless fashion a satisfactory product. The result was that the latter, half perishing from hunger and cold, were driven to desperation, and a frightful rising among them broke out, B. C. 133. It began at Enna, and its leader was a Syrian called Eunus, who pretended to supernatural powers. The inhabitants of Enna were massacred, and that town became the stronghold of the revolt. Eunus crowned himself and assumed the royal name of Antiochus. Agrigentum, Messana and Tauromenium fell into the hands of the insurgents, and more than a year passed before they were successfully resisted. When, at last, they were overcome, it was only at the end of most obstinate sieges, particularly at Tauromenium and Enna, and the vengeance taken was without mercy. In Italy there were similar risings at the same time, from like causes, but these latter were quickly suppressed. Thirty years later a second revolt of slaves was provoked, both in southern Italy and in Sicily,—suppressed promptly in the former, but growing to seriousness in the latter. The Sicilian slaves had two leaders, Salvius and Athenio; but the former established his ascendancy and called himself king Triphon. The rebellion was suppressed at the cost of two heavy battles.

"From the writings of the Old Testament a fairly distinct conception can be formed of slavery among the Hebrews. Many modern critics hold the picture presented in the Book of Genesis, of the patriarchal age, its slavery included, to be not a transcript of reality, but an idealisation of the past. Whether this is so or not, can only be properly decided by the historico-critical investigations of specialists. Although the Hebrews are described as having shown extreme ferocity in the conquest of Canaan, their legislation as to slavery was, on the whole, considerate and humane. Slaves were not numerous among them, at least after the exile. Hebrew slavery has naturally been the subject of much research and controversy. The best treatise regarding it is still that of Mielziner. Slavery in the great military empires, which arose in ancient times in anterior Asia, was doubtless of the most cruel character; but we have no good account of slavery in these countries. The histories of Rawlinson, Duncker, Ranke, Ed. Meyer, and Maspero, tell us almost nothing about Chaldean, Assyrian, and Medo-Persian slavery. Much more is known as to slavery, and the condition of the labouring classes, in ancient Egypt, although of even this section of the history there is much need for an account in which the sources of information, unsealed by modern science, will be fully utilised. While in Egypt there were not castes, in the strict sense of the term, classes were very rigidly defined. There were troops of slaves, and as population was superabundant, labour was so cheap as to be employed to an enormous extent uselessly. It may suffice to refer to Wilkinson, Rawlinson, and Buckle. It does not seem certain that the Vedic Aryans had slaves before the conquest of India. Those whom they conquered became the Sudras, and a caste system grew up, and came to be represented as of divine appointment. The two lower castes of the Code of Manu have now given place to a great many. There was not a slave caste, but individuals of any caste might become slaves in exceptional circumstances. Even before the rise of Buddhism there were ascetics who rejected the distinction of castes. Buddhism proclaimed the religious equality of Brahmans and Sudras, but not the emancipation of the Sudras."

      R. Flint,
      History of the Philosophy of History: France, etc.,
      pages 128-129.

"The institution of slavery in Greece is very ancient; it is impossible to trace its origin, and we find it even in the very earliest times regarded as a necessity of nature, a point of view which even the following ages and the most enlightened philosophers adopted. In later times voices were heard from time to time protesting against the necessity of the institution, showing some slight conception of the idea of human rights, but these were only isolated opinions. From the very earliest times the right of the strongest had established the custom that captives taken in war, if not killed or ransomed, became the slaves of the conquerors, or were sold into slavery by them. … Besides the wars, piracy, originally regarded as by no means dishonourable, supplied the slave markets; and though in later times endeavours were made to set a limit to it, yet the trade in human beings never ceased, since the need for slaves was considerable, not only in Greece, but still more in Oriental countries. {2912} In the historic period the slaves in Greece were for the most part barbarians, chiefly from the districts north of the Balkan peninsula and Asia Minor. The Greek dealers supplied themselves from the great slave markets held in the towns on the Black Sea and on the Asiatic coast of the Archipelago, not only by the barbarians themselves, but even by Greeks, in particular the Chians, who carried on a considerable slave trade. These slaves were then put up for sale at home; at Athens there were special markets held for this purpose on the first of every month. … A large portion of the slave population consisted of those who were born in slavery; that is, the children of slaves or of a free father and slave mother, who as a rule also became slaves, unless the owner disposed otherwise. We have no means of knowing whether the number of these slave children born in the houses in Greece was large or small. At Rome thy formed a large proportion of the slave population, but the circumstances in Italy differed greatly from those in Greece, and the Roman landowners took as much thought for the increase of their slaves as of their cattle. Besides these two classes of slave population, those who were taken in war or by piracy and those who were born slaves, there was also a third, though not important, class. In early times even free men might become slaves by legal methods; for instance foreign residents, if they neglected their legal obligations, and even Greeks, if they were insolvent, might be sold to slavery by their creditors [see DEBT: ANCIENT GREEK], a severe measure which was forbidden by Solon's legislation at Athens, but still prevailed in other Greek states. Children, when exposed, became the property of those who found and educated them, and in this manner many of the hetaerae and flute girls had become the property of their owners. Finally, we know that in some countries the Hellenic population originally resident there were subdued by foreign tribes, and became the slaves of their conquerors, and their position differed in but few respects from that of the barbarian slaves purchased in the markets. Such native serfs were the Helots at Sparta, the Penestae in Thessaly, the Clarotae in Crete, etc. We have most information about the position and treatment of the Helots; but here we must receive the statements of writers with great caution, since they undoubtedly exaggerated a good deal in their accounts of the cruelty with which the Spartans treated the Helots. Still, it is certain that in many respects their lot was a sad one. … The rights assigned by law to the master over his slaves were very considerable. He might throw them in chains, put them in the stocks, condemn them to the hardest labour —for instance, in the mills—leave them without food, brand them, punish them with stripes, and attain the utmost limit of endurance; but, at any rate at Athens, he was forbidden to kill them. … Legal marriages between slaves were not possible, since they possessed no personal rights; the owner could at any moment separate a slave family again, and sell separate members of it. On the other hand, if the slaves were in a position to earn money, they could acquire fortunes of their own; they then worked on their own account, and only paid a certain proportion to their owners, keeping the rest for themselves, and when they had saved the necessary amount they could purchase their freedom, supposing the owner was willing to agree, for he was not compelled. … The protection given to slaves by the State was very small, but here again there were differences in different states. … It would be impossible to make a guess at the number of slaves in Greece. Statements on the subject are extant, but these are insufficient to give us any general idea. There can be no doubt that the number was a very large one; it was a sign of the greatest poverty to own no slaves at all, and Aeschines mentions, as a mark of a very modest household, that there were only seven slaves to six persons. If we add to these domestic slaves the many thousands working in the country, in the factories, and the mines, and those who were the property of the State and the temples, there seems no doubt that their number must have considerably exceeded that of the free population."

ALSO IN: C. C. Felton, Greece, Ancient and Modern, lectures 2-3, third course (volume 2).

Slavery, under the Roman Empire, "was carried to an excess
never known elsewhere, before or since.

Christianity found It permeating and corrupting every domain of human life, and in six centuries of conflict succeeded in reducing it to nothing. … Christianity, in the early ages, never denounced slavery as a crime; never encouraged or permitted the slaves to rise against their masters and throw off the yoke; yet she permeated the minds of both masters and slaves with ideas utterly inconsistent with the spirit of slavery. Within the Church, master and slave stood on an absolute equality."

   "The persons employed in cultivating the ground during the
   ages under review [the 7th to the 11th centuries, in Europe]
   may be divided into three classes:

I. 'Servi,' or slaves. This seems to have been the most numerous class, and consisted either of captives taken in war, or of persons the property in whom was acquired in some one of the various methods enumerated by Du Cange, voc. Servus, volume vi. page 447. The wretched condition of this numerous race of men will appear from several circumstances.

1. Their masters had absolute dominion over their persons. They had the power of punishing their slaves capitally, without the intervention of any judge. This dangerous right they possessed not only in the more early periods, when their manners were fierce, but it continued as late as the 12th century. … Even after this jurisdiction of masters came to be restrained, the life of a slave was deemed to be of so little value that a very slight compensation atoned for taking it away. If masters had power over the lives of their slaves, it is evident that almost no bounds would be set to the rigour of the punishments which they might inflict upon them. … The cruelty of these was, in many instances, excessive. Slaves might be put to the rack on very slight occasions. The laws with respect to these points are to be found in Potgiesserus, lib. iii. cap. 7. 2. and are shocking to humanity.

2. If the dominion of masters over the lives and persons of their slaves was thus extensive, it was no less so over their actions and property. They were not originally permitted to marry. Male and female slaves were allowed, and even encouraged, to cohabit together. But this union was not considered as a marriage. … When the manners of the European nations became more gentle, and their ideas more liberal, slaves who married without their master's consent were subjected only to a fine. …

3. All the children of slaves were in the same condition with their parents, and became the property of their master. …

4. Slaves were so entirely the property of their masters that they could sell them at pleasure. While domestic slavery continued, property in a slave was sold in the same manner with that which a person had in any other moveable. Afterwards slaves became 'adscripti glebæ,' and were conveyed by sale, together with the farm or estate to which they belonged. …

5. Slaves had a title to nothing but subsistence and clothes from their master; all the profits of their labour accrued to him. …

6. Slaves were distinguished from freemen by a peculiar dress. Among all the barbarous nations, long hair was a mark of dignity and of freedom; slaves were for that reason, obliged to shave their heads. …

II. 'Villani.' They were likewise 'adscripti glebæ,' or 'villæ,' from which they derived their name, and were transferable along with it. Du Cange, voc. Villanus. But in this they differed from slaves, that they paid a fixed rent to their master for the land which they cultivated, and, after paying that, all the fruits of their labour and industry belonged to themselves in property. This distinction is marked by Pierre de Fontain's Conseil. Vie de St. Louis par Joinville, page 119, édit. de Du Cange. Several cases decided agreeably to this principle are mentioned by Muratori, ibid, page 773.

III. The last class of persons employed in agriculture were freemen. … Notwithstanding the immense difference between the first of these classes and the third, such was the spirit of tyranny which prevailed among the great proprietors of lands … that many freemen, in despair, renounced their liberty, and voluntarily surrendered themselves as slaves to their powerful masters. This they did in order that their masters might become more immediately interested to afford them protection, together with the means of subsisting themselves and their families. … It was still more common for freemen to surrender their liberty to bishops or abbots, that they might partake of the security which the vassals and slaves of churches and monasteries enjoyed. … The number of slaves in every nation of Europe was immense. The greater part of the inferior class of people in France were reduced to this state at the commencement of the third race of kings. Esprit des Loix, liv. xxx. c. ii. The same was the case in England. Brady, Pref. to Gen. Hist. … The humane spirit of the christian religion struggled long with the maxims and manners of the world, and contributed more than any other circumstance to introduce the practice of manumission. … The formality of manumission was executed in a church, as a religious solemnity. … Another method of obtaining liberty was by entering into holy orders, or taking the vow in a monastery. This was permitted for some time; but so many slaves escaped by this means out of the hands of their masters that the practice was afterwards restrained, and at last prohibited, by the laws of almost all the nations of Europe. … Great … as the power of religion was, it does not appear that the enfranchisement of slaves was a frequent practice while the feudal system preserved its vigour. … The inferior order of men owed the recovery of their liberty to the decline of that aristocratical policy."

"Chief of all causes [of slavery] in early times and among all peoples was capture in war. The peculiar nature of the English conquests, the frequent wars between the different kingdoms and the private expeditions for revenge or plunder would render this a fruitful means whereby the number of slaves would increase on English soil. In this way the Romanized Briton, the Welshman, the Angle and Saxon and the Dane would all go to swell the body of those without legal status. In those troubled times any were liable to a reduction to slavery; the thegn might become a thrall, the lord might become the slave of one who had been in subjection under him, and Wulfstan, in that strong sermon of his to the English [against Slavery—preserved by William of Malmesbury], shows that all this actually took place. It was at the time of the Danish invasion and the sermon seems to point clearly to a region infested by Danes, a region in which was the seat of Wulfstan's labors, for he was Archbishop of York from 1002 to 1023. Wulfstan's graphic picture does not seem to be corroborated by the evidence of the Domesday Survey. Mr. Seebohm's map shows that in the west and southwest there appears the greatest percentage in that record; that in Gloucestershire nearly one fourth of the population, twenty-four per cent., were in a state of slavery; that in Cornwall, Devon, and Stafford the proportion was only one to every five; in central England about one to every seven; in the east, Essex, Surrey, Cambridge and Herts one to every nine; in East Anglia and Wessex one to every twenty-five, while in the northerly districts in Nottinghamshire one to two hundred is given, and in York, Rutland, Huntingdon and Lincoln no slaves at all are recorded. From this it is evident that the Danish invasion was less serious from this point of view than had been the original conquest. Domesday records the social condition 500 years after the settlement, and many influences, with Christianity as the primary, were at work to alter the results of that movement. The main inference to be drawn is that the continued warfare along the Welsh marches replenished the supply in the west, while in the east the slave element was rapidly decreasing and in the north, notwithstanding the Danish invasion, there was rather a commingling of peoples than a subjection of the one by the other. A second cause was the surrender into slavery of the individual's own body either by himself or a relative. This could be voluntary, the free act of the individual or his relatives, or it could be forced, resulting from the storm and stress of evil days: This surrender was one of the most unfortunate phases of the Anglo-Saxon servitude and indicates to us the growing increase of the traffic in slaves; and the personal subjection was largely the outcome of that which was common to all peoples, the demand for slaves. {2914} Even as early as the time of Strabo, in the half century following Cæsar's conquest, the export of slaves began in Britain and before the Norman Conquest the sale of slaves had become a considerable branch of commerce. The insular position of England, her numerous ports, of which Bristol was one of the chief, gave rise during the Saxon occupation to a traffic in the slaves of all nations, and we know that slaves were publicly bought and sold throughout England and from there transported to Ireland or the continent. It was the prevalence of this practice and the wretched misery which it brought upon so many human beings, as well as the fact that it was against the precepts if not the laws of the church, that led Wulfstan, the Wilberforce of his time, to bring about the cessation of the slave trade at Bristol. From this place lines of women and children, gathered together from all England, were carried into Ireland and sold. … Besides this sale into slavery for purposes of traffic, which as a regular commerce was not prohibited until after the Norman conquest, many seem to have submitted themselves to the mastery of another through the need of food, which a year of famine might bring. A charter in the Codex Diplomaticus tells us of those men who bowed their heads for their meat in the evil days. Kemble thinks that such cases might have been frequent and Simeon of Durham, writing of the year 1069 when there was a dreadful famine in England, which raged particularly in the north, says that many sold themselves into slavery, that they might receive the needed support. … Even so late as the so-called laws of Henry I, such an act was recognized and a special procedure provided. … In addition to all those thus born into slavery or reduced to that condition in the ways above noted, there was another class made up of such as were reduced to slavery unwillingly as a penalty for debt or crime: these were known as 'witetheowas' or 'wite-fæstanmen.' … The legal condition of the slave was a particularly hard one; as a thing, not as a person, he was classed with his lord's goods and cattle and seems to have been rated according to a similar schedule, to be disposed of at the lord's pleasure like his oxen or horses. … They had no legal rights before the law and could bear no arms save the cudgel, the 'billum vel strublum,' as the laws of Henry I call it. Yet the position of the slave appears to have improved in the history of Anglo-Saxon law. … Hardly any part of the work of the Church was of greater importance than that which related to the moral and social elevation of the slave class. Its influence did much to mitigate their hard lot, both directly and indirectly."

The Domesday Survey "attests the existence [in England, at the time of the Norman Conquest] of more than 25,000 servi, who must be understood to be, at the highest estimate of their condition, landless labourers; over 82,000 bordarii; nearly 7,000 cotarii and cotseti, whose names seem to denote the possession of land or houses held by service of labour or rent paid in produce; and nearly 110,000 villani. Above these were the liberi homines and sokemanni, who seem to represent the medieval and modern freeholder. The villani of Domesday are no doubt the ceorls of the preceding period, the men of the township, the settled cultivators of the land, who in a perfectly free state of society were the owners of the soil they tilled, but under the complicated system of rights and duties which marked the close of the Anglo-Saxon period had become dependent on a lord, and now under the prevalence of the feudal idea were regarded as his customary tenants; irremoveable cultivators, who had no proof of their title but the evidence of their fellow ceorls. For two centuries after the Conquest the villani are to be traced in the possession of rights both social and to a certain extent political. … They are spoken of by the writers of the time as a distinct order of society, who, although despicable for ignorance and coarseness, were in possession of considerable comforts, and whose immunities from the dangers of a warlike life compensated for the somewhat unreasoning contempt with which they were viewed by clerk and knight. During this time the villein could assert his rights against every oppressor but his master; and even against his master the law gave him a standing-ground if he could make his complaint known to those who had the will to maintain it. But there can be little doubt that the Norman knight practically declined to recognise the minute distinctions of Anglo-Saxon dependence, and that the tendency of both law and social habit was to throw into the class of native or born villeins the whole of the population described in Domesday under the heads of servi, bordarii and villani."

   "It has become a commonplace to oppose medieval serfdom to
   ancient slavery, one implying dependence on the lord of the
   soil and attachment to the glebe, the other being based on
   complete subjection to an owner. … If, from a general survey
   of medieval servitude we turn to the actual condition of the
   English peasantry, say in the 13th century, the first fact we
   have to meet will stand in very marked contrast to our general
   proposition. The majority of the peasants are villains, and
   the legal conception of villainage has its roots not in the
   connexion of the villain with the soil, but in his personal
   dependence on the lord. … As to the general aspect of
   villainage in the legal theory of English feudalism there can
   be no doubt. The 'Dialogus de Scaccario' gives it in a few
   words: the lords are owners not only of the chattels but of
   the bodies of their 'ascripticii,' they may transfer them
   wherever they please, 'and sell or otherwise alienate them if
   they like.' Glanville and Bracton, Fleta and Britton follow in
   substance the same doctrine, although they use different
   terms. They appropriate the Roman view that there is no
   difference of quality between serfs and serfs: all are in the
   same abject state. Legal theory keeps a very firm grasp of the
   distinction between status and tenure, between a villain and a
   free man holding in villainage, but it does not admit of any
   distinction of status among serfs: 'servus,' 'villanus' and
   'nativus' are equivalent terms as to personal condition,
   although this last is primarily meant to indicate something
   else besides condition, namely, the fact that a person has
   come to it by birth. … Manorial lords could remove peasants
   from their holdings at their will and pleasure. An appeal to
   the courts was of no avail.
{2915}
   … Nor could the villain have any help as to the amount and
   nature of his services; the King's Courts will not examine any
   complaint in this respect, and may sometimes go so far as to
   explain that it is no business of theirs to interfere between
   the lord and his man. … Even as to his person, the villain was
   liable to be punished and put into prison by the lord, if the
   punishment inflicted did not amount to loss of life or injury
   to his body. … It is not strange that in view of such
   disabilities Bracton thought himself entitled to assume
   equality of condition between the English villain and the
   Roman slave, and to use the terms 'servus,' 'villanus,' and
   'nativus' indiscriminately."

"Serfdom is met with for the last time in the statute-book of England under Richard II. By reason of the thriving condition of the towns, many villeins who had betaken themselves thither, partly with the consent of their owners and partly in secret, became free. If a slave remained a year and a day in a privileged town without being reclaimed in the interval, he became free. The wars carried on against France, the fact that serf-labour had become more expensive than that of free-men, thus rendering emancipation an 'economical' consideration, and finally, frequent uprisings, contributed to diminish the number of these poor helots. How rapidly serfdom must have fallen away may be inferred from the fact that the rebels under Wat Tyler, in 1381, clamored for the removal of serfdom; the followers of Jack Cade, in 1450, for everything else save the abolition of slavery. … The few purchasable slaves under the Tudors were met with only on the property of the churches, the monasteries, and the bishoprics. This slavery was often of a voluntary nature. On the king's domains bondmen were only emancipated by Elizabeth in 1574. The last traces of personal slavery, and of a subject race permanently annexed to the soil, are met with in the reign of James I. As a rule, it may be assumed that, with the Tudors, serfdom disappeared in England."

      ALSO IN:
      F. Hargrave,
      Argument in the Case of James Sommersett
      (Howell's State Trials, volume 20).

On the condition of the servile classes in Gaul during the
first five or six centuries after the barbarian conquest.

"In the Salic laws, and in the Capitularies, we read not only of Servi, but of Tributarii, Lidi, and Coloni, who were cultivators of the earth, and subject to residence upon their lord's estate, though not destitute of property or civil rights. Those who appertained to the demesne lands of the crown were called Fiscalini. … The number of these servile cultivators was undoubtedly great, yet in those early times, I should conceive, much less than it afterwards became. … The accumulation of overgrown private wealth had a natural tendency to make slavery more frequent. … As the labour either of artisans or of free husbandmen was but sparingly in demand, they were often compelled to exchange their liberty for bread. In seasons, also, of famine, and they were not unfrequent, many freemen sold themselves to slavery. … Others became slaves, as more fortunate men became vassals, to a powerful lord, for the sake of his protection. Many were reduced into this state through inability to pay those pecuniary compositions for offences which were numerous and sometimes heavy in the barbarian codes of law; and many more by neglect of attendance on military expeditions of the king, the penalty of which was a fine called Heribann, with the alternative of perpetual servitude. … The characteristic distinction of a villein was his obligation to remain upon his lord's estate. … But, equally liable to this confinement, there were two classes of villeins, whose condition was exceedingly different. In England, at least from the reign of Henry II., one only, and that the inferior species, existed; incapable of property, and destitute of redress, except against the most outrageous injuries. … But by the customs of France and Germany, persons in this abject state seem to have been called serfs, and distinguished from villeins, who were only bound to fixed payments and duties. … Louis Hutin, in France, after innumerable particular instances of manumission had taken place, by a general edict in 1315, reciting that his kingdom is denominated the kingdom of the Franks, that he would have the fact to correspond with the name, emancipates all persons in the royal domains upon paying a just composition, as an example for other lords possessing villeins to follow. Philip the Long renewed the same edict three years afterwards; a proof that it had not been carried into execution. … It is not generally known, I think, that predial servitude was not abolished in all parts of France till the revolution. In some places, says Pasquier, the peasants are taillables à volonté, that is, their contribution is not permanent, but assessed by the lord with the advice of prud'hommes, resseants sur les lieux, according to the peasant's ability. Others pay a fixed sum. Some are called serfs de poursuite, who cannot leave their habitations, but may be followed by the lord into any part of France for the taille upon their goods. … Nor could these serfs, or gens de mainmorte, as they were sometimes called, be manumitted without letters patent of the king, purchased by a fine.-Recherches de la France, l. iv., c. 5. Dubos informs us that, in 1615, the Tiers État prayed the king to cause all serfs (hommes de pooste) to be enfranchised on paying a composition, but this was not complied with, and they existed in many parts when he wrote."

"The last traces of serfdom could only be detected [at the time of the Revolution] in one or two of the eastern provinces annexed to France by conquest; everywhere else the institution had disappeared; and indeed its abolition had occurred so long before that even the date of it was forgotten. The researches of archæologists of our own day have proved that as early as the 13th century serfdom was no longer to be met with in Normandy."

A. de Tocqueville, State of Society in France before the Revolution of 1789, book 2, chapter 1.

"As the great distinction in the German community was between the nobles and the people, so amongst the people was the distinction between the free and the servile. Next to those who had the happiness to be freeborn were the Freedmen, whom the indulgence or caprice of their masters relieved from the more galling miseries of thraldom. But though the Freedman was thus imperfectly emancipated, he formed a middle grade between the Freeman and the Slave. He was capable of possessing property; but was bound to pay a certain rent, or perform a certain service, to the lord. He was forbidden to marry without the lord's assent; and he and his children were affixed to the farm they cultivated. … This mitigated servitude was called 'Lidum,' and the Freedman, Lidus, Leud, or Latt. The Lidus of an ecclesiastical master was called Colonus. … A yet lower class were the Slaves, or Serfs [Knechte] who were employed in menial or agricultural services; themselves and their earnings being the absolute property of their master, and entirely at his disposal. The number of these miserable beings was gradually increased by the wars with the Sclavonic nations, and the sale of their prisoners was one great object of traffic in the German fairs and markets. But a variety of causes combined to wear out this abominable system; and as civilization advanced, the severities of slavery diminished; so that its extinction was nearly accomplished before the 14th century."

"The following table will show that the abolition of serfdom in most parts of Germany took place very recently. Serfdom was abolished:

1. In Baden, in 1783. 2. In Hohenzollern, in 1804. 3. In Schleswig and Holstein, in 1804. 4. In Nassau, in 1808. 5. In Prussia, Frederick William I. had done away with serfdom in his own domains so early as 1717.

The code of the Great Frederick … was intended to abolish it throughout the kingdom, but in reality it only got rid of it in its hardest form, the 'leibeigenschaft,' and retained it in the mitigated shape of 'erbunterthänigkeit.' It was not till 1809 that it disappeared altogether.

   6. In Bavaria serfdom disappeared in 1808.
   7. A decree of Napoleon, dated from Madrid in 1808, abolished
   it in the Grand-duchy of Berg, and in several other smaller
   territories, such as Erfurt, Baireuth, &c.
   8. In the kingdom of Westphalia, its destruction dates from
   1808 and 1809.
   9. In the principality of Lippe Detmold, from 1809.
   10. In Schomburg Lippe, from 1810.
   11. In Swedish Pomerania, from 1810, also.
   12. In Hessen Darmstadt, from 1809 and 1811.
   13. In Wurtemberg, from 1817.
   14. In Mecklenburg, from 1820.
   15. In Oldenburgh, from 1814.
   16. In Saxony for Lusatia, from 1832.
   17. In Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen, only from 1833.
   18. In Austria, from 1811.

So early as in 1782, Joseph II. had destroyed 'leibeigenschaft;' but serfage in its mitigated form of 'erbunterthänigkeit,' lasted till 1811."

SLAVERY: Hungary and Austria: A. D. 1849.
Completed emancipation of the peasantry.

"The statements of the Polish nobles and their historians, to the effect that the peasant was always the hereditary property of the lord of the manor are false. This relation between eleven million men and barely half a million masters is an abuse of the last two hundred years, and was preceded by one thousand years of a better state of things. Originally the noble did not even possess jurisdiction over the peasant. It was wielded by the royal castellans, and in exceptional cases was bestowed on individual nobles, as a reward for distinguished services. … Those peasants were free who were domiciled according to German law, or who dwelt on the land which they themselves had reclaimed. It was owing to the feudal lords' need of labourers, that the rest of the peasants were bound to the soil and could not leave the land without permission. But the peasant did not belong to the lord, he could not be sold. … The fact that he could possess land prevented him from ever becoming a mere serf. … It is remarkable that the Polish peasant enjoyed these privileges at a time when villeinage existed in all the rest of Europe, and that his slavery began when other nations became free. Villeinage ceased in Germany as early as the 12th and 13th centuries, except in Mecklenburg, Pomerania, and Lusetia, which had had a Slavonic population. … In Poland it began in the 16th century. The kings were forced to promise that they would grant the peasant no letters of protection against his lord [Alexander, 1505; Sigismund I., 1543; Sigismund III., 1588]. Henceforth the lord was to have the right of punishing his disobedient subjects at his own discretion. … Without the repeal of a single statute favourable to the peasants, it became a fundamental principle of the constitution, that 'Henceforth no temporal court in existence can grant the peasant redress against his lord, though property, honour, or life be at stake.' The peasant was thus handed over to an arbitrary power, which had no limit, except that which the excess of an evil imposes on the evil itself. … There was no help for the peasant save in the mercy of his lord or in his own despair. The result was those terrible insurrections of the peasants—the very threat of which alarmed the nobles—the ruin of landed property, and the failure of those sources from which a nation should derive its prosperity and its strength."

"It is perhaps hardly surprising that the city of Rome should, even down to the 16th century, have patronised slavery, and it was only natural that the rest of Italy should follow the example of the metropolis of Christianity. The popes were wont to issue edicts of slavery against whole towns and provinces: thus for instance did Boniface VIII. against the retainers of the Colonnas.

Clement V. against the Venetians; Sixtus IV. against the
Florentines; Gregory XI. against the Florentines;

   Julius II. against the Bolognese and Venetians; and the
   meaning of it was, that anyone who could succeed in capturing
   any of the persons of the condemned was required to make
   slaves of them. The example of Rome encouraged the whole of
   Italy, and especially Venice, to carry on a brisk trade in
   foreign, and especially female slaves. The privilege which had
   sprung up in Rome and lasted for some years, by virtue of
   which a slave taking refuge on the Capitol became free, was
   abolished in 1548 by Paul III. upon the representation of the
   Senate.
{2917}
   Rome, of all the great powers of Europe, was the last to
   retain slavery. Scholasticism having undertaken in the 13th
   century to justify the existing state of things, a theological
   sanction was discovered for slavery; Ægidius of Rome, taking
   Thomas Aquinas as his authority, declared that it was a
   Christian institution, since original sin had deprived man of
   any right to freedom."

"In the earliest period of Russian history the rural population was composed of three distinct classes. At the bottom of the scale stood the slaves, who were very numerous. Their numbers were continually augmented by prisoners of war, by freemen who voluntarily sold themselves as slaves, by insolvent debtors, and by certain categories of criminals. Immediately above the slaves were the free agricultural labourers, who had no permanent domicile, but wandered about the country and settled temporarily where they happened to find work and satisfactory remuneration. In the third place, distinct from these two classes, and in some respects higher in the social scale, were the peasants properly so called. These peasants proper, who may be roughly described as small farmers or cottiers, were distinguished from the free agricultural labourers in two respects: they were possessors of land in property or usufruct, and they were members of a rural Commune. … If we turn now from these early times to the 18th century, we find that the position of the rural population has entirely changed in the interval. The distinction between slaves, agricultural labourers, and peasants has completely disappeared. All three categories have melted together into a common class, called serfs, who are regarded as the property of the landed proprietors or of the State. 'The proprietors [in the words of an imperial ukaze of April 15, 1721] sell their peasants and domestic servants not even in families, but one by one, like cattle, as is done nowhere else in the whole world.'" At the beginning of the 18th century, while the peasantry had "sunk to the condition of serfs, practically deprived of legal protection and subject to the arbitrary will of the proprietors, … they were still in some respects legally and actually distinguished from the slaves on the one hand and the 'free wandering people' on the other. These distinctions were obliterated by Peter the Great and his immediate successors. … To effect his great civil and military reforms, Peter required an annual revenue such as his predecessors had never dreamed of, and he was consequently always on the look-out for some new object of taxation. When looking about for this purpose, his eye naturally fell on the slaves, the domestic servants, and the free agricultural labourers. None of these classes paid taxes. … He caused, therefore, a national census to be taken, in which all the various classes of the rural population … should be inscribed in one category; and he imposed equally on all the members of this category a poll-tax, in lieu of the former land-tax, which had lain exclusively on the peasants. To facilitate the collection of this tax the proprietors were made responsible for their serfs; and the 'free wandering people' who did not wish to enter the army were ordered, under pain of being sent to the galleys, to inscribe themselves as members of a Commune or as serfs to some proprietor. … The last years of the 18th century may be regarded as the turning-point in the history of serfage. Up till that time the power of the proprietors had steadily increased, and the area of serfage had rapidly expanded. Under the Emperor Paul we find the first decided symptoms of a reaction. … With the accession of Alexander I. in 1801 commenced a long series of abortive projects of a general emancipation, and endless attempts to correct the more glaring abuses; and during the reign of Nicholas no less than six committees were formed at different times to consider the question. But the practical result of all these efforts was extremely small."

"The reign of Alexander II. [who succeeded Nicholas in 1855], like that of Alexander I., began with an outburst of reform enthusiasm in the educated classes. … The serfage question, which Nicholas had always treated most tenderly, was raised in a way that indicated an intention of dealing with it boldly and energetically. Taking advantage of a petition presented by the Polish landed proprietors of the Lithuanian provinces, praying that their relations with their serfs might be regulated in a more satisfactory way—meaning, of course, in a way more satisfactory for the proprietors—the Emperor authorized committees to be formed in that part of the country 'for ameliorating the condition of the peasants,' and laid down the general principles according to which the amelioration was to be effected. … This was a decided step, and it was immediately followed by one still more significant. His Majesty, without consulting his ordinary advisers, ordered the Minister of the Interior to send to the Governors all over European Russia copies of the instructions forwarded to the Governor-General of Lithuania, praising the supposed generous, patriotic intentions of the Lithuanian landed proprietors, and suggesting that, perhaps, the landed proprietors of other provinces might express a similar desire. The hint was, of course, taken, and in all provinces where serfage existed emancipation committees were formed. … There were, however, serious difficulties in the way. The emancipation was not merely a humanitarian question, capable of being solved instantaneously by an Imperial ukase. It contained very complicated problems, affecting deeply the economic, social, and political future of the nation. … It was universally admitted that the peasants should not be ejected from their homes, though their homesteads belonged legally to the proprietors; but there was great diversity of opinion as to how much land they should in future enjoy, by what tenure they should in future hold it, and how the patriarchal, undefined authority of the landlords should be replaced. … The main point at issue was whether the serfs should become agricultural labourers dependent economically and administratively on the landlords, or should be transformed into a class of independent communal proprietors. The Emperor gave his support to the latter proposal, and the Russian peasantry acquired privileges such as are enjoyed by no other peasantry in Europe."

"On the 3d of March, 1861 (February, 19, O. S.), the emancipation act was signed. The rustic population then consisted of 22,000,000 of common serfs, 3,000,000 of appanage peasants, and 23,000,000 of crown peasants. The first class were enfranchised by that act: and a separate law has since been passed in favor of these crown peasants and appanage peasants, who are now as free in fact as they formerly were in name. A certain portion of land, varying in different provinces according to soil and climate, was affixed to every 'soul'; and government aid was promised to the peasants in buying their homesteads and allotments. The serfs were not slow to take this hint. Down to January 1, 1869, more than half the enfranchised male serfs have taken advantage of this promise: and the debt now owing from the people to the crown (that is, to the bondholders) is an enormous sum."

"Emancipation has utterly failed to realize the ardent expectations of its advocates and promoters. The great benefit of the measure was purely moral. It has failed to improve the material condition of the former serfs, who on the whole are [1888] worse off than they were before the Emancipation. The bulk of our peasantry is in a condition not far removed from actual starvation—a fact which can neither be denied nor concealed even by the official press."

SLAVERY: Modern: Indians. Barbarity of the Spaniards in America, and humane labors of Las Casas.

"When Columbus came to Hispaniola on his second voyage [1493], with 17 ships and 1,500 followers, he found the relations between red men and white men already hostile, and in order to get food for so many Spaniards, foraging expeditions were undertaken, which made matters worse. This state of things led Columbus to devise a notable expedient. In some of the neighbouring islands lived the voracious Caribs. In fleets of canoes they would swoop upon the coasts of Hispaniola, capture men and women by the score, and carry them off to be cooked and eaten. Now Columbus wished to win the friendship of the Indians about him by defending them against these enemies, and so he made raids against the Caribs, took some of them captive, and sent them as slaves to Spain, to be taught Spanish and converted to Christianity, so that they might come back to the islands as interpreters, and thus be useful aids in missionary work. It was really, said Columbus, a kindness to these cannibals to enslave them and send them where they could be baptized and rescued from everlasting perdition; and then again they could be received in payment for the cargoes of cattle, seeds, wine, and other provisions which must be sent from Spain for the support of the colony. Thus quaintly did the great discoverer, like so many other good men before and since, mingle considerations of religion with those of domestic economy. It is apt to prove an unwholesome mixture. Columbus proposed such an arrangement to Ferdinand and Isabella, and it is to their credit that, straitened as they were for money, they for some time refused to accept it. Slavery, however, sprang up in Hispaniola before anyone could have fully realized the meaning of what was going on. As the Indians were unfriendly and food must be had, while foraging expeditions were apt to end in plunder and bloodshed, Columbus tried to regulate matters by prohibiting such expeditions and in lieu thereof imposing a light tribute or tax upon the entire population of Hispaniola above 14 years of age. As this population was dense, a little from each person meant a good deal in the lump. The tribute might be a small piece of gold or of cotton, and was to be paid four times a year. … If there were Indians who felt unable to pay the tribute, they might as an alternative render a certain amount of personal service in helping to plant seeds or tend cattle for the Spaniards. No doubt these regulations were well meant, and if the two races had been more evenly matched, perhaps they might not so speedily have developed into tyranny. As it was, they were like rules for regulating the depredations of wolves upon sheep. Two years had not elapsed before the alternative of personal service was demanded from whole villages of Indians at once. By 1499 the island had begun to be divided into repartimientos, or shares. One or more villages would be ordered, under the direction of their native chiefs, to till the soil for the benefit of some specified Spaniard or partnership of Spaniards; and such a village or villages constituted the repartimiento of the person or persons to whom it was assigned. This arrangement put the Indians into a state somewhat resembling that of feudal villenage; and this was as far as things had gone when the administration of Columbus came abruptly to an end." Queen Isabella disapproved, at first, of the repartimiento system, "but she was persuaded to sanction it, and presently in 1503 she and Ferdinand issued a most disastrous order. They gave discretionary power to Ovando [who succeeded Columbus in the governorship] to compel Indians to work, but it must be for wages. They ordered him, moreover, to see that Indians were duly instructed in the Christian faith. … The way in which Ovando carried out the order about missionary work was characteristic. As a member of a religious order of knights, he was familiar with the practice of encomienda, by which groups of novices were assigned to certain preceptors to be disciplined and instructed in the mysteries of the order. The word encomienda means 'commandery' or 'preceptory,' and so it came to be a nice euphemism for a hateful thing. Ovando distributed Indians among the Spaniards in lots of 50 or 100 or 500, with a deed worded thus: 'To you, such a one, is given an encomienda of so many Indians, and you are to teach them the things of our holy Catholic Faith.' In practice, the last clause was disregarded as a mere formality, and the effect of the deed was simply to consign a parcel of Indians to the tender mercies of some Spaniard, to do as he pleased with them. If the system of repartimientos was in effect serfdom or villenage, the system of encomiendas was unmitigated slavery. Such a cruel and destructive slavery has seldom, if ever, been known. The work of the Indians was at first largely agricultural, but as many mines of gold were soon discovered they were driven in gangs to work in the mines. … In 1500 Ovando was recalled. … Under his successor, Diego Columbus, there was little improvement. The case had become a hard one to deal with. {2919} There were now what are called 'vested rights,' the rights of property in slaves, to be respected. But in 1510 there came a dozen Dominican monks, and they soon decided, in defiance of vested rights, to denounce the wickedness they saw about them." Generally, the Spaniards who enjoyed the profit of the labor of the enslaved Indians hardened their hearts against this preaching, and were enraged by it; but one among them had his conscience awakened and saw the guiltiness of the evil thing. This was Bartolomé de Las Casas, who had joined the colonists at Hispaniola in 1502 and who had entered the priesthood in 1510. He owned slaves, whom he now set free, and he devoted himself henceforth to labors for the reformation of the system of slavery in the Spanish colonies. In 1516 he won the ear of Cardinal Ximenes, who appointed a commission of Hieronymite friars "to accompany Las Casas to the West Indies, with minute instructions and ample powers for making investigations and enforcing the laws. Ximenes appointed Las Casas Protector of the Indians, and clothed him with authority to impeach delinquent judges or other public officials. The new regulations, could they have been carried out, would have done much to mitigate the sufferings of the Indians. They must be paid wages, they must be humanely treated and taught the Christian religion. But as the Spanish government needed revenue, the provision that Indians might be compelled to work in the mines was not repealed. The Indians must work, and the Spaniards must pay them. Las Casas argued correctly that so long as this provision was retained the work of reform would go but little way. Somebody, however, must work the mines; and so the talk turned to the question of sending out white labourers or negroes. … At one time the leading colonists of Hispaniola had told Las Casas that if they might have license to import each a dozen negroes, they would coöperate with him in his plans for setting free the Indians and improving their condition. … He recalled this suggestion of the colonists, and proposed it as perhaps the least odious way out of the difficulty: It is therefore evident that at that period in his life he did not realize the wickedness of slavery so distinctly in the case of black men as in the case of red men. … In later years he blamed himself roundly for making any such concessions. Had he 'sufficiently considered the matter,' he would not for all the world have entertained such a suggestion for a moment. … The extensive development of negro slavery in the West Indies … did not begin for many years after the period in the career of Las Casas with which we are now dealing, and there is nothing to show that his suggestion or concession was in any way concerned in bringing it about." The fine story of the life and labours of Las Casas,—of the colony which he attempted to found on the Pearl Coast of the mainland, composed of settlers who would work for themselves and not require slaves, and which was ruined through the wicked lawlessness of other men,—of the terrible barbarians of the "Land of War" whom he transformed into peaceful and devoted Christians,—cannot be told in this place. His final triumphs in the conflict with slavery were:

1. In 1537, the procuring from Pope Paul III. of a brief "forbidding the further enslavement of Indians under penalty of excommunication."

2. In 1542, the promulgation of the New Laws by Charles V., the decisive clause in which was as follows: "'We order and command that henceforward for no cause whatever, whether of war, rebellion, ransom, or in any other manner, can any Indian be made a slave.'

This clause was never repealed, and it stopped the spread of slavery. Other clauses went further, and made such sweeping provisions for immediate abolition that it proved to be impossible to enforce them. … The matter was at last compromised by an arrangement that encomiendas should be inheritable during two lives, and should then escheat to the crown. This reversion to the crown meant the emancipation of the slaves. Meanwhile such provisions were made … that the dreadful encomienda reverted to the milder form of the repartimiento. Absolute slavery was transformed into villenage. In this ameliorated form the system continued."

      G. E. Ellis,
      Las Casas (Narrative and Critical History of America,
      volume 2, chapter 5).

      H. H. Bancroft,
      History of the Pacific States,
      volume 1, chapter 5.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1442-1501.
Its beginning in Europe and its establishment in Spanish America.

"The peculiar phase of slavery that will be brought forward in this history is not the first and most natural one, in which the slave was merely the captive in war, 'the fruit of the spear,' as he has figuratively been called, who lived in the house of his conqueror and laboured at his lands. This system culminated among the Romans; partook of the fortunes of the Empire; was gradually modified by Christianity and advancing civilization; declined by slow and almost imperceptible degrees into serfage and vassalage; and was extinct, or nearly so, when the second great period of slavery suddenly uprose. This second period was marked by a commercial character. The slave was no longer an accident of war. He had become the object of war. He was no longer a mere accidental subject of barter. He was to be sought for, to be hunted out, to be produced; and this change accordingly gave rise to a new branch of commerce. Slavery became at once a much more momentous question than it ever had been, and thenceforth, indeed, claims for itself a history of its own."

Sir A. Helps, The Spanish Conquest in America, and its Relation to the History of Slavery, book 1, chapter 1.

   "The first negroes imported into Europe after the extinction
   of the old pagan slavery were brought in one of the ships of
   Prince Henry of Portugal, in the year 1442. There was,
   however, no regular trade in negroes established by the
   Portuguese; and the importation of human beings fell off,
   while that of other articles of commerce increased, until
   after the discovery of America. Then the sudden destruction of
   multitudes of Indians in war, by unaccustomed labour, by
   immense privations, and by diseases new to them, produced a
   void in the labour market which was inevitably filled up by
   the importation of negroes. Even the kindness and the piety of
   the Spanish monarchs tended partly to produce this result.
{2920}
   They forbade the enslaving of Indians, and they contrived that
   the Indians should live in some manner apart from the
   Spaniards; and it is a very significant fact that the great
   'Protector of the Indians,' Las Casas, should, however
   innocently, have been concerned with the first large grant of
   licenses to import negroes into the West India Islands. Again,
   the singular hardihood of the negro race, which enabled them
   to flourish in all climates, and the comparative debility of
   the Indians, also favoured this result. The anxiety of the
   Catholic Church for proselytes combined with the foregoing
   causes to make the bishops and monks slow to perceive the
   mischief of any measure which might tend to save or favour
   large communities of docile converts."-

      Sir A. Helps,
      The Spanish Conquest in America,
      and its Relation to the History of Slavery,
      book 21, chapter 5 (volume 4).

   The first notice of the introduction of negro slaves in the
   West Indies appears in the instructions given in 1501 to
   Ovando, who superseded Columbus in the governorship.

      Sir A. Helps,
      The Spanish Conquest in America,
      and its Relation to the History of Slavery,
      book 3, chapter 1 (volume 1).

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1562-1567.
John Hawkins engages England in the traffic.

"From the settlement of New York by the Dutch in 1609, down to its conquest by the English in 1664, there is no reliable record of slavery in that colony. That the institution was coeval with the Holland government, there can be no historical doubt. During the half-century that the Holland flag waved over the New Netherlands, slavery grew to such proportions as to be regarded as a necessary evil. … The West India Company had offered many inducements to its patroons. And its pledge to furnish the colonists with 'as many blacks as they conveniently could,' was scrupulously performed. … When New Netherlands became an English colony, slavery received substantial official encouragement, and the slave became the subject of colonial legislation. … Most of the slaves in the Province of New York, from the time they were first introduced, down to 1664, had been the property of the West India Company. As such they had small plots of land to work for their own benefit, and were not without hope of emancipation some day. But under the English government the condition of the slave was clearly defined by law and one of great hardships. On the 24th of October, 1684, an Act was passed in which slavery was for the first time regarded as a legitimate institution in the Province of New York under the English government." After the mad excitement caused by the pretended Negro Plot of 1741 (see NEW YORK: A. D. 1741) "the legislature turned its attention to additional legislation upon the slavery question. Severe laws were passed against the Negroes. Their personal rights were curtailed until their condition was but little removed from that of the brute creation. We have gone over the voluminous records of the Province of New York, and have not found a single act calculated to ameliorate the condition of the slave."

A census of the slaves in the Province of New York was made in 1755, the record of which has been preserved for all except the most important counties of New York, Albany and Suffolk. It shows 67 slaves then in Brooklyn.

In the code of laws called the Body of Liberties, adopted by the General Court of Massachusetts in 1641, there is the following provision (Article 91): "There shall never be any Bond Slavery, Villinage, or Captivity amongst us, unless it be lawful Captives taken in just Wars, and such strangers as willingly sell themselves, or are sold to us. And these shall have all the liberties and Christian usages which the law of God, established in Israel concerning such persons, doth morally require. This exempts none from servitude who shall be judged thereto by authority."

"No instance has been discovered of a sale by one man of himself to another, although the power of doing this was recognized in the Body of Liberties. But of sales by the way of punishment for crime, under a sentence of a court, there are several instances recorded. … Of captives taken in war and sold into slavery by the colony, the number appears to have been larger, though it is not easy to ascertain in how many instances it was done. As a measure of policy, it was adopted in the case of such as were taken in the early Indian wars. … It was chiefly confined to the remnants of the Pequod tribe, and to such as were taken in the war with King Philip. …

   If now we recur to negro slavery, it does not appear when it
   was first introduced into the colony. … When Josslyn was here
   in 1638, he found Mr. Maverick the owner of three negro
   slaves. He probably acquired them from a ship which brought
   some slaves from the West Indies in that year. And this is the
   first importation of which we have any account. But Maverick
   was not properly a member of Winthrop's Company. He came here
   before they left England, and had his establishment, and lived
   by himself, upon Noddle's Island. … The arrival of a
   Massachusetts ship with two negroes on board, whom the master
   had brought from Africa for sale, in 1645, four years after
   the adoption of the Body of Liberties, furnished an
   opportunity to test the sincerity of its framers, in seeking
   to limit and restrict slavery in the colony. … Upon
   information that these negroes had been forcibly seized and
   abducted from the coast of Africa by the captain of the
   vessel, the magistrates interposed to prevent their being
   sold. But though the crime of man-stealing had been committed,
   they found they had no cognizance of it, because it had been
   done in a foreign jurisdiction. They, however, went as far
   towards reaching the wrong done as they could; and not only
   compelled the ship-master to give up the men, but sent them
   back to Africa, at the charge of the colony. … And they made
   this, moreover, an occasion, by an act of legislation of the
   General Court, in 1646, 'to bear witness,' in the language of
   the act, 'against the heinous and crying sin of man-stealing,
   as also to prescribe such timely redress for what is past, and
   such a law for the future, as may sufficiently deter all
   others belonging to us to have to do in such vile and most
   odious courses, justly abhorred of all good and just men.' …
   In 1767 a bill to restrain the importing of slaves passed the
   popular branch of the General Court, but failed in the
   Council. Nor would it have availed if it had passed both
   branches, because it would have been vetoed by the Governor;
   acting under instructions from the Crown.
{2921}
   This was shown in 1774, when such a bill did pass both
   branches of the General Court, and was thus vetoed. These
   successive acts of legislation were a constantly recurring
   illustration of the truth of the remark of a modern writer of
   standard authority upon the subject, that—'though the
   condition of slavery in the colonies may not have been created
   by the imperial legislature, yet it may be said with truth
   that the colonies were compelled to receive African slaves by
   the home government.' … The action of the government [of
   Massachusetts] when reorganized under the advice of the
   Continental Congress, was shown in September, 1776, in respect
   to several negroes who had been taken in an English prize-ship
   and brought into Salem to be sold. The General Court, having
   learned these facts, put a stop to the sale at once. And this
   was accompanied by a resolution on the part of the House—'That
   the selling and enslaving the human species is a direct
   violation of the natural rights alike vested in them by their
   Creator, and utterly inconsistent with the avowed principles
   on which this and the other States have carried on their
   struggle for liberty.' … In respect to the number of slaves
   living here at any one time, no census seems to have been
   taken of them prior to 1754. … In 1708, Governor Dudley
   estimates the whole number in the colony at 550; 200 having
   arrived between 1698 and 1707. Dr. Belknap thinks they were
   the most numerous here about 1745. And Mr. Felt, upon careful
   calculation, computes their number in 1754 at 4,489. … In
   1755, Salem applied to the General Court to suppress slavery.
   Boston did the same in 1766, in 1767, and … in 1772. In 1773
   the action of the towns was more general and decided." In
   1780, the then free state of Massachusetts framed and adopted
   a constitution, the opening declaration of which was that
   "'all men are born free and equal, and have certain natural,
   essential, and unalienable rights.' … When [the next year] the
   highest judicial tribunal in the State was called upon to
   construe and apply this clause, they gave a response which
   struck off the chains from every slave in the commonwealth."

      E. Washburn,
      Slavery as it once Prevailed in Massachusetts
      (Lowell Inst. Lectures, 1869:
      Massachusetts and its Early History, lecture 6).

      ALSO IN:
      W. B. Weeden,
      Economic and Social History of New England,
      chapters 12 and 22 (volume 2).

      Letters and Documents relating to Slavery in Massachusetts
      (Massachusetts Historical Society Collection,
      Fifth Series, v. 3).

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1652.
First Antislavery enactment in Rhode Island.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1669-1670. Provided for in Locke's Fundamental Constitutions for the Carolinas.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1680.
Early importance in South Carolina.
Indian slavery also established.

"The extensive proprietary interests which, during last century, English merchants and members of the English aristocracy held in the American colonies and the West Indies, involved the possession also on their part of many slaves. Many of these black slaves were trained to act as household servants and personal attendants, and in this capacity accompanied their owners when travelling. The presence of black slaves in this country was therefore not an unfamiliar sight; but it will perhaps startle many readers to know that in 1764, according to the estimate of the 'Gentleman's Magazine' of the period, there were upwards of 20,000 black slaves domiciled in London alone, and that these slaves were openly bought and sold on 'Change.' The newspapers of the day represent these slaves as being upon the whole rather a trouble to their owners. For one thing, they ceased to consider themselves 'slaves' in this so-called 'free country'; hence they were often unwilling to work, and when forced to labour were generally sullen, spiteful, treacherous, and revengeful. They also frequently, as we shall find from the press advertisements of the day, made their escape, necessitating rewards being offered for their recapture. For instance, in the' London Gazette' for March, 1685, there is an advertisement to the effect that a black boy of about 15 years of age, named John White, ran away from Colonel Kirke on the 15th inst. 'He has a silver collar about his neck, upon which is the colonel's coat of arms and cipher; he has upon his throat a great scar: &c. A reward is offered for bringing him back. In the 'Daily Post' of August 4, 1720, is a similar notice. … Again, in the 'Daily Journal' for September 28, 1728, is an advertisement for a runaway black boy. It is added that he had the words 'My Lady Bromfield's black in Lincoln's Inn Fields' engraved on a collar round his neck. … That a collar was considered as essential for a black slave as for a dog is shown by an advertisement in the 'London Advertiser' for 1756, in which Matthew Dyer, working-goldsmith at the Crown in Duck Lane, Orchard Street, Westminster, intimates to the public that he makes' silver padlocks for Blacks or Dogs; collars,' &c. … In the 'Tatler' for 1709, a black boy, 12 years of age, 'fit to wait on gentleman,' is offered for sale at Dennis's Coffee-house, in Finch Lane, near the Royal Exchange. From the 'Daily Journal ' of September 28, 1728, we learn that a negro boy, 11 years of age, was similarly offered for sale at the Virginia Coffee-house. … Again, in the 'Public Ledger' for December 31, 1761, we have for sale 'A healthy Negro Girl, aged about 15 years; speaks good English, works at her needle, washes well, does household work, and has had the small-pox.' So far these sales seem to have been effected privately; but later on we find that the auctioneer's hammer is being brought into play. In 1763, one John Rice was hanged for forgery at Tyburn, and following upon his execution was a sale of his effects by auction, 'and among the rest a negro boy.' He brought £32. The 'Gentleman's Magazine' of the day, commenting upon the sale of the black boy, says that this was 'perhaps the first custom of the kind in a free country.' … The 'Stamford Mercury' for [1771] bears record that 'at a sale of a gentleman's effects at Richmond, a Negro Boy was put up and sold for £32.' The paper adds: 'A shocking instance in a free country!' The public conscience had indeed for many years been disturbed on this question, the greater number in England holding that the system of slavery as tolerated in London and the country generally should be declared illegal. From an early period in last century the subject had not only been debated in the public prints and on the platform, but had been made matter of something like judicial decision. {2922} At the first, legal opinion was opposed to the manumission of slaves brought by their masters to this country. In 1729, Lord Talbot, Attorney-general, and Mr. Yorke, Solicitor-general, gave an opinion which raised the whole question of the legal existence of slaves in Great Britain and Ireland. The opinion of these lawyers was that the mere fact of a slave coming into these countries from the West Indies did not render him free, and that he could be compelled to return again to those plantations. Even the rite of baptism did not free him—it could only affect his spiritual, not his temporal, condition. It was on the strength of this decision that slavery continued to flourish in England until, as we have seen, there were at one time as many as 20,000 black slaves in London alone. Chief-justice Holt had, however, expressed a contrary opinion to that above given; and after a long struggle the matter was brought to a final issue in the famous case of the negro Somersett. On June 22, 1772, it was decided by Lord Mansfield, in the name of the whole bench, that 'as soon as a slave set foot on the soil of the British Islands, he became free.' From that day to the present this has remained the law of our land as regards slavery. The poet Cowper expressed the jubilant feeling of the country over Lord Mansfield's dictum when he sung: … 'Slaves cannot breathe in England; if their lungs receive our air, that moment they are free.'"

      ALSO IN:
      H. Greeley,
      History of the Struggle for Slavery Extension or Restriction,
      pages 2-3.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1688-1780.
   Beginning and growth or Antislavery sentiment
   among the Quakers.
   Emancipation in Pennsylvania.

"So early as the year 1688, some emigrants from Kriesheim in Germany, who had adopted the principles of William Penn, and followed him into Pennsylvania, urged in the yearly meeting of the Society there, the inconsistency of buying, selling, and holding men in slavery, with the principles of the Christian religion. In the year 1696, the yearly meeting for that province took up the subject as a public concern, and the result was, advice to the members of it to guard against future importations of African slaves, and to be particularly attentive to the treatment of those, who were then in their possession. In the year 1711, the same yearly meeting resumed the important subject, and confirmed and renewed the advice, which had been before given. From this time it continued to keep the subject alive; but finding at length, that, though individuals refused to purchase slaves, yet others continued the custom, and in greater numbers that it was apprehended would have been the case after the public declarations which had been made, it determined, in the year 1754, upon a fuller and more serious publication of its sentiments; and therefore it issued, in the same year, … [a] pertinent letter to all the members within its jurisdiction. … This truly Christian letter, which was written in the year 1754, was designed, as we collect from the contents of it, to make the sentiments of the Society better known and attended to on the subject of the Slave-trade. It contains … exhortations to all the members within the yearly meeting of Pennsylvania and the Jerseys, to desist from purchasing and importing slaves, and, where they possessed them, to have a tender consideration of their condition. But that the first part of the subject of this exhortation might be enforced, the yearly meeting for the same provinces came to a resolution in 1755, That if any of the members belonging to it bought or imported slaves, the overseers were to inform their respective monthly meetings of it, that 'these might treat with them, as they might be directed in the wisdom of truth.' In the year 1774, we find the same yearly meeting legislating again on the same subject. By the preceding resolution they, who became offenders, were subjected only to exclusion from the meetings for discipline, and from the privilege of contributing to the pecuniary occasions of the Society; but by the resolution of the present year, all members concerned in importing, selling, purchasing, giving, or transferring Negro or other slaves, or otherwise acting in such manner as to continue them in slavery beyond the term limited by law or custom, were directed to be excluded from membership or disowned. … In the year 1776, the same yearly meeting carried the matter still further. It was then enacted, That the owners of slaves, who refused to execute proper instruments for giving them their freedom, were to be disowned likewise."

T. Clarkson, History of the Abolition of the Slave-Trade, volume 1, chapter 5.

   In 1780 Pennsylvania adopted an act for the gradual
   emancipation of all slaves within its territory, being the
   first among the States to perform that great act of justice.

      W. C. Bryant and S. H. Gay,
      Popular History of the United States,
      volume 3, chapter 7.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1698-1776.
England and the Slave-trade.
The Assiento contract with Spain.

   After the opening of the slave trade to the English by
   Hawkins, in 1562-1564, "the traffic in human flesh speedily
   became popular. A monopoly of it was granted to the African
   Company, but it was invaded by numerous interlopers, and in
   1698 the trade was thrown open to all British subjects. It is
   worthy of notice that while by the law of 1698 a certain
   percentage was exacted from other African cargoes for the
   maintenance of the forts along that coast, cargoes of negroes
   were especially exempted, for the Parliament of the Revolution
   desired above all things to encourage the trade. Nine years
   before, a convention had been made between England and Spain
   for supplying the Spanish West Indies with slaves from the
   island of Jamaica, and it has been computed that between 1680
   and 1700 the English tore from Africa about 300,000 negroes,
   or about 15,000 every year. The great period of the English
   slave trade had, however, not yet arrived. It was only in 1713
   that it began to attain its full dimensions. One of the most
   important and most popular parts of the Treaty of Utrecht was
   the contract known as the Assiento, by which the British
   Government secured for its subjects during thirty years an
   absolute monopoly of the supply of slaves to the Spanish
   colonies. The traffic was regulated by a long and elaborate
   treaty, guarding among other things against any possible
   scandal to the Roman Catholic religion from the presence of
   heretical slave-traders, and it provided that in the 30 years
   from 1713 to 1743 the English should bring into the Spanish
   West Indies no less than 144,000 negroes, or 4,800 every year;
   that during the first 25 years of the contract they might
   import a still greater number on paying certain moderate
   duties, and that they might carry the slave trade into
   numerous Spanish ports from which it had hitherto been
   excluded.
{2923}
   The monopoly of the trade was granted to the South Sea
   Company, and from this time its maintenance, and its extension
   both to the Spanish dominions and to her own colonies, became
   a central object of English policy. A few facts will show the
   scale on which it was pursued From Christmas 1752 to Christmas
   1762 no less than 71,115 negroes were imported into Jamaica.
   In a despatch written at the end of 1762, Admiral Rodney
   reports that in little more than three years 40,000 negroes
   had been introduced into Guadaloupe. In a discussion upon the
   methods of making the trade more effectual, which took place
   in the English Parliament in 1750, it was shown that 46,000
   negroes were at this time annually sold to the English
   colonies alone. A letter of General O'Hara, the Governor of
   Senegambia, written in 1766, estimates at the almost
   incredible figure of 70,000 the number of negroes who during
   the preceding fifty years had been annually shipped from
   Africa. A distinguished modern historian, after a careful
   comparison of the materials we possess, declares that in the
   century preceding the prohibition of the slave trade by the
   American Congress, in 1776, the number of negroes imported by
   the English alone, into the Spanish, French, and English
   colonies can, on the lowest computation, have been little less
   than three millions, and that we must add more than a quarter
   of a million, who perished on the voyage and whose bodies were
   thrown into the Atlantic."

ALSO IN: G. Bancroft, History of the United States. (Author's last revision), part 3, chapter 16 (volume 2).

      See, also,
      UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714;
      AIX LA CHAPELLE: THE CONGRESS;
      ENGLAND: A. D. 1739, 1741;
      GEORGIA: A. D. 1738-1743;
      ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1580-1777.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1713-1776.
Maintained in the American colonies by the English Crown
and Parliament.

"The success of the American Revolution made it possible for the different states to take measures for the gradual abolition of slavery and the immediate abolition of the foreign slave-trade. On this great question the state of public opinion in America was more advanced than in England. … George III. … resisted the movement for abolition with all the obstinacy of which his hard and narrow nature was capable. In 1769 the Virginia legislature had enacted that the further importation of negroes, to be sold into slavery, should be prohibited. But George III. commanded the governor to veto this act, and it was vetoed. In Jefferson's first draft of the Declaration of Independence, this action of the king was made the occasion of a fierce denunciation of slavery, but in deference to the prejudices of South Carolina and Georgia the clause was struck out by Congress. When George III. and his vetoes had been eliminated from the case, it became possible for the States to legislate freely on the subject."

"During the regal government, we had at one time obtained a law which imposed such a duty on the importation of slaves as amounted nearly to a prohibition, when one inconsiderate assembly, placed under a peculiarity of circumstance, repealed the law. This repeal met a joyful sanction from the then sovereign, and no devices, no expedients, which could ever after be attempted by subsequent assemblies, and they seldom met without attempting them, could succeed in getting the royal assent to a renewal of the duty. In the very first session held under the republican government, the assembly passed a law for the perpetual prohibition of the importation of slaves. This will in some measure stop the increase of this great political and moral evil, while the minds of our citizens may be ripening for a complete emancipation of human nature."

"It has been frequently stated that England is responsible for the introduction of negro slavery into British America; but this assertion will not stand the test of examination. … It is, however, true that from a very early period a certain movement against it may be detected in some American States, that there was, especially in the Northern Provinces, a great and general dislike to the excessive importation of negroes, and that every attempt to prohibit or restrict that importation was rebuked and defeated by England. … The State Governors were forbidden to give the necessary assent to any measures restricting it, and the English pursued this policy steadily to the very eve of the Revolution."

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1735-1749.
Questioned early in Georgia.
Slavery prohibited at the beginning, and finally introduced.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1756.
Extent and distribution in the English American colonies.

"The number of African slaves in North America in 1756, the generation preceding the Revolution, was about 292,000. Of these Virginia had 120,000, her white population amounting at the same time to 173,000. The African increase in Virginia had been steady. In 1619 came the first 20, and in 1649 there were 300. In 1670, there were 2,000. In 1714, there were 23,000. In 1756, there were 120,000. The 172,000 who, in addition to these, made up the African population of America, were scattered through the provinces from New England to Georgia."

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1769-1785.
The ending of slavery in Connecticut and New Hampshire.

"For the New England States the Revolution was the death knell of slavery and of the slave-trade protected by the law [see action in Massachusetts and Rhode Island detailed above and below]. … In New Hampshire the institution died a natural death. As Belknap said in 1792, 'Slavery is not prohibited by any express law. … Those born since the constitution was made [1776] are free.' Although the legal status of the negro was somewhat different, he was practically treated in the same manner in New Hampshire that he was treated in Rhode Island. Connecticut did not change her royal charter into a state constitution until 1818, and her slaves were freed in 1784. The slave-trade in New England vessels did not cease when the state forbade it within New England territory. It was conducted stealthily, but steadily, even into the lifetime of Judge Story. Felt gives instances in 1785, and the inference is that the business was prosecuted from Salem."

W. B. Weeden, Economic and Social History of New England, volume 2, pages 834-835.

"Connecticut was one of the first colonies to pass a law against the slave-trade. This was done in 1769. The main cause of the final abolition of slavery in the State was the fact that it became unprofitable. In 1784 the Legislature passed an Act declaring that all persons born of slaves, after the 1st of March in that year, should be free at the age of 25. Most of those born before this time were gradually emancipated by their masters, and the institution of slavery had almost died out before 1806."

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1774.
The bringing of slaves into Rhode Island prohibited.

"Africans had been brought to the shores of this colony in the earliest of the vessels in which the commerce of Newport had reached across the Atlantic. Becoming domesticated within the colony, the black population had in 1730 reached the number of 1,648, and in 1774 had become 3,761. How early the philanthropic movement in their behalf, and the measures looking towards their emancipation, had gained headway, cannot be determined with accuracy. It is probable that the movement originated with the Society of Friends within the colony. But little progress had been made towards any embodiment of this sentiment in legislative enactment, however, until the very year of the First Continental Congress, when at the direct instance of Stephen Hopkins (himself for many years an owner of slaves, though a most humane master), the General Assembly ordained [June, 1774] 'that for the future no negro or mulatto slave shall be brought into the colony,' and that all previously enslaved persons on becoming residents of Rhode Island should obtain their freedom. 'In this decided action,' once more, as has been so often seen to be the case with movements led by Stephen Hopkins, 'Rhode Island,' says Arnold, 'took the lead of all her sister colonies.'"

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1776-1808.
Antislavery sentiment in the Southern (American) States.
The causes of its disappearance.

Jefferson's "'Notes on Virginia' were written in 1781-2. His condemnation of slavery in that work is most emphatic. 'The whole commerce between master and slave,' he says, 'is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions; the most unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading submission on the other. Our children see this and learn to imitate it. … The man must be a prodigy who can retain his manners and morals undepraved by such circumstances. With what execration should the statesman be loaded, who, permitting one-half the citizens thus to trample on the rights of the other, transforms those into despots and these into enemies—destroys the morals of the one part and the amor patriæ of the other? … Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis—a conviction in the minds of men that these liberties are the gift of God; that they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just—that His justice cannot sleep forever.' … On the practical question, 'What shall be done about it?' Mr. Jefferson's mind wavered; he was in doubt. How can slavery be abolished? He proposed, in Virginia, a law, which was rejected, making all free who were born after the passage of the act. And here again he hesitated. What will become of these people after they are free? … He thought they had better be emancipated and sent out of the country. He therefore took up with the colonization scheme long before the Colonization Society was founded. He did not feel sure on this point. With his practical mind he could not see how a half million of slaves could be sent out of the country, even if they were voluntarily liberated; where they should be sent to, or how unwilling masters could be compelled to liberate their slaves. While, therefore, he did not favor immediate emancipation, he was zealous for no other scheme. … Mr. Jefferson, in August, 1785, wrote a letter to Dr. Richard Price, of London, author of a treatise on Liberty, in which very advanced opinions were taken on the slavery question. Concerning the prevalence of anti-slavery opinions at that period, he says: 'Southward of the Chesapeake your book will find but few readers concurring with it in sentiment on the subject of slavery. From the mouth to the head of the Chesapeake, the bulk of the people will approve its theory, and it will find a respectable minority, a minority ready to adopt it in practice; which, for weight and worth of character, preponderates against the greater number who have not the courage to divest their families of a property which, how·ever, keeps their consciences unquiet. Northward of the Chesapeake you may find, here and there, an opponent to your doctrine, as you find, here and there, a robber and murderer, but in no greater number. In that part of America there are but few slaves, and they can easily disencumber themselves of them; and emancipation is put in such train that in a few years there will be no slaves northward of Maryland. In Maryland I do not find such a disposition to begin the redress of this enormity as in Virginia. These [the inhabitants of Virginia] have sucked in the principles of liberty, as it were, with their mothers' milk, and it is to these I look with anxiety to turn the fate of this question. Be not, therefore, discouraged.'" M. Brissot de Warville visited Washington, at Mount Vernon, in 1788, and conversed with him freely on the subject of slavery. "This great man declared to me," he wrote in his narrative, afterwards published, "that he rejoiced at what was doing in other States on the subject [of emancipation—alluding to the recent formation of several state societies]; that he sincerely desired the extension of it in his own State; but he did not dissemble that there were still many obstacles to be overcome; that it was dangerous to strike too vigorously at a prejudice which had begun to diminish; that time, patience, and information would not fail to vanquish it."

W. F. Poole, Anti-Slavery Opinions before the year 1800, pages 25-35, and foot-note.

"In Virginia all the foremost statesmen—Washington, Jefferson, Lee, Randolph, Henry, and Madison, and Mason—were opposed to the continuance of slavery; and their opinions were shared by many of the largest planters. For tobacco-culture slavery did not seem so indispensable as for the raising of rice and indigo; and in Virginia the negroes, half-civilized by kindly treatment, were not regarded with horror by their masters, like the ill-treated and ferocious blacks of South Carolina and Georgia. After 1808 the policy and the sentiments of Virginia underwent a marked change. The invention of the cotton-gin, taken in connection with the sudden prodigious development of manufactures in England, greatly stimulated the growth of cotton in the ever-enlarging area of the Gulf states, and created an immense demand for slave-labour, just at the time when the importation of negroes from Africa came to an end. The breeding of slaves, to be sold to the planters of the Gulf states, then became such a profitable occupation in Virginia as entirely to change the popular feeling about slavery. But until 1808 Virginia sympathized with the anti-slavery sentiment which was growing up in the northern states; and the same was true of Maryland. … In the work of gradual emancipation the little state of Delaware led the way. In its new constitution of 1776 the further introduction of slaves was prohibited, all restraints upon emancipation having already been removed. In the assembly of Virginia in 1778 a bill prohibiting the further introduction of slaves was moved and carried by Thomas Jefferson, and the same measure was passed in Maryland in 1783, while both these states removed all restraints upon emancipation. North Carolina was not ready to go quite so far, but in 1786 she sought to discourage the slave-trade by putting a duty of £5 per head on all negroes thereafter imported."

      J. R. Brackett,
      The Status of the Slave, 1775-1789
      (Essays in Constitutional History).

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1787.
The compromises in the Constitution of the United States.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1787.
Exclusion forever from the Northwest
Territory of the United States.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1791-1802.
   The Revolt of the Haytian blacks, under
   Toussaint L' Ouverture, and the ending
   of slavery on the island.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1792. The institution entrenched in the Constitution of the new state of Kentucky.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1792-1807.
Earliest measures for the suppression of the slave-trade.

"In 1776 the first motion against the trade was made in the English parliament; and soon leading statesmen of all parties, including Fox, Burke, and Pitt, declared themselves in favour of its abolition. In 1792 the Danish King took the lead in the cause of humanity by absolutely prohibiting his subjects from buying, selling, and transporting slaves; and at last, in 1807, the moral sense of the British public overrode the vested interests of merchants and planters; parliament, at Lord Grenville's instance, passed the famous act for the Abolition of the Slave trade; and thenceforward successive British governments set themselves steadily by treaty and convention to bring other nations to follow their example. … In 1794 the United States prohibited their subjects from slave-trading to foreign countries, and in 1807 they prohibited the importation of slaves into their own."

C. P. Lucas, Historical Geography of the British Colonies, volume 2, pages 67-68.

      ALSO IN:
      T. Clarkson,
      History of the Abolition of the African Slave Trade.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1806.
Act of the English Parliament against the slave-trade.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1815.
Declaration of the Powers against the slave-trade.

The following are passages from the Declaration against the Slave Trade, which was signed by the representatives of the Powers at the Congress of Vienna, February 8, 1815: "Having taken into consideration that the commerce known by the name of 'the Slave Trade' has been considered by just and enlightened men of all ages as repugnant to the principles of humanity and universal morality; … that at length the public voice, in all civilized countries, calls aloud for its prompt suppression; that since the character and the details of this traffic have been better known, and the evils of every kind which attend it, completely developed, several European Governments have, virtually, come to the resolution of putting a stop to it, and that, successively all the Powers possessing Colonies in different parts of the world have acknowledged, either by Legislative Acts, or by Treaties, or other formal engagements, the duty and necessity of abolishing it: That by a separate Article of the late Treaty of Paris, Great Britain and France engaged to unite their efforts at the Congress of Vienna, to induce all the Powers of Christendom to proclaim the universal and definitive Abolition of the Slave Trade: That the Plenipotentiaries assembled at this Congress … declare, in the face of Europe, that, considering the universal abolition of the Slave Trade as a measure particularly worthy of their attention, conformable to the spirit of the times, and to the generous principles of their august Sovereigns, they are animated with the sincere desire of concurring in the most prompt and effectual execution of this measure, by all the means at their disposal. … The said Plenipotentiaries at the same time acknowledge that this general Declaration cannot prejudge the period that each particular Power may consider as most desirable for the definitive abolition of the Slave Trade. Consequent]y, the determining the period when this trade is to cease universally must be a subject of negociation between the Powers; it being understood, however, that no proper means of securing its attainment, and of accelerating its progress, are to be neglected."

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1816-1849.
The organization of the American Colonization Society.
The founding of Liberia.

"Samuel J. Mills organized at Williams College, in 1808, for missionary work, an undergraduate society, which was soon transferred to Andover, and resulted in the establishment of the American Bible Society and Board of Foreign Missions. But the topic which engrossed Mills' most enthusiastic attention was the Negro. The desire was to better his condition by founding a colony between the Ohio and the Lakes; or later, when this was seen to be unwise, in Africa. On going to New Jersey to continue his theological studies, Mills succeeded in interesting the Presbyterian clergy of that State in his project. Of this body one of the most prominent members was Dr. Robert Finley. Dr. Finley succeeded in assembling at Princeton the first meeting ever called to consider the project of sending Negro colonists to Africa. Although supported by few save members of the seminary, Dr. Finley felt encouraged to set out for Washington in December 1816, to attempt the formation of a colonization society. Earlier in this same year there had been a sudden awakening of Southern interest in colonization. … The interest already awakened and the indefatigable efforts of Finley and his friend Colonel Charles Marsh, at length succeeded in convening the assembly to which the Colonization Society owes its existence. It was a notable gathering. Henry Clay, in the absence of Bushrod Washington, presided, setting forth in glowing terms the object and aspirations of the meeting. … John Randolph of Roanoke, and Robert Wright of Maryland, dwelt upon the desirability of removing the turbulent free-negro element and enhancing the value of property in slaves. Resolutions organizing the Society passed, and committees appointed to draft a Constitution and present a memorial to Congress. … With commendable energy the newly organized Society set about the accomplishment of the task before it. Plans were discussed during the summer, and in November two agents, Samuel J. Mills and Ebenezer Burgess, sailed for Africa to explore the western coast and select a suitable spot. … Their inspection was carried as far south [from Sierra Leone] as Sherbro Island, where they obtained promises from the natives to sell land to the colonists on their arrival with goods to pay for it. In May they embarked on the return voyage. Mills died before reaching home. His colleague made a most favorable report of the locality selected, though, as the event proved, it was a most unfortunate one. After defraying the expenses of this exploration the Society's treasury was practically empty. It would have been most difficult to raise the large sum necessary to equip and send out a body of emigrants; and the whole enterprise would have languished and perhaps died but for a new impelling force. … Though the importation of slaves had been strictly prohibited by the Act of Congress of March 2, 1807, no provision had been made for the care of the unfortunates smuggled in in defiance of the Statute. They became subject to the laws of the State in which they were landed; and these laws were in some cases so devised that it was profitable for the dealer to land his cargo and incur the penalty. The advertisements of the sale of such a cargo of 'recaptured Africans' by the State of Georgia drew the attention of the Society and of General Mercer in particular to this inconsistent and abnormal state of affairs. His profound indignation shows forth in the Second Annual Report of the Society, in which the attention of the public is earnestly drawn to the question; nor did he rest until a bill was introduced into the House of Representatives designed to do away with the evil. This bill became a law on March 3, 1819. … The clause which proved so important to the embryo colony was that dealing with the captured cargoes: 'The President of the United States is hereby authorized to make such regulations and arrangements as he may deem expedient for the safe-keeping, support, and removal beyond the limits of the United States, of all such negroes, mulattoes, or persons of color as may be so delivered and brought within their jurisdiction; and to appoint a proper person or persons residing upon the coast of Africa as agent or agents for receiving the negroes, mulattoes, or persons of color, delivered from on board vessels seized in the prosecution of the slave trade by commanders of the United States armed vessels.' The sum of $100,000 was appropriated for carrying out the provisions of the Act. President Monroe determined to construe it as broadly as possible in aid of the project of colonization. After giving Congress, in his message, December 20, 1818, fair notice of his intention, no objection being made, he proceeded to appoint two agents, the Rev. Samuel Bacon, already in the service of the Colonization Society, and John P. Bankson as assistant, and to charter the ship Elizabeth. The agents were instructed to settle on the coast of Africa, with a tacit understanding that the place should be that selected by the Colonization Society. … For the expenses of the expedition $33,000 was placed in the hands of Mr. Bacon. Dr. Samuel A. Crozier was appointed by the Society as its agent and representative; and 86 negroes from various states—33 men, 18 women, and the rest children, were embarked. On the 6th of February, 1820, the Mayflower of Liberia weighed anchor in New York harbor, and, convoyed by the U. S. sloop-of-war Cyane, steered her course toward the shores of Africa. The pilgrims were kindly treated by the authorities at Sierra Leone, where they arrived on the 9th of March; but on proceeding to Sherbro Island they found the natives had reconsidered their promise, and refused to sell them land. While delayed by negotiations the injudicious nature of the site selected was disastrously shown. The low marshy ground and the bad water quickly bred the African fever, which soon carried off all the agents and nearly a fourth of the emigrants. The rest, weakened and disheartened, were soon obliged to seek refuge at Sierra Leone. In March, 1821, a body of 28 new emigrants under charge of J. B. Winn and Ephraim Bacon, reached Freetown in the brig Nautilus. Winn collected as many as he could of the first company, also the stores sent out with them, and settled the people in temporary quarters at Fourah Bay, while Bacon set out to explore the coast anew and secure suitable territory. An elevated fertile and desirable tract was at length discovered between 250 and 300 miles S. E. of Sierra Leone. This was the region of Cape Montserado. It seemed exactly suited to the purposes of the colonists, but the natives refused to sell their land for fear of breaking up the traffic in slaves; and the agent returned discouraged. Winn soon died, and Bacon returned to the United States. In November, Dr. Eli Ayres was sent over as agent, and the U. S. schooner Alligator, commanded by Lieutenant Stockton, was ordered to the coast to assist in obtaining a foothold for the colony. Cape Montserado was again visited; and the address and firmness of Lieutenant Stockton accomplished the purchase of a valuable tract of land. {2927} The cape upon which the settlers proposed to build their first habitations consists of a narrow peninsula or tongue of land formed by the Montserado River, which separates it from the mainland. Just within the mouth of the river lie two small islands, containing together less than three acres. To these, the Plymouth of Liberia, the colonists and their goods were soon transported. But again the fickle natives repented the bargain, and the settlers were long confined to 'Perseverance Island,' as the spot was aptly named. … After a number of thrilling experiences the emigrants, on April 25, 1822, formally took possession of the cape, where they had erected rude houses for themselves; and from this moment we may date the existence of the colony. Their supplies were by this time sadly reduced; the natives were hostile and treacherous; fever had played havoc with the colonists in acclimating; and the incessant downpour of the rainy season had set in. Dr. Ayres became thoroughly discouraged, and proposed to lead them back to Sierra Leone. Then it was that Elijah Johnson, an emigrant from New York, made himself forever famous in Liberian history by declaring that he would never desert the home he had found after two years' weary quest! His firmness decided the wavering colonists; the agents with a few faint-hearted ones sailed off to America; but the majority remained with their heroic Negro leader. The little band, deserted by their appointed protectors, were soon reduced to the most dire distress, and must have perished miserably but for the arrival of unexpected relief. The United States Government had at last gotten hold of some ten liberated Africans, and had a chance to make use of the agency established for them at so great an expense. They were accordingly sent out in the brig Strong under the care of the Rev. Jehudi Ashmun. A quantity of stores and some 37 emigrants sent by the Colonization Society completed the cargo. Ashmun had received no commission as agent for the colony, and expected to return on the Strong; under this impression his wife had accompanied him. But when he found the colonists in so desperate a situation he nobly determined to remain with them at any sacrifice. … On the 24th of May, 1823, the brig Oswego arrived with 61 new emigrants and a liberal supply of stores and tools, in charge of Dr. Ayres, who, already the representative of the Society, had now been appointed Government Agent and Surgeon. One of the first measures of the new agent was to have the town surveyed and lots distributed among the whole body of colonists. Many of the older settlers found themselves dispossessed of the holdings improved by their labor, and the colony was soon in a ferment of excitement and insurrection. Dr. Ayres, finding his health failing, judiciously betook himself to the United States. The arrival of the agent had placed Mr. Ashmun in a false position of the most mortifying character. … Seeing the colony again deserted by the agent and in a state of discontent and confusion, he forgot his wrongs and remained at the helm. Order was soon restored but the seeds of insubordination remained. The arrival of 103 emigrants from Virginia on the Cyrus, in February 1824, added to the difficulty, as the stock of food was so low that the whole colony had to be put on half rations. This necessary measure was regarded by the disaffected as an act of tyranny on Ashmun's part; and when shortly after the complete prostration of his health compelled him to withdraw to the Cape De Verde Islands, the malcontents sent home letters charging him with all sorts of abuse of power, and finally with desertion of his post! The Society in consternation applied to Government for an expedition of investigation, and the Rev. R. R. Gurley, Secretary of the Society, and an enthusiastic advocate of colonization, was despatched in June on the U. S. schooner Porpoise. The result of course revealed the probity, integrity and good judgment of Mr. Ashmun; and Gurley became thenceforth his warmest admirer. As a preventive of future discontent a Constitution was adopted at Mr. Gurley's suggestion, giving for the first time a definite share in the control of affairs to the colonists themselves. Gurley brought with him the name of the colony—Liberia, and of its settlement on the Cape—Monrovia, which had been adopted by the Society on the suggestion of Mr. Robert Goodloe Harper of Maryland. He returned from his successful mission in August leaving the most cordial relations established throughout the colony. Gurley's visit seemed to mark the turning of the tide, and a period of great prosperity now began." The national independence of the commonwealth of Liberia was not assumed until 1847, when the first President of the Republic, Joseph J. Roberts, was elected.

J. H. T. McPherson, History of Liberia (Johns Hopkins University Studies, series 9, number 10), chapters 2-3 and 5.

      ALSO IN:
      S. Wilkeson,
      History of the American Colonies in Liberia.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1818-1821.
The opening struggle of the American conflict.
The Missouri Compromise.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1821-1854.
Emancipation in New Granada, Venezuela and Ecuador.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1828-1832.
The rise of the Abolitionists in the United States.
Nat Turner's Insurrection.

While the reign of Andrew Jackson [1828-1836] paved the way on which the slave-holding interest ascended to the zenith of its supremacy over the Union, there arose, at the same time, in the body of the abolitionists, the enemy which undermined the firm ground under the feet of that same slave-holding interest. The expression, 'abolition of slavery,' is to be met with even before the adoption of the constitution. But the word 'abolitionism,' as descriptive of a definite political programme, occurs for the first time in this period. … The immediate precursor, and, in a certain sense, the father of the abolitionists, was Benjamin Lundy, a Quaker, born in New Jersey. In Wheeling, West Virginia, where he learned the saddler's trade, he had ample opportunity to become acquainted with the horrors of slavery, as great cargoes of slaves, on their way to the southern states, frequently passed the place. {2928} Lundy had been endeavoring for some years to awaken an active interest among his neighbors in the hard lot of the slaves, when the Missouri question brought him to the resolve to consecrate his whole life to their cause. In 1821, he began to publish the 'Genius of Universal Emancipation,' which is to be considered the first abolition organ. The 19th century can scarcely point to another instance in which the command of Christ, to leave all things and follow him, was so literally construed and followed. Lundy gave up his flourishing business, took leave of his wife and of his two dearly beloved children, and began a restless, wandering life, to arouse consciences everywhere to a deeper understanding of the sin and curse of slavery. In the autumn of 1829 he obtained, as associate publisher of his sheet, William Lloyd Garrison, a young litterateur, born in Newburyport, Massachusetts, who, from the position of a poor apprentice to a tradesman, rose to be a type-setter, and from being a type-setter to be a journalist. The removal of Garrison from New England to Baltimore, where Lundy was then publishing the 'Genius,' was an event pregnant with consequences. Garrison had long been a zealous enemy of slavery, but had hitherto seen the right way of doing away with the evil in the efforts of the colonization society. What he now saw of slavery and its effects with his own eyes produced a complete revolution in his views in a few months. He not only recognized the impossibility of preventing the extension of slavery by colonizing the free negroes in Africa, to say nothing of gradually doing away with it altogether, but he became convinced also that the leading spirits of the colonization society purposely sought to induce the philanthropists of the north to enter on a wrong course, in the interests of slavery. Hence his own profession of faith was, henceforth, 'immediate and unconditional emancipation.' His separation from the more moderate Lundy, which was rendered unavoidable by this course, was hastened by an outside occurrence. The captain of a ship from New England took on board at Baltimore a cargo of slaves destined for New Orleans. Garrison denounced him on that account with passionate violence. The matter was carried before the court, and he was sentenced to prison and to pay a money fine for publishing a libelous article and for criminally inciting slaves to insurrection. After an imprisonment of seven weeks, his fine was paid by a New York philanthropist, Arthur Tappan, and Garrison left the city to spread his convictions by means of public lectures through New England. Although his success was not very encouraging, he, in January, 1831, established a paper of his own in Boston, known as 'The Liberator.' He was not only its publisher, and sole writer for it, but he had to be his own printer and carrier. His only assistant was a negro. … In one year, Garrison had found so many who shared his views, that it was possible to found the 'New England Anti-Slavery Society' in Boston [January, 1832]. The example was imitated in other states. The movement spread so rapidly that as early as December, 1833, a 'national' anti-slavery convention could be held in Philadelphia. The immediate practical result of this was the foundation of the 'American Anti-Slavery Society.' … In the same year that Garrison raised the standard of unconditional abolitionism in Boston, an event happened in Virginia, which, from the opposite side, contributed powerfully to lead the slavery question over into its new stage of development. In August, 1831, an uprising of slaves, under the leadership of Nat Turner, occurred in Southampton county. It was, however, quickly subdued, but cost the life of 61 white persons, mostly women and children. The excitement throughout the entire south, and especially in Virginia and the states contiguous to it, was out of all proportion with the number of the victims and the extent of the conspiracy."

      H. von Holst,
      Constitutional and Political History of the United States,
      volume 2, chapter 2.

      ALSO IN:
      W. P. and F. J. Garrison,
      William Lloyd Garrison: The Story of his Life,
      volume 1, chapters 6-9.

      S. J. May,
      Recollections of the Anti-Slavery Conflict,
      pages 1-90.

      O. Johnson,
      William Lloyd Garrison and his Times,
      chapters 1-5.

      J. F. Rhodes,
      History of the United States from 1850,
      chapter 1.

      B. Tuckerman,
      William Jay and the Constitutional Movement
      for the Abolition of Slavery.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1829-1837.
Emancipation in Mexico, resisted in Texas.
Schemes of the American slave power for acquiring that state.

"The abolition of slavery, as Fox had said, was the natural consequence of the extinction of the slave trade; and in 1833 the act for the Abolition of Slavery throughout the British colonies was passed. The law was to take effect from the first of August 1834, but the slaves were to be apprenticed to their former owners till 1838 and in the case of agricultural slaves till 1840, and £20,000,000 sterling were voted as compensation to the slave-holders at the Cape, in Mauritius, and in the West Indies. As a matter of fact, however, two colonies, Antigua and the Bermudas, had the good sense to dispense with the apprenticeship system altogether, and in no case was it prolonged beyond 1838. … When Burke wrote, there were, according to his account, in the British West Indies at least 230,000 slaves against at the most 90,000 whites. In 1788 it is stated that there were 450,000 negroes in the British sugar colonies. At the last registration prior to emancipation, after British Guiana and Trinidad had become British possessions, the number of slaves was given at some 674,000."

C. P. Lucas, Historical Geography of the British Colonies, volume 2, pages 68-69.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1840-1847.
The Liberty Party and the Liberty League.

"Nothing affords more striking evidence of the gravity and difficulties of the antislavery struggle [in the United States] than the conflicting opinions and plans of the honest and earnest men engaged in it. … The most radical difference was that which separated those who rejected from those who adopted the principle of political action. The former were generally styled the 'old organization,' or Garrisonian Abolitionists; the latter embraced the Liberty Party and those antislavery men who still adhered to the Whig and Democratic parties." In 1847 the Liberty Party became divided, and a separate body was formed which took the name of the Liberty League, and which nominated Gerrit Smith for President, with Elihu Burritt for Vice-President. "As distinguished from the other wing, it may be said that the members of the Liberty League were less practical, more disposed to adhere to theories, and more fearful of sacrificing principle to policy."

      H. Wilson,
      History of the Rise and Fall of the Slave Power in America,
      volume 2, chapter 9.

      ALSO IN:
      W. Birney,
      James G. Birney and his Times,
      chapter 29.

The Underground Railroad was the popular designation given [in the United States] to those systematic and co-operative efforts which were made by the friends of the fleeing slave to aid him in eluding the pursuit of the slave-hunters, who were generally on his track. This 'institution,' as it was familiarly called, played an important part in the great drama of slavery and anti-slavery. By its timely and effective aid thousands were enabled to escape from the prison-house of bondage. … The practical working of the system required 'stations' at convenient distances, or rather the houses of persons who held themselves in readiness to receive fugitives, singly or in numbers, at any hour of day or night, to feed and shelter, to clothe if necessary, and to conceal until they could be despatched with safety to some other point along the route. There were others who held themselves in like readiness to take them by private or public conveyance. … When the wide extent of territory embraced by the Middle States and all the Western States east of the Mississippi is borne in mind, and it is remembered that the whole was dotted with these 'stations,' and covered with a network of imaginary routes, not found, indeed, in the railway guides or on the railway maps; that each station had its brave and faithful men and women, ever on the alert to seek out and succor the coming fugitive, and equally intent on deceiving and thwarting his pursuers; that there were always trusty and courageous conductors waiting, like the 'minute-men' of the Revolution, to take their living and precious freights, often by unfrequented roads, on dark and stormy nights, safely on their way; and that the numbers actually rescued were very great, many counting their trophies by hundreds, some by thousands, two men being credited with the incredible estimate of over 2,500 each,—there are materials from which to estimate, approximately at least, the amount of labor performed, of cost and risk incurred on the despised and deprecated Underground Railroad, and something of the magnitude of the results secured."

      H. Wilson,
      History of the Rise and Fall of the Slave Power in America,
      volume 2, chapter 6.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1844-1845.
The contest over the annexation of Texas.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1845-1846.
Revolt in the Democratic Party against slavery extension.
The Wilmot Proviso.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1854.
The Kansas-Nebraska Bill.
Repeal of the Missouri Compromise.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1854-1855.
Solidification of anti-slavery sentiment in the North.
Birth of the Republican Party of the United States.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1860-1865.
The slaveholders' Rebellion in the United States.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1861 (May).
The first war-thrust.
General Butler declares the slaves to be Contraband of War.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1861 (August). Act of Congress freeing slaves employed in the service of the Rebellion.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1861 (August-September).
Fremont's premature Proclamation of Emancipation
in Missouri, and Lincoln's modification of it.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1862.
Compensated Emancipation proposed by President Lincoln.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (MARCH) PRESIDENT LINCOLN'S
      PROPOSAL OF COMPENSATED EMANCIPATION.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1862.
Federal officers forbidden, by the amended Military Code,
to surrender fugitive slaves.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (MARCH) AMENDMENT OF THE MILITARY
      CODE.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1862.
Abolition in the District of Columbia and
the Territories of the United States.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1862.
General Hunter's Emancipation Order,
rescinded by President Lincoln.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (MAY)
GENERAL HUNTER'S EMANCIPATION ORDER.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1862.
First arming of the Freedmen in the War for the Union.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1862.
Gradual Emancipation in West Virginia provided for.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1862
Act confiscating the property and freeing the slaves of Rebels.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1862.
President Lincoln's preliminary or monitory
Proclamation of Emancipation.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1863.
President Lincoln's final Proclamation of Emancipation.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1864.
Constitutional abolition of slavery in Louisiana.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1865.
Adoption of the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution
of the United States, forever prohibiting slavery.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1865.
Abolition in Tennessee by Constitutional Amendment.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1865.
Emancipation of the families of colored soldiers.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1869-1893. The slave-trade in Africa and the European measures for its suppression.

"While Livingstone was making his terrible disclosures respecting the havoc wrought by the slave-trader in east central Africa, Sir Samuel Baker was striving to effect in north central Africa what has been so successfully accomplished in the Congo State. During his expedition for the discovery of the Albert Nyanza, his explorations led him through one of the principal man-hunting regions, wherein murder and spoliation were the constant occupations of powerful bands from Egypt and Nubia. These revelations were followed by diplomatic pressure upon the Khedive Ismail, and through the personal influence of an august personage he was finally induced to delegate to Sir Samuel the task of arresting the destructive careers of the slavers in the region of the upper Nile. In his book Ismailïa we have the record of his operations by himself. The firman issued to him was to the effect that he 'was to subdue to the Khedive's authority the countries to the south of Gondokoro, to suppress the slave trade, to introduce a system of regular commerce, to open to navigation the great lakes of the equator, and to establish a chain of military stations and commercial depots throughout central Africa.' This mission began in 1869, and continued until 1874. On Baker's retirement from the command of the equatorial Soudan the work was intrusted to Colonel C. G. Gordon—commonly known as Chinese Gordon. Where Baker had broken ground, Gordon was to build; what his predecessor had commenced, Gordon was to perfect and to complete. If energy, determination and self-sacrifice received their due, then had Gordon surely won for the Soudan that peace and security which it was his dear object to obtain for it. But slaving was an old institution in this part of the world. Every habit and custom of the people had some connection with it. They had always been divided from prehistoric time into enslavers and enslaved. How could two Englishmen, accompanied by only a handful of officers, removed 2,000 miles from their base of supplies, change the nature of a race within a few years? Though much wrong had been avenged, many thousands of slaves released, many a slaver's camp scattered, and many striking examples made to terrify the evil-doers, the region was wide and long; and though within reach of the Nile waters there was a faint promise of improvement, elsewhere, at Kordofan, Darfoor, and Sennaar, the trade flourished. After three years of wonderful work, Gordon resigned. A short time afterwards, however, he resumed his task, with the powers of a dictator, over a region covering 1,100,000 square miles. But the personal courage, energy, and devotion of one man opposed to a race can effect but little. … After another period of three years he again resigned. Then followed a revulsion. The Khedivial government reverted to the old order of things. … All traces of the work of Baker and Gordon have long ago been completely obliterated. Attention has been given of late to Morocco. This near neighbor of England is just twenty years behind Zanzibar. … While the heart of Africa responds to the civilizing influences moving from the east and the west and the south, Morocco remains stupidly indifferent and inert, a pitiful example of senility and decay. The remaining portion of North Africa which still fosters slavery is Tripoli. The occupation of Tunis by France has diverted such traffic in slaves as it maintained to its neighbor. Though the watchfulness of the Mediterranean cruisers renders the trade a precarious one, the small lateen boats are frequently able to sail from such ports as Benghazi, Derna, Solum, etc., with living freight, along the coast to Asia Minor. In the interior, which is inaccessible to travellers, owing to the fanaticism of the Senoussi sect, caravans from Darfoor and Wadai bring large numbers of slaves for the supply of Tripolitan families and Senouissian sanctuaries. … The partition of Africa among the European powers [by the Berlin Conference of 1885 and the Anglo-German Convention of 1890] … was the first effective blow dealt to the slave trade in inner Africa.

The east coast, whence a few years ago the slaves marched in battalions to scatter over the wide interior of the continent for pillage and devastation, is to-day guarded by German and British troops. The island of Zanzibar, where they were equipped for their murderous enterprises, is under the British flag. … The final blow has been given by the act of the Brussels Antislavery Conference, lately [1893] ratified by the powers, wherein modern civilization has fully declared its opinions upon the question of slavery, and no single power will dare remain indifferent to them, under penalty of obloquy and shame. … The Congo State devotes her annual subsidies of £120,000 and the export tax of £30,000 wholly to the task of securing her territory against the malign influences of the slave trade, and elevating it to the rank of self-protecting states. The German government undertakes the sure guardianship of its vast African territory as an imperial possession, so as to render it inaccessible to the slave-hunter. … The coast towns are fortified and garrisoned; they [the Germans] are making their advance towards Lake Tanganika by the erection of military stations; severe regulations have been issued against the importation of arms and gun-powder; the Reichstag has been unstinted in its supplies of money; an experienced administrator, Baron von Soden, has been appointed an imperial commissioner, and scores of qualified subordinates assist him. … So far the expenses, I think, have averaged over £100,000 annually. The French government devotes £60,000 annually for the protection and administration of its Gaboon and Congo territory."

      ALSO IN:
      R. F. Clarke,
      Cardinal Lavigerie and the African Slave Trade,
      part 2.

SLAVONIC PEOPLES AND LANGUAGE.

"The name under which the Slavonians appear in ancient literature is generally Venedi or Veneti. … This name, unknown to the Slavonians themselves, is that by which the Teutonic tribes have from the first designated these their eastern neighbours, viz. Wends, and the use of this appellation by the Roman authors plainly shows that their knowledge of the Slavonians was derived only from the Germans. The Old German form of this name was Wineda, and Wenden is the name which the Germans of the present day give to the remnants of a Slavonic population, formerly large, who now inhabit Lusatia, while they give the name of Winden to the Slovens in Carinthia, Carniola and Styria. … If the Slavonians themselves ever applied any common name to the whole of their family, it must most probably have been that by which we now are accustomed to call them, Slavs, or Slavonians; its original native form was Slovene. … The most ancient sources from which we derive a knowledge of the Wends or Slavonians, unanimously place them by the Vistula. From that river, which must have formed their western frontier, they extended eastward to the Dnieper, and even beyond. To the south the Carpathians formed their boundary. To the north they perhaps crossed the Dwina into the territory afterwards known as Novgorod. In the extensive woods and marshes which cover these remote tracts the Slavonians seem to have dwelt in peace and quiet during the first centuries after Christ, divided into a number of small tribes or clans. … It was not long, however, before their primitive home became too narrow for the Slavs, and as their numbers could no longer be contained within their ancient boundaries—and, perhaps, compelled to it by pressure from without—they began to spread themselves to the west, in which direction the great migrations of the fourth and fifth centuries had made abundant room for the new immigrants. By two different roads the Slavs now begin to advance in great masses. On the one side, they cross the Vistula and extend over the tracts between the Carpathian mountains and the Baltic, right down to the Elbe, the former Germanic population of this region having either emigrated or been exhausted by their intestine contests and their deadly struggle with the Roman empire. By this same road the Poles, and probably also the Chekhs of Bohemia and Moravia, reached the districts they have inhabited since that period. In the rest of this western territory the Slavonians were afterwards almost exterminated during their bloody wars with the Germans, so that but few of their descendants exist. The other road by which the Slavonians advanced lay to the south-west, along the course of the Danube. These are the so-called South-Slavonians: the Bulgarians, the Servians, the Croatians, and farthest westward, the Slovens."

      V. Thomsen,
      Relations between Ancient Russia and Scandinavia,
      lecture 1.

"A controversy has been maintained respecting the origin of the name [Slave]. The fact that … it has become among ourselves a synonyme of servitude, does not of course determine its real meaning. Those who bear it, naturally dignify its import and themselves by assigning to it the signification of 'glory';—the Slavonians to themselves are, therefore, 'the glorious race.' But the truth seems to be, that 'Slava' in its primitive meaning, was nothing but 'speech,' and that the secondary notions of 'fama,' 'gloria,' followed from this, as it does in other tongues. ['If I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me.' I. Corinthians, xiv. 11.]. … Slave or Slavonian was, therefore, nothing more than the gentile appellative, derived from the use of the national tongue, and intended as antithetical to 'foreigner.' In the ancient historic world, the Slaves played an insignificant part. Some have identified them with the Scythians of Herodotus. … Like the Celts, they seemed destined to be driven into corners in the old world."

"The Wendic or Slav group [lingual] … came into Europe during the first five centuries of our era; it is divided into two great branches, Eastern and Western. The first includes Russian, Great Russian in West Central Russia; Little Russian, Rusniac, or Ruthene in the south of Russia and even into Austria, … Servian, Croatian, Slovenic, and Bulgarian, of which the most ancient form is to the whole group what Gothic is to the German dialects; modern Bulgarian is, on the contrary, very much altered. … The western branch covered from the 7th to the 9th century vast districts of Germany in which only German is now known: Pomerania, Mecklenburg, Brandenburg, Saxony, Western Bohemia, Austria, Styria, and Northern Carinthia. Though now much restricted, it can still boast numerous dialects; among others the Wendic of Lusatia, which is dying out, Tzech or Bohemian, which is very vigorous (ten millions), of which a variety, Slovac, is found in Hungary; lastly, Polish (ten millions)."

   "The movements of the Avars in the sixth century [see AVARS]
   seem to have had much the same effect upon the Slaves which
   the movements of the Huns in the fourth century had upon the
   Teutons. … The Slaves seem to have been driven by the Turanian
   incursions in two directions; to the North-west and to the
   South-west. The North-western division gave rise to more than
   one European state, and their relations with Germany form an
   important part of the history of the Western Empire. These
   North-western Slaves do not become of importance till a little
   later. But the South-western division plays a great part in
   the history of the sixth and seventh centuries. … The Slaves
   play in the East, though less thoroughly and less brilliantly,
   the same part, half conquerors, half disciples, which the
   Teutons played in the West. During the sixth century they
   appear only as ravagers; in the seventh they appear as
   settlers. There seems no doubt that Heraclius encouraged
   Slavonic settlements south of the Danube, doubtless with a
   view to defence against the more dangerous Avars. … A number
   of Slavonic states thus arose in the lands north and east of
   the Hadriatic, as Servia, Chrobatia or Croatia, Carinthia. …
   Istria and Dalmatia now became Slavonic, with the exception of
   the maritime cities, which, among many vicissitudes, clave to
   the Empire. …
{2932}
   The Slaves pressed on into a large part of Macedonia and
   Greece, and, during the seventh and eighth centuries, the
   whole of those countries, except the fortified cities and a
   fringe along the coast, were practically cut off from the
   Empire. The name of Slavinia reached from the Danube to
   Peloponnêsos, leaving to the Empire only islands and detached
   points of coast from Venice round to Thessalonica. … The
   Slavonic occupation of Greece is a fact which must neither be
   forgotten nor exaggerated. It certainly did not amount to an
   extirpation of the Greek nation; but it certainly did amount
   to an occupation of a large part of the country, which was
   Hellenized afresh from those cities and districts which
   remained Greek or Roman."

SLESWIG.

SLIDING SCALE OF CORN DUTIES.

Edward III. of England, sailing with 200 ships on his second expedition to France (see FRANCE: A. D. 1337-1360), found a French fleet of about equal numbers lying in wait for him in the harbor of Sluys. The English attacked, June 24, 1340, and with such success that almost the entire French fleet was taken or destroyed, and 25,000 to 30,000 men slain.

ALSO IN: Sir J. Froissart, Chronicles, (translated by Johnes). volume 1, book 1, chapter 50.

SMALL-POX, AND VACCINATION.

SMITH COLLEGE.

SOCAGE TENURE. FREESOCAGE.

   "Speculative Communism has a brilliant history. It begins
   about six hundred years before Christ with Phaleas of
   Chalcedon, whom Milton speaks of as the first to recommend the
   equalization of property in land. Plato favors Communism. In
   the fifth book of the 'Republic,' Socrates is made to
   advocate, not merely community of goods, but also community of
   wives and children. This was no after-dinner debauch in the
   groves of the Academy, as Milton too severely suggests. It was
   a logical conclusion from a mistaken premise. … The ideal
   aimed at was the unity of the State, whose pattern appears to
   have been partly Pythagorean, and partly Spartan. In regard to
   property, the formulated purpose was, not to abolish wealth,
   but to abolish poverty. In the 'Laws' (volume 13), Plato would
   allow to the richest citizen four times as much income as to
   the poorest. In regard to women, the aim was not sensual
   indulgence, but the propagation and rearing of the fittest
   offspring. This community of wives and children was for the
   ruling class only; not for the husbandmen, nor for the
   artificers. So also, probably, the community of goods. We say
   probably, for the scheme is not wrought out in all its
   details, and Plato himself had no hope of seeing his dream
   realized till kings are philosophers, or philosophers are
   kings. The echoes of this Platonic speculation have been loud
   and long. About the year 316 B. C., Evemerus, sent eastward by
   Cassander, King of Macedon, on a voyage of scientific
   discovery, reports in his 'Sacred History' the finding of an
   island which he calls Panchaia, the seat of a Republic, whose
   citizens were divided into the three classes of Priests,
   Husbandmen, and Soldiers; where all property was common; and
   all were happy. In 1516 Sir Thomas More published his
   'Utopia;' evidently of Platonic inspiration. More also chose
   an island for his political and social Paradise. He had Crete
   in mind. His island, crescent-shaped, and 200 miles wide at
   the widest point, contained 54 cities. It had community of
   goods, but not of women.
{2933}
   The 'Civitas Solis' of Campanella, published in 1623, was in
   imitation perhaps of More's 'Utopia.' This City of the Sun
   stood on a mountain in Ceylon, under the equator, and had a
   community both of goods and of women. About the same time Lord
   Bacon amused himself by writing the 'New Atlantis,' a mere
   fragment, the porch of a building that was never finished. In
   the great ferment of Cromwell's time the 'Oceana' of
   Harrington appeared (1656); a book famous in its day, with
   high traditional repute ever since, but now seldom read except
   by the very few who feel themselves called upon to master the
   literature of the subject. Hallam pronounces it a dull,
   pedantic book; and nobody disputes the verdict. Harrington
   advocates a division of land, no one to have more than two
   thousand pounds' (ten thousand dollars') worth. The upshot of
   it all would be, a moderate aristocracy of the middle classes.
   Such books belong to a class by themselves, which may be
   called Poetico-Political; æsthetic, scholarly, humane, and
   hopeful. They are not addressed to the masses. If they make
   revolutions, it is only in the long run. They are not battles,
   nor half battles, but only the bright wild dreams of tired
   soldiers in the pauses of battles. Communistic books with iron
   in them … are not modern only, but recent. Modern Communism,
   now grown so surly and savage everywhere, began mildly enough.
   As a system, it is mostly French, name and all. The famous
   writers are Saint-Simon, Fourier, Considérant, Proudhon,
   Cabet, and Louis Blanc."

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: Definition of Terms:
   Socialism.
   Communism.
   Collectivism.

"As socialism has been most powerful and most studied on the Continent, it may be interesting to compare the definitions given by some leading French and German economists. The great German economist Roscher defines it as including 'those tendencies which demand a greater regard for the common weal than consists with human nature.' Adolf Held says that 'we may define as socialistic every tendency which demands the subordination of the individual will to the community.' Janet more precisely defines it as follows:—'We call socialism every doctrine which teaches that the State has a right to correct the inequality of wealth which exists among men, and to legally establish the balance by taking from those who have too much in order to give to those who have not enough, and that in a permanent manner, and not in such and such a particular case—a famine, for instance, a public calamity, etc.' Laveleye explains it thus: 'In the first place, every socialistic doctrine aims at introducing greater equality in social conditions; and in the second place at realising those reforms by the law or the State.' Von Scheel simply defines it as the 'economic philosophy of the suffering classes.'"

"The economic quintessence of the socialistic programme, the real aim of the international movement, is as follows. To replace the system of private capital (i. e. the speculative method of production, regulated on behalf of society only by the free competition of private enterprises) by a system of collective capital, that is, by a method of production which would introduce a unified (social or 'collective ') organization of national labour, on the basis of collective or common ownership of the means of production by all the members of the society. This collective method of production would remove the present competitive system, by placing under official administration such departments of production as can be managed collectively (socially or co-operatively), as well as the distribution among all of the common produce of all, according to the amount and social utility of the productive labour of each. This represents in the shortest possible formula the aim of the socialism of today."

"Socialism, … while it may admit the state's right of property over against another state, does away with all ownership, on the part of members of the state, of things that do not perish in the using, or of their own labor in creating material products. Its first and last policy is to prevent the acquisition or exclusive use of capital, by any person or association under the control of the state, with the exception, perhaps, of articles of luxury or enjoyment procured by the savings of wages. No savings can give rise to what is properly called capital, or means of production in private hands. … Commun·ism, in its ordinary signification, is a system or form of common life, in which the right of private or family property is abolished by law, mutual consent, or vow. … Collectivism, which is now used by German as well as by French writers, denotes the condition of a community when its affairs, especially its industry, is managed in the collective way, instead of the method of separate, individual effort. It has, from its derivation, some advantages over the vague word socialism, which may include many varieties of associated or united life."

"A Trade Union, as we understand the term, is a continuous association of wage-earners for the purpose of maintaining or improving the conditions of their employment. … We have, by our definition, expressly excluded from our history any account of the innumerable instances in which the manual workers have formed ephemeral combinations against their social superiors. Strikes are as old as history itself. The ingenious seeker of historical parallels might, for instance, find in the revolt, B. C. 1490, of the Hebrew brickmakers in Egypt against being required to make bricks without straw, a curious precedent for the strike of the Stalybridge cotton-spinners, A. D. 1892, against the supply of bad material for their work. But we cannot seriously regard, as in any way analogous to the Trade Union Movement of to-day, the innumerable rebellions of subject races, the slave insurrections, and the semi-servile peasant revolts of which the annals of history are full. … When, however, we pass from the annals of slavery or serfdom to those of the nominally free citizenship of the mediæval town, we are on more debatable ground. We make no pretence to a thorough knowledge of English town-life in the Middle Ages. But it is clear that there were at all times, alongside of the independent master craftsmen, a number of hired journeymen, who are known to have occasionally combined against their rulers and governors. … {2934} After detailed consideration of every published instance of a journeyman's fraternity in England, we are fully convinced that there is as yet no evidence of the existence of any such durable and independent combination of wage-earners against their employers during the Middle Ages. There are certain other cases in which associations, which are sometimes assumed to have been composed of journeymen maintained a continuous existence. But in all these cases the 'Bachelors' Company,' presumed to be a journeymen's fraternity, formed a subordinate department of the masters' gild, by the rulers of which it was governed. It will be obvious that associations in which the employers dispensed the funds and appointed the officers can bear no analogy to modern Trade Unions. The explanation of the tardy growth of stable combination among hired journeymen is, we believe, to be found in the prospects of economic advancement which the skilled handicraftsman still possessed. … The apprenticed journeyman in the skilled handicrafts belonged, until comparatively modern times, to the same social grade as his employer, and was, indeed, usually the son of a master in the same or an analogous trade. So long as industry was carried on mainly by small masters, each employing but one or two journeymen, the period of any energetic man's service as a hired wage-earner cannot normally have exceeded a few years. … Under such a system of industry the journeymen would possess the same prospects of economic advancement that hindered the growth of stable combinations in the ordinary handicrafts, and in this fact may lie the explanation of the striking absence of evidence of any Trade Unionism in the building trades right down to the end of the eighteenth century. When, however, the capitalist builder or contractor began to supersede the master mason, master plasterer, &c., and this class of small entrepreneurs had again to give place to a hierarchy of hired workers, Trade Unions, in the modern sense, began, as we shall see, to arise. We have dwelt at some length upon these ephemeral associations of wage-earners and on the journeymen fraternities of the Middle Ages, because it might plausibly be argued that they were in some sense the predecessors of the Trade Union. But strangely enough it is not in these institutions that the origin of Trade Unionism has usually been sought. For the predecessor of the modern Trade Union, men have turned, not to the mediæval associations of the wage-earners, but to those of their employers—that is to say, the Craft Gilds. … The supposed descent of the Trade Unions from the mediæval Craft Gild rests, as far as we have been able to discover, upon no evidence whatsoever. The historical proof is all the other way. In London, for instance, more than one Trade Union has preserved an unbroken existence from the eighteenth century. The Craft Gilds still exist in the City Companies, and at no point in their history do we find the slightest evidence of the branching off from them of independent journeymen's societies. … We have failed to discover, either in the innumerable trade pamphlets and broad-sheets of the time, or in the Journals of the House of Commons, any evidence of the existence, prior to 1700, of continuous associations of wage-earners for maintaining or improving the conditions of their employment. And when we remember that during the latter decades of the seventeenth century the employers of labour, and especially the industrial 'companies' or corporations, memorialised the House of Commons on every conceivable grievance which affected their particular trade, the absence of all complaints of workmen's combinations suggests to us that no such combinations existed. In the early years of the eighteenth century we find isolated complaints of combinations 'lately entered into' by the skilled workers in certain trades. As the century progresses we watch the gradual multiplication of these complaints, met by counter-accusations presented by organised bodies of workmen. … If we examine the evidence of the rise of combinations in particular trades, we see the Trade Union springing, not from any particular institution, but from every opportunity for the meeting together of wage-earners of the same trade. Adam Smith remarked that 'people of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.' And there is actual evidence of the rise of one of the oldest of the existing Trade Unions out of a gathering of the journeymen 'to take a social pint of porter together.' More often it is a tumultuous strike, out of which grows a permanent organisation. … If the trade is one in which the journeymen frequently travel in search of work, we note the slow elaboration of systematic arrangements for the relief of these 'tramps' by their fellow-workers in each town through which they pass, and the inevitable passage of this far-extending tramping society into a national Trade Union. … We find that at the beginning of the eighteenth century the typical journeyman tailor in London and Westminster had become a lifelong wage-earner. It is not surprising, therefore, that one of the earliest instances of permanent Trade Unionism that we have been able to discover occurs in this trade. The master tailors in 1720 complain to Parliament that 'the Journeymen Taylors in and about the Cities of London and Westminster, to the number of seven thousand and upwards, have lately entered into a combination to raise their wages and leave off working an hour sooner than they used to do; and for the better carrying on their design have subscribed their respective names in books prepared for that purpose, at the several houses of call or resort (being publick-houses in and about London and Westminster) where they use; and collect several considerable sums of money to defend any prosecutions against them.' Parliament listened to the masters' complaint, and passed the Act 7, Geo. 1. st. 1, c. 13, restraining both the giving and the taking of wages in excess of a stated maximum, all combinations being prohibited. From that time forth the journeymen tailors of London and Westminster have remained in effective though sometimes informal combination, the organisation centring round the fifteen or twenty 'houses of call.'"

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1753-1797.
Mably, Morelly, and the conspiracy of Babœuf, in France.

"If Rousseau cannot be numbered among the communistic writers, strictly so called, two of his contemporaries, Mably and Morelly—the first more a dreamer, the second of a more practical spirit —deserve that title. … In the social theory of Mably, inequality of condition is the great evil in the world … Mably was a theorist who shrunk back from the practical application of his own theories. The establishment of community of goods, and even of equality of fortunes, he dared not advocate. 'The evil,' he says, 'is too inveterate for the hope of a cure.' And so he advised half measures—agrarian laws fixing the maximum of landed estates, and sumptuary laws regulating expenses. … Morelly, whose principal works are a communistic poem, called 'The Basiliade' (1753) and 'The Code of Nature' (1755), is called by a French writer one of the most obscure authors of the last century. But he knew what he wanted, and had courage to tell it to others. … Morelly's power on subsequent opinion consists in his being the first to put dreams or theories into a code; from which shape it seemed easy to fanatical minds to carry it out into action. His starting-point is that men can be made good or evil by institutions. Private property, or avarice called out by it, is the source of all vice. 'Hence, where no property existed there would appear none of its pernicious consequences.' … In 1782, Brissot de Warville invented the phrase, used afterward by Proudhon, Propriété c'est le vol. … Twelve years afterward a war against the rich began, and such measures as a maximum of property and the abolition of the right to make a will were agitated. But the right of property prevailed, and grew stronger after each new revolution. In 1796 the conspiracy of the Equals, or, as it is generally called, of Babœuf, was the final and desperate measure of a portion of those Jacobins who had been stripped by the fall of Robespierre (in 1794) of political power. It was the last hope of the extreme revolutionists, for men were getting tired of agitations and wanted rest. This conspiracy seems to have been fomented by Jacobins in prison; and it is said that one of them, who was a believer in Morelly and had his work in his hands, expounded its doctrines to his fellow-prisoner Babœuf. When they were set at liberty by an amnesty law, there was a successful effort made to bring together the society or sect of the Equals; but it was found that they were not all of one mind. Babœuf was for thorough measures—for a community of goods and of labor, an equality of conditions and of comforts. … There was a secret committee of the society of the Equals, as well as an open society. The latter excited the suspicion of the Directory, and an order was given to suspend its sessions in the Pantheon (or (Church of St. Geneviève). The order was executed by Bonaparte, then general of the army of the interior, who dispersed the members and put a seal on the doors of the place of meeting. Next the Equals won over a body of the police into their measures; and, when this force was disbanded by the Directory, the Equals established a committee of public safety. The committee was successful in bringing as many as sixty of the party of the mountain into their ranks, and an insurrection was projected. Seventeen thousand fighting men were calculated upon by the conspirators as at their disposal. But an officer of the army whom they had tried to bring into their plots denounced them to the Directory. The leading conspirators were arrested [1797]. Babœuf and Darthé suffered death, and five others were banished."

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1800-1824.
Robert Owen.
His experiments at New Lanark and his New Harmony Society.

   "Whilst in France the hurricane of the Revolution swept over
   the land, in England a quieter, but not on that account less
   tremendous, revolution was going on. Steam and the new
   tool-making machinery were transforming manufacture into
   modern industry, and thus revolutionising the whole foundation
   of bourgeois society. … With constantly increasing swiftness
   the splitting-up of society into large capitalists and
   non-possessing proletarians went on. Between these, instead of
   the former stable middle-class, an unstable mass of artisans
   and small shopkeepers, the most fluctuating portion of the
   population, now led a precarious existence. The new mode of
   production was, as yet, only at the beginning of its period of
   ascent; as yet it was the normal, regular method of
   production—the only one possible under existing conditions.
   Nevertheless, even then it was producing crying social abuses.
   … At this juncture there came forward as a reformer a
   manufacturer 29 years old—a man of almost sublime, childlike
   simplicity of character, and at the same time one of the few
   born leaders of men. Robert Owen had adopted the teaching of
   the materialistic philosophers: that man's character is the
   product, on the one hand, of heredity, on the other, of the
   environment of the indivIdual during his lifetime, and
   especially during his period of development. In the industrial
   revolution most of his class saw only chaos and confusion, and
   the opportunity of fishing in these troubled waters and making
   large fortunes quickly. He saw in it the opportunity of
   putting into practice his favourite theory, and so of bringing
   order out of chaos. He had already tried it with success, as
   superintendent of more than 500 men in a Manchester factory.
   From 1800 to 1829, he directed the great cotton mill at New
   Lanark, in Scotland, as managing partner, along the same
   lines, but with greater freedom of action and with a success
   that made him a European reputation. A population, originally
   consisting of the most diverse and, for the most part, very
   demoralised elements, a population that gradually grew to
   2,500, he turned into a model colony, in which drunkenness,
   police, magistrates, lawsuits, poor laws, charity, were
   unknown. And all this simply by placing the people in
   conditions worthy of human beings, and especially by carefully
   bringing up the rising generation. He was the founder of
   infant schools, and introduced them first at New Lanark. …
   Whilst his competitors worked their people 13 or 14 hours a
   day, in New Lanark the working-day was only 10½ hours. When a
   crisis in cotton stopped work for four months, his workers
   received their full wages an the time. And with all this the
   business more than doubled in value, and to the last yielded
   large profits to its proprietors. In spite of all this, Owen
   was not content. The existence which he secured for his
   workers was, in his eyes, still far from being worthy of human
   beings. 'The people were slaves at my mercy.' … 'The working
   part of this population of 2,500 persons was daily producing
   as much real wealth for society as, less than half a century
   before, it would have required the working part of a
   population of 600,000 to create. I asked myself, what became
   of the difference between the wealth consumed by 2,500 persons
   and that which would have been consumed by 600,000?' The
   answer was clear.
{2936}
   It had been used to pay the proprietors of the establishment 5
   per cent. on the capital they had laid out, in addition to
   over £300,000 clear profit. And that which held for New Lanark
   held to a still greater extent for all the factories in
   England. … The newly-created gigantic productive forces,
   hitherto used only to enrich individuals and to enslave the
   masses, offered to Owen the foundations for a reconstruction
   of society; they were destined, as the common property of all,
   to be worked for the common good of all. Owen's Communism was
   based upon this purely business foundation, the outcome, so to
   say, of commercial calculation. Throughout, it maintained this
   practical character."

Owen's projects "were received with applause at first. 'The Times' spoke of 'his enlightened zeal in the cause of humanity;' the Duke of Kent writes to Owen: 'I have a most sincere wish that a fair trial should be given to your system, of which I have never hesitated to acknowledge myself an admirer;' Lord Brougham sympathised with the propounder of this social scheme; the judicial philosopher Bentham became actually a temporary ally of the 'wilful Welshman;' a committee was appointed, including Ricardo and Sir R. Peel, who recommended Owen's scheme to be tried; it was taken up by the British and Foreign Philanthropic Society for the permanent relief of the working-classes; it was actually presented to Parliament with petitions humbly praying that a Committee of the House might be appointed to visit and report on New Lanark. But the motion was lost. The temporary enthusiasm cooled down. … Contemporaneously with royal speeches alluding to the prosperity of trade, and congratulations as to the flourishing appearance of town and country, the voice of Owen is silenced with his declining popularity. It must be remembered also that he had by this time justly incurred the displeasure of the religious public, by the bold and unnecessarily harsh expressions of his ethical and religious convictions. Those who could distinguish the man from his method, who were fully aware of his generous philanthropy, purity of private life, and contempt of personal advancement, could make allowance for his rash assertions. The rest, however, turned away with pious horror or silent contempt from one who so fiercely attacked positive creeds, and appeared unnecessarily vehement in his denial of moral responsibility. Owen set his face to the West, and sought new adherents in America, where he founded [1824] a 'Preliminary Society' in 'New Harmony', which was to be the nucleus of his future society. …

In the following year Owen agreed to a change in the constitution, in favour of communism, under the title of the 'New Harmony Community of Equality.' The settlement enjoyed a temporary prosperity, but soon showed signs of decay, and Owen was destined to meet with as many trials in the new as he had encountered discouragements in the old world."

      ALSO IN:
      W. L. Sargant,
      Robert Owen and his Social Philosophy.

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1800-1875.
Struggle of the Trades Unions in England for a legal existence.

During the 18th century, "the employers succeeded in passing a whole series of laws, some of them of Draconian severity, designed to suppress combinations of working men. In England they are called the Combination Laws, and culminated in the Act of 40 George Ill., c. 106, which was passed in 1800 in response to a petition from the employers. It made all trade combinations illegal. … The result of this law, which was expressly designed to put an end to strikes altogether, is an instructive example of the usual effect of such measures. The workmen's associations, which had frequently hitherto been formed quite openly, became secret, while they spread through the length and breadth of England. The time when the books of the Union were concealed on the moors, and an oath of secrecy was exacted from its members, is still a living tradition in labour circles. It was a time when the hatred of the workers towards the upper classes and the legislature flourished luxuriantly, while the younger generation of working men who had grown up under the shadow of repressive legislation, became the pillars of the revolutionary Chartist movement. The old struggle against capital assumed a more violent character. … It was the patent failure of the Combination Laws which gave the stimulus to the suggestion of repeal soon after 1820," and the repeal was accomplished by the Act of 1824. "The immediate consequence of this Act was the outbreak of a number of somewhat serious strikes. The general public then took fright, and thus the real struggle for the right of combination began after it had received legal recognition. In 1825, the employers rallied and demanded the re-enactment of the earlier laws on the ground that Parliament had carried their repeal with undue precipitation. … The Act of 1825 which repealed that of the previous year, was a compromise in which the opponents of free combination had gained the upper hand. But they had been frustrated in their attempt to stamp out the Unions with all the rigour of the law, for the champions of the Act of 1824 were in a position to demonstrate that the recognition of combination had already done something to improve the relations between capital and labour. It had at least done away with that secrecy which in itself constituted a danger to the State; and now that the Unions were openly avowed, their methods had become less violent. Nevertheless, the influence of the manufacturers strongly predominated in framing the Bill. … The only advance on the state of things previous to 1824 which had been secured was the fundamental point that a combination of working men was not in itself illegal-though almost any action which could rise out of such a combination was prohibited. Yet it was under the Act of 1825 that the Trade Unions grew and attained to that important position in which we find them at the beginning of the seventies. Here was emphatically a movement which the law might force into illegal channels, but could not suppress. … The most serious danger that the Trade Unions encountered was in the course of the sixties. Under the leadership of one Broadhead, certain Sheffield Unions had entered on a course of criminal intimidation of non-members. The general public took their action as indicating the spirit of Trade Unions generally. {2937} In point of fact, the workmen employed in the Sheffield trade were in a wholly exceptional position. … But both in Parliament and the Press it was declared that the occurrences at Sheffield called for more stringent legislation and the suppression of combinations of working men. … But times had changed since 1825. The Unions themselves called for the most searching inquiry into their circumstances and methods, which would, they declared, prove that they were in no way implicated in such crimes as had been committed in Sheffield. The impulse given by Thomas Carlyle had raised powerful defenders for the workmen, first among whom we may mention the positivist Frederic Harrison, and Thomas Hughes, the co-operator. … The preliminaries to the appointment of the Commission of 1867 revealed a change in the attitude of the employers, especially the more influential of them, which marked an enormous advance on the debates of 1824 and 1825. … The investigation of the Commission of 1867-1869 were of a most searching character, and their results are contained in eleven reports. The Unions came well through the ordeal, and it was shown that the outrages had been confined to a few Unions, for the most part of minor importance. It further appeared that where no combination existed the relations between employers and hands were not more friendly, while the position of the workers was worse and in some cases quite desperate. The report led up to proposals for the legislation of Trade Unions, and to the legislation of 1871-1876, which was supported by many influential employers. The altitude of Parliament had changed with amazing rapidity. … The Trade Union Acts of 1871 and 1870 give all Unions, on condition that they register their rules, the same rights as were already enjoyed by the Friendly Societies in virtue of earlier legislation, i. e. the rights of legal personality. They can sue and be sued, possess real and personal estate, and can proceed summarily against their officers for fraudulent conduct. They also possess facilities for the transfer of investments to new trustees. The Act of 1871 was extended by that of 1876, framed expressly with the concurrence of the Trade Union leaders. … The working men, now that they are left to conduct their meetings in any way they choose, have gradually developed that sober and methodical procedure which amazes the Continental observer. … At Common Law, any action of Trade Unionists to raise wages seemed liable to punishment as conspiracy, on the ground that it was directed against the common weal. The course run by the actual prosecutions did, indeed, prevent this doctrine from ever receiving the sanction of a sentence expressly founded on it; but it gathered in ever heavier thunders over the heads of the Unions, and its very vagueness gave it the appearance of a deliberate persecution of one class of society in the interests of another. The Act of 1871 first brought within definite limits the extreme penalties that could be enforced against Trade Unionists either at Statute or Common Law. … By the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act of 1875 the workmen's economic aims were at last recognised on precisely the same footing as those of other citizens."

National Association for the Promotion of Social Science,
Report of Committee on Societies and Strikes, 1860.

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1805-1827.
George Rapp and the Harmony Society.
Robert Owen and the Community at New Harmony.

The "Harmony Society" was first settled in Pennsylvania, on a tract of land about twenty five miles north of Pittsburgh, in 1805, by George Rapp, the leader of a religious congregation in Germany which suffered persecution there and sought greater freedom in America. From the beginning, they agreed "to throw all their possessions into a common fund, to adopt a uniform and simple dress and style of house; to keep thenceforth all things in common; and to labor for the common good of the whole body. … At this time they still lived in families, and encouraged, or at any rate did not discourage, marriage." But in 1807 they became persuaded that "it was best to cease to live in the married state. … Thenceforth no more marriages were contracted …, and no more children were born. A certain number of the younger people, feeling no vocation for a celibate life, at this time withdrew from the society." In 1814 and 1815 the society sold its property in Pennsylvania and removed to a new home in Posey County, Indiana, on the Wabash, where 30,000 acres of land were bought for it. The new settlement received the name of "Harmony." But this in its turn was sold, in 1824, to Robert Owen, for his New Lanark colony, which he planted there, under the name of the "New Harmony Community," and the Rappists returned eastward, to establish themselves at a lovely spot on the Ohio, where their well-known village called "Economy" was built. "Once it was a busy place, for it had cotton, silk, and woolen factories, a brewery, and other industries; but the most important of these have now [1874] ceased. … Its large factories are closed, for its people are too few to man them; and the members [numbering 110 in 1874, mostly aged] think it wiser and more comfortable for themselves to employ labor at a distance from their own town. They are pecuniarily interested in coal-mines, in saw-mills, and oil-wells; and they control manufactories at Beaver Falls—notably a cutlery shop. … The society is reported to be worth from two to three millions of dollars."

At the settlement in Indiana, "on the departure of the Rappites, persons favorable to Mr. Owen's views came flocking to New Harmony (as it was thenceforth called) from all parts of the country. Tidings of the new social experiment spread far and wide. … In the short space of six weeks from the commencement of the experiment, a population of 800 persons was drawn together, and in October 1825, the number had increased to 900." At the end of two years, in June, 1827, Mr. Owen seems to have given up the experiment and departed from New Harmony. "After his departure the majority of the population also removed and scattered about the country. Those who remained returned to individualism, and settled as farmers and mechanics in the ordinary way. One portion of the estate was owned by Mr. Owen, and the other by Mr. Maclure. They sold, rented, or gave away the houses and lands, and their heirs and assigns have continued to do so."

"The co-operative idea as applied to industry existed in the latter part of the last century. Ambelakia was almost a co-operative town, as may be read in David Urquhart's 'Turkey and its Resources.' So vast a municipal partnership of industry has never existed since. The fishers on the Cornish coast carried out co-operation on the sea, and the miners of Cumberland dug ore on the principle of sharing the profits. The plan has been productive of contentment and advantage. Gruyère is a co-operative cheese, being formerly made in the Jura mountains, where the profits were equitably divided among the makers. In 1777, as Dr. Langford relates in his 'Century of Birmingham Life,' the tailors of that enterprising town set up a co-operative workshop, which is the earliest in English record. In France an attempt was made by Babœuf in 1796, to establish a despotism of justice and equality by violence, after the manner of Richelieu, whose policy taught the French revolutionists that force might be a remedy. … Contemporaneous with the French revolutionists we had Shute Barrington, Bishop of Durham, who surpassed all other bishops in human sympathy and social sagacity. He established at Mongewell, in Oxfordshire, the first known co-operative store; and he, Count Rumford, and Sir Thomas Bernard published in 1795, and for many years after, plans of co·operative and social life, far exceeding in variety and thoroughness any in the minds of persons now living. 'The only apostle of the social state in England at the beginning of this century,' Harriet Martineau testifies, 'was Robert Owen,' and to him we owe the co-operation of to-day. With him it took the shape of a despotism of philanthropy. … The amazing arrangements Mr. Owen made at his New Lanark Mills for educating his workpeople, and the large amount of profit which he expended upon their personal comforts, have had no imitators except Godin of Guise, whose palaces of industry are to-day the wonder of all visitors. Owen, like Godin, knew how to make manufacturing generosity pay. … It was here that Mr. Owen set up a co-operative store on the primitive plan of buying goods and provisions wholesale and selling them to the workmen's families at cost price, he giving storerooms and paying for the management, to the greater advantage of the industrial purchasers. The benefit which the Lanark weavers enjoyed in being able to buy retail at wholesale prices was soon noised abroad, and clever workmen elsewhere began to form stores to supply their families in the same way. The earliest instance of this is the Economical Society of Sheerness, commenced in 1816, and which is still doing business in the same premises and also in adjacent ones lately erected. … These practical co-operative societies with economical objects gradually extended themselves over the land, Mr. Owen with splendid generosity, giving costly publicity to his successes, that others might profit likewise according to their means. His remarkable manufacturing gains set workmen thinking that they might do something in the same way. … The co-operative stores now changed their plan. They sold retail at shop charges, and saved the difference between retail and cost price as a fund with which to commence co-operative workshops. In 1830 from 300 to 400 co-operative stores had been set up in England. There are records of 250 existing, cited in the 'History of Co-operation in Eng]and.' … The Rochdale Society of 1844 was the first which adopted the principle of giving the shareholders 5 per cent. only, and dividing the remaining profit among the customers. There is a recorded instance of this being done in Huddersfield in 1827, but no practical effect arose, and no propagandism of the plan was attempted until the Rochdale co-operators devised the scheme of their own accord, and applied it. They began under the idea of saving money for community purposes and establishing co-operative workshops. For this purpose they advised their members to leave their savings in the store at 5 per cent. interest; and with a view to get secular education, of which there was little to be had in those days, and under the impression that stupidity was against them, they set apart 2½ per cent. of their profits for the purpose of instruction, education, and propagandism. By selling at retail prices they not only acquired funds, but they avoided the imputation of underselling their neighbours, which they had the good sense and good feeling to dislike. They intended to live, but their principle was 'to let live.' By encouraging members to save their dividends in order to accumulate capital, they taught them habits of thrift. By refusing to sell on credit they made no losses; they incurred no expenses in keeping books, and they taught the working classes around them, for the first time, to live without falling into debt. This scheme of equity, thrift, and education constitutes what is called the 'Rochdale plan.' … The subsequent development of co-operation has been greatly due to the interest which Professor Maurice, Canon Kingsley, Mr. Vansittart Neale, Mr. Thomas Hughes, and Mr. J. M. Ludlow took in it. They promoted successive improvements in the law which gave the stores legal protection, and enabled them to become bankers, to hold land, and allow their members to increase their savings to £200. … The members of co-operative societies of the Rochdale type now exceed 900,000, and receive more than 2½ millions of profit annually. There are 1,200 stores in operation, which do a business of nearly 30 millions a year, and own share capital of 8 millions. The transactions of their Co-operative Bank at Manchester amount to 16 millions annually. The societies devote to education £22,000 a year out of their profits, and many societies expend important sums for the same purpose, which is not formally recorded in their returns. In the twenty-five years from 1861 to 1886 the co-operators have done business of upwards of 361 millions, and have made for working people a profit of 30 millions. … Co-operation in other countries bears no comparison with its rise and progress in England. The French excel in co-operative workshops, the Germans in co-operative banks, England in the organisation of stores. No country has succeeded yet with all three. Italy excels even Germany in co-operative banks. It has, too, some remarkable distributive societies, selling commodities at cost prices, and is now beginning stores on the Rochdale plan. France has many distributive stores, and is likely to introduce the Rochdale type. … America … is likely to excel in industrial partnerships, and is introducing the English system of co-operation."

G. J. Holyoake, The Growth of Co-operation in England (Fortnightly Review, August 1, 1887).

The "Christian Socialism" which arose in England about 1850, under the influence of Frederick D. Maurice, Charles Kingsley, Thomas Hughes, identified itself practically with the co-operative movement.

"Comte Henri de Saint-Simon, the founder of French socialism, was born at Paris in 1760. He belonged to a younger branch of the family of the celebrated duke of that name. His education, he tells us, was directed by D'Alembert. At the age of nineteen he went as volunteer to assist the American colonies in their revolt against Britain. … It was not till 1817 that he began, in a treatise entitled 'L'Industrie,' to propound his socialistic views, which he further developed in 'L'Organisateur' (1819), 'Du Système industriel' (1821), 'Catechisme des Industriels' (1823). The last and most important expression of his views is the 'Nouveau Christianisme' (1825). For many years before his death in 1825 Saint-Simon had been reduced to the greatest straits. He was obliged to accept a laborious post for a salary of £40 a year, to live on the generosity of a former valet, and finally to solicit a small pension from his family. In 1823 he attempted suicide in despair. It was not till very late in his career that he attached to himself a few ardent disciples. As a thinker Saint-Simon was entirely deficient in system, clearness, and consecutive strength. His writings are largely made up of a few ideas continually repeated. But his speculations are always ingenious and original; and he has unquestionably exercised great influence on modern thought, both as the historic founder of French socialism and as suggesting much of what was afterwards elaborated into Comtism. … His opinions were conditioned by the French Revolution and by the feudal and military system still prevalent in France. In opposition to the destructive liberalism of the Revolution he insisted on the necessity of a new and positive re-organisation of society. So far was he from advocating social revolt that he appealed to Louis XVIII. to inaugurate the new order of things. In opposition, however, to the feudal and military system, the former aspect of which had been strengthened by the Restoration, he advocated an arrangement by which the industrial chiefs should control society. In place of the Mediæval Church, the spiritual direction of society should fall to the men of science. What Saint-Simon desired, therefore, was an industrialist State directed by modern science. The men who are best fitted to organise society for productive labour are entitled to bear rule in it. The social aim is to produce things useful to life; the final end of social activity is 'the exploitation of the globe by association.' The contrast between labour and capital, so much emphasised by later socialism, is not present to Saint-Simon, but it is assumed that the industrial chiefs, to whom the control of production is to be committed, shall rule in the interest of society. Later on, the cause of the poor receives greater attention, till in his greatest work, 'The New Christianity,' it becomes the central point of his teaching, and takes the form of a religion. It was this religious development of his teaching that occasioned his final quarrel with Comte. Previous to the publication of the 'Nouveau Christianisme' Saint-Simon had not concerned himself with theology. Here he starts from a belief in God, and his object in the treatise is to reduce Christianity to its simple and essential elements. … During his lifetime the views of Saint-Simon had little influence, and he left only a very few devoted disciples, who continued to advocate the doctrines of their master, whom they revered as a prophet. … The school of Saint-Simon insists strongly on the claims of merit; they advocate a social hierarchy in which each man shall be placed according to his capacity and rewarded according to his works. This is, indeed, a most special and pronounced feature of the Saint-Simon Socialism, whose theory of government is a kind of spiritual or scientific autocracy. … With regard to the family and the relation of the sexes the school of Saint-Simon advocated the complete emancipation of woman and her entire equality with man."

   "Almost contemporaneously with St. Simon [see SOCIAL
   MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1817-1825] another Frenchman, Charles
   Fourier, was elaborating a different and, in the opinion of
   Mill, a more workable scheme of social renovation on
   Socialistic lines. The work, indeed, in which Fourier's main
   ideas are embodied, called the 'Théorie des quatre
   Mouvements,' was published in 1808, long before St. Simon had
   given his views to the world, but it received no attention
   until after the discredit of the St. Simonian scheme,
   beginning in 1832. Association is the central word of
   Fourier's as of St. Simon's industrial system. Associated
   groups of from 1,600 to 2,000 persons are to cultivate a
   square league of ground called the Phalange, or phalanx; and
   are likewise to carry on all other kinds of industry which may
   be necessary. The individuals are to live together in one pile
   of buildings, called the Phalanstery, in order to economize in
   buildings, in domestic arrangements, cooking, etc., and to
   reduce distributors' profits; they may eat at a common table
   or not, as seems good to them: that is, they have life in
   common, and a good deal in each other's sight; they do not
   work in common more than is necessary under the existing
   system; and there is not a community of property. Neither
   private property, nor inheritance, is abolished. In the
   division of the produce of industry, after a minimum
   sufficient for bare subsistence has been assigned to each one,
   the surplus, deducting the capital necessary for future
   operations, is to be divided amongst the three great interests
   of Labour, Capital, and Talent, in the respective proportions
   of five-twelfths, four-twelfths, and three-twelfths.
   Individuals, according to their several tastes or aptitudes,
   may attach themselves to more than one of the numerous groups
   of labourers within each association. Everyone must work;
   useless things will not be produced; parasitic or unnecessary
   work, such as the work of agents, distributors, middlemen
   generally, will not exist in the phalanstery; from all which
   the Fourierist argues that no one need work excessively. Nor
   need the work be disagreeable. On the contrary, Fourier has
   discovered the secret of making labour attractive.
{2940}
   Few kinds of labour are intrinsically disagreeable; and if any
   is unpleasant, it is mostly because it is monotonous or too
   long continued. On Fourier's plan the monotony will vanish,
   and none need work to excess. Even work regarded as
   intrinsically repugnant ceases to be so when it is not
   regarded as dishonourable, or when it absolutely must be done.
   But should it be thought otherwise, there is one way of
   compensating such work in the phalanstery—let those who
   perform it be paid higher than other workers, and let them
   vary it with work more agreeable, as they will have
   opportunity of doing in the new community."

Fourier died in 1837. After his death the leadership of his disciples, who were still few in number, devolved upon M. Considérant, the editor of 'La Phalange,' a journal which had been started during the previous year for the advocacy of the doctrines of the school. "The activity of the disciples continued unabated. Every anniversary of the birthday of the founder they celebrated by a public dinner. In 1838 the number of guests was only 90; in the following year they had increased to 200; and they afterwards rose to more than 1,000. Every anniversary of his death they visited his grave at the cemetery of Montmartre, and decorated it with wreaths of immortelles. Upon these solemn occasions representatives assembled from all parts of the world, and testified by their presence to the faith they had embraced. In January, 1839, the Librairie Sociale, in the Rue de I' Ecole de Medicine, was established, and the works of Fourier and his disciples, with those of other socialist writers, obtained a large circulation. … In 1840 'La Phalange,' began to appear, as a regular newspaper, three times a week. … Some of its principles began to exercise a powerful influence. Several newspapers in Paris, and throughout the country, demanded social revolution rather than political agitation. The cries of 'Organisation du Travail,' 'Droit au Travail,' that were now beginning to be heard so frequently in after-dinner toasts, and in the mouths of the populace, were traced back to Fourier. Cabet had already published his 'Voyage en Icarie'; Louis Blanc was writing in 'La Revue du Progrès,' and many other shades of socialism and communism were springing into existence, and eagerly competing for public favour. … M. Schneider communicated the theory to his countrymen in Germany, in 1837. The knowledge was farther extended in a series of newspaper articles by M. Gatzkow, in 1842; and separate works treating of the subject were subsequently published by M. Stein and M. Loose. In Spain, it found au active disciple in Don Joachin Abreu; and a plan for realisation was laid before the Regent by Don Manuel de Beloy. In England, Mr. Hugh Doherty was already advocating it in the 'Morning Star.' In 1841, his paper appeared with the new name of 'London Phalanx'; and it was announced that thousands of pounds, and thousands of acres, were at the disposal of the disciples. The Communists of the school of Owen received the new opinions favourably, and wished them every success in their undertaking. In America, Fourier soon obtained followers; the doctrine seems to have been introduced by M. Jean Manesca, who was the secretary of a phalansterian society, established in New York so early as 1838. In 1840, no less than 50 German families started from New York, under the leadership of MM. Gaertner and Hempel, both Fourierists, to establish a colony in Texas. They seem to have prospered for a time at least, for their numbers subsequently rose to 200,000. In October of the same year, the first number of the 'Phalanx' appeared at Buffalo, in New York State. Mr. Albert Brisbane, who had recently returned from Paris, had just published a work on the 'Social Destiny of Man,' which is, to a great extent, an abridgment of M. Considérant's 'Destinée Sociale.' He became the editor of the 'Future,' which replaced the 'Phalanx,' and was published at New York. This paper obtained but a small circulation, and Mr. Brisbane thought it advisable to discontinue it, and, in its stead, to purchase a column in the 'New York Tribune.' … When Mr. Brisbane began his propaganda, there was a 'Society of Friends of Progress' in existence in Boston. It included among its members some of the most eminent men in the intellectual capital of the New World. … A paper called the 'Dial' was started, to which Emerson, Parker, and Margaret Fuller contributed. Their object was to advocate a community upon the principles of Fourier, but so modified as to suit their own peculiar views. The result was the acquisition of Brook Farm. … But the influence of Mr. Brisbane was not limited to indirectly inspiring these eccentric experiments. It was said that in New York alone, in 1843, there were three newspapers reflecting the opinions of Fourier, and no less than forty throughout the rest of the States. Besides this, many reviews were occupied in discussing them. The first association in America to call itself a phalanx was Sylvania. It was begun in October, 1843, and lasted for about a year and a half. There were 150 members, and Mr. Horace Greeley's name appears among the list of its officers; it consisted of 2,300 acres in Pennsylvania. … There were thirty-four undertaken during the Fourier excitement, but of these we have complete statistics of only fourteen. … The years 1846-7 proved fatal to most of them. Indeed, Mr. Brisbane acknowledged in July, 1847, that only three then survived."

   "Horace Greeley, under date of July 1847, wrote to the
   'People's Journal' the following. 'As to the Associationists
   (by their adversaries termed "Fourierites"), with whom I am
   proud to be numbered, their beginnings are yet too recent to
   justify me in asking for their history any considerable space
   in your columns. Briefly, however, the first that was heard in
   this country of Fourier and his views (beyond a little circle
   of perhaps a hundred persons in two or three of our large
   cities, who had picked up some notion of them in France or
   from French writings), was in 1840, when Albert Brisbane
   published his first synopsis of Fourier's theory of industrial
   and household Association. Since then the subject has been
   considerably discussed, and several attempts of some sort have
   been made to actualize Fourier's ideas, generally by men
   destitute alike of capacity, public confidence, energy and
   means. In only one instance that I have heard of was the land
   paid for on which the enterprise commenced; not one of these
   vaunted "Fourier Associations" ever had the means of erecting
   a proper dwelling for so many as three hundred people, even if
   the land had been given them. Of course the time for paying
   the first installment on the mortgage covering their land has
   generally witnessed the dissipation of their sanguine dreams.
{2941}
   Yet there are at least three of these embryo Associations
   still in existence; and, as each of these is in its third or
   fourth year, they may be supposed to give some promise of
   vitality. They are the North American Phalanx, near
   Leedsville, New Jersey; the Trumbull Phalanx, near Braceville,
   Ohio; and the Wisconsin Phalanx, Ceresco, Wisconsin. Each of
   these has a considerable domain nearly or wholly paid for, is
   improving the soil, increasing its annual products, and
   establishing some branches of manufactures. Each, though far
   enough from being a perfect Association, is animated with the
   hope of becoming one, as rapidly as experience, time and means
   will allow.' Of the three Phalanxes thus mentioned as the
   rear-guard of Fourierism, one—the Trumbull—disappeared about
   four months afterward (very nearly at the time of the
   dispersion of Brook Farm), and another—the Wisconsin—lasted
   only a year longer, leaving the North American alone for the
   last four years of its existence."

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1839-1894.
   Proudhon and his doctrines of Anarchism.
   The Individualistic and Communistic Anarchists
   of the present generation.

"Of the Socialistic thinkers who serve as a kind of link between the Utopists and the school of the Socialism of historical evolution, or scientific Socialists, by far the most noteworthy figure is Proudhon, who was born at Besançon in 1809. By birth he belonged to the working class, his father being a brewer's cooper, and he himself as a youth followed the occupation of cowherding. In 1838, however, he published an essay on general grammar, and in 1839 he gained a scholarship to be held for three years, a gift of one Madame Suard to his native town. The result of this advantage was his most important though far from his most voluminous work, published the same year as the essay which Madame Suard's scholars were bound to write: it bore the title of 'What is Property?' (Qu' est-ce que la propriété?) his answer being Property is Robbery (La propriété est Ie vol). As may be imagined, this remarkable essay caused much stir and indignation, and Proudhon was censured by the Besançon Academy for its production, narrowly escaping a prosecution. In 1841 he was tried at Besançon for a letter he wrote to Victor Considérant, the Fourierist, but was acquitted. In 1846 he wrote his 'Philosophie de la Misère' (Philosophy of Poverty), which received an elaborate reply and refutation from Karl Marx. In 1847 he went to Paris. In the Revolution of 1848 he showed himself a vigorous controversialist, and was elected Deputy for the Seine. … After the failure of the revolution of '48, Proudhon was imprisoned for three years, during which time he married a young woman of the working class. In 1858 he fully developed his system of 'Mutualism' in his last work, entitled 'Justice in the Revolution and the Church.' In consequence of the publication of this book he had to retire to Brussels, but was amnestied in 1860, came back to France and died at Passy in 1865."

"In anarchism we have the extreme antithesis of socialism and communism. The socialist desires so to extend the sphere of the state that it shall embrace all the more important concerns of life. The communist, at least of the older school, would make the sway of authority and the routine which follows therefrom universal. The anarchist, on the other hand, would banish all forms of authority and have only a system of the most perfect liberty. The anarchist is an extreme individualist. … Anarchism, as a social theory, was first elaborately formulated by Proudhon. In the first part of his work, 'What is Property?' he briefly stated the doctrine and gave it the name 'anarchy,' absence of a master or sovereign. In that connection he said: 'In a given society the authority of man over man is inversely proportional to the stage of intellectual development which that society has reached. … Property and royalty have been crumbling to pieces ever since the world began. As man seeks justice in equality, so society seeks order in anarchy.' About twelve years before Proudhon published his views Josiah Warren reached similar conclusions in America. But as the Frenchman possessed the originality necessary to the construction of a social philosophy, we must regard him as altogether the chief authority upon scientific anarchism. … Proudhon's social ideal was that of perfect individual liberty. Those who have thought him a communist or socialist have wholly mistaken his meaning. … Proudhon believed that if the state in all its departments were abolished, if authority were eradicated from society, and if the principle of laissez faire were made universal in its operation, every form of social ill would disappear. According to his views men are wicked and ignorant because, either directly or indirectly, they have been forced to be so: it is because they have been subjected to the will of another, or are able to transfer the evil results of their acts to another. If the individual, after reaching the age of discretion, could be freed from repression and compulsion in every form and know that he alone is responsible for his acts and must bear their consequences, he would become thrifty, prudent, energetic; in short he would always see and follow his highest interests. He would always respect the rights of others; that is, act justly. Such individuals could carry on all the great industrial enterprises of to-day either separately or by voluntary association. No compulsion, however, could be used to force one to fulfil a contract or remain in an association longer than his interest dictated. Thus we should have a perfectly free play of enlightened self-interests: equitable competition, the only natural form of social organization. … Proudhon's theory is the sum and substance of scientific anarchism. How closely have the American anarchists adhered to the teachings of their master? One group, with its centre at Boston and with branch associations in a few other cities, is composed of faithful disciples of Proudhon. They believe that he is the leading thinker among those who have found the source of evil in society and the remedy therefor. They accept his analysis of social phenomena and follow his lead generally, though not implicitly. They call themselves Individualistic Anarchists, and claim to be the only class who are entitled to that name. {2942} They do not attempt to organize very much, but rely upon 'active individuals, working here and there all over the country.' It is supposed that they may number in all some five thousand adherents in the United States. … They, like Proudhon, consider the government of the United States to be as oppressive and worthless as any of the European monarchies. Liberty prevails here no more than there. In some respects the system of majority rule is more obnoxious than that of monarchy. It is quite as tyrannical, and in a republic it is more difficult to reach the source of the despotism and remove it. They regard the entire machinery of elections as worthless and a hindrance to prosperity. They are opposed to political machines of all kinds. They never vote or perform the duties of citizens in any way, if it can be avoided. … Concerning the family relation, the anarchists believe that civil marriage should be abolished and 'autonomistic' marriage substituted. This means that the contracting parties should agree to live together as long as it seems best to do so, and that the partnership should be dissolved whenever either one desires it. Still, they would give the freest possible play to love and honor as restraining motives. … The Individualistic Anarchists … profess to have very little in common with the Internationalists. The latter are Communistic Anarchists. They borrow their analysis of existing social conditions from Marx, or more accurately from the 'communistic manifesto' issued by Marx and Engels in 1847. In the old International Workingman's association they constituted the left wing, which, with its leader, Bakunine, was expelled in 1872. Later the followers of Marx, the socialists proper, disbanded, and since 1883 the International in this country has been controlled wholly by the anarchists. Their views and methods are similar to those which Bakunine wished to carry out by means of his Universal Alliance, and which exist more or less definitely in the minds of Russian Nihilists. Like Bakunine, they desire to organize an international revolutionary movement of the laboring classes, to maintain it by means of conspiracy and, as soon as possible, to bring about a general insurrection. In this way, with the help of explosives, poisons and murderous weapons of all kinds, they hope to destroy all existing institutions, ecclesiastical, civil and economic. Upon the smoking ruins they will erect the new and perfect society. Only a few weeks or months will be necessary to make the transition. During that time the laborers will take possession of all lands, buildings, instruments of production and distribution. With these in their possession, and without the interposition of government, they will organize into associations or groups for the purpose of carrying on the work of society."

      H. L. Osgood,
      Scientific Anarchism
      (Political Science Quarterly, March, 1889).

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D.1840-1848.
Louis Blanc and his scheme of State-aided Co-operation.

"St. Simonism would destroy individual liberty, would weight the State with endless responsibilities, and the whole details of production, distribution, and transportation. It would besides be a despotism if it could be carried out, and not a beneficent despotism, considering the weakness and imperfection of men. So objected Louis Blanc to St. Simonism, in his 'Organisation du Travail' (1840), whilst bringing forward a scheme of his own, which, he contends, would be at once simple, immediately applicable, and of indefinite extensibility; in fact a full and final solution of the Social Problem. The large system of production, the large factory and workshop, he saw was necessary. Large capital, too, was necessary, but the large capitalist was not. On the contrary, capitalism—capital in the hands of private individuals, with, as a necessary consequence, unbounded competition, was ruinous for the working classes, and not good for the middle classes, including the capitalists themselves, because the larger capitalists, if sufficiently astute or unscrupulous, can destroy the smaller ones by under-selling, as in fact they constantly did. His own scheme was what is now called co·operative production, with the difference that instead of voluntary effort, he looked to the State to give it its first motion, by advancing the capital without interest, by drawing up the necessary regulations, and by naming the hierarchy of workers for one year, after which the co-operative groups were to elect their own officers. He thought that if a number of these co-operative associations were thus launched State-aided in each of the greater provinces of industry, they could compete successfully with the private capitalist, and would beat him within no very long time. By competition he trusted to drive him out in a moderate time, and without shock to industry in general. But having conquered the capitalist by competition, he wished competition to cease between the different associations in any given industry; as he expressed it, he would 'avail himself of the arm of competition to destroy competition.' … The net proceeds each year would be divided into three parts: the first to be divided equally amongst the members of the association; the second to be devoted partly to the support of the old, the sick, the infirm, partly to the alleviation of crises which would weigh on other industries; the third to furnish 'instruments of labour' to those who might wish to join the association. … Capitalists would be invited into the associations, and would receive the current rate of interest at least, which interest would be guaranteed to them out of the national budget; but they would only participate in the net surplus in the character of workers. … Such was the scheme of Louis Blanc, which, in 1848, when member of the Provisional Government in France, he had the opportunity, rarely granted to the social system-maker, of partially trying in practice. He was allowed to establish a number of associations of working men by the aid of Government subsidies. The result did not realize expectations. After a longer or shorter period of struggling, every one of the associations failed; while, on the other hand, a number of co-operative associations founded by the workmen's own capital, as also some industrial partnerships founded by capitalists, on Louis Blanc's principle of distribution of the net proceeds, were successful. … I do not refer to the 'ateliers nationaux,' [see FRANCE: A. D. 1848] which were not countenanced by Louis Blanc; but to certain associations of working men who received advances from the Government on the principle advocated in his book. There were not many of these at first. L. Blanc congratulated himself on being able to start a few: after the second rising the Government subsidized fifty-six associations, all but one of which had failed by 1875."

"In 1848 the Constituent Assembly voted, in July, that is, after the revolution of June, a subsidy of three millions of francs in order to encourage the formation of working men's associations. Six hundred applications, half coming from Paris alone, were made to the commission entrusted with the distribution of the funds, of which only fifty-six were accepted. In Paris, thirty associations, twenty-seven of which were composed of working men, comprising in all 434 associates, received 890,500 francs. Within six months, three of the Parisian associations failed; and of the 434 associates, seventy-four resigned, fifteen were excluded, and there were eleven changes of managers. In July, 1851, eighteen associations had ceased to exist. One year later, twelve others had vanished. In 1865 four were still extant, and had been more or less successful. In 1875 there was but a single one left, that of the file-cutters, which, as Citizen Finance remarked, was unrepresented at the Congress."

In 1840, Etienne Cabet published in France an Utopian romance, the "Voyage en Icarie," which awakened remarkable interest, very quickly. He described in this romance an ideal community, and eight years later, having continued the propagation of his social theories in the meantime, he undertook to carry them into practice. A tract of land was secured in Texas, and in February, 1848, sixty-nine emigrants—the advance guard of what promised to be a great army of Icarians —set sail from Havre for New Orleans. They were followed during the year by others—a few hundreds in all; but even before the later comers reached New Orleans the pioneers of the movement had abandoned their Texas lands, disappointed in all their expectations and finding themselves utterly unprepared for the work they had to do, the expenditures they had to make, and the hardships they had to endure. They retreated to New Orleans and were joined there by Cabet. It happened that the Mormons, at this time, were deserting their town of Nauvoo, in Illinois, and were making their hejira to Salt Lake City. Cabet struck a bargain with the retreating disciples of Joseph Smith, which gave his community a home ready-made. The followers who adhered to him were conveyed to Nauvoo in the spring; but two hundred more gave up the socialistic experiment, and either remained at New Orleans or returned to France. For a few years the colony was fairly prosperous at Nauvoo. Good schools were maintained. "Careful training in manners and morals, and in Icarian principles and precepts, is work with which the schools are especially charged. The printing office is a place of great activity. Newspapers are printed in English, French and German. Icarian school-books are published. … A library of 5,000 or 6,000 volumes, chiefly standard French works, seems to be much patronized. … Frequent theatrical entertainments, social dances, and lectures are common means of diversion. … These families … are far from the condition of the happy Icarians of the 'Voyage,' but considering the difficulties they have encountered they must be accredited with having done remarkably well." Dissensions arose however. In 1856 Cabet found himself opposed by a majority of the community. In November of that year he withdrew, with about 180 adherents, and went to St. Louis, where he died suddenly, a few days after his arrival. Those who had accompanied him settled themselves upon an estate called Cheltenham, six miles west of St. Louis; but they did not prosper, and were dispossessed, by the foreclosure of a mortgage, in 1864, and the last of the community was dispersed. The section left at Nauvoo held no title to lands there, after Cabet separated from them, and were forced to remove in 1860. They established themselves on a tract of land in Adams county, southwestern Iowa, and there Icaria, in a slender and modest form, has been maintained, through many vicissitudes, to the present day. A new secession, occurring 1879-83, sent forth a young colony which settled at Cloverdale, California, and took the name of the Icaria-Speranza Community, borrowing the name " Speranza" from another Utopian romance by Pierre Leroux.

On the 29th day of September, 1841, articles of association were made and executed which gave existence to an Association bearing the name and style of "The Subscribers to the Brook Farm Institute of Agriculture and Education." By the second of these articles, it was declared to be the object of the Association "to purchase such estates as may be required for the establishment and continuance of an agricultural, literary, and scientific school or college, to provide such lands and houses, animals, libraries and apparatus, as may be found expedient or advantageous to the main purpose of the Association." By article six, "the Association guarantees to each shareholder the interest of five per cent. annually on the amount of stock held by him in the Association." By article seven, "the shareholders on their part, for themselves, their heirs and assigns, do renounce all claim on any profits accruing to the Association for the use of their capital invested in the stock of the Association, except five per cent. interest on the amount of stock held by them." By article eight it was provided that "every subscriber may receive the tuition of one pupil for every share held by him, instead of five per cent. interest." The subscribers to these Articles, for shares ranging in amount from $500 to $1,500, were George Ripley, Nathaniel Hawthorne, Minot Pratt, Charles A. Dana, William B. Allen, Sophia W. Ripley, Maria T. Pratt, Sarah F. Stearns, Marianne Ripley, and Charles O. Whitmore. "The 'Brook Farm Association for Education and Agriculture' was put in motion in the spring of 1841. There was no difficulty in collecting a company of men and women large enough to make a beginning. One third of the subscriptions was actually paid in, Mr'. Ripley pledging his library for four hundred dollars of his amount. With the sum subscribed a farm of a little less than two hundred acres was bought for ten thousand five hundred dollars, in West Roxbury, about nine miles from Boston. The site was a pleasant one, not far from Theodore Parker's meeting-house in Spring Street, and in close vicinity to some of the most wealthy, capable, and zealous friends of the enterprise. {2944} It was charmingly diversified with hill and hollow, meadow and upland. … Later experience showed its unfitness for lucrative tillage, but for an institute of education, a semi-æsthetic, humane undertaking, nothing could be better. This is the place to say, once for all, with the utmost possible emphasis, that Brook Farm was not a 'community' in the usual sense of the term. There was no element of 'socialism' in it. There was about it no savor of antinomianism, no taint of pessimism, no aroma, however faint, of nihilism. It was wholly unlike any of the 'religious' associations which had been established in generations before, or any of the atheistic or mechanical arrangements which were attempted simultaneously or afterwards. … The institution of Brook Farm, though far from being 'religious' in the usual sense of the word, was enthusiastically religious in spirit and purpose. … There was no theological creed, no ecclesiastical form, no inquisition into opinions, no avowed reliance on super-human aid. The thoughts of all were heartily respected; and while some listened with sympathy to Theodore Parker, others went to church nowhere, or sought the privileges of their own communion. … A sympathizing critic published in the 'Dial' (January, 1842) an account of the enterprise as it then appeared: … 'They have bought a farm in order to make agriculture the basis of their life, it being the most direct and simple in relation to nature. … The plan of the Community, as an economy, is, in brief, this: for all who have property to take stock, and receive a fixed interest thereon; then to keep house or board in common, as they shall severally desire, at the cost of provisions purchased at wholesale, or raised on the farm; and for all to labor in community and be paid at a certain rate an hour, choosing their own number of hours and their own kind of work. With the results of this labor and their interest they are to pay their board, and also purchase whatever else they require, at cost, at the warehouses of the community, which are to be filled by the community as such. To perfect this economy, in the course of time they must have all trades and all modes of business carried on among themselves, from the lowest mechanical trade which contributes to the health and comfort of life, to the finest art which adorns it with food or drapery for the mind. All labor, whether bodily or intellectual, is to be paid at the same rate of wages, on the principle that, as the labor becomes merely bodily, it is a greater sacrifice to the individual laborer to give his time to it.' … The daily life at Brook Farm was, of course, extremely simple, even homely. … There was at no time too much room for the one hundred and fifty inmates. … The highest moral refinement prevailed in all departments. In the morning, every species of industrial activity went on. In the afternoon, the laborers changed their garments and became teachers, often of abstruse branches of knowledge. The evenings were devoted to such recreations as suited the taste of the individual. The farm was never thoroughly tilled, from the want of sufficient hands. A good deal of hay was raised, and milk was produced from a dozen cows. … Some worked all day in the field, some only a few hours, some none at all, being otherwise employed, or by some reason disqualified. The most cultivated worked the hardest. … The serious difficulties were financial. … As early as 1843 the wisdom of making changes in the direction of scientific arrangement was agitated; in the first months of 1844 the reformation was seriously begun," and the model of the new organization was Fourier's "Phalanx." "The most powerful instrument in the conversion of Brook Farm was Mr. Albert Brisbane. He had studied the system [of Fourier] in France, and made it his business to introduce it here. … In March, 1845, the Brook Farm Phalanx was incorporated by the Legislature of Massachusetts. The Constitution breathes a spirit of hope which is pathetic at this distance of time. … The publication of the Constitution was followed in the summer by 'The Harbinger,' which became the leading journal of Fourierism in the country. The first number appeared on June 14th. … Its list of contributors was about the most remarkable ever presented. Besides Ripley, Dwight, Dana, and Rykman, of Brook Farm, there were Brisbane, Channing, Curtis [George W., who had lived at Brook Farm for two years], Cranch, Godwin, Greeley, Lowell, Whittier, Story, Higginson, to say nothing of gentlemen less known. … 'The Harbinger' lived nearly four years, a little more than two at Brook Farm, less than two in New York. The last number was issued on the 10th of February, 1849. … It is unnecessary to speculate on the causes of the failure at Brook Farm. There was every reason why it should fail; there was no earthly, however much heavenly reason there may have been, why it should succeed." In August, 1847, a meeting of stockholders and creditors authorized the transfer of the property of the Brook Farm Phalanx to a board of three trustees, "for the purpose and with the power of disposing of it to the best advantage of all concerned." And so the most attractive of all social experiments came to an end.

   Profit sharing was first practised systematically by M.
   Leclaire, a Parisian house-painter and decorator. Beginning to
   admit his workmen to participation in the profits of his
   business in 1842, he continued the system, with modifications
   and developments, until his death in 1872. His financial
   success was signal. It was not due to mere good fortune.
   Leclaire was a man of high business capacity. … In France, the
   increase in the number of participating firms, from 1855
   onwards, has been comparatively steady, the number now [1889]
   standing between 55 and 60. In Switzerland, the 10 instances,
   dating ten years back or more, have no followers recorded in
   the sources of information open to me. This fact may be
   explained in some degree by the circumstances that Dr.
   Böhmert's work, the chief authority thus far on this subject,
   was published in 1878, and that the principal investigations
   since that time have been concerned mainly with France,
   England, and the United States. This remark will apply to
   Germany also; but the prevalence there of socialism has
   probably been an important reason for the small and slow
   increase in the number of firms making a trial of the system
   of participation. …
{2945}
   In England, the abandonment of their noted trials of
   industrial partnership by the Messrs. Briggs and by Fox, Head
   and Co. in 1874 checked the advance of the scheme to a more
   general trial; but in the last five years, 7 houses have
   entered upon the plan. In the United States, the experience of
   the Messrs. Brewster and Co. exerted a similar influence, but
   by 1882 6 concerns had introduced profit sharing; these were
   followed by 11 in 1886, and in 1887 by 12 others. There are,
   then, at least 29 cases of profit sharing in actual operation
   at this time [1889] in this country, which began in 1887,
   1886, or 1882. As compared with France, Germany, and
   Switzerland, the United States show a smaller number of cases
   of long standing, and a considerably larger number of
   instances of adoption of the system in the last three years
   [1887-1889]. … Not by mere chance, apparently, the two
   republics of France and the United States show the longest
   lists of profit sharing firms."

      See, also,
      SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1859-1887.
      The "Social Palace" of M. Godin at Guise.

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1843-1874.
Ebenezer and Amana, the communities of the
"True Inspiration Congregations."

In 1843 the first detachment of a company of immigrants, belonging to a sect called the "True Inspiration Congregations" which had existed in Germany for more than a century, was brought to America and settled on a tract of land in Western New York, near the city of Buffalo. Others followed, until more than a thousand persons were gathered in the community which they called "Ebenezer." They were a thrifty, industrious, pious people, who believed that their leader, Christian Metz, and some others, were "inspired instruments," through whom Divine messages came to them. These messages have all been carefully preserved and printed. Communism appears to have been no part of their religious doctrine, but practically forced upon them, as affording the only condition under which they could dwell simply and piously together. In 1854 they were "commanded by inspiration" to remove to the West. Their land at Ebenezer was advantageously sold, having been reached by the widening boundaries of Buffalo, and they purchased a large tract in Iowa. The removal was accomplished gradually during the next ten years, and in their new settlement, comprising seven villages, with the common name, Amana, the community is said to be remarkably thriving. In 1874 Amana contained a population of 1,485 men, women and children.

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1843-1883.
   Karl Marx.
   His theory of Capital.
   His socialistic influence.

"The greatest and most influential name in the history of socialism is unquestionably Karl Marx. … Like Ferdinand Lassalle, he was of Jewish extraction. He was born at Treves in 1818, his father being a lawyer in that town; and he studied at Berlin and Bonn, but neglected the specialty of law, which he nominally adopted, for the more congenial subjects of philosophy and history. Marx was a zealous student, and apparently an adherent of Hegelianism, but soon gave up his intention of following an academic career as a teacher of philosophy, and joined the staff of the Rhenish Gazette, published at Cologne as an organ of the extreme democracy. While thus engaged, however, he found that his knowledge of economics required to be enlarged and corrected, and accordingly in 1843, after marrying the sister of the Prussian Minister, Von Westfalen, he removed to Paris, where he applied himself to the study of the questions to which his life and activity were henceforward to be devoted so entirely. Here also he began to publish those youthful writings which must be reckoned among the most powerful expositions of the early form of German socialism. With Arnold Ruge he edited the 'Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher.' In 1845 he was expelled from Paris and settled in Brussels, where he published his 'Discours sur Je Libre ÉChange,' and his criticism of Proudhon's 'Philosophie de la Misère,' entitled, 'Misère de la Philosophie.' In Paris he had already met Friedrich Engels, who was destined to be his lifelong and loyal friend and companion-in-arms, and who in 1845 published his important work, 'The Condition of the Working Class in England.' The two friends found that they had arrived at a complete identity of opinion; and an opportunity soon occurred for an emphatic expression of their common views. A society of socialists, a kind of forerunner of the International, had established itself in London, and had been attracted by the new theories of Marx and the spirit of strong and uncompromising conviction with which he advocated them. They entered into relation with Marx and Engels; the society was re-organised under the name of the Communist League; and a congress was held, which resulted (1847) in the framing of the 'Manifesto of the Communist Party,' which was published in most of the languages of Western Europe, and is the first proclamation of that revolutionary socialism armed with all the learning of the nineteenth century, but expressed with the fire and energy of the agitator, which in the International and other movements has so startled the world. During the revolutionary troubles in 1848 Marx returned to Germany, and along with his comrades, Engels, Wolff, &c., he supported the most advanced democracy in the 'New Rhenish Gazette.' In 1849 he settled in London, where he spent his after-life in the elaboration of his economic views and in the realisation of his revolutionary programme. During this period he published 'Zur Kritik der politischen Oekonomie' (1859), and the first volume of his great work on capital, 'Das Kapital' (1867). He died in London, March 14, 1883."

   "As to the collectivist creed, Marx looks upon history as
   ruled by material interests. He borrows from Hegel the idea of
   development in history, and sees in the progress of
   civilization merely the development of economic production,
   which involves a conflict of classes. The older socialists
   were idealists, and constructed a perfect social system. Marx
   simply studies economic changes, and their effects on the
   conflict of classes, as a basis for predicting the future.
   Starting from the principle that there are no permanent
   economic laws, but merely transitory phases, a principle
   denied by the modern French economists, he does not criticise
   but explains our modern capitalistic industrial system, and
   its effects on society. Formerly, says Engels, an artisan
   owned his tools and also the product of his labor. If he chose
   to employ wage earners, these were merely apprentices, and
   worked not so much for wages, but in order to learn the trade.
{2946}
   All this is changed by the introduction of capital and the
   modern industrial system. Marx explains the origin of capital
   by saying that it was formerly the result of conquest, the
   pillage of peasants, and of colonies, and the secularization
   of church property. However, he does not hold the present
   capitalists to be robbers. He does not deal with the
   capitalist but with capital. His primary theory then is that
   profit on capital, on which the possibility of accumulating
   wealth depends, is due to the fact that the laborer does not
   receive the entire product of his labor as his reward, but
   that the capitalist takes the lion's share. Under the old
   industrial system, the laborer's tools, his means of
   production, belonged to him. Now they are owned by the
   capitalist. Owing to the improvement of machinery, and the
   invention of steam-power, the laborer can no longer apply his
   energy in such a way as to be fully remunerated. He now must
   sell his muscular energy in the market. The capitalist who
   buys it offers him no just reward. He gives the laborers only
   a part of the product of his labors, pocketing the remainder
   as interest on capital, and returns for risks incurred. The
   laborer is cheated out of the difference between his wages and
   the full product of his labor, while the capitalist's share is
   increased, day by day, by this stolen amount. 'Production by
   all, distribution among a few.' This is the gist of Marx's
   theories. Capital is not the result of intelligent savings. It
   is simply an amount of wealth appropriated by the capitalist
   from the laborer's share in his product."

J. Bourdeau, German Socialism (New Englander and Yale Review, September, 1891, translated from Revue des Deux Mondes).

"The principal lever of Marx against the present form of industry, and of the distribution of its results, is the doctrine that value—that is, value in exchange—is created by labor alone. Now this value, as ascertained by exchanges in the market or measured by some standard, does not actually all go to the laborer, in the shape of wages. Perhaps a certain number of yards of cotton cloth, for instance, when sold, actually pay for the wages of laborers and leave a surplus, which the employer appropriates. Perhaps six hours of labor per diem might enable the laborer to create products enough to support himself and to rear up an average family; but at present he has to work ten hours for his subsistence. Where do the results of the four additional hours go? To the employer, and the capitalist from whom the employer borrows money; or to the employer who also is a capitalist and invests his capital in his works, with a view to a future return. The laborer works, and brings new workmen into the world, who in turn do the same. The tendency of wages being toward an amount just sufficient for the maintenance of the labor, there is no hope for the future class of laborers. Nor can competition or concurrence help the matter. A concurrence of capitalists will tend to reduce wages to the minimum, if other conditions remain as they were before. A concurrence of laborers may raise wages above the living point for a while; but these fall again, through the stimulus which high wages give to the increase of population. A general fall of profits may lower the price of articles used by laborers; but the effect of this is not to add in the end to the laborer's share. He can live at less expense, it is true, but he will need and will get lower wages. Thus the system of labor and capital is a system of robbery. The capitalist is an 'expropriator' who must be expropriated, as Marx expresses it. A just system can never exist as long as wages are determined by free contract between laborers and employers; that is, as long as the means of carrying on production are in private hands. The only cure for the evils of the present industrial system is the destruction of private property—so far, at least, as it is used in production; and the substitution of the state, or of bodies or districts controlled by the state, for the private owner of the means of production. Instead of a number of classes in society, especially instead of a bourgeoisie and a proletariat, there must be but one class, which works directly or indirectly for the state, and receives as wages what the state decides to give to them. The state, it is taken for granted, will give in return for hours of labor as much as can be afforded, consistently with the interests of future labor and with the expenses necessary for carrying on the state system itself."

The Oneida and Wallingford communities of Perfectionists are followers of doctrines taught by one John Humphrey Noyes, a native of Vermont, who began his preaching at Putney, in that state, about 1834. The community at Oneida, in Madison county, New York, was formed in 1848, and had a struggling existence for many years; but gradually several branches of industry, such as the making of traps, travelling bags, and the like, were successfully established, and the community became prosperous. Everything is owned in common, and they extend the community system" beyond property to persons." That is to say, there is no marriage among them, and "exclusiveness in regard to women and children" is displaced by what they claim to be a scientific regulation of the intercourse of the sexes. In the early years of the Oneida Community several other settlements of the followers of Noyes were attempted; but one at Wallingford, Connecticut, is the only survivor.

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1848-1883.
Schulze-Delitzsch and the Co-operative movement in Germany.

   "Hermann Schulze was born at Delitzsch, in Prussian Saxony,
   August 29th, 1808. He studied jurisprudence at Leipzig and
   Halle, and afterwards occupied judicial posts under the
   Government, becoming District Judge at Delitzsch in 1841, a
   position which he held until 1850. In 1848, he was elected to
   the Prussian National Assembly, and the following year he
   became a member of the Second Chamber, in which he sat as
   Schulze-Delitzsch, a name which has since adhered to him.
   Being a member of the Progressist party, he proved a thorn in
   the Government's flesh, and he was made District Judge at
   Wreschen, but he returned later to the Prussian Diet, and
   became also a member of the North German and German
   Reichstags.
{2947}
   For more than thirty years Schulze headed the co·operative
   movement in Germany, but his self-sacrifice impoverished him,
   and although his motto as a social reformer had always been
   'Self-help,' as opposed to Lassalle's 'State-help,' he was
   compelled in his declining years to accept a gift of £7,000
   from his friends. Schulze died honoured if not famous on April
   29th, 1883. Schulze-Delitzsch is the father of the
   co-operative movement in Germany. He had watched the
   development of this movement in England, and as early as 1848
   he had lifted up his voice in espousal of co-operative
   principles in his own country. Though a Radical, Schulze was
   no Socialist, and he believed co-operation to be a powerful
   weapon wherewith to withstand the steady advance of
   Socialistic doctrines in Germany. Besides carrying on
   agitation by means of platform-speaking, he published various
   works on the subject, the chief of which are: 'Die arbeitenden
   Klassen und das Associationswesen in Deutschland, als Programm
   zu einem deutschen Congress,' (Leipzig, 1858); 'Kapitel zu
   einem deutschen Arbeitercatechismus,' (Leipzig, 1863); 'Die
   Abschaffung des geschäftlichen Risico durch Herrn Lassalle,'
   (Berlin, 1865); 'Die Entwickelung des Genossenschaften in
   einzelnen Gewerbszweigen,' (Leipzig, 1873). Schulze advocated
   the application of the co-operative principle to other
   organisations than the English stores, and especially to loan,
   raw material, and industrial associations. He made a practical
   beginning at his own home and the adjacent town of Eilenburg,
   where in 1849 he established two co-operative associations of
   shoemakers and joiners, the object of which was the purchase
   and supply to members of raw material at cost price. In 1850
   he formed a Loan Association (Vorschussverein) at Delitzsch on
   the principle of monthly payments, and in the following year a
   similar association on a larger scale at Eilenburg. For a long
   time Schulze had the field of agitation to himself, and the
   consequence was that the more intelligent sections of the
   working classes took to his proposals readily. Another reason
   for his success, however, was the fact that the movement was
   practical and entirely unpolitical. It was a movement from
   which the Socialistic element was absent, and one in which,
   therefore, the moneyed classes could safely co-operate.
   Schulze, in fact, sought to introduce reforms social rather
   than Socialistic. The fault of his scheme as a regenerative
   agency was that it did not affect the masses of the people,
   and thus the roots of the social question were not touched.
   Schulze could only look for any considerable support to small
   tradesmen and artisans, to those who were really able to help
   themselves if' shown the way. But his motto of 'Self-help' was
   an unmeaning gospel to the vast class of people who were not
   in this happy position. … The movement neared a turning point
   in 1858. In that year Schulze identified himself with the
   capitalist party at a Congress of German economists, held at
   Gotha, and he soon began to lose favour with the popular
   classes. The high-water mark was reached in 1860, at which
   time the co-operative associations had a membership of
   200,000, and the business done amounted to 40,000,000 thalers
   or about £6,000,000; the capital raised by contribution or
   loan approaching a third of this sum. In the year 1864 no
   fewer than 800 Loan and Credit Associations had been
   established, while in 1861 the number of Raw Material and
   Productive Associations was 172, and that of Co-operative
   Stores 66. Possibly the movement might have continued to
   prosper, even though Schulze was suspected of sympathy with
   the capitalists, had no rival appeared on the scene. But a
   rival did appear, and he was none other than Lassalle."

The co-operative societies in Germany on the Schulze-Delitzsch plan have been regularly organized into an association. "The number of societies in this association increased from 171 in 1859, to 771 in 1864, and was 3,822 in 1885. At the last named date they were distributed thus: loan and credit societies, 1,965; co-operative societies in various branches of trade, 1,146; co-operative store societies, 678; building societies, 33. At the end of 1884 the membership was 1,500,000. Of their own capital, in shares and reserve funds, they possessed 300,000,000 marks; and of borrowed capital 500,000,000 marks."

   "The Familistère founded at Guise (Aisne), France, by the late
   M. Jean Baptiste Andre Godin, has a world-wide reputation. The
   Social Palace itself, a marvel of ingenious philanthropy,
   which realizes successfully some of the characteristic ideas
   of Fourier, … entitles M. Godin to a high place among the
   social reformers of the 19th century. He was the son of a
   worker in iron, and even before his apprenticeship had
   conceived the idea that he was destined to set a great example
   to the industrial world. … The business carried on in the
   great foundries at Guise is the manufacture of cast-iron wares
   for the kitchen and general house use, and of heating
   apparatus of various kinds. M. Godin was the first man in
   France to use cast iron in making stoves, in place of sheet
   iron; this was but one example of his inventive powers. He
   began in 1840, with 20 workmen, the manufacture which employed
   in 1883 over 1,400 at Guise and 300 in the branch
   establishment at Laeken, in Belgium. From the beginning there
   was an organization for mutual aid among the workmen, assisted
   by the proprietor. The Familistère was opened in 1860; but it
   was not until 1877, owing to the obstacles presented by the
   French law to the plan which he had in mind, that M. Godin
   introduced participation by the workmen in the profits of his
   gigantic establishment. … In 1880 the establishment became a
   joint-stock company with limited liability, and the system of
   profit sharing was begun which still [1889] obtains there. M.
   Godin's main idea was gradually to transfer the ownership of
   the business and of the associated Familistère into the hands
   of his workmen. … No workman is admitted to participation [in
   the profit-sharing] who is not the owner already of a share.
   But the facility of purchase is great: and the interest on his
   stock adds materially to the income of the average workman. M.
   Godin was gradually disposing of his capital to the workmen up
   to his death [in 1888], and this process will go on until
   Madame Godin simply retains the direction of the business. But
   when this shall have happened, the oldest workmen shall, in
   like manner, release their shares to the younger, in order to
   keep the ownership of the establishment in the hands of the
   actual workers from generation to generation. In this way a
   true cooperative productive house will be formed within ten or
   a dozen years. M. Godin's capital in 1880 was 4,600,000
   francs; the whole capital of the house in 1883 had risen to
   6,000,000 francs, and of this sum 2,753,500 francs were held
   by various employees in October, 1887.
{2948}
   The organization of the workmen as participators forms quite a
   hierarchy," at the head of which stand the "associates." "The
   'associates' must own at least 500 francs' worth of stock;
   they must be engaged in work, and have their home in the
   Familistère: they elect new members themselves. … They will
   furnish Madame Godin's successor from their ranks."

In April, 1859, M. Godin began to realize the most important of his ideas of social reform, namely, "the substitution for our present isolated dwellings of homes and dwellings combined into Social Palaces, where, to use M. Godin's expressive words, 'the equivalents of riches,' that is the most essential advantages which wealth bestows on our common life, may be brought within reach of the mass of the population. In April, 1859, he laid the foundation of the east wing of such a palace, the Familistère of Guise. It was covered in in September of the same year, completed in 1860, and fully occupied in the year following. In 1862 the central building was commenced. It was completed in 1864 and occupied in 1865. The offices in front of the east wing were built at the same time as that wing—in 1860. The other appendages of the palace were added in the following order—the nursery and babies' school in 1866; the schools and theatre in 1869; and the baths and wash-houses in 1870. The west wing was begun in 1877, finished in 1879, and fully occupied in 1880. Till its completion the inhabitants of the Familistère numbered about 900 persons; at present [1880] it accommodates 1,200. Its population therefore already assumes the proportion of a considerable village; while its style of construction would easily allow of the addition of quadrangles, communicating with the north-eastern and north-western angles of the central building, by which the number of occupants might be raised to 1,800 or 2,000, without in any way interfering with the enjoyments of the present inmates, supposing circumstances made it desirable to increase their numbers to this extent. … Of the moral effect upon the population of the free and yet social life which a unitary dwelling makes possible, M. Godin wrote in 1874:—'For the edification of those who believe that the working classes are undisciplined or undisciplinable, I must say that there has not been in the Familistère since its foundation a single police case, and yet the palace contains 900 persons; meetings in it are frequent and numerous; and the most active intercourse and relations exist among all the inhabitants.' And this is not the consequence of any strict control exercised over the inmates. On the contrary, the whole life of the Familistère is one of carefully-guarded individual liberty, which is prevented from degenerating into license simply by the influence of public opinion among its inhabitants, who, administering their own internal affairs as a united body, exercise a disciplinary action upon each other. There are no gates, beyond doors turning on a central pivot and never fastened, introduced in winter for the sake of warmth; no porter to mark the time of entrance or egress of anyone. Every set of apartments is accessible to its occupants at any hour of the day or night, with the same facility as if it opened out of a well-lighted street, since all the halls of the Familistère are lighted during the whole night. And as there are ten different entrances, each freely communicating with the whole building, it would be less easy for one inmate to spy the movements of another than it is for the neighbours in an ordinary street to keep an outlook on each other's actions. … But one factor, and I conceive a very important factor, in this effort, must not be lost sight of, namely that the Social Palace at Guise is not a home provided for the poor, by a benevolence which houses its own fine clay in its isolated dwelling over against the abodes where those of coarser clay are clustered together. It is a home for M. Godin and members of his family, the heads of departments and other persons connected with him, whose means rise considerably above those of the workers, no less than for the workers in the foundry—a mansion of which it is the glory that all the rooms on every floor originally differ only by a few inches of height, and such slight differences in the height and width of doors and windows as require careful observation to detect, and that all participate alike, according to the quarter of the sky to which they look, in air and light. So that the difference of accommodation is [practically reduced to the number of square feet which the means of the inmate enables him to occupy, and the internal arrangement of the space at his disposal."

      ALSO IN:
      E. Howland,
      The Social Palace at Guise, and
      The Familistère at Guise
      (Harper's Monthly Magazine, April, 1872,
      and November, 1885).

"For the origin of nihilism [which had its period of activity between 1860 and 1870] we must go back half a century to a little company of gifted young men, most of whom rose to great distinction, who used at that time to meet together at the house of a rich merchant in Moscow, for the discussion of philosophy, politics and religion. They were of the most various views. Some of them became Liberal leaders, and wanted Russia to follow the constitutional development of the West nations; others became founders of the new Slavophil party, contending that Russia should be no imitator, but develop her own native institutions in her own way; and there were at least two among them—Alexander Herzen and Michael Bakunin—who were to be prominent exponents of revolutionary socialism. But they all owned at this period one common master—Hegel. Their host was an ardent Hegelian, and his young friends threw themselves into the study of Hegel with the greatest zeal. Herzen himself tells us in his autobiography how assiduously they read everything that came from his pen, how they devoted nights and weeks to clearing up the meaning of single passages in his writings, and how greedily they devoured every new pamphlet that issued from the German press on any part of his system. From Hegel, Herzen and Bakunin were led, exactly like Marx and the German Young Hegelians, to Feuerbach, and from Feuerbach to socialism. Bakunin, when he retired from the army, rather than be the instrument of oppressing the Poles among whom he was stationed, went for some years to Germany, where he lived among the Young Hegelians and wrote for their organ, the 'Hallische Jahrbücher'; but before either he or Herzen ever had any personal intercommunication with the members of that school of thought, they had passed through precisely the same development. {2949} Herzen speaks of socialism almost in the very phrases of the Young Hegelians, as being the new 'terrestrial religion,' in which there was to be neither God nor heaven; as a new system of society which would dispense with an authoritative government, human or Divine, and which should be at once the completion of Christianity and the realization of the Revolution. 'Christianity,' he said, 'made the slave a son of man; the Revolution has emancipated him into a citizen. Socialism would make him a man.' This tendency of thought was strongly supported in the Russian mind by Haxthausen's discovery and laudation of the rural commune of Russia. The Russian State was the most arbitrary, oppressive, and corrupt in Europe, and the Russian Church was the most ignorant and superstitious; but here at last was a Russian institution which was regarded with envy even by wise men of the west, and was really a practical anticipation of that very social system which was the last work of European philosophy. It was with no small pride, therefore, that Alexander Herzen declared that the Muscovite peasant in his dirty sheepskin had solved the social problem of the nineteenth century, and that for Russia, with this great problem already solved, the Revolution was obviously a comparatively simple operation. You had but to remove the Czardom, the services, and the priesthood, and the great mass of the people would still remain organized in fifty thousand complete little self-governing communities living on their common land and ruling their common affairs as they had been doing long before the Czardom came into being. … All the wildest phases of nihilist opinion in the sixties were already raging in Russia in the forties. … Although the only political outbreak of Nicholas's reign, the Petracheffsky conspiracy of 1849, was little more than a petty street riot, a storm of serious revolt against the tyranny of the Czar was long gathering, which would have burst upon his head after the disasters to his army in the Crimea, had he survived them. He saw it thickening, however, and on his death-bed said to his son, the noble and unfortunate Alexander II., 'I fear you will find the burden too heavy.' The son found it eventually heavy enough, but in the meantime he wisely bent before the storm, relaxed the restraints the father had imposed, and gave pledges of the most liberal reforms in every department of State—judicial administration, local government, popular education, serf emancipation. … An independent press was not among the liberties conceded, but Russian opinion at this period found a most effective voice in a newspaper started in London by Alexander Herzen, called the 'Kolokol ' (Bell), which for a number of years made a great impression in Russia. … Herzen was the hero of the young. Herzenism, we are told, became the rage, and Herzenism appears to have meant, before all, a free handling of everything in Church or State which was previously thought too sacred to be touched. This iconoclastic spirit grew more and more characteristic of Russian society at this period, and presently, under its influence, Herzenism fell into the shade, and nihilism occupied the scene. We possess various accounts of the meaning and nature of nihilism, and they all agree substantially in their description of it. The word was first employed by Turgenieff in his novel 'Fathers and Sons,' where Arcadi Petrovitch surprises his father and uncle by describing his friend Bazaroff as a nihilist. 'A nihilist,' said Nicholas Petrovitch. 'This word must come from the Latin nihil, nothing, as far as I can judge, and consequently it signifies a man who recognises nothing.' 'Or rather who respects nothing,' said Paul Petrovitch. 'A man who looks at everything from a critical point of view,' said Arcadi. 'Does not that come to the same thing?' asked his uncle. 'No, not at all. A nihilist is a man who bows before no authority, who accepts no principle without examination, no matter what credit the principle has.' … 'Yes, before we had Hegelians; now we have nihilists. We shall see what you will do to exist in nothingness, in a vacuum, as if under an air pump.' Koscheleff, writing in 1874, gives a similar explanation of nihilism. 'Our disease is a disease of character, and the most dangerous possible. We suffer from a fatal unbelief in everything. We have ceased to believe in this or in that, not because we have studied the subject thoroughly and become convinced of the untenability of our views, but only because some author or another in Germany or England holds this or that doctrine to be unfounded. … Our nihilists are simply Radicals. Their loud speeches, their fault-finding, their strong assertions, are grounded on nothing.'"

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1862-1864.
Ferdinand Lassalle and the formation of the
Social Democratic Party in Germany.

   "There has probably been no more interesting appearance in the
   later political history of Germany than Lassalle's—no
   character that has secured more completely the attention of
   its world. There may be and there are many difficulties in the
   way of accepting Lassalle's political creed, but he had
   sufficient breadth and strength to win a secure place in the
   two widely separated domains of German science and politics
   and to profoundly influence the leading spirits of his time. …
   In addition to his worth in the department of science Lassalle
   was also a man of affairs, a practical politician, and—however
   large an element of the actor and sophist there may have been
   in him—the greatest German orator since Luther and John
   Tauler. Besides this, he was naturally heroic, as beautiful in
   person as Goethe; and when we remember that he was crossed in
   love and met in consequence with a romantic death at the age
   of thirty-nine, we see at once, as the publicist de Laveleye
   has suggested, the making of a story like that of Abelard.
   Lassalle has been the poetry of the various accounts of
   contemporary socialism, and has already created a literature
   which is still growing almost with the rapidity of the Goethe
   literature. The estimate of Lassalle's worth has been in each
   account naturally influenced by the economical or sentimental
   standpoint of the writer. To de Laveleye, who takes so much
   interest in socialism, Lassalle was a handsome agitator, whose
   merit lies chiefly in his work as interpreter of Karl Marx. To
   Montefiore he was a man of science who was led by accident
   into politics; and Franz Mehring, who was once the follower of
   Lassalle, in his 'Geschichte der deutschen Social-Demokratie,'
   discusses his career in the intolerant mood in which one
   generally approaches a forsaken worship.
{2950}
   The Englishman John Rae, on the contrary, in his account of
   socialism, makes Lassalle a hero; and in the narrative of the
   talented Dane, Georg Brandes, Lassalle is already on the broad
   road to his place as a god. In the same spirit Rudolf Meyer in
   his work 'The Fourth Estate's Struggle for Emancipation' does
   not hesitate to use the chief hyperbole of our modern writers,
   and compares Lassalle with Jesus of Nazareth. Heine also, who
   saw in his fellow Israelite that perfect Hegelian 'freedom
   from God' which he himself had attempted in vain, hails
   Lassalle as the 'Messiah of the age.' Among Lassalle's more
   immediate disciples this deification seems to have become a
   formal cultus, and it is affirmed, hard as one finds it to
   believe the story, that after Lassalle's death he became an
   object of worship with the German laborers. … The father of
   Lassalle was a Jewish merchant in Breslau, where the future
   'fighter and thinker' as Boeckh wrote mournfully over his
   tomb, was born on the 11th of April, 1825. The Israelite
   Lassal, for so the family name is still written, was a wealthy
   wholesale dealer in cloth, and with a consciousness of the
   good in such an avocation had from the first intended that
   Ferdinand should be a merchant. … But this was not his
   destiny. … The first feature in Lassalle was his will, the
   source of his strength and his ruin, and one can find no
   period in his life when this will seemed in the least capable
   of compromise or submission. … When he decided to become a
   Christian and a philosopher instead of a merchant, the family
   had nothing to do but to accommodate themselves as best they
   could to this arrangement."

      L. J. Huff,
      Ferdinand Lassalle
      (Political Science Quarterly, September, 1887).

"It was in 1862 that Lassalle began his agitation in behalf of the laboring classes, an agitation which resulted in the formation of the German Social Democratic Party. Previous to his time, German laborers had been considered contented and peaceable. It had been thought that a working men's party might be established in France or England, but that it was hopeless to attempt to move the phlegmatic German laborers. Lassalle's historical importance lies in the fact that he was able to work upon the laborers so powerfully as to arouse them to action. It is due to Lassalle above all others that German working men's battalions, to use the social democratic expression, now form the vanguard in the struggle for the emancipation of labor. Lassalle's writings did not advance materially the theory of social democracy. He drew from Rodbertus and Marx in his economic writings, but he clothed their thoughts in such manner as to enable ordinary laborers to understand them, and this they never could have done without such help. … Lassalle gave to Ricardo's law of wages the designation, the iron law of wages, and expounded to the laborers its full significance, showing them how it inevitably forced wages down to a level just sufficient to enable them to live. He acknowledged that it was the key-stone of his system and that his doctrines stood or fell with it. Laborers were told that this law could be overthrown only by the abolition of the wages system. How Lassalle really thought this was to be accomplished is not so evident. He proposed to the laborers that government should aid them by the use of its credit to the extent of 100,000,000 of thalers, to establish co-operative associations for production; and a great deal of breath has been wasted to show the inadequacy of his proposed measures. Lassalle could not himself have supposed that so insignificant a matter as the granting of a small loan would solve the labor question. He recognized, however, that it was necessary to have some definite party programme to insure success in agitation. … On the 23d of May, 1863, German social democracy was born. Little importance was attached to the event at the time. A few men met at Leipsic, and, under the leadership of Ferdinand Lassalle, formed a new political party called the 'Universal German Laborers' Union' ('Der Allgemeine Deutsche Arbeiterverein'). … Lassalle did not live to see the fruits of his labors. He met with some success and celebrated a few triumphs, but the Union did not flourish as he hoped. At the time of his death he did not appear to have a firm, lasting hold on the laboring population. There then existed no social-democratic party with political power. Although Lassalle lost his life in a duel [1864], which had its origin in a love affair, and not in any struggle for the rights of labor, he was canonized at once by the working men. … His influence increased more than ten-fold as soon as he ceased to live."

The International came into being immediately after the holding of the International Exhibition at London, in 1862. At least it was then that it took bodily shape, for the idea, in its theoretical form, dates from much earlier. … In 1862 certain manufacturers, such as M. Arlès-Dufour, and certain newspapers, such as 'Le Temps' and 'L' Opinion Nationale,' started the idea that it would be a good thing to send delegates from the French working men to the London Exhibition. 'The visit to their comrades in England,' said 'L' Opinion Nationale,' 'would establish mutual relations in every way advantageous. While they would be able to get an idea of the great artistic and industrial works at the Exhibition, they would at the same time feel more strongly the mutual interests which bind the working men of both countries together; the old leaven of international discord would settle down, and national jealousy would give place to a healthy fraternal emulation.' The whole programme of the International is summed up in these lines; but the manufacturers little foresaw the manner in which it was going to be carried out. Napoleon III. appeared to be very favourable to the sending of the delegates to London. He allowed them to be chosen by universal suffrage among the members of the several trades, and, naturally, those who spoke the strongest on the rights of labour were chosen. By the Emperor's orders, their journey was facilitated in every way. At that time Napoleon still dreamed of relying, for the maintenance of his Empire, on the working men and peasants, and of thus coping with the liberal middle classes. At London the English working men gave the most cordial welcome to 'their brothers of France.' On the 5th of August they organized a fête of 'international fraternization' at the Freemasons' Tavern. … {2951} They proposed to create committees of working men 'as a medium for the interchange of ideas on questions of international trade.' The conception of a universal association appears here in embryo. Two years afterwards it saw the light. On the 28th of September, 1864, a great meeting of working men of all nations was held at St. Martin's Hall, London, under the presidency of Professor Beesly. M. Tolain spoke in the name of France. Karl Marx was the real inspirer of the movement, though Mazzini's secretary, Major Wolff, assisted him—a fact which has given rise to the statement that Mazzini was the founder of the International. So far was this from being the case that he only joined it with distrust, and soon left it. The meeting appointed a provisional committee to draw up the statutes of the association, to be submitted to the Universal Congress, which was expected to meet at Brussels in the following year. In this committee England, France, Italy, Poland, Switzerland, and Germany were represented; and afterwards delegates from other countries were admitted. They were fifty in all. They adopted none of the ways of a secret society. On the contrary, it was by publicity that they hoped to carry on their propaganda. Their office was in London. … Mazzini, by his secretary, Wolff, proposed a highly centralized organization, which would entrust the entire management to the leaders. Marx took the other side. … Marx carried the day. Soon, in his turn, he too was to be opposed and turned off as too dictatorial. Mazzini and his followers seceded. … The progress of the new association was at first very slow." After its second congress, held at Lausanne, in 1867, it spread rapidly and acquired an influence which was especially alarming to the French government. In 1870 the International was at the summit of its power. In 1872 its congress, at the Hague, was a battlefield of struggling factions and clashing ideas, and practically it perished in the conflict. "The causes of the rapid decline of the famous Association are easy to discover, and they are instructive. First of all, as the organizer of strikes, its principal and most practical end, it proved itself timid and impotent. The various bodies of working men were not slow to perceive this, and gave it up. Next, it had taken for motto, 'Emancipation of the workers by the workers themselves.' It was intended, then, to do without the bourgeois-radicals, 'the palaverers,' 'the adventurers,' who when the revolution was made, would step into power and leave the working men as they were before. The majority of the delegates were nevertheless bourgeois; but, in reality, the sentiment of revolt against the aristocratic direction of the more intelligent members always persisted, and it fastened principally on Karl Marx, the true founder of the International, and the only political brain that it contained. But to keep in existence a vast association embracing very numerous groups of different nationalities, and influenced sometimes by divergent currents of ideas, to make use of publicity as the sole means of propaganda, and yet to escape the repressive laws of different States, was evidently no easy task. How could it possibly have lasted after the only man capable of directing it had been ostracized? The cause of the failure was not accidental; it was part of the very essence of the attempt. The proletariat will not follow the middle-class radicals, because political liberties, republican institutions, and even universal suffrage, which the latter claim or are ready to decree, do not change the relations of capital and labour. On the other hand, the working man is evidently incapable of directing a revolutionary movement which is to solve the thousand difficulties created by any complete change in the economic order. Revolutionary Socialism thus leads to an insoluble dilemma and to practical impotence. A further cause contributed to the rapid fall of the International, namely, personal jealousies."

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1866-1875.
Rise and growth of the Patrons of Husbandry, or Grangers,
in the United States.

The order, composed of farmers, known as Patrons of Husbandry, or Grangers, was founded in 1866. It grew rapidly during the first decade of its existence, and reported a membership, in November, 1875, of 763,263. After that period the numbers declined. The general aims of the order were set forth in a "Declaration of Purposes," as follows: "We shall endeavor to advance our cause by laboring to accomplishing the following objects: To develop a better and higher manhood and womanhood among ourselves. To enhance the comforts and attractions of our homes, and strengthen our attachments to our pursuits. To foster mutual understanding and co-operation. … To discountenance the credit system, the mortgage system, the fashion system, and every other system tending to prodigality and bankruptcy. We propose meeting together, talking together, working together, buying together, selling together, and in general acting together for our mutual protection and advancement, as occasion may require. We shall avoid litigation as much as possible by arbitration in the Grange. … We are not enemies to capital, but we oppose the tyranny of monopolies. We long to see the antagonism between labor and capital removed by common consent and by an enlightened statesmanship worthy of the nineteenth century. … Last, but not least, we proclaim it among our purposes to inculcate a proper appreciation of the abilities and sphere of woman, as is indicated by admitting her to membership and position in our order."

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1867-1875.
The Brocton Community of the Brotherhood of the New Life.

   The Community of the Brotherhood of the New Life was
   established at Brocton, on the shore of Lake Erie, by Thomas
   Lake Harris, in 1867. Harris had been, partly at least, the
   founder of an earlier community at Mountain Cove, in North
   Carolina, which went to pieces after two years. For some time
   he travelled and lectured in America and England, and during a
   certain period he engaged in business as a banker, at Amenia,
   in Dutchess county, New York. He possessed qualities which
   exercised a fascinating influence upon many people of superior
   cultivation, and made them docile recipients of a very
   peculiar religious teaching. He claimed to have made a strange
   spiritual discovery, through which those who disciplined
   themselves to the acceptance of what it offered might attain
   to a "new life."
{2952}
   The discipline required seems to have involved a very complete
   surrender to the leader, Harris; and it was on such terms,
   apparently, that the Community at Brocton—or Salem-on-Erie as
   the Brotherhood renamed the place-was constituted. Among those
   who entered it was the brilliant writer, diplomatist, and man
   of society, Laurence Oliphant, who joined, with his wife, and
   with Lady Oliphant, his mother. The connection of Oliphant
   with the society drew to it more attention than it might
   otherwise have received. The Community bought and owned about
   2,000 acres of land, and devoted its labors extensively and
   with success to the culture of grapes and the making of wine.
   The breaking up of the Brotherhood appears to be covered with
   a good deal of obscurity. Harris left Brocton in 1875 and went
   to California, where he is reported to be living, at Sonoma,
   on a great estate. Some of the Brotherhood went with him;
   others were scattered, and the Brocton vineyards are now
   cultivated by other hands.

      ALSO IN:
      M. O. W. Oliphant,
      Memoir of the life of Laurence Oliphant.

"The second great attempt [the first having been 'the International'] to organize labor on a broad basis—as broad as society itself, in which all trades should be recognized—was the Noble Order of Knights of Labor of America. This organization was born on Thanksgiving Day, 1869, in the city of Philadelphia, and was the result of the efforts of Uriah S. Stephens, as the leader, and six associates, all garment-cutters. For several years previous to this date, the garment-cutters of Philadelphia had been organized as a trades-union, but had failed to maintain a satisfactory rate of wages in their trade. A feeling of dissatisfaction prevailed, which resulted, in the fall of 1869, in a vote to disband the union. Stephens, foreseeing this result, had quietly prepared the outlines of a plan for an organization embracing 'all branches of honorable toil,' and based upon education, which, through co-operation and an intelligent use of the ballot, should gradually abolish the present wages system. Stephens himself was a man of great force of character, a skilled mechanic, with the love of books which enabled him to pursue his studies during his apprenticeship, and feeling withal a strong affection for secret organizations, having been for many years connected with the Masonic order. … He believed it was necessary to bring all wage-workers together in one organization, where measures affecting the interests of all could be intelligently discussed and acted upon; and this he held could not be done in a trades-union. At the last session of the Garment-cutters' Union, and after the motion to disband had prevailed, Stephens invited the few members present to meet him, in order to discuss his new plan of organization. … Stephens then laid before his guests his plan of an organization, which he designated 'The Noble and Holy Order of the Knights of Labor.' It was a new departure in labor organization. The founder described what he considered a tendency toward large combinations of capital, and argued that the trades-union form of organization was like a bundle of sticks when unbound,—weak and powerless to resist combination. … Stephens' great controlling ideas may be formulated as follows: first that surplus labor always keeps wages down; and, second, that nothing can remedy this evil but a purely and deeply secret organization, based upon a plan that shall teach, or rather inculcate, organization, and at the same time educate its membership to one set of ideas ultimately subversive of the present wages system. … At a subsequent meeting, held December 28, 1869, upon the report of a Committee on Ritual, involving obligations and oaths, Mr. Stephens and his six associates subscribed their names to the obligations; and, when the ritual was adopted, Mr. James L. Wright moved that the new Order be named the 'Knights of Labor.' … The members were sworn to the strictest secrecy. The name even of the Order was not to be divulged. … The rules of government. … excluded physicians from the Order, because professional confidence might force the societies' secrets into unfriendly ears. The rule prohibiting the admission of physicians, however, was repealed at Detroit in 1881. Politicians were to be excluded, because the founders of the Order considered that their moral character was on too low a plane for the sacred work of the new Order; and, besides, it was considered that professional politicians would not keep the secrets of the Order, if such secrets could be used for their own advantage. Men engaged in political work are not now excluded for that cause alone. Lawyers were to be excluded, and still are, because the founders considered that the logical, if not the practical, career of the lawyer is to get money by his aptitudes and cunning, which, if used to the advantage of one, must be at the expense of another. … Rum-sellers were and are excluded, because the trade is not only useless, by being non-productive of articles of use, but results in great suffering and immorality. … The founders also considered that those who sell or otherwise handle liquors should be excluded, because such persons would be a defilement to the Order. In consequence of the close secrecy thrown around the new organization, it did not grow rapidly. Stephens, impressed with the Masonic ritual and that of the Odd Fellows, was unwilling to allow any change. … So the society struggled on, admitting now and then a member, its affairs running smoothly, as a whole, but the name of the organization never divulged. … In January, 1878, when the whole machinery of the organization was perfected so far as bodies were concerned, there had been no general declaration of principles. The Order had been intensely secret, as much as the society of the Masons or of the Odd Fellows. The name of the Order began to be whispered about; but beyond the name and most exaggerated accounts of the membership, nothing was known of the Knights of Labor. The membership must have been small,—indeed, not counting far into the thousands. In fact, it did not reach fifty thousand until five years later. … About this time [1878] the strict secrecy in the workings of the Order, and the fact that the obligations were oaths taken on the Bible, brought on a conflict with the Catholic Church, and during the years 1877-78 many Local and several District Assemblies lapsed. … Measures were adopted whereby a satisfactory conciliation was brought about, on the general ground that the labor movement could consistently take no interest in the advocacy of any kind of religion, nor assume any position for or against creeds. {2953} The prejudices against the Knights of Labor on account of Catholic opposition then naturally, but gradually, disappeared; and the Order took on new strength, until there were in 1879 twenty-three District Assemblies and about thirteen hundred Local Assemblies in the United States. … The third annual session of the General Assembly was held at Chicago, in September, 1879, when the federal body busied itself with general legislation, and was called upon to consider the resignation of Mr. Stephens as Master Workman. This resignation, urgently pressed by Mr. Stephens, was accepted; and Hon. Terrence V. Powderly was elected Grand Master Workman in his place. … The membership was stated to be five thousand in good standing. … The next annual meeting of the General Assembly (the fourth) took place at Pittsburg, in September, 1880, and consisted of forty delegates. At this session, strikes were denounced as injurious, and as not worthy of support except in extreme cases. … The fifth session was held in September, 1881, at Detroit. This session had to deal with one of the most important actions in the history of the Order. The General Assembly then declared that on and after January 1, 1882, the name and objects of the Order should be made public. It also declared that women should be admitted upon an equal footing with men. … A benefit insurance law was also passed, and an entire change of the ritual was advised. … The sixth annual assembly was held in New York in September, 1882, the chief business consisting in the discussion, and finally in the adoption, of a revised constitution and ritual. At this Assembly, what is known as the 'strike' element—that is, the supporters and believers in strikes—was in the majority, and laws and regulations for supporting strikes were adopted; and the co-operation of members was suppressed by a change of the co-operative law of the Order. … The seventh annual session of the General Assembly was held at Cincinnati in September, 1883, and consisted of one hundred and ten representative delegates. … This large representation was owing to the rapid growth of the Order since the name and objects had been made public. … The membership of the Order was reported to this Assembly to be, in round numbers, fifty-two thousand. In September, 1884, the eighth annual Assembly convened at Philadelphia. Strikes and boycotts were denounced. … The ninth General Assembly convened at Hamilton, Ontario, in October, 1885, and adopted legislation looking to the prevention of strikes and boycotts. The session lasted eight days, the membership being reported at one hundred and eleven thousand. … The tenth annual session of the General Assembly was held at Richmond, Virginia, in October, 1886. … Mr. Powderly, in his testimony before the Strike Investigating Committee of Congress, April 21, 1886, made the following statement as to membership: 'Our present membership does not exceed 500,000, although we have been credited with 5,000,000.' This statement indicates a growth of nearly 400,000 in one year. The growth was so rapid that the Executive Board of the Order felt constrained to call a halt in the initiation of new members. To-day (December 10, 1886), while the membership has fallen off in some localities, from various causes, in the whole country it has increased, and is, according to the best inside estimates, not much less than one million."

Carroll D. Wright, Historical Sketch of the Knights of Labor (Quarterly Journal of Economics, January, 1887).

"At the annual convention of the Knights of Labor, held at Philadelphia, November 14-28 [1893], Grand Master Workman Powderly, for fifteen years the head of the order, was succeeded by J. R. Sovereign, of Iowa. The new leader's first address to the organization, issued December 7, contained in addition to the usual denunciation of capitalists, a strong demand for the free coinage of silver and an expansion of the currency."

By the order of the congress of the International held at the Hague in 1872, the General Council of the Association was transferred to New York. "Modern socialism had then undoubtedly begun to exist in America. The first proclamation of the council from their new headquarters was an appeal to workingmen 'to emancipate labor and eradicate all international and national strife.' … The 'Exceptional Law' passed against socialists by the German Parliament in 1878 drove many socialists from Germany to this country, and these have strengthened the cause of American socialism through membership in trades-unions and in the Socialistic Labor Party. There have been several changes among the socialists in party organization and name since 1873, and national conventions or congresses have met from time to time. … The name Socialistic Labor Party was adopted in 1877 at the Newark Convention. In 1883 the split between the moderates and extremists had become definite, and the latter held their congress in Pittsburg, and the former in Baltimore. … The terrible affair of May 4, 1886, when the Chicago Internationalists endeavored to resist the police by the use of dynamite, terminated all possibility of joint action—even if there could previously have been any remote hope of it; for that was denounced as criminal folly by the Socialistic Labor Party. … The Internationalists, at their congress in Pittsburg, adopted unanimously a manifesto or declaration of motives and principles, often called the Pittsburg Proclamation, in which they describe their ultimate goal in these words:—'What we would achieve is, therefore, plainly and simply,—First, Destruction of the existing class rule, by all means, i. e., by energetic, relentless, revolutionary, and international action. Second, Establishment of a free society based upon co-operative organization of production. Third, Free exchange of equivalent products by and between the productive organizations without commerce and profit-mongery. Fourth, Organization of education on a secular, scientific and equal basis for both sexes. Fifth, Equal rights for all without distinction to sex or race. Sixth, Regulation of all public affairs by free contracts between the autonomous (independent} communes and associations, resting on a federalistic basis.'"

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1875-1893.
Socialist parties in Germany.
Their increasing strength.

Before 1875, there existed in Germany two powerful Socialist associations. The first was called the 'General Association of German Working Men' (der allgemeine deutsche Arbeiterverein). Founded by Lassalle in 1863, it afterwards had for president the deputy Schweizer, and then the deputy Hasenclever. Its principal centre of activity was North Germany. The second was the 'Social-democratic Working Men's Party' (die Social·democratische Arbeiterpartei), led by two well-known deputies of the Reichstag, Herr Bebel and Herr Liebknecht. Its adherents were chiefly in Saxony and Southern Germany. The first took into account the ties of nationality, and claimed the intervention of the State in order to bring about a gradual transformation of society; the second, on the contrary, expected the triumph of its cause only from a revolutionary movement. These two associations existed for a long time in open hostility towards each other; less, however, from the difference of the aims they had in view than in consequence of personal rivalry. Nevertheless, in May, 1875, at the Congress of Gotha, they amalgamated under the title of the 'Socialist Working Men's Party of Germany' (Socialistische Arbeiterpartei Deutschlands). The deputy Hasenclever was nominated president; but the union did not last long, or was never complete, for as early as the month of August following a separate meeting of the 'General Association of German Working Men' was held at Hamburg. … The German Socialist party does not confine itself to stating general principles. Now that it has gained foothold on political soil, and sends representatives to Parliament, it endeavours to make known the means by which it hopes to realize the reforms it has in view. This is what it claims:—'The German Socialist party demands, in order to pave the way for the solution of the social question, the creation of socialistic productive associations aided by the State, under the democratic control of the working people. These productive associations for manufacture and agriculture should be created on a sufficiently large scale to enable the socialistic organization of labour to arise out of them. As basis of the State, it demands direct and universal suffrage for all citizens of twenty years of age, in all elections both of State and Commune; direct legislation, by the people, including the decision of peace or war; general liability to bear arms and a militia composed of civilians instead of a standing army; the abolition of all laws restricting the right of association, the right of assembly, the free expression of opinion, free thought, and free inquiry; gratuitous justice administered by the people; compulsory education, the same for all and given by the State; and a declaration that religion is an object of private concern.'"

"The social democratic party [in Germany] advanced in strength, as far as that is measured by votes, until 1878, when the decrease was only slight. Two attempts were made on the life of the Emperor William in that year, and the social democrats had to bear a good share of the blame. … In the Reichstag the celebrated socialistic law was passed, which gave government exceptional and despotic powers to proceed against social democracy. … Governmental persecution united the divided members and gave new energy to all. … They all became secret missionaries, distributing tracts and exhorting individually their fellow-laborers to join the struggle for the emancipation of labor. The German social democrats have held two congresses since the socialistic law, both, of course, on foreign soil, and both have indicated progress. The first was held at Wyden, Switzerland, August 20-23, 1880. This resulted in a complete triumph for the more moderate party. The two leading extremists, Hasselmann and Most, were both expelled from the party—the former by all save three votes, the latter by all save two. The next congress was held at Copenhagen, Denmark, from March 29 to April 2, 1883. It exhibited greater unanimity of sentiment and plan, and a more wide-spread interest in social democracy, than any previous congress."

   At the general election, February, 1890, in Germany, the
   Social Democratic party "polled more votes than any other
   single party in the Empire, and returned to the Imperial Diet
   a body of representatives strong enough, by skilful alliances,
   to exercise an effective influence on the course of affairs.
   The advance of the party may be seen in the increase of the
   socialist vote at the successive elections since the creation
   of the Empire:
   In 1871 it was 101,927;
   1874, 351,670;
   1877, 493,447;
   1878, 437,438;
   1881, 311,961;
   1884, 549,000;
   1887, 774,128;
   1890, 1,427,000.

The effect of the coercive laws of 1878, as shown by these figures, is very noteworthy. … The first effect … was, as was natural, to disorganize the socialist party for the time. Hundreds of its leaders were expelled from the country; hundreds were thrown into prison or placed under police restriction; its clubs and newspapers were suppressed; it was not allowed to hold meetings, to make speeches, or to circulate literature of any kind. In the course of the twelve years during which this exceptional legislation has subsisted, it was stated at the recent Socialist Congress at Halle [1890], that 155 socialist journals and 1,200 books or pamphlets had been prohibited; 900 members of the party had been banished without trial; 1,500 had been apprehended and 300 punished for contraventions of the Anti-Socialist Laws." But this "policy of repression has ended in tripling the strength of the party it was designed to crush, and placing it in possession of one-fifth of the whole voting power of the nation. It was high time, therefore, to abandon so ineffectual a policy, and the socialist coercive laws expired on the 30th September, 1890. … The strength of the party in Parliament has never corresponded with its strength at the polls. … In 1890, with an electoral vote which, under a system of proportional representation, would have secured for it 80 members, it has carried only 37."

The Social Democrats "retained their position as the strongest party in the empire in the elections of 1893, casting nearly 1,800,000 votes, and electing 44 members of parliament. … Another indication of the growth of social democracy, is the fact that it has gained a foothold among the students of the universities."

   "The two principal leaders of the Social-Democratic party in
   Germany—in fact, the only members of the party to whom the
   term leader can properly be applied—are now Wilhelm Liebknecht
   and August Bebel. Both men have lived eventful lives and have
   suffered often and severely for the sake of their cause. …
   Liebknecht has done a great deal to popularise the political
   and social theories of men like Marx and Lassalle.
{2955}
   He is through and through a Communist and a Republican, and he
   is determined upon realising his ideals by hook or by crook. …
   He works for the subversion of the monarchical principle and
   for the establishment of a Free People's State. In this State
   all subjects will stand upon the same level: there will be no
   classes and no privileges. … Bebel once summarised his views
   in a sentence which, so far as he spoke for himself, is as
   true as it is short. 'We aim,' he said, 'in the domain of
   politics at Republicanism, in the domain of economics at
   Socialism, and in the domain of what is to-day called religion
   at Atheism.' Here we see Bebel as in a mirror. He is a
   Republican and a Socialist, and he is proud of it; he is
   without religion, and he is never tired of parading the fact,
   even having himself described in the Parliamentary Almanacs as
   'religionslos.' Like his colleague Liebknecht he is a warm
   admirer of England."

      W. H. Dawson,
      German Socialism and Ferdinand Lassalle,
      chapter 15.

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1880.
Mr. Henry George, and the proposed confiscation of rent.
The Single-Tax movement.

The doctrine of Mr. Henry George, set forth in his famous book, "Progress and Poverty," published in 1880, is stated in his own language as follows: "We have traced the want and suffering that everywhere prevail among the working classes, the recurring paroxysms of industrial depression, the scarcity of employment, the stagnation of capital, the tendency of wages to the starvation point, that exhibit themselves more and more strongly as material progress goes on, to the fact that the land on which and from which all must live is made the exclusive property of some. We have seen that there is no possible remedy for these evils but the abolition of their cause; we have seen that private property in land has no warrant in justice, but stands condemned as the denial of natural right—a subversion of the law of nature that as social development goes on must condemn the masses of men to a slavery the hardest and most degrading. … I do not propose either to purchase or to confiscate private property in land. The first would be unjust; the second, needless. Let the individuals who now hold it still retain, if they want to, possession of what they are pleased to call their land. Let them continue to call it their land. Let them buy and sell, and bequeath and devise it. We may safely leave them the shell, if we take the kernel. It is not necessary to confiscate land; it is only necessary to confiscate rent. Nor to take rent for public uses is it necessary that the State should bother with the letting of lands, and assume the chances of the favoritism, collusion, and corruption that might involve. It is not necessary that any new machinery should be created. The machinery already exists. Instead of extending it, all we have to do is to simplify and reduce it. By leaving to land owners a percentage of rent which would probably be much less than the cost and loss involved in attempting to rent lands through State agency, and by making use of this existing machinery, we may, without jar or shock, assert the common right to land by taking rent for public uses. We already take some rent in taxation. We have only to make some changes in our modes of taxation to take it all. What I, therefore, propose, as the simple yet sovereign remedy, which will raise wages, increase the earnings of capital, extirpate pauperism, abolish poverty, give remunerative employment to whoever wishes it, afford free scope to human powers, lessen crime, elevate morals, and taste, and intelligence, purify government and carry civilization to yet nobler heights, is—to appropriate rent by taxation. In this way, the State may become the universal landlord without calling herself so, and without assuming a single new function. In form, the ownership of land would remain just as now. No owner of land need be dispossessed, and no restriction need be placed upon the amount of land any one could hold. For, rent being taken by the State in taxes, land, no matter in whose name it stood, or in what parcels it was held, would be really common property, and every member of the community would participate in the advantages of its ownership. Now, insomuch as the taxation of rent, or land values, must necessarily be increased just as we abolish other taxes, we may put the proposition into practical form by proposing—To abolish all taxation save that upon land values."

"Mr. George sent his 'Progress and Poverty' into the world with the remarkable prediction that it would find not only readers but apostles. … Mr. George's prediction is not more remarkable than its fulfilment. His work has had an unusually extensive sale; a hundred editions in America, and an edition of 60,000 copies in this country [England, 1891] are sufficient evidences of that; but the most striking feature in its reception is precisely that which its author foretold; it created an army of apostles, and was enthusiastically circulated, like the testament of a new dispensation. Societies were formed, journals were devised to propagate its saving doctrines, and little companies of the faithful held stated meetings for its reading and exposition. … The author was hailed as a new and better Adam Smith, as at once a reformer of science and a renovator of society."

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1883-1889.
State Socialistic measures of the German Government.

   "Replying once to the accusation made by an opponent in the
   Reichstag that his social-political measures were tainted with
   Socialism, Prince Bismarck said, 'You will be compelled yet to
   add a few drops of social oil in the recipe you prescribe for
   the State; how many I cannot say.' In no measures has more of
   the Chancellor's 'social oil' been introduced than in the
   industrial insurance laws. These may be said to indicate the
   high-water mark of German State Socialism. … The Sickness
   Insurance Law of 1883. the Accident Insurance Laws of 1884 and
   1885, and the Old Age Insurance Law of 1889 are based upon the
   principle of compulsion which was introduced into the sick
   insurance legislation of Prussia in 1854. … The trio of
   insurance laws was completed in 1889 by the passing of a
   measure providing for the insurance of workpeople against the
   time of incapacity and old age (Invalidäts und
   Altersversicherungsgesetz). This was no after-thought
   suggested by the laws which preceded. It formed from the first
   part of the complete plan of insurance foreshadowed by Prince
   Bismarck over a decade ago, and in some of the Chancellor's
   early speeches on the social question he regarded the
   pensioning of old and incapacitated workpeople as at once
   desirable and inevitable. …
{2956}
   The Old Age Insurance Law is expected to apply to about twelve
   million workpeople, including labourers, factory operatives,
   journeymen, domestic servants, clerks, assistants, and
   apprentices in handicrafts and in trade (apothecaries
   excluded), and smaller officials (as on railways, etc.), so
   long as their wages do not reach 2,000 marks (about £100) a
   year; also persons employed in shipping, whether maritime,
   river, or lake; and, if the Federal Council so determine,
   certain classes of small independent undertakers. The
   obligation to insure begins with the completion of the
   sixteenth year, but there are exemptions, including persons
   who, owing to physical or mental weakness, are unable to earn
   fixed minimum wages, and persons already entitled to public
   pensions, equal in amount to the benefits secured by the law,
   or who are assured accident annuities. The contributions are
   paid by the employers and work-people in equal shares, but the
   State also guarantees a yearly subsidy of 50 marks (£2.10s.)
   for every annuity paid. Contributions are only to be paid when
   the insured is in work. The law fixes four wages classes, with
   proportionate contributions as follows:

Of course, of these contributions the workpeople only pay half. Old age annuities are first claimable at the beginning of the seventy-first year, but annuities on account of permanent incapacity may begin at any time after the workman has been insured for five years. The minimum period of contribution in the case of old age pensioning is thirty years of forty-seven premiums each. Where a workman is prevented by illness (exceeding a week but not exceeding a year), caused by no fault of his own, or by military duties, from continuing his contributions, the period of his absence from work is reckoned part of the contributory year. … Contributions are made in postage stamps affixed to yearly receipt cards supplied to the insured. Annuities are to be paid through the post-office monthly in advance."

"The elements composing what is termed the New Trade Unionism are not to be found in the constitution, organization, and rules of the Unions started within the last two or three years. In these respects they either conform to the experience of modern Unions, or they revive the practices of the older Unions. There is scarcely a feature in which any of them differ from types of Unions long in existence. In what, then, consists the 'New Trade Unionism,' of which we hear so much? Mainly in the aspirations, conduct, modes of advocacy, and methods of procedure of, and also in the expressions used, and principles inculcated by the new leaders in labour movements, in their speeches and by their acts. This New Unionism has been formulated and promulgated at Trades Union Congresses, at other Congresses and Conferences, and at the meetings held in various parts of the country; and in letters and articles which have appeared in the newspaper, press, and public journals from the pens of the new leaders. … The institution of Labour Bureaus, or the establishment of Labour Registries, is one of the acknowledged objects of the Dockers' Union. Singularly enough this is the first time that any such project has had the sanction of a bona-fide Trade Union. All the older Unions repudiate every such scheme. It has hitherto been regarded as opposed in principle to Trade Unionism. … At the recent Trades Union Congress held in Liverpool, September 1890, the following resolution was moved by one of the London delegates representing the 'South Side Labour Protection League'—'That in the opinion of this Congress, in order to carry on more effectually the organization of the large mass of unorganized labour, to bring into closer combination those sections of labour already organized, to provide means for communication and the interchange of information between all sections of industry, and the proper tabulation of statistics as to employment, &c., of advantage to the workmen, it is necessary that a labour exchange, on the model of the Paris Bourse des Travail, should be provided and maintained by public funds in every industrial centre in the kingdom." … The mover said that 'not a single delegate could deny the necessity for such an institution, in every industrial centre.' The Congress evidently thought otherwise, for only 74 voted for the resolution, while 92 voted against it. … The proposal, however, shows to what an extent the New Trade Unionism seeks for Government aid, or municipal assistance, in labour movements. The most astonishing resolution carried by the Congress was the following—'Whereas the ever-changing methods of manufacture affect large numbers of workers adversely by throwing them out of employment, without compensation for loss of situation, and whereas those persons are in many instances driven to destitution, crime, and pauperism: Resolved, that this Congress is of opinion that power should at once be granted to each municipality or County Council to establish workshops and factories under municipal control, where such persons shall be put to useful employment, and that it be an instruction to the Parliamentary Committee to at once take the matter in hand.' … The proposal of all others which the new Trade Unionists sought to ingraft upon, and had determined to carry as a portion of the programme of the Trades Union Congress, was the 'legal Eight Hour day;' and they actually succeeded in their design after a stormy battle. The new leaders, with their socialist allies, had been working to that end for over two years."

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1888-1893.
Mr. Bellamy's "Looking Backward,"
and the Nationalist movement.

"The so-called 'Nationalist' movement, originating in an ingenious novel called 'Looking Backward' [published in 1888], is one of the most interesting phenomena of the present condition of public opinion in this country. Mr. Edward Bellamy, a novelist by profession, is the recognized father of the Nationalist Clubs which have been formed in various parts of the United States within the last twelve months. His romance of the year 2000 A. D. is the reason for their existence, and furnishes the inspiration of their declarations. … {2957} The new society [depicted in Mr. Bellamy's romance] is industrial, rather than militant, in every feature. There are no wars or government war powers. But the function has been assumed by the nation of directing the industry of every citizen. Every man and woman is enrolled in the 'industrial army,' this conception being fundamental. This universal industrial service rests upon the recognized duty of every citizen 'to contribute his quota of industrial or intellectual work to the maintenance of the nation.' The period of service' is twenty-four years, beginning at the close of the course of education at twenty-one, and terminating at forty-five. After forty-five, while discharged from labor, the citizen still remains liable to special calls, in case of emergencies.' There are, of course, no such numerous exemptions from this industrial service as qualify very greatly the rigor of the Continental military service of the present day. Every new recruit belongs for three years to the class of unskilled or common laborers. After this term, he is free to choose in what branch of the service he will engage, to work with hand or with brain:—'It is the business of the administration to seek constantly to equalize the attractions of the trades, so far as the conditions in them are concerned, so that all trades shall be equally attractive to persons having natural tastes for them. This is done by making the hours of labor in different trades to differ according to their arduousness. The principle is that no man's work ought to be, on the whole, harder for him than any other man's for him, the workers themselves to be the judges.' The headship of the industrial army of the nation is the most important function of the President of the United States. Promotion from the ranks lies through three grades up to the officers. These officers are, in ascending order, lieutenants, captains, or foremen, colonels, or superintendents, and generals of the guilds. The various trades are grouped into ten great departments, each of which has a chief. These chiefs form the council of the general-in-chief, who is the President. He must have passed through all the grades, from the common laborers up. … Congress has but little to do beyond passing upon the reports of the President and the heads of departments at the end of their terms of office. Any laws which one Congress enacts must receive the assent of another, five years later, before going into effect; but, as there are no parties or politicians in the year 2000 A. D., this is a matter of little consequence. In Mr. Bellamy's Utopia, money is unknown: there is, therefore, no need of banks or bankers. Buying and selling are processes entirely antiquated. The nation is the sole producer of commodities. All persons being in the employment of the nation, there is supposed to be no need of exchanges between individuals. A credit-card is issued to each person, which he presents at a national distributing shop when in need of anything, and the amount due the government is punched out. The yearly allowance made to each person Mr. Bellamy does not put into figures. … Every person is free to spend his income as he pleases; but it is the same for all, the sole basis on which it is awarded being the fact that the person is a human being. Consequently, cripples and idiots, as well as children, are entitled to the same share of the products of the national industries as is allowed the most stalwart or the most capable, a certain amount of effort only being required, not of performance. Such is the force of public opinion that no one of able body or able mind refuses to exert himself: the comparative results of his effort are not considered. Absolute equality of recompense is thus the rule; and the notion of charity with respect to the infirm in body or mind is dismissed, a credit-card of the usual amount being issued to every such person as his natural right. 'The account of every person, man, woman, and child … is always with the nation directly, and never through any intermediary, except, of course, that parents to a certain extent act for children as their guardians. … It is by virtue of the relation of individuals to the nation, of their membership in it, that they are entitled to support.' … The idea naturally occurred to a considerable number of Bostonians, who had read Mr. Bellamy's socialistic romance with an enthusiastic conviction that here at last the true social gospel was delivered, that associations for the purpose of disseminating the views set forth in the book could not be formed too soon, as the forerunners of this National party of the future. Accordingly, a club, called 'The Boston Bellamy Club,' was started in September, 1888, which was formally organized as 'The Nationalist Club,' in the following December."

N. P. Gilman, "Nationalism" in the United States (Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oct., 1889).

The Nationalists "have very generally entered into the Populist movement, not because they accept that in its present form as ideal, but because that movement has seemed to give them the best opportunity for the diffusion of their principles; and there can be no doubt that they have given a socialistic bias to this movement. They have also influenced the labor movement, and, with the Socialistic Labor Party, they have succeeded in producing a strong sentiment in favor of independent political action on the part of the wage-earners. Especially noteworthy was the platform for independent political action offered at the meeting of the American Federation of Labor in Chicago in December, 1893."

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1894.
The American Railway Union and the Pullman Strike.

   In May, 1894, some 4,000 workmen, employed in the car shops of
   the Pullman Company, at the town of Pullman, near Chicago,
   stopped work, because of the refusal of the company to restore
   their wages to the standard from which they had been cut down
   during the previous year and because of its refusal to
   arbitrate the question. While this strike was in progress, the
   American Railway Union, a comparatively new but extensive
   organization of railway employees, formed by and under the
   presidency of Eugene V. Debs, met in convention at Chicago,
   and was induced to make the cause of the Pullman workmen its
   own. The result was a decision on the part of the Union to
   "boycott" all Pullman cars, ordering its members to refuse to
   handle cars of that company, on the railways which center at
   Chicago. This order went into effect on the evening of June
   26, and produced the most extensive and alarming paralysis of
   traffic and business that has ever been experienced in the
   United States. Acts of violence soon accompanied the strike of
   the railway employees, but how far committed by the strikers
   and how far by responsive mobs, has never been made clear.
{2958}
   The interruption of mails brought the proceedings of the
   strikers within the jurisdiction of the federal courts and
   within reach of the arm of the United States government. The
   powers of the national courts and of the national executive
   were both promptly exercised, to restore order and to stop a
   ruinous interference with the general commerce of the country.
   The leaders of the strike were indicted and placed under
   arrest; United States troops were sent to the scene; President
   Cleveland, by two solemn proclamations, made known the
   determination of the Government to suppress a combination
   which obstructed the United States mails and the movements of
   commerce between the states. Urgent appeals were addressed by
   the leaders of the American Railway Union to other labor
   organizations, with the hope of bringing about a universal
   strike, in all departments of industry throughout the country;
   but it failed. The good sense of workingmen in general
   condemned so suicidal a measure. By the 15th of July the
   Pullman strike was practically ended, and the traffic of the
   railways was resumed. President Cleveland appointed a
   commission to investigate and report on the occurrence and its
   causes, but the report of the commission has not been
   published at the time this is printed (November, 1894).

"A peculiar outcome of the social and political conditions of the winter [of 1893-4] was the organization of various 'armies of the unemployed' for the purpose of marching to Washington and petitioning Congress for aid. The originator of the idea seems to have been one Coxey, of Massillon, Ohio, who took up the proposition that, as good roads and money were both much needed in the country, the government should in the existing crisis issue $500,000,000 in greenbacks, and devote it to the employment of workers in the improvement of the roads. He announced that he would lead an 'Army of the Commonweal of Christ' to Washington to proclaim the wants of the people on the steps of the Capitol on May 1, and he called upon the unemployed and honest laboring classes to join him. On March 25 he set out from Massillon at the head of about a hundred men and marched by easy stages and without disorder through Ohio, Pennsylvania and Maryland, provisions being donated by the towns and villages on the way, or purchased with funds which had been subscribed by sympathizing friends. The numbers of the army increased as it advanced, and groups of volunteers set out to join it from distant states. On May 1 the detachment, numbering about 350, marched to the Capitol, but under an old District law was prevented by the police from entering the grounds. Coxey and another of the leaders, attempting to elude the police and address the assembled crowds, were arrested and were afterwards convicted of a misdemeanor. … Somewhat earlier than the start from Massillon, another organization, 'The United States Industrial Army,' headed by one Frye, had started from Los Angeles, California, for Washington, with purposes similar to those of the Coxey force, though not limiting their demands to work on the roads. This force, numbering from six to eight hundred men, availed themselves of the assistance, more or less involuntary, of freight trains on the Southern Pacific Railway as far as St. Louis, from which place they continued on foot. Though observing a degree of military discipline, the various 'armies' were unarmed, and the disturbances that arose in several places in the latter part of April were mostly due to the efforts of the marchers, or their friends in their behalf, to press the railroads into service for transportation. Thus a band under a leader named Kelly, starting from San Francisco, April 4, secured freight accommodations as far as Omaha by simply refusing to leave Oakland until the cars were furnished. The railroads eastward from Omaha refused absolutely to carry them, and they went into camp near Council Bluffs, in Iowa. Then sympathizing Knights of Labor seized a train by force and offered it to Kelly, who refused, however, to accept it under the circumstances, and ultimately continued on foot as far as Des Moines, in Iowa. After a long stay at that place he was finally supplied with flatboats, on which, at the close of this Record, his band, now swollen to some 1,200 men, was floating southward. A band coming east on a stolen train on the Northern Pacific, after overpowering a squad of United States marshals, was captured by a detachment of regular troops at Forsyth, Montana, April 26. Two days later the militia were called out to rescue a train from a band at Mount Sterling, Ohio."

There were straggling movements, from different quarters of the country, in imitation of those described, prolonged through most of the summer of 1894; but the public feeling favorable to them was limited, and they commonly came to an ignominious end.

SOCIALIST PARTIES IN GERMANY.

Some matter first placed under this title, and so referred to, has been incorporated in the more general article above.

SOCIETY OF JESUS.

The Italian subject-allies of Rome were called Socii before the Roman franchise was extended to them.

SOCMEN.

Mr. Hallam thinks the Socmen, enumerated in Domesday Book, to have been ceorls who were small landowners.

SODALITATES.

"There were [among the Romans] … unions originally formed for social purposes, which were named 'sodalitates,' 'sodalitia,' and these may be compared with our clubs. These associations finally were made the centres of political parties, and we may assume that they were sometimes formed solely for political purposes."

In the 11th century, the peculiar naval empire which the Norsemen had established in the Hebrides, and on the neighboring coasts of Ireland and Scotland, under the rulers known as the Hy Ivar, became divided into two parts, called Nordureyer or Norderies and Sudureyer or Suderies, the northern and southern division. The dividing-line was at the point of Ardnamurchan, the most westerly promontory of the mainland of Scotland. "Hence the English bishopric of Sod or and Man—Sodor being the southern division of the Scottish Hebrides, and not now part of any English diocese.… The Bishop of Sodor and Man has no seat in the House of Lords, owing, as it is commonly said, to Man not having become an English possession when bishops began to sit as Lords by tenure."

      J. H. Burton,
      History of Scotland,
      chapter 15, foot-note (volume 2).

SOGDIANA.

"North of the Bactrians, beyond the Oxus, on the western slope of Belurdagh, in the valley of the Polytimetus (Zarefshan, i. e. strewing gold), which flows towards the Oxus from the east, but, instead of joining it, ends in Lake Dengis, lay the Sogdiani of the Greeks, the Suguda of the Old Persian inscriptions, and Çughdha of the Avesta, in the region of the modern Sogd. As the Oxus in its upper course separates the Bactrians from the Sogdiani, the Jaxartes, further to the north, separates the latter from the Scyths. According to Strabo, the manners of the Bactrians and Sogdiani were similar, but the Bactrians were less rude. Maracanda (Samarcand), the chief city of the Sogdiani, on the Polytimetus, is said to have had a circuit of 70 stades in the fourth century B. C."

In the civil wars of Armagnacs and Burgundians, during the reign of the insane king Charles VI., the Armagnacs, then having the king in their hands, and pretendedly acting under his commands, laid siege to Soissons and took the city by storm, on the 21st of May, A. D. 1414. "In regard to the destruction committed by the king's army in Soissons, it cannot be estimated. … There is not a Christian but would have shuddered at the atrocious excesses committed by this soldiery in Soissons: married women violated before their husbands, young damsels in the presence of their parents and relatives, holy nuns, gentle women of all ranks, of whom there were many in the town: all, or the greater part, were violated against their wills, and known carnally by divers nobles and others, who, after having satiated their own brutal passions, delivered them over without mercy to their servants; and there is no remembrance of such disorder and havoc being done by Christians. … Thus was this grand and noble city of Soissons, strong from its situation, walls and towers, full of wealth, and embellished with fine churches and holy relics, totally ruined and destroyed by the army of king Charles, and of the princes who accompanied him. The king, however, before his departure, gave orders for its rebuilding."

Monstrelet, Chronicles (translated by Johnes), book 1, chapter 120 (volume 1).

The revolt against Charles the Simple, which resulted in the overthrow of the Carolingian dynasty, had its beginning in 918. In 922, Robert, Duke of France and Count of Paris, grandfather of Hugh Capet, was chosen and crowned king by the malcontents. On the 15th of June in the next year the most desperate and sanguinary battle of the civil war was fought at Soissons, where more than half of each army perished. The Capetians won the field, but their newly crowned king was among the slain.

SOKEMANNI.

"The solidus or aureus is computed equivalent in weight of gold to twenty-one shillings one penny English money."

SOMA. HAOMA.

"It is well known that both in the Veda and the Avesta a plant is mentioned, called Soma (Zend, haoma). This plant, when properly squeezed, yielded a juice, which was allowed to ferment and, when mixed with milk and honey, produced an exhilarating and intoxicating beverage. This Soma juice has the same importance in Vedic and Avestic sacrifices as the juice of the grape had in the worship of Bacchus. The question has often been discussed what kind of plant this Soma could have been. When Soma sacrifices are performed at present, it is confessed that the real Soma can no longer be procured, and that some ci-près, such as Pûtikâs, etc., must be used instead." The Soma of later times seems to have been identified with a species of Sarcostemma. The ancient Soma is conjectured by some to have been the grape, and by others to have been the hop plant.

The Somascines, or the Congregation of Somasca, so called from the town of that name, were an order of regular clergy founded in 1540 by a Venetian noble, Girolamo Miani. They devoted themselves to the establishment and maintenance of hospitals, asylums for orphans, and the education of the poor.

SOMATOPHYLAX.

"A somatophylax in the Macedonian army was no doubt at first, as the word means, one of the officers who had to answer for the king's safety; perhaps in modern language a colonel in the body-guards or house-hold troops; but as, in unmixed monarchies, the faithful officer who was nearest the king's person, to whose watchfulness he trusted in the hour of danger, often found himself the adviser in matters of state, so, in the time of Alexander, the title of somatophylax was given to those generals on whose wisdom the king chiefly leaned, and by whose advice he was usually guided."

SONS OF LIBERTY.

SOPHERIM.

   A Sclavonic tribe which occupied, in the eighth century, the
   country between the Elbe and the Saale. They were subdued by
   Charlemagne in 806.

SORBIODUNUM.

A strong Roman fortress in Britain which is identified in site with Old Sarum of the present day.

A people of the same race as the ancient Aquitanians, who inhabited the eastern Pyrenees and the Aude.

SOUFFRANCE, A.

"The word is translated as a truce, but it means something very different from a modern truce. … The Souffrance was more of the nature of a peace at the present day; and the reason why of old it was treated as distinct from a peace was this: The wars of the time generally arose from questions of succession or of feudal superiority. When it became desirable to cease fighting, while yet neither side was prepared to give in to the other, there was an agreement to give up fighting in the mean time, reserving all rights entire for future discussion. A Souffrance or truce of this kind might last for centuries."

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1806 (OCTOBER);
      1807 (FEBRUARY-JUNE);
      SPAIN: A. D. 1808 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER) to 1812-1814;
      GERMANY: A. D. 1813 (MAY-AUGUST);
      FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (JUNE).

South Africa in its widest extent is peopled by two great and perfectly distinct indigenous races—the Kafirs and the Hottentots. The affinity of the Kafir tribes, ethnographically including the Kafirs proper and the people of Congo, is based upon the various idioms spoken by them, the direct representatives of a common but now extinct mother tongue. The aggregate of languages is now conventionally known as the A-bantu, or, more correctly, the Bantu linguistic system. The more common term Kafir, from the Arabic Kâfir = infidel, really represents but a small section of this great family, and being otherwise a term of reproach imposed upon them by strangers, is of course unknown to the people themselves. All the Bantu tribes are distinguished by a dark skin and woolly hair, which varies much in length and quality, but is never sleek or straight. … According to its geographical position the Bantu system is divided into the Eastern group, from its principal representatives known as the Ama-Zulu and Ama-Khosa or Kafir proper, the Central, or Be-tchuana group, and the Western or O-va-Herero, or Damara group. … The northern division of these Bantus bears the name of Ama-Zulu, and they are amongst the best representatives of dark-coloured races. The Zulus are relatively well developed and of large size, though not surpassing the average height of Europeans, and with decidedly better features than the Ama-Khosa. … The most wide-spread and most numerous of all these Kafir tribes are the Bechuanas [including the Basutos], their present domain stretching from the upper Orange river northwards to the Zambesi, and over the west coast highland north of Namaqualand; of this vast region, however, they occupy the outskirts only. … The Hottentots, or more correctly Koi-Koin (men), have no material features in common with the great Bantu family, except their woolly hair, though even this presents some considerable points of difference. Their general type is that of a people with a peculiar pale yellow-brown complexion, very curly 'elf-lock' or matted hair, narrow forehead, high cheek-bones projecting side-ways, pointed chin, body of medium size, rather hardy than strong, with small hands and feet, and platynocephalous cranium. … The Hottentots are properly divided into three groups: the Colonial, or Hottentots properly so called, dwelling in Cape Colony, and thence eastwards to the borders of Kafirland …; the Korana, settled mainly on the right bank of the Orange river …; lastly, the Namaqua, whose domain embraces the western portion of South Africa, bordering eastwards on the Kalahari desert."

SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1486-1806.
   Portuguese discovery.-
   Dutch possession.
   English acquisition.

The Cape of Good Hope, "as far as we know, was first doubled
by Bartholomew Diaz in 1486.

He, and some of the mariners with him, called it the Cape of Torments, or Capo Tormentoso, from the miseries they endured. The more comfortable name which it now bears was given to it by King John of Portugal, as being the new way discovered by his subjects to the glorious Indies. Diaz, it seems, never in truth saw the Cape, but was carried past it to Algoa Bay. … Vasco da Gama, another sailor hero, said to have been of royal Portuguese descent, followed him in 1497. He landed to the west of the Cape. … Vasco da Gama did not stay long at the Cape, but proceeding on went up the East Coast as far as our second South African colony, which bears the name which he then gave to it. He called the land Tierra de Natal, because he reached it on the day of our Lord's Nativity. The name has stuck to it ever since and no doubt will now be preserved. From thence Da Gama went on to India. … The Portuguese seem to have made no settlement at the Cape intended even to be permanent; but they did use the place during the 16th and first half of the next century as a port at which they could call for supplies and assistance on their way out to the East Indies. The East had then become the great goal of commerce to others besides the Portuguese. In 1600 our own East India Company was formed, and in 1602 that of the Dutch. Previous to those dates, in 1591, an English sailor, Captain Lancaster, visited the Cape, and in 1620 Englishmen landed and took possession of it in the name of James I. But nothing came of these visitings and declarations, although an attempt was made by Great Britain to establish a house of call for her trade out to the East. For this purpose a small gang of convicts was deposited on Robben Island, which is just off Capetown, but as a matter of course the convicts quarrelled with themselves and the Natives, and came to a speedy end. In 1595 the Dutch came, but did not then remain. It was not till 1652 that the first Europeans who were destined to be the pioneer occupants of the new land were put on shore at the Cape of Good Hope, and thus made the first Dutch settlement. Previous to that the Cape had in fact been a place of call for vessels of all nations going and coming to and from the East. But from this date, 1652, it was to be used for the Dutch exclusively. … The home Authority at this time was not the Dutch Government, but the Council of Seventeen at Amsterdam, who were the Directors of the Dutch East India Company. … From 1658, when the place was but six years old, there comes a very sad record indeed. The first cargo of slaves was landed at the Cape from the Guinea Coast. In this year, out of an entire population of 360, more than a half were slaves. The total number of these was 187. To control them and to defend the place there were but 113 European men capable of bearing arms. This slave element at once became antagonistic to any system of real colonization, and from that day to this has done more than any other evil to retard the progress of the people. It was extinguished, much to the disgust of the old Dutch inhabitants, under Mr. Buxton's Emancipation Act in 1834;—but its effects are still felt." The new land of which the Dutch had taken possession "was by no means unoccupied or unpossessed. There was a race of savages in possession, to whom the Dutch soon gave the name of Hottentots. [The name was probably taken from some sound in their language which was of frequent occurrence; they seem to have been called 'Ottentoos,' 'Hotnots," Hottentotes,' 'Hodmodods,' and 'Hadmandods,' promiscuously. —Foot-note.) … Soon after the settlement was established the burghers were forbidden to trade with these people at all, and then hostilities commenced. The Hottentots found that much, in the way of land, had been taken from them and that nothing was to be got. They … have not received, as Savages, a bad character. They are said to have possessed fidelity, attachment, and intelligence. … But the Hottentot, with all his virtues, was driven into rebellion. There was some fighting, in which the natives of course were beaten, and rewards were offered, so much for a live Hottentot, and so much for a dead one. This went on till, in 1672, it was found expedient to purchase land from the natives. A contract was made in that year to prevent future cavilling, as was then alleged, between the Governor and one of the native princes, by which the district of the Cape of Good Hope was ceded to the Dutch for a certain nominal price. … But after a very early period—1684 —there was no further buying of land. … The land was then annexed by Europeans as convenience required. In all this the Dutch of those days did very much as the English have done since. … The Hottentot … is said to be nearly gone, and, being a yellow man, to have lacked strength to endure European seductions. But as to the Hottentot and his fate there are varied opinions. I have been told by some that I have never seen a pure Hottentot. Using my own eyes and my own idea of what a Hottentot is, I should have said that the bulk of the population of the Western Province of the Cape Colony is Hottentot. The truth probably is that they have become so mingled with other races as to have lost much of their identity; but that the race has not perished, as have the Indians of North America and the Maoris. … The last half of the 17th and the whole of the 18th century saw the gradual progress of the Dutch depôt,—a colony it could hardly be called,—going on in the same slow determined way, and always with the same purpose. It was no colony because those who managed it at home in Holland, and they who at the Cape served with admirable fidelity their Dutch masters, never entertained an idea as to the colonization of the country. … In 1795 came the English. In that year the French Republican troops had taken possession of Holland [see FRANCE: A. D. 1795 (JUNE-DECEMBER)], and the Prince of Orange, after the manner of dethroned potentates, took refuge in England. He_gave an authority, which was dated from Kew, to the Governor of the Cape to deliver up all and everything in his hands to the English forces. {2962} On the arrival of the English fleet there was found to be, at the same time, a colonist rebellion. … In this double emergency the poor Dutch Governor, who does not seem to have regarded the Prince's order as an authority, was sorely puzzled. He fought a little, but only a little, and then the English were in possession. … In 1797 Lord Macartney came out as the first British Governor. Great Britain at this time took possession of the Cape to prevent the French from doing so. No doubt it was a most desirable possession, as being a half-way house for us to India as it had been for the Dutch. But we should not, at any rate then, have touched the place had it not been that Holland, or rather the Dutch, were manifestly unable to retain it. … Our rule over the Dutchmen was uneasy and unprofitable. Something of rebellion seems to have been going on during the whole time. … When at the peace of Amiens in 1802 it was arranged that the Cape of Good Hope should be restored to Holland [see FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802], English Ministers of State did not probably grieve much at the loss. … But the peace of Amiens was delusive, and there was soon war between England and France. Then again Great Britain felt the necessity of taking the Cape, and proceeded to do so on this occasion without any semblance of Dutch authority. At that time whatever belonged to Holland was almost certain to fall in to the hands of France. In 1805 … Sir David Baird was sent with half a dozen regiments to expel, not the Dutch, but the Dutch Governor and the Dutch soldiers from the Cape. This he did easily, having encountered some slender resistance; and thus in 1806, on the 19th January, after a century and a half of Dutch rule, the Cape of Good Hope became a British colony."

Sir B. Frere, Historical Sketch of South Africa (Royal Historical Society Transactions N. S., volumes 2 and 4).

SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1806-1881.
   The English and the Dutch Boers.
   The "Great Trek."
   Successive Boer republics of Natal, Orange Free State,
   and the Transvaal, absorbed in the British dominions.
   The Boer War.

The early history of the Cape Colony, after it became a dependency of the British Crown, "is a record of the struggles of the settlers, both English and Dutch, against the despotic system of government established by Lord Charles Somerset; of Kaffir wars, in which the colonists were often hard put to it to hold their own; and of the struggle for the liberty of the Press, sustained with success by John Fairbairn, and Thomas Pringle, the poet of South Africa, the Ovid of a self-chosen exile. For a time the Dutch and English settlers lived in peace and amity together, but the English efforts to alleviate the condition of, and finally emancipate the slaves, severed the two races. The Dutch settlers held the old Biblical notions about slavery, and they resented fiercely the law of 1833 emancipating all slaves throughout the colony in 1834. The Boers at once determined to 'trek,' to leave the colony which was under the jurisdiction of the English law, and find in the South African wilderness, where no human law prevailed, food for their flocks, and the pastoral freedom of Jacob and of Abraham. The Boers would live their own lives in their own way. They had nothing in common with the Englishman, and they wished for nothing in common. … They were a primitive people, farming, hunting, reading the Bible, pious, sturdy, and independent; and the colonial Government was by no means willing to see them leaving the fields and farms that they had colonised, in order to found fresh states outside the boundaries of the newly acquired territory. But the Government was powerless, it tried, and tried in vain, to prevent this emigration. There was no law to prevent it. … So, with their waggons, their horses, their cattle and sheep, their guns, and their few household goods, the hardy Boers struck out into the interior and to the north-east, in true patriarchal fashion [the migration being known as the Great Trek], seeking their promised land, and that 'desolate freedom of the wild ass' which was dear to their hearts. They founded a colony at Natal, fought and baptized the new colony in their own blood. The Zulu chief, Dingaan, who sold them the territory, murdered the Boer leader, Peter Retief, and his 79 followers as soon as the deed was signed. This was the beginning of the Boer hatred to the native races. The Boers fought with the Zulus successfully enough, fought with the English who came upon them less successfully. The Imperial Government decided that it would not permit its subjects to establish any independent Governments in any part of South Africa. In 1843, after no slight struggle and bloodshed, the Dutch republic of Natal ceased to be, and Natal became part of the British dominion. Again the Boers, who were unwilling to remain under British rule, 'trekked' northward; again a free Dutch state was founded—the Orange Free State. Once again the English Government persisted in regarding them as British subjects, and as rebels if they refused to admit as much. Once again there was strife and bloodshed, and in 1848 the Orange settlement was placed under British authority, while the leading Boers fled for their lives across the Vaal River, and, obstinately independent, began to found the Transvaal Republic. After six years, however, of British rule in the Orange territory the Imperial Government decided to give it back to the Boers, whose stubborn desire for self-government, and unchanging dislike for foreign rule, made them practically unmanageable as subjects. In April 1854 a convention was entered into with the Boers of the Orange territory, by which the Imperial Government guaranteed the future independence of the Orange Free State. Across the Vaal River the Transvaal Boers grew and flourished after their own fashion, fought the natives, established their republic and their Volksraad. But in 1877 the Transvaal republic, had been getting rather the worst of it in some of these struggles, and certain of the Transvaal Boers seem to have made suggestions to England that she should take the Transvaal republic under her protection. Sir Theophilus Shepstone was sent out to investigate the situation. He seems to have entirely misunderstood the condition of things, and to have taken the frightened desires of a few Boers as the honest sentiments of the whole Boer nation. In an evil hour he hoisted the English flag in the Transvaal, and declared the little republic a portion of the territory of the British Crown. {2963} As a matter of fact, the majority of the Boers were a fierce, independent people, very jealous of their liberty, and without the least desire to come under the rule, to escape which they had wandered so far from the earliest settlements of their race. … The Boers of the Transvaal sent deputation after deputation to England to appeal, and appeal in vain, against the annexation. Lord Carnarvon had set his whole heart upon a scheme of South African confederation; his belief in the ease with which this confederation might be accomplished was carefully fostered by judiciously coloured official reports. … Sir Bartle Frere, 'as a friend,' advised the Boers 'not to believe one word' of any statements to the effect that the English people would be willing to give up the Transvaal. 'Never believe,' he said, 'that the English people will do anything of the kind.' 'When the chief civil and military command of the eastern part of South Africa was given to Sir Garnet Wolseley, Sir Garnet Wolseley was not less explicit in his statements. … In spite of the announcements of Sir Bartle Frere, Sir Garnet Wolseley, and Sir Owen Lanyon, the disaffected Boers were not without more or less direct English encouragement. The Boer deputations had found many friends in England. … One of those who thus sympathised was Mr. Gladstone. In his Midlothian speeches he denounced again and again the Conservative policy which had led to the annexation of the Transvaal. … While all the winds of the world were carrying Mr. Gladstone's words to every corner of the earth, it is not surprising that the Boers of the Transvaal … should have caught at these encouraging sentences, and been cheered by them, and animated by them to rise against the despotism denounced by a former Prime Minister of England. … For some time there seemed to be no reasonable chance of liberty, but in the end of 1880 the Boers saw their opportunity. … There were few troops in the Transvaal. The Boer hour had come. As in most insurrections, the immediate cause of the rising was slight enough. A Boer named Bezhuidenot was summoned by the landdrost of Potchefstrom to pay a claim made by the Treasury officials at Pretoria. Bezhuidenot resisted the claim, which certainly appears to have been illegal. … The landdrost attached a waggon of Bezhuidenot's, and announced that it would be sold to meet the claim. On November 11 the waggon was brought into the open square of Potchefstrom, and the sheriff was about to begin the sale, when a number of armed Boers pulled him off and carried the waggon away in triumph. They were unopposed, as there was no force in the town to resist them. The incident, trifling in itself, of Bezhuidenot's cart, was the match which fired the long-prepared train. Sir Owen Lanyon sent some troops to Potchefstrom; a wholly unsuccessful attempt was made to arrest the ringleaders of the Bezhuidenot affair; it was obvious that a collision was close at hand. … On Monday, December 13, 1880, almost exactly a month after the affair of Bezhuidenot's waggon, a mass meeting of Boers at Heidelberg proclaimed the Transvaal once again a republic, established a triumvirate Government, and prepared to defend their republic in arms. … The news of the insurrections aroused the Cape Government to a sense of the seriousness of the situation. Movements of British troops were at once made to put the insurgents down with all speed. It is still an unsettled point on which side the first shot was fired. There were some shots exchanged at Potchefstrom on December 15. … Previously to this the 94th regiment had marched from Leydenberg to reinforce Pretoria on December 5, and had reached Middleburgh about a week later. On the way came rumours of the Boer rising. … Colonel Anstruther seems to have felt convinced that the force he had with him was quite strong enough to render a good account of any rebels who might attempt to intercept its march. The whole strength of his force, however, officers included, did not amount to quite 250 men. The troops crossed the Oliphants River, left it two days' march behind them, and on the morning of the 20th were marching quietly along with their long line of waggons and their band playing 'God save the Queen' under the bright glare of the sun. Suddenly, on the rising ground near the Bronkhorst Spruit a body of armed Boers appeared. A man galloped out from among them—Paul de Beer—with a flag of truce. Colonel Anstruther rode out to meet him, and received a sealed despatch warning the colonel that the British advance would be considered as a declaration of war. Colonel Anstruther replied simply that he was ordered to go to Pretoria, and that he should do so. Each man galloped back to his own force, and firing began. In ten minutes the fight, if fight it can be called, was over. The Boers were unrivalled sharp-shooters, had marked out every officer; every shot was aimed, and every shot told. The Boers were well covered by trees on rising ground; the English were beneath them, had no cover at all, and were completely at their mercy. In ten minutes all the officers had fallen, some forty men were killed, and nearly double the number wounded. Colonel Anstruther, who was himself badly wounded, saw that he must either surrender or have all his men shot down, and he surrendered. … Colonel Anstruther, who afterwards died of his wounds, bore high tribute in his despatch to the kindness and humanity of the Boers when once the fight was done. … Sir George Colley struggled bravely for a while to make head against the Boers. At Lang's Nek and Ingago he did his best, and the men under him fought gallantly, but the superior positions and marksmanship of the Boers gave them the advantage in both fights. Under their murderous fire the officers and men fell helplessly. Officer after officer of a regiment would be shot down by the unerring aim of the Boers while trying to rally his men, while the British fire did comparatively slight damage, and the troops seldom came to sufficiently close quarters to use the bayonet. But the most fatal battle of the campaign was yet to come. Sir Evelyn Wood had arrived at the Cape with reinforcements, had met Sir George Colley, and had gone to Pietermaritzburg to await the coming of further reinforcements. On Saturday night, February 26, Sir George Colley with a small force moved out of the camp at Mount Prospect, and occupied the Majuba Hill, which overlooked the Boer camps on the flat beyond Lang's Nek. Early next morning the Boers attacked the hill; there was some desultory firing for a while, under cover of which three Boer storming parties ascended the hill almost unseen. {2964} The British were outflanked and surrounded, a deadly fire was poured in upon them from all sides. The slaughter was excessive. As usual the officers were soon shot down. Sir George Colley, who was directing the movements as coolly as if at review, was killed just as he was giving orders to cease firing. The British broke and fled, fired upon as they fled by the sharpshooters. Some escaped; a large number were taken prisoners. So disastrous a defeat had seldom fallen upon British arms. The recent memory of Maiwand was quite obliterated. That was the last episode of the war. General Wood agreed to a temporary armistice. There had been negotiations going on between the Boers and the British before the Majuba Hill defeat, which need never have occurred if there had not been a delay in a reply of Kruger's to a letter of Sir George Colley's. The negotiations were now resumed, and concluded in the establishment of peace, on what may be called a Boer basis. The republic of the Transvaal was to be re-established, with a British protectorate and a British Resident indeed, but practically granting the Boers the self-government for which they took up arms."

"In 1811 the first Kafir war was brought on by the depredations of those warlike natives on the Boers of the eastern frontier; a war to the knife ensued, the Kafirs were driven to the other side of the Great Fish River, and military posts were formed along the border. A second war, however, broke out in 1818, when the Kafirs invading the colony drove the farmers completely out of the country west of the Great Fish River, penetrating as far as Uitenhage. But the Kafirs could not stand against the guns of the colonists, and the second war terminated in the advance of an overwhelming force into Kafirland, and the annexation of a large slice of territory, east of the Great Fish River, to the colony. … For a third time, in 1835, a horde of about 10,000 fighting men of the Kafirs spread fire and slaughter and pillage over the eastern districts, a war which led, as the previous ones had done, to a more extended invasion of Kafraria by the British troops, and the subjugation of the tribes east of the Kei river. … A fourth great Kafir war in 1846, provoked by the daring raids of these hostile tribes and their bold invasions of the colony was also followed up by farther encroachments on Kafir territory, and in 1847 a proclamation was issued extending the frontier to the Orange river on the north and to the Keiskamma river in the east, British sovereignty being then also declared over the territory extending from the latter river eastward to the Kei, though this space was at first reserved for occupation by the Kafirs and named British Kafraria. But peace was restored only for a brief time; in 1857 a fresh Kafir rebellion had broken out, and for two years subsequently a sort of guerilla warfare was maintained along the eastern frontier, involving great losses of life and destruction of property. In 1863 this last Kafir war was brought to a conclusion, and British Kafraria was placed under the rule of European functionaries and incorporated with the colony. In 1868 the Basutos [or Eastern Bechuanas], who occupy the territory about the head of the Orange river, between its tributary the Caledon and the summits of the Drakenberg range, and who had lived under a semi-protectorate of the British since 1848, were proclaimed British subjects. … Subsequently large portions of formerly independent Kafraria between the Kei river and the southern border of Natal have passed under the government of the Cape."

SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1867-1871.
Discovery of Diamonds.
Annexation of Griqualand west to Cape Colony.

"At this time [1877] besides the three English Colonies of Cape Town, Natal, and the lately formed Griqualand, there were two independent Dutch Republics,—the Orange Free State, and the Transvaal. Much of the white population even of the English Provinces was Dutch, and a still larger proportion consisted of reclaimed or half-reclaimed natives. Thus … there lay behind all disputes the question which invariably attends frontier settlements—the treatment of the native population. This difficulty had become prominent in the year 1873 and 1874, when the fear of treachery on the part of a chief of the name of Langalibalele located in Natal had driven the European inhabitants to unjustifiable violence. The tribe over which the chief had ruled had been scattered and driven from its territory, the chief himself brought to trial, and on most insufficient evidence sentenced to transportation. It was the persuasion that he was intriguing with external tribes which had excited the unreasoning fear of the colonists. For beyond the frontier there lay the Zulus, a remarkable nation, organised entirely upon a military system, and forming a great standing army under the despotic rule of their King Cetchwayo. Along the frontier of Natal the English preserved friendly relations with this threatening chief. But the Dutch Boers of the Transvaal, harsh and arbitrary in their treatment of natives, had already involved themselves in a war with a neighbouring potentate of the name of Secocoeni, and had got into disputes with Cetchwayo, which threatened to bring upon the European Colonies an indiscriminate assault." Lord Carnarvon thought it practicable to cure the troubles in South Africa by a confederation of the colonies. "The difficulty of the situation was so obvious to the Colonial Minister that he had chosen as High Commissioner a man whose experience and energy he could thoroughly trust. Unfortunately in Sir Bartle Frere he had selected a man not only of great ability, but one who carried self-reliance and imperialist views to an extreme. … The danger caused by the reckless conduct of the Boers upon the frontier, and their proved incapacity to resist their native enemies, had made it a matter of the last importance that they should join the proposed Confederation, and thus be at once restrained and assisted by the central power. Sir Theophilus Shepstone had been charged with the duty of bringing the Transvaal Republic to consent to an arrangement of this sort. … Unable to persuade the Boers to accept his suggestions for an amicable arrangement, he proceeded, in virtue of powers intrusted to him, to declare the Republic annexed, and to take over the government. This high-handed act brought with it, as some of its critics in the House of Commons had prophesied, disastrous difficulties. {2965} Not only were the Boers themselves almost as a matter of course disaffected, but they handed over to the Imperial Government all their difficulties and hostilities. They were involved in disputes with both their barbarous neighbours. … In 1875 they had made demands upon Cetchwayo, the most important of which was a rectification of frontier largely in their own favour. … Commissioners were appointed in 1878 to inquire into the rights of the case. … The Commissioners arrived at a unanimous decision against the Dutch claims. … But before the Treaty could be carried out it required ratification from the High Commissioner, and it came back from his hands clogged with formidable conditions. … While … he accepted the boundary report, he determined to make it an opportunity for the destruction of Cetchwayo's power. In December a Special Commission was despatched to meet the Zulu Envoys to explain the award, but at the same time to demand corresponding guarantees from the King. When these were unfolded they appeared to be the abolition of his military system and the substitution of a system of tribal regiments approved by the British Government, the acceptance of a British Resident by whose advice he was to act, the protection of missionaries, and the payment of certain fines for irregularities committed by his subjects. These claims were thrown into the form of an ultimatum, and Cetchwayo was given thirty days to decide. … It was to be submission or war. It proved to be war. Sir Bartle Frere had already prepared for this contingency; he had detained in South Africa the troops which should have returned to England, and had applied to the Home Government for more. … Lord Chelmsford was appointed to the command of the troops upon the frontier, and on the 12th, the very day on which the time allowed for the acceptance of the ultimatum expired, the frontier was crossed. The invasion was directed towards Ulundi, the Zulu capital. … The first step across the frontier produced a terrible disaster. The troops under the immediate command of Lord Chelmsford encamped at Isandlana without any of the ordinary precautions, and in a bad position. … In this unprotected situation Lord Chelmsford, while himself advancing to reconnoitre, left two battalions of the 24th with some native allies under Colonel Pulleine, who were subsequently joined by a body of 3,000 natives and a few Europeans under Colonel Durnford. The forces left in the camp were suddenly assaulted by the Zulus in overwhelming numbers and entirely destroyed [January 22, 1879]. It was only the magnificent defence by Chard and Bromhead of the post and hospital at Rorke's Drift which prevented the victorious savages from pouring into Natal. Lord Chelmsford on returning from his advance hurried from the fearful scene of slaughter back to the frontier. For the moment all was panic; an immediate irruption of the enemy was expected. But when it was found that Colonel Wood to the west could hold his own though only with much rough fighting, and that Colonel Pearson, towards the mouth of the river, after a successful battle had occupied and held Ekowe, confidence was re-established. But the troops in Ekowe were cut off from all communication except by means of heliographic signals, and the interest of the war was for a while centred upon the beleaguered garrison. With extreme caution, in spite of the clamorous criticism levelled against him, Lord Chelmsford refused to move to its rescue till fully reinforced. Towards the end of March however it was known that the provisions were running low, and on the 29th an army of 6,000 men again crossed the frontier. On this occasion there was no lack of precaution. … As they approached the fortress, they were assaulted at Gingilovo, their strong formation proved efficient against the wild bravery of their assailants, a complete victory was won, and the garrison at Ekowe rescued. A day or two earlier an even more reckless assault upon Colonel Wood's camp at Kambula was encountered with the same success. But for the re-establishment of the English prestige it was thought necessary to undertake a fresh invasion of the country. … Several attempts at peace had been made on the part of the Zulus. But their ambassadors were never, in the opinion of the English generals, sufficiently accredited to allow negotiations to be opened. Yet it would appear that Cetchwayo was really desirous of peace, according to his own account even the assault at Isandlana was an accident, and the two last great battles were the result of local efforts. At length in July properly authorised envoys came to the camp. Terms of submission were dictated to them, but as they were not at once accepted a final battle was fought resulting completely in favour of the English, who then occupied and burnt Ulundi, the Zulu capital. … Sir Garnet Wolseley was … again sent out with full powers to effect a settlement. His first business was to capture the King. When this was done he proceeded to divide Zululand into thirteen districts, each under a separate chief; the military system was destroyed; the people were disarmed and no importation of arms allowed; a Resident was to decide disputes in which British subjects were involved. The reception of missionaries against the will of the people was not however insisted on."

      ALSO IN:
      F. E. Colenso and E. Durnford,
      History of the Zulu War.

SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1885-1893.
   British acquisition of Matabeleland or Zambesia.
   Dominion of the British South Africa Company.
   War with King Lobengula.

"The Boers, ever on the lookout for new lands into which to trek, had long ago fixed their eyes on the country north of the Limpopo, known generally as Matabeleland, ruled over by Lobengula, the son of the chief of the Matabeles. … The reports of Mauch, Baines, and others, of the rich gold mines contained in this territory, were well known. … Other travellers and sportsmen, Mohr, Oates, Selous, gave the most favourable accounts not only of the gold of the country, but of the suitability of a large portion of the high plateau known as Mashonaland for European settlement and agricultural operations. When Sir Charles Warren was in Bechuanaland in 1885, several of his officers made journeys to Matabeleland, and their reports all tended to show the desirability of taking possession of that country; indeed Sir Charles was assured that Lobengula would welcome a British alliance as a protection against the Boers, of whose designs he was afraid. … {2966} As a result of Sir Charles Warren's mission to Bechuanaland, and of the reports furnished by the agents he sent into Matabeleland, the attention of adventurers and prospectors was more and more drawn towards the latter country. The Portuguese … had been electrified into activity by the events of the past two years. That the attention of the British Government was directed to Matabeleland even in 1887 is evident from a protest in August of that year, on the part of Lord Salisbury, against an official Portuguese map claiming a section of that country as within the Portuguese sphere. Lord Salisbury then clearly stated that no pretensions of Portugal to Matabeleland could be recognised, and that the Zambesi should be regarded as the natural northern limit of British South Africa. The British Prime Minister reminded the Portuguese Government that according to the Berlin Act no claim to territory in Central Africa could be recognised that was not supported by effective occupation. The Portuguese Government maintained (it must be admitted with justice) that this applied only to the coast, but Lord Salisbury stood firmly to his position. … Germans, Boers, Portuguese, were all ready to lay their hands on the country claimed by Lobengula. England stepped in and took it out of their hands; and at the worst she can only be accused of obeying the law of the universe, 'Might is Right.' By the end of 1887 the attempts of the Transvaal Boers to obtain a hold over Matabeleland had reached a crisis. It became evident that no time was to be lost if England was to secure the Zambesi as the northern limit of extension of her South African possessions. Lobengula himself was harassed and anxious as to the designs of the Boers on the one hand, and the doings of the Portuguese on the north of his territory on the other. In the Rev. J. Smith Moffat, Assistant Commissioner in Bechuanaland, England had a trusty agent who had formerly been a missionary for many years in Matabeleland, and had great influence with Lobengula. Under the circumstances, it does not seem to have been difficult for Mr. Moffat to persuade the King to put an end to his troubles by placing himself under the protection of Great Britain. On 21st March 1888, Sir Hercules Robinson, Governor of Cape Colony, and Her Majesty's High Commissioner for South Africa, was able to inform the Home Government that on the previous 11th February Lobengula had appended his mark to a brief document which secured to England supremacy in Matabeleland over all her rivals. … The publication of the treaty was, as might be expected, followed by reclamations both on the part of the Transvaal and of Portugal. Before the British hold was firmly established over the country attempts were made by large parties of Boers to trek into Matabeleland. … Individual Boers as well, it must be said, as individual Englishmen at the kraal of Lobengula, attempted to poison the mind of the latter against the British. But the King remained throughout faithful to his engagements. Indeed, it was not Lobengula himself who gave any cause for anxiety during the initial stage of the English occupation. He is, no doubt, a powerful chief, but even he is obliged to defer to the wishes of his 'indunas' and his army. … Lobengula himself kept a firm hand over his warriors, but even he was at times apprehensive that they might burst beyond all control. Happily this trying initial period passed without disaster. … No sooner was the treaty signed than Lobengula was besieged for concessions of land, the main object of which was to obtain the gold with which the country was said to abound, especially in the east, in Mashonaland." The principal competitors for what was looked upon as the great prize were two syndicates of capitalists, which finally became amalgamated, in 1889, under the skilful diplomacy of Mr. Cecil J. Rhodes, forming the great British South Africa Company, about which much has been heard in recent years. "The principal field of the operations of the British South Africa Company was defined in the charter to be 'the region of South Africa lying immediately to the north of British Bechuanaland, and to the north and west of the South African Republic, and to the west of the Portuguese dominions.' The Company was also empowered to acquire any further concessions, if approved of by 'Our Secretary of State.' … The Company was empowered to act as the representative of the Imperial Government, without, however, obtaining any assistance from the Government to bear the expense of the administration. … The capital of the Company was a million sterling. It is not easy to define the relations of the Chartered Company to the various other companies which had mining interests in the country. In itself it was not a consolidation of the interests of those companies. Its functions were to administer the country and to work the concessions on behalf of the Concessionaires, in return for which it was to retain fifty per cent. of the profits. … When the British South African Company was prepared to enter into active occupation of the territories which they were authorised to exploit, they had on the one hand the impis of Lobengula eager to wash their spears in white blood; on the south the Boers of the Transvaal, embittered at being prevented from trekking to the north of the Limpopo, and on the east and on the north-east the Portuguese trying to raise a wall of claims and historical pretensions against the tide of English energy. … An agreement was concluded between England and Portugal in August 1890, by which the eastern limits of the South Africa Company's claims were fixed, and the course of the unknown Sabi River, from north to south, was taken as a boundary. But this did not satisfy either Portugal or the Company, and the treaty was never ratified. … A new agreement [was] signed on the 11th June 1891, under which Portugal can hardly be said to have fared so well as she would have done under the one repudiated by the Cortes in the previous year. The boundary between the British Company's territories was drawn farther east than in the previous treaty. The line starting from the Zambesi near Zumbo runs in a general south-east direction to a point where the Mazoe River is cut by the 33rd degree of east longitude. The boundary then runs in a generally south direction to the junction of the Lunde and the Sabi, where it strikes south-west to the north-east corner of the South African Republic, on the Limpopo. In tracing the frontier along the slope of the plateau, the Portuguese sphere was not allowed to come farther west than 32° 30' East of Greenwich, nor the British sphere east of 33° East. A slight deflection westwards was made so as to include Massi Kessi in the Portuguese sphere. … According to the terms of the arrangement, the navigation of the Zambesi and the Shiré was declared free to all nations."

By the spring of 1893 the British South Africa Company had fairly laid hands upon its great dominion of Zambesia. Matabele was swarming with searchers for gold; a railroad from the port of Beira, through Portuguese territory, was in progress: a town at Fort Salisbury was rising. Lobengula, the Matabele king, repented speedily of his treaty and repudiated the construction put on it by the English. Quarrels arose over the Mashonas, whom the Matabeles held in slavery and whom the new lords of the country protected. Both parties showed impatience for war, and it was not long in breaking out. The first shots were exchanged early in October; before the end of the year the British were complete masters of the country, and Lobengula had fled from his lost kingdom, to die, it is said, during the flight. There were two pitched battles, in which the natives suffered terribly. They obtained revenge in one instance, only, by cutting off a party of thirty men, not one of whom survived.

SOUTH AUSTRALIA.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY,
      CHEROKEES, MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY,
      SHAWANESE, TIMUQUANAN FAMILY.

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1520.
The coast explored by Vasquez de Ayllon and called Chicora.

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1562-1563.
The short-lived Huguenot colony on Broad River.

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1663-1670.
The grant to Monk, Clarendon, Shaftesbury, and others.
The first settlement.

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1670-1696.
The founding of Charleston.
The growth of the Colony.

The expedition of Captain Sayle in 1670 (see NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1663-1670) resulted in a settlement, made in 1671, which is historically referred to as that of "Old Charleston." This continued to be for some years the capital of the southern colony: "but, as the commerce of the colony increased, the disadvantages of the position were discovered. It could not be approached by large vessels at low water. In 1680, by a formal command of the proprietors, a second removal took place, the government literally following the people, who had in numbers anticipated the legislative action: and the seat of government was transferred to a neck of land called Oyster Point, admirably conceived for the purposes of commerce, at the confluence of two spacious and deep rivers, the Kiawah and Etiwan, which, in compliment to Lord Shaftesbury, had already been called after him, Ashley and Cooper. Here the foundation was laid of the present city of Charleston. In that year 30 houses were built, though this number could have met the wants of but a small portion of the colony. The heads of families at the Port Royal settlement alone, whose names are preserved to us, are 48 in number: those brought from Clarendon by Yeamans could not have been less numerous: and the additions which they must have had from the mother-country, during the seven or eight years of their stay at the Ashley river settlement, were likely to have been very considerable. Roundheads and cavaliers alike sought refuge in Carolina, which, for a long time, remained a pet province of the proprietors. Liberty of conscience, which the charter professed to guaranty, encouraged emigration. The hopes of avarice, the rigor of creditors, the fear of punishment and persecution, were equal incentives to the settlement of this favored but foreign region. … In 1674, when Nova Belgia, now New York, was conquered by the English, a number of the Dutch from that place sought refuge in Carolina. … Two vessels filled with foreign, perhaps French, Protestants, were transported to Carolina, at the expense of Charles II., in 1679; and the revocation of the edict of Nantz, a few years afterwards, … contributed still more largely to the infant settlement, and provided Carolina with some of the best portions of her growing population. … In 1696, a colony of Congregationalists, from Dorchester in Massachusetts, ascended the Ashley river nearly to its head, and there founded a town, to which they gave the name of that which they had left. Dorchester became a town of some importance. … It is now deserted; the habitations and inhabitants have alike vanished; but the reverend spire, rising through the forest trees which surround it, still attests (1840) the place of their worship, and where so many of them yet repose. Various other countries and causes contributed to the growth and population of the new settlement."

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1680.
Spanish attack from Florida.
Indian and Negro Slavery.

   "About 1680 a few leading Scotch Presbyterians planned the
   establishment of a refuge for their persecuted brethren within
   the bounds of Carolina. The plan shrunk to smaller dimensions
   than those originally contemplated. Finally Lord Cardross,
   with a colony of ten Scotch families, settled on the vacant
   territory of Port Royal. The fate of the settlement
   foreshadowed the miseries of Darien. It suffered alike from
   the climate and from the jealousy of the English settlers. …
   For nearly ten years the dread of a Spanish attack had hung
   over South Carolina. … In 1680 the threatened storm broke upon
   the colony. Three galleys landed an invading force at Edisto,
   where the Governor and secretary had private houses, plundered
   them of money, plate, and slaves, and killed the Governor's
   brother-in-law. They then fell upon the Scotch settlement,
   which had now shrunk to 25 men, and swept it clean out of
   existence. The colonists did not sit down tamely under their
   injuries. They raised a force of 400 men and were on the point
   of making a retaliatory attack when they were checked by an
   order from the Proprietors. …
{2968}
   The Proprietors may have felt … that, although the immediate
   attack was unprovoked, the colonists were not wholly blameless
   in the matter. The Spaniards had suffered from the ravages of
   pirates who were believed to be befriended by the inhabitants
   of Charlestown. In another way too the settlers had placed a
   weapon in the hands of their enemies. The Spaniards were but
   little to be dreaded, unless strengthened by an Indian
   alliance. … But from the first settlement of Carolina the
   colony was tainted with a vice which imperilled its relations
   with the Indians. Barbadoes … had a large share in the
   original settlement of Carolina. In that colony negro slavery
   was already firmly established as the one system of industry.
   At the time when Yeamans and his followers set sail for the
   shores of Carolina, Barbadoes had probably two negroes for
   everyone white inhabitant. The soil and climate of the new
   territory did everything to confirm the practice of slavery,
   and South Carolina was from the outset what she ever after
   remained, the peculiar home of that evil usage. To the West
   India planter every man of dark colour seemed a natural and
   proper object of traffic. The settler in Carolina soon learnt
   the same view. In Virginia and Maryland there are but few
   traces of any attempt to enslave the Indians. In Carolina …
   the Indian was kidnapped and sold, sometimes to work on what
   had once been his own soil, sometimes to end his days as an
   exile and bondsman in the West Indies. As late as 1708 the
   native population furnished a quarter of the whole body of
   slaves. It would be unfair to attribute all the hostilities
   between the Indians and the colonists to this one source, but
   it is clear that it was an import:mt factor. From their very
   earliest days the settlers were involved in troubles with
   their savage neighbours."

J. A. Doyle, The English in America: Virginia, Maryland, and the Carolinas, chapter 12.

"Of the original thirteen states, South Carolina alone was from its origin essentially a planting state with slave labor. … The proprietaries tempted emigrants by the offer of land at an easy quit-rent, and 150 acres were granted for every able man-servant. 'In that they meant negroes as well as Christians.' … It became the great object of the emigrant 'to buy negro slaves, without which,' adds Wilson, 'a planter can never do any great matter'; and the negro race was multiplied so rapidly by importations that, in a few years, we are told, the blacks in the low country were to the whites in the proportion of 22 to 12."

G. Bancroft, History of the United States (Author's last revision), part 2, chapter 8 (volume 1).

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1688-1696.
Beginning of distinctions between the two Carolinas,
North and South.

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1701-1706.
   Prosperity of the colony.
   Attack on St. Augustine.
   French attack on Charleston.

"At the opening of the new century, we must cease to look upon South Carolina as the home of indigent emigrants, struggling for subsistence. While numerous slaves cultivated the extensive plantations, their owners, educated gentlemen, and here and there of noble families in England, had abundant leisure for social intercourse, living as they did in proximity to each other, and in easy access to Charles Town, where the Governor resided, the courts and legislature convened, and the public offices were kept. … Hospitality, refinement, and literary culture distinguished the higher class of gentlemen." But party strife at this period raged bitterly, growing mainly out of an attempt to establish the Church of England in the colony. Governor Moore, who had gained power on this issue, sought to strengthen his position by an attack on St. Augustine. "The assembly joined in the scheme. They requested him to go as commander, instead of Colonel Daniel, whom he nominated. They voted £2,000; and thought ten vessels and 350 men, with Indian allies, would be a sufficient force. … Moore with about 400 men sets sail, and Daniel with 100 Carolina troops and about 500 Yemassee Indians march by land. But the inhabitants of St. Augustine had heard of their coming, and had sent to Havana for reinforcements. Retreating to their castle, they abandoned their town to Colonel Daniel, who pillaged it before Moore's fleet arrived. Governor Moore and Colonel Daniel united their forces and laid siege to the castle; but they lacked the necessary artillery for its reduction, and were compelled to send to Jamaica for it." Before the artillery arrived, "two Spanish ships appeared off St. Augustine. Moore instantly burned the town and all his own ships and hastened back by land. … The expense entailed on the colony was £6,000. When this attack on St. Augustine was planned, it must have been anticipated in the colony that war would be declared against Spain and France." Four years later, the War of the Spanish Succession being then in progress, a French fleet appeared (August, 1706) in the harbor of Charleston and demanded the surrender of the town. Although yellow fever was raging at the time, the governor, Sir Nathaniel Johnson, organized so effective a resistance that the invaders were driven off with considerable loss.

      W. J. Rivers,
      The Carolinas (Narrative and Critical History of America,
      volume 5, chapter 5).

   "The Cherokees, who had accompanied Forbes in his expedition
   against Fort Du Quesne [see CANADA: A. D. 1758], returning
   home along the mountains, had involved themselves in quarrels
   with the back settlers of Virginia and the Carolinas, in which
   several, both Indians and white men, had been killed. Some
   chiefs, who had proceeded to Charleston to arrange this
   dispute, were received by Governor Littleton in very haughty
   style, and he presently marched into the Cherokee country at
   the head of 1,500 men, contributed by Virginia and the
   Carolinas, demanding the surrender of the murderers of the
   English. He was soon glad, however, of any apology for
   retiring. His troops proved very insubordinate; the small-pox
   broke out among them; and, having accepted 22 Indian hostages
   as security for peace and the future delivery of the
   murderers, he broke up his camp, and fell back in haste and
   confusion. … No sooner was Littleton's army gone, than the
   Cherokees attempted to entrap into their power the commander
   of [Fort Prince George, at the head of the Savannah], and,
   apprehensive of some plan for the rescue of the hostages, he
   gave orders to put them in irons. They resisted; and a soldier
   having been wounded in the struggle, his infuriated companions
   fell upon the prisoners and put them all to death.
{2969}
   Indignant at this outrage, the Cherokees beleaguered the fort,
   and sent out war parties in every direction to attack the
   frontiers. The Assembly of South Carolina, in great alarm,
   voted 1,000 men, and offered a premium of £25 for every Indian
   scalp. North Carolina offered a similar premium, and
   authorized, in addition, the holding of Indian captives as
   slaves. An express, asking assistance, was sent to General
   Amherst, who detached 1,200 men, under Colonel Montgomery,
   chiefly Scotch Highlanders, lately stationed on the western
   frontier, with orders to make a dash at the Cherokees, but to
   return in season for the next campaign against Canada. …
   Joining his forces with the provincial levies, Montgomery
   entered the Cherokee country, raised the blockade of Fort
   Prince George, and ravaged the neighboring district. Marching
   then upon Etchoe, the chief village of the Middle Cherokees,
   within five miles of that place he encountered [June, 1760] a
   large body of Indians, strongly posted in a difficult defile,
   from which they were only driven after a very severe struggle;
   or, according to other accounts, "Montgomery was himself
   repulsed. At all events, he retired to Charleston, and, in
   obedience to his orders, prepared to embark for service at the
   north. When this determination became known, the province was
   thrown into the utmost consternation. The Assembly declared
   themselves unable to raise men to protect the frontiers; and a
   detachment of 400 regulars was presently conceded" to the
   solicitations of lieutenant governor Bull, to whom the
   administration of South Carolina had lately been resigned.
   Before the year closed, the conquest of the French dominions
   in America east of the Mississippi had been practically
   finished and the French and Indian War at the north was
   closed. But, "while the northern colonies exulted in safety,
   the Cherokee war still kept the frontiers of Carolina in
   alarm. Left to themselves by the withdrawal of Montgomery, the
   Upper Cherokees had beleaguered Fort Loudon. After living for
   some time on horse-flesh, the garrison, under a promise of
   safe-conduct to the settlements, had been induced to
   surrender. But this promise was broken; attacked on the way, a
   part were killed, and the rest detained as prisoners; after
   which, the Indians directed all their fury against the
   frontiers. On a new application presently made to Amherst for
   assistance, the Highland regiment, now commanded by Grant, was
   ordered back to Carolina. New levies were also made in the
   province, and Grant presently marched into the Cherokee
   country [June, 1761] with 2,600 men. In a second battle, near
   the same spot with the fight of the previous year, the Indians
   were driven back with loss. … The Indians took refuge in the
   defiles of the mountains, and, subdued and humbled, sued for
   peace. As the condition on which alone it would be granted,
   they were required to deliver up four warriors to be shot at
   the head of the army, or to furnish four green Indian scalps
   within twenty days. A personal application to Governor Bull,
   by an old chief long known for his attachment to the English,
   procured a relinquishment of this brutal demand, and peace was
   presently made."

ALSO IN: D. Ramsay, History of South Carolina, volume 1, chapter 5, section 2.

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1760-1766.
   The question of taxation by Parliament.
   The Stamp Act.
   The first Continental Congress.
   The repeal of the Stamp Act and the Declaratory Act.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1766-1767, to 1774;
      and BOSTON: 1768, to 1773.

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1775.
   The beginning of the War of the American Revolution.
   Lexington.
   Concord.
   Action taken on the news.
   Ticonderoga.
   The siege of Boston.
   Bunker Hill.
   The Second Continental Congress.

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1775.
Rapid progress of Revolution.
Flight of the Royal Governor.

In January, 1775, a provincial convention for South Carolina was called together at Charleston, under the presidency of Charles Pinckney. It appointed delegates to the second Continental Congress, and took measures to enforce the non-importation agreements in which the colony had joined. At a second session, in June, this convention or Provincial Congress of South Carolina "appointed a Committee of Safety, issued $600,000, of paper money, and voted to raise two regiments, of which Gadsden and Moultrie were chosen colonels. Lieutenant-governor Bull was utterly powerless to prevent or interrupt these proceedings. While the Convention was still in session, Lord William Campbell, who had acquired by marriage large possessions in the province, arrived at Charleston with a commission as governor. Received with courtesy, he presently summoned an Assembly; but that body declined to proceed to business, and soon adjourned on its own authority. The Committee of Safety pursued with energy measures for putting the province in a state of defense. A good deal of resistance was made to the Association [for commercial non-intercourse], especially in the back counties. Persuasion failing, force was used. … A vessel was fitted out by the Committee of Safety, which seized an English powder ship off St. Augustine and brought her into Charleston. Moultrie was presently sent to take possession of the fort in Charleston harbor. No resistance was made. The small garrison, in expectation of the visit, had already [September] retired on board the ships of war in the harbor. Lord Campbell, the governor, accused of secret negotiations with the Cherokees and the disaffected in the back counties, was soon obliged to seek the same shelter. A regiment of artillery was voted; and measures were taken for fortifying the harbor, from which the British ships were soon expelled."

ALSO IN: D. Ramsay, History of South Carolina, volume 1, chapter 7, section 1.

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1776 (February-April).
Allegiance to King George renounced, independence
assumed, and a state constitution adopted.

   "On the 8th of February 1776, the convention of South
   Carolina, by Drayton their president, presented their thanks
   to John Rutledge and Henry Middleton for their services in the
   American congress, which had made its appeal to the King of
   kings, established a navy, treasury, and general post-office,
   exercised control over commerce, and granted to colonies
   permission to create civil institutions, independent of the
   regal authority.
{2970}
   The next day arrived Gadsden, the highest officer in the army
   of the province, and he in like manner received the welcome of
   public gratitude. … When, on the 10th, the report on reforming
   the provincial government was considered and many hesitated,
   Gadsden spoke out for the absolute independence of America.
   The majority had thus far refused to contemplate the end
   toward which they were irresistibly impelled. … But the
   criminal laws could not be enforced for want of officers;
   public and private affairs were running into confusion; the
   imminent danger of invasion was proved by intercepted letters,
   so that necessity compelled the adoption of some adequate
   system of rule. While a committee of eleven was preparing the
   organic law, Gadsden, on the 13th, began to act as senior
   officer of the army. Companies of militia were called down to
   Charleston, and the military forces augmented by two regiments
   of riflemen. In the early part of the year Sullivan's Island
   was a wilderness, thickly covered with myrtle, live-oak, and
   palmettos; there, on the 2d of March, William Moultrie was
   ordered to complete a fort large enough to hold 1,000 men.
   Within five days after the convention received the act of
   parliament of the preceding December which authorized the
   capture of American vessels and property, they gave up the
   hope of reconciliation; and, on the 26th of March 1776,
   asserting 'the good of the people to be the origin and end of
   all government,' and enumerating the unwarrantable acts of the
   British parliament, the implacability of the king, and the
   violence of his officers, they established a constitution for
   South Carolina. … On the 27th, John Rutledge was chosen
   president, Henry Laurens vice-president, and William Henry
   Drayton chief justice. … On the 23d of April the court was
   opened at Charleston, and the chief justice after an elaborate
   exposition charged the grand jury in these words: 'The law of
   the land authorizes me to declare, and it is my duty to
   declare the law, that George III., king of Great Britain, has
   abdicated the government, that he has no authority over us,
   and we owe no obedience to him.'"

      G. Bancroft,
      History of the United States (Author's last revision),
      epoch 3, chapter 25 (volume 4).

      ALSO IN:
      W. G. Simms,
      History of South Carolina,
      book 4, chapter 5.

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1776-1778.
   The war in the North.
   The Articles of Confederation.
   The alliance with France.

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1778-1779.
   The war carried into the south.
   Savannah taken and Georgia subdued.
   Unsuccessful attempt to recover Savannah.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1778-1779 THE WAR CARRIED INTO THE SOUTH;
      and 1779 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER).

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1780.
   Siege and surrender of Charleston.
   Defeat of Gates at Camden.
   British subjugation of the state.

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1780-1781.
   Greene's campaign.
   King's Mountain.
   The Cowpens.
   Guilford Court House.
   Hobkirk's Hill.
   Eutaw springs.
   The British shut up in Charleston.

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1781-1783.
   The campaign in Virginia.
   Siege of Yorktown and surrender of Cornwallis.
   Peace with Great Britain.

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1787.
Cession of Western land claims to the United States.

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1787-1788.
Formation and adoption of the Federal Constitution.

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1828-1833.
The Nullification movement and threatened Secession.

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1860.
The plotting of the Rebellion.
Passage of the Ordinance of Secession.

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1861 (April).
Beginning the War of Rebellion.
The bombardment of Fort Sumter.

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1861 (October-December).
Capture of Hilton Head and occupation of the coast
islands by Union forces.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1861 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER:
      SOUTH CAROLINA-GEORGIA).

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1863 (April).
The repulse of the Monitor-fleet at Charleston.

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1863 (July).
Lodgment of Union forces on Morris Island,
and assault on Fort Wagner.

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1863 (August-December).-
Siege of Fort Wagner.
Bombardment of Fort Sumter and Charleston.

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1865 (February).
Evacuation of Charleston by the Confederates.

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1865 (February-March).-
Sherman's march through the state.
The burning of Columbia.

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1865 (June).
Provisional Government set up under
President Johnson's Plan of Reconstruction.

"After the close of the war, two distinct and opposing plans were applied for the reconstruction, or restoration to the Union, of the State. The first, known as the Presidential plan [see UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (MAY-JULY)], was quickly superseded by the second, known as the Congressional plan; but it had worked vast mischief by fostering delusive hopes, the reaction of which was manifest in long enduring bitterness. Under the latter plan, embodied in the Act of Congress of March 2, 1867 [see UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1867 (MARCH)], a convention was assembled in Charleston, January 14, 1868, 'to frame a Constitution and Civil Government.' The previous registration of voters made in October, 1867, showed a total of 125,328, of whom 46,346 were whites, and 78,982 blacks. … On the question of holding a constitutional convention the vote cast in November, 1867, was 71,087; 130 whites and 68,876 blacks voting for it, and 2,801 whites against it. Of the delegates chosen to the convention 34 were whites and 63 blacks. The new Constitution was adopted at an election held on the 14th, 15th, and 16th of April, 1868, all State officers to initiate its operation being elected at the same time. At this election the registration was 133,597; the vote for the Constitution 70,758; against it, 27,288; total vote. 98,046; not voting, 35,551. Against the approval by Congress of this Constitution the Democratic State Central Committee forwarded a protest," which declared: "The Constitution was the work of Northern adventurers, Southern renegades, and Ignorant negroes. Not one per cent. of the white population of the State approves it, and not two per cent. of the negroes who voted for its adoption understood what this act of voting implied." "The new State officers took office July 9, 1868. In the first Legislature, which assembled on the same day, the Senate consisted of 33 members, of whom 9 were negroes and but 7 were Democrats. The House of Representatives consisted of 124 members, of whom 48 were white men, 14 only of these being Democrats. The whole Legislature thus consisted of 72 white and 85 colored members. At this date the entire funded debt of South Carolina amounted to $5,407,306.27. At the close of the four years (two terms) of Governor R. K. Scott's administration, December, 1872, the funded debt of the State amounted to $18,515,033.91, including past-due and unpaid interest for three years."

      W. Allen,
      Governor Chamberlain's Administration in South Carolina,
      chapter 1.

"Mr. James S. Pike, late Minister of the United States at the Hague, a Republican and an original abolitionist, who visited the state in 1873, after five years' supremacy by Scott and his successor Moses, and their allies, has published a pungent and instructive account of public affairs during that trying time, under the title of 'The Prostrate State.' The most significant of the striking features of this book is that he undertakes to write a correct history of the state by dividing the principal frauds, already committed or then in process of completion, into eight distinct classes, which he enumerates as follows:

   1. Those which relate to the increase of the state debt.
   2. The frauds practiced in the purchase of lands for the
   freedmen.
   3. The railroad frauds.
   4. The election frauds.
   5. The frauds practiced in the redemption of the notes of the
   Bank of South Carolina.
   6. The census fraud.
   7. The fraud in furnishing the legislative chamber.
   8. General and legislative corruption. …

Mr. Pike in his 'Prostrate State,' speaking of the state finances in 1873, says; 'But, as the treasury of South Carolina has been so thoroughly gutted by the thieves who have hitherto had possession of the state government, there is nothing left to steal. The note of any negro in the state is worth as much on the market as a South Carolina bond.'" This reign of corruption was checked in 1874 by the election to the governorship of Daniel H. Chamberlain, the regular Republican nominee, who had been Attorney-General during Scott's administration. "Governor Chamberlain, quite in contrast with his predecessors, talked reform after his election as well as before it," and was "able to accomplish some marked and wholesome reforms in public expenditures." In 1876 the Democrats succeeded in overpowering the negro vote and acquired control of the state, electing General Wade Hampton governor.

      J. J. Hemphill,
      Reconstruction in South Carolina
      (Why the Solid South? chapter 4).

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (SEPTEMBER: MARYLAND)
      LEE'S FIRST INVASION.

   The Delaware and the Hudson were called respectively the South
   River and the North River by the Dutch, during their
   occupation of the territory of New Netherland.

   "The South Sea Company was first formed by Harley [Earl of
   Oxford, Lord Treasurer of England] in 1711, his object being
   to improve public credit, and to provide for the floating
   debts, which at that period amounted to nearly £10,000,000.
   The Lord Treasurer, therefore, established a fund for that
   sum. He secured the interest by making permanent the duties on
   wine, vinegar, tobacco, and several others; he allured the
   creditors by promising them the monopoly of trade to the
   Spanish coasts in America; and the project was sanctioned both
   by Royal Charter and by Act of Parliament. Nor were the
   merchants slow in swallowing this gilded bait; and the fancied
   Eldorado which shone before them dazzled even their discerning
   eyes. … This spirit spread throughout the whole nation, and
   many, who scarcely knew whereabouts America lies, felt
   nevertheless quite certain of its being strewed with gold and
   gems. … The negotiations of Utrecht, however, in this as in
   other matters, fell far short of the Ministerial promises and
   of the public expectation. Instead of a free trade, or any
   approach to a free trade, with the American colonies, the
   Court of Madrid granted only, besides the shameful Asiento for
   negro slaves, the privilege of settling some factories, and
   sending one annual ship. … This shadow of a trade was bestowed
   by the British Government on the South Sea Company, but it was
   very soon disturbed. Their first annual ship, the Royal
   Prince, did not sail till 1717; and next year broke out the
   war with Spain. … Still, however, the South Sea Company
   continued, from its other resources, a flourishing and wealthy
   corporation; its funds were high, its influence considerable,
   and it was considered on every occasion the rival and
   competitor of the Bank of England."
{2972}
   At the close of 1719 the South Sea Company submitted to the
   government proposals for buying up the public debt. "The great
   object was to buy up and diminish the burthen of the
   irredeemable annuities granted in the two last reigns, for the
   term mostly of 99 years, and amounting at this time to nearly
   £800,000 a year." The Bank of England became at once a
   competitor for the same undertaking. "The two bodies now
   displayed the utmost eagerness to outbid one another, each
   seeming almost ready to ruin itself, so that it could but
   disappoint its rival. They both went on enhancing their terms,
   until at length the South Sea Company rose to the enormous
   offer of seven millions and a half. … The South Sea Bill
   finally passed the Commons by a division of 172 against 55. In
   the Lords, on the 4th of April [1720], the minority was only
   17. … On the passing of the Bill very many of the annuitants
   hastened to carry their orders to the South Sea House, before
   they even received any offer, or knew what terms would be
   allowed them!—ready to yield a fixed and certain income for
   even the smallest share in vast but visionary schemes. The
   offer which was made to them on the 29th of May (eight years
   and a quarter's purchase) was much less favourable than they
   had hoped; yet nevertheless, six days afterwards, it is
   computed that nearly two-thirds of the whole number of
   annuitants had already agreed. In fact, it seems clear that,
   during this time, and throughout the summer, the whole nation,
   with extremely few exceptions, looked upon the South Sea
   Scheme as promising and prosperous. Its funds rapidly rose
   from 130 to above 300. … As soon as the South Sea Bill had
   received the Royal Assent in April, the Directors proposed a
   subscription of one million, which was so eagerly taken that
   the sum subscribed exceeded two. A second subscription was
   quickly opened, and no less quickly filled. … In August, the
   stocks, which had been 130 in the winter, rose to 1,000. Such
   general infatuation would have been happy for the Directors,
   had they not themselves partaken of it. They opened a third,
   and even a fourth subscription, larger than the former; they
   passed a resolution, that from Christmas next their yearly
   dividend should not be less than fifty per cent.; they assumed
   an arrogant and overbearing tone. … But the public delusion
   was not continued to the South Sea Scheme; a thousand other
   mushroom projects sprung up in that teeming soil. … Change
   Alley became a new edition of the Rue Quincampoix.

   The crowds were so great within doors, that tables with clerks
   were set in the street. … Some of the Companies hawked about
   were for the most extravagant projects; we find amongst the
   number,
   'Wrecks to be fished for on the Irish Coast;
   Insurance of Horses, and other Cattle (two millions);
   Insurance of losses by servants;
   To make Salt-Water Fresh;
   For Building of Hospitals for Bastard Children;
   For Building of Ships against Pirates;
   For making of Oil from Sun-flower Seeds;
   For improving of Malt Liquors;
   For recovering of Seamen's Wages;
   For extracting of Silver from Lead;
   For the transmuting of Quicksilver into a malleable
   and fine Metal;
   For making of Iron with Pit-coal;
   For importing a Number of large Jack Asses from Spain;
   For trading in Human Hair;
   For flitting of Hogs;
   For a Wheel for a Perpetual Motion.'

But the most strange of all, perhaps, was 'For an Undertaking which shall in due time be revealed.' Each subscriber was to pay down two guineas, and hereafter to receive a share of one hundred with a disclosure of the object; and so tempting was the offer that 1,000 of these subscriptions were paid the same morning, with which the projector went off in the afternoon. … When the sums intended to be raised had grown altogether, it is said, to the enormous amount of £300,000,000, the first check to the public infatuation was given by the same body whence it had first sprung. The South Sea Directors … obtained an order from the Lords Justices, and writs of scire facias, against several of the new bubble Companies. These fell, but in falling drew down the whole fabric with them. As soon as distrust was excited, all men became anxious to convert their bonds into money. … Early in September, the South Sea stock began to decline: its fall became more rapid from day to day, and in less than a month it had sunk below 300. … The decline progressively continued, and the news of the crash in France [of the contemporary Mississippi Scheme of John Law-see FRANCE: A. D. 1717-1720] completed ours. Thousands of families were reduced to beggary. … The resentment and rage were universal."

Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope), History of England, 1713-1783, chapter 11 (volume 2).

ALSO IN: A. Anderson, History and Chronological Deduction of the Origin of Commerce, volume 3, page 43, and after.

      J. Toland,
      Secret History of the South Sea Scheme
      (Works, volume 1).

The organization of the so called Confederate States of America, formed among the states which attempted in 1861 to secede from the American Union, is commonly referred to as the Southern Confederacy. For an account of the Constitution of the Confederacy, and the establishing of its government.

SPAHIS.

In the Turkish feudal system, organized by Mahomet II. (A. D. 1451-1481), "the general name for the holders of military fiefs was Spahi, a Cavalier, a title which exactly answers to those which we find in the feudal countries of Christian Europe. … The Spahi was the feudal vassal of his Sultan and of his Sultan alone. … Each Spahi … was not only bound to render military service himself in person, but, if the value of his fief exceeded a certain specified amount, he was required to furnish and maintain an armed horseman for every multiple of that sum."

"The Spahis cannot properly be considered as a class of nobles. In the villages they had neither estates nor dwellings of their own; they had no right to jurisdiction or to feudal service. … No real rights of property were ever bestowed on them; but, for a specific service a certain revenue was granted them."

"Spain must either have given birth to an aboriginal people, or was peopled by way of the Pyrenees and by emigrants crossing the narrow strait at the columns of Hercules. The Iberian race actually forms the foundation of the populations of Spain. The Basks, or Basques, now confined to a few mountain valleys, formerly occupied the greater portion of the peninsula, as is proved by its geographical nomenclature. Celtic tribes subsequently crossed the Pyrenees, and established themselves in various parts of the country, mixing in many instances with the Iberians, and forming the so·called Celtiberians. This mixed race is met with principally in the two Castiles, whilst Galicia and the larger portion of Portugal appear to be inhabited by pure Celts. The Iberians had their original seat of civilisation in the south; they thence moved northward along the coast of the Mediterranean, penetrating as far as the Alps and the Apennines. These original elements of the population were joined by colonists from the great commercial peoples of the Mediterranean. Cadiz and Malaga were founded by the Phœnicians, Cartagena by the Carthaginians, Sagonte by immigrants from Zacynthe, Rosas is a Rhodian colony, and the ruins of Ampurias recall the Emporium of the Massilians. But it was the Romans who modified the character of the Iberian and Celtic inhabitants of the peninsula."

      E. Reclus,
      The Earth and its Inhabitants: Europe,
      volume 1, page 372.

SPAIN: B. C. 237-202.
The rule of Hamilcar, Hasdrubal and Hannibal in the south.-
Beginning of Roman conquest.

"The nations of Spain were subjugated one after another by the Romans. The contest began with the second Punic war [B. C. 218], and it ended with the defeat of the Cantabri and Astures by Augustus, B. C. 25. From B. C. 205 the Romans had a dominion in Spain. It was divided into two provinces, Hispania Citerior, or Tarraconensis, and Hispania Ulterior, or Baetica. At first extraordinary proconsuls were sent to Spain, but afterwards two praetors were sent, generally with proconsular authority and twelve fasces. During the Macedonian war the two parts of Spain were placed under one governor, but in B. C. 167 the old division was restored, and so it remained to the time of Augustus. The boundary between the two provinces was originally the Iberus (Ebro). … The country south of the Ebro was the Carthaginian territory, which came into the possession of the Romans at the end of this [the second Punic] war. The centre, the west, and north-west parts of the Spanish peninsula were still independent. At a later time the boundary of Hispania Citerior extended further south, and it was fixed at last between Urci and Murgis, now Guardias Viejas, in 36° 41' North latitude."

Quintus Sertorius, who was the ablest and the best of the leaders of the Popular Party, or Italian Party, or Marian Party, as it is variously designated, which contended against Sulla and the senate, in the first Roman civil war, left Italy and withdrew to Spain, or was sent thither (it is uncertain which) in 83 or 82 B. C. before the triumph of Sulla had been decided. His first attempts to make a stand in Spain against the authority of Sulla failed complete]y, and he had thoughts it is said of seeking a peaceful retreat in the Madeira Islands, vaguely known at that period as the Fortunate Isles, or Isles of the Blest. But after some adventures in Mauritania, Sertorius accepted an invitation from the Lusitanians to become their leader in a revolt against the Romans which they meditated. Putting himself at the head of the Lusitanians, and drawing with them other Iberian tribes, Sertorius organized a power in Spain which held the Romans at bay for nearly ten years and which came near to breaking the peninsula from their dominion. He was joined, too, by a large number of the fugitives from Rome of the proscribed party, who formed a senate in Spain and instituted a government there which aspired to displace, in time, the senate and the republic on the Tiber, which Sulla had reduced to a shadow and a mockery. First Metellus and then Pompey, who were sent against Sertorius (see ROME: B. C. 78-68), suffered repeated defeats at his hands. In the end, Sertorius was only overcome by treachery among his own officers, who conspired against him and assassinated him, B. C. 72.

SPAIN: B. C. 45.
Cæsar's last campaign against the Pompeians.
His victory at Munda.

   From the end of the year 406 to the autumn of 409, the
   barbaric torrent of Alans, Sueves and Vandals which had swept
   away the barriers of the Roman empire beyond the Alps, spent
   its rage on the unhappy provinces of Gaul. On the 13th of
   October, 409, the Pyrenees were passed and the same flood of
   tempestuous invasion poured into Spain. "The misfortunes of
   Spain may be described in the language of its most eloquent
   historian [Mariana], who has concisely expressed the
   passionate, and perhaps exaggerated, declamations of
   contemporary writers. 'The irruption of these nations was
   followed by the most dreadful calamities; as the barbarians
   exercised their indiscriminate cruelty on the fortunes of the
   Romans and the Spaniards, and ravaged with equal fury the
   cities and the open country. The progress of famine reduced
   the miserable inhabitants to feed on the flesh of their
   fellow-creatures; and even the wild beasts, who multiplied
   without control in the desert, were exasperated by the taste
   of blood and the impatience of hunger boldly to attack and
   devour their human prey. Pestilence soon appeared, the
   inseparable companion of famine; a large proportion of the
   people was swept away; and the groans of the dying excited
   only the envy of their surviving friends. At length the
   barbarians, satiated with carnage and rapine, and afflicted by
   the contagious evils which they themselves had introduced,
   fixed their permanent seats in the depopulated country.
{2974}
   The ancient Galicia, whose limits included the kingdom of Old
   Castile, was divided between the Suevi and the Vandals; the
   Alani were scattered over the provinces of Carthagena and
   Lusitania, from the Mediterranean to the Atlantic Ocean; and
   the fruitful territory of Bætica was allotted to the Silingi,
   another branch of the Vandalic nation. … The lands were again
   cultivated; and the towns and villages were again occupied by
   a captive people. The greatest part of the Spaniards was even
   disposed to prefer this new condition of poverty and barbarism
   to the severe oppressions of the Roman government; yet there
   were many who still asserted their native freedom, and who
   refused, more especially in the mountains of Galicia, to
   submit to the barbarian yoke.'"

The last century of the Gothic kingdom in Spain was, on the whole, a period of decline. It gained some extension of boundaries, it is true, by the expulsion of Byzantine authority from one small southern corner of the Spanish peninsula, in which it had lingered long; but repeated usurpations had shaken the throne; the ascendancy of church and clergy had weakened the Gothic nobility without strengthening the people; frequent recurrences of political disorder had interfered with a general prosperity and demoralized society in many ways. The condition of Spain, in fact, was such as might plainly invite the flushed armies of Islam, which now stood on the African side of the narrow strait of Gibraltar. That another invitation was needed to bring them in is not probable. The story of the great treason of Count Illan, or Ilyan, or Julian, and of the betrayed daughter, Florinda, to whose wrongs he made a sacrifice of his country, has been woven into the history of the Moorish conquest of Spain by too many looms of romance and poetry to be easily torn away,—and it may have some bottom of fact in its composition; but sober reason requires us to believe that no possible treason in the case could be more than a chance incident of the inevitable catastrophe. The final conquest of North Africa had been completed by the Arab general Musa Ibn Nosseyr,—except that Ceuta, the one stronghold which the Goths held on the African side of the straits, withstood them. They had not only conquered the Berbers or Moors, but had practically absorbed and affiliated them. Spain, as they learned, was distracted by a fresh revolution, which had brought to the throne Roderick —the last Gothic king. The numerous Jews in the country were embittered by persecution and looked to the more tolerant Moslems for their deliverance. Probably their invitation proved more potent than any which Count Ilyan could address to Musa, or to his master at Damascus. But Ilyan commanded at Ceuta, and, after defending the outpost for a time, he gave it up. It seems, too, that when the movement of Invasion occurred, in the spring of 711, Count Ilyan was with the invaders. The first expedition to cross the narrow strait from Ceuta to Gibraltar came under the command of the valiant one-eyed chieftain, Tarik Ibn Zeyud Ibn Abdillah. "The landing of Tarik's forces was completed on the 30th of April, 711 (8th Regeb. A. H. 92), and his enthusiastic followers at once named the promontory upon which he landed, Dschebel-Tarik [or Gebel-Tarik], the rock of Tarik. The name has been retained in the modernized form, Gibraltar. It is also spoken of in the Arabian chronicles as Dschebalu-l-Fata, the portal or mountain of victory." Tarik entered Spain with but 7,000 men. He afterwards received reinforcements to the extent of 5,000 from Musa. It was with this small army of 12,000 men that, after a little more than two months, he encountered the far greater host which King Roderick had levied hastily to oppose him. The Gothic king despised the small numbers of his foe and rashly staked everything upon the single field. Somewhere not far from Medina Sidonia, —or nearer to the town of Xeres de la Frontera. —on the banks of the Guadalete, the decisive battle began on the 19th day of July, A. D. 711. It lasted obstinately for several days, and success appeared first on the Gothic side; but treason among the Christians and discipline among the Moslems turned the scale. When the battle ended the conquest of Spain was practically achieved. Its Gothic king had disappeared, whether slain or fled was never known, and the organization of resistance disappeared with him. Tarik pursued his success with audacious vigor, even disobeying the commands of his superior, Musa. Dividing his small army into detachments, he pushed them out in all directions to seize the important cities. Xeres, Moron, Carmona, Cordova, Malaga, and Gharnatta—Granada—(the latter so extensively peopled with Jews that it was called "Gharnatta-al-Yahood," or Granada of the Jews) were speedily taken. Toledo, the Gothic capital, surrendered and was occupied on Palm Sunday, 712. The same spring, Musa, burning with envy of his subordinate's unexpected success, crossed to Spain with an army of 18,00() and took up the nearly finished task. He took Seville and laid siege to Merida—the Emerita Augusta of the Romans—a great and splendid city of unusual strength. Merida resisted with more valor than other cities had shown, but surrendered in July. Seville revolted and was punished terribly by the merciless Moslem sword. Before the end of the second year after Tarik's first landing at Gibraltar, the Arab, or Arab-Moorish, invaders had swept the whole southern, central and eastern parts of the peninsula, clear to the Pyrenees, reducing Saragossa after a siege and receiving the surrender of Barcelona, Valencia, and all the important cities. Then, in the summer of 713, Musa and Tarik went away, under orders from the Caliph, to settle their jealous dissensions at Damascus, and to report the facts of the great conquest they made.

ALSO IN: J. A. Condé, History of the Arabs in Spain, chapters 8-17 (volume 1).

"The first blow [of the Moslem conquest] had stunned Gothic Spain; and, before she could recover her consciousness, the skilful hands of the Moslemah had bound her, hand and foot. From the first stupor they were not allowed to recover. The very clemency of the Moslems robbed the Christians of argument. If their swords were sharp, their conduct after battle was far better than the inhabitants had any right to expect, far better than that of the Roman or Gothic conquerors had been, when they invaded Spain. Their religion, the defence of which might have been the last rallying-point, was respected under easy conditions; their lives rendered secure and comfortable; they were under tribute, but a tribute no more exacting than Roman taxes or Gothic subsidies. … It was the Gothic element, and not the Hispano-Romans, that felt the humiliation most. … The Spanish Goths, at first impelled by the simple instinct of self-preservation, had fled in all directions before the fiery march of the Moslemah, after the first fatal battle in the plains of Sidonia. They had taken with them in their flight all the movable property they could carry and the treasures of the churches. Some had passed the Pyrenees to join their kinsmen in Septimania; and others had hidden in the mountain valleys of the great chain-barrier; while a considerable number, variously stated, had collected in the intricate territory of the Asturias and in Galicia, where strength of position made amends for the lack of numbers and organization, and where they could find shelter and time for consultation as to the best manner of making head against the enemy. The country is cut up in all directions by inaccessible, scarped rocks, deep ravines, tangled thickets, and narrow gorges and defiles." This band of refugees in the Asturias—the forlorn hope of Christian Spain—are said to have found a gallant leader in one Pelayo, whose origin and history are so covered with myth that some historians even question his reality. But whether by Pelayo or another prince, the Asturian Spaniards were held together in their mountains and began a struggle of resistance which ended only, eight centuries later, in the recovery of the entire peninsula from the Moors. Their place of retreat was an almost inaccessible cavern—the Cave of Covadonga—in attacking which the Moslems suffered a terrible and memorable repulse (A. D. 717). "In Christian Spain the fame of this single battle will endure as long as time shall last; and La Cueva de Covadonga, the cradle of the monarchy, will be one of the proudest spots on the soil of the Peninsula. … This little rising in the Asturias was the indication of a new life, new interests, and a healthier combination. … Pelayo was the usher and the representative of this new order, and the Christian kingdom of Oviedo was its first theatre. … The battle of Covadonga, in which it had its origin, cleared the whole territory of the Asturias of every Moslem soldier. The fame of its leader, and the glad tidings that a safe retreat had been secured, attracted the numerous Christians who were still hiding in the mountain fastnesses, and infused a new spirit of patriotism throughout the land. … Pelayo was now king in reality, as well as in name. … With commendable prudence, he contented himself with securing and slowly extending his mountain kingdom by descending cautiously into the plains and valleys. … Adjacent territory, abandoned by the Moslems, was occupied and annexed; and thus the new nation was made ready to set forth on its reconquering march."

H. Coppée, Conquest of Spain by the Arab-Moors, book 5, chapters 1-2 (volume 1).

"The small province thus preserved by Pelayo [whose death is supposed to have occurred A. D. 737] grew into the germs of a kingdom called at different times that of Gallicia, Oviedo, and Leon. A constant border warfare fluctuated both ways, but on the whole to the advantage of the Christians. Meanwhile to the east other small states were growing up which developed into the kingdom of Navarre and the more important realm of Aragon. Castile and Portugal, the most famous among the Spanish kingdoms, are the most recent in date. Portugal as yet was unheard of, and Castile was known only as a line of castles on the march between the Saracens and the kingdom of Leon."

"The States of Pelagio [Pelayo] continued, during his reign and that of his son Favila, to be circumscribed to the Asturian mountains; but … Alfonso I., the son-in-law of Pelagio, ascended the throne after Favila, and he soon penetrated into Galicia up to the Douro, and to Leon and Old Castile. … Canicas, or Cangas, was the capital of the Asturias since the time of Pelagio. Fruela (brother of Alfonso I.] founded Oviedo, to the west, and this State became later on the head of the monarchy." About a century later, in the reign of the vigorous king Alfonso III. [A. D. 866-9101, the city of Leon, the ancient Legio of the Romans, was raised from its ruins, and Garcia, the eldest son of Alfonso, established his court there. One of Garcia's brothers held the government of the Asturias, and another one that of Galicia, "if not as separate kingdoms, at least with a certain degree of independence. This equivocal situation of the two princes was, perchance, the reason why the King of Oviedo changed his title to that of Leon, and which appears in the reign of Garcia as the first attempt towards dismembering the Spanish Monarchy. Previous to this, in the reign of King Alfonso III., Navarre, always rebellious, had shaken off the Asturian yoke."

   The invasion of Spain by Charlemagne, in 778, was invited by a
   party among the Saracens, disaffected towards the reigning
   Caliph, at Cordova, who proposed to place the northern Spanish
   frontier under the protection of the Christian monarch and
   acknowledge his suzerainty. He passed the Pyrenees with a
   great army and advanced with little serious opposition to
   Saragossa, apparently occupying the country to the Ebro with
   garrisons and adding it to his dominions as the Spanish March.
   At Saragossa he encountered resistance and undertook a siege,
   the results of which are left uncertain.
{2976}
   It would seem that he was called away, by threatening news
   from the northern part of his dominions, and left the conquest
   incomplete. The return march of the army, through a pass of
   the Pyrenees, was made memorable by the perfidious ambuscade
   and hopeless battle of Roncesvalles, which became immortalized
   in romance and song. It was in the country of the Gascons or
   Wascones (Basques) that this tragic event occurred, and the
   assailants were not Saracens, as the story of the middle ages
   would have it, but the Gascons themselves, who, in league with
   their neighbors of Aquitaine, had fought for their
   independence so obstinately before, against both Charlemagne
   and his father. They suffered the Franks to pass into Spain
   without a show of enmity, but laid a trap for the return, in
   the narrow gorge called the Roscida Vallis—now Roncesvalles.
   The van of the army, led by the king, went through in safety.
   The rear-guard, "oppressed with baggage, loitered along the
   rocky and narrow pathway, and as it entered the solitary gap
   of Ibayeta, from the lofty precipices on either side an
   unknown foe rolled suddenly down enormous rocks and trunks of
   uprooted trees. Instantly many of the troops were crushed to
   death, and the entire passage was blockaded. … The Franks who
   escaped the horrible slaughter were at once assailed with
   forks and pikes; their heavy armor, which had served them so
   well in other fights, only encumbered them amid the bushes and
   brambles of the ravine; and yet they fought with obstinate and
   ferocious energy. Cheered on by the prowess of Eghihard, the
   royal sencschal, of Anselm, Count of the Palace, of Roland,
   the warden of the Marches of Brittany, and of many other
   renowned chiefs, they did not desist till the last man had
   fallen, covered with wounds and blood. … How many perished in
   this fatal surprise was never told; but the event smote with
   profound effect upon the imagination of Europe; it was kept
   alive in a thousand shapes by tales and superstitions; heroic
   songs and stories carried the remembrance of it from
   generation to generation; Roland and his companions, the
   Paladins of Karl, untimely slain, became, in the Middle Ages,
   the types of chivalric valor and Christian heroism; and, seven
   centuries after their only appearance in history, the genius
   of Pulci, Boiardo, and Ariosto still preserved in immortal
   verse the traditions of their glory. … Roland is but once
   mentioned in authentic history, but the romance and songs,
   which make him a nephew of Karl, compensate his memory for
   this neglect."

      H. Coppée,
      Conquest of Spain by the Arab·Moors,
      book 7, chapter 3 (volume 2).

"Ancient Cantabria, which the writers of the 8th century usually termed Bardulia, and which, at this period [the 8th century] stretched from the Biscayan sea to the Duero, towards the close of the same century began to be called Castella—doubtless from the numerous forts erected for the defence of the country by Alfonso I. [the third king of Oviedo, or Leon]. As the boundaries were gradually removed towards the south, by the victories of the Christians, the same denomination was applied to the new as well as to the former conquests, and the whole continued subject to the same governor, who had subordinate governors dependent on him. Of the first governors or counts, from the period of its conquest by that prince in 760, to the reign of Ordoño I. (a full century), not even the names are mentioned in the old chroniclers; the first we meet with is that of Count Rodrigo, who is known to have possessed the dignity at least six years,—viz. from 860 to 866." The last count of Castile, Garcia Sanchez, who was the eighth of the line from Rodrigo, perished in his youth by assassination (A. D. 1026), just as he was at the point of receiving the title of king from the sovereign of Leon, together with the hand of the latter's daughter. Castile was then seized by Sancho el Mayor, king of Navarre, in right of his queen, who was the elder sister of Garcia. He assumed it to be a kingdom and associated the crown with his own. On his death, in 1035, he bequeathed this new kingdom of Castile to one of his sons, Fernando, while leaving Navarre to another, and Aragon, then a lordship, to a third. Fernando of Castile, being involved soon afterwards in war with the young king of Leon, won the kingdom of the latter in a single battle, where the last of the older royal dynasty of Spain fell fighting like a valiant knight. The two kingdoms of Castile and Leon were united under this prosperous king (see, also, PORTUGAL: EARLY HISTORY) until his death, A. D. 1065, when Castile passed to Sancho, the eldest of his sons, and Leon to Alfonso, the second. But Sancho soon ousted Alfonso, and Alfonso, biding his time, acquired both crowns in 1072, when Sancho was assassinated. It was this Alfonso who recovered the ancient capital city, Toledo, from the Moslems, and it was in his reign that the famous Cid Campeador, Rodrigo de Bivar, performed his fabulous exploits. The two kingdoms were kept in union until 1157, when they fell apart again and continued asunder until 1230. At that time a lasting union of Castile and Leon took place, under Fernando III., whom the church of Rome has canonized.

[IMAGE: SPAIN AT ABOUT THE BEGINNING OF THE NINTH CENTURY EMPIRE OF CHARLEMAGNE. KINGDOM OF ASTURIA. EMIRATE OF CORDOVA.

DURING THIS PERIOD THE BASIN OF THE DOURA RIVER WAS UNDER LITTLE ORGANIZED RULE. THE RIVER FORMS MERELY A NOMINAL BOUNDARY BETWEEN THE KINGDOM OF ASTURIA AND THE EMIRATE OF CORDOVA

SPAIN IN 1035, SHOWING THE DIVISIONS OF THE KINGDOM OF NAVARRE AFTER THE DEATH OF SANCHO THE GREAT (1035) AND OF THE MOHAMEDAN TERRITORIES ON THE EXTINCTION OF THE CORDOVAN CALIPHATE (1031).

DIVISIONS OF SANCHO'S KINGDOM NAVARRE CASTILE ARAGON AND RIBAGORCA FRANCE

THE DATES UNDER A NUMBER OF THE MOHAMMEDAN CITIES INDICATE THE ENCROACHMENTS OF THE CHRISTIAN STATES UP TO ABOUT THE MIDDLE OF THE TWELFTH CENTURY.

SPAIN AT ABOUT THE YEAR 1150. NAVARRE. LEON. CASTILE. ARAGON. PORTUGAL. EMPIRE OF THE ALMOHADES.

SPAIN AT THE CLOSE OF THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY. CASTILE AND LEON. ARAGON. PORTUGAL. GRANADA.

THE GEOGRAPHICAL CONDITIONS AS SHOWN ON THIS MAP REMAINED PRACTICALLY UNCHANGED UP TO THE LATTER PART OF THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY.]

   "The decline and dissolution of the Mohammedan monarchy, or
   western caliphate, afforded the ambitious local governors
   throughout the Peninsula the opportunity for which they had
   long sighed—that of openly asserting their independence of
   Cordova, and of assuming the title of kings. The wali of
   Seville, Mohammed ben Ismail ben Abid, … appears to have been
   the first to assume the powers of royalty; … he declared war
   against the self-elected king of Carmona, Mohammed ben
   Abdalla, on whose cities, Carmona and Ecija, he had cast a
   covetous eye. The brother of Yahia, Edris ben Ali, the son of
   Hamud, governed Malaga with equal independence. Algeziras had
   also its sovereigns. Elvira and Granada obeyed Habus ben
   Maksan: Valencia had for its king Abdelasis Abul Hassan,
   Almeria had Zohair, and Denia had Mugehid; but these two petty
   states were soon absorbed in the rising sphere of Valencia.
   Huesca and Saragossa were also subject to rulers, who though
   slow to assume the title of kings were not the less
   independent, since their sway extended over most of Aragon.
{2977}
   The sovereign of Badajos, Abdalla Muslema ben Alaftas, was the
   acknowledged head of all the confederated governors of Algarve
   and Lusitania; and Toledo was subject to the powerful Ismail
   ben Dyluun, who, like the king of Seville, secretly aspired to
   the government of all Mohammedan Spain."

S. A. Dunham, History of Spain and Portugal, book 3, section 1, chapter 1 (volume 2).

"These petty kings were sometimes fighting against each other, and sometimes joining hands to oppose the down-coming of Christians, until they were startled by a new incursion from Africa … which, in consolidating Islam, threatened destruction to the existing kingdoms by the absorption of everyone of them in this African vortex. I refer to the coming of the Almoravides."

H. Coppée, Conquest of Spain by the Arab-Moors, book 8, chapter 2 (volume 2).

The province of Aragon, with Navarre to the west of it and Catalonia to the east, was included in the Spanish March of Charlemagne. Navarre took the lead among these provinces in acquiring independence, and Aragon became for a time a lordship dependent on the Navarrese monarchy. "The Navarre of Sancho the Great [the same who gathered Castile among his possessions, making it a kingdom, and who reigned from 970 to 1035] stretched some way beyond the Ebro; to the west it took in the ocean lands of Biscay and Guipuzcoa, with the original Castile; to the east it took in Aragon, Ripacurcia and Sobrarbe. … At the death of Sancho the Great [A. D. 1035] his momentary dominion broke up. … Out of the break-up of the dominion of Sancho came the separate kingdom of Navarre, and the new kingdoms of Castile, Aragon, and Sobrarbe. Of these the two last were presently united, thus beginning the advance of Aragon. … The power of Aragon grew, partly by conquests from the Mussulmans, partly by union with the French fiefs to the east. The first union between the crown of Aragon and the county of Barcelona [by marriage, 1131] led to the great growth of the power of Aragon on both sides of the Pyrenees and even beyond the Rhone. This power was broken by the overthrow of King Pedro at Muret—[Pedro II. of Aragon, who allied himself with the Albigenses—see ALBIGENSES: A. D. 1210-1213—and was defeated and slain by Simon de Montfort, at Muret, near Toulouse. September 12, 1213]. But by the final arrangement which freed Barcelona, Roussillon, and Cerdagne, from all homage to France [A. D. 1258], all trace of foreign superiority passed away from Christian Spain. The independent kingdom of Aragon stretched on both sides of the Pyrenees, a faint reminder of the days of the West-Gothic kings."

ALSO IN: S. A. Dunham, History of Spain and Portugal, book 3, section 2, chapter 4.

SPAIN: A. D. 1140.
Separation of Portugal from Castile.
Its erection into an independent kingdom.

SPAIN: A. D. 1146-1232. Invasion and dominion of the Almohades and the decisive battle of Tolosa.

The invasion of Spain by the Moorish Almohades (see ALMOHADES), and their struggle for dominion with the Almoravides, produced, at the outset, great alarm in Christendom, but was productive in the end of many opportunities for the advancement of the Christian cause. In the year 1212 Pope Innocent III. was moved by an appeal from Alfonso VIII. of Castile to call on all Christian people to give aid to their brethren in Spain, proclaiming a plenary indulgence to those who would take up arms in the holy cause. Thousands joined the crusade thus preached, and flocked to the Castilian standards at Toledo. The chief of the Almohades retorted on his side by proclaiming the Algihed or Holy War, which summoned every Moslem in his dominions to the field. Thus the utmost frenzy of zeal was animated on both sides, and the shock of conflict could hardly fail to be decisive, under the circumstances. Substantially it proved to be so, and the fate of Mahometanism in Spain is thought to have been sealed on Las Navas de Tolosa—the Plains of Tolosa—where the two great hosts came to their encounter in July, 1212. The rout of the Moors was complete; "the pursuit lasted till nightfall, and was only impeded by the Moslem corpses."

      H. Coppée,
      Conquest of Spain by the Arab-Moors,
      book 8, chapter 4 (volume 2).

SPAIN: 12-15th Centuries.
The old monarchical constitution.
The Castilian and Aragonese Cortes.

SPAIN: A. D. 12-16th Centuries.
Commercial importance and municipal freedom of Barcelona.

SPAIN: A. D. 1212-1238.
   Progress of the arms of Castile, Leon, and Aragon.
   Succession of the count of Champagne to the throne of Navarre.
   Permanent union of the crowns of Leon and Castile.
   The founding of the Moorish kingdom of Granada.
   Castilian conquest of Cordova.

Alfonso of Castile died two years after his great victory [of 'las navas de Tolosa']. He left his crown to his only son Henry, a boy of eleven, and the regency to his daughter Berenguela, queen of Leon, who was separated, upon the almost always available plea of too near consanguinity, from her husband Alfonso. Berenguela administered her delegated power ably, but held it only three years: at the end of that time the young king was accidentally killed by a tile falling upon his head. Berenguela was her brother's natural heiress; but idolizing her only son, Ferdinand, whom she had nursed and educated herself, she immediately renounced her claim to the throne in his favour, … and caused Ferdinand III. to be acknowledged king: Alfonso IX., however, long continued to disturb his wife and son's government. The king of Aragon [Pedro II.] was recalled immediately after the great battle to the concerns of his French dominions," where he joined his kinsman, the count of Toulouse, as stated above, in resisting the Albigensian crusade, and fell (1213) at Muret. "Whilst Pedro's uncles and brothers were struggling for his succession, the queen·dowager obtained from the Pope an order to Simon de Montfort, the leader of the crusade, to deliver her son [whom the father had given up as hostage before he resolved to commit himself to war with the crusaders] into her hands. Having thus got possession of the rightful heir, she procured the assembling of the Cortes of Aragon, to whom she presented the young king, when nobles, clergy, and town deputies voluntarily swore allegiance to him. {2978} This was the first time such an oath was taken in Aragon, the most limited of monarchies. It had been usual for the Aragonese kings at their coronation to swear observance of the laws, but not to receive in return an oath of fidelity from the people. Henceforward this corresponding oath of fidelity was regularly taken under the following form, celebrated for its singularly bold liberty. 'We, who are as good as you, make you our king to preserve our rights; if not, not.' The Catalans followed the example of their Aragonese brethren in proclaiming James king; but many years elapsed ere he could sufficiently allay the disorders excited by his ambitious uncles to prosecute the war against the Moors. At length the several kings of Castile, Leon, Aragon, and Portugal, were ready, unconnectedly, to invade Mussulman Spain, where Almohade princes and Mohammed aben Hud, a descendant of the kings of Saragossa, were contending for the sovereignty, and many 'walis' were struggling for independent royalty; all far more intent upon gratifying their mutual jealousies and enmities than upon resisting the common foe, with whom, on the contrary, all were willing to enter into alliance in furtherance of their separate views. Under these circumstances, James of Aragon made himself master of the greater part of Valencia, and of the island of Majorca [and subsequently of Minorca]; Ferdinand of Castile extended his conquests in Andalusia; Alfonso of Leon his in Estremadura: and Sancho II. of Portugal, who had lately succeeded to his father Alfonso II., acquired the city of Elvas, … Sancho of Navarre took no part in these wars. After … the battle of 'las navas de Tolosa' he quitted the career of arms, devoting himself wholly to the internal administration of his kingdom. He had no children, neither had his eldest sister, the queen of England [Berengaria, wife of Richard Cœur de Lion], any. Thence his youngest sister's son, Thibalt, count of Champagne, became his natural heir. But Sancho, judging that the distance between Navarre and Champagne unfitted the two states for being governed by one prince, adopted his kinsman, James of Aragon, and to him, as heir, the Navarese clergy and nobility, and the count of Champagne himself, prospectively swore fealty. Upon Sancho's death, in 1234, however, the Navarrese, preferring independence under the lineal heir to an union with Aragon, entreated king James to release them from their oaths. He was then engaged in the conquest of Valencia; and unwilling, it may be hoped, to turn his arms from Mahometan enemies against his fellow-Christians, he complied with the request, and Thibalt was proclaimed king of Navarre. Thibalt neglected the wars carried on by his Spanish brother kings against the Mahometans, to accept the command of a crusade for the recovery of Jerusalem. The expedition was unsuccessful, but the reputation of the leader did not, suffer. Upon his return, Thibalt followed the example of his uncle in studying only to promote the internal welfare of the country. He introduced the cultivation of the grape and the manufacture of wine into Navarre, with other agricultural improvements. Thibalt is more known as one of the most celebrated troubadours or poets of his day. Prior to Thibalt's accession, the conquering progress of Leon and Castile had been temporarily interrupted. Alfonso of Leon died in 1230, and by his will divided Leon and Galicia between two daughters of his first marriage, wholly overlooking his son Ferdinand. … By negociation, however, and the influence which the acknowledged wisdom and virtues of queen Berenguela appear to have given her over everyone but her husband, the superior claims of Ferdinand were admitted. The two infantas were amply endowed, and the crowns of Leon and Castile were thenceforward permanently united, With power thus augmented, Ferdinand III. renewed his invasion of the Mussulman states, about the time that Yahie, the last of the Almohade candidates for sovereignty, died, bequeathing his pretensions to Mohammed abu Abdallah aben Alhamar, an enterprising leader, who, in the general confusion, had established himself as king of Jaen, and was the sworn enemy of Yahie's chief rival, Abdallah aben Hud. Ferdinand invaded the dominions of Abdallah, and Mohammed took that opportunity of materially enlarging his own. After a few years of general war, Abdallah aben Hud was assassinated by the partisans of the king of Jaen, and his brother Aly, who succeeded to his pretensions, met a similar fate. Mohammed ben Alhamar was immediately received into the city of Granada, which he made his capital; and thus, in 1238, founded the kingdom of Granada, the last bright relic of Moorish domination in Spain, and the favourite scene of Spanish romance. Had Mohammed succeeded to the Almohade sovereignty in Spain, and his authority been acknowledged by all his Mussulman countrymen, so able and active a monarch might probably have offered effective resistance to Christian conquest. But his dominions consisted only of what is still called the kingdom of Granada, and a small part of Andalusia. The remaining Mahometan portions of Andalusia, Valencia, and Estremadura, as well as Murcia and Algarve, swarmed with independent 'walis' or kings. James of Aragon completed the subjugation of Valencia the following year. Cordova, so long the Moorish capital, was taken by Ferdinand [1235], with other places of inferior note. The Murcian princes avoided invasion by freely offering to become Castilian vassals; and now the conquering troops of Castile and Leon poured into the territories of Mohammed. The king of Granada, unsupported by his natural allies, found himself unequal to the contest, and submitted to become, like his Murcian neighbours, the vassal of Ferdinand. In that capacity he was compelled to assist his Christian liege lord in conquering Mussulman Seville."

      ALSO IN:
      Chronicle of James I., King of Aragon,
      Surnamed the Conqueror;
      translated by J. Forster.

SPAIN: A. D. 1238-1273.
The Moorish kingdom of Granada.
The building of the Alhambra.

   "A new era had begun in the fortunes of the Moors. Reft of
   their two magnificent capitals at Cordova and Seville, they
   had gathered into the extreme south, under the able and
   beneficent rule of Aben-al-Hamar, who, though a tributary to
   Castille, termed himself Sultan and Emir of the Faithful, and
   is usually called King of Granada. Karnattah, as the Arabs had
   named it, meant the Cream of the West. The Spaniards in later
   times, deceived by the likeness of the word to Granada, a
   pomegranate, fancied it to have been thence named, and took
   the fruit as its emblem.
{2979}
   The kingdom was a mere fragment, and did not even reach to the
   Straits; for Algesira, the green island, and its great
   fortresses, belonged to the Africans; and it had in it
   elements of no small danger, containing as it did the remnants
   of no less than thirty-two Arab and Moorish tribes, many of
   them at deadly feud with one another, and divided by their
   never-ending national enmities. The two great tribes of
   Abencerrages, or sons of Zeragh, and the Zegris, or refugees
   from Aragon, were destined to become the most famous of these.
   The king himself, Mohammed-Abou-Said, was of the old Arabian
   tribe of Al Hamar, by whose name he is usually called. He was
   of the best old Arabic type-prudent, just, moderate,
   temperate, and active, and so upright as to be worthy to
   belong to this age of great kings, and his plans for his
   little kingdom were favoured by the peace in which his
   Christian neighbours left him; while Alfonso X. of Castille
   was vainly endeavouring to become, not Emperor of Spain alone,
   but Roman Emperor. The Almohides of Algarve obeyed neither
   Alfonso nor Al Hamar, and they united to subdue them. Ten
   cities were surrendered by the governor on condition that he
   should enjoy the estates of the King's Garden at Seville, and
   the tenth of the oil of an oliveyard. There was still a
   mar·gin of petty walis who preferred a brief independence to a
   secure tenure of existence as tributaries, and these one by
   one fell a prey to the Castilians, the inhabitants of their
   cities being expelled, and adding to the Granadine population.
   AI Hamar received them kindly, but made them work vigorously
   for their maintenance. Every nook of soil was in full
   cultivation; the mountain-sides terraced with vineyards; new
   modes of irrigation invented; the breeds of horses and cattle
   carefully attended to; rewards instituted for the best
   farmers, shepherds, and artisans. The manufacture of silk and
   wool was actively carried on, also leather-work and
   sword-cutlery. Hospitals and homes for the sick and infirm
   were everywhere; and in the schools of Granada the remnants of
   the scholarship of Cordova and Seville were collected. Granada
   itself stood in the midst of the Vega, around two hills, each
   crowned by a fortress: Albayzin, so called by the fugitives
   from Baeza; and the Al Hâmra [or Alhambra], or Red Fortress.
   The wall was extended so as to take in its constantly
   increasing population, and the king began to render the Al
   Hâmra one of the strongest and most beautiful places in
   existence. Though begun by Al Hamar it was not completed for
   several generations, each adding to the unrivalled beauty of
   the interior, for, as usual in Arabian architecture, the
   outside has no beauty, being a strong fortification of heavy
   red walls. … Mohammed Aben-Al-Hamar died 1273, and his son
   Mohammed II. followed in his steps."

      C. M. Yonge,
      The Story of the Christians and Moors of Spain,
      chapter 20.

SPAIN: A. D. 1248-1350.
   The conquest of Seville.
   The reigns of St. Ferdinand, Alfonso the Learned,
   and their three successors in Castile.

Seville, which had become the second city of Moslem Spain, its schools and universities rivalling those of Cordova, shared the fate of the latter and surrendered to the Christians on the 22d of December, 1248. "This was the achievement of King Ferdinand III., under whom the crowns of Castile and Leon had become united. His territory extended from the Bay of Biscay to the Guadalquiver, and from the borders of Portugal as far as Arragon and Valencia. His glory was great in the estimation of his countrymen for his conquests over the Moors, and four centuries afterwards he was canonized by the Pope, and is now known as Saint Ferdinand. … Ferdinand lived at the same time with another king who was also canonized—Louis IX. of France, who became Saint Louis. … The two kings, in fact, were cousins, and the grandmother of both of them was Eleanor, daughter of Henry II. of England. … The son of Saint Ferdinand was Alfonso X., called 'El Sabio,' the learned, and not, as it is sometimes translated, 'the wise.' He certainly was not very wise, for he did an immense number of foolish things; but he was such a strange man that it would be interesting to know more about him than it is easy to do. It was a period when not only commerce and industry but literature and art were taking a new start in Europe—the time of Roger Bacon and Dante. Alfonso loved his books, and dabbled in science, and was really one of the learned men of his time. … His mind was very naturally disturbed by a glimpse he had of being emperor of Germany [or, to speak accurately, of the Holy Roman Empire]. … The dignity was elective," and Alfonso became the candidate of one party among the German electors; but he did not obtain the dignity.

"Ferdinand de la Cerda, the son and heir of Alfonso, died during the lifetime of his father, and a difficulty arose about the succession which extended over a long time. A Cortes was assembled to decide the question, and it was agreed that Sancho, brother to Ferdinand de la Cerda, should be heir to the crown, to the exclusion of the children of Ferdinand, grandchildren of Alfonso. This decision displeased the king of France," who was the uncle of the children set aside. Alfonso "declared in favor of his son Sancho, and came near having a war with France in consequence." Yet Sancho, soon afterwards, was persuaded to rebel against his father, and the latter was reduced to sore straits, having no allies among his neighbors except the king of Morocco. "At last the goaded king assembled his few remaining adherents in Seville, and, in a solemn act, not only disinherited his rebel son Sancho, but called down maledictions on his head. In the same act he instituted his grandsons, the infantes de la Cerda, as his heirs, and after them, in default of issue, the kings of France." But Sancho fell ill after this, and the fondness of his old father revived with such intensity that he sickened of anxiety and grief. "Sancho recovered and was soon as well as ever; but the king grew worse, and soon died [1284], full of grief and affection for his son. He had not, however, revoked his will. Nobody minded the will, and Sancho was proclaimed king. He reigned, and his son and grandson reigned after him." The son was Ferdinand IV., who came to the throne in 1295; the grandson was Alfonso XI., who followed him in 1312. The latter was succeeded in 1350 by his son Pedro, or Peter, surnamed the Cruel, and quite eminent under that sinister designation, especially through the unfortunate connection of the English Black Prince with his later evil fortunes.

The founder of the kingdom of Granada, Aben-Al-Hamar, or Ibnu-l-ahmar, died in 1273. He was "succeeded by his son, Abú Abdillah, known as Mohammed II. Obeying his father's injunctions, he called upon Yahúb, the Sultan of the Beni Merines at Fez, to come to his aid, and captured Algeçiras, to serve as a receptacle and magazine for these African allies. He also presented Tarifa to Yahúb. The two allied forces then went out to meet Nuño de Lam with the Christian frontier troops, and routed him. But Mohammed was soon prevailed upon by his fears to renew the Christian alliance; and the Christian troops, thus freed from one enemy, soon wrested Algeçiras, Tarifa [1291], Ronda, and other towns, from the Beni Merines, who were, all but a small remnant, driven back into Africa. … Mohammed II. died in 1302, and was succeeded by a greater king,—Mohammed III., another Abú Abdillah, … dethroned by a revolt of his brother, Nasr; but when, in 1312, Nasr in turn was forced to abdicate, he was succeeded by Isma'il Abú-l-Waled, after whom came Mohammed IV., in 1315. Meantime the Christian monarchs were always pressing the Moorish frontier. In 1309, Ferdinand IV. of Castile succeeded in taking Gibraltar, while the troops of Aragon besieged Almeria, and thus the circle was ever narrowing, but not without bloody dispute. When Don Pedro, Infante of Castile, made his great effort against Granada in 1319, he was wofully defeated in the battle of Elvira, and his rich camp despoiled by the Moors. Mohammed IV. succeeded in retaking Gibraltar from the Christians [or, rather, according to Condé, it was taken in 1331 by Mohammed's ally, the king of Fez, to whom Mohammed was forced to cede it]. … He was assassinated by his African allies, and succeeded by his brother Yúsuf in 1333. Prompted purely by self-interest, Abu-l-has, another leader, with 60,000 men, beside the contingent from Granada, encountered the Christians near Tarifa in the year 1340, and was defeated with immense loss [in the battle of the Guadacelito or the Salado]. Yúsuf was assassinated by a madman in 1354, and was succeeded by Mohammed V. … Driven from his throne by a revolt of his half-brother Isma'il, he first fled for his life to Guadix, and then to Africa, in the year 1359. And all these intestine quarrels were playing into the Christians' hands. Isma'il, the usurper, held the nominal power less than a year, when he was dethroned and put to death. His successor, Mohammed VI., surrounded by difficulties, came to the strange determination to place himself and his kingdom under the protection of that King Pedro of Castile whom history has named 'el cruel,' but whom his adherents called 'el justiciero,' the doer of justice. The Castilian king vindicated his claim to the historic title by putting Mohammed to death, and seizing 'the countless treasures which he and the chiefs who composed his suite brought with them.' To the throne, thus once more vacant by assassination, Mohammed V. returned, and ruled a second time, from 1362 to 1391. … Then came the reigns of Yúsuf II. and Mohammed VII., uneventful, except that, in the words of the Arabian chronicler, 'the Mohammedan empire still went on decaying, until it became an easy prey to the infidels, who surrounded it on every side, like a pack of hungry wolves.' Many portents of ruin were displayed, and the public mind was already contemplating the entire success of the Christians." A century of confused struggles ensued, in the course of which Gibraltar was several times besieged by the Christians, and was finally taken by the Duke of Medina Sidonia in 1460. Other strongholds of the Moors fell, one by one, and they "were being more and more restricted to their little kingdom of Granada, and the Christians were strengthening to dislodge and expel them."

      H. Coppée,
      History of the Conquest of Spain by the Arab-Moors,
      book 8, chapter 5 (volume 2).

      ALSO IN:
      J. A. Condé,
      History of the Dominion of the Arabs in Spain,
      part 4, chapters 9-33.

SPAIN: (Aragon): A. D. 1282-1300.
Acquisition of Sicily by King Peter.
It passes as a separate kingdom to his younger son.

SPAIN: A. D. 1366-1369.
Pedro the Cruel of Castile and
the invasion of the English Black Prince.

   "Pedro the Cruel, King of Castile at this time (1350-1369),
   had earned his title by a series of murders, which dated from
   the time he was sixteen years old, and comprised his wife, his
   step-mother, two of his half-brothers, and a great number of
   the chief nobles of his kingdom. He was on bad terms with the
   pope, for he was the friend of Moors and Jews, and had
   plundered bishops and monasteries; he was hated in the court
   of France, for his murdered queen was the king's cousin,
   Blanche de Bourbon; he was at war with the King of Arragon.
   Instigated by this monarch and by the King of Navarre, the
   eldest of Pedro's half-brothers, Don Henry of Trastamere, who
   had been serving for some time with the Free Companions in
   Languedoc, conceived the idea of uniting them in a grand
   enterprise against the kingdom of Castile. Charles V. [of
   France] approved the project, and lent money and his best
   captain, Du Guesclin; Pope Urban V. contributed his blessing
   and money; and the Free Lances eagerly embraced a scheme which
   promised them the plunder of a new country." The expedition
   "succeeded without bloodshed. The people rose to welcome it,
   and Don Pedro was forced to escape through Portugal, and take
   ship hastily at Corunna. Don Henry was crowned in his palace
   at Burgos (April 1366). In his distress Don Pedro applied to
   the Prince of Wales [the Black Prince, then holding the
   government of Aquitaine] for support. There was no reason why
   England or Aquitaine should be mixed up in Spanish politics.
   Both countries required rest after an exhausting war. … But
   Pedro was a skilful diplomatist. He bribed the Prince of Wales
   by a promise to cede the province of Biscay." With the consent
   of his father, King Edward III. of England, the Prince took up
   the cause of the odious Don Pedro, and led an army of 24,000
   horse, besides great numbers of archers, into Spain (A. D.
   1367). At the decisive battle of Navarette the Spaniards and
   their allies were overwhelmingly defeated, Du Guesclin was
   taken prisoner, Don Henry fled, and Pedro was reinstated on
   the Castilian throne. "Then came disappointment. The prince
   demanded performance of the promises Don Pedro had made, and
   proposed to stay in Spain till they were acquitted. … For some
   months Edward vainly awaited the performance of his ally's
   promises.
{2981}
   Then, as his troops were wasting away with dysentery and other
   diseases caused by the strange climate, till it was said
   scarcely a fifth remained alive, Edward resolved to remove
   into Aquitaine, which Don Henry was attacking, and was glad to
   find that the passes of the Pyrenees were left open to him by
   the Kings of Arragon and Navarre (August 1367). … The results
   of Edward's mischievous policy soon became evident. All he had
   achieved in Spain was almost instantly undone by Don Henry,
   who crossed the Pyrenees a few weeks only after Edward had
   left Spain (September 1367) recovered his kingdom in the
   course of the next year, and captured and killed Don Pedro a
   little later (March 1369). The whole power of Castile, which
   was far from being contemptible at sea, was then thrown into
   the scale against England."

ALSO IN: J. Froissart, Chronicles (translated by Johnes), book 1, chapters 230-245.

SPAIN: A. D. 1368-1479.
   Castile under the House of Trastamere.
   Discord and civil war.
   Triumph of Queen Isabella.
   The Castilian dynasty in Aragon.
   Marriage of Isabella and Ferdinand.

"A more fortunate period began [in Castile] with the accession of Henry [of Trastamare, or Henry II.]. His own reign was hardly disturbed by any rebellion; and though his successors, John I. [1379] and Henry III. [1390], were not altogether so unmolested, especially the latter, who ascended the throne in his minority, yet the troubles of their time were slight, in comparison with those formerly excited by the houses of Lara and Haro, both of which were now happily extinct. Though Henry II. 's illegitimacy left him no title but popular choice, his queen was sole representative of the Cerdas, the offspring … of Sancho IV. 's elder brother. … No kingdom could be worse prepared to meet the disorders of a minority than Castile, and in none did the circumstances so frequently recur. John II. was but fourteen months old at his accession [1406]; and but for the disinterestedness of his uncle Ferdinand, the nobility would have been inclined to avert the danger by placing that prince upon the throne. In this instance, however, Castile suffered less from faction during the infancy of her sovereign than in his maturity. The queen dowager, at first jointly with Ferdinand, and solely after his accession to the crown of Aragon, administered the government with credit. … In external affairs their reigns were not what is considered as glorious. They were generally at peace with Aragon and Granada, but one memorable defeat by the Portuguese at Aljubarrota [August 14, 1385] disgraces the annals of John I., whose cause [attempting the conquest of Portugal] was as unjust as his arms were unsuccessful. This comparatively golden period ceases at the majority of John II. His reign was filled up by a series of conspiracies and civil wars, headed by his cousins John and Henry, the infants of Aragon, who enjoyed very extensive territories in Castile, by the testament of their father Ferdinand. Their brother the king of Aragon frequently lent the assistance of his arms. … These conspiracies were all ostensibly directed against the favourite of John II., Alvaro de Luna, who retained for 35 years an absolute control over his feeble master. … His fate is among the memorable lessons of history. After a life of troubles endured for the sake of this favourite, sometimes a fugitive, sometimes a prisoner, his son heading rebellions against him, John II. suddenly yielded to an intrigue of the palace, and adopted sentiments of dislike towards the man he had so long loved. … Alvaro de Luna was brought to a summary trial and beheaded; his estates were confiscated. He met his death with the intrepidity of Strafford, to whom he seems to have borne some resemblance in character. John II. did not long survive his minister, dying in 1454, after a reign that may be considered as inglorious, compared with any except that of his successor. If the father was not respected, the son fell completely into contempt. He had been governed by Pacheco, marquis of Villena, as implicitly as John by Alvaro de Luna. This influence lasted for some time afterwards. But the king inclining to transfer his confidence to the queen, Joanna of Portugal, and to one Bertrand de Cueva, upon whom common fame had fixed as her paramour, a powerful confederacy of disaffected nobles was formed against the royal authority. … They deposed Henry in an assembly of their faction at Avila with a sort of theatrical pageantry which has often been described. … The confederates set up Alfonso, the king's brother, and a civil war of some duration ensued, in which they had the support of Aragon. The queen of Castile had at this time borne a daughter, whom the enemies of Henry IV., and indeed no small part of his adherents, were determined to treat as spurious. Accordingly, after the death of Alfonso, his sister Isabel was considered as heiress of the kingdom. … Avoiding the odium of a contest with her brother, Isabel agreed to a treaty by which the succession was absolutely settled upon her [1469]. This arrangement was not long afterwards followed by the union of that princess with Ferdinand, son of the king of Aragon. This marriage was by no means acceptable to a part of the Castilian oligarchy, who had preferred a connexion with Portugal. And as Henry had never lost sight of the interests of one whom he considered, or pretended to consider, as his daughter, he took the first opportunity of revoking his forced disposition of the crown and restoring the direct line of succession in favour of the princess Joanna. Upon his death, in 1474, the right was to be decided by arms. Joanna had on her side the common presumptions of law, the testamentary disposition of the late king, the support of Alfonso king of Portugal, to whom she was betrothed, and of several considerable leaders among the nobility. … For Isabella were the general belief of Joanna's illegitimacy, the assistance of Aragon, the adherence of a majority both among the nobles and people, and, more than all, the reputation of ability which both she and her husband had deservedly acquired. The scale was, however, pretty equally balanced, till the king of Portugal having been defeated at Toro in 1476, Joanna's party discovered their inability to prosecute the war by themselves, and successively made their submission to Ferdinand and Isabella." Ferdinand of Aragon, by whose marriage with Isabella of Castile the two kingdoms became practically united, was himself of Castilian descent, being the grandson of that magnanimous Ferdinand who has been mentioned above, as the uncle and joint guardian of John II. of Castile. {2982} In 1410, on the death of King Martin, the right of succession to the throne of Aragon had been in dispute, and Ferdinand was one of several claimants. Instead of resorting to arms, the contending parties were wisely persuaded to submit the question to a special tribunal, composed of three Aragonese, three Catalans, and three Valencians. "A month was passed in hearing arguments; a second was allotted to considering them; and at the expiration of the prescribed time it was announced to the people … that Ferdinand of Castile had ascended the throne. In this decision it is impossible not to suspect that the judges were swayed rather by politic considerations than a strict sense of hereditary right. It was therefore by no means universally popular, especially in Catalonia. … Ferdinand however was well received in Aragon. … Ferdinand's successor was his son Alfonso V., more distinguished in the history of Italy than of Spain. For all the latter years of his life he never quitted the kingdom that he had acquired by his arms.

Enchanted by the delicious air of Naples, intrusted the government of his patrimonial territories to the care of a brother and an heir. John II., upon whom they devolved by the death of Alfonso without legitimate progeny, had been engaged during his youth in the turbulent revolutions of Castile, as the head of a strong party that opposed the domination of Alvaro de Luna. By marriage with the heiress of Navarre he was entitled, according to the usage of those times, to assume the title of king, and administration of government, during her life. But his ambitious retention of power still longer produced events which are the chief stain on his memory. Charles, prince of Viana, was, by the constitution of Navarre, entitled to succeed his mother [1442]. She had requested him in her testament not to assume the government without his father's consent. That consent was always withheld. The prince raised what we ought not to call a rebellion; but was made prisoner. … After a life of perpetual oppression, chiefly passed in exile or captivity, the prince of Viana died in Catalonia [1461], at a moment when that province was in open insurrection upon his account. Though it hardly seems that the Catalans had any more general provocations, they persevered for more than ten years [until the capitulation of Barcelona, after a long siege, in 1472] with inveterate obstinacy in their rebellion, offering the sovereignty first to a prince of Portugal, and afterwards to Regnier duke of Anjou, who was destined to pass his life in unsuccessful competition for kingdoms." Ferdinand, who married Isabella of Castile, was a younger half-brother of prince Charles of Viana, and succeeded his father, John II., on the throne of Aragon, in 1479.

      ALSO IN:
      W. H. Prescott,
      History of the Reign of Ferdinand and Isabella,
      part 1, chapters 1-5.

SPAIN: A. D. 1458. Separation of the crown of Naples from those of Aragon and Sicily.

SPAIN: A. D. 1476-1492.
The last struggle of the Moors.
Fall of the city and kingdom of Granada.

"The days of the Moorish kingdom were already numbered when, in 1466, Aboul Hacem succeeded Ismael; but the disturbances in Castille emboldened him, and when, in 1476, the regular demand for tribute was made, he answered: 'Those who coined gold for you are dead. Nothing is made at Granada for the Christians but sword-blades and lance-points.' Such was the last proclamation of war from the Moors. Even the Imaums disapproved, and preached in the mosques of Granada. 'Woe to the Moslems in Andalusia!' 'The end is come,' they said; 'the ruins will fall on our heads!' Nevertheless, Aboul Hacem surprised the Aragonese city of Zahara with 60,000 inhabitants, and put them all to the sword or sold them into slavery; but he was not welcomed, evil was predicted, and he became more and more hated when he put four of the Abencerrages to death. The king and queen [Ferdinand, or Fernando, and Isabella] now began to prepare the whole strength of their kingdom for a final effort, not to be relaxed till Spain should be wholly a Christian land. … Don Rodrigo Ponce de Leon, who had become Marquis of Cadiz, made a sudden night attack upon Alhama, only eight leagues from Granada, and though the inhabitants fought from street to street he mastered it. … Alhama was a terrible loss to the Moors, and was bewailed in the ballad, 'Ay de me Al Hama,' which so moved the hearts of the people that it was forbidden to be sung in the streets of Granada. It has been translated by Byron, who has in fact united two ballads. … Alhama had once before been taken by St. Fernando, but could not then be kept, and a council was held by the 'Reyes Catolicos' [Ferdinand and Isabella], in which it was declared that it would take 5,000 mules' burthen of provisions sent several times a year, to support a garrison thus in the heart of the enemy's country. The high spirit of the queen, however, carried the day. She declared that the right thing to do was to take Loja to support Alhama, and, after causing the three chief mosques to be purified as Christian churches, she strained every effort [1482] to equip an army with which Fernando was to besiege Loja. On the day before he set out Isabel gave birth to twins—one dead, the other a daughter: and this was viewed as an ill omen. … Ali Atar, one of the bravest of the Moors, defeated Fernando and forced him to retreat with the loss of his baggage. Aboul Hacem was prevented from following up his success by the struggles of the women in his harem. His favourite wife was a Christian by birth, named Isabel de Solis, the daughter of the Alcayde of Bedmar; but she had become a renegade, and was commonly called Zoraya, or the Morning Star. Childless herself, she was vehemently set on the promotion of Abou-Abd-Allah, son of another wife, Ayescha, who is generally known by the Spanish contraction of his name, Boabdil; also in Arabic as Al Zaquir, the little, and in Spanish as 'el Rey Chico.' Such disaffection was raised that Aboul Hacem was forced to return home, where he imprisoned Ayescha and her son; but they let themselves down from the window with a rope twisted of the veils of the Sultana's women, and, escaping to the palace or Albaycin, there held out against him, supported by the Abencerrages. The Zegris held by Aboul Hacem, and the streets of Granada ran red with the blood shed by the two factions till, in 1482, while the elder king was gone to relieve Loja, the younger one seized the Alhamra; and Aboul Hacem, finding the gates closed against him, was obliged to betake himself to Malaga, where his brother Abd Allah, called Al Zagal, or the young, was the Alcayde."

"The illegal power of Boabdil was contested by his uncle, Az-Zagal (El Zagal), who held a precarious sway for four years, until 1487, when Boabdil again came to the throne. This was rendered more easy by the fact that, in a battle between the Moors and Christians in the territory of Lucena, not long after his accession, Boabdil was taken prisoner by the Christian forces. By a stroke of policy, the Christian king released his royal prisoner, in the hope that through him he might make a treaty. Boabdil went to Loja, which was at once besieged by Ferdinand, and this time captured, and with it the Moorish king again fell into the Christian hands. Again released, after many difficulties he came into power. The Christian conquests were not stayed by these circumstances. In 1487, they captured Velez Malaga, on the coast a short distance east of Malaga, and received the submission of many neighboring towns. In the same year Malaga was besieged and taken. In 1489, Baeza followed; then the important city of Almeria, and at last the city of Granada stood alone to represent the Mohammedan dominion in the Peninsula. The strife between Boabdil and El Zagal now came to an end; and the latter, perhaps foreseeing the fatal issue, embarked for Africa, leaving the nominal rule and the inevitable surrender to his rival. … The army of Ferdinand and Isabella was in splendid condition, and reinforcements were arriving from day to day. System and order prevailed, and the troops, elated with victory, acknowledged no possibility of failure. Very different was the condition of things and very depressed the spirit of the people in Granada. Besides its own disordered population, it was crowded with disheartened fugitives, anxious for peace on any terms. The more warlike and ambitious representatives of the tribes were still quarrelling in the face of the common ruin, but all parties joined in bitter denunciations of their king. When he had been released by Ferdinand after the capture of Loja, he had promised that when Guadix should be taken and the power of El Zagal destroyed, he would surrender Granada to the Christian king, and retire to some seignory, as duke or marquis. But now that the 'casus' had arrived, he found … that the people would not permit him to keep his promise. … The only way in which Boabdil could appease the people was by an immediate declaration of war against the Christians. This was in the year 1490. When this was made known, Ferdinand and Isabella were at Seville, celebrating the marriage of the Infanta Isabel with Alfonso, crown prince of Portugal. The omen was a happy one. The armies of Spain and Portugal were immediately joined to put an end to the crusade. With 5,000 cavalry and 20,000 foot, the Spanish king advanced to the Sierra Elvira, overlooking the original site of the Granadine capital. The epic and romantic details of the conquest may be read elsewhere. … There were sorties on the part of the Moors, and chivalrous duels between individuals, until the coming of winter, when, leaving proper guards and garrisons, the principal Christian force retired to Cordova, to make ready for the spring. El Zagal had returned from Africa, and was now fighting in the Christian ranks. It was an imposing army which was reviewed by Ferdinand on the 26th of April, 1491, in the beautiful Vega, about six miles from the city of Granada; the force consisted of 10,000 horse and 40,000 foot, ready to take position in the final siege. … It was no part of the Spanish king's purpose to assault the place. … He laid his siege in the Vega, but used his troops in devastating the surrounding country, taking prisoners and capturing cattle. … Meantime the Christian camp grew like a city, and when Queen Isabella came with her train of beauty and grace, it was also a court city in miniature." In July, an accidental fire destroyed the whole encampment, and roused great hopes among the Moors. But a city of wood (which the pious queen called Santa Fé—the Holy Faith) soon took the place of the tents, and "the momentary elation of the Moors gave way to profound depression; and this induced them to capitulate. The last hour had indeed struck on the great horologe of history; and on the 25th of November the armistice was announced for making a treaty of peace and occupancy."

      H. Coppée,
      History of the Conquest of Spain by the Arab-Moors,
      book 8, chapter 5 (volume 2).

"After large discussion on both sides, the terms of capitulation were definitively settled. … The inhabitants of Granada were to retain possession of their mosques, with the free exercise of their religion, with all its peculiar rights and ceremonies; they were to be judged by their own laws, under their own cadis or magistrates, subject to the general control of the Castilian governor; they were to be unmolested in their ancient usages, manners, language, and dress; to be protected in the full enjoyment of their property, with the right of disposing of it on their own account, and of migrating when and where they would; and to be furnished with vessels for the conveyance of such as chose within three years to pass into Africa. No heavier taxes were to be imposed than those customarily paid to their Arabian sovereigns, and none whatever before the expiration of three years. King Abdallah [Boabdil] was to reign over a specified territory in the Alpuxarras, for which he was to do homage to the Castilian crown. … The city was to be surrendered in 60 days from the date of the capitulation;" but owing to popular disturbances in Granada, the surrender was actually made on the 2d of January, 1492. Boabdil soon tired of the petty sovereignty assigned to him, sold it to Ferdinand and Isabella, passed over to Fez, and perished in one of the battles of his kinsmen.

SPAIN: A. D. 1476-1498.-
The reorganization of the Hermandad,
or Holy Brotherhood, in Castile.

SPAIN: A. D. 1481-1525.
Establishment and organization of the "Spanish Inquisition."
Its horrible work.

SPAIN: A. D. 1492-1533.
Discovery of America.
First voyages, colonizations and conquests.

SPAIN: A. D. 1494.
The Treaty of Tordesillas.
Amended partition of the New World with Portugal.

SPAIN: A. D. 1495. Alliance with Naples, Venice, Germany and the Pope against Charles VIII. of France.

SPAIN: A. D. 1496-1517.
   Marriage of the Infanta Joanna to the
   Austro-Burgundian Archduke Philip.
   Birth of their son Charles, the heir of many crowns.
   Insanity of Joanna.
   Death of Queen Isabella.
   Regency of Ferdinand.
   His second marriage and his death.
   Accession of Charles, the first of the
   Austro-Spanish dynasty.

Joanna, second daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella, was married in 1496 to "the archduke Philip, son of the emperor Maximilian, and sovereign, in right of his mother [Mary of Burgundy], of the Low Countries. The first fruit of this marriage was the celebrated Charles V., born at Ghent, February 24th, 1500, whose birth was no sooner announced to Queen Isabella than she predicted that to this infant would one day descend the rich inheritance of the Spanish monarchy. The premature death of the heir apparent, Prince Miguel, not long after [and also of the queen of Portugal, the elder daughter of Isabella and Ferdinand], prepared the way for this event by devolving the succession on Joanna, Charles's mother. From that moment the sovereigns were pressing in their entreaties that the archduke and his wife would visit Spain. … In the latter part of 1501, Philip and Joanna, attended by a numerous suite of Flemish courtiers, set out on their journey," passing through France and being royally entertained on the way. In Spain, they first received the usual oath of fealty from the Castilian cortes, and then "were solemnly recognized by the four 'arms' of Aragon as successors to the crown, in default of male issue of King Ferdinand. The circumstance is memorable as affording the first example of the parliamentary recognition of a female heir apparent in Aragonese history. Amidst all the honors so liberally lavished on Philip, his bosom secretly swelled with discontent, fomented still further by his followers, who pressed him to hasten his return to Flanders, where the free and social manners of the people were much more congenial to their tastes than the reserve and stately ceremonial of the Spanish court. … Ferdinand and Isabella saw with regret the frivolous disposition of their son-in-law. … They beheld with mortification his indifference to Joanna, who could boast few personal attractions, and who cooled the affections of her husband by alternations of excessive fondness and irritable jealousy." Against the remonstrances of king, queen and cortes, as well as in opposition to the wishes of his wife, Philip set out for Flanders in December, again traveling through France, and negotiating on the way a treaty with Louis XII. which arranged for the marriage of the infant Charles with princess Claude of France—a marriage which never occurred. The unhappy Joanna, whom he left behind, was plunged in the deepest dejection, and exhibited ere long decided symptoms of insanity. On the 10th of March, 1503, she gave birth to her second son, Ferdinand, and the next spring she joined her husband in Flanders, but only to be worse treated by him than before. Queen Isabella, already declining in health, was deeply affected by the news of her daughter's unhappiness and increasing disturbance of mind, and on the 26th of November, 1504, she died. By her will, she settled the crown of Castile on the infanta Joanna as "queen proprietor," and the archduke Philip as her husband, and she appointed King Ferdinand (who was henceforth king in Aragon, but not in Castile), to be sole regent of Castile, in the event of the absence or incapacity of Joanna, until the latter's son Charles should attain his majority. On the day of the queen's death Ferdinand resigned the crown of Castile, which he had worn as her consort, only, and caused to be proclaimed the accession of Joanna and Philip to the Castilian throne. "The king of Aragon then publicly assumed the title of administrator or governor of Castile, as provided by the queen's testament." He next convened a cortes at Toro, in January, 1505, which approved and ratified the provisions of the will and "took the oaths of allegiance to Joanna as queen and lady proprietor, and to Philip as her husband. They then determined that the exigency contemplated in the testament, of Joanna's incapacity, actually existed, and proceeded to tender their homage to King Ferdinand, as the lawful governor of the realm in her name." These arrangements were unsatisfactory to many of the Castilian nobles, who opened a correspondence with Philip, in the Netherlands, and persuaded him "to assert his pretensions to undivided supremacy in Castile." Opposition to Ferdinand's regency increased, and it was fomented not only by Philip and his friends, but by the king of France, Louis XII. To placate the latter enemy, Ferdinand sought in marriage a niece of the French king, Germaine, daughter of Jean de Foix, and negotiated a treaty, signed at Blois, October 12, 1505, in which he resigned his claims on Naples to his intended bride and her heirs. Louis was now detached from the interests of Philip, and refused permission to the archduke to pass through his kingdom. But Ferdinand, astute as he was, allowed himself to be deceived by his son-in-law, who agreed to a compromise, known as the concord of Salamanca, which provided for the government of Castile in the joint names of Ferdinand, Philip, and Joanna, while, at the same time, he was secretly preparing to transfer his wife and himself to Spain by sea. On the first attempt they were driven to England by a storm; but in April, 1506, Philip and Joanna landed at Coruña, in Spain, and in June Ferdinand was forced to sign and swear to an agreement "by which he surrendered the entire sovereignty of Castile to Philip and Joanna, reserving to himself only the grand-masterships of the military orders, and the revenues secured by Isabella's testament." Philip took the government into his own hands, endeavoring to obtain authority to place his wife in confinement, as one insane; but this the Castilians would not brook. Otherwise he carried things with a high hand, surrounding himself with Flemish favorites, and revolutionizing the government in every branch and the court in every feature. His insolence, extravagance and frivolity excited general disgust, and would probably have provoked serious revolts, if the country had been called upon to endure them long. {2985} But Philip's reign was brief. He sickened, suddenly, of a fever, and died on the 25th of September, 1506. His demented widow would not permit his body to be interred. A provisional council of regency carried on the government until December. After that it drifted, with no better authoritative guidance than that of the poor insane queen, until July 1507, when Ferdinand, who had been absent, in Naples, during the year past, returned and was joyfully welcomed. His unfortunate daughter "henceforth resigned herself to her father's will. " Although she survived 47 years, she never quitted the walls of her habitation; and although her name appeared jointly with that of her son, Charles V., in all public acts, she never afterwards could be induced to sign a paper, or take part in any transactions of a public nature. … From this time the Catholic king exercised an authority nearly as undisputed, and far less limited and defined, than in the days of Isabella." He exercised this authority for nine years, dying on the 23d of January, 1516. By his last will he settled the succession of Aragon and Naples on his daughter Joanna and her heirs, thus uniting the sovereignty of those kingdoms with that of Castile, in the same person. The administration of Castile during Charles' absence was intrusted to Ximenes, and that of Aragon to the king's natural son, the archbishop of Saragossa. In September, 1517, Charles, the heir of many kingdoms, arrived in Spain from the Netherlands, where his youth had been spent. Two months later Cardinal Ximenes died, but not before Charles had rudely and ungratefully dismissed him from the government. The queen, Joanna, was still living; but her arbitrary son had already commanded the proclamation of himself as king.

W. H. Prescott, History of the Reign of Ferdinand and Isabella, part 2, chapters 12-13, 16-17,19-20, 24-25.

SPAIN: A. D. 1501-1504.
   Treaty of Ferdinand with Louis XII. for
   the partition of Naples.
   Their joint conquest.
   Their quarrel and war.
   The French expelled.
   The Spaniards in possession.

SPAIN: A. D. 1512-1515.
Conquest of Navarre.
Its incorporation in the kingdom of Castile.

SPAIN: A. D. 1515-1557. Discovery of the Rio de la Plata and colonization of Paraguay.

SPAIN: A. D. 1518-1522.
   Popular discontent.
   Election of Charles to the German imperial throne.
   Rebellion of the Holy Junta, and its failure.
   Absolutism of the crown established.

Charles had not been long in Spain before "symptoms of discontent … were every where visible. Charles spoke the Spanish language imperfectly: his discourse was consequently slow, and delivered with hesitation; and from that circumstance many of the Spaniards were induced to regard him as a prince of a slow and narrow genius. But the greatest dissatisfaction arose from his attachment to his Flemish favourites, who engrossed or exposed to sale every office of honour or emolument, and whose rapacity was so unbounded that they are said to have remitted to the Netherlands no less a sum than 1,100,000 ducats in the space of ten months. … While Spain, agitated by a general discontent, was ready for rebellion, a spacious field was opened to the ambition of her monarch. The death of the Emperor Maximilian [1519] had left vacant the imperial throne of Germany. The Kings of Spain, of France, and of England, offered themselves as candidates for this high dignity," and Charles was chosen, entering now upon his great career as the renowned Emperor, Charles V.

"Charles received the news of his election to the imperial throne with the joy that was natural to a young and aspiring mind. But his elevation was far from affording the same satisfaction to his Spanish subjects, who foresaw that their blood and their treasures would be lavished in the support of German politics." With great difficulty he obtained from the Cortes money sufficient to enable him to proceed to Germany in a suitable style. Having accomplished this, he sailed from Corunna in May, 1520, leaving his old preceptor, now Cardinal Adrian, of Utrecht, to be Regent during his absence. "As soon as it was understood that, although the Cortes had voted him a free gift, they had not obtained the redress of any grievance, the indignation of the people became general and uncontrollable. The citizens of Toledo took arms, attacked the citadel, and compelled the governor to surrender. Having, in the next place, established a democratical form of government, composed of deputies from the several parishes of the city, they levied troops, and appointed for their commander Don Juan de Padilla, son of the Commendator of Castile, a young man of an ambitious and daring spirit, and a great favourite with the populace. Segovia, Burgos, Zamora, and several other cities, followed the example of Toledo." Segovia was besieged by Fonseca, commander-in-chief in Castile, who, previously, destroyed a great part of the town of Medino del Campo by fire, because its citizens refused to deliver to him a train of artillery. Valladolid now rose in revolt, notwithstanding the presence of the Regent in the city, and forced him to disavow the proceedings of Fonseca.

   "In July [1520], deputies from the principal Castilian cities
   met in Avila; and having formed an association called the
   Santa Junta, or Holy League, proceeded to deliberate
   concerning the proper methods of redressing the grievances of
   the nation. The Junta declared the authority of Adrian
   illegal, on the ground of his being a foreigner, and required
   him to resign it; while Padilla, by a sudden march, seized the
   person of Joanna at Tordesillas. The unfortunate queen
   displayed an interval of reason, during which she authorised
   Padilla to do all that was necessary for the safety of the
   kingdom; but she soon relapsed into her former imbecility, and
   could not be persuaded to sign any more papers.
{2986}
   The Junta nevertheless carried on all their deliberations in
   her name; and Padilla, marching with a considerable army to
   Valladolid, seized the seals and public archives, and formally
   deposed Adrian. Charles now issued from Germany circular
   letters addressed to the Castilian cities, making great
   concessions, which, however, were not deemed satisfactory by
   the Junta; who, conscious of their power, proceeded to draw up
   a remonstrance, containing a long list of grievances. …
   Charles having refused to receive the remonstrance which was
   forwarded to him in Germany, the Junta proceeded to levy open
   war against him and the nobles; for the latter, who had at
   first sided with the Junta, finding their own privileges
   threatened as well as those of the King, began now to support
   the royal authority. The army of the Junta, which numbered
   about 20,000 men, was chiefly composed of mechanics and
   persons unacquainted with the use of arms; Padilla was set
   aside, and the command given to Don Pedro de Giron, a rash and
   inexperienced young nobleman." From this time the insurrection
   failed rapidly. In December, the royalists recovered
   Tordesillas and the person of Queen Joanna; and in April,
   1521, Padilla was defeated, taken prisoner and executed, near
   Villalar. "This defeat proved the ruin of the Junta.
   Valladolid and most of the other confederated towns now
   submitted, but Toledo, animated by the grief and courage of
   Padilla's widow, still held out." Even after the surrender of
   the city, "Dona Maria retired to the citadel and held it four
   months longer; but on the 10th February 1522, she was
   compelled to surrender, and escaped in disguise to Portugal;
   after which tranquillity was re-established in Castile."

"The insurrection was a failure; and the blow which crushed the insurgents on the plains of Villalar deprived them [the Spaniards at large] for ever of the few liberties which they had been permitted to retain. They were excluded from all share in the government, and were henceforth summoned to the cortes only to swear allegiance to the heir apparent, or to furnish subsidies for their master. … The nobles, who had stood by their master in the struggle, fared no better. … They gradually sunk into the unsubstantial though glittering pageant of a court. Meanwhile the government of Castile, assuming the powers of both making the laws and enforcing their execution, became in its essential attributes nearly as absolute as that of Turkey."

SPAIN: A. D. 1523.
The conspiracy of Charles V. with the Constable of
Bourbon against France.

SPAIN: A. D. 1523-1527.
   Double-dealings of Pope Clement VII. with Charles.
   The imperial revenge.
   Capture and sack of Rome.

SPAIN: A. D. 1524.
Disputes with Portugal in the division of the New World.
The voyage of Magellan and the Congress of Badajos.

SPAIN: A. D. 1526. Compulsory and nominal Conversion of the Moors, or Moriscoes, completed.

SPAIN: A. D. 1528-1542.
The expeditions of Narvaez and Hernando de Soto in Florida.

SPAIN: A. D. 1536-1544.
Renewed war between Charles V. and Francis I.
Treaty of Crespy.

SPAIN: A. D. 1556-1559.
   War with France and the Pope.
   Successes in Italy and northwestern France.
   Treaty of Cateau-Cambresis.

SPAIN: A. D. 1559-1563.
   Early measures of Philip II.
   His stupid and stifling despotism.
   His attempt to shut knowledge out of the kingdom.
   His destruction of commerce and industry.
   His choice of Madrid for a capital.
   His building of the Escorial.

   "In the beginning of his reign he [Philip II.] issued a most
   extraordinary decree. … That document is a signal revelation
   of the policy which Philip adopted as the very soul of his
   Government. Determined to stop by all imaginable means the
   infiltration into Spain of the doctrines of the religious
   reformation which agitated Europe, it seems that he planned to
   isolate her intellect from that of the rest of the world. …
   For this purpose he ordered that none of his subjects, without
   any exception whatever, should leave the Kingdom 'to learn, or
   to teach, or to read anything,' or even 'reside' in any of the
   universities, colleges or schools established in foreign
   parts. To those who were thus engaged he prescribed that they
   should return home within four months. Any ecclesiastic
   violating this decree was to be denationalized and lose all
   his temporalities; any layman was to be punished with the
   confiscation of his property and perpetual exile. Thus a sort
   of Chinese legislation and policy was adopted for Spain. There
   was to be on her frontiers a line of custom-houses through
   which the thought of man could not pass without examination.
   No Spaniard was to receive or to communicate one idea without
   the leave of Philip. … In 1560, the Cortes of Castile had
   their second meeting under the reign of Philip. … The Cortes
   presented to Philip one hundred and eleven petitions. … To
   those petitions which aimed at something practicable and
   judicious he gave some of his usual evasive answers, but he
   granted very readily those which were absurd. For instance, he
   promulgated sumptuary ordinances which were ridiculous, and
   which could not possibly have any salutary effects. He also
   published decrees which were restrictive of commerce, and
   prohibited the exportation of gold, silver, grains, cattle and
   other products of the soil, or of the manufacturing industry
   of the country. …
{2987}
   In the meantime, the financial condition of the Kingdom was
   rapidly growing worse, and the deficit resulting from the
   inequality of expenditure and revenue was assuming the most
   alarming proportions. All the ordinary and extraordinary means
   and resources had been exhausted. … Yet, on an average, Philip
   received annually from his American Dominions alone more than
   1,200,000 ducats—which was at least equivalent to $6,000,000
   at the present epoch. The Council of Finances, or Hacienda,
   after consulting with Philip, could not devise anything else,
   to get out of difficulty, than to resort again to the sale of
   titles of nobility, the sale of vassals and other Royal
   property, the alienation of certain rights, and the concession
   of privileges. … It is difficult to give an idea of the
   wretched administration which had been introduced in Spain,
   and of those abuses which, like venomous leeches, preyed upon
   her vitals. Suffice it to say that in Castile, for instance,
   according to a census made in 1541, there was a population of
   near 800,000 souls, and that out of every eight men there was
   one who was noble and exempt from taxation, thereby increasing
   the weight of the burden on the shoulders of the rest; and as
   if this evil was not already unbearable, Philip was selling
   profusely letters patent of nobility. … In these conjunctures
   [1560], Philip, who had shown, on all occasions, that he
   preferred residing in Madrid, … determined to make that city
   the permanent seat of the Court and of the Supreme Government,
   and therefore the capital of the Monarchy. That barren and
   insalubrious locality presented but one advantage, if it be
   one of much value, that of being a central point. … Reason and
   common sense condemned it from the beginning. … Shortly after
   having selected Madrid as his capital, Philip had laid [1563]
   with his own bands, in the vicinity of that city, the first
   stone of the foundations of the Escorial, that eighth marvel
   of the world, as it is called by the Spaniards."

"The common tradition that Philip built the Escorial in pursuance of a vow which he made at the time of the great battle of St. Quentin, the 10th of August, 1557, has been rejected by modern critics. … But a recently discovered document leaves little doubt that such a vow was actually made. However this may have been, it is certain that the king designed to commemorate the event by this structure, as is intimated by its dedication to St. Lawrence, the martyr on whose day the victory was gained. The name given to the place was 'El Sitio de San Lorenzo el Real.' But the monastery was better known from the hamlet near which it stood—El Escurial, or El Escorial—which latter soon became the orthography generally adopted by the Castilians. … The erection of a religious house on a magnificent scale, that would proclaim to the world his devotion to the Faith, was the predominant idea in the mind of Philip. It was, moreover, a part of his scheme to combine in the plan a palace for himself. … The site which, after careful examination, he selected for the building, was among the mountains of the Guadarrama, on the borders of New Castile, about eight leagues northwest of Madrid. … In 1584, the masonry of the Escorial was completed. Twenty-one years had elapsed since the first stone of the monastery was laid. This certainly must be regarded as a short period for the erection of so stupendous a pile. … Probably no single edifice ever contained such an amount and variety of inestimable treasures as the Escorial,—so many paintings and sculptures by the greatest masters,—so many articles of exquisite workmanship, composed of the most precious materials." It was despoiled by the French in 1808, and in 1837 the finest works of art surviving were removed to Madrid. "The Escorial ceased to be a royal residence. Tenantless and unprotected, it was left to the fury of the blasts which swept down the hills of the Guadarrama."

W. H. Prescott, History of the Reign of Philip II., book 6, chapter 2 (volume 3).

SPAIN: A. D. 1563-1564.
Repulse of the Moors from Oran and Mazarquiver.
Capture of Penon de Velez.

SPAIN: A. D. 1565. The massacre of French Huguenots in Florida and occupation of the country.

SPAIN: A. D. 1566-1571.
Edict against the Moriscoes.
Their rebellion and its suppression.

SPAIN: A. D. 1570-1571.
The Holy League with Venice and the Pope against the Turks.
Great battle and Victory of Lepanto.

SPAIN: . D. 1572.
Rejoicing of Philip at the news of the
Massacre of St. Bartholomew's day.

SPAIN: A. D. 1572-1573. Capture of Tunis by Don John of Austria, and its recovery, with Goletta, by the Turks.

SPAIN: A. D. 1580. The crown of Portugal claimed by Philip II. and secured by force.

SPAIN: A. D. 1590.
   Aid rendered to the Catholic League in France.
   Parma's deliverance of Paris.
   Philip's ambition to wear the French crown.

   "In the beginning of 1596, Philip won an important triumph by
   the capture of Calais. But this awoke the alarm of England and
   of the Hollanders as much as of the French. A joint expedition
   was equipped against Spain in which the English took the lead.
   Lord Admiral Howard sailed with a fleet of 150 vessels against
   Cadiz, and the Earl of Essex commanded the land forces. On
   June 21 the Spanish ships which assembled for the defence of
   the town were entirely defeated. Essex was the first to leap
   on shore, and the English troops easily took the city.
{2988}
   The clemency of the English soldiers contrasted favourably
   with the terrible barbarities of the Spaniards in the
   Netherlands. 'The mercy and the clemency that had been showed
   here,' wrote Lord Howard, 'will be spoken of throughout the
   world.' No man or woman was needlessly injured; but Cadiz was
   sacked, and the shipping in its harbour destroyed. Essex
   wished to follow up this exploit by a further attack upon
   Spain; but Howard, who had accomplished the task for which he
   had been sent, insisted on returning home."

"The results of this expedition were considerable, for the king's navy was crippled, a great city was destroyed, and some millions of plunder had been obtained. But the permanent possession of Cadiz, which, in such case, Essex hoped to exchange for Calais, and the destruction of the fleet at the Azores—possible achievements both, and unwisely neglected —would have been far more profitable, at least to England."

"Spain became united and consolidated under the Catholic kings [Ferdinand and Isabella]; it became a cosmopolitan empire under Charles; and in Philip, austere, bigoted, and commanding, its height of glory was reached. Thenceforth the Austrian supremacy in the peninsula—the star of the House of Habsburg—declined, until a whiff of diplomacy was sufficient to extinguish its lights in the person of the childless and imbecile Charles II. Three reigns—Philip III. (1598-1621), Philip IV. (1621-1665), and Charles II. (1665-1700)—fill this century of national decline, full as it is of crowned idiocy, hypochondria, and madness, the result of incestuous marriages, or natural weakness. The splendid and prosperous Spanish empire under the emperor and his son—its vast conquests, discoveries and foreign wars,—becomes transformed into a bauble for the caprice of favorites, under their successors. … Amid its immeasurable wealth, Spain was bankrupt. The gold, and silver, and precious stones of the West, emptied themselves into a land the poorest and most debt-laden in Europe, the most spiritually ignorant despite the countless churches, the most notorious for its dissolute nobility, its worthless officials, its ignoble family relations, its horrible moral aberrations pervading all grades of the population; and all in vain. The mighty fancy, the enthusiastic loyalty, the fervid faith of the richly endowed Spaniard were not counter-balanced by humbler but more practical virtues, —love of industry, of agriculture, of manufactures. The Castilians hated the doings of citizens and peasants; the taint of the Arab and the Jew was on the profession of money-getting. Thousands left their ploughs and went to the Indies, found places in the police, or bought themselves titles of nobility, which forthwith rendered all work dishonorable. The land grew into a literal infatuation with miracles, relics, cloisters, fraternities, pious foundations of every description. The church was omnipotent. Nobody cultivated the soil. Hundreds of thousands lived in the convents. Begging soup at the monastery gates,—such is a type of the famishing Spain of the 17th century. In economic, political, physical, moral, and intellectual aspects, a decay pervaded the peninsula under the later Habsburgers, such as no civilized nation has ever undergone. The population declined from 10,000,000 under Charles V. (Charles I. of Spain) to 6,000,000 under Charles II. The people had vanished from hundreds of places in New Castile, Old Castile, Toledo, Estremadura, and Andalusia. One might travel miles in the lovely regions of the South, without seeing a solitary cultivated field or dwelling. Seville was almost depopulated. Pecuniary distress at the end of the 17th century reached an unexampled height; the soldiers wandered through the cities begging; nearly all the great fortresses from Barcelona to Cadiz were ruinous; the king's servants ran away because they were neither paid nor fed; more than once there was no money to supply the royal table; the ministers were besieged by high officials and officers seeking to extort their pay long due; couriers charged with communications of the highest importance lingered on the road for lack of means to continue their journey. Finance was reduced to tricks of low deceit and robbery. … The idiocy of the system of taxation was unparalleled. Even in 1594 the cortes complained that the merchant, out of every 1,000 ducats capital, had to pay 300 ducats in taxes; that no tenant-farmer could maintain himself, however low his rent might be; and that the taxes exceeded the income of numerous estates. Bad as the system was under Philip II., it became worse under his Austrian successors. The tax upon the sale of food, for instance, increased from ten to fourteen per cent, Looms were most productive when they were absolutely silent. Almost the entire household arrangements of a Spanish family were the products of foreign industries. In the beginning of the 17th century, five-sixths of the domestic and nine-tenths of the foreign trade were in the hands of aliens. In Castile, alone, there were 160,000 foreigners, who had gained complete possession of the industrial and manufacturing interests. 'We cannot clothe ourselves without them, for we have neither linen nor cloth; we cannot write without them, for we have no paper,' complains a Spaniard. Hence, the enormous masses of gold and silver annually transmitted from the colonies passed through Spain into French, English, Italian, and Dutch pockets. Not a real, it is said, of the 35,000,000 of ducats which Spain received from the colonies in 1595, was found in Castile the following year. In this indescribable retrogression, but one interest in any way prospered—the Church. The more agriculture, industry, trade declined, the more exclusively did the Catholic clergy monopolize all economic and intellectual life."

      J. Dunlop,
      Memoirs of Spain, during the Reigns
      of Philip IV. and Charles II.

SPAIN: A. D. 1609.
Final expulsion of the Moriscoes.
The resulting ruin of the nation, materially and morally.

SPAIN: A. D. 1619. Alliance with the Emperor Ferdinand against Frederick of Bohemia.

SPAIN: A. D. 1624-1626.
Hostile policy of Richelieu.
The Valtelline War in Northern Italy.

SPAIN: A. D. 1627-1631. War with France in Northern Italy over the succession to the duchy of Mantua.

SPAIN: A. D. 1635-1636.
The Cardinal Infant in the Netherlands.
His invasion of France.

SPAIN: A. D. 1637-1640.
   The war on the French frontier.
   Siege and battle of Fontarabia.
   French invasion of Roussillon.
   Causes of disaffection in Catalonia.

In 1637, a Spanish army, 12,000 strong, crossed the Pyrenees under the command of the Duke of Medina del Rio-Seco, Admiral of Castile. "He took St Jean-de-Luz without difficulty, and was advancing to the siege of Bayonne, when the old Duke d'Epernon, governor of Guienne, … threw himself into it. There was little time for preparations; but the Spanish commander, on being told he would find Bayonne destitute of defence, replied that could not be said of any place which contained the Duke d'Epernon. He accordingly refrained from laying siege to Bayonne; and all his other enterprises having failed from the vigilant activity of Epernon, he abandoned St Jean-de-Luz, with some other posts in its neighbourhood, and the seat of war was speedily transferred from Guienne to Languedoc: Olivarez, in forming his plans against that province, had expected a revolt among its numerous and often rebellious inhabitants. … The hopes, however, entertained by Olivarez … proved utterly fallacious." The Spanish army, under Serbellone, invested Leucate, the first fortress reached on entering Languedoc from Roussillon, and besieged it for a month; but was attacked at the end of that time by the Duke de Halluin, son of the late Mareschal Schomberg, and driven from its works, with the loss of all its artillery, and 3,000 men. "In the following season [1638] the French, in their turn, attempted the invasion of Spain, but with as little success as the Spaniards had obtained in Guienne or Languedoc. … An army, amounting to not less than 15,000 infantry and 2,000 cavalry, under the orders of the Prince of Condé, the father of the great Condé, and a devoted retainer of Richelieu, crossed the frontier, took Irun, and laid siege to Fontarabia, which is situated on a peninsula, jutting into the river Bidassoa. A formidable French fleet was, at the same time, stationed on the coast of Guipuscoa, to co-operate with this army," and, after failing in one attack, it succeeded in destroying the Spanish ships sent to the succor of Fontarabia. "Fontarabia being considered as the key to Spain, on the entrance to the kingdom from Bayonne, its natural strength had been greatly improved by fortifications." Its garrison held out stoutly until the arrival of a relieving army of 13,000, led by the Admiral of Castile. Nearly a month elapsed before the latter ventured to attack the besieging force; but when he did, "while the Spaniards lost only 200 men, the French were totally defeated, and precipitately driven forth from their intrenchments. Many of them were killed in the attack, and a still greater number were drowned in attempting to pass the Bidassoa. Those who escaped fled with precipitation to Bayonne. … But Spain was hardly relieved from the alarm of the invasion of Navarre when she was threatened with a new danger, on the side of Roussillon. The Prince of Condé … was again entrusted with a military expedition against the Spanish frontiers. … The small county of Roussillon, which had hitherto belonged to Spain as an appendage of Catalonia, lies on the French side of the higher Pyrenees; but a lower range of mountains, called the Courbieres, branching off from them, and extending within a league of the Mediterranean shore, divides Roussillon from Languedoc. At the extremity of these hills, and about a league from the sea, stood the fortress of Salsas [or Salces], which was considered as the key of Spain on the dangerous side of Roussillon and Catalonia." Salsas was invested by the French, 1639, and taken after a siege of forty days. But Olivarez, the Spanish minister, adopted measures for the recovery of the important fortress, so energetic, so peremptory, and so unmeasured in the exactions they made upon the people of Catalonia, that Salsas was retaken in January, 1640. "The long campaign in the vicinity of Balsas, though it proved ultimately prosperous to the Spanish arms, fostered in the bosom of the kingdom the seeds of rebellion. Those arbitrary measures which Olivarez enjoined to his Generals, may have gained Salsas, but they lost Catalonia. The frequent intercourse which took place between the Catalans and French soldiery, added fuel to those flames nearly ready to burst forth, and, shortly afterwards, excited the fatal insurrection at Barcelona."

J. Dunlop, Memoirs of Spain during the Reigns of Philip IV. and Charles II., volume 1, chapter 4.

      ALSO IN:
      T. Wright,
      History of France,
      volume 1, chapter 17.

SPAIN: A. D. 1640.
Revolution in Portugal
That country resumes its independence.

SPAIN: A. D. 1640-1642.
Revolt of Catalonia and Portugal, with the aid of France.
French conquest of Roussillon.

After their defeat of Condé at Salces, Olivarez ordered the Castilian troops to take up their winter quarters in Catalonia; and, "commanding the Catalonians to raise and equip 6,000 soldiers for the wars of Italy, he assigned them their proportion of the expenses of the state, enjoining the states to raise it, by a decree of the king. Had the Castillian troops remained tranquil and orderly, overawing the Catalonians by their presence and their discipline, without enraging them by their excesses and their insolence, perhaps Olivarez might have carried through his bold design, and annihilated, one by one, the destructive privileges of the various provinces. But, on the contrary, they committed every sort of violence and injustice. … The Catalonians, stirred up to vengeance, sought retribution in chance combats, lost their dread of the Castillian troops by frequent contests with them, and were excited almost to frenzy by their violence and rapine. In the mean time, the states of Catalonia refused to obey the royal decree, and sent two deputies to remonstrate with the king and his minister. {2990} These messengers unfortunately executed their commission in an insolent and menacing tone; and Olivarez, of a haughty and inflexible character, caused them instantly to be arrested. These tidings reached Barcelona at the moment when some fresh outrage, committed by the Castillian soldiers, had excited popular indignation to the highest pitch; and a general insurrection was the immediate consequence. The viceroy was slain upon the spot, and a negotiation was instantly entered into with France in order to procure support in rebellion. The courage of Olivarez did not fail even under this fresh misfortune: all the disposable troops in Spain were instantly directed upon Catalonia; and all the other provinces, but more especially Portugal, were ordered to arm for the suppression of the revolt. Turbulent subjects and interested allies are always sure to take advantage of the moment of difficulty. The Portuguese, hating, with even more bitter animosity than the Catalonians, the yoke of Castille, oppressed by Vasconcellos, who ruled them under the vice-queen, duchess of Mantua, and called upon to aid in suppressing an insurrection to which they looked with pleasure and hope, now instantly threw off the rule of Spain. A conspiracy burst forth, which had been preparing under the knowledge and advice of Richelieu for more than three years; and the duke of Braganza, a prince of no great abilities, was proclaimed king. … In the mean time the marquis de los Velez had taken the command of the army sent against the Catalonian rebels; and a willing instrument of the minister's vengeance, he exercised the most barbarous cruelties as he marched on into the refractory province. The town of Tortosa was taken and sacked by his soldiers, and the people subjected to every sort of violence. Fire, massacre, and desolation marked his progress; but, instead of inspiring crouching terror, and trembling self-abandonment, his conduct roused up lion-like revenge. Hurrying on the negotiations with France, the Catalonians accepted any terms which Richelieu chose to offer, declared themselves subject to the French crown, and pronounced the authority of Spain at an end for ever in Catalonia. A small corps of French troops was immediately thrown forward from Roussillon, and advanced to Taragona under the command of D'Espenan, a general who had shown great skill and courage at Salces. The Catalonians, with the usual bravado of their nation, had represented their army as a thousand-fold stronger, both in numbers and discipline, than it really was; and the French officers were in consequence lamentably disappointed when they saw the militia which was to support them, and still more disappointed when they beheld that militia in face of an enemy. As a last resource against the large Spanish force under Los Velez, D'Espenan threw himself into Taragona, in opposition to the advice of Besançon, who was employed, on the part of France, in organizing the Catalonians. Here he was almost immediately besieged; and, being destitute both of provisions and ammunition, was soon forced to sign a capitulation, whereby he agreed to evacuate the territory of Spain with all the troops which had entered Catalonia from France. This convention he executed, notwithstanding all remonstrances and petitions on the part of the Catalonians; and, retreating at once from Taragona to the French frontier, he abandoned the field to the enemy. Had Olivarez now seized the favourable moment, …. it is probable—it is more than probable—that Catalonia would at once have been pacified, and that her dangerous privileges would in part have been sacrificed to the desire and necessity of peace. … But the count-duke sought revenge as much as advantage. … Continued severity only produced a continuance of resistance: the Catalonians sustained themselves till the French forces returned in greater numbers, and with more experienced commanders: the tide of success turned against the Castillians; and Los Velez was recalled to give place to Leganez. … In various engagements … the Spanish armies were defeated by the French: the Catalonians themselves became better soldiers under the severe discipline of necessity; and though the Spanish fleet defeated the French off Taragona, and saved that city from the enterprises of La Mothe, the general result of the campaign was decidedly unfavourable to Spain. At the same time, the French were making progress in Roussillon; and in the year 1642 the king himself prepared to invade that small territory, with the evident intention of dissevering it from the Spanish crown. Several minor places having been taken, siege was laid to Perpignan: the people of the country were not at all unwilling to pass under the dominion of France; and another serious misfortune threatened the ministry of Olivarez. At this time was concerted the conspiracy of Cinq Mars … and the count-duke eagerly entered into the views of the French malecontents, and promised them every assistance they demanded.

The failure of the conspiracy, the arrest and execution of some of the conspirators, and the fall of Perpignan, came rapidly, one upon the other, showing the fortune of Richelieu still triumphing over all the best laid schemes of his adversaries."

      G. P. R. James,
      Eminent Foreign Statesmen,
      volume 2: Olivarez.

   In 1644, Philip IV., "under the prudent and sagacious counsels
   of Don Louis de Haro, was directing his principal efforts to
   the recovery of Catalonia. … Don Philip de Sylva, an officer
   of experience and determination, was put at the head of the
   Castilian troops, and immediately advanced to the siege of the
   strong town of Lerida, the king himself being nominally in
   command of the army. The French troops in Catalonia were at
   that time commanded by La Mothe Houdancourt, who no sooner
   heard of the advance of the Spanish troops towards Lerida than
   he marched with great rapidity to the relief of that place;"
   but approached the enemy with so much carelessness that he was
   attacked by Sylva and totally defeated, with a loss of 3,000
   men and 12 guns. He then, for a diversion, laid siege to
   Tarragona, and lost 3,000 more of his men, without
   accomplishing the reduction of the place; being forced, in the
   end, to retreat to Barcelona, while Lerida was surrendered to
   the Spaniards. "La Mothe having been recalled and imprisoned,
   … the Count de Harcourt was withdrawn from Savoy, and put at
   the head of fresh forces, for the purpose of repairing the
   disasters of the former general."
{2991}
   Harcourt began operations (April, 1645) by laying siege to the
   strong fortress of Rosas, or Roses, which commanded the
   principal entrance to Catalonia from Roussillon. The fortress
   surrendered the following month, and "the Count de Harcourt, …
   after capturing some places of minor import, passed the Segre,
   encountered the army of Cantelmo in the neighbourhood of
   Llorens, and, gaining a complete victory, made himself master
   of Balaguer." After these successes, the Count de Harcourt was
   called away from Catalonia for a time, to act against the
   insurgents at Barcelona, but returned in 1646 and undertook
   the siege of Lerida. He was now opposed by the Marquis de
   Leganez, whom he had successfully encountered in Ita]y, and
   whom he was foolishly disposed to regard with contempt. While
   he pressed his siege in careless security, Leganez surprised
   him, in a night attack, and drove him in utter rout from his
   lines. "This signal disaster caused the Count de Harcourt to
   be recalled; and in order to recover all that had been lost in
   Catalonia, the Prince de Condé was appointed to command in
   that province, while a considerable part of the army of
   Flanders was ordered to proceed towards the frontiers of Spain
   to serve once more under his command." But Condé, too, was to
   pay the penalty for despising his enemy. He reopened the siege
   of Lerida with ostentatious gaiety, marching into the trenches
   with music of violins, on the 14th of May. In little more than
   a month he marched out again, without music, abandoning the
   siege, having lost many men and obtained no sign of success.

      G. P. R. James,
      Life and Times of Louis XIV.,
      volume 1, chapter 3.

SPAIN: A. D. 1647-1648.
Campaign against France in the Netherlands.
The defeat at Lens.

SPAIN: A. D. 1647-1654.
The revolt of Masaniello at Naples and its termination.
Attempts of the Duke of Guise and the French.

"During the four years which [in France] had been filled with the troubles of the Fronde, Spain endeavored, and with success, to reconquer the province which had abandoned her. In 1650, Mazarin had recognized the peril of Catalonia, and had endeavored to send assistance in war and money. It was possible, however, to do but little. In 1651 the Spanish besieged Barcelona. After Marchin's desertion they hoped to capture it at once, but it was defended with the courage and constancy of the Catalonian people. La Mothe Houdancourt was again put in command of the province. He had been unsuccessful there when France was strong, and it could hardly have been expected that he could rescue it when France was weak. He succeeded, however, in forcing his way into Barcelona, and defended the city with as much success as could, perhaps, have been anticipated from the scanty means at his command. The inhabitants endured, with constancy, the danger and want caused by the siege, rather than surrender themselves to Spain. Some French ships sailed for the rescue of the place, but they acquitted themselves with little valor. Provisions were sent into the town, but the commander claimed he was not in condition for a conflict with the Spanish fleet, and he retreated. Endeavors were made, both by the French troops and those of the Catalonians, to raise the siege, but without success. In October [1652], after a siege of fifteen months, Barcelona surrendered. Roses was captured soon after. Leucate was betrayed to Spain by its governor for 40,000 crowns. He intended to enlist under Orleans, but learning the king had reentered Paris, he made his peace, by agreeing to betray no more. The Spanish granted an amnesty to the people of Catalonia. The whole province fell into their hands, and became again a part of the kingdom of Spain. The loss of Catalonia was chiefly due to the turbulence and disloyalty of Condé. Had it not been for the groundless rebellion which he excited in the autumn of 1651, and which absorbed the energies of the French armies during the next year, Catalonia might have been saved for France and have remained a part of that kingdom. … It was a national misfortune that Catalonia was lost. This great and important province would have been a valuable accession to France. Its brave and hardy population would have become loyal and industrious Frenchmen, and have added to the wealth and power of that kingdom. For the Catalonians it was still more unfortunate that their lot should thus have been determined. They were not closely related to the people of Aragon or Castile. They were now left to share in the slow decay of the Spanish kingdom, instead of having an opportunity for development in intelligence and prosperity as members of a great and progressive nation."

SPAIN: A. D. 1650-1651.
Alliance with the New Fronde in France.
Defeat at Rethel.

SPAIN: A. D. 1652.
   Campaign on the Flemish frontier.
   Invasion of France.
   Recovery of Gravelines and Dunkirk.

SPAIN: A. D. 1657-1658.
War with England in alliance with France.
Loss of Dunkirk and Gravelines.

SPAIN: A. D. 1659.
   The Treaty of the Pyrenees.
   Territorial cessions to France.
   Marriage of the Infanta to Louis XIV.

SPAIN: A. D. 1667.
Conquests of Louis XIV. in the Netherlands.
The War of the Queen's Rights.

SPAIN: A. D. 1668.
Towns in Flanders ceded to Louis XIV.
Triple alliance and the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle.

See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1672-1674, and 1674-1678;
also, NIMEGUEN, PEACE OF.

SPAIN: A. D. 1690-1696. The War of the League of Augsburg or the Grand Alliance against Louis XIV.

SPAIN: A. D. 1698-1700.-
   The question of the Succession.
   The Treaties of Partition.
   The will of Charles ll.

As the 17th century approached its close, the king of Spain, Charles II., was nearing the grave. "His days had been few and evil. He had been unfortunate in all his wars, in every part of his internal administration, and in all his domestic relations. … He was childless; and his constitution was so completely shattered that, at little more than thirty years of age, he had given up all hopes of posterity. His mind was even more distempered than his body. … His sufferings were aggravated by the thought that his own dissolution might not improbably be followed by the dissolution of his empire. Several princes laid claim to the succession. The King's eldest sister had married Lewis XIV. The Dauphin would, therefore, in the common course of inheritance, have succeeded to the crown. But the Infanta had, at the time of her espousals, solemnly renounced, in her own name, and in that of her posterity, all claim to the succession.

This renunciation had been confirmed in due form by the Cortes. A younger sister of the King had been the first wife of Leopold, Emperor of Germany. She too had at her marriage renounced her claims to the Spanish crown, but the Cortes had not sanctioned the renunciation, and it was therefore considered as invalid by the Spanish jurists. The fruit of this marriage was a daughter, who had espoused the Elector of Bavaria. The Electoral Prince of Bavaria inherited her claim to the throne of Spain. The Emperor Leopold was son of a daughter of Philip III., and was therefore first cousin to Charles. No renunciation whatever had been exacted from his mother at the time of her marriage. The question was certainly very complicated. That claim which, according to the ordinary rules of inheritance, was the strongest, had been barred by a contract executed in the most binding form. The claim of the Electoral Prince of Bavaria was weaker. But so also was the contract which bound him not to prosecute his claim. The only party against whom no instrument of renunciation could be produced was the party who, in respect of blood, had the weakest claim of all. As it was clear that great alarm would be excited throughout Europe if either the Emperor or the Dauphin should become King of Spain, each of those Princes offered to waive his pretensions in favour of his second son; the Emperor in favour of the Archduke Charles, the Dauphin in favour of Philip, Duke of Anjou. Soon after the Peace of Ryswick, William III. and Lewis XIV. determined to settle the question of the succession without consulting either Charles or the Emperor. France, England, and Holland, became parties to a treaty [called the First Partition Treaty] by which it was stipulated that the Electoral Prince of Bavaria should succeed to Spain, the Indies, and the Netherlands. The Imperial family were to be bought off with the Milanese, and the Dauphin was to have the Two Sicilies. The great object of the King of Spain and of all his counsellors was to avert the dismemberment of the monarchy. In the hope of attaining this end, Charles determined to name a successor. A will was accordingly framed by which the crown was bequeathed to the Bavarian Prince. Unhappily, this will had scarcely been signed when the Prince died. The question was again unsettled, and presented greater difficulties than before. A new Treaty of Partition was concluded between France, England, and Holland. It was agreed that Spain, the Indies, and the Netherlands, should descend to the Archduke Charles. In return for this great concession made by the Bourbons to a rival house, it was agreed that France should have the Milanese, or an equivalent in a more commodious situation. The equivalent in view was the province of Lorraine. Arbuthnot, some years later, ridiculed the Partition Treaty with exquisite humour and ingenuity. Everybody must remember his description of the paroxysm of rage into which poor old Lord Strutt fell, on hearing that his runaway servant, Nick Frog, his clothier, John Bull, and his old enemy, Lewis Baboon, had come with quadrants, poles, and inkhorns, to survey his estate, and to draw his will for him. … When the intelligence of the second Partition Treaty arrived at Madrid, it roused to momentary energy the languishing ruler of a languishing state. The Spanish ambassador at the court of London was directed to remonstrate with the government of William; and his remonstrances were so insolent that he was commanded to leave England. Charles retaliated by dismissing the English and Dutch ambassadors. The French King, though the chief author of the Partition Treaty, succeeded in turning the whole wrath of Charles and of the Spanish people from himself, and in directing it against the two maritime powers. Those powers had now no agent at Madrid. Their perfidious ally was at liberty to carry on his intrigues unchecked; and he fully availed himself of this advantage." He availed himself of the advantage so successfully, in fact, that when the Spanish king died, November 3, 1700, he was found to have left a will, bequeathing the whole Spanish monarchy to Philip, Duke of Anjou, second son of the Dauphin of France. "Lewis acted as the English ministers might have guessed that he would act. With scarcely the show of hesitation, he broke through all the obligations of the Partition Treaty, and accepted for his grandson the splendid legacy of Charles. The new sovereign hastened to take possession of his dominions."

ALSO IN: H. Martin, History of France: Age of Louis XIV, (translated by M. L. Booth), volume 2, chapter 4.

      W. Coxe,
      Memoirs of the Bourbon Kings of Spain,
      volume 1, introduction, section 3.

SPAIN: A. D. 1701-1702.
The Bourbon succession, and the European League against it.

   "Louis XIV. having … resolved to accede to the will, Philip of
Anjou was proclaimed King by the Spaniards, and made his solemn
   entry into Madrid on the 14th of April 1701. Most of the
   European powers, such as the States of Italy, Sweden, England,
   Holland, and the kingdoms of the North, acknowledged Philip
   V.; the King of Portugal and the Duke of Savoy even concluded
   treaties of alliance with him. Moreover, the situation of
   political affairs in Germany, Hungary, and the North was such
   that it would have been easy for Louis XIV., with prudent
   management, to preserve the Spanish crown on the head of his
   grandson; but he seemed, as if on purpose, to do everything to
   raise all Europe against him. It was alleged that he aimed at
   the chimerical project of universal monarchy, and the reunion
   of France with Spain. Instead of trying to do away this
   supposition, he gave it additional force, by issuing
   letters-patent in favour of Philip, at the moment when he was
   departing for Spain, to the effect of preserving his rights to
   the throne of France. The Dutch dreaded nothing so much as to
   see the French making encroachments on the Spanish
   Netherlands, which they regarded as their natural barrier
   against France; the preservation of which appeared to be
   equally interesting to England. It would have been prudent in
   Louis XIV. to give these maritime powers some security on this
   point, who, since the elevation of William, Prince of Orange,
   to the crown of Great Britain, held as it were in their hands
   the balance of Europe. Without being swayed by this
   consideration, he obtained authority from the Council of
   Madrid to introduce a French army into the Spanish
   Netherlands; and on this occasion the Dutch troops, who were
   quartered in various places of the Netherlands, according to a
   stipulation with the late King of Spain, were disarmed. This
   circumstance became a powerful motive for King William to
   rouse the States-General against France. He found some
   difficulty, however, in drawing over the British Parliament to
   his views, as a great majority in that House were averse to
   mingle in the quarrels of the Continent; but the death of
   James II. altered the minds and inclinations of the English.
   Louis XIV. having formally acknowledged the son of that prince
   as King of Great Britain, the English Parliament had no longer
   any hesitation in joining the Dutch and the other enemies of
   France. A new and powerful league [the Second Grand Alliance]
   was formed against Louis. The Emperor, England, the United
   Provinces, the Empire, the Kings of Portugal and Prussia, and
   the Duke of Savoy, all joined it in succession. The allies
   engaged to restore to Austria the Spanish Netherlands, the
   duchy of Milan, the kingdom of the Two Sicilies, with the
   ports of Tuscany; and never to permit the union of France with
   Spain."

SPAIN: A. D. 1702.
The War of the Succession: Cadiz defended.
The treasure fleet lost in Vigo Bay.

The first approach to Spain of the War of the Succession—already raging for months in Northern Italy and the Spanish Netherlands—was in the form of an expedition against Cadiz, undertaken in the autumn of 1702 by the English and Dutch. "King William was the first to plan this expedition against Cadiz and after his decease the project was resumed. But had King William lived he would certainly not have selected as chief the Duke of Ormond, a princely nobleman, endowed with many amiable qualities, but destitute of the skill and the energy which a great enterprise requires. Under him Sir Henry Bellasys commanded the English and General Spaar a contingent of Dutch troops, amounting together to 14,000 men. Admiral Sir George Rooke had the direction of the fleet. Their proceedings have been related at full length in another history [Lord Mahon's (Earl Stanhope's) 'War of the Succession in Spain']—how the troops were set on shore near Cadiz in the first days of September—how even before they landed angry dissensions had sprung up between the Dutch and the English, the landsmen and the seamen—and how these dissensions which Ormond wanted the energy to control proved fatal, to the enterprise. No discipline was kept, no spirit was displayed. Week after week was lost. … Finally at the close of the month it was discovered that nothing could be done, and a council of war decided that the troops should reembark. … On their return, and off the coast of Portugal, an opportunity arose to recover in some part their lost fame. The Spanish galleons from America, laden with treasure and making their yearly voyage at this time, were bound by their laws of trade to unload at Cadiz, but in apprehension of the English fleet they had put into Vigo Bay. There Ormond determined to pursue them. On the 22nd of October he neared that narrow inlet which winds amidst the high Gallician mountains. The Spaniards, assisted by some French frigates, which were the escort of the galleons, had expected an attack and made the best preparations in their power. They durst not disembark the treasure without an express order from Madrid—and what order from Madrid ever yet came in due time?—but they had called the neighbouring peasantry to arms; they had manned their forts; they had anchored their ships in line within the harbour; and they had drawn a heavy boom across its mouth. None of these means availed them. The English seamen broke through the boom; Ormond at the head of 2,000 soldiers scaled the forts; and the ships were all either taken or destroyed. The greater part of the treasure was thrown overboard by direction of the French and Spanish chiefs; but there remained enough to yield a large amount of booty to the victors."

      See ITALY: A. D. 1701-1713;
      NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1702-1704, and after;
      GERMANY: A. D. 1702, and after.

SPAIN: A. D. 1703-1704.
The War of the Succession: Charles III. claims the kingdom.
The English take Gibraltar.

"The Admiral of Castile, alienated from the cause of Philip V. by having been dismissed from his office of Master of the Horse, had retired into Portugal; and he succeeded in persuading King Pedro II. to accede to the Grand Alliance, who was enticed by the promise of the American provinces between the Rio de la Plata and Brazil, as well as a part of Estremadura and Galicia (May 6th). Pedro also entered into a perpetual defensive league with Great Britain and the States-General. In the following December, Paul Methuen, the English minister at Lisbon, concluded the celebrated commercial treaty between England and Portugal named after himself.

It is the most laconic treaty on record, containing only two Articles, to the effect that Portugal was to admit British cloths, and England to admit Portuguese wines, at one-third less duty than those of France. Don Pedro's accession to the Grand Alliance entirely changed the plans of the allies. Instead of confining themselves to the procuring of a reasonable indemnity for the Emperor, they now resolved to drive Philip V. from the throne of Spain, and to place an Austrian Archduke upon it in his stead. The Emperor and his eldest son Joseph formally renounced their claims to the throne of Spain in favour of the archduke Charles, Leopold's second son, September 12th [1703]; and the Archduke was proclaimed King of Spain, with the title of Charles III. The new King was to proceed into Portugal, and, with the assistance of Don Pedro, endeavour to obtain possession of Spain. Charles accordingly proceeded to Holland, and embarked for England in January 1704; whence, after paying a visit to Queen Anne at Windsor, he finally set sail for Lisbon, February 17th. … In March 1704, the Pretender, Charles III., together with an English and Dutch army of 12,000 men, landed in Portugal, with the intention of entering Spain on that side; but so far were they from accomplishing this plan that the Spaniards, on the contrary, under the Duke of Berwick, penetrated into Portugal, and even threatened Lisbon, but were driven back by the Marquis das Minas. An English fleet under Admiral Rooke, with troops under the Prince of Darmstadt, made an ineffectual attempt on Barcelona; but were compensated for their failure by the capture of Gibraltar on their return. The importance of this fortress, the key of the Mediterranean, was not then sufficiently esteemed, and its garrison had been neglected by the Spanish Government. A party of English sailors, taking advantage of a Saint's day, on which the eastern portion of the fortress had been left unguarded, scaled the almost inaccessible precipice, whilst at the same time another party stormed the South Mole Head. The capture of this important fortress was the work of a few hours (August 4th). Darmstadt would have claimed the place for King Charles III., but Rooke took possession of it in the name of the Queen of England. … The Spaniards, sensible of the importance of Gibraltar, speedily made an effort to recover that fortress, and as early as October 1704, it was invested by the Marquis of Villadarias with an army of 8,000 men. The French Court afterwards sent Marshal Tessé to supersede Villadarias, and the siege continued till April 1705; but the brave defence of the Prince of Darmstadt, and the defeat of the French blockading squadron under Pointis by Admiral Leake, finally compelled the raising of the siege."

ALSO IN: J. H. Burton, History of the Reign of Queen Anne, chapter 9 (volume 2).

As if to exhibit, upon a different theatre of the same great warfare, the most remarkable contrast to the patience, the caution, and the foresight of Marlborough, … Charles Mordaunt, earl of Peterborough, took the command of an expedition to Spain. Macaulay calls Peterborough 'the most extraordinary character of that age, the king of Sweden himself not excepted, … a polite, learned and amorous Charles XII.' He sailed from Portsmouth in June, 1705, having the command of 5,000 men; unlimited authority over the land forces, and a divided command with Sir Cloudesley Shovel at sea. At Lisbon, Peterborough was reinforced, and he here took on board the arch-duke Charles, and a numerous suite. At Gibraltar he received two veteran battalions, in exchange for the same number of recruits which he had brought from England. The prince of Darmstadt also here joined Peterborough. The prince and the arch-duke desired to besiege Barcelona. Peterborough opposed the scheme of attempting, with 7,000 men, the reduction of a place which required 30,000 men for a regular siege. With the squadron under Sir Cloudesley Shovel, the fleet sailed from Gibraltar. A landing was effected near Valencia; and here the people were found favourable to the cause of the Austrian prince, who was proclaimed, upon the surrender of the castle of Denia, as Charles III., king of Spain and the Indies. Peterborough, encouraged by this reception, conceived the enterprise of dashing upon the capital, whilst all the Spanish forces were on the frontiers of Portugal, or in Catalonia; and king Philip was at Madrid with few troops. Such an exploit had every chance of success, but Peterborough was overruled by a council of war. The troops were landed before Barcelona on the 27th of August. In three weeks there was nothing but dissensions amongst the great men of this expedition. The prince of Darmstadt and the earl of Peterborough had come to an open rupture. The Dutch officers said their troops should not join in an enterprise so manifestly impossible of success for a small force. Peterborough conceived a plan of attack totally opposed to all the routine modes of warfare. The citadel of Montjouich, built on the summit of a ridge of hills skirting the sea, commanded the town. Peterborough gave notice that he should raise the siege; sent his heavy artillery on board the ships; and made every preparation for embarking the troops. With 1,200 foot soldiers, and 200 horse, he marched out of the camp on the evening of the 13th of September, accompanied by the prince of Darmstadt, whom he had invited to join him. They marched all night by the side of the mountains; and before daybreak were under the hill of Montjouich, and close to the outer works. Peterborough told his officers that when they were discovered at daylight, the enemy would descend into the outer ditch to repel them, and that then was the time to receive their fire, leap in upon them, drive them into the outer works, and gain the fortress by following them close. The scheme succeeded, and the English were soon masters of the bastion. … The citadel held out for several days, but was finally reduced by a bombardment from the hills, the cannon having been relanded from the ships. The reduction of Montjouich by this extraordinary act of daring, was very soon followed by the surrender of Barcelona. … The possession of Barcelona, in which king Charles III. was proclaimed with great solemnity, was followed by the adhesion to his cause of the chief towns of Catalonia. Peterborough was for following up his wonderful success by other daring operations. The German ministers and the Dutch officers opposed all his projects." He was able, notwithstanding, to raise the siege of San Mateo and to save Valencia from a threatened siege. "It was soon found that king Charles was incompetent to follow up the successes which Peterborough had accomplished for him."

The above is substantially, in brief, the account of Peterborough's campaigns given by Mahon, Macaulay, and most of the later historians of the War of the Succession, who drew the narrative largely from a little book published in 1728, called the "Military Memoirs of Captain George Carleton." The story has been recently told, however, in a very different way and to a very different effect, by Colonel Arthur Parnell, who declines to accept the Carleton Memoirs as authentic history. Those Memoirs have been judged by some critics, in·deed, to be a pure work of fiction and attributed to De Foe. They are included, in fact, in several editions of De Foe's works. Colonel Parnell, who seems to have investigated the matter thoroughly, recognizes Captain Carleton as a real personality, and concludes that he may have furnished some kind of a note-book or diary that was the substratum of these alleged Memoirs; but that somebody (he suspects Dean Swift), in the interest of Peterborough, built up on that groundwork a fabric of fiction which has most wrongfully become accepted history. According to Colonel Parnell, it was not Peterborough, but Prince George of Hesse Darmstadt (killed in the assault on Montjouich) and De Ruvigny, Earl of Galway, who were entitled to the credit of the successes for which Peterborough has been laurelled. "In order to extol a contemptible impostor, the memory of this great Huguenot general [Ruvigny] has been aspersed by Lord Macaulay and most English writers of the present century."

Colonel A. Parnell, The War of the Succession in Spain, preface, chapters 12-18; and appendix C.

      F. S. Russell,
      The Earl of Peterborough,
      volume 1, chapters 7-9.

SPAIN: A. D. 1706.
The War of the Succession:
Rapid changing of kings and courts at Madrid.

"The Courts of Madrid and Versailles, exasperated and alarmed by the fall of Barcelona, and by the revolt of the surrounding country, determined to make a great effort. A large army, nominally commanded by Philip, but really under the orders of Marshal Tessé, entered Catalonia. A fleet under the Count of Toulouse, one of the natural children of Lewis XIV., appeared before the port of Barcelona. The city was attacked at once by sea and land. The person of the Archduke was in considerable danger. Peterborough, at the head of about 3,000 men, marched with great rapidity from Valencia. To give battle, with so small a force, to a great regular army under the conduct of a Marshal of France, would have been madness. … His commission from the British government gave him supreme power, not only over the army, but, whenever he should be actually on board, over the navy also. He put out to sea at night in an open boat, without communicating his design to any person. He was picked up, several leagues from the shore, by one of the ships of the English squadron. As soon as he was on board, he announced himself as first in command, and sent a pinnace with his orders to the Admiral. Had these orders been given a few hours earlier, it is probable that the whole French fleet would have been taken. As it was, the Count of Toulouse put out to sea. The port was open. The town was relieved. On the following night the enemy raised the siege and retreated to Roussillon. Peterborough returned to Valencia, a place which he preferred to every other in Spain; and Philip, who had been some weeks absent from his wife, could endure the misery of separation no longer, and flew to rejoin her at Madrid. At Madrid, however, it was impossible for him or for her to remain. The splendid success which Peterborough had obtained on the eastern coast of the Peninsula had inspired the sluggish Galway with emulation. He advanced into the heart of Spain. Berwick retreated. Alcantara, Ciuadad Rodrigo, and Salamanca fell, and the conquerors marched towards the capital. Philip was earnestly pressed by his advisers to remove the seat of government to Burgos. … In the mean time the invaders had entered Madrid in triumph, and had proclaimed the Archduke in the streets of the imperial city. Arragon, ever jealous of the Castilian ascendeney, followed the example of Catalonia. Saragossa revolted without seeing an enemy. The governor whom Philip had set over Carthagena betrayed his trust, and surrendered to the Allies the best arsenal and the last ships which Spain possessed. … It seemed that the struggle had terminated in favour of the Archduke, and that nothing remained for Philip but a prompt flight into the dominions of his grandfather. So judged those who were ignorant of the character and habits of the Spanish people. There is no country in Europe which it is so easy to overrun as Spain; there is no country in Europe which it is more difficult to conquer. Nothing can be more contemptible than the regular military resistance which Spain offers to an invader; nothing more formidable than the energy which she puts forth when her regular military resistance has been beaten down. Her armies have long borne too much resemblance to mobs; but her mobs have had, in an unusual degree, the spirit of armies. … Castile, Leon, Andalusia, Estremadura, rose at once; every peasant procured a firelock or a pike; the Allies were masters only of the ground on which they trod. No soldier could wander a hundred yards from the main body of the invading army without imminent risk of being poinarded; the country through which the conquerors had passed to Madrid, and which, as they thought, they had subdued, was all in arms behind them. Their communications with Portugal were cut off. In the mean time, money began, for the first time, to flow rapidly into the treasury of the fugitive king. … While the Castilians were everywhere arming in the cause of Philip, the Allies were serving that cause as effectually by their mismanagement. Galway staid at Madrid, where his soldiers indulged in such boundless licentiousness that one half of them were in the hospitals. Charles remained dawdling in Catalonia. Peterborough had taken Requena, and wished to march from Valencia towards Madrid, and to effect a junction with Galway; but the Archduke refused his consent to the plan. {2996} The indignant general remained accordingly in his favourite city, on the beautiful shores of the Mediterranean, reading Don Quixote, giving balls and suppers, trying in vain to get some good sport out of the Valencian bulls, and making love, not in vain, to the Valencian women. At length the Archduke advanced into Castile, and ordered Peterborough to join him. But it was too late. Berwick had already compelled Galway to evacuate Madrid; and, when the whole force of the Allies was collected at Quadalaxara, it was found to be decidedly inferior in numbers to that of the enemy. Peterborough formed a plan for regaining possession of the capital. His plan was rejected by Charles. The patience of the sensitive and vain-glorious hero was worn out. He had none of that serenity of temper which enabled Marlborough to act in perfect harmony with Eugene, and to endure the vexatious interference of the Dutch deputies. He demanded permission to leave the army, Permission was readily granted; and he set out for Italy. … From that moment to the end of the campaign, the tide of fortune ran strong against the Austrian cause. Berwick had placed his army between the Allies and the frontiers of Portugal. They retreated on Valencia, and arrived in that province, leaving about 10,000 prisoners in the hands of the enemy."

In the Netherlands the Allies won the important victory of Ramillies, and in Italy, Prince Eugene inflicted a sore defeat on the French and rescued Turin.

      W. Coxe,
      Memoirs of the Bourbon Kings of Spain,
      chapter 14 (volume 1).

SPAIN: A. D. 1707.
The War of the Succession:
The fortunes of the Bourbons retrieved at Almanza.

"The enemy [the Allies] began to move again in February. After some weeks of manœuvring on the confines of the kingdom of Valencia and of New Castile, April 25, Galway and Las Minas, wishing to anticipate the arrival of a reinforcement expected from France, attacked Berwick at Almanza. Singularly enough, the English were commanded by a French refugee (Ruvigni, Earl of Galway), and the French by a royal bastard of England [the Duke of Berwick, natural son of James II.]. The enemy numbered, it is said, 26,000 foot and 7,000 horse; the Franco-Castilians were somewhat inferior in infantry, somewhat superior in cavalry and artillery." The battle, decided by the cavalry, was disastrous to the Allies. "The English, Dutch and Portuguese infantry were cut to pieces: the Portuguese foot showed a courage less fortunate, but not less intrepid, than the Spanish cavalry. Another corps had fought with still greater fury, —the French refugees, commanded by Jean Cavalier, the renowned Camisard chieftain. They had engaged a French regiment, and the two corps had almost destroyed each other. Six battalions were surrounded and taken in a body. Thirteen other battalions, five English, five Dutch, and three Portuguese, retired, at evening, to a wooded hill; seeing themselves cut off from the mountains of Valencia, they surrendered themselves prisoners the next morning. Hochstadt [Blenheim] was fully avenged. Five thousand dead, nearly 10,000 prisoners, 24 cannon, 120 flags or standards, were purchased on the part of the conquerors by the loss of only about 2,000 men. Many Frenchmen, taken at Hochstadt or at Ramillies, and enrolled by force in the ranks of the enemies, were delivered by the victory. The Duke of Orleans reached the army the next day. … He marched with Berwick on Valencia, which surrendered, May 8, without striking a blow. The generals of the enemies, both wounded, retired with the wrecks of their armies towards the mouths of the Ebro. The whole kingdom of Valencia submitted, with the exception of three or four places. Berwick followed the enemy towards the mouth of the Ebro, whilst Orleans returned to meet a French corps that was coming by the way of Navarre, and with this corps entered Aragon. Nearly all Aragon yielded without resistance. Berwick joined Orleans by ascending the Ebro; they moved together on the Segre and began the blockade of Lerida, the bulwark of Catalonia." Lerida was taken by storm on the 12th of October, and "pillaged with immense booty. … The castle of Lerida surrendered, November 11. A great part of the Catalan mountaineers laid down their arms. … Fortune had favored the Franco-Castilians on the Portuguese frontier as in the States of Aragon; Ciudad-Rodrigo had been taken by assault, October 4, with the loss of more than 3,000 men on the side of the enemy. The news of Almanza had everywhere reanimated the hearts of the French armies."

H. Martin, History of France: Age of Louis XIV. (translated by M. L. Booth), volume 2, chapter 5.

ALSO IN: Colonel A. Parnell, The War of the Succession in Spain, chapters 23-26.

SPAIN: A. D. 1707-1710.
The War of the Succession:
Bourbon reverses and final triumph.

   "In less than a month after the victory of Almanza, the
   Bourbon troops had recovered all Arragon, with Valencia and
   Murcia, excepting the ports of Denia and Alicant; but the war
   still continued in Catalonia, where General Stanhope now
   filled the double office of ambassador to Charles and general
   of the English forces, and prince Staremberg was sent by the
   emperor Joseph to take the command of the Austrian troops. The
   Spanish government was reduced to still greater pecuniary
   distress than it had suffered before, by the success of the
   English squadron off Carthagena, under the command of Sir
   Charles Wager, which took three of the great galleons and
   dispersed fourteen, which were expected to furnish an unusual
   supply of the precious metals from America. After a short
   siege of Port Mahon, General Stanhope took possession of
   Minorca and Majorca [A. D. 1708]; the count of Cifuentes
   gained Sardinia; and all the efforts, spirit, and talents of
   the duke of Orleans were insufficient to make the slightest
   impression in Catalonia. He consequently complained, in his
   letters to Versailles, that his operations were thwarted or
   retarded by the intrigues of the Princess Orsini and the
   ambassador Amelot. He was accused in return, and that not
   without reason, of forming designs on the crown of Spain, and
   corresponding with the enemies of Philip on the subject. The
   fortunes of France and Spain still continued to decline, and
   Louis felt that peace was the only measure which could stop
   the progress of that ruin which menaced the house of Bourbon.
   Conferences were accordingly opened at the Hague, and Louis
   pretended that he was willing to give up the interest of
   Philip; at the same time his grandson himself protested that
   he would never quit Spain, or yield his title to its crown. …
{2997}
   The disastrous campaign of 1710 rendered Louis more desirous
   than ever of obtaining peace, and though his professions of
   abandoning his grandson were insincere, he certainly would not
   have scrupled to sacrifice the Spanish Netherlands and the
   American commerce to Holland, as the price of an advantageous
   peace to France. Meantime the Austrians had gained the
   victories of Almenara and Zaragoza, and had once more driven
   the Spanish court from Madrid. This time it fled to
   Valladolid, and the king and queen talked of taking refuge in
   America, and re-establishing the empire of Mexico or Peru,
   rather than abandon their throne. But the Castilians once more
   roused themselves to defend the king; the duke of Vendome's
   arrival supplied their greatest want, that of a skilful
   general; and the imprudence of the allies facilitated the
   recovery of the capital. The disasters of the allies began
   with their retreat; Staremburg, after a doubtful though bloody
   battle [Villa Viciosa, December 10, 1710], at the end of which
   he was victor, was yet obliged to retire with the
   disadvantages of defeat; and Stanhope, with a small body of
   English, after a desperate resistance [at Brihuega, December
   9, 1710], was taken prisoner."

"As the result of the actions at Brihuega and Villa Viciosa and the subsequent retreat, the Austrians lost 3,600 killed or wounded, and 3,036 prisoners, or a total of 7,536 men; whilst the Bourbon casualties were 6,700 placed hors-de-combat, and 100 captured, or in all 6,800 men. These operations constituted a decisive victory for Vendôme, who thus, in less than four months after the battle of Saragossa, had re-established King Philip and the Bourbon cause."

ALSO IN: W. Coxe, Memoirs of the Bourbon Kings of Spain, chapters 15-18 (volumes 1-2).

Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope), History of the War of Succession in Spain, chapters 6-8.

"Alone among the Spaniards the Catalans had real reason to regret the peace. They had clung to the cause of Charles with a desperate fidelity, and the Peace of Utrecht rang the death-knell of provincial liberties to which they were passionately attached. From the beginning of 1705 they had been the steady and faithful allies of England; they had again and again done eminent service in her cause; they had again and again received from her ministers and generals the most solemn assurances that they would never be abandoned. When England first opened a separate negotiation for peace she might easily have secured the Catalonian liberties by making their recognition an indispensable preliminary of peace; but, instead of this, the English ministers began by recognising the title of Philip, and contented themselves with a simple prayer that a general amnesty might be granted. When the convention was signed for the evacuation of Catalonia by the Imperial troops, the question of the provincial liberties was referred to the definite peace, the Queen and the French King promising at that time to interpose their good offices to secure them. The Emperor, who was bound to the Catalans by the strongest ties of gratitude and honour, could have easily obtained a guarantee of their fueros at the price of an acknowledgment of the title of Philip; but he was too proud and too selfish for such a sacrifice. The English, it is true, repeatedly urged the Spanish King to guarantee these privileges, … but these were mere representations, supported by no action, and were therefore peremptorily refused. The English peace with Spain contained a clause granting the Catalans a general armistice, and also a promise that they should be placed in the same position as the Castilians, which gave them the right of holding employments and carrying on a direct trade with the West Indies, but it made no mention of their provincial privileges. The Peace of Rastadt was equally silent, for the dignity of the Emperor would not suffer him to enter into any negotiations with Philip. The unhappy people, abandoned by those whom they had so faithfully served, refused to accept the position offered them by treaty, and, much to the indignation of the English Government, they still continued in arms, struggling with a desperate courage against overwhelming odds. The King of Spam then called upon the Queen, as a guarantee of the treaty of evacuation, 'to order a squadron of her ships to reduce his subjects to their obedience, and thereby complete the tranquillity of Spain and of the Mediterranean commerce.' A fleet was actually despatched, which would probably have been employed against Barcelona, but for an urgent address of the House of Lords, and the whole moral weight of England was thrown into the scale against the insurgents. The conduct of the French was more decided. Though the French King had engaged himself with the Queen by the treaty of evacuation to use his good offices in the most effectual manner in favour of the Catalan liberties, he now sent an army to hasten the capture of Barcelona. The blockade of that noble city lasted for more than a year. The insurgents hung up over the high altar the Queen's solemn declaration to protect them. They continued the hopeless struggle till 14,000 bombs had been thrown into the city; till a great part of it had been reduced to ashes; till seven breaches had been made; till 10,000 of the besieging army had been killed or wounded; and till famine had been added to the horrors of war. At last, on September 11, 1714, Barcelona was taken by storm. A frightful massacre took place in the streets. Many of the inhabitants were afterwards imprisoned or transported, and the old privileges of Catalonia were finally abolished. Such was the last scene of this disastrous war."

ALSO IN: Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope), History of England, 1713-1783, chapter 3 (volume 1).

SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1725.
   Continued war with the Emperor.
   The Triple Alliance.
   The Quadruple Alliance.
   The Peace of Vienna.
   The Alliance of Hanover.

"The treaty of Utrecht, although it had tranquilized a great part of Europe, was nevertheless defective, in as far as it had not reconciled the Emperor and the King of Spain, the two principal claimants to the Spanish succession. The Emperor Charles VI. did not recognize Philip V. in his quality of King of Spain; and Philip, in his turn [instigated by his queen, Elizabeth Farnese—see ITALY:' A. D. 1715-1735] refused to acquiesce in those partitions of the Spanish monarchy which the treaty of Utrecht had stipulated in favour of the Emperor. To defeat the projects and secret intrigues of the Spanish minister [Cardinal Alberoni], the Duke of Orleans [Regent of France], thought of courting an alliance with England, as being the power most particularly interested in maintaining the treaty of Utrecht, the fundamental articles of which had been dictated by herself. That alliance, into which the United Provinces also entered, was concluded at the Hague (January 4th, 1717). … Cardinal Alberoni, without being in the least disconcerted by the Triple Alliance, persisted in his design of recommencing the war. No sooner had he recruited the Spanish forces, and equipped an expedition, than he attacked Sardinia [1717], which he took from the Emperor. This conquest was followed by that of Sicily, which the Spaniards took from the Duke of Savoy (1718). France and England, indignant at the infraction of a treaty which they regarded as their own work, immediately concluded with the Emperor, at London (August 2nd, 1718) the famous Quadruple Alliance, which contained the plan of a treaty of peace, to be made between the Emperor, the King of Spain, and the Duke of Savoy. The allied powers engaged to obtain the consent of the parties interested in this proposal, and, in case of refusal, to compel them by force of arms. The Emperor was to renounce his right to the Spanish crown, and to acknowledge Philip V. as the legitimate King of Spain, in consideration of that prince renouncing the provinces of Italy and the Netherlands, which the treaty of Utrecht and the quadruple alliance adjudged to the Emperor. The Duke of Savoy was to cede Sicily to Austria, receiving Sardinia in exchange, which the King of Spam was to disclaim. The right of reversion to the crown of Spain was transferred from Sicily to Sardinia. That treaty likewise granted to Don Carlos, eldest son of Philip V., by his second marriage, the eventual reversion and investiture of the duchies of Parma and Placentia, as well as the grand duchy of Tuscany, on condition of holding them as fiefs-male of the Emperor and the Empire after the decease of the last male issue of the families of Farnese and Medici, who were then in possession. …. The Duke of Savoy did not hesitate to subscribe the conditions of the quadruple alliance; but it was otherwise with the King of Spain, who persisted in his refusal; when France and England declared war against him. The French invaded the provinces of Guipuscoa and Catalonia [under Berwick, A. D. 1710], while the English seized Gallicia and the port of Vigo. These vigorous proceedings shook the resolutions of the King of Spain. He signed the quadruple alliance, and banished the Cardinal Alberoni from his court, the adviser of those measures of which the allies complained. The Spanish troops then evacuated Sicily and Sardinia, when the Emperor took possession of the former and Victor Amadeus, Duke of Savoy, of the latter. The war to all appearance was at an end." But fresh difficulties arose, one following another. The reversion of Tuscany, Parma, and Placentia, promised to the Infant of Spain, was stoutly opposed in Italy. The Emperor provoked commercial jealousies in England and Holland by chartering a Company of Ostend (1722) with exclusive privileges of trading to the East and West Indies and the coasts of Africa. An attempted congress at Cambrai was long retarded and finally broken up. Meantime the French court gave mortal offense to the King of Spain by sending home his daughter, who had been the intended bride of the young King Louis XV., and marrying the latter to a Polish princess. The final result was to draw the Emperor and the King of Spain— the two original enemies in the embroilment—together, and a treaty between them was concluded at Vienna, April 30, 1725. "This treaty renewed the renunciation of Philip V. to the provinces of Italy and the Netherlands, as well as that of the Emperor to Spain and the Indies. The eventual investiture of the duchies of Parma and Placentia, and that of the grand duchy of Tuscany, were also confirmed. The only new clause contained in the treaty was that by which the King of Spain undertook to guarantee the famous Pragmatic Sanction of Charles VI., which secured to the daughter of that prince the succession of all his estates. It was chiefly on this account that Philip V. became reconciled to the court of Vienna. The peace of Vienna was accompanied by a defensive alliance between the Emperor and the King of Spain." The terms of the alliance were such as to alarm England for the security of her hold on Gibraltar and Minorca, and Holland for her commerce, besides giving uneasiness to France. By the action of the latter, a league was set on foot "capable of counteracting that of Vienna, which was concluded at Herrenhausen, near Hanover, (September 3, 1725) and is known by the name of the Alliance of Hanover. All Europe was divided between these two alliances."

ALSO IN: Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope), History of England, 1713-1783, volume 1, chapters 7-10.

      W. Coxe,
      Memoirs of the Bourbon Kings of Spain,
      chapters 22-30.

      E. Armstrong,
      Elisabeth Farnese. "The Termagant of Spain."
      chapters 2-10.

SPAIN: A. D. 1725-1740.
The Austrian Succession.
Guarantee of the Pragmatic Sanction.

SPAIN: A. D. 1726-1731.
   Fresh quarrels with England.
   Siege of Gibraltar.
   Treaty of Seville.
   Second Treaty of Vienna.
   Acquisition of the Italian Duchies.

"All Europe became divided between the alliances of Vienna and Hanover; and though both sides pretended that these treaties were only defensive, yet each made extensive preparations for war. George I. entered into a treaty with the Landgrave of Hesse Cassel for the supply of 12,000 men; manifests were published, ambassadors withdrawn, armies put on foot; the sea was covered with English fleets; an English squadron under Admiral Hosier annoyed the trade of Spain; and in February 1727, the Spaniards laid siege to Gibraltar, and seized at Vera Cruz a richly laden merchant vessel belonging to the English South Sea Company. But all these vast preparations led to no results of importance. Of all the European Powers, Spain alone had any real desire for war. … {2999} The preliminaries of a general pacification were signed at Paris, May 31st 1727, by the ministers of the Emperor, France, Great Britain, and Holland, and a Congress was appointed to assemble at Aix-la-Chapelle to arrange a definitive peace. But Spain still held aloof and sought every opportunity to temporise. The hopes of Philip being again awakened by the death of George I. in July 1727, he renewed his intrigues with the Jacobites, and instigated the Pretender to proceed to a port in the Low Countries, and to seize an opportunity to pass over into England. But these unfounded expectations were soon dispelled by the quiet accession of George II. to the throne and policy of his father. … The Spanish Queen [Elizabeth Farnese], however, still held out; till, alarmed by the dangerous state of Philip's health, whose death might frustrate her favourite scheme of obtaining the Italian duchies, and leave her a mere cypher without any political influence, she induced her husband to accept the preliminaries by the Act of the Pardo, March 6th 1728. A congress was now opened at Soissons, to which place it had been transferred for the convenience of Fleury [French minister], who was bishop of that diocese. But though little remained to be arranged except the satisfaction of Spain in the matter of the Italian duchies, the negociations were tedious and protracted." In the end they "became a mere farce, and the various plenipotentiaries gradually withdrew from the Congress. Meanwhile the birth of a Dauphin (September 4th 1729) having dissipated the hopes of Philip V. and his Queen as to the French succession, Elizabeth devoted herself all the more warmly to the prosecution of her Italian schemes; and finding all her efforts to separate France and England unavailing, she at length determined to accept what they offered. … She persuaded Philip to enter into a separate treaty with France and England, which was concluded at Seville, November 9th 1729. England and Spain arranged their commercial and other differences; the succession of Don Carlos to the Italian duchies was guaranteed; and it was agreed that Leghorn, Porto Ferrajo, Parma, and Piacenza should be garrisoned by 6,000 Spaniards, who, however, were not to interfere with the civil government. Nothing more was said about Gibraltar. Philip, indeed, seemed now to have abandoned all hope of recovering that fortress; for he soon afterwards caused to be constructed across the isthmus the strong lines of San Roque, and thus completely isolated Gibraltar from his Spanish dominions. The Dutch acceded to the Treaty of Seville shortly after its execution, on the understanding that they should receive entire satisfaction respecting the India Company established by the Emperor at Ostend. Charles VI. was indignant at being thus treated by Spain. … On the death of Antonio Farnese, Duke of Parma, January 10th 1731, he took military possession of that state. … The versatility of the cabinets of that age, however, enabled the Emperor to attain his favourite object at a moment when he least expected it. The Queen of Spain, wearied with the slowness of Cardinal Fleury in carrying out the provisions of the Treaty of Seville, suddenly declared, in a fit of passion, that Spain was no longer bound by that treaty (January 1731). Great Britain and the Dutch States, in concert with the Spanish Court, without the concurrence of France, now entered into negociations with the Emperor, which were skilfully conducted by Lord Waldegrave, to induce him to accede to the Treaty of Seville; and, on March 16th 1731, was concluded what has been called the Second Treaty of Vienna. Great Britain and the States guaranteed the Pragmatic Sanction; and the Emperor, on his side, acceded to the provisions of Seville respecting the Italian duchies, and agreed to annihilate the commerce of the Austrian Netherlands with the Indies by abolishing the obnoxious Ostend Company. He also engaged not to bestow his daughter on a Bourbon prince, or in any other way that might endanger the balance of power in Europe. … In the following November an English squadron disembarked at Leghorn 6,000 Spaniards, who took possession of that place, as well as Porto Ferrajo, Parma, and Piacenza, in the name of Don Carlos, as Duke of Parma and presumptive heir of Tuscany."

ALSO IN: Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope), History of England, 1713-1783, chapters 14-15 (volume 2).

      W. Coxe,
      Memoirs of the Bourbon Kings of Spain,
      chapters 36-40 (volume 3).

      E. Armstrong,
      Elisabeth Farnese, "The Termagant of Spain,"
      chapters 11-14.

SPAIN: A. D. 1734-1735. Acquisition of Naples and Sicily, as a kingdom for Don Carlos.

SPAIN: A. D. 1739.
Outbreak of hostilities with England.
The War of Jenkins' Ear.

SPAIN: A. D. 1741-1747.
The War of the Austrian Succession: Operations in Italy.

SPAIN: A. D. 1743.
The Second Family Compact of the Bourbon kings.
Arrangements concerning Italy.

SPAIN: A. D. 1748.
Termination and results of the
War of the Austrian Succession.

SPAIN: A. D. 1761-1762.
The Third Family Compact of the Bourbon kings.
England declares War.

SPAIN: A. D. 1763.
   End and results of the Seven Years War.
   Florida ceded to Great Britain.
   Louisiana acquired from France.

SPAIN: A. D. 1766-1769.
Occupation of Louisiana.
The revolt of New Orleans and its suppression.

SPAIN: A. D. 1782.
Aims and interests in the settlement of peace between
Great Britain and the United States.

SPAIN: A. D. 1783-1800.
The question of Florida boundaries and of the navigation
of the Mississippi, in dispute with the United States.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1790-1791;
      1791 (JULY-SEPTEMBER);
      and 1793 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER).

SPAIN: A. D. 1795.
Peace and alliance with the French Republic.
Cession of Spanish San Domingo.

SPAIN: A. D. 1807-1808.
   Napoleon's plots for the theft of the Spanish crown.
   The popular rising.
   Accession of Ferdinand VII.

"For more than ten years Spain had been drawn in the wake of revolutionary France. To Napoleon from the beginning of his reign she had been as subservient as Holland or Switzerland; she had made war and peace at his bidding, had surrendered Trinidad to make the treaty of Amiens, had given her fleet to destruction at Trafalgar. In other states equally subservient, such as Holland and the Italian Republic, Napoleon had remodelled the government at his pleasure, and in the end had put his own family at the head of it. After Tilsit he thought himself strong enough to make a similar change in Spain, and the occupation of Portugal seemed to afford the opportunity of doing this. By two conventions signed at Fontainebleau on October 27, the partition of Portugal was arranged with Spain.

The Prince of the Peace was to become a sovereign prince of the Algarves, the King of Spain was to have Brazil with the title of Emperor of the two Americas, &c.; but the main provision was that a French army was to stand on the threshold of Spain ready to resist any intervention of England. The occupation of Portugal took place soon after, Junot arriving at Lisbon on November 30, just as the royal family with a following of several thousands set sail for Brazil under protection of the English fleet. At the same time there commenced in defiance of all treaties a passage of French troops into Spain, which continued until 80,000 had arrived, and had taken quiet possession of a number of Spanish fortresses. At last Murat was appointed to the command of the army of Spain. He entered the country on March 1, 1808, and marched on Madrid, calculating that the king would retire and take refuge at Seville or Cadiz. This act revealed to the world, and even to a large party among the French themselves, the nature of the power which had been created at Tilsit. The lawless acts of Napoleon's earlier life were palliated by the name of the French Revolution, and since Brumaire he had established a character for comparative moderation. But here was naked violence without the excuse of fanaticism; and on what a scale! One of the greater states of Europe was in the hands of a burglar, who would moreover, if successful, become king not only of Spain but of a boundless empire in the New World. The sequel was worse even than this commencement, although the course which events took seems to show that by means of a little delay he might have attained his end without such open defiance of law. The administration of Spain had long been in the contemptible hands of Manuel Godoy, supposed to be the queen's lover, yet at the same time high in the favor of King Charles IV. Ferdinand, the heir apparent, headed an opposition, but in character he was not better than the trio he opposed, and he had lately been put under arrest on suspicion of designs upon his father's life. To have fomented this opposition without taking either side, and to have rendered both sides equally contemptible to the Spanish people, was Napoleon's game. The Spanish people, who profoundly admired him, might then have been induced to ask him for a king. Napoleon, however, perpetrated his crime before the scandal of the palace broke out. The march of Murat now brought it to a head. On March 17 a tumult broke out at Aranjuez, which led to the fall of the favourite, and then to the abdication of the king, and the proclamation of Ferdinand amid universal truly Spanish enthusiasm. It was a fatal mistake to have forced on this popular explosion, and Napoleon has characteristically tried to conceal it by a supposititious letter, dated March 29, in which he tries to throw the blame upon Murat, to whom the letter professes to be addressed. It warns Murat against rousing Spanish patriotism and creating an opposition of the nobles and clergy, which will lead to a 'levée en masse,' and to a war without end. It predicts, in short, all that took place, but it has every mark of invention, and was certainly never received by Murat. The reign of Ferdinand having thus begun, all that the French could do was to abstain from acknowledging him, and to encourage Charles to withdraw his abdication as given under duress. By this means it became doubtful who was king of Spain, and Napoleon, having carefully refrained from taking a side, now presented himself as arbiter. Ferdinand was induced to betake himself to Napoleon's presence at Bayonne, where he arrived on April 21; his father and mother followed on the 30th. Violent scenes took place between father and son: news arrived of an insurrection at Madrid and of the stern suppression of it by Murat. In the end Napoleon succeeded in extorting the abdication both of Charles and Ferdinand. It was learned too late that the insurrection of Spain had not really been suppressed. {3001} This crime, as clumsy as it was monstrous, brought on that great popular insurrection of Europe against the universal monarchy, which has profoundly modified all subsequent history, and makes the Anti-Napoleonic Revolution an event of the same order as the French Revolution. A rising unparalleled for its suddenness and sublime spontaneousness took place throughout Spain and speedily found a response in Germany. A new impulse was given, out of which grew the great nationality movement of the nineteenth century."

      M. de Bourrienne,
      Private Memoirs of Napoleon,
      volume 3, chapter 32.

      P. Lanfrey,
      History of Napoleon,
      volume 3, chapters 4 and 6-8.

SPAIN: A. D. 1808 (May-September).
   The stolen crown conferred on Joseph Bonaparte.
   National revolt.
   Organization of Juntas and planning of guerilla war.
   French reverses.
   Quick flight of Joseph Bonaparte from Madrid.
   Arrival of English forces to aid the people.

"Murat was disappointed of the crown of Spain, on which he had fixed his hopes. It had been refused with surprise and indignation by Napoleon's brother Louis, who wore reluctantly even that of Holland, but was unwilling to exchange it for a still deeper royal servitude. Joseph Bonaparte, however, consented to abandon his more tranquil throne of Naples for the dangers and discontents which surrounded that of Spain. Napoleon, who had nominated him to it June 6th, was desirous of procuring at least the apparent consent of the Spanish nation. The Council of Castile, the chief political body of Spain, when informed of the Treaties of Bayonne, was at last induced to give a cold and reluctant assent to the accession of Joseph. Its example was followed by the Supreme Junta and the municipality of Madrid. There was, indeed, no alternative but war. Ferdinand displayed on the occasion all the baseness of his soul in its true colours. He not only wrote to Napoleon to express his satisfaction at the elevation of Joseph, he even addressed a letter of congratulation to the man who had usurped his crown! thus testifying under his own hand his utter unworthiness to wear it. A Junta of 150 Spanish notables, which had been summoned to Bayonne, accepted a constitution proposed by Napoleon, July 7th, and a day or two after Joseph left Bayonne for Madrid. He had signed on the 5th a treaty with his brother Napoleon, by which he renounced the crown of Naples, made, as King of Spain, a perpetual offensive alliance with France, fixed the number of troops and ships to be provided by each nation, and agreed to the establishment of a commercial system. By an act called Constitutional Statute, July 15th, the vacant throne of Naples was bestowed upon Joachim Murat. Ferdinand had found means to despatch from Bayonne a proclamation addressed to the Asturians, and dated May 8th, in which he called upon them to assert their independence and never to submit to the perfidious enemy who had deprived him of his rights. This letter naturally made a great impression on a proud and sensitive people; nor was its effect diminished by another proclamation which Ferdinand and his brothers were compelled to sign at Bordeaux, May 12th, calling upon the Spaniards not to oppose 'the beneficent views' of Napoleon. At this last address, evidently extorted from a prisoner, a general cry of indignation arose in Spain; the people everywhere flew to arms, except where prevented by the presence of French troops. The city of Valencia renounced its obedience to the Government of Madrid, May 23rd; Seville followed its example; and on the 27th, Joseph Palafox organised at Saragossa the insurrection of Aragon. As these insurrections were accompanied with frightful massacres, principally of persons who had held high civil or military posts under Charles IV., the better classes, to put an end to these horrible scenes, established central Juntas in the principal towns. … They proposed not to meet the enemy in pitched battles in the open field, but to harass, wear out, and overcome him by 'guerilla,' or the discursive and incessant attacks of separate small bands. The Supreme Junta issued instructions for conducting this mode of warfare. Andalusia was better fitted for organising the revolt, if such it can be called, than any other province of Spain. Its population formed one-fifth of the whole nation, it possessed the sole cannon-foundry in the kingdom, it contained half the disposable Spanish army, and it could receive assistance from the English both by means of Gibraltar and of Collingwood's fleet that was cruising on the coast. One of the first feats of arms of the Spaniards was to compel the surrender of five French ships of the line and a frigate, which had remained in the port of Cadiz ever since the battle of Trafalgar (June 14th). Marshal Moncey was repulsed towards the end of June in an advance upon Valencia, and compelled to retreat upon Madrid with a loss of one-third of his men. In the north-west the Spaniards were less fortunate. Cuesta, with a corps of 25,000 men, was defeated by Marshal Bessières, July 14th, at Medina del Rio Seco. The consequence of this victory was the temporary submission of Leon, Palencia, Valladolid, Zamora, and Salamanca to the French. But this misfortune was more than counterbalanced by the victory of General Castaños over the French in Andalusia, a few days after. Generals Dupont and Vedel had advanced into that province as far as Cordova, but they were defeated by Castaños with the army of Andalusia at Baylen, July 20th. On this occasion, the commencement of the French reverses in Spain, 18,000 French soldiers laid down their arms. Joseph Bonaparte found it prudent to leave Madrid August 1st, which he had only entered on the day of the battle, and fly to Burgos. This important victory not only inspired the Spaniards with confidence, but also caused them to be regarded in Europe as a substantive Power. On the day after the battle Castaños issued a proclamation which does him great honour. He invoked the Spaniards to show humanity towards the French prisoners of war, and threatened to shoot those who should maltreat them. Such, however, was the exasperation of the people against their invaders, that numbers of the French were massacred on their route to Cadiz for embarkation, and the remainder were treated with barbarous inhumanity. These cruelties had, however, been provoked by the atrocities of the French at the capture and sack of Cordova. The campaign in Aragon was still more glorious for the Spaniards. {3002} Palafox, whether or not he was the poltroon described by Napier, had at all events the merit of organising, out of almost nothing, the means by which the French were repulsed in several desperate assaults upon Saragossa, and at length compelled to retreat after a siege of some weeks (August 14th). The patriot cause was soon after strengthened by the arrival at Corunna of General La Romana, with 7,000 of his men from Denmark (September 20th). Keats, the English admiral in the Baltic, had in·formed him of the rising of his countrymen and provided him the means to transport his troops from Nyborg. The English Government, soon after the breaking out of the insurrection, had proclaimed a peace with the Spanish nation (July 4th 1808), and had prepared to assist them in their heroic struggle. The example of Spain had also encouraged the Portuguese to throw off the insufferable yoke of the French. A Junta was established at Oporto, June 6th, and an insurrection was organised in all parts of the kingdom where the French forces were not predominant. Sir Arthur Wellesley, with about 10,000 British troops, landed at Mondego Bay, July 31st."

ALSO IN: T. Hamilton, Annals of the Peninsular Campaigns, volume 1, chapters 4-10.

      General Foy,
      History of the War in the Peninsula,
      volume 2, part 1.

SPAIN: A. D. 1808 (September-December).
Napoleon's overwhelming campaign against the Spanish armies.
Joseph reinstated at Madrid.

The French disasters in the Peninsula shook the belief in Napoleon's invincibility which had prevailed throughout the Continent, and the Emperor saw that he must crush the Spaniards at once, before the English could advance from the fortified base they had acquired on the flank of the Spanish plains. To secure his power on the side of Germany, he had a prolonged interview with the Czar at Erfurt. … On the 14th October the two Emperors parted; and at the end of the month Napoleon set out from Paris for Bayonne, and continued his journey to Vitoria. In September the French had evacuated Tudela and Burgos, and had been driven from Bilbao by General Joachim Blake [a Spanish officer of Irish descent]. But such vast reinforcements had been poured across the Pyrenees, that the French armies in Spain now numbered 250,000 men, and of these 180,000 were drawn up behind the Ebro. On the last day of October Lefevre re-took Bilbao; and Blake, after a defeat at Tornosa, fell back upon Espinosa, where Napoleon, upon his arrival, directed Marshal Victor … and Lefevre to assail him with 40,000 men. The Spaniards, though numbering only 25,000, held their ground till the morning of the second day's fighting (11th November). With one part of the fugitives Blake made a stand at Reynosa on the 13th against Marshal Soult, who had achieved a victory over Belvedere at Burgos on the 10th; but they were again broken, and fled to the mountains of the Cantabrian chain. With the other part of the fugitives, about 10,000, the Marquis of La Romana made his way into Leon. Castaños and Palafox had a united force of 43,000 men and 40 guns; but they were wrangling over their plans when Marshal Lannes, the intrepid Duke of Montebello, … appeared with 35,000 men, and broke their centre at Tudela. But on the Spanish left, the troops who had conquered at Baylen not only maintained their ground with obstinacy, but drove back the French. At length they were outnumbered, and Castaños fell back in admirable order upon Madrid through Calatayud. The right, under Palafox, retired in disorder to Saragossa; and now the road to Madrid was blocked only by General San Juan with 12,000 men, who had entrenched the Somo Sierra Pass. But this post also was carried on the 30th November by the Polish lancers of the Imperial Guard, who rode up and speared the artillerymen at their guns. Aranjuez was at once abandoned by the central Junta, and on the 2nd December the French vanguard appeared on the heights north of Madrid. The capital became at once a scene of tumult and confusion: barricades were erected, and the bells sounded the alarm, but no discipline was visible in the assembling bands; and when the heights of the Retiro, overlooking the city, were carried by the French on the morning of the 3rd December, the authorities sent out to arrange a surrender. On the following morning … the French entered the city, Joseph was again installed in the palace, where deputations waited upon him to congratulate him and renew their professions of devoted attachment, and the city settled down once more to tranquil submission to the foreigner."

      ALSO IN:
      General Vane (Marquis of Londonderry),
      Story of the Peninsular War,
      chapter 8.

SPAIN: A. D. 1808-1809 (August-January).
   Wellington's first campaign.
   Convention of Cintra.
   Evacuation of Portugal by the French.
   Napoleon in the field.
   Sir John Moore's advance into Spain.
   His retreat.
   His repulse of Soult at Corunna.
   His death.

"Sir Arthur Wellesley's division comprised 9,000 men. Another corps, under Sir John Moore, which had just arrived from the Baltic, numbered 11,000 men. These two detachments were to co-operate. But their united efforts were to be directed by Sir Hew Dalrymple and Sir Harry Burrard, two generals whose exploits were better known in the private records of the Horse Guards than in the annals of their country. … Sir Arthur Wellesley landed his troops at Figuiera, a difficult task on an iron coast. On the 7th of August, major-general Spencer's corps joined the army. With 10,000 British and 5,000 Portuguese, Sir Arthur Wellesley then prepared to march towards Lisbon. On the 17th he defeated at Roliça the French under Laborde. On the 20th he was at Vimiero, having been joined by General Anstruther and General Acland with their corps. He had now an army of 17,000 men. Junot had joined Laborde and Loison at Torres Vedras, and their united force was about 14,000 men, of whom 1,600 were cavalry. Early in the morning of the 21st, the French attacked the British in their position. Sir Harry Burrard had arrived on the night of the 20th, but did not land. The principal attack on the British was on the centre and left; the sea being in their rear. The attack was repulsed. Kellermann then attacked with the French reserve, and he also was driven back. Junot's left wing and centre were discomfited. The road of Torres Vedras, the shortest road to Lisbon, was uncovered. When the action was nearly over, Sir Harry Burrard had landed. In a private letter, Sir Arthur Wellesley wrote, 'The French got a terrible beating on the 21st. {3003} They did not lose less, I believe, than 4,000 men, and they would have been entirely destroyed, if Sir H. Burrard had not prevented me from pursuing them. Indeed, since the arrival of the great generals, we appear to have been palsied, and everything has gone on wrong.' Sir John Moore arrived with his corps on the 21st, and his troops were nearly all landed when hostilities were suspended by the Convention of Cintra for the evacuation of Portugal by the French. Sir Arthur writes to Lord Castlereagh, 'Although my name is affixed to this instrument, I beg that you will not believe that I negotiated it, that I approve of it, or that I had any hand in wording it.' On the 5th of September, he writes, 'It is quite impossible for me to continue any longer with this army; and I wish, therefore, that you would allow me to return home and resume the duties of my office.' Dalrymple, Burrard, and Wellesley were all recalled home. Sir John Moore remained at Lisbon, having been appointed to command the army. A Court of Inquiry was ordered on the subject of 'the late transactions in Portugal.' Wellesley had to bear much before the publicity of those proceedings was to set him right in public opinion. The Inquiry ended in a formal disapprobation of the armistice and convention on the part of the king being communicated to Sir How Dalrymple. Neither of the two 'great generals' was again employed. One advantage was gained by the Convention. The Russian fleet in the Tagus was delivered up to the British. Sir John Moore, late in October, began his march into Spain, 'to co-operate,' as his instructions set forth, 'with the Spanish armies in the expulsion of the French.' He was to lead the British forces in Portugal; and to be joined by Sir David Baird, with 10,000 men to be landed at Corunna. Instead of finding Spanish armies to co-operate with, he learned that the French had routed and dispersed them. Napoleon had himself come to command his troops; and had arrived at Bayonne on the 3rd of November. Moore was separated from Baird by a wide tract of country. He had been led by false information to divide his own army. He remained for some time at Salamanca, inactive and uncertain. Madrid was soon in the hands of the French. Moore made a forward movement against the advanced corps of Soult; and then, learning that the French armies were gathering all around him, he determined to retreat. Sir David Baird had previously joined him. Moore had abandoned all hopes of defending Portugal, and had directed his march towards Corunna. He commenced his retreat from Sahagun on the evening of the 24th of December. During this retreat, the retiring army constantly turned upon the pursuers, always defeating them, and on one occasion capturing General Lefebvre. The winter had set in with terrible severity; the sufferings of the troops were excessive; disorganization, the common consequence of a retreat, added to their danger. Moore saved his army from destruction by an overwhelming force when he carried it across the Esla, effectually destroying the bridge by which they passed the swollen stream. But Moore could not save his men from their own excesses, which made enemies of the inhabitants of every place through which they passed. At Lugo, on the 7th of January, 1809, the British general halted his exhausted troops, determined to give battle to Soult, to whom Napoleon had given up the pursuit of the English army, having received despatches which indicated that war with Austria was close at hand. Soult declined the conflict; and on the British marched to Corunna. On the 11th, when they had ascended the heights from which Corunna was visible, there were no transports in the bay. The troops met with a kind reception in the town; and their general applied himself to make his position as strong as possible, to resist the enemy that was approaching. On the evening of the 14th the transports arrived. The sick and wounded were got on board; and a great part of the artillery. Fourteen thousand British remained to fight, if their embarkation were molested. The battle of Corunna began at two o'clock on the 16th of January. Soult had 20,000 veterans, with numerous field-guns; and he had planted a formidable battery on the rocks, commanding the valley and the lower ridge of hills. Columns of French infantry descended from the higher ridge; and there was soon a close trial of strength between the combatants. From the lower ridge Moore beheld the 42nd and 50th driving the enemy before them through the village of Elvina. He sent a battalion of the guards to support them; but through a misconception the 42nd retired. Moore immediately dashed into the fight; exclaimed 'Forty-second, remember Egypt,' and sent them back to the village. The British held their ground or drove off their assailants; and victory was certain under the skilful direction of the heroic commander, when he was dashed to the earth by a shot from the rock battery. Sir David Baird, the second in command, had also fallen. Moore was carried into Corunna; and endured several hours of extreme torture before he yielded up his great spirit. The command had devolved upon General Hope, who thought that his first duty was now to embark the troops. … When the sufferers in Moore's campaign came home the hospitals were filled with wounded and sick; and some of the troops brought back a pestilential fever."

C. Knight, Crown History of England, chapter 57 (abridgment of chapter 28, volume 7, of Popular History of England).

      ALSO IN:
      General Sir W. F. P. Napier,
      History of the War in the Peninsula,
      books 2-4 (volume 1).

      G. R. Gleig,
      General Sir John Moore
      (Eminent British Military Commanders, volume 3).

      General Foy,
      History of the War in the Peninsula,
      volume 2, part 2.

"When Moore was pursued by Napoleon, the Duke of Infantado, who had rallied 20,000 men in New Castile after the fall of Madrid, formed the Quixotic design of re-taking the capital. Marshal Victor, Duke of Belluno, utterly crushed his force at Ucles on the 13th January, 1809, where 1,500 Spaniards were slain, and 9,000 men and all the stores and artillery were taken. The French, in retaliation for the Spaniards having hanged some soldiers who had been captured, murdered many of the prisoners in cold blood, and perpetrated infamous atrocities on the inhabitants of Ucles. {3004} The Spaniards, however, showed their extraordinary valour behind walls in their second defence of Saragossa, the siege of which [abandoned the previous August, after a fierce struggle] was renewed by 35,000 French under Marshals Moncey and Mortier, on the 20th December, 1808. The city was defended by Palafox, who had retired into it after his defeat at Tudela. The second siege of this renowned city—though the defence eventually proved unsuccessful—crowns with everlasting glory the Spanish War of Independence. … 'The citizens gave up their goods, their houses, and their bodies to the war, and, mingling with the peasants and soldiers, formed one mighty garrison suited to the vast fortress they had formed. For doors and windows were built up, house-fronts loopholed, internal communications opened, streets trenched and crossed by earthen ramparts mounted with cannon, and every strong building was a separate fortification: there was no weak point—there could be none in a city which was all fortress, where the space covered by houses was the measure of the ramparts' (Napier). All the trees outside the walls were cut down, the houses destroyed, and the materials carried into the town. … The public magazines were provisioned for six months, and all the conventual communities and the inhabitants had large private stores. Nearly 3,000 artillerymen and sappers, and 30,000 men of the regular army, had taken refuge in the city, and at least 20,000 citizens and fugitive peasants were fit for arms. The popular leaders had recourse to all the aid which superstition could give them: denunciations of the wrath of Heaven were hurled on those who were suspected of wavering, and the clergy readily recounted stories of miracles to encourage the faithful. Saragossa was 'believed to be invincible through the protection of Our Lady of the Pillar, who had chosen it for the seat of her peculiar worship. … An appearance in the sky, which at other times might have passed unremembered, and perhaps unnoticed, had given strong confirmation to the popular faith. About a month before the commencement of the first siege, a white cloud appeared at noon, and gradually assumed the form of a palm-tree; the sky being in all other parts clear, except that a few specks of fleecy cloud hovered about the larger one. It was first observed over the church of N. Senora del Portillo, and moving from thence till it seemed to be immediately above that of the pillar, continued in the same form about half an hour, and then dispersed. The inhabitants were in a state of such excitement that crowds joined in the acclamation of the first beholder, who cried out, "A miracle!"—and after the defeat of the besiegers had confirmed the omen, a miracle it was universally pronounced to have been, the people proclaiming with exultation that the Virgin had by this token prefigured the victory she had given them, and promised Zaragoza her protection as long as the world should endure' (Southey). … At daybreak on the 21st December, General Suchet carried the works on the Monte Torrero; but Count Gazan de la Peyrière—a general highly distinguished in the Swiss and Italian campaigns—failed in his attack upon the suburbs on the left bank of the Ebro, and the confidence of the Spaniards in their leaders was restored. Three days later the town was completely invested, the siege operations being directed by General La Coste. On the 30th December, the trenches being completed, the town was summoned to surrender, and the example of Madrid was referred to; but Palafox replied proudly, 'If Madrid has surrendered, Madrid has been sold: Saragossa will neither be sold nor surrendered.' Marshal Moncey being recalled to Madrid, Junot took command of his corps. The besieged attempted several sallies, which were repulsed; and after a heavy bombardment, the St. Joseph convent was carried by the French on the 11th January, 1809. The Spanish leaders maintained the courage of their countrymen by proclaiming a forged despatch narrating the defeat of Napoleon. The guerrilla bands began to gather in round the French, and their condition was becoming perilous. But the command had now been taken by the invincible Marshal Lannes, Duke of Montebello (who had been detained by a long illness); the approaches were steadily pushed on, the breaches in the walls became wider, and on the 29th the French rushed forward and took possession of the ramparts. 'Thus the walls of Zaragoza went to the ground; but Zaragoza remained erect, and as the broken girdle fell from the heroic city, the besiegers started at her naked strength. The regular defences had crumbled, but the popular resistance was instantly called with all its terrors into action; and as if fortune had resolved to mark the exact moment when the ordinary calculations of science should cease, the chief engineers on both sides [La Coste and San Genis] were simultaneously slain' (Napier). … The Junta was in no degree cowed: they resolved on resistance to the last extremity, and a row of gibbets was raised for any who should dare to propose surrender. Additional barricades were constructed, and alarm-bells were rung to summon the citizens to the threatened points. As each house was in itself a fort which had to be separately attacked, mining now was had recourse to. In this art the skill of the French was unquestioned, and room after room and house after house was carried. But still the constancy of the besieged was unshaken, and the French soldiers began to murmur at their excessive toil. From so many of the women and children being huddled together in the cellars of the city, for safety from the shells and cannon-balls, a pestilence arose, and slowly spread from the besieged to the besiegers. 'The strong and the weak, the daring soldier and the shrinking child, fell before it alike; and such was the predisposition to disease, that the slightest wound gangrened and became incurable. In the beginning of February the daily deaths were from four to five hundred;—the living were unable to bury the dead; and thousands of carcases, scattered about the streets and courtyards, or piled in heaps at the doors of the churches, were left to dissolve in their own corruption, or be licked up by the flames of burning houses as the defence became concentrated' (Napier). On the 18th February a great assault took place, and so much of the town was carried that further resistance was hopeless. Terms of capitulation were offered by the besieged, but were rejected by Lannes, and on the 19th the heavy guns opened from the batteries on the left bank of the Ebro, to sweep the houses on the quays. On the 20th, when all the great leaders were dead or prostrated with fever, and none but the soldier-priest Ric remained to lead the diminished and of heroes, Saragossa surrendered,—at discretion, according to the French: on honourable terms, according to the Spaniards. {3005} Such was the close of one of the most heroic defences in the history of the world. If any conditions were really accepted, they were ill observed by the victors: the churches were plundered, and many of the clergy and monks were put to death. … The other strongholds in Aragon, one after another, surrendered to the French before the end of March. In Catalonia the French, under General Gouvion St. Cyr, had met with equal success. With 30,000 men St. Cyr had taken Rosas after a month's siege—which was prolonged by the presence of that brilliant naval commander, Lord Cochrane (afterwards Earl of Dundonald), with an English frigate in the harbour—in December, 1808, had routed Reding at Cardadeu, had relieved Barcelona (where General Duhesme was shut up with 8,000 Frenchmen), and had again, on the 21st December, routed Reding at Molinos del Hey, where all the Spanish stores, including 30,000 muskets from England, were taken. In the spring of 1809 Reding made another attempt to achieve the independence of the north-east, and moved to relieve Saragossa; but on the 17th February he was met by St. Cyr at Igualada, where Reding himself was killed and his army was dispersed. The siege of Gerona alone in the north-east of Spain remained to be undertaken."

      Sir W. F. P. Napier,
      History of the War in the Peninsula,
      book 5, chapters 2-3 (volume 1).

"This decisive victory [of Igualada] terminated the regular war in Catalonia; and St. Cyr, retiring to Vich, commenced preparations for the siege of Gerona. The undertaking was for some time delayed by the discord of St. Cyr and Verdier; but in the beginning of May they appeared before the town, and on the 1st of June the investment was completed. But the prowess of the Spaniards nowhere appeared to greater advantage than in the defence of their walled towns: it was not till 12th August, after 37 days of open trenches, and two unsuccessful assaults, that the French possessed themselves of the fort of Monjuich, which commands the town: yet the gallant governor, Alvarez, still held out, and the safe arrival of a convoy sent by Blake reanimated the spirit of the garrison. The grand assault of the lower town was given (September 17); but the French were repulsed from the breach with the loss of 1,600 men; and St. Cyr, despairing of carrying the place by force, converted the siege into a blockade. The capture of three successive convoys, sent by Blake for their relief, reduced the besieged at last to extremity; famine and pestilence devastated the city; but it was not till the inhabitants were reduced to the necessity of eating hair that the place was yielded (December 12) to Augereau, who had superseded St. Cyr in the command. A more memorable resistance is not on record; but the heroic Alvarez, to the eternal disgrace of Augereau, was immured in a dungeon at Figueras, where he soon afterwards died. Junot, in the mean time, had been taken ill, and was succeeded in the command in Aragon by Suchet, a young general whose talents and success gave him a brilliant career in the later years of the empire. His first essay, however, was unfortunate; for the indefatigable Blake, encouraged by the retreat of St. Cyr towards the Pyrenees, had again advanced with 12,000 men; and an action ensued (May 23) at Alcaniz, in which the French, seized with a panic, fled in confusion from the field. This unwonted success emboldened Blake to approach Saragossa; but the discipline and manœuvres of the French asserted their wonted superiority in the plains; the Spaniards were routed close to Saragossa (June 16), and more decisively at Belchite the next day. The army of Blake was entirely dispersed; and all regular resistance ceased in Aragon, as it had done in Catalonia, after the fall of Gerona."

SPAIN: A. D. 1809 (February-July).
   Wellington again in the English command.
   The French advance into Portugal checked.
   Passage of the Douro by the English.
   Battle of Talavera.

"Napoleon, before Moore's corps had actually left Corunna, conceived the war at an end, and, in issuing instructions to his marshals, anticipated, with no unreasonable confidence, the complete subjugation of the Peninsula. Excepting, indeed, some isolated districts in the east, the only parts now in possession of the Spaniards or their allies were Andalusia, which had been saved by the precipitate recall of Napoleon to the north; and Portugal, which, still in arms against the French, was nominally occupied by a British corps of 10,000 men, left there under Sir John Cradock at the time of General Moore's departure with the bulk of the army for Spain. The proceedings of the French marshals for the recovery of the entire Peninsula were speedily arranged. Lannes took the direction of the siege of Saragossa, where the Spaniards, fighting as usual with admirable constancy from behind stone walls, were holding two French corps at bay. Lefebvre drove one Spanish army into the recesses of the Sierra Morena, and Victor chased another into the fastnesses of Murcia. Meantime Soult, after recoiling awhile from the dying blows of Moore, had promptly occupied Gallicia upon the departure of the English, and was preparing to cross the Portuguese frontier on his work of conquest. In aid of this design it was concerted that while the last-named marshal advanced from the north, Victor, by way of Elvas, and Lapisse by way of Almeida, should converge together upon Portugal, and that when the English at Lisbon had been driven to their ships the several corps should unite for the final subjugation of the Peninsula by the occupation of Andalusia. Accordingly, leaving Ney to maintain the ground already won, Soult descended with 30,000 men upon the Douro, and by the end of March was in secure possession of Oporto. Had he continued his advance, it is not impossible that the campaign might have had the termination he desired; but at this point he waited for intelligence of the English in his front and of Victor and Lapisse on his flank. His caution saved Portugal, for, while he still hesitated on the brink of the Douro, there again arrived in the Tagus that renowned commander before whose genius the fortunes not only of the marshals, but of their imperial master, were finally to fail. England was now at the commencement of her greatest war. {3006} The system of small expeditions and insignificant diversions, though not yet conclusively abandoned, was soon superseded by the glories of a visible contest: and in a short time it was known and felt by a great majority of the nation, that on the field of the Peninsula England was fairly pitted against France. … At the commencement of the year 1809, when the prospects of Spanish independence were at their very gloomiest point, the British Cabinet had proposed and concluded a comprehensive treaty of alliance with the Provisional Administration of Spain; and it was now resolved that the contest in the Peninsula should be continued on a scale more effectual than before, and that the principal, instead of the secondary, part should be borne by England. … England’s colonial requirements left her little to show against the myriads of the continent. It was calculated at the time that 60,000 British soldiers might have been made disposable for the Peninsular service, but at no period of the war was such a force ever actually collected under the standards of Wellington, while Napoleon could maintain his 300,000 warriors in Spain, without materially disabling the arms of the Empire on the Danube or the Rhine. We had allies, it is true, in the troops of the country; but these at first were little better than refractory recruits, requiring all the accessories of discipline, equipment, and organisation; jealous of all foreigners, even as friends, and not unreasonably suspicious of supporters who could always find in their ships a refuge which was denied to themselves. But above all these difficulties was that arising from the inexperience of the Government in continental warfare. … When, however, with these ambiguous prospects, the Government did at length resolve on the systematic prosecution of the Peninsular war, the eyes of the nation were at once instinctively turned on Sir Arthur Wellesley as the general to conduct it. … He stoutly declared his opinion that Portugal was tenable against the French, even if actual possessors of Spain, and that it offered ample opportunities of influencing the great result of the war. With these views he recommended that the Portuguese army should be organised at its full strength; that it should be in part taken into British pay and under the direction of British officers, and that a force of not less than 30,000 English troops should be despatched to keep this army together. … Such was the prestige already attached to Wellesley’s name that his arrival in the Tagus changed every feature of the scene. No longer suspicious of our intentions, the Portuguese Government gave prompt effect to the suggestions of the English commander. … The command-in-chief of the native army was intrusted to an English officer of great distinction, General Beresford; and no time was lost in once more testing the efficacy of the British arms. … Of the Spanish armies we need only say that they had been repeatedly routed with invariable certainty and more or less disgrace, though Cuesta still held a nominal force together in the valley of the Tagus. There were, therefore, two courses open to the British commander: —either to repel the menaced advance of Soult by marching on Oporto, or to effect a junction with Cuesta, and try the result of a demonstration against Madrid. The latter of these plans was wisely postponed for the moment, and, preference having been decisively given to the former, the troops, at once commenced their march upon the Douro. The British force under Sir Arthur Wellesley’s command amounted at this time to about 20,000 men, to which about 15,000 Portuguese, in a respectable state of organisation, were added by the exertions of Beresford. Of these about 24,000 were now led against Soult, who, though not inferior in strength, no sooner ascertained the advance of the English commander, than he arranged for a retreat by detaching Loison with 6,000 men to dislodge a Portuguese post from his left rear. Sir Arthur’s intention was to envelope, if possible, the French corps by pushing forward a strong force upon its left, and thus intercepting its retreat toward Ney’s position, while the main body assaulted Soult in his quarters at Oporto. The former of these operations he intrusted to Beresford, the latter he directed in person. On the 12th of May the troops reached the southern bank of the Douro; the waters of’ which, 800 yards in width, rolled between them and their adversaries. … Availing himself of' a point where the river by a bend in its course was not easily visible from the town, Sir Arthur determined on transporting, if possible, a few troops to the northern bank, and occupying an unfinished stone building, which he perceived was capable of affording temporary cover. The means were soon supplied by the activity of Colonel Waters—an officer whose habitual audacity rendered him one of the heroes of this memorable war. Crossing in a skiff to the opposite bank, he returned with two or three boats, and in a few minutes a company of the Buffs was established in the building. Reinforcements quickly followed, but not without discovery. The alarm was given, and presently the edifice was enveloped by the eager battalions of the French. The British, however, held their ground; a passage was effected at other points during the struggle; the French, after an ineffectual resistance, were fain to abandon the city in precipitation, and Sir Arthur, after his unexampled feat of arms, sat down that evening to the dinner which had been prepared for Soult. … This brilliant operation being effected, Sir Arthur was now at liberty to turn to the main project of the campaign—that to which, in fact, the attack upon Soult had been subsidiary—the defeat of Victor in Estremadura. … Cuesta would take no advice, and insisted on the adoption of his own schemes with such obstinacy, that Sir Arthur was compelled to frame his plans accordingly. Instead, therefore, of circumventing Victor as he had intended, be advanced into Spain at the beginning of July, to effect a junction with Cuesta and feel his way towards Madrid. The armies, when united, formed a mass of 78,000 combatants; but of these 56,000 were Spanish, and for the brunt of war Sir Arthur could only reckon on his 22,000 British troops, Beresford’s Portuguese having been despatched to the north of Portugal. On the other side, Victor’s force had been strengthened by the succours which Joseph Bonaparte, alarmed for the safety of Madrid, had hastily concentrated at Toledo; and when the two armies at length confronted each other at Talavera, it was found that 55,000 excellent French troops were arrayed against Sir Arthur and his ally, while nearly as many more were descending from the north on the line of the British communications along the valley of the Tagus. {3007} On the 28th of July the British commander, after making the best dispositions in his power, received the attack of the French, directed by Joseph Bonaparte in person, with Victor and Jourdan at his side, and after an engagement of great severity, in which the Spaniards were virtually inactive, he remained master of the field against double his numbers, having repulsed the enemy at all points with heavy loss, and having captured several hundred prisoners and 17 pieces of cannon in this the first great pitched battle between the French and English in the Peninsula. In this well fought field of Talavera, the French had thrown, for the first time, their whole disposable force upon the British army without success; and Sir Arthur Wellesley inferred, with a justifiable confidence, that the relative superiority of his troops to those of the Emperor was practically decided. Jomini, the French military historian, confesses almost as much; and the opinions of Napoleon himself, as visible in his correspondence, underwent from that moment a serious change."

ALSO IN: R. Southey, History of the Peninsular War, chapters 22-24 (volumes 3-4).

SPAIN: A. D. 1809 (August-November).
Battles of Almonacid, Puerto de Baños, Ocana,
and Alba de Tormes.

Soon after Wellington's unfruitful victory at Talavera, "Venegas had advanced as far as Aranjuez, and was besieging Toledo; but the retreat of the British having set the French armies at liberty, he was attacked and defeated after a sharp action at Almonacid (August 11) by Dessoles and Sebastiani; and Sir Robert Wilson, who had approached Madrid with 6,000 Spaniards and Portuguese, was encountered and driven back by Ney (August 8) at Puerto de Banos. The British at length, after lying a month at Deleitosa, were compelled, by the scandalous failure of the Spanish authorities to furnish them with supplies or provisions, to cross the mountains and fix their headquarters at Badajos, after an angry correspondence between Wellesley and Cuesta, who soon after was removed from his command. A gleam of success at Tamanes, where Marchand was routed with loss (October 24) by Romana's army under the Duke del Parque, encouraged the Spaniards to make another effort for the recovery of Madrid; and an army of 50,000 men, including 7,000 horse and 60 pieces of cannon, advanced for this purpose from the Sierra Morena, under General Areizaga. The battle was fought (November 12) at Ocana, near Aranjuez; but though the Spaniards behaved with considerable spirit, the miserable incapacity of their commander counterbalanced all their efforts, and an unparalleled rout was the result. Pursued over the wide plains of Castile by the French cavalry, 20,000 prisoners were taken, with all the guns and stores: the wreck was complete and irretrievable; and the defeat of the Duke del Parque (November 25) at Alba de Tormes, dispersed the last force which could be called a Spanish army. It was evident from these events that Portugal was the only basis from which the deliverance of the Peninsula could be effected."

Epitome of Alison's History of Europe, section 576 (chapter 62, volume 13 of complete work).

SPAIN: A. D. 1809 (August-December).
Wellington's difficulties.
His retreat into Portugal.

   "In the course of the 29th, the army was reinforced by the
   arrival of a troop of horse-artillery, and a brigade of light
   troops from Lisbon, under General Crawford. Under the
   circumstances of his situation, however, it was impossible for
   Sir Arthur Wellesley to follow up his victory. The position he
   occupied was still one of extreme peril. A powerful enemy was
   advancing on his rear; and no reliance could be placed for the
   supply of his army, either on the promises of the Spanish
   General, or of the Junta. The army of Vanegas, which, in
   obedience to the orders of the Supreme Junta, had advanced
   from Madrilejos, was engaged, during the 28th and 29th, in
   endeavouring to dislodge the French garrison from Toledo. His
   advance pushed on during the night to the neighbourhood of
   Madrid, and took prisoners some patroles of the enemy.
   Vanegas, however no sooner learned from the prisoners that
   Joseph and Sebastiani were approaching, than he … desisted
   from any further offensive operations. The intelligence that
   Vanegas had failed in executing the part allotted to him, was
   speedily followed by information that Soult had with facility
   driven the Spaniards from the passes leading from Salamanca to
   Placentia. It was in consequence arranged between the
   Generals, that the British army should immediately march to
   attack Soult, and that Cuesta should remain in the position of
   Talavera, to protect this movement from any operation of
   Victor. The wounded likewise were to be left in charge of
   Cuesta. … On the morning of the 3rd of August, the British
   accordingly commenced their march on Oropesa. On his arrival
   there, Sir Arthur Wellesley received intelligence that Soult
   was already at Naval Moral. … Shortly after, a courier arrived
   from Cuesta, announcing, that, as the enemy were stated to be
   advancing on his flank, and as it was ascertained that the
   corps of Ney and Mortier had been united under Soult, he had
   determined on quitting his position, and joining the British
   army at Oropesa. This movement was executed the same night;
   and nearly the whole of the British wounded were left
   unprotected in the town of Talavera. The conduct of Cuesta, in
   this precipitate retreat, is altogether indefensible. … In
   quitting the position of Talavera, Cuesta had abandoned the
   only situation in which the advance of Victor on the British
   rear could be resisted with any prospect of success. … The
   whole calculations of Sir Arthur Wellesley were at once
   overthrown. … Sir Arthur determined to throw his army across
   the Tagus by the bridge of Arzobisbo. … Cuesta … followed the
   British in their retreat to the bridge of Arzobisbo, and
   leaving the Duke del Albuquerque with two divisions of
   infantry and one of cavalry to defend it, he withdrew the
   remainder of his army to Paraleda de Garben. The French,
   however, having taken post on the opposite side of the river,
   soon succeeded in discovering a ford by which they crossed,
   and surprising the Spaniards, drove them at once from the
   works, with the loss of 30 pieces of cannon. After this,
   Cuesta with his whole force fell back on Deleytosa, while the
   British moved to Xaraicejo. … Vanegas … remained with his army
   in the neighbourhood of Aranjuez. On the 5th of August, he
   succeeded in gaining a decided advantage over an advanced
   division of the enemy. …
{3008}
   Harassed by inconsistent orders, Vanegas was unfortunately
   induced again to advance, and give battle to the corps of
   Sebastiani at Almonacid. This engagement, though many of the
   Spanish troops behaved with great gallantry, terminated in the
   complete defeat of the army of Vanegas. It was driven to the
   Sierra Morena, with the loss of all its baggage and artillery.
   With this action terminated the campaign which had been
   undertaken for the relief of Madrid, and the expulsion of the
   enemy from the central provinces of Spain. The British army at
   Xaraicejo, still served as a shield to the southern provinces,
   and Sir Arthur Wellesley, (whom the gratitude of his country
   had now ennobled,) [raising him to the peerage as Baron Duke
   of Wellesley and Viscount Wellington of Talavera] considered
   it of importance to maintain the position he then occupied.
   But the total failure of supplies rendered this impossible,
   and about the 20th of August he fell back through Merida on
   Badajos, in the neighbourhood of which he established his
   army. At this period all operations in concert ceased between
   the English and Spanish armies. The Supreme Junta complained
   bitterly of the retreat of the former, which left the road to
   Seville and Cadiz open to the enemy, while the Marquis
   Wellesley, then ambassador in Spain, made strong
   representations of the privations to which the British army
   had been exposed, by the inattention and neglect of the
   authorities. In the correspondence which ensued, it appeared
   that the measure of retreat had been forced on Lord
   Wellington, by the absolute impossibility of supporting his
   army in the ground he occupied. … The year had closed in Spain
   triumphantly for the French arms, as it had commenced. The
   Spanish armies had sustained a series of unparalleled defeats.
   The British had retired into Portugal; and the efforts of Lord
   Wellington, were for the present, limited to the defence of
   that kingdom."

Sir W. F. P. Napier, History of the War in the Peninsula, book 8, chapters 7-9, book 9 (volume 2).

"Since Austria had laid down arms by signing the peace of Vienna, and had thus proved the inefficiency of England's last allies—since among the sovereigns of the Continent Napoleon boasted none but courtiers or subjects, Wellington saw that all the resources and all the efforts of his gigantic power would be turned against the only country which still struggled for the liberty of Europe. What could Spain achieve with her bands of insurgents and her defeated armies, albeit so persevering? or the small English army effect against so formidable an adversary, aided by the combined forces of so many nations? But during the very time when the world looked upon all as lost, and Napoleon's proudest enemies were growing weak, Wellington never despaired of the cause he had embraced. Far from allowing himself to be cast down by the magnitude or the imminence of the danger, he derived from that very circumstance, not only the resolution of fighting to the last extremity, but also the energy to conceive and to execute a project which will continue to be the admiration of the world, and an everlasting lesson to nations oppressed by foreign rule. He had always thought that some day, sooner or later, the whole of Europe would rise against Napoleon's tyranny, provided that an opportunity for such a rising were afforded to it by a prolonged resistance in certain points. The end to aim at therefore was, in his opinion, not so much to drive the French out of the Peninsula, as the tacticians of the central junta wildly fancied, but rather to keep the contest there alive at any cost, until the moment should arrive for so inevitable and universal a revolt. In view of the new invasion pouring into Spain, he could not dream of undertaking any offensive operations against the French. Even if conducted with genius, they would have rapidly exhausted his very limited forces. His small army … could not have lasted a month amidst the large masses of French troops then in Spain. He therefore resolved to entrench it in strong positions, rendered still more formidable by every resource of defensive warfare, where he might defy superiority in numbers and the risk of surprise, where he could also obtain supplies by sea, and whence if necessary he might embark in case of disaster; where, also, he might take advantage of the distances and the difficulties of communication which were so rapidly exhausting our troops, by creating around us a desert in which we should find it impossible to live. To stand out under these restricted but vigorously conceived conditions, and to resist with indomitable obstinacy until Europe, ashamed to let him succumb, should come to his succour, was the only course which afforded Wellington some chance of success in view of the feeble means at his disposal; and such, with equal firmness and decision, was the one he now adopted. The necessity which suggested it to him in no wise diminishes the merit or originality of an operation which was, one may say, without precedent in military history. The position he was seeking for he found in the environs of Lisbon, in the peninsula formed by the Tagus at its entrance to the sea. Protected on almost every side either by the ocean or the river, which at this point is nearly as wide as an inland sea, this peninsula was accessible only on the north where it joined the mainland. There, however, the prolongation of the Sierra d'Estrella presented a series of rugged heights, craggy precipices and deep ravines filled with torrents, forming a true natural barrier, the strength of which had already struck more than one military observer. … Wellington was the first who conceived and executed the project of transforming the whole peninsula into a colossal fortress, of more than a hundred miles in circumference. He desired that this fortress should be composed of three concentric enclosures, defended by cannon, and large enough to contain not only his army and the Portuguese allies—comprising the regular troops, the militia and Ordenanzas—but the whole available population of the Southern provinces of Portugal, with their harvests, their cattle and their provisions, so that the country surrounding Lisbon should offer no resource whatever to the invaders. He at the same time secured his retreat by means of a spacious and fortified port, in which, should any untoward accident occur, the English army and even the Portuguese troops might embark in safety. {3009} This immense citadel extended to the north from Zizembre and the heights of Torres Vedras, which protected its front, as far as Alemquer; thence to the east by Sobral and Alvera it followed the counterforts of the Estrella which overhang the Tagus, and extended to Lisbon, where it was covered alike by the mouth of the river and by the ocean. … From the beginning of the month of October, 1809, with the aid of Colonel Fletcher of the Engineers, he had employed thousands of workmen and peasants, without intermission, in throwing up intrenchments, constructing redoubts, and forming sluices for inundating the plain."

General Sir W. F. P. Napier, History of the War in the Peninsula, book 11, chapter 8 (volume 2).

SPAIN: A D. 1810-1812.
The French advance into Portugal.
Their recoil from the Lines of Torres Vedras.

"By the spring of 1810, the French armies in Spain numbered fully 350,000 men, and Napoleon had intended to cross the Pyrenees, at the head of this enormous force. His marriage, however, or more probably the innumerable toils and cares of Empire prevented him from carrying out his purpose; and this was one of the capital mistakes of his life, for his presence was necessary on the scene of events. He still despised the insurrection of Spain; he held Wellington cheap as a 'Sepoy general'; strange as it may appear, he was wholly ignorant of the existence of the Lines of Torres Vedras, and he persisted in maintaining that the only real enemy in the Peninsula was the British army, which he estimated at 25,000 men. He gave Masséna 70,000, with orders 'to drive the English into the sea'; and at the same time, he sent a great army to subdue Andalusia and the South, false to his art in thus dividing his forces. A contest followed renowned in history, and big with memorable results for Europe. Massena took the fortresses on the northeast of Portugal, and by the close of September had entered Beira; he met a bloody reverse at Busaco [September 27], but he succeeded in turning Wellington's flank, and he advanced, in high heart, from Coimbra, on Lisbon. To his amazement, however, the impregnable lines, a gigantic obstacle utterly unforeseen, rose before him, and brought the invaders to a stand, and the 'spoiled child of victory,' daring as he was, after vain efforts to find a vulnerable point, recoiled from before the invincible rampart, baffled and indignant, but as yet hopeful. Massena, with admirable skill, now chose a formidable position near the Tagus, and held the British commander in check. … But Wellington, with wise, if stern, forethought, had wasted the adjoining region with fire and sword; Napoleon, meditating a new war, was unable to despatch a regiment from France; Soult, ordered to move from Andalusia to the aid of his colleague, paused and hung back; and Massena, his army literally starved out, and strengthened by a small detachment only, was at last reluctantly forced to retreat. The movement began in March, 1811; it was conducted with no ordinary skill; but Wellington had attained his object and the French general re-entered Spain with the wreck only of a once noble force. Massena, however, would not confess defeat; having restored and largely increased his army, he attacked Wellington at Fuentes de Onoro, and possibly only missed a victory, owing to the jealousies of inferior men. This, nevertheless, was his last effort; he was superseded in his command by Napoleon, unjust in this instance to his best lieutenant, and Wellington's conduct of the war had been completely justified. Torres Vedras permanently arrested Napoleon's march of conquest; the French never entered Portugal again. … Meantime, the never-ceasing insurrection of Spain continued to waste the Imperial forces, and surrounded them, as it were, with a circle of fire. It was all in vain that another great army was struck down in the field at Ocana; that Suchet invaded and held Valencia; that Soult ravaged Andalusia; that Victor besieged Cadiz. The resistance of the nation became more intense than ever; Saguntum, which had defied Hannibal, Girona, Tortosa, and, above all, Tarragona, defended their walls to the last; and not a village from Asturias to Granada acknowledged Joseph at Madrid, as its lawful king. … After Fuentes de Onoro the contest in Spain had languished in 1811, though Marmont and Soult missed a great chance of assailing Wellington, with very superior numbers. In the following year the British commander pounced on Ciudad Rodrigo, and Badajoz, the keys of Spain from the Portuguese frontier, completely deceiving the distant Emperor, who would direct operations from Paris; and he defeated Marmont in a great battle, at Salamanca, beside the Tormes, which threw open to him the gates of Madrid. Yet, in an effort made against the communications of the French, the object he steadily kept in view, he was baffled by the resistance of Burgos, and before long he was in retreat on Portugal, having just escaped from a great French army, so various were the fortunes of this most instructive war."

      General Sir W. F. P. Napier,
      History of the War in the Peninsula,
      volumes 2-3.

      A. Thiers,
      History of the Consulate and Empire,
      book 42 (volume 4).

      General Sir J. T. Jones,
      Journal of the Sieges in Spain,
      volume 1.

SPAIN: A. D. 1810-1821.
Revolt and achievement of independence in
Venezuela and New Granada.

SPAIN: A. D. 1812 (June-August).
Wellington's victory at Salamanca.
Abandonment of Madrid by King Joseph.

"In the month of May, 1812, that rupture took place [between Napoleon and Alexander I. of Russia] which was to determine, by its issue, whether Europe should acknowledge one master; and Napoleon, too confident in his own fortunes, put himself at the head of his armies and marched on Moscow. The war in Spain, which had hitherto occupied the first place in public attention, became from that hour, as far as France was concerned, a matter of minor consideration. Whatever effective battalions were at the disposal of the war-minister, were forwarded to the Vistula; while to recruit the regiments in Spain, depôts were formed in the south, out of which, from time to time, a body of conscripts were equipped and dispatched to reinforce the French armies. {3010} Lord Wellington's army consisted of 60,000 men, Portuguese and Spaniards included. Of these, 10,000 infantry, with about 1,200 cavalry, were cantoned on the Tagus at Almarez; while the commander-in-chief, with the remainder, prepared to operate, on the north of that river, against Marmont. The capture of the redoubts at Almarez had, in some degree, isolated the French marshal; and, although he was at the head of 50,000 veterans, Lord Wellington felt himself in a condition to cope with him. At the same time Lord Wellington had to observe Soult, who, commanding the army of the south, was around Seville and Cordova with 58,000 men—while Suchet held the eastern provinces with 50,000 excellent troops—Souham was in the north with 10,000—and the army of the centre, probably 15,000 more, was disposed around the capital, and kept open the communications between the detached corps. On the other hand, there were on foot no Spanish armies deserving of the name. Bands of guerrillas moved, indeed, hither and thither, rendering the communications between the French armies and their depots exceedingly insecure; but throughout the north, and west, and centre of Spain, there was no single corps in arms of any military respectability. In the east, Generals Lacy and Sarsfield were at the head of corps which did good service, and occupied Suchet pretty well; while D'Eroles, more bold than prudent, committed himself at Rhonda with General Rourke, in a combat which ended in his total defeat and the dispersion of his troops. Yet were the French far from being masters of the country. Few fortified towns, Cadiz and Alicante excepted, continued to display the standard of independence, but every Sierra and mountain range swarmed with the enemies of oppression, out of whom an army, formidable from its numbers, if not for its discipline, might at any moment be formed. But it had never entered into the counsels of the allies to furnish a nucleus round which such an army might be gathered. … Meanwhile, the commander-in-chief, after having given his army a few weeks' repose, … broke up from his cantonments, and advanced in the direction of Salamanca. On the 17th of June his divisions crossed the Tormes, by the fords above and below the town, and, finding no force in the field competent to resist them, marched direct upon the capital of the province." Salamanca was taken on the 27th of June, after a siege of ten days, and a series of manœuvres—a great game of tactics between the opposing commanders—ensued, which occupied their armies without any serious collision, until the 22d of July, when the decisive battle of Salamanca was fought. "The dispositions of the French, though masterly against one less self-collected, had been, throughout the day, in Wellington's opinion, full of hazard. They aimed at too much—and, manœuvring to throw themselves in force upon the English right, risked, as the event proved fatally, the weakening of their own right and centre. Lord Wellington saw that filing constantly in one direction disconnected the divisions of Marmont's army, and left an interval where he might strike to advantage. … It was the first mistake that Marmont had made, and Wellington never permitted him to retrieve it. Lord Wellington had dined amid the ranks of the third division, and Packenham, its frank and chivalrous leader, was one of those who shared his simple and soldier-like meal. To him the commander-in-chief gave his orders, somewhat in the following words: 'Do you see those fellows on the hill, Packenham? Throw your division into columns of battalions —at them directly—and drive them to the devil.' Instantly the division was formed—and the order executed admirably. … By this magnificent operation, the whole of the enemy's left was destroyed. Upward of 3,000 prisoners remained in the hands of the victors, while the rest, broken and dispirited, fell back in utter confusion upon the reserves, whom they swept away with them in their flight. Meanwhile, in the centre, a fiercer contest was going on. … Marmont, … struck down by the explosion of a shell, was carried off the field early in the battle, with a broken arm and two severe wounds in the side. The command then devolved upon Clausel, who did all that man in his situation could do to retrieve the fortune of the day. … But Lord Wellington was not to be arrested in his success, nor could his troops be restrained in their career of victory. … Seven thousand prisoners, two eagles, with a number of cannon and other trophies, remained in the hands of the English: 10,000 men, in addition, either died on the field or were disabled by wounds; whereas the loss on the part of the allies amounted to scarcely 5,000 men. … After this disaster, Clausel continued his retreat by forced marches. … Meanwhile, Joseph, ignorant of the result of the late battle, was on his way, with 20,000 men, to join Marmont, and had arrived at the neighbourhood of Arevolo before the intelligence of that officer's defeat was communicated to him. He directed his columns instantly toward Segovia. … On the 7th of August the British army moved; … while Joseph, retreating with precipitation, left the passes of the Guadarama open, and returned to Madrid, where the confusion was now extreme. … Lord Wellington's march was conducted with all the celerity and good order which distinguished every movement of his now magnificent army. On the 7th, he entered Segovia. … On the 12th [he] entered Madrid in triumph. … The city exhibited the appearance of a carnival, and the festivities were kept up till the dawn of the 13th came in. … Immediately the new constitution was proclaimed; Don Carlos D'Espana was appointed governor of the city, and the people, still rejoicing, yet restrained from excesses of every sort, returned to their usual employments."

General Vane (Marquess of Londonderry), Story of the Peninsular War, chapter 30.

      ALSO IN:
      General Sir W. F. P. Napier,
      History of the War in the Peninsula,
      book 18 (volume 4).

Lieutenant Colonel Williams, Life, and Times of Wellington, volume 1, pages 275-290.

SPAIN: A. D. 1812-1814.
Final campaigns of the Peninsular War.
Expulsion of the French.

"The south and centre of Spain … seemed clear of enemies, but the hold of the French was as yet shaken only, not broken; for in fact though Wellington's march had forced his enemies in two directions (Clausel, with the remainder of Marmont's army, having retired north, while the king withdrew south-east), such were their numbers that each division became the centre of an army as powerful as his own. … Of the two armies against which Wellington had to contend by far the largest was the army of Soult, and the king, on the south-east. On the other hand, Clausel's forces were beaten and retreating, so that it appeared to the general better to leave a detachment under Hill to cover Madrid, while he himself repaired with the bulk of his army to strike a final blow at Clausel by the capture of Burgos, intending to return at once and with his whole combined forces fight a great battle with Soult and the king before the capital. … The resistance offered by Burgos and the deficiency of proper artillery proved greater obstacles than had been expected. The delay thus caused allowed the French to recover. … As Soult began to draw towards Madrid from Valencia, thus threatening the safety of Hill, there was no course left but to summon that general northward, and to make a combined retreat towards Salamanca and Portugal. … This was the last of Wellington's retreats. Events in Europe lessened the power of his enemies; while fighting for his very existence on the main continent of Europe, Napoleon could not but regard the war in Spain as a very secondary concern, and a great many old and valuable soldiers were withdrawn. The jealousy which existed between Joseph and the generals, and the dislike of the great generals to take upon themselves the Spanish war, threw it into inferior hands for some little while, and there is little more to chronicle than a succession of hard-won victories. … A vigorous insurrection had arisen all along the northern provinces; and it was this more than anything else which decided Wellington's course of action. While leaving troops to occupy the attention of the French in the valley of the Tagus, he intended to march northwards, … connect himself with the northern insurgents, and directly threaten the communications with France. … As he had expected, the French had to fall back before him; he compelled them to evacuate Burgos and attempt to defend the Ebro. Their position there was turned, and they had again to fall back into the basin of Vittoria. This is the plain of the river Zadora, which forms in its course almost a right angle at the south-west corner of the plain, which it thus surrounds on two sides. Across the plain and through Vittoria runs the high road to France, the only one in the neighbourhood sufficiently large to allow of the retreat of the French army, encumbered with all its stores and baggage, and the accumulated wealth of some years of occupation of Spain. While Wellington forced the passage of the river in front south of the great bend, and drove the enemy back to the town of Vittoria, Graham beyond the town closed this road. The beaten enemy had to retreat as best he could towards Salvatierra, leaving behind all the artillery, stores, baggage, and equipments [June 21, 1813]. The offensive armies of France had now to assume the defensive and to guard their own frontier. Before advancing to attack them in the mountains, Wellington undertook the blockade of Pampeluna and the siege of St. Sebastian. It was impossible for the French any longer to regard diplomatic or dynastic niceties. Joseph was superseded, and the defence of France intrusted to Soult, with whom the king had hopelessly quarrelled. He proved himself worthy of the charge. A series of terrible battles was fought in the Pyrenees, but one by one his positions were forced. With fearful bloodshed, St. Sebastian was taken, the Bidasoa was crossed (October 7), the battle of the Nivelle fought and won (November 10), and at length, in February, the lower Adour was passed, Bayonne invested, and Soult obliged to withdraw towards the east. But by this time events on the other side of France had changed the appearance of the war. … Napoleon was being constantly driven backward upon the east. The effect could not but be felt by the southern army, and Soult deserves great credit for the skill with which he still held at bay the victorious English. He was however defeated at Orthes (February 27), lost Bordeaux (March 8), and was finally driven eastward towards Toulouse, intending to act in union with Suchet, whose army in Catalonia was as yet unbeaten. On the heights upon the east of Toulouse, for Wellington had brought his army across the Garonne, was fought, with somewhat doubtful result, the great battle of Toulouse [April 10]. The victory has been claimed by both parties; the aim of the English general was however won, the Garonne was passed, the French position taken, Toulouse evacuated and occupied by the victors. The triumph such as it was had cost the victors 7,000 or 8,000 men, a loss of life which might have been spared, for Napoleon had already abdicated, and the battle was entirely useless."

ALSO IN: Sir A. Alison, History of Europe, 1789-1815, chapters 76-77 (volume 16).

      General Sir W. F. P. Napier,
      History of the War in the! Peninsula,
      volumes 4-5.

SPAIN: A. D. 1813-1814 (December-May).
   Restoration of Ferdinand and despotic government.
   Abolition of the Cortes.
   Re-establishment of the Inquisition.
   Hostility of the people to freedom.

"The troops of the allies in Catalonia were paralyzed, when just about to take their last measures against Suchet, and, as they hoped, drive out the last of the French from Spain. An envoy arrived from the captive Ferdinand, with the news that Ferdinand and Napoleon had made a treaty, and that the Spaniards might not fight the French any more, nor permit the English to do so on their soil. Ferdinand had been a prisoner at Valençay for five years and a half; and during that time he had, by his own account, known nothing of what was doing in Spain, but from the French newspapers. The notion uppermost in his little mind at this time appears to have been that the Cortes and the liberal party in Spain were 'Jacobins and infidels,' and that it was all-important that he should return, to restore absolutism and the Inquisition. In sending to Spain the treaty he had made with Napoleon, he took no notice whatever of the Cortes, but addressed himself solely to the Regency: and with them, his business was to consult whether he should adhere to the treaty or break through it;— which he might easily do on the plea that it was an extorted act, agreed to under deficient knowledge of the state of Spain. Thus crooked was the policy, even at the moment of restoration, of the foolish prince who seems to have had no ability for any thing but mean and petty intrigue. The terms of the treaty might easily be anticipated from the circumstances under which it was made. {3012} Napoleon wanted to shake out the British from his southwestern quarter; he was in great need of the veteran French troops who were prisoners in Spain: and he had no longer any hope of restoring his brother Joseph. The treaty of December, 1813, therefore provided that Ferdinand and his successors should be recognised as monarchs of Spain and of the Indies: that the territory of Spain should be what it had been before the war—the French giving up any hold they had there: that Ferdinand should maintain the integrity of this territory, clearing it completely of the British: that France and Spain should ally themselves to maintain their maritime rights against England: that all the Spaniards who had adhered to King Joseph should be reinstated in whatever they had enjoyed under him: that all prisoners on both sides should immediately be sent home: and that Joseph and his wife should receive large annuities from Spain. The General of the Spanish forces in Catalonia, Copons, was in so much haste to conclude a separate armistice for himself, with Suchet, without any regard to his British comrades, that the Cortes had to act with the utmost rapidity to prevent it. Since the Cortes had invested themselves with executive, as well as legislative power, the Regency had become a mere show: and now, when the Cortes instantly quashed the treaty, the Regency followed the example. On the 8th of January, the Regency let his Majesty know how much he was beloved and desired; but also, how impossible it was to ratify any act done by him while in a state of captivity. As Napoleon could not get back his troops from Spain in this way, he tried another. He released some of Ferdinand's chief officers, and sent them to him, with advocates of his own, to arrange about an end to the war, and exchanging prisoners; and General Palafox, one of the late captives, went to Madrid, where, however, he met with no better success than his predecessor. By that time (the end of January) it was settled that the Spanish treaty, whatever it might be, was to be framed under the sanction of the Allies, at the Congress of Chatillon. With the hope of paralyzing the Spanish forces by division, Napoleon sent Ferdinand back to Spain. He went through Catalonia, and arrived in his own dominions on the 24th of March. … These intrigues and negotiations caused extreme vexation to Wellington. They suddenly stopped every attempt to expel the French from Catalonia, and threatened to bring into the field against him all the prisoners he had left behind him in Spain: and there was no saying how the winding-up of the war might be delayed or injured by the political quarrels which were sure to break out whenever Ferdinand and the Cortes came into collision. … He therefore lost no time: and the war was over before Ferdinand entered Madrid. It was on the 14th of May that he entered Madrid, his carriage drawn by the populace. As he went through the city on foot, to show his confidence, the people cheered him. They were aware of some suspicious arrests, but were willing to hope that they were merely precautionary. Then followed the complete restoration of the religious orders to the predominance which had been found intolerable before; the abolition of the Cortes; and the re-establishment of the Inquisition. The Constitution had been rejected by the King before his entry into Madrid. In a few weeks, the whole country was distracted with discontent and fear; and, in a few months, the prisons of Madrid were so overflowing with state prisoners—ninety being arrested on one September night—that convents were made into prisons for the safe-keeping of the King's enemies. Patriots were driven into the mountains, and became banditti, while Ferdinand was making arrests right and left, coercing the press, and ceremoniously conveying to the great square, to be there burned in ignominy, the registers of the proceedings of the late Cortes."

"Ferdinand was a person of narrow mind, and his heart seems to have been incapable of generous feeling; but he was not a wicked man, nor would he have been a bad King if he had met with wise ministers, and had ruled over an enlightened people. On the two important subjects of civil and religious freedom he and the great body of the nation were in perfect sympathy,—both, upon both subjects, imbued with error to the core; and the popular feeling in both cases outran his. The word Liberty ('Libertad') appeared in large bronze letters over the entrance of the Hall of the Cortes in Madrid. The people of their own impulse hurried thither to remove it. … The Stone of the Constitution, as it was called, was everywhere removed. … The people at Seville deposed all the existing authorities, elected others in their stead to all the offices which had existed under the old system, and then required those authorities to re-establish the Inquisition. In reestablishing that accursed tribunal by a formal act of government, in suppressing the freedom of the press, which had been abused to its own destruction, and in continuing to govern not merely as an absolute monarch, but as a despotic one, Ferdinand undoubtedly complied with the wishes of the Spanish nation. … But, in his treatment of the more conspicuous persons among the 'Liberales,' whom he condemned to strict and long imprisonment, many of them for life, he brought upon himself an indelible reproach."

SPAIN: A. D. 1814-1827.
   The Constitution of 1812.
   Abrogated by Ferdinand.
   Restored by the Revolution of 1820.
   Intervention of the Holy Alliance.
   Absolutism and bigotry reinstated by the arms of France.

"During the war and the captivity of Ferdinand, the Cortès had, in March 1812 established a new Constitution, by which the royal authority was reduced to little more than a name. … Ferdinand VII., after his return, immediately applied himself to restore the ancient regime in all its unmitigated bigotry and exclusiveness. He issued decrees, in May, 1814, by which all Liberals and Free·masons, and all adherents of the Cortès, and of the officers appointed by them, were either compelled to fly, or subjected to imprisonment, or at least deposed. All national property was wrested from the purchasers of it, not only without compensation, but fines were even imposed upon the holders. All dissolved convents were re-established. The Inquisition was restored, and Mir Capillo, Bishop of Almeria, appointed Grand Inquisitor, who acted with fanatical severity, and is said to have incarcerated 50,000 persons for their opinions, many of whom were subjected to torture. … Ten thousand persons are computed to have fled into France. The kingdom was governed by a Camarilla, consisting of the King's favourites, selected from the lowest and most worthless of the courtiers. … The French invasion of Spain had occasioned a revolution in Spanish America.

      See
      ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1806-1820;
      COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1810-1819;
      MEXICO: A. D. 1810-1819, and 1820-1826;
      CHILE: A. D. 1810-1818;
      PERU: A. D. 1820-18261.

The loss of the American colonies, and a bad system of rural economy, by which agriculture was neglected in favour of sheep-breeding, had reduced Spain to great poverty. This state of things naturally affected the finances; the troops were left unpaid, and broke out into constant mutinies. A successful insurrection of this kind, led by Colonels Quiroga and Riego, occurred in 1820. Mina, who had distinguished himself as a guerilla leader, but, having compromised himself in a previous mutiny, had been compelled to fly into France, now recrossed the Pyrenees to aid the movement. The Constitution of 1812 was proclaimed at Saragossa; and the cowardly Ferdinand … was also obliged to proclaim it at Madrid, March 8th 1820. The Cortès was convened in July, when Ferdinand opened the Assembly with an hypocritical speech; remarkable for its exaggeration of Liberal sentiments. The Cortès immediately proceeded again to dissolve the convents, and even to seize the tithes of the secular clergy, on the pretext that the money was required for the necessities of the State. The Inquisition was once more abolished, the freedom of the press ordained, the right of meeting and forming clubs restored. … The Spanish revolutionists were divided into three parties: the Decamisados, answering to the French 'Sans-culottes'; the Communeros, who were for a moderate constitutional system; and the Anilleros, known by the symbol of a ring; who, dreading the interference of the Holy Alliance, endeavoured to conciliate the people with the crown. On the whole, the insurgents used their victory with moderation, and, with the exception of some few victims of revenge, contented themselves with depriving their opponents, the Serviles, of their places and emoluments. … The revolution, though originated by the soldiery, was adopted by the more educated class of citizens. On the other hand, the clergy and the peasantry were bitterly opposed to it. In the summer of 1821, guerilla bands were organised in the provinces in the cause of Church and King, and obtained the name of 'Armies of the Faith.' … In these civil disturbances dreadful atrocities were committed on both sides. … The French Government, with the ulterior design of interfering in Spanish affairs, seized the pretext of this disorder to place a cordon of troops on the Pyrenees; to which the Spaniards opposed an army of observation. Ferdinand, relying on the Army of the Faith, and on his Foreign Minister, Martinez de la Rosa, a Moderado, thought he might venture on a coup d'etat before the appearance of the French; but his guards were worsted in a street fight, July 7th 1822. … Ferdinand was now base enough to applaud and thank the victors, to dismiss the Moderados from the Ministry, and to replace them by Exaltados, or Radicals. This state of things had attracted the attention of the Holy Alliance. In October 1822, the three northern monarchs assembled in congress at Verona, to adopt some resolution respecting Spain. …

They addressed a note to the Spaniards requiring the restoration of absolutism. … In the spring, the French army of observation, which had been increased to 100,000 men, was placed under the command of the Duke of Angoulême." The Spanish troops "were few and ill disciplined; while in Old Castile stood guerilla bands, under the priest Merino, ready to aid the French invasion. An attempt on the part of Ferdinand to dismiss his Liberal ministry induced the ministers and the Cortès to remove him to Seville (March, 20th 1823), whither the Cortès were to follow. The Duke of Angoulême addressed a proclamation to the Spaniards from Bayonne, April 2nd, in which he told them that he did not enter Spain as an enemy, but to liberate the captive King, and, in conjunction with the friends of order, to re-establish the altar and the throne. The French crossed the Bidassoa, April 7th. The only serious resistance which they experienced was from Mina [in Catalonia]. Ballasteros [in Navarre] was not strong enough to oppose them, while the traitor O'Donnell [commanding a reserve in New Castile] entered into negociations with the enemy, and opened to them the road to the capital. Ballasteros was compelled to retire into Valencia, and the French entered Madrid, May 23rd. A Regency … was now instituted till the King should be rescued. … A French corps was despatched … against Seville, where the Cortès had reopened their sittings; but on the advance of the French they retired to Cadiz, June 12th, taking with them the King, whom they declared of unsound mind, and a provisional Regency was appointed." The French advanced and laid siege to Cadiz, which capitulated October 1st, after a bombardment, the Cortès escaping by sea. Mina, in Catalonia, gave up resistance in November. "The Duke of Angoulême returned to Paris before the end of the year, but Spain continued to be occupied by an army of 40,000 French. The first act of Ferdinand after his release was to publish a proclamation, October 1st, revoking all that had been done since March 7th 1820. The Inquisition, indeed, was not restored; but the vengeance exercised by the secular tribunals was so atrocious that the Duke of Angoulême issued an order prohibiting arrests not sanctioned by the French commander: an act, however, which on the principle of non-interference was disavowed by the French Government. … It is computed that 40,000 Constitutionalists, chiefly of the educated classes, were thrown into prison. The French remained in Spain till 1827. M. Zea Bermudez, the new Minister, endeavoured to rule with moderation. But he was opposed on all sides. … His most dangerous enemy was the Apostolic Junta, erected in 1824 for the purpose of carrying out to its full extent, and independently of the Ministry, the victory of bigotry and absolutism." In 1825, Bermudez was driven to resign. "The Junta … in the spring of 1827 excited in Catalonia an insurrection of the Serviles. The insurgents styled themselves Aggraviados (aggrieved persons), because the King did not restore the Inquisition, and because he sometimes listened to his half Liberal ministers, or to the French and English ambassadors, instead of suffering the Junta to rule uncontrolled. The history of the revolt is obscure. … The object seems to have been to dethrone Ferdinand in favour of his brother Carlos." The insurrection was suppressed, "the province disarmed, and many persons executed."

      ALSO IN:
      E. Blaquiere,
      Historical Review of the Spanish Revolution.

      F. A. de Châteaubriand,
      Memoirs: Congress of Verona,
      volume 1.

      Sir A. Alison,
      History of Europe, 1815-1852,
      chapters 7, and 11-12.

SPAIN: A. D. 1833-1846.
   The civil war of Carlists and Christinos.
   Abdication of Christina.
   Regency of Espartero.
   Revolution of 1843.
   Accession of Queen Isabella.
   Louis Philippe and his Spanish marriages.

"The eyes of King Ferdinand VII. were scarcely closed, September 29th, 1833, when the Apostolic party—whose strength lay in the north of Spain, and especially in Navarre and the Basque provinces —proclaimed his brother, Don Carlos, king under the title of Charles V. In order to offer a successful resistance to the Carlists, who were fighting for absolutism and priestcraft, there was no other course for the regent, Maria Christina, than to throw herself into the arms of the liberal party. So the seven years' war between Carlists and Christinos, from a war of succession, became a strife of principles and a war of citizens. At the outset, owing to the skill of General Zumalacarreguy, to whom the Christinos could oppose no leader of equal ability, the Carlists had the advantage in the field. Don Carlos threatened the Spanish frontiers from Portugal, where he had been living in exile with his dear nephew, Don Miguel. In this strait, Christina applied to England and France, and between those two states and Spain and Portugal was concluded the quadruple alliance of April 22d, 1834, the aim of which was to uphold the constitutional thrones of Isabella and Maria da Gloria, and to drive out the two pretenders, Carlos and Miguel. In that year both pretenders, who enjoyed to a high degree the favor of the Pope and the Eastern powers, had to leave Portugal. Carlos reached England on an English ship in June, but fled again in July, and, after an adventurous journey through France, appeared suddenly in Navarre, to inspire his followers with courage by the royal presence. The war was conducted with passion and cruelty on both sides. After the death of Zumalacarreguy at the siege of Bilbao, June 14th, 1835, the Christinos, who were superior in point of numbers, seemed to have the advantage. … The turning-point was reached when the command of the Christino army was committed to Espartero. In 1836 he defeated the Carlists in the murderous battle of Luchana. In 1837, when Carlos advanced into the neighborhood of Madrid, he hastened to the succor of the capital, and compelled him to retreat. To these losses were added disunion in the Carlist camp. The utterly incapable, dependent pretender was the tool of his Camarilla, which made excellence in the catechism a more important requisite for the chief command than military science, and which deposed the most capable generals to put its own creatures in command. The new commander-in-chief, Guergué, said, bluntly, to Carlos, 'We, the blockheads and ignoramuses, have yet to conduct your Majesty to Madrid; and whoever does not belong in that category is a traitor.' This Apostolic hero was defeated several times by Espartero in 1838, and the enthusiasm of the northern provinces gradually cooled down. He was deposed, and the chief command intrusted to the cunning Maroto. … As he [Maroto] did not succeed in winning victories over Espartero, who overmatched him, he concluded, instead, August 31st, 1839, the treaty of Vergara, in accordance with which he went over to the Christinos, with his army, and by that means obtained full amnesty, and the confirmation of the privileges of Navarre and the Basque provinces. After this, Don Carlos's cause was hopelessly lost. He fled, in September, to France, with many of his followers, and was compelled to pass six years in Bourges under police supervision. In 1845, after he had resigned his claims in favor of his eldest son, the Duke of Montemolin, he received permission to depart, and went to Italy. He died in Trieste, March 10th, 1855. His followers, under Cabrera, carried on the war for some time longer in Catalonia. But they, too, were overcome by Espartero, and in July, 1840, they fled, about 8,000 strong, to France, where they were put under surveillance. The civil war was at an end, but the strife of principles continued. Espartero, who had been made Duke of Victory (Vittoria), was the most important and popular personage in Spain, with whom the regent, as well as everybody else, had to reckon. In the mean time Christina had contrived to alienate the respect and affection of the Spaniards, both by her private life and her political conduct. Her liberal paroxysms were not serious, and gave way, as soon as the momentary need was past, to the most opposite tendency. … In 1836 the Progressists apprehended a reaction, and sought to anticipate it. Insurrections were organized in the larger cities, and the constitution of 1812 was made the programme of the revolt. … Soldiers of the guard forced their way into the palace, and compelled [Christina] to accept the constitution of 1812. A constitutional assembly undertook a revision of this, and therefrom resulted the new constitution of 1837. Christina swore to it, but hoped, by controlling the elections, to bring the Moderados into the Cortes and the ministry. When she succeeded in this, in 1840, she issued a municipal ordinance placing the appointment of the municipal authorities in the hands of the administration. This occasioned riots in Madrid and other cities; and when Christina commissioned Espartero, who was just returning victorious, to suppress the revolt in Madrid, he refused to constitute himself the tool of an unpopular policy. But he was the only man who could hold in check the revolution which threatened to break out on all sides; and so, September 16th, 1840, he had to be named minister president. … Under such circumstances the regency had but little charm for Christina, and there were, moreover, other causes working with these to the same result. {3015} Soon after the death of her husband, she had bestowed her favor on a young lifeguardsman named Munoz, made him her chamberlain, and been secretly married to him. This union soon published itself in a rich blessing of offspring, but it was not until the year 1844 that her public marriage with Munoz, and his elevation to the rank of duke (of Rianzares) and grandee of Spain took place. Having by this course of life forfeited the fame of an honest woman, and exposed herself to all sorts of attacks, she preferred to leave the country. October 12th, she abdicated the regency, and journeyed to France. May 8th, 1841, the newly elected Cortes named Espartero regent of Spain, and guardian of Queen Isabella and her sister, the Infanta Luisa Fernanda. … Since he knew how actively Christina, supported by Louis Philippe, was working against him with gold and influence, he entered into closer relations with England, whereupon his envious foes and rivals accused him of the sale of Spanish commercial interests to England. Because he quieted rebellious Barcelona by a bombardment in 1842, he was accused of tyranny. In 1843 new insurrections broke out in the south; Colonel Prim hastened to Catalonia, and set himself at the head of the soldiers whom Christina's agents had won over by a liberal use of money; Espartero's deadliest foe, General Narvaez, landed in Valencia, and marched into Madrid at the head of the troops. Espartero, against whom Progressists and Moderados had conspired together, found himself forsaken, and embarked at Cadiz, July 26th 1843, for England, whence he did not dare to return to his own country until 1848. In November, 1843, the thirteen-year-old Isabella was declared of age. She assumed the government, made Narvaez, now Duke of Valencia, minister president, and recalled her mother. Thereby gate and doors were opened to the French influence, and the game of intrigue and reaction recommenced. In 1845 the constitution of 1837 was altered in the interests of absolutism. … In order to secure to his house a lasting influence in Spain, and acquire for it the reversion of the Spanish throne, Louis Philippe, in concert with Christina, effected, October 16th, 1846, the marriage of Isabella with her kinsman Francis of Assis, and of the Infanta Luisa with the Duke of Montpensier, his own youngest son. (At first his plan was to marry Isabella also to one of his sons, the Duke of Aumale, but he abandoned it on account of the energetic protest of the Palmerston cabinet, and, instead, chose for Isabella, in Francis of Assis, the person who, by reason of his mental and physical weakness, would be least likely to stand in the way of his son Montpensier.) This secretly negotiated marriage cost Louis Philippe the friendship of the English cabinet."

      ALSO IN:
      W. Bollaert,
      The Wars of Succession in Portugal and Spain, 1826 to 1840,
      volume 2.

      Sir H. L. Bulwer (Lord Dalling),
      Life of Palmerston,
      volume 3, chapter 7.

SPAIN: A. D. 1845-1860.
   Cuba in danger from the United States.
   Filibustering movements.
   The Ostend Manifesto.

SPAIN: A. D. 1866-1873.
   Vices and misgovernment of Isabella.
   Revolution of 1868.
   Flight of the Queen.
   Constitution of 1869.
   Religious toleration.
   Candidates for the vacant throne.
   Election of Amadeo of Italy.
   Unfriendliness of the nation to him.
   His abdication.

"In January, 1866, occurred an insurrection headed by General Prim, a leading officer of the army, which, failing, caused his temporary exile. In June there originated in the barrack of San Gil, a few hundred yards from the palace, a more serious revolt, which extended over a great part of Madrid. In October of the same year the Ministry, in a public proclamation, alleged as a justification for an autocratic exercise of power, that 'revolutionary tendencies constituted an imposing organism with dangerous pretensions; that a rebellion adverse to the fundamental institutions of the country and the dynasty of Isabella, such as had never been seen in Spain, had obtained possession of important municipalities, and triumphed in the deputations from all the provinces,' and that it was necessary to dissolve the municipalities and renew the provisional deputations. … By this arbitrary assumption Spain was under as complete a despotism as existed in the neighboring empire of Morocco. The dissatisfaction at such maladministration, such abuses in the government, and the thinly disguised immoralities of the Queen, soon found expression in audible murmurs and severe criticism. These verbal protests were followed by machinations for the overthrow or control of a sovereign subject to ambitious priests and a venal coterie. Two exiles, Marshal Serrano and Marshal Prim, united with Admiral Topete at Cadiz, and began a revolution which soon had the sympathy and co-operation of a large part of the army and the navy. A provisional revolutionary junta of forty-one persons—a few others, notably Sagasta and Martos, were afterwards added —was appointed, which signed decrees and orders having the force and effect of laws. In less than a month Francisco Serrano was authorized by the junta to form a temporary ministry to rule the country until the Cortes should meet. The defeat of the royal troops near Alcolea prevented the return of Isabella to Madrid, and on September 30, 1868, she fled across the border into France. … With the flight of the Queen vanished for a time the parliamentary monarchy, and, despite her impotent proclamations from France, and offers of amnesty, a provisional government was at once established. A decree of the Government to take inventories of 'all the libraries, collections of manuscripts, works of art, or objects of historical value—a measure necessary to make useful and available these treasures, and to prevent spoliation and transfer —was peacefully executed except at Burgos. Here, under instigation of the priests and aided by them, a mob assembled, broke down the doors of the cathedral, assassinated the Governor, wounded the chief of police, and expelled those engaged in making the required examination and inventory. This outbreak, attributed to a clerical and Carlist conspiracy, awakened opposition and horror. A strong pressure was created for the immediate establishment of freedom of worship. {3016} The atrocious butchery at Burgos aroused the inhabitants of the capital. The Nuncio was so imperilled by the excited populace that the diplomatic corps interposed for the safety and protection of their colleague. Marshal Serrano quieted the angry multitude gathered at his residence by saying that the Government had prepared the project of a constitution to be submitted to the Constitutional Assembly, one of whose first articles was liberty of worship. On February 12, 1869, the Constitutional Cortes convoked by the Provisional Government, assembled with unusual pomp and ceremony and with striking demonstrations of popular enthusiasm. … The Republicans, among whom the eloquent Castelar was influential, were a compact phalanx, and to them the independent Progresistas, led by General Prim, made overtures which were accepted. On Sunday June 5, 1869, the Constitution was promulgated. … While recognizing the provinces and endowing them with important functions, the Cortes rejected the plan of a federal republic, and adhered to the monarchical form of government as corresponding with and a concession to Spanish traditions, and as most likely to secure a larger measure of the liberal principles of the revolution. The Constitution, the legitimate outgrowth of that popular uprising, recognized the natural and inherent rights of man, and established an elective monarchy. … Congress was chosen by universal suffrage. The provincial assemblies and the municipal authorities were elected by the people of their respective localities. The ancient privileges of the aristocracy were annulled, and the equality of all men before the law was recognized. … The Clerical party claimed the continued maintenance of the Roman Catholic Church and the exclusion of all other worship, but the country had outgrown such intolerance. … The Catholic form of faith was retained in the organic law as the religion of the State, but a larger liberty of worship was secured to the people. In Article XXI. the Catholic Apostolic Roman religion was declared the State religion, and the obligation to maintain its worship and ministers was imposed. Foreigners were granted toleration for public and private worship under the limitations of the universal rules of morals and right, and Spaniards, even, professing another than the Catholic religion were to have the like toleration. … Spain quietly passed from the anomalous condition of a provisional into a regular constitutional government, the title of Provisional Government having been changed to that of Executive Power. In June a regency was established, and Serrano was chosen by a vote of 193 to 45. From June 16, 1869, the date of Prim's first cabinet, until December 27, 1870, when he was shot [as he rode through the street, by assassins, who escaped], he had four separate ministries besides several changes of individual ministers; and this instability is characteristic of Spanish politics. … For the vacant throne some Spaniards turned to the Duke of Montpensier; some to the Court of Portugal, and in default thereof to the house of Savoy. … At the moment of greatest embarrassment, the candidature of Leopold, Prince of Hohenzollern, was proposed [—a proposal which led to the Franco-German war: see FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (JUNE-JULY)]. … Leopold's declension was a welcome relief. His candidacy being removed, the strife for the throne became fiercer. On November 3, 1870, General Prim announced to the Cortes the Duke of Aosta, son of Victor Emmanuel, as the Ministerial candidate for the crown. Castelar impetuously denounced the attempt to put a foreigner over Spaniards. On the 15th, Amadeo was elected king, receiving on a vote by ballot a majority of seventy-one of those present and a majority of eighteen in a full house. … The choice excited no enthusiasm, elicited no applause, nor was a viva given by the multitude outside the building where the Cortes had made a sovereign. Thirty thousand troops, discreetly posted in principal thoroughfares, prevented any hostile demonstration, and the leading Republicans, Figueras, Castelar, and Piyy Margall, advised against any acts of violence. Many journals condemned the Cortes. Grandees, protested, placards caricatured and ridiculed. … Nevertheless, Zorrilla went to Italy to make the formal tender of the crown, and on January 2, 1871, the prince reached Madrid and took the prescribed oaths of office in the presence of the regent, the Cortes, and the diplomatic corps. The ceremony was brief and simple. The reception by the populace was respectful and cold. The Provisional Government resigned, and a new ministry was appointed, embracing such men as, Serrano, Martos, Moret, Sagasta, and Zorrilla. … Amadeo never had the friendship of the Carlists nor of the simon-pure Monarchists. The dynasty was offensive to the adherents of Don Carlos and of Alfonso, and to the Republicans, who were opposed to any king. … Becoming [after two years] convinced that the Opposition was irreconcilable, that factions were inevitable, that a stable ministry was impossible, Amadeo, resolved on the singular course of abdicating the royal authority, and returning to the nation the powers with which he had been intrusted;" and this abdication he performed on the 11th of February, 1873.

   On the abdication of King Amadeo, "a republic was declared by
   the Cortes, and the gifted and eminent statesman, Castelar,
   strove to give it a constitutional and conservative character.
   But during the disorders of the last few years the Basque
   provinces of Navarre and Biscay had been in a ferment excited
   by the Carlists. The grandson of the Don Carlos who had
   troubled Spain from 1833 to 1839 appeared in those provinces
   which were still favourable to his cause, and this ardent
   young champion of divine right of course received the support
   of French legitimists. On the other hand, the doctrines of the
   Paris Commune had found in the south of Spain many adherents,
   who desired that their country should form a federation of
   provincial republics. Malaga, Seville, Cadiz, Cartagena, and
   Valencia revolted, and were reduced only after sharp fighting.
   A group of generals then determined to offer the crown to
   Alphonso, the young son of Isabella II, in whose favour she
   had abdicated in 1868. Castelar, the moderate republican
   statesman, reluctantly consented, and young Alphonso XII, on
   landing in Spain, 1874, received the support of most
   republicans and Carlists, disgusted by the excesses of their
   extreme partisans.
{3017}
   His generals gradually hemmed in the Carlists along the north
   coast by battles near Bilbao and Irun; and when the rebels
   shot a German subject Prince Bismarck sent German ships to aid
   the Alphonsists. These in the spring of 1876 forced Don Carlos
   and most of his supporters to cross the French frontier. The
   Madrid Government now determined to put an end to the fueros
   or local privileges of the Basque provinces, which they had
   misused in openly preparing this revolt. So Biscay and Navarre
   henceforth contributed to the general war expenses of Spain,
   and their conscripts were incorporated with the regular army
   of Spain. Thus the last municipal and provincial privileges of
   the old Kingdom of Navarre vanished, and national unity became
   more complete in Spain, as in every other country of Europe
   except Austria and Turkey. The Basque provinces resisted the
   change which placed them on a level with the rest of Spain,
   and have not yet become reconciled to the Madrid Government.
   The young King, Alphonso XII, had many other difficulties to
   meet. The government was disorganised, the treasury empty, and
   the country nearly ruined; but he had a trusty adviser in
   Canovas del Castillo, a man of great prudence and talent, who,
   whether prime minister or out of office, has really held power
   in his hands. He succeeded in unifying the public debt, and by
   lowering its rate of interest he averted State bankruptcy. He
   also strove to free the administration from the habits of
   bribe-taking which had long enfeebled and disgraced it; but in
   this he met with less success, as also in striving for purity
   of parliamentary election. … The Senate is composed of (1)
   nobles, (2) deputies elected by the corporations and wealthy
   classes, and (3) of life senators appointed by the crown. The
   Chamber of Deputies is elected by universal suffrage, one
   deputy for every 50,000 inhabitants. The king or either House
   of Parliament has the right of proposing laws. In 1883 King
   Alphonso paid a visit to Berlin, and was made honorary colonel
   of a Uhlan regiment. For this he was hooted and threatened by
   the Parisians on his visit to the French capital; and this
   reception increased the coldness of Spain toward the French,
   who had aggrieved their southern neighbour by designs on
   Morocco. The good understanding between Spain and Germany was
   over-clouded by a dispute about the Caroline Islands in the
   Pacific, which Spain rightly regarded as her own. This
   aggravated an illness of Alphonso, who died suddenly (November
   25, 1885). His young widow, as queen-regent for her infant
   child, has hitherto [1889] succeeded with marvellous tact."

At the time of this writing (November, 1894), the queen-regent, Maria Christina, is still reigning in the name of her young son, Alphonso XIII.

SPALATO.

SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1542-1568.
Establishment of the audiencias of Quito, Charcas,
New Granada, and Chile, under the viceroyalty of Peru.

SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1810-1816.
Revolt, independence and
confederation of the Argentine Provinces.

SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1810-1821.
The War of Independence in Venezuela and New Granada.

SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1820-1826.
   The independence of Mexico.
   Brief Empire of Iturbide.
   The Federal Republic established.

SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1821.
Independence acquired in the Central American States.

SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1828.
The Banda Oriental becomes the Republic of Uruguay.

SPANISH COINS.

   "The early chroniclers make their reckonings of values under
   different names at different times. Thus during the
   discoveries of Columbus we hear of little else but
   'maravedis'; then the 'peso de oro' takes the lead, together
   with the 'castellano'; all along 'marco' and 'ducado' being
   occasionally used. At the beginning of the 16th century, and
   before and after, Spanish values were reckoned from a mark of
   silver, which was the standard. A mark was half a pound either
   of gold or silver. The gold mark was divided into 50
   castellanos; the silver mark into eight ounces. In the reign
   of Ferdinand and Isabella the mark was divided by law into 65
   'reales de vellon' of 34 maravedis each, making 2,210
   maravedis in a mark. … In the reign of Alfonso Xl., 1312-1350,
   there were 125 maravedis to the mark, while in the reign of
   Ferdinand VII., 1808-1833, a mark was divided into 5,440
   maravedis.
{3018}
   In Spanish America a 'real' is one-eighth of a 'peso,' and
   equal to 2½ reales de vellon. The peso contains one ounce of
   silver; it was formerly called 'peso de ocho reales de plata,'
   whence came the term 'pieces of eight,' a vulgarism at one
   time in vogue among the merchants and buccaneers in the West
   Indies. … The castellano, the one fiftieth of the golden mark,
   in the reign of Ferdinand and Isabella, was equivalent to 490
   maravedis of that day. The 'peso de oro,' according to Oviedo,
   was exactly equivalent to the castellano, and either was one
   third greater than the ducado or ducat. The 'doblon' … was
   first struck by Ferdinand and Isabella as a gold coin of the
   weight of two castellanos. The modern doubloon is an ounce of
   coined gold, and is worth 16 pesos fuertes. Reduced to United
   States currency, the peso fuerte, as slightly alloyed bullion,
   is in weight nearly enough equivalent to one dollar. Therefore
   a mark of silver is equal to 8 dollars; a piece of eight,
   equal to one peso, which equals one dollar; a real de vellon,
   5 cents; a Spanish-American real], 12½ cents; a maravedi,
   100/276 of a cent; a castellano, or peso de oro $2.56; a
   doubloon $5.14; a ducat, $1.92; a mark of gold $128, assuming
   the United States alloy. The fact that a castellano was
   equivalent to only 490 maravedis shows the exceedingly high
   value of silver as compared with gold at the period in
   question."

H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States, volume 1, pages 192-193, foot-note.

"The Spanish main was simply the mainland, terra firma, of Spanish America, as opposed to the islands: but the term 'terra firma' was specially applied to the northern part of South America, extending 'all along the North Sea from the Pacific Ocean to the mouth of the river of Amazons upon the Atlantic' (Burke, European Settlements in America, Part III., chapter xvi.), and comprising the towns of Panama, Carthagena, and Porto Bello.

Longfellow blunders in the 'Wreck of the Hesperus' when he speaks of the old sailor who 'had sailed the Spanish main.'"

C. P. Lucas, Historical Geography of the British Colonies, volume 2, page 35, foot-note.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1698-1700, and after;
      NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1702-1704, and after;
      GERMANY: A. D. 1702, and after;
      ITALY: A. D. 1701-1713;
      NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1702-1710;
      and UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

SPARTA: The City.
   Its situation, origin and growth.
   Laconia.
   "Hollow Lacedæmon."

"Laconia is formed by two mountain-chains running immediately from Arcadia [from the center to the southeastern extremity of Peloponnesus], and enclosing the river Eurotas, whose source is separated from that of an Arcadian stream by a very trifling elevation. The Eurotas is, for some way below the city of Sparta, a rapid mountain-stream; then, after forming a cascade, it stagnates into a morass; but lower down it passes over a firm soil in a gentle and direct course. Near the town of Sparta rocks and hills approach the banks on both sides, and almost entirely shut in the river both above and below the town: this enclosed plain is without doubt the 'hollow Lacedæmon' of Homer."

Upon the Dorian invasion and occupation of Peloponnesus (see DORIANS AND IONIANS) the city and neighborhood of Sparta in Laconia,—i. e. Sparta and 'hollow Lacedæmon,' —became the seat of the dominant state which they founded in the peninsula. The conquerors, themselves, and their descendants, were the only full citizens of this Spartan state and were called Spartiatæ or Spartans. The prior inhabitants of the country were reduced to political dependence, in a class called the Periœci, or else to actual serfdom in the more degraded class known as Helots. "Sparta was not, like other towns of the Greeks, composed of a solid body of houses, but, originally in a rural and open situation on the river and its canals, it gradually stretched out into the open country, and Dorians lived far beyond Sparta along the entire valley, without the inhabitants of remoter points being on that account in any less degree citizens of Sparta than those dwelling by the ford of the Eurotas. They were all Spartans, as by a stricter term they were called, as distinguished from the Lacedæmonians. … Strictly apart from this exclusive community of Spartiatæ there remained, with its ancient conditions of life intact, the older population of the land, which dwelt scattered on the mountains surrounding the land of the Spartiatæ on all sides (hence called the dwellers-around, or Periœci). More than trebling the Spartiatæ in number, they cultivated the incomparably less remunerative arable land of the mountains, the precipitous declivities of which they made available by means of terraced walls for cornfields and vineyards. … Free proprietors on their own holdings, they, according to primitive custom, offered their tribute to the kings. The country people, on the other hand, residing on the fields of the Spartiatæ, met with a harder fate. Part of them probably consisted of peasants on the domains; others had been conquered in the course of internal feuds. They were left on the fields which had been once their own, on the condition of handing over to the Spartiatæ quartered upon them an important portion of their produce. This oppression provoked several risings; and we must assume that the ancient sea-town of Helos was for a time the centre of one of these outbreaks. For this is the only admissible explanation of the opinion universally prevailing among the ancients, that from that town is derived the name of the Helots."

ALSO IN: G. F. Schömann, Antiquities of Greece: The State, part 3, chapter 1.

"Sparta was the city from which the Dorians slowly extended their dominion over a considerable portion of Peloponnesus. Of the progress of her power we have only the most meagre information. … The internal condition of Sparta at this early period is uniformly described as one of strife and bad government, a condition of affairs which was certainly unfavourable to external development and conquest. Herodotus attributes these dissensions, at least in part, to the mutual animosity of the two royal families; the twin sons of Aristodemus quarrelled all their lives, and their descendants after them did the same. Plutarch, on the other hand, speaks of quarrels between the kings and the people. … Whatever the cause, it is more certain than any other fact in early Spartan history that the condition of the country was for a long time one of internal strife and dissension. It was the great merit of Lycurgus to have put an end to this disastrous state of affairs. Lycurgus is the foremost name in Spartan history. Tradition is nearly unanimous in describing this lawgiver as the author of the prosperity of Sparta, and the founder of her peculiar institutions, but about the date and the events of his life the greatest uncertainty prevailed. … Thucydides, though he does not mention Lycurgus, asserts that the form of the government had continued the same in Sparta for more than four hundred years before the end of the Peloponnesian war. In his opinion, therefore, the reforms of Lycurgus were introduced shortly before 804 B. C. This date is considerably later than that usually given to Lycurgus, on the authority of the ancient chronologers. … Herodotus tells us that Lycurgus, when visiting the Delphic shrine, was hailed by the priestess as a being more than human, and some authorities asserted that the Spartan institutions were revealed to him there. The Lacedaemonians, however, regarded Crete as the source of their peculiar arrangements [see CRETE]. They were thus enabled to connect them with the great name of Minos, and derive their authority from Zeus himself. … Plutarch has fortunately transcribed the text of the Rhetrae, or ordinances, which were given to Lycurgus at Delphi. There does not seem to be any reason to doubt that these were the oldest ordinances known at Sparta, or that they formed the basis of their 'good government.' They were therefore the oldest political ordinances known in Hellas, and, indeed, in the world. 'Found a temple to Zeus Hellanius, and Athena Hellania, arrange the tribes, and the Obes, thirty in number, establish the Gerousia with the Archagetae. Summon the people for meeting from time to time between Babyca and the Cnacion, there bring forward and decide (reject). The people are to have the supreme power.' Thus the first duty of the lawgiver was to found a public sanctuary which should be as it were the centre of the community. Then the people were to be arranged in tribes and Obes. The division into tribes was not a new one; from the first the Dorians at Sparta, as elsewhere, when free from the admixture of external elements, were divided into three tribes, Hylleis, Dymanes, Pamphyli, but it is possible that some changes were now introduced, regulating the internal arrangement of the tribe. In each tribe were ten Obes, of which we know nothing beyond the name. They appear to have been local divisions. As the Gerousia [see GERUSIA], including the kings, contained thirty members, we may conjecture that each Obe was represented in the Senate, and therefore that the two kings were the representatives of two distinct Obes. The Archagetae are the kings, or leaders of the people. From time to time the community were to be summoned to a meeting. … Before the assembled people measures were to be introduced that they might decide upon them, for no measure was valid which had not received the sanction of the whole people. The elements with which these ordinances deal—the Kings, the Council and the Assembly—appear in the Homeric poems, and grew naturally out of the patriarchal government of the tribe. The work of Lycurgus did not consist in creating new elements, but in consolidating those which already existed into a harmonious whole. … Three other ordinances which are ascribed to Lycurgus forbade (1) the use of written laws; (2) the use of any tools but the axe and saw in building a house; (3) frequent wars upon the same enemies. He is also said to have forbidden the use of coined money in Sparta. Neither gold nor silver was to be used for purposes of exchange, but bars of iron, which by their small value and great bulk rendered money dealings on any large scale impossible. The iron of these bars was also made unusually brittle in order that it might be useless for ordinary purposes. Such precepts were doubtless observed at Sparta, though they may not have been derived from Lycurgus. The training which every Spartan underwent was intended to diminish the sphere of positive law as much as possible, and to encourage the utmost simplicity and even rudeness of life. … About a century after Lycurgus, in the reign of Theopompus, two changes of great importance were made in the Spartan constitution. The veto which the earlier rhetra had allowed to the assembled people was cancelled, and a new law was introduced, which gave the ultimate control to the Gerontes and Kings. 'If the people decide crookedly, the elders and chiefs shall put it back,' i. e. shall reverse the popular decision. Under what circumstances this ordinance, which is said to have been obtained from Delphi, was passed, we do not know, nor is it quite clear how it consists with what we find recorded of the constitutional history of Sparta in later times. … The second innovation was even more important. Though Herodotus ascribes the institution of the Ephoralty [see EPHORS] to Lycurgus, it seems more correct to follow Aristotle and others in ascribing it to Theopompus. The Ephors, who were five in number, appear in the first instance to have been of no great importance. But as they were intimately connected with the commons, elected from and by them as their representatives, we must assume that the ephoralty was a concession to the people, and it may have been a compensation for the loss of the right of voting in the assembly. In time the ephors grew to be the most important officers in the state, both in war and in peace. They were associated with the council, they presided in the assembly, and even the kings were not exempt from their power. To this result the growing dread of 'a tyrannis,' like that at Corinth or Sicyon, and the increasing importance of the Spartan training, which the ephors superintended, in a great measure contributed. … The kings were the leaders of the army. For a time they always took the field together, but owing to the dissensions of Cleomenes and Demaratus, a law was passed that one king only should go out with the army, and it was henceforth the custom for one king only to be absent from Sparta, at a time. {3020} The kings had the right of making war on whom they would, and no one could prevent them, on pain of being under a curse, but as they were liable to be brought to trial on their return for failure in an expedition, they usually obtained the consent of the ephors or the assembly before going. … The origin of the dual monarchy, which from the first was so distinctive a feature of the Spartan government, is very obscure, and many attempts have been made to explain it. It may have arisen by a fusion of the native and immigrant races, each of which was allowed to retain its own prince in the new community. … It is perhaps more reasonable to assume that the two kings represent two leading families, each of which had a claim to give a chief to the community. That two families holding equal rights should be regarded as descended from the twin sons of the Dorian founder of Sparta is merely one of the fictions which of necessity arose in the period when all political unions and arrangements were expressed in the terms of genealogical connection. … The Apella was an assembly of all the Spartan citizens who had reached the age of thirty years. … In historical times it was presided over by the ephors. No speaking was allowed except by officers of State and persons duly invited, and perhaps the Senators. The votes were given by acclamation. The assembly decided on war and peace, treaties. and foreign politics generally; it elected the ephors and gerontes. … More important for the development of Sparta than her political constitution was the education and training which her citizens received. … The Spartan did not exist for himself but for his city; for her service he was trained from birth, and the most intimate relations of his life were brought under her control. In the secluded valley of the Eurotas, where till the time of Epaminondas no invader ever set foot, amid profound peace, he nevertheless led the life of a warrior in the field. His strength and endurance were tested to the utmost; he was not permitted to surrender himself to the charm of family life and domestic affections. Even when allowed to marry, he spent but little time at home; his children, if thought worthy of life, were taken from him at an early age to go through the same training in which he himself had been brought up. Only when he reached the age of sixty years, at which he could no longer serve his country in the field, was he permitted to enjoy the feeling of personal freedom."

      C. O. Müller,
      History and Antiquities of the Doric Race,
      book 3 (volume 2).

SPARTA: B. C. 743-510.
The First and Second Messenian Wars.
Military supremacy in Peloponnesus established.

"The effect of the Lycurgean institutions was to weld the people of Sparta into what Grote well denominates a 'military brotherhood'—the most potent military machine which at that time, and for long after, existed in Greece or in the world. Had their political ambition and ability been proportionate, it is difficult to doubt that the Lacedæmonians might have anticipated the career of the Romans; but their inability to produce really great statesmen, and the iron rigidity of their political system, placed in their path effectual barriers to the attainment of such grandeur. … The first object of their attacks was the neighbouring Dorian kingdom of Messenia. The kinship between the two peoples and their rulers had previously kept them on friendly terms. It was symbolized and expressed by joint sacrifices, annually celebrated at a temple in honour of Artemis which stood on the borders between the two countries, near the source of the river Neda. It was a quarrel that broke out at these annual rites which led to the outbreak of the first Messenian war, about 743 B. C. The circumstances of the quarrel were differently related by the two parties; but it resulted in the death of' Teleclus, one of the Spartan kings. His subjects invaded Messenia to obtain redress. At first the struggle was of an indecisive character, but ultimately the Messenians were obliged to take refuge on the fortified mountain of Ithome, and all the rest of their country was overrun and conquered by their persistent enemies. After the war had lasted twenty years, the Messenian garrison was compelled to abandon Ithome, the fortifications of which were razed by the Spartans, and Messenia became part of the Lacedæmonian territory, —all its inhabitants who refused to submit being driven into exile. Pausanius and other ancient writers give long details of the events of this twenty years' struggle, the great hero of which was the Messenian king Aristomenes; but these details are as legendary as the exploits of the Homeric heroes, and all that is certainly known about the war is that it ended in the subjugation of Messenia. The severity and oppression with which the conquered people were ruled led them, about forty years later, to rise up in revolt, and another struggle of seventeen years' duration followed. In this, again, Aristomenes is represented as the Messenian leader, although he had put an end to his own life at the unsuccessful close of the former contest; and the later Hellenic writers tried to get over this impossibility by declaring that the Aristomenes of the second war must have been a descendant of the earlier hero bearing the same name. In the course of the war the Spartans suffered severely, as the Messenians had the support of other Peloponnesian communities—especially the Arcadians—who had begun to dread the strength and arrogance of the Lacedæmonians. Ultimately, however, the revolt was crushed, and from that time till the days of Epaminondas, Messenia remained a part of the Laconian territory.

   To Sparta it was an important acquisition, for the plain of
   the Pamisus was the most fertile district in Peloponnesus. The
   Spartans next became aggressive on the eastern and northern
   frontiers of their territory. Among the numerous independent
   communities of Arcadia, the two most important were Tegea and
   Mantinea, in the extreme east of the Arcadian territory. With
   these cities, especially the former, the Spartans had some
   severe struggles, but were not able to conquer them, though
   they established a dominant influence, and reduced them to the
   position of dependent allies. From Argos … the Lacedæmonians
   wrested, in the course of two centuries, the strip of
   territory between the Parnon range and the sea from Thyrea
   down to the Malean promontory. By the beginning of the 6th
   century B. C. they were masters of two-fifths of the whole
   area of Peloponnesus—a territory of something more than 3,000
   square miles.
{3021}
   To modern notions, such a territory, which is smaller in
   extent than more than one Scottish county, seems utterly
   insignificant; but it sufficed to make Sparta the largest and
   strongest state in Hellas, and even at the pinnacle of her
   power she never made any further addition to her possessions
   in Peloponnesus. Protected from invasion by impregnable
   natural defences, and possessing a military discipline, a
   social and political unity, such as no other Grecian community
   could boast, the Lacedæmonians possessed peculiar advantages
   in the competition for the Hellenic leadership. … It was about
   the close of the 6th century B. C. that Sparta, having
   asserted her supremacy in Peloponnesus, began to take an
   active part in the affairs of the Hellenic communities outside
   the peninsula. … In 510 B. C. her king, Cleomenes, went to
   Athens at the head of a large force to obey the mandate of the
   Delphic oracle and 'liberate the city' by the expulsion of the
   Pisistratids."

SPARTA: B. C. 509-506.
Persistent undertakings of Cleomenes to restore tyranny at
Athens, opposed by the Corinthians and other allies.

SPARTA: B. C. 492-491.
   Headship in Greece recognized.
   Defiance of the Persian king.
   Enforced unity of Greece for war.

SPARTA: B. C. 481-479.
   Congress at Corinth.
   Organized Hellenic Union against Persia.
   The Spartan headship.

SPARTA: B. C. 480.
The Persian War.
Leonidas and his Three Hundred at Thermopylæ.

SPARTA: B. C. 478.
Interference to forbid the rebuilding of the walls of Athens,
foiled by Themistocles.

SPARTA: B. C. 478-477.
   Mad conduct of Pausanias at Byzantium.
   Alienation of the Asiatic Greeks.
   Loss of the leadership of the Greek world.
   Formation of the Confederacy of Delos, with Athens at
   its head.

SPARTA: B. C. 464-455.
   The great Earthquake.
   The Third Messenian War.
   Offensive rebuff to Athenian friendliness.

SPARTA: B. C. 462-458.
   Embittered enmity at Athens.
   Rise of Pericles and the democratic Anti-Spartan party.
   Athenian alliance with Argos, Thessaly, and Megara.

SPARTA: B. C. 457.
Interference in Phocis.
Collision with the Athenians and victory at Tanagra.

SPARTA: B. C. 449-445.
   Aid to revolts in Bœotia, Eubœa and Megara
   against Athenian rule or influence.
   The Thirty Years Truce.

SPARTA: B. C. 432-431.
   Hearing of charges against Athens.
   Congress of Allies.
   Decision for war.
   Theban attack on Platæa.
   Opening of the Peloponnesian War.

SPARTA: B. C. 431-429.
   First and second years of the Peloponnesian War:
   Invasions of Attica.
   Plague at Athens.
   Death of Pericles.

SPARTA: B. C. 428-427.
   The Peloponnesian War:
   Aid to the insurgent Mityleneans.
   Its failure.

SPARTA: B. C. 425.
The Peloponnesian War: Catastrophe at Sphacteria.
Peace pleaded for and refused by Athens.

SPARTA: B. C. 424-421.
   Peloponnesian War: Successes of Brasidas in Chalcidice.
   Athenian defeat at Delium.
   Death of Brasidas.
   Peace of Nikias.

SPARTA: B. C. 421-418.
   The Peloponnesian War: New hostile combinations.
   The Argive confederacy.
   War in Argos and Arcadia.
   Victory at Mantinea.

SPARTA: B. C. 415-413.
   The Peloponnesian War:
   Help to Syracuse against the Athenians.
   Comfort to the fugitive Alcibiades.

SPARTA: B. C. 413-412.
   The Peloponnesian War:
   Aid to the revolting cities in Asia and the Ægean.
   Intrigues of Alcibiades.

SPARTA: B. C. 413.
   Negotiations with Persian satraps.
   Subsidies for war against Athens.
   Invasion of Attica.
   The Decelian War.

SPARTA: B. C. 411-407.
   Athenian victories at Cynossema and Abydos.
   Exploits of Alcibiades.
   His return to Athens.
   His second deposition and exile.

SPARTA: B. C. 404-403.
The organizing of Spartan supremacy.
The Harmosts in power.

The overthrow of Athenian power in the Greek world, made final by the battle of Ægospotami, B. C. 405, rendered Sparta supreme, and established her in a sovereignty of affairs which is often alluded to as the Spartan, or Lacedæmonian Empire. The cities which had been either allied or subject to Athens were now submissive to the Spartan conqueror, Lysander. "He availed himself of his strength to dissolve the popular system of government in all the towns which had belonged to the Attic confederation, and to commit the government to a fixed body of men enjoying his confidence. As at Athens the Thirty, so elsewhere Commissions of Ten [called Dekarchies] were established.

In order to give security and strength to those governing bodies, detachments of Spartan troops were placed by their side, under the command of a Harmost. This measure, again, was, by no means a novel invention. From an early period the Lacedæmonians had been in the habit of despatching Harmostæ (i. e. military governors) into the rural districts, to hold sway over the Periœci, and to keep the latter in strict subjection to the capital. Such Harmosts were subsequently also sent abroad; and this, of itself, showed how the Spartans had no intention of recognizing various kinds of subjection, and how they at bottom designed to make no essential difference between subject rural communities in Laconia and the foreign towns which had of their own accord, or otherwise, submitted to the power of Sparta. The duration of the Harmosts' tenure of office was not defined."

SPARTA: B. C. 399-387.
   War with Persia and with a hostile league in Greece.
   Struggle for the Corinthian isthmus.
   Restored independence of Athens.
   The Peace of Antalcidas.

SPARTA: B. C. 379-371.
Liberation and triumph of Thebes.
Spartan supremacy broken at Leuctra.

SPARTA: B. C. 371-362.
   The conflict with Thebes.
   Two attempts of Epaminondas against the city.
   The battle of Mantinea.

It was not until about the year 317 B. C., during the distractions which followed the death of Alexander the Great, that walls were built around the city of Sparta. "The maintenance of Sparta as an unwalled city was one of the deepest and most cherished of the Lykurgean traditions; a standing proof of the fearless bearing and self-confidence of the Spartans against dangers from without. The erection of the walls showed their own conviction, but too well borne out by the real circumstances around them, that the pressure of the foreigner had become so overwhelming as not to leave them even safety at home."

Not many years after the walls of Sparta were first built the city was subjected to a siege by Pyrrhus, the ambitious Epirotic king. There were two claimants to the Spartan crown, and Pyrrhus, espousing the cause of the unsuccessful one, marched into Peloponnesus with a powerful army, (B. C. 272) and assailed the Lacedæmonian capital. He was repulsed and repulsed again, and gave up the attempt at last, marching away to Argos, where his interference in local quarrels had been solicited. He perished there, ignominiously, in another abortive enterprise, being killed by a tile flung down by a woman's hand, from a housetop overlooking the street in which he was attempting to manage the retreat of his discomfited forces.

Schools for the training of gladiators, to supply the barbarous amusement which the Romans delighted in, were numerous at Rome and throughout Italy. The men placed in these schools were slaves, criminal prisoners, or unfortunates whose parents abandoned them in infancy. As a rule, they were forced into the brutal profession and the schools which trained them for it were places of confinement and restraint. From one of these schools, at Capua, some seventy or more gladiators escaped, in the year 73 B. C., and fled to the mountains. They had for their leader a Thracian, named Spartacus, who proved to be a soldier of remarkable ability and energy. Stationing himself at first on Mount Vesuvius, Spartacus was joined by other slaves and fugitives, until he had a large force under his command. Again and again the Roman armies sent against him were defeated and the insurgents equipped themselves with captured arms. Nola, Nuceria, and other towns in Southern Italy fell into their hands. In the year 72 B. C. they moved toward North Italy, routing two consular armies on their way, and were thought to be intending to escape beyond the Alps; but, after another great victory at Mutina (Modena) over the proconsul of Gallia Cisalpina, Spartacus turned southward again, for some unexplained reason, and allowed himself to be blockaded in the extremity of Lucania, by M. Licinius Crassus. In this situation he sought to make terms, but his proposals were rejected. He then succeeded in breaking through the Roman lines, but was pursued by Crassus and overwhelmingly defeated at Mount Calamatius, where 35,000 of the insurgents are said to have been slain. The flying remnant was again brought to bay near Petilia, in Bruttium, and there Spartacus ended his life. A few thousand of the insurgents who escaped from the field were intercepted by Pompey and cut to pieces, while 6,000 captives were crucified, with Roman brutality, along the road between Capua and Rome.

SPARTAN EMPIRE.

SPARTAN TRAINING.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.

The splendor of the position of Speaker of the British House of Commons is perhaps not generally realized. The appointment, nominally for the duration of but one Parliament, generally extends over several. … Chosen from among the members, subject to the approval of the Crown, the Speaker can be removed only upon an address to the Crown. Besides a palatial residence occupying one wing of the Houses of Parliament, and a large patronage, he receives a salary of £5,000 a year. At the end of his labors he is rewarded with a peerage and a pension of £4,000 per annum for two lives. He is a member of the Privy Council, and the first gentleman in the United Kingdom, taking rank after barons. … The wig and gown which he wears, the state and ceremony with which he is surrounded, doubtless contribute to the isolation and impressiveness of his position. … When, at the opening of proceedings, he makes his way in state from his residence to the Chamber, through the corridors used by members for passing to the committee, library, and refreshment rooms, it is against etiquette for anyone to be found therein. When on summer evenings he and his family take the air upon the portion of the terrace which is outside his residence, there is no more thought of approaching them than there would be if he were a Grand Lama. When in the chair, he can be approached only upon strictly business matters. His levees, held twice a year and open to all members, can be attended only in court costume, sword by the side."

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

SPENCEAN PHILANTHROPISTS. SPENCEANS.

SPEUSINII.

"About six hundred yards to the Southeast of the Great Pyramid is the Sphinx. The Sphinx is a natural rock, to which has been given, more or less accurately, the external appearance of that mystic animal. The head alone has been sculptured. The body is formed of the rock itself, supplemented, where defective, by a somewhat clumsy masonry of limestone. The total height of the monument is 19 metres 80 centimetres, equal to 65 English feet. The ear measures 6 feet 5 inches; the nose 5 feet 10 inches; and the mouth 7 feet 8 inches. The face, in its widest part, across the cheek, is 4 metres 15 centimetres, that is, 13 feet 7 inches. Its origin is still a matter of doubt. At one time it was supposed to be a monument of the reign of Thothmes IV. (XVIIIth dynasty). But we know now, thanks to a stone in the Boulak Museum, that the Sphinx was already in existence when Cheops (who preceded Chephren) gave orders for the repairs which this stone commemorates. It must also be remembered that the Sphinx is the colossal image of an Egyptian god called Armachis."

SPIRES: A. D. 1526-1529.
   The imperial Diets.
   Legal recognition of the Reformed religion,
   and its withdrawal.
   Protest of Lutheran princes.

SPOLIA OPIMA.

"The proudest of all military trophies were Spolia Opima, which could be gained only when the commander-in-chief of a Roman army engaged and overthrew in single combat the commander-in-chief of the enemy. … Roman history afforded but three examples of legitimate Spolia Opima. The first were won by Romulus from Acro, King of the Ceninenses; the second by Aulus Cornelius Cossus from Lar Tolumnius, King of the Veientes; the third by M. Claudius Marcellus from Virodomarus, a Gaulish chief (B. C. 222). In all cases they were dedicated to Jupiter Feretrius and preserved in his temple."

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (MAY: VIRGINIA)
      GRANT'S MOVEMENT, &C.: SPOTTSYLVANIA.

SQUATTER SOVEREIGNTY.

SQUIRE.

STAATEN-BUND.

STADACONA.

"Throughout the present work I shall uniformly assume that the Greeks employed but one measure under that designation [the stadium] which was … a hundred fathoms, or 600 Greek feet. This has been proved, in my opinion, beyond a doubt, by Colonel Leake in his paper 'On the Stade as a Linear Measure' … republished in his treatise 'On some disputed Questions of Ancient Geography.' … At the present day the controversy may be considered as settled. … A stade of 600 Greek feet was in reality very nearly the 600th part of a degree [of the circumference of the earth]; ten stades are consequently just about equal to a nautical or geographical mile of 60 to a degree."

STADTHOLDER.

"In the time of Ælfred [Alfred the Great] the great officers of the court were the four heads of the royal household, the Hordere, the Staller, the Dish-thegn, and the Cup-thegn. … The Hordere was the officer of the court in its stationery aspect, as the Staller or Constable was of the court on progress. … Of the four officers one only retained under the later West-Saxon monarchy any real power. The dish-thegn and cup-thegn lost importance as the court became stationary and no longer maintained a vast body of royal followers. The staller retained only the functions of leading in war as the feudal constable, which in turn passed away with later changes in the military system. The hordere alone held a position of growing importance. … No doubt the 'Hoard' contained not only money and coin, but the costly ornaments and robes of the crown."

"The names by which the Chamberlain was designated are Hrægel thegn, literally thane or servant of the wardrobe, Cubicularius, Camerarius, Búrthegn, perhaps sometimes Dispensator, and Thesaurarius or Hordere. … We may presume that he had the general management of the royal property, as well as the immediate regulation of the household. … The Marshal (among the Franks Marescalcus and Comes stabuli) was properly speaking the Master of the Horse. … The Anglosaxon titles are Steallere [Staller] and Horsthegn, Stabulator and Strator regis."

STALWARTS AND HALF-BREEDS.

During the administration of President Grant, certain lenders of the Republican party in the United States—conspicuous among them Senator Conkling of New York—acquired a control of the distribution of appointed offices under the Federal Government which gave them a more despotic control of the organization of their party than had been known before in the history of the country. It was the culminating development of the "spoils system" in American politics. It produced a state of things in which the organization of the party—its elaborated structure of committees and conventions—state, county, city, town and district,—became what was accurately described as a "political machine." The managers and workers of the machine were brought under a discipline which allowed no room for personal opinions of any kind; the passive adherents of the party were expected to accept what was offered to them, whether in the way of candidates or declarations of principle. The faction which controlled and supported this powerful machine in politics acquired the name of Stalwarts and contemptuously gave the name of Half-breeds to their dissatisfied Republican opponents. During the term of President Hayes, who favored Civil Service Reform, the Stalwarts were considerably checked. They had desired to nominate General Grant in 1876 for a third term, but found it unwise to press the proposition. In 1880, however, they rallied all their strength to accomplish the nomination of Grant at Chicago and were bitterly enraged when their opponents in the convention carried the nomination of Garfield. They joined in electing him, but Conkling, the Stalwart leader, speedily quarreled with the new President when denied the control of the Federal "patronage" (that is, official appointments) in New York State, resigned from the Senate, appealed to the New York Legislature for re-election, and was beaten. Then followed the tragedy of the assassination of President Garfield, which had a very sobering effect on the angry politics of the time. Conkling disappeared from public life, and Stalwartism subsided with him.

STAMBOUL.

"It must be remembered that the Constantinople of 1200 was only that portion which is now called Stamboul or Istamboul, a word which is probably the Turkish abbreviation of Constantinople, just as Skenderoun is the abbreviation of Alexandretta, Skender bey for Alexander bey, Isnik for Nicæa, Ismidt for Nicomedia, &c. … The 'Itinerario' of Clavigo states that before the Moslem occupation the inhabitants themselves called the city Escomboli. The Turks allow a few foreigners to have their warehouses in Stamboul, but will not permit them to reside there. All the embassies and legations are in Pera, that is, across the water; … or at Galata, which is a part of what was originally called Pera."

   In the civil war which arose in England, on the death of Henry
   I., over the disputed succession to the throne, Matilda's
   claims, as the daughter of Henry, were supported against
   Stephen of Blois by her mother's brother David, king of
   Scotland. David, as the nephew of Edgar Ætheling, heir of the
   dethroned Saxon royal house, had some claims of his own to the
   English crown; but these he declared that he waived in favor
   of his niece. "Though he himself declared that he had no
   desire for the English throne, there is mentioned by one
   chronicler a general conspiracy of the native English with
   their exiled country-men, of whom the south of Scotland was
   full, for the purpose of taking advantage of the condition of
   the country to put to death the Normans, and to place the
   crown upon David's head. The plot was discovered, … and many
   of the conspirators were hanged, but many others found a
   refuge in Scotland. At length, in 1118, David entered England
   with a large army, and pushed forward as far as Northallerton
   in Yorkshire. He was there met by the forces of the Northern
   bishops and barons. … They gathered round a tall mast borne
   upon a carriage, on which, above the standards of the three
   Northern Saints, St. Peter of York, St. John of Beverley, and
   St. Wilfred of Ripon, was displayed a silver pyx bearing the
   consecrated wafer.
{3025}
   The motley army of the Scots, some armed as the English, some
   in the wild dress of the Picts of Galloway, after a
   well-fought battle [August 22, 1138] broke against the
   full-clad Norman soldiers, and were killed by the arrows,
   which had now become the national weapon of the English;
   11,000 are said to have fallen on the field.' From the great
   standard above described, which probably resembled the
   "Carroccio" of the mediæval Italian cities, the fight at
   Northallerton was called the Battle of the Standard.

The early name of the fort afterwards called Fort Schuyler,
near the head of the Mohawk River, in New York.

"A term which makes a great figure in the commercial regulations of this period [13th and 14th centuries] is that of the Staple. The word, in its primary acceptation, appears to have meant a particular port or other place to which certain commodities were obliged to be brought to be weighed or measured for the payment of the customs, before they could be sold, or in some cases exported or imported. Here the king's staple was said to be established. The articles of English produce upon which customs were anciently paid were wool, sheep-skins (or woolfels), and leather; and these were accordingly denominated the staples or staple goods of the kingdom. The persons who exported these goods were called the Merchants of the Staple: they were incorporated, or at least recognized as forming a society with certain privileges." By a charter granted by Edward II., in 1313, to the merchants of the staple, Antwerp was made the staple for wool and woolfels, and they could be carried for sale to no other port in Brauant, Flanders or Artois. In 1326 the staple was removed altogether from the continent and fixed at certain places within the English kingdom. In 1341 it was established at Bruges; in 1348 at Calais (which the English had captured); in 1353 it was again removed entirely from the continent; —and thus the changes were frequent. During some intervals all staples were abolished and trade was set free from their restriction; but these were of brief duration.

"The staplers were merchants who had the monopoly of exporting the principle raw commodities of the realm, especially wool, woolfels, leather, tin, and lead; wool figuring most prominently among these 'staple' wares. The merchants of the staple used to claim that their privileges dated from the time of Henry III, but existing records do not refer to the staple before the time of Edward I. … The staples were the towns to which the above-mentioned wares had to be brought for sale or exportation. Sometimes there was only one such mart, and this was situated abroad, generally at Bruges or Calais, occasionally at Antwerp, St. Omer, or Middleburg. From the reign of Richard II until 1558 the foreign staple was at Calais. The list of home staples was also frequently changed."

"On the 8th September, 1351, king John [of France] revived the almost obsolete order of the Star, in imitation of the Garter, and the first chapter of it was held at his palace of St. Ouen. At first there were but eighteen knights; the rest were added at different chapters. They wore a bright star on the crest of their helmets, and one pendant at their necks, and the same was embroidered on their mantles."

"In the reign of Edward III, the king's Continual Council was in the habit of sitting in what was called the Starred Chamber (la Chambre des Etoiles). After the establishment of the Court of Chancery as a separate and independent jurisdiction taking cognizance of the greater portion of the civil business of the Council, the latter body appears to have usually sat in the Star Chamber while exercising jurisdiction over such cases as were not sent to the Chancery. … Henry VII. … created, in the 3rd year of his reign, a new court, sometimes inaccurately called the Court of Star Chamber. … It continued to exist as a distinct tribunal from the Privy Council till towards the close of the reign of Henry VIII.; but in the meantime, probably during the chancellorship of Wolsey, the jurisdiction of the ancient Star Chamber (i. e. the Council sitting for judicial business) was revived, and in it the limited court erected by Henry VII. became gradually merged. … Under the Stewart Kings the court was practically identical with the Privy Council, thus combining in the same body of men the administrative and judicial functions. … Under the Stewart Kings the pillory, whipping, and cruel mutilations were inflicted upon political offenders by the sentence of this court; and at length the tyrannical exercise and illegal extension of its powers became so odious to the people that it was abolished by the Long Parliament in 1641."

   "The Star Chamber was no temporary court. During 150 years its
   power penetrated into every branch of English life. No rank
   was exalted enough to defy its attacks, no insignificance
   sufficiently obscure to escape its notice. It terrified the
   men who had worsted the Armada; it overshadowed the dignity of
   the judicial bench; it summoned before its tribunal the
   Prynnes and the Cromwells, who at last proved its destroyers.
{3026}
   It fell at length, but great was the fall thereof, and in its
   ruin was involved the downfall of the monarchy. It is with
   something of astonishment that the inquirer discovers that
   this august tribunal was merely the Council under another
   name; and that the court, whose overgrown power the patriots
   of 1640 cast to the ground, was the same body whose early
   encroachments had alarmed the parliamentary leaders under
   Edward III and Richard II. The process by which the judicial
   authority of the Council passed into the form of the Court of
   Star Chamber admits of some dispute, and is involved in no
   little obscurity. … The Council's manner of proceeding was
   unlike that of other courts. Its punishments were as arbitrary
   as they were severe; it also exercised a power peculiar to
   itself of extorting confession by torture. Some, however, may
   imagine that powers so great were only occasionally exercised,
   that exceptional exertions of authority were employed to meet
   exceptional crimes, and that gigantic force was put forth to
   crush gigantic evils. Some circumstances have given currency
   to such a notion. … Yet no conception of the Star Chamber is
   more false than that which makes it a 'deus ex machina' which
   intervened only when the lower courts of justice stood
   confronted by some criminal attempt with which they were too
   weak to deal. The sphere of the Council's jurisdiction was
   unlimited. It is now no question of what it had a right to do,
   but of what it did. And anyone who examines the most certain
   facts of history will be convinced that from the accession of
   Henry VII till the meeting of the Long Parliament the Council
   interfered in all matters, small as well as great. It is,
   indeed, perhaps not generally known, that crimes of a very
   ordinary nature, such as would now come before a police
   magistrate, occupied the attention of the Star Chamber."

R. Gneist, History of the English Constitution, chapters 35 and 38 (volume 2).

An Order of Knighthood instituted by Queen Victoria, in 1861, to commemorate the assumption of the Government of India by the British Crown.

STAROSTS.

An Austrian order, founded in 1668, for ladies of noble birth, by the dowager Empress Eleanora.

"I lately attempted to explain the manner in which the identity or union of the Royal Council and of the Parliament of Paris was virtually, though not formally dissolved [see PARLIAMENT OF PARIS], so that each of them thenceforward existed as a substantive and distinct body in the state. This tacit revolution had been nearly completed when Philip Ie Bel for the first time convened the States-General of France" (A. D. 1301), The circumstances under which this occurred were as follows: Philip had imposed a tax from which the clergy were not excepted. Pope Boniface issued a bull forbidding them to make the required payment. "Philip retaliated by an order forbidding them to pay the customary papal dues to Boniface himself. The Pope then summoned a synod, to advise him how he might most effectually resist this invasion of his pontifical rights; and Philip, in his turn, summoned the barons, clergy, and commons of his realm to elect deputies who should meet him at Paris, there to deliberate on the methods to be pursued for the successful conduct of his controversy with Rome. To Philip himself, the importance of this great innovation was probably not perceptible. He, as we may well believe, regarded it only as a temporary device to meet a passing exigency." Once more, before the end of his reign, in 1314, Philip assembled the States-General and procured their apparent assent to a tax, which proved to be exceedingly unpopular and which provoked a very turbulent resistance. The next meeting of the States-General,—called by King John—was in 1355, on the outbreak of the war with Edward III. of England. Under the lead of the celebrated Etienne (Stephen) Marcel, the States took matters on that occasion quite into their own hands. They created a commission to superintend the collecting of funds raised for the· war, and they provided for an adjourned session in the following year to receive an accounting of the Expenditure. When the adjourned session took place, in 1356, King John was a prisoner in the hands of the English and his son Charles reigned as regent in his stead. This Charles, who became king in 1364, and who acquired the name of Charles the Wise, contrived to make the meeting of 1356 an abortive one and then endeavored to raise moneys and to rule without the help of the three estates. The result was an insurrection at Paris, led by Marcel, which forced the regent to convene the States-General once more. They met in 1357 under circumstances which gave them full power to check and control the royal authority, even to the extent of instituting a permanent commission, from their own membership, charged with a general superintendence of the administration of the government during the intervals between sessions of the States-General themselves. At that moment there would have seemed to be more promise of free government in France than across the channel. But the advantage which the national representatives acquired was brief. The taxes they imposed produced disappointment and discontent. They lost public favor; they fell into quarrels among themselves; the nobles and the clergy deserted the deputies of the people. The young regent gained influence, as the States-General lost it, and he was strengthened in the end by the violence of Marcel, who caused two offending ministers of the crown to be slain in the presence of the king. Then ensued a short period of civil war; Paris was besieged by the Dauphin-regent; Marcel perished by assassination; royalty recovered its ascendancy in France, with more firmness of footing than before. "It was the commencement of a long series of similar conflicts and of similar successes—conflicts and successes which terminated at length in the transfer of the power of the purse from the representatives of the people to the ministers of the crown."

"The year 1357 was the period when the States-General had greatest power during the Middle Ages; from that time they rapidly declined; they lost, as did also the Third Estate, all political influence, and for some centuries were only empty shadows of national assemblies."

"One single result of importance was won for France by the states-general of the 14th century, namely, the principle of the nation's right to intervene in their own affairs, and to set the government straight when it had gone wrong or was incapable of performing that duty itself. … Starting from King John, the states-general became one of the principles of national right; a principle which did not disappear even when it remained without application, and the prestige of which survived even its reverses."

      ALSO IN:
      A. Thierry,
      Formation and Progress of the Tiers État in France,
      volume 1, chapters 2-3.

STATES-GENERAL, OR ESTATES, OF THE NETHERLANDS.

STATES OF THE CHURCH: A. D. 1275.
The Papal Sovereignty confirmed by Rodolph of Hapsburg.

STATES OF THE CHURCH: A. D. 1352-1378.
Subjugation by Cardinal Albornoz.
Revolt, supported by Florence, and war with the Pope.

STATES OF THE CHURCH: A. D. 1409.
Sale to Ladislas, king of Naples, by Pope Gregory XII.

STATES OF THE CHURCH: A. D. 1503-1513. Conquests and consolidation of Papal Sovereignty under Julius II.

STATES OF THE CHURCH: A. D. 1796-1797.
Territories taken by Bonaparte to add to the
Cispadine and Cisalpine Republics.

STATES OF THE CHURCH: A. D. 1808-1809.
   Seizure by Napoleon.
   Partial annexation to the kingdom of Italy.
   Final incorporation with the French Empire.

STATUTES.

"It is probable that the first contriver of a working steam-engine was Edward, second Marquis of Worcester [A. D. 1601-1667]. … He was born at London in 1601. His early years [when his title was Lord Herbert] were principally spent at Raglan Castle, his father's country seat, where his education was carefully attended to. … From an early period of his life Lord Herbert took especial pleasure in mechanical studies, and in the course of his foreign tours he visited and examined the famous works of construction abroad. On settling down at Raglan he proceeded to set up a laboratory, or workshop, wherein to indulge his mechanical tastes. … Among the works executed by Lord Herbert and his assistant at Raglan, was the hydraulic apparatus by means of which the castle was supplied with water. … It is probable that the planning and construction of these works induced Lord Herbert to prosecute the study of hydraulics, and to enter upon that series of experiments as to the power of steam which eventually led to the contrivance of his 'Water-commanding Engine.'" No description of the Marquis's engine remains which enables modern engineers to understand with certainty its principle and mode of working, and various writers. "have represented it in widely different forms … But though the Marquis did not leave the steam-engine in such a state as to be taken up and adopted as a practicable working power, he at least advanced it several important steps. … Even during the Marquis's lifetime other minds besides his were diligently pursuing the same subject. … One of the most distinguished of these was Sir Samuel Morland, appointed Master of Mechanics to Charles II. immediately after the Restoration. … Morland's inventions proved of no greater advantage to him than those of the Marquis of Worcester had done. … The next prominent experimenter on the powers of steam was Dr. Dionysius Papin." Being a Protestant, he was driven to England in 1681, four years before the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes, and received, through the friendship of Dr. Boyle, the appointment of Curator of the Royal Society. It was during this connection that he constructed his well-known "Digester," which was an apparatus for the cooking of meats under a high pressure and consequent high temperature of steam. For the safe employment of so high a pressure he invented the safety-valve. His success with the Digester led him to experiments with steam as a motive force. Having been invited to Germany, he made the attempt there to pump water by atmospheric pressure, on a large scale, producing the vacuum by a condensation of steam; but his undertakings were not successful. {3028} He next tried steam navigation, converting the alternate motion of a piston in a steam cylinder into rotary motion, turning paddle-wheels on the sides of a boat, by arming the piston-rods with teeth, geared into wheels on the paddle axis. "His first experiments were doubtless failures;" but he finally succeeded to his satisfaction, and was conveying his model to London for exhibition, in 1707, when some barbarous boatmen in Germany destroyed it. Papin could raise no means for the construction of another, and three years later he died. "The attempts hitherto made to invent a working steam-engine, it will be observed, had not been attended with much success." But, "although the progress made seemed but slow, the amount of net result was by no means inconsiderable. Men were becoming better acquainted with the elastic force of steam. … Many separate and minor inventions, which afterwards proved of great value, had been made, such as the four-way cock, the safety-valve, and the piston moving in a cylinder. The principle of a true steam-engine had not only been demonstrated, but most of the separate parts of such an engine had been contrived by various inventors. It seemed as if all that was now wanting was a genius of more than ordinary power to combine them in a complete and effective whole. To Thomas Savery is usually accorded the merit of having constructed the first actual working steam-engine. … Thomas Savery was born at Shilston, … in Devon, about the year 1650. Nothing is known of his early life, beyond that he was educated to the profession of a military engineer. … He occupied much of his spare time in mechanical experiments, and in projecting and executing contrivances of various sorts." One of the earliest of these was a boat propelled by paddle-wheels, worked by man-power, turning a capstan, and this he exhibited on the Thames. "It is curious that it should not have occurred to Savery, who invented both a paddle-wheel boat and a steam-engine, to combine the two in one machine; but he was probably sick of the former invention … and gave it up in disgust, leaving it to Papin, who saw both his inventions at work, to hit upon the grand idea of combining the two in a steam-vessel. … It is probable that Savery was led to enter upon his next and most important invention by the circumstance of his having been brought up in the neighbourhood of the mining districts," and being well aware of the great difficulty experienced by the miners in keeping their pits clear of water." He devised what he called a "Fire Engine" for the raising of water. In this he made a double use of steam, in tight cylinders, first to create a vacuum, by condensing it, and then to force the water, so lifted, to a greater height, by pressure of fresh steam. "The great pressure of steam required to force up a high column of water was such as to strain to the utmost the imperfect boilers and receivers of those early days; and the frequent explosions which attended its use eventually led to its discontinuance in favour of the superior engine of Newcomen, which was shortly after invented. … This engine [of which the first working model was completed in 1705] … worked entirely by the pressure of the atmosphere, steam being only used as the most expeditious method of producing a vacuum," in a steam cylinder, under the piston which worked the rod of a pump. "The engine was, however, found to be very imperfect," until it was improved by a device for throwing a jet of cold water into the cylinder, to produce a more rapid condensation of steam. "Step by step, Newcomen's engine grew in power and efficiency, and became more and more complete as a self-acting machine."

"We have … certain evidence that the Marquis of Worcester's Engine was in full operation for at least seven years, and that one of the conditions of the Act of Parliament obliged him to deposit a model in the Exchequer. His own estimate of its value may be judged by his gladly giving up for the promised tithe of it to the King, his claim on Charles I equal to £40,000, in lieu thereof. His Lordship's invention was never offered by him as a merely amusing trifle."

      H. Dircks,
      Life and Times of the Second Marquis of Worcester,
      page 337.

After Newcomen, "no improvement of essential consequence … was effected in the steam engine until it came into the hands of Watt." James Watt, born at Greenock, Scotland, in 1736, educated to the profession of a mathematical instrument maker, and settled as such at Glasgow in 1757, began a few years later to give his thoughts to this subject. "Directing his attention first, with all his profound physical and mathematical knowledge, to the various theoretical points involved in the working of the machine, 'he determined,' says M. Arago, 'the extent to which the water dilated in passing from its liquid state into that of steam. He calculated the quantity of water which a given weight of coal could vaporise—the quantity of steam, in weight, which each stroke of one of Newcomen's machines of known dimensions expended—the quantity of cold water which required to be injected into the cylinder, to give the descending stroke of the piston a certain force—and finally, the elasticity of steam at different temperatures. All these investigations would have occupied the lifetime of a laborious philosopher; whilst Watt brought all his numerous and difficult researches to a conclusion, with·out allowing them to interfere with the labours of his workshop.' … Newcomen's machine laboured under very great defects. In the first place, the jet of cold water into the cylinder was a very imperfect means of condensing the steam. The cylinder, heated before, not being thoroughly cooled by it, a quantity of steam remained uncondensed, and, by its elasticity, impeded the descent of the piston, lessening the power of the stroke. Again, when the steam rushed into the cylinder from the boiler, it found the cylinder cold, in consequence of the water which had recently been thrown in; and thus a considerable quantity of steam was immediately condensed and wasted while the rest did not attain its full elasticity till the cylinder became again heated up to 212 degrees. These two defects … were sources of great expense. … Watt remedied the evil by a simple but beautiful contrivance—his separate condenser. The whole efficacy of this contrivance consisted in his making the condensation of the steam take place, not in the cylinder, but in a separate vessel communicating with the cylinder by a tube provided with a stop-cock. … So far the invention was all that could be desired; an additional contrivance was necessary, however, to render it complete. {3029} The steam in the act of being condensed in the separate vessel would give out its latent heat; this would raise the temperature of the condensing water, from the heated water vapour would rise; and this vapour, in addition to the atmospheric air which would be disengaged from the injected water by the heat, would accumulate in the condenser, and spoil its efficiency. In order to overcome this defect, Watt attached to the bottom of the condenser a common air-pump, called the condenser pump, worked by a piston attached to the beam, and which, at every stroke of the engine, withdrew the accumulated water, air, and vapour. This was a slight tax upon the power of the machine, but the total gain was enormous—equivalent to making one pound of coal do as much work as had been done by five pounds in Newcomen's engine. This, certainly, was a triumph; but Watt's improvements did not stop here. In the old engine, the cylinder was open at the top, and the descent of the piston was caused solely by the pressure of the atmosphere on its upper surface. Hence the name of Atmospheric Engine, which was always applied to Newcomen's machine." Watt constructed his engine with the cylinder, closed at both ends, sliding the rod of the piston through a tightly packed hole in the metallic cover, introducing steam both above and below the piston,—but still using its expansive power only in the upper chamber, while in the lower it was employed as before to create a vacuum. "The engine with this improvement Watt named the Modified Engine; it was, however, properly, the first real steam engine; for in it, for the first time, steam, besides serving to produce the vacuum, acted as the moving force. … Another improvement less striking in appearance, but of value in economising the consumption of fuel, was the enclosing of the cylinder in a jacket or external drum of wood, leaving a space between which could be filled with steam. By this means the air was prevented from acting on the outside of the cylinder so as to cool it. A slight modification was also necessary in the mode of keeping the piston air-tight. … The purpose was … effected by the use of a preparation of wax, tallow, and oil, smeared on the piston-rod and round the piston-rim. The improvements which we have described had all been thoroughly matured by Mr. Watt before the end of 1765, two years after his attention had been called to the subject." Another two years had passed before he found the means to introduce his invention into practice. He formed a partnership at length with Dr. Roebuck, who had lately founded the Carron iron-works, near Glasgow. "A patent was taken out by the partners in 1769, and an engine of the new construction, with an eighteen-inch cylinder, was erected at the Kinneil coal-works [leased by Dr. Roebuck], with every prospect of complete success; when, unfortunately, Dr. Roebuck was obliged by pecuniary embarrassments to dissolve the partnership, leaving Watt with the whole patent, but without the means of rendering it available." For five years after this failure the steam-engine was practically put aside, while Watt devoted himself to civil engineering, which he had worked into as a profession. "At length, in 1774, Mr. Watt entered into a partnership most fortunate for himself and for the world. This was with Mr. Matthew Boulton, of the Soho Foundry, near Birmingham—a gentleman of remarkable scientific abilities, of liberal disposition and of unbounded enterprise." A prolongation of Watt's patent, which had nearly expired, was procured with great difficulty from Parliament, where a powerful opposition to the extension was led by Edmund Burke. The new engine, now fairly introduced, speedily supplanted Newcomen's, and Watt and his partner were made wealthy by stipulating with mine owners for one third part of the value of the coal which each engine saved. "The first consequence of the introduction of Watt's improved steam-engine into practice was to give an impulse to mining speculations. New mines were opened; and old mines … now yielded a return. This was the only obvious consequence at first. Only in mines, and generally for the purpose of pumping water was the steam-engine yet used; and before it could be rendered applicable to other purposes in the arts … the genius of Watt required once again to stoop over it, and bestow on it new creative touches." He produced the beautiful device known as the "parallel motion," for connecting the piston-rod of the engine with the beam through which its motion is transmitted to other pieces of machinery. "Another improvement, which, in point of the additional power gained, was more important than the parallel motion, and which indeed preceded it in point of time, was the 'Double-acting Engine,'" in which steam was introduced to act expansively on each side of the piston in the engine. He also invented the governor, to regulate the quantity of steam admitted from the boiler into the cylinder, and thus regulate the motion of the engine. "To describe all the other inventions of a minor kind connected with the steam-engine which came from the prolific genius of Watt, would occupy too much space."

"The Watt engine had, by the construction of the improvements described in the patents of 1782-'85, been given its distinctive form, and the great inventor subsequently did little more than improve it by altering the forms and proportions of its details. As thus practically completed, it embodied nearly all the essential features of the modern engine. … The growth of the steam-engine has here ceased to be rapid, and the changes which followed the completion of the work of James Watt have been minor improvements, and rarely, if ever, real developments."

J. P. Muirhead, Origin and Progress of the Mechanical Inventions of James Watt.

   "The application of the steam engine to locomotion on land
   was, according to Watt, suggested by Robison, in 1759. In
   1784, Watt patented a locomotive engine, which, however, he
   never executed. About the same time Murdoch, assistant to
   Watt, made a very efficient working model of a locomotive
   engine. In 1802, Trevithick and Vivian patented a locomotive
   engine, which was constructed and set to work in 1804 or 1805.
   It travelled at about five miles an hour, with a net load of
   ten tons. The use of fixed steam engines to drag trains on
   railways by ropes, was introduced by Cook in 1808.
{3030}
   After various inventors had long exerted their ingenuity in
   vain to give the locomotive engine a firm hold of the track by
   means of rackwork-rails and toothed driving wheels, legs, and
   feet, and other contrivances. Blackett and Hedley, in 1813,
   made the important discovery that no such aids are required,
   the adhesion between smooth wheels and smooth rails being
   sufficient. To adapt the locomotive engine to the great and
   widely varied speeds at which it now has to travel, and the
   varied loads which it now has to draw, two things are
   essential—that the rate of combustion of the fuel, the
   original source of the power of the engine, shall adjust
   itself to the work which the engine has to perform, and shall,
   when required, be capable of being increased to many times the
   rate at which fuel is burned in the furnace of a stationary
   engine of the same size; and that the surface through which
   heat is communicated from the burning fuel to the water shall
   be very large compared with the bulk of the boiler. The first
   of these objects is attained by the 'blast-pipe,' invented and
   used by George Stephenson before 1825; the second, by the
   tubular boiler, invented about 1829, simultaneously by Seguin
   in France and Booth in England, and by the latter suggested to
   Stephenson. On the 6th October, 1829, occurred that famous
   trial of locomotive engines, when the prize offered by the
   directors of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway was gained
   by Stephenson's engine, the 'Rocket,' the parent of the swift
   and powerful locomotives of the present day, in which the
   blast-pipe and tubular boiler are combined."

George Stephenson, the son of a common workingman, and self-educated as a mechanic and engineer, was appointed engine-wright of Killingworth Colliery in 1812. In the following year he urged the lessees of the colliery to undertake the construction of a "travelling engine," as he called it. "Lord Ravensworth, the principal partner, had already formed a very favourable opinion of Stephenson, from the important improvements which he had effected in the colliery engines, both above and below ground; and, after considering the matter, and hearing Stephenson's statements, he authorized him to proceed with the construction of a locomotive. … The engine was built in the workshops at the West Moor, the leading mechanic being John Thirlwall, the colliery blacksmith, an excellent workman in his way, though quite new to the work now entrusted to him. … The wheels of the new locomotive were all smooth,—and it was the first engine that had been so constructed. From the first, Mr. Stephenson was convinced that the adhesion between a smooth wheel and an edgerail would be as efficient as Mr. Blackett had proved it to be between the wheel and the tramroad. … The engine was, after much labour and anxiety, and frequent alterations of parts, at length brought to completion, having been about ten months in hand. It was first placed upon the Killingworth Railway on the 25th of July, 1814; and its powers were tried on the same day. On an ascending gradient of 1 in 450, the engine succeeded in drawing after it eight loaded carriages of 30 tons' weight at about four miles an hour; and for some time after, it continued regularly at work. It was indeed the most successful working engine that had yet been constructed. … The working of the engine was at first barely economical; and at the end of the year the steam power and the horse power were ascertained to be as nearly as possible upon a par in point of cost. The fate of the locomotive in a great measure depended on this very engine. Its speed was not beyond that of a horse's walk, and the heating surface presented to the fire being comparatively small, sufficient steam could not be raised to enable it to accomplish more on an average than about three miles an hour. The result was anything but decisive; and the locomotive might have been condemned as useless had not Mr. Stephenson at this juncture applied the steam blast [carrying the escape of steam from the cylinders of the engine into the chimney or smoke-stack of the furnace], and at once more than doubled the power of the engine." A second engine, embodying this and other improvements, was constructed in 1815, with funds provided by Mr. Ralph Dodds. "It is perhaps not too much to say that this engine, as a mechanical contrivance, contained the germ of all that has since been effected. … It is somewhat remarkable that, although George Stephenson's locomotive engines were in daily use for many years on the Killingworth railway, they excited comparatively little interest." But in 1821, Mr. Stephenson was employed to construct a line of railway from Witton Colliery, near Darlington, to Stockton, and to build three locomotives for use upon it. The Stockton and Darlington line was opened for traffic on the 27th of September, 1825, with great success. In 1826 the building of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway was begun, with George Stephenson as the chief engineer of the work, and the public opening of the line took place on the 15th of September, 1830. The directors had offered, in the previous year, a prize of £500 for the best locomotive engine to be designed for use on their road, and the prize was won by Stephenson's famous "Rocket," which attained a speed of 35 miles an hour. It was at the ceremonial of the opening of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway that Mr. Huskisson, then Prime Minister of England, was struck down by the "Rocket" and fatally injured, expiring the same night.

   "Whatever credit is due to the construction of the first
   railroad ever built in America is usually claimed for the
   State of Massachusetts. Every one who has ever looked into a
   school history of the United States knows something of the
   Quincy railway of 1826. Properly speaking, however, this was
   never—or at least, never until the year 1871,—a railroad at
   all. It was nothing but a specimen of what had been almost
   from time immemorial in common use in England, under the name
   of 'tram-ways.' … This road, known as the Granite railway,
   built by those interested in erecting the Bunker Hill
   Monument, for the purpose of getting the stone down from the
   Quincy quarries to a wharf on Neponset River, from which it
   was shipped to its destination. The whole distance was three
   miles, and the cost of the road was about $34,000. … Apart,
   however, from the construction of the Granite railway,
   Massachusetts was neither particularly early nor particularly
   energetic in its railroad development. At a later day many of
   her sister States were in advance of her, and especially was
   this true of South Carolina.
{3031}
   There is, indeed, some reason for believing that the South
   Carolina Railroad was the first ever constructed in any
   country with a definite plan of operating it exclusively by
   locomotive steam power. … On the 15th of January 1831,—exactly
   four months after the formal opening of the Manchester &
   Liverpool road,—the first anniversary of the South Carolina
   Railroad was celebrated with due honor. A queer looking
   machine, the outline of which was sufficient in itself to
   prove that the inventor owed nothing to Stephenson, had been
   constructed at the West Point Foundry Works in New York during
   the summer of 1830—a first attempt to supply that locomotive
   which the Board had, with a sublime confidence in
   possibilities, unanimously voted on the 14th of the preceding
   January should alone be used on the road. The name of Best
   Friend was given to this very simple product of native genius.
   … In June, 1831, a second locomotive, called the West Point,
   had arrived in Charleston; and this at last was constructed on
   the principle of Stephenson's Rocket. In its general aspect,
   indeed, it greatly resembled that already famous prototype.
   There is a very characteristic and suggestive cut representing
   a trial trip made with this locomotive on March 5th, 1831. …
   About six months before …there had actually been a trial of
   speed between a horse and one of the pioneer locomotives,
   which had not resulted in favor of the locomotive. It took
   place on the present Baltimore & Ohio road upon the 28th of
   August, 1830. The engine in this case was contrived by no
   other than Mr. Peter Cooper. … The Cooper engine, however, was
   scarcely more than a working model. Its active-minded inventor
   hardly seems to have aimed at anything more than a
   demonstration of possibilities. The whole thing weighed only a
   ton, and was of one horse power. … Poor and crude as the
   country was, however, America showed itself far more ready to
   take in the far reaching consequences of the initiative which
   Great Britain gave in 1830 than any other country in the
   world. … It might almost be said that there was a railroad
   mania. Massachusetts led off in 1826; Pennsylvania followed in
   1827, and in 1828 Maryland and South Carolina. Of the great
   trunk lines of the country, a portion of the New York Central
   was chartered in 1825; the construction of the Baltimore &
   Ohio was begun on July 4th, 1828. The country, therefore, was
   not only ripe to accept the results of the Rainhill contest,
   but it was anticipating them with eager hope. … Accordingly,
   after 1830 trial trips with new locomotives followed hard upon
   each other. To-day it was the sensation in Charleston;
   to-morrow in Baltimore; the next day at Albany. Reference has
   already been made to a cut representing the excursion train of
   March 5th, 1831, on the South Carolina Railroad. There is,
   however, a much more familiar picture of a similar trip made
   on the 9th of August of the same year from Albany to
   Schenectady, over the Mohawk Valley road. This sketch,
   moreover, was made at the time and on the spot by Mr. W. H.
   Brown."

"The earliest attempt to propel a vessel by steam is claimed by Spanish authorities … to have been made by Blasco de Garay, in the harbor of Barcelona, Spain, in 1543. … The account seems somewhat apochryphal, and it certainly led to no useful results. … In 1690, Papin proposed to use his piston-engine to drive paddle-wheels to propel vessels; and in 1707 he applied the steam-engine, which he had proposed as a pumping-engine, to driving a model boat on the Fulda at Cassel. …

In the year 1736, Jonathan Hulls took out an English patent for, the use of a steam-engine for ship-propulsion, proposing to employ his steamboat in towing. … There is no positive evidence that Hull! ever put his scheme to the test of experiment, although tradition does say that he made a model, which he tried with such ill-success as to prevent his prosecution of the experiment further. … A prize was awarded by the French Academy of Science, in 1752, for the best essay on the manner of impelling vessels without wind. It was given to Bernouilli, who, in his paper, proposed a set of vanes like those of a windmill —a screw in fact—one to be placed on each side the vessel and two more behind. … But a more remarkable essay is quoted by Figuier—the paper of l' Abbé Gauthier, published in the 'Memoires de la Société Royale des Sciences et Lettres de Nancy.' … A little later (1760), a Swiss clergyman, J. A. Genevois, published in London a paper relating to the improvement of navigation, in which his plan was proposed of compressing springs by steam or other power, and applying their effort while recovering their form to ship propulsion. It was at this time that the first attempts were made in the United States to solve this problem. … William Henry was a prominent citizen of the then little village of Lancaster, Pa., and was noted as an ingenious and successful mechanic. … In the year 1760 he went to England on business, where his attention was attracted to the invention—then new, and the subject of discussion in every circle—of James Watt. He saw the possibility of its application to navigation and to driving carriages, and, on his return home, commenced the construction of a steam-engine, and finished it in 1763. Placing it in a boat fitted with paddle-wheels, he made a trial of the new machine on the Conestoga River, near Lancaster, where the craft, by some accident, sank, and was lost. He was not discouraged by this failure, but made a second model, adding some improvements. Among the records of the Pennsylvania Philosophical Society is, or was, a design, presented by Henry in 1782, of one of his steamboats. … John Fitch, whose experiments will presently be referred to, was an acquaintance and frequent visitor to the house of Mr. Henry, and may probably have there received the earliest suggestions of the importance of this application of steam. About 1777 … Robert Fulton, then twelve years old, visited him, to study the paintings of Benjamin West, who had long been a friend and protege of Henry. He, too, not improbably, received there the first suggestion which afterward … made the young portrait-painter a successful inventor and engineer. … In France, the Marquis de Jouffroy was one of the earliest to perceive that the improvements of Watt, rendering the engine more compact, more powerful, and, at the same time, more regular and positive in its action, had made it, at last, readily applicable to the propulsion of vessels. … {3032} Comte d' Auxiron and Chevalier Charles Mounin, of Follenai, friends and companions of Jouffroy, were similarly interested, and the three are said to have … united in devising methods of applying the new motor. In the year 1770, D'Auxiron determined to attempt the realization of the plans which he had conceived. He resigned his position in the army," obtained from the King a patent of monopoly for fifteen years, and formed a company for the undertaking. "The first vessel was commenced in December, 1772. When nearly completed, in September, 1774, the boat sprung a leak, and, one night, foundered at the wharf." Quarrels and litigation ensued, D'Auxiron died, and the company dissolved. "The heirs of D'Auxiron turned the papers of the deceased inventor over to Jouffroy, and the King transferred to him the monopoly held by the former. … M. Jacques Périer, the then distinguished mechanic, was consulted, and prepared plans, which were adopted in place of those of Jouffroy. The boat was built by Périer, and a trial took place in 1774 [1775] on the Seine. The result was unsatisfactory." Jouffroy was still undiscouraged, and pursued experiments for several years, at his country home and at Lyons, until he had impoverished himself and was forced to abandon the field. "About 1785, John Fitch and James Rumsey were engaged in experiments having in view the application of steam to navigation. Rumsey's experiments began in 1774, and in 1786 he succeeded in driving a boat at the rate of four miles an hour against the current of the Potomac at Shepherdstown, West Virginia, in presence of General Washington. His method of propulsion has often been reinvented since. … Rumsey employed his engine to drive a great pump which forced a stream of water aft, thus propelling the boat forward, as proposed earlier by Bernouilli. … Rumsey died of apoplexy, while explaining some of his schemes before a London society a short time later, December 23, 1793, at the age of 50 years. A boat, then in process of construction from his plans, was afterward tried on the Thames, in 1793, and steamed at the rate of four miles an hour. … John Fitch was an unfortunate and eccentric, but very ingenious, Connecticut mechanic. After roaming about until 40 years of age, he finally settled on the banks of the Delaware, where he built his first steamboat. … The machinery [of Fitch's first model] was made of brass, and the boat was impelled by paddle-wheels. … In September, 1785, Fitch presented to the American Philosophical Society, at Philadelphia, a model in which he had substituted an endless chain and floats for the paddle-wheels." His first actual steamboat, however, which he tried at Philadelphia in August, 1787, before the members of the Federal Constitutional Convention, was fitted with neither paddle-wheels nor floats, but with a set of oars or paddles on each side, worked by the engine. His second boat, finished in 1788, was similarly worked, but the oars were placed at the stern. This boat made a trip to Burlington, 20 miles from Philadelphia. "Subsequently the boat made a number of excursions on the Delaware River, making three or four miles an hour. Another of Fitch's boats, in April, 1790, made seven miles an hour. … In June of that year it was placed as a passenger-boat on a line from Philadelphia to Burlington, Bristol, Bordentown, and Trenton. … During this period, the boat probably ran between 2,000 and 3,000 miles, and with no serious accident. During the winter of 1790-'91, Fitch commenced another steamboat, the 'Perseverance,'" which was never finished. Although he obtained a patent from the United States, he despaired of success in this country, and went, in 1793, to France, where he fared no better. "In the year 1796, Fitch was again in New York City, experimenting with a little screw steamboat on the 'Collect' Pond, which then covered that part of the city now occupied by the 'Tombs,' the city prison. This little boat was a ship's yawl fitted with a screw, like that adopted later by Woodcroft, and driven by a rudely made engine. Fitch, while in the city of Philadelphia at about this time, met Oliver Evans, and discussed with him the probable future of steam-navigation, and proposed to form a company in the West." Soon afterwards, he settled on a land-grant in Kentucky, where he died in 1798: "During this period, an interest which had never diminished in Great Britain had led to the introduction of experimental steamboats in that country. Patrick Miller, of Dalswinton, had commenced experimenting, in 1786-'87, with boats having double or triple hulls, and propelled by paddle-wheels placed between the parts of the compound vessel." On the suggestion of James Taylor, he placed a steam-engine in a boat constructed upon this plan, in 1788, and attained a speed of five miles an hour. The next year, with a larger vessel, he made seven miles an hour. But for some reason, he pursued his undertaking no further. "In the United States, several mechanics were now at work besides Fitch. Samuel Morey and Nathan Read were among these. Nicholas Roosevelt was another. … In Great Britain, Lord Dundas and William Symington, the former as the purveyor of funds and the latter as engineer, followed by Henry Bell, were the first to make the introduction of the steam-engine for the propulsion of ships so completely successful that no interruption subsequently took place in the growth of the new system of water-transportation. … Symington commenced work in 1801. The first boat built for Lord Dundas, which has been claimed to have been the 'first practical steamboat,' was finished ready for trial early in 1802. The vessel was called the 'Charlotte Dundas,' in honor of a daughter of Lord Dundas. … Among those who saw the Charlotte Dundas, and who appreciated the importance of the success achieved by Symington, was Henry Bell, who, 10 years afterward, constructed the Comet, the first passenger-vessel built in Europe. This vessel was built in 1811, and completed January 18, 1812. … Bell constructed several other boats in 1815, and with his success steam-navigation in Great Britain was fairly inaugurated." Meantime this practical success had been anticipated by a few years in the United States, through the labors and exertions of Stevens, Livingston, Fulton, and Roosevelt. Fulton's and Livingston's first experiments were made in France (1803), where the latter was Ambassador from the United States. Three years later they renewed them in America, using an engine ordered for the purpose from Boulton & Watt. "In the spring of 1807 the 'Clermont,' as the new boat was christened, was launched from the ship-yard of Charles Brown, on the East River, New York. In August the machinery was on board and in successful operation. {3033} The hull of this boat was 133 feet long, 18 feet wide, and 9 deep. The boat soon made a trip to Albany, running the distance of 150 miles in 32 hours running time, and returning in 30 hours. … This was the first voyage of considerable length ever made by a steam vessel; and Fulton, though not to be classed with James Watt as an inventor, is entitled to the great honor of having been the first to make steam-navigation an everyday commercial success. … The success of the Clermont on the trial-trip was such that Fulton soon after advertised the vessel as a regular passenger-boat between New York and Albany. During the next winter the Clermont was repaired and enlarged, and in the summer of 1808 was again on the route to Albany; and, meantime, two new steamboats—the Raritan and the Car of Neptune—had been built by Fulton. In the year 1811 he built the Paragon. … A steam ferry-boat was built to ply between New York and Jersey City in 1812, and the next year two others, to connect the metropolis with Brooklyn. … Fulton had some active and enterprising rivals." The prize gained by him "was most closely contested by Colonel John Stevens, of Hoboken," who built his first steamboat in 1804, propelling it by a screw with four blades, and his second in 1807, with two screws. He was shut out from New York waters by a monopoly which Fulton and Livingston had procured, and sent his little ship by sea to Philadelphia. "After Fulton and Stevens had thus led the way, steam-navigation was introduced very rapidly on both sides of the ocean." Nicholas J. Roosevelt, at Pittsburgh, in 1811, built, from Fulton's plans, the first steamer on the western rivers, and took her to New Orleans. "The first steamer on the Great Lakes was the Ontario, built in 1816, at Sackett's Harbor."

"In 1819 the Atlantic was first crossed by a ship using steam. This was the Savannah, of 380 tons, launched at Corlear's Hook, New York, August 22, 1818. She was built to ply between New York and Savannah as a sailing packet. She was however, purchased by Savannah merchants [by a Mr. Scarborough] and fitted with steam machinery, the paddle-wheels being constructed to fold up and be laid upon the deck when not in use, her shaft also having a joint for that purpose. She left Savannah on the 26th of May, and reached Liverpool in 25 days, using steam 18 days. The log book, still preserved, notes several times taking the wheels in on deck in thirty minutes. In August she left Liverpool for Cronstadt. An effort was made to sell her to Russia, which failed. She sailed for Savannah, touching at Copenhagen and Arendal, and arrived in 53 days. Her machinery later was taken out, and she resumed her original character as a sailing packet, and ended her days by being wrecked on the south coast of Long Island. But steam-power had by 1830 grown large enough to strike out more boldly. The Savannah's effort was an attempt in which steam was only an auxiliary, and one, too, of a not very powerful kind. Our coastwise steamers, as well as those employed in Great Britain, as also the voyage of the Enterprise to Calcutta in 1825 (though she took 113 days in doing it), had settled the possibility of the use of steam at sea, and the question had now become whether a ship could be built to cross the Atlantic depending entirely on her steam power. It had become wholly a question of fuel consumption. The Savannah, it may be said, used pitch-pine on her outward voyage, and wood was for a very long time the chief fuel for steaming purposes in America. … In 1836, under the influence of Brunel's bold genius, the Great Western Steamship Company was founded as an off-shoot of the Great Western Railway, whose terminus was then Bristol." The Company's first ship was the Great Western. She was of unprecedented size—236 feet length and 35 feet 4 inches breadth—"determined on by Brunei as being necessary for the requisite power and coal carrying capacity. … The Great Western was launched on July 19, 1837, and was towed from Bristol to the Thames to receive her machinery, where she was the wonder of London. She left for Bristol on March 31, 1838; and arrived, after having had a serious fire on board, on April 2d. In the meantime others had been struck with the possibility of steaming to New York; and a company, of which the moving spirit was Mr. J. Laird, of Birkenhead, purchased the Sirius, of 700 tons, employed between London and Cork, and prepared her for a voyage to New York. The completion of the Great Western was consequently hastened; and she left Bristol on Sunday, April 8, 1838, at 10 A. M. with 7 passengers on board, and reached New York on Monday, the 23d, the afternoon of the same day with the Sirius, which had left Cork Harbor (where she had touched en route from London) four days before the Great Western had left Bristol. The latter still had nearly 200 tons of coal, of the total of 800, on board on arrival; the Sirius had consumed her whole supply, and was barely able to make harbor. It is needless to speak of the reception of these two ships at New York. It was an event which stirred the whole country, and with reason; it had practically, at one stroke, reduced the breadth of the Atlantic by half. … The Great Western started on her return voyage, May 7th, with 66 passengers. This was made in 14 days, though one was lost by a stoppage at sea." Within a few years following several steamers were placed in the transatlantic trade, among them the Royal William, the British Queen, the President, the Liverpool, and the Great Britain, the latter a screw steamer, built of iron and put afloat by the Great Western Company. In 1840 the long famous Cunard line was founded by Mr. Samuel Cunard, of Halifax, Nova Scotia, in company with Mr. George Burns of Glasgow and Mr. David McIver of Liverpool. The screw propeller (taking the place of the paddle-wheel), which made its first appearance in ocean navigation with the Great Britain, obtained its practical introduction through the labors of the great Swedish engineer, John Ericsson, though an idea of it had been in the minds of many inventors for a century and a half. Ericsson, induced by Francis B. Ogden and Captain Robert F. Stockton, United States Navy, came to the United States in 1839, and the introduction of the screw-propeller occurred rapidly after that date, the paddle-wheel disappearing from ocean steamships first, and more slowly from the steamers engaged in lake and river navigation.

F. E. Chadwick, The Development of the Steamship ("Ocean Steamships," chapter 1).

STEEL BOYS.

STELA, OR STELE.

"This is one of the words most frequently used in Egyptian archæology, because it designates a monument which is found in hundreds. The stela is a rectangular fiat stone generally rounded at the summit, and it was made use of by the Egyptians for all sorts of inscriptions. These stelæ were, generally speaking, used for epitaphs; they also served, however, to transcribe texts which were to be preserved or exhibited to the public, and in this latter case the stela became a sort of monumental placard."

Stirling Castle was taken in 1303 by Edward I. of England, after a three months' siege, which he conducted in person and which he looked upon as his proudest military achievement. Eleven years later, in 1314, it was besieged and recaptured by the Scots, under Edward Bruce, and it was in a desperate attempt of the English to relieve the castle at that time that the battle of Bannockburn was fought.

"We have repeatedly mentioned the stoa or colonnade in connection with other buildings; we now have to consider it as a separate artistic erection [in ancient Greek cities]. … The stoa, as an independent building, occurs both as an ornament of streets and squares, and as a convenient locality for walks and public meetings. Its simplest form is that of a colonnade bounded by a wall. This back wall offers a splendid surface for decorations, and is frequently adorned with pictures. A stoa in the market-place of Athens contained illustrations of the battle of Œnoë, of the fight of the Athenians against the Amazons, of the destruction of Troy and of the battle of Marathon. … The progress from this simple form to a further extension is on a principle somewhat analogous to what we have observed in the temple; that is, a row of columns was added on the other side of the wall. The result was a double colonnade, … as a specimen of which, Pausanias mentions the Korkyraic stoa near the market place of Elis. As important we notice Pausanias's remark that this stoa 'contained in the middle, not columns, but a wall'; which shows that most of the double colonnades contained columns in the centre as props of the roof."

STOCKBRIDGE INDIANS.

STOCKTON AND DARLINGTON RAIL WAY.

"The Roman ladies wore, by way of under garment, a long tunic descending to the feet, and more particularly denominated 'stola.' This vestment assumed all the variety of modification displayed in the corresponding attire of the Grecian females. Over the stola, they also adopted the Grecian peplum, under the name of palla."

STONE AGE. BRONZE AGE. IRON AGE.

"Human relics of great antiquity occur, more or less abundantly, in many parts of Europe. … The antiquities referred to are of many kinds—dwelling-places, sepulchral and other monuments, forts and camps, and a great harvest of implements and ornaments of stone and metal. In seeking to classify these relics and remains according to their relative antiquity, archæologists have selected the implements and ornaments as affording the most satisfactory basis for such an arrangement, and they divide prehistoric time into three periods, which are termed respectively the Stone Age, the Bronze Age, and the Iron Age. Of these periods the earliest was the Stone Age, when implements and ornaments were formed exclusively of stone, wood, horn, and bone. The use of metal for such purposes was then quite unknown. To the Stone Age succeeded the Age of Bronze, at which time cutting instruments, such as swords and knives and axes, began to be made of copper, and an alloy of that metal and tin. When in the course of time iron replaced bronze for cutting-instruments, the Bronze Age came to an end and the Iron Age supervened. … The archæological periods are simply so many phases of civilisation, and it is conceivable that Stone, Bronze, and Iron Ages might have been contemporaneous in different parts of one and the same continent. … It has been found necessary within recent years to subdivide the Stone Age into two periods, called respectively the Old Stone and New Stone Ages; or, to employ the terms suggested by Sir John Lubbock, and now generally adopted, the Palæolithic and Neolithic Periods. The stone implements belonging to the older of these periods show but little variety of form, and are very rudely fashioned, being merely roughly chipped into shape, and never ground or polished."

STONE STREET.

STONEHENGE.

STONEMAN'S RAID.

      See THING;
      also SCANDINAVIAN STATES (NORWAY): A. D. 1814-1815;
      and CONSTITUTION OF NORWAY.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1634-1637, 1640, and 1640-1641; also, IRELAND: A. D. 1633-1639.

STRALSUND: A. D. 1809.
Occupied by the Patriot Schill.
Stormed and captured by the French.

The most serious battle in Julian's campaigns against the Alemanni was fought in August, A. D. 357, at Strasburg (then a Roman post called Argentoratum) where Chnodomar had crossed the Rhine with 35,000 warriors. The result was a great victory for the Romans.

During the civil wars which occurred between the grandsons of Charlemagne, in 842, the year following the great battle at Fontainelles, the two younger of the rivals, Karl and Ludwig, formed an alliance against Lothaire. Karl found his support in Aquitaine and Neustria; Ludwig depended on the East Franks and their German kindred. The armies of the two were assembled in February at Strasburg (Argentaria) and a solemn oath of friendship and fidelity was taken by the kings in the presence of their people and repeated by the latter. The oath was repeated in the German language, and in the Romance language—then just acquiring form in southern Gaul,—and it has been preserved in both. "In the Romance form of this oath, we have the earliest monument of the tongue out of which the modern French was formed."

      ALSO IN:
      J. C. L. de Sismondi,
      The French Under the Carlovingians,
      translated by Bellingham,
      chapter 8.

STRASBURG: A. D. 1529.
Joined in the Protest which gave rise to the name Protestants.

STRATEGI.

In ancient Sparta, the Strategi were military commanders appointed for those armies which were not led by one of the kings. At Athens, the whole direction of the military system belonged to a board of ten Strategi.

STRATHCLYDE.

STRELITZ, STRELTZE.

STRONGBOW'S CONQUEST OF IRELAND.

In the neighborhood of Kherson, in southern Russia, the Stundist religious movement arose, about 1858. As its name implies, it "had a German origin. As far back as 1778 the great Empress Catherine had colonized Kherson with peasants from the Suabian land, who brought with them their religion, their pastors, and their industrious, sober ways. For many years national prejudices and the barriers of language kept Russians and Germans apart from each other. But sooner or later true life begins to tell. … Some of the Russian peasants who had been helped in their poverty or ministered to in their sickness by their German neighbours began to attend their services —to keep the 'stunden,' or 'hours,' of praise and prayer; they learned to read, were furnished with the New Testament in their own language, and eventually some of them found the deeper blessing of eternal life. In this simple scriptural fashion this memorable movement began. Men told their neighbours what God had done for their souls, and so the heavenly contagion spread from cottage to cottage, from village to village, and from province to province, till at length the Russian Stundists were found in all the provinces from the boundaries of the Austrian Empire in the West to the land of the Don Cossack in the East, and were supposed to number something like a quarter of a million souls. … M. Dalton, a Lutheran clergyman, long resident in St. Petersburg, and whose knowledge of religious movements in Russia is very considerable, goes so far as to say that they are two millions strong. But it is not alone to the actual number of professing Stundists that we are to look in estimating the force and extent of the movement which they have inaugurated in Russia. … Compared with the enormous population of the Russian Empire, the number of Stundists, whether two millions or only a quarter of a million, is insignificant; but the spirit of Stundism has spread, and is still spreading into regions as ultra-Orthodox as the heart of the most bigoted Greek Churchman could desire, and is slowly but surely leavening the whole mass."

See LANDFRIEDE, &c.; also CITIES, IMPERIAL AND FREE, OF GERMANY; and FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

SUABIAN WAR (1496-1499).

SUBLICIAN BRIDGE.

The Pons Sublicius was the single bridge in ancient Rome with which the Tiber was originally spanned. It was built of wood, and constructed for easy removal when an enemy threatened. No trace of it exists.

B. G. Niebuhr, Lectures on Ancient Ethnography and Geography, volume 2. page 103.

   "The figurative language of the institutes of Mahomet II.
   [Sultan, A. D. 1451-1481], still employed by his Successors,
   describes the state under the martial metaphor of a tent. The
   Lofty Gate of the Royal Tent (where Oriental rulers of old
   sate to administer justice) denotes the chief seat of
   government. The Italian translation of the phrase, 'La Porta
   Sublima,' has been adopted by Western nations, with slight
   modifications to suit their respective languages; and by 'The
   Sublime Porte' we commonly mean the Imperial Otto·man
   Government. The Turkish legists and historians depict the
   details of their government by imagery drawn from the same
   metaphor of a royal tent. The dome of the state is supported
   by four pillars. These are formed by, 1st, the Viziers; 2nd,
   the Kudiaskers (judges); 3rd, the Defterdars (treasurers); and
   4th, the Nischandyis (the secretaries of state). Besides
   these, there are the Outer Agas, that is to say, the military
   rulers; and the Inner Agas, that is to say, the rulers
   employed in the court.
{3037}
   There is also the order of the Ulema, or men learned in the
   law. The Viziers were regarded as constituting the most
   important pillar that upheld the fabric of the state. In
   Mahomet II.'s time the Viziers were four in number. Their
   chief, the Grand Vizier, is the highest of all officers. … The
   … high legal dignitaries (who were at that time next in rank
   to the Kadiaskers) were, 1st, the Kho-dya, who was the tutor
   of the Sultan and the Princes Royal; 2nd, the Mufti, the
   authoritative expounder of the law; and, 3rdly, the Judge of
   Constantinople. … The great council of state was named the
   Divan; and, in the absence of the Sultan, the Grand Vizier was
   its president. … The Divan was also attended by the
   Reis-Effendi, a general secretary, whose power afterwards
   became more important than that of the Nis-chandyis; by the
   Grand Chamberlain, and the Grand Marshal, and a train of other
   officers of the court."

"Between the converging points of the Quirinal and Esquiline hills lay the Subura, a district of ill-fame, much abused by the poets and historians of imperial times. It was one of the most ancient district communities ('pagi') of Rome, and gave name to one of the four most ancient regions. Nor was it entirely occupied by the lowest class of people, as might be inferred from the notices of it in Martial and Horace. Julius Cæsar is said to have lived in a small house here. … The Subura was a noisy, bustling part of Rome, full of small shops, and disreputable places of various kinds."

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1718-1738, 1740, and to 1744-1745;
      NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1745, and 1746-1747;
      ITALY: A. D. 1741-1743, to 1746-1747;
      AIX-LA-CHAPELLE: THE CONGRESS.

SUCCOTH.

"Forming a natural frontier to the Great Desert is that section of Africa known by the somewhat vague name of Sudan. By this term is understood the region south of the Sahara, limited on the west and south by the Atlantic Ocean as far as it reaches. From the Gulf of Guinea inland, there is no definite southern border line. It may, however, be assumed at the fifth degree of north latitude. … [The] Nile region is generally taken as the eastern frontier of Sudan, although it properly reaches to the foot of the Abyssinian highlands. Hence modern maps have introduced the appropriate expression 'Egyptian Sudan' for those eastern districts comprising Senaar, Kordofan, Darfur, and some others. Sudan is therefore, strictly speaking, a broad tract of country reaching right across the whole continent from the Atlantic seaboard almost to the shores of the Red Sea, and is the true home of the Negro races. When our knowledge of the interior has become sufficiently extended to enable us accurately to fix the geographical limits of the Negroes, it may become desirable to make the term Sudan convertible with the whole region inhabited by them."

SUDAN: A. D. 1870-1885.
   Egyptian conquest.
   General Gordon's government.
   The Mahdi's rebellion.
   The British campaign.
   Death of Gordon.

SUDOR ANGLICUS.

SUDRAS.

"I must now speak of the Suevi, who are not one nation as are the Chatti and Tencteri, for they occupy the greater part of Germany, and have hitherto been divided into separate tribes with names of their own, though they are called by the general designation of 'Suevi.' A national peculiarity with them is to twist their hair back and fasten it in a knot. This distinguishes the Suevi from the other Germans, as it also does their own freeborn from their slaves."—"Suevia would seem to have been a comprehensive name for the country between the Elbe and the Vistula as far north as the Baltic. Tacitus and Cæsar differ about the Suevi. Suabia is the same word as Suevia."

Tacitus, Germany, translated by Church and Brodribb, chapter. 38, with geographical note.

"The Suebi, that is the wandering people or nomads. … Cæsar's Suebi were probably the Chatti; but that designation certainly belonged in Cæsar's time, and even much later, to every other German stock which could be described as a regularly wandering one."

"The name of the country called Suabia is a true ethnological term, even as Franconia is one. The one means the country occupied by the Suevi, the other the country occupied by the Franks. … At what time the name first became an unequivocal geographical designation of what now, in the way of politics, coincides with the Grand Duchy of Baden and part of Wurtemburg, and, in respect to its physical geography, is part of the Black Forest, is uncertain. It was not, however, later than the reign of Alexander Severus (ending A. D. 235). … Therein, Alamannia and Suevia appear together —as terms for that part of Germany which had previously gone under the name of 'Decumates agri,' and the parts about the 'Limes Romanus.' With this, then, begins the history of the Suevi of Suabia, or, rather, of the Suabians. Their alliances were chiefly with the Alamanni and Burgundians; their theatre the German side of France, Switzerland, Italy, and (in conjunction with the Visigoths) Spain. Their epoch is from the reign of Alexander to that of Augustulus, in round numbers, from about A. D. 225 to A. D. 475."

A large body of the Suevi, a formidable German tribe, the name of which has survived in modern Suabia, crossed the Rhine and entered Gaul about B. C. 61. They came at the invitation of the Arverni and Sequani of Gaul, who were forming a league against the Ædui, their rivals, and who sought the aid of the German warriors. The latter responded eagerly to the call, and, having lodged themselves in the country of the Sequani, summoned fresh hordes of their countrymen to join them. The Gauls soon found that they had brought troublesome neighbors into their midst, and they all joined in praying Cæsar and his Roman legions to expel the insolent intruders. Cæsar had then just entered on the government of the Roman Gallic provinces and had signalized his first appearance in the field by stopping the attempted migration of the Helvetii, destroying two thirds of them, and forcing the remnant back to their mountains. He welcomed an opportunity to interfere further in Gallic affairs and promptly addressed certain proposals to the Suevic chieftain, Ariovistus, which the latter rejected with disdain. Some negotiations followed, but both parties meant war, and the question, which should make a conquest of Gaul, was decided speedily at a great battle fought at some place about 80 miles from Vesontio (modern Besançon) in the year 58 B. C. The Germans were routed, driven into the Rhine and almost totally destroyed. Ariovistus, with a very few followers, escaped across the river, and died soon afterwards.

"The Suevi kept their ground for more than half a century in Spain, before they embraced the Christian religion and became Arians. Being surrounded on all sides by the Visigoths, their history contains merely an account of the wars which they had to maintain against their neighbours: they were long and bloody; 164 years were passed in fighting before they could be brought to yield. In 573, Leovigild, king of the Visigoths, united them to the monarchy of Spain."

Those tribes of the Suevic confederacy which remained on the German side of the Rhine, while their brethren pressed southwards, along with the Vandals and Burgundians, in the great invasive movement of 406, "dwelt in the south-west corner of Germany, in the region which is now known as the Black Forest, and away eastwards along the Upper Danube, perhaps as far as the river Lech. They were already mingled with the Alamanni of the mountains, a process which was no doubt carried yet further when, some thirty years after the time now reached by us [about 460] Clovis overthrew the monarchy of the Alamanni [A. D. 496], whom he drove remorselessly forth from all the lands north of the Neckar. The result of these migrations and alliances was the formation of the two great Duchies with which we are so familiar in the mediaeval history of Germany—Suabia and Franconia. Suabia, which is a convertible term with Alamannia, represents the land left to the mingled Suevi and Alamanni; Franconia that occupied east of the Rhine by the intrusive Franks."

SUEVIC SEA.

SUFFETES.

"The original monarchical constitution [of Carthage]—doubtless inherited from Tyre—was represented (practically in Aristotle's time, and theoretically to the latest period) by two supreme magistrates called by the Romans Suffetes. Their name is the same as the Hebrew Shofetim, mistranslated in our Bible, Judges. The Hamilcars and Hannos of Carthage were, like their prototypes, the Gideons and the Samsons of the Book of Judges, not so much the judges as the protectors and rulers of their respective states."

SUFFRAGE QUALIFICATION IN ENGLAND.

SUFIS.

A sect of Mahometan mystics. "The final object of the Sufi devotee is to attain to the light of Heaven, towards which he must press forward till perfect knowledge is reached in his union with God, to be consummated, after death, in absorption into the Divine Being."

SUGAMBRI, SICAMBRI.

"Next [on the Baltic] occur the communities of the Suiones, seated in the very Ocean, who, besides their strength in men and arms, also possess a naval force. … These people honour wealth." "The Suiones inhabited Sweden and the Danish isles of Funen, Langland, Zeeland, Laland, etc. From them and the Cimbri were derived the Normans."

   "The heroic struggle of the little commonwealth over a number
   of years, [1787-1804] against all the resources and ingenuity
   of Ali Pacha [vizir of Jannina] is very stirring and full of
   episode. … The origin of the Suliotes is lost in obscurity. …
   The chief families traced their origin to different villages
   and districts; and, though their language was Greek, they
   appear to have consisted, for the most part, of Christian
   Albanians, with a small admixture of Greeks, who, flying from
   the oppression of the invaders, had taken refuge in the
   well-nigh inaccessible mountains of Chamouri (Chimari) [in
   Epirus], and had there established a curious patriarchal
   community. … At the time when they became conspicuous in
   history the Suliotes were possessed of four villages in the
   great ravine of Suli, namely, Kiapha, Avariko, Samoniva, and
   Kako-Suli, composing a group known as the Tetrachorion; and
   seven villages in the plains, whose inhabitants, being
   considered genuine Suliotes, were allowed to retire into the
   mountain in time of war. …
{3039}
   They also controlled between 50 and 60 tributary villages,
   with a mixed population of Greeks and Albanians; but these
   were abandoned to their fate in war. In the early part of the
   last century the Suliotes are said not to have had more than
   200 fighting-men, although they were almost always engaged in
   petty warfare and marauding expeditions; and at the period of
   their extraordinary successes the numbers of the Suliotes
   proper never exceeded 5,000 souls, with a fighting strength d
   1,500 men, who were, however, reinforced at need by the women.
   Their government was purely patriarchal; they had neither
   written laws nor law courts, and the family formed the
   political unit of the State. The families were grouped
   together in tribal alliances called Pharas, of which there
   were 29 in the Tetrachorion and 18 in the Heptachorion. All
   disputes were settled by arbitration by the heads of the
   Pharas; and these 47 elders formed a sort of general Council,
   the matter for discussion being almost exclusively war. As
   they were gradually driven from the plains which had supported
   them to the mountains, which produced nothing but pasture for
   their flocks, they were of necessity compelled to support
   themselves by marauding expeditions, which involved them in
   perpetual difficulties with the surrounding Ottoman governors.
   The historian of Suli enumerates no less than eight wars in
   which the community was involved before their great struggle
   with Ali."

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (MAY-AUGUST);
1776 (AUGUST); 1779 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

Gibbon (chapter 57) represents that the title of Sultan was first invented for Mahmud the Gaznevide, by the ambassador of the Caliph of Bagdad, "who employed an Arabian or Chaldaic word that signifies 'lord' and 'master.'" But Dr. William Smith in a note to this passage in Gibbon, citing Weil, says: "It is uncertain when the title of Sultan was first used, but it seems at all events to have been older than the time of Mahmud. It is mentioned by Halebi, under the reign of Motawaccel; but according to Ibn Chaldun it was first assumed by the Bowides."

SUMIR, SHUMIR.

SUMTER, Fort: A. D. 1860.
Occupied and held by Major Anderson, for the United
States Government.

SUMTER, Fort: A. D. 1861 (April).
Bombardment and reduction by the Rebel batteries.

SUMTER, Fort: A. D. 1865 (February-April).
Recovery by the nation.
The restoring of the flag.

SUOVETAURILIA.

Expiatory sacrifices of pigs, sheep and oxen, offered by the ancient Romans at the end of a lustrum and after a triumph.

The first Act of Supremacy, which established the independence of the Church of England and broke its relations with Rome, was passed by the English Parliament during the reign of Henry VIII., in 1534. It enacted "that the King should be taken and reputed 'the only Supreme Head on earth of the Church of England called Ecclesia Anglicana, and shall have and enjoy, annexed and united to the imperial Crown of this realm, as well the title and style thereof, as all honours, dignities, pre-eminencies, jurisdictions, privileges, authorities, immunities, profits, and commodities, to the said dignity of Supreme Head of the same church belonging and appertaining'; with full power to visit, reform, and correct all heresies, errors, abuses, offences, contempts and enormities which, by any manner of spiritual authority or jurisdiction, ought to be reformed or corrected."

The Act of Supremacy was repealed in the reign of Mary and re-enacted with changes in that of Elizabeth, 1559.

   "On the 24th day of September, 1789, the act organizing the
   Supreme Court; was passed. The Court was constituted with a
   Chief Justice and five associates. John Jay was appointed the
   first Chief Justice by Washington. Webster said of him that
   when the ermine fell upon his shoulders, it touched a being as
   spotless as itself. The Court first convened in February,
   1790, in New York. It does not appear from the reports that
   any case then came before it. Jay remained Chief Justice until
   1795, when he resigned to become governor of the State of New
   York. A Chief Justice in our day would hardly do this. His
   judicial duties were so few that he found time, in 1794, to
   accept the mission to England to negotiate the treaty so
   famous in history as 'Jay's Treaty.' John Rutledge of South
   Carolina was appointed to succeed Jay, but he was so
   pronounced in his opposition to the treaty, and so bitter in
   his denunciation of Jay himself, that the federal Senate
   refused to confirm him. William Cushing of Massachusetts, one
   of the associate justices, was then nominated by Washington,
   and was promptly confirmed; but he preferred to remain
   associate justice, and Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut was
   made Chief Justice. He held the office until 1801, when John
   Marshall of Virginia was appointed by President Adams.
   Marshall held the office thirty-four years. He was known at
   the time of his appointment as an ardent Federalist.
{3040}
   In our time he is known as 'the great Chief Justice.' Roger B.
   Taney was the next incumbent. He was appointed by President
   Jackson. His political enemies styled him a renegade
   Federalist, and said that his appointment was his reward for
   his obsequious obedience, while Secretary of the Treasury, to
   President Jackson. But Taney, despite the Dred Scott decision,
   was an honest man and a great judge. His opinions are models
   of lucid and orderly discussion, and are of admirable literary
   form. He held the office for twenty-eight years, and upon his
   death in 1864, President Lincoln appointed Salmon P. Chase, of
   Ohio. Chief Justice Chase died in 1874. President Grant then
   appointed Morrison R. Waite of Ohio. He died in 1888. Melville
   W. Fuller, of Illinois, is the present [1889] incumbent, his
   appointment having been made by President Cleveland. … In 1807
   an associate judge was added by Congress; two more were added
   in 1837, and one in 1863. They were added to enable the Court
   to perform the work of the circuits, which increased with the
   growth of the country."

J. S. Landon, The Constitutional History and Government of the United States, lecture 10.

"The Supreme court is directly created by Article iii., section 1 of the Constitution, but with no provision as to the number of its judges. Originally there were six; at present there are nine, a chief justice, with a salary of $10,500 (£2,100), and eight associate judges (salary $10,000). The justices are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. They hold office during good behaviour, i. e. they are removable only by impeachment. They have thus a tenure even more secure than that of English judges, for the latter may be removed by the Crown on an address from both Houses of Parliament. … The Fathers of the Constitution were extremely anxious to secure the independence of their judiciary, regarding it as a bulwark both for the people and for the States against aggressions of either Congress or the President. They affirmed the life tenure by an unanimous vote in the Convention of 1787, because they deemed the risk of the continuance in office of an incompetent judge a less evil than the subserviency of all judges to the legislature, which might flow from a tenure dependent on legislative will. The result has justified their expectations. The judges have shown themselves independent of Congress and of party, yet the security of their position has rarely tempted them to breaches of judicial duty. Impeachment has been four times resorted to, once only against a justice of the Supreme court, and then unsuccessfully. Attempts have been made, beginning from Jefferson, who argued that judges should hold office for terms of four or six years only, to alter the tenure of the Federal judges, as that of the State judges has been altered in most States; but Congress has always rejected the proposed constitutional amendment. The Supreme court sits at Washington from October till July in every year."

"It is, I believe, the only national tribunal in the world which can sit in judgment on a national law, and can declare an act of all the three powers of the Union to be null and void. No such power does or can exist in England. Anyone of the three powers of the state, King, Lords, or Commons, acting alone, may act illegally; the three acting together cannot act illegally. An act of parliament is final; it may be repealed by the power which enacted it; it cannot be questioned by any other power. For in England there is no written constitution; the powers of Parliament, of King, Lords, and Commons, acting together, are literally boundless. But in your Union, it is not only possible that President, Senate, or House of Representatives, acting alone, may act illegally; the three acting together may act illegally. For their powers are not boundless, they have no powers but such as the terms of the constitution, that is, the original treaty between the States, have given them. Congress may pass, the President may assent to, a measure which contradicts the terms of the constitution. If they so act, they act illegally, and the Supreme Court can declare such an act to be null and void. This difference flows directly from the difference between a written and an unwritten constitution. It does not follow that every state which has a written constitution need vest in its highest court such powers as are vested in yours, though it certainly seems to me that, in a federal constitution, such a power is highly expedient. My point is simply that such a power can exist where there is a written constitution; where there is no written constitution, it cannot."

E. A. Freeman, The English People in its Three Homes: Lectures to American Audiences, pages 191-192.

SURENA.

The title of the commander-in-chief or field-marshal of the Parthian armies, whose rank was second only to that of the king. This title was sometimes mistaken by Greek writers for an individual name, as in the case of the Parthian general who defeated Crassus.

SURGERY.

SURINAM.

SUSA. SUSIANA. SHUSHAN.

Originally the capital of the ancient kingdom of Elam, Shushan, or Susiana, or Susa, as it has been variously called, was in later times made the principal capital of the Persian empire, and became the scene of the Biblical story of Esther. A French expedition, directed by M. Dieulafoy and wife, undertook an exploration of the ruins of Susa in 1885 and has brought to light some remarkably interesting and important remains of ancient art. The name Susiana was applied by the Greeks to the country of Elam, as well as to the capital city, and it is sometimes still used in that sense.

SUSIAN GATES.

   A pass in the mountains which surrounded the plain of
   Persepolis, the center of ancient Persia proper. Alexander had
   difficulty in forcing the Gates.

SUSIANA.

SUSSEX.

Originally the kingdom formed by that body of the Saxon conquerors of Britain in the 5th and 6th centuries which acquired the name of the South Saxons. It is nearly represented in territory by the present counties of Sussex and Surrey.

A victory of the Romans over the Etruscans, among the exploits ascribed to the veteran Q. Fabius Maximus.

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1762-1796;
      also FRANCE: A. D. 1798-1799 (AUGUST-APRIL);
      1799 (APRIL-SEPTEMBER), and (AUGUST-DECEMBER).

SWAANENDAEL.

SWABIA.

A Prussian order of knighthood, instituted in the 15th century, which disappeared in the century following, and was revived in 1843.

The "Sudor Anglicus," or Sweating Sickness was a strange and fearful epidemic which appeared in England in 1485 or 1486, and again in 1507, 1518, 1529, and 1551. In the last three instances it passed to the continent. Its first appearance was always in England, from which fact it took one of its names. Its peculiar characteristic was the profuse sweating which accompanied the disease. The mortality from it was very great.

SWERKERSON.

SWISS CONFEDERATION AND CONSTITUTION.

      See HELVETII; ALEMANNI: A. D. 496-504;
      BURGUNDIANS: A. D. 443-451;
      also, below: THE THREE FOREST CANTONS.

SWITZERLAND:
   The Three Forest Cantons, their original Confederation
   (Eidgenossenschaft), and their relations with the House of
   Austria.
   History divested of Legend.

"It is pretty clear that among those Helvetii with whom Cæsar had his cruel struggle [see HELVETII, TUE ARRESTED MIGRATION OF THE], and who subsequently became an integral portion of the empire, there were no people from the Forest Cantons of Schwytz, Uri, and Unterwalden. The men who defied the Roman eagles were inhabitants of the mountain slopes between the lakes of Geneva and Constance. On the North, the authority of the Romans penetrated no farther in the direction of the mountainous Oberland than to Zurich or Turicum. They, no doubt, ascended far up the valley of the Rhone, where they have left their mark in the speech of the people to this day; but they did not climb the mountain passes leading across the great chain of the Alps. It may be questioned if the higher valleys of Switzerland were then, or for centuries after the fall of the Western Empire, inhabited. … In the district of these Forest Cantons no remains of lake inhabitancy have yet been found. … Yet none of the places where they are met with could have been more naturally suited for lake-dwellings than these. The three Forest Cantons began the political history of Switzerland, having established among themselves that political centre round which the other Cantons clustered. In ethnological history, they were the latest members of the Swiss family, since their territory remained without occupants after the more accessible portions of the country had been peopled. In the same sense, the canton from which the confederation derived its name—that of Schwytz—is the youngest of all. When the Irish monk, afterwards canonised as St. Gall, settled near the Lake of Constance in the 7th century, he had gone as completely to the one extreme of the inhabited world, as his brother Columba had gone to the other when he sailed to Iona. If the districts of Thurgau, Appenzell, and St. Gall were at that period becoming gradually inhabited, it is supposed that Schwytz was not occupied by a permanent population until the latter half of the 9th century. … M. Rilliet [in 'Les Origines de la Confederation Suisse,' par Albert Rilliet) is one of the first writers who has applied himself to the study of … original documents [title-deeds of property, the chartularies of religious houses, records of litigation, etc.] as they are still preserved in Switzerland, for the purpose of tracing the character and progress of the Swiss people and of their free institutions. It was among the accidents propitious to the efforts of the Forest Cantons, that, among the high feudal or manorial rights existing within their territory, a large proportion was in the hands of monastic bodies. Throughout Europe the estates of the ecclesiastics were the best husbanded, and inhabited by the most prosperous vassals. These bodies ruled their vassals through the aid of a secular officer, a Vogt or advocate, who sometimes was the master, sometimes the servant, of the community. {3042} In either case there was to some extent a division of rule, and it was not the less so that in these Cantons the larger estates were held by nuns. The various struggles for supremacy in which emperors and competitors for empire, the successive popes, and the potentates struggling for dominion, severally figured, gave many opportunities to a brave and sagacious people, ever on the watch for the protection of their liberties; but the predominant feature in their policy—that, indeed, which secured their final triumph—was their steady adherence in such contests to the Empire, and their acknowledgment of its supremacy. This is the more worthy of notice since popular notions of Swiss history take the opposite direction, and introduce us to the Emperor and his ministers as the oppressors who drove an exasperated people to arms. In fact, there still lurk in popular history many fallacies and mistakes about the nature of the 'Holy Roman Empire' as an institution of the middle ages [see ROMAN EMPIRE, THE HOLY]. … It is not natural or easy indeed to associate that mighty central organisation with popular liberty and power; and yet in the feudal ages it was a strong and effective protector of freedom. … Small republics and free cities were scattered over central Europe and protected in the heart of feudalism. … M. Rilliet aptly remarks, that in the Swiss valleys, with their isolating mountains, and their narrow strips of valuable pasture, political and local conditions existed in some degree resembling those of a walled city." The election, in 1273, of Rudolph of Hapsburg, as King of the Romans, was an event of great importance in the history of the Swiss Cantons, owing to their previous connexion with the House of Hapsburg (see AUSTRIA: A. D. 1246-1282), "a connexion geographically so close that the paternal domains, whence that great family takes its ancient name, are part of the Swiss territory at the present day." Such agencies as belonged naturally to the most powerful family in the district fell to the House of Hapsburg. Its chiefs were the chosen advocates or champions of the religious communities neighbor to them; and "under such imperial offices as are known by the title Bailiff, Procurator, or Reichsvogt, they occasionally exercised what power the Empire retained over its free communities. Such offices conferred authority which easily ripened into feudal superiorities, or other forms of sovereignty. M. Rilliet attributes considerable, but not, it seems to us, too much importance to a rescript bearing date the 26th May, 1231. It is granted by Henry VII., King of the Romans, or more properly of the aggregated German communities, as acting for his father, the Emperor Frederic II. This instrument revokes certain powers over the people of the community of Uri, which had been granted at a previous time by Frederic himself to the Count of Hapsburg. It addresses the people of Uri by the term Universitas—high in class among the enfranchised communities of the Empire—and promises to them that they shall no more under any pretext be withdrawn from the direct jurisdiction of the Empire. … The great point reached through this piece of evidence, and corroborated by others, is, that at this remote period the district which is now the Canton of Uri was dealt with as a Roman Universitas—as one of the communities of the Empire, exempt from the immediate authority of any feudal chief. … M. Rilliet's researches show that Uri is the Canton in which the character of a free imperial community was first established, perhaps we should rather say it was the Canton in which the privilege was most completely preserved from the dangers that assailed it. The Hapsburgs and their rivals had a stronger hold on Schwytz. … In many of the documents relating to the rights of Rudolph over this district, bearing date after he became Cæsar, it is uncertain whether he acts as emperor or as immediate feudal lord. … Rudolph, however, found it, from whatever cause, his policy to attach the people of Schwytz to his interests as emperor rather than as feudal lord; and he gave them charters of franchise which seem ultimately to have made them, like their neighbours of Uri, a free community of the Empire, or to have certified their right to that character. In the fragmentary records of the three Cantons, Unterwalden does not hold rank as a free community of the Empire at so early a time even as Schwytz. It is only known that in 1291 Unterwalden acted with the other two as an independent community. In the disputes for supremacy between the Empire and the Church all three had been loyal to the Empire. There are some indications that Rudolph had discovered the signal capacity of these mountaineers for war, and that already there were bands of Swiss among the imperial troops. The reign of Rudolph lasted for 18 years. … During his 18 years of possession he changed the character of the Cæsarship, and the change was felt by the Swiss. In the early part of his reign he wooed them to the Empire—before its end he was strengthening the territorial power of his dynasty. … When Rudolph died in 1201, the imperial crown was no longer a disputable prize for a chance candidate. There was a conflict on the question whether his descendants should take it as a hereditary right, or the electors should show that they retained their power by another choice. The three Cantons felt that there was danger to their interests in the coming contest, and took a great step for their own protection. They formed a league or confederacy [Eidgenossenschaft] for mutual co-operation and protection. Not only has it been handed down to us in literature, but the very parchment has been preserved as a testimony to the early independence of the Forest Cantons, the Magna Charter of Switzerland. This document reveals the existence of unexplained antecedents by calling itself a renewal of the old league—the Antique Confederatio. … Thus we have a Confederation of the Three Cantons, dated in 1201, and referring to earlier alliances; while popular history sets down the subsequent Confederation of 1314 as the earliest, for the purpose of making the whole history of Swiss independence arise out of the tragic events attributed to that period. If this leads the way to the extinction of the story on which the Confederation is based, there is compensation in finding the Confederation in active existence a quarter of a century earlier. But the reader will observe that the mere fact of the existence of this anterior league overturns the whole received history of Switzerland, and changes the character of the alleged struggle with the House of Austria, prior to the battle of Morgarten. There is nothing in this document or in contemporary events breathing of disloyalty to the Empire. {3043} The two parties whom the Swiss held in fear were the Church, endeavouring to usurp the old prerogatives of the Empire in their fullness; and the feudal barons, who were encroaching on the imperial authority. Among the three the Swiss chose the chief who would be least of a master. … Two years before the end of the 13th century [by the election of Albert, son of Rudolph, the Hapsburg family] … again got possession of the Empire, and retained it for ten years. It passed from them by the well-known murder of the Emperor Albert. The Swiss and that prince were ill-disposed to each other at the time of the occurrence, and indeed the murder itself was perpetrated on Swiss ground; yet it had no connexion with the cause of the quarrel which was deepening between the House of Hapsburg and the Cantons. … There exist in contemporary records no instances of wanton outrage and insolence on the Hapsburg side. It was the object of that power to obtain political ascendancy, not to indulge its representatives in lust or wanton insult. … There are plentiful records of disputes in which the interests of the two powers were mixed up with those of particular persons. Some of these were trifling and local, relating to the patronage of benefices, the boundaries of parishes, the use of meadows, the amount of toll duties, and the like; others related to larger questions, as to the commerce of the lake of the Four Cantons, or the transit of goods across the Alps. But in these discussions the symptoms of violence, as is natural enough, appear rather on the side of the Swiss communities than on that of the aggrandising imperial house. The Canton of Schwytz, indeed, appears to have obtained by acts of violence and rapacity the notoriety which made its name supreme among the Cantons. … We are now at a critical point, the outbreak of the long War of Swiss Independence, and it would be pleasant if we had more distinct light than either history or record preserves of the immediate motives which brought Austria to the point of invading the Cantons. … The war was no doubt connected with the struggle for the Empire [between Frederic of Austria and Louis of Bavaria—see GERMANY: A. D. 1314-1347]; yet it is not clear how Frederic, even had he been victorious over the three Cantons, could have gained enough to repay him for so costly an expedition. … We are simply told by one party among historical writers that his army was sent against his rebellious subjects to reduce them to obedience, and by the other that it was sent to conquer for the House of Hapsburg the free Cantons. That a magnificent army did march against them, and that it was scattered and ruined by a small body of the Swiss at Morgarten, on the 15th November, 1315, is an historical event too clearly attested in all its grandeur to stand open to dispute. After the battle, the victorious Cantons renewed their Confederation of 1291, with some alterations appropriate to the change of conditions. The first bond or confederation comes to us in Latin, the second is in German. … Such was the base around which the Cantons of the later Swiss Confederation were gradually grouped. … To this conclusion we have followed M. Rilliet without encountering William Tell, or the triumvirate of the meadow of Rütli, and yet with no consciousness that the part of Hamlet has been left out of the play." According to the popular tradition, the people of the Three Cantons were maddened by wanton outrages and insolences on the part of the Austrian Dukes, until three bold leaders, Werner Stauffacher, Arnold of the Melkthal, and Walter Fürst, assembled them in nightly meetings on the little meadow of Grütli or Rütli, in 1307, and bound them by oaths in a league against Austria, which was the beginning of the Swiss Confederation. This story, and the famous legend of William Tell, connected with it, are fading out of authentic history under the light which modern investigation has brought to bear on it.

      J. Heywood,
      The Establishment of Swiss Freedom, and the Scandinavian
      Origin of the Legend of William Tell
      (Royal Historical Society Transactions, volume 5).

SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1207-1401.
   Extension of the dominions of the House of Savoy
   beyond Lake Geneva.
   The city of Geneva surrounded.

SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1332-1460.
   The extension of the old Confederation,
   or "Old League of High Germany."
   The Three Cantons increased to Eight.

   "All the original cantons were German in speech and feeling,
   and the formal style of their union was 'the Old League of
   High Germany.' But in strict geographical accuracy there was …
   a small Burgundian element in the Confederation, if not from
   the beginning, at least from its aggrandizement in the 13th
   and 14th centuries. That is to say, part of the territory of
   the states which formed the old Confederation lay
   geographically within the kingdom of Burgundy, and a further
   part lay within the Lesser Burgundy of the Dukes of Zähringen.
   But, by the time when the history of the Confederation begins,
   the kingdom of Burgundy was pretty well forgotten, and the
   small German-speaking territory which it took in at its
   extreme northeast corner may be looked on as practically
   German ground. … It is specially needful to bear in mind,
   first, that, till the last years of the 13th century, not even
   the germ of modern Switzerland had appeared on the map of
   Europe; secondly, that the Confederation did not formally
   become an independent power till the 17th century; lastly,
   that, though the Swiss name had been in common use for ages,
   it did not become the formal style of the Confederation till
   the 19th century. Nothing in the whole study of historical
   geography is more necessary than to root out the notion that
   there has always been a country of Switzerland, as there has
   always been a country of Germany, Gaul, or Italy. And it is no
   less needful to root out the notion that the Swiss of the
   original cantons in any way represent the Helvetii of Cæsar.
   The points to be borne in mind are that the Swiss
   Confederation is simply one of many German Leagues, which was
   more lasting and became more closely united than other German
   Leagues—that it gradually split off from the German
   Kingdom—that in the course of this process, the League and its
   members obtained a large body of Italian and Burgundian allies
   and subjects —lastly, that these allies and subjects have in
   modern times been joined into one Federal body with the
   original German Confederates.
{3044}
   The three Swabian lands [the Three Forest Cantons] which
   formed the kernel of the Old League lay at the point of union
   of the three Imperial kingdoms, parts of all of which were to
   become members of the Confederation in its later form. … The
   Confederation grew for a while by the admission of
   neighbouring lands and cities as members of a free German
   Confederation, owning no superior but the Emperor. First of
   all [1332], the city of Luzern joined the League. Then came
   the Imperial city of Zurich [1351], which had already begun to
   form a little dominion in the adjoining lands. Then [1352]
   came the land of Glarus and the town of Zug with its small
   territory. And lastly came the great city of Bern [1353],
   which had already won a dominion over a considerable body of
   detached and outlying allies and subjects. These confederate
   lands and towns formed the Eight Ancient Cantons. Their close
   alliance with each other helped the growth of each canton
   separately, as well as that of the League as a whole. Those
   cantons whose geographical position allowed them to do so,
   were thus able to extend their power, in the form of various
   shades of dominion and alliance, over the smaller lands and
   towns in their neighbourhood. … Zurich, and yet more Bern,
   each formed, after the manner of an ancient Greek city, what
   in ancient Greece would have passed for an empire. In the 15th
   century [1415-1460], large conquests were made at the expense
   of the House of Austria, of which the earlier ones were made
   by direct Imperial sanction. The Confederation, or some or
   other of its members, had now extended its territory to the
   Rhine and the Lake of Constanz. The lands thus won, Aargau,
   Thurgau, and some other districts, were held as subject
   territories in the hands of some or other of the Confederate
   States. … No new states were admitted to the rank of
   confederate cantons. Before the next group of cantons was
   admitted, the general state of the Confederation and its
   European position had greatly changed. It had ceased to be a
   purely German power. The first extension beyond the original
   German lands and those Burgundian lands which were practically
   German began in the direction of Italy. Uri had, by the
   annexation of Urseren, become the neighbour of the Duchy of
   Milan, and in the middle of the 15th century, this canton
   acquired some rights in the Val Levantina on the Italian side
   of the Alps. This was the beginning of the extension of the
   Confederation on Italian ground. But far more important than
   this was the advance of the Confederates over the Burgundian
   lands to the west."

      E. A. Freeman,
      Historical Geography of Europe,
      chapter 8, section 6.

"Seldom, if ever, has Switzerland seen a more eventful month than that of July, 1386, for in that month she fought and won the ever-memorable battle of Sempach. To set down all the petty details as to the causes which led to this engagement would be tedious indeed. It is sufficient to point out … that there is seldom much love lost between oppressor and oppressed, and Austria and the Swiss Confederation had for some time held that relation to each other. A ten years' peace had indeed been concluded between the two powers, but it was a sham peace, and the interval had been used by both to prepare for new conflicts. … Zurich laid siege to Rapperswyl with the intent to destroy the odious Austrian toll-house; Lucerne levelled with the ground the Austrian fort Rothenburg, and entered into alliances with Entlebuch and Sempach to overthrow the Austrian supremacy. This was equal to a declaration of war, and war was indeed imminent. Duke Leopold III., of Austria, was most anxious to bring the quarrel to an issue, and to chastise the insolent Swiss citizens and peasantry. … The nobles of Southern Germany rallied round the gallant swordsman, and made him their leader in the expeditions against the bourgeoisie and peasantry. And no sooner had the truce expired (June, 1386), than they directed their first attack on the bold Confederation. … Leopold's plan was to make Lucerne the centre of his military operations, but in order to draw away attention from his real object, he sent a division of 5,000 men to Zurich to simulate an attack on that town. Whilst the unsuspecting Confederates lay idle within the walls of Zurich, he gathered reinforcements from Burgundy, Swabia, and the Austro-Helvetian Cantons, the total force being variously estimated at from 12,000 to 24,000 men. He marched his army in the direction of Lucerne, but by a round-about way, and seized upon Willisan, which he set on fire, intending to punish Sempach 'en passant' for her desertion. But the Confederates getting knowledge of his stratagem left Zurich to defend herself, and struck straight across the country in pursuit of the enemy. Climbing the heights of Sempach, … they encamped at Meyersholz, a wood fringing the hilltop. The Austrians leaving Sursee, for want of some more practicable road towards Sempach, made their way slowly and painfully along the path which leads from Sursee to the heights, and then turns suddenly down upon Sempach. Great was their surprise and consternation when at the junction of the Sursee and Hiltisrieden roads they came suddenly upon the Swiss force. … The Swiss … drew up in battle order, their force taking a kind of wedge-shaped mass, the shorter edge foremost, and the bravest men occupying the front positions. … The onset was furious, and the Austrian Hotspurs, each eager to outstrip his fellows in the race for honour, rushed on the Swiss, drove them back a little, and then tried to encompass them and crush them in their midst. … All the fortune of the battle seemed against the Swiss, for their short weapons could not reach a foe guarded by long lances. But suddenly the scene changed. 'A good and pious man,' says the old chronicler, deeply mortified by the misfortune of his country, stepped forward from the ranks of the Swiss—Arnold von Winkelried. Shouting to his comrades in arms, 'I will cut a road for you; take care of my wife and children!' he dashed on the enemy, and, catching hold of as many spears as his arms could encompass, he bore them to the ground with the whole weight of his body. His comrades rushed over his corpse, burst through the gap made in the Austrian ranks, and began a fierce hand-to-hand encounter. … A fearful carnage followed, in which no mercy was shown, and there fell of the common soldiers 2,000 men, and no fewer than 700 of the nobility. The Swiss lost but 120 men. … This great victory … gave to the Confederation independence, and far greater military and political eminence. … The story of Winkelried's heroic action has given rise to much fruitless but interesting discussion. {3045} The truth of the tale, in fact, can neither be confirmed nor denied, in the absence of any sufficient proof. But Winkelried is no myth, whatever may be the case with the other great Swiss hero, Tell. There is proof that a family of the name of Winkelried lived at Unterwalden at the time of the battle. … The victory of Naefels [April, 1388] forms a worthy pendant to that of Sempach. … The Austrians, having recovered their spirits after the terrible disaster," invaded the Glarus valley in strong force, and met with another overthrow, losing 1,700 men. "In 1389 a seven years' peace was arranged. … This peace was first prolonged for 20 years, and afterwards, in 1412, for 50 years."

SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1396-1499.
   The Grey Leagues.
   Democratic Independence of Graubünden (Grisons) achieved.
   Their Alliance with the Swiss Cantons.
   The Swabian War.
   Practical separation of the Confederacy from the Empire.

"It was precisely at this epoch [the later years of the 14th century] that the common people of Graubünden [or the Grisons] felt the necessity of standing for themselves alone against the world. Threatened by the Habsburgs, suspicious of the See of Chur [see TYROL], ill-governed by their decadent dynastic nobles, encouraged by the example of the Forest Cantons, they began to form leagues and alliances for mutual protection and the preservation of peace within the province. Nearly a century was occupied in the origination and consolidation of those three Leagues which turned what we now call Graubünden into an independent democratic state. … The town of Chur, which had been steadily rising in power, together with the immediate vassals of the See, took the lead. They combined into an association, which assumed the name of the Gotteshausbund; and of which the Engadine [the upper valley of the Inn] formed an important factor. Next followed a league between the Abbot of Dissentis, the nobles of the Oberland, the Communes of that district, and its outlying dependencies. This was called the Grey League—according to popular tradition because the folk who swore it wore grey serge coats, but more probably because it was a League of Counts, Gräfen, Grawen. The third league was formed after the final dispersion of the great inheritance of Vaz, which passed through the Counts of Toggenburg into the hands of females and their representatives. This took the name of Zehn Gerichte, or Ten Jurisdictions, and embraced Davos, Belfort, Schanfigg, the Prättigau, and Maienfeld. The date of the formation of the Gotteshausbund is uncertain; but its origin may be assigned to the last years of the 14th century [some writers date it 1396]. That of the Grey League, or Graue Bund, or Obere Theil, as it is variously called, is traditionally 1424. (It is worth mentioning that this League took precedence of the other two, and that the three were known as the Grey Leagues.) That of the Zehn Gerichte is 1438. In 1471 these three Leagues formed a triple alliance, defensive and offensive, protective and aggressive, without prejudice to the Holy Roman Empire of which they still considered themselves to form a part, and without due reservation of the rights acquired by inheritance or purchase by the House of Austria within their borders. This important revolution, which defeudalized a considerable Alpine territory, and which made the individual members of its numerous Communes sovereigns by the right of equal voting, was peaceably effected. … The constitution of Graubünden after the formation of the Leagues, in theory and practise, … was a pure democracy, based on manhood suffrage. … The first difficulties with which this new Republic of peasants had to contend, arose from the neighbourhood of feudal and imperial Austria. The Princes of the House of Habsburg had acquired extensive properties and privileges in Graubünden. … These points of contact became the source of frequent rubs, and gave the Austrians opportunities for interfering in the affairs of the Grey Leagues. A little war which broke out in the Lower Engadine in 1475, a war of raids and reprisals, made bad blood between the people of Tirol and their Grisons neighbours. But the real struggle of Graubünden with Austria began in earnest, when the Leagues were drawn into the so-called Swabian War (1496-1499). The Emperor Maximilian promoted an association of south German towns and nobles, in order to restore his Imperial authority over the Swiss Cantons. They resisted his encroachments, and formed a close alliance with the Grey Leagues. That was the commencement of a tie which bound Graubünden, as a separate political entity, to the Confederation, and which subsisted for several centuries. Graubünden acted as an independent Republic, but was always ready to cooperate with the Swiss. … Fighting side by side [in the Swabian War] with the men of Uri, Glarus, Zürich, the Bündners learned the arts of warfare in the lower Rheinthal. Afterwards, in 1499, they gained the decisive battle of this prolonged struggle on their own ground and unassisted. In a narrow gorge called Calven, just where the Münsterthal opens out into the Vintschgau above Glurns, 5,000 men of the Grey Leagues defeated the whole chivalry and levies of Tirol. Many thousands of the foe (from 4,000 to 5,000 is the mean estimate) were left dead upon the field." Maximilian hastened to the scene with a fresh army, but found only deserted villages, and was forced by famine to retreat. "The victory of Calven raised the Grisons to the same rank as the Swiss, and secured their reputation in Europe as fighting men of the best quality. It also led to a formal treaty with Austria, in which the points at issue between the two parties were carefully defined."

J. A. Symonds, History of Graubünden (in Strickland's "The Engadine," pages 29-33).

   During the Swabian War, in 1499, the Swiss concluded a treaty
   with France. "Willibald Pirkheimer, who was present with 400
   red-habited citizens of Nuremberg, has graphically described
   every incident of this war. The imperial reinforcements
   arrived slowly and in separate bodies; the princes and nobles
   fighting in real earnest, the cities with little inclination.
   The Swiss were, consequently, able to defeat each single
   detachment before they could unite, and were in this manner
   victorious in ten engagements." The Emperor, "dividing his
   forces, despatched the majority of his troops against Basle,
   under the Count von Fürstenburg, whilst he advanced towards
   Geneva, and was occupied in crossing the lake when the news of
   Fürstenburg's defeat and death, near Dornach, arrived. The
   princes, little desirous of staking their honour against their
   low-born opponents, instantly returned home in great numbers,
   and the emperor was therefore compelled to make peace [1499].
{3046}
   The Swiss retained possession of the Thurgau and of Basle, and
   Schaffhausen joined the confederation, which was not subject
   to the imperial chamber, and for the future belonged merely in
   name to the empire, and gradually fell under the influence of
   France."

SWITZERLAND:A. D. 1481-1501.
   Disagreements over the spoils of the war with Charles the Bold.
   Threatened rupture.
   The Convention of Stanz.
   Enlargement of the Confederacy.
   Its loose and precarious constitution.

"In the war with Charles the Bold, Bern had gained greatly in extent on the west, while the immense booty taken in battle and the tributes laid on conquered cities seemed to the country cantons to be unfairly divided, for all were supposed to receive an equal share. The cities protested that it was no fair division of booty to give each one of the country states, who had altogether furnished 14,000 men for the war, an even share with Bern which had sent out 40,000. Another bone of contention was the enlargement of the union. The cities had for a long time desired to bring the cantons of Freiburg and Solothurn into the League. … But these were municipal governments, and the Forest States, unwilling to add more to the voting strength of the cities and thereby place themselves in the minority, refused again and again to admit these cantons. The situation daily grew more critical. Schwyz, Uri, and Unterwalden made an agreement with Glarus to stand by each other in case of attack. Luzern, Bern, and Zurich made a compact of mutual citizenship, a form of agreement by which they sought to circumvent the oath they had taken in the League of Eight to enter into no new alliances. Just at this point there was alleged to have been discovered a plot to destroy the city of Luzern by countrymen of Obwalden and Entlibuch. The cities were thrown into a frenzy and peace was strained to the utmost. Threats and recriminations passed from side to side, but finally, as an almost hopeless effort toward reconciliation, a Diet was called to meet at Stanz on the 8th of December, 1481. The details of this conference read like romance, so great was the transformation which took place in the feelings of the confederates. … Just as the Diet was about to break up in confusion a compromise was effected, and an agreement was drawn up which is known as the Convention of Stanz (Stanzerverkomniss). … As to the matter latest in contention, it was agreed that movable booty should be divided according to the number of men sent into war, but new acquisitions of territory should be shared equally among the states participating. Thus the principle of state-rights was preserved and the idea of popular representation received its first, and for 300 years almost its only recognition. In another agreement, made the same day, Freiburg and Solothurn were admitted to the League on equal terms with the others. In 1501 the confederation was enlarged by the admission of Basel, which, on account of its situation and importance, was a most desirable acquisition, and in the same year the addition of Schaffhausen, like Basel, a free imperial city with outlying territories, still further strengthened the Union. The next, and for 285 years the last, addition to the inner membership of the alliance was Appenzell. … Connected with the confederacy there were, for varying periods and in different relationships, other territories and cities more or less under its control. One class consisted of the so-called Allied Districts ('Zugewandte find Verbündete Orte'), who were attached to the central body not as equal members, but as friends for mutual assistance. This form of alliance began almost with the formation of the league, and gradually extended till it included St. Gallen, Biel, Neuchatel, the Bishopric of Basel (which territory lay outside the city), the separate confederacies of Graubünden and Valais, Geneva and several free imperial cities of Germany, at one time so distant as Strassburg. More closely attached to the confederation were the 'Gemeine Vogteien.' or subject territories [Aargau, Thurgau, etc.], whose government was administered by various members of the league in partnership. These lands had been obtained partly by purchase or forfeiture of loans and partly by conquest. … Before the middle of the 16th century nearly all the territory now included in Switzerland was in some way connected with the confederation. Upon this territorial basis of states, subject lands and allies, the fabric of government stood till the close of the 18th century. It was a loose confederation, whose sole organ of common action was a Diet in which each state was entitled to one vote. … Almost the only thread that held the Swiss Confederation together was the possession of subject lands. In these they were interested as partners in a business corporation. … These common properties were all that prevented complete rupture on several critical occasions."

      J. M. Vincent,
      State and Federal Government in Switzerland,
      chapter 1.

SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1515.
Defeat by the French at Marignano.
Treaties of perpetual alliance with Francis I.

SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1519-1524.
Beginning of the Reformation at Zurich, under Zwingli.

SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1528-1531.
   The spreading of the Reformation.
   Adhesion of the Forest Cantons to Romanism.
   Differences between the Swiss Reformers
   and the German Protestants.
   The Conference at Marburg.
   Civil war among the Cantons.
   Death of Zwingli.

From Zurich, "the reformed faith penetrated, but only gradually, into the northern and eastern cantons. Bern was reached in 1528, after a brilliant disputation held in that city. Basel and Schaffhausen followed in 1529, and then St. Gall, Appenzell, Graubünden, and Solothurn, though some of them had serious struggles within themselves and fell in only partly with the reforms. But in the Central or Forest Cantons it was that the fiercest opposition was encountered. … From the very simplicity of their lives the people ignored the degeneracy of the priesthood, and amongst these pastoral peoples the priests were of simpler manners and more moral life than those in the cities; they disliked learning and enlightenment. {3047} Then there was the old feeling of antipathy to the cities, coupled with a strong dislike for the reforms which had abolished 'Reislaufen' [military service under foreign pay], that standing source of income to the cantons. Lucerne, bought with French gold, struggled with Zurich for the lead. So far was the opposition carried that the Catholic districts by a majority of votes insisted (at the Diet) on a measure for suppressing heresy in Zurich, whilst some were for expelling that canton from the league. The Forest Cantons issued orders that Zwingli should be seized should he be found within their territories; consequently he kept away from the great convocation at Baden, 1526. … Wider and wider grew the chasm between the two religious parties, and Zwingli at length formed a 'Christian League' between the Swiss Protestants and some of the German cities and the Elector of Hesse. On the other hand, the Catholics entered into an alliance with Ferdinand of Austria, a determined enemy to the reformed religion. At last the Protestant party was exasperated beyond bearing, and Zurich declared war on the Forest Cantons, Zwingli himself joining in the vicissitudes of the campaign. His camp presented the 'picture of a well-organized, God-fearing army of a truly Puritan stamp.' The encounter at Kappel, in June, 1529, however, took a peaceful turn, thanks to the mediation of Landammann Aebli, of Glarus, greatly to the disgust of Zwingli, who prophetically exclaimed that some day the Catholics would be the stronger party, and then they would not show so much moderation. All ill-feeling, indeed, subsided when the two armies came within sight of each other. The curious and touching episode known as the 'Kappeler Milchsuppe' took place here. A band of jolly Catholics had got hold of a large bowl of milk, but lacking bread they placed it on the boundary line between Zug and Zurich. At once a group of Zurich men turned up with some loaves, and presently the whole party fell to eating the 'Milchsuppe' right merrily. A peace was concluded on the 29th of June, 1529, by which the Austrian League was dissolved, and freedom of worship granted to all. … By his treatise, 'De verâ et falsâ religione' (1525), Zwingli had, though unwillingly, thrown the gauntlet into the Wittenberg camp. The work was intended to be a scientific refutation of the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation, and a war of words arose. The contest was by each disputant carried on 'suo more;' by Luther with his usual authoritative and tempestuous vehemence, by Zwingli in his own cool reasoning, dignified, and courteous style and republican frankness. Presently there came a strong desire for a union between the German Protestants, and the Swiss Reformers [called Sacramentarians by the Lutherans], … the impulse to it being given by Charles V.'s 'Protest' against the Protestants. Landgrave Philip of Hesse, the political leader of the German reformers, invited Luther and Zwingli to meet at his castle of Marburg [1529], with the view of reconciling the two sections. The religious colloquium was attended by many savants, princes, nobles, and all the chief leaders of the Reformation, and might have done great things, but came to grief through the obstinacy of Luther, as is well known, or rather through his determination to approve of no man's views except they should agree exactly with his own. Luther insisted on a literal interpretation of the words 'This is my body,' whilst Zwingli saw in them only a metaphorical or symbolical signification. … To return for a moment to home politics. The peace of 1529 was a short-lived one. Zwingli, anxious only to spread the reformed faith over the whole republic, did not realize clearly the hatred of the Forest district against the new creed. … War was imminent, and was indeed eagerly desired on both sides. Bern, finding that war was likely to be injurious to her private ends, insisted on a stoppage of mercantile traffic between the opposing districts, but Zwingli scorned to use such a means to hunger the enemy and so bring them to submit. However Zurich was outvoted in the Christian League (May 16th), and the Forest was excluded from the markets of that city and Bern. The rest may be easily guessed. On Zurich was turned all the fury of the famished Forest men, and they sent a challenge in October, 1531. A second time the hostile armies met at Kappel, but the positions were reversed. Zurich was unprepared to meet a foe four times as numerous as her own, and Bern hesitated to come to her aid. However Göldlin, the captain of the little force, recklessly engaged with the opposing army, whether from treachery or incapacity is not known, but he was certainly opposed to the reformed faith. Zwingli had taken leave of his friend Bullinger, as though foreseeing his own death in the coming struggle, and had joined the Zurich force. He was with the chief banner, and, with some 500 of his overmatched comrades, fell in the thickest of the battle. … But the reformation was far too deeply rooted to be thus destroyed. Bullinger, the friend of Zwingli, and, later on, of Calvin, worthily succeeded to the headship of the Zurich reformers."

      ALSO IN:
      J. H. Merle d' Aubigne,
      History of the Reformation in the 16th century,
      books 11 and 15-16 (volume 3-4).

      L. von Ranke,
      History of the Reformation in Germany,
      book 6, chapters 2-4 (volume 3).

SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1531-1648.
   Religious divisions and conflicts.
   Annexations of territory.
   Peace with the Duke of Savoy.
   The coming of Protestant refugees.
   Industrial progress.
   Peace.

   "A peace at Dennikon in 1531 marks the acknowledgement of the
   principle of each Canton's independence. … The Confederacy was
   now fatally divided. There is, perhaps, no other instance of a
   State so deeply and so permanently sundered by the
   Reformation. Other governments adopted or rejected the
   reformed religion for their dominions as a whole; the
   Confederacy, by its constitution, was constrained to allow
   each Canton to determine its religion for itself; and the
   presence of Catholic and Reformed States side by side, each
   clinging with obstinacy to the religion of their choice,
   became the origin of jealousies and wars which have threatened
   more than once to rend asunder the ties of union. Next to the
   endless but uninteresting theme of religious differences comes
   the history of the annexations" by which the Confederacy
   extended its limits. "In the direction of the Jura was a
   country divided between many governments, which the princes of
   Savoy, the Hapsburgs of the West, had once effectually ruled,
   but which had become morselled among many claimants during a
   century and a half of weakness, and which Duke Charles III. of
   Savoy was now seeking to reconcile to his authority.
{3048}
   Geneva was the chief city of these parts. … Factions in favour
   of or against [the rule of the Duke of Savoy] … divided the
   city [see GENEVA: A. D. 1504-1535]. The alliance of Bern and
   Freyburg was at length sought for; and the conclusion of a
   treaty of co-citizenship in 1526 opened at once the prospect
   of a collision between the House of Savoy and the Confederacy.
   That collision was not long delayed. In 1536, after repeated
   acts of provocation by Charles III., 7,000 men of Bern
   appeared within Geneva. To reach the city they had traversed
   the Pays de Vaud; after entering it they passed onwards to the
   provinces of Gex and Chablais. All that they traversed they
   annexed. Even the city which they had entered they would have
   ruled, had not some sparks of honour and the entreaties of its
   inhabitants restrained them from the annihilation of the
   liberties which they had been called on to defend. The men of
   Freyburg and of the Valais at the same time made humbler
   conquests from Savoy. Later, the strong fortress of Chillon,
   and the rich bishopric of Lausanne, were seized upon by Bern.
   A wide extent of territory was thus added to the Confederacy;
   and again a considerable population speaking the French tongue
   was brought under the dominion of the Teutonic Cantons. These
   acquisitions were extended, in 1555, by the cession of the
   county of Gruyère, through the embarrassments of its last
   impoverished Count. They were diminished, however, by the loss
   of Gex and Chablais in 1564. The jealousy of many of the
   cantons at the good fortune of their confederates, and the
   reviving power of the House of Savoy, had made the conquests
   insecure. Emmanuel Philibert, the hero of St. Quentin, the
   ally of the great sovereigns of France and Spain, asked back
   his provinces; and prudence counselled the surrender of the
   two, in order to obtain a confirmation of the possession of
   the rest.

The southern side of the Lake Leman, which had thus been momentarily held, and which nature seemed to have intended to belong to the Confederacy, was thus abandoned. The frontiers, however, which were now secured became permanent ones. The Dukes of Savoy had transferred much of their ambition, with their capital, beyond the Alps; and the Confederates remained secure in their remaining possessions. The Confederacy might now have added further to its power by admitting new members to its League. … Constance … had urged its own incorporation. The religious tendencies of its inhabitants, however, had made it suspected: and it was allowed to fall, in 1548, without hope of recovery, under the dominion of Austria. Geneva … was pleading loudly for admission. The jealousy of Bern, and later the hostility of the Catholic Cantons to the faith of which the city had become the centre, refused the request. She remained a mere ally, with even her independence not always ungrudgingly defended against the assaults of her enemies. Religious zeal indeed was fatal during this century to political sagacity. Under its influence the alliance with the rich city of Mulhausen, which had endured for more than a hundred years, was thrown off in 1587; the overtures of Strasburg for alliance were rejected; the proposals of the Grisons Leagues were repulsed. The opportunities of the Confederates were thus neglected, while those of their neighbours became proportionately increased. … The progress that is to be traced during the 16th century is such as was due to the times rather than to the people. The cessation of foreign wars and the fewer inducements for mercenary service gave leisure for the arts of peace; and agriculture and trade resumed their progress. Already Switzerland began to be sought by refugees from England, France, and Italy. The arts of weaving and of dyeing were introduced, and the manufacture of watches began at Geneva. … War, which had been almost abandoned except in the service of others, comes little into the annals of the Confederation as a State. … As another century advances, there is strife at the very gates of the Confederation. … But the Confederacy itself was never driven into war."

SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1579-1630.
The Catholic revival and rally.
The Borromean or Golden League.

"Pre-eminent amongst those who worked for the Catholic revival was the famous Carlo Borromeo, Archbishop of Milan and nephew of Pius IV. He lived the life of a saint, and in due time was canonized. To his see belonged the Swiss bailliages in the Ticino and Valtellina. Indefatigable in his labours, constantly visiting every part of his diocese, toiling up to the Alpine huts, he gathered the scattered flocks into the Papal fold, whether by mildness or by force. … For the spread of Catholic doctrines he hit upon three different means. He called into being the Collegium Helveticum in 1579 at Milan, where the Swiss priests were educated free. He sent the Jesuits into the country, and placed a nuncio at Lucerne, in 1580. In 1586 was signed, between the seven Catholic cantons, the Borromean or Golden League, directed against the reformers, and in the following year a coalition was, by the same cantons, excepting Solothurn, entered into with Philip of Spain and with Savoy. The Jesuits settled themselves in Lucerne and Freiburg, and soon gained influence amongst the rich and the educated, whilst the Capuchins, who fixed themselves at Altorf, Stanz, Appenzell, and elsewhere, won the hearts of the masses by their lowliness and devotion. In this way did Rome seek to regain her influence over the Swiss peoples, and the effect of her policy was soon felt in the semi-Protestant and subject lands. … In the Valais, the Protestant party, though strong, was quite swept out by the Jesuits, before 1630."

SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1648.
   The Peace of Westphalia.
   Acknowledged independence and
   separation from the German Empire.

SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1652-1789.
   The Peasant Revolt and the Toggenburg War.
   Religious conflicts.
   Battles of Villmergen.
   The Peace of Aarau.

"About the middle of the 17th century there was growing up, in all the cantons except the Waldstätten, a feeling of strong discontent among the peasants, who still suffered from many of the tyrannies which had descended to them from the old days of serfdom. They felt the painful contrast between their lot and that of the three old cantons, where every peasant voted for his own magistrates and his own laws, and helped to decide the taxes and contributions which he should pay. … Now that their liberty had been proclaimed at Westphalia, they were inspired with the idea of trying to make it a reality. … They rose on the occasion of the reduction of the value of their copper coinage. … Opposition began among the Entlibuchers of Lucerne, a tall and sturdy race, that lived in the long, fertile valley on the banks of the Emmen. … Their spirit was soon quenched, however, by the threats of Zurich and Berne; but though they yielded for the moment, their example had spread, and there were popular risings, excited in the large canton of Berne by the same causes, which were not so easily checked. There was a second revolt in Lucerne, which was intended to be nothing less than a league of all the lower classes throughout the ten cantons. The peasants of Lucerne, Berne, Basel, Solothurn, and the territory of Aargau, all joined in this and held an assembly at Sumiswald, in April 1653, where they chose Nicholas Leuenberger as their chief, and proclaimed their purpose of making themselves free as the Small Cantons. To this union, unfortunately, they brought neither strength of purpose nor wisdom. … Meanwhile the cities were not idle. Zurich, the capital, gave the order for the whole confederacy to arm, in May 1653. The struggle was short and decisive. For a few weeks Leuenberger's soldiers robbed and murdered where they could, and made feeble and futile attempts upon the small cities of Aargau. Towards the end of May he met, near Herzogenbuchsee, the Bernese troops. … A desperate fight ensued, but the insurgents were soon overpowered. … This battle ended the insurrection." Leuenberger was beheaded. "No sooner was this revolt of the peasants over than the smouldering fires of religious hatred, zealously fanned by the clergy on both sides, broke out again. … Several families of Arth, in Schwyz had been obliged by the Catholics to abjure their faith, or fly from their homes." Zurich took up their cause, and "a general war broke out. … Berne first despatched troops to protect her own frontier, and then sent 40 banners to the help of Zurich." The Bernese troops were so careless that they allowed themselves to be surprised (January 14, 1656) by 4,000 Lucerners, in the territory of Villmergen, and were ruinously defeated, losing 800 men and eleven guns. "Soon afterwards a peace was concluded, where everything stood much as it had stood at the beginning of this war, which had lasted only nine weeks. … A second insurrection, on a smaller scale than the peasants' revolt, took place in St. Gall in the first years of the 18th century. The Swiss, free in the eyes of the outside world, were, as we have already seen, mere serfs in nearly all the cantons, and such was their condition in the country of Toggenburg. … The greater part of the rights over these estates had been sold to the abbot of St. Gall in 1468. In the year 1700, the abbey of St. Gall was presided over by Leodegar Burgisser as sovereign lord. … He began by questioning all the commune rights of the Toggenburgers, and called the people his serfs, in order that they might become so used to the name as not to rebel against the hardness of the condition. Even at the time when he became abbot, there was very little, either of right or privilege, remaining to these poor people. … When, in 1701, Abbot Leodegar ordered them to build and keep open, at their own expense, a new road through the Hummelwald, crushed as they had been, they turned." After much fruitless remonstrance and appeal they took up arms, supported by the Protestant cantons and attacked by the Catholics, with aid contributed by the nuncio of the pope, himself. "The contest was practically ended on the 25th of July, 1712, by a decisive victory by the Protestants on the battle-field of Villmergen, where they had been beaten by the Lucerne men 56 years before. The battle lasted four hours, and 2,000 Catholics were slain. … In the month of August, a general peace was concluded at Aarau, to the great advantage of the conquerors. The five Catholic cantons were obliged to yield their rights over Baden and Rapperswyl, and to associate Berne with themselves in the sovereignty over Thurgau and the Rheinfeld. By this provision the two religions became equalized in those provinces. … The Toggenburgers came once more under the jurisdiction of an abbot of St. Gall, but with improved rights and privileges, and under the powerful protection of Zurich and Berne. The Catholic cantons were long in recovering from the expenses of this war. … During 86 years from the peace of Aarau, the Swiss were engaged in neither foreign nor civil war, and the disturbances which agitated the different cantons from time to time were confined to a limited stage. But real peace and union were as far off as ever. Religious differences, plots, intrigues, and revolts, kept people of the same canton and village apart, until the building which their forefathers had raised in the early days of the republic was gradually weakened and ready to fall, like a house of cards, at the first blow from France."

SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1792-1798.
   The ferment of the French Revolution.
   Invasion and subjugation by the French.
   Robbing of the treasure of Berne.
   Formation of the Helvetic Republic.

"The world rang with arms and cries of war, with revolutions, battles and defeats. The French promised fraternity and assistance to every people who wished to make themselves free. … Their arms advanced victorious through Savoy and the Netherlands and over the Rhine. Nearer and nearer drew the danger around the country of the Alpine people. But the government of the Confederate states showed no foresight in view of the danger. They thought themselves safe behind the shield of their innocence and their neutrality between the contending parties. They had no arms and prepared none; they had no strength and did not draw closer the bands of their everlasting compact. Each canton, timidly and in silence, cared for its own safety, but little for that of the others. … All kinds of pamphlets stirred up the people. At Lausanne, Vevey, Rolle and other places, fiery young men, in noisy assemblages, drank success to the arms of emancipated France. {3050} Although public order was nowhere disturbed by such proceedings, the government of Berne thought it necessary to put a stop to them by severe measures and to compel silence by wholesome fear. They sent plenipotentiaries supported by an armed force. The guilty and even the innocent were punished. More fled. This silenced Vaud, but did not quell her indignation. The fugitives breathed vengeance. … In foreign countries dwelt sadly many of those who, at various times, had been banished from the Confederacy because they had, by word or deed, too boldly or importunately defended the rights and freedom of their fellow-citizens. Several of these addressed the chiefs of the French republic. … Such addresses pleased the chiefs of France. They thought in their hearts that Switzerland would be an excellent bulwark for France, and a desirable gate, through which the way would be always open to Italy and Germany. They also knew of and longed for the treasures of the Swiss cities. And they endeavored to find cause of quarrel with the magistrates of the Confederates. … Shortly afterwards, came the great general Napoleon Buonaparte, and marched through Savoy into Italy against the forces of the emperor. … In a very few months, though in many battles, Buonaparte vanquished the whole power of Austria, conquered and terrified Italy from one end to the other, took the whole of Lombardy and compelled the emperor to make peace. He made Lombardy a republic, called the Cisalpine. When the subjects of Grisons in Valtelina, Chiavenna and Bormio saw this, they preferred to be citizens of the neighboring Cisalpine republic, rather than poor subjects of Grisons. For their many grievances and complaints were rarely listened to. But Buonaparte said to Grisons: 'If you will give freedom and equal rights to these people, they may be your fellow-citizens, and still remain with you. I give you time; decide and send word to me at Milan.' … When the last period for decision had passed, Buonaparte became indignant and impatient, and united Valtelina, Chiavenna and Bormio to the Cisalpine republic (22d October, 1797). … So the old limits of Switzerland were unjustly contracted; four weeks afterwards also, that part of the bishopric of Bale which had hitherto been respected on account of its alliance with the Swiss, was added to France. Thereat great fear fell on the Confederates. … Then the rumor spread that a French army was approaching the frontiers of Switzerland to protect the people of Vaud. They had called for the intervention of France in virtue of ancient treaties. But report said that the French intended to overthrow the Confederate authorities and to make themselves masters of the country. … Almost the whole Confederacy was in a state of confusion and dissolution. The governments of the cantons, powerless, distrustful and divided, acted each for itself, without concert. … In the mean while a large army of French advanced. Under their generals Brune and Schauenberg they entered the territory of the Confederates, and Vaud, accepting foreign protection, declared herself independent of Berne. Then the governments of Switzerland felt that they could no longer maintain their former dominion. Lucerne and Schauffhausen declared their subjects free and united to themselves. Zurich released the prisoners of Stafa, and promised to ameliorate her constitution to the advantage of the people. … Even Freiburg now felt that the change must come for which Chenaur had bled. And the council of Berne received into their number 52 representatives of the country and said: 'Let us hold together in the common danger.' All these reforms and revolutions were the work of four weeks; all too late. Berne, indeed, with Freiburg and Solothurn, opposed her troops to the advancing French army. Courage was not wanting; but discipline, skill in arms and experienced officers. … On the very first day of the war (2d March, 1798), the enemy's light troops took Freiburg and Solothurn, and on the fourth (5th March), Berne itself. … France now authoritatively decided the future fate of Switzerland and said: 'The Confederacy is no more. Henceforward the whole of Switzerland shall form a free state, one and indivisible, under the name of the Helvetian republic. All the inhabitants, in country as well as city, shall have equal rights of citizenship. The citizens in general assembly shall choose their magistrates, officers, judges and legislative council; the legislative council shall elect the general government; the government shall appoint the cantonal prefects and officers.' The whole Swiss territory was divided into 18 cantons of about equal size. For this purpose the district of Berne was parcelled into the cantons of Vaud, Oberland, Berne and Aragau; several small cantons were united in one; as Uri, Schwyz. Unterwalden and Zug in the canton of Waldstatten; St. Gallen district, Rheinthal and Appenzell in the canton of Santis; several countries subject to the Confederacy, as Baden, Thurgau, Lugano and Bellinzona, formed new cantons. Valais was also added as one; Grisons was invited to join; but Geneva, Muhlhausen and other districts formerly parts of Switzerland, were separated from her and incorporated with France. So decreed the foreign conquerors. They levied heavy war-taxes and contributions. They carried off the tons of gold which Berne, Zurich and other cities had accumulated in their treasure-chambers during their dominion. … But the mountaineers of Uri, Nidwalden, Schwyz and Glarus, original confederates in liberty, said: 'In battle and in blood, our fathers won the glorious jewel of our independence; we will not lose it but in battle and in blood.' … Then they fought valiantly near Wollrau and on the Schindellegi, but unsuccessfully. … But Aloys Reding reassembled his troops on the Rothenthurm, near the Morgarten field of victory. There a long and bloody battle took place. … Thrice did the French troops renew the combat: thrice were they defeated and driven back to Aegeri in Zug. It was the second of May. Nearly 2,000 of the enemy lay slain upon that glorious field. Gloriously also fought the Waldstatten on the next day near Arth. But the strength of the heroes bled away in their very victories. They made a treaty, and, with sorrow in their hearts, entered the Helvetian republic. Thus ended the old Bond of the Confederates. Four hundred and ninety years had it lasted; in seventy-four days it was dissolved."

"A system of robbery and extortion, more shameless even than that practised in Italy, was put in force against the cantonal governments, against the monasteries, and against private individuals. In compensation for the material losses inflicted upon the country, the new Helvetic Republic, one and indivisible, was proclaimed at Aarau. It conferred an equality of political rights upon all natives of Switzerland, and substituted for the ancient varieties of cantonal sovereignty a single national government, composed, like that of France, of a Directory and two Councils of Legislature. The towns and districts which had been hitherto excluded from a share in government welcomed a change which seemed to place them on a level with their former superiors: the mountain-cantons fought with traditional heroism in defence of the liberties which they had inherited from their fathers; but they were compelled, one after another, to submit to the overwhelming force of France, and to accept the new constitution. Yet, even now, when peace seemed to have been restored, and the whole purpose of France attained, the tyranny and violence of the invaders exhausted the endurance of a spirited people. The magistrates of the Republic were expelled from office at the word of a French Commission; hostages were seized; at length an oath of allegiance to the new order was required as a condition for the evacuation of Switzerland by the French army. It was refused by the mountaineers of Unterwalden, and a handful of peasants met the French army at the village of Stanz, on the eastern shore of the Lake of Lucerne (September 8). There for three days they fought with unyielding courage. Their resistance inflamed the French to a cruel vengeance: slaughtered families and burning villages renewed, in this so-called crusade of liberty, the savagery of ancient war."

"Geneva at the same time [1798] fell a prey to the ambition of the all-engrossing Republic. This celebrated city had long been an object of their desire; and the divisions by which it was now distracted afforded a favourable opportunity for accomplishing the object. The democratic party loudly demanded a union with that power, and a commission was appointed by the Senate to report upon the subject. Their report, however, was unfavourable; upon which General Gerard, who commanded a small corps in the neighbourhood, took possession of the town; and the Senate, with the bayonet at their throats, formally agreed to a union with the conquering Republic."

      ALSO IN:
      A. Thiers,
      History of the French Revolution (American Edition),
      volume 4, pages 248-252.

      Mallet du Pan,
      Memoirs and Correspondence,
      volume 2, chapters 13-14.

SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1798-1799.
Battlefield of the second Coalition against France.

SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1799 (August-December).
   Campaign of the French against the Russians.
   Battle of Zurich.
   Carnage in the city.
   Suwarrow's retreat.

SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1803-1848.
   Napoleon's Act of Mediation.
   Independence regained and Neutrality guaranteed by
   the Congress of Vienna.
   Geneva, the Valais, and Neuchâtel.
   The Federal Pact of 1815.
   The Sonderbund and Civil War.
   The Federal Constitution of 1848.

"Bonaparte summoned deputies of both parties to Paris, and after long consultation with them he gave to Switzerland, on the 2d February 1803, a new Constitution termed the Act of Mediation. Old names were restored, and in some cases what had been subject lands were incorporated in the League, which now consisted of 19 Cantons, each having a separate Constitution. The additional six were: St. Gallen, the Grisons, Aargau, Thurgau, Ticino, and Vaud. This was the fifth phase of the Confederation. A Diet was created, there being one deputy to each Canton, but still with limited powers, for he could only vote according to his instructions. The 19 deputies had, however, between them 25 votes, because every deputy who represented a Canton with more than 100,000 inhabitants possessed two votes, and there were six of these Cantons. The Diet met once a year in June, by turns at Zürich, Bern, Luzern, Freiburg, Solothurn, and Basel, the Cantons of which these were the capitals becoming successively directing Cantons. Three were Catholic and three Protestant. The head of the directing Canton for the time being was Landammann of Switzerland and President of the Diet. The Act of Mediation was not acceptable to all parties, and before Switzerland could become entirely independent there was to be one more foreign intervention. The fall of the Emperor Napoleon brought with it the destruction of his work in that country, the neutrality and independence of which were recognized by the Congress of Vienna [see VIENNA: CONGRESS OF), though upon condition of the maintenance in the Confederation of the new Cantons; and in 1814 the Valais (a Republic allied to the Confederation from the Middle Ages till 1798), Neuchâtel (which, from being subject to the King of Prussia, had been bestowed by Napoleon upon Marshal Berthier), and Geneva (which had been annexed to France under the Directory in 1798, but was now independent and rendered more compact by the addition of some territory belonging to France and Savoy) were added to the existing Cantons. Finally, the perpetual neutrality of Switzerland and the inviolability of her territory were guaranteed by Austria, Great Britain, Portugal, Prussia, and Russia, in an Act signed at Paris on the 20th November 1815. Neuchâtel, however, only really gained its independence in 1857, when it ceased to be a Prussian Principality. The Confederation now consisted of 22 Cantons, and a Federal Pact, drawn up at Zürich by the Diet in 1815, and accepted by the Congress of Vienna, took the place of the Act of Mediation, and remained in force till 1848. It was in some respects a return to the state of things previous to the French Revolution, and restored to the Cantons a large portion of their former sovereignty. … Then came an epoch of agitation and discord. The Confederation suffered from a fundamental vice, i. e. the powerlessness of the central authority. The Cantons had become too independent, and gave to their deputies instructions differing widely from each other. The fall of the Bourbons in 1830 had its echo in Switzerland, the patricians of Bern and the aristocratic class in other Cantons lost the ascendency which they had gradually recovered since the beginning of the century, and the power of the people was greatly increased. {3052} In several months 12 Cantons, among which were Luzern and Freiburg, modified their Constitutions in a democratic sense, some peaceably, others by revolution. … Between 1830 and 1847 there were in all 27 revisions of cantonal Constitutions. To political disputes religious troubles were added. In Aargau the Constitution of 1831, whereby the Grand Council was made to consist of 200 members, half being Protestants and half Catholics, was revised in 1840, and by the new Constitution the members were no longer to be chosen with any reference to creed, but upon the basis of wide popular representation, thus giving a numerical advantage to the Protestants. Discontent arose among the Catholics, and eventually some 2,000 peasants of that faith took up arms, but were beaten by Protestants of Aargau at Villmergen in January 1841, and the consequence was the suppression of the eight convents in that Canton, and the confiscation of their most valuable property. … A first result of the suppression of these convents was the fall of the Liberal government of Luzern, and the advent to power of the chiefs of the Ultramontane party in that Canton. Two years later the new government convoked delegates of the Catholic Cantons at Rothen, near Luzern, and there in secret conferences, and under the pretext that religion was in danger, the bases of a separate League or Sonderbund were laid, embracing the four Forest Cantons, Zug, and Freiburg. Subsequently the Valais joined the League, which was clearly a violation not only of the letter but also of the spirit of the Federal Pact. In 1844 the Grand Council of Luzern voted in favour of the Jesuits' appeal to be entrusted with the direction of superior public education, and this led to hostilities between the Liberal and Ultramontane parties. Bands of volunteers attacked Luzern and were defeated, the expulsion of the Jesuits became a burning question, and finally, when the ordinary Diet assembled at Bern in July 1847, the Sonderbund Cantons declared their intention of persevering in their separate alliance until the other Cantons had decreed the re-establishment of the Aargau convents, abandoned the question of the Jesuits, and renounced all modifications of the Pact. These conditions could evidently not be accepted. … On the 4th November 1847, after the deputies of the Sonderbund had left the Diet, this League was declared to be dissolved, and hostilities broke out between the two contending parties. A short and decisive campaign of 25 days ensued, Freiburg was taken by the Federal troops, under General Dufour, later Luzern opened its gates, the small Cantons and the Valais capitulated and the strife came to an end. … As soon as the Sonderbund was dissolved, it became necessary to proceed to the revision of the Federal Pact."

On the conclusion of the Sonderbund Secession and War, the task of drawing up a Constitution for the Confederacy was confided to a committee of fourteen members, and the work was finished on the 8th of April, 1848. "The project was submitted to the Cantons, and accepted at once by thirteen and a half; others joined during the summer, and the new Constitution was finally promulgated with the assent of all on the 12th September. Hence arose the seventh and last phase of the Confederation, by the adoption of a Federal Constitution for the whole of Switzerland, being the first which was entirely the work of Swiss, without any foreign influence, although its authors had studied that of the United States. … It was natural that, as in process of time commerce and industry were developed, and as the differences between the legislation of the various Cantons became more apparent, a revision of the first really Swiss Constitution should be found necessary. This was proposed both in 1871 and 1872, but the partisans of a further centralization, though successful in the Chambers, were defeated upon an appeal to the popular vote on the 12th May 1872, by a majority of between five and six thousand, and by thirteen Cantons to nine. The question was, however, by no means settled, and in 1874 a new project of revision, more acceptable to the partisans of cantonal independence, was adopted by the people, the numbers being 340,199, to 198,013. The Cantons were about two to one in favour of the revision, 14½ declaring for and 7½ against it. This Constitution bears date the 29th May 1874, and has since been added to and altered in certain particulars."

   "Since 1848 … Switzerland has been a federal state, consisting
   of a central authority, the Bund, and 19 entire and 6 half
   states, the Cantons; to foreign powers she presents an united
   front, while her internal policy allows to each Canton a large
   amount of independence. … The basis of all legislative
   division is the Commune or 'Gemeinde,' corresponding in some
   slight degree to the English 'Parish.' The Commune in its
   legislative and administrative aspect or 'Einwohnergemeinde'
   is composed of all the inhabitants of a Commune. It is
   self-governing and has the control of the local police; it
   also administers all matters connected with pauperism,
   education, sanitary and funeral regulations, the fire brigade,
   the maintenance of public peace and trusteeships. … At the
   head of the Commune is the 'Gemeinderath,' or 'Communal
   Council,' whose members are elected from the inhabitants for a
   fixed period. It is presided over by an 'Ammann,' or 'Mayor,'
   or 'President.' … Above the Commune on the ascending scale
   comes the Canton. … Each of the 19 Cantons and 6 half Cantons
   is a sovereign state, whose privileges are nevertheless
   limited by the Federal Constitution, particularly as regards
   legal and military matters; the Constitution also defines the
   extent of each Canton, and no portion of a Canton is allowed
   to secede and join itself to another Canton. … Legislative
   power is in the hands of the 'Volk'; in the political sense of
   the word the 'Volk' consists of all the Swiss living in the
   Canton, who have passed their 20th year and are not under
   disability from crime or bankruptcy.
{3053}
   The voting on the part of the people deals mostly with
   alterations in the cantonal constitution, treaties, laws,
   decisions of the First Council involving expenditures of Frs.
   100,000 and upward, and other decisions which the Council
   considers advisable to subject to the public vote, which also
   determines the adoption of propositions for the creation of
   new laws, or the alteration or abolition of old ones, when
   such a plebiscite is demanded by a petition signed by 5,000
   voters. … The First Council (Grosse Rath) is the highest
   political and administrative power of the Canton. It
   corresponds to the 'Chamber' of other countries. Every 1,300
   inhabitants of an electoral circuit send one member. … The
   Kleine Rath or special council (corresponding to the
   'Ministerium' of other continental countries) is composed of
   three members and has three proxies. It is chosen by the First
   Council for a period of two years. It superintends all
   cantonal institutions and controls the various public boards.
   … The populations of the 22 sovereign Cantons constitute
   together the Swiss Confederation. … The highest power of the
   Bund is exercised by the 'Bundesversammlung,' or Parliament,
   which consists of two chambers, the 'Nationalrath,' and the
   'Ständerath.' The Nationalrath corresponds to the English
   House of Commons, and the Ständerath partially to the House of
   Lords; the former represents the Swiss people, the latter the
   Cantons. The Nationalrath consists of 145 members. … Every
   Canton or half Canton must choose at least one member; and for
   the purpose of election Switzerland is divided into 49
   electoral districts. The Nationalrath is triennial. … The
   Ständerath consists of 44 members, each Canton having two
   representatives and each half Canton one. … A bill is regarded
   as passed when it has an absolute majority in both chambers,
   but it does not come into force until either a plebiscite is
   not demanded for a space of three months, or, if it is
   demanded (for which the request of 30,000 voters is necessary)
   the result of the appeal to the people is in favor of the
   bill. This privilege of the people to control the decision of
   their representatives is called Das Referendum. …

The highest administrative authority in Switzerland is the Bundesrath, composed of seven members, which [like the Bundesversammlung] … meets in Bern. Its members are chosen by the Bundesversammlung and the term of office is ten years. … The president of the Confederation (Bundespresident) is chosen by the Bundesversammlung from the members of the Bundesrath for one year. … The administration of justice, so far as it is exercised by the Bund, is entrusted to a Court, the Bundesgericht, consisting of nine members."

      P. Hauri,
      Sketch of the Constitution of Switzerland
      (in Strickland's "The Engadine").

      ALSO IN:
      Sir F. O. Adams and C. D. Cunningham,
      The Swiss Confederation.

SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1894.

The President of the Swiss Federal Council for 1894 is Emile Frey, the Vice President, Joseph Zemp. According to the latest census, taken in 1888, the population of Switzerland was 2,917,740.

An Order, ascribed to Gustavus Vasa. It was revived, after long neglect, by King Frederick I. in 1748.

SYBARIS. SYBARITES.

Sybaris and Kroton were two ancient Greek cities, founded by Achæan colonists, on the coast of the gulf of Tarentum, in southern Italy. "The town of Sybaris was planted between two rivers, the Sybaris and the Krathis (the name of the latter borrowed from a river of Achaia); the town of Kroton about twenty-live miles distant, on the river Æsarus. … The fatal contest between these two cities, which ended in the ruin of Sybaris, took place in 510 B. C., after the latter had subsisted in growing prosperity for 210 years. … We are told that the Sybarites, in that final contest, marched against Kroton with an army of 300,000 men. … The few statements which have reached us respecting them touch, unfortunately, upon little more than their luxury, fantastic self-indulgence and extravagant indolence, for which qualities they have become proverbial in modern times as well as in ancient. Anecdotes illustrating these qualities were current, and served more than one purpose in antiquity."

Fought, B. C. 432, between the fleets of Corinth and Corcyra, in the quarrel which led up to the Peloponnesian War. The Athenians had ten ships present, as allies of the Corcyreans, intending only to watch affairs, but at the end they were drawn into the fight. The Corcyreans were beaten.

SYCOPHANTS.

"Not until now [about B. C. 428, when the demagogue Cleon rose to power at Athens] did the activity of the Sycophants attain to its full height; a class of men arose who made a regular trade of collecting materials for indictments, and of bringing their fellow citizens before a legal tribunal. These denunciations were particularly directed against those who were distinguished by wealth, birth and services, and who therefore gave cause for suspicion; for the informers wished to prove themselves zealous friends of the people and active guardians of the constitution. … Intrigues and conspiracies were suspected in all quarters, and the popular orators persuaded the citizens to put no confidence in any magistrate, envoy or commission, but rather to settle everything in full assembly and themselves assume the entire executive. The Sycophants made their living out of this universal suspicion. … They threatened prosecutions in order thus to extort money from guilty and innocent alike; for even among those who felt free from guilt were many who shunned a political prosecution beyond all other things, having no confidence in a jury."

SYLLA.

SYLLABARIES.

"A good deal of the [Assyrian] literature was of a lexical and grammatical kind, and was intended to assist the Semitic student in interpreting the old Accadian texts. Lists of characters were drawn up with their pronunciation in Accadian and the translation into Assyrian of the words represented by them. Since the Accadian pronunciation of a character was frequently the phonetic value attached to it by the Assyrians, these syllabaries, as they have been termed—in consequence of the fact that the cuneiform characters denoted syllables and not letters—have been of the greatest possible assistance in the decipherment of the inscriptions."

SYMMACHIA.

An offensive and defensive alliance between two states was so called by the Greeks.

"In the archonship of Nausinicus in Olymp. 100,3 (B. C. 378) the institution of what were called the symmoriæ (collegia, or companies), was introduced [at Athens] in relation to the property taxes. The object of this institution, as the details of the arrangement themselves show, was through the joint liability of larger associations to confirm the sense of individual obligation to pay the taxes, and to secure their collection, and also, in case of necessity, to cause those taxes which were not received at the proper time to be advanced by the most wealthy citizens."

A. Boeckh, Public Economy of the Athenians (translated by Lamb), book 4, chapter 9.

SYMPOSIUM.

The Symposium of the ancient Greeks was that part of a feast which ensued when the substantial eating was done, and which was enlivened with wine, music, conversation, exhibitions of dancing, etc.

SYNOECIA.

"Syracuse was founded the year after Naxos, by Corinthians, under a leader named Archias, a Heracleid, and probably of the ruling caste, who appears to have been compelled to quit his country to avoid the effects of the indignation which he had excited by a horrible outrage committed in a family of lower rank. … Syracuse became, in course of time, the parent of other Sicilian cities, among which Camarina was the most considerable. … Forty-five years after Syracuse, Gela was founded by a band collected from Crete and Rhodes, chiefly from Lindus, and about a century later (B. C. 582) sent forth settlers to the banks of the Acragas, where they built Agrigentum."

The first settlement at Syracuse was on the islet of Ortygia. "Ortygia, two English miles in circumference, was separated from the main island only by a narrow channel, which was bridged over when the city was occupied and enlarged by Gelôn in the 72nd Olympiad, if not earlier. It formed only a small part, though the most secure and best-fortified part, of the vast space which the city afterwards occupied. But it sufficed alone for the inhabitants during a considerable time, and the present city in its modern decline has again reverted to the same modest limits. Moreover, Ortygia offered another advantage of not less value. It lay across the entrance of a spacious harbour, approached by a narrow mouth, and its fountain of Arethusa was memorable in antiquity both for the abundance and goodness of its water."

The Greek city of Syracuse, in Sicily, having been founded and built up by colonization from Corinth, naturally shared the deep hatred of Athens which was common among the Dorian Greeks, and which the Corinthians particularly found many reasons to cherish. The feeling at Athens was reciprocal, and, as the two cities grew supreme in their respective spheres and arrogant with the consciousness of superior power, mutual jealousies fed their passion of hostility, although nothing in their affairs, either politically or commercially, brought them really into contact with one another. But Syracuse, enforcing her supremacy in Sicily, dealt roughly with the Ionian settlements there, and Athens was appealed to for aid. The first call upon her was made (B. C. 428) in the midst of the earlier period of the Peloponnesian War, and came from the people of Leontini, then engaged in a struggle with Syracuse, into which other Sicilian cities had been drawn. The Athenians were easily induced to respond to the call, and they sent a naval force which took part in the Leontine War, but without any marked success. The result was to produce among the Sicilians a common dread of Athenian interference, which led them to patch up a general peace. But fresh quarrels were not long in arising, in the course of which Leontini was entirely destroyed, and another Sicilian city, Egesta, which Athens had before received into her alliance, claimed help against Syracuse. This appeal reached the Athenians at a time (B. C. 416) when their populace was blindly following Alcibiades, whose ambition craved war, and who chafed under the restraints of the treaty of peace with Sparta which Nicias had brought about. They were carried by his influence into the undertaking of a great expedition of conquest, directed against the Sicilian capital—the most costly and formidable which any Greek state had ever fitted out. In the summer of B. C. 415 the whole force assembled at Corcyra and sailed across the Ionian sea to the Italian coast and thence to Sicily. It consisted of 134 triremes, with many merchant, ships and transports, bearing 5,100 hoplites, 480 bowmen and 700 Rhodian slingers. The commanders were Nicias, Lamachus and Alcibiades. On the arrival of the expedition in Sicily a disagreement among the generals made efficient action impossible and gave the Syracusans time to prepare a stubborn resistance. {3055} Meantime the enemies of Alcibiades at Athens had brought about a decree for his arrest, on account of an alleged profanation of the sacred Eleusinian mysteries, and, fearing to face the accusation, he fled, taking refuge at Sparta, where he became the implacable enemy of his country. Three months passed before Nicias, who held the chief command, made any attempt against Syracuse. He then struck a single blow, which was successful, but which led to nothing; for the Athenian army was withdrawn immediately afterwards and put into winter quarters. In the following spring the regular operations of a siege and blockade were undertaken, at sea with the fleet and on land by a wall of circumvallation. The undertaking promised well at first and the Syracusans were profoundly discouraged. But Sparta, where Alcibiades worked passionately in their favor, sent them a general, Gylippus, who proved to be equal to an army, and promised reinforcements to follow. The more vigorous Athenian general, Lamachus, had been killed, and Nicias, with incredible apathy, suffered Gylippus to gather up a small army in the island and to enter Syracuse with it, in defiance of the Athenian blockade. From that day the situation was reversed. The besieged became the assailants and the besiegers defended themselves. Nicias sent to Athens for help and maintained his ground with difficulty through another long winter, until a second great fleet and army arrived, under the capable general Demosthenes, to reinforce him. But it was too late. Syracuse had received powerful aid, in ships and men, from Corinth, from Sparta and from other enemies of Athens, had built a navy and trained sailors of her own, and was full of confident courage. The Athenians were continually defeated, on land and sea, and hoped for nothing at last but to be able to retreat. Even the opportunity to do that was lost for them in the end by the weakness of Nicias, who delayed moving on account of an eclipse, until his fleet was destroyed in a final sea-fight and the island roads were blocked by an implacable enemy. The flight when it was undertaken proved a hopeless attempt, and there is nothing in history more tragical than the account of it which is given in the pages of Thucydides. On the sixth day of the struggling retreat the division under Demosthenes gave up and surrendered to the pursuers who swarmed around it. On the next day Nicias yielded with the rest, after a terrible massacre at the river Assinarus. Nicias and Demosthenes were put to the sword, although Gylippus interceded for them. Their followers were imprisoned in the Syracusan quarries. "There were great numbers of them and they were crowded in a deep and narrow place. At first the sun by day was still scorching and suffocating, for they had no roof over their heads, while the autumn nights were cold, and the extremes of temperature engendered violent disorders. Being cramped for room they had to do everything on the same spot. The corpses of those who died from their wounds, exposure to the weather, and the like, lay heaped one upon another. The smells were intolerable; and they were at the same time afflicted by hunger and thirst. During eight months they were allowed only about half a pint of water and a pint of food a day. Every kind of misery which could befall man in such a place befell them. This was the condition of all the captives for about ten weeks. At length the Syracusans sold them, with the exception of the Athenians and of any Sicilian or Italian Greeks who had sided with them in the war. The whole number of the public prisoners is not accurately known, but they were not less than 7,000. Of all the Hellenic actions which took place in this war, or indeed of all Hellenic actions which are on record, this was the greatest—the most glorious to the victors, the most ruinous to the vanquished; for they were utterly and at all points defeated, and their sufferings were prodigious. Fleet and army perished from the face of the earth; nothing was saved, and of the many who went forth few returned home. Thus ended the Sicilian expedition."

   Eighteen years after the tragic deliverance of Syracuse from
   the besieging host and fleet of the Athenians, the Sicilian
   capital experienced a second great peril and extraordinary
   escape of like kind. The democratic government of Syracuse had
   meantime fallen and a new tyrant had risen to power.
   Dionysius, who began life in a low station, made his way
   upward by ruthless energy and cunning, practising skilfully
   the arts of a demagogue until he had won the confidence of the
   people, and making himself their master in the end. When the
   sovereignty of Dionysius had acquired firmness and the
   fortifications and armament of his city had been powerfully
   increased, it suited his purposes to make war upon the
   Carthaginians, which he did, B. C. 397. He attacked Motye,
   which was the most important of their cities in Sicily, and
   took it after a siege of some months' duration, slaughtering
   and enslaving the wretched inhabitants. But his triumph in
   this exploit was brief. Imilkon, or Himilco, the Carthaginian
   commander, arrived in Sicily with a great fleet and army and
   recaptured Motye with ease. That done he made a rapid march to
   Messene, in the northeastern extremity of the island, and
   gained that city almost without a blow. The inhabitants
   escaped, for the most part, but the town is said to have been
   reduced to an utter heap of ruins—from which it was
   subsequently rebuilt. From Messene he advanced to Syracuse,
   Dionysius not daring to meet him in the field. The Syracusan
   fleet, encountering that of the Carthaginians, near Katana,
   was almost annihilated, and when the vast African armament,
   numbering more than seventeen hundred ships of every
   description, sailed into the Great Harbor of Syracuse, there
   was nothing to oppose it. The city was formidably invested, by
   land and sea, and its fate would have appeared to be sealed.
   But the gods interposed, as the ancients thought, and avenged
   themselves for insults which the Carthaginians had put upon
   them. Once more the fatal pestilence which had smitten the
   latter twice before in their Sicilian Wars appeared and their
   huge army was palsied by it. "Care and attendance upon the
   sick, or even interment of the dead, became impracticable; so
   that the whole camp presented a scene of deplorable agony,
   aggravated by the horrors and stench of 150,000 unburied
   bodies.
{3056}
   The military strength of the Carthaginians was completely
   prostrated by such a visitation. Far from being able to make
   progress in the siege, they were not even able to defend
   themselves against moderate energy on the part of the
   Syracusans; who … were themselves untouched by the distemper."
   In this situation the Carthaginian commander basely deserted
   his army. Having secretly bribed Dionysius to permit the
   escape of himself and the small number of native Carthaginians
   in his force, he abandoned the remainder to their fate (B. C.
   394). Dionysius took the Iberians into his service; but the
   Libyans and other mercenaries were either killed or enslaved.
   As for Imilkon, soon after his return to Carthage he shut
   himself in his house and died, refusing food. The blow to the
   prestige of Carthage was nearly fatal, producing a rebellion
   among her subjects which assumed a most formidable character;
   but it lacked capable command and was suppressed.

"The successful result of Dionysios' first Punic War seems to have largely spread his fame in Old Greece," while it increased his prestige and power at home. But "he had many difficulties. He too, like the Carthaginians, had to deal with a revolt among his mercenaries, and he had to give up to them the town of Leontinoi. And the people of Naxos and Katanê, driven out by himself, and the people of Messana, driven out by Himilkôn, were wandering about, seeking for dwelling-places. He restored Messana, but he did not give it back to its old inhabitants. He peopled it with colonists from Italy and from Old Greece. … He also planted a body of settlers from the old Messenian land in Peloponnêsos," at Tyndaris. "Thus the north-eastern corner of Sicily was held by men who were really attached to Dionysios. And he went on further to extend his power along the north coast. … The Sikel towns were now fast taking to Greek ways, and we hear of commonwealths and tyrants among them, just as among the Greeks. Agyris, lord of Agyrium, was said to be the most powerful prince in Sicily after Dionysios himself. … With him Dionysios made a treaty, and also with other Sikel lords and cities." But he attacked the new Sikel town of Tauromenion, and was disastrously repulsed. "This discomfiture at Tauromenion checked the plans of Dionysios for a while. Several towns threw off his dominion. … And the Carthaginians also began to stir again. In B. C. 393 their general Magôn, seemingly without any fresh troops from Africa, set out from Western Sicily to attack Messana." But Dionysios defeated him, and the next year he made peace with the Carthaginians, as one of the consequences of which he captured Tauromenion in 391. "Dionysios was now at the height of his power in Sicily. … He commanded the whole east coast, and the greater part of the north and south coasts. … Dionysios and Carthage might be said to divide Sicily between them, and Dionysios had the larger share." Being at peace with the Carthaginians, he now turned his arms against the Greek cities in Southern Italy, and took Kaulônia, Hippônion, and Rhêgion (B. C. 387), making himself, "beyond all doubt, the chief power, not only in Sicily, but in Greek Italy also." Three years later (B. C. 384) Dionysios sent a splendid embassy to the Olympic festival in Greece. "Lysias called on the assembled Greeks to show their hatred of the tyrant, to hinder his envoys from sacrificing or his chariots from running. His chariots did run; but they were all defeated. Some of the multitude made an attack on the splendid tents of his envoys. He had also sent poems of his own to be recited; but the crowd would not hear them."

   The elder Dionysius,—he who climbed by cunning demagoguery
   from an obscure beginning in life to the height of power in
   Syracuse, making himself the typical tyrant of antiquity,—died
   in 367 B. C. after a reign of thirty-eight years. He was
   succeeded by his son, Dionysius the younger, who inherited
   nothing in character from his father but his vices and his
   shameless meannesses. For a time the younger Dionysius was
   largely controlled by the admirable influence of Dion,
   brother-in-law and son-in-law of the elder tyrant (who had
   several wives and left several families). Dion had Plato for
   his teacher and friend, and strove with the help of the great
   Athenian—who visited Sicily thrice—to win the young tyrant to
   a life of virtue and to philosophical aims. The only result
   was to finally destroy the whole influence with which they
   began, and Dion, ere long, was driven from Syracuse, while
   Dionysius abandoned himself to debaucheries and cruelties.
   After a time Dion was persuaded to lead a small force from
   Athens to Syracuse and undertake the overthrow of Dionysius.
   The gates of Syracuse were joyfully opened to him and his
   friends, and they were speedily in possession of the whole
   city except the island-stronghold of Ortygia, which was the
   entrenchment of the Dionysian tyranny. Then ensued a
   protracted and desperate civil war in Syracuse, which half
   ruined the magnificent city. In the end Ortygia was
   surrendered, Dionysius having previously escaped with much
   treasure to his dependent city of Lokri, in southern Italy.
   Dion took up the reins of government, intending to make
   himself what modern times would call a constitutional monarch.
   He wished the people to have liberty, but such liberty as a
   philosopher would find best for them. He was distrusted,—
   misunderstood,—denounced by demagogues, and hated, at last, as
   bitterly as the tyrants who preceded him. His high-minded
   ambitions were all disappointed and his own character suffered
   from the disappointment. At the end of a year of sovereignty
   he was assassinated by one of his own Athenian intimates,
   Kallippus, who secured the goodwill of the army and made
   himself des·pot. The reign of Kallippus was maintained for
   something more than a year, and he was then driven out by
   Hipparinus, one of the sons of Dionysius the elder, and
   half-brother to the younger of that name. Hipparinus was
   presently murdered and another brother, Nysæus, took his
   place. Then Nysæus, in turn, was driven out by Dionysius, who
   returned from Lokri and re-established his power. The
   condition of Syracuse under the restored despotism of
   Dionysius was worse than it ever had been in the past, and the
   great city seemed likely to perish.
{3057}
   At the last extremity of suffering, in 344 B. C., its people
   sent a despairing appeal to Corinth (the mother-city of
   Syracuse) for help. The Corinthians responded by despatching
   to Sicily a small fleet of ten triremes and a meagre army of
   1,200 men, under Timoleon. It is the first appearance in
   history of a name which soon shone with immortality; for
   Timoleon proved himself to be one of the greatest and the
   noblest of Greeks. He found affairs in Sicily complicated by
   an invasion of Carthaginians, co-operating with one Hiketas,
   who had made himself despot of Leontini and who hoped to
   become master of Syracuse. By skilfully using the good fortune
   which the gods were believed to have lavished upon his
   enterprise, Timoleon, within a few months, had defeated
   Hiketas in the field; had accepted the surrender of Dionysius
   in Ortygia and sent the fallen tyrant to Corinth; had caused
   such discouragement to the Carthaginians that they withdrew
   fleet and army and sailed away to Africa. The whole city now
   fell quickly into his hands. His first act was to demolish the
   stronghold of tyranny in Ortygia and to erect courts of
   justice upon its site. A free constitution of government was
   then re-established, all exiled citizens recalled, a great
   immigration of Greek inhabitants invited, and the city
   revivified with new currents of life. The tyranny in other
   cities was overthrown and all Sicily regenerated. The
   Carthaginians returning were defeated with fearful losses in a
   great battle on the Krimesus, and a peace made with them which
   narrowed their dominion in Sicily to the region west of the
   Halykus. All these great achievements completed, Timoleon
   resigned his generalship, declined every office, and became a
   simple citizen of Syracuse, living only a few years, however,
   to enjoy the grateful love and respect of its people.

A little more than twenty years after Timoleon expelled the brood of the tyrant Dionysius from Syracuse, and liberated Sicily, his work was entirely undone and a new and worse despot pushed himself into power. This was Agathokles, who rose, like his prototype, from a humble grade of life, acquired wealth by a lucky marriage, was trusted with the command of the Syracusan army—of mercenaries, chiefly—obtained a complete ascendancy over these soulless men, and then turned them loose upon the city, one morning at daybreak (B. C. 317), for a carnival of unrestrained riot and massacre. "They broke open the doors of the rich, or climbed over the roofs, massacred the proprietors within, and ravished the females. They chased the unsuspecting fugitives through the streets, not sparing even those who took refuge in the temples. … For two days Syracuse was thus a prey to the sanguinary, rapacious, and lustful impulses of the soldiery; 4,000 citizens had been already slain, and many more were seized as prisoners. The political purposes of Agathokles, as well as the passions of the soldiers, being then sated, he arrested the massacre. He concluded this bloody feat by killing such of his prisoners as were most obnoxious to him, and banishing the rest. The total number of expelled or fugitive Syracusans is stated at 6,000." In a city so purged and terrorized, Agathokles had no difficulty in getting himself proclaimed by acclamation sole ruler or autocrat, and he soon succeeded in extending his authority over a large part of Sicily. After some years he became involved in war with the Carthaginians, and suffered a disastrous defeat on the Himera (B. C. 310). Besieged in Syracuse, as a consequence, he resorted to bolder tactics than had been known before his time and "carried the war into Africa." His invasion of Carthage was the first that the Punic capital ever knew, and it created great alarm and confusion in the city. The Carthaginians were repeatedly beaten, Tunes, and other dependent towns, as well as Utica, were captured, the surrounding territory was ravaged, and Agathokles became master of the eastern coast. But all his successes gained him no permanent advantage, and, after four years of wonderful campaigning in Africa, he saw no escape from the difficulties of his situation except by basely stealing away from his army, leaving his two sons to be killed by the furious soldiers when they discovered his flight. Returning to Sicily, the wonderfully crafty and unscrupulous abilities which he possessed enabled him to regain his power and to commit outrage after outrage upon the people of Syracuse, Egesta, and other towns, until his death in 289 B. C.

The Emperor Probus, who expelled from Gaul, A. D. 277, the invaders then beginning to swarm upon the hapless province, removed a large body of captive Franks to the coast of Pontus, on the Euxine, and settled them there. The restive barbarians soon afterwards succeeded (A. D. 279) in capturing a fleet of vessels, in which they made their way to the Mediterranean, plundering the shores and islands as they passed towards the west. "The opulent city of Syracuse, in whose port the navies of Athens and Carthage had formerly been sunk, was sacked by a handful of barbarians, who massacred the greatest part of the trembling inhabitants." This was the crowning exploit of the escaping Franks, after which they continued their voyage and reached in due time their own shores, among the islands of the delta of the Rhine.

SYRIA.

"Between the Arabian Desert and the eastern coast of the Levant there stretches—along almost the full extent of the latter, or for nearly 400 miles—a tract of fertile land varying from 70 to 100 miles in breadth. This is so broken up by mountain range and valley, that it has never all been brought under one native government; yet its well-defined boundaries—the sea on the west, Mount Taurus on the north, and the desert to east and south—give it a certain unity, and separate it from the rest of the world. It has rightly, therefore, been covered by one name, Syria. Like that of Palestine, the name is due to the Greeks, but by a reverse process. As 'Palestina,' which is really Philistina, was first the name of only a part of the coast, and thence spread inland to the desert, so Syria, which is a shorter form of Assyria, was originally applied by the Greeks to the whole of the Assyrian Empire from the Caucasus to the Levant, then shrank to this side of the Euphrates, and finally within the limits drawn above. … Syria is the north end of the Arabian world. … The population of Syria has always been essentially Semitic. …

Syria's position between two of the oldest homes of the human race made her the passage for the earliest intercourse and exchanges of civilisation. It is doubtful whether history has to record any great campaigns … earlier than those which Egypt and Assyria waged against each other across the whole extent of Syria. …

The Hittites came south from Asia Minor over Mount Taurus, and the Ethiopians came north from their conquest of the Nile. Towards the end of the great duel between Assyria and Egypt, the Scythians from north of the Caucasus devastated Syria. When the Babylonian Empire fell, the Persians made her a province of their empire, and marched across her to Egypt.

At the beginning of our era, she was overrun by the Parthians. The Persians invaded her a second time, just before the Moslem invasion of the seventh century.

And in the thirteenth and fourteenth the Mongols thrice swept through her. Into this almost constant stream of empires and races, which swept through Syria from the earliest ages, Europe was drawn under Alexander the Great. …

She was scoured during the following centuries by the wars of the Seleucids and Ptolemies, and her plains were planted all over by their essentially Greek civilisation.

Pompey brought her under the Roman Empire, B. C. 65, and in
this she remained till the Arabs took her, 634 A. D.

See ROME: B. C. 69-63; and JEWS: B. C. 166-40, and MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 632-639.

The Crusaders held her for a century, 1098-1187, and parts of her for a century more. …

Napoleon the Great made her the pathway of his ambition towards that empire on the Euphrates and Indus whose fate was decided on her plains, 1799.

Since then, Syria's history has mainly consisted in a number of sporadic at·tempts on the part of the Western world to plant upon her both their civilisation and her former religion."

      É. Reclus,
      The Earth and its Inhabitants: Asia,
      volume 4, chapter 9.

SYRIA, CŒLE.

SYRTIS MAJOR AND SYRTIS MINOR.

These were the names given by the Greeks to the two gulfs (or rather the two corners of the one great gulf) which deeply indent the coast of North Africa. Syrtis Major, or the Greater Syrtis, is now known as the Gulf of Sidra; Syrtis Minor as the Gulf of Khabs, or Cabes.

"The most important feature in the Cretan mode of life is the usage of the Syssitia, or public meals, of which all the citizens partook, without distinction of rank or age. The origin of this institution cannot be traced: we learn however from Aristotle that it was not peculiar to the Greeks, but existed still earlier in the south of Italy among the Œnotrians. … At Sparta [which retained this institution, in common with Crete, to the latest times], the entertainment was provided at the expense, not of the state, but of those who shared it. The head of each family, as far as his means reached, contributed for all its members; but the citizen who was reduced to indigence lost his place at the public board. The guests were divided into companies, generally of fifteen persons, who filled up vacancies by ballot, in which unanimous consent was required for every election. No member, not even the king, was permitted to stay away, except on some extraordinary occasion, as of a sacrifice, or a lengthened chase, when he was expected to send a present to the table: such contributions frequently varied the frugal repast."

"For a long period [at Rome] the votes in the Comitia were given vivâ voce …; but voting by ballot ('per tabellas') was introduced at the beginning of the 7th century [2d century B. C.] by a succession of laws which, from their subject, were named Leges Tabellariae. Cicero tells us that there were in all four, namely:

1. Lex Gabinia, passed B. C. 139. 2. Lex Cassia, carried in B. C. 137. 3. Lex Papiria, passed B. C. 131. 4. Lex Caelia, passed B. C. 107."

TADCASTER FIGHT (1642).

Lord Fairfax, commanding in Yorkshire for the Parliament, and having his headquarters at Tadcaster, where he had assembled a small force, was attacked by 8,000 royalists, under the Earl of Newcastle, December 7, 1642, and forced to retire, after obstinate resistance. This was one of the earliest encounters of the great English Civil War.

TADMOR.

In the fourth century, "the Taifalæ inhabited that part of the province of Dacia which is now called Wallachia. They are first mentioned as allies of the Thervingi in A. D. 291 (Mamertin, Panegyr. ii. c. 17). Their ethnological relations are uncertain. Zosimus vaguely calls them Scythians (ii. c. 31); St. Martin conjectures that they were the last remains of the great and powerful nation of the Dacians, and Latham that they were Slavonians. But we only know for certain that they were constantly allies of the Visigoths, and that Farnobius, one of their chiefs, is expressly called a Goth by Ammianus (xxxi. c. 9). They subsequently accompanied the Visigoths in their migrations westward, and settled on the south side of the Liger, in the country of the Pictavi, where they were in the time of Gregory of Tours, who calls them Theiphali, and their district Theiphalia."

      W. Smith,
      Note to Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 26.

Under the old regime, before the Revolution, "the chief item in the French budget was the taille [analogous to the English word 'tally']. This was a direct tax imposed upon the property of those assessed, and in theory it was in proportion to the amount they possessed. But in the most of France it fell chiefly upon personal property. It was impossible that with the most exact and honest system it should be accurately apportioned, and the system that was in force was both loose and dishonest. The local assessors exempted some and overtaxed others; they released their friends or their villages, and imposed an increased burden upon others, and, to a very large extent, exemptions or reductions were obtained by those who had money with which to bribe or to litigate. The bulk of this tax fell upon the peasants. From it, indeed, a large part of the population, and the part possessing the most of the wealth of the country, was entirely exempt. The nobility were free from any personal tax, and under this head were probably included 400,000 people. The clergy were free, almost all of the officials of every kind, and the members of many professions and trades. Many of the cities had obtained exemption from the taille by the payment of a sum of money, which was either nominal or very moderate. Only laborers and peasants, it was said, still remained subject to it. Out of 11,000,000 people [in the 17th century] in those portions of France where the taille was a personal tax, probably 2,500,000 were exempt. … Next to the taille, the most important tax was the gabelle, and, though less onerous, it also produced a vast amount of misery. The gabelle was a duty on salt, and it was farmed by the government. The burden of an excessive tax was increased by the cupidity of those who bought the right to collect its proceeds. The French government retained a monopoly of salt, much like that which it now possesses of tobacco, but the price which it charged for this article of necessity was such, that the States of Normandy declared that salt cost the people more than all the rest of their food. In some provinces the price fixed imposed a duty of about 3,000 per cent., and salt sold for nearly ten sous a pound, thirty times its present price in France, though it is still subject to a considerable duty. From this tax there were no personal exemptions, but large portions of the country were not subject to the gabelle. Brittany was free, Guienne, Poitou, and several other provinces were wholly exempt or paid a trifling subsidy. About one third of the population were free from this duty, and the exemption was so valued that a rumor that the gabelle was to be imposed was sufficient to excite a local insurrection. Such a duty, on an article like salt, was also necessarily much more oppressive for the poor than the rich. As the exorbitant price would compel many to go without the commodity, the tax was often rendered a direct one. The amount of salt was fixed which a family should consume, and this they were forced to take at the price established by the government. … The gabelle was farmed for about 20,000,000 livres, and to cover the expenses and profits of the farmers probably 27,000,000 in all was collected from the people. A family of six would, on an average, pay the equivalent of ninety francs, or about eighteen dollars a year, for this duty."

   "Not only was the price of salt rendered exorbitant by the
   tax, but its consumption at this exorbitant price was
   compulsory. Every human being above seven years of age was
   bound to consume seven pounds of salt per annum, which salt,
   moreover, was to be exclusively used with food or in cooking.
   To use it for salting meat, butter, cheese, &c., was
   prohibited under severe penalties. The average price of salt
   [in the reign of Louis XIV.] over two-thirds of the country,
   was a shilling a pound. To buy salt of anyone but the
   authorised agents of the Government was punished by fines of
   200, 300, and 500 livres (about £80 of our money), and
   smugglers were punished by imprisonment, the galleys, and
   death. … The use of salt in agriculture was rendered
   impossible, and it was forbidden, under a penalty of 300
   livres (about £50), to take a beast to a salt-marsh, and allow
   it to drink sea-water. Salted hams and bacon were not allowed
   to enter the country. The salt used in the fisheries was
   supervised and guarded by such a number of vexatious
   regulations that one might suppose the object of the
   Government was to render that branch of commerce impossible. …
   But even the Gabelle was less onerous than the Taille. The
   amount of the Taille was fixed in the secret councils of the
   Government, according to the exigencies of the financial
   situation every year. The thirty-two Intendants of the
   provinces were informed of the amount which their districts
   were expected to forward to the Treasury. Each Intendant then
   made known to the Elections (sub-districts) of his Généralité
   the sum which they had to find, and the officers called Elus
   apportioned to each parish its quota of contribution. Then, in
   the parishes, was set in motion a system of blind, stupid, and
   remorseless extortion, of which one cannot read even now
   without a flash of indignation.
{3060}
   First of all, the most flagitious partiality and injustice
   presided over the distribution of the tax. Parishes which had
   a friend at Court or in authority got exempt, and with them
   the tax was a mere form. But these exemptions caused it to
   fall with more crushing weight on their less fortunate
   neighbours, as the appointed sum must be made up, whoever paid
   it. The inequalities of taxation almost surpass belief. … But
   this was far from being the worst feature. The chief
   inhabitants of the country villages were compelled to fill, in
   rotation, the odious office of collectors. They were
   responsible for the gross amount to be levied, which they
   might get as they could out of their parishioners. … Friends,
   or persons who had powerful patrons, were exempted; while
   enemies, or the unprotected, were drained of their last
   farthing. … The collectors went about, we are told, always
   keeping well together for fear of violence, making their
   visits and perquisitions, and met everywhere with a chorus of
   imprecations. As the Taille was always in arrear, on one side
   of the street might be seen the collectors of the current year
   pursuing their exactions, while on the other side were those
   of the year previous engaged on the same business, and further
   on were the agents of the Gabelle and other taxes employed in
   a similar manner. From morning to evening, from year's
   beginning to year's ending, they tramped, escorted by volleys
   of oaths and curses, getting a penny here and a penny there;
   for prompt payment under this marvellous system was not to
   be thought of."

      J. C. Morison,
      The Reign of Louis XIV.
      (Fortnightly Review, April, 1874, volume 21).

Under Colbert (1661-1683), in the reign of Louis XIV., both the taille (or villein tax, as it was often called) and the gabelle were greatly reduced, and the iniquities of their distribution and collection were much lessened.

TALAJOTS.

"Not only in Attica, but in almost all the Hellenic States, even in those which were not in Greece but were of Hellenic origin, money was reckoned by talents of sixty minas, the mina at a hundred drachmas, the drachma at six oboli. At Athens the obolus was divided into eight chalci … the chalcûs into seven lepta. Down to the half obolus, the Athenian money was, in general, coined only in silver; the dichalchon, or quarter obolus, in silver or copper; the chalcûs and the smaller pieces only in copper. … The value of the more ancient Attic silver talent, silver value reckoned for silver value, will be 1,500 thaler Prussian currency; of the mina, 25 thaler; of the drachma, 6 gute groschen; of the obolus 1 g. gr.,—equivalent to $1.026, $17.10, 71.1 cents, 2.85 cents respectively. … Before the time of Solon, the Attic money was heavier; also the commercial weight was heavier than that by which money was weighed. One hundred new drachmas were equivalent to 72-73 ancient drachmas; but the ancient weight remained with very little alteration as commercial weight, to which, in later times, an increase was also added. Through the alterations of Solon, the Attic money, which before stood to the Æginetan in the relation of 5:6, had to the same the relation of 3:5. The new was related to the ancient Attic money as 18:25. Compared with the heavy Æginetan drachma …, the Attic was called the light drachma. … The former was equivalent to ten Attic oboli; so that the Æginetan talent weighed more than 10,000 Attic drachmas. It was equal to the Babylonian talent. Nevertheless the Æginetan money was soon coined so light that it was related to the Attic nearly as 3:2. … The Corinthian talent is to be estimated as originally equivalent to the Æginetan, but it was also in later times diminished. … The Egyptian talent … contained, according to Varro in Pliny, eighty Roman pounds, and cannot, therefore, have been essentially different from the Attic talent, since the Attic mina is related to the Roman pound as 4:3. … The Euboic talent is related … to the Æginetan as five to six, and is no other than the money-talent of the Athenians in use before the time of Solon, and which continued in use as commercial weight. According to the most accurate valuation, therefore, one hundred Euboic drachmas are equivalent to 138 8/9 drachmas of Solon. … Appian has given the relation of the Alexandrian to the Euboic talent in round numbers as 6 to 7 = 120 to 140; but it was rather more accurately as 120 to 138 8/9. … So much gold … as was estimated to be equivalent to a talent of silver, was undoubtedly also called a talent of gold. And, finally, a weight of gold of 6,000 drachmas, the value of which, compared with silver, always depended upon the existing relation between them, was sometimes thus called."

A. Boeckh, Public Economy of Athens (translated by Lamb), book 1, chapters 4-5.

"Under the general head of donum, auxilium, and the like, came a long series of imposts [in the period of the Norman kings], which were theoretically gifts of the nation to the king, and the amount of which was determined by the itinerant justices after separate negotiation with the payers. The most important of these, that which fell upon the towns and demesne lands of the Crown, is known as the tallage. This must have affected other property besides land, but the particular method in which it was to be collected was determined by the community on which it fell, or by special arrangement with the justices."

W. Stubbs, Constitutional History of England, chapter 13, section 161 (volume 1).

"The Talmud [from a Hebrew verb signifying 'to learn'] is a vast irregular repertory of Rabbinical reflections, discussions, and animadversions on a myriad of topics treated of or touched on in Holy Writ; a treasury, in chaotic arrangement, of Jewish lore, scientific, legal, and legendary; a great storehouse of extra-biblical, yet biblically referable, Jewish speculation, fancy, and faith. … The Talmud proper is throughout of a twofold character, and consists of two divisions, severally called the Mishna and the Gemara. … The Mishna, in this connection, may be regarded as the text of the Talmud itself, and the Gemara as a sort of commentary. … The Gemara regularly follows the Mishna, and annotates upon it sentence by sentence. … There are two Talmuds, the Yerushalmi [Jerusalem], or, more correctly, the Palestinian, and the Babli, that is, the Babylonian. The Mishna is pretty nearly the same in both these, but the Gemaras are different. The Talmud Yerushalmi gives the traditional sayings of the Palestinian Rabbis, … the 'Gemara of the Children of the West,' as it is styled; whereas the Talmud Babli gives the traditional sayings of the Rabbis of Babylon. This Talmud is about four times the size of the Jerusalem one; it is by far the more popular, and to it almost exclusively our remarks relate."

The date of the compilation of the Babylonian Talmud is fixed at about A. D. 500; that of Jerusalem was a century or more earlier.

TALUKDARS.

"A Taluka [in India] is a large estate, consisting of many villages, or, as they would be called in English, parishes. These villages had originally separate proprietors, who paid their revenue direct to the Government treasury. The Native Government in former times made over by patent, to a person called Talukdar, its right over these villages, holding him responsible for the whole revenue. … The wealth and influence thus acquired by the Talukdar often made him, in fact, independent. … When the country came under British rule, engagements for payment of the Government Revenue were taken from these Talukdars, and they were called Zamindars."

TAMERLANE, OR TIMOUR.

TAMMANY SOCIETY. TAMMANY HALL.

"Shortly after the peace of 1783, a society was formed in the city of New York, known by the name of the Tammany Society. It was probably originally instituted with a view of organizing an association antagonist to the Cincinnati Society. That society was said to be monarchical or rather aristocratical in its tendency, and, when first formed, and before its constitution was amended, on the suggestion of General Washington and other original members, it certainly did tend to the establishment of an hereditary order, something like an order of nobility. The Tammany Society originally seems to have had in view the preservation of our democratic institutions. … Tammany Society, or Columbian Order, was founded by William Mooney, an upholsterer residing in the city of New York, some time in the administration of President Washington. … William Mooney was one of those who, at that early day, regarded the powers of the general government as dangerous to the independence of the state governments, and to the common liberties of the people. His object was to fill the country with institutions designed, and men determined, to preserve the just balance of power. His purpose was patriotic and purely republican. … Tammany was, at first, so popular, that most persons of merit became members; and so numerous were they that its anniversary [May 12] was regarded as a holiday. At that time there was no party politics mixed up in its proceedings. But when President Washington, in the latter part of his administration, rebuked "self created societies," from an apprehension that their ultimate tendency would be hostile to the public tranquility, the members of Tammany supposed their institution to be included in the reproof; and they almost forsook it. The founder, William Mooney, and a few others, continued steadfast. At one anniversary they were reduced so low that but three persons attended its festival. From this time it became a political institution, and took ground with Thomas Jefferson.'"

J. D. Hammond, History of Political Parties in the State of New York, volume 1, chapter 18.

"The ideal patrons of the society were Columbus and Tammany, the last a legendary Indian chief, once lord, it was said, of the island of Manhattan, and now adopted as the patron saint of America. The association was divided into thirteen tribes, each tribe typifying a state, presided over by a sachem. There were also the honorary posts of warrior and hunter, and the council of sachems had at their head a grand sachem, a type evidently of the President of the United States."

"Shortly after Washington's inauguration, May 12, 1789, the 'Tammany Society or Columbian Order' was founded. It was composed at first of the moderate men of both political parties, and seems not to have been recognized as a party institution until the time of Jefferson as President. William Mooney was the first Grand Sachem; his successor in 1790 was William Pitt Smith, and in 1791 Josiah Ogden Hoffman received the honor. John Pintard was the first Sagamore. De Witt Clinton was scribe of the council in 1791. It was strictly a national society, based on the principles of patriotism, and had for its object the perpetuation of a true love for our own country. Aboriginal forms and ceremonies were adopted in its incorporation."

Mrs. M. J. Lamb, History of the City of New York, volume 2, page 362, foot-note.

   "One must distinguish between the 'Tammany Society or
   Columbian Order' and the political organization called for
   shortness 'Tammany Hall.' … The Tammany Society owns a large
   building on Fourteenth Street, near Third Avenue, and it
   leases rooms in this building to the 'Democratic Republican
   General Committee of the City of New York,' otherwise and more
   commonly known as 'Tammany Hall' or 'Tammany.' Tammany Hall
   means, therefore, first, the building on Fourteenth Street
   where the 'Democracy' have their headquarters; and secondly,
   the political body officially known as the Democratic
   Republican General Committee of the City of New York. …
{3062}
   The city of New York is divided by law into thirty 'assembly
   districts;' that is, thirty districts, each of which elects an
   assemblyman to the state legislature. In each of these
   assembly districts there is held annually an election of
   members of the aforesaid Democratic Republican General
   Committee. This committee is a very large one, consisting of
   no less than five thousand men; and each assembly district is
   allotted a certain number of members, based on the number of
   Democratic votes which it cast in the last preceding
   presidential election. Thus the number of the General
   Committeemen elected in each assembly district varies from
   sixty to two hundred and seventy. There is intended to be one
   General Committeeman for every fifty Democratic electors in
   the district. In each assembly district there is also elected
   a district leader, the head of Tammany Hall for that district.
   He is always a member of the General Committee, and these
   thirty men, one leader from each assembly district, form the
   executive committee of Tammany Hall. 'By this committee,' says
   a Tammany official, 'all the internal affairs of the
   organization are directed, its candidates for offices are
   selected, and the plans for every campaign are matured.' The
   General Committee meets every month, five hundred members
   constituting a quorum; and in October of each year it sits as
   a county convention, to nominate candidates for the ensuing
   election. There is also a sub-committee on organization,
   containing one thousand members, which meets once a month.
   This committee takes charge of the conduct of elections. There
   is, besides, a finance committee, appointed by the chairman of
   the General Committee, and there are several minor committees,
   unnecessary to mention. The chairman of the finance committee
   is at present Mr. Richard Croker. Such are the general
   committees of Tammany Hall. … Each assembly district is
   divided by law into numerous election districts, or, as they
   are called in some cities, voting precincts,—each election
   district containing about four hundred voters. The election
   districts are looked after as follows: Every assembly district
   has a district committee, composed of the members of the
   General Committee elected from that district, and of certain
   additional members chosen for the purpose. The district
   committee appoints in each of the election districts included
   in that particular assembly district a captain. This man is
   the local boss. He has from ten to twenty-five aids, and he is
   responsible for the vote of his election district. There are
   about eleven hundred election districts in New York, and
   consequently there are about eleven hundred captains, or local
   bosses, each one being responsible to the (assembly) district
   committee by which he was appointed. Every captain is held to
   a strict account. If the Tammany vote in his election district
   falls off without due cause, he is forthwith removed, and
   another appointed in his place. Usually, the captain is an
   actual resident in his district; but occasionally, being
   selected from a distant part of the city, he acquires a
   fictitious residence in the district. Very frequently the
   captain is a liquor dealer, who has a clientele of customers,
   dependents, and hangers-on, whom he 'swings,' or controls. He
   is paid, of course, for his services; he has some money to
   distribute, and a little patronage, such as places in the
   street-cleaning department, or perhaps a minor clerkship. The
   captain of a district has a personal acquaintance with all its
   voters; and on the eve of an election he is able to tell how
   every man in his district is going to vote. He makes his
   report; and from the eleven hundred reports of the election
   district captains the Tammany leaders can predict with
   accuracy what will be the vote of the city."

      ALSO IN:
      R. Home,
      The Story of Tammany
      (Harper's Monthly, volume 44, pages 685,835).

A name assumed by the Jewish Rabbins who especially devoted themselves to the interpretation of the Mischna.

The name anciently given to the Russian river now called the
Don,—which latter name signifies simply 'water.'

TANCRED'S CRUSADE.

TANIS.

"These chieftainships [in ancient Ireland], and perhaps even the kingdoms themselves, though not partible, followed a very different rule of succession than that of primogeniture. They were subject to the law of tanistry, of which the principle is defined to be that the demesne lands and dignity of chieftainship, descended to the eldest and most worthy of the same blood; these epithets not being used, we may suppose, synonymously, but in order to indicate that the preference given to seniority was to be controlled by a due regard to desert. No better mode, it is evident, of providing for a perpetual supply of those civil quarrels, in which the Irish are supposed to place so much of their enjoyment, could have been devised."

TAOUISM.

TAPROBANE.

The name by which the island of Ceylon was known to the ancients. Hipparchus advanced the opinion that it was not merely a large island, but the beginning of another world.

E. H. Bunbury, History of Ancient Geography, chapter 23, section 2 (volume 2).

"To the west of the Hyrcanians, between Elburz and the Caspian, lay the Tapurians, whose name has survived in the modern Taberistan, and further yet, on the sea-coast, and at the mouth of the Mardus (now Safidrud), were the Mardians."

The Feis Teavrach, or Feis of Tara, in Irish history, was a triennial assembly on the royal hill of Tara, in Meath, which is claimed to have been instituted by a certain King Ollamh Fodhla, at so remote a period as 1,300 years before Christ. "All the chieftains or heads of septs, bards, historians, and military leaders throughout the country were regularly summoned, and were required to attend under the penalty of being treated as the king's enemies. The meeting was held in a large oblong hall, and the first three days were spent in enjoying the hospitality of the king, who entertained the entire assembly during its sittings. The bards give long and glowing accounts of the magnificence displayed on these occasions, of the formalities employed, and of the business transacted. Tables were arranged along the centre of the hall, and on the walls at either side were suspended the banners or arms of the chiefs, so that each chief on entering might take his seat under his own escutcheon. Orders were issued by sound of trumpet, and all the forms were characterized by great solemnity. What may have been the authority of this assembly, or whether it had any power to enact laws, is not clear; but it would appear that one of its principal functions was the inspection of the national records, the writers of which were obliged to the strictest accuracy under the weightiest penalties."

The result of the examination and correction of the historical records of the kingdom were "entered in the great national register called the Psalter of Tara, which is supposed to have been destroyed at the period of the Norman invasion. … It is supposed that part of the contents of the Psalter of Cashel, which contains much of the fabulous history of the Irish, was copied from it."

TARANTEENS, TARENTINES, TARRATINES.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ABNAKIS, and ALGONQUIAN FAMILY;
also, NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1675 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

TARAS.

TARENTUM.

Tarentum (or Taras), the most important of the ancient Greek cities in Italy, "lay at the northern corner of the great gulf which still bears its name. It had an excellent harbour, almost land-locked. On its eastern horn stood the city. Its form was triangular; one side being washed by the open sea, the other by the waters of the harbour, while the base or land side was protected by a line of strong fortifications. Thus advantageously posted for commerce the city grew apace. She possessed an opulent middle class; and the poorer citizens found an easy subsistence in the abundant supply of fish which the gulf afforded. These native fishermen were always ready to man the navy of the state. But they made indifferent soldiers. Therefore when any peril of war threatened the state, it was the practice of the government to hire foreign captains, soldiers of fortune, who were often kings or princes, to bring an army for their defence. … The origin of Lacedæmonian Tarentum is veiled in fable. The warriors of Sparta (so runs the well-known legend) went forth to the second Messenian war under a vow not to see their homes till they had conquered the enemy. They were long absent, and their wives sought paramours among the slaves and others who had not gone out to war. When the warriors returned, they found a large body of youth grown up from this adulterous intercourse. These youths (the Parthenii as they were called), disdaining subjection, quitted their native land under the command of Phalantus, one of their own body, and founded the colony of Tarentum."

   The treaty in which Octavius and Antony extended their
   triumvirate to a second term of five years; negotiated at
   Tarentum, B. C. 37.

   In the Netherlands, at the close of a short war with the
   English, in 1437, "the import of raw wool was entirely
   relieved from the payment of even the ordinary customs. … And
   this was then their notion of protection,—to be allowed to buy
   what they liked where they liked, to live at peace with their
   neighbours, and to be let alone. Four hundred years have
   passed and gone since the Netherlands persuaded their rulers
   to take off all duty on raw wool, and to permit half-finished
   clothes to be brought into their country in order that they
   might be dyed and taken out again duty free; yet we live in
   the midst of tariffs whose aim it is to hinder the importation
   of the raw material by prohibitory duties and to prevent
   competition in every kind of fabric by so-called protecting
   ones! And in England, also, at the period in question, the
   suicidal spirit of commercial envy had seized hold of the
   government, and in every parliament some fresh evidence was
   afforded of the jealousy with which foreign skill and
   competition were viewed.
{3064}
   But the Dutch held on the tenour of their discerning and
   sagacious way without waiting for reciprocity or resenting its
   reverse. If the English would not admit their cloths, that was
   no reason why they should cheat themselves of the advantage of
   English and Irish wool. If not cloths, there was doubtless
   something else that they would buy from them. Among other
   articles, there was salt, which they had acquired a peculiar
   skill in refining; and there was an extensive carrying trade
   in the produce of the Northern countries, and in various
   costly luxuries, which the English obtained from remoter
   regions generally through them. In 1496, when Philip (father
   of the Emperor Charles V.) assumed the government of the
   Netherlands, as Duke of Brabant, he "presented to the senates
   of the leading cities the draught of a commercial treaty with
   England, conceived in a wise and liberal spirit, and eminently
   fitted to advance the real welfare of both countries. Their
   assent was gladly given. … Nor did they over-estimate the
   value of the new compact, which long went by the name of 'The
   Grand Treaty of Commerce.' Its provisions were, in all
   respects, reciprocal, and enabled every kind of merchandise to
   be freely imported from either country by the citizens of the
   other. The entire liberty of fishing on each other's coast was
   confirmed; measures were prescribed for the suppression of
   piracy; and property saved from wrecks, when none of the crew
   survived, 'was vested in the local authorities in trust for
   the proper owners, should they appear to claim it within a
   year and a day. … The industrial policy of the Dutch was
   founded on ideas wholly and essentially different from that of
   the kingdoms around them. 'The freedom of traffic had ever
   been greater with them than amongst any of their neighbours;'
   and its different results began to appear. Not only were
   strangers of every race and creed sure of an asylum in
   Holland, but of a welcome; and singular pains were taken to
   induce those whose skill enabled them to contribute to the
   wealth of the state to settle permanently in the great towns."

      W. T. McCullagh,
      Industrial History of Free Nations,
      volume 2, pages 110-111, 150-151, 266-267.

TARIFF: (Venice): 15-17th Centuries.
Beginning of systematic exclusion and monopoly.

TARIFF: (England): A. D. 1651-1672.
The Navigation Laws and their effect on the American colonies.

Colbert, the great minister of Louis XIV., was the first among statesmen who had an economic system, "settled, complete and consistent in all its parts; and it is to the eternal honor of his name that he made it triumph in spite of obstacles of every kind. Although this system was far from being irreproachable in all its parts, it was an immense progress at the time of its appearance; and we have had nothing since then which can be compared with it, for breadth and penetration. … It was … the need of restoring order in the finances which gave rise to the attempts at amelioration made by Colbert. This illustrious minister soon comprehended that the surest way to increase public fortune was to favor private fortune, and to open to production the broadest and freest ways. … One of the first acts of his ministry, the reestablishment of the taxes on a uniform basis, is an homage rendered to true principles; and one cannot doubt that all the others would have been in conformity with this glorious precedent, if the science of wealth had been, at that time, as advanced as it is to-day. Colbert would certainly have carried out in France what Mr. Huskisson had begun in England at the time of his sudden death. … The edict of September, 1664, reduced the import and export duties on merchandise to suitable limits, and suppressed the most onerous. 'It is our intention,' said the king, 'to make known to all our governors and intendants in what consideration we hold at present everything that may concern commerce. … As the most solid and most essential means for the reestablishment of commerce are the diminution and the regulation of the duties which are levied on all commodities, we have arranged to reduce all these duties to one single import and one export duty, and also to diminish these considerably, in order to encourage navigation, reestablish the ancient manufactures, banish idleness.' … At the same time Colbert prohibited the seizure for the tailles (villein-tax) [see TAILLE AND GABELLE] of beds, clothes, bread, horses and cattle serving for labor; or the tools by which artisans and manual laborers gained their livelihood. The register of the survey of lands was revised, so that property should be taxed only in proportion to its value and the actual extent of the land. The great highways of the kingdom and all the rivers were then guarded by armies of receivers of tolls, who stopped merchandise on its passage and burdened its transportation with a multitude of abusive charges, to say nothing of the delays and exactions of every kind. An edict was issued ordering the investigation of these degrading charges; and most of them were abolished or reduced to just limits. … The lease of Customs duties being about to expire, Colbert improved this occasion to revise the tariff; and although this fatal measure has since been considered as the finest monument of his administration, we think we should present it in its true aspect, which seems to us to have been invariably misapprehended. Colbert's aim in revising the customs was to make them a means of protection for national manufactures, in the place of a simple financial resource, as they formerly were. Most articles of foreign manufacture had duties imposed upon them, so as to secure to similar French merchandise the home market. At the same time, Colbert spared neither sacrifices nor encouragement to give activity to the manufacturing spirit in our country. He caused the most skilful workmen of every kind to come from abroad; and he subjected manufactures to a severe discipline, that they should not lose their vigilance, relying on the tariffs. Heavy fines were inflicted on the manufacturers of an article recognized as inferior in quality to what it should be. For the first offence, the products of the delinquents were attached to a stake, with a carcan and the name of the manufacturer; in case of a second offence, the manufacturer himself was fastened to it. These draconian rigors would have led to results entirely contrary to those Colbert expected, if his enlightened solicitude had not tempered by other measures what was cruel in them. {3065} Thus, he appointed inspectors of the manufactures, who often directed the workmen into the best way, and brought them information of the newest processes, purchased from foreign manufacturers, or secretly obtained at great expense. Colbert was far from attaching to the customs the idea of exclusive and blind protection that has ever been attributed to them since his ministry. He knew very well that these tariffs would engender reprisals, and that, while encouraging manufactures, they would seriously hinder commerce. Moreover, all his efforts tended to weaken their evil effects. His instructions to consuls and ambassadors testify strongly to his prepossessions in this regard. … The more one studies the administrative acts of this great minister, the more one is convinced of his lofty sense of justice; and of the liberal tendencies of his system, which has hitherto been generally extolled as hostile to the principle of commercial liberty. In vain the Italians have hailed it by the name of 'Colbertism,' to designate the exclusive system invented by themselves and honored by the Spanish: Colbert never approved the sacrifice of the greater part of his fellow citizens to a few privileged ones, nor the creation of endless monopolies for the profit of certain branches of industry. We may reproach him with having been excessively inclined to make regulations, but not with having enfeoffed France to a few spinners of wool and cotton. He had himself summed up in a few words his system in the memorial he presented to the king: 'To reduce export duties on provisions and manufactures of the kingdom; to diminish import duties on everything which is of use in manufactures; and to repel the products of foreign manufactures, by raising the duties.' Such was the spirit of his first tariff, published in September, 1664. He had especially aimed at facilitating the supply of raw materials in France, and promoting the interests of her home trade by the abolition of provincial barriers, and by the establishment of lines of customs-houses at the extreme frontiers. … The only reproach that can be justly made against him is the abuse of the protective instrument he had just created, by increasing in the tariff of 1667 the exclusive measures directed against foreign manufactures in that of 1664. It was no longer then a question of manufactures, but of war, namely, with Holland; and this war broke out in 1672. … From the same epoch date the first wars of commercial reprisals between France and England, hostilities which were to cost both nations so much blood and so many tears. Manufactures were then seen to prosper and agriculture to languish in France under the influence of this system."

ALSO IN, H. Martin, History of France: The Age of Louis XIV., volume 1, chapter 2.

"Before the Revolution Pennsylvania had always been slow to impose burdens on trade. While Massachusetts, New York and South Carolina were raising considerable sums from imposts, Pennsylvania commerce was free from restrictions. In 1780, however, the need of revenue overcame the predilection of the Quakers for free trade and they decided 'that considerable sums can be raised by a small impost on goods and merchandise imported into this state without burdening commerce.' Accordingly, low duties were laid on wines, liquors, molasses, sugar, cocoa and tea, with 1 per cent. on all other imports. In 1782 the duties were doubled and the revenue was appropriated to the defence of commerce on the Delaware river and bay. This was done at the request of the merchants who wished to have their interests protected and 'signified their willingness to submit to a further impost on the importation of goods for that purpose.' When peace came, however, the merchants at once represented it as detrimental to the interests of the state to continue the duties, and they were repealed. In 1784 low duties were again imposed, and later in the same year increased. Early in 1785 more careful provisions were made for their collection. September 20, came the important act 'to encourage and protect the manufactures of this state by laying additional duties on certain manufactures which interfere with them.' … More than forty of the articles which Pennsylvania had begun to make were taxed at high specific rates. Coaches and carriages, paid £10 to £20; clocks, 30s.; scythes, 15s. per dozen; beer, ale and porter, 6d. per gallon; soap or candles, 1d. per pound; shoes and boots, 1s. to 6s. per pair; cordage and ropes, 8s. 4d. per hundred weight; and so on. The ten per cent. schedule included manufactures of iron and steel, hats, clothing, books and papers, whips, canes, musical instruments and jewelry. … The Pennsylvania act is of importance because it shows the nature of commodities which the country was then producing, as well as because it formed the basis of the tariff of 1789."

      W. Hill,
      First Stages of the Tariff Policy of the United States,
      pages 53-54.

The preamble of the Pennsylvania act of 1785 set forth its reasons as follows: "Whereas, divers useful and beneficial arts and manufactures have been gradually introduced into Pennsylvania, and the same have at length risen to a very considerable extent and perfection, insomuch that in the late war between the United States of America and Great Britain, when the importation of European goods was much interrupted, and often very difficult and uncertain, the artizans and mechanics of this state were able to supply in the hours of need, not only large quantities of weapons and other implements, but also ammunition and clothing, without which the war could not have been carried on, whereby their oppressed country was greatly assisted and relieved. And whereas, although the fabrics and manufactures of Europe, and other foreign parts, imported into this country in times of peace, may be afforded at cheaper rates than they can be made here, yet good policy and a regard to the wellbeing of divers useful and industrious citizens, who are employed in the making of like goods, in this state, demand of us that moderate duties be laid on certain fabrics and manufactures imported, which do most interfere with, and which (if no relief be given) will undermine and destroy the useful manufactures of the like kind in this country, for this purpose. Be it enacted" &c.

The duties enacted, which were additional to the then existing impost of 2½ per cent., were generally specific, but ad valorem on some commodities as on British steel, 10 per cent.; earthen ware, the same; glass and glass-ware, 2½ per cent.; linens the same. Looked at in the light of recent American tariffs, they would hardly be recognized as "protective" in their character; but the protective purpose was plainly enough declared.

TARIFF: (United States): A. D. 1789-1791.
   The first tariff enactment.
   Hamilton's Report on Manufactures.
   The "American System" proposed.

"The immediate necessity of raising some ready money led to the passage of a tariff bill at the first session of Congress. It was prepared and carried through the House chiefly by Madison; and its contents, no less than the general tone of the debate in which it was discussed, showed a decided leaning towards the protective system. But this legislation was temporary, and was at the time known to be so. The permanent system of the country was left for subsequent and more leisurely development. When at last Congress felt able to give the subject due attention, it applied as usual to Hamilton to furnish information and opinions. A topic so important and so congenial to his tastes called forth his best exertions. A series of extensive investigations conducted by every feasible kind of inquiry and research, both in foreign parts and in the United States, furnished the material for his reflections. He took abundant time to digest as well as to collect the great mass of information thus acquired, and it was not until nearly two years had elapsed since the order for the report was passed that he sent in the document to the House of Representatives. … The inferences and arguments constituted as able a presentation of the protectionist theory as has ever been made. … It is, however, an incorrect construction of that report to regard it as a vindication of the general or abstract doctrine of protection. Hamilton was very far from assuming any such position; protection always and everywhere was not his theory; protection was not his ideal principle of commercial regulation. … So far from entertaining any predilection for protection in the abstract, it would seem that in a perfect commercial world he would have expected to find free trade the prevalent custom. … If free trade were the rule of the whole commercial world, Hamilton was not prepared to say that the United States would find it for her interest to be singular. But such were not the premises from which he had to draw a conclusion. … The report of Hamilton determined the policy of the country. For good or for evil protection was resorted to, with the avowed purpose of encouraging domestic manufacturing as well as of raising a revenue. … The principles upon which Hamilton based his tariff were not quite those of pure protection, but constituted what was known as the 'American System'; a system which has been believed in by former generations with a warmth of conviction not easy to withstand."

Hamilton's celebrated report opens with an elaborate argument to prove the desirability of manufacturing industries in the country, and then proceeds: "A full view having now been taken of the inducements to the promotion of manufactures in the United States, accompanied with an examination of the principal objections which are commonly urged in opposition, it is proper, in the next place, to consider the means by which it may be effected, as introductory to a specification of the objects which in the present state of things appear the most fit to be encouraged, and of the particular measures which it may be advisable to adopt in respect to each. In order to a better judgment of the means proper to be resorted to by the United States, it will be of use to advert to those which have been employed with success in other countries. The principle of these are:

I. Protecting duties, or duties on those foreign articles which are the rivals of the domestic ones intended to be encouraged. Duties of this nature evidently amount to a virtual bounty on the domestic fabrics, since by enhancing the charges on foreign articles they enable the national manufacturers to undersell all their foreign competitors. The propriety of this species of encouragement need not be dwelt upon, as it is not only a clear result from the numerous topics which have been suggested, but is sanctioned by the laws of the United States in a variety of instances; it has the additional recommendation of being a resource of revenue. Indeed, all the duties imposed on imported articles, though with an exclusive view to revenue, have the effect in contemplation; and, except where they fall on raw materials, wear a beneficent aspect towards the manufacturers of the country.

II. Prohibitions of rival articles, or duties equivalent to prohibitions. This is another and an efficacious mean of encouraging manufactures; but in general it is only fit to be employed when a manufacture has made such a progress, and is in so many hands, as to insure a due competition and an adequate supply on reasonable terms. Of duties equivalent to prohibitions there are examples in the laws of the United States; and there are other cases to which the principle may be advantageously extended, but they are not numerous. Considering a monopoly of the domestic market to its own manufacturers as the reigning policy of manufacturing nations, a similar policy on the part of the United States, in every proper instance, is dictated, it might almost be said, by the principles of distributive justice; certainly by the duty of endeavoring to secure to their own citizens a reciprocity of advantages.

III. Prohibitions of the exportation of materials of manufactures. The desire of securing a cheap and plentiful supply for the national workmen; and, where the article is either peculiar to the country, or of peculiar quality there, the jealousy of enabling foreign workmen to rival those of the nation with its own materials, are the leading motives to this species of regulation. It ought not to be affirmed that it is in no instance proper, but it is certainly one which ought to be adopted with great circumspection and only in very plain cases.

IV. Pecuniary bounties. This has been found one of the most efficacious means of encouraging manufactures, and it is, in some views, the best, though it has not yet been practiced upon the government of the United States,—unless the allowance on the exportation of dried and pickled fish and salted meat could be considered as a bounty—and though it is less favored by public opinion than some other modes. Its advantages are these:

1. It is a species of encouragement more positive and direct than any other, and for that very reason has a more immediate tendency to stimulate and uphold new enterprises, increasing the chances of profit, and diminishing the risks of loss in the first attempts.

2. It avoids the inconvenience of a temporary augmentation of price, which is incident to some other modes, or it produces it to a less degree, either by making no addition to the charges on the rival foreign article, as in the case of protecting duties, or by making a smaller addition. The first happens when the fund for the bounty is derived from a different object (which may or may not increase the price of some other article according to the nature of that object); the second when the fund is derived from the same or a similar object of foreign manufacture. One per cent. duty on the foreign article, converted into a bounty on the domestic, will have an equal effect with a duty of 2% exclusive of such bounty; and the price of the foreign commodity is liable to be raised in the one case in the proportion of 1%, in the other in that of 2%. Indeed, the bounty when drawn from another source, is calculated to promote a reduction of price, because, without laying any new charge on the foreign article, it serves to introduce a competition with it, and to increase the total quantity of the article in the market.

3. Bounties have not, like high protecting duties, a tendency to produce scarcity. An increase of price is not always the immediate, though where the progress of a domestic manufacture does not counteract a rise, it is commonly the ultimate effect of an additional duty. In the interval between the laying of the duty and a proportional increase of price, it may discourage importation by interfering with the profits to be expected from the sale of the article.

4. Bounties are sometimes not only the best, but the only proper expedient for uniting the encouragement of a new object of agriculture with that of a new object of manufacture. It is the interest of the farmer to have the production of the raw material promoted by counteracting the interference of the foreign material of the same kind. It is the interest of the manufacturer to have the material abundant and cheap. If prior to the domestic production of the material in sufficient quantity to supply the manufacturer on good terms, a duty be laid upon the importation of it from abroad, with a view to promote the raising of it at home, the interest both of the farmer and manufacturer will be disserved. By either destroying the requisite supply, or raising the price of the article beyond what can be afforded to be given for it by the conductor of an infant manufacture, it is abandoned or fails; and there being no domestic manufactories to create a demand for the raw material which is raised by the farmer, it is in vain that the competition of the like foreign article may have been destroyed. It cannot escape notice that a duty upon the importation of an article can no otherwise aid the domestic production of it than by giving the latter greater advantages in the home market. It can have no influence upon the advantageous sale of the article produced in foreign markets, no tendency, therefore, to promote its exportation. The true way to conciliate these two interests is to lay a duty on foreign manufactures of the material, the growth of which is desired to be encouraged, and to apply the produce of that duty by way of bounty either upon the production of the material itself, or upon its manufacture at home, or upon both. In this disposition of the thing the manufacturer commences his enterprise under every advantage which is attainable as to quantity or price of the raw material. And the farmer, if the bounty be immediately to him, is enabled by it to enter into a successful competition with the foreign material. … There is a degree of prejudice against bounties, from an appearance of giving away the public money without an immediate consideration, and from a supposition that they serve to enrich particular classes at the expense of the community. But neither of these sources of dislike will bear a serious examination. There is no purpose to which public money can be more beneficially applied than to the acquisition of a new and useful branch of industry, no consideration more valuable than a permanent addition to the general stock of productive labor. As to the second source of objection, it equally lies against other modes of encouragement, which are admitted to be eligible. As often as a duty upon a foreign article makes an addition to its price, it causes an extra expense to the community for the benefit of the domestic manufacturer. A bounty does no more. But it is the interest of the society in each case to submit to a temporary expense, which is more than compensated by an increase of industry and wealth, by an augmentation of resources and independence, and by the circumstance of eventual cheapness, which has been noticed in another place. It would deserve attention, however, in the employment of this species of encouragement in the United States, as a reason for moderating the degree of it in the instances in which it might be deemed eligible, that the great distance of this country from Europe imposes very heavy charges on all the fabrics which are brought from thence, amounting from 15% to 30% on their value according to their bulk. …

V. Premiums. These are of a nature allied to bounties, though distinguishable from them in some important features. Bounties are applicable to the whole quantity of an article produced or manufactured or exported, and involve a correspondent expense. Premiums serve to reward some particular excellence or superiority, some extraordinary exertion or skill, and are dispensed only in a small number of cases. But their effect is to stimulate general effort. …

VI. The exemption of the materials of manufactures from duty. The policy of that exemption, as a general rule, particularly in reference to new establishments, is obvious. …

VII. Drawbacks of the duties which are imposed on the materials of manufactures. It has already been observed as a general rule, that duties on those materials ought, with certain exceptions, to be forborne. Of these exceptions, three cases occur which may serve as examples. One where the material is itself an object of general or extensive consumption, and a fit and productive source of revenue. Another where a manufacture of a simpler kind, the competition of which with a like domestic article is desired to be restrained, partakes of the nature of a raw material from being capable by a further process to be converted into a manufacture of a different kind, the introduction or growth of which is desired to be encouraged. A third where the material itself is the production of the country, and in sufficient abundance to furnish a cheap and plentiful supply to the national manufacturers. … Where duties on the materials of manufactures are not laid for the purpose of preventing a competition with some domestic production, the same reasons which recommend, as a general rule, the exemption of those materials from duties, would recommend, as a like general rule, the allowance of drawbacks in favor of the manufacturer. …

VIII. The encouragement of new inventions and discoveries at home, and of the introduction into the United States of such as may have been made in other countries; particularly those which relate to machinery. This is among the most useful and unexceptionable of the aids which can be given to manufactures. The usual means of that encouragement are pecuniary rewards, and, for a time, exclusive privileges. …

IX. Judicious regulations for the inspection of manufactured commodities. This is not among the least important of the means by which the prosperity of manufactures may be promoted. It is indeed in many cases one of the most essential. Contributing to prevent frauds upon consumers at home and exporters to foreign countries, to improve the quality and preserve the character of the national manufactures; it cannot fail to aid the expeditious and advantageous sale of them, and to serve as a guard against successful competition from other quarters. …

X. The facilitating of pecuniary remittances from place to place—is a point of considerable moment to trade in general and to manufactures in particular, by rendering more easy the purchase of raw materials and provisions, and the payment for manufactured supplies. A general circulation of bank paper, which is to be expected from the institution lately established, will be a most valuable means to this end. …

XI. The facilitating of the transportation of commodities. Improvements favoring this object intimately concern all the domestic interests of a community; but they may, without impropriety, be mentioned as having an important relation to manufactures. …

The foregoing are the principal of the means by which the growth of manufactures is ordinarily promoted. It is, however, not merely necessary that the measures of government which have a direct view to manufactures should be calculated to assist and protect them; but that those which only collaterally affect them, in the general course of the administration, should be guarded from any peculiar tendency to injure them. There are certain species of taxes which are apt to be oppressive to different parts of the community, and, among other ill effects, have a very unfriendly aspect towards manufactures. All poll or capitation taxes are of this nature. They either proceed according to a fixed rate, which operates unequally and injuriously to the industrious poor; or they vest a discretion in certain officers to make estimates and assessments, which are necessarily vague, conjectural, and liable to abuse. … All such taxes (including all taxes on occupations) which proceed according to the amount of capital supposed to be employed in a business, or of profits supposed to be made in it, are unavoidably hurtful to industry."

      R. W. Thompson,
      History of Protective Tariff Laws,
      chapters 6-7.

TARIFF: (England): A. D. 1815-1828.
The Corn Laws and Provision Laws.
The sliding-scale.

During the Napoleonic wars in Europe there was a prolonged period of scarcity, approaching to famine, in Great Britain. There were scant harvests at home and supplies from abroad were cut off by the "Continental system" of Napoleon. "In 1801 wheat was 115 shillings and 11 pence per quarter; from 1801 to 1818 the price averaged 84s.; whilst in the 20 years ending 1874, it averaged only 52s. per quarter. … The cry of starvation was everywhere heard amongst the working classes, and tradesmen of all kinds suffered severely; whilst the only well-to-do people were the Farmers and the Landlords. As soon as the war was over, and our ports were opened for the reception of foreign grain, prices came down rapidly. Then the Landlords took alarm, and appealed to Parliament to resist the importation of foreign grain, which they asserted, would be the ruin of the English Farmers. They insisted that in this country, the costs of cultivation were extremely heavy, as compared with those of foreign producers of grain, and that therefore the British Farmer must receive protection in order to prevent his ruin. Hence a Parliament, composed mostly of Landlords, proceeded, in 1815, to enact the Corn Law, which excluded foreign wheat, except at high rates of duty, until the market price should reach 80s. per quarter; and other kinds of grain, until there was a proportionate elevation in prices. The discussions in Parliament on this question made a great impression, and led to a wide-spread sympathy, and to the belief that there was need of a measure, which, according to its advocates, would preserve our Agriculture from ruin, and be at the same time a provision against famine. But by many thoughtful and patriotic people this law was viewed with intense dislike, and was characterised as an atrocious fraud. The fact was, that … when rents ought either to have been lowered, or the methods of cultivation improved, the Corn Law was passed by the Landlords in order to keep out foreign corn and to maintain high rents; and many of the common people saw, or thought they saw, what would be the effect; for whilst the legislature was engaged in the discussion of the question, the people of London became riotous, and the walls were chalked with invectives such as 'Bread or Blood,' 'Guy Fawkes for ever,' etc. A loaf, steeped in blood, was placed on Carlton House, (now the Tory Club House.) The houses of some of the most unpopular of the promoters of the measure were attacked by the mob. At Lord Eldon's house the iron railings were torn up, whilst every pane of glass and many articles of furniture were broken and destroyed, and it was facetiously remarked that at last his lordship kept open house. The military were called out, and two persons were killed; the Houses of Parliament were guarded by soldiers, and, indeed, the whole of London appeared to be in possession of the Army. In various parts of the country similar disturbances prevailed. … Large popular meetings were held at Spa Fields, in London, public meetings were also held at Birmingham, and in many other parts of the kingdom. … In some of the towns and populous localities, the operatives having in view a large aggregate meeting to be held on St. Peter's field in Manchester, submitted themselves to marching discipline. … Regardless, however, of the public demonstrations of dislike to the Corn and Provision Laws, the Legislature persisted in upholding the most stringent provisions thereof until the year 1828, when the duties on the importation of grain were adjusted by a sliding scale, in accordance with the average prices in the English market. {3069} The following abstract may serve to denote the provisions of the amended Law;—When the average price of wheat was 36 shillings the duty was 50 shillings 8 pence per qr.; when 46s. the duty was 40s. 8d. per. qr.; when 56s. it was 30s. 8d. per qr.; when 62s. it was 24s. 8d. per qr.; when 72s. it was 2s. 8d. per qr.; and when 73s. it was 1s. per qr. It was soon found that as a means of protection to the British Farmer, the operation of the sliding scale of duties was scarcely less effective, by deterring imports of grain, than the previous law, which absolutely excluded wheat until it reached 80s. per quarter. The Act certainly provided that foreign grain might at any time be imported, and be held in bond till the duty was paid; a provision under which it was expected to be stored until the price should be high, and the duty low; but the expenses attendant upon warehousing and preserving it from injury by keeping, were usually looked upon as an undesirable or even dangerous investment of a merchant's capital. … Agricultural protection, as exhibited by the Corn Law, would, however, have been very incomplete without the addition of the Provision Laws. By these Laws the importation of Foreign Cattle and foreign meat were strictly prohibited. Butter and Lard were indeed allowed to be imported, but they were not to be used as food, and in order to provide against any infraction of the law, the officers at the Custom Houses were employed to 'spoil' these articles on their arrival, by smearing them with a tarred stick. They could then be used only as grease for wheels, or for the smearing of sheep. With bread purposely made dear, with the import of cattle and of flesh meat prohibited, and with lard and butter wilfully reduced from articles of food to grease for wheels, there is no difficulty in accounting for the frequent murmurs of discontent, and for the starvation among the poorer classes in every part of the Kingdom. Soup kitchens were opened almost every winter, and coals and clothing gratuitously distributed in many places; but such palliatives were regarded with derision by all who understood the true causes of the evil. Such help was scorned, and a cry for justice was raised; scarcity was said to be created by Act of Parliament, in order to be mitigated by philanthropy."

      ALSO IN
      D. Ricardo,
      On Protection to Agriculture
      (Works, pages 459-498).

      J. E. T. Rogers,
      The Economic Interpretation of History,
      chapters 17-18.

TARIFF: (United States): A. D. 1816-1824.
The beginning of the protective policy (the "American System").

"The return of peace at the beginning of 1815 brought the manufacturers face to face with a serious danger. War had been their harvest time. Favored by double duties and abnormal conditions their industry had attained a marvelous though not always safe development. … By limitation, the double duties were to expire one year after the conclusion of peace, and unless Congress intervened promptly and effectually their individual ruin was certain. … As new industries sprang up, petitions were promptly laid before Congress praying for new duties, for the permanence of the war duties, and for certain prohibitions. … In laying before Congress the treaty of peace, February, 1815, Madison called attention to the 'unparalleled maturity' attained by manufactures, and 'anxiously recommended this source of national independence and wealth to the prompt and constant guardianship of Congress.' … To Dallas, Secretary of the Treasury, the manufacturers had already turned. Six days after the treaty of peace was ratified, the House, February 23, 1815, called upon Dallas to report a general tariff bill at the next session of Congress. … In his annual report in December, 1815, Dallas had proposed the extension of the double duties until June 30, 1816, in order to give time for the elaboration of a new tariff bill; and after some discussion Congress agreed to this plan. February 13 he transmitted his reply to the resolutions of the previous February, closing with a carefully prepared schedule of new tariff rates. This, after being worked over in the Ways and Means Committee, was embodied in a bill and introduced into the House March 12, by Lowndes of South Carolina. Debate began March 20, and continued till April 8, when the bill was finally passed by a vote of 88 to 54. April 20 it passed the Senate with some amendments, and April 27 received the approval of Madison. … The features of Dallas' proposed tariff were the enlarging of the ad valorem list from three groups at 12½, 15, and 20 per cent to eight groups at 7½, 15, 20, 22, 28, 30, and 33 1/3 per cent; the increase of specific duties by about 42 per cent; and, most important of all, in the article of coarse cottons, the insertion of a minimum, by which, as far as the custom-house was concerned, no quality was to be regarded as costing less than 25 cents per square yard. Except in the case of coarse cottons the new rates on articles which it was desired to protect fell slightly below the double rates of the war. Three positions were brought out in debate—two extremes, seeking the formulation of economic reasons for and against the policy of protection, and a middle party, composed mainly of men indifferent to manufacturing as such, but accepting the establishment of manufactures as one of the chief results of the war. … The two extremes, however, were far from taking the positions assumed later by extreme protectionism and extreme laissez-faire. … Only a few articles occasioned any discussion, and these were items like sugar, cottons, and woolens, which had been reduced in the Ways and Means Committee from the rates proposed by Dallas. Dallas had fixed the duty on cottons at 33 1/3 per cent, which was reduced to 30 per cent in Lowndes' bill. Clay moved to restore the original rate. … Later Webster proposed a sliding scale on cottons, the rate to be 30 per cent for two years, then 25 per cent for two more, and then 20 per cent. Clay moved to amend by making the first period three years and the second one year. … Lowndes assented to the motion. … Dallas proposed 28 per cent on woolens. The committee reduced this to 25 per cent, and following the example set in the case of cottons, Lowndes moved that after two years the rate be fixed at 20 per cent. … After some debate the first period was made three years, and Lowndes' amendment agreed to. The tariff of 1816 was a substantial victory for the manufacturers. … But … in its working out the tariff of 1816 proved a bitter disappointment to the manufacturing interest. The causes, however, were widely varied. … {3070} Yet it would be easy to exaggerate the distresses of the country. The years from 1816 to 1820 especially, were years of depression and hard times, but the steady growth of the country was hardly interrupted. In the main the tariff did not fail of its legitimate object. For the most part the new manufactures were conserved. … More and more there was a growing impatience with the tariff of 1816, and a tendency to lay the bad times upon its shoulders. … March 22, 1820, Baldwin of Pennsylvania, chairman of the newly created Committee on Manufactures, introduced a tariff bill embodying the general demand of the protected interests. … The bill passed the House by a vote of 90 to 69; it was defeated in the Senate by one vote."

O. L. Elliott, The Tariff Controversy, 1789-1833 (Leland Stanford Junior University Monographs No.1), pages 163-211.

"The revision of the Tariff, with a view to the protection of home industry, and to the establishment of what was then called, 'The American System,' was one of the large subjects before Congress at the session of 1823-24, and was the regular commencement of the heated debates on that question which afterwards ripened into a serious difficulty between the federal government and some of the southern States. … Revenue the object, protection the incident, had been the rule in the earlier tariffs: now that rule was sought to be reversed, and to make protection the object of the law, and revenue the incident. … Mr. Clay, the leader in the proposed revision, and the champion of the American System, expressly placed the proposed augmentation of duties on this ground. … Mr. Webster was the leading speaker on the other side, and disputed the universality of the distress which had been described; claiming exemption from it in New England; denied the assumed cause for it where it did exist, and attributed it to over expansion and collapse of the paper system, as in Great Britain, after the long suspension of the Bank of England; denied the necessity for increased protection to manufactures, and its inadequacy, if granted, to the relief of the country where distress prevailed. … The bill was carried in the House, after a protracted contest of ten weeks, by the lean majority of five—107 to 102-only two members absent, and the voting so zealous that several members were brought in upon their sick couches. In the Senate the bill encountered a strenuous resistance. … The bill … was carried by the small majority of four votes—25 to 21. … An increased protection to the products of several States, as lead in Missouri and Illinois, hemp in Kentucky, iron in Pennsylvania, wool in Ohio and New York, commanded many votes for the bill; and the impending presidential election had its influence in its favor. Two of the candidates, Messrs. Adams and Clay, were avowedly for it; General Jackson, who voted for the bill, was for it, as tending to give a home supply of the articles necessary in time of war, and as raising revenue to pay the public debt."

ALSO IN A. B. Hart, Formation of the Union, sections 122 and 132 (chapters 11-12).

      F. W. Taussig,
      Tariff History of the United States,
      pages 68-76.

      A. S. Bolles,
      Financial History of the United States, 1789-1860,
      book 3, chapter 3.

TARIFF: (United States): A. D. 1828.
The "Bill of Abominations."
New England changes front.

"In 1828 came another tariff bill, so bad and so extreme in many respects that it was called the 'bill of abominations.' It originated in the agitation of the woollen manufacturers which had started the year before, and for this bill Mr. Webster spoke and voted. He changed his ground on this important question absolutely and entirely, and made no pretence of doing anything else. The speech which he made on this occasion is a celebrated one, but it is so solely on account of the startling change of position which it announced. … A few lines from the speech give the marrow of the whole matter. Mr. Webster said: 'New England, sir, has not been a leader in this policy. … The opinion of New England up to 1824 was founded in the conviction that, on the whole, it was wisest and best, both for herself and others, that manufactures should make haste slowly. … When, at the commencement of the late war, duties were doubled, we were told that we should find a mitigation of the weight of taxation in the new aid and succor which would be thus afforded to our own manufacturing labor. Like arguments were urged, and prevailed, but not by the aid of New England votes, when the tariff was afterwards arranged at the close of the war in 1816. Finally, after a winter's deliberation, the act of 1824 received the sanction of both Houses of Congress and settled the policy of the country. … What, then, was New England to do? Was she to hold out forever against the course of the government, and see herself losing on one side and yet make no effort to sustain herself on the other? No, sir. Nothing was left to New England but to conform herself to the will of others. Nothing was left to her but to consider that the government had fixed and determined its own policy, and that policy was protection.' … Opinion in New England changed for good and sufficient business reasons, and Mr. Webster changed with it. Free trade had commended itself to him as an abstract principle, and he had sustained and defended it as in the interest of commercial New England. But when the weight of interest in New England shifted from free trade to protection Mr. Webster followed, it."

   "There was force in Webster's assertion, in reply to Hayne,
   that New England, after protesting against the tariff as long
   as she could, had conformed to a policy forced upon the
   country by others, and had embarked her capital in
   manufacturing. October 23, 1826, the Boston woollen
   manufacturers petitioned Congress for more protection. … This
   appeal of the woollen manufacturers brought out new demands
   from other quarters. Especially the wool-growers came forward.
   … May 14, 1827, the Pennsylvania Society for the Promotion of
   Manufactures and the Mechanic Arts called a convention of wool
   growers and manufacturers. The convention met at Harrisburg,
   July 30, 1827. It was found necessary to enlarge the scope of
   the convention in order to make allies of interests which
   would otherwise become hostile. The convention went on the
   plan of favoring protection on everything which asked for it.
   The result was that iron, steel, glass, wool, woollens, hemp,
   and flax were recommended for protection. Louisiana was not
   represented, and so sugar was left out.
{3071}
   It was voted to discourage the importation of foreign spirits
   and the distillation of spirits from foreign products, by way
   of protection to Western whiskey. … When the 20th Congress
   met, the tariff was the absorbing question. Popular interest
   had become engaged in it, and parties were to form on it, but
   it perplexed the politicians greatly. … The act which resulted
   from the scramble of selfish special interests was an economic
   monstrosity. … May 19, 1828, the bill became a law. The duty
   on wool costing less than 10 cents per pound was 15 per cent.,
   on other wool 20 per cent. and 30 per cent. That on woollens
   was 40 per cent. for a year, then 45 per cent., there being
   four minima, 50 cents, $1.00, $2.50, $4.00. All which cost
   over $4.00 were to be taxed 45 per cent. for a year, then 50
   per cent. … The process of rolling iron had not yet been
   introduced into this country. It was argued that rolled iron
   was not as good as forged, and this was made the ground for
   raising the tax on rolled iron from $30.00 to $37.00 per ton,
   while the tax on forged iron was raised from $18.00 to $22.40.
   Rolled iron was cheaper and was available for a great number
   of uses. The tax, in this case, 'countervailed' an improvement
   in the arts, and robbed the American people of their share in
   the advantage of a new industrial achievement. The tax on
   steel was raised from $20.00 to $30.00 per ton; that on hemp
   from $35.00 to $45.00 per ton; that on molasses from 5 cents
   to 10 cents per gallon; that on flax from nothing to $35.00
   per ton. The tax on sugar, salt, and glass remained unchanged,
   and that on tea also, save by a differential tonnage duty.
   Coffee was classified and the tax reduced. The tax on wine, by
   a separate act, was reduced one half or more. This was the
   'tariff of abominations,' so called on account of the number
   of especially monstrous provisions which it contained."

"The tariff of 1828 … was the work of politicians and manufacturers; and was commenced for the benefit of the woollen interest, and upon a bill chiefly designed to favor that branch of manufacturing industry. But, like all other bills of the kind, it required help from other interests to get itself along."

      J. Schouler,
      History of the United States,
      chapter 12, section 2 (volume 3).

President Jackson, in his message of December, 1831, "invited attention to the fact that the public debt would be extinguished before the expiration of his term, and that, therefore, 'a modification of the tariff, which shall produce a reduction of the revenue to the wants of the government,' was very advisable. He added that, in justice to the interests of the merchant as well as the manufacturer, the reduction should be prospective, and that the duties should be adjusted with a view 'to the counteraction of foreign policy, so far as it may be injurious to our national interests.' This meant a revenue tariff with incidental retaliation. He had thus arrived at a sensible plan to avoid the accumulation of a surplus. Clay took the matter in hand in the Senate, or rather in Congress. … He recognized the necessity of reducing the revenue, but he would reduce the revenue without reducing protective duties. The 'American System' should not suffer. It must, therefore, not be done in the manner proposed by Jackson. He insisted upon confining the reduction to duties on articles not coming into competition with American products. … Instead of abolishing protective duties he would rather reduce the revenue by making some of them prohibitory. … When objection was made that this would be a defiance of the South, of the President, and of the whole administration party, he replied, as Adams reports, that 'to preserve, maintain and strengthen the American System, he would defy the South, the President and the devil.' He introduced a resolution in the Senate, 'that the existing duties upon articles imported from foreign countries, and not coming into competition with similar articles made or produced within the United States, ought to be forthwith abolished, except the duties upon wines and silks, and that those ought to be reduced; and that the Committee on Finance be instructed to report a bill accordingly.'" After long debate Clay's" tariff resolution was adopted, and in June, 1832, a bill substantially in accord with it passed both houses, known as the tariff act of 1832. It reduced or abolished the duties on many of the unprotected articles, but left the protective system without material change. As a reduction of the revenue it effected very little. … The reduction proposed by Clay, according to his own estimate, was not over seven millions; the reduction really effected by the new tariff law scarcely exceeded three millions. Clay had saved the American System at the expense of the very object contemplated by the measure. It was extremely short-sighted statesmanship. The surplus was as threatening as ever, and the dissatisfaction in the South grew from day to day."

      ALSO IN
      H. Clay,
      Life, Correspondence and Speeches
      (Colton edition), volume 5, pages 416-428.

TARIFF: (United States): A. D. 1833.
   The Southern opposition to protection.
   Nullification in South Carolina.
   The compromise tariff.

"The German Customs Union (Deutsche Zollverein) is an association of states, having for its declared object to secure freedom of trade and commerce between the contracting states, and a common interest in the customs revenue. The terms of the union are expressed in the treaty between Prussia and the other states, dated 22d March, 1833, which may be regarded as the basis of the association. The states now [1844] forming the union are Prussia, Bavaria, Wurtemberg, Saxony, Hesse-Cassel, Hesse-Darmstadt, Baden, Nassau, the Thuringian states, Frankfort, Brunswick, Lippe-Schaumburg, and Luxemburg. The population of these, with the exception of the three last mentioned states, was, in 1839, 26,858,886. Including these three states, which have since joined the union, the present population cannot be less than twenty-seven millions and a half. The German powers which have not joined the union are Austria, with twelve millions of German subjects, and Hanover, Oldenburg, Holstein, the two Mecklenburgs, and the Hanse Towns, whose united population is about three millions more. {3072} The inhabitants of Germany are, therefore, divided in the proportions of twenty-seven and a half within, to fifteen without, the sphere of the Zollverein. The treaty provides in the thirty-eighth article, for the admission of other German states, and the thirty-ninth article for the making of treaties with foreign states, but these latter are not admissible into the union. … The declared principle of the league—namely, the commercial and financial union of the German states—is not only one to which no foreign power has any right to object, but is excellent in itself; and is, in fact, the establishment of free trade among the associated states. … But it is not merely to its avowed principle that the league owes its successful accomplishment. There are other motives which have entered largely into the causes of its existence. In the first place, it has given practical effect to that vehement desire for national unity which so generally pervades the German mind. … Then, it so happened that this general desire for union fell in exactly with the policy of Prussia—a power which has not failed to seize so favourable an opportunity of extending her political influence, and occupying a position which, though of nominal equality, has in reality secured her predominance among the German states. To these inducements we regret to be obliged to add another—namely, the prevalent opinion in Germany that their manufacturing industry ought to be protected against foreign competition, and that the tariff of the Zollverein ought to be used as an instrument for the exclusion of foreign manufactures from the German market. … Although the Congress of Vienna had established a new Germanic confederation, (Deutsche Bund) and a federative diet charged with the maintenance of peace at home and abroad, yet it was soon perceived and felt that the kind of union obtained by means of this confederation was more formal than real. … The late King of Prussia was one of the first to perceive, that, in order to unite Germany in reality, something more cogent than the federative diet was indispensable. He found his own power rather weakened than strengthened by the addition of the Rhenish provinces, so long as they remained separated, not only by distance, but by the customs-barriers of intervening states, from his ancient territories. He accordingly effected, in 1829, a convention with those states, by which he became the farmer of their customs-revenues, and so removed the barriers between Eastern and Western Prussia. Some years, however, previous to this, the Prussian Government had deemed it expedient to comply with the demands of the manufacturers (especially those in the Rhenish provinces) for protection against foreign goods, which, since the peace, had begun to make their appearance; and on the 26th May, 1818, a new Prussian Tariff had been issued, which was designed to afford a moderate protection to the home industry, and which may be regarded as the groundwork of the present Tariff of the Zollverein. … But the proceedings of Prussia were considered in a hostile light by the manufacturers of the South. They formed a counteracting association in 1819 which numbered from five to six thousand members, had its headquarters in Nuremberg, and agents in all the principal towns, and published a weekly newspaper devoted to the cause. They addressed the Diet, the German courts, and the Congress at Vienna in 1820, in favor of a general customs-union. They so far succeeded that, in 1826, the small Thuringian States, occupying the central portion of Germany, with one or two others, formed themselves into a customs-union, under the name of the Mittel-Verein; and within the two succeeding years a more important union was accomplished, consisting of Bavaria and Wurtemberg, with their small enclosed states; the Tariff of which union is stated to have been as high, or very nearly so, as that of Prussia. Thus Germany contained three separate customs-associations, with separate Tariffs, and it became obviously desirable to unite these conflicting interests. Prussia made overtures to the other unions, but was for a long time unsuccessful; they objecting principally to the high scale of Prussian duties on colonial produce. At last, however, all obstacles were removed, (principally, as Dr. List states, through the exertions of Baron von Cotta, the eminent publisher, and proprietor of the Allgemeine Zeitung,) and on the 22d of March, 1833, the treaty was signed by which, for the first time, Germany was knit together in anything like a binding national confederation. Between that date and the present, the league has been enlarged by the accession of other states; but, as we have already mentioned, Hanover and some other northern states have hitherto refused to join it. Hanover formed a distinct union with three neighbouring states, viz.: Brunswick, Lippe-Schaumburg, and Oldenburg, which assumed the title of the North-western League; but the two former having subsequently seceded from it and joined the Zollverein, the North-western League has been reduced to Hanover and Oldenburg only. The Hanse towns, Mecklenburg, and Holstein, are not yet members of any customs-union. The revenues of the Zollverein are divided among the contracting states according to the population of each state respectively."

   "Cobden was in no sense the original projector of an organized
   body for throwing off the burden of the corn duties. In 1836
   an Anti-Corn-Law Association had been formed in London; its
   principal members were the parliamentary radicals, Grote,
   Molesworth, Joseph Hume, and Mr. Roebuck. But this group,
   notwithstanding their acuteness, their logical penetration,
   and the soundness of their ideas, were in that, as in so many
   other matters, stricken with impotence. Their gifts of
   reasoning were admirable, but they had no gifts for popular
   organization. … It was not until a body of men in Manchester
   were moved to take the matter in hand, that any serious
   attempt was made to inform and arouse the country. The price
   of wheat had risen to seventy-seven shillings in the August of
   1838; there was every prospect of a wet harvesting; the
   revenue was declining; deficit was becoming a familiar word;
   pauperism was increasing; and the manufacturing population of
   Lancashire were finding it impossible to support themselves,
   because the landlords, and the legislation of a generation of
   landlords before them, insisted on keeping the first necessity
   of life at an artificially high rate. …
{3073}
   In October, 1838, a band of seven men met at a hotel in
   Manchester, and formed a new Anti-Corn Law Association. They
   were speedily joined by others, including Cobden, who from
   this moment began to take a prominent part in all counsel and
   action. That critical moment had arrived, which comes in the
   history of every successful movement, when a section arises
   within the party, which refuses from that day forward either
   to postpone or to compromise. The feeling among the older men
   was to stop short in their demands at some modification of the
   existing duty. … The more energetic members protested against
   these faltering voices. … The meeting was adjourned, to the
   great chagrin of the President, and when the members assembled
   a week later, Cobden drew from his pocket a draft petition
   which he and his allies had prepared in the interval, and
   which after a discussion of many hours was adopted by an
   almost unanimous vote. The preamble laid all the stress on the
   alleged facts of foreign competition, in words which never
   fail to be heard in times of bad trade. It recited how the
   existing laws prevented the British manufacturer from
   exchanging the produce of his labour for the corn of other
   countries, and so enabled his foreign rivals to purchase their
   food at one half of the price at which it was sold in the
   English market; and finally the prayer of the petition called
   for the repeal of all laws relating to the importation of
   foreign corn and other foreign articles of subsistence, and
   implored the House to carry out to the fullest extent, both as
   affects manufactures and agriculture, the true and peaceful
   principles of free-trade. In the following month, January,
   1839, the Anti-Com-Law Association showed that it was in
   earnest in the intention to agitate, by proceeding to raise a
   subscription of an effective sum of money. Cobden threw out
   one of those expressions which catch men's minds in moments
   when they are already ripe for action. 'Let us,' he said,
   'invest part of our property, in order to save the rest from
   confiscation.' Within a month £6,000 had been raised, the
   first instalment of many scores of thousands still to come. A
   great banquet was given to some of the parliamentary
   supporters of Free Trade; more money was subscribed,
   convictions became clearer and purpose waxed more resolute. On
   the day after the banquet, at a meeting of delegates from
   other towns, Cobden brought forward a scheme for united action
   among the various associations throughout the country. This
   was the germ of what ultimately became the League."

TARIFF: (England): A. D. 1842.
   Peel's modification of the Corn Laws.
   His sliding-scale.
   His Tariff reductions.
   The first great step towards Free-Trade.

The Whig administration under Lord Melbourne gave way in August, in 1841, to one formed by Sir Robert Peel. On the opening of the session in February, 1842, "The Queen's Speech recommended Parliament to consider the state of the laws affecting the importation of corn and other commodities. It announced the beginning of a revolution which few persons in England thought possible, although it was to be completed in little more than ten years. On the 9th of February Peel moved that the House should resolve itself into a Committee to consider the Corn Laws. His speech, which lasted nearly three hours, was necessarily dull, and his proposal was equally offensive to the country gentlemen and to the Anti-Corn Law League. It amounted merely to an improvement of the sliding-scale which had been devised by the Duke of Wellington's Cabinet [See above: A. D. 1815-1828], and was based on the axiom that the British farmer, taking one year with another, could not make a profit by growing corn if foreign corn were admitted at a price of less than 70s. a quarter. By a calculation of prices extending over a long term of years, Peel had satisfied himself that a price of 56s. a quarter would remunerate the British farmer. He proposed to modify the sliding-scale accordingly. … Peel retained the minimum duty of 1s. when corn was selling at 73s. the quarter; he fixed a maximum duty of 20s. when corn was selling at from 50s. to 51s. the quarter, and he so altered the graduation in the increase of duty as to diminish the inducement to hold grain back when it became dear. … So general was the dissatisfaction with Peel's Corn Law that Russell ventured once more to place before the House his alternative of a fixed 8s. duty. He was defeated by a majority of upwards of 120 votes. Two days later Mr. Villiers made his annual motion for the total repeal of the Corn Laws, and was beaten by more than four votes to one. The murmurs of Peel's own supporters were easily overborne, and the Bill was carried through the House of Commons after a month spent in debates. As soon as it had passed, and the estimates for the army and navy had been voted, Peel produced what was really his Budget, nominally Mr. Goulburn's. … In every one of the last five years there had been a deficit. … Peel therefore resolved to impose an income tax." He also raised the duty on Irish spirits and on exports of coal, besides making some changes in the stamp duties. "With these and with the income tax he calculated that he would have a surplus of £1,900,000. Peel was thus able to propose a reduction of the tariff upon uniform and comprehensive principles. He proposed to limit import duties to a maximum of 5 per cent. upon the value of raw materials, of 12 per cent. upon the value of goods partly manufactured, and of 20 per cent. upon the value of goods wholly manufactured. Out of the 1,200 articles then comprised in the tariff, 750 were more or less affected by the application of these rules, yet so trivial was the revenue raised from most of them that the total loss was computed at only £270,000 a year. Peel reduced the duty on coffee; he reduced the duty on foreign and almost entirely abolished the duty on Canadian timber. Cattle and pigs, meat of all descriptions, cheese and butter, which had hitherto been subject to a prohibitory duty, he proposed to admit at a comparatively low rate. He also diminished the duty upon stage coaches. So extensive a change in our system of national finance had never before been effected at one stroke. … Immense was the excitement caused by the statement of the Budget. … Every part of Peel's scheme was debated with the utmost energy. … He procured the ratification of all his measures subject to some slight amendments, and at the cost of a whole session spent in discussing them. Little or nothing else was accomplished by Parliament in this year. Peel had returned to power as the Champion of protection. His first great achievement was the extension of the freedom of trade."

"Notwithstanding the objections which free traders might raise, the Budget of 1842 proved the first great advance in the direction of free trade. It did not remove the shackles under which trade was struggling, but it relaxed the fastenings and lightened the load."

TARIFF: (United States): A. D. 1842.
An Act to provide a necessary increase of revenue,
with incidental protection.

"There had been a lull in tariff legislation for ten years. The free-trade party had been ascendant; and amendment of the law, save in the slight ways mentioned, had been impossible. During the decade, a financial tornado had swept over the country; the United States bank had ceased to be; the experiment of keeping the government deposits with the State banks had been tried, and had failed; the government had kept them several years without authority, but finally a bill had been passed which authorized keeping them in that manner. The time had now nearly come for reducing the duties [by the gradual scaling down provided for in the Compromise tariff act of 1833] to their lowest point. Manufactures were drying up at the root. A material augmentation of the national revenue from some source had become necessary. … Whatever difference of opinion existed respecting the necessity of additional protection to manufacturers, some expedient, it was universally conceded, must be adopted to increase the public revenue. As no one favored direct taxation, a revision of the tariff was the only mode of enriching the treasury. … The committee on manufactures did not report to the House until the last of March, 1842. … The leading provisions of the bill reported by the committee were the following:

1. A general ad valorem duty of 30 per cent, with few exceptions, where the duty was on that principle.

2. A discrimination was made for the security of certain interests requiring it by specific duties, in some instances below, in others above, the rate of the general ad valorem duty.

3. As a general principle, the duty on the articles subject to discrimination was made at the rate at which it was in 1840, after the deduction of four-tenths of the excess on 20 per cent by the Act of 1833. …

The subject was discussed at great length by the House, although the time was drawing near for making the last reduction under the compromise law of [1833]. Something must be done. Accordingly, Fillmore, chairman of the committee of ways and means, reported a bill to extend the existing tariff laws until the 1st day of August, 1842, which was immediately passed by the House; but the Senate amended the bill by adding a proviso that nothing therein contained should suspend the operation of the Distribution law,—a law passed at the extra session of the preceding year, distributing the proceeds of the sales of the public lands among the States. … In the debate on this bill the proviso became a prominent topic of discussion. The distribution Act contained a proviso, that, if at any time the duties under the compromise tariff should be raised, the distribution should cease, and be suspended until the cause of the suspension were removed. … Those who were in favor of high protective duties desired the removal of the proviso of the distribution Act in order that the tariff might be raised without interfering with distribution. The House having rejected an amendment proposing to strike out the proviso which prohibited the suspension of the distribution law, the bill was passed by the House, and afterward by the Senate, but vetoed by the President. Another tariff bill was introduced by Mr. Fillmore, drawn by the Secretary of the Treasury,—to which, however, the committee added a proviso that the … proceeds of the public lands should be distributed, notwithstanding the increase of duties,—which passed both Houses after a short debate. This contained a revision of a considerable number of duties, and was also vetoed by the President. Impelled by the necessity of providing additional revenue, a bill was rapidly pushed through Congress, similar to that previously passed, with the omission of the proviso requiring distribution, and further modified by admitting free of duty tea and coffee growing east of the Cape of Good Hope, imported in American vessels. This bill was approved by the President. A separate bill was then passed, repealing the proviso of the distribution Act, and allowing the distribution to take place, notwithstanding the increase of duties; but the bill was retained by the President and defeated. Thus ended a long and bitter controversy, in which public sentiment expanded, and hardened against the chief Executive of the nation. … That tariff remained without change during the next four years."

      A. S. Bolles,
      Financial History of the United States, 1789-1860,
      book 3, chapter 6.

TARIFF: (England): A. D. 1845-1846.
The Repeal of the Corn Laws.
Dissolution of the League.

"The Anti-Corn-Law agitation was one of those movements which, being founded on right principles, and in harmony with the interest of the masses, was sure to gather fresh strength by any event affecting the supply of food. It was popular to attempt to reverse a policy which aimed almost exclusively to benefit one class of society. … The economic theorists had the mass of the people with them. Their gatherings were becoming more and more enthusiastic. And even amidst Conservative landowners there were not a few enlightened and liberal minds who had already, silently at least, espoused the new ideas. No change certainly could be expected to be made so long as bread was cheap and labour abundant. But when a deficient harvest and a blight in the potato crop crippled the resources of the people and raised grain to famine prices, the voice of the League acquired greater power and influence. Hitherto they had received hundreds of pounds. Now, thousands were sent in to support the agitation. A quarter of a million was readily contributed. Nor were the contributors Lancashire mill-owners exclusively. Among them were merchants and bankers, men of heart and men of mind, the poor labourer and the peer of the realm. The fervid oratory of Bright, the demonstrative and argumentative reasoning of Cobden, the more popular appeals of Fox, Rawlins, and other platform speakers, filled the newspaper press, and were eagerly read. {3075} And when Parliament dissolved in August 1845, even Sir Robert Peel showed some slight symptoms of a conviction that the days of the corn laws were numbered. Every day, in truth, brought home to his mind a stronger need for action, and as the ravages of the potato disease progressed, he saw that all further resistance would be absolutely dangerous. A cabinet council was held on October 31 of that year to consult as to what was to be done, and at an adjourned meeting on November 5 Sir Robert Peel intimated his intention to issue an order in council remitting the duty on grain in bond to one shilling, and opening the ports for the admission of all species of grain at a smaller rate of duty until a day to be named in the order; to call Parliament together on the 27th inst., in order to ask for an indemnity, and a sanction of the order by law; and to submit to Parliament immediately after the recess a modification of the existing law, including the admission at a nominal duty of Indian corn and of British colonial corn. A serious difference of opinion, however, was found to exist in the cabinet on the question brought before them, the only ministers supporting such measures being the Earl of Aberdeen, Sir James Graham, and Mr. Sidney Herbert. Nor was it easy to induce the other members to listen to reason. And though at a subsequent meeting, held on November 28, Sir Robert Peel so far secured a majority in his favour, it was evident that the cabinet was too divided to justify him in bringing forward his measures, and he decided upon resigning office. His resolution to that effect having been communicated to the Queen, her Majesty summoned Lord John Russell to form a cabinet, and, to smooth his path, Sir Robert Peel, with characteristic frankness, sent a memorandum to her Majesty embodying a promise to give him his support. But Lord John Russell failed in his efforts, and the Queen had no alternative but to recall Sir Robert Peel, and give him full power to carry out his measures. It was under such circumstances that Parliament was called for January 22, 1846, and on January 27 the Government plan was propounded before a crowded House. It was not an immediate repeal of the corn laws that Sir Robert Peel recommended. He proposed a temporary protection for three years, till February 1, 1849, imposing a scale during that time ranging from 4s. when the price of wheat should be 50s. per quarter and upward, and 10s. when the price should be under 48s. per quarter, providing, however, that after that period all grain should be admitted at the uniform duty of 1s. per quarter. The measure, as might have been expected, was received in a very different manner by the political parties in both Houses of Parliament. There was treason in the Conservative camp, it was said, and keen and bitter was the opposition offered to the chief of the party. For twelve nights speaker after speaker indulged in personal recriminations. They recalled to Sir Robert Peel's memory the speeches he had made in defence of the corn laws. And as to his assertion that he had changed his mind, they denied his right to do so. … The passing of the measure was, however, more than certain, and after a debate of twelve nights' duration on Mr. Miles's amendment, the Government obtained a majority of 97, 337 having voted for the motion and 240 against it. And from that evening the corn law may be said to have expired. Not a day too soon, certainly, when we consider the straitened resources of the country as regards the first article of food, caused not only by the bad crop of grain, but by the serious loss of the potato crop, especially in Ireland."

"On the 2nd of July the League was 'conditionally dissolved,' by the unanimous vote of a great meeting of the leaders at Manchester. … Mr. Cobden here joyfully closed his seven years' task, which he had prosecuted at the expense of health, fortune, domestic comfort, and the sacrifice of his own tastes in every way. … Mr. Cobden had sacrificed at least £20,000 in the cause. The country now, at the call of the other chief Leaguers, presented him with above £80,000—not only for the purpose of acknowledging his sacrifices, but also to set him free for life for the political service of his country."

H. Martineau, History of the Thirty Years' Peace, book 6, chapter 15 (volume 4).

ALSO IN: W. C. Taylor, Life and Times of Sir Robert Peel, volume 3, chapters 8-10.

TARIFF: (United States): A. D. 1846-1861.
Lowered duties and the disputed effects.

"In 1846 was passed what we will call the 'Walker tariff,' from Robert J. Walker, then Secretary of the Treasury. It reduced the duties on imports down to about the standard of the 'Compromise' of 1833. It discriminated, however, as the Compromise did not, between goods that could be produced at home and those that could not. It approached, in short, more nearly than any other, in its principles and details, to the Hamilton tariff, although the general rate of duties was higher. From that time up to 1857 there was a regular and large increase in the amount of dutiable goods imported, bringing in a larger revenue to the government. The surplus in the treasury accumulated, and large sums were expended by the government in buying up its own bonds at a high premium, for the sake of emptying the treasury. Under these circumstances the 'tariff of 1857' was passed, decidedly lowering the rates of duties and largely increasing the free list. The financial crisis of that year diminished the imports, and the revenue fell off $22,000,000. It rallied, however, the next two years, but owing to the large increase of the free list, not quite up to the old point."

   "The free-traders consider the tariff of 1846 to be a
   conclusive proof of the beneficial effect of low duties. They
   challenge a comparison of the years of its operation, between
   1846 and 1857, with any other equal period in the history of
   the country. Manufacturing, they say, was not forced by a
   hot-house process to produce high-priced goods for popular
   consumption, but was gradually encouraged and developed on a
   healthful and self-sustaining basis, not to be shaken as a
   reed in the wind by every change in the financial world.
   Commerce, as they point out, made great advances, and our
   carrying trade grew so rapidly that in ten years from the day
   the tariff of 1846 was passed our tonnage exceeded the tonnage
   of England. The free-traders refer with especial emphasis to
   what they term the symmetrical development of all the great
   interests of the country under this liberal tariff.
{3076}
   Manufactures were not stimulated at the expense of the
   commercial interest. Both were developed in harmony, while
   agriculture, the indispensable basis of all, was never more
   flourishing. The farmers and planters at no other period of
   our history were in receipt of such good prices, steadily paid
   to them in gold coin, for their surplus product, which they
   could send to the domestic market over our own railways and to
   the foreign market in our own ships. Assertions as to the
   progress of manufactures in the period under discussion are
   denied by the protectionists. While admitting the general
   correctness of the free-trader's statements as to the
   prosperous condition of the country, they call attention to
   the fact that directly after the enactment of the tariff of
   1846 the great famine occurred in Ireland, followed in the
   ensuing years by short crops in Europe. The prosperity which
   came to the American agriculturist was therefore from causes
   beyond the sea and not at home,—causes which were transient,
   indeed almost accidental. Moreover an exceptional condition of
   affairs existed in the United States in consequence of our
   large acquisition of territory from Mexico at the close of the
   war and the subsequent and almost immediate discovery of gold
   in California. A new and extended field of trade was thus
   opened in which we had the monopoly, and an enormous surplus
   of money was speedily created from the products of the rich
   mines on the Pacific coast. At the same time Europe was in
   convulsion from the revolutions of 1848, and production was
   materially hindered over a large part of the Continent. This
   disturbance had scarcely subsided when three leading nations
   of Europe, England, France, and Russia, engaged in the
   wasteful and expensive war of the Crimea. The struggle began
   in 1853 and ended in 1856, and during those years it increased
   consumption and decreased production abroad, and totally
   closed the grain-fields of Russia from any competition with
   the United States. The protectionists therefore hold that the
   boasted prosperity of the country under the tariff of 1846 was
   abnormal in origin and in character. … The protectionists
   maintain that from 1846 to 1857 the United States would have
   enjoyed prosperity under any form of tariff, but that the
   moment the exceptional conditions in Europe and in America
   came to an end, the country was plunged headlong into a
   disaster [the financial crisis of 1857] from which the
   conservative force of a protective tariff would in large part
   have saved it. … The free-traders, as an answer to this
   arraignment of their tariff policy, seek to charge
   responsibility for the financial disasters to the hasty and
   inconsiderate changes made in the tariff in 1857, for which
   both parties were in large degree if not indeed equally
   answerable."

TARIFF: (England): A. D. 1846-1879.
Total abandonment of Protection and Navigation Laws.
The perfected tariff of Free Trade.

"With the fall of the principle of the protection in corn may be said to have practically fallen the principle of protection in this country altogether. That principle was a little complicated in regard to the sugar duties and to the navigation laws. The sugar produced in the West Indian colonies was allowed to enter this country at rates of duty much lower than those imposed upon the sugar grown in foreign lands. The abolition of slavery in our colonies had made labour there somewhat costly and difficult to obtain continuously, and the impression was that if the duties on foreign sugar were reduced, it would tend to enable those countries which still maintained the slave trade to compete at great advantage with the sugar grown in our colonies by that free labour to establish which England had but just paid so large a pecuniary fine. Therefore, the question of Free Trade became involved with that of free labour; at least, so it seemed to the eyes of many a man who was not inclined to support the protective principle in itself. When it was put to him, whether he was willing to push the Free Trade principle so far as to allow countries growing sugar by slave labour to drive our free grown sugar out of the market, he was often inclined to give way before this mode of putting the question, and to imagine that there really was a collision between Free Trade and free labour. Therefore a certain sentimental plea came in to aid the Protectionists in regard to the sugar duties. Many of the old anti-slavery party found themselves deceived by this fallacy, and inclined to join the agitation against the reduction of the duty on foreign sugar. On the other hand, it was made tolerably clear that the labour was not so scarce or so dear in the colonies as had been represented, and that colonial sugar grown by free labour really suffered from no inconvenience except the fact that it was still manufactured on the most crude, old fashioned, and uneconomical methods. Besides, the time had gone by when the majority of the English people could be convinced that a lesson on the beauty of freedom was to be conveyed to foreign sugar-growers and slave-owners by the means of a tax upon the products of their plantations. Therefore, after a long and somewhat eager struggle, the principle of Free Trade was allowed to prevail in regard to sugar. The duties on sugar were made equal. The growth of the sugar plantations was admitted on the same terms into this country, without any reference either to the soil from which it had sprung or to the conditions under which it was grown."

   "The contest on the Navigation Laws [finally repealed in
   1849-see NAVIGATION LAWS: A. D. 1849] was the last pitched
   battle fought by the Protectionist party. Their resistance
   grew fainter and fainter, and a few occasional skirmishes just
   reminded the world that such a party still existed. Three
   years afterwards their leaders came into power. In February,
   1852, the Earl of Derby became Prime Minister, and Mr.
   Disraeli Chancellor of the Exchequer and leader of the House
   of Commons. The Free-traders, alarmed at the possibility of
   some at·tempt to reverse the policy of commercial freedom
   which had been adopted, took the earliest opportunity of
   questioning those Ministers in Parliament on the subject. The
   discreet reply was that the Government did not intend to
   propose any return to the policy of protection during the
   present Session, nor at any future time, unless a great
   majority of members favourable to that policy should be
   returned to Parliament. But far from this proving to be the
   case, the general election which immediately ensued reinstated
   a Liberal Government, and the work of stripping off the few
   rags of protection that still hung on went rapidly forward.
{3077}
   On the 18th of April, 1853, Mr. Gladstone, as Chancellor of
   the Exchequer, made his financial statement in an able and
   luminous speech. Such was the admirable order in which he
   marshalled his topics, and the transparent lucidity with which
   he treated them, that although his address occupied five hours
   in the delivery, and although it bristled with figures and
   statistics, he never for a moment lost the attention or
   fatigued the minds of his hearers. Mr. Gladstone's financial
   scheme included, among other reforms, the reduction or total
   remission of imposts on 133 articles. In this way, our tariff
   underwent rapid simplification. Each subsequent year was
   marked by a similar elimination of protective impediments to
   free commercial intercourse with other countries. In 1860,
   butter, cheese, &c., were admitted duty free; in 1869, the
   small nominal duty that had been left on corn was abolished;
   in 1874, sugar was relieved from the remnant of duty that had
   survived from previous reductions. It would be superfluous, as
   well as tedious, to enter upon a detailed reference to the
   various minor reforms through which we advanced towards, and
   finally reached, our present free-trade tariff. In fact, all
   the great battles had been fought and won by the close of the
   year 1849, and the struggle was then virtually over. … Is our
   present tariff one from which every shred and vestige of
   protection have been discarded? Is it truly and thoroughly a
   free-trade tariff? That these questions must be answered in
   the affirmative it is easy to prove in the most conclusive
   manner. We raise about £20,000,000 of our annual revenue by
   means of customs' duties on the foreign commodities which we
   import, and this fact is sometimes adduced by the advocates
   for protection, without any explanation, leaving their readers
   to infer that ours is not, as it really is, a free-trade
   tariff. That such an inference is totally erroneous will
   presently be made manifest beyond all question. We now levy
   import duties on only fifteen articles. Subjoined is a list of
   them, and to each is appended the amount of duty levied on it
   during the financial year ending 1st of April, 1879.

   Not produced in England:
   Tobacco, £8,589,681;
   Tea, 4,169,233;
   Wine, 1,469,710;
   Dried Fruit, 509,234;
   Coffee, 212,002;
   Chicory, 66,739;
   Chocolate and Cocoa, 44,671;
   Total, £15,061,270.

   Produced also in England:
   Spirits, £5,336,058;
   Plate (Silver and Gold). 5,853;
   Beer, 3,814;
   Vinegar, 671;
   Playing Cards, 522;
   Pickles. 17;
   Malt. 6;
   Spruce, 3;
   Total, £5,346,944.

Total of both £20,408,214. It will be seen by the above figures that £15,000,000, or three-fourths of the total sum levied, is levied on articles which we do not and cannot produce in England. It is clear, therefore, that this portion of the import duties cannot by any possibility be said to afford the slightest protection to native industry.' Every shilling's worth which we consume of those articles comes from abroad, and every shilling extra that the consumer pays for them in consequence of the duty goes to the revenue. So much for that portion of the £20,400,000 import duties. As to the £5,336,000 levied on foreign spirits, it consists of import duties which are only the exact counterpart of the excise duties, levied internally on the produce of the British distillers. The foreign article is placed on precisely the same footing as the native article. Both have to pay the same duty of about 10s. per gallon on spirits of the same strength. It would of course be an absurd stultification to admit foreign spirits duty-free while the English producer was burdened with a tax of 10s. per gallon; but by making the excise duty and the customs' duty precisely the same, equality is established, and no protection or preference whatever is enjoyed by the native distiller. The excise duty levied in the aforesaid year ending April, 1879, on spirits the produce of British distilleries, was no less than £14,855,000. The trifling amounts raised on plate, beer, vinegar, &c., are explained in the same way. They also act as a mere counterpoise to the excise duties levied on the British producers of the same articles, and thus afford to the latter no protection whatever against foreign competition. It is evident, therefore, that our tariff does not retain within it one solitary shred of protection."

TARIFF: (France): A. D. 1853-1860.
Moderation of Protective duties.
The Cobden-Chevalier Commercial Treaty.

After the fall of Napoleon and the restoration of the Bourbons in France, the protective system was pushed to so great an extreme that it became in some instances avowedly prohibitive. "The first serious attempt to alter this very severe restrictive system was reserved for the Second Empire. The English reforms of Peel proved the possibility of removing most of the barriers to commerce that legislation had set up, and consequently Napoleon III. entered with moderation on the work of revision. Between 1853 and 1855 the duties on coal, iron, steel, and wool were lowered, as also those on cattle, corn, and various raw materials, the requirements for ship-building being allowed in free. The legislative body was, however, with difficulty brought to consent to these measures. A more extensive proposal—made in 1856—to remove all prohibitions on imports, while retaining protective duties of 30% on woollen and 35% on cotton goods, had to be withdrawn, in consequence of the strong opposition that it excited. The interest of the consumers was in the popular opinion entirely subordinate to that of the iron-masters, cotton-spinners, and agriculturists—one of the many instances which shows that the long continuance of high duties does not facilitate the introduction of free competition. It was under such discouraging circumstances that the famous Commercial Treaty of 1860 with England was negotiated. This important measure (the work of Chevalier and Cobden, but owing a good deal of its success to the efforts of the Emperor and M. Rouher), though only a finishing step in English tariff reform, inaugurated a new era in France."

   "By the treaty of commerce of 1860, France engaged to abolish
   all prohibitions, and to admit certain articles of British
   produce and manufacture at duties not exceeding 30 per cent.
   ad valorem, to be further reduced to duties not exceeding 25
   per cent. from the 1st October, 1864. Britain, on the other
   hand, bound herself to abolish the duties on French silks and
   other manufactured goods, and to reduce the duties on French
   wines and brandies.
{3078}
   As regards coals, France engaged to reduce the import duty,
   and both contracting parties engaged not to prohibit
   exportation of coal, and to levy no duty upon such exports.
   Whilst both contracting parties engaged to confer on the other
   any favour, privilege, or reduction in the tariff of duties on
   imports on the articles mentioned in the treaty which the said
   power might concede to any third power; and also not to
   enforce, one against another, any prohibition of importation
   or exportation which should not at the same time be applicable
   to all other nations. The sum and substance of the treaty was,
   that France engaged to act more liberally for the future than
   she had done for the past, and England made another step in
   the way of liberalising her tariff, and placing all her
   manufactures under the wholesome and invigorating influence of
   free competition. Nor was the treaty allowed to remain limited
   to France and England, for forthwith after its conclusion both
   France and England entered into similar treaties with other
   nations. And inasmuch as under existing treaties other nations
   were bound to give to England as good treatment as they gave
   to the most favoured nations, the restrictions theretofore in
   existence in countries not originally parties to the French
   treaty were everywhere greatly reduced, and thereby its
   benefits extended rapidly over the greater part of Europe."

      L. Levi,
      Statistical Results of the Recent Treaties of Commerce
      (Journal of the Statistical Society,
      volume 40, 1877), page 3.

TARIFF: (Germany): A. D. 1853-1892.
Progress towards Free Trade arrested by Prince Bismarck.
Protection measures of 1878-1887.

"Up to the revolutionary period of 1848-50, the policy of the German Zollverein or Custom's Union was a pronounced protectionism. The general liberalization, so to speak, of political life in Western Europe through the events of the years mentioned and the larger sympathy they engendered between nations produced, however, a strong movement in Germany and German-Austria in favor of greater freedom of commercial exchange between these two countries. It resulted in the conclusion, for the term of twelve years, of the treaty of 1853 between the Zollverein and Austria, as the first of the international compacts for the promotion of commercial intercourse that formed so prominent a feature of European history during the following twenty years. The treaty was a first, but long step towards free exchange, providing, as it did, for uniform duties on imports from other countries, for a considerable free list and for largely reduced duties between the contracting countries. It also contained stipulations for its renewal on the basis of entire free trade. … A very influential association was formed, with free trade as the avowed ulterior object. Its leaders, who were also the champions of political liberalism, represented intellects of the highest order. They included the well-known economists Prince Smith, Mittermaier, Rau, Faucher, Michaelis, Wirth, Schulze and Braun. An 'Economic Congress' was held annually, the proceedings of which attracted the greatest attention, and exercised a growing influence upon the policy of the governments composing the Zollverein. … The beneficial results of the treaty of 1853 were so obvious and instantaneous that the Zollverein and Austria would have no doubt sought to bring about improved commercial relations with other nations by the same means, but for the disturbance of the peace of Europe by the Crimean war, and the conflict of 1859 between France, Italy and Austria. The bitter feelings, caused by the latter war against the two first named countries wherever the German tongue was spoken, rendered the negotiation of commercial treaties with them out of the question for a time. The great achievement of Richard Cobden and Michel Chevalier, the famous treaty of 1860 between Great Britain and France, changed this reluctance at once into eagerness to secure the same advantages that those two countries had insured to each other. The enlightened and far-seeing despot occupying the throne of France, being once won over to the cause of free exchange by Cobden's ardor and persistence and clear and convincing arguments, against the views of the majority of his ministers and with probably 90 per cent. of his subjects strongly opposed to the abandonment of protectionism, determined, with the zeal of a new convert, to make the most of his new departure. He was very willing, therefore, to meet the advances of the Zollverein, so that in the spring of 1862, after a whole year's negotiation, a formal treaty was consummated between it and the French Empire. It was a very broad measure. … It comprised a copyright and trade-mark convention, provisions for liberal modifications of the respective navigation laws and a commercial treaty proper. The latter provided for the free admission of raw materials, for the abolition of transit and export duties and for equalizing import duties as nearly as possible, and also contained a 'most favored nation' clause. … In pursuance of the terms of the treaty of 1853 with Austria, negotiations had been commenced early in the sixties with reference to its renewal upon the basis of the removal of all custom-barriers between the two countries. Austria was naturally against the conclusion of a treaty between the Zollverein and France with herself left out, and opposed its consummation with all the means at her command. … After long negotiations, accompanied by much excitement in Germany, a compromise was reached in 1864, under which the Zollverein was renewed for twelve years, that is till 1877, and the French treaty ratified on condition that a new treaty should be made with Austria. This was done in 1865, but the new convention did not provide for the complete commercial union, contemplated under that of 1853. It was only a compact between two independent nations, but on more liberal lines than the old treaty, and certainly constituting a yet nearer approach to free trade. … In other directions the Zollverein lost no time in following the example of Napoleon by entering successively in 1865 and 1866 into commercial treaties with Belgium, Italy, Great Britain and Switzerland, which were simple conventions, by which the contracting parties granted to each other the position of the most favored nation, or formal tariff regulating treaties after the model of that between the Zollverein and France. These additional treaties were no more than the latter the work of Bismarck. … The general upheaval in Germany arising from the war between Prussia and Austria and her North and South-German Allies, while temporarily delaying the farther progress of tariff reform, subsequently accelerated its forward march. … {3079} A special treaty for the reform of the constitution, so to speak, of the Zollverein was concluded in July, 1867, between the North-German Federation, the new political constellation Prussia had formed out of all Germany north of the Main, after destroying the old Diet, and Bavaria, Wuertemberg, Baden and Hesse, under the provisions of which the tariff and revenue policy of all Germany was to be managed by the 'Zollparlament,' consisting of an upper house, made up of representatives of the governments, and of a lower house of representatives of the people elected by universal suffrage on a population basis. Thus tariff reform was actually the chain that bound up, as it were, the material interests of all Germans outside of Austria for the first time, as those of one nation. Negotiations for a new commercial treaty with the dual monarchy of Austria-Hungary—into which Austria had changed in consequence of the events of 1866—commenced immediately after the restoration of peace, and were brought to a satisfactory conclusion in March, 1868. The treaty was to run nine years, and provided for still lower duties than under the old treaty, the principal reductions being on all agricultural products, wines and iron. … The Franco-German war put an end to the treaty of 1862 between France and the Zollverein. As a substitute for the commercial part of it, article II of the treaty of peace of 1871 provided simply that France and Germany should be bound for an indefinite period to allow each other the most favorable tariff rates either of them had granted or might grant to Great Britain, Belgium, Holland, Switzerland, Austria-Hungary and Russia. … A large majority of the members of the first Reichstag [under the newly created Empire] favored further legislation in the direction of free trade, and the work of tariff reform was vigorously taken in hand, as soon as the constitution and the essential organic laws of the Empire had been framed. … In the session of 1873 the National Liberals brought in a motion asking the Government to present measures for the abolition of all duties on raw and manufactured iron, salt and other articles. The Government responded very readily. … Prince Bismarck was no less pronounced for a strict revenue tariff than any of the other government speakers. Up to the end of 1875, there was not the slightest indication of a change of views on his part upon this general subject. … The climax of the free trade movement in Germany can be said to have been reached about the time last stated. But a few months later, suspicious signs of a new inspiration on the part of the Prince became manifest. Rumors of dissensions between him and Minister Delbrück began to circulate, and gradually gained strength. In May, 1876, all Germany was startled by the announcement that the latter and his principal co-workers had resigned. Soon it was known that their retirement was due to a disagreement with the Prince over tariff reform matters. A crisis had evidently set in that was a great puzzle at first to everybody. Gradually it became clear that the cause of it was really a sudden abandonment of the past policy by the Prince. The new course, upon which the mighty helmsman was starting the ship of state, was signalized in various ways, but the full extent of his change of front was disclosed only in a communication addressed by him to the Federal Council, under date of December 15, 1878. It was a most extraordinary document. It condemned boldly all that had been done by the government under his own eyes and with his full consent in relation to tariff reform ever since the Franco-German treaty of 1862. … As the principal reason for the new departure, he assigned the necessity of reforming the public finances in order to increase the revenues of the Government. The will of the Chancellor had become the law for the federal council, and, accordingly, the tariff-committee began the work of devising a general protective tariff in hot haste. It was submitted to the Reichstag by the Prince in May, 1879. … Thus Germany was started on the downward plain of protectionism, on which it continued for twelve years. Beyond all question, the Chancellor was solely responsible for it. … The tariff bill of 1879 met with vigorous opposition under the lead of ex-Minister Delbrück, but was passed by the large majority of 217 to 117 —showing the readiness with which the 'bon plaisir' of the master had made converts to his new faith. It was a sweeping measure, establishing large duties on cereals, iron, lumber and petroleum, increasing existing duties on textile goods, coffee, wines, rice, tea, and a great number of other minor articles and also on cattle. The protectionist current came to a temporary stop from 1880-1883, inasmuch as in the new Reichstag, elected in 1881, the protection and anti-protection parties were so evenly balanced that the Government failed to carry its proposals for still higher duties. The elections of 1884, in which the Government brought every influence to bear against the opposition, resulted, however, in the return of a protectionist majority. Accordingly, there followed in 1885 a new screwing up of duties, tripling those on grain, doubling those on lumber, and raising most others. In 1887 the duties on grain were even again increased. But now the insatiateness of protection and especially the duties put on the necessaries of life produced a strong reaction, as evidenced by the largely increased membership of the opposition parties in the present Reichstag. … The Imperial Government, shortly after the retirement of Prince Bismarck had untied its hands, entered upon negotiations with Austria-Hungary, Italy, Switzerland and Belgium, which resulted in … reciprocity treaties."

   The Treaty commonly known in America as the Canadian
   Reciprocity Treaty of 1854, between the governments of Great
   Britain and the United States, was concluded on the 5th of
   June, 1854, and ratifications were exchanged on the 9th of
   September following. The negotiators were the Earl of Elgin
   and Kincardine, on the part of the British Government, and
   William L. Marcy, Secretary of State of the United States,
   acting for the latter.
{3080}
   By the first article of the treaty it was agreed that, "in
   addition to the liberty secured to the United States fishermen
   by the … convention of October 20, 1818, of taking, curing,
   and drying fish on certain coasts of the British North
   American Colonies therein defined, the inhabitants of the
   United States shall have, in common with the subjects of Her
   Britannic Majesty, the liberty to take fish of every kind,
   except shell-fish, on the sea-coasts and shores, and in the
   bays, harbors, and creeks of Canada, New Brunswick, Nova
   Scotia, Prince Edward's Island, and of the several islands
   thereunto adjacent, without being restricted to any distance
   from the shore, with permission to land upon the coasts and
   shores of those colonies and the islands thereof, and also
   upon the Magdalen Islands, for the purpose of drying their
   nets and curing their fish; provided that, in so doing, they
   do not interfere with the rights of private property, or with
   British fishermen, in the peaceable use of any part of the
   said coast in their occupancy for the same purpose. It is
   understood that the above-mentioned liberty applies solely to
   the sea-fishery, and that the salmon and shad fisheries, and
   all fisheries in rivers and the mouths of rivers, are hereby
   reserved exclusively for British fishermen." The same article
   provided for the appointment of commissioners and an
   arbitrator or umpire to settle any disputes that might arise
   "as to the places to which the reservation of exclusive right
   to British fishermen contained in this article, and that of
   fishermen of the United States contained in the next
   succeeding article, apply." By the second article of the
   treaty British subjects received privileges on the eastern
   sea-coasts and shores of the United States north of the 36th
   parallel of north latitude, identical with those given by the
   first article to citizens of the United States on the coasts
   and shores mentioned above. Article 3 was as follows: "It is
   agreed that the articles enumerated in the schedule hereunto
   annexed, being the growth and produce of the aforesaid British
   colonies or of the United States, shall be admitted into each
   country respectively free of duty: Schedule: Grain, flour, and
   breadstuffs, of all kinds. Animals of all kinds. Fresh,
   smoked, and salted meats. Cotton-wool, seeds, and vegetables.
   Undried fruits, dried fruits. Fish of all kinds. Products of
   fish, and of all other creatures living in the water. Poultry,
   eggs. Hides, furs, skins, or tails, undressed. Stone or
   marble, in its crude or unwrought state. Slate. Butter,
   cheese, tallow. Lard, horns, manures. Ores of metals, of all
   kinds. Coal. Pitch, tar, turpentine, ashes. Timber and lumber
   of all kinds, round, hewed, and sawed, unmanufactured in whole
   or in part. Firewood. Plants, shrubs, and trees. Pelts, wool.
   Fish-oil. Rice, broom-corn, and bark. Gypsum, ground or
   unground. Hewn, or wrought, or unwrought burr or grindstones.
   Dye-stuffs. Flax, hemp, and tow, unmanufactured.
   Unmanufactured tobacco. Rags." Article 4 secured to the
   citizens and inhabitants of the United States the right to
   navigate the River St. Lawrence and the canals in Canada
   between the ocean and the great lakes, subject to the same
   tolls and charges that might be exacted from Her Majesty's
   subjects, but the British Government retained the right to
   suspend this privilege, on due notice given, in which case the
   Government of the United States might suspend the operations
   of Article 3. Reciprocally, British subjects were given the
   right to navigate Lake Michigan, and the Government of the
   United States engaged itself to urge the State governments to
   open the several State canals to British subjects on terms of
   equality. It was further agreed that no export or other duty
   should be levied on lumber or timber floated down the river
   St. John to the sea, "when the same is shipped to the United
   States from the province of New Brunswick." Article 5 provided
   that the treaty should take effect whenever the necessary laws
   were passed by the Imperial Parliament, the Provincial
   Parliaments, and the Congress of the United States, and that
   it should "remain in force for ten years from the date at
   which it may come into operation, and further until the
   expiration of twelve months after either of the high
   contracting parties shall give notice to the other of its wish
   to terminate the same." Article 6 extended the provisions of
   the treaty to the island of Newfoundland, so far as
   applicable, provided the Imperial Parliament, the Parliament
   of Newfoundland and the Congress of the United States should
   embrace the island in their laws for carrying the treaty into
   effect; but not otherwise.

Treaties and Conventions between the United States and other Powers, edition of 1889, pages 448-452.

The Treaty was abrogated in 1866, the United States having given the required notice in 1865.

F. E. Haynes, The Reciprocity Treaty with Canada of 1854 (American Economic Association Publications, volume 7, number 6).

TARIFF: (United States): A. D. 1861-1864.
The Morrill Tariff and the War Tariffs.

"In 1861 the Morrill tariff act began a change toward a higher range of duties and a stronger application of protection. The Morrill act is often spoken of as if it were the basis of the present protective system. But this is by no means the case. The tariff act of 1861 was passed by the House of Representatives in the session of 1859-60, the session preceding the election of President Lincoln. It was passed, undoubtedly, with the intention of attracting to the Republican party, at the approaching Presidential election, votes in Pennsylvania and other States that had protectionist leanings. In the Senate the tariff bill was not taken up in the same session in which it was passed in the House. Its consideration was postponed, and it was not until the next session—that of 1860-61—that it received the assent of the Senate and became law. It is clear that the Morrill tariff was carried in the House before any serious expectation of war was entertained; and it was accepted by the Senate in the session of 1861 without material change. It therefore forms no part of the financial legislation of the war, which gave rise in time to a series of measures that entirely superseded the Morrill tariff. Indeed, Mr. Morrill and the other supporters of the act of 1861 declared that their intention was simply to restore the rates of 1846. The important change which they proposed to make from the provisions of the tariff of 1846 was to substitute specific for ad-valorem duties. … The specific duties … established were in many cases considerably above the ad-valorem duties of 1846. The most important direct changes made by the act of 1861 were in the increased duties on iron and on wool, by which it was hoped to attach to the Republican party Pennsylvania and some of the Western States. Most of the manufacturing States at this time still stood aloof from the movement toward higher rates. … Mr. Rice, of Massachusetts, said in 1860: 'The manufacturer asks no additional protection. He has learned, among other things, that the greatest evil, next to a ruinous competition from foreign sources, is an excessive protection, which stimulates a like ruinous and irresponsible competition at home'.

Mr. Sherman said: … 'The manufacturers have asked over and over again to be let alone. The tariff of 1857 is the manufacturers' bill; but the present bill is more beneficial to the agricultural interest than the tariff of 1857.'

In later years Mr. Morrill himself said that the tariff of 1861 'was not asked for, and but coldly welcomed, by manufacturers, who always and justly fear instability.' …

Hardly had the Morrill tariff been passed when Fort Sumter was fired on. The Civil War began. The need of additional revenue for carrying on the great struggle was immediately felt; and as early as the extra session of the summer of 1861, additional customs duties were imposed. In the next regular session, in December, 1861, a still further increase of duties was made. From that time till 1865 no session, indeed hardly a month of any session, passed in which some increase of duties on imports was not made. … The great acts, of 1862 and 1864 are typical of the whole course of the war measures; and the latter is of particular importance, because it became the foundation of the existing tariff system. … The three revenue acts of June 30, 1864, practically form one measure, and that probably the greatest measure of taxation which the world has seen. The first of the acts provided for an enormous extension of the internal-tax system; the second for a corresponding increase of the duties on imports; the third authorized a loan of $400,000,000. … Like the tariff act of 1862, that of 1864 was introduced, explained, amended, and passed under the management of Mr. Morrill, who was chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means. That gentleman again stated, as he had done in 1862, that the passage of the tariff act was rendered necessary in order to put domestic producers in the same situation, so far as foreign competition was concerned, as if the internal taxes had not been raised. This was one great object of the new tariff. … But it explains only in part the measure which in fact was proposed and passed. The tariff of 1864 was a characteristic result of that veritable furor of taxation which had become fixed in the minds of the men who were then managing the national finances. Mr. Morrill, and those who with him made our revenue laws, seem to have had but one principle: to tax every possible article indiscriminately, and to tax it at the highest rates that anyone had the courage to suggest. They carried this method out to its fullest extent in the tariff act of 1864, as well as in the tax act of that year. At the same time these statesmen were protectionists. … Every domestic producer who came before Congress got what he wanted in the way of duties. Protection ran riot; and this, moreover, not merely for the time being. The whole tone of the public mind toward the question of import duties became distorted. … The average rate on dutiable commodities, which had been 37.2 per cent. under the act of 1862, became 47.06 per cent. under that of 1864. … In regard to the duties as they stood before 1883, it is literally true, in regard to almost all protected articles, that the tariff act of 1864 remained in force for twenty years without reductions."

F. W. Taussig, Tariff History of the United States, pages 158-169, with foot-note.

   Under the Morrill Tariff, which went into effect April 1,
   1861, the imposts which had averaged about 19 per cent. on
   dutiable articles were raised to 36 per cent.

TARIFF: (Australia): A. D. 1862-1892.
Contrasted policy of Victoria and New South Wales.

   Both New South Wales and Victoria "are young countries, and
   are inhabited by men of the same race, speech, and training:
   capital and labour oscillate freely between them: both use
   substantially the same methods and forms of government: while
   against the larger territory of New South Wales may be set the
   superior climate and easier development of its southern
   neighbour. Whatever may be the balance of the natural
   advantages, whether of climate or population, is on the side
   of Victoria, whose compact, fertile, and well watered
   territory gained for it, on its first discovery, the
   well-deserved title of Australia Felix. The striking and
   ultimate point of difference between the two countries is
   their fiscal policy. Since 1866 Victoria has lived under a
   system of gradually increasing Protection, while the policy of
   New South Wales has been, in the main, one of Free Trade.
   According to all Protectionist theory Victoria should be
   prosperous and New South Wales distressed; there should be
   variety and growth in the one country, stagnation in the
   other. At least the progress of Victoria ought to have been
   more rapid than that of New South Wales, because she has added
   to the natural advantages which she already enjoyed, the
   artificial benefits which are claimed for a Protective tariff.
   If, in fact, neither of these conclusions is correct, and,
   while both countries have been phenomenally prosperous, New
   South Wales has prospered the most, one of two conclusions is
   inevitable—namely, either that certain special influences have
   caused the more rapid progress of New South Wales which were
   not felt in Victoria, or that Protection has retarded instead
   of assisted the development of Victoria's natural superiority.
   Writers of all schools admit that activity in certain
   departments of national life is a fair indication of
   prosperity and progress. It is, for instance, generally
   allowed that an increase in population, a development of
   agricultural and manufacturing industry, a growth of foreign
   commerce, an increase in shipping, or an improvement in the
   public revenue, are all signs of health and well-being; and
   that a concurrence of such symptoms over a lengthened period
   indicates an increase in material wealth. Accepting these
   tests of progress, our comparison proceeds thus: first, we
   examine the position of the two Colonies as regards
   population, foreign commerce, shipping, agriculture,
   manufactures, and revenue, at the time when both of them
   adhered to Free Trade; from which we find that, according to
   all these indications of prosperity, Victoria was then very
   much the better off: In 1866 she outnumbered New South Wales
   in population by 200,000 souls: her foreign commerce was
   larger by £8,300,000: she had a greater area of land under
   cultivation: her manufactures were well established, while
   those of New South Wales were few and insignificant: she was
   ahead in shipping, and her revenue was greater by one-third.
   Passing next to the years which follow 1866, we observe that
   New South Wales gradually bettered her position in every
   province of national activity, and that, as the fetters of
   Protection became tighter, Victoria receded in the race.
{3082}
   She gave way first in the department of foreign commerce, next
   in population, shipping, and revenue, until, in 1887, she
   maintained her old superiority in agriculture alone. From this
   accumulation of facts—and not from any one of them we infer
   that the rate of progress in New South Wales under Free Trade
   has been greater than that of Victoria under Protection."

TARIFF: (Europe): A. D. 1871-1892.
Protectionist reaction on the Continent.
High Tariff in France.

"The Franco-German War (1870-1) and the overthrow of Napoleon III. at once arrested the free-trade policy, which had little support in the national mind, and was hardly understood outside the small circle of French economists. The need of fresh revenue was imperative, and M. Thiers, the most prominent of French statesmen, was notoriously protectionist in his leanings. Pure revenue duties on colonial and Eastern commodities were first tried; the sugar duty was increased 30%; that on coffee was trebled; tea, cocoa, wines and spirits, were all subjected to greatly increased charges. As the yield thus obtained did not suffice, proposals for the taxation of raw materials were brought forward but rejected by the legislature in 1871, when M. Thiers tendered his resignation. To avoid this result the measure was passed, not however to come into operation until compensating productive duties had been placed on imported manufactures. The existing commercial treaties were a further obstacle to changes in policy, and accordingly negotiations were opened with England and Belgium, in order that the new duties might be applied to their products. As was justifiable under the circumstances, the former country required that if imported raw products were to be taxed, the like articles produced in France should pay an equivalent tax, and therefore, as the shortest way of escape, the French Government gave notice for the termination of the treaties (in the technical language of international law 'denounced' them), and new conventions were agreed on; but as this arrangement was just as unsatisfactory in the opinion of the French Chambers, the old treaties were in 1873 restored to force until 1877, and thus the larger part of the raw materials escaped the new taxation. The protectionist tendency was, too, manifested in the departure from the open system introduced in 1866 in respect to shipping. A law of 1872 imposed differential duties on goods imported in foreign vessels. … The advance of the sentiment in favour of a return to the restrictive system was even more decidedly indicated in 1881. Bounties were then granted for the encouragement of French shipping, and extra taxes imposed on indirect imports of non-European and some European goods. In 1889 the carrying trade between France and Algiers was reserved for native ships. The revision of the general tariff was a more serious task, undertaken with a view to influencing the new treaties that the termination of the old engagements made necessary. The tariff of 1881 (to come into force in 1882) made several increases and substituted many specific for ad valorem duties. Raw materials escaped taxation; half-manufactured articles were placed under moderate duties. The nominal corn duties were diminished by a fraction, but the duties on live stock and fresh meat were considerably increased. … A new 'conventional tariff' speedily followed in a series of fresh treaties with European countries. … The duties on whole or partially-manufactured goods remained substantially unchanged by the new treaties, which do not, in fact, vary so much from the general tariff as was previously the case. The number of articles included in the conventions had been reduced, and all countries outside Europe came under the general code. The reaction against the liberal policy of 1860 was thus as yet very slight, and did not seriously affect manufactures. The agricultural depression was the primary cause of the legislation of 1885, which placed a duty of 3 francs per quintal on wheat, 7 francs on flour, 2 francs on rye and barley, and one franc on oats, with additional duties on indirect importation. Cattle, sheep, and pigs came under increases of from 50% to 100%. … Not satisfied with their partial success, the advocates of high duties have made further efforts. Maize, hitherto free, as being chiefly used by farmers for feeding purposes, is now liable to duty, and the tariff proposed in the present year (1891) raises the rates on most articles from an average of 10% to 15% to one of 30% and 40%. … Germany did not quite as speedily come under the influence of the economic reaction as France. … Italian commercial policy also altered for the worse. From the formation of the kingdom till 1875, as the various commercial treaties and the general tariff of 1861 show, it was liberal and tending towards freedom. About the latter date the forces that we have indicated above as operating generally throughout Europe, commenced to affect Italy. The public expenditure had largely increased, and additional revenue was urgently required. Agriculture was so depressed that, though the country is pre-eminently agricultural, alarm was excited by the supposed danger of foreign competition. The result was that on the general revision of duties in 1877 much higher rates were imposed on the principal imports. … Depression both in agriculture and elaborative industries continued and strengthened the protectionist party, who succeeded in securing the abandonment of all the commercial treaties, and the enactment of a new tariff in 1887. … The first effect of the new system of high taxation with no conventional privileges was to lead to a war of tariffs between France and Italy. … Austria may be added to the list of countries in which the protectionist reaction has been effectively shown. … In Russia the revival (or perhaps it would be more correct to say continued existence), of protection is decisively marked. … Spain and Portugal had long been strongholds of protectionist ideas. … Holland and Belgium have as yet [1891] adhered to the system of moderate duties."

A new tariff system was elaborated by the French Chambers, with infinite labor and discussion, during the year 1891, and adopted early in the following year, being known as the "Loi du 11 .Janvier, 1892." This tariff makes a great advance in duties on most imports, with a concession of lower rates to nations according reciprocal favors to French productions. Raw materials in general are admitted free of duties. The commercial treaties of France are undergoing modification.

In 1882, "Congress appointed a Tariff Commission 'to take into consideration, and to thoroughly investigate, all the various questions relating to the agricultural, commercial, mercantile, manufacturing, mining, and industrial interests of the United States, so far as the same may be necessary to the establishment of a judicious tariff, or a revision of the existing tariff upon a scale of justice to all interests.' Several things it was expected would be accomplished by revising the tariff, and the measure received the assent of nearly all the members of Congress. The free-traders expected to get lower duties, the protectionists expected to concede them in some cases, and in others to get such modifications as would remove existing ambiguities and strengthen themselves against foreign competition. The protective force of the existing tariff had been weakened in several important manufactures by rulings of the treasury department. … The composition of the commission was as satisfactory to the manufacturing class as displeasing to free-traders. … Early in their deliberations, the commission became convinced that a substantial reduction of the tariff duties was demanded, not by a mere indiscriminate popular clamor, but by the best conservative opinion of the country, including that which had in former times been most strenuous for the preservation of the national industrial defences. Such a reduction of the existing tariff the commission regarded not only as a due recognition of public sentiment, and a measure of justice to consumers, but one conducive to the general industrial prosperity, and which, though it might be temporarily inconvenient, would be ultimately beneficial to the special interests affected by such reduction. No rates of defensive duties, except for establishing new industries, which more than equalized the conditions of labor and capital with those of foreign competitors, could be justified. Excessive duties, or those above such standard of equalization, were positively injurious to the interest which they were supposed to benefit. They encouraged the investment of capital in manufacturing enterprise by rash and unskilled speculators, to be followed by disaster to the adventurers and their employees, and a plethora of commodities which deranged the operations of skilled and prudent enterprise. … 'It would seem that the rates of duties under the existing tariff—fixed, for the most part, during the war under the evident necessity at that time of stimulating to its utmost extent all domestic production—might be adapted, through reduction, to the present condition of peace requiring no such extraordinary stimulus. And in the mechanical and manufacturing industries, especially those which have been long established, it would seem that the improvements in machinery and processes made within the last twenty years, and the high scale of productiveness which had become a characteristic of their establishments, would permit our manufacturers to compete with their foreign rivals under a substantial reduction of existing duties.' Entertaining these views, the commission sought to present a scheme of tariff duties in which substantial reduction was the distinguishing feature. … The attempt to modify the tariff brought into bold relief the numerous conflicting interests, and the difficulty and delicacy of the undertaking. As our industries become more heterogeneous, the tariff also grows more complex, and the difficulty of doing justice to all is increased. For example, the wool manufacturers to succeed best must have free wool and dye-stuffs; on the other hand, both these interests desired protection. The manufacturers of the higher forms of iron must have free materials to succeed best; on the other hand, the ore producers, the pig-iron manufacturers, and every succeeding class desired a tariff on their products. It was not easy for these interests to agree, and some of them did not. The iron-ore producers desired a tariff of 85 cents a ton on ore; the steel-rail makers were opposed to the granting of more than 50; the manufacturers of fence wire were opposed to an increase of duty on wire rods used for making wire, and favored a reduction; the manufacturers of rods in this country were desirous of getting an increase; the manufacturers of floor oil-cloths desired a reduction or abolition of the duty on the articles used by them; the soap manufacturers desired the putting of caustic soda on the free list, which the American manufacturers of it opposed; some of the woolen manufacturers were desirous that protection should be granted to the manufacturers of dye-stuffs, and some were not; the manufacturers of tanned foreign goat and sheep skins desired the removal of the tariff on such skins; those who tanned them, and who were much less numerous, were equally tenacious in maintaining the tariff on the raw skins, and the same conflict arose between other interests. The method of determining how much protection their several interests needed, and of adjusting differences between them, has always been of the crudest kind. … Although not all of the recommendations of the commission were adopted, most of them were. Those which pertained to the simplification of the law were adopted with only slight changes. The bill reported by the commission contained, not including the free list, 631 articles and classifications. … Less than 25 articles, mainly in the cotton, woolen goods, and the iron and steel schedules, were matters of contention. The rates on 409 of the 631 articles mentioned in the tariff recommended by the commission were adopted, and between 50 and 60 more articles have substantially the same rates, though levied under different clauses. Of the 170 changes, 98 were fixed at lower rates than those proposed by the commission, 46 at higher, and 26 have been classed as doubtful."

A. S. Bolles, Financial History of the United States, 1861-1885, book 2, chapter 7.

TARIFF: (United States): A. D. 1884-1888.
   Attempts at Tariff Reform.
   The Morrison Bills and the Hewett Bill.
   President Cleveland's Message.
   The Mills Bill and its defeat.

   The slight concessions made in the protectionist
   tariff-revision of 1883 did not at all satisfy the opinion in
   the country demanding greater industrial freedom, and the
   question of tariff-reform became more important than before in
   American politics. The Democratic Party, identified by all its
   early traditions, with the opposition to a policy of
   "protection," won the election of 1884, placing Mr. Cleveland
   in the Presidency and gaining control of the House of
   Representatives in the 49th Congress. But it had drifted from
   its old anchorage on the tariff question, and was slow in
   pulling back. A large minority in the party had accepted and
   become supporters of the doctrine which was hateful to their
   fathers as an economic heresy.
{3084}
   The majority of the Democrats in the House, however, made
   strenuous efforts to accomplish something in the way of
   reducing duties most complained of. Their first undertaking
   was led by Mr. Morrison of Illinois, who introduced a bill
   which "proposed an average reduction of 20 per cent., but with
   so many exceptions that it was estimated the average reduction
   on dutiable articles would be about 17 per cent. The rates
   under the Morrill Act of 1861 were to form the minimum limit.
   An extensive addition to the free list was proposed, including
   the following articles: ores of iron, copper, lead, and
   nickel, coal, lumber, wood, hay, bristles, lime, sponges,
   indigo, coal tar and dyewoods." In the Committee of Ways and
   Means the bill underwent considerable changes, the articles in
   the free list being reduced to salt, coal, lumber and wood. It
   was reported to the House March 11, and remained under debate
   until May 6, when it was killed by a motion to strike out the
   enacting clause, on which 118 Republicans and 41 Democrats
   voted aye, against 4 Republicans and 151 Democrats voting nay.
   The 4 Republicans supporting the bill were all from Minnesota;
   of the 41 Democrats opposing it 12 were from Pennsylvania, 10
   from Ohio, 6 from New York, 4 from California and 3 from New
   Jersey. "The Morrison 'horizontal bill' having been thus
   killed, Mr. Hewett, a New York Democrat, and a member of the
   Ways and Means Committee, on May 12 introduced a new tariff
   bill, providing for a reduction of 10 to 20 per cent. on a
   considerable number of articles and placing several others on
   the free list." The bill was reported favorably to the House,
   but action upon it was not reached before the adjournment.
   During the same session, a bill to restore the duties of 1867
   on raw wool was defeated in the House; an amendment to the
   shipping bill, permitting a free importation of iron and steel
   steamships for employment in the foreign trade, passed the
   House and was, defeated in the Senate; and a bill reducing the
   duty on works of art from 20 to 10 per cent. was defeated in
   the House. In the next Congress, the Forty-ninth, Mr. Morrison
   led a new undertaking to diminish the protective duties which
   were producing an enormous surplus of revenue. The bill which
   he introduced (February 15, 1886) received radical changes in
   the Ways and Means Committee, "inasmuch as it was clearly seen
   that the opposition from the metal and coal interests was
   sufficiently strong to destroy all chance of consideration in
   the House. Accordingly, it was found preferable to make the
   duties on wool and woolens the special point for assault." But
   the bill modified on this new line,—lowering duties on woolens
   to 35 per cent. ad valorem, and placing wool in the free list,
   with lumber, wood, fish, salt, flax, hemp and jute,—was
   refused consideration by a vote of 157 to 140 in the House, on
   the 17th of June. Again there were 35 members of his own party
   arrayed against Mr. Morrison. At the second session of the
   same Congress, December 18, 1886, Mr. Morrison repeated his
   attempt with no better success.

      O. H. Perry,
      Proposed Tariff Legislation since 1883
      (Quarterly Journal of Economics, October, 1887).

The assembling of the 50th Congress, on the 6th of December, 1887, was signalized by a message from President Cleveland which produced an extraordinary effect, decisively lifting the tariff question into precedence over all other issues in national politics, and compelling the Democratic Party to array its lines distinctly and unequivocally against the upholders of "protection" as an economic policy. He emphasized the "paramount importance of the subject" impressively by passing by every other matter of public concern, and devoting his message exclusively to a consideration of the "'state of the Union' as shown in the present condition of our Treasury and our general fiscal situation." The condition of the Treasury to which the President called attention was one of unexampled plethora. "On the 30th day of June, 1885, the excess of revenues over public expenditures, after complying with the annual requirement of the Sinking-Fund Act, was $17,859,735.84; during the year ended June 30, 1886, such excess amounted to $49,405,545.20; and during the year ended June 30, 1887, it reached the sum of $55,567,849.54." "Our scheme of taxation," said the President, "by means of which this needless surplus is taken from the people and put into the public treasury, consists of a tariff or duty levied upon importations from abroad, and internal-revenue taxes levied upon the consumption of tobacco and spirituous and malt liquors. It must be conceded that none of the things subjected to internal-revenue taxation are, strictly speaking, necessaries; there appears to be no just complaint of this taxation by the consumers of these articles, and there seems to be nothing so well able to bear the burden without hardship to any portion of the people. But our present tariff laws, the vicious, inequitable, and illogical source of unnecessary taxation, ought to be at once revised and amended. These laws, as their primary and plain effect, raise the price to consumers of all articles imported and subject to duty, by precisely the sum paid for such duties. Thus the amount of the duty measures the tax paid by those who purchase for use these imported articles. Many of these things, however, are raised or manufactured in our own country, and the duties now levied upon foreign goods and products are called protection to these home manufactures, because they render it possible for those of our people who are manufacturers to make these taxed articles and sell them for a price equal to that demanded for the imported goods that have paid customs duty. So it happens that while comparatively a few use the imported articles, millions of our people, who never use and never saw any of the foreign products, purchase and use things of the same kind made in this country, and pay therefor nearly or quite the same enhanced price which the duty adds to the imported articles. Those who buy imports pay the duty charged thereon into the public treasury, but the majority of our citizens, who buy domestic articles of the same class, pay a sum at least approximately equal to this duty to the home manufacturer. … The difficulty attending a wise and fair revision of our tariff-laws is not underestimated. It will require on the part of Congress great labor and care, and especially a broad and national contemplation of the subject, and a patriotic disregard of such local and selfish claims as are unreasonable and reckless of the welfare of the entire country. Under our present laws more than 4,000 articles are subject to duty. {3085} Many of these do not in any way compete with our own manufactures, and many are hardly worth attention as subjects of revenue. A considerable reduction can be made in the aggregate by adding them to the free list. The taxation of luxuries presents no features of hardship; but the necessaries of life used and consumed by all the people, the duty upon which adds to the cost of living in every home, should be greatly cheapened. The radical reduction of the duties imposed upon raw material used in manufactures, or its free importation, is of course an important factor in any effort to reduce the price of these necessaries. … It is not apparent how such a change can have any injurious effect upon our manufacturers. On the contrary, it would appear to give them a better chance in foreign markets with the manufacturers of other countries, who cheapen their wares by free material. Thus our people might have an opportunity of extending their sales beyond the limits of home consumption—saving them from the depression, interruption in business, and loss caused by a glutted domestic market, and affording their employes more certain and steady labor, with its resulting quiet and contentment. The question thus imperatively presented for solution should be approached in a spirit higher than partisanship. … But the obligation to declared party policy and principle is not wanting to urge prompt and effective action. Both of the great political parties now represented in the Government have, by repeated and authoritative declarations, condemned the condition of our laws which permits the collection from the people of unnecessary revenue, and have, in the most solemn manner, promised its correction. … Our progress toward a wise conclusion will not be improved by dwelling upon the theories of protection and free trade. This savors too much of bandying epithets. It is a condition which confronts us—not a theory. Relief from this condition may involve a slight reduction of the advantages which we award our home productions, but the entire withdrawal of such advantages should not be contemplated. The question of free trade is absolutely irrelevant."—The President's emphatic utterance rallied his party and inspired a more united effort in the House to modify and simplify the tariff. Under the chairmanship of Mr. Mills, of Texas, a bill was framed by the Committee of Ways and Means and reported to the House on the 2d of April, 1888. "We have gone as far as we could," said the Committee in reporting the bill, "and done what we could, in the present condition of things, to place our manufactures upon a firm and unshaken foundation, where they would have advantages over all the manufacturers of the world. Our manufacturers, having the advantage of all others in the intelligence, skill, and productive capacity of their labor, need only to be placed on the same footing with their rivals in having their materials at the same cost in the open markets of the world. In starting on this policy, we have transferred many articles from the dutiable to the free list. The revenues now received on these articles amount to $22,189,595.48. Three-fourths of this amount is collected on articles that enter into manufactures, of which wool and tin-plates are the most important. … The repeal of all duties on wool enables us to reduce the duties on the manufactures of wool $12,332,211.65. The largest reduction we have made is in the woolen schedule, and this reduction was only made possible by placing wool on the free list. There is no greater reason for a duty on wool than there is for a duty on any other raw material. A duty on wool makes it necessary to impose a higher duty on the goods made from wool, and the consumer has to pay a double tax. If we leave wool untaxed the consumer has to pay a tax only on the manufactured goods. … In the woolen schedule we have substituted ad valorem for specific duties. The specific duty is the favorite of those who are to be benefited by high rates, who are protected against competition, and protected in combinations against the consumer of their products. There is a persistent pressure by manufacturers for the specific duty, because it conceals from the people the amount of taxes they are compelled to pay to the manufacturer. The specific duty always discriminates in favor of the costly article and against the cheaper one. … This discrimination is peculiarly oppressive in woolen and cotton goods, which are necessaries of life to all classes of people." The ad valorem duty on woolen goods proposed by the committee in accordance with these views, ranged from 30 to 45 per cent., existing rates being reckoned as equivalent to about from 40 to 90 per cent. ad valorem. Duties on cottons were fixed at 35 to 40 per cent. On steel rails the bill proposed a reduction from $17 per ton to $11. It lowered the duty on pig-iron to $6 per ton. It diminished the tariff on common earthenware from 60 to 35 per cent.; on china and decorated earthenware from 60 to 45 per cent.; on window-glass from 93 and 106 to 62 and 68 per cent. It put tin plates on the free list, along with hemp, flax, lumber, timber, salt, and other materials of manufacture and articles in common use. These were the more important modifications contemplated in what became known as "the Mills Bill." After vigorous debate, it was passed by the Democrats of the House with a nearness to unanimity which showed a remarkable change in the sentiment of their party on the subject. Only four Democratic representatives were found voting in opposition to the measure. In the Senate, where the Republicans were in the majority, the measure was wrecked, as a matter of course. The protectionists of that body substituted a bill which revised the tariff in the contrary direction, generally raising duties instead of lowering them. Thus the issue was made in the elections of 1888.

   "In the campaign of 1888 the tariff question was the issue
   squarely presented. … The victory of the Republicans … and the
   election of President Harrison were the results. … The
   election was won by a narrow margin, and was affected by
   certain factors which stood apart from the main issue. The
   independent voters had been disappointed with some phases of
   President Cleveland's administration of the civil service, and
   many who had voted for him in 1884 did not do so in 1888. … On
   the whole, however, the Republicans held their own, and even
   made gains, throughout the country, on the tariff issue; and
   they might fairly consider the result a popular verdict in
   favor of the system of protection. But their opposition to the
   policy of lower duties, emphasized by President Cleveland, had
   led them not only to champion the existing system, but to
   advocate its further extension, by an increase of duties in
   various directions. …
{3086}
   Accordingly when the Congress then elected met for the session
   of 1889-90, the Republican majority in the House proceeded to
   pass a measure which finally became the tariff act of 1890.
   This measure may fairly be said to be the direct result of Mr.
   Cleveland's tariff message of 1887. The Republicans, in
   resisting the doctrine of that message, were led by logical
   necessity to the opposite doctrine of higher duties. …
   Notwithstanding grave misgivings on the part of some of their
   leaders, especially those from the northwest, the act known
   popularly as the McKinley bill was pushed through."

The bill was reported to the House of Representatives by the Chairman of its Committee on Ways and Means, Mr. McKinley, on the 16th of April, 1890. "We have not been so much concerned," said the majority of the Committee in their report, "about the prices of the articles we consume as we have been to encourage a system of home production which shall give fair remuneration to domestic producers and fair wages to American workmen, and by increased production and home competition insure fair prices to consumers. … The aim has been to impose duties upon such foreign products as compete with our own, whether of the soil or the shop, and to enlarge the free list wherever this can be done without injury to any American industry, or wherever an existing home industry can be helped without detriment to another industry which is equally worthy of the protecting care of the Government. … We have recommended no duty above the point of difference between the normal cost of production here, including labor, and the cost of like production in the countries which seek our markets, nor have we hesitated to give this quantum of duty even though it involved an increase over present rates and showed an advance of percentages and ad valorem equivalents." On the changes proposed to be made in the rates of duty on wool and on the manufactures of wool—the subject of most debate in the whole measure—the majority reported as follows; "By the census of 1880, in every county in the United States except 34, sheep were raised. In 1883 the number of sheep in the United States was over 50,000,000, and the number of persons owning flocks was in excess of a million. This large number of flock-masters was, to a considerable extent, withdrawn from the business of raising grain and other farm products, to which they must return if wool-growing cannot be profitably pursued. The enormous growth of this industry was stimulated by the wool tariff of 1867, and was in a prosperous condition prior to the act of 1883. Since then the industry has diminished in alarming proportions, and the business has neither been satisfactory nor profitable. … By the proposed bill the duties on first and second class wools are made at 11 and 12 cents a pound, as against 10 and 12 under existing law. On third-class wool, costing 12 cents or less, the duty is raised from 2½ cents a pound to 3½ cents, and upon wool of the third class, costing above 12 cents, the duty recommended is an advance from 5 to 8 cents per pound. … There seems to be no doubt that with the protection afforded by the increased duties recommended in the bill the farmers of the United States will be able at an early day to supply substantially all of the home demand, and the great benefit such production will be to the agricultural interests of the country cannot be estimated. The production of 600,000,000 pounds of wool would require about 100,000,000 sheep, or an addition of more than 100 per cent to the present number. … The increase in the duty on clothing wool and substitutes for wool to protect the wool growers of this country, and the well-understood fact that the tariff of 1883, and the construction given to the worsted clause, reduced the duties on many grades of woollen goods to a point that invited increasing importations, to the serious injury of our woollen manufacturers and wool growers, necessitate raising the duties on woollen yarn, cloth and dress goods to a point which will insure the holding of our home market for these manufactures to a much greater extent than is now possible. The necessity of this increase is apparent in view of the fact already stated that during the last fiscal year there were imports of manufactures of wool of the foreign value of $52,681,482, as shown by the undervalued invoices, and the real value in our market of nearly $90,000,000—fully one-fourth of our entire home consumption—equivalent to an import of at least 160,000,000 pounds of wool in the form of manufactured goods. In revising the woollen-goods schedule so as to afford adequate protection to our woollen manufacturers and wool growers we have continued the system of compound duties which have proved to be so essential in any tariff which protects wool, providing first for a specific compensatory pound or square yard duty, equivalent to the duty which would be paid on the wool if imported, for the benefit of the wool grower, and an ad valorem duty of from 30 to 50 per cent, according to the proportion of labor required in the manufacture of the several classes of goods, as a protection to the manufacturer against foreign competition, and 10 per cent additional upon ready made clothing for the protection of the clothing manufacturers. … In computing the equivalent ad valorem duty on manufactures of woollens, the combinations of both the specific duty, which is simply compensatory for the duty on the wool used, of which the wool grower receives the benefit, and the duty which protects the manufacturers, makes the average resultant rate of the woollen-goods schedule proposed 91.78 per cent."

   "Substantially as reported from the Committee on Ways and
   Means, it [the McKinley Bill] passed the House, after two
   weeks' debate, May 21 [1890]. The vote was a strictly party
   one, except that two Republicans voted in the negative. June
   19 the bill was reported from the Senate Committee on Finance
   with a very large number of amendments, mainly in the way of a
   lessening of rates. After debating the project during nearly
   the whole of August and a week in September, the Senate passed
   it by a strict party vote, September 10. The differences
   between the houses then went to a conference committee. The
   bill as reported by this committee, September 26, was adopted
   by the House and Senate on the 27th and 30th respectively and
   approved by the President October 1. On the final vote three
   Republicans in each house declined to follow their party. The
   law went into effect October 6.
{3087}
   Prominent features of the new schedules are as follows:

tin plates increased from one cent to two and two-tenths cents per lb., with the proviso that they shall be put on the free list at the end of six years if by that time the domestic product shall not have reached an aggregate equal to one-third of the importations;

bar, block and pig tin, hitherto on the free list, receives a duty of four cents per lb. to take effect July 1, 1893, provided that it be restored to the free list if by July 1, 1895, the mines of the United States shall not have produced in one year 5,000 tons;

a bounty of one and three-fourths and two cents per lb. upon beet, sorghum, cane or maple sugar produced in the United States between 1891 and 1905;

all imports of sugar free up to number 16, Dutch standard, in color and all above that one-half cent per lb. (formerly from three to three and a half cents), with one-tenth cent additional if imported from a country that pays an export bounty;

a general and heavy increase on agricultural products, e. g. on beans, eggs, hay, hops, vegetables and straw;

a heavy increase on woolen goods, with a new classification of raw wool designed to give more protection;

The following (among other) additions are made to the free list: beeswax, books and pamphlets printed exclusively in languages other than English, blue clay, coal tar, currants and dates, jute butts and various textile and fibrous grasses, needles, nickel ore, flower and grass seeds and crude sulphur. … Among the 464 points of difference between the two houses which the conference committee had to adjust, some of the more important were as follows: paintings and statuary, made free by the House and kept at the old rate by the Senate, were fixed at half the old rate; binding twine, made free by the Senate in favor of Western grain-raisers but taxed by the House to protect Eastern manufacturers, fixed at half the House rate; the limit of free sugar fixed at number 16, as voted by the House, instead of number 13, as passed by the Senate, thus including in the free list the lower grades of refined as well as all raw sugar. The question of reciprocity with American nations was injected into the tariff discussion by Secretary Blaine in June. In transmitting to Congress the recommendation of the International American Conference for improved commercial relations, the secretary dilated upon the importance of securing the markets of central and South America for our products, and suggested as a more speedy way than treaties of reciprocity an amendment to the pending tariff bill authorizing the President to open our ports to the free entry of the products of any American nation which should in turn admit free of taxation our leading agricultural and manufactured products. In July Mr. Blaine took up the idea again in a public correspondence with Senator Frye, criticizing severely the removal of the tariff on sugar, as that on coffee had been removed before, without exacting trade concessions in return. He complained that there was not a section or a line in the bill as it came from the House that would open the market for another bushel of wheat or another barrel of pork. The Senate Finance Committee acted upon the suggestion of the secretary by introducing an amendment to the bill authorizing and directing the President to suspend by proclamation the free introduction of sugar, molasses, coffee, tea and hides from any country which should impose on products of the United States exactions which in view of the free introduction of sugar etc. he should deem reciprocally unequal and unreasonable. The rates at which the President is to demand duties upon the commodities named are duly fixed. This reciprocity provision passed the Senate and the conference committee and became part of the law."

TARIFF: (United States): A. D. 1894.
The Wilson Act.
Protected interests and the Senate.

Two years after the embodiment of the extremest doctrines of protection in the McKinley Act, the tariff question was submitted again to the people, as the dominant issue between the Republican and Democratic parties, in the presidential and congressional elections of 1892. The verdict of 1888 was then reversed, and tariff reform carried the day. Mr. Cleveland was again elected President, with a Democratic majority in both houses of Congress apparently placed there to sustain his policy. A serious financial situation was manifesting itself in the country at the time he resumed the presidential office, produced by the operation of the silver-purchase law of 1890 (see MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1848-1893), and by the extravagance of congressional appropriations, depleting the treasury. It became necessary, therefore, to give attention, first, to the repeal of the mischievous silver law, which was accomplished, November 1, 1893, at a special session of Congress called by the President. That cleared the way for the more serious work of tariff-revision, which was taken up under discouraging circumstances of general depression and extensive collapse in business, throughout the country. "The Democratic members of the House committee on ways and means began during the special session the preparation of a tariff bill. The outcome of their labors was the Wilson Bill, which was laid before the whole committee and made public November 27. On the previous day the sugar schedule was given out, in order to terminate the manipulation of the stock market through false reports as to the committee's conclusions. The characteristic features of the bill, as described in the statement of Chairman Wilson which accompanied it, were as follows: First, the adoption, wherever practicable, of ad valorem instead of specific duties; second, 'the freeing from taxes of those great materials of industry that lie at the basis of production.' Specific duties were held to be objectionable, first, as concealing the true weight of taxation, and second, as bearing unjustly on consumers of commoner articles. Free raw materials were held necessary to the stimulation of industry and the extension of foreign trade. The schedules, as reported, showed in addition to a very extensive increase in the free list, reductions in rates, as compared with the McKinley Bill, on all but a small number of items. The important additions to the free list included iron ore, lumber, coal and wool. Raw sugar was left free, as in the existing law, but the rate on refined sugar was reduced from one-half to one-fourth of a cent per pound, and the bounty was repealed one-eighth per annum until extinguished. {3088} Some amendments were made in the administrative provisions of the tariff law, designed to soften, as the committee said, features of the McKinley Bill 'that would treat the business of importing as an outlawry, not entitled to the protection of the government.' It was estimated that the reduction of revenue effected would be about $50,000,000, and the committee set to work on an internal revenue bill to make good this deficiency. On January 8 Mr. Wilson brought up the bill in the House, and debate began under a rule calling for a vote on the 29th. During the consideration in committee a number of changes were made in the schedules, the most important being in respect to sugar, where the duty was taken off refined sugars, and the repeal of the bounty was made immediate instead of gradual. A clause was inserted, also, specifically repealing the reciprocity provision of the McKinley Act. The greatest general interest was excited, however, by the progress of the internal revenue bill, the chief feature of which was a proposition for an income tax. The bill, after formulation by the Democratic members of the ways and means committee, was brought before the full committee January 22. Besides the income tax, the measure provided for a stamp duty on playing cards, and raised the excise on distilled spirits to one dollar per gallon. As to incomes, the committee's bill … imposed a tax of two per cent on all incomes so far as they were in excess of $4,000, after allowing deductions for taxes, losses not covered by insurance and bad debts. Declarations of income were required from all persons having over $3,500, under heavy penalties for neglect, refusal or fraud in the matter. As to corporations, the same rate was levied on all interest on bonds and on all dividends and all surplus income above dividends, excepting premiums returned to policy holders by mutual life insurance companies, interest to depositors in savings banks, and dividends of building loan associations. … The income-tax measure was immediately and very vigorously antagonized by a considerable number of Eastern Democrats, headed by the New York Congressmen. It was adopted by the ways and means committee mainly through Southern and Western votes. On the 24th of January it was reported to the House. A Democratic caucus on the following day resolved by a small majority, against the wish of Mr. Wilson, to attach the measure to the Tariff Bill. Accordingly, the rule regulating the debate was modified to allow discussion of the amendment. The final votes were then taken on February 1. The internal revenue bill was added to the Wilson Bill by 182 to 50, 44 Democrats voting in the minority and most of the Republicans not voting. The measure as amended was then adopted by 204 to 140, 16 Democrats and one Populist going with the Republicans in the negative. In the hands of the Senate finance committee the bill underwent a thorough revision, differences of opinion in the Democratic majority leading to a careful discussion of the measure in a party caucus. The measure as amended was laid before the full committee March 8, and was introduced in the Senate on the 20th. Changes in details were very numerous. The most important consisted in taking sugar, iron ore and coal off the free list and subjecting each to a small duty. Debate on the bill was opened April 2. It was soon discovered, however, that many Democratic senators were seriously dissatisfied with the schedules affecting the industries of their respective states, and at the end of April there was a lull in the debate while the factions of the majority adjusted their differences. A scheme of changes was finally agreed to in caucus on May 3, and laid before the Senate by the finance committee on the 8th. The most important features were a new sugar schedule which had given great trouble, and very numerous changes from ad valorem to specific duties, with a net increase in rates."

Very soon after the tariff bill appeared in the Senate, it became apparent that the more powerful protected "interests," and conspicuously the "sugar trust" had acquired control, by some means, of several Democratic senators, who were acting obviously in agreement to prevent an honest fulfillment of the pledges of their party, and especially as concerned the free opening of the country to raw materials. Public opinion of the conduct of the senators in question may be judged from the expressions of so dignified an organ of the business world as the "Banker's Magazine," which said in its issue of July, 1894: "Indifference has largely supplanted the hopes of the friends of tariff reform, as well as the fears of the honest advocates of high protection; and disgust, on the part of the people, has taken the place of trust in our Government, at the exposures of the corruption of the Senate by the most unconscionable and greedy Trusts in existence. Hence the indifference of everybody but the Trusts, and their Senatorial attorneys and dummies with 'retainers' or Trust stocks in their pockets; as it is taken for granted that no interests, but those rich and characterless enough to buy 'protection' will be looked after. … Nothing will be regarded as finally settled … if the Tariff Bill, as emasculated by the Senate, becomes a law; and it may as well be killed by the House, if the Senate refuse to recede; or, vetoed by the President, if it goes to him in its present shape; and let the existing status continue, until the country can get rid of its purchasable Senators and fill their disgraced seats with honest men who cannot be bought up like cattle at so much per head. This is the growing sentiment of business men generally."

      H. A. Pierce,
      A Review of Finance and Business
      (Banker's Magazine, July, 1894).

   First in committee, and still more in the Senate after the
   committee had reported, the bill was radically changed in
   character from that which the House sent up. The profits of
   the sugar trust were still protected, and coal and iron ore
   were dropped back from the free list into the schedules of
   dutiable commodities. According to estimates made, the average
   rate of duty in the Wilson Bill as it passed the House was
   35.52 per cent., and in the bill which passed the Senate it
   was 37 per cent., as against 49.58 per cent. in the McKinley
   law. Hence, the general effect of the revision in the Senate,
   even as manipulated by the senators suspected of corrupt
   motives, was an extensive lowering of duties. Some very
   important additions to the free list made by the Wilson Bill
   were left untouched by the senators—such as wool, lumber and
   salt.
{3089}
   In view of the extent of the gains acquired, the supporters of
   tariff-reform in the House, after prolonged attempts in
   conference committee to break the strength of the combination
   against free sugar, free coal and free iron ore, were
   reluctantly prevailed upon to accept the Senate bill. It had
   passed the Senate on the 3d of July. The struggle in
   conference committee lasted until the 13th of August, when the
   House passed the Senate bill unchanged. The President declined
   to give his signature to the act, but allowed it to become a
   law. Immediately after the passage of the bill, the House
   adopted special enactments admitting raw sugar, coal, iron
   ore, and barbed wire, free of duty; but these bills were not
   acted on in the Senate.

TARRACONENSIS.

TARSUS.

TARTAN.

TARTARS, OR TATARS.

"The Chinese used the name in a general sense, to include the greater part of their northern neighbours, and it was in imitation of them, probably, that the Europeans applied the name to the various nomade hordes who controlled Central Asia after the Mongol invasion. But the name properly belonged, and is applied by Raschid and other Mongol historians, to certain tribes living in the north-eastern corner of Mongolia, who, as I believe, were partially, at least, of the Tungusic race, and whose descendants are probably to be found among the Solons of Northern Manchuria."

"The name of Tartars, or Tatars, has been variously applied. It was long customary among geographical writers to give this title to the Kalmucs and Mongoles, and even to use it as a distinguishing name for those races of men who resemble the Kalmucs in features, and who have been supposed, whether correctly or not, to be allied to them in descent. Later authors, more accurate in the application of terms, have declared this to be an improper use of the name of Tartar, and by them the appellation has been given exclusively to the tribes of the Great Turkish race, and chiefly to the northern division of it, viz. to the hordes spread through the Russian empire and independent Tartary. … Whatever may be the true origin of the name of Tartar, custom has appropriated it to the race of men extensively spread through northern Asia, of whom the Ottoman Turks are a branch. It would, perhaps, be more strictly correct to call all these nations Turks, but the customary appellation may be retained when its meaning is determined."

J. C. Prichard, Researches into the Physical History of the Races of Mankind, chapter 5, section 1 (volume 2).

"The populations in question [the remnants, in southern Russia and Siberia, of the great Mongol empire of the Kiptchak], belong to one of three great groups, stocks, or families—the Turk, the Mongol, or the Tungus. When we speak of a Tartar, he belongs to the first, whenever we speak of a Kalmuk, he belongs to the second, of these divisions. It is necessary to insist upon this; because, whatever may be the laxity with which the term Tartar is used, it is, in Russian ethnology at least, a misnomer when applied to a Mongol. It is still worse to call a Turk a Kalmuk."

"Tartars (more correctly Tatars, but Tartars is the form generally current), a name given to nearly three million inhabitants of the Russian empire, chiefly Moslem and of Turkish origin. The majority—in European Russia—are remnants of the Mongol invasion of the 13th century, while those who inhabit Siberia are survivals of the once much more numerous Turkish population of the Ural-Altaic region, mixed to some extent with Finnish and Samoyedic stems, as also with Mongols. … The ethnographical features of the present Tartar inhabitants of European Russia, as well as their language, show that they contain no admixture (or very little) of Mongolian blood, but belong to the Turkish branch of the Ural-Altaic stock, necessitating the conclusion that only Batu, his warriors, and a limited number of his followers were Mongolians, while the great bulk of the 13th-century invaders were Turks."

TARTESSUS.

"The territory round Gades, Carteia, and the other Phenician settlements in this district [southwestern Spain] was known to the Greeks in the sixth century B. C. by the name of Tartessus, and regarded by them somewhat in the same light as Mexico and Peru appeared to the Spaniards of the sixteenth century."

This was the rich region known afterwards to the Romans as
Bætica, as Turdetania, and in modern times as Andalusia.

TATARS.

TAUNTON: A. D. 1685.
The Welcome to Monmouth.
The Maids of Taunton and their flag.

"When Monmouth marched into Taunton [A. D. 1685] it was an eminently prosperous place. … The townsmen had long leaned towards Presbyterian divinity and Whig politics. In the great civil war, Taunton had, through all vicissitudes, adhered to the Parliament, had been twice closely besieged by Goring, and had been twice defended with heroic valour by Robert Blake, afterwards the renowned Admiral of the Commonwealth. Whole streets had been burned down by the mortars and grenades of the Cavaliers. … The children of the men who, forty years before, had manned the ramparts of Taunton against the Royalists, now welcomed Monmouth with transports of joy and affection. Every door and window was adorned with wreaths of flowers. No man appeared in the streets without wearing in his hat a green bough, the badge of the popular cause. Damsels of the best families in the town wove colours for the insurgents. One flag in particular was embroidered gorgeously with emblems of royal dignity, and was offered to Monmouth by a train of young girls." After the suppression of Monmouth's rebellion, and while the "bloody Assizes" of Jeffreys were in progress, these little girls were hunted out and imprisoned, and the queen's maids of honor were permitted to extort money from their parents for the buying of their pardon and release.

TAURICA, TAURIC CHERSONESE.

The ancient Greek name of the Crimea, derived from the Tauri, a savage people who once inhabited it; "perhaps," says Grote, "a remnant of the expelled Cimmerians."

In the Roman civil war between Cæsar and his antagonists an important naval battle was fought, B. C. 47, near the little island of Tauris, on the Illyrian coast. Vatinius, who commanded on the Cæsarian side, defeated Octavius, and drove him out of the Adriatic.

TAXIARCH. PHYLARCH.

"The tribe appears to have been the only military classification known to Athens, and the taxiarch the only tribe officer for infantry, as the phylarch was for cavalry, under the general-in-chief."

ALSO IN: G. F. Schömann, Antiquities of Greece: The State, part 3, chapter 3.

TCHINOVNIKS.

To keep the vast and complex bureaucratic machine of Russia in motion "it is necessary to have a large and well-drilled army of officials. These are drawn chiefly from the ranks of the noblesse and the clergy, and form a peculiar social class called Tchinovniks, or men with 'Tchins.' As the Tchin plays an important part in Russia, not only in the official world, but also to some extent in social life, it may be well to explain its significance. All officers, civil and military, are, according to a scheme invented by Peter the Great, arranged in fourteen classes or ranks, and to each class or rank a particular name is attached. … As a general rule a man must begin at or near the bottom of the official ladder, and he must remain on each step a certain specified time. The step on which he is for the moment standing, or, in other words, the official rank or Tchin which he possesses, determines what offices he is competent to hold. Thus rank or Tchin is a necessary condition for receiving an appointment, but it does not designate any actual office, and the names of the different ranks are extremely apt to mislead a foreigner."

"The Dutch East India Company were the first to introduce it into Europe, and a small quantity came to England from Holland in 1666. The East India Company thereafter ordered their agent at Bantam to send home small quantities, which they wished to introduce as presents, but its price was 60s. per lb., and it was little thought of. Twenty years elapsed before the Company first decided on importing tea, but by degrees it came into general use. In 1712 the imports of tea were only 156,000 lbs.; in 1750 they reached 2,300,000 lbs.; in 1800, 24,000,000 lbs.; in 1830, 30,500,000 lbs., and in 1870, 141,000,000 lbs."

TECTOSAGES.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1811; and 1812-1813 HARRISON'S NORTHWESTERN CAMPAIGN.

   The first important victory won by the Thebans (B. C. 375), in
   the war which broke the power of Sparta. It was fought in
   Lokrian territory.

"The history of the Macedonian kingdom is the history of its royal race. The members of this royal house called themselves Temenidæ; i. e. they venerated as their original ancestor the same Temenus who was accounted the founder of the Heraclide dynasty in Peloponnesian Argos. Now, we remember the disturbances at Argos during the regal period, the quarrel between the Heraclidæ and the Dorian soldiery, and the flight of a King Phidon to Tegea. It is therefore highly credible, that during these troubles individual members of the royal house emigrated, in order to seek a more favorable theatre for their activity than was offered by the cribbed and confused affairs of their home; and tradition points precisely to the brother of this Phidon as the man who came to Macedonia from the shores of Peloponnesus."

TEMENITES.

One of the suburbs of the ancient city of Syracuse was so-called from the ground sacred to Apollo Temenites which it contained. It afterwards became a part of the city called Neapolis.

"During the reign of Baldwin I. the kingdom [of Jerusalem] was constantly harassed by the incursions of the Bedoween Arabs, and pious pilgrims were exposed to great dangers in their visits to the holy places. Nine valiant knights therefore, of whom the two principal were Hugh de Payens and Godfrey of St. Omer, vowed, in honour of the Sweet Mother of God (La douce mère de Dieu) to unite the character of the soldier and the monk, for the protection of pilgrims. In the presence of the king and his barons, they took, in the year 1118, in the hands of the patriarch, the three vows taken by the Hospitallers, adding a fourth, that of combating the heathen, without ceasing, in defence of pilgrims and of the Holy Land. The king assigned them a part of his palace for their dwelling, and the canons of the Temple gave them the open space between it and the palace, whence they derived their appellation of Templars, or Soldiers of the Temple. … Their garments were such as were bestowed upon them by the charitable, and the seal of their order, when they had attained to opulence—two knights mounted on one horse—commemorated the time when a single war-horse had to serve two knights of the Temple. When Baldwin II. was released from captivity (1128), he sent envoys to Europe to implore aid of the Christian powers. Among these were Hugh de Payens, and some others of the brethren of the Temple. The Templars appeared before the council of Troyes, and gave an account of their order and its objects, which were highly approved of by the fathers. The celebrated Bernard, abbot of Clairvaux, took a lively interest in its welfare, and made some improvements in its rule. A white mantle was assigned as their habit, to which Pope Eugenius some years afterwards added a plain red cross on the left breast; their banner was formed of the black and white striped cloth named Bauséant, which word became their battle-cry, and it bore the humble inscription, 'Not unto us, O Lord, but unto thy name be glory!' Hugh de Payens returned to Syria at the head of three hundred knights of the noblest houses of the West, who had become members of the order."

      ALSO IN:
      J. A. Froude,
      The Spanish Story of the Armada and other Essays,
      chapter 4.

"The Knights Templars first established the chief house of their order in England, without Holborn Bars [London] on the south side of the street, where Southampton House formerly stood, adjoining to which Southampton Buildings were afterwards erected. … This first house of the Temple, established by Hugh de Payens himself, before his departure from England, on his return to Palestine, was adapted to the wants and necessities of the order in its infant state, when the knights, instead of lingering in the preceptories of Europe, proceeded at once to Palestine, and when all the resources of the society were strictly and faithfully forwarded to Jerusalem, to be expended in defence of the faith; but when the order had greatly increased in numbers, power, and wealth, and had somewhat departed from its original purity and simplicity, we find that the superior and the knights resident in London began to look abroad for a more extensive and commodious place of habitation. They purchased a large space of ground, extending from the White Friars westward to Essex House without Temple Bar, and commenced the erection of a convent on a scale of grandeur commensurate with the dignity and importance of the chief house of the great religio-military society of the Temple in Britain. It was called the New Temple, to distinguish it from the original establishment at Holborn, which came thenceforth to be known by the name of the Old Temple. This New Temple was adapted for the residence of numerous military monks and novices, serving brothers, retainers, and domestics, … connected, by a range of handsome cloisters, with the magnificent church, consecrated by the patriarch. Alongside the river extended a spacious pleasure ground. … The year of the consecration of the Temple Church [A. D. 1185] Geoffrey, the superior of the order in England, caused an inquisition to be made of the lands of the Templars in this country. … The number of manors, farms, churches, advowsons, demesne lands, villages, hamlets, windmills, and water-mills, rents of assize, rights of common and free warren, and the amount of all kinds of property possessed by the Templars in England at the period of the taking of this inquisition, are astonishing. … The annual income of the order in Europe has been roughly estimated at six millions sterling! According to Matthew Paris, the Templars possessed nine thousand manors or lordships in Christendom, besides a large revenue and immense riches arising from the constant charitable bequests and donations of sums of money from pious persons. … The Templars, in addition to their amazing wealth, enjoyed vast privileges and immunities."

When the order of the Templars was suppressed and its property confiscated, the convent and church of the Temple in London were granted by the king, first, in 1313, to Aymer de Valence, Earl of Pembroke; afterwards, successively, to the Duke of Lancaster and to Hugh le Despenser. "The Temple then came for a short time into the hands of the Knights Hospitallers, and during the reign of Edward III. it seems to have been occupied by the lawyers, as tenants under the Hospitallers. When that order was dissolved by Henry VIII., the property passed into the hands of the Crown, the lawyers still holding possession as tenants. This continued till the reign of James I., when a petition was drawn up and presented to the king asking him to assign the property to the legal body in permanence. This was accordingly done by letters patent, in A. D. 1609, and the Benchers of the Inner and Middle Temple received possession of the buildings, on consideration of a small annual payment to the Crown."

"Many of the old retainers of the Temple became servants of the new lawyers, who had ousted their masters. … The dining in pairs, the expulsion from hall for misconduct, and the locking out of chambers were old customs also kept up. The judges of Common Pleas retained the title of knight, and the Fratres Servientcs of the Templars arose again in the character of learned serjeants-at-law, the coif of the modern serjeant being the linen coif of the old Freres Serjens of the Temple."

"When the Holy Land fell completely into Mahomedan hands on the loss of Acre in 1291 [see JERUSALEM: A. D. 1291] they [the Templars] abandoned the hopeless task and settled in Cyprus. By the end of the thirteenth century they had almost all returned to Europe. They were peculiarly strong and wealthy in France—the strength and wealth were alike dangerous to them. In Paris they built their fortress, the Temple, over against the King's palace of the Louvre; and in that stronghold the King himself had once to take refuge from the angry Parisian mob, exasperated by his heavy extortions. During the life and death struggle with the Papacy, the order had not taken the side of the Church against the sovereign; for their wealth had held them down. Philip [Philip IV], however, knew no gratitude, and they were doomed. A powerful and secret society endangered the safety of the state: their wealth was a sore temptation: there was no lack of rumours. Dark tales came out respecting the habits of the order; tales exaggerated and blackened by the diseased imagination of the age. Popular proverbs, those ominous straws of public opinion, were heard in different lands, hinting at dark vices and crimes. Doubtless the vows of the order, imposed on unruly natures, led to grievous sins against the first laws of moral life. And there was more than this: there were strange rumours of horrible infidelity and blasphemy; and men were prepared to believe everything. So no one seemed to be amazed when, in October, 1307, the King made a sudden coup d'etat, arrested all the Templars in France on the same day, and seized their goods. The Temple at Paris with the Grand Master fell into his hands. Their property was presently placed in the custody of the Pope's nuncios in France; the knights were kept in dark and dismal prisons. Their trial was long and tedious. Two hundred and thirty-one knights were examined, with all the brutality that examination then meant; the Pope also took the depositions of more than seventy. From these examinations what can we learn? All means were used: some were tortured, others threatened, others tempted with promises of immunity. They made confession accordingly; and the ghastly catalogue of their professed ill-doings may be read in the history of the trial. Who shall say what truth there was in it all? Probably little or none. Many confessed and then recanted their confession. The golden image with eyes of glowing carbuncle which they worshipped; the trampling and spitting on the crucifix; the names of Galla and Baphomet; the hideous practices of the initiation;—all these things pass before us, in the dim uncertainty, like some horrible procession of the vices in hell. What the truth was will never be known. … The knights made a dignified defence in these last moments of their history; they did not flinch either at the terrible prospect before them, or through memory of the tortures which they had undergone. Public opinion, in and out of France, began to stir against the barbarous treatment they had received; they were no longer proud and wealthy princes, but suffering martyrs, showing bravery and a firm front against the cruelties of the King and his lawyers. Marigni, Philip's minister and friend, and the King himself, were embarrassed by the number and firmness of their victims, by the sight of Europe looking aghast, by the murmurs of the people. Marigni suggested that men who had confessed and recanted might be treated as relapsed heretics, such being the law of the Inquisition, (what irony was here!) and accordingly in 1310 an enclosure was made at Paris, within which fifty-nine Templars perished miserably by fire. Others were burnt later at Senlis. … The King and Pope worked on the feeble Council, until in March 1312 the abolition of the order was formally decreed; and its chief property, its lands and buildings, were given over to the Knights of St. John, to be used for the recovery of the Holy Land; 'which thing,' says the Supplementor to William of Nangis, 'came not to pass, but rather the endowment did but make them worse than before.' The chief part of the spoil, as might be well believed, never left the King's hands. One more tragedy, and then all was over. The four heads of the order were still at Paris, prisoners —Jacques de Molai, Grand Master; Guy of Auvergne, the Master of Normandy, and two more. The Pope had reserved their fate in his own hands, and sent a commission to Paris, who were enjoined once more to hear the confession of these dignitaries, and then to condemn them to perpetual captivity. But at the last moment the Grand Master and Guy publicly retracted their forced confessions, and declared themselves and the order guiltless of all the abominable charges laid against them. Philip was filled with devouring rage. Without further trial or judgment he ordered them to be led that night to the island in the Seine; there they were fastened to the stake and burnt."

In England, a similar prosecution of the Templars, instigated by the pope, was commenced in January, 1308, when the chiefs of the order were seized and imprisoned and subjected to examination with torture. The result was the dissolution of the order and the confiscation of its property; but none of the knights were executed, though some died in prison from the effects of their barbarous treatment. "The property of the Templars in England was placed under the charge of a commission at the time that proceedings were commenced against them, and the king very soon treated it as if it were his own, giving away manors and convents at his pleasure. A great part of the possessions of the Order was subsequently made over to the Hospitallers. … Some of the surviving Templars retired to monasteries, others returned to the world, and assumed secular habits, for which they incurred the censures of the Pope. … In Spain, Portugal, and Germany, proceedings were taken against the Order; their property was confiscated, and in some cases torture was used; but it is remarkable that it was only in France, and those places where Philip's influence was powerful, that any Templar was actually put to death."

H. H. Milman, History of Latin Christianity, book 12, chapters 1-2 (volume 5).

After the long contest in Rome over the Licinian Laws, which were adopted B. C. 367, M. Furius Camillus—the great Camillus—being made Dictator for the fifth time, in his eightieth year, brought about peace between the patricians and plebeians, in commemoration of which he vowed a temple to Concord. "Before he could dedicate it, the old hero died. The temple, however, was built according to his design; its site, now one of the best known among those of ancient Rome, can still be traced with great certainty at the north-western angle of the Forum, immediately under the Capitoline. The building was restored with great magnificence by the Emperor Tiberius; and it deserved to be so, for it commemorated one of the greatest events of Roman history."

TEMPLE OF DIANA.

"The Temple of Janus was one of the earliest buildings of Rome, founded, according to Livy (i. 19.) by Numa. It stood near the Curia, on the northeast side of the Forum, at the verge of a district called the Argiletum. … [it was] a small 'ædicula' or shrine, which towards the end of the Republic, or perhaps earlier, was of bronze. It is shown with much minuteness on a First Brass of Nero as a small cella, without columns, but with richly ornamented frieze and cornice. Its doors were closed on those rare occasions when Rome was at peace with all the world. From the time of its traditional founder, Numa, to that of Livy, it was only twice shut—once after the first Punic War, and secondly after the victory of Augustus at Actium. … It contained a very ancient statue, probably by an Etruscan artist, of the double faced Janus Bifrons, or Geminus. … The Temple of Janus gave its name to this part of the edge of the Forum, and from the numerous shops of the argentarii or bankers and money-lenders which were there, the word Janus came to mean the usurers' quarter."

The Temple of Janus was closed, once more, by Vespasian, after the destruction of Jerusalem and the ending of the war in Judea, A. D. 71. "It had stood open since the German wars of the first princeps [Augustus]; or, according to the computation of the christian Orosius, from the birth of Christ to the overthrow of the Jewish people: for the senate had refused to sanction Nero's caprice in closing it on his precarious accommodation with Parthia. Never before had this solemn act addressed the feelings of the citizens so directly. … The Peace of Vespasian was celebrated by a new bevy of poets and historians not less loudly than the Peace of Augustus. A new era of happiness and prosperity was not less passionately predicted."

   "As soon as David had given to his people the boon of a unique
   capital, nothing could be more natural than the wish to add
   sacredness to the glory of the capital by making it the centre
   of the national worship. According to the Chronicles, David …
   had made unheard-of preparations to build a house for God. But
   it had been decreed unfit that the sanctuary should be built
   by a man whose hands were red with the blood of many wars, and
   he had received the promise that the great work should be
   accomplished by his son. Into that work Solomon threw himself
   with hearty zeal in the month Zif of the fourth year of his
   reign, when his kingdom was consolidated. … He inherited the
   friendship which David had enjoyed, with Hiram, King of Tyre.
   … The friendliest overtures passed between the two kings in
   letters, to which Josephus appeals as still extant. A
   commercial treaty was made by which Solomon engaged to furnish
   the Tyrian king with annual revenues of wheat, barley, and
   oil, and Hiram put at Solomon's disposal the skilled labour of
   an army of Sidonian wood-cutters and artisans. … Some writers
   have tried to minimise Solomon's work as a builder, and have
   spoken of the Temple as an exceedingly insignificant structure
   which would not stand a moment's comparison with the smallest
   and humblest of our own cathedrals. Insignificant in size it
   certainly was, but we must not forget its costly splendour,
   the remote age in which the work was achieved, and the truly
   stupendous constructions which the design required. Mount
   Moriah was selected as a site hallowed by the tradition of
   Abraham's sacrifice, and more recently by David's vision of
   the Angel of the Pestilence with his drawn sword on the
   threshing-floor of the Jebusite Prince Araunah. But to utilise
   this doubly consecrated area involved almost super-human
   difficulties, which would have been avoided if the loftier but
   less suitable height of the Mount of Olives could have been
   chosen. The rugged summit had to be enlarged to a space of 500
   yards square, and this level was supported by Cyclopean walls,
   which have long been the wonder of the world. … The caverns,
   quarries, water storages, and subterranean conduits hewn out
   of the solid rock, over which Jerusalem is built, could only
   have been constructed at the cost of immeasurable toil. … It
   was perhaps from his Egyptian father-in-law that Solomon, to
   his own cost, learnt the secret of forced labour which alone
   rendered such undertakings possible. …
{3094}
   Four classes were subject to it.

1. The lightest labour was required from the native freeborn Israelites (ezrach). They were not regarded as bondsmen, … yet 30,000 of these were required in relays of 10,000 to work, one month in every three, in the forest of Lebanon.

2. There were the strangers, or resident aliens (Gerim), such as the Phœnicians and Giblites, who were Hiram's subjects and worked for pay.

3. There were three classes of slaves—those taken in war, or sold for debt, or home-born.

4. Lowest and most wretched of all, there were the vassal Canaanites (Toshabim), from whom were drawn those 70,000 burden-bearers, and 80,000 quarry-men, the Helots of Palestine, who were placed under the charge of 3,600 Israelite officers.

The blotches of smoke are still visible on the walls and roofs of the subterranean quarries where these poor serfs, in the dim torchlight and suffocating air, 'laboured without reward, perished without pity, and suffered without redress.' The sad narrative reveals to us, and modern research confirms, that the purple of Solomon had a very seamy side, and that an abyss of misery heaved and moaned under the glittering surface of his splendour. … Apart from the lavish costliness of its materials the actual Temple was architecturally a poor and commonplace structure. It was quite small —only 90 feet long, 35 feet broad, and 45 feet high. It was meant for the symbolic habitation of God, not for the worship of great congregations. … Of the external aspect of the building in Solomon's day we know nothing. We cannot even tell whether it had one level roof, or whether the Holy of Holies was like a lower chancel at the end of it; nor whether the roof was flat or, as the Rabbis say, ridged; nor whether the outer surface of the three-storied chambers which surrounded it was of stone, or planked with cedar, or overlaid with plinths of gold and silver; nor whether, in any case, it was ornamented with carvings or left blank; nor whether the cornices only were decorated with open flowers like the Assyrian rosettes. Nor do we know with certainty whether it was supported within by pillars or not. … It required the toil of 300,000 men for twenty years to build one of the pyramids. It took two hundred years to build and four hundred to embellish the great Temple of Artemis of the Ephesians. It took more than five centuries to give to Westminster Abbey its present form. Solomon's Temple only took seven and a half years to build; but … its objects were wholly different from those of the great shrines which we have mentioned. … Needing but little repair, it stood for more than four centuries. Succeeded as it was by the Temples of Zerubbabel and of Herod, it carried down till seventy years after the Christian era the memory of the Tabernacle in the wilderness, of which it preserved the general outline, though it exactly doubled all the proportions and admitted many innovations."

   The long conflict between Athens and her confederated enemies,
   Sparta at the head, which is usually called the Peloponnesian
   War, was divided into two periods by the Peace or Nicias. The
   war in the first period, covering a decade, was known as the
   Ten Years War; though the Peloponnesians called it the Attic
   War.

TENEDOS.

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1663.
Embraced in the Carolina grant to Monk,
Shaftesbury and others.

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1768.
The Treaty with the Six Nations at Fort Stanwix.
Pretended cession of country south of the Ohio.

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1769-1772.
The first settlers in the eastern valley.
The Watauga commonwealth and its constitution.

"Soon after the successful ending of the last colonial struggle with France, and the conquest of Canada, the British king issued a proclamation forbidding the English colonists from trespassing on Indian grounds, or moving west of the mountains.

But in 1768, at the treaty of Fort Stanwix, the Six Nations agreed to surrender to the English all the lands lying between the Ohio and the Tennessee.

   This treaty was at once seized upon by the backwoodsmen as
   offering an excuse for settling beyond the mountains. However,
   the Iroquois had ceded lands to which they had no more right
   than a score or more other Indian tribes. … The great
   hunting-grounds between the Ohio and the Tennessee formed a
   debatable land, claimed by every tribe that could hold its own
   against its rivals. The eastern part of what is now Tennessee
   consists of a great hill-strewn, forest-clad valley, running
   from northeast to southwest, bounded on one side by the
   Cumberland, and on the other by the Great Smoky and Unaka
   Mountains; the latter separating it from North Carolina. In
   this valley arise and end the Clinch, the Holston, the
   Watauga, the Nolichucky, the French Broad, and the other
   streams, whose combined volume makes the Tennessee River. The
   upper end of the valley lies in southwestern Virginia, the
   headwaters of some of the rivers being well within that State;
   and though the province was really part of North Carolina, it
   was separated therefrom by high mountain chains, while from
   Virginia it was easy to follow the watercourses down the
   valley. Thus, as elsewhere among the mountains forming the
   western frontier, the first movements of population went
   parallel with, rather than across, the ranges.
{3095}
   As in western Virginia the first settlers came, for the most
   part, from Pennsylvania, so, in turn, in what was then western
   North Carolina, and is now eastern Tennessee, the first
   settlers came mainly from Virginia, and, indeed, in great
   part, from this same Pennsylvanian stock. Of course, in each
   case there was also a very considerable movement directly
   westward. They were a sturdy race, enterprising and
   intelligent, fond of the strong excitement inherent in the
   adventurous frontier life. Their untamed and turbulent
   passions, and the lawless freedom of their lives, made them a
   population very productive of wild, headstrong characters;
   yet, as a whole, they were a God-fearing race, as was but
   natural in those who sprang from the loins of the Irish
   Calvinists. Their preachers, all Presbyterians, followed close
   behind the first settlers and shared their toil and dangers. …
   In 1769, the year that Boon first went to Kentucky, the first
   permanent settlers came to the banks of the Watauga, the
   settlement being merely an enlargement of the Virginia
   settlement, which had for a short time existed on the
   head-waters of the Holston, especially near Wolf Hills. At
   first the settlers thought they were still in the domain of
   Virginia, for at that time the line marking her southern
   boundary had not been run so far west. … But in 1771, one of
   the new-comers, who was a practical surveyor, ran out the
   Virginia boundary line some distance to the westward, and
   discovered that the Watauga settlement came within the limits
   of North Carolina. Hitherto the settlers had supposed that
   they themselves were governed by the Virginian law, and that
   their rights as against the Indians were guaranteed by the
   Virginian government; but this discovery threw them back upon
   their own resources. They suddenly found themselves obliged to
   organize a civil government. … About the time that the Watauga
   commonwealth was founded; the troubles in North Carolina came
   to a head. Open war ensued between the adherents of the royal
   governor, Tryon, on the one hand, and the Regulators, as the
   insurgents styled themselves, on the other, the struggle
   ending with the overthrow of the Regulators at the battle of
   Alamance.

As a consequence of these troubles, many people from the back counties of North Carolina crossed the mountains, and took up their abode among the pioneers on the Watauga and upper Holston; the beautiful valley of the Nolichucky soon receiving its share of this stream of immigration. Among the first comers were many members of the class of desperate adventurers always to be found hanging round the outskirts of frontier civilization. … But the bulk of the settlers were men of sterling worth; fit to be the pioneer fathers of a mighty and beautiful state. … Such were the settlers of the Watauga, the founders of the commonwealth that grew into the State of Tennessee, who early in 1772 decided that they must form some kind of government that would put down wrong-doing and work equity between man and man. Two of their number already towered head and shoulders above the rest in importance and merit especial mention; for they were destined for the next thirty years to play the chief parts in the history of that portion of the Southwest which largely through their own efforts became the State of Tennessee. These two men, neither of them yet thirty years of age, were John Sevier and James Robertson. … With their characteristic capacity for combination, so striking as existing together with the equally characteristic capacity for individual self-help, the settlers determined to organize a government of their own. They promptly put their, resolution into effect early in the spring of 1772, Robertson being apparently the leader in the movement. They decided to adopt written articles of agreement, by which their conduct should be governed; and these were known as the Articles of the Watauga Association. They formed a written constitution, the first ever adopted west of the mountains, or by a community composed of American-born freemen. It is this fact of the early independence and self-government of the settlers along the head-waters of the Tennessee that gives to their history its peculiar importance. They were the first men of American birth to establish a free and independent community on the continent. … The first step taken by the Watauga settlers, when they had determined to organize, was to meet in general convention, holding a kind of folk-thing, akin to the New England town-meeting. They then elected a representative assembly, a small parliament or 'witanagemot,' which met at Robertson's station. Apparently the freemen of each little fort or palisaded village, each block-house that was the centre of a group of detached cabins and clearings, sent a member to this first frontier legislature. It consisted of thirteen representatives, who proceeded to elect from their number five—among them Sevier and Robertson—to form a committee or court, which should carry on the actual business of government, and should exercise both judicial and executive functions. This court had a clerk and a sheriff, or executive officer, who respectively recorded and enforced their decrees. … In fact, the dwellers, in this little outlying frontier commonwealth, exercised the rights of full statehood for a number of years; establishing in true American style a purely democratic government with representative institutions."

      ALSO IN:
      E. Kirke (pseudonym J. R. Gilmore),
      The Rear-Guard of the Revolution,
      chapters 2-6.

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1776-1784.
   Annexation to North Carolina.
   Cession by that state to the Congress of the Confederation.
   Consequent revolt.
   Repeal of the act of cession.

   "The Watauga people had hopes, when the articles of
   association were adopted, of being able eventually to form an
   independent government, governed as the older colonies were
   governed, by royal governors. When the disagreements between
   the colonies and the mother country arose, they modified their
   views to the new order of things, and regarded themselves as a
   distinct though as yet inchoate state. But their weakness …
   rendered the protection of some more powerful state necessary
   for their welfare. … They petitioned North Carolina for
   annexation in 1776. Their petition was granted. … The
   provincial congress of North Carolina met at Halifax in
   November, 1776, and [Robertson, Sevier and two others] were
   delegates from Washington District, Watauga settlement. …
{3096}
   After the annexation of the Washington District the old form
   of government was allowed to stand until the spring of 1777. …
   In November of this year, 1777, the District of Washington
   became Washington County. … From 1777 until the disturbances
   of eight years later, the history of Tennessee was a part of
   the history of North Carolina. … The part played by the
   inhabitants of Tennessee in the war for independence was
   active, and in one instance [at King's Mountain] decisive.
   Their operations were chiefly of a desultory, guerrilla kind,
   under the leadership of Sevier … and Shelby." Sevier was also
   the leader in wars with the Indians, which were carried on
   with unsparing fierceness on both sides. "In the April session
   of 1784, the General Assembly of North Carolina, in accordance
   with the recommendation of Congress itself, as well as with
   the dictates of a far-seeing and enlightened statesmanship,
   imitated the example of Virginia and New York, and ceded to
   the United States all the territory which is now the State of
   Tennessee.

This of course included all the settlements. The condition of the cession was its acceptance by Congress within two years. Until Congress should have accepted the ceded territory, the jurisdiction of North Carolina over it was to remain in every respect the same as heretofore. … When the question of cession was first broached, it was accepted by the four representatives of the western counties at Hillsboro, as well as by those who proposed it, as the natural and legitimate solution of a complex problem. No one apparently dreamed of opposition on the part of the settlers themselves. … There is no reason to think that the Watauga people had any objection to the cession. … The objection was against the manner of the cession and its conditions. … The main cause of complaint was that North Carolina had left them without any form of government for two years. … A storm of indignation swept through the entire settlement. … The people regarded themselves without government, and, true to the traditions of their race, they sought the solution of the difficulty in their own resources. … It is one of the noteworthy facts in the history of institutions that the possessors of English tradition always begin with the first primal germ of local self-government at hand, be it court leet, court of quarter sessions, township, county, school district, or military company, and build upward. The Watauga people had nothing so convenient as the militia companies, and they began with them as representing a more minutely varied constituency than the county court. Each company elected two representatives, and the representatives so elected in each county formed themselves into a committee, and the three committees of Washington, Sullivan, and Greene counties met as a kind of impromptu or temporary legislature, and decided to call a general convention to be elected by the people of the different counties. This convention met on the 23d of August, 1784, at Jonesboro. John Sevier was elected president, and Landon Carter secretary. … It is supposed that the convention which met at Jonesboro adopted the resolution to form a 'separate and distinct State, independent of the State of North Carolina.' … Provision was made for the calling of a future convention in which representation was to be according to companies. … The meeting adjourned, having fairly inaugurated the contest with North Carolina, which still claimed jurisdiction." Soon afterward the legislature of North Carolina repealed the act of cession, and "for a time it was supposed that this would terminate the agitation in favor of a new State."

   "Toward the close of May [1785] the western lands being again
   under discussion [in Congress], a resolution was carried
   urging North Carolina to reconsider her act of the previous
   November, and once more cede to Congress her possessions
   beyond the mountains. Had the request been granted, there can
   be no doubt, the measure would have speedily brought peace and
   quiet to that distracted region. But North Carolina was too
   intent on bringing her rebellious subjects to terms to think
   for a moment of bestowing them with their lands and goods on
   Congress. Indeed, when the news of the request was carried
   into the district some months later, the malcontents expressed
   much surprise. They could not, they said, understand why
   Congress should apply to North Carolina; North Carolina had
   nothing to do with them. The parent State had, by her act of
   1784, given them away. Congress did not take them under its
   protection. They belonged, therefore, to nobody, and while in
   this condition had called a convention, had framed a
   constitution, had formed a new State, had chosen for it a
   name, and elected a Legislature which was actually in session
   at the time the act of the 23d of May was passed. … Much of
   what they stated was strictly true. The delegates to the
   second convention had assembled early in 1785. These had given
   the State the name of Franklin, and had drawn up a
   constitution which they submitted to the people. It was
   expected that the men of the district would consider it
   carefully, and select delegates to a third convention, which
   should have full power to ratify or reject. The place fixed
   upon for the meeting of the convention was Greenville. But as
   there was then no printing-press nearer than Charleston or
   Richmond, and as much time must elapse before the constitution
   could become known to all, the delegates were not to convene
   till the 14th of November. Meanwhile the Legislature was to
   organize. Elections were held without delay; members were
   chosen after the manner in which the settlers had long been
   accustomed to elect representatives to the Assembly of the
   parent State, and these, meeting at Jonesboro, conducted their
   business with so much dispatch that on the last day of March
   they adjourned. Many acts were passed by them. But one alone
   excited general comment, and was the cause of unbounded
   merriment across the mountains. A list of articles at that
   time scarce to be met with in the State of Franklin would be a
   long one. But there would be no article in the list less
   plentiful than money. … When, therefore, the Legislature came
   to determine what should be the legal currency of the State,
   it most wisely contented itself with fixing the value of such
   articles as had, from time immemorial, been used as money.
{3097}
   One pound of sugar, the law said, should pass for a
   shilling-piece; the skin of a raccoon or a fox for a shilling
   and threepence. A gallon of rye whiskey, it was thought, was
   worth twice that sum, while a gallon of peach-brandy or a yard
   of good nine hundred flax linen was each to pass for a
   three-shilling piece. Some difficulty was met with in
   selecting articles that could be easily carried from place to
   place and expressive of large values. It was, however, finally
   determined that a clean beaver-skin, an otter or a deer-skin,
   should each of them be the representative of six shillings. In
   this kind of money, the law further prescribed, the salary of
   every officer of the State, from the Governor down to the
   hangman, was to be paid. When this act became known in the
   East the wits were greatly amused. … In the belief that the
   new money could not be counterfeited they were much mistaken.
   Many bundles of what seemed to be otter-skins were soon
   passing about, which, on being opened, were found to be skins
   of raccoons with tails of otters sewed to them. … The name of
   the State has often been asserted to be Frankland, the land of
   the Franks, or Freemen. … But letters are extant from high
   officials of the State to Benjamin Franklin declaring that it
   was named after him."

J. B. McMaster, History of the People of the United States, volume 1, chapter 3, with foot-note.

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1785-1796.
The troubled history and the fall of the state of Franklin.
The rise of the state of Tennessee.

On receiving news of the organization of the independent state of Franklin, Governor Martin, of North Carolina, issued a proclamation which was skilfully addressed to the cooler judgment of the mountaineers and which "was not without its effect." But, although the adherents of North Carolina "gradually gained ground in the new commonwealth, a majority still clung to Sevier, and refused to recognize any government but the one they themselves had organized. In this opposition of parties, disorders sprang up which presently degenerated into lawlessness. Both governments claimed jurisdiction, and both sought to exercise it. The consequence was that both became inefficient. Party quarrels ensued; old friends became enemies; Tipton and his followers openly supported the claims of North Carolina; Sevier sought to maintain his authority as the executive officer of Franklin. This antagonistic spirit led to the commission of various outrages. … But in the midst of these inglorious quarrels, Governor Sevier did not neglect to defend from Indian aggressions the state over which he had been called to preside. … He was far less successful, however, in giving peace to the distracted state of Franklin. The continuance of intestine dissensions, and the nice balance of parties which took place in 1787, induced the people to refuse to pay taxes either to North Carolina or to the local government, until the supremacy of one or the other should be more generally acknowledged. In this state of affairs, with his government tottering to its downfall, Sevier earnestly appealed to North Carolina for a ratification of the independence of the state of Franklin, and to Franklin himself, and the governors of Georgia and Virginia, for counsel and assistance. Disappointed on all sides, he finally rested for support upon his immediate friends, conscious of the rectitude of his own intentions. … But the people were already weary of a feud which threatened, at every fresh outbreak, to end in bloodshed. In 1787 the last legislature of the state of Franklin held its session at Greenville. … The conciliatory measures of North Carolina presently disarmed the malecontents of all further arguments for opposing the reunion; and in February, 1788, the state of Franklin ceased to exist." Fierce conflicts between Sevier and Tipton and their hotter partisans still continued for some time; until, in October, Sevier was arrested for high treason and imprisoned at Morgantown. He escaped soon after, through the aid of his sons, was elected to the North Carolina senate, and was permitted to qualify for the seat on renewing his oath of allegiance. "His services were remembered and his faults forgotten." Meantime, settlements on the Cumberland, founded in 1779 by James Robertson, had prospered and grown strong, and Nashville, the chief among them, assumed its name in 1784, "in commemoration of the patriotic services of Colonel Francis Nash," of North Carolina, who fell in the battle of Germantown. In 1790, after ratifying the Federal Constitution, North Carolina, re-enacted the cession of her western territory, coinciding with the present state of Tennessee, to the United States, stipulating "that no regulation made or to be made by Congress shall tend to the emancipation of slaves." The "Territory southwest of the Ohio" was then organized, with William Blount for governor. Six years later (January, 1796), the population of the Territory having been ascertained by a census to be 67,000 free white inhabitants and 10,000 slaves, a constitution was adopted, the State of Tennessee was formed, with John Sevier for Governor, and, after some opposition in Congress, it was formally admitted to its place and rank as one of the United States of America. Its first Representative in the House was Andrew Jackson.

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1785-1800.
The question of the Free Navigation of the Mississippi.
Discontent of the settlers and intrigues among them.

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1861 (JANUARY-MAY).
The mode in which the state was dragged into Rebellion.

   "The Legislature of Tennessee met on the 6th of January. On
   the 12th, a bill for the calling of a state convention [with
   the object of following the lead, in secession, which South
   Carolina had taken on the 20th of December was passed.]

It was passed subject to the approval of the voters. The election took place on the 8th day of February. The people voted against holding a convention by 67,360, to 54,156. In disregard of this vote of the people, however, the legislature, on May 1st, passed a joint resolution authorizing the governor to enter into a military league with the Confederate States. The league was formed. The Governor, Isham G. Harris, sent a message to the legislature, announcing the fact. He stated its terms. … It stipulated that until the state should become a member of the Confederacy, 'the whole military force and military operations, offensive and defensive, of said state, in the impending conflict with the United States, shall be under the chief control and direction of the President of the Confederate States.' It was also agreed that the state would, as soon as it should join the Confederacy, turn over all public property it might acquire from the United States. The legislature ratified the league by decided majorities of both branches. These final proceedings took place on the 7th day of May. On the preceding day, the legislature put forth a declaration of independence. It was submitted to the votes of the people for ratification. This document waives the right of secession, as follows: 'We, the people of the State of Tennessee, waiving an expression of opinion as to the abstract doctrine of secession, but asserting the right, as a free and independent people,' declare that all the laws and ordinances by which Tennessee became a member of the Federal Union, 'are hereby abrogated.' The vote for separation was declared by the governor to be 104,019 for, and 47,238 against that measure. It thus appears that the Legislature of Tennessee, in declaring the separation of the state from the Federal Union, placed its action upon the ground of a revolutionary right, which all admit to be inalienable, if the cause be just."

O. J. Victor, History of the Southern Rebellion, division 4, chapter 11 (volume 2).

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1861 (April).
Governor Harris' reply to President Lincoln's call for troops.

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1861 (June).
The loyalty of East Tennessee and its resistance to Secession.

"For separation and representation at Richmond, East Tennessee gave [at the election, June 8, when the question of secession was nominally submitted to the people, the state having been already delivered by its governor and legislature to the Confederacy] 14,700 votes; and half of that number were Rebel troops, having no authority under the Constitution to vote at any election. For 'no separation' and 'no representation,'—the straight-out Union vote,—East Tennessee gave 33,000, or 18,300 of a majority, with at least 5,000 quiet citizens deterred from coming out by threats of violence, and by the presence of drunken troops at the polls to insult them. … By … fraud and villainy, … the great State of Tennessee was carried out of the Union. The loyal people of East Tennessee, to their great honor, had no lot or part in the work."

W. G. Brownlow, Sketches of the Rise, Progress and Decline of Secession, pages 222-223.

"Finding themselves powerless before the tyranny inaugurated, the Unionists of East Tennessee resolved, as a last resort, to hold a Convention at Greenville, to consult as to the best course to pursue. This Convention met June 17th. The attendance was very large—thirty-one counties having delegates present on the first day. Judge Nelson presided. After a four days' session it adopted a Declaration of Grievances and Resolutions," declaring that "we prefer to remain attached to the Government of our fathers. The Constitution of the United States has done us no wrong. The Congress of the United States has passed no law to oppress us. … The secession cause has thus far been sustained by deception and falsehood." The Convention protested on behalf of East Tennessee against being dragged into rebellion, and appointed commissioners to pursue measures looking to the formation of a separate state. "Vain protest! It was not long before those Unionists and protestants against wrong were flying for their lives, and were hunted down like wild beasts."

O. J. Victor, History of the Southern Rebellion, division 5, chapter 5 (volume 2).

      W. Rule,
      Loyalists of Tennessee in the late War
      (Sketches of War History, Ohio Commandery, L. L. volume 2).

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1862 (February).
The breaking of the Rebel line of defense at Fort Henry and
Fort Donelson.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY: KENTUCKY-TENNESSEE).

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1862 (April).
The continued advance of the Union armies.
Battle of Shiloh, or Pittsburg Landing.

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1862 (June).
Evacuation of Fort Pillow and surrender
of Memphis by the Confederates.

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1862 (June-October).
The Buell-Bragg campaign.
Chattanooga secured by the Confederates.

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1862-1863 (December-January).
Bragg and Rosecrans.
The Battle of Stone River, or Murfreesborough.

         See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
         A. D. 1863 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER: TENNESSEE)
         BURNSIDE'S DELIVERANCE.

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1863 (August-September).
The Chickamauga campaign and battle.
The Union army at Chattanooga.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER: TENNESSEE)
      ROSECRANS' ADVANCE.

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1863 (October-November).
   The Siege and the Battles of Chattanooga.
   Lookout Mountain.
   Missionary Ridge.

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1863-1864 (December-April).
Winter operations.
Withdrawal of Longstreet from east Tennessee.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863-1864(DECEMBER-APRIL: TENNESSEE-MISSISSIPPI).

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1864 (September-October).
Forrest's raid.
The capture of Athens.

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1864 (November).
Hood's invasion and destruction.
The Battles of Franklin and Nashville.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (NOVEMBER: TENNESSEE),
      and (DECEMBER: TENNESSEE).

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1865.
President Johnson's recognition of the
reconstructed State Government.

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1865-1866.
   Reconstruction.
   Abolition of Slavery.
   Restoration of the State to its
   "former, proper, practical relation to the Union."

In the early part of 1865, Andrew Johnson, though Vice-President-elect, was "still discharging the functions of military governor of Tennessee. A popular convention originating from his recommendation and assembling under his auspices, was organized at Nashville on the 9th day of January, 1865. Membership of the body was limited to those who 'give an active support to the Union cause, who have never voluntarily borne arms against the Government, who have never voluntarily given aid and comfort to the enemy.' … Tennessee, as Johnson bluntly maintained, could only be organized and controlled as a State in the Union by that portion of her citizens who acknowledged their allegiance to the Government of the Union. Under this theory of procedure the popular convention proposed an amendment to the State constitution, 'forever abolishing and prohibiting slavery in the State,' and further declaring that 'the Legislature shall make no law recognizing the right of property in man.' The convention took several other important steps, annulling in whole and in detail all the legislation which under Confederate rule had made the State a guilty participant in the rebellion. Thus was swept away the ordinance of Secession, and the State debt created in aid of the war against the Union. All these proceedings were submitted to popular vote on the 22d of February, and were ratified by an affirmative vote of 25,293 against a negative vote of 48. The total vote of the State at the Presidential election of 1860 was 145,333. Mr. Lincoln's requirement of one-tenth of that number was abundantly complied with by the vote on the questions submitted to the popular decision. … Under this new order of things, William G. Brownlow, better known to the world by his soubriquet of 'Parson' Brownlow, was chosen governor without opposition on the 4th day of March, 1865, the day of Mr. Lincoln's second inauguration. The new Legislature met at Nashville a month later, on the 3d of April, and on the 5th ratified the Thirteenth Amendment; thus adding the abolition of slavery by National authority to that already decreed by the State. The Legislature completed its work by electing two consistent Union men, David T. Patterson and Joseph S. Fowler, to the United States Senate. The framework of the new Government was thus completed and in operation before the death of Mr. Lincoln."

After the organization of a loyal government in Tennessee, more than a year passed before the restoration of the State to its constitutional relations with the United States, by the admission of its Senators and Representatives to Congress. Tennessee was the first, however, among the seceded States to obtain that recognition, by being the first to ratify the Fourteenth Constitutional Amendment. "Immediately on the reception of the circular of the Secretary of State containing the proposed amendment, Governor Brownlow issued a proclamation summoning the Legislature of Tennessee to assemble at Nashville on the 4th of July [1866]. … Every effort was made to prevent the assembling of the required number [to constitute a quorum]. The powerful influence of the President himself was thrown in opposition to ratification." By arresting recalcitrant members, and by "the expedient of considering the members who were under arrest and confined in a committee room as present in their places," the quorum was assumed to have been made up and the amendment was ratified. "Immediately after the news was received in Washington, Mr. Bingham, in the House of Representatives, moved to reconsider a motion by which a joint resolution relating to the restoration of Tennessee had been referred to the Committee on Reconstruction," and, this motion being adopted, he introduced a substitute which declared, "That the State of Tennessee is hereby restored to her former, proper, practical relation to the Union, and again entitled to be represented by Senators and Representatives in Congress, duly elected and qualified, upon their taking the oaths of office required by existing laws." On the following day this joint resolution passed the House, and a day later (July 21st), it was adopted by the Senate.

      ALSO IN:
      Ira P. Jones,
      Reconstruction in Tennessee
      (Why the Solid South? chapter 7).

TENOCHTITLAN.

TERRA FIRMA.

As commonly used, this phrase describes the fearful state of things that prevailed in France during a period of the French Revolution which ended with the fall of Robespierre, July 27 (Ninth Thermidor), 1794. The beginning of the period so called is usually placed at the date of the coup d'état, May 31-June 2, 1793, which overthrew the Girondists and gave unrestrained power into the hands of the Terrorists of the Mountain. The Reign of Terror was not however fully organized as a deliberately merciless system, and made, according to the demand of the Paris Commune, "the order of the day," until the following September. In another view, the Reign of Terror may be said to have begun with the creation of the terrible Revolutionary Tribunal, March, 1793.

TESHER.

TESSERA HOSPITALIS.

TETRARCH.

As originally used, this official title, from the Greek, signified the governor of one fourth part of a country or province. Later, the Romans applied it to many tributary princes, in Syria and elsewhere, to whom they wished to give a rank inferior to that of the tributary kings.

"The elegiac poet Kallinus, in the middle of the seventh century B. C., was the first who mentioned the Teukrians; he treated them as immigrants from Krête, though other authors represented them as indigenous, or as having come from Attica. However the fact may stand as to their origin, we may gather that, in the time of Kallinus, they were still the great occupants of the Troad [northwestern Asia Minor]. Gradually the south and west coasts, as well as the interior of this region, became penetrated by successive colonies of Æolic Greeks. … The name Teukrians gradually vanished out of present use and came to belong only to the legends of the past."

TEUTONES. TEUTONIC.

"In the way of evidence of there being Teutones amongst the Germans, over and above the associate mention of their names with that of the Cimbri [see CIMBRI], there is but little. They are not so mentioned either by Tacitus or Strabo. … Arguments have been taken from … the supposed connection of the present word 'Deut-sch' =='German,' with the classical word 'Teut-ones.' … The reasoning … runs thus: The syllable in question is common to the word 'Teut-ones,' 'Teut-onicus,' 'Theod-iscas,' 'teud-uiscus,' 'teut-iscus,' 'tût-iske,' 'dût-iske,' 'tiut-sche,' 'deut-sch'; whilst the word Deut-sch means German, As the 'Teut-ones' were Germans, so were the Cimbri also. Now this line of argument is set aside by the circumstance that the syllable 'Teut-' in Teut-ones and Teut-onicus as the names of the confederates of the Cimbri, is wholly unconnected with the 'Teut-' in 'theod-iscus' and Deut-sch. This is fully shown by Grimm in his dissertation on the words German and Dutch. In its oldest form the latter word meant 'popular,' 'national,' 'vernacular'; it was an adjective applied to the 'vulgar tongue,' or the vernacular German, in opposition to the Latin. In the tenth century the secondary form 'Teut-onicus' came in vogue even with German writers. Whether this arose out of imitation of the Latin form 'Romanice,' or out of the idea of an historical connection with the Teutones of the classics, is immaterial. It is clear that the present word 'Deut-sch' proves nothing respecting the Teutones. Perhaps, however, as early as the time of Martial the word 'Teutonicus' was used in a general sense, denoting the Germans in general. Certain it is that, before his time, it meant the particular people conquered by Marius, irrespective of origin or locality."

"It is not possible to find the exact date of the foundation of the Teutonic Order, but it was probably about A. D. 1190 that it received its full organization as one of the recognized Religious Military Orders. Its actual commencement, like that of the other Orders, was obscure and humble. About 1128 or 1129, a wealthy German, who had taken part in the siege and capture of Jerusalem, settled there with his wife, intending to spend the remainder of his life in the practice of religion and in visiting the holy places. His attention and interest were soon excited by the misfortunes of his poorer countrymen, who came in great numbers as pilgrims to Jerusalem. Many fell sick, and endured great miseries and hardships. Moved with compassion, he received some of the more distressing cases into his own house. But he soon found that the work grew beyond this, and he built a hospital, with a chapel dedicated to the Blessed Virgin. In this institution he passed the whole of his time, nursing the sick pilgrims; and to their maintenance he devoted the whole of his means." One by one, others of his countrymen joined the pious German in his benevolent work, and "banded themselves together after the pattern of the Order of St. John of Jerusalem, and united the care of the sick and poor with the profession of arms in their defence, under the title of Hospitallers of the Blessed Virgin. This little band put themselves under the direction of the Grand Prior of the Hospitallers of St. John of Jerusalem, although they did not actually join this Order, whose operations they so closely imitated. … It was, however, during the siege of Acre [A. D. 1189-1191] that the Teutonic Order received its final and complete organization as one of the great Military Religious Orders of Europe." At Acre, the Hospitallers of the Blessed Virgin, then driven from Jerusalem by Saladin's conquest, joined certain citizens of Bremen and Lu·beck in providing a field-hospital for the wounded and sick, and in their new sphere of labor they acquired the designation of the Teutonic Knights of the Hospital of the Blessed Virgin at Jerusalem. "It is said that the Order owed its constitution to Frederick, Duke of Suabia; but there is much obscurity, and little authentic record to determine this or to furnish particulars of the transaction. The Order seems, however, to have been confirmed by Pope Celestine III."

TEUTONIC KNIGHTS OF THE HOSPITAL: Subjection to Poland, secularization of the Order and surrender of its territories.

The final battle of the "War of the Roses," in which Edward IV. of England overthrew the last Lancastrian army, collected by Queen Margaret of Anjou and her adherents; fought May 4, 1471. Three weeks previously, at Barnet, he had defeated and slain the Earl of Warwick. At Tewkesbury Queen Margaret was taken prisoner, her young son disappeared, how or when is uncertain, and her husband, the deposed King Henry VI., died mysteriously a few days afterwards in his prison in the tower. It was the end of the Lancastrian struggle.

Amongst the small tribes found early in the 19th century existing west of the Mississippi on Red River and south of it, and believed to be natives of that region, were the Caddoes, "the Nandakoes, the Inies or Tachies, who have given their name to the province of Texas, and the Nabedaches, … [who] speak dialects of the Caddo language." Also, the Natchitoches, the Yatassees, the Adaize, the Appelousas, etc.

A. Gallatin, Synopsis of the Indian Tribes (Archœologia Americana, volume 2), introduction, section 3.

      ALSO IN:
      President's Message, February 19, 1806,
      with accompanying documents.

TEXAS: A. D. 1819-1835.
   Relinquishment of American claims to Spain.
   Condition as a Mexican province.
   Encouragement of immigration from the United States and Europe.

   "By the treaty of 1819 with Spain for the cession of the
   Floridas, the United States relinquished all claim to the
   western portion of Louisiana lying south of Red River and west
   of the Sabine.

After the final ratification of that treaty by both governments, and the cession and delivery of the Floridas to the United States, the Spaniards took formal possession of the country west of the Sabine, and erected it into the 'Province of Texas,' under the authority and jurisdiction of the Viceroy of Mexico. From that time the Sabine River was the western boundary of the United States, near the Gulf of Mexico. The province of Texas at this time was occupied by the native tribes of savages, interrupted only by a few Spanish settlements. … The whole population, including some settlements in the vicinity of the seacoast, scarcely exceeded 5,000 souls, of whom the greater portion were the remains of old colonies formed during the Spanish dominion over the province of Louisiana. Each principal settlement, from San Antonio de Bexar to Nacogdoches, was placed under the government of a military commandant, who exercised civil and military authority within the limits of his presidio. … Such was the province of Texas under the Spanish monarchy until the year 1821, when Mexico became an independent nation. … On the 24th of October, 1824, the Mexican States adopted a Republican form of government, embracing 'a confederation of independent states,' known and designated as the 'United States of Mexico.' In this confederation the departments of Texas and Coahuila were admitted as one state, and were jointly represented in the Congress of Mexico. Soon after the establishment of independence in the United States of Mexico, the colonization and settlement of Texas became a favorite subject of national policy with the new government. To attract population for the settlement of the country, colonization laws were enacted, to encourage enterprising individuals from foreign countries to establish large colonies of emigrants within the limits of Texas. Under the provisions of these laws enterprise was awakened in the United States and in some portions of Europe. Founders of colonies, or 'Empresarios,' were induced to enter into engagements for the occupancy and settlement of large tracts of country, designated in their respective 'grants'; the extent of the grant being proportionate to the number of colonists to be introduced. The first grant was made to Moses Austin, a native of Durham, Connecticut, in 1821, and under its provisions he was required by the Mexican authorities to introduce 300 families from the United States. This enterprising man, having departed from Bexar for the introduction of his colony, died on his journey through the wilderness, leaving his plans of colonization to be prosecuted by his son, Colonel Stephen F. Austin, who possessed the talents, energy, and judgment requisite for the arduous undertaking. Having succeeded to his father's enterprise, he subsequently acquired more influence with the Mexican government than any other 'empresario' in the province. … But a few years had elapsed when nearly the whole area of the department of Texas had been parceled out into extensive grants for settlement by the different 'empresarios' with their colonies. … Emigration from the United States, as well as from Great Britain and Ireland, continued to augment the population in all the departments until the year 1834, when political troubles began to convulse the "Mexican Republic." In 1835 "the whole Anglo-American population of Texas was about 20,000; of this number General Austin's colony comprised no less than 13,000, or more than half the entire population. These were chiefly emigrants from the United States. … The Mexicans within the limits of Texas at this period scarcely exceeded 3,000, most of whom resided in the vicinity of Bexar."

J. W. Monette, Discovery and Settlement of the Mississippi Valley, volume 2, pages 569-572.

TEXAS: A. D. 1824-1836.
   The introduction of Slavery.
   Schemes of the Slave Power in the United States.
   Revolutionary movement under Houston.
   Independence of Mexico declared,
   and practically won at San Jacinto.

The American settlers in Texas "brought their slaves with them, and continued to do so notwithstanding a decree of the Mexican Congress, issued in July, 1824, which forbade the importation into Mexican territory of slaves from foreign countries, and notwithstanding the Constitution adopted the same year, which declared free all children thereafter born of slaves. About that time the slave-holders in the United States began to see in Texas an object of peculiar interest to them. The Missouri Compromise, admitting Missouri as a Slave State and opening to slavery all that part of the Louisiana purchase south of 36° 30', seemed at first to give a great advantage to the slave power. But gradually it became apparent that the territory thus opened to slavery was, after all, too limited for the formation of many new Slave States, while the area for the building up of Free States was much larger. More territory for slavery was therefore needed to maintain the balance of power between the two sections. At the same time the Mexican government, growing alarmed at the unruly spirit of the American colony in Texas, attached Texas to Coahuila, the two to form one state. The constitution of Coahuila forbade the importation of slaves; and in 1829 the Republic of Mexico, by the decree of September 15, emancipated all the slaves within its boundaries. Then the American Slave States found themselves flanked in the southwest by a power not only not in sympathy with slavery, but threatening to become dangerous to its safety. The maintenance of slavery in Texas, and eventually the acquisition of that country, were thenceforth looked upon by the slaveholding interest in this Republic as matters of very great importance, and the annexation project was pushed forward systematically. First the American settlers in Texas refused to obey the Mexican decree of emancipation, and, in order to avoid an insurrection, the Mexican authorities permitted it to be understood that the decree did not embrace Texas. Thus one point was gained. Then the Southern press vigorously agitated the necessity of enlarging the area of slavery, while an interest in the North was created by organizing three land companies in New York, which used pretended Mexican land grants in Texas as the basis of issues of stock, promising to make people rich over-night, and thus drawing Texas within the circle of American business speculation. In 1830 President Jackson made another attempt to purchase Texas [Henry Clay, in 1827, when Secretary of State under John Quincy Adams, had already made a proposal to the Mexican government for the purchase], offering five millions, but without success. The Mexican government, scenting the coming danger, prohibited the immigration of Americans into Texas. This, however, had no effect. The American colony now received a capable and daring leader in Sam Houston of Tennessee, who had served with General Jackson in the Indian wars. He went to Texas for the distinct object of wresting that country from Mexico. There is reason for believing that President Jackson was not ignorant of his intentions. Revolutionary convulsions in Mexico gave the American colonists welcome opportunities for complaints, which led to collisions with the Mexican authorities. General Santa Anna, who by a successful revolutionary stroke had put himself at the head of the Mexican government, attempted to reduce the unruly Americans to obedience. In 1835 armed conflicts took place, in which the Americans frequently had the advantage. The Texans declared their independence from Mexico on March 2, 1836. The declaration was signed by about 60 men, among whom there were only two of Mexican nationality. The constitution of the new republic confirmed the existence of slavery under its jurisdiction, and surrounded it with all possible guaranties. Meanwhile Santa Anna advanced at the head of a Mexican army to subdue the revolutionists. Atrocious butcheries marked the progress of his soldiery. On March 6 the American garrison [250 men] of the Alamo [a mission church at San Antonio de Bexar] was massacred, and on the 27th a large number [500] of American prisoners at Goliad met a like fate. These atrocities created a great excitement in the United States. But on April 21 the Texans under Houston, about 800 strong, inflicted a crushing defeat upon Santa Anna's army of 1,500 men, at San Jacinto, taking Santa Anna himself prisoner. When captive Mexican President concluded an armistice with the victorious Texans, promising the evacuation of the country, and to procure the recognition of its independence; but this the Mexican Congress refused to ratify. The government of the United States maintained, in appearance, a neutral position. President Jackson had indeed instructed General Gaines to march his troops into Texas, if he should see reason to apprehend Indian incursions. Gaines actually crossed the boundary line, and was recalled only after the Mexican Minister at Washington had taken his passports. The organization of reinforcements for Houston, however, had been suffered to proceed on American soil without interference."

      ALSO IN:
      H. von Holst,
      Constitutional and Political History of the United States,
      volume 2, chapter 7.

H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States, volume 8 (Mexico, volume 5), chapter 7.

TEXAS: A. D. 1836-1845.
   Eight years of independence.
   Annexation to the United States.
   The question in Congress and the country.

   "Santa Anna, … constrained in his extremity to acknowledge the
   independence of Texas, … was liberated, and the new republic
   established in October, 1836, with a Constitution modeled on
   that of the United States, and with General Houston
   inaugurated as its first President. The United States
   forthwith acknowledged its independence. In less than a year
   application was made to the United States government to
   receive the new republic into the Union, and, though this was
   at the time declined, it was obvious that the question was
   destined to play a most important part in American civil
   policy. The North saw in the whole movement a predetermined
   attempt at the extension of slavery, and in the invasive
   emigration, the revolt, the proclamation of independence, the
   temporary organization of a republic, and the application to
   be admitted into the Union as a state, successive steps of a
   conspiracy which would, through the creation of half a dozen
   or more new states, give a preponderance to the slave power in
   the republic.
{3103}
   Mr. Van Buren, who had declined the overtures for the
   annexation of Texas, was succeeded in the Presidency by
   General Harrison, who, dying almost immediately after his
   inauguration, was followed by the Vice President, Mr. Tyler, a
   Virginian, and a supporter of extreme Southern principles. The
   annexation project was now steadily pressed forward, but,
   owing to the difficult circumstances under which Mr. Tyler was
   placed, and dissensions arising in the party that had elected
   him, nothing decisive could be done until 1844, when Mr.
   Upshur, the Secretary of State, being accidentally killed by
   the bursting of a cannon, Mr. Calhoun succeeded him. A treaty
   of annexation was at once arranged, but, on being submitted to
   the Senate, was rejected. Undiscouraged by this result, the
   South at once determined to make annexation the touchstone in
   the coming Presidential election. … Mr. Van Buren and Mr.
   Clay, the prominent candidates of the two opposing parties for
   the Presidency, were compelled to make known their views
   previously to the meeting of the nominating Conventions," and
   both discountenanced annexation. Van Buren was accordingly
   defeated in the Democratic Convention and James K. Polk
   received the nomination. Clay was nominated by the Whigs, and
   made an attempt, in the succeeding canvass, to change his
   ground on the Texas question; but "his attempt only served to
   make the matter worse, and cost him the support of the
   anti-slavery party, whose votes would have elected him." Polk
   was chosen President: but the annexation of Texas did not wait
   for his inauguration. "On December 19th a joint resolution was
   introduced into the House of Representatives providing for
   annexation. Attempts were made to secure half the country for
   free labor, the other half being resigned to slavery. … This
   proposition was, however, defeated. … As the measure
   eventually stood, it made suitable provision for the mode in
   which the 'State of Texas' should be admitted into the Union,
   the disposal of its munitions of war, public property,
   unappropriated lands, debts. On the main point it was arranged
   that new states, not exceeding four in number, in addition to
   Texas proper, should subsequently be made out of its
   territory, those lying south of latitude 36° 30' to be
   admitted with or without slavery, as their people might
   desire; in those north of that line, slavery to be prohibited.
   Mr. Tyler, on the last day of his term of office, unwilling to
   leave to his successor, Mr. Polk, the honor of completing this
   great Southern measure, dispatched a swift messenger to Texas;
   her assent was duly secured, and the Mexican province became a
   state of the Union. But the circumstances and conditions under
   which this had been done left a profound dissatisfaction in
   the North. The portion of territory ceded to freedom did not
   belong to Texas; her boundary did not approach within 200
   miles of the Missouri Compromise line. The South had therefore
   secured the whole of the new acquisition; she had seized the
   substance, and had deluded the North with a shadow."

ALSO IN: T. H. Benton, Thirty Years View, volume 2, chapters 135, 138-142, 148.

      H. Greeley,
      History of the Struggle for Slavery Extension,
      chapter 10.

TEXAS: A. D. 1848.
Territory extorted from Mexico in the
Treaty of Guadaloupe-Hidalgo.

TEXAS: A. D. 1861 (February).
Twiggs' surrender of the Federal army, posts and stores.

TEXAS: A. D. 1865 (June).
Provisional government set up under President Johnson's
Plan of Reconstruction.

TEZCUCO.

   An ancient people who occupied the region in western
   Afghanistan which lies south and southeast of Herat, from the
   Haroot-rud to the Helmend.

THANAGE.

An old Celtic tenure by which certain thanes' estates were held in Scotland, and which feudalism displaced.

THANE, THEGN.

   "The Pilgrims [at Plymouth], fond as they were of social
   enjoyment, had since landing known no day of rest except the
   sacred day of worship. Now [in 1621, the year after their
   landing from the Mayflower] that the summer was past and the
   harvest ended, they determined to have a period of recreation,
   combined with thanksgiving for their many mercies. The
   Governor thereupon sent out four huntsmen, who in one day
   secured enough game to supply the Colony for nearly a week.
   Hospitality was extended to Massasoit, who accepted and
   brought ninety people with him. The guests remained three
   days, during which they captured five deer to add to the
   larder of their hosts. The motley company indulged in a round
   of amusements, and the Colonists entertained their visitors
   with military tactics and evolutions. Without doubt, religious
   services opened each day; for the Pilgrims were cheerful
   Christians, who carried religion into all their affairs. Thus
   heartily and royally was inaugurated the great New England
   festival of Thanksgiving. For two centuries it continued to be
   a peculiarity of the Eastern States; but it has now become
   national, its annual return finding a welcome along the Lake
   shore and the Gulf, and from the Atlantic to the Pacific. …
{3104}
   In 1623 a public day of Thanksgiving is noticed; and one is
   mentioned in a letter of 1632. … I do not doubt that such a
   religious festival was held after every harvest, and that it
   was so much a matter of course that the records did not
   mention it any more than they did the great training-day, with
   its sermon and holiday features."

      J. A. Goodwin,
      The Pilgrim Republic,
      pages 179-180, and foot-note.

THAPSACUS.

Thapsacus "was situated just above the modern town of Rakka, at the only point in the central course of the Euphrates where that river is fordable (though even here only at certain seasons of the year), for which reason it continued to be used alike by the Persian, Greek and Roman armies during a long period. It was also a commercial route of importance in ancient times."

E. H. Bunbury, History of Ancient Geography, chapter 10, section 2 (volume 1).

THASOS. THASIAN MINES.

Thasos, an island off the coast of Thrace, in the northern part of the Ægean Sea, was celebrated in antiquity for its gold mines, first discovered and worked by the Phœnicians. Still more valuable mines on the neighboring Thracian coast were developed and worked by the Thasians. They were subdued by the Persians and subsequently became subject to Athens.

The founders of the Order of the Theatines (1524) were "Gaetano of Thiene, a native of Vicenza, and Gian Pietro Caraffa [afterwards Pope Paul IV.]. The former had quitted a lucrative post at the Roman court in order to transplant the ideas of the Oratory of the Divine Love to his native city, Venice, and Verona, and had gradually come to concentrate his pious thoughts upon the reformation of the secular clergy of the Church. On his return to Rome, Bonifacio da Colle, a Lombard lawyer, became interested in his design, and then it was enthusiastically taken up by Caraffa, whose bishopric of Chieti, or, according to the older form, Theate, gave its name to the new order of the Theatines."

"To the vow of poverty they made the special addition that not only would they possess nothing, but would even abstain from begging, and await the alms that might be brought to their dwellings. … They did not call themselves monks, but regular clergy—they were priests with the vows of monks. Their intention was to establish a kind of seminary for the priesthood. … They devoted themselves rigidly to their clerical duties—o preaching, the administration of the sacraments, and the care of the sick. … The order of the Theatines did not indeed become a seminary for priests precisely, its numbers were never sufficient for that; but it grew to be a seminary for bishops, coming at length to be considered the order of priests peculiar to the nobility."

"No city of the old world can still show so much of her former splendour as Egyptian Thebes. … Not one of the many temples of Thebes has wholly disappeared; some are almost complete; many of the royal and private tombs were, until the tourist came, fresh with colours as of yesterday. … The origin of the great city is obscure. Unlike Memphis, Thebes, her southern rival, rose to the headship by slow degrees. It was towards the close of the dark age marked by the rule of Hanes, that a new line of kings arose in the upper country, with Thebes for their capital. At first they were merely nobles; then one became a local king, and his successors won the whole dominion of Egypt. These were the sovereigns of the Eleventh Dynasty. Their date must be before Abraham, probably some centuries earlier. … Thebes, like the other cities of Egypt, had a civil and a religious name. The civil name was Apiu, 'the city of thrones,' which, with the article 't' or 'ta,' became Ta-Apiu, and was identified by the Greeks with the name of their own famous city, by us corruptly called Thebes. The sacred name was Nu-Amen, 'the city of Amen,' the god of Thebes; or simply Nu, 'the city,' and Nu-ā, 'the great city.' In these names we recognize the No-Amon and No of Scripture."

   "In the fruitful plain, only traversed by low hills, which
   stretches from the northern declivity of Mount Cithæron to the
   Bœotian lakes opposite the narrowest part of the sound which
   separates Eubœa from the mainland, in the 'well-watered,
   pasture-bearing region of the Aones,' as Euripides says, lay
   the citadel and town of Thebes. According to Greek tradition,
   it was built by Cadmus the Phœnician. The Aones, who inhabited
   the country, are said to have amalgamated with the Phœnicians
   whom Cadmus brought with him, into one people. The citadel lay
   on a hill of moderate height between the streams Ismenus and
   Dirce; it bore even in historical times the name Cadmea; the
   ridge to the north of the town was called Phœnicium, i. e.
   mountain of the Phœnicians. In the story of Cadmus and Europa,
   Greek legend relates the Phœnician mythus of Melkarth and
   Astarte. In order to seek the lost goddess of the moon,
   Astarte, Cadmus-Melkarth, the wandering sun-god, sets forth.
   He finds her in the far west, in Bœotia, and here in Thebes,
   on the Cadmea, celebrates the holy marriage. … There are a few
   relics of the wall of the citadel of Cadmea, principally on
   the north side; they are great blocks, not quite regularly
   hewn. Of the city wall and the famous seven gates in it
   nothing remains; even this number seven points to the
   Phœnicians as well as the designations which were retained by
   these gates even in historical times. The Electric gate
   belonged to the sun-god Baal, called by the Greeks Elector;
   the Neitic gate, it would seem, to the god of war. …
{3105}
   The gate Hypsistia was that of Zeus Hypsistos, whose shrine
   stood on the Cadmea; … the Prœtidic gate belonged to Astarte,
   whose domain was the moon; the Oncæic gate in the north-west
   belonged to Athena Onca, who is expressly called a Phœnician
   goddess. … It is probable that the two remaining gates, the
   Homoloic and the Crenaic, were also dedicated to gods of this
   circle—to the spirits of planets. According to Greek legend,
   Cadmus invented the building of walls, mining, armour, and
   letters. Herodotus contents himself with saying that the
   Phœnicians who came with Cadmus taught much to the Greeks,
   even writing: from the Phœnicians the Ionians, in whose midst
   they lived, had learned letters. If even this early borrowing
   of writing on the part of the Greeks is incorrect, all the
   other particulars,—the legend of Cadmus, which extends to the
   Homeric poems, where the inhabitants of Thebes are called
   Cadmeans; the rites of the Thebans; the walls and gates,—
   taken together, give evidence that the Phœnicians went over
   from Eubœa to the continent, and here fixed one of their most
   important and lasting colonies upon and around the hill of
   Cadmea."

THEBES, Greece: B. C. 479.
Siege and reduction by the confederate Greeks.
Punishment for the Persian alliance.

THEBES, Greece: B. C. 457-456.
   War with Athens.
   Defeat at Œnophyta.
   Overthrow of the oligarchies.

THEBES, Greece: B. C. 447-445.
   Bœotian revolution.
   Overthrow of Athenian influence.
   Defeat of Athens at Coronea.

THEBES, Greece: B. C. 431.
Disastrous attack on Platæa.
Opening hostilities of the Peloponnesian War.

THEBES, Greece: B. C. 395-387.
   Confederacy against Sparta and alliance with Persia.
   The Corinthian War.
   Battle of Coronea.
   Peace of Antalcidas.

THEBES, Greece: B. C. 379-371.
   The liberation of the city.
   Rise of Epaminondas.
   Overthrow of Spartan supremacy at Leuctra.

"This was an institution connecting itself with earlier usages of the land. For already in the battle of Delium a band of the Three Hundred is mentioned, who fought, like the heroes of the Homeric age, associated in pairs, from their chariots in front of the main body of the soldiery. This doubtless very ancient institution was now [B. C. 378] revived and carried out in a new spirit under the guidance of Epaminondas and Gorgidas. They had quietly assembled around them a circle of youths, with whom they had presented themselves before the community on the day of the Liberation, so that they were regarded as the founders of the Sacred Band of Thebes. It was now no longer a privilege of the nobility to belong to the Three Hundred; but those among the youth of the land who were in feeling the noblest and most high-minded, and who already under the oppression of the Tyrants had been preparing themselves for the struggle for freedom, were henceforth the elect and the champions. It was their duty to stimulate the rest eagerly to follow their example of bravery and discipline; they were associated with one another by the bonds of friendship and by identity of feelings. … A soldier-like spirit was happily blended with ethical and political points of view, and ancient national usage with the ideas of the present and with Pythagorean principles; and it constitutes an honorable monument of the wisdom of Epaminondas."

THEBES, Greece: B. C. 370-362.
   Intervention in Peloponnesus.
   Successive expeditions of Epaminondas.
   Invasions of Sparta.
   Formation of the Arcadian Union.
   Battle of Mantinea and death of Epaminondas.

THEBES, Greece: B. C. 357-338.
   The Ten Years Sacred War with the Phocians.
   Intervention of Philip of Macedon.
   Loss of independence and liberty.

   Thebes, with other Bœotian towns, united in a revolt against
   Demetrius Poliorcetes, while the latter held the throne of
   Macedonia, and was reduced to submission, B. C. 290, after a
   siege which lasted nearly a year.

THEBES, Greece: A. D. 1146.
Sack by the Normans of Sicily.
Abduction of silk-weavers.

THEGN, THANE.

THEIPHALI. THEIPHALIA.

THEMES.

Administrative divisions of the Byzantine Empire. "The term thema was first applied to the Roman legion. The military districts, garrisoned by legions, were then called themata, and ultimately the word was used merely to indicate geographical administrative divisions."

G. Finlay, History of the Byzantine Empire, book 1, chapter 1, section 1, foot-note.

THEODOSIUS I., Roman Emperor
   (Eastern), A. D. 378-395;
   (Western), 392-395;
   in Britain.

THEORI.

The name of Theori, among the ancient Greeks, "in addition to its familiar signification of spectators at the theatre and public ambassadors to foreign sanctuaries and festivals, was specially applied to certain public magistrates, whose function it was to superintend and take charge of religious affairs in general, though they often possessed along with this some more extensive political power."

"By means of the Theoricon …, the most pernicious issue of the age of Pericles, there arose in a small free state [Athens] a lavish expenditure, which was relatively not less than in the most voluptuous courts, and which consumed large sums, while the wars were unsuccessful for the want of money. By it is understood the money which was distributed among the people for the celebration of the festivals and games, partly to restore to the citizens the sum required for their admission into the theatre, partly to enable them to procure a better meal. In part it was expended for sacrifices, with which a public feast was connected. … The superintendents of the theoricon were not called treasurers; but they evidently had a treasury. Their office was one of the administrative offices of the government, and indeed of the most eminent. They were elected by the assembly of the people through cheirotonia. Their office seems to have been annual. Their number is nowhere given. Probably there were ten of them, one from each tribe. … The Athenian people was a tyrant, and the treasury of the theorica its private treasury."

A. Boeckh, Public Economy of Athens (translated by Lamb), book 2, chapter 7; also chapter 13.

THEOW.

"In the earliest English laws … slaves are found; the 'theow' [from the same root as 'dienen,' to serve] or slave simple, whether 'wealh'—that is, of British extraction, captured or purchased—or of the common German stock descended from the slaves of the first colonists; the 'esne' or slave who works for hire; the 'wite-theow' who is reduced to slavery because he cannot pay his debts."

THERA.

The ancient name of the Greek island of Santorin, one of the Sporades, whose inhabitants were enterprising navigators, and weavers and dyers of purple stuffs. They are said to have founded Cyrene, on the north African coast.

"The island was the site of one of the largest volcanic eruptions in recorded history … about [1600 B. C.] at the height of the Minoan civilization."

THERMÆ.

"The Roman thermæ were a combination on a huge scale of the common balneæ with the Greek gymnasia. Their usual form was that of a large quadrangular space, the sides of which were formed by various porticos, exedræ, and even theatres for gymnastic and literary exercises, and in the centre of which stood a block of buildings containing the bath rooms and spacious halls for undergoing the complicated process of the Roman warm bath. The area covered by the whole group of buildings was, in many cases, very large. The court of the Baths of Caracalla enclosed a space of 1,150 feet on each side, with curvilinear projections on two sides. The central mass of building was a rectangle, 730 feet by 380. … The other great Imperial thermæ of Rome, those of Nero, Titus, Domitian, Diocletian, and Constantine, were probably upon the same plan as the Thermæ Caracallæ. All were built of brick, and the interior was decorated with stucco, mosaics, or slabs of marble, and other ornamental stones. … The public balneæ, as distinct from thermæ, … were used simply as baths, and had none of the luxurious accessories attached to them which were found in the courts of the great thermæ."

THERMOPYLÆ, The Pass of: B. C. 480.
The defense by Leonidas against the Persians.

THESMOTHETES.

THESPROTIANS.

THESSALONICA.

Therma, an unimportant ancient city of Macedonia, received the name of Thessalonica, about 315 B. C., in honor of the sister of Alexander the Great, who married Cassander. Cassander gave an impetus to the city which proved lasting. It rose to a high commercial rank, acquired wealth, and became, under the Romans, the capital of the Illyrian provinces.

   A riotous outbreak at Thessalonica, A. D. 390, caused by the
   imprisonment of one of the popular favorites of the circus,
   was punished by the Emperor Theodosius in a manner so fiendish
   that it seems wellnigh incredible. He caused the greatest
   possible number of the inhabitants to be invited, in his name,
   to witness certain games in the circus. "As soon as the
   assembly was complete, the soldiers, who had secretly been
   posted round the circus, received the signal, not of the
   races, but of a general massacre.
{3107}
   The promiscuous carnage continued three hours, without
   discrimination of strangers or natives, of age or sex, of
   innocence or guilt; the most moderate accounts state the
   number of the slain at 7,000; and it is affirmed by some
   writers that more than 15,000 victims were sacrificed. … The
   guilt of the emperor is aggravated by his long and frequent
   residence at Thessalonica."

The capture of Thessalonica by a piratical expedition from Tarsus, A. D. 904, was one of the most terrible experiences of its kind in that age of blood and rapine, and one of which the fullest account, by an eye-witness and sufferer, has come down to posterity. The wretched inhabitants who escaped the sword were mostly sold into slavery, and the splendid city—then the second in the Byzantine Empire—was stripped of all its wealth. The defense of the place had been neglected, with implicit dependence on the goodwill and the power of St. Demetrius.

      G. Finlay,
      History of the Byzantine Empire, from 716 to 1057,
      book 2, chapter 1, section 2.

Thessalonica, feebly defended by Venetians and Greeks, was taken by the Turks, under Amurath II., in February, 1430. "'The pillage and the carnage,' relates the Greek Anagnosta, an eye-witness of this disastrous night, 'transcended the hopes of the Turks and the terror of the Greeks. No family escaped the swords, the chains, the flames, the outrages of the Asiatics fierce for their prey. At the close of the day, each soldier drove like a herd before him, through the streets of Salonica, troops of women, of young girls, of children, of caloyers and anchorites, of monks of all the monasteries. Priests were chained with virgins, children with old men, mothers with their sons, in derision of age, of profession, of sex, which added a barbarous irony to nudity and death itself.'"

THESSALY.

"The northern part of Greece is traversed in its whole length by a range of mountains, the Greek Apennines, which issue from the same mighty root, the Thracian Scomius, in which Hæmus, and Rhodopé and the Illyrian Alps likewise meet. This ridge first takes the name of Pindus, where it intersects the northern boundary of Greece, at a point where an ancient route still affords the least difficult passage from Epirus into Thessaly. From Pindus two huge arms stretch towards the eastern sea and enclose the vale of Thessaly, the largest and richest plain in Greece: on the north the Cambunian Hills, after making a bend towards the south, terminate in the loftier heights of Olympus, which are scarcely ever entirely free from snow; the opposite and lower chain of Othrys parting, with its eastern extremity, the Malian from the Pagasæan Gulf, sinks gently towards the coast. A fourth rampart, which runs parallel to Pindus, is formed by the range which includes the celebrated heights of Pelion and Ossa; the first a broad and nearly even ridge, the other towering into a steep and conical peak, the neighbour and rival of Olympus, with which, in the songs of the country, it is said to dispute the pre-eminence in the depth and duration of its snows. The mountain barrier with which Thessaly is thus encompassed is broken only at the northeast corner by a deep and narrow cleft, which parts Ossa from Olympus; the defile so renowned in poetry as the vale, in history as the pass, of Tempe. The imagination of the ancient poets and declaimers delighted to dwell on the natural beauties of this romantic glen and on the sanctity of the site, from which Apollo had transplanted his laurel to Delphi. … South of this gulf [the Gulf of Pagasæ], the coast is again deeply indented by that of Malia, into which the Spercheius, rising from Mount Tymphrestus, a continuation of Pindus, winds through a long, narrow vale, which, though considered as a part of Thessaly, forms a separate region, widely distinguished from the rest by its physical features. It is intercepted between Othrys and Œta, a huge, rugged pile, which stretching from Pindus to the sea at Thermopylæ, forms the inner barrier of Greece, as the Cambunian range is the outer, to which it corresponds in direction and is nearly equal in height. From Mount Callidromus, a southern limb of Œta, the same range is continued without interruption, though under various names and different degrees of elevation, along the coast of the Eubœan Sea. … Another branch, issuing from the same part of Pindus, connects it with the loftier summits of Parnassus, and afterward skirting the Corinthian Gulf under the names of Cirphis and Helicon, proceeds to form the northern boundary of Attica under those of Cithæron and Parnes."

In the mythical legends of Greece, Thessaly was the kingdom of Hellen, transmitted to his son Æolus and occupied originally by the Æolic branch of the Hellenic family. The Æolians, however, appear to have receded from the rich Thessalian plain, into Bœotia and elsewhere, before various invading tribes. The people who fixed their name, at last, upon the country, the Thessalians, came into it from Epirus, crossing the Pindus mountain-range.

THIASI.

"The name denotes associations [in ancient Athens] which had chosen as their special protector and patron some deity in whose honour at certain times they held sacrifices and festal banquets, whilst they pursued in addition objects of a very varied nature, sometimes joint-stock businesses, sometimes only social enjoyments."

THIBET.

Thierry II., King of the Franks (Austrasia), 612-613;
King of Burgundy, 596-613.

THIN. THINÆ.

THING. THINGVALLA. ALTHING.

"The judicial and legislative assembly of the Northmen represented by the word 'thing' (from 'tinga'=to speak, and allied to our English word 'think') can be traced in many local names throughout England, and more especially in the extreme North, where the Scandinavian race prevailed, and where the 'thing' was primitively held upon the site of, or as an appanage to, a 'hof' or temple. It is plainly seen in the Tynwald Court or general legislative assembly for the Isle of Man, where the distinctive feature of the primitive open-air assembly still survives in the custom of the whole assembly going once a year in solemn procession, attended by the governor of the island and a military escort, to a hill known as the Tynwald Hill, whence all the laws that have been passed in the course of the past year are proclaimed in English and Manx. … In Norway there is an 'Al-thing' or general assembly, and four district 'things' for the several provinces, as well as a Norwegian Parliament familiar to us as 'Stor-thing' or great council."

      R. R. Sharpe,
      Introduction to Calendar of Wills, Court of Husting, London,
      volume 1.

"By the end of the period of the first occupation of Iceland, a number of little kingdoms had been formed all round the coast, ruled by the priests, who, at stated times, convened their adherents and retainers to meetings for the settlement of matters which concerned any or all of them. These were called 'Things'—meetings, i. e. Mot-things. Each was independent of the other, and quarrels between the members of two separate Things could only be settled as the quarrels of nations are settled, by treaty or war. But the time soon arrived when the progress of political thought began to work upon this disjointed constitution; and then amalgamation of local Things into an Althing, of local jurisdiction into a commonwealth jurisdiction, was the historical result. … The Thingvalla, or Thing-field itself, was a vast sunken plain of lava, about four miles broad and rather more than four miles deep, lying with a dip or slope from north-east to south-west, between two great lips or furrows. A stream called Öxará, (Axewater) cuts off a rocky portion of the plain, so as almost to form an island. This is the famous Hill of Laws, or Lögberg, which was the heart of the Icelandic body politic. … This example of the Icelandic Thing is the most perfect that is known to history."

      ALSO IN:
      G. W. Dasent,
      introduction to "The Story of Burnt Njal."

      See, also, NORMANS.
      NORTHMEN: A. D. 860-1100;
      and SCANDINAVIAN STATES (DENMARK-ICELAND): A. D. 1849-1874.

THINGMEN.

THINIS.

      See
      MASSACHUSETTS;
      RHODE ISLAND;
      CONNECTICUT;
      NEW HAMPSHIRE;
      NEW YORK;
      NEW JERSEY;
      PENNSYLVANIA;
      DELAWARE:
      MARYLAND;
      VIRGINIA;
      NORTH CAROLINA;
      SOUTH CAROLINA;
      GEORGIA;

THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1608-1618, to 1648: and BOHEMIA: A. D. 1611-1618, and 1621-1648.

"In 1563 the Articles of the English Church, forty-two in number, originally drawn up in 1551 under Edward VI., were revised in Convocation, and reduced to their present number, thirty-nine; but it was not until 1571 that they were made binding upon the clergy by Act of Parliament."

THIS, THINIS.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY: KENTUCKY-TENNESSEE).

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER) ROSECRANS' ADVANCE; and (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER: TENNESSEE).

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (MAY: GEORGIA), to (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER: GEORGIA).

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (NOVEMBER: TENNESSEE), and (DECEMBER: TENNESSEE).

"That vast space comprised between the rivers Strymon and Danube, and bounded to the west by the easternmost Illyrian tribes, northward of the Strymon, was occupied by the innumerable subdivisions of the race called Thracians, or Threïcians. They were the most numerous and most terrible race known to Herodotus: could they by possibility act in unison or under one dominion (he says) they would be irresistible. … Numerous as the tribes of Thracians were, their customs and character (according to Herodotus) were marked by great uniformity: of the Getæ, the Trausi, and others, he tells us a few particularities. … The general character of the race presents an aggregate of repulsive features unredeemed by the presence of even the commonest domestic affections. … It appears that the Thynians and Bithynians, on the Asiatic side of the Bosphorus, perhaps also the Mysians, were members of this great Thracian race, which was more remotely connected, also, with the Phrygians. And the whole race may be said to present a character more Asiatic than European; especially in those ecstatic and maddening religious rites, which prevailed not less among the Edonian Thracians than in the mountains of Ida and Dindymon of Asia, though with some important differences. The Thracians served to furnish the Greeks with mercenary troops and slaves."

"Under Seuthes [B. C. 424] Thrace stood at the height of its prosperity. It formed a connected empire from Abdera to the Danube, from Byzantium to the Strymon. … The land abounded in resources, in corn and flocks and herds, in gold and silver. … No such state had as yet existed in the whole circuit of the Ægean. … But their kingdom failed to endure. After Seuthes it broke up into several principalities."

"Herodotus is not wrong in calling the Thracians the greatest of the peoples known to him after the Indians. Like the Illyrian, the Thracian stock attained to no full development, and appears more as hard-pressed and dispossessed than as having any historically memorable course of its own. … The Thracian [language] disappeared amidst the fluctuations of peoples in the region of the Danube and the overpowerful influence of Constantinople, and we cannot even determine the place which belongs to it in the pedigree of nations. … Their wild but grand mode of worshipping the gods may perhaps be conceived as a trait peculiar to this stock—the mighty outburst of the joy of spring and youth, the nocturnal mountain-festivals of torch-swinging maidens, the intoxicating sense-confusing music, the flowing of wine and the flowing of blood, the giddy festal whirl, frantic with the simultaneous excitement of all sensuous passions. Dionysos, the glorious and the terrible, was a Thracian god." Under the supremacy of the Romans, the Thracians were governed by a native line of vassal kings, reigning at Bizye (Wiza), between Adrianople and the coast of the Black Sea, until the Emperor Claudius, A. D. 46, suppressed the nominal kingdom and made Thrace a Roman province.

In the 8th and 9th centuries, "the great Thracian race, which had once been inferior in number only to the Indian, and which, in the first century of our era, had excited the attention of Vespasian by the extent of the territory it occupied, had … almost disappeared. The country it had formerly inhabited was peopled by Vallachian and Sclavonian tribes."

A famous church dispute raised in the sixth century by the Emperor Justinian, who discovered an heretical taint in certain passages, called the Three Chapters, culled out of the works of Theodore of Mopsuestia and two other doctors of the church who had been teachers and friends of Nestorius. A solemn Church Council called (A. D. 553) at Constantinople—the fifth general Council—condemned the Three Chapters and anathematized their adherents. But this touched by implication the decrees of the Council of Chalcedon, which were especially cherished in the Latin Church, and Rome became rebellious. In the end, the Roman opposition prevailed, and, "in the period of a century, the schism of the three chapters expired in an obscure angle of the Venetian province."

THUGS. THUGGEE.

THULE.

Pytheas, a Greek traveller and writer of the time (as supposed) of Alexander the Great, was the first to introduce the name of Thule into ancient geography. He described it vaguely as an island, lying six days' voyage to the north of Britain, in a region where the sea became like neither land nor water, but was of a thick and sluggish substance, resembling that of the jelly fish. "It appears to me impossible to identify the Thule of Pytheas with any approach to certainty; but he had probably heard vaguely of the existence of some considerable island, or group of islands, to the north of Britain, whether the Orkneys or the Shetlands it is impossible to say."

E. H. Bunbury, History of Ancient Geography, chapter 15, section 2, foot-note.

Some modern writers identify Thule with Iceland; some with the coast of Norway, mistakenly regarded as an island. But, whichever land it may have been, Thule to the Greeks and Romans, was Ultima Thule,—the end of the known world,—the most northerly point of Europe to which their knowledge reached.

During the summer of the year 174, in a campaign which the Emperor Marcus Aurelius Antoninus conducted against the Quadi, on the Danube, the Roman army was once placed in a perilous position. It was hemmed in by the enemy, cut off from all access to water, and was reduced to despair. At the last extremity, it is said, the army was saved by a miraculous storm, which poured rain on the thirsty Romans, while lightning and hail fell destructively in the ranks of the barbarians. According to the Pagan historians, Aurelius owed this "miraculous victory," as it was called, to the arts of one Arnuphis, an Egyptian magician. But later Christian writers told a different story. They relate that the distressed army contained one legion composed entirely of Christians, from Melitene, and that these soldiers, being called upon by the emperor to invoke their God, united in a prayer which received the answer described. Hence, the legion was known thereafter, by imperial command, as the Thundering Legion.

THURII. THURIUM.

"To the eastward of the Saxons and of the Franks, the Thuringians had just formed a new monarchy. That people had united to the Varni and the Heruli, they had spread from the borders of the Elbe and of the Undstrut to those of the Necker. They had invaded Hesse or the country of the Catti, one of the Frankish people, and Franconia, where they had distinguished their conquests by frightful cruelties. … It is not known at what period these atrocities were committed, but Thierri [or Theoderic, one of the four Frank kings, sons of Clovis] towards the year 528, reminds his soldiers of them to excite their revenge; it is probable that they were the motives which induced the Franks of Germany and those of Gaul to unite, in order to provide more powerfully for their defence." Thierry, the Frank king at Metz, and Clotaire, his brother, who reigned at Soissons, united in 528 against the Thuringians and completely crushed them. "This great province was then united to the monarchy of the Franks, and its dukes, during two centuries, marched under the standards of the Merovingians."

THYMBRÆAN ORACLE.

A people who anciently inhabited the southern coast of the
Euxine, toward its eastern extremity.

TIBET.

"The name of Tibet is applied not only to the south-west portion of the Chinese Empire, but also to more than half of Kashmîr occupied by peoples of Tibetan origin. These regions of 'Little Tibet' and of 'Apricot Tibet' —so called from the orchards surrounding its villages—consist of deep valleys opening like troughs between the snowy Himalayan and Karakorum ranges. Draining towards India, these uplands have gradually been brought under Hindu influences, whereas Tibet proper has pursued a totally different career. It is variously known as 'Great,' the 'Third,' or 'East Tibet'; but such is the confusion of nomenclature that the expression 'Great Tibet' is also applied to Ladak, which forms part of Kashmîr. At the same time, the term Tibet itself, employed by Europeans to designate two countries widely differing in their physical and political conditions, is unknown to the people themselves. Hermann Schlagintweit regards it as an old Tibetan word meaning 'strength,' or 'empire' in a pre-eminent sense and this is the interpretation supplied by the missionaries of the seventeenth century, who give the country the Italian name of Potente, or 'Powerful.' But however this be, the present inhabitants use the term Bod-yul alone; that is, 'land of the Bod,' itself probably identical with Bhutan, a Hindu name restricted by Europeans to a single state on the southern slope of the Himalayas. The Chinese call Tibet either Si-Tsang —that is, West Tsang, from its principal province—or Wei-Tsang, a word applied to the two provinces of Wei and Tsang, which jointly constitute Tibet proper. To the inhabitants they give the name of Tu-Fan, or 'Aboriginal Fans,' in opposition to the Si-Fan, or "Western Fans,' of Sechuen and Kansu. … Suspended like a vast terrace some 14,000 or 16,000 feet above the surrounding plains, the Tibetan plateau is more than half filled with closed basins dotted with a few lakes or marshes, the probable remains of inland seas whose overflow discharged through the breaks in the frontier ranges. … During the present century the Tibetan Government has succeeded better than any other Asiatic state in preserving the political isolation of the people, thanks chiefly to the relief and physical conditions of the land. Tibet rises like a citadel in the heart of Asia; hence its defenders have guarded its approaches more easily than those of India, China, and Japan. The greater part of Tibet remains still unexplored. … The great bulk of the inhabitants, apart from the Mongolo-Tartar Horsoks of Khachi and the various independent tribes of the province of Kham, belong to a distinct branch of the Mongolian family. They are of low size, with broad shoulders and chests, and present a striking contrast to the Hindus in the size of their arms and calves, while resembling them in their small and delicate hands and feet. … The Tibetans are one of the most highly endowed people in the world. Nearly all travellers are unanimous in praise of their gentleness, frank and kindly bearing, unaffected dignity. Strong, courageous, naturally cheerful, fond of music, the dance and song, they would be a model race but for their lack of enterprise. They are as easily governed as a flock of sheep, and for them the word of a lama has force of law. Even the mandates of the Chinese authorities are scrupulously obeyed, and thus it happens that against their own friendly feelings they jealously guard the frontiers against all strangers. {3111} The more or less mixed races of East Tibet on the Chinese frontier, on the route of the troops that plunder them and of the mandarins who oppress them, seem to be less favourably constituted, and are described as thievish and treacherous. … The Tibetans have long been a civilised people. … In some respects they are even more civilised than those of many European countries, for reading and writing are general accomplishments in many places, and books are here so cheap that they are found in the humblest dwellings, though several of these works are kept simply on account of their magical properties. In the free evolution of their speech, which has been studied chiefly by Foucaux, Csoma de Körös, Schiefner, and Jäschke, the Tibetans have outlived the period in which the Chinese are still found. The monosyllabic character of the language, which differs from all other Asiatic tongues, has nearly been effaced. … The Tibetan Government is in theory a pure theocracy. The Dalia-lama, called also the Gyalba-remboché, 'Jewel of Majesty,' or 'Sovereign Treasure,' is at once god and king, master of the life and fortunes of his subjects, with no limit to his power except his own pleasure. [On Lamaism in Tibet, see LAMAS.] Nevertheless he consents to be guided in ordinary matters by the old usages, while his very greatness prevents him from directly oppressing his people. His sphere of action being restricted to spiritual matters, he is represented in the administration by a viceroy chosen by the Emperor in a supreme council of three high priests. … Everything connected with general politics and war must be referred to Peking, while local matters are left to the Tibetan authorities. … Pope, viceroy, ministers, all receive a yearly subvention from Peking and all the Tibetan mandarins wear on their hats the button, or distinctive sign of the dignities conferred by the empire. Every third or fifth year a solemn embassy is sent to Peking with rich presents, receiving others in exchange from the 'Son of Heaven.' … The whole land belongs to the Dalai-lama, the people being merely temporary occupants, tolerated by the real owner. The very houses and furniture and all movable property are held in trust for the supreme master, whose subjects must be grateful if he takes a portion only for the requirements of the administration. Due of the most ordinary sentences, in fact, is wholesale confiscation, when the condemned must leave house and lands, betaking themselves to a camp life, and living by begging in the districts assigned to them. So numerous are these chong long, or official mendicants, that they form a distinct class in the State. … Since the cession of Ladak to Kashmir, and the annexation of Batang, Litang, Aten-tze, and other districts to Sechuen and Yunnan, Si-tsang, or Tibet proper, comprises only the four provinces of Nari, Tsang, Wei, or U, and Kham. Certain principalities enclosed in these provinces are completely independent of Lassa, and either enjoy self-government or are directly administered from Peking. … Even in the four provinces the Chinese authorities interfere in many ways, and their power is especially felt in that of Nari, where, owing to its dangerous proximity to Kashmir and India, the old spirit of independence might be awakened. Nor is any money allowed to be coined in Tibet, which in the eyes of the Imperial Government is merely a dependency of Sechuen, whence all orders are received in Lassa."

TIBUR.

An important Latin city, more ancient than Rome, from which it was only 20 miles distant, on the Anio. Tibur, after many wars, was reduced by the Romans to subjection in the 4th century, B. C., and the delightful country in its neighborhood became a favorite place of residence for wealthy Romans in later times. The ruins of the villa of Hadrian have been identified in the vicinity, and many others have been named, but without historical authority. Hadrian's villa is said to have been like a town in its vast extent. The modern town of Tivoli occupies the site of Tibur.

TIBURTINE SIBYL.

TIERRA FIRME.

   "The world was at a loss at first [after Columbus' discovery]
   what to call the newly found region to the westward. It was
   easy enough to name the islands, one after another, as they
   were discovered, but when the Spaniards reached the continent
   they were backward about giving it a general name. … As the
   coast line of the continent extended itself and became known
   as such, it was very naturally called by navigators 'tierra
   firme,' firm land, in contradistinction to the islands which
   were supposed to be less firm. … The name Tierra Firme, thus
   general at first, in time became particular. As a designation
   for an unknown shore it at first implied only the Continent.
   As discovery unfolded, and the magnitude of this Firm Land
   became better known, new parts of it were designated by new
   names, and Tierra Firme became a local appellation in place of
   a general term. Paria being first discovered, it fastened
   itself there; also along the shore to Darien, Veragua, and on
   to Costa Rica, where at no well defined point it stopped, so
   far as the northern seaboard was concerned, and in due time
   struck across to the South Sea, where the name marked off an
   equivalent coast line. … As a political division Tierra Firme
   had existence for a long time.
{3112}
   It comprised the provinces of Darien, Veragua, and Panama,
   which last bore also the name of Tierra Firme as a province.
   The extent of the kingdom was 65 leagues in length by 18 at
   its greatest breadth, and 9 leagues at its smallest width. It
   was bounded on the east by Cartagena, and the gulf of Urabá
   and its river; on the west by Costa Rica, including a portion
   of what is now Costa Rica; and on the north and south by the
   two seas. … Neither Guatemala, Mexico, nor any of the lands to
   the north were ever included in Tierra Firme. English authors
   often apply the Latin form, Terra Firma, to this division,
   which is misleading."

TIERS ETAT.

After the Cimbri had defeated two Roman armies, in 113 and 109 B. C., "the Helvetii, who had suffered much in the constant conflicts with their north-eastern neighbours, felt themselves stimulated by the example of the Cimbri to seek in their turn for more quiet and fertile settlements in western Gaul, and had, perhaps, even when the Cimbrian hosts marched through their land, formed an alliance with them for that purpose. Now, under the leadership of Divico, the forces of the Tougeni (position unknown) and of the Tigorini (on the lake of Murten) crossed the Jura and reached the territory of the Nitiobroges (about Agen on the Garonne). The Roman army under the consul Lucius Cassius Longinus, which they here encountered, allowed itself to be decoyed by the Helvetii into an ambush, in which the general himself and his legate, the consular Gaius Piso, along with the greater portion of the soldiers, met their death."

   Subsequently the Tigorini and the Tougeni joined the Cimbri,
   but were not present at the decisive battle on the Raudine
   Plain and escaped the destroying swords of the legions of
   Marius, by flying back to their native Helvetia.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1876-1877.

TIMAR. TIMARLI. SAIM. SPAHI.

"It was Alaeddin who first instituted a division of all conquered lands among the 'Sipahis,' or Spahis (horsemen), on conditions which, like the feudal tenures of Christian Europe, obliged the holders to service in the field. Here, however, ends the likeness between the Turkish 'Timar' and the European fief. The 'Timarli' were not, like the Christian knighthood, a proud and hereditary aristocracy almost independent of the sovereign and having a voice in his councils, but the mere creatures of the Sultan's breath. The Ottoman constitution recognised no order of nobility, and was essentially a democratic despotism. The institution of military tenures was modified by Amurath I., who divided them into the larger and smaller ('Siamet' and 'Timar'), the holders of which were called 'Saim' and 'Timarli.' Every cavalier, or Spahi, who had assisted to conquer by his bravery, was rewarded with a fief, which, whether large or small, was called 'Kilidseh' (the sword). The symbols of his investment were a sword and colours ('Kilidsch' and 'Sandjak')."

TIMOCRACY.

"Timour the Tartar, as he is usually termed in history, was called by his countrymen Timourlenk, that is, Timour the Lame, from the effects of an early wound; a name which some European writers have converted into Tamerlane, or Tamberlaine. He was of Mongol origin [see below], and a direct descendant, by the mother's side, of Zenghis. Khan. He was born at Sebzar, a town near Samarcand, in Transoxiana, in 1336. … Timour's early youth was passed in struggles for ascendeney with the petty chiefs of rival tribes, but at the age of thirty-five he had fought his way to undisputed pre-eminence, and was proclaimed Khan of Zagatai by the 'couroultai,' or general assembly of the warriors of his race. He chose Samarcand as the capital of his dominion, and openly announced that he would make that dominion comprise the whole habitable earth. … In the thirty-six years of his reign he raged over the world from the great wall of China to the centre of Russia on the north; and the Mediterranean and the Nile were the western limits of his career, which was pressed eastward as far as the sources of the Ganges. He united in his own person the sovereignties of twenty-seven countries, and he stood in the place of nine several dynasties of kings. … The career of Timour as a conqueror is unparalleled in history; for neither Cyrus, nor Alexander, nor Cæsar, nor Attila, nor Zenghis Khan, nor Charlemagne, nor Napoleon, ever won by the sword so large a portion of the globe, or ruled over so many myriads of subjugated fellow-creatures."

"Born of the same family as Jenghiz, though not one of his direct descendants, he bore throughout life the humble title of Emir, and led about with him a nominal Grand Khan [a descendant of Chagatai, one of the sons of Jenghiz Khan], of whom he professed himself a dutiful subject. His pedigree may in strictness entitle him to be called a Mogul; but, for all practical purposes, himself and his hordes must be regarded as Turks. Like all the eastern Turks, such civilization as they had was of Persian origin; and it was of the Persian form of Islam that Timour was so zealous an assertor."

In 1378 Timour overran Khuarezm. Between 1380 and 1386 he subjugated Khorassan, Afghanistan, Baluchistan and Sistan. He then passed into southern Persia and forced the submission of the Mozafferides who reigned over Fars, punishing the city of Isfahan for a rebellious rising by the massacre of 70,000 of its inhabitants. This done, he returned to Samarkand for a period of rest and prolonged carousal. Taking the field again in 1389, he turned his arms northward and shattered the famous "Golden Horde," of the Khanate of Kiptchak, which dominated a large part of Russia. In 1392-93 the Tartar conqueror completed the subjugation of Persia and Mesopotamia, extinguishing the decayed Mongol Empire of the Ilkhans, and piling up a pyramid of 90,000 human heads on the ruins of Bagdad, the old capital of Islam. Thence he pursued his career of slaughter through Armenia and Georgia, and finished his campaign of five years by a last destroying blow struck at the Kiptchak Khan whom he is said to have pursued as far as Moscow. Once more, at Samarkand, the red-handed, invincible savage then gave himself up to orgies of pleasure-making; but it was not for many months. His eyes were now on India, and the years 1398-1399 were spent by him in carrying death and desolation through the Punjab, and to the city of Delhi, which was made a scene of awful massacre and pillage. No permanent conquest was achieved; the plunder and the pleasure of slaughter were the ends of the expedition. A more serious purpose directed the next movement of Timour's arms, which were turned against the rival Turk of Asia Minor, or Roum—the Ottoman, Bajazet, or Bayezid, who boasted of the conquest of the Roman Empire of the East. In 1402, Bajazet was summoned from the siege of Constantinople to defend his realm. On the 20th of July in that year, on the plain of Angora, he met the enormous hosts of Timourlenk and was overwhelmed by them—his kingdom lost, himself a captive. The merciless Tartar hordes swept hapless Anatolia with a besom of destruction and death. Nicæa, Prusa and other cities were sacked. Smyrna provoked the Tartar savage by an obstinate defense and was doomed to the sword, without mercy for age or sex. Even then, the customary pyramid of heads which he built on the site was not large enough to satisfy his eye and he increased its height by alternate layers of mud. Aleppo, Damascus, and other cities of Syria had been dealt with in like manner the year before. When satiated with blood, he returned to Samarkand in 1404, rested there until January 1405, and then set out upon an expedition to China; but he died on the way. His empire was soon broken in pieces.

TIMUCHI.

This was the name given to the members of the senate or council of six hundred of Massilia—ancient Marseilles.

TINNEH.

TIROL.

TIRSHATHA.

An ancient Persian title, borne by an officer whose functions corresponded with those of High Sheriff.

TIRYNS.

TITHE.

"To consecrate to the Sanctuary in pure thankfulness towards God the tenth of all annual profits, was a primitive tradition among the Canaanites, Phoenicians and Carthaginians. The custom, accordingly, very early passed over to Israel."

Modern "recognition of the legal obligation of tithe dates from the eighth century, both on the continent and in England. In A. D. 779 Charles the Great ordained that everyone should pay tithe, and that the proceeds should be disposed of by the bishop; and in A. D. 787 it was made imperative by the legatine councils held in England."

W. Stubbs. Constitutional History of England, chapter 8, section 86 (volume 1).

TITHE OF SALADIN.

TIVOLI.

TLACOPAN.

TLASCALA.

"The toga, the specifically national dress of the Romans, was originally put on the naked body, fitting much more tightly than the rich folds of the togas of later times. About the shape of this toga, which is described as a semicircular cloak …, many different opinions prevail. Some scholars consider it to have been an oblong piece of woven cloth …; others construct it of one or even two pieces cut into segments of a circle. Here again we shall adopt in the main the results arrived at through practical trials by Weiss ('Costümkunde,' page 956 et seq.). The Roman toga therefore was not … a quadrangular oblong, but 'had the shape of an oblong edged off into the form of an oval, the middle length being equal to about three times the height of a grown-up man (exclusive of the head), and its middle breadth equal to twice the same length. In putting it on, the toga was at first folded lengthwise, and the double dress thus originated was laid in folds on the straight edge and thrown over the left shoulder in the simple manner of the Greek or Tuscan cloak; the toga, however, covered the whole left side and even dragged on the ground to a considerable extent. The cloak was then pulled across the back and through the right arm, the ends being again thrown over the left shoulder backwards. The part of the drapery covering the back was once more pulled towards the right shoulder, so as to add to the richness of the folds.' … The simpler, that is narrower, toga of earlier times naturally clung more tightly to the body."

"No tacks or fastenings of any sort indeed are visible in the toga, but their existence may be inferred from the great formality and little variation displayed in its divisions and folds. In general, the toga seems not only to have formed, as it were, a short sleeve to the right arm, which was left unconfined, but to have covered the left arm down to the wrist. … The material of the toga was wool; the colour, in early ages, its own natural yellowish hue. In later periods this seems, however, only to have been retained in the togas of the higher orders; inferior persons wearing theirs dyed, and candidates for public offices bleached by an artificial process. In times of mourning the toga was worn black, or was left off altogether. Priests and magistrates wore the 'toga pretexta,' or toga edged with a purple border, called pretexta. This … was, as well as the bulla, or small round gold box suspended on the breast by way of an amulet, worn by all youths of noble birth to the age of fifteen. … The knights wore the 'trabea,' or toga striped with purple throughout."

TOISECH.

TOISON D'OR.

The French name of the Order of Knighthood known in the
English-speaking world as the "Order of the Golden Fleece."

On the crumbling of the dominions of the Spanish caliphate of Cordova, Toledo became the seat of one of the most vigorous of the petty kingdoms which arose in Moorish Spain. But on the death of its founder, Aben Dylnun, and under his incapable son Yahia, the kingdom of Toledo soon sank to such weakness as invited the attacks of the Christian king of Leon, Alfonso VI. After a siege of three years, on the 25th of May, A. D. 1085, the old capital of the Goths, which the Moslems had occupied for nearly four centuries, was restored to their descendants and successors.

      S. A. Dunham,
      History of Spain and Portugal,
      book 3, section 1, chapter 1.

TOLEDO, Spain: A. D. 1520-1522.
Revolt against the government of Charles, the emperor.
Siege and surrender.

TOMI.

An ancient Greek city on the western shore of the Euxine, which was Ovid's place of banishment. Its site is occupied by the modern town of Kustendje.

TONKIN. COCHIN-CHINA. ANNAM. CAMBOJA.

"The whole region which recent events have practically converted into French territory comprises four distinct political divisions: Tonkin in the north; Cochin-China in the centre; Lower Cochin-China and Camboja in the south. The first two, formerly separate States, have since 1802 constituted a single kingdom, commonly spoken of as the empire of Annam. This term Annam (properly An-nan) appears to be a modified form of Ngannan, that is, 'Southern Peace,' first applied to the frontier river between China and Tonkin, and afterwards extended not only to Tonkin, but to the whole region south of that river after its conquest and pacification by China in the third century of the new era. Hence its convenient application to the same region since the union of Tonkin and Cochin-China under one dynasty and since the transfer of the administration to France in 1883, is but a survival of the Chinese usage, and fully justified on historic grounds. Tonkin (Tongking, Tungking), that is, 'Eastern Capital,' a term originally applied to Ha-noi when that city was the royal residence, has in quite recent times been extended to the whole of the northern kingdom, whose true historic name is Yüeh-nan. Under the native rulers Tonkin was divided into provinces and sub-divisions bearing Chinese names, and corresponding to the administrative divisions of the Chinese empire. … Since its conquest by Cochin-China the country has been administered in much the same way as the southern kingdom. From this State Tonkin is separated partly by a spur of the coast range projecting seawards, partly by a wall built in the sixteenth century and running in the same direction. After the erection of this artificial barrier, which lies about 18° North Latitude, between Hatinh and Dong-koi, the northern and southern kingdoms came to be respectively distinguished by the titles of Dang-ngoai and Dang-trong, that is, 'Outer' and 'Inner Route.' {3115} The term Cochin-China, by which the Inner Route is best known, has no more to do with China than it has with the Indian city of Cochin. It appears to be a modified form of Kwe-Chen-Ching, that is, the 'Kingdom of Chen-Ching,' the name by which this region was first known in the 9th century of the new era, from its capital Chen-Ching. Another although less probable derivation is from the Chinese Co-Chen-Ching, meaning 'Old Champa,' a reminiscence of the time when the Cham (Tsiam) nation was the most powerful in the peninsula. … Before the arrival of the French, Cochin-China comprised the whole of the coast lands from Tonkin nearly to the foot of the Pursat hills in South Camboja. … From the remotest times China claimed, and intermittently exercised, suzerain authority over Annam, whose energies have for ages been wasted partly in vain efforts to resist this claim, partly in still more disastrous warfare between the two rival States. Almost the first distinctly historic event was the reduction of Lu-liang, as Tonkin was then called, by the Chinese in 218 B. C., when the country was divided into prefectures, and a civil and military organisation established on the Chinese model. … Early in the ninth century of the new era the term Kwe-Chen-Ching (Cochin-China) began to be applied to the southern, which had already asserted its independence of the northern, kingdom. In 1428 the two States freed themselves temporarily from the Chinese protectorate, and 200 years later the Annamese reduced all that remained of the Champa territory, driving the natives to the uplands, and settling in the plains. This conquest was followed about 1750 by that of the southern or maritime provinces of Camboja since known as Lower (now French) Cochin-China. In 1775 the King of Cochin-China, who had usurped the throne in 1774, reduced Tonkin, and was acknowledged sovereign of Annam by the Chinese emperor. But in 1798 Gia-long, son of the deposed monarch, recovers the throne with the aid of some French auxiliaries, and in 1802 reconstitutes the Annamese empire under the Cochin-Chinese sceptre. From this time the relations with France become more frequent. … After his death in 1820 the anti-European national party acquires the ascendant, the French officers are dismissed, and the Roman Catholic religion, which had made rapid progress during the reign of Gia-long, is subjected to cruel and systematic persecution. Notwithstanding the protests and occasional intervention of France, this policy is persevered in, until the execution of Bishop Diaz in 1857 by order of Tu-Duc, third in succession from Gia-long, calls for more active interference. Admiral Rigault de Genouilly captures Tourane in 1858, followed next year by the rout of the Annamese army at the same place, and the occupation of the forts at the entrance of the Donnai and of Gia-diñh (Saigon), capital of Lower Cochin-China. This virtually established French supremacy, which was sealed by the treaty of 1862, ceding the three best, and that of 1867 the three remaining, provinces of Lower Cochin-China. It was further strengthened and extended by the treaty of 1863, securing the protectorate of Camboja and the important strategical position of 'Quatre-Bras' on the Mekhong. Then came the scientific expedition of Mekhong (1866-68), which dissipated the hopes entertained of that river giving access to the trade of Southern China. Attention was accordingly now attracted to the Song-koi basin, and the establishment of French interests in Tonkin secured by the treaties of peace and commerce concluded with the Annamese Government in 1874. This prepared the way for the recent diplomatic complications with Annam and China, followed by the military operations in Cochin-China and Tonkin [see FRANCE: A. D. 1875-1889], which led up to the treaties of 1883 and 1884, extending the French protectorate to the whole of Annam, and forbidding the Annamese Government all diplomatic relations with foreign powers, China included, except through the intermediary of France. Lastly, the appointment in 1886 of a French Resident General, with full administrative powers, effaced the last vestige of national autonomy, and virtually reduced the ancient kingdoms of Tonkin and Cochin-China to the position of an outlying French possession."

   "In the south-eastern extremity of Cochin-China, and in
   Camboja, still survive the scattered fragments of the
   historical Tsiam (Cham, Khiam) race, who appear to have been
   at one time the most powerful nation in Farther India.
   According to Gagelin, they ruled over the whole region between
   the Menam and the Gulf of Tongking. … Like the Tsiams, the
   Cambojans, or Khmers, are a race sprung from illustrious
   ancestry, but at present reduced to about 1,500,000, partly in
   the south-eastern provinces of Siam, partly forming a petty
   state under French protection, which is limited east and west
   by the Mekong and Gulf of Siam, north and south by the Great
   Lake and French Cochin-China. During the period of its
   prosperity the Cambojan empire overshadowed a great part of
   Indo-China, and maintained regular intercourse with
   Cisgangetic India on the one hand, and on the other with the
   Island of Java. The centre of its power lay on the northern
   shores of the Great Lake, where the names of its great cities,
   the architecture and sculptures of its ruined temples, attest
   the successive influences of Brahmanism and Buddhism on the
   local culture. A native legend, based possibly on historic
   data, relates how a Hindu prince migrated with ten millions of
   his subjects, some twenty-three centuries ago, from
   Indraspathi (Delhi) to Camboja, while the present dynasty
   claims descent from a Benares family. But still more active
   relations seem to have been maintained with Lanka (Ceylon),
   which island has acquired almost a sacred character in the
   eyes of the Cambojans. The term Camboja itself (Kampushea,
   Kamp'osha) has by some writers been wrongly identified with
   the Camboja of Sanskrit geography. It simply means the 'land
   of the Kammen,' or 'Khmer.' Although some years under the
   French protectorate, the political institutions of the
   Cambojan state have undergone little change. The king, who
   still enjoys absolute power over the life and property of his
   subjects, chooses his own mandarins, and these magistrates
   dispense justice in favour of the highest bidders. Trade is a
   royal monopoly, sold mostly to energetic Chinese contractors;
   and slavery has not yet been abolished, although the severity
   of the system has been somewhat mitigated since 1877. Ordinary
   slaves now receive a daily pittance, which may help to
   purchase their freedom. …
{3116}
   On the eastern slopes, and in the lower Mekong basin, the
   dominant race are the Giao-shi (Giao-kii} or Annamese, who are
   of doubtful origin, but resemble the Chinese more than any
   other people of Farther India. Affiliated by some to the
   Malays, by others to the Chinese, Otto Kunze regards them as
   akin to the Japanese. According to the local traditions and
   records they have gradually spread along the coast from
   Tongking southwards to the extremity of the Peninsula. After
   driving the Tsiams into the interior, they penetrated about
   1650 to the Lower Mekong, which region formerly belonged to
   Camboja, but is now properly called French Cochin-China. Here
   the Annamese, having driven out or exterminated most of the
   Cambojans, have long formed the great majority of the
   population."

TONNAGE AND POUNDAGE.

TONQUIN.

TONTONTEAC.

TOQUIS.

"Before the Revolution the parties in the colonies were practically identical with the Whigs and Tories of the mother country, the Whigs or anti-prerogative men supporting ever the cause of the people against arbitrary or illegal acts of the governor or the council. In the early days of the Revolution the ultra Tories were gradually driven into the ranks of the enemy, until for a time it might be said that all revolutionary America had become Whig; the name Tory, however, was still applied to those who, though opposed to the usurpations of George III., were averse to a final separation from England."

   "The terms Tories, Loyalists, Refugees, are burdened with a
   piteous record of wrongs and sufferings. It has not been found
   easy or satisfactory for even the most candid historian to
   leave the facts and arguments of the conflict impartially
   adjusted. Insult, confiscation of property, and exile were the
   penalties of those who bore these titles. … Remembering that
   the most bitter words of Washington that have come to us are
   those which express his scorn of Tories, we must at least look
   to find some plausible, if not justifying, ground for the
   patriot party. Among those most frank and fearless in the
   avowal of loyalty, and who suffered the severest penalties,
   were men of the noblest character and of the highest position.
   So, also, bearing the same odious title, were men of the most
   despicable nature, self-seeking and unprincipled, ready for
   any act of evil. And between these were men of every grade of
   respectability and of every shade of moral meanness. … As a
   general rule, the Tories were content with an unarmed
   resistance, where they were not reinforced by the resources or
   forces of the enemy. But in successive places in possession of
   the British armies, in Boston, Long Island, New York, the
   Jerseys, Philadelphia, and in the Southern provinces, there
   rallied around them Tories both seeking protection, and ready
   to perform all kinds of military duty as allies. By all the
   estimates, probably below the mark, there were during the war
   at least 25,000 organized loyalist forces. … When the day of
   reckoning came at the close of the war, it needed no spirit of
   prophecy to tell how these Tories, armed or unarmed, would
   fare, and we have not to go outside the familiar field of
   human nature for an explanation. That it was not till six
   months after the ratification of the treaty by Congress that
   Sir Guy Carleton removed the British army from New York—the
   delay being caused by his embarrassment from the crowds of
   loyalists seeking his protection—is a reminder to us of their
   forlorn condition. … From all over the seaboard of the
   continent refugees made their way to New York in crowds. …
   They threw themselves in despair upon the protection of the
   British commander. … He pleaded his encumbrances of this
   character in answer to the censures upon him for delaying his
   departure, and he vainly hoped that Congress would devise some
   measures of leniency to relieve him. It is difficult to
   estimate with any approach to exactness the number of these
   hounded victims. Many hundreds of them had been seeking refuge
   in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick since the autumn of 1782, and
   additional parties, in increasing number, followed to the same
   provinces. An historian [Murdoch, "History of Nova Scotia"]
   sets the whole number at the close of 1783 at 25,000. Large
   numbers of the loyalists of the Southern provinces were
   shipped to the Bahamas and to the West India Islands. At one
   time Carleton had upon his hands over 12,000 Tories clamorous
   for transportation. … A celebration of the centennial of the
   settlement of Upper Canada by these exiles took place in 1884.
   At a meeting of the royal governor, Lord Dorchester, and the
   council, in Quebec, in November, 1789, in connection with the
   disposal of still unappropriated crown lands in the province,
   order was taken for the making and preserving of a registry of
   the names of all persons, with those of their sons and
   daughters, 'who had adhered to the unity of the empire, and
   joined the royal standard in America before the treaty of
   separation in the year 1783.' The official list contains the
   names of several thousands. It was by their descendants and
   representatives that the centennial occasion referred to was
   observed. … Some bands passed to Canada by Whitehall, Lake
   Champlain, Ticonderoga, and Plattsburg, then southward to
   Cornwall, ascending the St. Lawrence, and settling on the
   north bank.
{3117}
   Others went from New Brunswick and Nova Scotia up the St.
   Lawrence to Sorel, where they wintered, going afterwards to
   Kingston. Most of the exiles ascended the Hudson to Albany,
   then by the Mohawk and Wood Creek to Oneida and Ontario lakes.
   … As these exiles had stood for the unity of the empire, they
   took the name of the 'United Empire Loyalists'" (a name which
   is often abbreviated in common use to U. E. Loyalists).

G. E. Ellis, The Loyalists and their Fortunes (Narrative and Critical History of America, volume 7, pages 185-214).

"Some 10,000 refugees had, in 1784, and the few years following, found homes in Western Canada, just as it is estimated … that 20,000 had settled in the provinces by the sea. Assuming full responsibility for the care and present support of her devoted adherents, Great Britain opened her hand cheerfully to assist them. … The sum paid by the British Government to the suffering refugees was about $15,000,000."

      ALSO IN:
      E. Ryerson,
      The Loyalists of America and their Times.

"The Northern Indians were flocking with their beaver-skins to the English of Oswego; and in April, 1749, an officer named Portneuf had been sent with soldiers and workmen to build a stockaded trading-house at Toronto, in order to intercept them,—not by force, which would have been ruinous to French interests, but by a tempting supply of goods and brandy. Thus the fort was kept well stocked, and with excellent effect."

TORQUES.

"The Latin word torques has been applied in a very extended sense to the various necklaces or collars for the neck, found in Britain, and other countries inhabited by the Celtic tribes. This word has been supposed to be derived from the Welch or Irish 'torc,' which has the same signification, but the converse is equally plausible, that this was derived from the Latin."

TORTURE.

TORY.

TOTEMS.

"A peculiar social institution exists among the [North American] Indians, very curious in its character; and though I am not prepared to say that it may be traced through all the tribes east of the Mississippi, yet its prevalence is so general, and its influence on political relations so important, as to claim especial attention. Indian communities, independent of their local distribution into tribes, bands, and villages, are composed of several distinct clans. Each clan has its emblem, consisting of the figure of some bird, beast, or reptile; and each is distinguished by the name of the animal which it thus bears as its device; as, for example, the clan of the Wolf, the Deer, the Otter, or the Hawk. In the language of the Algonquins, these emblems are known by the name of 'Totems.' The members of the same clan, being connected, or supposed to be so, by ties of kindred more or less remote, are prohibited from intermarriage. Thus Wolf cannot marry Wolf; but he may, if he chooses, take a wife from the clan of Hawks, or any other clan but his own. It follows that when this prohibition is rigidly observed, no single clan can live apart from the rest; but the whole must be mingled together, and in every family the husband and wife must be of different clans. To different totems attach different degrees of rank and dignity; and those of the Bear, the Tortoise, and the Wolf are among the first in honor. Each man is proud of his badge, jealously asserting its claims to respect; and the members of the same clan, though they may, perhaps, speak different dialects, and dwell far asunder, are yet bound together by the closest ties of fraternity. If a man is killed, every member of the clan feels called upon to avenge him; and the wayfarer, the hunter, or the warrior is sure of a cordial welcome in the distant lodge of the clansman whose face perhaps he has never seen. It may be added that certain privileges, highly prized as hereditary rights, sometimes reside in particular clans; such as that of furnishing a sachem to the tribe, or of performing certain religious ceremonies or magic rites."

"A totem is a class of material objects which a savage regards with superstitious respect, believing that there exists between him and every member of the class an intimate and altogether special relation. The name is derived from an Ojibway (Chippeway) word 'totem,' the correct spelling of which is somewhat uncertain. It was first introduced into literature, so far as appears, by J. Long, an Indian interpreter of last century, who spelt it 'totam.' … The connexion between a man and his totem is mutually beneficent; the totem protects the man, and the man shows his respect for the totem in various ways, by not killing it if it be an animal, and not cutting or gathering it if it be a plant. As distinguished from a fetich, a totem is never an isolated individual, but always a class of objects, generally a species of animals or of plants, more rarely a class of inanimate natural objects, very rarely a class of artificial objects. Considered in relation to men, totems are of at least three kinds:—

(1) the clan totem, common to a whole clan, and passing by inheritance from generation to generation;

(2) the sex totem, common either to all the males or to all the females of a tribe, to the exclusion in either case of the other sex;

(3) the individual totem, belonging to a single individual and not passing to his descendants."

TOULON: A. D. 1793-1794.
   Revolt against the Revolutionary Government at Paris.
   English aid called in.
   Siege, capture and frightful vengeance by the Terrorists.

Tolosa, modern Toulouse, was the chief town of the Volcæ Tectosages (see VOLCÆ, THE), a Gallic tribe which occupied the upper basin of the Garonne, between the western prolongation of the Cevennes and the eastern Pyrenees. Some time before 106 B. C. the Romans had formed an alliance with the Tectosages which enabled them to place a garrison in Tolosa; but the people had tired of the arrangement, had risen against the garrison and had put the soldiers in chains. On that provocation, Q. Servilius Cæpio, one of the consuls of the year 106, advanced upon the town, found traitors to admit him within its gates, and sacked it as a Roman general knew how to do. He found a great treasure of gold in Tolosa, the origin of which has been the subject of much dispute. The treasure was sent off under escort to Massilia, but disappeared on the way, its escort being attacked and slain. Consul Cæpio was accused of the robbery; there was a great scandal and prosecution at Rome, and "Aurum Tolosanum"—"the gold of Toulouse"—became a proverbial expression, applied to ill-gotten wealth.

The counts of Toulouse "represented an earlier line of dukes of Aquitaine, successors of the dukes of Gothia or Septimania, under whom the capital of southern Gaul had been not Poitiers but Toulouse, Poitou itself counting as a mere underfief. In the latter half of the tenth century these dukes of Gothia or Aquitania Prima, as the Latin chroniclers sometimes called them from the Old Roman name of their country, had seen their ducal title transferred to the Poitevin lords of Aquitania Secunda—the dukes of Aquitaine with whom we have had to deal. But the Poitevin overlordship was never fully acknowledged by the house of Toulouse; and this latter in the course of the following century again rose to great importance and distinction, which reached its height in the person of Count Raymond IV., better known as Raymond of St. Gilles, from the name of the little county which had been his earliest possession. From that small centre his rule gradually spread over the whole territory of the ancient dukes of Septimania. In the year of the Norman conquest of England [1066] Rouergue, which was held by a younger branch of the house of Toulouse, lapsed to the elder line; in [1088] the year after the Conqueror's death Raymond came into possession of Toulouse itself; in 1094 he became, in right of his wife, owner of half the Burgundian county of Provence. His territorial influence was doubled by that of his personal fame; he was one of the chief heroes of the first Crusade; and when he died in 1105 he left to his son Bertrand, over and above his Aquitanian heritage, the Syrian county of Tripoli. On Bertrand's death in 1112 these possessions were divided, his son Pontius succeeding him as count of Tripoli, and surrendering his claims upon Toulouse to his uncle Alfonso Jordan, a younger son of Raymond of St. Gilles. Those claims, however, were disputed. Raymond's elder brother, Count William IV., had left an only daughter who, after a childless marriage with King Sancho Ramirez of Aragon, became the wife of Count William VIII. of Poitou. From that time forth it became a moot point whether the lord of St. Gilles or the lord of Poitiers was the rightful count of Toulouse. … With all these shiftings and changes of ownership the kings of France had never tried to interfere. Southern Gaul—'Aquitaine' in the wider sense—was a land whose internal concerns they found it wise to leave as far as possible untouched."

TOULOUSE: A. D. 1814.
The last battle of the Peninsular War.
Occupation of the city by the English.

TOURNAY: A. D. 1745-1748.
   Siege.
   Battle of Fontenoy and surrender to the French.
   Restoration at the Peace.

See NETHERLANDS (AUSTRIAN PROVINCES):
A. D. 1745; and AIX-LA-CHAPELLE, THE CONGRESS.

FRANCE: A. D. 1794 (MARCH-JULY).

TOURNEY. TOURNAMENT. JOUST.

"The word tourney, sometimes tournament, and in Latin 'torneamentum,' clearly indicates both the French origin of these games and the principal end of that exercise, the art of manœuvring, of turning ('tournoyer') his horse skilfully, to strike his adversary and shield himself at the same time from his blows. The combats, especially those of the nobility, were always fought on horseback, with the lance and sharp sword; the knight presented himself, clothed in armour which covered his whole body, and which, while it preserved him from wounds, bent to every movement and retarded those of his war horse. It was important, therefore, that constant exercise should accustom the knight's limbs to the enormous weight which he must carry, and the horse to the agility which was expected of him. In a 'passage' or 'pass of arms' ('passage' or 'pas d'armes') the generic name of all those games, this exercise was composed of two parts: the joust, which was a single combat of knight against knight, both clothed in all their arms, and the tourney, which was the image of a general battle, or the encounter and evolutions of two troops of cavalry equal in number."

J. C. L. de Sismondi, France under the Feudal System (Translated by W. Bellingham), chapter 8.

TOURS: A. D. 1870.
Seat of a part of the provisional
Government of National Defense.

This was an order of knighthood founded in Portugal by Alfonso V., who reigned from 1438 to 1481. "The institution of the order related to a sword reputed to be carefully guarded in a tower of the city of Fez: respecting it there was a prophecy that it must one day come into the possession of a Christian king; in other words, that the Mohammedan empire of northwestern Africa would be subverted by the Christians. Alfonso seemed to believe that he was the destined conqueror."

S. A. Dunham. History of Spain and Portugal, volume 3, page 225 (American edition).

"Built originally by the Conqueror to curb London, afterwards the fortress-palace of his descendants, and in the end the State prison, from which a long procession of the ill-starred great went forth to lay their heads on the block on Tower Hill; while State murders, like those of Henry VI. and the two young sons of Edward IV., were done in the dark chambers of the Tower itself."

"Even as to length of days, the Tower has no rival among palaces and prisons. … Old writers date it from the days of Caesar; a legend taken up by Shakspeare and the poets in favour of which the name of Caesar's Tower remains in popular use to this very day. A Roman wall can even yet be traced near some parts of the ditch. The Tower is mentioned in the Saxon Chronicle, in a way not incompatible with the fact of a Saxon stronghold having stood upon the spot. The buildings as we have them now in block and plan were commenced by William the Conqueror; and the series of apartments in Caesar's Tower [the great Norman keep now called the White Tower]—hall, gallery, council chamber, chapel—were built in the early Norman reigns and used as a royal residence by all our Norman kings."

"We are informed by the 'Textus Roffensis' that the present Great or White Tower was constructed by Gundulph, Bishop of Rochester, under the direction of King William I., who was suspicious of the fidelity of the citizens. The date assigned by Stow is 1078."

TOWN.

"Burh, burgh, borough, in its various spellings and various shades of meaning, is our native word for urbes of every kind from Rome downward: It is curious that this word should in ordinary speech have been so largely displaced by the vaguer word tun, town, which means an enclosure of any kind, and in some English dialects is still applied to a single house and its surroundings."

TOWNSHIP.

   "In recent historical writing dealing with Anglo-Saxon
   conditions, a great place has been occupied by the 'township.'
   The example was set sixty years ago by Palgrave; but it does
   not seem to have been generally followed until in 1874 Dr.
   Stubbs gave the word a prominent place in his 'Constitutional
   History.' With Dr. Stubbs the 'township' was 'the unit of the
   constitutional machinery or local administration'; and since
   then most writers on constitutional and legal history have
   followed in the same direction. … The language commonly used
   in this connection need not, perhaps, necessarily be
   understood as meaning that the phenomenon which the writers
   have in mind was actually known to the Saxons themselves as a
   'township' ('tunscipe'). It may be said that 'township' is
   merely a modern name which it is convenient to apply to it.
   Yet, certainly, that language usually suggests that it was
   under that name that the Saxons knew it. … It is therefore of
   some interest, at least for historical terminology,—and
   possibly for other and more important reasons,—to point out
   that there is no good foundation in Anglo-Saxon sources for
   such a use of the term; that 'tunscipe' in the few places
   where it does appear does not mean an area of land, an extent
   of territory, or even the material houses and crofts of a
   village; that it is probably nothing more than a loose general
   term for 'the villagers.' …
{3120}
   Only three passages in Anglo-Saxon literature have as yet been
   found in which the word 'tunscipe' appears,—the Saxon
   translation of Bede's 'Ecclesiastical History,' volume 10, the
   laws of Edgar, iv. 8, and the 'Saxon Chronicle,' s. a 1137. …
   The later history of the word 'township' would probably repay
   investigation. It is certainly not a common word in literature
   until comparatively recent times; and, where it does appear,
   its old meaning seems often to cling to it. … There is a good
   deal to make one believe that 'town ' [see, above, TOWN]
   continued to be the common popular term for what we may
   describe in general language as a rural centre of population
   even into the 18th century. … The far more general use of the
   word 'town' than of 'township' in early New England is most
   naturally explained by supposing that it was the word
   ordinarily employed in England at the time of the
   migration,—at any rate, in East Anglia. … It might very
   naturally be said that the effect of the foregoing argument is
   no more than to replace 'township' by town, and that such a
   change is immaterial,—that it is a difference between
   tweedle-dum and tweedle-dee. I cannot help thinking, however,
   that the adoption of a more correct terminology will be of
   scientific advantage; and for this reason. So long as we speak
   of the Anglo-Saxon 'township' we can hardly help attaching to
   the word somewhat of the meaning which it has borne since the
   sixteenth century. We think of it as an area inhabited by
   freemen with an administrative machinery in the hands of an
   assembly of those inhabitants and of officers chosen by them.
   We start, therefore, with a sort of unconscious presumption
   that the 'township' was what we call 'free.' … Now, it is this
   question as to the position of the body of the population in
   the earliest Anglo-Saxon times that is just now at issue; and
   no student would say that at present the question is settled."

      W. J. Ashley,
      The Anglo-Saxon "Township"
      (Quarterly Journal of Economics, April, 1894).

"When people from England first came to dwell in the wilderness of Massachusetts Bay, they settled in groups upon small irregular-shaped patches of land, which soon came to be known as townships. … This migration … was a movement, not of individuals or of separate families, but of church-congregations, and it continued to be so as the settlers made their way inland and westward. … A township would consist of about as many farms as could be disposed within convenient distance from the meeting-house, where all the inhabitants, young and old, gathered every Sunday, coming on horseback or afoot. The meeting-house was thus centrally situated, and near it was the town pasture or 'common,' with the school-house and the block-house, or rude fortress for defence against the Indians. … Around the meeting-house and common the dwellings gradually clustered into a village, and after a while the tavern, store, and town-house made their appearance. … Under these circumstances they developed a kind of government which we may describe in the present tense, for its methods are pretty much the same to-day that they were two centuries ago. In a New England township the people directly govern themselves; the government is the people, or, to speak with entire precision, it is all the male inhabitants of one-and-twenty years of age and upwards. The people tax themselves. Once each year, usually in March but sometimes as early as February or as late as April, a 'town-meeting' is held, at which all the grown men of the township are expected to be present and to vote, while anyone may introduce motions or take part in the discussion. … The town-meeting is held in the town-house, but at first it used to be held in the church, which was thus a 'meeting-house' for civil as well as ecclesiastical purposes. At the town-meeting measures relating to the administration of town affairs are discussed and adopted or rejected; appropriations are made for the public expenses of the town, or in other words the amount of the town taxes for the year is determined; and town officers are elected for the year. … The principal executive magistrates of the town are the selectmen. They are three, five, seven, or nine in number. … It [the town] was simply the English parish government brought into a new country and adapted to the new situation. Part of this new situation consisted in the fact that the lords of the manor were left behind. There was no longer any occasion to distinguish between the township as a manor and the township as a parish; and so, as the three names had all lived on together, side by side, in England, it was now the oldest and most generally descriptive name, 'township,' that survived, and has come into use throughout a great part of the United States. … New York had from the very beginning the rudiments of an excellent system of local self-government. The Dutch villages had their assemblies, which under the English rule were developed into town-meetings, though with less ample powers than those of New England. … The New York system is of especial interest, because it has powerfully influenced the development of local institutions throughout the Northwest."

   "The name town first occurs in the record of the second
   colonial meeting of the Court of Assistants [Massachusetts
   Bay, September 7, 1630], in connection with the naming of
   Boston, Charlestown and Watertown. … A rude pattern of a frame
   of town government was shaped by Dorchester, when, in place of
   the earlier practice of transacting business at meetings of
   the whole body of its freemen (the grants of land being
   certified by a committee consisting of the clergymen and
   deacons), it designated certain inhabitants, twelve in number,
   to meet weekly, and consult and determine upon public
   affairs,—without any authority, however, beyond other
   inhabitants who should choose to come and take part in their
   consultations and votes. About the same time, at Watertown, it
   was 'agreed by the consent of the freemen, that there should
   be three persons chosen for the ordering of the civil
   affairs.' In the fourth year from the settlement of Boston, at
   which time the earliest extant records were made, three
   persons were chosen 'to make up the ten to manage the affairs
   of the town.' The system of delegated town action was there
   perhaps the same which was defined in an 'Order made by the
   inhabitants of Charlestown, at a full meeting [February 10,
   1635], for the government of the town by Selectmen,'—the name
   presently extended throughout New England to the municipal
   governors. …
{3121}
   The towns have been, on the one hand, separate governments,
   and, on the other, the separate constituents of a common
   government. In Massachusetts, for two centuries and a quarter,
   the Deputies in the General Court—or Representatives, as they
   have been named under the State Constitution—continued to
   represent the municipal corporations. In New Hampshire,
   Vermont, Connecticut and Rhode Island, that basis of
   representation still subsists."

"Boston … is the largest community that ever maintained the town organization, probably the most generally able and intelligent. No other town ever played so conspicuous a part in connection with important events. It led Massachusetts, New England, the thirteen colonies, in the struggle for independence. Probably in the whole history of the Anglo-Saxon race, there has been no other so interesting manifestation of the activity of the Folk-mote. Of this town of towns, Samuel Adams was the son of sons. … One may almost call him the creature of the town-meeting."

      J. K. Hosmer,
      Samuel Adams, the Man of the Town-Meeting
      (Johns Hopkins University Studies, series 2, number 4).

      ALSO IN:
      E. Channing,
      Town and County Government in the English Colonies
      (Johns Hopkins University Studies, series 2, number 10).

On Palm Sunday, March 29, 1461, two armies of Englishmen met on a "goodly plain," ten miles from the city of York, between the villages of Towton and Saxton, to fight out the contention of the parties of the "two roses,"—of Lancaster and York. The battle they fought is called the bloodiest that ever dyed English soil. It raged through an afternoon and 'a night until the following day, and the slain of the two sides has been variously reckoned by different historians at 20,000 to 38,000. No quarter was given by the victorious partisans of Edward IV. and the Lancastrians were utterly crushed. Henry VI. fled to Scotland and Queen Margaret repaired to France.

TOXANDRIA.

After Julian's successful campaigns against the Franks, A. D. 358, the latter were permitted to remain, as subjects of the Roman Empire, in "an extensive district of Brabant, which was then known by the appellation of Toxandria, and may deserve to be considered as the original seat of their Gallic monarchy. … This name seems to be derived from the 'Toxandri' of Pliny, and very frequently occurs in the histories of the middle age. Toxandria was a country of woods and morasses, which extended from the neighbourhood of Tongres to the conflux of the Vahal and the Rhine."

The commanders of the Athenian archers and of the city-watch (known as Scythians) were so called.

TRACHIS. TRACHINIA.

TRACTARIAN MOVEMENT. TRACTS FOR THE TIMES. TRACT NINETY.

TRADES UNIONS.

TRAJAN'S WALL.

The Emperor Trajan "began a fortified line, afterwards completed, from the Rhine to the Danube. This great work was carried from Ratisbon to Mayence. It was known as Trajan's Wall. It may still be traced to some extent by the marks of a mound and a ditch."

TRANSALPINE.

TRANSLEITHANIA.

TRANSOXANIA.

TRANSPADANE GAUL.

TRANSRHENANE.

Beyond the Rhine,—looking from the Roman standpoint; that is, on the eastern and northern side of the Rhine.

TRANSYLVANIA: A. D. 1526-1567.
   John Zapolya, the waivod, elected King of Hungary.
   His contest with Ferdinand of Austria.
   His appeal to the Turks.
   The Sultan assumes suzerainty of the country.

TRANSYLVANIA: A. D. 1699. Ceded to the House of Austria by the Turks, in the Treaty of Carlowitz.

TRAPPISTS.

The monks of La Trappe are often referred to as Trappists. "This celebrated abbey was one of the most ancient belonging to the Order of Cisteaux [the Cistercians]. It was established [A. D. 1140] by Rotrou, the second count of Perche, and undertaken to accomplish a vow made whilst in peril of shipwreck." In the 17th century the monks had become scandalous]y degenerate and dissolute. Their institution was reformed by M. de Rancé, who assumed the direction as abbot in 1662, and who introduced the severe discipline for which the monastery was afterwards famous. Among its rules was one of absolute silence.

C. Lancelot, A Tour to Alet and La Grande Chartreuse, volume 1, pages 113-186.

TRASTEVERE.

   Trastevere was a suburb of Rome "as early as the time of
   Augustus; it now contains the oldest houses in Rome, which
   belong to the 11th and 12th centuries."

B. G. Niebuhr, Lectures on ancient Ethnography and Geography, volume 2, page 103.

TREASON.

TREATIES.

The Treaties of which account is given in this work are so numerous that no convenience would be served by collecting references to them under this general heading. They are severally indexed under the names by which they are historically known.

"Trebizond, celebrated in the retreat of the Ten Thousand as an ancient colony of Greeks, derived its wealth and splendour from the munificence of the Emperor Hadrian, who had constructed an artificial port on a coast left destitute by nature of secure harbours. The city was large and populous."

"The empire of Trebizond was the creation of accident. … The destruction of a distant central government, when Constantinople was conquered by the Frank Crusaders, left [the] provincial administration without the pivot on which it had revolved. The conjuncture was seized by a young man, of whom nothing was known but that he bore a great name, and was descended from the worst tyrant in the Byzantine annals, This youth grasped the vacant sovereignty, and, merely by assuming the imperial title, and placing himself at the head of the local administration, founded a new empire. Power changed its name and its dwelling, but the history of the people was hardly modified. The grandeur of the empire of Trebizond exists only in romance. Its government owed its permanence to its being nothing more than a continuation of a long-established order of civil polity, and to its making no attempt to effect any social revolution." The young man who grasped the sovereignty of this Asiatic fragment of the shattered Byzantine empire was Alexius, a grandson of Andronicus I., the last emperor at Constantinople of the family of Comnenos. This Alexius and his brother David, who had been raised in obscurity at Constantinople, escaped from the city before it was taken by the Crusaders, and fled to the coast of Colchis, "where their paternal aunt, Thamar, possessed wealth and influence. Assisted by her power, and by the memory of their tyrannical grandfather, who had been popular in the east of Asia Minor, they were enabled to collect an army of Iberian mercenaries. At the head of this force Alexios entered Trebizond in the month of April 1204, about the time Constantinople fell into the hands of the Crusaders. He had been proclaimed emperor by his army on crossing the frontier. To mark that he was the legitimate representative of the imperial family of Komnenos, and to prevent his being confounded with the numerous descendants of females, or with the family of the emperor Alexius III. (Angelos), who had arrogated to themselves his name, he assumed the designation of Grand-Komnenos. Wherever he appeared, he was acknowledged as the lawful sovereign of the Roman empire." For a time Alexius of Trebizond, with the help of his brother David, extended his dominions in Asia Minor with rapidity and ease, and he was brought very soon into collision with the other Greek emperor, Theodore Lascaris, who had established himself at Nicæa. It seemed likely, at first, that Trebizond would become the dominant power; but the movement of events which favored that one of the rival empires was presently stayed, and then reversed, even though Alexius took aid from the Latin emperor at Constantinople. Not many years later, in fact, the empire of Trebizond evaded extinction at the hands of the Turkish Sultan of Iconium, or Roum, only by paying tribute and acknowledging vassalage to that sovereign. For sixty years the so-called empire continued in a tributary relationship to the Seljuk sultans and to the grand khan of the Mongols who overthrew them in 1244. But, if not a very substantial empire during that period, it seems to have formed an exceedingly prosperous and wealthy commercial power, controlling not only a considerable coast territory on its own side of the Euxine, but also Cherson, Gothia, and all the Byzantine possessions in the Tauric Chersonesos; and "so close was the alliance of interest that these districts remained dependent on the government of Trebizond until the period of its fall." On the decline of the Mongol power, the empire of Trebizond regained its independence in 1280, and maintained it for nearly a century, when it was once more compelled to pay tribute to the later Mongol conqueror, Timur. At the end of the 14th century the little "empire" was reduced to a strip of coast, barely forty miles wide, extending from Batoun to Kerasunt, and the separated city of Oinaion, with some territory adjoining it. But, within this small compass, "few countries in Europe enjoyed as much internal tranquility, or so great security for private property." The commerce of Trebizond had continued to flourish, notwithstanding frequent quarrels and hostilities with the Genoese, who were the chief managers of its trade with the west. But the decay of the empire, politically, commercially, and morally, was rapid in its later years. First becoming tributary to the Ottoman conqueror of Constantinople, it finally shared the fate of the Byzantine capital. The city of Trebizond was surrendered to Mohammed II. in 1461. Its last emperor, David, was permitted to live for a time, with his family, in the European dominions of the Turk; but after a few years, on some suspicion of a plot, he was put to death with his seven sons, and their bodies were cast unburied to the dogs. The wife and mother of the dead—the fallen empress Helena—guarded them and dug a grave for them with her own hands. The Christian population of Trebizond was expelled from the city and mostly enslaved. Its place was taken by a Moslem colony.

G. Finlay, History of the Empire of Trebizond (History of Greece and of the Empire of Trebizond).

Trèves was originally the chief town of the Treviri, from whom it derived its name. When the Romans established a colony there they called it Augusta Trevirorum. In time, the Augusta was dropped and Trevirorum became Trèves, or Trier.

"The town of the Treveri, named Augusta probably from the first emperor, soon gained the first place in the Belgic province; if, still, in the time of Tiberius, Durocortorum of the Remi (Rheims) is named the most populous place of the province and the seat of the governors, an author from the time of Claudius already assigns the primacy there to the chief place of the Treveri. But Treves became the capital of Gaul—we may even say of the West—only through the remodelling of the imperial administration under Diocletian. After Gaul, Britain and Spain were placed under one supreme administration, the latter had its seat in Treves; and thenceforth Treves was also, when the emperors stayed in Gaul, their regular residence, and, as a Greek of the fifth century says, the greatest city beyond the Alps."

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (MAY-JUNE: VIRGINIA)
      CAMPAIGNING IN THE SHENANDOAH.

The Treviri were one of the peoples of Gaul, in Cæsar's time, "whose territory lay on the left bank of the Rhine and on both sides of the Mosella (Mosel). Trier [ancient Treves] on the Mosel was the head-quarters of the Treviri."

The most extensive of the many secret societies among the Chinese is "the Tienti hwui, or San-hoh hwui, i. e. the Triad Society. It was formerly known by the title of the Pih-lien kiau, or Water-lily Sect, but having been proscribed by the government, it sought by this alteration of name, and some other slight changes, to evade the operation of the laws. In fact, it still subsists in some of the remoter provinces under its old name and organization. The known and indeed almost openly avowed object of this society has been, for many years, the overturn of the Mant-chou dynasty."

TRIAL BY COMBAT.

TRIARII.

TRIBE. TRIBUS.

   A people who, in Cæsar's time, were established on both banks
   of the Rhine, occupying the central part of the modern Grand
   Duchy of Baden and the opposite region of Gaul.

A garment of thick cloth and small size worn by Spartan youths, and sometimes by old men.

TRIBUNES OF THE PLEBS.

The tributum, a war-tax, collected from the Roman people in the earlier periods of the Republic, was "looked upon as a loan, and was returned on the termination of a successful war out of the captured booty. … The principle that Rome was justified in living at the expense of her subjects was formally acknowledged when, in the year 167 B. C., the tributum—the only direct tax which the Roman citizens paid—was abolished, because the government could dispense with it after the conquest of Macedonia. The entire burden and expense of the administration were now put off upon the subjects."

TRICASSES.

TRICOTEUSES OF THE FRENCH REVOLUTION.

TRIDENTINE COUNCIL.

The Council of Trent; so called from Tridentum, the ancient
Latin name of the town.

TRIERARCHY.

TRINACRIA.

TRINITY HOUSE.

"Perhaps there is throughout Britain no more interesting example of the innate power and varied developments of the old gild principle, certainly no more illustrious survival of it to modern times, than the Trinity House. It stands out now as an institution of high national importance, whose history is entwined with the early progress of the British navy and the welfare and increase of our sea craft and seamanship: in an age when the tendency is to assume state control over all matters of national interest the Trinity House, a voluntary corporation, still fulfils the public functions to which its faithful labours, through a long course of years, have established its right and title. Although its earliest records appear to be lost or burned, there seems to be no doubt that Henry VIII's charter of 1514 was granted to a brotherhood already existing. … In the charter itself we read that the shipmen or mariners of England 'may anew erect' a gild, and lands and tenements in Deptford Strand, already in possession, are referred to. Similar bodies were formed in other places; in the fourteenth century there was a shipmen's gild at Lynn and another at Hull; in the fifteenth century the shipmen were one of the crafts of York. Mr. Barrett mentions that they also had houses at Newcastle and Dover. The Hull gild (which also happens to have been dedicated to the Trinity) flourished for seventy-four years before receiving its first royal grant. The objects to which it was devoted were akin to those of the Deptford House, and Henry VIII incorporated it in 1547, just about the time when most gilds, not of crafts, were destroyed. … The charitable side of the Trinity House functions has always been considerable; in 1815 they possessed no less than 144 almshouses, besides giving 7,012 pensions; but of late years their funds applicable to such purposes have been curtailed. … It is significant that in Edward VI's reign the name and style of Gild was abandoned by the brethren for the title of 'the Corporation of the Trinity House of Deptford Strond.' Gilds now had come into disrepute. The functions of the Trinity House have long been recognised of such value to the public service that their honourable origin, so consonant with other English institutions is apt to be forgotten. … To cherish the 'science and art of mariners,' and to provide a supply of pilots, especially for the Thames up to London, were their prime duties. The Admiralty and Navy boards were as administrative bodies in 1520, and the ship-building yard at Deptford, with the store-houses there, 'was placed under the direct control of the gild.' The Sea Marks Act of 1566, established which throws considerable light on the position of the company at that time, endued them with the power of preserving old and setting up new sea marks or beacons round the coasts, among which trees came under their purview. How far their jurisdiction extended is not stated; it would be interesting to know whether their progress round the whole shores of Britain were gradual or not. It is, perhaps, for its work in connexion with light-houses, light-ships, buoys, and beacons, that the Trinity House is best known to the general public. … It was only in 1836 that parliament 'empowered the corporation to purchase of the crown, or from private proprietors, all lights then in existence,' which are therefore at present under their efficient central control. … The principal matters in their sphere of action—the important provision of pilots, the encouragement and supply of seamen, ballastage and ballast, lights and buoys, the suppression of piracy and privateers, tonnage measurement, the victualling of the navy, their intimate connexion with the gradual growth and armament of the navy, the curious right to appoint certain consuls abroad—all these receive illustration at first hand from the author's careful researches among state papers and the muniments of the corporation."

Lucy T. Smith, Review of "The Trinity House of Deptford Strond"; by C. R. B. Barrett (English Historical Review, April, 1894).

The Trinobantes were the first of the tribes of Britain to submit to Cæsar. They inhabited the part of the country now embraced in the county of Essex and part of Middlesex. Their chief town, or stronghold ("oppidum") was Camulodunum, where the Romans afterwards founded a colony which became the modern city of Colchester. Cunobelin, the Cymbeline of Shakespeare, was a king of the Trinobantes who acquired extensive power. One of the sons of Cunobelin, Caractacus, became the most obstinate enemy of the Romans when they seriously began the conquest of Britain, in the reign of Claudius.

TRIOBOLON.

Three oboli,—the daily compensation paid in Athens to citizens who served as judges in the great popular courts: afterwards paid, likewise, to those who attended the assemblies of the people.

There have been a number of Triple Alliances formed in
European history; see, for example.

But the one in recent times to which allusion is often made is that in which Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy, are the three parties. It was formed by treaty in February, 1882, and renewed in 1887. Its purpose is mutual defense, especially, no doubt, against the apprehended combination of Russia with France.

TRIPOLI, Syria:
   Capture by the Crusaders.
   Destruction of the Library.
   Formation of the Latin county.

TRIPONTIUM.

A town in Roman Britain, where one of the great roads crossed the Avon, near modern Lilburne.

TRI-SKELION. GAMMADION. FYLFOT-CROSS. SVASTIKA.

"One of the most remarkable instances of the migration of a symbol is that afforded by the 'tri-skelion,' or, as we more familiarly know it, 'the three legs of Man.' It first appears on the coins of Lycia, circa B. C. 480; and then on those of Sicily, where it was adopted by Agathocles, B. C. 317-307, but not as a symbol of the morning, midday, and afternoon sun, but of the land of Trinacria, i. e., 'Three Capes,' the ancient name of Sicily; and finally on the coins of the Isle of Man, on which it seems to refer rather to the position of that island between England, Scotland, and Ireland, than to its triangular shape. The tri-skelion of Lycia is made up of three cocks' heads. … But on the coins of Sicily and of the Isle of Man the tri-skelion consists of three human legs of an identical pattern, excepting that those of the latter island are spurred. This form of tri-skelion is borne on the arms of several old English families, and it was in all probability first introduced into this country [England] by some Crusader returning from the East by way of Sicily. … The tri-skelion is but a modification of the 'gammadion' or 'fyl-fot-cross,' the 'svastika' of the Hindus. The latter was long ago suspected by Edward Thomas to be a sun-symbol; but this was not positively proved until Mr. Percy Gardner found a coin of the ancient city of Mesembria in Thrace stamped with a gammadion bearing within its open centre an image of the sun—Mesembria meaning the city of 'Mid-day,' and this name being figured on some of its coins by the decisive legend MEΣ卍. … The gammadion has travelled further afield than any other symbol of antiquity. … Count Goblet d'Alviella traces it back at last to the Troad as the cradle of its birth, some time anterior to the 13th century B. C."

The Athenœum, August 13, 1802 (Reviewing Comte Goblet d'Alviella's "La Migration des Symboles").

TRITTYES.

"The highest reward of the commander was the triumphal entrance. At first it was awarded by senate and people to real merit in the field, and its arrangement was simple and dignified; but soon it became an opportunity of displaying the results of insatiable Roman rapacity and love of conquest. Only the dictators, consuls, prætors, and, in late republican times, occasionally legates, were permitted by the senate to enter Rome in triumph, the permission to the legate being granted only in case he had commanded independently ('suis auspiciis'), and conducted the army to Rome from a victorious campaign 'in sua provincia.' As in later times it was impossible to conduct the whole army from distant provinces to Rome, the last-mentioned condition was dispensed with, the claim of the commander to a triumph being acknowledged in case in one of the battles gained by him 5,000 enemies had been killed. The senate granted the expenses necessary for the procession after the quæstor urbanus had examined and confirmed the commander's claim. Streets and squares through which the procession had to pass were festively adorned. The temples were opened, and incense burnt on the altars. Improvised stands were erected in the street, filled with festive crowds shouting 'Io triumphe!' The commander, in the meantime, collected his troops near the temples of Bellona and Apollo, outside the gates of Rome. … The victor was met at the 'porta triumphalis' by the senate, the city magistrates, and numerous citizens, who took the lead of the procession, while lictors opened a way through the crowd. After the city dignitaries followed tibicines, after them the booty. … Fettered kings, princes, and nobles followed, doomed to detention in the Mamertine prison. Next came sacrificial oxen with gilt horns, accompanied by priests; and, finally, preceded by singers, musicians, and jesters, the triumphal chariot drawn by four horses. Clad in a toga picta and the tunica palmata, temporarily taken from the statue of the Capitoline Jupiter, the triumphator stood in his chariot holding the eagle-crowned ivory sceptre in his hand, while a servus publicus standing behind him held the corona triumphalis over his head. The army brought up the rear of the procession, which moved from the Campus Martius through the circus of Flaminius to the Porta Carmentalis, and thence, by way of the Velabrum and the Circus Maximus, the Via Sacra and the Forum, to the Capitol. Here the triumphator deposited his golden crown in the lap of the Capitoline Jupiter, and sacrificed the usual suovetaurilia. … The ovatio was granted for less important conquests, or to a general for victories not won 'suis auspiciis.' The victor, adorned with the toga prætexta and the myrtle crown, originally used to walk; in later times he rode on horseback."

TROJA. TROY. TROAD. ILIUM.

   "In the whole long extent of this Western coast [of Asia
   Minor] no region occupies a fairer situation than the northern
   projection, the peninsula jutting out between Archipelago,
   Hellespont, and Propontis, of which the mountain-range of Ida,
   abounding in springs, forms the centre. Its woody heights were
   the seat of the Phrygian Mother of the Gods; in its depths it
   concealed treasures of ore, which the dæmons of mining, the
   Dactyli of Ida, were here first said to have been taught by
   Cybele to win and employ. A hardy race of men dwelt on the
   mountains so rich in iron, divided into several tribes, the
   Cebrenes, the Gergithians, and above all the beauteous
   Dardani, among whom the story went, how their ancestor,
   Dardanus, had, under the protection of the Pelasgian Zeus,
   founded the city of Dardania.
{3126}
   Some of these Dardani descended from the highlands into the
   tracts by the coast, which has no harbours, but an island
   lying in front of it called Tenedos. Here Phœnicians had
   settled and established purple-fisheries in the sea of Sigeum;
   at a later period Hellenic tribes arrived from Crete and
   introduced the worship of Apollo. In the secure waters between
   Tenedos and the mainland took place that contact which drew
   the Idæan peninsula into the intercourse subsisting between
   the coasts of the Archipelago. … In the midst of this
   intercourse on the coast arose, out of the tribe of the
   Dardani, which had deserted the hills, the branch of the
   Trojans. … Thus, in the midst of the full life of the nations
   of Asia Minor, on the soil of a peninsula (itself related to
   either side) on which Phrygians and Pelasgians, Assyrians,
   Phœnicians, and Hellenic mariners met, grows up the empire of
   the Dardanides. The springs of the Ida range collect into
   rivers, of which two flow to the Propontis, and one, the
   Scamander, into the Ægean. The latter first flows through his
   bed high in the mountains, through which he then breaks in a
   narrow rocky gorge, and quitting the latter enters the flat
   plain of his water-shed, surrounded on three sides by gentle
   declivities, and open on the West to the sea. … In the
   innermost corner of this plain projects a rocky height with
   precipitous sides, as if it would bar the passage of the river
   breaking forth from the ravine. Skirted in a wide curve by
   Scamander on the East, it sinks to the West in gentle
   declivities, where numerous veins of water spring from the
   earth; these unite into two rivulets, distinguished by the
   abundance and temperature of their water, which remain the
   same at all seasons of the year. This pair of rivulets is the
   immutable mark of nature, by which the height towering above
   is recognized as the citadel of Ilium. They are the same
   rivulets to which of old the Trojan women descended from the
   Scæan gate to fetch water or to wash linen, and to this day
   the same ancient walls close around the flowing water and
   render it more easily available. The source of these rivulets
   was the seat of power. On the gentler declivity lay Troja;
   over which towered the steep citadel of Pergamus, the view
   from whose turrets commanded the entire plain, … and beyond
   the plain the broad sea itself. … No royal seat of the ancient
   world could boast a grander site than this Trojan citadel."

The site contemplated by Dr. Curtius in the description quoted above is some five miles higher up the valley of the Scamander than Hissarlik, where Dr. Schliemann's excavations are believed by many scholars to have now established the location of ancient Troy.

"Dr. Schliemann described in his 'Troja' and 'Ilios' seven successive layers of city ruins found in his excavations at Hissarlik. This number was increased in 1890 to nine by the discovery of two layers intervening between the highest (or Roman) layer, formerly called the seventh, and the sixth, or so-called Lydian layer. These two lavers were, from the character of the finds, attributed to the early and the later Greek period. Dr. Schliemann was baffled by the fact that he could discover no acropolis for the sixth, seventh, or eighth layers. Dr. Dörpfeld, who in May [1893] resumed the excavations at the expense of Dr. Schliemann's widow, makes in the Mittheilungen of the German Archæological Society (xviii, 2), which appeared November 7, a significant report clearly establishing the fact that the Romans, in building the great temple of Ilian Athene, cut down the highest part of the acropolis, and thus destroyed all traces of the acropolis belonging to those layers. The excavations of 1890 had brought to light two magnificent buildings in the sixth layer, besides 'Lydian' jars, much pottery, and one entire vase of the Mykenæan or Homeric period. The evidence favored the identification of this layer with the Homeric Troy or the period of Mykenæ and Tiryns. On the other hand, the fact that only two buildings find no city wall had been discovered for this layer seemed to indicate that the Troy of Priam must be referred to a lower level, namely, the second, where a magnificent wall of prehistoric style had been discovered, although its architecture and the character of the finds suggested a more primitive culture than that painted in Homeric song. The sixth layer has now in large part been exposed by Dr. Dörpfeld and reveals the most imposing wall of pre-Roman times. The remains of seven vast buildings have been brought to light which have in part the ground plan of the ancient Greek temples and of the halls of Tiryns and Mykenæ, though surpassing those in proportions and in the carefulness of their architecture. The remains of one admirable building contained a hall 37 feet by 30. … Further, Dr. Dörpfeld uncovered the fortifications of this city in many places, and found them some sixteen feet in thickness with a still greater height. On the outside the wall has a uniform slope. A strong-tower fifty-eight feet in diameter contains an inner staircase. In strength, proportions, and careful architecture this tower will compare favorably with any tower of Greek antiquity. The neat work of the corners and the nice dressing of the stones might refer it to a period later than Homer, to the historical Greek period, did we not know that in historical times Troy was too insignificant to need the erection of such walls. Moreover, the tower, built over in Greek times, and partly damaged by the addition of an outer stair, was finally in Roman times buried under massive foundations. The correspondences in stone-work of the wall and the houses place the tower and the buildings evidently in the same layer. In the houses were found both local pottery and also pottery of the Mykenæan style."

   "The latest news from the explorations at Hissarlik (Levant
   Herald July 7) comes to us from the owner of the site, Mr.
   Frank Calvert, United States consul, Dardanelles. It was
   readily seen that the second, or burned city which Dr.
   Schliemann enthusiastically assumed to be the city of Priam,
   instead of solving the question of the 'Iliad,' offered new
   problems to the archæologist. The precious objects and the
   works of art there found were evidently ruder and more ancient
   by some centuries than those of Mycenæ, and therefore
   decidedly earlier than Homeric Troy. In the sixth city,
   however, pottery of a Mycenæan type was discovered, and this
   led Dr. Dörpfield, assisted by Mrs. Schliemann, and later by
   the German Government, to extend excavations on this level,
   with results that are now proving fruitful, and that may
   possibly be conclusive. Curiously enough, Dr. Schliemann's
   excavations obscured rather than aided this particular
   investigation.
{3127}
   The area of the sixth city was twice as great as the space
   covered by the successive acropolises of the other five; and,
   in consequence, their debris was dumped on the very spot which
   Dr. Dörpfield has just been clearing. The massive walls he has
   uncovered, from five to six metres broad, the lofty towers,
   and the street which has been traced, may provisionally be
   assumed to belong to the Homeric Troy."

TROPAION.

The trophy erected by a victorious army, among the Greeks, on the spot from which the enemy had been driven. The trophy was constructed in some manner out of the booty taken.

TROUBADOURS. TROUVÈRES. JOGLARS. JONGLEURS.

"The poets of the South of France during the Middle Age called themselves 'Trobadors,' that is to say 'inventers' or 'finders'; and they adapted the 'langue d'oc,' also called the Romansh of the South, or the Provençal, to the expression of poetical sentiments. It is probable that poets of this description existed as early as the formation of the idiom in which they wrote. At any rate, we know that toward the year 1000 they already enjoyed considerable distinction, although there is scarcely anything now left us from the earliest period of their existence. … In regard to the time within which the poetry of the Troubadours was in vogue, M. Fauriel assumes only two periods. But it may perhaps be more conveniently divided into three, as follows: The first commences with its origin, as a popular poetry, and extends to the time when it became an art and a profession, the poetry of the nobles and the courts, that is to say, from about 1090 to 1140. The second is the period of its culmination, which extends from the year 1140 to 1250. The third is the period of its decadence, from 1250 to 1290."

"Sufficient has been said … to show the superiority of lyrical over epic poetry in Provence. This inequality of the two branches implied a commensurate difference of praise and social esteem awarded to those who excelled in either of them, and it is perhaps from this point of view that the two great divisions of poets in the 'langue d'oc,' respectively described as 'joglars' and 'trobadors,' or, in the French and generally adopted form of the word, 'troubadours,' may be most distinctly recognised. … It seems sufficiently established that the verb 'trobar' and its derivative noun first and foremost apply to lyrical poetry. To speak therefore of the Troubadour as the singer of songs, of cansos and sirventeses and albas and retroensas is a correct and tolerably comprehensive definition."

"In the twelfth century, the Romance-Wallon [or the 'langue d'oil' of northern France] became a literary language, subsequent, by at least a hundred years, to the Romance-provençal. … The reciters of tales, and the poets, giving the name of Troubadour a French termination, called themselves Trouvères. With the exception of the difference of language, it may be thought that the Troubadour and the Trouvère, whose merit was pretty nearly equal; who were equally ignorant or well-informed: who both of them spent their lives at courts, at which they composed their poems, and where they mingled with knights and ladies; and who were both accompanied by their jongleurs and minstrels, should have preserved the same resemblance in their productions. Nothing, however, can be more dissimilar than their poems. All that remains of the poetry of the Troubadours is of a lyrical character, while that of the Trouvères is decidedly epic. … The Trouvères have left us many romances of chivalry, and fabliaux."

J. C. L. S. de Sismondi, Literature of the South of Europe, chapter 7 (volume 1).

"We know nothing of the rise or origin of the two classes of Trouveurs and Jongleurs. The former (which it is needless to say is the same word as Troubadour, and Trobador, and Trovatore) is the term for the composing class, the latter for the performing one. But the separation was not sharp or absolute."

TROY.

   "This extraordinary institution is the most speaking witness,
   at once to the ferocity of the times [11th century], and also
   to the deep counter feeling which underlay men's minds. Clergy
   and laity alike felt that the state of things which they saw
   daily before their eyes was a standing sin against God and
   man, repugnant alike to natural humanity and to the precepts
   of the Christian religion. States were everywhere so
   subdivided, governments were everywhere so weak, that, in most
   parts of Europe, every man who had the needful force at his
   command simply did that which was right in his own eyes. …
   Every man claimed the right of private war against every other
   man who was not bound to him by some special tie as his lord
   or his vassal. And the distinction between private war and
   mere robbery and murder was not always very sharply drawn. … A
   movement on behalf of peace and good will towards men could
   not fail in those days to assume an ecclesiastical form. As of
   old the Amphiktyonic Council, the great religious synod of
   Greece, strove to put some bounds to the horrors of war as
   waged between Greek and Greek, so now, in the same spirit, a
   series of Christian synods strove, By means of ecclesiastical
   decrees and ecclesiastical censures, to put some bounds to the
   horrors of war as waged between Christian and Christian. … The
   movement began in Aquitaine [A. D. 1034], and the vague and
   rhetorical language of our authority would seem to imply that
   all war, at any rate all private war, was forbidden under pain
   of ecclesiastical censures. It must not be forgotten that, in
   that age, it must have been exceedingly difficult to draw the
   distinction between public and private war. …
{3128}
   But the doctrine, hard as it might be to carry out in
   practice, was rapturously received at its first announcement.
   As the first preaching of the Crusade was met with one
   universal cry of 'God wills it,' so the Bishops, Abbots, and
   other preachers of the Truce were met with a like universal
   cry of Peace, Peace, Peace. Men bound themselves to God and to
   one an·other to abstain from all wrong and violence, and they
   engaged solemnly to renew the obligation every five years.
   From Aquitaine the movement spread through Burgundy Royal and
   Ducal. But it seems to have been gradually found that the
   establishment of perfect peace on earth was hopeless. After
   seven years from the first preaching of peace, we find the
   requirements of its apostles greatly relaxed. It was found
   vain to forbid all war, even all private war. All that was now
   attempted was to forbid violence of every kind from the
   evening of Wednesday till the morning of Monday. It was in
   this shape that the Truce was first preached in northern and
   eastern Gaul. The days of Christ's supper, of His passion, of
   His rest in the grave and His resurrection, were all to be
   kept free from strife and bloodshed."

ALSO IN: P. Schaff, History of the Christian Church, volume 4, chapter 6, section. 78.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1775 (APRIL-SEPTEMBER), and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (AUGUST).

TUATH.

"Among the people of Gaelic race [in Ireland and Scotland] the original social unit appears to have been the 'Tuath,' a name originally applied to the tribe, but which came to signify also the territory occupied by the tribe community. … Several of these Tuaths were grouped together to form a still larger tribe, termed a Mortuath or great tribe, over whom one of the kings presided as Ri Mortuath. … Then several of these Mortuath formed a province, called in Irish 'Cuicidh,' or a fifth. … Over each province was the Ri Cuicidh, or provincial king, and then over the whole was the Ardri, or sovereign of all Ireland. The succession to these several grades of Ri, or king, was the same as that of the Ri Tuath, and was regulated by the law of Tanistry, that is, hereditary in the family but elective in the individual, the senior of the family being usually preferred."

TUATHA-DE-DANAAN.

One of the races named in Irish legend as original settlers of Ireland, represented to have come from Greece and to have been extraordinarily proficient in the arts of magic. They were conquered, after two centuries, as the legend runs, by the Milesians, or Scots.

The palace of the Tuileries is said to have taken its name from the tile-making which had been carried on formerly in the vicinity of the ground on which it was built. "The history of it begins in the year 1564, when Catherine de Medicis conceived the idea of having a palace to herself near the Louvre, yet independent, in which she might be near enough to her son Charles IX. to have influence over him. … The palace was never very long or very closely connected with the history of the monarchy. It is not at all comparable to Windsor in that respect. Henry IV. liked it, Louis XIV. preferred Versailles, Louis XV. lived at the Tuileries in his minority. The chosen association of the palace with the sovereigns of France is very recent. Louis XVI. lived in it, and so did Charles X. and Louis-Philippe. The two Napoleons were fond of it. … The last inhabitant was the Empress Eugénie, as Regent. … The parliamentary history of the Tuileries is important, as it has been not only a palace but a parliament house. … The destruction of the Tuileries by the Communards [1871] was a lamentable event from the point of view of the historian and the archaeologist, but artistically the loss is not great."

      ALSO IN:
      History of Paris
      (London: 1827), volume 2, chapter 2.

TUILERIES: A. D. 1792.
   Mobbing of the King.
   The attack of August 10.
   Massacre of the Swiss.

TUKUARIKAS.

TULCHAN BISHOPS.

TUMULT OF AMBOISE.

TUMULUS.

TUN. TUNSCIPE.

"The tunica was put on in the same way as the Greek chiton. Its cut was the same for men and women, and its simple original type was never essentially modified by the additions of later fashion. It was light and comfortable, and was worn especially at home; out of doors the toga was arranged over it."

LIST OF MAPS AND PLANS.

Map of the United States Showing its territorial development,
To follow page 3286.

Maps of the United States in 1783, in 1790, in 1803, in 1840,
and in 1860,
To follow page 3326.

Map of the principal theatre Of war in Virginia, 1861-1865,
To follow page 3434.

SUPPLEMENT.

Lineage of European Sovereigns and great historical families,
Pages 3857 to 3883.

List of works from which passages have been quoted in "History for Ready Reference and Topical Reading," Pages 3910 to 3985.

TUNNAGE AND POUNDAGE.
   A tax or custom of two shillings on the tun of wine and
   sixpence on the pound of merchandise, which became, in
   England, from the fourteenth century, one of the regular
   parliamentary grants to the crown, for a long period. It grew
   out of an agreement with the merchants in the time of Edward
   II., to take the place of the former right of prisage; the
   right, that is, to take two tuns of wine from every ship
   importing twenty tuns or more,—one before and one behind the
   mast.

W. Stubbs, Constitutional History of England, chapter 17, sections 276-277 (volume 2).

TURAN.

"The old Persians, who spoke an Aryan tongue, called their own land Iran, and the barbarous land to the north of it they called Turan. In their eyes, Iran was the land of light, and Turan was the land of darkness. From this Turan, the land of Central Asia, came the many Turkish settlements which made their way, first into Western Asia and then into Europe."

TURANIAN RACES AND LANGUAGES.

The name Turanian has been given to a large group of peoples, mostly Asiatic, whose languages are all in the agglutinative stage and bear evident marks of a family relationship. "This race, one of the largest, both numerically and with regard to the extent of territory which it occupies, is divided into two great branches, the Ugro-finnish and the Dravidian. The first must be again subdivided into the Turkish, including the populations of Turkestan and of the Steppes of Central Asia, as well as the Hungarians who have been for a long time settled in Europe; and the Uralo-finnish group, comprising the Finns, the Esthonians, the Tchoudes, and, in general, nearly all the tribes of the north of Europe and Asia. The country of the Dravidian branch is, on the contrary, to the south. This branch is in fact composed of the indigenous people of the Peninsula of Hindustan; Tamuls, Telingas, Carnates, who were subjugated by the Arian race, and who appear to have originally driven before them the negroes of the Australian group, the original inhabitants of the soil, who are now represented by the almost savage tribe of the Khonds. The Turanian race is one of the oldest in the world. … The skulls discovered in France, England and Belgium, in caves of the close of the quaternary epoch, appear from their characteristics to belong to a Turanian race, to the Uralo-finnish group, and particularly resemble those of the Esthonians. Wherever the Japhetic or pure Indo-European race extended, it seems to have encountered a Turanian population which it conquered and finally amalgamated with itself."

"From the 'Shah-nameh,' the great Persian epic, we learn that the Aryan Persians called their nearest non-Aryan neighbours —the Turkic or Turcoman tribes to the north of them—by the name Turan, a word from which we derive the familiar ethnologic term Turanian."

"There is a tradition that the Turdetani (round Seville) possessed lays from very ancient times, a metrical book of laws, of 6,000 verses, and even historical records. At any rate, this tribe is described as the most civilized of all the Spanish tribes, and at the same time the least warlike."

"The most mixed portion of the Peninsular population … is that of the water-system of the Guadalquiver and the parts immediately south and east of it, … the country of the Turdetani and Bastitani, if we look to the ancient populations—Bætica, if we adopt the general name of the Romans, Andalusia in modern geography; … it was the Iberians of these parts who were the first to receive foreign intermixture, and the last to lose it."

TURDETANIA.

The ancient name of modern Andalusia, in Spain; known still
more anciently as Tartessus.

TURIN: 12th Century, Included in the original Italian possessions of the House of Savoy.

TURIN: A. D. 1536-1544.
Occupation by the French and restoration to the Duke of Savoy.

TURIN: A. D. 1559.
Held by France while other territory of the Duke of Savoy
was restored to him.

TURIN: A. D. 1562-1580.
   Evacuation by the French.
   Establishment of the seat of government
   by Duke Emanuel Philibert.
   Increased importance.

TURIN: A. D. 1639-1657.
Extraordinary siege within a siege.
The citadel, and its restoration by France to the Duke of Savoy.

An Egyptian papyrus preserved in the Turin Museum, for which it was purchased from M. Drovetti, consul-general of France. "If this papyrus were entire, the science of Egyptian antiquities could not possess a more valuable document. It contains a list of all the mythical or historical personages who were believed to have reigned in Egypt, from fabulous times down to a period we cannot ascertain, because the end of the papyrus is wanting. Compiled under Ramses II. (19th dynasty), that is, in the most flourishing epoch of the history of Egypt, this list has all the characteristics of an official document, and gives us the more valuable assistance, as the name of each king is followed by the duration of his reign, and each dynasty by the total number of years during which it governed Egypt. Unfortunately this inestimable treasure exists only in very small pieces (164 in number), which it is often impossible to join correctly."

F. Lenormant, Manual of Ancient History of the East, book 3, chapter 1, section 2.

TURKESTAN.

"Few even of the leading authorities are of accord as to the exact meaning of such common expressions as Turkestán or Central Asia. The Russians themselves often designate as Central Asia the second great administrative division of their Asiatic possessions, which is mainly comprised within the Aralo-Caspian depression. But this expression is misguiding in a geographical sense. To the portion of this division directly administered by the Governor-General, whose headquarters are at Tashkent, they give the still more questionable name of Eastern Turkestán—the true Eastern Turkestán, if there be any, lying beyond his jurisdiction in the Chinese province of Kashgaria. … Russian Turkestán is bordered on the west by the Caspian, the Ural river and mountains, on the east by the Pamir plateau, the Tian-Shan and Ala-tau ranges separating it from the Chinese Empire, northwards by the low ridge crossing the Kirghis steppes about the 51st parallel, and forming the water-parting between the Aralo-Caspian and Ob basins."

Of the region sometimes called Chinese Turkestan, the name "Kashgaria," "lately current in Europe, has no raison d'être since the collapse of the independent state founded by Yakub of Kashgar. In the same way the expression 'Kingdom of Khotan' fell into disuse after the city of Khotan had ceased to be the capital. The term 'Little Bokhara,' still in use some thirty years ago, pointed at the former religious ascendancy of Bokhara, but is now all the less appropriate that Bokhara itself has yielded the supremacy to Tashkent. Lastly, the expressions Eastern Turkestan and Chinese Turkestan are still applicable, because the inhabitants are of Turki speech, while the Chinese have again brought the country under subjection."

TURKEY.

"At the equal distance of 2,000 miles from the Caspian, the Icy, the Chinese, and the Bengal seas, a ridge of mountains is conspicuous, the centre, and perhaps the summit, of Asia, which, in the language of different nations has been styled Imaus, and Caf, and Altai, and the Golden Mountains, and the Girdle of the Earth. The sides of the hills were productive of minerals; and the iron-forges, for the purpose of war, were exercised by the Turks, the most despised portion of the slaves of the great khan of the Geougen. But their servitude could only last till a leader, bold and eloquent, should arise to persuade his countrymen that the same arms which they forged for their masters might become in their own hands the instruments of freedom and victory. They sallied from the mountain; a sceptre was the reward of his advice. … The decisive battle which almost extirpated the nation of the Geougen established in Tartary the new and more powerful empire of the Turks. … The royal encampment seldom lost sight of Mount Altai, from whence the river Irtish descends to water the rich pastures of the Calmucks, which nourish the largest sheep and oxen in the world. … As the subject nations marched under the standard of the Turks, their cavalry, both men and horses, were proudly computed by millions; one of their effective armies consisted of 400,000 soldiers, and in less than fifty years they were connected in peace and war with the Romans, the Persians, and the Chinese. … Among their southern conquests the most splendid was that of the Nephthalites, or White Huns, a polite and warlike people, who possessed the commercial cities of Bochara and Samarcand, who had vanquished the Persian monarch, and carried their victorious arms along the banks and perhaps to the month of the Indus. On the side of the west the Turkish cavalry advanced to the lake Mæotis [Sea of Azov]. They passed that lake on the ice: The khan, who dwelt at the foot of Mount Altai, issued his commands for the siege of Bosphorus, a city the voluntary subject of Rome and whose princes had formerly been the friends of Athens."

      W. Smith,
      Note to
      E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 42.
{3131}

      ALSO IN:
      J. H. Newman,
      Lectures on the History of the Turks
      (Historical Sketches, volume 1), lectures 1-4.

See, also, TARTARS; and MONGOLS: ORIGIN, &c.;
and BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: RACES EXISTING.

The decline of the Caliphate at Bagdad in the 9th century was signalized by the rise to practically independent power of several dynasties in its Persian and Central Asian dominions. Among these was the dynasty of the Samanides who ruled, for a hundred and twenty-five years, an extensive dominion in northern Persia and modern Afghanistan and in the Turkoman regions to the Oxus and beyond. In this dominion of the Samanides was included the Turkish tribes which had submitted to Islam and which were presently to become the master champions of the faith. Their first attainment of actual empire in the Moslem world was accomplished by the overthrow of the Samanide princes, and the chief instruments of that revolution were two Turks of humble origin—Sebectagi, or Sabektekin, and his son Mahmud. Sebectagi had been a slave (in the service of a high official under the Samanides) who gained the favor of his masters and acquired command of the city and province of Gazna; whence his famous son Mahmud was called the Gaznevide, and the wide conquests which the latter made are sometimes distinguished as the Gaznevide empire. "For him the title of Sultan was first invented [see SULTAN]; and his kingdom was enlarged from Transoxiana to the neighbourhood of Ispahan, from the shores of the Caspian to the mouth of the Indus. But the principal source of his fame and riches was the holy war which he waged against the Gentoos of Hindostan. … The Sultan of Gazna surpassed the limits of the conquests of Alexander; after a march of three months, over the hills of Cashmir and Thibet, he reached the famous city of Kinoge, on the Upper Ganges, and, in a naval combat on one of the branches of the Indus, he fought and vanquished 4,000 boats of the natives. Delhi, Lahor, and Multan were compelled to open their gates; the fertile kingdom of Guzarat attracted his ambition and tempted his stay." The throne of Mahmud scarcely outlasted himself. In the reign of his son Massoud, it was nearly overturned by another Turkish horde—later comers into the region of Bokhara from the steppes beyond. In a great battle fought at Zendecan, in Khorassan, A. D. 1038, Massoud was defeated and driven from Persia to a narrowed kingdom in Cabul and the Punjaub, which survived for more than a century longer and then disappeared.

      ALSO IN:
      J. H. Newman,
      Lectures on the History of the Turks
      (Historical Sketches, volume 1), lecture 4.

"The history of the origin of the Seldjukides is obscured by numerous myths, but it appears from it that Seldjuk, or more correctly Seldjik, the son of Tokmak, and Subash, commander of the army of a prince named Pigu or Bogu, were expelled from their native steppes for some crime, and forced to seek their fortunes in strange countries. Seldjuk, with 100 horsemen, 1,000 camels, and 50,000 sheep, migrated to a place on the southern confines of the desert, in the neighbourhood of Djend [described as distant twenty fersakhs from Bokhara]. He settled there and, with all his followers, embraced Islamism." Under Seldjuk and his two grandsons, Togrul and Tchakar, the Seldjukides grew formidable in numbers and power, on the border of the empire of Mahmud the Ghaznevide, then rising on the ruins of the principality of the Samanides. Thinking to control these turbulent kinsmen of his race, Mahmud unwisely proposed to them to quit the country they occupied, between the Oxus and the Jaxartes, and to settle themselves in Khorasan. "In the year … (1030), that is, within a year of the death of Sultan Mahmud, we find the Seldjukides west of Merv, on the ground now occupied by the Tekke-Turkomans, in the neighbourhood of the southern cities of Nisa and Abiverd, from which point they molested the rich province of Khorasan by constant raids, as grievously as is done by the Turkomans to this very day.' When it was too late, the Ghaznevide Sultan attempted to expel the marauders. His armies were routed, and the grandsons of Seldjuk were soon (A. D. 1039) in undisputed possession of the whole of Khorasan, with the rich and flourishing cities of Merv, Balkh, and Nishabur. A few years later they had pushed forward "over the ruins of the former power of the Buyyides [or Bouides, of Persia] to Azerbaïdjan, and, in the year 446 (1054) the skirmishers of the Turkish army, led by Togrul Beg, penetrated into the interior of the eastern Roman Empire [that is, into Asia Minor]; and although the bold inhabitants of the desert in their raid on the land of the Cæsars were bent rather on plunder than on actual conquest, yet even their temporary success against the great name of Rome—so long one of awe to the ancient Asiatic—increased enormously the prestige and reputation of the Seldjukides. Togrul Beg was said to meditate a pilgrimage to Mecca, with the object at the same time of clearing the road thither, which the state of anarchy in Bagdad had long rendered unsafe."

   "Togrul Beg, under pretence of a pilgrimage to Mekka had
   entered Irak at the head of a strong army, and sought to
   obtain admission into Baghdad. The khalif, in opposition to
   the advice of his vizier and the officers of the Turkish
   militia, consented; on the 22nd Ramadan, 447 (December, 1050),
   the name of Togrul was inserted in the public prayer; and
   three days after he made his entry into the city. He had taken
   an oath, before entering, to be the faithful and obedient
   servant of the khalif; but it is needless to add that he broke
   this immediately afterwards, and occupied the city in force. A
   dispute broke out between the Seljuk soldiers and some
   shop-keepers. The Baghdad Turks took the side of the citizens,
   the foreigners were driven out, and several of them killed and
   wounded. This riot was followed by a general attack upon the
   ill-fated city by the army of Togrul Beg. It was useless for
   the khalif and his vizier to protest their innocence. The
   Turkish chief denounced them as the murderers of his soldiers,
   and summoned the vizier to his camp to explain his conduct.
{3132}
   On his arrival there he was arrested and flung into prison.
   With this occurrence the rule of the Bouides in Baghdad may be
   said to have terminated, and that of the Seljuks commenced.
   Togrul Beg remained for a year inactive in Baghdad, neither
   visiting the khalif nor heeding his entreaties to put an end
   to the ravages and outrages perpetrated by his fierce and
   lawless soldiery on the wretched townspeople." The khalif was
   forced, nevertheless, to crown Sultan Togrul with two crowns,
   one to represent the sovereignty of Persia and the other the
   sovereignty of Arabia, and to confer on him the title of "The
   Sultan of the Court, the Right Hand of the Chief of Believers,
   the King of the East and of the West." The Seljuk sultan was
   now master of the Asiatic Mahometan empire. But civil war was
   still protracted for a period, by struggles of the partisans
   of the Bouides, assisted by the Fatimite Kalif of Egypt, and
   the unfortunate city of Baghdad suffered terribly at the hands
   of each party in turn. Togrul Beg, in the end, destroyed the
   opposition to his rule, and was at the point of marrying one
   of the kalif's daughters, when a sudden illness ended his
   life, A. D. 1063. He was succeeded by his nephew, Alp Arslan,
   who extended the empire of the Seljukides in Asia Minor and
   Armenia.

      R. D. Osborn,
      Islam under the Khalifs of Baghdad,
      part 3, chapter 2.

"Alp Arslan, the nephew and successor of Togrul Beg, carried on the havoc and devastation which had marked the career through life of his uncle. Togrul Beg had on two or three occasions invaded the Asiatic territories of the Byzantine Emperor; Alp Arslan carried these partial conquests to completion. He invaded in person the northern parts of Armenia and Iberia. He laid waste the country in the cruellest manner, for it was the notion of these barbarians that a country was not really conquered unless it was also depopulated. Iberia had been long celebrated for the industry of its inhabitants, the wealth of its numerous towns, and the valour of its people. There is no doubt they could have flung back the invaders had the Byzantine Empire come to their aid. But avarice was the dominant passion of the Emperor, Constantine X., and rather than disburse his loved hoards, he preferred to look idly on, while his fairest provinces were laid waste and overrun. The country was, in consequence, compelled to submit to the Seljuk Turks, and the invaders settling upon it, like a swarm of locusts, swiftly converted the happiest and most flourishing portion of Asia into a scene of poverty and desolation. From Iberia, Alp Arslan passed into Armenia. Ani, the capital, was stormed and taken, after a gallant defence, on the 6th June, 1064. … So great was the carnage that the streets were literally choked up with dead bodies; and the waters of the river were reddened from the quantity of bloody corpses."

"So far as one can judge from the evidence of modern and mediæval travellers and of Byzantine historians, Asia Minor, at the time of the Seljuk invasion of Alparslan, was thickly occupied by races who were industrious, intelligent, and civilised—races with a certain mixture of Greek blood and mostly Greek as to language. The numerous provincial cities were the centres of civilisation. Their walls and amphitheatres, their works of art, aqueducts, and other public buildings, give evidence of a long-continued sense of security, of peaceful and progressive peoples, and of a healthy municipal life. Wealth was widely diffused. … It was against this prosperous portion of the Empire, which had contributed largely to the wealth of the capital, that Alparslan turned his attention when the border states were no longer able to resist his progress. … The Strong Lion of the Seljuks devoured many cities and devastated the fairest provinces. Cappadocia was laid waste; the inhabitants of its capital, Cæsarea, were massacred. … Mesopotamia, Mitylene, Syria, and Cilicia were plundered."

The career of Alp Arslan in Asia Minor was opposed by a courageous and vigorous emperor, Romanus Diogenes, or Romanus IV.; but Romanus exposed himself and his army rashly to the chances of a battle at Manzikert, A. D. 1071, on which all was staked. He lost; his army was routed, and he, himself, was taken prisoner. He was released on signing a treaty of peace and agreeing to pay a heavy ransom; but a revolution at Constantinople meantime had robbed him of the throne, deprived him of the means of fulfilling his engagements, and brought upon him, soon afterwards, a cruel end. Alp Arslan, provoked by the repudiation of the treaty, revenged himself on the ill-fated country which lay at his mercy. "Every calamity of this unfortunate period sinks into insignificance when compared with the destruction of the greater part of the Greek race, by the ravages of the Seljouk Turks in Asia Minor."

G. Finlay, History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires, book 3, chapter 1, section 2.

Alp Arslan, assassinated in 1073, "was succeeded by his son, Malek Shah, in whose reign the power of the Seljukian Turks attained its greatest height. … Turkestan, the home of his race, including Bokhara and Samarcand, was annexed by Malek, and the rule of the shepherd Sultan was admitted at Cashgar. In addition to Persia and the countries just mentioned, his territory included at one time nearly the whole of what is now Turkey in Asia. … The Seljukian empire, however, broke up on the death of Malek, which took place in 1092, and, after a period of civil war, was divided into four parts. … The only one of the divisions … with which I am concerned is that which was carved out of the dominions of the Roman empire, and of which the capital was, for the most part, at Iconium, a city which to-day, under the name of Konieh, retains somewhat of a sacred character among the Turks, because of its connection with the first Sultans who obtained the right to be Caliphs. Sultan Malek, eighteen years before his death, had prevented a quarrel with Suliman, his cousin, by consenting to allow him to be Sultan of the Seljuks in the lands of the Christian empire. With Suliman there begins the famous line of robber chiefs who are known as Seljukian Sultans of Rome or Roum, or as Sultans of Iconium."

"The dominion of Suleiman over the greater part of Asia Minor was recognised by a treaty with the Byzantine empire in 1074, when Michael VII. purchased the assistance of a Turkish auxiliary force against the rebellion of Oursel and his own uncle John Dukas. Nicephorus III. ratified the treaty concluded with Michael VII., augmented the power of the Turks, and abandoned additional numbers of Christians to their domination, to gain their aid in dethroning his lawful prince; and Nicephorus Melissenos, when he rebelled against Nicephorus III., repeated a similar treason against the traitor, and, in hopes of gaining possession of Constantinople, yielded up the possession of Nicæa to Suleiman, which that chief immediately made the capital of his dominions. … When Alexius ascended the throne [Alexius I. A. D. 1081], the Seljouk conquests in Asia Minor were still considered as a portion of the dominions of the Grand Sultan Malekshah, the son of Alp Arslan, and Suleiman, the sultan of Nicæa, was only his lieutenant, though as a member of the house of Seljouk, and as cousin of Malekshah, he was honoured with the title of Sultan. The prominent position which his posterity occupied in the wars of the Crusaders, their long relations with the Byzantine empire, and the independent position they held as sultans of Iconium, have secured to them a far more lasting place in history than has been obtained by the superior but less durable dynasty of the grand sultans. … Toutoush, the brother of Malekshah, who acted as his governor at Damascus at the same time, became the founder of the Syrian dynasty of Seljouk sultans."

G. Finlay, History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires, from 716 to 1453, book 3, chapter 2, section 1.

The empire of Malek Shah "was as vast as that of the Sassanian kings in the height of their glory. He encouraged the cultivation of science and literature, and his reign is famous for the reformation of the Calendar [in which work Omar el-Khayyam, the poet, was one of the astronomers employed]. An assembly of an the astronomers of Persia adopted a system of computing time which Gibbon says 'surpasses the Julian and approaches the accuracy of the Gregorian æra.' It was called the Jalalæan æra, from Jalalu-'d-Din, 'Glory of the Faith,' one of the titles of Malik-Shah, and commenced on March 15, 1079."

"Melikshah's reign was certainly the culminating point of the glory of the Seldjukides. … Mindful of the oriental adage, 'Perfection and decay go hand in hand,' he determined as far as possible to provide, during his own lifetime, against discord breaking out amongst those who should come after him, by dividing the empire between his different relations. Anatolia was given to Suleiman Shah, whose family had hitherto governed Gazan; Syria fell to his brother Tutush, the adversary of the Crusaders; Nushtekin Gartcha, who had raised himself from slavery to the rank of generalissimo, and who became later the founder of the dynasty of the Khahrezmides, was invested with Khahrezm; Aksonghar got Aleppo; Tchekermish Mosul, Kobulmish Damascus, Khomartekin Fars, and his son Sandjar was entrusted with the administration of Khorasan and Transoxania. These precautions proved, however, ineffectual to preserve the dynasty of the Seljukides from the common fate of oriental sovereign races, for after the death of Melikshah, which took place in 485 (1092), his son Berkyaruk (the Very Brilliant One) had scarcely ascended the throne before the flames of discord were kindled amongst the numerous members of the family, and they speedily fell a prey to the generals and the other relations of the deceased prince." Sandjar, who died in 1160, "was almost the only one of all his race who took to heart the decay of their power in their old hereditary dominions, or made any earnest endeavour to arrest it."

   On the final defeat and death, in Kurdistan, of the last
   Khuarezmian or Carizmian prince, who was pursued relentlessly
   by the Mongols of Jingis Khan and his successors, there was
   dissolved an army which included various Turkish hordes. The
   fragments of this Khuarezmian force were scattered and played
   several important parts in the history of the troubled time.
   "The bolder and more powerful chiefs invaded Syria, and
   violated the holy sepulchre of Jerusalem; the more humble
   engaged in the service of Aladin, Sultan of Iconium, and among
   these were the obscure fathers of the Ottoman line. They had
   formerly pitched their tents near the southern bank of the
   Oxus, in the plains of Mahan and Nesa; and it is somewhat
   remarkable that the same spot should have produced the first
   authors of the Parthian and Turkish empires. At the head or in
   rear of a Carizmian army, Soliman Shah was drowned in the
   passage of the Euphrates. His son Orthogrul became the soldier
   and subject of Aladin, and established at Surgut, on the banks
   of the Sangar, a camp of four hundred families or tents, whom
   he governed fifty-two years both in peace and war. He was the
   father of Thaman, or Athman, whose Turkish name has been
   melted into the appellation of the Caliph Othman; and if we
   describe that pastoral chief as a shepherd and a robber, we
   must separate from those characters all idea of ignominy and
   baseness. Othman possessed, and perhaps surpassed, the
   ordinary virtues of a soldier, and the circumstances of time
   and place were propitious to his independence and success. The
   Seljukian dynasty was no more, and the distance and decline of
   the Mogul Khans soon enfranchised him from the control of a
   superior. He was situate on the verge of the Greek empire. The
   Koran sanctified his 'gazi,' or holy war, against the
   infidels; and their political errors unlocked the passes of
   Mount Olympus, and invited him to descend into the plains of
   Bithynia. … It was on the 27th of July, in the year 1299 of
   the Christian era, that Othman first invaded the territory of
   Nicomedia; and the singular accuracy of the date seems to
   disclose some foresight of the rapid and destructive growth of
   the monster. The annals of the twenty-seven years of his reign
   would exhibit a repetition of the same inroads; and his
   hereditary troops were multiplied in each campaign by the
   accession of captives and volunteers.
{3134}
   Instead of retreating to the hills, he maintained the most
   useful and defensible posts, fortified the towns and castles
   which he had first pillaged; and renounced the pastoral life
   for the baths and palaces of his infant capitals. But it was
   not till Othman was oppressed by age and infirmities that he
   received the welcome news of the conquest of Prusa, which had
   been surrendered by famine or treachery to the arms of his son
   Orchan. … From the conquest of Prusa we may date the true era
   of the Ottoman empire. The lives and possessions of the
   Christian subjects were redeemed by a tribute or ransom of
   thirty thousand crowns of gold; and the city, by the labors of
   Orchan, assumed the aspect of a Mahometan capital."

   "Osman is the real Turkish name, which has been corrupted into
   Othman. The descendants of his subjects style themselves
   Osmanlis, which has in like manner been corrupted into
   Ottoman."

      Dr. W. Smith,
      Note to
      E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 64.

"Orchan [the son and successor of Othman] had captured the city of Nicomedia in the first year of his reign (1326); and with the new resources for warfare which the administrative genius of his brother [Alaeddin] placed at his command, he speedily signalised his reign by conquests still more important. The great city of Nice [Nicæa] (second to Constantinople only in the Greek Empire) surrendered to him in 1330. … Numerous other advantages were gained over the Greeks: and the Turkish prince of Karasi (the ancient Mysia), who had taken up arms against the Ottomans, was defeated; and his capital city, Berghama (the ancient Pergamus), and his territory, annexed to Orchan's dominions. On the conquest of Karasi, in the year 1336 of our era, nearly the whole of the north-west of Asia Minor was included in the Ottoman Empire; and the four great cities of Brusa, Nicomedia, Nice, and Pergamus had become strongholds of its power. A period of twenty years, without further conquests, and without war, followed the acquisition of Karasi. During this time the Ottoman sovereign was actively occupied in perfecting the civil and military institutions which his brother had introduced; in securing internal order, in founding and endowing mosques and schools, and in the construction of vast public edifices. … Orchan died in the year 1359 of our era, at the age of seventy-five, after a reign of thirty-three years, during which the most important civil and military institutions of his nation were founded, and the Crescent was not only advanced over many of the fairest provinces of Asia, but was also planted on the European continent."

It is with Othman's son Orkhan that the Ottoman Empire really begins. He threw off his nominal allegiance to the Sultan [of Iconium], though he still bore only the title of Emir. And in his time the Ottomans first made good their footing in Europe. But while his dominion was still only Asiatic, Orkhan began one institution which did more than anything else firmly to establish the Ottoman power. This was the institution of the tribute children. By the law of Mahomet … the unbeliever is allowed to purchase life, property, and the exercise of his religion, by the payment of tribute. Earlier Mahometan rulers had been satisfied with tribute in the ordinary sense. Orkhan first demanded a tribute of children. The deepest of wrongs, that which other tyrants did as an occasional outrage, thus became under the Ottomans a settled law. A fixed proportion of the strongest and most promising boys among the conquered Christian nations were carried off for the service of the Ottoman princes. They were brought up in the Mahometan faith, and were employed in civil or military functions, according to their capacity. Out of them was formed the famous force of the Janissaries, the new soldiers who, for three centuries, as long as they were levied in this way, formed the strength of the Ottoman armies. These children, torn from their homes and cut off from every domestic and national tie, knew only the religion and the service into which they were forced, and formed a body of troops such as no other power, Christian or Mahometan, could command. … While the force founded by Orkhan lasted in its first shape, the Ottoman armies were irresistible. But all this shews how far the Ottomans were from being a national power. Their victories were won by soldiers who were really of the blood of the Greeks, Slaves, and other conquered nations. In the same way, while the Ottoman power was strongest, the chief posts of the Empire, civil and military, were constantly held, not by native Turks, but by Christian renegades of all nations. The Ottoman power in short was the power, not of a nation, but simply of an army."

   The name of Yeni Tscheri, which means 'new troops,' and which
   European writers have turned into Janissaries, was given to
   Orchan's young corps by the Dervish Hadji Beytarch."

   "The dissensions of the elder and younger Andronicus [Emperors
   at Constantinople, the younger—a grandson—in revolt and the
   elder finally deposed, A. D. 1320-1328], and the mistaken
   policy of Cantacuzene [Great Domestic of the empire, regent,
   after the death of Andronicus the younger, A. D. 1341, and
   then usurper of the throne from 1341 until 1355], first led to
   the introduction of the Turks into Europe; and the subsequent
   marriage of Orchan with a Grecian princess was acceded to by
   the Byzantine court as a faint bond of peace between a dreaded
   conqueror and a crouching state. The expectation of
   tranquillity was, however, fatally blasted; and, in the last
   quarrel of Cantacuzene with his pupil [John Palæologus, the
   youthful son of Andronicus the younger, who was deprived of
   his crown for fourteen years by Cantacuzene], the disastrous
   ambition of the former opened the path of Solyman, the son of
   Orchan, across the Hellespont [A. D. 1356], and laid the
   northern provinces of the kingdom open to the temporary
   ravages of the barbarians, thus inflicting a lasting and
   irremediable injury on the liberties of Christendom. The
   exploits of Solyman, however, led to no other permanent
   results than the example which they left to the ambition of
   Amurath I., who, amongst his earliest achievements, led his
   victorious army across the Hellespont [A. D. 1360], ravaged
   the extended district from Mount Hæmus to the Straits, and,
   taking possession of Adrianople [A. D. 1361], made it the
   first seat of his royalty, and the first shrine of
   Mahomedanism in Europe.
{3135}
   His conquests had now drawn a circle round the enfeebled
   dominions of the Emperor; and the submission of John
   Palæologus, together with his political views in more distant
   quarters, alone prevented Amurath from contracting the
   circumference to the centre, and annihilating the empire of
   the East, by seating himself on the throne of Byzantium. For
   the present, he turned his back upon the city, and pursued his
   course towards the wilds of Bulgaria and Servia."

"Hitherto the Turkish victories in Europe had been won over the feeble Greeks; but the Ottomans now came in contact with the far more warlike Sclavonic tribes, which had founded kingdoms and principalities in Servia and Bosnia. Amurath also menaced the frontiers of Wallachia and Hungary. The Roman See, once so energetic in exciting the early crusades, had disregarded the progress of the new Mahometan power, so long as the heretical Greeks were the only sufferers beneath its arms. But Hungary, a country that professed spiritual obedience to the Pope, a branch of Latin Christendom, was now in peril; and Pope Urban V. preached up a crusade against the infidel Turks. The King of Hungary, the princes of Servia, of Bosnia and Wallachia, leagued together to drive the Ottomans out of Europe; and their forces marched towards Adrianople until they crossed the river Marizza at a point not more than two days' journey from that city." A single battle, fought on the Marizza, in 1363, broke this first Sclavonic league against the Turks, and Amurath proceeded in his acquisition of towns and territory from the Servians and Bulgarians until 1376, when both people purchased a short peace, the former by paying a heavy annual tribute of money and soldiers, the latter by giving their king's daughter to the Turk. The peace thus secured only gave an opportunity to the Sclavic nations to organize one more great attempt to cast out their aggressive and dangerous neighbor. Servia led the movement, and was joined in it by the Bulgarians, the Bosnians, and the Skipetars of Albania, with aid likewise promised and rendered from Hungary, Wallachia, and Poland. But nothing prospered in the undertaking; it served the ambition of the Turks and quickened their conquest of southeastern Europe. Amurath fell upon Bulgaria first (A. D. 1389), broke down all resistance, dethroned the king and annexed his state to the Ottoman dominions. A few weeks later in the same year, on the 27th of August, 1389, the great and famous battle of Kossova was fought, which laid the heavy yoke of Turkish tyranny upon the necks of the Servian people, and the memory of which has been embalmed in their literature. Amurath was assassinated in the hour of victory by a despairing Servian nobleman, but lived long enough to command the execution of the captive Servian king.

TURKS: A. D. 1389-1403.
   The conquests of Bajazet.
   The Emir becomes Sultan.
   His overthrow and capture by Timour.

"The character of Bajazet, the son and successor of Amurath, is strongly expressed in his surname of Ilderim, or the Lightning; and he might glory in an epithet which was drawn from the fiery energy of his soul and the rapidity of his destructive march. In the fourteen years of his reign he incessantly moved at the head of his armies, from Boursa to Adrianople, from the Danube to the Euphrates. … No sooner had he imposed a regular form of servitude on the Servians and Bulgarians than he passed the Danube to seek new enemies and new subjects in the heart of Moldavia. Whatever yet adhered to the Greek empire in Thrace, Macedonia, and Thessaly, acknowledged a Turkish master. … The humble title of emir was no longer suitable to the Ottoman greatness; and Bajazet condescended to accept a patent of sultan from the caliphs who served in Egypt under the yoke of the Mamelukes—a last and frivolous homage that was yielded by force to opinion, by the Turkish conquerors to the House of Abbas and the successors of the Arabian prophet. The ambition of the sultan was inflamed by the obligation of deserving this august title; and he turned his arms against the kingdom of Hungary, the perpetual theatre of the Turkish victories and defeats. Sigismond, the Hungarian king, was the son and brother of the emperors of the West; his cause was that of Europe and the Church; and on the report of his danger, the bravest knights of France and Germany were eager to march under his standard and that of the cross. In the battle of Nicopolis [September 28, A. D. 1396], Bajazet defeated a confederate army of 100,000 Christians, who had proudly boasted that if the sky should fall they could uphold it on their lances. The far greater part were slain or driven into the Danube; and Sigismond, escaping to Constantinople by the river and the Black Sea, returned, after a long circuit, to his exhausted kingdom. In the pride of victory, Bajazet threatened that he would besiege Buda; that he would subdue the adjacent countries of Germany and Italy; and that he would feed his horse with a bushel of oats on the altar of St. Peter at Rome. His progress was checked, not by the miraculous interposition of the apostle, not by a crusade of the Christian powers, but by a long and painful fit of the gout. … At length the ambition of the victorious sultan pointed to the conquest of Constantinople; but he listened to the advice of his vizir, who represented that such an enterprise might unite the powers of Christendom in a second and more formidable crusade. His epistle to the emperor was conceived in these words: 'By the divine clemency, our invincible scimitar has reduced to our obedience almost all Asia, with many and large countries in Europe, excepting only the city of Constantinople; for beyond the walls thou hast nothing left. Resign that city; stipulate thy reward; or tremble for thyself and thy unhappy people at the consequences of a rash refusal.' But his ambassadors were instructed to soften their tone, and to propose a treaty, which was subscribed with submission and gratitude. A truce of ten years was purchased by an annual tribute of thirty thousand crowns of gold." The truce was soon broken by Bajazet, who found a pretext for again demanding the surrender of Constantinople. He had established his blockade of the city and would surely have won it by famine or assault if Timour's invasion of Asia Minor (A. D. 1402) had not summarily interrupted his plans and ended his career. Defeated at the battle of Angora and taken prisoner by the Tartar conqueror, he died a few months later—whether caged like a beast or held in more honorable captivity is a question in some dispute.

TURKS: A. D. 1402-1451.
Prostration and recovery.
Conquests of Mahomet and Amurath II.

It is one of the marvels of history that the Ottoman empire, broken and dismembered by Timour, recovered its vigor and re-entered upon a long career. After the fall of Bajazet, three fragments of his dominions were held by three of his surviving sons, while other portions were transferred by Timour to princes of the old Seljuk house. Civil war broke out between the brothers of the Ottoman race; it resulted in the triumph of Mahomet, the youngest (A. D. 1413), who reunited a large part of the dominions of his father. He reigned but eight years, which were years of peace for the Greeks, with whom Mahomet maintained a friendly intercourse. His son, Amurath II., was provoked to renew the state of war, and a formidable attack upon Constantinople was made in August, 1422. The first assault failed, and disturbances at home recalled Amurath before he could repeat it. The Roman capital was reprieved for thirty years; but its trembling emperor paid tribute to the sultan and yielded most of the few cities that remained to him outside of his capital. The Ottoman power had become threatening again in Europe, and Servians, Bosnians, Albanians, Wallachians, Hungarians, and Poles now struck hands together in a combination, once more, to oppose it. "A severe struggle followed, which, after threatening the utter expulsion of the house of Othman from Europe, confirmed for centuries its dominion in that continent, and wrought the heavier subjugation of those who were then seeking to release themselves from its superiority. In 1442 Amurath was repulsed from Belgrade; and his generals, who were besieging Hermanstadt, in Transylvania, met with a still more disastrous reverse. It was at Hermanstadt that the renowned Hunyades first appeared in the wars between the Hungarians and the Turks. He was the illegitimate son of Sigismond, King of Hungary, and the fair Elizabeth Morsiney. In his early youth he gained distinction in the wars of Italy; and Comines, in his memoirs, celebrates him under the name of the White Knight of Wallachia. After some campaigns in Western Christendom, Hunyades returned to protect his native country against the Ottomans." At Hermanstadt, and again at Vasag, Hunyades defeated the Turks with great slaughter and rivalled them in the ferocity with which his prisoners were treated. His fame now gave a great impulse to the Crusade against the Turks which Pope Eugenius had preached, and drew volunteers to his standard from all the nations of the West. In 1443, Hunyades led a splendid and powerful army across the Danube near Semendra, drove the Turks beyond the Balkans, forced the passage of the mountains with a boldness and a skill that is compared with the exploits of Hannibal and Napoleon, and extorted from the Sultan a treaty (of Szegeddin, July 12, 1444) which rescued a large Christian territory from the Moslem yoke. "The Sultan resigned all claims upon Servia and recognised George Brankovich as its independent sovereign. Wallachia was given up to Hungary." But the peace which this treaty secured was brief; Christian perfidy destroyed it, and the penalty was paid by whole centuries of suffering and shame for the Christians of the Danubian states. "Within a month from the signature of the treaty of Szegeddin the Pope and the Greek Emperor had persuaded the King of Hungary and his councillors to take an oath to break the oath which had been pledged to the Sultan. They represented that the confessed weakness of the Ottomans, and the retirement of Amurath [who had placed his son Mahomet on the throne and withdrawn from the cares of sovereignty] to Asia, gave an opportunity for eradicating the Turks from Europe which ought to be fully employed. The Cardinal Julian [legate of the Pope] pacified the conscientious misgivings which young King Ladislaus expressed, by his spiritual authority in giving dispensation and absolution in the Pope's name. … On the 1st of September, the King, the legate, and Hunyades, marched against the surprised and unprepared Turks with an army of 10,000 Poles and Hungarians. The temerity which made them expect to destroy the Turkish power in Europe with so slight a force was equal to the dishonesty of their enterprise." They advanced through Bulgaria to the Black Sea, and southward along its coast as far as Varna, which they took. There they were called to account. Amurath had resumed the sceptre, put himself at the head of 40,000 of the best warriors of Islam and on the 10th November he dashed them upon the Christian forces at Varna, with the broken treaty borne like a banner at their head. His victory was overwhelming. Cardinal Julian and the King of Hungary were both among the slain. Hunyades fled with a little remnant of followers and escaped to try fortune in other fields. "This overthrow did not bring immediate ruin upon Hungary, but it was fatal to the Sclavonic neighbours of the Ottomans, who had joined the Hungarian King against them. Servia and Bosnia were thoroughly reconquered by the Mahometans; and the ruin of these Christian nations, which adhered to the Greek Church, was accelerated by the religious intolerance with which they were treated by their fellow Christians of Hungary and Poland, who obeyed the Pope and hated the Greek Church as heretical. … The bigotry of the Church of Rome in preaching up a crusade against the sect of the Patarenes, which was extensively spread in that country [Bosnia], caused the speedy and complete annexation of an important frontier province to the Ottoman Empire. Seventy Bosnian fortresses are said to have opened their gates to the Turks within eight days. The royal house of Bosnia was annihilated, and many of her chief nobles embraced Mahometanism to avoid a similar doom." After once more attempting to escape from the throne, and being recalled by domestic disturbances, Amurath reigned yet six years, extending his dominions in the Peloponnesus, defeating once more his old antagonist, Hunyades, who invaded Servia (1448), but being successfully defied in Albania by the heroic Scanderbeg. He died in 1451.

TURKS: A. D. 1451-1481.
Conquest of Constantinople.
The Empire organized and perfected by Mahomet II.

Mahomet II., son of Amurath II., "finished the work of his predecessors; he made the Ottoman power in Europe what it has been ever since. He gave a systematic form to the customs of his house and to the dominion which he had won. His first act was the murder of his infant brother, and he made the murder of brothers a standing law of his Empire. He overthrew the last remnants of independent Roman rule, of independent Greek nationality, and he fixed the relations which the Greek part of his subjects were to bear both towards their Turkish masters and towards their Christian fellow-subjects. He made the northern and western frontiers of his Empire nearly what they still remain. The Ottoman Empire, in short, as our age has to deal with it, is, before all things, the work of Mahomet the Conqueror. The prince whose throne was fixed in the New Rome held altogether another place from even the mightiest of his predecessors. Mahomet had reigned two years, he had lived twenty-three, on the memorable day, May 29th 1453, when the Turks entered the city of the Cæsars and when the last Emperor, Constantine, died in the breach. …

And now that the Imperial city was at last taken, Mahomet seemed to make it his policy both to gather in whatever remained unconquered, and to bring most of the states which had hitherto been tributary under his direct rule. Greece itself, though it had been often ravaged by the Turks, had not been added to their dominions. The Emperors had, in the very last days of the Empire before the fall of Constantinople, recovered all Peloponnesos, except some points which were held by Venice. Frank Dukes also reigned at Athens, and another small duchy lingered on in the islands of Leukas and Kephallenia and on the coasts of Akarnania. The Turkish conquest of the mainland, again saving the Venetian points, was completed by the year 1460, but the two western islands were not taken until 1479. Euboia was conquered in 1471. … The Empire of Trebizond was conquered in 1461, and the island of Lesbos or Mitylene in 1462. There was now no independent Greek state left. Crete, Corfu, and some smaller islands and points of coast, were held by Venice, and some of the islands of the Ægean were still ruled by Frank princes and by the Knights of Saint John. But, after the fall of Trebizond, there was no longer any independent Greek state anywhere, and the part of the Greek nation which was under Christian rulers of any kind was now far smaller than the part which was under the Turk. While the Greeks were thus wholly subdued, the Slaves fared no better. In 1459 Servia was reduced from a tributary principality to an Ottoman province, and six years later Bosnia was annexed also. … One little fragment of the great Slavonic power in those lands alone remained. The little district of Zeta, a part of the Servian kingdom, was never fully conquered by the Turks. One part of it, the mountain district called Tsernagora or Montenegro, has kept its independence to our times. Standing as an outpost of freedom and Christendom amid surrounding bondage, the Black Mountain has been often attacked, it has been several times overrun, but it has never been conquered. … To the south of them, the Christian Albanians held out for a long time under their famous chief George Castriot or Scanderbeg. After his death in 1459, they also came under the yoke. These conquests of Mahomet gave the Ottoman dominion in Europe nearly the same extent which it has now. His victories had been great, but they were balanced by some defeats. The conquest of Servia and Bosnia opened the way to endless inroads into Hungary, South-eastern Germany and North-eastern Italy. But as yet these lands were merely ravaged, and the Turkish power met with some reverses. In 1456 Belgrade was saved by the last victory of Huniades [see HUNGARY: A. D. 1442-1458], and this time Mahomet the Conqueror had to flee. In another part of Europe, if in those days it is to be counted for Europe, Mahomet won the Genoese possessions in the peninsula of Crimea [A. D. 1475], and the Tartar Khans who ruled in that peninsula and the neighbouring lands became vassals of the Sultan. … The last years of Mahomet's reign were marked by a great failure and a great success. He failed to take Rhodes [A. D. 1480], which belonged to the Knights of Saint John; but his troops suddenly seized on Otranto in Southern Italy. Had this post been kept, Italy might have fallen as well as Greece; but the Conqueror died the next year, and Otranto was won back."

TURKS: A. D. 1481-1520.
   The sad story of Prince Jem and the Christians.
   Massacre of the Shiites.
   Selim's conquests in Persia, Syria and Egypt.
   The Sultan becomes the successor of the Khalifs,
   the chief of Islam.

"The long reign of Bayezid [or Bajazet] II. (1481-1512) which surpassed that of his father and grandfather, so that the three together nearly completed a century, was marked by a general lethargy and incapacity on the part of the Turkish Government. … Family dissensions were indeed the leading incidents of Bayezid's reign, and for many years he was kept in a state of anxious uncertainty by the ingenious intrigues of the Christian Powers concerning the custody of his brother, the unfortunate Prince Jem. The adventures of Prince Jem (the name is short for Jemshid, but in Europe it has been written Zizim) cast a very unpleasant light upon the honour of the Christians of his time, and especially upon the Knights of Rhodes. Of the two sons of Mohammed II. Jem was undoubtedly the one who was by nature fitted to be his successor. … Jem however, was not the first to hear of his father's death, and a year's warfare against his brother ended in his own defeat. {3138} The younger prince then sought refuge with the Knights of Rhodes, who promised to receive him hospitably, and to find him a way to Europe, where he intended to renew his opposition to his brother's authority. D'Aubusson, the Grand Master of Rhodes, was too astute a diplomatist to sacrifice the solid gains that he perceived would accrue to his Order for the sake of a few paltry twinges of conscience; and he had no sooner made sure of Prince Jem's person, and induced him to sign a treaty, by which, in the event of his coming to the throne, the Order was to reap many sterling advantages, than he ingeniously opened negotiations with Sultan Bayezid, with a view to ascertain how much gold that sovereign was willing to pay for the safe custody of his refractory brother. It is only fair to say that Bayezid, who had no particle of cruelty in his nature, did all he could to come to terms with Jem. … All negotiation and compromise having proved ineffectual, he listened to the proposals of the crafty Grand Master, and finally agreed to pay him 45,000 ducats a year, so long as he kept Jem under his surveillance. The Knights of St. John possessed many commanderies, and the one they now selected for Jem's entertainment was at Nice, in the south of France. In 1482 he arrived there, wholly unconscious of the plots that were being woven about him. … On one pretext or another the knights contrived to keep their prisoner at Nice for several months, and then transferred him to Rousillon, thence to Puy, and next to Sassenage, where the monotonies of captivity were relieved by the delights of love, which he shared with the daughter of the commandant, the beautiful Philipine Hélène, his lawful spouse being fortunately away in Egypt. Meanwhile Grand Master D'Aubusson was driving a handsome trade in his capacity of jailor. All the potentates of Europe were anxious to obtain possession of the claimant to the Ottoman throne, and were ready to pay large sums in hard cash to enjoy the privilege of using this specially dangerous instrument against the Sultan's peace. D'Aubusson was not averse to taking the money, but he did not wish to give up his captive; and his knightly honour felt no smirch in taking 20,000 ducats from Jem's desolate wife (who probably had not heard of the fair Hélène) as the price of her husband's release, while he held him all the tighter. Of such chivalrous stuff were made the famous knights of Rhodes; and of such men as D'Aubusson the Church made cardinals! A new influence now appeared upon the scene of Jem's captivity. Charles VIII. of France considered that the Grand Master had made enough profit out of the unlucky prince, and the king resolved to work the oracle himself. His plan was to restore Jem to a nominal sultanate by the aid of Matthias Corvinus, Ferdinand of Naples, and the Pope. He took Jem out of the hands of the knights, and transferred him to the custody of Innocent VIII., who kindly consented to take care of the prince for the sum of 40,000 ducats a year, to be paid by his grateful brother at Constantinople." Innocent's successor, the terrible Borgia, Alexander VI., unsatisfied with this liberal allowance, opened negotiations with Constantinople looking to the payment of some heavy lump sum for summary riddance of poor Jem. But the sinister bargain was interrupted by Charles VIII. of France, who invaded Italy at this juncture, passed through Rome, and took the captive prince in his train when he went on to Naples. Jem died on the way, and few have doubted that Pope Alexander poisoned him, as he had poisoned many before. "The curious conclusion one draws from the whole melancholy tale is, that there was not apparently a single honest prince in Christendom to take compassion upon the captive." In 1512 Bayezid was deposed by his son Selim, and did not long survive the humiliation. To avoid troubles of the Prince Jem character, Selim slew all his brothers and nephews, eleven in number, making a family solitude around the throne. Then he prepared himself for foreign conquest by exterminating the sometimes troublesome sect of the Shias, or Shiites, in his dominions. "A carefully organized system of detectives, whom Selim distributed throughout his Asiatic provinces, revealed the fact that the number of the heretical sect reached the alarming total of 70,000. Selim … secretly massed his troops at spots where the heretics chiefly congregated, and at a given signal 40,000 of them were massacred or imprisoned. … Having got rid of the enemy within his gates, Selim now proceeded to attack the head of the Shias, the great Shah Ismail himself [the founder of the Sufi line of Persian sovereigns, who had lately established his authority over the provinces of Persia]. … Selim set forth with an army estimated at over 140,000 men, 80,000 of which were cavalry. … After weary and painful marching, the Ottomans forced Ismail to give battle at Chaldiran [or Tabreez—see PERSIA: A. D. 1499-1887]," and defeated him. "The victory of Chaldiran (1514) might have been followed by the conquest of Persia, but the privations which the soldiery had undergone had rendered them unmanageable, and Selim was forced to content himself with the annexation of the important provinces of Kurdistan and Dyarbekr, which are still part of the Turkish Empire; and then turned homewards, to prosecute other schemes of conquest. No peace, however, was concluded between him and the Shah, and a frontier war continued to be waged for many years. During the campaign against Persia, the Turks had been kept in anxiety by the presence on their flanks of the forces of the Mamluk Sultans of Egypt and Syria, whose frontiers now marched with the territory of the Ottomans." Turning his arms against the Mamluks, "Selim set out in 1516 for Syria, and meeting the Mamluk army on the field of Marj Dabik near Aleppo, administered a terrible defeat, in which the aged Sultan El-Ghuri was trampled to death. He found a brave successor in Tuman Bey, but in the interval the Turks had mastered Syria and were advancing to Gaza. Here the Mamluks made another stand, but the generalship of Sinan Pasha was not to be resisted any more than the preponderance of his forces. The final battle was fought at Reydaniya in the neighbourhood of Cairo, in January, 1517. … Twenty-five thousand Mamluks lay stark upon the field, and the enemy occupied Cairo. There a succession of street-fights took place." The perfidious Turkish Sultan finally cheated the Mamluks into submission by offering amnesty, and then put them to the sword, giving the city up to massacre. "Tuman Bey, after some further resistance, was captured and executed, and Egypt became a Turkish province. … Sultan Selim returned to Constantinople in 1518, a much more dignified personage than he had set out. {3139} By the conquest of the Mamluk kingdom he had also succeeded to their authority over the sacred cities of Arabia, Mekka and Medina, and in recognition of this position, as well as of his undoubted supremacy among Mohammedan monarchs, he received from the last Abbaside Khalif, who kept a shadowy court at Cairo, the inheritance of the great pontiffs of Baghdad. The 'fainéant' Khalif was induced to make over to the real sovereign the spiritual authority which he still affected to exercise, and with it the symbols of his office, the standard and cloak of the Prophet Mohammed. Selim now became not only the visible chief of the Mohammedan State throughout the wide dominions subdued to his sway, but also the revered head of the religion of Islam, wheresoever it was practised in its orthodox form. The heretical Shias of Persia might reject his claim, but in India, in all parts of Asia and Africa, where the traditional Khalifate was recognized, the Ottoman Sultan henceforth was the supreme head of the church, the successor to the spiritual prestige of the long line of the Khalifs. How far this new title commands the homage of the orthodox Moslem world is a matter of dispute; but there can be no doubt that it has always added, and still adds, a real and important authority to the acts and proclamations of the Ottoman Sultan." Selim died in 1520, and was succeeded by his son Suleyman, or Solyman, who acquired the name of "the Magnificent."

"During the first 17 years of Bajazet's reign, the peace between the Venetians and the Porte, though occasionally menaced, remained on the whole undisturbed. The Venetians complained of the Turkish incursions; and the definitive occupation of Montenegro, while the Porte, on its side, was jealous because the Republic had reduced the Duke of Naxos to dependence, and obtained possession of Cyprus (1489). At last, in 1498, the Turks, after making great naval preparations, suddenly arrested all the Venetian residents at Constantinople, and in the following year seized Lepanto, which surrendered without striking a blow (August 1499). Soon after, a body of 10,000 Turks crossed the Isonzo, carrying fire and desolation almost to the lagoons of Venice. In August 1500, Modon was taken by assault. … Navarino and Koron surrendered soon after, but towards the close of the year the Venetians were more successful. They captured Ægina, devastated and partly occupied Mytilene, Tenedos, and Samothrace, and with the help of a Spanish squadron, and 7,000 troops, under Gonsalvo de Cordova, reduced the island of Cephalonia. For this service the grateful Venetians rewarded Gonsalvo with a present of 500 tuns of Cretan wine, 60,000 pounds of cheese, 266 pounds of wrought silver, and the honorary freedom of their Republic. In 1501 the Venetian fleet was joined by a French, a Papal, and a Spanish squadron, but, through a want of cordiality among the commanders, little was effected. The Turks, however; had not made a better figure; and the Porte, whose attention was at that time distracted by the affairs of Persia, was evidently inclined for peace. The disordered state of the Venetian finances, and the decay of their commerce through the maritime discoveries of the Portuguese, also disposed them to negociation; although the sale of indulgences, granted to them by the Pope for this war, is said to have brought more than 700 pounds of gold into their exchequer. The war nevertheless continued through 1502, and the Venetians were tolerably successful, having captured many Turkish ships, and, with the assistance of the French, taken the island of Sta. Maura. But at length a treaty was signed, December 14th, by which Venice was allowed to hold Cephalonia, but restored Sta. Maura, and permitted the Porte to retain its conquests, including the three important fortresses of Modon, Koron, and Navarino."

TURKS: A. D. 1521-1526.
   Capture of Belgrade.
   Great invasion of Hungary.
   Overwhelming victory of Mohacs.

TURKS: A. D. 1522.
Conquest of the isle of Rhodes.
Expulsion of the Knights of St. John.

TURKS: A. D. 1526-1567.
   The Sultan suzerain of Transylvania and master of Hungary.
   Invasion of Austria and siege of Vienna.
   Death of Solyman the Magnificent.

TURKS: A. D. 1532-1553.
Frightful depredations along the coast of Southern Italy.

TURKS: A. D. 1542.
   Alliance with France.
   Siege of Nice.
   Ravages on the Italian coast.

TURKS: A. D. 1551-1560.
   Unsuccessful attack on Malta.
   Capture of Tripoli.
   Disastrous attempt of the Christians to recover that city.

TURKS: A. D. 1566-1571.
   Reign of Selim II.
   War with the Holy League of Spain, Venice and the Pope.
   Conquest of Cyprus.
   Great defeat at Lepanto.

"In 1566, Solyman the Magnificent closed his long and prosperous reign. His son and successor, Selim II., possessed few of the qualities of his great father. Bred in the Seraglio, he showed the fruits of his education in his indolent way of life, and in the free indulgence of the most licentious appetites. With these effeminate tastes, he inherited the passion for conquest which belonged, not only to his father, but to the whole of his warlike dynasty. … The scheme which most occupied the thoughts of Selim was the conquest of Cyprus. … Selim, resolved on the acquisition of Cyprus, was not slow in devising a pretext for claiming it from Venice as a part of the Ottoman empire. The republic, though willing to make almost any concession rather than come to a rupture with the colossal power under whose shadow she lay, was not prepared to surrender without a struggle the richest gem in her colonial diadem. War was accordingly declared against her by the Porte, and vast preparations were made for fitting out an armament against Cyprus. {3140} Venice, in her turn, showed her usual alacrity in providing for the encounter. She strained her resources to the utmost. In a very short time she equipped a powerful fleet, and took measures to place the fortifications of Cyprus in a proper state of defence. But Venice no longer boasted a navy such as in earlier days had enabled her to humble the pride of Genoa, and to ride the unquestioned mistress of the Mediterranean. The defences of her colonies, moreover, during her long repose had gradually fallen into decay. In her extremity, she turned to the Christian powers of Europe, and besought them to make common cause with her against the enemy of Christendom." The only responses to her appeal came, first, from Pope Pius V., and finally, through his urgency, from Philip II. of Spain. After much deliberation, Philip agreed, in the spring of 1570, to enter into an alliance with Venice and the Pope against the Ottoman Porte. "The ensuing summer, the royal admiral, the famous John Andrew Doria, who was lying with a strong squadron off Sicily, put to sea, by the king's orders. He was soon after reinforced by a few galleys which were furnished by his holiness, and placed under the command of Mark Antonio Colonna. … On the last of August, 1570, the combined fleet effected its junction with the Venetians at Candia, and a plan of operations was immediately arranged. It was not long before the startling intelligence arrived that Nicosia, the capital of Cyprus, had been taken and sacked by the Turks, with all the circumstances of cruelty which distinguish wars in which the feeling of national hostility is embittered by religious hatred. The plan was now to be changed. A dispute arose among the commanders as to the course to be pursued. No one had authority enough to enforce compliance with his own opinion. The dispute ended in a rupture. The expedition was abandoned. … Still the stout-hearted pontiff was not discouraged;" nor did the king of Spain draw back. "Venice, on the other hand, soon showed that the Catholic king had good reason for distrusting her fidelity. Appalled by the loss of Nicosia, with her usual inconstancy, she despatched a secret agent to Constantinople, to see if some terms might not yet be made with the sultan." Her overtures, however, were coldly received by the sultan, and she was won back to the alliance. "Towards the close of 1570, the deputies from the three powers met in Rome to arrange the terms of the league." With much difficulty, a treaty was concluded, and ratified in May, 1571, to the effect that the operations of the league "should be directed against the Moors of Tunis, Tripoli, and Algiers, as well as against the Turks; that the contracting parties should furnish 200 galleys, 100 transports and smaller vessels, 50,000 foot and 4,500 horse, with the requisite artillery and munitions; that by April, at farthest, of every succeeding year, a similar force should be held in readiness by the allies for expeditions to the Levant; and that any year in which there was no expedition in common, and either Spain or the republic should desire to engage in one on her own account against the infidel, the other confederates should furnish 50 galleys towards it; that if the enemy should invade the dominions of any of the three powers, the others should be bound to come to the aid of their ally; that three-sixths of the expenses of the war should be borne by the Catholic king, two-sixths by the republic, the remaining sixth by the Holy See; … that each power should appoint a captain-general; that the united voices of the three commanders should regulate the plan of operations; that the execution of this plan should be intrusted to the captain-general of the league, and that this high office should be given to Don John of Austria [natural son of Charles V. and half-brother of Philip II.]. … Such were the principal provisions of the famous treaty of the Holy League." The sultan was not dismayed. "He soon got together a powerful fleet, partly drawn from his own dominions, and in part from those of the Moslem powers on the Mediterranean, who acknowledged allegiance to the Porte. The armada was placed under the command of Selim's brother-in-law, the Pacha Piali. … Early in the season [of 1571] the combined fleets sailed for the Adriatic, and Piali, after landing and laying waste the territory belonging to the republic, detached Uluch [dey of Algiers] with his squadron to penetrate higher up the gulf. The Algerine, in executing these orders, advanced so near to Venice as to throw the inhabitants of that capital into … consternation. … Meanwhile the Venetians were pushing forward their own preparations with their wonted alacrity,—indeed with more alacrity than thoroughness. … The fleet was placed under the command of Sebastian Veniero," and sailed before midsummer, "or as much of it as was then ready, for the port of Messina, appointed as the place of rendezvous for the allies. Here he was soon joined by Colonna, the papal commander, with the little squadron furnished by his holiness; and the two fleets lay at anchor … waiting the arrival of the rest of the confederates and of Don John of Austria." The latter reached Messina on the 25th of August. "The whole number of vessels in the armada, great and small, amounted to something more than 300. Of these full two thirds were 'royal galleys.' Venice alone contributed 106, besides six 'galeazzas.' These were ships of enormous bulk. … The number of persons on board of the fleet, soldiers and seamen, was estimated at 80,000. … The soldiers did not exceed 29,000. … On the 16th of September the magnificent armament … stood out to sea." Before encountering the Turkish fleet, the allies received tidings "that Famagosta, the second city of Cyprus, had fallen into the hands of the enemy, and this under circumstances of unparalleled perfidy and cruelty. … The fall of Famagosta secured the fall of Cyprus, which thus became permanently incorporated in the Ottoman empire." On Sunday, October 7th, the armada of the Turks was found and attacked in the gulf of Lepanto. The terrific fight which ensued lasted only four hours, but those were hours of indescribable destruction and carnage. "It was indeed a sanguinary battle, surpassing in this particular any sea-fight of modern times. The loss fell much the most heavily on the Turks. There is the usual discrepancy about numbers; but it may be safe to estimate their loss at nearly 25,000 slain and 5,000 prisoners. What brought most pleasure to the hearts of the conquerors was the liberation of 12,000 Christian captives, who had been chained to the oar on board the Moslem galleys, and who now came forth, with tears of joy streaming down their haggard cheeks, to bless their deliverers. {3141} The loss of the allies was comparatively small,—less than 8,000." As to the armada of the Turks, "it may almost be said to have been annihilated. Not more than 40 galleys escaped out of near 250 which entered into the action. … The news of the victory of Lepanto caused a profound sensation throughout Christendom. … In Venice, which might be said to have gained a new lease of existence from the result of the battle, … the 7th of October was set apart to be observed for ever as a national anniversary. … It is a great error to speak of the victory of Lepanto as a barren victory, which yielded no fruits to those who gained it. True, it did not strip the Turks of an inch of territory. … But the loss of reputation—that tower of strength to the conqueror—was not to be estimated."

      ALSO IN:
      Sir W. Stirling-Maxwell,
      Don John of Austria,
      volume 1, chapters 13-15.

TURKS: A. D. 1569-1570.
   First collision with the Russians.
   Vizir Sokolli's canal project and its frustration.
   Peace with the Czar.

TURKS: A. D. 1572-1573.
   Withdrawal of Venice from the Holy League.
   Conquest of Tunis by Don John of Austria
   and its recovery, with Goletta.

"Ulucciali, whom Selim … made commander-in-chief of all his naval forces, exerted himself with extraordinary vigour and activity in fitting out a new fleet, to supply the place of that which had been ruined in the battle of Lepanto; and such at this time were the resources of the Turkish empire, that he was ready by the month of April [1572] to leave Constantinople, with more than 200 galleys, besides a great number of other ships. With this fleet he coasted along Negropont, the Morea, and Epirus; put the maritime towns into a posture of defence; chastised with great severity many of those Christians who had been concerned in the invitation given to Don John [who had just been offered the sovereignty of Albania and Macedonia by the Christians of those countries]; and afterwards took his station at Modon in the Morea, with an intention to watch there the motions of the enemy. He had full leisure to finish all the preparations which he judged to be necessary. The allies disputed long with one another concerning the plan of their future operations." and were also held inactive by the Spanish king's fear of an attack from France. "It was the last day of August before the allies could effectuate a junction of their forces; and it was the middle of September before they came in sight of the enemy. … Ulucciali drew out his fleet, as if he intended to offer battle; but no sooner had he made a single discharge of his artillery … than he retired under the fortifications of Modon." The allies thought first of besieging Modon, but gave up the project. They then sent Alexander Farnese, prince of Parma—afterwards so famous in the Netherlands—to reduce Navarino; but he had no success and abandoned the siege. The expedition then returned to Messina. The Venetians, dissatisfied with the conduct of the war, now faithlessly negotiated a separate peace with the Turks; but Philip II. of Spain maintained his alliance with the Pope (now Gregory XIII.), and ordered his brother, Don John, to proceed the next spring to Africa and undertake the reduction of Tunis. Don John obeyed the order, "carrying with him for this purpose a fleet of 2,000 sail, having 20,000 foot on board, besides 400 light horse, 700 pioneers, and a numerous train of heavy artillery. Tunis was at this time in the hands of the Turks, commanded by Heder Basha, whom Selim had lately sent to govern the town and kingdom. Heder, seized with consternation at the approach of the Spanish fleet, left Tunis with his troops and a great number of the inhabitants, and Don John took possession of the place without meeting with the smallest opposition. Philip had instructed his brother, when he sent him on this expedition, to destroy Tunis, and to strengthen the fortifications of the isle and fortress of Goletta. But instead of complying with these instructions, Don John resolved to fortify the town more strongly than ever; and having laid the foundations of a new fort, or citadel, he treated all the inhabitants who remained with lenity and indulgence; and engaged many of those who had fled to return and submit to the Spanish government; after which he carried back his fleet to Sicily." It is believed that Don John had conceived ambitious hopes of a kingdom on the African border of the Mediterranean. "In the summer following [1573], Selim sent Ulucciali against Tunis, with a fleet consisting of 300 ships, having about 40,000 troops on board, under the command of his son-in-law, Sinan Basha. The new fort which Don John had begun to build was not yet complete. Nor was the garrison which he had left strong enough to hold out long against so great a force." Before Don John could reassemble a fleet with which to make his way to the protection of his African conquest, both Tunis and Goletta were carried by assault, and passed again into the possession of the Turks and their Moorish vassals.

ALSO IN: Sir W. Stirling-Maxwell, Don John of Austria, volume 2, chapters 1-3.

   "The conquest of Cyprus was the last great exploit which ever
   added materially to the dominions of the Porte; the battle of
   Lepanto was the final blow which destroyed its naval
   superiority. The days of greatness had gone by. The kingdoms
   of the West were developing their strength, and had learnt the
   policy of union and of peace among themselves. Their armies
   had acquired the discipline and had learnt the lessons in
   which the Ottomans had shown so formidable an example; and
   their navy rode triumphant on the seas. The Empire, no longer
   in the hands of Charles V., with foreign interests to absorb
   its power, could bestow an undivided strength upon its own
   affairs; and the Emperor Ferdinand was looking forward with
   some hope to an incorporation of Hungary, which should end the
   weakness, and ensure the safety, of his eastern frontier. As
   the pre-eminence of the Porte, however, and the dread of it
   declined, a wider intercourse for her with Europe began. …
   Slowly the Sultans were beginning to take part in the schemes
   and combinations of the Christian Powers, from which they had
   hitherto so contemptuously stood aloof. Five reigns succeeded
   to that of Selim [the Sot, son of Solyman the Magnificent].
   during which the progress of decline continued marked.
{3142}
   The indolence of Amurath III. [1574-1595], the incapacity of
   Mahomet III. [1595-1603], the inexperience of Achmet I.
   [1603-1617], the imprudence of Othman II. [1618-1622], and the
   imbecility of Mustapha [1617-1618, and 1622-1623], contributed
   to bring the Ottoman Empire into a condition of anarchy and
   weakness. During the reign of Amurath hostilities with Austria
   were renewed, and successive losses testified to the enfeebled
   state of the Ottoman arms."

TURKS: A. D. 1591-1606.
   Wars in Hungary and Croatia.
   Great victory at Cerestes.
   Peace of Sitvatorok.

TURKS: A. D. 1621-1622.
War with Poland.
Victory at Cecora and defeat at Choczim.

TURKS: A. D. 1623-1640.
   War with Persia.
   Siege and capture of Bagdad.
   Horrible massacre of the inhabitants.

"During the first twelve years of the reign of Amurath IV. [1623-1635], the Ottoman Empire had been occupied with active hostilities in different parts of Europe, and especially with Poland, Germany, and the maritime powers of the Mediterranean. … In the east, however, great losses had been sustained. Shah Abbas, a sovereign well entitled to the epithet 'Great,' had repossessed himself of Diarbekr, Baghdad [1623], the district of the Euphrates, with Kourdistan; and, on the north, he had regained Armenia, and a considerable part of Anatolia. The Sultan therefore resolved to undertake an expedition to recover the territories thus taken from him, and to this he was encouraged by the death of his formidable foe the Persian monarch. Amurath marched from his capital early in 1635, to superintend the operations of the campaign. … In passing through Asia, he took care personally to examine into the conduct of his various Pashas, and wherever it was requisite he subjected them to a severe punishment. One of them, the Pasha of Erzeroum, was put to death. Having at that city reviewed his army, he found them to amount to 200,000 men, and as his first object was the seizure of Armenia, the key of the Persian provinces, he besieged Erivan, and notwithstanding a vigorous defence, the fortress in a few days surrendered. Tauris and the surrounding provinces speedily fell into his hands, and Amurath returned in the winter to Constantinople, entering the city in great triumph. The affairs of Europe were in such a state of confusion, that it was several years ere he again appeared in the east, the scene of so many of his victories. The Khan of Tartary threw off his allegiance, the Polish serfs appeared suddenly on the Caspian shores, and, joining a body of Russians, attacked and carried the fortress of Azof. … The European war, which at this time occurred, rendered it unnecessary for the Sultan to entertain any serious apprehension from his enemies in the west, who were sufficiently occupied with their own affairs. He therefore directed his attention to Persia, resolved to subjugate that country, and to seize upon Baghdad. To this end his preparations were proportionally great. An immense army was collected on the Asiatic side of the Bosphorus. This mighty host numbered more than 300,000 armed men, and was accompanied by a numerous array of miners, as well as artillery. And after having consulted an astrologer, Amurath embarked amid all the display which Asiatic pomp could furnish, and directed his progress toward Persia. After a successful march, this immense army arrived at Baghdad. The city was strongly fortified, and defended by a resolute army of 80,000 men. The Shah, however, was absent in the northern part of his dominions, which had been threatened by an invasion from India, under Shah Jehan, father of the celebrated Aurungzebe. Baghdad, therefore, was left to its own resources. The operations of the siege began in October 1638. … The besieged made repeated sallies, with a force of five or six thousand men at a time, who, on retiring, were succeeded by a similar number, and thus the losses of the Ottoman army were sometimes very great. The 200 great guns, however, which played upon the ramparts, at length made a wide opening in the walls, and after five days' fighting in the breach thus made, where 'the slain lay in immense multitudes, and the blood was stagnated like a pool to wade through,' the city was taken. Quarter was given to 24,000 of the defenders, who remained alive, on condition that they would lay down their arms. But as soon as they had done so, the Sultan perfidiously issued orders to the Janizaries, and the work of butchery commenced, and was carried on by torch-light during the night on which the city was taken, and an indiscriminate slaughter took place, neither youth, nor age, nor sex being spared by the ruthless conqueror and his merciless soldiers. … In the morning of the 23d of December the Sultan marched into the city, passing with his army over the innumerable bodies of the unfortunate Persians, whose gallant defence merited a better fate. Some 15,000 women, children and old men were all that remained of the inhabitants, who, but a day or two before, filled every part of the magnificent capital. … The capture of Baghdad closed the military career of the Sultan."

"A peace with Persia, on the basis of that which Solyman the Great had granted in 1555, was the speedy result of Amurath's victories (15th September, 1639). Eriwan was restored by the Porte; but the possession of Bagdad and the adjacent territory by the Ottomans was solemnly sanctioned and confirmed. Eighty years passed away before Turkey was again obliged to struggle against her old and obstinate enemy on the line of the Euphrates. … Amurath died at the age of 28, on the 9th of February, 1640."

"The Turks attacked the island [of Crete] in 1645, and the war went on till 1669, when Crete was lost. This is called the war of Candia, from the long siege of the town of Candia, which was most gallantly defended by the Venetians, with the help of many volunteers from Western Europe. It must be remembered that, though the island has sometimes got to be called Candia, from the town of Candia and its memorable siege, yet the island itself has never changed its name, but has always been called Crete both by Greeks and Turks."

"The war which cost the republic of Venice the island of Crete owed its origin to the incessant irritation caused by the Western corsairs in the Archipelago. Some strong measures adopted by the Venetians to suppress the piracies committed by Turkish and Barbary corsairs in the Adriatic, created much dissatisfaction on the part of the Othoman government, which looked chiefly to the Mohammedan corsairs as a protection against the Christian corsairs in the Levant, and considered it the duty of the Venetians to suppress the piracies of these Christians. The Porte at last resolved to seek a profitable revenge, and a pretext soon presented itself. In 1644 some Maltese galleys made a prize which offended the personal feelings of the reigning sultan, Ibrahim. … As he feared to attack Malta, he resolved to make the Venetians responsible for the shelter which Crete had afforded to the corsairs. The Porte affected to consider Venice as a tributary State, which was bound to keep the Archipelago free from Christian corsairs, in return for the great commercial privileges it enjoyed in the Othoman empire. Immediate preparations were made for attacking Crete, but the project was concealed from the Venetian senate, under the pretence of directing the expedition against Malta. … In the month of June 1645, the Othoman army landed before Canea, which capitulated on the 17th of August. This treacherous commencement of the war authorised the Christian powers to dispense with all the formalities of international law in lending assistance to the Venetians during the celebrated War of Candia, which lasted nearly 25 years. During this long struggle the Venetians generally maintained the superiority at sea, but they were unable to prevent the Othoman navy, whenever it exerted its full force, from throwing in supplies of fresh troops and ample stores, by which the Othoman army was enabled to command the whole island, and kept Candia, and the other fortresses in the hands of the republic, either blockaded or besieged. The Greeks generally favoured the Turks, who encouraged them to cultivate their lands by purchasing the produce at a liberal price, for the use of the army. … The squadrons of the republic often ravaged the coasts of the Othoman empire, and on one occasion they carried off about 5,000 slaves from the coast of the Morea, between Patras and Coron. In the year 1656, after Mocenigo's great victory at the Dardanelles, they took possession of the islands of Tenedos and Lemnos, but they were driven from these conquests by the Othoman fleet in the following year. At the end of the year 1666, the grand vizier, Achmet Kueprily, one of the greatest ministers of the Othoman empire, took the command of the siege of Candia. The whole naval force of Venice, and numerous bands of French and Italian volunteers, attempted to force the grand vizier to raise the siege; but the skill of the Italian engineers, the valour of the French nobles, and the determined perseverance of Morosini, were vain against the strict discipline and steady valour of the Othoman troops. The works of the besiegers were pushed forward by the labours of a numerous body of Greek pioneers, and the fire of the powerful batteries at last rendered the place untenable. At this crisis Morosini proved himself a daring statesman and a sincere patriot. When he found that he must surrender the city, he resolved to make his capitulation the means of purchasing peace for the republic. … On the 27th September 1669, Achmet Kueprily received the keys of Candia, and the republic of Venice resigned all right to the island of Crete, but retained possession of the three insular fortresses of Karabusa, Suda, and Spinalonga, with their valuable ports. No fortress is said to have cost so much blood and treasure, both to the besiegers and the defenders, as Candia; yet the Greeks, in whose territory it was situated, and who could have furnished an army from the inhabitants of Crete sufficiently numerous to have decided the issue of the contest, were the people on the shores of the Mediterranean who took least part in this memorable war. So utterly destitute of all national feeling was the Hellenic race at this period."

      G. Finlay,
      History of Greece under Othoman and Venetian Domination,
      chapter 2.

TURKS: A. D. 1660-1664.
   Renewed war with Austria.
   Defeat at St. Gothard.
   A twenty years truce.

TURKS: A. D. 1664-1665.
   Alliance with France broken.
   War of the French with Tunis and Algiers.
   See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1664-1684.

TURKS: A. D. 1681-1684.
Rupture with France.
French attack on Scio and war with the Barbary States.

TURKS: A. D. 1683.
   Great invasion of Austria.
   Siege of Vienna.
   Overwhelming defeat by Sobieski and the Imperialists.

TURKS: A. D. 1684-1696.
   War with the Holy League.
   Expulsion from Hungary.
   Venetian conquests in Greece.
   Revolution at Constantinople.
   Accession of Solyman II.
   Czar Peter's capture of Azov.
   The first Russian acquisition on the Black Sea.

   In 1684, "a league against the Turks, under the protection of
   the Pope, and thence called the Holy League, was formed by the
   Emperor, the King of Poland, and the Republic of Venice; and
   it was resolved to procure, if possible, the accession to it
   of the Czar of Muscovy. The Venetians were induced to join the
   league by the hope of recovering their former possessions, and
   declared war against the Sultan, Mahomet IV., July 15th. The
   war which ensued, now called the Holy War, lasted till the
   Peace of Carlowicz in 1609. Venice in this war put forth a
   strength that was little expected from that declining state.
   Many thousand Germans were enrolled in her army, commanded by
   Morosini, and by Count Königsmark, a Swede. The Austrians
   pursued the campaign in Hungary with success [steadily
   expelling the Turks—see HUNGARY: A. D. 1683-1609]. … While the
   war in Hungary had been conducted by the Emperor with such
   eminent success, the King of Poland had made only some
   fruitless attempts upon Moldavia. The Czar of Muscovy, Ivan
   Alexiowitsch, who, after settling some disputes about
   boundaries with the King of Poland, had joined the Holy League
   in 1686, did not fare much better. All the attempts of the
   Russians to penetrate into the Crimea were frustrated by the
   Tartars.
{3144}
   The Venetians, on the other hand, had made some splendid
   conquests. St. Maura, Koron, the mountain tract of Maina,
   Navarino, Modon, Argos, Napoli di Romania, fell successively
   into their hands. The year 1687 especially was almost as fatal
   to the Turks in their war with Venice as in that with Hungary.
   In this year the Venetians took Patras, the castles at the
   entrance of the bay of Lepanto, Lepanto itself, all the
   northern coast of the Morea, Corinth, and Athens. Athens had
   been abandoned with the exception of the acropolis or citadel;
   and it was in this siege that one of the Venetian bombs fell
   into the Parthenon, which had been converted by the Turks into
   a powder magazine, and destroyed the greater part of those
   magnificent remains of classical antiquity. The acropolis
   surrendered September 29th. The fall of Athens, added to the
   disastrous news from Hungary, excited the greatest
   consternation and discontent at Constantinople," and brought
   about a revolution which deposed the sultan, raising his
   brother Solyman to the throne (1687) in his place. "By the
   capture of Malvasia in 1690, the Venetians completed the
   conquest of the Morea. The Isle of Chios, taken in 1694, was
   again lost the following year; but in Dalmatia and Albania the
   Venetian Republic made many permanent conquests, from the
   mountains of Montenegro to the borders of Croatia and the
   banks of the Unna. The operations of the Poles in the Turkish
   war were insignificant; but in July 1696, the Russians, under
   the Czar Peter, after many long and fruitless attempts, at
   length succeeded in taking Azov, at the mouth of the Don; a
   most important conquest as securing for them the entry into
   the Black Sea. It was the fall of this place, combined with
   the defeat at Zenta [in Hungary], that chiefly induced the
   Porte to enter into negociation for a peace."

      T. H. Dyer,
      History of Modern Europe,
      book 5, chapter 4 (volume 3).

TURKS: A. D. 1709-1714.
   Refuge given to Charles XII. of Sweden.
   His intrigues.
   Unlucky invasion of Moldavia by Peter the Great.
   The Treaty of the Pruth.

TURKS: A. D. 1714-1718.
   War with Venice and Austria.
   Recovery of the Morea and disasters in Hungary.
   The Peace of Passarowitz.

"By the treaty of the Pruth the Russian conquest of Azof had been recovered. This success encouraged the hope of repairing the other losses that had been incurred in the former war. There were two states which had aggrandised themselves at Turkish expense, Austria and Venice. Of these the republic was far the less formidable and was naturally chosen as the first object of attack. A pretext was found in the protection which Venice had given to some Montenegrin fugitives, and in December, 1714, the Porte declared war. Venice was entirely unprepared, and moreover had failed to acquire popularity amongst her Greek subjects. In 1715, the grand vizier, Ali Cumurgi, landed in the Morea, and by the end of the year was master of the whole peninsula. Sailing thence he captured Suda and Spinalonga, the two last fortresses that Venice had been allowed to retain in Crete. The republic naturally appealed to her old ally, Austria, which had guaranteed her possessions by the treaty of Carlowitz. … As the Turk refused to give any satisfaction, war was inevitable. The intervention of Austria saved Venice from ruin. The grand vizier and the main body of the Turkish army had to be employed in Hungary. Still a considerable army and fleet was sent to attack Corfu. The Venetian troops were commanded by count Schulenburg, who had won a great reputation in the northern war, and whose services had been procured for the republic by Eugene. A heroic defence ended successfully, and in August, 1716, the Turks were compelled to raise the siege. 'It was the last glorious military exploit in the annals of the republic, and it was achieved by a German mercenary soldier.' Meanwhile the vizier, with an army of 150,000 men, had laid siege to Peterwardein, the most important of the Austrian border-fortresses in Hungary," and suffered death there, in a great defeat which prince Eugene inflicted upon his army, August 5, 1716. The same year, Eugene took Temesvar, and in August, 1717, he annihilated the Turkish army before Belgrad, capturing the town.

The result was the Treaty of Passarowitz, signed in July, 1718. "Austria retained all its conquests, thus completing its possession of Hungary by acquiring the Banat of Temesvar, and adding to it Belgrad and a strip of Servia. The Turks, on their side, kept the Morea, while Venice was confirmed in its possession of Corfu and Santa Maura, together with the conquests which it had made in 1717 in Albania and Dalmatia."

TURKS: A. D. 1735-1739.
   War with Russia and Austria.
   Favourable Treaty of Belgrade.
   Important acquisitions of Territory from Austria.

TURKS: A. D. 1768-1774.
War with Russia on behalf of Poland.
Concession of independence to the Crim Tartars.

The Poles, in their struggle with Catherine II. of Russia
found a strange champion in the Turk.

   "The Sultan, Mustafa III., was opposed to intervention in
   Poland; but his hand was forced by a rising in Constantinople,
   and he declared war against Russia in October, 1768.
   Hostilities were not commenced till the next year, and they
   never assumed considerable proportions. The Turkish army was
   in the last stage of inefficiency, and the Russians, who were
   wholly unprepared for war, were little better. Galitzin, an
   incompetent commander, defeated the grand vizier, and took
   Khoczim after his first attack had been repulsed. His
   successor, Romanzow, 'the Russian Turenne,' acted with greater
   energy. He drove the Turks from Moldavia, and in 1770 he
   occupied Wallachia, won a great victory over vastly superior
   numbers at Kaghul [August 1, 1770], and advanced into the
   Crimea. At the same time a Russian fleet appeared in the
   Mediterranean with the avowed intention of restoring Greece to
   independence. But the admiral, Alexis Orloff, mismanaged the
   expedition. After encouraging the Greeks to rebel, he left
   them to the horrors of a Turkish revenge, and sailed towards
   Constantinople.
{3145}
   A victory over the Turkish fleet gave him possession of Chios
   and other islands of the Archipelago, but he refused, in spite
   of his English officers, to attempt the passage of the
   Dardanelles." In May, 1772, a truce was arranged and a
   congress assembled to settle the terms of peace. "But the
   Russian demands were too excessive for the Porte to accept,
   and the Turks resumed hostilities in 1773. They attempted to
   recover Moldavia and Wallachia, and for a time they succeeded
   in forcing the Russians to retreat. Mustafa III. died in
   December, and was succeeded by his brother Abdul Hamid. In the
   next year Romanzow won a complete victory, and compelled the
   grand vizier to accept the terms dictated to him at Kutschuk
   Kainardji [July 16, 1774]. The Russians restored the conquered
   provinces except Azof and Kinburn, only stipulating for
   toleration for the Christian population. The Tartars of the
   Crimea and Kuban were declared independent of the Porte, and
   authorised to elect their own Khan. Russian ships were allowed
   free passage through the Dardanelles, and the right of sailing
   in the Turkish seas and on the Danube. Poland, for which the
   Turks had undertaken the war, was not even mentioned in the
   treaty."

ALSO IN: F. C. Schlosser, History of the 18th Century, volume 4, pages 405-441.

TURKS: A. D. 1776-1792.
   Acquisition of the Crimea by the Russians.
   War with Russia and Austria.
   The Treaties of Sistova and Jassy.
   Territorial concessions.

"A peace of some years followed the treaty of Kainarji, if, indeed, that can be called peace where the most solemn engagements are perpetually evaded. On that treaty Catherine put what interpretation she pleased. … She offered her protection to the voivods of Wallachia and Moldavia, who, in consequence, were her vassals rather than those of the Porte. The Christians on the opposite bank of the Danube were in correspondence with Russia; they were encouraged to revolt, to claim her protection, to oppose the Turkish government in every way. … Though the Crimea had been declared independent, she proved that the word had reference merely to the authority of the sultan, and not to hers. … More than once … the Russian troops appeared in that peninsula. In 1776 they deposed the reigning khan, and elected in his stead another, who was easily induced to solicit the protection of the empress. Turkey threatened to resume the war. … At length … a new treaty, or rather a modification of the former, was signed at Constantinople in 1779. In it Russia promised to desist from some of her obnoxious pretensions in regard both to the two principalities and the Crimea; but promises cost little. … Almost every year brought new complaints and evasions. The foundation of the city of Cherson, about ten leagues from Otzakof, gave peculiar umbrage to the Porte. This place had now a population of 40,000; and the number of warlike vessels constructed in its arsenal were evidently intended to overawe Constantinople. In 1783 another insulting message was sent to the Turkish ministers,—that, let the conduct of the empress in regard to the Crimea be whatever it might, they should not interfere. At the same time she prevailed on the khan whom she had supported, Sahim Gherei, to make the most outrageous demands from the Porte. The khan's envoy was beheaded. Under the pretext of punishing the Turks for this insult to their 'good ally,' the Russians requested permission to march through his territory. It was immediately granted; but no sooner were they in the peninsula than, instead of proceeding against the Turkish fortifications on the island of Taman, they seized the towns, forced the Mahometan authorities, in the khan's presence, to take the oath of allegiance to the empress, and seized on the revenues of the country. … The khan was now forced to resign his authority, and transfer it to Catherine; in return, he received some estates in Russia. A manifesto declared that the Crimea, Kuban, and Taman, were for ever incorporated with the empire. In a document of some length, and of great force, the Turkish ministry exposed to the world the unprincipled encroachments of their neighbours." But Russia responded to it by marshalling three great armies on the frontiers, with an exhibition of formidable fleets in the Euxine and the Baltic. "The Porte, terrified at this menacing display, listened to the advice of France and Austria; and, by another treaty (signed at Constantinople early in 1784) recognised the sovereignty of the empress over the Crimea, Taman, and a great part of Kuban. To the first and last of these places she restored their ancient classical names, Taurida and Caucasus." The treaty of Constantinople did not put an end to Russian aggressions, and in August, 1787, the Sultan declared war. "The campaign was opened with ardour. Knowing that Otzakof would be the earliest object of hostility, the Sultan sent a considerable force to cover it. Another army marched to the Danube, and the vizier in person took the field. … On the other hand, Potemkin, the commander-in-chief, having under his orders some of the best generals in the service, hastened to the frontiers, which were soon covered by Russian troops. At the same time the emperor Joseph [according to a prior agreement with Catherine] sent 80,000 Austrians into Moldavia; while a powerful fleet in the Euxine prepared to co-operate with the allies, and another in the Baltic was ready to sail for the Mediterranean. It seemed, indeed, as if Catherine's favourite dream, the elevation of her grandson Constantine to the throne of the Greek empire, was about to be realised. Yet these mighty preparations had no commensurate effect. An attack on Kinburn by 5,000 Turks from the garrison of Otzakof was repulsed [by Suwarof] with heavy loss. But this advantage was counterbalanced by the dispersion of the Euxine fleet in a storm, with the loss of some vessels. These were the chief events of the first campaign. The second, of 1788, was more decisive. Otzakof was taken by assault, and the garrison [with nearly all the inhabitants] put to the sword. At the same time Joseph took Sobach; and his generals captured Soubitza [Dubitza?]. On the deep, too, fortune was equally adverse to the Turks. Their fleet was defeated in the Euxine. … In the following campaigns the superiority of the Russians was maintained. It would have been still more signal but for the jealousy of Potemkin, who could not tolerate success in any of his generals. … The death of Abdul Hamet, and the accession of Selim III., made no difference in the character of the war; it was still adverse to the Turks. {3146} Fortress after fortress [including Belgrade, taken by General Loudon for the Austrians] was reduced by the enemy; and, though no general engagement was risked, the loss of men was not the less felt. Suwarof saved the Austrians [in Moldavia, defeating the Turks, who had nearly overwhelmed them, at Fockshani, July 30, and again at Rimnik, September 16, 1789]; Repnin forced the Seraskier, Hussein Pasha, to seek refuge in Ismail; Komenski reduced Galatza; Ackerman fell into the power of the Christians; Bender was forced to capitulate. In the following campaign, the important fortress of Ismail was assailed: the siege was conducted by Suwarof, the most dreaded of all the Russian generals. … It was taken … though the loss was most severe; and, in revenge, the garrison, with the greater part of the population [nearly 40,000 in all], was put to the sword. Other successes followed, both on the banks of the Caspian, and on those of the Danube. Bohada was stormed; at Kotzim 100,000 Turks were defeated by Repnin; Varna was menaced; and the road to Adrianople lay open. The grand vizier now sued for peace, which Catherine was ready to grant, on conditions much less onerous than might have been expected." Austria had already made peace with the sultan and withdrawn from the war. By the treaty of Sistova, which the new emperor, Leopold, signed on the 4th of August, 1791, the Austrians relinquished all their conquests except the town of Old Orsova and a small district in Croatia along the left bank of the river Unna. With these slight variations the same boundary between Austria and Turkey was reconstituted in 1791 that had been defined by the treaty of Belgrade in 1739. The treaty of the Turks with Russia was signed at Jassy on the 9th of January 1792. "By that treaty, Catherine retained the whole country between the Bog and the Dniester, but restored all the other conquests which she had made since 1787. This was the last of the hostilities between Russia and the Porte during the reign of this empress; and the peace of Jassy enabled her to carry into effect her designs on Poland."

F. C. Schlosser, History of the 18th Century, period 5, division 1, chapter 2 (volume 6).

TURKS: A. D. 1789-1812.
   Attempted reforms of Sultan Selim III.
   Their fate and his.
   Palace revolutions.
   Reign of Mahmud II.
   War with Russia.

"Abd-ul-Hamid died on the 7th April, 1789, and was succeeded by his nephew, Selim III (1789-1807). Although Selim had been confined in the Seraglio by his uncle, he had been in other respects well treated. His love of information and his natural talents had induced him to carry on an active correspondence with several servants of his father and his uncle. Their information had, however, in no way satisfied him, and he had commenced a correspondence with Choiseuil, the French envoy at Constantinople in 1786, and had also sent his intimate friend Isaac Bey to France, to enquire into the state measures and administrative organization of that country. Selim had also entered into correspondence with Louis XVI, and this lasted till 1789, when the French Revolution broke out simultaneously with Selim's ascension of the throne. All this throws a clear light upon Selim's eventual exertions to cause reforms which at last cost him both his throne and his life. His thirst for knowledge leads us to presume that he was not deficient in natural and sound talent. … But it was a mistake, that in his pursuit of knowledge, and desire to improve the institutions of Turkey—and the habits and character of its inhabitants—Selim should have applied to France, and to Frenchmen. That country was then on the eve of her great revolution. Theories of all kinds were afloat. … Selim would certainly have acted more wisely had he sought help from his own sensible mind; he would have easily perceived the palpable fact, that things which were suited for Christian nations were utterly inapplicable to the rude, uncivilized Turks. … Unfortunately ke set about the task with very different ideas, and listened to the suggestions of the sciolists who surrounded him. The first thing to which they drew his attention was the formation of a council of state, which not only restricted the power of the Grand Vizier, but that of the Sultan, very materially. The Reis Effendi, Raschid, was the soul of the council, and the boldest of these sciolists; and he had perfect liberty to carry on the work of reform. He set the printing presses again in activity which had been introduced in a preceding reign, sent for French officers, who founded an engineer academy, built arsenals and foundries, and openly stated that he took science under his protection. But his chief care was to form an army after the European fashion, in order by their assistance to gain the mastery over the Janissaries, in whom old customs and traditions found their most zealous guardians. He took several steps, therefore, to call into life the new military organization, called the Nizam Djedid; and as money was required for the purpose, he laid a tax on articles of consumption. This was quite sufficient to cause the popular discontent to burst into a flame. The Ulema declared themselves hostile to the Nizam Djedid, and Pashwan Oglu, Pacha of Widdin, who placed himself at the head of the Janissaries, openly rebelled against the Porte, which could not effect anything to check him, but acquiesced in all that was demanded. The extraordinary conquests of Napoleon diverted attention from Turkey, and instead of seeking to divide the dominions of a weak neighbour, the Great Powers of the Continent were trembling for their own safety. Egypt became the battle field between England and France [see FRANCE: A. D. 1798-1799 (AUGUST-AUGUST), and 1801-1802], and its invasion by Napoleon obliged the Turks to unite with the Allied Powers against France. When the French were expelled from Egypt, that province was restored to Turkey, and peace concluded between the two Powers. Selim, under the influence of General Sebastiani who was then French ambassador at Constantinople, signed [seized?] what was considered by him a favourable opportunity for renewing the war with Russia [see below], in which, however, the Turks were defeated both by land and sea. These misfortunes the Janissaries attributed to the new troops or Seymens. … At the end of May, 1807, the chiefs of the Janissaries and the Ulema had already formed their plans for the overthrow of the Sultan, when Selim accelerated the outbreak by going to the mosque on Friday, accompanied by a body of Seymens and the French ambassador, Sebastiani. {3147} The Janissaries, aroused by this, broke out in open revolt, which soon grew of such a menacing nature by the co-operation of the Mufti, that Selim was compelled to promise the abolition of the Nizam, and the heads of those of his advisers who had promoted the measure. But the insurgents were not satisfied with this: they demanded the abdication of the Sultan, whom the Mufti declared unworthy to be a successor of Muhammad, through his partiality for foreigners, and marched to the Seraglio, to carry their designs into effect. But when the Mufti and the Ulema entered it, they found a new Sultan. Selim, under the conviction that he could not resist the storm his attempts at reform had created, had retired to the Harem, where his nephew, Mustapha, was confined, and led him to the throne: he had then attempted to destroy his own life by a cup of poisoned sherbet, but had been prevented by Mustapha, and was led into the apartments of the Royal Princes, with a promise that he should ever be treated as a friend and an uncle. On the same afternoon, Sultan Mustapha III [IV] (who reigned from 31st May, 1807, to 28th July, 1808) rode in solemn procession for the first time to the great mosque, was invested in the traditional manner with the sabre of Muhammad, then immediately did away with the Nizam Djedid, and restored the old customs. But among the Pachas in the provinces, there were several devoted partisans of reform. The most influential of these was Mustapha Bairaktar, Pacha of Rustchuk, who set out in July 1808, at the head of 18,000 men, to restore Selim to the throne. He succeeded in taking possession of the capital, and keeping the Sultan so long in ignorance of his designs, until he sent him orders to resign the throne in favour of Selim. As the Sultan had only one hour allowed him for consideration, he was so helpless that he followed the advice of the Mufti and had Selim cruelly murdered. As the gates of the Seraglio were not opened at the appointed time, and Bairaktar hurried up to enforce his authority, Selim's lifeless body was thrown over the wall. Upon this the Pacha ordered the Seraglio to be stormed, seized the Sultan, destroyed all those who had advised the abolition of the plans of reform, and placed Mustapha's younger brother on the throne. Mahmud II, the second son of Abd-ul-Hamid, was born on the 2nd July, 1785, and was consequently twenty-three years of age when he ascended the throne. … Mahmud appointed Mustapha Bairaktar his Grand Vizier, and, regardless of the fate of his predecessor, restored all the measures of reform which Selim had undertaken. Within three months the Janissaries were again in open rebellion, and on the night of the 14th November, 1808, attacked the Seymens, destroyed a great number of them, and, after storming the new barracks, forced their way into the Grand Vizier's palace. He fled and appealed to the people for help, but the greater portion abused him as a renegade and joined the rebels. Bairaktar recognised his impending fate, but still ordered the execution of Mustapha, for fear he might reascend the throne. After this he retired with a body of Seymens into a stone tower, where he had before collected a quantity of gunpowder. He defended himself here for some time, but, at last, when the Janissaries rushed up in larger masses to the attack, he blew up the tower. The Janissaries then attacked the Seraglio, and, but for the fact that Mahmud was the last legitimate descendant of the race of Osman, they would have taken his life. But even this, probably, would not have saved him, had he not sent a deputation to the insurgents and given an unconditional assent to their demands. … As an additional guarantee for his own safety on the throne, ensanguined with the blood of his uncle and his brother, Mahmud ordered his brother's son, a child of three months old, to be strangled, and four of the Sultanas to be thrown into the Bosphorus. The reign of Mahmud is one of the longest and most important in the whole of Turkish history. It commenced with war. The Emperor Alexander menaced him on the Danube: the Hospodar of Servia, Czerny George, had rebelled against him. The campaign of the Turks in 1809, was, consequently, not a prosperous one. The contest lasted till 1812, when it was ended by the treaty of Bucharest, which surrendered the whole of Bessarabia, as far as the Pruth, to Russia. At the same time the Russian protectorate of the Greek Christian subjects of the Porte, which had been stipulated in the treaty of Kudjuk Kainardji, was again confirmed."

TURKS: A. D. 1806-1807.
   Alliance with Napoleon, and hostilities with Russia and England.
   British fleet before Constantinople.
   Its humiliating retreat.
   The English again in Egypt.
   Disastrous failure of their expedition.

"Before the end of 1806, Russia had driven Selim into the arms of France; and war was declared at the Porte just after Napoleon's victories in Prussia had filled Alexander with alarm. His troops had overrun some Turkish territory before war was declared; but just at this juncture he wanted all his forces for the defence of his own frontier. He dreaded the effects of withdrawing them from the Turkish provinces, which would immediately fight for France; but he must do it. He besought the British to undertake another of those 'diversions' which began to sound so disagreeably to the ears of Englishmen. … The Grenville Cabinet … gave orders to Sir John Duckworth, then cruising off Ferrol, to join Admiral Louis at the mouth of the Dardanelles. … Neither the efforts of Sebastiani [French representative at Constantinople] … nor any other warning that the English were coming, had roused the Turks to make the slightest preparation. The ships sailed proudly up the strait [February, 1807], undelayed by the fire of the forts at the narrowest part of the channel, and belching out flames and cannonballs as they went. They took and burned some Turkish ships, and appeared before Constantinople, to the horror of the whole population, who were absolutely without means of defence. The Divan would have yielded at once; but Sebastiani prevented it, and instigated a negotiation which proved a fatal snare to Sir John Duckworth, notwithstanding express warnings and instructions, strong and clear, from Lord Collingwood. {3148} He was unwilling to destroy the city, and shoot down the defenceless inhabitants; and he allowed himself to be drawn on, from day to day, exchanging notes and receiving promises. … Meantime, not a moment was lost by Sebastiani and the Turks, whom he was instructing in Napoleon's methods of warfare. Women and children, Christians and Mohammedans, worked day and night at the defences; and in a few days the whole coast was bristling with artillery, and the chance was over. … There was nothing to be done but to get away as safely as they yet might. … For thirty miles (reckoning the windings of the channel) the ships ran the gauntlet of an incessant fire—and such a fire as was never seen before. Stone balls, weighing 700 or 800 lbs., broke down the masts, crushed in the decks, snapped the rigging, and amazed the hearts of the sailors. The hills smoked from end to end, and the roar of the artillery rolled from side to side. In another week, Sir J. Duckworth declared in his dispatch, any return would have been impossible. The news of this singular affair spread fast over Europe. Every body thought the expedition gallantly conceived, and miserably weak in its failure. … So ended the second of the 'diversions' proposed under the Grenville Ministry. The third legacy of this kind that they left was a diversion on the side of Egypt. For some time, a notion had been gaining ground, in the minds of English politicians, that the Sultan would, some day soon, be giving Egypt to Napoleon, in return for the aid afforded to Constantinople, on the Danube, and elsewhere. Egypt was in an unhappy state. Mohammed Alee, the Viceroy, was at feud with the Memlooks; and the Arab inhabitants were made a prey of by both. The Grenville Ministry thought that a diversion in that direction would be of great service to Russia, and great injury to Napoleon; and they confidently reckoned on being enthusiastically received by the Arab inhabitants, and probably by the Memlooks also. In laying their plans, however, they strangely underrated the forces and the ability of Mohammed Alee; and they sent only between 4,000 and 5,000 men to the mouth of the Nile, instead of an army large enough to cope with the able and warlike Pasha of Egypt, and his Albanian troops. The small British force was drafted from the troops in Sicily. It landed without opposition on the 17th of March, supposing that Sir John Duckworth must by this time have conquered the Sultan, and that his province of Egypt would come very easily into our hands. No opposition was made to the landing of the troops, and Alexandria capitulated immediately. Only seven lives were lost on the British side. Within the city, however, no provisions were found." A detachment of 1,200 men sent to Rosetta for supplies were trapped in the city by Mohammed Alee's Albanians, and 400 of them, with their general, were shot down in the streets. Then Rosetta was besieged, with results of disastrous failure and the loss of 1,000 or 1,200 more men. General Fraser, the Commander, "was discouraged from home, and hourly harassed by the enemy. … More and more of the enemy came up as his little force dwindled away; and at last, on the appearance of a column which he was unable to encounter, he sent out a flag of truce, with an offer to evacuate Egypt on the restoration of the prisoners taken since the invasion. This was in August, 1807; and in September the last English soldier left the mouth of the Nile. By this time, the Sultan had declared war against England, and had caused a seizure of all the British property in his dominions."

TURKS: A. D. 1807.
Schemes of Napoleon and Alexander I. at Tilsit
for the partition of Turkey.

TURKS: A. D. 1821-1829.
   Revolt and recovery of independence by the Greeks.
   Battle of Navarino.
   Treaty of Adrianople.

TURKS: A. D. 1826.
   Reforms of Mahmud II.
   Insurrection of the Janissaries.
   Their subjugation and destruction.

"While the struggle in Greece was proceeding, Mahmud had been busily engaged with his internal reforms, many of which were of a nature to offend the prejudices of his subjects. His great object was to give a European character to the institutions and the manners of his country. He introduced the western style of dress into Turkey; abandoned the use of the turban, which Mohammedans generally regard with much veneration; and gave musical and theatrical entertainments within the sacred enclosure of the Seraglio. He resolved also to recommence the military reforms of his uncle Selim, and again to establish the Nizam Jedid, or body of troops organized after European models. This last design roused once more the savage fanaticism of the Janizaries. On the 15th of June, 1826, when the Sultan and the Grand Vizier were in the country, the dissatisfied troops rose in insurrection, and committed great excesses. The Grand Vizier, hastily recalled to the metropolis, took measures for vindicating his master's authority, and at once found himself supported, not only by the new troops, but by the Ulemas and Students. Mahmud arrived shortly afterwards at the Seraglio, and by his orders the Mufti unfolded the standard of the Prophet, and summoned all faithful Mohammedans to rally round that holy symbol. The city was soon divided into two hostile factions. The Janizaries concentrated their forces in one of the great squares, and threw up entrenchments. The supporters of the Sultan gathered in their front, and an attack was made by ordnance, before which the Janizaries retired into their fortified barracks, where they continued to fight with the resolution of despair. … The building was presently on fire from one end to the other. The frightful struggle was continued in the midst of the flames; all who endeavoured to escape were at once shot down; and before the day was over 6,000 Janizaries had perished at the hands of their fellow-troops. Fifteen thousand who had not taken part in the movement were exiled to different places in Asia Minor, and on the following day a Hatti-Sherif pronounced the abolition of a corps which had contributed so much to the military predominance of Turkey, but which had at length become a source of internal danger too great to be suffered."

      E. Ollier,
      Cassell's Illustrated History of the Russo-Turkish War,
      volume 1, chapter 23.

TURKS: A. D. 1826-1829.
   Convention of Ackerman.
   War with Russia.
   Surrender of Varna and Silistria.
   Disastrous battle of Koulevscha.
   Treaty of Hadrianople.
   Cessions of territory.

"It was not to be expected that an event so remarkable as the destruction of the Janizaries would fail to be taken advantage of by the court of St. Petersburg. The Emperor Nicholas had brought with him to the Russian throne a thorough determination to carry out that aggressive policy of the Empress Catherine, of which the terms of the celebrated treaty of Kutschouc-Kainardji [see above: A. D. 1768-1774] afforded so striking an illustration, and the annihilation of the Ottoman army, as well as the distracted condition of many of the provinces of that empire, afforded an opportunity too tempting to be neglected. The Czar, therefore, demanded that the Sultan should conclude with him a treaty, the provisions of which were made the subject of discussion at Ackerman, a town in Bessarabia; and Mahmoud, pressed by the necessity of his condition, … had found it requisite to conclude the arrangement, and the celebrated convention of Ackerman was ratified in October 1826. This treaty proved of great importance to Russia. In addition to other provisions, it recognised the whole stipulations of the two treaties of Bucharest and Kainardji, by which Russia claimed the right to interpose in behalf of the members of the Greek church in the Ottoman dominions. … During the year which succeeded the ratification of the convention of Ackerman, Russia was occupied with the Persian war, which was prosecuted with great vigour by General Paskewitch, by whom very considerable advantages were obtained; and in November 1827 the treaty of Tourkmantchai was concluded between Russia and Persia. … It left the Emperor … at leisure to carry out those hostile intentions which his ready interference in the affairs of Greece, and a variety of other considerations, clearly proved him to entertain. The approaching war was indicated by the mutual recriminations of the hostile powers. Russia accused the Porte of an endeavour to cause a revolution in the Caucasus, and of a violation of treaties by closing the Bosphorus against Russian ships, and by its conduct towards its Christian subjects. There was no inconsiderable foundation for such a complaint, and especially for the latter part of it. … Both sides immediately prepared for the struggle, which a variety of circumstances have proved that the Czar had long contemplated, and only waited for a suitable opportunity of entering upon. … In the month of May [1828] the [Russian] force began to assemble on the banks of the Pruth, and crossed that river at three different points. Being unopposed by the Ottomans, the Russian forces almost immediately entered Jassy and Bucharest, took possession of Galatz, and in a few weeks had occupied the whole of the left bank of the Danube. To accomplish as rapidly as possible the objects of the campaign, as well as to avoid having their very wide]y extended line exposed to the enemy, it was resolved by the leaders of the Russian forces to cross the Danube at Brahilow, and thence to advance with rapidity upon Silistria, Varna, and Schumla. This resolution they immediately proceeded to carry into effect. … About the middle of July, the Russian force under General Rudiger on the right, and Generals Woinoff and Diebitcb on the left wing, accompanied by the Emperor Nicholas, moved toward Schumia; and the Ottoman army, whose instructions were to avoid general actions, and to throw their whole energy upon the defence of their fortifications, having engaged in battle with the enemy, retired within the entrenched camp surrounding that fortress, which now contained a force of 40,000 men. … The Emperor … resolved … to leave a corps of observation of 30,000 men before Schumla, under General Wittgenstein, and to direct the principal efforts of his army, in the first instance, to the reduction of Varna. … On the 5th of September, after having been absent at Odessa for about a month, during which he was engaged making arrangements for obtaining levies from Russia, and in negotiating loans in Holland, the Emperor Nicholas arrived at Varna, to inspect the progress and encourage the operations of the besiegers. … The besieging force, towards the end of August, amounted to 40,000 men, which, on the arrival of the Emperor, were reinforced by more than 20,000, with a great addition to the artillery already possessed by the invading army. This large force was further supported by the Russian fleet. … The details of the siege exhibit a series of assaults repulsed with the utmost valour and spirit by the besieged, and entailing an immense loss upon the Russians, both in men and superior officers; but the circumstance that the reinforcement sent to relieve the garrison could not approach, so closely was the place invested, and the destruction of a part of the walls by the cannon of the Russians, led to a surrender, and Jussouf Pasha delivered up the fortress to the Emperor on the 10th of October, after a siege of more than two months. The utmost efforts were made to reduce Silistria, after Varna had been surrendered, but the advance of the season, and the difficulties of the attempt, as well as the disastrous circumstances of the Russian army before Schumla, soon proved that nothing more could be attempted till the following spring. The campaign, therefore, was brought to a conclusion, and orders were issued for the Russians to retire beyond the Danube, and take up their winter quarters in Wallachia. The fall of Brahilow and Varna were the only important events of the campaign of 1828 in Europe, and even these successes had been attained at a vast expense of human life. Out of nearly 160,000 men who had crossed the Danube at the beginning of the campaign, only about one-half remained. … In Asia operations were carried on by the Russians with equal vigour and much more success, in consequence, in a great measure, of the military genius and experience of General Paskewitch, who commanded the troops on the east of the Black Sea. … The first attack of the Russians in Asia was made upon the fortress of Anapa. … After a siege of about a month, the place was taken, with 85 guns and 3,000 prisoners, and the fleet sailed immediately to Varna. … After some other successes, General Paskewitch resolved upon attacking the town and fortress of Akhalzikh, a very important place in the pashalik of that name, and which was not only strongly fortified by nature and art, but had for its chief strength a resolute garrison of 10,000 Ottomans, besides the armed inhabitants of the place. The Sultan's troops defended this important fortress with the most undaunted resolution. … The surrender of Akhalzikh was followed by that of other important places of strength, which closed the campaign of 1828 in Asia. … The campaign of 1828 had rendered the most active preparations requisite on the part of both belligerents for the commencement of hostilities in the following spring. {3150} The Ottoman soldiers, according to their usual custom, hastened from the garrisons to pass the winter in their homes, but the utmost efforts were made by the Porte to gather an adequate force to meet the exigencies of the struggle so soon to be renewed. Although only 10,000 men were left in Schumla during the winter, 40,000 assembled in that fortress early in spring. They were, however, for the most part new levies. … The Russians, on the other hand, were no less energetic in their arrangements. … It was impossible, however, before the month of May, from the condition of the Danube, to commence the campaign with the whole force, but by the tenth of that month the passage of the river was completed at Hirchova and Kalavatsch, below Silistria, the siege of which was immediately begun, while General Kouprianoff was stationed with a force at Pravadi, a fortress on the east of Schumla, and which, lying in the line of communication between Silistria and Varna, was important to the Russians as the means of keeping open a communication between the army of General Roth near Varna and the troops destined to act upon Silistria. Redschid Pasha, who on being recalled from Greece had been appointed Grand Vizier, had arrived at Schumla on the 21st of March, and on perceiving the position of the invading army, formed the well-conceived design of attacking Pravadi and the force under General Roth. … This movement of the Vizier became immediately known to General Roth, who by means of a courier conveyed information of it to Count Diebitch. That General was too acute not to perceive the purpose of his adversary, and too enterprising not to endeavour immediately to take advantage of it. The Count therefore adopted a movement of the highest importance, and which, indeed, had the effect of deciding the campaign. Instead of marching to attack Redschid Pasha at Pravadi, he resolved to intercept his communication with the fortress he had quitted, and thus compel the Ottoman general either to come to a general engagement, which could hardly fail to result to the advantage of the Russians, or to fight his way towards Schumla through the Russian army, or leave the fortress of Schumla to its fate, which, feebly garrisoned as it was, could not be long delayed. This skilful manœuvre was no sooner resolved upon than it was carried into execution. … While the Russian force were rapidly advancing towards Koulevscha, a village between Pravadi and Schumla, and scarcely three miles from the latter, the Grand Vizier remained wholly ignorant of the fact that Diebitch had quitted Silistria, and persisted in the belief that the only opponents of his retreat to Schumla were Generals Roth and Rudiger. … The mistake was fatal. The Ottoman cavalry attacked the infantry of the Russians, who were overwhelmed by their charge; and Diebitch, having waited in expectation that the Vizier would descend from the eminence on which he was posted to complete his supposed victory, and finding that he did not make this movement, broke from his concealment among the hills, and suddenly attacked the Ottoman troops with his whole force. The effect was instantaneous. A universal panic seized the Vizier's forces, his cavalry and infantry fled in confusion, every attempt to bring them to a stand proved abortive, and he himself escaped with difficulty. The artillery and baggage all fell into the hands of the enemy. … The muster at Schumla on the return of the Vizier and his remaining troops exhibited the magnitude of their loss. Out of a fine army of 40,000 men, who a few days before had marched from the fortress full of confidence, only 12,000 foot and about 6,000 cavalry remained. After the fatal battle of Koulevscha, the siege of Silistria was carried on with redoubled vigour, and on the 30th of June the fortress surrendered, when the whole garrison were made prisoners of war, and to the number of 8,000, and the Russians found on the ramparts 238 cannon, in addition to those on board the vessels in the harbour. The fall of Silistria now determined the Russian commander-in-chief to push across the Balkans. … After defeating with great facility such troops as opposed their advance, the Russian army pressed on with the utmost activity towards Hadrianople, and entered the city not only unopposed, but amidst the rejoicings of a multitude of the Greek population. … The terror which this extraordinary event inspired at Constantinople may easily be imagined to have been extreme. The very heart of the empire had been assailed by the victorious invaders in Europe, while the tidings from the Asiatic provinces of the defeats sustained by the Sultan's forces opposed to General Paskewitch, greatly contributed to the public alarm. … In the midst of this tumult of public feeling, the ambassadors of England and Austria exerted themselves to the utmost to bring about a pacification; and … the Sultan reluctantly agreed to the conclusion of a treaty of peace. … The celebrated treaty of Hadrianople, which concluded the war of 1828-29, … contained sixteen distinct articles, by which, among other matters, the following conditions were agreed upon:—The principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia, and all the conquered places in Bulgaria and Roumelia, were restored to the Porte, with the exception of the islands at the mouth of the Danube, which were to remain the possession of Russia. In Asia all the recent conquests were to revert to the Porte, with the exception of Anapa, on the north-eastern shore of the Black Sea, several important fortresses, together with an extensive district situated to the north and east of a line of demarcation supposed to be drawn from the then existing boundary of the province of Gouriel, and thence by that of Imeritia direct to the point where the frontiers of Kars unite with those of Georgia. The conditions of the treaties of Kainardji, Bucharest, and Ackerman were confirmed; … the passage of the Dardanelles was declared open to all Russian merchant ships, as well as the undisputed navigation of the Black Sea; an indemnity for losses by Russian subjects was fixed at £750,000, to be paid in eighteen months; and the expenses of the war were to be paid to the Russian Government, amounting to 10,000,000 ducats, about £5,000,000. … To this treaty two separate acts were annexed, the provisions of which are of scarcely less importance than the treaty itself. {3151} By these acts it was arranged that the Hospodars of Moldavia and Wallachia should be elected for life instead of for seven years; that no interference in the affairs of these provinces by any of the officers of the Porte should take place; that no fortified towns, nor any establishment of Muslims, should be retained by the Porte on the left bank of the Danube; that the Turkish towns on that bank of the river should belong to Wallachia; and that the Mussulmans who possessed property in such places should be required to sell it in the space of eighteen months. … The conclusion of these treaties, on the 14th September 1829, terminated the war between Russia and the Ottoman Empire."

TURKS: A. D. 1831-1840.
   Rebellion of Mehemed Ali, Pasha of Egypt.
   Intervention of Russia and the Western Powers.
   Egypt made an hereditary pashalik.

"The peace of Adrianople (1829) had greatly discredited the authority of the Porte; insurrections multiplied, and Turkish armies had to enter Bosnia and Albania. In these and all other matters by which the embarrassment of the Porte was increased, the ambitious Mehemed Ali, Pasha of Egypt, had a hand. As payment for his services against the Greeks, he had demanded the pashalik of Damascus. Sultan Mahmoud II. had refused the demand, and only given him the promised Candia. Hence, while the Western powers were occupied with the consequences of the July revolution [in France], and all Europe appeared to be on the verge of a new upheaval, he undertook to seize his booty for himself. In consequence of a quarrel with Abdallah, Pasha of Acre, Ibrahim Pasha [son of Mehemed Ali], notorious for his barbarous conduct of the war in Peloponnesus, crossed the Egyptian frontier, October 20th, 1831, with an army organized on the European system, took Gaza, Jaffa and Jerusalem without resistance, and besieged Acre, which was resolutely defended by Abdallah. Mehemed Ali now demanded both pashaliks—Damascus and Acre. The sultan commanded him to evacuate Syria. The demand was naturally refused; so Mehemed and his son Ibrahim were outlawed. But the latter proceeded with his operations, took Acre by storm May 25th, 1832, and entered Damascus. In the mean time, a Turkish army, under Hussein Pasha, had advanced into Syria. Mehemed Pasha, Hussein's lieutenant, was defeated at Homs, July 9th. Hussein himself, attempting to retrieve this loss, was defeated at Beylan July 27th, and his army scattered. The sultan sent a new army against Ibrahim, under Reshid Pasha, the Grand Vizier, who had displayed great efficiency in the reduction of the Albanians and Bosnians. Reshid … was utterly defeated at Konieh December 20th, and was himself taken prisoner. The sultan was in a critical situation. He could not at the moment bring together another considerable army, while Ibrahim had 100,000 well-trained troops, and the road to Constantinople lay open before him." Russia, having no wish to see the energetic Pasha of Egypt in possession of that coveted capital, offered her help to the sultan and he was driven to accept it. "A Russian fleet appeared in the Bosphorus, and landed troops at Scutari, while a Russian army was on the march from the Danube to cover Constantinople. … At length England and France perceived how dangerous it was to forget the East in their study of the Dutch-Belgian question. Their ambassadors had enough to do, by a hasty peace, to make Russia's help unnecessary. As their threats made no impression on the victorious Mehemed Ali, they filled the sultan with distrust of Russia, and by representing a cession of territory to his vassal as the lesser of the two evils, persuaded him into the peace of Kutayah (May 6th, 1833), by which Mehemed Ali received the whole of Syria and the territory of Adana, in south-eastern Asia Minor. Russia had to retire with her object unattained, but had no sooner been thrown out at the front door than she came in at the back. She called the sultan's attention to the favor shown to the insatiable pasha by England and France in the peace of Kutayah, and concluded with him, July 8th, 1833, the treaty of Unkiar-Skelessi, by which he entered into a defensive alliance with Russia for eight years, and pledged himself to permit no foreign vessel of war to pass through the Dardanelles. The Western powers took this outwitting very ill, and from that time on kept a sharp eye on Constantinople." Mehemed Ali was meantime giving another direction to his ambition. "The west coast of Arabia, as far as the English post at Aden, had been in his possession since 1829. He now sought to extend his sway over the eastern coast, and subdue the sultan of Muscat. … If this were to continue, the two most important roads to the East Indies, by Suez and by the Persian Gulf, would be in the hands of Mehemed Ali. … With Egypt, Syria, and Arabia in his hands, England's position in the East would receive a blow that must be felt. So it was a foregone conclusion which side England would take. In 1838 she concluded with the Porte a commercial treaty by which the abolition of all monopolies, as well as free exportation from all parts of the Turkish empire, including Egypt and Syria, was secured to her. Mehemed Ali hesitated about accepting this treaty; and Mahmoud, full of hate against a vassal who threatened ultimately to devour him, declared him a traitor, deprived him of all his dignities, and caused an army to advance into Syria under Hasiz Pasha. But again fortune was not favorable to the Turks. In their camp, as military adviser of the commander-in-chief, was a Prussian captain, Hellmuth von Moltke. For two years he had been assisting the sultan in planning and putting into execution military reforms. Recognizing the weakness and unreliable character of the Turkish army, he advised Hasiz Pasha to fall back on the strong camp at Biridshik, bring up the re-enforcements which were under way, and then risk a battle. But the Pasha would not listen to Moltke's advice, pronouncing retreat a disgrace. He was completely routed at Nisib, on the Euphrates, June 24th, 1839, and his army scattered. For the second time the road to Constantinople lay open to Ibrahim. Misfortunes fell thick and fast upon the Turks. Sultan Mahmoud died June 30th, and the empire fell to a sixteen-year old youth, his son Abdul Medshid. Five days later, Capudan Pasha, with the Turkish fleet, sailed out of the Dardanelles under orders to attack the Egyptians. Instead of this he went over to Mehemed Ali with his whole fleet—in consequence of French bribery, it was said. … In order to prevent Turkey from casting herself a second time into Russia's arms, four great powers—England, France, Austria, and Prussia—declared, July 27th, 1839, that they would themselves take the Eastern question in hand. {3152} To save herself from being wholly left out, Russia had to give her consent, and become a party to the treaty. But there were very different views as to the way in which the question was to be settled. France, which was striving after the control of the Mediterranean, and which, since Napoleon's campaign, had turned its eyes toward Egypt, wished to leave its friend Mehemed Ali in full possession. England saw her interests endangered by the pasha, thought France's occupation of Algiers quite enough, and was afraid that if Turkey were too weak she might become the defenceless prey of Russia. The latter wished at no price to allow the energetic pasha to enter upon the inheritance of Turkey, or even of a part of it, and was pleased at seeing the cordial understanding between France and England destroyed. Austria and Prussia supported England and Russia, and so France was left alone. The Anglo-Russian view found expression in the quadruple alliance which the great powers, with the exception of France, concluded in London, July 15th, 1840. By this the hereditary possession of the pashalik of Egypt, and the possession for life of a part of Syria, were secured to Mehemed Ali, in case he submitted to the conclusions of the conference within ten days. … The allied powers began hostilities against Mehemed Ali, who, relying on French assistance, refused to submit. The Anglo-Austrian fleet sailed to the Syrian coast, and took Beirut and Acre; and Alexandria was bombarded by Commodore Napier. This and the fall of the Thiers ministry brought Mehemed Ali to a full realization of his mistake. He might consider himself lucky in being allowed to hold Egypt as hereditary pashalik upon evacuating Syria, Arabia, and Candia, and restoring the Turkish fleet. For this favor he had to thank England, which sought by this means to secure his friendship and the Suez road to India. The catastrophe of the 'sick man' [the Turk] was again put off for a few years."

ALSO IN: A. A. Paton, History of the Egyptian Revolution, volume 2, chapters 1-20.

      S. Walpole,
      History of England from 1815,
      chapter 16 (volume 3).

"Troubles broke out in the Lebanon in 1860, a French army was dispatched to restore order, and in the adjustment of rival claims an opportunity was afforded to Lord Dufferin for displaying those diplomatic talents for which he is renowned. In 1861 the Sultan Abd-ul-Mejid died, and with him passed away the hope of regenerating Turkey. His brother and successor Abd-ul-Aziz was an ignorant bigot, whose extravagance brought his country to avowed insolvency (1875), and thus deprived her of that sympathy which is seldom given to the impecunious. The only remarkable thing he did was to travel. No Ottoman Sultan had ever before left his own dominions, except on the war path, but Abd-ul-Aziz ventured even as far as London, without, however, awakening any enthusiasm on the part of his Allies. In 1876 he was deposed, and—found dead. How he came by his death is a matter of doubt, but his end is said to have turned the brain of his successor, Murad V., a son of Abd-ul-Mejid, who after three months was removed as an imbecile, and succeeded by his brother, … Abd-ul-Hamid."

TURKS: A. D. 1861-1877.
   Union of Wallachia and Moldavia.
   Revolt in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
   Reforms demanded by the Great Powers.
   War with Servia.
   Conference at Constantinople.
   Russian preparations for war.

"Before four years were over [after the termination of the Crimean War by the Treaty of Paris], one of the chief stipulations of the treaty was set aside. Wallachia and Moldavia, which it had been the policy of the Powers to separate, displayed a constant desire to join. Two of the great Continental Powers—France and Russia—favoured the junction. England, Austria, and Turkey, thinking that the union would ultimately lead to their independence, opposed their fusion under one prince. At last, after discussions, which at one moment seemed likely to rekindle the flames of war, an administrative union was arranged, which resulted, in due course, in the formal union of the two provinces in 1861. [In 1858, the two provinces chose the same prince, or hospodar, in the person of Prince John Couza, who took the title of Prince of Roumania. The Porte protested, but was induced, in 1861, to recognize this union of the coronets. Prince Couza aspired to absolutism, and was forced to abdicate in 1866. Then a German, Prince Charles of Hohenzollern, was chosen by the two provinces to be his successor.] Thus, five years after the Peace of Paris, one of the stipulations on which England had insisted was surrendered. In 1870 the Franco-German War led to the obliteration of another of them. In November, when the armies of France were either beaten or besieged, Russia repudiated the clause of the Treaty of Paris which had limited the forces of Russia and Turkey in the Black Sea. The declaration of the Russian Government came as a painful shock to the British people. The determination of a great European state to tear up the clause of a treaty excited indignation. It was recollected, moreover, that it was for the sake of this clause that the Crimean War had been prolonged after the Vienna negotiations; and that all the blood which had been shed, and all the money which had been spent, after the spring of 1855, were wasted in its abandonment. … All that diplomacy was able to do was to lessen the shock by persuading the Russian Government to submit its proposal for the abrogation of the clause to a conference. … The conference met. … It had practically nothing to do but to record its assent to the Russian proposal. … For five years more the Eastern Question remained undisturbed. In the spring of 1875 an insurrection broke out in Bosnia and Herzegovina, two of the northern provinces of European Turkey. The Porte failed to quench the disturbance; and, its efforts to do so increasing its pecuniary embarrassments, was forced in the autumn to repudiate the claims of its many creditors. … In the meanwhile the insurrection continued to spread, and attracted the attention of the great European Powers. {3153} At the instigation of Austria a note was drawn up [by Count Andrassy, and known, therefore, as the Andrassy Note], which was at once signed by all the European Powers except England, and which was ultimately accepted by England also, declaring that 'the promises of reform made by the Porte had not been carried into effect, and that some combined action by the Powers of Europe was necessary to insist on the fulfilment of the many engagements which Turkey had made and broken.' As the note failed to effect its object, the representatives of the Northern Powers—Germany, Austria, and Russia—met at Berlin, proposed a suspension of arms for two months, and intimated that if Turkey in the two months failed to fulfil her broken promises, 'force would be used to compel her' to do so. The British Government, unwilling to join in a threat, refused to sign this new note. The insurrection went on; Servia, sympathising with the insurgents, declared war against Turkey; Russian officers and Russian troops fought in the Servian battalions; and Russia herself, setting her legions in motion, evidently prepared for hostilities. When these events occurred, large numbers of the English people were prepared to support the Turk. Though they had been partially estranged from the cause of Turkey by the repudiation of the Ottoman debt in the previous autumn, they recollected the sacrifices of the Crimean War; they were irritated with the manner in which one part of the Treaty of Paris had been torn up in 1870; and they were consequently prepared to resist any further movement on the part of Russia. The Porte, however, dreading the extension of revolt, allowed its officers to anticipate disorder by massacre. The atrocious cruelty with which this policy was executed [especially in Bulgaria—see BALKAN and DANUBIAN STATES: A. D. 1875-1878] excited a general outburst of indignation in this country [England]; and the British Ministry, whose leader had hitherto displayed much sympathy with the Turks, found himself forced to observe a strict neutrality. In the short war which ensued in the autumn of 1876, the Servian troops proved no match for the Turkish battalions. At the request or command of Russia the Porte was forced to grant an armistice to the belligerents; and, on the suggestion of the British Ministry, a Conference of the Great Powers was held at Constantinople to provide for the better government of the Turkish provinces. The Constantinople Conference, held at the beginning of 1877, formed in many respects an exact parallel to the Vienna Conference held in the summer of 1855. … The Porte rejected all the proposals on which the other Powers were agreed. … In each case the failure of the Conference was followed by war. But the parallel ends at this point. … In the Russo-Turkish war of 1877-1878, Turkey was left to fight her own battle alone."

      ALSO IN:
      E. Ollier,
      Cassell's Illustrated History of the Russo-Turkish War,
      volume 1, chapters 1-10.

TURKS: A. D. 1877-1878.
   War with Russia.
   Heroic defense of Plevna.
   Defeat and surrender.

"Russia had already massed large numbers of troops on her frontier, and Turkey was also engaged in the work of mobilization. On the 24th April the Emperor of Russia issued a manifesto to his subjects, in which he recited the interest of the empire in the Christian population of the Balkan peninsula, and the general desire that their condition should be ameliorated. He declared that all efforts at peace had been exhausted. … He had given the orders for the army to cross the frontier, and the advance upon Turkey was begun without delay. … The Turks had not been idle, though their preparations were by no means as complete as those of Russia. They had massed heavy bodies of troops along the Danube, and were prepared to resist the movements of the Russians south of that stream. … The first crossing [of the Russians] was made at Galatz, on the 22d June, by General Zimmermann, who went over with two regiments in pontoons and drove out the Turks who were posted on the heights on the opposite shore. Having obtained a footing in the Dobrudja, as the peninsula between the Danube and Black Sea is called, the Russians were able to throw bridges over the great stream, by which the whole left wing of the army moved across. Meantime the right wing, on the 26th June, sent a pontoon force over the Danube from Simnitza, under command of General Skobeleff, who drove out the small force of Turks posted there, though not without hard fighting. More pontoons followed, and then a bridge was thrown across on which the army could march. … By the first week of July the whole Russian army was safely encamped on the southern bank of the Danube, and getting in readiness to assume the offensive. … The advance did not begin in force until after the middle of the month. But before that time General Gourko … had pushed forward on the road to the Balkans, heading first for Tirnova. … On the 5th July the cavalry occupied Biela, … and on the 7th Gourko was in possession of Tirnova. … The Emperor joined the army at Biela on the 8th or 9th. Gourko was soon reported past the Balkans. … The first check of the Russians was at Plevna. They had previously captured Nicopolis with its garrison of 7,000 men, having themselves lost about 1,300 officers and men killed and wounded. Orders had been given to occupy Plevna as soon as possible, and Baron Krudener sent forward General Schilder-Schuldner to carry out the orders. … Schilder-Schuldner had 6,500 men and 46 guns in the division with which he went to capture Plevna; he was attacked by a vastly superior force of Turks before he had reached his objective point, and the first battle of Plevna was disastrous to the Russians. … Nearly 3,000 men and 74 officers were killed or wounded. … The Russians retired to Nicopolis, and the Turks set to work to strengthen Plevna. … From the 20th to the 30th of July the Russians were engaged in bringing up reinforcements and getting ready for another attack. An order came for the assault of the Turkish position; Baron Krudener did not believe the assault advisable, but the command of the Grand Duke Nicholas left him no discretion." The assault was made on the 31st of July, and was repulsed, with a loss to the Russians of 170 officers and 7,136 men. "There was nothing for the Russians to do but send for reinforcements, and wait until they arrived. The advance into Turkey had received a severe check, from which recovery was not easy. From the offensive the Russians were thrown upon the defensive, and all as the result of a single battle of six or eight hours' duration. Happily for Russia, the Turkish army had no competent leader, or the army of the Czar might have been captured or drowned in the Danube. {3154} The Turks had three armies in the field. … Mehemet Ali was at Shumla with 65,000 men; Osman Pasha at Plevna, with 50,000; and Suleiman Pasha at Yeni Zagra, with 40,000. … The order of the Czar for reinforcements was quickly issued, and resulted in the despatch of 120,000 regulars and 180,000 militia for the front. With these reinforcements went 460 pieces of artillery. … General Gourko took up his position in the Shipka Pass whence Suleiman Pasha sought in vain to dislodge him. … Towards the end of August the Russian reinforcements were assembled in such numbers that an advance could again be ventured. … The total Russian and Roumanian force for the attack of Plevna amounted to 90,000 men and 440 guns, while the Turks were estimated to have about 56,000 men—and Osman Pasha. … The attack began with a bombardment on the 6th September," which was kept up until the 11th, when the Russians again endeavored to carry the Turkish works by assault. Skobeleff, conspicuous, as he always was, in daring and in success, took one of the redoubts and held it until the next day, waiting vainly for reinforcements which were not sent. Elsewhere the assault failed. "The Russian killed and wounded were estimated at 18,000 to 20,000, and the Turkish about 5,000 less than the Russian. The capture by assault having been given up, the Russians sat down to invoke the aid of that engine, more powerful than all their batteries, the engine of starvation. … One by one the roads leading into Plevna were occupied, but it was nearly two months from the terrible battle of the 11th September before the routes for supplies and reinforcements destined for Osman Pasha could be secured. The investment was completed on the 3d November; 120,000 Russians and Roumanians were around Plevna." On the morning of December 10 the beleaguered Turks made a desperate sortie, attempting to break the line of investment, having failed in which their stout-hearted commander surrendered unconditionally. "With the fall of Plevna and the surrender of its garrison of 40,000 men, the Turkish opposition practically ceased. Within a month from that event General Gourko had captured Sophia, and General Radetsky took the village of Shipka, in the Shipka Pass, and compelled the surrender of a Turkish army of 23,000 men. … Gourko and Skobeleff advanced upon Philippopolis by different routes and narrowly missed capturing Suleiman Pasha with his entire force. Skobeleff advanced upon Adrianople, which the Turks abandoned, and Slivno and Yeni-Zagra were occupied, all inside of thirty days. Plevna had made the Russians the masters of the situation, and they advanced upon Constantinople, the Turks retiring before them, and occasionally making a feeble resistance. Turkey asked the mediation of England, and finally, despairing of her aid, signed an armistice that became the basis of the treaty of San Stefano."

The campaign of the Russians in Bulgaria was accompanied by another in Asiatic Turkey, where they, likewise, met with a temporary check, after pushing their first advance too confidently, and with an insufficient force. They invested Kars and advanced against Erzeroum, in May, 1877; but were defeated at Sevin and withdrew from both undertakings. Having received reinforcements, they resumed the offensive in October, attacking the main Turkish army, under Mukhtar Pasha, in its strong position at Aladsha, or on the Little Yahni and Great Yahni hills. Their first attack, on the 2d, was repulsed; they repeated it on the 15th with success, driving one wing of the enemy into Kars and forcing the other to surrender. Kars was then besieged and taken by assault November 17. The Turks suffered another defeat at Deve-Boyun, near Erzeroum, November 4, and they evacuated Erzeroum itself in February, 1878.

TURKS: A. D. 1878.
   Excitement in England over the Russian advance.
   The British fleet sent through the Dardanelles.
   Arrangement of the Berlin Congress.

   "At the opening of 1878 the Turks were completely prostrate.
   The road to Constantinople was clear. Before the English
   public had time to recover their breath and to observe what
   was taking place, the victorious armies of Russia were almost
   within sight of the minarets of Stamboul. Meanwhile the
   English Government were taking momentous action. … Parliament
   was called together at least a fortnight before the time usual
   during recent years. The Speech from the Throne announced that
   her Majesty could not conceal from herself that, should the
   hostilities between Russia and Turkey unfortunately be
   prolonged, 'some unexpected occurrence may render it incumbent
   on me to adopt measures of precaution.' This looked ominous to
   those who wished for peace, and it raised the spirits of the
   war party. There was a very large and a very noisy war party
   already in existence. It was particularly strong in London. It
   embraced some Liberals as well as nearly all Tories. It was
   popular in the music-halls and the public-houses of London. …
   The men of action got a nickname. They were dubbed the Jingo
   Party. … Some Tyrtæus of the tap-tub, some Körner of the
   music-halls, had composed a ballad which was sung at one of
   these caves of harmony every night amidst the tumultuous
   applause of excited patriots. The refrain of this war-song
   contained the spirit-stirring words:
      'We don't want to fight,
      but, by Jingo, if we do,
      We've got the ships,
      we've got the men,
      we've got the money too.'

Some one whose pulses this lyrical outburst of national pride failed to stir called the party of its enthusiasts the Jingoes. … The name was caught up at once, and the party were universally known as the Jingoes. … The Government ordered the Mediterranean fleet to pass the Dardanelles and go up to Constantinople. The Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that he would ask for a supplementary estimate of six millions for naval and military purposes. Thereupon Lord Carnarvon, the Colonial Secretary, at once resigned. … Lord Derby was also anxious to resign, and indeed tendered his resignation, but he was prevailed upon to withdraw it. The fleet meanwhile was ordered back from the Dardanelles to Besika Bay. It had got as far as the opening of the Straits when it was recalled. {3155} The Liberal Opposition in the House of Commons kept on protesting against the various war measures of the Government, but with little effect. … While all this agitation in and out of Parliament was going on … the news came that the Turks, utterly broken down, had been compelled to sign an armistice, and an agreement containing a basis of peace, at Adrianople. Then, following quickly on the heels of this announcement, came a report that the Russians, notwithstanding the armistice, were pushing on towards Constantinople with the intention of occupying the Turkish capital. A cry of alarm and indignation broke out in London. One memorable night a sudden report reached the House of Commons that the Russians were actually in the suburbs of Constantinople. The House for a time almost entirely lost its head. The lobbies, the corridors, St. Stephen's Hall, the great Westminster Hall itself, and Palace Yard beyond it, became filled with wildly excited and tumultuous crowds. If the clamour of the streets at that moment had been the voice of England, nothing could have prevented a declaration of war against Russia. Happily, however, it was proved that the rumour of Russian advance was unfounded. The fleet was now sent in good earnest through the Dardanelles, and anchored a few miles below Constantinople. Russia at first protested that if the English fleet passed the Straits Russian troops ought to occupy the city. Lord Derby was firm, and terms of arrangement were found—English troops were not to be disembarked, and the Russians were not to advance. Russia was still open to negotiation. Probably Russia had no idea of taking on herself the tremendous responsibility of an occupation of Constantinople. She had entered into a treaty with Turkey, the famous Treaty of San Stefano, by which she secured for the populations of the Christian provinces almost complete independence of Turkey, and was to create a great new Bulgarian State with a seaport on the Egean Sea. The English Government refused to recognise this Treaty. Lord Derby contended that it involved an entire readjustment of the Treaty of Paris, and that that could only be done with the sanction of the Great Powers assembled in Congress. Lord Beaconsfield openly declared that the Treaty of San Stefano would put the whole south-east of Europe directly under Russian influence. Russia offered to submit the Treaty to the perusal, if we may use the expression, of a Congress; but argued that the stipulations which merely concerned Turkey and herself were for Turkey and herself to settle between them. This was obviously an untenable position. … Turkey meanwhile kept feebly moaning that she had been coerced into signing the Treaty. The Government determined to call out the Reserves, to summon a contingent of Indian troops to Europe, to occupy Cyprus, and to make an armed landing on the coast of Syria. … The last hope of the Peace Party seemed to have vanished when Lord Derby left his office [which he did on the 28th of March]. Lord Salisbury was made Foreign Minister. … Lord Salisbury's first act in the office of Foreign Secretary was to issue a circular in which he declared that it would be impossible for England to enter a Congress which was not free to consider the whole of the provisions of the Treaty of San Stefano. … Prince Bismarck had often during these events shown an inclination to exhibit himself in the new attitude of a peaceful mediator. He now interposed again and issued invitations for a congress to be held in Berlin to discuss the whole contents of the Treaty of San Stefano. After some delay, discussion, and altercation, Russia agreed to accept the invitation on the conditions proposed, and it was finally resolved that a Congress should assemble in Berlin on the approaching June 13. To this Congress it was supposed by most persons that Lord Salisbury would be sent to represent England. Much to the surprise of the public, Lord Beaconsfield announced that he himself would attend, accompanied by Lord Salisbury, and conduct the negotiations in Berlin. The event was, we believe, without precedent. … The Congress was held in the Radzivill Palace, a building with a plain unpretending exterior in one of the principal streets of Berlin, and then in the occupation of Prince Bismarck. The Prince himself presided. … The Congress discussed the whole or nearly the whole of the questions opened up by the recent war. … The great object of most of the statesmen who were concerned in the preparation of the Treaty which came of the Congress, was to open for the Christian populations of the south-east of Europe a way into gradual self-development and independence. But on the other hand it must be owned that the object of some of the Powers, and especially, we are afraid, of the English Government, was rather to maintain the Ottoman Government than to care for the future of the Christian races. These two influences, acting and counteracting on each other, produced the Treaty of Berlin."

      R. Wilson,
      Life and Times of Queen Victoria,
      volume 2, chapter 21.

"The First Article of the Treaty of San Stefano had reference to the new boundaries to be assigned to Montenegro. The accession of territory, which was not very large, was taken from the provinces of Bosnia and Albania, and lay to the north, east, and south of the original State. … It gave to the mountaineers their much-coveted admission to the sea. It was next provided that a European Commission, on which the Sublime Porte and the Government of Montenegro were to be represented, should be charged with fixing the definite limits of the Principality. … By Article II., the Sublime Porte recognized definitively the independence of the Principality of Montenegro. … Article III. dealt with Servia, which was recognized as independent. The new frontier of this Principality was to follow the course of the Drina, the Dezevo, the Raska, the Ibar, the Morava, and some other streams, and was drawn so as to give Little Zwornik, Zakar, Leskovatz, Ak Palanka, and Nisch, to the Servians. … In Article V., the Sublime Porte undertook to recognize the independence of Roumania, which would thus acquire a right to an indemnity, to be hereafter discussed between the two countries. The most important sections of the Treaty were of course those which had relation to Bulgaria. They commenced with Article VI., which set forth that Bulgaria was constituted an autonomous, tributary Principality, with a Christian Government and a national militia. {3156} The definitive frontiers of the new Principality were to be traced by a special Russo-Turkish Commission before the evacuation of Roumelia by the Russian army. … The new Bulgaria was of very considerable dimensions. It extended from the Danube in the north to the Ægean in the south; and from the borders of Albania in the west to the Black Sea in the east. All that was left to Turkey in this part of her Empire was an irregular and somewhat narrow territory, running westward from Constantinople along the shores of the Sea of Marmora and the Ægean until it touched the limits of the new Principality, and extending no farther north than was sufficient to include Adrianople and its immediate neighbourhood. By this arrangement, the territory so left to the Sultan was completely separated from Thessaly and Albania. … According to Article VII., the Prince of Bulgaria was to be freely elected by the people, and confirmed by the Sublime Porte with the assent of the Powers. No member of the reigning dynasties of the Great European Powers should be capable of being elected Prince of Bulgaria. … The introduction of the new system into Bulgaria, and the superintendence of its working, would be entrusted for two years to an Imperial Russian Commissioner. … By Article VIII., the Ottoman army would no longer remain in Bulgaria, and all the ancient fortresses would be razed at the expense of the local Government. … Until the complete formation of a native militia, the country would be occupied by Russian troops. … Article IX. declared that the amount of the annual tribute which Bulgaria was to pay the Suzerain Court would be determined by an agreement between Russia, the Ottoman Government, and the other Cabinets. … By Article X., the Sublime Porte was to have the right to make use of Bulgaria for the transport, by fixed routes, of its troops, munitions, and provisions, to the provinces beyond the Principality, and vice versa. … Article XII. provided that all the Danubian fortresses should be razed, and that in future there should be no strongholds on the banks of the Danube, nor any men-of-war in the waters of Roumania, Servia, or Bulgaria. … Article XIV. imposed on Turkey the obligation to introduce reforms into Bosnia and the Herzegovina." Articles XV. and XVI. stipulated reforms in government of Crete, Epirus, Thessaly, Armenia, and other parts of the Ottoman Empire. "The question of the war-indemnities was arranged in Article XIX., which set forth that the Emperor of Russia claimed, in all, 1,410,000,000 roubles for losses imposed on Russia during the contest. … The Emperor, however, did not desire to receive the whole of this indemnity in the form of money-payments, but, taking into consideration the financial embarrassments of Turkey, and acting in accordance with the wishes of the Sultan, was willing to substitute for the greater part of the sums enumerated certain territorial cessions, consisting of the Sandjak of Tultcha, on the Danube (including the Delta Islands and the Isle of Serpents), and, in Asia, Ardahan, Kars, Batoum, Bayazid, and the territory extending as far as the Soghanli Dagh. With respect to the Sandjak of Tultcha and the Delta Islands, Russia, not wishing to annex that territory, reserved to herself the right of exchanging it for the part of Bessarabia detached from her by the Treaty of 1856. … The ceded territories in Europe and Asia were to be taken as an equivalent for the sum of 1,100,000,000 roubles." The remaining Articles of the Treaty of San Stefano related to details of minor importance. "The Treaty of Berlin, signed by the Plenipotentiaries on the 13th of July, 1878, and of which the ratifications were exchanged on the 3rd of August, was the Treaty of San Stefano, with additions, subtractions, and amendments. … Speaking generally, it may be said that the objects of the Treaty of Berlin, as distinguished from its predecessor, were to place the Turkish Empire in a position of independence, and to protect the jeopardised rights of Europe. These ends it accomplished, or partially accomplished, by several important provisions. It divided the so-called Bulgaria into two provinces, of which the one to the north of the Balkans was formed into a tributary Principality, while the one to the south, which was to be designated Eastern Roumelia, was to remain under the direct authority of the Sultan, with administrative autonomy and a Christian Governor-General. It left to the Sultan the passes of the mountains, and the right of sending troops into the interior of Eastern Roumelia whenever there might be occasion. It reduced the stay of the Russian army in European Turkey. … It secured to Roumania, as compensation for the loss of that portion of Bessarabia which had been annexed to Moldavia by the Treaty of Paris (1856), a larger amount of territory, south of the Danube, than had been granted at San Stefano. It restored to Turkey the whole of the northern shores of the Ægean, a wide extent of country in Europe, and, in Asia, the valley of Alashgerd and the town of Bayazid. … It gave far ampler guarantees for religious liberty than had entered into the projects of the Czar."

      E. Ollier,
      Cassell's Illustrated History of the Russo-Turkish War,
      volume 2, chapter 9 and 21.

   "In her private agreement with Russia, England had consented
   to the cession of Batoum, but she now sought to diminish the
   value of that post by stipulating that the fortifications
   should be demolished and the port declared free. The dispute,
   which at one time assumed a serious character, was finally
   settled by a declaration on the part of the Czar that Batoum
   should be a free port. Kars, Ardahan, and Batoum were ceded to
   Russia, the district of Khotur to Persia, and the Sultan
   pledged himself to carry out the requisite reforms in Armenia
   without loss of time, and to protect the inhabitants against
   the Kurds and Circassians. At the same time a secret treaty
   was made known which had been contracted between England and
   Turkey on the 4th of June. By this treaty the Porte pledged
   itself to carry out reforms in Asia Minor, and England, on her
   part, guaranteed the integrity of the Sultan's Asiatic
   possessions. To put England in a position to fulfil her part
   of the treaty, and as a pledge for the execution of the
   promised reforms, the Porte surrendered Cyprus to England as a
   naval and military station, the latter agreeing to regard the
   island as an integral part of the Turkish empire, and to make
   over the surplus revenue to the Sultan. This treaty, which had
   received the consent of Germany and Russia at the time of its
   execution, aroused great indignation in France and Italy. … To
   pacify the former state, Beaconsfield and Salisbury entered
   into a secret arrangement with Waddington, in accordance with
   which England was to put no obstacles in the way of a French
   occupation of Tunis—an arrangement of which the French
   government finally took advantage in the year 1881.
{3157}
   The English representatives had also entered into an
   arrangement with Austria in reference to Bosnia and
   Herzegovina. In the sitting of June 29th Andrassy read a
   memorandum in which he set forth that Austria had been
   disturbed for a whole year by the insurrection in those
   provinces, and had been compelled to receive and provide for
   over 150,000 Bosnian fugitives, who positively refused again
   to submit to the hardships of Turkish misrule; that Turkey was
   not in a position to restore order in the disturbed districts.
   … Thereupon the Marquis of Salisbury moved that Austria be
   charged with the occupation and administration of Bosnia and
   Herzegovina, and … the congress … decided to hand over those
   two provinces to Austro-Hungary. … The independence of Servia
   and Montenegro was recognized on condition that full freedom
   and political equality were accorded to the members of all
   religions. Servia received an addition to her population of
   280,000 souls, her most important acquisition being the city
   and fortress of Nish. She also assumed a part of the Turkish
   debt. The recognition of Roumanian independence was
   conditioned on the cession of Bessarabia to Russia, and the
   admission to political equality of the members of all
   religions—a condition which had special reference to the Jews.
   In compensation for Bessarabia Roumania was to receive the
   Dobrudsha and the islands at the mouth of the Danube. …
   Austria took possession of her share of the booty at once, but
   not without the most obstinate resistance."

ALSO IN: Sir E. Hertslet, The Map of Europe by Treaty, volume 4, Numbers 518, 524-532.

A disturbance of some nature—the causes and extent of which have not yet been ascertained—occurring in Turkish Armenia during the late weeks of summer or early part of autumn, gave occasion for what is claimed to have been more horrible atrocities on the part of the Turkish soldiery than were committed in Bulgaria during the year 1877. The scene of alleged massacres is in the mountainous district of Sassoun, near the western end of Lake Van, where 6,000 men, women and children are said to have been slain. The Christian world having been roused, though not very promptly, by the reports of this fresh outbreak of barbarism, the Porte has been forced by pressure from the Powers to consent to the formation of a commission to investigate the affair. England, France and Russia are to be represented on the commission.

A tribe in ancient Gaul who gave their name to Touraine, the district which they inhabited, and to Tours, the chief town of that district.

TUSCANY: A. D. 685-1115.
   The founding of the duchy.
   The reign of Countess Matilda.
   The rise of the free cities.

"The first Lombard duke of whom any sure record remains is a certain 'Alovisino' who flourished about the year 685; and the last, though of more doubtful existence, is 'Tachiputo,' in the 8th century, when Lucca was the principal seat of government, with the privilege of coining, although her Counts were not always Dukes and Marquises of Tuscany. About the year 800, the title of Duke seems to have changed to that of Count, and although both are afterwards used the latter is most common: Muratori says, that this dignity was in 813 enjoyed by a certain Boniface whom Sismondi believes to be the ancestor of Countess Matilda; but her father, the son of Tedaldo, belonged to another race: he was the grandson to Attone, Azzo, or Adelberto, Count of Cannosa. … The line of Boniface I. finished in 1001 by the death of Hugo the Great. … After him, on account of the civil wars between Ardoino and Henry, there was no permanent Duke until 1014, when the latter appointed Ranieri, whom Conrad the Salique deposed in 1027, making room for Boniface the father of Countess Matilda. This heroine died in 1115 after a reign of active exertion for herself and the Church against the Emperors, which generated the infant and as yet nameless factions of Guelph and Ghibeline. …

The fearless assertion of her own independence by successful struggles with the Emperor was an example not overlooked by the young Italian communities under Matilda's rule. … These seeds of liberty began first to germinate amongst the Lombard plains, but quickly spreading over the Apennines were welcomed throughout Tuscany. …

It seems probable that in Tuscany, towards the commencement of the 12th century, the Count's authority had passed entirely into the principal communities, leaving that of the Marquis as yet untouched; but there are reasons for believing that the Countess Matilda in some of her difficulties was induced to sell or cede a portion of her power, and probably all that of the Count's. … Altogether, there appears little reason to doubt the internal freedom of most Tuscan cities very early in the 11th century."

ALSO IN: P. Villari, The Two First Centuries of Florentine History, volume I, chapter 2.

TUSCANY: A. D. 1250-1293. Development of the popular constitution of the Florentine Commonwealth.

TUSCANY: A. D. 1282-1293.
   War between Pisa and Genoa.
   Battle of Meloria.
   War of Florence and Lucca against Pisa.

TUSCANY: A. D. 1310-1313.
The visitation of the Emperor, Henry VII.
His war with the Guelfic cities.

TUSCANY: A. D. 1313-1328.
   The wars of Florence and Pisa.
   The subjection of Lucca to Castruccio Castracani
   and his war with the Florentines.
   The hostile visitation of the Emperor Louis of Bavaria.

TUSCANY: A. D. 1341-1343.
Defeat of the Florentines by the Pisans before Lucca.
Brief tyranny of the Duke of Athens at Florence.

TUSCANY: A. D. 1378-1427.
   The democratizing of Florence.
   The Tumult of the Ciompi.
   First appearances of the Medici.

TUSCANY: A. D. 1390-1402.
Resistance of Florence to the conquests of the Duke of Milan.

TUSCANY: A. D. 1452-1454.
War of Florence and Milan against Venice, Naples,
Siena and other states.

TUSCANY: A. D. 1469-1492. The government of Lorenzo de' Medici, the Magnificent, at Florence.

TUSCANY: A. D. 1494-1509.
The French deliverance of Pisa.
The long struggle and reconquest by Florence.

TUSCANY: A. D. 1502-1569. Restoration of the Medici in Florence and their creation of the grand duchy of Tuscany.

TUSCANY: A. D. 1725.
Reversion of the grand duchy pledged to the Infant of Spain.

TUSCANY: A. D. 1801. The grand duchy transformed into the Kingdom of Etruria and given to the son of the Duke of Parma.

TUSCANY: A. D. 1807.
End of the Kingdom of Etruria.
Cession and annexation to France.

TUSCANY: A. D. 1848-1849.
   Revolution.
   Expulsion of the Grand Duke.
   Proclamation of a Republic and union with Rome.
   The old order restored.

TUSCANY: A. D. 1859-1861.
   Flight of the Grand Duke.
   Formation of a provisional government.
   Annexation to Sardinia.
   Absorption in the new Kingdom of Italy.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY, and IROQUOIS TRIBES OF THE SOUTH.

TUSCULAN VILLAS.

"In Cicero's time the number of country-houses which a wealthy Roman considered it necessary to possess had evidently become considerable, and the amount spent upon them very great. The orator himself had villas at Tusculum, Antium, Formiæ, Bairn, and Pompeii, besides his town-house on the Palatine, and his family seat at Arpinum. … The Tusculanum of Cicero had formerly been in the possession of Sylla. … Close to the Villa of Cicero, and so near that he could go across to fetch books from the library, was the Villa of Lucullus. … Many other Roman villas, lay on the Tusculan hills."

TUSCULUM.

"In the times of the Latin League, from the fall of Alba to the battle of Lake Regillus, Tusculum was the most prominent town in Latium. It suffered, like the other towns in Latium, a complete eclipse during the later Republic and the Imperial times; but in the ninth, tenth, eleventh and twelfth centuries, under the Counts of Tusculum, it became again a place of great importance and power, no less than seven popes of the house of Tusculum having sat in the chair of St. Peter." The ruins of Tusculum, about fifteen miles from Rome, on the Alban hills, have been considerably explored.

TWELVE APOSTLES OF IRELAND.

TWELVE PEERS OF FRANCE.

The Twelve Peers of France were the nobles and prelates "who held the great fiefs immediately from the Crown. … Their number had been fixed by Louis VII. at twelve; six lay and six ecclesiastical. They were the Dukes of Normandy, Burgundy, Guienne, the Counts of Champagne, Flanders, Toulouse; the Archbishop of Rheims, and the Bishops of Laon, Noyon, Châlons, Beauvais and Langres. … The immediate vassals of the Duchy of France, who held of the King as Duke, not as King, were not Peers of France."

G. W. Kitchin, History of France, volume 1, book 3, chapter 6, with foot-note.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY, also ILLINOIS AND MIAMIS, and SACS, ETC.

The kingdom founded in Southern Italy and Sicily by the Norman conquest in the 11th century (see ITALY: A. D. 1000-1090, and 1081-1194) maintained its existence until recent times, sometimes as a unit, and sometimes divided into the two dominions, insular and peninsular, of Sicily and Apulia, or Naples. The division occurred first after the rising against the French and the massacre known as "the Sicilian Vespers".

The crown of Sicily was then acquired by Peter, king of Aragon, succeeded by his son Frederick. Charles of Anjou and his successors were left in possession of the kingdom of Naples, alone, although still claiming Sicily in union with it. "As the king who reigned at Naples would not give up his right to Sicily, … his kingdom is often called Sicily as well as the Island Kingdom; and so when at last the two kingdoms became one [again-see ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447], the strange name of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies arose."

TYCHE.

One of the variously named parts of the ancient city of
Syracuse, Sicily. Its position was northwest of Achradina.

TYCOON, SHOGUN.

TYLER. John:
   Vice-Presidential election.
   Succession to the Presidency.
   Administration.

"The empire of Tylis in the Haemus, which the Celts, not long after the death of Alexander [the Great], and nearly at the same time with their permanent settlement in Asia Minor, had founded in the Moeso-Thracian territory, destroyed the seed of Greek civilisation within its sphere, and itself succumbed during the Hannibalic war to the assaults of the Thracians, who extirpated these intruders to the last man."

"A 'tyranny,' in the Greek sense of the word, was the irresponsible dominion of a single person, not founded on hereditary right, like the monarchies of the heroic ages and of many barbarian nations, nor on a free election, like that of a dictator or æsymnete, but on force. It did not change its character when transmitted through several generations, nor was any other name invented to describe it when power, which had been acquired by violence, was used for the public good; though Aristotle makes it an element in the definition of tyranny, that it is exercised for selfish ends. But, according to the ordinary Greek notions, and the usage of the Greek historians, a mild and beneficent tyranny is an expression which involves no contradiction."

"In spite of the worst which has been said against them, the tyrants hold a legitimate place in the progress of Greek constitutional history. They were the means of breaking down the oligarchies in the interests of the people. … It was at Sicyon that the first tyrannis arose. … About the year 670 B. C. a certain Orthagoras, who is said to have been a cook, succeeded in establishing himself as tyrant in Sicyon. Of his reign no incident is recorded. He was succeeded by his son Myron."

TYRCONNEL'S DOMINATION IN IRELAND.

TYRE.

"Justin represents Tyre as having been founded a year before the Capture of Troy, thus apparently reducing by about 1,500 years the date assigned to it by the priests of the temple of Hercules. … Josephus places the settlement of Tyre 240 years before the building of Solomon's Temple. He refers no doubt to the same event as Justin, the occupation of the island by the Sidonians, as he cannot have been ignorant of the mention of Tyre in the Old Testament more than 240 years before Solomon. The date of the building of Solomon's Temple is itself disputed, estimates varying from 1012 B. C. to 969 B. C. … Tyre consisted of two parts, an island about three-quarters of a mile in length, separated from the mainland by a strait four stadia, about half a mile, in width at its northern end, and a town on the shore. The latter was distinguished as Palæ-Tyrus, or Ancient Tyre, and was the chief seat of the population, till the wars of the Assyrian monarchs against Phœnicia. It extended along the shore from the river Leontes in the north to the fountain of Rusel-Ain in the south, a distance of seven miles, great part of which would be suburb rather than city. Pliny, who wrote when its boundaries could still be traced, computes the circuit of Palæ-Tyrus and the island together at nineteen Roman miles, that of the island town being 22 stadia. … Though called Old Tyre, because it lay in ruins, when the younger city on the island was in the height of its prosperity, it was from the first connected with it; and the name of Tyre (Tsour), 'a rock,' would hardly be appropriate, except to the island. … It is probable that, from the first, the island, from the excellence of its natural harbour, was a naval station to the city on the mainland, and, as a place of security, the seat of the worship of the national deities, Astarte, Belus, Hercules. … The situation of Palæ-Tyrus was one of the most fertile spots on the coast of Phœnicia. The plain is here about five miles wide, the soil is dark, and the variety of its productions excited the wonder of the Crusaders. Near the southern extremity of the city was a fountain, which, communicating with some natural receptacle in the mountains above, poured forth copious and perennial streams of pure and cool water. An aqueduct distributed them through the town. … Whatever may have been the relative importance of Palæ-Tyrus and the island, previous to the great migration from Sidon, occasioned by the victory of the Ascalonites, there can be no doubt that from this time the population of the island greatly increased. The colonization of Gades took place about a century later. But we have no connected history of Tyre till near the age of Solomon."

After defeating the Persians at Issus (see MACEDONIA: B. C. 334-330), Alexander turned his attention to the tributary Phœnician cities, whose fleets gave to the Great King a naval power more formidable than the hosts of the nations which marched at his command. Sidon, Byblus, and other towns submitted promptly to the conqueror. Tyre offered a qualified surrender, which did not satisfy the haughty Macedonian, and he instantly laid siege to the city. Having no adequate fleet with which to reach the island-town, he resolved to carry a causeway across the channel which separated the island from Old Tyre, on the mainland, and he demolished the buildings of the latter to provide materials for the work. It was an undertaking of immense magnitude and difficulty, and the ingenious Tyrians found many modes of interfering with it. They succeeded in destroying the mole when half of it had been built; but Alexander, with obstinate perseverance, began his work anew, on a larger scale than before. He also collected a strong fleet of war-galleys, from Cyprus and from the Phœnicians who had submitted to him, with which the opposition of the enemy was checked and his own operations advanced. After seven months of prodigious labor and incessant battle, the strong walls of Tyre were beaten down and the city taken. "It soon became a scene of unresisted carnage and plunder. The Macedonians, exasperated by the length and labours of the siege, which had lasted seven months, and by the execution of their comrades [Greek prisoners, whom the Tyrians had put to death on the walls, before the eyes of the besiegers, and cast into the sea], spared none that fell into their hands. The king—whom the Greeks call Azelmicus—with the principal inhabitants, and some Carthaginian envoys who had been sent with the usual offerings to Melkart, took refuge in his sanctuary: and these alone, according to Arrian, were exempted from the common lot of death or slavery. It was an act of clemency, by which the conqueror at the same time displayed his piety to the god. Of the rest, 8,000 perished in the first slaughter, and 30,000, including a number of foreign residents, were sold as slaves. But if we may believe Curtius, 15,000 were rescued by the Sidonians [of Alexander's navy], who first hid them in their galleys, and afterwards transported them to Sidon—not, it must be presumed, without Alexander's connivance or consent. It sounds incredible, that he should have ordered 2,000 of the prisoners to be crucified. … Tyre was still occupied as a fortress, and soon recovered some measure of her ancient prosperity."

"The Carians, with whom Alexander repeopled the city [of Tyre] fell into the habits of the former population, and both Tyre and Sidon recovered much of their commercial greatness. After a long struggle be·tween the kingdoms of Egypt and Syria, Phœnicia was finally secured to the latter by Antiochus the Great (B. C. 198). But the commercial rivalry of Egypt proved more serious even than political subjection; and the foundation of Berenice on the Red Sea diverted to Alexander much of the oriental commerce that had previously flowed through Tyre and Sidon. But still they did not succumb to their younger rival. Under the Romans, to whom Phœicia was subjected with Syria [by Pompeius the Great, B. C. 64], Tyre was still the first commercial city of the world."

After the taking of Jerusalem by the Caliph Omar, the Moslems made themselves masters of the remainder of Palestine very quickly. Tripoli was first won by treachery, and then the same traitor who had delivered it, making his way to Tyre, succeeded in bringing about the betrayal of that place. Many of the inhabitants were put to the sword; but many others are said to have saved their lives by accepting the religion of the victors. The fall of Tyre was followed by the flight from Cæsarea of Constantine, son of the Emperor Heraclius, who commanded in Syria, and the entire abandonment of that rich province to the Moslems.

The Venetians took little or no part in the First Crusade, being largely engaged in commerce with the Saracens. But in 1124—a full quarter of a century after the taking of Jerusalem—they found it wise to obtain an interest in the Christian conquests that were spreading along the Levantine coasts. They accordingly sent their doge, with a formidable fleet, to offer aid to the Latin king of Jerusalem—then Baldwin II.—for the reduction of either Ascalon or Tyre, both of which cities were still held by the Moslems. Finding it difficult to make choice between the two places, a solemn drawing of lots took place, at the altar of the Holy Sepulchre, as a means of ascertaining the will of God. The lot decided that Tyre should be attacked, and operations were accordingly begun. But "the Venetians, more devoted to the interests of their commerce and of their nation than to those of a Christian kingdom, demanded, before beginning the siege of Tyre, that they should enjoy a church, a street, a common oven, and a national tribunal in every city in Palestine. They further demanded other privileges and the possession of a third of the conquered city." The demands of the Venetians were complied with, and Tyre, after a siege of over five months, beleaguered by land and sea, was taken. The capitulation was an honorable one and honorably respected. The Moslem inhabitants were permitted to leave the city; the Christians entered it triumphally, and the day on which the news reached Jerusalem was made a festival.

"Tyrol freed herself from the suzerainty of Bavaria in very early times. She was divided among a number of princes, lay and ecclesiastical. The principal of these were the counts of the Adige or of the Tyrol, and the counts of Andechs, who obtained the title of duke from Frederick I. [1152-1190], and called themselves dukes of Meran. Their race came to an end in 1248, and their domains were united to those of the counts of Tyrol who thus be·came possessed of the larger part of the lands between the Inn and the Adige. Tyrol takes its name from the castle of Tirol, which was built on the site of the Roman station Teriolis, not far from Meran, on the upper waters of the Adige."

"After the dissolution of the classic Roman Empire, the Province of Rætia split up into parcels. … It is impossible, in a sketch like this, to follow the various dynastic and other changes, most of them extremely perplexed and obscure, which ensued between the 5th and 10th centuries. At the end of this period, the main constituents of the old province had assumed something like the shape which they now bear. That is to say, Rætia Secunda was separated from Rætia Prima, which had also lost what formerly belonged to it south of the Alpine ridge. … Tirol again had been detached from Rætia Prima, and had begun to form a separate entity. Meanwhile a power of first rate importance in the future history of Graubünden [the Grisons] had arisen: namely the Bishopric of Chur. … The Bishops of Chur took rank as feudal lords of the first class. … Originally an insignificant house, exercising … the functions of Bailies to the See of Chur, the Counts of Tirol acquired influence and territory under the shadow of distant ecclesiastical superiors."

J. A. Symonds, History of Graubünden (In Strickland's "The Engadine"), pages 23-27.

TYROL: A. D. 1809.
Heroic rising under Hofer, against the Bavarians and the French.
The crushing of the revolt.

TYRRHENIANS. TYRRHENIAN SEA.

The ancient race of people in western Italy whom the Romans called Etrusci, and who called themselves the Rasenna, were known to the Greeks as the Turrhenoi, or Tyrrhenians. They were an enterprising maritime people, and hence the Greeks called that part of the Mediterranean which washes the western Italian coast the Tyrrhenian Sea.

TZAR, CZAR.

U. C., A. U. C., A. U.

Anno Urbis Conditæ: the "Year of Rome," reckoned from the
founding of the city.

U. E. LOYALISTS.

UDAIPORE, OODEYPOOR.

UGANDA.

"It was in 1858 that the travellers Burton and Speke, starting from Zanzibar, first made Europe acquainted with the existence of that vast inland sea, the Victoria Lake, of which Rebmann and Ernhardt had already heard native reports. Four years later Speke and Grant, passing round the western shore, reached Uganda; and they found here, if I may employ the paradox, a singular, barbaric civilisation. Combined with the most barbarous usages and the grossest superstition were many of those advances in the scale of humanity which we are wont to accept as indications of civilisation. There was an appeal to law, and cases were decided after a formal hearing. The administration was vested in the king,—an absolute despot, —and from him downwards there existed a regular chain of delegated power and control. Well-made roads, kept constantly in repair, intersected the country in all directions. Rough bridges were constructed across river swamps. An army was maintained, and also a fleet of canoes on the waters of the lake. The arts of building, smith-work, &c., were very far in advance of anything to be found between Uganda and the coast. The ideas of decency, the use of clothing, and the planting of trees, were indications of long years of development, of which the intricate customs and etiquettes surrounding the Court were an additional proof. Speke traces the earliest developments of this civilisation to Unyoro and its shepherd kings, descendants of a nomadic, pastoral race—the Wahuma—whom he supposes to be an offshoot from the Abyssinians or Gallas. Uganda and the countries lying along the lake shore, being the richest province of this Wahuma empire—called Kitara—had to bring large quantities of produce to Unyoro for the king's use, and their inhabitants were looked on as slaves. The legend relates that a hunter named Uganda headed a revolt, and was proclaimed king under the name of Kimera. Mtesa was the seventh of the dynasty, according to Speke, which shows it to be of some little antiquity. Speke was enthusiastic about the fertility of Uganda, and the development of its people as compared with the savage tribes of Africa. The next European to visit the country was Colonel Chaillé Long, who was sent by Gordon in the summer of 1874. Stanley followed in 1875, and simultaneously Linant arrived in the country. In 1876 Gordon sent Emin with a party of soldiers to Mtesa's capital. They were for some time quartered there, and Gordon had views of annexing Uganda to the Egyptian Sudan. … Stanley was even louder in his praises of Uganda than Speke had been, and described it as the 'Pearl of Africa.' In consequence of his appeal on behalf of the people, a fund was started, and missionaries were despatched to Uganda. These arrived in June 1877. … Some two years later—February 1879—the French (Roman Catholic) Algerian Mission despatched a party of 'White Fathers' to begin mission-work in Uganda. {3162} The religious differences between these two conflicting creeds, which marked the very inauguration of the Roman Catholic mission, much puzzled and confused Mtesa, since both alike called themselves 'Christians.' The Arabs from the coast had already settled in Uganda, and brought with them the religion of Islam. … Mtesa showed great toleration to all creeds, though at one time he had leaned to Mohammedanism, and had ordered all Uganda to embrace that creed. Shortly after, however, as the followers of Islam refused to eat the king's meat because it was not killed in the orthodox way according to the Koran, he ordered the massacre of all Mohammedans. Mtesa died in the autumn of 1884, and Mwanga, then about eighteen years old, succeeded him—being selected from among Mtesa's sons on account of his personal likeness to the late king, since in Uganda paternity is often difficult to prove. At this time the three religions had made great progress, and their disintegrating influences on the old customs began to be more and more apparent. This was especially the case with regard to the Christians, who no longer regarded the king as divine, nor his acts, however gross and cruel, as having a divine sanction. They owned a Higher allegiance, though they remained obedient subjects, and distinguished themselves by bravery in war. Such an attitude was, of course, intolerable to a cruel despot like Mwanga. … There was still a further reason for suspicion and fear of the white men. … The Egyptian flag had been hoisted at Mruli and Fauvera in Unyoro, only just beyond the borders of Uganda, and Gordon's envoys—Colonel Long and Emin—and his troops had penetrated to Mtesa's capital. The Arabs also told of the doings of the Belgians on the Congo. At a later period reports reached Mwanga of German annexations in Usagara on the East Coast. Last, and most disturbing of all, was the news of Mr. Thomson's arrival near Usoga in the East—the route from the coast by which native tradition said that the conquerors of Uganda would come. Mwanga had succeeded his father in November 1884. Early in 1885 he determined to stamp out those dangerous religions, Mohammedan and Christian alike, which were disintegrating his country. The missionaries Mackay and Ashe, were seized, and their followers persecuted. But the religion spread the more. A plot to depose Mwanga was discovered and crushed. With varying fortunes—sometimes treated leniently, sometimes the victims of violent persecution—the missionaries held their own till the autumn of 1885. Then came news of Bishop Hannington's approach." Unhappily the Bishop came by the forbidden Usoga route, and Mwanga ordered that he be killed, with all his men, which was done in October, 1885. "After this the position of the Europeans was very precarious, but not till the following May (1886) did the storm burst. Mwanga then threw aside all restraint, and butchered the Christian converts wholesale. … But in spite of the martyrdom by torture and burning, the religion grew. … The heroism inspired by religion in the early history of our own Church was repeated here in the heart of Africa." At length, in 1888, there was a revolt, in which Christians and Mohammedans seem to have combined, and Mwanga fled to an island at the south of the Lake. His brother Kiwewa was made king, and for a time, the Christians were in control of affairs. But the Mohammedans grew jealous, and by a sudden rising drove the Christians out. Kiwewa refusing to accept the creed of Islam, was deposed, and another brother, Karema, was raised to the throne. The exiled Christians now made overtures to Mwanga, and an alliance was concluded, which resulted in the overthrow of the Mohammedan or Arab party, and the restoration of Mwanga to the throne, in October, 1889. The two Christian factions, Catholic and Protestant, or French and English, divided the country and all the offices of government between them, but were bitterly jealous of each other and perpetually quarreled, while the defeated Mohammedans were still strong and unsubdued. Affairs were in this state when Dr. Peters, the explorer in command of the German "Emin Relief Expedition," came to Uganda, having learned of the rescue of Emin Pasha by Stanley. Dr. Peters, with the aid of the French party, succeeded in arranging some kind of treaty with Mwanga, and this alarmed the Imperial British East Africa Company (see AFRICA: A. D. 1884-1891) when news of it had been received. That alarm was soon increased by intelligence that Emin Pasha had entered the German service and was about to conduct a strong expedition to the south of Lake Victoria Nyanza. These and other circumstances led to the despatching of Captain Lugard with a small force to Uganda to represent the British East Africa Company and establish its influence there. Captain Lugard arrived at Mengo, the capital of Uganda, on the 18th of December, 1890. Meantime Great Britain and Germany, by the Anglo-German Agreement of July 1, 1890 (see AFRICA: A. D. 1884-1891) had settled all questions between them as to their respective "spheres of influence," and Uganda had been definitely placed within the British "sphere." This enabled Captain Lugard to secure the signing of a treaty which recognized the suzerainty of the Company, established its protectorate over Uganda, and conceded to it many important commercial and political powers. He remained in the country until June, 1892, during which time he was driven to take part in a furious war that broke out between the Catholic and Protestant parties. The war ended in a partition of territory between the factions, and three small provinces were, at the same time, assigned to the Mohammedans. After maintaining Captain Lugard and his force in the country for eighteen months, the Company found the cost so heavy and the prospect of returns so distant, that it came to a resolution to withdraw; but was induced by a subscription of £16,000 from the Church Missionary Society to remain for another year in the exercise of the control which it had acquired. At the end of 1892 the Company renewed its resolution to evacuate the region west of Lake Victoria, and the British Government was urgently pressed to take upon itself the administration of the country. It was only persuaded, however, to assume the cost of a further occupation of Uganda for three months by the Company's officers, in order to give more time for ensuring the safety of missionaries and other Europeans. It consented, moreover, to despatch a Commissioner to investigate the situation and report upon it. The official selected for that duty was Sir Gerald Porter, Consul-General at Zanzibar. {3163} Sir Gerald returned to England with his report in December, 1893, and died of typhoid fever in the month following. His report urged the maintenance of an effective control over the government of Uganda, to be exercised directly by the British Government, in the form of a Protectorate, keeping the king on his throne, with a Commissioner at his side to direct his action in all important particulars. After much discussion, the decision of the Government was announced at the beginning of June, 1894. It determined to establish the proposed Protectorate in Uganda, not extending to Unyoro, and to place a Sub-Commissioner on duty between Lake Victoria and the sea, for the purpose of watching over communications, and apparently without political powers. The Government declined to undertake the building of the railway from Mombassa on the coast to the Lake, for which the Imperial British East Africa Company had made surveys.

      ALSO IN:
      Sir Gerald Porter,
      The British Mission to Uganda in 1893.

      P. L. McDermott,
      British East Africa, or Ibea.
      The Spectator, June 9, 1894.

UGRI.

UGRO-FINNISH RACES.

UKASE.

An edict of the Russian government, deriving the force of law from the absolute authority of the Czar.

Uladislaus IV. (Jagellon), King of Bohemia, 1471-1516;
V. of Hungary, 1490-1516.

ULEMA.

ULM: A. D. 1702-1704. Taken by the Bavarians and French, and recovered by Marlborough.

ULMENES.

ULSTER TENANT-RIGHT.

ULTIMA THULE.

ULTRA VIRES.

ULTRAMONTANE. ULTRAMONTANISM.

The term ultramontane (beyond the mountain) has been used for so long a time in France and Germany to indicate the extreme doctrines of Papal supremacy maintained beyond the Alps—that is, in Italy, and especially at Rome—that it has come to have no other meaning. The ultramontanists in each country are those who make themselves partisans of these doctrines, in opposition to the more independent division of the Roman Catholic Church.

"The Umbrians at one time possessed dominion over great part of central Italy. Inscriptions in their language also remain, and manifestly show that they spoke a tongue not alien to the Latin. The irruption of the Sabellian and of the Etruscan nations was probably the cause which broke the power of the Umbrians, and drove them back to a scanty territory between the Æsis, the Rubicon, and the Tiber."

UNCTION.

UNDERGROUND RAILROAD.

   The Unelli were one of the Armorican tribes of ancient Gaul.
   Their country was "the Cotantin of the ante-revolutionary
   period, the present department of Manche."

   Two Acts of Uniformity were passed by the English Parliament
   in the reign of Edward VI. (1548 and 1552), both of which were
   repealed under Mary. In 1559, the second year of Elizabeth, a
   more thorough-going law of the same nature was enacted, by the
   provisions of which, "
   (1) the revised Book of Common Prayer as established by Edward
   VI. in 1552, was, with a few alterations and additions,
   revised and confirmed.
   (2) Any parson, vicar, or other minister, whether beneficed or
   not, wilfully using any but the established liturgy, was to
   suffer, for the first offence, six months' imprisonment, and,
   if beneficed, forfeit the profits of his benefice for a year;
   for the second offence, a year's imprisonment; for the third,
   imprisonment for life.
   (3) All persons absenting themselves, without lawful
   or reasonable excuse, from the service at their parish church
   on Sundays and holydays, were to be punished by ecclesiastical
   censures and a fine of one shilling for the use of the poor."

In 1662 soon after the Restoration, another Act of Uniformity was passed, the immediate effect of which was to eject about 2,000 ministers from the established Church.

UNION JACK.

The national flag of Great Britain and Ireland, uniting the red cross of St. George and the diagonal crosses of St. Andrew and St. Patrick, on a blue ground.

A secret political society formed in the United States soon after the outbreak of the American Civil War, having for its object a closer and more effective organization of the supporters of the national government. It was very large in numbers for a time, but declined as the need of such an organization disappeared.

UNION OF BRUSSELS.

UNITARIANISM.

"In its restricted sense Unitarianism means belief in the personal unity of God instead of in a community of divine persons. … Among the articles of Unitarian faith so understood, besides the doctrine of one supreme divine person, may be enumerated belief in human nature, in moral freedom, in human reason, in character as of more worth than ritual or creed, in the equal justice not to say mercy of God, in the unreality of a devil, not to say of evil, and in the ultimate salvation, or evolution into something better, of all souls. Without being in any sense the first article of the faith, either in the historical order as having been the starting-point, or in the logical order as underlying the whole system, or in the order of importance as being with us the doctrine of doctrines, it has happened in spite of a thousand protests that belief in God's personal unity has given its name to the entire confession. The movement first called Socinian, then Arminian, and finally Unitarian, began as a protest of the 'natural man' against two particularly hateful doctrines of Calvinism, that of total depravity and that of predestination."

S. C. Beach, Unitarianism and the Reformation (Unitarianism: its Origin and History).

"The establishment of distinct Unitarian churches in England dates back to 1774, when Theophilus Lindsey left the Church of England and went up to London to start the first avowedly Unitarian place of worship in the country. But that was not the beginning of Unitarianism. Centuries before this, Unitarianism began in England as an individual opinion, had first its martyr-age, then a period when it was a great ferment of controversy, and finally the distinct development of it which stands today in our English Unitarian body. The names of some of the Unitarian martyrs on the continent of Europe are comparatively well known,—Servetus, burned by Calvin; Valentine Gentilis the Italian; and other isolated students here and there, who had been stirred up by the Reformation spirit to read the Bible for themselves, and who could not stop where Luther and Calvin stopped. … What is called the 'era of toleration' began immediately after the overthrow of the Stuarts in 1688. The sects were now at liberty to go quietly on in their own way. On the one hand there was the great established Episcopal Church,—at a pretty low ebb in religious life, for its most earnest life had gone out of it on that 'black Bartholomew's Day, 1662,' when the two thousand Puritan clergy were ejected.

On the other hand were these Puritans,—'Dissenters' they began now to be called,—divided into three great sects, Baptists, Independents, and English Presbyterians. Now, these were all free. They could build churches, and they did. From 1693 to 1720 was the great 'chapel'-building time. … But now, in this great development of chapel-building by these three denominations, a curious thing took place, which unexpectedly affected their after history. That curious thing was, that while the Baptists and Independents (or Congregationalists) tied down all these new chapels to perpetual orthodox uses by rigid doctrinal trust-deeds, … the English Presbyterians left theirs free. It seems strange that they should do so; for the Presbyterians had begun by being the narrowest sect of the Puritans, and the Scotch Presbyterians always remained so. But the English Presbyterians had very little to do with the Scotch ones, and through all the changes and sufferings they had had to go through they had become broadened; and so it carne to pass that now, when they were building their churches or chapels up and down the country, they left them free. … The English Presbyterians, thus left free, began to grow more liberal. … A general reverence for Christ took the place of the old distinct belief in his deity. … They opened the communion to all; they no longer insisted on the old professions of 'church-membership,' but counted all who worshipped with them 'the church.' Thus things were going on all through the middle of the last century. Of course it was not the same everywhere; some still held the old views. … One man among them, … Dr. Joseph Priestley, … was one of the leading scientists of his time,—a restless investigator, and at the same time an earnest religious thinker and student, just as eager to make out the truth about religion as to investigate the properties of oxygen or electricity. So he investigated Christianity, studied the creeds of the churches, came to the conclusion that they were a long way from the Christianity of Christ, and gradually came to be a thoroughgoing Unitarian. When he came to this conclusion he did not hide it; he proclaimed it and preached it. … The upshot of it was, that at length he aroused a large part of the body to the consciousness that they were really Unitarians. They still did not take the name; they disliked sect-names altogether. … And so, though they mostly continued to call themselves English Presbyterians, or simply Presbyterians, all the world began to call them Unitarians; and more and more the Baptists and Independents, or Congregationalists, who had formerly fellowshipped and worked with them, drew apart, and left them, as they are to-day, in the reluctant isolation of a separate Unitarian body. Two other movements of thought of a somewhat similar kind increased and strengthened this development of a separate Unitarian body,—one among the General Baptists, the other in the great Episcopal Church itself."

"It is hard to trace the early history of Unitarianism in New England. The name was seldom used, yet not omitted with any view to concealment; for we have abundant proof that the ministers to whom it belonged preached what they believed clearly and fully. … But a marvellous change had taken place in the last century, at the beginning of which the denial of the Trinity would have seemed no better than blasphemy; while at its close nearly all the clergy of Boston and its vicinity and many others in Massachusetts were known to dissent from the ancestral creed, to have ceased to use Trinitarian doxologies, and to preach what was then known as Arianism, regarding Jesus Christ as the greatest and oldest of created beings, but in no proper sense as God. At the same time, so little stress was laid on the Trinity by its professed believers that, with two or three exceptions, these Arians remained in full church fellowship with those of the orthodox faith. In the territory now within the limits of Boston there were, a century ago, but two professedly Trinitarian ministers, one of them being Dr. Thacher, of the liberal Brattle Square Church, while Dr. Eckley, of the Old South Church, was known to entertain doubts as to the deity of Christ."

A. P. Peabody, Early New England Unitarians (Unitarianism: its Origin and History).

See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1434-1457, and 1621-1648; also MORAVIAN OR BOHEMIAN BRETHREN.

UNITED EMPIRE LOYALISTS.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1492-1620.
Discovery and exploration of the Atlantic coast.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1607-1752. First settlement and organization of the thirteen original English colonies.

The earliest attempts at European settlement (as distinct from exploration) within the present limits of the United States were made by French Huguenots, under the patronage of Admiral Coligny; first at Port Royal, on Beaufort River, Florida, where Jean Ribaut, in 1562, placed a few colonists who soon abandoned the spot, and, two years later, at Fort Caroline, on St. John's River, in the same peninsula. The second colony, commanded by René de Laudonnière, was considerable in numbers but unpromising in character, and not likely to gain a footing in the country, even if it had been left in peace. It was tragically extinguished, however, by the Spaniards in September, 1565. The Spaniards had then established themselves in a fortified settlement at St. Augustine. It was surprised and destroyed in 1567 by an avenging Huguenot, but was promptly restored, and has survived to the present day,—the oldest city in the United States. (See FLORIDA.)—The first undertakings at colonization from England were inspired and led by Sir Walter Raleigh. After unsuccessful attempts, in conjunction with his elder half-brother, Sir Humphrey Gilbert, to establish settlements in Newfoundland, Raleigh obtained a grant from Queen Elizabeth, in 1584, under which he planted a colony of 108 settlers, commanded by Ralph Lane, on Roanoke Island, within the boundaries of the present State of North Carolina. In honor of the virgin queen of England, the name Virginia was given to the region at large. Lane's colonists had expected to find gold, silver and pearls, and lost interest in the country when none could be discovered. In June, 1586, they persuaded Sir Francis Drake, who had touched at Roanoke with his fleet, to carry them home. Soon afterwards, several ships, sent out by Raleigh with reinforcements and supplies, arrived at the island, to find it deserted. They left fifteen men to hold the ground; but a year passed before another expedition reached the place. The fort was then found in ruins; the fifteen men had disappeared, and nothing of their fate could be learned. The new colony perished in the same way—its fate an impenetrable secret of the savage land. This was Raleigh's last venture in colonization. His means were exhausted; England was absorbed in watching and preparing for the Spanish Armada; the time had not come to "plant an English nation in America." Sir Walter assigned his rights and interests in Virginia to a company of merchant adventurers, which accomplished nothing permanently. Twenty years passed before another vigorous effort of English colonization was made. In 1606 King James issued a royal charter to a company singularly formed in two branches or divisions, one having its headquarters at London, and known as the London Company, the other established at Plymouth and known as the Plymouth Company. Between them they were given authority to occupy territory in America from the 34th to the 45th degree of latitude; but the two grants overlapped in the middle, with the intention of giving the greater domain to the company which secured it by the earliest actual occupation. The London Company, holding the southward grant, despatched to Virginia a company of 105 emigrants, who established at Jamestown, on the northerly bank of James River (May 13, 1607), the first permanent English settlement in America, and founded there the colony and the subsequent State of Virginia. The colony survived many hardships and trials, owing its existence largely to the energy and courage of the famous Captain John Smith, who was one of its chief men from the beginning. Its prosperity was secured after a few years by the systematic cultivation of tobacco, for which the demand in England grew fast. In 1619, negro slavery was introduced; and by that time the white inhabitants of Virginia had increased to nearly 4,000 in number, divided between eleven settlements.

Meantime, the Plymouth Company had done nothing effectively in the northward region assigned to it. Bartholomew Gosnold, in 1602, had examined the coast from Maine to Cape Cod, and built a lonely house on the island of Cuttyhunk; Martin Pring, in 1603, had loaded two ships with sassafras in Massachusetts Bay; a colony named in honor of the chief justice of England, Sir John Popham, had shivered through the winter of 1607-8 near the mouth of Kennebec River and then gone home; Captain John Smith, in 1614, had made a voyage to the country, in the interest of London merchants, and had named it New England; but no lasting English settlement had been made anywhere within the bounds of King James' grant to the Plymouth Company, at the waning of the year 1620, when Virginia was well grown. It was then by chance, rather than by design, that the small ship Mayflower landed a little company of religious exiles on the Massachusetts coast, at Plymouth (December 21, 1620), instead of bearing them farther south. Driven from England into Holland by persecutions, twelve years before, this congregation of Independents, or Separatists, now sought liberty of conscience in the New World. They came with a patent from the London, or South Virginia Company, and expected to plant their settlement within that company's territorial bounds. But circumstances which seemed adverse at the time bent their course to the New England shore, and they accepted it for a home, not doubting that the proprietors of the land, who desired colonists, would permit them to stay. The next year they received a patent from the Council for New England, which had succeeded to the rights of the Plymouth Company. Of the hardships which these Pilgrim Fathers endured in the first years of their Plymouth Plantation, who does not know the story! Of the courage, the constancy and the prudence with which they overcame their difficulties, who has not admired the spectacle! For eight years they remained the only successful colony in New England. Then came the memorable movement of Puritans out of Old England into New England, beginning with the little settlement at Salem, under John Endicott; expanding next year into the "Governor and Company of Massachusetts Bay"; founding Dorchester, Roxbury, Charlestown, Watertown, and Boston, in 1630, and rapidly possessing and putting the stamp of the stern, strong Puritan character on the whole section of America which it planted with towns. In the Puritan colony of Massachusetts Bay a cleavage soon occurred, on lines between democratic and aristocratic or theocratic opinion, and democratic seceders pushed southwestwards into the Connecticut Valley, where Dutch and English were disputing possession of the country. There they settled the question decisively, in 1635 and 1636, by founding the towns of Hartford, Windsor, Wethersfield and Springfield. Three years later the three towns first named confederated themselves in a little republic, with a frame of government which is the first known written constitution, and so gave birth to the future State of Connecticut. In 1638 New Haven was founded by a company of wealthy nonconformists from England, under the lead of their minister, John Davenport, and was a distinct colony until 1662, when it was annexed to Connecticut by a royal charter. Another State, the smallest of the New England commonwealths, was taking form at this same time, in a little wedge of territory on Narragansett Bay, between Connecticut and Massachusetts. Roger Williams, the great apostle of a tolerant Christianity, driven from Salem by the intolerant Puritanism of the Bay, went forth with a few followers into the wilderness, bought land from the Narragansett Indians, and laid the foundations (1636) of the town of Providence. In that same year another small company of people, banished from Boston for receiving the teachings of Mrs. Anne Hutchinson, bought the island of Aquidneck or Aquetnet from the Indians and settled at its northern end. This community was soon divided, and part of it removed to the southern end of the island, beginning a settlement which grew to be the town of Newport. The island as a whole received the name of the Isle of Rhodes, or Rhode Island; and in 1644 its two settlements were united with Providence, under a charter procured in England by Roger Williams, forming the colony of Providence Plantations. In 1643 the colonies of Massachusetts, Plymouth, Connecticut and New Haven, entered into a confederation, from which Rhode Island was excluded, calling themselves "The United Colonies of New England." The object of the confederation was common action in defence against the Indians and the Dutch on the Hudson. It was the beginning of the cementing of New England. Before this time, small settlements had been planted here and there in northern New England, within territory covered by grants made to Sir Ferdinando Gorges and Captain John Mason. The province claimed by Gorges was subsequently called Maine, and that of Mason, New Hampshire; but Maine never rose to an independent colonial existence. After years of dispute and litigation, between 1651, and 1677, the jurisdiction of Massachusetts was extended over the province, and it remained the "District of Maine" until 1820, when Massachusetts yielded the separation which made it a sovereign state in the American Union. The New Hampshire settlements were also annexed to Massachusetts, in 1641, after Captain Mason's death; were separated in 1679, to be organized as a royal province; were temporarily reclaimed without royal authority in 1685; but finally parted from Massachusetts in 1692, from which time until the Revolution they remained a distinct colony.

      See NEW ENGLAND;
      also MASSACHUSETTS, CONNECTICUT, RHODE ISLAND,
      NEW HAMPSHIRE, and MAINE.

   While the English were thus colonizing New England at the
   north and Virginia at the south, the Dutch, not recognizing
   their claims to the country between, had taken possession of
   the important valley of the Hudson River and the region around
   its mouth, and had named the country "New Netherland." The
   river had been discovered in 1609 by Henry Hudson, an English
   sailor, but exploring in the service of the Dutch. Trading
   with the Indians for furs was begun the next year; the coast
   and the rivers of the region were actively explored; a New
   Netherland Company was chartered; a trading-house, called Fort
   Nassau, was built on the Hudson as far to the north, or nearly
   so, as Albany; but no real colonization was undertaken until
   1623. The New Netherland Company had then been superseded by
   the Dutch West India Company, with rights and powers extending
   to Africa as well as the West Indies and the North American
   coasts. It bought Manhattan Island and large tracts of land
   from the Indians, but had little success for several years in
   settling them. In 1629 it introduced a strange experiment,
   creating a kind of feudal system in the New World, by
   conveying great estates to individuals, called Patroons, or
   Patrons, who would undertake to colonize them, and who
   received with their territorial grant much of the powers and
   many of the characteristics of a feudal lord.
{3167}
   Several Patroon colonies were established on a baronial scale;
   but, generally, the system did not produce satisfactory
   results, and in 1640 the Company tried the better experiment
   of making the trade of New Netherland free to all comers,
   offering small independent grants of land to settlers, and
   limiting the Patroons in their appropriation of territory. The
   Company government, however, as administered by the directors
   or governors whom it sent out, was too arbitrary to permit a
   colonial growth at all comparable with that of New England.
   Collisions with the English in Connecticut arose, over
   questions of boundary, but the latter held their ground.
   Southward, on the Delaware, the Swedes made a settlement where
   the city of Wilmington now stands, and refused to be warned
   off by the Dutch, who claimed the region. This Swedish colony
   prospered and enlarged itself during sixteen years, but was
   overcome by Director Stuyvesant of New Netherland in 1654. A
   little later than the appearance of the Swedes on the
   Delaware, certain colonists from New Haven bought lands from
   the Indians on both banks of the Delaware and made attempts at
   settlement, in what is now New Jersey and on the site of the
   future city of Philadelphia. The Dutch and Swedes combined
   against them and they failed. In 1664 the whole situation in
   this middle region was changed by the English conquest of New
   Netherland. The territory so acquired—or regained, if the
   original English claim had been good—passed then, by royal
   grant, to the Duke of York (afterwards King James II.), and
   became the proprietary province of New York.

The Duke of York, in turn, the same year, transferred to Lord John Berkeley and Sir George Carteret the part of his domain which lay between the Hudson and the Delaware, and it received the name of New Cæsarea, or New Jersey. Under encouragement from Berkeley and Carteret the New Haven colonization was resumed. Ten years later Berkeley sold his rights to a party of Quakers who were seeking a refuge for their persecuted sect in the New World. A division of the province was made and the Quaker proprietors received West Jersey, while East Jersey remained to Carteret.

Before this time, William Penn had become the principal owner of the West Jersey interest. Not long afterwards (1681), by surrendering a claim which his father held against the British government, Penn procured from King Charles II. a much greater proprietary domain, on the western side of the Delaware, being no less than the vast tract, 40,000 square miles in extent, which received the name of Pennsylvania. To his title from the king he added a deed of purchase from the Indians. Penn's scheme of colonization was very liberally framed, and it was conducted with marked success. Philadelphia, first laid out in 1683, had 2,000 inhabitants in 1685, and Pennsylvania at large had 8,000. Penn himself did not find peace or happiness in his position as a princely proprietor; but he founded a great and prosperous commonwealth on noble lines.

In order to possess one bank of the Delaware River and Bay to the sea, William Penn, after securing his grant from the king, bought additionally from the Duke of York the claims of the latter to that strip of territory which the Swedes had settled on and struggled for with the Dutch, and which took an independent political form in later days as the State of Delaware. The Delaware "territories," as they were called, never accepted their dependent relationship to Pennsylvania, and as early as 1702 it was found necessary to concede them a separate legislature, though they continued under Penn's proprietary government.

Adjoining Penn's province on the south was the domain of another great proprietor, Lord Baltimore, whose title deed, from the same royal source as that of Penn, but prior in time by half a century, gave rise to conflicts which troubled the whole life of the peaceful Friend. The first Lord Baltimore (George Calvert) received from James I. in 1632 a patent which gave him territory on the northerly side of the Potomac River, stretching to the Delaware Bay and River and to the 40th parallel of north latitude. By its terms it did undoubtedly take in Delaware and part of Pennsylvania; but the intervening occupation by the Swedes and Dutch, the English conquest, and the royal grant to the Duke of York, confused the title. The controversy was not settled until 1761-7, when "Mason and Dixon's line" was run as the accepted boundary between Maryland and Pennsylvania. The lords proprietary of Maryland had been in conflict long before Penn's time with their neighbors at the south, in Virginia, and had many difficulties to encounter and many troubles in their undertaking to found a state. The powers they had received with their grant from the king were the largest that royalty could concede to a subject, and gave to their province the character of a palatine principality. But they exercised their substantial sovereignty with an admirable moderation. They were Catholics, and the early settlers in Maryland were largely though not wholly of that faith. But they introduced a policy of tolerance which was strange at the time to every other part of the New World except Rhode Island, and made their province free to all religions. Numerous Puritans entered it, especially from Virginia, where they were unwelcome; and these, it can hardly be denied, made ill returns for the tolerant hospitality they received. During the time of the Civil War, the Commonwealth and the Protectorate in England, the Maryland Puritans were hostile, not only to the proprietary government, but to its tolerant principles, and used the ascendancy which they frequently gained in a spirit that does not compare favorably with that of their adversaries. Subsequently the ascendancy of the Puritans gave way to that of the Anglican Church, without restoring the toleration which Catholicism in power had established—a rare instance in history—and which Protestantism in power had suppressed.

   Beyond the Virginia plantations, in the South, the coasts to
   which Raleigh had sent his first colonists, and to which the
   virgin queen had intended to give her name, waited long for
   settlement. The first durable colony within that territory
   which took its name in time from a less worthy sovereign was
   planted in 1653, at Albemarle, on the Chowan River, by a small
   company of dissenters from Virginia.
{3168}
   In 1665 a considerable party of emigrants from the Barbadoes,
   headed by a wealthy planter of that island, Sir John Yeamans,
   established themselves on Cape Fear River, near its mouth, in
   the district which was afterwards called Clarendon. Two years
   before this time, in 1663, King Charles II. had discharged
   some part of his heavy obligations to his loyal supporters by
   granting that whole section of the American continent which
   lies between the 31st and 36th parallels of latitude to a
   company of courtiers, including Clarendon, Monk, Shaftesbury,
   and others, and the province was named Carolina. It was
   divided into two great counties, Albemarle and Clarendon, and
   these corresponded somewhat nearly to the North Carolina and
   South Carolina of the present day. In 1670 the lords
   proprietors sent out a colony under William Sayle, which
   settled first at Port Royal; but Sayle died soon after
   landing, and the colonists were induced to migrate northwards
   to the Ashley River, where Sir John Yeamans met them with a
   considerable part of his Clarendon colony, and became the head
   of the united settlements. There they founded "Old
   Charleston," and, after a few years, shifting the site to the
   confluence of the Ashley and the Cooper, they began the
   building of the present city of Charleston. This became the
   nucleus of the subsequently distinct colony of South Carolina,
   as Albemarle did of that of North Carolina. The division was
   made in 1729, when the rights of the Proprietors were bought
   by the Crown, and the Carolinas became crown colonies. Until
   that time, the southern colony had made far greater progress
   than its northern twin. It had received a considerable
   immigration of Huguenots from France and of Scotch-Irish from
   the north of Ireland, as well as of English, and Charleston
   was becoming an important port, especially frequented by
   buccaneers. But after the displacement of the proprietary
   government, North Carolina began quickly to receive more than
   its share of the Scotch-Irish immigration and no small number
   of Highland Scotch. The colony was developed almost wholly in
   the agricultural direction, with few and small towns. Slavery
   was introduced at an early day, and rooted itself in the
   industrial system, as it did in that of all the southern
   settlements.

The last of the "Thirteen Colonies" to come into existence was the colony of Georgia, founded so late as 1733 by General James Oglethorpe. It occupied territory too close in neighborhood to the Spaniards of Florida to be attractive to settlers in the 17th century. Its colonization was undertaken by General Oglethorpe primarily as a philanthropic enterprise for the benefit of unfortunate English debtors, who were released from prison and permitted to emigrate under his care; but secondarily to strengthen the defence of the English colonies against the Spaniards. He obtained his grant from George II. "in trust for the poor," and the colony was governed by trustees until 1752, when it was surrendered to the crown. The first emigrants left England in the fall of 1732, and early in the next year Savannah was laid out by Oglethorpe in person. His scheme of colonization proved highly attractive, not only in England but on the continent, and numbers of Protestant Germans came over to become part of the original population of Georgia. At the outset, slavery was strictly prohibited; but the settlers thought themselves grievously oppressed by the denial of slaves, and their discontent became so great that in 1749 the trustees rescinded the prohibition.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1620-1776.
   Constitutional relations of the colonies to the English Crown
   and Parliament.
   The working of the leaven of independence
   in New England Puritanism.

The history of the development of the question between England and her colonies, as to their constitutional relations to one another, "falls naturally into two periods: first, from the beginning of English colonization in America to the Revolution of 1688; second, from 1688 to the Declaration of Independence. … Passing now to the history of the first period, it is to be observed that the leading institution in the English government at that time was the King in Council. … But in the 17th century, owing to a combination of very strong political and religious forces, the struggle between the King in Parliament and the King in Council was … opened and pushed with vigor. It continued with alternations of success, but on the whole with results favorable to Parliament, till 1688. Then the King in Parliament finally gained the ascendancy, and this result was so secured by statute as never afterwards to be seriously called in question. The supremacy of Parliament was established by a series of royal concessions. The parliamentary party viewed these as compromises between Parliament and king. This gave color to the theory of social contract, which was now given new impulse and form by the parliamentarian writers of the 16th and 17th centuries. … It naturally follows from what has been said that the administration of colonial affairs previous to 1688 was in the hands of the King in Council. Such was the fact. The enterprises of discovery were fitted out under the patronage of the crown; the territories discovered or visited were taken possession of in its name; and grants of land, of rights of government and trade, were made to actual settlers by the kings. Every colonial charter is a proof of this. As the king was by the theory of English law feudal proprietor of England, so he became proprietor of colonial territory, though that territory was granted out in socage, one of the freest forms of English tenure. Certain superficial distinctions were introduced in the form of colonial governments, as royal, proprietary, and charter; but they all emanated from the crown. Its supremacy extended around and beneath them all. The fact that they were established by grant is proof of this, even though there had been no subsequent acts to enforce the control. They were colonies of the English crown; their inhabitants were its subjects. The true doctrine of sovereignty and allegiance necessitates this conclusion. … Parliament passed few statutes affecting the colonies. Yet, not to mention others, there were five such of very great importance which fall within this period: the Act of Supremacy (I Eliz. cap. I), and the four Navigation acts. In all these the colonies were expressly mentioned. But the relative position of crown and Parliament is illustrated by the fact that when in 1624 the Council was proceeding to annul the third Virginia charter, the House tried to interfere but was warned off—because the business concerned only the king and his advisers. {3169} Moreover there was no lack of precedents for the extension not only of common law but of royal ordinances and statute law outside of the original realm of England. … Such in outline was the status of English colonial law previous to 1688. It was in the process of formation and adaptation to the new empire. There were ample precedents for the exercise of the rights of British sovereignty in America, but those rights had not yet been called into the fullest operation. Their legitimacy however was in general fully acknowledged by the colonists. They had been allowed great liberty in establishing their governments, erecting courts, levying taxes, organizing and calling out their militia for defence against the Indians. Colonial society had been allowed to develop freely in all lines and the product was far different from anything which existed in the mother country. It was democratic rather than aristocratic; it was also extremely particularistic, and too remote from England to feel much interest in the general concerns of the empire. In this divergence of social organization and interests, as between the colonies and the mother country, lay the germ which might develop into resistance on the part of the plantations, if at any time England should attempt to enforce her rightful supremacy over them. But as yet there was too little of the spirit of union among the colonists to make possible any combined action. Also those dynasties whose government had been most arbitrary in England, the Tudors and Stuarts, had, till the reign of James II, treated the colonies with great leniency. But the statements just made do not cover the whole ground. They describe the attitude of the colonies in general toward the mother country, but they do not describe the special conditions which prevailed in New England. If we wish to know how the theory of colonial independence originated, we must look in that direction. The American revolution cannot be explained without reference to the political character and tendencies of Puritanism. … Puritanism then was a political as well as a religious movement. On the one hand its doctrines contained a strong democratic leaven; on the other they contained principles which might lead to the separation of church and state. How the former tendency worked itself out in New England is familiar; how the latter failed of accomplishment there is equally well known. The Puritans of Massachusetts were not opposed to the union of church and state or to the employment of the secular power to enforce religious conformity. … What they were opposed to was every other form of state church except their own. … In order to maintain her peculiar system, Massachusetts had to be on her guard against all interference from outside. … The Massachusetts charter was brought over to this country. A few years later the Plymouth company was dissolved, and representation of the colony in England, except by such agents as she might send, ceased. The terms of the charter were very liberal; but like all the others it was a royal grant, and expressly stated that the inhabitants of the colony were to be subjects of England and were to enjoy all the liberties and immunities of such, as if they were in the realm of England. The oaths of supremacy and allegiance were to be administered to all who should go to the colony. The company was made a 'body corporate and politic' and was given ample powers of government; but its laws, statutes, and ordinances were not to be contrary to the laws of England. The admission of freemen was left in the hands of the corporation. How did the Puritan oligarchy make use of this charter for serving the purposes of their government? In a word, they interpreted the expression 'body corporate and politic' to mean an independent state, and virtually abandoned all legal connection with England except an empty acknowledgment of allegiance. The oath of allegiance was not administered, but instead an oath of fidelity to the government of Massachusetts. An ecclesiastical system wholly different from that of England was established. Only those were admitted to political rights, made freemen, who were members of a Congregational church. … The colony also exercised full legislative and judicial powers, and denied the right of appeal both practically and theoretically. The proof of this is most direct and convincing. To illustrate: in 1646 the General Court refused to permit the appeal of Dr. Child and others who, as Presbyterians, desired to lay before Parliament the wrongs they suffered in Massachusetts. Not only was the right denied, but the petitioners were prevented by force from carrying their case to England. The same course was pursued in reference to appeals in ordinary judicial cases. During the discussion of the affair just mentioned it was boldly affirmed in the General Court that subjects were bound by English laws only so long as they lived in England; that neither statutes nor royal ordinances were in force beyond the seas. A little later than this both the magistrates and the elders were called upon to give their views on the legal relations between the colony and England. Both agreed that by their charter they 'had absolute power of government'; that their government was perfect and sufficient in all its parts, not needing the help of any superior to make it complete. They acknowledged that they had received the charter from England, and 'depended upon that state for protection and immunities as freeborn Englishmen'; but the duties which were correlative to those immunities, and which are necessary to a true conception of allegiance, were not mentioned. This position was consistently maintained by the Puritans of Massachusetts as long as they remained in power. In their correspondence with the home government and its officials between 1664 and 1684 the right of appeal was always denied. Its exercise was never allowed. If we add to this the further statements that Massachusetts coined money; strove to enlarge the bounds of her patent, not only without consulting the king, but in defiance of his absolute prohibition; taxed English imports; and, without the consent of the home government, entered the New England confederation, some notion can be formed of the degree of independence claimed and exercised by that colony. The exercise of this independence however did not make it legal. It only illustrates the fact that the roots of the American revolution extend back into the times of which we are speaking. … It was to be expected that England would interfere to bring Massachusetts within the bounds of constitutional dependence. Complaints against the colony, on the part of Gorges and of those who had been banished by the Puritans, began very early. {3170} These led to 'quo warranto' proceedings for the recall of the charter in 1635. But civil strife at home compelled the government of Charles I to abandon the project. Then came the period of the Commonwealth, when the views of the English government were so fully in harmony with those of the New England leaders that the practical independence of the colony was ignored. … From the restoration dates the beginning of a more comprehensive colonial policy." With the fall of the Massachusetts charter, in 1684, "closes the first stage in the development of the idea of colonial independence. The struggle between the Puritans of Massachusetts and the crown is the most significant fact in American history previous to 1760. The Puritans were defeated; the authority of England was reasserted. … But for our purpose the important result is that the Puritans left behind them an armory full of precedents and arguments in favor of colonial independence. They had constructed the American theory on that subject. That was the chief permanent result of their experiment. They had from first to last adhered to the theory which expediency taught them to adopt. They taught the colonists how to resist the exercise of the ecclesiastical and judicial supremacy of the crown. If now at any time in the future the Americans should consider themselves aggrieved by the acts of the English government, the Puritan spirit and theory would be likely to appear. Such was the aspect of affairs at the close of the first period of colonial history. After the revolution of 1688, Parliament assumes more and more the control of American concerns. Statutes on those subjects multiply. The administration of the colonies becomes a branch of the ministerial government of Great Britain. The development of an imperial as distinguished from an insular policy is begun. The interference of England in colonial affairs became more frequent and the control asserted more extensive than heretofore. … The attitude of the colonists during this period was one of passive rather than active resistance. Parliamentary restrictions were so far evaded as not to be burdensome. … The records show that the burden of opinion in the colonies was jealousy of all government, so far as it operated as a restraint. The interference of government, whether colonial or imperial, was welcomed by the colonists, when it could be used for the advancement of their private or local interests; when larger objects were aimed at, it was if possible ignored or resisted. … The political condition of the colonies was for the first time clearly revealed during the French and Indian war. The history of Germany can furnish no more vivid spectacle of the evils of particularism than does that struggle. … The condition of anarchy and helplessness revealed by the war was such as to convince all the servants of the crown in America that active parliamentary interference was necessary, if the colonies were to be defended and retained as an integral part of the British empire. The fact that the British government, within a reasonable time after the close of the war, proceeded to put this suggestion into execution, implies nothing arbitrary or unreasonable. It had the undoubted constitutional right to do so; and so far as could be seen at the time, expediency prompted in the same direction. But during the century since the Puritan oligarchy of Massachusetts yielded to the supremacy of the crown, the theory of social contract had been fully developed. It had formulated the needs of the opposition in all the European countries to the system of absolutism. It was the theory of government very generally held by the Puritans in both England and America. … This theory, as soon as it was understood, would naturally find general acceptance in the colonies. … The American revolution, as truly as the French, was the outgrowth of the doctrine of natural rights and social contract. By this I mean simply that the doctrine in question formed the theoretical basis of both movements. So far as the American revolution is concerned the proof of this statement is contained in the writings of the patriot leaders at the time, the various state papers that were issued, and the doctrine that was held respecting the right of imperial taxation. No man contributed so much to bringing about the revolution as Samuel Adams; and his mind was saturated with the theory of social contract. He made it the basis of all his reasonings. … The reason why New England became the leader of the movement clearly appears. The process of development through which the colonies passed was a natural, and therefore a necessary one. It was slow and obscure, and therefore could not be clearly recognized at the time. But that it was nevertheless revolutionary becomes evident when we compare the views and aims of the colonists with the constitution of the British empire. When the two systems came into collision the colonists adopted a theory which was 'in the air' at the time, but one under which no government can be successfully carried on. When they came to erect a government of their own, they had to abandon it. It is not claimed that the doctrine of natural rights ever found such general acceptance in America as in France. The character of the people and the absence of a despotic government prevented that. But that the American revolution cannot be explained without assigning it a prominent place is evident. It is not intended to convey the impression that the colonists had no grievances. There were causes for complaint, but they were doubtless greatly exaggerated. A mind filled with the democratic theories of the times, and with the loose notions concerning sovereignty and allegiance which then prevailed, could easily imagine that Parliament, unless resisted, would establish a despotic government in America."

      Professor H. L. Osgood,
      England and the Colonies
      (Political Science Quarterly, September, 1887).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1651-1672.
The Navigation Acts and the colonies.
Spirit and objects of the English restrictive commercial system.

To the Act of Navigation, passed in 1651 (see NAVIGATION LAWS) is due a change in the relations of the colonies to the mother-country. "Henceforth they were regarded mainly as feeders to its carrying-trade, as consumers of its manufactures, as factories for the distribution of its capital, and, in a word, as mere commercial appendages of what was now the great commercial power. Dominion became subordinate to trade. … Beginning … with the re-enactment of the Navigation Act after the Restoration, we find that the new system which is to regulate colonial trade and define the relations of the colonies to the parent, is contained in three Acts of Parliament. {3171} First, in the re-enactment itself of the Act of Navigation in 1660; secondly, in an act, passed in 1663, entitled 'an Act for the encouragement of trade'; and, thirdly, in an act, passed in 1672, and entitled 'an Act for the encouragement of the Greenland and Eastland fisheries, and for the better securing the plantation trade.' … The three acts which created the system, were all passed in the reign of Charles II.; the others followed rapidly, and in great numbers, for a century, until the failure of the attempt to transform this system of trade into one of trade and revenue, by means of what is known as the Stamp Act. St. John's Navigation Act was reenacted in 1660, under Charles II., as the first-fruits of the Restoration. This act forbade importation into or exportation out of the colonies, save what came and went in English ships, and its object was, to shut the doors of the colonies against foreign trade. In 1663 another step was taken, and an act was passed with the object, openly avowed in its fifth section, of keeping the colonies in 'a firmer dependence' upon England, and of making that kingdom the staple, or place of distribution, not only of colonial produce, 'but also of the commodities of other countries and places, for the supplying of them.' To effect this, the Act of 1663 went beyond that of 1660, and exacted, that no European products or manufactures should be imported into any colony, except what had been actually laden and shipped in an English port, and carried 'directly thence' to the importing colony. This act forced the colonists to get such supplies as they could not themselves furnish in England only, and thus not only could none but mariners of whom three fourths were English transport merchandise to and from the colonies, but the colonists themselves were not suffered to go anywhere but to England for that which they could not get at home. … This position of factor between the colonies and foreign markets was a lucrative one. But the spirit of trade is such, that it regards much as only a stepping-stone to more, and the next enactment concerning colonial trade, or that of 1672, betrays this characteristic. The existing factorage was maintained only between the colonial and foreign trade; it had no place in intercolonial traffic. … As this intercolonial trade developed, it attracted the observation of the English merchants, who at last demanded the control of it. In compliance with this demand, an act was passed in 1672, subjecting any enumerated commodity to a duty specified in the statute—and thus was destroyed the freedom, and, to a great extent, the incentive of intercolonial traffic. This act was well entitled 'an Act for the encouragement of the Greenland and Eastland fisheries, and for the better securing of the plantation trade.' History is silent respecting the fisheries, but it has been very outspoken concerning its effect on the plantations. The effect was this: if Rhode Island wished to be supplied by Massachusetts with one of the enumerated commodities, and Massachusetts desired to furnish Rhode Island with that commodity, the delivery of the goods could not be made by the producer to the consumer, but the article would have to be sent to England first, and landed there, and then be sent back from England to Rhode Island before the consumer could touch it. A line drawn from Boston, in Massachusetts, to Bristol, in England, and thence back to Newport, in Rhode Island, will show the course which such article must take, if sold by Massachusetts to Rhode Island, before the demands of English commerce were satisfied; it will in all probability likewise show the least angle with the longest sides ever subtended on the chart of trade. Should, however, the parties to the transaction desire to avoid the risk and delay incident to this phenomenal voyage, they could do so by paying the certain rates and duties prescribed by this statute."

E. G. Scott, The Development of Constitutional Liberty in the English Colonies of America, chapter 8 (with corrections by the author).

"Unfortunately there does not exist any history of the commerce of the American colonies, from the Commonwealth to 1774, as affected by navigation laws, acts of trade, and revenue measures. No one who has read the 29 acts which comprise this legislation will recommend their perusal to another; for, apart from their volume, the construction of these acts is difficult,—difficult even to trained lawyers like John Adams, whose business it was to advise clients in respect to them. Nor have special students, like Bancroft, stated their effect with exact precision."

      M. Chamberlain,
      The Revolution Impending: Critical Essay
      (Narrative and Critical History of America, volume 6),
      page 64.

      ALSO IN:
      G. L. Beer,
      The Commercial Policy of England toward the American Colonies
      (Columbia College Studies, volume 3, number 2).

      W. B. Weeden,
      Economic and Social History of New England,
      chapter 7 (volume 1).

      J. E. T. Rogers,
      Economic Interpretation of History,
      chapter 15.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1690.
The First American Congress.
King William's War.

   "After the accession [in England, A. D. 1689] of William and
   Mary, hostilities were declared between France and England,
   which extended to America; and thus began the first
   inter-colonial war [commonly known in American history as King
   William's War]. The French soon planned an invasion of Boston
   and New York. … On the 8th of February, 1690, a war-party, who
   had come stealthily from Canada, entered the open gates of the
   town of Schenectady, when it was snowing, and broke the
   stillness of midnight with the terrible yell and whoop of the
   savages. Men, women, and children, for two hours, were
   mercilessly butchered. Their dwellings were burned. The whole
   town was sacked. … The intelligence flew through the colonies.
   … Schenectady was the Fort Sumter of that day. The event had a
   political effect. It shamed the factions in New York at least
   into a truce. It roused a spirit of patriotism. The governor
   of Massachusetts urged, in letters to other colonies, the
   necessity for immediate action to provide for the common
   defence. … The General Court [of Massachusetts], in view of
   organizing a joint effort of the colonies, proposed to hold a
   congress. The call for a meeting is dated the 19th of March,
   1690. It relates, that their majesties' subjects had been
   invaded by the French and Indians; that many of the colonists
   had been barbarously murdered, and were in danger of greater
   mischiefs; and it proposed, as a measure of prevention, that
   the neighboring colonies, and Virginia, Maryland, and the
   parts adjacent, should be invited to meet at New York, and
   conclude on suitable methods for assisting each other for the
   safety of the whole land. The governor of New York was desired
   to transmit this invitation to the southern colonies. Such was
   the first call for a general congress in America.
{3172}
   It is free from narrowness. It is liberal in its spirit,
   simple in its terms, and comprehensive in its object. … The
   call elicited from several colonies interesting replies.
   Governor Hinckley, of Plymouth, entered with zeal into the
   measure, and, though the General Court was not in session,
   appointed a commissioner. The Quaker-governor of Rhode Island,
   Henry Bull, replied in an excellent spirit. … Though the time
   was too short to convene the assembly for the appointment of
   commissioners, he promised the aid of that colony to the
   utmost of its ability to resist the French and Indians. The
   head of the convention of Maryland wrote, that it was the
   design of the assembly to send arms and men to aid in the
   general defence. … President Bacon, of Virginia, replied, that
   the proposition would require the action of the assembly, and
   that nothing would be done until the arrival of the daily
   expected governor. The replies to the invitation were cordial.
   The commissioners of four colonies [Massachusetts, Plymouth,
   Connecticut, and New York] met at New York. … The
   deliberations led to a unanimous result. On the 1st of May, an
   agreement was signed by the delegates, in behalf of the five
   colonies [including Maryland under its promise], to raise a
   force of 855 men for the strengthening of Albany, and, 'by the
   help of Almighty God, subduing the French and Indian enemies.'
   It was agreed, that the lieutenant-governor of New York should
   name the commander of this force; that it should not be
   employed on any other service without the consent of the five
   colonies; and that the officers should be required to preserve
   among their men good order, punish vice, keep the Sabbath, and
   maintain the worship of God. No proposition appears to have
   been entertained for a permanent organization. … Efforts were
   made to obtain additional aid from New Jersey, Pennsylvania,
   and Rhode Island. … I need only state, as the result of this
   congress, that it was resolved to attempt the reduction of
   Canada by two lines of attack,—one to conquer Acadia, and then
   to move on Quebec; and the other, by the route of Lake
   Champlain, to assault Montreal. The New England forces under
   Sir William Phips, assigned to the first route, captured
   Acadia and Port Royal, and sailed for Quebec, in the
   expectation of being aided by the other forces who marched by
   the Champlain route. But they, under Fitz-John Winthrop, with
   the title of major, were not successful. Leisler [see NEW
   YORK: A. D. 1689-1691], with characteristic rashness, accused
   the commander of treachery; while the officers charged the
   commissary, Jacob Milborne, of New York, with inefficiency in
   procuring supplies. The failure of Winthrop occasioned the
   retreat of Phips."

      R. Frothingham,
      The Rise of the Republic of the United States,
      chapter 3.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1696-1697.
The Board of Trade for the Supervision of the Colonies.
Plans of Colonial Union by Penn and others.

"The king attempted a more efficient method of administering the colonies; and, in May 1696, a Board of Commissioners for Trade and Plantations, consisting of the chancellor, the president of the privy council, the keeper of the privy seal, the two secretaries of state, and eight special commissioners, was called into being. To William Blathwayte, who had drafted the new charter of Massachusetts, John Locke, and the rest of the commission, instructions were given by the crown 'to inquire into the means of making the colonies most useful and beneficial to England; into the staples and manufactures which may be encouraged there, and the means of diverting them from trades which May prove prejudicial to England; to examine into and weigh the acts of the assemblies; to set down the usefulness or mischief of them to the crown, the kingdom, or the plantations themselves; to require an account of all the moneys given for public uses by the assemblies of the plantations, and how the same are employed.' The administration of the several provinces had their unity in the person of the king, whose duties with regard to them were transacted through one of the secretaries of state; but the Board of Trade was the organ of inquiries and the centre of colonial information. Every law of a provincial legislature, except in some of the charter governments, if it escaped the veto of the royal governor, might be arrested by the unfavorable opinion of the law officer of the crown, or by the adverse report of the Board of Trade. Its rejection could come only from the king in council. … The Board of Trade was hardly constituted before it was summoned to plan unity in the military efforts of the provinces; and Locke with his associates despaired, on beholding them 'crumbled into little governments, disunited in interests, in an ill posture and much worse disposition to afford assistance to each other for the future.' The Board, in 1697, 'after considering with their utmost care,' could only recommend the appointment of 'a captain-general of all the forces and all the militia of all the provinces on the continent of North America, with power to levy and command them for their defence, under such limitations and instructions as to his majesty should seem best.' … With excellent sagacity—for true humanity perfects the judgment—William Penn matured a plan of a permanent union, by a national representation of the American States. On the 8th day of February 1697, he delivered his project for an annual 'congress,' as he termed it, of two delegates from each province. … But the ministry adopted neither the military dictatorship of Locke and his associates, nor the peaceful congress of William Penn."

G. Bancroft, History of the United States (Author's last revision), part 3, chapter 4 (volume 2).

   The following is the Plan of Union drafted by Penn: "A Briefe
   and Plaine Scheam how the English Colonists in the North parts
   of America, viz.: Boston, Connecticut, Road Island, New York,
   New Jerseys, Pensilvania, Maryland, Virginia, and Carolina may
   be made more usefull to the Crowne, and one another's peace
   and safty with an universall concurrence.
   1st. That the severall Colonies before mentioned do meet once
   a year, and oftener if need be, during the war, and at least
   once in two years in times of peace by their stated and
   appointed Deputies, to debate and resolve of such measures as
   are most adviseable for their better understanding, and the
   public tranquility and safety.
{3173}
   2d. That in order to it two persons well qualified for sence,
   sobriety and substance be appointed by each Province, as their
   Representatives or Deputies, which in the whole make the
   Congress to consist of twenty persons.
   3d. That the King's Commissioner for that purpose specially
   appointed shall have the chaire and preside in the said
   Congresse.
   4th. That they shall meet as near as conveniently may be to
   the most centrall Colony for use of the Deputies.
   5th. Since that may in all probability, be New York both
   because it is near the Center of the Colonies and for that it
   is a Frontier and in the King's nomination, the Governor of
   that Colony may therefore also be the King's High Commissioner
   during the Session after the manner of Scotland.
   6th. That their business shall be to hear and adjust all
   matters of Complaint or difference between Province and
   Province.
   As,
   1st, where persons quit their own Province and goe to another,
   that they may avoid their just debts, tho they be able to pay
   them,
   2nd, where offenders fly Justice, or Justice cannot well be
   had upon such offenders in the Provinces that entertaine them,
   3dly, to prevent or cure injuries in point of Commerce,
   4th, to consider of ways and means to support the union and
   safety of these Provinces against the public enemies. In which
   Congresse the Quotas of men and charges will be much easier,
   and more equally sett, then it is possible for any
   establishment made here to do; for the Provinces, knowing
   their own condition and one another's, can debate that matter
   with more freedome and satisfaction and better adjust and
   ballance their affairs in all respects for their common safty.
   7ly. That in times of war the King's High Commissioner shall
   be generall or chief Commander of the severall Quotas upon
   service against a common enemy as he shall be advised, for the
   good and benefit of the whole."

      H. W. Preston,
      Documents illustrative of American History,
      page 146.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1696-1749.
Growing despotism of the English mercantile policy.
Systematic suppression of colonial manufactures.

"By the erection, in 1696, of a new Standing Council, or Board of Trade, under the denomination of 'The Lords Commissioners for Trade and Plantations,' the interests of British commerce and the affairs of Colonial trade and government were confided to that body, which thenceforward became the repository of all official intelligence upon those subjects, and the medium of communication with the several governors and assemblies of the Colonies. Yearly reports of the state of the Provinces were required from the governors, in answer to queries addressed to them by the Board. An Act of Parliament of the same year still further restricted commercial intercourse, by limiting trade between England and her Colonies to English, Irish and Colonial built vessels, and by prohibiting Colonial produce from going to the ports of Ireland or Scotland. … The feeble attempts of the Colonists to make a portion of their own clothing from their abundant materials had not been unnoticed in England. Three years after—the Board of Trade having received complaints from English merchants and manufacturers, that the wool and woolen manufactures of Ireland and the North American plantations began to be exported to foreign markets formerly supplied by England—an Act passed the British Parliament, … dictated by that sleepless vigilance which guarded the staple manufacture of England. It prohibited the exportation of any wool or woolen manufacture from Ireland, except to certain ports in England; but, by way of compensation, virtually surrendered to Ireland the linen manufacture, then little regarded in comparison with the woolen interests. In reference to the Colonies, it was enacted that 'After the first day of December, 1699, no wool, woolfels, yarn, cloth, or woolen manufactures of the English plantations in America shall be shipped in any of the said English plantations, or otherwise loaden, in order to be transported thence to any place whatsoever, under the penalty of forfeiting ship and cargo, and £500 for each offence.' … A letter from New England to the Board of Trade [in 1715] … reiterates the necessity of employing the New England people in producing naval stores, to turn them from manufactures. … The discouragement of American manufactures, from this time, became the settled and avowed policy of the government, and, three years later, the Bill prohibiting the erection of forges and iron mills was introduced, and declared that the erecting of Manufactories in the Colonies 'tends to lessen their dependence upon Great Britain.' … The company of Feltmakers, in London, petitioned Parliament, in February, 1731, to prohibit the exportation of hats from the American Colonies, representing that foreign markets were almost altogether supplied from thence, and not a few sent to Great Britain. The petition was referred to a special committee, who reported that, in New York and New England, beaver hats were manufactured to the number, it was estimated, of 10,000 yearly. … The exports were to the Southern plantations, the West Indies, and Ireland. In consequence of this evidence, and that furnished by the Board of Trade in the same session, an act was passed (5 George II. c. 22) that 'no hats or felts, dyed or undyed, finished or unfinished, shall be put on board any vessel in any place within any of the British plantations; nor be laden upon any horse or other carriage to the intent to be exported from thence to any other plantation, or to any other place whatever, upon forfeiture thereof, and the offender shall likewise pay £500 for every such offence.' … This severe and stringent law continued in force in the Colonies until the Revolution. It aimed at the prostration of one of the oldest and, on account of the abundance and cheapness of beavers and other furs, one of the most profitable branches of industry."

In 1749 an act of Parliament was passed "to encourage the importation of pig and bar iron from his majesty's colonies in America, and to prevent the erection of any mill or other engine for slitting or rolling of iron, or any plateing forge to work with a tilt hammer, or any furnace for making steel in any of the said colonies." "Pig iron was allowed to be imported free to all parts of the kingdom, so as to secure cheap bar iron. But bar iron could not be imported at any port but London, and carried no further than ten miles from that city. This clause was intended to aid the owners of woods. In order to protect the nail trade, all slitting-mills in the colonies were ordered to be destroyed."

J. B. Pearse, Concise History of the Iron Manufacture of the American Colonies, page 121.

      ALSO IN:
      W. B. Weeden,
      Economic and Social History of New England,
      volume 2.

      G. L. Beer,
      Commercial Policy of England toward the Colonies
      (Col. Col. Studies, volume 3).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1748-1754.
First collisions with the French in the Ohio Valley.

"As the year 1750 approached, there came upon the colonies two changes, destined to lead to a new political life. In the first place, the colonies at last began to overrun the mountain barrier which had hemmed them in on the west, and thus to invite another and more desperate struggle with the French. The first settlement made west of the mountains was on a branch of the Kanawha (1748); in the same season several adventurous Virginians hunted and made land-claims in Kentucky and Tennessee. Before the close of the following year (1749) there had been formed the Ohio Company, composed of wealthy Virginians, among whom were two brothers of Washington. King George granted them 500,000 acres, on which they were to plant 100 families and build and maintain a fort. The first attempt to explore the region of the Ohio brought the English and the French traders into conflict; and troops were not long in following, on both sides.

At the same time the home government was awaking to the fact that the colonies were not under strict control. In 1750 the Administration began to consider means of stopping unlawful trade."

      R. G. Thwaites,
      The Colonies, 1492-1750
      (Epochs of American History),
      chapter 14, section 130.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1749-1755.
Unsettled boundary disputes of England and France.
Preludes of the last French War.

      See NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1749-1755;
      CANADA: A. D. 1750-1753; 1755;
      and OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1754.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1750-1753.
The eve of the great French war.
Attitude of the colonies.

"The quarrel in which the French and English now engaged was exclusively a colonial one. The possession and defence of the Americans had already cost, over and over again, a larger sum than the whole produce of their trade would have produced. The English had the mortification of observing that the colonists claimed an the security of Englishmen against attack, and repudiated their obligation to take a share of the burdens which their defence occasioned. Were they attacked by the French,—they were Englishmen, and had a right to the ægis which that name throws over all subjects of the crown; were they called upon for a subscription in aid of the war,—they were men who would not submit to be taxed without their own consent; were they taken at their word, and requested through their own assemblies to tax themselves,—they sometimes refused, and sometimes doled out a minute supply, taking care to mix up with their money bill some infringement on the royal prerogative, which rendered it impossible, except under severe exigency of the public service, for the governor to accept the terms offered. … The action of the colonies at this crisis was in accordance with their invariable policy. As soon as they perceived that the French meditated a war of aggression in America, a chorus of complaint and apprehension came at once from the colonists. Shirley, Governor of Massachusetts, and Clinton, Governor of New York, had convened an assembly at Albany during the last year of the last war, to concert measures for uniting an the colonies for common defence; Massachusetts and the other New England States were, of course, anxious that the union should be carried out. They were the barrier between the Canadas and the southern colonies, and if any attack was made they must bear the brunt of it. … The Congress of Albany, and especially the Legislature of Massachusetts, advocated the erection of a line of detached forts which might be so arranged as to overawe the French frontier, and defend the New England colonies from attack. … It was all in vain; every colony, with the exception of Massachusetts, Connecticut, and South Carolina, refused to contribute one farthing towards the expense. … Even in 1753, when the French were actually on the Ohio, and Washington had brought back certain intelligence of their intentions and views, the Virginians refused supplies to Dinwiddie because they declared themselves 'easy on account of the French.' When at last the French had actually established themselves in fortified posts at Niagara, at Le Bœuf, and at Venango, when Contrecœur had driven a colonial officer out of a post which he held on the forks of the Monongahela, when Fort du Quesne had arisen on the ruins of an English stockade, they could no longer close their eyes to the danger which was actually within the boundaries of their State. They granted £10,000 of their currency; but Dinwiddie wrote home that the bill was so clogged with encroachments on the prerogative, that he would not have given his assent had not the public service rendered the supply imperatively necessary."

"The attitude of these various colonies towards each other is hardly conceivable to an American of the present time. They had no political tie except a common allegiance to the British Crown. Communication between them was difficult and slow, by rough roads traced often through primeval forests. Between some of them there was less of sympathy than of jealousy kindled by conflicting interests or perpetual disputes concerning boundaries. The patriotism of the colonist was bounded by the lines of his government, except in the compact and kindred colonies of New England, which were socially united, though politically distinct. The country of the New Yorker was New York, and the country of the Virginian was Virginia. The New England colonies had once confederated; but, kindred as they were, they had long ago dropped apart. … Nor was it this segregation only that unfitted them for war. They were all subject to popular legislatures, through whom alone money and men could be raised; and these elective bodies were sometimes factious and selfish, and not always either far-sighted or reasonable. Moreover, they were in a state of ceaseless friction with their governors, who represented the king, or, what was worse, the feudal proprietary. These disputes, though varying in intensity, were found everywhere except in the two small colonies which chose their own governors; and they were premonitions of the movement towards independence which ended in the war of Revolution. The occasion of difference mattered little. Active or latent, the quarrel was always present. … Divided in government; divided in origin, feelings, and principles; jealous of each other, jealous of the Crown; the people at war with the executive, and, by the fermentation of internal politics, blinded to an outward danger that seemed remote and vague,—such were the conditions under which the British colonies drifted into a war that was to decide the fate of the continent."

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1754.
The Congress at Albany and its Plans of Union.
Franklin's account.

"In 1754, war with France being again apprehended, a congress of commissioners from the different colonies was, by an order of the Lords of Trade, to be assembled at Albany, there to confer with the chiefs of the Six Nations concerning the means of defending both their country and ours. Governor Hamilton [of Pennsylvania], having received this order, acquainted the House with it, requesting they would furnish proper presents for the Indians, to be given on this occasion; and naming the speaker (Mr. Norris) and myself to join Mr. Thomas Penn and Mr. Secretary Peters as commissioners to act for Pennsylvania. (The House approved the nomination, and provided the goods for the present, and tho' they did not much like treating out of the provinces;) and we met the other commissioners at Albany about the middle of June. In our way thither, I projected and drew a plan for the union of all the colonies under one government, so far as might be necessary for defense, and other important general purposes. As we passed thro' New York, I had there shown my project to Mr. James Alexander and Mr. Kennedy, two gentlemen of great knowledge in public affairs, and, being fortified by their approbation, I ventured to lay it before the Congress. It then appeared that several of the commissioners had formed plans of the same kind. A previous question was first taken, whether a union should be established, which passed in the affirmative unanimously. A committee was then appointed, one member from each colony, to consider the several plans and report. Mine happened to be preferred, and, with a few amendments, was accordingly reported. … The debates upon it in Congress went on daily, hand in hand with the Indian business. Many objections and difficulties were started, but at length they were all overcome, and the plan was unanimously agreed to, and copies ordered to be transmitted to the Board of Trade and to the assemblies of the several provinces. Its fate was singular: the assemblies did not adopt it, as they all thought there was too much 'prerogative' in it, and in England it was judged to have too much of the 'democratic.' The Board of Trade therefore did not approve of it, nor recommend it for the approbation of his majesty; but another scheme was formed, supposed to answer the same purpose better, whereby the governors of the provinces, with some members of their respective councils, were to meet and order the raising of troops, building of forts, etc., and to draw on the treasury of Great Britain for the expense, which was afterwards to be refunded by an act of Parliament laying a tax on America. … The different and contrary reasons of dislike to my plan makes me suspect that it was really the true medium; and I am still of opinion it would have been happy for both sides the water if it had been adopted. The colonies, so united, would have been sufficiently strong to have defended themselves; there would then have been no need of troops from England; of course, the subsequent pretence for taxing America, and the bloody contest it occasioned, would have been avoided."

"When the members assembled at the Court House in Albany on the 19th of June, it was found that Pennsylvania, was not alone in appointing a distinguished citizen to represent her. On the roll of the congress were the names of Lieutenant-governor De Lancey, of New York, who presided; and from the same province William Smith, the historian, and the future Sir William Johnson, not yet made a baronet. From the proprietary provinces of Pennsylvania and Maryland were the well known officials, John Penn, grandson of the founder; Richard Peters; and Benjamin Tasker. From the province of New Hampshire were her future governor, Meshech Weare, and Theodore Atkinson; and from the province of Massachusetts Bay, the late Lieutenant-governor, Thomas Hutchinson, Colonel John Chandler, of Worcester, and Oliver Partridge, a man of commanding influence in western Massachusetts. Lastly, the two colonies which had so tenaciously preserved their charter governments through the vicissitudes of more than a century,—Connecticut and Rhode Island,—had acceded to the repeated solicitations of the home government, and with unfeigned reluctance, we may be sure, had sent as representatives men of such wide experience in their colonial concerns as Roger Wolcott, Jr., and Stephen Hopkins, 'America,' says Mr. Bancroft, 'had never seen an assembly so venerable for the states that were represented, or for the great and able men who composed it.' They were detained in this hospitable old Dutch town for more than three weeks. … Franklin's plan … was not approved by a single one of the colonial assemblies before which it was brought; and … no action was ever taken on it in England. Yet there is no contribution to constructive statesmanship preceding the year 1776, which had a profounder effect on the subsequent growth and development of the idea of American nationality. Even in the amended form in which it was 'approved' by the congress, it was, says a recent writer, 'in advance of the Articles [of Confederation] in its national spirit, and served as the prototype of the constitution itself.'"

   The Plan of Union, as adopted by the Congress at Albany, was
   accompanied by a "Representation of the Present State of the
   Colonies." The following is the full text of the
   Representation, followed by that of the Plan of Union:

"That His Majesty's Title to the Northern Continent of America, appears to be founded on the Discovery thereof first made, and the Possession thereof first taken in 1497, under a Commission from Henry the VIIth, of England, to Sebastian Cabot. That the French have possessed themselves of several Parts of this Continent, which by Treaties, have been ceded and confirmed to them: That the Rights of the English to the whole Sea Coast, from Georgia, on the South, to the River St. Lawrence, on the North, excepting the Island of Cape-Breton, in the Bay of St. Lawrence, remains plain and indisputable. {3176} That all the Lands or Countries Westward from the Atlantic Ocean to the South Sea, between 48 and 34 Degrees of North Latitude, were expressly included in the Grant of King James the First, to divers of his Subjects, so long since, as the Year 1606, and afterwards confirmed in 1620; and under this Grant, the Colony of Virginia claims an Extent as far West as to the South Sea; and the antient Colonies of the Massachusetts-Bay and Connecticut, were by their respective Charters, made to extend to the said South Sea; so that not only the Right to the Sea Coast, but to all the Inland Countries, from Sea to Sea, have at all Times been asserted by the Crown of England. That the Province of Nova Scotia or Accadia, hath known and determinate Bounds, by the original Grant from King James the First; and that there is abundant Evidence of the same, [and of the Knowledge] which the French had of these Bounds, while they were in Possession of it; and that these Bounds being thus known, the said Province by the Treaty of Utrecht, according to its antient Limits, was ceded to Great-Britain, and remained in Possession thereof, until the Treaty of Aix la Chapelle, by which it was confirmed; but by said Treaty it is stipulated, That the Bounds of the said Province shall be determined by Commissioners, &c. That by the Treaty of Utrecht, the Country of the Five Cantons of the Iroquoise, is expressly acknowledged to be under the Dominion of the Crown of Great-Britain. That the Lake Champlain, formerly called Lake Iroquoise, and the Country Southward of it, as far as the Dutch or English Settlements, the Lake Ontario, Erie, and all the Countries adjacent, have by all antient Authors, French and English, been allowed to belong to the Five Cantons or Nations; and the whole of those Countries, long before the said Treaty of Utrecht, were by the said Nations, put under the Protection of the Crown of Great-Britain. That by the Treaty of Utrecht, there is a Reserve to the French, a Liberty of frequenting the Countries of the Five Nations, and other Indians in Friendship with Great-Britain, for the Sake of Commerce; as there is also to the English, a Liberty of frequenting the Countries of those in Friendship with France, for the same Purpose. That after the Treaty of Utrecht, the French built several Fortresses in the Country of the Five Nations, and a very strong one at a Place called Crown-Point, to the South of the Lake Champlain. That the French Court have evidently, since the Treaty of Aix la Chapelle, made this Northern Continent more than ever, the Object of its Attention. That the French have most unjustly taken Possession of a Part of the Province of Nova-Scotia; and in the River St. John's, and other Parts of said Province, they have built strong Fortresses; and from this River they will have, during the Winter and Spring Season, a much easier Communication between France and Canada, than they have heretofore had, and will be furnished with a Harbour more commodiously situated for the Annoying the British Colonies by Privateers and Men of War, than Louisbourg itself. That they have taken Possession of, and begun a Settlement at the Head of the River Kennebeck, within the Bounds of the Province of Main, the most convenient Situation for affording Support, and a safe Retreat, to the Eastern Indians, in any of their Attempts upon the Governments of New England. That it appears by the Information of the Natives, the French have been making Preparations for another Settlement, at a Place called Cohass, on Connecticut River, near the Head thereof, where 'tis but about ten Miles distant from a Branch of Merrimack River; and from whence, there is a very near and easy Communication with the Abnekais Indians, who are settled on the River St. Francois, about forty Miles from the River St. Lawrence; and it is certain, the Inhabitants of New-Hampshire, in which Province this Cohass is supposed to lie, have been interrupted and impeded by the French Indians, from making any Settlement there. That since the Treaty of Aix la Chapelle, the French have increased the Number of their Forts in the Country of the great Lakes, and on the Rivers which run into the Mississippi, and are securing a Communication between the two Colonies of Louisiana and Canada, and at the same Time, putting themselves into a Capacity of annoying the Southern British Colonies, and preventing any further Settlements of His Majesty's Dominions. That they have been gradually increasing their Troops in America, transporting them in their Ships of War, which return to France with a bare Complement of Men, leaving the rest in their Colonies; and by this Means, they are less observed by the Powers of Europe, than they would be, if Transports as usual heretofore, were provided for this Purpose. That they have taken Prisoners diverse of His Majesty's Subjects, trading in the Country of the Iroquoise, and other inland Parts, and plundered such Prisoners of several Thousand Pounds Sterling; and they are continually exciting the Indians to destroy or make Prisoners the Inhabitants of the Frontiers of the British Colonies; which Prisoners are carried to Canada, and a Price equal to what Slaves are sold in the Plantations, is demanded for their Redemption and Release. That they are continually drawing off the Indians from the British Interest, and have lately perswaded one Half of the Onondago Tribe, with many from the other Nations along with them, to remove to a Place called Oswegachie, on the River Cadaracqui, where they have built them a Church and Fort; and many of the Senecas, the most numerous Nation, appear to be wavering, and rather inclined to the French. And it is a melancholy Consideration, that not more than 150 Men of all the several Nations, have attended this Treaty, altho' they had Notice, that all the Governments would be here by their Commissioners, and that a large Present would be given. That it is the evident Design of the French to surround the British Colonies, to fortify themselves on the Back thereof, to take and keep Possession of the Heads of all the important Rivers, to draw over the Indians to their Interest, and with the Help of such Indians, added to such Forces as are already arrived, and may be hereafter sent from Europe, to be in a Capacity of making a general Attack upon the several Governments; and if at the same Time, a strong Naval Force be sent from France, there is the utmost Danger, that the whole Continent will be subjected to that Crown: And that the Danger of such a Naval Force is not merely imaginary, may be argued from past Experience. For had it not been by the most extraordinary Interposition of Heaven, every Sea Port Town on the Continent, in the Year 1746, might have been ravaged and destroyed, by the Squadron under the Command of the Duke D'Anville, notwithstanding the then declining State of the French, and the very flourishing State of the British Navy, and the further Advantage accruing to the English, from the Possession of Cape-Breton. {3177} That the French find by Experience, they are able to make greater and more secure Advantages upon their Neighbours, in Peace than in War. What they unjustly possessed themselves of, after the Peace of Utrecht, they now pretend they have a Right to hold, by Virtue of the Treaty of Aix la Chapelle, until the true Boundary between the English and French be settled by Commissioners; but their Conquests made during War, they have been obliged to restore. That the French Affairs relative to this Continent, are under one Direction, and constantly regarded by the Crown and Ministry, who are not insensible how great a Stride they would make towards an Universal Monarchy, if the British Colonies were added to their Dominions, and consequently the whole Trade of North-America engrossed by them. That the said Colonies being in a divided, disunited State, there has never been any joint Exertion of their Force, or Council, to repel or defeat the Measures of the French; and particular Colonies are unable and unwilling to maintain the Cause of the whole. That there has been a very great Neglect of the Affairs of the Iroquoise, as they are commonly called, the Indians of the Six Nations, and their Friendship and Alliance has been improved to private Purposes, for the Sake of the Trade with them, and the Purchase or Acquisition of their Lands, more than the Public Services. That they are supplied with Rum by the Traders, in vast and almost incredible Quantities; the Laws of the Colonies now in Force, being insufficient to restrain the Supply. And the Indians of every Nation, are frequently drunk, and abused in their Trade, and their Affections thereby alienated from the English; they often wound and murder one another in their Liquor, and to avoid Revenge, fly to the French; and perhaps more have been lost by these Means than by the French Artifice. That Purchases of Land from the Indians by private Persons, for small trifling Considerations, have been the Cause of great Uneasiness and Discontents; and if the Indians are not in fact imposed on and injured, yet they are apt to think they have been; and indeed, they appear not fit to be entrusted at Large, with the Sale of their own Lands: And the Laws of some of the Colonies, which make such Sales void, unless the Allowance of the Government be first obtained, seem to be well founded. That the Granting or Patenting vast Tracts of Land to private Persons or Companies, without Conditions of speedy Settlements, has tended to prevent the Strengthening the Frontiers of the particular Colony where such Tracts lie, and been Prejudicial to the rest. That it seems absolutely necessary, that speedy and effectual Measures be taken, to secure the Colonies from the Slavery they are threatened with: that any farther Advances of the French should be prevented; and the Encroachments already made, removed. That the Indians in Alliance or Friendship with the English, be constantly regarded under some wise Direction or Superintendency. That Endeavours be used for the Recovery of those Indians who are lately gone over to the French, and for securing those that remain. That some discreet Person or Persons be appointed to reside constantly among each Nation of Indians; such Person to have no Concern in Trade, and duly to communicate all Advices to the Superintendents. That the Trade with the said Indians be well regulated, and made subservient to the Public Interest, more than to private Gain. That there be Forts built for the Security of each Nation, and the better carrying on the Trade with them. That warlike Vessels be provided, sufficient to maintain His Majesty's Right to a free Navigation on the several Lakes. That all future Purchases of Lands from the Indians be void, unless made by the Government where such Lands lie, and from the Indians in a Body, in their public Councils. That the Patentees or Possessors of large unsettled Territories, be enjoined to cause them to be settled in a reasonable Time, on Pain of Forfeiture. That the Complaints of the Indians, relative to any Grants or Possessions of their Lands, fraudulently obtained, be inquired into, and all Injuries redressed. That the Bounds of those Colonies which extend to the South Seas, be contracted and limited by the Alleghenny or Apalachian Mountains; and that Measures be taken, for settling from time to time, Colonies of His Majesty's Protestant Subjects, Westward of said Mountains, in convenient Cantons, to be assigned for that Purpose. And finally, that there be an Union of His Majesty's several Governments on the Continent, that so their Councils, Treasure, and Strength, may be employed in due Proportion, against their common Enemy."

   "Plan of a proposed Union of the several Colonies of
   Massachusetts-Bay, New-Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode-Island,
   New-York, New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia,
   North-Carolina, and South Carolina, for their mutual Defence
   and Security, and for the Extending the British Settlements in
   North-America. That humble Application be made for an Act of
   the Parliament of Great-Britain, by Virtue of which One
   General Government may be formed in America, including all the
   said Colonies; within and under which Government, each Colony
   may retain its present Constitution, except in the Particulars
   wherein a Change may be directed by the said Act, as hereafter
   follows. That the said General Government be administered by a
   President General, to be appointed and supported by the Crown;
   and a Grand Council, to be chosen by the Representatives of
   the People of the several Colonies, met in their respective
   Assemblies. That within Months after the Passing of such Act,
   the House of Representatives in the several Assemblies, that
   happen to be sitting within that Time, or that shall be
   especially for that Purpose convened, may and shall chuse
   Members for the Grand Council, in the following Proportions;
   that is to say: Massachusetts-Bay, 7; New-Hampshire, 2;
   Connecticut, 5; Rhode-Island, 2; New-York, 4; New-Jersey, 3;
   Pennsylvania, 6; Maryland, 4; Virginia, 7, North-Carolina, 4;
   South Carolina, 4: = 48. Who shall meet for the first Time at
   the City of Philadelphia in Pennsylvania, being called by the
   President General, as soon as conveniently may be, after his
   Appointment. That there shall be a new Election of Members for
   the Grand Council every three Years; and on the Death or
   Resignation of any Member, his Place shall be supplied by a
   new Choice, at the next Sitting of the Assembly of the Colony
   he represented.
{3178}
   That after the first three Years, when the Proportion of Money
   arising out of each Colony to the General Treasury, can be
   known, the Number of Members to be chosen for each Colony,
   shall from time to time, in all ensuing Elections, be
   regulated by that Proportion (yet so as that the Number to be
   chosen by any one Province, be not more than seven, nor less
   than two). That the Grand Council shall meet once in every
   Year, and oftener if Occasion require, at such Time and Place
   as they shall adjourn to at the last preceding Meeting, or as
   they shall be called to meet at by the President General on
   any Emergency; he having first obtained in writing, the
   Consent of seven of the Members to such Call, and sent due and
   timely Notice to the whole. That the Grand Council have Power
   to chuse their Speaker, and shall neither be dissolved,
   prorogued, nor continue sitting longer than six Weeks at one
   Time, without their own Consent, or the special Command of the
   Crown. That the Members of the Grand Council shall be allowed
   for their Service, Ten Shillings Sterling per Diem, during
   their Session and Journey to and from the Place of Meeting,
   twenty Miles to be reckoned a Day's Journey. That the Assent
   of the President General be requisite to all Acts of the Grand
   Council; and that it be his Office and Duty to cause them to
   be carried into Execution. That the President General, with
   the Advice of the Grand Council, hold or direct all Indian
   Treaties, in which the general Interest or Welfare of the
   Colonies may be concerned; and to make Peace or declare War
   with Indian Nations. That they make such Laws as they judge
   necessary for regulating all Indian Trade. That they make all
   Purchases from Indians for the Crown, of the Lands now not
   within the Bounds of particular Colonies, or that shall not be
   within their Bounds, when some of them are reduced to more
   convenient Dimensions. That they make new Settlements on such
   Purchases, by granting Lands in the King's Name, reserving a
   Quit-Rent to the Crown for the Use of the General Treasury.
   That they make Laws for regulating and governing such new
   Settlements, 'till the Crown shall think fit to form them into
   particular Governments. That they may raise and pay Soldiers,
   and build Forts for the Defence of any of the Colonies, and
   equip Vessels of Force to guard the Coast, and protect the
   Trade on the Ocean, Lakes, or great Rivers; but they shall not
   impress Men in any Colony, without the Consent of its
   Legislature. That for those Purposes, they have Power to make
   Laws, and lay and levy such general Duties, Imposts, or Taxes,
   as to themselves appear most equal and just, considering the
   Ability and other Circumstances of the Inhabitants in the
   several Colonies, and such as may be collected with the least
   Inconvenience to the People; rather discouraging Luxury, than
   loading industry with unnecessary Burthens. That they may
   appoint a general Treasurer and a particular Treasurer in each
   Government, when necessary; and from time to time, may order
   the Sums in the Treasuries of each Government, into the
   General Treasury, or draw on them for special Payments, as
   they find most convenient; yet no Money to issue, but by joint
   Orders of the President General and Grand Council, except
   where Sums have been appropriated to particular Purposes, and
   the President General is previously impowered by an Act, to
   draw for such Sums. That the general Accounts shall be yearly
   settled, and reported to the several Assemblies. That a Quorum
   of the Grand Council, impowered to act with the President
   General, do consist of Twenty-five Members; among whom there
   shall be one or more from a Majority of the Colonies. That the
   Laws made by them for the Purposes aforesaid, shall not be
   repugnant, but as near as may be agreeable, to the Laws of
   England, and shall be transmitted to the King in Council, for
   Approbation, as soon as may be, after their passing; and if
   not disapproved within three Years after Presentation, to
   remain in Force. That in Case of the Death of the President
   General, the Speaker of the Grand Council for the Time being,
   shall succeed, and be vested with the same Power and
   Authorities, and continue 'till the King's Pleasure be known.
   That all Military Commission Officers, whether for Land or Sea
   Service, to act under this General Constitution, be nominated
   by the President General, but the Approbation of the Grand
   Council is to be obtained, before they receive their
   Commissions. And all Civil Officers are to be nominated by the
   Grand Council, and to receive the President General's
   Approbation, before they officiate. But in Case of Vacancy, by
   Death or Removal of any Officer, Civil or Military, under this
   Constitution, the Governor of the Provinces in which such
   Vacancy happens, may appoint, 'till the Pleasure of the
   President General and Grand Council can be known. That the
   particular Military as well as Civil Establishments in each
   Colony, remain in their present State, this General
   Constitution notwithstanding; and that on sudden Emergencies,
   any Colony may defend itself, and lay the Accounts of Expense
   thence arisen, before the President General and Grand Council,
   who may allow and order Payment of the same, as far as they
   judge such Accounts just and reasonable."

      Stephen Hopkins,
      A True Representation of the Plan formed at Albany in 1754,
      for uniting all the British Northern Colonies;
      with introduction and notes by S. S. Rider
      (Rhode Island Historical Tracts, Number 9).

      ALSO IN:
      Proceedings of Commissioners at Albany
      (Doc. Hist. of New York, volume 2, pages 545-617).

      T. C. Haliburton,
      Rule and Misrule of the English in America,
      pages 253-258.

      J. R. Brodhead, editor,
      Documents relative to Colonial History of New York,
      volume 6, pages 853-905.

      Journal of Congress at Albany in 1754
      (Massachusetts Historical Society Collection,
      series 3, volume 5).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1755.
Demand of the royal governors in America for taxation
of the colonies by act of Parliament.

   At the congress of American governors which General Braddock
   convened at Alexandria, in April, 1755, on his first arrival
   in America as commander-in-chief of the British forces,
   "Braddock directed their attention, first of all, to the
   subject of a colonial revenue, on which his instructions
   commanded him to insist, and his anger kindled 'that no such
   fund was already established.' The governors present,
   recapitulating their strifes with their assemblies, made
   answer: 'Such a fund can never be established in the colonies
   without the aid of parliament. Having found it impracticable
   to obtain in their respective governments the proportion
   expected by his majesty toward defraying the expense of his
   service in North America, they are unanimously of opinion that
   it should be proposed to his majesty's ministers to find out
   some method of compelling them to do it, and of assessing the
   several governments in proportion to their respective
   abilities.'
{3179}
   This imposing document Braddock sent forthwith to the
   ministry, himself urging the necessity of laying some tax
   throughout his majesty's dominions in North America. … I have
   had in my hands vast masses of correspondence, including
   letters from servants of the crown in every royal colony in
   America; from civilians, as well as from Braddock and Dunbar
   and Gage; from Delancey and Sharpe, as well as from Dinwiddie
   and Shirley; and all were of the same tenor. The British
   ministry heard one general clamor from men in office for
   taxation by act of parliament. … In England, the government
   was more and more inclined to enforce the permanent authority
   of Great Britain."

      G. Bancroft,
      History of the United States
      (Author's last Revision),
      volume 2, pages. 416-417.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1755-1760.
   The French and Indian War, known in Europe
   as the Seven Years War:
   The English conquest of Canada.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1750-1773, to 1760;
      NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1749-1755; 1755;
      OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754, to 1755;
      CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1758-1760;

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1760-1775.
Crown, Parliament and Colonies.
The English theory and the American theory of their relations.

"The people of every colony were subject to two jurisdictions, one local and one general, that must be adjusted to each other. To effect such adjustment caused no little friction; and the Colonies and the Mother Country got on peaceably as long as they did, only because neither one pushed its theory of colonial relations to an extreme, each yielding something to the other and thus effecting a compromise. The Colonies held that the dominion which the Cabots discovered in America belonged to the King, rather than to the Kingdom, of England. Englishmen adventuring into this dominion to plant colonies were entitled to all the privileges of free-born Englishmen at home; trial by jury, habeas corpus, and exemption from taxes that their own representatives had not voted. The British Empire was not one dominion, but several dominions. Everyone of these dominions had, or should have, its own legislature to enact laws for its government. The Colonies were not one dominion, but 13 dominions; and in everyone the legislature was as supreme as Parliament was in England. Parliament, therefore, had nothing more to do with Massachusetts or Virginia than the legislatures of those colonies had to do with England. The King, who alone had a voice in the matter, had, in their charters, guaranteed to the Colonies the common law so far as this was applicable to their condition, and he was now powerless to withdraw what he had thus conceded. Such, in outline, was the American theory of colonial relations. Still, no one pretended that this theory had ever been fully carried out in practice. It must also be said that it did not appear fully formed at once, but grew up gradually. The British theory was that Englishmen continued Englishmen when they emigrated to the American dominions of the King; that the power of Parliament, to which they were subject in the old home, followed them to the new one; and that Parliament could yield them more or fewer powers of self-government for a time, and then withdraw them. It was also claimed that the Colonies were already represented in the House of Commons; since the several members of that body did not represent particular districts or constituencies, but the whole British Empire. Besides, it was asserted that the Colonies themselves had repeatedly acknowledged the authority of Parliament by submitting to its legislation. Still no one pretended that this theory had ever been fully carried out."

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1761.
Enforcement of revenue laws in Massachusetts.
The Writs of Assistance and Otis' speech.

"Immediately after the conquest of Canada was completed, rumors were widely circulated … that the charters would be taken away, and the colonies reduced to royal governments. The officers of the customs began at once to enforce with strictness all the acts of parliament regulating the trade of the colonies, several of which had been suspended, or become obsolete, and thus had never been executed at all. The good will of the colonists or their legislatures, was no longer wanted in the prosecution of the war; and the commissioners of the customs were permitted and directed to enforce the obnoxious acts. Governor Bernard [of Massachusetts], who was always a supporter of the royal prerogative, entered fully into these views, and shewed by his opinion, his appointments and his confidential advisers, that his object would be, to extend the power of the government to any limits, which the ministry might authorize. The first demonstration of the new course intended to be pursued, was the arrival of an order in Council to carry into effect the Acts of trade, and to apply to the supreme judicature of the Province [Massachusetts], for Writs of Assistance, to be granted to the officers of the customs. In a case of this importance there can be no doubt, that Mr. Paxton, who was at the head of the customs in Boston, consulted with the Government and all the crown officers, as to the best course to be taken. The result was, that he directed his deputy at Salem, Mr. Cockle, in November, 1760, to petition the Superior Court, then sitting in that town, for 'writs of assistance.' Stephen Sewall who was the Chief Justice, expressed great doubt of the legality of such a writ, and of the authority of the Court to grant it. None of the other judges said a word in favour of it; but as the application was on the part of the Crown, it could not be dismissed without a hearing, which after consultation was fixed for the next term of the Court, to be held in February, 1761, at Boston, when the question was ordered to be argued. In the interval, Chief Justice Sewall died, and Lieutenant Governor Hutchinson was made his successor, thereby uniting in his person, the office of Lieutenant Governor with the emoluments of the commander of the castle, a member of the Council, Judge of Probate and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court! … The mercantile part of the community was in a state of great anxiety as to the result of this question. The officers of the Customs called upon Otis for his official assistance, as Advocate General, to argue their cause. {3180} But, as he believed these writs to be illegal and tyrannical, be refused. He would not prostitute his office to the support of an oppressive act; and with true delicacy and dignity, being unwilling to retain a station, in which he might be expected or called upon to argue in support of such odious measures, he resigned it though the situation was very lucrative, and if filled by an incumbent with a compliant spirit, led to the highest favours of government. The merchants of Salem and Boston, applied to Mr. Pratt to undertake their cause, who was also solicited to engage on the other side; but he declined taking any part, being about to leave Boston for New York, of which province he had been appointed Chief Justice. They also applied to Otis and Thacher, who engaged to make their defence, and probably both of them without fees, though very great ones were offered. The language of Otis was, 'in such a cause, I despise all fees.' … The trial took place in the Council Chamber of the Old Town House, in Boston. … The judges were five in number, including Lieutenant Governor Hutchinson, who presided as Chief Justice. The room was filled with all the officers of government, and the principal citizens, to hear the arguments in a cause that inspired the deepest solicitude. The case was opened by Mr. Gridley, who argued it with much learning, ingenuity, and dignity, urging every point and authority; that could be found after the most diligent search, in favour of the Custom house petition; making all his reasoning depend on this consideration—'if the parliament of Great Britain is the sovereign legislator of the British Empire.' He was followed by Mr. Thacher on the opposite side, whose reasoning was ingenious and able, delivered in a tone of great mildness and moderation. 'But,' in the language of President Adams, 'Otis was a flame of fire; with a promptitude of classical allusions, a depth of research, a rapid summary of historical events and dates, a profusion of legal authorities, a prophetic glance of his eyes into futurity, and a rapid torrent of impetuous eloquence, he hurried away all before him. American Independence was then and there born. The seeds of patriots and heroes, to defend the 'Non sine Diis animosus infans'; to defend the vigorous youth, were then and there sown. Every man of an immense crowded audience appeared to me to go away as I did, ready to take arms against Writs of Assistance. Then and there, was the first scene of the first act of opposition, to the arbitrary claims of Great Britain. Then and there, the child Independence was born. In fifteen years, i. e. in 1776, he grew up to manhood and declared himself free.' 'There were no stenographers in those days,' to give a complete report of this momentous harangue. How gladly would be exchanged for it, a few hundred verbose speeches on some of the miserable, transient topics of the day, that are circulated in worthless profusion. Yet on this occasion, 'the seeds were sown,' and though some of them doubtless fell by the wayside or on stony places, others fell on good ground, and sprang up and increased and brought forth in due season, thirty, sixty and an hundred fold. … After the close of his argument, the Court adjourned for consideration, and at the close of the term, Chief Justice Hutchinson pronounced the opinion: 'The Court has considered the subject of writs of assistance, find can see no foundation for such a writ; but as the practice in England is not known, it has been thought best to continue the question to the next term, that in the meantime opportunity may be given to know the result.' No cause in the annals of colonial jurisprudence had hitherto excited more public interest; and none had given rise to such powerful argument. … An epoch in public affairs may be dated from this trial. Political parties became more distinctly formed, and their several adherents were more marked and decided. The nature of ultra-marine jurisdiction began to be closely examined; the question respecting raising a revenue fully discussed. The right of the British parliament to impose taxes was openly denied. 'Taxation without representation is tyranny,' was the maxim, that was the guide and watch word of all the friends of liberty. The crown officers and their followers adopted openly the pretensions of the British ministry and parliament, and considering their power to be irresistible, appealed to the selfishness of those who might be expectants of patronage, and to the fears of all quiet and timid minds, to adopt a blind submission, as the only safe or reasonable alternative. Otis took the side of his country, and as has been shewn, under circumstances that made his decision irrevocable. He was transferred at once from the ranks of private life, not merely to take the side, but to be the guide and leader of his country, in opposition to the designs of the British ministry. 'Although' says President Adams, 'Mr. Otis had never before interfered in public affairs, his exertions on this single occasion secured him a commanding popularity with the friends of their country, and the terror and vengeance of her enemies; neither of which ever deserted him.' His popularity was instantaneous, and universal; and the public were impatient for the approaching election, when they could make him a representative of Boston."

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1763.
   The Treaty of Paris.
   Acquisition of Florida and Eastern Louisiana
   (as well as Canada) by Great Britain.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1763.
The King's proclamation excluding settlers from the
Western territory lately acquired from France.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1763.
General effects, economically and politically,
of the English trade regulations.

"Economically the general results of the trade regulations were important. Robert Giffen has repeatedly pointed out how difficult it is, even with modern comparatively accurate methods, to obtain reliable results from the use of export and import statistics. This difficulty is immeasurably enhanced when we have to rely on the meagre figures of a century and a half ago. For we neither know how these statistics were taken, nor at all how accurate they are; while their inadequacy becomes clearly evident when we consider the large amount of smuggling carried on both in England and the colonies. One general proposition, however, can be formulated from the examination of these statistics, and that is the balance of trade between England and the colonies was unfavorable to the latter. And this was an inherent consequence of the mercantile system, by which England regulated these commercial relations. {3181} The colonies were unable to pay England for her manufactures entirely in raw materials, and the residue was paid in coin obtained from the favorable trade with Spain, Portugal, and the West Indies. All metal had to be sent to England; it was, as De Foe says, 'snatched up for returns to England in specie.' An important consequence followed from this continuous drain of specie. The colonies could with difficulty retain coin, and hence were forced either to fall back on barter, or to issue paper money. … While, on the one hand, the acts of trade and navigation are partially responsible for many sad passages in the fiscal history of the colonies, on the other hand they conduced to the development of a most important colonial industry. This industry was ship-building, for which the colonies were especially adapted on account of the cheapness of lumber. In developing this natural fitness, the protection afforded to English and colonial shipping by the Navigation Acts was an important factor. As a rule England did not discriminate against colonial and in favor of English ships, although the colonies frequently attempted by legislation to secure advantages for their own shipping. As a result of this policy ship building and the carrying trade increased rapidly, especially in the New England colonies. … So important did this industry become that in 1724 the ship carpenters of the Thames complained to the King, 'that their trade was hurt and their workmen emigrated since so many vessels were built in New England.' Massachusetts built ships not only for England, but also for European countries, and for the West Indies. … Politically the commercial regulations were not so important. Up to 1763 only slight political importance attaches to the system, for only in a negative way did it affect the political ideas of the colonists. The colonies were peopled by men of varied race and religion, who had little common consciousness of rights and wrongs and few common political ideals. The centrifugal forces among them were strong. Among centripetal forces, such as a common sovereign and a common system of private law, must be reckoned the fact that their commerce was regulated by a system which, as a rule, was uniform for all the colonies. When the acts of trade worked to their advantage, the colonists reaped common benefits; when they inflicted hardships, the colonists made common complaint. Moreover, the fact that England was unable to enforce certain of her acts, especially the Molasses Act, caused contempt for parliamentary authority. The continued and, by the very nature of things, the necessary violation of this law lead to a questioning of its sanction, while the open favoritism shown in it towards the West India colonies naturally aroused disaffection in those of the continent. The colonial system, as it was administered before 1763, contributed but slightly in bringing about the revolution of 1776. As Mr. Ramsay has said, 'if no other grievances had been superadded to what existed in 1763, they would have been soon forgotten, for their pressure was neither great, nor universal. It was only when the fundamental basis of the acts was changed from one of commercial monopoly to one of revenue, that the acts became of vital political importance."

G. L. Beer, The Commercial Policy of England toward the American Colonies (Columbia College Studies in History, etc., volume 3, number 2), chapter 7, section 2.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1763-1764.
Determination in England to tax the colonies.
The Sugar (or Molasses) Act.-"

It did not take four years after the peace of 1763 to show how rapidly the new situation of affairs was bearing fruit in America. … The overthrow of their ancient enemy [the French in Canada], while further increasing the self-confidence of the Americans, at the same time removed the principal check which had hitherto kept their differences with the British government from coming to an open rupture. Formerly the dread of French attack had tended to make the Americans complaisant toward the king's ministers, while at the same time it made the king's ministers unwilling to lose the good will of the Americans. Now that the check was removed, the continuance or revival of the old disputes at once foreboded trouble; and the old occasions for dispute were far from having ceased. On the contrary the war itself had given them fresh vitality. If money had been needed before, it was still more needed now. The war had entailed a heavy burden of expense upon the British government as well as upon the colonies. The national debt of Great Britain was much increased, and there were many who thought that, since the Americans shared in the benefits of the war, they ought also to share in the burden which it left behind it. People in England who used this argument did not realize that the Americans had really contributed as much as could reasonably be expected to the support of the war, and that it had left behind it debts to be paid in America as well as in England. But there was another argument which made it seem reasonable to many Englishmen that the colonists should be taxed. It seemed right that a small military force should be kept up in America, for defence of the frontiers against the Indians, even if there were no other enemies to be dreaded. The events of Pontiac's war now showed that there was clearly need of such a force; and the experience of the royal governors for half a century had shown that it was very difficult to get the colonial legislatures to vote money for any such purpose. Hence there grew up in England a feeling that taxes ought to be raised in America as a contribution to the war debt and to the military defence of the colonies; and in order that such taxes should be fairly distributed and promptly collected, it was felt that the whole business ought to be placed under the direct supervision and control of parliament. … It was in 1763 that George Grenville became prime minister, a man of whom Macaulay says that he knew of 'no national interests except those which are expressed by pounds, shillings, and pence.' Grenville proceeded to introduce into Parliament two measures which had consequences of which he little dreamed. The first of these measures was the Molasses Act [often called the Sugar Act], the second was the Stamp Act. Properly speaking, the Molasses Act was an old law which Grenville now made up his mind to revive and enforce. The commercial wealth of the New England colonies depended largely upon their trade with the fish which their fishermen caught along the coast and as far out as the banks of Newfoundland. The finest fish could be sold in Europe, but the poorer sort found their chief market in the French West Indies. {3182} The French government, in order to ensure a market for the molasses raised in these islands, would not allow the planters to give any thing else in exchange for fish. Great quantities of molasses were therefore carried to New England, and what was not needed there for domestic use was distilled into rum, part of which was consumed at home, and the rest carried chiefly to Africa wherewith to buy slaves to be sold to the southern colonies. All this trade required many ships, and thus kept up a lively demand for New England lumber, besides finding employment for thousands of sailors and shipwrights. Now in 1733 the British government took it into its head to 'protect' its sugar planters in the English West Indies by compelling the New England merchants to buy all their molasses from them; and with this end in view it forthwith laid upon all sugar and molasses imported into North America from the French islands a duty so heavy that, if it had been enforced, it would have stopped all such importation. … It proved to be impossible to enforce the act without causing more disturbance than the government felt prepared to encounter. Now in 1764 Grenville announced that the act was to be enforced, and of course the machinery of writs of assistance was to be employed for that purpose. Henceforth all molasses from the French islands must either pay the prohibitory duty or be seized without ceremony. Loud and fierce was the indignation of New England over this revival of the Molasses Act. Even without the Stamp Act, it might very likely have led that part of the country to make armed resistance, but in such case it is not so sure that the southern and middle colonies would have come to the aid of New England. But in the Stamp Act, Grenville provided the colonies with an issue which concerned one as much as another."

ALSO IN: J. G. Palfrey, History of New England, book 6, chapters 2-3 (volume 5).

W. B. Weeden, Economic and Social History of New England, chapter 19 (volume 2).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1764.
The climax of the mercantile colonial policy of England,
and its consequences.

"Historians, in treating of the American rebellion, have confined their arguments too exclusively to the question of internal taxation, and the right or policy of exercising this prerogative. The true source of the rebellion lay deeper, in our traditional colonial policy. Just as the Spaniards had been excited to the discovery of America by the hope of obtaining gold and silver, the English merchants utilized the discovery by the same fallacious method, and with the same fallacious aspirations. … A hundred years ago the commercial classes believed that the prime object of their pursuits was to get as much gold and silver into England as they could. They sought, therefore, to make their country, as nearly as they might, a solitary centre of the exportation of non-metallic commodities, that so she might be also the great reservoir into which the precious metals would flow in a return stream. On this base their colonial policy was erected. … So long as the colonies remained in their infancy the mercantile policy was less prejudicial to their interests. The monopoly of their commerce, the limitation of their markets, the discouragement of their manufactures, in some cases amounting to absolute prohibition, were all less fatal in a country where labour was dear, than they would be in a state where population was more fully developed and land had become scarcer. … A contraband trade sprung up between them and the colonies of Spain. Our settlers imported goods from England, and re-exported them to the Spanish colonies, in return for bullion and other commodities. The result of this was that the Spanish colonists had access to useful commodities from which they would otherwise have been debarred, that the American colonists could without distress remit the specie which was required by the nature of their dealings with England, and that a large market was opened for English products. This widely beneficial trade was incontinently suppressed in 1764, by one of those efforts of short-sighted rigour which might be expected from any government where George Grenville's influence was prominent. All smuggling was to be put down, and as this trade was contraband, it must be put down like the rest. The Government probably acted as they did in answer to the prayers of the mercantile classes, who could not see that they were cutting off the streams that fed their own prosperity. They only saw that a colonial trade had sprung up, and their jealousy blinded them to the benefits that accrued to themselves as a consequence of it. Their folly found them out. The suppression of the colonial trade was entrusted to the commanders of men-of-war. … We may be sure that the original grievance of the colonists was not softened by the manners of the officers who had to put the law into execution. The result of the whole transaction was the birth of a very strong sense in the minds of the colonists that the mother country looked upon them as a sponge to be squeezed. This conviction took more than a passing hold upon them. It was speedily inflamed into inextinguishable heat, first by the news that they were to be taxed without their own consent, and next by the tyrannical and atrocious measures by which it was proposed to crush their resistance. The rebellion may be characterised as having first originated in the blind greediness of the English merchants, and as having then been precipitated by the arbitrary ideas of the patricians, in the first instance, and afterwards of the King and the least educated of the common people. If the severe pressure of the mercantile policy, unflinchingly carried out, had not first filled the colonists with resentment and robbed them of their prosperity, the imperial claim to impose taxes would probably have been submitted to without much ado. And if the suppression of their trade in 1764 had not been instantly followed by Grenville's plan for extorting revenue from them, they would probably in time have been reconciled to the blow which had been dealt to their commerce. It was the conjunction of two highly oppressive pieces of policy which taught them that they would certainly lose more by tame compliance than they could possibly lose by an active resistance."

ALSO IN: W. Massey, History of England, Reign of George III., volume 1, chapter 5.

"Upon the news of the intention to lay [the Stamp Tax] … on the colonies, many people, the last year, had associated, and engaged to forbear the importation, or consumption, of English goods; and particularly to break off from the custom of wearing black clothes, or other mourning [it being generally of British manufacture—Foot-note], upon the death of relations. This agreement was then signed by some of the council, and representatives, and by great numbers of people in the town of Boston, and the disuse of mourning soon became general. This was intended to alarm the manufacturers in England. And now [in 1765], an agreement was made, and signed by a great proportion of the inhabitants of Boston, to eat no lamb during the year. This was in order to increase the growth, and, of course, the manufacture of wool in the province. Neither of these measures much served the purpose for which they were professedly intended, but they served to unite the people in an unfavourable opinion of parliament."

T. Hutchinson, History of the province of Massachusetts Bay, 1749-1774, pages 116-117.

The movement thus started in Boston before the passage of the Stamp Act spread rapidly through the other provinces after the Act had been passed, and continued to be for several years a very serious expression of colonial patriotism and opposition to the oppressive policy of the mother country.

"The scheme of the imposition by Parliament of a tax on the American colonists to be collected by stamps was not a new one. Nearly forty years before this time, 'Sir William Keith, the late Governor of Pennsylvania, presented an elaborate disquisition to the King … proposing the extension of the stamp duties to the Colonies by Act of Parliament.' It had been one of the projects of the factious Dunbar, during his short career of turbulence and intrigue in New Hampshire. Governor Sharpe of Maryland and Governor Dinwiddie of Virginia had recommended a resort to it at the time of the abortive movement for a union of the Colonies. Its renewal at this time has been said to have been especially due to Charles Jenkinson, then only private secretary to Lord Bute, but who rose afterwards to be Earl of Liverpool. The project, as now resolved upon, was pursued with inconsiderate obstinacy, though it encountered a spirited debate when it was brought into the House of Commons [February, 1765]. … The bill was pending in the House between three and four weeks, at the end of which time it was passed, the largest number of votes which had been given against it in any stage of its progress not having amounted to fifty. It was concurred in by the House of Lords, where it appears to have met no resistance, and in due course [March 22] received the royal assent. No apprehension of consequences counselled a pause. The Stamp Act—as it has ever since been called by eminence—provided … for the payment, by British subjects in America to the English Exchequer, of specified sums, greater or less, in consideration of obtaining validity for each of the common transactions of business."

Whereas, by an act made in the last session of parliament, several duties were granted, continued, and appropriated, towards defraying the expenses of defending, protecting, and securing the British colonies and plantations in America: and whereas, it is first necessary, that provision be made for raising a further revenue within your majesty's dominions in America, towards defraying the said expenses; we, your majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the commons of Great Britain, in parliament assembled, have therefore resolved, to give and grant unto your majesty the several rites and duties hereinafter mentioned; and do most humbly beseech your majesty that it may be enacted, And be it enacted, by the king's most excellent majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the lords spiritual and temporal, and commons in this present parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, That from and after the first day of November, one thousand seven hundred and sixty five, there shall be raised, levied, collected and paid, unto his majesty, his heirs and successors, throughout the colonies and plantations in America, which now are, or hereafter may be, under the dominion of his majesty, his heirs and successors.

1. For every skin of vellum or parchment, or sheet or piece of paper, on which shall be engrossed, written or printed, any declaration, plea, replication, rejoinder, demurrer, or other pleading, or any copy thereof, in any court of law within the British colonies and plantations in America, a stamp duty of three pence.

2. For every skin or piece of vellum or parchment, or sheet or piece of paper, on which shall be engrossed, written or printed, any special bail, and appearance upon such bail in any such court, a stamp duty of two shillings.

3. For every skin or piece of vellum or parchment, or sheet or piece of paper, on which may be engrossed, written or printed, any petition, bill, or answer, claim, plea, replication, rejoinder, demurrer, or other pleading, in any court of chancery or equity, within the said colonies and plantations, a stamp duty of one shilling and six pence.

4. For every skin or piece of vellum, or parchment, or sheet or piece of paper, on which shall be engrossed, written, or printed, any copy of any petition, bill, answer, claim, plea, replication, rejoinder, demurrer, or other pleading, in any such court, a stamp duty of three pence.

5. For every skin or piece of vellum or parchment, or sheet or piece of paper, on which shall be engrossed, written, or printed, any monition, libel, answer, allegation, inventory, or renunciation, in ecclesiastical matters, in any court of probate, court of the ordinary, or other court exercising ecclesiastical jurisdiction within the said colonies and plantations, a stamp duty of one shilling.

6. For every skin or piece of vellum or parchment, or sheet or piece of paper, on which shall be engrossed, written or printed, any copy of any will, (other than the probate thereof,) monition, libel, answer, allegation, inventory, or renunciation, in ecclesiastical matters, in any such court, a stamp duty of six pence.

7. For every skin or piece of vellum or parchment, or sheet or piece of paper, on which shall be engrossed, written or printed, any donation, presentation, collation or institution, of or to any benefice, or any writ or instrument for the like purpose, or any register, entry, testimonial or certificate of any degree taken in any university, academy, college, or seminary of learning, within the said colonies and plantations, a stamp duty of two pounds.

8. For every skin or piece of vellum or parchment, or sheet or piece of paper, on which shall be engrossed, written or printed, any monition, libel, claim, answer, allegation, information, letter of request, execution, renunciation, inventory, or other pleading, in any admiralty court within the said colonies and plantations, a stamp duty of one shilling.

9. For every skin or piece of vellum or parchment, or sheet or piece of paper, on which any copy of any such monition, libel, claim, answer, allegation, information, letter of request, execution, renunciation, inventory or other pleading, shall be engrossed, written or printed, a stamp duty of six pence.

10. For every skin or piece of vellum or parchment, or sheet or piece of paper, on which shall be engrossed, written or printed, any appeal, writ of error, writ of dower, 'ad quod damnum,' certiorari, statute merchant, statute staple, attestation, or certificate, by any officer, or exemplification of any record or proceeding, in any court whatsoever within the said colonies and plantations, (except appeals, writs of error, certiorari, attestations, certificates, and exemplifications, for, or relating to the removal of any proceedings from before a single justice of the peace,) a stamp duty of ten shillings.

11. For every skin or piece of vellum or parchment, or sheet or piece of paper, on which shall be engrossed, written or printed, any writ of covenant for levying fines, writ of entry for suffering a common recovery, or attachment issuing out of, or returnable into any court within the said colonies and plantations, a stamp duty of five shillings.

12. For every skin or piece of vellum or parchment, or sheet of piece of paper, on which shall be engrossed, written or printed, any judgment, decree, or sentence, or dismission, or any record of nisi prius or postea, in any court within the said colonies or plantations, a stamp duty of four shillings.

13. For every skin or piece of vellum or parchment, or sheet or piece of paper, on which shall be engrossed, written or printed, any affidavit, common bail, or appearance, interrogatory, deposition, rule, order or warrant of any court, or any 'dedimus potestatem,' capias, subpæna, summons, compulsory citation, commission, recognisance, or any other writ, process, or mandate, issuing out of, or returnable into, any court, or any office belonging thereto, or any other proceeding therein whatsoever, or any copy thereof, or of any record not herein before charged, within the said colonies and plantations, (except warrants relating to criminal matters, and proceedings thereon, or relation thereto,) a stamp duty of one shilling.

14. For every skin or piece of vellum or parchment, or sheet or piece of paper, on which shall be engrossed, written or printed, any note or bill of lading, which shall be signed for any kind of goods, wares, or merchandize, to be exported from, or any docket or clearance granted within the said colonies and plantations, a stamp duty of four pence.

15. For every skin or piece of vellum or parchment, or sheet or piece of paper, on which shall be engrossed, written or printed, letters of mart or commission for private ships of war, within the said colonies and plantations, a stamp duty of twenty shillings.

16. For every skin or piece of vellum or parchment, or sheet or piece of paper, on which shall be engrossed, written or printed, any grant, appointment, or admission of or to any public beneficial office or employment, for the space of one year, or any lesser time, of or above twenty pounds per annum, sterling money, in salary, fees, and perquisites, within the said colonies and plantations, (except commissions and appointments of officers of the army, navy, ordnance, or militia, of judges, and of justices of the peace,) a stamp duty of ten shillings.

17. For every skin or piece of vellum or parchment, or sheet or piece of paper, on which any grant of any liberty, privilege, or franchise, under the seal or sign manual, of any governor, proprietor, or public officer, alone, or in conjunction with any other person or persons, or with any council, or any council and assembly, or any exemplification of the same, shall be engrossed, written, or printed, within the said colonies and plantations, a stamp duty of six pounds.

18. For every skin or piece of vellum or parchment, or sheet or' piece of paper, on which shall be engrossed, written or printed, any license for retailing of spirituous liquors, to be granted to any person who shall take out the same, within the said colonies and plantations, a stamp duty of twenty shillings.

19. For every skin or piece of vellum or parchment, or sheet or piece of paper, on which shall be engrossed, written or printed, any license for retailing of wine, to be granted to any person who shall not take out a license for retailing of spirituous liquors, within the said colonies and plantations, a stamp duty of four pounds.

20. For every skin or piece of vellum or parchment, or sheet or piece of paper, on which shall be engrossed, written or printed, any license for retailing of wine, to be granted to any person who shall take out a license for retailing of spirituous liquors, within the said colonies and plantations, a stamp duty of three pounds.

21. For every skin or piece of vellum or parchment, or sheet or piece of paper, on which shall be engrossed, written or printed, any probate of wills, letters of administration, or of guardianship for any estate above the value of twenty pounds sterling money, within the British colonies [and] plantations upon the continent of America, the islands belonging thereto, and the Bermuda and Bahama islands, a stamp duty of five shillings.

22. For every skin or piece of vellum or parchment, or sheet or piece of paper, on which shall be engrossed, written or printed, any such probate, letters of administration or of guardianship, within all other parts of the British dominions in America, a stamp duty of ten shillings.

23. For every skin or piece of vellum or parchment, or sheet or piece of paper, on which shall be engrossed, written, or printed, any bond for securing the payment of any sum of money, not exceeding the sum of ten pounds sterling money, within the British colonies and plantations upon the continent of America, the islands belonging thereto, and the Bermuda and Bahama islands, a stamp duty of six pence.

24. For every skin or piece of vellum or parchment, or sheet or piece of paper, on which shall be engrossed, written or printed, any bond for securing the payment of any sum of money above ten pounds, and not exceeding twenty pounds sterling money, within such colonies, plantations and islands, a stamp duty of one shilling.

25. For every skin or piece of vellum or parchment, or sheet or piece of paper, on which shall be engrossed, written or printed, any bond for securing the payment of any sum of money above twenty pounds, and not exceeding forty pounds sterling money, within such colonies, plantations and islands, a stamp duty of one shilling and six pence.

26. For every skin or piece of vellum or parchment, or sheet or piece of paper, on which shall be engrossed, written or printed, any order or warrant for surveying or setting out any quantity of land, not exceeding one hundred acres, issued by any governor, proprietor, or any public officer, alone, or in conjunction with any other person or persons, or with any council, or any council and assembly, within the British colonies and plantations in America, a stamp duty of six pence.

27. For every skin or piece of vellum or parchment, or sheet or piece of paper, on which shall be engrossed, written or printed, any such order or warrant for surveying or setting out any quantity of land above one hundred and not exceeding two hundred acres, within the said colonies and plantations, a stamp duty of one shilling.

28. For every skin or piece of vellum or parchment, or sheet or piece of paper, on which shall be engrossed, written or printed, any such order or warrant for surveying or setting out any quantity of land above two hundred and not exceeding three hundred and twenty acres, and in proportion for every such order or warrant for surveying or setting out every other three hundred and twenty acres, within the said colonies and plantations, a stamp duty of one shilling and six pence.

29. For every skin or piece of vellum or parchment, or sheet or piece of paper, on which shall be engrossed, written or printed, any original grant or deed, mesne conveyance, or other instrument whatever, by which any quantity of land, not exceeding one hundred acres, shall be granted, conveyed, or assigned, within the British colonies and plantations upon the continent of America, the islands belonging thereto, and the Bermuda and Bahama islands (except leases for any term not exceeding the term of twenty-one years) a stamp duty of one shilling and six pence.

30. For every skin or piece of vellum or parchment, or sheet or piece of paper, on which shall be engrossed, written or printed, any such original grant, or any such deed, mesne conveyance, or other instrument whatsoever, by which any quantity of land, above one hundred and not exceeding two hundred acres, shall be granted, conveyed, or assigned, within such colonies, plantations and islands, a stamp duty of two shillings.

31. For every skin or piece of vellum or parchment, or sheet or piece of paper, on which shall be engrossed, written or printed, any such original grant, or any such deed, mesne conveyance, or other instrument whatsoever, by which any quantity of land, above two hundred, and not exceeding three hundred and twenty acres, shall be granted, conveyed, or assigned, and in proportion for every such grant, deed, mesne conveyance, or other instrument, granting, conveying or assigning every other three hundred and twenty acres, within such colonies, plantations and islands, a stamp duty of two shillings and six pence.

32. For every skin or piece of vellum or parchment, or sheet or piece of paper, on which shall be engrossed, written or printed, any such original grant, or any such deed, mesne conveyance, or other instrument whatsoever, by which any quantity of land, not exceeding one hundred acres, shall be granted, conveyed, or assigned, within all other parts of the British dominions in America, a stamp duty of three shillings.

33. For every skin or piece of vellum or parchment, or sheet or piece of paper, on which shall be engrossed, written or printed, any such original grant, or any such deed, mesne conveyance, or other instrument whatsoever, by which any quantity of land, above one hundred and not exceeding two hundred acres, shall be granted, conveyed, or assigned, within the same parts of the said dominions, a stamp duty of four shillings.

34. For every skin or piece of vellum or parchment, or sheet or piece of paper, on which shall be engrossed, written, or printed, any such original grant, or any such deed, mesne conveyance, or other instrument whatsoever, by which any quantity of land, above two hundred and not exceeding three hundred and twenty acres, shall be granted, conveyed, or assigned, and in proportion for every such grant, deed, mesne conveyance, or other instrument, granting, conveying, or assigning every other three hundred and twenty acres, within the same parts of the said dominions, a stamp duty of five shillings.

35. For every skin or piece of vellum or parchment, or sheet or piece of paper, on which shall be engrossed, written, or printed, any grant, appointment, or admission, of or to any beneficial office or employment, not hereinbefore charged, above the value of twenty pounds per annum sterling money, in salary, fees, or perquisites, or any exemplification of the same, within the British colonies and plantations upon the continent of America, the islands belonging thereto, and the Bermuda and Bahama islands, (except commissions of officers of the army, navy, ordnance, or militia, and of justices of the peace,) a stamp duty of four pounds.

36. For every skin or piece of vellum or parchment, or sheet or piece of paper, on which shall be engrossed, written, or printed, any such grant, appointment, or admission, of or to any such public beneficial office or employment, or any exemplification of the same, within all other parts of the British dominions in America, a stamp duty of six pounds.

37. For every skin or piece of vellum or parchment, or sheet or piece of paper, on which shall be engrossed, written, or printed, any indenture, lease, conveyance, contract, stipulation, bill of sale, charter party, protest, articles of apprenticeship or covenant, (except for the hire of servants not apprentices, and also except such other matters as hereinbefore charged,) within the British colonies and plantations in America, a stamp duty of two shillings and six pence.

38. For every skin or piece of vellum or parchment, or sheet or piece of paper, on which any warrant or order for auditing any public accounts, beneficial warrant, order, grant, or certificate, under any public seal, or under the seal or sign manual of any governor, proprietor, or public officer, alone, or in conjunction with any other person or persons, or with any council, or any council and assembly, not herein before charged, or any passport or let pass, surrender of office, or policy of assurance, shall be engrossed, written, or printed, within the said colonies and plantations, (except warrants or orders for the service of the army, navy, ordnance, or militia, and grants of offices under twenty pounds per annum, in salary, fees, and perquisite,) a stamp duty of five shillings.

39. For every skin or piece of vellum or parchment, or sheet or piece of paper, on which shall be engrossed, written, or printed, any notarial act, bond, deed, letter of attorney, procuration, mortgage, release, or other obligatory instrument, not herein before charged, within the said colonies and plantations, a stamp duty of two shillings and three pence.

40. For every skin or piece of vellum or parchment, or sheet or piece of paper, on which shall be engrossed, written, or printed, any register, entry, or enrolment of any grant, deed, or other instrument whatsoever, herein before charged, within the said colonies and plantations, a stamp duty of three pence.

41. For every skin or piece of vellum or parchment, or sheet or piece of paper, on which shall be engrossed, written, or printed, any register, entry, or enrolment of any grant, deed, or other instrument whatsoever not herein before charged, within the said colonies and plantations, a stamp duty of two shillings.

42. And for and upon every pack of playing cards, and all dice, which shall be sold or used within the said colonies and plantations, the several stamp duties following: (that is to say,)

45. And for and upon every paper called a pamphlet, and upon every newspaper, containing public news, or occurrences, which shall be printed, dispersed, and made public, within any of the said colonies and plantations, and for and upon such advertisements as are hereinafter mentioned, the respective duties following; (that is to say,)

46. For every such pamphlet and paper, contained in a half sheet, or any lesser piece of paper, which shall be so printed, a stamp duty of one half penny for every printed copy thereof.

47. For every such pamphlet and paper, (being larger than half a sheet, and not exceeding one whole sheet,) which shall be so printed, a stamp duty of one penny for every printed copy thereof.

48. For every pamphlet and paper, being larger than one whole sheet, and not exceeding six sheets in octavo, or in a lesser page, or not exceeding twelve sheets in quarto, or twenty sheets in folio, which shall be so printed, a duty after the rate of one shilling for every sheet of any kind of paper which shall be contained in one printed copy thereof.

49. For every advertisement to be contained in any gazette, newspaper, or other paper, or any pamphlet which shall be so printed, a duty of two shillings.

50. For every almanac or calendar, for any one particular year, or for any time less than a year, which shall be written or printed on one side only of any one sheet, skin, or piece of paper, parchment, or vellum, within the said colonies and plantations, a stamp duty of two pence.

51. For every other almanac, or calendar, for any one particular year, which shall be written or printed within the said colonies and plantations, a stamp duty of four pence.

52. And for every almanac or calendar, written or printed in the said colonies and plantations, to serve for several years, duties to the same amount respectively shall be paid for every such year.

53. For every skin or piece of vellum or parchment, or sheet or piece of paper, on which any instrument, proceeding, or other matter or thing aforesaid, shall be engrossed, written, or printed, within the said colonies and plantations, in any other than the English language, a stamp duty of double the amount of the respective duties before charged thereon.

54. And there shall be also paid, in the said colonies and plantations, a duty of six pence for every twenty shillings, in any sum not exceeding fifty pounds sterling money, which shall be given, paid, contracted, or agreed for, with or in relation to any clerk or apprentice, which shall be put or placed to or with any master or mistress, to learn any profession, trade, or employment. 2. And also a duty of one shilling for every twenty shillings, in any sum exceeding fifty pounds, which shall be given, paid, contracted, or agreed for, with, or in relation to, any such clerk or apprentice.

55. Finally, the produce of all the aforementioned duties shall be paid into his majesty's treasury; and there held in reserve, to be used, from time to time, by the parliament, for the purpose of defraying the expenses necessary for the defense, protection, and security of the said colonies and plantations.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765.
   News of the Stamp Act in the Colonies.
   Colonel Barre's speech and the Sons of Liberty.
   Patrick Henry's speech in the Virginia Assembly.
   Formal protests and informal mob-doings in Philadelphia,
   New York and Boston.

   In the course of the debate in the British House of Commons,
   on the Stamp Act, February 6, 1765, Charles Townshend, after
   discussing the advantages which the American colonies had
   derived from the late war, asked the question: "And now will
   these American children, planted by our care, nourished up to
   strength and opulence by our indulgence, and protected by our
   arms, grudge to contribute their mite to relieve us from the
   heavy burden under which we lie?" This called to his feet
   Colonel Isaac Barre who had served in America with Wolfe, and
   who had a knowledge of the country and people which most
   members of Parliament lacked. "They planted by your care!"
   exclaimed Barré. "No: your oppressions planted them in
   America. They fled from your tyranny to a then uncultivated,
   unhospitable country, where they exposed themselves to almost
   all the hardships to which human nature is liable; and, among
   others, to the cruelties of a savage foe, the most subtle,
   and, I will take upon me to say, the most formidable of any
   people upon the face of God's earth; and yet, actuated by
   principles of true English liberty, they met all hardships
   with pleasure, compared with those they suffered in their own
   country from the hands of those who should have been their
   friends.
{3187}
   They nourished up by your indulgence! They grew by your
   neglect of them. As soon as you began to care about them, that
   care was exercised in sending persons to rule them in one
   department and another, who were, perhaps, the deputies of
   deputies to some members of this house, sent to spy out their
   liberties, to misrepresent their actions, and to prey upon
   them; men whose behavior on many occasions has caused the
   blood of those sons of Liberty to recoil within them; men
   promoted to the highest seats of justice, some who, to my
   knowledge, were glad, by going to a foreign country, to escape
   being brought to the bar of a court of justice in their own.
   They protected by your arms! They have nobly taken up arms in
   your defence; have exerted a valor amidst their constant and
   laborious industry, for the defence of a country whose
   frontier was drenched in blood, while its interior parts
   yielded all its little savings to your emolument. And believe
   me—remember I this day told you so—the same spirit of freedom
   which actuated that people at first will accompany them still.
   But prudence forbids me to explain myself further. God knows I
   do not at this time speak from motives of party heat; what I
   deliver are the genuine sentiments of my heart. However
   superior to me in general knowledge and experience the
   respectable body of this house may be, yet I claim to know
   more of America than most of you, having seen and been
   conversant in that country. The people, I believe, are as
   truly loyal as any subjects the king has; but a people jealous
   of their liberties, and who will vindicate them, if ever they
   should be violated. But the subject is too delicate; I will
   say no more." Notes of Colonel Barré's speech were taken by a
   Mr. Ingersoll, one of the agents for Connecticut, who sat in
   the gallery. He sent home a report of it, which was published
   in the newspapers at New London, and soon the name of the
   "Sons of Liberty," which the eloquent defender of the
   resisting colonists had given to them, was on every lip.

G. Bancroft, History of the United States (Author's last revision), volume 3, chapter 8.

"Meantime [in 1765], 'The Sons of Liberty'—a term that grew into use soon after the publication of Barre's speech—were entering into associations to resist, by all lawful means, the execution of the Stamp Act. They were long kept secret, which occasioned loyalists to say that there was a private union among a certain sect of republican principles from one end of the continent to the other. As they increased in numbers, they grew in boldness and publicity, announcing in the newspapers their committees of correspondence, and interchanging solemn pledges of support."

The Stamp Act was passed March 22, 1765. A copy of it was printed in the 'Pennsylvania Gazette' on April 18th, but this must necessarily have been in advance of news of its passage. The people of Philadelphia began at once to show their determination to make it [the Stamp Act] a nullity so far as revenue was concerned. An enforced frugality was the first step. … In the 'Pennsylvania Gazette' of April 18th there was an article against expensive and ostentatious funerals, the writer saying that often £70 or £100 were squandered on such occasions. August 15th, when Alderman William Plumsted was buried at St. Peter's Church, the funeral, by his own wish, was conducted in the plainest way, no pall, no mourning worn by relatives. In March, the Hibernia Fire Company resolved, 'from motives of economy, and to reduce the present high price of mutton and encourage the breweries of Pennsylvania, not to purchase any lamb this season, nor to drink any foreign beer: Other fire companies and many citizens copied this example. … On October 25th the merchants and traders of Philadelphia subscribed to a non-importation agreement, such as were then being signed all over the country. In this article the subscribers agreed that, in consequence of the late acts of Parliament and the injurious regulations accompanying them, and of the Stamp Act, etc., in justice to themselves and in hopes of benefit from their example (1) to countermand all orders for English goods until the Stamp Act should be repealed; (2) a few necessary articles, or shipped under peculiar circumstances, are excepted; (3) no goods received for sale on commission to be disposed of until the Stamp Act should be repealed; and this agreement to be binding on each and all, as a pledge of word of honor."

The first stern note of defiance came from Virginia. Patrick Henry had lately been elected to the colonial assembly. Having waited in vain for the older leaders of the house to move in the matter of expressing the feeling of the colony on the subject, on the 29th of May, when the session was within three days of its expected close, "Mr. Henry introduced his celebrated resolutions on the stamp act. I will not withhold from the reader a note of this transaction from the pen of Mr. Henry himself. It is a curiosity, and highly worthy of preservation. After his death, there was found among his papers one sealed, and thus endorsed: 'Enclosed are the resolutions of the Virginia assembly in 1765, concerning the stamp act. Let my executors open this paper.' Within was found the following copy of the resolutions, in Mr. Henry's handwriting:—'Resolved, That the first adventurers and settlers of this, his majesty's colony and dominion, brought with them, and transmitted to their posterity, and all other his majesty's subjects, since inhabiting in this, his majesty's said colony, all the privileges, franchises, and immunities, that have at any time been held, enjoyed, and possessed by the people of Great Britain. Resolved, That by two royal charters, granted by King James I., the colonists, aforesaid, are declared entitled to all the privileges, liberties, and immunities of denizens and natural-born subjects, to all intents and purposes, as if they had been abiding and born within the realm of England. Resolved, That the taxation of the people by themselves, or by persons chosen by themselves to represent them, who can only know what taxes the people are able to bear, and the easiest mode of raising them, and are equally affected by such taxes themselves, is the distinguishing characteristic of British freedom, and without which the ancient constitution cannot subsist. {3188} Resolved, That his majesty's liege people of this most ancient colony, have uninterruptedly enjoyed the right of being thus governed by their own assembly, in the article of their taxes and internal police, and that the same hath never been forfeited, or any other way given up, but hath been constantly recognised by the king and people of Great Britain. Resolved, therefore, That the general assembly of this colony have the sole right and power to lay taxes and impositions upon the inhabitants of this colony; and that every attempt to vest such power in any person or persons whatsoever, other than the general assembly aforesaid, has a manifest tendency to destroy British as well as American freedom.' On the back of the paper containing these resolutions, is the following endorsement, which is also in the handwriting of Mr. Henry himself:—'The within resolutions passed the house of burgesses in May, 1765. They formed the first opposition to the stamp act, and the scheme of taxing America by the British parliament. All the colonies, either through fear, or want of opportunity to form an opposition, or from influence of some kind or other, had remained silent. I had been for the first time elected a burgess, a few days before, was young, inexperienced, unacquainted with the forms of the house, and the members that composed it. Finding the men of weight averse to opposition, and the commencement of the tax at hand, and that no person was likely to step forth, I determined to venture, and alone, unadvised, and unassisted, on a blank leaf of an old law-book wrote the within. Upon offering them to the house, violent debates ensued. Many threats were uttered, and much abuse cast on me, by the party for submission. After a long and warm contest, the resolutions passed by a very small majority, perhaps of one or two only. The alarm spread throughout America with astonishing quickness, and the ministerial party were overwhelmed. The great point of resistance to British taxation was universally established in the colonies. This brought on the war, which finally separated the two countries, and gave independence to ours. Whether this will prove a blessing or a curse will depend upon the use our people make of the blessings which a gracious God hath bestowed on us. If they are wise, they will be great and happy. If they are of a contrary character, they will be miserable. Righteousness alone can exalt them as a nation. Reader! whoever thou art, remember this; and in thy sphere, practise virtue thyself, and encourage it in others.—P. Henry.' Such is the short, plain, and modest account which Mr. Henry has left of this transaction. … It is not wonderful that even the friends of colonial rights who knew the feeble and defenceless situation of this country should be startled at a step so bold and daring. That effect was produced; and the resolutions were resisted, not only by the aristocracy of the house, but by many of those who were afterward distinguished among the brightest champions of American liberty. The following is Mr. Jefferson's account of this transaction: 'Mr. Henry moved and Mr. Johnston seconded these resolutions successively. They were opposed by Messrs. Randolph, Bland, Pendleton, Wythe, and all the old members, whose influence in the house had, till then, been unbroken. They did it, not from any question of our rights, but on the ground that the same sentiments had been, at their preceding session, expressed in a more conciliatory form, to which the answers were not yet received. But torrents of sublime eloquence from Henry, backed by the solid reasoning of Johnston, prevailed. The last, however, and strongest resolution was carried but by a single vote. The debate on it was most bloody. I was then but a student, and stood at the door of communication between the house and the lobby (for as yet there was no gallery) during the whole debate and vote; and I well remember that, after the numbers on the division were told and declared from the chair, Peyton Randolph (the attorney-general) came out at the door where I was standing, and said, as he entered the lobby: "By God, I would have given 500 guineas for a single vote": for one would have divided the house, and Robinson was in the chair, who he knew would have negatived the resolution. Mr. Henry left town that evening; and the next morning, before the meeting of the house, Colonel Peter Randolph, then of the council, came to the hall of burgesses, and sat at the clerk's table till the house-bell rang, thumbing over the volumes of journals, to find a precedent for expunging a vote of the house. … Some of the timid members, who had voted for the strongest resolution, had become alarmed; and as soon as the house met, a motion was made and carried to expunge it from the journals.' … The manuscript journal of the day is not to be found; whether it was suppressed, or casually lost, must remain a matter of uncertainty; it disappeared, however, shortly after the session. … In the interesting fact of the erasure of the fifth resolution, Mr. Jefferson is supported by the distinct recollection of Mr. Paul Carrington, late a judge of the court of appeals of Virginia. and the only surviving member, it is believed, of the house of burgesses of 1765. The statement is also confirmed, if indeed further confirmation were necessary, by the circumstance that instead of the five resolutions, so solemnly recorded by Mr. Henry, as having passed the house, the journal of the day exhibits only … four. … 'By these resolutions,' says Mr. Jefferson, 'and his manner of supporting them, Mr. Henry took the lead out of the hands of those who had, theretofore, guided the proceedings of the house; that is to say, of Pendleton, Wythe, Bland, Randolph.' It was, indeed, the measure which raised him to the zenith of his glory. He had never before had a subject which entirely matched his genius, and was capable of drawing out all the powers of his mind. … It was in the midst of this magnificent debate, while he was descanting on the tyranny of the obnoxious act, that he exclaimed in a voice of thunder, and with the look of a god: 'Cesar had his Brutus—Charles the First, his Cromwell—and George the Third—('Treason!' cried the speaker—'Treason, treason!' echoed from every part of the house. It was one of those trying moments which is decisive of character. Henry faltered not for an instant; but rising to a loftier attitude, and fixing on the speaker an eye of the most determined fire, he finished his sentence with the firmest emphasis)—may profit by their example. If this be treason, make the most of it.' This was the only expression of defiance which escaped him during the debate. He was, throughout life, one of the most perfectly and uniformly decorous speakers that ever took the floor of the house. … From the period of which we have been speaking, Mr. Henry became the idol of the people of Virginia; nor was his name confined to his native state. His light and heat were seen and felt throughout the continent; and he was every where regarded as the great champion of colonial liberty."

      W. Wirt,
      Sketches of the Life and Character of Patrick Henry,
      section 2.

"The publication of Mr. Henry's resolutions against the Stamp Act created a widespread and intense excitement. They were hailed as the action of the oldest, and hitherto the most loyal of the colonies; and as raising a standard of resistance to the detested Act. Mr. Otis pronounced them treasonable, and this was the verdict of the Government party. But, treasonable or not, they struck a chord which vibrated throughout America. Hutchinson declared that, 'nothing extravagant appeared in the papers till an account was received of the Virginia resolves.' Soon the bold exclamation of Mr. Henry in moving them was published, and he was hailed as the leader raised up by Providence for the occasion. The 'Boston Gazette' declared: 'The people of Virginia have spoken very sensibly, and the frozen politicians of a more northern government say they have spoken treason.' But the people were no longer to be held down by 'the frozen politicians,' north or south. They commenced to form secret societies pledged to the resistance of the Act by all lawful means, which we called 'The Sons of Liberty.'"

W. W. Henry, Patrick Henry: Life, Correspondence and Speeches, volume 1, pages 93-94.

At New York, "in May articles began to appear in the papers congratulating the public on the patriotic and frugal spirit that was beginning to reign in the Province of New York. The principal gentlemen of the city clad themselves in country manufactures or 'turned clothes.' Weyman printed in large type in his paper, the New York Gazette, the patriotic motto 'It is better to wear a homespun coat than lose our liberty.' Spinning was daily in vogue; materials being more wanting than industrial hands; a need the farmers were endeavoring to remedy by sewing more flax seed and keeping more sheep, and finally we notice the odd statement 'that little lamb came to market as no true lovers of their country or whose sympathetic breasts feel for its distresses will buy it, and that sassafras, balm and sage were greatly in use instead of tea and allowed to be more wholesome.' Funerals and mourning, which were then expensive luxuries, were modified and their extravagance curtailed. The Society for promoting Arts and Manufactures resolved to establish a bleaching field and to erect a flax spinning school where the poor children of the city should be taught the art. They also ordered large numbers of spinning wheels to be made and loaned to all who would use them. In September we find it announced that women's shoes were made, cheaper and better than the renowned Hoses,' by Wells, Lasher, Bolton, and Davis, and that there was a good assortment on hand; that boots and men's shoes were made, in every quarter of the city, better than the English made for foreign sale; wove thread stockings in sundry places; the making of linen, woolen, and cotton stuffs was fast increasing; gloves, hats, carriages, harness and cabinet work were plenty. The people were now self dependent; cards now appeared recommending that no true friend of his country should buy or import English goods, and the dry goods men were warned that their importations would lie on hand to their cost and ruin. There being now a sufficiency of home made goods it was proposed on the 19th October to establish a market for all kinds of Home Manufactures; and a market was opened under the Exchange in Broad Street on the 23d. From the shortness of the notice the design was not sufficiently known in the country and there was neither plenty nor variety; but numbers of buyers appeared and everything went off readily at good prices. The gentlemen merchants of the city, as they were styled, were not behind any class in patriotism or sacrifice. A meeting was called for Monday 28th October at Jones' house in the Fields, 'The Freemasons Arms,' but the attendance, owing to the short notice, not being sufficient to enter upon business, they were again summoned on the 30th October to meet the next day at four o'clock at Mr. Burns' long room at the City Arms to fall upon such methods as they shall then think most advisable for their reciprocal interest. On the 31st there was a general meeting of the principal merchants at this tavern, which was known under the various names of the City Arms, the Province Arms, the New York Arms, and stood on the upper corner of Broadway and Stone, now Thames street, on the site later occupied by the City Hotel. Resolutions were adopted and subscribed by upwards of two hundred of the principal merchants; 1st, to accompany all orders to Great Britain for goods or merchandize of any nature kind or quality whatever with instructions that they be not shipped unless the Stamp Act be repealed; 2nd, to countermand all outstanding orders unless on the conditions mentioned in the foregoing resolution; 3rd, not to vend any goods sent on commission, shipped after the 1st January succeeding, unless upon the same condition. In consequence of these resolutions the retailers of goods subscribed a paper obliging themselves not to buy any goods, wares or merchandize after the 1st January unless the Stamp Act were repealed. This was the first of the famous Non Importation Agreement, the great commercial measure of offense and defense against Great Britain. It punished friends and foes alike and plunged a large portion of the English people into the deepest distress; at the same time it taught the Colonies the value and extent of their own resources."

      J. A. Stevens,
      The Stamp Act in New York
      (Magazine of American History, June, 1877).

   The Stamp Act was reprinted in New York "with a death's-head
   upon it in place of the royal arms, and it was hawked about
   the streets under the title of 'The Folly of England and the
   Ruin of America.' In Boston, the church-bells were tolled, and
   the flags on the shipping put at half-mast. But formal
   defiance came first from Virginia." Patrick Henry had just
   been elected to the colonial assembly. "In a committee of the
   whole house, he drew up a series of resolutions, declaring
   that the colonists were entitled to all the liberties and
   privileges of natural-born subjects, and that 'the taxation of
   the people by themselves, or by persons chosen by themselves
   to represent them, … is the distinguishing characteristic of
   British freedom, without which the ancient constitution cannot
   exist.'
{3190}
   It was further declared that any attempt to vest the power of
   taxation in any other body than the colonial assembly was a
   menace to British no less than to American freedom; that the
   people of Virginia were not bound to obey any law enacted in
   disregard of these fundamental principles; and that anyone who
   should maintain the contrary should be regarded as a public
   enemy. It was in the lively debate which ensued upon these
   resolutions, that Henry uttered those memorable words
   commending the example of Tarquin and Cæsar and Charles I. to
   the attention of George III. Before the vote had been taken
   upon all the resolutions, Governor Fauquier dissolved the
   assembly; but the resolutions were printed in the newspapers,
   and hailed with approval all over the country. Meanwhile, the
   Massachusetts legislature, at the suggestion of Otis, had
   issued a circular letter to all the colonies, calling for a
   general congress, in order to concert measures of resistance
   to the Stamp Act. The first cordial response came from South
   Carolina, at the instance of Christopher Gadsden, a wealthy
   merchant of Charleston and a scholar learned in Oriental
   languages, a man of rare sagacity and most liberal spirit. …
   The first announcement of the Stamp Act had called into
   existence a group of secret societies of workingmen known as
   'Sons of Liberty,' in allusion to a famous phrase in one of
   Colonel Barre's speeches. These societies were solemnly
   pledged to resist the execution of the obnoxious law. On the
   14th of August, the quiet town of Boston witnessed some
   extraordinary proceedings. …

Twelve days after, a mob sacked the splendid house of Chief Justice Hutchinson, threw his plate into the street, and destroyed the valuable library which he had been thirty years in collecting, and which contained many manuscripts, the loss of which was quite irreparable. As usual with mobs, the vengeance fell in the wrong place, for Hutchinson had done his best to prevent the passage of the Stamp Act. In most of the colonies, the stamp officers were compelled to resign their posts. Boxes of stamps arriving by ship were burned or thrown into the sea. … In New York, the presence of the troops for a moment encouraged the lieutenant-governor, Colden, to take a bold stand in behalf of the law. He talked of firing upon the people, but was warned that if he did so he would be speedily hanged on a lamp-post, like Captain Porteous of Edinburgh. A torchlight procession, carrying images of Colden and of the devil, broke into the governor's coach-house, and, seizing his best chariot, paraded it about town with the images upon it, and finally burned up chariot and images on the Bowling Green, in full sight of Colden and the garrison, who looked on from the Battery, speechless with rage, but afraid to interfere. Gage did not dare to have the troops used, for fear of bringing on a civil war; and the next day the discomfited Colden was obliged to surrender all the stamps to the common council of New York, by whom they were at once locked up in the City Hall. Nothing more was needed to prove the impossibility of carrying the Stamp Act into effect."

In Connecticut the stamp agent, Mr. Ingersoll, was compelled by a body of armed citizens to resign.

ALSO IN: D. R. Goodloe, The Birth of the Republic, chapter 1, (a compilation of accounts of proceedings in the several colonies).

      T. Hutchinson,
      History of Province of Massachusetts Bay, 1749-1774,
      pages 117-141.

The delegates chosen, on the invitation of Massachusetts, to attend a congress for consultation on the circumstances of the colonies, met, October 7, 1765, in the City Hall at New York. "In no place were the Sons of Liberty more determined, or were their opponents more influential. It was the headquarters of the British force in America, the commander of which, General Gage, wielded the powers of a viceroy. A fort within the city was heavily mounted with cannon. Ships of war were moored near the wharves. The executive, Lieutenant-governor Colden, was resolved to execute the law. When the Massachusetts delegates called on him, he remarked that the proposed congress would be unconstitutional, and, unprecedented, and he should give it no countenance. The congress consisted of twenty-eight delegates from nine of the colonies; four, though sympathizing with the movement, not choosing representatives. Here several of the patriots, who had discussed the American question in their localities, met for the first time. James Otis stood in this body the foremost speaker. His pen, with the pens of the brothers Robert and Phillip Livingston, of New York, were summoned to service in a wider field. John Dickinson, of Pennsylvania, was soon to be known through the colonies by 'The Farmer's Letters.' Thomas McKean and Cæsar Rodney were pillars of the cause in Delaware. Edward Tilghman was an honored name in Maryland. South Carolina, in addition to the intrepid Gadsden, had, in Thomas Lynch and John Rutledge, two patriots who appear prominently in the subsequent career of that colony. Thus this body was graced by large ability, genius, learning, and common sense. It was calm in its deliberations, seeming unmoved by the whirl of the political waters. The congress organized by the choice, by one vote, of Timothy Ruggles, a Tory,—as the chairman,—and John Cotton, clerk. The second day of its session, it took into consideration the rights, privileges, and grievances of the British American colonists.' After eleven days' debate, it agreed—each colony having one vote—upon a declaration of rights and grievances and ordered it to be inserted in the journal. [The following is the 'Declaration': 'The members of this congress, sincerely devoted, with the warmest sentiments of affection and duty, to his majesty's person and government, inviolably attached to the present happy establishment of the protestant succession, and with minds deeply impressed by a sense of the present and impending misfortunes of the British colonies on this continent; having considered, as maturely as time will permit, the circumstances of the said colonies, esteem it our indispensable duty to make the following declarations of our humble opinion, respecting the most essential rights and liberties of the colonists, and of the grievances under which they labor by reason of several late acts of parliament.

1. That his majesty's subjects in these colonies owe the same allegiance to the crown of Great Britain that is owing from his subjects born within the realm, and all due subordination to that august body the parliament of Great Britain. 2. That his majesty's liege subjects in these colonies are entitled to all the inherent rights and liberties of his natural born subjects within the kingdom of Great Britain. 3. That it is inseparably essential to the freedom of a people, and the undoubted right of Englishmen, that no taxes be imposed on them, but with their own consent, given personally, or by their representatives. 4. That the people of these colonies are not, and from their local circumstances cannot be, represented in the house of commons of Great Britain. 5. That the only representatives of these colonies are persons chosen therein by themselves, and that no taxes ever have been or can be constitutionally imposed upon them, but by their respective legislatures. 6. That all supplies to the crown being free gifts from the people, it is unreasonable and inconsistent with the principles and spirit of the British constitution for the people of Great Britain to grant to his majesty the property of the colonists. 7. That trial by jury is the inherent and invaluable right of every British subject in these colonies. 8. That the late act of parliament entitled 'an act for granting and applying certain stamp duties, and other duties, in the British colonies and plantations in America,' &c., by imposing taxes on the inhabitants of these colonies; and the said act, and several other acts, by extending the jurisdiction of the court of admiralty beyond its ancient limits, have a manifest tendency to subvert the rights and liberties of the colonists. 9. That the duties imposed by several late acts of parliament, from the peculiar circumstances of these colonies, will be extremely burdensome and grievous; and from the scarcity of specie, the payment of them absolutely impracticable. 10. That as the profits of the trade of these colonies ultimately center in Great Britain, to pay for the manufactures which they are obliged to take from thence, they eventually contribute very largely to all supplies granted to the crown. 11. That the restrictions imposed by several late acts of parliament on the trade of these colonies, will render them unable to purchase the manufactures of Great Britain. 12. That the increase, prosperity, and happiness of these colonies depend on the full and free enjoyment of their rights and liberties, and an intercourse with Great Britain mutually affectionate and advantageous. 13. That it is the right of the British subjects in these colonies to petition the king, or either house of parliament. 14. That it is the indispensable duty of these colonies, to the best of sovereigns, to the mother country, and to themselves, to endeavor, by a loyal and dutiful address to his majesty, and humble application to both houses of parliament, to procure the repeal of the act for granting and applying certain stamp duties, of all clauses of any other acts of parliament whereby the jurisdiction of the admiralty is extended as aforesaid, and of the other late acts for the restriction of American commerce.'] …

The delegates present from only six of the colonies—except Ruggles and Ogden—signed the petition; those from New York, Connecticut, and South Carolina not being authorized to sign. On the 25th of October, the congress adjourned. Special measures were taken to transmit the proceedings to the unrepresented colonies. The several assemblies, on meeting, heartily approved of the course of their delegates who concurred in the action of congress; but Ruggles, of Massachusetts, was reprimanded by the speaker, in the name of the House, and Ogden, of New Jersey, was hung in effigy by the people. The action of the assemblies was announced in the press. Meanwhile the Sons of Liberty, through their committees of correspondence, urged a continental Union; pledged a mutual support in case of danger; in some instances stated the numbers of armed men that might be relied on; and thus evinced a common determination to resist the execution of the Stamp Act."

      H. Niles,
      Principles and Acts of the Revolution (edition of 1876),
      pages 155-168.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765-1768.
   Treaties with the Indians at German Flats and Fort Stanwix.
   Cession of Iroquois claims to western Pennsylvania,
   West Virginia and Kentucky.
   The drawing of the Indian boundary line.

"After the success of Bradstreet and Bouquet [see PONTIAC'S WAR], there was no difficulty in concluding a treaty with all the Western Indians; and late in April, 1765, Sir William Johnson, at the German Flats, held a conference with the various nations, and settled a definite peace. At this meeting two propositions were made; the one to fix some boundary line, west of which the Europeans should not go; and the savages named, as this line, the Ohio or Alleghany and Susquehannah; but no definite agreement was made, Johnson not being empowered to act. The other proposal was, that the Indians should grant to the traders, who had suffered in 1763, a tract of land in compensation for the injuries then done them, and to this the red men agreed. … During the very year that succeeded the treaty of German Flats, settlers crossed the mountains and took possession of lands in western Virginia and along the Monongahela. The Indians, having received no pay for these lands, murmured, and once more a border war was feared. … And not only were frontier men thus passing the line tacitly agreed on, but Sir William himself was even then meditating a step which would have produced, had it been taken, a general Indian war again. This was the purchase and settlement of an immense tract south of the Ohio River, where an independent colony was to be formed. How early this plan was conceived we do not learn, but, from Franklin's letters, we find that it was in contemplation in the spring of 1766. At that time Franklin was in London, and was written to by his son, Governor Franklin of New Jersey, with regard to the proposed colony. The plan seems to have been to buy of the Six Nations the lands south of the Ohio, a purchase which it was not doubted Sir William might make, and then to procure from the King a grant of as much territory as the Company which it was intended to form would require. Governor Franklin, accordingly, forwarded to his father an application for a grant, together with a letter from Sir William, recommending the plan to the ministry; all of which was duly communicated to the proper department. But at that time there were various interests bearing upon this plan of Franklin. The old Ohio Company [see OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754] was still suing, through its agent, Colonel George Mercer, for a perfection of the original grant. … {3192} General Lyman, from Connecticut we believe, was soliciting a new grant similar to that now asked by Franklin; and the ministers themselves were divided as to the policy and propriety of establishing any settlements so far in the interior,—Shelburne being in favor of the new colony, Hillsborough opposed to it. The Company was organized, however, and the nominally leading man therein being Mr. Thomas' Walpole, a London banker of eminence, it was known as the Walpole Company. … Before any conclusion was come to, it was necessary to arrange definitely that boundary line which had been vaguely talked of in 1765, and with respect to which Sir William Johnson had written to the ministry, who had mislaid his letters and given him no instructions. The necessity of arranging this boundary was also kept in mind by the continued and growing irritation of the Indians, who found themselves invaded from every side. … Franklin, the father, all this time, was urging the same necessity upon the ministers in England; and about Christmas of 1767, Sir William's letters on the subject having been found, orders were sent him to complete the proposed purchase from the Six Nations, and settle all differences. But the project for a colony was for the time dropped, a new administration coming in which was not that way disposed. Sir William Johnson having received, early in the spring, the orders from England relative to a new treaty with the Indians, at once took steps to secure a full attendance. Notice was given to the various colonial governments, to the Six Nations, the Delawares, and the Shawanese, and a Congress was appointed to meet at Fort Stanwix during the following October. It met upon the 24th of that month, and was attended by representatives from New Jersey, Virginia, and Pennsylvania; by Sir William and his deputies; by the agents of those traders who had suffered in the war of 1763; and by deputies from all of the Six Nations, the Delawares, and the Shawanese. The first point to be settled was the boundary line which was to determine the Indian lands of the West from that time forward; and this line the Indians, upon the 1st of November, stated should begin on the Ohio at the mouth of the Cherokee (or Tennessee) river; thence go up the Ohio and Alleghany to Kittaning; thence across to the Susquehannah, &c.; whereby the whole country south of the Ohio and Alleghany, to which the Six Nations had any claim, was transferred to the British. One deed, for a part of this land, was made on the 3d of November to William Trent, attorney for twenty-two traders, whose goods had been destroyed by the Indians in 1763. The tract conveyed by this was between the Kenhawa and Monongahela, and was by the traders named 'Indiana.' Two days afterward, a deed for the remaining western lands was made to the King, and the price agreed on paid down. These deeds were made upon the express agreement, that no claim should ever be based upon previous treaties, those of Lancaster, Logstown, &c.; and they were signed by the chiefs of the Six Nations, for themselves, their allies and dependents, the Shawanese, Delawares, Mingoes of Ohio, and others; but the Shawanese and Delaware deputies present did not sign them. Such was the treaty of Stanwix, whereon rests the title by purchase to Kentucky, western Virginia, and Pennsylvania. It was a better foundation, perhaps, than that given by previous treaties, but was essentially worthless; for the lands conveyed were not occupied or hunted on by those conveying them. In truth, we cannot doubt that this immense grant was obtained by the influence of Sir William Johnson, in order that the new colony, of which he was to be governor, might be founded there. … The white man could now quiet his conscience when driving the native from his forest home, and feel sure that an army would back his pretensions. … Meantime more than one bold man had ventured for a little while into the beautiful valleys of Kentucky, and, on the 1st of May, 1769, there was one going forth from his 'peaceable habitation on the Yadkin river in North Carolina,' whose name has since gone far and wide over this little planet of ours, he having become the type of his class. This was Daniel Boone. He crossed the mountains, and spent that summer and the next winter in the West. But, while he was rejoicing in the abundance of buffalo, deer, and turkeys among the cane-brakes, longer heads were meditating still that new colony, the plan of which had been lying in silence for two years and more. The Board of Trade was again called on to report upon the application, and Lord Hillsborough, the President, reported against it. This called out Franklin's celebrated 'Ohio Settlement,' a paper written with so much ability, that the King's Council put by the official report, and granted the petition, a step which mortified the noble lord so much that he resigned his official station. The petition now needed only the royal sanction, which was not given until August 14th, 1772; but in 1770, the Ohio Company was merged in Walpole's, and, the claims of the soldiers of 1756 being acknowledged both by the new Company and by government, all claims were quieted. Nothing was ever done, however, under the grant to Walpole, the Revolution soon coming upon America. After the Revolution, Mr. Walpole and his associates petitioned Congress respecting their lands, called by them 'Vandalia,' but could get no help from that body. What was finally done by Virginia with the claims of this and other companies, we do not find written, but presume their lands were all looked on as forfeited."

J. H. Perkins, English Discoveries in the Ohio Valley (North American Review, July, 1839).

ALSO IN: W. L. Stone, Life and Times of Sir William Johnson, volume 2, chapter 16.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1766.
Examination of Dr. Franklin before Parliament.

On the 28th of January, 1766, while the bill for the repeal of the Stamp Act was pending in Parliament, Dr. Franklin was examined before the House of Commons, in Committee. The questions and answers of this very interesting examination, as reported in the Parliamentary History, were as follows:

   Q. Do the Americans pay any considerable taxes among
   themselves?
   A. Certainly many, and very heavy taxes.

Q. What are the present taxes in Pennsylvania, laid by the laws of the colony? A. There are taxes on all estates real and personal, a poll-tax, a tax on all offices, professions, trades, and businesses, according to their profits; an excise on all wine, rum, and other spirit; and a duty of ten pounds per head on all negroes imported, with some other duties.

Q. For what purposes are those taxes laid? A. For the support of the civil and military establishments of the country, and to discharge the heavy debt contracted in the last war.

   Q. How long are those taxes to continue?
   A. Those for discharging the debt are to continue till 1772,
   and longer, if the debt should not be then all discharged. The
   others must always continue.

   Q. Was it not expected that the debt would have been sooner
   discharged?
   A. It was, when the peace was made with France and Spain; but
   a fresh war breaking out with the Indians, a fresh load of
   debt was incurred, and the taxes, of course, continued longer
   by a new law.

Q. Are not all the people very able to pay those taxes? A. No. The frontier counties, all along the continent, having been frequently ravaged by the enemy, and greatly impoverished, are able to pay very little tax. And therefore, in consideration of their distresses, our late tax laws do expressly favour those counties, excusing the sufferers; and I suppose the same is done in other governments.

   Q. Are not you concerned in the management of the post office
   in America?
   A. Yes; I am deputy post-master general of North America.

Q. Don't you think the distribution of stamps, by post, to all the inhabitants, very practicable, if there was no opposition? A. The posts only go along the sea coasts; they do not, except in a few instances, go back into the country; and if they did, sending for stamps by post would occasion an expense of postage, amounting, in many cases, to much more than that of the stamps themselves.

   Q. Do you know whether there are any post-roads on that
   island?
   A. I have heard that there are no roads at all; but that the
   communication between one settlement and another is by sea
   only.

Q. Can you disperse the stamps by post in Canada? A. There is only a post between Montreal and Quebec. The inhabitants live so scattered and remote from each other, in that vast country, that posts cannot be supported among them, and therefore they cannot get stamps per post. The English colonies too, along the frontiers, are very thinly settled.

Q. From the thinness of the back settlements, would not the Stamp Act be extremely inconvenient to the inhabitants if executed? A. To be sure it would; as many of the inhabitants could not get stamps when they had occasion for them, without taking long journeys, and spending, perhaps, three or four pounds, that the crown might get sixpence.

   Q. Are not the colonies, from their circumstances, very able
   to pay the stamp duty?
   A. In my opinion, there is not gold and silver enough in the
   colonies to pay the stamp duty for one year.

   Q. Don't you know that the money arising from the stamps was
   all to be laid out in America?
   A. I know it is appropriated by the act to the American
   service; but it will be spent in the conquered colonies, where
   the soldiers are, not in the colonies that pay it.

   Q. Is there not a balance of trade due from the colonies where
   the troops are posted, that will bring back the money to the
   old colonies?
   A. I think not. I believe very little would come back. I know
   of no trade likely to bring it back. I think it would come
   from the colonies where it was spent directly to England; for
   I have always observed, that in every colony the more plenty
   of means of remittance to England, the more goods are sent
   for, and the more trade with England carried on.

   Q. What number of white inhabitants do you think there are in
   Pennsylvania?
   A. I suppose there may be about 160,000.

Q. What number of Germans?
A. Perhaps another third; but I cannot speak with certainty.

   Q. Have any number of the Germans seen service, as soldiers,
   in Europe?
   A. Yes, many of them, both in Europe and America.

   Q. Are they as much dissatisfied with the stamp duty as the
   English?
   A. Yes, and more; and with reason, as their stamps are, in
   many cases, to be double.

   Q. How many white men do you suppose there are in North
   America?
   A. About 300,000, from 16 to 60 years of age.

   Q. What may be the amount of one year's imports into
   Pennsylvania from Britain?
   A. I have been informed that our merchants compute the imports
   from Britain to be above 500,000_l_.

   Q. What may be the amount of the produce of your province
   exported to Britain?
   A. It must be small, as we produce little that is wanted
   in Britain. I suppose it cannot exceed 40,000_l_.

Q. How then do you pay the balance? A. The balance is paid by our produce carried to the West Indies, and sold in our own islands, or to the French, Spaniards, Danes, and Dutch; by the same carried to other colonies in North America, as to New England, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, Carolina, and Georgia; by the same carried to different parts of Europe, as Spain, Portugal and Italy. In all which places we receive either money, bills of exchange, or commodities that suit for remittance to Britain; which, together with all the profits on the industry of our merchants and mariners, arising in those circuitous voyages, and the freights made by their ships, centre finally in Britain to discharge the balance, and pay for British manufactures continually used in the province, or sold to foreigners by our traders.

   Q. Have you heard of any difficulties lately laid on the
   Spanish trade?
   A. Yes, I have heard that it has been greatly obstructed by
   some new regulations, and by the English men of war and
   cutters stationed all along the coast in America.

   Q. Do you think it right, that America should be protected by
   this country, and pay no part of the expense?
   A. That is not the case. The colonies raised, clothed and
   paid, during the last war, nearly 25,000 men, and spent many
   millions.

Q. Were you not reimbursed by parliament? A. We were only reimbursed what, in your opinion, we had advanced beyond our proportion, or beyond what might reasonably be expected from us; and it was a very small part of what we spent. Pennsylvania, in particular, disbursed about 500,000_l_, and the reimbursements, in the whole, did not exceed 60,000_l_.

Q. You have said that you pay heavy taxes in Pennsylvania; what do they amount to in the pound? A. The tax on all estates, real and personal, is eighteen pence in the pound, fully rated; and the tax on the profits of trades and professions, with other taxes, do, I suppose, make full half a crown in the pound.

Q. Do you know any thing of the rate of exchange in Pennsylvania, and whether it has fallen lately? A. It is commonly from 170 to 175. I have heard that it has fallen lately from 175 to 162 and a half, owing, I suppose, to their lessening their orders for goods; and when their debts to this country are paid, I think the exchange will probably be at par.

Q. Do not you think the people of America would submit to pay the stamp duty, if it was moderated? A. No, never, unless compelled by force of arms.

Q. Are not the taxes in Pennsylvania laid on unequally, in order to burden the English trade, particularly the tax on professions and business? A. It is not more burdensome in proportion than the tax on lands. It is intended, and supposed to take an equal proportion of profits.

   Q. How is the assembly composed? Of what kinds of people are
   the members, landholders or traders?
   A. It is composed of landholders, merchants, and artificers.

Q. Do not they, as much as possible, shift the tax off from the land, to ease that; and lay the burthen heavier on trade? A. I have never understood it so. I never heard such a thing suggested. And indeed an attempt of that kind could answer no purpose. The merchant or trader is always skilled in figures, and ready with his pen and ink. If unequal burdens are laid on his trade, he puts an additional price on his goods; and the consumers, who are chiefly landholders, finally pay the greatest part, if not the whole.

   Q. What was the temper of America towards Great Britain before
   the year 1763?
   A. The best in the world. They submitted willingly to the
   government of the crown, and paid, in all their courts,
   obedience to acts of parliament. Numerous as the people are in
   the several old provinces, they cost you nothing in forts,
   citadels, garrisons or armies, to keep them in subjection.
   They were governed by this country at the expense only of a
   little pen, ink, and paper. They were led by a thread. They
   had not only a respect, but an affection for Great Britain,
   for its laws, its customs and manners, and even a fondness for
   its fashions, that greatly increased the commerce. Natives of
   Britain were always treated with particular regard; to be an
   Old-England man was, of itself, a character of some respect,
   and gave a kind of rank among us.

Q. Did you ever hear the authority of parliament to make laws for America questioned till lately? A. The authority of parliament was allowed to be valid in all laws, except such as should lay internal taxes. It was never disputed in laying duties to regulate commerce.

Q. In what proportion hath population increased in America? A. I think the inhabitants of all the provinces together, taken at a medium, double in about 25 years. But their demand for British manufactures increases much faster, as the consumption is not merely in proportion to their numbers, but grows with the growing abilities of the same numbers to pay for them. In 1723, the whole importation from Britain to Pennsylvania, was but about 15,000_l_. sterling; it is now near half a million.

Q. In what light did the people of America use to consider the parliament of Great Britain? A. They considered the parliament as the great bulwark and security of their liberties and privileges, and always spoke of it with the utmost respect and veneration. Arbitrary ministers, they thought, might possibly, at times, attempt to oppress them; but they relied on it, that the parliament, on application, would always give redress. They remembered, with gratitude, a strong instance of this, when a bill was brought into parliament, with a clause to make royal instructions laws in the colonies, which the House of Commons would not pass, and it was thrown out.

Q. And have they not still the same respect for parliament?
A. No; it is greatly lessened.

Q. To what causes is that owing? A. To a concurrence of causes; the restraints lately laid on their trade, by which the bringing of foreign gold and silver into the colonies was prevented; the prohibition of making paper money among themselves; and then demand a new and heavy tax by stamps; taking away at the same time, trials by juries, and refusing to receive and hear their humble petitions.

Q. Don't you think they would submit to the Stamp Act, if it was modified, the obnoxious parts taken out, and the duty reduced to some particulars, of small moment? A. No; they will never submit to it.

   Q. What do you think is the reason that the people of America
   increase faster than in England?
   A. Because they marry younger, and more generally.

   Q. Why so?
   A. Because any young couple that are industrious, may easily
   obtain land of their own, on which they can raise a family.

   Q. Are not the lower rank of people more at their ease in
   America than in England?
   A. They may be so, if they are sober and diligent, as they
   are better paid for their labour.

   Q. What is your opinion of a future tax, imposed on the same
   principle with that of the Stamp Act, how would the Americans
   receive it?
   A. Just as they do this. They would not pay it.

   Q. Have not you heard of the resolution of this House, and of
   the House of Lords, asserting the right of parliament relating
   to America, including a power to tax the people there?
   A. Yes, I have heard of such resolutions.

   Q. What will be the opinion of the Americans on those
   resolutions?
   A. They will think them unconstitutional and unjust.

Q. Was it an opinion in America before 1763, that the parliament had no right to lay taxes and duties there? A. I never heard any objection to the right of laying duties to regulate commerce; but a right to lay internal taxes was never supposed to be in parliament, as we are not represented there.

Q. On what do you found your opinion, that the people in America made any such distinction? A. I know that whenever the subject has occurred in conversation where I have been present, it has appeared to be the opinion of every one, that we could not be taxed in a parliament where we were not represented. But the payment of duties laid by act of parliament, as regulations of commerce, was never disputed.

Q. But can you name any act of assembly, or public act of any of your governments, that made such distinction? A. I do not know that there was any; I think there was never an occasion to make any such act, till now that you have attempted to tax us: that has occasioned resolutions of assembly, declaring the distinction, in which I think every assembly on the continent, and every member in every assembly, have been unanimous.

   Q. What then could occasion conversations on that subject
   before that time?
   A. There was, in 1754, a proposition made (I think it came
   from hence) that in case of a war, which was then apprehended,
   the governors of the colonies should meet, and order the
   levying of troops, building of forts, and taking every other
   necessary measure for the general defence; and should draw on
   the treasury here, for the sums expended, which were
   afterwards to be raised in the colonies by a general tax, to
   be laid on them by act of parliament. This occasioned a good
   deal of conversation on the subject, and the general opinion
   was, that the parliament neither would, nor could lay any tax
   on us, till we were duly represented in parliament, because it
   was not just, nor agreeable to the nature of an English
   constitution.

Q. Don't you know there was a time in New York, when it was under consideration to make an application to parliament, to lay taxes on that colony, upon a deficiency arising from the assembly's refusing or neglecting to raise the necessary supplies for the support of the civil government? A. I never heard of it.

Q. There was such an application under consideration in New York; and do you apprehend they could suppose the right of parliament to lay a tax in America was only local, and confined to the case of a deficiency in a particular colony, by a refusal of its assembly to raise the necessary supplies? A. They could not suppose such a case, as that the assembly would not raise the necessary supplies to support its own government. An assembly that would refuse it, must want common sense, which cannot be supposed. I think there was never any such case at New York, and that it must be a misrepresentation, or the fact must be misunderstood. I know there have been some attempts, by ministerial instructions from hence, to oblige the assemblies to settle permanent salaries on governors, which they wisely refused to do; but I believe no assembly of New York, or any other colony, ever refused duly to support government, by proper allowances, from time to time, to public officers.

Q. But in case a governor, acting by instruction, should call on an assembly to raise the necessary supplies, and the assembly should refuse to do it, do you not think it would then be for the good of the people of the colony, as well as necessary to government, that the parliament should tax them? A. I do not think it would be necessary. If an assembly could possibly be so absurd as to refuse raising the supplies requisite for the maintenance of government among them, they could not long remain in such a situation; the disorders and confusion occasioned by it, must soon bring them to reason.

Q. If it should not, ought not the right to be in Great Britain of applying a remedy? A. A right only to be used in such a case, I should have no objection to, supposing it to be used merely for the good of the people of the colony.

Q. But who is to judge of that, Britain or the colony?
A. Those that feel can best judge.

   Q. You say the colonies have always submitted to external
   taxes, and object to the right of parliament only in laying
   internal taxes; now can you shew that there is any kind of
   difference between the two taxes to the colony on which they
   may be laid?
   A. I think the difference is very great. An external tax is a
   duty laid on commodities imported; that duty is added to the
   first cost, and other charges on the commodity, and when it is
   offered to sale, makes a part of the price. If the people do
   not like it at that price, they refuse it: they are not
   obliged to pay it. But an internal tax is forced from the
   people without their consent, if not laid by their own
   representatives. The Stamp Act says, we shall have no
   commerce, make no exchange of property with each other,
   neither purchase nor grant, nor recover debts; we shall
   neither marry nor make our wills, unless we pay such sums, and
   thus it is intended to extort our money from us, or ruin us by
   the consequences of refusing to pay it.

Q. But supposing the internal tax or duty to be laid on the necessaries of life imported into your colony, will not that be the same thing in its effects as an internal tax? A. I do not know a single article imported into the northern colonies, but what they can either do without or make themselves.

   Q. Don't you think cloth from England absolutely necessary to
   them?
   A. No, by no means absolutely necessary; with industry and
   good management, they may very well supply themselves with all
   they want.

   Q. Will it not take a long time to establish that manufacture
   among them; and must they not in the mean while suffer
   greatly?
   A. I think not. They have made a surprising progress already.
   And I am of opinion, that before their old clothes are worn
   out, they will have new ones of their own making.

Q. Can they possibly find wool enough in North America? A. They have taken steps to increase the wool. They entered into general combination to eat no more lamb, and very few lambs were killed last year. This course persisted in, will soon make a prodigious difference in the quantity of wool. And the establishing of great manufactories, like those in the clothing towns here, is not necessary, as it is where the business is to be carried on for the purposes of trade. The people will all spin and work for themselves, in their own houses.

   Q. Can there be wool and manufacture enough in one or two
   years?
   A. In three years, I think, there may.

   Q. Does not the severity of the winter, in the northern
   colonies, occasion the wool to be of bad quality?
   A. No, the wool is very fine and good.

Q. In the more southern colonies, as in Virginia, don't you know that the wool is coarse, and only a kind of hair? A. I don't know it. I never heard it. Yet I have been sometimes in Virginia. I cannot say I ever took particular notice of the wool there, but I believe it is good, though I cannot speak positively of it; but Virginia, and the colonies south of it, have less occasion for wool; their winters are short, and not very severe, and they can very well clothe themselves with linen and cotton of their own raising for the rest of the year.

   Q. Are not the people in the more northern colonies obliged to
   fodder their sheep all the winter?
   A. In some of the most northern colonies they may be obliged
   to do it some part of the winter.

   Q. Considering the resolutions of parliament as to the right,
   do you think, if the Stamp Act is repealed, that the North
   Americans will be satisfied?
   A. I believe they will.

   Q. Why do you think so?
   A. I think the resolutions of right will give them very little
   concern, if they are never attempted to be carried into
   practice. The colonies will probably consider themselves in
   the same situation, in that respect, with Ireland; they know
   you claim the same right with regard to Ireland, but you never
   exercise it. And they may believe you never will exercise it
   in the colonies, any more than in Ireland, unless on some very
   extraordinary occasion.

Q. But who are to be the judges of that extraordinary occasion? Is not the parliament? A. Though the parliament may judge of the occasion, the people will think it can never exercise such right, till representatives from the colonies are admitted into parliament, and that whenever the occasion arises, representatives will be ordered.

Q. Did you never hear that Maryland, during the last war, had refused to furnish a quota towards the common defence? A. Maryland has been much misrepresented in that matter. Maryland, to my knowledge, never refused to contribute, or grant aids to the crown. The assemblies every year, during the war, voted considerable sums, and formed bills to raise them. The bills were, according to the constitution of that province, sent up to the council, or upper house, for concurrence, that they might be presented to the governor, in order to be enacted into laws. Unhappy disputes between the two houses, arising from the defects of that constitution principally, rendered all the bills but one or two abortive. The proprietary's council rejected them. It is true, Maryland did not contribute its proportion, but it was, in my opinion, the fault of the government, not of the people.

Q. Was it not talked of in the other provinces as a proper measure to apply to parliament to compel them? A. I have heard such discourse: but as it was well known that the people were not to blame, no such application was ever made, or any step taken towards it.

   Q. Do you remember the abolishing of the paper currency in New
   England, by act of assembly?
   A. I do remember its being abolished in the Massachusetts Bay.

   Q. Was not lieutenant governor Hutchinson principally
   concerned in that transaction?
   A. I have heard so.

   Q. Was it not at that time a very unpopular law?
   A. I believe it might, though I can say little about it, as I
   lived at a distance from that province.

   Q. Was not the scarcity of gold and silver an argument used
   against abolishing the paper?
   A. I suppose it was.

   Q. What is the present opinion there of that law? Is it as
   unpopular as it was at first?
   A. think it is not
   .
   Q. Have not instructions from hence been sometimes sent over
   to governors, highly oppressive and unpolitical?
   A. Yes.

   Q. Have not some governors dispensed with them for that
   reason?
   A. Yes, I have heard so.

   Q. Did the Americans ever dispute the controuling
   power of parliament to regulate the commerce?
   A. No.

   Q. Can any thing less than a military force carry the Stamp
   Act into execution?
   A. I do not see how a military force can be applied to that
   purpose.

   Q. Why may it not?
   A. Suppose a military force sent into America, they
   will find nobody in arms; what are they then to do?
   They cannot force a man to take stamps who chuses
   to do without them. They will not find a rebellion;
   they may indeed make one.

   Q. If the act is not repealed, what do you think will be the
   consequences?
   A. A total loss of the respect and affection the people of
   America bear to this country, and of all the commerce that
   depends on that respect and affection.

   Q. How can the commerce be affected?
   A. You will find, that if the act is not repealed, they will
   take very little of your manufactures in a short time.

Q. Is it in their power to do without them?
A. I think they may very well do without them.

Q. Is it their interest not to take them? A. The goods they take from Britain are either necessaries, mere conveniencies, or superfluities. The first, as cloth, &c. with a little industry they can make at home: the second they can do without, till they are able to provide them among themselves; and the last, which are much the greatest part, they will strike off immediately. They are mere articles of fashion, purchased and consumed, because the fashion in a respected country, but will now be detested and rejected. The people have already struck off, by general agreement, the use of all goods fashionable in mournings, and many thousand pounds worth are sent back as unsaleable.

Q. Is it their interest to make cloth at home? A. I think they may at present get it cheaper from Britain, I mean of the same fineness and neatness of workmanship; but when one considers other circumstances, the restraints on their trade, and the difficulty of making remittances, it is their interest to make every thing.

Q. Suppose an act of internal regulations connected with the tax, how would they receive it? A. I think it would be objected to.

Q. Then no regulation with a tax would be submitted to? A. Their opinion is, that when aids to the crown are wanted, they are to be asked of the several assemblies according to the old established usage, who will, as they have always done, grant them freely. And that their money ought not to be given away, without their consent, by persons at a distance, unacquainted with their circumstances and abilities. The granting aids to the crown, is the only means they have of recommending themselves to their sovereign, and they think it extremely hard and unjust, that a body of men, in which they have no representatives, should make a merit to itself of giving and granting what is not its own, but theirs, and deprives them of a right they esteem of the utmost value and importance, as it is the security of all their other rights.

Q. But is not the post office, which they have long received, a tax as well as a regulation? A. No; the money paid for the postage of a letter is not of the nature of a tax; it is merely a quantum meruit for a service done; no person is compellable to pay the money, if he does not chuse to receive the service. A man may still, as before the act, send his letter by a servant, a special messenger, or a friend, if he thinks it cheaper and safer.

Q. But do they not consider the regulations of the post-office, by the act of last year, as a tax? A. By the regulations of last year the rate of postage was generally abated near thirty per cent. through all America; they certainly cannot consider such abatement as a tax.

Q. If an excise was laid by parliament, which they might likewise avoid paying, by not consuming the articles excised, would they then not object to it? A. They would certainly object to it, as an excise is unconnected with any service done, and is merely an aid which they think ought to be asked of them, and granted by them if they are to pay it, and can be granted for them, by no others whatsoever, whom they have not impowered for that purpose.

Q. You say they do not object to the right of parliament, in laying duties on goods to be paid on their importation; now, is there any kind of difference between a duty on the importation of goods and an excise on their consumption? A. Yes; a very material one; an excise, for the reasons I have just mentioned, they think you can have no right to lay within their country. But the sea is yours; you maintain, by your fleets, the safety of navigation in it, and keep it clear of pirates; you may have therefore a natural and equitable right to some toll or duty on merchandizes carried through that part of your dominions, towards defraying the expense you are at in ships to maintain the safety of that carriage.

   Q. Does this reasoning hold in the case of a duty laid on the
   produce of their lands exported? And would they not then
   object to such a duty?
   A. If it tended to make the produce so much dearer abroad as
   to lessen the demand for it, to be sure they would object to
   such a duty; not to your right of laying it, but they would
   complain of it as a burden, and petition you to lighten it.

   Q. Is not the duty paid on the tobacco exported a duty of that
   kind?
   A. That, I think, is only on tobacco carried coastwise from
   one colony to another, and appropriated as a fund for
   supporting the college at Williamsburgh, in Virginia.

   Q. Have not the assemblies in the West Indies the same natural
   rights with those in North America?
   A. Undoubtedly.

   Q. And is there not a tax laid there on their sugars exported?
   A. I am not much acquainted with the West Indies, but the duty
   of four and a half per cent., on sugars exported, was, I
   believe, granted by their own assemblies.

   Q. How much is the poll tax in your province laid on unmarried
   men?
   A. It is, I think, fifteen shillings, to be paid by every
   single freeman, upwards of twenty one years old.

Q. What is the annual amount of all the taxes in Pennsylvania?
A. I suppose about 20,000_l_. sterling.

Q. Supposing the Stamp Act continued, and enforced, do you imagine that ill humour will induce the Americans to give as much for worse manufactures of their own and use them, preferably to better of ours? A. Yes, I think so. People will pay as freely to gratify one passion as another, their resentment as their pride.

Q. Would the people at Boston discontinue their trade? A. The merchants are a very small number compared with the body of the people, and must discontinue their trade, if nobody will buy their goods.

Q. What are the body of the people in the colonies?
A. They are farmers, husbandmen or planters.

   Q. Would they suffer the produce of their lands to rot?
   A. No; but they would not raise so much. They would
   manufacture more, and plough less.

Q. Would they live without the administration of justice in civil matters, and suffer all the inconveniencies of such a situation for any considerable time, rather than take the stamps, supposing the stamps were protected by a sufficient force, where everyone might have them? A. I think the supposition impracticable, that the stamps should be so protected as that everyone might have them. The Act requires sub-distributors to be appointed in every county town, district, and village, and they would be necessary. But the principal distributors, who were to have had a considerable profit on the whole, have not thought it worth while to continue in the office, and I think it impossible to find sub-distributors fit to be trusted, who, for the trifling profit that must come to their share, would incur the odium, and run the hazard that would attend it; and if they could be found, I think it impracticable to protect the stamps in so many distant and remote places.

Q. But in places where they could be protected, would not the people use them rather than remain in such a situation, unable to obtain any right, or recover, by law, any debt? A. It is hard to say what they would do. I can only judge what other people will think, and how they will act, by what I feel within myself. I have a great many debts due to me in America, and I had rather they should remain unrecoverable by any law than submit to the Stamp Act. They will be debts of honour. It is my opinion the people will either continue in that situation, or find some way to extricate themselves, perhaps by generally agreeing to proceed in the courts without stamps.

Q. What do you think a sufficient military force to protect the distribution of the stamps in every part of America? A. A very great force; I cannot say what, if the disposition of America is for a general resistance.

   Q. What is the number of men in America able to bear arms, or
   of disciplined militia?
   A. There are, I suppose, at least—[Question objected to. He
   withdrew. Called in again.]

   Q. Why so?
   A. The greatest part of the money must arise from lawsuits for
   the recovery of debts, and be paid by the lower sort of
   people, who were too poor easily to pay their debts. It is
   therefore a heavy tax on the poor, and a tax upon them for
   being poor.

   Q. But will not this increase of expense be a means of
   lessening the number of lawsuits?
   A. I think not; for as the costs all fall upon the debtor, and
   are to be paid by him, they would be no discouragement to the
   creditor to bring his action.

Q. Would it not have the effect of excessive usury?
A. Yes, as an oppression of the debtor.

Q. How many ships are there laden annually in North America with flax seed for Ireland? A. I cannot speak to the number of ships, but I know that in 1752, 10,000 hogsheads of flax seed, each containing seven bushels, were exported from Philadelphia to Ireland. I suppose the quantity is greatly increased since that time; and it is understood that the exportation from New York is equal to that from Philadelphia.

Q. What becomes of the flax that grows with that flax seed? A. They manufacture some into coarse, and some into a middling kind of linen.

Q. Are there any slitting mills in America? A. I think there are three, but I believe only one at present employed. I suppose they will all be set to work, if the interruption of the trade continues.

   Q. Did you never hear that a great quantity of stockings were
   contracted for, for the army, during the war, and manufactured
   in Philadelphia?
   A. I have heard so.

   Q. If the Stamp Act should be repealed, would not the
   Americans think they could oblige the parliament to repeal
   every external tax law now in force?
   A. It is hard to answer questions what people at such a
   distance will think.

   Q. But what do you imagine they will think were the motives of
   repealing the Act?
   A. I suppose they will think that it was repealed from a
   conviction of its inexpediency; and they will rely upon it,
   that while the same inexpediency subsists, you will never
   attempt to make such another.

Q. What do you mean by its inexpediency? A. I mean its inexpediency on several accounts; the poverty and inability of those who were to pay the tax; the general discontent it has occasioned; and the impracticability of enforcing it. If the Act should be repealed, and the legislature should shew its resentment to the opposers of the Stamp Act, would the colonies acquiesce in the authority of the legislature?

   Q. What is your opinion they would do?
   A. I don't doubt at all, that if the legislature repeal the
   Stamp Act, the colonies will acquiesce in the authority.

Q. But if the legislature should think fit to ascertain its right to lay taxes, by any act laying a small tax, contrary to their opinion, would they submit to pay the tax? A. The proceedings of the people in America have been considered too much together. The proceedings of the assemblies have been very different from those of the mobs, and should be distinguished, as having no connection with each other. The assemblies have only peaceably resolved what they take to be their rights; they have not built a fort, raised a man, or provided a grain of ammunition, in order to such opposition. The ringleaders of riot they think ought to be punished; they would punish them themselves, if they could. Every sober, sensible man would wish to see rioters punished, as otherwise peaceable people have no security of person or estate. But as to an internal tax, how small soever, laid by the legislature here on the people there, while they have no representatives in this legislature, I think it will never be submitted to.—They will oppose it to the last.—They do not consider it as at all necessary for you to raise money on them by your taxes, because they are, and always have been, ready to raise money by taxes among themselves, and to grant large sums, equal to their abilities, upon requisition from the crown.—They have not only granted equal to their abilities, but, during all the last war, they granted far beyond their abilities, and beyond their proportion with this country, you yourselves being judges, to the amount of many hundred thousand pounds, and this they did freely and readily, only on a sort of promise from the secretary of state, that it should be recommended to parliament to make them compensation. It was accordingly recommended to parliament, in the most honourable manner, for them. America has been greatly misrepresented and abused here, in papers, and pamphlets, and speeches, as ungrateful, and unreasonable, and unjust, in having put this nation to immense expense for their defence, and refusing to bear any part of that expense. The colonies raised, paid, and clothed, near 25,000 men during the last war, a number equal to those sent from Britain, and far beyond their proportion; they went deeply into debt in doing this, and all their taxes and estates are mortgaged, for many years to come, for discharging that debt. Government here was at that time very sensible of this; The colonies were recommended to parliament. Every year the King sent down to the House a written message to this purpose, That his Majesty, being highly sensible of the zeal and vigour with which his faithful subjects in North America had exerted themselves, in defence of his Majesty's just rights and possessions, recommended it to the House to take the same into consideration, and enable him to give them a proper compensation. You will find those messages on your own journals every year of the war to the very last, and you did accordingly give 200,000_l_. annually to the crown, to be distributed in such compensation to the colonies. This is the strongest of all proofs that the colonies, far from being unwilling to bear a share of the burden, did exceed their proportion; for if they had done less, or had only equalled their proportion, there would have been no room or reason for compensation. Indeed the sums reimbursed them, were by no means adequate to the expense they incurred beyond their proportion; but they never murmured at that; they esteemed their sovereign's approbation of their zeal and fidelity, and the approbation of this House, far beyond any other kind of compensation; therefore there was no occasion for this act, to force money from a willing people; they had not refused giving money for the purposes of the act; no requisition had been made: they were al ways willing and ready to do what could reasonably be expected from them, and in this light they wish to be considered.

   Q. But suppose Great Britain should be engaged in a war in
   Europe, would North America contribute to the support of it?
   A. I do think they would, as far as their circumstances would
   permit. They consider themselves as a part of the British
   empire, and as having one common interest with it; they may be
   looked on here as foreigners, but they do not consider
   themselves as such. They are zealous for the honour and
   prosperity of this nation, and while they are well used, will
   always be ready to support it, as far as their little power
   goes. In 1739 they were called upon to assist in the
   expedition against Carthagena, and they sent 3,000 men to join
   your army. It is true Carthagena is in America, but as remote
   from the northern colonies as if it had been in Europe. They
   make no distinction of wars, as to their duty of assisting in
   them.
{3199}
   I know the last war is commonly spoke of here as entered into
   for the defence, or for the sake of the people of America. I
   think it is quite misunderstood. It began about the limits
   between Canada and Nova Scotia, about territories to which the
   crown indeed laid claim, but were not claimed by any British
   colony; none of the lands had been granted to any colonist; we
   had therefore no particular concern or interest in that
   dispute. As to the Ohio, the contest there began about your
   right of trading in the Indian country, a right you had by the
   treaty of Utrecht, which the French infringed; they seized the
   traders and their goods, which were your manufactures; they
   took a fort which a company of your merchants, and their
   factors and correspondents, had erected there to secure that
   trade. Braddock was sent with an army to re-take that fort
   (which was looked on here as another incroachment on the
   King's territory) and to protect your trade. It was not till
   after his defeat that the colonies were attacked. They were
   before in perfect peace with both French and Indians; the
   troops were not therefore sent for their defence. The trade
   with the Indians, though carried on in America, is not an
   American interest. The people of America are chiefly farmers
   and planters; scarce any thing that they raise or produce is
   an article of commerce with the Indians. The Indian trade is a
   British interest; it is carried on with British manufactures,
   for the profit of British merchants and manufacturers;
   therefore the war, as it commenced for the defence of
   territories of the crown, the property of no American, and for
   the defence of a trade purely British, was really a British
   war—and yet the people of America made no scruple of
   contributing their utmost towards carrying it on, and bringing
   it to a happy conclusion.

   Q. Do you think then that the taking possession of the King's
   territorial rights, and strengthening the frontiers, is not an
   American interest?
   A. Not particularly, but conjointly a British and an American
   interest.

   Q. You will not deny that the preceding war, the war with
   Spain, was entered into for the sake of America; was it not
   occasioned by captures made in the American seas?
   A. Yes; captures of ships carrying on the British trade there,
   with British manufactures.

Q. Was not the late war with the Indians, since the peace with France, a war for America only? A. Yes: it was more particularly for America than the former, but it was rather a consequence or remains of the former war, the Indians not having been thoroughly pacified, and the Americans bore by much the greatest share of the expense. It was put an end to by the army under general Bouquet; there were not above 300 regulars in that army, and above 1,000 Pennsylvanians.

Q. Is it not necessary to send troops to America, to defend the Americans against the Indians? A. No, by no means; it never was necessary. They defended themselves when they were but a handful, and the Indians much more numerous. They continually gained ground, and have driven the Indians over the mountains, without any troops sent to their assistance from this country. And can it be thought necessary now to send troops for their defence from those diminished Indian tribes, when the colonies are become so populous, and so strong? There is not the least occasion for it; they are very able to defend themselves.

Q. Do you say there were no more than 300 regular troops employed in the late Indian war? A, Not on the Ohio, or the frontiers of Pennsylvania, which was the chief part of the war that affected the colonies. There were garrisons at Niagara, Fort Detroit, and those remote posts kept for the sake of your trade; I did not reckon them, but I believe that on the whole the number of Americans, or provincial troops, employed in the war, was greater than that of the regulars. I am not certain, but I think so.

Q. Do you think the assemblies have a right to levy money on the subject there, to grant to the crown? A. I certainly think so; they have always done it.

Q. Are they acquainted with the Declaration of Rights; and do they know that by that statute, money is not to be raised on the subject but by consent of parliament? A. They are very well acquainted with it.

Q. How then can they think they have a right to levy money for the crown, or for any other than local purposes? A. They understand that clause to relate to subjects only within the realm; that no money can be levied on them for the crown, but by consent of parliament. The colonies are not supposed to be within the realm; they have assemblies of their own, which are their parliaments, and they are, in that respect, in the same situation with Ireland. When money is to be raised for the crown upon the subject in Ireland, or in the colonies, the consent is given in the parliament of Ireland, or in the assemblies of the colonies. They think the parliament of Great Britain cannot properly give that consent till it has representatives from America; for the Petition of Right expressly says, it is to be by common consent in parliament, and the people of America have no representatives in parliament, to make a part of that common consent.

Q. If the Stamp Act should be repealed, and an act should pass, ordering the assemblies of the colonies to indemnify the sufferers by the riots, would they obey it? A. That is a question I cannot answer.

Q. Suppose the King should require the colonies to grant a revenue, and the parliament should be against their doing it, do they think they can grant a revenue to the King, without the consent of the parliament of Great Britain? A. That is a deep question. As to my own opinion I should think myself at liberty to do it, and should do it, if I liked the occasion.

Q, When money has been raised in the colonies, upon requisitions, has it not been granted to the King? A. Yes, always; but the requisitions have generally been for some service expressed, as to raise, clothe, and pay troops, and not for money only.

Q. If the act should pass, requiring the American Assemblies to make compensation to the sufferers, and they should disobey it, and then the parliament should, by another act, lay an internal tax, would they obey it? A. The people will pay no internal tax: and I think an act to oblige the assemblies to make compensation is unnecessary, for I am of opinion, that as soon as the present heats are abated, they will take the matter into consideration, and if it is right to be done, they will do it of themselves.

   Q. Do not letters often come into the post offices in America,
   directed into some inland town where no post goes?
   A. Yes.

   Q. Can any private person take up those letters, and carry
   them as directed?
   A. Yes; any friend of the person may do it, paying the postage
   that has accrued.

   Q. But must not he pay an additional postage for the distance
   to such an inland town?
   A. No.

   Q. Can the post-master answer delivering the letter, without
   being paid such additional postage?
   A. Certainly he can demand nothing, where he does no service.

   Q. Suppose a person, being far from home, finds a letter in a
   post office directed to him, and he lives in a place to which
   the post generally goes, and the letter is directed to that
   place, will the post-master deliver him the letter, without
   his paying the postage received at the place to which the
   letter is directed?
   A. Yes; the office cannot demand postage for a letter that it
   does not carry, or farther than it does carry it.

   Q. Are not ferrymen in America obliged, by act of parliament,
   to carry over the posts without pay?
   A. Yes.

   Q. Is not this a tax on the ferrymen?
   A. They do not consider it as such, as they have an advantage
   from persons travelling with the post.

   Q. If the Stamp Act should be repealed, and the crown should
   make a requisition to the colonies for a sum of money, would
   they grant it?
   A. I believe they would.

   Q. Why do you think so?
   A. I can speak for the colony I live in; I had it in
   instruction from the assembly to assure the ministry, that as
   they always had done, so they should always think it their
   duty to grant such aids to the crown as were suitable to their
   circumstances and abilities, whenever called upon for the
   purpose, in the usual constitutional manner; and I had the
   honour of communicating this instruction to that honorable
   gentleman then minister.

   Q. Would they do this for a British concern; as suppose a war
   in some part of Europe, that did not affect them?
   A. Yes, for any thing that concerned the general interest.
   They consider themselves as a part of the whole.

   Q. What is the usual constitutional manner of calling on the
   colonies for aids?
   A. A letter from the secretary of state.

Q. Is this all you mean, a letter from the secretary of state? A. I mean the usual way of requisition, in a circular letter from the secretary of state, by his Majesty's command, reciting the occasion, and recommending it to the colonies to grant such aids as became their loyalty, and were suitable to their abilities.

   Q. Did the secretary of state ever write for money for the
   crown?
   A. The requisitions have been to raise clothe, and pay men,
   which cannot be done without money.

   Q. Would they grant money alone, if called on?
   A. In my opinion they would, money as well as men, when they
   have money, or can procure it.

   Q. If the parliament should repeal the Stamp Act, will the
   assembly of Pennsylvania rescind their resolutions?
   A. I think not.

   Q. Before there was any thought of the Stamp Act, did they
   wish for a representation in parliament?
   A. No.

   Q. Don't you know that there is, in the Pennsylvania charter,
   an express reservation of the right of parliament to lay taxes
   there?
   A. I know there is a clause in the charter, by which the King
   grants that he will levy no taxes on the inhabitants, unless
   it be with the consent of the assembly, or by an act of
   parliament.

   Q. How then could the assembly of Pennsylvania assert, that
   laying a tax on them by the Stamp Act was an infringement of
   their rights?
   A. They understand it thus: by the same charter, and
   otherwise, they are entitled to all the privileges and
   liberties of Englishmen; they find in the Great Charters, and
   the Petition and Declaration of Rights, that one of the
   privileges of English subjects is, that they are not to be
   taxed but by their common consent; they have therefore relied
   upon it, from the first settlement of the province, that the
   parliament never would, nor could, by colour of that clause in
   the charter, assume a right of taxing them, till it had
   qualified itself to exercise such right, by admitting
   representatives from the people to be taxed, who ought to make
   a part of that common consent.

   Q. Are there any words in the charter that justify that
   construction?
   A. The common rights of Englishmen, as declared by Magna
   Charta, and the Petition of Right, all justify it.

   Q. Does the distinction between internal and external taxes
   exist in the words of the charter?
   A. No, I believe not.

Q. Then may they not, by the same interpretation, object to the parliament's right of external taxation? A. They never have hitherto. Many arguments have been lately used here to shew them that there is no difference, and that if you have no right to tax them internally, you have none to tax them externally, or make any other law to bind them. At present they do not reason so, but in time they may possibly be convinced by these arguments.

   Q. Do not the resolutions of the Pennsylvania assemblies say,
   all taxes?
   A. If they do, they mean only internal taxes; the same words
   have not always the same meaning here and in the colonies. By
   taxes they mean internal taxes; by duties they mean customs;
   these are the ideas of the language.

   Q. Have you not seen the resolutions of the Massachusetts Bay
   assembly?
   A. I have.

   Q. Do they not say, that neither external nor internal taxes
   can be laid on them by parliament?
   A. I don't know that they do; I believe not.

   Q. If the same tax should say neither tax nor imposition could
   be laid, does not that province hold the power of parliament
   can lay neither?
   A. I suppose that by the word imposition, they do not intend
   to express duties to be laid on goods imported, as regulations
   of commerce.

   Q. What can the colonies mean then by imposition as distinct
   from taxes?
   A. They may mean many things, as impressing of men, or of
   carriages, quartering troops on private houses, and the like;
   there may be great impositions that are not properly taxes.

   Q. Is not the post-office rate an internal tax laid by act of
   parliament?
   A. I have answered that.

Q. Are all parts of the colonies equally able to pay taxes? A. No, certainly; the frontier parts, which have been ravaged by the enemy, are greatly disabled by that means, and therefore, in such cases, are usually favoured in our tax laws.

Q. Can we, at this distance, be competent judges of what favours are necessary? A. The parliament have supposed it, by claiming a right to make tax laws for America; I think it impossible.

   Q. Would the repeal of the Stamp Act be any discouragement of
   your manufactures? Will the people that have begun to
   manufacture decline it?
   A. Yes, I think they will; especially if, at the same time,
   the trade is opened again, so that remittances can be easily
   made. I have known several instances that make it probable. In
   the war before last, tobacco being low, and making little
   remittance, the people of Virginia went generally into family
   manufactures. Afterwards, when tobacco bore a better price,
   they returned to the use of British manufactures. So fulling
   mills were very much disused in the last war in Pennsylvania,
   because bills were then plenty, and remittances could easily
   be made to Britain for English cloth and other goods.

   Q. If the Stamp Act should be repealed, would it induce the
   assemblies of America to acknowledge the right of parliament
   to tax them, and, would they erase their resolutions?
   A. No, never.

   Q. Is there no means of obliging them to erase those
   resolutions?
   A. None, that I know of; they will never do it, unless
   compelled by force of arms.

   Q. Is there a power on earth that can force them to erase
   them?
   A. No power, how great soever, can force men to change their
   opinions.

   Q. Do they consider the post office as a tax, or as a
   regulation?
   A. Not as a tax, but as a regulation and conveniency; every
   assembly encouraged it, and supported it in its infancy, by
   grants of money, which they would not otherwise have done; and
   the people have always paid the postage.

   Q. When did you receive the instructions you mentioned?
   A. I brought them with me, when I came to England, about 15
   months since.

   Q. When did you communicate that instruction to the minister?
   A. Soon after my arrival, while the stamping of America was
   under consideration, and before the Bill was brought in.

   Q. Would it be most for the interest of Great Britain, to
   employ the hands of Virginia in tobacco, or in manufactures?
   A. In tobacco, to be sure.

   Q. What used to be the pride of the Americans?
   A. To indulge in the fashions and manufactures of Great
   Britain.

   Q. What is now their pride?
   A. To wear their old clothes over again, till they can make
   new ones.

"Mr. Sparks very justly says that there was no event in Franklin's life more creditable to his talents and character, or which gave him so much celebrity, as this examination before the House of Commons. His further statement, however, that Franklin's answers were given without premeditation and without knowing beforehand the nature or form of the question that was to be put, is a little too sweeping. In a memorandum which Franklin gave to a friend who wished to know by whom the several questions were put, he admitted that many were put by friends to draw out in answer the substance of what he had before said upon the subject."

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1766.
   The repeal of the Stamp Act and passage of the
   Declaratory Act.
   Speech of Pitt.

"The Grenville Ministry had fallen in July [1765], and had been succeeded by that of Rockingham; and Conway, who had been one of the few opponents of the Stamp Act, was now Secretary of State for the Colonies. … The Stamp Act had contributed nothing to the downfall of Grenville; it attracted so little attention that it was only in the last days of 1765 or the first days, of 1766 that the new ministers learnt the views of Pitt upon the subject; it was probably a complete surprise to them to learn that it had brought the colonies to the verge of rebellion, and in the first months of their power they appear to have been quite uncertain what policy they would pursue. … Parliament met on December 17, 1765, and the attitude of the different parties was speedily disclosed. A powerful Opposition, led by Grenville and Bedford, strenuously urged that no relaxation or indulgence should be granted to the colonists. … Pitt, on the other hand, rose from his sick-bed, and in speeches of extraordinary eloquence, and which produced an amazing effect on both sides of the Atlantic, he justified the resistance of the colonists."

W. E. H. Lecky, History of England in the 18th Century, chapter 12 (volume 3).

The following is the main part of the speech delivered by Pitt (not yet made Lord Chatham) on the 14th of January, 1766, as imperfectly reported: "It is my opinion, that this kingdom has no right to lay a tax upon the colonies. At the same time, I assert the authority of this kingdom over the colonies to be sovereign and supreme, in every circumstance of government and legislation whatsoever. They are the subjects of this kingdom; equally entitled with yourselves to all the natural rights of mankind and the peculiar privileges of Englishmen; equally bound by its laws, and equally participating in the constitution of this free country, The Americans are the sons, not the bastards of England! Taxation is no part of the governing or legislative power. The taxes are a voluntary gift and grant of the Commons alone. In legislation the three estates of the realm are alike concerned; but the concurrence of the peers and the Crown to a tax is only necessary to clothe it with the form of a law. The gift and grant is of the Commons alone. … When … in this House, we give and grant, we give and grant what is our own. But in an American tax, what do we do? 'We, your Majesty's Commons for Great Britain, give and grant to your Majesty'—what? Our own property! No! 'We give and grant to your Majesty' the property of your Majesty's Commons of America! It is an absurdity in terms. … There is an idea in some that the colonies are virtually represented in the House. I would fain know by whom an American is represented here. Is he represented by any knight of the shire, in any county in this kingdom? Would to God that respectable representation was augmented to a greater number! Or will you tell him that he is represented by any representative of a borough? a borough which, perhaps, its own representatives never saw! This is what is called the rotten part of the Constitution. It cannot continue a century. If it does not drop, it must be amputated. The idea of a virtual representation of America in this House is the most contemptible idea that ever entered into the head of a man. It does not deserve a serious refutation. The Commons of America represented in their several assemblies, have ever been in the possession of this, their constitutional right, of giving and granting their own money. {3202} They would have been slaves if they had not enjoyed it! At the same time, this kingdom, as the supreme governing and legislative power, has always bound the colonies by her laws, by her regulations, and restrictions in trade, in navigation, in manufactures, in every thing, except that of taking their money out of their pockets without their consent. Here I would draw the line. … Gentlemen, sir, have been charged with giving birth to sedition in America. They have spoken their sentiments with freedom against this unhappy act, and that freedom has become their crime. Sorry I am to hear the liberty of speech in this House imputed as a crime. But the imputation shall not discourage me. It is a liberty I mean to exercise. No gentleman ought to be afraid to exercise it. It is a liberty by which the gentleman who calumniates it might have profited. He ought to have desisted from his project. The gentleman tells us America is obstinate; America almost in open rebellion. I rejoice that America has resisted. Three millions of people, so dead to all the feelings of liberty as voluntarily to submit to be slaves, would have been fit instruments to make slaves of the rest. … Since the accession of King William, many ministers, some of great, others of more moderate abilities, have taken the lead of government. … None of these thought or even dreamed, of robbing the colonies of their constitutional rights. That was reserved to mark the era of the late administration. Not that there were wanting some, when I had the honor to serve his Majesty, to propose to me to burn my fingers with an American stamp act. With the enemy at their back, with our bayonets at their breasts, in the day of their distress, perhaps the Americans would have submitted to the imposition; but it would have been taking an ungenerous, an unjust advantage. The gentleman boasts of his bounties to America! Are not these bounties intended finally for the benefit of this kingdom? If they are not, he has misapplied the national treasures! I am no courtier of America. I stand up for this kingdom. I maintain that the Parliament has a right to bind, to restrain America. Our legislative power over the colonies is sovereign and supreme. I would advise every gentleman to sell his lands, if he can, and embark for that country. When two countries are connected together like England and her colonies, without being incorporated, the one must necessarily govern. The greater must rule the less. But she must so rule it as not to contradict the fundamental principles that are common to both. … The gentleman asks, When were the colonies emancipated? I desire to know, when were they made slaves? But I dwell not upon words. When I had the honor of serving his Majesty, I availed myself of the means of information which I derived from my office. I speak, therefore, from knowledge. My materials were good. I was at pains to collect, to digest, to consider them; and I will be bold to affirm, that the profits to Great Britain from the trade of the colonies through all its branches, is two millions a year. This is the fund that carried you triumphantly through the last war. The estates that were rented at two thousand pounds a year, three-score years ago, are at three thousand at present. Those estates sold then from fifteen to eighteen years purchase; the same may now be sold for thirty. You owe this to America. This is the price America pays you for her protection. And shall a miserable financier come with a boast, that he can bring 'a pepper-corn' into the exchequer by the loss of millions to the nation? I dare not say how much higher these profits may be augmented. … I am convinced on other grounds that the commercial system of America may be altered to advantage. You have prohibited where you ought to have encouraged. You have encouraged where you ought to have prohibited. Improper restraints have been laid on the continent in favor of the islands. You have but two nations to trade with in America. Would you had twenty! Let acts of Parliament in consequence of treaties remain; but let not an English minister become a custom-house officer for Spain, or for any foreign power. Much is wrong! Much may be amended for the general good of the whole! … A great deal has been said without doors of the power, of the strength of America. It is a topic that ought to be cautiously meddled with. In a good cause, on a sound bottom, the force of this country can crush America to atoms. I know the valor of your troops. I know the skill of your officers. There is not a company of foot that has served in America, out of which you may not pick a man of sufficient knowledge and experience to make a governor of a colony there. But on this ground, on the Stamp Act, which so many here will think a crying injustice, I am one who will lift up my hands against it. In such a cause your success would be hazardous. America, if she fell, would fall like the strong man; she would embrace the pillars of the State, and pull down the Constitution along with her. Is this your boasted peace—not to sheathe the sword in its scabbard, but to sheathe it in the bowels of your countrymen? … The Americans have not acted in all things with prudence and temper: they have been wronged: they have been driven to madness by injustice. Will you punish them for the madness you have occasioned? Rather let prudence and temper come first from this side. I will undertake for America that she will follow the example. … Upon the whole I will beg leave to tell the House what is my opinion. It is that the Stamp Act be repealed absolutely, totally and immediately. That the reason for the repeal be assigned, viz., because it was founded on an erroneous principle. At the same time, let the sovereign authority of this country over the colonies be asserted in as strong terms as can be devised, and be made to extend to every point of legislation whatsoever; that we may bind their trade, confine their manufactures, and exercise every power whatsoever except that of taking their money out of their pockets without their consent."

   The views of Pitt "were defended in the strongest terms by
   Lord Camden, who pledged his great legal reputation to the
   doctrine that taxation is not included under the general right
   of legislation, and that taxation and representation are
   morally inseparable. … The task of the ministers in dealing
   with this question was extremely difficult. The great majority
   of them desired ardently the repeal of the Stamp Act; but the
   wishes of the King, the abstention of Pitt, and the divided
   condition of parties had compelled Rockingham to include in
   his Government Charles Townshend, Barrington, and Northington,
   who were all strong advocates of the taxation of America. …
{3203}
   In addition to all these difficulties the ministers had to
   deal with the exasperation which was produced in Parliament by
   the continual outrages and insults to which all who
   represented the English Government in America were exposed.
   Their policy consisted of two parts. They asserted in the
   strongest and most unrestricted form the sovereignty of the
   British Legislature, first of all by resolutions and then by a
   Declaratory Act affirming the right of Parliament to make laws
   binding the British colonies 'in all cases whatsoever,' and
   condemning as unlawful the votes of the colonial Assemblies
   which had denied to Parliament the right of taxing them. Side
   by side with this measure they brought in a bill repealing the
   Stamp Act. … The great and manifest desire of the commercial
   classes throughout England had much weight; the repeal was
   carried [March, 1766] through the House of Commons, brought up
   by no less than 200 members to the Lords, and finally carried
   amid the strongest expressions of public joy. Burke described
   it as 'an event that caused more universal joy throughout the
   British dominions than perhaps any other that can be
   remembered.'"

      W. E. H. Lecky,
      History of England in the 18th Century,
      chapter 12 (volume 3).

"The liberal Rockingham administration, after a few months of power, disappeared [July, 1766], having signalized itself as regarded America by the repeal of the Stamp Act, and by the Declaratory Act. Of the new ministry the leading spirit was Charles Townshend, a brilliant statesman, but unscrupulous and unwise. His inclinations were arbitrary; he regretted the repeal of the Stamp Act, as did also the king and Parliament in general, who felt themselves to have been humiliated. Pitt, indeed, now Earl of Chatham, was a member of the government; but, oppressed by illness, he could exercise no restraint upon his colleague, and the other members were either in sympathy with Townshend's views, or unable to oppose him. Townshend's three measures affecting America, introduced on the 13th of May, 1767, were: a suspension of the functions of the legislature of New York for contumacy in the treatment of the royal troops; the establishment of commissioners of the customs, appointed with large powers to superintend laws relating to trade; and lastly an impost duty upon glass, red and white lead, painters' colors, paper, and tea [see ENGLAND: A. D. 1765-1768]. This was an 'external' duty to which the colonists had heretofore expressed a willingness to submit; but the grounds of the dispute were shifting. Townshend had declared that he held in contempt the distinction sought to be drawn between external and internal taxes, but that he would so far humor the colonists in their quibble as to make his tax of that kind of which the right was admitted. A revenue of £40,000 a year was expected from the tax, which was to be applied to the support of a 'civil list,' namely, the paying the salaries of the new commissioners of customs, and of the judges and governors, who were to be relieved wholly or in part from their dependence upon the annual grants of the Assemblies; then, if a surplus remained, it was to go to the payment of troops for protecting the colonies. To make more efficient, moreover, the enforcement of the revenue laws, the writs of assistance, the denunciation of which by James Otis had formed so memorable a crisis, were formally legalized. The popular discontent, appeased by the repeal of the Stamp Act, was at once awake again, and henceforth in the denial of the right of Parliament to tax, we hear no more of acquiescence in commercial restrictions and in the general legislative authority of Parliament. … The plan for resistance adopted by the cooler heads was that of Samuel Adams, namely, the non-importation and the non-consumption of British products. From Boston out, through an impulse proceeding from him, town-meetings were everywhere held to encourage the manufactures of the Province and reduce the use of superfluities, long lists of which were enumerated. Committees were appointed everywhere to procure subscriptions to agreements looking to the furtherance of home industries and the disuse of foreign products. … Before the full effects of the new legislation could be seen, Townshend suddenly died; but in the new ministry that was presently formed Lord North came to the front, and adopted the policy of his predecessor, receiving in this course the firm support of the king, whose activity and interest were so great in public affairs that he 'became his own minister.'"

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1767-1768.
   The Farmer's Letters of John Dickinson.
   The Circular Letter of Massachusetts,
   and the "Unrescinding Ninety-two."

"The English ministry was probably misled by the strong emphasis which had been laid here during the controversies concerning the Stamp Act upon the alleged distinction between external and internal taxation. We had refused to submit to the latter, but admitted that the former might be binding upon the whole empire as a commercial regulation. In form the duties levied on paints, glass, tea, etc., were undoubtedly such a regulation, but it was at once contended here that, in point of fact and of principle, this was as much an exercise of the alleged right of Parliamentary taxation for the purpose of raising a revenue for imperial purposes as the Stamp Act itself. Although it was passed by the opponents of the Stamp Act, and by the Rockingham ministry, who professed to be our friends, the act met at once with opposition here. Late in October, 1767, it was denounced by a public meeting in Boston, which suggested a non-importation agreement as the best means of rendering its operations ineffective. These agreements were favorite expedients for manifesting political discontent in those days, but, as they were voluntary, their obligation sat somewhat loosely upon those who signed them. The truth is, that those who were most decided in opposition to the course of the ministry were somewhat puzzled as to the plan they should adopt to exhibit the earnestness of their discontent. … While the leaders of the opposition throughout the country were doubtful and hesitating, there appeared in the Pennsylvania Chronicle for the 2d of December, 1767, the first of a series of letters on the political situation, afterwards known as the 'Farmer's Letters.' {3204} … The letters, fourteen in number, followed one another in quick succession, and they were read by men of all classes and opinions throughout the continent as no other work of a political kind had been hitherto read in America. It was, of course, soon known that John Dickinson was their author, and people remembered that he was the person who had formulated what was a genuine Bill of Rights in the Stamp Act Congress. The more these letters were read, the more convinced people became that in the comprehensive survey they took of our political relations with the mother-country, especially as these were affected by the last obnoxious act of Parliament, and in the plans which were proposed to remedy the evil, Mr. Dickinson had struck the true key-note of the opposition to the ministerial measures. He appeared at this crisis, as he did in the Stamp Act Congress, as the leader and guide in the controversy. From this time until the Declaration of Independence the Pennsylvania idea, which was embodied by Mr. Dickinson in these Farmer's Letters, 'controlled the destinies of the country;' and Mr. Bancroft only does justice to Mr. Dickinson's position when he recognizes fully his commanding influence during that period. We may say with pardonable pride (and it is one of those truths which many of our historians have managed in various ways to relegate to obscurity), that, as the leading spirit in the Stamp Act Congress, Dickinson gave form and color to the agitation in this country which brought about the repeal of that act, and that the arguments by which the claim of the ministry to tax us for revenue by such an act of Parliament as that levying duties on glass, paints, etc. was answered in the 'Farmer's Letters' first convinced the whole body of our countrymen, groping blindly for a cure for their grievances, that there was a legal remedy, and then forced the ministry to consent in a measure to the demand for a repeal of some of its most obnoxious provisions. It is worth remarking that when the ministry yielded at all it yielded to argument, and not to the boastful threats which were so common. The 'Farmer's Letters' gave courage and force to those who in February denounced the law in Pennsylvania; they formed the mainspring of the movement which resulted in the circular letter sent by the legislature of Massachusetts on the 17th of that month to the Assemblies of the other Colonies; in short, they had the rare good fortune not only of convincing those who suffered that the remedy was in their own hands, but also of pursuading those who had the power to abandon, or at least to modify their arbitrary measures. … Mr. Dickinson begins these grave essays with an air of simplicity as charming as it is calculated to attract the attention of the reader. 'I am a farmer,' he says, 'settled, after a variety of fortunes, near the banks of the river Delaware, in the Province of Pennsylvania. I received a liberal education, and have been engaged in the busy scenes of life, but am now convinced that a man may be as happy without bustle as with it. Being generally master of my time, I spend a good deal of it in my library, which I think the most valuable part of my small estate. I have acquired, I believe, a greater knowledge of history and of the laws and constitution of my country than is generally attained by men of my class,' etc. He then explains the nature of the controversy with the mother-country, making it so clear that the points in dispute are comprehensible by a child. … As to our method of asserting our rights, he says, with an elevation of sentiment which reminds one of Edmund Burke more than of any other political writer, 'The cause of liberty is a cause of too much dignity to be sullied by turbulence and tumult. It ought to be maintained in a manner suitable to her nature. Those who engage in it should breathe a sedate yet fervent spirit, animating them to actions of prudence, justice, modesty, bravery, humanity, and magnanimity.' He shrinks, evidently with terror, from speaking of what may be the consequences of the persistent refusal of England to change her oppressive measures. … After showing in the most striking manner the nature of our wrongs, the letters turn gladly to the remedy that lies open to us. That remedy is based upon a cultivation of the spirit of conciliation on both sides, and Mr. Dickinson urges again and again upon his English readers the folly of their policy, by showing them the value of the American Colonies to them, and especially how the trade and wealth of the English merchants are bound up in the adoption of a liberal policy towards us. This is one of the most interesting and important topics discussed in these letters, and the subject is treated with elaborate skill, leading to convincing conclusions drawn from our history. It must not be forgotten that prior to the Revolution an impression widely prevailed among the most thoughtful of our own people, as well as among our friends in England, that if the English people could be made to understand the frightful losses they would suffer in case of a war in which we should be fighting for our independence, or even during a short interruption of the trade between the two countries, they would force the government to yield rather than run the risk of the consequences. … Even Dr. Franklin in London, who had had so many proofs of the indifference and contempt with which the representations of the Colonies in England were regarded … thought the appeal of the Farmer to Englishmen so irresistible that, although no friend of Dickinson's, he arranged that these letters should be reprinted in London."

   In February, 1768, "the Legislature of Massachusetts sent a
   Circular Letter [ascribed to Samuel Adams] to the Assemblies
   of the other colonies, in which was set forth the necessity of
   all acting together harmoniously, and of freely communicating
   the mind of each to the others. The course Massachusetts had
   pursued was described, with the contents of the petition and
   letters which had been written, and with the hope expressed
   that she would have their cordial co-operation in resistance
   to the ministerial measures. The notion that political
   independence was aimed at was strenuously denied, and the
   trust was entertained that what had been done would meet the
   approval of their 'common head and father,' and that the
   liberties of the colonies would be confirmed. This letter
   elicited response from some, others returned none officially,
   but all who answered replied favorably. It gave, however, the
   greatest offence to the ministry, and particularly to Lord
   Hillsborough, the Secretary of State for the Colonies.
{3205}
   It seems that he read it entirely by the light which a letter
   from Governor Bernard to Lord Barrington had shed upon it.
   This epistle declared the real motive of the colonies to be a
   determination to be independent. Hillsborough, filled with
   this idea, communicated it to the other members of the
   cabinet, and thus the Circular Letter was laid before them,
   prejudged. It was determined that it merited consideration,
   but that the only notice to be given it should be one of
   censure, and, on the spur of the moment, they resolved upon
   two things: to require the Massachusetts Assembly to rescind
   the Letter, and to require the other legislatures before whom
   it had been laid to reject it. This was done, and the
   consequences were, that the General Court, or Legislature, of
   Massachusetts voted, by ninety-two to seventeen, that they
   would do nothing of the kind, and that the other legislatures
   gave the outcast a hearty welcome. As for the people, they
   showed their approval of their representatives by toasting,
   from one end of the country to the other, 'The unrescinding
   Ninety-two,' with whom was coupled the number Forty-five, or
   that of the famous' North Briton'; while the Bostonians added
   fuel to the flame by a riot on the score of the sloop Liberty,
   in which they attacked the houses of the Commissioners of the
   Customs, and made a bonfire of the Collector's boat. Shortly
   afterward, (but not by reason of the riot), four ships of war
   anchored in Boston harbor, and two regiments of soldiers were
   quartered on the town."

      E. G. Scott,
      The Development of Constitutional Liberty,
      chapter 10 (with corrections by the author).

      ALSO IN:
      R. Frothingham,
      The Rise of the Republic of the United States,
      chapter 6.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1768-1770.
The quartering of troops in Boston.
The Massacre, and the removal of the troops.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1769.
Massachusetts threatened, and Virginia roused to her support.

"The proceedings in Massachusetts attracted in England the greatest attention, elicited the severest comment, and, because a military force had been ordered to Boston to support the stand of the administration, created the greatest solicitude. … The king, on opening parliament, characterized the action of Boston as a subversion of the Constitution and evincing a disposition to throw off dependence on Great Britain. The indictment against the colonies was presented in sixty papers laid before parliament. Both Houses declared that the proceedings of the Massachusetts assembly in opposition to the revenue acts were unconstitutional, and derogatory to the rights of the crown and the parliament; that the Circular Letter tended to create unlawful combinations; that the call of a convention by the selectmen of Boston was proof of a design of setting up an independent authority; and both Houses proposed to transport the originators of the obnoxious proceedings to England for trial and condign punishment, under the cover of an obsolete act of Henry VIII. … The administration determined to make an example of Massachusetts, as the ring-leading province in political mischief, by transporting its popular leaders to England to be tried for their lives in the king's bench. Such was the purport of an elaborate despatch which Lord Hillsborough sent to Governor Bernard, directing an inquiry to be instituted into the conduct of any persons who had committed any overt act of resistance to the laws. … Thus a great issue was created that affected all the colonies. … There was no adequate step taken to meet the threatened aggression until the House of Burgesses of Virginia convened in May."

"On the day of the prorogation of parliament [May 9, 1769] the legislature of Virginia assembled at Williamsburg. Great men were there; some who were among the greatest—Washington, Patrick Henry, and, for the first time, Jefferson. Botetourt [the governor], who opened the session in state, was in perfect harmony with the council, received from the house of burgesses a most dutiful address, and entertained fifty-two guests at his table on the first day, and as many more on the second. … But the assembly did not forget its duty, and devised a measure which became the example for the continent. It claimed the sole right of imposing taxes on the inhabitants of Virginia. With equal unanimity, it asserted the lawfulness and expediency of a concert of the colonies in defence of the violated rights of America. It laid bare the flagrant tyranny of applying to America the obsolete statute of Henry VIII.; and it warned the king of 'the dangers that would ensue' if any person in any part of America should be seized and carried beyond sea for trial. It consummated its work by communicating its resolutions to every legislature in America, and asking their concurrence. The resolves were concise, simple, and effective; so calm in manner and so perfect in substance that time finds no omission to regret, no improvement to suggest. The menace of arresting patriots lost its terrors; and Virginia's declaration and action consolidated union. … The next morning, the assembly had just time to adopt an address to the king, when the governor summoned them, and said: 'I have heard of your resolves, and augur ill of their effects; you have made it my duty to dissolve you, and you are dissolved accordingly.' Upon this, the burgesses met together as patriots and friends, with their speaker as moderator. They adopted the resolves which "Washington had brought with him from Mount Vernon, and which formed a well-digested, stringent, and practicable scheme of non-importation, until all the 'unconstitutional' revenue acts should be repealed. … The voice of the Old Dominion roused the merchants of Pennsylvania to approve what had been done. The assembly of Delaware adopted the Virginia resolves word for word; and every colony south of Virginia followed the example."

      G. Bancroft,
      History of the United States (Author's last revision),
      pages 347-348.

      ALSO IN:
      W. Irving,
      Life of Washington,
      volume 1, chapter 29.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1770.
Repeal of the Townshend duties except on Tea.

   On the 5th of March, 1770—the same day on which the tragical
   encounter of the king's troops with citizens of Boston
   occurred—Lord North introduced a motion in Parliament for the
   partial repeal of Townshend's revenue act; "not on the
   petitions of America, because they were marked by a denial of
   the right, but on one from merchants and traders of London.
   'The subject,' said he, 'is of the highest importance.
{3206}
   The combinations and associations of the Americans for the
   temporary interruption of trade have already been called
   unwarrantable in an address of this house; I will call them
   insolent and illegal. The duties upon paper, glass, and
   painters' colors bear upon the manufacturers of this country,
   and ought to be taken off. It was my intention to have
   extended the proposal to the removal of the other duties; but
   the Americans have not deserved indulgence. The preamble to
   the act and the duty on tea must be retained, as a mark of the
   supremacy of parliament and the efficient declaration of its
   right to govern the colonies.' … Thomas Pownall moved the
   repeal of the duty on tea. The house of commons, like Lord
   North in his heart, was disposed to do the work of
   conciliation thoroughly. … Had the king's friends remained
   neutral, the duty on tea would have been repealed; with all
   their exertions, in a full house, the majority for retaining
   it was but 62. Lord North seemed hardly satisfied with his
   success; and reserved to himself liberty to accede to the
   repeal, on some agreement with the East India Company. The
   decision came from the king."

      G. Bancroft,
      History of the United States
      (Author's last revision),
      volume 3, pages 381-382.

      ALSO IN:
      Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
      History of England, 1713-1783,
      chapter 48 (volume 5.)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1771.
Suppression of the Regulators of North Carolina.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1772.
The Watauga Association.
The founding of the State of Tennessee.

"One of the first overt acts of resistance that took place in this celebrated struggle [in the war of independence] occurred in 1772, in the waters of Rhode Island. A vessel of war had been stationed on the coast to enforce the laws, and a small schooner, with a light armament and twenty-seven men, called the Gaspé, was employed as a tender, to run into the shallow waters of that coast. On the 17th of June, 1772, a Providence packet, that plied between New York and Rhode Island, named the Hannah, and commanded by a Captain Linzee, hove in sight of the man-of-war, on her passage up the bay. The Hannah was ordered to heave-to, in order to be examined; but her master refused to comply; and being favoured by a fresh southerly breeze, that was fast sweeping him out of gunshot, the Gaspé was signalled to follow. The chase continued for five-and-twenty miles, under a press of sail, when the Hannah coming up with a bar, with which her master was familiar, and drawing less water than the schooner, Captain Linzee led the latter on a shoal, where she struck. The tide falling, the Gaspé … was not in a condition to be removed for several hours. The news of the chase was circulated on the arrival of the Hannah at Providence. A strong feeling was excited among the population, and towards evening the town drummer appeared in the streets, assembling the people in the ordinary manner. As soon as a crowd was collected, the drummer led his followers in front of a shed that stood near one of the stores, when a man disguised as an Indian suddenly appeared on the roof, and proclaimed a secret expedition for that night, inviting all of 'stout hearts' to assemble on the wharf, precisely at nine, disguised like himself. At the appointed hour, most of the men in the place collected at the spot designated, when sixty-four were selected for the bold undertaking that was in view. This party embarked in eight of the launches of the different vessels lying at the wharves, and taking with them a quantity of paving stones, they pulled down the river in a body. … On nearing the Gaspé, about two in the morning, the boats were hailed by a sentinel on deck. This man was driven below by a volley of the stones. The commander of the Gaspé now appeared, and ordering the boats off, he fired a pistol at them. This discharge was returned from a musket, and the officer was shot through the thigh. By this time, the crew of the Gaspé had assembled, and the party from Providence boarded. The conflict was short, the schooner's people being soon knocked down and secured. All on board were put into the boats, and the Gaspé was set on fire. Towards morning she blew up."

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1772-1173.
The instituting of the Committees of Correspondence.
The Tea Ships and "the Boston Tea-Party."

"The surest way to renew and cement the union [of the colonies] was to show that the ministry had not relaxed in its determination to enforce the principal of the Townshend acts. This was made clear in August, 1772, when it was ordered that in Massachusetts the judges should henceforth be paid by the crown. Popular excitement rose to fever heat, and the judges were threatened with impeachment should they dare accept a penny from the royal treasury. The turmoil was increased next year by the discovery in London of the package of letters which were made to support the unjust charge against Hutchinson and some of his friends that they had instigated and aided the most extreme measures of the ministry. In the autumn of 1772 Hutchinson refused to call an extra session of the assembly to consider what should be done about the judges. Samuel Adams then devised a scheme by which the towns of Massachusetts could consult with each other and agree upon some common course of action in case of emergencies. For this purpose each town was to appoint a standing committee, and as a great part of their work was necessarily done by letter they were called 'committees of correspondence.' This was the step that fairly organized the Revolution."

"The town records of Boston [November 2, 1772] say:— 'It was then moved by Mr. Samuel Adams that a Committee of Correspondence be appointed, to consist of twenty-one persons, to state the rights of the colonists and of this Province in particular as men and Christians and as subjects; and to communicate and publish the same to the several towns and to the world as the sense of this town, with the infringements and violations thereof that have been or from time to time may be made.' The motion occasioned some debate and seems to have been carried late at night; the vote in its favor, at last, was nearly unanimous. The colleagues of Adams, who had left him almost alone thus far, now declined to become members of the committee, regarding the scheme as useless or trifling. The committee was at last constituted without them; it was made up of men of little prominence but of thorough respectability. James Otis, in another interval of sanity, was made chairman, a position purely honorary, the town in this way showing its respect for the leader whose misfortunes they so sincerely mourned. {3207} The Committee of Correspondence held its first meeting in the representatives' chamber at the town-house, November 3, 1772, where at the outset each member pledged himself to observe secrecy as to their transactions, except those which, as a committee, they should think it proper to divulge. According to the motion by which the committee was constituted, three duties were to be performed: 1st, the preparation of a statement of the rights of the colonists, as men, as Christians, and as subjects; 2d, a declaration of the infringement and violation of those rights; 3d, a letter to be sent to the several towns of the Province and to the world, giving the sense of the town. The drafting of the first was assigned to Samuel Adams, of the second to Joseph Warren, of the third to Benjamin Church. In a few days tidings came from the important towns of Marblehead, Roxbury, Cambridge, and Plymouth, indicating that the example of Boston was making impression and was likely to be followed. On November 20, at a town-meeting in Faneuil Hall, the different papers were presented: Otis sat as moderator, appearing for the last time in a sphere where his career had been so magnificent. The report was in three divisions, according to the motion. … In the last days of 1772, the document, having been printed, was transmitted to those for whom it had been intended, producing at once an immense effect. The towns almost unanimously appointed similar committees; from every quarter came replies in which the sentiments of Samuel Adams were echoed. In the library of Bancroft is a volume of manuscripts, worn and stained by time, which have an interest scarcely inferior to that possessed by the Declaration of Independence itself, as the fading page hangs against its pillar in the library of the State Department at Washington. They are the original replies sent by the Massachusetts towns to Samuel Adams's committee sitting in Faneuil Hall, during those first months of 1773. One may well read them with bated breath, for it is the touch of the elbow as the stout little democracies dress up into line, just before they plunge into actual fight at Concord and Bunker Hill. There is sometimes a noble scorn of the restraints of orthography, as of the despotism of Great Britain, in the work of the old town clerks, for they generally were secretaries of the committees; and once in a while a touch of Dogberry's quaintness, as the punctilious officials, though not always 'putting God first,' yet take pains that there shall be no mistake as to their piety by making every letter in the name of the Deity a rounded capital. Yet the documents ought to inspire the deepest reverence. They constitute the highest mark the town-meeting has ever touched. Never before and never since have Anglo-Saxon men, in lawful folk-mote assembled, given utterance to thoughts and feelings so fine in themselves and so pregnant with great events. To each letter stand affixed the names of the committee in autograph. This awkward scrawl was made by the rough fist of a Cape Ann fisherman, on shore for the day to do at town-meeting the duty his fellows had laid upon him: the hand that wrote this other was cramped from the scythe-handle, as its possessor mowed an intervale on the Connecticut; this blotted signature, where smutted fingers have left a black stain, was written by a blacksmith of Middlesex, turning aside a moment from forging a barrel that was to do duty at Lexington. They were men of the plainest; but as the documents containing statements of the most generous principles find the most courageous determination, were read in the town-houses, the committees who produced them, and the constituents for whom the committees stood, were lifted above the ordinary level. Their horizon expanded to the broadest; they had in view not simply themselves, but the welfare of the continent; not solely their own generation, but remote posterity. It was Samuel Adams's own plan, the consequences of which no one foresaw, neither friend nor foe. Even Hutchinson, who was scarcely less keen than Samuel Adams himself, was completely at fault. 'Such a foolish scheme,' he called it, 'that the faction must necessarily make themselves ridiculous.' But in January the eyes of men were opening. One of the ablest of the Tories, Daniel Leonard, wrote:—'This is the foulest, subtlest, and most venomous serpent ever issued from the egg of sedition. I saw the small seed when it was implanted; it was a grain of mustard. I have watched the plant until it has become a great tree.' It was the transformation into a strong cord of what had been a rope of sand."

   "In the spring of 1773, Virginia carried this work of
   organization a long step further, when Dabney Carr suggested
   and carried a motion calling for committees of correspondence
   between the several colonies. From this point it was a
   comparatively short step to a permanent Continental Congress.
   It happened that these preparations were made just in time to
   meet the final act of aggression which brought on the
   Revolutionary War. The Americans had thus far successfully
   resisted the Townshend acts and secured the repeal of all the
   duties except on tea. As for tea they had plenty, but not from
   England; they smuggled it from Holland in spite of
   custom-houses and search-warrants. Clearly unless the
   Americans could be made to buy tea from England and pay the
   duty on it, the king must own himself defeated. Since it
   appeared that they could not be forced into doing this, it
   remained to be seen if they could be tricked into doing it. A
   truly ingenious scheme was devised. Tea sent by the East India
   Company to America had formerly paid a duty in some British
   port on the way. This duty was now taken off, so that the
   price of the tea for America might be lowered. The company's
   tea thus became so cheap that the American merchant could buy
   a pound of it and pay the threepence duty beside for less than
   it cost him to smuggle a pound of tea from Holland. It was
   supposed that the Americans would of course buy the tea which
   they could get most cheaply, and would thus be beguiled into
   submission to that principle of taxation which they had
   hitherto resisted. Ships laden with tea were accordingly sent
   in the autumn of 1773 to Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and
   Charleston; and consignees were appointed to receive the tea
   in each of these towns. Under the guise of a commercial
   operation, this was purely a political trick.
{3208}
   It was an insulting challenge to the American people, and
   merited the reception which they gave it. They would have
   shown themselves unworthy of their rich political heritage had
   they given it any other. In New York, Philadelphia, and
   Charleston mass-meetings of the people voted that the
   consignees should be ordered to resign their offices, and they
   did so. At Philadelphia the tea-ship was met and sent back to
   England before it had come within the jurisdiction of the
   custom-house. At Charleston the tea was landed, and as there
   was no one to receive it or pay the duty, it was thrown into a
   damp cellar and left there to spoil. In Boston things took a
   different turn."

"Acting upon the precedent of the time of the Stamp Act, when Oliver, the stamp commissioner, had resigned his commission under the Liberty Tree, a placard was posted everywhere on the 3d of November, inviting the people of Boston and the neighboring towns to be present at Liberty Tree that day at noon, to witness the resignation of the consignees of the tea, and hear them swear to re-ship to London what teas should arrive. The placard closed,—'Show me the man that dares take this town.' At the time appointed, representatives Adams, Hancock, and Phillips, the selectmen and town clerk, with about five hundred more, were present at the Liberty Tree. But no consignees arrived, whereupon Molineux and Warren headed a party who waited upon them. The consignees, Clarke, a rich merchant, and his sons, Benjamin Faneuil, Winslow, and the two sons of Hutchinson, Thomas and Elisha, sat together in the counting-house of Clarke in King Street. Admittance was refused the committee, and a conversation took place through a window, during which the tone of the consignees was defiant. There was some talk of violence, and when an attempt was made to exclude the committee and the crowd attending them from the building, into the first story of which they had penetrated, the doors were taken off their binges and threats uttered. Molineux, generally impetuous enough, but now influenced probably by cooler heads, dissuaded the others from violence. … A town-meeting on November 5, in which an effort of the Tories to make head against the popular feeling came to naught, showed how overwhelming was the determination to oppose the introduction of the tea. … When news arrived on the 17th that three tea-ships were on the way to Boston, for a second time a town-meeting demanded through a committee, of which Samuel Adams was a member, the resignation of the consignees. They evaded the demand; the town-meeting voted their answer not satisfactory, and at once adjourned without debate or comment. The silence was mysterious; what was impending none could tell. … On the 28th, the first of the tea-ships, the Dartmouth, Captain Hall, sailed into the harbor. Sunday though it was, the Committee of Correspondence met, obtained from Benjamin Rotch, the Quaker owner of the Dartmouth, a promise not to enter the vessel until Tuesday, and made preparations for a mass-meeting at Faneuil Hall for Monday forenoon, to which Samuel Adams was authorized to invite the surrounding towns. A stirring placard the next morning brought the townsmen and their neighbors to the place. After the organization, Samuel Adams, arising among the thousands, moved that: 'As the town have determined at a late meeting legally assembled that they will to the utmost of their power prevent the landing of the tea, the question be now put,—whether this body are absolutely determined that the tea now arrived in Captain Hall shall be returned to the place from whence it came.' There was not a dissenting voice. … In the afternoon, the meeting having resolved that the tea should go back in the same ship in which it had come, Rotch, the owner of the Dartmouth, protested, but was sternly forbidden, at his peril, to enter the tea. Captain Hall also was forbidden to enter any portion of it. 'Adams was never in greater glory,' says Hutchinson. The next morning, November 30, the people again assembling, the consignees made it known that it was out of their power to send the tea back; but they promised that they would store it until word should come from their 'constituents' as to its disposal. … The Dartmouth each night was watched by a strong guard; armed patrols, too, were established, and six couriers held themselves ready, if there should be need to alarm the country. … During the first week in December arrived the Eleanor and the Beaver, also tea-ships, which were moored near the Dartmouth, and subjected to the same oversight. The 'True Sons of Liberty' posted about the town the most spirited placards. … The days flew by. At length came the end of the time of probation. If the cargo of the Dartmouth had not been 'entered' within that period, the ship according to the revenue laws, must be confiscated. Rotch, the Quaker owner, had signified his willingness to send the ship back to England with the cargo on board, if he could procure a clearance. The customs officials stood on technicalities; under the circumstances a clearance could not be granted. The grim British admiral ordered the Active and the Kingfisher from his fleet to train their broadsides on the channels, and sink whatever craft should try to go to sea without the proper papers. The governor alone had power to override these obstacles. It was competent for him to grant a permit which the revenue men and the admiral must respect. If he refused to do this, then on the next day the legal course was for the revenue officers to seize the Dartmouth and land the tea under the guns of the fleet. It was the 16th of December. A crowd of seven thousand filled the Old South and the streets adjoining. Nothing like it had ever been known. Town-meeting had followed town-meeting until the excitement was at fever heat. The indefatigable Committee of Correspondence had, as it were, scattered fire throughout the whole country. … Poor Quaker Rotch … felt himself, probably, the most persecuted of men, when the monster meeting forced him in the December weather to make his way out to Milton Hill to seek the permit from Hutchinson. … Meantime darkness had fallen upon the short winter day. The crowd still waited in the gloom of the church, dimly lighted here and there by candles. Rotch reappeared just after six, and informed the meeting that the governor refused to grant the permit until the vessels were properly qualified. As soon as the report had been made, Samuel Adams arose, for it was he who had been moderator, and exclaimed: 'This meeting can do nothing more to save the country.' {3209} It was evidently a concerted signal, for instantly … the famous war-whoop was heard, and the two or three score of 'Mohawks' rushed by the doors, and with the crowd behind them hurried in the brightening moonlight to Griffin's wharf, where lay the ships. The tea could not go back to England; it must not be landed. The cold waters of the harbor were all that remained for it. Three hundred and forty-two chests were cast overboard. Nothing else was harmed, neither person nor property. All was so quiet that those at a distance even could hear in the calm air the ripping open of the thin chests as the tea was emptied. The 'Mohawks' found helpers, so that in all perhaps one hundred and fifty were actively concerned. Not far off in the harbor lay the ships of the fleet, and the Castle with the 'Sam Adams Regiments.' But no one interfered."

ALSO IN: W. V. Wells, Life of Samuel Adams, volume 1, pages 372-375, 495-512; volume 2, pages 1-9, 24-29, 61-63, 80-81, 103-130.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1774 (March-April).
The Boston Port Bill.
The Massachusetts Act and the Quebec Act.

"The spoken defiance of the other colonies had been quite as efficient as the combination of threats and force to which Boston was compelled to resort, but Lord North launched the first retaliatory and punitive measure against that city. … The first of Lord North's bills was the Boston Port Act, which closed the harbor until indemnity for the tea there destroyed should be paid and the king be satisfied that thereafter the city would obey the laws. The demand for indemnity was fair but the indefinite claim of obedience was not only infamous in itself but, as Burke said, punished the innocent with the guilty. … North's second bill was a virtual abrogation of the Massachusetts charter. The council of twenty-eight had been hitherto elected every year in joint session of the assembly. The king might now appoint the whole body to any number, from twelve to thirty-six, and remove them at pleasure. The men so appointed were designated mandamus councillors. Thereafter town-meetings could be held only by permission of the governor and for the sole purpose of electing officers [General Gage was made governor under this act, and four regiments were placed in Boston for his support]. Sheriffs were to return all juries, and were to be named by the governor and hold office during his pleasure. The third bill was really a device of the king's, and it is said that the ministry was confused and shamefaced in presenting it. It ordained that magistrates, revenue officers, or other officials indicted in Massachusetts for capital offences were to be tried either in Nova Scotia or Great Britain. Another measure made legal the billeting of troops, against which Boston had hitherto striven with success, and a fifth, known as the Quebec Act, though depriving that province of the right of habeas corpus, restored the French customary law ('coutume de Paris'), established Roman Catholicism as the state religion, and by extending its boundaries to the Ohio and Mississippi, shut off the Northern English Colonies from westward extension. This was intended as an arbitrary settlement of a vexed question. The Puritans, however, … exclaimed that the next step would be the establishment among them of English episcopacy."

      ALSO IN:
      A. Johnston,
      The United States: its History and Constitution,
      sections. 57-58.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1774 (April-October).
Lord Dunmore's War with the Indians.
The Western territorial claims of Virginia.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1774 (May-June).
Effects of the Boston Port Bill.
The call for a Continental Congress.

   "The Boston Port Bill was received in America with honors not
   accorded even to the Stamp Act. It was cried through the
   streets as 'A barbarous, cruel, bloody, and inhuman murder,'
   and was burnt by the common hangman on a scaffold forty-five
   feet high. The people of Boston gathered together in
   town-meeting at Faneuil Hall, and expresses were sent off with
   an appeal to all Americans throughout America. The responses
   from the neighborhood came like snow-flakes. Marblehead
   offered the use of its wharves to the Boston merchants; Salem
   averred that it would be lost to all feelings of humanity were
   it to raise its fortunes on the ruins of its neighbor.
   Newburyport voted to break off trade with Great Britain, and
   to lay up its ships. Connecticut, as her wont is, when moved
   by any vital occurrence, betook herself to prayer and
   humiliation, first, however, ordering an inventory to be taken
   of her cannon and military stores. Virginia, likewise,
   resolved to invoke the divine interposition, but, before
   another resolution which called for a Congress could be
   introduced, her House was precipitately dissolved; whereupon
   the resolution was brought up and passed at a meeting called
   in 'the Apollo,' where it was further declared that an attack
   on one colony was an attack upon all. Two days later the
   Massachusetts letter itself was received, upon which the
   Virginians called a convention. From all parts contributions
   in money poured into Boston, and resolutions were everywhere
   passed, declaring that no obedience was due the late acts of
   Parliament; that the right of imperial taxation did not exist;
   that those who had accepted office under pay of the king had
   violated their public duty; that the Quebec act establishing
   Roman Catholicism in Canada was hostile to the Protestant
   religion, and that the inhabitants of the colonies should use
   their utmost diligence to acquaint themselves with the art of
   war, and for that purpose should turn out under arms at least
   once a week. In the fulness of time, a cordon of ships was
   drawn around Boston, and six regiments and a train of
   artillery were encamped on the Common—the only spot in the
   thirteen colonies where the government could enforce an order.
   The conflict between constitutional liberty and absolutism had
   now reached that dangerous point where physical force became
   one of its elements. … The situation was at once recognized
   throughout the colonies, and the knowledge that in union there
   is strength, manifested itself in one general impulse toward a
   Colonial Congress. Committees of Correspondence were organized
   in every county, and throngs attended the public meetings.
{3210}
   'One great, wise, and noble spirit; one masterly soul
   animating one vigorous body,' was the way John Adams described
   this impulse. The Canadas alone remained inanimate. … But not
   so those to whom constitutional liberty was as the breath of
   life. On the 17th of June (1774) the Massachusetts Assembly,
   which had been removed by a royal order to Salem, answered
   Virginia by resolving on a call for a Continental Congress at
   Philadelphia. The governor, hearing of what was going on, sent
   the secretary of the colony to dissolve the Assembly, but,
   finding the doors shut upon him, he had to content himself
   with reading the message to the crowd outside. The House went
   on with its work, while, at the same time, a great meeting,
   with John Adams in the chair, was being held at Boston in
   Faneuil Hall. Twelve colonies agreed to send delegates to a
   Continental Congress to be held at Philadelphia in September."

E. G. Scott, The Development of Constitutional Liberty in the English Colonies of America, chapter 11 (with corrections by the author).

ALSO IN: G. Bancroft, History of the United States (Author's last revision) volume 4, chapter 1.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1774(May-July).
Governor Hutchinson's departure for England.
His conversation with King George.

In May, 1774, Governor Hutchinson, of Massachusetts, who had applied some months before for leave of absence to visit England, was relieved by General Gage and took his departure. General Gage was temporarily commissioned to be "Captain General and Governor-in-Chief" of the Province of Massachusetts, and "Vice-Admiral of the same," combining the civil and military powers in himself. It was then supposed that Hutchinson's absence would be brief; but, to his endless grief, he never saw the country again. Soon after his arrival in England he had an interview with the king, which is reported at length in his Diary. The conversation is one of great historical interest, exhibiting King George's knowledge and ideas of American affairs, and representing the opinions of a high-minded American loyalist. It is reprinted here exactly as given in Governor Hutchinson's Diary, published by his great-grandson in 1883:

"July 1st.—Received a card from Lord Dartmouth desiring to see me at his house before one o'clock. I went soon after 12, and after near an hour's conversation, his Lordship proposed introducing me immediately to the King. I was not dressed as expecting to go to Court, but his Lordship observing that the King would not be at St. James's again until Wednesday [this was Friday], I thought it best to go; but waited so long for his Lordship to dress, that the Levée was over; but his Lordship going in to the King, I was admitted, contrary, as Lord Pomfret observed to me, to custom, to kiss His Majesty's hand in his closet: after which, as near as I can recollect, the following conversation passed.

H.—Much reduced Sir by sea-sickness; and unfit upon that account, as well as my New England dress, to appear before your Majesty. Lord D. observed—Mr. H. apologised to me for his dress, but I thought it very well, as he is just come ashoar; to which the K. assented.

K.—How did you leave your Government, and how did the people receive the news of the late measures in Parliament?

H.—When I left Boston we had no news of any Act of Parliament, except the one for shutting up the port, which was extremely alarming to the people.

(Lord D. said, Mr. H. came from Boston the day that Act was to take place, the first of June. I hear the people of Virginia have refused to comply with the request to shut up their ports, from the people of Boston, and Mr. H. seems to be of opinion that no colony will comply with that request.)

H.—I have no other reason to doubt it, except that the authority for it seems to be only a newspaper; and it is very common for articles to be inserted in newspapers without any foundation. I have no doubt that when the people of Rhode Island received the like request, they gave this answer—that if Boston would stop all the vessels they then had in port, which they were hurrying away before the Act commenced, the people of R. Island would then consider of the proposal. The King smiled.

Lord D.—Mr. H., may it please your Majesty, has shewn me a newspaper with an address from a great number of Merchants, another from the Episcopal Clergy, another from the Lawyers, all expressing their sense of his conduct in the most favourable terms. Lord Dartmouth thereupon took the paper out of his pocket and shewed it.

K.—I do not see how it could be otherwise. I am sure his conduct has been universally approved of here by people of all parties.

K.—I am intirely satisfied with it. I am well acquainted with the difficulties you have encountered, and with the abuse & injury offered you. Nothing could be more cruel than the treatment you met with in betraying your private letters.

The K., turning to Lord D.—My Lord, I remember nothing in them
to which the least exception could be taken.

Lord D.—That appears, Sir, from the report of the Committee of
Council, and from your Majesty's orders thereon.

H.—The correspondence, Sir, was not of my seeking. It was a meer matter of friendly amusement, chiefly a narrative of occurrences, in relating of which I avoided personalities as much as I could, and endeavoured to treat persons, when they could not be avoided, with tenderness, as much as if my letters were intended to be exposed; whereas I had no reason to suppose they ever would be exposed.

H.—Doctor F., may it please your Majesty, has made a publick declaration that he sent them, and the Speaker has acknowledged to me that he received them: I do not remember that he said directly from Doctor F., but it was understood between us that they came from him. I had heard before that they came either direct from him, or that he had sent them through another channel, and that they were to be communicated to six persons only, and then to be returned without suffering any copies to be taken, I sent for the Speaker and let him know what I had heard, which came from one of the six to a friend, and so to me. The Speaker said they were sent to him, and that he was at first restrained from shewing them to any more than six persons.

   H.—Yes, sir. There was Mr. Bowdoin, Mr. Pitts, Doctor
   Winthrop, Doctor Chauncy, Doctor Cooper, and himself. They are
   not all the same which had been mentioned before. The two Mr.
   Adamses had been named to me in the room of Mr. Pitts and
   Doctor Winthrop.

K.—Mr. B. I have heard of Lord D.—I think he is father-in-law
to Mr. T. [Temple].

   H.—He is not a Doctor of Divinity, Sir, but of Law; a
   Professor of Mathematicks and Natural Philosophy at the
   College, and last year was chose of the Council.

H. No, Sir, a relation. He has been of the House, but is not now. He was elected by the two Houses to be of the Council, but negatived. The speaker further acquainted me that, after the first letter, he received another, allowing him to shew the Letters to the Committee of Correspondence; and afterwards a third, which allowed him to shew them to such persons as he could confide in, but always enjoined to send them back without taking copies. I asked him how he could be guilty of such a breach of trust as to suffer them to be made publick? He excused it by saying that he was against their being brought before the House, but was overruled; and when they had been read there, the people abroad compelled their publication, or would not be satisfied without it. Much more passed with which I will not trouble your Majesty; but after the use had been made of the Letters, which is so well known, they were all returned.

Lord D.—I believe, Sir, he is in Town. He was going to
America, but I fancy he is not gone.

K.—In such abuse, Mr. H., as you met with, I suppose there must have been personal malevolence as well as party rage?

H.—It has been my good fortune, Sir, to escape any charge against me in my private character. The attacks have been upon my publick conduct, and for such things as my duty to your Majesty required me to do, and which you have been pleased to approve of. I don't know that any of my enemies have complained of a personal injury.

H.—Tarr & feather, may it please your Majesty; but I don't remember that ever I was threatened with it.

Lord D.—Oh! yes, when Malcolm was tarred and feathered [Almanac for 1770, May, MS. Note], the committee for tarring and feathering blamed the people for doing it, that being a punishment reserved for a higher person, and we suppose you was intended.

H.—I remember something of that sort, which was only to make diversion, there being no such committee, or none known by that name.

H.—I depended, Sir, on the protection of Heaven. I had no other guard. I was not conscious of having done anything of which they could justly complain, or make a pretence for offering violence to my person. I was not sure, but I hoped they only meant to intimidate. By discovering that I was afraid, I should encourage them to go on. By taking measures for my security I should expose myself to calumny, and being censured as designing to render them odious for what they never intended to do. I was, therefore, obliged to appear to disregard all the menaces in the newspapers, and also private intimations from my friends who frequently advised me to take care of myself.

K.—I think you generally live in the country,
Mr. H.; what distance are you from town?

H.—I have lived in the country, Sir, in the summer for 20 years; but, except the winter after my house was pulled down, I have never lived in the country in winter until the last. My house is 7 or 8 miles from the Town, a pleasant situation, and most gentlemen from abroad say it has the finest prospect from it they ever saw, except where great improvements have been made by art, to help the natural view. The longest way the road is generally equal to the turnpike roads here; the other way rather rough.

K.—Oh, a late affair in the city, his bills being refused.
(Turning to Lord D.) Who is that in the city, my Lord?

H.—I have heard, Sir, that Mr. Haley, a merchant in the city, is Mr. Hancock's principal correspondent.

H.—I heard, may it please your Majesty, before I came from New England, that some small sums were returned, but none of consequence.

H.—Mr. Hancock, Sir, had a very large fortune left him by his uncle, and I believe his political engagements have taken off his attention from his private affairs. He was sensible not long ago of the damage it was to him, and told me he was determined to quit all publick business, but soon altered his mind.

K.—Then there's Mr. Cushing: I remember his name a long time: is not he a great man of the party?

H.—He has been many years Speaker, but a Speaker, Sir, is not always the person of the greatest influence. A Mr. Adams is rather considered as the opposer of Government, and a sort of Wilkes in New England.

   H.—A great pretended zeal for liberty, and a most inflexible
   natural temper. He was the first that publickly asserted the
   Independency of the colonies upon the Kingdom, or the supreme
   Authority of it.

K.—I have heard, Mr. H., that your ministers preach that, for the sake of promoting liberty or the publick good, any immorality or less evil may be tolerated?

H.—I don't know, Sir, that such doctrine has ever been preached from the pulpit; but I have no doubt that it has been publickly asserted by some of the heads of the party who call themselves sober men, that the good of the publick is above all other considerations, and that truth may be dispensed with, and immorality is excusable, when this great good can be obtained by such means.

K.—That's a strange doctrine, indeed. Pray, Mr. H., what is your opinion of the effect from the new regulation of the Council? Will it be agreeable to the people, and will the new appointed Councillors take the trust upon them?

H.—I have not, may it please your Majesty, been able to inform myself who they are. I came to Town late last evening, and have seen nobody. I think much will depend upon the choice that has been made.

K.—Enquiry was made and pains taken that the most suitable persons should be appointed.

H.—The body of the people are Dissenters from the Church of England; what are called Congregationalists. If the Council shall have been generally selected from the Episcopalians, it will make the change more disagreeable.

   H.—There are very few Churches which call themselves
   Presbyterians, and form themselves voluntarily into a
   Presbytery without any aid from the civil government, which
   the Presbyterian Church of Scotland enjoys.

   Lord D.—The Dissenters in England at this day are scarce any
   of them Presbyterians, but like those in New England,
   Congregationalists, or rather Independents.

H.—With both, Sir. Sometimes at your Majesty's chapel, but more generally at a Congregational church, which has a very worthy minister, a friend to Government, who constantly prays for your Majesty, and all in authority under you.

K.—I have heard of Doctor Pemberton that he is a very good man. Who is minister at the chapel?

H.—The Rector is Dr. Caner, a very worthy man also, who frequently inculcates upon his hearers due subjection to Government, and condemns the riotous violent opposition to it; and besides the prayers in the Liturgy, generally in a short prayer before sermon, expressly prays for your Majesty, and for the chief Ruler in the Province.

H.—In general, Sir, they use no other prayer before sermon than a short collect out of the Liturgy.

Lord D.—I believe it is, Sir. In your Majesty's Chapel they always use such a prayer. It is a form adapted.

Lord D.—No, Sir. This prayer used to be printed formerly, but of late it has not been printed with the service. In general the ministers use a collect, as Mr. Hutchinson says; sometimes the collect in the Communion service—'Prevent us, O Lord,' &c., but I think oftener the collect for the second Sunday in Advent.

H.—My education, Sir, was with the Dissenters. I conceive there is no material difference between reading a prayer out of a book, and saying it 'memoriter,' without book.

Lord D.—I think, Sir, it is not very material. The prayers of the Dissenters are in substance very much the same with those in the service of' the church.

K.—I see no material difference, if the prayers be equally good, but will not that depend upon the minister? But, pray, Mr. H., why do your ministers generally join with the people in their opposition to Government?

H.—They are, Sir, dependent upon the people. They are elected by the people, and when they are dissatisfied with them, they seldom leave till they get rid of them.

K.—That must be very dangerous. If the people oblige them to concur with them in their erroneous principles on Government, they may do it in religion also, and this must have a most fatal tendency.

H.—There is one check, Sir, upon the people. Unless a minister be dismissed by a council of Churches, the Province law makes provision for the recovery of the salary; but we have no instance where a minister, for any length of time, has brought suits for the recovery of his salary, after the people refuse to hear him. They generally weary him, and sooner or later they get clear of him.

H.—Very rapidly, Sir. I used to think that Doctor F., who has taken such pains in his calculations, carried it too far when he supposed the inhabitants of America, from their natural increase, doubled their number in 25 years; but I rather think now that he did not; and I believe it will appear from the last return I made to the Secretary of State, that the Massachusets has increased in that proportion. And the increase is supposed, including the importation of foreigners, to be, upon the whole, greater in most of the Southern Colonies than in the Massachusets. We import no settlers from Europe, so as to make any sensible increase.

K.—Why do not foreigners come to your Province as well as to the Southern Governments?

H.—I take it, Sir, that our long cold winters discourage them. Before they can bring the land to such a state as to be able in summer to provide for their support in winter, what little substance they can bring with them is expended, and many of them have greatly suffered. The Southern colonies are more temperate.

H.—It has been observed that when the grain is so forward as to be out of the milk the beginning of July, it seldom blasts; and that about the 8th or 10th of that month the weather becomes exceeding hot, and what are called the honey dews of the night are fixed upon the grains by the scalding sun in a hot morning, and if the grain be then in the milk it shrivels up, and the straw becomes rusty and black. This is a pretty general opinion of the cause.

   H.—To grazing, Sir; your Majesty has not a finer Colony for
   grass in all your dominions: and nothing is more profitable in
   America that pasture, because labour is very dear.

H.—No, Sir, scarce any, except for the use of the maritime towns. In the country towns the people raise grain enough for their own expending, and sometimes for exportation. They live upon coarse bread made of rye and corn mixed, and by long use they learn to prefer this to flour or wheat bread. K.—What corn?

H.—Not by itself, Sir; the bread will soon be dry and husky; but the Rye keeps it moist, and some of our country people prefer a bushel of Rye to a bushel of Wheat, if the price should be the same.

Lord D.—In many parts of Scotland, Sir, Rye is much esteemed as making good and wholesome bread.

The King enquired very particularly into many other parts of the produce of the country, and the natural history of it, to which I gave the best answers I was capable of.

K.—New York, I think, comes the next to Boston in their opposition to Government?

H.—They approach, Sir, the nearest to a Democracy of any of your Colonies. Once a year all power returns to the people, and all their Officers are new elected. By this means the Governor has no judgment of his own, and must comply with every popular prejudice.

H.—His name, Sir, is Wanton, a Gentleman who I have reason to think wishes to see Government maintained as much as any they could find in the Colonies.

H.—The constitutions, Sir, are much the same; but Connecticut are a more cautious people; strive to make as little noise as may be, and have in general retained a good share of that virtue which is peculiarly necessary in such a form of Government.

More was said upon the state of these and some of the other Colonies. There being something of a pause about this time, I turned to Lord Dartmouth and asked—Does your Lordship remember when you had the first account of the Lieutenant Governor's death, and whether it was before the Letters which I wrote by Governor Tryon?

Lord D.—Oh, yes, I had a letter from you several weeks before that, giving an account of it.

H.—There was a vessel sailed for Lisbon the day after he died, and I gave a letter to the master in charge, to put it on board the first Vessel for London, but was doubtful of the conveyance.

K.—We never could find out which way that letter came. Is the present L. Governor a relation to the late Mr. Oliver?

H.—No, Sir, not of the same family. I have no connection with him, nor did I ever let him know that I had mentioned him as one of the persons I thought might be proper for a Lieutenant Governor.

K.—We had thought of him, but as he was not one of those you had named, the present Gentleman, upon enquiry, appeared under all circumstances the most proper.

   H.—I had some particular inducement not to mention the Chief
   Justice. He is related to me, and his appointment would have
   increased the envy against both of us.

H.—One of his sons, Sir, married one of my daughters. I was, besides, uncertain whether the salary would be continued; and if it should be, his salary as Chief Justice exceeded it, except in case of my absence, and then the expense of living, and the additional trouble from his post, I considered as more than an equivalent. I considered further, that the controversy in which he had been engaged as Chief Justice would render the administration peculiarly difficult just at that time; and I supposed it would immediately devolve upon him by my absence, having then no expectation of being superseded. I never took more pains to divest myself of all personal views than in mentioning proper persons for this place. I should have been more anxious, if I had not thought it not improbable that some person might be appointed, and sent from England.

H.—They are almost extinct. Perhaps there are 50 or 60 families at most upon the Eastern Frontier, where there is a small fort maintained; tho' I conceive the inhabitants would not be in the least danger. It looks, Sir, as if in a few years the Indians would be extinct in all parts of the Continent.

H.—I have thought, Sir, in part to their being dispirited at their low despicable condition among the Europeans, who have taken possession of their country, and treat them as an inferior race of beings; but more to the immoderate use of spirituous liquors. There are near 100 families, perhaps more, of Indians who are domiciliated, and live, some in other towns, but most of them at a place called Mashpee, where they have a church, and a Missionary to preach to them, and also an Indian Minister who has been ordained, and preaches sometimes in their own language.

The King was particular in many other enquiries relative to my Administration, to the state of the Province, and the other Colonies. I have minuted what remained the clearest upon my mind, and as near the order in which they passed as I am able. He asked also what part of my family I brought with me, and what I left behind, and at length advised me to keep house a few days for the recovery of my health. I then withdrew. I was near two hours in the K. closet. Lord D. feared I was tired so long standing. I observed that so gracious a reception made me insensible of it."

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1774 (September).
The meeting of the First Continental Congress.

"On the 5th day of September most of the delegates elected to the congress were in Philadelphia. They were invited by the speaker of the Pennsylvania assembly to hold their sessions in the State House, but decided to meet in the hall owned by the carpenters,—a fine brick building, having commodious rooms for the use of the committees, and an excellent library in the chambers. It is still in good preservation. At ten o'clock in the morning the delegates met at the City Tavern, walked to Carpenters' Hall, and began the sessions of the Continental Congress. This assembly, when all the members had taken their seats, consisted of 55 delegates, chosen by 12 colonies. They represented a population of 2,200,000, paying a revenue of £80,000 sterling. Georgia, which did not elect delegates, gave a promise to concur with her 'sister colonies' in the effort to maintain their right to the British Constitution. … In general, the delegates elect were men of uncommon ability, who had taken a prominent part in the political action of their several localities. … New England presented, in John Sullivan, vigor; in Roger Sherman, sterling sense and integrity; in Thomas Cushing, commercial knowledge; in John Adams, large capacity for public affairs; in Samuel Adams, a great character, with influence and power to organize. The Middle colonies presented, in Philip Livingston, the merchant prince of enterprise and liberality; in John Jay, rare public virtue, juridical learning, and classic taste; in William Livingston, progressive ideas tempered by conservatism; in John Dickinson, 'The Immortal Farmer,' erudition and literary ability; in Cæsar Rodney and Thomas McKean, working power; in James Duane, timid Whiggism, halting, but keeping true to the cause; in Joseph Galloway, downright Toryism, seeking control, and at length going to the enemy. The Southern colonies presented, in Thomas Johnson, the grasp of a statesman; in Samuel Chase, activity and boldness; in the Rutledges, wealth and accomplishment; in Christopher Gadsden, the genuine American; and in the Virginia delegation, an illustrious group,—in Richard Bland, wisdom; in Edmund Pendleton, practical talent; in Peyton Randolph, experience in legislation; in Richard Henry Lee, statesmanship in union with high culture; in Patrick Henry, genius and eloquence; in Washington, justice and patriotism. 'If,' said Patrick Henry, 'you speak of solid information and sound judgment, Washington unquestionably is the greatest man of them all.' … The congress was organized by the choice of Peyton Randolph of Virginia for President, and Charles Thomson of Philadelphia, not a member, for Secretary. … A discussion … arose on the rules to be observed in determining questions, … which was renewed the next day, when it was agreed that each colony should have one vote."

ALSO IN: J. T. Scharf and. T. Westcott, History of Philadelphia, volume 1, chapter 16.

      V. C. Bryant and S. H. Gay,
      Popular History of the! United States,
      volume 3, chapter 13.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1774 (September-October).
The action of the Congress.

   "The Congress first resolved 'to state the rights of the
   colonies in general, the several instances in which those
   rights were violated or infringed, and the means most proper
   for a restoration of them.' Next, 'to examine and report the
   several statutes which affect the trade and manufactures of
   the colonies,' not earlier than the last nine years. While
   these subjects were under consideration, resolutions of Boston
   and its neighbors [Middlesex and Suffolk counties] were laid
   before them, stating their wrongs and merely defensive
   measures to which they would adhere, 'as long as such conduct
   may be vindicated by reason and the principles of
   self-preservation, but no longer.' … Congress unanimously
   approved and recommended 'a perseverance in this firm and
   temperate conduct,' trusting a change in the councils of the
   British nation. The merchants were urged not to order goods,
   and to suspend those ordered; and it was resolved, that after
   the first of next December there should be no importation of
   British goods, and no consumption of, or traffic in them. A
   loyal petition to the king was ordered, assuring him that by
   abolishing the system of laws and regulations of which the
   colonies complained, enumerating them, the jealousies they had
   caused would be removed, and harmony restored. 'We ask but for
   peace, liberty and safety. We wish not a diminution of the
   prerogative, nor do we solicit the grant of any new right in
   our favor. Your royal authority over us, and our connection
   with Great Britain, we shall always carefully and zealously
   endeavor to support and maintain.' General Gage was entreated
   to discontinue the erection of the fortifications on Boston
   Neck, and to prevent all injuries on the part of the troops;
   and Massachusetts was asked 'temporarily to submit to a
   suspension of the administration of justice where it could not
   be procured in a legal and peaceable manner.' Persons
   accepting office under the recent act, changing the form of
   her government, were denounced, 'as the wicked tools of that
   despotism which is preparing to destroy those rights which
   God, nature, and compact have given to America.' A memorial
   was next ordered to the inhabitants of the British colonies
   there represented, exposing their common wrongs and urging a
   united 'commercial opposition,' warning them to extend their
   views 'to mournful events,' to be 'in all respects prepared
   for every contingency, and to implore the favor of Almighty
   God.'
{3215}
   An appeal was made to the enlightened sympathies of the
   British people. … Finally, an address was made to the
   inhabitants of the Province of Quebec, inviting their
   co-operation. In the meantime, the form of a non-exportation,
   non-consumption association was adopted, and signed by each of
   the delegates. … A declaration of the rights and injuries of
   the colonies was made, in which the most difficult question
   was disposed of. The right to participate in the legislative
   council of their common country, was declared to be the
   foundation of English liberty and of all free government. … Of
   all these proceedings the language was that of peace, except
   where other language was demanded. For they approved the
   opposition of the inhabitants of Massachusetts Bay to the
   execution of the late acts of Parliament, and declared, 'If
   these acts shall be attempted to be carried into execution by
   force, in such case all America ought to support them in their
   opposition,' and 'that seizing or attempting to seize any
   person in America, in order to transport such person beyond
   the sea for trial of offences committed within the body of a
   county in America, being against law, will justify, and ought
   to meet with, resistance and reprisal.' These were the
   essential resolutions. They bound the colonies to a common
   resistance to acts of force against all, or any one of them.
   They also declared their opinion of the necessity that another
   Congress should be held in the ensuing month of May, unless
   the redress of grievances which they had desired was obtained
   before that time, and that all the colonies in North America
   choose deputies, as soon as possible, to attend such Congress.
   On the twenty-sixth of October, after a secret session of
   fifty-one days, this body adjourned. The recommendations of
   this Congress were received with marked respect among the
   patriots of the colonies."

J. C. Hamilton, History of the United States as traced in the Writings of Alexander Hamilton, chapter 3 (volume 1).

"Trained in all the theories of the mercantile system, America had been taught to believe (1) that two countries could continue to trade, though one of necessity did so at a loss; (2) that in the trade between England and the colonies, the former both through natural advantages and through law was the party to which the profit accrued; (3) that England was 'a shop-keeping nation,' whose very existence depended on her trade and manufactures. A suspension of trade between England and America therefore would mean misery, if not ruin, to the mother country, while the colonies would 'both save and gain.' With measures of non-importation, non-exportation and non-consumption, accordingly, did this otherwise powerless body hope to coerce the English people and government. Though founded on an economic fallacy, this method of action was certain to have a great effect in England. Twice already had it been employed on a limited scale—against the Stamp Act and against the revenue acts,—and each time with sufficient success to warrant the belief that its wider application would result in victory. Now the agents of the colonies in London were writing home: 'If you have virtue enough to resolve to stop, and to execute the resolution of stopping, your exports and imports for one year, this country must do you justice.' … In both England and America the temporary destruction of British trade was viewed not merely as an effective weapon, but as the only peaceful one which the colonies possessed. A failure to unite in a non-importation agreement against England would, according to a prominent English politician, leave nothing for the colonies 'but to decide between ruin and submission.' The question for the Congress was not, therefore, a choice of remedies, but merely whether, and to how great an extent, the dele·gates could be brought to agree to the only one within their reach. For even while accepting the system as effective against Great Britain, the delegates and their constituents had so far progressed as to realize that it bore with uneven force on the different colonies. The southern colonies were really no more diversified in their industries than the West India islands. South Carolina grew rice and indigo; North Carolina depended largely on tar, pitch and turpentine; Virginia raised tobacco. Unless these products could be exported to Europe, those colonies might suffer for the necessaries of life. … The first consideration of the subject in the Congress revealed serious difficulties. The Virginia delegation, 'to avoid the heavy injury that would arise,' were prevented by their instructions from agreeing to an immediate cessation of trade relations. Imports would cease on November 1, 1774, but exports must continue till August 10, 1775. It was in vain they were told 'that a non-exportation at a future day cannot avail,' and that at the Virginia date non-exportation would not operate before the fall of 1776. The Virginians had determined to cure and sell their tobacco crop of 1774 before 'consideration of interest and of equality of sacrifice should be laid aside.' So vital, however, did most of the delegates consider the immediate enforcement, that it was proposed to act without Virginia; for Boston and New England, it was said, would need active support before that date. This proposition was defeated by the refusal of the delegates of North Carolina and Maryland to join unless Virginia should also make the sacrifice. With sorry grace the Congress had to accept the dictation of Virginia. But the trouble did not end here. Virginia's selfish interest having been triumphant, the South Carolina delegation sought for an equal advantage, and demanded that the two great products of that colony should be especially reserved from the non-exportation clause. … Rather than yield, the Congress preferred a cessation of business for several days, in order 'to give Our [South Carolina] deputies time to recollect themselves.' But when the Association was ready for signing, the South Carolina delegates, with but one exception, seceded from the Congress, and their assent was only secured eventually through a compromise, by virtue of which rice alone was excluded from the agreement, while indigo was brought under its terms. Such were the secret deliberations of the Congress, in endeavoring to unite the colonies in the use of their only weapon. The first public results appeared in the form of a unanimous resolution, passed and published on September 22, requesting 'the merchants and others in the several colonies not to send to Great Britain any orders for goods,' and to delay or suspend orders already sent. Five days later it was unanimously resolved that after December 1, 1774, 'there should be no importation into British America from Great Britain or Ireland, or from any other place,' of any goods, wares or merchandise exported from Great Britain or Ireland. {3216} Three days later, with no assertion of unanimity, a resolution was announced to the effect 'that from and after the 10th day of September, 1775, the exportation of all merchandise and every commodity whatsoever to Great Britain, Ireland and the West Indies ought to cease, unless the grievances of America are redressed before that time,' and a committee was appointed to draft a plan for carrying into effect these resolves. On October 12 this committee brought in a report, which, after consideration and amendment, was on the 18th of October agreed to and ordered signed. On October 20 it was signed and ordered to be printed. Possessed of no real power, the Congress relied on the people to enforce this agreement. It was recommended that in every county, city and town a committee be chosen 'whose business it shall be attentively to observe the conduct of all persons touching this Association.' With hardly an exception, this recommendation was adopted. … As America had refused to trade with Great Britain and her colonies, the government replied by acts prohibiting any such trade. The policy of 'exhausting its opponent by injuring itself' was at last to have a fair trial, but through British, not American action. The colonies were by law interdicted from all commerce, trade and fishing. But before the legislation went into effect blood had been shed at Lexington. The contest could no longer be fought with acts of Parliament and resolves of Congress; 'blows must decide.' The Association was distinctively a peace weapon. Had the Congress really expected war, no action could have been more foolish. A garrison soon to be beleaguered virtually shut its ports to supplies. No better proof is needed of how little the delegates wished or worked for separation."

P. L. Ford, The Association of the First Congress (Political Science Quarterly, December, 1891.)

'That the foundation of English liberty, and of all free government, is a right in the people to participate in their legislative council; and us the English colonists are not represented, and from their local and other circumstances cannot be properly represented in the British Parliament, they are entitled to a free and exclusive power of legislation in their several provincial legislatures, where their rights of representation can alone be preserved, in all cases of taxation and internal polity, subject only to the negative of their sovereign, in such manner as has been heretofore used and accustomed. But from the necessity of the case, and a regard to the mutual interest of both countries, we cheerfully consent to the operation of such acts of the British Parliament as are bona fide restrained to the regulation of our external commerce, for the purpose of securing the commercial advantages of the whole empire to the mother country; and the commercial benefits of its respective members; excluding every idea of taxation, internal or external, for raising a revenue on the subjects in America, without their consent.' This was not precisely what John Adams wanted, but it was much. When this declaration went forth, the cause of Massachusetts, in whatever it might eventuate, was the cause of the colonies. It was nationalized. This was John Adams's greatest feat of statesmanship. On it the Success of the impending war, and the Declaration of Independence rested."

M. Chamberlain, John Adams, the Statesman of the American Revolution, pages 78-80.

   "How far the authority of this first congress extended,
   according to the instructions of the delegates, it is
   impossible to determine with certainty at this distance of
   time. But it is probable that the original intention was that
   it should consult as to the ways and means best calculated to
   remove the grievances and to guaranty the rights and liberties
   of the colonies, and should propose to the latter a series of
   resolutions, furthering these objects. But the force of
   circumstances at the time compelled it to act and order
   immediately, and the people, by a consistent following of its
   orders, approved this transcending of their written
   instructions. The congress was therefore not only a
   revolutionary body from its origin, but its acts assumed a
   thoroughly revolutionary character. The people, also, by
   recognizing its authority, placed themselves on a
   revolutionary footing, and did so not as belonging to the
   several colonies, but as a moral person; for to the extent
   that congress assumed power to itself and made bold to adopt
   measures national in their nature, to that extent the
   colonists declared themselves henceforth to constitute one
   people, inasmuch as the measures taken by congress could be
   translated from words into deeds only with the consent of the
   people. This state of affairs essentially continued up to
   March 1, 1781.
{3217}
   Until that time, that is, until the adoption of the articles
   of confederation by all the states, congress continued a
   revolutionary body, which was recognized by all the colonies
   as 'de jure' and 'de facto' the national government, and which
   as such came in contact with foreign powers and entered into
   engagements, the binding force of which on the whole people
   has never been called in question. The individual colonies, on
   the other hand, considered themselves, up to the time of the
   Declaration of Independence, as legally dependent upon England
   and did not take a single step which could have placed them
   before the mother country or the world in the light of 'de
   facto' sovereign states. They remained colonies until the
   'representatives of the United States' 'in the name of the
   good people of these colonies' solemnly declared 'these united
   colonies' to be 'free and independent states.' The
   transformation of the colonies into 'states' was, therefore,
   not the result of the independent action of the individual
   colonies. It was accomplished through the 'representatives of
   the United States'; that is, through the revolutionary
   congress, in the name of the whole people. Each individual
   colony became a state only in so far as it belonged to the
   United States and in so far as its population constituted a
   part of the people."

      H. von Holst,
      Constitutional and Political History of the
      United States,
      volume 1, chapter 1.

      Journal of the Congress which met at Philadelphia
      September 5, 1774
      (London: J. Almon).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1774-1775.
   Provincial Congress of Massachusetts and
   Committee of Safety.
   Military preparations.

"Governor Gage issued writs, dated September 1, convening the General Court at Salem on the 5th of October, but dissolved it by a proclamation dated September 28, 1774. The members elected to it, pursuant to the course agreed upon, resolved themselves into a Provincial Congress. This body, on the 26th of October, adopted a plan for organizing the militia, maintaining it, and calling it out when circumstances should render it necessary. It provided that one quarter of the number enrolled should be held in readiness to muster at the shortest notice, who were called by the popular name of minute-men. An executive authority—the Committee of Safety—was created, clothed with large discretionary powers; and another called the Committee of Supplies. On the 27th Jedediah Preble, (who did not accept,) Artemas Ward, and Seth Pomeroy, were chosen general officers; and on the 28th, Henry Gardner was chosen treasurer of the colony, under the title of Receiver-General. Among the energetic acts of this memorable Congress, was one authorizing the collection of military stores. It dissolved December 10. The committee of safety, as early as November, authorized the purchase of materials for an army, and ordered them to be deposited at Concord and Worcester. These proceedings were denounced by General Gage, in a proclamation dated November 10, as treasonable, and a compliance with them was forbidden. In a short time the king's speech and the action of Parliament were received, which manifested a firm determination to produce submission to the late acts, and to maintain 'the supreme authority' of Great Britain over the colonies. General Gage regarded this intelligence as having 'cast a damp upon the faction,' and as having produced a happy effect upon the royalist cause. However, a second Provincial Congress (February 1 to 16, 1775) renewed the measures of its predecessor; and gave definiteness to the duties of the committee of safety, by 'empowering and directing' them (on the 9th of February) to assemble the militia whenever it was required to resist the execution of the two acts, for altering the government and the administration of justice. At the same time it appointed two additional generals, John Thomas, and William Heath, and made it the duty of the five general officers to take charge of the militia when called out by the committee of safety, and to 'effectually oppose and resist such attempt or attempts as shall be made for carrying into execution by force' the two acts. … The conviction was fast becoming general that force only could decide the contest. Stimulated and sustained by such a public opinion, the committees of safety and supplies were diligent, through the gloomy months of winter, in collecting and storing at Concord and Worcester materials for the maintenance of an army."

The following citizens composed the Committee of Public Safety, viz., "John Hancock, Joseph Warren, Benjamin Church, Richard Devens, Benjamin White, Joseph Palmer, Abraham Watson, Azor Orne, John Pigeon, William Heath, and Thomas Gardner. The following 'Committee of Supplies' was announced, viz., Elbridge Gerry, David Cheever, Benjamin Lincoln, Moses Gill, and Benjamin Hall. … By the first day of January, 1775, the garrison of Boston had been increased to thirty-five hundred men, and mounted three hundred and seventy men as a daily guard-detail, besides a field officers' guard of one hundred and fifty men on Boston Neck. Three brigades were organized and were officered, respectively by Generals Lord Percy, Pigott and Jones. In November of 1774, General Gage had advised the British government, that he, 'was confident, that to begin with an army twenty thousand strong, would in the end save Great Britain blood and treasure.' Meanwhile, the militia drilled openly, rapidly completed company organizations, and made many sacrifices to procure arms, powder and other materials of war. The Home government, in view of the serious aspect of affairs, ordered Generals Howe, Clinton, and Burgoyne to join General Gage, and announced that 'ample reinforcements would be sent out, and the most speedy and effectual measures would be taken to put down the rebellion,' then pronounced to already exist. On the eighth of April, the Provincial Congress resolved to take effectual measures to raise an army, and requested the cooperation of Rhode Island, New Hampshire and Connecticut. On the thirteenth, it voted to raise six companies of artillery, to pay them and keep them at drill. On the fourteenth it advised citizens to leave Boston and to remove to the country. On the fifteenth, it solemnly appointed a day for 'Public Fasting and Prayer,' and adjourned to the tenth day of May. The Committee of Public Safety at once undertook the task of securing powder, cannon and small arms. A practical embargo was laid upon all trade with Boston. The garrison could obtain supplies only with great difficulty, and, as stated by Gordon, 'nothing was wanting but a spark, to set the whole continent in a flame.'"

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (January-March).
Vain efforts toward pacific statesmanship in the British
Parliament, by Chatham, Burke, and others.

A newly elected British Parliament "met on November 30, 1774; but no serious measure relating to America was taken till January 1775, when the House reassembled after the Christmas vacation. The Ministers had a large majority, and even apart from party interest the genuine feeling of both Houses ran strongly against the Americans. Yet at no previous period were they more powerfully defended. I have already noticed that Chatham, having returned to active politics after his long illness in 1774, had completely identified himself with the American cause, and had advocated with all his eloquence measures of conciliation. He … moved an address to the King praying that he would as soon as possible, 'in order to open the way towards a happy settlement of the dangerous troubles in America,' withdraw the British troops stationed in Boston. In the course of his speech he represented the question of American taxation as the root-cause of the whole division, and maintained that the only real basis of conciliation was to be found in a distinct recognition of the principle that 'taxation is theirs, and commercial regulation ours;' that England has a supreme right of regulating the commerce and navigation of America, and that the Americans have an inalienable right to their own property. He fully justified their resistance, predicted that all attempts to coerce them would fail, and eulogised the Congress at Philadelphia as worthy of the greatest periods of antiquity. Only eighteen peers voted for the address, while sixty-eight opposed it. On February 1 he reappeared with an elaborate Bill for settling the troubles in America. It asserted in strong terms the right of Parliament to bind the colonies in all matters of imperial concern, and especially in all matters of commerce and navigation. It pronounced the new colonial doctrine that the Crown had no right to send British soldiers to the colonies without the assent of the Provincial Assemblies, dangerous and unconstitutional in the highest degree, but at the same time it recognised the sole right of the colonists to tax themselves, guaranteed the inviolability of their charters, and made the tenure of their judges the same as in England. It proposed to make the Congress which had met at Philadelphia an official and permanent body, and asked it to make a free grant for imperial purposes. England, in return, was to reduce the Admiralty Courts to their ancient limits, and to suspend for the present the different Acts complained of by the colonists. The Bill was not even admitted to a second reading. Several other propositions tending towards conciliation were made in this session. On March 22, 1775, Burke, in one of his greatest speeches, moved a series of resolutions recommending a repeal of the recent Acts complained of in America, reforming the Admiralty Court and the position of the judges, and leaving American taxation to the American Assemblies, without touching upon any question of abstract right. A few days later, Hartley moved a resolution calling upon the Government to make requisitions to the colonial Assemblies to provide of their own authority for their own defence; and Lord Camden in the House of Lords and Sir G. Savile in the House of Commons endeavoured to obtain a repeal of the Quebec Act. All these attempts, however, were defeated by enormous majorities. The petition of Congress to the King was referred to Parliament, which refused to receive it, and Franklin, after vain efforts to effect a reconciliation, returned from England to America."

      W. E. H. Lecky,
      History of England in the 18th Century,
      chapter 12. (volume 3).

   The following are the more important passages of the speech of
   Burke, on moving the resolutions which he introduced in the
   House of Commons, March 22, 1775:

"The proposition is peace. Not peace through the medium of war; not peace to be hunted through the labyrinth of intricate and endless negotiations; not peace to arise out of universal discord, fomented from principle, in all parts of the empire; not peace to depend on the juridical determination of perplexing questions, or the precise marking the shadowy boundaries of a complex government. It is simple peace, sought in its natural course and in its ordinary haunts. It is peace sought in the spirit of peace, and laid in principles purely pacific. I propose, by removing the ground of the difference, and by restoring the former unsuspecting confidence of the colonies in the mother country, to give permanent satisfaction to your people,—and (far from a scheme of ruling by discord) to reconcile them to each other in the same act and by the bond of the very same interest which reconciles them to British government. My idea is nothing more. Refined policy ever has been the parent of confusion,—and ever will be so, as long as the world endures. Plain good intention, which is as easily discovered at the first view as fraud is surely detected at last, is, let me say, of no mean force in the government of mankind. Genuine simplicity of heart is an healing and cementing principle. … The capital leading questions on which you must this day decide are these two: First, whether you ought to concede; and secondly, what your concession ought to be. On the first of these questions we have gained … some ground. But I am sensible that a good deal more is still to be done. Indeed, Sir, to enable us to determine both on the one and the other of these great questions with a firm and precise judgment, I think it may be necessary to consider distinctly the true nature and the peculiar circumstances of the object which we have before us: because, after all our struggle, whether we will or not, we must govern America according to that nature and to those circumstances, and not according to our own imaginations, not according to abstract ideas of right, by no means according to mere general theories of government, the resort to which appears to me, in our present situation, no better than arrant trifling. … The first thing that we have to consider with regard to the nature of the object is the number of people in the colonies. I have taken for some years a good deal of pains on that point. I can by no calculation justify myself in placing the number below two millions of inhabitants of our own European blood and color,—besides at least 500,000 others, who form no inconsiderable part of the strength and opulence of the whole. This, Sir, is, I believe, about the true number. There is no occasion to exaggerate, where plain truth is of so much weight and importance. But whether I put the present numbers too high or too low is a matter of little moment. {3219} Such is the strength with which population shoots in that part of the world, that, state the numbers as high as we will, whilst the dispute continues, the exaggeration ends. Whilst we are discussing any given magnitude, they are grown to it. Whilst we spend our time in deliberating on the mode of governing two millions, we shall find we have millions more to manage. Your children do not grow faster from infancy to manhood than they spread from families to communities, and from villages to nations. … But the population of this country, the great and growing population, though a very important consideration, will lose much of its weight, if not combined with other circumstances. The commerce of your colonies is out of all proportion beyond the numbers of the people. … The trade with America alone is now within less than £500,000 of being equal to what this great commercial nation, Eng]and, carried on at the beginning of this century with the whole world! … But, it will be said, is not this American trade an unnatural protuberance, that has drawn the juices from the rest of the body? The reverse. It is the very food that has nourished every other part into its present magnitude. Our general trade has been greatly augmented, and augmented more or less in almost every part to which it ever extended, but with this material difference: that of the six millions which in the beginning of the century constituted the whole mass of our export commerce the colony trade was but one twelfth part; it is now (as a part of sixteen millions) considerably more than a third of the whole. … I choose, Sir, to enter into these minute and particular details; because generalities, which in all other cases are apt to heighten and raise the subject, have here a tendency to sink it. When we speak of the commerce of our colonies, fiction lags after truth, invention is unfruitful, and imagination cold and barren. … I pass … to the colonies in another point of view,—their agriculture. This they have prosecuted with such a spirit, that, besides feeding plentifully their own growing multitude, their annual export of grain, comprehending rice, has some years ago exceeded a million in value. Of their last harvest, I am persuaded, they will export much more. At the beginning of the century some of these colonies imported corn from the mother country. For some time past the Old World has been fed from the New. The scarcity which you have felt would have been a desolating famine, if this child of your old age, with a true filial piety, with a Roman charity, had not put the full breast of its youthful exuberance to the mouth of its exhausted parent. As to the wealth which the colonies have drawn from the sea by their fisheries, you had all that matter fully opened at your bar. You surely thought those acquisitions of value, for they seemed even to excite your envy; and yet the spirit by which that enterprising employment has been exercised ought rather, in my opinion, to have raised your esteem and admiration. And pray, Sir, what in the world is equal to it? Pass by the other parts, and look at the manner in which the people of New England have of late carried on the whale-fishery. Whilst we follow them among the tumbling mountains of ice, and behold them penetrating into the deepest frozen recesses of Hudson's Bay and Davis's Straits, whilst we are looking for them beneath the arctic circle, we hear that they have pierced into the opposite region of polar cold, that they are at the antipodes, and engaged under the frozen serpent of the South. Falkland Island, which seemed too remote and romantic an object for the grasp of national ambition, is but a stage and resting-place in the progress of their victorious industry. Nor is the equinoctial heat more discouraging to them than the accumulated winter of both the poles. … I am sensible, Sir, that all which I have asserted in my detail is admitted in the gross, but that quite a different conclusion is drawn from it. America, gentlemen say, is a noble object,—it is an object well worth fighting for. Certainly it is, if fighting a people be the best way of gaining them. Gentlemen in this respect will be led to their choice of means by their complexions and their habits. Those who understand the military art will of course have some predilection for it. Those who wield the thunder of the state may have more confidence in the efficacy of arms. But I confess, possibly for want of this knowledge, my opinion is much more in favor of prudent management than of force,—considering force not as an odious, but a feeble instrument, for preserving a people so numerous, so active, so growing, so spirited as this, in a profitable and subordinate connection with us. First, Sir, permit me to observe, that the use of force alone is but temporary. It may subdue for a moment; but it does not remove the necessity of subduing again: and a nation is not governed which is perpetually to be conquered. My next objection is its uncertainty. Terror is not always the effect of force, and an armament is not a victory. If you do not succeed, you are without resource: for, conciliation failing, force remains; but, force failing, no further hope of reconciliation is left. Power and authority are sometimes bought by kindness; but they can never be begged as alms by an impoverished and defeated violence. A further objection to force is, that you impair the object by your very endeavors to preserve it. The thing you fought for is not the thing which you recover, but depreciated, sunk, wasted, and consumed in the contest. Nothing less will content me than whole America. I do not choose to consume its strength along with our own; because in all parts it is the British strength that I consume. I do not choose to be caught by a foreign enemy at the end of this exhausting conflict, and still less in the midst of it. I may escape, but I can make no insurance against such an event. Let me add, that I do not choose wholly to break the American spirit; because it is the spirit that has made the country. Lastly, we have no sort of experience in favor of force as an instrument in the rule of our colonies. Their growth and their utility has been owing to methods altogether different. Our ancient indulgence has been said to be pursued to a fault. It may be so; but we know, if feeling is evidence, that our fault was more tolerable than our attempt to mend it, and our sin far more salutary than our penitence. These, Sir, are my reasons for not entertaining that high opinion of untried force by which many gentlemen, for whose sentiments in other particulars I have great respect, seem to be so greatly captivated. But there is still behind a third consideration concerning this object, which serves to determine my opinion on the sort of policy which ought to be pursued in the management of America, even more than its population and its commerce: I mean its temper and character. {3220} In this character of the Americans a love of freedom is the predominating feature which marks and distinguishes the whole. … This fierce spirit of liberty is stronger in the English colonies, prob·ably, than in any other people of the earth, and this from a great variety of powerful causes; which, to understand the true temper of their minds, and the direction which this spirit takes, it will not be amiss to lay open somewhat more largely. First, the people of the colonies are descendants of Englishmen. England, Sir, is a nation which still, I hope, respects, and formerly adored, her freedom. The colonists emigrated from you when this part of your character was most predominant; and they took this bias and direction the moment they parted from your hands. They are therefore not only devoted to liberty, but to liberty according to English ideas and on English principles. … Your mode of governing them, whether through lenity or indolence, through wisdom or mistake, confirmed them in the imagination, that they, as well as you, had an interest in these common principles. They were further confirmed in this pleasing error by the form of their provincial legislative assemblies. Their governments are popular in an high degree: some are merely popular; in all, the popular representative is the most weighty; and this share of the people in their ordinary government never fails to inspire them with lofty sentiments, and with a strong aversion from whatever tends to deprive them of their chief importance. If anything were wanting to this necessary operation of the form of government, religion would have given it a complete effect. Religion, always a principle of energy, in this new people is no way worn out or impaired; and their mode of professing it is also one main cause of this free spirit. The people are Protestants, and of that kind which is the most adverse to all implicit submission of mind and opinion. … All Protestantism, even the most cold and passive, is a sort of dissent. But the religion most prevalent in our northern colonies is a refinement on the principle of resistance; it is the dissidence of dissent, and the protestantism of the Protestant religion. … Permit me, Sir, to add another circumstance in our colonies, which contributes no mean part towards the growth and effect of this untractable spirit: I mean their education. In no country, perhaps, in the world is the law so general a study. The profession itself is numerous and powerful, and in most provinces it takes the lead. The greater number of the deputies sent to the Congress were lawyers. But all who read, and most do read, endeavour to obtain some smattering in that science. I have been told by an eminent bookseller, that in no branch of his business, after tracts of popular devotion, were so many books as those on the law exported to the plantations. The colonists have now fallen into the way of printing them for their own use. I hear that they have sold nearly as many of Blackstone's 'Commentaries' in America as in England. General Gage marks out this disposition very particularly in a letter on your table. He states, that all the people in his government are lawyers, or smatterers in law,—and that in Boston they have been enabled, by successful chicane, wholly to evade many parts of one of your capital penal constitutions. … The last cause of this disobedient spirit in the colonies is hardly less powerful than the rest, as it is not merely moral, but laid deep in the natural constitution of things. Three thousand miles of ocean lie between you and them. No contrivance can prevent the effect of this distance in weakening government. Seas roll, and months pass, between the order and the execution; and the want of a speedy explanation of a single point is enough to defeat an whole system. … Then, Sir, from these six capital sources, of descent, of form of government, of religion in the northern provinces, of manners in the southern, of education, of the remoteness of situation from the first mover of government,—from all these causes a fierce spirit of liberty has grown up. It has grown with the growth of the people in your colonies, and increased with the increase of their wealth: a spirit, that, unhappily meeting with an exercise of power in England, which, however lawful, is not reconcilable to any ideas of liberty, much less with theirs, has kindled this flame that is ready to consume us. … The question is not, whether their spirit deserves praise or blame,—what, in the name of God, shall we do with it? You have before you the object, such as it is,—with all its glories, with all its imperfections on its head. You see the magnitude, the importance, the temper, the habits, the disorders. By all these considerations we are strongly urged to determine something concerning it. We are called upon to fix some rule and line for our future conduct, which may give a little stability to our politics, and prevent the return of such unhappy deliberations as the present. … It should seem, to my way of conceiving such matters, that there is a very wide difference, in reason and policy, between the mode of proceeding on the irregular conduct of scattered individuals, or even of bands of men, who disturb order within the state, and the civil dissensions which may, from time to time, on great questions, agitate the several communities which compose a great empire. It looks to me to be narrow and pedantic to apply the ordinary ideas of criminal justice to this great public con·test. I do not know the method of drawing up an indictment against an whole people. … I am not ripe to pass sentence on the gravest public bodies, intrusted with magistracies of great authority and dignity, and charged with the safety of their fellow-citizens, upon the very same title that I am. I really think that for wise men this is not judicious, for sober men not decent, for minds tinctured with humanity not mild and merciful."

In the closing part of his speech, Mr. Burke introduced successively and commented upon the following propositions, or resolutions, which formed in their entirety his plan of conciliation. At the end of his speaking they were rejected by a vote of 270 against 78:

"That the colonies and plantations of Great Britain in North America, consisting of 14 separate governments, and containing two mil·lions and upwards of free inhabitants, have not had the liberty and privilege of electing and sending any knights and burgesses, or others, to represent them in the high court of Parliament.

That the said colonies and plantations have been made liable to, and bounden by, several subsidies, payments, rates, and taxes, given and granted by Parliament, though the said colonies and plantations have not their knights and burgesses in the said high court of Parliament, of their own election, to represent the condition of their country; by lack whereof they have been oftentimes touched and grieved by subsidies, given, granted, and assented to, in the said court, in a manner prejudicial to the common wealth, quietness, rest, and peace of the subjects inhabiting within the same.

That, from the distance of the said colonies, and from other circumstances, no method hath hitherto been devised for procuring a representation in Parliament for the said colonies.

That each of the said colonies hath within itself a body, chosen, in part or in the whole, by the freemen, freeholders, or other free inhabitants thereof, commonly called the General Assembly, or General Court, with powers legally to raise, levy, and assess, according to the several usages of such colonies, duties and taxes towards defraying all sorts of public services.

That the said general assemblies, general courts, or other bodies legally qualified as aforesaid, have at sundry times freely granted several large subsidies and public aids for his Majesty's service, according to their abilities, when required thereto by letter from one of his Majesty's principal Secretaries of State; and that their right to grant the same, and their cheerfulness and sufficiency in the said grants, have been at sundry times acknowledged by Parliament. That it hath been found by experience, that the manner of granting the said supplies and aids by the said general assemblies hath been more agreeable to the inhabitants of said colonies, and more beneficial and conducive to the public service, than the mode of giving and granting aids and subsidies in Parliament, to be raised and paid in the said colonies.

That it may be proper to repeal an act, made in the 7th year of the reign of his present Majesty, intituled, 'An act for granting certain duties in the British colonies and plantations in America; for allowing a drawback of the duties of customs, upon the exportation from this kingdom, of coffee and cocoa-nuts, of the produce of the said colonies or plantations; for discontinuing the drawbacks payable on China earthen ware exported to America; and for more effectually preventing the clandestine running of goods in the said colonies and plantations.'

That it may be proper to repeal an act, made in the 14th year of the reign of his present Majesty, intituled, 'An act to discontinue, in such manner and for such time as are therein mentioned, the landing and discharging, lading or shipping, of goods, wares, and merchandise, at the town and within the harbor of Boston, in the province of Massachusetts Bay, in North America.'

That it may be proper to repeal an act, made in the 14th year of the reign of his present Majesty, intituled, 'An act for the impartial administration of justice, in the cases of persons questioned for any acts done by them, in the execution of the law, or for the suppression of riots and tumults, in the province of the Massachusetts Bay, in New England.'

That it may be proper to repeal an act, made in the 14th year of the reign of his present Majesty, intituled, 'An act for the better regulating the government of the province of the Massachusetts Bay, in New England.'

That it may be proper to explain and amend an act, made in the 35th year of the reign of King Henry VIII., intituled, 'An act for the trial of treasons committed out of the king's dominions.'

That, from the time when the general assembly, or general court, of any colony or plantation in North America, shall have appointed, by act of assembly duly confirmed, a settled salary to the offices of the chief justice and other judges of the superior courts, it may be proper that the said chief justice and other judges of the superior courts of such colony shall hold his and their office and offices during their good behaviour, and shall not be removed therefrom, but when the said removal shall be adjudged by his Majesty in council, upon a hearing on complaint from the general assembly, or on a complaint from the governor, or the council, or the house of representatives, severally, of the colony in which the said chief justice and other judges have exercised the said offices.

That it may be proper to regulate the courts of admiralty or vice-admiralty, authorized by the 15th chapter of the 4th George III., in such a manner as to make the same more commodious to those who sue or are sued in the said courts; and to provide for the more decent maintenance of the judges of the same."

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (January-April).
Aims at independence disclaimed.

   "The denial that independence was the final object, was
   constant and general. To obtain concessions and to preserve
   the connection with England was affirmed everywhere; and John
   Adams, after the peace, went farther than this, for he
   said:—'There was not a moment during the Revolution, when I
   would not have given everything I possessed for a restoration
   to the state of things before the contest began, provided we
   could have had a sufficient security for its continuance.' If
   Mr. Adams be regarded as expressing the sentiments of the
   Whigs, they were willing to remain Colonists, provided they
   could have had their rights secured to them; while the Tories
   were contented thus to continue, without such security. Such,
   as it appears to me, was the only difference between the two
   parties prior to hostilities. … Franklin's testimony, a few
   days before the affair at Lexington, was, that he had 'more
   than once travelled almost from one end of the continent to
   the other, and kept a variety of company, eating, drinking,
   and conversing with them freely, [and] never had heard from
   any person, drunk or sober, the least expression of a wish for
   a separation, or a hint that such a thing would be
   advantageous to America.' Mr. Jay is quite as explicit.
   'During the course of my life,' said he, 'and until the second
   petition of Congress in 1775, I never did hear an American of
   any class, or of any description, express a wish for the
   independence of the Colonies.' 'It has always been, and still
   is, my opinion and belief, that our country was prompted and
   impelled to independence by necessity, and not by choice.'
{3222}
   Mr. Jefferson affirmed, 'What, eastward of New York, might
   have been the dispositions towards England before the
   commencement of hostilities, I know not; but before that I
   never heard a whisper of a disposition to separate from Great
   Britain; and after that its possibility was contemplated with
   affliction by all.' Washington, in 1774, fully sustains these
   declarations, and, in the 'Fairfax County Resolves,' it was
   complained that 'malevolent falsehoods' were propagated by the
   ministry to prejudice the mind of the king: 'particularly that
   there is an intention in the American Colonies to set up for
   independent States.' Mr. Madison was not in public life until
   May, 1776, but he says, 'It has always been my impression,
   that a reëstablishment of the Colonial relations to the parent
   country, as they were previous to the controversy, was the
   real object of every class of the people, till the despair of
   obtaining it,' &c. … The only way to dispose of testimony like
   this, is to impeach the persons who have given it."

      L. Sabine,
      Biographical Sketches of Loyalists
      of the American Revolution,
      volume 1, pages 64-66.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (January-September).
Revolution in South Carolina.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (April).
   The Beginning of the War of the American Revolution.
   Lexington.
   Concord.

"On April 19, 1775, the Committees of safety could only count up twelve field-pieces in Massachusetts; and there had been collected in that colony 21,549 fire-arms, 17,441 pounds of powder, 22,191 pounds of ball, 144,699 flints, 10,108 bayonets, 11,979 pouches, 15,000 canteens. There were also 17,000 pounds of salt fish, 35,000 pounds of rice, with large quantities of beef and pork. Viewed as an evidence of the forethought of the colonists, these statistics are remarkable; but there was something heroic and indeed almost pathetic in the project of going to war with the British government on the strength of twelve field-pieces and seventeen thousand pounds of salt fish. Yet when, on the night of the 18th of April, 1775, Paul Revere rode beneath the bright moonlight through Lexington to Concord, with Dawes and Prescott for comrades, he was carrying the signal for the independence of a nation. He had seen across the Charles River the two lights from the church-steeple in Boston which were to show that a British force was going out to seize the patriotic supplies at Concord; he had warned Hancock and Adams at Reverend Jonas Clark's parsonage in Lexington, and had rejected Sergeant Monroe's caution against unnecessary noise, with the rejoinder, 'You'll have noise enough here before long—the regulars are coming out.' As he galloped on his way the regulars were advancing with steady step behind him, soon warned of their own danger by alarm-bells and signal-guns. When Revere was captured by some British officers who happened to be near Concord, Colonel Smith, the commander of the expedition, had already halted, ordered Pitcairn forward, and sent back prudently for reinforcements. It was a night of terror to all the neighboring Middlesex towns, for no one knew what excesses the angry British troops might commit on their return march. The best picture we have of this alarm is in the narrative of a Cambridge woman, Mrs. Hannah Winthrop, describing 'the horrors of that midnight cry,' as she calls it. The women of that town were roused by the beat of drums and ringing of bells; they hastily gathered their children together and fled to the outlying farm-houses; seventy or eighty of them were at Fresh Pond, within hearing of the guns at Menotomy, now Arlington. The next day their husbands bade them flee to Andover, whither the college property had been sent, and thither they went, alternately walking and riding, over fields where the bodies of the slain lay unburied. Before 5 A. M. on April 19, 1775, the British troops had reached Lexington Green, where thirty-eight men, under Captain Parker, stood up before six hundred or eight hundred to be shot at, their captain saying, 'Don't fire unless you are fired on; but if they want a war let it begin here.' It began there; they were fired upon; they fired rather ineffectually in return, while seven were killed and nine wounded. The rest, after retreating, reformed and pursued the' British towards Concord, capturing seven stragglers—the first prisoners taken in the war. Then followed the fight at Concord, where four hundred and fifty Americans, instead of thirty-eight, were rallied to meet the British. The fighting took place between two detachments at the North Bridge, where 'once the embattled farmers stood, And fired the shot heard round the world.' There the American captain, Isaac Davis, was killed at the first shot—he who had said, when his company was placed at the head of the little column, 'I haven't a man that is afraid to go.' He fell and Major Buttrick gave the order, 'Fire! for God's sake fire!' in return. The British detachment retreated in disorder, but their main body was too strong to be attacked, so they disabled a few cannon, destroyed some barrels of flour, cut down the liberty-pole, set fire to the court-house and then began their return march. It ended in a flight; they were exposed to a constant guerilla fire; minute-men flocked behind every tree and house; and only the foresight of Colonel Smith in sending for reinforcements had averted a surrender. At 2 P. M., near Lexington, Percy with his troops met the returning fugitives, and formed a hollow square, into which they ran and threw themselves on the ground exhausted. Then Percy in turn fell back. Militia still came pouring in from Dorchester, Milton, Dedham, as well as the nearer towns. A company from Danvers marched sixteen miles in four hours. The Americans lost ninety-three in killed, wounded and missing that day; the British, two hundred and seventy-three. But the important result was that every American colony now recognized that war had begun."

      J. L. Watson,
      Paul Revere's Signal
      (Massachusetts Historical Society Proceedings,
      November 1876).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (April).
The first Provincial Convention in New York.

"Reinforcements of foreign troops and supplies were constantly arriving in Boston. Howe, Clinton, and Burgoyne came, as generals, on the 25th of May. Bitterness, ridicule, and boasting, with all the irritating taunts of a mercenary soldiery, were freely poured on the patriots and on the 'mixed multitude' which composed the germ of their army yet to be. The British forces had cooped themselves up in Bos·ton, and the provincials determined that they should remain there, with no mode of exit save by the sea. The pear-shaped peninsula, hung to the mainland only by the stem called the 'Neck,' over which the tide-waters sometimes washed, was equally an inconvenient position for crowding regiments in war-like array, and a convenient one for the extemporized army which was about to beleaguer them there. … The town of Charlestown, which lay under the enemy's guns, had contained a population of between two and three thousand. The interruption of all the employments of peace, and the proximity of danger, had brought poverty and suffering upon the people. They had been steadily leaving the town, with such of their effects as they could carry with them. It proved to be well for them that they had acted upon the warning. It would seem that there were less than 200 of its inhabitants remaining in it at the time of the battle, when the flames kindled by the enemy and bombs from a battery on Copp's Hill laid it in ashes. On the third day after the affair at Concord, the Provincial Congress again assembled, voted to raise at once 13,000 men, to rally at Cambridge and the neighborhood, and asked aid from the other provinces, to which Connecticut, Rhode Island, and New Hampshire responded. The forts, magazines, and arsenals, such as they then were, were secured for the country. … Of the 15,000 men then gathered, by the cry of war, at Cambridge and Roxbury, all virtually, but not by formal investment, under the command of General Ward, nearly 10,000 belonged to Massachusetts, and the remainder to New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Connecticut. They have been designated since, at various times and by different writers, under the extreme contrast of terms, as an 'organized army,' and a 'mob.' Either of these terms would be equally inappropriate. … Our troops were 'minute-men' extemporized into fragmentary companies and skeleton regiments. The officers, chosen on the village-green or in its public-house, paying for the honor by a treat, or perhaps because they kept the premises where the treat could be most conveniently furnished, were not commissioned or ranked as the leaders of an army for campaign service. The yeomen of town and village had not come together at the summons of a commander-in-chief through adjutant, herald, or advertisement. They came unbidden, at an alarm from the bell on their meeting-house, or from a post-rider, or from the telegrams transmitted by tongue and ear. … And for the most part they were as free to go away as they had been to come. They were enlisted after a fashion, some prime conditions of which were their own convenience or pleasure. … Such of them as came from the seaboard might bring with them old sails for tents, while the midsummer days made it scarcely a hardship to many to have only the heavens for a roof. Generally their towns were expected to keep them supplied with food. … The forces then mustered at Cambridge as a central camp, and, stretching from the left at Chelsea almost round to Dorchester on the right, for nearly three quarters of a circle, were indeed not organized, nor yet had they any characteristic of a mere mob. They combined in fact four inde·pendent armies, united in resistance to a foreign enemy. … Each of the Provinces had raised, commissioned, and assumed the supply of its respective forces, holding them subject to their several orders. After the battle in Charlestown, the Committee of War in Connecticut ordered their generals, Spencer and Putnam, while they were on the territory of this Province, to regard General Ward as the commander-in-chief, and suggested to Rhode Island and New Hampshire to issue the same instructions to their soldiers. … General Artemas Ward was a conscientious and judicious patriot. In the French war he had earned some military experience and fame. … On October 27, 1774, the Provincial Congress, in which he was a delegate, appointed him a general officer, and on May 19 following, Commander-in-chief. As such he served at Cambridge till the arrival of Washington. On the very day of the battle in Charlestown, when the great chieftain was selected for his high service, Ward was chosen by the Continental Congress as its first major-general. Though he was only in his 48th year when he was burdened with the responsibility of the opening warfare, his body was infirm from disease and exposure. Lieutenant-General Thomas, two years the senior of Ward, was second in command. … General Israel Putnam preceded his Connecticut troops in hurrying to the scene of war on the news of the affair at Lexington and Concord. His men soon followed him, with like enthusiasm. The New Hampshire troops, on their arrival at Medford, made choice of Colonel John Stark as their leader. Colonel Nathaniel Greene commanded a regiment from Rhode Island. … A few days after the affair at Lexington, when virtually the siege began, General Gage, the British commander, at the solicitation of some of the leading citizens assembled in Faneuil Hall, had, by a mutual understanding, entered into an agreement that such of the inhabitants as wished to depart from the town should be at liberty to do so, if they would leave their arms behind them and covenant not to engage in any hostility against his army. The agreement was availed of by many of the suffering and frightened people. … But the original freedom and fulness of this understanding, on the part of General Gage, were soon reduced by a very strict examination of those who sought to go out of the town, and by a rigid search of the effects which they wished to take with them. … Several of the inhabitants remained in it from different motives: some as devoted loyalists; some as timid neutrals; some as spies, to watch each hostile movement and to communicate it to their friends outside. … After hostilities commenced, General Gage, of course, regarded the citizens as alike prisoners, either in the same sense in which he was himself under restraint, or as abettors of those who were his enemies. … The population of the town, independent of the military, was then about 18,000. To all those who were not in sympathy with them the British behaved in an insulting and exasperating manner. … To show, as members of the English Church establishment, their contempt of congregational places of worship, they removed the pews and pulpit from the Old South meeting-house, and, covering the floor with earth, they converted it into a riding-school for Burgoyne's squadron of cavalry. {3224} The two eastern galleries were allowed to remain, one for spectators, the other for a liquor-shop, while the fire in the stove was occasionally kindled by books and pamphlets from the library of a former pastor, Dr. Prince, which were in a room in the tower. … At the time of the skirmishes at Lexington and Concord there were about 4,000 British troops in Boston and at the Castle. The number was increased to more than 10,000 before the action in Charlestown."

      C. Stedman [English],
      History of the American War,
      volume 1, chapters 1 and 5.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (April-June).
The spreading of revolt.
All the colonies in line with New England.

"On the 23d of April, the day after the dissolution of the provincial Congress of New York, the news from Lexington burst upon the city. Though it was Sunday, the inhabitants speedily unloaded two sloops which lay at the wharfs, laden with flour and supplies for the British at Boston, of the value of £80,000. … The royal government lay hopelessly prostrate. Isaac Sears concerted with John Lamb to stop all vessels going to Quebec, Newfoundland, Georgia, or Boston, where British authority was still supreme. The people shut up the custom-house, and the merchants whose vessels were cleared out dared not let them sail. In the following days the military stores of the city of New York were secured, and volunteer companies paraded in the streets. … On the 1st of May the people, at the usual places of election, chose for the city and county a new general committee of one hundred, who 'resolved in the most explicit manner to stand or fall with the liberty of the continent.' All parts of the colony were summoned to send delegates to a provincial convention, to which the city and county of New York deputed one-and-twenty as their representatives. … On the 2d of May the New Jersey committee of correspondence called a provincial congress for the 23d at Trenton. To anticipate its influence, the governor convened the regular assembly eight days earlier at Burlington, and laid before them the project of Lord North [adopted by the British parliament in February, offering to each colony freedom from taxation on its making satisfactory provision for the general defense and for support of government]. The assembly could see in the proposition no avenue to reconciliation, and declared their intention to 'abide by the united voice of the continental congress.' Such, too, was the spirit of Pennsylvania. 'Let us not have it said of Philadelphia that she passed noble resolutions and neglected them,' were the words of Mifflin, youngest of the orators who on the 25th of April addressed the town-meeting called in that city on receiving the news from Lexington. Thousands were present, and agreed 'to associate for the purpose of defending with arms their lives, their property, and liberty.' Thomas Paine from that day 'rejected the sullen Pharaoh of the British throne forever.' … In Philadelphia, thirty companies, with 50 to 100 in each, daily practiced the manual exercise of the musket. One of them was raised from the Quakers. … The Pennsylvania assembly, which met on the first day of May, rejecting the overtures of the governor, 'could form no prospect of lasting advantages for Pennsylvania but from a communication of rights and property with the other colonies.' … On the 5th Franklin arrived, after a voyage over the smoothest seas, and the next morning was unanimously elected a deputy to the congress. … In Maryland, at the request of the colonels of militia, Eden, at Annapolis, gave up the arms and ammunition of the province to the freemen of the county. Pleased with his concession, the provincial convention distinguished itself by its moderation; and its delegates to congress determined to labor for a reconciliation. In Virginia [where, in the night of April 20th, Governor Dunmore had carried off the gunpowder stored in the colony's magazine at Williamsburg, and where, as a consequence, the excited people were already in arms, though no further action had yet been taken], on the 2d of May, at the cry from Lexington, the independent company of Hanover and its county committee were called together by Patrick Henry. The soldiers, most of them young men, elected him their chief, and marched for Williamsburg, on the way greatly increasing in numbers. Alarmed by the 'insurrections,' Dunmore convened the council, and in a proclamation of the 3d pretended that he had removed the ammunition, lest it should be seized by slaves. Message after message could not arrest the march or change the purpose of Henry. … At sunrise on the 4th the governor's messenger met Henry at New Kent, and, as a compensation for the gunpowder taken out of the magazine, paid him £330, for which he was to account to the convention of Virginia. The sum was found to be more than the value of the powder, and the next Virginia convention directed the excess to be paid back. … In twelve or thirteen days the message from Lexington was borne to Newbern, in North Carolina, where it 'wrought a great change.' The governor, in his panic, ordered the cannon in the town to be dismounted; and, after a remonstrance made in the name of the inhabitants by Abner Nash, 'the oracle of their committee and a principal promoter of sedition,' he shipped his wife to New York and fled to Fort Johnston, where a sloop-of-war had its station. In South Carolina, Charles Pinckney, on learning the inflexibility of parliament, using power intrusted to him by the provincial congress, appointed a committee of five to place the colony in a state of defence; on the 21st of April, the very night after their organization, men of Charleston, without disguise, under their direction, seized all the powder in the public magazines, and removed 800 stand of arms and other military stores from the royal arsenal. The tidings from Lexington induced the general committee to hasten the meeting of the provincial congress, whose members, on the 2d of June, Henry Laurens being their president, associated themselves for defence against every foe; 'ready to sacrifice their lives and fortunes to secure her freedom and safety.' They resolved to raise two regiments of infantry and a regiment of rangers. … The people of Charleston are as mad as they are here in Boston,' was the testimony of Gage. The skirmish at Lexington became known in Savannah on the 10th of May, and added Georgia to the union. At that time she had about 17,000 white inhabitants and 15,000 Africans. Her militia was not less than 3,000. {3225} Her frontier, which extended from Augusta to St. Mary's, was threatened by the Creeks, with 4,000 warriors; the Chickasas, with 450; the Cherokees, with 3,000; the Choctas, with 2,500. But danger could not make her people hesitate. On the night of the 11th, Noble Wimberley Jones, Joseph Habersham, Edward Telfair, and others, broke open the king's magazine in the eastern part of the city, and took from it over 500 pounds of powder. To the Boston wanderers they sent 63 barrels of rice and £122 in specie; and they kept the king's birthday by raising a liberty-pole."

G. Bancroft, History of the United States (Author's last revision), volume 4, chapter 11.

ALSO IN: T. Jones, History of New York during the Revolution, volume 1, chapter 2.

Proceedings of New York Provincial Congress (New York State Archives, volume 1).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (May).
The surprising of Ticonderoga and Crown Point.

"Early in the year 1775, as soon as it was made manifest by the attitude assumed on the part of the British government against the colonies, and by the conduct of General Gage in Boston, that open hostilities must inevitably commence in a short time, it began to be secretly whispered among the principal politicians in New England that the capture of Ticonderoga was an object demanding the first attention. In the month of March, Samuel Adams and Dr. Joseph Warren, as members of the Committee of Correspondence in Boston, sent an agent privately into Canada, on a political mission, with instructions to ascertain the feelings of the people there in regard to the approaching contest, and to make such reports as his observations should warrant. … This agent sent back intelligence from Montreal, and among other things advised, that by all means the garrison of Ticonderoga should be seized as quickly as possible after the breaking out of hostilities, adding that the people of the New Hampshire Grants had already agreed to undertake the task, and that they were the most proper persons to be employed in it. This hint was given three weeks anterior to the battle of Lexington, and how far it influenced future designs may not be known; but it is certain that, eight days after that event, several gentlemen at that time attending the Assembly in Hartford, Connecticut, concerted a plan for surprising Ticonderoga and seizing the cannon in that fortress, for the use of the army then marching from all quarters to the environs of Boston."

J. Sparks, Life of Ethan Allen (Library of American Biographies, volume 1), page 270.

The gentlemen above mentioned "borrowed of the Connecticut Treasury some 1,800 dollars, and enlisted Mott and Phelps of Hartford, and Blagden of Salisbury, to beat up recruits. With these they went northward, and at Pittsfield got the co-operation of Captains Easton and Brown. No time was to be lost, and they pushed on with some forty men to find that Vermont giant, Ethan Allen, at Bennington. Allen at once agreed to go; he sought out Seth Warner, and roused the 'Green Mountain Boys,' who were mostly Connecticut and Massachusetts men; so that, in a few days, there gathered at Castleton (7th of May, 1775) two hundred and seventy strong men. Allen was their first leader, Easton second, and Warner third. Their larger body was to cross the Lake in boats from Shoreham, and surprise 'Ty.' Captain Herrick, with thirty men, was to seize the pass of Skenesborough (now Whitehall) at the head of the Lake, and Captain Douglass was to search for and seize all boats and batteaux. While these things were in progress, the ambitious, active, and daring Benedict Arnold heard of this expedition, and at once got leave from the Committee of Safety at Cambridge, to lead it. He rode post-haste through Massachusetts to raise men, and, with a single follower, reached Castleton, and claimed the command. These rough cubs of the forest could not well understand why he should lead them, for had they not Allen, and Warner, and Easton, and Phelps, and Biggelow, and others? But they consented that he should join Allen as an equal; and so forward they went. On the 8th of May Captain Noah Phelps, disguised with rough farmer clothes, and a long beard, blundered into the fort at Ticonderoga, pretending he wanted to be shaved. He found the gates open, and discipline loose; for no telegraph had carried the Lexington news to them, nor had the winds wafted the smell of blood, or the sounds of muskets there. When the darkness was deepest on the night of the 9th, Allen and Arnold, with 83 men, pulled across the Lake, landed near the fort, and then sent back the boats for Warner and his men. They had a boy, Nathan Beman, for a guide, and were full of courage. Allen formed his men, made them a little speech, and all was ready, when the question arose as to who should have the honor of entering the fort first. The dispute was warm between Arnold and Allen, but was finally quieted; and, side by side, at daylight, they rushed through the gate of the fort, defended only by sleeping men. The sentinel snapped his musket, and ran, giving the alarm; the garrison hastily turned out, to find themselves in the face of superior numbers. Allen sought and found the Commander's bed-room, and when Captain Delaplace waked, he saw any thing but an Angel of Mercy with white wings. Delaplace opened the door, with trowsers in hand, and there the great gaunt Ethan stood, with a drawn sword in his hand. 'Surrender!' said Ethan. 'To you?' asked Delaplace. 'Yes, to me, Ethan Allen.' 'By whose authority?' asked Laplace. Ethan was growing impatient, and raising his voice, and waving his sword, he said: 'In the name of the Great Jehovah, and of the Continental Congress, by God!' Delaplace little comprehended the words, but surrendered at once. Thus, on the morning of 10th of May, the strong fortress of Ticonderoga was taken by the border-men, and with it 44 prisoners, 120 iron cannon, with swivels, muskets, balls, and some powder, without the loss of a single man. The surprise was planned and paid for by Connecticut, and was led by Allen, a Connecticut-born man, but was carried out by the 'Green Mountain Boys.' Skenesborough (Whitehall) was surprised and seized, while Major Skene was out shooting. Arnold at once manned a schooner, taken at Skenesborough, and led an attack against an armed sloop at St. John's; he took her and the place, and returned in triumph to meet Allen, who, in batteaux, was coming to sustain him. Warner led a party against Crown Point, and took it, with its hundred cannon, and small garrison of 12 men.

News of these things was carried to the Continental Congress, reassembled at Philadelphia, which caused almost as much surprise there, as Allen's demand did to Captain Delaplace, and more exultation. They requested the Committees of Safety of New York and Albany, to have an inventory made of the stores, so that they might be returned 'when the restoration of harmony between Great Britain and the Colonies' should render it safe."

W. C. Bryant and S. H. Gay, Popular History of the United States, volume 3, chapter 17.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (May-August).
   The Second Continental Congress and its work.
   Its powers, theoretical and actual.
   Its opportunity.
   Its influence.
   The New England Army adopted as the "Continental Army,"
   and Washington made Commander-in-chief.

"The second General Congress assembled at Philadelphia on the 10th of May. Peyton Randolph was again elected as president; but being obliged to return, and occupy his place as speaker of the Virginia Assembly, John Hancock, of Massachusetts, was elevated to the chair. … Many of those most active in vindicating colonial rights, and Washington among the number, still indulged the hope of an eventual reconciliation, while few entertained, or, at least, avowed the idea of complete independence. A second 'humble and dutiful' petition to the king was moved, but met with strong opposition. John Adams condemned it as an imbecile measure, calculated to embarrass the proceedings of Congress. He was for prompt and vigorous action. Other members concurred with him. Indeed, the measure itself seemed but a mere form, intended to reconcile the half-scrupulous; for subsequently, when it was carried, Congress, in face of it, went on to assume and exercise the powers of a sovereign authority. A federal union was formed, leaving to each colony the right of regulating its internal affairs according to its own individual constitution, but vesting in Congress the power of making peace or war; of entering into treaties and alliances; of regulating general commerce; in a word, of legislating on all such matters as regarded the security and welfare of the whole community. The executive power was to be vested in a council of twelve, chosen by Congress from among its own members, and to hold office for a limited time. Such colonies as had not sent delegates to Congress might yet become members of the confederacy by agreeing to its conditions. Georgia, which had hitherto hesitated, soon joined the league, which thus extended from Nova Scotia to Florida. Congress lost no time in exercising their federated powers. In virtue of them, they ordered the enlistment of troops, the construction of forts in various parts of the colonies, the provision of armies, ammunition, and military stores; while, to defray the expense of these, and other measures, avowedly of self-defence, they authorized the emission of notes to the amount of $3,000,000, bearing the inscription of 'The United Colonies'; the faith of the confederacy being pledged for their redemption. A retaliating decree was passed, prohibiting all supplies of provisions to the British fisheries; and another, declaring the province of Massachusetts Bay absolved from its compact with the crown, by the violation of its charter; and recommending it to form an internal government for itself. … The situation of the New England army, actually besieging Boston, became an early and absorbing consideration. It was without munitions of war, without arms, clothing, or pay; in fact, without legislative countenance or encouragement. Unless sanctioned and assisted by Congress, there was danger of its dissolution. … The disposition to uphold the army was general; but the difficult question was, who should be commander-in-chief? … The opinion evidently inclined in favor of Washington; yet it was promoted by no clique of partisans or admirers. More than one of the Virginia delegates, says Adams, were cool on the subject of this appointment. … Adams, in his diary, claims the credit of bringing the members of Congress to a decision. … On the 15th of June, the army was regularly adopted by Congress, and the pay of the commander-in-chief fixed at $500 a month. Many still clung to the idea, that in all these proceedings they were merely opposing the measures of the ministry, and not the authority of the crown, and thus the army before Boston was designated as the Continental Army, in contradistinction to that under General Gage, which was called the Ministerial Army. In this stage of the business, Mr. Johnson, of Maryland, rose, and nominated Washington for the station of commander-in-chief. The election was by ballot, and was unanimous. It was formally announced to him by the president, on the following day, when he had taken his seat in Congress. Rising in his place, he briefly expressed his high and grateful sense of the honor conferred on him, and his sincere devotion to the cause. 'But,' added he, 'lest some unlucky event should happen unfavorable to my reputation, I beg it may be remembered by every gentleman in the room, that I this day declare, with the utmost sincerity, I do not think myself equal to the command I am honored with. As to pay, I beg leave to assure the Congress that, as no pecuniary consideration could have tempted me to accept this arduous employment, at the expense of my domestic ease and happiness, I do not wish to make any profit on it. I will keep an exact account of my expenses. Those, I doubt not, they will discharge, and that is all I desire.'" Four major-generals,—Artemas Ward, Charles Lee, Philip Schuyler and Israel Putnam,—and eight brigadier-generals—Seth Pomeroy, Richard Montgomery, David Wooster, William Heath, Joseph Spencer, John Thomas, John Sullivan, and Nathaniel Greene—were appointed. "At Washington's express request, his old friend, Major Horatio Gates, then absent at his estate in Virginia, was appointed adjutant-general, with the rank of brigadier."

   "The Congress of 1775 was not content with mere expression of
   opinions. It took a large view of its powers. It realized that
   its efficiency depended wholly upon the acceptance of its acts
   by the principals of the different delegations; but, following
   its judgment as to what the patriotism of the colonies would
   approve and sustain, it initiated action of various kinds,
   which, from the beginning, assumed the certainty of adoption
   by the colonies, and derived all its energy from the
   probability of such ratification.
{3227}
   The Congress doubtless exceeded the letter of the instructions
   received by a portion of its members; but this was not from
   any misconception of those instructions. … In pointing out to
   the colonies the direction which their preparations for
   resistance ought to take, the Congress no more acted upon an
   imagined authority to command the colonies than does the
   lookout at the bow of the ship, when he reports the direction
   of danger to the officer of the deck. The Congress
   unquestionably enjoyed a prestige at this juncture which it
   subsequently lost. The people, and even the provincial
   conventions, occasionally addressed it in a tone which
   indicated that they unconsciously attributed to it power which
   it plainly did not possess."

      A. W. Small,
      The Beginnings of American Nationality
      (Johns Hopkins University Studies, 8th series, 1-2)
      page 73.

"With the energy and recklessness of a French revolutionary body it might have blotted out the distinctions between colonies, and established a centralized government, to be modified in time by circumstances. In fact, it took no such direction. It began its course by recommendations to the new colonial governments; it relied on them for executive acts; and, as soon as the new colonies were fairly under way, they seized on the power of naming and recalling the delegates to the Congress. From that time the decadence of the Congress was rapid; the national idea became dimmer; and the assertions of complete sovereignty by the political units became more pronounced."

A. Johnston, The United States: its History and Constitution, sections 63-66 (chapter 3).

      H. von Holst,
      Constitutional and Political History of the United States,
      volume 1, chapter 1.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (June).
End of Royal Government in New Hampshire.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (June).
The end of Royal Government In Virginia.

"British reinforcements, under three generals, Howe, Clinton, and Burgoyne, arrived at Boston soon after the fight at Lexington. Gage had now about 10,000 men. These occupied the town of Boston, which lay on a peninsula covering the middle of the harbor. Around them, on the hills of the mainland, there were about twice their number of undisciplined and poorly-armed Americans, without cannon and almost without food. Just north of Boston, another peninsula ran out into the harbor. On it there were several hills, and the Americans determined to seize and fortify one of them, called Bunker Hill. About 1,000 men, under Colonel Prescott, were sent into the peninsula for this on a suitable night. For some reason, they passed beyond Bunker Hill, and seized Breed's Hill, much closer to Boston. Breed's Hill is now usually called Bunker Hm, and the Bunker Hill monument is erected upon it. The American fortification was continued silently and swiftly through the night. In the morning of June 17, 1775, the British in Boston woke to see a long line of intrenchments running across the hill above them, and an American working-party busily strengthening it. For a time, the British frigates in the harbor kept up a slow and distant fire, to which the working-party paid no attention; but at noon the work was stopped, for the British troops were coming across the harbor in boats. Three thousand well armed, uniformed, and drilled soldiers, who had never known defeat in equal fight, landed near Charlestown, under General Howe. Here they formed at the water-side, and in a long, steady line began to move upward to scatter the 1,500 farmers who were watching them from the top of the hill. From the roofs of the houses in Boston, the rest of the British army and the townspeople were watching, anxious to see 'whether the Yankees would fight.' Most of the watchers expected to see the untrained soldiers in the fort fire a few hasty shots at a safe distance, and run. The fort held a threatening silence until the attacking column was within 150 feet. Then, at the word, came a sheet of fire from the marksmen within; and, when the smoke lifted, part of the British line was lying dead or wounded, and the rest were retreating hastily down the hill. The British were not cowards: the officers re-formed the line at the bottom of the hill, and, after setting fire to Charlestown, again advanced to the attack. Again there was a steady silence in the fort, a close and deadly fire, and the British line was driven down the hill again. The British then moved up the hill for the third time. The powder in the fort was now gone, and the garrison fought for a few minutes with gun stocks and stones against the British bayonets. But such a struggle was hopeless, and the British gained the fort. They were too tired to pursue the garrison, who escaped to the mainland."

"As soon as Prescott saw the defence was hopeless, he ordered a retreat, and friend and foe mingled together as they surged out of the sally-port amid the clouds of dust which the trampling raised, for a scorching sun had baked the new-turned soil. It was now, while the confused mass of beings rocked along down the rear slope of the hill, that Warren [who had joined the defending force that morning as a volunteer] fell, shot through the head. No one among the Americans knew certainly that he was dead, as they left him. … Prescott did not conceal his indignation at not having been better supported, when he made his report at Ward's headquarters. He knew he had fought well; but neither he nor his contemporaries understood at the time how a physical defeat might be a moral victory. Not knowing this, there was little else than mortification over the result,—indeed, on both sides. … The general opinion seems to be that the Americans had about 1,500 men engaged at one time, and that from 3,000 to 4,000 at different times took some part in it. The British had probably about the same numbers in all, but were in excess of the Americans at all times while engaged. The conflict with small arms lasted about ninety minutes."

      J. Winsor,
      The Conflict Precipitated
      (Narrative and Critical History of America,
      volume 6, chapter 2).

   "How can we exaggerate the relative importance of this day's
   action? Did it not, in fact, not only open, but make the
   contest, dividing into two parties not only those determined
   for the ministry or for enfranchisement, but also all timid,
   hesitating, reluctant neutrals? It was impossible after this
   to avoid taking a side. It rendered all reconciliation
   impossible, till it should offer itself in the shape of
   independence.
{3228}
   It echoed the gathering cry that brought together our people
   from their farms and workshops, to learn the terrible art
   which grows more merciful only as it is more ferociously, that
   is, skilfully, pursued. The day needs no rhetoric to magnify
   it in our revolutionary annals. When its sun went down, the
   provincials had parted with all fear, hesitation, and
   reluctance. They found that it was easy to fight. … General
   Gage's account of the battle, acknowledging the loss of 226
   killed and 828 wounded, was received in London, July 25th.
   While the ministry received with dismay this official
   intelligence, and kept it back from publication, many private
   letters accompanying it in its transit anticipated with
   exaggerations its humiliating details."

      S. A. Drake,
      Historic Fields and Mansions of Middlesex,
      chapter 3.

      F. Moore, editor,
      Diary of the American Revolution,
      volume 1, pages 97-103.

      B. J. Lossing,
      Field Book of the American Revolution,
      volume 1.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (August-December).
Unsuccessful expedition to Canada.

"The exploits of Allen and Arnold at Ticonderoga … had invited further conquests; but the Continental Congress hesitated to take any steps which might seem to carry war across the line till the Canadians had the opportunity of casting in their lot with their neighbors. On the 1st of June, 1775, Congress had distinctly avowed this purpose of restraint; and they well needed to be cautious, for the Canadian French had not forgotten the bitter aspersions on their religion which Congress had, with little compunction, launched upon its professors, under the irritation of the Quebec Act. Still their rulers were aliens, and the traditional hatred of centuries between races is not easily kept in abeyance. Ethan Allen was more eager to avail himself of this than Congress was to have him; but the march of events converted the legislators, and the opportunity which Allen grieved to see lost was not so easily regained when Congress at last authorized the northern invasion. Arnold and Allen had each aimed to secure the command of such an expedition, the one by appealing to the Continental Congress, the other by representations to that of New York. Allen had also gone in person to Philadelphia, and he and his Green Mountain Boys were not without influence upon Congress, in their quaint and somewhat rough ways, as their exuberant patriotism later made the New York authorities forget their riotous opposition to the policy which that province had been endeavoring to enforce in the New Hampshire Grants. Connecticut had already sent forward troops to Ticonderoga to hold that post till Congress should decide upon some definite action; and at the end of June, 1775, orders reached Schuyler which he might readily interpret as authorizing him, if the Canadians did not object, to advance upon Canada. He soon started to assume command, but speedily found matters unpromising. The Johnsons were arming the Indians up the Mohawk and beyond in a way that boded no good, and they had entered into compacts with the British commanders in Canada. Arnold had been at Ticonderoga, and had quarrelled with Hinman, the commander of the Connecticut troops. Schuyler heard much of the Green Mountain Boys, but he only knew them as the lawless people of the Grants, and soon learned that Allen and Warner had themselves set to quarrelling. … In August the news from Canada began to be alarming. Richard Montgomery, an Irish officer who had some years before left the army to settle on the Hudson and marry, was now one of the new brigadiers. He urged Schuyler to advance and anticipate the movement now said to be intended by Carleton, the English general commanding in Canada. At this juncture Schuyler got word from Washington that a coöperating expedition would be dispatched by way of the Kennebec, which, if everything went well, might unite with Schuyler's before Quebec."

      J. Winsor,
      The Conflict Precipitated
      (Narrative and Critical History of America, volume 6).

   The two movements were made, from Ticonderoga and from the
   Kennebec, with results which will be found related under
   CANADA: A. D. 1775-1776. "No expedition during the American
   Revolution had less elements of permanent value than those
   which were undertaken against Canada during the year 1775.
   Great results were anticipated, but none were realized. The
   obstacles were too substantial, and failure was inevitable.
   Wonderful endurance and great physical courage were
   manifested, and these were accompanied by a prodigious amount
   of faith, but there was neither ability nor opportunity for
   works commensurate with the faith. Certain Acts of Parliament,
   known as the Canadian Acts, were as offensive to Canadians as
   other legislation was to Americans; but the former were not
   pressed to the extremity of armed resistance. The people
   themselves having no harmony of religious or political views,
   were equally divided in language and race. Neither did the
   Canadians invite the aid of the colonies. The hypothesis that
   Canada would blend her destiny with that of New England, and
   would unite in resistance to the crown, certainly involved
   some identity of interest as well as of action. But the
   characters of the two people were too unlike to be unified by
   simple opposition to English legislation, and Canadians had no
   antecedents such as would prompt a hearty sympathy with New
   England and its controlling moral sentiment. Neither was there
   such a neighborly relation as admitted of prompt and adequate
   aid from one to the other, in emergencies calling for a
   combined effort. As a base of operations for a British army
   moving upon the colonies, Canada had the single advantage of
   being less distant from England than an Atlantic base, and
   many supplies could be procured without the expense and delay
   of their transportation across the Atlantic; but between
   Canada and the American colonies there was an actual
   wilderness. Hence a British offensive movement from Canada
   involved constant waste of men and materials, a deep line
   through an uninhabited or hostile region, and such a constant
   backing, as was both inconsistent with the resources of the
   base, and with a corresponding support of armies resting upon
   the sea coast. The British government was not ready for
   operations so extensive and so exhaustive of men and treasure;
   neither did it realize the necessity for that expenditure.
{3229}
   There were two alternatives, one illustrated by General
   Carleton's plan, viz., to hold the forts of Lake Champlain, as
   advanced, defensive positions; and the other, that of
   Burgoyne, to strike through the country and depend upon
   support from the opposite base. The true defense of the
   colonies from such expeditions depended upon the prompt
   seizure and occupation of the frontier posts. An American
   advance upon Canada was not only through a country
   strategically bad, but the diversion of forces for that
   purpose endangered the general issue, and entrusted its
   interests to the guardianship of an army already insufficient
   to meet the pressing demands of the crisis. The occupation of
   New York in 1775, by an adequate British force, would have
   infinitely outweighed all possible benefit from the complete
   conquest of Canada. At the very time when Washington could
   hardly hold the British garrison of Boston in check,—when he
   had an average of but nine rounds of ammunition per man, he
   was required to spare companies, ammunition, and supplies for
   a venture, profitless at best,—with the certainty that
   reinforcements could not be supplied as fast as the enemy
   could draw veteran regiments from Great Britain and Ireland,
   to defend or recover Canadian soil. In giving a rapid outline
   of this first attempt of the colonies to enlarge the theatre
   of active operations, it should be noticed that the initiative
   had been taken before General Washington had been elected
   commander-in-chief, and that Congress itself precipitated the
   final movement."

ALSO IN: B. J. Lossing, Life and Times of Philip Schuyler, volume 1, chapters 19-29, and volume 2, chapters 1-4.

      J. Armstrong,
      Life of Richard Montgomery
      (Library of American Biographies, volume 1).

      J. Henry,
      Account of Arnold's Campaign against Quebec,
      by one of the Survivors.

      W. Irving,
      Life of Washington.
      volume 2, chapters 4-5, 8-9, 12, 15-16, 19-20.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (September).
Flight of Govern or Tryon from New York.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775-1776.
Washington in command at Cambridge.
The British forced out of Boston.

Washington "arrived in Cambridge, Massachusetts, on the 2d of July [1775], and on the following day presented himself at the head of the army. His head-quarters remained at Cambridge, till the evacuation of Boston by the royal forces on the 17th of March, 1776. The position of affairs was one of vast responsibility and peril. The country at large was highly excited, and expected that a bold stroke would be struck and decisive successes obtained. But the army was without organization and discipline; the troops unused to obey, the officers for the most part unaccustomed, some of them incompetent, to command. A few of them only had had a limited experience in the Seven Years' War. Most of the men had rushed to the field on the first alarm of hostilities, without any enlistment; and when they were enlisted, it was only till the end of the year. There was no military chest; scarce anything that could be called a commissariat. The artillery consisted of a few old field-pieces of various sizes, served with a very few exceptions by persons wholly untrained in gunnery. There was no siege train, and an almost total want of every description of ordnance stores. Barrels of sand, represented as powder, were from time to time brought into the camp, to prevent the American army itself from being aware of its deficiency in that respect. In the autumn of 1775, an alarm of small-pox was brought from Boston, and the troops were subjected to inoculation: There was no efficient power, either in the Provincial Assembly or the Congress at Philadelphia, by which these wants could be supplied and these evils remedied. Such were the circumstances under which General Washington took the field, at the head of a force greatly superior in numbers to the royal army, but in all other respects a very unequal match. Meantime the British were undisputed masters of the approaches to Boston by water. Washington's letters disclose extreme impatience under the inaction to which he was condemned; but the gravest difficulties attended the expulsion of the royal forces from Boston. It could only be effected by the bombardment and assault of that place; an attempt which must in any event have been destructive to the large non-combatant population, that had been unable to remove into the country, and which would have been of doubtful success, for the want of a siege train, and with troops wholly unused to such an undertaking. Having in the course of the year received some captured ordnance from Canada [from Fort Ticonderoga], and a supply of ammunition taken by privateers at sea, Washington was strongly disposed to assault the town, as soon as the freezing of the bay on the western side of the peninsula would allow the troops to pass on the ice. The winter, however, remained open longer than usual, and a council of war dissuaded this attempt. He then determined to occupy Nook's Hill (an eminence at the extremity of Dorchester 'Neck,' as it was called, separated from Boston by a narrow arm of the harbor), and Dorchester Heights, which commanded Nook's Hill and the town itself. In this way the royal forces would be compelled to take the risk of a general action, for the purpose of dislodging the Americans, or else to evacuate the town. The requisite preparations having been made with secrecy, energy, and despatch, the heights were covered with breastworks on the night of the 4th of March, 1776, as 'by enchantment.' A partial movement, undertaken by the royal army to dislodge the Americans, was frustrated by stress of weather; and on the 17th of March, in virtue of an agreement to that effect with the municipal government, the town and harbor of Boston were evacuated by the British army and army without firing a gun. Thus, without a battle and without the destruction of a building in Boston, the first year of the war was brought to a successful and an auspicious close."

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775-1776.
The beginning of the American Navy,
and the early fitting out of Privateers.

   "Before the end of 1775 the Continental Congress ordered that
   five ships of 32 guns should be built, five of 28, and three
   of 24. This order was carried out, and these vessels are the
   proper beginning of the navy of the United States. Almost
   everyone of them, before the war was over, had been captured,
   or burned to avoid capture.
{3230}
   But the names of the little fleet will always be of interest
   to Americans, and some of those names have always been
   preserved on the calendar of the navy. They are the
   'Washington,' 'Raleigh,' 'Hancock,' 'Randolph,' 'Warren,'
   'Virginia,' 'Trumbull,' 'Effingham,' 'Congress,' 'Providence,'
   'Boston,' 'Delaware,' 'Montgomery.' The State of Rhode Island,
   at the very outbreak of hostilities, commissioned Abraham
   Whipple, who went with his little vessel as far as Bermuda,
   and, from his experience in naval warfare earned in the French
   War, he was recognized as commodore of the little fleet of
   American cruisers. … Meanwhile, every maritime State issued
   commissions to privateers, and established admiralty or prize
   courts, with power to condemn prizes when brought in.
   Legitimate commerce had been largely checked, and … the seamen
   of the country, who had formerly been employed in the
   fisheries, or in our large foreign trade with the West India
   Islands and with Europe, gladly volunteered in the private
   service. Till the end of the war the seamen preferred the
   privateer service to that of the government. … The larger
   maritime States had in commission one or more vessels from the
   beginning, but they found the same difficulty which the
   Congress found in enlisting seamen, when any bold privateer
   captain came into rivalry with them. … As early as the 22d of
   December, in 1775, Congress had appointed Esek Hopkins, of
   Rhode Island, commander-in-chief of its navy, and had named
   four captains besides, with several lieutenants, the first of
   whom was John Paul Jones. … On the 10th of October [1776] a
   resolution of Congress fixed the rank of captains in the navy,
   … Paul Jones eighteenth on a list of twenty-four. Jones was
   not pleased that his rank was not higher, but eventually his
   achievements were such that his reputation probably now stands
   higher as a successful officer than that of any of the
   number."

      E. E. Hale,
      Naval History of the American Revolution
      (Narrative and Critical History of America,
      volume 6, chapter 7).

      ALSO IN:
      J. F. Cooper,
      Naval History of the United States,
      volume 1, chapters 4-6.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (January).
Adoption of a Constitution in New Hampshire.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (January-June).
King George's war measures and Paine's "Common Sense."
The setting of the tide of opinion toward national independence.

"Disastrous news arrived from England before the close of the winter of 1775-6. The King had opened Parliament with a speech in which he had denounced the Colonists as rebels, seeking, with deceitful pretences, to establish an independent empire; and his Majesty recommended decisive, coercive measures against them. … The answer to the Royal Address (adopted by a vote of seventy-six to thirty-three in the Lords, and two hundred and seventy-eight to one hundred and eight in the Commons) gave assurances of the firm support of Parliament to the proposed measures. The very moderately conciliatory propositions made by the Duke of Richmond, Mr. Burke, and the Duke of Grafton, were summarily voted down, and not far from the middle of December the atrocious' Prohibitory Act,' as it was generally designated, passed. It was, in effect, a declaration of war, and a war unrestrained by the customs, and unmitigated by the decencies of civilization. It authorized the confiscation of American vessels and cargoes, and those of all nations found trading in American ports. It authorized British commanders to impress American crews into the British Navy, and to place them on the same footing with voluntarily enlisted seamen; that is, to give them a choice between parricide and being hung at a yardarm! Finally, it referred all future negotiations to two Commissioners, to be sent out along with a conquering armament, who were allowed to grant pardons to individuals and Colonies, on submission, thus leaving no future alternative opposed to the latter but the sword, and indicating that henceforth all appeals to King or Parliament were cut off. … Concurrently with these legislative steps, the practical ones for carrying on the war, with a large army, were entered upon. Finding it difficult or impossible to obtain the necessary recruits at home, and that the existing English and Irish regiments embarked with such reluctance that it was necessary to keep a guard upon the transports 'to keep them from deserting by wholesale,' the Ministry successively applied to Russia, the States-General, and finally, several of the German States for mercenaries. … The infamy of filling up the British armament was reserved for the Princes of three or four petty German States. … As the news of these events successively reached the American Congress and people, in the winter and spring of 1775-6, the contest took a new coloring. Not only the bold, but the moderate began now to see the real alternative before them. And at a critical moment the remedy, and the path to it, were pointed out by a master hand. 'Common Sense' was published by Thomas Paine, and a more effective popular appeal never went to the bosoms of a nation. Its tone, its manner, its biblical illusions, its avoidance of all openly impassioned appeals to feeling, and its unanswerable common sense were exquisitely adapted to the great audience to which it was addressed; and calm investigation will satisfy the historical student that its effect in preparing the popular mind for the Declaration of Independence, exceeded that of any other paper, speech, or document made to favor it, and it would scarcely be exaggeration to add, than all other such means put together. John Adams, with a childish perpetuance, and with a rancor so vehement that it appears ridiculous, spares no occasion to underrate Paine's services, and to assault his opinions and character. … His transparent motive seems to be to decry the author of a paper which had too much the credit of preparing the public mind for the Declaration of Independence, a credit which Mr. Adams was more than anxious to monopolize. Let us be just. Paine's services in paving the way to the Declaration are not to be mentioned on the same page with John Adams's. Moreover, Independence would have been declared, and, perhaps, nearly as early, had Paine never written. But he did, at a propitious moment, and with consummate adaptation, write a paper which went like the arrow which pierces the centre of the target. Its effect was instantaneous and tremendous. … The work ran through innumerable editions in America and France. The world rung with it. … It admits of no doubt that pretty early in 1776, all the true Whigs in Congress, moderates as well as ultras, became satisfied of the necessity and expediency of separation, and that henceforth it was only a question of time with them. {3231} Enactments placing the struggle on the footing of open war, instead of mere insurrection—issuing letters of marque and reprisal against the enemies of our commerce—advising the local authorities to disarm the disaffected—opening the ports of the country to all nations but Great Britain—directing negotiations for foreign alliances to be undertaken—were successively made. Finally, on the 10th of May, a resolution, prepared by John Adams and R. H. Lee, passed the House, advising all the Colonies to form governments for themselves; and in this, unlike preceding instances of giving advice on the same subject, no limitation of the duration of the governments to be formed 'to the continuance of the present dispute' was inserted. This, with a befitting preamble, written by John Adams, was adopted on the 15th, … and was, obviously, a long and bold stride in the direction of independence, and must have been understood by all as its signal and precursor. … Congress cheered on those whom peculiar circumstances had rendered more backward, and it tarried for them a little by the way; on the other hand, it prudently waited for the prompting of the more forward. Thus it avoided the appearance of dominating over public opinion—thus it 'kept front and rear together.' Early in April (12th), North Carolina 'empowered' her delegates 'to concur with the delegates of other Colonies in declaring independency.' At its 'May session' (the day of the month not appearing in the record under our eye), the General Assembly of Rhode Island abolished its act of allegiance, and directed all commissions and legal processes henceforth to issue in the name and under the authority of the 'Governor and Company.' The Connecticut General Assembly, which met on the 9th of May, before its adjournment (date not before us), repealed its act against high treason, and made the same order with Rhode Island in regard to legal processes. On the 15th of May, Virginia took a still more decisive step, by instructing its delegates in Congress to move for a Declaration of Independence. … The Virginia delegates in Congress made choice of Richard H. Lee to move the resolutions contained in their instructions of May 15th; and he did so on Friday, the 7th day of June, John Adams seconding them. Their consideration was postponed until the next day, when they were referred to a committee of the whole, and debated throughout Saturday and the succeeding Monday. On the latter day (10th) Congress resolved: 'That the consideration of the first resolution be postponed to Monday, the first day of July next; and in the meanwhile, that no time be lost, in case the Congress agree thereto, that a committee be appointed to prepare a declaration to the effect of the said first resolution, which is in these words: That these Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown; and that all Political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved.'"

ALSO IN: G. Bancroft, History of United States (Author's last revision), volume 4, chapters 24-28.

E. G. Scott, The Development of Constitutional Liberty in the English Colonies, chapter 11.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (January-June). Engagement of hireling Hessians to reinforce the British arms.

"The [British] Cabinet had entertained some hopes of Russian auxiliaries [application for 20,000 of whom had been made to the Empress Catherine, who refused them with hardly concealed scorn], but the negotiation for that object could not be matured. Early in the year treaties were signed with the Landgrave of Hesse for taking into British pay 12,000 of his men; with the Duke of Brunswick and other petty potentates of Germany for 5,000 more. These little princes, seeing the need of England, which did not choose to lean, as she might and should have done, on her own right arm, insisted on obtaining, and did obtain, most usurious terms. Under the name of levy-money, there was to be paid to them the price of 30 crowns for every foot-soldier. Under the name of subsidy, each of their Serene Highnesses was moreover to be indulged with a yearly sum, irrespective of the pay and subsistence of the troops; and on the plea that in this case no certain number of years was stipulated as the term of service, the Landgrave of Hesse claimed and was promised a double subsidy, namely 450,000 crowns a year. The men were to enter into pay before they began to march! The subsidies were to be continued for one full year at least after the war was over and the troops had returned to their respective homes. Never yet, in short, was the blood of brave men sold on harder terms. The disgrace of this transaction to the German Princes who engaged in it requires little comment. … The ablest by far of the German Princes at that time, Frederick of Prussia, was not in general a man of compassionate feelings. He had no especial love or care for the North American cause. … Yet even Frederick expressed in strong terms his contempt for the scandalous man-traffic of his neighbours. It is said that whenever any of the newly hired Brunswickers or Hessians had to pass through any portion of his territory he claimed to levy on them the usual toll as for so many head of cattle, since he said they had been sold as such! Nor can the British ministry in this transaction be considered free from blame. … Certain it is that among the various causes which at this period wrought upon our trans-Atlantic brethren to renounce their connection with us, there was none more cogent in their minds than the news that German mercenaries had been hired and were coming to fight against them."

Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope), History of England, 1713-1783, chapter 53 (volume 6).

   "The first German troops to start for America were the
   Brunswickers. These marched from Brunswick on February 22d,
   1776, 2,282 strong, and were embarked at Stade, near the mouth
   of the Elbe. The second division of Brunswickers embarked at
   the end of May—about 2,000 men. The first Hessians set out
   from Cassel early in March, and were shipped at Bremerlehe,
   near the mouth of the Weser. The second division was embarked
   in June. Together they numbered between 12,000 and 13,000 men.
{3232}
   They were for the most part excellent troops and well
   equipped, for the Landgrave's little army was one of the best
   in Germany. … The Prince of Waldeck sent his regiment through
   Cassel without trouble. The Prince of Hesse-Hanau, the
   Margrave of Anspach-Bayreuth, and the Prince of Anhalt-Zerbst
   had a longer road."

ALSO IN: M. von Eelking, Memoirs of General Riedesel, volume 1, pages 18-88, and appendix.

      G. Bancroft,
      History of the United States
      (Author's last revision),
      volume 4, chapter 22.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (February).
Flight of the Royal Governor from Georgia.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (March).
State government organized and a Constitution adopted in
South Carolina.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (April).
North Carolina the first colony to declare for independence.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (May).
Rhode Island renounces allegiance to the King.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (May).
Popular vote for independence in Massachusetts.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (May-June).
Independence declared and Constitution adopted in Virginia.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (June).
The British repulsed at Charleston.

   "Early in 1776 the task was assigned to Clinton, who had in
   January departed from Boston, … to force and hold the Southern
   colonies to their allegiance.

Cornwallis, with troops, was sent over under convoy of Sir Peter Parker's fleet, to give Clinton the army he needed. The fleet did not reach North Carolina till May. In March, [Charles] Lee, while in New York, had wished to be ordered to the command in Canada, as 'he was the only general officer on the continent who could speak and think in French.' He was disappointed, and ordered farther south. By May he was in Virginia, ridding the country of Tories, and trying to find out where Parker intended to land. It was expected that Clinton would return north to New York in season to operate with Howe, when he opened the campaign there in the early summer, as that general expected to do, and the interval for a diversion farther south was not long. Lee had now gone as far as Charleston (South Carolina), and taken command in that neighborhood, while in charge of the little fort at the entrance of the harbor was William Moultrie, upon whom Lee was inculcating the necessity of a slow and sure fire, in case it should prove that Parker's destination, as it might well be, was to get a foothold in the Southern provinces, and break up the commerce which fed the rebellion through that harbor. The people of Charleston had been for some time engaged on their defences, and 'seem to wish a trial of their mettle,' wrote a looker-on. The fort in question was built of palmetto logs, and was unfinished on the land side. Its defenders had four days' warning, and the neighboring militia were summoned. On the 4th of June the hostile fleet appeared, and having landed troops on an adjacent island, it was not till the 27th that their dispositions were made for an attack. Their ships threw shot at the fort all day, which did very little damage, while the return fire was rendered with a precision surprising in untried artillerists, and seriously damaged the fleet, of which one ship was grounded and abandoned. The expected land attack from Clinton's troops, already ashore on Long Island, was not made. A strong wind had raised the waters of the channel between that island and Sullivan's Island so high that it could not be forded, and suitable boats for the passage were not at hand. A few days later the shattered vessels and the troops left the neighborhood, and Colonel Moultrie had leisure to count the cost of his victory, which was twelve killed and twice as many wounded. The courage of Sergeant Jasper, in replacing on the bastion a flag which had been shot away, became at once a household anecdote."

J. Winsor, The Conflict Precipitated (Narrative and Critical History of America. volume 6, chapter 2).

ALSO IN: H. Flanders, Life of John Rutledge, chapter 10 (Lives of the Chief Justices, volume 1).

C. B. Hartley, Life of General William Moultrie (Heroes and Patriots of the South), chapter 2.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (June).
Resolutions for Independence.
Making ready for the Declaration.

"Things were now verging on every side to the same point. North Carolina had conferred the necessary powers to vote for independence and foreign alliances as early as the 12th of April. And now came the news from Richard Lee, to Mr. Adams, that on the very day of the passage of the significant preamble in congress, the 15th of May, the convention of Virginia had gone a step further, and had instructed their delegates to propose independence. Authority to assent to its natural consequences, a confederation and foreign alliances, followed as a matter of course. On the other hand, the convention of Massachusetts had referred the subject back to the people, to be considered and acted upon at their primary town meetings, and the responses had been for some time corning in unequivocally enough. So decided was the feeling that Joseph Hawley, impatient of the delay, was stimulating the nowise reluctant Gerry to greater exertions. Perceiving these encouraging indications in opposite quarters, the friends of independence now consulted together, and made up their minds that the moment had come for a final demonstration. Resolutions, embracing the three great points, were carefully matured, which it was arranged that Richard Henry Lee, on behalf of the delegates of Virginia, should present, and John Adams should second, for Massachusetts. The movement took place, accordingly, on the 7th of June. It appears on the journal, recorded with the customary caution, as follows:

'Certain resolutions respecting independency being moved and seconded,—Resolved, that the consideration of them be referred till to-morrow morning; and that the members be enjoined to attend punctually at ten o'clock, in order to take the same into their consideration.' It was well that a measure of so momentous a character should be accompanied with as much of the forms of notice and special assignment as the body could properly give it. The record of what passed at the appointed time has come down to us very barren of details. {3233} We only know that the resolutions were referred to the committee of the whole, where they were debated with great spirit during that day, Saturday, and again on Monday, the 10th, by which time it had become quite clear that a majority of the colonies were prepared to adopt the first and leading resolution. This majority was composed of the four New England, and three out of the four southern colonies. But it being deemed unadvisable to place this great act upon so narrow a basis, and a prospect being held out of securing a more general concurrence by delaying the decision, a postponement until the 1st of July was effected by a change of the votes of two colonies. In the mean while, however, as it was thought suitable to accompany the act with an elaborate exposition of the causes which were held to justify it, a committee was ordered to have in charge the preparation of such a paper in season for the adjourned debate. … At the same time that Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Roger Sherman, and Robert R. Livingston, all but the last named being of the movement, were appointed the committee to prepare a declaration, as mentioned, the congress formally voted a second committee, with powers to prepare and digest a form of confederation to be entered into between the colonies; and yet a third, to mature a plan of treaties to be proposed to foreign powers. In this compass were included all the elements of national sovereignty abroad and at home. … The bulk of opposition now centred in the five middle colonies, and the pillar upon which it leaned was John Dickinson. But under the combined assaults conducted by the leading colonies of Virginia and Massachusetts, it was plain that victory was become a mere question of time. Jonathan D. Sergeant, who had left congress to hasten a change in the counsels of New Jersey, had been so successful in spiriting up the assembly as to be able to write, on the 15th of June, to Mr. Adams, that the delegates about to be elected would be on the spot by the 1st of July, the day to which the question had been assigned, and that they would 'vote plump.' Equally favorable news soon came from Maryland. … Thus were two States secured. But Pennsylvania, Delaware, and New York yet remained to move. In the first of these, recourse was had once more to the so-called committees of conference. … And here, on the 23d of June, Dr. Benjamin Rush, then a young man, but acting entirely in sympathy and co-operation with the leaders in congress, moved and carried the appointment of a committee to declare the sense of the conference with respect to an independence of the province on the crown of Great Britain. He and James Smith were then joined with Thomas McKean, the chairman of the conference, in a committee, which was ready the next day with a report affirming the willingness of the deputies of the conference to concur in a vote declaring the United Colonies free and independent States. The report was adopted unanimously, was presented to congress on the 25th, and, doubtless, had its effect in determining those delegates of the colony to absent themselves on the final vote, upon whose resistance its adverse decision depended. As the hesitation of Delaware was chiefly owing to the feeling that pervaded the county of Sussex, Mr. Rodney had repaired thither for the purpose of bringing about a favorable change, in which errand the news came that he was laboring with success. The delegates from New York, no longer interposing any active opposition, yet unwilling to assume a responsibility which their constituents had not authorized, preferred to withdraw from participation in the decision. Such was the state of affairs on the 1st of July, to which day the discussion had been adjourned. There was then little doubt of an affirmative vote on the part of all but four colonies."

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (June).
End of proprietary and royal government in Maryland.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (July). Authorship, adoption and signing of the Declaration of Independence.

For the last hundred years one of the first facts taught to any child of American birth is, that Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence. The original draft in his handwriting was afterward deposited in the State Department. It shows two or three trifling alterations, interlined in the handwritings of Franklin and Adams. Otherwise it came before Congress precisely as Jefferson wrote it. Many years afterward John Adams gave an account of the way in which Jefferson came to be the composer of this momentous document, differing slightly from the story told by Jefferson. But the variance is immaterial. … Jefferson's statement seems the better entitled to credit, and what little corroboration is to be obtained for either narrator is wholly in his favor. He says simply that when the Committee came together he was pressed by his colleagues unanimously to undertake the draft; that he did so; that, when he had prepared it, he submitted it to Dr. Franklin and Mr. Adams, separately, requesting their corrections, 'which were two or three only and merely verbal,' 'interlined in their own handwritings'; that the report in this shape was adopted by the committee, and a 'fair copy,' written out by Mr. Jefferson, was then laid before Congress. A somewhat more interesting discussion concerns the question, how Jefferson came to be named first on the committee, to the entire exclusion of Lee, to whom, as mover of the resolution, parliamentary etiquette would have assigned the chairmanship.

   Many explanations have been given, of which some at least
   appear the outgrowth of personal likings and dislikings. It is
   certain that Jefferson was not only preëminently fitted for
   the very difficult task of this peculiar composition, but also
   that he was a man without an enemy. His abstinence from any
   active share in debate had saved him from giving irritation;
   and it is a truth not to be concealed, that there were cabals,
   bickerings, heart-burnings, perhaps actual enmities among the
   members of that famous body, which, grandly as it looms up,
   and rightly too, in the mind's eye, was after all composed of
   jarring human ingredients. It was well believed that there was
   a faction opposed to Washington, and it was generally
   suspected that irascible, vain, and jealous John Adams, then
   just rising from the ranks of the people, made in this matter
   common cause with the aristocratic Virginian Lees against
   their fellow-countrymen. … So it is likely enough that a
   timely illness of Lee's wife was a fortunate excuse for
   passing him by, and that partly by reason of admitted
   aptitude, partly because no risk could be run of any
   interference of personal feelings in so weighty a matter,
   Jefferson was placed first on the committee, with the natural
   result of doing the bulk of its labor.
{3234}
   On July 1, pursuant to assignment, Congress, in committee of
   the whole, resumed consideration of Mr. Lee's resolution, and
   carried it by the votes of nine colonies. South Carolina and
   Pennsylvania voted against it. The two delegates from Delaware
   were divided. Those from New York said that personally they
   were in favor of it and believed their constituents to be so,
   but they were hampered by instructions drawn a twelvemonth
   since and strictly forbidding any action obstructive of
   reconciliation, which was then still desired. The committee
   reported, and then Edward Rutledge moved an adjournment to the
   next day, when his colleagues, though disapproving the
   resolution, would probably join in it for the sake of
   unanimity. This motion was carried, and on the day following
   the South Carolinians were found to be converted; also a third
   member 'had come post from the Delaware counties' and caused
   the vote of that colony to be given with the rest;
   Pennsylvania changed her vote; and a few days later the
   Convention of New York approved the resolution, 'thus
   supplying the void occasioned by the withdrawing of her
   delegates from the vote.' On the same day, July 2, the House
   took up Mr. Jefferson's draft of the Declaration, and debated
   it during that and the following day and until a late hour on
   July 4. Many verbal changes were made, most of which were
   conducive to closer accuracy of statement, and were
   improvements. Two or three substantial amendments were made by
   the omission of passages; notably there was stricken out a
   passage in which George III. was denounced for encouraging the
   slave-trade. … No interpolation of any consequence was made.
   Jefferson had ample cause to congratulate himself upon this
   event of the discussion. … He himself spoke not a word in the
   debate. … The burden of argument, from which Jefferson wisely
   shrank, was gallantly borne by John Adams, whom Jefferson
   gratefully called 'the colossus of that debate.' Jefferson
   used afterward to take pleasure in tingeing the real solemnity
   of the occasion with a coloring of the ludicrous. The debate,
   he said, seemed as though it might run on interminably, and
   probably would have done so at a different season of the year.
   But the weather was oppressively warm, and the room occupied
   by the deputies was hard by a stable, whence the hungry flies
   swarmed thick and fierce, alighting on the legs of the
   delegates and biting hard through their thin silk stockings.
   Treason was preferable to discomfort, and the members voted
   for the Declaration and hastened to the table to sign it and
   escape from the horse-fly. John Hancock, making his great
   familiar signature, jestingly said that John Bull could read
   that without spectacles; then, becoming more serious, began to
   impress on his comrades the necessity of their 'all hanging
   together in this matter.' 'Yes, indeed,' interrupted Franklin,
   'we must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang
   separately.' … Amid such trifling, concealing grave thoughts,
   Jefferson saw his momentous document signed at the close of
   that summer afternoon."

"The statements relative to signing the Declaration are conflicting. Jefferson states that it was signed generally on the 4th (Memoirs i, 94), and he in other places reiterates this statement, but this manuscript is not known to be extant. … According to the journals, Congress, on the 19th of July, resolved that the 'declaration, passed on the 4th, be fairly engrossed on parchment, with the title and style of "The unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of America," and that the same, when engrossed, be signed by every member of Congress.' On the 2d day of August, the journals say, 'The Declaration being engrossed, and compared at the table, was signed by the members.' … This manuscript is preserved in the office of the Secretary of State."

"Because statesmen like Dickinson and communities like Maryland were slow in believing that the right moment for a declaration of independence had come, the preposterous theory has been suggested that the American Revolution was the work of an unscrupulous and desperate minority, which, through intrigue mingled with violence, succeeded in forcing the reluctant majority to sanction its measures. Such a misconception has its root in an utter failure to comprehend the peculiar character of American political life, like the kindred misconception which ascribes the rebellion of the colonies to a sordid unwillingness to bear their due share of the expenses of the British Empire. It is like the misunderstanding which saw an angry mob in every town-meeting of the people of Boston, and characterized as a 'riot' every deliberate expression of public opinion. No one who is familiar with the essential features of American political life can for a moment suppose that the Declaration of Independence was brought about by any less weighty force than the settled conviction of the people that the priceless treasure of self-government could be preserved by no other means. It was but slowly that this unwelcome conviction grew upon the people; and owing to local differences of circumstances it grew more slowly in some places than in others. Prescient leaders, too, like the Adamses and Franklin and Lee, made up their minds sooner than other people. Even those conservatives who resisted to the last, even such men as John Dickinson and Robert Morris, were fully agreed with their opponents as to the principle at issue between Great Britain and America, and nothing would have satisfied them short of the total abandonment by Great Britain of her pretensions to impose taxes and revoke charters. Upon this fundamental point there was very little difference of opinion in America. As to the related question of independence, the decision, when once reached, was everywhere alike the reasonable result of free and open discussion; and the best possible illustration of this is the fact that not even in the darkest days of the war already begun did any state deliberately propose to reconsider its action in the matter. The hand once put to the plough, there was no turning back."

ALSO IN: G. Bancroft, History of the United States (Author's last revision), volume 4, chapter 28.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (July).
Text of the Declaration of Independence.

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.—Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world. He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good. He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them. He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only. He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures. He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people. He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within. He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands. He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers. He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries. He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our People, and eat out their substance. He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislature. He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power. He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation: For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us: For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from Punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States: For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world: For imposing taxes on us without our Consent: For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury: For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences: For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies: For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments: For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with Power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever. He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us. He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people. He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation. He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands. He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes, and conditions. In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free People. Nor have We been wanting in attention to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. {3236} We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends. We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

      John Hancock.
   New Hampshire
      Josiah Bartlett,
      Wm. Whipple,
      Matthew Thornton.
   Massachusetts Bay
      Saml. Adams, John Adams, Robt. Treat Paine,
      Elbridge Gerry.
   Rhode Island
      Step. Hopkins, William Ellery.
   Connecticut.
      Roger Sherman, Sam'el Huntington, Wm. Williams,
      Oliver Wolcott.
   New York
      Wm. Floyd, Phil. Livingston, Frans. Lewis, Lewis Morris.
   New Jersey
      Richd. Stockton, Jno. Witherspoon, Fras. Hopkinson,
      John Hart, Abra. Clark.
   Pennsylvania
      Robt. Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benja. Franklin, John Morton,
      Geo. Clymer, Jas. Smith, Geo. Taylor, James Wilson,
      Geo. Ross.
   Delaware.
      Cæsar Rodney, Geo. Read, Tho. M'Kean.
   Maryland
      Samuel Chase, Wm. Paca, Thos. Stone,
      Charles Carroll of Carrollton.
   Virginia.
      George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Th Jefferson,
      Benja. Harrison, Thos. Ne]son, jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee,
      Carter Braxton.
   North Carolina.
      Wm. Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn.
   South Carolina.
      Edward Rutledge, Thos. Heyward, Junr.,
      Thomas Lynch, Junr., Arthur Middleton.
   Georgia.
      Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, Geo. Walton."

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (July).
Constitutional effect of the Declaration of Independence.

"The Declaration of Independence did not create thirteen sovereign states, but the representatives of the people declared that the former English colonies, under the name which they had assumed of the United States of America, became, from the 4th day of July, 1776, a sovereign state and a member of the family of nations, recognized by the law of nations; and further, that the people would support their representatives with their blood and treasure, in their endeavor to make this declaration a universally recognized fact. Neither congress nor the people relied in this upon any positive right belonging either to the individual colonies or to the colonies as a whole. Rather did the Declaration of Independence and the war destroy all existing political jural relations, and seek their moral justification in the right of revolution inherent in every people in extreme emergencies. … Political theories had nothing to do with this development of things. It was the natural result of given circumstances and was an accomplished fact before anyone thought of the legal consequences which might subsequently be deduced from it."

      H. von Holst,
      Constitutional and Political History of the United States,
      volume 1, chapter 1.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (July).
Independence declared in New Jersey
and Governor Franklin arrested.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (August).
The struggle for New York and the Hudson.
Battle of Long Island.

"Washington had been informed, early in January, that General Sir Henry Clinton had sailed from Boston, with a considerable body of troops, on a secret expedition. Apprehending that the city of New York was his destination, he immediately dispatched General Charles Lee to Connecticut to raise troops, and to proceed to that city to watch and oppose Clinton wherever he might attempt to land. Six weeks before the evacuation of Boston [March 17, 1776], Lee had encamped near New York with twelve hundred militia. Already the Sons of Liberty had been busy, and overt acts of rebellion had been committed by them. They had seized the cannons at Fort George, and driven Tryon, the royal governor, on board the Asia, a British armed vessel in the harbor. In March, Clinton arrived at Sandy Hook, just outside New York harbor, and on the same day, the watchful Lee providentially entered the city. The movement, although without a knowledge of Clinton's position, was timely, for it kept him at bay. Foiled in his attempt upon New York, that commander sailed southward. … The destination of Howe, when he left Boston, was also unknown to Washington. Supposing he, too, would proceed to New York, he put the main body of his army in motion toward that city, as soon as he had placed Boston in a state of security. He arrived in New York about the middle of April [April 14], and proceeded at once to fortify the town and vicinity, and also the passes of the Hudson Highlands, fifty miles above. In the mean while, General Lee, who had been appointed to command the American forces in the South, had left his troops in the charge of General Lord Stirling [March 7], and was hastening toward the Carolinas to watch the movements of Clinton, arouse the Whigs, and gather an army there. … Pursuant to instructions, General Howe proceeded toward New York, to meet General Clinton and Parker's fleet. He left Halifax on the 11th of June, [1776], and arrived at Sandy Hook on the 29th. On the 2d of July he took possession of Staten Island, where he was joined by Sir Henry Clinton [July 11], from the South, and his brother, Admiral Lord Howe [July 12], with a fleet and a large land force, from England. Before the first of August, other vessels arrived with a part of the Hessian troops, and on that day, almost 30,000 soldiers, many of them tried veterans, stood ready to fall upon the republican army of 17,000 men, mostly militia, which lay intrenched in New York and vicinity, less than a dozen miles distant. The grand object in view was the seizure of New York and the country along the Hudson, so as to keep open a communication with Canada, separate the patriots of New England from those of the other states, and to overrun the most populous portion of the revolted colonies. {3237} This was the military plan, arranged by ministers. They had also prepared instructions to their commanding generals, to be pacific, if the Americans appeared disposed to submit. Lord Howe and his brother, the general, were commissioned to 'grant pardon to all who deserved mercy,' and to treat for peace, but only on terms of absolute submission on the part of the colonies, to the will of the King and parliament. After making a foolish display of arrogance and weakness, in addressing General Washington as a private gentleman, and being assured that the Americans had been guilty of no offense requiring a 'pardon' at their hands, they prepared to strike an immediate and effective blow. The British army was accordingly put in motion on the morning of the 22d of August [1776], and during that day, 10,000 effective men, and forty pieces of cannon, were landed on the western end of Long Island, between the present Fort Hamilton and Gravesend village. Already detachments of Americans under General Sullivan, occupied a fortified camp at Brooklyn, opposite New York, and guarded seven passes on a range of hills which extend from the Narrows to the village of Jamaica. When intelligence of the landing of the invading army reached Washington, he sent General Putnam, with large reinforcements, to take the chief command on Long Island; and to prepare to meet the enemy. The American troops on the island now [August 26], numbered about 5,000. The British moved in three divisions. The left, under General Grant, marched along the shore toward Gowanus; the right, under Clinton and Cornwallis, toward the interior of the island; and the center, composed chiefly of Hessians, under De Heister, marched up the Flatbush road, south of the hills. Clinton moved under cover of night, and before dawn on the morning of the 27th, he had gained possession of the Jamaica pass, near the present East New York. At the same time, Grant was pressing forward along the shore of New York Bay, and at day-break, he encountered Lord Stirling, where the monuments of Greenwood cemetery now dot the hills. De Heister advanced from Flatbush at the same hour, and attacked Sullivan, who, having no suspicions of the movements of Clinton, was watching the Flatbush Pass. A bloody conflict ensued, and while it was progressing, Clinton descended from the wooded hills, by the way of Bedford, to gain Sullivan's rear. As soon as the latter perceived his peril, he ordered a retreat to the American lines at Brooklyn. It was too late; Clinton drove him back upon the Hessian bayonets, and after fighting desperately, hand to hand, with the foe in front and rear, and losing a greater portion of his men, Sullivan was compelled to surrender. As usual, misfortunes did not come single. While these disasters were occurring on the left, Cornwallis descended the port-road to Gowanus, and attacked Stirling. They fought desperately, until Stirling was made prisoner. Many of his troops were drowned while endeavoring to escape across the Gowanus Creek, as the tide was rising; and a large number were captured. At noon the victory for the British was complete. About 500 Americans were killed or wounded, and 1,100 were made prisoners. These were soon suffering dreadful horrors in prisons and prison-ships, at New York. The British loss in killed, wounded, and prisoners, was 367. It was with the deepest anguish that Washington had viewed, from New York, the destruction of his troops, yet he dared not weaken his power in the city, by sending reinforcements to aid them. He crossed over on the following morning [August 28], with Mifflin, who had come down from the upper end of York island with a thousand troops, and was gratified to find the enemy encamped in front of Putnam's lines, and delaying an attack, until the British fleet should co-operate with him. This delay allowed Washington time to form and execute a plan for the salvation of the remainder of the army, now too weak to resist an assault with any hope of success. Under cover of a heavy fog, which fell upon the hostile camps at midnight of the 29th, and continued until the morning of the 30th, he silently withdrew them from the camp, and, unperceived by the British, they all crossed over to New York in safety, carrying everything with them but their heavy cannons. … Howe, who felt sure of his prey, was greatly mortified, and prepared to make an immediate attack upon New York, before the Americans should become reinforced, or should escape from it."

ALSO IN: H. P. Johnston, The Campaign of 1776 around New York and Brooklyn, chapters 1-5, (Members of Long Island History Society, volume 3).

      T. W. Field,
      The Battle of Long island
      (Members of Long Island History Society, volume 2).

      W. A. Duer,
      Life of Wm. Alexander, Earl of Stirling,
      chapter 5.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (September).
Quiet death of proprietary government in Pennsylvania
and adoption of a State Constitution.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (September-November).
   The struggle for New York and the Hudson.
   Successes of the British.
   Washington's retreat into New Jersey.

"At daybreak the British awoke, but it was too late. They had fought a successful battle, they had had the American army in their grasp, and now all was over. The victory had melted away, and, as a grand result, they had a few hundred prisoners, a stray boat with three camp-followers, and the deserted works in which they stood. To make such a retreat as this was a feat of arms as great as most victories, and in it we see, perhaps as plainly as anywhere, the nerve and quickness of the man who conducted it. It is true it was the only chance of salvation, but the great man is he who is entirely master of his opportunity, even if he have but one. The outlook, nevertheless, was, as Washington wrote, 'truly distressing.' The troops were dispirited, and the militia began to disappear, us they always did after a defeat. Congress would not permit the destruction of the city, different interests pulled in different directions, conflicting opinions distracted the councils of war, and, with utter inability to predict the enemy's movements, everything led to halfway measures and to intense anxiety, while Lord Howe tried to negotiate with Congress, and the Americans waited for events, Washington, looking beyond the confusion of the moment, saw that he had gained much by delay, and had his own plan well defined. … Everyone else, however, saw only past defeat and present peril.

The British ships gradually made their way up the river, until it became apparent that they intended to surround and cut off the American army. Washington made preparations to withdraw, but uncertainty of information came near rendering his precautions futile. September 15th the men-of-war opened fire, and troops were landed near Kip's Bay. The militia in the breastworks at that point had been at Brooklyn and gave way at once, communicating their panic to two Connecticut regiments. Washington, galloping down to the scene of battle, came upon the disordered and flying troops. He dashed in among them, conjuring them to stop, but even while he was trying to rally them they broke again on the appearance of some sixty or seventy of the enemy, and ran in all directions. In a tempest of anger Washington drew his pistols, struck the fugitives with his sword, and was only forced from the field by one of his officers seizing the bridle of his horse and dragging him away from the British, now within a hundred yards of the spot. … The rout and panic over, Washington quickly turned to deal with the pressing danger. With coolness and quickness he issued his orders, and succeeded in getting his army off, Putnam's division escaping most narrowly. He then took post at King's Bridge, and began to strengthen and fortify his lines. While thus engaged, the enemy advanced, and on the 16th a sharp skirmish was fought, in which the British were repulsed, and great bravery was shown by the Connecticut and Virginia troops, the two commanding officers being killed. This affair, which was the first gleam of success, encouraged the troops, and was turned to the best account by the general. Still a successful skirmish did not touch the essential difficulties of the situation, which then as always came from within, rather than without. To face and check 25,000 well equipped and highly disciplined soldiers, Washington had now some 12,000 men, lacking in everything which goes to make an army, except mere individual courage and a high average of intelligence. Even this meagre force was an inconstant and diminishing quantity, shifting, uncertain, and always threatening dissolution. The task of facing and fighting the enemy was enough for the ablest of men; but Washington was obliged also to combat and overcome the inertness and dullness born of ignorance, and to teach Congress how to govern a nation at war. … Meanwhile the days slipped along, and Washington waited on the Harlem Plains, planning descents on Long Island, and determining to make a desperate stand where he was, unless the situation decidedly changed. Then the situation did change, as neither he nor anyone else apparently had anticipated. The British warships came up the Hudson past the forts, brushing aside our boasted obstructions, destroying our little fleet, and getting command of the river. Then General Howe landed at Frog's Point, where he was checked for the moment by the good disposition of Heath, under Washington's direction. These two events made it evident that the situation of the American army was full of peril, and that retreat was again necessary. Such certainly was the conclusion of the council of war, on the 16th, acting this time in agreement with their chief. Six days Howe lingered on Frog's Point, bringing up stores or artillery or something, … and gave six days to Washington. They were of little value to Howe, but they were of inestimable worth to Washington, who employed them in getting everything in readiness, in holding his council of war, and then on the 17th in moving deliberately off to very strong ground at White Plains. … On the 28th, Howe came up to Washington's position, and found the Americans quite equal in numbers, strongly intrenched, and awaiting his attack with confidence. He hesitated, doubted, and finally feeling that he must do something, sent 4,000 men to storm Chatterton Hill, an outlying post, where some 1,400 Americans were stationed. There was a short, sharp action, and then the Americans retreated in good order to the main army, having lost less than half as many men as their opponents. With caution now much enlarged, Howe sent for reinforcements, and waited two days. The third day it rained, and on the fourth Howe found that Washington had withdrawn to a higher and quite impregnable line of hills, where he held all the passes in the rear and awaited a second attack. Howe contemplated the situation for two or three days longer, and then broke camp and withdrew to Dobbs Ferry. Such were the great results of the victory of Long Island, two wasted months, and the American army still untouched. Howe was resolved, however, that his campaign, should not be utterly fruitless, and therefore directed his attention to the defences of the Hudson, Fort Lee, and Fort Washington, and here he met with better success. Congress, in its military wisdom, had insisted that these forts must and could be held. … An attempt was made to hold both forts, and both were lost, as he [Washington] had foreseen. From Fort Lee the garrison withdrew in safety. Fort Washington was carried by storm, after a severe struggle. Twenty-six hundred men and all the munitions of war fell into the hands of the enemy. It was a serious and most depressing loss, and was felt throughout the continent. Meantime Washington had crossed into the Jerseys, and, after the loss of Fort Lee, began to retreat before the British, who, flushed with victory, now advanced rapidly under Lord Cornwallis."

ALSO IN: H. B. Carrington, Battles of the American Revolution, chapters 33-36.

      B. J. Lossing,
      Field Book of the American Revolution,
      volume 2, chapter 23.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (October).
Connecticut assumes independence and sovereignty.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1777. Washington's retreat through New Jersey and his masterly return movement. The victories at Trenton and Princeton retrieving the situation.

"On the 17th [of November] Washington ordered Lee [who had lately returned from the south, and who had command of 7,000 men at Northcastle] to come over and join him; but Lee disobeyed, and in spite of repeated orders from Washington he stayed at Northcastle till the 2d of December. General Ward had some time since resigned, so that Lee now ranked next to Washington. A good many people were finding fault with the latter for losing the 3,000 men at Fort Washington, although, as we have seen, that was not his fault but the fault of Congress. {3239} Lee now felt that if Washington were ruined, he would surely become his successor in the command of the army, and so, instead of obeying his orders, he spent his time in writing letters calculated to injure him. Lee's disobedience thus broke the army in two, and did more for the British than they had been able to do for themselves since they started from Staten Island. It was the cause of Washington's flight through New Jersey, ending on the 8th of December, when he put himself behind the Delaware river, with scarcely 3,000 men. Here was another difficulty. The American soldiers were enlisted for short terms, and when they were discouraged, as at present, they were apt to insist upon going home as soon as their time had expired. It was generally believed that Washington's army would thus fall to pieces within a few days. Howe did not think it worth while to be at the trouble of collecting boats wherewith to follow him across the Delaware. Congress fled to Baltimore. People in New Jersey began taking the oath of allegiance to the crown. Howe received the news that he had been knighted for his victory on Long Island, and he returned to New York to celebrate the occasion. While the case looked so desperate for Washington, events at the north had taken a less unfavourable turn. Carleton [who began preparations to invade the province of New York as soon as Arnold retreated from Canada] had embarked on Lake Champlain early in the autumn with his fine army and fleet. Arnold had fitted up a small fleet to oppose his advance, and on the 11th of October there had been a fierce naval battle between the two near Valcour Island, in which Arnold was defeated, while Carleton suffered serious damage. The British general then advanced upon Ticonderoga, but suddenly made up his mind that the season was too late for operations in that latitude. The resistance he had encountered seems to have made him despair of achieving any speedy success in that quarter, and on the 3d of November he started back for Canada. This retreat relieved General Schuyler at Albany of immediate cause for anxiety, and presently he detached seven regiments to go southward to Washington's assistance. On the 2d of December Lee crossed the Hudson with 4,000 men, and proceeded slowly to Morristown. Just what he designed to do was never known, but clearly he had no intention of going beyond the Delaware to assist Washington, whom he believed to be ruined. Perhaps he thought Morristown a desirable position to hold, as it certainly was. Whatever his plans may have been, they were nipped in the bud. For some unknown reason he passed the night of the 12th at an unguarded tavern, about four miles from his army; and there he was captured next morning by a party of British dragoons, who carried him off to their camp at Princeton. The dragoons were very gleeful over this unexpected exploit, but really they could not have done the Americans a greater service than to rid them of such a worthless creature. The capture of Lee came in the nick of time, for it set free his men to go to the aid of Washington. Even after this force and that sent by Schuyler had reached the commander-in-chief, he found he had only 6,000 men fit for duty. With this little force Washington instantly took the offensive. It was the turning-point in his career and in the history of the Revolutionary War. On Christmas, 1776, and the following nine days, an Washington's most brilliant powers were displayed. The British centre, 10,000 strong, lay at Princeton. The principal generals, thinking the serious business of the war ended, had gone to New York. An advanced party of Hessians, 1,000 strong, was posted on the bank of the Delaware at Trenton, and another one lower down, at Burlington. Washington decided to attack both these outposts, and arranged his troops accordingly, but when Christmas night arrived, the river was filled with great blocks of floating ice, and the only division which succeeded in crossing was the one that Washington led in person. It was less than 2,500 in number, but the moment had come when the boldest course was the safest. By daybreak Washington had surprised the Hessians at Trenton and captured them all. The outpost at Burlington, on hearing the news, retreated to Princeton. By the 31st Washington had got all his available force across to Trenton. Some of them were raw recruits just come in to replace others who had just gone home. At this critical moment the army was nearly helpless for want of money, and on New Year's morning Robert Morris was knocking at door after door in Philadelphia, waking up his friends to borrow the $50,000, which he sent off to Trenton before noon. The next day Cornwallis arrived at Princeton, and taking with him all the army, except a rear-guard of 2,000 men left to protect his communications, came on toward Trenton. When he reached that town, late in the afternoon, he found Washington entrenched behind a small creek just south of the town, with his back toward the Delaware river. 'Oho!' said Cornwallis, 'at last we have run down the old fox, and we will bag him in the morning.' He sent back to Princeton, and ordered the rearguard to come up. He expected next morning to cross the creek above Washington's right, and then press him back against the broad and deep river, and compel him to surrender. Cornwallis was by no means a careless general, but he seems to have gone to bed on that memorable night and slept the sleep of the just. Washington meanwhile was wide awake. He kept his front line noisily at work digging and entrenching, and made a fine show with his camp-fires. Then he marched his army to the right and across the creek, and got around Cornwallis's left wing and into his rear, and so went on gayly toward Princeton. At daybreak he encountered the British rear-guard, fought a sharp battle with it and sent it flying, with the loss of one-fourth of its number. The booming guns aroused Cornwallis too late. To preserve his communications with New York, he was obliged to retreat with all haste upon New Brunswick, while Washington's victorious army pushed on and occupied the strong position at Morristown. There was small hope of dislodging such a general from such a position. But to leave Washington in possession of Morristown was to resign to him the laurels of this half-year's work. For that position guarded the Highlands of the Hudson on the one hand, and the roads to Philadelphia on the other. Except that the British had taken the city of New York-which from the start was almost a foregone conclusion—they were no better off than in July when Lord Howe had landed on Staten Island. In nine days the tables had been completely turned. {3240} The attack upon, an outpost had developed into a campaign which quite retrieved the situation. The ill-timed interference of Congress, which had begun the series of disasters, was remedied; the treachery of Lee was checkmated; and the cause of American Independence, which on Christmas Eve had seemed hopeless, was now fairly set on its feet. Earlier successes had been local; this was continental. Seldom has so much been done with such slender means."

"The effect of these two unexpected strokes at Trenton and Princeton was to baffle Howe, and utterly disconcert his plans. Expecting to march upon Philadelphia at his leisure, he suddenly finds Washington turning about and literally cutting his way through the British posts, back to a point where he threatened Howe's flank and rear. The enemy were at once compelled to retire from all their positions below Brunswick, give up the thought of wintering in Philadelphia, and fall back to the vicinity of New York. When Horace Walpole heard of these movements, he wrote to Sir Horace Mann: 'Washington has shown himself both a Fabius and a Camillus. His march through our lines is allowed to have been a prodigy of generalship. In one word, I look upon a great part of America as lost to this country.' Here the campaign closed. Washington could not be dislodged from his strong mountain position, and Howe was satisfied to rest his troops and postpone further operations until the next season. Meantime the country took heart, Congress voted troops and supplies, and the army was recruited and organized on a better basis. 'The business of war is the result of Experience,' wrote Wolcott from Congress, with faith unshaken during the darkest hours of the campaign; and experience was now put to good profit. The crisis was passed. Events proved decisive. Hardship and anxiety were yet to come during succeeding years of the war; but it was the result of this year's struggle that cleared away misgivings and confirmed the popular faith in final success. England could do no more than she had done to conquer America; while America was now more ready than ever to meet the issue. Independence was established in the present campaign—in the year of its declaration; and more than to any others we owe this political privilege to the men who fought from Long Island to Princeton."

H. P. Johnston, Campaign of 1776, Memoirs of the Long Island Historical Society, volume 3, part 1, chapter 8.

ALSO IN: J. F. Hageman, History of Princeton, chapter 4, sections 4-5 (volume 1).

      W. C. Bryant and S. H. Gay,
      Popular History of the United States,
      volume 3, chapter 21.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1777.
   Prisoners and exchanges.
   British treatment of captives.
   The Jersey Prison-ship and the Sugar-house prison.

In New York, during the British occupation of the city, "wretched indeed was the condition of the poor refugee, of the sick soldier, and, above all, the patriot prisoner. The newspapers are filled with calls for charitable contributions for women and children perishing with cold and hunger, for disabled soldiers and families without a shelter. … But if the favored Tories suffered, what must have been the condition of the patriot prisoners, confined by thousands in bleak barracks, churches, and prison-ships? Let us pass up Broadway, amidst the uncleared ruins, and, turning down Liberty Street, pause before a huge brick building near the Middle Dutch Church. It is five stories high, with broken windows, through which the fierce winds of winter rush unrestrained. Through its imperfect roof and various openings, snow, ice, and water penetrate to every part of the building. Sentries pace round its walls prepared to fire upon any of its maddened inmates who attempt in desperation to escape. Wounded men crawl to the windows begging aid; but the impassive sentinel turns back the gifts of the charitable. No communication with the prisoners can be allowed. The walls within are bare and cheerless, nor do any of the common conveniences of life soften the horrors of those dreary chambers. Yet the old Sugar-House is the most crowded building in New York, and hundreds of prisoners, some chained, others at large, fill its comfortless interior. In the old Sugar-House were confined the prisoners of Long Island, the captives of sudden forays, the patriot citizen, and the heroes of the rebel army. Clothed in rags and scarcely covered from the winter air, crowded in narrow apartments and broken by hunger and disease, the prisoners died by thousands. The sick lay down on beds of snow to perish; the feeble wounded quivered in the February blast. Food of the coarsest kind was served out to them in scanty measure, and devoured with the eagerness of famine. Every night ten or twenty died; every day their corpses were thrown into pits without a single rite of burial. When led out to be exchanged, the glad hope of freedom gave them no joy—they died on the way to their friends, or lingered out a few weeks of miserable decline in the hospitals of the Jerseys. So wretched was their condition that Washington refused to consider them fit subjects for exchange. 'You give us only the dead or dying,' he wrote to Howe, 'for our well-fed and healthy prisoners.' Howe, as if in mockery, replied that they had been kept in 'airy, roomy buildings,' on the same fare as his own soldiers. Washington pointed to the condition in which they reached him—diseased, famished, emaciated, and dying, as they were conducted to his quarters. Across the river, in Wallabout Bay, lay the prison-ship 'Jersey.' She was the hulk of a 64 gun ship, long unseaworthy, her masts and rigging gone, her figurehead broken off, and her whole appearance singularly repulsive. Yet on board of the Jersey were confined 1,200 captured seamen. She was never cleansed, and lay in that condition seven years. No fires warmed her occupants in winter, no screen sheltered them from the August sun; no physician visited the sick, no clergyman consoled the dying there. Poor and scanty food, the want of clothing, cleanliness, and exercise, and raging diseases that never ceased their ravages, made the Jersey a scene of human suffering to which the Black Hole of Calcutta might favorably compare. Benevolent Tories would sometimes convey by stealth food or clothing to her unhappy inmates; but this was little. Toward the close of the war the British, from shame or pity, made some improvement in her condition; but she remained throughout the contest a centre of sickness and death, always decimated by disease and always replenished with new victims. The bones of her dead, estimated at 11,000, lie buried on the Brooklyn shore. The crowded city itself was never free from contagion. In winter the smallpox made fearful ravages."

ALSO IN: Force's American Archives, 4th Series, volume 6, 5th Series, volumes 1-3.

W. C. Bryant and S. H. Gay, Popular History of the United States, volume 3, chapter 21.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1778.
   Attitude and feeling of France.
   Her disposition to aid the colonies and the reasons for it.
   The American embassy to the French court.
   Silas Deane and Beaumarchais.
   Franklin at Passy.

"On March 17, 1776, Vergennes presented to his associates in the cabinet—Maurepas, Turgot (controller-general), Sartine (secretary of the navy), and St. Germain (secretary of war)—a paper entitled 'Considerations,' which, after for many years evading the search of historians, … was brought to light by De Witt and republished by Doniol. In this important paper Vergennes, after some general reflections on the advantages which the two crowns of France and Spain derived from the continuance of the civil war in America, and, on the other hand, on the inconveniences which might arise from the independence of the Colonies, and the probability that, in case of failure in North America, England would, to recover its credit, turn its arms against the French and Spanish possessions in America, proceeds to consider the course at once to be pursued. He bitterly attacks the English for their habitual breach of good faith, violation of treaties, and disregard of that observance of the sacred laws of morality which distinguish the French, and infers that they will take the first opportunity to declare war against France or invade Mexico. No doubt, if the kings of France and Spain had martial tendencies; if they obeyed the dictates of their own interests, and perhaps the justice of their cause, which was that of humanity, so often outraged by England; if their military resources were in a sufficiently good condition, they would feel that Providence had evidently chosen that very hour for humiliating England and revenging on her the wrongs she had inflicted on those who had the misfortune to be her neighbors and rivals, by rendering the resistance of the Americans as desperate as possible. The exhaustion produced by this internecine war would prostrate both England and her Colonies, and would afford an opportunity to reduce England to the condition of a second-rate power; to tear from her the empire she aimed at establishing in the four quarters of the world with so much pride and injustice, and relieve the universe of a tyranny which desires to swallow up both all the power and all the wealth of the world. But the two crowns not being able to act in this way, they must have recourse to a circumspect policy." Vergennes "draws the following inferences: (1) That they should continue dexterously to keep the English ministry in a state of false security with respect to the intentions of France and Spain. (2) That it would be politic to give the insurgents secret assistance in military stores and money; that the admitted utility would justify this little sacrifice, and no loss of dignity or breach of equity would be involved in it. (3) That it would not be consistent with the king's dignity or interest to make an open contract with the insurgents until their independence was achieved. (4) That in case France and Spain should furnish assistance, they should look for no other return than the success of the political object they had at that moment in view, leaving themselves at liberty to be guided by circumstances as to any future arrangements. (5) That perhaps a too-marked inactivity at the present crisis might be attributed by the English to fear, and might expose France to insults to which it might not be disposed to submit. The English, he adds, respect only those who can make themselves feared. (6) That the result to which all these considerations led was that the two crowns should actively prepare means to resist or punish England, more especially as, of all possible issues, the maintenance of peace with that power was the least probable. … It would be a mistake, however, to attribute the French support of America exclusively to a feeling of revenge for the humiliations of the prior war. Other motives came in and exercised a decisive influence. There was a conviction, and a right one, in France that for Britain to hold under control the whole of North America as well as of India would give her a maritime supremacy, as well as a superiority in wealth, which would constitute a standing menace to the rest of the civilized world. There was, again, an enthusiasm among the young nobility and among officers in the army for America, which, even aside from the bitterness towards Britain with which it was mingled, had great effect on people as well as on court; and to this was added the sympathy of doctrinaire political philosophers who then and for some time afterwards had great power in forming French public opinion. By the enthusiasm of the young nobility the queen—brilliant, bold, weary of the traditions of the old court, inconsiderate as to ultimate political results—was affected, and through her her husband was reached. But above this was the sense of right which was uppermost in the breast of the unfortunate sovereign who then, with little political experience but high notions of duty as well as of prerogative, occupied the throne."

F. Wharton, editor, Revolutionary Diplomatic Correspondence of the United States, Introduction, chapter 4 (volume 1).

   "From the earliest moment France had been hopefully regarded
   by the colonists as probably their friend and possibly their
   ally. To France, therefore, the first American envoy was
   dispatched with promptitude [receiving his instructions in
   March and reaching Paris in the following June, 1776] even
   before there was a declaration of independence or an
   assumption of nationality. Silas Deane was the man selected.
   He was the true Yankee jack-at-all-trades; he had been
   graduated at Yale College, then taught school, then practiced
   law, then engaged in trade, had been all the while advancing
   in prosperity and reputation, had been a member of the first
   and second congresses, had failed of reëlection to the third,
   and was now without employment. Mr'. Parton describes him as
   'of somewhat striking manners and good appearance, accustomed
   to live and entertain in liberal style, and fond of showy
   equipage and appointment.' Perhaps his simple-minded
   fellow-countrymen of the provinces fancied that such a man
   would make an imposing figure at an European court.
{3242}
   He developed no other peculiar fitness for his position; he
   could not even speak French; and it proved an ill hour for
   himself in which he received this trying and difficult honor.
   … Deane arrived in France in June, 1776. He had with him a
   little ready money for his immediate personal expenses, and
   some letters of introduction from Franklin. It was intended to
   keep him supplied with money by sending cargoes of tobacco,
   rice, and indigo consigned to him, the proceeds of which would
   be at his disposal for the public service. He was instructed
   to seek an interview with de Vergennes, the French minister
   for foreign affairs, and to endeavor with all possible
   prudence and delicacy to find out what signs of promise the
   disposition of the French government really held for the
   insurgents. He was also to ask for equipment for 25,000
   troops, ammunition, and 200 pieces of field artillery, all to
   be paid for—when Congress should be able! In France he was to
   keep his mission cloaked in secure secrecy, appearing simply
   as a merchant conducting his own affairs. … Before the arrival
   of Deane the interests of the colonies had been already taken
   in hand and substantially advanced in France by one of the
   most extraordinary characters in history. Caron de
   Beaumarchais was a man whom no race save the French could
   produce, and whose traits, career, and success lie hopelessly
   beyond the comprehension of the Anglo-Saxon. Bred a
   watchmaker, he had the skill, when a mere youth, to invent a
   clever escapement balance for regulating watches; had he been
   able to insert it into his own brain he might have held more
   securely his elusive good fortunes. From being an ingenious
   inventor he became an adventurer general, watchmaker to the
   king, the king's mistresses, and the king's daughters, the
   lover, or rather the beloved, of the wife of the controller of
   the king's kitchen, then himself the controller, thence a
   courtier, and a favorite of the royal princesses. Through a
   clever use of his opportunities he was able to do a great
   favor to a rich banker, who in return gave him chances to
   amass a fortune, and lent him money to buy a patent of
   nobility. This connection ended in litigation, which was near
   ruining him; but he discovered corruption on the part of the
   judge, and thereupon wrote his Memorials, of which the wit,
   keenness, and vivacity made him famous. He then rendered a
   private, personal, and important service to Louis XV., and
   soon afterwards another to the young Louis XVI. … He became
   frenzied in the American cause. In long and ardent letters he
   opened upon King Louis and his ministers a rattling fire of
   arguments sound and unsound, statements true and untrue,
   inducements reasonable and unreasonable, forecastings probable
   and improbable, politics wise and unwise, all designed to show
   that it was the bounden duty of France to adopt the colonial
   cause."

Soon after the arrival of Deane in Paris, the American Congress, having determined to declare the independence of the states represented in it, appointed a committee "to prepare the plan of a treaty to be proposed to foreign powers, which, after a long discussion, was at length agreed to, and ministers were appointed to negotiate the treaties proposed. Mr. Franklin, Mr. Deane, and Mr. Jefferson, were elected; but, the last mentioned gentleman having declined accepting the appointment offered him, Mr. Arthur Lee, then in London, was chosen in his place. These transactions were placed on the secret journals, and no member was permitted to give any specific information concerning them; or to state more than, 'that congress had taken such steps as they judged necessary for obtaining foreign alliances.' The secret committee were directed to make an effectual lodgment in France of £10,000 sterling, subject to the order of these commissioners. They assembled in Paris early in the winter, and had an immediate interview with the count De Vergennes. It was perceived that the success of the American cruisers, whose captures had been so considerable as to raise the price of insurance higher than it had been at any time during the war with both France and Spain, had excited a very favourable opinion of the capacities and energies of the nation. They were assured that the ports of France would remain open to their ships, and that the American merchants might freely vend in them every article of commerce, and purchase whatever might be useful for their country. But it was apparent that the minister wished to avoid a rupture with England, and was, therefore, unwilling to receive them openly as the ministers of the United States, or to enter into any formal negotiation with them."

   "It is … a settled rule of diplomacy that a minister should
   not be pressed upon a foreign court by which it is understood
   that he will not be received. To this may be added the rule
   that applications for loans should, unless as part of a treaty
   alliance, be made through business channels. In disregard of
   these rules the majority of Congress, under the influence of
   Richard H. Lee and Samuel Adams, instituted a series of
   missions to European courts for the bare purpose of borrowing
   money, when the courts so addressed not only gave no
   intimation that they would receive these envoys, but when,
   from the nature of things, as well as from unofficial
   intimation, it should have been known that such reception
   would be refused. With France there was no difficulty, as
   France had intimated unofficially that such envoys would be
   received, at least in a private capacity, France being then
   ready to take the consequence of war with Britain. And this
   reception was accorded … first to Silas Deane, then to
   Franklin, and then to Arthur Lee. Here Franklin thought
   Congress should stop, saying that ministers should not be sent
   to sovereigns without first having some sort of assurance of
   recognition of the United States as an independent
   sovereignty, and that a 'virgin' republic, as he called it,
   should wait till there was some such recognition before
   thrusting embassies on foreign courts with demands for money.
   Congress thought differently. Arthur Lee was instructed to go
   to Madrid with an alternate commission to Berlin; William Lee
   was sent to Vienna, Dana to St. Petersburg, Adams to The
   Hague, Izard to Florence, and the instructions in each case
   were to demand not only recognition, but subsidy. … The policy
   of sending ministers to European courts where such ministers
   were not received worked injuriously to the United States from
   the mere fact of their non-reception. Another difficulty arose
   from the circumstance that several of these ministers took up
   their residence in Paris, and, without specific authority,
   considered it their duty to take part in the counsels of the
   American legation.
{3243}
   Thus Ralph Izard, commissioned to Tuscany, never went there,
   but remained in Paris, claiming a right to be informed of all
   the details of the negotiations with France, and occupying no
   small share of the time and care of Franklin with discussions
   of this claim, which Franklin could not accede to, but on
   which Izard continued to insist. When the triple legation of
   Franklin, Deane, and Arthur Lee (and afterwards Franklin,
   Arthur Lee, and Adams), was commissioned, it was understood
   that its members were to divide, so that one (Franklin) should
   remain in Paris, while the others should take charge of the
   missions to other capitals. But Arthur Lee, when he found that
   he could not be received in Madrid, or in Vienna, or in
   Berlin, made but brief excursions to Spain, to Austria, and to
   Berlin, reporting himself after each short trip promptly at
   Paris, there to differ from Franklin not only as to important
   business details, but as to the whole policy of the mission.
   When Adams was in Paris, during their joint mission, he
   concurred with Arthur Lee in what turned out to be the
   disastrous measure of removing Williams as commercial agent
   and putting in his place William Lee, with a nephew of William
   and Arthur Lee as clerk; while on the whole question of
   sending legations to foreign courts which had not consented to
   receive them, and in the still more important question of the
   attitude to be assumed by the commissioners to the French
   court, Adams agreed with Lee. … It is due to Adams to say that
   he saw the inherent difficulties of permanent missions
   conducted by three joint commissioners; that he recommended
   that there should be but one permanent minister to France; and
   that he recognized Franklin's great influence with the French
   ministry as a strong reason for his retention though without
   colleagues. But there can be no doubt that down to the period
   when Franklin became sole minister, the American cause in
   Europe was much embarrassed by the fact that he had colleagues
   associated with him."

F. Wharton, Introduction to The Revolutionary Diplomatic Correspondence of The United States, chapter 1, sections 16-17, and chapter 9, section 106 (volume 1).

Before Franklin or Lee reached France, Silas Deane had already entered into negotiations with Beaumarchais and opened a train of dealings which proved unfortunate for both. Leaving aside "all the long controversy about the rights and wrongs of Beaumarchais, which have never been completely and satisfactorily solved, … it appears that a large part of the misunderstanding between him and Deane and Arthur Lee is attributable to a change of plan between April and July, 1776. Beaumarchais's scheme of operation, when he saw Lee in London, was to expend money which should, at least in pretence and form, be obtained from the voluntary contributions of wealthy Frenchmen in aid of the American cause; but in July, when he saw Deane, that scheme had been dropped, and the project was that he should appear as a merchant. … In May, there was a plan on the part of the French government to employ a real merchant; now the plan was to employ a comedy merchant. This was exactly the role which Beaumarchais was qualified to fill, and he proceeded to establish and open a large house, with all the accessories of a house of business, as the same are understood and represented on the stage, At that time it was believed that the colonists had plenty of exportable products which they could and would contribute for the purpose [purchase?] of arms and ammunition. It was thought that their main difficulty would be to find any market in which they could purchase contraband of war. The chief assistance, therefore, which they would need from France would be secret permission to make this exchange in France. Beaumarchais's commercial operations would be real commercial operations, and at worst could only issue in some expenses and losses, on the balance of account, which the French government might have to make good. Beaumarchais approached Deane with all the forms and reality of a commercial proposition, and Deane assured him that he should have some returns in six months, and full pay for everything which he supplied in a year. Two days later they made a contract by which Congress was to pay the current price of the goods in America when they should arrive, or take them at the cost price, with insurance, charges, and commission 'proportioned to the trouble and care, which cannot now be fixed.' … August 18, Beaumarchais writes to the Committee of Secret Correspondence that, led by esteem for a people struggling for liberty, he has established an extensive commercial house, solely for the purpose of supplying them with all things useful, even gold for the payment of troops; and that without waiting for their consent he has already procured 200 cannons, 200,000 pounds of powder, 20,000 guns, with balls, lead, clothing, etc. He wants the cargoes consigned to him in return, and promises that he has great power to use any consignments whatsoever; but he wants especially tobacco. He signs this letter Roderique Hortales & Co. … A million livres were advanced by Spain to Beaumarchais, August 11, 1776, and the Farmers-general of France advanced a million livres, but took advantage of the distress of the Americans to stipulate that it should be paid for in tobacco at half its then current price. Beaumarchais also advanced money to Deane for his personal expenses; and it has never been doubted that he exerted himself with the utmost energy, if not always with the greatest prudence, to expedite the shipment of the goods. Of the three ships which he despatched at the end of the year, two were captured by the English; but the one which arrived was of the greatest possible value to the cause. … When Arthur Lee received his appointment as Commissioner to France and entered upon the discharge of his duties, he found that the promises made to him by Beaumarchais … had not been kept. He reported to the Committee of Secret Correspondence that a change in the mode of sending had been settled between Deane and Hortales. … Arthur Lee always held the attitude of suspicion that Deane and Beaumarchais were in a conspiracy to levy contributions for themselves on the free gifts of France to the United States. Franklin always affected to ignore the dealings with Beaumarchais, and to treat them as exclusively in the hands of Deane; while Congress always showed themselves very careful not to pay for anything which possibly was intended as a gift. Therefore Deane and Beaumarchais were left for years to claim and protest that there had been genuine mercantile contracts which had not been fulfilled, and they could scarcely obtain attention. … September 8, 1777, Congress voted that Deane had no authority to make contracts with persons to come to America. {3244} November 21, they voted to recall him. Undoubtedly the vexation which Deane had caused them by sending over a great number of persons to serve in the army, under contracts which enabled them to demand large pay and high rank, was the chief cause of irritation against him; but Arthur Lee had also been poisoning the mind of his brother, and through him, of the whole Lee-Adams faction in Congress, with suspicions of Deane's honesty. Deane had found himself transferred, within a period of two or three years, from an utterly obscure existence at Wethersfield, Connecticut, to the position of a quasi-ambassador at the court of France. He adopted a large and expensive style of living, and kept open house for the Americans at Paris. It is very reasonable to suppose that this large expenditure on his part was one of the chief grounds of belief that he was making great gain out of his position. … The affair of Silas Deane has importance far beyond the merits or the fate of that individual. The quarrel over him and his rights and wrongs, as will presently be seen, entered into the hottest party contests in Congress during the next two or three years, and it comes up again often subsequently. It has even been asserted that the intimacy into which John Adams was thrown with the Lees, in this connection, was what made him President of the United States, by winning him votes from Virginia in 1796. January 1, 1778, Beaumarchais, having heard that money had been given to the Americans through Grand, the banker, writes to Vergennes: 'So I have lost the fruit of the most noble and incredible labour by those very exertions which conduct others to glory.' … He is in terror of bankruptcy. Inasmuch as a treaty of alliance between France and the United States was now made, matters had entered upon a new stage. Beaumarchais, with his fictitious firm of Hortales, was no longer necessary or useful. The French government dealt directly with the American envoys in granting supplies and subsidies. April 7, Congress made a contract with Hortales that they should pay, for all the cargoes already shipped and those to be shipped, the first cost, charges, and freight, in France. The contract between Beaumarchais and Deane is recognized. Hortales is to pay bills drawn every two months at double usance for twenty-four million livres annually. This article, however, is subject to ratification by the house in Paris and the American Commissioners at Paris. American produce is to be exported and consigned to this house. Interest is to be paid on all sums due, with a commission of two and a half per cent. From this time Beaumarchais falls out of sight as an agent of aid and supplies to the American cause, and becomes a claimant, who considers that he has been treated with injustice and ingratitude by the United States."

      W. G. Sumner,
      The Financier and the Finances of the American Revolution,
      chapter 8 (volume 1).

"The episode of Beaumarchais … was a survival of the secret diplomacy of Louis XV, for a short time exercising an extraordinary influence in the first period of the reign of Louis XVI. Louis XVI, on reaching the throne, found the machinery of secret diplomacy so ingeniously constructed by his predecessor in full operation; and, … for one or two delicate inquiries at the outset of the new reign, Beaumarchais, who of all the diplomatists of this peculiar breed was the most adroit and fertile in expedients, was well fitted. Hence came his employment, and from his employment came his suggestions, full of brilliant wit and effective reasoning, as to America. But the antagonism between him and Vergennes was too marked to permit sustained political relationship; and when Franklin entered into diplomatic life in Paris Beaumarchais ceased to take a prominent political position. And even during the period of Beaumarchais' greatest activity it must be remembered that he was not technically Vergennes' subordinate. It was one of the peculiarities of the secret diplomacy of Louis XIV and Louis XV, as depicted by Broglie in his admirable treatise on that topic, that even the existence of the secret agent was not to be supposed to be known to the king's ostensible ministers. This was not the case with Beaumarchais; but at the same time Beaumarchais' political influence ceased … when, on the arrival of Franklin, Vergennes, with Franklin's aid, took control of Anglo-American diplomacy."

      F. Wharton,
      Introduction to The Revolutionary Diplomatic
      Correspondence of the United States,
      chapter 4, section 55 (volume 1).

      J. Bigelow, editor,
      Life of Franklin, by himself,
      volume 2, chapters 13-15.

      L. de Lomenie,
      Beaumarchais and his Times,
      chapters 20-23 (volume 3).

      C. Tower, Jr.,
      The Marquis de La Fayette in the American Revolution,
      volume 1, chapter 5.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1779.
The Thirteen Colonies become States.
The framing and adoption of State Constitutions.

"The recommendations to form governments proceeded from the general congress; the work was done by the several states, in the full enjoyment of self-direction. Each of them claimed to be of right a free, sovereign, and independent state; each bound its officers to bear to it true allegiance, and to maintain its freedom and independence. Massachusetts, which was the first state to frame a government independent of the king, deviated as little as possible from the letter of its charter; and, assuming that the place of governor was vacant from the 19th of July 1775, it recognised the council as the legal successor to executive power. On the 1st day of May 1776, in all commissions and legal processes, it substituted the name of its 'government and people' for that of the king. In June 1777, its legislature assumed power to prepare a constitution; but, on a reference to the people, the act was disavowed. In September 1779, a convention, which the people themselves had specially authorized, framed a constitution. It was in a good measure the compilation of John Adams, who was guided by the English constitution, by the bill of rights of Virginia, and by the experience of Massachusetts herself; and this constitution, having been approved by the people, went into effect in 1780. On the 5th of January 1776, New Hampshire shaped its government with the fewest possible changes from its colonial forms, like Massachusetts merging the executive power in the council. Not till June 1783 did its convention agree upon a more perfect instrument, which was approved by the people, and established on the 31st of the following October. {3245} The provisional constitution of South Carolina dates from the 26th of March 1776. In March 1778, a permanent constitution was introduced by an act of the legislature. Rhode Island enjoyed under its charter a form of government so thoroughly republican that the rejection of monarchy, in May 1776, required no change beyond a renunciation of the king's name in the style of its public acts. A disfranchisement of Catholics had stolen into its book of laws; but, so soon as it was noticed, the clause was expunged. In like manner, Connecticut had only to substitute the people of the colony for the name of the king; this was done provisionally on the 14th of June 1776, and made perpetual on the 10th of the following October. Before the end of June of the same year Virginia, sixth in the series, first in the completeness of her work, by a legislative convention without any further consultation of the people, framed and adopted a bill of rights, a declaration of independence, and a constitution. On the second of July 1776, New Jersey perfected its new, self-created charter. Delaware next proclaimed its bill of rights, and, on the 20th of September 1776, the representatives in convention having been chosen by the freemen of the state for that very purpose, finished its constitution. The Pennsylvania convention adopted its constitution on the 28th of September 1776; but the opposition of the Quakers whom it indirectly disfranchised, and of a large body of patriots, delayed its thorough organization for more than five months. The delegates of Maryland, meeting on the 14th of August 1776, framed its constitution with great deliberation; it was established on the 9th of the following November. On the 18th of December 1776, the constitution of North Carolina was ratified in the congress which framed it. On the 5th of February 1777, Georgia perfected its organic law by the unanimous agreement of its convention. Last of the thirteen came New York, whose empowered convention, on the 20th of April 1777, established a constitution that, in humane liberality, excelled them all. The privilege of the suffrage had been far more widely extended in the colonies than in England; by general consent, the extension of the elective franchise was postponed. The age of twenty-one was a qualification universally required. So, too, was residence, except that in Virginia and South Carolina it was enough to own in the district or town a certain freehold or 'lot.' South Carolina required the electors to 'acknowledge the being of a God, and to believe in a future state of rewards and punishments.' 'White men alone could claim the franchise in Virginia, in South Carolina, and in Georgia; but in South Carolina a benign interpretation of the law classed the free octaroon as a white, even though descended through an unbroken line of mothers from an imported African slave; the other ten states raised no question of color. In Pennsylvania, in New Hampshire, and partially in North Carolina, the right to vote belonged to every resident taxpayer; Georgia extended it to any white inhabitant 'of any mechanic trade'; with this exception, Georgia and all the other colonies required the possession of a freehold, or of property variously valued, in Massachusetts at about $200, in Georgia at £10. Similar conditions had always existed, with the concurrence or by the act of the colonists themselves. Maryland prescribed as its rule that votes should be given by word of mouth; Virginia and New Jersey made no change in their usage; in Rhode Island each freeman was in theory summoned to be present in the general court; he therefore gave his proxy to his representative by writing his own name on the back of his vote; all others adopted the ballot, New York at the end of the war, the other eight without delay."

G. Bancroft, History of the United States (Author's last revision), volume 5, chapter 9.

      See, also,
      VIRGINIA: A. D. 1776;
      SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1776 (FEBRUARY-APRIL);
      NEW YORK: A. D. 1777;
      CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1776;
      NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1774-1776;
      PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1776;
      MARYLAND: A. D. 1776;
      GEORGIA: A. D. 1775-1777;
      NEW HAMPSHIRE: 1775-1776.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1777 (January-December).
   The campaign on the Delaware.
   Lord Howe in possession of Philadelphia.
   Battles on the Brandywine and at Germantown.
   The winter of Washington's army at Valley Forge.

"Washington remained at Morristown from the 7th of January until the 28th of May, during which time no military movement of importance took place. His men left for their homes as soon as their terms of service expired, and as few militia entered the camp to take their places, at times it seemed as if the army would be so reduced as to be unworthy of the name. It was not until late in the spring that the new levies reached headquarters. On the 28th of May the Americans marched to Middlebrook and took position behind the Raritan. On the 13th of June Howe marched from Brunswick and … endeavored to bring on a general engagement, … but Washington refused to leave the strong position he occupied, and Howe retired to Amboy. Early in April Howe had settled upon a campaign having for its object the capture of Philadelphia. He determined to embark his troops and transport them to the banks of the Delaware or Chesapeake, and march directly on the city. … On the 23d of July, after Howe's troops had been three weeks on the vessels, the fleet sailed, shaping its course southwesterly. … Signal fires were lighted along the Jersey coast as it was seen from time to time by those who were watching for it, and messengers carried inland the news of its progress. At last, on the 30th, it was spoken off the capes of Delaware, but Lord Howe deemed it too hazardous to sail up that river, and after consulting with his brother, the general, continued on his course southward. On the 15th of August he entered Chesapeake Bay, and on the 25th the troops were landed at Elk Ferry." Meantime, Washington had been in great uncertainty as to the destination and intentions of his antagonist, but had drawn his army near to Philadelphia. It had just been joined by several distinguished foreign officers, Lafayette, De Kalb and Pulaski in the number. At Philadelphia there was consternation on the approach of the enemy, but "the pacific influence which the presence of a large Quaker population exercised seemed to bear down all military efforts. … To impress the lukewarm with the strength of his forces, and to inspire hopes in the breasts of the patriotic, on the 24th of August Washington marched his army through the streets of Philadelphia. {3246} The men were poorly armed and clothed, and to give them some uniformity they wore sprigs of green in their hats." The advance of Howe from Elk Ferry was slow, and it was not until the 11th of September that the Americans encountered him, at Chad's Ford, on the Brandywine, where they had taken position. In the battle which occurred that day the British gained a clear victory, by means of a successful flank movement which Cornwallis executed, crossing the river some miles above, while General Knyphausen made feigned attempts at Chad's Ford. "The American loss was about 1,000, killed, wounded, and prisoners; that of the British, 579. … The day after the battle Washington marched from Chester to Philadelphia. He rested his army two days at Germantown, and then recrossed the Schuylkill; public opinion demanding that another battle should be risked before the city should be given up. On the 16th the two armies met on the high ground south of Chester Valley and prepared for action. The skirmishing had actually begun, when a violent storm stopped the engagement by ruining the ammunition of both armies. Washington withdrew to the hills north of the valley, and, finding it impossible to repair the damage done by the storm, retreated again over the Schuylkill, leaving Wayne behind him to watch the enemy and attack their rear should they attempt to follow." But Wayne was surprised at Paoli, and Washington was deceived by a feigned movement, so that Howe succeeded in entering Philadelphia without another battle, on the 26th, having occupied Germantown the day before. "The main portion of Howe's army remained at Germantown, a village of a single street, two miles in length, and five from the city." Here, on the morning of October 4th, Washington attacked him, and, for a time, with great success; but confusion and misunderstandings on the part of the attacking columns arose, which turned the half-won victory into a defeat. "The Americans lost nearly 1,100 killed, wounded, and prisoners; the British 521. … While the Americans were defeated in their object, the moral results of the battle were in their favor. It inspired them with confidence, and showed the world that, though driven from the field of Brandywine, they were still aggressive." The next few weeks were employed by Howe in reducing the forts which commanded the Delaware. Fort Mifflin was taken after a severe siege, and this compelled the abandonment of Fort Mercer, from which the British had been repulsed with heavy loss. Early in December Howe moved upon Washington's lines, at Whitemarsh, intending an attack; but found them so strong that he dared not venture the attempt, and returned to Philadelphia. "As the season was advancing, and the Americans were in no condition to keep the field, it was decided to go into winter-quarters at Valley Forge, on the west side of the Schuylkill, where the Valley Creek empties into the river. The surrounding hills were covered with woods and presented an inhospitable appearance. The choice was severely criticised, and De Kalb described it as a wilderness. But the position was central and easily defended. The army arrived there about the middle of December, and the erection of huts began. They were built of logs, and were 14 by 15 feet each. The windows were covered with oiled paper, and the openings between the logs were closed with clay. The huts were arranged in streets, giving the place the appearance of a city. It was the first of the year, however, before they were occupied, and previous to that the suffering of the army had become great. Although the weather was intensely cold the men were obliged to work at the buildings, with nothing to support life but flour mixed with water, which they baked into cakes at the open fires. … The horses died of starvation by hundreds, and the men were obliged to haul their own provisions and firewood. As straw could not be found to protect the men from the cold ground, sickness spread through their quarters with fearful rapidity. 'The unfortunate soldiers,' wrote Lafayette in after-years, 'were in want of everything; they had neither coats, hats, shirts, nor shoes; their feet and their legs froze till they became black, and it was often necessary to amputate them. … The army frequently remained whole days without provisions, and the patient endurance of both soldiers and officers was a miracle which each moment served to renew.' … While the country around Valley Forge was so impoverished by the military operations of the previous summer as to make it impossible for it to support the army, the sufferings of the latter were chiefly owing to the inefficiency of Congress. That body met at Lancaster after leaving Philadelphia, and at once adjourned to York, where its sessions were continued. But it in no way equalled the congresses which had preceded it. 'The Continental Congress and the currency,' wrote Gouverneur Morris in 1778, 'have greatly depreciated.'"

F. D. Stone, The Struggle for the Delaware (Narrative and Critical History of America, volume 6, chapter 5).

The sufferings of the army at Valley Forge, and the shameful neglect which it experienced, were indignantly described by Washington, in a letter addressed to the President of Congress, December 23, 1777: "Since the month of July," he wrote, "we have had no assistance from the quartermaster-general, and to want of assistance from this department the commissary-general charges great part of his deficiency. To this I am to add, that, notwithstanding it is a standing order, and often repeated, that the troops shall always have two days' provisions by them, that they might be ready at any sudden call; yet an opportunity has scarcely ever offered, of taking an advantage of the enemy, that has not been either totally obstructed, or greatly impeded on this account. And this, the great and crying evil, is not all. The soap, vinegar, and other articles allowed by Congress, we see none of, nor have we seen them, I believe, since the battle of Brandywine. The first, indeed, we have now little occasion for; few men having more than one shirt, many only the moiety of one, and some none at all. In addition to which, as a proof of the little benefit received from a clothier-general, and as a further proof of the inability of an army, under the circumstances of this, to perform the common duties of soldiers, (besides a number of men confined to hospitals for want of shoes, and others in farmers' houses on the same account,) we have, by a field-return this day made, no less than two thousand eight hundred and ninety-eight men now in camp unfit for duty, because they are barefoot and otherwise naked. {3247} By the same return it appears, that our whole strength in Continental troops, including the eastern brigades, which have joined us since the surrender of General Burgoyne, exclusive of the Mary]and troops sent to Wilmington, amounts to more than eight thousand two hundred in camp fit for duty; notwithstanding which; and that since the 4th instant, our numbers fit for duty, from the hardships and exposures they have undergone, particularly on account of blankets (numbers having been obliged, and still are, to sit up all night by fires, instead of taking comfortable rest in a natural and common way), have decreased near two thousand men. We find gentlemen, without knowing whether the army was really going into winter-quarters or not (for I am sure no resolution of mine would warrant the Remonstrance), reprobating the measure as much as if they thought the soldiers were made of stocks or stones, and equally insensible of frost and snow; and moreover, as if they conceived it easily practicable for an inferior army, under the disadvantages I have described ours to be, which are by no means exaggerated, to confine a superior one, in all respects well-appointed and provided for a winter's campaign, within the city of Philadelphia, and to cover from depredation and waste the States of Pennsylvania and Jersey. But what makes this matter still more extraordinary in my eye is, that these very gentlemen,—who were well apprized of the nakedness of the troops from ocular demonstration, who thought their own soldiers worse clad than others, and who advised me near a month ago to postpone the execution of a plan I was about to adopt, in consequence of a resolve of Congress for seizing clothes, under strong assurances that an ample supply would be collected in ten days agreeably to a decree of the State (not one article of which, by the by, is yet come to hand),—should think a winter's campaign, and the covering of these States from the invasion of an enemy, so easy and practicable a business. I can assure those gentlemen, that it is a much easier and less distressing thing to draw remonstrances in a comfortable room by a good fireside, than to occupy a cold, bleak hill, and sleep under frost and snow, without clothes or blankets. However, although they seem to have little feeling for the naked and distressed soldiers, I feel superabundantly for them, and, from my soul, I pity those miseries, which it is neither in my power to relieve or prevent. It is for these reasons, therefore, that I have dwelt upon the subject; and it adds not a little to my other difficulties and distress to find, that much more is expected of me than is possible to be performed, and that upon the ground of safety and policy I am obliged to conceal the true state of the army from public view, and thereby expose myself to detraction and calumny."

It was during this trying winter, while the army suffered at Valley Forge, that it was joined by Baron Steuben, an accomplished Prussian officer, trained in the school of Frederick the Great, with a record of distinguished service in the Seven Years War. He came as a volunteer, and was welcomed by Washington, who found in him the organizer, the disciplinarian, the instructor, which the rudely formed American army so greatly needed. The services rendered by Baron Steuben during that first winter of his stay in America were especially valuable, beyond measure. In his own account of the state of things which he found he says: "'My determination must have been very firm that I did not abandon my design when I saw the troops. Matters had to be remedied, but where to commence was the great difficulty. In the first place, I informed myself relative to the military administration. I found that the different branches were divided into departments. There were those of the quarter-master general, war commissary, provisions commissary, commissary of the treasury, or paymaster of forage, etc., etc. But they were all bad copies of a bad original. That is to say, they had imitated the English administration, which is certainly the most imperfect in Europe. The general asked me to give him some statements concerning the arrangements of the departments, and their various branches in the European armies. I gave them to him, and, detailing therein the duties of each department and of its different branches, dilated upon the functions of the quarter-masters (maréchaux généraux de logis) in particular, in which branch I had served myself for a long time in the Seven Years' War. But the English system, bad as it is, had already taken root. Each company and quarter-master had a commission of so much per cent. on all the money he expended. It was natural, therefore, that expense was not spared—that wants were discovered where there were none; and it was also natural that the dearest articles were those that suited the commissioners best. Hence the depreciation of our currency—hence the expense of so many millions. I pointed out to General Washington and several members of Congress the advantages of the contract system. I even drew up a memorandum on the subject, which Colonel Laurens translated into English, showing the way in which things were contracted for in the Prussian and French armies. But whether it was that they thought such a system impracticable in this country, or whether they were unable to check the torrent of expense, things remained as they were. I directed my attention to the condition of the troops, and I found an ample field, where disorder and confusion were supreme. … The number of men in a regiment was fixed by Congress, as well as in a company—so many infantry, cavalry, and artillery. But the eternal ebb and flow of men engaged for three, six, and nine months, who went and came every day, rendered it impossible to have either a regiment or a company complete; and the words company, regiment, brigade, and division, were so vague that they did not convey any idea upon which to form a calculation, either of a particular corps or of the army in general. They were so unequal in their number, that it would have been impossible to execute any maneuvers. Sometimes a regiment was stronger than a brigade. I have seen a regiment consisting of thirty men, and a company of one corporal! … The soldiers were scattered about in every direction. The army was looked upon as a nursery for servants, and every one deemed it his right to have a valet; several thousand soldiers were employed in this way. We had more commissaries and quarter-masters at that time than all the armies of Europe together; the most modest had only one servant, but others had two and even three. {3248} If the captains and colonels could give no account of their men, they could give still less an account of their arms, accouterments, clothing, ammunition, camp equipage, etc. Nobody kept an account but the commissaries, who furnished all the articles. A company, which consisted, in May, of fifty men, was armed, clothed and equipped in June. It then consisted of thirty men; in July it received thirty recruits, who were to be clothed, armed and equipped; and not only the clothes, but the arms were carried off by those who had completed their time of service. General Knox assured me that, previous to the establishment of my department, there never was a campaign in which the military magazines did not furnish from 5,000 to 8,000 muskets to replace those which were lost in the way I have described above. The loss of bayonets was still greater. The American soldier, never having used this arm, had no faith in it, and never used it but to roast his beefsteak, and indeed often left it at home. This is not astonishing when it is considered that the majority of the States engaged their soldiers for from six to nine months. Each man who went away took his musket with him, and his successor received another from the public store. No captain kept a book. Accounts were never furnished nor required. As our army is, thank God, little subject to desertion, I venture to say that during an entire campaign there have not been twenty muskets lost since my system came into force. … The men were literally naked, some of them in the fullest extent of the word. The officers who had coats had them of every color and make. I saw officers, at a grand parade at Valley Forge, mounting guard in a sort of dressing-gown, made of an old blanket or woolen bed-cover. With regard to their military discipline, I may safely say no such thing existed. … I commenced operations by drafting 120 men from the line, whom I formed into a guard for the general-in-chief. I made this guard my military school. I drilled them myself twice a day; and to remove that English prejudice which some officers entertained, namely, that to drill a recruit was a sergeant's duty and beneath the station of an officer, I often took the musket myself to show the men the manual exercise which I wished to introduce. All my inspectors were present at each drill. We marched together, wheeled, etc., etc., and in a fortnight my company knew perfectly how to bear arms, had a military air, knew how to march, to form in column, deploy, and execute some little maneuvers with excellent precision. … I paraded them in presence of all the officers of the army, and gave them an opportunity of exhibiting all they knew. They formed in column; deployed; attacked with the bayonet; changed front, etc., etc. It afforded a new and agreeable sight for the young officers and soldiers. Having gained my point, I dispersed my apostles, the inspectors, and my new doctrine was eagerly embraced. I lost no time in extending my operations on a large scale. I applied my system to battalions, afterward to brigades, and in less than three weeks I executed maneuvers with an entire division in presence of the commander-in-chief.' … The most interesting narrative of the energy employed by Steuben, and the success of his system, is given by his favorite aid-de-camp and intimate friend, William North, who was with him from the beginning. He says in his biographical sketch: 'Certainly it was a brave attempt! Without understanding a word of the English language, to think of bringing men, born free, and joined together to preserve their freedom, into strict subjection; to obey without a word, a look, the mandates of a master! that master once their equal, or possibly beneath them, in whatever might become a man! It was a brave attempt, which nothing but virtue, or high-raised hopes of glory, could have supported. At the first parade, the troops neither understanding the command, nor how to follow in a changement to which they had not been accustomed, even with the instructor at their head, were getting fast into confusion. At this moment, Captain B. Walker, then of the second New York regiment, advanced from his platoon, and offered his assistance to translate the orders and interpret to the troops. "If," said the baron, "I had seen an angel from heaven, I should not have more rejoiced." … Walker became from that moment his aid-de-camp, and remained to the end of the baron's life his dear and most worthy friend. From the commencement of instruction, no time, no pains, no fatigue were thought too great, in pursuit of this great object. Through the whole of each campaign, when troops were to maneuver, and that was almost every day, the baron rose at three o'clock; while his servant dressed his hair he smoked a single pipe and drank one cup of coffee, was on horseback at sunrise, and, with or without his suite, galloped to the parade. There was no waiting for a tardy aid-de-camp, and those who followed wished they had not slept. Nor was there need of chiding; when duty was neglected, or military etiquette infringed, the baron's look was quite sufficient.' … Steuben enjoyed the confidence of both officers and men, and every thing he proposed was executed with as much precision as if it were an order from the commander-in-chief. Although he was only a volunteer, without any specific rank in the army, he had greater power and authority than any general could boast of."

ALSO IN: W. Irving, Life of Washington, volume 3, chapters 13, 18-19, and 23-27.

G. W. Greene, Life of General Nathanael Greene, book 2, chapters 16-25 (volume l).

      J. T. Scharf and T. Westcott,
      History of Philadelphia,
      chapter 17 (volume l).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1777 (June).
Vermont denied admission to the Union.

   "La Fayette, barely nineteen years old, was in garrison at
   Metz, when he was invited to a dinner that his commander, the
   Count de Broglie, gave to the brother of the king of England,
   the Duke of Gloucester, then on his way through the city. News
   had just been received of the proclamation of the independence
   of the United States, and, the conversation having naturally
   fallen on this subject, La Fayette plied the duke with
   questions to acquaint himself with the events, entirely new to
   him, which were happening in America. Before the end of the
   dinner he had made his decision, and, from that moment, he no
   longer thought of anything else except setting out for the new
   world.
{3249}
   He went to Paris and confided his project to his friends, the
   Count de Segur and the Viscount de Noailles, who were to
   accompany him. The Count de Broglie, whom he also informed,
   tried to turn him from his design. 'I saw your uncle die in
   Italy,' he said to him, 'and your father at Min·den, and I do
   not wish to contribute to the ruin of your family by allowing
   you to go.' Nevertheless, he put La Fayette in communication
   with the former agent of Choiseul in Canada, the Baron de
   Kalb, who became his friend. De Kalb presented him to Silas
   Deane, who, considering him too young, wished to dissuade him
   from his project. But the news of the disasters experienced by
   the Americans before New York, at White Plains and in New
   Jersey, confirmed La Fayette in his resolution. He bought and
   fitted out a vessel at his own expense, and disguised his
   preparations by making a journey to London. Nevertheless his
   design was disclosed at Court. His family became angry with
   him. He was forbidden to go to America, and, to render this
   order effective, a lettre de cachet was issued against him.
   Nevertheless he left Paris with an officer named Mauroy,
   disguised himself as a courier, went on board his ship at
   Passage in Spain, and set sail April the 26th, 1777. He had
   several officers on board. La Fayette successfully avoided the
   English cruisers and the French vessels sent in pursuit of
   him. Finally, after a hazardous passage of seven weeks, he
   reached Georgetown, and, furnished with letters of
   recommendation from Deane, he reported to Congress."

      T. Balch,
      The French in America during the War of Independence,
      chapter 7.

In consideration of the great personal sacrifice he had made in quitting France, and his offer to serve the American cause at his own expense and without pay, Congress, with hesitation, conferred on the young marquis the rank of Major General, but without command. He succeeded, too, in procuring a like commission for Baron de Kalb, who had accompanied him. While Lafayette was still busy with these arrangements, Washington came to Philadelphia, and they met at a dinner party. They seem to have been drawn to one another at the first exchange of words, and a friendship began which lasted through their lives. Lafayette was soon invited to become a member of the military family of the commander-in-chief.

      ALSO IN:
      C. Tower, Jr.,
      The Marquis de La Fayette in the American Revolution,
      volume 1, chapter 1.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1777 (July-October).
   The struggle for the Hudson.
   Burgoyne's expedition from Canada.
   His surrender at Saratoga.

Early in the summer of 1777 a formidable expedition under General Burgoyne was set in motion from Canada toward Lake Champlain. "It was a part of Burgoyne's plan, not merely to take Ticonderoga, but to advance thence upon Albany, and, with the co-operation of the troops at New York, to get possession also of the posts in the Highlands. The British would then command the Hudson through its whole extent, and New England, the head of the rebellion, would be completely cut off from the middle and southern colonies. Burgoyne started on this expedition with a brilliant army of 8,000 men, partly British and partly Germans, besides a large number of Canadian boatmen, laborers and skirmishers. On the western shore of Lake Champlain, near Crown Point, he met the Six Nations in council, and after a feast and a speech, some 400 of their warriors joined this army. His next step was to issue a proclamation … threatening with all the extremities of war all who should presume to resist his arms. Two days after the issue of this proclamation, Burgoyne appeared [July 1] before Ticonderoga." The commander of that important fort, General St. Clair, found defense impracticable and evacuated the place. He was vigorously pursued in his retreat and only escaped with the loss of most of his bag·gage and stores, besides several hundred men, in killed, wounded, and prisoners. "After a seven days' march, he joined Schuyler at Fort Edward, on the Hudson. Here was assembled the whole force of the northern army, amounting to about 5,000 men; but a considerable part were militia hastily called in; many were without arms; there was a great deficiency of ammunition and provisions; and the whole force was quite disorganized. The region between Skenesborough [now Whitehall, where Burgoyne had halted] and the Hudson was an almost unbroken wilderness. Wood Creek was navigable as far as Fort Anne [which the Americans had fired and abandoned]; from Fort Anne to the Hudson, over an exceedingly rough country, … extended a single military road. While Burgoyne halted a few days at Skenesborough to put his forces in order, and to bring up the necessary supplies, Schuyler hastened to destroy the navigation of Wood Creek," and to make the road from Fort Anne as nearly impassable as a wilderness road can be made. "All the stock in the neighborhood was driven off, and the militia of New England was summoned to the rescue. … The advance from Skenesborough cost the British infinite labor and fatigue; but … [the] impediments were at length overcome; and Burgoyne, with his troops, artillery, and baggage, presently appeared [July 29] on the banks of the Hudson. … Fort Edward was untenable. As the British approached, the Americans crossed the river, and retired, first to Saratoga, and then to Stillwater, a short distance above the mouth of the Mohawk. Hardly had Schuyler taken up this position, when news arrived of another disaster and a new danger. While moving up Lake Champlain, Burgoyne had detached Colonel St. Leger, with 200 regulars, Sir John Johnson's Royal Greens, some Canadian Rangers, and a body of Indians under Brant, to harass the New York frontier from the west. St. Leger laid siege to Fort Schuyler, late Fort Stanwix, near the head of the Mohawk, then the extreme western post of the State of New York. General Herkimer raised the militia of Tryon county, and advanced to the relief of this important post, which was held by Gansevoort and Willett, with two New York regiments. About six miles from the fort [near Oriskany, August 6], owing to want of proper precaution, Herkimer fell into an ambush. Mortally wounded, he supported himself against a stump, and encouraged his men to the fight. By the aid of a successful sally by Willett, they succeeded at last in repulsing the assailants, but not without a loss of 400, including many of the leading patriots of that region, who met with no mercy at the hands of the Indians and refugees. Tryon county, which included the whole district west of Albany, abounded with Tories. {3250} It was absolutely necessary to relieve Fort Schuyler." General Arnold was accordingly despatched thither, with three regiments, and on his approach St. Leger, deserted by most of his Indian allies, retreated precipitately, leaving most of his stores and baggage behind. Meantime, Burgoyne was beginning to find his situation serious. To feed and otherwise supply his army was the chief difficulty. He could bring enough of stores to the head of Lake George, by the water carriage which he commanded, from Canada; but to transport them thence to the Hudson, though the distance was only eighteen miles, proved nearly impracticable. "The roads were so bad, and the supply of draft cattle so small, that, after a fortnight's hard labor, the British army had only four days' provision in advance." To improve his supplies, and partly, moreover, in the hope of finding discontent among the settlers of the New Hampshire Grants, Burgoyne sent 800 men, under Colonel Baum, into Vermont, They were defeated [August 16] at Bennington by the New Hampshire and Vermont militia under Colonel John Stark, and again defeated a second time the same day, after reinforcements had been sent to them. "Besides the killed, about 200 in number, the Americans took near 600 prisoners, 1,000 stand of arms, as many swords, and four pieces of artillery. … The American loss was only 14 killed and 42 wounded. … The victory of Stark had a magical effect in reviving the spirits of the people and the courage of the soldiers."

"Burgoyne's position was by this time very dangerous. His Indians were leaving him; many of his best men had been killed or captured; and he was getting short of provisions. The army opposed to him was increasing: Congress was hurrying men up the Hudson; and the country militia were coming in rapidly. Burgoyne, therefore, desperately attempted to force his way through the American army. He crossed the Hudson, and moved slowly down its west bank toward the Mohawk. About the same time, Gates, who had been sent by Congress to take Schuyler's place, felt strong enough to move up the west bank of the Hudson, away from the Mohawk. The two armies met [September 19] at Bemis Heights, between Saratoga Lake and the Hudson. The battle which followed [called by some writers the battle of Freeman's Farm] was not decisive: the British held the ground; but the Americans had shown that Burgoyne could not break through."

"Burgoyne now halted again, and strengthened his position by field-works and redoubts; and the Americans also improved their defences. The two armies remained nearly within cannon-shot of each other for a considerable time, during which Burgoyne was anxiously looking for intelligence of the promised expedition from New York, which, according to the original plan, ought by this time to have been approaching Albany from the south. At last, a messenger from Clinton made his way, with great difficulty, to Burgoyne's camp, and brought the information that Clinton was on his way up the Hudson to attack the American forts which barred the passage up that river to Albany. Burgoyne, in reply, on the 30th of September, urged Clinton to attack the forts as speedily as possible, stating that the effect of such an attack, or even the semblance of it, would be to move the American army from its position before his own troops. By another messenger, who reached Clinton on the 5th of October, Burgoyne informed his brother general that he had lost his communications with Canada, but had provisions which would last him till the 20th. Burgoyne described himself as strongly posted, and stated that though the Americans in front of him [at Stillwater] were strongly posted also, he made no doubt of being able to force them, and making his way to Albany; but that he doubted whether he could subsist there, as the country was drained of provisions. He wished Clinton to meet him there, and to keep open a communication with New York. Burgoyne had over-estimated his resources, and in the very beginning of October found difficulty and distress pressing him hard. The Indians and Canadians began to desert him; while, on the other hand, Gates's army was continually reinforced by fresh bodies of the militia. … Finding the number and spirit of the enemy to increase daily, and his own stores of provisions to diminish, Burgoyne determined on attacking the Americans in front of him, and by dislodging them from their position, to gain the means of moving upon Albany, or at least of relieving his troops from the straitened position in which they were cooped up. Burgoyne's force was now reduced to less than 6,000 men. The right of his camp was on some high ground a little to the west of the river; thence his entrenchments extended along the lower ground to the bank of the Hudson, the line of their front being nearly at a right angle with the course of the stream. The lines were fortified with redoubts and field-works. … The numerical force of the Americans was now greater than the British, even in regular troops, and the numbers of the militia and volunteers which had joined Gates and Arnold were greater still. General Lincoln, with 2,000 New England troops, had reached the American camp on the 29th of September. Gates gave him the command of the right wing, and took in person the command of the left wing, which was composed of two brigades under Generals Poor and Leonard, of Colonel Morgan's rifle corps, and part of the fresh New England Militia. The whole of the American lines had been ably fortified under the direction of the celebrated Polish General, Kosciusko, who was now serving as a volunteer in Gates's army. The right of the American position, that is to say, the part of it nearest to the river, was too strong to be assailed with any prospect of success: and Burgoyne therefore determined to endeavour to force their left. For this purpose he formed a column of 1,500 regular troops, with two twelve-pounders, two howitzers, and six six-pounders. He headed this in person, having Generals Philips, Riedesel; and Fraser under him. The enemy's force immediately in front of his lines was so strong that he dared not weaken the troops who guarded them, by detaching any more to strengthen his column of attack. It was on the 7th of October that Burgoyne led his column forward; and on the preceding day, the 6th, Clinton had successfully executed a brilliant enterprise against the two American forts which barred his progress up the Hudson. {3251} He had captured them both, with severe loss to the American forces opposed to him; he had destroyed the fleet which the Americans had been forming on the Hudson, under the protection of their forts; and the upward river was laid open to his squadron. He had also, with admirable skill and industry, collected in small vessels, such as could float within a few miles of Albany, provisions sufficient to supply Burgoyne's army for six months. He was now only 156 miles distant from Burgoyne; and a detachment of 1,700 men actually advanced within 40 miles of Albany. Unfortunately Burgoyne and Clinton were each ignorant of the other's movements; but if Burgoyne had won his battle on the 7th, he must on advancing have soon learned the tidings of Clinton's success, and Clinton would have heard of his. A junction would soon have been made of the two victorious armies, and the great objects of the campaign might yet have been accomplished. All depended on the fortune of the column with which Burgoyne, on the eventful 7th of October, 1777, advanced against the American position." It failed in the attempt to break the American line. Arnold, who bad been deprived of his command by Gates, rushed into the fight at its fiercest stage and assumed a lead, without authority, which contributed greatly to the result. General Fraser, on the British side, was wounded mortally by a sharp-shooter under Morgan's command. Burgoyne's whole force was driven back, with heavy losses in killed and wounded, leaving six cannon behind them, and the Americans, pursuing, carried part of their entrenchments by storm. By this success, the latter "acquired the means of completely turning the right flank of the British, and gaining their rear. To prevent this calamity, Burgoyne effected during the night an entire change of position. With great skill he removed his whole army to some heights near the river, a little northward of the former camp, and he there drew up his men, expecting to be attacked on the following day. But Gates was resolved not to risk the certain triumph which his success had already secured for him. He harassed the English with skirmishes, but attempted no regular attack. Meanwhile he detached bodies of troops on both sides of the Hudson to prevent the British from recrossing that river, and to bar their retreat. When night fell, it became absolutely necessary for Burgoyne to retire again, and, accordingly, the troops were marched through a stormy and rainy night towards Saratoga, abandoning their sick and wounded, and the greater part of their baggage, to the enemy. … Burgoyne now took up his last position on the heights near Saratoga; and hemmed in by the enemy, who refused any encounter, and baffled in all his attempts at finding a path of escape, he there lingered until famine compelled him to capitulate. The fortitude of the British army during this melancholy period has been justly eulogised by many native historians, but I prefer quoting the testimony of a foreign writer, as free from all possibility of partiality. Botta says: 'It exceeds the power of words to describe the pitiable condition to which the British army was now reduced. The troops were worn down by a series of toil, privation, sickness, and desperate fighting. They were abandoned by the Indians and Canadians; and the effective force of the whole army was now diminished by repeated and heavy losses, which had principally fallen on the best soldiers and the most distinguished officers, from 10,000 combatants to less than one-half that number. Of this remnant, little more than 3,000 were English. In these circumstances, and thus weakened, they were invested by an army of four times their own number, whose position extended three parts of a circle round them; who refused to fight them, as knowing their weakness, and who, from the nature of the ground, could not be attacked in any part. In this helpless condition, obliged to be constantly under arms, while the enemy's cannon played on every part of their camp, and even the American rifle-balls whistled in many parts of the lines, the troops of Burgoyne retained their customary firmness, and while sinking under a hard necessity, they showed themselves worthy of a better fate. They could not be reproached with an action or a word, which betrayed a want of temper or of fortitude.' At length the 13th of October arrived, and as no prospect of assistance appeared, and the provisions were nearly exhausted, Burgoyne, by the unanimous advice of a council of war, sent a messenger to the American camp to treat of a convention. General Gates in the first instance demanded that the royal army should surrender prisoners of war. He also proposed that the British should ground their arms. Burgoyne replied, 'This article is inadmissible in every extremity; sooner than this army will consent to ground their arms in their encampment, they will rush on the enemy, determined to take no quarter.' After various messages, a convention for the surrender of the army was settled, which provided that 'The troops under General Burgoyne were to march out of their camp with the honours of war, and the artillery of the intrenchments, to the verge of the river, where the arms and artillery were to be left. The arms to be piled by word of command from their own officers. A free passage was to be granted to the army under Lieutenant-General Burgoyne to Great Britain, upon condition of not serving again in North America during the present contest.' The articles of capitulation were settled on the 15th of October; and on that very evening a messenger arrived from Clinton with an account of his successes, and with the tidings that part of his force had penetrated as far as Esopus, within 50 miles of Burgoyne's camp. But it was too late. The public faith was pledged; and the army was, indeed, too debilitated by fatigue and hunger to resist an attack if made; and Gates certainly would have made it, if the convention had been broken off. Accordingly, on the 17th, the convention of Saratoga was carried into effect. By this convention 5,790 men surrendered themselves as prisoners. The sick and wounded left in the camp when the British retreated to Saratoga, together with the numbers of the British, German, and Canadian troops, who were killed, wounded, or taken, and who had deserted in the preceding part of the expedition, were reckoned to be 4,689. The British sick and wounded who had fallen into the hands of the Americans after the battle of the 7th, were treated with exemplary humanity; and when the convention was executed, General Gates showed a noble delicacy of feeling, which deserves the highest degree of honour. Every circumstance was avoided which could give the appearance of triumph. {3252} The American troops remained within their lines until the British had piled their arms; and when this was done, the vanquished officers and soldiers were received with friendly kindness by their victors, and their immediate wants were promptly and liberally supplied. Discussions and disputes afterwards arose as to some of the terms of the convention; and the American Congress refused for a long time to carry into effect the article which provided for the return of Burgoyne's men to Europe; but no blame was imputable to General Gates or his army, who showed themselves to be generous as they had proved themselves to be brave."

      ALSO IN:
      General J. Burgoyne,
      State of the Expedition from Canada.

      M. von Eelking,
      Memoir of General Riedesel,
      volume 1, pages 88-218.

      B. J. Lossing,
      Life and Times of Philip Schuyler,
      volume 2, chapters 6-21.

      T. Dwight,
      Travels in New England and New York,
      volume 3, pages 220-233.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1777-1778.
The British in Philadelphia.
Their gay winter.

The capitulation of Burgoyne at Saratoga "was an all-important event in its influence on the progress of the war; but its immediate effect was unpropitious to the reputation of the Commander-in-chief, who was compelled, at the close of the year, to place his army in a state of almost total destitution in winter-quarters at Valley Forge. The brilliant success of General Gates at Saratoga, in contrast with the reverses which had befallen the American Army under the immediate command of Washington, encouraged the operations of a cabal against him, which had been formed by certain disaffected officers of the army, and was countenanced by a party in Congress. The design was, by a succession of measures implying a want of confidence, to drive Washington to retire from the service in disgust: and, when this object was effected, to give the command of the army to General Gates, who lent a willing ear to these discreditable intrigues. A foreign officer in the American Army, of the name of Conway, was the most active promoter of the project, which was discovered by the accidental disclosure of a part of his correspondence with Gates. Washington bore himself on this occasion with his usual dignity, and allowed the parties concerned, in the army and in Congress, to take refuge in explanations, disclaimers, and apologies, by which those who made them gained no credit, and those who accepted them were not deceived. A part of the machinery of this wretched cabal was the publication, in London, and the republication in New York of [a] collection of forged letters … bearing the name of Washington, and intended to prove his insincerity in the cause of the Revolution. Nothing perhaps more plainly illustrates his conscious strength of character, than the disdainful silence with which he allowed this miserable fabrication to remain for twenty years without exposure. It was only in the year 1796, and when about to retire from the Presidency, that he filed, in the department of Slate, a denial of its authenticity."

In a letter written May 30, 1778, addressed to Landon Carter, from the camp at Valley Forge, Washington alluded to the subject of the cabal as follows: "With great truth I think I can assure you, that the information you received from a gentleman at Sabine Hall, respecting a disposition in the northern officers to see me superseded in my command by General G—s is without the least foundation. I have very sufficient reasons to think, that no officers in the army are more attached to me, than those from the northward, and of those, none more so than the gentlemen, who were under the immediate command of G—s last campaign. That there was a scheme of this sort on foot, last fall, admits of no doubt: but it originated in another quarter; with three men who wanted to aggrandize themselves; but finding no support, on the contrary, that their conduct and views, when seen into, were likely to undergo severe reprehension, they slunk back, disavowed the measure, and professed themselves my warmest admirers. Thus stands the matter at present. Whether any members of Congress were privy to this scheme, and inclined to aid and abet it, I shall not take upon me to say; but am well informed, that no whisper of the kind was ever heard in Congress."

      ALSO IN:
      W. Irving,
      Life of Washington,
      volume 3, chapters 28-30.

J. C. Hamilton, History of the United States in the Writings of Alexander Hamilton, volume 1, chapters 13-14.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1777-1781.
Adoption and ratification of the Articles of Confederation.

   "On the 11th of June, 1776, the same day on which the
   committee for preparing the declaration of independence was
   appointed, congress resolved, that 'a committee be appointed
   to prepare and digest the form of a confederation to be
   entered into between these colonies'; and on the next day a
   committee was accordingly appointed, consisting of a member
   from each colony. Nearly a year before this period (viz. on
   the 21st of July, 1775), Dr. Franklin had submitted to
   congress a sketch of articles of confederation, which does
   not, however, appear to have been acted on. … On the 12th of
   July, 1776, the committee appointed to prepare articles of
   confederation presented a draft, which was in the hand-writing
   of Mr. Dickenson, one of the committee, and a delegate from
   Pennsylvania. The draft, so reported, was debated from the 22d
   to the 31st of July, and on several days between the 5th and
   20th of August, 1776. On this last day, congress, in committee
   of the whole, reported a new draft, which was ordered to be
   printed for the use of the members. The subject seems not
   again to have been touched until the 8th of April, 1777, and
   the articles were debated at several times between that time
   and the 15th of November of the same year. On this last day
   the articles were reported with sundry amendments, and finally
   adopted by congress. A committee was then appointed to draft,
   and they accordingly drafted, a circular letter, requesting
   the states respectively to authorize their delegates in
   congress to subscribe the same in behalf of the state. … It
   carried, however, very slowly conviction to the minds of the
   local legislatures. Many objections were stated, and many
   amendments were proposed.
{3253}
   All of them, however, were rejected by congress, not probably
   because they were all deemed inexpedient or improper in
   themselves; but from the danger of sending the instrument back
   again to all the states, for reconsideration. Accordingly, on
   the 26th of June, 1778, a copy, engrossed for ratification,
   was prepared, and the ratification begun on the 9th day of
   July following. It was ratified by all the states, except
   Delaware and Maryland, in 1778; by Delaware in 1779, and by
   Maryland on the 1st of March, 1781, from which last date its
   final ratification took effect, and was joyfully announced by
   congress. In reviewing the objections taken by the various
   states to the adoption of the confederation in the form in
   which it was presented to them, … that which seemed to be of
   paramount importance, and which, indeed, protracted the
   ratification of the confederation to so late a period, was the
   alarming controversy in respect to the boundaries of some of
   the states, and the public lands, held by the crown, within
   these reputed boundaries."

      J. Story,
      Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States,
      book 2, chapter 2 (volume 1).

   "Article I.
   The style of this Confederacy shall be,
   'The United States of America.'

   Article II.
   Each State retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence,
   and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this
   Confederation expressly delegated to the United States in
   Congress assembled.

   Article III.
   The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of
   friendship with each other, for their common defense, the
   security of their liberties, and their mutual and general
   welfare, binding themselves to assist each other against all
   force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them,
   on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other
   pretense whatever.

   Article IV.
   The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and
   intercourse among the people of the different States in this
   Union, the free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers,
   vagabonds, and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be
   entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in
   the several States; and the people of each State shall have
   free ingress and egress to and from any other State, and shall
   enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and commerce subject
   to the same duties, impositions, and restrictions as the
   inhabitants thereof respectively; provided that such
   restrictions shall not extend so far as to prevent the removal
   of property imported into any State to any other State of
   which the owner is an inhabitant; provided also, that no
   imposition, duties, or restriction shall be laid by any State
   on the property of the United States or either of them. If any
   person guilty of, or charged with, treason, felony, or other
   high misdemeanor in any State shall flee from justice and be
   found in any of the United States, he shall, upon demand of
   the governor or executive power of the State from which he
   fled, be delivered up and removed to the State having
   jurisdiction of his offense. Full faith and credit shall be
   given in each of these States to the records, acts, and
   judicial proceedings of the courts and magistrates of every
   other State.

   Article V.
   For the more convenient management of the general interests of
   the United States, delegates shall be annually appointed in
   such manner as the Legislature of each State shall direct, to
   meet in Congress on the first Monday in November, in every
   year, with a power reserved to each State to recall its
   delegates, or any of them, at any time within the year, and to
   send others in their stead for the remainder of the year. No
   State shall be represented in Congress by less than two, nor
   by more than seven members; and no person shall be capable of
   being a delegate for more than three years in any term of six
   years; nor shall any person, being a delegate, be capable of
   holding any office under the United States for which he, or
   another for his benefit, receives any salary, fees, or
   emolument of any kind. Each State shall maintain its own
   delegates in any meeting of the States and while they act as
   members of the Committee of the States. In determining
   questions in the United States in Congress assembled, each
   State shall have one vote. Freedom of speech and debate in
   Congress shall not be impeached or questioned in any court or
   place out of Congress; and the members of Congress shall be
   protected in their persons from arrests and imprisonment
   during the time of their going to and from, and attendance on,
   Congress, except for treason, felony, or breach of the peace.

Article VI. No State, without the consent of the United States, in Congress assembled, shall send any embassy to, or receive any embassy from, or enter into any conference, agreement, alliance, or treaty with any king, prince, or state; nor shall any person holding any office of profit or trust under the United States, or any of them, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title of any kind whatever from any king, prince, or foreign state; nor shall the United States, in Congress assembled, or any of them, grant any title of nobility. No two or more States shall enter into any treaty, confederation, or alliance whatever between them, without the consent of the United States, in Congress assembled, specifying accurately the purposes for which the same is to be entered into, and how long it shall continue. No State shall lay any imposts or duties which may interfere with any stipulations in treaties entered into by the United States, in Congress assembled, with any king, prince, or state, in pursuance of any treaties already proposed by Congress to the courts of France and Spain. No vessel of war shall be kept up in time of peace by any State, except such number only as shall be deemed necessary by the United States, in Congress assembled, for the defense of such State or its trade, nor shall any body of forces be kept up by any State in time of peace, except such number only as, in the judgment of the United States, in Congress assembled, shall be deemed requisite to garrison the forts necessary for the defense of such State; but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutred, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use in public stores a due number of field-pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition, and camp equipage. No State shall engage in any war without the consent of the United States, in Congress assembled, unless such State be actually invaded by enemies, or shall have received certain advice of a resolution being formed by some nation of Indians to invade such State, and the danger is so imminent as not to admit of a delay till the United States, in Congress assembled, can be consulted; nor shall any State grant commissions to any ships or vessels of war, nor letters of marque or reprisal, except it be after a declaration of war by the United States, in Congress assembled, and then only against the kingdom or state, and the subjects thereof, against which war has been so declared, and under such regulations as shall be established by the United States, in Congress assembled, unless such State be infested by pirates, in which case vessels of war may be fitted out for that occasion, and kept so long as the danger shall continue, or until the United States, in Congress assembled, shall determine otherwise.

   Article VII.
   When land forces are raised by any State for the common
   defense, all officers of or under the rank of Colonel shall be
   appointed by the Legislature of each State respectively by
   whom such forces shall be raised, or in such manner as such
   State shall direct, and all vacancies shall be filled up by
   the State which first made the appointment.

   Article VIII.
   All charges of war, and all other expenses that shall be
   incurred for the common defense, or general welfare, and
   allowed by the United States, in Congress assembled, shall be
   defrayed out of a common treasury, which shall be supplied by
   the several States in proportion to the value of all land
   within each State, granted to, or surveyed for, any person, as
   such land and the buildings and improvements thereon shall be
   estimated, according to such mode as the United States, in
   Congress assembled, shall, from time to time, direct and
   appoint. The taxes for paying that proportion shall be laid
   and levied by the authority and direction of the Legislatures
   of the several States, within the time agreed upon by the
   United States, in Congress assembled.

Article IX. The United States, in Congress assembled, shall have the sole and exclusive right and power of determining on peace and war, except in the cases mentioned in the sixth Article; of sending and receiving ambassadors; entering into treaties and alliances, provided that no treaty of commerce shall be made, whereby the legislative power of the respective States shall be restrained from imposing such imposts and duties on foreigners as their own people are subjected to, or from prohibiting the exportation or importation of any species of goods or commodities whatever; of establishing rules for deciding, in all cases, what captures on land and water shall be legal, and in what manner prizes taken by land or naval forces in the service of the United States shall be divided or appropriated; of granting letters of marque and reprisal in times of peace; appointing courts for the trial of piracies and felonies committed on the high seas; and establishing courts for receiving and determining finally appeals in all cases of captures; provided that no member of Congress shall be appointed a judge of any of the said courts. The United States, in Congress assembled, shall also be the last resort on appeal in all disputes and differences now subsisting, or that hereafter may arise between two or more States concerning boundary, jurisdiction, or any other cause whatever; which authority shall always be exercised in the manner following: Whenever the legislative or executive authority, or lawful agent of any State in controversy with another, shall present a petition to Congress, stating the matter in question, and praying for a hearing, notice thereof shall be given by order of Congress to the legislative or executive authority of the other State in controversy, and a day assigned for the appearance of the parties by their lawful agents, who shall then be directed to appoint, by joint consent, commissioners or judges to constitute a court for hearing and determining the matter in question; but if they cannot agree, Congress shall name three persons out of each of the United States, and from the list of such persons each party shall alternately strike out one, the petitioners beginning, until the number shall be reduced to thirteen; and from that number not less than seven nor more than nine names, as Congress shall direct, shall, in the presence of Congress, be drawn out by lot; and the persons whose names shall be so drawn, or any five of them, shall be commissioners or judges, to hear and finally determine the controversy, so always as a major part of the judges who shall hear the cause shall agree in the determination; and if either party shall neglect to attend at the day appointed, without showing reasons which Congress shall judge sufficient, or being present, shall refuse to strike, the Congress shall proceed to nominate three persons out of each State, and the secretary of Congress shall strike in behalf of such party absent or refusing; and the judgment and sentence of the court, to be appointed in the manner before prescribed, shall be final and conclusive; and if any of the parties shall refuse to submit to the authority of such court, or to appear or defend their claim or cause, the court shall nevertheless proceed to pronounce sentence or judgment, which shall in like manner be final and decisive; the judgment or sentence and other proceedings being in either case transmitted to Congress, and lodged among the acts of Congress for the security of the parties concerned; provided, that every commissioner, before he sits in judgment, shall take an oath, to be administered by one of the judges of the supreme or superior court of the State where the cause shall be tried, 'well and truly to hear and determine the matter in question, according to the best of his judgment, without favor, affection, or hope of reward.' Provided, also, that no State shall be deprived of territory for the benefit of the United States. All controversies concerning the private right of soil claimed under different grants of two or more States, whose jurisdictions, as they may respect such lands, and the States which passed such grants are adjusted, the said grants or either of them being at the same time claimed to have originated antecedent to such settlement of jurisdiction, shall, on the petition of either party to the Congress of the United States, be finally determined, as near as may be, in the same manner as is before prescribed for deciding disputes respecting territorial jurisdiction between different States. The United States, in Congress assembled, shall also have the sole and exclusive right and power of regulating the alloy and value of coin struck by their own authority, or by that of the respective States; fixing the standard of weights and measures throughout the United States; regulating the trade and managing all affairs with the Indians, not members of any of the States; provided that the legislative right of any State, within its own limits, be not infringed or violated; {3255} establishing and regulating post-offices from one State to another, throughout all the United States, and exacting such postage on the papers passing through the same as may be requisite to defray the expenses of the said office; appointing all officers of the land forces in the service of the United States, excepting regimental officers; appointing all the officers of the naval forces, and commissioning all officers whatever in the service of the United States; making rules for the government and regulation of the said land and naval forces, and directing their operations. The United States, in Congress assembled, shall have authority to appoint a committee, to sit in the recess of Congress, to be denominated 'A Committee of the States,' and to consist of one delegate from each State, and to appoint such other committees and civil officers as may be necessary for managing the general affairs of the United States under their direction; to appoint one of their number to preside; provided that no person be allowed to serve in the office of president more than one year in any term of three years; to ascertain the necessary sums of money to be raised for the service of the United States, and to appropriate and apply the same for defraying the public expenses; to borrow money or emit bills on the credit of the United States, transmitting every half year to the respective States an account of the sums of money so borrowed or emitted; to build and equip a navy; to agree upon the number of land forces, and to make requisitions from each State for its quota, in proportion to the number of white inhabitants in such State, which requisition shall be binding; and thereupon the Legislature of each State shall appoint the regimental officers, raise the men, and clothe, arm, and equip them in a soldier-like manner, at the expense of the United States; and the officers and men so clothed, armed, and equipped shall march to the place appointed, and within the time agreed on by the United States, in Congress assembled; but if the United States, in Congress assembled, shall, on consideration of circumstances, judge proper that any State should not raise men, or should raise a smaller number than its quota, and that any other State should raise a greater number of men than the quota thereof, such extra number shall be raised, officered, clothed, armed, and equipped in the same manner as the quota of such State, unless the Legislature of such State shall judge that such extra number can not be safely spared out of the same, in which case they shall raise, officer, clothe, arm, and equip as many of such extra number as they judge can be safely spared, and the officers and men so clothed, armed, and equipped shall march to the place appointed, and within the time agreed on by the United States, in Congress assembled. The United States, in Congress assembled, shall never engage in a war, nor grant letters of marque and reprisal in time of peace, nor enter into any treaties or alliances, nor coin money, nor regulate the value thereof, nor ascertain the sums and expenses necessary for the defense and welfare of the United States, or any of them, nor emit bills, nor borrow money on the credit of the United States, nor appropriate money, nor agree upon the number of vessels of war to be built or purchased, or the number of land or sea forces to be raised, nor appoint a commander-in-chief of the army or navy, unless nine States assent to the same, nor shall a question on any other point, except for adjourning from day to day, be determined, unless by the votes of a majority of the United States, in Congress assembled. The Congress of the United States shall have power to adjourn to any time within the year, and to any place within the United States, so that no period of adjournment be for a longer duration than the space of six months, and shall publish the journal of their proceedings monthly, except such parts thereof relating to treaties, alliances, or military operations as in their judgment require secrecy; and the yeas and nays of the delegates of each State, on any question, shall be entered on the journal when it is desired by any delegate; and the delegates of a State, or any of them, at his or their request, shall be furnished with a transcript of the said journal except such parts as are above excepted, to lay before the Legislatures of the several States.

   Article X.
   The Committee of the States, or any nine of them, shall be
   authorized to execute, in the recess of Congress, such of the
   powers of Congress as the United States, in Congress
   assembled, by the consent of nine States, shall, from time to
   time, think expedient to vest them with; provided that no
   power be delegated to the said Committee, for the exercise of
   which, by the Articles of Confederation, the voice of nine
   States in the Congress of the United States assembled is
   requisite.

   Article XI.
   Canada, acceding to this Confederation, and joining in the
   measures of the United States, shall be admitted into, and
   entitled to all the advantages of this Union; but no other
   colony shall be admitted into the same, unless such admission
   be agreed to by nine States.

   Article XII.
   All bills of credit emitted, moneys borrowed, and debts
   contracted by or under the authority of Congress, before the
   assembling of the United States, in pursuance of the present
   Confederation, shall be deemed and considered as a charge
   against the United States, for payment and satisfaction
   whereof the said United States and the public faith are hereby
   solemnly pledged.

   Article XIII.
   Every State shall abide by the determinations of the United
   States, in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this
   Confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this
   Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and
   the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any
   time hereafter be made in any of them, unless such alteration
   be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be
   afterwards confirmed by the Legislatures of every State. AND
   WHEREAS it hath pleased the great Governor of the world to
   incline the hearts of the Legislatures we respectively
   represent in Congress to approve of, and to authorize us to
   ratify, the said Articles of Confederation and perpetual
   Union, know ye, that we, the undersigned delegates, by virtue
   of the power and authority to us given for that purpose, do,
   by these presents, in the name and in behalf of our respective
   constituents, fully and entirely ratify and confirm each and
   every of the said Articles of Confederation and perpetual
   Union, and all and singular the matters and things therein
   contained. And we do further solemnly plight and engage the
   faith of our respective constituents, that they shall abide by
   the determinations of the United States, in Congress
   assembled, on all questions which by the said Confederation
   are submitted to them; and that the Articles thereof shall be
   inviolably observed by the States we respectively represent,
   and that the Union shall be perpetual.
{3256}
   In witness whereof we have hereunto set our hands in Congress.
   Done at Philadelphia in the State of Pennsylvania the ninth
   day of July in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred
   and seventy-eight, and in the third year of the independence
   of America."

"Under these Articles of Confederation the treaty of peace with England was concluded and the American nation was governed until the final adoption of the Constitution of the United States. The main defect of the Articles of Confederation was, that although powers sufficiently adequate to create a government were ceded, there was no power to raise revenue, to levy taxes, or to enforce the law, except with the consent of nine States; and although the government had power to contract debts, there were no means by which to discharge them. The government had power to raise armies and navies, but no means wherewith to pay them, unless the means were voted by the States themselves; they could make treaties with foreign powers, but had no means to coerce a State to obey such treaty. In short, it was a government which had the power to make laws, but no power to punish infractions thereof. Washington himself said: 'The Confederation appears to me to be little more than the shadow without the substance, and Congress a nugatory body.' Chief Justice Story, in summing up the leading defects of the Articles of Confederation, says: 'There was an utter want of all coercive authority to carry into effect its own constitutional measures; this of itself was sufficient to destroy its whole efficiency as a superintendent government, if that may be called a government which possessed no one solid attribute of power. In truth, Congress possessed only the power of recommendation. Congress had no power to exact obedience or punish disobedience of its ordinances; they could neither impose fines nor direct imprisonments, nor divest privileges, nor declare forfeitures, nor suspend refractory officers. There was no power to exercise force.'"

"The individual states had attributed to themselves, in the Articles of Confederation, no powers which could place them in relation to foreign nations in the light of sovereign states. They felt that all such claims would be considered ridiculous, because back of these claims there was no real corresponding power. Congress therefore remained, as heretofore, the sole outward representative of sovereignty. But the power to exercise the prerogatives was taken from it, and this without placing it in any other hands. The changes effected by the Articles of Confederation were rather of a negative than of a positive nature. They did not give the State which was just coming into being a definite form, but they began the work of its dissolution. … The practical result … was that the United States tended more and more to split up into thirteen independent republics, and … virtually ceased to be a member of the family of nations bound together by the 'jus gentium.'"

      H. von Holst,
      Constitutional and Political History of the United States,
      volume 1, chapter 1.

ALSO IN: G. Bancroft, History of the Formation of the Constitution, volume 1, chapter 1.

On the question of the western territorial claims of several of the States, and the obstacle which it brought in the way of the ratification of the Articles of Confederation.

   "The account of Burgoyne's surrender, which was brought to
   France by a swift-sailing ship from Boston, threw Turgot and
   all Paris into transports of joy. None doubted the ability of
   the states to maintain their independence. On the 12th of
   December their commissioners had an interview with Vergennes.
   'Nothing,' said he, 'has struck me so much as General
   Washington's attacking and giving battle to General Howe's
   army. To bring troops raised within the year to this, promises
   everything. The court of France, in the treaty which is to be
   entered into, intend to take no advantage of your present
   situation. Once made, it should be durable; and therefore it
   should contain no condition of which the Americans may
   afterward repent, but such only as will last as long as human
   institutions shall endure, so that mutual amity may subsist
   forever. Entering into a treaty will be an avowal of your
   independence. Spain must be consulted, and Spain will not be
   satisfied with an undetermined boundary on the west. Some of
   the states are supposed to run to the South Sea, which might
   interfere with her claim to California.' It was answered that
   the last treaty of peace adopted the Mississippi as a
   boundary. 'And what share do you intend to give us in the
   fisheries?' asked Vergennes; for in the original draft of a
   treaty the United States had proposed to take to themselves
   Cape Breton and the whole of the island of Newfoundland.
   Explanations were made by the American commissioners that
   their later instructions removed all chances of disagreement
   on that subject. … The question of a French alliance … was
   discussed by Vergennes with the Marquis d'Ossun, the late
   French ambassador in Madrid, as the best adviser with regard
   to Spain, and the plan of action was formed. Then these two
   met the king at the apartment of Maurepas, where the plan,
   after debate, was finally settled. Maurepas, at heart opposed
   to the war, loved ease and popularity too well to escape the
   sway of external opinion; and Louis XVI. sacrificed his own
   inclination and his own feeling of justice to policy of state
   and the opinion of his advisers. So, on the 6th of February, a
   treaty of amity and commerce and an eventual defensive treaty
   of alliance were concluded between the king of France and the
   United States, on principles of equality and reciprocity, and
   for the most part in conformity to the proposals of congress.
   In commerce each party was to be placed on the footing of the
   most favored nation. The king of France promised his good
   offices with the princes and powers of Barbary. As to the
   fisheries, each party reserved to itself the exclusive
   possession of its own. Accepting the French interpretation of
   the treaties of Utrecht and of Paris, the United States
   acknowledged the right of French subjects to fish on the banks
   of Newfoundland, and their exclusive right to half the coast
   of that island for drying-places.
{3257}
   On the question of ownership in the event of the conquest of
   Newfoundland the treaty was silent. The American proposal,
   that free ships give freedom to goods and to persons, except
   to soldiers in actual service of an enemy, was adopted.
   Careful lists were made out of contraband merchandises. The
   absolute and unlimited independence of the United States was
   described as the essential end of the defensive alliance; and
   the two parties mutually engaged not to lay down their arms
   until it should be assured by the treaties terminating the
   war. Moreover, the United States guaranteed to France the
   possessions then held by France in America, as well as those
   which it might acquire by a future treaty of peace; and, in
   like manner, the king of France guaranteed to the United
   States their present possessions and acquisitions during the
   war from the dominions of Great Britain in North America. A
   separate and secret act reserved to the king of Spain the
   power of acceding to the treaties. Within forty-two hours of
   the signature of these treaties of commerce and alliance the
   British ministry received the news by special messenger from
   their spy in Paris, but it was not divulged." It was
   officially communicated to the British government on the 13th
   of March, when ambassadors were withdrawn on both sides and
   war soon followed.

      G. Bancroft,
      History of the United States
      (Author's last revision),
      volume 5, chapter 17.

      ALSO IN:
      Treaties and Conventions of the United States
      (edition of 1889),
      page 296.

      T. Balch,
      The French in America during the War of Independence,
      chapter 8.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778 (June).
   Peace-proposals from England.
   British evacuation of Philadelphia and march to New York.
   Battle of Monmouth.

"On May 11th, Sir Henry Clinton relieved Sir William Howe at Philadelphia, and the latter took his departure in a blaze of mock glory. … The new commander was more active than his predecessor, but no cleverer, and no better fitted to cope with Washington. … Expecting a movement by the enemy, Washington sent Lafayette forward to watch Philadelphia. Clinton, fresh in office, determined to cut him off, and by a rapid movement nearly succeeded in so doing. Timely information, presence of mind, and quickness, alone enabled the young Frenchman to escape, narrowly but completely. Meantime, a cause for delay, that curse of the British throughout the war, supervened. A peace commission, consisting of the Earl of Carlisle, William Eden, and Governor Johnstone, arrived. They were excellent men, but they came too late. Their propositions three years before would have been well enough, but as it was they were worse than nothing. Coolly received, they held a fruitless interview with a committee of Congress, tried to bribe and intrigue, found that their own army had been already ordered to evacuate Philadelphia [in apprehension of the arrival of the expected French fleet] without their knowledge, and finally gave up their task in angry despair, and returned to England to join in the chorus of fault-finding which was beginning to sound very loud in ministerial ears. Meanwhile, Washington waited and watched, puzzled by the delay, and hoping only to harass Sir Henry with militia on the march to New York. But, as the days slipped by, the Americans grew stronger, while Sir Henry weakened himself by sending 5,000 men to the West Indies, and 3,000 to Florida. When he finally started [evacuating Philadelphia June 17], he had with him less than 10,000 men, while the Americans had 13,000, nearly all continental troops. Under these circumstances, Washington determined to bring on a battle. He was thwarted at the outset by his officers, as was wont to be the case. Lee had returned more whimsical than ever, and at the moment was strongly adverse to an attack. … Washington was harassed of course by all this, but he did not stay his purpose, and as soon as he knew that Clinton actually had marched, he broke camp at Valley Forge and started in pursuit. There were more councils of an old-womanish character, but finally Washington took the matter into his own hands, and ordered forth a strong detachment to attack the British rear-guard. They set out on the 25th, and as Lee, to whom the command belonged, did not care to go, Lafayette [see above: A. D. 1777 (JULY)] was put in charge. As soon as Lafayette had departed, however, Lee changed his mind, and insisted that all the detachments in front, amounting to 6,000 men, formed a division so large that it was unjust not to give him the command. Washington, therefore, sent him forward next day with two additional brigades, and then Lee by seniority took command on the 27th of the entire advance. In the evening of that day, Washington came up, reconnoitred the enemy, and saw that, although their position was a strong one, another day's unmolested march would make it still stronger. He therefore resolved to attack the next morning, and gave Lee then and there explicit orders to that effect. In the early dawn he despatched similar orders, but Lee apparently did nothing except move feebly forward, saying to Lafayette, 'You don't know the British soldiers; we cannot stand against them.' He made a weak attempt to cut off a covering party, marched and countermarched, ordered and countermanded, until Lafayette and Wayne, eager to fight, knew not what to do, and sent hot messages to Washington to come to them. Thus hesitating and confused, Lee permitted Clinton to get his baggage and train to the front, and to mass all his best troops in the rear under Cornwallis, who then advanced against the American lines. Now there were no orders at all, and the troops did not know what to do, or where to go. They stood still, then began to fall back, and then to retreat. A very little more and there would have been a rout. As it was, Washington alone prevented disaster. … As the ill tidings grew thicker, Washington spurred sharper and rode faster through the deep sand and under the blazing mid-summer sun. At last he met Lee and the main body all in full retreat. He rode straight at Lee, savage with anger, not pleasant to look at, one may guess, and asked fiercely and with a deep oath, tradition says, what it all meant. … Lee gathered himself and tried to excuse and palliate what had happened, but although the brief words that followed are variously reported to us across the century, we know that Washington rebuked him in such a way, and with such passion, that all was over between them. Lee … went to the rear, thence to a court-martial, thence to dismissal and to a solitary life. … Having put Lee aside, Washington rallied the broken troops, brought them into position, turned them back, and held the enemy in check. {3258} It was not an easy feat, but it was done, and when Lee's division again fell back in good order the main army was in position, and the action became general. The British were repulsed, and then Washington, taking the offensive, drove them back until he occupied the battlefield of the morning. Night came upon him still advancing. He halted his army, lay down under a tree, his soldiers lying on their arms about him, and planned a fresh attack, to be made at daylight. But when the dawn came it was seen that the British had crept off, and were far on their road. The heat prevented a rapid pursuit, and Clinton got into New York. Between there and Philadelphia he had lost 2,000 men, Washington said, and modern authorities put it at about 1,500, of whom nearly 500 fell at Monmouth. … Monmouth has never been one of the famous battles of the Revolution, and yet there is no other which can compare with it as an illustration of Washington's ability as a soldier. … Its importance lies in the evidence which it gives of the way in which Washington, after a series of defeats, during a winter of terrible suffering and privation, had yet developed his ragged volunteers into a well-disciplined and effective army. The battle was a victory, but the existence and the quality of the army that won it were a far greater triumph. The dreary winter at Valley Forge had indeed borne fruit."

ALSO IN: H. B. Carrington, Battles of the American Revolution, chapters 54-56.

      The Lee Papers,
      volumes 2-3
      (New York Historical Society Collection, 1872-1873).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778 (June-November).
   The war on the border.
   Activity of Tories and Indians.
   The Massacre at Cherry Valley.

"The Six Nations were stirred to hostility by Sir John Johnson and the Mohawk chief Joseph Brant, with Walter Butler, of infamous name. Their tory partisans were more cruel than the red men. At Cobleskill, Schoharie county, June 1, 1778, Brant won a savage triumph with a mixed force, and burned and plundered the settlement. Springfield was also destroyed, and the assailants retired. A month later the Indians were again at Cobleskill, and, burning where they went, beat off a force that attempted to check them. The valley of the Schohariekill was in the succeeding year subjected to invasions from the Senecas, and suffered severely. About Fort Stanwix the tories and red men were continually hovering, and more than once persons were pounced upon and scalped in sight of the works. In 1778, in the early autumn, German Flats was visited by Brant and his followers, and was entirely destroyed, although all the inhabitants but two were warned in season to escape with their lives. An expedition was sent after the Indians, but failed to bring the warriors to battle, and was rewarded only by laying waste the Indian villages of Unadilla and Oquaga, and capturing a large supply of cattle and provisions. At Cherry Valley a fort had been built, and the village was occupied by a band of colonial troops under Colonel Ichabod Alden. He rested in security, and the settlers were scattered in their habitations, regardless of warnings of approaching foes. Under cover of a severe storm of snow and rain, November 11, Brant and Butler, with 800 Indians and tories, swooped upon the homes, and 43 persons, including women and children, were butchered, 40 taken prisoners, all the buildings were burned, and the domestic animals seized. So brutal was the massacre that Brant charged Butler and the tories with acting against his protests. Brant himself was content, July 19, 1779, with destroying the church, mills, houses, and barns at Minnisink, Orange county, without sacrificing lives, but turned upon a party sent in pursuit, and, after capturing a detachment, butchered the wounded, and slew 45 who tried to escape. Such deeds produced a terror in the colony. No one knew where the red men and tories would strike next. To check and counteract them, excursions were made against the tribes in their homes. One of these was led by Colonels Van Schaick and Willett from Fort Stanwix in April, 1779). Proceeding by Wood Creek and Oneida Lake, they penetrated the villages of the Onondagas, which they destroyed, and seized the provisions and even the weapons of the red men, who fled into the wilderness."

The following account of the attack on Cherry Valley is from a pen friendly to Butler and from sources favorable to the Tory side: "After an exhausting march next day through a blinding snow-storm and over ground covered with deep wet snow and mud, Butler halted his men at dark in a pine wood which afforded them some shelter, six miles from Cherry Valley. He assembled the chiefs and proposed that as soon as the moon rose, they should resume their march and surround the house occupied by the officers, while he made a rush upon the fort with the rangers. They readily assented, but before the time appointed arrived it began to rain violently, and they obstinately refused to move until daybreak. It was then arranged that Captain McDonnel with 50 picked rangers and some Indians should storm the house, while Butler with the remainder assailed the fort. Without tents, blankets or fires, they spent a sleepless night cowering beneath the pines, and were glad to move as soon as day appeared. They had approached unperceived within a mile of the fort by passing through a dense swamp, when the Indians in front fired at two men cutting wood. One fell dead; the other, though bleeding, ran for his life and the entire body of Indians set up a whoop and followed at full speed. Unhappily the rangers had just been halted to fix flints and load their rifles, and the Indians obtained a long start. The Continental officers attempted to escape to the fort but only two or three reached it. The colonel, five other officers and twenty soldiers, were killed on the way and the lieutenant-colonel, three subalterns, and ten privates were taken. The colors of the regiment were abandoned in the house and burnt in it. The garrison of the fort was fully alarmed, and opened a fierce fire of artillery and small arms. The rangers seized and burnt a detached block-house, and fired briskly at the loop-holes in the palisades for ten minutes, when Butler saw with horror and consternation that the Indians had set their officers at defiance, and dispersed in every direction to kill and plunder. Their wretched misconduct forced him to collect all the rangers into a compact body on an eminence near the principal entrance to the fort, to oppose a sally by the garrison, which then undoubtedly outnumbered them considerably. {3259} There he was obliged to remain inactive all day under a ceaseless, chilling rain, while blazing houses and shrieks of agony told their pitiful tale in the settlement below. At nightfall he marched a mile down the valley and encamped. He then struggled with indifferent success to rescue the prisoners. Those surrendered were placed next the camp fires and protected by his whole force. Next morning most of the Indians and the feeblest men among the rangers were sent away with a huge drove of captured cattle for the supply of the garrison at Niagara, and McDonnel and Brant, with 60 rangers and 50 Indians, swept the valley from end to end, ruthlessly burning every building and stack in sight, while Butler, with the remainder, again stood guard at the gate of the fort. He hoped that this appalling spectacle would provoke the garrison to sally out and fight, but the lesson of Wyoming had not been lost on them, and they continued to look on from the walls in silent fury. Another great herd of cattle was collected, and Butler leisurely began his retreat, having had only two rangers and three Indians wounded during the expedition. He did not disguise the dark side of the story in his letter to Colonel Bolton of the 17th November. 'I have much to lament,' he said, 'that notwithstanding my utmost precautions to save the women and children, I could not prevent some of them falling victims to the fury of the savages. They have carried off many of the inhabitants and killed more, among them Colin Cloyd, a very violent rebel. I could not prevail on the Indians to leave the women and children behind, though the second morning Captain Johnson (to whose knowledge of the Indians and address in managing them I am much indebted) and I got them to permit twelve, who were loyalists, and whom I concealed, with the humane assistance of Mr. Joseph Brant and Captain Jacobs of Ochquaga, to return. The death of the women and children on this occasion may, I believe, be truly ascribed to the rebels having falsely accused the Indians of cruelty at Wyomen. This has much exasperated them, and they are still more incensed at finding that the colonel and those who had then laid down their arms, soon after marching into their country intending to destroy their villages, and they declared that they would be no more accused falsely of fighting the enemy twice, meaning they would in future give no quarter.'"

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778 (July).
   The war on the border.
   Bloody work of the Tories and their Indian allies.
   The Massacre at Wyoming.

"In 1778, according to the plan of campaign as given by Guy Johnson in his correspondence, the English forces on the western borders of New York were divided into two bodies: one, consisting of Indians under Brant, to operate in New York, while Deputy Superintendent Butler with the other should penetrate the settled district on the Susquehanna. Brant [Joseph Brant, the Mohawk chief], who, according to Colonel Claus, 'had shown himself to be the most faithful and zealous subject his majesty could have in America,' did his work unsparingly, and ruin marked his track. In the valley of the upper Mohawk and the Schoharie nothing but the garrison-houses escaped, and labor was only possible in the field when muskets were within easy reach. Occasionally blows were struck at the larger settlements. … In July, 1778, the threatened attack on Wyoming took place. This region was at that time formally incorporated as the county of Westmoreland of the colony of Connecticut. … In the fall of 1776, two companies, on the Continental establishment, had been raised in the valley, in pursuance of a resolution of Congress, and were shortly thereafter ordered to join General Washington. Several stockaded forts had been built during the summer at different points. The withdrawal of so large a proportion of the able-bodied men as had been enlisted in the Continental service threw upon the old men who were left behind the duty of guarding the forts. … In March, 1778, another military company was organized, by authority of Congress, to be employed for home defence. In May, attacks were made upon the scouting parties by Indians, who were the forerunners of an invading army. The exposed situation of the settlement, the prosperity of the inhabitants, and the loyalty with which they had responded to the call for troops, demanded consideration from Connecticut, to whose quota the companies had been credited, and from Congress, in whose armies they had been incorporated; but no help came. On June 30th, an armed labor party of eight men, which went out from the upper fort, was attacked by Major Butler, who, with a force estimated by the American commander in his report at 800 men, Tories and Indians in equal numbers, had arrived in the valley. This estimate was not far from correct; but if we may judge from other raiding forces during the war, the proportion of whites is too large, for only a few local Tories had joined Butler. The little forts at the upper end of the valley offered no resistance to the invaders. On July 3d, there were collected at 'Forty Fort,' on the banks of the river, about three miles above Wilkesbarre, 230 Americans, organized in six companies (one of them being the company authorized by Congress for home defence), and commanded by Colonel Zebulon Butler, a resident in the valley and an officer in the Continental army. It was determined, after deliberation, to give battle. In the afternoon of that day, this body of volunteers, their number being swelled to nearly 300 by the addition of old men and boys, marched up the valley. The invaders had set fire to the forts of which they were in possession. This perplexed the Americans, as was intended, and they pressed on towards the spot selected by the English officer for giving battle. This was reached about four in the afternoon, and the attack was at once made by the Americans, who fired rapidly in platoons. The British line wavered, but a flanking fire from a body of Indians concealed in the woods settled the fate of the day against the Americans. They were thrown into confusion. No efforts of their officers could rally them while exposed to a fire which in a short time brought down every captain in the band. The Indians now cut off the retreat of the panic-stricken men, and pressed them towards the river. All who could saved their lives by flight. Of the 300 who went out that morning from Forty Fort, the names are recorded of 162 officers and men killed in the action or in the massacre which followed. {3260} Major Butler, the British officer in command, reported the taking of 'two hundred and twenty-seven scalps' 'and only five prisoners.' Such was the exasperation of the Indians, according to him, that it was with difficulty he saved these few. He gives the English loss at two whites killed and eight Indians wounded. During the night the worst passions of the Indians seem to have been aroused in revenge for Oriskany. Incredible tales are told of the inhumanity of the Tories. These measures of vengeance fell exclusively upon those who participated in the battle, for all women and children were spared. As soon as the extent of the disaster was made known, the inhabitants of the lower part of the valley deserted their homes, and fled in the direction of the nearest settlements. Few stayed behind who had strength and opportunity to escape. In their flight many of the fugitives neglected to provide themselves with provisions, and much suffering and some loss of life ensued. The fugitives from the field of battle took refuge in the forts lower down the valley. The next day, Colonel Zebulon Butler, with the remnants of the company for home defence, consisting of only fourteen men, escaped from the valley. Colonel Denison, in charge of Forty Fort, negotiated with Major Butler the terms of capitulation which were ultimately signed. In these it was agreed that the inhabitants should occupy their farms peaceably, and their lives should be preserved 'intire and unhurt.' With the exception that Butler executed a British deserter whom he found among the prisoners, no lives were taken at that time. Shortly thereafter, the Indians began to plunder, and the English commander, to his chagrin, found himself unable to check them. Miner even goes so far as to say that he promised to pay for the property thus lost. Finding his commands disregarded, Butler mustered his forces and withdrew, without visiting the lower part of the valley. The greater part of the Indians went with him, but enough remained to continue the devastation, while a few murders committed by straggling parties of Indians ended the tragedy. The whole valley was left a scene of desolation."

      A. McF. Davis,
      The Indians and the Border Warfare of the Revolution
      (Narrative and Critical History of America,
      volume 6, chapter 8).

"Rarely, indeed, does it happen that history is more at fault in regard to facts than in the case of Wyoming. The remark may be applied to nearly every writer who has attempted to narrate the events connected with the invasion of Colonel John Butler. Ramsay, and Gordon, and Marshall—nay, the British historians themselves—have written gross exaggerations. Marshall, however, in his revised edition, has made corrections. … Other writers, of greater or less note, have gravely recorded the same fictions, adding, it is to be feared, enormities not even conveyed to them by tradition. The grossest of these exaggerations are contained in Thatcher's Military Journal and Drake's Book of the Indians. The account of the marching out of a large body of Americans from one of the forts, to hold a parley, by agreement, and then being drawn into an ambuscade and all put to death, is false; the account of 70 Continental soldiers being butchered, after having surrendered, is also totally untrue. No regular troops surrendered, and all escaped who survived the battle of the 3d. … There is still another important correction to be made. … This correction regards the name and the just fame of Joseph Brant, whose character has been blackened with all the infamy, both real and imaginary, connected with this bloody expedition. Whether Captain Brant was at any time in company with this expedition is doubtful; but it is certain, in the face of every historical authority, British and American, that, so far from being engaged in the battle, he was many miles distant at the time of its occurrence. … It will, moreover, be seen, toward the close of the present work, that after the publication of Campbell's 'Gertrude of Wyoming,' in which poem the Mohawk chieftain was denounced as 'the Monster Brant,' his son repaired to England, and, in a correspondence with the poet, successfully vindicated his father's memory."

W. L. Stone, Life of Joseph Brant, volume 1, page 339, foot-note, page 338 and footnote.

"No lives were taken by the Indians after the surrender; but numbers of women and children perished in the dismal swamp on the Pokono range of mountains, in the flight. … The whole number of people killed and missing was about 300. … The greatest barbarities of this celebrated massacre were committed by the tories."

      ALSO IN:
      W. P. Miner,
      History of Wyoming,
      Letters 17-18.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778 (July-November).
   The French fleet and army and their undertakings.
   Ill fortune and ill-feeling between the new allies.
   The failure at Newport.

   "The first minister of France to the United States, M. Gérard,
   came accompanied by a fleet and army, under D'Estaing, (July.)
   'Unforeseen and unfavorable circumstances,' as Washington
   wrote, 'lessened the importance of the French services in a
   great degree.' In the first place, the arrival was just late
   enough to miss the opportunity of surprising the British fleet
   in the Delaware, not to mention the British army on its
   retreat to New York. In the next place, the French vessels
   proved to be of too great draught to penetrate the channel and
   cooperate in an attack upon New York. Thus disappointing and
   disappointed, D'Estaing engaged in an enterprise against
   Newport, still in British hands. It proved another failure.
   But not through the French alone; the American troops that
   were to enter the island at the north being greatly
   behindhand. The same day that they took their place, under
   Sullivan, Greene, and Lafayette, the French left theirs at the
   lower end of the island, in order to meet the British fleet
   arriving from New York, (August 10.) A severe storm prevented
   more than a partial engagement; but D'Estaing returned to
   Newport only to plead the injuries received in the gale as
   compelling his retirement to Boston for repairs. The orders of
   the French government had been peremptory, that in case of any
   damage to the fleet it should put into port at once. So far
   was D'Estaing from avoiding action on personal grounds, that
   when Lafayette hurried to Boston to persuade his countrymen to
   return, the commander offered to serve as a volunteer until
   the fleet should be refitted. The Americans, however, talked
   of desertion and of inefficiency,—so freely, indeed, as to
   affront their faithful Lafayette.
{3261}
   At the same time, large numbers of them imitated the very
   course which they censured, by deserting their own army. The
   remaining forces retreated from their lines to the northern
   end of the island, and, after an engagement, withdrew to the
   mainland, (August 30.) It required all the good offices of
   Lafayette, of Washington, and of Congress, to keep the peace
   between the Americans and their allies. D'Estaing, soothed by
   the language of those whom he most respected, was provoked, on
   the other hand, by the hostility of the masses, both in the
   army and amongst the people. Collisions between his men and
   the Bostonians kept up his disgust; and, when his fleet was
   repaired, he sailed for the West Indies, (November.) … On the
   part of the British, there was nothing attempted that would
   not have been far better unattempted. Marauding parties from
   Newport went against New Bedford and Fairhaven. Others from
   New York went against Little Egg Harbor. Tories and Indians
   —'a collection of banditti,' as they were rightly styled by
   Washington, descended from the northern country to wreak
   massacre at Wyoming and at Cherry Valley. The war seemed to be
   assuming a new character: it was one of ravages unworthy of
   any cause, and most unworthy of such a cause as the British
   professed to be. Affairs were at a low state amongst the
   Americans."

O. W. B. Peabody, Life of General John Sullivan (Library of American Biographies, series 2, volume 3).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778 (December).
   Anxieties of Washington.
   His opinion of Congress.
   The serious defects and errors of that body.

"Much of the winter was passed by Washington in Philadelphia, occupied in devising and discussing plans for the campaign of 1779. It was an anxious moment with him. Circumstances which inspired others with confidence, filled him with solicitude. The alliance with France had produced a baneful feeling of security, which, it appeared to him, was paralyzing the energies of the country. England, it was thought, would now be too much occupied in securing her position in Europe, to increase her force or extend her operations in America. Many, therefore, considered the war as virtually at an end; and were unwilling to make the sacrifices, or supply the means necessary for important military undertakings. Dissensions, too, and party feuds were breaking out in Congress, owing to that relaxation of that external pressure of a common and imminent danger, which had heretofore produced a unity of sentiment and action. That august body had, in fact, greatly deteriorated since the commencement of the war. Many of those whose names had been as watchwords at the Declaration of Independence had withdrawn from the national councils; occupied either by their individual affairs, or by the affairs of their individual States. Washington, whose comprehensive patriotism embraced the whole Union, deprecated and deplored the dawning of this sectional spirit."

The following, from a letter written by Washington in December, 1778, to Benjamin Harrison, Speaker of the Virginia House of Delegates, intimates the grave anxieties which filled his mind, and the opinion of Congress with which he had returned from a visit to Philadelphia:

"It appears as clear to me as ever the Sun did in its meridian brightness, that America never stood in more eminent need of the wise, patriotic, and spirited exertions of her Sons than at this period; and if it is not a sufficient cause for general lamentation, my misconception of the matter impresses it too strongly upon me, that the States, separately, are too much engaged in their local concerns, and have too many of their ablest men withdrawn from the general council, for the good of the common weal. … As there can be no harm in a pious wish for the good of one's Country, I shall offer it as mine, that each State would not only choose, but absolutely compel their ablest men to attend Congress; and that they would instruct them to go into a thorough investigation of the causes, that have produced so many disagreeable effects in the army and Country; in a word, that public abuses should be corrected & an entire reformation worked. Without these, it does not in my Judgment require the spirit of divination to foretell the consequences of the present administration; nor to how little purpose the States individually are framing constitutions, providing laws, and filling offices with the abilities of their ablest men. These, if the great whole is mismanaged, must sink in the general wreck, and will carry with it the remorse of thinking, that we are lost by our own folly and negligence, or the desire perhaps of living in ease and tranquillity during the expected accomplishment of so great a revolution, in the effecting of which the greatest abilities, and the honestest men our (i. e. the American) world affords, ought to be employed. It is much to be feared, my dear Sir, that the States, in their separate capacities, have very inadequate ideas of the present danger. Removed (some of them) far distant from the scene of action, and seeing and hearing such publications only, as flatter their wishes, they conceive that the contest is at an end, and that to regulate the government and police of their own State is all that remains to be done; but it is devoutly to be wished, that a sad reverse of this may not fall upon them like a thunder-clap, that is little expected. I do not mean to designate particular States. I wish to cast no reflections upon any one. The Public believe (and, if they do believe it, the fact might almost as well be so), that the States at this time are badly represented, and that the great and important concerns of the nation are horribly conducted, for want either of abilities or application in the members, or through the discord & party views of some individuals. … P. S. Philadelphia: 30th. This letter was to have gone by Post from Middlebrook but missed that conveyance, since which I have come to this place at the request of Congress whence I shall soon return. I have seen nothing since I came here (on the 22d Inst.) to change my opinion of Men or Measrs., but abundant reason to be convinced that our affairs are in a more distressed, ruinous and deplorable condition than they have been in since the commencement of the War.—By a faithful laborer then in the cause—By a man who is daily injuring his private Estate without even the smallest earthly advantage not common to all in case of a favorable Issue to the dispute—By one who wishes the prosperity of America most devoutly and sees or thinks he sees it, on the brink of ruin, you are beseeched most earnestly, my dear Colonel Harrison, to exert yourself in endeavoring to rescue your Country by (let me add) sending your ablest and best Men to Congress—these characters must not slumber nor sleep at home in such times of pressing danger—they must not content themselves in the enjoyment of places of honor or profit in their own Country while the common interests of America are mouldering and sinking into irretrievable (if a remedy is not soon applied) ruin in which theirs also must ultimately be involved. {3262} If I was to be called upon to draw a picture of the times and of Men, from what I have seen, and heard, and in part know, I should in one word say that idleness, dissipation & extravagance seems to have laid fast hold of most of them.—That speculation—peculation—and an insatiable thirst for riches seems to have got the better of every other consideration and almost of every order of Men.—That party disputes and personal quarrels are the great business of the day whilst the momentous concerns of an empire—a great and accumulated debt—ruined finances—depreciated money—and want of credit (which in their consequences is the want of everything) are but secondary considerations and postponed from day to day—from week to week as if our affairs wear the most promising aspect—after drawing this picture, which from my Soul I believe to be a true one, I need not repeat to you that I am alarmed and wish to see my Countrymen roused.—I have no resentments, nor do I mean to point at any particular characters,—this I can declare upon my honor for I have every attention paid me by Congress that I can possibly expect and have reason to think that I stand well in their estimation, but in the present situation of things I cannot help asking— Where is Mason—Wythe—Jefferson—Nicholas—Pendleton—Nelson—and another I could name—and why, if you are sufficiently impressed with your danger do you not (as New York has done in the case of Mr. Jay) send an extra member or two for at least a certain limited time till the great business of the Nation is put upon a more respectable and happy establishment.—Your Money is now sinking 5 Pr. ct. a day in this city; and I shall not be surprized if in the course of a few months a total stop is put to the currency of it.—And yet an Assembly—a concert—a Dinner—or supper (that will cost three or four hundred pounds) will not only take Men off from acting in but even from thinking of this business while a great part of the Officers of ye Army from absolute necessity are quitting the service and ye more virtuous few rather than do this are sinking by sure degrees into beggary and want.—I again repeat to you that this is not an exaggerated acct.; that it is an alarming one I do not deny, and confess to you that I feel more real distress on account of the prest. appearances of things than I have done at any one time since the commencement of the dispute—but it is time to bid you once more adieu.—Providence has heretofore taken me up when all other means and hope seemed to be departing from me in this."

"The first Continental Congress enjoyed and deserved in a remarkable degree the respect and confidence of the country. The second Congress was composed of eminent men, and succeeded, for a time, to the honors and reputation of the first. But when it attempted to pass from discussion to organization, and to direct as well as to frame the machinery of administration, its delays and disputes and errors and contradictions and hesitations excited a well-founded distrust of its executive skill. Conscious of this distrust, it became jealous of its authority; and instead of endeavoring to regain, by correcting its errors, the ground which it had lost by committing them, it grew suspicious and exacting in proportion to the decay of its strength. And while this critical change in its relations to the country was taking place, important changes took place also in the materials of which it was composed,—some of its wisest members being removed by death, or imperative calls to other fields of duty, or by failing of re-election at the regular expiration of their terms of office. Among the first elements with which it was brought into collision were the newly organized governments of the States. The question of State rights, that unsolved problem of our history, begins almost with the beginning of the war. How abundant and active the materials of disunion were, and how difficult it was even for leading men to rise above them might be proved by numerous passages in the letters of Washington and Greene, if it were not still more evident from the conduct of the local legislatures. How far this spirit might have been counteracted or controlled if the policy of the Congress had been that policy of prompt decision and energetic action which, commanding respect at all times, commands in times of general danger general and implicit obedience, it is impossible to say. … Another element with which it was brought into immediate and constant relations was the army; and, unfortunately for both, these relations, from their very nature, brought into immediate and constant contrast the elements of opposition which they both contained, rather than the elements of harmonious action, which they also contained in an almost equal degree. If the Congress was composed of the representatives of the people, the army was composed in a large proportion of the constituents of the Congress. More than once also, during the course of the war, men who had done good work for their country as soldiers, withdrawing from their original field of action, did equally good service for her as statesmen. And more than once, too, men who had proved themselves wise and eloquent in counsel were found at the head of a regiment, or even in more subordinate positions in the army. … The real interest and the real object of the citizen in arms and of the citizen in the toga were still the same. But their point of view was different. The ever-present object of Congress was discussion as a means of organization. The ever-present object of the leaders of the army was decision as a means of action. Congress counted obstacles, weighed difficulties, balanced opposing advantages, eating and sleeping meanwhile and refreshing mind and body as nature bade. But while Congress was deliberating upon the best way of procuring meat, the army was often brought to the verge of starvation for the want of it. While Congress was discussing by a warm fire the most eligible method of providing the army with tents and blankets, half the army was sleeping on the snow without either blanket or tent. {3263} While Congress was framing elaborate resolutions, and drawing out and equipping regiments upon paper, officers in the field were standing disheartened before their thinned and disheartened ranks. … Errors of statesmanship, like errors of generalship, would easily have been forgiven and forgotten; for both statesmen and generals had still much to learn. Unfortunately, while the best generals strove earnestly to correct their errors by their experience, Congress, in too many things, clung obstinately to its errors, in spite of the most decisive experience. Those errors were twofold,—errors of policy and errors of principle,—the one tending to undermine the respect which, in the beginning, was felt for their wisdom; the other, to awaken a general distrust of their justice. The first year of the war demonstrated the danger of short enlistments and temporary levies. But more than half the second year was allowed to pass before it was decided to raise an army for the whole duration of the war. The first campaign demonstrated the necessity of providing by regularly organized departments for the food, clothing, and transportation of the army; but it was not till late in the second year that a board of war was organized; and not till later still that the Quartermaster-General and Commissary-General were allowed to devote themselves to their duty in camp, instead of waiting idly for orders at the door of Congress. All experience and the simplest reasoning showed the importance of strengthening the hands of their General by passing promptly all the acts needed for the conduct of an army in the field, or the support and instruction of an army in quarters; but, in spite of all experience and the plainest reason, Congress persisted in its unseasonable delays. … The policy of the Congress, in the organization and support of the army, was a policy of tergiversation and delay. No wonder that the army, leaders and all, should early lose their confidence in its wisdom! But the dissatisfaction did not end here. One of the earliest felt of the numerous wants of the army was the want of good officers. … To select them in the beginning from the mass of unproved candidates was impossible; but in the course of two campaigns, the characters and pretensions of men were well tried, the chaff thoroughly sifted, and what remained might be confidently accepted as sound. … It was evidently the policy of Congress to secure by all proper and reasonable inducements the services of such officers for the war. It was the duty of Congress, in its dealings with them, to remember that in becoming soldiers, and exposing themselves to the dangers and privations of a soldier's life, they adopted, with the ideas of subordination that lie at the basis of military discipline, the ideas of rank and grade which define and circumscribe that subordination. But Congress remembered nothing of this. It required of them the service of officers, but gave them a pay hardly sufficient to enable them to live like private soldiers. It demanded the present sacrifice of cold, hunger, hard service, and exposure to sickness, wounds, and death; and refused the prospective reward of half-pay or pension when sickness or wounds should have incapacitated them for further exertion, or death should have made their wives unprotected widows, and their children helpless orphans. Forgetting that pride is an essential element of the military character, and that self-respect is essential to a healthy and sustaining pride, it trifled with their claims to rank by the accepted rules of service, and claimed and exercised the power of dealing with commissions according to its own good pleasure."

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778-1779.
Clark's conquest of the Northwest for Virginia, and its
annexation to the district of Kentucky.

"Virginia … had more western enterprise than any other colony. In 1774 Dunmore's war gave her the 'back-lands,' into which her frontiersmen had been for some time pressing. Boone was a Carolinian, but Kentucky was a distinctively Virginia colony. In 1776 the Virginia legislature erected the County of Kentucky, and the next year a Virginia judge dispensed justice at Harrodsburg. Soon the colony was represented in the legislature of the parent state. While thus extending her jurisdiction over the region southwest of the Ohio, the Old Dominion did not forget the language of [her charter] of 1609, 'up into the land throughout from sea to sea, west and northwest.' George Rogers Clark, a Virginian who had made Kentucky his home, was endowed with something of the general's and statesman's grasp. While floating down the Ohio in 1776, being then 24 years of age, he conceived the conquest of the country beyond the river. … Clark says he had since the beginning of the war taken pains to make himself acquainted with the true situation of the Northwestern posts; and in 1777 he sent two young hunters to spy out the country more thoroughly, and especially to ascertain the sentiments of the 'habitants.' On the return of these hunters with an encouraging report, he went to Williamsburg, then the capital of Virginia, where he enlisted Governor Patrick Henry and other leading minds in a secret expedition to the Illinois. Acting under a vaguely worded law, authorizing him to aid 'any expedition against their Western enemies,' Governor Henry gave Clark some vague public instructions, directing him to enlist, in any county of the commonwealth, seven companies of men who should act under his command as a militia, and also private instructions that were much more full and definite. … Both the public and private instructions are dated January 2, 1778. The governor also gave the young captain a small supply of money. Clark immediately re-crossed the mountains and began to recruit his command. … Overcoming as best he could the difficulties that environed him, he collected his feeble command at the Falls of the Ohio. On June 26, 1778, he began the descent of the river. Leaving the Ohio at Fort Massac, forty miles above its mouth, he began the march to Kaskaskia. This fell into his hands, July 5th, and Cahokia soon after, both without the loss of a single life. Clark found few Englishmen in these villages, and the French, who were weary of British rule, he had little difficulty in attaching to the American interest. Vincennes, soon after, surrendered to a mere proclamation, when there was not an American soldier within one hundred miles of the place. … Clark prevailed upon 100 men to re-enlist for eight months; he then filled up his companies with recruits from the villages, and sent an urgent call to Virginia for re-enforcements. The salutary influence of the invasion upon the Indians was felt at once; it 'began to spread among the nations even to the border of the lakes;' and in five weeks Clark settled a peace with ten or twelve different tribes. … {3264} And now Clark began really to feel the difficulties of his situation. Destitute of money, poorly supplied, commanding a small and widely scattered force, he had to meet and circumvent an active enemy who was determined to regain what he had lost. Governor Hamilton [the British governor at Detroit] projected a grand campaign against the French towns that had been captured and the small force that held them. The feeble issue was the capture, in December, 1778, of Vincennes, which was occupied by but two Americans. Clark, who was in the Illinois at the time of this disaster, at once put his little force in motion for the Wabash, knowing, he says, that if he did not take Hamilton, Hamilton would take him; and, February 25, 1779, at the end of a march of 250 miles, that ranks in peril and hardship with Arnold's winter march to Canada, he again captured the town, the fort, the governor, and his whole command. Hamilton was sent to Virginia a prisoner of war, where he was found guilty of treating American prisoners with cruelty, and of offering the Indians premiums for scalps, but none for prisoners." Clark was ambitious to extend his march to Detroit, but could not compass the necessary means. "'Detroit lost for a few hundred men,' was his pathetic lament as he surrendered an enterprise that lay near his heart. Had he been able to achieve it, he would have won and held the whole Northwest. As it was he won and held the Illinois and the Wabash in the name of Virginia and of the United States. The bearing of this conquest on the question of western boundaries will be considered in another place, but here it is pertinent to remark that the American Commissioners, in 1782, at Paris, could plead 'uti possidetis' in reference to much of the country beyond the Ohio, for the flag of the Republic, raised over it by George Rogers Clark, had never been lowered. It would not be easy to find in our history a case of an officer accomplishing results that were so great and far-reaching with so small a force. Clark's later life is little to his credit, but it should not be forgotten that he rendered the American cause and civilization a very great service. All this time the British were not idle. War-party after war-party was sent against the American border. In 1780 a grand expedition was organized at Detroit and sent to Kentucky under the command of Captain Bird. But it accomplished nothing commensurate with its magnitude and cost. … The Northwest had been won by a Virginia army, commanded by a Virginia officer, put in the field at Virginia's expense. Governor Henry had promptly announced the conquest to the Virginia delegates in Congress. … But before Patrick Henry wrote this letter, Virginia had welded the last link in her chain of title to the country beyond the Ohio. In October, 1778, her Legislature declared: 'All the citizens of the commonwealth of Virginia, who are actually settlers there, or who shall hereafter be settled, on the west side of the Ohio, shall be included in the district of Kentucky which shall be called Illinois County.' Nor was this all. Soon after, Governor Henry appointed a lieutenant-commandant for the new county, with full instructions for carrying on the government. The French settlements remained under Virginia jurisdiction until March, 1784."

      ALSO IN:
      Clark's Campaign in the Illinois
      (Ohio Valley History Series, 3).

      A. Davidson and B. Stuvé,
      History of Illinois,
      chapters 16-18.

      T. Roosevelt,
      The Winning of the West,
      volume 2, chapters 2-3.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778-1779.
   The French Alliance.
   Peril of France.
   Doubtful feeling in America.
   Spanish mediation with England.

"From the third volume of Doniol's comprehensive work on the 'Participation de la France a l'etablissement des Ètats Unis,' published in 1888, we are able to learn for the first time the extreme peril of France in 1778-1779. When Vergennes advised the recognition of the independence of the United States, it was on the same grounds that Canning advised the recognition of the independence of the Spanish South American States many years afterwards. The fair distribution of power in the civilized world, which was threatened in the latter period by the Holy Alliance, was threatened in the former period by the assumption of maritime supremacy by Britain. In each the object was to call up a new sovereignty in America, so as to check an undue concentration of sovereignty in Europe, Undoubtedly Vergennes was aided, as Canning was aided, by the enthusiasm felt by men of liberal views for a revolution that was expected to extend the domain of liberalism; but with Vergennes, as with Canning, the object was the establishing of a power abroad which could resist a dangerous aggression at home. When in February, 1778, France acknowledged the independence of the United States, Vergennes had good reason to hold either that Britain would not resent the insult by war, or that she would find that in such a war the odds were against her. A British army had just capitulated at Saratoga. America, so it was reported to Vergennes and so he believed, was unanimous in determining to defend her liberties to the last. In Holland there was a strong party which was expected to force the States-General into a recognition of their sister republic. Spain had already secretly advanced a million of francs to the American commissioners. From Frederick the Great, delighted to see his British relatives, who had not always supported him in his troubles, annoyed by a revolt in their own domain, came words very encouraging to the American envoys. Catharine II listened with apparent satisfaction to a scheme which would relieve her infant shipping from British oppression. It looked as if, should Britain declare war against France, she would have against her the armies and navies of all continental Europe, aided by the people of her American Colonies in a compact mass. But in a few months there came a great change. The British army under Howe was so largely reenforced as for the immediate present to give it a great superiority over any army Congress could bring against it in open field. … It is true that the news in April of the French treaty revived the energies of the revolutionists; but this treaty had its drawbacks, as the old dislike of France, in part inherited from England, in part the product of the Seven-years war, intensified the yearning for the mother country which in many hearts still remained. French officers complained that on their first arrival in New England they were received with sullen aversion by the people, though welcomed by the revolutionary leaders. {3265} The French army and navy, for the first year in which they were engaged in America, did no good to the American cause; and so great was the popular irritation at their inactivity, so strong, it was said, continued to be the old race attachment to England, that intelligent French observers in America advised Vergennes that he must move warily, for at any moment America might make a separate peace with Britain and then join the British forces against France. No doubt these reports, so far as they pronounced this to be the drift of a large minority in Congress, were unfounded in fact. They were nevertheless communicated under high sanction to Vergennes, and produced in his mind the liveliest anxiety. … English influence had for a time regained its ascendency in Holland. Prussia and Russia, having tasted the delights of neutral commerce, let it be plainly understood that they would not abandon a neutrality so profitable for the risks of belligerency. And Spain had taken alarm and was backing out not merely from the family compact, but from her recent promise to aid the insurgents. Aiding the insurgents, her minister declared, would be cutting her own throat, and no aid to the insurgents should be given except on a very heavy equivalent. If France was to meet the shock of the British navy alone she might be swept from the seas, and, aside from this danger, her finances were in such a ruinous condition that her bankruptcy was imminent. One of two courses must be adopted, not only to save France but to save the independence of the United States and the consequent equipoise of power for which France has gone to war. There must be either a general peace, which would include the independence of the United States, or there must be war, with Spain joining the allies. … It was in this condition of affairs that the position of Spain in 1778-1779 became of commanding importance. She offered herself as mediator between the allies and their common enemy, and through her the terms of pacification were discussed. In the negotiations, protracted and on both sides largely insincere, between Spain and Britain relative to the proposed pacification, the winter of 1778-1779 was consumed."

      F. Wharton,
      Introduction to The Revolutionary Diplomatic
      Correspondence of the United States,
      chapter 5, section 86 (volume 1).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778-1779.
The War carried into the South.
Savannah taken and Georgia subdued.

Towards the end of November, 1778, a "body of troops, under Lieutenant-colonel Campbell, sailed [from New York] for Georgia In the squadron of Commodore Hyde Parker; the British cabinet having determined to carry the war into the Southern States. At the same time General Prevost, who commanded in Florida, was ordered by Sir Henry Clinton to march to the banks of the Savannah River, and attack Georgia in flank, while the expedition under Campbell should attack it in front on the seaboard. … The squadron of Commodore Hyde Parker anchored in the Savannah River towards the end of December. An American force of about 600 regulars, and a few militia under General Robert Howe, were encamped near the town, being the remnant of an army with which that officer had invaded Florida, in the preceding summer, but had been obliged to evacuate it by a mortal malady which desolated his camp. Lieutenant-colonel Campbell landed his troops on the 29th of December, about three miles below the town. The whole country bordering the river is a deep morass, cut up by creeks, and only to be traversed by causeways. Over one of these, 600 yards in length, with a ditch on each side, Colonel Campbell advanced, putting to flight a small party stationed to guard it. General Howe had posted his little army on the main road, with the river on his left and a morass in front. A negro gave Campbell information of a path leading through the morass, by which troops might get unobserved to the rear of the Americans. Sir James Baird was detached with the light infantry by this path, while Colonel Campbell advanced in front. The Americans, thus suddenly attacked in front and rear, were completely routed; upwards of 100 were either killed on the spot, or perished in the morass; 38 officers and 415 privates were taken prisoners, the rest retreated up the Savannah River and crossed into South Carolina. Savannah, the capital of Georgia, was taken possession of by the victors, with cannon, military stores and provisions; their loss was only seven killed and nineteen wounded. Colonel Campbell conducted himself with great moderation; protecting the persons and property of the inhabitants, and proclaiming security and favor to all that should return to their allegiance. Numbers in consequence flocked to the British standard: the lower part of Georgia was considered as subdued, and posts were established by the British to maintain possession. While Colonel Campbell had thus invaded Georgia in front, General Prevost" entered the State from Florida, "took Sunbury, the only remaining fort of importance, and marched to Savannah, where he assumed the general command, detaching Colonel Campbell against Augusta. By the middle of January (1779) all Georgia was reduced to submission. A more experienced American general than Howe had by this time arrived to take command of the Southern Department, Major-general Lincoln, who had gained such reputation in the campaign against Burgoyne, and whose appointment to this station had been solicited by the delegates from South Carolina and Georgia. He had received his orders from Washington in the beginning of October."

      ALSO IN:
      W. B. Stevens,
      History of Georgia,
      book 4, chapter 4 (volume 2).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778-1779.
   Washington guarding the Hudson.
   The storming of Stony Point.
   Marauding warfare of the British.

   "After Clinton slipped away from Monmouth and sought refuge in
   New York, Washington took post at convenient points and
   watched the movements of the enemy. In this way the summer
   passed. As always, Washington's first object was to guard the
   Hudson, and while he held this vital point firmly, he waited,
   ready to strike elsewhere if necessary. It looked for a time
   as if the British intended to descend on Boston, seize the
   town, and destroy the French fleet, which had gone there to
   refit. Such was the opinion of Gates, then commanding in that
   department, and as Washington inclined to the same belief, the
   fear of this event gave him many anxious moments.
{3266}
   He even moved his troops so as to be in readiness to march
   eastward at short notice; but he gradually became convinced
   that the enemy had no such plan. … The main army, therefore,
   remained quiet, and when the autumn had passed went into
   winter-quarters in well-posted detachments about New York. In
   December Clinton made an ineffectual raid [in New Jersey], and
   then all was peaceful again, and Washington was able to go to
   Philadelphia and struggle with Congress, leaving his army more
   comfortable and secure than they had been in any previous
   winter. … He now hoped and believed that the moment would come
   when, by uniting his army with the French, he should be able
   to strike the decisive blow. Until that time came, however, he
   knew that he could do nothing on a great scale, and he felt
   that meantime the British, abandoning practically the eastern
   and middle States, would make one last desperate struggle for
   victory, and would make it in the south. Long before anyone
   else, he appreciated this fact, and saw a peril looming large
   in that region. … All this, however, did not change his own
   plans one jot. He believed that the south must work out its
   own salvation, as New York and New England had done with
   Burgoyne, and he felt sure that in the end it would be
   successful. But he would not go south, nor take his army
   there. … The British might overrun the north or invade the
   south, but he would stay where he was, with his grip upon New
   York and the Hudson River. The tide of invasion might ebb and
   flow in this region or that, but the British were doomed if
   they could not divide the eastern colonies from the others.
   When the appointed hour came, he was ready to abandon
   everything and strike the final and fatal blow; but until then
   he waited and stood fast with his army, holding the great
   river in his grasp. He felt much more anxiety about the south
   than he had felt about the north, and expected Congress to
   consult him as to a commander, having made up his mind that
   Greene was the man to send. But Congress still believed in
   Gates, who had been making trouble for Washington all winter;
   and so Gates was sent, and Congress in due time got their
   lesson, and found once more that Washington understood men
   better than they did. In the north the winter was
   comparatively uneventful. The spring passed, and in June
   Clinton came out and took possession of Stony Point and
   Verplanck's Point, and began to fortify them. It looked a
   little as if Clinton might intend to get control of the Hudson
   by slow approaches, fortifying, and then advancing until he
   reached West Point. With this in mind, Washington at once
   determined to check the British by striking sharply at one of
   their new posts. Having made up his mind, he sent for Wayne
   and asked him if he would storm Stony Point. Tradition says
   that Wayne replied, 'I will storm hell, if you will plan it.'
   A true tradition, probably, in keeping with Wayne's character,
   and pleasant to us to-day as showing with a vivid gleam of
   rough human speech the utter confidence of the army in their
   leader, that confidence which only a great soldier can
   inspire. So Washington planned, and Wayne stormed [July 15,
   1779], and Stony Point fell. It was a gallant and brilliant
   feat of arms, one of the most brilliant of the war. Over 500
   prisoners were taken, the guns were carried off, and the works
   destroyed, leaving the British to begin afresh with a good
   deal of increased caution and respect. Not long after, Harry
   Lee stormed Paulus Hook with equal success, and the British
   were checked and arrested, if they intended any extensive
   movement. On the frontier, Sullivan, after some delays, did
   his work effectively. … In these various ways Clinton's circle
   of activity was steadily narrowed, but it may be doubted
   whether he had any coherent plan. The principal occupation of
   the British was to send out marauding expeditions and cut off
   outlying parties. Tryon burned and pillaged in Connecticut [at
   New Haven, Fairfield and Norwalk], Matthews in Virginia [at
   Norfolk, Portsmouth and elsewhere], and others on a smaller
   scale elsewhere in New Jersey and New York. … It was enough
   for Washington to hold fast to the great objects he had in
   view, to check Clinton and circumscribe his movements.
   Steadfastly he did this through the summer and winter of
   1779."

ALSO IN: W. Irving, Life of Washington, volume 3, chapters 38-40, and volume 4, chapter 1.

      J. Armstrong,
      Life of Anthony Wayne
      (Library of American Biographies, volume 4).

      G. W. Greene,
      Life of Nathaniel Greene,
      book 3, chapters 3-7 (volume. 2).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1779 (August-September).
General Sullivan's expedition against the Senecas.

For the purpose of putting an end to the destructive and bloody incursions of Tories and Indians from western New York, directed against the border settlements of that state and Pennsylvania—as at Cherry Valley and Wyoming—General Washington, in the early part of the year 1779, determined upon a measure for carrying the war into the home of the invaders. "The command was entrusted to General Sullivan. The army organized for the expedition was in three divisions. That part of it under the immediate command of General Sullivan, coming from Pennsylvania, ascended the Susquehannah to Tioga Point. Another division under the command of General James Clinton, constructing batteaux at Schenectady, ascended the Mohawk and rendezvoused at Canajoharrie, opened a road to the head of Otsego Lake, and from thence proceeded in a formidable fleet of over 200 batteaux, to Tioga Point, forming a junction with the force under General Sullivan, on the 22d of August. Previous to the arrival of General Clinton, Sullivan had sent forward a detachment which fell in with a scouting party of Indians, and a skirmish ensued. The combined forces amounted to 5,000 men. The expedition had been so long preparing, and upon the march, that the enemy were well apprized of an that was going on. Their plan of defence contemplated a decisive engagement upon the Chemung river. For this purpose the Rangers and regular British troops, under the command of Colonel John Butler, Colonels Guy and Sir John Johnson, Major Walter N. Butler and Captain M'Donald, and the Indians under Brant, had concentrated their forces upon a bend of the river, near the present village of Elmira [then called Newtown], where they had thrown up a long breast work of logs. The united forces of the British allies, as computed by General Sullivan, was about 1,500. {3267} Having ascertained their position, General Sullivan marched in full force and attacked them in the forenoon of the 29th of August. … The battle had been waged about two hours, when the British and Indians perceiving their forces inadequate, and that a maneuver to surround them was likely to be successful, broke and fled in great disorder. 'This,' says John Salmon, of Livingston county, who belonged to the expedition and gave an account of it to the author of the Life of .Mary Jemison, 'was the only regular stand made by the Indians. In their retreat they were pursued by our men to the Narrows, where they were attacked and killed in great numbers, so that the sides of the rocks next the River looked as if blood had been poured on them by pailfuls.' The details of all that transpired in this campaign are before the public in so many forms, that their repetition here is unnecessary. The route of the army was via 'French Catherine's Town,' head of Seneca Lake, down the east shore of the Lake to the Indian village of Kanadesaga (Old Castle), and from thence to Canandaigua, Honeoye, head of Conesus Lake, to Groveland. The villages destroyed (with the apple trees and growing crops of the Indians,) were at Catherinestown, Kendai, or 'Apple Town' on the east side of the Lake, eleven miles from its foot, Kanadesaga, Honeoye, Conesus, Canascraga, Little Beard's Town, Big Tree, Canawagus, and on the return of the army, Scawyace, a village between the Cayuga and Seneca Lakes, and several other Cayuga villages. … The march of Sullivan, the devastations committed by his army, would at this distant period seem like Vandalism, in the absence of the consideration that he was acting under strict orders; and that those orders were approved, if not dictated, by Washington. The campaign was a matter of necessity; to be effectual, it was not only necessary that its acts should be retaliatory and retributive, but that the haunts, the retreats, of a foe so ruthless, must be broken up. The object was to destroy all the means of subsistence of the Senecas, desolate their homes, prevent their return to them, and if possible, induce their permanent retreat beyond the Niagara River. The imprudence, the want of sagacity, which Colonel Stone has imputed to General Sullivan in alarming every village he approached by the sound of his cannon, the author conceives a misapprehension of his motives. Stealthy, quiet approaches, would have found as victims, in every village, the old men, the women and children—the warriors away, banded with their British allies. Humanity dictated the forewarning, that those he did not come to war against could have time to flee. … The march of General Sullivan, after leaving the Chemung, was bloodless, except in a small degree—just as it should have been, if he could not make victims of those he was sent to punish. The third expedition of this campaign, which has generally been lost sight of by historians, was that of General Broadhead. He left Fort Pitt in August with 600 men, and destroyed several Mingo and Muncey tribes living on the Allegany, French Creek, and other tributaries of the Ohio. The heavy artillery that General Sullivan brought as far as Newton, would indicate that Niagara was originally the destination. There the General and his officers, seeing how long it had taken to reach that point, in an probability determined that too much of the season had been wasted, to allow of executing their tasks in the Indian country, making their roads and moving the army and all its appointments to Niagara before the setting in of winter. Besides, before the army had reached the valley of the Chemung, the fact was ascertained that there would be a failure in a contemplated junction with the army under General Broadhead. After the expedition of General Sullivan, the Indians never had any considerable permanent re-occupancy of their villages east of the Genesee river. They settled down after a brief flight, in their villages on the west side of the river in the neighborhood of Geneseo, Mt. Morris and Avon, and at Gardeau, Canadea, Tonawanda, Tuscarora, Buffalo Creek, Cattaraugus and Allegany."

O. Turner, History of the Pioneer Settlement of Phelps and Gorham's Purchase, part 1, chapter 4.

"In his general orders of the 17th of October, General Washington announced to the army the result of the expedition, as follows: 'The Commander-in-chief has now the pleasure of congratulating the army on the complete and full success of Major General Sullivan, and the troops under his command, against the Seneca and other tribes of the Six Nations, as a just and necessary punishment for their wanton depredations, their unparalleled and innumerable cruelties, their deafness to all remonstrances and entreaty, and their perseverance in the most horrid acts of barbarity. Forty of their towns have been reduced to ashes, some of them large and commodious; that of the Genesee alone containing one hundred and twenty-eight houses. Their crops of corn have been entirely destroyed, which, by estimation, it is said, would have provided 160,000 bushels, besides large quantities of vegetables of various kinds. Their whole country has been overrun and laid waste, and they themselves compelled to place their security in a precipitate flight to the British fortress at Niagara. And the whole of this has been done with the loss of less than forty men on our part, including the killed, wounded, captured, and those who died natural deaths. The troops employed in this expedition, both officers and men, throughout the whole of it, and in the action they had with the enemy, manifested a patience, perseverance and valor that do them the highest honor. In the course of it, when there still remained a large extent of the enemy's country to be prostrated, it became necessary to lessen the issues of provisions to half the usual allowance. In this the troops acquiesced with a most general and cheerful concurrence, being fully determined to surmount every obstacle, and to prosecute the enterprise to a complete and successful issue. Major General Sullivan, for his great perseverance and activity, for his order of march and attack, and the whole of his dispositions; the Brigadiers and officers of all ranks, and the whole of the soldiers engaged in the expedition, merit and have the Commander-in-chief's warmest acknowledgements for their important services upon this occasion.' On the 9th of November, 1779, General Sullivan wrote to the President of Congress: 'It is with the deepest regret I find myself compelled to request from Congress liberty to retire from the army. My health is so much impaired by a violent bilious disorder, which seized me in the commencement and continued during the whole of the western expedition, that I have not the smallest hope of a perfect recovery.' … {3268} General Sullivan, in transmitting to Congress an official account of his operations, reported that … 'Every creek and river has been traced, and the whole country explored in search of Indian settlements, and I am well persuaded that, except one town situated near the Alleghany, about fifty-eight miles from Chinesee, there is not a single town left in the country of the Five Nations. … I flatter myself that the orders with which I was entrusted are fully executed, as we have not left a single settlement or field of corn in the country of the Five Nations, or is there even the appearance of an Indian on this side of Niagara. Messengers and small parties have been constantly passing, and some imprudent soldiers who straggled from the army mistook the route and went back almost to Chinesee without discovering even the track of an Indian.' Sullivan was mistaken in regard to the destruction of all the Indian towns as there were several small villages undiscovered by his troops. The principal villages, however, and probably nine-tenths of the growing crops, upon which the Indians had depended for sustenance during the following winter, were effectually destroyed. … While Sullivan fully accomplished the task given him to perform, the results expected were not fully realized. The power of the savages had been weakened, but they were not entirely subdued until years afterward, when 'Mad Anthony Wayne' defeated the confederated bands of the Indians of the west, in 1794, a measure which thoroughly humbled the Indians of Western New York, and gave to the settlers peace and security. Sullivan's expedition was fruitful of great results in other ways, however, than the temporary subjugation of the Indians. The fertile and beautiful country now forming the western part of the State of New York, was then an unknown wilderness, and its value and attractiveness were first made known to the white people through this expedition. … Soon after the close of the war the tide of emigration commenced to flow westward. From the New England States, Pennsylvania and New Jersey, came hardy pioneers, led on by the glowing accounts they had heard of the new country, and the vicinity of the inland lakes, the borders of the flowing streams, the forest-covered hills became the dwelling places of a rapidly growing band of settlers. The road which Sullivan had opened from the Susquehanna valley was followed by many of the settlers, even to the banks of the Genesee. Thus many of those who had shared the perils and privations of Sullivan's expedition against the Indian tribes of Western New York, afterward became settlers of the land they had aided to conquer."

A. T. Norton, History of Sullivan's Campaign against the Iroquois, chapter 11.

      O. W. B. Peabody,
      Life of John Sullivan
      (Library of American Biographies,
      series 2, volume. 3), chapter 7.

Journals of the Military Expedition of Major General John Sullivan, with records of Centennial Celebrations (including Historical Address by Reverend David Craft, pages 331-388).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1779 (September).
Paul Jones' great sea-fight.
The Bon Homme Richard and the Serapis.

"Near the end of July [1779], Paul Jones, a Scot by birth, in the service of the United States, sailed from l'Orient as commander of a squadron, consisting of the Poor Richard ['Bon Homme Richard,' Jones named her, in compliment to Franklin and to the language of the country from which Franklin's influence procured the ship] of 40 guns, many of them unserviceable; the Alliance of 36 guns, both American ships-of-war; the Pallas, a French frigate of 32; and the Vengeance, a French brig of 12 guns. They ranged the western coast of Ireland, turned Scotland, and, cruising off Flamborough Head, descried the British merchant fleet from the Baltic, under the convoy of the Serapis of 44 guns and the Countess of Scarborough of 20 guns. An hour after sunset, on the 23d of September, the Serapis, having a great superiority in strength, engaged the Poor Richard. Paul Jones, after suffering exceedingly in a contest of an hour and a half within musket-shot, bore down upon his adversary, whose anchor he hooked to his own quarter. The muzzles of their guns touched each other's sides. Jones could use only three nine-pounders beside muskets from the round-tops, but combustible matters were thrown into every part of the Serapis, which was on fire no less than ten or twelve times. There were moments when both ships were on fire. After a two-hours' conflict in the first watch of the night, the Serapis struck its flag. Jones raised his pendant on the captured frigate, and the next day had but time to transfer to it his wounded men and his crew before the Poor Richard went down. The French frigate engaged and captured the Countess of Scarborough. The Alliance, which from a distance had raked the Serapis during the action, not without injuring the Poor Richard, had not a man injured. On the fourth of October the squadron entered the Texel with its prizes. The British ambassador, of himself and again under instructions, reclaimed the captured British ships and their crews, 'who had been taken by the pirate Paul Jones of Scotland, a rebel and a traitor.' 'They,' he insisted, 'are to be treated as pirates whose letters of marque have not emanated from a sovereign power.' The grand pensionary would not apply the name of pirate to officers bearing the commissions of congress. In spite of the stadholder, the squadron enjoyed the protection of a neutral port."

G. Bancroft, History of the United States (Author's last revision), volume 5, page 350.

W. C. Bryant and S. H. Gay, Popular History of the United States, volume 3, chapter 24.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1779 (September-October).
Unsuccessful attack on Savannah by the Americans and French.

   "The state of affairs in the South had called so imperatively
   for the attention of Congress that a portion of Washington's
   army had been detached to join General Lincoln. Washington
   solicited more powerful aid from D'Estaing, who then commanded
   in the West Indies an army sufficiently powerful to crush
   entirely the English in Georgia. The French admiral received
   this application just after having fought a hard battle
   against Commodore Byron without any decisive result, yet such
   as obliged the latter to go into port to refit. The former,
   being thus for a time master of the sea, determined at once to
   comply with the request, took on board 6,000 land-troops, and
   steered direct for Savannah, where, arriving quite
   unexpectedly, he captured by surprise a fifty-gun ship and
   three frigates. Prevost, too, was very unprepared, having his
   force broken up into detachments distributed along the
   frontier; but these being instantly ordered in, obeyed with
   such promptitude that, before the French had landed and formed
   a junction with Lincoln, nearly all had arrived.
{3269}
   On the 16th of September, D'Estaing appeared before the place
   and summoned it to surrender. Prevost, under pretext of
   negotiation, obtained a suspension for twenty-four hours,
   during which Colonel Maitland entered with the last and
   largest detachment, eluding the Americans by a route supposed
   impassable; and the full determination to resist was then
   announced. The opinion of all military men now is that
   D'Estaing was guilty of the most outrageous folly in not
   marching at once to the attack of the city, without summoning
   the weakened garrison to surrender at all. The surprise would
   have then been complete, and the victory sure. … A regular
   siege was now commenced. Heavy ordnance and stores were
   brought up from the fleet, and the besieging army broke
   ground. By the 1st of October they had pushed their sap within
   300 yards of the abattis, on the left of the British lines.
   Several batteries were opened on the besieged, which played
   almost incessantly upon their works, but made no impression on
   them. The situation of D'Estaing was becoming critical. More
   time had already been consumed on the coast of Georgia than he
   had supposed would be necessary for the destruction of the
   British force in that State. He became uneasy for the
   possessions of France in the West Indies, and apprehensive for
   the safety of the ships under his command. The naval officers
   remonstrated strenuously against longer exposing his fleet on
   an insecure coast, at a tempestuous season of the year, and
   urged the danger of being overtaken by a British squadron when
   broken and scattered by a storm." D'Estaing accordingly
   decided that he must either raise the siege or attempt the
   enemy's works by storm. "The latter part of the alternative
   was adopted. … On the morning of the 9th of October, before
   day, … about 3,500 French and 1,000 Americans, of whom between
   600 and 700 were regulars and the residue militia of
   Charleston, advanced in three columns, led by D'Estaing and
   Lincoln, aided by the principal officers of both nations, and
   made a furious assault on the British lines. Their reception
   was warmer than had been expected. … Both the French and
   Americans planted their standards on the walls, and were
   killed in great numbers while endeavoring to force their way
   into the works. For about fifty minutes the contest was
   extremely obstinate." Then the assailants gave way and a
   retreat was ordered. "In this unsuccessful attempt the French
   lost in killed and wounded about 700 men. Among the latter
   were the Count D'Estaing himself, Major General De Fontanges,
   and several other officers of distinction. The continental
   troops lost 234 men, and the Charleston militia, who, though
   associated with them in danger, were more fortunate, had one
   captain killed and six privates wounded. Count Pulaski was
   among the slain. The loss of the garrison was astonishingly
   small. In killed and wounded it amounted only to 55. So great
   was the advantage of the cover afforded by their works. …
   Count D'Estaing, having committed a blunder at the beginning,
   had committed a worse blunder at the end, by insisting on the
   assault, as unnecessary as it was rash. … He [now] insisted on
   raising the siege, and both the French and American armies
   moved from their ground on the evening of the 18th of October.
   D'Estaing sailed for the West Indies; and Lincoln recrossed
   the Savannah at Zubly's Ferry and again encamped in South
   Carolina."

      C. B. Hartley,
      Life of General Marion
      (Heroes and Patriots of the South),
      chapter 11.

      ALSO IN:
      C. C. Jones, Jr.,
      History of Georgia,
      volume 2, chapters 20-21.

      J. Sparks,
      Life of Pulaski
      (Library of American Biographies,
      series 2, volume 4).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1780 (January-April).
   The gloomy winter at Morristown.
   Depreciation to worthlessness of the Continental Currency.
   Consequent sufferings of the army and the country.

   "The year 1780 opened upon a famishing camp. 'For a fortnight
   past,' writes Washington, on the 8th of January, 'the troops,
   both officers and men, have been almost perishing with want.
   Yet,' adds he, feelingly, 'they have borne their sufferings
   with a patience that merits the approbation, and ought to
   excite the sympathies, of their countrymen.' The severest
   trials of the Revolution, in fact, were not in the field,
   where there were shouts to excite and laurels to be won; but
   in the squalid wretchedness of ill-provided camps, where there
   was nothing to cheer and everything to be endured. To suffer
   was the lot of the revolutionary soldier. A rigorous winter
   had much to do with the actual distresses of the army, but the
   root of the evil lay in the derangement of the currency.
   Congress had commenced the war without adequate funds, and
   without the power of imposing direct taxes. To meet pressing
   emergencies, it had emitted paper money, which, for a time,
   passed currently at par; but sank in value as further
   emissions succeeded, and that already in circulation remained
   unredeemed. The several States added to the evil by emitting
   paper in their separate capacities: thus the country gradually
   became flooded with a 'continental currency,' as it was
   called; irredeemable, and of no intrinsic value. The
   consequence was a general derangement of trade and finance.
   The continental currency declined to such a degree that forty
   dollars in paper were equivalent to only one in specie.
   Congress attempted to put a stop to this depreciation by
   making paper money a legal tender, at its nominal value, in
   the discharge of debts, however contracted. This opened the
   door to knavery, and added a new feature to the evil. The
   commissaries now found it difficult to purchase supplies for
   the immediate wants of the army, and impossible to provide any
   stores in advance. They were left destitute of funds, and the
   public credit was prostrated by the accumulating debts
   suffered to remain uncancelled. The changes which had taken
   place in the commissary department added to this confusion.
   The commissary-general, instead of receiving, as heretofore, a
   commission on expenditures, was to have a fixed salary in
   paper currency, and his deputies were to be compensated in
   like manner, without the usual allowance of rations and
   forage. No competent agents could be procured on such terms. …
   In the present emergency Washington was reluctantly compelled,
   by the distresses of the army, to call upon the counties of
   the State for supplies of grain and cattle, proportioned to
   their respective abilities. … Wherever a compliance with this
   call was refused, the articles required were to be impressed:
   it was a painful alternative, yet nothing else could save the
   army from dissolution or starving. … As the winter advanced,
   the cold increased in severity.
{3270}
   It was the most intense ever remembered in the country. The
   great bay of New York was frozen over. … The insular security
   of the place was at an end. … Washington was aware of the
   opportunity which offered itself for a signal 'coup de main,'
   but was not in a condition to profit by it."

"Paper for $9,000,000 was issued before any depreciation began. The issues of the separate colonies must have affected it, but the popular enthusiasm went for something. Pelatiah Webster, almost alone as it seems, insisted on taxation, but a member of Congress indignantly asked if he was to help tax the people when they could go to the printing-office and get a cartload of money. In 1776, when the depreciation began, Congress took harsh measures to try to sustain the bills. Committees of safety also took measures to punish those who 'forestalled' or 'engrossed,' these being the terms for speculators who bought up for a rise. … The enemy, perceiving the terrible harm the Americans were doing themselves, thought it well to help on the movement. They counterfeited the bills and passed them through the lines. At the end of 1779 Congress was at its wit's end for money. Its issues had put specie entirely out of reach, and the cause was in danger of being drowned under the paper sea. … The French alliance helped more by giving means of procuring loans in Europe than by military assistance. Congress promised to limit its issues to $200,000,000, and tried a new form of note; also loan offices and lotteries. Over 350,000,000 were issued in all, but it is doubtful if more than 200,000,000 were out at any one time. In the spring of 1780 the bills were worth two cents on the dollar, and then ceased to circulate. Specie now came into circulation, being brought by the French, and also that expended by the English passing the lines. The paper was now worth more for an advertisement or a joke than for any prospect of any kind of redemption. A barber's shop in Philadelphia was papered with it, and a dog, coated with tar, and with the bills stuck all over him, was paraded in the streets."

      ALSO IN:
      W. G. Sumner,
      The Financier and Finances of the American Revolution,
      chapter 4 (volume 1).

      A. S. Bolles,
      Financial History of the United States, 1774-1789,
      book 1.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1780 (February-August).
   The siege and capture of Charleston by the British.
   Defeat of Gates at Camden.
   South Carolina subdued.

"After the failure of the attack on Savannah was learned by Sir Henry Clinton, he sent a large additional force to the South. Reinforcements were also sent on to Lincoln, while the main body of the American army went into winter quarters near Morristown, New Jersey. Sir Henry Clinton, as soon as his forces, which had been dispersed by a storm, had been collected at Savannah, proceeded to invest Charleston," landing his troops on St. John's Island in February. The blockading of the port and operations for the investment of the city were conducted cautiously and with success. On the 12th of May, the American commander, General Lincoln, "finding himself incapable of defending Charleston, decided on capitulating; and he acceded to the terms which the besiegers had first offered. The fortifications, shipping, artillery, and public stores were all surrendered. The garrison, and all who had borne arms, were prisoners of war. The militia were allowed to return home on parole. In the siege the British lost 76 killed, and 189 wounded. The Americans about an equal number. The prisoners, exclusive of sailors, amounted to 5,618, counting all the adult males of the town. To bring the country entirely under subjection, Clinton sent forth three detachments. The first and largest, in the northern part of the State, was under Lord Cornwallis. He detached Colonel Tarleton with his legion of cavalry and mounted infantry, to disperse Colonel Buford, then encamped near the North Carolina line. [Buford] was overtaken at the Waxhaws, and, on his refusal to surrender, Tarleton made a furious charge on Buford's men, when some, in dismay, threw down their arms and asked for quarter, and some fired on the enemy. After this partial resistance, no quarter was given. Colonel Buford, with a few of the horse, and about 100 infantry, escaped; 113 were killed on the spot; 150 so badly wounded as to be incapable of being moved; and 53 were brought away as prisoners. The American officers deny (what the British assert), that any who had laid down their arms had again taken them up. All further resistance to the enemy in South Carolina and Georgia seems then to have ceased. The two other detachments of the British army every where received the submission of the inhabitants, who either gave their parole not again to bear arms against the king, or took the oath of allegiance. In a proclamation for settling the government, Sir Henry Clinton required all to return to their allegiance on pain of being treated as rebels and enemies. He then returned to New York, leaving Lord Cornwallis in command, with 4,000 troops. … Lord Cornwallis, considering South Carolina as entirely reannexed to Great Britain, would admit of no neutrality among the inhabitants; but insisted on their taking the oath of allegiance, which, however, was generally taken with reluctance by the people of the lower country. … A considerable force, under Baron de Kalb, had been ordered for the Southern army by Congress; but, for want of money, and a sufficient Commissary department, they were so delayed in their march, that it was late in July before they reached Cape Fear River. Here they were joined by General Gates, who had been appointed to the command of the Southern army. The men of this detachment, ill-fed, suffered greatly from dysentery. In South Carolina, Gates was joined by Porterfield's Virginia regiment, Rutherford's corps of North Carolina militia, and Armaud's legion. … Gates having under him about 4,000 men, of whom the regulars were less than 1,000, took post at Clermont. As the force of the Americans was daily increasing, Cornwallis, having under him about 2,000 men, of whom 1,900 were regulars, decided on attacking the American army. It so happened, that the period chosen by Cornwallis to surprise Gates, was the very moment in which Gates proposed to surprise his adversary; and thus the advanced corps of both armies unexpectedly met at two o'clock in the morning [August 6, near Camden]. {3271} After some skirmishing, in which the British seemed to have had a decided advantage, both parties suspended their operations till the morning. On the first onset of the British, the Virginia militia under General Stevens fled with precipitation, and were followed by the infantry of Armstrong; and, except Colonel Dixon's regiment, the whole South Carolina division followed the example. Very few of the militia of either State discharged a single musket. Gates was borne away by the torrent, and, with General Caswell, retreated to Clermont, in the hope of collecting a sufficient number of the fugitives to cover the retreat of the regulars; but the hope was vain. He was fain to proceed to Hillsborough, to concert the future plan of operations. Thus left with an inadequate force on the field, De Kalb made a stout resistance; but in an impetuous charge he fell, after having received twelve wounds. His troops were then unable to rally, and their discomfiture was complete. Their loss, in killed, wounded and prisoners, could not have been less than 1,000 men. The British lost 325 men. Just before the action, Sumter had captured a convoy, and made 200 prisoners; but was subsequently surprised by Tarleton, who recaptured the stores, killed 150, and took 300 prisoners. Sumter escaped with difficulty. There was no longer any armed American force in South Carolina, and Cornwallis resorted to energetic means of preventing disaffection. All those who were found in arms after they had submitted to British protection were considered as having forfeited their lives, and several of them were hung on the spot. But these severities, instead of their intended effect, produced a strong reaction; and Sumter was able to collect a new force, with which he greatly annoyed the north-western parts of the State."

      H. Lee,
      Memoirs of the War in the Southern Department,
      chapter 17.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1780 (July).
Fresh help from France.
The arrival of Rochambeau and his army, with a fleet.

"La Fayette's second visit to his native country [1770], was most opportune. He arrived in Paris at the moment when the war for the independence of America was in high popularity throughout France. He was put in arrest a week for his disobedience to the order not to leave France, but this was a mere formality. Vergennes received him in private. His example had roused the spirit of the French nobles. The stage resounded with his applauses. Crowds followed his steps. Marie Antoinette, with her quick, enthusiastic spirit, joyed at his distinction. The council of state, the Parliament, the towns, the corporations mingled in the noble excitement. The Royal Treasury was assured support by patriotic offers of contributions, and then was formed the auxiliary army that was to bear succor to America. This public enthusiasm triumphed over the hesitating reluctance of Maurepas, and the economical prudence of Necker. The army, placed under the command of the veteran Rochambeau, commended for his 'steadiness, wisdom, ability and prudence,' a pupil of the Marshal de Belle Isle, distinguished in frequent service, was to be composed of 6,000 troops. Among these shone forth the most brilliant of the nobility."

J. C. Hamilton, History of the United States, as traced in the Writings of Alexander Hamilton, chapter 20 (volume 2).

"La Fayette … made the ministers understand that if he was not placed in command of the expedition, which would surprise the Americans, at least it was imperative to place over it a French general who would consent to serve under the American commander-in-chief. But he knew well that his old companions in arms in France were jealous of his rapid military fortune and brilliant renown. He knew still better that the officers who were his seniors in rank would be unwilling to serve under him. His first proposition, therefore, was only made to satisfy public feeling in America, which left the management of this affair almost entirely in his hands. In view of the serious difficulties that necessarily would result from the adoption of such a decision—difficulties that might have most disastrous consequences for the cause to which he had devoted himself—he promised to make the Americans understand that he had preferred remaining at the head of one of their divisions and that he had refused the command of the French forces. But he insisted upon this point, that, in order to avoid wounding the self-respect of the Americans, it was indispensable to choose a general to command the expedition, whose promotion had been recent and whose talents were certainly equal to his mission, but who, considering this mission as a distinction, would consent to acknowledge General Washington's supremacy. The choice that was made, under these conditions, of the Count de Rochambeau was perfectly satisfactory to him, and, without waiting for the departure of the expedition, he embarked at Rochefort, on February the 18th, 1780, on board the frigate Hermione, which the king had given him as being a swift sailer. … He was anxious to inform Washington of the good news himself, and immediately upon his landing at Boston, on April the 28th, he hastened to Morristown to rejoin his well-beloved and revered friend, as he called him in his letters. … General Heath, who commanded the militia in the State of Rhode Is]and, announced on the 11th of July, the arrival of the French squadron to General Washington, who was then with his staff at Bergen. La Fayette set out almost immediately, provided with instructions from the commander-in-chief, dated the 15th, to repair to the French general and admiral to confer with them. For some time Washington had been considering a plan of offensive operation for the capture of the city and the garrison of New York. This plan, which conformed with the wishes of the French government, was only to be carried out upon certain conditions. First, it was necessary that the French troops should unite with the American forces, and, secondly, that the French should have a naval superiority over the forces of Admirals Graves and Arbuthnot, who had effected their junction at New York the day after the arrival of the French at Newport. This last condition was far from being fulfilled. … It had been foreseen that the English, who had concentrated their land and naval forces at New York, would not give the French time to establish themselves on Rhode Island; and Washington informed Rochambeau that Sir Henry Clinton was embarking his troops and would come shortly to attack the forces of the expedition with the squadrons assembled under the command of Admiral Arbuthnot, which were anchored at Sandy Hook, beyond New York, at the mouth of the Hudson River. {3272} The American general watched these movements, and, while he gave frequent information to the French of the projected attack upon them, he tried to prevent it. … At the same time, Washington crossed the Hudson above West Point with the greater part of his troops, and proceeded to King's Bridge, at the northern end of the island, where he made some hostile demonstrations. This manœuvre detained General Clinton, who had already embarked eight thousand men upon the ships of Arbuthnot. He landed his troops and gave up his project. Nevertheless, the English admiral set sail and appeared before Rhode Island with eleven ships of the line and a few frigates, twelve days after the French had landed. … On August the 9th, when La Fayette had returned to the headquarters of Washington, which were at Dobb's Ferry, ten miles above King's Bridge, on the right bank of the North River, he wrote to Rochambeau and de Ternay an urgent dispatch, in which he finished, in the name of the American general, by proposing to the French generals to come at once to attempt an attack on New York. … On the other hand, the same courier brought a letter from Washington which made no mention of this project, but which only replied by a kind of refusal to the request of Rochambeau for a conference, 'wherein in an hour of conversation they could agree upon more things than in volumes of correspondence.' Washington said with truth that he did not dare to leave his army in front of New York, for it might be attacked at any moment, and that by his presence he prevented the departure of the large body of the English forces that might have been sent against Rhode Island. Indeed, it is certain that if some differences had not arisen between General Clinton and Admiral Arbuthnot, the French might have found themselves in a dangerous position at the beginning. From the earliest letters exchanged upon this occasion some discord resulted between La Fayette, Rochambeau and Washington, but, owing to the good sense of Rochambeau, matters were soon smoothed over. He wrote in English to the American general to ask him thereafter to address himself directly to him, and to explain the reasons that induced him to postpone assuming the offensive. At the same time he urgently requested a conference. From that moment the relations between the two leaders were excellent. The mere presence of the French squadron and army, though they were still paralyzed and really blockaded by Admiral Arbuthnot, had effected a useful diversion, since the English had not been able to profit by all the advantages resulting from the capture of Charleston, and, instead of carrying on operations in the Carolinas with superior forces, they had had to bring the greater part of them back to New York."

      T. Balch,
      The French in America in the War of Independence,
      chapters 10-11.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1780 (August-September).
The Treason of Benedict Arnold.

"Washington contemplated the aspect of affairs with the greatest alarm. Doubtful if the army could be kept together for another campaign, he was exceedingly anxious to strike some decisive blow. He proposed to Rochambeau, commanding the French troops at Newport, an attack upon New York; but that was not thought feasible without a superior naval force. Letters were sent to the French admiral in the West Indies entreating assistance; and Washington presently proceeded to Hartford, there to meet Rochambeau, to devise some definite plan of operations. During Washington's absence at Hartford, a plot came to light for betraying the important fortress of West Point and the other posts of the Highlands into the hands of the enemy, the traitor being no other than Arnold, the most brilliant officer and one of the most honored in the American army. The qualities of a brilliant soldier are unfortunately often quite distinct from those of a virtuous man and a good citizen. … Placed in command at Philadelphia, … he [Arnold] lived in a style of extravagance far beyond his means, and he endeavored to sustain it by entering into privateering and mercantile speculations, most of which proved unsuccessful. He was even accused of perverting his military authority to purposes of private gain. The complaints on this point, made to Congress by the authorities of Pennsylvania, had been at first unheeded; but, being presently brought forward in a solemn manner, and with some appearance of offended dignity on the part of the Pennsylvania council, an interview took place between a committee of that body and a committee of Congress, which had resulted in Arnold's trial by a court martial. Though acquitted of the more serious charges, on two points he had been found guilty, and had been sentenced to be reprimanded by the commander-in-chief. Arnold claimed against the United States a large balance, growing out of the unsettled accounts of his Canada expedition. This claim was greatly cut down by the treasury officers and when Arnold appealed to Congress, a committee reported that more had been allowed than was actually due. Mortified and soured, and complaining of public ingratitude, Arnold attempted, but without success, to get a loan from the French minister. Some months before, he had opened a correspondence with Sir Henry Clinton under a feigned name, carried on through Major Andre, adjutant general of the British army. Having at length made himself known to his correspondents, to give importance to his treachery, he solicited and obtained from Washington, who had every confidence in him, the command in the Highlands, with the very view of betraying that important position into the hands of the enemy. To arrange the terms of the bargain, an interview was necessary with some confidential British agent; and Andre, though not without reluctance, finally volunteered for that purpose. Several previous attempts having failed, the British sloop-of-war Vulture, with Andre on board, ascended the Hudson as far as the mouth of Croton River, some miles below King's Ferry. Information being sent to Arnold under a flag, the evening after Washington left West Point for Hartford he dispatched a boat to the Vulture, which took Andre on shore, for an interview on the west side of the river, just below the American lines. Morning appeared before the arrangements for the betrayal of the fortress could be definitely completed, and Andre was reluctantly persuaded to come within the American lines, and to remain till the next night at the house of one Smith, a dupe or tool of Arnold's, the same who had been employed to bring Andre from the ship. {3273} For some reason not very clearly explained, Smith declined to convey Andre back to the Vulture. … Driven thus to the necessity of returning by land, Andre laid aside his uniform, assumed a citizen's dress, and, with a pass from Arnold in the name of John Anderson, a name which Andre had often used in their previous correspondence, he set off toward sunset on horseback, with Smith for a guide. They crossed King's Ferry, passed all the American guards in safety, and spent the night near Crom Pond, with an acquaintance of Smith's. The next morning, having passed Pine's Bridge, across Croton River, Smith left Andre to pursue his way alone. The road led through a district extending some thirty miles above the island of New York, not included in the lines of either army, and thence known as the 'Neutral Ground,' a populous and fertile region, but very much infested by bands of plunderers called 'Cow Boys' and 'Skinners.' The 'Cow Boys' lived within the British lines, and stole or bought cattle for the supply of the British army. The rendezvous of the 'Skinners' was within the American lines. They professed to be great patriots, making it their ostensible business to plunder those who refused to take the oath of allegiance to the State of New York." On the morning of Andre's journey, the road to Tarrytown, on which he rode, was being guarded by a small party of men, who watched for cattle thieves, and for suspicious travelers generally. Three of these intercepted the unfortunate young officer and discovered his character. Arnold received intelligence of what had happened in time to make his escape to the Vulture. Andre was examined before a board of which Lafayette, Steuben and Greene were members, and on his own statements was executed as a spy. The sympathy with him was very great, among Americans as well as among his own countrymen; but lenity in the case appeared too dangerous to Washington and his military advisers.

J. Sparks, Life and Treason of Benedict Arnold (Library of American Biographies, volume 3, chapters 8-15).

      J. H. Smith,
      Authentic Narrative of the Causes which led
      to the Death of Major André.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1780 (August-December).
Partisan warfare in South Carolina.
Sumter and Marion.

A name "which recalls thrilling tales of desperate enterprise, surprises at midnight, sudden attacks in the gray twilight of morning, lurking-places in the depths of forests, restless activity, and untiring perseverance, is the name of Thomas Sumter. He comes before us tall, vigorous, dauntless, with a bold bearing, and imperious brow, stern to look upon, fierce in his self-will, arrogant in his decisions, tenacious in his prejudices, resolute and vigorous in the execution of his own plans, remiss and almost luke-warm in carrying out the plans of others. Born in South Carolina just as that colony had passed from the control of the Proprietaries to the control of the King, he lived to see her take the first decided step towards passing out of the Union. Little has been preserved of his early life, although his subsequent career in the Senate of the United States proves that he was not deficient in education then, wherever or whenever acquired. In the Revolution be took an early part, and soon made himself conspicuous as a bold and enterprising officer. But it was not till after the siege of Charleston that his talents were brought fully into play. Then at the head of a body of volunteers he moved rapidly from point to point, keeping alive the hopes of the Whigs and the fears of the Tories in the regions watered by the Broad River, the Ennoree, and the Tiger. … History, like tradition, has her favorite characters, on which she dwells with peculiar fondness, delighting herself in preserving the memory of every exploit, and giving the brightest tints to every circumstance connected with their career. … Of these children of a happy star, no one holds in our Revolutionary history the same place as Francis Marion. His story, irregularly told by a friend and companion, took an early hold upon the heart of the people; and the romantic traits of his career, warming the imagination of a great poet, have been recorded in beautiful verse. Impartial judgment and sober research have left his own laurels unimpaired, although they have dissipated the halo which tradition and fancy had shed around his men. His life forms one of those pictures upon which the mind loves to dwell, from the singular combination of rare qualities which it displays. His ancestors were Huguenot exiles, who took refuge in South Carolina, from the dragonnades of Louis XIV. His father was a planter near Georgetown, who, portioning out his estate to his children as they came of age, had nothing left for Francis, the youngest, and his next nearest brother, while they were yet children. At sixteen Francis found himself compelled to choose a pursuit for his support. With only a common English education, and no money to carry him through the preparatory courses, he could neither be a physician nor a lawyer. He resolved to be a sailor, and started upon a voyage to the West Indies. But his ship was burnt in a gale, and after tossing about eight days in an open boat, without water and with nothing but the raw flesh and skin of a single dog to eat, and seeing several of his companions die of hunger, he, with the starving survivors, were rescued, barely alive. He renounced the sea, returned to Georgetown, and engaged in farming. The Cherokee war of 1759 found him hard at his work. He was now twenty-six, small in frame, low in stature, but vigorous, active, and healthy. By nature he was taciturn and reticent, with nothing in the expression of his face to attract or interest a casual observer, but still inspiring confidence and commanding respect in those who were brought into intimate relations with him. When, therefore, a company of volunteers was raised to serve against the Indians, he was chosen lieutenant. In a second expedition, which soon after became necessary, he was made captain. Next came the War of Independence; and joining the first South Carolina levies, he was presently made a major; and with this rank took part in the gallant defense of Fort Moultrie in 1776. His next promotion was to the command of a regiment as lieutenant-colonel. {3274} During the siege of Charleston his leg was accidentally broken, a lucky accident, which left him free when the city fell, to engage in an adventurous system of warfare which was the only possible system in that low state of our fortunes. In the course of this he was promoted by Governor Rutledge to a brigadiership. When he first appeared in Gates's camp, he had but twenty men with him, or rather twenty between men and boys. Some of them were negroes. With these he rescued 150 of the prisoners of Camden, coming upon the British escort by surprise and overpowering it. Early in September a body of 200 Tories attempted to surprise him. He had 53 men with him when he heard of their intention, and instantly setting forward, surprised an advance party of 45, killing or wounding all but 15, and then attacked the main body of 200, and put them to flight. Before the end of the month he surprised another body of 60 men; and in October one of 200. His force was constantly fluctuating between 20 men and 70. Up to the 18th of October he had never had over 70. They went and came as they chose, their number ever ebbing and flowing like the tide. Sometimes the very men who had fought with him were ranged in arms against him; a few only serving from honest zeal and true love of country. … As his slender form concealed a lion heart, so under his cold, impassive face, there was a perpetual glow of tender sympathies. … Without claiming for Marion those powers of combination which belong to the highest order of military genius, he must be allowed to have excelled in all the qualities which form the consummate partisan,—vigilance, promptitude, activity, energy, dauntless courage, and unshaken self-control. … Two principles controlled all his actions, and shaped all his ends; the love of country, pure, earnest, and profound; the love of right, sincere, undeviating, and incorruptible."

"The other partisans … had been compelled to take refuge in the mountains. Marion found his security in the swamps. This able partisan maintained his ground below and along the Santee river, and managed, among the defiles and swamps of that region, to elude all the activity of his enemies. His force had been collected chiefly among his own neighbors, were practised in the swamps, and familiar with the country. Like Sumter, utterly unfurnished with the means of war at first, he procured them by similar means. He took possession of the saws from the mills, and converted them into sabres. So much was he distressed for ammunition that he has engaged in battle when he had not three rounds of powder to each man of his party. … Various were the means employed to draw off or drive away his followers. The houses on the banks of the Pedee, Lynch's Creek, and Black river, from whence they were chiefly taken, were destroyed by fire, the plantations devastated, and the negroes carried away. But the effect of this wantonness was far other than had been intended. Revenge and despair confirmed the patriotism of these ruined men, and strengthened their resolution. … For months, their only shelter was the green wood and the swamp—their only cover the broad forest and the arch of heaven. … With a policy that nothing could distract—a caution that no artifice could mislead—Marion led his followers from thicket to thicket in safety, and was never more perfectly secure than when he was in the neighborhood of his foe. He hung upon his flanks along the march—he skirted his camp in the darkness of the night—he lay in wait for his foraging parties—he shot down his sentries, and, flying or advancing, he never failed to harass the invader, and extort from him a bloody toll at every passage through swamp, thicket, or river, which his smaller parties made. In this sort of warfare—which is peculiarly adapted to the peculiarities of the country in Carolina, and consequently to the genius of her people—he contrived almost wholly to break up the British communications by one of the most eligible routes between the seaboard and the interior."

      ALSO IN:
      C. B. Hartley,
      Life of General Francis Marion
      (Heroes and Patriots of the South),
      chapters 14-15.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1780-1781.
Vermont as an independent State negotiating with the British.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1780-1781.
   Greene's campaign in the south.
   King's Mountain.
   The Cowpens.
   Guilford Court House.
   Hobkirk's Hill.
   Eutaw Springs.
   The British shut up in Charleston.
   Cornwallis withdrawn to Virginia.

   "After his victory at Camden, Lord Cornwallis found it
   necessary to give his army some rest from the intense August
   heat. In September he advanced into North Carolina, boasting
   that he would soon conquer all the states south of the
   Susquehanna river. … In traversing Mecklenburg county
   Cornwallis soon found himself in a very hostile and dangerous
   region, where there were no Tories to befriend him. One of his
   best partisan commanders, Major Ferguson, penetrated too far
   into the mountains. The back-woodsmen of Tennessee and
   Kentucky, the Carolinas, and western Virginia were aroused;
   and under their superb partisan leaders—Shelby, Sevier,
   Cleaveland, McDowell, Campbell, and Williams—gave chase to
   Ferguson, who took refuge upon what he deemed an impregnable
   position on the top of King's Mountain. On the 7th of October
   the backwoodsmen stormed the mountain, Ferguson was shot
   through the heart, 400 of his men were killed and wounded, and
   all the rest, 700 in number, surrendered at discretion. The
   Americans lost 28 killed and 60 wounded. … In the series of
   events which led to the surrender of Cornwallis, the battle of
   King's Mountain played a part similar to that played by the
   battle of Bennington in the series of events which led to the
   surrender of Burgoyne. It was the enemy's first serious
   disaster, and its immediate result was to check his progress
   until the Americans could muster strength enough to overthrow
   him. The events, however, were much more complicated in
   Cornwallis's case, and took much longer to unfold themselves.
   … As soon as he heard the news of the disaster he fell back to
   Winnsborough, in South Carolina, and called for
   reinforcements. While they were arriving, the American army,
   recruited and reorganized since its crushing defeat at Camden,
   advanced into Mecklenburg county. Gates was superseded by
   Greene, who arrived upon the scene on the 2d of December.
   Under Greene were three Virginians of remarkable
   ability,—Daniel Morgan; William Washington, who was a distant
   cousin of the commander-in-chief; and Henry Lee, familiarly
   known as 'Light-horse Harry,' father of the great general,
   Robert Edward Lee.
{3275}
   The little army numbered only 2,000 men, but a considerable
   part of them were disciplined veterans, fully a match for the
   British infantry." To increase this small force, Baron
   Steuben, the military organizer and disciplinarian of the
   Revolutionary armies, was sent down to Virginia, for the
   purpose of recruiting and organizing troops.

Thereupon detachments from the British army at New York were dispatched by sea to Virginia, and Arnold, the traitor, was given command of them. "The presence of these subsidiary forces in Virginia was soon to influence in a decisive way the course of events. Greene, on reaching South Carolina, acted with boldness and originality. He divided his little army into two bodies, one of which cooperated with Marion's partisans in the northeastern part of the state, and threatened Cornwallis's communications with the coast. The other body he sent under Morgan to the southwestward, to threaten the inland posts and their garrisons. Thus worried on both flanks, Cornwallis presently divided his own force, sending Tarleton with 1,100 men to dispose of Morgan. Tarleton came up with Morgan on the 17th of January, 1781, at a grazing-ground known as the Cowpens, not far from King's Mountain. The battle which ensued was well fought, and on Morgan's part it was a wonderful piece of tactics. With only 900 men in open field he surrounded and nearly annihilated a superior force. The British lost 230 in killed and wounded, 600 prisoners, and all their guns. Tarleton escaped with 270 men. The Americans lost 12 killed and 61 wounded. The two battles, King's Mountain and the Cowpens, deprived Cornwallis of nearly all his light-armed troops, and he was just entering upon a game where swiftness was especially required. It was his object to intercept Morgan and defeat him before he could effect a junction with the other part of the American army. It was Greene's object to march the two parts of his army in converging directions northwards across North Carolina and unite them in spite of Cornwallis. By moving in this direction Greene was always getting nearer to his reinforcements from Virginia, while Cornwallis was always getting further from his supports in South Carolina. … The two wings of the American army came together and were joined by the reinforcements; so that at Guilford Court House, on the 15th of March, Cornwallis found himself obliged to fight against heavy odds, 200 miles from the coast and almost as far from the nearest point in South Carolina at which he could get support. The battle of Guilford was admirably managed by both commanders and stubbornly fought by the troops. At nightfall the British held the field, with the loss of nearly one third of their number, and the Americans were repulsed. But Cornwallis could not stay in such a place, and could not afford to risk another battle. There was nothing for him to do but retreat to Wilmington, the nearest point on the coast. There he stopped and pondered. His own force was sadly depleted, but he knew that Arnold in Virginia was being heavily reinforced from New York. The only safe course seemed to march northward and join the operations in Virginia; then afterwards to return southward. This course Cornwallis pursued, arriving at Petersburg and taking command of the troops there on the 20th of May. Meanwhile Greene, after pursuing Cornwallis for about 50 miles from Guilford, faced about and marched with all speed upon Camden, 160 miles distant. … Lord Rawdon held Camden. Greene stopped at Hobkirk's Hill, two miles to the north, and sent Marion and Lee to take Fort Watson, and thus cut the enemy's communications with the coast. On April 23 Fort Watson surrendered; on the 25th Rawdon defeated Greene at Hobkirk's Hill, but as his communications were cut the victory did him no good. He was obliged to retreat toward the coast, and Greene took Camden on the 10th of May. Having thus obtained the commanding point, Greene went on until he had reduced every one of the inland posts. At last, on the 8th of September, he fought an obstinate battle at Eutaw Springs, in which both sides claimed the victory. … Here, however, as always after one of Greene's battles, it was the enemy who retreated and he who pursued. His strategy never failed. After Eutaw Springs the British remained shut up in Charleston under cover of their ships, and the American government was reëstablished over South Carolina. Among all the campaigns in history that have been conducted with small armies, there have been few, if any, more brilliant than Greene's."

      H. Lee,
      Memoirs of the War in the Southern Department,
      chapters 18-34.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781 (January).
The Mutiny of the Pennsylvania Line.

   "As the year 1781 opened and the prospect of a new year of
   struggle became certain, and the invasion of the Southern
   States began to indicate the prospect of a southern campaign,
   which was at all times unpopular with northern troops, a
   disaffection was developed which at last broke forth in open
   mutiny, and a peremptory demand for discharge. This irritation
   was aggravated by hunger, cold, and poverty. Marshall says:
   'The winter brought not much relaxation from toil, and none
   from suffering. The soldiers were perpetually on the point of
   starvation, were often entirely without food, were exposed
   without proper clothing to the rigors of winter; and had now
   served almost twelve months without pay.' … On the 1st of
   January the Pennsylvania line revolted; Captain Billings was
   killed in an attempt to suppress the mutiny; General Wayne was
   powerless to restore order, and 1,300 men, with six guns,
   started to Princeton, with the declared purpose to march to
   Philadelphia, and obtain redress. They demanded clothing, the
   residue of their bounty, and full arrears of pay. A committee
   from Congress and the State authorities of Pennsylvania at
   once entered into negotiations with the troops for terms of
   compromise. The American Commander-in-chief was then at New
   Windsor. A messenger from General Wayne informed him on the 3d
   of January of the revolt, and the terms demanded. It appears
   from Washington's letters that it was his impulse, at the
   first intimation of the trouble, to go in person and attempt
   its control. His second impression was to reserve his
   influence and authority until all other means were exhausted.
{3276}
   The complaint of the mutineers was but a statement of the
   condition of all the army, so far as the soldiers had served
   three years; and the suffering and failure to receive pay were
   absolutely universal. Leaving the preliminary discussion with
   the civil authorities who were responsible for much of the
   trouble, the Commander-in-chief appealed to the Governors of
   the northern States for a force of militia to meet any attacks
   from New York, and declined to interfere until he found that
   the passion had passed and he could find troops who would at
   all hazards execute his will. It was one of the most difficult
   passages in the war, and was so handled that the
   Commander-in-chief retained his prestige and regained control
   of the army. … General Clinton received information of the
   revolt as early as Washington, on the morning of the 23d, and
   sent messengers to the American army with propositions,
   looking to their return to British allegiance. He entirely
   misconceived the nature of the disaffection, and his agents
   were retained in custody. It is sufficient to say that a
   portion of the troops were discharged without critical
   examination of their enlistments, on their own oath; that many
   promptly reenlisted, that as soon as Washington found that he
   had troops who did not share in the open mutiny, he used force
   and suppressed the disaffection, and that the soldiers
   themselves hung several agents who brought propositions from
   General Clinton which invited them to abandon their flag and
   join his command. The mutiny of the American army at the
   opening of the campaign of 1781, was a natural outbreak which
   human nature could not resist, and whatever of discredit may
   attach to the revolt, it will never be unassociated with the
   fact that, while the emergency was one that overwhelmed every
   military obligation by its pressure, it did not affect the
   fealty of the soldiers to the cause for which they took up
   arms. … La Fayette thus wrote to his wife, 'Human patience has
   its limits. No European army would suffer the tenth part of
   what the Americans suffer. It takes citizens to support
   hunger, nakedness, toil, and the total want of pay, which
   constitute the condition of our soldiers, the hardiest and
   most patient that are to be found in the world.'"

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781 (January-May).
Benedict Arnold and the British in Virginia.
Opening of Lafayette's campaign in that state.

   "In January, 1781, the news reached headquarters in the
   Highlands of New York that General [Benedict] Arnold had
   landed in Virginia with a considerable force, was laying waste
   the country, and had already destroyed the valuable stores
   collected at Richmond; opposed to him were only the small
   commands of Steuben and Muhlenberg. The situation was very
   alarming, and threatened to place all the Southern States in
   the hands of the British. If Arnold succeeded in destroying
   the few American troops in Virginia, he could then march to
   the assistance of Cornwallis, who, with a superior force, was
   pressing General Greene very hard in the Carolinas. To defeat
   or capture Arnold before he could further prosecute his
   designs was, therefore, of the utmost importance. For this
   purpose it was necessary to send a detachment from the main
   army against Arnold by land, and a naval force to Chesapeake
   Bay to prevent his escape by sea. Washington at once
   communicated the state of affairs to Rochambeau, who, with the
   French fleet, had long been blockaded at Newport. Taking
   advantage of the serious injuries lately suffered by the
   blockading English fleet in consequence of a storm, Admiral
   Destouches despatched M. de Tilly to the Chesapeake with a
   ship-of-the-line and two frigates. To cooperate with these
   French vessels, Washington detached 1,200 light infantry from
   the main army, and placed them under the command of Lafayette.
   That officer was particularly chosen for this important trust,
   because the confidence reposed in him by both the American and
   French troops made him, in Washington's opinion, the fittest
   person to conduct a combined expedition. Thus opened the only
   campaign in America which afforded Lafayette an opportunity to
   show what abilities he possessed as an independent commander,
   and on this campaign his military reputation must chiefly
   rest. Lafayette moved rapidly southward," to Annapolis; but,
   the coöperating movement of the French fleet having, meantime,
   been frustrated by an attack from the English squadron, his
   instructions required him to abandon the expedition and
   return. He had already set his troops in motion northward when
   different instructions reached him. Two more British regiments
   had been sent to Virginia, under General Philips, who now took
   command of all the forces there, and this had increased the
   anxiety of Washington. "The situation of the Southern States
   had become extremely perilous. General Greene had all he could
   do to fight Lord Cornwallis's superior force in North
   Carolina. Unless a vigorous opposition could be made to
   Philips, he would have no difficulty in dispersing the militia
   of Virginia, and in effecting a junction with Cornwallis.
   With their forces so combined, the British would be masters in
   the South. Washington at once determined to place the defence
   of Virginia in Lafayette's hands. … Lafayette marched with
   such rapidity … that he reached Richmond, where there were
   valuable stores to be protected, a day in advance of General
   Philips. From his post on the heights of the town he saw the
   British set fire to the tobacco warehouses at Manchester, just
   across the river, but there were neither men nor boats enough
   to make an attack possible. Philips, on his part, was too much
   impressed with the show of strength made by the Americans to
   prosecute his plans on Richmond, and retreating down the James
   river, burning and laying waste as he went, he camped at Hog
   Island. Lafayette followed, harassing the enemy's rear, as far
   as the Chickahominy. Here the situation underwent a
   considerable change. Lord Cornwallis, after his long and
   unsuccessful campaign against Greene in North Carolina, made
   up his mind that his exhausting labors there would prove
   unprofitable until Virginia should be subjugated. His men were
   worn out with incessant marching and fighting, while no
   substantial advantage had been gained. Hearing that General
   Greene had marched to attack Lord Rawdon at Camden in South
   Carolina, he determined to join Philips.
{3277}
   That officer, accordingly, received orders while at Hog Island
   to take possession of Petersburg and there await Cornwallis's
   arrival. … On the 13th of May, General Philips died at
   Petersburg of a fever. … Cornwallis arrived at Petersburg on
   the 20th of May. His forces now amounted to over 5,000 men,
   which number was soon increased to 8,000."

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781 (May-October).
   Cornwallis in Virginia and the trap into which he fell.
   Siege of Yorktown by the French and Americans.
   Surrender of the British army.

"On the 24th of May, Cornwallis, having rested his troops, marched from Petersburg, and endeavored to engage the American forces. But Lafayette, having removed the military stores from Richmond, retreated across the Chickahominy to Fredericksburg, where he expected to meet General Wayne and a battalion of Pennsylvania troops, without whose assistance he could not venture any fighting. … Cornwallis … moved between Lafayette and the town of Albemarle, where had been placed a great part of the military stores from Richmond, which now seemed doomed to destruction. But on the 10th of June Lafayette had received his expected reënforcement of Wayne's Pennsylvanians, and thus strengthened felt able to assume the offensive. Rapidly crossing the Rapidan he approached close to the British army which blocked the road to Albemarle. Nothing could have better suited Cornwallis, who prepared for a conflict in which he felt sure of a decisive victory. Lafayette, however, had not lost sight of the vital feature of his campaign,—to protect the property of the State without losing his army. Through his scouts he discovered an old unused road to Albemarle, unknown to the enemy. While Cornwallis was preparing for battle, he had the road cleared, and under cover of the night marched his men through it and took up a strong position before the town. There he was joined by militia from the neighboring mountains, and he showed so strong a front that the British commander did not venture an attack. … The British commander, so far foiled in his objects, had to march back to Richmond and thence to Williamsburg, near the coast, thus practically abandoning control over any part of Virginia except where naval forces gave possession. Lafayette effected a junction with Baron Steuben on the 18th of June, and thus increased his force to about four thousand men. The Americans had now become the pursuers instead of the pursued, and followed the British, harassing their rear and flanks."

"There now came a pause in the Virginia Campaign, at least in daily operations and excitements. The State north of the James was relieved. Cornwallis crossed to the south side, at Cobham, on the 7th [July]; and Lafayette, retiring up the river, encamped, about the 20th, on the now historic Malvern Hill, then described as one of the healthiest and best watered spots in the State. … The entire British army was soon after concentrated at Portsmouth, and preparations made to transport a considerable portion of it to New York. Lafayette, meanwhile, at Malvern Hill, could only await developments. He thought of sending re-enforcements to Greene, and asked Washington if, in case Cornwallis left Virginia, he might not return to the Northern army. … But while the marquis and Washington and Greene were speculating on the future movements of Cornwallis and were persuaded, from embarkations at Portsmouth, that he was to be deprived of a large part of his force by Clinton, unexpected intelligence came to hand. Instead of any part going to New York, the British force suddenly made its appearance, during the first days in August, at Yorktown, on the Virginia peninsula, which it had abandoned but three weeks before. Here again was a new situation. Cornwallis, at last, at Yorktown—the spot he was not to leave except as a prisoner of war. Why he went there is a simple explanation. Clinton decided, upon certain dissenting opinions expressed by Cornwallis respecting the situation in Virginia, not to withdraw the force in the Chesapeake which he had called for, and which was about to sail for New York, but permitted Cornwallis to retain the whole—all with which he had been pursuing Lafayette and the large garrison at Portsmouth, a total of about seven thousand, rank and file. His new instructions, conveyed at the same time, were to the effect that his Lordship should abandon Portsmouth, which both generals agreed was too unhealthy for the troops, and fortify Old Point Comfort, where Fort Monroe now stands, as a naval station for the protection of the British shipping. In addition, if it appeared necessary, for the better security of the Point, to occupy Yorktown also, that was to be done. Obeying these instructions, Cornwallis ordered a survey of Old Point Comfort; but, upon the report of his engineers, was obliged to represent to Clinton that it was wholly unfit and inadequate for a naval station, as it afforded little protection for ships, and could not command the channel, on account of its great width. Then, following what he believed to be the spirit of his orders, Cornwallis, before hearing from Clinton, moved up to Yorktown, and began to fortify it in connection with Gloucester, on the opposite shore, as the best available naval station. Clinton made no subsequent objections, and there Cornwallis remained until his surrender. His occupation of the place was simply an incident of the campaign—a move taken for convenience and in the interests of the navy and the health of his command."

   "The march of Lord Cornwallis into Virginia was the first
   emphatic fact which enabled General Washington to plan an
   efficient offensive. The repeated detachment of troops from
   New York so sensibly lessened the capacity of its garrison for
   extensive field service at the north, that the American
   Commander-in-chief determined to attack that post, and as a
   secondary purpose, thereby to divert General Clinton from
   giving further aid to troops in the Southern States. As a
   matter of fact, the prudent conduct of the Virginia campaign
   eventually rallied to the support of General La Fayette an
   army, including militia, nearly as large as that of
   Washington, and the nominal strength of the allied army near
   Yorktown, early in September, was nearly or quite as great as
   that of Lord Cornwallis. There were other elements which, as
   in previous campaigns, hampered operations at the north. The
   Indians were still troublesome in Western New York, and the
   Canadian frontier continued to demand attention. The American
   navy had practically disappeared.
{3278}
   The scarcity of money and a powerless recruiting service,
   increased the difficulties of carrying on the war in a manner
   that would use to the best advantage the troops of France. …
   The position of the American Commander-in-chief at this time
   was one of peculiar personal mortification. Appeals to State
   authorities failed to fill up his army. Three thousand Hessian
   reinforcements had landed at New York, and the government as
   well as himself would be compromised before the whole world by
   failure to meet the just demands which the French auxiliaries
   had a right to press upon his attention. Relief came most
   opportunely. The frigate Concorde arrived at Newport, and a
   reiteration of the purpose of Count de Grasse to leave St.
   Domingo on the 3d of August, for the Chesapeake direct, was
   announced by a special messenger. The possibilities of the
   future at once quickened him to immediate action. With a
   reticence so close that the army could not fathom his plans,
   he re-organized his forces for a false demonstration against
   New York and a real movement upon Yorktown. … Letters to the
   Governors of northern States called for aid as if to capture
   New York. Letters to La Fayette and the Count de Grasse
   embodied such intimations of his plans as would induce proper
   caution to prevent the escape of Lord Cornwallis, and secure
   transportation at Head of Elk. Other letters to authorities in
   New Jersey and Philadelphia, expressly defining a plan of
   operations against New York via Staten Island, with the
   assurance of ample naval support, were exposed to interception
   and fell into the hands of General Clinton. As late as the
   19th, the roads leading to King's Bridge were cleared of
   obstructions, and the army was put in readiness to advance
   against New York Island. On the same day the New Jersey
   regiment and that of Colonel Hazen crossed the Hudson at
   Dobb's Ferry, to threaten Staten Island, and ostensibly to
   cover some bake-houses which were being erected for the
   purpose of giving color to the show of operations against New
   York. The plan of a large encampment had been prepared, which
   embraced Springfield and the Chatham Pass to Morristown, and
   this was allowed to find its way to Clinton's headquarters.
   General Heath was assigned to command of the Hudson-river
   posts, with two regiments from New Hampshire, ten from
   Massachusetts, five from Connecticut, the Third artillery,
   Sheldon's dragoons, the invalid corps, all local companies,
   and the militia. The following forces were selected to
   accompany the Commander-in-chief, viz., the light infantry
   under Colonel Scammel, four light companies from New York and
   Connecticut, the Rhode Island regiment, under the new army
   establishment, two New York regiments, that of New Jersey and
   Hazen's regiment, (the last two already across the Hudson) and
   Lamb's artillery, in all about 2,000 men. The American troops
   crossed on the 21st, at King's Ferry, and encamped near
   Haverstraw. The French army followed, and the army was united
   on the 25th. … General Washington and suite reached
   Philadelphia about noon, August 30th. The army had already
   realized the fact that they were destined southward. Some
   dissatisfaction was manifested; but Count de Rochambeau
   advanced $20,000 in gold upon the pledge of Robert Morris that
   he would refund the sum by the 1st of October, and the effect
   upon the troops, who had long been without any pay, was
   inspiring."

"Leaving Philadelphia, with the Army, on the 5th of September, Washington meets an express near Chester, announcing the arrival, in Chesapeake Bay, of the Count de Grasse, with a fleet of twenty-eight ships of the line, and with 3,500 additional French troops, under the command of the Marquis de St. Simon, who had already been landed at Jamestown, with orders to join the Marquis de La Fayette! 'The joy' says the Count William de Deux-Ponts, in his precious journal, 'the joy which this welcome news produces among all the troops, and which penetrates General Washington and the Count de Rochambeau, is more easy to feel than to express.' But, in a foot-note to that passage, he does express and describe it, in terms which cannot be spared and could not be surpassed, and which add a new and charming illustration of the emotional side of Washington's nature. 'I have been equally surprised and touched,' says the gallant Deux-Ponts, 'at the true and pure joy of General Washington. Of a natural coldness and of a serious and noble approach, which in him is only true dignity, and which adorn so well the chief of a whole nation, his features, his physiognomy, his deportment, all were changed in an instant. He put aside his character as arbiter of North America, and contented himself for a moment with that of a citizen, happy at the good fortune of his country. A child, whose every wish had been gratified, would not have experienced a sensation more lively, and I believe I am doing honor to the feelings of this rare man in endeavoring to express all their ardor.' Thanks to God, thanks to France, from all our hearts at this hour, for 'this true and pure joy' which lightened the heart, and at once dispelled the anxieties of our incomparable leader. It may be true that Washington seldom smiled after he had accepted the command of our Revolutionary Army, but it is clear that on the 5th of September he not only smiled but played the boy. … 'All now went merry,' with him, 'as a marriage bell.' Under the immediate influence of this joy, which he had returned for a few hours to Philadelphia to communicate in person to Congress, … and while the Allied Armies are hurrying southward, he makes a hasty trip with Colonel Humphreys to his beloved Mount Vernon and his more beloved wife—his first visit home since he left it for Cambridge in 1775. Rochambeau, with his suite, joins him there on the 10th, and Chastellux and his aids on the 11th; and there with Mrs. Washington, he dispenses for two days, 'a princely hospitality' to his foreign guests. But the 13th finds them all on their way to rejoin the Army at Williamsburg, where they arrive on the 15th, 'to the great joy of the troops and the people,' and where they dine with the Marquis de St. Simon. On the 18th Washington and Rochambeau, with Knox and Chastellux and Du Portail, and with two of Washington's aids, Colonel Cobb of Massachusetts, and Colonel Jonathan Trumbull, jr., of Connecticut, embark on the 'Princess Charlotte' for a visit to the French fleet. … A few days more are spent at Williamsburg on their return, where they find General Lincoln already arrived with a part of the troops from the North, having hurried them as Washington besought him, 'on the wings of speed,' and where the word is soon given, 'On, on, to York and Gloucester!' {3279} Washington takes his share of the exposure of this march, and the night of the 28th of September finds him, with all his military family, sleeping in an open field within two miles of Yorktown, without any other covering, as the journal of one of his aids states, 'than the canopy of the heavens, and the small spreading branches of a tree,' which the writer predicts 'will probably be rendered venerable from this circumstance for a length of time to come.' … Everything now hurries, almost with the rush of a Niagara cataract, to the grand fall of Arbitrary Power in America. Lord Cornwallis had taken post here at Yorktown as early as the 4th of August, after being foiled so often by 'that boy' as he called La Fayette, whose Virginia campaign of four months was the most effective preparation for all that was to follow, and who, with singular foresight, perceived at once that his lordship was now fairly entrapped, and wrote to Washington, as early as the 21st of August, that 'the British army must be forced to surrender.' Day by day, night by night, that prediction presses forward to its fulfillment. The 1st of October finds our engineers reconnoitering the position and works of the enemy. The 2d witnesses the gallantry of the Duke de Lauzun and his legion in driving back Tarleton, whose raids had so long been the terror of Virginia and the Carolinas. On the 6th, the Allied Armies broke ground for their first parallel, and proceeded to mount their batteries on the 7th and 8th. On the 9th, two batteries were opened—Washington himself applying the torch to the first gun; and on the 10th three or four more were in play—silencing the enemy's works, and making,' says the little diary of Colonel Cobb, 'most noble music.' On the 11th, the indefatigable Baron Steuben was breaking the ground for our second parallel, within less than four hundred yards of the enemy, which was finished the next morning, and more batteries mounted on the 13th and 14th. But the great achievement of the siege still awaits its accomplishment. Two formidable British advanced redoubts are blocking the way to any further approach, and they must be stormed. The allied troops divide the danger and the glory between them, and emulate each other in the assault. One of these redoubts is assigned to the French grenadiers and chasseurs, under the general command of the Baron de Viomesnil. The other is assigned to the American light infantry, under the general command of La Fayette. But the detail of special leaders to conduct the two assaults remains to be arranged. Viomesnil readily designates the brave Count William to lead the French storming party, who, though he came off from his victory wounded, counts it 'the happiest day of his life.' A question arises as to the American party, which is soon solved by the impetuous but just demand of our young Alexander Hamilton to lead it. And lead it he did, with an intrepidity, a heroism, and a dash unsurpassed in the whole history of the war. … Both redoubts were soon captured; and these brilliant actions virtually sealed the fate of Cornwallis. 'A small and precipitate sortie,' as Washington calls it, was made by the British on the following evening, resulting in nothing; and the next day a vain attempt to evacuate their works, and to escape by crossing over to Gloucester, was defeated by a violent and, for us … most providential storm of rain and wind. … A suspension of hostilities, to arrange terms of capitulation, was proposed by Cornwallis on the 17th; the 18th was occupied at Moore's House in settling those terms; and on the 19th the articles were signed by which the garrison of York and Gloucester, together with all the officers and seamen of the British ships in the Chesapeake, 'surrender themselves Prisoners of War to the Combined Forces of America and France.'"

Robert C. Winthrop, Address at the Centennial Celebration of the Surrender of Lord Cornwallis at Yorktown, Oct. 19, 1881.

      T. Balch,
      The French in America during the War of Independence,
      chapters 13-22.

      W. Irving,
      Life of Washington,
      volume 4, chapter 25-26, and 28.

      C. Tower,
      The Marquis de La Fayette in the American Revolution,
      volume 2, chapters 25-28.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1782.
   Practical suspension of hostilities.
   Difficulty of maintaining the army.
   Financial distress of the country.

"Immediately after the surrender of Yorktown Washington returned with his army to the vicinity of New York [see NEWBURGH], but he felt himself far too weak to attempt its capture, and hostilities were restricted to a few indecisive skirmishes or predatory enterprises. It is curious to notice how far from sanguine Washington appeared even after the event which in the eyes of most men, outside America, had determined the contest without appeal. It was still impossible, he maintained, to do anything decisive unless the sea were commanded by a naval force hostile to England, and France alone could provide this force. The difficulties of maintaining the army were unabated. 'All my accounts,' he wrote in April 1782, 'respecting the recruiting service are unfavourable; indeed, not a single recruit has arrived to my knowledge from any State except Rhode Island, in consequence of the requisitions of Congress in December last.' He strongly urged the impossibility of recruiting the army by voluntary enlistment, and recommended that, in addition to the compulsory enrolment of Americans, German prisoners should be taken into the army. Silas Deane, in private letters, expressed at this time his belief that it would be utterly impossible to maintain the American army for another year; and even after the surrender of Cornwallis, no less a person than Sir Henry Clinton assured the Government that, with a reinforcement of only 10,000 men he would be responsible for the conquest of America. … Credit was gone, and the troops had long been unpaid. 'The long sufferance of the army,' wrote Washington in October 1782, 'is almost exhausted. It is high time for a peace.' Nothing, indeed, except the great influence, the admirable moderation and good sense, and the perfect integrity of Washington could have restrained the army from open revolt. … Holland, immediately after the surrender of Yorktown, had recognised the independence of America, which had as yet only been recognised by France. John Adams was received as representative at the Hague, and after several abortive efforts he succeeded in raising a Dutch loan. France, as her ablest ministers well knew, was drifting rapidly towards bankruptcy, yet two American loans, amounting together to £600,000, were extorted in the last year of the war. {3280} Up to the very eve of the formal signature of peace, and long after the virtual termination of the war, the Americans found it necessary to besiege the French Court for money. As late as December 5, 1782, Franklin wrote from Paris to Livingston complaining of the humiliating duty which was imposed on him. … The reply of Livingston was dated January 6, 1783, and it paints vividly the extreme distress in America. 'I see the force,' he writes, 'of your objections to soliciting the additional twelve millions, and I feel very sensibly the weight of our obligations to France, but every sentiment of this kind must give way to our necessities. It is not for the interest of our allies to lose the benefit of all they have done by refusing to make a small addition to it. … The army demand with importunity their arrears of pay. The treasury is empty, and no adequate means of filling it presents itself. The people pant for peace; should contributions be exacted, as they have hitherto been, at the point of the sword, the consequences may be more dreadful than is at present apprehended. I do not pretend to justify the negligence of the States in not providing greater supplies. Some of them might do more than they have done; none of them all that is required. It is my duty to confide to you, that if the war is continued in this country, it must be in a great measure at the expense of France. If peace is made, a loan will be absolutely necessary to enable us to discharge the army, that will not easily separate without pay.' It was evident that the time for peace had come. The predatory expeditions which still continued in America could only exasperate still further both nations, and there were some signs—especially in the conflicts between loyalists and revolutionists—that they were having this effect. England had declared herself ready to concede the independence America demanded. Georgia and South Carolina, where the English had found so many faithful friends, were abandoned in the latter half of 1782, and the whole force of the Crown was now concentrated at New York and in Canada. France and Spain for a time wished to protract negotiations in hopes that Rodney might be crushed, that Jamaica and afterwards Gibraltar might be captured; but all these hopes had successively vanished. … If the war continued much longer America would almost certainly drop away, and France, and perhaps Spain, become bankrupt."

W. E. H. Lecky, History of England in the 18th Century, chapter 15 (volume 4).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786.
   The cession of Western Territory
   by the States to the Federal Union.
   The Western Reserve of Connecticut.

Although the Articles of Confederation were adopted by Congress in 1777 and ratified immediately by most of the States, it was not until 1781 that they became operative by the assent of all. "New Jersey, Delaware and Maryland held out against ratifying them for from two to four years. The secret of their resistance was in the claims to the western territory. … The three recalcitrant States had always had fixed western boundaries, and had no legal claim to a share in the western territory. … New Jersey and Delaware gave up the struggle in 1778 and 1779; but Maryland would not and did not yield, until her claims were satisfied. Dr. H. B. Adams has shown that the whole question of real nationality for the United States was bound up in this western territory; that even a 'league government' could not continue long to govern a great and growing territory like this without developing into a real national government, even without a change of strict law; and that the Maryland leaders were working under a complete consciousness of these facts."

The western claims of Virginia were the most sweeping and were founded upon the oldest historical document. "The charter granted by James I. to South Virginia, in 1600 [see VIRGINIA: A. D. 1609-1616] … embraced the entire north-west of North America, and, within certain limits, all the islands along the coast of the South Sea or Pacific Ocean. … The following is the grant: 'All those lands, countries and territories situate, lying and being in that part of America called Virginia, from the point of land called Cape or Point Comfort, all along the sea-coast to the northward 200 miles; and from the said Point or Cape Comfort, all along the sea-coast to the southward 200 miles; and all that space and circuit of land lying from the sea-coast of the precinct aforesaid, up into the land throughout, from sea to sea, west and north-west; and also all the islands lying within 100 miles along the coast of both seas of the precinct aforesaid.' The extraordinary ambiguity of this grant of 1609, which was always appealed to as a legal title by Virginia, was first shown by Thomas Paine. … The chief ambiguity … lay in the interpretation of the words 'up into the land throughout, from sea to sea, west and north-west.' From which point was the north-west line to be drawn, from the point on the sea-coast 200 miles above, or from the point 200 miles below Cape Comfort? … The more favorable interpretation for Virginia and, perhaps, in view of the expression 'from sea to sea,' more natural interpretation, was to draw the north-western line from the point on the sea-coast 200 miles above Point Comfort, and the western line from the southern limit below Point Comfort. This gave Virginia the greater part, at least, of the entire north-west, for the lines diverged continually. … At the outbreak of the Revolution, Virginia had annexed the 'County of Kentucky' to the Old Dominion, and, in 1778, after the capture of the military posts in the north-west by Colonel George Rogers Clarke, … that enterprising State proceeded to annex the lands beyond the Ohio, under the name of the County of Illinois

   The military claims of Virginia were certainly very strong,
   but it was felt by the smaller States that an equitable
   consideration for the services of other colonies in defending
   the back country from the French, ought to induce Virginia to
   dispose of a portion of her western territory for the common
   good. It is easy now to conceive how royal grants to
   Massachusetts and Connecticut of lands stretching from ocean
   to ocean, must have conflicted with the charter claims and
   military title of Virginia to the great north-west. … The
   claims of Massachusetts were based upon the charter granted by
   William and Mary, in 1691, and those of Connecticut upon the
   charter granted by Charles II., in 1662. …
{3281}
   The former's claim embraced the lands which now lie in
   southern Michigan and Wisconsin, or, in other words, the
   region comprehended by the extension westward of her present
   southern boundary and of her ancient northern limit, which was
   'the latitude of a league north of the inflow of Lake
   Winnipiseogee in New Hampshire. The western claims of
   Connecticut [the zone lying between her northern and southern
   boundaries—41° and 42° 2' north latitude—extended westward]
   covered portions of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Michigan. …
   The extension of charter boundaries over the far west by
   Massachusetts and Connecticut led to no trespass on the
   intervening charter claims of New York. Connecticut fell into
   a serious controversy, however, with Pennsylvania, in regard
   to the possession of certain lands in the northern part of the
   latter State, but the dispute, when brought before a court
   appointed by Congress, was finally decided in favor of
   Pennsylvania. But in the western country, Massachusetts and
   Connecticut were determined to assert their chartered rights
   against Virginia and the treaty claims of New York; for, by
   virtue of various treaties with the Six Nations and allies,
   the latter State was asserting jurisdiction over the entire
   region between Lake Erie and the Cumberland mountains, or, in
   other words, Ohio and a portion of Kentucky. These claims were
   strengthened by the following facts: First, that the chartered
   rights of New York were merged in the Crown by the accession
   to the throne, in 1685, of the Duke of York as James II.;
   again, that the Six Nations and tributaries had put themselves
   under the protection of England, and that they had always been
   treated by the Crown as appendant to the government of New
   York; moreover, in the third place, the citizens of that State
   had borne the burden of protecting these Indians for over a
   hundred years. New York was the great rival of Virginia in the
   strength and magnitude of her western claims." In 1780,
   Maryland still insisting upon the surrender of these western
   land claims to the federal government, and refusing to ratify
   the Articles of Confederation until such cession was made, the
   claimant States began to yield to her firmness. On the 1st of
   March, 1781, the offer of New York to cede her claims,
   providing Congress would confirm her western boundary, was
   made in Congress. "On that very day, Maryland ratified the
   Articles and the first legal union of the United States was
   complete. The coincidence in dates is too striking to admit of
   any other explanation than that Maryland and New York were
   acting with a mutual understanding. … The offer of Virginia,
   reserving to herself jurisdiction over the County of Kentucky;
   the offer of Connecticut, withholding jurisdiction over all
   her back lands; and the offer of New York, untrammeled by
   burdensome conditions and conferring upon Congress complete
   jurisdiction over her entire western territory,—these three
   offers were now prominently before the country. … On the 29th
   of October, 1782, Mr. Daniel Carroll, of Maryland, moved that
   Congress accept the right, title, jurisdiction, and claim of
   New York, as ceded by the agents of that state on the first of
   March, 1781. … On the 13th day of September, 1783, it was
   voted by Congress to accept the cession offered by Virginia,
   of the territory north-west of the Ohio, provided that state
   would waive the obnoxious conditions concerning the guaranty
   of Virginia's boundary, and the annulling of all other titles
   to the north-west territory. Virginia modified her conditions
   as requested, and on the 20th of October, 1783, empowered her
   delegates in Congress to make the cession, which was done by
   Thomas Jefferson, and others, March 1, 1784."

      H. B. Adams,
      Maryland's Influence upon Land Cessions to the United States
      (Johns Hopkins University Studies, 3d series, Number 1),
      pages 9-11, 19-22, 36-39.

The Massachusetts deed of cession was executed April 19, 1785. It conveyed the right and title of the state to all lands "west of a meridian line drawn through the western bent or inclination of Lake Ontario, provided such line should fall 20 miles or more west of the western limit of the Niagara River" —that being the western boundary of New York, fixed four years before. In May, 1786, Connecticut authorized a cession which was not complete. Instead of beginning at the western boundary line of Pennsylvania, her conveyance was of lands beyond a line 120 miles west of the Pennsylvania line—thus retaining her claim to the large tract in Ohio known subsequently as the Western Reserve, or Connecticut Reserve. "The acceptance of this cession was strongly opposed in Congress. … After a severe struggle it was accepted, May 26, 1786, Maryland alone voting in the negative."

South Carolina executed the cession of her western claims in 1787; North Carolina in 1790, and Georgia in 1802.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1782 (February-May).
   Peace Resolutions in the British House of Commons.
   Retirement of Lord North.
   Pacific overtures through General Carleton.

   "Fortunately for the United States, the temper of the British
   nation on the question of continuing the American war was not
   in unison with that of its sovereign. That war into which the
   nation had entered with at least as much eagerness as the
   minister had now become almost universally unpopular. Motions
   against the measures of administration respecting America were
   repeated by the opposition, and on every new experiment the
   strength of the minority increased. At length, on the 27th of
   February [1782], general Conway moved in the house of commons,
   'that it is the opinion of this house that a further
   prosecution of offensive war against America, would, under
   present circumstances, be the means of weakening the efforts
   of this country against her European enemies, and tend to
   increase the mutual enmity so fatal to the interests both of
   Great Britain and America.' The whole force of administration
   was exerted to get rid of this question, but was exerted in
   vain; and the resolution was carried. An address to the king
   in the words of the motion was immediately voted, and was
   presented by the whole house. The answer of the crown being
   deemed inexplicit, it was on the 4th of March resolved by the
   commons, 'that the house will consider as enemies to his
   majesty and the country, all those who should advise or
   attempt a further prosecution of offensive war on the
   continent of North America.' These votes were soon followed by
   a change of administration [Lord North resigning and being
   succeeded by Lord Rockingham, with Fox, Shelburne, Burke and
   Sheridan for colleagues], and by instructions to the
   commanding officers of his Brittanic majesty's forces in
   America which conformed to them. …
{3282}
   Early in May, Sir Guy Carleton, who had succeeded Sir Henry
   Clinton in the command of all the British forces in the United
   States, arrived at New York. Having been also appointed in
   conjunction with admiral Digby a commissioner to negotiate a
   peace, he lost no time in conveying to general Washington
   copies of the votes of the British parliament, and of a bill
   which had been introduced on the part of administration,
   authorizing his majesty to conclude a peace or truce with
   those who were still denominated the revolted colonies of
   North America. These papers he said would manifest the
   dispositions prevailing with the government and people of
   England towards those of America, and if the like pacific
   temper should prevail in this country, both inclination and
   duty would lead him to meet it with the most zealous
   concurrence. He had addressed to congress, he said, a letter
   containing the same communications, and he solicited from the
   American general a passport for the person who should convey
   it. At this time, the bill enabling the British monarch to
   conclude a peace or truce with America had not passed into a
   law; nor was any assurance given that the present
   commissioners possessed the power to offer other terms, than
   those which had formerly been rejected. General Carleton
   therefore could not hope that negotiations would commence on
   such a basis; nor be disappointed that the passports he
   requested were refused by congress, to whom the application
   was, of course, referred. … The several states passed
   resolutions expressing their objections to separate
   negotiations, and declaring those to be enemies to America who
   should attempt to treat without the authority of congress. But
   the public votes which have been stated, and probably the
   private instructions given to the British general, restrained
   him from offensive war, and the state of the American army
   disabled general Washington from making any attempt on the
   posts held by the enemy. The campaign of 1782 consequently
   passed away without furnishing any military operations of
   moment between the armies under the immediate direction of the
   respective commanders in chief."

ALSO IN: Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope) History of England, 1713-1783, chapter 65 (volume 7).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1782 (April).
Recognition by the Dutch Republic.

"Henry Laurens, the American plenipotentiary to the Netherlands, having been taken captive and carried to England, John Adams was appointed in his place. The new envoy had waited more than eight months for an audience of reception. Encouraged by the success at Yorktown, on the 9th of January 1782 Adams presented himself to the president of the states-general, renewed his formal request for an opportunity of presenting his credentials, and 'demanded a categorical answer which he might transmit to his sovereign.' He next went in person to the deputies of the several cities of Holland, and, following the order of their rank in the confederation, repeated his demand to each one of them. The attention of Europe was drawn to the sturdy diplomatist, who dared, alone and unsupported, to initiate so novel and bold a procedure. Not one of the representatives of foreign powers at the Hague believed that it could succeed;" but, beginning with Friesland, in February, the seven states, one by one, declared in favor of receiving the American envoy. "On the day which chanced to be the seventh anniversary of 'the battle of Lexington' their high mightinesses, the states-general, reporting the unanimous decision of the seven provinces, resolved that John Adams should be received as the minister of the United States of America. The Dutch republic was the second power in the world to recognise their independence."

G. Bancroft, History of the United States (Author's last revision), volume 5, page 527.

      ALSO IN:
      J. Q. and C. F. Adams,
      Life of John Adams,
      chapter 6 (volume 1).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1782 (September).
The opening of negotiations for Peace.

   The Rockingham ministry, which succeeded Lord North's in the
   British government, in March, 1782 (see ENGLAND: A. D.
   1782-1783), "though soon dissolved by the death of the Marquis
   of Rockingham, were early distracted by a want of unanimity,
   and early lost the confidence of the people. The negotiation
   with America during May and June made no progress. Mr. Oswald
   was the agent of Lord Shelburne, known to be opposed to the
   acknowledgment, and Mr. Grenville, of Mr. Fox. This ministry
   had been forced upon the king by a vote of the House of
   Commons. The hopes of regaining America were again excited by
   the decisive victory of Lord Rodney in the West Indies [see
   ENGLAND: A. D. 1780-1782], and the unexpected successes of Sir
   Eyre Coote against Hyder Ali in the East; and, if credit may
   be given to the reports of the day, the government looked
   forward with some confidence to the making a separate peace
   with Congress by means of Sir Guy Carleton, who had been
   appointed to the command of the forces in North America. … Mr.
   Adams, writing from the Hague, June 13, 1782, observes, 'I
   cannot see a probability that the English will ever make
   peace, until their finances are ruined, and such distress
   brought upon them, as will work up their parties into a civil
   war.' It was not till September of the same year, under Lord
   Shelburne's administration, formed upon the dissolution of the
   Rockingham, that the British government took a decisive and
   sincere step to make peace, and authorized their commissioner,
   Mr. Oswald, at Paris, to acknowledge the independence of the
   colonies. … This is the first instruction given by the British
   Ministry in which it was proposed to recognize the celebrated
   act of July 4th, 1776. A great and immediate progress was now
   made in the preliminaries. … The commission, under which the
   preliminaries of the treaty were actually concluded, was
   issued by Congress in June 1781. It empowered 'John Adams,
   Benjamin Franklin, John Jay, Henry Laurens, and Thomas
   Jefferson, or the majority of them, or such of them as may
   assemble, or in case of the death, absence, indisposition, or
   other impediment of the others, to any one of them, full power
   and authority, general and special commission, … to sign, and
   thereupon make a treaty or treaties, and to transact every
   thing that may be necessary for completing, securing and
   strengthening the great work of pacification, in as ample
   form, and with the same effect, as if we were personally
   present and acted therein.'
{3283}
   All the commissioners, except Mr. Jefferson, were present
   during the discussions, being in Europe at the time the
   meeting was appointed. Mr. Jefferson was in America, and did
   not leave it, as a report reached the government that the
   preliminaries were already signed. Mr. Oswald's commission in
   proper form was not issued till the 21st of September."

"At the moment … that negotiations were set on foot, there seemed but little hope of finding the Court of France peaceably inclined. Fox alone among the Ministers, though strongly opposed to a French alliance, inclined to a contrary opinion, and imagined that the independence of America once recognized, no further demands would be made upon England. It was therefore his wish to recognize that independence immediately, and by a rapid negotiation to insure the conclusion of what he believed would prove a favourable peace. Shelburne on the contrary believed that further concessions would be asked by France, and that the best chance England possessed of obtaining honourable terms, was to reserve the recognition of independence as part of the valuable consideration to be offered to the Colonies for favourable terms, and to use the points where the interests of France, Spain, and the Colonies were inconsistent, to foment difficulties between them, and be the means of negotiating, if necessary, a separate peace with each of the belligerents, as opportunity might offer. The circumstances of the time favoured the design. Vergennes had not gone to war for the sake of American independence, but in order to humiliate England. He not only did not intend to continue the war a day longer than was necessary to establish a rival power on the other side of the Atlantic, but was desirous of framing the peace on conditions such as would leave England, Spain, and the United States to balance one another, and so make France paramount. He therefore intended to resist the claim which the Colonies had invariably advanced of pushing their frontiers as far west as the Mississippi, and proposed following the example of the Proclamation of 1763, to leave the country between Florida and the Cumberland to the Indians, who were to be placed under the protection of Spain and the United States, and the country north of the Ohio to England, as arranged by the Quebec Act of 1774. Nor was he prepared to support the claim of the New Englandmen to fish on the banks off Newfoundland, over a considerable portion of which he desired to establish an exclusive right for his own countrymen, in keeping with the French interpretation of the Treaties of Utrecht and Paris. Of a still more pronounced character were the views of Spain. Her troops had recently conquered West Florida and threatened East Florida as well. She had determined to obtain formal possession of these territories, and to claim that they ran into the interior till they reached the great lakes. The United States, according to both the French and Spanish idea, were therefore to be restricted to a strip of land on the coast of the Atlantic Ocean, bounded by almost the same line which France had contended for against England after the Treaty of Utrecht. In 1779, when the alliance of France was not a year old, and the great triumph over Burgoyne was fresh, Congress notwithstanding the pressure of M. Gerard, the French envoy, had adopted the following conditions as the ultimatum of peace:

(l.) The acknowledgment of the independence of the United States by Great Britain, previous to any treaty or negotiation for peace.

(3.) The navigation of that river to the southern boundary of the States with a port below it.

   They also passed a resolution to the effect that any
   interference after the conclusion of peace by any power with
   the fishery off Newfoundland hitherto exercised by the
   inhabitants of the Colonies, should be regarded as a casus
   belli. 'The advice of the allies, their knowledge of American
   interests, and their own discretion,' were in other matters to
   guide the American Commissioners sent to the European Courts.
   As however the war progressed, and French assistance,
   especially in money, became of greater and greater importance
   to the Congress, the tone of their instructions became
   sensibly modified, under the pressure, first of M. Gérard and
   then of Count Luzerne, his successor. On the 25th January
   1780, M. Gérard having obtained the appointment of a Committee
   of Congress, informed them that the territories of the United
   States extended no further west than the limits to which
   settlements were permitted by the English proclamation of
   1763; that the United States had no right to the navigation of
   the Mississippi, having no territories adjoining any part of
   the river; that Spain would probably conquer both Floridas,
   and intended holding them; and that the territory on the east
   side of the Mississippi belonged to Great Britain, and would
   probably be conquered by Spain. He at the same time urged upon
   Congress the immediate conclusion of an alliance with that
   power, to which Jay had been sent as Commissioner in 1779. On
   the 15th February, Congress having considered this
   communication, resolved to instruct Jay to abandon the claim
   to the navigation of the Mississippi. This practically implied
   the abandonment of the claim to that river as the western
   boundary. Shortly after, and again on the demand of Luzerne,
   the instructions to Adams, who had been appointed Commissioner
   for negotiating a peace, and was then in Europe, were altered.
   Independence was to be the sole ultimatum, and Adams was to
   undertake to submit to the guidance of the French Minister in
   every respect. 'You are to make the most candid and
   confidential communications,' so his amended instructions ran,
   'upon all subjects to the Ministers of our generous ally the
   King of France; to undertake nothing in the negotiations for
   peace or truce without their knowledge or concurrence, and to
   make them sensible how much we rely upon his Majesty's
   influence for effectual support in every thing that may be
   necessary to the present security or future prosperity of the
   United States of America.' As a climax Count Luzerne suggested
   and Congress agreed to make Jay, Franklin, Jefferson, and
   Laurens, joint Commissioners with Mr. Adams. Of the body thus
   appointed Jefferson refused to serve, while Laurens, as
   already seen, was captured on his way to England. Of the
   remaining Commissioners, John Adams was doubly odious to the
   diplomatists of France and Spain, because of his fearless
   independence of character, and because of the tenacity with
   which as a New Englander he clung to the American rights in
   the Newfoundland fisheries; Jay had been an enthusiastic
   advocate for the Spanish alliance, but the cavalier treatment
   he had received at Madrid, and the abandonment of the
   Mississippi boundary by Congress, had forced upon him the
   conviction that his own country was being used as a tool by
   the European powers, for their own ulterior objects. The
   French he hated.
{3284}
   He said 'they were not a moral people, and did not know what
   it was.' Not so Franklin, influenced partly by his long
   residence in the French capital, and by the idea that the
   Colonies were more likely to obtain their objects, by a firm
   reliance upon France than by confidence in the generosity of
   England. He also pointed to the terms of the treaty he had
   negotiated with the former power, which forbade either party
   to conclude a separate peace without the leave previously
   obtained of the other, as imposing a moral and legal
   obligation on his countrymen to follow the policy which he
   believed their interests as a power required them to adopt.
   Meanwhile the King of France congratulated Congress on having
   entrusted to his care the interests of the United States, and
   warned them that if France was to be asked to continue
   hostilities for purely American objects it was impossible to
   say what the result might be, for the system of France
   depended not merely on America, but on the other powers at
   war."

"Benjamin Franklin, now venerable with years, had been doing at the court of Versailles a work hardly less important than that of Washington on the battle-fields of America. By the simple grace and dignity of his manners, by his large good sense and freedom of thought, by his fame as a scientific discoverer, above all by his consummate tact in the management of men, the whilom printer, king's postmaster-general for America, discoverer, London colonial agent, delegate in the Continental Congress, and signer of the Declaration of Independence, had completely captivated elegant, free-thinking France. Learned and common folk, the sober and the frivolous alike swore by Franklin. Snuff-boxes, furniture, dishes, even stoves were gotten up 'à la Franklin.' The old man's portrait was in every house. That the French Government, in spite of a monarch who was half afraid of the rising nation beyond sea, had given America her hearty support, was in no small measure due to the influence of Franklin. And his skill in diplomacy was of the greatest value in the negotiations now pending."

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1782 (September-November).
   The Peace parleyings at Paris.
   Distrust of French aims by Jay and Adams.
   A secret and separate negotiation with England.

"The task of making a treaty of peace was simplified both by [the change of ministry which placed Lord Shelburne at the head of affairs in England] … and by the total defeat of the Spaniards and French at Gibraltar in September [see ENGLAND; A. D. 1780-1782]. Six months before, England had seemed worsted in every quarter. Now England, though defeated in America was victorious as regarded France and Spain. The avowed object for which France had entered into alliance with the Americans, was to secure the independence of the United States, and this point was now substantially gained. The chief object for which Spain had entered into alliance with France was to drive the English from Gibraltar, and this point was now decidedly lost. France had bound herself not to desist from the war until Spain should recover Gibraltar; but now there was little hope of accomplishing this, except by some fortunate bargain in the treaty, and Vergennes tried to persuade England to cede the great stronghold, in exchange for West Florida, which Spain had lately conquered, or for Oran or Guadaloupe. Failing in this, he adopted a plan for satisfying Spain at the expense of the United States; and he did this the more willingly as he had no love for the Americans, and did not wish to see them become too powerful. France had strictly kept her pledges; she had given us valuable and timely aid in gaining our independence; and the sympathies of the French people were entirely with the American cause. But the object of the French government had been simply to humiliate England, and this end was sufficiently accomplished by depriving her of her thirteen colonies. The immense territory extending from the Alleghany Mountains to the Mississippi River, and from the border of West Florida to the Great Lakes, had passed from the hands of France into those of England at the peace of 1763; and by the Quebec Act of 1774 England had declared the southern boundary of Canada to be the Ohio River. … Vergennes maintained that the Americans ought to recognize the Quebec Act, and give up to England all the territory north of the Ohio River. The region south of this limit should, he thought, be made an Indian territory, and placed under the protection of Spain and the United States. … Upon another important point the views of the French government were directly opposed to American interests. The right to catch fish on the banks of Newfoundland had been shared by treaty between France and England; and the New England fishermen, as subjects of the king of Great Britain, had participated in this privilege. The matter was of very great importance, not only to New England, but to the United States in general. … The British government was not inclined to grant the privilege, and on this point Vergennes took sides with England, in order to establish a claim upon her for concessions advantageous to France in some other quarter. … Jay [who had lately arrived in Paris to take part in the negotiations] soon began to suspect the designs of the French minister. He found that he was sending M. de Rayneval as a secret emissary to Lord Shelburne under an assumed name; he ascertained that the right of the United States to the Mississippi valley was to be denied; and he got hold of a dispatch from Marbois, the French secretary of legation at Philadelphia, to Vergennes, opposing the American claim to the Newfoundland fisheries. As soon as Jay learned these facts, he sent his friend Dr. Benjamin Vaughan to Lord Shelburne to put him on his guard, and while reminding him that it was greatly for the interest of England to dissolve the alliance between America and France, he declared himself ready to begin the negotiations without waiting for the recognition of independence, provided that Oswald's commission should speak of the thirteen United States of America, instead of calling them colonies and naming them separately. {3285} This decisive step was taken by Jay on his own responsibility, and without the knowledge of Franklin, who had been averse to anything like a separate negotiation with England. It served to set the ball rolling at once. … Lord Shelburne at once perceived the antagonism that had arisen between the allies, and promptly took advantage of it. A new commission was made out for Oswald, in which the British government first described our country as the United States; and early in October negotiations were begun and proceeded rapidly. On the part of England the affair was conducted by Oswald, assisted by Strachey and Fitzherbert, who had succeeded Grenville. In the course of the month John Adams arrived in Paris, and a few weeks later Henry Laurens. … The arrival of Adams fully decided the matter as to a separate negotiation with England. He agreed with Jay that Vergennes should be kept as far as possible in the dark until everything was cut and dried, and Franklin was reluctantly obliged to yield. The treaty of alliance between France and the United States had expressly stipulated that neither power should ever make peace without the consent of the other. … In justice to Vergennes, it should be borne in mind that he had kept strict faith with us in regard to every point that had been expressly stipulated. … At the same time, in regard to matters not expressly stipulated, Vergennes was clearly playing a sharp game against us; and it is undeniable that, without departing technically from the obligations of the alliance, Jay and Adams—two men as honourable as ever lived—played a very sharp defensive game against him. … The treaty with England was not concluded until the consent of France had been obtained, and thus the express stipulation was respected; but a thorough and detailed agreement was reached as to what the purport of the treaty should be, while our not too friendly ally was kept in the dark."

"If his [Vergennes'] policy had been carried out, it seems clear that he would have established a claim for concessions from England by supporting her against America on the questions of Canada and the Canadian border and the Newfoundland fishery. … The success of such a policy would have been extremely displeasing to the Congress, and Jay and Adams defeated it. … The act was done, and if it can be justified by success, that justification, at least, is not wanting."

W. E. H. Lecky, History of England in the 18th Century, chapter 15 (volume 4).

"The instructions of congress, given to the American commissioners under the instigation of the French court, were absolute and imperative, 'to undertake nothing without the knowledge and concurrence of that court, and ultimately to govern themselves by their advice and opinion.' These orders, transmitted at the time of the enlargement of the commission, had just been reinforced by assurances given to quiet the uneasiness created in France by the British overtures through Governor Carleton. Thus far, although the commissioners had felt them to be derogatory to the honor of their country, as well as to their own character as its representatives, there had been no necessity for action either under or against them. But now that matters were coming to the point of a serious negotiation, and the secondary questions of interest to America were to be determined, especially those to which France had shown herself indifferent, not to say adverse, it seemed as if no chance remained of escaping a decision. Mr. Jay, jealous of the mission of De Rayneval, of which not a hint had been dropped by the French court, suspicious of its good faith from the disclosures of the remarkable dispatch of Marbois, and fearful of any advice like that of which he had received a foretaste through M. de Rayneval, at the same time provoked that the confidence expected should be all on one side, the Count communicating nothing of the separate French negotiation, came to the conclusion that the interests of America were safest when retained in American hands. He therefore declared himself in favor of going on to treat with Great Britain, without consulting the French court. Dr. Franklin, on the other hand, expressing his confidence in that court, secured by his sense of the steady reception of benefits by his country, signified his willingness to abide by the instructions he had received. Yet it is a singular fact, but lately disclosed, that, notwithstanding this general feeling, which was doubtless sincerely entertained, Dr. Franklin had been the first person to violate those instructions, at the very inception of the negotiations, by proposing to Lord Shelburne the cession of Canada, and covering his proposal with an earnest injunction to keep it secret from France, because of his belief that she was adverse to the measure. … It may fairly be inferred that, whatever Franklin might have been disposed to believe of the French court, his instincts were too strong to enable him to trust them implicitly with the care of interests purely American. And, in this, there can be no reasonable cause for doubt that he was right. The more full the disclosures have been of the French policy from their confidential papers, the more do they show Count de Vergennes assailing England in America, with quite as fixed a purpose as ever Chatham had to conquer America in Germany. Mr. Adams had no doubt of it. He had never seen any signs of a disposition to aid the United States from affection or sympathy. On the contrary, he had perceived their cause everywhere made subordinate to the general considerations of continental politics. Perhaps his impressions at some moments carried him even further, and led him to suspect in the Count a positive desire to check and depress America. In this he fell into the natural mistake of exaggerating the importance of his own country. In the great game of nations which was now playing at Paris under the practised eye of France's chief (for Count de Maurepas was no longer living), the United States probably held a relative position, in his mind, not higher than that of a pawn, or possibly a knight, on a chess-table. Whilst his attention was absorbed in arranging the combinations of several powers, it necessarily followed that he had not the time to devote that attention to any one, which its special representative might imagine to be its due. But even this hypothesis was to Mr. Adams justification quite sufficient for declining to submit the interests of his country implicitly to the Count's control. If not so material in the Count's eyes, the greater the necessity of keeping them in his own care. He therefore seized the first opportunity to announce to his colleagues his preference for the views of Mr. Jay. {3286} After some little reflection, Dr. Franklin signified his acquiescence in this decision. His objections to it had doubtless been increased by the peculiar relations he had previously sustained to the French court, and by a very proper desire to be released from the responsibility of what might from him be regarded as a discourteous act. No such delicacy was called for on the part of the other commissioners. Neither does it appear that Count de Vergennes manifested a sign of discontent with them at the time. He saw that little confidence was placed in him, but he does not seem to have made the slightest effort to change the decision or even to get an explanation of it. The truth is, that the course thus taken had its conveniences for him, provided only that the good faith of the American negotiators, not to make a separate peace, could be depended upon. Neither did he ever affect to complain of it, excepting at one particular moment when he thought he had cause to fear that the support he relied on might fail."

"The radical difference between Franklin and his colleagues was in the question of trust. Franklin saw no reason to distrust the fidelity of France at any time to her engagements to the United States during the revolutionary war. His colleagues did not share this confidence, and yet, while impressed by this distrust of their ally, they made no appeal for explanation. The weight of opinion, as will hereafter be more fully seen, is now that Franklin was right, and they in this respect wrong. But whatever may have been the correctness of their view, it was proper that, before making it the basis of their throwing off the burden of treaty obligation and their own instructions, they should have first notified France of their complaint. Obligations cannot be repudiated by one party on the ground of the failure of the other party to perform some condition imposed on him, without giving him notice of the charge against him, so that he could have the opportunity of explanation. It may be added, on the merits, that the extenuation set up by Jay and Adams, that France was herself untrue to her obligations, however honestly they believed it, can not now be sustained. Livingston, who knew more of the attitude of France than any public man on the American side except Franklin, swept it aside as groundless. Edward Everett, one of the most accomplished historical writers and diplomatists the country has ever produced, speaks, as we shall see, to the same effect, and other historical critics of authority, to be also hereafter cited, give us the same conclusion. Yet there are other reasons which may excuse their course, and that of Franklin, who concurred with them rather than defeat a peace. In the first place, such was their isolation, that their means of communication with Congress was stopped; and they might well have argued that if Congress knew that the English envoys refused to treat with them except in secret conference their instructions would have been modified. In the second place we may accept Adams' statement that Vergennes was from time to time informally advised of the nature of the pending propositions. In the third place, the articles agreed on in 1782 were not to be a definite treaty except with the assent of France. … It now appears that the famous Marbois letter, handed to Jay by one of the British loyalists, and relied on by him as showing France's duplicity, was disavowed by Marbois; and there are, aside from this, very strong reasons to distrust its genuineness. In the second place, we have in the correspondence of George III a new light thrown, on the action taken by Jay in consequence of this letter. … Benjamin Vaughan, while a gentleman of great amiability and personal worth, was, when Jay sent him without Franklin's knowledge on a confidential mission to the British ministry, in the employ of that ministry as secret agent at Paris. It is due to Jay to say that he was ignorant of this fact, though he would have been notified of it had he consulted Franklin. One of the most singular incidents of this transaction is that George III, seeking double treachery in thus sending back to him his own agent in the guise of an agent from the American legation, regarded it as a peculiarly subtle machination of Franklin, which it was his duty to baffle by utterly discrediting Benjamin Vaughan. It should be added that Franklin's affection for Benjamin Vaughan was in no wise diminished by Vaughan's assumption, with an honesty which no one who knew him would question, of this peculiar kind of mediatorship. And in Jay Franklin's confidence was unabated. He more than once said that no one could be found more suited than Jay to represent the United States abroad. And when, in view of death, he prepared to settle his estate, he selected; Jay as his executor."

F. Wharton, The Revolutionary Diplomatic Correspondence of the United States, chapter 9, section 111, and chapter 13, section 158 (volume 1).

   Writing to M. de la Luzerne, the French Minister in the United
   States, under date of December 19, 1782, Count de Vergennes
   expressed himself on the conduct of the American Commissioners
   as follows: "You will surely be gratified, as well as myself,
   with the very extensive advantages, which our allies, the
   Americans, are to receive from the peace; but you certainly
   will, not be less surprised than I have been, at the conduct
   of the Commissioners. According to the instructions of
   Congress, they ought to have done nothing without our
   participation. I have informed you, that the King did not seek
   to influence the negotiation any further than his offices
   might be necessary to his friends. The American Commissioners
   will not say that I have interfered, and much less that I have
   wearied them with my curiosity. They have cautiously kept
   themselves at a distance from me. Mr. Adams, one of them,
   coming from Holland, where he had been received and served by
   our ambassador, had been in Paris nearly three weeks, without
   imagining that he owed me any mark of attention, and probably
   I should not have seen him till this time, if I had not caused
   him to be reminded of it. Whenever I have had occasion to see
   anyone of them, and inquire of them briefly respecting the
   progress of the negotiation, they have constantly clothed
   their speech in generalities, giving me to understand that it
   did not go forward, and that they had no confidence in the
   sincerity of the British ministry. Judge of my surprise, when,
   on the 30th of November, Dr. Franklin informed me that the
   articles were signed. The reservation retained on our account
   does not save the infraction of the promise, which we have
   mutually made, not to sign except conjointly.
{3287}
   I owe Dr. Franklin the justice to state, however, that on the
   next day he sent me a copy of the articles. He will hardly
   complain that I received them without demonstrations of
   sensibility. It was not till some days after, that, when this
   minister had come to see me, I allowed myself to make him
   perceive that his proceeding in this abrupt signature of the
   articles had little in it, which could be agreeable to the
   King. He appeared sensible of it, and excused, in the best
   manner he could, himself and his colleagues. Our conversation
   was amicable."

      J. Bigelow,
      Life of Benjamin Franklin,
      volume 3, page 207, note.

      ALSO IN:
      J. Jay,
      The Peace Negotiations of 1782-3
      (Narrative and Critical History of America,
      volume 7, chapter 2).

      E. Fitzmaurice,
      Life of the Earl of Shelburne,
      volume 3, chapter 6.

H. Doniol, Histoire de la Participation de la France à l'établissement des États-Unis d'Amérique, tome 5.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1782-1783.
Grievances of the Army.
The Newburgh Addresses.

"Nothing had been done by Congress for the claims of the army, and it seemed highly probable that it would be disbanded without even a settlement of the accounts of the officers, and if so, that they would never receive their dues. Alarmed and irritated by the neglect of Congress; destitute of money and credit and of the means of living from day to day; oppressed with debts; saddened by the distresses of their families at home, and by the prospect of misery before them,—they presented a memorial to Congress in December [1782], in which they urged the immediate adjustment of their dues, and offered to commute the half-pay for life, granted by the resolve of October, 1780, for full pay for a certain number of years, or for such a sum in gross as should be agreed on by their committee sent to Philadelphia to attend the progress of the memorial through the house. It is manifest from statements in this document, as well as from other evidence, that the officers were nearly driven to desperation, and that their offer of commutation was wrung from them by a state of public opinion little creditable to the country. … The committee of the officers were in attendance upon Congress during the whole winter, and early in March, 1783, they wrote to their constituents that nothing had been done. At this moment, the predicament in which Washington stood, in the double relation of citizen and soldier, was critical and delicate in the extreme. In the course of a few days, all his firmness and patriotism, all his sympathies as an officer, on the one side, and his fidelity to the government, on the other, were severely tried. On the 10th of March, an anonymous address was circulated among the officers at Newburgh, calling a meeting of the general and field officers, and of one officer from each company, and one from the medical staff, to consider the late letter from their representatives at Philadelphia, and to determine what measures should be adopted to obtain that redress of grievances which they seemed to have solicited in vain. It was written with great ability and skill [by John Armstrong, afterwards General]. … Washington met the crisis with firmness, but also with conciliation. He issued orders forbidding an assemblage at the call of an anonymous paper, and directing the officers to assemble on Saturday, the 15th, to hear the report of their committee, and to deliberate what further measures ought to be adopted as most rational and best calculated to obtain the just and important object in view. The senior officer in rank present [General Gates] was directed to preside, and to report the result to the Commander-in-chief. On the next day after these orders were issued, a second anonymous address appeared from the same writer. In this paper he affected to consider the orders of General Washington, assuming the direction of the meeting, as a sanction of the whole proceeding which he had proposed. Washington saw, at once, that he must be present at the meeting himself, or that his name would be used to justify measures which he intended to discountenance and prevent. He therefore attended the meeting, and under his influence, seconded by that of Putnam, Knox, Brooks, and Howard, the result was the adoption of certain resolutions, in which the officers, after reasserting their grievances, and rebuking all attempts to seduce them from their civil allegiance, referred the whole subject of their claims again to the consideration of Congress. Even at this distant day, the peril of that crisis can scarcely be contemplated without a shudder. Had the Commander-in-chief been other than Washington, had the leading officers by whom he was surrounded been less than the noblest of patriots, the land would have been deluged with the blood of a civil war."

G. T. Curtis, History of the Constitution of the United States, book 2, chapter 1 (volume 1).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1782-1784.
Persecution and flight of the Tories or Loyalists.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1783 (April).
Formation of the Society of the Cincinnati.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1783 (September).
The definitive Treaty of Peace between Great Britain and
the United States.

   The four difficult questions on which the British and American
   negotiators at Paris arrived, after much discussion and wise
   compromise, at a settlement of differences originally wide,
   were
   (1) Boundaries;
   (2) Fishing rights;
   (3) Payment of debts from American to British merchants that
   were outstanding when the war began;
   (4) Amnesty to American loyalists, or Tories, and restoration
   of their confiscated property.

Within two months after the separate negotiations with England opened an agreement had been reached, and preliminary or provisional articles were signed on the 30th of November, 1782. The treaty was not to take effect, otherwise than by the cessation of hostilities, until terms of peace should be agreed upon between England and France. This occurred in the following January, and on the 3d of September, 1783, the definitive Treaty of Peace between Great Britain and the United States was signed [at Paris]. Its essential provisions were the following:

    "Article 1.
    His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States,
    viz. New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island, and
    Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey,
    Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina,
    South Carolina, and Georgia, to be free, sovereign and
    independent States; that he treats with them as such, and for
    himself, his heirs and successors, relinquishes all claims to
    the Government, propriety and territorial rights of the same,
    and every part thereof.

Article II. And that all disputes which might arise in future, on the subject of the boundaries of the United States may be prevented, it is hereby agreed and declared, that the following are, and shall be their boundaries, viz: From the north-west angle of Nova Scotia, viz. that angle which is formed by a line drawn due north from the source of Saint Croix River to the Highlands; along the said Highlands which divide those rivers that empty themselves into the river St. Lawrence, from those which fall into the Atlantic Ocean, to the northwestern most head of Connecticut River; thence down along the middle of that river, to the 45th degree of north latitude; from thence, by a line due west on the said latitude, until it strikes the river Iroquois or Cataraquy; thence along the middle of said river into Lake Ontario, through the middle of said lake until it strikes the communication by water between that lake and Lake Erie; thence along the middle of said communication into Lake Erie, through the middle of said lake until it arrives at the water communication between that lake and Lake Huron; thence along the middle of said water communication into the Lake Huron; thence through the middle of said lake to the water communication between that lake and Lake Superior; thence through Lake Superior northward of the Isles Royal and Philipeaux, to the Long Lake; thence through the middle of said Long Lake, and the water communication between it and the Lake of the Woods, to the said Lake of the Woods; thence through the said lake to the most northwestern point thereof, and from thence on a due west course to the river Mississippi; thence by a line to be drawn along the middle of the said river Mississippi until it shall intersect the northernmost part of the 31st degree of north latitude. South, by a line to be drawn due east from the determination of the line last mentioned, in the latitude of 31 degrees north of the Equator, to the middle of the river Apalachicola or Catahouche; thence along the middle thereof to its junction with the Flint River; thence strait to the head of St. Mary's River; and thence down along the middle of St. Mary's River to the Atlantic Ocean. East, by a line to be drawn along the middle of the river St. Croix, from its mouth in the Bay of Fundy to its source, and from its source directly north to the aforesaid Highlands, which divide the rivers that fall into the Atlantic Ocean from those which fall into the river St. Lawrence; comprehending all islands within twenty leagues of any part of the shores of the United States, and lying between lines to be drawn due east from the points where the aforesaid boundaries between Nova Scotia on the one part, and East Florida on the other, shall respectively touch the Bay of Fundy and the Atlantic Ocean; excepting such islands as now are, or heretofore have been, within the limits of the said province of Nova Scotia.

   Article III.
   It is agreed that the people of the United States shall
   continue to enjoy unmolested the right to take fish of every
   kind on the Grand Bank, and on all the other banks of
   Newfoundland; also in the Gulph of Saint Lawrence, and at all
   other places in the sea where the inhabitants of both
   countries used at any time heretofore to fish. And also that
   the inhabitants of the United States shall have liberty to
   take fish of every kind on such part of the coast of
   Newfoundland as British fishermen shall use (but not to dry or
   cure the same on that island) and also on the coasts, bays, and
   creeks of all other of His Britannic Majesty's dominions in
   America; and that the American fishermen shall have liberty to
   dry and cure fish in any of the unsettled bays, harbours, and
   creeks of Nova Scotia, Magdalen Islands, and Labrador, so long
   as the same shall remain unsettled; but so soon as the same or
   either of them shall be settled, it shall not be lawful for
   the said fishermen to dry or cure fish at such settlement,
   without a previous agreement for that purpose with the
   inhabitants, proprietors, or possessors of the ground.

   Article IV.
   It is agreed that creditors on either side shall meet with no
   lawful impediment to the recovery of the full value in
   sterling money, of all bona fide debts heretofore contracted.

   Article V.
   It is agreed that the Congress shall earnestly recommend it to
   the legislatures of the respective States, to provide for the
   restitution of all estates, rights, and properties which have
   been confiscated, belonging to real British subjects, and also
   of the estates, rights, and properties of persons resident in
   districts in the possession of His Majesty's arms, and who
   have not borne arms against the said United States. …

   Article VI.
   That there shall be no future confiscations made, nor any
   prosecutions commenced, against any person or persons for, or
   by reason of the part which he or they may have taken in the
   present war. …

   Article VII.
   There shall be a firm and perpetual peace between His
   Britannic Majesty and the said States, and between the
   subjects of the one and the citizens of the other, wherefore
   all hostilities, both by sea and land, shall from henceforth
   cease: All prisoners on both sides shall be set at liberty,
   and His Britannic Majesty shall, with all convenient speed,
   and without causing any destruction, or carrying away any
   negroes or other property of the American inhabitants,
   withdraw all his armies, garrisons, and fleets from the said
   United States. …

   Article VIII.
   The navigation of the river Mississippi, from its source to
   the ocean, shall forever remain free and open to the subjects
   of Great Britain, and the citizens of the United States."

      Documents Illustrative of American History,
      edited by H. W. Preston,
      page 232.

      ALSO IN:
      Treaties and Conventions between the United States
      and other Powers (edition of 1889),
      pages 370-379.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1783 (November-December).
   The British evacuation of New York.
   Dissolution of the Continental Army and Washington's
   farewell to it.

   "The definitive treaty had been signed at Paris on the 3d of
   September, 1783, and was soon to be ratified by the United
   States in Congress assembled. The last remnant of the British
   army in the east had sailed down the Narrows on the 25th of
   November, a day which, under the appellation of Evacuation
   Day, was long held in grateful remembrance by the inhabitants
   of New York, and was, till a few years since, annually
   celebrated with fireworks and with military display. Of the
   continental army scarce a remnant was then [at the beginning
   of 1784] in the service of the States, and these few were
   under the command of General Knox. His great work of
   deliverance over, Washington had resigned his commission, had
   gone back to his estate on the banks of the Potomac, and was
   deeply engaged with plans for the improvement of his
   plantations.
{3289}
   The retirement to private life of the American Fabius, as the
   newspapers delighted to call him, had been attended by many
   pleasing ceremonies, and had been made the occasion for new
   manifestations of affectionate regard by the people. The same
   day that witnessed the departure of Sir Guy Carleton from New
   York also witnessed the entry into that city of the army of
   the States. Nine days later Washington bid adieu to his
   officers. About noon on Thursday, the 4th of December, the
   chiefs of the army assembled in the great room of Fraunces's
   Tavern, then the resort of merchants and men of fashion, and
   there Washington joined them. Rarely as he gave way to his
   emotions, he could not on that day get the mastery of them. …
   He filled a glass from a decanter that stood on the table,
   raised it with a trembling hand, and said: 'With a heart full
   of love and gratitude I now take leave of you, and most
   devoutly wish your latter days may be as prosperous and happy
   as your former ones have been glorious and honorable.' Then he
   drank to them, and, after a pause, said: 'I cannot come to
   each of you to take my leave, but shall be obliged if you will
   each come and shake me by the hand.' General Knox came forward
   first, and Washington embraced him. The other officers
   approached one by one, and silently took their leave. A line
   of infantry had been drawn up extending from the tavern to
   Whitehall ferry, where a barge was in waiting to carry the
   commander across the Hudson to Paulus Hook. Washington, with
   his officers following, walked down the line of soldiers to
   the water. The streets, the balconies, the windows, were
   crowded with gazers. All the churches in the city sent forth a
   joyous din. Arrived at the ferry, he entered the barge in
   silence, stood up, took off his hat and waved farewell. Then,
   as the boat moved slowly out into the stream amid the shouts
   of the citizens, his companions in arms stood bareheaded on
   the shore till the form of their illustrious commander was
   lost to view."

J. B. McMaster, History of the People of the United States, chapter 2 (volume 1).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1783-1787.
   After the war.
   Resistance to the stipulations of the Treaty of Peace.
   National feebleness and humiliation.
   Failure of the Articles of Confederation.
   Movements toward a firmer Constitution.

"The revolution was at last accomplished. The evils it had removed, being no longer felt, were speedily forgotten. The evils it had brought pressed heavily upon them. They could devise no remedy. They saw no way of escape. They soon began to grumble, became sullen, hard to please, dissatisfied with themselves and with everything done for them. The States, differing in habits, in customs, in occupations, had been during a few years united by a common danger. But the danger was gone; old animosities and jealousies broke forth again with all their strength, and the union seemed likely to be dissolved. In this state of public discontent the House met at Philadelphia early in January, 1784. Some days were spent in examining credentials of new members, and in waiting for the delinquents to come in. It was not till the 14th of the month that the definitive treaty was taken under consideration and duly ratified. Nothing remained, therefore, but to carry out the stipulations with as much haste as possible. But there were some articles which the people had long before made up their minds never should be carried out. While the treaty was yet in course of preparation the royal commissioners had stoutly insisted on the introduction of articles providing for the return of the refugees and the payment of debts due to British subjects at the opening of the war. The commissioners on behalf of the United States, who well knew the tempers of their countrymen, had at first firmly stood out against any such articles. But some concessions were afterward made by each party, and certain stipulations touching the debts and the refugees inserted. Adams, who wrote in the name of his fellow-commissioners, … hoped that the middle line adopted would be approved. The middle line to which Adams referred was that Congress should recommend the States to make no more seizures of the goods and property of men lately in arms against the Confederation, and to put no bar in the way of the recovery of such as had already been confiscated. It was distinctly understood by each side that these were recommendations, and nothing more than recommendations. Yet no sooner were they made known than a shout of indignation and abuse went up from all parts of the country. The community in a moment was divided between three parties. The smallest of the three was made up of the Tories, who still hoped for place and power, and still nursed the delusion that the past would be forgotten. Yet they daily contributed to keep the remembrance of it alive by a strong and avowed attachment to Great Britain. Opposed to these was the large and influential body of violent Whigs, who insisted vehemently that every loyalist should instantly be driven from the States. A less numerous and less violent body of Whigs constituted the third party." The fury of the violent Whigs proved generally irresistible and great numbers of the obnoxious Tories fled before it.

Some "sought a refuge in Florida, then a possession of Spain, and founded settlements which their descendants have since raised to prosperous and beautiful villages, renowned for groves of orange-trees and fields of cane. Others embarked on the British ships of war, and were carried to Canada or the island of Bermuda; a few turned pirates, obtained a sloop, and scoured the waters of Chesapeake bay. Many went to England, beset the ministry with petitions for relief, wearied the public with pathetic stories of the harsh ingratitude with which their sufferings had been requited, and were accused, with much show of reason, by the Americans of urging the severe restrictions which England began to lay on American commerce. Many more … set out for Nova Scotia. … The open contempt with which, in all parts of the country, the people treated the recommendation of Congress concerning the refugees and the payment of the debts, was no more than any man of ordinary sagacity could have foretold. Indeed, the state into which Congress had fallen was most wretched. … Each of the thirteen States the Union bound together retained all the rights of sovereignty, and asserted them punctiliously against the central government. {3290} Each reserved to itself the right to put up mints, to strike money, to levy taxes, to raise armies, to say what articles should come into its ports free and what should be made to pay duty. Toward the Continental Government they acted precisely as if they were dealing with a foreign power. In truth, one of the truest patriots of New England had not been ashamed to stand up in his place in the Massachusetts House of Deputies and speak of the Congress of the States as a foreign government. Every act of that body was scrutinized with the utmost care. The transfer of the most trivial authority beyond the borders of the State was made with protestations, with trembling, and with fear. Under such circumstances, each delegate felt himself to have much the character, and to be clothed with very much of the power, of ambassadors. He was not responsible to men, he was responsible to a State. … From beginning to end the system of representation was bad. By the Articles of Confederation each of the thirteen little republics was annually to send to Congress not more than seven and not less than two delegates. No thought was taken of population. … But this absolute equality of the States was more apparent than real. Congress possessed no revenue. The burden of supporting the delegates was cast on those who sent them, and, as the charge was not light, a motive was at once created for preferring a representation of two to a representation of seven, or, indeed, for sending none at all. While the war was still raging and the enemy marching and counter-marching within the border of every State, a sense of fear kept up the number of delegates to at least two. Indeed, some of the wealthier and more populous States often had as many as four congressmen on the floor of the House. But the war was now over. The stimulus derived from the presence of a hostile army was withdrawn, and the representation and attendance fell off fast. Delaware and Georgia ceased to be represented. From the ratification of the treaty to the organization of the Government under the Constitution six years elapsed, and during those six years Congress, though entitled to 91 members, was rarely attended by 25. The House was repeatedly forced to adjourn day after day for want of a quorum. On more than one occasion these adjournments covered a period of thirteen consecutive days. … No occasion, however impressive or important, could call out a large attendance. Seven States, represented by twenty delegates, witnessed the resignation of Washington. Twenty-three members, sitting for eleven States, voted for the ratification of the treaty. … It is not surprising, therefore, that Congress speedily degenerated into a debating club, and a debating club of no very high order. Neglected by its own members, insulted and threatened by its mutinous troops, reviled by the press, and forced to wander from city to city in search of an abiding place, its acts possessed no national importance whatever. It voted monuments that never were put up, rewarded meritorious services with sums of money that never were paid, formed wise schemes for the relief of the finances that never were carried out, and planned on paper a great city that never was built. In truth, to the scoffers and malcontents of that day, nothing was more diverting than the uncertain wanderings of Congress. … In the coffee-houses and taverns no toasts were drunk with such uproarious applause as 'A hoop to the barrel' and 'Cement to the Union'; toasts which not long before had sprung up in the army and come rapidly into vogue. … The men who, in after years, came to eminence as the framers of the Constitution, who became renowned leaders of the Federalists, presidents, cabinet ministers, and constitutional statesmen, were then in private life, abroad, or in the State Assemblies. Washington was busy with his negroes and tobacco; Adams was minister to Holland; Jefferson still sat in Congress, but was soon to be sent as minister to France; Madison sat in the Virginia House of Deputies; Hamilton was wrangling with Livingston and Burr at the bar of New York; Jay was minister to Spain."

J. B. McMaster, History of the People of the United States, volume 1, chapter 2.

Hamilton's description, in one of the papers of the Federalist, of the state of the country in 1787, is very graphic: "We may indeed, with propriety," he wrote, "be said to have reached almost the last stage of National humiliation. There is scarcely anything that can wound the pride, or degrade the character of an independent nation, which we do not experience. Are there engagements, to the performance of which we are held by every tie respectable among men? These are the subjects of constant and unblushing violation. Do we owe debts to foreigners, and to our own citizens, contracted in a time of imminent peril, for the preservation of our political existence! These remain without any proper or satisfactory provision for their discharge. Have we valuable territories and important posts in the possession of a foreign power, which, by express stipulations, ought long since to have been surrendered! These are still retained, to the prejudice of our interests not less than of our rights. Are we in a condition to resent or to repel the aggression? We have neither troops, nor treasury, nor Government. Are we even in a condition to remonstrate with dignity? The just imputations on our own faith, in respect to the same treaty, ought first to be removed. Are we entitled by nature and compact to a free participation in the navigation of the Mississippi? Spain excludes us from it. Is public credit an indispensable resource in time of public danger? We seem to have abandoned its cause as desperate and irretrievable. Is commerce of importance to National wealth? Ours is at the lowest point of declension. Is respectability in the eyes of foreign powers a safeguard against foreign encroachments? The imbecility of our Government even forbids them to treat with us. Our ambassadors abroad are the mere pageants of mimic sovereignty. Is a violent and unnatural decrease in the value of land a symptom of National distress? The price of improved land in most parts of the country is much lower than can be accounted for by the quantity of waste land at market, and can only be fully explained by that want of private and public confidence, which are so alarmingly prevalent among all ranks, and which have a direct tendency to depreciate property of every kind. Is private credit the friend and patron of industry? That most useful kind which relates to borrowing and lending is reduced within the narrowest limits, and this still more from an opinion of insecurity than from the scarcity of money. {3291} To shorten an enumeration of particulars which can afford neither pleasure nor instruction, it may in general be demanded what indication is there of National disorder, poverty, and insignificance, that could befall a community so peculiarly blessed with natural advantages as we are, which does not form a part of the dark catalogue of our public misfortunes? … The great and radical vice in the construction of the existing Confederation is in the principle of legislation for States or Governments, in their corporate or collective capacities, and as contradistinguished from the individuals of which they consist. Though this principle does not run through all the powers delegated to the Union, yet it pervades and governs those on which the efficacy of the rest depends. Except as to the rule of apportionment, the United States have an indefinite discretion to make requisitions for men and money, but they have no authority to raise either, by regulations extending to the individual citizens of America. The consequence of this is, that, though in theory their resolutions concerning those objects are laws, constitutionally binding on the members of the Union, yet in practice they are mere recommendations, which the States observe or disregard at their option. … There is nothing absurd or impracticable in the idea of a league or alliance between independent nations, for certain defined purposes precisely stated in a treaty; regulating all the details of time, place, circumstance, and quantity; leaving nothing to future discretion; and depending for its execution on the good faith of the parties. … If the particular States in this country are disposed to stand in a similar relation to each other, and to drop the project of a general discretionary superintendence, the scheme would indeed be pernicious, and would entail upon us all the mischiefs which have been enumerated under the first head; but it would have the merit of being, at least, consistent and practicable. Abandoning all views towards a Confederate Government, this would bring us to a simple alliance offensive and defensive; and would place us in a situation to be alternately friends and enemies of each other, as our mutual jealousies and rivalships, nourished by the intrigues of foreign nations, should prescribe to us. But if we are unwilling to be placed in this perilous situation; if we still will adhere to the design of a National Government, or, which is the same thing, of a superintending power, under the direction of a common Council, we must resolve to incorporate into our plan those ingredients which may be considered as forming the characteristic difference between a league and a Government; we must extend the authority of the Union to the persons of the citizens,—the only proper objects of Government."

"Many of the States refused or neglected to pay even their allotted shares of interest upon the public debt, and there was no power in Congress to compel payment. Eighteen months were required to collect only one-fifth of the taxes assigned to the States in 1783. The national credit became worthless. Foreign nations refused to make commercial treaties with the United States, preferring a condition of affairs in which they could lay any desired burden upon American commerce without fear of retaliation by an impotent Congress. The national standing army had dwindled to a corps of 80 men. In 1785 Algiers declared war against the United States. Congress recommended the building of five 40-gun ships of war. But Congress had only power to recommend. The ships were not built, and the Algerines were permitted to prey on American commerce with impunity. England still refused to carry out the Treaty of 1783, or to send a Minister to the United States. The Federal Government, in short, was despised abroad and disobeyed at home. The apparent remedy was the possession by Congress of the power of levying and collecting internal taxes and duties on imports, but, after long urging, it was found impossible to gain the necessary consent of all the States to the article of taxation by Congress. In 1786, therefore, this was abandoned, and, as a last resort, the States were asked to pass an Amendment intrusting to Congress the collection of a revenue from imports. This Amendment was agreed to by all the States but one. New York alone rejected it, after long debate, and her veto seemed to destroy the last hope of a continuance of national union in America. Perhaps the dismay caused by the action of New York was the most powerful argument in the minds of many for an immediate and complete revision of the government. The first step to Revision was not so designed. In 1785 the Legislatures of Maryland and Virginia, in pursuance of their right to regulate commerce, had appointed Commissioners to decide on some method of doing away with interruptions to the navigation of Chesapeake Bay. The Commissioners reported their inability to agree, except in condemning the Articles of Confederation. The Legislature of Virginia followed the report by a resolution, inviting the other States to meet at Annapolis, consider the defects of the government, and suggest some remedy. In September, 1786, delegates from five of the Middle States assembled, but confined themselves to discussion, since a majority of the States were not represented. The general conclusion was that the government, as it then stood, was inadequate for the protection, prosperity or comfort, of the people, and that some immediate and thorough reform was needed. After drawing up a report for their States and for Congress, recommending another Convention to be held at Philadelphia, in May, 1787, they adjourned. Congress, by resolution, approved their report and the proposed Convention. The Convention met, as proposed, May 14th, 1787."

"Four years only elapsed, between the return of peace and the downfall of a government which had been framed with the hope and promise of perpetual duration. … But this brief interval was full of suffering and peril. There are scarcely any evils or dangers, of a political nature, and springing from political and social causes, to which a free people can be exposed, which the people of the United States did not experience during that period."

   "It is not too much to say that the period of five years
   following the peace of 1783 was the most critical moment in
   all the history of the American people."

      ALSO IN:
      J. S. Landon,
      Constitutional History and Government of the United States,
      lecture 3.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1783-1789.
Depressed state of Trade and Industry.
Commercial consequences of the want of nationality.

"The effect of the Revolutionary War on the merchant marine of the colonies, which thereby secured their independence as the United States, was not so disastrous as might have been expected. Many ships were lost or captured, and the gains of maritime commerce were reduced; but to offset these losses an active fleet of privateers found profitable employment in the seizure of English merchantmen, and thus kept alive the maritime spirit of the country, and supplied a revenue to the shipowners whose legitimate pursuits were suspended by the war. In 1783, therefore, the American merchant marine was in a fairly healthy condition. During the next six years the disadvantages of the new situation made themselves felt. Before the Revolution the colonies had had open trade with their fellow-subjects in the British West India Islands. The commerce thus carried on was a very profitable business. The island colonies were supplied with lumber, corn, fish, live stock, and surplus farm produce, which the continent furnished in abundance, together with rough manufactured articles such as pipe staves, and in return the ships of New York and New England brought back great quantities of coffee, sugar, cotton, rum, and indigo. … As a result of independence, the West India business was entirely cut off. The merchantmen of the United States then came in on the footing of foreign vessels, and all such vessels, under the terms of the Navigation Act, were rigorously excluded from trade with the British colonies. It was evident, however, that the sudden cessation of this trade, whatever loss it might inflict on the newly created state, would be tenfold more harmful to the islands, which had so long depended upon their neighbors of the mainland for the necessaries of life. Pitt, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, appreciated this difficulty, and in 1783 brought a bill into Parliament granting open trade as to articles that were the produce of either country. The measure failed, owing to Pitt's resignation, and the next ministry, in consequence of the violent opposition of British shipowners, passed a merely temporary act, vesting in the crown the power of regulating trade with America. This power was occasionally exercised by suspending certain provisions of the navigation laws, under annual proclamations, but it did not serve to avert the disaster that Pitt had foreseen. Terrible sufferings visited the population of the West India colonies, and between 1780 and 1787 as many as 15,000 slaves perished from starvation, having been unable to obtain the necessary supply of food when their own crops had been destroyed by hurricanes. Apart from the unfavorable condition of the West India trade, another and more important cause had operated to check the prosperous development of American commerce. The only bond of political union at this time was that formed by the Articles of Confederation, constituting a mere league of independent States, any one of which could pass laws calculated to injure the commerce of the others."

      J. R. Soley,
      Maritime Industries of America
      (The United States of America, edition by N. S. Shaler,
      volume 1, chapter 10).

"The general commerce of the granulated mass of communities called the United States, from 1783 to 1780, was probably the poorest commerce known in the whole history of the country. England sent America £3,700,000 worth of merchandise in 1784, and took in return only £750,000. The drain of specie to meet this difference was very severe, and merchants could not meet the engagements so rashly made. They had imported luxuries for customers who were poor, and non-payment through all the avenues of trade was the consequence. One circumstance and detail of the internal management of this commerce added to the distress and to the necessary difficulties of the time. Immediately after the peace, British merchants, factors, and clerks came across the seas in streams, to take advantage of the new opportunities for trade. It seemed to the citizens to be a worse invasion of their economic rights than the coming of the troops had been to the political rights of the old colonists. The whole country was agitated, but action was initiated in Boston in 1785. The merchants met and discussed all these difficulties. They pledged themselves to buy no more goods of British merchants or factors in Boston. In about three weeks the mechanics and artisans met in the old Green Dragon Tavern and committed themselves to the same policy. But the merchants went beyond mere non-intercourse with traders at home. The root of the difficulty was in the ill-regulation or want of regulation of our commerce with all foreign countries. The confederation was giving and not getting. Where it should have gotten, foreigners were getting, because the parts of the country had not agreed to unite in acquiring for the common benefit, lest some part should be injured in the process. Congress made treaties for the Confederation. But if unable to treat with any} power which excluded American shipping from its ports, or laid duties on American produce, Congress did not control our ports in an equivalent manner. Each individual state was to decide whether the unfriendly power should trade at its own ports. This in effect nullified any retaliatory action. England, being the best market, virtually controlled any change in commerce, as it was then conducted. Her ports were closed to American products unless they were brought in British vessels. France admitted our vessels to her ports, but her merchants cried out against the competition. It was feared that the ministers would be obliged to yield to their clamor and close the ports. Probably the poor economic condition of the country affected the foreign trade even more than the bad adjustment of foreign relations. All causes combined to form two parties, one advocating imposts upon foreign trade or a Navigation Act, the other opposing this scheme, and insisting upon absolute freedom of commerce. It was in this direction that the Boston people moved, after they had instituted non-intercourse in their own market with British traders. They petitioned Congress to remedy these embarrassments of trade, and sent a memorial to their own legislature. This document urged that body to insist on action by Congress. They formed a Committee of Correspondence to enforce these plans upon the whole country."

W. B. Weeden, Economic and Social History of New England, 1620-1780, chapter 22 (volume 2).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1784.
Plans for new States in the Northwest Territory.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1784.
   Revolt in Tennessee against the
   territorial cession to Congress.
   The State of Franklin.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1784.
The financial administration of Robert Morris.
Cost of the war.

From May, 1781, until April, 1785, the burden of the financial management of the revolutionary struggle rested upon Robert Morris, of Philadelphia, who held the office which Congress had created and entitled "the Superintendent of Finances." Morris's detractors argued that he deserved no great credit for his management of the finances as compared with his predecessors, because in his time everything turned in his favour. It is true that if things had remained as before, he could not have restored the finances; for the miracle of carrying on a war without means has never yet been performed by anybody. The events which gave him an opportunity to restore the finances, by intelligent and energetic action, were as follows. The first was the collapse of the paper currency and its absolute removal from circulation, in May, 1781, just before he took office. As soon as it was out of the way, specie came in. He was able to throw aside all the trammels in which the treasury operations had been entangled by the paper system. It is true that he did not succeed in his attempt to relieve himself entirely from these anticipations, which, inasmuch as they were anticipations, would have used up the revenues of his time; but it was a great gain for him to be able to conduct his current operations at least in terms of specie. The second thing in his favour was the great help granted by France in 1781, and especially the importation of a part of this in specie. This enabled him to found the bank, from which he borrowed six times what he put into it. The chief use of the bank to him, however, was to discount the notes which he took for bills of exchange. Then also it was possible for him to reduce the expenses in a way which his predecessors had not had the courage or the opportunity to accomplish, because in their time the abuses of the old method had not gone far enough to force acquiescence in the reforms. In Morris's time, and chiefly, as it appears, by his exertions and merit, the expenditures were greatly reduced for an army of a given size. When the war came to an end, it was possible for him to reduce the entire establishment to a very low scale. Next we notice that the efforts to introduce taxation bore fruit which, although it was trivial in one point of view, was large enough to be very important to him in his desperate circumstances. Finally, when his need was the greatest, and these advantages and opportunities proved inadequate, the rise of American credit made the loan in Holland possible, and this carried him through to the result. … By the Report of 1790 the total amount of expenditures and advances at the treasury of the United States, during the war, in specie value, was estimated as follows; 1775 and 1776, $20,064,666. 1777, $24,986,646. 1778, $24,289,438. 1779, $10,794,620. 1780, $3,000,000. 1781, $1,942,465. 1782, $3,632,745. 1783, $3,226,583. 1784, $548,525 to November 1. Total $92,485,693.

This table shows how the country lapsed into dependence on France after the alliance was formed. The round number opposite 1780 is very eloquent. It means anarchy and guesswork. … According to the best records we possess, the cost of the war to the United States, reduced to specie value year by year at the official scale of depreciation, which, being always below the truth, makes these figures too high, was, as above stated, $92,485,693, at the treasury. There were also certificates of indebtedness out for $16,708,009. There had been expended in Europe, which never went through the treasury, $5,000,000. The States were estimated to have expended $21,000,000. Total, $135,000,000. Jefferson calculated it at $140,000,000, by adding the debts incurred and the continental currency. The debt contracted by England during the war was £115,000,000, for which £91,000,000 were realized. The Comptroller of the Treasury of France said that it cost 60,000,000 livres a year to support the army in America. Vergennes told Lafayette, in November, 1782, that France had expended 250,000,000 livres in the war. There is an often-repeated statement that the war cost France 1,200,000,000 livres, or 1,280,000,000, or 1,500,000,000. Arthur Young put it at £50,000,000, sterling. Probably if 60,000,000 a year for five years, or $60,000,000, was taken as the amount directly expended for and in America by France, it would be as fair a computation as could be made of her contribution to American independence. She had large expenditures elsewhere in the prosecution of her war against Great Britain, and her incidental losses of ships, etc., were great. When England abandoned the effort to subdue the colonies, she was in a far better position for continuing it than either of her adversaries. George III. was by no means stupid in his comments and suggestions about the war. No Englishman of the period said things which now seem wiser in the retrospect. As early as September, 1780, he said: 'America is distressed to the greatest degree. The finances of France, as well as Spain, are in no good situation: This war, like the last, will prove one of credit.' This opinion was fully justified in 1782. French finances were then hastening toward bankruptcy, so that France could not continue the war expenses or the loans and subsidies to America. English credit was high. October 2, 1782, Vergennes wrote to Montmorin, that the English fleet was stronger than at the beginning of the war, while the fleets of France and Spain were weaker; that French finances were greatly weakened, while English credit was high; that England had recovered influence in Russia, and through Russia on Prussia and Austria. He wanted peace and reconciliation with England in order to act with her in eastern Europe. If England had chosen to persevere in the war, the matter of credit would have been the most important element in her chances of success, aside from the natural difficulties of the enterprise."

      W. G. Sumner,
      The Financier and the Finances of the American Revolution,
      chapter 23 (volume 2).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1784-1788.
   Disputes with England over the execution of the Treaty of Peace.
   Difficulties with Spain.
   The question of the Navigation of the Mississippi.
   Eastern jealousy and Western excitement.

"Serious disputes soon arose, concerning the execution of the treaty of peace; and each nation complained of infractions by the other. On the part of the United States, it was alleged that negroes had been carried away, contrary to the treaty; and as early as May, 1783, congress instructed their ministers for negotiating peace to remonstrate to the British court against this conduct of their commander in America, and to take measures to obtain reparation. The United States, also, complained that the western posts had not been sur·rendered, agreeably to treaty stipulations. Great Britain, on her part, alleged that legal impediments had been interposed to prevent the collection of British debts in America; and that the 5th and 6th articles, relating to the property of the loyalists, had not been complied with. In June, 1784, the legislature of Virginia not only declared that there had been an infraction on the part of Great Britain of the 7th article, in detaining the slaves and other property of the citizens of the United States, but instructed their delegates in congress to request that a remonstrance be presented to the British court against such infraction and to require reparation. They also directed them to inform congress that the state of Virginia conceived a just regard to the national honor and interest obliged her assembly to withhold their co-operation in the complete fulfilment of the treaty until the success of such remonstrance was known, or they should have further directions from congress. They at the same time declared, that as soon as reparation for such infraction should be made, or congress should judge it indispensably necessary, such acts as inhibited the recovery of British debts should be repealed, and payment made, in such time and manner as should consist with the exhausted situation of the state. In consequence of these difficulties and disputes, congress, early in the year 1785, determined to send a minister plenipotentiary to Great Britain; and on the 24th of February John Adams was appointed to represent the United States at the court of London. He was instructed 'in a respectful but firm manner to insist that the United States be put, without further delay, into possession of all the posts and territories within their limits which are now held by British garrisons.' … Mr. Jefferson was soon after appointed to represent the United States at the court of Versailles, in the room of Dr. Franklin, who had leave to return home, after an absence of nine years. Mr. Livingston having resigned the office of secretary of foreign affairs, Mr. Jay, in March, 1784, and before his return from Europe, was appointed in his place. Mr. Adams repaired to the British court, and was received as the first minister from the United States since their independence was acknowledged. … In December, 1785, Mr. Adams presented a memorial to the British secretary of state, in which, after stating the detention of the western posts contrary to the stipulations in the treaty of peace, he in the name and in behalf of the United States required 'that all his majesty's armies and garrisons be forthwith withdrawn from the said United States, from all and every of the posts and fortresses before enumerated, and from every port, place and harbor, within the territory of the said United States, according to the true intention of the treaties.' To this memorial the British secretary, lord Carmarthen, returned an answer, on the 28th of February, 1786, in which he acknowledges the detention of the posts, but alleges a breach of the 4th article of the treaty of peace on the part of the United States, by interposing impediments to the recovery of British debts in America. … This answer was accompanied with a statement of the various instances in which the 4th article had been violated by acts of the states. The complaints of Great Britain also extended to breaches of the 5th and 6th articles of the treaty, relating to the recovery of certain property and to confiscations. The answer of the British secretary was submitted to congress; and in order to remove the difficulties complained of, that body, in March, 1787, unanimously declared that all the acts, or parts of acts, existing in any of the states, repugnant to the treaty of peace, ought to be repealed; and they recommended to the states to make such repeal by a general law. … A circular letter to the states accompanied these declarations, in which congress say, 'we have deliberately and dispassionately examined and considered the several facts and matters urged by Great Britain, as infractions of the treaty of peace, on the part of America, and we regret that, in some of the states, too little attention has been paid to the public faith pledged by that treaty.' In consequence of this letter, the states of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina, passed acts complying with the recommendations contained in it. The operation of the act of Virginia, however, which repealed all acts preventing the recovery of debts due to British subjects, was suspended until the governor of that state should issue a proclamation, giving notice that Great Britain had delivered up the western posts, and was also taking measures for the further fulfilment of the treaty of peace by delivering up the negroes belonging to the citizens of that state, carried away contrary to the 7th article of the treaty, or by making compensation for the same. … The British court was not yet disposed to enter into any commercial treaty with the United States. The ministers were, no doubt, satisfied that the advantages they enjoyed under their own regulations were greater than could be obtained by any treaty they could make with America. And this was, probably, one of the principal reasons of their refusal to enter into any such treaty. As the British court declined sending a minister to the United States, Mr. Adams, in October, 1787, at his request, had leave to return home. … The United States had also at this period to encounter difficulties with Spain as well as Great Britain. The two Floridas having been ceded to his catholic majesty, serious disputes soon arose, not only on the old subject of the navigation of the Mississippi, but with respect to the boundaries of Louisiana and the ceded territory. The Spanish court still persisted in its determination to exclude the Americans from the navigation of the Mississippi. … In December, 1784, congress declared it necessary to send a minister to Spain, for the purpose of adjusting the interfering claims of the two nations respecting the navigation of the Mississippi, and other matters highly interesting to the peace and good understanding which ought to subsist between them. This was prevented by the appointment of Don Diego Gardoqui, a minister from Spain, who arrived in the United States and was acknowledged by congress in the summer of 1785. {3295} Soon after his arrival, Mr. Jay, then secretary of foreign affairs, was appointed to treat with the Spanish minister on the part of the United States. … As Mr. Jay, by his instructions, was not to conclude a treaty until the same was communicated to congress and approved by them, and was also specially directed to obtain a stipulation acknowledging the right of the United States to their territorial claims and the free navigation of the Mississippi, as established in their treaty with Great Britain, he, on the 3d of August, 1786, submitted to congress the … plan of a commercial treaty, and stated the difficulties in obtaining the stipulation required. … 'Circumstanced as we are [said Mr. Jay] I think it would be expedient to agree that the treaty should be limited to twenty five or thirty years, and that one of the articles should stipulate that the United States would forbear to use the navigation of that river below their territories to the ocean. Thus the duration of the treaty and of the forbearance in question should be limited to the same period.' … Among other reasons, Mr. Jay stated that the navigation of the Mississippi was not at that time very important, and would not probably become so in less than twenty five or thirty years, and that a forbearance to use it, while it was not wanted, was no great sacrifice—that Spain then excluded the people of the United States from that navigation; and that it could only be acquired by war, for which the United States were not then prepared; and that in case of war France would no doubt join Spain. Congress were much divided on this interesting subject. The seven states at the north, including Pennsylvania, were disposed, in case a treaty could not otherwise be made, to forbear the use of the navigation of the Mississippi below the southern boundary of the United States, for a limited time, and a resolution was submitted to congress repealing Mr. Jay's instructions of the 25th of August, 1785, and which was carried, seven states against five. … This, however, was to be on the express condition that a stipulation of forbearance should not be construed to extinguish the right of the United States, independent of such stipulation, to use and navigate said river from its source to the ocean; and that such stipulation was not to be made unless it should be agreed in the same treaty that the navigation and use of the said river above such intersection to its source should be common to both nations—and Mr. Jay was to make no treaty unless the territorial limits of the United States were acknowledged and secured according to the terms agreed between the United States and Great Britain. … As by the confederation the assent of nine states was necessary in making a treaty the same number was considered requisite in giving specific instructions in relation to it; … and it was questioned whether the previous instructions given to Mr. Jay could be rescinded without the assent of nine states. These proceedings in congress, though with closed doors, soon became partly known, and excited great alarm in Virginia and in the western settlements. … While these negociations were pending, the fertile country at the west was settling with a rapidity beyond the most sanguine calculations; and it is not surprising that the news of an actual or intended abandonment of the navigation of the Mississippi, the only outlet for their productions, should have excited great alarm among its inhabitants. They were much exasperated by the seizure and confiscation of American property by the Spaniards, on its way down the river, which took place about the same time. The proposition made in congress was magnified into an actual treaty, and called from the western people most bitter complaints and reproaches. … To quiet the apprehensions of the western inhabitants, the delegates from North Carolina, in September, 1788, submitted to congress a resolution declaring that 'whereas many citizens of the United States, who possess lands on the western waters, have expressed much uneasiness from a report that congress are disposed to treat with Spain for the surrender of their claim to the navigation of the river Mississippi; in order therefore to quiet the minds of our fellow citizens by removing such ill founded apprehensions, resolved, that the United States have a clear, absolute, and unalienable claim to the free navigation of the river Mississippi, which claim is not only supported by the express stipulations of treaties, but by the great law of nature.' The secretary of foreign affairs, to whom this resolution was referred, reported, that as the rumor mentioned in the resolution was not warranted by the negociations between the United States and Spain, the members be permitted to contradict it, in the most explicit terms. Mr. Jay also stated, there could be no objection to declaring the right of the United States to the navigation of the river clear and absolute—that this had always been his opinion; and that the only question had been whether a modification of that right for equivalent advantages was advisable; and though he formerly thought such a modification might be proper, yet that circumstances and discontents had since interposed to render it questionable. He also advised that further negociations with Spain be transferred to the new general government. On this report, congress, on the 16th of September, 1788, in order to remove the apprehensions of the western settlers, declared that the members be permitted to contradict the report referred to by the delegates from North Carolina; and at the same time resolved 'that the free navigation of the river Mississippi is a clear and essential right of the United States, and that the same ought to be considered and supported as such.' All further negociations with Spain were also referred to the new federal government."

      T. Pitkin,
      Political and Civil History of the United States,
      chapter 17 (volume 2).

"It was important for the frontiersmen to take the Lake Posts from the British; but it was even more important to wrest from the Spaniards the free navigation of the Mississippi. While the Lake Posts were held by the garrisons of a foreign power, the work of settling the northwestern territory was bound to go forward slowly and painfully; but while the navigation of the Mississippi was barred, even the settlements already founded could not attain to their proper prosperity and importance. … The Westerners were right in regarding as indispensable the free navigation of the Mississippi. They were right also in their determination ultimately to acquire the control of the whole river, from the source to the mouth. However, the Westerners wished more than the privilege of sending down stream the products of their woods and pastures and tilled farms. {3296} They had already begun to cast longing eyes on the fair Spanish possessions. … Every bold, lawless, ambitious leader among the frontier folk dreamed of wresting from the Spaniard some portion of his rich and ill-guarded domain. It was not alone the attitude of the frontiersmen towards Spain that was novel, and based upon a situation for which there was little precedent. Their relations with one another, with their brethren of the seaboard, and with the Federal Government, likewise had to be adjusted without much chance of profiting by antecedent experience. Many phases of these relations between the people who stayed at home and those who wandered off to make homes, between the frontiersmen as they formed young States, and the Central Government representing the old States, were entirely new, and were ill-understood by both parties. … The attitude towards the Westerners of certain portions of the population in the older States, and especially in the northeastern States, was one of unreasoning jealousy and suspicion; and though this mental attitude rarely crystallized into hostile deeds, its very existence, and the knowledge that it did exist, embittered the men of the West. … In the northeastern States, and in New England especially, this feeling showed itself for two generations after the close of the Revolutionary War. On the whole the New Englanders have exerted a more profound and wholesome influence upon the development of our common country than has ever been exerted by any other equally numerous body of our people. They have led the nation in the path of civil liberty and sound governmental administration. But too often they have viewed the nation's growth and greatness from a narrow and provincial standpoint, and have grudgingly acquiesced in, rather than led the march towards, continental supremacy. In shaping the nation's policy for the future their sense of historic perspective seemed imperfect. … The extreme representatives of this northeastern sectionalism not only objected to the growth of the West at the time now under consideration, but even avowed a desire to work it harm, by shutting the Mississippi, so as to benefit the commerce of the Atlantic States. … These intolerant extremists not only opposed the admission of the young western States into the Union, but at a later date actually announced that the annexation by the United States of vast territories beyond the Mississippi offered just cause for the secession of the northeastern States. Even those who did not take such an advanced ground felt an unreasonable dread lest the West might grow to overtop the East in power. … A curious feature of the way many honest men looked at the West was their inability to see how essentially transient were some of the characteristics to which they objected. Thus they were alarmed at the turbulence and the lawless shortcomings of various kinds which grew out of the conditions of frontier settlement and sparse population. They looked with anxious foreboding to the time when the turbulent and lawless people would be very numerous, and would form a dense and powerful population; failing to see that in exact proportion as the population became dense, the conditions which caused the qualities to which they objected would disappear. Even the men who had too much good sense to share these fears, even men as broadly patriotic as Jay, could not realize the extreme rapidity of western growth. Kentucky and Tennessee grew much faster than any of the old frontier colonies had ever grown; and from sheer lack of experience, eastern statesmen could not realize that this rapidity of growth made the navigation of the Mississippi a matter of immediate and not of future interest to the West. … While many of the people on the eastern seaboard thus took an indefensible position in reference to the trans-Alleghany settlements, in the period immediately succeeding the Revolution, there were large bodies of the population of these same settlements, including very many of their popular leaders, whose own attitude towards the Union was, if anything, more blameworthy. They were clamorous about their rights, and were not unready to use veiled threats of disunion when they deemed these rights infringed; but they showed little appreciation of their own duties to the Union. … They demanded that the United States wrest from the British the Lake Posts, and from the Spaniards the navigation of the Mississippi. Yet they seemed incapable of understanding that if they separated from the Union they would thereby forfeit all chance of achieving the very purposes they had in view, because they would then certainly be at the mercy of Britain, and probably, at least for some time, at the mercy of Spain also. They opposed giving the United States the necessary civil and military power, although it was only by the possession and exercise of such power that it would be possible to secure for the westerners what they wished. In all human probability, the whole country round the Great Lakes would still be British territory, and the mouth of the Mississippi still in the hands of some European power, had the folly of the separatists won the day and had the West been broken up into independent states. … This final triumph of the Union party in these first-formed frontier States was fraught with immeasurable good."

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1785-1787.
First troubles and dealings with the Barbary pirates.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1787.
The, Ordinance for the Government of the Northwest Territory.
Exclusion of Slavery forever.

See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1787;
also, EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1785-1880.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1787.
The framing of the Federal Constitution.
The Union constructed of compromises.

   The convention of delegates appointed to revise the Articles
   of Confederation, but which took upon itself the task of
   framing anew a Federal Constitution for the States, assembled
   at Philadelphia on the 25th of May, 1787, eleven days later
   than the day appointed for its meeting. "The powers conferred
   by the several states were not uniform. Virginia,
   Pennsylvania, and New Jersey appointed their delegates 'for
   the purpose of revising the Federal Constitution;' North
   Carolina, New Hampshire, Delaware, and Georgia 'to decide upon
   the most effectual means to remove the defects of the Federal
   Union;' New York, Massachusetts, and Connecticut 'for the sole
   and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation;'
   South Carolina and Maryland 'to render the Federal
   Constitution entirely adequate to the actual situation.'
{3297}
   Rhode Island held aloof. She was governed by a class of men
   who wanted to pay their debts in paper money, and she did not
   wish to surrender her power to collect duties upon the goods
   that came into her port. The trade of Newport at that day
   surpassed that of New York. Connecticut came in reluctantly,
   and New Hampshire late in July, 1787. … Washington was made
   president of the convention. … Many names great in the
   revolutionary struggle were absent from the roll of delegates.
   John and Samuel Adams, and John Hancock, were not there.
   Patrick Henry of Virginia refused to attend. Thomas Jefferson
   and John Jay were absent from the country. George Washington
   and Benjamin Franklin, however, were there. … Among the
   younger men was James Madison of Virginia. … Alexander
   Hamilton came from New York. … Charles C. Pinckney was a
   delegate from South Carolina. … James Wilson of Pennsylvania
   was a Scotchman. He surpassed all others in his exact
   knowledge of the civil and common law, and the law of nations.
   … Oliver Ellsworth and Roger Sherman came from Connecticut. …
   Many of the 55 delegates shared Hamilton's contempt for a
   democracy, but the strength they would repose in a government
   they preferred to retain in the states. … The first business
   of the convention was the adoption of rules. Each state was to
   have one vote. Such was the rule in the Confederate Congress.
   Seven states made a quorum. The convention was to sit with
   closed doors, and everything was to be kept secret: nothing
   was to be given to the public except the completed work. This
   injunction of secrecy was never removed. Fortunately James
   Madison kept a pretty full account of the debates and
   proceedings, all in his own hand."

      J. S. Landon,
      Constitutional History and Government of the United States,
      lecture 3.

"Madison tells us in his report of these debates that previous to the opening of the Convention it had been a subject of discussion among the members present, as to how the States should vote in the Convention. Several of the members from Pennsylvania had urged that the large States unite in refusing to the small States an equal vote, but Virginia, believing this to be injudicious if not unjust, ' discountenanced and stilled the project.' On the 29th the real business of the Convention was opened by Edmund Randolph, who as Governor of Virginia was put forward as spokesman by his colleagues. He began by saying that as the Convention had originated from Virginia, and the delegation from this State supposed that some proposition was expected from them, the task had been imposed on him. After enumerating the defects of the Confederation, he detailed the remedy proposed. This latter was set forth in fifteen resolutions and was called afterwards the Virginia plan of government. Charles Pinckney from South Carolina had also a draft of a federal government, which was read and like the former referred to a committee of the whole House. … The Committee of the Whole … debated from day to day the resolutions contained in the Virginia plan, and on the 13th of June they reported nineteen resolutions based upon those of Virginia, forming a system of government in outline. On the following day Mr. Paterson, of New Jersey, asked for time to prepare another plan founded on the Articles of Confederation. This was submitted to the Convention on the 15th. The Virginia and the New Jersey plan were contrasted briefly by one of the members: Virginia plan proposes two branches in the legislature, Jersey, a single legislative body; Virginia, the legislative powers derived from the people, Jersey, from the States; Virginia, a single executive, Jersey, more than one; Virginia, a majority of the legislature can act, Jersey, a small majority can control; Virginia, the legislature can legislate on all national concerns, Jersey, only on limited objects; Virginia, legislature to negative all State laws, Jersey, giving power to the executive to compel obedience by force; Virginia, to remove the executive by impeachment, Jersey, on application of a majority of the States; Virginia, for the establishment of inferior judiciary tribunals, Jersey, no provision. Neither of these plans commended themselves to men like Hamilton, who wanted a strong government, and were afraid of democracy or giving power to the people. He thought the Virginia plan 'but pork still with a little change of the sauce.' The Articles of Confederation amended, as in the New Jersey plan, set forth a government approved of by the opposite wing of the Convention, consisting of men like Lansing, who professed an ultra devotion to the rights and autonomy of the States. … The Convention did not go again into committee of the whole, but continued to debate the nineteen resolutions from the 19th of June until the 23d of July. Some of these were referred to grand committees, consisting of one member from each State, or they were referred to select committees consisting of five members."

"The plan presented by Mr. Patterson, called the New Jersey plan, was concerted and arranged between the deputations of that State, of Delaware, of New York, and of Connecticut, with the individual cooperation of Mr. Luther Martin, one of the delegates of Maryland. The extreme jealousy … manifested by the representatives of the two first-named States with regard to the equal suffrage of the States in the common councils of the Confederacy, was the principal source of their aversion to the plan reported by the committee of the whole. The delegates of Connecticut, and Messrs. Lansing and Yates,—forming a majority of the delegation of New York,—united with the deputations of New Jersey and Delaware, not so much from an exclusive attachment to the principle of the sovereignty and equality of the States, as from the policy of preserving the existing framework of the confederation, and of simply vesting in Congress, as then organized, a few additional powers. It was under the influence of these mixed political views that the New Jersey plan was conceived and prepared. It proposed to vest in the existing Congress,—a single body in which all the States had an equal suffrage,—in addition to the powers already given to it by the articles of confederation, that of raising revenue by imposts and stamp and postage duties, and also that of passing acts for the regulation of commerce with foreign nations and between the States; leaving the enforcement of all such acts, in the first instance, to the State courts, with an ultimate appeal to the tribunals of the United States. {3298} Whenever requisitions on the States for contributions should be made, and any State should fail to comply with such requisitions within a specified time, Congress was to be authorized to direct their collection in the non-complying States, and to pass the requisite acts for that purpose. None of the foregoing powers, however, were to be exercised by Congress without the concurrence of a certain number of the States, exceeding a bare majority of the whole. The plan also proposed the organization of a Federal executive and a Federal judiciary. … It was, finally, provided that if any State, or any body of men in any State, shall oppose or prevent the carrying into execution any act of Congress passed in virtue of the powers granted to that body, or any treaty made and ratified under the authority of the United States, the Federal executive shall be authorized to call forth the power of the confederated States, or so much thereof as may be necessary, to enforce and compel an obedience to the acts, or an observance of the treaties, whose execution shall have been so opposed or prevented. Such were the salient features of the plan now brought forward as a substitute for the Virginia propositions, as reported by the committee of the whole. … In the progress of the discussion upon the two plans, Colonel Hamilton, of New York, made an elaborate speech, declaring himself to be opposed to both, and suggesting a third and more absolute plan, which he thought was alone adequate to the exigencies of the country. He frankly avowed his distrust of both republican and federal government, under any modification. He entered into a minute analysis of the various sources and elements of political power, in order to show that all these would be on the side of the State governments, so long as a separate political organization of the States was maintained, and would render them an over-match for any general government that could be established, unless a 'complete sovereignty' was vested in the latter. He thought it essential, therefore, to the ends of a good and efficient government of the whole country, that the State governments, with their vast and extensive apparatus, should be extinguished; though 'he did not mean,' he said, 'to shock public opinion by proposing such a measure.' He also expressed his despair of the practicability of establishing a republican government over so extensive a country as the United States. He was sensible, at the same time, that it would be unwise to propose one of any other form. Yet 'he had no scruple,' he said, 'in declaring that, in his private opinion, the British government was the best in the world, and that he doubted much whether any thing short of it would do in America.' He descanted upon the securities against injustice, violence, and innovation, afforded, in the English system, by the permanent constitution of the House of Lords, and by the elevated and independent position of the monarch. He thence deduced the necessity of as permanent a tenure as public opinion in this country would bear, of the leading branches of the new government. 'Let one branch of the legislature,' he said, 'hold their places for life, or at least during good behavior. Let the executive also be for life.' In concluding, he expressed his conviction that 'a great progress was going on in the public mind; that the people will, in time, be unshackled from their prejudices; and, whenever that happens, they will themselves not be satisfied at stopping where the plan brought forward by Mr. Randolph [the Virginia plan] would place them, but would be ready to go as far, at least, as he proposed.' He then read a plan of government he had prepared, which, he said, he did not submit as a proposition to the convention, but as giving a correct sketch of his ideas, and to suggest the amendment which he should probably offer to the Virginia plan in the future stages of its consideration. … The convention now had presented for their consideration three distinct schemes of government: one purely Federal, founded upon the idea of preserving undiminished the sovereignty and equality of the States, and of constituting a special political agency in Congress for certain purposes, but still under the dependence and control of the States; another of a consolidated character, bottomed on the principle of a virtual annihilation of the State sovereignties and the creation of a central government, with a supreme and indefinite control over both individuals and communities; the third a mixed and balanced system, resting upon an agreed partition of the powers of sovereignty between the States and the Union,—one portion to be vested in the Union for certain objects of common and national concern, the residue retained by the States for the regulation of the general mass of their interior and domestic interests. … On the 19th of June … Mr. King, of Massachusetts, moved that 'the committee do now rise, and report that they do not agree to the propositions offered by the Honorable Mr. Patterson; and that they report to the House the resolutions offered by the Honorable Mr. Randolph, heretofore reported from a committee of the whole.' The motion was carried by the votes of Massachusetts, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, in the affirmative,—New York, New Jersey, and Delaware voting in the negative; and Maryland, divided."

   "It appeared," wrote Madison, in a letter to Jefferson,
   October 24th "to be the sincere and unanimous wish of the
   Convention to cherish and preserve the Union of the States. No
   proposition was made, no suggestion was thrown out, in favor
   of a partition of the Empire into two or more Confederacies.
   It was generally agreed that the objects of the Union could
   not be secured by any system founded on the principle of a
   confederation of Sovereign States. A voluntary observance of
   the federal law by all the members could never be hoped for. A
   compulsive one could evidently never be reduced to practice,
   and if it could, involved equal calamities to the innocent and
   the guilty, the necessity of a military force, both obnoxious
   and dangerous, and, in general, a scene resembling much more a
   civil war than the administration of a regular Government.
   Hence was embraced the alternative of a Government which,
   instead of operating on the States, should operate without
   their intervention on the individuals composing them; and
   hence the change in the principle and proportion of
   representation.
{3299}
   This ground-work being laid, the great objects
   which presented themselves were:
   1. To unite a proper energy in the Executive, and a proper
   stability in the Legislative departments, with the essential
   characters of Republican Government:
   2. To draw a line of demarkation which would give to the
   General Government every power requisite for general purposes,
   and leave to the States every power which might be most
   beneficially administered by them.
   3. To provide for the different interests of different parts
   of the Union.
   4. To adjust the clashing pretensions of the large and small
   States.

Each of these objects was pregnant with difficulties. The whole of them together formed a task more difficult than can well be conceived by those who were not concerned in the execution of it. Adding to these considerations the natural diversity of human opinions on all new and complicated subjects, it is impossible to consider the degree of concord which ultimately prevailed as less than a miracle. The first of these objects, as respects the Executive, was peculiarly embarrassing. On the question whether it should consist of a single person or a plurality of co-ordinate members, on the mode of appointment, on the duration in office, on the degree of power, on the re-eligibility, tedious and reiterated discussions took place. The plurality of co-ordinate members had finally but few advocates. Governor Randolph was at the head of them. The modes of appointment proposed were various; as by the people at large, by electors chosen by the people, by the Executives of the States, by the Congress; some preferring a joint ballot of the two Houses; some, a separate concurrent ballot, allowing to each a negative on the other house; some, a nomination of several candidates by one House, out of whom a choice should be made by the other. Several other modifications were started. The expedient at length adopted seemed to give pretty general satisfaction to the members. As to the duration in office, a few would have preferred a tenure during good behaviour; a considerable number would have done so in case an easy and effectual removal by impeachment could be settled. It was much agitated whether a long term, seven years for example, with a subsequent and perpetual ineligibility, or a short term, with a capacity to be re-elected, should be fixed. In favor of the first opinion were urged the danger of a gradual degeneracy of re-elections from time to time, into first a life and then a hereditary tenure, and the favorable effect of an incapacity to be reappointed on the independent exercise of the Executive authority. On the other side it was contended that the prospect of necessary degradation would discourage the most dignified characters from aspiring to the office; would take away the principal motive to the faithful discharge of its duties—the hope of being rewarded with a reappointment; would stimulate ambition to violent efforts for holding over the constitutional term; and instead of producing an independent administration and a firmer defence of the constitutional rights of the department, would render the officer more indifferent to the importance of a place which he would soon be obliged to quit forever, and more ready to yield to the encroachments of the Legislature, of which he might again be a member. The questions concerning the degree of power turned chiefly on the appointment to offices, and the controul on the Legislature. An absolute appointment to all offices, to some offices, to no offices, formed the scale of opinions on the first point. On the second, some contended for an absolute negative, as the only possible means of reducing to practice the theory of a free Government, which forbids a mixture of the Legislative and Executive powers. Others would be content with a revisionary power, to be overruled by three-fourths of both Houses. It was warmly urged that the judiciary department should be associated in the revision. The idea of some was, that a separate revision should be given to the two departments; that if either objected, two-thirds, if both, three-fourths, should be necessary to overrule. In forming the Senate, the great anchor of the government, the questions, as they come within the first object, turned mostly on the mode of appointment, and the duration of it. The different modes proposed were:

1. By the House of Representatives. 2. By the Executive. 3. By electors chosen by the people for the purpose. 4. By the State Legislatures.

On the point of duration, the propositions descended from good behaviour to four years, through the intermediate terms of nine, seven, six, and five years. The election of the other branch was first determined to be triennial, and afterwards reduced to biennial. The second object, the due partition of power between the General and local Governments, was perhaps, of all, the most nice and difficult. A few contended for an entire abolition of the States; some, for indefinite power of Legislation in the Congress, with a negative on the laws of the States; some, for such a power without a negative; some, for a limited power of legislation, with such a negative; the majority, finally, for a limited power without the negative. The question with regard to the negative underwent repeated discussions, and was finally rejected by a bare majority. … I return to the third object above mentioned, the adjustments of the different interests of different parts of the continent. Some contended for an unlimited power over trade, including exports as well as imports, and over slaves as well as other imports; some, for such a power, provided the concurrence of two-thirds of both Houses were required; some, for such a qualification of the power, with an exemption of exports and slaves; others, for an exemption of exports only. The result is seen in the Constitution. South Carolina and Georgia were inflexible on the point of the slaves. The remaining object created more embarrassment, and a greater alarm for the issue of the Convention, than all the rest put together. The little States insisted on retaining their equality in both branches, unless a compleat abolition of the State Governments should take place; and made an equality in the Senate a sine qua non. The large States, on the other hand, urged that as the new Government was to be drawn principally from the people immediately, and was to operate directly on them, not on the States; and, consequently, as the States would lose that importance which is now proportioned to the importance of their voluntary compliance with the requisitions of Congress, it was necessary that the representation in both Houses should be in proportion to their size. It ended in the compromise which you will see, but very much to the dissatisfaction of several members from the large States."

"Those who proposed only to amend the old Articles of Confederation and opposed a new Constitution, objected that a government formed under such a Constitution would be not a federal, but a national, government. Luther Martin said, when he returned to Maryland, that the delegates 'appeared totally to have forgot the business for which we were sent. … We had not been sent to form a government over the inhabitants of America considered as individuals. … That the system of government we were intrusted to prepare was a government over these thirteen States; but that in our proceedings we adapted principles which would be right and proper only on the supposition that there were no state governments at all, but that all the inhabitants of this extensive continent were in their individual capacity, without government, and in a state of nature.' He added that, 'in the whale system there was but one federal feature, the appointment of the senators by the States in their sovereign capacity, that is by their legislatures, and the equality of suffrage in that branch; but it was said that this feature was only federal in appearance.' The Senate, the second house as it was called in the convention, was in part created, it is needless to say, to meet, or rather in obedience to, reasoning like this. … The Luther Martin protestants were too radical to remain in the convention to the end, when they saw that such a confederacy as they wanted was impossible. But there were not many who went the length they did in believing that a strong central government was necessarily the destruction of the state governments. Still fewer were those who would have brought this about if they could. … The real difficulty, as Madison said in the debate on that question, and as he repeated again and again after that question was settled, was not between the larger and smaller States, but between the North and South; between those States that held slaves and those that had none. Slavery in the Constitution, which has given so much trouble to the Abolitionists of this century, and, indeed, to everybody else, gave quite as much in the last century to those who put it there. Many of the wisest and best men of the time, Southerners as well as Northerners, and among them Madison, were opposed to slavery. … Everywhere north of South Carolina, slavery was looked upon as a misfortune which it was exceedingly desirable to be free from at the earliest possible moment; everywhere north of Mason and Dixon's Line, measures had already been taken, or were certain soon to be taken, to put an end to it; and by the Ordinance for the government of all the territory north of the Ohio River, it was absolutely prohibited by Congress, in the same year in which the Constitutional Congress met. But it was, nevertheless, a thing to the continued existence of which the anti-slavery people of that time could consent without any violation of conscience. Bad as it was, unwise, wasteful, cruel, a mockery of every pretense of respect for the rights of man, they did not believe it to be absolutely wicked. … The question with the North was, how far could it yield; with the South, how far could it encroach. It turned mainly an representation. … There were some who maintained at first that the slave population should not be represented at all. Hamilton proposed in the first days of the convention 'that the rights of suffrage in the national legislature ought to be proportioned to the number of free inhabitants.'"

"When the great document was at last drafted by Gouverneur Morris, and was all ready far the signatures [September 17, 1787], the aged Franklin produced a paper, which was read for him, as his voice was weak. Same parts of this Constitution, he said, he did not approve, but he was astonished to find it so nearly perfect. Whatever opinion he had of its errors he would sacrifice to the public good, and he hoped that every member of the convention who still had objections would on this occasion doubt a little of his own infallibility, and for the sake of unanimity put his name to this instrument. Hamilton added his plea. A few members, he said, by refusing to sign, might do infinite mischief. … From these appeals, as well as from Washington's solemn warning at the outset, we see how distinctly it was realized that the country was on the verge of civil war. Most of the members felt so, but to some the new government seemed far too strong, and there were three who dreaded despotism even more than anarchy. Mason, Randolph, and Gerry refused to sign. … In the signatures the twelve states which had taken part in the work were all represented, Hamilton signing alone for New York."

A "popular delusion with regard to the Constitution is that it was created out of nothing; or, as Mr. Gladstone puts it, that ·It is the greatest work ever struck off at any one time by the mind and purpose of man.' The radical view on the other side is expressed by Sir Henry Maine, who informs us that the 'Constitution of the United States is a modified version of the British Constitution … which was in existence between 1760 and 1787.' The real source of the Constitution is the experience of Americans. They had established and developed admirable little commonwealths in the colonies; since the beginning of the Revolution they had had experience of State governments organized on a different basis from the colonial; and, finally, they had carried on two successive national governments, with which they had been profoundly discontented. The general outline of the new Constitution seems to be English; it was really colonial. The President's powers of military command, of appointment, and of veto were similar to those of the colonial governor. National courts were created on the model of colonial courts. A legislature of two houses was accepted because such legislatures had been common in colonial times. In the English Parliamentary system as it existed before 1760 the Americans had had no share; the later English system of Parliamentary responsibility was not yet developed, and had never been established in colonial governments; and they expressly excluded it from their new Constitution. They were little more affected by the experience of other European nations. … The chief source of the details of the Constitution was the State constitutions and laws then in force. Thus the clause conferring a suspensive veto on the President is an almost literal transcript from the Massachusetts constitution. In fact, the principal experiment in the Constitution was the establishment of an electoral college; and of all parts of the system this has worked least as the framers expected. The Constitution represents, therefore, the accumulated experience of the time. … The real boldness of the Constitution is the novelty of the federal system which it set up."

"That a constitution should be framed in detail by a body of uninstructed delegates, expressly chosen for that purpose, was familiar in the States of the Union; but was perhaps unexampled elsewhere in the world, and was certainly unexampled in the history of federations. That the instrument of federal government should provide for proportional representation in one house, and for a federal court, was a step in federal organization which marks a new federal principle. For many purposes the Union then created was stronger than the Prussian monarchy at that moment. In many respects the States were left stronger than the little nominally independent German principalities. The great merit of the members of the convention is their understanding of the temper of their own countrymen. They selected out Of English, or colonial, or State usages such practices and forms as experience had shown to be acceptable to the people. … The Convention had further the wisdom to express their work in general though carefully stated principles. All previous federal governments had been fettered either by an imperfect and inadequate statement, as in the constitution of the United Netherlands, or by an unwritten constitution with an accumulation of special precedents, as in the Holy Roman Empire. The phrases of the Constitution of 1787 were broad enough to cover cases unforeseen. A third distinction of the federal Convention is the skill with which it framed acceptable compromises upon the three most difficult questions before it. The two Houses of Congress satisfied both large and small States; the three-fifths representation of slaves postponed an inevitable conflict; the allowance of the slave trade for a term of years made it possible for Congress to perfect commercial legislation. The Convention had profited by the experience of the Confederation: on every page of the Constitution may be found clauses which would not have stood there had it been framed in 1781. An adequate revenue was provided; foreign and interstate commerce was put under the control of Congress; the charge of foreign affairs was given entirely to the central authority; the powers of government were distributed among three departments."

      ALSO IN:
      I. Eliot,
      Debates in the Convention at Philadelphia, 1787.

      W. C. Rives,
      Life and Times of James Madison,
      chapters 27-33 (volume 2).

G. Bancroft, History of the Formation of the Constitution of the United States.

      J. H. Robinson,
      The Original and Derived Features of the Constitution.
      (Annals of the American Academy of Political and
      Social Science, volume l).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1787-1789.
   The struggle for the Federal Constitution in the States.
   Its ratification.
   The end of the Confederation.

   The fate of the proposed Constitution remained doubtful for
   many months after the adjournment of the convention. Hamilton
   said it would be arrogance to conjecture the result. …
   Delaware was the first state to accept it, [December 7, 1787].
   Gratified by the concession of equality in the federal Senate,
   the ratification was prompt, enthusiastic, and unanimous.
   Pennsylvania was the second [December 12]. The opposition was
   sharp, but Franklin was president of the state, and Wilson a
   delegate to the state convention. Their influence was great. …
   The ratification was effected by a vote of 46 to 23. Then New
   Jersey [December 18] and Georgia [January 2, 1788] followed
   unanimously. Next came Connecticut [January 9] by a vote of
   128 to 40. The result in these five states was the more easily
   obtained because the friends of the Constitution were prompt
   to act. With delay in the other states came a bitterness of
   contention which made the result doubtful. The first close
   struggle was in Massachusetts. The public creditor favored the
   proposed Constitution. He saw in it some hope of his long
   deferred pay. But the debtor class opposed it; for it would
   put an end to cheap paper money, with which they hoped to pay
   their debts, when it became still cheaper. … Hancock and Adams
   scarcely favored the Constitution. They feared it infringed
   upon the rights of the people, and especially upon the rights
   of the states. … Hancock finally came forward as a mediator.
   He proposed that the Constitution be ratified, with an
   accompanying recommendation that it be amended in the
   particulars in which it was thought to be defective. His
   proposition was adopted, and the Constitution was ratified
   [February 6] by a vote of 187 to 168. Maryland next ratified
   the Constitution with much unanimity [April 28],
   notwithstanding the strenuous opposition of Luther Martin. …
   South Carolina followed next [May 23], and ratified the
   Constitution by a majority of 76, but recommended amendments
   substantially like those of Massachusetts. South Carolina was
   the eighth state; and, if one more could be obtained, the
   Constitution would take effect between the nine ratifying
   states. There remained the five states of Virginia, New York,
   New Hampshire, North Carolina, and Rhode Island. The state
   convention of Virginia was called for the 2d of June 1788, of
   New York for the 17th, and of New Hampshire for the 18th of
   the same month. The result was expected to be adverse in
   everyone of these states. In Virginia the opposition was led
   by Patrick Henry. … Henry was ably seconded by Richard Henry
   Lee, William Grayson, and George Mason. … James Monroe
   followed their lead. James Madison and Governor Randolph were
   the leading champions of the new Constitution. … John
   Marshall, afterwards chief justice, came to their assistance.
   … The debate lasted a month. It may be read with instruction,
   as it is reported in the volumes of Elliot. The ratification
   prevailed [June 25] by a majority of ten in a vote of 186.
   After all, the influence of Washington procured the result. …
   Meanwhile, the state of New Hampshire had ratified the
   Constitution [June 21], but the fact was not known in
   Virginia. The opposition to the Constitution was great and
   bitter in the State of New York. Fortunately the convention
   was held so late that New Hampshire, the ninth state, had
   ratified while the New York convention was engaged in its
   heated discussions. Two thirds of the delegates were elected
   to oppose it. … The friends of the Constitution felt, long
   before the convention assembled, that public discussion might
   be useful in overcoming the hostile attitude of the state.
{3302}
   Accordingly, a series of essays in exposition of the
   Constitution was written by Hamilton, Madison, and Jay, over
   the common signature of 'Publius.' These essays were published
   in a newspaper, between October, 1787, and June, 1788. … They
   were subsequently collected and published in a volume styled
   'The Federalist.' From that day to this, 'The Federalist' has
   held unequalled rank as an authority upon the construction of
   the Constitution." On the 24th of June a fleet courier,
   employed by Hamilton, brought from Concord to Poughkeepsie,
   where the New York convention sat, news of the ratification of
   the Constitution by New Hampshire, the ninth state. "Now,
   indeed, the situation was changed. There was no longer a
   confederacy; the Union was already formed. … The state must
   either join the new system or stay out of it. New York was not
   favorably situated for a separate nation. New England on the
   east, and New Jersey and Pennsylvania on the south, belonged
   to the new Union. Canada was on the north. … Delay, with its
   altered circumstances, finally brought to Hamilton and his
   party the victory that had been denied to argument and
   eloquence. But the Anti-Federalists were reluctant to yield,
   and the debate was prolonged," until the 26th of July, when
   the ratification was carried by 30 votes against 27. "North
   Carolina remained out of the Union until November, 1789, and
   Rhode Island until June, 1790. … The ratification by nine
   states having been certified to the Congress of the
   Confederacy, that body adopted a resolution fixing the first
   Wednesday of March, 1789, as the day when the new government
   should go into operation. As the day fell on the 4th of March,
   that day became fixed for the beginning and the end of
   congressional and presidential terms."

      J. S. Landon,
      Constitutional History and Government of the United States,
      lecture 4.

G. T. Curtis, History of the Constitution of the United States, book 5 (volume 2).

      G. Bancroft,
      History of the Formation of the Constitution,
      book 4 (volume 2).

J. Elliot, editor, Debates in the State Convention on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution.

      W. C. Rives,
      Life and Times of Madison,
      chapters 34-36 (volume 2).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1789.
The First Presidential Election.
Washington called to the head of the new Government.

"The adoption of the Federal constitution was another epoch in the life of Washington. Before the official forms of an election could be carried into operation a unanimous sentiment throughout the Union pronounced him the nation's choice to fill the presidential chair. He looked forward to the possibility of his election with characteristic modesty and unfeigned reluctance; as his letters to his confidential friends bear witness. … The election took place at the appointed time [the first Wednesday in January, 1789], and it was soon ascertained that Washington was chosen President for the term of four years from the 4th of March. By this time the arguments and entreaties of his friends, and his own convictions of public expediency, had determined him to accept. … From a delay in forming a quorum of Congress the votes of the electoral college were not counted until early in April, when they were found to be unanimous in favor of Washington 'The delay,' said he in a letter to General Knox, 'may be compared to a reprieve; for in confidence I tell you (with the world it would obtain little credit), that my movements to the chair of government will be accompanied by feelings not unlike those of a culprit, who is going to the place of his execution; so unwilling am I, in the evening of a life nearly consumed in public cares, to quit a peaceful abode for an ocean of difficulties, without that competency of political skill, abilities and inclination, which are necessary to manage the helm.' … At length on the 14th of April he received a letter from the president of Congress, duly notifying him of his election; and he prepared to set out immediately for New York, the seat of government."

The secondary electoral votes, by which the Vice President was, at that time, chosen, were scattered among eleven candidates. John Adams received the greater number (34) though not quite a majority of the 69, and was elected.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1789.
Passage of the Act of Congress organizing the
Supreme Court of the United States.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1789-1792;
   Organization of the Federal government
   and first administration of Washington.
   The dividing of Parties.
   Federalists and Democratic Republicans.

"March 4th, 1789, had been appointed for the formal inauguration of the new Government, but the members elect had not yet unlearned the Confederacy's slovenly habits. It was not until April 6th that a sufficient number of members of Congress arrived in New York to form a quorum and count the electoral votes. At that time, and until 1805, no electoral votes were cast distinctively for President and Vice-President. Each elector voted by ballot for two persons. If a majority of all the votes were cast for any person, he who received the greatest number of votes became President, and he who received the next greatest number became Vice-President. When the votes were counted in 1789 they were found to be, for George Washington, of Virginia, 69 (each of the electors having given him one vote), for John Adams, of Massachusetts, 34, and 35 for various other candidates. Washington received notice of his election, and, after a triumphal progress northward from his home at Mount Vernon, was sworn into office April 30th [at Federal Hall, corner Wall and Nassau Streets, New York]. The Vice-President had taken his place as presiding officer of the Senate a few days before. Frederick A. Muhlenberg, of Pennsylvania, was chosen Speaker of the House, but the vote had no party divisions, for Parties were still in a state of utter confusion. Between the extreme Anti-federalists, who considered the Constitution a long step toward a despotism, and the extreme Federalists, who desired a monarchy modeled on that of England, there were all varieties of political opinion. … The extreme importance of Washington lay in his ability, through the universal confidence in his integrity and good judgment, to hold together this alliance of moderate men for a time, and to prevent party contests upon the interpretation of federal powers until the Constitution should show its merit and be assured of existence. {3303} The President selected his Cabinet with a careful regard to the opposite opinions of his supporters. The Treasury Department was given to Alexander Hamilton, of New York, a Federalist. … The War Department was given to General Henry Knox, of Massachusetts, also a Federalist. The State Department was given to Thomas Jefferson, of Virginia, an Anti-federalist. … Edmund Randolph, of Virginia, also an Anti-federalist, was appointed Attorney-General, and John Jay, of New York, a Federalist, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Twelve Amendments were adopted by this Session of Congress, in order to meet the conscientious objections of many moderate Anti-federalists, and to take the place of a 'Bill of Rights.' Ten of these, having received the assent of the necessary number of States, became a part of the Constitution, and now stand the first ten of the Amendments. They were intended to guarantee freedom of religion, speech, person, and property. … January 9th [1790] Hamilton offered his famous Report on the Settlement of the Public Debt. It consisted of three recommendations, first, that the foreign debt of the Confederacy should be assumed land paid in full; second, that the domestic debt of the Confederacy, which had fallen far below par and had become a synonym for worthlessness, should also be paid at its par value; and third, that the debts incurred by the States during the Revolution, and still unpaid, should be assumed and paid in full by the Federal Government. Hamilton's First recommendation was adopted unanimously. The Second was opposed, even by Madison and many moderate Anti-federalists, on the ground that the domestic debt was held by speculators, who had bought it at a heavy discount, and would thus gain usurious interest on their investment. Hamilton's supporters argued that, if only for that reason, they should be paid in full, that holders of United States securities might learn not to sell them at a discount, and that the national credit might thus be strengthened for all time to come. After long debate the second recommendation was also adopted. Hamilton's Third recommendation involved a question of the powers of the Federal Government. It therefore for the first time united all the Anti-federalists in opposition to it. They feared that the rope of sand of the Confederacy was being carried to the opposite extreme; that the 'money power' would, by this measure, be permanently attached to the Federal Government; and that the States would be made of no importance. But even this recommendation was adopted, though only by a vote of 31 to 26 in the House. A few days later, however, the Anti-federalists received a reinforcement of seven newly arrived North Carolina members. The third resolution was at once reconsidered, and voted down by a majority of two. Hamilton secured the final adoption of the third resolution by a bargain which excited the deep indignation of the Anti-federalists. A National Capital was to be selected. The Federalists agreed to vote that it should be fixed upon the Potomac River [see WASHINGTON (CITY): A. D. 1791], after remaining ten years in Philadelphia, and two Anti-federalist members from the Potomac agreed in return to vote for the third resolution, which was then finally adopted. Hamilton's entire report was thus successful. Its immediate effects were to appreciate the credit of the United States, and to enrich the holders of the Continental debt. Its further effect was to make Hamilton so much disliked by Anti-federalists that, despite his acknowledged talents, his party never ventured to nominate him for any elective office. … Party Organization may be considered as fairly begun about the close [of the first Session of the Second Congress, in 1792]. … The various Anti-federalist factions, by union in resisting the Federalists, had learned to forget minor differences and had been welded into one party which only lacked a name. That of Anti-federalist was no longer applicable, for its opposition to the Federal Union had entirely ceased. A name was supplied by Jefferson, the recognized leader of the party, after the French Revolution had fairly begun its course. That political convulsion had, for some time after 1789, the sympathy of both Federalists and Anti-federalists, for it seemed the direct outgrowth of the American Revolution. But, as its leveling objects became more apparent, the Federalists grew cooler and the Anti-federalists warmer towards it. The latter took great pains, even by dress and manners, to show the keenness of their sympathy for the Republicans of France, and about this time adopted the name Democratic-Republican, which seemed sufficiently comprehensive for a full indication of their principles. This has always been the official party title. It is now abbreviated to Democratic, though the name Democrat was at first used by Federalists as one of contempt, and the party called itself Republican, a title which it could hardly claim with propriety, for its tendency has always been toward a democracy, as that of its opponents has been toward a strong republic. The name Republican, therefore, belongs most properly to its present possessors (1879). But it must be remembered that the party which will be called Republican until about 1828 was the party which is now called Democratic."

Jefferson's bitterness of hostility to the Federalists was due to the belief that they aimed at the overthrow of the Republic. His conviction as to these really treasonable purposes in the leaders of the party was often expressed, but never more distinctly than in a letter written in 1813 to an English traveller, Mr. Melish. At the same time, he set forth the principles and aims of his own party: "Among that section of our citizens called federalists," he wrote, "there are three shades of opinion. Distinguishing between the leaders and people who compose it, the leaders consider the English constitution as a model of perfection, some, with a correction of its vices, others, with all its corruptions and abuses. This last was Alexander Hamilton's opinion, which others, as well as myself, have often heard him declare, and that a correction of what are called its vices would render the English an impracticable government. This government they wished to have established here, and only accepted and held fast, at first, to the present constitution, as a stepping-stone to the final establishment of their favorite model. This party has therefore always clung to England as their prototype and great auxiliary in promoting and effecting this change. A weighty minority, however, of these leaders, considering the voluntary conversion of our government into a monarchy as too distant, if not desperate, wish to break off from our Union its eastern fragment, as being, in truth, the hot-bed of American monarchism, with a view to a commencement of their favorite government, from whence the other States may gangrene by degrees, and the whole be thus brought finally to the desired point. {3304} For Massachusetts, the prime mover in this enterprise, is the last State in the Union to mean a final separation, as being of all the most dependent on the others. Not raising bread for the sustenance of her own inhabitants, not having a stick of timber for the construction of vessels, her principal occupation, nor an article to export in them, where would she be, excluded from the ports of the other States, and thrown into dependence on England, her direct, and natural, but now insidious rival? At the head of this minority is what is called the Essex Junto of Massachusetts. But the majority of these leaders do not aim at separation. In this, they adhere to the known principle of General Hamilton, never, under any views, to break the Union. Anglomany, monarchy, and separation, then, are the principles of the Essex federalists. Anglomany and monarchy, those of the Hamiltonians, and Anglomany alone, that of the portion among the people who call themselves federalists. These last are as good republicans as the brethren whom they oppose, and differ from them only in their devotion to England and hatred of France which they have imbibed from their leaders. The moment that these leaders should avowedly propose a separation of the Union, or the establishment of regal government, their popular adherents would quit them to a man, and join the republican standard; and the partisans of this change, even in Massachusetts, would thus find themselves an army of officers without a soldier. The party called republican is steadily for the support of the present constitution. They obtained at its commencement all the amendments to it they desired. These reconciled them to it perfectly, and if they have any ulterior view, it is only, perhaps, to popularize it further, by shortening the Senatorial term, and devising a process for the responsibility of judges, more practicable than that of impeachment. They esteem the people of England and France equally, and equally detest the governing powers of both. This I verily believe, after an intimacy of forty years with the public councils and characters, is a true statement of the grounds on which they are at present divided, and that it is not merely an ambition for power. An honest man can feel no pleasure in the exercise of power over his fellow citizens. And considering as the only offices of power those conferred by the people directly, that is to say, the executive and legislative functions of the General and State governments, the common refusal of these, and multiplied resignations, are proofs sufficient that power is not alluring to pure minds, and is not, with them, the primary principle of contest. This is my belief of it; it is that on which I have acted; and had it been a mere contest who should be permitted to administer the government according to its genuine republican principles, there has never been a moment of my life in which I should have relinquished for it the enjoyments of my family, my farm, my friends and books. You expected to discover the difference of our party principles in General Washington's valedictory, and my inaugural address. Not at all. General Washington did not harbor one principle of federalism. He was neither an Angloman, a monarchist, nor a separatist. He sincerely wished the people to have as much self-government as they were competent to exercise themselves. The only point on which he and I ever differed in opinion, was, that I had more confidence than he had in the natural integrity and discretion of the people, and in the safety and extent to which they might trust themselves with a control over their government. He has asseverated to me a thousand times his determination that the existing government should have a fair trial, and that in support of it he would spend the last drop of his blood. He did this the more repeatedly, because he knew General Hamilton's political bias, and my apprehensions from it."

      T. Jefferson,
      Letter to Mr. Melish, January 13, 1813
      (Writings, edited by Washington, volume 6).

   The view taken at the present day of the Federalism and the
   Federalists of the first three decades of the Union, among
   those who see more danger in the centrifugal than in the
   centripetal forces in government, are effectively stated in
   the following: "The popular notion in regard to Federalism is
   that to which the name naturally gives rise. By Federalists
   are commonly understood those men who advocated a union of the
   States and an efficient Federal government. This conception is
   true, but is at the same time so limited that it may fairly be
   called superficial. The name arose from its first object which
   the friends of the Constitution strove to achieve; but this
   object, the more perfect union, and even the Constitution
   itself, were but means to ends of vastly more importance. The
   ends which the Federalists sought formed the great principles
   on which the party was founded, and it can be justly said that
   no nobler or better ends were ever striven for by any
   political party or by any statesmen. The first and paramount
   object of the Federalists was to build up a nation and to
   create a national sentiment. For this they sought a more
   perfect union. Their next object was to give the nation they
   had called into existence not only a government, but a strong
   government. To do this, they had not only to devise a model,
   to draw a constitution, to organize a legislature, executive,
   and judiciary, but they had to equip the government thus
   formed with all those adjuncts without which no government can
   long exist under the conditions of modern civilization. The
   Federalists had to provide for the debt, devise a financial
   and foreign policy, organize an army, fortify the ports, found
   a navy, impose and collect taxes, and put in operation an
   extensive revenue system. We of the English race—whose creed
   is that governments and great political systems grow and
   develop slowly, are the results of climate, soil, race,
   tradition, and the exigencies of time and place, who wholly
   disavow the theory that perfect governments spring in a night
   from the heated brains of Frenchmen or Spaniards—can best
   appreciate the task with which our ancestors grappled. … Upon
   a people lately convulsed by civil war, upon a people who had
   lost their old political habits and traditions without finding
   new ones in their stead, it was necessary to impose a
   government, and to create a national sentiment. This the
   Federalists did, and they need no other eulogy.
{3305}
   With no undue national pride, we can justly say that the
   adoption and support of the Constitution offer an example of
   the political genius of the Anglo-Saxon race to which history
   cannot furnish a parallel. The political party to whose
   exertions these great results were due was the Federal party.
   They were the party of order, of good government, and of
   conservatism. Against them was ranged a majority of their
   fellow-citizens. But this majority was wild, anarchical,
   disunited. The only common ground on which they could meet was
   that of simple opposition. The only name they had was
   anti-Federalists. They had neither leaders, discipline,
   objects, nor even a party cry. Before the definite aims and
   concentrated ability of the Federalists, they fled in helpless
   disorder, like an unarmed mob before advancing soldiers. But,
   though dispersed, the anti-Federalists were still in a
   numerical majority. They needed a leader, organization, and
   opportunity, and they soon found all three. Thomas Jefferson
   arrived in New York, not only to enter into Washington's
   cabinet, and lend the aid of his great talents to the success
   of the new scheme, but soon also to put himself at the head of
   the large though demoralized opposition to the administration
   he had sworn to support. Filled with the wild democratic
   theories which his susceptible nature had readily imbibed in
   France, Jefferson soon infused them into the minds of most of
   his followers. Instead of a vague dislike to any and all
   government, he substituted a sharp and factious opposition to
   each and every measure proposed by the friends of the
   Constitution."

      M. Van Buren,
      Political Parties in the United States,
      chapters 2-4.

      J. D. Hammond,
      History of Political Parties in New York,
      volume 1, chapters 1-2.

White. Free black. Slave.
Connecticut. 232,581 2,801 2,759
Maine. 96,002 538 0
Massachusetts. 373,254 5,463 0
New Hampshire. 141,111 630 158
New Jersey. 169,954 2,762 11,423
New York. 314,142 4,654 21,324
Pennsylvania. 424,099 6,537 3,737
Rhode Island. 64,689 3,469 952
Vermont. 85,144 255 17
—- —- —-
Total 1,900,976 27,109 40,370

White. Free black. Slave.
Delaware. 46,310 3,899 8,887
Georgia. 52,886 398 29,264
Kentucky. 61,133 114 11,830
Maryland. 208,649 8,043 103,036
North Carolina. 288,204 4,975 100,572
South Carolina. 140,178 1,801 107,094
Tennessee. 32,013 361 3,417
Virginia. 442,115 12,766 293,427
—- —- —-
Total 1,271,488 32,357 657,527

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1790-1795.
   War with the Indian tribes of the Northwest.
   Disastrous expeditions of Harmar and St. Clair,
   and Wayne's decisive victory.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1791.
Incorporation of the first Bank of the United States.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1791. Adoption of the first ten Amendments to the Federal Constitution.

The first ten amendments to the Constitution (see CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA), embodying a declaration of rights which was thought to be necessary by many who had consented to the adoption of the Constitution, but only with the understanding that such amendments should be added, were proposed to the legislatures of the several States by the First Congress, on the 25th of September, 1789. At different dates between November 20, 1789 and December 15, 1791, they were ratified by eleven of the then fourteen States. "There is no evidence on the journals of Congress that the legislatures of Connecticut, Georgia, and Massachusetts ratified them."

      Constitution,
      Rules and Manual of the UNITED STATES SENATE (1885)
      page 61.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1792.
Admission of Kentucky to the Union.
Slavery in the Constitution of the new State.

   George Washington re-elected with unanimity, receiving 132
   votes of the Electoral College, John Adams, Vice President,
   receiving 77 votes, with 50 cast for George Clinton, 4 for
   Jefferson and 1 for Burr.

   For some time after the adoption of the Federal Constitution,
   its provision relating to the rendition of persons "held to
   service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof,
   escaping into another" remained without legislation to execute
   it; "and it is a striking fact that the call for legislation
   came not from the South, but from a free State; and that it
   was provoked, not by fugitive slaves, but by kidnappers. … A
   free negro named John was seized at Washington, Pennsylvania,
   in 1791, and taken to Virginia. The Governor of Pennsylvania,
   at the instigation of the Society for the Abolition of
   Slavery, asked the return of the three kidnappers; but the
   Governor of Virginia replied that, since there was no national
   law touching such a case, he could not carry out the request.
   On the matter being brought to the notice of Congress by the
   Governor of Pennsylvania," a bill was passed which "became law
   by the signature of the President, February 12, 1793. … The
   act provided at the same time for the recovery of fugitives
   from justice and from labor; but the alleged criminal was to
   have a protection through the requirement of a requisition, a
   protection denied to the man on trial for his liberty only.
   The act was applicable to fugitive apprentices as well as to
   slaves, a provision of some importance at the time. In the
   Northwest Territory there were so-called negro apprentices,
   who were virtually slaves, and to whom the law applied, since
   it was in terms extended to all the Territories. Proceedings
   began with the forcible seizure of the alleged fugitive. The
   act, it will be observed, does not admit a trial by jury.
{3306}
   It allowed the owner of the slave, his agent or attorney, to
   seize the fugitive and take him before any judge of a United
   States Circuit or District Court, or any local magistrate. The
   only requirement for the conviction of the slave was the
   testimony of his master, or the affidavit of some magistrate
   in the State from which he came, certifying that such a person
   had escaped. Hindering arrest or harboring a slave was
   punishable by a fine of five hundred dollars. The law thus
   established a system allowing the greatest harshness to the
   slave and every favor to the master. Even at that time, when
   persons might still be born slaves in New York and New Jersey,
   and gradual emancipation had not yet taken full effect in
   Rhode Island and Connecticut, it was repellent to the popular
   sense of justice; there were two cases of resistance 'to the
   principle of the act before the close of 1793. Until 1850 no
   further law upon this subject was passed, but as the
   provisions of 1793 were found ineffectual, many attempts at
   amendment were made."

      M. G. McDougall,
      Fugitive Slaves, 1619-1865
      (Fay House Monographs, number 3), pages 17-19.

"The fugitive-slave clause in the Constitution is of course obligatory, but there is a wide distinction between the fugitive-slave clause and the fugitive-slave law. The Constitution gives no power to Congress to legislate on the subject, but imposes on the States the obligation of rendition. Chief-Justice Hornblower, of New York, and Chancellor Walworth, of New York, long since pronounced the fugitive law of '93 unconstitutional on this very ground."

      William Jay,
      Letter to Josiah Quincy
      (quoted in B. Tuckerman's "William Jay and the
      Constitutional Movement for the Abolition of Slavery").

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1793.
   Popular sympathy with the French Revolution.
   Washington's Proclamation of Neutrality.
   Insolent conduct of the French minister, Genet.

"The French Revolution, as was natural from the all-important services rendered by France to the United States in their own revolutionary struggle, enlisted the warm sympathy of the American people. … As the United States were first introduced to the family of nations by the alliance with France of 1778, the very important question arose, on the breaking out of the war between France and England, how far they were bound to take part in the contest. The second article of the treaty of alliance seemed to limit its operation to the then existing war between the United States and Great Britain; but by the eleventh article the two contracting powers agreed to 'guarantee mutually from the present time and forever, against all other powers,' the territories of which the allies might be in possession respectively at the moment the war between France and Great Britain should break out, which was anticipated as the necessary consequence of the alliance. Not only were the general sympathies of America strongly with France, but the course pursued by Great Britain toward the United States, since the peace of 1783, was productive of extreme irritation, especially her refusal to give up the western posts, which … had the effect of involving the northwestern frontier in a prolonged and disastrous Indian war. These causes, together with the recent recollections of the revolutionary struggle, disposed the popular mind to make common cause with France, in what was regarded as the war of a people struggling for freedom against the combined despots of Europe. Washington, however, from the first, determined to maintain the neutrality of the country;" and, with the unanimous advice of his cabinet, he issued (April 22, 1793) a proclamation of neutrality. "This proclamation, though draughted by Mr. Jefferson and unanimously adopted by the Cabinet, was violently assailed by the organs of the party which followed his lead. … The growing excitement of the popular mind was fanned to a flame by the arrival at Charleston, South Carolina [April 9], of 'Citizen' Genet, who was sent as the minister of the French Republic to the United States. Without repairing to the seat of government, or being accredited in any way, in his official capacity, he began to fit out privateers in Charleston, to cruise against the commerce of England. Although the utmost gentleness and patience were observed by the executive of the United States in checking this violation of their neutrality, Genet assumed from the first a tone of defiance, and threatened before long to appeal from the government to the people. These insolent demonstrations were of course lost upon Washington's firmness and moral courage. They distressed, but did not in the slightest degree intimidate him; and their effect on the popular mind was to some extent neutralized by the facts, that the chief measures to maintain the neutrality of the country had been unanimously advised by the Cabinet, and that the duty of rebuking his intemperate course had devolved upon the secretary of state [Jefferson], the recognized head of the party to which Genet looked for sympathy."

A demand for "Genet's recall was determined on during the first days of August. There was some discussion over the manner of requesting the recall, but the terms were made gentle by Jefferson, to the disgust of the Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of War [Hamilton and Knox], who desired direct methods and stronger language. As finally toned up and agreed upon by the President and cabinet, the document was sufficiently vigorous to annoy Genet, and led to bitter reproaches addressed to his friend in the State Department. … The letter asking Genet's recall, as desired by Washington, went in due time, and in the following February came a successor. Genet, however, did not go back to his native land, for he preferred to remain here and save his head, valueless as that article would seem to have been. He spent the rest of his days in America, married, harmless, and quite obscure. His noise and fireworks were soon over, and one wonders now how he could ever have made as much flare and explosion as he did."

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1793. Whitney's Cotton-gin and the series of inventions which it made complete. Their political effect. The strengthening of the Slave Power, and the strengthening of Unionism.

"Some English artisans, who, about the middle of the last century, were obtaining a scanty living by spinning, weaving and other such occupations, turned their inventive talent to the improvement of their art. {3307} Paul and Wyatt introduced the operation of spinning by rollers; Highs, or Hargreaves, invented the jenny, by which a great many threads could be spun as easily as one. Paul devised the rotating carding-engine; Crompton the mule; Arkwright the water-frame, which produced any number of threads of any degree of fineness and hardness. These ingenious machines constituted a very great improvement on the spindle and distaff of ancient times, and on the spinning-wheel, originally brought from Asia, or perhaps reinvented in Europe. At length one spinner was able to accomplish as much work as one hundred could have formerly done. While the art of producing threads was undergoing this singular improvement, Cartwright, a clergyman, invented, in 1785, the power-loom, intended to supersede the operation of weaving by hand, and to make the production of textile fabrics altogether the result of machinery. After some modifications, that loom successfully accomplished the object for which it was devised. As these inventions succeeded, they necessarily led to a demand for motive power. In the first little cotton factory, the germ of that embodiment of modern industry, the cotton-mill, a water-wheel was employed to give movement to the machinery. The establishment was, therefore, necessarily placed near a stream, where a sufficient fall could be obtained. The invention of the steam-engine by Watt, which was the consequence of the new and correct views of the nature of vapors that had been established by Dr. Black, supplied, in due time, the required motive power, and by degrees the water-wheel went almost out of use. Textile manufacture needed now but one thing more to become of signal importance—it needed a more abundant supply of raw material. … Cotton, the fibre chiefly concerned in these improvements, was obtained in limited quantities from various countries; but, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, not a single pound was exported from the United States. What was grown here was for domestic consumption. Every good housewife had her spinning-wheel, every plantation its hand-loom. The difficulty of supplying cotton fibre in quantity sufficient to meet the demands of the new machinery was due to the imperfect means in use for separating the cotton from its seeds—a tedious operation, for the picking was done by hand. Eli Whitney, a native of Massachusetts, by his invention of the cotton-gin in 1793, removed that difficulty. The fibre could be separated from the seeds with rapidity and at a trifling cost. There was nothing now to prevent an extraordinary development in the English manufactures. A very few years showed what the result would be. In 1790 no cotton was exported from the United States. Whitney's gin was introduced in 1793. The next year about 1½ million of pounds were exported; in 1795, about 5¼ millions; in 1860, the quantity had reached 2,000 millions of pounds. The political effect of this mechanical invention, which thus proved to be the completion of all the previous English inventions, being absolutely necessary to give them efficacy, was at once seen in its accomplishing a great increase and a redistribution of population in England. … In the United States the effects were still more important. Cotton could be grown through all the Southern Atlantic and the Gulf States. It was more profitable than any other crop—but it was raised by slaves. Whatever might have been the general expectation respecting the impending extinction of slavery, it was evident that at the commencement of this century the conditions had altogether changed. A powerful interest had come into unforeseen existence both in Europe and America which depended on perpetuating that mode of labor. Moreover, before long it was apparent that, partly because of the adaptation of their climate to the growth of the plant, partly because of the excellence of the product, and partly owing to the increasing facilities for interior transportation, the cotton-growing states of America would have a monopoly in the supply of this staple. But, though mechanical invention had reinvigorated the slave power by bestowing on it the cotton-gin, it had likewise strengthened unionism by another inestimable gift—the steam-boat. At the very time that the African slave-trade was prohibited, Fulton was making his successful experiment of the navigation of the Hudson River by steam. This improvement in inland navigation rendered available, in a manner never before contemplated, the river and lake system of the continent; it gave an instantaneous value to the policy of Jefferson, by bringing into effectual use the Mississippi and its tributaries; it crowded with population the shores of the lakes; it threw the whole continent open to commerce, it strengthened the central power at Washington by diminishing space, and while it extended geographically the domain of the republic, it condensed it politically. It bound all parts of the Union more firmly together. … In the Constitution it had been agreed that three fifths of the slaves should be accounted as federal numbers in the apportionment of federal representation. A political advantage was thus given to slave labor. This closed the eyes of the South to all other means of solving its industrial difficulties. … To the cotton-planter two courses were open. He might increase his manual force, or he might resort to machinery. … It required no deep political penetration for him to perceive that the introduction of machinery must in the end result in the emancipation of the slave. Machinery and slavery are incompatible—the slave is displaced by the machine. In the Southern States political reasons thus discouraged the introduction of machinery. Under the Constitution an increased negro force had a political value, machinery had none. The cotton interest was therefore persuaded by those who were in a position to guide its movements, that its prosperity could be secured only through increased manual labor."

Dr. J. W. Draper, History of the American Civil War, section 3, chapter 16 (volume 1).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1794.
Resistance to the Excise.
The Whisky Insurrection in Pennsylvania.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1794-1795.
Threatening relations with Great Britain.
The Jay Treaty.

"The daily increasing 'love-frenzy for France,' and the intemperate language of the Democratic press, naturally emphasized in England that reaction against America which set in with the treaty of peace. On the other hand, the retention of the frontier posts in violation of that treaty was a thorn in the side of the young Republic. In the course of the war England had adopted, by successive Orders in Council, a policy ruinous to the commerce of neutral nations, especially of the United States. {3308} In the admiralty courts of the various British West India islands hundreds of ships from New England were seized and condemned, for carrying French produce or bearing cargoes of provisions chartered to French ports. The New England fishermen and shipowners were vociferous for war, and the Democratic clubs denounced every British insult and celebrated every French victory. On March 26, 1794, an embargo against British ships was proclaimed for thirty days, and then extended for thirty days longer. The day after the embargo was laid, Dayton, of New Jersey, moved in Congress to sequester all moneys due to British creditors, and apply it towards indemnifying shipowners for losses incurred through the Orders in Council; and on April 21st the Republicans moved a resolution to suspend, all commercial intercourse with Great Britain till the western posts should be given up, and indemnity be paid for injuries to American commerce in violation of the rights of neutrals. The passage of such an act meant war; and for war the United States was never more unprepared. … Peace could be secured only by immediate negotiation and at least a temporary settlement of the causes of neutral irritation, and for such a task the ministers at London and Washington were incompetent or unsuited. … In this crisis Washington decided to send to England a special envoy. Hamilton was his first choice, but Hamilton had excited bitter enmities." On Hamilton's recommendation, John Jay, the Chief Justice, was chosen for the difficult mission, and he sailed for England in May, 1794, landing at Falmouth on the 8th of June. Within the succeeding five months he accomplished the negotiation of a treaty, which was signed on the 19th of November. "The main points that Jay had been instructed to gain were compensation for negroes [carried away by the British armies on the evacuation of the country in 1783], surrender of the posts, and compensation for spoliations; in addition, a commercial treaty was desired. When Secretary for Foreign Affairs, Jay had argued that the negroes, some 3,000 in number, who, at the time of the evacuation, were within the British lines, relying on proclamations that offered freedom, and who followed the troops to England, came within that clause of the treaty of peace which provided that the army should be withdrawn without 'carrying away any negroes or other property.' Lord Grenville, however, insisted upon refusing any compensation. Once within the British lines, he said, slaves were free for good and all. … From any point of view the matter was too insignificant to wreck the treaty upon it, and Jay waived the claim. As to the western posts [Oswego, Niagara, Detroit, Mackinaw, etc.], it was agreed that they should be surrendered by June 12, 1796. But compensation for the detention was denied on the ground that it was due to the breach of the treaty by the United States in permitting the States to prevent the recovery of British debts." For the determination and payment of such debts, it was now provided that a board of five commissioners should sit at Philadelphia; while another similar board at London should award compensation for irregular and illegal captures or condemnations made during the war between Great Britain and France. "Under this clause American merchants received $10,345,000. … The disputed questions of boundaries, arising from the construction of the treaty of peace, were referred to joint commissioners: properly enough, as the confusion was due to ignorance of the geography of the Northwest. British and American citizens holding lands at the time respectively in the United States and in any of the possessions of Great Britain were secured in their rights; a clause much objected to in America, but which was obviously just. A still more important provision followed, a novelty in international diplomacy, and a distinct advance in civilization: that war between the two countries should never be made the pretext for confiscation of debts or annulment of contracts between individuals. In the War of 1812 the United States happened for the moment to be the creditor nation, and the millions which this provision saved to her citizens it would be difficult to estimate. … It was the commercial articles which excited the most intense hostility in America. … To unprejudiced eyes, after the lapse of a hundred years, considering the mutual exasperation of the two peoples, the pride of England in her successes in the war with France, the weakness and division of the United States, the treaty seems a very fair one. Certainly one far less favorable to America would have been infinitely preferable to a war, and would probably in the course of time have been accepted as being so. The commercial advantages were not very considerable, but they at least served as 'an entering wedge,' to quote Jay's expression, and they were 'pro tanto' a clear gain to America. … The treaty was not published till July 2d. … Even before its contents were known, letters, signed 'Franklin,' appeared abusing the treaty; and in Philadelphia an effigy of Jay was placed in the pillory, and finally taken down, guillotined, the clothes fired, and the body blown up. It was clear, then, that it was not this particular treaty, but any treaty at all with Great Britain, that excited the wrath of the Republicans. On July 4th toasts insulting Jay or making odious puns on his name, were the fashion. … On June 24th the treaty was ratified by the Senate, with the exception of the article about the West India trade. On August 15th it was signed, with the same exception by Washington."

"The reception given to the treaty cannot be fully explained by the existing relations between the United States and England. It was only in consequence of its Francomania that the opposition assumed the character of blind rage."

      H. von Holst,
      Constitutional and Political History of the United States,
      volume 1, page 124.

      ALSO IN:
      H. S. Randall,
      Life of Jefferson,
      volume 2, chapters 4-6.

W. Jay, Life of John Jay, volume 1, chapters 8-10 and volume 2, pages 216-264.

J. B. McMaster, History of the People of the United States, volume 2, chapter 9.

   "The period for the presidential election was drawing near,
   and great anxiety began to be felt that Washington would
   consent to stand for a third term. No one, it was agreed, had
   greater claim to the enjoyment of retirement, in consideration
   of public services rendered; but it was thought the affairs of
   the country would be in a very precarious condition should he
   retire before the wars of Europe were brought to a close.
{3309}
   Washington, however, had made up his mind irrevocably on the
   subject, and resolved to announce, in a farewell address, his
   intention of retiring. Such an instrument, it will be
   recollected, had been prepared for him from his own notes, by
   Mr. Madison, when he had thought of retiring at the end of his
   first term. As he was no longer in confidential intimacy with
   Mr. Madison, he turned to Mr. Hamilton as his adviser and
   coadjutor, and appears to have consulted him on the subject
   early in the present year [1796], for, in a letter dated New
   York, May 10th, Hamilton writes: 'When last in Philadelphia,
   you mentioned to me your wish that I should "re-dress" a
   certain paper which you had prepared. As it is important that
   a thing of this kind should be done with great care and much
   at leisure, touched and retouched, I submit a wish that, as
   soon as you have given it the body you mean it to have, it may
   be sent to me.' The paper was accordingly sent, on the 15th of
   May, in its rough state, altered in one part since Hamilton
   had seen it. 'If you should think it best to throw the whole
   into a different form,' writes Washington, 'let me request,
   notwithstanding, that my draft may be returned to me (along
   with yours) with such amendments and corrections as to render
   it as perfect as the formation is susceptible of; curtailed if
   too verbose, and relieved of all tautology not necessary to
   enforce the ideas in the original or quoted part. My wish is,
   that the whole may appear in a plain style; and be handed to
   the public in an honest, unaffected, simple garb.' We forbear
   to go into the vexed question concerning this address; how
   much of it is founded on Washington's original 'notes and
   heads of topics'; how much was elaborated by Madison, and how
   much is due to Hamilton's recasting and revision. The whole
   came under the supervision of Washington; and the instrument,
   as submitted to the press, was in his handwriting, with many
   ultimate corrections and alterations. Washington had no pride
   of authorship; his object always was to effect the purpose in
   hand, and for that he occasionally invoked assistance, to
   ensure a plain and clear exposition of his thoughts and
   intentions. The address certainly breathes his spirit
   throughout, is in perfect accordance with all his words and
   actions, and 'in an honest, unaffected, simple garb,' embodies
   the system of policy on which he had acted throughout his
   administration. It was published in September [17], in a
   Philadelphia paper called the Daily Advertiser. The
   publication of the Address produced a great sensation. Several
   of the State legislatures ordered it to be put on their
   journals."

"To the people of the United States. Friends and Fellow-Citizens: The period for a new election of a citizen, to administer the executive government of the United States, being not far distant, and the time actually arrived, when your thoughts must be employed in designating the person, who is to be clothed with that important trust, it appears to me proper, especially as it may conduce to a more distinct expression of the public voice, that I should now apprize you of the resolution I have formed, to decline being considered among the number of those, out of whom a choice is to be made. I beg you, at the same time, to do me the justice to be assured, that this resolution has not been taken without a strict regard to an the considerations appertaining to the relation, which binds a dutiful citizen to his country; and that, in withdrawing the tender of service, which silence in my situation might imply, I am influenced by no diminution of zeal for your future interest; no deficiency of grateful respect for your past kindness; but am supported by a full conviction that the step is compatible with both. The acceptance of, and continuance hitherto in, the office to which your suffrages have twice called me, have been a uniform sacrifice of inclination to the opinion of duty, and to a deference for what appeared to be your desire. I constantly hoped, that it would have been much earlier in my power, consistently with motives, which I was not at liberty to disregard, to return to that retirement, from which I had been reluctantly drawn. The strength of my inclination to do this, previous to the last election, had even led to the preparation of an address to declare it to you; but mature reflection on the then perplexed and critical posture of our affairs with foreign nations, and the unanimous advice of persons entitled to my confidence, impelled me to abandon the idea. I rejoice, that the state of your concerns, external as well as internal, no longer renders the pursuit of inclination incompatible with the sentiment of duty, or propriety; and am persuaded, whatever partiality may be retained for my services, that, in the present circumstances of our country, you will not disapprove my determination to retire. The impressions, with which I first undertook the arduous trust, were explained on the proper occasion. In the discharge of this trust, I will only say, that I have, with good intentions, contributed towards the organization and administration of the government the best exertions of which a very fallible judgment was capable. Not unconscious, in the outset, of the inferiority of my qualifications, experience in my own eyes, perhaps still more in the eyes of others, has strengthened the motives to diffidence of myself; and every day the increasing weight of years admonishes me more and more, that the shade of retirement is as necessary to me as it will be welcome. Satisfied, that, if any circumstances have given peculiar value to my services, they were temporary, I have the consolation to believe, that, while choice and prudence invite me to quit the political scene, patriotism does not forbid it. In looking forward to the moment, which is intended to terminate the career of my public life, my feelings do not permit me to suspend the deep acknowledgment of that debt of gratitude, which I owe to my beloved country for the many honors it has conferred upon me; still more for the steadfast confidence with which it has supported me; and for the opportunities I have thence enjoyed of manifesting my inviolable attachment, by services faithful and persevering, though in usefulness unequal to my zeal. If benefits have resulted to our country from these services, let it always be remembered to your praise, and as an instructive example in our annals, that under circumstances in which the passions, agitated in every direction, were liable to mislead, amidst appearances sometimes dubious, vicissitudes of fortune often discouraging, in situations in which not unfrequently want of success has countenanced the spirit of criticism, the constancy of your support was the essential prop of the efforts, and a guarantee of the plans by which they were effected. {3310} Profoundly penetrated with this idea, I shall carry it with me to my grave, as a strong incitement to unceasing vows that Heaven may continue to you the choicest tokens of its beneficence; that your union and brotherly affection may be perpetual; that the free constitution, which is the work of your hands, may be sacredly maintained; that its administration in every department may be stamped with wisdom and virtue; that, in fine, the happiness of the people of these States, under the auspices of liberty, may be made complete, by so careful a preservation and so prudent a use of this blessing, as will acquire to them the glory of recommending it to the applause, the affection, and adoption of every nation, which is yet a stranger to it. Here, perhaps, I ought to stop. But a solicitude for your welfare, which cannot end but with my life, and the apprehension of danger, natural to that solicitude, urge me, on an occasion like the present, to offer to your solemn contemplation, and to recommend to your frequent review, some sentiments, which are the result of much reflection, of no inconsiderable observation, and which appear to me all-important to the permanency of your felicity as a People. These will be offered to you with the more freedom, as you can only see in them the disinterested warnings of a parting friend, who can possibly have no personal motive to bias his counsel. Nor can I forget, as an encouragement to it, your indulgent reception of my sentiments on a former and not dissimilar occasion. Interwoven as is the love of liberty with every ligament of your hearts, no recommendation of mine is necessary to fortify or confirm the attachment. The unity of Government, which constitutes you one people, is also now dear to you. It is justly so: for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquillity at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very Liberty, which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee, that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed, to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth; as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment, that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national Union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the Palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion, that it can in any event be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts. For this you have every inducement of sympathy and interest. Citizens, by birth or choice, of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of American, which belongs to you, in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of Patriotism, more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles. You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together; the Independence and Liberty you possess are the work of joint counsels, and joint efforts, of common dangers, sufferings, and successes. But these considerations, however powerfully they address themselves to your sensibility, are greatly outweighed by those, which apply more immediately to your interest. Here every portion of our country finds the most commanding motives for carefully guarding and preserving the Union of the whole. The North, in an unrestrained intercourse with the South, protected by the equal laws of a common government, finds, in the productions of the latter, great additional resources of maritime and commercial enterprise and precious materials of manufacturing industry. The South, in the same intercourse, benefiting by the agency of the North, sees its agriculture grow and its commerce expand. Turning partly into its own channels the seamen of the North, it finds its particular navigation invigorated; and, while it contributes, in different ways, to nourish and increase the general mass of the national navigation, it looks forward to the protection of a maritime strength, to which itself is unequally adapted. The East, in a like intercourse with the West, already finds, and in the progressive improvement of interior communications by land and water, will more and more find, a valuable vent for the commodities which it brings from abroad, or manufactures at home. The West derives from the East supplies requisite to its growth and comfort, and, what is perhaps of still greater consequence, it must of necessity owe the secure enjoyment of indispensable outlets for its own productions to the weight, influence, and the future maritime strength of the Atlantic side of the Union, directed by an indissoluble community of interest as one nation. Any other tenure by which the West can hold this essential advantage, whether derived from its own separate strength, or from an apostate and unnatural connexion with any foreign power, must be intrinsically precarious. While, then, every part of our country thus feels an immediate and particular interest in Union, all the parts combined cannot fail to find in the united mass of means and efforts greater strength, greater resource, proportionably greater security from external danger, a less frequent interruption of their peace by foreign nations; and, what is of inestimable value, they must derive from Union an exemption from those broils and wars between themselves, which so frequently afflict neighbouring countries not tied together by the same governments, which their own rivalships alone would be sufficient to produce, but which opposite foreign alliances, attachments, and intrigues would stimulate and embitter. Hence, likewise, they will avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments, which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to Republican Liberty. In this sense it is, that your Union ought to be considered as a main prop of your liberty, and that the love of the one ought to endear to you the preservation of the other. {3311} These considerations speak a persuasive language to every reflecting and virtuous mind, and exhibit the continuance of the Union as a primary object of Patriotic desire. Is there a doubt, whether a common government can embrace so large a sphere? Let experience solve it. To listen to mere speculation in such a case were criminal. We are authorized to hope, that a proper organization of the whole, with the auxiliary agency of governments for the respective subdivisions, will afford a happy issue to the experiment. It is well worth a fair and full experiment. With such powerful and obvious motives to Union, affecting all parts of our country, while experience shall not have demonstrated its impracticability, there will always be reason to distrust the patriotism of those, who in any quarter may endeavour to weaken its bands. In contemplating the causes, which may disturb our Union, it occurs as matter of serious concern, that any ground should have been furnished for characterizing parties by Geographical discriminations, Northern and Southern, Atlantic and Western; whence designing men may endeavour to excite a belief, that there is a real difference of local interests and views. One of the expedients of party to acquire influence, within particular districts, is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts. You cannot shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heart-burnings, which spring from these misrepresentations; they tend to render alien to each other those, who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection. The inhabitants of our western country have lately had a useful lesson on this head; they have seen, in the negotiation by the Executive, and in the unanimous ratification by the Senate, of the treaty with Spain, and in the universal satisfaction at that event, throughout the United States, a decisive proof how unfounded were the suspicious propagated among them of a policy in the General Government and in the Atlantic States unfriendly to their interests in regard to the Mississippi; they have been witnesses to the formation of two treaties, that with Great Britain, and that with Spain, which secure to them every thing they could desire, in respect to our foreign relations, towards confirming their prosperity. Will it not be their wisdom to rely for the preservation of these advantages on the Union by which they were procured? Will they not henceforth be deaf to those advisers, if such there are, who would sever them from their brethren, and connect them with aliens? To the efficacy and permanency of your Union, a Government for the whole is indispensable. No alliances, however strict, between the parts can be an adequate substitute; they must inevitably experience the infractions and interruptions, which all alliances in all times have experienced. Sensible of this momentous truth, you have improved upon your first essay, by the adoption of a Constitution of Government better calculated than your former for an intimate Union, and for the efficacious management of your common concerns. This Government, the offspring of our own choice, uninfluenced and unawed, adopted upon full investigation and mature deliberation, completely free in its principles, in the distribution of its powers, uniting security with energy, and containing within itself a provision for its own amendment, has a just claim to your confidence and your support. Respect for its authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescence in its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of true Liberty. The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their Constitutions of Government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish Government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established Government. All obstructions to the execution of the Laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels, and modified by mutual interests. However combinations or associations of the above descriptions may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people, and to usurp for themselves the reins of government; destroying afterwards the very engines, which have lifted them to unjust dominion. Towards the preservation of your government, and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite, not only that you steadily discountenance irregular oppositions to its acknowledged authority, but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretexts. One method of assault may be to effect, in the forms of the constitution, alterations, which will impair the energy of the system, and thus to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown. In all the changes to which you may be invited, remember that time and habit are at least as necessary to fix the true character of governments, as of other human institutions; that experience is the surest standard, by which to test the real tendency of the existing constitution of a country; that facility in changes, upon the credit of mere hypothesis and opinion, exposes to perpetual change, from the endless variety of hypothesis and opinion; and remember, especially, that, for the efficient management of your common interests, in a country so extensive as ours, a government of as much vigor as is consistent with the perfect security of liberty is indispensable. Liberty itself will find in such a government, with powers properly distributed and adjusted, its surest guardian. It is, indeed, little else than a name, where the government is too feeble to withstand the enterprise of faction, to confine each member of the society within the limits prescribed by the laws, and to maintain all in the secure and tranquil enjoyment of the rights of person and property. {3312} I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the state, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally. This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stilled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy. The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty. Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind, (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight,) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it. It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another. There is an opinion, that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the Government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of Liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in Governments of a Monarchical cast, Patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in Governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And, there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume. It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution, in those intrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart, is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositories, and constituting each the Guardian of the Public Weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern; some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way, which the constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for, though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield. Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. It is substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who, that is a sincere friend to it, can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric? Promote, then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened. As a very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is, to use it as sparingly as possible; avoiding occasions of expense by cultivating peace, but remembering also that timely disbursements to prepare for danger frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel it; avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertions in time of peace to discharge the debts, which unavoidable wars may have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burthen, which we ourselves ought to bear. The execution of these maxims belongs to your representatives, but it is necessary that public opinion should cooperate. {3313} To facilitate to them the performance of their duty, it is essential that you should practically bear in mind, that towards the payment of debts there must be Revenue; that to have Revenue there must be taxes; that no taxes can be devised, which are not more or less inconvenient and unpleasant, that the intrinsic embarrassment, inseparable from the selection of the proper objects (which is always a choice of difficulties), ought to be a decisive motive for a candid construction of the conduct of the government in making it, and for a spirit of acquiescence in the measures for obtaining revenue, which the public exigencies may at any time dictate. Observe good faith and justice towards all Nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and Morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be, that good policy does not equally enjoin it? It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and, at no distant period, a great Nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt, that, in the course of time and things, the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages, which might be lost by a steady adherence to it? Can it be, that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a Nation with its Virtue? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices? In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential, than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular Nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The Nation, which indulges towards another an habitual hatred, or an habitual fondness, is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The Nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the Government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The Government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times, it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of Nations has been the victim. So likewise, a passionate attachment of one Nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite Nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest, in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter, without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite Nation of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the Nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained; and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens, (who devote themselves to the favorite nation,) facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base of foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation. As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent Patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practise the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the Public Councils! Such an attachment of a small or weak, towards a great and powerful nation, dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter. Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens,) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake; since history and experience prove, that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of Republican Government. But that jealousy, to be useful, must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defence against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation, and excessive dislike of another, cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots, who may resist the intrigues of the favorite, are liable to become suspected and odious; while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests. The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connexion as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities. Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people, under an efficient government, the period is not far off, when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality, we may at any time resolve upon, to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel. Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice? It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. {3314} I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them. Taking care always to keep ourselves, by suitable establishments, on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies. Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand; neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing; establishing, with powers so disposed, in order to give trade a stable course, to define the rights of our merchants, and to enable the government to support them, conventional rules of intercourse, the best that present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit, but temporary, and liable to be from time to time abandoned or varied, as experience and circumstances shall dictate; constantly keeping in view, that it is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character; that, by such acceptance, it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors, and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more. There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion, which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard. In offering to you, my countrymen, these counsels of an old and affectionate friend, I dare not hope they will make the strong and lasting impression I could wish; that they will control the usual current of the passions, or prevent our nation from running the course, which has hitherto marked the destiny of nations. But, if I may even flatter myself, that they may be productive of some partial benefit, some occasional good; that they may now and then recur to moderate the fury of party spirit, to warn against the mischiefs of foreign intrigue, to guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism; this hope will be a full recompense for the solicitude for your welfare, by which they have been dictated. How far in the discharge of my official duties, I have been guided by the principles which have been delineated, the public records and other evidences of my conduct must witness to you and to the world. To myself, the assurance of my own conscience is, that I have at least believed myself to be guided by them. In relating to the still subsisting war in Europe, my Proclamation of the 22d of April, 1793, is the index to my Plan. Sanctioned by your approving voice, and by that of your Representatives in both Houses of Congress, the spirit of that measure has continually governed me, uninfluenced by any attempts to deter or divert me from it. After deliberate examination, with the aid of the best lights I could obtain, I was well satisfied that our country, under all the circumstances of the case, had a right to take, and was bound in duty and interest to take, a neutral position. Having taken it, I determined, as far as should depend upon me, to maintain it, with moderation, perseverance, and firmness. The considerations, which respect the right to hold this conduct, it is not necessary on this occasion to detail. I will only observe, that, according to my understanding of the matter, that right, so far from being denied by any of the Belligerent Powers, has been virtually admitted by all. The duty of holding a neutral conduct may be inferred, without anything more, from the obligation which justice and humanity impose on every nation, in cases in which it is free to act, to maintain inviolate the relations of peace and amity towards other nations. The inducements of interest for observing that conduct will best be referred to your own reflections and experience. With me, a predominant motive has been to endeavour to gain time to our country to settle and mature its yet recent institutions, and to progress without interruption to that degree of strength and consistency, which is necessary to give it, humanly speaking, the command of its own fortunes. Though, in reviewing the incidents of my administration, I am unconscious of intentional error, I am nevertheless too sensible of my defects not to think it probable that I may have committed many errors. Whatever they may be, I fervently beseech the Almighty to avert or mitigate the evils to which they may tend. I shall also carry with me the hope, that my Country will never cease to view them with indulgence; and that, after forty-five years of my life dedicated to its service with an upright zeal, the faults of incompetent abilities will be consigned to oblivion, as myself must soon be to the mansions of rest. Relying on its kindness in this as in other things, and actuated by that fervent love towards it, which is so natural to a man, who views in it the native soil of himself and his progenitors for several generations; I anticipate with pleasing expectation that retreat, in which I promise myself to realize, without alloy, the sweet enjoyment of partaking, in the midst of my fellow-citizens, the benign influence of good laws under a free government, the ever favorite object of my heart, and the happy reward, as I trust, of our mutual cares, labors, and dangers. GEORGE WASHINGTON."

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1796.
Third Presidential Election.
Washington succeeded by John Adams.

   After the appearance of Washington's Farewell Address, the
   result of the Presidential election became exceedingly
   doubtful. "There was no second man to whom the whole of the
   nation could be won over. The Federalists … could not bring
   forward a single candidate who could calculate on the
   unanimous and cheerful support of the entire party. There
   still prevailed at the time a feeling among the people that
   the vice-president had a sort of claim to the succession to
   the presidency. But even apart from this, Adams would have
   been one of the most prominent candidates of the Federalists.
   The great majority of them soon gave him a decided preference
   over all other possible candidates. On the other hand, some of
   the most distinguished and influential of the Federalists
   feared serious consequences to the party and the country from
   the vanity and violence as well as from the egotism and
   irresolution with which he was charged. But to put him aside
   entirely was not possible, nor was it their wish. They
   thought, however, to secure a greater number of electoral
   votes for Thomas Pinckney, the Federal candidate for the
   vice-presidency, which, as the constitution then stood, would
   have made him president and Adams vice-president.
{3315}
   Although this plan was anxiously concealed from the people, it
   caused the campaign to be conducted by the party with less
   energy than if the leaders had been entirely unanimous. France
   was naturally desirous of Jefferson's success. … Wolcott
   asserted that Adet had publicly declared that France's future
   policy towards the United States would depend on the result of
   the election. Some did not hesitate to say that, on this
   account, Jefferson should have the preference, but on the more
   thoughtful Federalists it exerted the very opposite influence.
   There is no reason for the assumption that the issue of the
   election would have been different, had Adet behaved more
   discreetly. But his indiscretion certainly contributed to make
   the small majority expected for Adams completely certain,
   while Hamilton's flank movement in favor of Pinckney helped
   Jefferson to the vice-presidency. … The result of the
   election, however, left the country in a very serious
   condition. Washington's withdrawal removed the last restraint
   from party passion."

      H. von Holst,
      The Constitutional and Political History of the United States,
      volume 1, chapter 3.

   Adams received 71 votes in the Electoral College and Jefferson
   68. As the constitution then provided, the majority of votes
   elected the President and the next greatest number of votes
   elected the Vice President.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1797-1799.
   Troubles with the French Republic.
   The X, Y, Z correspondence.
   On the brink of war.

"Mr. Adams took his cabinet from his predecessor; it was not a strong one, and it was devoted to Hamilton, between whom and the new President there was soon a divergence, Hamilton being fond of power, and Adams having a laudable purpose to command his own ship. The figure of speech is appropriate, for he plunged into a sea of troubles, mainly created by the unreasonable demands of the French government. The French 'Directory,' enraged especially by Jay's treaty with England, got rid of one American minister by remonstrance, and drove out another [Pinckney] with contempt. When Mr. Adams sent three special envoys [Gerry, Marshall, and Pinckney], they were expected to undertake the most delicate negotiations with certain semi-official persons designated in their correspondence only by the letters X, Y, Z. The plan of this covert intercourse came through the private secretary of M. de Talleyrand, then French Minister for Foreign Affairs; and the impudence of these three letters of the alphabet went so far as to propose a bribe of 1,200,000 francs (some $220,000) to be paid over to this minister. 'You must pay money, a great deal of money,' remarked Monsieur Y ('Il faut de l'argent, beaucoup de l'argent'). The secret of these names was kept, but the diplomatic correspondence was made public, and created much wrath in Europe as well as in America. Moreover, American vessels were constantly attacked by France, and yet Congress refused to arm its own ships. At last the insults passed beyond bearing, and it was at this time that 'Millions for defence, not one cent for tribute,' first became a proverbial phrase, having been originally used by Charles C. Pinckney. … Then, with tardy decision, the Republicans yielded to the necessity of action, and the Federal party took the lead. War was not formally proclaimed, but treaties with France were declared to be no longer binding. An army was ordered to be created, with Washington as Lieutenant-general and Hamilton as second in command; and the President was authorized to appoint a Secretary of the Navy and to build twelve new ships-of-war. Before these were ready, naval hostilities had actually begun; and Commodore Truxtun, in the United States frigate Constellation, captured a French frigate in West Indian waters (February 9. 1799), and afterwards silenced another, which however escaped. Great was the excitement over these early naval successes of the young nation. Merchant-ships were authorized to arm themselves, and some 300 acted upon this authority. … The result of it all was that France yielded. Talleyrand, the very minister who had dictated the insults, now disavowed them, and pledged his government to receive any minister the United States might send. The President, in the most eminently courageous act of his life, took the responsibility of again sending ambassadors; and did this without even consulting his cabinet, which would, as he well knew, oppose it. They were at once received, and all danger of war with France was at an end. This bold stroke separated the President permanently from at least half of his own party, since the Federalists did not wish for peace with France. His course would have given him a corresponding increase of favor from the other side, but for the great mistake the Federalists had made in passing certain laws, called the 'Alien' law and the 'Sedition' law."

      John Quincy and Charles Francis Adams,
      Life of John Adams,
      chapter 10 (volume 2).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1797-1800.
Early attitude of the Slavocracy in Congress.
Treatment of Free Blacks.

   "Many people will not allow the least blame to be cast on this
   period [the later years of the 18th century], because it does
   not harmonize with their admiration of the 'fathers,' and
   because they have adopted, without any proof, the common view
   that the deeper shadows of slavery and slavocracy first
   appeared comparatively late. … In reading through the debates
   [in Congress], single striking instances of injustice do not
   make the deepest impression. It is the omnipresent
   unwillingness to practice justice towards colored
   persons,—yes, even to recognize them as actual beings. When
   the defense of their rights is demanded, then congress has
   always a deaf ear. … Swanwick of Pennsylvania laid before the
   house of representatives, January 30, 1797, a petition from
   four North Carolina negroes who had been freed by their
   masters. Since a state law condemned them to be sold again,
   they had fled to Philadelphia. There they had been seized
   under the fugitive slave law … and now prayed congress for its
   intervention. Blount of North Carolina declared that only when
   it was 'proved' that these men were free, could congress
   consider the petition. Sitgreaves of Pennsylvania asked, in
   reply to this, what sort of proof was offered that the four
   negroes were not free. This question received no answer. Smith
   of South Carolina and Christie of Maryland simply expressed
   their amazement that any member whatever could have presented
   a petition of 'such an unheard-of nature.'
{3316}
   Swanwick and some other representatives affirmed that the
   petition must be submitted to a committee for investigation
   and consideration, because the petitioners complained of
   violation of their rights under a law of the Union. No reply
   could be made to this and no reply was attempted. This
   decisive point was simply set aside, and it was voted by fifty
   ayes to thirty-three noes not to receive the petition. … In
   order to reach this result, Smith had produced the customary
   impression by the declaration that the refusal of the demand
   made by the representatives from the southern states would
   drive a 'wedge' into the Union. When, three years later, the
   same question was brought before congress again by a petition
   of the free negroes of Philadelphia, Rutledge of South
   Carolina declared in even plainer terms that the south would
   be forced to the sad necessity of going its own way. … The
   whites who troubled themselves about slaves or free colored
   persons had no better reception. Year after year the Quakers
   came indefatigably with new petitions, and each time had to
   undergo the same scornful treatment. … In all the cases
   mentioned, the tactics of the representatives of the
   slaveholding interest were the same and they maintained them
   unchanged up to the last. If congress was urged to act in any
   way which did not please them, then slavery was always a
   'purely municipal affair.'"

      H. von Holst,
      Constitutional and Political History of the United States,
      volume 1, chapter 8.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1798.
The Alien and Sedition Laws and
the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions.

"The outrages which we suffered from the injustice of England and France gave additional bitterness to the strife between parties at home. The anti-federal press was immoderate in its assaults upon the administration. It so happened that several of the anti-federal papers were conducted by foreigners. Indeed, there were many foreigners in the country whose sympathies were with the French, and their hostility to the administration was open and passionate. The federal leaders determined to crush out by the strong arm of the law these publishers of slanders and fomenters of discontent. Hence the famous 'alien and sedition laws' were passed. The remedy devised was far worse than the disease. It hastened the federal party to its tomb, and was the occasion of the formulation of that unfortunate creed of constitutional construction and of state sovereignty known as the 'Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions' of 1798-99."

      J. S. Landon,
      Constitutional History and Government of the United States,
      lecture 6.

The series of strong measures carried by the Federalists comprised the Naturalization Act of June 18, the Alien Act of June 25, the second Alien Act, of July 6, and the Sedition Act of July 14, 1798.

"An Act supplementary to, and to amend the act, intituled 'An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization; and to repeal the act heretofore passed on that subject.'

Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That no alien shall be admitted to become a citizen of the United States, or of any state, unless in the manner prescribed by the act, intituled 'An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization; and to repeal the act heretofore passed on that subject,' he shall have declared his intention to become a citizen of the United States, five years, at least, before his admission, and shall, at the time of his application to be admitted, declare and prove, to the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction in the case, that he has resided within the United States fourteen years, at least, and within the state or territory where, or for which such court is at the time held, five years, at least, besides conforming to the other declarations, renunciations and proofs, by the said act required, anything therein to the contrary hereof notwithstanding: Provided, that any alien, who was residing within the limits, and under the jurisdiction of the United States, before the twenty-ninth day of January, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-five, may, within one year after the passing of this act—and any alien who shall have made the declaration of his intention to become a citizen of the United States, in conformity to the provisions of the act, intituled 'An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization; and to repeal the act heretofore passed on that subject,' may, within four years after having made the declaration aforesaid, be admitted to become a citizen, in the manner prescribed by the said act, upon his making proof that he has resided five years, at least, within the limits, and under the jurisdiction of the United States: And provided also, that no alien, who shall be a native, citizen, denizen or subject of any nation or state with whom the United States shall be at war, at the time of his application, shall be then admitted to become a citizen of the United States."

Statutes at Large of the United States, edition 1850. volume 1, pages 566-567.

Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That it shall be lawful for the President of the United States at any time during the continuance of this act, to order all such aliens as he shall judge dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States, or shall have reasonable grounds to suspect are concerned in any treasonable or secret machinations against the government thereof, to depart out of the territory of the United States, within such time as shall be expressed in such order, which order shall be served on such alien by de·livering him a copy thereof, or leaving the same at his usual abode, and returned to the office of the Secretary of State, by the marshal or other person to whom the same shall be directed. And in case any alien, so ordered to depart, shall be found at large within the United States after the time limited in such order for his departure, and not having obtained a license from the President to reside therein, or having obtained such license shall not have conformed thereto, every such alien shall, on conviction thereof, be imprisoned for a term not exceeding three years, and shall never after be admitted to become a citizen of the United States. {3317} Provided always and be it further enacted, that if any alien so ordered to depart shall prove to the satisfaction of the President, by evidence to be taken before such person or persons as the President shall direct, who are for that purpose hereby authorized to administer oaths, that no injury or danger to the United States will arise from suffering such alien to reside therein, the President may grant a license to such alien to remain within the United States for such time as he shall judge proper, and at such place as he may designate. And the President may also require of such alien to enter into a bond to the United States, in such penal sum as he may direct, with one or more sufficient sureties to the satisfaction of the person authorized by the President to take the same, conditioned for the good behavior of such alien during his residence in the United States, and not violating his license, which license the President may revoke whenever he shall think proper.

Section 2. And be it further enacted, That it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, whenever he may deem it necessary for the public safety, to order to be removed out of the territory thereof, any alien who may or shall be in prison in pursuance of this act; and to cause to be arrested and sent out of the United States such of those aliens as shall have been ordered to depart therefrom and shall not have obtained a license as aforesaid, in all cases where, in the opinion of the President, the public safety requires a speedy removal. And if any alien so removed or sent out of the United States by the President shall voluntarily return thereto, unless by permission of the President of the United States, such alien on conviction thereof, shall be imprisoned so long as, in the opinion of the President, the public safety may require.

Section 3. And be it further enacted, That every master or commander of any ship or vessel which shall come into any port of the United States after the first day of July next, shall immediately on his arrival make report in writing to the collector, or other chief officer of the customs of such port, of all aliens, if any, on board his vessel, specifying their names, age, the place of nativity, the country from which they shall have come, the nation to which they belong and owe allegiance, their occupation and a description of their persons, as far as he shall be informed thereof, and on failure, every such master and commander shall forfeit and pay three hundred dollars, for the payment whereof on default of such master or commander, such vessel shall also be holden, and may by such collector or other officer of the customs be detained. And it shall be the duty of such collector, or other officer of the customs, forthwith to transmit to the officer of the department of state true copies of all such returns.

Section 4. And be it further enacted, That the circuit and district courts of the United States, shall respectively have cognizance of all crimes and offences against this act. And all marshals and other officers of the United States are required to execute all precepts and orders of the President of the United States issued in pursuance or by virtue of this act.

Section 5. And be it further enacted, That it shall be lawful for any alien who may be ordered to be removed from the United States, by virtue of this act, to take with him such part of his goods, chattels, or other property, as he may find convenient; and all property left in the United States by any alien, who may be removed, as aforesaid, shall be, and remain subject to his order and disposal, in the same manner as if this act had not been passed.

Section 6. And be it further enacted, That this act shall continue and be in force for and during the term of two years from the passing thereof.

Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That whenever there shall be a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, or any invasion or predatory incursion shall be perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States, by any foreign nation or government, and the President of the United States shall make public proclamation of the event, all natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of the hostile nation or government, being males of the age of fourteen years and upwards, who shall be within the United States, and not actually naturalized, shall be liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured and removed, as alien enemies. And the President of the United States shall be, and he is hereby authorized, in any event, as aforesaid, by his proclamation thereof or other public act, to direct the conduct to be observed, on the part of the United States, towards the aliens who shall become liable as aforesaid; the manner and degree of the restraint to which they shall be subject, and in what cases, and upon what security their residence shall be permitted, and to provide for the removal of those, who, not being permitted to reside within the United States, shall refuse or neglect to depart therefrom; and to establish any other regulations which shall be found necessary in the premises and for the public safety; Provided, that aliens resident within the United States, who shall become liable as enemies, in the manner aforesaid, and who shall not be chargeable with actual hostility, or other crime against the public safety, shall be allowed for the recovery, disposal, and removal of their goods and effects, and for their departure, the full time which is, or shall be stipulated by any treaty, where any shall have been between the United States and the hostile nation or government, of which they shall be natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects: and when no such treaty shall have existed, the President of the United States may ascertain and declare such reasonable time as may be consistent with the public safety, and according to the dictates of humanity and national hospitality.

Section 2. And be it further enacted, That after any proclamation shall be made as aforesaid, it shall be the duty of the several courts of the United States, and of each state, having criminal jurisdiction, and of the several judges and justices of the courts of the United States, and they shall be, and are hereby respectively, authorized upon complaint, against any alien or alien enemies, as aforesaid, who shall be resident and at large within such jurisdiction or district, to the danger of the public peace or safety, and contrary to the tenor or intent of such proclamation, or other regulations which the President of the United States shall and may establish in the premises, to cause such alien or aliens to be duly apprehended and convened before such court, judge or Justice; and after a full examination and hearing on such complaint, and sufficient cause therefor appearing, shall and may order such alien or aliens to be removed out of the territory of the United States, or to give such sureties for their good behaviour, or to be otherwise restrained, conformably to the proclamation or regulations which shall or may be established as aforesaid, and may imprison, or otherwise secure such alien or aliens, until the order which shall and may be made, as aforesaid, shall be performed.

Section 3. And be it further enacted, That it shall be the duty of the marshal of the district in which any alien enemy shall be apprehended, who by the President of the United States, or by the order of any court, judge or justice, as aforesaid, shall be required to depart, and to be removed, as aforesaid, to provide therefor, and to execute such order, by himself or his deputy, or other discreet person or persons to be employed by him, by causing a removal of such alien out of the territory of the United States; and for such removal the marshal shall have the warrant of the President of the United States, or of the court, judge or justice ordering the same, as the case may be.

"An Act in addition to the act, entitled 'An Act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States.'

Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That if any persons shall unlawfully combine or conspire together, with intent to oppose any measure or measures of the government of the United States, which are or shall be directed by proper authority, or to impede the operation of any law of the United States, or to intimidate or prevent any person holding a place or office in or under the government of the United States, from undertaking, performing or executing, his trust or duty; and if any person or persons, with intent as aforesaid, shall counsel, advise or attempt to procure any insurrection, riot, unlawful assembly, or combination, whether such conspiracy, threatening, counsel, advice, or attempt shall have the proposed effect or not, he or they shall be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanor, and on conviction before any court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars and by imprisonment during a term not less than six months nor exceeding five years; and further at the discretion of the court may be holden to find sureties for his good behavior in such sum, and for such time, as the said court may direct.

Section 2. And be it further enacted, That if any person shall write, print, utter, or publish, or shall cause or procure to be written, printed, uttered or published or shall knowingly and willingly assist or aid in writing, printing, uttering or publishing any false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States, or either house of the Congress of the United States, or the President of the United States, with intent to defame the said government, or either house of the said Congress, or the said President, or to bring them or either of them, into contempt or disrepute; or to excite against them, or either, or any of them, the hatred of the good people of the United States, or to stir up sedition within the United States, or to excite any unlawful combinations therein, for opposing or resisting any law of the United States, or any act of the President of the United States, and one in pursuance of any such law, or of the powers in him vested by the constitution of the United States, or to resist, oppose or defeat any such law or act, or to aid, encourage or abet any hostile designs of any foreign nation against the United States, their people or government, then such person, being thereof convicted before any court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars, and by imprisonment not exceeding two years.

Section 3. And be it further enacted and declared, That if any person shall be prosecuted under this act, for the writing or publishing any libel aforesaid, it shall be lawful for the defendant, upon the trial of the cause, to give in evidence in his defence, the truth of the matter contained in the publication charged as a libel. And the jury who shall try the cause, shall have a right to determine the law and the fact, under the direction of the court, as in other cases.

Section 4. And be it further enacted, That this act shall continue and be in force until the third day of March, one thousand eight hundred and one, and no longer: Provided that the expiration of the act shall not prevent or defeat a prosecution and punishment of any offence against the law, during the time it shall be in force. Approved July 14, 1798."

   "There has been a general effort on the part of biographers to
   clear their respective heroes from all responsibility for
   these ill-fated measures. The truth is, that they had the full
   support of the congressmen and senators who passed, them, of
   the President who signed them, and of all the leaders in the
   States, who almost all believed in them; and they also met
   with very general acceptance by the party in the North.
   Hamilton went as far in the direction of sustaining the
   principle of these laws as any one. He had too acute a mind to
   believe with many of the staunch Federalist divines of New
   England, that Jefferson and Madison were Marats and
   Robespierres, and that their followers were Jacobins who, when
   they came to power, were ready for the overthrow of religion
   and society, and were prepared to set up a guillotine and pour
   out blood in the waste places of the federal city. But he did
   believe, and so wrote to Washington, after the appearance of
   the X. Y. Z. letters that there was a party in the country
   ready to 'new model' the constitution on French principles, to
   form an offensive and defensive alliance with France, and make
   the United States a French province. He felt, in short, that
   there was a party in America ready for confiscation and social
   confusion. A year later, in 1799, he wrote to Dayton, the
   speaker of the national House of Representatives, a long
   letter in which he set forth very clearly the policy which he
   felt ought to be pursued.
{3319}
   He wished to give strength to the government, and increase
   centralization by every means, by an extension of the national
   judiciary, a liberal system of internal improvements, an
   increased and abundant revenue, an enlargement of the army and
   navy, permanence in the laws for the volunteer army, extension
   of the powers of the general government, subdivision of the
   States as soon as practicable, and finally a strong sedition
   law, and the power to banish aliens. This was what was termed
   at that day a 'strong and spirited' policy; it would now be
   called repressive, but by whatever name it is designated, it
   was the policy of Hamilton, and is characteristic of both his
   talents and temperament. Except as to the subdivision of
   States, it was carried out pretty thoroughly in all its main
   features by the Federalists. The alien and sedition laws,
   although resisted in Congress, did not much affect public
   opinion at the elections which immediately ensued, and the
   Federalists came into the next Congress with a large
   majority."

"The different portions of the country were affected according to the dominant political opinion. Where the Federalists were strong political feeling bore them headlong into prosecutions under the new powers. In the Republican States a sense of injury and danger went hand in hand, and the question of the hour was how to repel the threatening destruction. Mr. Jefferson did not fail to see that the great opportunity for his party had come. His keen political sagacity detected in an instant the fatal mistake the administration had made, and he began at once to look about him for the best means to turn his opponents' mistake to his own advantage. Naturally he felt some delicacy in appearing too forward in assailing a government of which he himself was the second in office. Nevertheless he lent himself willingly to the task of organizing, in a quiet way, a systematic assault upon these laws of Congress, and at once opened a correspondence calculated to elicit the best judgment of his coadjutors and gradually drew out a programme of action. Virginia was by no means unanimous in reprobating these laws. She had a large and influential body of Federalists. … But the influence of Jefferson was paramount and the result of Jeffersonian principles soon appeared on every hand. Meetings were held in many of the counties upon their county court days at which were adopted addresses or series of resolutions condemning or praying for the repeal of these laws. … New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania sent petitions of appeal to Congress. … But it was in Kentucky that the greatest resistance was evoked. The feeling in that State was, indeed, little short of frenzy, and a singular unanimity was displayed even in the most extreme acts and sentiments. This grew out of no passing passion. It was based upon the most vigorous elements in her character as a people. Kentucky was at this time somewhat apart from the rest of the Union. … Her complaints, just and unjust, had been many, but hitherto she had not gained the nation's ear. But the time was now ripe for her to assert herself."

The famous Kentucky Resolutions, substantially drafted by Jefferson, as he acknowledged fifteen years afterwards, but introduced in the Legislature of Kentucky by John Breckenridge, on the 8th of November, 1798, were adopted by that body, in the lower branch on the 10th and in the upper on the 13th. Approved by the Governor on the 16th, they were immediately printed and copies officially sent to every other state and to members of Congress. They were as follows:

"I. Resolved, that the several states composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Government; but that by compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States and of amendments thereto, they constituted a General Government for special purposes, delegated to that Government certain definite powers, reserving each state to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self Government; and that whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and are of no force: That to this compact each state acceded as a state, and is an integral party, its co-states forming as to itself, the other party: That the Government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the constitution, the measure of its powers; but that as in all other cases of compact among parties having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.

II. Resolved, that the Constitution of the United States having delegated to Congress a power to punish treason, counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States, piracies and felonies committed on the High Seas, and offences against the laws of nations, and no other crimes whatever, and it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, 'that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people,' therefore also the same act of Congress passed on the 14th day of July, 1798, and entitled 'An act in addition to the act entitled an act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States;' as also the act passed by them on the 27th of June, 1798, entitled 'An act to punish frauds committed on the Bank of the United States' (and all other their acts which assume to create, define, or punish crimes other than those enumerated in the constitution) are altogether void and of no force, and that the power to create, define, and punish such other crimes is reserved, and of right appertains solely and exclusively to the respective states, each within its own Territory.

III. Resolved, that it is true as a general principle, and is also expressly declared by one of the amendments to the Constitution that 'the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively or to the people;' and that no power over the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press being delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, all lawful powers respecting the same did of right remain, and were reserved to the states, or to the people: That thus was manifested their determination to retain to themselves the right of judging how far the licentiousness of speech and of the press may be abridged without lessening their useful freedom, and how far those abuses which cannot be separated from their use, should be tolerated, rather than the use be destroyed; and thus also they guarded against all abridgment by the United States of the freedom of religious opinions and exercises, and retained to themselves the right of protecting the same, as this state by a Law passed on the general demand of its Citizens, had already protected them from all human restraint or interference; and that in addition to this general principle and express declaration, another and more special provision has been made by one of the amendments to the Constitution which expressly declares that 'Congress shall make no law respecting an Establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press,' thereby guarding in the same sentence, and under the same words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the press, insomuch, that whatever violates either, throws down the sanctuary which covers the others, and that libels, falsehoods, and defamation, equally with heresy and false religion, are withheld from the cognizance of federal tribunals. That therefore the act of the Congress of the United States passed on the 14th day of July, 1798, entitled 'An act in addition to the act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States,' which does abridge the freedom of the press, is not law, but is altogether void and of no effect.

IV. Resolved, that alien friends are under the jurisdiction and protection of the laws of the state wherein they are; that no power over them has been delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the individual states distinct from their power over citizens; and it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that 'the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the states are reserved to the states respectively or to the people,' the act of the Congress of the United States passed on the 22d day of June, 1798, entitled 'An act concerning aliens,' which assumes power over alien friends not delegated by the Constitution, is not law, but is altogether void and of no force.

V. Resolved, that in addition to the general principle as well as the express declaration, that powers not delegated are reserved, another and more special provision inserted in the Constitution from abundant caution has declared, 'that the migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year 1808.' That this Commonwealth does admit the migration of alien friends described as the subject of the said act concerning aliens; that a provision against prohibiting their migration, is a provision against all acts equivalent thereto, or it would be nugatory; that to remove them when migrated is equivalent to a prohibition of their migration, and is therefore contrary to the said provision of the Constitution, and void.

VI. Resolved, that the imprisonment of a person under the protection of the Laws of this Commonwealth on his failure to obey the simple order of the President to depart out of the United States, as is undertaken by the said act entitled 'An act concerning aliens,' is contrary to the Constitution, one amendment to which has provided, that 'no person shall be deprived of liberty without due process of law,' and that another having provided 'that in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to a public trial by an impartial jury, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, to be confronted with the witnesses against him, to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favour, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence,' the same act undertaking to authorize the President to remove a person out of the United States who is under the protection of the Law, on his own suspicion, without accusation, without jury, without public trial, without confrontation of the witnesses against him, without having witnesses in his favour, without defence, without counsel, is contrary to these provisions also of the Constitution, is therefore not law but utterly void and of no force. That transferring the power of judging any person who is under the protection of the laws, from the Courts to the President of the United States, as is undertaken by the same act concerning Aliens, is against the article of the Constitution which provides, that 'the judicial power of the United States shall be vested in Courts, the Judges of which shall hold their offices during good behaviour,' and that the said act is void for that reason also; and it is further to be noted, that this transfer of Judiciary powers is to that magistrate of the General Government who already possesses all the Executive, and a qualified negative in all the Legislative power.

VII. Resolved, that the construction applied by the General Government (as is evinced by sundry of their proceedings) to those parts of the Constitution of the United States which delegate to Congress a power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises; to pay the debts, and provide for the common defence, and general welfare of the United States, and to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or any department thereof, goes to the destruction of all the limits prescribed to their power by the Constitution—That words meant by that instrument to be subsidiary only to the execution of the limited powers, ought not to be so construed as themselves to give unlimited powers, nor a part so to be taken, as to destroy the whole residue of the instrument: That the proceedings of the General Government under colour of these articles, will be a fit and necessary subject for revisal and correction at a time of greater tranquility, while those specified in the preceding resolutions call for immediate redress.

VIII. Resolved, that the preceding Resolutions be transmitted to the Senators and Representatives in Congress from this Commonwealth, who are hereby enjoined to present the same to their respective Houses, and to use the best endeavours to procure at the next session of Congress, a repeal of the aforesaid unconstitutional and obnoxious acts.

IX. Resolved lastly, that the Governor of this Commonwealth be, and is hereby authorised and requested to communicate the preceding Resolutions to the Legislatures of the several States, to assure them that this Commonwealth considers Union for specified National purposes, and particularly for those specified in their late Federal compact, to be friendly to the peace, happiness, and prosperity of all the states: that faithful to that compact, according to the plain intent and meaning in which it was understood and acceded to by the several parties, it is sincerely anxious for its preservation: that it does also believe, that to take from the states all the powers of self government, and transfer them to a general and consolidated Government, without regard to the special delegations and reservations solemnly agreed to in that compact, is not for the peace, happiness, or prosperity of these states: And that therefore, this Commonwealth is determined, as it doubts not its Co-states are, tamely to submit to undelegated and consequently unlimited powers in no man or body of men on earth: that if the acts before specified should stand, these conclusions would flow from them; that the General Government may place any act they think proper on the list of crimes and punish it themselves, whether enumerated or not enumerated by the Constitution as cognizable by them: that they may transfer its cognizance to the President or any other person, who may himself be the accuser, counsel, judge, and jury, whose suspicions may be the evidence, his order the sentence, his officer the executioner, and his breast the sole record of the transaction: that a very numerous and valuable description of the inhabitants of these states, being by this precedent reduced as outlaws to the absolute dominion of one man and the barrier of the Constitution thus swept away from us all, no rampart now remains against the passions and the power of a majority of Congress, to protect from a like exportation or other more grievous punishment the minority of the same body, the Legislatures, Judges, Governors, and Counsellors of the states, nor their other peaceable inhabitants who may venture to reclaim the constitutional rights and liberties of the states and people, or who for other causes, good or bad, may be obnoxious to the views or marked by the suspicions of the President, or be thought dangerous to his or their elections or other interests public or personal: that the friendless alien has indeed been selected as the safest subject of a first experiment: but the citizen will soon follow, or rather has already followed; for already has a Sedition Act marked him as its prey: that these and successive acts of the same character, unless arrested on the threshold, may tend to drive these states into revolution and blood, and will furnish new calumnies against Republican Governments, and new pretexts for those who wish it to be believed that man cannot be governed but by a rod of iron: that it would be a dangerous delusion were a confidence in the men of our choice to silence our fears for the safety of our rights: that confidence is everywhere the parent of despotism: free government is founded in jealousy and not in confidence; it is jealousy and not confidence which prescribes limited Constitutions to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power: that our Constitution has accordingly fixed the limits to which and no further our confidence may go; and let the honest advocate of confidence read the Alien and Sedition Acts, and say if the Constitution has not been wise in fixing limits to the Government it created, and whether we should be wise in destroying those limits? Let him say what the Government is if it be not a tyranny, which the men of our choice have conferred on the President, and the President of our choice has assented to and accepted over the friendly strangers, to whom the mild spirit of our Country and its laws had pledged hospitality and protection: that the men of our choice have more respected the bare suspicions of the President than the solid rights of innocence, the claims of justification, the sacred force of truth, and the forms and subsistence of law and justice. In questions of power then let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution. That this Commonwealth does therefore call on its Co-states for an expression of their sentiments on the acts concerning Aliens, and for the punishment of certain crimes hereinbefore specified, plainly declaring whether these acts are or are not authorized by the Federal Compact? And it doubts not that their sense will be so announced as to prove their attachment unaltered to limited Government, whether general or particular, and that the rights and liberties of their Co-states will be exposed to no dangers by remaining embarked on a common bottom with their own: That they will concur with this Commonwealth, in considering the said acts so palpably against the Constitution as to amount to an undisguised declaration, that the compact is not meant to be the measure of the powers of the General Government, but that it will proceed in the exercise over these states of all powers whatsoever: That they will view this as seizing the rights of the states and consolidating them in the hands of the General Government with a power assumed to bind the states (not merely in cases made federal) but in all cases whatsoever, by laws made, not with their consent, but by others against their consent: That this would be to surrender the form of Government we have chosen, and to live under one deriving its powers from its own will, and not from our authority; and that the Co-states recurring to their natural right in cases not made federal, will concur in declaring these acts void and of no force, and will each unite with this Commonwealth in requesting their repeal at the next session of Congress."

In the month following this declaration from Kentucky, on the 21st of December, Virginia affirmed substantially the same threatening doctrine, more temperately and cautiously set forth in resolutions drawn by Madison as follows:

"Resolved, that the General Assembly of Virginia doth unequivocally express a firm resolution to maintain and defend the constitution of the United States, and the constitution of this state against every aggression, either foreign or domestic, and that they will support the government of the United States in all measures warranted by the former.

That this Assembly most solemnly declares a warm attachment to the union of the states, to maintain which, it pledges all its powers; and that for this end it is their duty to watch over and oppose every infraction of those principles which constitute the only basis of that union, because a faithful observance of them can alone secure its existence, and the public happiness.

That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare that it views the powers of the Federal Government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting that compact; as no farther valid than they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact, and that in case of a deliberate, palpable and dangerous exercise of other powers not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto have the right, and are in duty bound to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.

That the General Assembly doth also express its deep regret that a spirit has in sundry instances, been manifested by the Federal Government, to enlarge its powers by forced constructions of the constitutional charter which defines them; and that indications have appeared of a design to expound certain general phrases (which having been copied from the very limited grant of powers in the former articles of confederation were the less liable to be misconstrued), so as to destroy the meaning and effect of the particular enumeration, which necessarily explains and limits the general phrases; and so as to consolidate the states by degrees into one sovereignty, the obvious tendency and inevitable consequence of which would be to transform the present republican system of the United States into an absolute, or at best a mixed monarchy. That the General Assembly doth particularly protest against the palpable and alarming infractions of the Constitution, in the two late cases of the 'Alien and Sedition Acts,' passed at the last session of Congress, the first of which exercises a power nowhere delegated to the Federal Government; and which by uniting legislative and judicial powers to those of executive, subverts the general principles of free government, as well as the particular organization and positive provisions of the federal constitution: and the other of which acts, exercises in like manner a power not delegated by the constitution, but on the contrary expressly and positively forbidden by one of the amendments thereto; a power which more than any other ought to produce universal alarm, because it is levelled against the right of freely examining public characters and measures, and of free communication among the people thereon, which has ever been justly deemed the only effectual guardian of every other right.

That this state having by its convention which ratified the federal constitution, expressly declared, 'that among other essential rights, the liberty of conscience and of the press cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained or modified by any authority of the United States,' and from its extreme anxiety to guard these rights from every possible attack of sophistry or ambition, having with other states recommended an amendment for that purpose, which amendment was in due time annexed to the constitution, it would mark a reproachful inconsistency and criminal degeneracy, if an indifference were now shown to the most palpable violation of one of the rights thus declared and secured, and to the establishment of a precedent which may be fatal to the other.

That the good people of this commonwealth having ever felt and continuing to feel the most sincere affection to their brethren of the other states, the truest anxiety for establishing and perpetuating the union of all, and the most scrupulous fidelity to that constitution which is the pledge of mutual friendship, and the instrument of mutual happiness: The General Assembly doth solemnly appeal to the like dispositions of the other states, in confidence that they will concur with this commonwealth in declaring, as it does hereby declare, that the acts aforesaid are unconstitutional, and that the necessary and proper measures will be taken by each for cooperating with this state, in maintaining unimpaired the authorities, rights, and liberties, reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. That the Governor be desired to transmit a copy of the foregoing resolutions to the executive authority of each of the other states, with a request, that the same may be communicated to the legislature thereof.

   And that a copy be furnished to each of the Senators and
   Representatives, representing this state in the Congress of
   the United States."

   In later years, after Calhoun and his school had pushed these
   doctrines to their logical conclusion, Madison shrank from the
   result, and endeavored to disown the apparent meaning of what
   Jefferson had written and he had seemed to endorse in 1798. He
   denounced Nullification and Secession as "twin heresies," and
   denied that they were contained or implied in the resolutions
   of 1798—either those adopted in Kentucky or the responsive
   ones written by himself for the legislature of Virginia. The
   Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 were followed in 1799 by another
   series, in which the right of a sovereign State to nullify
   obnoxious laws of the Federal Government was no longer
   asserted by implication, but was put into plain terms—as
   follows: "That the principle and construction, contended for
   by sundry of the state legislatures, that the general
   government is the exclusive judge of the extent of the powers
   delegated to it, stop not short of despotism,—since the
   discretion of those who administer the government, and not the
   Constitution, would be the measure of their powers: That the
   several states who formed that instrument, being sovereign and
   independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of the
   infraction; and, That a nullification, by those sovereignties,
   of all unauthorized acts done under color of that instrument,
   is the rightful remedy." It was Mr. Madison's desire to cast
   on these resolutions of 1799, with which Jefferson had nothing
   to do, the odium of the nullification doctrine, and to remove
   the stigma from the resolutions of 1798, in which the word
   "nullification" makes no appearance; "neither that," pleaded
   Madison, "nor any equivalent term." But, when Madison made
   this plea, in 1830, "it was not then generally known, whether
   Mr. Madison knew it or not, that one of the resolutions and
   part of another which Jefferson wrote to be offered in the
   Kentucky legislature in 1798 were omitted by Mr. Nicholas [to
   whom Mr. Jefferson had entrusted them], and that therein was
   the assertion … 'where powers are assumed which have not been
   delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy.'
{3323}
   The next year, when additional resolutions were offered by Mr.
   Breckenridge, this idea in similar, though not in precisely the
   same language, was presented [as quoted above]. … In 1832,
   this fact, on the authority of Jefferson's grandson and
   executor, was made public; and further, that another
   declaration of Mr. Jefferson's in the resolution not used was
   an exhortation to the co-States, 'that each will take measures
   of its own for providing that neither these acts nor any
   others of the general government, not plainly and
   intentionally authorized by the Constitution, shall be
   exercised within their respective territories.'"

"The publication of the Kentucky resolutions … was instantly followed by a new crop of remonstrances and petitions from the people. … Memorials by scores came in from each State, and the signatures appended to some were as many as sixteen hundred. Those from Pennsylvania alone bore over eighteen thousand names. … Such memorials as reached the House were sent to a committee, who, late in February, reported. … The report closed with three resolutions, and these were: that it was not in the interest of the public good to repeal either the Alien Law, or the Sedition Law, or any of the laws respecting the army, the navy, or the revenue of the United States. On the twenty-fifth of February, the House being in Committee of the Whole, the three resolutions were taken up one by one. Gallatin spoke long and well against the first; but it was carried. Mr. Nicholas spoke at greater length against agree·ing to the second. But the Federalists had made up their minds to accept the report, and, as Nicholas went on, treated him with great disrespect. They assembled in groups about the House, laughed, coughed, and talked at the top of their voices; nor would the Speaker command order in the room. When Nicholas finished, shouts of 'Question! Question!' rose from all sides. A member from North Carolina hoped the question would not be taken. The hour was late. Other members had something to say. An hour or two on the morrow might well be spent in discussion. He moved the committee should rise. … The motion to rise was lost, the question on the second resolution was carried, the question on the third resolution was carried, then the committee rose. The House then agreed to the action of the committee on each of the three resolutions. The Federal party was now at the height of its prosperity and power. It controlled the Senate. It controlled the House. Outwardly it was great and powerful, but within that dispute had begun which, in a few short months, drove Pickering and M'Henry from the Cabinet, split the party in twain, and gave to the country the strange spectacle of staunch and earnest Federalists wrangling and contending and overwhelming each other with abuse."

      H. von Holst,
      Constitutional and Political History of the United States,
      volume 1, page 148.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1800.
The convention with France and the French Spoliation Claims
incident to it.

"In the instructions to the American envoys in France they had been directed to secure a claims commission, the abrogation of the former treaties, and the abolition of the guarantee of 1778, as it was called, contained in Article XI. of the Treaty of Alliance of that year, and covering 'the present possessions of the Crown of France in America, as well as those which it may acquire by the future treaty of peace.' Upon none of these points were the envoys able to carry out their instructions. In reference to claims, a distinction, which was finally embodied in the treaty, was drawn by the French government between two classes of claims: first, debts due from the French government to American citizens for supplies furnished, or prizes whose restoration had been decreed by the courts; and secondly, indemnities for prizes alleged to have been wrongfully condemned. The treaty provided that the first class, known as debts, should be paid, but excluded the second, or indemnity class. In reference to the indemnity claims, and to the questions involved in the old treaties, including, of course, the guarantee of 1778, as the envoys were not able to come to an agreement, the treaty declared that the negotiation was postponed. The Senate of the United States expunged this latter article, inserting in its place a clause providing for the duration of the present convention; and this amendment was accepted by the French government, with the proviso that both governments should renounce the pretensions which were the object of the original article. To this the Senate also agreed, and upon this basis the convention was finally ratified. It thus appears that the United States surrendered the claims of its citizens against France for wrongful seizures, in return for the surrender by France of whatever claim it might have had against the United States for the latter's failure to fulfil the obligations assumed in the earlier treaties [especially the guaranty of the possessions of France in America, which was undertaken in the treaty of 1778]. The United States, therefore, having received a consideration for its refusal to prosecute the claims of its citizens, thereby took the place, with respect to the claimants, of the French government, and virtually assumed the obligations of the latter. … The claims for indemnity thus devolving upon the United States, known as the French Spoliation Claims, have been from that day to this the subject of frequent report and discussion in Congress, but with no result until the passage of the act of January 20, 1885, referring them to the Court of Claims. At the present time (1888) they are undergoing judicial examination before that tribunal."

      J. R. Soley,
      The Wars of the United States, 1789-1850
      (Narrative and Critical History of America,
      volume 7, chapter 6; and editor's foot-note).

      ALSO IN:
      F. Wharton,
      Digest of the International Law of the United States,
      section 248 (volume 2, pages 714-728).

Report of Secretary of State (United States Senate, Ex. Doc. no. 74 and 102, 49th Congress 1st session).

Spoliations committed by the French in the Revolutionary and Napoleonic wars subsequently to the year 1800, were indemnified under the provisions of the treaty for the Louisiana purchase (see LOUISIANA: A. D. 1798-1803); under the treaty with Spain in 1819, and under a later treaty with France which was negotiated in Andrew Jackson's most imperative manner in 1831. These do not enter into what have become historically specialized as the French Spoliation Claims.

Total population, 5,305,937, (an increase of slightly more than 35 per cent. since 1790), classed and distributed as follows:

White. Free black. Slave.
Connecticut. 244,721 5,330 951
Indiana. 4,577 163 135
Maine. 150,901 818 0
Massachusetts. 416,793 6,452 0
New Hampshire. 182,898 856 8
New Jersey. 195,125 4,402 12,422
New York. 556,039 10,374 20,343
Ohio. 45,028 337 0
Pennsylvania. 586,094 14,561 1,706
Rhode Island. 65,437 3,304 381
Vermont. 153,908 557 0
—- —- —-
Total 2,601,521 47,154 35,946

White. Free black. Slave.
Delaware. 49,852 8,268 6,153
District of Columbia. 10,066 783 3,244
Georgia. 101,678 1,019 59,404
Kentucky. 179,871 741 40,343
Maryland. 216,326 19,587 105,635
Mississippi. 5,179 182 3,489
North Carolina. 337,764 7,043 133,296
South Carolina. 196,255 3,185 146,151
Tennessee. 91,709 309 13,584
Virginia. 514,280 20,124 345,796
—- —- —-
Total 1,702,980 61,241 857,095

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1800-1801.
The Fourth Presidential Election
Inauguration of Jefferson.

"Adams, whom Dr. Franklin aptly described as 'always an honest man, often a wise one, but sometimes and in some things absolutely out of his senses,' was approaching the end of his term as President, and public attention was absorbed in the task of choosing a successor. … At the time of Adams's election, a sectional feeling, destined in the future to work so much evil, had already been developed; and he in consequence received from States south of the Potomac but two electoral votes. New York had given him her twelve, yet the entire majority over his competitor was but three in all the colleges. The national parties were not unequally matched in the State; and it was evident that, could its vote be diverted to Jefferson in the next contest, his victory would be assured. Hence, strenuous efforts were made to accomplish this end, and for months society was like a seething caldron. The trouble with France had, for the moment, swelled the numbers of the Federalists, and closed up their ranks; but the capricious course of the President, and the violent disruption of the cabinet, rent them asunder, never to be re-united. … During the French excitement, it seemed almost certain that, after the local election, they would have a majority in the new Legislature, and thus retain for their candidate the electoral vote of New York. This pleasing prospect was soon obscured. When its people found Mr. Adams sternly enforcing the Sedition Law, and exercising the power it conferred in an unfeeling manner upon one of their most esteemed citizens [Judge Peck], they turned with disgust from a party which they held responsible for its enactment, as well as for this violent procedure. The permanent ascendency which the Republicans seemed to have acquired in the metropolis had been wrested from them, in the spring of 1799, by the unpopularity of a scheme of Burr's, already conspicuous in the State as an unscrupulous political tactician. He had been a member of the assembly the preceding year, and, under the pretence of supplying pure and wholesome water, obtained a charter which enabled the corporators to engage in banking. In consequence of the feeling this aroused, he did not dare present himself again as a candidate, but, with great tact and unwearied efforts, succeeded in healing divisions in his party, and nominating a delegation for the assembly, which embraced the Republicans most eminent for wealth, station, or family influence. Governor Clinton headed the list. … The result followed which Burr had anticipated. The Federal majority of the last year was overcome, and New York City secured by the Republicans, giving them control of the State. Adams subsequently received but four electoral votes south of Maryland, and Jefferson became his successor. Burr, to whose untiring exertions this great victory was due, was thereby inducted into the office of Vice-President. At that time, the Legislature appointed the electors for the State; and the Republicans, then anticipating a defeat, had at a previous session advocated that, for the future, these should be chosen directly by the people in separate districts, hoping thus to secure a sufficient number to elect their Presidential candidate. The Federalists, thinking their supremacy in the assembly assured, refused to support the plan. Now, however, when it became known that their adversaries had gained a majority in the Legislature on which would devolve the duty of choosing the electors, Hamilton addressed a letter to Governor Jay, suggesting that the present body, whose term would not expire before July, should be again convened, in order to pass a measure which, when before proposed by the Republicans, had been denounced as unconstitutional. Jay had too much regard for principle to entertain the idea. After his death, the letter was found among his papers, endorsed, 'Proposing a measure for party purposes which I think it would not become me to adopt.' It is related that a noted French duellist, when required to forgive his enemies before receiving absolution, exclaimed, My enemies? I have none. I have killed them all! Mr. Jefferson might have responded in the same manner, the morrow after the Presidential election. To the one party, the result seemed like the breaking up of an ice gorge—the harbinger of spring. To the other it appeared as an avalanche of French principles, destructive alike of religion and established government. Both were at fault. President Jefferson was quite as unable to destroy the work of his predecessors as he was to depart from their policy of neutrality. The Sedition and Alien Laws soon expired by limitation; but the great measures of the former administrations were too wise, and had struck their roots too deep into the national sentiment, to be suddenly overturned."

In the Electoral College, Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr, both Democratic Republicans, received an equal number of votes (73), and the election was carried into the House of Representatives, where Jefferson was chosen President and Burr Vice President. "Adams, stung to the heart by the election of Jefferson, refused to witness the hateful spectacle of his successor's inauguration. He spent his last hours in filling up vacancies to place patronage out of Jefferson's reach; then he departed, the old order in his person giving place with a frown and a shudder to the new. Adams did not hate monarchy, he thought that for England it was good. In the eyes of Jefferson monarchy was the incarnate spirit of evil and to rid mankind of it by example was the mission of the American Republic. Every vestige of the half monarchical state which Washington had retained was now banished from the President's mansion and life. No more coaches-and-six, no more court dress, no more levees. Although Jefferson did not, as legend says, ride to his inauguration and tie his horse to the fence, he was inaugurated with as little ceremony as possible. He received an ambassador in slippers down at the heel, and in the arrangement of his dinner parties was so defiant of the rules of etiquette as to breed trouble in the diplomatic circle. Yet with all his outward simplicity the Virginian magnate and man of letters, though he might be a Republican, could not in himself be a true embodiment of democracy. He was the friend of the people, but not one of them. … The desired day had come when the philosopher was to govern. The words of the address which Jefferson, unlike the demagogic sons of thunder in the present day, read in a very low voice, are the expression by its great master and archetype of the republican idea which has hitherto reigned supreme in the mind of the American people. These words are monumental, 'Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political; peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none; the support of the State governments in all their rights, as the most competent administrations for our domestic concerns and the surest bulwarks against anti-republican tendencies, the preservation of the general government in its whole constitutional vigour, as the sheet-anchor of our peace at home and safety abroad; a jealous care of the right of election by the People; a mild and safe correction of abuses which are lopped by the sword of revolution where peaceable remedies are unprovided; absolute acquiescence in the decisions of the majority, the vital principle of republics, from which there is no appeal but to force, the vital principle and immediate parent of despotism; a well-disciplined militia, our best reliance in peace and for the first movements in war, till regulars may relieve them; the supremacy of the civil over the military authority; economy in the public expense, that labour may be lightly burdened; the honest payment of our debts, and sacred preservation of the public faith; encouragement of agriculture, and of commerce as its handmaid, the diffusion of information, and arraignment of all abuses at the bar of public reason; freedom of religion, freedom of the press, and freedom of person under the protection of the "habeas corpus," and trial by jurors impartially selected;—these principles form the bright constellation which has gone before us and guided our steps through an age of revolution and reformation.' Jefferson's wand was the pen. Yet he is strangely apt to fall into mixed metaphors and even into platitudes. This address has not escaped criticism."

"Jefferson had reached the presidential chair at a most fortunate moment. … The prospect of a speedy peace in Europe promised effectual and permanent relief from those serious embarrassments to which, during war on the ocean, American commerce was ever exposed from the aggressions of one or of all the belligerents. The treasury was fuller, the revenue more abundant than at any previous period. Commerce was flourishing, and the pecuniary prosperity of the country very great. All the responsibility of framing institutions, laying taxes, find providing for debts, had fallen on the ousted administration. Succeeding to the powers and the means of the Federal government without sharing any of the unpopularity at the expense of which they had been attained, and ambitious not so much of a splendid as of a quiet and popular administration, the new president seemed to have before him a very plain and easy path. … To the offices of Secretary of State, Secretary of the Treasury, and Attorney General, left vacant by the resignation of the late incumbents, Jefferson nominated James Madison, Henry Dearborn, and Levi Lincoln, the latter an early leader of the opposition in Massachusetts. … As the Senate stood at present, still containing, as it did, of the members present a majority of Federalists, Jefferson did not think proper to make any further nominations; but, soon after the adjournment, he appointed as Secretary of the Treasury Albert Gallatin, all along the financial member of the opposition. … The Navy Department, after being refused by Chancellor Livingston, was given to Robert Smith, brother of the Baltimore member of Congress. Livingston, however, having reached the age of sixty, and being obliged, under a Constitutional provision, to vacate the chancellorship of New York, consented to accept the embassy to France. … Habersham was continued as post-master-general for some six months, … but he presently gave way to Gideon Granger, a leader of the Connecticut Republicans."

R. Hildreth, History of the United States, 2d series, chapter 16 (volume 2, or volume 5 of whole work).

"The first act of the new Cabinet was to reach a general understanding in regard to the objects of the Administration. These appear to have been two only in number: reduction of debt and reduction of taxes, and the relation to be preserved between them."

   "Under President Jefferson, the heads of the great departments
   of the government were changed, nor was there any just reason
   to complain of this measure; as they formed a part of his
   political council; and, as the chief executive officer of
   government, he had a perfect right to select his confidential
   friends and advisers. But when afterwards, and within a few
   months, he removed able and upright men from offices of a
   subordinate grade, his conduct was considered improper and
   arbitrary, and as partaking somewhat of the 'right of
   prerogative,' usually claimed and exercised by royal princes.
   … In his inaugural address, Mr. Jefferson said, 'We have
   gained little, if we encourage a political intolerance as
   wicked as impolitic. We are all brethren of the same
   principles; we are all republicans, and all federalists.'
{3326}
   Yet in less than fifty days he removed fourteen federal
   officers; without any allegation of unfaithfulness or
   inefficiency: on the plea, indeed, that his predecessor had
   removed two public officers on account of their political
   opinions; and had appointed none to office in the government
   but such as were of the same sentiments and views as the
   administration. 'Few died, and none resigned,' he said; and
   therefore, to equalize public offices between the two great
   political parties, it was necessary, in his opinion, to remove
   a part of those then employed, and to appoint others more
   friendly to the new administration. For a very few of the
   removals there might have been sufficient or justifiable
   reasons offered; but in most instances the changes were made
   merely for political opinions."

      A. Bradford,
      History of the Federal Government, 1789-1839,
      chapter 6.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1801.
   Appointment of John Marshall to be
   Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
   His Constitutional decisions.

On the 31st of January, 1801, near the close of the term of President Adams, the latter appointed John Marshall, who had been Secretary of State in his cabinet since the previous May, to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. It was a memorable appointment,—the most memorable, perhaps, that has ever been made by official and not popular selection, in America, since Washington was appointed to the command of the continental army. Its result was to place the new, uninterpreted, plastic Constitution of the Federal Republic under the hands of a master, during thirty-four years of the period in which it hardened into practical, determined law. It decided the character of the Constitution, and by that decision the great instrument was made a bond of nationality, firm, strenuous and enduring. "The abilities of the new Chief Justice were recognized by the profession and the public at the time of his appointment, but the attractive qualities of his heart and his kindly manners soon caused respect and reverence to ripen into affection. Perhaps no American citizen except Washington ever conciliated so large a measure of popularity and public esteem. … In surveying the results of the labors of thirty-four years recorded in thirty-two volumes of reports, it is obvious that it was in the decision of cases involving international and constitutional law that the force and clearness of the Chief Justice's intellect shone most conspicuous. Such was the ready assent of his colleagues on the bench to his supremacy in the exposition of constitutional law, that in such causes a dissenting opinion was almost unknown. Having had occasion to discuss and thoroughly study the Constitution, both in the Virginia convention which adopted it and afterward in the legislature, he had preconceived opinions concerning it, as well as perfect familiarity with it. But in the hot contest waging between the friends of a strict and those of a liberal construction of its language, he wished to take no part. He stated that there should be neither a liberal nor a strict construction, but that the simple, natural, and usual meaning of its words and phrases should govern their interpretation. In the case of Gibbons v. Ogden, in which he is called upon to define the true rule of construction of the United States Constitution regarding the rights of the States and the rights and powers of the general government, he studiously avoids each extreme, steering safely in the middle course. He lays down his own rule thus clearly and definitely:—'This instrument contains an enumeration of powers expressly granted by the people to their government. It has been said that these powers ought to be construed strictly; but why ought they to be so construed? Is there one sentence in the Constitution which gives countenance to this rule? In the last of the enumerated powers, that which grants expressly the means for carrying all others into execution, Congress is authorized to make all laws that shall be necessary and proper for the purpose. But this limitation on the means which may be used is not extended to the powers which are conferred, nor is there one sentence in the Constitution which has been pointed out by the gentlemen of the bar, or which we have been able to discern, that prescribes this rule. We do not therefore think ourselves justified in adopting it. If they contend only against that enlarged construction which would extend words beyond their natural and obvious import, we might question the application of the term but should not controvert the principle. If they contend for that narrow construction which, in support of some theory not to be found in the Constitution, would deny to the government those powers which the words of the grant, as usually understood, import, and which are consistent with the general views and objects of the instrument; for that narrow construction which would cripple the government, and render it unequal to the objects for which it is declared to be instituted, and to which the powers given, as fairly understood, render it competent; then we cannot perceive the propriety of this strict construction, nor adopt it as a rule by which the Constitution is to be expounded.' … Marshall's dictum that there must be neither a strict nor a liberal construction of the Constitution, but that the natural meaning of the words must govern, was undoubtedly sound and wise. The broad proposition was above criticism; it meant only that the language of the instrument should not be stretched or wrenched in any direction; and however politicians or even statesmen might feel, there was no other possible ground for a judge to take. Jefferson might regard it as a duty to make the Constitution as narrow and restricted as possible; Hamilton might feel that there was an actual obligation upon him to make it as broad and comprehensive as its words would admit. But Jefferson and Hamilton, in a different department of public life from Marshall, had duties and obligations correspondingly different from his. They might properly try to make the Constitution mean what it seemed to them for the public welfare that it should mean. Marshall could not consider any such matter; he had only to find and declare what it did mean, what its words actually and properly declared, not what they might possibly or desirably be supposed or construed to declare. This was the real force and the only real force of his foregoing assertion. As an abstract statement of his function it was impregnable. But, as with most broad principles, the difficulty lay in the application of it to particular cases. The constitutional questions which came before Marshall chiefly took the form of whether or not the Constitution conferred some power or authority upon Congress, or upon the Executive. Then the Federalist lawyers tried to show how much the language could mean, and the anti-Federalist counsel sought to show how little it could mean, and each urged that public policy was upon his side. {3327} The decision must be yes or no; the authority did or did not rest in the government. It was easy to talk about the natural and proper meaning of the words; but after all it was the question at issue; did they (not could they) say yes, or did they (not could they) say no, to the special authority sought to be exercised. Now it is one thing to be impartial and another to be colorless in mind. Judge Marshall was impartial and strongly possessed of the judicial instinct or faculty. But he was by no means colorless. He could no more eliminate from his mind an interest in public affairs, and opinions as to the preferable forms of government and methods of administration, than he could cut out and cast away his mind itself. Believing that the Constitution intended to create and did create a national government, and having decided notions as to what such a government must be able to do, he was subject to a powerful though insensible influence to find the existence of the required abilities in the government. … The great majority of his decisions were in accordance with Federalist principles of construction and of policy. The Republicans all denounced him as a Federalist, even of an extreme type."

      ALSO IN:
      H. Flanders,
      Lives and Times of the Chief Justices of the Supreme Court,
      volume 2.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1801.
First American naval demonstration against the Barbary Pirates.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1802-1804.
Land cessions of Georgia annexed to Mississippi Territory.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1803.
The Louisiana Purchase.
Its constitutional and political aspects.

"The Mississippi question, which had played so important a part in the times of the confederation, had arisen again and demanded a solution, as Spain had, on the 1st of October, 1800, ceded the whole of Louisiana to France. The United States had had experience enough already of how dangerous and how great an obstacle in the way of the commercial development of the country it might become, if the mouth of the Mississippi were in the possession of a foreign power, even if it were no stronger than Spain. Jefferson had not shared in this experience in vain. This was one of the instances in which he gave evidence of a really statesmanlike insight. He wrote on the 18th of April, 1802, to his embassador Livingston in Paris: This cession 'completely reverses all the political relations of the United States, and will form a new epoch in our political course. … There is on the globe one single spot, the possessor of which is our natural and habitual enemy.' Livingston was instructed to enter into negotiations immediately for the cession of New Orleans and the Floridas, in case France should consider the possession of Louisiana indispensably necessary. As Bonaparte at this very time entertained the idea of resuming the old French colonial policy, the negotiations remained long without result. The uprising of the negroes in San Domingo and the warlike turn which the affairs of Europe began again to assume, disposed him more favorably towards the American offer. On the 30th of April, 1803, the treaty, ceding the whole of Louisiana to the United States for $15,000,000, was concluded in Paris.

Hamilton shared Jefferson's view, that the purchase of Louisiana was a question of the greatest, and even of vital, importance for the Union. His opposition on other occasions to the policy of the administration, and his personal enmity to the president, did not prevent his lending him a helping hand in this matter when an opportunity offered. The great majority of the Federalists opposed this increase of the territory of the Union with as much decision as Hamilton advocated it. They showed in their attitude towards this question a short-sightedness which would have been astonishing even among the doctrinarians of the opposite party."

      H. von Holst,
      Constitutional and Political History of the United States,
      volume 1, pages 183-185.

"Mr. Jefferson belonged to the school of strict construction, and was in fact its leader and apostle. … Under a construction of the Constitution as strict as he had been insisting upon, it was plain that the government would have no power to acquire foreign territory by purchase, and that any attempt in that direction would be usurpation. … To give the necessary authority an amendment of the Constitution would be essential, and amendment would be a slow process which might not be accomplished in time to meet the emergency. The case would be complicated by the fact that if the territory was acquired a considerable population would be brought into the Union and thus made citizens by a process of naturalization not contemplated by the Constitution. Mr. Madison, the Secretary of State, agreed with the President in his views. To use Mr. Jefferson's words, "The Constitution has made no provision for our holding foreign territory; still less for incorporating foreign nations into our Union.' But under circumstances so imperative he thought the political departments of the government should meet the emergency by consummating the purchase, and 'then appeal to the nation for an additional article in the Constitution approving and confirming an act which the nation had not previously authorized.' He did not conceal from himself, however, that in so doing ground would be occupied which it would be difficult to defend, and he proceeds to say: 'The less that is said about any constitutional difficulty the better. Congress should do what is necessary in silence. I find but one opinion as to the necessity of shutting up the Constitution for some time.' Mr. John Quincy Adams held similar views. … But it is difficult to conceive of any doctrine more dangerous or more distinctly antagonistic to the fundamental ideas of the American Union than the doctrine that the Constitution may be 'shut up' for a time in order that the government may accomplish something not warranted by it. The political immorality was obvious and glaring; more so in the case of the apostle of strict construction than it could have been if advanced by any other statesman of the day. … But Mr. Jefferson's political mistake was scarcely greater than that committed by his opponents: and, indeed, from a party standpoint it was no mistake whatsoever, but a bold measure of wise policy.

… The purchase, according to the Federal view of the Constitution, was perfectly legitimate. … But the Federalists in general took narrow and partisan views, and in order to embarrass the administration resorted to quibbles which were altogether unworthy the party which had boasted of Washington as its chief and Hamilton as the exponent of its doctrines. … The Federal leaders did not stop at cavils; they insisted that the unconstitutional extension of territory was in effect a dissolution of the Union, so that they were at liberty to contemplate and plan for a final disruption."

Judge T. M. Cooley, The Acquisition of Louisiana (Indiana Historical Society Pamphlets, number 3).

The result of the debates on the Louisiana treaty, in the Senate and the House, "decided only one point. Every speaker, without distinction of party, agreed that the United States government had the power to acquire new territory either by conquest or by treaty; the only difference of opinion regarded the disposition of this territory after it was acquired. Did Louisiana belong to the central government at Washington, or to the States? … Whether the government at Washington could possess Louisiana as a colony or admit it as a State, was a difference of no great matter if the cession were to hold good; the essential point was that for the first time in the national history all parties agreed in admitting that the government could govern. … Even in 1804 the political consequences of the act were already too striking to be overlooked. Within three years of his inauguration Jefferson bought a foreign colony without its consent and against its will, annexed it to the United States by an act which he said made blank paper of the Constitution; and then he who had found his predecessors too monarchical, and the Constitution too liberal in powers,—he who had nearly dissolved the bonds of society rather than allow his predecessor to order a dangerous alien out of the country in a time of threatened war,—made himself monarch of the new territory, and wielded over it, against its protests, the powers of its old kings. Such an experience was final; no century of slow and half-understood experience could be needed to prove that the hopes of humanity lay thenceforward, not in attempting to restrain the government from doing whatever the majority should think necessary, but in raising the people themselves till they should think nothing necessary but what was good."

      H. Adams,
      History of the United States of America
      during the first Administration of Jefferson,
      volume 2, chapters 4-6.

      ALSO IN:
      Treaties and Conventions between the United States
      and other Powers (edition of 1889),
      pages 331-342.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1803.
Report on the British impressment of seamen from American ships.

"In consequence of a resolution of the Senate, calling upon the President for information respecting the violation of the national flag, and the impressment of American seamen, he communicated to that body a letter from the Secretary of State, specifying all the cases of impressment which had come to the knowledge of that Department. The Secretary had no information of the violation of the national flag, except in the recent aggression of Morocco. It appeared, by this report, that 43 citizens of the United States had been impressed by the British, of whom 12 had protections. Ten were natives of the British dominions, and 17 of other countries, none of whom were stated to have been naturalized. Thus a practice which, even within the British dominions, violates the dearest rights of personal liberty, and which their courts have never ventured to justify, and which is excused and acquiesced in on the plea of necessity, was unhesitatingly exercised by British navy officers on board of American vessels."

"When the captain of a British frigate overhauled an American merchant-vessel for enemy's property or contraband of war, he sent an officer on board who mustered the crew, and took out any seamen whom he believed to be British. The measure, as the British navy regarded it, was one of self-protection. If the American government could not or would not discourage desertion, the naval commander would recover his men in the only way he could. Thus a circle of grievances was established on each side. … The growth of American shipping stimulated desertions from the British service to the extent of injuring its efficiency; and these desertions in their turn led to a rigorous exercise of the right of impressment. To find some point at which this vicious circle could be broken was a matter of serious consequence to both countries, but most so to the one which avowed that it did not mean to protect its interest by force. Great Britain could have broken the circle by increasing the pay and improving the condition of her seamen; but she was excessively conservative, and the burdens already imposed on her commerce were so great that she could afford to risk nothing. … Conscious of her own power, she thought that the United States should be first to give way. Had the American government been willing to perform its neutral obligations strictly, the circle might have been broken without much trouble; but the United States wished to retain their advantage, and preferred to risk whatever England might do rather than discourage desertion, or enact and enforce a strict naturalization law, or punish fraud, The national government was too weak to compel the States to respect neutral obligations, even if it had been disposed to make the attempt. The practice of impressment brought the two governments to a deadlock on an issue of law. No one denied that every government had the right to command the services of its native subjects, and as yet no one ventured to maintain that a merchant-ship on the high seas could lawfully resist the exercise of this right; but the law had done nothing to define the rights of naturalized subjects or citizens. The British government might, no doubt, impress its own subjects; but almost every British sailor in the American service carried papers of American citizenship, and although some of these were fraudulent, many were genuine. The law of England, as declared from time out of mind by every generation of her judges, held that the allegiance of a subject was indefeasible, and therefore that naturalization was worthless. The law of the United States, as declared by Chief-Justice Ellsworth in 1799, was in effect the same."

      H. Adams,
      History of the United States of America, during
      the first Administration of Thomas Jefferson,
      volume 2, chapter 14.

"Great Britain was clearly in the wrong. She ought to have kept her seamen by increasing their pay and putting an end to the grievances which produced the mutiny of the Nore. In heartlessly neglecting to render the service just to the common sailor, and at the same time making a brutal use of impressment, aristocratic government showed its dark side. It is true that impressment was conscription in a coarse form, and that the extreme notion of indefeasible allegiance still prevailed. But the practice, however lawful, was intolerable, and its offensiveness was sure to be aggravated by the conduct of British commanders full of the naval pride of their nation and perhaps irritated by the loss of their crews; for it is not denied that many British seamen were seduced from the service and that the American marine, both mercantile and national, was largely manned in this way."

"In the winter … of 1803-4, immediately after, and as a consequence of, the acquisition of Louisiana, certain leaders of the Federal party conceived the project of the dissolution of the Union, and the establishment of a Northern Confederacy. The justifying causes to those who entertained it were, that the annexation of Louisiana to the Union transcended the constitutional powers of the government of the United States; that it created, in fact, a new confederacy, to which the States, united by the former compact, were not bound to adhere; that it was oppressive to the interests and destructive to the influence of the Northern section of the Confederacy, whose right and duty it therefore was to secede from the new body politic, and to constitute one of their own. It was lamented that one inevitable consequence of the annexation of Louisiana to the Union would be to diminish the relative weight and influence of the Northern section; that it would aggravate the evil of the slave representation; and endanger the Union itself, by the expansion of its bulk, and the enfeebling extension of its line of de·fence against foreign invasion. A Northern Confederacy was thought to be the only probable counterpoise to the manufacture of new States in the South. This project was quietly and extensively discussed at the time, by the members of Congress from Massachusetts and Connecticut especially. General Hamilton, indeed, was chosen as the person to be placed, at the proper time, at the head of the military movement which, it was foreseen, would be necessary for carrying the plan into execution. He was consulted on the subject; and although it is quite certain that he was opposed to it, he consented to attend a meeting of Federalists in Boston in the autumn of 1804, but his untimely death, in the summer of that year, prevented the meeting. To whatever proportions, however, the project might otherwise have gone, it was checked by the advantage which was evident to all of the securing of so large a domain, by the great desirableness of preventing France from holding the mouth of our great river, and by the settlement of the question of our national boundaries. These considerations gave a quietus for a time to the suggestions of sectional jealousy."

C. F. Robertson, The Louisiana Purchase in its Influence upon the American System (Papers of the American Historical Association, volume 1), pages 262-263.

   Thomas Jefferson, Democratic Republican, reelected by the vote
   of 162 Electors in the College, against 14 voting for Charles
   C. Pinckney, Federalist. George Clinton was chosen Vice
   President.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1805.
Impeachment and trial of Judge Chase.

In the closing hours of the session of Congress which expired March 4, 1803, proceedings of impeachment were begun for the removal from the bench of Judge Pickering, United States District Judge of New Hampshire, who had become mentally incapable of discharging the duties of his office. "By the federalists, the attack on Judge Pickering was taken as the first of a series of impeachments, intended to revolutionize the political character of the courts, but there is nothing to prove that this was then the intent of the majority. The most obnoxious justice on the supreme bench was Samuel Chase of Maryland, whose violence as a political partisan had certainly exposed him to the danger of impeachment; but two years had now passed without producing any sign of an intention to disturb him, and it might be supposed that the administration thus condoned his offences. Unluckily, Judge Chase had not the good taste or the judgment to be quiet. He irritated his enemies by new indiscretions, and on May 13, 1803, nearly three months after Pickering's impeachment, Mr. Jefferson, in a letter to Joseph H. Nicholson, suggested that it would be well to take him in hand:—'You must have heard of the extraordinary charge of Chase to the grand jury at Baltimore. Ought this seditious and official attack on the principles of our Constitution and on the proceedings of a State to go unpunished? And to whom so pointedly as yourself will the public look for the necessary measures? I ask these questions for your consideration. As for myself, it is better that I should not interfere.' … Nicholson seems to have passed on to Randolph the charge he had received from the President. … On January 5, 1804, Randolph rose to move for an inquiry into the conduct of Judge Chase. … After a long debate, the inquiry was ordered, and Randolph, with his friend Nicholson, was put at the head of the committee. On March 26, 1804, they reported seven articles of impeachment. … With this the session ended, and the trial went over to the next year. … The impeachment of Justice Chase is a landmark in American history, because it was here that the Jeffersonian republicans fought their last aggressive battle, and, wavering under the shock of defeat, broke into factions which slowly abandoned the field and forgot their discipline. That such a battle must one day be fought for the control of the Judiciary was from the beginning believed by most republicans who understood their own principles. Without controlling the Judiciary, the people could never govern themselves in their own way; and although they might, over and over again, in every form of law and resolution, both state and national, enact and proclaim that theirs was not a despotic but a restricted government, which had no right to exercise powers not delegated to it, and over which they, as States, had absolute control, it was none the less certain that Chief Justice Marshall and his associates would disregard their will, and would impose upon them his own. The people were at the mercy of their creatures. The Constitutions of England, of Massachusetts, of Pennsylvania, authorized the removal of an obnoxious judge on a mere address of the legislature, but the Constitution of the United States had so fenced and fortified the Supreme Court that the legislature, the Executive, the people themselves, could exercise no control over it. {3330} A judge might make any decision, violate any duty, trample on any right, and if he took care to commit no indictable offence he was safe in office for life. On this license the Constitution imposed only one check: it said that all civil officers should be removed from office 'on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.' This right of impeachment was as yet undefined, and if stretched a little beyond strict construction it might easily be converted into something for which it had not been intended. … Judge Chase's offences were serious. The immediate cause of impeachment, his address to the grand jury at Baltimore on the 2d May, 1803, proved that he was not a proper person to be trusted with the interpretation of the laws. In this address he said that those laws were rapidly destroying all protection to property and all security to personal liberty. 'The late alteration of the federal Judiciary,' said he, 'by the abolition of the office of the sixteen circuit judges, and the recent change in our state Constitution by the establishing of universal suffrage, and the further alteration that is contemplated in our state Judiciary, if adopted, will, in my judgment, take away all security for property and personal liberty. The independence of the national Judiciary is already shaken to its foundations, and the virtue of the people alone can restore it.' That by this reference to the virtue of the people he meant to draw a contrast with the want of virtue in their government was made clear by a pointed insult to Mr. Jefferson: 'The modern doctrines by our late reformers, that all men in a state of society are entitled to enjoy equal liberty and equal rights, have brought this mighty mischief upon us, and I fear that it will rapidly progress until peace and order, freedom and property, shall be destroyed.' … There was gross absurdity in the idea that the people who, by an immense majority, had decided to carry on their government in one way should be forced by one of their own servants to turn about and go in the opposite direction; and the indecorum was greater than the absurdity, for if Judge Chase or any other official held such doctrines, even though he were right, he was bound not to insult officially the people who employed him. On these grounds Mr. Jefferson privately advised the impeachment, and perhaps Randolph might have acted more wisely had he followed Mr. Jefferson's hint to rely on this article alone, which in the end came nearer than any other to securing conviction. … The articles of impeachment which Randolph presented to the House on March 26, 1804, and which were, he claimed, drawn up with his own hand, rested wholly on the theory of Chase's criminality; they contained no suggestion that impeachment was a mere inquest of office. But when Congress met again, and, on December 3, the subject came again before the House, it was noticed that two new articles, the fifth and sixth, had been quietly interpolated, which roused suspicion of a change in Randolph's plan. … No one could doubt that Randolph and his friends, seeing how little their ultimate object would be advanced by a conviction on the old charges, inserted these new articles in order to correct their mistake and to make a foundation for the freer use of impeachment as a political weapon. The behavior of Giles and his friends in the Senate strengthened this suspicion. He made no concealment of his theories, and labored earnestly to prevent the Senate from calling itself a court, or from exercising any functions that belonged to a court of law."

The doctrine of impeachment which Giles (Senator from Virginia) and John Randolph maintained, in connection with the trial of Judge Chase, and which seems to have been acquiesced in by the majority of their party, is reported by John Quincy Adams from a conversation to which he was a listener. In Mr. Adams' Memoirs, under date of December 21, 1804, the incident is related as follows: "There was little business to do [in the Senate], and the adjournment took place early. Sitting by the fireside afterwards, I witnessed a conversation between Mr. Giles and Mr. Israel Smith, on the subject of impeachments; during which Mr. John Randolph came in and took part in the discussion. Giles labored with excessive earnestness to convince Smith of certain principles, upon which not only Mr. Chase, but all the other Judges of the Supreme Court, excepting the one last appointed, must be impeached and removed. He treated with the utmost contempt the idea of an 'independent' judiciary—said there was not a word about such an independence in the Constitution, and that their pretensions to it were nothing more nor less than an attempt to establish an aristocratic despotism in themselves. The power of impeachment was given without limitation to the House of Representatives; the power of trying impeachments was given equally without limitation to the Senate; and if the Judges of the Supreme Court should dare, as they had done, to declare an act of Congress unconstitutional, or to send a mandamus to the Secretary of State, as they had done, it was the undoubted right of the House of Representatives to impeach them, and of the Senate to remove them, for giving such opinions, however honest and sincere they may have been in entertaining them. Impeachment was not a criminal prosecution; it was no prosecution at all. The Senate sitting for the trial of impeachments was not a court, and ought to discard and reject all process of analogy to a court of justice. A trial and removal of a judge upon impeachment need not imply any criminality or corruption in him. Congress had no power over the person, but only over the office. And a removal by impeachment was nothing more than a declaration by Congress to this effect: You hold dangerous opinions, and if you are suffered to carry them into effect you will work the destruction of the nation. We want your offices, for the purpose of giving them to men who will fill them better. In answer to all this, Mr. Smith only contended that honest error of opinion could not, as he conceived, be a subject of impeachment. And in pursuit of this principle he proved clearly enough the persecution and tyranny to which those of Giles and Randolph inevitably lead. It would, he said, establish 'a tyranny over opinions,' and he traced all the arguments of Giles to their only possible issue of rank absurdity. In all this conversation I opened my lips but once, in which I told Giles that I could not assent to his definition of the term impeachment."

The trial of Judge Chase was opened on the 9th of February, 1805, and ended on the 23d. By votes ranging from 15 to 34 (the total number of Senators being 34), he was acquitted on each of the charges—a result attributed considerably to the offensive and incapable manner in which the prosecution had been conducted by John Randolph.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1805.
Expedition of Lewis and Clark across the continent.
The first exploration of the Missouri and beyond.

Captain Meriwether Lewis and Captain William Clark "were the first men to cross the continent in our zone, the truly golden zone. A dozen years before them, Mackenzie had crossed in British dominions far north, but settlements are even now sparse in that parallel. Still earlier had Mexicans traversed the narrowing continent from the Gulf to the Pacific, but seemed to find little worth discovery. It was otherwise in the zone penetrated by Lewis and Clark. There development began at once and is now nowhere surpassed. Along their route ten States, with a census in 1890 of eight and a half millions, have arisen in the wilderness. … The credit of our Great Western discovery is due to Jefferson, though he never crossed the Alleghanies. When Columbus saw the Orinoco rushing into the ocean with irrepressible power and volume, he knew that he had anchored at the mouth of a continental river. So Jefferson, ascertaining that the Missouri, though called a branch, at once changed the color and character of the Mississippi, felt sure that whoever followed it would reach the innermost recesses of our America. Learning afterward that Captain Gray had pushed into the mouth of the Columbia only after nine days' breasting its outward current, he deemed that river a worthy counterpart of the Missouri, and was convinced that their headwaters could not be far apart in longitude. Inaugurated in 1801, before his first Presidential term was half over he had obtained, as a sort of secret-service fund, the small sum which sufficed to fit out the expedition. He had also selected Lewis, his private secretary, for its head, and put him in a course of special training. But the actual voyage up the Missouri, purchased April 30, 1803, was not begun till the middle of May, 1804. Forty-five persons in three boats composed the party. … After 171 days the year's advance ended with October, for the river was ready to freeze. The distance up stream they reckoned at 1,600 miles, or little more than 9 miles a day, a journey now made by railroad in forty-four hours. … Winter quarters were thirty miles above the Bismarck of our day. Here they were frozen in about five months. The huts they built and abundant fuel kept them warm. Thanks to their hunters and Indian traffic, food was seldom scarce. Officials of the Hudson's Bay Company (who had a post within a week's journey) and many inquisitive natives paid them visits. From all these it was their tireless endeavor to learn everything possible concerning the great unknown of the river beyond. Scarcely one could tell about distant places from personal observation, but some second-hand reports were afterward proved strangely accurate, even as to the Great Falls, which turned out to be a thousand miles away. It was not long, however, before they learned that the wife of Chaboneau, whom they had taken as a local interpreter, was a captive whose birth had been in the Rocky Mountains. She, named the Bird-woman, was the only person discoverable after a winter's search who could by possibility serve them as interpreter and guide among the unknown tongues and labyrinthine fastnesses which they must encounter. Early in April, 1805, the explorers, now numbering thirty-two, again began to urge their boats up the river, for their last year's labors had brought them no more than half-way to their first objective, its source. No more Indian purveyors or pilots: their own rifles were the sole reliance for food. Many a wigwam, but no Indian, was espied for four months and four days after they left their winter camp. It was through the great Lone Land that they groped their dark and perilous way. In twenty days after the spring start they arrived at the Yellowstone, and in thirty more they first sighted the Rocky Mountains. Making the portage at the Great Falls cost them a month of vexatious delay. Rowing on another month brought them on August 12 to a point where one of the men stood with one foot each side of the rivulet, and 'thanked God that he had lived to bestride the Missouri, heretofore deemed endless.' They dragged their canoes, however, up the rivulet for five days longer. It was 460 days since they had left the mouth of the river, and their mileage on its waters had been 3,096 miles. A mile further they stood on the great divide, and drank of springs which sent their water to the Pacific. But meantime they had been ready to starve in the mountains. Their hunters were of the best, but they found no game: buffaloes had gone down into the lowlands, the birds of heaven had fled, and edible roots were mostly unknown to them. For more than four months they had looked, and lo! there was no man. It was not till August 13 that, surprising a squaw so encumbered with pappooses that she could not escape, and winning her heart by the gift of a looking-glass and painting her cheeks, they formed friendship with her nation, one of whose chiefs proved to be a brother of their Bird-woman. Horses were about all they could obtain of these natives, streams were too full of rapids to be navigable, or no timber fit for canoes was within reach. So the party, subsisting on horse-flesh, and afterwards on dog-meat, toiled on along one of the worst possible routes. Nor was it till the 7th of October that they were able to embark in logs they had burned hollow, upon a branch of the Columbia, which, after manifold portages and perils, bore them to its mouth and the goal of their pilgrimage, late in November. Its distance from the starting-point, according to their estimate, was 4,134 miles. … Many an episode in this eventful transcontinental march and countermarch will hereafter glorify with romantic associations islands, rivers, rocks, cañons, and mountains all along its track. Among these none can be more touching than the story of the Bird-woman, her divination of routes, her courage when men quailed, her reunion with a long-lost brother, her spreading as good a table with bones as others could with meat, her morsel of bread for an invalid benefactor, her presence with her infant attesting to savages that the expedition could not be hostile. But when bounties in land and money were granted to others, she was unthought of. Statues of her, however, must yet be reared by grateful dwellers in lands she laid open for their happy homes. Western poets will liken her to Ariadne and Beatrice."

      The Nation,
      October 26, 1893
      (Reviewing Dr. Coues' edition of "History of the
      Expedition under the Command of Lewis and Clark").

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1805,
Jefferson's Plans of National defense.
His Gunboat fleet.

Mr. Jefferson's views as to the measures required for national defense, in the disturbed foreign relations of the country, were indicated in his message to Congress, when it assembled in November, 1804, but were afterwards communicated more fully to Mr. Nicholson, of Maryland, chairman of the committee to which the subject was referred. "Concerning fortifications, he remarks that the plans and estimates of those required for our principal harbours, made fifty millions of dollars necessary for their completion. It would require 2,000 men to garrison them in peace, and 50,000 in war. When thus completed and manned, they would avail but little, as all military men agree that when vessels might pass a fort without tacking, though it may annoy, it cannot prevent them. Two modes of effecting the same object might be 'adopted in aid of each other.' 1. Heavy cannon on travelling carriages, with militia trained to the management of them. 2. Floating batteries or gunboats. There were, he estimated, fifteen harbours in the United States needing and deserving defence. They would require 250 gunboats. The cost of these had been estimated at 2,000 dollars each, but he puts it down at 4,000, amounting in all to 1,000,000 dollars. Such of them as were kept under a shelter, ready to be launched, when wanted, would cost nothing more than an inclosure, or sentinel; those that were afloat, with men enough to take care of them, about 2,000 dollars a year each; and those fully manned for action about 8,000 dollars a year. He thought twenty-five of the second description enough, when France and England were at war. When at war ourselves, some of the third description would be required, the precise number depending on circumstances. There were ten then built and building, and fifteen more it was thought would be sufficient to put every harbour into a respectable state of defence. Congress, neither fulfilling the wishes of the President, nor altogether resisting them, gave the President the means of partially trying his favourite scheme, by the appropriation of 60,000 dollars. The sufficiency of this species of naval defence occasioned a good deal of discussion about this time between the opponents and the supporters of the administration. … The scheme was vehemently assailed by his adversaries in every form of argument and ridicule, and was triumphantly adduced as a further proof that he was not a practical statesman. The officers of the navy were believed to be, with scarcely an exception, opposed to the system of gunboats, especially those who were assigned to this service, partly because it was found to be personally very uncomfortable, and yet more, perhaps, because the power they wielded was so inferior, and their command so insignificant, compared with that to which they had been familiarized. It was like compelling a proud man to give up a fine richly caparisoned charger for a pair of panniers and a donkey. To stem the current of public opinion, which so far as it was manifested, set so strong against these gunboats, and to turn it in their favour, Mr. Jefferson prevailed on Paine, who had since his return been addressing the people of the United States on various topics, through the newspapers, to become their advocate. He set about it with his wonted self-confidence and real talent in enforcing his views, and proceeded to show that a gun from a gunboat would do the same execution as from a seventy-four, and cost no more, perhaps less; but a ship carrying seventy-four guns, could bring only one half to bear on an enemy at once, whereas if they were distributed among seventy-four boats, they could all be equally effective at once. In spite of this logic, the public, pinning its faith on experienced men, remained incredulous; and when, soon afterwards, many of the new marine were driven ashore in a tempest, or were otherwise destroyed, no one seemed to regard their loss as a misfortune, and the officers of the navy did not affect to conceal their satisfaction: nor has any attempt been since made to replace them. … The error of Mr. Jefferson was not, as his enemies charged, in adopting a visionary scheme of defence, but in limiting his views from a motive of economy, to the protection of the harbours, and in leaving his country's commerce and seamen, on the ocean, defenceless."

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1809.
   Difficulties with Great Britain.
   Neutral rights.
   The Right of Search.
   Impressment.
   Blockade by Orders in Council and the Berlin and Milan Decrees.
   Embargo and Non-intercourse.

For a time, after 1803, almost the whole carrying trade of Europe was in American hands. "The merchant flag of every belligerent, save England, disappeared from the sea. France and Holland absolutely ceased to trade under their flags. Spain for a while continued to transport her specie and her bullion in her own ships protected by her men-of-war. But this, too, she soon gave up, and by 1806 the dollars of Mexico and the ingots of Peru were brought to her shores in American bottoms. It was under our flag that the gum trade was carried on with Senegal; that the sugar trade was carried on with Cuba; that coffee was exported from Caracas; and hides and indigo from South America. From Vera Cruz, from Carthagena, from La Plata, from the French colonies in the Antilles, from Cayenne, from Dutch Guiana, from the Isles of France and Reunion, from Batavia and Manilla, great fleets of American merchantmen sailed for the United States, there to neutralize the voyage and then go on to Europe. They filled the warehouses at Cadiz and Antwerp to overflowing. They glutted the markets of Embden and Lisbon, Hamburg and Copenhagen with the produce of the West Indies and the fabrics of the East, and, bringing back the products of the looms and forges of Germany to the New World, drove out the manufactures of Yorkshire, Manchester, and Birmingham. But this splendid trade was already marked for destruction. That Great Britain should long treat it with indifference was impossible. … She determined … to destroy it, and to destroy it in two ways: by paper blockades and by admiralty decisions. In January, 1804, accordingly, Great Britain blockaded the ports of Guadeloupe and Martinique. In April her commander at Jamaica blockaded Curaçoa. In August she extended the blockade to the Straits of Dover and the English Channel."

J. B. McMaster, History of the People of the United States, volume 3, pages 225-226.

"It had not yet come to be the acknowledged law of nations that free ships make free goods. But nearly the same purpose was answered, if the property of belligerents could be safely carried in neutral ships under the pretense of being owned by neutrals. The products of the French colonies, for example, could be loaded on board of American vessels, taken to the United States and reshipped there for France as American property. England looked upon this as an evasion of the recognized public law that property of belligerents was good prize. … It was denied that neutrals could take advantage of a state of war to enter upon a trade which had not existed in time of peace; and American ships were seized on the high seas, taken into port, and condemned in the Admiralty Courts for carrying enemy's goods in such a trade. The exercise of that right, if it were one by the recognized law of nations, would be of great injury to American commerce, unless it could be successfully resisted. … A war with England must be a naval war; and the United States not only had no navy of any consequence, but it was a part of Mr. Jefferson's policy, in contrast with the policy of the preceding administrations, that there should be none, except … gunboats kept on wheels and under cover in readiness to repel an invasion. But there was no fear of invasion, for by that England could gain nothing. 'She is renewing,' Madison wrote in the autumn of 1805, 'her depredations on our commerce in the most ruinous shapes, and has kindled a more general indignation among our merchants than was ever before expressed.' These depredations were not confined to the seizing and confiscating American ships under the pretense that their cargoes were contraband. Seamen were taken out of them on the charge of being British subjects and deserters, not only on the high seas in larger numbers than ever before, but within the waters of the United States. No doubt these seamen were often British subjects and their seizure was justifiable, provided England could rightfully extend to all parts of the globe and to the ships of all nations the merciless system of impressment to which her own people were compelled to submit at home. … But even if it could be granted that English naval officers might seize such men without recourse to law, wherever they should be found and without respect for the flag of another nation, it was a national insult and outrage, calling for resentment and resistance, to impress American citizens under the pretense that they were British subjects. But what was the remedy? As a last resort in such cases, nations have but one. Diplomacy and legislation may be first tried, but if these fail, war must be the final ordeal. For this the Administration made no preparation, and the more evident the unreadiness the less was the chance of redress in any other way. … The first measure adopted to meet the aggressions of the English was an act prohibiting the importation of certain British products. This had always been a favorite policy with Madison. … The President and Secretary were in perfect accord; for Jefferson preferred anything to war, and Madison was persuaded that England would be brought to terms by the loss of the best market for her manufactures. … But the Administration did not rely upon legislation alone in this emergency. The President followed up the act prohibiting the introduction of British goods by sending William Pinkney to England in the spring of 1806, to join Monroe, the resident minister, in an attempt at negotiation. These commissioners soon wrote that there was good reason for hoping that a treaty would be concluded, and thereupon the non-importation act was for a time suspended. In December came the news that a treaty was agreed upon, and soon after it was received by the President. … Monroe and Pinkney were enjoined, in tho instructions written by the Secretary of State, to make the abandonment of impressment the first condition of a treaty. A treaty, nevertheless, was agreed upon, without this provision. … Without consulting the Senate, though Congress was in session when the treaty was received, and although the Senate had been previously informed that one had been agreed upon, the President rejected it. … As England's need of seamen increased, the captains of her cruisers, encouraged by the failure of negotiation, grew bolder in overhauling American ships. … In the summer of 1807 an outrage was perpetrated on the frigate Chesapeake, as if to emphasize the contempt with which a nation must be looked upon which only screamed like a woman at wrongs which it wanted the courage and strength to resent, or the wisdom to compound for. The Chesapeake was followed out of the harbor of Norfolk by the British man-of-war Leopard, and when a few miles at sea, the Chesapeake being brought to under the pretense that the English captain wished to put some dispatches on board for Europe, a demand was made for certain deserters supposed to be on the American frigate. Commodore Barron replied that he knew of no deserters on his ship, and that he could permit no search to be made, even if there were. After some further altercation the Englishman fired a broadside, killing and wounding a number of the Chesapeake's crew. Commodore Barron could do nothing else but surrender, for he had only a single gun in readiness for use, and that was fired only once and then with a coal from the cook's galley. The ship was then boarded, the crew mustered, and four men arrested as deserters. Three of them were negroes,—two natives of the United States, the other of South America. The fourth man, probably, was an Englishman. … For this direct national insult, explanation, apology, and reparation were demanded, and at the same time the President put forth a proclamation forbidding all British ships of war to remain in American waters. … Some preparation was made for war, but it was only to call upon the militia to be in readiness, and to order Mr. Jefferson's gunboats to the most exposed ports. Great Britain was not alarmed. The captain of the Leopard, indeed, was removed from his command, as having exceeded his duty; but a proclamation on that side was also issued, requiring all ships of war to seize British seamen on board foreign merchantmen, to demand them from foreign ships of war, and if the demand was refused to report the fact to the admiral of the fleet. … New perils all the while were besetting American commerce. {3334} In November, 1806, Napoleon's Berlin decree was promulgated, forbidding the introduction into France of the products of Great Britain and her colonies, whether in her own ships or those of other nations. … The decree, it was declared, was a rightful retaliation of a British order in council of six months before, which had established a partial blockade of a portion of the French coast. … In the autumn of 1807 [the President] called a special session of Congress. … He sent a special message to the Senate, recommending an embargo. An act was almost immediately passed, which, if anything more was needed to complete the ruin of American commerce, supplied that deficiency. A month before this time the English ministry had issued a new order in council—the news of which reached Jefferson as he was about to send in his message—proclaiming a blockade of pretty much all Europe, and forbidding any trade in neutral vessels, unless they had first gone into some British port and paid duties on their cargoes; and within 24 hours of the President's message, recommending the embargo, Napoleon proclaimed a new decree from Milan, by which it was declared that any ship was lawful prize that had anything whatever to do with Great Britain. … Within four months of its enactment, Josiah Quincy of Massachusetts declared, in a debate in Congress, that 'an experiment, such as is now making, was never before—I will not say tried—it never before entered into the human imagination. There is nothing like it in the narrations of history or in the tales of fiction.' … The prosperity and tranquillity which marked the earlier years of Jefferson's administration disappeared in its last year. … The mischievous results of the embargo policy were evident enough to a sufficient number of Republicans to secure, in February, 1809, the repeal [by the Non-intercourse Bill] of that measure, to take effect the next month as to all countries except England and France."

The Non-intercourse Bill which repealed the general provisions of the Embargo Act "excluded all public and private vessels of France and England from American waters; forbade under severe penalties the importation of British or French goods; … and gave the President authority to reopen by proclamation the trade with France or England in case either of these countries should cease to violate neutral rights. … Such a non-intercourse merely sanctioned smuggling."

H. Adams, History of the United States: Second Administration of Jefferson, volume 2, page 445.

      A. T. Mahan,
      Influence of Sea Power on the French Revolution,
      chapters 17-18 (volume 2).

      F. Wharton,
      Digest of the International Law of the United States,
      chapters 7, 16, and 21 (volume 2-3).

      See, also,
      UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1803;
      UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812,
      and FRANCE: A. D. 1806-1810.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1806-1807.
Aaron Burr's filibustering scheme.
His arrest and trial.

Aaron Burr had been chosen vice-president in 1800. But he had lost all his friends in both parties in the election. In the course of a bitter political quarrel in New York, in 1804, he challenged Hamilton to a duel. Hamilton was mad enough to accept the challenge and was killed. Burr, "after his duel with General Hamilton, and after the term of his office as vice-president had expired, … seemed to be left alone, and abandoned by all political parties. The state of public feeling in New York was such, after the death of Hamilton, that his presence in that city could not be endured. In New Jersey he had been indicted by a grand jury for murder. Thus situated, his ambitious, active and restless spirit rendered his condition intolerable to himself. On the 22nd March, but a few days after he left forever the presidency of the United States senate, he wrote to his son-in-law, Mr. Joseph Alston, that he 'was under ostracism. In New York,' said he, 'I am to be disfranchised, and in New Jersey to be hanged. Having substantial objections to both, I shall not, for the present, hazard either, but shall seek another country.' Accordingly, early in May, he left Philadelphia for the western country, and arrived at Lexington, in Kentucky, on the 20th of that month. After travelling with great rapidity through that state, he directed his course to Nashville, in Tennessee, and from thence he journied through the woods to Natchez. From Natchez he went by land to New Orleans, where he arrived on the 25th June, 1805. At that time, General Wilkinson was in that city, or in its neighborhood, and commanded the United States troops stationed there. It does not appear that he remained long in New Orleans, but soon again returned to Lexington, in Kentucky, by the way of Nashville. He was at Cincinnati, and at several places in Ohio, but in a very short time made his appearance at St. Louis, in Missouri, and from thence he travelled to Washington, at which place he arrived on the 29th day of November. These immense journies he performed in a little more than six months; before the great western rivers were rendered navigable by steam, and when the roads were badly constructed; and through a considerable part of the country traversed by him there were no roads at all. His movements were veiled in mystery, and all men wondered what could be the motive which induced these extraordinary journies. From January, 1806, to the month of August following, he spent his time principally in Washington and Philadelphia; but, in the month of August, he again set his face towards the west, and was soon afterwards found in Kentucky. About this time boats were provided, provisions and munitions of war were collected, and men were gathering at different points on the Ohio and Cumberland rivers. Government now began to be alarmed. Mr. Tiffin, governor of Ohio, under the advice of the president (Jefferson), seized the boats and their cargo, and Burr was arrested in Kentucky; but no sufficient proof appearing against him he was discharged. On the 23d January, 1807, Mr. Jefferson sent a message to congress, accompanied by several affidavits, in which he gave the history of Burr's transactions, so far as they had come to the knowledge of the administration. The message stated that, on the 21st of October, General Wilkinson wrote to the president that, from a letter he had received from Burr, he had ascertained that his objects were, a severance of the union on the line of the Allegany mountains, an attack upon Mexico, and the establishment of an independent government in Mexico, of which Burr was to be the head. That to cover his movements, he had purchased, or pretended to have purchased, of one Lynch, a tract of country claimed by Baron Bastiop, lying near Natchitoches, on which he proposed to make a settlement. {3335} That he had found, by the proceedings of the governor and people of Ohio and Kentucky, that the western people were not prepared to join him; but notwithstanding, there was reason to believe that he intended, with what force he could collect, to attack New Orleans, get the control of the funds of the bank, seize upon the military and naval stores which might be found there, and then proceed against Mexico. The president assured congress that there was no reason to apprehend that any foreign power would aid Colonel Burr. A considerable part of the evidence going to show that Burr entertained criminal designs, depended on the affidavit of Wilkinson. It is not my intention to examine into the proofs of the guilt or innocence of Burr, further than to remark, that from the character of the vain, vaporing and unprincipled Wilkinson, as before and since developed, no dependence can safely be placed upon his statements, unless supported by strong circumstances, or other evidence; and I believe it will not at this day be doubted, that if Burr plotted treason, Wilkinson, in the first instance, agreed to be his accomplice; that, as their operations progressed, he began seriously to doubt of success, and then communicated his knowledge of the affair to the government, in order to save himself, and perhaps obtain a reward. … That Burr himself was deceived by Wilkinson, there can be no doubt. … But there was other evidence besides that of Wilkinson, against Burr, which has never been explained. … If his object was merely an attack upon Mexico, why did he not openly avow it, when charged and indicted for treason against his country? … Again, unless Colonel William Eaton, the man who had then recently so gallantly distinguished himself on the Barbary coasts, has perjured himself, Burr did form a treasonable plot against his country. Colonel Eaton, on the 26th January, deposed, in open court, held before Judge Cranch and others, at Washington, that during the preceding winter (1806), Burr called upon him, and, in the first instance, represented that he was employed by the government to raise a military force to attack the Spanish Provinces in North America, and invited Eaton to take a command in the expedition; that Eaton, being a restless, enterprising man, readily acceded to the proposal; that Burr made frequent calls upon him, and in his subsequent interviews complained of the inefficiency and timidity of the government, and, eventually, fully developed his project; which was to separate the western states from the union, and establish himself as sovereign of the country. … Burr did not succeed in collecting and organizing a force on the western waters; but, on the 1st day of March, he was discovered wandering alone in the Tombigbee country, near the line of Florida. … The trial of the indictment against Burr, for treason, occupied many weeks, but he was finally acquitted by the jury, without swearing any witness in his defence. The acquittal seems to have been on technical grounds. … After his acquittal, Colonel Burr appears still to have persevered in the project of making an effort to detach Mexico from the Spanish government. On the 7th of June, 1808, he sailed from New York for Europe, it would seem in the hope of engaging the British government to fit out an expedition against Mexico, in which he would take a part. In this he was entirely unsuccessful. His application to the French government was equally vain and useless. He spent four years wandering about in Europe."

J. D. Hammond, History of Political Parties in the State of New York, chapter 12 (volume 1).

H. Adams, History of the United States: Second Administration of Jefferson, volume 1, chapters 10-14 and 19.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1806-1812.
The Cumberland Road.
The first National work of "Internal Improvement."

"In 1806 the United States began the Cumberland Road, its first work of the kind; but it was intended to open up the public lands in Ohio and the country west, and was nominally paid for out of the proceeds of those public lands. Just as the embargo policy was taking effect, Gallatin, encouraged by the accumulation of a surplus in the Treasury, brought in a report, April 4, 1808, suggesting the construction of a great system of internal improvements: it was to include coastwise canals across the isthmuses of Cape Cod, New Jersey, upper Delaware and eastern North Carolina; roads were to be constructed from Maine to Georgia, and thence to New Orleans, and from Washington westward to Detroit and St. Louis. He estimated the cost at twenty millions, to be provided in ten annual instalments. Jefferson himself was so carried away with this prospect of public improvement that he recommended a constitutional amendment to authorize such expenditures. The whole scheme disappeared when the surplus vanished; but from year to year small appropriations were made for the Cumberland Road, so that up to 1812 more than $200,000 had been expended upon it."

"The Cumberland Road was always a pet enterprise with Mr. Clay. … Its eastern terminus was Cumberland on the Potomac, from which it takes its name. Thence it was projected to Wheeling on the Ohio, crossing the Alleganies; from Wheeling to Columbus, Ohio; and thence westward through Indiana, Illinois, and Missouri, to Jefferson, the capital of the latter State. … After Mr. Clay went to Congress in 1806, and while he was there, this great national work required and realized his constant attention and zealous advocacy. It was owing to his exertions chiefly that it ever reached Wheeling, and passed on so far into the State of Ohio. The last appropriations made for this road were in 1834 and 1835, with a view of repairing it, and giving it over to the States through which it passed, if they would accept it, and keep it in repair."

      C. Colton,
      Life, Correspondence, and Speeches of Henry Clay,
      volume 6, page 7.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1807.
Practical beginning of steam-boat navigation.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1807.
   Abolition of the Slave-Trade.
   The measure in Congress.
   Significance of Southern action.

By the terms of the Constitution, Congress was deprived of power to interfere with the importation of slaves before the year 1808, but no longer. The time now approached when that restraint would cease, and the President in his annual message brought the subject to notice. {3336} "It was referred to a committee of which Mr. Early of Georgia was the chairman. There was no difference of opinion as to the prohibition of the traffic, or at least no expression of any; but the practical details of the law, the penalties by which it was to be enforced, and, above all, the disposition to be made of such negroes as might be brought into the country in violation of it, gave rise to violent and excited debates. The committee reported a law prohibiting the slave-trade after the 31st of December, 1807, imposing certain penalties for its breach, and providing that all negroes imported after that date should be forfeited. The object of this provision undoubtedly was to obtain directly what the Constitution only gave indirectly and by implication,—the sanction of the government of the United States to the principle of slave-holding, by making it hold and sell men as property. The astuteness of the slave-holding mind on all points touching slavery was shown in this proposition, and all the tactics of bullying and bluster with which later Congressional campaigns have made us familiar, were employed in the debate to which it gave rise. It having been moved that the words 'shall be entitled to his or her freedom' should be inserted after the word 'forfeited,' a furious fight ensued over this amendment. The Southern members resisted it, on the ground that the emancipation of the imported Africans would increase the number of free negroes, who, as Mr. Early affirmed, 'were considered in the States where they are found in considerable numbers as instruments of murder, theft, and conflagration.' And so craftily was this proposition of forfeiture to the government qualified, that its drift was not at first discerned by the Northern members. For, strong as was their disapprobation of slavery in the abstract, they felt no disposition to expose their Southern brethren to all the horrors of insurrection which it was assumed would follow the multiplication of free negroes. Indeed, Mr. Early candidly said, that, if these negroes were left free in the Southern States, not one of them would be alive in a year. And although the Federalists as a party, and Mr. Quincy eminently among them, regarded the political element of slavery as full of dangers to the future of the nation, these opinions had worked no personal and social alienation between Northern and Southern men, such as has since taken place. … There was, therefore, quite disposition enough to arrange this matter in the way the most satisfactory to the masters, without so rigid a regard to the rights of the negroes as, it is to be hoped, would have been had in later times. Mr. Quincy at first opposed striking out the forfeiture clause, on the ground that this was the only way in which the United States could get the control of the Africans, so as to dispose of them in the manner most for their own interest. … These views influenced a majority of the Northern members until the question of the final passage of the bill approached. At last they came to a sense of the disgrace which the forfeiture of the negroes to the government, and the permission to it to sell them as slaves if it so pleased, would bring upon the nation, and the whole matter was recommitted to a committee of one from each State. … This committee reported a bill providing that such imported negroes should be sent to such States as had abolished slavery, there to be bound out as apprentices for a term of years, at the expiration of which they should be free. This bill produced a scene of great and violent excitement on the part of the slaveholders. Mr. Early declared that the people of the South would resist this provision with their lives! This resistance to a measure which proposed doing all the slaveholders had demanded for their own safety, to wit, removing the imported negroes from the slaveholding domain and providing for them in the Free States, showed that their purpose was, at least in part, to have the negroes sold as slaves to themselves. This object they did virtually gain at last, as the final settlement was by a bill originating in the Senate, providing that, though neither importer nor purchaser should have a title to such negroes, still the negroes should be subject to any regulation for their disposal that should be made by the States into which they might be brought. The design of the slaveholding party to make the United States recognize the rightfulness of property in man was thus avoided, but it was at the cost of leaving the imported Africans to the tender mercies of the Slave States. The fact that the slaveholders were greatly incensed at the result, and regarded it as an injury and an affront, does not make this disposition of these unfortunates any the less discreditable to Congress or the nation."

   "The dread of war, radical in the Republican theory, sprang
   not so much from the supposed waste of life or resources as
   from the retroactive effects which war must exert upon the
   form of government; but the experience of a few months showed
   that the embargo as a system was rapidly leading to the same
   effects. … Personal liberties and rights of property were more
   directly curtailed in the United States by embargo than in
   Great Britain by centuries of almost continuous foreign war. …
   While the constitutional cost of the two systems was not
   altogether unlike, the economical cost was a point not easily
   settled. No one could say what might be the financial expense
   of embargo as compared with war. Yet Jefferson himself in the
   end admitted that the embargo had no claim to respect as an
   economical measure. … As the order was carried along the
   seacoast, every artisan dropped his tools, every merchant
   closed his doors, every ship was dismantled. American
   produce—wheat, timber, cotton, tobacco, rice—dropped in value
   or became unsalable; every imported article rose in price;
   wages stopped; swarms of debtors became bankrupt; thousands of
   sailors hung idle round the wharves trying to find employment
   on coasters, and escape to the West Indies or Nova Scotia. A
   reign of idleness began; and the men who were not already
   ruined felt that their ruin was only a matter of time. The
   British traveller, Lambert, who visited New York in 1808,
   described it as resembling a place ravaged by pestilence:—'The
   port indeed was full of shipping, but they were dismantled and
   laid up; their decks were cleared, their hatches fastened
   down, and scarcely a sailor was to be found on board. Not a
   box, bale, cask, barrel, or package was to be seen upon the
   wharves.' … In New England, where the struggle of existence
   was keenest, the embargo struck like a thunderbolt, and
   society for a moment thought itself at an end.
{3337}
   Foreign commerce and shipping were the life of the people,
   —the ocean, as Pickering said, was their farm. The outcry of
   suffering interests became every day more violent, as the
   public learned that this paralysis was not a matter of weeks,
   but of months or years. … The belief that Jefferson, sold to
   France, wished to destroy American commerce and to strike a
   deadly blow at New and Old England at once, maddened the
   sensitive temper of the people. Immense losses, sweeping away
   their savings and spreading bankruptcy through every village,
   gave ample cause for their complaints. Yet in truth, New
   England was better able to defy the embargo than she was
   willing to suppose. She lost nothing except profits which the
   belligerents had in any case confiscated; her timber would not
   harm for keeping, and her fish were safe in the ocean. The
   embargo gave her almost a monopoly of the American market for
   domestic manufactures; no part of the country was so well
   situated or so well equipped for smuggling. … The growers of
   wheat and live stock in the Middle States were more hardly
   treated. Their wheat, reduced in value from two dollars to
   seventy-five cents a bushel, became practically unsalable. …
   The manufacturers of Pennsylvania could not but feel the
   stimulus of the new demand; so violent a system of protection
   was never applied to them before or since. Probably for that
   reason the embargo was not so unpopular in Pennsylvania as
   elsewhere, and Jefferson had nothing to fear from political
   revolution in this calm and plodding community. The true
   burden of the embargo fell on the Southern States, but most
   severely upon the great State of Virginia. Slowly decaying,
   but still half patriarchal, Virginia society could neither
   economize nor liquidate. Tobacco was worthless; but 400,000
   negro slaves must be clothed and fed, great establishments
   must be kept up, the social scale of living could not be
   reduced, and even could not clear a large landed estate
   without creating new encumbrances in a country bankruptcy
   where land and negroes were the only forms of property on
   which money could be raised. Stay-laws were tried, but served
   only to prolong the agony. With astonishing rapidity Virginia
   succumbed to ruin, while continuing to support the system that
   was draining her strength."

H. Adams, History of the United States: Second Administration of Jefferson, volume 2, chapter 12.

"'Our passion,' said Jefferson, 'is peace.' He not only recoiled as a philanthropist from bloodshed, but as a politician he with reason dreaded military propensities and sabre sway. Such preparations for war as he could be induced to make were scrupulously defensive, and his fleet of gun-boats for the protection of the coast to be launched when the invader should appear excited a smile. Alone among all statesmen he tried to make war without bloodshed by means of an embargo on trade. … It is not the highest of his titles to fame in the eyes of his countrymen, but it may be not the lowest in the court of humanity, that he sacrificed his popularity in the attempt to find a bloodless substitute for war. His memory recovered from the shock and his reign over American opinion endured."

Goldwin Smith, The United States: An outline of Political History, 1492-1871, chapter 3.

ALSO IN: H. A. Hill, Trade and Commerce of Boston, 1780-1880 (Memorial History of Boston, volume 4, part 2, chapter 8).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1808.
Sixth Presidential Election.
Jefferson succeeded by Madison.

"In anticipation of Jefferson's retirement there had been … no little dispute and lively canvassing as to the next incumbency of the presidential chair. … Upon Madison, it was generally considered that Jefferson had fixed his personal preference. … But Madison had many political enemies in the Republican ranks among Virginians themselves. … Monroe was the growing favorite. Republicans in Congress, who, from one cause or another, had become disaffected to the Secretary of State, made their new choice manifest. The Quids [see QUIDS], having courted Monroe by letter when he was abroad, crowded about him when he passed through Washington on his way home, just as the Embargo became a law. … Monroe hesitated, unwilling to make a breach; and rather than hazard the Republican cause, or the future prospects of their favorite, his more temperate friends took him off the list of candidates, so that at the usual Congressional caucus, held at the capital, Madison was nominated almost unanimously for President, and George Clinton for Vice-President. But out of 139 Republican Senators and Representatives only 89 were present at this caucus, some being sick or absent from the city, and others keeping away because dissatisfied. Clinton had been a disappointed candidate, as well as Monroe, for the highest honors. … His ambition was pursued beyond the caucus, notwithstanding his renomination as Vice-President, until the friends of Madison, who had profited by the diversion among competitors, threatened to drop Clinton from the regular ticket unless he relinquished his pretensions to a higher place than that already assigned him. Meantime the schismatic Republicans had united in protesting to the country against Congressional dictation, at the same time pronouncing that the caucus which had nominated Madison was irregularly held. This open letter was signed by 17 Republican members of Congress. … Unfortunately for their influence in the canvass, however, they could not agree as to whether Monroe or Clinton should head the ticket. Objectionable, moreover, as the Congressional caucus might be, many more Presidential terms elapsed before other nominating machinery superseded it. National delegates, the national congress or convention of a party, was an idea too huge as yet for American politics to grasp in these days of plain frugality. … Harassed with foes within and without, with dissensions among the friends of rival candidates for the succession, with an odious and profitless measure to execute, against which citizens employed both cunning and force, it seemed, at one time, as if the administration party would go down in the fall elections. But Jefferson's wonderful popularity and the buoyancy of Republican principles carried the day. The regular Presidential ticket prevailed, not without a diminished majority."

James Madison, Democratic Republican, was elected, receiving 122 votes in the Electoral College; George Clinton, of the same party, receiving 6, and Charles C. Pinckney, Federalist, 47. George Clinton was chosen Vice President.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1808-1810.
Substitution of Non-intercourse for Embargo.
Delusive conduct of Napoleon.

"All through the year 1808 and the first two months of 1809, the heavy hand of the embargo was laid on American commerce. The close of Jefferson's administration was signalized by an important change in the policy of the American Government. Almost the last act which Jefferson performed as President was to sign the new law which repealed the embargo, and substituted non-intercourse—a law which instead of universal prohibition of trade, merely prohibited commerce with Great Britain and with the countries under French control. The statute further authorized the President to suspend this prohibition as to either Great Britain or France as soon as one or the other should desist from violating neutral rights. An excuse for renewing commercial relations was not long delayed. On April 21, 1809, immediately upon the rather unexpected conclusion of a liberal and satisfactory diplomatic arrangement with Erskine, the British minister in Washington, the non-intercourse act was suspended as to Great Britain; and foreign trade, long dormant, suddenly sprang into excessive activity. This happy truce was short-lived. Erskine had effected his arrangement by a deliberate and almost defiant disregard of Canning's instructions; and his acts were promptly disavowed by his government. His recall was followed by a renewal of non-intercourse under a presidential proclamation of August 9, 1809. But notwithstanding the disavowal of Erskine, the British Government had made an apparent concession to the United States by the adoption of new orders in council which revoked the stringent prohibitions of the orders of 1807, and substituted a paper blockade of all ports and places under the government of France—a distinction which, on the whole, was perhaps without any important difference. France, on the other hand, entered upon a course of further aggressions. Louis Bonaparte was driven from his kingdom of Holland because he refused to attack neutral commerce, and all American ships found lying at Amsterdam were seized. Finally, by the decree of Rambouillet, every American ship found in any French port was confiscated and ordered sold. England and the United States thus seemed for the moment to be slowly drawing together in the presence of a common enemy, when suddenly the whole situation of affairs was changed by the formal announcement on August 5, 1810, of the Emperor's intended revocation of the decrees of Berlin and Milan, such revocation to take place on the first day of the following November, provided the British Government revoked their orders in council, or (and this was the important provision) the United States caused their rights to be respected. This promise, as Napoleon had privately pointed out a few days before, committed him to nothing; but it was accepted with all seriousness on the part of the United States. In reliance upon the imperial word, commercial intercourse with Great Britain—which had been once more resumed in May, 1810—was for the third time suspended. This, it was thought, was 'causing American rights to be respected'; and although the condemnation of American ships went on without a pause in every continental port, the Government of the United States clung with the strongest pertinacity to the belief that Napoleon's declarations were sincere. The practical effect of all this was to bar the door against any possible settlement with Great Britain. Commerce was now permanently suspended; there was a long list of grievances to be redressed, and negotiation was exhausted."

G. L. Rives, editor, Selections from the Correspondence of Thomas Barclay, chapter 6.

Total population, 7,215,791 (being an increase of nearly 36½ per cent. over the population shown in 1800), classed and distributed as follows:

White. Free black. Slave.
Connecticut. 255,279 6,453 310
Illinois. 11,501 613 168
Indiana. 23,890 393 237
Maine. 227,736 969 0
Massachusetts. 465,303 6,737 0
Michigan. 4,618 120 24
New Hampshire. 213,390 970 0
New Jersey. 226,861 7,843 10,851
New York. 918,699 25,333 15,017
Ohio. 228,861 1,899 0
Pennsylvania. 786,804 22,492 795
Rhode Island. 73,314 3,609 108
Vermont. 216,963 750 0
———- ——— ———
Total 3,653,219 78,181 27,510

                     White. Free black. Slave.
Delaware. 55,361 13,136 4,177
District of Columbia. 16,079 2,549 5,395
Georgia. 145,414 1,801 105,218
Kentucky. 324,237 1,713 80,561
Louisiana. 34,311 7,585 34,660
Maryland. 235,117 33,927 111,502
Mississippi. 23,024 240 17,088
Missouri. 17,227 607 3,011
North Carolina. 376,410 10,266 168,824
South Carolina. 214,196 4,554 196,365
Tennessee. 215,875 1,317 44,535
Virginia. 551,534 30,570 392,518
                     ———- ———- ———-
                   2,208,785 108,265 1,163,854

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1810-1812.
Continued provocation from England and France.
The "War of 1812" against Great Britain declared.

"Congress, on May 1, 1810, passed an act providing that commercial non-intercourse with the belligerent powers should cease with the end of the session, only armed ships being excluded from American ports; and further, that, in case either of them should recall its obnoxious orders or decrees, the President should announce the fact by proclamation, and if the other did not do the same within three months, the non-intercourse act should be revived against that one,—a measure adopted only because Congress, in its helplessness, did not know what else to do. The conduct of France had meanwhile been no less offensive than that of Great Britain. On all sorts of pretexts American ships were seized in the harbors and waters controlled by French power. A spirited remonstrance on the part of Armstrong, the American Minister, was answered by the issue of the Rambouillet Decree in May, 1810, ordering the sale of American vessels and cargoes seized, and directing like confiscation of all American vessels entering any ports under the control of France. {3339} This decree was designed to stop the surreptitious trade that was still being carried on between England and the continent in American bottoms. When it failed in accomplishing that end, Napoleon instructed his Minister of Foreign Affairs, Champagny, to inform the American Minister that the Berlin and Milan Decrees were revoked, and would cease to have effect on November 1, 1810, if the English would revoke their Orders in Council, and recall their new principles of blockade, or if the United States would 'cause their rights to be respected by the English,'—in the first place restore the non-intercourse act as to Great Britain. … The British government, being notified of this by the American Minister, declared on September 29 that Great Britain would recall the Orders in Council when the revocation of the French decrees should have actually taken effect, and the commerce of neutrals should have been restored. … Madison, … leaning toward France, as was traditional with the Republican party, and glad to grasp even at the semblance of an advantage, chose to regard the withdrawal of the Berlin and Milan Decrees as actual and done in good faith, and announced it as a matter of fact on November 1, 1810. French armed ships were no longer excluded from American ports. On February 2, 1811, the non-importation act was revived as to Great Britain. In May the British Court of Admiralty delivered an opinion that no evidence existed of the withdrawal of the Berlin and Milan Decrees, which resulted in the condemnation of a number of American vessels and their cargoes. Additional irritation was caused by the capture, off Sandy Hook, of an American vessel bound to France, by some fresh cases of search and impressment, and by an encounter between the American frigate President and the British sloop Little Belt, which fired into one another, the British vessel suffering most. But was American commerce safe in French ports? By no means. … Outrages on American ships by French men-of-war and privateers went on as before, … The pretended French concession was, therefore, a mere farce. Truly, there were American grievances enough. Over 900 American ships had been seized by the British, and more than 550 by the French. … By both belligerents the United States had been kicked and cuffed like a mere interloper among the nations of the earth, who had no rights entitled to respectful consideration. Their insolence seemed to have been increased by the irresolution of the American government, the distraction of counsel in Congress, and the division of sentiment among the people. … But … young Republican leaders came to the front to interpret the 'national spirit and expectation.' They totally eclipsed the old chiefs by their dash and brilliancy. Foremost among them stood Henry Clay; then John C. Calhoun, William Lowndes, Felix Grundy, Langdon Cheves, and others. They believed that, if the American Republic was to maintain anything like the dignity of an independent power, and to preserve, or rather, regain, the respect of mankind in any degree,—ay, its self-respect,—it must cease to submit to humiliation and contemptuous treatment; it must fight,—fight somebody who had wronged or insulted it. The Republicans having always a tender side for France, and the fiction of French concessions being accepted, the theory of the war party was that, of the two belligerents, England had more insolently maltreated the United States. Rumors were spread that an Indian war then going on, and resulting in the battle of Tippecanoe on November 7, 1811, was owing to English intrigues. Adding this to the old Revolutionary reminiscences of British oppression, it was not unnatural that the national wrath should generally turn against Great Britain. … Not only the regular army was increased, but the President was authorized to accept and employ 50,000 volunteers. Then a bill was introduced providing for the building of ten new frigates. … The war spirit in the country gradually rose, and manifested itself noisily in public meetings, passing resolutions, and memorializing Congress. It was increased in intensity by a sensational 'exposure,' a batch of papers laid before Congress by the President in March, 1812. They had been sold to the government by John Henry, an Irish adventurer, and disclosed a confidential mission to New England, undertaken by Henry in 1809 at the request of Sir James Craig, the governor of Canada, to encourage a disunion movement in the Eastern States. This was the story. Whatever its foundation, it was believed, and greatly increased popular excitement." On the 4th of April the President signed a bill laying an embargo on commerce with Great Britain for ninety days. "All over the country the embargo was understood as meaning an immediate preparation for war. … In May, 1812, President Madison was nominated for reelection by the congressional caucus. It has been said that he was dragooned into the war policy by Clay and his followers with the threat that, unless he yielded to their views, another candidate for the presidency would be chosen. This Clay denied, and there was no evidence to discredit his denial. Madison was simply swept into the current by the impetuosity of Young America. … On June 1 the President's war message came. On June 18 a bill in accordance with it, which had passed both Houses, was signed by the President, who proclaimed hostilities the next day. Thus Young America, led by Henry Clay, carried their point. But there was something disquieting in their victory. The majority they commanded in Congress was not so large as a majority for a declaration of war should be. In the House, Pennsylvania and the states south and west of it gave 62 votes for the war, and 32 against it; the states north and east of Pennsylvania gave 17 yeas and 32 nays,—in all 79 for and 49 against war. This showed a difference of sentiment according to geographical divisions. Not even all the Republicans were in favor of war. … Nor were the United States in any sense well prepared for a war with a first-class power."

C. J. Ingersoll, Historical Sketch of the Second War between the United States and Great Britain, volume 1, chapter 1.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1811.
Refusal to re-charter the Bank of the United States.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1811.
General Harrison's campaign against Tecumseh and his league.
The Battle of Tippecanoe.

"During the interval between the Tripolitan war and the war of 1812, one noticeable campaign was made against the Indians. The operation took place in 1811, under General William H. Harrison, governor of Indiana Territory, and was directed against the Shawnees and other tribes which adhered to Tecumseh. This chief, with his brother, known as 'the Prophet,' had been engaged since 1806 in planning a species of crusade against the whites, and had acquired great influence among the northwestern Indians. For the previous two years Harrison's suspicions had been aroused by reports of Tecumseh's intrigues, and attempts had been made from time to time to negotiate with him, but without satisfactory results. In the summer of 1811 it was decided to strike a decisive blow at the Indians, and in the autumn Harrison, with a regiment of regulars under Colonel Boyd, and a force of militia, marched upon Tecumseh's town, situated on the Tippecanoe River. On the 7th of November the Indians, in Tecumseh's absence, attempted to surprise Harrison's camp, but in the battle which followed they were driven off, and presently abandoned their town, which Harrison burned. The invading force then retired. The importance of the expedition was largely due to the military reputation which Harrison acquired by it."

J. R. Soley, The Wars of the United States (Narrative and Critical History of the United States, volume 7, chapter 6).

      ALSO IN:
      American State Papers: Indian Affairs,
      volume 1, page 776.

H. Adams, History of the United States: First Administration of Madison, volume 2, chapters 4-5.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812 (April).
Admission of Louisiana into the Union.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812 (June-October).
   Rioting at Baltimore.
   The opening of the war and the unreadiness of the nation for it.
   Hull's disastrous campaign and surrender, at Detroit.

"It was perhaps characteristic of the conduct of the war, that the first blood spilled should be American blood, shed by Americans. … In the night of June 22d, three days after the proclamation of war, a mob in Baltimore sacked the office of the 'Federal Republican,' edited by Alexander Hanson, because he had opposed the war policy. The mob also attacked the residences of several prominent Federalists, and burned one of them. Vessels in the harbor, too, were visited and plundered. About a month later Hanson resumed the publication of his paper, and in the night of July 26th the mob gathered again." This time they were resisted and one was killed; whereupon the authorities seized Hanson and his friends and lodged them in jail. "The rioters, thus encouraged by those whose business it was to punish them, attacked the jail the next night, murdered General Lingan [one of Hanson's defenders], injured General [Henry] Lee so that he was a cripple for the rest of his life, and beat several of the other victims and subjected them to torture. The leaders of the mob were brought to trial, but were acquitted! In this state of affairs, the war party in the country being but little stronger than the peace party, the youngest and almost the weakest of civilized nations went to war with one of the oldest and most powerful. The regular army of the United States numbered only 6,000 men; but Congress had passed an act authorizing its increase to 25,000, and in addition to this the President was empowered to call for 50,000 volunteers, and to use the militia to the extent of 100,000. Henry Dearborn, of Massachusetts, was made a major-general and appointed to command the land forces. Against the thousand vessels and 144,000 sailors of the British navy, the Americans had 20 war-ships and a few gunboats, the whole carrying about 300 guns. But these figures, taken alone, are deceptive; since a very large part of the British force was engaged in the European wars, and the practical question was, what force the United States could bring against so much as England could spare for operations on the high seas and on this side of the Atlantic. In that comparison, the discrepancy was not so great, and the United States had an enormous element of strength in her fine merchant marine. Her commerce being temporarily suspended to a large degree, there was an abundance both of ships and sailors, from which to build up a navy and fit out a fleet of privateers. Indeed, privateering was the business that now offered the largest prizes to mariners and ship-owners. … War with Great Britain being determined upon, the plan of campaign that first and most strongly presented itself to the Administration was the conquest of the British provinces on our northern border. … In planning for the invasion of Canada, the Administration counted largely upon a supposed readiness of the Canadians to throw off their allegiance to Great Britain and join with the United States. Such expectations have almost never been realized, and in this instance they were completely disappointed. In the preceding February, William Hull, Governor of the Territory of Michigan, who had rendered distinguished service in the Revolution, had been made a brigadier-general and placed in command of the forces in Ohio, with orders to march them to Detroit, to protect the Territory against the Indians, who were becoming troublesome. In June he was in command of about 2,000 men, in northern Ohio, moving slowly through the wilderness. On the day when war was declared, June 18th, the Secretary of War wrote him two letters. The first, in which the declaration was not mentioned, was despatched by a special messenger, and reached General Hull on the 24th. The other informed him of the declaration of war, but was sent by mail to Cleveland, there to take its chance of reaching the General by whatever conveyance might be found. The consequence was, that he did not receive it till the 2d of July. But every British commander in Canada learned the news several days earlier. Hull arrived at Detroit on the 5th of July and set about organizing his forces. On the 9th he received from the War Department orders to begin the invasion of Canada by taking possession of Malden, 15 miles below Detroit, on the other side of the river, if he thought he could do so with safety to his own posts. He crossed on the 12th, and issued a proclamation to the Canadians." He found the enemy too strongly fortified at Malden to be prudently assaulted with raw troops and without artillery. "So it was decided to defer the attack, and in a few days came the news that, on the declaration of war, a force of over 600—British and Indians—had promptly moved against the American post at Michilimackinac—on the rocky little island of Mackinaw, commanding the strait between Lake Huron and Lake Michigan—and the garrison of 61 officers and men capitulated on the 16th of July. {3341} This disaster to the Americans roused the Indians to renewed hostility against them, while it proportionately disheartened Hull, and seems to have been the first step in the breaking down of his courage. After a few skirmishes, he recrossed to Detroit on the 7th of August. Meanwhile the British Colonel Proctor had arrived at Malden with reënforcements, and on Hull's withdrawal to Detroit he threw a force across the river to intercept his supplies. This force consisted of a small number of British regulars and a considerable number of Indians commanded by the famous Tecumseh." Two considerable engagements occurred between this force and detachments sent out to meet an expected supply train. In the first, the Americans were badly beaten; in the second, they drove the enemy to their boats with heavy loss; but the supply train was not secured. "During this gloomy state of things at Detroit, a bloody affair took place on ground that is now within the city of Chicago. Fort Dearborn stood at the mouth of Chicago River, and was occupied by a garrison of about 50 soldiers, with several families. Captain Nathan Heald, commanding the post, had been ordered by General Hull to abandon it and remove his force to Detroit. "To conciliate the neighboring Indians who professed friendliness, he promised to give them all the property in the fort which he could not carry; but before making the delivery to them he foolishly destroyed all the arms, the gunpowder and the liquors. Enraged by this proceeding, which they considered a trick, the savages pursued Captain Heald's small party, waylaid them among the Sand-hills on the lake shore, and massacred the greater part, twelve children included. The scalps which they took were sold to Colonel Proctor, "who had offered a premium for American scalps." The same day on which this occurred, August 15th, "the British General Isaac Brock, who had arrived at Malden a few days before and assumed command there, formally demanded the surrender of Detroit. This demand included a plain threat of massacre in case of refusal. Said Brock in his letter: 'It is far from my intention to join in a war of extermination; but you must be aware that the numerous bodies of Indians who have attached themselves to my troops will be beyond my control the moment the contest commences.' … Brock's force, according to his own testimony, numbered 1,330 men, including 600 Indians, and he had also two ships of war. Hull had present for duty about 1,000 men. Brock sent a large body of Indians across the river that night, at a point five miles below the fort, and early in the morning crossed with the remainder of his troops, and at once marched on the place." On the approach of the attacking force Hull offered to surrender. "The articles of capitulation were drawn up, and the American general surrendered, not merely the fort and its garrison, but the whole Territory of Michigan, of which he was Governor. … Hull's officers were incensed at his action, and he was subsequently court-martialled, convicted of cowardice, and condemned to death; but the President pardoned him, in consideration of his age and his services in the Revolution. … Subsequent investigations, if they do not exonerate General Hull, have at least greatly modified the blame attached to him."

      ALSO IN:
      J. F. Clarke,
      History of the Campaign of 1812 and
      Surrender of the Post at Detroit.

      B. J. Lossing,
      Hull's Surrender
      (Potter's American Monthly, August, 1875).

      F. S. Drake,
      Memorials of the Massachusetts Society of the Cincinnati,
      pages 341-354.

      S. C. Clark,
      Hull's Surrender at Detroit
      (Magazine of American History, volume 27).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812.
The opposition of the Federalists to the war.

   "Unfortunately for the Federalists, while they were wholly
   right in many of their criticisms on the manner in which the
   war came about, they put themselves in the wrong as to its
   main feature. We can now see that in their just wrath against
   Napoleon they would have let the nation remain in a position
   of perpetual childhood and subordination before England. No
   doubt there were various points at issue in the impending
   contest, but the most important one, and the only one that
   remained in dispute all through the war, was that of the right
   of search and impressment. … It must be understood that this
   was not a question of reclaiming deserters from the British
   navy, for the seamen in question had very rarely belonged to
   it. There existed in England at that time an outrage on
   civilization, now abandoned, called impressment, by which any
   sailor and many who were not sailors could be seized and
   compelled to serve in the navy. The horrors of the
   'press-gang,' as exhibited in the sea-side towns of England,
   have formed the theme of many novels. It was bad enough at
   home, but when applied on board the vessels of a nation with
   which England was at peace, it became one of those outrages
   which only proceed from the strong to the weak, and are never
   reciprocated. Lord Collingwood said well, in one of his
   letters, that England would not submit to such an aggression
   for an hour. Merely to yield to visitation for such a purpose
   was a confession of national weakness; but the actual case was
   far worse than this. … We have … Cobbett's statement of the
   consequences. 'Great numbers of Americans have been
   impressed,' he adds, 'and are now in our navy. … That many of
   these men have died on board our ships, that many have been
   worn out in the service, there is no doubt.' … In 1806 the
   merchants of Boston had called upon the general government to
   'assert our rights and support the dignity of the United
   States.' … Yet it shows the height of party feeling that when,
   in 1812, Mr. Madison's government finally went to war for
   these very rights, the measure met with the bitterest
   opposition from the whole Federalist party, and from the
   commercial States generally. A good type of the Federalist
   opposition on this particular point is to be found in the
   pamphlets of John Lowell. John Lowell was the son of the
   eminent Massachusetts judge of that name; he was a
   well-educated lawyer, who was president of the Massachusetts
   Agricultural Society, and wrote under the name of 'A New
   England Farmer.' In spite of the protests offered half a dozen
   years before by his own neighbors, he declared the whole
   outcry against impressment to be a device of Mr. Madison's
   party. … He argued unflinchingly for the English right of
   search, called it a 'consecrated' right, maintained that the
   allegiance of British subjects was perpetual, and that no
   residence in a foreign country could absolve them. …
{3342}
   While such a man, with a large party behind him, took this
   position, it must simply be said that the American republic
   had not yet asserted itself to be a nation. Soon after the
   Revolution, when some one spoke of that contest to Franklin as
   the war for independence, he said, 'Say rather the war of the
   Revolution; the war for independence is yet to be fought.' The
   war of 1812 was just the contest he described. To this
   excitement directed against the war, the pulpit very largely
   contributed, the chief lever applied by the Federalist clergy
   being found in the atrocities of Napoleon. … The Federalist
   leaders took distinctly the ground that they should refuse to
   obey a conscription law to raise troops for the conquest of
   Canada; and when that very questionable measure failed by one
   vote in the Senate, the nation may have escaped a serious
   outbreak. … It might, indeed, have been far more dangerous
   than the Hartford Convention of 1814 [see UNITED STATES OF
   AMERICA: A. D. 1814 (DECEMBER)], which was, after all, only a
   peaceable meeting of some two dozen men, with George Cabot at
   their head—men of whom very few had even a covert purpose of
   dissolving the Union, but who were driven to something very
   near desperation by the prostration of their commerce and the
   defencelessness of their coast."

      T. W. Higginson,
      Larger History of the United States,
      chapter 15.

      ALSO IN:
      H. von Holst,
      Constitutional and Political History of the United States,
      volume 1, chapter 6.

      H. C. Lodge,
      Life and Letters of George Cabot,
      chapters 11-12.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812 (September-November).
The opening of the war on the New York frontier.
The Battle of Queenstown Heights.

"To put Dearborn [who commanded in the northern department] in a condition to act with effect, Governor Tompkins [of the state of New York] made the greatest efforts to get out the New York quota of militia. The Democratic Legislature of Vermont voted to add to the pay of their militia in service as much as was paid by the United States. At the same time they passed a stringent drafting law, and offered $30 bounty to volunteers. By the co-operating exertions of these states and of the war department, some 3,000 regulars and 2,000 militia were presently assembled on Lake Champlain, under Dearborn's immediate command. Another force of 2,000 militia was stationed at different points along the south bank of the St. Lawrence, their left resting on Sackett's Harbor. A third army was collected along the Niagara River, from Fort Niagara to Buffalo, then a village of a thousand or two inhabitants, in the midst of a newly-settled district. This latter force of nearly 6,000 men, half regulars and volunteers and half militia, was under the immediate command of Major-general Van Rensselaer, a Federalist. … The first skirmishes on the New York frontier grew out of attempts, not unsuccessful, made principally from Ogdensburg, a new but much the largest village on the American side of the St. Lawrence, to intercept the British supplies proceeding upward in boats. The militia officer in command at Ogdensburg was General Jacob Brown. A Pennsylvanian by birth, a Quaker by education, while employed as a teacher in the city of New York, some newspaper essays of his had attracted the attention of Alexander Hamilton, to whom, during the quasi war of '98, he became military secretary. Removing afterward to the new settlements of Northwestern New York, his enterprise had founded the flourishing village of Brownsville, not far from Sackett's Harbor. … His success in repulsing a British force of 700 men, which attempted to cross from Prescott to attack Ogdensburg, laid the foundation of a military reputation which soon placed him at the head of the American army. There had been built on Lake Ontario, out of the gun-boat appropriations, but by a fortunate improvement upon Jefferson's model, a sloop of war of light draft, mounting 16 guns. This vessel, called the Oneida, just before the breaking out of the war had been furnished with a regular-bred commander and crew. She was attacked shortly after at Sackett's Harbor by five British vessels, three of them larger than herself, but manned only by lake watermen. By landing part of her guns, and establishing a battery on shore, she succeeded, however, in beating them off. Hull's failure having shown how important was the control of the lakes, a judicious selection was made of Captain Chauncey, hitherto at the head of the New York Navy Yard, to take command on those waters. Along with Henry Eckford as naval constructor, and soon followed by ship-carpenters, naval stores, guns, and presently by parties of seamen, he was sent to Sackett's Harbor [September, 1812], then held by a garrison of 200 regulars. That newly-settled region could supply nothing but timber; every thing else had to be transported from Albany at vast expense. … A 24-gun ship was at once commenced; for immediate use, Chauncey purchased six of the small schooners employed in the then infant commerce of the lake, which, though very ill adapted for war, he armed with four guns each. With these and the Oneida he put out on the lake, and soon [November 8] drove the British ships into Kingston. … While thus employed, Chauncey had sent Lieutenant Elliot to Buffalo, with a party of seamen, to make arrangements for a force on the upper lakes. Elliot, soon after his arrival, succeeded in cutting out [October 9] from under the guns of Fort Erie, nearly Opposite Buffalo, two British vessels just arrived from Detroit. One, the late Adams, which the British had armed and equipped, grounded, and it became necessary to destroy her. The other, the Caledonia, of two guns, was brought off, and became the nucleus of the naval force of Lake Erie. Elliot also purchased several small schooners lying in the Niagara River; but they, as well as the Caledonia, lay blockaded at Black Rock [now a part of the city of Buffalo], the passage into the lake being commanded by the guns of Fort Erie. The troops along the Niagara frontier, highly excited by Elliot's exploit, demanded to be led against the enemy; and, under the idea that the British village of Queenstown, at the foot of the falls [a few miles below] might furnish comfortable winter quarters for a part of his troops, Van Rensselaer resolved to attack it."

The Niagara River, 35 miles long, which conducts the waters of the upper lakes through Erie into Ontario, constituted an important military frontier in such a war; its banks sparsely settled, and the crossing a narrow one. Below the roaring cataracts had assembled another little army, supplied in great measure by regiments of the New York quota, Major-General Van Rensselaer, of the militia of that State, a prominent Federalist, being in command. Hull's sudden surrender left Brock free to confront this second adversary with a moderate force from the Canada side, not without feeling uncertain as to where the American blow would be struck. By October Van Rensselaer had 6,000 men, half of them regulars; and, yielding to the impatience of his volunteers and the public press, he gave orders to cross the river from Lewiston to Queenston. High bluffs arose on either side. There were not boats enough provided to carry more than half the advance party at a time. Too much reliance was placed upon militia, while regulars won the laurels. Wool, a young captain, and Lieutenant-Colonel Scott did gallant work on Queenston Heights; and General Brock, the conqueror of Detroit, fell mortally wounded; but reinforcements crossed too slowly, and with the green militia dreading death, many of the reserve pleading legal exemption from service in an enemy's country, their deserted comrades on the Canada side, unable to return, were forced to surrender. Van Rensselaer, whose advance had been premature, resigned in disgust, leaving a less capable but more pretentious officer, of Virginia birth, General Alexander Smyth, to succeed him. Smyth had a gift of windy composition, which fortunately, imposed upon the inhabitants of Western New York just long enough to check despondency and restore a glow to the recruiting service. 'Come on, my heroes,' was his cry, 'and when you attack the enemy's batteries, let your rallying word be: "The cannon lost at Detroit, or death!". All this inkshed promised an exploit for invading Canada from the upper end of the Niagara, between Fort Erie and Chippewa. By the 27th of November Smyth had concentrated at Black Rock, near Buffalo, a fair army, 4,500 troops, comprising, in addition to the regulars, volunteer regiments from Maryland, Pennsylvania, and New York; the last under the command of General Porter, the representative in Congress, whose report, twelve months before, had given the first loud note of war. The big moment approached; but, notwithstanding the sonorous promise of 'memorable to-morrows,' and an embarkation to the music of 'Yankee Doodle,' one or two shivering attempts were made to land on the opposite shore, and then the volunteers were dismissed to their homes, and regulars ordered into winter-quarters. Disorderly scenes ensued. Our insubordinate and mortified soldiers discharged their muskets in all directions. Porter having openly charged Smyth with cowardice, the two crossed to Grand Island to fight a duel, and then shook hands. … But the country could not be reconciled to such generalship, and Smyth was presently cashiered."

      ALSO IN:
      S. Van Rensselaer,
      Narrative of the Affair of Queenstown.

H. Adams, History of the United States: First Administration of Madison, volume 2, chapter 16.

      F. B. Tupper,
      Life and Correspondence of Major-General Sir Isaac Brock,
      chapters 13-14.

   James Madison was re-elected, receiving in the electoral
   college 128 votes, against 89 cast for DeWitt Clinton,
   Federalist. Elbridge Gerry was elected Vice President.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812-1813.
Possession of West Florida taken from the Spaniards.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812-1813.
Indifference to the Navy at the beginning of the war.
Its Efficiency and its Early Successes.

"The young leaders of the war party in congress looked to successes on land and territorial conquest, and had an indifference to the field which the ocean afforded. And yet the triumphs of our young fleet in the Revolution, the alarm which John Paul Jones excited in English homes, and, later, the brilliant achievements in the Mediterranean, the heroes of which were still in the prime of their service, might have inspired better counsel. Madison's cabinet were said to have without exception opposed the increase and use of our navy; indeed, somewhat after Jefferson's idea in imposing the embargo—to save our vessels by laying them up. The advice of Captains Charles Stewart and William Bainbridge, who happened to be in Washington at the time of the declaration of war, determined Madison to bring the navy into active service. One of the chief causes of the war being the impressment of our seamen, it seems to-day surprising that their ardor in defense of 'Free Trade and Sailors' Rights,'—the cry under which our greatest triumphs were won—should have been either passed by or deprecated."

J. A. Stevens, Second War with Great Britain (Magazine of American History, May-June, 1893).

"Although [the American navy] had never been regarded by the government with favor, it happened that the three most essential measures had been adopted to secure its efficiency,— the ships built for it were the best of their class in the world, the officers had been carefully selected (200 out of a total of 500 having been retained under the Peace Establishment Act), and they had received—at least a large number of them—in Preble's squadron at Tripoli a training such as had fallen to the lot of few navies, either before or since. To these three causes the successes of 1812 were directly due; and although Commodore Preble died in 1807, the credit of the later war belongs more to him than to any other one man. It was not only that he formed many of the individual officers who won the victories of 1812-15,—for Hull, Decatur, Bainbridge, Macdonough, Porter, Lawrence, Biddle, Chauncey, Warrington, Charles Morris, and Stewart were all in his squadron,—but he created in the navy the professional spirit or idea, which was the main quality that distinguished it from the army in the war with Great Britain. At the outbreak of the war there were 18 vessels in the navy, ranging from 44-gun frigates to 12-gun brigs. There were also 176 gunboats, on which a large sum of money had been expended, but which were of no use whatever. … Immediately after the declaration of war, the frigates in commission in the home ports, together with two of the sloops, put to sea as a squadron under Commodore John Rodgers. They fell in with the English frigate 'Belvidera,' but she got away from them; and after an ineffectual cruise across the Atlantic, they returned home, without meeting anything of consequence.

Three weeks later, the 'Constitution,' under Captain Hull, sailed from Annapolis. Soon after leaving the Chesapeake she came upon a British squadron of one sixty-four and four frigates, and then ensued the famous three days' chase, in the course of which, by a marvel of good seamanship and good discipline, the American frigate escaped. After a short respite in Boston, Hull set out again, and on the 19th of August he fought and captured the 'Guerrière,' Captain Dacres, in an engagement lasting about an hour. The 'Constitution,' being armed with 24-pounders instead of 18's, threw at a broadside a weight of shot half as large again as that of the 'Guerrière,' and her crew was numerically superior in a still greater degree. Nevertheless, the immensely greater disproportion in the casualties which the 'Constitution' inflicted and received, and the short time which she took to do the work, cannot be explained by the difference in force alone; for the 'Guerrière' had five times as many killed and wounded as her opponent, and at the close of the engagement she was a dismasted wreck, while the 'Constitution' had suffered no injury of importance. The essential point of difference lay in the practical training and skill of the crews in gunnery. … In the next action, in October, the sloop 'Wasp,' Captain Jacob Jones, captured the English brig 'Frolic,' of approximately the same force. The relative loss of English and Americans was again five to one. Both vessels were soon after taken by a seventy-four. Later in the same month, another frigate action took place, the 'United States,' under Decatur, capturing the 'Macedonian.' The advantage of the Americans in men was about the same as in the first action, while in guns it was greater. The American casualties were 13, the English 104. This difference was not due to the fact that the American guns were 24's and 42's, instead of 18's and 32's, or that the Americans had three more of them in a broadside; it was really due to the way in which the guns on both sides were handled. Shortly after this capture, a cruise in the Pacific was projected for a squadron to be composed of the 'Constitution,' 'Essex,' and 'Hornet.' The 'Essex' failed to meet the other vessels at the rendezvous off the coast of Brazil, and went on the Pacific cruise alone [having great success]. The 'Constitution,' now commanded by Bainbridge, met the frigate 'Java,' near Brazil, on the 29th of December. The antagonists were more nearly matched than in the previous frigate actions, but the fight, lasting a little over an hour, resulted in the total defeat and surrender of the 'Java,' with a loss of 124 to the Americans' 34. The 'Java' was a wreck, and could not be taken into port, and Bainbridge returned home. Two months later, February 24, 1813, the 'Hornet,' commanded by Lawrence, met the 'Peacock' off the Demerara, and reduced her in fifteen minutes to a sinking condition, while the 'Hornet's' hull was hardly scratched. The English sloop sank so quickly that she carried down part of her own crew and three of the 'Hornet's' who were trying to save them. The casualties, apart from those drowned, were 5 in the 'Hornet' and 38 in the 'Peacock.' … The moral effect in England of these defeats was very great. … In March, 1813, Admiral Sir John Warren assumed the command of the British squadron on the American coast. Although rather past his prime, his defects were more than compensated by the activity of his second in command, Rear-Admiral Cockburn, who during this summer and the next kept the coasts of Chesapeake Bay in a continuous state of alarm by successful raids, in which much valuable property was destroyed. Among the more important of the actions of 1813 were the capture and destruction (in part) of Havre de Grace, Md., early in May, and an attack on the village of Hampton, Va., on the 25th of June. 'Acts of rapine and violence' on the part of the invading forces characterized the latter attack, which excited intense indignation throughout the country. … In the summer of 1813 occurred the first serious reverse of the navy during the war. On the 1st of June the frigate 'Chesapeake,' Captain James Lawrence, sailed from Boston to engage the 'Shannon,' which was lying outside, waiting for the battle. The two ships were nearly matched in guns and men, what slight difference there was being in favor of the 'Chesapeake'; but the crew of the latter had been recently shipped and was partly composed of disaffected men, and Lawrence had had no time to discipline them. The engagement was short and decisive. Ranging up alongside of the 'Shannon,' whose crew had been brought to the highest state of efficiency by Captain Broke their commander, the 'Chesapeake' at the first fire received a severe injury in the loss of several of her officers. Falling foul of the 'Shannon' she was effectually raked, and presently a boarding party, led by Captain Broke, got possession of her deck. The great mortality among the officers [including Captain Lawrence, who had received a mortal wound just before his ship was boarded, and whose dying appeal, 'Don't give up the ship,' became the battle cry of the American navy during the remainder of the war], and the want of discipline in the crew, resulted in a victory for the boarders. The battle lasted fifteen minutes only, and the 'Chesapeake' was carried as a prize to Halifax. During this summer the naval war on the ocean continued with varying fortunes, two important actions being fought. The brig 'Argus,' Captain Allen, after a successful voyage in the Irish Sea, in which many prizes were taken and destroyed, was captured by the English brig 'Pelican,' on the 14th of August. Early in September the brig 'Enterprise,' commanded by Lieutenant Burrows, captured the English brig 'Boxer,' near Portland, Me."

J. R. Soley, The Wars of the United States (Narrative and Critical History of the United States, volume 7, chapter 6).

J. F. Cooper, History of the Navy of the United States, volume 2, chapters 9-22.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812-1813.
   Harrison's northwestern campaign.
   Winchester's defeat.
   Perry's naval victory on Lake Erie.
   The Battle of the Thames and death of Tecumseh.
   Recovery of Detroit and Michigan.

"Great was the indignation of the West, great the mortification of our whole people, on learning that, instead of capturing Upper Canada at the first blow, we had lost our whole Michigan Territory. The task now was to retake Detroit under a competent commander. Ohio and Kentucky went on filling rapidly their quotas, while urging the administration to march them under Harrison. {3345} The President hesitated, doubtful whether Harrison was a man of sufficient military experience. He proposed that Monroe should go to the scene, as a volunteer, if not to command; but Monroe restrained his first military ardor, as was prudent, and Winchester, of Tennessee, another of the recent brigadiers, and a revolutionary veteran, was selected. The selection, however, gave umbrage to the Kentuckians, whose State government had already made Harrison a brevet major-general of militia. The hero of Tippecanoe was finally assigned to the chief command of the Western army, Madison countermanding his first orders. Harrison's route for Detroit was by way of Fort Wayne and Fort Defiance to the falls of the Maumee. But it was late in the fall [October 1812] before the new military arrangements could be completed; and through a swampy wilderness, infested as it was with hostile Indians, the progress of the column was toilsome and discouraging; and, except for the destruction of a few Indian villages on the way, the deeds of prowess were reserved for a winter campaign. … The winter expedition of the Northwest army … [was] retarded by a disaster which overtook Winchester's command near the Maumee Rapids, at a little village on the River Raisin. By Harrison's orders Winchester had started for these Rapids, whence, having first concentrated troops as if for winter quarters, the design was that he should advance 50 miles farther, when weather permitted, cross the frozen Detroit, and fall suddenly upon Malden. Winchester not only pushed on incautiously to his first destination, but, with a design more humane than prudent, undertook to protect against a British and Indian raid the alarmed inhabitants of Frenchtown [now Monroe, Michigan], a place 30 miles nearer Malden. Here [January 22, 1813] he was overpowered by the enemy, which fell upon the American force suddenly at daybreak, with yells and a shower of bomb-shells and canister. Winchester having been taken prisoner, Colonel Proctor, the British commander, extorted from him the unconditional surrender of all his troops, some 700 in number, as the only means of saving them from the tomahawk and scalping-knife. … Our sick and wounded … the British commander shamefully abandoned to their fate. … Officers and men, many of them the flower of Kentucky, perished victims to barbarities … abhorrent to civilized warfare, of which the British Colonel Proctor and Captain Elliott were not innocent. Besides the American loss in prisoners at the sad affair of the Raisin, nearly 200 were killed and missing. Hearing at the Upper Sandusky of Winchester's intended movement, Harrison had pressed to his relief with reinforcements, but fugitives from Frenchtown brought the melancholy tidings of disaster; and Harrison fell back to the Rapids, there to strengthen the post known as Fort Meigs, and go into winter quarters. The terms of many of his troops having now expired, the Northwestern army was for many months too feeble to begin a forward movement. But Harrison possessed the unabated confidence of the West, and, promoted to be one of the new major-generals, he received, through the zealous co-operation of Ohio and Kentucky, whose people were inflamed to take vengeance, enough volunteer reinforcements [May] to relieve Fort Meigs [which was twice besieged in 1813 by British and Indians] from Proctor's investment in the spring, and at length the quota requisite for resuming the offensive; other frontier plans of the War Department having long deranged his own in this quarter. The splendid co-operation of an American flotilla on Lake Erie opened the way to Detroit and victory. For that memorable service Commodore Chauncey had detailed an aspiring young naval officer, Captain Oliver H. Perry, of Rhode Island. Our little Lake squadron was tediously constructed at Presqu' Isle (now Erie). When all at last was ready [in August, 1813], Perry, who had long chafed in spirit while the British fleet hovered in sight like a hawk, sailed forth to dispute the supremacy of the broad inland waters. His heavier vessels were floated over the bar not without difficulty. After conferring at Sandusky upon the combined plan of operations with General Harrison, from whom he received a small detail of soldiers to act as marines and supply vacancies in his crews, he offered battle to Barclay, the British commander,—the latter a veteran in naval experience, who had served under Nelson at Trafalgar. Barclay had lain idly for several weeks at Malden, in hopes of procuring additional sailors, purposely avoiding an action meanwhile. But Proctor's army having now run short of provisions, longer delay was inexpedient. At sunrise on September 10th Perry descried the approaching British fleet from his look-out, a group of islands off Sandusky. Ten miles to the north of this locality, which was known as Put-in-bay, the two squadrons at noon engaged one another,—Perry approaching at an acute angle, and keeping the weather-gage, while Barclay's vessels hove to in close order. In officers and men the fleets were about equally matched; there were 6 British vessels to the American 9, but the former carried more guns, and were greatly superior for action from a distance. With 30 long guns to Perry's 15, Barclay had the decided advantage at first, and our flag-ship, the Lawrence, exposed to the heaviest of the British cannonade, became terribly battered, her decks wet with carnage, her guns dismounted. Undismayed by this catastrophe, Perry dropped into a little boat with his broad pennant and banner, and crossed to his next largest vessel, the Niagara, the target for 15 minutes of a furious fire while being rowed over. Climbing the Niagara's deck, and hoisting once more the emblems of commander, our brave captain now pierced the enemy's line with his new flag-ship, followed by his smaller vessels, and, gaining at last that advantage of a close engagement which for nearly three hours had eluded him, he won the fight in eight minutes. The colors of the Detroit, Barclay's flag-ship, struck first, three others followed the example, and two of the British squadron attempting to escape were overtaken and brought back triumphantly. 'We have met the enemy and they are ours,' was Perry's laconic dispatch to Harrison, written in pencil on the back of an old letter, with his navy-cap for a rest; 'two ships, two brigs, one schooner, and one sloop.' … Barclay lay dangerously wounded, and his next in command died that evening. … To Harrison's expectant army, augmented by 3,500 mounted Kentuckians, whom Governor Shelby led in person, the word of advance was now given. … {3346} Perry's flotilla, aided by the captured vessels, presently landed the American troops on the Canada side. Proctor had already begun the retreat, having first dismantled the fort at Malden and burned the barracks. Harrison pursued him beyond Sandwich, covered by the flotilla, until near a Moravian town, up the river Thames [some 30 miles east of Lake St. Clair], the enemy was overtaken, with Tecumseh's braves. Here, upon well-chosen ground, the British made a final stand [October 5], but at the first impetuous charge of our cavalry their line broke, and only the Indians remained to engage in a desperate hand-to-hand fight. Among the slain was the famous Tecumseh, dispatched, as tradition asserts, by the pistol of Colonel Johnson, a Kentucky officer prominent in the battle. Proctor himself escaped in a carriage with a few followers, incurring afterwards the royal reprimand. … The baleful British and Indian alliance was broken up by these victories, while Detroit, Michigan, and all that Hull had lost, and a fair portion of Upper Canada besides, passed into American control. Among American generals in this war Harrison enjoyed the rare felicity of having fully accomplished his undertaking."

J. Schouler, History of the United States, chapter 8, section 2 and chapter 9, section 1 (volume 2).

"The victory of Lake Erie was most important, both in its material results and in its moral effect. It gave us complete command of all the upper lakes, prevented any fears of invasion from that quarter, increased our prestige with the foe and our confidence in ourselves, and ensured the conquest of Upper Canada; in all these respects its importance has not been overrated. But the 'glory' acquired by it most certainly has been estimated at more than its worth. … The simple truth is, that, where on both sides the officers and men were equally brave and skilful, the side which possessed the superiority in force, in the proportion of three to two, could not well help winning. … Though we had nine guns less, yet, at a broadside, they threw half as much metal again as those of our antagonist."

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1813 (April-July).
The burning of Toronto.
The capture of Fort George.

"The American fleet on Lake Ontario had been increased, and in 1813 controlled the lake. General Sheaffe had succeeded Brock as Governor as well as commander of the forces. Some 600 troops were in York [now Toronto], the capital. York had about 1,000 inhabitants, and was not regarded as of strategic importance. The Americans, however, set sail from Sackett's Harbour with 16 sail and 2,500 men to attack it. The enemy landed [April 27] to the west of the town, and General Sheaffe evacuated the works, and retired down the Kingston Road. The Americans invested the town, and though skirmishing took place, had an easy victory. The land force was under General Pike, an officer well known as having, when a lieutenant, explored the sources of the Mississippi. Just as the Americans had well filled the fort, the powder-magazine exploded with violence, killing and wounding about 250. General Pike, struck in the breast by a flying stone, died soon after. The Americans, contrary to the articles of surrender, shamefully burnt the town, and retired from York on the 2nd of May, 1813. While the squadron was absent, Sackett's Harbour was attacked by a strong force. The garrison seemed to be on the point of surrendering the fort, when Sir George Prevost, to the surprise of all, ordered a retreat. Little York taken, Commodore Chauncey then crossed the lake to Fort George at the mouth of the Niagara River. General Vincent commanded the fort. Twenty-four of Hull's guns frowned from its bastions. Its defender had 1,340 men. The American army on the Niagara frontier numbered 6,000. Chauncey had eleven war-vessels and 900 seamen. On the 27th of May the expected day came. Vincent drew his men out about a mile from the fort and awaited the attack. He was overpowered and retired, having lost nearly 450 soldiers. The Canadian force retired to a strong position, 'Beaver Dams,' twelve miles from Niagara on the heights, having given up Fort Erie and Chippewa and blown up Fort George. Vincent had now 1,600 men, and with these he retired to Burlington Heights, near the present city of Hamilton. An American army of 2,500 men followed General Vincent to Stoney Creek. On the night of the 8th of June, Colonel Harvey of the British force, with upwards of 750 men, fell stealthily on the sleeping American army, scattered the troops, killed many, captured the American generals Chandler and Winder, and about 100 men, along with guns and stores. The adventurers then retired to their camp. The scattered American soldiers reassembled in the morning and retired in a disorderly manner down the country to Fort George. Vincent now followed the retreating army and reoccupied Beaver Dams. One of his outposts was held by Lieutenant Fitzgibbon and 30 men. Smarting with defeat, the American general sought to surprise this station as a basis for future attacks. He secretly despatched Colonel Boerstler with nearly 700 men to capture it. A wounded militiaman, living within the lines at Queenston, heard by chance of the expedition. … The alarm was given [by the militiaman's wife, who travelled 20 miles through the forest, at night] and that night the men lay on their arms. Early next morning the American party came, but an ambuscade had been prepared for them, and after severe fighting 542 men surrendered into the hands of some 260. General Dearborn soon after retired from the command of the American army, to be succeeded by General Boyd. British parties captured Fort Schlosser and Black Rock on the Niagara River at this time, though at the latter place with the loss of Colonel Bishopp, the idol of his men. Colonel Scott, in command of troops on board Commodore Chauncey's fleet, again scoured Lake Ontario. Landing at Burlington Heights on the 31st of July, they did nothing more than reconnoitre the works and depart. Afterwards the second attack on York was made and the barracks burnt. After this a trial of strength took place between Sir James Yeo's fleet, now sent forth from Kingston Harbour, and Chauncey's squadron. The Americans lost two vessels in a squall, and two were captured by the British, but the result between the two fleets was indecisive."

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1813 (October-November).
The abortive expedition against Montreal.

"While Perry and Harrison were … reclaiming our lost ground on Lake Erie and in the northwest, Armstrong was preparing to carry out his favorite plan of a descent on Kingston and Montreal. When he accepted the post of Secretary of War, he transferred his department from Washington to Sackett's Harbor, so that he might superintend in person the progress of the campaign. … Although Wilkinson had superseded Dearborn, as commander-in-chief of this district in July, he did not issue his first orders to the army till the 23d of August. … General Wade Hampton, who had been recalled from the fifth military district to the northern frontier, encamped with his army, 4,000 strong, at Plattsburg, on Lake Champlain. The plan finally adopted by the Secretary was, to have Wilkinson drop down the St. Lawrence, and without stopping to attack the English posts on the river, form a junction with General Hampton, when the two armies should march at once on Montreal. These two Generals were both Revolutionary officers, and consequently too advanced in years to carry such an expedition through with vigor and activity. Besides, a hostile feeling separated them, rendering each jealous of the other's command. … Chauncey, In the mean time, after an action with Yeo, in which both parties claimed the victory, forced his adversary to take refuge in Burlington Bay. He then wrote to Wilkinson that the lake was clear of the enemy, and reported himself ready to transport the troops down the St. Lawrence. The greatest expectations were formed of this expedition. The people knew nothing of the quarrel between Wilkinson and Hampton, and thought only of the strength of their united force. … While Wilkinson was preparing to fulfill his part of the campaign, Hampton made a bold push into Canada on his own responsibility. Advancing from Plattsburg, he marched directly for St. John, but finding water scarce for his draft cattle, owing to a severe drought, he moved to the left, and next day arrived at Chateaugay Four Corners, a few miles from the Canada line. Here he was overtaken by an order from Armstrong, commanding him to remain where he was, until the arrival of Wilkinson. But jealous of his rival, and wishing to achieve a victory in which the honor would not be divided, he resolved to take upon himself the responsibility of advancing alone. Several detachments of militia had augmented his force of 4,000, and he deemed himself sufficiently strong to attack Prevost, who he was told had only about 2,000 ill assorted troops under him. He therefore gave orders to march, and cutting a road for 24 miles through the wilderness, after five days great toil, reached the British position. Ignorant of its weakness, he dispatched Colonel Purdy at night by a circuitous route to gain the enemy's flank and rear and assail his works, while he attacked them in front. Bewildered by the darkness, and led astray by his guide, Colonel Purdy wandered through the forest, entirely ignorant of the whereabouts of the enemy or of his own. General Hampton, however, supposing that he had succeeded in his attempt, ordered General Izard to advance with the main body of the army, and as soon as firing was heard in the rear to commence the attack in front. Izard marched up his men and a skirmish ensued, when Colonel De Salaberry, the British commander, who had but a handful of regulars under him, ordered the bugles, which had been placed at some distance apart on purpose to represent a large force, to sound the charge. The ruse succeeded admirably, and a halt was ordered. The bugles brought up the lost detachment of Purdy, but suddenly assailed by a concealed body of militia, his command was thrown into disorder and broke and fled. Disconcerted by the defeat of Purdy, Hampton ordered a retreat, without making any attempt to carry the British intrenchments. … Hampton, defeated by the blasts of a few bugles, took up his position again at the Four Corners, to wait further news from Wilkinson's division. The latter having concentrated his troops at Grenadier Island, embarked them again the same day that Hampton advanced, against orders, towards Montreal. Three hundred boats, covering the river for miles, carried the infantry and artillery, while the cavalry, 500 strong, marched along the bank. … They were two weeks in reaching the river. Wilkinson, who had been recalled from New Orleans, to take charge of this expedition, was prostrated by the lake fever, which, added to the infirmities of age, rendered him wholly unfit for the position he occupied. General Lewis, his second in command, was also sick. The season was already far advanced—the autumnal storms had set in earlier than usual—everything conspired to ensure defeat; and around this wreck of a commander, tossed an army, dispirited, disgusted, and doomed to disgrace. General Brown led the advance of this army of invasion, as it started for Montreal, 180 miles distant. … When it reached the head of the long rapids at Hamilton, 20 miles below Ogdensburg, Wilkinson ordered General Brown to advance by land and cover the passage of the boats through the narrow defiles, where the enemy had established block houses. In the mean time the cavalry had crossed over to the Canadian side and, with 1,500 men under General Boyd, been despatched against the enemy, which was constantly harassing his rear. General Boyd, accompanied by Generals Swartwout and Covington as volunteers, moved forward in three columns. Colonel Ripley advancing with the 21st Regiment, drove the enemy's sharp shooters from the woods, and emerged on an open space, called Chrystler's Field, and directly in front of two English regiments. Notwithstanding the disparity of numbers this gallant officer ordered a charge, which was executed with such firmness that the two regiments retired. Rallying and making a stand, they were again charged and driven back. … At length the British retired to their camp and the Americans maintained their position on the shore, so that the flotilla passed the Saut in safety. This action [called the battle of Chrystler's Farm, or Williamsburg] has never received the praise it deserves—the disgraceful failure of the campaign having cast a shadow upon it. The British, though inferior in numbers, had greatly the advantage in having possession of a stone house in the midst of the field. … {3348} Nearly one-fifth of the entire force engaged were killed or wounded. … The army, however, still held its course for Montreal. Young Scott, who had joined the expedition at Ogdensburg, was 15 miles ahead, clearing, with a detachment of less than 800 men, the river banks as he went. Montreal was known to be feebly garrisoned, and Wilkinson had no doubt it would fall an easy conquest. He therefore sent forward to Hampton to join him at St. Regis, with provisions. Hampton, in reply, said, that his men could bring no more provisions than they wanted for their own use, and informed him, in short, that he should not co-operate with him at all, but make the best of his way back to Lake Champlain. On receiving this astounding news, Wilkinson called a council of war, which reprobated in strong terms the conduct of Hampton, and decided that in consideration of his failure, and the lateness of the season, the march should be suspended, and the army retire to winter quarters. This was carried into effect, and Wilkinson repaired to French Mills, on Salmon river, for the winter, and Hampton to Plattsburg."

      ALSO IN:
      W. C. Bryant and S. H. Gay,
      Popular History of the United States,
      volume 4, chapter 8.

      J. Armstrong,
      Notices of the War of 1812,
      volume 2, chapter 1.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1813 (December).
   Retaliatory devastation of the Niagara frontier.
   Fort Niagara surprised.
   The burning of Buffalo.

"The withdrawal of troops from the Niagara frontier to take part in Wilkinson's expedition left the defence of that line almost entirely to militia, and the term for which the militia had been called out expired on the 9th of December. The next day General George McClure, who had been left in command at Fort George, found himself at the head of but 60 effective men, while the British General Drummond had brought up to the peninsula 400 troops and 70 Indians—released by the failure of Wilkinson's expedition—and was preparing to attack him. McClure thereupon determined to evacuate the fort, as the only alternative from capture or destruction, and remove his men and stores across the river to Fort Niagara. He also determined to burn the village of Newark, that the enemy might find no shelter. The laudable part of this plan was but imperfectly carried out; he failed to destroy the barracks, and left unharmed tents for 1,500 men, several pieces of artillery, and a large quantity of ammunition, all of which fell into the hands of Drummond's men. But the inexcusable part—the burning of a village in midwinter, inhabited by noncombatants who had been guilty of no special offence—was only too faithfully executed. The inhabitants were given twelve hours in which to remove their goods, and then the torch was applied, and not a house was left standing. This needless cruelty produced its natural result; Drummond determined upon swift and ample retaliation. In the night of December 18th, just one week after the burning of Newark, he threw across the Niagara a force of 550 men. They landed at Five Mile Meadows, three miles above Fort Niagara, and marched upon it at once, arriving there at four o'clock in the morning. McClure, who had received an intimation of the enemy's intention to devastate the American frontier, had gone to Buffalo to raise a force to oppose him. The garrison of the fort consisted of about 450 men, a large number of whom were in the hospital. The command had been left to a Captain Leonard, who at this time was three miles away, sleeping at a farm-house. The most elaborate preparations had been made for the capture of the fort, including scaling-ladders for mounting the bastions. But the Americans seemed to have studied to make the task as easy as possible. The sentries were seized and silenced before they could give any alarm, and the main gate was found standing wide open, so that the British had only to walk straight in and begin at once the stabbing which had been determined upon. The guard in the south-east block-house tired one volley, by which the British commander, Colonel Murray, was wounded, and a portion of the invalids made what resistance they could. A British lieutenant and five men were killed, and a surgeon and three men wounded. Sixty-five Americans, two-thirds of whom were invalids, were bayoneted in their beds; 15 others, who had taken refuge in the cellars, were despatched in the same manner, and 14 were wounded; 20 escaped, and all the others, about 340, were made prisoners. … On the same morning, General Riall, with a detachment of British troops and 500 Indians, crossed from Queenstown." Lewiston, Youngstown, Tuscarora and Manchester (now Niagara Falls) were plundered and burned, and the houses and barns of farmers along the river, within a belt of several miles, were destroyed. "The bridge over Tonawanda Creek had been destroyed by the Americans, and at this point the enemy turned back, and soon recrossed the Niagara to the Canada side. The alarm at Buffalo brought General Hall, of the New York militia, to that village, where he arrived the day after Christmas. He found collected there a body of 1,700 men, whom it would have been gross flattery to call a 'force.' They were poorly supplied with arms and cartridges, and had no discipline and almost no organization. Another regiment of 300 soon joined them, but without adding much to their efficiency. On the 28th of December, Drummond reconnoitred the American camp, and determined to attack it; for which purpose he sent over General Riall on the evening of the 29th with 1,450 men, largely regulars, and a body of Indians. One detachment landed two miles below Black Rock, crossed Canajokaties [or Scajaquada] Creek in the face of a slight resistance, and took possession of a battery. The remainder landed at a point between Buffalo and Black Rock [two villages then, now united in one city], under cover of a battery on the Canadian shore. Poor as Hall's troops were, they stood long enough to fire upon the invaders and inflict considerable loss. … Both sides had artillery, with which the action was opened. As it progressed, however, the American line was broken in the centre, and Hall was compelled to fall back. His subsequent attempts to rally his men were of no avail, and he himself seems to have lost heart, as Lieutenant Riddle, who had about 80 regulars, offered to place them in front for the encouragement of the militia to new exertion, but Hall declined. … Both Buffalo and Black Rock were sacked and burned, and no mercy was shown. With but two or three exceptions, those of the inhabitants who were not able to run away were massacred. … {3349} It is related that in Buffalo a widow named St. John 'had the address to appease the ferocity of the enemy so far as to remain in her house uninjured.' Her house and the stone jail were the only buildings not laid in ashes. In Black Rock every building was either burned or blown up, except one log house, in which a few women and children had taken refuge. … Five vessels lying at the wharves were also burned. In this expedition the British lost 108 men, killed, wounded or missing. More than 50 of the Americans were found dead on the field. Truly, an abundant revenge had been taken for the burning of Newark. … On New Year's day of 1814 the settlers along the whole length of the Niagara—those of them who survived—were shivering beside the smouldering embers of their homes."

ALSO IN: C. Johnson, Centennial History of Erie County, New York, chapters 24-25.

      O. Turner,
      Pioneer History of the Holland Purchase,
      pages 589-606.

      W. Dorsheimer,
      Buffalo during the war of 1812
      (Buffalo Historical Society Publication, volume 1).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1813-1814.
British blockade of the Atlantic coast.

"The blockade of the Atlantic coast was enforced by British vessels from the beginning of the year 1813. At first they were inclined to spare the coast of New England, which they supposed to be friendly to Great Britain, but this policy was soon abandoned, and the whole coast was treated alike. Groups of war-vessels were stationed before each of the principal sea-ports, and others were continually in motion along the coast, from Halifax on the north to the West Indies. Early in 1813, they took possession of the mouth of Chesapeake Bay as a naval station, and the American Government ordered all the lights to be put out in the neighboring light-houses. The Atlantic coast was thus kept in a state of almost constant alarm, for the British vessels were continually landing men at exposed points to burn, plunder, and destroy. … In 1813, the defenceless towns of Lewes, Havre de Grace, and Hampton (near Fortress Monroe) were bombarded, and Stonington, Conn., in 1814; and a number of smaller towns were burned or plundered. Attacks on New York and other larger cities were prevented only by fear of torpedoes, by means of which the Americans had nearly blown up one or two British ships which ventured too near New York. … Maine, as far as the Penobscot River, was seized by the British in 1814, and was held until the end of the war."

      A. Johnston,
      History of the United States for Schools,
      sections 384-386.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1813-1814 (August-April).
The Creek War.
General Jackson's first campaign.

The great Indian chief Tecumseh had been trying for years to unite all the red men against the whites. There would have been an Indian war if there had been no war with England, but the latter war seemed to be Tecumseh's opportunity. Among the southwestern Indians he found acceptance only with the Creeks, who were already on the verge of civil war, because some wanted to adopt civilized life, and others refused. The latter became the war party, under Weatherford [Red Eagle], a very able half-breed chief. The first outbreak in the Southwest, although there had been some earlier hostilities, was the massacre of the garrison and refugees at Fort Mims, at the junction of the Alabama and Tombigbee rivers, August 30, 1813. There were 553 persons in the fort, of whom only 5 or 6 escaped. … The result of the massacre at Fort Mims was that Alabama was almost abandoned by whites. Terror and desire for revenge took possession of Georgia and Tennessee. September 25th the Tennessee Legislature voted to raise men and money to aid the people of Mississippi territory against the Creeks." Andrew Jackson, one of the two major-generals of the Tennessee militia, was then confined to his bed by a wound received in a recent fight with Thomas H. Benton and Benton's brother. "As soon as he possibly could, Jackson took the field. Georgia had a force in the field under General Floyd. General Claiborne was acting at the head of troops from Louisiana and Mississippi. This Indian war had a local character and was outside the federal operations, although in the end it had a great effect upon them. … The Creek war was remarkable for three things: (1) the quarrels between the generals, and the want of concert of action; (2) lack of provisions; (3) insubordination in the ranks. … On three occasions Jackson had to use one part of his army to prevent another part from marching home, he and they differing on the construction of the terms of enlistment. He showed very strong qualities under these trying circumstances. … In the conduct of the movements against the enemy his energy was very remarkable. So long as there was an enemy unsubdued Jackson could not rest, and could not give heed to anything else. … At the end of March [1814] Jackson destroyed a body of the Creeks at Tohopeka, or Horse-Shoe Bend, in the northeast corner of the present Tallapoosa County, Alabama. With the least possible delay he pushed on to the last refuge of the Creeks, the Hickory Ground, at the confluence of the Coosa and Tallapoosa, and the Holy Ground a few miles distant. The medicine men, appealing to the superstition of the Indians, had taught them to believe that no white man could tread the latter ground and live. In April the remnant of the Creeks surrendered or fled to Florida, overcome as much by the impetuous and relentless character of the campaign against them as by actual blows. Fort Jackson was built on the Hickory Ground. The march down through Alabama was a great achievement, considering the circumstances of the country at the time. … The Creek campaign lasted only seven months. In itself considered, it was by no means an important Indian war, but in its connection with other military movements it was very important. Tecumseh had been killed at the battle of the Thames, in Canada, October 5, 1813. His scheme of a race war died with him. The Creek campaign put an end to any danger of hostilities from the southwestern Indians, in alliance either with other Indians or with the English. … This campaign … was the beginning of Jackson's fame and popularity, and from it dates his career. He was 47 years old. On the 31st of May he was appointed a major-general in the army of the United States, and was given command of the department of the South. He established his headquarters at Mobile in August, 1814."

      J. W. Monette,
      Discovery and Settlement of the Valley of the Mississippi,
      book 5, chapter 14 (volume 2).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1814 (July-September).
   On the Niagara Frontier.
   Chippewa.
   Lundy's Lane.
   Fort Erie.

"After the desolation of the Niagara frontier in 1813, there appeared to be nothing for the parties to contend for in that quarter. No object could be obtained by a victory on either side, but the temporary occupation of a vacant territory; yet both parties seemed to have selected this as the principal theatre on which to display their military prowess in the year 1814. Lieutenant General Drummond, governor of Upper Canada, concentrated the forces of that province at Fort George, and retained the possession of Niagara. The American Generals Smyth, Hampton, Dearborn, and Wilkinson, under whose auspices the campaigns of 1812 and 1813, on the Canada border, were conducted, had retired from that field; and General Brown was appointed major general, and, with the assistance of Brigadiers Scott and Ripley, designated to the command of the Niagara frontier. He left Sackett's Harbour in May, with a large portion of the American troops. … On his arrival at Buffalo, calculating upon the co-operation of the Ontario fleet, he determined on an attempt to expel the British from the Niagara peninsula. With this view he crossed the river on the 3d of July. … On the same day he invested Fort Erie, and summoned it to surrender, allowing the commandant two hours to answer the summons. At five in the afternoon the fort surrendered, and the prisoners, amounting to 137, were removed to Buffalo. On the morning of the fourth General Scott advanced with his brigade and corps of artillery, and took a position on the Chippewa plain, half a mile in front of the village, his right resting on the river, and his front protected by a ravine. The British were encamped in force at the village. In the evening General Brown joined him with the reserve under General Ripley, and the artillery commanded by Major Hindman. General Porter arrived the next morning, with the New York and Pennsylvania volunteers, and a number of Indians of the six nations. … At four in the afternoon, General Porter advanced, taking the woods in order to conceal his approach, and … met the whole British force approaching in order of battle. General Scott, with his brigade and Towser's artillery, met them on the plain, in front of the American encampment, and was directly engaged in close action with the main body. General Porter's command gave way. … The reserve were now ordered up, and General Ripley passed to the woods in left of the line to gain the rear of the enemy; but before this was effected, General Scott had compelled the British to retire. Their whole line now fell back, and were eagerly pursued. … The British left 200 dead on the ground. … The American loss was 60 killed, and 268 wounded and missing. After the battle of Chippewa, the British retired to Fort George; and General Brown took post at Queenston, where he remained some time, expecting reinforcements. … On the 20th, General Brown advanced with his army towards Fort George, drove in the outposts, and encamped near the fort, in the expectation that the British would come out and give him battle. On the 22d, he returned to his former position at Queenston; here he received a letter from General Gaines, informing him that the heavy guns, and the rifle regiment, which he had ordered from Sackett's harbour, together with the whole fleet, were blockaded in that port, and no assistance was to be expected from them. On the 24th, he fell back to Chippewa, and on the 25th received intelligence that the enemy, having received large reinforcements from Kingston, were advancing upon him. The first brigade under General Scott, Towser's artillery, all the dragoons and mounted men, were immediately put in motion on the Queenston road. On his arrival at the Niagara cataract, General Scott learned that the British were in force directly in his front, separated only by a narrow piece of wood. Having despatched this intelligence to General Brown, he advanced upon the enemy, and the action commenced at six o'clock in the afternoon. … The British artillery had taken post on a commanding eminence, at the head of Lundy's lane, supported by a line of infantry, out of the reach of the American batteries. This was the key of the whole position; from hence they poured a most deadly fire on the American ranks. It became necessary either to leave the ground, or to carry this post and seize the height. The latter desperate task was assigned to Colonel Miller. On receiving the order from General Brown, he calmly surveyed the position, and answered 'I will try, sir,' which expression was afterwards the motto of his regiment. … Colonel Miller advanced coolly and steadily to his object, amid a tremendous fire, and at the point of the bayonet, carried the artillery and the height. The guns were immediately turned upon the enemy; General Ripley now brought up the 23d regiment, to the support of Colonel Miller; the first regiment was rallied and brought into line, and the British were driven from the hill. … The British rallied under the hill, and made a desperate attempt to regain their artillery, and drive the Americans from their position, but without success; a second and third attempt was made with the like result. General Scott was engaged in repelling these attacks, and though with his shoulder fractured, and a severe wound in the side, continued at the head of his column, endeavouring to turn the enemy's right flank. The volunteers under General Porter, during the last charge of the British, precipitated themselves upon their lines, broke them, and took a large number of prisoners. General Brown … received a severe wound on the thigh, and in the side, and … consigned the command to General Ripley. At twelve o'clock, both parties retired from the field to their respective encampments, fatigued and satiated with slaughter. … The battle [called Lundy's Lane, or Bridgewater, or Niagara] was fought to the west of, and within half a mile of the Niagara cataract. … Considering the numbers engaged, few contests have ever been more sanguinary. … General Brown states his loss to be, killed, 171; wounded, 572; missing, 117; [total] 860. General Drummond acknowledges a loss of, killed, 84; wounded, 559; missing and prisoners, 235; [total] 878. … General Ripley, on the 26th, fell back to Fort Erie. General Brown retired to Buffalo, and General Scott to Batavia, to recover from their wounds."

"Fort Erie was a small work with two demi-bastions; one upon the north and the other upon the south front. It was built of stone, but was not of sufficient strength to resist ordnance heavier than the field artillery of that day. Ripley at once commenced to strengthen the position. Fortunately, General Drummond delayed his advance for two days, giving the Americans an opportunity of which they industriously availed themselves. … Fort Erie was changed into an entrenched camp, with its rear open toward the river. General Drummond appeared before the fort, on the 3d of August, with a force of 5,350 men. He established his camp two miles distant, back of Waterloo, and commenced a double line of entrenchments within 400 yards of the main work. The same morning he threw a force of about 1,000 men across the river, and landed them below Squaw Island, with the intention of seizing Buffalo, destroying the stores gathered there, and interrupting the communications of the American army. This soldierly plan was happily frustrated by Major Morgan with a battalion of the First Rifles, 250 strong. … During the following fortnight several skirmishes occurred in front of Fort Erie, in one of which the gallant Colonel Morgan was killed. General Drummond, having been still further reinforced, determined not to wait for the slow results of a siege, but to carry the place by assault. At two o'clock in the morning of the 3d of August, the British army moved to the attack in three columns. One was ordered to carry the Douglass battery, upon the extreme right of our position; another column was to engage the fort itself; but the main attack was directed against the Towson battery upon Snake Hill. Brigadier-General Gaines, who had lately arrived, was now in command of the American forces. … The evening before, a shell had exploded a small magazine in Fort Erie, and General Gaines was apprehensive that the enemy would take advantage of this disaster and attack him,—one-third of the troops were therefore kept at their post through the night, which was dark and rainy. His precautions were well taken. At half-past two the tramp of a heavy column was heard approaching Towson's redoubt. Instantly a sheet of fire flashed from our lines, lighting up the night, and revealing the enemy 1,500 strong. They had been ordered to attack with the bayonet; and, to insure obedience, the flints had been removed from their muskets. With complete courage they approached to within reach of the light abattis, between Snake Hill and the lake. But after a desperate struggle they fell back. Again they advanced, and this time succeeded in planting scaling ladders in the ditch in front of the redoubt. But their ladders were too short, and the assailants were driven off with severe loss. Meanwhile a detachment endeavored to turn our position by wading out into the river, and passing round our left. Ripley met them promptly. Numbers were killed or wounded, and were carried off by the current, and the remainder of the detachment were captured: Five times the obstinate English returned to the assault, but each time without success. … The other British columns waited until the engagement on the left was at its height. On our right the enemy advanced to within 50 yards of the Douglass battery, but were then driven back. At the fort the contest was more severe. The assailants, led by Colonel Drummond, an officer of singular determination, advanced through a ravine north of the fort, and attacking simultaneously all the salient points, they swarmed over the parapet into the north bastion. … The garrison of the fort rallied, and after a severe contest succeeded in regaining possession of the bastion. A second and third time Drummond returned to the assault with no better success. But with invincible tenacity he clung to his purpose. Moving his troops, under cover of the night and the dense cloud of battle which hung along the ramparts, silently round the ditch, he suddenly repeated the charge. The English ran up their ladders so quickly that they gained the top of the glacis before the defenders could rally to resist them. … The garrison of the fort made repeated unsuccessful efforts to retake the bastion; but at day-break it was still in the enemy's possession. Powerful detachments were then brought up from the left and center, and a combined attempt was made from several different directions to drive the British from their position; but, after a desperate struggle, this likewise failed. The guns of the Douglass battery, and those under Captain Fanning, were turned upon the bastion, and Captain Biddle was placing a piece of artillery to enfilade it, while several hundred of the American reserve stood ready to rush upon it. At this moment a loud explosion shook the earth, and the whole bastion leaped into the air, carrying with it both its assailants and defenders. The cause of this explosion has never been accurately ascertained. It is generally supposed to have been accidental. … The shattered columns of the foe now retired to their encampment. The British report stated their loss at 905 killed, wounded and missing; of whom 222 were killed, including 14 officers; 174 wounded; and 186 prisoners remained in our hands. Our loss, including 11 prisoners, was 84 men. In the bombardment of the day before we had 45 killed and wounded; swelling our total loss to 129. A few days after this, Drummond was reinforced by two regiments, and reopened fire along his own line. The bombardment continued through the remainder of the month of August. On the 28th, General Gaines was wounded by a shell, which fell into his quarters, and General Ripley again assumed the command, but was soon superseded by General Brown, who had recovered from the wound received at Lundy's Lane. General Porter, by dint of superhuman efforts, gathered a considerable body of militia at Buffalo, to reinforce the fort. … Notwithstanding the victory I have just described, and the reinforcements brought by Porter, the American army at Fort Erie was in a very dangerous situation. Their foe was daily increasing in number, and three new batteries were thrown up, whose fire was rapidly making the position untenable. … Under the pressure of this great necessity, General Porter planned a sortie, which was submitted to General Brown; who approved it, and ordered it to be carried out. … By this enterprise, altogether the most brilliant military event which occurred on this frontier during the war, all of the enemy's guns in position were made useless, and their entrenchments destroyed. We took 385 prisoners, including 11 commissioned officers, and killed or wounded 600 men. Our own loss was 510. … Four days after this, General Drummond raised the siege, and fell back to Fort George."

      W. Dorsheimer,
      Buffalo during the War of 1812
      (Buffalo Historical Society Publications, volume 1).

      ALSO IN:
      E. Cruikshank,
      The Battle of Lundy's Lane
      (Lundy's Lane Historical Society).

      General W. Scott,
      Memoirs by himself,
      chapters 9-11 (volume 1).

      C. Johnson,
      Centennial History of Erie County, New York,
      chapter 26.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1814 (August-September).
Capture and destruction of the national Capital.
Attempt against Baltimore.

Early in the "summer of 1814, rumors spread through the capital of a great British armament preparing at Bermuda, some said for an attack on New York, others on Baltimore and Annapolis, while others asserted quite as vehemently that the national capital was the chosen object of British vengeance. How easy it would be, they argued, for Admiral Sir George Cockburn, who had been a year with his fleet in Chesapeake Bay, when reinforced by the Bermuda armament to disembark a strong column at any point on the western shore of the Chesapeake—but forty miles distant—and by a forced march capture the city. But by some strange fatuity, the President and his cabinet treated these possibilities as unworthy of credence. 'The British come here!' a Cabinet officer is reported to have said, in answer to the representations of citizens. "What should they come here for?' Sure enough: a provincial village of 6,000 inhabitants. But then there were the state papers and public buildings, the moral effect of capturing an enemy's capital, and the satisfaction of chastising the city where a British minister had been obliged to ask for his recall on the ground of ill-treatment. … Colonel James Monroe, a gallant soldier of the Revolution, was now Secretary of State; another Revolutionary soldier, General Armstrong, was Secretary of War, and acting on their advice, President Madison did substantially nothing for the defence of his capital. Fort Washington, commanding the Potomac, which Major L'Enfant had planned early in the war, was hurried forward to completion; but no defences on the landward side were erected, and no army was called out to defend it. What was done was this: The District of Columbia, Maryland, and that part of Virginia north of the Rappahannock, were created a tenth military district under command of General W. H. Winder, a brave officer, who had seen service in the Northwest, and who had recently returned from long detention in Canada as prisoner of war. General Winder on taking command (June 26, 1814) found for the defence of Washington detachments of the 36th and 38th regulars, amounting to a few hundred men, but nothing more—no forts, no guns, no army. A force of 13 regiments of Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania militia had been drafted, but were not to be called into active service until the enemy should appear—an arrangement against which General Winder protested in vain. … While these weak and ineffectual preparations are being made, the enemy has been marshalling his forces. Early in August Rear-Admiral Cockburn's blockading squadron had been joined in the Potomac by the fleet of Vice-Admiral Cochrane, who as ranking officer at once took command." A few days later the expected Bermuda expedition arrived bringing 4,000 troops—veterans from Wellington's army—under General Ross. A little flotilla of gunboats on the Chesapeake, commanded by Commodore Barney, was driven into Patuxent River and there abandoned and burned. Then the enemy landed in force at Benedict and marched on Washington, while the Secretary or War still insisted that Baltimore must be, in the nature of things, the place they would strike, At Bladensburg they were met (August 24th) by General Winder with some 5,000 hastily collected militia and volunteers and less than 1,000 regular troops, sailors, and marines—poor materials for an army with which to face 4,000 hardened veterans of the Peninsular War. The battle ended in the utter routing of the American forces and the abandonment of Washington to the British invaders.

"This battle, by which the fate of the American capital was decided, began about one o'clock in the afternoon, and lasted till four. The loss on the part of the English was severe, since, out of two-thirds of the army, which were engaged, upwards of 500 men were killed and wounded; and what rendered it doubly severe was, that among these were numbered several officers of rank and distinction. … On the side of the Americans the slaughter was not so great. Being in possession of a strong position, they were of course less exposed in defending than the others in storming it; and had they conducted themselves with coolness and resolution, it is not conceivable how the battle could have been won. But the fact is that, with the exception of a party of sailors from the gun boats, under the command of Commodore Barney, no troops could behave worse than they did."

      G. R. Gleig,
      Campaign of the British Army at Washington and New Orleans,
      chapter 9.

   When Winder's troops abandoned Washington "fire was put at the
   navy yard to a new frigate on the stocks, to a new
   sloop-of-war lately launched, and to several magazines of
   stores and provisions, for the destruction of which ample
   preparations had been made. By the light of this fire, made
   lurid by a sudden thunder-gust, Ross, toward evening, advanced
   into Washington, at that time a straggling village of some
   8,000 people, but, for the moment, almost deserted by the male
   part of the white inhabitants. From Gallatin's late residence,
   one of the first considerable houses which the column reached,
   a shot was fired which killed Ross's horse, and which was
   instantly revenged by putting fire to the house. After three
   or four volleys at the Capitol, the two detached wings were
   set on fire. The massive walls defied the flames, but all the
   interior was destroyed, with many valuable papers, and the
   library of Congress—a piece of Vandalism alleged to be in
   revenge for the burning of the Parliament House at York.
   [Chaplain Gleig, who was with the British forces under Ross,
   states in the narrative quoted from above that the party fired
   upon from Gallatin's house bore a flag of truce, and that
   Ross's destructive proceedings in Washington were consequent
   on that fact.] … The president's house, and the offices of the
   Treasury and State Departments near by, were set on fire. …
   The next morning the War Office was burned. …
{3353}
   Several private houses were burned, and some private
   warehouses broken open and plundered; but, in general, private
   property was respected." On the night of the 20th the British
   withdrew, returning as they came; but on the 29th their
   frigates, ascending the Potomac, arrived at Alexandria and
   plundered that city heavily. "Within less than a fortnight
   after the re-embarkation of Ross's army, the British fleet,
   spreading vast alarm as it ascended the Chesapeake, appeared
   off the Patapsco [September 12]. … A landing was effected the
   next day at North Point, on the northern shore of that
   estuary, some eight miles up which was Fort M'Henry, an open
   work only two miles from Baltimore, commanding the entrance
   into the harbor, which found, however, its most effectual
   protection in the shallowness of the water. The defense of the
   city rested with some 10,000 militia. … A corps 3,000 strong
   had been thrown forward toward North Point. As Ross and
   Cockburn, at the head of a reconnoitering party, approached
   the outposts of this advanced division, a skirmish ensued, in
   which Ross was killed. … The fleet, meanwhile, opened a
   tremendous cannonade on Fort M'Henry; but … at such a distance
   as to render their fire ineffectual. It was under the
   excitement of this cannonade that the popular song of the
   'Star Spangled Banner' was composed, the author [Francis Scott
   Key] being then on board the British fleet, whither he had
   gone to solicit the release of certain prisoners, and where he
   was detained pending the attack. An attempt to land in boats
   also failed; and that same night, the bombardment being still
   kept up, the British army, covered by rain and darkness,
   retired silently to their ships and re-embarked."

      R. Hildreth,
      History of the United States,
      volume 6, pages 510-520.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1814 (September).
Prevost's invasion of New York.
Macdonough's naval victory on Lake Champlain.

Lake Champlain, "which had hitherto played but an inconspicuous part, was now to become the scene of the greatest naval battle of the war. A British army of 11,000 men under Sir George Prevost undertook the invasion of New York by advancing up the western bank of Lake Champlain. This advance was impracticable unless there was a sufficiently strong British naval force to drive back the American squadron at the same time. Accordingly, the British began to construct a frigate, the Confiance, to be added to their already existing force, which consisted of a brig, two sloops, and 12 or 14 gun-boats. The Americans already possessed a heavy corvette, a schooner, a small sloop, and 10 gun-boats or row-galleys; they now began to build a large brig, the Eagle, which was launched about the 16th of August. Nine days later, on the 25th, the Confiance was launched. The two squadrons were equally deficient in stores, etc.; the Confiance having locks to her guns, some of which could not be used, while the American schooner Ticonderoga had to fire her guns by means of pistols flashed at the touchholes (like Barclay on Lake Erie). Macdonough and Downie were hurried into action before they had time to prepare themselves thoroughly; but it was a disadvantage common to both, and arose from the nature of the case, which called for immediate action. The British army advanced slowly toward Plattsburg, which was held by General Macomb with less than 2,000 effective American troops. Captain Thomas Macdonough, the American commodore, took the lake a day or two before his antagonist, and came to anchor in Plattsburg harbor. The British fleet, under Captain George Downie, moved from Isle-aux-Noix on September 8th, and on the morning of the 11th sailed into Plattsburg harbor." The American force consisted of the ship Saratoga, Captain Macdonough, the brig Eagle, the schooner Ticonderoga, the sloop Preble, and ten row-galleys, or gunboats mounting one or two guns each—"in all, 14 vessels of 2,244 tons and 882 men, with 86 guns throwing at a broadside 1,194 lbs. of shot, 480 from long, and 714 from short guns. The force of the British squadron in guns and ships is known accurately, as most of it was captured." It consisted of the frigate Confiance, the brig Linnet, the sloops Chubb and Finch, and twelve gunboats—"in all, 16 vessels, of about 2,402 tons, with 937 men, and a total of 92 guns, throwing at a broadside 1,192 lbs., 660 from long and 532 from short pieces. … Young Macdonough (then but 28 years of age) calculated all … chances very coolly and decided to await the attack at anchor in Plattsburg Bay, with the head of his line so far to the north that it could hardly be turned. … The morning of September 11th opened with a light breeze from the northeast. Downie's fleet weighed anchor at daylight, and came down the lake with the wind nearly aft, the booms of the two sloops swinging out to starboard. At half-past seven, the people in the ships could see their adversaries' upper sails across the narrow strip of land ending in Cumberland Head, before the British doubled the latter. … As the English squadron stood bravely in, young Macdonough, who feared his foes not at all, but his God a great deal, knelt for a moment, with his officers, on the quarter-deck; and then ensued a few minutes of perfect quiet." The fierce battle which followed lasted about two hours and a half, with terribly destructive effects on both sides. The British commander, Downie, was killed early in the action. "On both sides the ships had been cut up in the most extraordinary manner; the Saratoga had 55 shot-holes in her hull, and the Confiance 105 in hers, and the Eagle and Linnet had suffered in proportion. The number of killed and wounded can not be exactly stated; it was probably about 200 on the American side, and over 300 on the British. … The effects of the victory were immediate and of the highest importance. Sir George Prevost and his army [which had arrived before Plattsburg on the 6th, and which, simultaneously with the naval advance, had made an unsuccessful attack on the American defensive works, at the mouth of the Saranac, held by General Alexander Macomb] at once fled in great haste and confusion back to Canada, leaving our northern frontier clear for the remainder of the war; while the victory had a very great effect on the negotiations for peace. In this battle the crews on both sides behaved with equal bravery, and left nothing to be desired in this respect; but from their rawness they of course showed far less skill than the crews of most of the American and some of the British ocean cruisers. … Macdonough in this battle won a higher fame than any other commander of the war, British or American. {3354} He had a decidedly superior force to contend against, the officers and men of the two sides being about on a par in every respect; and it was solely owing to his foresight and resource that we won the victory. He forced the British to engage at a disadvantage by his excellent choice of position, and he prepared beforehand for every possible contingency. … Down to the time of the Civil War he is the greatest figure in our naval history."

"The commercial distress in New England, the possession by the enemy of a large part of the District of Maine, the fear of their advance along the coast, and the apparent neglect of the Federal Government to provide any adequate means of resistance, had led the Legislature of Massachusetts, in October, to invite the other New England States to send delegates to Hartford, Connecticut, 'to confer upon the subject of their public grievances.' Delegates [26 in number] from Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Connecticut, and from parts of Vermont and New Hampshire, met at Hartford in December and remained in session for three weeks. In their report to their State Legislatures they reviewed the state of the country, the origin and management of the war, and the strong measures lately proposed in Congress, and recommended several Amendments to the Constitution, chiefly with intent to restrict the powers of Congress over commerce, and to prevent naturalized citizens from holding office. In default of the adoption of these Amendments, another convention was advised, 'in order to decide on the course which a crisis so momentous might seem to demand.' This was the famous Hartford Convention. The peace which closely followed its adjournment removed all necessity or even desire for another session of it. Its objects seem to have been legitimate. But the unfortunate secrecy of its proceedings, and its somewhat ambiguous language, roused a popular suspicion, sufficient for the political ruin of its members, that a dissolution of the Union had been proposed, perhaps resolved upon, in its meetings. Some years afterward those concerned in it were compelled in self-defense to publish its journal, in order to show that no treasonable design was officially proposed. It was then, however, too late, for the popular opinion had become fixed. Neither the Federal party which originated, nor the Federalist politicians who composed, the assembly, were ever freed from the stigma left by the mysterious Hartford Convention."

The language of the report of the Hartford Convention "was so skillfully selected that it cannot be said with certainty whether the convention deduced from the nature of the Union a positive right in the individual states to withdraw from the Union, or whether it claimed only a moral justification for revolution. It was prudent enough in the declaration of its position on the constitutional question not to venture beyond vague, double-meaning expressions, except so far as it could appeal to its opponents. But it went just far enough to repeat almost verbatim the declaration of faith laid down in the Kentucky resolutions of 1798. If the members of the convention, and those in sympathy with them, were 'Maratists,' they could claim that they had become so in the school of Madison and Jefferson."

      H. von Holst,
      Constitutional and Political History of the United States,
      volume 1, page 268.

      H. C. Lodge,
      Life and Letters of George Cabot,
      chapters 11-13.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1814 (December).
The Treaty of Peace concluded at Ghent.

   "In September, 1812, Count Romanzoff suggested to Mr. [John
   Quincy] Adams the readiness of the Emperor [of Russia] to act
   as mediator in bringing about peace between the United States
   and England. The suggestion was promptly acted upon, but with
   no directly fortunate results. The American government acceded
   at once to the proposition, and, at the risk of an impolitic
   display of readiness, dispatched Messrs. Gallatin and Bayard
   to act as Commissioners jointly with Mr. Adams in the
   negotiations. These gentlemen, however, arrived in St.
   Petersburg only to find themselves in a very awkward
   position," since the offered mediation of the Czar was
   declined by England. The latter power preferred to negotiate
   directly with the United States, and presently made proposals
   to that effect, intimating her readiness "to send
   Commissioners to Gottingen, for which place Ghent was
   afterwards substituted, to meet American Commissioners and
   settle terms of pacification. The United States renewed the
   powers of Messrs. Adams, Bayard, and Gallatin, … and added
   Jonathan Russell, then Minister to Sweden, and Henry Clay.
   England deputed Lord Gambier, an Admiral, Dr. Adams, a
   publicist, and Mr. Goulbourn, a member of Parliament and Under
   Secretary of State. These eight gentlemen accordingly met in
   Ghent on August 7, 1814. It was upwards of four months before
   an agreement was reached. … The eight were certainly an odd
   assemblage of peacemakers. The ill-blood and wranglings
   between the opposing Commissions were bad enough, yet hardly
   equalled the intestine dissensions between the American
   Commissioners themselves. … The British first presented their
   demands, as follows: 1. That the United States should conclude
   a peace with the Indian allies of Great Britain, and that a
   species of neutral belt of Indian territory should be
   established between the dominions of the United States and
   Great Britain, so that these dominions should be nowhere
   conterminous, upon which belt or barrier neither power should
   be permitted to encroach even by purchase, and the boundaries
   of which should be settled in this treaty. 2. That the United
   States should keep no naval force upon the Great Lakes, and
   should neither maintain their existing forts nor build new
   ones upon their northern frontier; it was even required that
   the boundary line should run along the southern shore of the
   lakes; while no corresponding restriction was imposed upon
   Great Britain, because she was stated to have no projects of
   conquest as against her neighbor. 3. That a piece of the
   province of Maine should be ceded, in order to give the
   English a road from Halifax to Quebec. 4. That the
   stipulations of the treaty of 1783, conferring on English
   subjects the right of navigating the Mississippi, should be
   now formally renewed. The Americans were astounded; it seemed
   to them hardly worth while to have come so far to listen to
   such propositions."
{3355}
   But, after long and apparently hopeless wrangling, events in
   Europe rather than in America brought about a change of
   disposition on the part of the British government;
   instructions to the commissioners were modified on both sides,
   and, quite to their own surprise, they arrived at agreements
   which were formulated in a Treaty and signed, December 24,
   1814. "Of the many subjects mooted between the negotiators
   scarcely any had survived the fierce contests which had been
   waged concerning them. The whole matter of the navigation of
   the Mississippi, access to that river, and a road through
   American territory, had been dropped by the British; while the
   Americans had been well content to say nothing of the
   Northeastern fisheries, which they regarded as still their
   own.

The disarmament on the lakes and along the Canadian border, and the neutralization of a strip of Indian territory, were yielded by the English. The Americans were content to have nothing said about impressment; nor was anyone of the many illegal rights exercised by England formally abandoned. The Americans satisfied themselves with the reflection that circumstances had rendered these points now only matters of abstract principle, since the pacification of Europe had removed all opportunities and temptations for England to persist in her previous objectionable courses. For the future it was hardly to be feared that she would again undertake to pursue a policy against which it was evident that the United States were willing to conduct a serious war. There was, however, no provision for indemnification. Upon a fair consideration, it must be admitted that, though the treaty was silent upon all the points which the United States had made war for the purpose of enforcing, yet the country had every reason to be gratified with the result of the negotiation."

"Instead of wearing themselves out over impracticable, perhaps impossible, questions, the commissioners turned their attention to the northern boundary between the two countries, and it was by them forever settled, and in such manner as to give the United States the foundation for its future greatness. … The victory of the American diplomats at Ghent was two-fold: first, they secured the benefits desired without enumerating them—even to a greater extent than if the benefits had been enumerated; and second, if they had insisted upon an enumeration of the benefits obtained, it is apparent they would have periled the entire treaty and lost all."

T. Wilson, The Treaty of Ghent (Magazine of American History, November, 1888).

   Article I.
   There shall be a firm and universal peace between His
   Britannic Majesty and the United States, and between their
   respective countries, territories, cities, towns, and people,
   of every degree, without exception of places or persons. All
   hostilities, both by sea and land, shall cease as soon as this
   treaty shall have been ratified by both parties, as
   hereinafter mentioned. All territory, places, and possessions
   whatsoever, taken by either party from the other during the
   war, or which may be taken after the signing of this treaty,
   excepting only the islands hereinafter mentioned, shall be
   restored without delay, and without causing any destruction or
   carrying away any of the artillery or other public property
   originally captured in the said forts or places, and which
   shall remain therein upon the exchange of the ratifications of
   this treaty, or any slaves or other private property. And all
   archives, records, deeds, and papers, either of a public
   nature or belonging to private persons, which, in the course
   of the war, may have fallen into the hands of the officers of
   either party, shall be, as far as may be practicable,
   forthwith restored and delivered to the proper authorities and
   persons to whom they respectively belong. Such of the islands
   in the Bay of Passamaquoddy as are claimed by both parties,
   shall remain in the possession of the party in whose
   occupation they may be at the time of the exchange of the
   ratifications of this treaty, until the decision respecting
   the title to the said islands shall have been made in
   conformity with the fourth article of this treaty. No
   disposition made by this treaty as to such possession of the
   islands and territories claimed by both parties shall, in any
   manner whatever, be construed to affect the right of either.

   Article II.
   Immediately after the ratification of this treaty by both
   parties, as hereinafter mentioned, orders shall be sent to the
   armies, squadrons, officers, subjects and citizens of the two
   Powers to cease from all hostilities. And to prevent all
   causes of complaint which might arise on account of the prizes
   which may be taken at sea after the said ratifications of this
   treaty, it is reciprocally agreed that all vessels and effects
   which may be taken after the space of twelve days from the
   said ratifications, upon all parts of the coast of North
   America, from the latitude of twenty-three degrees north to
   the latitude of fifty degrees north, and as far eastward in
   the Atlantic Ocean as the thirty-sixth degree of west
   longitude from the meridian of Greenwich, shall be restored on
   each side: that the time shall be thirty days in all other
   parts of the Atlantic Ocean north of the equinoctial line or
   equator, and the same time for the British and Irish Channels,
   for the Gulf of Mexico, and all parts of the West Indies;
   forty days for the North Seas, for the Baltic, and for all
   parts of the Mediterranean; sixty days for the Atlantic Ocean
   south of the equator, as far as the latitude of the Cape of
   Good Hope; ninety days for every other part of the world south
   of the equator; and one hundred and twenty days for all other
   parts of the world, without exception.

   Article III.
   All prisoners of war taken on either side, as well by land as
   by sea, shall be restored as soon as practicable after the
   ratifications of this treaty, as hereinafter mentioned, on
   their paying the debts which they may have contracted during
   their captivity. The two contracting parties respectively
   engage to discharge, in specie, the advances which may have
   been made by the other for the sustenance and maintenance of
   such prisoners.

Article IV. Whereas it was stipulated by the second article in the treaty of peace of one thousand seven hundred and eighty-three, between His Britannic Majesty and the United States of America, that the boundary of the United States should comprehend all islands within twenty leagues of any part of the shores of the United States, and lying between lines to be drawn due east from the points where the aforesaid boundaries, between Nova Scotia on the one part, and East Florida on the other, shall respectively touch the Bay of Fundy and the Atlantic Ocean, excepting such islands as now are, or heretofore have been, within the limits of Nova Scotia; and whereas the several islands in the Bay of Passamaquoddy, which is part of the Bay of Fundy, and the Island of Grand Menan, in the said Bay of Fundy, are claimed by the United States as being comprehended within their aforesaid boundaries, which said islands are claimed as belonging to His Britannic Majesty, as having been, at the time of and previous to the aforesaid treaty of one thousand seven hundred and eighty-three, within the limits of the Province of Nova Scotia: In order, therefore, finally to decide upon these claims, it is agreed that they shall be referred to two Commissioners to be appointed in the following manner, viz: One Commissioner shall be appointed by His Britannic Majesty, and one by the President of the United States, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate thereof; and the said two Commissioners so appointed shall be sworn impartially to examine and decide upon the said claims according to such evidence as shall be laid before them on the part of His Britannic Majesty and of the United States respectively. The said Commissioners shall meet at St. Andrews, in the Province of New Brunswick, and shall have power to adjourn to such other place or places as they shall think fit. The said Commissioners shall, by a declaration or report under their hands and seals, decide to which of the two contracting parties the several islands aforesaid do respectively belong, in conformity with the true intent of the said treaty of peace of one thousand seven hundred and eighty-three. And if the said Commissioners shall agree in their decision, both parties shall consider such decision as final and conclusive. It is further agreed that, in event of the two Commissioners differing upon all or any of the matters so referred to them, or in the event of both or either of the said Commissioners refusing, or declining, or wilfully omitting to act as such, they shall make, jointly or separately, a report or reports, as well to the Government of His Britannic Majesty as to that of the United States, stating in detail the points on which they differ, and the grounds upon which their respective opinions have been formed, or the grounds upon which they, or either of them, have so refused, declined, or omitted to act. And His Britannic Majesty and the Government of the United States hereby agree to refer the report or reports of the said Commissioners to some friendly sovereign or State, to be then named for that purpose, and who shall be requested to decide on the differences which may be stated in the said report or reports, or upon the report of one Commissioner, together with the grounds upon which the other Commissioner shall have refused, declined or omitted to act, as the case may be. And if the Commissioner so refusing, declining or omitting to act, shall also wilfully omit to state the grounds upon which he has so done, in such manner that the said statement may be referred to such friendly sovereign or State, together with the report of such other Commissioner, then such sovereign or State shall decide ex parte upon the said report alone. And His Britannic Majesty and the Government of the United States engage to consider the decision of such friendly sovereign or State to be final and conclusive on all the matters so referred.

Article V. Whereas neither that point of the highlands lying due north from the source of the river St. Croix, and designated in the former treaty of peace between the two Powers as the northwest angle of Nova Scotia, nor the north-westernmost head of Connecticut River, has yet been ascertained; and whereas that part of the boundary line between the dominions of the two Powers which extends from the source of the river St. Croix directly north to the above mentioned northwest angle of Nova Scotia, thence along the said highlands which divide those rivers that empty themselves into the river St. Lawrence from those which fall into the Atlantic Ocean to the northwestern most head of Connecticut River, thence down along the middle of that river to the forty-fifth degree of north latitude; thence by a line due west on said latitude until it strikes the river Iroquois or Cataraquy, has not yet been surveyed: it is agreed that for these several purposes two Commissioners shall be appointed, sworn, and authorized to act exactly in the manner directed with respect to those mentioned in the next preceding article, unless otherwise specified in the present article. The said Commissioners shall meet at St. Andrews, in the Province of New Brunswick, and shall have power to adjourn to such other place or places as they shall think fit. The said Commissioners shall have power to ascertain and determine the points above mentioned, in conformity with the provisions of the said treaty of peace of one thousand seven hundred and eighty-three, and shall cause the boundary aforesaid, from the source of the river St. Croix to the river Iroquois or Cataraquy, to be surveyed and marked according to the said provisions. The said Commissioners shall make a map of the said boundary, and annex to it a declaration under their hands and seals, certifying it to be the true map of the said boundary, and particularizing the latitude and longitude of the northwest angle of Nova Scotia, of the northwesternmost head of Connecticut River, and of such other points of the said boundary as they may deem proper. And both parties agree to consider such map and declaration as finally and conclusively fixing the said boundary. And in the event of the said two Commissioners differing, or both or either of them refusing, declining, or wilfully omitting to act, such reports, declarations, or statements shall be made by them, or either of them, and such reference to a friendly sovereign or State shall be made in all respects as in the latter part of the fourth article is contained, and in as full a manner as if the same was herein repeated.

   Article VI.
   Whereas by the former treaty of peace that portion of the
   boundary of the United States from the point where the
   forty-fifth degree of north latitude strikes the river
   Iroquois or Cataraquy to the Lake Superior, was declared to be
   "along the middle of said river into Lake Ontario, through the
   middle of said lake, until it strikes the communication by
   water between that lake and Lake Erie, thence along the middle
   of said communication into Lake Erie, through the middle of said
   lake until it arrives at the water communication into the Lake
   Huron, thence through the middle of said lake to the water
   communication between that lake and Lake Superior;" and
   whereas doubts have arisen what was the middle of the said
   river, lakes, and water communications, and whether certain
   islands lying in the same were within the dominions of His
   Britannic Majesty or of the United States: In order,
   therefore, finally to decide these doubts, they shall be
   referred to two Commissioners, to be appointed, sworn, and
   authorized to act exactly in the manner directed with respect
   to those mentioned in the next preceding article, unless
   otherwise specified in this present article. The said
   Commissioners shall meet, in the first instance, at Albany, in
   the State of New York, and shall have power to adjourn to such
   other place or places as they shall think fit. The said
   Commissioners shall, by a report or declaration, under their
   hands and seals, designate the boundary through the said
   river, lakes and water communications, and decide to which of
   the two contracting parties the several islands lying within
   the said rivers, lakes, and water communications, do
   respectively belong, in conformity with the true intent of the
   said treaty of one thousand seven hundred and eighty-three.
   And both parties agree to consider such designation and
   decision as final and conclusive. And in the event of the said
   two Commissioners differing, or both or either of them
   refusing, declining, or wilfully omitting to act, such
   reports, declarations, or statements shall be made by them, or
   either of them, and such reference to a friendly sovereign or
   State shall be made in all respects as in the latter part of
   the fourth article is contained, and in as full a manner as if
   the same was herein repeated.

   Article VII.
   It is further agreed that the said two last-mentioned
   Commissioners, after they shall have executed the duties
   assigned to them in the preceding article, shall be, and they
   are hereby, authorized upon their oaths impartially to fix and
   determine, according to the true intent of the said treaty of
   peace of one thousand seven hundred and eighty-three, that
   part of the boundary between the dominions of the two Powers
   which extends from the water communication between Lake Huron
   and Lake Superior, to the most northwestern point of the Lake
   of the Woods, to decide to which of the two parties the
   several islands lying in the lakes, water communications, and
   rivers, forming the said boundary, do respectively belong, in
   conformity with the true intent of the said treaty of peace of
   one thousand seven hundred and eighty-three; and to cause such
   parts of the said boundary as require it to be surveyed and
   marked. The said Commissioners shall, by a report or
   declaration under their hands and seals, designate the
   boundary aforesaid, state their decision on the points thus
   referred to them, and particularize the latitude and longitude
   of the most northwestern point of the Lake of the Woods, and
   of such other parts of the said boundary as they may deem
   proper. And both parties agree to consider such designation
   and decision as final and conclusive. And in the event of the
   said two Commissioners differing, or both or either of them
   refusing, declining, or wilfully omitting to act, such
   reports, declarations, or statements shall be made by them, or
   either of them, and such reference to a friendly sovereign or
   State shall be made in all respects as in the latter part of
   the fourth article is contained, and in as full a manner as if
   the same was herein repeated.

   Article VIII.
   The several boards of two Commissioners mentioned in the four
   preceding articles shall respectively have power to appoint a
   Secretary, and to employ such surveyors or other persons as
   they shall judge necessary. Duplicates of all their respective
   reports, declarations, statements and decisions and of their
   accounts, and of the journal of their proceedings, shall be
   delivered by them to the agents of His Britannic Majesty and
   to the agents of the United States, who may be respectively
   appointed and authorized to manage the business on behalf of
   their respective Governments. The said Commissioners shall be
   respectively paid in such manner as shall be agreed between
   the two contracting parties, such agreement being to be
   settled at the time of the exchange of the ratifications of
   this treaty. And all other expenses attending the said
   Commissions shall be defrayed equally by the two parties. And
   in the case of death, sickness, resignation or necessary
   absence, the place of every such Commissioner, respectively,
   shall be supplied in the same manner as such Commissioner was
   first appointed, and the new Commissioner shall take the same
   oath or affirmation, and do the same duties. It is further
   agreed between the two contracting parties, that in case any
   of the islands mentioned in any of the preceding articles,
   which were in the possession of one of the parties prior to
   the commencement of the present war between the two countries,
   should, by the decision of any of the Boards of Commissioners
   aforesaid, or of the sovereign or State so referred to, as in
   the four next preceding articles contained, fall within the
   dominions of the other party, all grants of land made previous
   to the commencement of the war, by the party having had such
   possession, shall be as valid as if such island or islands
   had, by such decision or decisions, been adjudged to be within
   the dominions of the party having had such possession.

   Article IX.
   The United States of America engage to put an end, immediately
   after the ratification of the present treaty, to hostilities
   with all the tribes or nations of Indians with whom they may
   be at war at the time of such ratification; and forthwith to
   restore to such tribes or nations, respectively, all the
   possessions, rights and privileges which they may have enjoyed
   or been entitled to in one thousand eight hundred and eleven,
   previous to such hostilities: Provided always that such tribes
   or nations shall agree to desist from all hostilities against
   the United States of America, their citizens and subjects,
   upon the ratification of the present treaty being notified to
   such tribes or nations, and shall so desist accordingly. And
   His Britannic Majesty engages, on his part, to put an end
   immediately after the ratification of the present treaty, to
   hostilities with all the tribes or nations of Indians with
   whom he may be at war at the time of such ratification, and
   forthwith to restore to such tribes or nations respectively
   all the possessions, rights and privileges which they may have
   enjoyed or been entitled to in one thousand eight hundred and
   eleven, previous to such hostilities: Provided always that
   such tribes or nations shall agree to desist from all
   hostilities against His Britannic Majesty, and his subjects,
   upon the ratification of the present treaty being notified to
   such tribes or nations, and shall so desist accordingly.

   Article X.
   Whereas the traffic in slaves is irreconcilable with the
   principles of humanity and justice, and whereas both His
   Majesty and the United States are desirous of continuing their
   efforts to promote its entire abolition, it is hereby agreed
   that both the contracting parties shall use their best
   endeavors to accomplish so desirable an object.

   Article XI.
   This treaty, when the same shall have been ratified on both
   sides, without alteration by either of the contracting
   parties, and the ratifications mutually exchanged, shall be
   binding on both parties and the ratifications shall be
   exchanged at Washington, in the space of four months from this
   day, or sooner if practicable. In faith whereof we, the
   respective Plenipotentiaries, have signed this treaty, and
   have thereunto affixed our seals. Done, in triplicate, at
   Ghent, the twenty-fourth day of December, one thousand eight
   hundred and fourteen.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1814.
The last fighting at Sea.
The exploits of "Old Ironsides."

"During the latter part of the war, as might have been foreseen, there was little opportunity for American frigates to show that they could keep up the fame they had so gloriously won. The British were determined that none of them that ventured out to sea should escape; and by stationing a squadron, which their great resources enabled them to do, before each port where a frigate lay, they succeeded in keeping it cooped up and inactive. … The 'Adams,' which had been a 28-gun frigate, but which was now a corvette, managed to slip out from Washington in January, 1814, under the command of Charles Morris. … Six months were passed in cruising, part of the time off the Irish coast, but with no great success." Returning home, the "Adams" went ashore at the mouth of the Penobscot, but was got off, much injured, and was taken up the river for repairs. An English expeditionary force pursued the crippled vessel, and her commander was forced to set her on fire. "At this time the 'Constitution' [Old Ironsides, as she was popularly called] was … lying at Boston, watched by a squadron of the enemy. She had proved a lucky ship, … and her present captain, Charles Stewart, who had been one of Preble's lieutenants at Tripoli, was certainly a man well fitted to make the most of any chance he had. The frigate had been in port since April, at first repairing, and later unable to get out owing to the presence of the enemy's squadron." In December, however, the " Constitution" contrived to give the blockaders the slip and made her way across the Atlantic to the neighborhood of Madeira, where she fought and captured, at one time, two British war vessels—the corvette "Cyana" of 22 guns, and the sloop "Levant," of 20 guns. A few days afterwards, as the "Constitution," with her two prizes, was lying at anchor in Port Praya, Cape de Verde Islands, Captain Stewart sighted, outside, no less than three ships of the very blockading squadron which he had slipped away from at Boston, and which had pursued him across the ocean. He made his escape from the port, with both his prizes, in time to avoid being hemmed in, and speedily outsailed his pursuers. The latter, giving up hope of the "Constitution," turned their attention to one of the prizes and succeeded in recovering her. "The only other frigate that left port in the last year of the war was less fortunate than the 'Constitution.' This was the 'President,' now under Commodore Decatur. She was at New York, and for some time had lain at anchor off Staten Island watching for an opportunity to pass the blockading squadron." On a stormy night in January, 1815 (after the treaty of peace had been actually signed at Ghent, but before news of it had reached America), he made the attempt, but was discovered and chased by four of the blockading ships. After a race which lasted from dawn until nearly midnight, and a running fight of two hours, Decatur found escape to be impossible and surrendered his ship.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1815 (January).
Jackson's victory at New Orleans.

In October of the last year "dispatches from the American envoys abroad announced that 12,000 to 15,000 British troops would leave Ireland early in September for New Orleans and Mobile. Intelligence reached Washington, December 9th, by way of Cuba, that the British Chesapeake force, under Admiral Cochrane, had united at Jamaica with these other troops, and all were ready to sail for the mouths of the Mississippi. 'Hasten your militia to New Orleans,' now urged Monroe upon the Executives of Tennessee, Kentucky, and Georgia; 'do not wait for this government to arm them; put all the arms you can find into their hands; let every man bring his rifle or musket with him; we shall see you paid.' … Great results had been expected by Great Britain from the secret expedition fitted out against Louisiana. … Fifty British vessels, large and small, bore 7,000 British land troops—comprising the invading force from the Chesapeake and a veteran reinforcement from England—across the Gulf of Mexico from Jamaica to the ship channel near the entrance of Lake Borgne, thus approaching New Orleans midway between the Mississippi River and Mobile Bay. Here the fleet anchored; and, after dispersing a meagre flotilla of American gunboats, which opposed their progress in vain, the invaders took full possession of Lake Borgne, and, by means of lighter transports, landed troops upon a lonely island at the mouth of the Pearl River, which served as the military rendezvous. Crossing thence to the northwestern end of Lake Borgne, a sparsely-settled region, with plantations and sugar-works, half of this invading army, by the 23d [December], struck the Mississippi at a point within nine miles of New Orleans. Not a gun had been fired since the trifling engagement with the American flotilla. The British believed their near approach unknown, and even unsuspected, in the city; they meant to capture it by an assault both brilliant and sudden. … But Jackson had received his instructions in good season, and from the 2d of December New Orleans had been, under his vigilant direction, a camp in lively motion." Martial law was proclaimed; "free men of color were enrolled; convicts were released to become soldiers; the civic force was increased to its utmost. {3359} Jackson inspected and strengthened the defences in the vicinity, erect·ing new batteries. … With his newly arrived volunteers from neighboring States, quite expert, many of them, in the use of the rifle and eager for fight, Jackson found himself presently at the head of 5,000 effective men, less than 1,000 of whom were regulars." With a portion of these, supported by one of the two armed vessels on the river, he boldly attacked the enemy, on the evening of the 23d, but accomplished little more than to demonstrate the energy of the defence he was prepared to make. On the 28th the English (having previously destroyed one of the troublesome vessels in the river, the Carolina, with hot shot) returned the attack, but did not break the American lines. Then General Pakenham, the English commander, brought up heavy guns from the fleet, and soon convinced General Jackson that cotton bales, which the latter had piled up before his men, were too light and too combustible for breastworks against artillery; but the lesson proved more useful than otherwise, and the British batteries were answered with fully equal effect by an American cannonade. "Pakenham's last and boldest experiment was to carry Jackson's lines by storm on both sides of the river; and this enterprise, fatal, indeed, to those who conceived it, gives immortal date to the 8th of January,—the day on which the battle of New Orleans was fought. Four days before this momentous battle, over 2,000 Kentucky militia, under General Adair, arrived at New Orleans, ready soldiers, but miserably equipped. Of their number 700 were marched to the front. Pakenham's army, swelled by a body of reinforcements, commanded by General Lambert, another of Wellington's officers, now consisted in all of 10,000 troops, the flower of Brit·ish veterans. On the day of the battle Jackson had only half as many soldiers on the New Orleans side of the river, and of these the greater part were new recruits under inexperienced officers. On the opposite bank General Morgan, with about 1,500 men, among them detachments of Kentuckians and Louisiana militia, had intrenched himself in expectation of an assault. Jackson had penetrated the enemy's design, which was to make the main attack upon his lines, while a lesser force crossed the Mississippi to drive Morgan up the bank. Jackson's grand defences, extending for a mile and a half from the Mississippi, along his ditch or canal, to an impassable cypress swamp, consisted of earthworks, a redoubt next the river to enfilade the ditch, and eight batteries, all well mounted. The schooner Louisiana and Commander Patterson's marine battery across the river protected this line. Another intrenchment had been thrown up a mile and a half in the rear, as a rallying-point in case of need. There was a third line just below the city. … The morn·ing fog rolled away on the 8th of January. Pakenham, under the fire of a battery he had erected during the night, advanced with the main body of British troops to storm Jackson's position." The Americans, behind their breastworks, withheld their fire until the storming columns were 200 yards away, and then poured volley on volley into the approaching mass of men. "This, with the steady fire from the American batteries all along the line, as the foe advanced over a large bare plain, made hideous gaps in the British ranks, throwing them into utter confusion. It was a fearful slaughter. Dead bodies choked the ditch and strewed the plain. Gallant Highlanders flung themselves forward to scale the ramparts only to fall back lifeless. Soldiers who had served under Wellington in Spain broke, scattered, and ran. Of the four British generals commanding, Pakenham was killed, Gibbs mortally wounded, Keane disabled by a shot in the neck; only Lambert remained. Thornton, across the river, had driven Morgan from his lines meantime, and silenced Patterson's battery; but this enterprise might have cost him dearly, had he not in season received orders from Lambert to return instantly. In this battle the British lost not less than 2,600, all but 500 of whom were killed or wounded; while only 8 were killed and 13 wounded on the American side. Having buried his dead presently under a flag of truce, Lambert, whom this calamity had placed in command, retreated hastily under cover of the night, abandoning the expedition. Re-embarking at Lake Borgne, and rejoining the fleet, he next proceeded to invest Fort Bowyer, at the entrance of Mobile Bay, only to learn, after its little garrison had surrendered, that a treaty of peace [signed December 24, 1814, two weeks before the battle of New Orleans was fought] annulled the conquest. … Rude and illiterate as he was, Jackson showed at New Orleans the five prime attributes of military genius: decision, energy, forethought, dispatch, skill in employing resources."

J. Schouler, History of the United States of America, chapter 9, section 1 (volume 2).

      G. R. Gleig,
      Campaigns of the British Army at Washington and New Orleans,
      chapters 18-23.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1815.
Final war with the Algerines and suppression of their piracies.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1816.
Incorporation of the second Bank of the United States.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1816.
Organization of the American Colonization Society.

   James Monroe, Democratic Republican, was elected over Rufus
   King, Federalist, receiving 183 out of 217 votes cast in the
   electoral college. Daniel D. Tompkins was chosen Vice
   President. "Opposition to the War of 1812 proved fatal to the
   Federal party, which ceased to exist as a national party with
   the close of Mr. Madison's administration. Not only did the
   odium of opposing the war tend to annihilate that party, but
   the questions upon which the two parties differed were, in a
   great measure, settled or disposed of by the war; others,
   relating to the general interests of the country, such as a
   tariff, internal improvements, the chartering of a national
   bank, erecting fortifications, etc., taking their place, and
   finding advocates and opponents in both the old parties.
   Candidates for President and Vice-President were then selected
   by the respective parties by what was termed a Congressional
   caucus.
{3360}
   Mr. Monroe was placed in nomination for President by a caucus
   of the Republican members of Congress, Daniel D. Tompkins, of
   New York, being nominated by the same caucus for
   Vice-President. Mr. Crawford, of Georgia, was Mr. Monroe's
   competitor, and fell but few votes behind him in the caucus.
   Rufus King was the candidate of the Federal party, or what
   there was left of it, against Mr. Monroe. The latter received
   183 electoral votes, the former 34. No President ever
   encountered less opposition during his four or eight years'
   service than Mr. Monroe. Parties and the country seemed to be
   tired of contention, and desirous to enjoy repose. A most able
   cabinet was selected, consisting of Mr. J. Q. Adams as
   Secretary of State; William H. Crawford, Secretary of the
   Treasury; John C. Calhoun, Secretary of War; Smith Thompson,
   Secretary of the Navy; and William Wirt, Attorney-General."

"Remembering only the almost unopposed election and second election of Mr. Monroe, we are apt to think of him as the natural and easy choice of the people. As a matter of fact he was not a great favorite with Republican politicians. He was first nominated by a narrow majority. … Numerous meetings were held in various parts of the country to protest against the caucus system, the most noteworthy of which, perhaps, was held in Baltimore, in which meeting Roger B. Taney, afterward Chief Justice, took a most prominent part. The nomination being made, the presidential election was practically decided. There was no canvass, worthy of the name."

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1816-1817.
The opening of the question of "Internal Improvements."

"The passage of the bank bill in 1816 was to give the United States a million and a half of dollars. Calhoun, therefore, came forward, December 23, 1816, with a bill proposing that this sum be employed as a fund 'for constructing roads and canals and improving the navigation of watercourses.' 'We are,' said he, 'a rapidly—I was about to say a fearfully—growing country. … This is our pride and danger, our weakness and our strength.' The constitutional question he settled with a phrase: 'If we are restricted in the use of our money to the enumerated powers, on what principle can the purchase of Louisiana be justified?' The bill passed the House by 86 to 84; it was strongly supported by New York members, because it was expected that the general government would begin the construction of a canal from Albany to the Lakes; it had also large support in the South, especially in South Carolina. In the last hours of his administration Madison vetoed it. His message shows that he had selected this occasion to leave to the people a political testament; he was at last alarmed by the progress of his own party, and, like Jefferson, he insisted that internal improvements were desirable, but needed a constitutional amendment. The immediate effect of the veto was that New York, seeing no prospect of federal aid, at once herself began the construction of the Erie Canal, which was opened eight years later."

"Mr. Monroe came out, in his first message to Congress, coinciding, on this point, with Mr. Madison's veto. It is due to both of them, however, to say that they were the advocates of internal improvement, and recommended an amendment of the constitution with that view. Nevertheless, Mr. Madison, by his veto, had dashed the cup from the lips to the ground, as he went out of office; and Mr. Monroe coming in, at least for four years, probably for eight—it proved to be eight—broke the cup in advance, so that it could not be used during his term of office, without an amendment of the constitution. … Three presidents successively, Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Madison, and Mr. Monroe, had officially expressed their opinion adverse to a power vested in Congress by the constitution for projects of internal improvement, as contemplated by the measures proposed. Not satisfied with these decisions, Mr. Clay and his friends were instrumental in having a resolution brought forward, in the fifteenth Congress, declaring that Congress had power, under the constitution, to make appropriations for the construction of military roads, post-roads, and canals. … The resolution declaring the power to be vested in Congress by the constitution, to make appropriations for the construction of military roads, post-roads, and canals, was adopted by a vote of 90 to 75; and the principle involved has been practically applied by acts of Congress, from that time to the present."

      C. Colton,
      Life, Correspondence, and Speeches of Henry Clay,
      volume 1, chapter 19.

      ALSO IN:
      H. G. Wheeler,
      History of Congress, comprising a
      History of Internal Improvements,
      volume 2, page 109, and after.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1816-1818.
The First Seminole War.
Jackson's arbitrary conquest of Florida.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1818.
Treaty with Great Britain relating to Fisheries.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1818-1821.
   The first bitter Conflict concerning Slavery.
   The Missouri Compromise,
   on the admission of Missouri to the Union.

"On March 6, 1818, a petition was presented in the House of Representatives praying that Missouri be admitted as a state. A bill authorizing the people of Missouri to form a state government was taken up in the House on February 13, 1819, and Tallmadge of New York moved, as an amendment, that the further introduction of slavery should be prohibited, and that all children born within the said state should be free at the age of twenty-five years. Thus began the struggle on the slavery question in connection with the admission of Missouri, which lasted, intermittently, until March, 1821. No sooner had the debate on Tallmadge's proposition begun than it became clear that the philosophical anti-slavery sentiment of the revolutionary period had entirely ceased to have any influence upon current thought in the South.

The abolition of the foreign slave-trade had not, as had been hoped, prepared the way for the abolition of slavery or weakened the slave interest in any sense. On the contrary, slavery had been immensely strengthened by an economic development making it more profitable than it ever had been before. The invention of the cotton-gin by Eli Whitney, in 1793, had made the culture of cotton a very productive source of wealth.

In 1800 the exportation of cotton from the United States was 19,000,000 pounds, valued at $5,700,000. In 1820 the value of the cotton export was nearly $20,000,000, almost all of it the product of slave labor. The value of slaves may be said to have at least trebled in twenty years. The breeding of slaves became a profitable industry. Under such circumstances the slave-holders arrived at the conclusion that slavery was by no means so wicked and hurtful an institution as their revolutionary fathers had thought it to be. … On the other hand, in the Northern States there was no such change of feeling. Slavery was still, in the nature of things, believed to be a wrong and a sore. … The amendment to the Missouri bill, providing for a restriction with regard to slavery, came therefore in a perfectly natural way from that Northern sentiment which remained still faithful to the traditions of the revolutionary period. And it was a great surprise to most Northern people that so natural a proposition should be so fiercely resisted on the part of the South. It was the sudden revelation of a change of feeling in the South which the North had not observed in its progress. 'The discussion of this Missouri question has betrayed the secret of their souls,' wrote John Quincy Adams. The slave-holders watched with apprehension the steady growth of the Free States in population, wealth, and power. In 1790 the population of the two sections had been nearly even. In 1820 there was a difference of over 600,000 in favor of the North in a total of less than ten millions. In 1790 the representation of the two sections in Congress had been about evenly balanced. In 1820 the census promised to give the North a preponderance of more than 30 votes in the House of Representatives. As the slave-holders had no longer the ultimate extinction, but now the perpetuation, of slavery in view, the question of sectional power became one of first importance to them, and with it the necessity of having more Slave States for the purpose of maintaining the political equilibrium at least in the Senate. A struggle for more Slave States was to them a struggle for life. This was the true significance of the Missouri question. The debate was the prototype of all the slavery debates which followed in the forty years to the breaking out of the civil war. … The dissolution of the Union, civil war, and streams of blood were freely threatened by Southern men, while some anti-slavery men declared themselves ready to accept all these calamities rather than the spread of slavery over the territories yet free from it. … On February 16, 1819, the House of Representatives adopted the amendment restricting slavery, and thus passed the Missouri bill. But the Senate, eleven days afterwards, struck out the anti-slavery provision and sent the bill back to the House. A bill was then passed organizing the Territory of Arkansas, an amendment moved by Taylor of New York prohibiting the further introduction of slavery there having been voted down. … Thus slavery was virtually fastened on Arkansas. But the Missouri bill failed in the fifteenth Congress. The popular excitement steadily increased. The sixteenth Congress met in December, 1819. In the Senate the admission of Missouri with slavery was coupled with the admission of Maine, on the balance-of-power principle that one free state and one slave state should always be admitted at the same time. An amendment was moved absolutely prohibiting slavery in Missouri, but it was voted down. Then Mr. Thomas, a Senator from Illinois, on January 18, 1820, proposed that no restriction as to slavery be imposed upon Missouri in framing a state constitution, but that in all the rest of the country ceded by France to the United States north of 30° 30', this being the southern boundary line of Missouri, there should be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude. This was the essence of the famous Missouri Compromise, and, after long and acrimonious debates and several more votes in the House for restriction and in the Senate against it, this compromise was adopted. By it the slave power obtained the present tangible object it contended for; free labor won a contingent advantage in the future. … Clay has been widely credited with being the 'father' of the Missouri Compromise. As to the main features of the measure this credit he did not deserve. So far he had taken a prominent but not an originating part in the transaction." But, at the next session of Congress, when the Missouri question was unexpectedly reopened, and as threateningly as ever, Clay assumed a more important part in connection with the final settlement of it. "The bill passed at the last session had authorized the people of Missouri to make a state constitution without any restriction as to slavery. The formal admission of the state was now to follow. But the Constitution with which Missouri presented herself to Congress not only recognized slavery as existing there; it provided also that it should be the duty of the legislature to pass such laws as would be necessary to prevent free negroes or mulattoes from coming into or settling in the state." This provoked a new revolt on the part of the Northern opponents of slavery, and it was only through Clay's exertions as a pacificator that Missouri was conditionally admitted to the Union at length [March 3, 1820], the condition being that "the said state shall never pass any law preventing any description of persons from coming to or settling in the said state who now are, or hereafter may become, citizens of any of the states of this Union." The legislature of Missouri gave its assent, as required, to this "fundamental condition," and the "compromise" became complete. "The public mind turned at once to things of more hopeful interest, and the Union seemed safer than ever. The American people have since become painfully aware that this was a delusion."

   "The immediate contest was not over the question of the
   prohibition of slavery in the Territories. The great struggle
   lasted for nearly three years, but the final proposition which
   closed the controversy and which prohibited slavery in almost
   all the then Federal territory was probably not debated more
   than three hours. It was accepted without discussion by the
   great bulk of the advocates of Missouri's free admission. Very
   few slavery extensionists questioned the right and power of
   Congress to prevent the spread of slavery to the Territories.
{3362}
   That question, in the minds of those who opposed restriction
   in Missouri, was incidental to the question of the right of
   Congress to impose conditions upon a State. Incidentally the
   question of slavery in the Territories came up in the case of
   Arkansas, a country south of Missouri, in which slavery was
   already a fact. The restrictionists themselves recognized the
   fact that the plain, simple issue 'of limiting the area of
   human slavery would be strengthened by bringing it before the
   country unincumbered with the question of imposing conditions
   on a State, though most of them never wavered in their belief
   that conditions might be imposed. On the one hand it was only
   Southern zealots who denied to Congress the power to prohibit
   slavery in the Territories; on the other hand many in the
   North who opposed slavery believed that Congress might not
   impose conditions upon a State. In the cabinet of Monroe, in
   which sat Wirt, Crawford, and Calhoun, it was unanimously
   agreed that Congress had power to prohibit slavery in the
   Territories. But John Quincy Adams, also a member of that
   cabinet, who hated slavery with all the strength of his soul,
   thought it was unconstitutional to bind a State by conditions.
   … The struggle indicated a notable change in the southern mind
   on the slavery question, and that a slave power was forming
   which would attempt to control all legislation of the federal
   Union affecting slavery. … The struggle and the compromise
   afford the first clear demarcation between the sections. From
   this time the equilibrium of political power was a matter of
   first concern to a section of States and to a powerful
   political interest. Mason and Dixon's line is extended toward
   the west, and now marks a political division. The slave States
   were now, and for the first time, clearly separated from the
   free. A geographical line dividing the sections was
   established."

      J. A. Woodburn,
      Historical Significance of the Missouri Compromise
      (Report of American Historical Association, 1893),
      pages 289-294.

      ALSO IN:
      H. von Holst,
      Constitutional and Political History of the United States,
      volume 2, chapter 9.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1819-1821.
Acquisition of Florida from Spain.
Definition of the boundary of the Louisiana Purchase.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1820.
Admission of Maine into the Union as a State.

"Monroe like Washington was re-chosen President by a vote practically unanimous. One, however, of the 232 electoral votes cast was wanting to consummate this exceptional honor; for a New Hampshire elector, with a boldness of discretion which, in our days and especially upon a close canvass, would have condemned him to infamy, threw away upon John Quincy Adams the vote which belonged like those of his colleagues to Monroe, determined, so it is said, that no later mortal should stand in Washington's shoes. Of America's Presidents elected by virtual acclamation history furnishes but these two examples; and as between the men honored by so unapproachable a tribute of confidence, Monroe entered upon his second term of office with less of real political opposition than Washington."

Total population, 9,638,191 (an increase exceeding 33 per cent. over the enumeration of 1810), classed and distributed as follows:

White. Free black. Slave.
Connecticut. 267,161 7,844 97
Illinois. 53,788 457 917
Indiana. 145,758 1,230 190
Maine. 297,340 929 0
Massachusetts. 516,419 6,740 0
Michigan. 8,591 174 0
New Hampshire. 243,236 786 0
New Jersey. 257,409 12,460 7,557
New York. 1,332,744 29,279 10,088
Ohio. 576,572 4,723 0
Pennsylvania. 1,017,094 30,202 211
Rhode Island. 79,413 3,554 48
Vermont. 234,846 903 0
—- —- —-
Total 5,030,371 99,281 19,108

                 White. Free black. Slave.
Alabama. 85,451 571 41,879
Arkansas 12,579 59 1,617
Delaware. 55,282 12,958 4,509
District of
  Columbia. 22,614 4,048 6,377
Georgia. 189,566 1,763 149,654
Kentucky. 434,644 2,759 126,732
Louisiana. 73,383 10,476 69,064
Maryland. 260,223 39,730 107,397
Mississippi. 42,176 458 32,814
Missouri. 55,988 347 10,222
North Carolina. 419,200 14,612 205,017
South Carolina. 237,440 6,826 258,475
Tennessee. 339,927 2,727 80,107
Virginia. 603,087 36,889 425,153
                     —- —- —-
Total 2,831,560 134,223 1,519,017

With the closing of the war of 1812-14, and the disappearance of the party of the Federalists, there came a period of remarkable quietude in the political world. "Then followed the second administration of Monroe, to which was given, perhaps by the President himself, a name which has secured for the whole period a kind of peaceful eminence. It was probably fixed and made permanent by two lines in Halleck's once famous poem of 'Alnwick Castle,' evidently written during the poet's residence in England in 1822-23. Speaking of the change from the feudal to the commercial spirit, he says: "'Tis what our President Monroe, Has called "the era of good feeling."' … It would seem from this verse that Monroe himself was credited with the authorship of the phrase; but I have been unable to find it in his published speeches or messages, and it is possible that it may be of newspaper origin, and that Halleck, writing in England, may have fathered it on the President himself."

One lasting mark of distinction was given to the administration of President Monroe by the importance which came to be attached to his enunciation of the principle of policy since known as the "Monroe Doctrine." This was simply a formal and official statement of the national demand that foreign nations shall not interfere with the affairs of the two American continents. "There has been a good deal of dispute as to the real authorship of this announcement, Charles Francis Adams claiming it for his father, and Charles Sumner for the English statesman Canning. Mr. Gilman, however, in his late memoir of President Monroe, has shown with exhaustive research that this doctrine had grown up gradually into a national tradition before Monroe's time, and that he merely formulated it, and made it a matter of distinct record. The whole statement is contained in a few detached passages of his message of December 2, 1823. In this he announces that 'the American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, are not to be considered as subjects for colonization by European powers.' Further on he points out that the people of the United States have kept aloof from European dissensions, and ask only in return that North and South America should be equally let alone. 'We should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety;' and while no objection is made to any existing colony or dependency of theirs, yet any further intrusion or interference would be regarded as 'the manifestation of an unfriendly spirit towards the United States.' This in brief, is the 'Monroe doctrine' as originally stated; and it will always remain a singular fact that this President—the least original or commanding of those who early held that office—should yet be the only one whose name is identified with what amounts to a wholly new axiom of international law."

"At a cabinet meeting May 13, 1818, President Monroe propounded several questions on the subject of foreign affairs, of which the fifth, as recorded by J. Q. Adams, was this: 'Whether the ministers of the United States in Europe shall be instructed that the United States will not join in any project of interposition between Spain and the South Americans, which should not be to promote the complete independence of those provinces; and whether measures shall be taken to ascertain if this be the policy of the British government, and if so to establish a concert with them for the support of this policy.' He adds that all these points were discussed, without much difference of opinion. On July 31, 1818, Rush had an important interview with Castelreagh in respect to a proposed mediation of Great Britain between Spain and her colonies. The coöperation of the United States was desired. Mr. Rush informed the British minister that 'the United States would decline taking part, if they took part at all, in any plan of pacification, except on the basis of the independence of the colonies.' 'This,' he added, 'was the determination to which his government had come on much deliberation.' … Gallatin writes to J. Q. Adams, June 24, 1823, that before leaving Paris he had said to M. Chateaubriand on May 13, 'The United States would undoubtedly preserve their neutrality provided it were respected, and avoid every interference with the politics of Europe. … On the other hand, they would not suffer others to interfere against the emancipation of America.' … After Canning had proposed to Rush (September 19, 1823) that the United States should coöperate with England in preventing European interference with the Spanish-American colonies, Monroe consulted Jefferson as well as the cabinet, on the course which it was advisable to take, and with their approbation prepared his message. … Enough has been quoted to show that Mr. Sumner is not justified in saying that the 'Monroe doctrine proceeded from Canning,' and that he was 'its inventor, promoter, and champion, at least so far as it bears against European intervention in American affairs.' Nevertheless, Canning is entitled to high praise for the part which he took in the recognition of the Spanish republics, a part which almost justified his proud utterance, 'I called the New World into existence to redress the balance of the Old.'"

      F. Wharton,
      Digest of the International Law of the United States,
      section 57 (volume 1).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1824.
   Tenth Presidential Election.
   No choice by the People.
   Election of John Quincy Adams by the House of Representatives.

   "In 1823, as the Presidential election approached, the
   influences to control and secure the interests predominating
   in the different sections of the country became more active.
   Crawford of Georgia, Calhoun of South Carolina, Adams of
   Massachusetts, and Clay of Kentucky, were the most prominent
   candidates. In December, Barbour of Virginia was superseded,
   as Speaker of the House of Representatives, by Clay of
   Kentucky; an event ominous to the hopes of Crawford, and to
   that resistance to the tariff and to internal improvements
   which was regarded as dependent on his success. The question
   whether a Congressional caucus, by the instrumentality of
   which Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe had obtained the
   Presidency, should be again held to nominate a candidate for
   that office, was the next cause of political excitement. The
   Southern party, whose hopes rested on the success of Crawford,
   were clamorous for a caucus. The friends of the other
   candidates were either lukewarm or hostile to that expedient.
   Pennsylvania, whose general policy favored a protective tariff
   and public improvements, hesitated. … But the Democracy of
   that state … held meetings at Philadelphia, and elsewhere,
   recommending a Congressional caucus. This motion would have
   been probably adopted, had not the Legislature of Alabama,
   about this time, nominated Andrew Jackson for the Presidency,
   and accompanied their resolutions in his favor with a
   recommendation to their representatives to use their best
   exertions to prevent a Congressional nomination of a
   President. The popularity of Jackson, and the obvious
   importance to his success of the policy recommended by
   Alabama, fixed the wavering counsels of Pennsylvania, so that
   only three representatives from that state attended the
   Congressional caucus, which was soon after called, and which
   consisted of only 60 members, out of 261, the whole number of
   the House of Representatives; of which Virginia and New York,
   under the lead of Mr. Van Buren, constituted nearly one half.
{3364}
   Notwithstanding this meagre assemblage, Mr. Crawford was
   nominated for the Presidency. … But the days of Congressional
   caucuses were now numbered. The people took the nomination of
   President into their own hands [and John Quincy Adams and
   Henry Clay were brought into the field]. … The result of this
   electioneering conflict was that, by the returns of the
   electoral colleges of the several states, it appeared that
   none of the candidates had the requisite constitutional
   majority; the whole number of votes being 261—of which Andrew
   Jackson had 99, John Quincy Adams 84, William H. Crawford 41,
   and Henry Clay 37. [The popular vote cast as nearly as can be
   determined, was: Jackson, 153,544; Adams, 108,740; Crawford,
   46,618; Clay, 47,136.] For the office of Vice-President, John
   C. Calhoun had 180 votes, and was elected. … Of the 84 votes
   cast for Mr. Adams, not one was given by either of the three
   great Southern slaveholding states. Seventy-seven were given
   to him by New England and New York. The other seven were cast
   by the Middle or recently admitted states. The selection of
   President from the candidates now devolved on the House of
   Representatives, under the provisions of the constitution.
   But, again, Mr. Adams had the support of none of those
   slaveholding states, with the exception of Kentucky, and her
   delegates were equally divided between him and General
   Jackson. The decisive vote was, in effect, in the hands of Mr.
   Clay, then Speaker of the House, who cast it for Mr. Adams; a
   responsibility he did not hesitate to assume, notwithstanding
   the equal division of the Kentucky delegation, and in defiance
   of a resolution passed by the Legislature of that state,
   declaring their preference for General Jackson. On the final
   vote Andrew Jackson had 7 votes, William H. Crawford 4, and
   John Quincy Adams 13; who was, therefore, forthwith declared
   President of the United States for four years ensuing the 4th
   of March, 1825. … Immediately after his inauguration, Mr.
   Adams appointed Henry Clay, of Kentucky, Secretary of State. …
   General Jackson was deeply mortified and irritated by Mr.
   Clay's preference of Mr. Adams. … He immediately put into
   circulation among his friends and partisans an unqualified
   statement to the effect that Mr. Adams had obtained the
   Presidency by means of a corrupt bargain with Henry Clay, on
   the condition that he should be elevated to the office of
   Secretary of State. To this calumny Jackson gave his name and
   authority, asserting that he possessed evidence of its truth;
   and, although Mr. Clay and his friends publicly denied the
   charge, and challenged proof of it, two years elapsed before
   they could compel him to produce his evidence. This, when
   adduced, proved utterly groundless, and the charge false; the
   whole being but the creation of an irritated and disappointed
   mind. Though detected and exposed, the calumny had the effect
   for which it was calculated. Jackson's numerous partisans and
   friends made it the source of an uninterrupted stream of abuse
   upon Mr. Adams, through his whole administration."

The new administration "stood upon the same political basis as that of Mr. Monroe. It was but a continuance of the same party ascendency. It looked to no change of measures, and to no other change of men than became inevitably necessary to supply the vacancies which the accidents of political life had created. Mr. Clay was called to the State Department [and was maliciously accused of having bargained for it when he threw his influence at last in Mr. Adams' favor]. … The country … indulged the hope of a prosperous career in the track which had been opened by Mr. Madison, and so successfully pursued by Mr. Monroe. Less confidently, however, it indulged the hope of a continuance of that immunity from party contention and exasperation which had characterized the last eight years. The rising of an opposition was seen, at the very commencement of this administration, like a dark cloud upon the horizon, which gradually spread towards the zenith, not without much rumbling of distant thunder and angry flashes of fire. It was quite obvious to shrewd observers that the late election had disappointed many eager spirits, whose discontent was likely to make head against the predominant party, and, by uniting the scattered fragments of an opposition which had heretofore only slept, whilst the country had supposed it extinct, would present a very formidable antagonist to the new administration. The extraordinary popularity of General Jackson, the defeat of his friends by the vote of the House of Representatives, the neutrality of his political position, his avowed toleration towards political opponents, and what was thought to be his liberal views in regard to prominent political measures—for as yet nothing was developed in his opinions to set him in direct opposition to the policy or principles which governed the administration either of Madison or Monroe—all these considerations gave great strength to the position which he now occupied, and, in the same degree, emboldened the hopes of those who looked to him as the proper person to dispute the next election against the present incumbent. Many of those who had hoped to see the reign of good feeling and of abstinence from party strife prolonged, will remember with what surprise they saw this gathering of hostile elements, and heard it proclaimed by an authoritative political leader [Colonel Richard M. Johnson], in the first days of the new administration, that it should be and ought to be opposed, 'even if it were as pure as the angels at the right hand of the throne of God.' Such a declaration was not less ominous of what was to come than it was startling for its boldness and its novelty in the history of the government. … The opposition … took an organized form—became compact, eager, intolerant and even vindictive."

   "Monroe was the last President of the Virginian line, John
   Quincy Adams the last from New England. The centre of power
   was passing from the east to the west. Adams was a genuine New
   Englander of the Puritan stock, austerely moral, from his
   boyhood laboriously self-trained, not only staid but solemn in
   his teens, intensely self-conscious, ever engaged in
   self-examination, the punctual keeper of a voluminous diary,
   an invariably early riser, a daily reader of the Bible even in
   the White House, scrupulously methodical and strictly upright
   in all his ways; but testy, unconciliatory, unsympathetic,
   absolutely destitute of all the arts by which popularity is
   won.
{3365}
   His election does the highest credit to the respect of the
   electors for public virtue unadorned. The peculiar features of
   his father's character were so intensified in him that he may
   be deemed the typical figure rather than his father. In
   opinions he was a Federalist who having broken with his party
   on the question of foreign relations and the embargo had been
   put out of its pale but had retained its general mould. As he
   was about the last President chosen for merit not for
   availability, so he was about the last whose only rule was not
   party but the public service. So strictly did he observe the
   principle of permanency and purity in the Civil Service, that
   he refused to dismiss from office a Postmaster-General whom he
   knew to be intriguing against him. The demagogic era had come
   but he would not recognize its coming. He absolutely refused
   to go on the stump, to conciliate the press, to do anything
   for the purpose of courting popularity and making himself a
   party. His obstinacy was fatal to his ambition but is not
   dishonourable to his memory."

One of the most deeply interesting events of the year 1824 was the arrival in the country of the honored Lafayette, companion of Washington and friend of the American Republic in its struggle for independence. He came on the invitation of the national Government and was entertained as its guest. "He arrived at Staten Island on Sunday, 15th of August, 1824, accompanied by his son, George Washington Lafayette, and his son-in-]aw, M. Le Vasseur. Here he remained until Monday, and was then met and welcomed by a distinguished committee from New York, who escorted him to that city. … The arrival of Lafayette was an event which stirred the whole country; everybody was anxious to see him, and every State and city in the Union extended an invitation to him to visit such State or city; and he did so, being everywhere received with the most enthusiastic manifestations of love and respect. … He spent a little over a year in the United States, traveling most of the time. … Having visited every portion of the United States and received the affectionate homage of the people, General Lafayette returned to Washington, where he became in fact 'the Nation's Guest' at the Presidential mansion. Soon after the meeting of Congress, in December, 1824, a bill was reported by a joint committee of the two Houses granting to him a township of land and the sum of $200,000, which became a law."

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1824-1836.
Schemes of the Slave Power for acquiring Texas.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1825-1828.
   Opposition to the Administration.
   The question of Internal Improvements.
   Reconstruction of Parties.
   Democrats and National Republicans.

The inaugural address of President Adams "furnished a topic" against him, and "went to the reconstruction of parties on the old line of strict, or latitudinous, construction of the constitution. It was the topic of internal national improvement by the federal government. The address extolled the value of such works, considered the constitutional objections as yielding to the force of argument, expressed the hope that every speculative (constitutional) scruple would be solved in a practical blessing; and declared the belief that, in the execution of such works, posterity would derive a fervent gratitude to the founders of our Union and most deeply feel and acknowledge the beneficent action of our government. The declaration of principles which would give so much power to the government … alarmed the old republicans, and gave a new ground of opposition to Mr. Adams's administration, in addition to the strong one growing out of the election in the House of Representatives. … This new ground of opposition was greatly strengthened at the delivery of the first annual message, in which the topic of internal improvement was again largely enforced, other subjects recommended which would require a liberal use of constructive powers, and Congress informed that the President had accepted an invitation from the American States of Spanish origin, to send ministers to their proposed Congress on the Isthmus of Panama.

It was, therefore, clear from the beginning that the new administration was to have a settled and strong opposition. … There was opposition in the Senate to the confirmation of Mr. Clay's nomination to the State department, growing out of his support of Mr. Adams in the election of the House of Representatives, and acceptance of office from him; but overruled by a majority of two to one."

"From the very beginning of this Administration both factions of the Strict Constructionists united in an opposition to the President which became stronger through his whole term of office, until it overcame him. His ill-advised nomination of Clay to a post in his Cabinet gave color to the charge of a corrupt bargain between him and Clay, by which Adams was to receive the Clay vote in the House, and Clay was to be rewarded by the position of Secretary of State, which was then usually considered a stepping stone to the Presidency. Clay angrily denied any such bargain, and the renewal of charges and denials, each with its appropriate arguments, gave abundant material for debate. The Clay and Adams factions soon united and took the distinctive party name of National Republicans. Some years afterward this name was changed to that of Whigs. They maintained the loose constructionist principles of the Federalists, and, in addition, desired a Protective Tariff and a system of public improvements at national expense. … In October, 1825, the Tennessee Legislature nominated Jackson for the Presidency in 1828, and Jackson accepted the nomination. Crawford's continued ill-health compelled his adherents to look elsewhere for a candidate, and they gradually united upon Jackson. At first the resulting coalition was known as 'Jackson Men,' but, as they began to take the character of a national party, they assumed the name of Democrats, by which they have since been known. They maintained the strict constructionist principles of the Republican party, though the Crawford faction in the South went further, and held the extreme ground of the Kentucky Resolutions of 1799."

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1828.
The Tariff "Bill of Abominations."
Change of front in New England.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1828.
Eleventh Presidential Election.
Triumph of Jackson and the new Democracy.

Andrew Jackson was again put in nomination for the Presidency, while President Adams was supported for re-election by the National Republicans. "The campaign was conducted, on both sides, on very ruthless methods. Niles said it was worse than the campaign of 1798. Campaign extras of the 'Telegraph' were issued weekly, containing partisan material, refutations of charges against Jackson, and slanders on Adams and Clay. The Adams party also published a monthly of a similar character. The country was deluged with pamphlets on both sides. These pamphlets were very poor stuff, and contain nothing important on any of the issues. They all appeal to low tastes and motives, prejudices and jealousies. … In September, 1827, the Tammany General Committee and the Albany 'Argus' came out for Jackson, as it had been determined, in the programme, that they should do. A law was passed for casting the vote of New York in 1828 by districts. The days of voting throughout the country ranged from October 31st to November 19th. The votes were cast by the Legislature in Delaware and South Carolina; by districts in Maine, New York, Maryland, Tennessee; elsewhere, by general ticket. Jackson got 178 votes to 83 for Adams. The popular vote was 648,273 for Jackson; 508,064 for Adams. Jackson got only one vote in New England. … For Vice-President, Richard Rush got all the Adams votes; Calhoun [who was elected] got all the Jackson votes except 7 of Georgia, which were given to William Smith, of South Carolina. General Jackson was therefore triumphantly elected President of the United States, in the name of reform, and as the standard-bearer of the people, rising in their might to overthrow an extravagant, corrupt, aristocratic, federalist administration, which had encroached on the liberties of the people, and had aimed to corrupt elections by an abuse of federal patronage. Many people believed this picture of Adams's administration to be true. Andrew Jackson no doubt believed it. Many people believe it yet. Perhaps no administration, except that of the elder Adams, is under such odium. There is not, however, in our history any administration which, upon a severe and impartial scrutiny, appears more worthy of respectful and honorable memory. Its chief fault was that it was too good for the wicked world in which it found itself. In 1836 Adams said, in the House, that he had never removed one person from office for political causes, and that he thought that was one of the principal reasons why he was not reëlected."

"In this election there was a circumstance to be known and remembered. Mr. Adams and Mr. Rush were both from the non-slaveholding, General Jackson and Mr. Calhoun from the slaveholding States, and both large slave owners themselves, and both received a large vote (73 each) in the free States—and of which at least 40 were indispensable to their election. There was no jealousy, or hostile or aggressive spirit in the North at that time against the South!"

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1828-1833.
   The Nullification doctrine and ordinance of South Carolina.
   The Hayne and Webster debate.
   President Jackson's proclamation.
   The Compromise Tariff.

   "In May, 1828, a meeting of the South Carolina delegation in
   Congress was held in Washington, at the rooms of General
   Hayne, one of the Senators of that State, to concert measures
   against the tariff and the protective policy which it
   embodied. From the history of the times, and the disclosures
   subsequently made, it is apparent that some violent things
   were said at this meeting, but it broke up without any
   definite plan. In the course of the following summer, there
   were many popular meetings in South Carolina, largely
   attended, at which the tariff of 1824 was treated as an act of
   despotism and usurpation, which ought to be openly resisted. …
   They occasioned anxiety and regret among the friends of the
   Union throughout the country, though nothing more. But, in the
   autumn, the Legislature of South Carolina adopted an
   'Exposition and Protest,' which gave form and substance to the
   doctrines which thenceforward became known as 'Nullification.'
   In order to understand them, however, as a theory of the
   Federal Constitution, it is necessary to state the theory to
   which they are opposed, and to overthrow which they were
   brought forward. The Government of the United States, under
   the Constitution, had hitherto been administered upon the
   principle that the extent of its powers is to be finally
   determined by its supreme judicial tribunal, not only when
   there is any conflict of authority between its several
   departments, but also when the authority of the whole
   Government is denied by one or more of the States. … Aside
   from the authority of [the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions
   of 1798]—an authority that was doubtful, because their
   interpretation was not clear—there had been no important
   assertion of the principle that a State can determine for its
   citizens whether they are to obey an act of Congress, by
   asserting its unconstitutional character, and that the right
   to do this is implied as a right inherent in a State, under
   the Constitution, and results from the nature of the
   Government. This, however, was what the advocates of
   nullification now undertook to establish. The remedy which
   they sought, against acts which they regarded as usurpations,
   was not revolution, and not the breaking up the Union, as they
   claimed; but it was a remedy which they held to exist within
   the Union, and to have been contemplated by the people of the
   States when they established the Constitution. How far they
   considered such a theory compatible with the continued
   existence of the Union, I am not aware that they undertook to
   explain. … Although the Legislature of South Carolina had thus
   propounded a theory of resistance, and held that there was
   then a case in the tariff which would justify a resort to it,
   no steps were yet taken toward the immediate exercise of the
   asserted power." In the great debate between General Hayne of
   South Carolina and Daniel Webster, which occurred in the
   Senate, in January, 1830, the doctrine of nullification
   received for the first time a discussion which sank deep into
   the mind of the nation.
{3367}
   The original subject-matter of the debate was a resolution
   relating to Western land sales; but Hayne in his first speech
   made an attack on New England which drew out Webster in
   vindication, and then, when the South Carolinian replied, he
   boldly and broadly set forth the nullifying theory which his
   State had accepted from the sophistical brain of John C.
   Calhoun. It received its refutation then and there, in
   Webster's final speech. "The effect of this speech upon the
   country, that immediately followed its delivery, it is not
   easy for us at the present day to measure. … Vast numbers of
   Mr. Webster's speech were … published and circulated in
   pamphlet editions, after all the principal newspapers of the
   country had given it entire to their readers. The popular
   verdict, throughout the Northern and Western and many of the
   Southern States was decisive. A great majority of the people
   of the United States, of all parties, understood, appreciated,
   and accepted the view maintained by Mr. Webster of the nature
   of the Constitution, and the character of the government which
   it establishes."

If Webster's speech had solidified the majority opinion of the country in resistance to nullification, it had not paralyzed the nullifying movement. In the summer of 1831, and again in August, 1832, Calhoun published addresses to the people of South Carolina, elaborating his doctrine, and "urging an immediate issue on account of the oppressive tariff legislation under which the South was then suffering. The Legislature of South Carolina was convened by the governor to meet on October 22, for the purpose of calling a convention 'to consider the character and extent of the usurpations of the general government.' The convention met on November 19, and adopted without delay an 'ordinance' declaring that the tariff act of 1828, and the amendments thereto passed in 1832, were null and void; that it should be held unlawful to enforce the payment of duties thereunder within the State of South Carolina; that it should be the duty of the legislature to make laws giving effect to the ordinance; … and that, if the general government should attempt to use force to maintain the authority of the federal law, the State of South Carolina would secede from the Union,—the ordinance to go into full effect on February 1, 1833. The legislature, which met again on November 19, passed the 'appropriate' laws. But these enactments were not very fierce; as Webster said, they 'limped far behind the ordinance.' Some preparation, although little, was made for a conflict of arms;" nor was there any certain show of readiness in other Southern States to stand by South Carolina in the position she had taken. "President Jackson's annual message, which went to Congress on December 4, 1832, was remarkably quiet in tone," and neither alarmed the nullifiers nor gave confidence to the friends of the Union; but "six days later, on December 10, came out Jackson's famous proclamation against the nullifiers, which spoke thus: 'The Constitution of the United States forms a government, not a league. … Our Constitution does not contain the absurdity of giving power to make laws, and another power to resist them. To say that any state may at pleasure secede from the Union is to say that the United States are not a nation.' He appealed to the people of South Carolina, in the tone of a father, to desist from their ruinous enterprise; but he gave them also clearly to understand that, if they resisted by force, the whole power of the Union would be exerted to maintain its authority. All over the North, even where Jackson had been least popular, the proclamation was hailed with unbounded enthusiasm. … The nullifiers in South Carolina received the presidential manifesto apparently with defiance. The governor of the state issued a counter-proclamation. Calhoun resigned the vice-presidency, and was immediately sent to the Senate to fight the battle for nullification there." The president, now thoroughly roused, called on Congress for extraordinary powers to meet the emergency, and a bill embodying his wishes—called the "Force Bill"—was introduced. But, at the same time, while they showed this bold front to the nullifiers, Congress and the executive began to prepare a retreat from the ground they had held on the tariff. Henry Clay took the field again, in the exercise of his peculiar talents for compromise, and the result was the nearly simultaneous passage (February 26 and 27, 1833) through Congress of the "Force bill" and of a compromise tariff bill, which latter provided for a graduated reduction of the duties year by year, until 1842, when they should stand at 20 per cent., as a horizontal rate, with a large free-list. "The first object of the measure was attained: South Carolina repealed her nullification ordinance. … But before long it became clear that beyond the repeal of the nullification ordinance, the compromise had settled nothing. The nullifiers strenuously denied that they had in any sense given up their peculiar doctrine."

"The theory of nullification, as set forth by Calhoun, even now, after it has received the benefit of careful study and able expounding by historians, is not clear. He always avowed a loyalty to the Union, but the arguments by which he sought to demonstrate that nullification was compatible with the existence of the Union, and indeed a guarantee of its perpetuity, did not occasion much solicitude to the majority of his party. But no one at the North understood the fallacy of his reasoning or the real end and aim of his party more clearly than did the Union men of his state. They reasoned simply. Said the Camden, S. C. 'Gazette': 'We know of only two ways, under our government, to get rid of obnoxious legislation. We must convince a majority of the nation that a given enactment is wrong and have it repealed in the form prescribed by the constitution, or resist it extra-constitutionally by the sword. … But this everlasting cant of devotion to the Union, accompanied by a recommendation to do those acts that must necessarily destroy it, is beyond patient endurance from a people not absolutely confined in their own mad-houses.' … A fact … that historians have failed to lay any stress upon, and that nevertheless deserves some notice, is the holding of a state convention of the Union party of South Carolina immediately after the nullification convention had completed its work. It was the last important action of that party in the state. {3368} Randell Hunt, who presented the first resolutions, epitomized the views of the convention and the question it should consider in three sentences: 'That the Union party acknowledges no allegiance to any government except that of the United States. That in referring this resolution to the general committee they be instructed to inquire whether it is not expedient to give a military organization to the Union party throughout the state. Whether it will not be necessary to call in the assistance of the general government for maintaining the laws of the United States against the arbitrary violence which is threatened by the late convention.' The resolutions which were adopted declared that the ordinance of nullification violated the constitution of the United States and had virtually destroyed the Union, since by preventing the general government from enforcing its laws within the boundaries of the state, it made the state a sovereignty paramount to the United States. They denounced the provisions of the ordinance as tyrannical and oppressive, and the test oath as especially incompatible with civil liberty, in that it disfranchised nearly half the citizens of the state. They pointed scornfully to the project of a standing army in the state. … They concluded by declaring the continued opposition of the signers to the tariff, and their determination to protect themselves against intolerable oppression. The resolutions were signed by all the members of the convention, about 180 in number. In point of fact, the Unionists were not disposed to favor any compromise measures, and looked rather with disfavor upon Mr. Clay's bill, as a measure which was being forced upon the country. Congress, they thought, ought not to modify the tariff until the nullification ordinance had been repealed. But the greater force was with the nullifiers, and the number of their opponents was dwindling. Caught by the enthusiasm and fighting spirit of their neighbors, some of the Unionists joined the nullification military companies that were being organized, and others, seeing the hopelessness of the struggle against a superior force, in sorrow and disgust shook the dust of South Carolina from their feet, preferring to begin life over again in other parts of the South, less charged with sentiments that they believed to be treasonable. … The Unionist party, crushed and helpless, was only too anxious to bury all feuds. It never was an active force in the state again, but the bold spirit which had actuated its members was manifested later, when the struggle for state sovereignty was more widespread; and some of the most intrepid Union men of the South in the civil war were those who had fled from South Carolina years before, when the nullification party had triumphed."

      G. Hunt,
      South Carolina during the Nullification Struggle
      (Political Science Quarterly, June, 1891).

      ALSO IN:
      W. G. Sumner,
      Andrew Jackson as a Public Man,
      chapters 10 and 13.

      H. von Holst,
      Constitutional and Political History of the United States,
      volume 1, chapter 12.

The following is the text of the "Ordinance to nullify certain acts of the Congress of the United States, purporting to be laws laying duties and imposts on the importation of foreign commodities," adopted by the State Convention of South Carolina on the 24th of November, 1832:

"Whereas the Congress of the United States by various acts, purporting to be acts laying duties and imposts on foreign imports, but in reality intended for the protection of domestic manufactures, and the giving of bounties to classes and individuals engaged in particular employments, at the expense and to the injury and oppression of other classes and individuals, and by wholly exempting from taxation certain foreign commodities, such as are not produced or manufactured in the United States, to afford a pretext for imposing higher and excessive duties on articles similar to those intended to be protected, hath exceeded its just powers under the constitution, which confers on it no authority to afford such protection, and hath violated the true meaning and intent of the constitution, which provides for equality in imposing the burdens of taxation upon the several States and portions of the confederacy: And whereas the said Congress, exceeding its just power to impose taxes and collect revenue for the purpose of effecting and accomplishing the specific objects and purposes which the constitution of the United States authorizes it to effect and accomplish, hath raised and collected unnecessary revenue for objects unauthorized by the constitution. We, therefore, the people of the State of South Carolina, in convention assembled, do declare and ordain, and it is hereby declared and ordained, that the several acts and parts of acts of the Congress of the United States, purporting to be laws for the imposing of duties and imposts on the importation of foreign commodities, and now having actual operation and effect within the United States, and, more especially, an act entitled 'An act in alteration of the several acts imposing duties on imports,' approved on the nineteenth day of May, one thousand eight hundred and twenty-eight, and also an act entitled 'An act to alter and amend the several acts imposing duties on imports,' approved on the fourteenth day of July, one thousand eight hundred and thirty-two, are unauthorized by the constitution of the United States, and violate the true meaning and intent thereof and are null, void, and no law, nor binding upon this State, its officers or citizens; and all promises, contracts, and obligations, made or entered into, or to be made or entered into, with purpose to secure the duties imposed by said acts, and all judicial proceedings which shall be hereafter had in affirmance thereof, are and shall be held utterly null and void. And it is further ordained, that it shall not be lawful for any of the constituted authorities, whether of this State or of the United States, to enforce the payment of duties imposed by the said acts within the limits of this State; but it shall be the duty of the legislature to adopt such measures and pass such acts as may be necessary to give full effect to this ordinance, and to prevent the enforcement and arrest the operation of the said acts and parts of acts of the Congress of the United States within the limits of this State, from and after the 1st day of February next, and the duty of all other constituted authorities, and of all persons residing or being within the limits of this State, and they are hereby required and enjoined to obey and give effect to this ordinance, and such acts and measures of the legislature as may be passed or adopted in obedience thereto. {3369} And it is further ordained, that in no case of law or equity, decided in the courts of this State, wherein shall be drawn in question the authority of this ordinance, or the validity of such act or acts of the legislature as may be passed for the purpose of giving effect thereto, or the validity of the aforesaid acts of Congress, imposing duties, shall any appeal be taken or allowed to the Supreme Court of the United States, nor shall any copy of the record be permitted or allowed for that purpose; and if any such appeal shall be attempted to be taken, the courts of this State shall proceed to execute and enforce their judgments according to the laws and usages of the State, without reference to such attempted appeal, and the person or persons attempting to take such appeal may be dealt with as for a contempt of the court. And it is further ordained, that all persons now holding any office of honor, profit, or trust, civil or military, under this State (members of the legislature excepted), shall, within such time, and in such manner as the legislature shall prescribe, take an oath well and truly to obey, execute, and enforce this ordinance, and such act or acts of the legislature as may be passed in pursuance thereof, according to the true intent and meaning of the same; and on the neglect or omission of any such person or persons so to do, his or their office or offices shall be forthwith vacated, and shall be filled up as if such person or persons were dead or had resigned; and no person hereafter elected to any office of honor, profit, or trust, civil or military (members of the legislature excepted), shall, until the legislature shall otherwise provide and direct, enter on the execution of his office, or be in any respect competent to discharge the duties thereof until he shall, in like manner, have taken a similar oath; and no juror shall be empanelled in any of the courts of this State, in any cause in which shall be in question this ordinance, or any act of the legislature passed in pursuance thereof, unless he shall first, in addition to the usual oath, have taken an oath that he will well and truly obey, execute, and enforce this ordinance, and such act or acts of the legislature as may be passed to carry the same into operation and effect, according to the true intent and meaning thereof. And we, the people of South Carolina, to the end that it may be fully understood by the government of the United States, and the people of the co-States, that we are determined to maintain this our ordinance and declaration, at every hazard, do further declare that we will not submit to the application of force on the part of the federal government, to reduce this State to obedience; but that we will consider the passage, by Congress, of any act authorizing the employment of a military or naval force against the State of South Carolina, her constitutional authorities or citizens; or any act abolishing or closing the ports of this State, or any of them, or otherwise obstructing the free ingress and egress of vessels to and from the said ports, or any other act on the part of the federal government, to coerce the State, shut up her ports, destroy or harass her commerce, or to enforce the acts hereby declared to be null and void, otherwise than through the civil tribunals of the country, as inconsistent with the longer continuance of South Carolina in the Union; and that the people of this State will henceforth hold themselves absolved from all further obligation to maintain or preserve their political connection with the people of the other States; and will forthwith proceed to organize a separate government, and do all other acts and things which sovereign and independent States may of right do. Done in convention at Columbia, the twenty-fourth day of November, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and thirty-two, and in the fifty-seventh year of the declaration of the independence of the United States of America."

Major Lewis, one of the Tennessee friends of General Jackson, who accompanied him to Washington and was persuaded to remain, with his residence at the White House; General Duff Green, editor of the "United States Telegraph"; Isaac Hill, editor of the "New Hampshire Patriot," and Amos Kendall, late the editor of a Jackson paper in Kentucky, but a native of Massachusetts:—"these were the gentlemen … who, at the beginning of the new administration, were supposed to have most of the President's ear and confidence, and were stigmatized by the opposition as the Kitchen Cabinet."

After the breach between Jackson and Calhoun, Duff Green adhered to the latter. The "Globe" newspaper was then founded, to be the organ of the administration, and Francis P. Blair, called from Kentucky to undertake the editorship, acquired at the same time Duff Green's vacated seat in the Kitchen Cabinet.

"The establishment of the 'Globe,' the rupture with Calhoun, and the breaking up of the first cabinet had inaugurated a bitter war between the two rival papers, though really between the President and Mr. Calhoun, in consequence of which there were rich revelations made to the public."

   "Between the years 1829 and 1832 took place a remarkable
   series of debates in Virginia on the subject of slavery,
   brought about by dissatisfaction with the State constitution
   and by the Nat Turner massacre, in which a number of slaves
   had risen against their masters. In these debates the evils of
   slavery were exposed as clearly as they were afterwards by the
   Abolitionists, and with an outspoken freedom which, when
   indulged in by Northern men, was soon to be denounced as
   treasonable and incendiary. These Southern speakers were
   silenced by the Slave Power. But there were men in the North
   who thought the same and who would not be silenced. Chief
   among these was William Lloyd Garrison. He had begun his
   memorable career by circulating petitions in Vermont in 1828
   in favor of emancipation in the District of Columbia. Having
   joined Lundy in Baltimore in editing the 'Genius of Universal
   Emancipation,' he had suffered ignominy in the cause, in a
   Southern jail; drawing from persecution and hardship only new
   inspiration, he began the publication of the 'Liberator', at
   Boston in January, 1831.
{3370}
   In the following year, under his leadership, was formed the
   New England Anti-Slavery Society, which placed itself on the
   new ground that immediate, unconditional emancipation, without
   expatriation, was the right of every slave and could not be
   withheld by his master an hour without sin. In March, 1833,
   the 'Weekly Emancipator' was established in New York, with the
   assistance of Arthur and Lewis Tappan, and under the
   editorship of William Goodell. In the same year appeared at
   Haverhill, Massachusetts, a vigorous pamphlet by John G.
   Whittier, entitled 'Justice and Expediency, or Slavery
   considered with a View to its Rightful and Effectual Remedy,
   Abolition.' Nearly simultaneously were published Mrs. Lydia
   Maria Child's 'Appeal in Behalf of that Class of Americans
   called Africans,' and a pamphlet by Elizur Wright, Jr., a
   professor in the Western Reserve College, on 'The Sin of
   Slavery and its Remedy.' These publications and the doctrines
   of the 'Liberator' produced great excitement throughout the
   country."

B. Tuckerman, William Jay and the Constitutional Movement for the Abolition of Slavery, chapter 3.

The "Liberator" "was a weekly journal, bearing the names of William Lloyd Garrison and Isaac Knapp as publishers. Its motto was, 'Our Country is the World, Our Countrymen are Mankind,' a direct challenge to those whose motto was the Jingo cry of those days, 'Our Country, right or wrong!' It was a modest folio, with a page of four columns, measuring fourteen inches by nine and a quarter. … The paper had not a dollar of capital. It was printed at first with borrowed type. Garrison and Knapp did all the work of every kind between them, Garrison of course doing the editorials. That he wrote them can hardly be said: his habit was often to set up without manuscript. … The publishers announced in their first issue their determination to go on as long as they had bread and water to live on. In fact, they lived on bread and milk, with a little fruit and a few cakes, which they bought in small shops below. Garrison apologizes for the meagreness of the editorials, which, he says, he has but six hours, and those at midnight, to compose, all the rest of his time and the whole of that of his companion being taken up by the mechanical work. … It was against nothing less than the world, or at least the world in which he lived, that this youth of twenty-six, with his humble partner, took up arms. Slavery was at the height of its power. … The salutatory of the 'Liberator' avowed that its editor meant to speak out without restraint. 'I will be as harsh as truth and as uncompromising as justice. On this subject I do not wish to think or speak or write with moderation. No! No! Tell a man whose house is on fire to give a moderate alarm; tell him to moderately rescue his wife from the hands of the ravisher; tell the mother to gradually extricate her babe from the fire into which it has fallen—but urge me not to use moderation in a cause like the present. I am in earnest—I will not equivocate—I will not excuse—I will not retreat a single inch—and I will be heard.' This promise was amply kept. … In private and in his family he was all gentleness and affection. Let it be said, too, that he set a noble example to controversial editors in his fair treatment of his opponents. Not only did he always give insertion to their replies, but he copied their criticisms from other journals into his own. Fighting for freedom of discussion, he was ever loyal to his own principle. What is certain is that the 'Liberator,' in spite of the smallness of its circulation, which was hardly enough to keep it alive, soon told. The South was moved to its centre. The editorials probably would not have caused much alarm, as the slaves could not read. What was likely to cause more alarm was the frontispiece, which spoke plainly enough to the slave's eye. It represented an auction at which 'slaves, horses and other cattle' were being offered for sale, and a whipping-post at which a slave was being flogged. In the background was the Capitol at Washington, with a flag inscribed 'Liberty' floating over the dome. … On seeing the 'Liberator' the realm of slavery bestirred itself. A Vigilance Association took the matter in hand. First came fiery and bloodthirsty editorials; then anonymous threats; then attempts by legal enactment to prevent the circulation of the 'Liberator' at the South. The Grand Jury of North Carolina found a true bill against Garrison for the circulation of a paper of seditious tendency, the penalty for which was whipping and imprisonment for the first offence, and death without benefit of clergy for the second. The General Assembly of Georgia offered a reward of five thousand dollars to anyone who, under the laws of that State, should arrest the editor of the 'Liberator', bring him to trial, and prosecute him to conviction. The South reproached Boston with allowing a battery to be planted on her soil against the ramparts of Southern institutions. Boston felt the reproach, and showed that she would gladly have suppressed the incendiary print and perhaps have delivered up its editor; but the law was against her, and the mass of the people, though wavering in their allegiance to morality on the question of slavery, were still loyal to freedom of opinion. … It was just at this time that the South and its clientage at the North were thrown into a paroxysm of excitement by the Bloody Monday, as Nat Turner's rising at Southampton was called. The rising was easily suppressed, and Virginia saw, as Jamaica has since seen, how cruel is the panic of a dominant race. Not the slightest connection of the outbreak with Northern abolitionism was traced. That Garrison or anyone connected with him ever incited the slaves to revolt, or said a word intentionally which could lead to servile war, seems to be utterly untrue. His preaching to the slaves, on the contrary, was always patience, submission, abstinence from violence, while in his own moral code he carried non-resistance to an extreme. Moreover, his championship held out hope, and what goads to insurrection is despair."

"Mr. Emerson once said, 'Eloquence is dog-cheap in anti-slavery meetings.' … On the platform you would always see Garrison; with him was … Sam May. Stephen S. Foster was always there. … Parker Pilsbury, James Buffum, Arnold Buffum, Elizur Wright, Henry C. Wright, Abigail Kelley, Lucy Stone, Theo. D. Weld, the sisters Grimké, from South Carolina; John T. Sargent, Mrs. Chapman, Mrs. Lydia M. Child, Fred Douglas, Wm. W. Brown and Francis Jackson. The last was a stern Puritan, conscientious, upright, clear-minded, universally respected. Edmund Quincy also was there, and he never spoke without saying something that had a touch of wit as well as of logic. Oliver Johnson … was one of the very first members of the Society. Theodore Parker, Samuel J. May, John Pierpont, Charles L. Stearns, Charles L. Redwood, George Thompson (another wonderfully eloquent man), and, above all, Wendell Phillips."

Total population, 12,866,020 (being about 33½ per cent. more
than in 1820), classed and distributed as follows:

White. Free black. Slave.
Connecticut. 289,603 8,047 25
Illinois. 155,061 1,637 747
Indiana. 339,399 3,629 3
Maine 398,263 1,190 2
Massachusetts. 603,359 7,048 1
Michigan. 31,346 261 32
New Hampshire. 268,721 604 3
New Jersey. 300,266 18,303 2,254
New york. 1,873,663 44,870 75
Ohio. 928,329 9,568 6
Pennsylvania. 1,309,900 37,930 403
Rhode Island. 93,621 3,561 17
Vermont. 279,771 881 0

South.
White. Free black. Slave.
Alabama. 190,406 1,572 117,549
Arkansas. 25,671 141 4,576
Delaware. 57,601 15,855 3,292
District of Columbia. 27,563 6,152 6,119
Florida. 18,385 844 15,501
Georgia. 296,806 2,486 217,531
Kentucky. 517,787 4,917 165,213
Louisiana. 89,441 16,710 109,588
Maryland. 291,108 52,938 102,994
Mississippi 70,443 519 65,659
Missouri. 114,795 569 25,091
North Carolina. 472,843 19,543 245,601
South Carolina. 257,863 7,921 315,401
Tennessee. 535,746 4,555 141,603
Virginia. 694,300 47,348 469,757

In the decade between 1820 and 1830 the immigrant arrivals in the United States, as officially recorded, numbered 143,439, of which 75,803 were from the British Islands. Prior to 1821, there is no official record of immigration.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1832.
The prospective surplus and necessary tariff reduction.
Clay's delusive measure.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1832.
Twelfth Presidential Election.
Re-election of General Jackson.

General Jackson, renominated by his party almost without question, was re-elected over three competitors, the popular vote being as follows: Andrew Jackson, Democrat, 687,502; Henry Clay, National Republican, 530,189; William Wirt, Anti-Masonic, 33,108; John Floyd (voted for only in South Carolina, where electors were chosen by the legislature). The vote in the electoral college stood: Jackson 219, Clay 49, Floyd 11, Wirt 7. Martin Van Buren was elected Vice President.

"This election is notable for several reasons. It marks the beginning of the system of national nominating conventions; it gave Jackson a second term of office, in which he was to display his peculiar qualities more conspicuously than ever; it compacted and gave distinct character to the new Democratic party; and it practically settled directly the fate of the Bank of the United States, and indirectly the question of nullification. Jackson was easily re-elected, for he had established a great popularity, and the opposition was divided. A new party came into the field, and marked its advent by originating the national nominating convention. This was the Anti-Masonic party".

Both the Democratic and the National Republican parties adopted the invention of the Anti-Masons, and made their nominations for the first time by the agency of great national conventions.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1833-1836.
President Jackson's overthrow of the United States Bank.
The removal of the Deposits.

   "The torrents of paper-money issued during the revolutionary
   war, which sunk in value to nothing, converted the old
   prejudice against paper promises-to-pay into an aversion that
   had the force of an instinct. To this instinctive aversion, as
   much as to the constitutional objections urged by Mr.
   Jefferson and his disciples, was owing the difficulty
   experienced by Alexander Hamilton in getting his first United
   States bank chartered. Hence, also, the refusal of Congress to
   recharter that bank in 1811. Hence the unwillingness of Mr.
   Madison to sanction the charter of the second bank of the
   United States in 1816. But the bank was chartered in 1816, and
   went into existence with the approval of all the great
   republican leaders, opposed only by the extreme Jeffersonians
   and by the few federalists who were in public life. … But,
   long before General Jackson came into power, the bank appeared
   to have lived down all opposition. In the presidential
   campaign of 1824 it was not so much as mentioned, nor was it
   mentioned in that of 1828. … At the beginning of the
   administration of General Jackson, the Bank of the United
   States was a truly imposing institution. Its capital was
   thirty-five millions. The public money deposited in its vaults
   averaged six or seven millions; its private deposits, six
   millions more; its circulation, twelve millions; its
   discounts, more than forty millions a year; its annual
   profits, more than three millions. Besides the parent bank at
   Philadelphia, with its marble palace and hundred clerks, there
   were 25 branches in the towns and cities of the Union. … Its
   bank-notes were as good as gold in every part of the country.
   … The bank and its branches received and disbursed the entire
   revenue of the nation. … There is a tradition in Washington to
   this day, that General Jackson came up from Tennessee to
   Washington, in 1829, resolved on the destruction of the Bank
   of the United States, and that he was only dissuaded from
   aiming a paragraph at it in his inaugural address by the
   prudence of Mr. Van Buren. … General Jackson had no thought of
   the bank until he had been President two months. He came to
   Washington expecting to serve but a single term, during which
   the question of re-chartering the bank was not expected to
   come up.
{3372}
   The bank was chartered in 1816 for twenty years, which would
   not expire until 1836." But, in 1829, the influence of Isaac
   Hill, one of the so-called "Kitchen Cabinet" at Washington,
   involved the irascible President in an endeavor to bring about
   the removal of Jeremiah Mason, a political opponent, who had
   been appointed to the presidency of the branch of the United
   States Bank at Portsmouth, New Hampshire. "The correspondence
   began in June and ended in October. I believe myself warranted
   in the positive assertion, that this correspondence relating
   to the desired removal of Jeremiah Mason was the direct and
   real cause of the destruction of the bank."

"As soon as the issue between him and the Bank of the United States was declared, Jackson resolved that the bank must be utterly destroyed. The method was suggested by Kendall and Blair, of the Kitchen Cabinet. It was to cripple the available means of the bank by withdrawing from it and its branches the deposits of public funds. In the message of December, 1832, Jackson had expressed his doubt as to the safety of the government deposits in the bank, and recommended an investigation. The House, after inquiry, resolved on March 2, by 109 to 46 votes, that the deposits were safe. The bank was at that period undoubtedly solvent, and there seemed to be no reason to fear for the safety of the public money in its custody. But Jackson had made up his mind that the bank was financially rotten; that it had been employing its means to defeat his reëlection; that it was using the public funds in buying up members of Congress for the purposes of securing a renewal of its charter, and of breaking down the administration; and that thus it had become a dangerous agency of corruption and a public enemy. Therefore the public funds must be withdrawn, without regard to consequences. But the law provided that the public funds should be deposited in the Bank of the United States or its branches, unless the Secretary of the Treasury should otherwise 'order and direct,' and in that case the Secretary should report his reasons for such direction to Congress. A willing Secretary of the Treasury was therefore needed. In May, 1833, Jackson reconstructed his Cabinet for the second time. … For the Treasury Department Jackson selected William J. Duane of Philadelphia, who was known as an opponent of the bank. Jackson, no doubt, expected him to be ready for any measure necessary to destroy it. In this he was mistaken. Duane earnestly disapproved of the removal of the deposits as unnecessary, and highly dangerous to the business interests of the country. … A majority of the members of the Cabinet thought the removal of the deposits unwise. … In the business community there seemed to be but one voice about it. The mere rumor that the removal of the deposits was in contemplation greatly disturbed the money market. But all this failed to stagger Jackson's resolution. … The Cabinet, with the exception of the Secretary of the Treasury, bowed to Jackson's will. But Duane would not shelter himself behind the President's assumed responsibility to do an act which, under the law, was to be his act. He also refused to resign. If he had to obey or go, he insisted upon being removed. Jackson then formally dismissed him, and transferred Roger B. Taney from the attorney generalship to the treasury. Benjamin F. Butler of New York, a friend of Van Buren, was made Attorney General. Taney forthwith ordered the removal of the deposits from the Bank of the United States; that is to say, the public funds then in the bank were to be drawn out as the government required them, and no new deposits to be made in that institution. The new deposits were to be distributed among a certain number of selected state banks, which became known as the 'pet banks.' … The money market became stringent. Many failures occurred. The general feeling in business circles approached a panic." But the very disturbance was charged upon the Bank, itself; the people rallied to the support of their favorite, "Old Hickory," and when the national charter of the Bank expired, in March, 1836, there was no hope of its renewal. It obtained a charter from the State of Pennsylvania, and continued business as a State institution until it went to pieces in the general commercial shipwreck of 1837-41.

T. H. Benton, Thirty Years' View, volume 1, chapters 49, 56, 64-67, 77, and 92-111.

The largest section of the opposition to the Jacksonian Democracy "was organized in 1834 as the Whig party. According to the 'Whig Almanac' for 1838, the party as then constituted comprised: '(1) Most of those who, under the name of National Republicans, had previously been known as supporters of Adams and Clay, and advocates of the American system [of tariff-protection]; (2) Most of those who, acting in defence of what they deemed the assailed or threatened rights of the States, had been stigmatized as Nullifiers, or the less virulent State Rights' men, who were thrown into a position of armed neutrality towards the administration by the doctrines of the proclamation of 1832 against South Carolina; (3) A majority of those before known as Anti-Masons; (4) Many who had up to that time been known as Jackson men, but who united in condemning the high-handed conduct of the Executive, the immolation of Duane, and the subserviency of Taney; (5) Numbers who had not before taken any part in politics, but who were now awakened from their apathy by the palpable usurpations of the Executive and the imminent peril of our whole fabric of constitutional liberty and national prosperity.' It was not to be expected that a party composed of such various elements would be able to unite on one candidate with heartiness; and, as the event proved, it was necessary that some time should elapse before anything like homogeneity could be given to the organization. Nullification was not popular among the Whigs of the North, nor did the State Rights' people of South Carolina and other States care about the war on the bank and the removal of the deposits."

"It was now felt instinctively that, in the existing struggle between the parties actually arrayed against each other, and in the principles and doctrines of those who were in power, there was a peculiar fitness in the revival of a term which, on both sides of the Atlantic, had been historically associated with the side of liberty against the side of power. The revival of the name of Whigs was sudden, and it was a spontaneous popular movement. In progress of time, it enabled the public men who were leading the opposition to the party of the Administration to consolidate an organization of distinct political principles, and to strengthen it by accessions from those who had found reason to be dissatisfied with the opinions prevailing among the friends of the President."

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1835.
   First Petitions for the Abolition of Slavery
   in the District of Columbia.
   Exclusion of Antislavery literature from the Mails.

"It was during the Twenty-third Congress, 1835, that the abolition of slavery, especially in the District of Columbia, may be said to have begun to move the public mind at the North. The first petitions presented to Congress for the abolition of slavery, at least the first to attract attention, were presented by Mr. Dickson, from the Canandaigua district, New York, who addressed the House in support of the prayer of the petitioners. Perhaps his speech, more than the petition he presented, served to stir up a feeling on the part of Southern men, and to cause other and numerous similar petitions to be gotten up at the North and sent to Congress. … The labors of the enemies of slavery, or 'Abolitionists,' had commenced, and by indefatigable men who believed they were serving God and the cause of humanity, and consequently it was with them a labor of conscience and duty, with which nothing should be allowed to interfere. Instead of petitions to Congress, they now sent large boxes of tracts, pamphlets, and various publications which the Southern people denominated 'incendiary,' to the post-office at Charleston, South Carolina, and other cities, to be distributed, as directed, to various persons. This increased the complaints and inflammatory articles in the Southern papers. The publications thus sent were stopped in the post-office, and the postmasters addressed the head of the department, Amos Kendall, on the subject, who replied that though the law authorized the transmission of newspapers and pamphlets through the mail, yet the law was intended to promote the general good of the public, and not to injure any section; and intimated that, such being the effect of these publications at the South, postmasters would be justified in withholding them."

      N. Sargent,
      Public Men and Events, 1817-1853,
      volume 1, page 294-295.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1835-1837.
The inflation of credits, and Speculation.
The great collapse.

"When the United States Bank lost the government deposits, late in 1833, they amounted to a little less than $10,000,000. On January 1, 1835, more than a year after the state banks took the deposits, they had increased to a little more than $10,000,000. But the public debt being then paid and the outgo of money thus checked, the deposits had by January 1, 1836, reached $25,000,000, and by June 1, 1836, $41,500,000. This enormous advance represented the sudden increase in the sales of public lands, which were paid for in bank paper, which in turn formed the bulk of the government deposits. … The increase in the sales of public lands was the result of all the organic causes and of all the long train of events which had seated the fever of speculation so profoundly in the American character of the day. … The increase of government deposits was only fuel added to the flames. The craze for banks and credits was unbounded before the removal of the deposits had taken place, and before their great increase could have had serious effect. … The insanity of speculation was in ample though unobserved control of the country while Nicholas Biddle [President of the United States Bank] still controlled the deposits, and was certain to reach a climax whether they stayed with him or went elsewhere. … The distribution of the surplus among the states by the law of 1836 was the last and in some respects the worst of the measures which aided and exaggerated the tendency to speculation. By this bill, all the money above $5,000.000 in the treasury on January 1, 1837, was to be 'deposited' with the states in four quarterly installments commencing on that day. … From the passage of the deposit bill in June, 1836, until the crash in 1837, this superb donation of thirty-seven millions was before the enraptured and deluded vision of the country. Over nine millions and a quarter to be poured into 'improvements' or loaned to the needy,—what a luscious prospect! The lesson is striking and wholesome, and ought not to be forgotten, that, when the land was in the very midst of these largesses, the universal bankruptcy set in. During 1835 and 1836 there were omens of the coming storm. Some perceived the rabid character of the speculative fever. William L. Marcy, governor of New York, in his message of January, 1836, answering the dipsomaniac cry for more banks, declared that an unregulated spirit of speculation had taken capital out of the state; but that the amount so transferred bore no comparison to the enormous speculations in stocks and in real property within the state. … The warning was treated contemptuously; but before the year was out the federal administration also became anxious, and the increase in land sales no longer signified to Jackson an increasing prosperity. … So Jackson proceeded with his sound defense of the famous specie circular, long and even still denounced as the 'causa cansans' of the crisis of 1837. By this circular, issued on July 11, 1836, the secretary of the treasury had required payment for public lands to be made in specie, with an exception until December 15, 1836, in favor of actual settlers and actual residents of the state in which the lands were sold. … Jackson's specie circular toppled over the house of cards, which at best could have stood but little longer. … An insignificant, part of the sales had been lately made to settlers. They were chiefly made to speculators. … Of the real money necessary to make good the paper bubble promises of the speculators not one tenth part really existed. Banks could neither make their debtors pay in gold and silver, nor pay their own notes in gold and silver. So they suspended. The great and long concealed devastation of physical wealth and of the accumulation of legitimate labor by premature improvements and costly personal living, became now quickly apparent. Fancied wealth sank out of sight."

"At this time [1835-36], the Northern abolitionists sent petitions to Congress for the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia. They contended that as this territory was under the control of the United States' Government, the United States was responsible for slavery there; and that the Free States were bound to do what they could to have slavery brought to an end in that District. But the Slave States were not willing to have anything said on the subject, so they passed what was called a 'gag' law in the House of Representatives, and ruled that all petitions which had any relation to slavery should be laid on the table without being debated, printed or referred. John Quincy Adams opposed this rule resolutely, maintaining that it was wrong and unconstitutional. … He continued to present petitions, as before, for the abolition of slavery in the District. When the day came for petitions he was one of the first to be called upon; and he would sometimes occupy nearly the whole hour in presenting them, though each one was immediately laid on the table. One day he presented 511."

The gag-law has sometimes taken the name of the Atherton gag from its New Hampshire author.

W. C. Bryant and S. H. Gay, Popular History of the United States, volume 4, page 338.

"What of the administration as a whole? Parton's view is as follows: 'I must avow explicitly the belief that, notwithstanding the good done by General Jackson during his presidency, his elevation to power was a mistake on the part of the people of the United States. The good which he effected has not continued, while the evil which he began remains.' Sumner, in commenting on 'Jackson's modes of action in his second term,' says: 'We must say of Jackson that he stumbled along through a magnificent career, now and then taking up a chance without really appreciating it; leaving behind him disturbed and discordant elements of good and ill just fit to produce turmoil and dis·aster in the future.' Later he adds: 'Representative institutions are degraded on the Jacksonian theory just as they are on the divine-right theory, or on the theory of the democratic empire. There is not a worse perversion of the American system of government conceivable than to regard the President as the tribune of the people.' The view of von Holst may be inferred from the following passages: 'In spite of the frightful influence, in the real sense of the expression, which he exercised during the eight years of his presidency, he neither pointed out nor opened new ways to his people by the superiority of his mind, but only dragged them more rapidly onward on the road they had long been travelling, by the demoniacal power of his will.' The meaning of the bank struggle is thus defined: 'Its significance lay in the elements which made Jackson able actually and successfully to assert his claims, in conflict both with the constitution and with the idea of republicanism, to a position between Congress and the people as patriarchal ruler of the republic.' Elsewhere he tells us that the 'curse of Jackson's administration' is that it weakened respect for law; that 'the first clear symptom' of 'the decline of a healthy political spirit' was the election and re-election of Jackson to the presidency; that his administration paved a 'broad path for the demoralizing transformation of the American democracy'; and that 'his "reign" receives the stamp which characterizes it precisely from the fact that the politicians knew how to make his character, with its texture of brass, the battering-ram with which to break down the last ramparts which opposed their will.' According to Parton, Sumner, and von Holst, as I understand them, the net result of Jackson's influence upon the American people was to hasten their progress toward political ruin. I think this conclusion erroneous. The gravest accusation against Jackson is, that his influence undermined respect for law. It is plausibly argued that, since he himself was impatient of authority, his example must have stimulated lawlessness in his followers. It may be urged, in reply, that the history of the country does not support the charge. The worst exhibitions of general lawlessness which have disgraced the United States were the anti-abolitionist mobs of Jackson's own day—for which he was not responsible. Since then, the American people, in spite of the demoralizations of the war and reconstruction periods, have steadily grown in obedience to law. … It is a curious circumstance that the relation of Jackson to sectionalism has received very little attention; and yet the growth of sectionalism, i. e., the tendency to divide the Union into two portions, politically separate and independent, is the fact which, from the Missouri Compromise of 1820 to the ordinances of secession in 1860, gives our political history its distinctive character. The one important question concerning Jackson, as indeed concerning every public man during the forty years which precede the Civil War, is: What did he do towards saving the Union from sectionalism? … Jackson came before the country as a disciple of Jefferson, and therefore as a believer in state rights. There was, it is true, much in his temper and situation which favored centralization; nevertheless, he was an honest, though moderate and somewhat inconsistent Jeffersonian, and he won and retained the confidence of the state-rights element in the democratic party. Moreover, he identified himself with the newly enfranchised and poorer citizens just rising to political self-consciousness. In these ways, his following came to include a large majority of his fellow-citizens, and, what was of the utmost importance, by far the larger proportion of those whose political character and opinions were as yet plastic. … Jackson became, to a degree never realized by any other man in our history, the trusted leader and teacher of the masses. … This intimate relation to the people, and this unparalleled power over the people, Jackson used to impress upon them his own love of the Union and his own hatred of sectionalism. … His character was altogether national. It is easy to think of Calhoun as a southerner and a South Carolinian; but it would not be easy to think of Jackson as belonging to Tennessee or to the border states. {3375} The distribution of his support in the election of 1832 is instructive. New Hampshire, New York and Pennsylvania, as well as Tennessee, Georgia, Missouri, were Jackson's states. He was not looked upon as the representative of any particular section. His policy as President showed no trace of sectionalism. Its aim was the welfare of the masses irrespective of section. To him state lines had little meaning; sectional lines, absolutely none. There is another way in which he rendered great though unconscious service to the cause of national unity: he made the government, hitherto an unmeaning abstraction, intelligible and attractive to the people. … The chief value, then, of Jackson's political career, was its educational effect. His strong conviction of the national character of the Union, his brave words and acts in behalf of the rights of the Union, sank deep into the hearts of followers and opponents."

      A. D. Morse,
      Political Influence of Andrew Jackson
      (Political Science Quarterly, June, 1886).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1836.
Thirteenth Presidential Election.
Martin Van Buren chosen.

"As Vice-president, Van Buren was at the side of Jackson during his second term as President. It was the period of the first experiment in producing panics; of reckless expansions of the currency; of extravagant speculation; of an accumulating surplus revenue; of the last struggles of the Bank of the United States for the continuance of its powers. There was not a difficult question on which Jackson did not open his mind to the Vice-president with complete and affectionate confidence. He has often been heard to narrate incidents illustrating the prompt decision and bold judgment of his younger friend; and in those days of vehement conflicts between the power of the people and interests embodied against that power, the daring energy of the one was well united with the more tranquil intrepidity of the other. How fully this was recognized by the people appears from the action of the Democratic party of the Union. In May, 1835, it assembled in convention at Baltimore, and by a unanimous vote placed Van Buren in nomination as their candidate for the Presidency. … The Democracy of the Union supported Van Buren with entire unanimity. Out of two hundred and eighty-six electoral votes he received one hundred and seventy; and, for the first time, the Democracy of the North saw itself represented in the Presidential chair. Electoral votes were given for Van Buren without regard to geographical divisions: New York and Alabama, Missouri and Maine, Virginia and Connecticut, were found standing together. His election seemed friendly to the harmony and the perpetuity of the Union."

Mr. Van Buren received a clear majority of the popular vote cast at the election, namely, 762,678, against 735,651 cast in opposition, but divided between four Whig candidates, namely, William H. Harrison, who received 73 electoral votes, Hugh L. White, who received 26, Daniel Webster who received 14, and Willie P. Mangum, who received 11. Richard M. Johnson was chosen Vice President.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1837.
The introduction of the Sub-treasury system.

"When the banks went down, they had the government deposits: this was in May, 1837. Van Buren's administration was only two months old. The President was a warm admirer of Jackson, and had formally announced that he would continue his predecessor's policy with respect to the management of the deposits. But the 'experiment' had suddenly culminated. The government deposits were not in its control, and could not be regained; their transfer from one part of the country to another had ceased. … Once more, therefore, the government was confronted with a grave question touching its deposits and the circulating medium. It now essayed a brand-new experiment. This was nothing less than keeping the deposits itself, and transferring and paying them as occasion required; while the people were left to regulate the currency themselves. This was a very wide departure from any former policy. The mode proposed of keeping the public deposits may be briefly described. The treasury building at Washington was to constitute the treasury of the United States, and the public money was to be kept within its vaults. The mint at Philadelphia, the branch at New Orleans, the new custom-houses in New York and Boston, were also to contain branch treasury vaults. Places were also to be prepared at Charleston, St. Louis, and elsewhere. The treasurer of the United States at Washington, and the treasurers of the mints at Philadelphia and New Orleans, were to be 'receivers-general,' to keep the public money. … At the extra session of Congress in 1837, the Executive recommended the sub-treasury experiment. Congress refused to try it, although a majority in both Houses belonged to the same political party as the President. Nevertheless, the system was continued, without legislative sanction, until 1840, when Congress finally passed a bill legalizing the measure. At the presidential election in 1840 a party revolution occurred, and the sub-treasury system, which had formed a prominent issue in the campaign, was unqualifiedly condemned by the people. Congress repealed the law, and passed a bill creating another national bank," which President Tyler vetoed.

"Thus the keeping of the public money remained in the hands of the government officials, without legislative regulation, until the passage of the sub-treasury bill, in 1846. The system established at that time has been maintained ever since."

A. S. Bolles, Financial History of the United States, 1789-1860, book 3, chapter 2.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1837-1838.
Antislavery Petitions in the Senate.
Calhoun's Resolutions, forcing the issue.

"The movements for and against slavery in the session of 1837-1838 deserve to be noted, as of disturbing effect at the time; and as having acquired new importance from subsequent events. Early in the session a memorial was presented in the Senate from the General Assembly of Vermont, remonstrating against the annexation of Texas to the United States, and praying for the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia—followed by many petitions from citizens and societies in the Northern States to the same effect; and, further, for the abolition of slavery in the Territories—for the abolition of the slave trade between the States—and for the exclusion of future slave States from the Union. … {3376} The question which occupied the Senate was as to the most judicious mode of treating these memorials, with a view to prevent their evil effects: and that was entirely a question of policy, on which senators disagreed who concurred in the main object. Some deemed it most advisable to receive and consider the petitions—to refer them to a committee—and subject them to the adverse report which they would be sure to receive; as had been done with the Quakers' petitions at the beginning of the government. Others deemed it preferable to refuse to receive them. The objection raised to this latter course was, that it would mix up a new question with the slavery agitation which would enlist the sympathies of many who did not co-operate with the Abolitionists—the question of the right of petition. … Mr. Clay, and many others were of this opinion; Mr. Calhoun and his friends thought otherwise; and the result was, so far as it concerned the petitions of individuals and societies, what it had previously been—a half-way measure between reception and rejection—a motion to lay the question of reception on the table. This motion, precluding all discussion, got rid of the petitions quietly, and kept debate out of the Senate. In the case of the memorial from the State of Vermont, the proceeding was slightly different in form, but the same in substance. As the act of a State, the memorial was received; but after reception was laid on the table. Thus all the memorials and petitions were disposed of by the Senate in a way to accomplish the two-fold object, first, of avoiding discussion; and, next, condemning the object of the petitioners. It was accomplishing all that the South asked; and if the subject had rested at that point, there would have been nothing in the history of this session, on the slavery agitation, to distinguish it from other sessions about that period: but the subject was revived; and in a way to force discussion, and to constitute a point for the retrospect of history. Every memorial and petition had been disposed of according to the wishes of the senators from the slaveholding States; but Mr. Calhoun deemed it due to those States to go further, and to obtain from the Senate declarations which should cover all the questions of federal power over the institution of slavery: although he had just said that paper reports would do no good. For that purpose, he submitted a series of resolves—six in number—which derive their importance from their comparison, or rather contrast, with others on the same subject presented by him in the Senate ten years later; and which have given birth to doctrines and proceedings which have greatly disturbed the harmony of the Union, and palpably endangered its stability. The six resolutions of this period (1837-1838) undertook to define the whole extent of the power delegated by the States to the federal government on the subject of slavery; to specify the acts which would exceed that power; and to show the consequences of doing anything not authorized to be done— always ending in a dissolution of the Union. The first four of these related to the States; about which, there being no dispute, there was no debate. The sixth, without naming Texas, was prospective, and looked forward to a case which might include her annexation; and was laid upon the table to make way for an express resolution from Mr. Preston on the same subject. The fifth related to the territories, and to the District of Columbia, and was the only one which excited attention, or has left a surviving interest. It was in these words: 'Resolved that the intermeddling of any State, or States, or their citizens, to abolish slavery in this District, or any of the territories, on the ground or under the pretext that it is immoral or sinful, or the passage of any act or measure of Congress with that view, would be a direct and dangerous attack on the institutions of all the slaveholding States.' The dogma of 'no power in Congress to legislate upon the existence of slavery in territories' had not been invented at that time; and, of course, was not asserted in this resolve, intended by its author to define the extent of the federal legislative power on the subject. The resolve went upon the existence of the power, and deprecated its abuse." Mr. Clay offered an amendment, in the nature of a substitute, consisting of two resolutions, the first of which was in these words: "'That the interference by the citizens of any of the States, with the view to the abolition of slavery in this District, is endangering the rights and security of the people of the District; and that any act or measure of Congress, designed to abolish slavery in this District, would be a violation of the faith implied in the cessions by the States of Virginia and Maryland—a just cause of alarm to the people of the slaveholding States—and have a direct and inevitable tendency to disturb and endanger the Union.' The vote on the final adoption of the resolution was: (Yeas 37, Nays 8]. … The second resolution of Mr. Clay applied to slavery in a territory where it existed, and deprecated any attempt to abolish it in such territory, as alarming to the slave States, and as violation of faith towards its inhabitants, unless they asked it; and in derogation of its right to decide the question of slavery for itself when erected into a State. This resolution was intended to cover the case of Florida, and ran thus: 'Resolved that any attempt of Congress to abolish slavery in any territory of the United States in which it exists would create serious alarm and just apprehension in the States sustaining that domestic institution, and would be a violation of good faith towards the inhabitants of any such territory who have been permitted to settle with, and hold, slaves therein; because the people of any such territory have not asked for the abolition of slavery therein; and because, when any such territory shall be admitted into the Union as a State, the people thereof shall be entitled to decide that question exclusively for themselves.' And the vote upon it was—[Yeas 35, Nays 9]. … The general feeling of the Senate was that of entire repugnance to the whole movement—that of the petitions and memorials on the one hand, and Mr. Calhoun's resolutions on the other. The former were quietly got rid of, and in a way to rebuke, as well as to condemn their presentation; that is to say, by motions (sustained by the body) to lay them on the table. The resolutions could not so easily be disposed of, especially as their mover earnestly demanded discussion, spoke at large, and often himself; and 'desired to make the question, on their rejection or adoption, a test question.'"

Total population, 17,069,453 (exceeding that of 1830 by nearly
33 per cent.), classed and distributed as follows:

White. Free black. Slave.
Connecticut. 301,856 8,105 17
Illinois. 472,254 3,598 331
Indiana. 678,698 7,165 3
Iowa. 42,924 172 16
Maine. 500,438 1,355 0
Massachusetts. 729,030 8,669 0
Michigan. 211,560 707 0
New Hampshire. 284,036 537 1
New Jersey. 351,588 21,044 674
New York. 2,378,890 50,027 4
Ohio. 1,502,122 17,342 3
Pennsylvania. 1,676,115 47,854 64
Rhode Island. 105,587 3,238 5
Vermont. 291,218 730 0
Wisconsin. 30,749 185 11

White. Free black. Slave.
Alabama. 335,185 2,039 253,532
Arkansas. 77,174 465 19,935
Delaware. 58,561 16,919 2,605
District of Columbia. 30,657 8,361 4,694
Florida. 27,943 817 25,717
Georgia. 407,695 2,753 280,944
Kentucky. 590,253 7,817 182,258
Louisiana. 158,457 25,502 168,452
Maryland. 318,204 62,078 89,737
Mississippi. 179,074 1,366 195,211
Missouri. 323,888 1,574 58,240
North Carolina. 484,870 22,732 245,817
South Carolina. 259,084 8,276 327,038
Tennessee. 640,627 5,524 183,059
Virginia. 740,858 49,852 449,087

The number of immigrants arriving in the United States between 1830 and 1840, according to official reports, was 599,125, of whom 283,191 were from the British Islands, and 212,497 from other parts of Europe.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1840.
Fourteenth Presidential Election.
The Log-cabin and Hard-cider campaign.

William Henry Harrison, Whig, was elected President, over Martin Van Buren, Democrat, and James G. Birney, candidate of the "Liberty Party." The popular vote cast was: Harrison 1,275,016, Van Buren 1,129,102, Birney 7,069. The electoral vote stood: Harrison 234, Van Buren 60, Birney none. John Tyler was elected Vice President. In the early part of the campaign, a Baltimore newspaper, making a foolish attempt to cast ridicule on General Harrison, said that a pension of a few hundred dollars and a barrel of hard cider would content him in his log cabin for life. This fatuous remark gave the Whigs a popular cry which they used with immense effect, and "the log-cabin and hard-cider campaign," as it is known in American history, was memorable for its song-singing enthusiasm.—"If one could imagine a whole nation declaring a holiday or season of rollicking for a period of six or eight months, and giving themselves up during the whole time to the wildest freaks of fun and frolic, caring nothing for business, singing, dancing, and carousing night and day, he might have some faint notion of the extraordinary scenes of 1840. It would be difficult, if not impossible, otherwise to form even a faint idea of the universal excitement, enthusiasm, activity, turmoil, and restlessness which pervaded the country during the spring, summer, and fall of that memorable year. Log cabins large enough to hold crowds of people were built in many places. Small ones, decorated with 'coon-skins, were mounted on wheels and used in processions. The use of the 'coon-skins soon led to the adoption of the 'coon (raccoon) itself as an emblem and adjunct of the log cabin, and its 'counterfeit presentment' was hoisted in all the Whig papers. Meetings were everywhere, and every day, held in neighborhoods, school-houses, villages, towns, counties, cities, States, varying in number from ten to one hundred thousand; and wherever there was a gathering there were also speaking and singing. Ladies attended these meetings, or conventions, in great numbers, and joined in the singing. Farmers, with big teams and wagons, would leave their fields and travel ten, twenty, or thirty miles, accompanied by their families and neighbors, to attend a convention or a barbecue and listen to distinguished orators. Crowds on the road, multitudes in big wagons drawn by four, six, or eight horses, made the welkin ring with their log-cabin songs. Nobody slept, nobody worked, nobody rested; at least so it seemed, for all were on the 'qui vive' and in motion. The entire population seemed to be absorbed in the great duty of electing General Harrison and thus changing the government. …

   What has caused this great commotion, motion, motion,
   Our country through?
   It is the ball a rolling on
   For Tippecanoe and Tyler too,
   For Tippecanoe and Tyler too.'

The original or special friends of General Harrison very naturally claimed that it was his popularity which produced such an unprecedented 'commotion' 'our country through.' But in this they were mistaken. The popularity of no one man could have produced such a universal outpouring of the people from day to day for weeks and months unceasingly, abandoning everything else, and giving time and money unstintedly to carry the election. General Harrison was but the figure-head,—the representative of the Whig party for the time being. Few had ever heard of him. The people knew from history and the campaign papers that he had been a general in the then late war with England; that he had won a victory at the battle of Tippecanoe over the British and Indians, and also at the battle of the Thames, in Canada, where Tecumseh, the noted Indian warrior, was killed. This was enough to make a hero of him by those who had a purpose to serve in doing so. As to his fitness for the Presidency, the people knew nothing and cared nothing. A change in the government was what they desired and were determined to have."

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1841.
   The Death of President Harrison.
   Breach between President Tyler and the Whig Party
   which elected him.

President Harrison died suddenly on the 4th of April, 1841, and Vice President John Tyler became President. Tyler was a Calhoun Democrat in politics, although nominated and elected by the Whigs, and the financial measures favored by the latter were especially obnoxious to him. "Congress met May 31st, 1841. … A bill to abolish the Sub-Treasury of the previous Administration was passed by both Houses and signed by the President. A bill to incorporate 'The Fiscal Bank of the United States' was passed by both Houses. It was weeded of many of the objectionable features of the old United States Bank, but was hardly less odious to the Democrats. It was vetoed by the President. … An effort to pass the bill over the veto did not receive a two-thirds majority. The Whig leaders, anxious to prevent a party disaster, asked from the President an outline of a bill which he would sign. After consultation with the Cabinet, it was given, and passed by both Houses. September 9th the President vetoed this bill also, and an attempt to pass it over the veto did not receive a two-thirds majority. The action of the President, in vetoing a bill drawn according to his own suggestions, and thus apparently provoking a contest with the party which had elected him, roused the unconcealed indignation of the Whigs. The Cabinet, with one exception [Daniel Webster, Secretary of State, who remained in President Tyler's cabinet until May, 1843], at once resigned. The Whig members of Congress issued Addresses to the People, in which they detailed the reforms designed by the Whigs and impeded by the President, and declared that 'all political connection between them and John Tyler was at an end from that day forth.' … The President filled the vacancies in the Cabinet by appointing Whigs and Conservatives. His position was one of much difficulty. His strict constructionist opinions, which had prevented him from supporting Van Buren, would not allow him to approve a National Bank, and yet he had accepted the Vice-Presidency from a party pledged to establish one. The over hasty declaration of war by the Whigs put a stop to his vacillations, and compelled him to rely upon support from the Democrats. But only a few members of Congress, commonly known as 'the corporal's guard,' recognized Tyler as a leader."

ALSO IN: L. G. Tyler, Letters and Times of the Tylers, volume 2, chapters 1-4.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1842.
Victory of John Quincy Adams in defending the Right of Petition.

"January 21, 1842, Mr. Adams presented a petition from 45 citizens of Haverhill, Massachusetts, praying for the dissolution of the Union, and moved it be referred to a select committee, with instructions to report why the petition should not be granted. There was at once great excitement and members called out, 'Expel him,' 'Censure him.' After a good deal of fruitless endeavor to accomplish something, the House adjourned, and forty or fifty slaveholders met to decide what kind of resolutions should be presented to meet the case. Thomas F. Marshall of Kentucky was selected by this caucus from Congress to propose the resolutions, which were to the effect that for presenting such a petition to a body each of whom had taken an oath to maintain the Constitution, Mr. Adams was virtually inviting them to perjure themselves, and that therefore he deserved the severest censure. Marshall supported this with a very violent speech. Mr. Wise followed in another. Then Mr. Adams arose and asked the clerk to read the first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, being the one which recognizes the right of every people to alter or abolish their form of Government when it ceases to accomplish its ends. He said that those who believed that the present Government was oppressive had the right (according to the Declaration of Independence, on which the whole of our national unity reposes), to petition Congress to do what they believed was desirable; and all that Congress could properly do would be to explain to them why such an act could not be performed. He replied with great severity to Mr. Wise and said that Mr. Wise had come into that Hall a few years before with his hands dripping with the blood of one of his fellow beings. In this he alluded to the part which Mr. Wise had taken in the duel between Mr. Graves of Kentucky, and Cilley of Maine, in which the latter had been killed. As for Mr. Marshall, who had accused him of treason, he spoke of him with great scorn. 'I thank God!' said he 'that the Constitution of my country has defined treason, and has not left it to the puny intellect of this young man from Kentucky to say what it is. If I were the father of this gentleman from Kentucky, I should take him from this House and put him to school where he might study his profession for some years until he became a little better qualified to appear in this place.' Mr. Adams had on his desk a great many books and references prepared for his use by some anti-slavery gentlemen then in Washington; after he had gone on for some time with his speech he was asked how much more time he would probably occupy. He replied 'I believe Mr. Burke took three months for his speech on Warren Hastings' indictment. I think I may probably get through in ninety days, perhaps in less time.' Thereupon they thought it just as well to have the whole thing come to an end and it was moved that the matter should be laid on the table. Mr. Adams consented, and it was done."

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1842.
The Ashburton Treaty with England.
Settlement of Northeastern boundary questions.

   "It was arranged in December by the Peel ministry that Lord
   Ashburton should be sent to Washington as a special minister
   from Great Britain, with full powers to settle the boundary,
   and all other pending disputes with the United States. …
   Ashburton, formerly Alexander Baring, of the eminent banking
   firm of Baring Brothers, and a son of its original founder,
   was now an old man, who had retired on a princely fortune, and
   being indifferent to fame, aspired only to bring these two
   countries to more friendly terms. Like his father before him,
   he had tact and plain good sense, and understood well the
   American character, having married here during his youth. Lord
   Ashburton arrived early the next April, and on the 13th of
   June entered upon the duties of his mission.
{3379}
   Maine and Massachusetts, the States most interested in the
   disputed boundary, sent commissioners of their own to yield an
   assent in this branch of the business. The whole business as
   conducted at our capital had an easy and informal character.
   Webster and Lord Ashburton represented alone their respective
   governments; no protocols were used, nor formal records; and
   the correspondence and official interviews went on after a
   friendly fashion in the heat of summer, and while Congress was
   holding its long regular session. … This Washington or
   Ashburton treaty, as it is called to this day, bore date of
   the day [August 9] when it was formally signed. It passed by
   the Oregon or north-western boundary, a point on which harmony
   was impossible, and this was the most pregnant omission of
   all; it passed by the 'Caroline' affair; it ignored, too, the
   'Creole' case, for Great Britain would not consent to
   recognize the American claim of property in human beings. Nor,
   on the other side, were the debts of delinquent States assumed
   by the United States, as many British creditors had desired.
   Mutual extradition in crimes under the law of nations, and the
   delivery of fugitives from justice, were stipulated. But the
   two chief features of this treaty were: a settlement of the
   boundary between Great Britain and the United States on the
   north-east, extending westward beyond the great lakes, and a
   cruising convention for the mutual suppression of the
   slave-trade. As to the northeast territory in dispute, which
   embraced some 12,000 square miles, seven-twelfths, or about as
   much as the King of the Netherlands had awarded, were set off
   to the United States; Great Britain taking the residue and
   securing the highlands she desired which frown upon the
   Canadian Gibraltar, and a clear though circuitous route
   between Quebec and Halifax. Our government was permitted to
   carry timber down the St. John's River, and though becoming
   bound to pay Maine and Massachusetts $300,000 for the strip of
   territory relinquished to Great Britain, gained in return
   Rouse's Point, on Lake Champlain, of which an exact survey
   would have deprived us. By the cruising convention clause,
   which the President himself bore a conspicuous part in
   arranging, the delicate point of 'right of search' was
   avoided; for instead of trusting Great Britain as the police
   of other nations for suppressing the African slave-trade, each
   nation bound itself to do its full duty by keeping up a
   sufficient squadron on the African coast. It so happened that
   Great Britain, by softening the old phrase 'right of search'
   into 'right of visitation,' had been inducing other nations to
   guarantee this police inspection of suspected slave vessels.
   In December, 1841, ambassadors of the five great European
   powers arranged in London a quintuple league of this
   character. But France, hesitating to confirm such an
   arrangement, rejected that league when the Ashburton treaty
   was promulgated, and hastened to negotiate in its place a
   cruising convention similar to ours on the slave-trade
   suppression; nor was the right of search, against which
   America had fought in the war of 1812, ever again invoked,
   even as a mutual principle, until by 1862 the United States
   had grown as sincere as Great Britain herself in wishing to
   crush out the last remnant of the African traffic. This
   cruising convention, however, left the abstract question of
   search untouched, and in that light Sir Robert Peel defended
   himself in Parliament. The Ashburton treaty was honorable, on
   the whole, for each side; what it arranged was arranged
   fairly, and what it omitted was deferred without prejudice. …
   So satisfactory, in fine, was the treaty, despite all
   criticism, that the Senate ratified it by more than a
   three-fourths vote, and at a time, too, when the Whig Congress
   was strongly incensed against the administration, and Webster
   had made bitter enemies."

      J. Schouler,
      History of the United States,
      volume 4, chapter 17, pages 400-403.

      Treaties and Conventions between the United States and
      other countries (edition of 1889),
      pages 432-438.

      I. Washburn, Jr.,
      The Northeastern Boundary
      (Maine Historical Society Collections, volume 8).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1844.
Fifteenth Presidential Election.
Choice of James K. Polk.

The Texas treaty of annexation had been held in committee in the Senate "till the national conventions of the two parties should declare themselves. Both conventions met in Baltimore, in May, to name candidates and avow policies. The Whigs were unanimous as to who should be their candidate: it could be no one but Henry Clay. Among the Democrats there was a very strong feeling in favor of the renomination of Van Buren. But both Clay and Van Buren had been asked their opinion about the annexation of Texas, both had declared themselves opposed to any immediate step in that direction, and Van Buren's declaration cost him the Democratic nomination. He could have commanded a very considerable majority in the Democratic convention, but he did not command the two-third's majority required by its rules, and James K. Polk of Tennessee became the nominee of his party." Polk had been Speaker of the House of Representatives, and was honorably though slightly known to the country. The only new issue presented in the party "platforms" was offered by the Democrats in their resolution demanding "'the reoccupation of Oregon and the reannexation of Texas, at the earliest practicable period'; and this proved the makeweight in the campaign. … The 'Liberty Party,' the political organization of the Abolitionists, commanded now, as it turned out, more than 60,000 votes. … Had the 'Liberty' men in New York voted for Clay, he would have been elected."

Polk received of the popular votes, 1,337,243, against 1,299,062 cast for Henry Clay, Whig, and 62,300 cast for James G. Birney, candidate of the Liberty Party. Electoral vote: Polk, 170; Clay, 105; Birney, none. George M. Dallas was elected Vice President.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1844-1845,
The annexation of Texas and the agitation preceding it.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1844-1846.
The Oregon boundary question and its settlement.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1845.
Preserving the equilibrium between Free and Slave States.
Admission of Iowa and Florida.

"The slave-masters … had long pretended that the equilibrium between the free and slave States must be preserved at all hazards, and twice had they resorted to the violent device of arbitrarily linking two measures that had nothing in common for that purpose,—in 1820 combining the bills for the admission of Missouri and Maine, and in 1836 those for the admission of Michigan and Arkansas. In pursuance of the same purpose and line of policy, they were now unwilling to receive without a consideration the free State of Iowa, which had framed a constitution in the autumn of 1844, and was asking for admission. Some makeweight must be found before this application could be complied with. This they managed to discover in an old constitution, framed by the Territory of Florida five years before. Though Florida was greatly deficient in numbers, and her constitution was very objectionable in some of its features, they seized this occasion to press its claims, and to make its admission a condition precedent to their consent that Iowa should be received. The House Committee on Territories reported in favor of the admission of the two in a single measure. In the closing hours of the XXVIIIth Congress the bill came up for consideration. … The constitution of Florida not only expressly denied to the legislature the power to emancipate slaves, but gave it the authority to prevent free colored persons from immigrating into the State, or from being discharged from vessels in her ports." All attempts to require an amendment of the Florida constitution in these particulars before recognizing that ill-populated territory as a State, were defeated, and the bill admitting Florida and Iowa became a law on the 3d of March, 1845.

      H. Wilson,
      History of the Rise and Fall of the Slave Power in America,
      volume 2, chapter 1.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1845-1846.
   The Slavery question in the Democratic Party.
   Hunkers and Barnburners.
   The Wilmot Proviso.

"With Polk's accession and the Mexican war, the schism in the Democratic ranks over the extension of American slave territory became plainer. Even during the canvass of 1844 a circular had been issued by William Cullen Bryant, David Dudley Field, John W. Edmonds, and other Van Buren men, supporting Polk, but urging the choice of congressmen opposed to annexation. Early in the new administration the division of New York Democrats into 'Barnburners' and 'Old Hunkers' appeared. The former were the strong pro-Van Buren, anti-Texas men, or 'radical Democrats,' who were likened to the farmer who burned his barn to clear it of rats. The latter were the 'northern men with southern principles,' the supporters of annexation, and the respectable, dull men of easy consciences, who were said to hanker after the offices. The Barnburners were led by men of really eminent ability and exalted character: Silas Wright, then governor, Benjamin F. Butler, John A. Dix, chosen in 1845 to the United States senate, Azariah C. Flagg, the famous comptroller, and John Van Buren, the ex-president's son. … Daniel S. Dickinson and William L. Marcy were the chief figures in the Hunker ranks. Polk seemed inclined, at the beginning, to favor, or at least to placate, the Barnburners. … Jackson's death in June, 1845, deprived the Van Buren men of the tremendous moral weight which his name carried, and which might have daunted Polk. It perhaps also helped to loosen the weight of party ties on the Van Buren men. After this the schism rapidly grew. In the fall election of 1845 the Barnburners pretty thoroughly controlled the Democratic party of the state [of New York] in hostility to the Mexican war, which the annexation of Texas had now brought. Samuel J. Tilden of Columbia county, and a profound admirer of Van Buren, became one of their younger leaders. Now arose the strife over the 'Wilmot proviso,' in which was embodied the opposition to the extension of slavery into new territories. Upon this proviso the modern Republican party was formed eight years later; upon it, fourteen years later, Abraham Lincoln was chosen president; and upon it began the war for the Union, out of whose throes came the vastly grander and unsought beneficence of complete emancipation. David Wilmot was a Democratic member of Congress from Pennsylvania; in New York he would have been a Barnburner. In 1846 a bill was pending to appropriate $3,000,000 for use by the president in a purchase of territory from Mexico as part of a peace. Wilmot proposed an amendment that slavery should be excluded from any territory so acquired. All the Democratic members, as well as the Whigs from New York, and most strongly the Van Buren or Wright men, supported the proviso. The Democratic legislature [of New York] approved it by the votes of the Whigs with the Barnburners and the Soft Hunkers, the latter being Hunkers less friendly to slavery. It passed the house at Washington, but was rejected by the senate."

   In the slang nomenclature which New York politics have always
   produced with great fertility Hard-Shell and Soft-Shell were
   terms often used instead of Hunker and Barnburner.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1846-1847.
War with Mexico.
Conquest of California and New Mexico.

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1846; 1846-1847; and 1847;
      also, CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1846-1847;
      and NEW MEXICO: A. D. 1846.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1847.
   Calhoun's aggressive policy of agitation, forcing the
   Slavery issue upon the North.
   His program of disunion.

"On Friday, the 19th of February [1847], Mr. Calhoun introduced into the Semite his new slavery resolutions, prefaced by an elaborate speech, and requiring an immediate vote upon them. They were in these words: 'Resolved, That the territories of the United States belong to the several States composing this Union, and are held by them as their joint and common property. Resolved, That Congress, as the joint agent and representative of the States of this Union, has no right to make any law, or do any act whatever, that shall directly, or by its effects, make any discrimination between the States of this Union, by which any of them shall be deprived of its full and equal right in any territory of the United States acquired or to be acquired. Resolved, That the enactment of any law which should directly, or by its effects, deprive the citizens of any of the States of this Union from emigrating, with their property, into any of the territories of the United States, will make such discrimination, and would, therefore, be a violation of the constitution, and the rights of the States from which such citizens emigrated, and in derogation of that perfect equality which belongs to them as members of this Union, and would tend directly to subvert the Union itself. {3381} Resolved, That it is a fundamental principle in our political creed, that a people, in forming a constitution, have the unconditional right to form and adopt the government which they may think best calculated to secure their liberty, prosperity, and happiness; and that, in conformity thereto, no other condition is imposed by the federal constitution on a State, in order to be admitted into this Union, except that its constitution shall be republican; and that the imposition of any other by Congress would not only be in violation of the constitution, but in direct conflict with the principle on which our political system rests.' These resolutions, although the sense is involved in circumlocutory phrases, are intelligible to the point, that Congress has no power to prohibit slavery in a territory, and that the exercise of such a power would be a breach of the constitution, and leading to the subversion of the Union. … Mr. Calhoun demanded the prompt consideration of his resolutions, giving notice that he would call them up the next day and press them to a speedy and final vote. He did call them up, but never called for the vote, nor was any ever had. … In the course of this year, and some months after the submission of his resolutions in the Senate denying the right of Congress to abolish slavery in a territory, Mr. Calhoun wrote a letter to a member of the Alabama Legislature, which furnishes the key to unlock his whole system of policy in relation to the slavery agitation, and its designs, from his first taking up the business in Congress in the year 1835, down to the date of the letter; and thereafter. The letter was in reply to one asking his opinion 'as to the steps which should be taken' to guard the rights of the South. … It opens with this paragraph: 'I am much gratified with the tone and views of your letter, and concur entirely in the opinion you express, that instead of shunning, we ought to court the issue with the North on the slavery question. I would even go one step further, and add that it is our duty—due to ourselves, to the Union, and our political institutions, to force the issue on the North. We are now stronger relatively than we shall be hereafter, politically and morally. Unless we bring on the issue, delay to us will be dangerous indeed. It is the true policy of those enemies who seek our destruction. Its effects are, and have been, and will be to weaken us politically and morally, and to strengthen them. Such has been my opinion from the first. Had the South, or even my own State backed me, I would have forced the issue on the North in 1835, when the spirit of abolitionism first developed itself to any considerable extent. It is a true maxim, to meet danger on the frontier, in politics as well as war. Thus thinking, I am of the impression, that if the South act as it ought, the Wilmot Proviso, instead of proving to be the means of successfully assailing us and our peculiar institution, may be made the occasion of successfully asserting our equality and rights, by enabling us to force the issue on the North. Something of the kind was indispensable to rouse and unite the South. On the contrary, if we should not meet it as we ought, I fear, greatly fear, our doom will be fixed. It would prove that we either have not the sense or spirit to defend ourselves and our institutions.' The phrase 'forcing the issue' is here used too often, and for a purpose too obvious, to need remark. The reference to his movement in 1835 confirms all that was said of that movement at the time by senators from both sections of the Union. … At that time Mr. Calhoun characterized his movement as defensive—as done in a spirit of self-defence: it was then characterized by senators as aggressive and offensive: and it is now declared in this letter to have been so. He was then openly told that he was playing into the hands of the abolitionists, and giving them a champion to contend with, and the elevated theatre of the American Senate for the dissemination of their doctrines, and the production of agitation and sectional division. All that is now admitted, with a lamentation that the South, and not even his own State, would stand by him then in forcing the issue. So that chance was lost. Another was now presented. The Wilmot Proviso, so much deprecated in public, is privately saluted as a fortunate event, giving another chance for forcing the issue. The letter proceeds: 'But in making up the issue, we must look far beyond the proviso. It is but one of many acts of aggression, and, in my opinion, by no means the most dangerous or degrading, though more striking and palpable.' … So that, while this proviso was, publicly, the Pandora's box which filled the Union with evil, and while it was to Mr. Calhoun and his friends the theme of endless deprecation, it was secretly cherished as a means of keeping up discord, and forcing the issue between the North and the South. Mr. Calhoun then proceeds to the serious question of disunion, and of the manner in which the issue could be forced. 'This brings up the question, how can it be so met, without resorting to the dissolution of the Union? … There is, in my opinion, but one way in which it can be met; and that is … by retaliation.' … Then follows an argument to justify retaliation. … Retaliation by closing the ports of the State against the commerce of the offending State: and this called a constitutional remedy, and a remedy short of disunion. … The letter proceeds with further instructions upon the manner of executing the retaliation: 'My impression is, that it should be restricted to sea-going vessels, which would leave open the trade of the valley of the Mississippi to New Orleans by river, and to the other Southern cities by railroad; and tend thereby to detach the North-western from the North-eastern States.' … This confidential letter from Mr. Calhoun to a member of the Alabama legislature of 1847, has come to light, to furnish the key which unlocks his whole system of slavery agitation which he commenced in the year 1835. That system was to force issues upon the North under the pretext of self-defence, and to sectionalize the South, preparatory to disunion, through the instrumentality of sectional conventions, composed wholly of delegates from the slaveholding States."

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1848.
   Peace with Mexico.
   The Treaty of Guadaloupe Hidalgo.
   The acquisition of Territory.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1848.
Increased reservation of public lands for School support.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1848.
The Free Soil Convention at Buffalo and its nominations.

The "Barnburner" Democrats of New York, or Free Soilers as they began to be called, met in convention at Utica, February 16, 1848, and chose delegates to the approaching national Democratic Convention at Baltimore. In April the Barnburner members of the Legislature issued an elaborate address, setting forth the Free Soil principles of the Democratic fathers. The authors of the address were afterwards known to be Samuel J. Tilden and Martin and John Van Buren. The national Democratic Convention assembled in May, 1848. "It offered to admit the Barnburner and Hunker delegations together to cast the vote of the State. The Barnburners rejected the compromise as a simple nullification of the vote of the State, and then withdrew. Lewis Cass was nominated for president, the Wilmot proviso being thus emphatically condemned. For Cass had declared in favor of letting the new territories themselves decide upon slavery. The Barnburners, returning to a great meeting in the City Hall Park at New York, cried 'The lash has resounded through the halls of the Capitol!' and condemned the cowardice of northern senators who had voted with the South. … The delegates issued an address written by Tilden, fearlessly calling Democrats to independent action. In June a Barnburner convention met at Utica," which named Van Buren for the Presidency and called a national convention of all Free Soilers to meet at Buffalo, August 9, 1848. "Charles Francis Adams, the son of John Quincy Adams, presided at the Buffalo convention; and in it Joshua R. Giddings, the famous abolitionist, and Salmon P. Chase, were conspicuous. To the unspeakable horror of every Hunker there participated in the deliberations a negro, the Rev. Mr. Ward. Butler [Benjamin F., of New York], reported the resolutions in words whose inspiration is still fresh and ringing. … At the close were the stirring and memorable words: 'We inscribe on our banner, Free Soil, Free Speech, Free Labor, and Free Men; and under it we will fight on and fight ever, until a triumphant victory shall reward our exertions.' Joshua Leavitt of Massachusetts, one of the 'blackest' of abolitionists, reported to the convention the name of Martin Van Buren for president." The nomination was acclaimed with enthusiasm, and Charles Francis Adams was nominated for vice-president. "In September, John A. Dix, then a Democratic senator, accepted the Free-soil nomination for governor of New York. The Democratic party was aghast. The schismatics had suddenly gained great dignity and importance. … The Whigs had in June nominated Taylor, one of the two heroes of the Mexican war. … The anti-slavery Whigs hesitated for a time: but Seward of New York and Horace Greeley in the New York Tribune finally led most of them to Taylor, rather than, as Seward said, engage in 'guerrilla warfare' under Van Buren. … This launching of the modern Republican party was, strangely enough, to include in New York few besides Democrats."

"The Buffalo Convention was one of the more important upheavals in the process of political disintegration which went steadily on between the years 1844, when the 'Birneyites' deprived Henry Clay of the electoral vote of New York, and 1856, when the Whig party disappeared, and the pro-slavery Democracy found itself confronted by the anti-slavery Republican organization of the North. In 1848, though the Whig party was already doomed, its time had not yet come. The Free Soil movement of 1848 was, therefore, premature; and moreover, as the result afterwards showed, there was something almost ludicrous in a combination of 'Conscience Whigs' of Massachusetts, in revolt over the nomination of the slave-owning General Taylor, with the 'Barnburning' Democrats of New York, intent only upon avenging on Cass the defeat of Van Buren. None the less the Free Soil movement of 1848 clearly foreshadowed the Republican uprising of 1856, and of the men who took part in the Buffalo convention an unusually large proportion afterwards became prominent as political leaders."

      ALSO IN:
      H. Wilson,
      History of the Rise and Fall of the Slave Power in America,
      volume 2, chapter 13.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1848-1849.
Sixteenth Presidential Election.
Inauguration and death of General Taylor.

In the Presidential election of 1848, the Democratic party put forward as its candidate Lewis Cass; the Whigs named General Zachary Taylor; and the Free Soil Party placed Martin Van Buren in nomination. That the Whig Party should again have set aside its distinguished leader, Henry Clay, caused great grief among his devoted followers and friends. "But there were those in it who had grown gray in waiting for office under the banner of Mr. Clay, and whose memories were refreshed with what was effected by the éclat of military glory under General Jackson. It was hard, and might seem ungrateful, to abandon a great and long-tried leader. But the military feather waved before their eyes, and they were tempted. … It needed a leader, or a few leaders to give the signal of defection; and they were not wanting. One after another of the great names of the party fell off from Mr. Clay and inclined to General Taylor; and when the national Whig Convention met at Philadelphia, in June, 1848, to nominate a candidate for the Presidency, the first ballot showed that seven out of twelve of the Kentucky delegation, against the expectations and wishes of their constituency, had deserted Mr. Clay, and gone over to General Taylor. The influence of this fact was great—perhaps decisive. For if Mr. Clay's own State was against him, what could be expected of the other States? On the fourth ballot General Taylor had 52 majority, and was declared the nominee. … In November following, General Taylor was elected President of the United States, and Millard Fillmore Vice-President. As in the case of General Harrison, who died in thirty days after his inauguration, so in the case of General Taylor … he, too, died in sixteen months after he had entered on the duties of his office."

      C. Colton,
      Life, Correspondence and Speeches of Henry Clay,
      volume 3, chapter 4.

The popular vote cast at the election was, for Taylor, 1,360,099; Cass, 1,220,544; for Van Buren, 291,263. The electoral vote was, for Taylor, 163; for Cass, 127; for Van Buren, none. Millard Fillmore, elected Vice President, succeeded to the Presidency on the death of General Taylor, July 9, 1850.

Total population, 23,191,876, nearly 36 per cent. greater than in 1840. The remnant of slavery in the northern States which appears in this census, still lingering in New Jersey, was not quite extinguished in the succeeding decade. The classification and distribution of population was as follows:

White. Free black. Slave.
California. 91,635 962 0
Connecticut. 363,099 7,693 0
Illinois. 846,034 5,436 0
Indiana. 977,154 11,262 0
Iowa. 191,881 333 0
Maine. 581,813 1,356 0
Massachusetts. 985,450 9,064 0
Michigan. 395,071 2,583 0
Minnesota. 6,038 39 0
New Hampshire. 317,456 520 0
New Jersey. 465,509 23,810 236
New York. 3,048,325 49,069 0
Ohio. 1,955,050 25,279 0
Oregon. 13,087 207 0
Pennsylvania. 2,258,160 53,626 0
Rhode Island. 143,875 3,670 0
Utah. 11,354 0 26
Vermont. 313,402 718 0
Wisconsin. 304,756 635 0

White. Free black. Slave.
Alabama. 426,514 2,265 342,844
Arkansas. 162,189 608 47,100
Delaware. 71,169 18,073 2,290
District of Columbia. 37,941 10,059 3,687
Florida. 47,203 932 39,310
Georgia. 521,572 2,931 381,682
Kentucky. 761,413 10,011 210,981
Louisiana. 255,491 17,462 244,809
Maryland. 417,943 74,723 90,368
Mississippi. 295,718 930 309,878
Missouri. 592,004 2,618 87,422
New Mexico. 61,547 0 0
North Carolina. 553,028 27,463 288,548
South Carolina. 274,563 8,960 384,984
Tennessee. 756,836 6,422 239,459
Texas. 154,034 397 58,161
Virginia. 894,800 54,333 472,528

The immigration in the decade preceding this census had risen to 1,713,251 in number of persons, 1,047,763 coming from the British Islands (mostly from Ireland), and 549,739 from other parts of Europe.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1850.
   Henry Clay's last "Compromise."
   Free California, and the Fugitive Slave Law.
   Webster's Seventh of March Speech
   and Seward's Declaration of the "Higher Law."

"In 1848 gold was discovered in California. The tide of adventurers poured in. They had no slaves to take with them and no desire to acquire any. In less than a year the newly gathered people outnumbered the population of some of the smaller states. They organized a state government with an antislavery constitution, and demanded admission into the Union. True, the greater part of the proposed state lies north of 36° 30' [the dividing line of the Missouri Compromise], but its climate, tempered by the Pacific Ocean, is of rare mildness. If any part of the newly acquired territory should be opened to slavery, it seemed that California was the part best suited for it. If California repelled slavery, there was small hope that the remainder of the new territory would embrace it. Congress debated for ten months over the admission of California. The threatened inequality in numbers of the free and slave states was the central subject of contention, and the Union seemed again in danger of disruption."

      J. S. Landon,
      Constitutional History and Government of the United States,
      lecture 8.

"One day toward the close of January [January 29, 1850], Henry Clay rose from his chair in the Senate Chamber, and waving a roll of papers, with dramatic eloquence and deep feeling, announced to a hushed auditory that he held in his hand a series of resolutions proposing an amicable arrangement of all questions growing out of the subject of slavery. Read and explained by its author this plan of compromise was to admit California, and to establish territorial governments in New Mexico, and the other portions of the regions acquired from Mexico, without any provisions for or against slavery—to pay the debt of Texas and fix her western boundary—to declare that it was 'inexpedient' to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, but 'expedient' to put some restrictions on the slave trade there, to pass a new and more stringent fugitive slave law, and to formally deny that Congress had any power to obstruct the slave trade between the States. Upon this plan of compromise and the modifications afterward made in it, began that long debate, since become historic, which engrossed the attention of Congress and the country for eight weary months. At the outset, many of those who had threatened 'Disunion,' opposed 'Clay's Compromise,' because it did not go far enough, while the 'Wilmot Proviso' men were equally resolute in opposing it, because it went too far. Seward with many other Northern Whigs, adhered to the 'President's Plan' [which simply favored the admission of California and New Mexico under constitutions which he had invited their people to frame], as being a much more just and speedy way of solving the problem. Avowing himself unterrified by the threats of 'Disunion,' he insisted that neither 'Compromise' nor the 'Fugitive Slave Law' was necessary, and that it was both the right and the duty of Congress to admit the Territories as free States, to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, and the slave trade between the States. Southern feeling was predominant in the Senate Chamber, as it had been for many years. Neither of the two great parties was opposed to slavery, and the recognized leaders of both were men of Southern birth. … Mr. Clay's resolutions, unsatisfactory as they were, to anti-slavery men, at first met with objections from Southern members. One 'deeply regretted the admission that slavery did not exist in the territories.' Several would 'never assent to the doctrine that slaveholders could not go there, taking their property with them.' Some questioned the validity of the Mexican decree, abolishing slavery in New Spain, and doubted the constitutionality of any attempt on the part of Congress to exclude it. Prognostications and threats of 'disunion' were freely made. {3384} On the other hand, there began to be signs of a growing disposition, on the part of many Northern men, to give up the 'Proviso' for the sake of peace; and to follow the lead of Mr. Clay. Conservative Southern Whigs were quite ready to meet these half way. Seward's position was regarded as 'ultra' by both classes; and it not unfrequently happened that, on questions in the Senate relating to slavery, only three Senators, Seward, Chase, and Hale, would be found voting together, on one side, while all the other Senators present were arrayed against them, on the other. Newspapers, received from all parts of the country, showed that elsewhere, as well as at the capital, the proposed compromise was an engrossing topic. Great meetings were held at the North in support of it. State Legislatures took ground, for and against it. Fresh fuel was added to the heated discussion by a new 'Fugitive Slave Law,' introduced by Senator Mason of Virginia, and by the talk of Southern Conventions, and 'Secret Southern Caucuses.' … March was an eventful month. Time enough had elapsed for each Senator to receive, from the press and people of his State, their response, in regard to Clay's proposed compromise. Resolutions pro and con had come from different Legislatures. … Each of the leaders in senatorial debate felt that the hour had come for him to declare whether he was for or against it. … Mr. Calhoun, though in failing health, obtained the floor for a speech. Everybody awaited it with great interest, regarding him as the acknowledged exponent of Southern opinion. … An expectant throng filled the Senate Chamber. His gaunt figure and attenuated features attested that he had risen from a sick bed; but his fiery eyes and unshaken voice showed he had no intention of abandoning the contest. In a few words he explained that his health would not permit him to deliver the speech he had prepared, but that 'his friend the Senator behind him (Mason) would read it for him.' Beginning by saying that he had 'believed from the first that the agitation of the subject of slavery would, if not prevented by some timely and effective measure, end in "disunion,"' the speech opposed Clay's plan of adjustment; attacked the President's plan; adverted to the growing feeling that the South could not remain in Union 'with safety and honor'; pointed out the gradual snapping, one after another, of the links which held the Union together, and expressed the most gloomy forebodings for the future. Three days later a similar, or greater, throng gathered to listen to Webster's great '7th of March speech,' which has ever since been recorded as marking an era in his life. He rose from his seat near the middle of the chamber, wearing his customary blue coat with metal buttons, and with one hand thrust into the buff vest, stood during his opening remarks, as impassive as a statue; but growing slightly more animated as he proceeded. Calm, clear, and powerful, his sonorous utterances, while they disappointed thousands of his friends at the North, lent new vigor to the 'Compromisers,' with whom, it was seen, he would henceforth act."

The first and longer part of Mr. Webster's speech was an historical review of the slavery question, and an argument maintaining the proposition, as he afterwards stated it in a few words, that there is "not a square rod of territory belonging to the United States the character of which, for slavery, or no slavery is not already fixed by some irrepealable law." The concluding part of his speech contained the passages which caused most grief among and gave most offense to his friends and admirers at the North. They are substantially comprised in the quotations following,—together with his eloquent declamation against the thought of secession: Mr. President, in the excited times in which we live, there is found to exist a state of crimination and recrimination between the North and South. There are lists of grievances produced by each; and those grievances, real or supposed, alienate the minds of one portion of the country from the other, exasperate the feelings, and subdue the sense of fraternal affection, patriotic love, and mutual regard. I shall bestow a little attention, Sir, upon these various grievances existing on the one side and on the other. I begin with complaints of the South. I will not answer, further than I have, the general statements of the honor·able Senator from South Carolina, that the North has prospered at the expense of the South in consequence of the manner of administering this government, in the collecting of its revenues, and so forth. These are disputed topics, and I have no inclination to enter into them. But I will allude to other complaints of the South, and especially to one which has in my opinion just foundation; and that is, that there has been found at the North, among individuals and among legislators, a disinclination to perform fully their constitutional duties in regard to the return of persons bound to service who have escaped into the free States. In that respect, the South, in my judgment, is right, and the North is wrong. Every member of every Northern legislature is bound by oath, like every other officer in the country, to support the Constitution of the United States; and the article of the Constitution which says to these States that they shall deliver up fugitives from service is as binding in honor and conscience as any other article. No man fulfils his duty in any legislature who sets himself to find excuses, evasions, escapes from this constitutional obligation. I have always thought that the Constitution addressed itself to the legislatures of the States or to the States themselves. It says that those persons escaping to other States 'shall be delivered up,' and I confess I have always been of the opinion that it was an injunction upon the States themselves. When it is said that a person escaping into another State, and coming therefore within the jurisdiction of that State, shall be delivered up, it seems to me the import of the clause is, that the State itself, in obedience to the Constitution, shall cause him to be delivered up. That is my judgment. I have always entertained that opinion, and I entertain it now. But when the subject, some years ago, was before the Supreme Court of the United States, the majority of the judges held that the power to cause fugitives from service to be delivered up was a power to be exercised under the authority of this government. I do not know, on the whole, that it may not have been a fortunate decision. My habit is to respect the result of judicial deliberations and the solemnity of judicial decisions. {3385} As it now stands, the business of seeing that these fugitives are delivered up resides in the power of Congress and the national judicature, and my friend at the head of the Judiciary Committee has a bill on the subject now before the Senate, which with some amendments to it, I propose to support, with all its provisions, to the fullest extent. And I desire to call the attention of all sober-minded men at the North, of all conscientious men, of all men who are not carried away by some fanatical idea or some false impression, to their constitutional obligations. I put it to all the sober and sound minds at the North as a question of morals and a question of conscience. What right have they, in their legislative capacity or any other capacity, to endeavor to get round this Constitution, or to embarrass the free exercise of the rights secured by the Constitution to the persons whose slaves escape from them? None at all; none at all. Neither in the forum of conscience, nor before the face of the Constitution, are they, in my opinion, justified in such an attempt. … I repeat, therefore, Sir, that here is a well-founded ground of complaint against the North, which ought to be removed, which it is now in the power of the different departments of this government to remove; which calls for the enactment of proper laws authorizing the judicature of this government, in the several States, to do all that is necessary for the recapture of fugitive slaves and for their restoration to those who claim them. … Complaint has been made against certain resolutions that emanate from legislatures at the North, and are sent here to us, not only on the subject of slavery in this District, but sometimes recommending Congress to consider the means of abolishing slavery in the States. I should be sorry to be called upon to present any resolutions here which could not be referable to any committee or any power in Congress; and therefore I should be unwilling to receive from the legislature of Massachusetts any instructions to present resolutions expressive of any opinion whatever on the subject of slavery, as it exists at the present moment in the States, for two reasons: first, be·cause I do not consider that the legislature of Massachusetts has anything to do with it; and next, because I do not consider that I, as her representative here, have anything to do with it. It has become, in my opinion, quite too common; and if the legislatures of the States do not like that opinion, they have a great deal more power to put it down than I have to uphold it; It has become in my opinion quite too common a practice for the State legislatures to present resolutions here on all subjects and to instruct us on all subjects. There is no public man that requires instruction more than I do, or who requires information more than I do, or desires it more heartily; but I do not like to have it in too imperative a shape. … Then Sir, there are the Abolition societies, of which I am unwilling to speak, but in regard to which I have very clear notions and opinions. I do not think them useful. I think their operations for the last twenty years have produced nothing good or valuable. At the same time, I believe thousands of their members to be honest and good men, perfectly well-meaning men. They have excited feelings; they think they must do something for the cause of liberty; and, in their sphere of action, they do not see what else they can do than to contribute to an Abolition press, or an Abolition society, or to pay an Abolition lecturer. I do not mean to impute gross motives even to the leaders of these societies, but I am not blind to the consequences of their proceedings. I cannot but see what mischiefs their interference with the South has produced. And is it not plain to every man? Let any gentleman who entertains doubts on this point recur to the debates in the Virginia House of Delegates in 1832, and he will see with what freedom a proposition made by Mr. Jefferson Randolph for the gradual abolition of slavery was discussed in that body. Everyone spoke of slavery as he thought; very ignominious and disparaging names and epithets were applied to it. The debates in the House of Delegates on that occasion, I believe, were all published. They were read by every colored man who could read, and to those who could not read, those debates were read by others. At that time Virginia was not unwilling or afraid to discuss this question, and to let that part of her population know as much of the discussion as they could learn. That was in 1832. As has been said by the honorable member from South Carolina, these Abolition societies commenced their course of action in 1835. It is said, I do not know how true it may be, that they sent incendiary publications into the slave States; at any rate, they attempted to arouse, and did arouse, a very strong feeling; in other words they created great agitation in the North against Southern slavery. Well, what was the result? The bonds of the slaves were bound more firmly than before, their rivets were more strongly fastened. Public opinion, which in Virginia had begun to be exhibited against slavery, and was opening out for the discussion of the question, drew back and shut itself up in its castle. I wish to know whether any body in Virginia can now talk openly as Mr. Randolph, Governor McDowell, and others talked in 1832, and sent their remarks to the press? We all know the fact, and we all know the cause; and everything that these agitating people have done has been, not to enlarge, but to restrain, not to set free, but to bind faster, the slave population of the South. Again, Sir, the violence of the Northern press is complained of. The press violent! Why, Sir, the press is violent everywhere. There are outrageous reproaches in the North against the South, and there are reproaches as vehement in the South against the North. Sir, the extremists of both parts of this country are violent; they mistake loud and violent talk, for eloquence and for reason. They think that he who talks loudest reasons best. And this we must expect, when the press is free, as it is here, and I trust always will be. … Well, in all this I see no solid grievance, no grievance presented by the South, within the redress of the government, but the single one to which I have referred; and that is, the want of a proper regard to the injunction of the Constitution for the delivery of fugitive slaves. There are also complaints of the North against the South. I need not go over them particularly. The first and gravest is, that the North adopted the Constitution, recognizing the existence of slavery in the States, and recognizing the right, to a certain extent, of the representation of slaves in Congress, under a state of sentiment and expectation which does not now exist; and that, by events, by circumstances, by the eagerness of the South to acquire territory and extend her slave population, the North finds itself, in regard to the relative influence of the South and the North, of the free States and the slave States, where it never did expect to find itself when they agreed to the compact of the Constitution. {3386} They complain, therefore, that, instead of slavery being regarded as an evil, as it was then, an evil which all hoped would be extinguished gradually, it is now regarded by the South as an institution to be cherished, and preserved, and extended; an institution which the South has already extended to the utmost of her power by the acquisition of new territory. Well, then, passing from that, every body in the North reads; and every body reads whatsoever the newspapers contain; and the newspapers, some of them, especially those presses to which I have alluded, are careful to spread about among the people every reproachful sentiment uttered by any Southern man bearing at all against the North; every thing that is calculated to exasperate and to alienate; and there are many such things, as every body will admit, from the South, or some portion of it, which are disseminated among the reading people; and they do exasperate, and alienate, and produce a most mischievous effect upon the public mind at the North. Sir, I would not notice things of this sort appearing in obscure quarters; but one thing has occurred in this debate which struck me very forcibly. An honorable member from Louisiana addressed us the other day on this subject. I suppose there is not a more amiable and worthy gentleman in this chamber, nor a gentleman who would be more slow to give offence to any body, and he did not mean in his remarks to give offence. But what did he say? Why, Sir, he took pains to run a contrast between the slaves of the South and the laboring people of the North, giving the preference, in all points of condition, and comfort, and happiness, to the slaves of the South. The honorable member, doubtless, did not suppose that he gave any offence, or did any injustice. He was merely expressing his opinion. But does he know how remarks of that sort will be received by the laboring people of the North? Why, who are the laboring people of the North? They are the whole North. They are the people who till their own farms with their own hands; freeholders, educated men, independent men. Let me say, Sir, that five sixths of the whole property of the North is in the hands of the laborers of the North; they cultivate their farms, they educate their children, they provide the means of independence. … There is a more tangible and irritating cause of grievance at the North. Free blacks are constantly employed in the vessels of the North, generally as cooks or stewards. When the vessel arrives at a Southern port, these free colored men are taken on shore, by the police or municipal authority, imprisoned, and kept in prison till the vessel is again ready to sail. This is not only irritating, but exceedingly unjustifiable and oppressive. Mr. Hoar's mission, some time ago, to South Carolina, was a well-intended effort to remove this cause of complaint. The North thinks such imprisonments illegal and unconstitutional; and as the cases occur constantly and frequently, they regard it as a great grievance. Now, Sir, so far as any of these grievances have their foundation in matters of law, they can be redressed, and ought to be redressed; and so far as they have their foundation in matters of opinion, in sentiment, in mutual crimination and recrimination, all that we can do is to endeavor to allay the agitation, and cultivate a better feeling and more fraternal sentiments between the South and the North. Mr. President, I should much prefer to have heard from every member on this floor declarations of opinion that this Union could never be dissolved, than the declaration of opinion by any body, that, in any case, under the pressure of any circumstances, such a dissolution was possible. I hear with distress and anguish the word 'secession,' especially when it falls from the lips of those who are patriotic, and known to the country, and known all over the world, for their political services. Secession! Peaceable secession! Sir, your eyes and mine are never destined to see that miracle. The dismemberment of this vast country without convulsion! The breaking up of the fountains of the great deep without ruffling the surface! Who is so foolish, I beg every body's pardon, as to expect to see any such thing? Sir, he who sees these States, now revolving in harmony around a common centre, and expects to see them quit their places and fly off without convulsion, may look the next hour to see the heavenly bodies rush from their spheres, and jostle against each other in the realms of space, without causing the wreck of the universe. There can be no such thing as a peaceable secession. Peaceable secession is an utter impossibility. Is the great Constitution under which we live, covering this whole country, is it to be thawed and melted away by secession, as the snows on the mountain melt under the influence of a vernal sun, disappear almost unobserved, and run off? No, Sir! No, Sir! I will not state what might produce the disruption of the Union; but, Sir, I see as plainly as I see the sun in heaven what that disruption itself must produce; I see that it must produce war, and such a war as I will not describe, in its two-fold character. Peaceable secession! Peaceable secession! The concurrent agreement of all the members of this great republic to separate! A voluntary separation, with alimony on one side and on the other. Why, what would be the result? Where is the line to be drawn? What States are to secede? What is to remain American? What am I to be? An American no longer? Am I to become a sectional man, a local man, a separatist, with no country in common with the gentlemen who sit around me here, or who fill the other house of Congress? Heaven forbid! Where is the flag of the republic to remain? Where is the eagle still to tower? or is he to cower, and shrink, and fall to the ground? Why, Sir, our ancestors, our fathers, and our grandfathers, those of them that are yet living amongst us with prolonged lives, would rebuke and reproach us; and our children and our grandchildren would cry out shame upon us, if we of this generation should dishonor these ensign of the power of the government and the harmony of that Union which is every day felt among us with so much joy and gratitude. … Sir, nobody can look over the face of this country at the present moment, nobody can see where its population is the most dense and growing, without being ready to admit, and compelled to admit, that ere long the strength of America will be in the Valley of the Mississippi. {3387} Well, now, Sir, I beg to inquire what the wildest enthusiast has to say on the possibility of cutting that river in two, and leaving free States at its source and on it branches, and slave States down near its mouth, each forming a separate government? … To break up this great government! to dismember this glorious country! To astonish Europe with an act of folly such as Europe for two centuries has never beheld in any government or any people! No, Sir! no, Sir! There will be no secession! Gentlemen are not serious when they talk of secession."

"The speech, if exactly defined, is, in reality, a powerful effort, not for compromise or for the Fugitive Slave Law, or any other one thing, but to arrest the whole anti-slavery movement, and in that way put an end to the dangers which threatened the Union and restore lasting harmony between the jarring sections. It was a mad project. Mr. Webster might as well have attempted to stay the incoming tide at Marshfield with a rampart of sand as to seek to check the anti-slavery movement by a speech. Nevertheless, he produced a great effect. … The blow fell with terrible force, and here … we come to the real mischief which was wrought. The 7th of March speech demoralized New England and the whole North. The abolitionists showed by bitter anger the pain, disappointment, and dismay which this speech brought. The Free-Soil party quivered and sank for the moment beneath the shock. The whole anti-slavery movement recoiled. The conservative reaction which Mr. Webster endeavored to produce came and triumphed. Chiefly by his exertions the compromise policy was accepted and sustained by the country. The conservative elements everywhere rallied to his support, and by his ability and eloquence it seemed as if he had prevailed and brought the people over to his opinions. It was a wonderful tribute to his power and influence, but the triumph was hollow and short-lived. He had attempted to compass an impossibility. Nothing could kill the principles of human liberty, not even a speech by Daniel Webster, backed by all his intellect and knowledge, his eloquence and his renown. The anti-slavery movement was checked for the time, and pro-slavery democracy, the only other positive political force, reigned supreme. But amid the falling ruins of the Whig party, and the evanescent success of the Native Americans, the party of human rights revived; and when it rose again, taught by the trials and misfortunes of 1850, it rose with a strength which Mr. Webster had never dreamed of."

"A public meeting in Faneuil Hall condemned the action of Webster. Theodore Parker, who was one of the principal speakers, said: 'I know no deed in American history done by a son of New England to which I can compare this but the act of Benedict Arnold. … The only reasonable way in which we can estimate this speech is as a bid for the presidency.' In the main, the Northern Whig press condemned the salient points of the speech. … Whittier, in a song of plaintive vehemence called 'Ichabod,' mourned for the 'fallen' statesman whose faith was lost, and whose honor was dead. … This was the instant outburst of opinion; but friends for Webster and his cause came with more deliberate reflections. … When the first excitement had subsided, the friends of Webster bestirred themselves, and soon testimonials poured in, approving the position which he had taken. The most significant of them was the one from eight hundred solid men of Boston, who thanked him for 'recalling us to our duties under the Constitution,' and for his 'broad national and patriotic views.' The tone of many of the Whig papers changed, some to positive support, others to more qualified censure. The whole political literature of the time is full of the discussion of this speech and its relation to the compromise. It is frequently said that a speech in Congress does not alter opinions; that the minds of men are determined by set political bias or sectional considerations. This was certainly not the case in 1850. Webster's influence was of the greatest weight in the passage of the compromise measures, and he is as closely associated with them as is their author. Clay's adroit parliamentary management was necessary to carry them through the various and tedious steps of legislation. But it was Webster who raised up for them a powerful and much-needed support from Northern public sentiment. At the South the speech was cordially received; the larger portion of the press commended it with undisguised admiration. … On the 11th of March, Seward spoke. … When Seward came to the territorial question, his words created a sensation, 'We hold,' he said, 'no arbitrary authority over anything, whether acquired lawfully or seized by usurpation. The Constitution regulates our stewardship; the Constitution devotes the domain (i. e. the territories not formed into States) to union, to justice, to defence, to welfare, and to liberty. But there is a higher law than the Constitution, which regulates our authority over the domain, and devotes it to the same noble purposes. The territory is a part, no inconsiderable part, of the common heritage of mankind, bestowed upon them by the Creator of the Universe. We are his stewards, and must so discharge our trust as to secure in the highest attainable degree their happiness.' This remark about 'a higher law,' while far inferior in rhetorical force to Webster's 'I would not take pains uselessly to reaffirm an ordinance of Nature, nor to re-enact the will of God,' was destined to have transcendent moral influence. A speech which can be condensed into an aphorism is sure to shape convictions. These, then, are the two maxims of this debate; the application of them shows the essential points of the controversy."

      J. F. Rhodes,
      History of the United States from the Compromise of 1850.
      volume 1, chapter 2.

In the political controversies which accompanied and followed the introduction of the Compromise measures, the Whigs who supported the Compromise were called "Silver-Grays," or "Snuff-Takers," and those who opposed it were called "Woolly-Heads," or "Seward-Whigs."

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1850.
   Mr. Clay's last compromise.
   The Omnibus Bill.
   The Fugitive Slave Law as passed.

On the 17th of April, "a select committee of the Senate, headed by Mr. Clay, reported a bill consisting of 39 sections, embodying most of the resolutions which had been discussed. From its all-comprehensive nature it was called the Omnibus Bill. The points comprehended in the omnibus bill were as follows:

1st. When new states formed out of Texas present themselves, it shall be the duty of Congress to admit them;

2d. The immediate admission of California, with the boundaries
which she has proposed;

3d. The establishment of territorial governments for Utah and
New Mexico, without the Wilmot proviso;

5th. The excission from Texas of all New Mexico, rendering therefor a pecuniary equivalent;

6th. The enactment of a law for the effectual rendition of fugitive slaves escaping into the free states;

7th. No interference with slavery in the District of Columbia, but the slave trade therein should be abolished, under heavy penalties.

This bill was discussed until the last of July, and then passed by the Senate, but it had been so pruned by successive amendments that it contained only a provision for the organization of a territorial government for Utah. In this condition it was sent to the House. There, as a whole, the bill was rejected, but its main heads were passed in August as separate bills, and were designated the compromise measures of 1850, and, in their accepted shape, required:

(1) Utah and New Mexico to be organized into territories, without reference to slavery;

The compromises were received by the leaders of the two great parties as a final settlement of the vexed questions which had so long troubled Congress and agitated the country, but the storm was only temporarily allayed. In accordance with these measures California became a state of the Union September 9, 1850. The most important feature of this bill, in its bearing upon future struggles and conflicts, was the fugitive slave law. … In the midst of the discussion of these topics occurred the death of the President, July 9, 1850, one year and four months after his inauguration. … Mr. Fillmore was inaugurated on the 10th of July, 1850. He departed from the policy of his predecessor, organized a new cabinet, used his influence in favor of the compromise measures," and gave his signature to the Fugitive Slave Law.

"It was apparent to everyone who knew anything of the sentiments of the North that this law could not be executed to any extent. Seward had truly said that if the South wished their runaway negroes returned they must alleviate, not increase, the rigors of the law of 1793; and to give the alleged fugitive a jury trial, as Webster proposed, was the only possible way to effect the desired purpose. If we look below the surface we shall find a strong impelling motive of the Southern clamor for this harsh enactment other than the natural desire to recover lost property. Early in the session it took air that a part of the game of the disunionists was to press a stringent fugitive slave law, for which no Northern man could vote; and when it was defeated, the North would be charged with refusing to carry out a stipulation of the Constitution. Douglas stated in the Senate that while there was some ground for complaint on the subject of surrender of fugitives from service, it had been greatly exaggerated. The excitement and virulence were not along the line bordering on the free and slave States, but between Vermont and South Carolina, New Hampshire and Alabama, Connecticut and Louisiana. Clay gave vent to his astonishment that Arkansas, Louisiana, Georgia, and South Carolina, States which very rarely lost a slave, demanded a stricter law than Kentucky, which lost many. After the act was passed Senator Butler, of South Carolina, said: 'I would just as soon have the law of 1793 as the present law, for any purpose, so far as regards the reclamation of fugitive slaves;' and another Southern ultra never thought it would be productive of much good to his section. Six months after the passage of the law, Seward expresses the matured opinion 'that political ends—merely political ends—and not real evils, resulting from the escape of slaves, constituted the prevailing motives to the enactment.'"

      J. F. Rhodes,
      History of the United States from the Compromise of 1850,
      chapter 2 (volume 1).

"The fugitive-slave law was to make the citizens of the Free States do for the slave-holders what not a few of the slave-holders were too proud to do for themselves. Such a law could not but fail. But then it would increase the exasperation of the slave-holders by its failure, while exasperating the people of the Free States by the attempts at enforcement. Thus the compromise of 1850, instead of securing peace and harmony, contained in the most important of its provisions the seeds of new and greater conflicts. One effect it produced which Calhoun had clearly predicted when he warned the slave-holding states against compromises as an invention of the enemy: it adjourned the decisive conflict until the superiority of the North over the South in population and material resources was overwhelming."

      ALSO IN:
      H. von Holst,
      Constitutional and Political History of the United States,
      volume 3, chapters 15-16.

      H. Clay,
      Life, Correspondence, and Speeches; edited by Colton,
      volume 6.

      H.Wilson,
      History of the Rise and Fall of the Slave Power,
      volume 2, chapters 18-28.

      J. F. Rhodes,
      History of the United States from the Compromise of 1850,
      chapter. 2 (volume 1).

The following is the complete text of the Fugitive Slave Law: "An act to amend, and supplementary to, the Act entitled 'An Act respecting Fugitives from Justice, and Persons escaping from the Service of their Masters,' approved February twelfth, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-three.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the persons who have been, or may hereafter be, appointed commissioners, in virtue of any act of Congress, by the Circuit Courts of the United States, and who, in consequence of such appointment, are authorized to exercise the powers that any justice of the peace, or other magistrate of any of the United States, may exercise in respect to offenders for any crime or offence against the United States, by arresting, imprisoning, or bailing the same under and by virtue of the thirty-third section of the act of the twenty-fourth of September seventeen hundred and eighty-nine, entitled 'An Act to establish the judicial courts of the United States,' shall be, and are hereby, authorized and required to exercise and discharge all the powers and duties conferred by this act.

SECTION 2. And be it further enacted, That the Superior Court of each organized Territory of the United States shall have the same power to appoint commissioners to take acknowledgments of bail and affidavits, and to take depositions of witnesses in civil causes, which is now possessed by the Circuit Court of the United States; and all commissioners who shall hereafter be appointed for such purposes by the Superior Court of any organized Territory of the United States, shall possess all the powers, and exercise all the duties, conferred by law upon the commissioners appointed by the Circuit Courts of the United States for similar purposes, and shall moreover exercise and discharge all the powers and duties conferred by this act.

SECTION 3. And be it further enacted, That the Circuit Courts of the United States, and the Superior Courts of each organized Territory of the United States, shall from time to time enlarge the number of commissioners, with a view to afford reasonable facilities to reclaim fugitives from labor, and to the prompt discharge of the duties imposed by this act.

SECTION 4. And be it further enacted, That the commissioners above named shall have concurrent jurisdiction with the judges of the Circuit and District Courts of the United States, in their respective circuits and districts within the several States, and the judges of the Superior Courts of the Territories, severally and collectively, in term-time and vacation; and shall grant certificates to such claimants, upon satisfactory proof being made, with authority to take and remove such fugitives from service or labor, under the restrictions herein contained, to the State or Territory from which such persons may have escaped or fled.

SECTION 5. And be it further enacted, That it shall be the duty of all marshals and deputy marshals to obey and execute all warrants and precepts issued under the provisions of this act, when to them directed; and should any marshal or deputy marshal refuse to receive such warrant, or other process, when tendered, or to use all proper means diligently to execute the same, he shall, on conviction thereof, be fined in the sum of one thousand dollars, to the use of such claimant, on the motion of such claimant by the Circuit or District Court for the district of such marshal; and after arrest of such fugitive, by such marshal or his deputy, or whilst at any time in his custody under the provisions of this act, should such fugitive escape, whether with or without the assent of such marshal or his deputy, such marshal shall be liable, on his official bond, to be prosecuted for the benefit of such claimant, for the full value of the service or labor of said fugitive in the State, Territory, or District whence he escaped: and the better to enable the said commissioners, when thus appointed, to execute their duties faithfully and efficiently, in conformity with the requirements of the Constitution of the United States and of this act, they are hereby authorized and empowered, within their counties respectively, to appoint, in writing under their hands, any one or more suitable persons, from time to time, to execute all such warrants and other process as may be issued by them in the lawful performance of their respective duties; with authority to such commissioners, or the persons to be appointed by them, to execute process as aforesaid, to summon and call to their aid the bystanders, or posse comitatus of the proper county, when necessary to insure a faithful observance of the clause of the Constitution referred to, in conformity with the provisions of this act; and all good citizens are hereby commanded to aid and assist in the prompt and efficient execution of this law, whenever their services may be required, as aforesaid, for that purpose; and said warrants shall run, and be executed by said officers, anywhere in the State within which they are issued.

SECTION 6. And be it further enacted, That when a person held to service or labor in any State or Territory of the United States, has heretofore or shall hereafter escape into another State or Territory of the United States, the person or persons to whom such service or labor may be due, or his, her, or their agent or attorney, duly authorized, by power of attorney, in writing, acknowledged and certified under the seal of some legal officer or court of the State or Territory in which the same may be executed, may pursue and reclaim such fugitive person, either by procuring a warrant from some one of the courts, judges, or commissioners aforesaid, of the proper circuit, district, or county, for the apprehension of such fugitive from service or labor, or by seizing and arresting such fugitive, where the same can be done without process, and by taking, or causing such person to be taken, forthwith before such court, judge, or commissioner, whose duty it shall be to hear and determine the case of such claimant in a summary manner; and upon satisfactory proof being made, by deposition or affidavit, in writing, to be taken and certified by such court, judge, or commissioner, or by other satisfactory testimony, duly taken and certified by some court, magistrate, justice of the peace, or other legal officer authorized to administer an oath and take depositions under the laws of the State or Territory from which such person owing service or labor may have escaped, with a certificate of such magistracy or other authority, as aforesaid, with the seal of the proper court or officer thereto attached, which seal shall be sufficient to establish the competency of the proof, and with proof, also by affidavit, of the identity of the person whose service or labor is claimed to be due as aforesaid, that the person so arrested does in fact owe service or labor to the person or persons claiming him or her, in the State or Territory from which such fugitive may have escaped as aforesaid, and that said person escaped, to make out and deliver to such claimant, his or her agent or attorney, a certificate setting forth the substantial facts as to the service or labor due from such fugitive to the claimant, and of his or her escape from the State or Territory in which such service or labor was due, to the State or Territory in which he or she was arrested, with authority to such claimant, or his or her agent or attorney, to use such reasonable force and restraint as may be necessary, under the circumstances of the case, to take and remove such fugitive person back to the State or Territory whence he or she may have escaped as aforesaid. In no trial or hearing under this act shall the testimony of such alleged fugitive be admitted in evidence; and the certificates in this and the first [fourth] section mentioned, shall be conclusive of the right of the person or persons in whose favor granted, to remove such fugitive to the State or Territory from which he escaped, and shall prevent all molestation of such person or persons by any process issued by any court, judge, magistrate, or other person whomsoever.

SECTION 7. And be it further enacted, That any person who shall knowingly and willingly obstruct, hinder, or prevent such claimant, his agent or attorney, or any person or persons lawfully assisting him, her, or them, from arresting such a fugitive from service or labor, either with or without process as aforesaid, or shall rescue, or attempt to rescue, such fugitive from service or labor, from the custody of such claimant, his or her agent or attorney, or other person or persons lawfully assisting as aforesaid, when so arrested, pursuant to the authority herein given and declared; or shall aid, abet, or assist such person so owing service or labor as aforesaid, directly or indirectly, to escape from such claimant, his agent or attorney, or other person or persons legally authorized as aforesaid; or shall harbor or conceal such fugitive, so as to prevent the discovery and arrest of such person, after notice or knowledge of the fact that such person was a fugitive from service or labor as aforesaid, shall, for either of said offences, be subject to a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars, and imprisonment not exceeding six months, by indictment and conviction before the District Court of the United States for the district in which such offence may have been committed, or before the proper court of criminal jurisdiction, if committed within any one of the organized Territories of the United States; and shall moreover forfeit and pay, by way of civil damages to the party injured by such illegal conduct, the sum of one thousand dollars, for each fugitive so lost as aforesaid, to be recovered by action of debt, in any of the District or Territorial Courts aforesaid, within whose jurisdiction the said offence may have been committed.

SECTION 8. And be it further enacted, That the marshals, their deputies, and the clerks of the said District and Territorial Courts, shall be paid, for their services, the like fees as may be allowed to them for similar services in other cases; and where such services are rendered exclusively in the arrest, custody, and delivery of the fugitive to the claimant, his or her agent or attorney, or where such supposed fugitive may be discharged out of custody for the want of sufficient proof as aforesaid, then such fees are to be paid in the whole by such claimant, his agent or attorney; and in all cases where the proceedings are before a commissioner, he shall be entitled to a fee of ten dollars in full for his services in each case, upon the delivery of the said certificate to the claimant, his or her agent or attorney; or a fee of five dollars in cases where the proof shall not, in the opinion of such commissioner, warrant such certificate and delivery, inclusive of all services incident to such arrest and examination, to be paid, in either case, by the claimant, his or her agent or attorney. The person or persons authorized to execute the process to be issued by such commissioners for the arrest and detention of fugitives from service or labor as aforesaid, shall also be entitled to a fee of five dollars each for each person he or they may arrest and take before any such commissioner as aforesaid, at the instance and request of such claimant, with such other fees as may be deemed reasonable by such commissioner for such other additional services as may be necessarily performed by him or them; such as attending at the examination, keeping the fugitive in custody, and providing him with food and lodging during his detention, and until the final determination of such commissioner; and, in general, for performing such other duties as may be required by such claimant, his or her attorney or agent, or commissioner in the premises, such fees to be made up in conformity with the fees usually charged by the officers of the courts of justice within the proper district or county, as near as may be practicable, and paid by such claimants, their agents or attorneys, whether such supposed fugitives from service or labor be ordered to be delivered to such claimants by the final determination of such commissioners or not.

SECTION 9. And be it further enacted, That, upon affidavit made by the claimant of such fugitive, his agent or attorney, after such certificate has been issued, that he has reason to apprehend that such fugitive will be rescued by force from his or their possession before he can be taken beyond the limits of the State in which the arrest is made, it shall be the duty of the officer making the arrest to retain such fugitive in his custody, and to remove him to the State whence he fled, and there to deliver him to said claimant, his agent, or attorney. And to this end, the officer aforesaid is hereby authorized and required to employ so many persons as he may deem necessary to overcome such force, and to retain them in his service so long as circumstances may require. The said officer and his assistants, while so employed, to receive the same compensation, and to be allowed the same expenses, as are now allowed by law for transportation of criminals, to be certified by the judge of the district within which the arrest is made, and paid out of the treasury of the United States.

SECTION 10. And be it further enacted, That when any person held to service or labor in any State or Territory, or in the District of Columbia, shall escape therefrom, the party to whom such service or labor shall be due, his, her, or their agent or attorney, may apply to any court of record therein, or judge thereof in vacation, and make satisfactory proof to such court, or judge in vacation, of the escape aforesaid, and that the person escaping owed service or labor to such party. Whereupon the court shall cause a record to be made of the matters so proved, and also a general description of the person so escaping, with such convenient certainty as may be; and a transcript of such record, authenticated by the attestation of the clerk and of the seal of the said court, being produced in any other State, Territory, or district in which the person so escaping may be found, and being exhibited to any judge, commissioner, or other officer authorized by the law of the United States to cause persons escaping from service or labor to be delivered up, shall be held and taken to be full and conclusive evidence of the fact of escape, and that the service or labor of the person escaping is due to the party in such record mentioned. And upon the production by the said party of other and further evidence if necessary, either oral or by affidavit, in addition to what is contained in the said record of the identity of the person escaping, he or she shall be delivered up to the claimant. {3391} And the said court, commissioner, judge, or other person authorized by this act to grant certificates to claimants of fugitives, shall, upon the production of the record and other evidences aforesaid, grant to such claimant a certificate of his right to take any such person identified and proved to be owing service or labor as aforesaid, which certificate shall authorize such claimant to seize or arrest and transport such person to the State or Territory from which he escaped: Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed as requiring the production of a transcript of such record as evidence as aforesaid. But in its absence the claim shall be heard and determined upon other satisfactory proofs, competent in law. Approved, September 18, 1850."

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1850.
The Clayton-Bulwer Treaty with Great Britain.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1850-1851.
The Hülsemann Letter.
Kossuth in America.

In July, 1850, Daniel Webster became Secretary of State in the cabinet of President Fillmore and retained that post until his death, in October, 1852. "The best-known incident of this period was that which gave rise to the famous 'Hülsemann letter.' President Taylor had sent an agent to Hungary to report upon the condition of the revolutionary government, with the intention of recognizing it if there were sufficient grounds for doing so. When the agent arrived, the revolution was crushed, and he reported to the President against recognition. These papers were transmitted to the Senate in March, 1850. Mr. Hülsemann, the Austrian Charge, thereupon complained of the action of our administration, and Mr. Clayton, then Secretary of State, replied that the mission of the agent had been simply to gather information. On receiving further instructions from his government, Mr. Hülsemann rejoined to Mr. Clayton, and it fell to Mr. Webster to reply, which he did on December 21, 1850. The note of the Austrian Chargé was in a hectoring and highly offensive tone, and Mr. Webster felt the necessity of administering a sharp rebuke. 'The Hülsemann letter,' as it was called, was, accordingly dispatched. It set forth strongly the right of the United States and their intention to recognize any de facto revolutionary government, and to seek information in all proper ways in order to guide their action. … Mr. Webster had two objects. One was to awaken the people of Europe to a sense of the greatness of this country, the other to touch the national pride at home. He did both. … The affair did not, however, end here. Mr. Hülsemann became very mild, but he soon lost his temper again. Kossuth and the refugees in Turkey were brought to this country in a United States frigate. The Hungarian hero was received with a burst of enthusiasm that induced him to hope for substantial aid, which was, of course, wholly visionary. The popular excitement made it difficult for Mr. Webster to steer a proper course, but he succeeded, by great tact, in showing his own sympathy, and, so far as possible, that of the government, for the cause of Hungarian independence and for its leader, without going too far. … Mr. Webster's course, … although carefully guarded, aroused the ire of Mr. Hülsemann, who left the country, after writing a letter of indignant farewell to the Secretary of State."

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1851.
The Lopez Filibustering expedition to Cuba.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1852.
Appearance of the Know Nothing or American Party.

"A new party had by this time risen to active importance in American politics. It appeared in 1852, in the form of a secret, oath-bound organization, of whose name, nature, and objects nothing was told even to its members until they had reached its higher degrees. Their consequent declaration that they knew nothing about it gave the society its popular name of Know Nothings. It accepted the name of the American Party. Its design was to oppose the easy naturalization of foreigners, and to aid the election of native-born citizens to office. Its nominations were made by secret conventions of delegates from the various lodges, and were voted for by all members under penalty of expulsion in case of refusal. At first, by endorsing the nominations of one or other of the two great parties, it decided many elections. After the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Bill, the Know Nothing organization was adopted by many Southern Whigs who were unwilling to unite with the Democracy, and became, for a time, a national party. It carried nine of the State elections in 1855, and in 1856 nominated Presidential candidates. After that time its Southern members gradually united with the Democracy, and the Know Nothing party disappeared from politics."

The ritual, rules, etc., of the American, or Know Nothing party are given in the following work.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1852.
Seventeenth Presidential Election.
Franklin Pierce.

   "The question of slavery, in its comprehensive bearings,
   formed the turning point in the presidential canvass of 1852.
   … The national democratic convention which nominated Mr.
   Pierce, unanimously adopted a platform approving the
   compromise of 1850 as the final decision of the slavery
   question. The Whig party were widely divided on the question
   of acquiescence in the compromise measures, and still more at
   variance in regard to the claims of rival candidates for the
   presidency. Mr. Seward's friends in the free states united in
   the support of General Scott, who had, to a considerable
   extent, stood aloof from the agitations of the last few years.
   On the other hand, the exclusive supporters of the compromise,
   as a condition of party allegiance, were divided between
   Millard Fillmore, at that time acting president, and Daniel
   Webster, secretary of state. The Whig convention met in
   Baltimore on the 17th of June, 1852, two weeks after the
   democratic convention, and nominated General Scott as their
   candidate for president. A large majority of the delegates
   from New York, and a considerable number from other states,
   maintained their opposition to the test resolutions which were
   proposed by the other branch of the party. These resolutions,
   however, were adopted, and a platform was thus established
   resembling, in its main features, that of the democrats. …
   Supported by several advocates of this new platform on the
   ground of his personal popularity, General Scott received the
   nomination.
{3392}
   He was, however, regarded with great suspicion by a large
   number of whigs in the slaveholding states. … Many ardent
   friends of the compromise … refused to rally around General
   Scott, distrusting his fidelity to the compromise platform;
   while a large number of the Whigs of the free states, through
   aversion to the platform, assumed a neutral position or gave
   their support to a third candidate. Another portion of the
   Whig party nominated Mr. Webster, who died [October 24, 1852],
   not only refusing to decline the nomination, but openly
   avowing his disgust with the action of the party."

      G. E. Baker,
      Memoir of William. H. Seward
      (Seward's Works, volume 4).

"The Democratic convention was held, first, on June 1, 1852, at Baltimore. It was a protracted convention, for it did not adjourn until the 6th of the month, but it was not very interesting. … After a short contest, the two-thirds rule was adopted by an overwhelming majority. The struggle over the nomination was protracted. On the first ballot, General Cass had 116; James Buchanan, 93; William L. Marcy, 27; Stephen A. Douglas, 20; Joseph Lane, 13; Samuel Houston, 8; and there were 4 scattering. The number necessary to a choice was 188. … On the twenty-ninth trial, the votes were: for Cass, 27; for Buchanan, 93; for Douglas, 91; and no other candidate had more than 26. At this point Cass began to recover his strength, and reached his largest number on the thirty-fifth trial, namely, 131. On that same ballot, Virginia gave 15 votes to Franklin Pierce. Mr. Pierce gained 15 more votes on the thirty-sixth trial; but at that point his increase ceased, and was then slowly resumed, as the weary repetition of balloting without effect went on. The forty-eighth trial resulted as follows: for Cass, 73; for Buchanan, 28; for Douglas, 33; for Marcy, 90; for Pierce, 55; for all others, 8. The forty-ninth trial was the last. There was a 'stampede' for Pierce, and he received 282 votes to 6 for all others. Ten candidates were voted for as a candidate for the vice-presidency.—On the second ballot, William R. King of Alabama was unanimously nominated. … The anti-slavery organization, the Free Soil Democrats, though a much less important political factor than they had been four years earlier, held their convention in Pittsburg on August 11. Henry Wilson of Massachusetts presided. John P. Hale of New Hampshire was nominated for President, and George W. Julian of Indiana for Vice-President. … The canvass was not a very spirited one. All the early autumn elections were favorable to the Democrats, and the result in November was a crushing defeat of the Whigs in the popular vote and one still more decisive in the electoral vote. … The popular and electoral votes were as follows." Popular vote: Franklin Pierce, 1,601,274; Winfield Scott, 1,386,580; John P. Hale, 155,825. Electoral vote: Pierce, 254; Scott, 42.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1852.
The appearance of Uncle Tom's Cabin, and its effect.

"Of the literary forces that aided in bringing about the immense revolution in public sentiment between 1852 and 1860, we may affirm with confidence that by far the most weighty was the influence spread by this book. This story, when published [1851-1852] as a serial in the 'National Era,' an anti-slavery newspaper at Washington, attracted little attention, but after it was given to the world in book form in March, 1852, it proved the most successful novel ever written. The author felt deeply that the Fugitive Slave law was unjust, and that there was cruelty in its execution; this inspired her to pour out her soul in a protest against slavery. She thought that if she could only make the world see slavery as she saw it, her object would be accomplished; she would then have induced people to think right on the subject. The book was composed under the most disheartening circumstances. Worn out with the care of many young children; overstrained by the domestic trials of a large household, worried because her husband's small income did not meet their frugal needs; eking out the poor professor's salary by her literary work in a house too small to afford a study for the author—under such conditions there came the inspiration of her life. … The effect produced by the book was immense. Whittier offered up 'thanks for the Fugitive Slave law; for it gave occasion for Uncle Tom's Cabin.' Longfellow thought it was one of the greatest triumphs in literary history, but its moral effect was a higher triumph still. Lowell described the impression which the book made as a 'whirl of excitement.' Choate is reported to have said: 'That book will make two millions of abolitionists.' Garrison wrote the author: 'All the defenders of slavery have let me alone and are abusing you.'"

J. F. Rhodes, History of the United States from 1850, volume 1, pages 278-280.

Writing only nine months after the publication of "Uncle Tom's Cabin," C. F. Briggs, in Putnam's Monthly Magazine, said: "Never since books were first printed has the success of Uncle Tom been equalled; the history of literature contains nothing parallel to it, nor approaching it; it is, in fact, the first real success in bookmaking, for all other successes in literature were failures when compared with the success of Uncle Tom. … There have been a good many books which were considered popular on their first appearance, which were widely read and more widely talked about. But what were they all, compared with Uncle Tom, whose honest countenance now overshadows the reading world, like the dark cloud with a silver lining. Don Quixote was a popular book on its first coming out, and so was Gil Blas, and Richardson's Pamela, and Fielding's Tom Jones, and Hannah More's Cœlebs, and Gibbon's Decline and Fall; and so were the Vicar of Wakefield, and Rasselas, and the Tale of a Tub, and Evelina, the Lady of the Lake, Waverley, the Sorrows of Werter, Childe Harold, the Spy, Pelham, Vivian Grey, Pickwick, the Mysteries of Paris, and Macaulay's History. These are among the most famous books that rose suddenly in popular esteem on their first appearance, but the united sale of the whole of them, within the first nine months of their publication, would not equal the sale of Uncle Tom in the same time. … It is but nine months since this Iliad of the blacks, as an English reviewer calls Uncle Tom, made its appearance among books, and already its sale has exceeded a million of copies; author and publisher have made fortunes out of it, and Mrs. Stowe, who was before unknown, is as familiar a name in all parts of the civilized world as that of Homer or Shakspeare. Nearly 200,000 copies of the first edition of the work have been sold in the United States, and the publishers say they are unable to meet the growing demand. {3393} The book was published on the 20th of last March, and on the 1st of December there had been sold 120,000 sets of the edition in two volumes. 50,000 copies of the cheaper edition in one, and 3,000 copies of the costly illustrated edition. … They [the publishers] have paid to the author $20,300 as her share of the profits on the actual cash sales of the first nine months. But it is in England where Uncle Tom has made his deepest mark. Such has been the sensation produced by the book there, and so numerous have been the editions published, that it is extremely difficult to collect the statistics of its circulation with a tolerable degree of exactness. But we know of twenty rival editions in England and Scotland, and that millions of copies have been produced. … We have seen it stated that there were thirty different editions published in London, within six months of the publication of the work here, and one firm keeps 400 men employed in printing and binding it. … Uncle Tom was not long in making his way across the British Channel, and four rival editions are claiming the attention of the Parisians, one under the title of 'le Père Tom,' and another of 'la Case de l'Oncle Tom.'"

"In May, 1852. Whittier wrote to Garrison: 'What a glorious work Harriet Beecher Stowe has wrought. Thanks for the Fugitive Slave Law. Better for slavery that that law had never been enacted, for it gave occasion for Uncle Tom's Cabin.' … Macaulay wrote, thanking her for the volume, assuring her of his high respect for the talents and for the benevolence of the writer. Four years later, the same illustrious author, essayist, and historian wrote to Mrs. Stowe: 'I have just returned from Italy, where your fame seems to throw that of all other writers into the shade. There is no place where Uncle Tom, transformed into Il Zio Tom, is not to be found.' From Lord Carlisle she received a long and earnest epistle, in which he says he felt that slavery was by far the 'topping' question of the world and age, and that he returned his 'deep and solemn thanks to Almighty God, who has led and enabled you to write such a book.' The Rev. Charles Kingsley, in the midst of illness and anxiety, sent his thanks, saying: 'Your book will do more to take away the reproach from your great and growing nation than many platform agitations and speechifyings.' Said Lord Palmerston, 'I have not read a novel for thirty years; but I have read that book three times, not only for the story, but for the statesmanship of it.' Lord Cockburn declared: 'She has done more for humanity than was ever before accomplished by any single book of fiction.' Within a year Uncle Tom's Cabin was scattered all over the world. Translations were made into all the principal languages, and into several obscure dialects, in number variously estimated from twenty to forty. The librarian of the British Museum, with an interest and enterprise which might well put our own countrymen to blush, has made a collection which is unique and very remarkable in the history of books. American visitors may see there thirty-five editions (Uncle Tom's Cabin) of the original English, and the complete text, and eight of abridgments and adaptations. Of translations into different languages there are nineteen, viz.: Armenian, one; Bohemian, one; Danish, two distinct versions; Dutch, one; Flemish, one; French, eight distinct versions, and two dramas; German, five distinct versions, and four abridgments; Hungarian, one complete version, one for children, and one versified abridgment; Illyrian, two distinct versions; Italian, one; Polish, two distinct versions; Portuguese, one; Roman, or modern Greek, one; Russian, two distinct versions; Spanish, six distinct versions; Swedish, one; Wallachian, two distinct versions; Welsh, three distinct versions."

      Mrs. F. T. McCray,
      Uncle Tom's Cabin
      (Magazine of American History, January, 1890).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1852-1854.
The Perry Expedition.
Opening of intercourse with Japan.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1854.
   The Kansas-Nebraska Bill.
   Repeal of the Missouri Compromise.
   The doctrine of "Squatter Sovereignty."

   "The slavery agitation apparently had died away both in
   congress and throughout the country. This calm, however, was
   doomed to a sudden interruption. The prospect of … beneficent
   legislation was destroyed by the introduction of a measure
   which at once supplanted all other subjects in congress and in
   the political interests of the people. This was the novel and
   astounding proposal of Mr. Douglas [Senator Stephen A.
   Douglas, of Illinois], in relation to the Kansas and Nebraska
   territories. … The measure … alluded to … was a provision in
   the bill for the organization of a territory in Nebraska,
   declaring that the states which might at any future time be
   formed in the new territory should leave the question of
   slavery to be decided by the inhabitants thereof on the
   adoption of their constitution,—[this being in accordance with
   the doctrine which its advocates styled 'Popular Sovereignty,'
   but which took the commoner name of 'Squatter Sovereignty'
   from its opponents]. This provision was, as explained by the
   bill itself, the application of the compromise policy of 1850
   to Nebraska, and, as was evident, virtually repealed the
   Missouri Compromise of 1820, which guarantied that slavery
   should be forever excluded from the territory in question.
   But, in order to bring the supporters of the bill and its
   opponents to a more decided test, an amendment was moved
   expressly annulling that portion of the Missouri Compromise
   which related to the subject. Mr. Douglas, after some
   deliberation, accepted the amendment, and modified his plan so
   far as to introduce a new bill for the organization of
   Nebraska and Kansas within the same limits, instead of the
   territory of Nebraska alone, according to the original
   programme. The administration lost no time in adopting this
   policy as their own. It was at first proposed to hasten the
   passage of the bill through both houses so rapidly as to
   prevent any remonstrance on the part of the people. But the
   opponents of the measure, including Mr. Seward, Mr. Chase, Mr.
   Sumner, Mr. Truman Smith, Mr. Wade, Mr. Everett, Mr. Bell, Mr.
   Houston, and Mr. Fessenden, combined against it such an
   earnest and effective resistance that the attention of the
   country was aroused, and an indignant protest called forth
   from the people of the free states. The bill, however, passed
   the senate on the 4th day of March, 1854, after a discussion
   which had occupied nearly every day of the session since the
   23d of January. …
{3394}
   On the 21st of March, Mr. Richardson of Illinois, in the
   house, moved to refer the bill, as it came from the senate, to
   the committee on territories, of which he was the chairman.
   Mr. Francis B. Cutting, of New York, moved that it be sent to
   the committee of the whole, where it could be freely
   discussed. His motion was carried, after a severe struggle, by
   a vote of 110 to 95. This was regarded as a triumph of the
   enemies of the bill and inspired hopes of its ultimate defeat
   in the house. On the 22d of May, after a most exciting
   contest, lasting nearly two months, in committee of the whole,
   Mr. Alex. H. Stephens of Georgia, by an extraordinary
   stratagem in parliamentary tactics, succeeded in closing the
   debate and bringing the bill to a vote in the house, where it
   finally passed, before adjournment, by a vote of 113 to 100."
   Returned to the senate, on account of amendments which had
   been made to it, it passed that body again "by vote of 35 to
   13; and amid the firing of cannon and the shouting of its
   friends, it was sent to the president for his signature, at
   three o'clock in the morning of May 26, 1854. President Pierce
   promptly gave it his approval, and the odious measure became
   the law of the land. Thus was abrogated the Missouri
   Compromise—a law enacted thirty years before with all the
   solemnity of a compact between the free and the slave
   states—and a territory as large as the thirteen original
   states opened to slavery. The act was consummated by the
   cooperation of the north. Originating with a senator from a
   free state, it was passed by a congress containing in each
   branch a majority of members from the free states, and was
   sanctioned by the approval of a free state president. The
   friends of this legislation attempted to defend it on the
   pretence that it was not an original act, but only declaratory
   of the true intent and significance of the compromise measures
   of 1850."

G. E. Baker, Memoir of William H. Seward (volume 4 of Seward's Works), pages 24-27.

Senator Douglas' explanation of the reasons on which he grounded his Kansas-Nebraska Bill is given in a report made by Lieutenant-Colonel Cutts, of conversations held by him with the Senator in 1859, and taken down in writing at the time, in the exact language of Mr. Douglas. "There was," said Senator Douglas, "a necessity for the organization of the Territory, which could no longer be denied or resisted. … Mr. Douglas, as early as the session of 1843, had introduced a bill to organize the Territory of Nebraska, for the purpose of opening the line of communication between the Mississippi Valley and our possessions on the Pacific Ocean, known as the Oregon country, and which was then under the operation of the treaty of joint occupation, or rather non occupation, with England, and was rapidly passing into the exclusive possession of the British Hudson's Bay Fur Company, who were establishing posts at every prominent and commanding point in the country. … Mr. Douglas renewed the introduction of his bill for the organization of Nebraska Territory, each session of Congress, from 1844 to 1854, a period of ten years, and while he had failed to secure the passage of the act, in consequence of the Mexican war intervening, and the slavery agitation which ensued, no one had objected to it upon the ground that there was no necessity for the organization of the Territory. During the discussions upon our Territorial questions during this period, Mr. Douglas often called attention to the fact that a line of policy had been adopted many years ago, and was being executed each year, which was entirely incompatible with the growth and development of our country. It had originated as early as the administration of Mr. Monroe, and had been continued by Mr. Adams, General Jackson, Mr. Van Buren, Harrison, and by Tyler, by which treaties had been made with the Indians to the east of the Mississippi River, for their removal to the country bordering upon the States west of the Mississippi or Missouri Rivers, with guaranties in said treaties that the country within which these Indians were located should never be embraced within any Territory or State, or subjected to the jurisdiction of either, so long as grass should grow and water should run. These Indian settlements, thus secured by treaty, commenced upon the northern borders of Texas, or Red River, and were continued from year to year westward, until when, in 1844, Mr. Douglas introduced his first Nebraska Bill, they had reached the Nebraska or Platte River, and the Secretary of War was then engaged in the very act of removing Indians from Iowa, and settling them in the valley of the Platte River, with similar guaranties of perpetuity, by which the road to Oregon was forever to be closed. It was the avowed object of this Indian policy to form an Indian barrier on the western borders of Arkansas, Missouri, and Iowa, by Indian settlements, secured in perpetuity by a compact that the white settlements should never extend westward of that line. This policy originated in the jealousy, on the part of the Atlantic States, of the growth and expansion of the Mississippi Valley, which threatened in a few years to become the controlling power of the nation. … This restrictive system received its first cheek in 1844, by the introduction of the Nebraska Bill, which was served on the Secretary of War, by its author, on the day of its introduction, with a notice that Congress was about to organize the Territory, and therefore he must not locate any more Indians there. In consequence of this notice, the Secretary (by courtesy) suspended his operations until Congress should have an opportunity of acting upon the bill; and inasmuch as Congress failed to act that session, Mr. Douglas renewed his bill and notice to the Secretary each year, and thus prevented action for ten years, and until he could procure action on the bill. … When Congress assembled at the session of 1853-1854, in view of this state of facts, Mr. Douglas renewed his Nebraska Act, which was modified, pending discussion, by dividing into two Territories, and became the Kansas-Nebraska Act. … The jealousies of the two great sections of the Union, North and South, had been fiercely excited by the slavery agitation. The Southern States would never consent to the opening of those Territories to settlement, so long as they were excluded by act of Congress from moving there and holding their slaves; and they had the power to prevent the opening of the country forever, inasmuch as it had been forever excluded by treaties with the Indians, which could not be changed or repealed except by a two-third vote in the Senate. {3395} But the South were willing to consent to remove the Indian restrictions, provided the North would at the same time remove the Missouri restriction, and thus throw the country open to settlement on equal terms by the people of the North and South, and leave the settlers at liberty to introduce or exclude slavery as they should think proper." The same report gives a distinction which Senator Douglas drew between "Popular Sovereignty" and "Squatter Sovereignty," as follows: "The name of Squatter Sovereignty was first applied by Mr. Calhoun, in a debate in the United States Senate in 1848, between himself and General Cass, in respect to the right of the people of California to institute a government for themselves after the Mexican jurisdiction had been withdrawn from them, and before the laws of the United States had been extended over them. General Cass contended that in such a case the people had a right, an inherent and inalienable right, to institute a government for themselves and for their own protection. Mr. Calhoun replied that, with the exception of the native Californians, the inhabitants of that country were mere squatters upon the public domain, who had gone there in vast crowds, without the authority of law, and were in fact trespassers as well as squatters upon the public lands, and to recognize their right to set up a government for themselves was to assert the doctrine of 'Squatter Sovereignty.' The term had no application to an organized Territory under the authority of Congress, or to the powers of such organized Territory, but was applied solely to an unorganized country whose existence was not recognized by law. On the other hand, what is called 'Popular Sovereignty' in the Territories, is a phrase used to designate the right of the people of an organized Territory, under the Constitution and laws of the United States, to govern themselves in respect to their own internal polity and domestic affairs."

S. A. Douglas, Brief Treatise upon Constitutional and Party Questions (reported by J. M. Cutts), pages 86-92, and 123-124.

"The repeal of the Missouri Compromise was the beginning of the end, the fatal step of the South on its road to destruction. Throughout the North the conviction grew that Union and slavery could not exist much longer together. On the 4th of July, 1854, Garrison publicly burned a copy of the Constitution of the United States with the words, 'The Union must be dissolved!' He represented only an extreme sentiment. But the people at large began to calculate the value of this Union for which so many sacrifices had been made. Slavery became odious to many persons hitherto indifferent to the subject, on the ground that it persistently and selfishly placed the Union in peril."

      B. Tuckerman,
      William Jay and the Constitutional Movement for
      the Abolition of Slavery,
      chapter 7.

      ALSO IN:
      M. Van Buren,
      Inquiry into the Origin and Course of Political Parties,
      chapter 8.

      S. A. Douglas,
      Popular Sovereignty in the Territories
      (Harper's Magazine, September, 1859).

      H. von Holst.
      Constitutional and Political History of the United States,
      volume 4, chapters 6-8.

      H. Greeley,
      History of the Struggle for Slavery Extension,
      chapter 14.

      J. F. Rhodes,
      History of the United States from 1850,
      chapter 5.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1854-1855.
Solidification of Anti-slavery sentiment in the North.
The birth of the new Republican Party.

"The determined purpose of the Slave Power to make slavery the predominating national interest was never more clearly revealed than by the proposed repeal of the Missouri compromise. This was a deliberate and direct assault upon freedom. Many, indeed, under the pleas of fraternity and loyalty to the Union, palliated and apologized for this breach of faith; but the numbers were increasing every hour, as the struggle progressed, who could no longer be deceived by these hollow pretences. … Pulpits and presses which had been dumb, or had spoken evasively and with slight fealty to truth, gave forth no uncertain sound. … To the utterances of the sacred desk were added the action of ecclesiastical bodies, contributions to the press, and petitions to State legislatures and to Congress. … These discussions from pulpit, platform, and press, all pointed to political action as the only adequate remedy. In the Northern States there were Abolitionists, Free-Soilers, anti-slavery Whigs, anti-Nebraska Democrats, and anti-slavery members of the American party, which had just come into existence. … As the conflict progressed, large and increasing numbers saw that no help could be reasonably hoped but through the formation of a new party that could act without the embarrassment of a Southern wing. But the formation of a national and successful party from materials afforded by the disintegration of hitherto hostile organizations was a work of great delicacy and difficulty. Such a party could not be made;—it must grow out of the elements already existing. It must be born of the nation's necessities and of its longings for relief from the weakness, or wickedness, of existing organizations. The mode of organizing this new party of freedom varied according to the varying circumstances of different localities and the convictions of different men. … One of the earliest, if not the earliest, of the movements that contemplated definite action and the formation of a new party, was made in Ripon, Fond du Lac County, Wisconsin, in the early months of 1854." A public meeting, held in one of the churches of the town, was followed by a second meeting, on the 20th of March, at which definite proceedings were taken. "By formal vote the town committees of the Whig and Free Soil parties were dissolved, and a committee of five, consisting of three Whigs, one Free-Soiler, and one Democrat, was chosen. 'The work done on that evening,' says Mr. Bovey [one of its originators], 'was fully accepted by the Whig and Free Soil parties of all this section immediately; and very soon—that is to say, in a few months—by those parties throughout the entire State.' A State convention was held in July, by which the organization of the party was perfected for the State, a majority of the delegation was secured for the next Congress, and a Free-Soiler, Charles Durkee, was elected to the Senate of the United States. At the meeting of the 20th of March, Mr. Bovey, though stating his belief that the party should and probably would take the name of 'Republican,' advised against such a christening at that time and by that small local body of men. He, however, wrote to the editor of the New York 'Tribune,' suggesting the name. … But that 'little eddy' on that far-off margin was only one of many similar demonstrations,—signs of a turn of the tide in the great sea of American politics. {3396} In Washington, on the morning after the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska bill, there was a meeting of some thirty members of the House at the rooms of Thomas D. Eliot and Edward Dickinson, of Massachusetts, called at the instance of Israel Washburn, Jr., of Maine, for consultation in regard to the course to be adopted in the exigencies of the case. The hopelessness of any further attempts through existing organizations was generally admitted; though a few still counselled adherence to the Whig party, in the expectation of securing its aid for freedom. But most present had become convinced that in a new party alone lay any reasonable hope of successful resistance to the continued aggressions of the arrogant and triumphant Slave Power. The name 'Republican' was suggested, discussed, and finally agreed upon as appropriate for the new organization. … But, whatever suggestions others may have made, or whatever action may have been taken elsewhere, to Michigan belongs the honor of being the first State to form and christen the Republican Party." A mass convention of Whigs and Free Soilers in that State was held on the 6th of July, at which the name was formally adopted, along with a "platform" of principles opposing the extension of slavery and demanding its abolition in the District of Columbia. "Though the Republican Party was not immediately organized in all the free States, its spirit inspired and its ideas largely pervaded the North. Within one year eleven Republican Senators were elected and fifteen States had secured anti-Nebraska majorities. Out of 142 Northern members of the House, 120 were opposed to the iniquitous measure. They were in sufficient numbers not only to control the election of Speaker, but they were able, by a majority of 15, to declare that 'in the opinion of this House, the repeal of the Missouri compromise of 1820, prohibiting slavery north of 36° 30', was an example of useless and factious agitation of the slavery question, unwise and unjust to the American people.' Several States which had failed to organize a Republican Party in 1854 did so in 1855."

"The refusal of the Whigs in many States to surrender their name and organization, and more especially the abrupt appearance of the Know-Nothings on the field of parties, retarded the general coalition between the Whigs and the Free-soilers which so many influences favored. As it turned out, a great variety of party names were retained or adopted in the Congressional and State campaigns of 1854, the designation of 'anti-Nebraska' being perhaps the most common, and certainly for the moment the most serviceable, since denunciation of the Nebraska bill was the one all-pervading bond of sympathy and agreement among men who differed very widely on almost all other political topics. This affiliation, however, was confined exclusively to the free States. In the slave States, the opposition to the Administration dared not raise the anti-Nebraska banner, nor could it have found followers; and it was not only inclined but forced to make its battle either under the old name of Whigs, or as became more popular, under the new appellation of 'Americans,' which grew into a more dignified synonym for Know-Nothings. … While the measure was yet under discussion in the House in March, New Hampshire led off by an election completely obliterating the eighty-nine Democratic majority in her Legislature. Connecticut followed in her footsteps early in April. Long before November it was evident that the political revolution among the people of the North was thorough, and that election day was anxiously awaited merely to record the popular verdict already decided. The influence of this result upon parties, old and new, is perhaps best illustrated in the organization of the Thirty-fourth Congress, chosen at these elections during the year 1854, which witnessed the repeal of the Missouri Compromise. Each Congress, in ordinary course, meets for the first time about one year after its members are elected by the people, and the influence of politics during the interim needs always to be taken into account. In this particular instance this effect had, if anything, been slightly reactionary, and the great contest for the Speakership during the winter of 1855-1856 may therefore be taken as a fair manifestation of the spirit of politics in 1854. The strength of the preceding House of Representatives, which met in December, 1853, had been: Whigs, 71; Free-soilers, 4; Democrats, 159—a clear Democratic majority of 84. In the new Congress there were in the House, as nearly as the classification could be made, about 108 anti-Nebraska members, nearly 40 Know-Nothings, and about 75 Democrats; the remaining members were undecided. The proud Democratic majority of the Pierce election was annihilated."

      ALSO IN:
      J. D. Long, editor,
      The Republican Party: its History, etc.

      J. F. Rhodes,
      History of the United States from 1850,
      chapter 7 (volume 2).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1854-1856.
The beginning of the struggle for Kansas.
Free-state settlers against Missouri "Border-ruffians."

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1854-1866.
The Canadian Reciprocity Treaty and its abrogation.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1855-1856.
   Long contest for the Speakership of the House.
   Election of Mr. Banks, Republican.
   Mr. Giddings' account.

"The free-soil party was now rapidly increasing in numbers and influence. The Whig organization had disbanded: Yet its leaders had too much pride of opinion to admit that the anti-slavery men were right in their policy or in their construction of the Constitution. Indeed, their prejudices were too strong to permit them to join any other existing organization. They therefore instituted a new party called the 'Know Nothings' or 'American party.' Their leading policy was the exclusion of foreigners from office. … It was a secret society, known to each other by signs, grips and passwords. It increased rapidly in numbers, and in the autumn of 1844 they elected a large majority of officers in all of the free States. … The effect of their success became apparent at the assembling of the thirty-fourth Congress. It had placed the democratic party in a very decided minority in the House of Representatives. … And the Free-soilers or Republicans were placed in a most critical position. Their difficulty arose from the determination of aspiring politicians to give all influence into the hands of the organization which had recently sprung up. {3397} Members of this new party were at the city of Washington some weeks before the assembling of Congress, making such political arrangements as they regarded necessary to secure the success for the 'Know Nothings.' But all were conscious that neither they nor the Free-soilers could succeed except by uniting with each other." A partial combination of Know Nothings with the Republicans was effected at a meeting on Friday before the opening of the session of Congress. "Late in the day a resolution was introduced pledging the members to vote for any man on whom a majority of the members should unite, provided he stood pledged by his past life or present declarations so to arrange the committees of the House as to give respectful answers to petitions concerning slavery. This resolution was adopted by a unanimous vote of more than 70 members. But the leading members of the 'Know Nothings' did not appear at any of the caucuses. It was in this unorganized form that members opposed to the extension of slavery met their associates on Monday in the Hall of Representatives, to enter upon a contest unequalled in the previous history of our Government. The House consisted of 234 members—225 of whom answered to their names at the first calling of the roll. The first business in order was the election of Speaker: And the ballots being counted, it was found that William A. Richardson, the democratic candidate, had 74 votes; Lewis D. Campbell, of Ohio, the 'Know Nothing' candidate, had 53 votes; Humphrey Marshall, of Kentucky, the southern Know Nothing candidate, 30 votes; Nathaniel P. Banks, of Massachusetts, was supported by those Free-soilers or Republicans who refused to support any man placed in nomination by the Know Nothings; and Hiram M. Fuller, of Pennsylvania, received the votes of 17 members of the Know Nothing party who refused to support any other candidate. There were several other ballots cast during the day, with little change. The voting continued on the second, third, fourth and fifth days, without material change, except that Mr. Campbell's vote rose on one occasion as high as 75. After the result of the twenty-third ballot was announced, Mr. Campbell withdrew his name from the list of candidates. On the withdrawal of Mr. Campbell, Mr. Banks' rose regularly until the 15th December, when it reached 107. … On the 19th December, the ballot showed Mr. Banks to have 106, and Mr. Richardson 75. Messrs. Marshall and Fuller, with their adherents, continuing to vote by themselves. During the debates the Republicans were constantly assailed, and as the writer [Joshua R. Giddings, of Ohio] was the oldest member of that party, he felt constrained to vindicate their cause. He assured the Democrats and 'Know Nothings' that the Republicans must soon come into power: And when once in power they would not permit southern members to dissolve the Union. This seemed to arouse much angry feeling. Mr. McMullen, of Virginia, replied with much spirit, declaring that whenever a northern President should be elected the South would dissolve the Union. This is believed to be the first distinct enunciation in Congress that the Union was to be dissolved upon the election of a northern President. Northern Democrats appeared mortified at the imprudence of Mr. McMullen. Mr. Banks, in a public speech made some two years previously in Maine, had said, that if we were to extend slavery or dissolve the Union, he would say, 'Let the Union slide.' This saying was now seized upon by southern men as an insuperable objection to Mr. Banks' election: While, at the same time, Mr. Brooks, of South Carolina, assured the House and the country that unless slavery were extended he desired to see the Union slide. Members appeared by common consent to enter upon a general debate, which was suspended on the 24th so long as to take a ballot, which showed no substantial change in the parties. On the 27th, four ballots were taken with a similar result. … On the 28th December the balloting was resumed, and continued through that and the following day without material change of parties, and debate was again renewed. … The President of the United States sent his annual message to the Senate on the 31st December, and his private secretary appeared at the entrance of the House of Representatives and announced that he had brought with him the annual message of the President, to be presented to that body. Aware that this was intended to exert an influence against the Republicans, the author at once objected to receiving it, as it was an attempt to introduce a new practice—for up to that time no President had ever presumed to thrust his message upon an unorganized body—and that it could not constitutionally be received by members until a Speaker were elected. But a majority voted to receive it. The next attempt was to read it to the House; but it was again objected that it was not addressed to members in their disorganized condition, but was addressed to the Senate and House of Representatives, which had not then been organized. This objection was sustained, and although they had received the message, they refused to read it. The new year found the House unorganized, with the President's message lying upon the Clerk's desk unopened and unread. One ballot was taken. A motion was next made to take up and read the President's message; but, after debate, the motion was laid on the table. Members now began to make arrangements for continuing the contest indefinitely. Most of them had expected to draw their mileage to defray their current expenses; but being unable to do that until the House were organized, found themselves out of funds. In many Republican districts the people met in public conventions and passed resolutions approving the action of their Representatives, made provisions for their members to draw on their local banks for such funds as they deemed necessary for defraying expenses at Washington. To meet these expenses, some State Legislatures made appropriations from their State funds. Soon as the republican party became consolidated, its members became more confident. Those of greatest experience assured their friends that as the President, officers of government, and the army and navy must go without pay until the House should be organized, the pressure would soon be so great upon the democratic party that they would be compelled to submit to the election of a republican Speaker. Some State Legislatures passed resolutions sustaining the action of their Representatives, declaring the issue involved to be the extension or non-extension of slavery. … {3398} On the 29th January several propositions were made for an immediate organization. They were rejected, but by such small majorities as to indicate an organization at no very distant period; and the Republicans now felt one, and only one doubt in regard to success. The southern 'Know Nothings' had been Whigs, and bitterly hated the Democrats; and the question now presented was, whether they would unite with their old enemies rather than see a republican Speaker elected. On the 3d February a resolution was presented, declaring that three more ballots should be taken and if no election were had, the candidate having the highest number of votes on the 4th ballot should be declared Speaker. Soon after this vote was announced the House adjourned. Members now felt that the contest was drawing to a close. The next morning … Mr. Aiken, of South Carolina, was announced as the democratic candidate. And the first ballot, under the resolution, showed little change of parties. Banks received 102 votes; Aiken, 92; Fuller, 13; Campbell, 4; and Wells, 2. By this time the spacious galleries were filled with eager spectators, the lobbies and passages were crowded by men and ladies anxious for the result. The next ballot was taken without any change of parties. A motion was made to adjourn, but it was voted down by 159 to 52. Mr. Fuller announced that he was no longer a candidate. The result now appeared to be anticipated by all, and as the Clerk commenced calling the roll of members for the final vote, there appeared to be the most intense interest felt on all sides of the House. … When the roll had been called through there was so much confusion that it was difficult for anyone to be heard. But the clerks and tellers proceeded in their duties, and when the count was completed, Mr. Benson, of Maine —one of the tellers—rose, and in a loud voice proclaimed that 'On the one hundred and thirty-third ballot Nathaniel P. Banks had received 103 votes; Mr. Aiken had received 100 votes; Mr. Fuller had received 6 votes; and Mr. Campbell had received 4 votes. That Mr. Banks having received the highest number of votes on this ballot, was declared duly elected Speaker of the thirty-fourth Congress.' At this announcement the spectators in the galleries broke forth in wild excitement. Cheer after cheer went up, amid the waving of handkerchiefs and demonstrations of unrestrained exultation, which were responded to by hisses from the Administration side of the House. … The effect of this victory was felt through the country. … Sixteen years before this occurrence Mr. Adams and the author of these sketches were the only representatives in Congress of the doctrines now supported by a majority of the House. The slaveholders and those who sympathized with them appeared to realize that political power was gradually escaping from their grasp, and that the day was rapidly approaching when the people would resume control of the Government."

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1856.
Refusal to sign the Declaration of Paris.
Proposed amendment.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1856. Senator Sumner's speech on "The Crime against Kansas," and the assault upon him by Brooks of South Carolina.

"The most startling speech made during the debate [on affairs in Kansas], and which, from the events succeeding, became the most celebrated, was that of Charles Sumner. It was delivered on the 19th and 20th days of May and was published under the title of 'The Crime against Kansas.' … If there had been no more to Sumner's speech than the invective against the slave power, he would not have been assaulted by Preston Brooks. Nor is it probable that the bitter attack which the senator made on South Carolina would have provoked the violence, had it not been coupled with personal allusions to Senator Butler, who was a kinsman of Brooks. … It was said that Seward, who read the speech before delivery, advised Sumner to tone down its offensive remarks, and he and Wade regretted the personal attack. But Sumner was not fully 'conscious of the stinging force of his language.' To that, and because he was terribly in earnest, must be attributed the imperfections of the speech. He would annihilate the slave power, and he selected South Carolina and her senator as vulnerable points of attack. … Two days after this exciting debate (May 22d) when the Senate at the close of a short session adjourned, Sumner remained in the Chamber, occupied in writing letters. Becoming deeply engaged, he drew his arm-chair close to his desk, bent over his writing, and while in this position was approached by Brooks, a representative from South Carolina and a kinsman of Senator Butler. Brooks, standing before and directly over him, said: 'I have read your speech twice over carefully. It is a libel on South Carolina and Mr. Butler, who is a relative of mine.' As he pronounced the last word, he hit Sumner on the head with his cane with the force that a dragoon would give to a sabre-blow. Sumner was more than six feet in height and of powerful frame, but penned under the desk he could offer no resistance, and Brooks continued the blows on his defenceless head. The cane broke, but the South Carolinian went on beating his victim with the butt. The first blows stunned and blinded Sumner, but instinctively and with powerful effort he wrenched the desk from its fastenings, stood up, and with spasmodic and wildly directed efforts attempted unavailingly to protect himself. Brooks took hold of him, and, while he was reeling and staggering about, struck him again and again. The assailant did not desist until his arm was seized by one who rushed to the spot to stop the assault. At that moment Sumner, reeling, staggering backwards and sideways, fell to the floor bleeding profusely and covered with his blood. The injury received by Sumner was much more severe than was at first thought by his physicians and friends. Four days after the assault, he was able to give at his lodgings his relation of the affair to the committee of the House of Representatives. But, in truth, the blows would have killed most men. Sumner's iron constitution and perfect health warded off a fatal result; but it soon appeared that the injury had affected the spinal column. The next three years and a half was a search for cure. … At last he went to Paris and put himself under the care of Dr. Brown-Séquard, whose treatment of actual cauterization of the back eventually restore him to a fair degree of health; but he never regained his former physical vigor. {3399} He was not able to enter regularly again on his senatorial career until December, 1859. … The different manner in which the North and the South regarded this deed is one of the many evidences of the deep gulf between these two people caused by slavery. … When Brooks returned to South Carolina he received an enthusiastic welcome. He was honored as a glorious son of the Palmetto State, and making him the present of a cane was a favorite testimonial. … At the North the assault of Brooks was considered brutal and cowardly; at the South, his name was never mentioned without calling him gallant or courageous, spirited or noble. … A committee was appointed by the House which took a large amount of evidence, and the majority reported a resolution in favor of the expulsion of Brooks. On this resolution, the vote was 121 to 95; but as it required two thirds, it was not carried. Only three Southern representatives publicly condemned the assault; only one voted to expel Brooks. After the decision by the House, Brooks made a speech, which he ended by resigning his place as representative. His district re-elected him almost unanimously: there were only six votes against him."

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1856.
Eighteenth Presidential Election.
Buchanan made President.

"The presidential campaign of … 1856, showed a striking disintegration and re-formation of political groups. Nominally there were four parties in the field: Democrats, Whigs, Native Americans or Know-Nothings, and Republicans. The Know-Nothings had lately won some State elections, but were of little account as a national organization, for they stood upon an issue hopelessly insignificant in comparison with slavery. Already many had gone over to the Republican camp; those who remained nominated as their candidates Millard Fillmore and Andrew J. Donelson. The Whigs were the feeble remnant of a really dead party, held together by affection for the old name; too few to do anything by themselves, they took by adoption the Know-Nothing candidates. The Republican party had been born only in 1854. Its members, differing on other matters, united upon the one doctrine, which they accepted as a test: opposition to the extension of slavery. They nominated John C. Fremont and William L. Dayton, and made a platform whereby they declared it to be 'both the right and the duty of Congress to prohibit in the Territories those twin relics of barbarism, polygamy and slavery.' … In this Convention 110 votes were cast for Lincoln for the second place on the ticket. … In the Democratic party there were two factions. The favorite candidate of the South was Franklin Pierce, for reelection, with Stephen A. Douglas as a substitute or second choice; the North more generally preferred James Buchanan, who was understood to be displeased with the repeal of the Missouri Compromise. The struggle was sharp, but was won by the friends of Buchanan, with whom John C. Breckenridge was coupled. The campaign was eager, for the Republicans soon developed a strength beyond what had been expected and which put the Democrats to their best exertions. The result was: popular vote, Democrats [Buchanan] 1,838,169, Republicans [Fremont] 1,341,264, Know-Nothings and Whigs [Fillmore] 874,534; electoral vote, Democrats 174, Republicans 114, Know-Nothings and Whigs, 8. Thus James Buchanan became President of the United States, March 4, 1857. … Yet, while the Democrats triumphed, the Republicans enjoyed the presage of the future; they had polled a total number of votes which surprised everyone; on the other hand, the Democrats had lost ten States which they had carried in 1852 and had gained only two others, showing a net loss of eight States; and their electoral votes had dwindled from 254 to 174."

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1856-1859.
The continued struggle in Kansas.
The Topeka vs. the Lecompton Constitution.

   "Dred Scott was a negro slave, the property of Dr. Emerson, a
   surgeon in the army. In 1834, Dred was carried by his master
   from the slave state of Missouri, first, to the military post
   at Rock Island in the free state of Illinois, where he
   remained till April or May, 1836; and, thence, to Fort
   Snelling, in the territory known as Upper Louisiana, and lying
   north of the line of the Missouri Compromise, in both of which
   places he was held as a slave. At Fort Snelling, in the year
   1836, he was married to Harriet, a negro slave, who had also
   been brought to Fort Snelling by her master, Major Taliaferro,
   and there sold to Dr. Emerson. In 1838, Dred, with his wife
   and a child which had been born to him, was carried back by
   his master to the state of Missouri. Subsequently, Dred, with
   his wife, his daughter Eliza, and another daughter, Lizzie,
   who was born after the return of her family to Missouri, was
   sold to John F. A. Sandford—the defendant in the present case.
   Dred commenced his efforts for the establishment of the
   freedom of himself and family in the state courts of Missouri.
   The suit was brought in the Circuit Court of St. Louis county.
   Before this court, the judgment was in his favor, but, on
   appeal by writ of error to the Supreme Court of the state,
   this judgment was reversed, and the case remanded to the court
   below,—where it remained, awaiting the decision of the suit
   which, in the meanwhile, Dred had brought in the United States
   courts. This second suit was brought before the Circuit Court
   of the United States for the district of Missouri, and thence
   carried, by writ of error, to the Supreme Court at Washington.
   It may be added that the first suit was brought against Dr.
   Emerson, but the second against Mr. Sandford, to whom Dred had
   been sold. The action, though brought to assert the title of
   Dred Scott and his family to freedom, was, in form, an action
   of trespass 'vi et armis,' which is the usual form employed in
   that state to try questions of this kind. The plaintiff,
   Scott, in his writ both makes a declaration of the acts of
   trespass—which of course are the acts of restraint necessarily
   implied in holding himself and family as slaves—and avers,
   what was necessary to give the court jurisdiction, that he and
   the defendant are citizens of different states; that is, that
   he is a citizen of Missouri, and the defendant a citizen of
   New York. At the April term of the court, in 1854, the
   defendant Sandford pleads, that the court has not
   jurisdiction, because the plaintiff is not a citizen of
   Missouri, but a negro of African descent, whose ancestors, of
   pure African blood, were brought into this country and sold as
   slaves.
{3400}
   To this plea the plaintiff demurs as insufficient; the
   demurrer is argued at the same term, and is sustained by the
   court, that is, the court asserts its jurisdiction over the
   case." It was on this plea that the case went finally to the
   Supreme Court of the United States and was decided in 1857.
   "The question of negro citizenship came up in the
   consideration of the question of jurisdiction. For the
   question of jurisdiction was the question, whether the
   plaintiff was a citizen of Missouri, as he had averred in his
   declaration; and the only fact pleaded to disprove his
   citizenship was the fact that Scott was a negro of African
   descent, whose ancestors had been sold as slaves in the United
   States. The court, however, decided that this fact did not
   exclude the possibility of his being a citizen; in other
   words, it decided that a negro of this description can be a
   citizen of the United States. The first question before the
   Supreme Court was, whether it could rejudge this determination
   of the circuit court."

      W. A. Larned,
      Negro Citizenship
      (New Englander, August, 1857).

The decision of the Supreme Court, delivered by Chief Justice Taney, March 6, 1857, not only closed the door of freedom to Dred Scott, but shut the doors of the United States courts against him and all those of his race who were or had been slaves, or who sprang from an ancestry in the servile state. The opinion of Chief Justice Taney was concurred in by all the justices except Curtis and McLean-Justice Nelson dissenting on one point only. The arguments and the sentiments in the opinion which gave most offence to the conscience and the reason of the country were the following: "It becomes … our duty to decide whether the facts stated in the plea are or are not sufficient to show that the plaintiff is not entitled to sue as a citizen in a court of the United States. This is certainly a very serious question, and one that now for the first time has been brought for decision before this court. But it is brought here by those who have a right to bring it, and it is our duty to meet it and decide it. The question is simply this: Can a negro, whose ancestors were imported into this country, and sold as slaves, become a member of the political community formed and brought into existence by the Constitution of the United States, and as such become entitled to all the rights, and privileges, and immunities, guarantied by that instrument to the citizen? One of which rights is the privilege of suing in a court of the United States in the cases specified in the Constitution. It will be observed, that the plea applies to that class of persons only whose ancestors were negroes of the African race, and imported into this country, and sold and held as slaves. The only matter in issue before the court, therefore, is whether the descendants of such slaves, when they shall be emancipated, or who are born of parents who had become free before their birth, are citizens of a State, in the sense in which the word citizen is used in the Constitution of the United States. And this being the only matter in dispute on the pleadings, the court must be understood as speaking in this opinion of that class only, that is, of those persons who are the descendants of Africans who were imported into this country, and sold as slaves. … The words 'people of the United States' and 'citizens' are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. They both describe the political body who, according to our republican institutions, form the sovereignty, and who hold the power and conduct the Government through their representatives. They are what we familiarly call the 'sovereign people,' and every, citizen is one of this people, and a constituent member of this sovereignty. The question before us is, whether the class of persons described in the plea in abatement compose a portion of this people, and are constituent members 'of this sovereignty? We think they are not, and that they are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word 'citizens' in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States. On the contrary, they were at that time considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings, who had been subjugated by the dominant race, and, whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority, and had no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the Government might choose to grant them. It is not the province of the court to decide upon the justice or injustice, the policy or impolicy, of these laws. The decision of that question belonged to the political or law-making power. … In discussing this question, we must not confound the rights of citizenship which a State may confer within its own limits, and the rights of citizenship as a member of the Union. It does not by any means follow, because he has all the rights and privileges of a citizen of a State, that he must be a citizen of the United States. He may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a State, and yet not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other State. … The question then arises, whether the provisions of the Constitution, in relation to the personal rights and privileges to which the citizen of a State should be entitled, embraced the negro African race, at that time in this country, or who might afterwards be imported, who had then or should afterwards be made free in any State; and to put it in the power of a single State to make him a citizen of the United States, and endue him with the full rights of citizenship in every other State without their consent? … The court think the affirmative of these propositions cannot be maintained. And if it cannot, the plaintiff in error could not be a citizen of the State of Missouri, within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States, and, consequently, was not entitled to sue in its courts. It is true, every person, and every class and description of persons, who were at the time of the adoption of the Constitution recognised as citizens in the several States, became also citizens of this new political body; but none other. … It becomes necessary, therefore, to determine who were citizens of the several States when the Constitution was adopted. And in order to do this, we must recur to the Governments and institutions of the thirteen colonies, when they separated from Great Britain and formed new sovereignties, and took their places in the family of independent nations. We must inquire who, at that time, were recognised as the people or citizens of a State, whose rights and liberties had been outraged by the English Government; and who declared their independence, and assumed the powers of Government to defend their rights by force of arms. {3401} In the opinion of the court, the legislation and histories of the times, and the language used in the Declaration of Independence, show that neither the class of persons who had been imported as slaves, nor their descendants, whether they had become free or not, were then acknowledged as a part of the people, nor intended to be included in the general words used in that memorable instrument. It is difficult at this day to realize the state of public opinion in relation to that unfortunate race, which prevailed in the civilized and enlightened portions of the world at the time of the Declaration of Independence, and when the Constitution was framed and adopted. But the public history of every European nation displays it in a manner too plain to be mistaken. They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold, and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever a profit could be made by it. This opinion was at that time fixed and universal in the civilized portion of the white race." Finally, having, with great elaboration, decided the question of citizenship adversely to Dred Scott and all his kind, the Court proceeded to obliterate the antislavery provision of the Missouri Compromise, which constituted one of the grounds on which Dred Scott claimed his freedom. "It is the opinion of the court," wrote Chief Justice Taney, "that the act of Congress which prohibited a citizen from holding and owning property of this kind in the territory of the United States north of the line therein mentioned, is not warranted by the Constitution, and is therefore void; and that neither Dred Scott himself, nor any of his family, were made free by being carried into this territory; even if they had been carried there by the owner, with the intention of becoming a permanent resident. We have so far examined the case, as it stands under the Constitution of the United States, and the powers thereby delegated to the Federal Government. But there is another point in the case which depends on State power and State law. And it is contended, on the part of the plaintiff, that he is made free by being taken to Rock Island, in the State of Illinois, independently of his residence in the territory of the United States; and being so made free, he was not again reduced to a state of slavery by being brought back to Missouri. Our notice of this part of the case will be very brief; for the principle on which it depends was decided in this court, upon much consideration, in the case of Strader et al. v. Graham, reported in 10th Howard, 82. In that case, the slaves had been taken from Kentucky to Ohio, with the consent of the owner, and afterwards brought back to Kentucky. And this court held that their status or condition, as free or slave, depended upon the laws of Kentucky, when they were brought back into that State, and not of Ohio; and that this court had no jurisdiction to revise the judgment of a State court upon its own laws. This was the point directly before the court, and the decision that this court had not jurisdiction turned upon it, as will be seen by the report of the case. So in this case. As Scott was a slave when taken into the State of Illinois by his owner, and was there held as such, and brought back in that character, his status, as free or slave, depended on the laws of Missouri, and not of Illinois. … Upon the whole, therefore, it is the judgment of this court, that it appears by the record before us that the plaintiff in error is not a citizen of Missouri, in the sense in which that word is used in the Constitution; and that the Circuit Court of the United States, for that reason, had no jurisdiction in the case, and could give no judgment in it. Its judgment for the defendant must, consequently, be reversed, and a mandate issued, directing the suit to be dismissed for want of jurisdiction."

      Report of the Decision of the Supreme Court of the
      United States in the case of
      Dred Scott vs. John F. A. Sandford
      (Howard's Reports, volume 19).

"By this presentation of the iniquity, naked and in its most repulsive form, Taney did no small harm to the party which he intended to aid. It has been said that slavery plucked ruin on its own head by its aggressive violence. It could not help showing its native temper, nor could it help feeding its hunger of land, insisting on the restoration of its runaways, or demanding a foreign policy such as would fend off the approach of emancipation. But Taney's judgment was a gratuitous aggression and an insult to humanity at the same time, for which, supposing that the Southern leaders inspired it, they paid dear. If the slave was mere property, his owner might be entitled to take him anywhere, and thus slavery might be made national. The boast of a daring partisan of slavery might be fulfilled, that the day would come when men might be bought and sold in Boston as freely as any other goods. The issue, which all the politicians had striven to keep out of sight, was presented in its most startling and shocking form."

ALSO IN: H. Wilson, Rise and Fall of the Slave Power in America, volume 2, chapter 39.

      A. Johnston,
      The United States: Its History and Constitution,
      section 249.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1858.
The Lincoln and Douglas debate in Illinois.

The senatorial term of Mr. Stephen A. Douglas being about to expire, the choice of his successor became an issue which controlled the election of members of the Illinois Legislature, in the fall of 1858. Mr. Douglas received an endorsement at the hands of the Democratic State Convention, in April, which virtually nominated him for re-election. Abraham Lincoln, who had come markedly to the front in his state during the Kansas discussions, "was the man already chosen in the hearts of the Republicans of Illinois for the same office, and therefore with singular appropriateness they passed, with great unanimity, at their convention in Springfield on the 16th of June, the characteristic resolution: 'That Hon. Abraham Lincoln is our first and only choice for United States Senator to fill the vacancy about to be created by the expiration of Mr. Douglas' term of office.' {3402} There was of course no surprise in this for Mr. Lincoln. He had been all along led to expect it, and with that in view had been earnestly and quietly at work preparing a speech in acknowledgment of the honor about to be conferred on him. This speech he wrote on stray envelopes and scraps of paper, as ideas suggested themselves, putting them into that miscellaneous and convenient receptacle, his hat. As the convention drew near he copied the whole on connected sheets, carefully revising every line and sentence, and fastened them together, for reference during the delivery of the speech, and for publication. The former precaution, however, was unnecessary, for he had studied and read over what he had written so long and carefully that he was able to deliver it without the least hesitation or difficulty. … Before delivering his speech he invited a dozen or so of his friends over to the library of the State House, where he read and submitted it to them. After the reading he asked each man for his opinion. Some condemned and not one endorsed it. One man, more forcible than elegant, characterized it as a 'd-d fool utterance;' another said the doctrine was 'ahead of its time;' and still another contended that it would drive away a good many voters fresh from the Democratic ranks. Each man attacked it in his criticism. I was the last to respond. Although the doctrine announced was rather rank, yet it suited my views, and I said, 'Lincoln, deliver that speech as read and it will make you President.' At the time I hardly realized the force of my prophecy. Having patiently listened to these various criticisms from his friends—all of which with a single exception were adverse—he rose from his chair, and after alluding to the careful study and intense thought he had given the question, he answered all their objections substantially as follows: 'Friends, this thing has been retarded long enough. The time has come when these sentiments should be uttered; and if it is decreed that I should go down because of this speech, then let me go down linked to the truth—let me die in the advocacy of what is just and right.' The next day, the 17th, the speech was delivered just as we had heard it read. [The part of this famous speech which made the profoundest impression and gave rise to the most discussion was the opening part, contained in the following sentences: 'If we could first know where we are, and whither we are tending, we could better judge what to do, and how to do it. We are now far into the fifth year since a policy was initiated with the avowed object and confident promise of putting an end to slavery agitation. Under the operation of that policy, that agitation has not only not ceased, but has constantly augmented. In my opinion, it will not cease until a crisis shall have been reached and passed. "A house divided against itself cannot stand." I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved—I do not expect the house to fall—but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new, North as well as South. Have we no tendency to the latter condition? Let anyone who doubts carefully contemplate that now almost complete legal combination—piece of machinery, so to speak—compounded of the Nebraska doctrine and the Dred Scott decision. Let him consider not only what work the machinery is adapted to do, and how well adapted; but also let him study the history of its construction, and trace, if he can, or rather fail, if he can, to trace the evidences of design and concert of action among its chief architects, from the beginning.'] … Lincoln had now created in reality a more profound impression than he or his friends anticipated. Many Republicans deprecated the advanced ground he had taken, the more so as the Democrats rejoiced that it afforded them an issue clear and well-defined. Numbers of his friends distant from Springfield, on reading his speech, wrote him censorious letters; and one well-informed co-worker predicted his defeat, charging it to the first ten lines of the speech. These complaints, coming apparently from every quarter, Lincoln bore with great patience. To one complainant who followed him into his office he said proudly, 'If I had to draw a pen across my record, and erase my whole life from sight, and I had one poor gift or choice left as to what I should save from the wreck, I should choose that speech and leave it to the world unerased.' Meanwhile Douglas had returned from Washington to his home in Chicago. Here he rested for a few days until his friends and co-workers had arranged the details of a public reception on the 9th of July, when he delivered from the balcony of the Tremont House a speech intended as an answer to the one made by Lincoln in Springfield. Lincoln was present at this reception, but took no part in it. The next day, however, he replied. Both speeches were delivered at the same place. Leaving Chicago, Douglas passed on down to Bloomington and Springfield, where he spoke on the 16th and 17th of July respectively. On the evening of the latter day Lincoln responded again in a most effective and convincing effort. The contest now took on a different phase. Lincoln's Republican friends urged him to draw Douglas into a joint debate, and he accordingly sent him a challenge on the 24th of July. … On the 30th Douglas finally accepted the proposition to 'divide time, and address the same audiences,' naming seven different places, one in each Congressional district, outside of Chicago and Springfield, for joint meetings. The places and dates were, Ottawa, August 21; Freeport, August 27; Jonesboro, September 15; Charleston, September 18; Galesburg, October 7; Quincy, October 13; and Alton, October 15. … During the canvass Mr. Lincoln, in addition to the seven meetings with Douglas, filled thirty-one appointments made by the State Central Committee, besides speaking at many other times and places not previously advertised. … The election took place on the second of November, and while Lincoln received of the popular vote a majority of over 4,000, yet the returns from the legislative districts foreshadowed his defeat. In fact, when the Senatorial election took place in the Legislature, Douglas received 54 and Lincoln 46 votes—one of the results of the lamentable apportionment law then in operation."

W. H. Herndon and J. W. Weik, Lincoln, the True Story of a Great Life, chapter 13 (volume 2).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1859. Admission of Oregon into the Union, with a constitution excluding free colored People.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1859.
John Brown's attack on Slavery in Virginia.
The tragedy at Harper's Ferry.

"On the 17th of October, 1859, this country was bewildered and astounded while the fifteen Slave States were convulsed with fear, rage, and hate, by telegraphic dispatches from Baltimore and Washington, announcing the outbreak, at Harper's Ferry, of a conspiracy of Abolitionists and negroes, having for its object the devastation and ruin of the South, and the massacre of her white inhabitants. … As time wore on, further advices, with particulars and circumstances, left no room to doubt the substantial truth of the original report. An attempt had actually been made to excite a slave insurrection in Northern Virginia, and the one man in America to whom such an enterprise would not seem utter insanity and suicide, was at the head of it." This was John Brown, of Osawatomie, who had been fighting slavery and the border ruffians in Kansas (see KANSAS: A. D. 1854-1859) for five years, and had now changed his field. "A secret convention, called by Brown, and attended only by such whites and blacks as he believed in thorough sympathy with his views, had assembled in a negro church at Chatham, Canada West, May 8, 1858; at which Convention a 'Provisional Constitution and Ordinances for the People of the United States' had been adopted. It was, of course, drafted by Brown, and was essentially an embodiment of his political views. … John Brown was chosen Commander-in-Chief; J. H. Kagi, Secretary of War; Owen Brown (son of John), Treasurer; Richard Realf, Secretary of State. Brown returned to the States soon after his triumphal entry into Canada as a liberator. … He was in Hagerstown, Maryland, on the 30th [of June, 1859], where he registered his name as 'Smith, and two sons, from Western New York.' He told his landlord that they had been farming in Western New York, but had been discouraged by losing two or three years' crops by frost, and they were now looking for a milder climate, in a location adapted to wool-growing, etc. After looking about Harper's Ferry for several days, they found, five or six miles from that village, a large farm, with three unoccupied houses, the owner, Dr. Booth Kennedy, having died the last Spring. These houses they rented for a trifle until the next March, paying the rent in advance. … After they had lived there a few weeks, attracting no observation, others joined them from time to time, including two of Brown's young daughters; and one would go and another come, without exciting any particular remark. … Meantime, the greater number of the men kept out of sight during the day, so as not to attract attention, while their arms, munitions, etc., were being gradually brought from Chambersburg, in well-secured boxes. No meal was eaten on the farm, while old Brown was there, until a blessing had been asked upon it; and his Bible was in daily requisition. The night of the 24th of October was originally fixed upon by Brown for the first blow against Slavery in Virginia, by the capture of the Federal Arsenal at Harper's Ferry; and his biographer, Redpath, alleges that many were on their way to be with him on that occasion, when they were paralyzed by the intelligence that the blow had already been struck, and had failed. The reason given for this, by one who was in his confidence, is, that Brown, who had been absent on a secret journey to the North, suspected that one of his party was a traitor, and that he must strike prematurely, or not at all. But the women who had been with them at the Kennedy farm—the wives or daughters of one or another of the party—had already been quietly sent away; and the singular complexion of their household had undoubtedly begun to excite curiosity, if not alarm, among their neighbors. … Harper's Ferry was then a village of some 5,000 inhabitants, lying on the Virginia side of the Potomac, and on either side of its principal tributary, the Shenandoah, which here enters it from the South. Its site is a mere nest or cup among high, steep mountains. … Here the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad crosses the Potomac. … Washington is 57 miles distant by turnpike; Baltimore 80 miles by railroad. … One of its very few streets was entirely occupied by the work-shops and offices of the National Armory, and had an iron railing across its entrance. In the old Arsenal building, there were usually stored from 100,000 to 200,000 stand of arms. The knowledge of this had doubtless determined the point at which the first blow of the liberators was to be struck. The forces with which Brown made his attack consisted of seventeen white and five colored men, though it is said that others who escaped assisted outside, by cutting the telegraph wires and tearing up the railroad track. The entrance of this petty army into Harper's Ferry on Sunday evening … seems to have been effected without creating alarm. They first rapidly extinguished the lights of the town; then took possession of the Armory buildings, which were only guarded by three watchmen, whom, without meeting resistance or exciting alarm, they seized and locked up in the guardhouse. It is probable that they were aided, or, at least, guided, by friendly negroes belonging in the village. … At a quarter-past one, the western train arrived, and its conductor found the bridge guarded by armed men. … A little after midnight, the house of Colonel Washington was visited by six of Brown's men under Captain Stevens, who captured the Colonel, seized his arms, horses, etc., and liberated his slaves. On their return, Stevens and party visited the house of Mr. Alstadtt and his son, whom they captured, and freed their slaves. These, with each male citizen as he appeared in the street, were confined in the Armory until they numbered between forty and fifty. Brown informed his prisoners that they could be liberated on condition of writing to their friends to send a negro apiece as ransom. At daylight, the train proceeded, Brown walking over the bridge with the conductor. Whenever anyone asked the object of their captors, the uniform answer was, 'To free the slaves;' and when one of the workmen, seeing an armed guard at the Arsenal gate, asked by what authority they had taken possession of the public property, he was answered, 'By the authority of God Almighty!' The passenger train that sped eastward from Harper's Ferry, by Brown's permission, in the early morning of Monday, October 17th, left that place completely in the military possession of the insurrectionists. … {3404} But it was no longer entirely one-sided. The white Virginians, who had arms, and who remained unmolested in their houses, prepared to use them. … Several Virginians soon obtained possession of a room overlooking the Armory gates, and fired thence at the sentinels who guarded them, one of whom was mortally wounded. Still, throughout the forenoon, the liberators remained masters of the town. … Had Brown chosen to fly to the mountains with his few followers, he might still have done so, though with a much slenderer chance of impunity than if he had, according to his original plan, decamped at midnight, with such arms and ammunition as he could bear away. Why he lingered, to brave inevitable destruction, is not certain; but it may fairly be presumed that he had private assurances that the negroes of the surrounding country would rise. … At all events, if his doom was already sealed, his delay at least hastened it. Half an hour after noon, a militia force, 100 strong, arrived from Charlestown, the county seat, and were rapidly disposed so as to command every available exit from the place. … Militia continued to pour in; the telegraph and railroad having been completely repaired, so that the Government at Washington, Governor Wise at Richmond, and the authorities at Baltimore, were in immediate communication with Harper's Ferry, and hurrying forward troops from all quarters. … Night found Brown's forces reduced to three unwounded whites beside himself, with perhaps half a dozen negroes from the vicinity. Eight of the insurgents were already dead; another lay dying beside the survivors; two were captives mortally wounded, and one other unhurt. Around the few survivors were 1,500 armed, infuriated foes. … During that night, Colonel Lee, with 90 United States marines and two pieces of artillery, arrived, and took possession of the Armory guard, very close to the engine-house. … At seven in the morning, after a parley which resulted in nothing, the marines advanced to the assault, broke in the door of the engine-house by using a ladder as a battering-ram, and rushed into the building. One of the defenders was shot and two marines wounded; but the odds were too great; in an instant, all resistance was over. Brown was struck in the face with a saber and knocked down, after which the blow was several times repeated, while a soldier ran a bayonet twice into the old man's body."

"The Virginians demonstrated amply during the Civil War that they were not cowards. What made them shake in their shoes was not John Brown and his handful of men, but the shadows which their excited imagination saw standing behind them. … The best evidence of the frightful genuineness of the panic is the brazen impudence with which it was brought forward as the justifying motive for the many atrocities which marked the trial. The brutalizing influences of slavery came to light with terrible vividness. Kapp's statement that Brown 'enjoyed very careful treatment' is not mistaken, but it is true only of the later period of his imprisonment. Watson Brown, whose life was prolonged until the early morning of the 19th of October, complained of the hard bench he was forced to lie on, His fellow-prisoner, Coppoc, begged for a mattress, or at least a blanket, for the dying man, but could obtain neither. Both Brown himself and Stevens, who was even more seriously wounded, had nothing furnished them but wretched straw. Redpath (page 373) assures us that 'from October 19 till November 7 no clean clothing was given to Brown, but that he lay in his soiled and blood-stained garments just as he had fallen at Harper's Ferry.' On the 25th of October he was brought before the court; he was not at first carried there on a camp-bed, as was the case afterward, but compelled to walk, leaning on two men. Virginia could not wait till he could stand. … There was no such haste to carry out the sentence as there had been to bring the trial to a close. On the 2d of November, Brown was sentenced to suffer death by hanging on the 2d of December."

   "Brown actually expected that the raid on Harper's Ferry would
   be the stroke with which Moses called forth water from the
   rock. The spring was to turn southward, and in its swift
   course to swell to a mighty river. He declared expressly to
   Governor Wise, and later still in his letters, that he had not
   intended simply to break the chains of a few dozen or a few
   hundred slaves, and to take them again to Canada. Emancipation
   was to be spread farther and farther, and the freedmen were to
   remain in the Southern States. Heaven itself could not have
   brought this about, unless it had sent the angel of judgment
   to cast down into the dust the whole white population from
   Florida to Maine." At the last, when John Brown, wounded and a
   prisoner, lay waiting his death, "he did not perceive that his
   undertaking could not have succeeded under any circumstances;
   but he did see that his failure and its consequences achieved
   much greater results than its most complete success could have
   done. … 'I can leave to God,' he writes, 'the time and manner
   of my death, for I believe now that the sealing of my
   testimony before God and man with my blood will do far more to
   further the cause to which I have earnestly devoted myself,
   than anything else I have done in my life.' And a few days
   later, 'My health improves slowly, and I am quite cheerful
   concerning my approaching end, since I am convinced that I am
   worth infinitely more on the gallows than I could be anywhere
   else.' … One year after the execution of Brown, on the 20th of
   December, 1860, South Carolina declared its secession from the
   Union, and on May 11, 1861, the Second Massachusetts Regiment
   of infantry was raised, which was first to sing on its march
   South:
      'John Brown's body lies mouldering in the grave,
      His soul goes marching on.'"

"Editors persevered for a good while in saying that Brown was crazy; but at last they said only that it was 'a crazy scheme,' and the only evidence brought to prove it was that it cost him his life. I have no doubt that if he had gone with 5,000 men, liberated 1,000 slaves, killed a hundred or two slaveholders, and had as many more killed on his own side, but not lost his own life, these same editors would have called it by a more respectable name. Yet he has been far more successful than that."

Total population, 31,443,322, being an increase exceeding 35½ per cent. over the population of 1850; classified and distributed as follows:

White. Free black. Slave.
California. 361,353 4,086 0
Colorado. 34,231 46 0
Connecticut. 451,520 8,627 0
Dakota. 2,576 0 0
Illinois. 1,704,323 7,628 0
Indiana. 1,339,000 11,428 0
Iowa. 673,844 1,069 0
Kansas. 106,579 625 2
Maine. 626,952 1,327 0
Massachusetts. 1,221,464 9,602 0
Michigan. 742,314 6,799 0
Minnesota. 171,864 259 0
Nebraska. 28,759 67 15
Nevada. 6,812 45 0
New Hampshire. 325,579 494 0
New Jersey. 646,699 25,318 18
New York. 3,831,730 49,005 0
Ohio. 2,302,838 36,673 0
Oregon. 52,337 128 0
Pennsylvania. 2,849,266 56,849 0
Rhode Island. 170,668 3,952 0
Utah. 40,214 30 29
Vermont. 314,389 709 0
Washington. 11,138 30 0
Wisconsin. 774,710 1,171 0
—- —- —-
Total 18,791,159 225,967 64

White. Free black. Slave.
Alabama. 526,431 2,690 435,080
Arkansas. 324,191 144 111,115
Delaware. 90,589 19,829 1,798
District of Columbia. 60,764 11,131 3,185
Florida. 77,748 932 61,745
Georgia. 591,588 3,500 462,198
Kentucky. 919,517 10,684 225,483
Louisiana. 357,629 18,647 331,726
Maryland. 515,918 83,942 87,189
Mississippi. 353,901 773 436,631
Missouri. 1,063,509 3,572 114,931
New Mexico 82,924 85 0
North Carolina. 631,100 30,463 881,059
South Carolina. 291,388 9,914 402,406
Tennessee. 826,782 7,300 275,719
Texas. 421,294 855 182,566
Virginia. 1,047,411 58,042 490,865
—— —- —-
Total 8,182,684 262,008 8,958,696

   Immigration in the preceding decade added 2,598,214 to the
   population, being 1,388,098 from the British Islands, and
   1,114,564 from other parts of Europe.

The state of opinion and feeling on the subject of slavery to which the people of the southern states had arrived in 1860 is set forth with brevity and distinctness in Claiborne's Life of General Quitman, which was published that year: "In the early stages of African slavery in the South," says the writer, "it was by many considered an evil, that had been inflicted upon the country by British and New England cupidity. The Africans were regarded as barbarians, and were governed by the lash. The very hatred of the 'evil' forced upon us was, in a measure, transferred to the unhappy victims. They were treated with severity, and no social relations subsisted between them and the whites. By degrees slavery began to be considered 'a necessary evil,' to be got rid of by gradual emancipation, or perhaps not at all, and the condition of the slave sensibly improved. The natural sense of justice in the human heart suggested that they had been brought here by compulsion, and that they should be regarded not as savages, but as captives, who were to be kindly treated while laboring for their ultimate redemption. The progress of anti-slavery sentiment in the Northern States (once regarded by the South as a harmless fanaticism), the excesses it has occasioned, and the unconstitutional power it claims, at length prompted a general and searching inquiry into the true status of the negro. The moment that the Southern mind became convinced, that slavery, as it exists among us, instead of being a moral, social, and political evil, is a moral, social, and political good, and is the natural condition of the negro, as ordained by Providence, and the only condition in which he can be civilized and instructed, the condition of the Southern slave underwent a thorough change. As a permanent fixture, as a hereditary heirloom, as a human being with an immortal soul, intrusted to us by God for his own wise purposes, his value increased, and his relation to his owner approximated to the relation of guardian and ward. Interest taught us that it would be wise to cherish what was to be the permanent means of production and profit, and religion exacted the humane and judicious employment of the 'talent' committed to our care. Thus the most powerful influences that sway the heart and the judgment are in operation for the benefit of the slave, and hence his present comfortable and constantly ameliorating condition. It is due, almost solely, to the moral convictions of the slaveholder. Our laws protect the slave in life and limb, and against cruel and inordinate punishment. Those laws are rigorously applied, though rarely necessary, for public opinion, more formidable than law, would condemn to execration and infamy the unjust and cruel master. Since these convictions in regard to slavery have been adopted almost unanimously in the South, the value of negroes has quadrupled. This, however, is in some measure an evil, because the tendency is to concentrate the slaves in the hands of the few, who are able to pay the extraordinary rates now demanded. It would be better for the commonwealth, and give additional solidity to our system of domestic servitude, if every family had an interest in it, secured, to a limited extent, against liability for debt. It should constitute in the South, if practicable, a part of every homestead, and then interest, and household tradition, and the friendly, confidential, and even affectionate relations that in the present state of public feeling prevail between master and slave, would unite all men in its defense. Neither land, nor slaves, which are here more valuable than land, should, by either direct or indirect legislation, be concentrated in few hands. Every citizen should have, if possible, that immediate interest in them which would make him feel that, in defending the commonwealth and its institutions, he is defending his own inheritance."

J. F. H. Claiborne, Life and Correspondence of John A. Quitman, volume 1, chapter 4.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1860 (April-November).
   Nineteenth Presidential Election.
   Division of the Democratic Party.
   Four candidates in the field.
   A victory for freedom in the choice of Abraham Lincoln.

"Mr. J. W. Fell, a politician of Pennsylvania, says that after the debates of 1858 [with Douglas] he urged Lincoln to seek the Republican nomination for the presidency in 1860. Lincoln, however, replied curtly that men like Seward and Chase were entitled to take precedence, and that no such 'good luck' was in store for him. … In the winter of 1859-60 sundry 'intimate friends,' active politicians of Illinois, pressed him to consent to be mentioned as a candidate. He considered the matter over night and then gave them the desired permission, at the same time saying that he would not accept the vice-presidency. … With the opening of the spring of 1860 the several parties began the campaign in earnest. The Democratic Convention met first, at Charleston, April 23; and immediately the line of disruption opened. Upon the one side stood Douglas, with the moderate men and nearly all the Northern delegates, while against him were the advocates of extreme Southern doctrines, supported by the administration and by most of the delegates from the 'Cotton States.' The majority of the committee appointed to draft the platform were anti-Douglas men; but their report was rejected, and that offered by the pro-Douglas minority was substituted, 165 yeas to 138 nays. Thereupon the delegations of Alabama, Mississippi, Florida, and Texas, and sundry delegates from other States, withdrew from the Convention, taking away 45 votes out of a total of 303. Those who remained declared the vote of two thirds of a full Convention, i. e., 202 votes, to be necessary for a choice. Then during three days 57 ballots were cast, Douglas being always far in the lead, but never polling more than 152½ votes. At last, on May 3, an adjournment was had until June 18, at Baltimore. At this second meeting contesting delegations appeared, and the decisions were uniformly in favor of the Douglas men, which provoked another secession of the extremist Southern men. A ballot showed 173½ votes for Douglas out of a total of 191½; the total was less than two thirds of the full number of the original Convention, and therefore it was decided that any person receiving two thirds of the votes cast by the delegates present should be deemed the nominee. The next ballot gave Douglas 181½. Herschel V. Johnson of Georgia was nominated for vice-president. On June 28, also at Baltimore [after a meeting and adjournment from Richmond, June 11], there came together a collection composed of original seceders at Charleston, and of some who had been rejected and others who had seceded at Baltimore. Very few Northern men were present, and the body in fact represented the Southern wing of the Democracy. Having, like its competitor, the merit of knowing its own mind, it promptly nominated John C. Breckenridge of Kentucky and Joseph Lane of Oregon, and adopted the radical platform which had been reported at Charleston. These doings opened, so that it could never be closed, that seam of which the thread had long been visible athwart the surface of the old Democratic party. … In May the Convention of the Constitutional Union party met, also at Baltimore. This organization was a sudden outgrowth designed only to meet the present emergency. … The party died, of necessity, upon the day when Lincoln was elected, and its members were then distributed between the Republicans, the Secessionists, and the Copperheads. John Bell, of Tennessee, the candidate for the presidency, joined the Confederacy; Edward Everett, of Massachusetts, the candidate for the vice-presidency, became a Republican. The party never had a hope of electing its men; but its existence increased the chance of throwing the election into Congress; and this hope inspired exertions far beyond what its own prospects warranted. On May 16 the Republican Convention came together at Chicago, where the great 'Wigwam' had been built to hold 10,000 persons. … Many candidates were named, chiefly Seward, Lincoln, Chase, Cameron, Edward Bates of Missouri, and William L. Dayton of New Jersey. Thurlow Weed was Seward's lieutenant. Horace Greeley, chiefly bent upon the defeat of Seward, would have liked to achieve it by the success of Bates. David Davis, aided by Judge Logan and a band of personal friends from Illinois, was manager for Lincoln. Primarily the contest lay between Seward and Lincoln. … Upon the third ballot … those who were keeping the tally saw that it stood:—Seward, 180; Lincoln, 231½; Chase, 24½; Bates, 22; Dayton, 1; McLean, 5; Scattering, 1. … Before the count could be announced, a delegate from Ohio transferred four votes to Lincoln. This settled the matter; and then other delegations followed, till Lincoln's score rose to 354. … Later in the day the convention nominated Hannibal Hamlin of Maine, on tho second ballot, by 367 votes, for the vice-presidency. … Almost from the beginning it was highly probable that the Republicans would win, and it was substantially certain that none of their competitors could do so. The only contrary chance was that no election might be made by the people, and that it might be thrown into Congress."

   At the popular election, the votes were:
   Lincoln, 1,866,452
      (Free-States vote, 1,840,022, Slave States vote, 26,430);
   Douglas, 1,375,157
      (Free States vote, 1,211,632, Slave States vote, 163,525);
   Breckenridge, 847,953
      (Free States vote, 277,082, Slave States vote, 570,871);
   Bell, 590,631
      (Free States vote, 74,658, Slave States vote, 515,973).

   In the Electoral College, the four candidates were voted
   for as follows:
      Lincoln, 180;
      Breckenridge, 72;
      Bell, 39;
      Douglas, 12.

E. McPherson, Political History of the United States during the Great Rebellion, page 1.

      J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay,
      Abraham Lincoln,
      volume 2, chapters 13-16.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1860 (November-December).
The plotting of the rebellion.
Secession of South Carolina.

"The long-hoped-for opportunity of trying the experiment of secession was now at last presented. Abraham Lincoln had been elevated to the presidency by a strictly sectional vote; and though the fact could not be denied that he had been elected in a perfectly constitutional manner, … yet, no sooner was it ascertained that it was almost certain that he would receive a majority of the electoral votes of the whole Union, than steps began to be taken for carrying into effect a revolutionary project which had engrossed the thoughts and sensibilities of a small class of extreme Southern politicians, mainly confined to the State of South Carolina, for some thirty years preceding. … So thoroughly matured was the project of secession in the minds of Southern extremists in South Carolina, that they are known actually to have commenced movements looking to this desired end before even the presidential election had taken place, and when the result which soon ensued was yet but a strong probability. Accordingly we find Governor Gist, as early as the 5th of November, 1860, addressing a message to the South Carolina Legislature, embodying the following bold and explicit declarations. … 'That an exposition of the will of the people may be obtained on a question involving such momentous consequences, I would earnestly recommend that, in the event of Abraham Lincoln's election to the presidency, a Convention of the people of this state be immediately called, to consider and determine for themselves the mode and measure of redress. My own opinions of what the Convention should do are of little moment; but, believing that the time has arrived when everyone, however humble he may be, should express his opinions in unmistakable language, I am constrained to say that the only alternative left, in my judgment, is the secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union. The indications from many of the Southern States justify the conclusion that the secession of South Carolina will be immediately followed, if not adopted simultaneously by them, and ultimately by the entire South. … I would also respectfully recommend a thorough reorganization of the militia, so as to place the whole military force of the state in a position to be used at the shortest notice and with the greatest efficiency. … In addition to this general preparation, I would recommend that the services of 10,000 volunteers be immediately accepted.' … I desire not to particularize on this painful subject to an extent which might now prove annoying, and therefore proceed briefly to state that the Legislature of South Carolina provided for the assemblage of a state Convention, the members of which were to be elected on the 6th of December, while the conventional body itself was to come together on the 19th of the same month; that the Convention did assemble on the last-mentioned day, and, after an excited debate of several days' continuance, adopted an Ordinance of Secession on the 20th of December. Commissioners were sent with a copy of the ordinance to each of the slave states, in order to quicken co-operative action, and notification was duly made as to these events to the Federal government in Washington City. The next secession movement it was expected would come off in the State of Georgia. A Convention for this purpose had been already called. It was known that Alexander H. Stephens, Herschel V. Johnson, and other public men, of elevated standing and of extended influence, would be members of the Convention, and it was expected that they would exert themselves to the utmost to prevent the imitation by the State of Georgia of the rash example which had just been set by South Carolina; and it was likewise known that eminent personages from the State of South Carolina would attend the Convention of Georgia, in order to urge immediate co-operation. Under these circumstances, I took it upon myself to persuade the public men of most influence in the city of Nashville, where I was then residing, to send ten or fifteen delegates forthwith to Milledgeville, respectfully and earnestly to protest against extreme action on the part of Georgia. … I urged these views for several days most zealously, but, I regret to say, without success; some supposing that there was no serious danger of the Convention of Georgia adopting an Ordinance of Secession, and others that there was reason to fear, if we should send delegates to Milledgeville, it might result in fatally compromising our own attitude. The manly opposition made by Mr. Stephens to the attempt to draw Georgia into the Secession maelstrom is well known. This want of success is a circumstance which I shall ever deplore as the most unfortunate event of a public nature which has occurred within my recollection. Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas were now soon enrolled among the seceded States. Tennessee, North Carolina, Virginia, Arkansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, and Delaware still stood firm, despite all the efforts essayed to shake their constancy. It is indeed true, as Mr. Greeley has deliberately recorded, that after the secession 'conspiracy had held complete possession of the Southern mind for three months, with the Southern members of the cabinet, nearly all the Federal officers, most of the governors and other state functionaries, and seven eighths of the prominent and active politicians pushing it on, and no force exerted against nor in any manner threatening to resist it, a majority of the slave states, with two thirds of the free population of the entire slaveholding region, was openly and positively adverse to it, either because they regarded the alleged grievances of the South as exaggerated if not unreal, or because they believed that those wrongs would rather be aggravated than cured by disunion.'"

The following is the South Carolina Ordinance of Secession, adopted December 20, together with the Declaration of Causes which was promulgated by the Convention four days later:

"An Ordinance to dissolve the Union between the State of South Carolina and other States united with her under the compact entitled 'The Constitution of the United States of America.' We, the People of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, do declare and ordain, and it is hereby declared and ordained. That the Ordinance adopted by us in Convention, on the twenty-third day of May, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-eight, whereby the Constitution of the United States of America was ratified, and also, all Acts and parts of Acts of the General Assembly of this State, ratifying amendments of the said Constitution, are hereby repealed; and that the union now subsisting between South Carolina and other States, under the name of 'The United States of America,' is hereby dissolved."

"Declaration of the immediate causes which induce and justify the secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union:

The People of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A. D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue. And now the State of South Carolina having resumed her separate and equal place among nations, deems it due to herself, to the remaining United States of America, and to the nations of the world, that she should declare the immediate causes which have led to this act. In the year 1765, that portion of the British Empire embracing Great Britain, undertook to make laws for the government of that portion composed of the thirteen American Colonies. A struggle for the right of self-government ensued, which resulted, on the 4th July, 1776, in a Declaration, by the Colonies, 'that they are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States; and that, as free and independent States, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do.' They further solemnly declared that whenever any 'form of government becomes destructive of the ends for which it was established, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government.' Deeming the Government of Great Britain to have become destructive of these ends, they declared that the Colonies 'are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved.' In pursuance of this Declaration of Independence, each of the thirteen States proceeded to exercise its separate sovereignty; adopted for itself a Constitution, and appointed officers for the administration of government in all its departments—Legislative, Executive and Judicial. For purposes of defence, they united their arms and their counsels; and, in 1778, they entered into a League known as the Articles of Confederation, whereby they agreed to entrust the administration of their external relations to a common agent, known as the Congress of the United States, expressly declaring, in the first article, 'that each State retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right which is not, by this Confederation, expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled. Under this Confederation the War of the Revolution was carried on, and on the 3d September, 1783, the contest ended, and a definitive Treaty was signed by Great Britain, in which she acknowledged the Independence of the Colonies in the following terms:

'Article 1.—His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz: New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free, sovereign and independent States; that he treats with them as such; and for himself, his heirs and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof.' Thus were established the two great principles asserted by the Colonies, namely: the right of a State to govern itself; and the right of a people to abolish a Government when it becomes destructive of the ends for which it was instituted. And concurrent with the establishment of these principles, was the fact, that each Colony became and was recognized by the mother Country as a free, sovereign and independent State. In 1787, Deputies were appointed by the States to revise the Articles of Confederation, and on 17th September, 1787, these Deputies recommended, for the adoption of the States, the Articles of Union, known as the Constitution of the United States. The parties to whom this Constitution was submitted, were the several sovereign States; they were to agree or disagree, and when nine of them agreed, the compact was to take effect among those concurring; and the General Government, as the common agent, was then to be invested with their authority. If only nine of the thirteen States had concurred, the other four would have remained as they were—separate sovereign States, independent of any of the provisions of the Constitution. In fact, two of the States did not accede to the Constitution until long after it had gone into operation among the other eleven; and during that interval, they each exercised the functions of an independent nation. By this Constitution, certain duties were imposed upon the several States, and the exercise of certain of their powers was restrained, which necessarily implied their continued existence as sovereign States. But, to remove all doubt, an amendment was added, which declared that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people. On 23d May, 1788, South Carolina, by a Convention of her people, passed an Ordinance assenting to this Constitution, and afterwards altered her own Constitution, to conform herself to the obligations she had undertaken. Thus was established, by compact between the States, a Government, with defined objects and powers, limited to the express words of the grant. This limitation left the whole remaining mass of power subject to the clause reserving it to the States or to the people, and rendered unnecessary any specification of reserved rights. We hold that the Government thus established is subject to the two great principles asserted in the Declaration of Independence; and we hold further, that the mode of its formation subjects it to a third fundamental principle, namely: the law of compact. We maintain that in every compact between two or more parties, the obligation is mutual; that the failure of one of the contracting parties to perform a material part of the agreement, entirely releases the obligation of the other; and that where no arbiter is provided, each party is remitted to his own judgment to determine the fact of failure, with all its consequences.

In the present case, that fact is established with certainty. We assert, that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused for years past to fulfil their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof. The Constitution of the United States, in its 4th Article, provides as follows: 'No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.' This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio river. The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States. The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the Institution of Slavery has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from the service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constitutional compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation. The ends for which this Constitution was framed are declared by itself to be 'to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.' These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor. We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assumed the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen other States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of Slavery; they have permitted the open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to claim the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection. For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the Common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the Common Government, because he has declared that that 'Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free,' and that the public mind must rest in the belief that Slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction. This sectional combination for the subversion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons, who, by the Supreme Law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its peace and safety. On the 4th March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced, that the South shall be excluded from the common Territory; that the Judicial Tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States. The Guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy. Sectional interest and animosity will deepen the irritation, and all hope of remedy is rendered vain, by the fact that public opinion at the North has invested a great political error with the sanctions of a more erroneous religious belief. We, therefore, the people of South Carolina, by our delegates, in Convention assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, have solemnly declared that the Union heretofore existing between this State and the other States of North America, is dissolved, and that the State of South Carolina has resumed her position among the nations of the world, as a separate and independent State; with full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do."

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1860 (December).
President Buchanan's surrender.
His disunion message and its evil effects.

Congress met on the first Monday of December and received from President Buchanan "his mischievous and deplorable message … —a message whose evil effect can never be estimated, and whose evil character can hardly be exaggerated. The President informed Congress that 'the long-continued and intemperate interference of the Northern people with the question of slavery in the Southern States has at last produced its natural effect.' … The President found that the chief grievance of the South was in the enactments of the Free States known as 'personal liberty laws' [designed to protect free citizens, black or white, in their right to trial by jury, which the fugitive slave law denied to a black man claimed as a slave]. … Very likely these enactments, inspired by an earnest spirit of liberty, went in many cases too far, and tended to produce conflicts between National and State authority. That was a question to be determined finally and exclusively by the Federal Judiciary. Unfortunately Mr. Buchanan carried his argument beyond that point. … After reciting the statutes which he regarded as objectionable and hostile to the constitutional rights of the South, and after urging their unconditional repeal upon the North, the President said: 'The Southern States, standing on the basis of the Constitution, have a right to demand this act of justice from the States of the North. Should it be refused, then the Constitution, to which all the States are parties, will have been willfully violated. … In that event, the injured States, after having used all peaceful and constitutional means to obtain redress, would be justified in revolutionary resistance to the government of the Union.' By this declaration the President justified, and in effect advised, an appeal from the constitutional tribunals of the country to a popular judgment in the aggrieved States, and recognized the right of those States, upon such popular judgment, to destroy the Constitution and the Union. … Mr. Buchanan proceeded to argue ably and earnestly against the assumption by any State of an inherent right to secede from the government at its own will and pleasure. But he utterly destroyed the force of his reasoning by declaring that, 'after much serious reflection' he had arrived at 'the conclusion that no power has been delegated to Congress, or to any other department of the Federal Government, to coerce a State into submission which is attempting to withdraw, or has actually withdrawn,' from the Union. … Under these doctrines the Government of the United States was shorn of all power to preserve its own existence, and the Union might crumble and fall while its constituted authorities stood paralyzed and impotent. This construction was all that the extremists of the South desired. With so much conceded, they had every thing in their own hands. … Men who, under the wholesome restraint of executive power, would have refrained from taking aggressive steps against the National Government, were by Mr. Buchanan's action forced into a position of hostility. Men in the South, who were disposed to avoid extreme measures, were by taunt and reproach driven into the ranks of Secession. … The evil effects of Mr. Buchanan's message were not confined to the slave States. It did incalculable harm in the free States. It fixed in the minds of tens of thousands of Northern men who were opposed to the Republican party, the belief that the South was justified in taking steps to break up the government, if what they termed a war on Southern institutions should be continued. This feeling had in turn a most injurious influence in the South."

J. G. Blaine, Twenty Years in Congress, volume 1, chapter 10. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/21128

      ALSO IN:
      G. T. Curtis,
      Life of James Buchanan,
      volume 2, chapters 16-17.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1860 (December).
Vain concessions and humiliations of the North proposed.
The Crittenden compromise.

   "When, in the House of Representatives, Mr. Boteler, of
   Virginia, proposed to refer so much of the President's Message
   as related to the perilous condition of the country to a
   committee of thirty-three—one from each state—not less than
   52 members from the Slave States refused to vote. 'I pay no
   attention to any action taken in this body,' said one. 'I am
   not sent here to patch up difficulties,' said another. The
   Democratic members from the Free States did their utmost to
   compose the dissension—some of them who subsequently became
   conspicuous in the war—suggesting concessions which doubtless
   they looked back upon with regret. It was proposed that
   persons of African blood should never be considered as
   citizens of the United States; that there should never be any
   interference with slavery in the Territories, nor with the
   interstate slave-trade; that the doctrine of state-rights
   should be admitted, and power of coercion denied to the
   government. Among the dissatisfied members, one would allow
   any state at pleasure to secede, and allot it a fair share of
   the public property and territory. Another would divide the
   Union into four republics; another would abolish the office of
   President, and have in its stead a council of three, each of
   whom should have a veto on every public act. Propositions such
   as these show to what length the allies of the slave power
   would have gone to preserve it and give it perpetuity. At this
   stage, Mr. Crittenden [Senator John J. Crittenden of
   Kentucky], proposed in the Senate certain amendments of the
   Constitution, and resolutions known subsequently as the
   Crittenden Compromise. The essential features of his plan were
   the re-establishing of the Missouri Compromise: that in all
   territory of the United States north of 36° 30' slavery should
   be prohibited; in all south of that line, not only permitted,
   but protected; that from such territory north or south states
   might be admitted with or without slavery, as the Constitution
   of each might determine; that Congress should have no power to
   abolish slavery in places under its jurisdiction in a slave
   state, nor in the District of Columbia, without the consent of
   the adjoining states, nor without compensation to the
   slaveholders, nor to prevent persons connected with the
   government bringing their slaves into the District; that
   Congress should have no power to hinder the interstate or
   territorial transport of slaves; that the national government
   should pay a full value to the owner of a fugitive slave who
   might have been rescued from the officers; that no amendments
   of the Constitution should ever be made which might affect
   these amendments, or other slave compromises already existing
   in the Constitution.
{3411}
   He also recommended to the states that had enacted laws in
   conflict with the existing fugitive slave acts, their repeal;
   and in four resolutions made provision for the more perfect
   execution of those acts. But the dissension was too deep to be
   closed by such a measure as Mr. Crittenden's, which contained
   nothing that could satisfy the North. The South was resolved
   not to be satisfied with any thing. It had taken what was
   plainly an irreversible step. According]y, Mr. Crittenden's
   proposition was eventually lost."

J. W. Draper, History of the American Civil War, chapter 31 (section 6, volume 1).

E. McPherson, Political History of the United States during the Great Rebellion, pages 48-90.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1860 (December).
   Major Anderson at Fort Sumter.
   Floyd's treachery in the War Department.
   Cabinet rupture.
   Loyalty reinstated in the national government.

"In November, 1860, the fortifications of Charleston Harbor consisted of three works—Castle Pinckney, an old-fashioned, circular brick fort, on Shute's Folly Island, and about one mile east of the city; Fort Moultrie, on Sullivan's Island, still farther to the east, and famous as being on the site of the old fort of palmetto logs, where, during the long bombardment by the British fleet in Revolutionary days, the gallant William Jasper leaped from the low rampart upon the beach below, and seizing the flag that had been shot down, rehoisted it above the fort; and lastly, Fort Sumter, an unfinished fortification, named after General Thomas Sumter, the famous partisan leader of the Revolution, and who was familiarly known as the 'gamecock of the Carolinas.' The armament of Castle Pinckney consisted of 22 cannon, 2 mortars, and 4 light pieces; that of Moultrie of 45 cannon and 7 light pieces; while Sumter mounted 78 heavy guns of various calibre. The entire force of United States troops in these fortifications was composed of two weak companies of artillery under command of Major Robert Anderson, and a few engineer employees under Captain John G. Foster. Of these a sergeant and squad of men were stationed at Castle Pinckney for the care of the quarters and the guns; a similar handful were at Sumter; while most of the little force were at Moultrie, where Anderson had his headquarters. Such was the military situation when South Carolina began to proclaim, without disguise, her purpose to secede and to possess herself of the fortifications on her coast. … Our Government paid no apparent heed, and yet the authorities at Washington were fully and betimes forewarned. … On the files of the Engineer Department I found a letter, which still remains there, dated as early as November 24, 1860, from Captain Foster to Colonel De Russy, then the chief of the engineer corps, in which the captain states that, at the request of Major Anderson, he has, in company with that officer, made a thorough inspection of the forts in the harbor; that, in the opinion of Anderson, one additional company of artillery should at once be sent to garrison Castle Pinckney, which in the terse language of the letter, 'commands the city of Charleston.' Upon the back of the letter is the simple but significant indorsement, in his own hand-writing, 'Return to Governor Floyd.' You may recall him as Mr. Buchanan's Secretary of War. On November 30, Captain Foster again writes to Colonel De Russy, saying: 'I think that more troops should have been sent here to guard the forts, and I believe that no serious demonstration on the part of the populace would have met such a course.' On this is indorsed: 'Colonel Cooper says this has been shown to the Secretary of War. H. G. W.' The initials, placed there by himself, are those of the gallant Horatio G. Wright, who succeeded to the command of the Sixth Army Corps after the loved Sedgwick fell. On December 2, application was made by Captain Foster for the small supply of four boxes of muskets and sixty rounds of cartridge per man, to arm the few civilians or hired laborers who constituted the engineer corps. These arms and ammunition were in the United States arsenal at Charleston, a building which still had a Federal keeper, and over which still floated the Federal flag. On this application is the following indorsement, also in General Wright's handwriting: 'Handed to adjutant-general, and by him laid before the Secretary of War on the sixth of December. Returned by adjutant-general on the seventh. Action deferred for the present. See Captain Foster's letter of December 4.' … On December 17, Captain Foster, acting on his own patriotic judgment, but without orders, went to Charleston and took from the Federal arsenal forty muskets, with which to arm his laborers. Early on the morning of the 19th, he received a telegram from Secretary Floyd, directing him instantly to return the arms to the arsenal. On the next day, the 20th, the South Carolinians decided, in State convention, to secede, and proclaimed their State an independent sovereignty. … All alike were delirious with the epidemic madness of the hour, were hopeful, resolute, enthusiastic. Bells pealed and cannon boomed. … But few ventured to breast the storm. There was one, whose name should live honored in in a nation's memory, a wise, true man, the greatest lawyer of his State, James L. Pettigrew, who, when his minister first dropped from the service the prayer for the President of the United States, rose in his pew in the middle aisle of Charleston's most fashionable church, and slowly and with distinct voice repeated: 'Most humbly and heartily we beseech Thee with Thy favor to behold and bless Thy servant, the President of these United States.' Then, placing his prayer-book in the rack, and drawing his wife's arm within his own, he left the church, nor entered it again until his body was borne there for burial. To their honor be it said, that even the Carolinians respected his sincerity and candor, and never molested him. … On the night of December 26, Major Anderson evacuated Fort Moultrie, which was untenable by his small force, spiked his guns, burned the gun-carriages, and transferred his small command in two schooners to Fort Sumter. This act was without orders and against the do-nothing and helpless policy which had thus far controlled the Government. But it showed the wisdom and prompt decision of the trained soldier and the spirit of the loyal citizen. … Let us recall the appearance of Sumter when Anderson transferred his feeble garrison to its protection. The fort was built on an artificial island, which had been constructed by dumping stone upon a shoal that lay on the south side of the principal ship channel to Charleston Harbor. Sumter was pentagonal in form, and its five sides of brick, made solid by concrete, rose 60 feet above the water. It was pierced for an armament of 135 guns, which were to be placed in three tiers. {3412} Two tiers were to be in casemates, and one 'en barbette,' or on the top of the wall. The embrasures of the upper tier of casemates were never completed. They were filled up with brick during Major Anderson's occupation of the fort, and so remained during all the succeeding operations and siege. Seventy-eight guns of various calibre composed its then armament, the most efficient of which were placed 'en barbette.' On the east and west sides of the parade were barracks for the privates, and on the south side were the officers' quarters. These were all wooden structures. The wharf by which access was had to the fort was on the southern side against the gorge wall. Looking from the sea front, Sumter lay nearly midway between Sullivan's Island on the north and the low, sandy ridges of Morris on the south, and about 1,400 yards from either. The main ship channel was between Sumter and Sullivan's Island. The water between the fort and Morris Island was for the most part comparatively shallow. James Island lay to the west and southwest, while to the northwest, and at a distance of three and one-third miles, rose the steeples of Charleston. The city could have been barely reached by the heaviest guns of the barbette battery. Castle Pinckney lay in the direction of the city, and was distant about two and one-third miles. Sullivan's, Morris, and James Islands thus formed a segment of three-fourths of a circle around Sumter. They were so close under the guns of the fort that, with the then limited experience in the construction of earthworks, no batteries could have been erected under fire from Sumter sufficiently strong to prevent the re-enforcement and supplying of the fort, had Anderson been allowed to open fire at the first upon the rebel working parties. … At noon of December 27, the flag of the nation was raised over the defenders of the fort. Major Anderson knelt, holding the halliards, while Reverend Matthew Harris, an army chaplain, offered fervent prayer for that dear flag and for the loyal few who stood beneath its folds. … And then all wearily the days and weeks dragged on. New fortifications rose day by day on each sandhill about the harbor; vessels of war, bearing the Confederate flag, steamed insultingly near, and the islands were white as harvest fields, with the tents of the fast-gathering rebel soldiery; and still, by positive orders, Anderson was bidden to stand in idle helplessness beside his silent indignant cannon."

General Stewart L. Woodford, The Story of Fort Sumter (Personal Recollections of the War of the Rebellion, pages 259-266).

On the 29th of December, three days after Anderson had transferred his command to Fort Sumter, Floyd gave up his work of treachery in the War Department, and resigned. Howell Cobb had resigned the Treasury Department previously, on the 10th. A few days later, January 8, Jacob Thompson withdrew from the Interior Department. Loyal men now replaced these secessionists in the Cabinet. Joseph Holt of Kentucky took the place of Floyd in the War Department; John A. Dix of New York succeeded Cobb in the Treasury, and the place of Thompson was not filled. Edwin M. Stanton entered the Cabinet as Attorney-General, taking the place of Jeremiah S. Black who became Secretary of State. General Cass had held the State Department until December 12, when he, too, resigned, but for reasons opposite to those of Floyd and Cobb. He left the Government because it would not reinforce the Charleston forts.

      E. McPherson,
      Political History of the United States during the
      Great Rebellion,
      page 28.

      ALSO IN:
      S. W. Crawford,
      Genesis of the Civil War: The Story of Sumter,
      chapters 1, and 6-10.

      J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay,
      Abraham Lincoln,
      volume 2, chapters 18-29,
      and volume 3, chapter 1-6.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1860-1861 (December-February).
   Seizure of arms, arsenals, forts, and other
   public property by the Southern insurgents.
   Base surrender of an army by Twiggs.

   "Directly after Major Anderson's removal to Fort Sumter, the
   Federal arsenal in Charleston, containing many thousand stand
   of arms and a considerable quantity of military stores, was
   seized by the volunteers, now flocking to that city by
   direction of the State authorities; Castle Pinckney, Fort
   Moultrie, and Sullivan's Island were likewise occupied by
   them, and their defenses vigorously enlarged and improved. The
   Custom-House, Post-Office, etc., were likewise appropriated,
   without resistance or commotion. … Georgia having given
   [January 2, 1861] a large popular majority for Secession, her
   authorities immediately took military possession of the
   Federal arsenal at Augusta, as also of Forts Pulaski and
   Jackson, commanding the approaches by sea to Savannah. North
   Carolina had not voted to secede, yet Governor Ellis
   simultaneously seized the United States Arsenal at
   Fayetteville, with Fort Macon, and other fortifications
   commanding the approaches to Beaufort and Wilmington. Having
   done so, Governor Ellis coolly wrote to the War Department
   that he had taken the step to preserve the forts from seizure
   by mobs! In Alabama, the Federal arsenal at Mobile was seized
   on the 4th, by order of Governor Moore. It contained large
   quantities of arms and munitions. Fort Morgan, commanding the
   approaches to Mobile, was likewise seized, and garrisoned by
   State troops. … In Louisiana, the Federal arsenal at Baton
   Rouge was seized by order of Governor Moore on the 11th. Forts
   Jackson and St. Philip, commanding the passage up the
   Mississippi to New Orleans, and Fort Pike, at the entrance of
   Lake Pontchartrain, were likewise seized and garrisoned by
   State troops. The Federal Mint and Custom-House at New Orleans
   were left untouched until February 1st, when they, too, were
   taken possession of by the State authorities. … In Florida,
   Fort Barrancas and the Navy Yard at Pensacola were seized by
   Florida and Alabama forces on the 13th; Commander Armstrong
   surrendering them without a struggle. He ordered Lieutenant
   Slemmer, likewise, to surrender Forts Pickens and McRae; but
   the intrepid subordinate defied the order, and, withdrawing
   his small force from Fort McRae to the stronger and less
   accessible Fort Pickens, announced his determination to hold
   out to the last. He was soon after besieged therein by a
   formidable volunteer force; and a dispatch from Pensacola
   announced that 'Fort McRae is being occupied and the guns
   manned by the allied forces of Florida, Alabama, and
   Mississippi.' … The revenue cutter Cass, stationed at Mobile,
   was turned over by Captain J. J. Morrison to the authorities
   of Alabama at the end of January.
{3413}
   The McClellan, Captain Breshwood, stationed on the Mississippi
   below New Orleans, was, in like manner, handed over to those
   of Louisiana. General Dix had sent down a special agent to
   secure them, but he was too late. The telegraph dispatch
   whereby General Dix directed him, 'If any person' attempts to
   haul down the American flag, shoot him on the spot,' sent an
   electric thrill through the loyal heart of the country.
   Finally, tidings reached Washington, about the end of
   February, that Brigadier-General Twiggs, commanding the
   department of Texas, had disgracefully betrayed his trust, and
   turned over his entire army, with all the posts and
   fortifications, arms, munitions, horses, equipments, etc., to
   General Ben. M'Culloch, representing the authorities of Texas,
   now fully launched upon the rushing tide of treason. The Union
   lost by that single act at least half its military force, with
   the State of Texas, and the control of our Mexican frontier. …
   The defensive fortifications located within the seceding
   States were some 30 in number, mounting over 3,000 guns, and
   having cost at least $20,000,000. Nearly all these had been
   seized and appropriated by the Confederates before Mr.
   Lincoln's inauguration, with the exception of Fortress Monroe
   (Virginia), Fort Sumter (South Carolina), Fort Pickens
   (Florida), and the fortresses on Key West and the Tortugas,
   off the Florida coast."

      ALSO IN:
      Official Records of the War of the Rebellion,
      series 1, volume 1.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (January-February).
   Secession of Georgia, Mississippi, Florida, Louisiana,
   Alabama, and Texas.
   Opposition of Alexander H. Stephens, in Georgia.

"On the 9th day of January, 1861, the State of Mississippi seceded from the Union. Alabama and Florida followed on the 11th day of the same month; Georgia on the 20th; Louisiana on the 26th; and Texas on the 1st of February. Thus, in less than three mouths after the announcement of Lincoln's election, all the Cotton States … had seceded from the Union, and had, besides, secured every Federal fort within their limits, except the forts in Charleston harbor, and Fort Pickens, below Pensacola, which were retained by United States troops."

The secession of Georgia was powerfully but vainly opposed by the foremost citizen of that state, Alexander H. Stephens, whose speech before the Legislature of Georgia, in protest against the disruption of the Union, had been one of the notable utterances of the time. "Shall the people of the South," asked Mr. Stephens, "secede from the Union in consequence of the election of Mr. Lincoln to the Presidency of the United States? My countrymen, I tell you frankly, candidly, and earnestly, that I do not think that they ought. In my judgment, the election of no man, constitutionally chosen to that high office, is sufficient cause for any State to separate from the Union. It ought to stand by and aid still in maintaining the constitution of the country. To make a point of resistance to the government, to withdraw from it because a man has been constitutionally elected, puts us in the wrong. We are pledged to maintain the constitution. Many of us have sworn to support it. Can we, therefore, for the mere election of a man to the presidency, and that, too, in accordance with the prescribed forms of the constitution, make a point of resistance to the government, without becoming the breakers of that sacred instrument ourselves, by withdrawing ourselves from it? Would we not be in the wrong? Whatever fate is to befall this country, let it never be laid to the charge of the people of the South, and especially to the people of Georgia, that we were untrue to our national engagements. Let the fault and the wrong rest upon others. … Let the fanatics of the North break the constitution, if such is their fell purpose. Let the responsibility be upon them. … We went into the election with this people. The result was different from what we wished; but the election has been constitutionally held. Were we to make a point of resistance to the government and go out of the Union on that account, the record would be made up hereafter against us. But it is said Mr. Lincoln's policy and principles are against the constitution, and that, if he carries them out, it will be destructive of our rights. Let us not anticipate a threatened evil. If he violates the constitution, then will come our time to act. Do not let us break it because, forsooth, he may. If he does, that is the time for us to strike. I think it would be injudicious and unwise to do this sooner. I do not anticipate that Mr. Lincoln will do anything to jeopard our safety or security, whatever may be his spirit to do it; for he is bound by the constitutional checks which are thrown around him, which at this time render him powerless to do any great mischief. This shows the wisdom of our system. The President of the United States is no emperor, no dictator—he is clothed with no absolute power. He can do nothing unless he is backed by power in Congress. The House of Representatives is largely in a majority against him. In the very face and teeth of the heavy majority which he has obtained in the northern States, there have been large gains in the House of Representatives to the conservative constitutional party of the country, which here I will call the national democratic party, because that is the cognomen it has at the North. … Is this the time, then, to apprehend that Mr. Lincoln, with this large majority in the House of Representatives against him, can carry out any of his unconstitutional principles in that body? In the Senate he will also be powerless. There will be a majority of four against him. … Mr. Lincoln cannot appoint an officer without the consent of the Senate—he cannot form a cabinet without the same consent. He will be in the condition of George the Third (the embodiment of toryism), who had to ask the whigs to appoint his ministers, and was compelled to receive a cabinet utterly opposed to his views; and so Mr. Lincoln will be compelled to ask of the Senate to choose for him a cabinet, if the democracy of that party chose to put him on such terms. He will be compelled to do this, or let the government stop, if the national democratic men (for that is their name at the North), the conservative men in the Senate, should so determine. Then how can Mr. Lincoln obtain a cabinet which would aid him, or allow him to violate the constitution? Why then, I say, should we disrupt the ties of this Union when his hands are tied—when he can do nothing against us?"

A. H. Stephens, Speech against Secession, November 14, 1860 (in "Alexander H. Stephens in Public and Private; by H. Cleveland").

But when Georgia, despite his exertions, was drawn into the movement of rebellion, Mr. Stephens surrendered to it, and lent his voice to the undertaking which he had proved to be without excuse.

"The General Assembly of Virginia, on the 19th of January, adopted resolutions inviting representatives of the several States to assemble in a Peace Convention at Washington, which met on the 4th of February. It was composed of 133 Commissioners, many from the border States, and the object of these was to prevail upon their associates from the North to unite with them in such recommendations to Congress as would prevent their own States from seceding and enable them to bring back six of the cotton States which had already seceded." On the 15th of February a committee of the Convention reported certain proposed amendments to the Constitution which "were substantially the same with the Crittenden Compromise;

but on motion of Mr. Johnson, of Maryland, the general terms of the first and by far the most important section were restricted to the present Territories of the United States. On motion of Mr. Franklin, of Pennsylvania, this section was further amended, but not materially changed, by the adoption of the substitute offered by him. Nearly in this form it was afterwards adopted by the Convention. The following is a copy:

'In all the present territory of the United States north of the parallel of thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes of north latitude, involuntary servitude, except in punishment of crime, is prohibited. In all the present territory south of that line, the status of persons held to involuntary service or labor, as it now exists, shall not be changed; nor shall any law be passed by Congress or the Territorial Legislature to prevent the taking of such persons from any of the States of this Union to said territory, nor to impair the rights arising from said relation; but the same shall be subject to judicial cognizance in the Federal courts, according to the course of the common law. When any Territory north or south of said line, within such boundary as Congress may prescribe, shall contain a population equal to that required for a member of Congress, it shall, if its form of government be republican, be admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original States, with or without involuntary servitude, as the Constitution of such State may provide.'…

More than ten days were consumed in discussion and in voting upon various propositions offered by individual commissioners. The final vote was not reached until Tuesday, the 26th February, when it was taken on the first vitally important section, as amended. This section, on which all the rest depended, was negatived by a vote of eight States to eleven. Those which voted in its favor were Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Tennessee. And those in the negative were Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Missouri, New York, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Virginia." A reconsideration of the vote was moved, however, and on the day following (February 27), "the first section was adopted, but only by a majority of nine to eight States, nine being less than a majority of the States represented. … From the nature of this vote, it was manifestly impossible that two-thirds of both Houses of Congress should act favorably on the amendment, even if the delay had not already rendered such action impracticable before the close of the session. The remaining sections of the amendment were carried by small majorities," and the proposed amendment of the Constitution was reported to Congress, with a request that it be submitted to the Legislatures of the States, but no action upon it was taken.

   "Most of the Southerners thought these propositions worse than
   nothing. Hunter preferred the present position under the
   constitution, with the Dred Scott decision as its exposition.
   Mason, the other Senator from the state that had issued the
   call for the Peace Convention, said that he would consider
   himself a traitor if he should recommend such propositions.
   Wigfall of Texas, however, bore off the palm by saying: 'If
   those resolutions were adopted, and ratified by three-fourths
   of the states of this Union, and no other cause ever existed,
   I make the assertion that the seven states now out of the
   Union would go out upon that.' Many of the Republicans were
   equally strong in their opposition to them. Chandler of
   Michigan spoke the substance of the opinions of several on his
   side of the Senate when he expressed himself in the language
   of the 'stump' by saying: 'No concession, no compromise,—ay,
   give us strife, even to blood,—before a yielding to the
   demands of traitorous insolence.' … John Tyler, the president
   of the convention that passed them, and Seddon returned to
   their state and denounced the recommendations of the Peace
   Convention as a delusion, a sham and an insult to the South. …
   Hawkins of Florida told the House, when the question was first
   touched upon, that the day of compromise was past and that he
   and his state were opposed to all and every compromise. Pugh
   and Clopton of Alabama both spoke boldly for secession and
   against any temporizing policy. Congress had been in session
   but ten days, and neither of the committees on compromise had
   had time to report, when a large number of the members of
   Congress from the extreme Southern States issued a manifesto
   declaring that 'argument was exhausted' and that 'the sole and
   primary aim of each slaveholding state ought to be its speedy
   and absolute separation from an unnatural and hostile Union.'
   … The boldness of these facts is startling, even when viewed
   at this distance. They make it perfectly evident that it was
   not the constitution which the South was desirous of saving,
   but the institution of slavery which she was determined to
   preserve. Likewise on the Northern side we find that those who
   were courageous, logical, and intellectually vigorous in
   political speculation considered the constitution of less
   importance than the development of their ideas of freedom.
   These people were called Abolitionists. Although their
   political strength was not great, some one of their many ideas
   found sympathy in the mind of almost every Northerner of
   education or of clear moral intentions. This explains how John
   A. Andrew could be elected governor of Massachusetts, although
   known to have presided over a John Brown meeting.
{3415}
   The purpose of the Abolitionists was 'the utter extermination
   of slavery wheresoever it may exist.' Wendell Phillips
   surprised very few Abolitionists when, knowing that the
   Confederacy was forming, he rejoiced that 'the covenant with
   death' was annulled and 'the agreement with hell' was broken
   in pieces, and exclaimed: 'Union or no Union, constitution or
   no constitution, freedom for every man between the oceans, and
   from the hot Gulf to the frozen pole! You may as well dam up
   Niagara with bulrushes as bind our anti-slavery purpose with
   Congressional compromise.' Congress had to consider such facts
   as these, as well as the compromises which were proposed.
   Stephen A. Douglas felt compelled to say, as early as January,
   1861, that there were Democrats in the Senate who did not want
   a settlement. And it was plain to all that most of the
   Republicans discouraged further concessions. Nor would a
   constitutional amendment have been possible unless the
   Northern members had first recognized the seven states as
   being out of the Union, for it would otherwise have required
   the support of all but one of the states that were still
   active. That the 'personal liberty' laws were a violation of
   the constitution, and that the execution of the fugitive slave
   law of 1850 had been unconstitutionally obstructed, were
   unquestioned facts, directly or indirectly recognized by many
   of the Republican leaders. Nevertheless, the North was much
   more inclined to continue in this unconstitutional position
   than to yield to the demands of the South."

      F. Bancroft,
      The Final Efforts at Compromise
      (Political Science Quarterly, September, 1891).

      L. E. Chittenden,
      Report of Debates and Proceedings in Secret Session
      of the Conference Convention, Washington, 1861.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (February).
   Adoption of a Constitution for
   "The Confederate States of America."
   Election of a President and Vice President.

"Early in February, 1861, a convention of six seceding states, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Florida, was held at Montgomery, Alabama. They were represented by 42 persons. Measures were taken for the formation of a provisional government. After the vote on the provisional Constitution was taken, Jefferson Davis was elected President, and Alexander H. Stephens Vice-President of the Confederacy for the current year. The inauguration of Mr. Davis took place on February 18th. Both were shortly after re-elected permanently for six years. … The permanent Constitution adopted for 'The Confederate States of America,' the title now assumed, was modeled substantially on that of the United States. It was remarked that, after all, the old Constitution was the most suitable basis for the new Confederacy. Among points of difference must be noticed that the new instrument broadly recognized, even in its preamble, the contested doctrine of state-rights. … Inducements and threats were applied to draw Virginia and the other Border States into the Confederacy. … With an ominous monition, the second article reads, 'Congress shall … have power to prohibit the introduction of slaves from any state not a member of this Confederacy.' At this time Virginia was receiving an annual income of $12,000,000 from the sale of slaves. In 1860 12,000 slaves were sent over her railroads to the South and Southwest. One thousand dollars for each was considered a low estimate. Notwithstanding this, the Ordinance of Secession did not pass the Virginia Convention until some weeks subsequently (April 17)."

The preamble of the Constitution declared that "the people of the Confederate States, each State acting in its sovereign and independent character, invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God, ordained a Constitution to form a permanent Federal Government and for other purposes. The change in phraseology was obviously to assert the derivative character of the Federal Government and to exclude the conclusion which Webster and others had sought to draw from the phrase, 'We, the people of the United States.' In the Executive department, the Constitution provided, in accordance with the early agreement of the Convention of 1787, that the President should be elected for six years and be ineligible. A seat upon the floor of either House of Congress might be granted to the principal officer in each of the Executive departments with the privilege of discussing any measures appertaining to his department. The President was empowered to remove at pleasure the principal officer in each of the Executive departments and all persons connected with the diplomatic service. To give entire control of Cabinet officers and of foreign ministers was considered to be necessary for the proper discharge of the President's duties and for the independence of his department. All other civil officers could be removed when their services were unnecessary, or for dishonesty, inefficiency, misconduct, or neglect of duty, but the removals in such cases, with the reasons therefor, were to be reported to the Senate, and no person rejected by the Senate could be reappointed to the same office during the recess of the Senate. The President was empowered, while approving portions of an appropriation bill, to disapprove particular items, as in other like cases of veto, the object being to defeat log-rolling combinations against the Treasury. Admitting members of the Cabinet to seats upon the floor of Congress with right of discussion (which worked well during the brief life of the Confederacy), was intended to secure greater facility of communication betwixt the Executive and the Legislative departments and enforce upon the heads of the departments more direct personal responsibility. By ineligibility of the President and restriction of the power of removal, the Congress, acting as a convention, sought to secure greater devotion to public interests, freedom from the corrupting influences of Executive patronage, and to break up the iniquitous spoils system which is such a peril to the purity and perpetuity of our Government. The Judicial department was permitted to remain substantially as it was in the old Government. The only changes were to authorize a tribunal for the investigation of claims against the Government, the withholding from the Federal Courts jurisdiction of suits between citizens of different States, and the enactment of a wise provision that any judicial or other Federal officer, resident and acting solely within the limits of any State, might be impeached by a vote of two thirds of both branches of the Legislature thereof.

The provisions in reference to the election of Senators and Representatives and the powers and duties of each House were unaltered except that the electors of each State were required to be citizens, and the Senators were to be chosen by the Legislatures of the State at the session next immediately preceding the beginning of the term of service. In reference to the general powers of Congress, some of the changes were more vital. The general welfare clause was omitted from the taxing grant. Bounties from the Treasury and extra compensation to contractors, officers, and agents were prohibited. 'A Protective Tariff' was so far forbidden that no duties or taxes on importations could be laid to promote or foster any branch of industry. Export duties were allowed with the concurrence of two thirds of both Houses. Congress was forbidden to make internal improvements except to furnish lights, beacons, buoys, to improve harbors, and to remove obstructions in river navigation, and the cost of these was to be paid by duties levied on the navigation facilitated. That the objects might be better attained, States, with the consent of Congress and under certain other restrictions, were allowed to lay a duty on the sea-going tonnage participating in the trades of the river or harbor improved. States, divided by rivers, or through which rivers flowed, could enter into compacts for improving their navigation. Uniform laws of naturalization and bankruptcy were authorized, but bankruptcy could not affect debts contracted prior to the passage of the law. A two-thirds vote was made requisite to appropriate money unless asked and estimated for by some one of the heads of the departments. Every law must relate but to one subject, and that was to be expressed in the title. To admit new States required a vote of two thirds of each House, the Senate voting by States. Upon the demand of any three States, legally assembled in their several conventions, Congress could summon a convention to consider amendments to the Constitution, but the convention was confined in its action to propositions suggested by the States making the call. … 'The importation of negroes of the African race was forbidden, and Congress was required to pass laws effectually to prevent it.' The right of transit or sojourn with slaves in any State was secured and fugitive slaves—called 'slaves' without the euphemism of the old instrument—were to be delivered up on the claim of the party to whom they belonged. Congress could prohibit the introduction of slaves from States and Territories not included in the Confederacy, and laws impairing the right of property in negro slaves were prohibited. Slaves could be carried into any Territory of the Confederacy by citizens of the Confederate States and be protected as property. This clause was intended to forbid 'squatter sovereignty,' and to prevent adverse action against property in slaves, until the Territory should emerge from a condition of pupilage and dependence into the dignity, equality, and sovereignty of a State, when its right to define 'property' would be beyond the interference or control of Congress."

Alexander H. Stephens, in his "Constitutional view of the late War between the States," expresses the opinion that the selection of Jefferson Davis for the Presidency of the Confederacy was due to a misunderstanding. He says that a majority of the states were looking to Georgia for the President, and the Georgia delegation had unanimously agreed to present Mr. Toombs, who would have been acceptable. But a rumor got currency that Georgia would put forward Howell Cobb, whereupon the other states took up Davis, and united upon him. It was generally understood, says Mr. Stephens, that Davis "did not desire the office of President. He preferred a military position, and the one he desired above all others was the chief command of the army."

A. H. Stephens, Constitutional View of the War between the States, volume 2, page 328-333.

      ALSO IN:
      R. B. Rhett,
      The Confederate Government at Montgomery
      (Battles and Leaders of the Civil War,
      volume 1, pages 99-111).

      Jefferson Davis,
      Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government,
      part 3, chapter. 5, and appendix K (volume 1).

   The text of both the Provisional and the Permanent
   Constitution of the Confederate States is given in the
   appendix referred to.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (February).
Urgency of South Carolina for the reduction of Fort Sumter
before the inauguration of President Lincoln.

"I am perfectly satisfied," wrote Governor Pickens of South Carolina to Howell Cobb, "President of the Provisional Congress" of the Confederacy, in a letter dated February 13, 1861,—"I am perfectly satisfied that the welfare of the new confederation and the necessities of the State require that Fort Sumter should be reduced before the close of the present administration at Washington. If an attack is delayed until after the inauguration of the incoming President of the United States, the troops now gathered in the capital may then be employed in attempting that which, previous to that time, they could not be spared to do. They dare not leave Washington now and do that which then will be a measure too inviting to be resisted. Mr. Lincoln cannot do more for this State than Mr. Buchanan has done. Mr. Lincoln will not concede what Mr. Buchanan has refused. Mr. Buchanan has placed his refusal upon grounds which determine his reply to six States, as completely as to the same demand if made by a single State. If peace can be secured, it will be by the prompt use of the occasion, when the forces of the United States are withheld from our harbor. If war can be averted, it will be by making the capture of Fort Sumter a fact accomplished during the continuance of the present administration, and leaving to the incoming administration the question of an open declaration of war. Such a declaration, separated, as it will be, from any present act of hostilities during Mr. Lincoln's administration, may become to him a matter requiring consideration. That consideration will not be expected of him, if the attack on the fort is made during his administration, and becomes, therefore, as to him, an act of present hostility. Mr. Buchanan cannot resist, because he has not the power. Mr. Lincoln may not attack, because the cause of the quarrel will have been, or may be, considered by him as past. Upon this line of policy I have acted, and upon the adherence to it may be found, I think, the most rational expectation of seeing that fort, which is even now a source of danger to the State, restored to the possession of the State without those consequences which I should most deeply deplore."

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (February-March). The inauguration and the inaugural address of President Lincoln.

"On the 11th of February, with his family and some personal friends, Lincoln left his home at Springfield for Washington. … On his way to Washington, he passed through the great states of Indiana, Ohio, New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, and was everywhere received with demonstrations of loyalty, as the representative of the national government. He addressed the people at the capitals of these states, and at many of their chief towns and cities. The city of Washington was surrounded by slave territory, and was really within the lines of the insurgents. Baltimore was not only a slaveholding city, but nowhere was the spirit of rebellion more hot and ferocious than among a large class of its people. The lower classes, the material of which mobs are made, were reckless, and ready for any outrage. From the date of his election to the time of his start for Washington, there had often appeared in the press and elsewhere, vulgar threats and menaces that he should never be inaugurated, nor reach the capital alive. Little attention was paid to these threats, yet some of the President's personal friends, without his knowledge, employed a detective, who sent agents to Baltimore and Washington to investigate. … The detectives ascertained the existence of a plot to assassinate the President elect, as he passed through Baltimore. The first intelligence of this conspiracy was communicated to Lincoln at Philadelphia. On the facts being laid before him, he was urged to take the train that night (the 21st of February), by which he would reach Washington the next morning, passing through Baltimore earlier than the conspirators expected, and thus avoid the danger. Having already made appointments to meet the citizens of Philadelphia at, and raise the United States flag over, Independence Hall, on Washington's birthday, the 22nd, and also to meet the Legislature of Pennsylvania at Harrisburgh, he declined starting for Washington that night. Finally his friends persuaded him to allow the detectives and the officers of the railways to arrange for him to return from Harrisburgh, and, by special train, to go to Washington the night following the ceremonies at Harrisburgh. … He went to Harrisburgh according to arrangement, met the Legislature, and retired to his room. In the meanwhile, General Scott and Mr. Seward had learned, through other sources, of the existence of the plot to assassinate him, and had despatched Mr. F. W. Seward, a son of Senator Seward, to apprise him of the danger. Information coming to him from both of these sources, each independent of the other, induced him to yield to the wishes of his friends, and anticipate his journey to Washington. Besides, there had reached him from Baltimore no committee, either of the municipal authorities or of citizens, to tender him the hospitalities, and to extend to him the courtesies of that city, as had been done by every other city through which he had passed. He was persuaded to permit the detective to arrange for his going to Washington that night. The telegraph wires to Baltimore were cut, Harrisburgh was isolated, and, taking a special train, he reached Philadelphia, and driving to the Baltimore depot, found the Washington train waiting his arrival, stepped on board, and passed on without interruption through Baltimore to the national capital. … He afterwards declared: 'I did not then, nor do I now believe I should have been assassinated, had I gone through Baltimore as first contemplated, but I thought it wise to run no risk where no risk was necessary.' … On the 4th of March, 1861, he was inaugurated President of the United States. … In the open air, and with a voice so clear and distinct that he could be heard by thrice ten thousand men, he read his inaugural address, and on the very verge of civil war, he made a most earnest appeal for peace."

The following is the full text of the inaugural address, from
Lincoln's "Complete Works."

"Fellow-Citizens of the United States: In compliance with a custom as old as the government itself, I appear before you to address you briefly, and to take, in your presence, the oath prescribed by the Constitution of the United States to be taken by the President 'before he enters on the execution of his office.' I do not consider it necessary, at present, for me to discuss those matters of administration about which there is no special anxiety or excitement. Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the southern states, that, by the accession of a republican administration, their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches, when I declare that 'I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.' Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations, and had never recanted them. And, more than this, they placed in the platform, for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read: 'Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the states, and especially the right of each state to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend, and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any state or territory, no matter under what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.' I now reiterate these sentiments; and in doing so I only press upon the public attention the most conclusive evidence of which the case is susceptible, that the property, peace, and security of no section are to be in any wise endangered by the now incoming administration. I add, too, that all the protection which, consistently with the Constitution and the laws, can be given, will be cheerfully given to all the states when lawfully demanded, for whatever cause—as cheerfully to one section as to another. {3418} There is much controversy about the delivering up of fugitives from service or labor. The clause I now read is as plainly written in the Constitution as any other of its provisions: 'No person held to service or labor in one state under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.' It is scarcely questioned that this provision was intended by those who made it for the reclaiming of what we call fugitive slaves; and the intention of the law-giver is the law. All members of Congress swear their support to the whole Constitution—to this provision as much as to any other. To the proposition, then, that slaves whose cases come within the terms of this clause 'shall be delivered up,' their oaths are unanimous. Now, if they would make the effort in good temper, could they not, with nearly equal unanimity, frame and pass a law by means of which to keep good that unanimous oath? There is some difference of opinion whether this clause should be enforced by national or by state authority; but surely that difference is not a very material one. If the slave is to be surrendered, it can be of but little consequence to him or to others by which authority it is done. And should anyone, in any case, be content that this oath shall go unkept on a merely unsubstantial controversy as to how it shall be kept? Again, in any law upon this subject, ought not all the safeguards of liberty known in civilized and humane jurisprudence to be introduced, so that a free man be not, in any case, surrendered as a slave? And might it not be well at the same time to provide by law for the enforcement of that clause in the Constitution which guarantees that 'the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states'? I take the official oath today with no mental reservations, and with no purpose to construe the Constitution or laws by any hypercritical rules. And while I do not choose now to specify particular acts of Congress as proper to be enforced, I do suggest that it will be much safer for all, both in official and private stations, to conform to and abide by all those acts which stand unrepealed, than to violate any of them, trusting to find impunity in having them held to be unconstitutional. It is seventy-two years since the first inauguration of a President under our National Constitution. During that period, fifteen different and greatly distinguished citizens have in succession administered the executive branch of the Government. They have conducted it through many perils, and generally with great success. Yet, with all this scope of precedent, I now enter upon the same task, for the brief constitutional term of four years, under great and peculiar difficulty. A disruption of the Federal Union, heretofore only menaced, is now formidably attempted. I hold that in the contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution, the union of these states is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our National Constitution, and the Union will endure forever, it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself. Again, if the United States be not a government proper, but an association of states in the nature of a contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it—break it, so to speak; but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it? Descending from these genera] principles, we find the proposition that in legal contemplation the Union is perpetual, confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen states expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation, in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was 'to form a more perfect Union.' But if the destruction of the Union by one or by a part only of the states be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity. It follows from these views that no state, upon its own mere motion, can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void; and that acts of violence within any state or states against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances. I therefore consider that, in view of the Constitution and the laws, the Union is unbroken; and, to the extent of my ability, I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all the states. Doing this I deem to be only a simple duty on my part; and I shall perform it so far as practicable, unless my rightful masters, the American people, shall withhold the requisite means, or in some authoritative manner direct the contrary. I trust this will not be regarded as a menace, but only as the declared purpose of the Union that it will constitutionally defend and maintain itself. In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government, and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere. Where hostility to the United States in any interior locality shall be so great and universal as to prevent competent resident citizens from holding the federal offices, there will be no attempt to force obnoxious strangers among the people for that object. While the strict legal right may exist in the Government to enforce the exercise of these offices, the attempt to do so would be so irritating, and so nearly impracticable withal, that I deem it better to forego, for the time, the uses of such offices. The mails, unless repelled, will continue to be furnished in all parts of the Union. So far as possible, the people everywhere shall have that sense of perfect security which is most favorable to calm thought and reflection. {3419} The course here indicated will be followed, unless current events and experience shall show a modification or change to be proper; and in every case and exigency my best discretion will be exercised according to circumstances actually existing, and with a view and a hope of a peaceful solution of the national troubles, and the restoration of fraternal sympathies and affections. That there are persons, in one section or another, who seek to destroy the Union at all events, and are glad of any pretext to do it, I will neither affirm nor deny; but if there be such, I need address no word to them. To those, however, who really love the Union, may I not speak? Before entering upon so grave a matter as the destruction of our national fabric, with all its benefits, its memories, and its hopes, would it not be wise to ascertain precisely why we do it? Will you hazard so desperate a step, while there is any possibility that any portion of the ills you fly from have no real existence? Will you, while the certain ills you fly to are greater than all the real ones you fly from—will you risk the commission of so fearful a mistake? All profess to be content in the Union if all constitutional rights can be maintained. Is it true, then, that any right, plainly written in the Constitution, has been denied? I think not. Happily the human mind is so constituted that no party can reach to the audacity of doing this. Think, if you can, of a single instance in which a plainly written provision of the Constitution has ever been denied. If, by the mere force of numbers, a majority should deprive a minority of any clearly written constitutional right, it might, in a moral point of view, justify revolution—certainly would if such a right were a vital one. But such is not our case. All the vital rights of minorities and of individuals are so plainly assured to them by affirmations and negations, guarantees and prohibitions in the Constitution, that controversies never arise concerning them. But no organic law can ever be framed with a provision specifically applicable to every question which may occur in practical administration. No foresight can anticipate, nor any document of reasonable length contain, express provisions for all possible questions. Shall fugitives from labor be surrendered by national or by state authority? The Constitution does not expressly say. May Congress prohibit slavery in the Territories? The Constitution does not expressly say. Must Congress protect slavery in the Territories? The Constitution does not expressly say. From questions of this class spring all our constitutional controversies, and we divide upon them into majorities and minorities. If the minority will not acquiesce, the majority must, or the Government must cease. There is no other alternative; for continuing the Government is acquiescence on one side or the other. If a minority in such case will secede rather than acquiesce, they make a precedent which, in turn, will divide and ruin them; for a minority of their own will secede from them whenever a majority refuses to be controlled by such minority. For instance, why may not any portion of a new Confederacy, a year or two hence, arbitrarily secede again, precisely as portions of the present Union now claim to secede from it? All who cherish disunion sentiments are now being educated to the exact temper of doing this. Is there such perfect identity of interests among the states to compose a new Union as to produce harmony only, and prevent renewed secession? Plainly, the central idea of secession is the essence of anarchy. A majority held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations, and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people. Whoever rejects it, does, of necessity, fly to anarchy or to despotism. Unanimity is impossible; the rule of a minority, as a permanent arrangement, is wholly inadmissible; so that, rejecting the majority principle, anarchy or despotism, in some form, is all that is left. I do not forget the position assumed by some that constitutional questions are to be decide by the Supreme Court; nor do I deny that such decisions must he binding in any case upon the parties to a suit, as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by all other departments of the Government; and while it is obviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect following it, being limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be overruled and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne than could the evils of a different practice. At the same time the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made, in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal. Nor is there in this view any assault upon the Court or the Judges. It is a duty from which they may not shrink, to decide cases properly brought before them, and it is no fault of theirs if others seek to turn their decisions to political purposes. One section of our country believes slavery is right and ought to be extended, while the other believes it is wrong and ought not to be extended. This is the only substantial dispute. The fugitive-slave clause of the Constitution, and the law for the suppression of the foreign slave-trade, are each as well enforced, perhaps, as any law can ever be in a community where the moral sense of the people imperfectly supports the law itself. The great body of the people abide by the dry legal obligation in both cases, and a few break over in each. This, I think, cannot be perfectly cured; and it would be worse in both cases after the separation of the sections than before. The foreign slave-trade, now imperfectly suppressed, would be ultimately revived, without restriction, in one section; while fugitive slaves, now only partially surrendered, would not be surrendered at all by the other. Physically speaking, we cannot separate; we cannot remove our respective sections from each other, nor build an impassable wall between them. A husband and wife may be divorced, and go out of the presence and beyond the reach of each other; but the different parts of our country cannot do this. They cannot but remain face to face; and intercourse, either amicable or hostile, must continue between them. Is it possible, then, to make that intercourse more advantageous or more satisfactory after separation than before? Can aliens make treaties easier than friends can make laws? {3420} Can treaties be more faithfully enforced between aliens than laws can among friends? Suppose you go to war, you cannot fight always; and when, after much loss on both sides and no gain on either, you cease fighting, the identical old questions as to terms of intercourse are again upon you. This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it. I cannot be ignorant of the fact that many worthy and patriotic citizens are desirous of having the National Constitution amended. While I make no recommendation of amendments, I fully recognize the rightful authority of the people over the whole subject, to be exercised in either of the modes prescribed in the instrument itself; and I should, under existing circumstances, favor, rather than oppose, a fair opportunity being afforded the people to act upon it. I will venture to add that to me the convention mode seems preferable, in that it allows amendments to originate with the people themselves, instead of only permitting them to take or reject propositions originated by others not especially chosen for the purpose, and which might not be precisely such as they would wish to either accept or refuse. I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution—which amendment, however, I have not seen—has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the states, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments, so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable. The Chief Magistrate derives all his authority from the people, and they have conferred none upon him to fix terms for the separation of the states. The people themselves can do this also if they choose, but the Executive, as such, has nothing to do with it. His duty is to administer the present government as it came to his hands, and to transmit it unimpaired by him to his successor. Why should there not be a patient confidence in the ultimate justice of the people? Is there any better or equal hope in the world? In our present differences is either party without faith of being in the right? If the Almighty Ruler of Nations, with his eternal truth and justice, be on your side of the North, or on yours of the South, that truth and that justice will surely prevail by the judgment of this great tribunal, the American people. By the frame of the Government under which we live, this same people have wisely given their public servants but little power for mischief; and have with equal wisdom provided for the return of that little to their own hands at very short intervals. While the people retain their virtue and vigilance, no administration, by any extreme of wickedness or folly, can very seriously injure the Government in the short space of four years. My countrymen, one and all, think calmly and well upon this whole subject. Nothing valuable can be lost by taking time. If there be an object to hurry any of you, in hot haste, to a step which you would never take deliberately, that object will be frustrated by taking time; but no good object can be frustrated by it. Such of you as are now dissatisfied still have the old Constitution unimpaired, and on the sensitive point, the laws of your own framing under it; while the new administration will have no immediate power, if it would, to change either. If it were admitted that you who are dissatisfied hold the right side in the dispute, there still is no single good reason for precipitate action. Intelligence, patriotism, Christianity, and a firm reliance on Him who has never yet forsaken this favored land, are still competent to adjust, in the best way, all our present difficulty. In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The Government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the Government, while I shall have the most solemn one to 'preserve, protect, and defend it.' I am loth to close. W are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break, our bonds of affection. The mystic cords of memory, stretching from every battle-field and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature."

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (March).
President Lincoln and his Cabinet.
Secretary Seward.

President Lincoln, "in selecting his cabinet, which he did substantially before he left Springfield for Washington, … thought it wise to call to his assistance the strong men of his party, especially those who had given evidence of the support they commanded as his competitors in the Chicago convention. … This was sound policy under the circumstances. It might indeed have been foreseen that among the members of a cabinet so composed, troublesome disagreements and rivalries would break out. But it was better for the President to have these strong and ambitious men near him as his coöperators than to have them as his critics in Congress, where their differences might have been composed in a common opposition to him. As members of his cabinet he could hope to control them, and to keep them busily employed in the service of a common purpose, if he had the strength to do so. Whether he did possess this strength was soon tested by a singularly rude trial. There can be no doubt that the foremost members of his cabinet, Seward and Chase, the most eminent Republican statesmen, had felt themselves wronged by their party when in its national convention it preferred to them for the presidency a man whom, not unnaturally, they thought greatly their inferior in ability and experience as well as in service. … Seward, who, as Secretary of State, considered himself next to the Chief Executive, and who quickly accustomed himself to giving orders and making arrangements upon his own motion, thought it necessary that he should rescue the direction of public affairs from hands so unskilled, and take full charge of them himself. At the end of the first month of the administration he submitted a 'memorandum' to President Lincoln, which has been first brought to light by Nicolay and Hay, and is one of their most valuable contributions to the history of those days.

In that paper Seward actually told the President that, at the end of a month's administration, the government was still without a policy, either domestic or foreign; that the slavery question should be eliminated from the struggle about the Union; that the matter of the maintenance of the forts and other possessions in the South should be decided with that view; that explanations should be demanded categorically from the governments of Spain and France, which were then preparing, one for the annexation of San Domingo, and both for the invasion of Mexico; that if no satisfactory explanations were received war should be declared against Spain and France by the United States; that explanations should also be sought from Russia and Great Britain, and a vigorous continental spirit of independence against European intervention be aroused all over the American continent; that this policy should be incessantly pursued and directed by somebody; that either the President should devote himself entirely to it, or devolve the direction on some member of his cabinet, whereupon all debate on this policy must end. This could be understood only as a formal demand that the President should acknowledge his own incompetency to perform his duties, content himself with the amusement of distributing post offices, and resign his power as to all important affairs into the hands of his Secretary of State. … Had Lincoln, as most Presidents would have done, instantly dismissed Seward, and published the true reason for that dismissal, it would inevitably have been the end of Seward's career. But Lincoln did what not many of the noblest and greatest men in history would have been noble and great enough to do. He considered that Seward was still capable of rendering great service to his country in the place in which he was, if rightly controlled. He ignored the insult, but firmly established his superiority. In his reply, which he forthwith dispatched, he told Seward that the administration had a domestic policy as laid down in the inaugural address with Seward's approval; that it had a foreign policy as traced in Seward's dispatches with the President's approval; that if any policy was to be maintained or changed, he, the President, was to direct that on his responsibility; and that in performing that duty the President had a right to the advice of his secretaries. Seward's fantastic schemes of foreign war and continental policies Lincoln brushed aside by passing them over in silence. Nothing more was said. Seward must have felt that he was at the mercy of a superior man."

ALSO IN: J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay, Abraham Lincoln: a History, volume 3, chapters 22 and 26.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (March).
Surrender of Alexander H. Stephens to Secession.
His "Corner-stone" speech at Savannah.

The following is from a speech made by Alexander H. Stephens at Savannah, on the evening after the secession of Georgia, which he had opposed, but to which he now yielded himself without reserve. It is a speech that became famous on account of its bold declaration that Slavery formed the "corner-stone" of the New Confederacy. "The new constitution," said Mr. Stephens, "has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution—African slavery as it exists amongst us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the 'rock upon which the old Union would split.' He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the 'storm came and the wind blew.' Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery —subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us."

A. H. Stephens, Speech in Savannah, March 21, 1861 (in "Alexander H. Stephens in Public and Private; by H. Cleveland").

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (March-April).
   The breaking of rebellion into open war
   by the attack on Fort Sumter.
   President Lincoln's statement of the circumstances.
   His first difficulties.
   Attitude of the Border States.

   The circumstances under which the first blow of the civil war
   was struck by the rebels at Charleston were recited by
   President Lincoln, in his Message to Congress, at the special
   session convened July 4, 1861; "On the 5th of March (the
   present incumbent's first full day in office), a letter of
   Major Anderson, commanding at Fort Sumter, written on the 28th
   of February and received at the War Department on the 4th of
   March, was by that department placed in his hands. This letter
   expressed the professional opinion of the writer that
   reinforcements could not be thrown into that fort within the
   time for his relief, rendered necessary by the limited supply
   of provisions, and with a view of holding possession of the
   same, with a force of less than 20,000 good and
   well-disciplined men. This opinion was concurred in by all the
   officers of his command, and their memoranda on the subject
   were made inclosures of Major Anderson's letter.
{3422}
   The whole was immediately laid before Lieutenant-General
   Scott, who at once concurred with Major Anderson in opinion.
   On reflection, however, he took full time, consulting with
   other officers, both of the army and the navy, and at the end
   of four days came reluctantly but decidedly to the same
   conclusion as before. He also stated at the same time that no
   such sufficient force was then at the control of the
   government, or could be raised and brought to the ground
   within the time when the provisions in the fort would be
   exhausted. In a purely military point of view, this reduced
   the duty of the administration in the case to the mere matter
   of getting the garrison safely out of the fort. It was
   believed, however, that to so abandon that position, under the
   circumstances, would be utterly ruinous; that the necessity
   under which it was to be done would not be fully understood;
   that by many it would be construed as a part of a voluntary
   policy; that at home it would discourage the friends of the
   Union, embolden its adversaries, and go far to insure to the
   latter a recognition abroad; that, in fact, it would be our
   national destruction consummated. This could not be allowed.
   Starvation was not yet upon the garrison, and ere it would be
   reached Fort Pickens might be reinforced. This last would be a
   clear indication of policy, and would better enable the
   country to accept the evacuation of Fort Sumter as a military
   necessity. An order was at once directed to be sent for the
   landing of the troops from the steamship 'Brooklyn' into Fort
   Pickens. This order could not go by land, but must take the
   longer and slower route by sea. The first return news from the
   order was received just one week before the fall of Fort
   Sumter. The news itself was that the officer commanding the
   'Sabine,' to which vessel the troops had been transferred from
   the 'Brooklyn,' acting upon some quasi armistice of the late
   administration (and of the existence of which the present
   administration, up to the time the order was despatched, had
   only too vague and uncertain rumors to fix attention), had
   refused to land the troops. To now reinforce Fort Pickens
   before a crisis would be reached at Fort Sumter was
   impossible—rendered so by the near exhaustion of provisions in
   the latter-named fort. In precaution against such a
   conjuncture, the government had, a few days before, commenced
   preparing an expedition as well adapted as might be to relieve
   Fort Sumter, which expedition was intended to be ultimately
   used, or not, according to circumstances. The strongest
   anticipated case for using it was now presented, and it was
   resolved to send it forward. As had been intended in this
   contingency, it was also resolved to notify the governor of
   South Carolina that he might expect an attempt would be made
   to provision the fort; and that, if the attempt should not be
   resisted, there would be no effort to throw in men, arms, or
   ammunition, without further notice, or in case of an attack
   upon the fort. This notice was accordingly given; whereupon
   the fort was attacked and bombarded to its fall, without even
   awaiting the arrival of the provisioning expedition. It is
   thus seen that the assault upon and reduction of Fort Sumter
   was in no sense a matter of self-defense on the part of the
   assailants."

The President's delay of action in the case of Fort Sumter was mainly due, on the political side of the question, to the state of things in the border states—especially in Virginia. "There were fifteen slave states, which those engaged in the rebellion hoped to lead or to force into secession. At the time of the inauguration, only seven of these fifteen—less than a majority—had revolted. The cotton states alone had followed the lead of South Carolina out of the Union. Several weeks had passed since a state had seceded; and unless other states could be dragooned into the movement, the rebellion would be practically a failure from the start. Such a confederacy could not hope to live a year, and would be obliged to find its way back into the Union upon some terms. In the meantime, two or three conventions in the border states [Virginia, April 4, and Missouri, March], delegated freshly from the people, had voted distinctly and decidedly not to secede. [Kentucky and Tennessee had refused even the call of conventions; while North Carolina, February 28, and Arkansas, March 18, of the states farther south, had voted secession down.] The affairs of the confederacy were really in a very precarious condition when Mr. Lincoln came into power. The rebel government was making very much more bluster than progress. It became Mr. Lincoln's policy so to conduct affairs as to strengthen the Union feeling in the border states, and to give utterance to no sentiment and to do no deed which should drive these states toward the confederacy. … The confederacy found that it must make progress or die. The rebel Congress passed a measure for the organization of an army, on the 9th of March, and on the 12th two confederate commissioners—Mr. Forsyth of Alabama and Mr. Crawford of Georgia—presented themselves at the State Department at Washington for the purpose of making a treaty with the United States. They knew, of course, that they could not be received officially, and that they ought to be arrested for treason. The President would not recognize them, but sent to them a copy of his inaugural, as the embodiment of the views of the government. … In the meantime, Lieutenant Talbot, on behalf of Mr. Lincoln, was having interviews with Governor Pickens of South Carolina and with General Beauregard, in command of the confederate forces there, in which he informed them that provisions would be sent to Fort Sumter, peaceably if possible,—otherwise by force. This was communicated to L. P. Walker, then rebel Secretary of War. Before Talbot had made his communication, Beauregard had informed Major Anderson, in command of Fort Sumter, that he must have no further intercourse with Charleston; and Talbot himself was refused permission to visit that gallant and faithful officer. … The wisdom of Mr. Lincoln's waiting became evident at a day not too long delayed. Fort Pickens, which the rebels had not taken, was quietly reinforced [April 12], and when the vessels which carried the relief [to Sumter] were dispatched, Mr. Lincoln gave official information to General Beauregard that provisions were to be sent to Major Anderson in Fort Sumter, by an unarmed vessel. He was determined that no hostile act on the part of the government should commence the war, for which both sides were preparing; although an act of open war had already transpired in Charleston harbor"—the rebel batteries having fired upon and driven off the unarmed steamer Star of the West, which had been sent to convey troops and provisions to Fort Sumter on the 9th of January, two months before Lincoln's inauguration. {3423} "Beauregard laid this last intelligence before his Secretary of War, and, under special instructions, on the 12th of April, he demanded the surrender of Fort Sumter. He was ready to make the demand, and to back it by force. The city of Charleston was full of troops, and, for months, batteries had been in course of construction, with the special purpose of compelling the surrender of the fort. Major Anderson had seen these batteries going up, day after day, without the liberty to fire a gun. He declined to surrender. He was called upon to state when he would evacuate the fort. He replied that on the 15th he would do so, should he not meantime receive controlling instructions from the government, or additional supplies. The response which he received was that the confederate batteries would open on Fort Sumter in one hour from the date of the message. The date of the message was 'April 12, 1861, 3:30 A. M.' Beauregard was true to his word. At half past four the batteries opened upon the Fort, which, after a long and terrible bombardment, and a gallant though comparatively feeble defense by a small and half-starved garrison, was surrendered the following day. … The fall of Sumter was the resurrection of patriotism. The North needed just this. Such a universal burst of patriotic indignation as ran over the North under the influence of this insult to the national flag has never been witnessed. It swept away all party lines as if it had been flame and they had been flax."

S. W. Crawford, Genesis of the Civil War: The Story of Sumter, chapters 24-32.

      A. Doubleday,
      Reminiscences of Forts Sumter and Moultrie,
      chapters 8-11.

      A. Roman,
      Military Operations of General Beauregard,
      volume 1, chapters 2-4.

      Battles and Leaders of the Civil War,
      The Century Company,
      volume 1, pages 40-83.

      S. L. Woodford,
      The Story of Fort Sumter
      (Personal Recollections of the War:
      N. Y. Com. L. L. of the United States).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (April).
   President Lincoln's call to arms.
   The mighty uprising of the North.
   The response of disloyal Governors.

"By the next morning (Sunday April 14) the news of the close of the bombardment and capitulation of Sumter was in Washington. In the forenoon, at the time Anderson and his garrison were evacuating the fort, Lincoln and his Cabinet, together with sundry military officers, were at the Executive Mansion, giving final shape to the details of the action the Government had decided to take. A proclamation, drafted by himself, copied on the spot by his secretary, was concurred in by his Cabinet, signed, and sent to the State Department to be sealed, filed, and copied for publication in the next morning's newspapers. The document bears date April 15 (Monday), but was made and signed on Sunday." It was as follows:

"Whereas the laws of the United States have been for some time past and now are opposed, and the execution thereof obstructed, in the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by law: Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, in virtue of the power in me vested by the Constitution and the laws, have thought fit to call forth, and hereby do call forth, the militia of the several States of the Union, to the aggregate number of seventy-five thousand, in order to suppress said combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed. The details for this object will be immediately communicated to the State authorities through the War Department. I appeal to all loyal citizens to favor, facilitate, and aid this effort to maintain the honor, the integrity, and the existence of our National Union, and the perpetuity of popular government; and to redress wrongs already long enough endured. I deem it proper to say that the first service assigned to the forces hereby called forth will probably be to repossess the forts, places, and property which have been seized from the Union; and in every event the utmost care will be observed, consistently with the objects aforesaid, to avoid any devastation, any destruction of or interference with property, or any disturbance of peaceful citizens in any part of the country. And I hereby command the persons composing the combination aforesaid to disperse and retire peacefully to their respective abodes within twenty days from date. Deeming that the present condition of public affairs presents an extraordinary occasion, I do hereby, in virtue of the power in me vested by the Constitution, convene both Houses of Congress. Senators and Representatives are therefore summoned to assemble at their respective chambers, at twelve o'clock noon, on Thursday the fourth day of July next, then and there to consider and determine such measures as, in their wisdom, the public safety and interest may seem to demand. In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand, and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed. Done at the city of Washington, this 15th day of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-one, and of the Independence of the United States the eighty-fifth. Abraham Lincoln. By the President: William H. Seward, Secretary of State."

   "In view of the subsequent gigantic expansion of the civil
   war, eleventh-hour critics continue to insist that a larger
   force should have been called at once. They forget that this
   was nearly five times the then existing regular army; that
   only very limited quantities of arms, equipments, and supplies
   were in the Northern arsenals; that the treasury was bankrupt;
   and that an insignificant eight million loan had not two weeks
   before been discounted nearly six per cent. by the New York
   bankers, some bids ranging as low as eighty-five. They forget
   that the shameful events of the past four months had elicited
   scarcely a spark of war feeling; that the loyal States had
   suffered the siege of Sumter and firing on the 'Star of the
   West' with a dangerous indifference. They forget the doubt and
   dismay, the panic of commerce, the division of counsels, the
   attacks from within, the sneers from without—that faith seemed
   gone and patriotism dead. Twenty-four hours later all this was
   measurably changed, … The guns of the Sumter bombardment woke
   the country from the political nightmare which had so long
   tormented and paralyzed it.
{3424}
   The lion of the North was fully roused. Betrayed, insulted,
   outraged, the free States arose as with a cry of pain and
   vengeance. War sermons from pulpits; war speeches in every
   assemblage; tenders of troops; offers of money; military
   proclamations and orders in every newspaper; every city
   radiant with bunting; every village-green a mustering ground;
   war appropriations in every legislature and in every city or
   town council; war preparations in every public or private
   workshop; gun-casting in the great foundries; cartridge-making
   in the principal towns; camps and drills in the fields;
   parades, drums, flags, and bayonets in the streets; knitting,
   bandage-rolling, and lint-scraping in nearly every household.
   Before the lapse of forty-eight hours a Massachusetts
   regiment, armed and equipped, was on its way to Washington;
   within the space of a month the energy and intelligence of the
   country were almost completely turned from the industries of
   peace to the activities of war."

"In intelligence no army, except perhaps the Athenian, can have ever equalled or approached that of the North. Most of the soldiers carried books and writing materials in their knapsacks, and mail bags heavily weighted with letters were sent from every cantonment. Such privates would sometimes reason instead of obeying, and they would see errors of their commanders to which they had better have been blind. But on the whole, in a war in which much was thrown upon the individual soldier, intelligence was likely to prevail. In wealth, in the means of providing the weapons and ammunitions of war, the North had an immense advantage, which, combined with that of numbers, could not fail, if, to use Lincoln's homely phrase, it 'pegged away,' to tell in the end. It was also vastly superior in mechanical invention; which was destined to play a great part, and in mechanical skill; almost every Yankee regiment was full of mechanics, some of whom could devise as well as execute. In artillery and engineering the North took the lead from the first, having many civil engineers, whose conversion into military civil engineers was easy. The South, to begin with, had the contents of Federal arsenals and armouries, which had been well stocked by the provident treason of Buchanan's Minister of War. … But when these resources were exhausted, replacement was difficult, the blockade having been established, though extraordinary efforts in the way of military manufacture were made. To the wealthy North, besides its own factories, were opened the markets of England and the world. Of the small regular army the Confederacy had carried off a share, with nearly half the regular officers. The South had the advantage of the defensive, which, with long-range muskets and in a difficult country, was reckoned in battle as five to two. The South had the superiority of the unity, force, and secrecy which autocracy lends to the operations of war. On the side of the North these were comparatively wanting."

In six of the eight Slave-labor States included in the call, the President's Proclamation and the requisition of the Secretary of War "were treated by the authorities with words of scorn and defiance. The exceptions were Maryland and Delaware. In the other States, disloyal Governors held the reins of power. 'I have only to say,' replied Governor Letcher of Virginia, 'that the militia of this State will not be furnished to the powers at Washington for any such purpose as they have in view. Your object is to subjugate the Southern States, and a requisition made upon me for such an object—an object, in my judgment, not within the province of the Constitution or the Act of 1795—will not be complied with. You have chosen to inaugurate civil war, and, having done so, we will meet it in a spirit as determined as the Administration has exhibited toward the South.' Governor Ellis, of North Carolina, answered:—'Your dispatch is received, and if genuine, which its extraordinary character leads me to doubt, I have to say in reply, that I regard the levy of troops, made by the Administration for the purpose of subjugating the States of the South, as in violation of the Constitution, and a usurpation of power. I can be no party to this wicked violation of the laws of the country, and to this war upon the liberties of a free people. You can get no troops from North Carolina.' Governor Magoffin, of Kentucky, replied:—'Your dispatch is received. I say emphatically that Kentucky will furnish no troops for the wicked purpose of subduing her sister Southern States.' Governor Harris, of Tennessee, said:—'Tennessee will not furnish a single man for coercion, but 50,000, if necessary, for the defense of our rights, or those of our Southern brethren.' Governor Rector, of Arkansas, replied:—'In answer to your requisition for troops from Arkansas to subjugate the Southern States, I have to say that none will be furnished. The demand is only adding insult to injury.' … Governor Jackson, of Missouri, responded:—'There can be, I apprehend, no doubt that these men are intended to make war upon the seceded States. Your requisition, in my judgment, is illegal, unconstitutional, and revolutionary in its objects, inhuman and diabolical, and cannot be complied with. Not one man will the State of Missouri furnish to carry on such an unholy crusade.' … Governor Hicks, of Maryland, appalled by the presence of great dangers, and sorely pressed by the secessionists on every side, hastened, in a proclamation, to assure the people of his State that no troops would be sent from Maryland unless it might be for the defense of the National Capital, and that they (the people) would, in a short time, 'have the opportunity afforded them, in a special election for members of the Congress of the United States, to express their devotion to the Union, or their desire to see it broken up.' Governor Burton, of Delaware, made no response until the 26th, when he informed the President that he had no authority to comply with his requisition. At the same time he recommended the formation of volunteer companies for the protection of the citizens and property of Delaware, and not for the preservation of the Union. … In the seven excepted Slave-labor States in which insurrection prevailed, the proclamation and the requisition produced hot indignation, and were assailed with the bitterest scorn. … Even in the Free-labor States, there were vehement opposers of the war policy of the Government from its inception." But, speaking generally, "the uprising of the people of the Free-labor States in defense of Nationality was a sublime spectacle. Nothing like it had been seen on the earth since the preaching of Peter the Hermit and of Pope Urban the Second filled all Christian Europe with religious zeal, and sent armed hosts, with the cry of 'God wills it! God wills it!' to rescue the sepulcher of Jesus from the hands of the infidel."

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (April).
   Activity of Rebellion in Virginia and Maryland.
   Peril of the national capital.
   Attack on Massachusetts volunteers in Baltimore.

"Massachusetts, always the most zealous, was the first in the field [with troops in response to the President's call], and on the 17th [April] she forwarded a regiment of volunteers from Boston to Washington. Pennsylvania, although nearly one-half of her votes had been given for Mr. Breckinridge, followed this example; and, owing to her geographical position, her volunteers reached the shores of the Potomac in advance of all the others. After passing through the great city of Baltimore in the midst of an incipient insurrection, they encamped around the Capitol, on the 18th of April. The seceders, on their side, had not lost a moment in Virginia. They were in possession of Richmond, where the convention was in session. … The workshops and arsenal of Harper's Ferry, situated at the confluence of the Potomac and the Shenandoah, on a spot which was destined to play an important part during the war, were only guarded by a detachment of 64 dismounted dragoons; and the Virginia volunteers, assembled in the valleys of the Blue Ridge, were ready to take possession of them as soon as the ordinance for the secession of Virginia should furnish them a pretext. They were then to cross the Potomac and join the insurgents of Maryland, for the purpose of attempting the capture of Washington, where their accomplices were expecting them. On the morning of the 18th [April], a portion of them were on their march, in the hope of seizing the prey which was to be of so much value to the future armies of the Confederacy. But Lieutenant Jones, who was in command at Harper's Ferry, had been informed of the approach of the Confederate troops under the lead of Ashby—a chief well known since; notwithstanding their despatch, they only arrived in sight of Harper's Ferry in time to see from a distance a large conflagration that was consuming the workshops, store-houses, and the enormous piles of muskets heaped in the yards, while the Federal soldiers who had just kindled it were crossing the Potomac on their way to Washington. The Confederates found nothing but smoking ruins, and some machinery, which they sent to Richmond; their allies from Maryland had not made their appearance, and they did not feel strong enough to venture alone to the other side of the Potomac. During the last few days the authorities of Virginia had been making preparations for capturing the Norfolk [or Gosport] arsenal (navy-yard). That establishment possessed a magnificent granite basin, construction docks, and a depot of artillery with more than 2,000 guns; a two-decked vessel was on the stocks, two others, with a three-decker, three frigates, a steam sloop, and a brig, lay dismantled in the port; the steam frigate Merrimac was there undergoing repairs; the steam sloop Germantown was in the harbor ready to go to sea, while the sailing sloop Cumberland was lying to at the entrance of the port. … Commodore McCauley, the Federal commandant, was surrounded by traitors," and, being deficient in energy and capability, he allowed himself to be put in a position where he thought it necessary to sink all the vessels in the harbor except the Cumberland. As they were sinking, reinforcements arrived from Washington, under Captain Paulding, who superseded McCauley in command. But they came too late. Captain Paulding could do nothing except hastily destroy as far as possible the sinking ships and the arsenal buildings, and then retreat. "The Confederates found abundant resources in artillery and 'materiel' of every description in Norfolk; the fire was soon extinguished, the docks repaired, and they succeeded in raising the Merrimac, which we shall see at work the following year. Fort Monroe had just been occupied by a small Federal garrison. Its loss would have been even more disastrous to the Federal cause than that of the Norfolk navy-yard and arsenal, because the Confederates, instead of having to cover Richmond, would have been able to blockade Washington by sea and besiege it by land. … The example of Virginia fired the enthusiasm of the secessionists everywhere, and they applied themselves to the task of drawing into the conflict those slave States which were still hesitating. … The sight of the Pennsylvania volunteers had caused a great irritation in Baltimore. That city, the largest in the slave States, … warmly sympathized with the South. Her location on the railway line which connects Washington with the great cities of the North imparted to her a peculiar importance. Consequently, the accomplices of the South, who were numerous in Baltimore, determined to seize the first opportunity that might offer to drag that city into the rebellion. … The looked-for opportunity occurred … April 19. When the Sixth Massachusetts Regiment, with a few battalions of Pennsylvania volunteers, arrived at the northern station, an immense crowd bore down upon them. A line of rails, laid in the centre of the streets, connected this with the southern station, and enabled the cars, drawn by horses, to pass through the city. The crowd surround the soldiers of the Sixth Massachusetts, who occupy these cars. The last cars are stopped, and the occupants, being obliged to get out, endeavor to make their way through the crowd. But, being hemmed in on all sides, they are soon attacked by a shower of stones, which wound many of them, and injure a few mortally. The soldiers have to defend themselves, and the first discharge of musketry, which has considerable effect, opens them a passage. But the aggressors, being armed, rally, and a regular battle ensues. … The ground is strewn with the wounded of both parties. At last, the Massachusetts soldiers rejoin their comrades at the southern station," and are conveyed to Washington. "Baltimore was thenceforth in possession of the secessionists, who were fully determined to take advantage of the situation of that city to intercept all communications between Washington and the North. {3426} Accordingly, they hastened to burn the railroad bridges which had been constructed over large estuaries north of Baltimore, and to cut the telegraph wires. Deprived of all sources of information from the North, the capital of the Union was soon wrapped in mournful silence. For some days the occupant of the White House was unable to forward any instructions to the people who had remained faithful to the Union; but their zeal did not abate on that account. Patriotism extinguished all party animosities in the hearts of most of the Democrats who had opposed the election of Mr. Lincoln. In the presence of the national peril they loyally tendered their assistance to the President; and breaking loose from their former accomplices of the South, they assumed the name of War Democrats in opposition to that of Peace Democrats."

Comte de Paris, History of the Civil War in America, volume 1, book 2, chapter 4.

      ALSO IN:
      J. W. Hanson,
      History of the Sixth Massachusetts Volunteers,
      pages 21-57.

      G. W. Brown,
      Baltimore and the 29th of April, 1861
      (Johns Hopkins University Studies, extra volume 3).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (April: South Carolina).
Monarchical cravings.
Intensity of the Carolinian hatred of New England and the North.

Mr. Russell, who was famous in his day as a correspondent of "The Times" (London), spent some time in South Carolina at the beginning of the war, and described the state of feeling there in a letter from Charleston, written at the end of April: "Nothing I could say," he wrote, "can be worth one fact which has forced itself upon my mind in reference to the sentiments which prevail among the gentlemen of this State. I have been among them for several days. I have visited their plantations, I have conversed with them freely and fully, and I have enjoyed that frank, courteous and graceful intercourse which constitutes an irresistible charm of their society. From all quarters have come to my ears the echoes of the same voice. … That voice says, 'If we could only get one of the royal race of England to rule over us, we should be content.' Let there be no misconception on this point. That sentiment, varied in a hundred ways, has been repeated to me over and over again. There is a general admission that the means to such an end are wanting, and that the desire cannot be gratified. But the admiration for monarchical institutions on the English model, for privileged classes, and for a landed aristocracy and gentry, is undisguised and apparently genuine. With the pride of having achieved their independence is mingled in the South Carolinians' hearts a strange regret at the result and consequences, and many are they who 'would go back tomorrow if we could.' An intense affection for the British connection, a love of British habits and customs, a respect for British sentiment, law, authority, order, civilization, and literature, preeminently distinguish the inhabitants of this State, who, glorying in their descent from ancient families on the three islands, whose fortunes they still follow, and with whose members they maintain not unfrequently familiar relations, regard with an aversion of which it is impossible to give an idea to one who has not seen its manifestations, the people of New England and the populations of the Northern States, whom they regard as tainted beyond cure by the venom of 'Puritanism.' Whatever may be the cause, this is the fact and the effect. 'The State of South Carolina was,' I am told, 'founded by gentlemen.' It was not established by witch-burning Puritans, by cruel persecuting fanatics, who implanted in the North the standard of Torquemada, and breathed into the nostrils of their newly-born colonies all the ferocity, blood-thirstiness, and rabid intolerance of the Inquisition. … We could have got on with these fanatics if they had been either Christians or gentlemen,' says [one], 'for in the first case they would have acted with common charity, and in the second they would have fought when they insulted us; but there are neither Christians nor gentlemen among them!' 'Any thing on earth!' exclaims [another], 'any form of government, any tyranny or despotism you will; but '—and here is an appeal more terrible than the adjuration of all the Gods—'nothing on earth shall ever induce us to submit to any union with the brutal, bigoted blackguards of the New England States, who neither comprehend nor regard the feelings of gentlemen! Man, woman and child, we'll die first.' … The hatred of the Italian for the Tedesco, of the Greek for the Turk, of the Turk for the Russ, is warm and fierce enough to satisfy the prince of darkness, not to speak of a few little pet aversions among allied powers and the atoms of composite empires; but they are all mere indifference and neutrality of feeling compared to the animosity evinced by the 'gentry' of South Carolina for the 'rabble of the North.' The contests of Cavalier and Roundhead, of Vendean and Republican, even of Orangeman and Croppy, have been elegant joustings, regulated by the finest rules of chivalry, compared with those which North and South will carry on if their deeds support their words. 'Immortal hate, the study of revenge' will actuate every blow, and never in the history of the world, perhaps, will go forth such a 'væ victis' as that which may be heard before the fight has begun. There is nothing in all the dark caves of human passion so cruel and deadly as the hatred the South Carolinians profess for the Yankees. That hatred has been swelling for years, till it is the very life-blood of the state. … Believe a southern man as he believes himself, and you must regard New England and the kindred States as the birthplace of impurity of mind among men and of unchastity in women—the home of free love, of Fourrierism, of infidelity, of abolitionism, of false teachings in political economy and in social life; a land saturated with the drippings of rotten philosophy, with the poisonous infections of a fanatic press; without honor or modesty; whose wisdom is paltry cunning, whose valor and manhood have been swallowed up in a corrupt, howling demagogy, and in the marts of a dishonest commerce."

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (April-May).
   Proclamation by the Confederate President.
   President Lincoln's proclamation of a Blockade of Southern ports.
   The Queen's proclamation of British neutrality.

On the 17th of April, two days after President Lincoln's call for troops, Jefferson Davis, the chief of the rebellious Confederacy, published a counter-proclamation, giving notice of the intention of the government at Montgomery to issue letters of marque to privateers, for the destruction of American commerce. It was as follows:

"Whereas, Abraham Lincoln, the President of the United States has, by proclamation announced the intention of invading this Confederacy with an armed force, for the purpose of capturing its fortresses, and thereby subverting its independence, and subjecting the free people thereof to the dominion of a foreign power; and whereas it has thus become the duty of this Government to repel the threatened invasion, and to defend the rights and liberties of the people by all the means which the laws of nations and the usages of civilized warfare place at its disposal; Now, therefore, I, Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America, do issue this my Proclamation, inviting all those who may desire, by service in private armed vessels on the high seas, to aid this Government in resisting so wanton and wicked an aggression, to make application for commissions or Letters of Marque and Reprisal, to be issued under the Seal of these Confederate States. And I do further notify all persons applying for Letters of Marque, to make a statement in writing, giving the name and a suitable description of the character, tonnage, and force of the vessel, and the name and place of residence of each owner concerned therein, and the intended number of the crew, and to sign said statement and deliver the same to the Secretary of State, or to the Collector of any port of entry of these Confederate States, to be by him transmitted to the Secretary of State. And I do further notify all applicants aforesaid that before any commission or Letter of Marque is issued to any vessel, the owner or owners thereof, and the commander for the time being, will be required to give bond to the Confederate States, with at least two responsible sureties, not interested in such vessel, in the penal sum of five thousand dollars; or if such vessel be provided with more than one hundred and fifty men, then in the penal sum of ten thousand dollars, with condition that the owners, officers, and crew who shall be employed on board such commissioned vessel, shall observe the laws of these Confederate States and the instructions given to them for the regulation of their conduct. That they shall satisfy all damages done contrary to the tenor thereof by such vessel during her commission, and deliver up the same when revoked by the President of the Confederate States. And I do further specially enjoin on all persons holding offices, civil and military, under the authority of the Confederate States, that they be vigilant and zealous in discharging the duties incident thereto; and I do, moreover, solemnly exhort the good people of these Confederate States as they love their country, as they prize the blessings of free government, as they feel the wrongs of the past and these now threatened in aggravated form by those whose enmity is more implacable because unprovoked, that they exert themselves in preserving order, in promoting concord, in maintaining the authority and efficacy of the laws, and in supporting and invigorating all the measures which may be adopted for the common defence, and by which, under the blessing of Divine Providence, we may hope for a speedy, just, and honorable peace. In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand, and caused the Seal of the Confederate States to be affixed, this seventeenth day of April 1861. By the President, (Signed) Jefferson Davis. R. Toombs, Secretary of State."

The response to this menace was a second proclamation by President Lincoln, announcing a blockade of the ports of the Confederacy, and warning all persons who should accept and act under the proposed letters of marque that they would be held amenable to the laws against piracy. This proclamation was in the following language:

"Whereas an insurrection against the government of the United States has broken out in the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas, and the laws of the United States for the collection of the revenue cannot be effectually executed therein conformably to that provision of the Constitution which requires duties to be uniform throughout the United States: And whereas a combination of persons engaged in such insurrection have threatened to grant pretended letters of marque to authorize the bearers thereof to commit assaults on the lives, vessels, and property of good citizens of the country lawfully engaged in commerce on the high seas, and in waters of the United States: And whereas an executive proclamation has been already issued requiring the persons engaged in these disorderly proceedings to desist therefrom, calling out a militia force for the purpose of repressing the same, and convening Congress in extraordinary session to deliberate and determine thereon: Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, with a view to the same purposes before mentioned, and to the protection of the public peace, and the lives and property of quiet and orderly citizens pursuing their lawful occupations, until Congress shall have assembled and deliberated on the said unlawful proceedings, or until the same shall have ceased, have further deemed it advisable to set on foot a blockade of the ports within the States aforesaid, in pursuance of the laws of the United States, and of the law of nations in such case provided. For this purpose a competent force will be posted so as to prevent entrance and exit of vessels from the ports aforesaid. If, therefore, with a view to violate such blockade, a vessel shall approach or shall attempt to leave either of the said ports, she will be duly warned by the commander of one of the blockading vessels, who will indorse on her register the fact and date of such warning, and if the same vessel shall again attempt to enter or leave the blockaded port, she will be captured and sent to the nearest convenient port, for such proceedings against her and her cargo, as prize, as may be deemed advisable. And I hereby proclaim and declare that if any person, under the pretended authority of the said States, or under any other pretense, shall molest a vessel of the United States, or the persons or cargo on board of her, such person will be held amenable to the laws of the United States for the prevention and punishment of piracy. In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed. Done at the city of Washington, this nineteenth day of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-one, and of the independence of the United States the eighty-fifth. Abraham Lincoln. By the President: William H. Seward, Secretary of State."

Apparently on unofficial information of these announcements, indicating a state of civil war in the United States, the Government of Great Britain made haste—unfriendly haste, as the United States complained—to declare neutrality between the belligerents, thus placing the insurgent Confederacy on an exactly equal footing with the United States so far as a foreign recognition might do so. The Queen's Proclamation was as follows:

"Whereas, We are happily at peace with all Sovereigns, Powers, and States; And whereas hostilities have unhappily commenced between the Government of the United States of America and certain States styling themselves 'the Confederate States of America'; And whereas we, being at peace with the Government of the United States, have declared our Royal determination to maintain a strict and impartial neutrality in the contest between the said contending parties; We, therefore, have thought fit, by and with the advice of our Privy Council, to issue this our Royal Proclamation: And we do hereby strictly charge and command all our loving subjects to observe a strict neutrality in and during the aforesaid hostilities, and to abstain from violating or contravening either the laws and statutes of the realm in this behalf, or the law of nations in relation thereto, as they will answer to the contrary at their peril." After reciting the language of certain statutes which forbid the subjects of Her Majesty to engage, without leave and license from the Crown, in any foreign military or naval service, or to furnish or equip any ship or vessel for service against any state with which Her Majesty is not at war, the Proclamation proceeds as follows: "Now, in order that none of our subjects may unwarily render themselves liable to the penalties imposed by said statute, we do hereby strictly command, that no person or persons whatsoever do commit any act, matter or thing whatsoever, contrary to the provisions of the said statute, upon pain of the several penalties by the said statute imposed, and of our high displeasure. And we do hereby further warn all our loving subjects, and all persons whatsoever entitled to our protection, that if any of them shall presume, in contempt of this Royal Proclamation, and of our high displeasure, to do any acts in derogation of their duty as subjects of a neutral sovereign, in the said contest, or in violation or contravention of the law of nations in that behalf—as, for example and more especially, by entering into the military service of either of the said contending parties as commissioned or non-commissioned officers or soldiers; or by serving as officers, sailors, or marines on board any ship or vessel of war or transport of or in the service of either of the said contending parties; or by serving as officers, sailors, or marines on board any privateer bearing letters of marque of or from either of the said contending parties; or by engaging to go or going to any place beyond the seas with intent to enlist or engage in any such service, or by procuring or attempting to procure, within Her Majesty's dominions, at home or abroad, others to do so; or by fitting out, arming, or equipping, any ship or vessel to be employed as a ship-of-war, or privateer, or transport, by either of the said contending parties; or by breaking, or endeavoring to break, any blockade lawfully and actually established by or on behalf of either of the said contending parties; or by carrying officers, soldiers, despatches, arms, military stores or materials, or any article or articles considered and deemed to be contraband of war according to the law of modern usage of nations, for the use or service of either of the said contending parties, all persons so offending will incur and be liable to the several penalties and penal consequences by the said statute, or by the law of nations, in that behalf imposed or denounced. And we do hereby declare that all our subjects and persons entitled to our protection who may misconduct themselves in the premises will do so at their peril and of their own wrong, and that they will in no wise obtain any protection from us against any liability or penal consequences, but will, on the contrary, incur our high displeasure by such misconduct. Given at our Court at the White Lodge, Richmond Park, this 13th day of May, in the year of our Lord 1861, and in the 24th year of our reign. God save the Queen."

   In the complaint of the United States subsequently submitted
   to the Tribunal of Arbitration at Geneva, the facts attending
   this remarkably hastened Proclamation of Neutrality were set
   forth as follows: "Before any armed collision had taken place,
   there existed an understanding between Her Majesty's
   Government and the Government of the Emperor of the French,
   with a view to securing a simultaneous and identical course of
   action of the two Governments on American questions. … The
   fact that it had been agreed to by the two Governments was
   communicated to Mr. Dallas, by Lord John Russell, on the first
   day of May, 1861. There was nothing in the previous relations
   between Great Britain and the United States which made it
   necessary for Her Majesty's Government to seek the advice or
   to invite the support of the Emperor of the French in the
   crisis which was threatened. … When the news of the bloodless
   attack upon Fort Sumter became known in Europe, Her Majesty's
   Government apparently assumed that the time had come for the
   joint action which had been previously agreed upon; and,
   without waiting to learn the purposes of the United States, it
   announced its intention to take the first step by recognizing
   the insurgents as belligerents. The President's Proclamation,
   which has since been made the ostensible reason for this
   determination, was issued on the 19th of April, and was made
   public in the Washington newspapers of the morning of the
   20th. An imperfect copy of it was also telegraphed to New
   York, and from thence to Boston, in each of which cities it
   appeared in the newspapers of the morning of the 20th. The New
   York papers of the 20th gave the substance of the
   Proclamation, without the official commencement and close, and
   with several errors of more or less importance. The Boston
   papers of the same date, in addition to the errors in the New
   York copy, omitted the very important statement in regard to
   the collection of the revenue, which appears in the
   Proclamation as the main cause of its issue.
{3429}
   During the morning of the 19th of April, a riot took place in
   Baltimore, which ended in severing direct communication, by
   rail or telegraph, between Washington and New York.
   Telegraphic communication was not restored until the 30th of
   the month. The regular passage of the mails and trains was
   resumed about the same time. … It is absolutely certain that
   no full copy of the text of the Proclamation could have left
   Washington by the mails of the 19th, and equally certain that
   no copy could have reached New York from Washington after the
   19th for several days. On the 20th the steamer Canadian sailed
   from Portland, taking the Boston papers of that day, with the
   imperfect copy of the Proclamation, in which the clause in
   regard to the collection of the revenue was suppressed. This
   steamer arrived at Londonderry on the 1st of May, and the
   'Daily News' of London, of the 2d of May, published the
   following telegraphic items of news: 'President Lincoln has
   issued a Proclamation, declaring a blockade of all the ports
   in the seceded States. The Federal Government will condemn as
   pirates all privateer-vessels which may be seized by Federal
   ships.' The Canadian arrived at Liverpool on the 2d of May,
   and the 'Daily News,' of the 3d, and the 'Times,' of the 4th
   of May, published the imperfect Boston copy of the
   Proclamation. … No other than the Boston copy of the
   Proclamation appears to have been published in the London
   newspapers. It is not likely that a copy was received in
   London before the 10th, by the Fulton from New York. It was on
   this meager and incorrect information that the advice of the
   British Law Officers was based, upon which that Government
   acted. … On the 5th of May the steamship Persia arrived at
   Liverpool with advices from New York to the 25th of April.
   Lord John Russell stated on Monday, the 6th of May, in a
   communication to Lord Cowley, 'that Her Majesty's Government
   received no dispatches from Lord Lyons by the mail which has
   just arrived, [the Persia,] the communication between
   Washington and New York being interrupted.' In the same
   dispatch Lord Cowley is informed 'that Her Majesty's
   Government cannot hesitate to admit that such Confederacy is
   entitled to be considered as a belligerent, and as such
   invested with all the rights and prerogatives of a
   belligerent,' and he is instructed to invite the French
   Government to a joint action, and a line of joint policy with
   the British Government, toward the United States."

The Case of the United States before the Tribunal of Arbitration at Geneva [42d congress, 2d session, Senate ex. doc. 31], pages 24-27.

"The British government is accustomed to preserve an attitude of neutrality towards contending nations; but it would seem that neutrality does not so far interfere with the sympathies and freedom of its subjects as to compel it to issue proclamations against Irishmen enlisting with Francis Joseph, or Englishmen fighting for Victor Emanuel and Garibaldi. … In the case of the United States, the laws of England and its treaty stipulations with our Government already forbade its subjects from engaging in a conspiracy to overthrow our institutions. The proclamation, therefore, in forbidding English subjects to fight in the service of the rebels against the United States, simply declared the law as it was already understood; while in forbidding Englishmen to fight for the United States against the rebels, it intervened to change the existing practice, to revive the almost obsolete act of Geo. III. forbidding English subjects from engaging in foreign service without the royal consent, which had slumbered in regard to Austria and Italy, for the purpose of forbidding Englishmen from assisting to maintain in the United States constitutional order against conspiracy and rebellion, and the cause of freedom against chattel slavery. The first effect of the proclamation, therefore, was to change the position in which England and Englishmen stood to the United States, to the disadvantage of the latter. Before the proclamation, for an Englishman to serve the United States Government in maintaining its integrity was regarded honorable; after the proclamation such service became a crime. The proclamation makes it an offence now for an Englishman to fight for the Government at Washington as great as it was for Englishmen before the proclamation to fight for the rebels of Montgomery. It thus, in a moral view, lowered the American Government to the level of the rebel confederacy, and in the next place, it proceeded, in an international view, to place the rebel confederacy on a par with the American Government. … No ingenuity can blind us to these facts:—Before the proclamation, to support our Government was an honorable office for the subjects of Great Britain, and the rebels were insurgents, with no rights save under the American Constitution. After the proclamation, for an Englishman to serve the United States is a crime, and the rebels are elevated into a belligerent power—and this intervention of England, depriving us of a support which her practice permitted, and giving the rebels a status and right they did not possess, we are coolly told is neutrality. … What would England have said to such a proclamation of neutrality from us in her domestic troubles in Canada, in Ireland, or in India? What would the English people have thought of a state paper from Washington, declaring it the sovereign will of the people of the United States to remain perfectly neutral in the contest being waged in Hindostan between the British government on the one side and the Mogul dynasty on the other, and forbidding American citizens to enter the services of either of the said belligerents? What would they have thought of the American President intimating with cold etiquette that it was a matter of profound indifference to this Government which of the belligerents should be victorious, the King of Oude and Nana Sahib, or Lord Canning and the immortal Havelock?"

      M. Bernard,
      Historical Account of the Neutrality of Great Britain
      during the American Civil War,
      chapters 4-10.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (April-May: Maryland).
The ending of rebellious trouble in Baltimore and the state.
General Butler in the field.

The Eighth Massachusetts Regiment, Colonel Monroe, arrived at Philadelphia on the 20th of April, the day following the passage of the Sixth Massachusetts Regiment through Baltimore, and its battle with the rebel mob of that city. The Eighth was accompanied by General Benjamin F. Butler, who had been appointed by the Governor of Massachusetts to command the first brigade from that state. At Philadelphia General Butler "first heard of the attack on the Sixth, in Baltimore. His orders commanded him to march through that city. It was now impossible to do so with less than 10,000 armed men. He counselled with Major-General Robert Patterson, who had just been appointed commander of the 'Department of Washington,' which embraced the States of Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Maryland, and the District of Columbia, and whose head-quarters were at Philadelphia. Commodore Dupont, commandant of the Navy Yard there, was also consulted, and it was agreed that the troops should go by water from Perryville, at the mouth of the Susquehanna River, to Annapolis, and thence across Maryland to Washington." This route was accordingly taken by General Butler. Colonel Lefferts, who had reached Philadelphia with the New York Seventh Regiment, preferred to attempt going directly to Washington by a steamer which he secured for the purpose; but a report of rebel batteries on the Potomac turned him back, and his regiment, likewise, proceeded to Annapolis, arriving there some hours after the Eighth Massachusetts. Despite the protests and remonstrances of the Governor of Maryland-who was striving hard to put his state in an attitude of "neutrality," and to persuade the national government to respect it by passing no armed troops across Maryland soil—both regiments were landed, and took possession of the town, where the secessionists were making ready to capture the Naval Academy and the training ship Constitution. The track of the railroad from Annapolis had been torn up and the locomotives disabled. The mechanics of the Massachusetts Eighth proceeded quickly to repair both, and the two regiments moved forward. "The troops reached Annapolis Junction on the morning of the 25th, when the co-operation of the two regiments ceased, the Seventh New York going on to Washington, and the Eighth Massachusetts remaining to hold the road they had just opened. Before their departure from Annapolis, the Baltic, a large steamship transport, had arrived there with troops, and officers speedily followed. General Scott ordered General Butler to remain there, hold the town and the road, and superintend the forwarding of troops to the Capital. The 'Department of Annapolis,' which embraced the country twenty miles on each side of the railway, as far as Bladensburg, was created, and General Butler was placed in command of it, with ample discretionary powers to make him a sort of military dictator. … At the close of April, General Butler had full 10,000 men under his command at Annapolis, and an equal number were guarding the seat of Government [Washington]." Meantime, Baltimore had been given up to the control of the Secessionists, though the Maryland Unionists were numerous and strong and were gathering courage to assert themselves. But the rebellious and riotous city was now brought to its senses. On the 5th of May General Butler sent two regiments to occupy the Relay House, within nine miles of Baltimore. On the 9th, a force of 1,200 Pennsylvania troops and regulars, ordered forward by General Patterson from Philadelphia, were landed near Fort McHenry, under the guns of a United States vessel, and marched through the city. On the night of the 13th, General Butler, in person, with about 1,000 men, including the Massachusetts Sixth, entered the place and took a commanding position on Federal Hill, which was afterwards permanently fortified. From that day the disloyalty in Baltimore gave no trouble to the Government.

      B. J. Lossing,
      Field Book of the Civil War,
      volume 1, chapter 18.

      ALSO IN:
      Official Records of the War of the Rebellion,
      series 1, volume 2.

      T. Winthrop,
      New York Seventh Regiment: Our March to Washington
      (Life in the Open Air).

On the 3d of May the President issued a call for forty additional regiments of volunteers; directed an increase of the regular army by ten regiments, and ordered the enlistment of 18,000 seamen—acts subsequently legalized by Congress.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (May). Exportation of cotton from the Confederacy, excepting through its seaports, prohibited.

On the 21st of May, 1861, the Congress of the Confederate States passed an act declaring that "from and after the 1st day of June next, and during the existence of the blockade of any of the ports of the Confederate States of America by the Government of the United States, it shall not be lawful for any person to export any raw cotton or cotton yarn from the Confederate States of America except through the seaports of the said Confederate States."

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (May).
General Butler at Fortress Monroe and his "Contrabands."
The first military thrust at Slavery.

General Butler was commissioned as Major-General of Volunteers on the 16th of May, and on the 20th he was ordered to the command at Fortress Monroe. He arrived at the Fortress on the 22d and assumed the command. "On the evening of the second day after his arrival at the post, the event occurred which will for ever connect the name of General Butler with the history of the abolition of slavery in America. Colonel Phelps's visit to Hampton [the previous day] had thrown the white inhabitants into such alarm that most of them prepared for flight, and many left their homes that night, never to see them again. In the confusion three negroes escaped, and, making their way across the bridges, gave themselves up to a Union picket, saying that their master, Colonel Mallory, was about to remove them to North Carolina to work upon rebel fortifications there, far away from their wives and children, who were to be left in Hampton. They were brought to the fortress, and the circumstance was reported to the general in the morning. … He needed laborers. He was aware that the rebel batteries that were rising around him were the work chiefly of slaves, without whose assistance they could not have been erected in time to give him trouble. He wished to keep these men. The garrison wished them kept. The country would have deplored or resented the sending of them away. If they had been Colonel Mallory's horses, or Colonel Mallory's spades, or Colonel Mallory's percussion caps, he would have seized them and used them without hesitation. {3431} Why not property more valuable for the purposes of the rebellion than any other? He pronounced the electric words, 'These men are Contraband of War; set them at work.' 'An epigram,' as Winthrop remarks, 'abolished slavery in the United States.' The word took; for it gave the country an excuse for doing what it was longing to do. … By the time the three negroes were comfortably at work upon the new bake-house, General Butler received the following brief epistle, signed 'J. B. Carey, major-acting, Virginia volunteers': 'Be pleased to designate some time and place when it will be agreeable to you to accord to me a personal interview.' The general complied with the request." The interview occurred that afternoon, and was not between strangers; for General Butler and Major Carey were old political allies—hard-shell democrats both. The essential part of the conversation which ensued was as follows: "Major Carey: 'I am informed that three negroes, belonging to Colonel Mallory, have escaped within your lines. I am Colonel Mallory's agent and have charge of his property. What do you intend to do with regard to those negroes?' General Butler: 'I propose to retain them.' Major Carey: 'Do you mean, then, to set aside your constitutional obligations?' General Butler: 'I mean to abide by the decision of Virginia, as expressed in her ordinance of secession, passed the day before yesterday. I am under no constitutional obligations to a foreign country, which Virginia now claims to be.' Major Carey: 'But you say, we can't secede, and so you cannot consistently detain the negroes.' General Butler: 'But you say, you have seceded, and so you cannot consistently claim them. I shall detain the negroes as contraband of war. You are using them upon your batteries. It is merely a question whether they shall be used for or against the government. Nevertheless, though I greatly need the labor which has providentially fallen into my hands, if Colonel Mallory will come into the fort, and take the oath of allegiance to the United States, he shall have his negroes, and I will endeavor to hire them from him.' Major Carey: 'Colonel Mallory is absent.' The interview here terminated, and each party, with polite farewell, went its way. This was on Friday, May 24. On Sunday morning, eight more negroes came in. … They continued to come in daily, in tens, twenties, thirties, till the number of contrabands in the various camps numbered more than 900. A commissioner of negro affairs was appointed, who taught, fed and governed them." General Butler reported his action to the Government, and on the 30th of May the Secretary of War wrote to him: "Your action in respect to the negroes who came within your lines, from the service of the rebels, is approved. … While … you will permit no interference, by persons under your command, with the relations of persons held to service under the laws of any state, you will, on the other hand, so long as any state within which your military operations are conducted remain under the control of … armed combinations, refrain from surrendering to alleged masters any persons who come within your lines." "So the matter rested for two months, at the expiration of which events revived the question."

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (May: Virginia).
First Advance of Union Troops across the Potomac.
Death of Ellsworth at Alexandria.

   "Already 'Confederate' pickets were occupying Arlington
   Heights and the Virginia shore of the Long Bridge, which spans
   the Potomac at Washington City; and engineers had been seen on
   those heights selecting eligible positions for batteries. A
   crisis was evidently at hand, and the General-in-chief was now
   persuaded to allow an immediate invasion of Virginia. Orders
   were at once issued [May 23] for the occupation of the shores
   of the Potomac opposite, and also the city of Alexandria, nine
   miles below, by National troops. General Mansfield was in
   command of about 13,000 men at the Capital. Toward midnight,
   these forces in and around Washington were put in motion for
   the passage of the river, at three different points. One
   column was to cross at the Aqueduct Bridge, at Georgetown;
   another at the Long Bridge, at Washington; and a third was to
   proceed in vessels, and seize the city of Alexandria. The
   three invading columns moved almost simultaneously. … The
   troops moving by land and water reached Alexandria at about
   the same time. The National frigate Pawnee was lying off the
   town, and her commander had already been in negotiation for
   the evacuation of Alexandria by the insurgents. A detachment
   of her crew, bearing a flag of truce, now hastened to the
   shore in boats, and leaped eagerly upon the wharf just before
   the zouaves [the New York Fire Zouave Regiment, under Colonel
   Ellsworth] reached it. They were fired upon by some Virginia
   sentries, who instantly fled from the town. Ellsworth,
   ignorant of any negotiations, advanced to the center of the
   city, and took possession of it in the name of his Government,
   while the column under Wilcox marched through different
   streets to the Station of the Orange and Alexandria Railway,
   and seized it, with much rolling stock. They there captured a
   small company (thirty-five men) of Virginia cavalry, under
   Captain Ball. Other Virginians, who had heard the firing of
   the insurgent pickets, escaped by way of the railroad.
   Alexandria was now in quiet possession of the National troops,
   but there were many violent secessionists there who would not
   submit. Among them was a man named Jackson, the proprietor of
   an inn called the Marshall House. The Confederate flag had
   been flying over his premises for many days, and had been
   plainly seen from the President's house in Washington. It was
   still there, and Ellsworth went in person to take it down.
   When descending an upper staircase with it, he was shot by
   Jackson, who was waiting for him in a dark passage, with a
   double-barreled gun, loaded with buckshot. Ellsworth fell
   dead, and his murderer met the same fate an instant afterward,
   at the hands of Francis E. Brownell, of Troy, who, with six
   others, had accompanied his commander to the roof of the
   house. He shot Jackson through the head with a bullet, and
   pierced his body several times with his saber-bayonet. …
   Ellsworth was a very young and extremely handsome man, and was
   greatly beloved for his generosity, and admired for his
   bravery and patriotism. His death produced great excitement
   throughout the country. It was the first of note that had
   occurred in consequence of the National troubles, and the very
   first since the campaign had actually begun, a few hours
   before.
{3432}
   It intensified the hatred of rebellion and its abettors; and a
   regiment was raised in his native State (New York) called the
   Ellsworth Avengers. Intrenching tools were sent over the
   Potomac early on the morning of the 24th, and the troops
   immediately commenced casting up intrenchments and redoubts,
   extending from Roach's Spring, on the Washington and
   Alexandria Road, across Arlington Heights, almost to the Chain
   Bridge."

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (May-June).
Tennessee dragged into the rebel Confederacy.
Loyal resistance of East Tennessee.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (May-July: Missouri).
   The baffling of the 'Secessionists in Missouri.
   Lyon's capture of Camp Jackson.
   The Battle of Boonville.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (May-September: Kentucky).
The struggle for the state.
Secession and Neutrality overcome.

"Major-General Butler and staff arrived at Fortress Monroe Wednesday afternoon, May 22d. … Colonel Magruder—late Colonel in the United States service, and an officer of much distinction as an obstinate combatant—was placed in command (rebel) of the Peninsula. … Troops rapidly poured into Butler's department, and he soon found himself in a condition to act on the offensive. Magruder's scouts and cavalry greatly annoyed the two camps mentioned. They had, also, seized several Union men. These raids became so frequent and annoying that a night attack was concerted upon their positions at Little Bethel and Big Bethel—the latter, near the north branch of Back River, where it was understood Magruder's outposts were throwing up strong works. Brigadier-General Pierce, of the Massachusetts troops, was detailed to command the expedition. … Approaching the enemy's position at Big Bethel, it was found that their guns commanded all points of approach. The road leading up to the bridge over the creek was swept by their artillery. A thick woods to the left of the road afforded some protection to the Federal left. An open field on the right of the approach only offered a house and out-buildings as a cover. The enemy occupied a hill, beyond the creek, which almost completely secured their front. At their rear was a dense wood. This gave them the advantage of ground, greatly. A reconnaissance would have demonstrated the futility of a front attack except by artillery. The only hope for the Federals was in a flank movement, higher up the creek, by which, the stream being passed, the enemy could be assaulted in their works, at the point of the bayonet, if necessary. This movement was only attempted partially at a late hour in the day. The rebels were well prepared, and only awaited the appearance of the head of the Federal advance to open a sharp fire. … The fight was, from the first, extremely unequal. A front attack was sheer folly. But, the flank movement was not ordered. … The fortunes of the day needed but a master-hand to direct them, to have turned in favor of the Union troops. … Lieutenant-Colonel Washburne had … arranged for a flank movement which, with a combined attack from the front, must have ended the struggle; but the order for retreat was given before the movement could be executed. … The Federal loss was 14 killed, 49 wounded and five missing. Among the killed were two of the most gallant and noble men in the service—Major Theodore Winthrop, Secretary and Aid to General Butler, and first-Lieutenant John T. Greble, of the United States regular artillery, Second regiment. The rebels pronounced their loss to have been but one killed and four wounded. The retreat was accomplished in good order—the enemy not pursuing."

O. J. Victor, History of the Southern Rebellion, volume 2, division 4, chapter 18.

      ALSO IN:
      W. C. Bryant and S. H. Gay,
      Popular History of the United States,
      volume 4, chapter 17.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (June-July: West Virginia).
General McClellan's campaign in the mountains.
Rich Mountain and Carrick's Ford.

"Although some thousands of West Virginians had volunteered to fight for the Union, none of them were encamped on the soil of their State until after the election held [May 23] to ratify or reject the Ordinance of Secession. …

   The Virginians who volunteered were mustered in and organized
   at Camp Carlile, in Ohio, opposite Wheeling, under the command
   of Colonel Kelly, himself a Virginian. George B. McClellan,
   who had been appointed a Major-General and assigned to the
   command of the Department of the Ohio, remained at Cincinnati,
   his home. Three days after the election aforesaid, he issued
   from that city a spirited address 'To the Union men of Western
   Virginia.' … A brief and stirring address to his soldiers was
   issued simultaneously with the above; and, both being read to
   those in Camp Carlile that evening, the 1st Virginia, 1,100
   strong, Colonel Kelly, crossed to Wheeling early next morning,
   closely followed by the 16th Ohio, Colonel Irvine. The 14th
   Ohio, Colonel Steedman, crossed simultaneously, and quietly
   occupied Parkersburg, the terminus of the Northwestern branch
   of the Baltimore and Ohio road. A Rebel force, then holding
   Grafton, which connected the branch aforesaid with the main or
   Wheeling division of the railroad, had meditated a descent on
   Wheeling; but, finding themselves anticipated and outnumbered,
   they obstructed and destroyed the railroad west of them," and
   fell back to Philippi, some fifteen miles southward. "General
   McClellan having ordered that Philippi be captured by
   surprise, the attempt was made on the night of June 2d. Two
   brigades of two regiments each approached the Rebel camp by
   different roads" and dispersed it completely, with some loss
   on both sides, capturing the tents, provisions and munitions.
   The Rebel commander, Colonel Porterfield, "gathering up such
   portion of his forces as he could find, retreated hastily to
   Beverly, and thence to Huttonsville; where the Rebel array was
   rapidly increased by conscription, and Governor Wise placed in
   command. General McClellan arrived at Grafton on the 23d. …
   His forces were rapidly augmented, till they amounted, by the
   4th of July, to over 30,000 men; while the Rebels in his front
   could hardly muster 10,000 in all.
{3433}
   He therefore resolved to advance. The Rebel main force,
   several thousand strong, under General Robert S. Garnett, was
   strongly intrenched on Laurel Hill, a few miles north of
   Beverly, … while a smaller detachment, under Colonel John
   Pegram was intrenched upon the summit and at either base of
   Rich Mountain … three or four miles distant from the Rebel
   main body." General Rosecrans, sent by a detour of eight miles
   through the mountains to Pegram's rear, drove the rebels (July
   11) from their position, at the point of the bayonet; and the
   following day their commander, with about 600 men, was forced
   to surrender. "General McClellan pushed on to Beverly, which
   he entered early next morning, flanking General Garnett's
   position at Laurel Hill and compelling him to a precipitate
   flight northward. Six cannon, 200 tents, 60 wagons and over
   100 prisoners, were the trophies of this success. The Rebel
   loss in killed and wounded was about 150; the Union about 50.
   General Garnett, completely flanked, thoroughly worsted, and
   fearfully outnumbered, abandoned his camp at Laurel Hill
   without a struggle, crossing the Laurel Mountains eastward, by
   a by-road, into the narrow valley of Cheat river. … At length,
   having crossed the Cheat at a point known as Carrick's Ford,
   which proffered an admirable position for defense. Garnett
   turned [July 14] to fight." But the Union force which pursued
   him was overpowering; Garnett himself was killed in the battle
   at the Ford and his command fled in confusion. General
   McClellan telegraphed to Washington, next day, from
   Huttonsville: "We have completely annihilated the enemy in
   Western Virginia. Our loss is about 13 killed and not more
   than 40 wounded; while the enemy's loss is not far from 200
   killed; and the number of prisoners we have taken will amount
   to at least 1,000. We have captured seven of the enemy's guns
   in all. A portion of Garnett's forces retreated; but I look
   for their capture by General Hill, who is in hot pursuit."
   "This expectation was not realized. The pursuit was only
   continued two miles beyond the ford; when our weary soldiers
   halted, and the residue of the Rebels, under Colonel Ramsey,
   turning sharply to the right, made their way across the
   mountains, and joined General Jackson at Monterey." Meantime,
   simultaneously with General McClellan's advance on Beverly,
   another strong Union force, under General Cox, had moved from
   Guyandotte to the Kanawha, and up that river to Charleston,
   which it reached on the 25th of July. Governor Wise, who
   commanded the rebels in the Kanawha Valley, retreated, General
   Cox pursuing, until the pursuit was checked on the 29th by
   Wise's destruction of Gauley bridge. The rebels then made good
   their flight to Lewisburg, in Greenbrier county, where Wise
   was reinforced and superseded by General John B. Floyd.

"The war in Western Virginia seemed to have ended with the dispersion of Garnett's forces, and there was much rejoicing over the result. It was premature. The 'Confederates' were not disposed to surrender to their enemy the granaries that would be needed to supply the troops in Eastern Virginia, without a severer struggle. General Robert E. Lee succeeded Garnett, and more important men than Wise and Floyd took the places of these incompetents. Rosecrans succeeded McClellan, who was called to the command of the Army of the Potomac, and the war in the mountain region of Virginia was soon renewed."

      B. J. Lossing,
      Field Book of the Civil War,
      volume 1, chapter 22.

      ALSO IN:
      Official Records of the War of the Rebellion,
      series 1, volume 2, page 193-293.

      J. D. Cox,
      McClellan in West Virginia
      (Battles and Leaders of the Civil War, volume 1).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (July).
First depredations of the Confederate cruiser Sumter.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (July: Virginia).
The seat of the rebel government transferred to Richmond.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (July: Virginia).
On to Richmond.
The First Battle of Bull Run, or Manassas.

"The Southern Government having inclined to the defensive policy as that upon which they should act, their first object was to prevent an advance of any Federal force into Virginia. Early in the month of May troops were assembled in Richmond, and pushed forward toward the northeastern boundary of the State, to a position known as Manassas Junction. … It is here that a railroad from Alexandria, another from Staunton up the valley and through Manassas Gap, and another from Gordonsville unite. At Gordonsville the railroad from Richmond and the line from East Tennessee unite. As a point for concentration none more eligible exists in northeastern Virginia. The advantages for fortification are naturally such that the place can be rendered impregnable. Here the centre of the northern force of the Southern army was posted, with the left wing pushed forward to Winchester [under the command of General Joseph E. Johnston, with the Union General Patterson opposed to him] and the right extended to the Potomac, and sustained by heavy batteries which served to blockade the river. The Federal force, the advance of which was assembled at Washington for the defence of that city against any attack by the Southern troops, was posted on the Virginia side of the Potomac, on Arlington Heights, which were strongly fortified. Their right was pushed some distance up the Potomac, and chiefly on the Maryland side, while their left occupied Alexandria. The armies of both sides consisted of raw militia hastily brought together, and of volunteers who for the first time had put on the uniform, and taken up the weapons of the soldier. On both sides the forces were constantly accumulating. On the morning of June 27th, the consolidated report of General Mansfield, commanding the Department of Washington, gives the number of troops in that city and vicinity. The privates, including regulars and volunteers present for duty, numbered 22,846 men. The grand aggregate of the force, including officers, etc., present and absent, was 34,160 men. The force of General Patterson, commanding in Maryland above Washington, and also on the Virginia side of the Potomac, on the 28th of June, was returned, embracing officers and men enlisted and present for duty, 15,923. Of these about 550 were reported as sick."

"The return of Johnston's [Confederate] army for June 30th showed his total force present for duty to have been 10,654; but this includes some troops which, though assigned to his army, did not join him till after July 3d. … A prime object of Johnston in taking post at Winchester was, that he might be enabled to join the army at Manassas in case of need. On June 2d, only a week after Johnston's arrival at Harper's Ferry, Beauregard had reached Manassas and assumed command. He and Johnston at once communicated with each other, and agreed in their views of the importance of mutual support. … As soon as Johnston ascertained … that McClellan [from West Virginia] was not moving on Romney and Winchester, the feasibility of this movement to Manassas at the right time became greater. The only problem then remaining was to so time it as to arrive just long enough before the impending battle to take part in it, and not so long as to cause, by the news of his arrival, a corresponding transfer of Patterson. … It was for the purpose of gaining as much start as possible on Patterson that Johnston had retired to Winchester, instead of remaining opposite the Northern force at Martinsburg. He kept his cavalry well out, in order to be informed as promptly as possible of the slightest change in Patterson's position. Meanwhile the grand Federal advance upon Manassas had commenced."

The advance from Washington, which began on the 16th of July, and which resulted in the grievous defeat of the Union forces at Bull Run, or Manassas, on Sunday, the 21st, was undertaken to appease the impatient, ignorant clamor of Northern newspapers, and in opposition to the judgment and the plans of General Scott, who was then at the head of the National army. The cry "On to Richmond" was taken up by Congressmen and Senators, and the pressure on the government became too strong to be resisted. Instead of keeping the raw troops, hurriedly gathered at Washington, in camps of instruction, until they were properly drilled and until their officers had acquired some experience in handling them, they were hurriedly pushed into a serious campaign movement, against an enemy likewise untrained, to be sure, but who was far better prepared to receive an attack than the assailants were to make one. General Irwin McDowell had been recently placed in command of the army intended for the field, with General Mansfield commanding the troops in Washington. The former had "entered on his new and responsible duties with great alacrity, working night and day to prepare his command for the approaching conflict. … McDowell was laboring at a great disadvantage—drilling and preparing his troops as best he could—under the heavy pressure from the North to deliver battle to the enemy in his front. Secretary Chase was the champion, in the Cabinet, of the intense feeling in the North that the war should be pushed at once, with a vigor that would end it soon. … There is no doubt that General Scott was weakened with the administration, for the reason that he did not believe in the prevailing opinion that a few days would crush the rebellion; and the more the old hero insisted, or faithfully stood by his views, the more it antagonized the opinion of those who hoped and said it would end speedily. At the Cabinet meeting a week before, General Hamilton says: 'General Montgomery Blair said he would march to Richmond with 10,000 men, armed with lathes.' 'Yes,' said General Scott, 'as prisoners of war.' Continuing General Hamilton's statement of the events which occurred prior to the battle and during its progress, he says: 'On the Sunday preceding the battle of Bull Run, Scott directed me, his military secretary, to say to McDowell that he wished him to dine with him without fail. At the dinner, at which General McDowell appeared, General Scott used every possible argument to dissuade General McDowell from fighting the first battle of Bull Run under the then existing condition of public affairs. … He then begged General McDowell to go to Secretary Chase, his kinsman, and aid him (General Scott) in preventing a forward movement at that moment; one of the arguments used by General Scott being that the Union sentiment of the South had been surprised by the suddenness and promptitude of the movement in favor of secession; that he (General Scott) was well advised that the Union sentiment was recovering itself, and gaining head in the South; that from the moment blood was shed the South would be made a unit. General McDowell regretted that he could not agree with General Scott in his views, and arose and retired. … In the course of the succeeding week General McDowell reported to General Scott his proposed plan of battle. It was hung upon the wall, and I followed with a pointer the positions indicated by General McDowell as those he intended the forces under his command should occupy. After General McDowell had gone through a detailed statement of his plan, and had finished, General Scott remarked, "General McDowell, that is as good a plan of battle as I ever saw upon paper." General McDowell said in rep]y: "General Scott, the success of this whole plan depends upon General Patterson holding General Johnston in check at Winchester." General Scott remarked that General Johnston was a very able soldier, that he had a railroad at his command with which to move his troops, and if General McDowell's plan of battle, which had just been presented to him, depended upon General Patterson holding General Johnston in check, his plan was not worth the paper it was drawn upon.' That ended that interview."

   Says General McDowell, in his subsequent report of the
   movement and the disastrous battle:
   "When I submitted to the General-in-Chief, in compliance with
   his verbal instructions, the plan of operations and estimate
   of force required, the time I was to proceed to carry it into
   effect was fixed for the 8th of July (Monday). Every facility
   possible was given me by the General-in-Chief and heads of the
   administrative departments in making the necessary
   preparations. But the regiments, owing, I was told, to want of
   transportation, came over slowly. Many of them did not come
   across until eight or nine days after the time fixed upon, and
   went forward without my ever seeing them and without having
   been together before in a brigade. The sending re-enforcements
   to General Patterson by drawing off the wagons was a further
   and unavoidable cause of delay. Notwithstanding the herculean
   efforts of the Quartermaster-General, and his favoring me in
   every possible way, the wagons for ammunition, subsistence,
   &c., and the horses for the trains and for the artillery, did
   not all arrive for more than a week after the time appointed
   to move.
{3435}
   I was not even prepared as late as the 15th ultimo, and the
   desire I should move became great, and it was wished I should
   not, if possible, delay longer than Tuesday, the 10th ultimo.
   When I did set out on the 10th I was still deficient in wagons
   for subsistence, but I went forward, trusting to their being
   procured in time to follow me. The trains thus hurriedly
   gotten together, with horses, wagons, drivers, and
   wagon-masters all new and unused to each other, moved with
   difficulty and disorder, and was the cause of a day's delay in
   getting the provisions forward, making it necessary to make on
   Sunday the attack we should have made on Saturday. I could
   not, with every exertion, get forward with the troops earlier
   than we did. I wished them to go to Centreville the second
   day, which would have taken us there on the 17th, and enabled
   us, so far as they were concerned, to go in to action on the
   19th instead of the 21st; but when I went forward from Fairfax
   Court-House beyond Germantown to urge them forward, I was told
   it was impossible for the men to march farther. They had only
   come from Vienna, about 6 miles, and it was not more than 6½
   miles farther to Centreville, in all a march of 12½ miles; but
   the men were foot-weary, not so much, I was told, by the
   distance marched, as by the time they had been on foot, caused
   by the obstructions in the road and the slow pace we had to
   move to avoid ambuscades. The men were, moreover, unaccustomed
   to marching, their bodies not in condition for that kind of
   work, and not used to carrying even the load of 'light
   marching order.'"

      Brig. General I. McDowell,
      Report
      (Official Records, series 1, volume 2, pages 323-324).

The advance of the Union Army was made "in five divisions, commanded by Generals Tyler, Hunter, Heintzelman, Runyon, and Miles. Among the brigade commanders that afterward rose to eminence were William T. Sherman, Ambrose E. Burnside, Erastus D. Keyes, and Oliver O. Howard. The total force was somewhat over 34,000 men; but Runyon's division was left to guard the line of communication with Washington, and the number that actually moved against the enemy was about 28,000 with 49 guns and a battalion of cavalry. So little did strict military discipline as yet enter into the policy of the Government that a large number of civilians, including several members of Congress, obtained passes enabling them to ride out in carriages, close in the rear of the army, to witness the expected battle. … The troops marched by the Warrenton turnpike, and found themselves in the presence of the enemy on the banks of Bull Run on the 18th. … The enemy's outposts had fallen back as the army advanced, and the first serious opposition was met at Blackburn's Ford," where some sharp fighting occurred between Tyler's division and the Confederate troops under Longstreet. "McDowell, finding that Beauregard was very strongly intrenched on his right, and that the roads in that direction were not good, changed his plan and determined to attack on the north or left wing. Another reason for doing this lay in the fact that McDowell had distrusted Patterson from the first, having no faith that he would hold Johnston. … The action at Blackburn's Ford had been fought on Thursday. Friday and Saturday were consumed in reconnoissances and searching for a suitable ford on the upper part of the stream, where a column could cross and, marching down on the right bank, uncover the fords held by the enemy and enable the remainder of the army to cross. Such a ford was found at length, and on Sunday morning, the 21st, the army was put in motion. McDowell did not know that Johnston had easily eluded Patterson and with two fifths of his forces joined Beauregard on Saturday. … The Confederate commanders had actually ordered a forward movement of their own right wing; but as they saw the development of McDowell's plan they recalled that, and gradually strengthened their left to meet the onset. … The battleground was a plateau, wooded and broken."

In the Report of the Confederate General Beauregard, the plateau which now became the principal battle ground of the conflict is described as follows: "It is inclosed on three sides by small water-courses, which empty into Bull Run within a few yards of each other a half a mile to the south of the stone bridge. Rising to an elevation of quite 100 feet above the level of Bull Run at the bridge, it falls off on three sides to the level of the enclosing streams in gentle slopes, but which are furrowed by ravines of irregular direction and length, and studded with clumps and patches of young pines and oaks. The general direction of the crest of the plateau is oblique to the course of Bull Run in that quarter and to the Brentsville and turnpike roads, which intersect each other at right angles. Immediately surrounding the two houses … [mentioned below] are small open fields of irregular outline, not exceeding 150 acres in extent. The houses, occupied at the time, the one by the Widow Henry and the other by the free negro Robinson, are small wooden buildings, the latter densely embowered in trees and environed by a double row of fences on two sides. Around the eastern and southern brow of the plateau an almost unbroken fringe of second-growth pines gave excellent shelter for our marksmen, who availed themselves of it with the most satisfactory skill. To the west, adjoining the fields, a broad belt of oaks extends directly across the crest on both sides of the Sudley road, in which during the battle regiments of both armies met and contended for the mastery. From the open ground of this plateau the view embraces a wide expanse of woods and gently undulating open country of broad grass and grain fields in all directions."

      General G. T. Beauregard,
      Report
      (Official Records, series 1, volume 2, pages 493-494).

   At an early hour in the afternoon, the Union forces had driven
   the enemy from this plateau and seemed to be in a position
   which promised victory to them. Says General McDowell in his
   official report: "The enemy was evidently disheartened and
   broken. But we had then been fighting since 10.30 o'clock in
   the morning, and it was after 3 o'clock in the afternoon. The
   men had been up since 2 o'clock in the morning, and had made
   what to those unused to such things seemed a long march before
   coming into action, though the longest distance gone over was
   not more that 9½ miles; and though they had three days'
   provisions served out to them the day before, many, no doubt,
   either did not get them, or threw them away on the march or
   during the battle, and were therefore without food. They had
   done much severe fighting.
{3436}
   Some of the regiments which had been driven from the hill in
   the first two attempts of the enemy to keep possession of it
   had become shaken, were unsteady, and had many men out of the
   ranks. It was at this time that the enemy's re-enforcements
   came to his aid from the railroad train (understood to have
   just arrived from the valley with the residue of Johnston's
   army). They threw themselves in the woods on our right, and
   opened a fire of musketry on our men, which caused them to
   break and retire down the hillside. This soon degenerated into
   disorder, for which there was no remedy. Every effort was made
   to rally them, even beyond the reach of the enemy's fire, but
   in vain. The battalion of regular infantry alone moved up the
   hill opposite to the one with the house, and there maintained
   itself until our men could get down to and across the
   Warrenton turnpike on the way back to the position we occupied
   in the morning. The plain was covered with the retreating
   groups, and they seemed to infect those with whom they came in
   contact. The retreat soon became a rout, and this soon
   degenerated still further into a panic. Finding this state of
   affairs was beyond the efforts of all those who had assisted
   so faithfully during the long and hard day's work in gaining
   almost the object of our wishes, and that nothing remained on
   that field but to recognize what we could no longer prevent, I
   gave the necessary orders to protect their withdrawal, begging
   the men to form a line, and offer the appearance, at least, of
   organization and force. They returned by the fords to the
   Warrenton road, protected, by my order, by Colonel Porter's
   force of regulars. Once on the road, and the different corps
   coming together in small parties, many without officers, they
   became intermingled, and all organization was lost."

      Brigadier General I. McDowell,
      Report
      (Official Records, series 1, volume 2, page 320).

"The battle of Bull Run was a misfortune, and not a disgrace, to the Federal arms; but the reports of losses on both sides prove that it was bravely disputed. … The rout—or, in other words, the panic— … was one of those accidents to which even victorious armies are sometimes liable, and against which old troops are not always able to guard. The importance of the battle of Bull Run cannot be measured by the amount of losses sustained by the two contending parties. … Its immediate effect upon military operations was to produce a sudden change in the attitude of the belligerents. The possession of Virginia, with the exception of that portion which had been recaptured by McClellan, was secured to the Confederates. Richmond was beyond danger of any attack, and Washington was threatened anew. … But it was chiefly through its moral effect that this first encounter was to exercise a powerful influence upon the war of which it was only the prelude. The South saw in this victory a kind of ratification of her claims. It was not only the Federal soldiers who were vanquished on that day, but with them all who had remained more or less openly loyal to the Union in the Southern States. … This disaster, which might have discouraged the North, proved, on the contrary, a salutary lesson."

Comte de Paris, History of the Civil War in America, volume 1, book 3, chapter 2.

"Those only can realize the condition of our Army, at that time, who can recall the incidents of this memorable campaign and the battle with which it closed. The crowds of curious and impertinent spectators who accompanied and often rode through our ranks; the long and fatal delay of Hunter's column, on the morning of the battle—a delay occasioned by a few baggage-waggons, which should have been miles in rear—the many ludicrous, yet sad, scenes on the field; the heroic, but fruitless, gallantry of separate regiments, each attempting, in detail, the accomplishment of a work which required the combined effort of all; the dread, on the part of our men, of those terrible 'masked batteries' and 'the fierce Black-horse Cavalry,' neither of which ever had an existence except in the imaginative brains of our newspaper reporters, all help to fill up the picture. … I believe the plan of this battle to have been well-conceived, notwithstanding its disastrous result. We were compelled to take the offensive against troops in position, and upon a field, the topography of which was unknown to nearly all our officers. Notwithstanding these facts, successes would have been achieved but for the impatient spirit which hurried us on, without the slightest preparation. Of the march, the battle, the rout, and the disorderly retreat to Washington, the description given by William H. Russell was not greatly exaggerated. It was far more truthful than many of the descriptions given by the reporters of our own papers. Who has forgotten the newspaper accounts of the conduct of the celebrated Fire Zouaves—of the prodigies of valor performed by them—of their bayonet charges—of their heroic assaults—of the fearful destruction inflicted by them upon the enemy—and, finally, when the order to retreat came, of the great difficulty experienced by the officers in forcing 'these gallant, but bloodthirsty lambs,' as they were called, to cease fighting and commence retreating? We all remember these accounts, and many others of a similar character; and yet, every intelligent officer who was on the field knows that this regiment dispersed at the first fire, and so thoroughly was it dispersed that it was from that day never again known as a military organization. This campaign, and every subsequent one, of the War, taught us that the rough element of our cities—the prize-fighter, the veteran of a score of street-fights—does not necessarily make the most valuable soldier. On the contrary, many a pale-faced boy, who, from a sense of duty, has left school or counting-room to join our Army, has exhibited a degree of endurance on the march and of bravery on the field, seldom equalled by the rough element of our cities."

      General H. W. Slocum,
      Military Lessons taught by the War
      (Historical Magazine, February 1871).

   "The failure of the Confederate army to pursue after the
   battle of Manassas has been much criticised, and has caused
   much acrimonious discussion. General Johnston, however, never
   hesitated to assume his share of the responsibility for the
   action taken, though insisting that the course pursued was
   proper, and the only practicable one under the circumstances.
   … The troops who had been actually engaged all day, in the hot
   summer season, were in no condition to follow up the enemy.
   But the great obstacle to any effective pursuit was the
   weakness of the cavalry arm in the Southern army. Its entire
   strength was considerably under 2,000 men, and a large
   proportion of these were not in call.
{3437}
   Many of those within reach had been fighting for hours, and
   were in little better condition than the infantry. All who
   were available were sent off in immediate pursuit, with the
   result of greatly swelling the number of prisoners and
   captured guns. But by the time the captors turned their prizes
   over to proper guards, the Northern army had covered a
   sufficient distance to be out of danger, being protected in
   their retreat by large bodies of troops that had not been
   engaged. This was all that could be accomplished. … The fact
   that the condition of the Confederate troops put any active
   pursuit out of the question is established by the official
   reports. General Johnston's report says: 'Our victory was as
   complete as one gained by infantry and artillery can be.' …
   The same reasons apply with equal force to any attempted
   advance during the few days succeeding the battle. The army
   was not in a condition to make the movement, being itself much
   demoralized by the engagement. Many thought the war over and
   went home; many accompanied wounded comrades to their homes;
   for the ties of discipline were not as strong then as in a
   veteran army. But a yet stronger obstacle to an advance was
   the lack of necessary transportation. … Even if the
   Confederates had advanced and captured the intrenchments
   opposite Washington, they could have accomplished nothing.
   They could not have crossed the river on the bridge under the
   fire of the Federal vessels of war. They had no artillery of
   sufficient range to bombard Washington from the southern side,
   even if they had been disposed to wage war in that manner.
   They had no sufficient supply of ammunition."

      J. B. Fry and others,
      Campaign of the First Bull Run
      (Battles and Leaders of the Civil War, volume 1).

      A. Roman,
      Military Operations of General Beauregard,
      volume 1, chapter 9.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (JULY).
Enlistment of volunteers authorized by Congress.

The enlistment of 500,000 volunteers was authorized by Acts of
Congress passed July 22 and 25.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (July-September: Missouri).
   Sigel's well-conducted retreat from Carthage.
   Death of Lyon at Wilson's Creek.
   Siege of Lexington.
   Fremont in command.

   The flight of Governor Jackson and his followers from
   Booneville was westward, to Warsaw, on the Osage, first, and
   thence into Vernon County, where they were joined, July 3, by
   General Sterling Price.

"Their united force is stated by Pollard, at 3,600. Being pursued by Lyon, they continued their retreat next day, halting at 9 P. M., in Jasper County, 23 miles distant. Ten miles hence, at 10 A. M. next morning, they were confronted by a Union force 1,500 strong, under Colonel Franz Sigel, who had been dispatched from St. Louis by the 'Southwestern Pacific road, to Rolla, had marched thence to Springfield, and had pushed on to Mount Vernon, Lawrence County, hoping to prevent a junction between Jackson and some forces which his Brigadiers were hurrying to his support. Each army appears to have started that morning with intent to find and fight the other; and such mutual intentions are seldom frustrated. Sigel found the Rebels, halted after their morning march, well posted, vastly superior in numbers and in cavalry, but inferior in artillery, which he accordingly resolved should play a principal part in the battle. In the cannonade which ensued, he inflicted great damage on the Rebels and received very little, until, after a desultory combat of three or four hours, the enemy resolved to profit by their vast superiority in cavalry by outflanking him, both right and left. This compelled Sigel to fall back. … The retreat was made in perfect order … to Carthage, and through that town to Sarcoxie, some fifteen miles eastward. It was well, indeed, that he did so; for Jackson's force was augmented, during that night and next morning, by the arrival of Price from the southward, bringing to his aid several thousand Arkansas and Texas troops, under Generals Ben McCulloch and Pearce. Our loss in the affair of Carthage was 13 killed and 31 wounded—not one of them abandoned to the enemy; while the Rebels reported their loss at 40 to 50 killed and 125 to 150 wounded. Sigel, now outnumbered three or four to one, was constrained to continue his retreat, by Mount Vernon, to Springfield; where General Lyon, who had been delayed by lack of transportation, joined and outranked him on the 10th."

   "The month of August came, and found General Lyon at
   Springfield, hoping to receive reenforcements; but the battle
   of Bull Run had occurred, and rendered it impossible to send
   him aid. Major General Fremont had been appointed [July 9] to
   the command of the Western Department, and had reached St.
   Louis (July 25). Meantime Confederate troops were pouring over
   the southern frontier of Missouri, and Lyon, finding that they
   were advancing upon him in two columns, determined to strike
   before he should be overwhelmed by the combined Louisiana,
   Missouri, Arkansas, and Texas troops. His force did not exceed
   5,500, his antagonist had more than 12,000. A skirmish
   occurred at Dug Spring (August 1st), in which he had the
   advantage; but he could not prevent the junction of the two
   columns. Hereupon he fell back to Springfield. His position
   had now become one of great difficulty. Political as well as
   military considerations rendered it almost impossible for him
   to retreat farther. He therefore determined to resume the
   offensive, and compensate for his weakness by audacity. Moving
   out of Springfield on a very dark night (August 9-10), and
   having ordered Sigel, with 1,200 men and six guns, to gain the
   enemy's rear by their right, he was ready, as soon as day
   broke, to make an attack on their front [on Wilson's Creek].
   But the disparity of force was too great. Sigel was
   overwhelmed. He lost five out of his six guns, and more than
   half his men. The attack in front was conducted by Lyon in
   person with very great energy. His horse was shot under him;
   he was twice wounded, the second time in the head. In a final
   charge he called to the Second Kansas Regiment, whose colonel
   was at that moment severely wounded, 'Come on, I will lead
   you,' and in so doing was shot through the heart. After the
   death of Lyon the battle was still continued, their artillery
   preserving the national troops from total defeat. News then
   coming of Sigel's disaster, a retreat to Springfield, distant
   about nine miles, was resolved on. It was executed without
   difficulty.
{3438}
   In this battle of Wilson's Creek there were 223 killed, 721
   wounded, 292 missing, on the national side; and, as may be
   inferred from the determined character of the assault, the
   loss of the Confederates was very great. They had been so
   severely handled that they made no attempt at pursuit, and the
   retreat was continued by the national troops, who, on the
   19th, had fallen back to Rolla. After this action, the
   Confederate commanders, McCulloch and Price, quarreling with
   each other, and unable to agree upon a plan for their
   campaign, the former returned to Arkansas, the latter advanced
   from Springfield toward Lexington. Here he found a national
   force of about three thousand (2,780) under Colonel Mulligan.
   Attempts were made by General Fremont to re-enforce Mulligan,
   but they did not succeed. Meantime the assailing forces were
   steadily increasing in number, until they eventually reached
   28,000, with 13 pieces of artillery. They surrounded the
   position and cut off the beleaguered troops from water. They
   made repeated assaults without success until [September] 20th,
   when they contrived a movable breastwork of hemp-bales, which
   they rolled before them as they advanced, and compelled
   Mulligan, who had been twice wounded, to surrender
   unconditionally. On receiving news of this disaster, Fremont
   at once left St. Louis with the intention of attacking Price,
   but that general instantly retreated, making his way back to
   the southwest corner of the state, where he rejoined McCulloch
   and his Confederate troops."

      J. C. Fremont, F. Sigel and others,
      Wilson's Creek, Lexington and Pea Ridge
      (Battles and Leaders of the Civil War', volume 1).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (July-November).
   McClellan's rise to the chief command.
   Creation of the Army of the Potomac.
   Reorganization of the western armies.

"Immediately after the battle of Bull Run, Major General McClellan was assigned to the command of the Military Department of Washington and Northeastern Virginia. Lieutenant General Scott retained his command as general in chief of the American army, until the end of October. 'I found,' says General McClellan in his report, 'no army to command—a mere collection of regiments cowering on the banks of the Potomac, some perfectly raw, others dispirited by the recent defeat. Nothing of any consequence had been done to secure the southern approaches to the capital by means of defensive works; nothing whatever had been undertaken to defend the avenues to the city on the northern side of the Potomac. The number of troops in and around the city was about 50,000 infantry, less than 1,000 cavalry, 650 artillerymen, with nine imperfect field batteries of 30 pieces.' … General McClellan at once commenced the organization of the great army authorized by Congress. His views of the military position and appropriate military conduct were, for the most part, accepted, and such was the patriotism of the people, the resolution of Congress, the energy of the executive, that the Army of the Potomac had reached, on October 27th, a strength of … 168,318. It was the general's opinion that the advance upon the enemy at Manassas should not be postponed beyond the 25th of November. It was his desire that all the other armies should be stripped of their superfluous strength, and, as far as possible, every thing concentrated in the force under his command. On the 31st of October, General Scott, having found his bodily infirmities increasing, addressed a letter to the Secretary of War requesting to be placed on the retired list. … His desire was granted. An order was simultaneously issued appointing General McClellan commander-in-chief under the President. This change in his position at once produced a change in General McClellan's views. Hitherto he had undervalued the importance of what was to be done in the West. He had desired the Western armies to act on the defensive. Now he wished to institute an advance on East Tennessee, and capture Nashville contemporaneously with Richmond. … In preparation for this, the Department of the West was reorganized. On the day following that of McClellan's promotion, Fremont was removed from his command. His department was subdivided into three: (1.) New Mexico, which was assigned to Colonel Canby; (2.) Kansas, to General Hunter; (3.) Missouri, to General Halleck. To General Buell was assigned the Department of the Ohio, and to General Rosecrans that of West Virginia. The end of November approached, and still the Army of the Potomac had not moved. The weather was magnificent, the roads excellent. … Winter at last came, and nothing had been done. … Considering the military condition of the nation when General McClellan undertook the formation and organization of the great Army of the Potomac, the time consumed in bringing that force into a satisfactory condition was far from being too long. … From the resources furnished without stint by Congress McClellan created that army. Events showed that his mental constitution was such that he could not use it on the battlefield. … There probably never was an army in the world so lavishly supplied as that of the Potomac before the Peninsular expedition. General McDowell, who knew the state of things well, declared, in his testimony before the Congressional Committee on the Conduct of the War, 'There never was an army in the world supplied as well as ours. I believe a French army of half the size could be supplied with what we waste.'"

J. W. Draper, History of the American Civil War, chapters 44 and 49 (volume 2).

   "Some persons, who ought to have known better, have supposed
   that in organizing the Army of the Potomac I set too high a
   model before me and consumed unnecessary time in striving to
   form an army of regulars. This was an unjustifiable error on
   their part. I should, of course, have been glad to bring that
   army to the condition of regulars, but no one knew better than
   myself that, with the means at my command, that would have
   been impossible within any reasonable or permissible time.
   What I strove for and accomplished was to bring about such a
   condition of discipline and instruction that the army could be
   handled on the march and on the field of battle, and that
   orders could be reasonably well carried out. … In spite of all
   the clamor to the contrary, the time spent in the camps of
   instruction in front of Washington was well bestowed, and
   produced the most important and valuable results. Not a day of
   it was wasted.
{3439}
   The fortifications then erected, both directly and indirectly,
   saved the capital more than once in the course of the war, and
   enabled the army to manœuvre freely and independently. … No
   other army we possessed could have met and defeated the
   Confederate Army of Northern Virginia. And, with all the
   courage, energy, and intelligence of the Army of the Potomac,
   it probably would not have been equal to that most difficult
   task without the advantage it enjoyed during its sojourn in
   the camps around Washington."

ALSO IN: G. B. McClellan, Report on the Organization and Campaigns of the Army of the Potomac.

Report of Joint Commission on the Conduct of the War, 37th Congress, 3d session, H. R., part. 1.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (August).
Act of Congress freeing Slaves employed
in the service of the Rebellion.

In August, Congress passed an "Act to confiscate property used for insurrectionary purposes." As originally framed, it only confiscated "any property used or employed in aiding, abetting or promoting insurrection, or resistance to the laws," which would not include slaves. A new section was added, declaring that "whenever hereafter during the present insurrection against the Government of the United States, any person held to labor or service under the law of any State shall be required or permitted by the person to whom such labor or service is due to take up arms against the United States, or to work in or upon any fort, dock, navy-yard, armory, intrenchment or in any military or naval service whatever against the Government of the United States, the person to whom such service or labor is due shall forfeit his claim thereto." The law further provided that, "whenever any person shall seek to enforce his claim to a slave, it shall be a sufficient answer to such claim, that the slave had been employed in the military or naval service against the United States contrary to the provisions of this Act."

      E. McPherson,
      Political History of the United States during the Rebellion,
      page 195.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (August: North Carolina).
The Hatteras expedition.

"General Wool relieved General Butler August 16th, 1861, of the command at Fortress Monroe. Butler was detailed to active duty. The War and Navy Departments having arranged the first of a series of expeditions against the Southern coast, the command of the land forces was conferred upon Butler—Commodore S. H. Stringham directing the naval arm. Materials for the adventure were rapidly gathered at Fortress Monroe from the date of August 16th to the 26th, on which day the fleet took its departure. … Not until the vessels were at sea were any but the directors of the enterprize aware of the point of attack. Forts Hatteras and Clark commanded the entrance to the Sounds of Pamlico and Albemarle, whose waters were a great rendezvous for traders running the blockade. … Fort Hatteras was an exceedingly formidable battery. It was nearly surrounded by water, and was only approached by a circuitous and narrow neck of land. … The secrecy and rapidity of preparation by the Federals caught the rebels somewhat unprepared for the attack. … The bombardment opened Wednesday morning, at ten o'clock, preparatory to the landing of the land forces on the beach above Fort Hatteras. … A heavy surf rolled in upon the treacherous sands. After infinite labor, and the beaching of three small boats, the landing was suspended for the day. Those already on shore—315 in number—were safe under the guns of the fleet. … The bombardment continued during the entire first day. No land assault was attempted. Fort Hatteras replied with great vigor, but with little avail. … On the morning of the 29th, the cannonade opened early. A cloudless sky and a clear sea blessed the cause of the assailants. During the night a transport heavily laden with troops reenforced the fort, running down the Sound which was yet open. Fort Clark was occupied by the Federal forces, and refused its aid to assist its late confederate. The conflict soon raged with extreme vigor on both sides. At eleven o'clock the Confederate flag fluttered uneasily a moment—then ran down the halyards and a white flag was slowly run to the peak. … Articles of capitulation were signed on board the flag-ship Minnesota. Butler then landed and took formal possession of the largest fortification. The number of prisoners surrendered was 615, who were all placed on the Minnesota. In four days time they were in New York harbor. … The first design, it would appear, was to destroy the forts, stop up the channel with old hulks, and to return, temporarily at least, to Fortress Monroe with the entire force; but the place proved to be so strong that Butler left Weber and Hawkins' commands in possession."

O. J. Victor, History of the Southern Rebellion, volume 2, division 5, chapter 11.

      ALSO IN:
      D. Ammen,
      The Navy in the Civil War: The Atlantic Coast,
      chapter 8.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (August-October: Missouri).
   Fremont's premature proclamation of freedom to slaves of
   rebels and Lincoln's modification of it.
   The change of command.

"On the 31st of August, General Fremont [commanding in the West] issued a proclamation declaring martial law, defining the lines of the army of occupation, and threatening with death by the bullet all who should be found within those lines with arms in their hands. Furthermore, the real and personal property of all persons in the state [Missouri] who should take up arms against the United States was declared confiscated to the public use, and their slaves, if they had any, were declared free men. This proclamation produced a strong effect upon the public mind. The proclaiming of freedom to the slaves of rebels struck the popular chord, particularly among thoroughly loyal men in the free states. Of course, it maddened all the sympathizers with the rebellion, infuriated the rebels themselves, and perplexed those loyal men who had upon their hands the task of so conducting affairs as to hold to their allegiance the border slave states which had not seceded. Mr. Lincoln did not approve some features of General Fremont's proclamation. As soon as he read it, he wrote, under date of September 2d, to the General, that there were two points in it which gave him anxiety. The first was, that, if he should shoot a man according to his proclamation, 'the confederates would certainly shoot our best men in their hands in retaliation, and so, man for man, indefinitely.' {3440} He therefore ordered him to allow no man to be shot under the proclamation without first having his (the President's) approbation or consent. The second cause of anxiety was that the paragraph relating to the confiscation of property and the liberation of slaves of traitorous owners would alarm Unionists at the South, and perhaps ruin the fair prospect of saving Kentucky to the Union. He, therefore, wished General Fremont, as of his own motion, so to modify his proclamation as to make it conformable to the confiscation act just passed by the extra session of Congress, which only freed such slaves as were engaged in the rebel service. … General Fremont received the President's letter respectfully, and replied to it September 8th, stating the difficulties under which he labored, with communication with the government so difficult, and the development of perplexing events so rapid in the department under his command. As to the part of his proclamation concerning the slaves, he wished the President openly to order the change desired, as, if he should do it of his own motion, it would imply that he thought himself wrong, and that he had acted without the reflection which the gravity of the point demanded. This the President did, in a dispatch under date of September 11th, in the words: 'It is therefore ordered that the said clause of said proclamation be so modified, held, and constructed, as to conform to, and not to transcend, the provisions on the same subject contained in the act of Congress entitled, An act to confiscate property used for insurrectionary purposes, approved August 6, 1861; and that such act be published at length with this order.' Before this order had been received, or on the day following its date, General Fremont, though acquainted with the President's wishes, manumitted two slaves of Thomas L. Snead of St. Louis, in accordance with the terms of his proclamation. Although Mr. Lincoln desired General Fremont so to modify his proclamation as to make it accordant with the act of Congress approved August 6th, it is hardly to be supposed that he did it solely out of respect to that act. … If he had believed that the time had come for the measure of liberating the slaves of rebels by proclamation, the act of Congress would not have stood in his way. This act was an embodiment of his policy at that time, and he used it for his immediate purpose. … Complications in the personal relations of General Fremont and Colonel F. P. Blair, under whose personal and family influence General Fremont had received his position, occurred at an early day. Colonel Blair doubtless thought that he had not sufficient weight in the General's counsels, and the General, doubtless, exercised his right in choosing his own counselors. … It was a very unhappy quarrel, and it is quite likely that there was blame upon both sides, though it occurred between men equally devoted to the sacred cause of saving the country to freedom and justice. … Mr. Lincoln always gave to each the credit due to his motives, and so far refused to mingle in the general quarrel that grew out of the difficulty, that he kept the good-will of both sides, and compelled them to settle their own differences. … General Fremont at length took the field in person. On the 8th of October he left Jefferson City for Sedalia. As he advanced with his forces, Price retreated, until it was widely reported that he would give battle to the national forces at Springfield. Just as Fremont was making ready to engage the enemy, he was overtaken by an order relieving him of his command. He was succeeded by General Hunter; but Hunter's command was brief, and was transferred at an early day to General Halleck. General Fremont was relieved of his command by the President not because of his proclamation, not because he hated slavery, and not because he believed him corrupt or vindictive or disloyal. He relieved him simply because he believed that the interests of the country, all things considered, would be subserved by relieving him and putting another man in his place. The matter was the cause of great excitement in Missouri, and of much complaint among the radical anti-slavery men of the country: but the imputations sought to be cast upon the President were not fastened to him; and did not, four years later, when Fremont himself became a candidate for the presidency, prevent the warmest anti-slavery men from giving Mr. Lincoln their support. The federal army under General Hunter retreated without a battle; and thus the campaign, inaugurated with great show and immense expense, was a flat failure."

      ALSO IN:
      J. C. Fremont,
      In Command in Missouri
      (Battles and Leaders of the Civil War, volume 1),
      pages 278-288.

      W. Dorsheimer,
      Fremont's Hundred Days in Missouri
      (Atlantic Monthly, volume 9, 1862).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861
(August-December: West Virginia).
Rosecrans against Lee.
Battles of Carnifex Ferry and Cheat Summit.

"When General McClellan was called [July 22] to take General McDowell's place at the head of the Army of the Potomac, Brigadier-General William S. Rosecrans was left in command of the troops in West Virginia. General Robert E. Lee, the Confederate commander, who had gathered together the forces which had been defeated under Garnett and Pegram, and some others, found himself in August at the head of about 16,000 men. Lee made his headquarters at Huntersville, while General John B. Floyd … took up a position on the Gauley River for the purpose of cutting off General Cox of Ohio, who, with a brigade of Rosecrans's army, had just driven a Confederate force under ex-Governor Henry A. Wise of Virginia out of the Kanawha Valley. Floyd surprised and routed the Seventh Ohio under Colonel Tyler, and then moved to a place on the Gauley River called Carnifex Ferry, hoping to cut off Cox from Rosecrans. But early in September Rosecrans, leaving part of his army under General Joseph J. Reynolds to watch Lee, marched southward with about 10,000 men and [September 10] attacked Floyd, who had strongly fortified himself with about 2,000 men on the banks of the river. After a severe fight of three or four hours, in which the Union troops lost heavily, Rosecrans, finding the position much stronger than he expected, gave orders at twilight to stop the assault until morning; but when morning came no enemy was to be seen; Floyd, finding his enemy much superior in numbers, had crossed the river in the night over a bridge hastily built of logs, and retreated to the mountains 30 miles away. Rosecrans followed, but finally fell back again to the Gauley. When Rosecrans marched against Floyd, Reynolds took up a strong position on Cheat Mountain."

"General Lee proposed first to win a victory, if possible, over Reynolds. He was combative, anxious to strike, but many difficulties confronted him. He fully realized he had been sent to West Virginia to retrieve Confederate disasters, and that he had a most difficult task to perform. The Federal commander [his main force at Elk Water] held the center summit of Cheat Mountain pass, the mountain having three well-defined summits. … It was necessary first to carry this well-selected position of the Federal troops. A citizen surveyor, in sympathy with the South and familiar with the mountain paths, had made a trip to an elevated point where he could clearly see the Federal position, and reported his observations to General Lee. Afterward he made a second reconnoissance, accompanied by Colonel Albert Rust, of the Third Arkansas Regiment, who was anxious to see the nature of the ground and the strength of the position for himself. They reported to General Lee that in their opinion the enemy's position could be assailed with success with troops which could be guided to the point they had reached. General Lee decided to make the attack, and gave to Rust a column of 1,200 infantry. … The movement was to begin at night, which happened to be a very rainy one. All the troops, however, got in the positions assigned to them without the knowledge of the enemy, where they waited, every moment expecting to hear the rattle of Rust's muskets, who had been charged with the capture of the pass on Cheat Mountain; but hour after hour passed, and no sounds were heard. After a delay of many hours, and the enemy had divined the nature of the attack, the troops were ordered back to their former position. There had been only a small conflict between cavalry, in which Colonel John A. Washington, General Lee's aid-de-camp, who had been sent with Major W. H. F. Lee to reconnoiter the enemy, was killed from an ambuscade. … Rust claims in his reports that spies had communicated the movements of the Confederate troops to the enemy. This officer evidently did not attack, because he found, on getting close to the Federal position, that it was much stronger than he had thought it was from the preliminary reconnoissances he had made. As the attack of the whole depended on the assault of this force, the failure to attack caused a corresponding failure of the whole movement. … This movement having failed, and knowing that the enemy would be prepared for any second attempt which, from the nature of the country, would have to be similar to the one already tried, General Lee decided to turn his attention to the commands of Wise and Floyd in front of Rosecrans, leaving General H. R. Jackson in Reynolds's front. He proceeded at once to Floyd's command, which he reached on September 20th, and then to Wise's camp, closely inspecting both. He at once perceived that Wise's position was the strongest and offered the best means for successful defense, and promptly concentrated his forces at that point. … Rosecrans had advanced to the top of Big Sewell Mountain and had placed his army in a strong position. General Lee, with te troops of Wise, Floyd, and Loring—about 8,000 men—occupied a position on a parallel range. The two armies were now in close proximity to each other, both occupying strong defensive positions. Lee and Rosecrans, having been officers of the engineers, were fully aware of the great disadvantage an attacking army would have, and each waited, hoping the other would attack. After occupying these positions for twelve days, Rosecrans, on the night of October 6th, retreated. The condition of the roads, the mud, the swollen streams, the large numbers of men with typhoid fever and measles, the condition of the horses, of the artillery, and transportation, were such that Lee decided not to pursue. … The rapid approach of winter and the rainy season terminated the campaign in this section. … At the termination of this campaign of General Lee's the Confederate Government did not bestow much attention upon this section. The majority of the people seemed inclined to support the Federal side. … It must be admitted that General Lee retired from West Virginia with diminished military reputation. Great results had been expected from his presence there. Garnett's defeat and death were to be avenged, and the whole of that portion of Virginia speedily wrested from the Federal arms. The public did not understand the difficulties of the situation, or comprehend why he did not defeat Reynolds, or the failure to attack Rosecrans."

After Lee left General H. R. Jackson in front of Reynolds' position, the former established himself in a fortified camp on Buffalo Hill, and was unsuccessfully attacked there by Reynolds, October 3. Two months later, on the 13th of December, the attack was repeated by Reynolds' successor in command, General Milroy, and again without success. Meantime, Floyd had been driven into the mountains, with little fighting, by Rosecrans, and military operations, for the time, were at an end.

Comte de Paris, History of the Civil War in America, volume 1, book 4, chapter 2.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861
(September-November: On the Mississippi).
General Grant's first battle, at Belmont.

   In August, General Ulysses S. Grant, who had been serving for
   a few weeks in Missouri, first as Colonel of the 21st Illinois
   Regiment, and later as a brigadier-general, was assigned by
   General Fremont to "the command of the district of south-east
   Missouri, embracing all the territory south of St. Louis, in
   Missouri, as well as all southern Illinois." On the 4th of
   September he established his headquarters at Cairo, Illinois,
   and the next day, having learned from a scout that the rebels
   were preparing to seize Paducah, at the mouth of the Tennessee
   River, he placed a couple of regiments of troops and a light
   battery on board of steamers: and occupied the place on the
   6th,—telegraphing meanwhile for orders, but not waiting for
   them. His movement anticipated the enemy by a few hours, only,
   and secured a command of the Tennessee, the importance of
   which was afterward demonstrated by Grant, himself, when he
   moved on Forts Henry and Donelson. In his "Memoirs" General
   Grant says: "From the occupation of Paducah up to the early
   part of November, nothing important occurred with the troops
   under my command.
{3442}
   I was reinforced from time to time and the men were drilled
   and disciplined preparatory for the service which was sure to
   come. By the 1st of November I had not fewer than 20,000 men.
   … About the 1st of November I was directed from department
   headquarters to make a demonstration on both sides of the
   Mississippi River with the view of detaining the rebels within
   their lines. Before my troops could be got off, I was notified
   from the same quarter that there were some 3,000 of the enemy
   on the St. Francis River about 50 miles west, or south-west,
   from Cairo, and was ordered to send another force against
   them. I dispatched Colonel Oglesby at once with troops
   sufficient to compete with the reported number of the enemy.
   On the 5th word came from the same source that the rebels were
   about to detach a large force from Columbus to be moved by
   boats down the Mississippi and up the White River, in
   Arkansas, in order to reinforce Price, and I was directed to
   prevent this movement if possible." To carry out these orders,
   General Grant directed a demonstration to be made from Paducah
   towards Columbus, while, at the same time, he conveyed some
   3,000 troops down the river, in steamers, and attacked a camp
   of rebels at Belmont, immediately opposite Columbus. The
   battle was a severe one. "The officers and men engaged at
   Belmont were then under fire for the first time. Veterans,"
   says General Grant, "could not have behaved better than they
   did up to the moment of reaching the rebel camp. At this point
   they became demoralized from their victory and failed to reap
   its full reward. … The moment the camp was reached our men
   laid down their arms and commenced rummaging the tents to pick
   up trophies. Some of the higher officers were little better
   than the privates. They galloped about from one cluster of men
   to another and at every halt delivered a short eulogy upon the
   Union cause and the achievements of the command." The result
   was a rallying of the defeated rebels and a reinforcement from
   Columbus which forced the Unionists to retire with haste. "Our
   loss at Belmont was 485 in killed, wounded and missing. About
   125 of our wounded fell into the hands of the enemy. We
   returned with 175 prisoners and two guns, and spiked four
   other pieces. The loss of the enemy, as officially reported,
   was 642 men, killed, wounded and missing. We had engaged about
   2,500 men, exclusive of the guard left with the transports.
   The enemy had about 7,000; but this includes the troops
   brought over from Columbus who were not engaged in the first
   defence of Belmont. The two objects for which the battle of
   Belmont was fought were fully accomplished. The enemy gave up
   all idea of detaching troops from Columbus. … If it had not
   been fought, Colonel Oglesby would probably have been captured
   or destroyed with his 3,000 men. Then I should have been
   culpable indeed."

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (October: Virginia). Confederate project for the invasion of the North vetoed by Jefferson Davis.

"Between the 4th of August and the 15th of October more than 110 regiments and thirty batteries, comprising at least 100,000 men, were added to the forces in Washington and its neighborhood, and there appeared to be no limit to the resources and patriotism of the North. Moreover, the Northern troops were so well provided for in all respects, owing to the immense resources at the disposal of the United States Government, that there was every reason to expect in the spring of 1862 a decidedly improved condition in health and vigor, in self-confidence, and in all soldierly qualities, on the part of the soldiers. The army at Manassas, on the other hand, owing to the straitened means of the Confederate Government, was barely kept comfortable in the matter of clothing and shelter, and its chief officers looked forward with undisguised apprehension to the coming winter. … It was easy for any one instructed in military matters to see that if the Federal authorities would only be content to defer active operations until the patriotic levies of the North should have learned 'the trade of the soldier,'—should have acquired familiarity with the use of arms, habits of obedience, trust in their officers and superiors, discipline,—the Federal general would enter on the next campaign with all those chances of success which attend largely superior numbers, better arms and equipment, and a sound and thorough organization of his army. Such in fact was the view of the situation taken by the sagacious officer who commanded the lately victorious army at Manassas Junction, Joseph E. Johnston. In his opinion his two corps commanders, Beauregard … and G. W. Smith, … entirely concurred. They saw that something must be done to break up this constantly increasing Federal army while it was yet in the process of formation. The Confederate generals determined to urge their views upon the President of the Southern Confederacy. Mr. Davis responded at once to their expressed wish for a conference upon the military situation, and he reached Manassas on September 30, 1861. The conference was held the next day. The generals strongly advised Mr. Davis to reinforce the army at Manassas so that they might cross the Potomac, cut the communications of Washington with the North, and carry the war into the enemy's country. Johnston and Beauregard fixed the strength of an army adequate to these tasks at 60,000 men. Smith was content with a force of 50,000. Additional transportation and supplies of ammunition were also demanded. The army then at Manassas numbered about 40,000 men. With the quality of the soldiers the generals seemed to be perfectly content. They only asked that the additional troops sent should be of an equal degree of efficiency,—'seasoned soldiers' as distinguished from 'fresh volunteers.' But President Davis decided that he could not furnish the required reinforcement without 'a total disregard of the safety of other threatened positions.' The project was therefore dropped, and no further attempt was made during the ensuing autumn and winter to interfere with the uninterrupted development of the Federal army at and near Washington in organization and efficiency. … It is altogether probable that the Confederate army was at that time decidedly the superior of its antagonist in many important respects. It had the prestige of victory. … We may fairly say therefore, that an invasion of the North, undertaken in October, 1861, held out a very fair promise of a successful result for the Confederate arms."

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (October: Virginia).
The affair at Ball's Bluff, or Leesburg.

"The true story of the affair of Ball's Bluff, is, in brief, as follows: One of General Stone's officers, Captain Philbrick, of the 15th Massachusetts, thought that he had discovered a camp of the enemy about one mile beyond Harrison's island in the direction of Leesburg. Having completed the feint of crossing made in the course of the 20th, General Stone at 10.30 P. M. of the same day issued his orders for the surprise of the supposed camp at daybreak of the 21st. Colonel Devens, of the 15th Massachusetts, was entrusted with the duty, with four companies of his regiment. Colonel Lee, of the 20th Massachusetts, was directed to replace Colonel Devens in Harrison's island with four companies of his own regiment, one of which was to pass over to the Virginia shore and hold the heights there to cover Colonel Devens's return. Colonel Devens was directed to 'attack the camp at daybreak, and, having routed, to pursue them as far as he deems prudent, and to destroy the camp, if practicable, before returning.' … Having accomplished this duty, Colonel Devens will return to his present position, unless he shall see one on the Virginia side near the river which he can undoubtedly hold until reinforced, and one which can be successfully held against largely superior numbers. In which case he will hold on and report.' In obedience to these orders Colonel Devens crossed about midnight with five companies (instead of four), numbering about 300 men, and halted until daybreak in an open field near the bluffs bordering the shore. While there he was joined by Colonel Lee with 100 men of the 20th Massachusetts, who halted here to cover his return. At daybreak he advanced about a mile towards Leesburg, and then discovered that the supposed camp did not exist. After examining the vicinity and discovering no traces of the enemy, he determined not to return at once, but at about half-past six A. M. sent a non-commissioned officer to report to General Stone that he thought he could remain where he was until reinforced. At about seven o'clock a company of hostile riflemen were observed on the right, and a slight skirmish ensued. A company of cavalry being soon observed on the left, the skirmishers were drawn back to the woods, and, after waiting half an hour for attack, the command was withdrawn to the position held by Colonel Lee; but, after again scouting the woods, Colonel Devens returned to his advanced position. About eight o'clock the messenger returned from General Stone with orders for Colonel Devens to remain where he was, and that he would be reinforced. The messenger was again sent back to report the skirmish that had taken place. Colonel Devens then threw out skirmishers and awaited reinforcements. At about ten o'clock the messenger again returned with the information that Colonel Baker [Senator Edward D. Baker, of California] would soon arrive with his brigade and take command. Between nine and eleven Colonel Devens was joined by Lieutenant-Colonel Learned with the remainder of the 15th. bringing up his command to 28 officers and 625 men. About midday Colonel Devens learned that the enemy were gathering on his left, and about half-past twelve or one he was strongly attacked; and as he was in great danger of being outflanked, and no reinforcements had arrived, at about a quarter-past two he fell back to the bluff, where he found Colonel Baker, who directed him to take the right of the position he proposed to occupy. … At about three o'clock the enemy attacked in force, the weight of his attack being on our centre and left. At about four our artillery was silenced, and Colonel Devens was ordered to send two of his companies to support the left of our line; shortly after he learned that Colonel Baker had been killed. Colonel Coggswell then assumed command, and, after a vain attempt to cut his way through to Edward's Ferry, was obliged to give the order to retreat to the river-bank and direct the men to save themselves as best they could. I have gone thus much into detail because at the time I was much criticised and blamed for this unfortunate affair, while I was in no sense responsible for it."

In connection with the disaster at Ball's Bluff (called the battle of Leesburg by the Confederates) a great wrong seems to have been done to General Stone. Accused of disloyalty, he was arrested, but on no specific charge, imprisoned for six months, denied a trial, and set free without explanation. He went abroad and for many years was Chief of the General Staff to the Khedive of Egypt.

      ALSO IN:
      R. B. Irwin,
      Ball's Bluff and the arrest of General Stone
      (Battles and Leaders of the Civil War,
      volume 2, pages 123-134).

Report of Joint Commission on the Conduct of the War,
37th Congress, 3d session, H. R., part 2.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861
(October-December: South Carolina-Georgia).
   The Port Royal Expedition.
   Capture of Hilton Head.
   Extensive occupation of the coast.
   Savannah threatened.

   "On the 29th of October, another and far stronger naval and
   military expedition [than that against the Hatteras forts] set
   forth from Hampton Roads, and, clearing the capes of Virginia,
   moved majestically southward. Genera] T. W. Sherman [not to be
   confused with General William T. Shennan of the Western
   armies] commanded the land forces, consisting of 13 volunteer
   regiments, forming three brigades, and numbering not less than
   10,000 men; while the fleet—commanded by Commodore Samuel F.
   Du Pont—embraced the steam-frigate Wabash, 14 gun-boats, 22
   first-class and 12 smaller steamers, with 26 sailing vessels.
   After a stormy passage, in which several transports were
   disabled and four absolutely lost, Commodore Du Pont, in his
   flag-ship, came to off Port Royal, South Carolina, during the
   night of November 3d and 4th; and, after proper soundings and
   reconnoissances, which developed the existence of a new fort
   on either side of the entrance, the commodore brought his most
   effective vessels into action at 9 A. M., on Thursday,
   November 7th, taking the lead in his flagship, the Wabash—the
   gunboats to follow at intervals in due order. Thus the
   fighting portion of the fleet steamed slowly up the bay by the
   forts, receiving and returning the fire of the batteries on
   Bay Point as they passed up, and exchanging like compliments
   with the stronger fort on Hilton Head as they came down. Thus
   no vessel remained stationary under fire; so that the enemy
   were at no time enabled to gain, by experiment and
   observation, a perfect aim. The day was lovely; the spectacle
   magnificent; the fight spirited, but most unequal.
{3444}
   Despite the general presumption that batteries, well manned
   and served, are superior to ships when not ironclad, the
   terrible rain of shot and shell upon the gunners in the Rebel
   forts soon proved beyond human endurance. … The battle … raged
   nearly five hours, with fearful carnage and devastation on the
   part of the Rebels, and very little on ours, when the
   overmatched Confederates, finding themselves slaughtered to no
   purpose, suddenly and unanimously took to flight. … The Rebel
   forts were fully manned by 1,700 South Carolinians, with a
   field battery of 500 more stationed not far distant. The
   negroes, save those who had been driven off by their masters,
   or shot while attempting to evade them, had stubbornly
   remained on the isles."

"The effect of the battle of Port Royal was as largely felt in the North, where it revived the hopes of her people, as in the South, to whose people it revealed the presence of a new and pressing danger. The Federals had conquered a strong base of operations on the enemy's coast; they had carried the war into South Carolina. … Sherman might, perhaps, at the first moment of his adversary's disorder, have been able to push his success farther, and to lead his army upon Charleston, or Savannah. But he was afraid of risking such a venture. … The occupation of most of the islands in the vicinity of the St. Helena group was the natural consequence of the victory of Hilton Head. It was effected gradually before the end of the year. Among all the points of the coast which the Federals had thus seized without striking a blow, thanks to the prestige of their success, the most important was Tybee Island, at the entrance of the Savannah River. Situated on the right bank of the mouth of that river, and being the spot where the lighthouse stands, Tybee Island enabled the Federals, as soon as they became masters of it, to obstruct the passage of the blockade-runners on their way to the great mart of Savannah. At a distance of about 600 feet from its borders, on an islet in the middle of the river, stood Fort Pulaski. … A few days after, the navy extended its conquests still farther south," occupying the channel between the Tybee Island group and the Warsaw Islands, "and thus opening a passage for future operations, which would enable them to reach Savannah by turning Fort Pulaski. … At the end of the year, Dupont's fleet, supported by detachments from Sherman's army, was in possession of the five large bays of North Edisto, St. Helena, Port Royal, Tybee, Warsaw, and the whole chain of islands which forms the coast of Carolina and Georgia between those bays."

Comte de Paris, History of the Civil War in America, book 4, chapter 3 (volume 1).

ALSO IN: C. B. Boynton, History of the Navy during the Rebellion, volume 1, chapter 26.

      D. Ammen,
      The Navy in the Civil War: The Atlantic Coast,
      chapter 2.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (November).
The Trent affair.
Arrest of Mason and Slidell.

"On the 8th of November, 1861, Captain Charles Wilkes, of the United States Steamer San Jacinto, intercepted on the ocean H. B. M. [His Britannic Majesty] mail packet boat Trent, having on board four rebel emissaries bound for England. Having boarded the Trent, an officer of the San Jacinto, with an armed guard, arrested the rebels Mason, Slidell, McFarland and Eustis, and transferred them to the San Jacinto. The Trent then proceeded on her voyage. Captain Wilkes conveyed his captives to Boston, where they were consigned to Fort Warren, then a receptacle for political prisoners. When this transaction became known to the British government, immediate preparations were made for war. In the United States, the act was hailed as a victory. The Secretary of the Navy publicly applauded Captain Wilkes, and the House of Representatives did the same. The Secretary of State, upon whom the chief responsibility in the matter rested, saw, more clearly than others, that a breach of international law had been committed by the commander of the San Jacinto. The President coincided with Mr. Seward, and it was at once resolved to restore the rebel captives to the protection of the British flag."

G. E. Baker, Biographical Memoir of William H. Seward (volume 5 of Seward's Works, pages 10-11).

   In his diplomatic correspondence as quoted in the volume cited
   above, under the caption "Diary or Notes on the War,"
   Secretary Seward wrote:

"November 30, 1861.—Captain Wilkes, in the Steamer San Jacinto, has boarded a British colonial steamer, and taken from her deck two insurgents who were proceeding to Europe on an errand of treason against their own country. Lord Lyons has prudently refrained from opening the subject to me, as, I presume, waiting instructions from home. We have done nothing on the subject to anticipate the discussion, and we have not furnished you with any explanations. We adhere to that course now, because we think it more prudent that the ground taken by the British government should be first made to us here, and that the discussion, if there must be one, shall be had here. In the capture of Messrs. Mason and Slidell on board a British vessel, Captain Wilkes having acted without any instructions from the government, the subject is therefore free from the embarrassment which might have resulted if the act had been specially directed by us. …

January 20, 1862.—We have reason to be satisfied with our course in the Trent affair. The American people could not have been united in a war which, being waged to maintain Captain Wilkes's act of force, would have practically been a voluntary war against Great Britain. At the same time it would have been a war in 1861 against Great Britain for a cause directly the opposite of the cause for which we waged war against the same power in 1812." In a despatch to Lord Lyons, British Minister, Mr. Seward had written: "If I decide this case in favor of my own government, I must disavow its most cherished principles, and reverse and forever abandon its essential policy. The country cannot afford the sacrifice. If I maintain those principles, and adhere to that policy, I must surrender the case itself. It will be seen, therefore, that this government could not deny the justice of the claim presented to us in this respect upon its merits. We are asked to do to the British nation just what we have always insisted all nations ought to do to us. … By the adjustment of the present case upon principles confessedly American, and yet, as I trust, mutually satisfactory to both of the nations concerned, a question is finally and rightly settled between them, which, heretofore exhausting not only all forms of peaceful discussion, but also the arbitrament of war itself, for more than half a century alienated the two countries from each other."

      W. H. Seward,
      To Lord Lyons, December 26, 1861
      (Works, volume 5, Diplomatic History of the War,
      pages 308-309).

      ALSO IN:
      M. Bernard,
      Historical Account of the Neutrality of Great Britain,
      chapter 9.

      D. M. Fairfax,
      Captain Wilkes's Seizure of Mason and Slidell
      (Battles and Leaders, volume 2, pages 135-142).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861-1862
(December-March: Virginia).
   Protracted inaction of McClellan.
   His Plan of Campaign and its frustration by
   the rebel evacuation of Centreville.

"When Congress assembled … in the beginning of December, 1861, so successful had been the exertions of the authorities, and so zealously had the people responded to their country's call, that the consolidated morning reports, furnished your committee by the adjutant general of the army, showed that, exclusive of the command of General Dix, at Baltimore, the army of the Potomac consisted of about 185,000 men. During the time this large army had been collecting and organizing, nothing of importance had transpired in connexion with it, except the closing of the navigation of the Potomac by the rebels, which your committee treat of more at length in another part of this report, and the melancholy disaster of Ball's Bluff, which is made the subject of a separate report. The weather during the fall season, and for some weeks after the convening of Congress, continued unusually favorable for active military operations. As month after month passed without anything being done by the army of the Potomac, the people became more and more anxious for the announcement that the work of preparation had been completed and active operations would soon be commenced. From the testimony before your committee it appeared that the army of the Potomac was well armed and equipped, and had reached a high state of discipline by the last of September or the first of October. The men were ready and eager to commence active operations. The generals in command of the various divisions were opposed to going into winter quarters, and the most of them declared they had no expectation of doing so. … Your committee endeavored to obtain as accurate information, as possible in relation to the strength and position of the enemy in front of Washington. The testimony of the officers in our army here upon that point, however, was far from satisfactory. Early in December an order had been issued from headquarters prohibiting the commanders in the front from examining any persons who should come into our lines from the direction of the enemy; but all such persons were to be sent, without examination, to the headquarters of the army. Restrictions were also placed upon the movements of scouts. The result was, that the generals examined appeared to be almost entirely ignorant of the force of the enemy opposed to them, having only such information as they were allowed to obtain at headquarters. The strength of the enemy was variously estimated at from 70,000 to 210,000 men. Those who formed the highest estimate based their opinion upon information received at headquarters. … Subsequent events have proved that the force of the enemy was below even the lowest of these estimates, and the strength of their fortifications very greatly overestimated. Your committee also sought to ascertain what number of men could be spared from this army for offensive operations elsewhere, assuming that the works of the enemy in front were of such a character that it would not be advisable to move directly upon them. The estimate of the force necessary to be left in and around Washington to act entirely on the defensive, to render the capital secure against any attack of the enemy, as stated by the witnesses examined upon that point, was from 50,000 to 80,000 men, leaving 100,000 or upwards that could be used for expeditions at other points. … The subject of the obstruction of the navigation of the Potomac naturally demanded the consideration of your committee. … As was well urged by the Navy Department, the whole question amounted simply to this: Would the army co-operate with the navy in securing the unobstructed navigation of the Potomac, or, by withholding that cooperation at that time, permit so important a channel of communication to be closed. After repeated efforts, General McClellan promised that 4,000 men should be ready at a time named to proceed down the river. … The troops did not arrive, and the Navy Department was informed of the fact by Captain Craven. Assistant Secretary Fox, upon inquiring of General McClellan why the troops had not been sent according to agreement, was informed by him that his engineers were of the opinion that so large a body of troops could not be landed, and therefore he had concluded not to send them. Captain Fox replied that the landing of the troops was a matter of which the Navy Department had charge. … It was then agreed that the troops should be sent the next night. Captain Craven was again notified, and again had his flotilla in readiness for the arrival of the troops. But no troops were sent down at that time, nor were any ever sent down for that purpose. Captain Fox, in answer to the inquiry of the committee as to what reason was assigned for not sending the troops according to the second agreement, replied that the only reason, so far as he could ascertain, was, that General McClellan feared it might bring on a general engagement. … Upon the failure of this plan of the Navy Department, the effective vessels of the Potomac flotilla left upon the Port Royal expedition. The navigation of the river was almost immediately thereafter closed, and remained closed until the rebels voluntarily evacuated their batteries in the March following, no steps having been taken, in the meantime, for reopening communication by that route. On the 19th of January, 1862, the President of the United States, as commander-in-chief of the army and navy, issued orders for a general movement of all the armies of the United States, one result of which was the series of victories at Fort Henry, Fort Donelson, &c., which so electrified the country and revived the hopes of every loyal man in the land. After this long period of inaction of the army of the Potomac, the President of the United States, on the 31st of January, 1862, issued the following order: … 'Ordered, That all the disposable force of the army of the Potomac, after providing safely for the defence of Washington, be formed into an expedition for the immediate object of seizing and occupying a point upon the railroad southwestward of what is known as Manassas Junction; all details to be in the discretion of the general-in-chief, and the expedition to move before or on the 22d day of February next. Abraham Lincoln.'

To this order General McClellan wrote an elaborate reply of the same date, objecting to the plan therein indicated as involving 'the error of dividing our army by a very difficult obstacle, (the Occoquan,) and by a distance too great to enable the two portions to support each other, should either be attacked by the masses of the enemy, while the other is held in check.' He then proceeded to argue in favor of a movement by way of the Rappahannock or Fortress Monroe, giving the preference to the Rappahannock route. He stated that 30 days would be required to provide the necessary means of transportation. He stated that he regarded 'success as certain, by all the chances of war,' by the route he proposed, while it was 'by no means certain that we can beat them (the enemy) at Manassas.' … Your committee have no evidence, either oral or documentary, of the discussions that ensued or the arguments that were submitted to the consideration of the President that led him to relinquish his own line of operations and consent to the one proposed by Genera] McClellan, except the result of a council of war, held in February, 1862. That council, the first, so far as your committee have been able to ascertain, ever called by General McClellan, and then by direction of the President, was composed of twelve generals. … To them was submitted the question whether they would indorse the line of operations which General McClellan desired to adopt. The result of the deliberation was a vote of eight to four in favor of the movement by way of Annapolis, and thence down the Chesapeake bay, up the Rappahannock, landing at Urbana, and across the country to Richmond. The four generals who voted against the proposed movement were Generals McDowell, Sumner, Heintzelman, and Barnard. General Keyes voted for it with the qualification that no change should be made until the enemy were driven from their batteries on the Potomac. … Before the movement by way of Annapolis could be executed, the enemy abandoned their batteries upon the Potomac, and evacuated their position at Centreville and Manassas, retiring to the line of the Rappahannock. When General McClellan, then in the city of Washington, heard that the enemy had evacuated Manassas, he proceeded across the river and ordered a general movement of the whole army in the direction of the position lately occupied by the enemy. The enemy moved on the morning of the 10th of March, the greater part of it proceeding no further than Fairfax Court-House. A small force of the army proceeded to Manassas and beyond to the line of the Rappahannock, ascertaining that the enemy had retired beyond that river and destroyed the railroad bridge across it. … On the 13th of March General McClellan convened at Fairfax Court-House a council of war, consisting of four of the five commanders of army corps, (General Banks being absent,) and informed them that he proposed to abandon his plan of movement by way of the Rappahannock, and submitted to them instead a plan of movement by way of the York and James rivers."

Report of Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War, 37th Congress, 3d session, H. R. Rep., part 1, pages 6-12.

The Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War, consisting of Senators Wade, Chandler, and Andrew Johnson, and of Representatives Gooch, Covode, Julian, and Odell, was appointed in December, 1861. This Committee "was for four years one of the most important agencies in the country. It assumed, and was sustained by Congress in assuming, a great range of prerogative. It became a stern and zealous censor of both the army and the Government; it called soldiers and statesmen before it, and questioned them like refractory schoolboys. … It was often hasty and unjust in its judgments, but always, earnest, patriotic, and honest. … General McClellan and his immediate following treated the committee with something like contempt. But the President, with his larger comprehension of popular forces, knew that he must take into account an agency of such importance; and though he steadily defended General McClellan and his deliberateness of preparation before the committee, he constantly assured him in private that not a moment ought to be lost in getting himself in readiness for a forward movement. … December was the fifth month that General McClellan had been in command of the greatest army ever brought together on this continent. It was impossible to convince the country that a longer period of preparation was necessary before this army could be led against one inferior in numbers, and not superior in discipline or equipment. … McClellan reported to the Secretary of War, that Johnston's army, at the end of October, numbered 150,000, and that he would therefore require, to make an advance movement with the Army of the Potomac, a force of 240,000. Johnston's report of that date shows an effective total of 41,000 men. … Aware that his army was less than one-third as strong as the Union forces, Johnston contented himself with neutralizing the army at Washington, passing the time in drilling and disciplining his troops, who, according to his own account, were seriously in need of it. He could not account for the inactivity of the Union army. Military operations, he says, were practicable until the end of December; but he was never molested."

McClellan says, "It certainly was not till late in November, 1861, that the Army of the Potomac was in any condition to move, nor even then were they capable of assaulting entrenched positions. By that time the roads had ceased to be practicable for the movement of armies, and the experience of subsequent years proved that no large operations could be advantageously conducted in that region during the winter season. Any success gained at that time in front of Washington could not have been followed up and a victory would have given us the barren possession of the field of battle, with a longer and more difficult line of supply during the rest of the winter. If the Army of the Potomac had been in condition to move before winter, such an operation would not have accorded with the general plan I had determined upon after succeeding General Scott as general in command of the armies"

      A. S. Webb,
      The Peninsula
      (Campaigns of the Civil War, volume 3) chapter 2.

Comte de Paris, History of the Civil War in America, book 5, chapter 4 (volume 1).

G. B. McClellan, The Peninsular Campaign (Battles and Leaders of the Civil War, volume 2, pages 160-187).

      J. C. Ropes,
      General McClellan's Plans
      (Massachusetts Military Historical Society Papers, volume 1).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861-1862
(December-April: Virginia).
Jackson's first campaign in the Shenandoah Valley.
Battle of Kernstown.

"Soon after the battle of Bull Run Stonewall Jackson was promoted to major-general, and the Confederate Government having on the 21st of October, 1861, organized the Department of Northern Virginia, under command of General Joseph E. Johnston, it was divided into the Valley District, the Potomac District, and Aquia District, to be commanded respectively by Major-Generals Jackson, Beauregard, and Holmes," In November, Jackson's force was about 10,000 men. "His only movement of note in the winter of 1861-62 was an expedition at the end of December to Bath and Romney, to destroy the Baltimore and Ohio railroad and a dam or two near Hancock, on the Chesapeake and Ohio canal. … In March Johnston withdrew from Manassas, and General McClellan collected his army of more than 100,000 men on the Peninsula. … Jackson's little army in the Valley had been greatly reduced during the winter from various causes, so that at the beginning of March he did not have over 5,000 men of all arms available for the defense of his district, which began to swarm with enemies all around its borders, aggregating more than ten times his own strength. Having retired up the Valley, he learned that the enemy had begun to withdraw and send troops to the east of the mountains to cooperate with McClellan. This he resolved to stop by an aggressive demonstration against Winchester, occupied by General Shields, of the Federal army, with a division of 8,000 to 10,000 men. A little after the middle of March, Jack·son concentrated what troops he could, and on the 23d he occupied a ridge at the hamlet of Kernstown, four miles south of Winchester. Shields promptly attacked him, and a severe engagement of several hours ensued, ending in Jackson's repulse about dark, followed by an orderly retreat up the Valley to near Swift Run Gap in Rockingham county. The pursuit was not vigorous nor persistent. Although Jackson retired before superior numbers, he had given a taste of his fighting qualities that stopped the withdrawal of the enemy's troops from the Valley. The result was so pleasing to the Richmond government and General Johnston that it was decided to reënforce Jackson by sending General Ewell's division to him at Swift Run Gap, which reached him about the 1st of May."

      J. D. Imboden,
      Stonewall Jackson in the Shenandoah
      (Battles and Leaders, volume 2, pages 282-285).

   "The losses at Kernstown were:
      Union, 118 killed, 450 wounded, 22 missing=590;
      Confederate, 80 killed, 375 wounded, 263 missing=718."

      N. Kimball,
      Fighting Jackson at Kernstown
      (Battles and Leaders, volume 2, page 307, footnote).

      ALSO IN:
      G. H. Gordon,
      Brook Farm to Cedar Mountain,
      chapter 3.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861-1863.
President Lincoln's suspension of the writ of Habeas Corpus.

On the 27th of April, 1861, President Lincoln issued the following order "To the Commanding General, Army of the United States"—at that time, General Scott: "You are engaged in suppressing an insurrection against the laws of the United States. If at any point on or in the vicinity of any military line which is now or which shall be used between the city of Philadelphia and the city of Washington you find resistance which renders it necessary to suspend the writ of habeas corpus for the public safety, you personally, or through the officer in command at the point at which resistance occurs, are authorized to suspend that writ." On the 2d of July, another order was issued in exactly the same language, except that it gave authority to suspend the writ at "any point on or in the vicinity of any military line … between the city of New York and the city of Washington." On the 14th of October, a third order to General Scott declared: "The military line of the United States for the suppression of the insurrection may be extended so far as Bangor, Maine. You and any officer acting under your authority are hereby authorized to suspend the writ of habeas corpus in any place between that place and the city of Washington." On the 2d of December a specific order to General Halleck, commanding in the Department of Missouri, authorized the suspension of the writ within the limits of his command; and a similar order, long previously, had specially empowered the commander of the forces of the United States on the coast of Florida to do the same. On the 24th of September, 1862, a general proclamation by the President subjected to martial law "all rebels and insurgents, their aiders and abettors within the United States, and all persons discouraging volunteer enlistments, resisting militia drafts, or guilty of any disloyal practice affording aid and comfort to rebels against the authority of the United States"; and suspending the writ of habeas corpus "in respect to all persons arrested, or who are now, or hereafter during the rebellion shall be, imprisoned in any fort, camp, arsenal, military prison, or other place of confinement, by any military authority, or by the sentence of any court martial or military commission." On the 3d of March, 1863, the authority of the President to suspend habeas corpus (which some thought questionable) was confirmed by act of Congress; and on the 15th of September in that year another general proclamation was issued, referring to the act and declaring a suspension of the writ "throughout the United States, in the cases where, by the authority of the President of the United States, military, naval, and civil officers of the United States, or any of them, hold persons under their command, or in their custody, either as prisoners of war, spies, or aiders or abettors of the enemy, or officers, soldiers, or seamen enrolled or drafted or mustered or enlisted in, or belonging to, the land or naval forces of the United States, or as deserters therefrom, or otherwise amenable to military law, or the rules and articles of war, or the rules or regulations prescribed for the military or naval service by authority of the President of the United States; or for resisting a draft, or for any other offense against the military or naval service."

Abraham Lincoln, Complete Works, volume 2, pages 38, 45, 54, 85, 93, 239, 406.

"Whether it is the President or Congress that has power under the constitution to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus was a burning question during the civil war. … The case of John Merryman … was the first to come up for judicial interpretation. Merryman lived near Baltimore, and appears to have been suspected of being captain of a secession troop, of having assisted in destroying railroads and bridges for the purpose of preventing troops from reaching Washington, and of obstructing the United States mail. By order of General Keim of Pennsylvania he was arrested at night in his own house, and taken to Fort McHenry at that time in command of General George Cadwallader. Taney, who was then chief justice of the United States, granted a habeas corpus, but Cadwallader refused to obey it, saying that the privilege had been suspended by the President. On the return of the writ, the Chief Justice filed an opinion denying that the President had any power to suspend habeas corpus and affirming that such power rested with Congress alone. Lincoln continued to arrest and imprison without any regard to this opinion, and indeed was advised by his Attorney-General that he was not bound to notice it. … The writ of habeas corpus was … not suspended by Congress until the rebellion was half over. In other words, Lincoln suspended it for two years of his own accord and without authority from anyone; for two years he made arrests without warrants and held men in prison as long as he pleased. … There are few things in American history more worthy of discussion than the power exercised by Lincoln in those two years. It was absolute and arbitrary and, if unauthorized, its exercise was a tremendous violation of the constitution. Whether it was justifiable and necessary is another matter. If it was unconstitutional and yet necessary in order to save the Union, it shows that the constitution is defective in not allowing the government the proper means of protecting itself. That Lincoln used this power with discretion and forbearance there is no doubt. He was the most humane man that ever wielded such authority. He had no taste for tyranny, and he knew the temper of the American people. But, nevertheless, injustice was sometimes done. His subordinates had not always their master's nature."

S. G. Fisher, The Suspension of Habeas Corpus during the War of the Rebellion (Political Science Quarterly, September, 1888).

The view which President Lincoln himself entertained, and under which he assumed and exercised authority to suspend the writ of habeas corpus, was submitted to Congress in his first Message, when it convened in special session, July 4, 1861. He said: "Soon after the first call for militia, it was considered a duty to authorize the commanding general in proper cases, according to his discretion, to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, or, in other words, to arrest and detain, without resort to the ordinary processes and forms of law, such individuals as he might deem dangerous to the public safety. This authority has purposely been exercised but very sparingly. Nevertheless, the legality and propriety of what has been done under it are questioned, and the attention of the country has been called to the proposition that one who has sworn to 'take care that the laws be faithfully executed' should not himself violate them. Of course some consideration was given to the questions of power and propriety before this matter was acted upon. The whole of the laws which were required to be faithfully executed were being resisted and failing of execution in nearly one third of the States. Must they be allowed to finally fail of execution, even had it been perfectly clear that by the use of the means necessary to their execution some single law, made in such extreme tenderness of the citizen's liberty that, practically, it relieves more of the guilty than of the innocent, should to a very limited ex·tent be violated? To state the question more directly, are all the laws but one to go unexecuted, and the government itself go to pieces lest that one be violated? Even in such a case, would not the official oath be broken if the government should be overthrown, when it was believed that disregarding the single law would tend to preserve it? But it was not believed that this question was presented. It was not believed that any law was violated. The provision of the Constitution that 'the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when, in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it,' is equivalent to a provision—is a provision—that such privilege may be suspended when, in case of rebellion or invasion, the public safety does require it. It was decided that we have a case of rebellion, and that the public safety does require the qualified suspension of the privilege of the writ which was authorized to be made. Now it is insisted that Congress, and not the executive, is vested with this power. But the Constitution itself is silent as to which or who is to exercise the power; and as the provision was plainly made for a dangerous emergency, it cannot be believed the framers of the instrument intended that in every case the danger should run its course until Congress could be called together, the very assembling of which might be prevented, as was intended in this case, by the rebellion. … Whether there shall be any legislation upon the subject, and if any, what, is submitted entirely to the better judgment of Congress."

   Congress gave tacit approval to this view of the President's
   powers by passing no act on the subject until nearly two years
   afterwards, as shown above.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862
(January-February: Kentucky—Tennessee).
The first breaking of the Confederate line.
Grant's capture of Fort Henry and Fort Donelson.

"At the beginning of the new year the Union armies were over 660,000 strong, backed by a fleet of 212 vessels. McClellan lay quiet upon the Potomac all winter, drilling, organizing, disciplining the Army of the Potomac. In his front was Joe Johnston, with a much smaller force, pushing forward with equal energy the schooling of his soldiers. The Western generals were more active. Albert Sidney Johnston, perhaps the most promising Southern officer, was in command in the West, with headquarters at Bowling Green. Buell lay in Johnston's front, having superseded Sherman, whose 'crazy' suggestion that 250,000 men would be required for operations on the Western field had lost him the confidence of his superiors. There was abundant method in his madness, as time all too fully showed. In [Eastern] Kentucky the Confederate Humphrey Marshall had been creating more or less political trouble, and General Garfield was sent against him with some 2,000 men. Marshall somewhat outnumbered Garfield; but in a vigorous January campaign [beginning at Paintsville, January 7, and] culminating at Prestonburg [January 10], Garfield quite dispersed his forces, and drove him into the mountains.

About the same time, Zollicoffer, with some 12,000 men, had retreated from his post in advance of Cumberland Gap, where he held the extreme right of the Southern line, to Mill Spring, in Central Kentucky. General George H. Thomas was charged with the duty of disposing of him. With about an equal force Thomas promptly moved upon his enemy, and in a sharp action at Mill Spring [January 19] utterly broke up his army. He thus early showed the rare vigor he afterwards so fully developed. Zollicoffer was killed. This first of our substantial western victories (called 'Fishing Creek' by the enemy) [and also called the battle of Logan Cross Roads by some Union writers] was a great encouragement to our arms. Crittenden, who succeeded to the command, withdrew his troops across the Cumberland, abandoning his artillery and trains. Eastern Kentucky was thus freed from the Confederates. Halleck's first task as commander of the Western armies was to penetrate the Confederate line of defense. This could be done by breaking its centre or by turning one of its flanks. The former appeared most feasible to Grant, and Commodore Foote, who commanded the naval forces. Under instructions from Halleck, seven of the gun-boat flotilla, with Grant's 17,000 men in reserve, moved up the Tennessee river to attack Fort Henry and essay the value of gun-boats in amphibious warfare. Grant landed below the fort, and Foote then opened fire upon it. Tilghman, in command, foreseeing its capture, was shrewd enough to send off the bulk of his force to Fort Donelson. He himself made a mock defense with a handful of men, surrendering the fort after the garrison was well on its way. Without the twin citadel of Donelson [distant about eleven miles, southeastwardly, on the Cumberland River], however, Fort Henry was but a barren triumph, for no column could advance up the Tennessee river while this garrison threatened its flank. It was here that Grant earned his first laurels as a stanch soldier, by compelling, after a stubborn fight, the surrender of this second fortress with its entire garrison. Every effort had been made by Johnston to hold the place. He must here fight for the possession of Nashville. Fort Donelson was strongly fortified and garrisoned. Grant moved against it from Fort Henry with 15,000 men; 5,000 less than the enemy. The ground is difficult; the troops are green. But reinforcements and the fleet come to Grant's assistance. The fort is fully invested, under great difficulties from severity of weather and the inexperience of the men. Happily there is not much ability in the defense. Floyd, the senior officer, determines to cut his way out. He falls heavily upon Grant's right, held by McClernand and backed by Wallace, thinking to thrust them aside from the river and to escape over the road so won. A stubborn resistance defeats this sortie, though but narrowly. A general assault is ordered, which effects a lodgment in the works. Divided responsibilities between Floyd, Buckner, and Pillow weaken the defense so as to operate a surrender. Our loss was 2,300. The Confederates captured were over 15,000 men. These successes broke through the centre of the Confederate line, established with so much pains, and compromised its flanks. Johnston found that he must retire to a new line. This lay naturally along the Memphis and Charleston Railroad. He had retreated from Bowling Green on receipt of the news of the fall of Fort Henry, and was forced thereby to cede to Buell possession of Nashville, and practically of Kentucky. The advanced flank on the Mississippi at Columbus was likewise compromised, and with the bulk of the armament was withdrawn to Island No. 10, some forty miles below Cairo. We could congratulate ourselves upon a very substantial gain."

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862
(January-March: Missouri-Arkansas).
Expulsion of the Confederates from Missouri.
Battle of Pea Ridge.

   "Late in December General Samuel R. Curtis took command of
   12,000 National troops at Rolla, and advanced against Price,
   who retreated before him to the northwestern corner of
   Arkansas, where his force was joined by that of General
   McCulloch, and together they took up a position in the Boston
   Mountains. Curtis crossed the line into Arkansas, chose a
   strong place on Pea Ridge, in the Ozark Mountains, intrenched,
   and awaited attack. Because of serious disagreements between
   Price and McCulloch, General Earl Van Dorn, who ranked them
   both, was sent to take command of the Confederate force,
   arriving late in January. There is no authentic statement as
   to the size of his army. He himself declared that he had but
   14,000 men, while no other estimate gave fewer than twice that
   number. Among them was a large body of Cherokee Indians,
   recruited for the Confederate service by Albert Pike, who
   thirty years before had won reputation as a poet. On March 5,
   1862, Van Dorn moved to attack Curtis, who knew of his coming
   and formed his line on the bluffs along Sugar Creek, facing
   southward. His divisions were commanded by Generals Franz
   Sigel and Alexander S. Asboth and Colonels Jefferson C. Davis
   and Eugene A. Carr, and he had somewhat more than 10,000 men
   in line, with 48 guns. The Confederates, finding the position
   too strong in front, made a night march to the west, with the
   intention of striking the Nationals on the right flank. But
   Curtis discovered their movement at dawn, promptly faced his
   line to the right about, and executed a grand left wheel. His
   army was looking westward toward the approaching foe, Carr's
   division being on the right, then Davis, then Asboth, and
   Sigel on the left. But they were not fairly in position when
   the blow fell. Carr was struck most heavily, and, though
   reenforced from time to time, was driven back a mile in the
   course of the day. Davis, opposed to the corps of McCulloch,
   was more successful; that General was killed and his troops
   were driven from the field. In the night Curtis reformed and
   strengthened his lines, and in the morning the battle was
   renewed. This day Sigel executed some brilliant and
   characteristic manœvres. To bring his division into its place
   on the left wing, he pushed a battery forward, and while it
   was firing rapidly its infantry supports were brought up to it
   by a right wheel; this movement was repeated with another
   battery and its supports to the left of the first, and again,
   till the whole division had come into line, pressing back the
   enemy's right.
{3450}
   Sigel was now so far advanced that Curtis's whole line made a
   curve, enclosing the enemy, and by a heavy concentrated
   artillery fire the Confederates were soon driven to the
   shelter of the ravines, and finally put to rout. The National
   loss in this action [called the battle of Elk Horn by the
   Confederates]—killed, wounded, and missing—was over 1,300,
   Carr and Asboth being among the wounded. The Confederate loss
   is unknown. Generals McCulloch and McIntosh were killed, and
   Generals Price and Slack wounded. Owing to the nature of the
   ground, any effective pursuit of Van Dorn's broken forces was
   impracticable."

      O. J. Victor,
      History of the Southern Rebellion,
      volume 3, pages 56-71.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862
(January-April: North Carolina).
Burnside's expedition to Roanoke and
capture of Newbern and Beaufort.

"Roanoke Island, lying behind Bodie's Island, the sand-bar that shuts off Upper North Carolina from the Atlantic Ocean, offers some of the most interesting souvenirs of early American history. … As stated by General Wise, to whom its defense was intrusted by the Confederate government, it was the key to all the rear defenses of Norfolk. It unlocked two sounds, eight rivers, four canals, two railroads. It guarded more than four fifths of the supplies of Norfolk. The seizure of it endangered the subsistence of the Confederate army there, threatened the navy yard, interrupted the communication between Norfolk and Richmond, and intervened between both and the South. … After the capture of Hatteras Inlet in August, 1861, light-draught steamers, armed with a rifle gun, often stealthily came out of these waters to prey upon commerce. … An expedition for operating on this part of the North Carolina coast was placed under command of General Burnside, who was ordered (January 7th, 1862) to unite with Flag-officer Goldsborough, in command of the fleet, at Fortress Monroe, capture Newbern, seize the Weldon Railroad, and reduce Fort Macon. The force consisted of 31 steam gun-boats, some of them carrying heavy guns; 11,500 troops, conveyed in 47 transports; a fleet of small vessels for the transportation of sixty days' supplies. It left Hampton Roads on the night of January 11th, and arrived off Hatteras in two days, as a storm was coming on. The commander found with dismay that the draught of several of his ships was too great to permit them to enter. … Some dishonest ship-sellers in New York had, by misrepresentation, palmed off on the government unsuitable transport vessels, of which several were lost in that tempestuous sea. … It was only by the greatest exertion and perseverance, and not until a whole fortnight had elapsed, that the entrance to Pamlico Sound was completed. The villainy that led to this delay gave the Confederates ample time for preparation. Not until the end of another week (February 7th) had the reorganized expedition gained the entrance to Croatan Sound, and worked through its shallow, marshy passes. The weather was beautiful by day; there was a bright moonshine at night. The gun-boats found a Confederate fleet drawn up behind the obstructions, across the channel, near Pork Point. They opened fire on the fort at that point. It was returned both from the works and the shipping. Meantime troops were being landed at Ashby's, a small force, which was attempting to resist them, being driven off by the fire of the ships. The debarkation went on, though it was raining heavily and night had set in. It was continued until 10,000 men had been landed on the marsh. Before dark, however, the work at Pork Point had been silenced, and the Confederate fleet had retired to Weir's Point. … When day broke, Burnside commenced forcing his way up the island. He moved in three columns, the central one, preceded by a howitzer battery, upon the only road, the right and left through the woods. The battery that obstructed this road was soon carried, though not without resistance. The men had to wade waist-deep in the water of the pond that protected it. … Toward Nag's Head the Confederate force, expelled from the captured work, attempted to retreat. They were, however, overtaken, and the rest of the command on the north of the island, 2,500 strong, was compelled to surrender. The Confederate fleet was pursued to Elizabeth City, whither it had fled, and there destroyed. A large part of the town was burned. A portion of the national fleet went into the harbor of Edenton and captured that town. Winton, on the Chowan River, shared the same fate. Burnside next made an attack (March 14th) on Newbern, one of the most important sea-ports of North Carolina. As the troops advanced from the place of landing, the gun-boats shelled the woods in front of them, and thereby cleared the way. A march of 18 miles in a rain-storm, and over execrable roads, did not damp the energy of the soldiers. … Newbern was captured, and with it 46 heavy guns, 3 batteries of light artillery, and a large amount of stores. Burnside's losses were 90 killed and 466 wounded. Preparations were next made for the reduction of Fort Macon, which commands the entrance of Beaufort Harbor. On April 25th it was bombarded by three steamers and three shore batteries; the former, however, in the course of an hour and a half, were compelled to withdraw. But the shore batteries, continuing their attack, silenced the guns of the garrison, and, in the course of the afternoon, compelled the surrender of the fort. In connection with this expedition some operations of minor importance occurred. … The chief result, however, was the closure of the ports and suppression of commerce. General Burnside's forces were eventually, for the most part, withdrawn. They were taken to Alexandria, and joined the army of General Pope."

ALSO IN: D. Ammen, The Navy in the Civil War: The Atlantic Coast, chapters 8-9.

   Siege and capture of Fort Pulaski.
   Temporary occupation of Florida.
   Discouragement of Unionists.

The blockade of Fort Pulaski may be dated from the 22d of February. Preparations were then made on Tybee Island to bombard it. The most of the work had to be done in the night. The work was carried on under the supervision of General Gillmore, who was in chief command, and on the 9th of April eleven batteries, containing an aggregate of 36 guns, were in readiness to open fire. General David Hunter, who had just succeeded General Sherman in command of the Department, arrived at Tybee on the evening of the 8th. At sunrise, on the morning of the 10th, Hunter sent Lieutenant J. H. Wilson to the fort, with a summons to the commander of the garrison to surrender. The latter refused, saying: "I am here to defend this fort, not to surrender it." At a few minutes after eight o'clock the batteries opened fire, and at the end of thirty hours the garrison surrendered. In reporting the capture, General Hunter wrote: "At the end of eighteen hours' firing the fort was breached in the southeast angle, and at the moment of surrender, 2 p. m. on the 11th instant, we had commenced preparations for storming. The whole armament of the fort—47 guns, a great supply of fixed ammunition, 40,000 pounds of powder, and large quantities of commissary stores, have fallen into our hands; also 360 prisoners, of whom the officers will be sent North by the first opportunity that offers. The result of this bombardment must cause, I am convinced, a change in the construction of fortifications as radical as that foreshadowed in naval architecture by the conflict between the Monitor and Merrimac. No works of stone or brick can resist the impact of rifled artillery of heavy caliber." General Benham, immediately commanding the operations, remarked in his report: "This siege is … the first trial, at least on our side of the Atlantic, of the modern heavy and rifled projectiles against forts erected and supposed to be sufficiently strong prior to these inventions, almost equaling, as it would appear, the revolution accomplished in naval warfare by the iron-clad vessels recently constructed." Captain (acting Brigadier-General) Q. A. Gillmore, the officer immediately in charge of the works on Tybee Island, has given, in a report made in 1865 to the Adjutant-General of the United States of America, an account of the difficulties under which the batteries which performed the chief part in the siege were erected: "Tybee Island is mostly a mud marsh, like other marsh islands on this coast. Several ridges and hummocks of firm ground, however, exist upon it, and the shore of Tybee Roads, where the batteries were located, is partially skirted by low sand banks, formed by the gradual and protracted action of the wind and tides. The distance along this shore from the landing place to the advanced batteries is about 2½ miles. The last mile of this route, on which the seven most advanced batteries were placed, is low and marshy, lies in full view of Fort Pulaski, and is within effective range of its guns. The construction of a causeway resting on fascines and brush-wood over this swampy portion of the line; the erection of the several batteries, with the magazines, gun platforms, and splinter-proof shelters; the transportation of the heaviest ordnance in our service by the labor of men alone; the hauling of ordnance stores and engineer supplies, and the mounting of the guns and mortars on their carriages and beds had to be done almost exclusively at night, alike regardless of the inclemency of the weather and of the miasma from the swamps. No one except an eye-witness can form any but a faint conception of the herculean labor by which mortars of 8½ tons' weight and columbiads but a trifle lighter were moved in the dead of night over a narrow causeway, bordered by swamps on either side, and liable at any moment to be overturned and buried in the mud beyond reach. The stratum of mud is about 12 feet deep, and on several occasions the heaviest pieces, particularly the mortars, became detached from the sling-carts, and were with great difficulty, by the use of planks and skids, kept from sinking to the bottom. Two hundred and fifty men were barely sufficient to move a single piece on sling-carts. The men were not allowed to speak above a whisper, and were guided by the notes of a whistle. The positions selected for the five most advanced batteries were artificially screened from view from the fort by a gradual and almost imperceptible change, made little by little every night, in the condition and appearance of the brush-wood and bushes in front of them. No sudden alteration of the outline of the landscape was permitted. After the concealment was once perfected to such a degree as to afford a good and safe parapet behind it less care was taken, and some of the work in the batteries requiring mechanical skill was done in the daytime, the fatigue parties going to their labor before break of day and returning in the evening after dark. … The three breaching batteries—Sigel, Scott, and McClellan—were established at a mean distance of 1,700 yards from the scarp walls of Fort Pulaski. The circumstance, altogether new in the annals of sieges, that a practicable breach, which compelled the surrender of the work, was made at that distance in a wall 7½ feet thick, standing obliquely to the line of fire and backed by heavy casemate piers and arches, cannot be ignored by a simple reference to the time-honored military maxims that 'Forts cannot sustain a vigorous land attack,' and that 'All masonry should be covered from land batteries.'"

"By this victory, won on the first anniversary of the fall of Fort Sumter [April 12], the port of Savannah was sealed against blockade-runners. The capture of Fort Jackson above, and of the city, would have been of little advantage to the Nationals then, for the forces necessary to hold them were needed in more important work farther down the coast. While Gillmore and Viele were besieging Fort Pulaski, Commodore Dupont and General Wright were making easy conquests on the coast of Florida." Fort Clinch, on Amelia Island, Fernandina, Jacksonville, St. Augustine, and other places, were abandoned by the Rebels on the approach of the National forces. But these conquests proved rather unfortunate than otherwise. "At first, the hopes they inspired in the breasts of the Union people developed quite a widespread loyalty. A Union convention was called to assemble at Jacksonville on the 10th of April, to organize a loyal State Government, when, to the dismay of those engaged in the matter, General Wright prepared to withdraw his forces, two days before the time when the convention was to meet. … In consequence, … very little Union feeling was manifested in Florida during the remainder of the war."

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (February-April: Tennessee).
The advance up River.
Battle of Shiloh, or Pittsburg Landing.

"By the end of February, 1862, Major-General Halleck commanded all the armies in the valley of the Mississippi, from his headquarters in St. Louis. These were, the Army of the Ohio, Major-General Buell, in Kentucky; the Army of the Tennessee, Major-General Grant, at Forts Henry and Donelson; the Army of the Mississippi, Major-General Pope; and that of General S. R. Curtis, in Southwest Missouri. He posted his chief of staff, General Cullum, at Cairo, and me [General Sherman] at Paducah, chiefly to expedite and facilitate the important operations then in progress up the Tennessee and Cumberland Rivers. … General Buell had also followed up the rebel army, which had retreated hastily from Bowling Green to and through Nashville, a city of so much importance to the South that it was at one time proposed as its capital. Both Generals Grant and Buell looked to its capture as an event of great importance. On the 21st General Grant sent General Smith with his division to Clarksville, 50 miles above Donelson, toward Nashville, and on the 27th went himself to Nashville to meet and confer with General Buell, but returned to Donelson the next day." Orders sent by General Halleck to Grant did not reach the latter, and a supposed disobedience occurred which caused him to be hastily relieved from his command, which was transferred to General C. F. Smith, on the 4th of March. Halleck's purpose "was evidently to operate up the Tennessee River, to break up Bear Creek Bridge and the railroad communications between the Mississippi and Tennessee Rivers, and no doubt he was provoked that Generals Grant and Smith had turned aside to Nashville. In the mean time several of the gunboats, under Captain Phelps, United States Navy, had gone up the Tennessee as far as Florence, and on their return had reported a strong Union feeling among the people along the river. On the 10th of March, having received the necessary orders from General Halleck, I embarked my division at Paducah. … I … steamed up the Tennessee River, following the two gunboats, and, in passing Pittsburg Landing, was told by Captain Gwin that, on his former trip up the river, he had found a rebel regiment of cavalry posted there, and that it was the usual landing-place for the people about Corinth, distant 30 miles. I sent word back to General Smith that, if we were detained up the river, he ought to post some troops at Pittsburg Landing. We went on up the river cautiously, till we saw Eastport and Chickasaw, both of which were occupied by rebel batteries and a small rebel force of infantry. We then dropped back quietly to the mouth of Yellow River, a few miles below," where the troops were landed and an attempt made to push out and destroy the Memphis and Charleston railroad; but heavy rains had so swollen all the streams that the expedition was foiled and returned. "Once more embarked, I concluded to drop down to Pittsburg Landing, and to make the attempt from there. During the night of the 14th, we dropped down to Pittsburg Landing, where I found Hurlbut's division in boats. Leaving my command there, I steamed down to Savannah, and reported to General Smith in person, who saw in the flooded Tennessee the full truth of my report; and he then instructed me to disembark my own division, and that of General Hurlbut, at Pittsburg Landing; to take positions well back, and to leave room for his whole army; telling me that he would soon come up in person, and move out in force to make the lodgment on the railroad, contemplated by General Halleck's orders. … Within a few days, Prentiss's division arrived and camped on my left, and afterward McClernand's and W. H. L. Wallace's divisions, which formed a line to our rear. Lew Wallace's division remained on the north side of Snake Creek, on a road leading from Savannah or Crump's Landing to Purdy. General C. F. Smith remained back at Savannah, in chief command, and I was only responsible for my own division. I kept pickets well out on the roads, and made myself familiar with all the ground inside and outside my lines. … We were all conscious that the enemy was collecting at Corinth, but in what force we could not know, nor did we know what was going on behind us. On the 17th of March, General U. S. Grant was restored to the command of all the troops up the Tennessee River, by reason of General Smith's extreme illness, and because he had explained to General Halleck satisfactorily his conduct after Donelson; and he too made his headquarters at Savannah, but frequently visited our camps. … From about the 1st of April we were conscious that the rebel cavalry in our front was getting bolder and more saucy. … On Sunday morning, the 6th, early, there was a good deal of picket-firing, and I got breakfast, rode out along my lines, … and saw the rebel lines of battle in front coming down on us as far as the eye could reach. All my troops were in line of battle, ready, and the ground was favorable to us. … In a few minutes the battle of 'Shiloh' began with extreme fury, and lasted two days. … Probably no single battle of the war gave rise to such wild and damaging reports. It was publicly asserted at the North that our army was taken completely by surprise; that the rebels caught us in our tents; bayoneted the men in their beds; that General Grant was drunk; that Buell's opportune arrival saved the Army of the Tennessee from utter annihilation, etc. These reports were in a measure sustained by the published opinions of Generals Buell, Nelson, and others, who had reached the steamboat-landing from the east, just before nightfall of the 6th, when there was a large crowd of frightened, stampeded men, who clamored and declared that our army was all destroyed and beaten. Personally I saw General Grant, who with his staff visited me about 10 A. M. of the 6th, when we were desperately engaged. But we had checked the headlong assault of our enemy, and then held our ground. This gave him great satisfaction, and he told me that things did not look as well over on the left. … He came again just before dark, and described the last assault made by the rebels at the ravine, near the steamboat-landing, which he had repelled by a heavy battery collected under Colonel J. D. Webster and other officers, and he was convinced that the battle was over for that day. He ordered me to be ready to assume the offensive in the morning, saying that, as he had observed at Fort Donelson at the crisis of the battle, both sides seemed defeated, and whoever assumed the offensive was sure to win. {3453} General Grant also explained to me that General Buell had reached the bank of the Tennessee River opposite Pittsburg Landing, and was in the act of ferrying his troops across at the time he was speaking to me. About half an hour afterward General Buell himself rode up to where I was. … Buell said that Nelson's, McCook's, and Crittenden's divisions of his army, containing 18,000 men, had arrived and could cross over in the night, and be ready for the next day's battle. I argued that with these reënforcements we could sweep the field. Buell seemed to mistrust us, and repeatedly said that he did not like the looks of things, especially about the boat-landing, and I really feared he would not cross over his army that night, lest he should become involved in our general disaster. … Buell did cross over that night, and the next day we assumed the offensive and swept the field, thus gaining the battle decisively. Nevertheless, the controversy was started and kept up, mostly to the personal prejudice of General Grant, who as usual maintained an imperturbable silence. … Beauregard [who took the rebel command after General Albert Sidney Johnston fell in the first day's battle afterward reported his entire loss as 10,699. Our aggregate loss, made up from official statements, shows 1,700 killed, 7,495 wounded, 3,022 prisoners; aggregate, 12,217, of which 2,167 were in Buell's army, leaving for that of Grant 10,050. This result is a fair measure of the amount of fighting done by each army. … The battle of Shiloh, or Pittsburg Landing, was one of the most fiercely contested of the war. On the morning of April 6, 1862, the five divisions of McClernand, Prentiss, Hurlbut, W. H. L. Wallace, and Sherman, aggregated about 32,000 men. We had no intrenchments of any sort, on the theory that as soon as Buell arrived we would march to Corinth to attack the enemy. The rebel army, commanded by General Albert Sidney Johnston, was, according to their own reports and admissions, 45,000 strong."

W. T. Sherman, Memoirs, 4th edition, chapter 10 (volume 1); or 1st edition, chapter 9 (volume 1).

      W. P. Johnston,
      Life of General Albert Sidney Johnston,
      chapters 30-35.

      U. S. Grant, D. C. Buell, and others,
      Shiloh
      (Battles and Leaders of the Civil War, volume 1).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (March).
President Lincoln's proposal of Compensated Emancipation
approved by Congress.

On the 6th of March President Lincoln addressed to Congress the following Special Message: "Fellow-citizens of the Senate and House of Representatives: I recommend the adoption of a joint resolution by your honorable bodies, which shall be substantially as follows: Resolved, That the United States ought to cooperate with any State which may adopt gradual abolishment of slavery, giving to such State pecuniary aid, to be used by such State, in its discretion, to compensate for the inconveniences, public and private, produced by such change of system. If the proposition contained in the resolution does not meet the approval of Congress and the country, there is the end; but if it does command such approval, I deem it of importance that the States and people immediately interested should be at once distinctly notified of the fact, so that they may begin to consider whether to accept or reject it. The Federal Government would find its highest interest in such a measure, as one of the most efficient means of self-preservation. The leaders of the existing insurrection entertain the hope that this government will ultimately be forced to acknowledge the independence of some part of the disaffected region, and that all the slave States north of such part will then say, 'The Union for which we have struggled being already gone, we now choose to go with the Southern section.' To deprive them of this hope substantially ends the rebellion; and the initiation of emancipation completely deprives them of it as to all the States initiating it. The point is not that all the States tolerating slavery would very soon, if at all, initiate emancipation; but that while the offer is equally made to all, the more Northern shall, by such initiation, make it certain to the more Southern that in no event will the former ever join the latter in their proposed confederacy. I say 'initiation' because, in my judgment, gradual and not sudden emancipation is better for all. In the mere financial or pecuniary view, any member of Congress, with the census tables and treasury reports before him, can readily see for himself how very soon the current expenditures of this war would purchase, at fair valuation, all the slaves in any named State. Such a proposition on the part of the General Government sets up no claim of a right by Federal authority to interfere with slavery within State limits, referring, as it does, the absolute control of the subject in each case to the State and its people immediately interested. It is proposed as a matter of perfectly free choice with them. In the annual message, last December, I thought fit to say, 'The Union must be preserved, and hence all indispensable means must be employed.' I said this not hastily, but deliberate]y. War has been made, and continues to be, an indispensable means to this end. A practical reacknowledgment of the national authority would render the war unnecessary, and it would at once cease. If, however, resistance continues, the war must also continue; and it is impossible to foresee all the incidents which may attend and all the ruin which may follow it. Such as may seem indispensable, or may obviously promise great efficiency, toward ending the struggle, must and will come. The proposition now made, though an offer only, I hope it may be esteemed no offense to ask whether the pecuniary consideration tendered would not be of more value to the States and private persons concerned than are the institution and property in it, in the present aspect of affairs? While it is true that the adoption of the proposed resolution would be merely initiatory, and not within itself a practical measure, it is recommended in the hope that it would soon lead to important practical results. In full view of my great responsibility to my God and to my country, I earnestly beg the attention of Congress and the people to the subject. Abraham Lincoln, Washington, March 6, 1862."

"Mr. Stevens, of Pennsylvania, having moved and carried a reference of this Message by the House to a Committee of the Whole on the State of the Union, and Mr. R. Conkling, of New York, having moved the resolve above recommended, a debate sprung up thereon; which is notable only as developing the repugnance of the Unionists of the Border Slave States, with that of the Democrats of all the States, to compensated or any other Emancipation. … It passed the House by 89 Yeas (Republicans, West Virginians, and a few others not strictly partisans) to 31 Nays." On the 2d of April, the resolution passed the Senate, by 32 Yeas to 10 Nays. "The President of course approved the measure; but no single Slave State ever claimed its benefits; and its only use inhered in its demonstration of the willingness of the Unionists to increase their already heavy burdens to pay for the slaves of the Border States—a willingness which the infatuation of the ruling class in those States rendered abortive."

      ALSO IN:
      H. Wilson,
      History of the Rise and Fall of the Slave Power in America,
      volume 3, chapter 23.

      J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay,
      Abraham Lincoln,
      volume 5, chapter 12.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (March).
The Battle of the Monitor and the Merrimac.

"In August 1861 the Northern States had determined to obtain ironclad steam vessels, and at the end of that month Ericsson offered to construct in a few months a vessel which would destroy the rebel squadron. A board of officers was appointed to consider plans proposed, and in September it recommended that a vessel on Ericsson's design should be built. She was commenced in October, launched on January 30th, 1862, and completed on February 15th, 1862. The design provided for a hull not more than 2 ft. above the water, and with a flat bottom, that the draught might not exceed 10 ft. The sides, to a short distance below the water line, were protected with 4-in. plates. In the centre of the deck was built a circular turret, revolving on a central spindle, and protected with 8 in. of iron. Inside the turret were mounted two 11-in. smooth bore guns, pointing through port holes. They could thus fire in any direction without turning the vessel, an obvious advantage not only on the open sea but especially in narrow waters, for which she was more intended. Such was the famous 'Monitor,' a name given by Ericsson to his creation to admonish the leaders of the Southern Rebellion, and to be also a monitor to the Lords of the Admiralty in England, suggesting to them doubts as to the propriety of their building four broadside ironclads at three and a half million dollars each."

"While the Secretary of the Navy was urging forward the construction of the first iron-clads, it was known that the rebel government was making great exertions in the same direction. Iron-clad vessels were under way at New Orleans, Charleston, and at some other points, while at Norfolk the Merrimack [the old frigate of that name, roofed slopingly with railroad iron, was very near completion in the winter of 1861-62.

The formidable character of this mailed frigate constrained the Government to make every effort to complete the Monitor [the first of the turreted iron-clads, invented by John C. Ericsson] in season to meet her whenever she should come out; and it is stated that information obtained by a rebel spy of the state of forwardness in which the Monitor was, induced the rebels to put a double force upon their frigate, so that she might be able to attack our fleet in Hampton Roads before the Monitor's arrival, and, if possible, also to make a raid upon Washington or the Northern cities. This extra labor, it is said, gained the one day in which the Merrimack destroyed the Cumberland and Congress. … The Monitor, commanded by Lieutenant John L. Worden, reached the scene of late disaster to our cause, and of her coming triumph, on the 8th of March, at 9 o'clock P. M., and Lieutenant Worden reported for orders to Captain Marston, the commander of the Roanoke. The Minnesota, one of our noblest frigates, the Roanoke of the same class, but partially disabled, the frigate Congress, and the sloop Cumberland, had been stationed at the mouth of the James River to watch for, to engage, and, if possible, destroy, capture, or stop the expected rebel iron-clad frigate then ready for sea at Norfolk. These vessels carried very heavy batteries, and it was hoped that they would be able to cope with the Merrimack. How vain such an expectation was, her first day's operations fully and sadly demonstrated. It is probably no exaggeration to say that she would have destroyed easily, and without any material damage to herself, every wooden ship then in our Navy, had they been within her reach, and with none but themselves to oppose her."

"Such was the state of affairs when the Monitor arrived at Hampton Roads, that the sturdy commanders trembled in face of the coming day, and all was silence and gloom. The sloop-of-war Cumberland, having a crew of 300 men, and mounting 24 guns, now lay on the bottom with only her top-gallant masts and pennant above the water, marking the spot where 117 mangled bodies lay buried beneath the waves. The Congress, a 50-gun frigate, had also met her destruction, and now lay on shore with the flames kindled by hot shot of the Merrimac sweeping out her hull. The Roanoke and Minnesota, steam frigates of 40 guns each, the pride of the navy and the most perfect of any men-of-war of the period, laid hard and fast on shore, with broken machinery and as powerless as if they had been unarmed. The capture or entire destruction of the Federal fleet at Hampton Roads and the escape of the Merrimac and the rebel cruisers seemed inevitable." Arriving in the evening of the 8th, the Monitor anchored near the frigate Minnesota at Newport News. "At half-past five in the morning all hands were called, and the ship was immediately cleared of her sea-rig and got ready for battle. … At half-past seven o'clock a long line of black smoke was seen, preceded by the steamers Jamestown, Patrick Henry and Teazer. It was the signal for battle. The crews of the different vessels stood by their guns, fuzes in hands. The Monitor steamed slowly from beneath the bows of the Minnesota, where she had been partly concealed, to meet the challenger in an open field. It was alike an astonishment to the rebels and our own people; neither had seen her when she arrived, and many were the conjectures of what it could be. Some said a huge water tank; others an infernal machine; none that she had guns, and not till they saw steam rise from her deck did they think she had power to move herself. … The Merrimac stopped her engines, as if to survey and wonder at the audacity of the nondescript. The Monitor was approaching on her starboard bow. {3455} Then, as if seized with impulsive rage, and as if a huge breath would waft her enemy away, the Merrimac poured a broadside of solid shot at her. For an instant she was enveloped in smoke, and people who were looking on held their breath in doubt of seeing the Monitor again. It was a moment of great suspense. Then as a gentle breeze swept over the scene the Monitor appeared. At this instant the flash of her own guns was seen, and then their report, louder than any cannon that had ever been heard, thundered across the sea. It seemed to jar the very earth, and the iron scales of the invincible crumbled and cracked from their fastenings. One on board the Merrimac at this time has told me that, though at first entirely confident of victory, consternation took hold of them all. 'D-n it!' said one, 'the thing is full of guns!' The enthusiasm at this moment among the thousand of civilians and soldiers, who lined the shore to witness the fight, was beyond description and their own control. Such a spontaneous burst of cheers was never before heard. Men were frantic with joy. The Monitor continued her approach, reserving fire that every shot might take effect, until she came parallel with the Merrimac, but heading in the opposite direction. In this way they passed slowly within a few yards of each other, both delivering and receiving the other's fire. … Captain Worden headed again towards the Merrimac with renewed confidence and engaged her at close quarters. Again they joined in close combat, the Monitor lying bow on, at times touching, both delivering their fire as rapidly as possible. At the same time the marines on the Merrimac poured an incessant fire of musketry at the peek-holes about the pilot-house and turret. The speed of the two vessels was about equal, but the light draught of the Monitor gave her an advantage. The rebels finding that they could make nothing of the invulnerable cheese-box, as they called her, and foiled and maddened at the loss of their coveted prize, turned towards the Minnesota, determined, if possible, to destroy her. The Merrimac went head on and received a full broadside of the Minnesota. Fifty solid nine-inch shot struck square. Any wooden vessel that ever floated would have gone to pieces under such a fire. The Merrimac was unharmed. She returned the fire with her forward rifle guns. One shell passed through four rooms, tearing away partitions and setting the ship on tire. Another passed through the boiler of the steamer Dragon which lay alongside, blowing her up and killing and wounding 17 men. Before a third was fired the Monitor interposed, compelling the Merrimac to change her position. The two combatants then made a complete circle in their endeavors to get a favorable position, each seeking to discharge a broadside into some vital part. The Merrimac then turned sharp and made a plunge towards the Minnesota, but Worden was vigilant, and crossed the stern of the Merrimac, sending two solid shot into her. To get back again between her and the Minnesota, the Monitor had almost to cross her bow. The Merrimac steamed up quickly, and finding that the Monitor would be struck with her prow Worden sheered towards the enemy's stern, avoiding a direct blow, and, as they came into collision, each vessel delivered a broadside into the other. At this point a shell from the Merrimac struck the pilot-house exactly over the peek-hole through which Captain Worden was looking. The shell exploding, filled his face and eyes with powder and fragments of iron, utterly blinding and for a time rendering him unconscious. Lieutenant Greene, who had been in charge of the turret division, immediately left the guns and spent full thirty minutes nursing the wounded commander, during which time the gunners shotted the guns, and, as the Merrimac was turning away, discharged them at close range into her stern, a blow that made her whole frame shudder and seemed at once to be fatal. There was no officer to direct the movements of the vessel except the pilot Howard. As the two combatants parted from the struggle they were headed in opposite directions, both away from their goal. Presuming that the fight would be continued, Pilot Howard ran the vessel a short distance down the channel and turning brought her again close to the protection of the Minnesota, when Lieutenant Greene stepped into the pilot-house and assumed command. It was then observed that the Merrimac had taken the channel and was heading towards Norfolk. She was soon joined by her consorts, and taken up to their refuge under the batteries of Craney Island, the Merrimac apparently sagging down astern. Thus ended the greatest naval battle of the world. … The only perceptible danger to those on board the Monitor, after the first round from the Merrimac, was to those in the turret, who were in great danger from the flying of bolt heads driven with great force across the turret, and from the concussion, which would for a time paralyze a man if he should in any way be in contact with the turret when struck by a shot."

      F. B. Butts,
      The Monitor and the Merrimac
      (Soldiers' and Sailors' Historical Society of Rhode Island,
      Fourth series, Number 6).

   "The engagement in Hampton Roads on the 8th of March, 1862,
   between the Confederate iron-clad Virginia, or the Merrimac,
   as she is known at the North, and the United States wooden
   fleet, and that on the 9th, between the Virginia and the
   Monitor, was, in its results, in some respects the most
   momentous naval conflict ever witnessed. No battle was ever
   more widely discussed or produced a greater sensation. It
   revolutionized the navies of the world. … Rams and iron-clads
   were in future to decide all naval warfare. In this battle old
   things passed away, and the experience of a thousand years of
   battle and breeze was forgotten. The naval supremacy of
   England vanished in the smoke of this fight, only to reappear
   some years later more commanding than ever. The effect of the
   news was best described by the London 'Times,' which said:
   'Whereas we had available for immediate purposes 149
   first-class war-ships: we have now two, these two being the
   Warrior and her sister Ironside. There is not now a ship in
   the English navy apart from these two that it would not be
   madness to trust to an engagement with that little Monitor.'
   The Admiralty at once proceeded to reconstruct the navy. … The
   same results were produced in France, which had but one
   sea-going iron-clad, La Gloire, and this one, like the
   Warrior, was only protected amidships. … And so with all the
   maritime powers. In this race the United States took the lead,
   and at the close of the war led all the others in the numbers
   and efficiency of its iron-clad fleet. … Our loss [that is,
   the Confederate loss on the Virginia, or Merrimac, in the
   first day's battle, with the wooden ships] in killed and
   wounded was 21.
{3456}
   The armor was hardly damaged, though at one time our ship was
   the focus on which were directed at least 100 heavy guns
   afloat and ashore. But nothing outside escaped. … We slept at
   our guns, dreaming of other victories in the morning. But at
   daybreak we discovered, lying between us and the Minnesota, a
   strange-looking craft, which we knew at once to be Ericsson's
   Monitor, which had long been expected in Hampton Roads, and of
   which, from different sources, we had a good idea. She could
   not possibly have made her appearance at a more inopportune
   time for us, changing our plans, which were to destroy the
   Minnesota, and then the remainder of the fleet below Fortress
   Monroe. She appeared but a pigmy compared with the lofty
   frigate which she guarded. But in her size was one great
   element of her success. … After an early breakfast, we got
   under way and steamed out toward the enemy, opening fire from
   our bow pivot, and closing in to deliver our starboard
   broadside at short range, which was returned promptly from her
   11-inch guns. Both vessels then turned and passed again still
   closer. The Monitor was firing every seven or eight minutes,
   and nearly every shot struck. Our ship was working worse and
   worse, and after the loss of the smoke-stack, Mr. Ramsay,
   chief engineer, reported that the draught was so poor that it
   was with great difficulty he could keep up steam. Once or
   twice the ship was on the bottom. Drawing 22 feet of water, we
   were confined to a narrow channel, while the Monitor, with
   only 12 feet immersion, could take any position, and always
   have us in range of her guns. … Several times the Monitor
   ceased firing, and we were in hopes she was disabled, but the
   revolution again of her turret and the heavy blows of her
   11-inch shot on our sides soon undeceived us. … Lieutenant
   Jones now determined to run her down or board her. For nearly
   an hour we manœuvred for a position. … The ship was as
   unwieldy as Noah's Ark. … And so, for six or more hours, the
   struggle was kept up. At length, the Monitor withdrew over the
   middle ground where we could not follow. … The battle was a
   drawn one, so far as the two vessels engaged were concerned.
   But in its general results the advantage was with the
   Monitor."

      J. T. Wood,
      The First Fight of Iron Clads
      (Battles and Leaders of the Civil War,
      volume 1, pages 692-711).

      ALSO IN:
      J. Ericsson,
      The Building of the Monitor
      (Battles and Leaders. volume 1, pages 730-744).

Gideon Welles, The First Iron-Clad Monitor (Annals of the War by leading Participants), page 17.

   On the evacuation of Norfolk by the Confederates, in May,
   1862, the Merrimac was destroyed. The following December the
   Monitor went down in a storm at sea, while on her way to
   Charleston, and only a few of her crew were saved.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (March).
Amendment of the Military Code.
Officers forbidden to surrender fugitive Slaves.

"As the formal orders of the government regarding the treatment of slaves who sought refuge near the armies were not always executed, Congress determined to give them a legal sanction; and on the 25th of February and the 13th of March both the Senate and the House of Representatives introduced a new article in the military code, prohibiting officers, at the risk of dismissal, from interfering to restore fugitive slaves to their masters. Notwithstanding the powers with which the government was thus armed, great difficulty was experienced in applying this law in those regiments whose commanders openly professed their sympathies in favor of slavery."

      Comte de Paris,
      History of the Civil War in America,
      volume 2, page 733.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862
(March-April: On the Mississippi).
New Madrid and Island No. 10.

   On the surrender of Fort Donelson to General Grant, Columbus,
   on the Mississippi, was hastily abandoned by the rebels, who
   fell back to Island Number Ten, thirty miles below, where
   strong works had been erected. These it was hoped would
   command the passage of the river. "Following the course of the
   Mississippi, this island is about ten miles above New Madrid,
   Missouri, which is 79 miles below Cairo; but on account of a
   long bend in the river … the island is really further south
   than New Madrid. New Madrid is at the most northerly part of
   the bend, and its guns were so placed as to be able to fire at
   vessels coming either way. Besides Fort Thompson, named after
   Jeff Thompson, it was defended by several batteries and by six
   gunboats, mounting heavy guns, which had come up the river
   from New Orleans and were under the command of Commodore
   Hollins. … As the land around New Madrid is very flat, these
   gunboats could fire upon troops approaching the place by land.
   On the same day when the flag of the Union was hoisted over
   the deserted works of the Confederates at Columbus [March 4],
   a Union army under General John Pope, who had been commanding
   in eastern Missouri, appeared before New Madrid. Seeing that
   he could do but little with his field artillery, he sent to
   Cairo for heavy guns; and while waiting for these he built a
   battery at Point Pleasant, about ten miles below New Madrid,
   so as to blockade the river at that place and prevent supplies
   from being sent up to the town. Meanwhile the Confederates
   strengthened their works and reinforced the garrison with men
   from Island Number Ten, while their fleet of gunboats was
   increased to nine. Four heavy guns were sent from Bird's Point
   to General Pope by the Cairo and Fulton Railway, which brought
   them within 20 miles of where they were wanted. … On the night
   of March 12 a thousand spades were at work within half a mile
   of Fort Thompson, and at daylight the guns were in position
   ready for action. Pope opened a cannonade at once on the
   gunboats and on Fort Thompson, both of which replied
   vigorously. The fight raged all day long; several of the gun
   boats were disabled and the Union army was gradually shutting
   in the Confederates on the land side, when their commander,
   General McCown, seeing the danger of capture, left the place
   in the night, during a heavy thunder-storm, and removed all
   his troops to Island Number Ten. … General Pope lost 51 men in
   killed and wounded during the day's bombardment; the loss of
   the Confederates is not known, but is thought to have been
   more than a hundred. About the time of the capture of New
   Madrid, Commodore Foote sailed from Cairo with a fleet of
   seven iron-clad gunboats, one wooden gunboat, and ten
   mortar-boats, for the purpose of aiding General Pope in the
   attack on Island Number Ten. He came in sight of the island on
   Saturday, March 15, and on the next morning opened the
   bombardment with the rifled guns of the Benton, his flag-ship.
{3457}
   The mortar-boats, moored at convenient places along the shore,
   soon took part in the firing, and rained bombs into the
   Confederate works. … Commodore Foote kept up the bombardment
   for many days, without doing much damage to the Confederate
   works. But while he kept the enemy busy, General Pope had been
   engaged in digging a canal across the swampy peninsula formed
   by the bend of the river, so that vessels could go through to
   New Madrid without having to pass Island Number Ten. … A large
   number of men were employed, and after nineteen days of hard
   labor a channel deep enough for light-draught vessels was cut
   through. In the night of April 1 a few men from the gunboats,
   aided by some of Pope's soldiers, landed on the Kentucky
   shore, opposite Island Number Ten, took one of the batteries
   by surprise and spiked its six guns. … A few nights afterward
   the Carondelet [gunboat] ran safely by all the batteries at
   midnight, during a heavy thunderstorm. … Two nights afterward
   the Pittsburgh, another gunboat, performed the same feat, with
   the same good fortune; and a few days later the Confederates
   were astonished to see a fleet of transports laden with troops
   and several floating batteries join the gunboats at New
   Madrid. … The gunboats soon silenced the one-gun batteries on
   the opposite side of the river below New Madrid," and the
   Confederates, attempting to escape, were intercepted and
   captured (April 7), both those on the mainland and those on
   the Island.

J. D. Champlin, Jr., Young Folks' History of the War for the Union, chapter 16.

Said General Pope in his report: "It is almost impossible to give a correct account of the immense quantity of artillery, ammunition, and supplies of every description which fell into our hands. Three generals, 273 field and company officers, 6,700 privates, 123 pieces of heavy artillery, 35 pieces of field artillery (all of the very best character and latest patterns), 7,000 stand of small-arms, tents for 12,000 men, several wharf-boat loads of provisions, an immense quantity of ammunition of all kinds, many hundred horses and mules, with wagons and harness, &c., are among the spoils. Very few, if any, of the enemy escaped, and only by wading and swimming through the swamps. The conduct of the troops was splendid throughout, as the results of this operation and its whole progress very plainly indicate. We have crossed this great river, the banks of which were lined with batteries and defended by 7,000 men. We have pursued and captured the whole force of the enemy and all his supplies and material of war, and have again recrossed and reoccupied the camps at New Madrid, without losing a man or meeting with any accident. Such results bespeak efficiency, good conduct, high discipline, and soldierly deportment of the best character far more conclusively than they can be exhibited in pitched battle or the storming of fortified places."

"In the years since 1862, Island No. 10 … has disappeared. The river, constantly wearing at its upper end, has little by little swept away the whole. … On the other shore a new No. 10 has risen."

      A. T. Mahan,
      The Navy in the Civil War: The Gulf and Inland Waters,
      chapter 2.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (March-May: Virginia).
The Peninsular Campaign.
McClellan before Yorktown.

"When Manassas had been abandoned by the enemy [see UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861-1862 (December-March: Virginia)] and he had withdrawn behind the Rapidan, the Urbana movement lost much of its promise, as the enemy was now in position to reach Richmond before we could do so. The alternative remained of making Fort Monroe and its vicinity the base of operations. The plan first adopted was to commence the movement with the First Corps as a unit, to land north of Gloucester and move thence on West Point; or, should circumstances render it advisable, to land a little below Yorktown to turn the defenses between that place and Fort Monroe. The Navy Department were confident that we could rely upon their vessels to neutralize the Merrimac and aid materially in reducing the batteries on the York River. … As transports arrived very slowly, especially those for horses, and the great impatience of the Government grew apace, it became necessary to embark divisions as fast as vessels arrived, and I decided to land them at Fort Monroe, holding the First Corps to the last, still intending to move it in mass to turn Gloucester. On the 17th of March the leading division embarked at Alexandria. The campaign was undertaken with the intention of taking some 145,000 troops, to be increased by a division of 10,000 drawn from the troops in the vicinity of Fort Monroe. … On the 12th of March I learned that there had appeared in the daily papers the order relieving me from the general command of all the armies and confining my authority to the Department of the Potomac. I had received no previous intimation of the intention of the Government in this respect. … On my arrival at Fort Monroe on the 2d of April, I found five divisions of infantry, Sykes's brigade of regulars, two regiments of cavalry, and a portion of the reserve artillery disembarked. Another cavalry regiment and a part of a fourth had arrived, but were still on shipboard; comparatively few wagons had come. … The best information obtainable represented the Confederate troops around Yorktown as numbering at least 15,000, with about an equal force at Norfolk; and it was clear that the army lately at Manassas, now mostly near Gordonsville, was in position to be thrown promptly to the Peninsula. … On my arrival at Fort Monroe I learned, in an interview with Flag-Officer Goldsborough, that he could not protect the James as a line of supply, and that he could furnish no vessels to take an active part in the reduction of the batteries at York and Gloucester or to run by and gain their rear. He could only aid in the final attack after our land batteries had essentially silenced their fire. I thus found myself with 53,000 men in condition to move, faced by the conditions of the problem just stated. Information was received that Yorktown was already being reenforced from Norfolk, and it was apprehended that the main Confederate army would promptly follow the same course. I therefore determined to move at once with the force in hand, and endeavor to seize a point—near the Halfway House—between Yorktown and Williamsburg, where the Peninsula is reduced to a narrow neck, and thus cut off the retreat of the Yorktown garrison and prevent the arrival of reenforcements. {3458} The advance commenced on the morning of the 4th of April, and was arranged to turn successively the intrenchments on the two roads; the result being that, on the afternoon of the 5th, the Third Corps was engaged with the enemy's outposts in front of Yorktown and under the artillery fire of the place. The Fourth Corps came upon Lee's Mills and found it covered by the unfordable line of the Warwick, and reported the position so strong as to render it impossible to execute its orders to assault. Thus all things were brought to a stand-still, and the intended movement on the Halfway House could not be carried out. Just at this moment came a telegram, dated the 4th, informing me that the First Corps [McDowell's] was withdrawn from my command. Thus, when too deeply committed to recede, I found that another reduction of about 43,000 … diminished my paper force to 92,000, instead of the 155,000 on which the plans of the campaign had been founded, … which reduced the numbers actually available for battle to some 67,000 or 68,000. The order withdrawing the First Corps also broke up the Department of the Potomac, forming out of it the Department of the Shenandoah, under General Banks, and the Department of the Rappahannock, under General McDowell, the latter including Washington. … In our front was an intrenched line, apparently too strong for assault, and which I had now no means of turning, either by land or water. … Whatever may have been said afterward, no one at the time—so far as my knowledge extended—thought an assault practicable without certain preliminary siege operations. … We were thus obliged to resort to siege operations in order to silence the enemy's artillery fire, and open the way to an assault. All the batteries would have been ready to open fire on the 5th, or, at latest, on the morning of the 6th of May; … but during the night of the 3d and 4th of May the enemy evacuated his positions. … Meanwhile, on the 22d of April, Franklin's division of McDowell's corps had joined me by water, in consequence of my urgent calls for reënforcements … [and, May 7th] disembarked near West Point and took up a suitable position to hold its own and cover the landing of reënforcements."

G. B. McClellan, The Peninsular Campaign (Battles and Leaders, volume 2, pages 160-187).

General Joseph E. Johnston, who assumed command of the Confederate forces on the Peninsula, April 17, says in his "Narrative": "I went to the Peninsula as soon as possible, reaching General Magruder's headquarters early in the morning. … That officer had estimated the importance of at least delaying the invaders until an army capable of coping with them could be formed; and opposed them with about a tenth of their number, on a line of which Yorktown, intrenched, made the left flank. This boldness imposed upon the Federal general, and made him halt to besiege instead of assailing the Confederate position. This resolute and judicious course on the part of General Magruder was of incalculable value. It saved Richmond, and gave the Confederate Government time to swell that officer's handful to an army. … The arrival of Smith's and Longstreet's divisions increased the army on the Peninsula to about 53,000 men, including 3,000 sick. … I could see no other object in holding the position than that of delaying the enemy's progress, to gain time."

      ALSO IN:
      J. C. Palfrey,
      The Siege of Yorktown
      (Massachusetts Military Historical Society Papers,
      volume 1, pages 31-92).

      Comte de Paris,
      History of the Civil War in America,
      volume 2, book 1, chapter 1.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (March-June).
Appointment of Military Governors in Tennessee,
North Carolina, and Louisiana.

"By the Union victories in the spring of 1862 very considerable areas of territory in States in rebellion came under the control and occupation of the Union armies. … The sudden change from Confederate to Federal authority involved everywhere either a serious derangement or total cessation of the ordinary administration of local civil law, and the displacement from the occupied territory of State governments and State officials who claimed to be exercising functions under ordinances of secession, and yielding obedience to the self-styled Confederate States. A similar displacement had occurred in Virginia and in Missouri during the year 1861, but in those States prompt remedies were available," by means of popular movements, through delegated conventions, which abrogated the rebellious and reinstated loyal State governments in operation. The courses pursued in Virginia and Missouri were not practicable, however, in other cases, and "a substitute was found in the appointment of military governors to represent and exert such State and local authority as the anomalous conditions made practicable, and as the supreme military necessities might allow. The first of these appointments occurred in Tennessee. Nashville, the capital, having been evacuated about February 23, 1862, President Lincoln nominated, and the Senate confirmed, Andrew Johnson (March 4, 1862) as military governor with the rank of brigadier-general. … Conforming to this precedent, Mr. Lincoln, through the Secretary of War, appointed Edward Stanley military governor of North Carolina, 'with authority to exercise and perform, within the limits of that State, all and singular the powers, duties, and functions pertaining to the office of military governor (including the power to establish all necessary offices and tribunals, and suspend the writ of habeas corpus) during the pleasure of the President, or until the loyal inhabitants of that State shall organize a civil government in conformity with the Constitution of the United States.' … In like manner, soon after news was received of the successes in the Gulf, Colonel G. F. Shepley (of the 12th Maine Infantry) of Butler's army was appointed military governor of Louisiana, this selection being made because General Butler had already designated him to act as mayor of the city of New Orleans, and it was thought best to combine both functions in the same individual."

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (April: On the Mississippi).
Farragut's passage of the lower forts
and capture of New Orleans.

   "About the close of the gloomy and disastrous year 1861, the
   Government of the United States determined to regain control
   of the Mississippi. … After long consideration, Farragut was
   chosen as the naval officer to command in the Gulf. The story
   of his southern birth, and of his steadfast loyalty to his
   flag, is too well known to be here repeated. His formal orders
   put him in command of the 'Western Gulf Blockading Squadron,'
   and these were issued in January, 1862.
{3459}
   But confidential instructions were also given him, by which he
   was especially charged with the 'reduction of the defences
   guarding the approaches to New Orleans, and the taking
   possession of that city.' He was to be assisted by a
   mortar-fleet of schooners, under commander D. D. Porter. … On
   February 2d, 1862, Farragut sailed for the Gulf, in the
   sloop-of-war Hartford, which was so long to bear his flag,
   successfully, through manifold dangers. The Hartford was a
   wooden screw-steamer, full ship-rigged, and of 1,900 tons
   burthen. She was of comparatively light draught, and,
   therefore, well suited to the service she was called upon to
   perform. … The Hartford arrived at her rendezvous, Ship
   Island, 100 miles north-northeast of the mouths _ of the
   Mississippi, on February 20th. A military force, to co-operate
   with Farragut's fleet, was sent out, under General B. F.
   Butler, and arrived at Ship Island on March 25th."

"At a point about 30 miles above the head of the passes, where the river makes its last great bend—the lowest favorable locality for defense before reaching the Gulf—the United States Government had erected two forts, St. Philip on the left or north bank, and Jackson a little farther down stream on the right. … The Confederate Government had early taken possession of these forts, and put them in complete order. When Farragut's fleet appeared before them, Fort Jackson, with its water battery, mounted 75 guns, and St. Philip about 40. … Just above the forts lay a rebel fleet of 15 vessels, under Commodore J. K. Mitchell, including the iron-clad ram Manassas and an immense floating battery covered with railroad iron, called the Louisiana. Just below Fort Jackson the Confederates had obstructed the river with a heavy chain, brought from Pensacola. … The task that lay before Farragut was, to break through the obstructions, pass between the forts, conquer the rebel fleet, and then steam up to New Orleans, lay the city under his guns, and demand its surrender. For its accomplishment he had 6 sloops-of-war, 16 gunboats, 21 schooners, each carrying a 13-inch mortar, and 5 other vessels. The fleet carried over 200 guns. … The schooners sailed up partly, or were towed by steamers, and on the morning of the 18th of April they had all reached their positions, ready to open fire. … For six days and nights the mortars kept up an unremitting fire, mainly on Fort Jackson, throwing nearly 6,000 shells. The Confederates acknowledged a loss of 14 killed and 39 wounded by the bombardment. … Farragut's patience was sorely tried by this delay. He had never had much faith in the mortars, and now it was evident, as he had anticipated, that almost the only practical effect of the bombardment was, to give the enemy long warning of the attack by the ships. … Having decided to run by the forts, he confided to his trusted Fleet Captain, Bell, the dangerous mission of proceeding with the gunboats Pinola and Itasca to make a passage for his fleet through the chain obstructions. … A sufficient opening was made for the fleet to pass through, in spite of the heavy fire to which the party were subjected. … Farragut had made up his mind to run by the forts at the close of the fifth day's bombardment; but the necessity of repairing damages to two of his vessels delayed him twenty-four hours longer. He had intended to lead the column in his flag-ship Hartford; but in the final disposition he gave that post to Captain Theodorus Bailey, at his own earnest request, who hoisted his red flag on the gunboat Cayuga. … The attempt to pass was to be made in the night, April 23-24; and, as the moon would rise about half past 3 o'clock in the morning, the fleet were warned to expect the signal for sailing at about 2 o'clock. … Lieutenant Commanding Caldwell sent up in the Itasca to examine the obstructions and find whether the passage was still open. At 11 o'clock he gave the signal that it was, and about the same time the enemy opened fire on him, sent down burning rafts, and lighted the immense piles of wood which they had prepared on the shore near the ends of the chain. … It was half past 3, the hour of moonrise, before all was ready. In the light of the blazing rafts and bonfires, moon or no moon made little difference now. … Captain Bailey led off with his division of 8 vessels, whose objective was Fort St. Philip, and all of them passed through the opening in the cable. Both forts opened fire upon his flag-ship, the Cayuga, soon after she had passed the hulks. Five minutes later she was pouring grape and canister into St. Philip, and in ten minutes more she had passed beyond range of that work, to find herself surrounded by 11 rebel gun-boats. Three of them attempted to board her at once. An 11-inch shot was sent through one of them at the close range of 30 yards, and she immediately ran aground and burned up. The Parrott gun on the forecastle drove off another; and Bailey was preparing to close with the third, when the Oneida and Varuna, which had run in close to St. Philip, thus avoiding the elevated guns of the fort, while they swept its bastions with grape and scrapnel, came up to the assistance of the Cayuga. The Oneida ran under full steam into one of the rebel ships, cut her nearly in two, and left her to float down stream a helpless wreck. She fired right and left into the others, and then went to the assistance of the Varuna, which was ashore on the left bank, hard pressed by the Governor Moore and another, said to be the Manassas. The Varuna was rammed by them both, and sank at the end of 15 minutes; but in that time it is claimed that she put three 8-inch shells into the Governor Moore, and so crippled her with solid shot that she surrendered to the Oneida, and drove five 8-inch shells into another, which sent her ashore. Still another of her shells exploded the boiler of a rebel steamer. The Pensacola steamed steadily but slowly by, firing with great deliberation and regularity. … The Mississippi was fought regularly in line, like the Pensacola, but escaped with light losses. She encountered the ram Manassas, which gave her a severe cut on the port quarter below the water-line, and disabled her machinery. But she riddled the ram with shot, boarded her, and set her on fire, so that she drifted below the forts and blew up. The Katahdin ran close to the forts, steamed by rapidly, and got near the head of the line, where she put a few good shots into the iron-clad Louisiana. The Kineo ran by close under St. Philip, and then assisted the Mississippi in handling the ram Manassas; but she was afterward attacked by three rebel gun boats at once, and, her pivot-gun carriage becoming injured, she withdrew and continued on up stream. {3460} The Wissahickon ran ashore before she reached the forts, got off, passed them, and above ran ashore again. Most of these operations were carried on in the darkness occasioned by the thick smoke, lighted, however, by the lurid flashes of more than 200 guns. The Hartford, bearing Flag-Officer Farragut, led the second division of the fleet. … In attempting to avoid a fire-raft, she grounded on a shoal near St. Philip. At the same time the ram Manassas pushed a raft upon her port quarter, and in an instant she was on fire. A part of the crew went to 'fire quarters' and soon subdued the flames, while the working of her guns was steadily continued, and she was then backed off into deep water. This movement turned the ship's head down stream, and it was with some difficulty that she was turned around against the current; but this was finally accomplished, and she continued to steam up the river, firing into several of the enemy's vessels as she passed. Among these was a steamer full of men, apparently a boarding-party. She was making straight for the Hartford when Captain Broome's gun, manned by marines, planted a shell in her, which exploded, and she disappeared. … The Brooklyn got out of her course, ran over one of the hulks, and became entangled in the raft, where she suffered a raking fire from Fort Jackson, and a pretty severe one from St. Philip. Scarcely was she disentangled and on her way up stream when she was butted by the Manassas, which, however, had not headway enough to damage her much, and slid off in the darkness. Then she was attacked by a large rebel steamer, but gave her the port broadside at fifty yards and set her on fire. Groping along through a black cloud of smoke from a fire-raft, she came close abreast of St. Philip, into which she poured such tremendous broadsides that by the flashes the gunners were seen running to shelter, and for the time the fort was silenced. The Brooklyn then passed on, and engaged several of the enemy's gunboats at short range. One of these, the Warrior, came under the port broadside, when eleven 5-second shells were instantly planted in her, all of which exploded, setting her on fire, and she was run ashore. The Brooklyn was under fire an hour and a half, and her losses were almost as severe as those of the Pensacola. The Richmond, a slow ship, brought up the rear of the second division, steaming steadily and working her guns with great regularity. … The Sciota, carrying Fleet-Captain Bell, led the third division. She steamed by the forts, firing as she passed, and above them burned two steamboats. … The Iroquois passed within 50 yards of Fort Jackson without injury, but was subjected to a terrible raking cross-fire from St. Philip, and was also raked by the McCrea. … Her losses were heavy. The Pinola passed up in line, firing her 11-inch pivot-gun and Parrott rifles at the flashes of Fort Jackson's guns, which at first were all that could be seen; then she emerged from the cloud of smoke, stood over toward St. Philip, and in the light of the blazing rafts received the discharges of its 40 guns. She was the last vessel that passed the forts, and got up in time to put one or two shells into the gunboats of the enemy. The Kennebec got out of her course, became entangled in the rafts, and did not get free till it was broad daylight and too late to attempt a passage. The Itasca, arriving in front of Fort Jackson, received a shot in her boiler, which made it impossible for her to proceed, and was turned down stream. The Winona got astray among the hulks, and lost so much time that when she came within range of Fort Jackson it was daylight, and the fleet had passed on. The first three or four shots from the fort swept away the entire crew of her rifled gun, save one man. Still she kept on, until the lower battery of St. Philip opened on her at less than point-blank range; this was too much for her, and she prudently headed down stream and ran out of the fire. Thus was accomplished a feat in naval warfare which had no precedent, and which is still without a parallel except the one furnished by Farragut himself, two years later, at Mobile. Starting with 17 wooden vessels, he had passed with all but 3 of them, against the swift current of a river but half a mile wide, between two powerful earthworks which had long been prepared for him, his course impeded by blazing rafts, and immediately thereafter had met the enemy's fleet of 15 vessels, two of them iron-clad, and either captured or destroyed every one of them. And all this with a loss of but one ship from his own squadron."

Commander Porter, who kept up the mortar fire while Farragut was forcing his way, says of the battle: "No grander or more beautiful sight could have been realized than the scenes of that night. From silence, disturbed now and then only by the slow fire of the mortars,—the phantom-like movements of the vessels giving no sound—an increased roar of heavy guns began, while the mortars burst forth into rapid bombardment, as the fleet drew near the enemy's works. Vessel after vessel added her guns to those already at work, until the very earth seemed to shake from their reverberations. A burning raft added its lurid glare to the scene, and the fiery tracks of the mortar-shells, as they passed through the darkness aloft, and sometimes burst in mid-air, gave the impression that heaven itself had joined in the general strife. The succeeding silence was almost as sudden. From the weighing of the anchors, one hour and ten minutes saw the vessels by the forts, and Farragut on his way to New Orleans, the prize staked upon the fierce game of war just ended."

   "General Lovell, who was in command at New Orleans, had come
   down the river in a steamboat to observe the operations and
   was very nearly captured; he hastened back to the city to
   withdraw his forces. When the news spread through the streets
   that the Federal fleet had passed the forts and had destroyed
   the Confederate flotilla, a strange scene followed; a scene
   impossible, perhaps, in any other American city under parallel
   circumstances. The brave, active, fighting men of New Orleans
   were far away in the armies of the South; but they had left
   behind a slinking swarm of human vermin. … These, when they
   saw a hopeless panic seize the good people of the city, poured
   forth from their dens and began an indiscriminate pillaging of
   houses, shops, and storage-sheds. Thus while the better class
   of citizens were frantically setting fire to the cotton (some
   12,000 bales) the cut-throats and ruffians, the hardened women
   and even the lawless children, were raging from place to
   place, back and forth, here and there, wildly plundering and
   aimlessly destroying. … All the public materials, consisting
   of army supplies, were heaped up in the middle of the streets
   and burned.
{3461}
   General Lovell withdrew his soldiers on the evening of the
   24th, leaving the city at the mercy of the Federal fleet,
   which at 1 o'clock on the following day steamed up the river
   and anchored in the middle of the stream not far from the foot
   of Canal Street. … The mob which lately had been committing
   such foul deeds, now swayed back and forth in the streets,
   hooting, yelling and cursing, urging the people to resist the
   landing of the Federals. Commodore Farragut demanded the
   formal surrender of the city, but the mayor was powerless. He
   could not surrender the city while the people were controlled
   by an unreasoning mob. Consequently, on the 20th, a detachment
   under command of Fleet Captain H. H. Bell was sent ashore to
   take possession of the public buildings."

"The success was almost beyond price to the Union Government from its moral importance on both sides of the Atlantic. As to the material advantage won, it may be best judged of by the statement of the well-known Confederate writer, Mr. Pollard: … 'It was a heavy blow to the Confederacy. It annihilated us in Louisiana; separated us from Texas and Arkansas; diminished our resources and supplies by the loss of one of the greatest grain and cattle countries within the limits of the Confederacy; gave to the enemy the Mississippi River, with all its means of navigation, for a base of operations.' … In calling the capture of New Orleans 'one of the most remarkable triumphs in the whole history of naval operations' he [Mr. Welles, Secretary of the Navy] is fully justified."

      ALSO IN:
      D. D. Porter, J. R. Bartlett and others,
      The Capture of New Orleans
      (Battles and Leaders, volume 2).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (April-May: Alabama).
General Mitchell's expedition.

The division of Buell's army commanded by General Ormsby M. Mitchell left Nashville with the other divisions of that army, late in March, but took the road to Murfreesboro, while the latter marched toward Pittsburg Landing. On the 4th of April General Mitchell marched from Murfreesboro to Shelbyville, 26 miles distant. "On the 7th he advanced to Fayetteville, 27 miles farther, and the next forenoon, the 8th, 15 miles beyond, he crossed the State line of Alabama. Continuing his march six miles farther, and being within ten miles of Huntsville, Alabama, he halted for the artillery and infantry to come up." At an early hour the next morning he entered the town, taking it completely by surprise. "Before the close of the day 100 miles of the Memphis and Charleston railroad were in his possession, stretching in one direction as far as Stevenson, and in the other as far as Decatur. … From Decatur he pushed on at once to Tuscumbia. Thus, without the loss of a single life, General Mitchell placed his army midway between Corinth and Chattanooga, prevented the destruction of a fine bridge at Decatur, opened communication with General Buell, and also the navigation of the Tennessee. The occupation of Huntsville also cut off all communication between the east and west by the Memphis and Charleston railroad. … This extension of General Mitchell's lines to hold the railroad rendered his situation precarious. Soon the enemy began to gather in force and threaten him. … He was raised to the rank of a major-general, and ordered to report directly to the [war] department, and his force was constituted an independent corps. But he got no reënforcements, he was left in such a condition that he at first hardly had anything to report but that he had been gradually driven from those positions, the gaining of which had made him a major-general." Subsequently he advanced upon Chattanooga; but that important position was not secured. A little later General Mitchell was transferred to Port Royal, South Carolina.

It was in connection with General Mitchell's expedition that the thrilling episode of the railroad raid in Georgia occurred, narratives of which have been published by one of the participants, Reverend William Pittenger, first under the title of "Capturing a Locomotive," and afterwards with the title "Daring and Suffering," and also as "The Great Locomotive Chase." Volume Two of "Battles and Leaders of the Civil War" also contains the story, entitled "The Locomotive Chase in Georgia," preceded by General Buell's critical account of Mitchell's entire operations.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862
(April-May: Tennessee-Mississippi).
The bloodless and bootless conquest of Corinth.

"General Halleck arrived at Pittsburg landing on the 11th of April and immediately assumed command in the field. On the 21st General Pope arrived with an army 30,000 strong, fresh from the capture of Island Number Ten in the Mississippi River. He went into camp at Hamburg landing five miles above Pittsburg. Halleck had now three armies: the Army of the Ohio, Buell commanding; the Army of the Mississippi, Pope commanding; and the Army of the Tennessee. His orders divided the combined force into the right wing, reserve, centre, and left wing. … I [General Grant] was named second in command of the whole, and was also supposed to be in command of the right wing and reserve. … Preparations were at once made upon the arrival of the new commander for an advance on Corinth. … Corinth, Mississippi, lies in a south-westerly direction from Pittsburg landing and about 19 miles away as the bird would fly, but probably 22 by the nearest wagon-road. It is about four miles south of the line dividing the States of Tennessee and Mississippi, and at the junction of the Mississippi and Chattanooga Railroad with the Mobile and Ohio road which runs from Columbus to Mobile. … Corinth was a valuable strategic point for the enemy to hold, and consequently a valuable one for us to possess ourselves of. We ought to have seized it immediately after the fall of Donelson and Nashville, when it could have been taken without a battle, but failing then it should have been taken, without delay, on the concentration of troops at Pittsburg landing after the battle of Shiloh. In fact, the arrival of Pope should not have been awaited. There was no time from the battle of Shiloh up to the evacuation of Corinth when the enemy would not have left if pushed. … On the 30th of April the grand army commenced its advance from Shiloh upon Corinth. The movement was a siege from the start to the close.

The National troops were always behind intrenchments, except of course the small reconnoitring parties sent to the front to clear the way for an advance. Even the commanders of these parties were cautioned, 'not to bring on an engagement.' … For myself, I was little more than an observer. Orders were sent direct to the right wing or reserve, ignoring me, and advances were made from one line of intrenchments to another without notifying me. My position was so embarrassing in fact that I made several applications during the siege to be relieved. … On the 28th of May, General Logan, whose command was then on the Mobile and Ohio railroad, said to me that the enemy had been evacuating for several days, and that if allowed he could go into Corinth with his brigade. … Beauregard published his orders for the evacuation of Corinth on the 26th of May and fixed the 29th for the departure of his troops, and on the 30th of May General Halleck had his whole army drawn up prepared for battle and announced in orders that there was every indication that our left was to be attacked that morning. Corinth had already been evacuated and the National troops marched on and took possession without opposition. Everything had been destroyed or carried away. The Confederate commander had instructed his soldiers to cheer on the arrival of every train, to create the impression among the Yankees that reinforcements were arriving. There was not a sick or wounded man left by the Confederates, nor stores of any kind. Some ammunition had been blown up—not removed—but the trophies of war were a few Quaker guns, logs of about the diameter of ordinary cannon, mounted on wheels of wagons and pointed in the most threatening manner towards us. The possession of Corinth by the National troops was of strategic importance, but the victory was barren in every other particular. … General Halleck at once commenced erecting fortifications around Corinth on a scale to indicate that this one point must be held if it took the whole National army to do it. … They were laid out on a scale that would have required 100,000 men to fully man them. … These fortifications were never used. … After the capture of Corinth a movable force of 80,000 men, besides enough to hold all the territory acquired, could have been set in motion for the accomplishment of any great campaign for the suppression of the rebellion. In addition to this fresh troops were being raised to swell the effective force. But the work of depletion commenced."

ALSO IN: M. F. Force, From Fort Henry to Corinth (Campaigns of the Civil War, volume 2), chapter 8.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (April-June). Abolition of Slavery in the District of Columbia and in the Territories.

On the 16th of December, 1861, Mr Wilson, of Massachusetts, introduced in the Senate of the United States a bill for the immediate emancipation of the slaves in the District of Columbia; "for the payment to their loyal owners of an average sum of $300; for the appointment of a commission to assess the sum to be paid; and the appropriation of $1,000,000. This bill was reported back on the 13th of February, 1862, with amendments. On the 24th he introduced a bill which, he said, was supplementary to that already before the Senate, to repeal the act extending the laws of Maryland over the District, and to annul all those statutes which gave the cities of Washington and Georgetown authority to pass ordinances discriminating against persons on account of color. On the 12th of March it came up for debate in committee of the whole. The debate on these resolutions, the bill, and other cognate measures exhibit elements of interest hardly found in any other session of the American Congress on record. It was emphatically a new departure. … No important change was made, and on the 3d of April, 1862, the bill introduced by Mr. Wilson more than three months before was passed by a vote of 29 to 14. The bill was taken up in the House the next week, and gave rise to a brief but brilliant debate. … The bill … passed the House by a vote of 92 to 38, and received the approval of the President on the 16th day of April, 1862. The President, in his message accompanying his approval of the bill, had stated some objections to it. These objections were that certain classes, such as married women, minors, and persons absent from the District, were not sufficiently protected and provided for; and he suggested that these defects should be remedied by additional legislation"—which was done. "On the 24th of March, 1862, Mr. Arnold, of Illinois, introduced a bill into the House of Representatives to render freedom national and slavery sectional. It was referred to the Committee on Territories, was reported on the 1st of May, with an amendment, and made the order of the day for the 8th. It provided that freedom should be the fundamental law of the land, and that slavery should no longer exist in all places under the direct and exclusive control of the Federal government. It prohibited slavery in all Territories, then or thereafter existing; in all places purchased by the government, with the consent of the legislatures of the several States, for forts, magazines, arsenals, doek-yards, and other needful buildings; in all vessels on the high seas, and on all national highways, beyond the territory and jurisdiction of the several States. … The difficulties, … real or seeming, constitutional or other, were too great to secure the united action of the friends of the underlying principle of the bill as reported by the committee. Mr. Lovejoy, therefore, moved a substitute restricting its action entirely to the Territories. The substitute was accepted, and the bill as thus amended was carried by a vote of 85 to 50. The preamble was so amended as to read, 'An act to secure freedom to all persons within the Territories of the United States.' In the Senate, on the 15th of May, Mr. Browning, reported the bill from the Committee on Territories with an amendment that, from and after the passage of the act, there should be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in any existing Territory, or in any Territory thereafter formed or acquired. It was, substantially, the application of the principle of the ordinance of 1787 to all the territory then possessed or thereafter to be acquired. On the 9th of June the Senate proceeded to its consideration, adopted the amendment, and passed the bill by a vote of 28 to 10. The House agreed to the Senate amendment, and the bill thus amended was passed on the 17th, and approved by the President on the 19th of June."

      H. Wilson,
      History of the Rise and Fall of the Slave Power in America,
      volume 3, chapters 21 and 24.

      ALSO IN:
      M. Tremain,
      Slavery in the District of Columbia
      (University of Nebraska: Seminary Papers Number 2).

"The homestead bill, or the granting of free homes from and on the public domain, became a national question in 1852. The Free Soil Democracy, at Pittsburg, Pa., August 11, 1852, in National Convention, nominated John P. Hale, of New Hampshire, and George W. Julian, of Indiana, for President and Vice-President, and adopted the following as the 12th plank or resolution in their platform: 'That the public lands of the United States belong to the people, and should not be sold to individuals, nor granted to corporations, but should be held as a sacred trust for the benefit of the people, and should be granted in limited quantities, free of cost, to landless settlers.' Thereafter it became a national question until its passage in 1862, and was in the platforms of political parties. It was petitioned for and against. Public sentiment was aroused. It was a serious innovation and would cause an almost entire change in the settlement laws. Instead of the public lands being sold for cash, for profit, or being taken, first, under the pre-emption system, which eventuated in cash purchases, they were to be given to actual settlers who would occupy, improve, and cultivate them for a term of years, and then receive a patent free of acreage charges, with fees paid by the homesteader sufficient to cover cost of survey and transfer of title. … The rich and fertile lands of the Mississippi Valley were fast filling up with settlers. Agricultural lands in the Middle States, which, after the year 1824, were bought for $1.25 per acre, now sold at from $50 to $80 per acre. Former purchasers of these Government lands in the Middle, Western, and Southern States, were selling their early purchases for this great advance, and moving west, to Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Missouri, and there again taking cheap Government lands under the pre-emption laws. The western emigration caused a rush—a migration of neighborhoods in many localities of the older Western States. Following the sun, their pillar of fire, these State founders moved westward, a resistless army of agents of American civilization, and there was a demand for homes on the public lands, and a strong pressure for the enactment of a law which should confine locators to small tracts, and require actual occupation, improvement, and cultivation. A fierce political battle now ensued, beginning in 1854, and continuing until 1862, the year of the passage of the law. The demand of the settlers was incessant and constant." Mr. Galusha A. Grow, of Pennsylvania, made himself the special champion of the measure in Congress. On the 1st of February, 1859, a bill embodying its principles was carried in the House, but was not permitted to reach a vote in the Senate. The slaveholding interest was almost solidly against it. In March, 1860, a similar bill was again passed by the House. The Senate substituted a bill granting homesteads to actual settlers at twenty-five cents per acre, instead of free of cost. After protracted conferences, the House was forced to accept the Senate bill, with slight amendments. But if the enemies of the measure had so nearly lost their control of Congress, they still owned the President—Buchanan—and he killed it by a veto. Then came the rebellion and civil war, absorbing all minor questions, and nearly two years went by before the law which opened the public lands freely to all actual settlers was adopted. It became a law by the signature of President Lincoln on the 20th of May, 1862. The following are the essential provisions of the Act: "That any person who is the head of a family, or who has arrived at the age of twenty-one years, and is a citizen of the United States, or who shall have filed his declaration of intention to become such, as required by the naturalization laws of the United States, and who has never borne arms against the United States Government or given aid and comfort to its enemies, shall, from and after the first January, eighteen hundred and sixty-three, be entitled to enter one quarter-section or a less quantity of unappropriated public lands, upon which said person may have filed a pre-emption claim, or which may, at the time the application is made, be subject to pre-emption at one dollar and twenty-five cents, or less, per acre; or eighty acres or less of such unappropriated lands, at two dollars and fifty cents per acre, to be located in a body, in conformity to the legal subdivisions of the public lands, and after the same shall have been surveyed: Provided, That any person owning or residing on land may, under the provisions of this act, enter other land lying contiguous to his or her said land, which shall not, with the land so already owned and occupied, exceed in the aggregate one hundred and sixty acres. … That the person applying for the benefit of this act shall, upon application to the register of the land office in which he or she is about to make such entry, make affidavit before the said register or receiver that he or she is the head of a family, or is twenty-one or more years of age, or shall have performed service in the Army or Navy of the United States, and that he has never borne arms against the Government of the United States or given aid and comfort to its enemies, and that such application is made for his or her exclusive use and benefit, and that said entry is made for the purpose of actual settlement and cultivation, and not, either directly or indirectly, for the use or benefit of any other person or persons whomsoever; and upon filing the said affidavit with the said register or receiver, and on payment of ten dollars, he or she shall thereupon be permitted to enter the quantity of land specified: Provided, however, That no certificate shall be given or patent issued therefor until the expiration of five years from the date of such entry; and if, at the expiration of such time, or at any time within two years thereafter, the person making such entry—or if he be dead, his widow; or in case of her death, his heirs or devisee; or in case of a widow making such entry, her heirs or devisee, in case of her death—shall prove by two credible witnesses that he, or she, or they have resided upon or cultivated the same for the term of five years immediately succeeding the time of filing the affidavit aforesaid, and shall make affidavit that no part of said land has been alienated, and that he has borne true allegiance to the Government of the United States; then, in such case, he, she, or they, if at that time a citizen of the United States, shall be entitled to a patent, as in other cases provided for by law: {3464} And provided, further, That in case of the death of both father and mother, leaving an infant child or children under twenty-one years of age, the right and fee shall inure to the benefit of said infant child or children; and the executor, administrator, or guardian may, at any time within two years after the death of the surviving parent, and in accordance with the laws of the State in which such children for the time being have their domicil, sell said land for the benefit of said infants, but for no other purpose; and the purchaser shall acquire the absolute title by the purchase, and be entitled to a patent from the United States, on payment of the office fees and sum of money herein specified. … That if, at any time after the filing of the affidavit, … and before the expiration of the five years aforesaid, it shall be proven, after due notice to the settler, to the satisfaction of the register of the land office, that the person having filed such affidavit shall have actually changed his or her residence, or abandoned the said land for more than six months at any time, then and in that event the land so entered shall revert to the Government.' … This original homestead act has been amended several times. … The principal amendments were in the nature of extension of its privileges, and the limit of 80 acres of land of the double minimum class, $2.50 per acre, within certain road limits, has since been done away with by acts of March 3, 1879, July 1, 1879, and June 15, 1880; there now being but one class of agricultural lands, so for as regards the minimum quantity in homestead entries. The act of June 8, 1872, was known as the soldiers' and sailors' homestead act. It gave honorably discharged soldiers and sailors from the Army and Navy of the United States lands under the homestead act in any locality, and deducted from the five years' residence which was required to make title their term of service in the Army and Navy during the war of the Rebellion. One year's residence and cultivation, however, were necessary. … The soldiers' additional homestead provision was to give those soldiers who had had the benefit of the homestead act, to the extent of a quantity under 160 acres, an additional amount, so as to make their allowance 160 acres."

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (May).
General Hunter's Emancipation Order,
rescinded by President Lincoln.

Major General David Hunter, having lately succeeded to the command at Hilton Head, South Carolina, issued, on the 9th of May, 1862, a General Order (No. 11), declaring martial law in Georgia, Florida and South Carolina, and adding: "Slavery and martial law in a free country are altogether incompatible; the persons in these States … heretofore held as slaves are therefore declared forever free." This order was rescinded by President Lincoln in a Proclamation, dated May 19, in which he used the following language: "Whether it be competent for me, as Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy, to declare the slaves of any State or States free; and whether at any time, or in any case, it shall have become a necessity indispensable to the maintenance of the Government, to exercise such supposed power, are questions which, under my responsibility, I reserve to myself, and which I cannot feel justified in leaving to the decision of commanders in the field."

E. McPherson, Political History of the United States during the Great Rebellion, pages 250—251.

      ALSO IN:
      J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay,
      Abraham Lincoln,
      volume 6, ch. 5.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (May: South Carolina).
Employment of the freed Negroes as armed soldiers.

The negroes within the Union lines in South Carolina, at Hilton Head and elsewhere, were placed under the charge, at first, of agents appointed by the Treasury Department; but disagreements arose between these agents and the military authorities, and the former were recalled. "These several agents had been replaced by a superior officer of the staff, General Saxton, who was himself placed under the orders Of General Hunter with the rank of a military commander. By this action the government at Washington sustained Hunter in his conflict with the agents Of the Treasury Department—a conflict originating in very serious causes, for it affected the question of slavery in its most vital points. … Mr. Cameron [Secretary of the Treasury] had authorized General Sherman to organize the negroes into squads and companies. The latter had at first only been employed in manual labor, such as the construction of forts, roads and wharves; but Hunter, on taking Sherman's place, saw that he could give a much wider interpretation to the Secretary's instructions. He substituted muskets for the pick-axes used by the detachments of negro laborers organized by his predecessor; and, instead of making them dig the earth, he had them taught military exercises. Nor did he stop here; but wishing to increase the number of these new soldiers, he gathered all the adult negroes residing on the adjoining islands at Hilton Head on the 12th of May, in order to induce them to enter the military service. … The civil agents complained bitterly of the trouble this measure had created among the people entrusted to their charge, and thence sprung the quarrel which Mr. Lincoln cut short by deciding in favor of Hunter. The protection granted to fugitive slaves was the first logical consequence of the war, their enrolment in the Federal armies was the second. As untimely and impolitic as was the proclamation by which Hunter had taken upon himself to free the slaves outside of his jurisdiction, the creation Of the first negro regiment was an act skilfully conceived. It was essentially a military act; it raised and ennobled the freedman by entrusting him with arms; its legality was unquestionable from the moment that the President approved of it, for there was no law to prevent him from enlisting colored volunteers. In short, it showed to the Confederates that the Washington government was determined not to allow itself to be any longer paralyzed by the vain hope Of reconciliation. … But notwithstanding the success of this first experiment, considerable time elapsed before the Federal government concluded to follow Hunter in this direction."

Comte de Paris, History of the Civil War in America, volume 2, book 7, chapter 3.

      ALSO IN:
      G. W. Williams,
      History of Negro troops in the War of the Rebellion,
      chapter 5.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (May: Virginia). The Peninsular Campaign: The Battle of Williamsburg and the slow advance to the Chickahominy.

On the evacuation Of the rebel works at Yorktown, "our columns followed on in pursuit, McClellan remaining in Yorktown, busy with questions of transportation. The enemy under Longstreet had awaited our approach at Williamsburg. Hooker first attacked, having been brought to a stand by a work known as Fort Magruder, and kept up a heavy pounding all the forenoon [May 5). Kearny came to his rescue when Hooker's men were all but spent. Hancock moved around the enemy's left, seized some abandoned redoubts, and made a brilliant diversion. But there was no cooperation in our attack; no one on the field was in supreme command, and the day was fruitlessly spent in partial blows. The enemy retreated at night. Our loss was 2,200; theirs in all probability less."

"General Johnston says [' Narrative,' p. 124]: 'We fought for no other purpose than to hold the ground long enough to enable our baggage-trains to get out of the way of the troops. This object was accomplished without difficulty. There was no time during the day when the slightest uncertainty appeared.' He also says that Longstreet's and Hill's divisions slept on the field; that what deserves to be called fighting ceased two hours before dark, yet the Confederates held the field until the next morning, when they resumed their march. … There may be a little rose-color about these statements, but the substantial facts seem to be accurately stated. … General McClellan made no pursuit after Williamsburg, for reasons which he who will may find stated in his Report; and we may pass on with the single additional remark that the battle of Williamsburg was unnecessary, for the position might have been turned by a movement by our right. This was actually accomplished by Hancock, after Hooker had met with all his heavy loss; and it might as well have been done before as after. … The three weeks which followed the battle of Williamsburg were so devoid of incident that it seems to be sufficient to say that the Confederates moved up the Peninsula in two columns. The right column, composed of the divisions of Smith and Magruder, followed the road by New Kent Court House, and in three marches reached the Baltimore Cross Roads, 19 miles from Barhamsville. The left column, composed of the divisions of Longstreet and D. H. Hill, reached in the same number of marches the Long Bridges. The army remained five days in this position, facing to the east. … The iron-clad Virginia [better known as the Merrimac] was destroyed on, or just before, the 14th of May. This event opened the James River to our navy; and, to be ready to meet an advance up that river as well as from the direction of West Point, the Confederate forces were ordered to cross the Chickahominy on the 15th May. On the 17th their army encamped about three miles from Richmond, in front of the line of redoubts constructed in 1861. … During this period the weather was generally fine, cool and breezy, but gradually tending towards heat. … McClellan sent out cavalry reconnoissances from Williamsburg on the 5th and 7th May. … The advance of the main body began on the 8th; and on the 10th headquarters were at Roper's Church, 19 miles from Williamsburg, with all the troops which had arrived by land, except Hooker's, in the vicinity of that place. … By the 15th, headquarters, and the divisions of Franklin, Porter, Sykes, and Smith, reached Cumberland on the Pamunkey. … On the 19th of May, headquarters and the corps of Porter and Franklin moved to Tunstall's Station on the railroad, five miles from White House. On the 20th, Casey's division forded the Chickahominy, where Bottom's Bridge had been, and occupied the opposite heights. Bottom's Bridge was immediately rebuilt. … On the 22d, headquarters moved to Cold Harbor. On the 24th, we carried the village of Mechanicsville, but the enemy destroyed the bridge on which the Mechanicsville Turnpike crossed the river. On the same day our left advance secured a position at Seven Pines, the point of junction of the Nine-Mile Road with the Williamsburg road, which last road crosses the Chickahominy at Bottom's Bridge. … It is difficult to account for, or justify, the slowness of McClellan's march. The distance from Williamsburg to the middle of a line drawn from Bottom's Bridge to Cold Harbor, measuring by the road, is about 40 miles. That from West Point to the same point, measuring in the same way, is considerably less. One might almost say that, in the three weeks which McClellan took to accomplish this distance, he might have marched his army all the way in order of battle, bridging streams, felling trees, making roads, and supplying his army as he advanced. 'I had hoped,' he says, 'by rapid movements to drive before me, or capture, the enemy on the Peninsula, open the James River, and press on to Richmond, before he should be materially re-enforced.' What was there to hinder his making the attempt? Instead of that he followed him at the average rate of rather less than two miles a day."

F. W. Palfrey, After the fall of Yorktown (Massachusetts Military Historical Society Papers, volume 1, pages 95-114).

Report of Joint Commission on the Conduct of the War, 38th Congress 2d session, volume 1.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (May: Virginia).
Evacuation of Norfolk by the Rebels.
Destruction of the Merrimac.

"The movement of our grand army up the Peninsula, in connection with Burnside's successes and captures in North Carolina, had rendered the possession of Norfolk by the Rebels no longer tenable. … General Wool, commanding at Fortress Monroe, having organized an expedition designed to reduce that important city, led it thither on the 10th; finding the bridge over Tanner's Creek on fire, but no enemy to dispute possession of Norfolk, which was quietly surrendered by its Mayor. The Navy Yard and Portsmouth were in like manner repossessed; the Rebels, ere they left, destroying every thing that would burn, partially blowing up the Dry Dock, and completely destroying their famous iron-clad known to us as the Merrimac. They left about 200 cannon. … Two unfinished iron-clads were among the vessels fired by the Rebels ere they left."

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (May: Virginia).
The Peninsular Campaign: Fair Oaks, or Seven Pines.

"On the 25th of May General McClellan issued a general order, which was read throughout the camps, directing the troops, as they advanced beyond the Chickahominy, to be prepared for battle at a moment's notice, and to be entirely unencumbered, with the exception of ambulances; to carry three days rations in their haversacks, leaving their knapsacks with their wagons, which were on the eastern side of the river, carefully parked. … The divisions from the corps of Generals Heintzelman and Keyes were among the first to cross the Chickahominy. They took a position on the right bank somewhat advanced therefrom. The right wing rested near New Bridge, the centre at Seven Pines, and the left flank on the White Oak Swamp. General Sumner's corps remained on the east side of the river. On the 30th the Confederate General Johnston made arrangements for an attack upon the Federal army, for the purpose of cutting off, if possible, the corps of Generals Heintzelman and Keyes before they could be joined by General Sumner. He selected the divisions of Generals Longstreet, Huger, G. W. Smith, D. H. Hill, and Whiting. His plan was that Generals Hill and Longstreet should advance by the road to Williamsburg and make the attack in front, and that General Huger should move on the road to Charles City and attack in flank the troops assailed by Generals Hill and Longstreet. General Smith was ordered to the junction of the New Bridge Road and the Nine Mile Road, and to be in readiness to fall on the right flank of General Keyes and to cover the left of General Longstreet. The forces of Generals Hill, Longstreet, and Smith were in position early on the morning of Saturday, May 31, and waited until afternoon for General Huger to get into position. Prince de Joinville, who was a competent spectator, thus describes ['Campagne de l' Armèe du Potomac, Mars-Juillet, 1862'] the scenes which followed this attack: 'At the moment it was thus attacked the Federal army occupied a position having the form of a V. The base of the V is at Bottom's Bridge, where the railroad crosses the Chickahominy. The left arm stretches toward Richmond, with this railroad and the road from that city to Williamsburg. There stood the left wing, composed of four divisions echeloned, one behind the other, between Fair Oaks and Savage stations, and encamped in the woods on both sides of the road. The other arm of the V, the right, follows the left bank of the river; that is the right wing. There are these five divisions and the reserve. Should one desire to communicate from one extremity to the other of those two wings, going by Bottom's Bridge, the way is very long, not less than 12 or 15 miles. In an air line the distance, on the contrary, is very trifling, but between the two arms of the V flows the Chickahominy. It was to connect both arms, in the space between them, that the construction of 3 or 4 bridges had been undertaken, only one of which was serviceable on the 31st of May. It had been built by General Sumner, nearly half way between Bottom's Bridge and the most advanced point of the Federal lines. It saved the army that day from a disaster.' The other bridges were not ready. They were structures of logs, and time was required to build them. The approaches were always bad, and the tedious labor of corduroying long distances was necessary. 'It was against the left wing of the army that every effort of the enemy was directed. That wing had its outposts at Fair Oaks station, on the York river railroad, and at a place called Seven Pines, on the Williamsburg road. There the Federals had thrown up a redoubt in a clearing, where a few houses were to be seen, and constructed abatis, to increase the field for sharpshooting of the troops posted there. The rest of the country was completely covered with woods. The previous day there had been a frightful storm, with torrents of rain, and the roads were frightful. All at once, about one o'clock in the afternoon, the weather being dark and gloomy, a very spirited fusilade is heard. The pickets and sentries are violently driven in; the woods which surround Fair Oaks and Seven Pines are filled with clouds of the enemy's sharpshooters. The troops rush to arms and fight in desperation; but their adversaries' forces constantly increase, and their losses do not stop them. The redoubt of the Seven Pines is surrounded, and its defenders die bravely. … Meanwhile Heintzelman rushes to the rescue with his two divisions. As at Williamsburg, Kearney arrives in good time to reëstablish the fight. Berry's brigade, of this division, composed of Michigan regiments and an Irish battalion, advances firm as a wall into the midst of the disordered mass which wanders over the battle field, and does more by its example than the most powerful reënforcements. About a mile of ground has been lost, 15 pieces of cannon, the camp of the division of the advance guard, that of General Casey; but now we hold our own. A sort of line of battle is formed across the woods, perpendicularly to the road and the railroad, and there the repeated assaults of the enemy's masses are resisted. The left cannot be turned, where is the White Oak Swamp, an impassable morass; but the right may be surrounded. At this very moment, in fact, a strong column of Confederates has been directed against that side. If it succeeds in interposing between Bottom's Bridge and the Federal troops, which hold beyond Savage's Station, the entire left wing is lost. It will have no retreat, and is doomed to yield to numbers; but precisely at this moment—that is to say, at 6 o'clock in the evening—new actors appear on the scene. General Sumner, who has succeeded in passing the Chickahominy, with Sedgwick's division, over the bridge constructed by his troops, and who, like a brave soldier, has marched straight through the woods to the sound of the cannon, arrived suddenly on the left flank of the column with which the enemy is endeavoring to cut off Heintzelman and Keyes. He plants in the clearing a battery which he has succeeded in bringing with him. … In vain Johnston sends against this battery his best troops, those of South Carolina—the Hampton Legion among others. In vain he rushes on it himself; nothing can shake the Federals, who, at nightfall, valiantly led by General Sumner in person, throw themselves upon the enemy at the point of the bayonet, and drive him furiously, with frightful slaughter and fear, back as far as Fair Oaks Station. Night put an end to the combat. On both sides nothing was known of the result of the battle but what each one had seen with his own eyes. … Evidently Johnston had flattered himself, in throwing all his forces on the four divisions of the left wing, that he could annihilate them before any aid could come to them from the main body of the army on the left bank of the Chickahominy. For the moment he had recoiled before the energetic resistance of those four divisions, and also before the furious and unforeseen attack of Sumner's troops. {3467} No doubt he had counted on the terrible storm of the previous day to have swelled the Chickahominy so as to render the establishment of a bridge impossible, or to sweep away in its overflowing waters those already established; but the capricious river baffled his plans, as it did some hours later those of his adversaries. The effect of the deluge was not immediate; the rise in the water delayed its appearance 24 hours. Was this unhoped-for delay turned to account with all desirable activity on the part of the Federals? That is a question which will remain always in dispute. … It was not until 7 o'clock in the evening that the idea of securing all the bridges without delay, and causing the whole army to cross at daybreak to the right bank of the Chickahominy, was entertained. It was now too late. Four hours had been lost, and the opportunity—that moment so fleeting, in war as in other circumstances—had gone. The rise, on which Johnston had vainly counted, and which had not hindered Sumner from crossing, came on during the night. The river rose suddenly from two feet, and continued to swell with rapidity, carrying away the new bridges, tearing up and sweeping off the trees which formed the planking of Sumner's bridges, and covering the entire valley with its overflowing waters. Nothing could cross. At the earliest dawn of day the combat was resumed with great fury on the left bank. The enemy came on in a body, but without order or method, and rushed upon the Federals, who, knowing that they were inferior in numbers and without hope of being supported, did not attempt to do more than resist and hold their ground. They fought with fierce determination on both sides, without any noise, without any cries, and whenever they were too hardly pressed they made a charge with the bayonet. … Toward midday the fire gradually diminished, then ceased. The enemy retreated; but the Federals were not in a position to pursue them. No one then knew what a loss the Southerners had just suffered in the person of their commander, General Johnston, who was severely wounded. It was to his absence that was owing, in a great measure, the unskilful attacks against the Federal army in the morning. … Who can say what would have been the result if at this moment the 35,000 fresh troops left on the other side of the Chickahominy had appeared on the flank of this disordered mass after having successfully crossed the bridges?'"

W. J. Tenney, Military and Naval History of the Rebellion, chapter 19 (quoting and translating from Prince de Joinville's "Campagne de l'Armée du Potomac").

"After this battle of Seven Pines—or Fair Oaks, as the Northern people prefer to call it—General McClellan made no step forward, but employed his troops industriously in intrenching themselves."

      ALSO IN:
      G. W. Smith,
      Two days of Battle at Seven Pines
      (Battles and Leaders, volume 2, pages 220-263).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (May-June: Virginia).
   Stonewall Jackson's second campaign in the Shenandoah Valley.
   Winchester.
   Cross Keys.
   Port Republic.

"At the time the Army of the Potomac was toiling painfully up the Peninsula towards Richmond, the remaining forces in Northern Virginia presented the extraordinary spectacle of three distinct armies, planted on three separate lines of operations, under three independent commanders. The highland region of West Virginia had been formed into the 'Mountain Department' under command of General Fremont; the Valley of the Shenandoah constituted the 'Department of the Shenandoah' under General Banks; and the region covered by the direct lines of approach to Washington had been erected into the 'Department of the Rappahannock,' and assigned to General McDowell. … The Administration, growing more easy touching the safety of the capital, determined, in response to General McClellan's oft-repeated appeals for re-enforcements, to send forward McDowell's corps,—not, indeed, as he desired, to re-enforce him by water, but to advance overland to attack Richmond in co-operation with the Army of the Potomac. … After numerous delays, the time of advance of this column was at length fixed for the 26th of May, a date closely coincident with the arrival of the Army of the Potomac on the Chickahominy. The head of McDowell's column had already been pushed eight miles south of Fredericksburg; and McClellan, to clear all opposition from his path, sent forward Porter's corps to Hanover Junction, where he had a sharp encounter with a force of the enemy under General Branch, whom he repulsed with a loss of 200 killed and 700 prisoners, and established the right of the Army of the Potomac within fifteen miles, or one march, of McDowell's van. McDowell was eager to advance, and McClellan was equally anxious for his arrival, when there happened an event which frustrated this plan and all the hopes that had been based thereon. This event was the irruption of Stonewall Jackson in the Shenandoah Valley. The keen-eyed soldier at the head of the main Confederate army, discerning the intended junction between McDowell and McClellan, quickly seized his opportunity, and intrusted the execution of a bold 'coup' to that vigorous lieutenant who had already made the Valley ring with his exploits." Jackson, who had been resting for a time in a position between the south fork of the Shenandoah and Swift Run Gap, was joined, on the 30th of April, by Ewell's division from Gordonsville, and by other re-enforcements, which "raised his force to about 15,000 men. Banks' force, reduced by the detachment of Shields' division, sent to General McDowell, to about 5,000 men, was posted at Harrisonburg. Fremont was at Franklin, across the mountains; but one of his brigades, under Milroy, had burst beyond the limits of the Mountain Department, and seemed to be moving to make a junction with Banks, with the design, as Jackson thought, of advancing on Staunton. Jackson determined to attack these forces in detail. Accordingly, he posted Ewell so as to hold Banks in check, whilst he himself moved to Staunton. From here he threw forward five brigades, under General Edward Johnson (May 7), to attack Milroy. The latter retreated to his mountain fastness, and took position at a point named McDowell, where, re-enforced by the brigade of Schenck, he engaged Johnson, but was forced to retire on Fremont's main body at Franklin. Having thus thrown off Milroy eccentrically from communication with Banks, Jackson returned (May 14) to destroy the force under that officer." Banks retreated down the Valley, followed by Jackson, who diverged a little to capture a garrison of 700 men at Front Royal. {3468} On the 24th, Banks made a stand on the heights of Winchester and gave fight, "till, being assailed on both flanks, he retired hastily to the north bank of the Potomac (May 25), making a march of 53 miles in 48 hours. Jackson continued the pursuit as far as Halltown, within two miles of Harper's Ferry, where he remained till the 30th, when, finding heavy forces converging on his rear, he began a retrograde movement up the Valley. The tidings of Jackson's apparition at Winchester on the 24th, and his subsequent advance to Harper's Ferry, fell like a thunderbolt on the war-council at Washington. The order for McDowell's advance from Fredericksburg, to unite with McClellan, was instantly countermanded; and he was directed to put 20,000 men in motion at once for the Shenandoah Valley, by the line of the Manassas Gap Railroad. … In vain he pointed out that it was impossible for him either to succor Banks or co-operate with Fremont; … that it would take him a week or ten days to reach the Valley, and that by this time the occasion for his services would have passed by. In vain General McClellan urged the real motive of the raid—to prevent re-enforcements from reaching him." McDowell moved from the east and Fremont from the west, converging on Strasburg. "The two columns moved rapidly; they had almost effected a junction on the 31st; but that very day Jackson, falling back from Harper's Ferry, slipped between the two, and made good his retreat up the Valley. … The pursuers did their best: they pushed on, Fremont following in the path of Jackson up the Valley of the Shenandoah; while McDowell sent forward Shields' division by the lateral Luray Valley, with a view to head him off when he should attempt to break through the gaps of the Blue Ridge." On the 8th of June Ewell's division of Jackson's army "repulsed Fremont, while Jackson held Shields in check. Early next morning, drawing in Ewell and concentrating his forces, Jackson threw himself across the river, burned the bridge to prevent Fremont from following; fell upon Shields' advance, consisting of two brigades under General Tyler, and repulsed him, capturing his artillery. The former of these affairs figures in history as the battle of Cross Keys, and the latter as the battle of Port Republic. In this exciting month's campaign, Jackson made great captures of stores and prisoners; but this was not its chief result. Without gaining a single tactical victory he had yet achieved a great strategic victory; for by skilfully manœuvring 15,000 men he succeeded in neutralizing a force of 60,000. It is perhaps not too much to say that he saved Richmond."

      ALSO IN:
      J. D. Imboden,
      Stonewall Jackson in the Shenandoah
      (Battles and Leaders, volume 2, page 282-301).

      J. E. Cooke,
      Stonewall Jackson: a Military Biography,
      part 2, chapters 8-17.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (May-July: On the Mississippi).
The first undertakings against Vicksburg.

"New Orleans once secured and handed over to General Butler, Farragut pushed up the Mississippi, and in the course of the next two months the Union flag was hoisted at Baton Rouge, Natchez, and every town of importance as high as Vicksburg. This city, strong by its natural position on high bluffs sloping gently landward, and already partly converted into a fortress by intrenchments heavily armed, was now (since the surrender of Memphis on the 6th of June) the only point of importance held by the Confederates on the banks of the great river. It at once, therefore, assumed an importance well warranted by its later history. Summoned on the 18th of May to evacuate the place, General M. L. Smith, who held it, gave a decided refusal; and Farragut found it necessary to await once more the arrival of Porter's flotilla, which was not brought up and reported ready until the 27th of June. On the 28th a general attack took place, Farragut succeeding in taking two of his three frigates and six gun-boats above the batteries, but producing no effect on the defences. 'The enemy leave their guns for the moment,' says his hasty report, 'but return to them as soon as we have passed, and rake us.' About 50 men were killed and wounded on board, and the Brooklyn frigate, with two gun-boats, forced to retreat below the place. The bombardment continued at intervals, pending an application to General Halleck at Corinth for a corps of his army to aid the fleet, and the result of an experiment (the first of three) made to cut a ship canal through the isthmus opposite Vicksburg, and leave the Federal ships an independent passage. On the 15th of July their possession of the river was suddenly challenged by a large ram, the Arkansas, which the Confederates had been fitting on the Yazoo, a considerable stream entering the Mississippi just above Vicksburg. … Her plating, however, proved to be weak, and her machinery very defective." The career of the Arkansas was brief and harmless. In August she was knocked to pieces by the shells of the Essex, "whose commander had taken charge of the Lower Mississippi on the departure of Farragut. The latter officer, in compliance with orders from Mr. Welles, had abandoned his contest with the Vicksburg works on the 20th of July, and made down stream for New Orleans, whence he proceeded with his squadron to carry on operations along the coast of Texas, where the chief posts were (for the time) recovered to the Union by his detachments in the course of a few weeks. 'All we want,' he wrote on the 15th of October, 'is a few soldiers to hold the places, and we will soon have the whole coast. It is a more effectual blockade to have the vessels inside instead of outside.'"

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (May-December: Louisiana).
New Orleans under General Butler.

   The army which accompanied Farragut's naval expedition against
   New Orleans, to assist its operations and to occupy the city
   and the lower Mississippi region when taken, was placed under
   the command of General Benjamin F. Butler. It consisted
   nominally of 18,000 men, but is said to have actually mustered
   less than 14,000. It was composed of regiments which had been
   raised by Butler in New England especially for the enterprise,
   his preparations having commenced as early as September, 1861.
   These troops were partly gathered at Ship Island, in the Gulf,
   some time before Farragut made ready his fleet; the remainder
   were at the rendezvous in good time, and the whole were in
   waiting, on board transports, at the passes, when Farragut
   carried his fleet past Forts Jackson and St. Philip.
{3469}
   "General Butler … now proceeded to execute his part of the
   duty. He brought his forces into the rear of St. Philip,
   Porter keeping up a bombardment. On the 27th of April the
   garrison had become so demoralized as to refuse to fight any
   longer. The forts were therefore surrendered on the next day.
   … On the 1st of May New Orleans 'was formally occupied by
   United States troops. The loss on the national side in
   achieving this great victory was 40 killed and 177 wounded. …
   General Butler now entered on the difficult task of governing
   New Orleans. Its population, though greatly diminished to
   strengthen the Confederate armies in the Border States—a cause
   of bitter complaint to the inhabitants—still numbered about
   140,000. Almost one half of it was of foreign birth. Perhaps
   no city in the world had in its lower classes a more dangerous
   and desperate population. There was a wide-spread hope that a
   French force would soon come to their help. By firmness,
   strict yet considerate, he controlled the municipal
   authorities; by severity he put down the mob. He was a terror
   to tricky tradesmen, a benefactor to the starving poor. He
   cleaned the streets, enforced sanitary regulations, and kept
   out yellow fever. He put an effectual stop to the operations
   of Confederate agents, who were illicitly obtaining supplies
   for their cause. … He arrested Mumford, the person who had
   hauled down the national flag at the Mint [where it had been
   raised by one of Farragut's officers before the arrival of the
   troops], brought him before a military commission, convicted
   and executed him." This execution of Mumford (by hanging) drew
   from the Confederate President, Davis, a proclamation
   denouncing Butler as "an outlaw and common enemy of mankind";
   directing that, if captured, he should be immediately hung;
   declaring the commissioned officers of his command "not
   entitled to be considered as soldiers engaged in honorable
   warfare, but as robbers and criminals"; and ordering that "no
   commissioned officer of the United States taken captive shall
   be released on parole before exchange until the said Butler
   shall have met with due punishment for his crimes." "Some
   women of New Orleans, relying on the immunity of their sex,
   gratified their animosity by insulting national officers in
   public places. One of them ventured so far as to spit in the
   face of an officer who was quietly walking in the street.
   Hereupon was issued 'General Order No. 28' [known as 'the
   Woman Order,' which gave notice that] … 'hereafter, when any
   female shall, by word, gesture, or movement, insult or show
   contempt for any officer or soldier of the United States, she
   shall be regarded and held liable to be treated as a woman of
   the town plying her vocation.' … The feeling of personal
   hatred to Butler grew daily more and more intense. He was
   accused of improper tampering with the banks, speculating in
   sequestrated property, and, through the agency of his brother,
   carrying on illegal but profitable transactions in sugar and
   cotton. In South Carolina a reward of $10,000 had been offered
   for his assassination. Throughout the Confederacy he received
   an ignominious surname, and was known as 'Butler the Beast.'
   The government felt constrained to send a commission to New
   Orleans to investigate his transactions. Its conclusion was
   that he had evidently acted 'under a misapprehension, to be
   referred to the patriotic zeal which governs him.'" In
   December General Butler was recalled and General Banks was
   sent to take his place.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (June: On the Mississippi).
The capture of Memphis.
The naval fight before the city.

   After the evacuation of Corinth by Beauregard, "Fort Pillow,
   40 miles above Memphis, was no longer of any account, for the
   Union army could take it from the rear. The Confederates,
   therefore, spiked the guns, burned their barracks and what
   supplies they could not take away; and the Confederate
   gunboats went down the river to Memphis, where several of the
   boats had been built. Commodore Montgomery commanded the
   fleet. He had eight vessels. … Fort Pillow evacuated! It was
   astounding news to the people of Memphis. They learned it at
   noon, June 5th. The merchants closed their stores. Some of
   them began to pack their goods. Some of the citizens jumped on
   board the cars and fled from the city. The Confederate fleet
   made its appearance. 'I shall retreat no farther,' said
   Commodore Montgomery; 'I shall fight a battle in front of the
   city, and to-morrow morning you will see Lincoln's gunboats
   sent to the bottom.' The dawn is breaking when I step from the
   Benton, the flag-ship of Commodore Davis [commanding the Union
   river fleet], to the tugboat Jessie Benton. … The Union fleet
   is at anchor three miles above the city. 'Drop down below the
   city and see if you can discover the Confederate fleet,' is
   the order to the captain of the Jessie Benton. We sweep around
   the majestic bend of the river and behold the city. The first
   rays of the sun are gilding the spires of the churches. A
   crowd of people is upon the levee—men, women, and children—who
   have come out to see the Union fleet sent to the bottom. …
   Suddenly a vessel with a black cloud of smoke rolling from the
   chimneys shoots into the stream. It is the Little Rebel,
   Commodore Montgomery's flag-ship. One by one the other vessels
   follow, forming in two lines of battle. In the front line,
   nearest the city, is the Beauregard, next the Little Rebel,
   then the Price and Sumter. In the second line, behind the
   Beauregard, is the Lovell, then the Thompson, Bragg, and Van
   Dorn. … There are five gunboats in the Union fleet. The Benton
   is nearest the Tennessee shore, then the Carondelet,
   Louisville, St. Louis, and Cairo. There are also two rams—the
   Queen City and Monarch. The rams are river steamers, with
   thick oak sides; they carry no cannon, but on each boat are
   100 riflemen. 'Round to; head down stream; keep in line with
   the flag-ship,' was the order which we on board the Jessie
   Benton carried to each boat of the line." In the fight which
   followed, and which is graphically described by the
   eye-witness here quoted, the Price and the Beauregard were run
   down by the rams; the Little Rebel, the Lovell, the Thompson
   and the Bragg were destroyed by shot and shell; the Sumter
   driven ashore, and the Van Dorn alone escaped. On the Union
   side, only the ram Queen City was disabled.
{3470}
   "In an hour's time the Confederate fleet was annihilated. … It
   is not known how many men were lost on the Confederate side,
   but probably from 80 to 100. Colonel Ellet was the only one
   injured on board the Union fleet. … The victory opens the
   Upper Mississippi from Cairo to Vicksburg."

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (June: Virginia).
The Peninsular Campaign: McClellan fortifying and Lee
preparing for a bold attack.

"When McClellan crossed the Chickahominy it was thought he would advance immediately upon Richmond. This expectation was disappointed, however, for instead of advancing he began to fortify his position. The right wing rested on the Chickahominy a little below New Bridge, and the left extended to the White Oak Swamp, embracing a front of about four miles, nearly parallel with that of the Confederates. The opposing lines were separated by an interval but little exceeding a mile, but each was obscured from the other's view by the intervening forest. The picket-lines were often within close musket-range of each other. … The strength of the Confederate force was always greatly overestimated by McClellan, and his frequent and urgent calls for reinforcements exposed his want of confidence in his own strength. General Lee [who took command of the Confederate army June 1, General Johnston being disabled], knowing this uneasy, insecure feeling of his antagonist, and McDowell's force, which had always been a thorn in his side, being about this time withdrawn from Fredericksburg for the support of Banks and Shields in the Valley, prepared … to assume the offensive. He conceived the bold plan of crossing the Chickahominy, and, attacking the Federal right wing, to force it back and seize McClellan's line of communication with his base of operations. This plan being successfully executed, the Federal general would be compelled to save his army as best he could by retreat. Preparatory to the execution of this plan General J. E. B. Stuart was ordered to make a reconnoissance in the rear of the Federal position. This officer, with a force of about 1,000 cavalry, executed his instructions with great boldness and success. He made the entire circuit of the Federal army and gained much important information, … captured many prisoners and destroyed Federal stores to the value of $7,000,000. … His design being confirmed by Stuart's successful reconnoissance, Lee proceeded to organize a force requisite for the accomplishment of his proposed enterprise. The troops that could be conveniently spared from North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia were ordered to Richmond. … At the same time General Jackson was ordered to withdraw secretly from the Valley and proceed with such expedition as would enable him to reach Hanover Junction by the afternoon of the 25th of June. In order to mask his designs from the Federals, Lee directed Whiting's division and Lawton's brigade to proceed to Staunton, apparently with the view of reinforcing Jackson, but really under orders to return immediately and join that general on the 25th at Hanover Junction. This movement further strengthened McClellan in his opinion of Lee's vastly superior force, and completely blinded him in regard to the real intentions of that general. General Lee determined to attack the Federal right wing on the morning of the 26th of June."

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (June-July: Virginia).
   The Peninsular Campaign: The Seven Days Battle and Retreat.
   Mechanicsville.
   Gaines' Mill.
   Savage Station.
   Glendale.'
   Malvern Hill.

"Since the battle of Fair Oaks the Second Corps (Sumner) had remained on the right bank of the Chickahominy, where it had been followed in the month of June by the Sixth Corps (Franklin). So that only the Fifth Corps (Porter) remained on the left bank, recently reënforced by McCall's division. All the efforts of the enemy were made there, and there the great seven days' contest commenced. On the 26th of June, A. P. Hill, preceding Jackson by twenty-four hours, endeavored to force the passage of Beaver Dam Creek, defended by the Pennsylvanians under McCall. He was repulsed with considerable loss on the Mechanicsville road. But, during the night, Porter was compelled to fall back to a position more tenable against a force become much superior to his own, Jackson and Longstreet having united against his lines. On the 27th, then, the Fifth Corps, with about 25,000 men, was assailed by 70,000 Confederates on Gaines' Mill Heights, and defended itself there obstinately, until our own cavalry came fatally to the enemy's aid. Unskilfully handled and roughly repulsed, it fell back in disorder on our lines, where it put everything into confusion, artillery and infantry. The Confederates, coming on at the charge, finished the overthrow, and the Fifth Corps would have been destroyed if the coming of the night had not enabled our decimated troops to cross to the right bank of the Chickahominy, destroying the bridges behind them. [This battle, called Gaines' Mill by the Federals, was named Cold Harbor, or Chickahominy, by the Rebels.] … As soon as Porter had crossed safely on the 28th, the general retreat commenced. Keyes crossed White Oak swamp first, and took position to protect the passage of the immense army trains and the great herds of cattle. Then, on the 29th, after having repulsed a cavalry attack, he continued his way towards the James, where he arrived on the 30th, at the same time that Porter reached Haxall's Landing. Much less favored, the three other corps suspended their march only to fight and ceased to fight only to march. But all this was done without any general system, in the absence of superior supervision, and of orders in accordance with circumstances. On the 29th the enemy crossed the Chickahominy to unite all his force on the right bank; Franklin advised Sumner, and the two, acting together, fell back on Savage Station, where they took up position, with the intention, aided by Heintzelman, of repelling the dangerous attack which menaced them. But Heintzelman, adhering to his general instructions, after destroying the material of the railroad, the provisions, munitions of war, arms and baggage that there was neither time nor means of carrying away, hastened to cross White Oak swamp, uncovering Sumner's left. The latter learned of the retreat of the Third Corps only from a furious attack by the enemy on the very side which he believed protected by Heintzelman. He did not the less sustain the shock with an unshakable solidity, and fought all the afternoon with four divisions without being broken at any point. {3471} The enemy, worn out by the useless attacks, retired at nightfall. Then only did he receive any news from McClellan; under the form of an order to Sumner to fall back, along with Franklin, to the other side of White Oak swamp, abandoning our general hospitals at Savage Station, and the 2,500 sick and wounded in them. On the Morning of the 30th, Jackson presented himself, to cross the swamp after us. He found the bridge destroyed, and endeavored to force a passage at several points. He was everywhere repulsed and kept in check the whole day by the obstinate resistance of Franklin, while farther on, towards the James, Longstreet was held by Heintzelman and McCall, who prevented him from cutting our army in two at Glendale. This was not done without hard fighting. The Confederates, arriving by the New Market road at a right angle to the Quaker road, which was our line of march, struck, in the first place, the Pennsylvania reserves, broke their line, outflanking it on the right and on the left, captured a battery of artillery, and pushed resolutely on through that dangerous breach. They then struck Hooker's division, which threw them obliquely on Sumner's Corps. Soon afterward, Kearney occupied the vacant space, and, as on the evening before, the sun set with the rebels unsuccessful. [This day's battle is variously named after Glendale, New Market, Frazier's Farm, and Nelson's Farm.] But, the same evening, Franklin, left without orders, and seeing his position was becoming more and more dangerous, abandoned White Oak swamp and fell back towards the James. At that news, which was promptly sent to him from several directions, Heintzelman sent in vain to headquarters to ask for instructions. Left to his own devices, he concluded that the wisest course was to follow the retrograde movement, and retreated with his corps. Sumner still remained, and, seeing himself left alone and without support, he decided, in his turn, to do as the others had done. On the morning of the 31st, he arrived on the Malvern Heights, where the three corps, the Second, Third, and Sixth, found themselves united, not, as has been benevolently said, by the wise combinations of General McClellan, but by the fortunate inspiration of the commanders, who had received no orders to that effect. 'At daylight,' said General Sumner, in his testimony before the Congressional committee, 'I called on General McClellan, on the banks of the James. He told me that he had intended that the army should hold the position it had the night before, and that no order for retreat had been sent; but that, since the rest of the army had fallen back, he was glad that I had done the same.' It was found that the plateau of Malvern Hill was admirably formed for a defensive position. General Humphreys, of the corps of topographical engineers, was ordered to examine the position, and he traced a formidable line with the left resting at Haxall's Landing on the James, where it was protected by the gun-boats, while the right was thrown back on some fields covered with thick woods, and cut up by marshy streams. The summits and slopes of the plateau were bristling with cannon, sweeping the plain over the heads of our infantry deployed in front of them. In that position, the army awaited a last attack. The enemy played there his last card, and lost the game. … He tried his fortune and gave battle July 1. On every point his columns were thrown back in disorder, crushed in every attack by the double fire of artillery and infantry. Dash was not enough now. On this occasion, the enemy was compelled to acknowledge himself beaten and incapable of pursuing us any further. But our men were slow to believe in success. On receiving the order, a few hours later, after night had put an end to the contest, to retire to Harrison's Landing, they naturally concluded that we were not strong enough to hold out long against the enemy. … Worn out by fatigue and fighting, exhausted by privations and by vigils, discouraged, and suspecting that it was not fortune alone that had betrayed them, they dragged themselves along without order … during that last night march, which had all the character of a rout."

"If McClellan deserves sharp criticism for not having sooner made up his mind, and still more for his failure to discover and use the absence of the Confederates in his front, where his advance in mass, according to General Magruder's officially expressed opinion, 'would have insured his success, and the occupation of the works about Richmond, and consequently the city,' his character as a commander never shone so brightly as in the hour of disaster and danger, when Porter's wing was driven in upon his centre. The ill-success of his campaign as a whole has caused his conduct at this crisis to be done scant justice to. But there is no military reputation in the world which would not be increased by the manner in which that retreat to the James was conducted from the moment it began."

      F. J. Porter, W. B. Franklin, D. H. Hill, and others,
      The Seven Days' Fighting
      (Battles and Leaders, volume 2).

Report of Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War (Senate Reports, 37th Congress, 3d session, volume 2, part 1).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862
(June-October: Tennessee-Kentucky).
   Ineffective dispersion of Western armies.
   Failure to secure Chattanooga and Vicksburg.
   Bragg's invasion of Kentucky.
   The race for Louisville.
   Battle of Perryville.
   End of Buell's campaign.

"We left the Federals in possession of Corinth and Memphis, the army of Beauregard disappearing in the depths of semi-tropical forests where the Tombigbee takes its source, and Montgomery's ships lying at the bottom of the Mississippi.

      See, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862
      (APRIL-MAY: TENNESSEE-MISSISSIPPI)
      and (JUNE: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

   The part to be played by the Federal fleets was fully laid
   out; Farragut, by ascending the river, and Davis, by
   descending it, were to endeavor to join hands and destroy all
   the obstacles which still obstructed its course. What, in the
   mean time, was the large army encamped at Corinth going to do?
   It had allowed Beauregard to escape at the very moment when it
   felt sure of crushing him; but it could yet strike some
   decisive blows either to eastward or westward, the
   Confederates being nowhere sufficiently numerous to make any
   strong opposition.
{3472}
   Eastward, Mitchell had forced open the way to Chattanooga and
   approached the gap which opens south-east of that town, before
   which, at a subsequent period, so much blood was shed at the
   battles of Chickamauga and Missionary Ridge. He was master of
   the passes of the Tennessee, and the Federals, stationed at
   Corinth, could reach Chattanooga much more speedily than their
   adversary encamped at Tupelo. They might probably conquer by
   the same stroke the whole upper course of the river which
   waters this town. Westward, the Federals could sweep both
   sides of the Mississippi, cause all the Confederate works
   which defended them to fall, and perhaps prevent the enemy
   from erecting the formidable citadels of Vicksburg and Port
   Hudson, the capture of which, at a later period, cost so dear.
   … Everything … was in favor of prompt and vigorous action. But
   Halleck divided his army, and, notwithstanding the resources
   he had at his disposal, allowed his adversaries to forestall
   him everywhere. … The army of the Ohio left Corinth on the
   10th of June, and Buell was ordered to proceed with it in the
   direction of Chattanooga, where Mitchell was beginning to be
   sorely pressed; but this movement was slowly executed.
   Sherman, at the head of his own division and that of Hurlbut,
   proceeded toward Memphis, dropping detachments of troops as
   far as Holly Springs to cover his left flank. The rebuilding
   of the Mobile Railway, which had been completely destroyed by
   the enemy, was a considerable undertaking. Begun on the 9th of
   June, it was only finished on the 26th. The Confederates had
   profited by this delay. The new general-in-chief, Braxton
   Bragg [who had superseded Beauregard], had boldly divided his
   army and abandoned the position of Tupelo, which Halleck still
   believed him to occupy. He had determined to cover at once the
   two points we have already indicated as being of the greatest
   importance for the future of the war, Chattanooga and
   Vicksburg. He proceeded toward the first with all the old army
   of Johnston, consisting of the corps of Hardee and Polk, as
   rapidly as the difficulties of communication in that portion
   of the Southern States allowed. He had the merit and good
   fortune to reach Chattanooga before Buell. It was not too
   soon, for a few days previous, the 7th of June, the Federal
   General Negley, with his single brigade and some cannon, had
   nearly taken possession of this city by surprise. Bragg found
   it of great advantage to transfer the war to the vicinity of
   Chattanooga. Master of this position, indeed, he could menace
   either Tennessee or Kentucky, Nashville or Louisville and
   wrest from the Federals all the conquests they had achieved
   during the last few months by taking them in rear. He was also
   drawing near Virginia."

      Comte de Paris,
      History of the Civil War in America,
      volume 2, book 2, chapter 3.

   "Halleck soon leaves for Washington to assume supreme control
   of the Union forces from the War Department. Grant is left in
   command of the Army of the Tennessee, Buell of the Army of the
   Ohio, Pope of the Army of the Mississippi. Everyone is without
   definite instructions; there is no one head; and the Western
   armies are practically put upon the defensive. Rosecrans
   succeeds Pope, who is transferred to Virginia, and to Grant's
   lot now fall the armies of the Mississippi and Tennessee,
   42,000 effectives, with which to keep open his communications
   with Buell and guard the railroad from Memphis to Decatur.
   While Grant and Sherman devote their energies to the line of
   the Mississippi, Buell is ordered to regain East Tennessee,
   where the loyal population is in extreme suffering. Mitchell's
   [General O. M. Mitchell] capture of Huntsville [in Alabama,
   which he surprised, by a remarkable forced march, from
   Nashville, in April], and some hundred miles of the Memphis
   and Charleston Railroad, which he had held, together with all
   territory north of the Tennessee river, had been full of
   possibilities. Had he but received the authority, he might
   readily have anticipated Bragg in taking possession of
   Chattanooga, and have saved much subsequent blood and
   treasure. For this town is the key to that entire strategic
   field. … Buell supposed that Bragg would attempt to turn his
   right in order to obtain possession of Nashville. He therefore
   concentrated the bulk of his force at Murfreesboro. Thomas,
   then commanding a wing of the Army of the Ohio, whose military
   intuitions were as keen as his judgment was reliable, … was
   shrewd enough to recognize Bragg's crossing of the Tennessee
   river as a threat to invade Kentucky. Not so Buell, to his
   sorrow. By a sudden movement, Bragg steals a march around
   Buell's left, through the Sequatchie Valley [August 28], and
   marches straight toward Louisville, while Kirby Smith turns
   Cumberland Gap, defeats Nelson at Richmond, and makes for
   Cincinnati. … Thoroughly alarmed, as is also the country,
   Buell at once swings his left in pursuit of Bragg, while he
   endeavors to retain his grasp on Nashville with his right.
   Bragg has the shorter line and the start. But he is delayed a
   day or two [September 16-17] by the capture of Mumfordsville,
   and by scattering his forces instead of pushing home. This is
   a serious fault on Bragg's part. He fairly holds success in
   his hand, but forfeits it by this delay. After some rapid
   marching and manœuvring, Buell enters Louisville just ahead of
   his opponent. The authorities in Washington have lost all
   confidence in Buell. He is summarily relieved from command and
   Thomas appointed to succeed him. But this magnanimous soldier,
   though far from always agreeing with the methods of his chief,
   declines the proffered honor, and, at his earnest
   solicitation, Buell is reinstated. The Army of the Ohio
   marches out to meet Bragg, with Thomas second in command.
   Bragg expects to defend the line of the Kentucky and Duck
   rivers, but divides his forces, leaving Kirby Smith near
   Frankfort. Buell makes a demonstration upon Bragg's
   communications. After some cautious feeling, Buell comes upon
   Hardee with only 15,000 men, at Perryville, where, had he at
   once attacked, he could have punished Bragg severely for this
   division. But, owing to lack of water, one-half of Buell's
   army is distant from the field, and he in turn pays the
   penalty of lack of concentration. Polk joins Hardee, and the
   latter [October 8] falls heavily upon McCook, who holds
   Buell's left, and bears him back. But he cannot break the
   Union centre; and after a stubborn conflict Bragg retires,
   leaving to our forces the field. Our left has not been
   engaged. The loss is nearly 5,000 men on either side, a
   quarter of the numbers actually engaged. On being followed up,
   Bragg retreats through Cumberland Gap, and leaves Kentucky and
   Tennessee once more in our possession. His retreat ends only
   at Chattanooga.
{3473}
   What Bragg expected to obtain in Kentucky was a vast accession
   of recruits and horses, as did Lee in Maryland. Both fell
   short of their calculations, though Bragg carried off a goodly
   train of supplies. Forgetful of what he had really done, the
   South was bitter in its criticism of Bragg's failure to hold
   Eastern Tennessee and Kentucky. … Halleck now insists that
   Buell shall undertake a campaign in East Tennessee, still
   occupied by the enemy. But Buell alleges the utter
   impossibility of subsisting his troops so far from the
   railroad; and again concentrates at Nashville. Here he is
   relieved [October 30] and General Rosecrans is appointed to
   the command."

      ALSO IN:
      D. C. Buell, J. Wheeler, and others,
      The Perryville Campaign
      (Battles and Leaders, volume 3).

T. B. Van Horne, History of the Army of the Cumberland, chapters 12-15 (volume 1).

On the 2d of July, 1862, the President issued his proclamation
calling for 300,000 volunteers.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (July).
Land-grant for agricultural and mechanical Colleges.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (July).
Prescription of the Ironclad Oath.
See IRONCLAD OATH.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (July).
The fitting out of the Rebel cruiser, Alabama, at Liverpool.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (July). Confiscation of the property of rebels, giving freedom to their slaves.

Immediately on the assembling of Congress at its regular session in December, 1861, "Mr. Trumbull of Illinois introduced a bill, providing that the slaves of all who had taken up arms against the United States should 'become forever thereafter free, any law to the contrary notwithstanding.' … On the 25th of February it came up for general debate, which was very extended. … Divergences of views, even among those who had been most prominent and pronounced in their antislavery action, and the general drift of the discussion, seemed to preclude any reasonable hope of agreement upon any motion or measure then before the Senate. It was therefore moved by Mr. Clark of New Hampshire to refer the whole matter, the original bill, and all motions, amendments, and substitutes, to a select committee. This, too, gave rise to a sharp debate. … The motion was carried by a vote of 24 to 14; and the committee, consisting of Clark, Collamer, Trumbull, Cowan, Wilson, Harris, Sherman, Henderson, and Willey, was appointed. Mr. Trumbull declining, Mr. Harlan was appointed in his place. The committee reported 'a bill to suppress insurrection, and punish treason and rebellion'; and on the 16th of May it came up for consideration. Its main provision was that at any time after the passage of the act, the President might issue his proclamation that the slaves of persons found, 30 days after the issuing of the proclamation, in arms against the government, will be free, any law or custom to the contrary; that no slave escaping from his master shall be given up, unless the claimant proves he has not given aid or comfort to the Rebellion; and that the President shall be authorized to employ persons of African descent for the suppression of the Rebellion. … The bill was further debated, but did not reach a vote. In the House a substantially similar course was pursued. On the first day of the regular session Mr. Eliot of Massachusetts introduced a resolution confiscating the property and freeing the slaves of those engaged in the Rebellion. It did not, however, come up for consideration till the close of the following week. … A motion was finally made and carried to refer the whole subject to a select committee of seven, consisting of Olin, Eliot, Noell, Hutchins, Mallory, Beaman, and Cobb. Mr. Olin was excused, and Mr. Sedgwick of New York was appointed in his place. On the 14th of May Mr. Eliot from the committee reported two bills,—the one confiscating Rebel property, and the other freeing the slaves of Rebels,—and opened the debate on 'the twin measures of confiscation and emancipation.' … On the 26th of May Mr. Eliot closed the debate, and the two bills he had reported from the special committee were brought to a vote. The first, or that providing for the confiscation of Rebel property, was passed by a strong majority. The second, or that freeing the slaves of Rebels, coming up for action, the first business was the disposal of the several amendments that had been offered. The amendments having all been voted down, the original bill was lost by a vote of 74 to 78. That vote was, however, reconsidered and the bill was recommitted. On the 18th of June Mr. Eliot moved a substitute for the bill reported by the committee, which was accepted by the House, and the bill, as thus amended, was passed by a vote of 82 to 54. The gist of this bill consisted in the provision, that all slaves of persons found in rebellion 60 days after the President shall issue his proclamation should be free; and the President should appoint commissioners to carry its provisions into effect. The House confiscation bill was taken up in the Senate on the 23d of June. An amendment was moved by Mr. Clark combining confiscation and emancipation. The amendment was sharply debated, but was adopted on the 28th. The bill as amended was adopted by a vote of 28 to 13. The bill as thus amended was taken up in the House on the 3d of July, and the House non-concurred in the Senate's amendment. … A committee of conference was appointed, which reported, on the 11th, in substance the Senate amendment. The report was accepted by both bodies, … and the President gave it his approval on the 17th. It provided that all slaves of Rebels coming into the possession or under the protection of the government should be deemed captives of war, and made free; that fugitive slaves should not be surrendered; that no person engaged in the military or naval service should render fugitives on pain of being dismissed from the service; and that the President might employ persons of the African race for the suppression of the Rebellion in such manner as he might deem best."

      H. Wilson,
      History of the Rise and Fall of the Slave Power in America,
      volume 3, chapter 25.

      ALSO IN:
      J. G. Blaine,
      Twenty Years of Congress,
      volume 1, pages 373-377.

      E. McPherson,
      Political History of the United States during the Rebellion,
      pages 196-203.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (July-August: Virginia).
   The end of the Peninsular Campaign.
   The army at Harrison's Landing.
   Results of the Seven Days fighting.
   Withdrawal from the Peninsula.

"On reaching Harrison's Landing there were scarcely 50,000 men in the ranks, but on the 4th of July, when the corps commanders made their reports, it was found that the net losses of the army since the 20th of June amounted to 15,249 men, of whom 1,582 had been killed, 7,700 wounded, and 5,958 missing. This last figure comprised, besides prisoners, all the soldiers who had been left on the field of battle, whose fate, whether killed or wounded, could not be ascertained; to this number may be added, without exaggeration, 6,000 sick or lame who had gone to the hospital in consequence of the excessive fatigues of the preceding days. McClellan therefore found himself with about 84,000 men under arms, not counting those who had just joined him. The losses of Lee's army during the seven days amounted to 20,000 men, to which number must also be added at least 5,000 rendered unfit for active service by the same causes which had operated with his adversaries; this army, therefore, had undergone a diminution of 25,000 men. This was more than one-fourth of its effective force on the 26th of June. An interlude was to follow this great struggle. While McClellan was fortifying himself at Harrison's Landing, Lee, hampered like himself by the difficulty of subsisting his army, was obliged to fall back as far as the environs of Richmond. … In the estimation of those who did not allow themselves to be troubled by foolish alarms and were not blinded by party prejudices, McClellan's situation was far from bad. … Planted on the James, McClellan could, either by ascending this river or by seizing upon Petersburg, strike much deadlier blows at Richmond than when his army lay across the Chickahominy, far from any water communication. Such was the position of the two armies about the 7th of July. On this day the steamer coming from Fortress Monroe landed a passenger at Harrison's Landing, whose dress, as simple as his manners, did not at first attract any attention, but in whom people soon recognized President Lincoln. He had come to consult with the commander of the army of the Potomac about the measures to be adopted under those grave circumstances. … On the occasion of his interview with McClellan at Harrison's Landing, the latter had so thoroughly demonstrated the importance of that position that [the President] went back fully determined to allow the chief of the army of the Potomac full freedom of action. But General Halleck … claimed for himself, as commander-in-chief [lately so appointed], the exclusive direction of all the armies in the field, and Mr. Lincoln, conscious of his own incompetency, submitted to this new authority." Measures taken during July for placing the army of the Potomac again upon the offensive were altered on the 3d of August, when Halleck gave orders to McClellan to transfer his army with all possible expedition to Aquia Creek, on the Potomac, for the support of General Pope and the Army of Virginia.

Comte de Paris, History of the Civil War in America, volume 2, book 1, chapter 4 and book 3, chapter 1.

      ALSO IN:
      J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay,
      Abraham Lincoln,
      volume 5, chapter 24.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (July-August: Virginia).
The beginning of Pope's campaign: Cedar Mountain, or Cedar Run.

"While Lee and McClellan were resting, important events were taking place at Washington and in Northern Virginia. The Federal administration, satisfied of the impolicy of the separate departments and independent commands which they had organized in that region, had determined to unite under one leader the three armies of Banks, Fremont, and McDowell, which Jackson had beaten or baffled in succession. … Their united armies were henceforth to be styled the Army of Virginia, while McClellan's forces continued to be known as the Army of the Potomac. General John Pope, whose deeds and still more his dispatches in the West, had given him some reputation, was called to Washington and placed at the head of the new army. General Pope was assigned to command on the 26th of June. … The unification of these commands under Pope was followed by another and still more important change of the same kind. The dissatisfaction of the Federal administration with General McClellan had been steadily growing for many months. This officer's caution often exposed him, and sometimes not unjustly, to the charge of timidity. … No doubt other causes, such as his moderation and his conservative political views, rendered him distasteful to the progressive radicals who at this time predominated in Mr. Lincoln's cabinet; but it must be confessed that McClellan's military conduct was not such as to inspire confidence or diminish antagonisms, and it, alone, is sufficient to account for the manner in which he was treated by his government. … After the Seven Days' Battles, the Federal government called General Halleck from the West … and placed him in chief command of the armies of the United States, the position from which McClellan had been deposed in March. The order assigning General Halleck was dated July 11, but the latter did not arrive in Washington and enter upon his duties until Ju]y 23. By this appointment it was designed to give a common head to the two armies in Virginia, and insure the cooperation of McClellan and Pope. The first great question that presented itself to Halleck was, what to do with McClellan's forces, and on the day after assuming command he left Washington to visit this army. The visit seems to have satisfied him of the propriety of withdrawing the Army of the Potomac at once from the Peninsula, and of placing it on the line of the Rappahannock. … During the month of Ju]y, while McClellan was resting at Westover, General Pope, though in Washington, was not idle. Having devoted some days to the reorganization and equipment of his command, he directed the concentration of the mass of his forces at the eastern base of the Blue Ridge Mountains in Rappahannock County, from which position he could cover the approach to Washington, or threaten the flank of any columns going toward the Shenandoah Valley, while he prepared for an aggressive campaign. … General Lee on July 13 ordered Jackson with the veteran troops of his own and Ewell's division to Gordonsville to oppose Pope's advance. The force thus sent numbered about 11,000 men. Robertson's brigade of cavalry, which was already in Pope's front, added 1,000 or 1,200 more. General Lee remained with some 65,000 men between McClellan and Richmond. General Jackson reached the vicinity of Gordonsville on July 19. His arrival was opportune. The Federal reconnoitring parties had already advanced through Culpeper to the Rapidan, and on July 14 Banks had been ordered to send forward all his cavalry under Hatch to seize Gordonsville."

"After ascertaining that the enemy were in large force under General Pope … Jackson applied to General Lee for reinforcements. The division of A. P. Hill was immediately sent to him, and, with this accession to his small army, Jackson had no intention of remaining idle or of awaiting an attack from so powerful a foe, but determined to strike a blow himself before the enemy had time to concentrate all their forces. He therefore advanced towards them on the 7th of August. Before taking this step, it was observed that he was much in prayer, but this was his custom previous to every battle. … Pope's army was gathering in all its strength at Culpepper Court-House, and on the 9th of August Jackson's little army came in contact with his advance-guard about six miles from the Court-House, on the borders of a little stream called Cedar Run. Here hostilities began by a furious cannonade on both sides, lasting two hours, when, about five o'clock in the afternoon, the infantry of both armies became hotly engaged. The conflict was fierce and stubborn, but the overwhelming numbers of the enemy swept down with such impetuosity that the weaker party were forced to yield, and it looked as if it were doomed to destruction. Ewell, Early, A. P. Hill, Winder, and other commanders all fought their bravest and best—the gallant Winder receiving a mortal wound—and still they were pressed back. 'It was at this fearful moment,' says his late chief-of-staff, Dr. Dabney, 'that the genius of the storm reared his head, and in an instant the tide was turned, Jackson appeared in the mid-torrent of the highway, … he drew his own sword (the first time in the war), and shouted to the broken troops with a voice which pealed higher than the roar of battle: "Rally, brave men, and press forward! Your general will lead you! Jackson will lead you† Follow me!" This appeal was not in vain, and the Federals, startled by this unexpected rally, were driven from the field. They afterwards made an attempt to retrieve the fortunes of the day, which they had so nearly won, by an assault from a magnificent body of cavalry, but even this was repelled, and the troopers driven in full retreat.' … This battle of Cedar Run [called Cedar Mountain by the Unionists] Jackson himself pronounced the most successful of his exploits. … In this battle the Confederates had between eighteen and twenty thousand men engaged, while the Federals, according to their own returns, had thirty-two thousand. Jackson, however, had one incalculable advantage over the enemy, which he gained by his promptitude in seizing and holding Slaughter's Mountain—an elevation which commanded all the surrounding plains, and enabled him to overlook the whole scene of action. … It was to the advantage of this position as well as the bravery of his troops that he was indebted for his complete success. By this victory Pope received such a blow that he was deterred from making another advance until he could gather reinforcements. Burnside's corps was withdrawn from North Carolina and sent on to Culpepper Court-House, and it was believed that McClellan's remaining forces would be recalled from James River and sent also to swell the ranks of the grand 'Army of Virginia,' as the command of Pope was called. At all events, General Lee was convinced that McClellan was incapable of further aggression, and that the most effective way to dislodge him from the Peninsula was to threaten Washington! He therefore determined to move his army from Richmond to Gordonsville. He began his march on the 13th, and four days after, on the 17th, McClellan evacuated the Peninsula and removed his troops to the Potomac." Pope's army was withdrawn behind the Rappahannock. "General Lee now ordered Jackson to cross the Rappahannock high up, and by a forced march go to Manassas and get in Pope's rear. Other divisions were sent to Pope's front, and the two hostile armies marched along on either side of the stream, opening fire upon each other whenever the opportunity offered. Jackson continued his march up stream until he reached Warrenton Springs, on the 22d, where he found the bridge destroyed, but he passed Early's brigade over on a mill-dam, and took possession of the Springs. Before other troops could be crossed to his support, a sudden and heavy rainfall swelled the river so as to render it impassable, and Early was thus cut off from his friends and surrounded by the enemy. His situation was one of extreme peril, but he managed to conceal his troops in the woods, and hold his foes at bay with artillery, until Jackson had constructed a temporary bridge, and by the dawn of the morning of the 24th the gallant Early, with his command, had recrossed the river without the loss of a man. While a fierce artillery duel was going on across the river between A. P. Hill and the enemy, Jackson left the river-bank a few miles, and marched to the village of Jeffersonton. He was thus lost sight of by the Federals, and to Longstreet was given the task of amusing Pope by the appearance of a crossing at Warrenton Springs. Jackson was now preparing to obey Lee's order to separate himself from the rest of the army, pass around Pope to the westward, and place his corps between him and Washington at Manassas Junction.

Mrs. M. A. Jackson, Life and letters of General Thomas J. Jackson, chapter 17.

      ALSO IN:
      G. H. Gordon.
      History of the Campaign of the Army of Virginia,
      chapters 1-3.

      W. C. Bryant and S. H. Gay,
      Popular History of the United States,
      volume 4, chapter 19.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862
(July-September: Missouri-Arkansas).
Warfare with the Rebel Guerrillas.

   "Since the autumn of 1861, General J. M. Schofield, Lyon's
   second at the battle of Wilson's Creek, had been in command of
   the militia of Missouri, and in June, 1862, that State was
   erected into a separate military district, with Schofield at
   its head. He was vigilant and active; but when Curtis withdrew
   to the Mississippi, and left Arkansas and Southern Missouri
   open to the operations of guerrilla bands, then numerous in
   the western part of the former State, he found his forces
   inadequate to keep down the secessionists in his district.
   When Price crossed the Mississippi, early in May, he sent back
   large numbers of Missourians to recruit guerrilla bands for
   active service during, the summer, and these, at the middle of
   July, were very numerous in the interior, and were preparing
   to seize important points in the State. To meet the danger,
   Schofield obtained authority from the Governor to organize all
   the militia of the State.
{3476}
   This drew a sharp dividing line between the loyal and disloyal
   inhabitants. He soon had 50,000 names on his rolls, of whom
   nearly 20,000 were ready for effective service at the close of
   July, when the failure of the campaign against Richmond so
   encouraged the secessionists in Missouri that it was very
   difficult to keep them in check. Schofield's army of
   volunteers and militia was scattered over Missouri in six
   divisions, and for two months a desperate and sanguinary
   guerrilla warfare was carried on in the bosom of that
   Commonwealth, the chief theater being northward of the
   Missouri River, in McNeill's division, where insurgent bands
   under leaders like Poindexter, Porter, Cobb, and others, about
   5,000 strong, were very active." They were also aided by
   incursions from Arkansas, under Hughes, Coffey and other
   leaders. The encounters were many and fierce. At Kirksville,
   August 6, and Chariton River, four days later, the loyal
   forces achieved considerable victories; at Independence (which
   was captured) August 11, and at Lone Jack, about the same
   time, they suffered defeat. These were the principal
   engagements of the month. With the cooperation of General
   Blunt, commanding in Kansas, the Arkansas invasion was driven
   back. Missouri was now somewhat relieved, but the Confederates
   were gathering in force in Arkansas, where they were joined by
   conscripts from Southern Missouri and a large number of troops
   from Texas. Their entire number was estimated to be 50,000 at
   the middle of September, with General T. C. Hindman in chief
   command. … So threatening was this gathering that Schofield
   took the field in person, and General Curtis succeeded him in
   command of the District of Missouri." Schofield's vanguard,
   under General Salomon, encountered the enemy at Newtonia,
   September 30, and was defeated; but the Confederates retreated
   before the united forces of Schofield and Blunt and "were
   chased about 30 miles into Arkansas."

ALSO IN: Comte de Paris, History of the Civil War in America, volume 2, book 4, chapter 3.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (August).
Draft of Militia for nine months.

   By proclamation, August 4, the President ordered a draft of
   300,000 militia, for nine months service unless sooner
   discharged.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (August).
President Lincoln's "policy" explained to Horace Greeley.

   "Executive Mansion, Washington, August 22, 1862.
   Hon. Horace Greeley.
   Dear Sir:
   I have just read yours of the 19th, addressed to myself
   through the New York 'Tribune.' If there be in it any
   statements or assumptions of fact which I may know to be
   erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there
   be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely
   drawn, I do not, now and here, argue against them. If there be
   perceptible in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive
   it in deference to an old friend whose heart I have always
   supposed to be right. As to the policy I 'seem to be
   pursuing,' as you say, I have not meant to leave anyone in
   doubt. I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest
   way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority
   can be restored, the nearer the Union will be the Union as it
   was.' If there be those who would not save the Union unless
   they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with
   them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless
   they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree
   with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the
   Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I
   could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it;
   and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do
   it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others
   alone, I would also do that. What I do about slavery and the
   colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the
   Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe
   it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I
   shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do
   more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause.
   I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors, and I
   shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true
   views. I have here stated my purpose according to my view of
   official duty; and I intend no modification of my
   oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be
   free.
      Yours, A. Lincoln."

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (August: Virginia.)
General Pope's campaign: Stonewall Jackson's movement
into the rear of the Federal Army.

"By the capture of Pope's papers [effected in a raid of Stuart's cavalry to the Federal rear] Lee gained an accurate knowledge of the situation of the Federal army. Acting on it, he ordered Jackson to advance his corps to Jeffersonton and secure the bridge over the Rappahannock at Warrenton Springs. … Jackson, on arriving at Jeffersonton in the afternoon of the 22d, found that the bridge on the Warrenton turnpike had been destroyed by the Federals. … On the 23d Lee ordered Longstreet's corps to follow Jackson and mass in the vicinity of Jeffersonton. The headquarters of the army was also moved to that place. … General Longstreet made a feint on the position of Warrenton on the morning of the 24th, under cover of which Jackson's corps was withdrawn from the front to the vicinity of the road from Jeffersonton to the upper fords of the Rappahannock. Jackson was then directed to make preparations to turn the Federal position and seize their communications about Manassas Junction. Longstreet continued his cannonade at intervals throughout the day, to which the Federals replied with increasing vigor, showing that Pope was massing his army in Lee's front. It was the object of Lee to hold Pope in his present position by deluding him with the belief that it was his intention to force a passage of the river at that point, until Jackson by a flank movement could gain his rear. Longstreet, on the morning of the 25th, resumed his cannonade with increased energy, and at the same time made a display of infantry above and below the bridge. Jackson then, moved up the river to a ford eight miles above; crossing at that point and turning eastward, by a rapid march he reached the vicinity of Salem. Having made a march of 25 miles, he bivouacked for the night. Stuart's cavalry covered his right flank, the movement being masked by the natural features of the country. The next morning at dawn the march was resumed by the route through Thoroughfare Gap. The cavalry, moving well to the right, passed around the west end of Bull Run Mountain and joined the infantry at the village of Gainesville, a few miles from the Orange and Alexandria Railroad. {3477} Pressing forward, still keeping the cavalry well to the right, Jackson struck the railroad at Bristoe Station late in the afternoon, where he captured two empty trains going east. After dark he sent a detachment under Stuart to secure Manassas Junction, the main depot of supplies of the Federal army. The cavalry moved upon the flanks of this position, while the infantry, commanded by Trimble, assaulted the works in front and carried them with insignificant loss, capturing two batteries of light artillery with their horses and a detachment of 300 men, besides an immense amount of army supplies. The next morning, after effectually destroying the railroad at Bristoe, Jackson … moved his main body to Manassas, where he allowed his troops a few hours to refresh themselves upon the abundant stores that had been captured. About 12 o'clock the sound of artillery in the direction of Bristoe announced the Federal advance. Not having transportation to remove the captured supplies, Jackson directed his men to take what they could carry off, and ordered the rest to be destroyed. General Ewell, having repulsed the advance of two Federal columns [at Bristoe Station], rejoined Jackson at Manassas. The destruction of the captured stores having been completed, Jackson retired with his whole force to Bull Run, and took a position for the night, a part of his troops resting on the battle-field of the previous year. Pope, … upon learning that Jackson was in his rear, … immediately abandoned his position on the Rappahannock and proceeded with al despatch to intercept him before he could be reinforced by Lee. His advance having been arrested on the 27th by Ewell, he did not proceed beyond Bristoe that day. Lee on the 26th withdrew Longstreet's corps from its position in front of Warrenton Springs, covering the withdrawal by a small rear-guard and artillery, and directed it to follow Jackson by the route he had taken the day before. … The corps bivouacked for the night in the vicinity of Salem. On the morning of the succeeding day, the 27th, a messenger appeared bringing the important and cheering news of the success of Jackson at Bristoe and Manassas. … Thoroughfare Gap was reached about noon of the 28th. It was quickly found to be occupied by a Federal force. Some slight attempt was made to dislodge the enemy, but without success, as their position proved too strong, and it seemed as if the movement of the Confederate army in that direction was destined to be seriously interfered with. Meanwhile, nothing further had been heard from Jackson, and there was a natural anxiety in regard to his position and possible peril. … Under these critical circumstances General Lee made every effort to find some available route over the mountains," and had already succeeded in doing so when his adversary saved him further trouble. "Pope … had ordered McDowell to retire from the Gap and join him to aid in the anticipated crushing of Jackson. McDowell did so, leaving Rickett's division to hold the Gap. In evident ignorance of the vicinity of Longstreet's corps, this force was also withdrawn during the night, and on the morning of the 29th Lee found the Gap unoccupied, and at once marched through at the head of Longstreet's column. … Pope had unknowingly favored the advance of the Confederate commander. His removal of McDowell from his position had been a tactical error of such magnitude that it could not well be retrieved. … The cannonade at the Gap on the 28th had informed Jackson of Lee's proximity. He at once took a position north of the Warrenton turnpike, his left resting on Bull Run. … About three o'clock the Federals bore down in heavy force upon Ewell and Taliaferro, who maintained their positions with admirable firmness, repelling attack after attack until night. The loss on both sides was considerable. … Jackson, with barely 20,000 men, now found himself confronted by the greater part of the Federal army. Any commander with less firmness would have sought safety in retreat. But having heard the Confederate guns at Thoroughfare Gap, he knew that Lee would join him the next day. Therefore he determined to hold his position at all hazards. By the morning of the 29th … Hood's division had reached the south side of the mountain, and early in the day was joined by the remainder of Longstreet's corps, by way of the open Gap. While these important movements were in progress, Pope had resumed his attack upon Jackson. … On the arrival of Lee, Pope discontinued his attack, and retired to the position which the year before had been the scene of the famous battle of Bull Run, or Manassas."

      ALSO IN:
      R. L. Dabney,
      Life and Campaigns of General Thomas J. Jackson.

      G. H. Gordon,
      History of the Campaign of the Army of Virginia,
      chapters 4-10.

      W. B. Taliaferro,
      Jackson's Raid around Pope
      (Battles and Leader, volume 2, pages 501-511).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (August-September: Virginia).
   The end of General Pope's campaign: Groveton.
   Second Bull Run.
   Chantilly.

"By contradictory orders and the useless marches and counter-marches they involved, Pope's opportunity was thrown away, and instead of fighting Jackson's corps alone, it was the entire army of Lee with which he had to deal,—this, too, with his forces very much out of position, and he himself ignorant both of his own situation and that of the enemy. When, towards noon [August 29], Pope, coming from Centreville, reached the field near Groveton, he found the situation as follows: Heintzelman's two divisions, under Hooker and Kearney, on the right, in front and west of the Sudley Springs road; Reno and Sigel holding the centre,—Sigel's line being extended a short distance south of the Warrenton turnpike; Reynolds with his division on the left. But the commander was ignorant of the whereabouts of both Porter and McDowell, and he knew not that Longstreet had joined Jackson! The troops had been considerably cut up by the brisk skirmishing that had been going on all morning. An artillery contest had also been waged all forenoon between the opposing lines; but it was at long range and of no effect. The position of the troops in front of Jackson's intrenched line was one that promised very little success for a direct attack, and especially for a partial attack. Nevertheless, at three o'clock, Pope ordered Hooker to assault. The attempt was so unpromising that that officer remonstrated against it; but the order being imperative, he made a very determined attack with his division," and was driven back. {3478} "Too late for united action, Kearney was sent to Hooker's assistance, and he also suffered repulse. Meanwhile, Pope had learnt the position of Porter's command, and, at half-past four in the afternoon, sent orders to that officer to assail the enemy's right flank and rear,—Pope erroneously believing the right flank of Jackson, near Groveton, to be the right of the Confederate line. Towards six, when he thought Porter should be coming into action, he directed Heintzelman and Reno to assault the enemy's left. The attack was made with vigor, especially by Kearney," but the enemy brought up heavy reserves and repelled the assault. "Turning now to the left, where Porter was to have assailed the Confederate left [right], it appears that the order which Pope sent at half-past four did not reach Porter till about dusk. He then made dispositions for attack, but it was too late. It is, however, more than doubtful that, even had the order been received in time, any thing but repulse would have resulted from its execution. … Contrary to Pope's opinion, he [Porter] had then, and had had since noon, Longstreet's entire corps before him. So, as firing now died away in the darkling woods on the right, a pause was put for the day to the chaos and confusion of this mismanaged battle [known as the battle of Groveton], in which many thousand men had fallen on the Union side. It would have been judicious for General Pope, in the then condition of his army, to have that night withdrawn across Bull Run and taken position at Centreville, or even within the fortifications of Washington. By doing so he would have united with the corps of Franklin and Sumner, then between Washington and Centreville. … With untimely obstinacy, Pope determined to remain and again try the issue of battle. To utilize Porter's corps, he drew it over from the isolated position it had held the previous day to the Warrenton road. … Now, by one of those curious conjunctures which sometimes occur in battle, it so was that the opposing commanders had that day formed each the same resolution: Pope had determined to attack Lee's left flank, and Lee had determined to attack Pope's left flank. And thus it came about that when Heintzelman pushed forward to feel the enemy's left, the refusal of that flank by Lee, and his withdrawal of troops to his right for the purpose of making his contemplated attack on Pope's left, gave the impression that the Confederates were retreating up the Warrenton turnpike towards Gainesville. … Pope … telegraphed to Washington that the enemy was 'retreating to the mountains,'—a dispatch which, flashed throughout the land, gave the people a few hours, at least, of unmixed pleasure. To take advantage of the supposed 'retreat' of Lee, Pope ordered McDowell with three corps—Porter's in the advance—to follow up rapidly on the Warrenton turnpike, and 'press the enemy vigorously during the whole day.' But no sooner were the troops put in motion to make this pursuit of a supposed flying foe, than the Confederates, hitherto concealed in the forest in front of Porter, uncovered themselves." The result of this misdirected movement was a fatal check, Porter's troops being fearfully cut up and driven back. "Jackson immediately took up the pursuit, and was joined by a general advance of the whole Confederate line—Longstreet extending his right so as, if possible, to cut off the retreat of the Union forces." In this attempt, however, he was foiled, and "under cover of the darkness the wearied troops retired across Bull Run, by the stone bridge, and took position on the heights of Centreville. Owing to the obscurity of the night, and the uncertainty of the fords of Bull Run, Lee attempted no pursuit." The engagement of this day is called the Second Battle of Bull Run, or the Second Battle of Manassas, as it was named by the Confederate victors. "At Centreville, Pope united with the corps of Franklin and Sumner, and he remained there during the whole of the 31st. But Lee had now yet given up the pursuit. Leaving Longstreet on the battle-field, he sent Jackson by a detour on Pope's right, to strike the Little River turnpike, and by that route to Fairfax Courthouse; to intercept, if possible, Pope's retreat to Washington. Jackson's march was much retarded by a heavy storm that commenced the day before and still continued. Pope, meantime, fell back to positions covering Fairfax Courthouse and Germantown; and on the evening of the 1st of September, Jackson struck his right, posted at Ox Hill." The short but severe action which then occurred (called the battle of Chantilly) was indecisive. Jackson's attack was repelled, but the repulse cost the lives of two excellent officers of high rank and reputation, Generals Kearney and Stevens, besides many men. "On the following day, September 2d, the army was, by order of General Halleck, drawn back within the lines of Washington."

"The Second Battle of Bull Hun … was a severe defeat for General Pope; but it was nothing else. It was not a rout, nor anything like a rout. … Lee claims to have captured in these engagements 30 pieces of artillery and 7,000 unwounded prisoners."

      J. C. Ropes,
      The Army under Pope
      (Campaigns of the Civil War, volume 4),
      chapters 8-11.

      ALSO IN:
      G. H. Gordon,
      History of the Campaign of the Army of Virginia,
      chapters 11-13.

The Virginia Campaign of General Pope
(Massachusetts Military Historical Society Papers, volume 2).

      J. Pope,
      The Second Battle of Bull Run
      (Battles and Leaders, volume 2, pages 449-494).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (September: Maryland).
Lee's first invasion: His cold reception and disappointment.

   "The defeat of General Pope opened the way for movements not
   contemplated, probably, by General Lee, when he marched from
   Richmond. … He accordingly determined to advance into
   Maryland—the fortifications in front of Washington, and the
   interposition of the Potomac, a broad stream easily defended,
   rendering a movement in that direction unpromising. On the 3d
   of September, therefore, and without waiting to rest his army,
   which was greatly fatigued with the nearly continuous marching
   and fighting since it had left the Rapidan, General Lee moved
   toward Leesburg, crossed his forces near that place, and to
   the music of the bands playing the popular air, 'Maryland, my
   Maryland,' advanced to Frederick City, which he occupied on
   the 7th of September. Lee's object in invading Maryland has
   been the subject of much discussion. … It can only be said
   that General Lee, doubtless, left the future to decide his
   ultimate movements; meanwhile he had a distinct and
   clearly-defined aim, which he states in plain words.
{3479}
   His object was to draw the Federal forces out of Virginia. …
   The condition of affairs in Maryland, General Lee says,
   'encouraged the belief that the presence of our army, however
   inferior to that of the enemy, would induce the Washington
   Government to retain all its available force to provide for
   contingencies which its course toward the people of that State
   gave it reason to apprehend,' and to cross the Potomac 'might
   afford us an opportunity to aid the citizens of Maryland in
   any efforts they might be disposed to make to recover their
   liberty.' It may be said, in summing up on this point, that
   Lee expected volunteers to enroll themselves under his
   standard, tempted to do so by the hope of throwing off the
   yoke of the Federal Government, and the army certainly shared
   this expectation. The identity of sentiment generally between
   the people of the States of Maryland and Virginia, and their
   strong social ties in the past, rendered this anticipation
   reasonable, and the feeling of the country at the result
   afterward was extremely bitter. Such were the first designs of
   Lee; his ultimate aim seems as clear. By advancing into
   Maryland and threatening Baltimore and Washington, he knew
   that he would force the enemy to withdraw all their troops
   from the south bank of the Potomac, where they menaced the
   Confederate communications with Richmond; when this was
   accomplished, as it clearly would be, his design was, to cross
   the Maryland extension of the Blue Ridge, called there the
   South Mountain, advance by way of Hagerstown into the
   Cumberland Valley, and, by thus forcing the enemy to follow
   him, draw them to a distance from their base of supplies,
   while his own communications would remain open by way of the
   Shenandoah Valley. … The Southern army was concentrated in the
   neighborhood of Frederick City by the 7th of September, and on
   the next day General Lee Issued an address to the people of
   Maryland. … This address, couched in terms of such dignity,
   had little effect upon the people. Either their sentiment in
   favor of the Union was too strong, or they found nothing in
   the condition Of affairs to encourage their Southern feelings.
   A large Federal force was known to be advancing; Lee's army,
   in tatters, and almost without supplies, presented a very
   uninviting appearance to recruits, and few joined his
   standard, the population in general remaining hostile or
   neutral. … Lee soon discovered that he must look solely to his
   own men for success in his future movements. He faced that
   conviction courageously; and, without uttering a word of
   comment, or indulging in any species of crimination against
   the people of Maryland, resolutely commenced his movements
   looking to the capture of Harper's Ferry and the invasion of
   Pennsylvania."

      ALSO IN:
      A. L. Long,
      Memoirs of Robert E. Lee,
      chapter 12.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (September: Maryland).
   Lee's first invasion: Harper's Ferry.
   South Mountain.
   Antietam.

"On the 2d of September the President went to General McClellan's house in Washington, asked him to take command again of the Army of the Potomac, in which Pope's army had now been merged, and verbally authorized him to do so at once. The first thing that McClellan wanted was the withdrawal of Miles's force, 11,000 men, from Harper's Ferry—where, he said, it was useless and helpless—and its addition to his own force. All authorities agree that in this he was obviously and unquestionably right; but the marplot hand of Halleck intervened, and Miles was ordered to hold the place. Halleck's principal reason appeared to be a reluctance to abandon a place where so much expense had been laid out. Miles, a worthy subordinate for such a chief, interpreted Halleck's orders with absolute literalness, and remained in the town, instead of holding it by placing his force on the heights that command it. As soon as it was known that Lee was in Maryland, McClellan set his army in motion northward, to cover Washington and Baltimore and find an opportunity for a decisive battle. He arrived with his advance in Frederick on the 12th, and met with a reception in striking contrast to that accorded to the army that had left the town two days before. … But this flattering reception was not the best fortune that befell the Union army in Frederick. On his arrival in the town General McClellan came into possession of a copy of General Lee's order, dated three days before, in which the whole campaign was laid out. … General Lee had taken it for granted that Martinsburg and Harper's Ferry would be evacuated at his approach (as they should have been); and when he found they were not, he had so far changed or suspended the plan with which he set out as to send back a large part of his army to capture those places and not leave a hostile force in his rear." This was easily accomplished by Jackson and McLaws, the latter of whom took possession of the heights commanding the town, where Miles waited to be trapped. "A bombardment the next day compelled a surrender when Jackson was about to attack. General Miles was mortally wounded by one of the last shots. About 11,000 men were included in the capitulation, with 73 guns. … Jackson, leaving the arrangements for the sur·render to A. P. Hill, hurried with the greater part of his force to rejoin Lee, and reached Sharpsburg on the morning of the 16th. The range known as the South Mountain, which is a continuation of the Blue Ridge north of the Potomac, is about 1,000 feet high. The two principal gaps are Turner's and Crampton's, each about 400 feet high, with the hills towering 600 feet above it. When McClellan learned the plans of the Confederate commander, he set his army in motion to thwart them. He ordered Franklin's corps to pass through Crampton's Gap and press on to relieve Harper's Ferry; the corps of Reno and Hooker, under command of Burnside, he moved to Turner's Gap. The movement was quick for McClellan, but not quite quick enough for the emergency. He might have passed through the Gaps on the 13th with little or no opposition, and would then have had his whole army between Lee's divided forces, and could hardly have failed to defeat them disastrously and perhaps conclusively. But he did not arrive at the passes till the morning of the 14th; and by that time Lee had learned of his movement and recalled Hill and Longstreet, from Boonsboro and beyond, to defend Turner's Gap, while he ordered McLaws to look out for Crampton's. … There was stubborn and bloody fighting all day, with the Union forces slowly but constantly gaining ground, and at dark the field was won," at both the passes. The two engagements were called the battle of South Mountain by the Federals, the Battle of Boonsboro by the Confederates. {3480} At Turner's Gap there was a loss of about 1,500 on each side, and 1,500 Confederates were made prisoners; at Crampton's Gap, the loss in killed and wounded was some 500 on each side, with 400 Confederate prisoners taken. The Union army had forced the passage of the mountains, but Lee had gained time to unite his scattered forces. "He withdrew across the Antietam, and took up a position on high ground between that stream and the village of Sharpsburg. … Lee now had his army together and strongly posted. But it had been so reduced by losses in battle and straggling that it numbered but little over 40,000 combatants. … McClellan had somewhat over 70,000 men. … The ground occupied by the Confederate army, with both flanks resting on the Potomac, and the Antietam flowing in front, was advantageous. The creek was crossed by four stone bridges and a ford, and all except the northernmost bridge were strongly guarded. The land was occupied by meadows, cornfields, and patches of forest, and was much broken by outcropping ledges. McClellan only reconnoitered the position on the 15th. On the 16th he developed his plan of attack, which was simply to throw his right wing across the Antietam by the upper and unguarded bridge, assail the Confederate left, and when this had sufficiently engaged the enemy's attention and drawn his strength to that flank, to force the bridges and cross with his left and centre. … All day long an artillery duel was kept up. … It was late in the afternoon when Hooker's corps crossed by the upper bridge, advanced through the woods, and struck the left flank, which was held by two brigades of Hood's men. Scarcely more than a skirmish ensued, when darkness came on, and the lines rested for the night where they were." At sunrise, next morning, Hooker assaulted Jackson and was seriously wounded in the fighting which followed. Sumner's corps finally joined in the attack, and all the forenoon the battle was desperate in that part of the field. "But while this great struggle was in progress on McClellan's right, his centre and left, under Porter und Burnside, did not make any movement to assist. At noon Franklin arrived from Crampton's Gap, and was sent over to help Hooker and Sumner, being just in time to check a new advance by more troops brought over from the Confederate right. At eight o'clock in the morning Burnside had been ordered to carry the bridge in his front, cross the stream, and attack the Confederate right. But, though commanded and urged repeatedly, it was one o'clock before he succeeded in doing this, and two more precious hours passed away before he had carried the ridge commanding Sharpsburg and captured the Confederate battery there. Then came up the last division of Lee's forces (A. P. Hill's) from Harper's Ferry, 2,000 strong, united with the other forces on his left, and drove Burnside from the crest and re-took the battery. Here ended the battle; not because the day was closed, or any apparent victory had been achieved, but because both sides had been so severely punished that neither was inclined to resume the fight. Every man of Lee's force had been actively engaged, but not more than two thirds of McClellan's. The reason why the Confederate army was not annihilated or captured must be plain to any intelligent reader. … General McClellan reported his entire loss at 12,469, of whom 2,010 were killed. General Lee reported his total loss in the Maryland battles as 1,567 killed and 8,724 wounded, saying nothing of the missing; but the figures given by his division commanders foot up 1,842 killed, 9,399 wounded, and 2,292 missing—total 13,533. … Nothing was done on the 18th, and when McClellan determined to renew the attack on the 19th, he found that his enemy had withdrawn from the field and crossed to Virginia by the ford at Shepherdstown. The National commander reported the capture of more than 6,000 prisoners, 13 guns, and 39 battle-flags, and that he had not lost a gun or a color. As he was also in possession of the field … and had rendered Lee's invasion fruitless of anything but the prisoners carried off from Harper's Ferry, the victory was his."

      ALSO IN:
      F. W. Palfrey,
      The Antietam and Fredericksburg
      (Campaigns of the Civil War, volume 5).

      Comte de Paris,
      History of the Civil War in America,
      volume 2, book 3, chapter 4.

      D. H. Hill, J. D. Cox, J. Longstreet, and others,
      Lee's Invasion of Maryland
      (Battles and Leaders, volume 2).

      W. Allan,
      The Army of Northern Virginia in 1862,
      chapters 37-48.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (September).
President Lincoln's Preliminary Proclamation of Emancipation,
and the attitude of Northern parties on the Slavery question.

Abraham Lincoln "believed that without the Union permanent liberty for either race on this continent would be impossible. And because of this belief, he was reluctant, perhaps more reluctant than most of his associates, to strike slavery with the sword. For many months, the passionate appeals of millions of his associates seemed not to move him. He listened to all the phases of the discussion, and stated in language clearer and stronger than any opponent had used, the dangers, the difficulties, and the possible futility of the act. In reference to its practical wisdom, Congress, the Cabinet, and the country were divided. Several of his generals had proclaimed the freedom of slaves within the limits of their commands. The President revoked their proclamations. His first Secretary of War had inserted a paragraph in his annual report advocating a similar policy. The President suppressed it. On the 19th of August, 1862, Horace Greeley published a letter addressed to the President, entitled 'The Prayer of Twenty Millions,' in which he said, 'On the face of this wide earth, Mr. President, there is not one disinterested, determined, intelligent champion of the Union cause who does not feel that all attempts to put down the rebellion and at the same time uphold its inciting cause are preposterous and futile.' To this the President responded in that ever memorable reply of August 22, in which he said:—'If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object is to save the Union, and not either to save or to destroy slavery. {3481} If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it. If I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it,—and if I could do it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that. What I do about slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe that what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I believe doing more will help the cause.' Thus, against all importunities on the one hand and remonstrances on the other, he took the mighty question to his own heart, and, during the long months of that terrible battle-summer, wrestled with it alone. But at length he realized the saving truth, that great unsettled questions have no pity for the repose of nations. On the 22d of September, he summoned his Cabinet to announce his conclusion. It was my good fortune, on that same day, and a few hours after the meeting, to hear, from the lips of one who participated, the story of the scene. As the chiefs of the Executive Departments came in, one by one, they found the President reading a favorite chapter from a popular humorist. He was lightening the weight of the great burden which rested upon his spirit. He finished the chapter, reading it aloud. And here I quote, from the published Journal of the late Chief Justice, an entry, written immediately after the meeting, and bearing unmistakable evidence that it is almost a literal transcript of Lincoln's words: 'The President then took a graver tone and said: "Gentlemen I have, as you are aware, thought a great deal about the relation of this war to slavery; and you all remember that, several weeks ago, I read to you an order I had prepared upon the subject, which, on account of objections made by some of you, was not issued. Ever since then my mind has been much occupied with this subject, and I have thought all along that the time for acting on it might probably come. I think the time has come now. I wish it was a better time. I wish that we were in a better condition. The action of the army against the rebels has not been quite what I should have best liked. But they have been driven out of Maryland, and Pennsylvania is no longer in danger of invasion. When the rebel army was at Frederick, I determined as soon as it should be driven out of Maryland to issue a proclamation of emancipation, such as I thought most likely to be useful. I said nothing to any one, but I made a promise to myself and (hesitating a little) to my Maker. The rebel army is now driven out, and I am going to fulfil that promise. I have got you together to hear what I have written down. I do not wish your advice about the main matter, for that I have determined for myself. This I say without intending anything but respect for any one of you. But I already know the views of each on this question. They have been heretofore expressed, and I have considered them as thoroughly and carefully as I can. What I have written is that which my reflections have determined me to say. If there is anything in the expressions I use, or in any minor matter which any of you thinks had best be changed, I shall be glad to receive your suggestions. One other observation I will make, I know very well that many others might, in this matter as in others, do better than I can; and if I was satisfied that the public confidence was more fully possessed by any one of them than by me, and knew of any constitutional way in which he could be put in my place, he should have it. I would gladly yield it to him. But though I believe I have not so much of the confidence of the people as I had some time since, I do not know that, all things considered, any other person has more; and, however this may be, there is no way in which I can have any other man put where I am. I am here. I must do the best I can and bear the responsibility of taking the course which I feel I ought to take." The President then proceeded to read his Emancipation Proclamation, making remarks on the several parts as he went on, and showing that he had fully considered the subject in all the lights under which it had been presented to him.' The Proclamation was amended in a few matters of detail. It was signed and published that day."

"I was alone with Mr. Lincoln more than two hours of the Sunday next after Pope's defeat in August, 1802. That was the darkest day of the sad years of the war. … When the business to which I had been summoned by the President was over—strange business for the time: the appointment of assessors and collectors of internal revenue—he was kind enough to ask my opinion as to the command of the army. The way was thus opened for conversation, and for me to say at the end that I thought our success depended upon the emancipation of the slaves. To this he said: 'You would not have it done now, would you? Must we not wait for something like a victory?' This was the second and most explicit intimation to me of his purpose in regard to slavery. In the preceding July or early in August, at an interview upon business connected with my official duties, he said, 'Let me read two letters,' and taking them from a pigeon-hole over his table he proceeded at once to do what he had proposed. I have not seen the letters in print. His correspondent was a gentleman in Louisiana, who claimed to be a Union man. He tendered his advice to the President in regard to the reorganization of that State, and he labored zealous]y to impress upon him the dangers and evils of emancipation. The reply of the President is only important from the fact that when he came to that part of his correspondent's letter he used this expression: 'You must not expect me to give up this government without playing my last card.' Emancipation was his last card. He waited for the time when two facts or events should coincide. Mr. Lincoln was as devoted to the Constitution as was ever Mr. Webster. In his view, a military necessity was the only ground on which the overthrow of slavery in the States could be justified. Next, he waited for a public sentiment in the loyal States not only demanding emancipation but giving full assurance that the act would be sustained to the end. As for himself, I cannot doubt that he had contemplated the policy of emancipation for many months, and anticipated the time when he should adopt it."

G. S. Boutwell, Reminiscences of Abraham Lincoln by Distinguished Men of his Time, pages 123-125.

"It was after all efforts for voluntary emancipation by the states interested, with pecuniary aid from the national treasury, had failed [that the President determined to decree emancipation in the rebellious states by a military order]. To Mr. Seward and myself the President communicated his purpose, and asked our views, on the 13th of July 1862. It was the day succeeding his last unsuccessful and hopeless conference with the representatives in Congress from the border slave states, at a gloomy period of our affairs, just after the reverses of our armies under McClellan before Richmond. The time, be said, had arrived when we must determine whether the slave element should be for or against us. Mr. Seward … was appalled and not prepared for this decisive step, when Mr. Lincoln made known to us that he contemplated, by an executive order, to emancipate the slaves. Startled with so broad and radical a proposition, he informed the President that the consequences of such an act were so momentous that he was not prepared to advise on the subject without further reflection. … While Mr. Seward hesitated and had the subject under consideration, the President deliberately prepared his preliminary proclamation, which met the approval, or at least the acquiescence, of the whole Cabinet, though there were phases of opinion not entirely in accord with the proceedings. Mr. Blair, an original emancipationist, and committed to the principle, thought the time to issue the order inopportune, and Mr. Bates desired that the deportation of the colored race should be coincident with emancipation. Aware that there were shades of difference among his counsellors, and hesitation and doubt with some, in view of the vast responsibility and its consequences, the President devised his own scheme, held himself alone accountable for the act, and, unaided and unassisted, prepared each of the proclamations of freedom."

The preliminary or monitory Proclamation of Emancipation, issued on the 22d of September, 1862, was as follows:

"'I. Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States of America, and Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy thereof, do hereby proclaim and declare that hereafter, as heretofore, the war will be prosecuted for the object of practically restoring the constitutional relations between the United States and each of the States and the people thereof, in which States that relation is or may be suspended or disturbed. That it is my purpose, upon the next meeting of Congress, to again recommend the adoption of a practical measure, tendering pecuniary aid to the free acceptance or rejection of all the slave States, so-called, the people whereof may not then be in rebellion against the United States, and which States may then have voluntarily adopted, or thereafter may voluntarily adopt, the immediate or gradual abolishment of slavery within their respective limits; and that the effort to colonize persons of African descent, with their consent, upon this continent or elsewhere, with the previously obtained consent of the governments existing there, will be continued. That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State, or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom. That the Executive will, on the first day of January aforesaid, by proclamation, designate the States, or parts of States if any, in which the people thereof, respectively, shall then be in rebellion against the United States; and the fact that any State, or the people thereof, shall, on that day, be in good faith represented in the Congress of the United States by members chosen thereto at elections, wherein a majority of the qualified voters of such State shall have participated, shall, in the absence of strong countervailing testimony, be deemed conclusive evidence that such State, and the people thereof, are not then in rebellion against the United States.' Then, after reciting the language of 'An act to make an additional article of war,' approved March 13, 1862, and also sections 9 and 10 of the Confiscation Act, approved July 17, 1862, and enjoining their enforcement upon all persons in the military and naval service, the proclamation concludes: 'And I do hereby enjoin upon and order all persons engaged in the military and naval service of the United States to observe, obey, and enforce, within their respective spheres of service, the acts and sections above recited. And the Executive will, in due time, recommend that all citizens of the United States, who shall have remained loyal thereto throughout the rebellion, shall, upon the restoration of the constitutional relations between the United States and the people, if that relation shall have been suspended or disturbed, be compensated for all losses by acts of the United States, including the loss of slaves.'"

      ALSO IN:
      J. G. Blaine,
      Twenty Years of Congress,
      volume 1, chapter 20.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862
(September-October: Mississippi).
Union successes under Grant.
Iuka and Corinth.

"In July, Pope was ordered to Virginia, and on the 17th of that month Halleck was assigned to the command of all the armies, superseding McClellan. He repaired at once to Washington, and Grant was directed to establish his headquarters at Corinth. Grant's jurisdiction was not, however, enlarged by the promotion of Halleck: on the contrary, the new general-in-chief first offered the command of the Army of the Tennessee to Colonel Robert Allen, a quarter-master, who declined it, whereupon it was allowed to remain under Grant. He was, however, left somewhat more independent than while Halleck had heen immediately present in the field. Four divisions of his army (including Thomas's command), were within the next two months ordered to Buell, who was stretching out slowly, like a huge, unwieldy snake, from Eastport to Decatur, and from Decatur towards Chattanooga. This subtraction put Grant entirely on the defensive. He had possession of Corinth, the strategic point, but was obliged to hold the railroads from that place and Bolivar, north to Columbus, which last, on account of the low water in the Tennessee, he had made his base of supplies. … He remained himself eight weeks at Corinth, narrowly watching the enemy, who, commanded by Van Dorn and Price, harassed and threatened him continually.

During this time, he directed the strengthening and remodelling of the fortifications of Corinth. … New works, closer to the town, were … erected. … Van Dorn at last determined to move part of his force (under Price), east of Grant, apparently with a view to crossing the Tennessee and reënforcing Bragg in the Kentucky campaign. Grant notified Halleck of the probability of such a movement, and of his intention to prevent it. … On the 13th [of September], Price advanced from the south and seized Iuka, 21 miles east of Corinth. … Grant had called in his forces some days before to the vicinity of Corinth, had repeatedly cautioned all his commanders to hold their troops in readiness, and when the enemy's cavalry moved towards Iuka, and cut the railroad and telegraph wires between that place and Burnsville, seven miles to the westward, Grant began his operations. Price was at Iuka, and Van Dorn four days off, to the southwest, threatening Corinth. Grant's object was to destroy Price, before the two could concentrate, and then to get back to Corinth and protect it against Van Dorn. He accordingly ordered Brigadier-General Rosecrans, whose troops were posted south of Corinth, to move by way of Renzi, along the south side of the Memphis and Charleston Railroad, and attack Iuka from that direction; while Major-General Ord, with a force brought hurriedly from Bolivar and Jackson, was to push towards Burnsville, and from there take roads on the north side of the railroad, attacking Iuka from that quarter. Ord had 8,000 men, and Rosecrans reported 9,000, a greater force combined than Price had, according to Grant's estimate." Rosecrans's movement was delayed, and he was attacked (September 19) in heavy force as he neared Iuka, Ord's advance having been held back waiting for him. He kept his ground, but lost in the action a battery of artillery, besides 736 men, killed and wounded. That night the enemy retreated from Iuka, over a road which Rosecrans was expected to occupy, but did not. "By the battle of Iuka, the enemy was simply checked in his plans, not seriously crippled in his force. Price moved around by a circuitous route and joined Van Dorn, and the same state of affairs continued which had annoyed Grant for so many weeks. He put Rosecrans in command at Corinth, and Ord at Bolivar, and on the 23d of September removed his own headquarters to Jackson, from which point he could communicate more readily with all points of his district, including Memphis and Cairo. The rebels were in force at La Grange and Ripley. … At last it was rendered certain … that Corinth was to be the place of attack. Grant thereupon directed Rosecrans to call in his forces, and sent Brigadier-General McPherson to his support from Jackson, with a brigade of troops." He also "hurried Ord and Hurlbut by way of Pocahontas from Bolivar, 44 miles away, to be ready to strike Van Dorn in flank or rear, as he advanced, and at least to create a diversion, if they could not get into the town. On the 2d of October the rebel array, under Van Dorn, Price, Lovell, Villepigue, and Rust, appeared in front of Corinth. … On the 3d the fighting began in earnest. Rosecrans had about 19,000 men, and the enemy had collected 38,000 for this important movement, which was to determine the possession of northern Mississippi and West Tennessee. Rosecrans pushed out about five miles, towards Chewalla, Grant having ordered him to attack, if opportunity offered; but the enemy began the fight, and, on the afternoon of the 3d, the battle turned in favor of Van Dorn. Rosecrans was driven back to his defences on the north side of Corinth, and it was now found how important was the labor bestowed on these fortifications, by Grant's order, a month previous. The enemy was checked until morning; but, early on the 4th, the whole rebel army, flushed with the success of the day before, assaulted the works. The fighting was fierce; the rebels charging almost into the town, when an unexpected fire from the forts drove them back in confusion. Again and again, they advanced to the works, but each time were received with a determination equal to their own. Once, the national troops came near giving way entirely, but Rosecrans rallied them in person, and the rebels were finally repulsed before noon, with a loss admitted by themselves to be double that of Rosecrans. The national loss was 315 killed, 1,812 wounded, and 232 prisoners and missing. Rosecrans reported the rebel dead at 1,423, and took 2,225 prisoners. … The repulse was complete, by 11 o'clock in the morning, but unfortunately was not followed up by Rosecrans, till the next day. The rebels, however, started off in haste and disorder immediately after the fight; and on the 5th, while in full retreat, were struck in flank, as Grant had planned, by Hurlbut and Ord, and the disaster was rendered final. This occurred early on the morning of the 5th, at the crossing of the Hatchie river, about ten miles from Corinth. … A battery of artillery and several hundred men were captured, and the advance was dispersed or drowned. … Had Rosecrans moved promptly the day before, he would have come up in the rear of Van Dorn, either as he was fighting Ord, or while attempting to pass this defile [six miles up the stream, where Van Dorn finally made his crossing]. In either event, the destruction of the rebels must have been complete. … These two fights relieved the command of West Tennessee from all immediate danger."

"Satisfied that the enemy was retreating [on the 4th], I ordered Sullivan's command to push him with a heavy skirmish line, and to keep constantly feeling them. I rode along the lines of the commands, told them that, having been moving and fighting for three days and two nights, I knew they required rest, but that they could not rest longer than was absolutely necessary. I directed them to proceed to their camps, provide five days' rations, take some needed rest, and be ready early next morning for the pursuit."

W. S. Rosecrans, The Battle of Corinth (Battles and Leaders, volume 2), page 753.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862
(September-December: Missouri-Arkansas).
Social demoralizations of the Civil War.
Battle of Prairie Grove.

"The dispersion and suppression of the guerrilla bands [in Missouri] did not serve wholly to terminate local disturbances and offenses. The restraints of a common public opinion no longer existed. Neighborhood good-will had become changed to neighborhood hatred and feud. Men took advantage of the license of war to settle personal grudges by all the violations of law, varying from petty theft to assassination; and parallel with this thirst for private revenge was the cupidity which turned crime into a source of private gain. … A rearrangement of military command appears in an order of the President under date of September 19, 1862, directing that Missouri, Arkansas, Kansas, and the bordering Indian Territory should constitute a new department to be called the Department of the Missouri, to be commanded by Major-General Samuel R. Curtis. … This new arrangement served to change the relative positions of Schofield and Curtis. The former, gathering what troops he could, took the field in a campaign towards Southwest Missouri to meet the expected invasion from Arkansas, while the latter, recalled from a short leave of absence, came to St. Louis (September 24, 1862) to take up his headquarters and assume the general administration of the new Department of the Missouri. … The difficulties in the military situation had grown primarily out of the error of Halleck … in postponing the opening of the Mississippi River. When, in the spring and summer of 1862, Halleck abandoned all thought of pursuing that prime and comprehensive object, and left Vicksburg to grow up into an almost impregnable Confederate citadel, he blighted the possibility of successful Union campaigns on both sides of the great river. … From the midsummer of 1862, therefore, until the fall of Vicksburg in midsummer of 1863, military campaigning in the trans-Mississippi country ceases to have any general significance. … The only action of importance which marks the military administration of Curtis was the battle of Prairie Grove in the northwest corner of Arkansas, where on the 7th of December the detachments respectively commanded by the Union generals James G. Blunt (who had been hovering all summer along the border of Kansas) and Francis J. Herron, who, finding Blunt pressed by the enemy coming northward with a view of entering Missouri, advanced by forced marches from near Springfield and formed a junction with Blunt just in the nick of time to defeat the Confederates under General Hindman. The losses on each side were about equal, and on the day following the engagement the Confederates retreated southward across the protecting barrier of the Boston Mountains. It was in a diminished degree a repetition of the battle of Pea Ridge, fought in the preceding March within 20 or 30 miles of the same place. … So effectually did this engagement serve to scatter the rebel forces that Schofield reported January 31, 1863, 'There is no considerable force of the enemy north of the Arkansas River; indeed I believe they have all gone or are going, as rapidly as possible, to Vicksburg. Ten thousand infantry and artillery can be spared from Southern Missouri and Northern Arkansas.'"

      O. J. Victor,
      History of the Southern Rebellion,
      division 10, chapter 4 (volume 3).

      W. Britton,
      Memoirs of the Rebellion on the Border,
      chapter 1.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (October-December: Virginia).
The final removal of McClellan.
Burnside at Fredericksburg.

   "Both armies … felt the need of some repose; and, glad to be
   freed from each other's presence, they rested on their
   arms—the Confederates in the Shenandoah Valley, in the
   vicinity of Winchester, and the army of the Potomac near the
   scene of its late exploits, amid the picturesque hills and
   vales of Southwestern Maryland. The movement from Washington
   into Maryland to meet Lee's invasion was defensive in its
   purpose, though it assumed the character of a
   defensive-offensive campaign. Now that this had been
   accomplished and Lee driven across the frontier, it remained
   to organize on an adequate scale the means of a renewal of
   grand offensive operations directed at the Confederate army
   and towards Richmond. The completion of this work, including
   the furnishing of transportation, clothing, supplies, etc.,
   required upwards of a month, and during this period no
   military movement occurred, with the exception of a raid into
   Pennsylvania by Stuart. About the middle of October, that
   enterprising officer, with twelve or fifteen hundred troopers,
   crossed the Potomac above Williamsport, passed through
   Maryland, penetrated Pennsylvania, occupied Chambersburg,
   where he burnt considerable government stores, and after
   making the entire circuit of the Union army, recrossed the
   Potomac below the mouth of the Monocacy. He was all the way
   closely pursued by Pleasonton with 800 cavalry. … On the
   recrossing of the Potomac by Lee after Antietam, McClellan
   hastened to seize the débouehé of the Shenandoah Valley, by
   the possession of Harper's Ferry. … At first McClellan
   contemplated pushing his advance against Lee directly down the
   Shenandoah Valley, as he found that, by the adoption of the
   line east of the Blue Ridge, his antagonist, finding the door
   open, would again cross to Maryland. But this danger being
   removed by the oncoming of the season of high-water in the
   Potomac, McClellan determined to operate by the east side of
   the Blue Ridge, and on the 26th his advance crossed the
   Potomac by a ponton-bridge at Berlin, five miles below
   Harper's Ferry. By the 2d November the entire army had crossed
   at that point. Advancing due southward towards Warrenton, he
   masked the movement by guarding the passes of the Blue Ridge,
   and by threatening to issue through these, he compelled Lee to
   retain Jackson in the Valley. With such success was this
   movement managed, that on reaching Warrenton on the 9th, while
   Lee had sent half of his army forward to Culpepper to oppose
   McClellan's advance in that direction, the other half was
   still west of the Blue Ridge, scattered up and down the
   Valley, and separated from the other moiety by at least two
   days' march. McClellan's next projected move was to strike
   across obliquely westward and interpose between the severed
   divisions of the Confederate force; but this step he was
   prevented from taking by his sudden removal from the command
   of the Army of the Potomac, while on the march to Warrenton.
   Late on the night of November 7th, amidst a heavy snow-storm,
   General Buckingham, arriving post-haste from Washington,
   reached the tent of General McClellan at Rectortown. He was
   the bearer of the following dispatch, which he handed to
   General McClellan: … 'By direction of the President of the
   United States, it is ordered that Major-General McClellan be
   relieved from the command of the Army of the Potomac, and that
   Major-General Burnside take the command of that army.' … It
   chanced that General Burnside was at the moment with him in
   his tent.
{3485}
   Opening the dispatch and reading it, without a change of
   countenance or of voice, McClellan passed over the paper to
   his successor, saying, as he did so: 'Well, Burnside, you are
   to command the army.' Thus ended the career of McClellan as
   head of the Army of the Potomac. … The moment chosen was an
   inopportune and an ungracious one; for never had McClellan
   acted with such vigor and rapidity-never had he shown so much
   confidence in himself or the army in him. And it is a notable
   fact that not only was the whole body of the army—rank and
   file as well his officers—enthusiastic in their affection for
   his person, but that the very general appointed as his
   successor was the strongest opponent of his removal."

"It is dangerous to shift commanders on the eve of battle, and our cavalry had already engaged the Confederates'; it is more dangerous to change the plans of troops moving in the vicinity of the enemy. But as if impelled to do some new thing … the new commander of the Army of the Potomac determined upon a flank movement by his left on the north of the river towards Fredericksburg. … Only by movements equally wary and rapid, as well as by sure means of crossing the river, could Burnside's manœuvre possibly succeed. In this last element he counted on Halleck, and, of course, failed. The promised pontoons did not, and could scarcely have been expected to come. Arrived at Fredericksburg Burnside still might have crossed by the fords, for the water was low. And once in possession of the heights beyond the city he could afford to wait. But, slower than even his predecessor, Burnside sat down at Falmouth, on the north side of the river, while Lee, having learned of his movement, by forced marches concentrated his army on the opposite bank, and prepared to erect impregnable defences in his front. … Before Burnside got ready to take any active steps, Marye's Heights, back of Fredericksburg, had been crowned by a triple line of works, and Lee had brought together nearly 90,000 troops to man them. Two canals and a stone wall in front of the left, as well as open, sloping ground on both flanks, served to retain an attacking party for a long period under fire. To assault these works in front was simple madness. To turn them below necessitated the crossing of a wide and now swollen river, in the face of a powerful enemy in his immediate front. … To turn them above was practicable, but it was a confessed return to McClellan's plan. Burnside chose the first. Preparations foe crossing were begun. The better part of three days [December 11-13] was consumed in throwing the bridges and putting over the two Grand Divisions of Franklin and Sumner, all of which was accomplished under fire. But Lee was by no means unwilling to meet the Army of the Potomac after this fashion. Such another happy prospect for him was not apt soon again to occur. He did not dispute the crossing in force. Burnside's one chance in a hundred lay in a concentrated assault sharply pushed home before the enemy could oppose an equal force. But in lieu of one well-sustained attack, or of two quite simultaneous, Burnside frittered away this single chance by putting in Franklin on the left and Sumner on the right, without concerted action." Both assaults were bloodily repulsed. "Hooker is ordered across. Under protest, and yet Hooker lacked not stomach for a fight, he obeys the useless order, and leads his men into the slaughter pen. … All is in vain. Even the Army of the Potomac cannot do the impossible. The defeated troops are huddled into Fredericksburg, and gradually withdrawn across the river. Burnside was insane enough to wish to repeat the assault next day. But the counsels of his officers prevailed on him to desist. No such useless slaughter, with the exception, perhaps, of Cold Harbor, occurred during our war, and 13,000 men paid the penalty. The enemy's loss was but one in three of ours."

      ALSO IN:
      A. Woodbury,
      Burnside and the Ninth Army Corps,
      part 2, chapters 4-8.

      J. Longstreet,
      D. N. Couch, and others,
      Burnside at Fredericksburg,
      (Battles and Leaders, volume 3).

      F. W. Palfrey,
      The Antietam and Fredericksburg
      (Campaigns of the Civil War, volume 5), pages 129-135.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (December: On the Mississippi).
   The second attempt against Vicksburg.
   General Sherman and Admiral Porter.
   Miscarriage of Grant's plans.

"Rear-Admiral Porter took command of the Mississippi squadron in October, 1862. … Up to this time the gun-boats had, strictly speaking, been under the control of the Army, but now all this was changed, and the Mississippi Squadron, like all the other naval forces, was brought directly under the supervision of the Secretary of the Navy. … The new arrangement left the commander of the squadron at liberty to undertake any expedition he thought proper, and he was not in the least hampered by any instructions from the Navy Department. … Before Admiral Porter left Washington he was informed by the President that General McClernand had been ordered to raise an Army at Springfield, Illinois, to prosecute the siege of Vicksburg. The President expressed the hope that the rear-admiral would co-operate heartily with General McClernand in the operations to be carried on. But as Vicksburg never would have been taken if it had depended on General McClernand's raising an Army sufficient for the purpose, the Admiral, immediately on his arrival at Cairo, sent a message to General Grant, at Holly Springs, Mississippi, informing him of McClernand's intention; that he, Porter, had assumed command of the Mississippi Squadron, and was ready to cooperate with the Army on every occasion where the services of the Navy could be useful. A few days afterwards General Grant arrived at Cairo and proposed an expedition against Vicksburg, and asking the rear-admiral, if he could furnish a sufficient force of gun-boats, to accompany it. Grant's plan was to embark Sherman from Memphis, where he then was, with 30,000 soldiers, to be joined at Helena, Arkansas, by 10,000 more. Grant himself would march from Holly Springs with some 60,000 men upon Granada. General Pemberton would naturally march from Vicksburg to stop Grant at Granada, until reinforcements could be thrown into Vicksburg from the south, and while Pemberton was thus absent with the greater part of his Army, Sherman and Porter could get possession of the defences of Vicksburg. {3486} General Grant having been informed that the gun-boats would be ready to move at short notice, and having sent orders to Sherman to put his troops aboard the transports as soon as the gun-boats arrived in Memphis, returned immediately to Holly Springs to carry out his part of the programme. … The expedition from Memphis got away early in December, 1862. Commander Walke, in the 'Carondelet,' being sent ahead with [three iron-clads and two so-called 'tin-clads'] … to clear the Yazoo River of torpedoes and cover the landing of Sherman's Army when it should arrive. This arduous and perilous service was well performed," but one of the iron-clads engaged in it, the Cairo, was sunk by a torpedo. "General Sherman moved his transports to a point on the river called Chickasaw Bayou without the loss of a man from torpedoes or sharpshooters, his landing [December 27] being covered in every direction by the gunboats. Sherman first made a feint on Haines' Bluff, as if to attack the works, and then landed at Chickasaw Bayou. Owing to the late heavy rains he found the roads to Vicksburg heights almost impassable, and when he attempted to advance with his Army he was headed off by innumerable bayous, which had to be bridged, or corduroy roads built around them. It was killing work. Even at this time Vicksburg had been fortified at every point, and its only approaches by land led through dense swamps or over boggy open ground, where heavy guns were placed, so as to mow down an advancing Army. A general has seldom had so difficult a task assigned him, and there was little chance of Sherman's succeeding unless Pemberton had drawn off nearly all his forces to oppose Grant's advance on Granada. … Sherman and his Army overcame everything and at last reached terra firma. In the meanwhile the Navy was doing what it could to help the Army. … Grant had left Holly Springs with a large Army at the time he had appointed, merely with the design of drawing Pemberton from Vicksburg and thus helping Sherman in his attack on that place. … Grant moved towards Granada, and everything looked well; but the Confederate General, Earl Van Dorn, dashed into Holly Springs, 28 miles in the rear of the Union Army, capturing the garrison and all their stores. At the same time General Forrest pushed his cavalry into West Tennessee, cutting the railroad to Columbus at several points between that place and Jackson. … Due precautions had been taken to prevent this mishap by leaving a strong force behind at Holly Springs, but the commanding officer was not on the alert and his capture was a complete surprise. In this raid of the Confederates a million dollars' worth of stores were destroyed. Under the circumstances it was impossible for Grant to continue his march on Granada, which Pemberton perceiving, the latter returned to Vicksburg in time to assist in Sherman's repulse. … Sherman made all his arrangements to attack the enemy's works on the 20th of December, 1862, and the assault took place early on that day. One division succeeded in occupying the batteries on the heights, and hoped shortly to reach those commanding the city of Vicksburg, but the division that was to follow the advance was behind time and the opportunity was lost. A portion of Pemberton's Army had returned from Granada just in time to overwhelm and drive back the small force that had gained the hills. … The enemy did not follow, being satisfied with driving our troops from the heights, and there was nothing left for Sherman to do but to get his Army safely back to the transports."

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862-1863
(December-January: Tennessee).
Bragg and Rosecrans.
The Battle of Stone River, or Murfreesborough.

"The Confederate government was greatly disappointed with the issue of Bragg's campaign. Scarcely had he reached Chattanooga when he was ordered to move northward again. Rosecrans, on assuming command of Buell's army, … concentrated his forces at Nashville, and there accumulated large supplies. … Bragg had already reached Murfreesborough on his second northward march from Chattanooga. Rosecrans had given out that it was his intention to take up his winter quarters at Nashville, and Bragg, supposing that this would be the case, sent out strong detachments of cavalry under Morgan and Forrest, the former being ordered to break Rosecrans's communications. As it was about the season of Christmas, Murfreesborough was the scene of much gayety … and the giddy Confederates danced on floors carpeted with the American flag. Suddenly, on the 26th of December, Rosecrans moved. His march commenced in a heavy min. The Confederate outposts retired before his advance, the pressure upon them being so vigorous that they had not time to destroy the bridges on the Jefferson and Murfreesborough turnpikes. On the 30th, Bragg, finding he was about to be assailed, had concentrated his army a couple of miles in front of Murfreesborough. The position of the national army, which was 43,000 strong on the evening of that day, was on the west side of Stone River, a sluggish stream fringed with cedar brakes, and here flowing in a north-northwesterly course. The line ranged nearly north and south, and was three or four miles in length. Crittenden was on its left, with three divisions. Wood, Vancleve, Palmer; Thomas in the centre, with two divisions, Negley and Rousseau, the latter in reserve; McCook on the right with three, Sheridan, Davis, Johnson. The left wing touched the river. … Bragg's army, 62,000, stood between Rosecrans and Murfreesborough. … Breckinridge's division formed his right, in his centre, under Polk, were two divisions, those of Withers and Cheatham; on his left, under Hardee, two divisions, Cleburne and McCown. The river separated Breckinridge from the rest of the Confederate army. Rosecrans had concentrated two thirds of his force on his left. His intention was that his right wing, standing on the defensive, should simply hold its ground; but his extreme left, the divisions of Wood and Vancleve, crossing Stone River, should assail Breckinridge's division, exposed there, and seize the heights. … On his part, also, Bragg had determined to take the offensive. … Both intended to strike with the left, and therefore both massed their force on that wing. … In the dawn of the last day of the year (1862), while Rosecrans's left was rapidly crossing Stone River to make its expected attack, Bragg, with his left, had already anticipated him. Coming out of a fog which had settled on the battle-field, he fell furiously upon Johnson's division, and so unexpectedly that two of its batteries were taken before a gun could be fired. {3487} The Confederate success was decisive. Johnson's division, which was on the extreme national right, was instantly swept away. Davis, who stood next, was assailed in front and on his uncovered flank. He made a stout resistance, but the shock was too great; he was compelled to give way, with the loss of many guns. And now the triumphant Confederate left, the centre also coming into play, rushed upon the next division—but that was commanded by Sheridan. Rosecrans's aggressive movement was already paralyzed; nay, more, it had to be abandoned. He had to withdraw his left for the purpose of saving his right and defending his communications. He must establish a new line. The possibility of doing this—the fate of the battle—rested on Sheridan." He held his ground for an hour, until "the cartridge-boxes of his men were empty. The time had come when even Sheridan must fall back. But, if he had not powder, he had steel. The fixed bayonets of his reserve brigade covered him, and he retired, unconquered and unshaken, out of the cedar thicket toward the Nashville road. In this memorable and most glorious resistance he had lost 1,630 men. 'Here's all that are left,' he said to Rosecrans, whom he had saved and now met. After Sheridan had been pushed back, there was nothing for Negley but to follow. … Meantime, on a knoll in the plain to which these divisions had receded, Rosecrans had massed his artillery. He was forming a new line, in which the army would face southwestwardly, with the Nashville turnpike on its rear." Against this new line the Confederates dashed themselves, desperately but vainly, four times that day, and were repelled with horrible slaughter. "Bragg, unwilling to be foiled, now brought Breckinridge, who had hitherto been untouched, across the river to make a final attempt on Rosecrans's left flank with 7,000 fresh men. His first attack was repulsed; he made a second; it shared the same fate. So stood affairs when night came, … the closing night of 1862. On New Year's Day nothing was done; the two armies, breathless with their death-struggle, stood looking at each other. On January 2d Rosecrans was found, not retreating, but busily engaged in trying to carry out his original plan. He had made his position impregnable; he had thrown a force across Stone River, and, as he at first intended, was getting ready to crown with artillery the heights beyond the east bank. Hereupon Bragg brought Breckinridge back to his old position, ordering him to drive the enemy across the river—a task which that officer bravely tried, but only imperfectly accomplished, for the artillery on the opposite bank tore his division to pieces. In twenty minutes he lost 2,000 men. A violent storm prevented the renewal of the battle on the 3d. On that night Bragg, despairing of success, withdrew from Murfreesborough, retreating to Tullahoma. … In these dreadful battles the Confederates lost 14,700 men. On the national side there were killed 1,553, wounded more than 7,000, prisoners more than 3,000; more than one third of its artillery and a large portion of its train were taken. The losses were about one fourth of each army. Henceforth the Confederates abandoned all thought of crossing the Ohio River."

"The enemy in retiring did not fall back very far—only behind Duck River to Shelbyville and Tullahoma—and but little endeavor was made to follow him. Indeed, we were not in condition to pursue, even if it had been the intention at the outset of the campaign. … The victory quieted the fears of the West and Northwest, destroyed the hopes of the secession element in Kentucky, renewed the drooping spirits of the East Tennesseans, and demoralized the disunionists in Middle Tennessee; yet it was a negative victory so far as concerned the result on the battle-field. Rosecrans seems to have planned the battle with the idea that the enemy would continue passive, remain entirely on the defensive, and that it was necessary only to push forward our left in order to force the evacuation of Murfreesboro'. … Had Bragg followed up with the spirit which characterized its beginning the successful attack by Hardee on our right wing—and there seems no reason why he should not have done so—the army of Rosecrans still might have got back to Nashville, but it would have been depleted and demoralized."

      T. B. Van Horne,
      History of the Army of the Cumberland,
      chapters 16-17 (volume 1).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (January).
The final Proclamation of Emancipation.

The immediate practical effect of the warning Proclamation of Emancipation issued by President Lincoln on the 22d of September, 1862, "did, perhaps, more nearly answer the apprehensions of the President than the expectations of those most clamorous for it. It did, as charged, very much 'unite the South and divide the North.' The cry of 'the perversion of the war for the Union into a war for the negro' became the Democratic watchword, and was sounded everywhere with only too disastrous effect, as was plainly revealed by the fall elections with their large Democratic gains and Republican losses. Indeed, it was the opinion of Mr. Greeley that, could there have been a vote taken at that time on the naked issue, a large majority would have pronounced against emancipation. But Mr. Lincoln did not falter. Notwithstanding these discouraging votes at the North, and the refusal of any Southern State to avail itself of the proffered immunity and aid of his Proclamation of September, he proceeded, at the close of the hundred days of grace allowed by it, to issue his second and absolute Proclamation, making all the slaves of the Rebel States and parts of States forever and irreversibly free." It was in the following words:

   "Whereas, on the twenty-second day of September, in the year
   of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-two, a
   proclamation was issued by the President of the United States,
   containing, among other things, the following, to wit: 'That
   on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one
   thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as
   slaves within any state, or designated part of a state, the
   people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United
   States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and
   the Executive Government of the United States, including the
   military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and
   maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or
   acts to repress such persons or any of them, in any efforts
   they may make for their actual freedom.
{3488}
   That the Executive will, on the first day of January
   aforesaid, by proclamation, designate the states and parts of
   states, if any, in which the people thereof respectively shall
   then be in rebellion against the United States; and the fact
   that any state, or the people thereof, shall on that day be in
   good faith represented in the Congress of the United States,
   by members chosen thereto at elections wherein a majority of
   the qualified voters of such state shall have participated,
   shall, in the absence of strong countervailing testimony, be
   deemed conclusive evidence that such state, and the people
   thereof, are not then in rebellion against the United States.'
   Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United
   States, by virtue of the power in me vested as
   Commander-in-Chief of the army and navy of the United States,
   in time of actual armed rebellion against the authority and
   government of the United States, and as a fit and necessary
   war measure for suppressing said rebellion, do, on this first
   day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight
   hundred and sixty-three, and in accordance with my purpose so
   to do, publicly proclaimed for the full period of one hundred
   days from the day first above mentioned, order and designate,
   as the states and parts of states wherein the people thereof
   respectively are this day in rebellion against the United
   States, the following, to wit: Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana
   (except the parishes of St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson,
   St. John, St. Charles, St. James, Ascension, Assumption, Terre
   Bonne, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including
   the city of New Orleans), Mississippi, Alabama, Florida,
   Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia (except
   the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also
   the counties of Berkeley, Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth
   City, York, Princess Ann, and Norfolk, including the cities of
   Norfolk and Portsmouth), and which excepted parts are for the
   present left precisely as if this proclamation were not
   issued. And, by virtue of the power and for the purpose
   aforesaid, I do order and declare that all persons held as
   slaves within said designated states and parts of states are
   and henceforward shall be free; and that the Executive
   Government of the United States, including the military and
   naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain the
   freedom of said persons. And I hereby enjoin upon the people
   so declared to be free, to abstain from all violence, unless
   in necessary self-defense; and I recommend to them that, in
   all cases when allowed, they labor faithfully for reasonable
   wages. And I further declare and make known that such persons
   of suitable condition will be received into the armed service
   of the United States, to garrison forts, positions, stations,
   and other places, and to man vessels of all sorts in said
   service. And upon this act, sincerely believed to be an act of
   justice, warranted by the Constitution, upon military
   necessity, I invoke the considerate judgment of mankind and
   the gracious favor of Almighty God.
      In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand, and caused
      the seal of the United States to be affixed.
      Done at the city of Washington, this first day of January,
      in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and
      sixty-three, and of the Independence of the United States
      of America the eighty-seventh.
      Abraham Lincoln.
      By the President: William H. Seward, Secretary of State."

"Though the immediate effects of the Proclamation might not have answered all that was expected of it, it was not many months before its happy influences became manifest. Its tendency from the first was to unify and consolidate the antislavery and Christian sentiment of the land, to give dignity and consistency to the conflict. … It strengthened, too, the cause immensely with other nations, secured the sympathy and moral support of Christendom, and diminished, if it did not entirely remove, the danger of foreign intervention."

      H. Wilson,
      History of the Rise and Fall of the Slave Power,
      volume 3, chapter 28.

"Fame is due Mr. Lincoln, not alone because he decreed emancipation, but because events so shaped themselves under his guidance as to render the conception practical and the decree successful. Among the agencies he employed none proved more admirable or more powerful than this two-edged sword of the final proclamation, blending sentiment with force, leaguing liberty with Union, filling the voting armies at home and the fighting armies in the field. In the light of history we can see that by this edict Mr. Lincoln gave slavery its vital thrust, its mortal wound. It was the word of decision, the judgment without appeal, the sentence of doom."

ALSO IN: O. J. Victor, History of the Southern Rebellion, division 10, chapter 9 (volume 3).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (January: Arkansas).
The capture of Arkansas Post, or Fort Hindman.

Sherman withdrew his troops from the attempt against Vicksburg on the 2d of January, and on the 4th he relinquished the command to General McClernand, who had come down the river with orders to assume it. On that same day "the expedition sailed on the same transports that had brought them from Vicksburg, convoyed by Admiral Porter's fleet of gunboats, to attack Fort Hindman, commonly known as Arkansas Post, an old French settlement situated on the left or north bank of the Arkansas River, 50 miles from its mouth and 117 below Little Rock. … The expedition moved up the White River through the cut-off which unites its waters with those of the Arkansas, up the latter stream to Notrib's farm, three miles below Fort Hindman. … By noon on the 10th the landing was completed, and the troops were on the march to invest the post. … The gunboats opened a terrific fire upon the enemy during the afternoon, to distract his attention. By nightfall the troops were in position." Next morning a combined attack began, which the garrison endured until 4 o'clock P. M. when the white flag was raised. "Our entire loss in killed was 129; in wounded, 831; and in missing, 17; total, 977. … By the surrender there fell into our hands 5,000 men. … After sending the prisoners to St. Louis, having destroyed the defences and all buildings used for military purposes, on the 15th of January the troops re-embarked on the transports and proceeded to Napoleon, Arkansas, whence on the 17th … they returned to Milliken's Bend."

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (January-April: Virginia).
   Command given to Hooker.
   President Lincoln's Letter to him.
   Demoralized state of the Army of the Potomac,
   and its improvement.

"General Burnside retired from a position he had never sought, to the satisfaction, and, be it said to his credit, with the warm personal regard of all. Sumner, whom the weight of years had robbed of strength, but not of gallantry, was relieved at his own request; Franklin was shelved. Hooker thus became senior general officer, and succeeded to the command. No man enjoyed a more enviable reputation in the Army of the Potomac. … His commands so far had been limited; and he had a frank, manly way of winning the hearts of his soldiers. He was in constant motion about the army while it lay in camp; his appearance always attracted attention; and he was as well known to almost every regiment as its own commander. He was a representative man. … Nothing shows more curiously a weak spot in Hooker's character than the odd pride he took in Mr. Lincoln's somewhat equivocal letter to him at the time of his appointment: … 'I have placed you [wrote the President] at the head of the Army of the Potomac. Of course, I have done this upon what appears to me to be sufficient reasons, and yet I think it best for you to know that there are some things in regard to which I am not quite satisfied with you. I believe you to be a brave and skilful soldier, which of course I like. I also believe you do not mix politics with your profession, in which you are right. You have confidence in yourself; which is a valuable, if not an indispensable quality. You are ambitious, which, within reasonable bounds, does good rather than harm; but I think that, during General Burnside's command of the army, you have taken counsel of your ambition and thwarted him as much as you could, in which you did a great wrong to the country and to a most meritorious and honorable brother-officer. I have heard, in such a way as to believe it, of your recently saying that both the army and the Government needed a dictator. Of course, it was not for this, but in spite of it, that I have given you the command. Only those generals who gain success can set up dictators. What I now ask of you is military success, and I will risk the dictatorship. The Government will support you to the utmost of its ability, which is neither more nor less than it has done or will do for all commanders. I much fear that the spirit you have aided to infuse into the army, of criticising their commander and withholding confidence from him, will now turn upon you. I shall assist you as far as I can to put it down. Neither you nor Napoleon, if he were alive again, could get any good out of an army while such a spirit prevails in it. And now, beware of rashness! Beware of rashness, but with energy and sleepless vigilance go forward, and give us victories!' … Hooker was appointed January 26, 1863; and Burnside, with a few earnest words, took leave of the army. The troops received their new chief with a heartiness and confidence which, since McClellan's re-instatement, had not been equalled. Hooker was to all the soul and embodiment of the growth and history of this weather-beaten Army of the Potomac. And the salutary changes he at once began to make,—for Hooker never lacked the power of organization—were accepted with alacrity; and a spirit of cheerful willingness succeeded speedily to what had been almost a defiant obedience. The army was in a lamentably low state of efficiency. Politics mingled with camp duties; and the disaffection of officers and men, coupled with an entire lack of confidence in the ability of the Army of the Potomac to accomplish anything, were pronounced. Desertions occurred at the rate of 200 a day. … Hooker states that he found 2,922 officers, and 81,964 enlisted men, entered as absent on the rolls of the army, a large proportion from causes unknown. Sharp and efficient measures were at once adopted, which speedily checked this alarming depletion of the ranks. … The testimony of all general officers of the Army of the Potomac concurs in awarding the highest praise to Hooker for the manner in which he improved the condition of the troops during the three months he was in command prior to Chancellorsville. … On the 30th of April the Army of the Potomac, exclusive of provost-guard, consisted of about 130,000 men under the colors,—'for duty equipped,' according to the morning report. … While the Army of the Potomac lay about Falmouth [opposite Fredericksburg], awaiting orders to move, Lee occupied the heights south of the Rappahannock, from Banks's Ford above to Port Royal (or Skenker's Neck), below Fredericksburg, a line some 15 miles in length as the crow flies. … Lee's forces numbered about 60,000 men, for duty."

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863
(January-April: On the Mississippi).
Grant's Campaign against Vicksburg.
Futile operations of the first four months.

"General Grant took personal command of the movement against Vicksburg on the 30th of January, 1863. … The first plan made was to dig a canal across the neck of land, or peninsula in front of Vicksburg,—below the city,—at a point where the isthmus was only a mile and a fifth in width. This had been begun before General Grant's arrival. If a canal could have been made large enough for large steamboats, then no matter how strong were the fortifications of Vicksburg, the boats would pass through, far away from their fire. So a canal ten feet wide and six deep was made here, in the hope that the freshets of the river would widen it, and so make it large enough for large steamers. But very little came of the canal. When the river did rise, it would not flow where it was meant to do. It flooded the camps of the workmen. Meanwhile the Rebels had made new batteries below it. Thus ended plan number one. Another similar plan, to open a route by Lake Providence and Bayou Baxter, Bayou Macon, and the Washita and Red River, did not succeed better. The canals attempted here were both on the west of the river. A very bold attempt was made on the east side, by what was known as the Yazoo Pass, into the Tallahatchee and Yazoo River. The expeditions sent out by this route would come out above Vicksburg; but it was hoped that thus the Rebel gunboats on the Yazoo River might be destroyed. If a practicable route were made here, the whole army could be moved to Haine's Bluff,—above Vicksburg,—an upland region very desirable for occupation. {3491} But nothing came of this movement, though some hard work and some hard fighting were done in it. What resulted of importance was, that the troops found their way into the granary from which Vicksburg had been fed; and in the resistance, many of the Rebels were destroyed. In such attempts February and March passed away. Meanwhile Admiral Farragut, of the navy, ran by the Rebel batteries at Port Hudson, so that he communicated with Grant below Vicksburg,—and Grant could communicate with General Banks, who was trying to do at Port Hudson what Grant was trying to do above. The distance from Vicksburg to Port Hudson is about 120 miles in a straight line, and more than twice that by the crooked river. Grant now determined to pass the city of Vicksburg on the west side of the river by marching his army by land—with the help of boats on some bayous if possible—from Milliken's Bend, which is twenty miles above Vicksburg, to New Carthage, which is about as far below. At his request Admiral Porter sent seven of his iron-clads, with three steamers and ten barges, down the river, past the Rebel batteries. They were well laden with forage and supplies. The crews of all but one refused to go. But volunteers from the army offered, enough to man a hundred vessels had they been needed. On a dark night of the 16th of April, led by Admiral Porter, they steamed down, with the barges in tow. They turned the bend without being noticed. Then the first batteries opened on them. The Rebels set fire to houses so as to light up the scene; and from the ships the crews could see the men at the batteries and in the streets of Vicksburg. Though every vessel was hit, all got by, except the Henry Clay steamer. Finding she was sinking, her commander cut off the barge he was towing, which drifted safely down, and, soon after, the vessel herself took fire. The crew escaped in their boats,—the vessel blazed up and lighted up all around. At last, however, after the boats had been under fire two hours and forty minutes, the whole fleet except the Henry Clay arrived safely below the batteries. Grant had thus secured, not only forage and stores, but the means of transportation. On the 26th of April five more vessels passed successfully, one being lost as before. Grant was now strong enough to cross the Mississippi River. His army had to march seventy miles on the west side by muddy roads, scarcely above the river line. He feared he might have to go as far down as a little town called Rodney for a good landing-place on the east side. But a friendly negro man, who knew the country, brought in information that there was a good road inland from Bruinsburg,—and so it proved. Grand Gulf, on the river, where the Rebels had a post, was still between Grant and Bruinsburg. Porter attacked it with his gunboats, and Grant was ready to land 10,000 troops to storm the place if the batteries were silenced. But Porter did not succeed. Grant therefore marched his troops down on the west side of the river. Porter ran by Grand Gulf with transports in the night, and, on the morning of the 30th of April, Grant crossed the river with 10,000 men. They did not carry a tent nor a wagon. General Grant and his staff went without their horses. It was said afterwards that his whole baggage was a toothbrush! Other divisions followed, and on the 3d of May he left the river, and marched, not directly on Vicksburg, but more inland, to cut off all communication with that city. His army took three days' rations with them, and relied principally for provisions on the stores in the rich country through which they marched."

      ALSO IN:
      F. V. Greene,
      The Mississippi
      (Campaigns of the Civil War, volume 8), chapter 4.

      G. W. Brown,
      The Mississippi Squadron and the Siege of Vicksburg
      (Personal Recollections of the War:
      New York Com. L. L. of the United States).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D.1863(February-April: Tennessee).
Engagements at Dover and Franklin.

"In February [on the 3d], General Wheeler, Bragg's chief of Cavalry, tried to capture Fort Donaldson, so as to stop the navigation of the Cumberland River, by which some of Rosecrans's supplies came in steamboats to Nashville. The fort had not been repaired after its capture by Grant, but the Village of Dover near it had been fortified, and it was then held by Colonel A. C. Harding with about 600 men. The Union men fought bravely, and in the evening the gunboat Fair Play came up and opened a fire on the Confederates which drove them away in confusion, with a loss of more than 500 men. Harding's loss was 126. Early in March, General Van Dorn appeared near Franklin [a little below Nashville] with a large force of mounted men. Colonel Colburn, of the 33d Indiana, moved Southward from Franklin with 2,700 men. Van Dorn and Forrest met him, and after a fight of several hours [March 5] Colburn had to surrender with 1,300 of his men."

J. D. Champlin, Jr., Young Folks' History of the War for the Union, chapter 31.

   "Sheridan, with his division, and about 1,800 cavalry, under
   Colonel Minty, first swept down toward Shelbyville, and then
   around toward Franklin, skirmishing in several places with
   detachments of Van Dorn's and Forrest's men. In a sharp fight
   at Thompson's Station, he captured some of the force which
   encountered Colburn. He finally drove Van Dorn beyond the Duck
   River, and then returned to Murfreesboro', with a loss during
   his ten days' ride and skirmishing of only five men killed and
   five wounded. His gain was nearly 100 prisoners. On the 18th
   of March, Colonel A. S. Hall, with a little over 1,400 men,
   moved eastward from Murfreesboro' to surprise a Confederate
   camp at Gainesville. He was unexpectedly met by some of
   Morgan's cavalry, when he fell back to Milton, twelve miles
   northeast of Murfreesboro' and took a strong position on
   Vaught's Hill. There he was attacked by 2,000 men, led by
   Morgan in person. With the aid of Harris's Battery skilfully
   worked, Hall repulsed the foe after a struggle of about three
   hours. Morgan lost between 300 and 400 men killed and wounded.
   Among the latter was himself. Hall's loss was 55 men, of whom
   only 6 were killed. Early in April, General Granger, then in
   command at Franklin, with nearly 5,000 troops, was satisfied
   that a heavy force under Van Dorn was about to attack him. He
   was then constructing a fort (which afterwards bore his name),
   but only two siege-guns and two rifled cannon, belonging to an
   Ohio battery, were mounted upon it.
{3492}
   The fort … completely commanded the approaches to Franklin. …
   On the 10th, Van Dorn, with an estimated force of 9,000
   mounted men and two regiments of foot, pressed rapidly forward
   along the Columbia and Lewisburg turnpikes, and fell upon
   Granger's front. The guns from the fort opened destructively
   upon the assailants, and their attack was manfully met by
   Granger's troops. Van Dorn soon found himself in a perilous
   situation, for Stanley [commanding cavalry] came up and struck
   him a heavy blow on the flank. Smith [with cavalry] was
   ordered forward to support Stanley, and Baird's troops
   were_thrown across the river to engage in the fight. The
   Confederates were routed at all points on Granger's front,
   with a heavy Joss in killed and wounded, and about 500
   prisoners. Van Dorn then turned his whole force upon Stanley
   before Smith reached him, and with his overwhelming numbers
   pushed him back and recovered most of the captured men. By
   this means Van Dorn extricated himself from his perilous
   position, and, abandoning his attempt to capture Franklin, he
   retired to Spring Hill, with a loss of about three hundred men
   in killed, wounded and prisoners. The Union loss was about 37
   killed, wounded and missing."

ALSO IN: T. B. Van Horne, History of the Army of the Cumberland, chapter 18, (volume 1).

"The Rebel Congress having long since passed [April 16, 1862] a conscription act whereby all the "White males in the Confederacy between the ages of 18 and 35 were placed at the disposal of their Executive, while all those already in the service, though they had enlisted and been accepted for specific terms of one or two years, were held to serve through the war, our Congress was constrained to follow afar off in the footsteps of the enemy; since our ranks, [after] our heavy losses in the bloody struggles of 1862, were filled by volunteers too slowly for the exigencies of the service. The act providing 'for the enrollment of the National forces' was among the last passed [March 3, 1863] by the XXXVIIth Congress prior to its dissolution. It provided for the enrollment, by Federal provost-marshals and enrolling officers, of all able-bodied male citizens (not Whites only), including aliens who had declared their intention to become naturalized, between the ages of 18 and 45—those between 20 and 35 to constitute the first class; all others the second class—from which the President was authorized, from and after July 1, to make drafts at his discretion of persons to serve in the National armies for not more than three years; anyone drafted and not reporting for service to be considered and treated as a deserter. A commutation of $300 was to be received in lieu of such service: and there were exemptions provided of certain heads of Executive Departments; Federal judges; Governors of States; the only son of a widow, or of an aged and infirm father, dependent on that son's labor for support; the father of dependent motherless children under 12 years of age, or the only adult brother of such children, being orphans; or the residue of a family which has already two members in the service, &c., &c. The passage and execution of this act inevitably intensified and made active the spirit of opposition to the War. Those who detested every form of 'coercion' save the coercion of the Republic by the Rebels, with those who especially detested the National effort under its present aspects as 'a war not for the Union, but for the Negro,' were aroused by it to a more determined and active opposition. The bill passed the House by Yeas 115, Nays 49—the division being so nearly as might be, a party one—while in the Senate a motion by Mr. Bayard that it be indefinitely postponed was supported by 11 Yeas (all Democrats) to 35 Nays: consisting of every Republican present, with Messrs. McDougall, of California, Harding and Nesmith of Oregon. The bill then passed without a call of the Yeas and Nays."

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (April: South Carolina).
The naval attack on Charleston.
Repulse of the Monitors.

"The engagements in which turret iron-clads had been concerned had given to the government and the public a high opinion of their offensive and defensive qualities. It seemed as if nothing could withstand the blow of their heavy shot, and no projectile penetrate their invulnerable turrets. It was supposed that a fleet of such ships could without difficulty force a passage through Charleston Harbor, in spite of its numerous defenses, and, appearing before the city, compel its surrender. … On the 7th of April [1863] Admiral Dupont made the experiment. He had seven Ericsson Monitors, the frigate Ironsides, partially iron-clad, and a frailer iron-clad, the Keokuk, constructed on a plan differing from that of the Monitors. His intention was to disregard the batteries on Morris's Island, attack the northwest face of Sumter, and force his way up to the city. His fleet had 32 guns; the opposing forts, in the aggregate, 300. At noon on that day the signal was given to weigh anchor. The Weehawken, a Monitor, took the lead. She had a raft-like contrivance attached to her bows, for the purpose of removing obstructions and exploding torpedoes. This occasioned some delay at the outset, through its interference with her movements. On her way up she exploded a torpedo, which, though it lifted her a little, did no damage. At 2.10 P, M. she encountered obstructions extending across the harbor from Fort Moultrie to Fort Sumter; beyond these, piles were seen extending from James's Island to the Middle Ground. At 2.50 P. M. the guns of Fort Moultrie opened upon her, followed shortly after by all the batteries on Sullivan's Island, Morris's Island, and Fort Sumter. Not being able to pass the obstructions, the Weehawken, and subsequently other Monitors, the Passaic, Nahant, etc., were obliged to turn, which threw the line into confusion, as the other vessels, advancing, approached. This was particularly the case with the flag-ship Ironsides, which became entangled with the Monitors, and could not bring her batteries to bear upon Fort Sumter without risk of firing into them; she was obliged, on her way up, to anchor twice to avoid going ashore, on one of these occasions in consequence of having come into collision with two of the Monitors. The plan of the Confederates was, by means of obstructions, to detain the ships, while a concentrated fire was poured upon them in this the 'first circle,' as it was termed. {3493} Two other still more powerful circles of fire must be passed before the city could be reached. While in the centre of the first circle, it was apparent that the Monitors were at a fearful disadvantage. The forts and earth-works were armed with heavy guns of the best construction. No ship was exposed to the severest fire of the enemy for more than forty minutes, yet in that brief period time of the ironclads were wholly or partially disabled. In these forty minutes the battle was substantially over, the question settled. The Keokuk was struck 99 times, of which 19 were under her water-line. She was in a sinking condition. She had been able to return only three shots. The Passaic was struck 27 times; her turret was jammed, and could not for some time be turned. The Nahant was most seriously damaged; her turret was jammed, her captain wounded, her quarter-master killed by a bolt which flew off and struck him on the head. Many of the bolts of both turret and pilot-house were thus broken; the latter became nearly untenable in consequence of the nuts and ends flying across it. All the other Monitors had received damages more or less severe. The mailed frigate Ironsides had lost one port shutter, her bow was penetrated by a red-hot shot. The damage inflicted on Fort Sumter was comparatively insignificant. It was Dupont's belief that, had the iron-clads been in action half an hour longer, they would all have been disabled. 'To my regret,' he says, 'I soon became convinced of the utter impracticability of taking the city of Charleston by the force under my command.' … The iron-clad fleet had therefore been unable to pass the first line of obstructions, or to get out of 'the first circle of fire.' The slowness of its fire was no match for the rapidity and weight of that of the forts. The iron-clads were able to fire only 139 times from the 14 guns they could bring into action; the forts, from 76 guns, fired 2,209 times. The projectiles they used were wrought-iron bolts, some of them tipped with steel, solid shot, shells, of which 40 were filled with melted cast-iron, others with incendiary composition. The total amount of cannon-powder used by the forts was 21,093 pounds. The government, thus satisfied that its iron-clad fleet was insufficient for the forcing of Charleston Harbor and the capture of the city, now changed its purposes, restricting its attempts to a more complete blockade, the detention of a large confederate force in the vicinity by continually threatening military operations, and the destruction of Fort Sumter for the sake of a moral effect."

C. B. Boynton, History of the Navy during the Rebellion, volume 2, chapter 33.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (April-May: Virginia).
   Hooker's disastrous movement.
   Chancellorsville.
   Stonewall Jackson's last flank movement.

"Being now [April 28] fully prepared for active operations, Hooker determined to take the initiative by moving on the left of his opponent's position. By careful study of Lee's position he correctly concluded that his left was his most vulnerable point. In order to mask his real design he sent forward a force of 10,000 cavalry under General Stoneman to operate upon Lee's lines of communication with Richmond, and sent Sedgwick with a force of 30,000 men still further to mask his movement. Stoneman crossed the Rappahannock at Kelly's Ford on the 29th, and Sedgwick appeared on the 28th on the heights below Fredericksburg. These preparatory measures having been taken, Hooker proceeded to the execution of his plan. Swinton, after a picturesque description of the passage of the Rappahannock and the Rapidan, tells us 'that on the afternoon of the 30th of April four corps of the Federal army had gained the position of Chancellorsville, where Hooker at the same time established his headquarters.' Chancellorsville is situated ten miles southwest of Fredericksburg. It is not, as its name implies, a town or village, but simply a farm-house with its usual appendages, situated at the edge of a small field surrounded by a dense thicket of second growth, which sprang up after the primeval forest had been cut to furnish fuel to a neighboring furnace. This thicket extends for miles in every direction, and its wild aspect very properly suggests its name, The Wilderness. The intersection of several important roads gives it the semblance of strategic importance, while in reality a more unfavorable place for military operations could not well be found. Hooker, however, seemed well pleased with his acquisition, for on reaching Chancellorsville on Thursday night he issued an order to the troops in which he announced that 'the enemy must either ingloriously fly or come out from behind his defences and give us battle on our own ground, where certain destruction awaits him.' … General Lee was fully aware of the preparations that were being made by his adversary, but calmly awaited the complete development of his plans before exerting his strength to oppose him. … On the 28th … Lee ordered Jackson to concentrate his whole corps in the immediate vicinity of Fredericksburg. Early on the morning of the 29th Sedgwick crossed the Rappahannock below the mouth of Deep Run, but made no other aggressive movement on that day or the day following. On the night of the 30th, Lee was informed of Hooker's arrival at Chancellorsville. He had been previously informed of Stoneman's movements against his line of operations by General Stuart, and was now satisfied that the main attack of the enemy would come from the direction of Chancellorsville. Therefore on the morning of the 1st of May he made the necessary preparations to meet it. Accompanied by his staff, he took a position on a height where one of his batteries overlooked the Rappahannock. He there observed carefully the position of Sedgwick, while waiting for information from the direction of Chancellorsville. … Very soon the sound of cannon indicated that the work had begun. At the same time couriers arrived from Stuart and Anderson informing the general that the enemy were advancing on the old turnpike, the plank road, and on the river roads, and asking for reinforcements. McLaws was immediately ordered to the support of Anderson, and shortly after Jackson was ordered to follow with three of his divisions, leaving … a force of about 9,000 men and 45 pieces of artillery in observation of Sedgwick. When Jackson joined McLaws and Anderson a lively skirmish was in progress, in which he immediately participated. {3494} When General Lee arrived he found the Federals were being driven back to Chancellorsville. At the close of the afternoon they had retired within their lines. General Lee occupied the ridge about three-quarters of a mile south-east and south of Chancellorsville. The opposing armies were hidden from each other by the intervening thicket of brushwood. … It was obvious that the Federal position was too formidable to be attacked in front with any hope of success; therefore Lee proceeded to devise a plan by which the position of Hooker might be turned and a point of attack gained from which no danger was apprehended by the Federal commander. … The execution of a movement so much in accordance with his genius and inclination was assigned to General Jackson. … At dawn on the morning of the 2d, Jackson's corps, 22,000 strong, was in motion, and while it was making one of the most famous flank movements on record, General Lee, with the divisions of Anderson and McLaws, with 20 pieces of artillery, a force not exceeding 12,000 men, occupied the position he had assumed the previous evening, and General Hooker, with 90,000 men, lay behind his breastworks awaiting the Confederate attack. … After making a circuitous march of 15 miles, Jackson reached a point on the Orange Courthouse road three miles in the rear of Chancellorsville. Had Hooker possessed a handful of cavalry equal in spirit to the 'Virginia horsemen' under W. H. F. Lee that neutralized Stoneman's ten thousand, he might have escaped the peril that now awaited him. On the arrival of Jackson on the plank road, Fitz Lee, who had covered his movement with his brigade of cavalry, conducted him to a position from which he obtained a view of the enemy, which disclosed the following scene: 'Below and but a few hundred yards distant ran the Federal line of battle. There was the line of defence, with abatis in front, and long lines of stacked arms in rear. … The soldiers were in groups in the rear, laughing, chatting, and smoking, probably engaged here and there in games of cards and other amusements indulged in while feeling safe and comfortable, awaiting orders. In the rear of them were other parties driving up and butchering beeves.' Returning from this point of observation, Jackson proceeded to make his dispositions of attack, which by six o'clock were completed. … Howard's corps was first assailed. This corps, being surprised, was panic-stricken and fled precipitately, and in its flight communicated the panic to the troops through which it passed. Jackson's forces followed, routing line after line, until arrested by the close of day. The rout of the Federal army was fast becoming general, and it was only saved from entire defeat by the interposition of night. When compelled to halt Jackson remarked that with one more hour of daylight he could have completed the destruction of the Federal army. This, the most famous of all Jackson's brilliant achievements, closed his military career. After his troops had halted, and while the lines were being adjusted, he rode forward with several of his staff to reconnoitre the Federal position." The party were mistaken by some of their own men for Federal horsemen and received a volley which struck down Stonewall Jackson. He was wounded in both arms by three bullets, and died from the effects eight days afterward. "Early on the morning of the 3d the attack was resumed by the Confederates with great vigor. Hooker, taking advantage of the night, had restored order in his army and strengthened his position; his troops regained courage and contested the field with great stubbornness until ten o'clock when they yielded at every point and rapidly retreated … within the strong line of defences which had been previously constructed to cover the road to the United States Ford. … While the operations above described were in progress at Chancellorsville, General Early, by skilful manœuvring, had detained Sedgwick at Fredericksburg until the 3d, when that general, by a determined advance, forced back Early, carried Marye's Heights, and proceeded toward Chancellorsville. The condition of affairs was communicated to General Lee during the fore·noon. Wilcox's brigade, then at Banks's Ford, was ordered to intercept Sedgwick and retard his advance, while McLaws's division was ordered to support him. Wilcox on reaching Salem Church, six miles from Chancellorsville, encountered the Federal advance, and after a sharp conflict he repulsed it with loss. The success of Wilcox delayed Sedgwick until Anderson and McLaws could come up. The premeditated attack on Hooker being thus interrupted, Lee, on the forenoon of the 4th, repaired to the neighborhood of Fredericksburg. A combined attack was then directed to be made by Early on the rear, while McLaws and Anderson bore down upon the front. The battle was hotly contested during the afternoon, in which the forces of Sedgwick were defeated, and were only saved from destruction by a night-passage across the Rappahannock at Banks's Ford. On the 5th Lee collected his forces at Chancellorsville to give the 'coup de grace' to Hooker, but that general, under cover of a dark and stormy night, effected his retreat beyond the Rappahannock at the United States Ford."

   The Federal loss at Chancellorsville, in killed and wounded,
   was 12,197; missing 5,000; total, 17,197. Confederate loss,
   killed and wounded, 10,266; missing 2,753; total, 13,019.

      A. Doubleday,
      Chancellorsville and Gettysburg
      (Campaigns of the Civil War, volume 6), chapter 8.

      D. N. Couch, O. O. Howard, and others,
      Chancellorsville
      (Battles and Leaders, volume 3).

      J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay,
      Abraham Lincoln,
      volume 7, chapter 4.

Reporting to headquarters at Washington, on the 5th of May, 1863, General Hurlbut, commanding at Memphis, Tennessee, said: "As the spring opened, I was daily more and more impressed with the feasibility of a plan, long entertained, of pushing a flying column of cavalry through the length of Mississippi, cutting the Southern Railroad. By consent and approval of General Grant, I prepared a system of movements along my entire line from Memphis to Corinth for the purpose of covering this cavalry dash. At the same time General Rosecrans proposed to me to cover a movement of 1,800 cavalry from Tuscumbia down into Alabama and Georgia. {3495} This did not interfere with my plan, but simply required extra force to be developed from Corinth. Delays incident to combined movements, especially from separate commands, kept his expeditionary column back for six days. I commenced the movement from Corinth on the 15th [April]. … On the 17th, Colonel B. H. Grierson, Sixth Illinois Cavalry, with his own regiment, the Seventh Illinois, and Second Iowa, moved from La Grange, by way of Pontotoc, with orders, after passing Pontotoc, to proceed straight down, throwing one regiment to the left toward Okolona, and to push for and destroy the Chunkey River Bridge and any others they could reach, and either return, or proceed to Baton Rouge, as might be found advisable. On the same day, April 17, a column of infantry 1,500 strong, and one battery, moved by railroad from La Grange to Coldwater, with orders to push rapidly between Coldwater and the Tallahatchee, and take Chalmers in flank and rear while attacked in front by three regiments, a battery, and 200 cavalry from Memphis, which left here on the 18th. I considered that the effect of these movements would be to puzzle the enemy and withdraw his force from the central line, which has proven to be correct. … Grierson, on the 19th, detached the Second Iowa below Pontotoc, which fought its way gallantly back to La Grange and came home well mounted. The main cavalry column (Sixth and Seventh Illinois) proceeded, without loss or engagement, to Newton, on the Southern Mississippi Railroad, and there destroyed bridges." Colonel Grierson, in his own full report of the remarkable expedition thus set on foot, after narrating the proceedings of his command until it struck Newton Station, on the 24th of April, continues: "From captured mails and information obtained by my scouts, I knew that large forces had been sent out to intercept our return, and having instructions from Major-General Hurlbut and Brigadier-General Smith to move in any direction from this point which, in my judgment, would be best for the safety of my command and the success of the expedition, I at once decided to move south, in order to secure the necessary rest and food for men and horses, and then return to La Grange through Alabama, or make for Baton Rouge, as I might hereafter deem best. … After resting about three hours, we moved south to Garlandville. At this point we found the citizens, many of them venerable with age, armed with shot-guns and organized to resist our approach. As the advance entered the town, these citizens fired upon them and wounded one of our men. We charged upon them and captured several. After disarming them, we showed them the folly of their actions, and released them. Without an exception they acknowledged their mistake, and declared that they had been grossly deceived as to our real character. One volunteered his services as guide, and upon leaving us declared that hereafter his prayers should be for the Union Army. I mention this as a sample of the feeling which exists, and the good effect which our presence produced among the people in the country through which we passed. Hundreds who are skulking and hiding out to avoid conscription, only await the presence of our arms to sustain them, when they will rise up and declare their principles; and thousands who have been deceived, upon the vindication of our cause would immediately return to loyalty." It was not until the 2d of May that Grierson and his small force reached the Union lines at Baton Rouge. The total accomplishments of the expedition—aside from the important revelation it made of the condition of things in that region of the Confederacy—are summed up in the Colonel's report as follows: "During the expedition we killed and wounded about 100 of the enemy, captured and paroled over 500 prisoners, many of them officers, destroyed between 50 and 60 miles of railroad and telegraph, captured and destroyed over 3,000 stand of arms, and other army stores and Government property to an immense amount; we also captured 1,000 horses and mules. Our loss during the entire journey was 3 killed, 7 wounded, 5 left on the route sick; the sergeant-major and surgeon of the Seventh Illinois left with Lieutenant-Colonel Blackburn, and 9 men missing, supposed to have straggled. We marched over 600 miles in less than sixteen days. The last twenty-eight hours we marched 76 miles, had four engagements with the enemy, and forded the Comite River, which was deep enough to swim many of the horses. During this time the men and horses were without food or rest. Much of the country through which we passed was almost entirely destitute of forage and provisions, and it was but seldom that we obtained over one meal per day. Many of the inhabitants must undoubtedly suffer for want of the necessaries of life, which have reached most fabulous prices."

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863
(April-July: On the Mississippi).
   Grant's Campaign against Vicksburg.
   The final operations.
   His personal account of the siege and capture.

"April 30th was spent in transporting troops across the river [to Bruinsburg]. The troops were moved out towards Port Gibson as fast as they were landed. On the 1st of May the advance met the enemy under Bowen about four miles west of Port Gibson, where quite a severe battle was fought, resulting in the defeat of the enemy, who were driven from the field. On May 2d our troops moved into Port Gibson, and, finding that the bridges over Bayou Pierre were destroyed, spent the balance of the day in rebuilding and crossing them, and marching to the North Fork, where we encamped for the night. During the night we rebuilt the bridge across the North Fork, which had also been destroyed, and the next day (the 3d) pushed on, and, after considerable skirmishing, reached the Big Black, near Hankinson's Ferry, and the Mississippi at Grand Gulf. … Here I [General Grant] … received a letter from Banks stating that he could not be at Port Hudson [which Grant had intended to join Banks in attacking, before he turned against Vicksburg] for some days, and then, with an army of only 15,000 men. As I did not regard this force of as much value as the time which would be lost in waiting for it, I determined to move on to Vicksburg. The 4th, 5th, and 6th of May were spent in reconnoitering towards Vicksburg, and also in crossing Sherman's troops over to Grand Gulf. On the 7th, Sherman having joined the main body of the army, the troops across the Big Black were withdrawn, and the movement was commenced to get in position on the Vicksburg and Jackson railroad so as to attack Vicksburg from the rear. This occupied the army from the 7th to the 12th, when our position was near Fourteen Mile creek, Raymond being our right flank, our left resting on the Big Black. {3496} To obtain this position we fought the battle of Raymond, where Logan's and Crocker's divisions of McPherson's corps defeated the Confederates under General Gregg, driving him back on Jackson; Sherman and McClernand both having some skirmishing where they crossed Fourteen Mile creek. As the army under Pemberton was on my left flank, and that under General Joseph E. Johnston on my right at Jackson, I determined to move the army rapidly on Jackson, capturing and destroying that place as a military depot; then turn west and destroy the army under Pemberton, or drive it back into Vicksburg. The 13th was spent in making the first of these moves. On the 14th Jackson was attacked with Sherman's and McPherson's corps. The place was taken, and all supplies that could be of service to the enemy were destroyed, as well as the railroad bridge. On the 15th the troops were faced to the west and marched towards Pemberton, who was near Edwards's Station. The next day, the 16th, we met the enemy at Champion's Hill, and, after a hard-fought battle, defeated and drove him back towards Vicksburg, capturing 18 guns and nearly 3,000 men. This was the hardest-fought battle of the campaign. On the 17th we reached the Big Black, where we found the enemy intrenched. After a battle of two or three hours' duration we succeeded in carrying their works by storm, capturing much artillery and about 1,200 men. … We crossed on the morning of the 18th, and the outworks of Vicksburg were reached before night, the army taking position in their front. On the 19th there was continuous skirmishing with the enemy while we were getting into better positions. … At two o'clock I ordered an assault. It resulted in securing more advanced positions for all our troops, where they were fully covered from the fire of the enemy, and the siege of Vicksburg began. … Most of the army had now been for three weeks with only five days' rations issued by the commissary. They had had an abundance of food, however, but had begun to feel the want of bread. … By the night of the 21st full rations were issued to all the troops. … I now determined on a second assault. … The attack was ordered to commence on all parts of the line at ten o'clock A. M. on the 22d with a furious cannonade from every battery in position. All the corps commanders set their time by mine, so that all might open the engagement at the same minute. The attack was gallant, and portions of each of the three corps succeeded in getting up to the very parapets of the enemy … but at no place were we able to enter. … As soon as it was dark our troops that had reached the enemy's line and had been obliged to remain there for security all day were withdrawn, and thus ended the last assault on Vicksburg. A regular siege was now determined upon. … The Union force that had crossed the Mississippi river up to this time was less than 43,000 men. … The enemy had at Vicksburg, Grand Gulf, Jackson, and on the roads between these places, quite 60,000 men. … My line was more than 15 miles long, extending from Haines's Bluff to Vicksburg, thence to Warrenton. The line of the enemy was about seven. In addition to this, having an enemy at Canton and Jackson in our rear, who was being constantly reënforced, we required a second line of defense, facing the other way. I had not troops enough under my command to man this. General Halleck appreciated the situation and, without being asked for reinforcements, forwarded them with all possible dispatch. … Johnston … abstained from making an assault on us, because it would simply have inflicted loss on both sides without accomplishing any result. We were strong enough to have taken the offensive against him; but I did not feel disposed to take any risk of loosing our hold upon Pemberton's army, while I would have rejoiced at the opportunity of defending ourselves against an attack by Johnston." The siege was of six weeks' duration, ending on the memorable 4th of July with the surrender of Pemberton and 31,000 men, who were released on parole. "Our men were no sooner inside the lines than the two armies began to fraternize, We had had full rations from the time the siege commenced to the close. The enemy had been suffering, particularly towards the last. I myself saw our men taking bread from their haversacks and giving it to those whom they had so recently been engaged in starving out."

      F. V. Greene,
      The Mississippi
      (Campaigns of the Civil War, volume 8), chapters 5-6.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (May-June).
The arrest of Vallandigham.
President Lincoln to the Copperheads.

   "The man whose name became unfortunately pre-eminent for
   disloyalty at this time was Clement L. Vallandigham, a
   Democrat, of Ohio. General Burnside was placed in command of
   the Department of the Ohio, March 25, 1863, and having for the
   moment no Confederates to deal with, he turned his attention
   to the Copperheads, whom he regarded with even greater
   animosity. His Order No. 38, issued on April 13, … warned
   persons with treasonable tongues that, unless they should keep
   that little member in order, they might expect either to
   suffer death as traitors, or to be sent southward within the
   lines of 'their friends.' Now Mr. Vallandigham had been a
   member of Congress since 1856; … he was the popular and rising
   leader of the Copperhead wing of the Democracy. Such was his
   position that it would have been ignominious for him to allow
   any Union general to put a military gag in his mouth. Nor did
   he. On the contrary he made speeches which at that time might
   well have made Unionists mad with rage, and which still seem
   to have gone far beyond the limit of disloyalty which any
   government could safely tolerate. Therefore on May 4 he was
   arrested by a company of soldiers, brought to Cincinnati, and
   thrown into jail. His friends gathered in anger, and a riot
   was narrowly avoided. At once, by order of General Burnside,
   he was tried by a military commission. He was charged with
   'publicly expressing sympathy for those in arms against the
   government of the United States, and declaring disloyal
   sentiments and opinions, with the object and purpose of
   weakening the power of the Government in its efforts to
   suppress an unlawful rebellion.' …
{3497}
   The evidence conclusively sustained the indictment, and the
   officers promptly pronounced him guilty, whereupon he was
   sentenced by Burnside to confinement in Fort Warren. … The
   Democrats throughout the North, rapidly surveying the
   situation, seized the opportunity which perhaps had been too
   inconsiderately given them. The country rang with plausible
   outcries and high sounding oratory concerning military
   usurpation, violation of the Constitution, and stifling
   freedom of speech. … Mr. Lincoln only showed that he felt the
   pressure of the criticism and denunciation by commuting the
   sentence, and directing that Vallandigham should be released
   from confinement and sent within the Confederate lines,—which
   was, indeed, a very shrewd and clever move, and much better
   than the imprisonment. Accordingly the quasi rebel was
   tendered to and accepted by a Confederate picket, on May 25.
   He protested vehemently, declared his loyalty, and insisted
   that his character was that of a prisoner of war. But the
   Confederates, who had no objection whatsoever to his peculiar
   methods of demonstrating 'loyalty' to their opponents,
   insisted upon treating him as a friend, the victim of an enemy
   common to themselves and him; and instead of exchanging him as
   a prisoner, they facilitated his passage through the blockade
   on his way to Canada. There he arrived in safety, and thence
   issued sundry manifestoes to the Democracy. On June 11 the
   Democratic Convention of Ohio nominated him as their candidate
   for governor, and it seems that for a while they really
   expected to elect him. … On May 16 a monster meeting of 'the
   Democrats of New York' was told by Governor Seymour that the
   question was: 'whether this war is waged to put down rebellion
   at the South, or to destroy free institutions at the North.'
   Excited by such instigation, the audience passed sundry
   damnatory resolutions and sent them to the President. Upon
   receiving these Mr. Lincoln felt that he must come down into
   the arena, without regard to official conventionality. On June
   12 he replied by a full presentation of the case, from his
   point of view. He had once more to do the same thing in
   response to another address of like character which was sent
   to him on June 11 by the Democratic State Convention of Ohio."

To the New York Democrats, Mr. Lincoln said: "It is asserted in substance, that Mr. Vallandigham was, by a military commander, seized and tried 'for no other reason than words addressed to a public meeting in criticism of the course of the administration, and in condemnation of the military orders of the general.' Now, if there be no mistake about this, if this assertion is the truth and the whole truth, if there was no other reason for the arrest, then I concede that the arrest was wrong. But the arrest, as I understand, was made for a very different reason. Mr. Vallandigham avows his hostility to the war on the part of the Union; and his arrest was made because he was laboring, with some effect, to prevent the raising of troops, to encourage desertions from the army, and to leave the rebellion without an adequate military force to suppress it. He was not arrested because he was damaging the political prospects of the administration or the personal interests of the commanding general, but because he was damaging the army, upon the existence of which the life of the nation depends. He was warring upon the military, and this gave the military constitutional jurisdiction to lay hands upon him. If Mr. Vallandigham was not damaging the military power of the country, then his arrest was made on mistake of fact, which I would be glad to correct on reasonably satisfactory evidence. I understand the meeting whose resolutions I am considering to be in favor of suppressing the rebellion by military force—by armies. Long experience has shown that armies cannot be maintained unless desertion shall be punished by the severe penalty of death. The case requires, and the law and the Constitution sanction, this punishment. Must I shoot a simple-minded soldier boy who deserts, while I must not touch a hair of a wily agitator who induces him to desert? This is none the less injurious when effected by getting a father, or brother, or friend into a public meeting, and there working upon his feelings till he is persuaded to write the soldier boy that he is fighting in a bad cause, for a wicked administration of a contemptible government, too weak to arrest and punish him if he shall desert. I think that, in such a case, to silence the agitator and save the boy is not only constitutional, but withal a great mercy. If I be wrong on this question of constitutional power, my error lies in believing that certain proceedings are constitutional when, in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety requires them, which would not be constitutional when, in absence of rebellion or invasion, the public safety does not require them: in other words, that the Constitution is not in its application in all respects the same in cases of rebellion or invasion involving the public safety, as it is in times of profound peace and public security. The Constitution itself makes the distinction, and I can no more be persuaded that the government can constitutionally take no strong measures in time of rebellion, because it can be shown that the same could not be lawfully taken in time of peace, than I can be persuaded that a particular drug is not good medicine for a sick man because it can be shown to not be good food for a well one. Nor am I able to appreciate the danger apprehended by the meeting, that the American people will by means of military arrests during the rebellion lose the right of public discussion, the liberty of speech and the press, the law of evidence, trial by jury, and habeas corpus throughout the indefinite peaceful future which I trust lies before them, any more than I am able to believe that a man could contract so strong an appetite for emetics during temporary illness as to persist in feeding upon them during the remainder of his healthful life. In giving the resolutions that earnest consideration which you request of me, I cannot overlook the fact that the meeting speak as 'Democrats.' Nor can I, with full respect for their known intelligence, and the fairly presumed deliberation with which they prepared their resolutions, be permitted to suppose that this occurred by accident, or in any way other than that they preferred to designate themselves 'Democrats' rather than 'American citizens.' {3498} In this time of national peril I would have preferred to meet you upon a level one step higher than any party platform, because I am sure that from such more elevated position we could do better battle for the country we all love than we possibly can from those lower ones where, from the force of habit, the prejudices of the past, and selfish hopes of the future, we are sure to expend much of our ingenuity and strength in finding fault with and aiming blows at each other. But since you have denied me this, I will yet be thankful for the country's sake that not all Democrats have done so. He on whose discretionary judgment Mr. Vallandigham was arrested and tried is a Democrat, having no old party affinity with me, and the judge who rejected the constitutional view expressed in these resolutions, by refusing to discharge Mr. Vallandigham on habeas corpus is a Democrat of better days than these, having received his judicial mantle at the hands of President Jackson. And still more, of all those Democrats who are nobly exposing their lives and shedding their blood on the battle-field, I have learned that many approve the course taken with Mr. Vallandigham, while I have not heard of a single one condemning it. I cannot assert that there are none such."

To the Ohio Democrats, the President wrote as follows; "You claim, as I understand, that according to my own position in the Albany response, Mr. Vallandigham should be released; and this because, as you claim, he has not damaged the military service by discouraging enlistments, encouraging desertions or otherwise; and that if he had he should have been turned over to the civil authorities under the recent acts of Congress. I certainly do not know that Mr. Vallandigham has specifically and by direct language advised against enlistments and in favor of desertion and resistance to drafting. We all know that combinations, armed in some instances, to resist the arrest of deserters began several months ago; that more recently the like has appeared in resistance to the enrolment preparatory to a draft; and that quite a number of assassinations have occurred from the same animus. These had to be met by military force, and this again has led to bloodshed and death. And now, under a sense of responsibility more weighty and enduring than any which is merely official, I solemnly declare my belief that this hindrance of the military, including maiming and murder, is due to the course in which Mr. Vallandigham has been engaged in a greater degree than to any other cause; and it is due to him personally in a greater degree than to any other one man. These things have been notorious, known to all, and of course known to Mr. Vallandigham. Perhaps I would not be wrong to say they originated with his special friends and adherents. With perfect knowledge of them, he has frequently if not constantly made speeches in Congress and before popular assemblies; and if it can be shown that, with these things staring him in the face, he has ever uttered a word of rebuke or counsel against them, it will be a fact greatly in his favor with me, and one of which is yet I am totally ignorant. When it is known that the whole burden of his speeches has been to stir up men against the prosecution of the war, and that in the midst of resistance to it he has not been known in any instance to counsel against such resistance, it is next to impossible to repel the inference that he has counseled directly in favor of it. With all this before their eyes, the convention you represent have nominated Mr. Vallandigham for governor of Ohio, and both they and you have declared the purpose to sustain the National Union by all constitutional means. But of course they and you in common reserve to yourselves to decide what are constitutional means; and, unlike the Albany meeting, you omit to state or intimate that in your opinion an army is a constitutional means of saving the Union against a rebellion, or even to intimate that you are conscious of an existing rebellion being in progress with the avowed object of destroying that very Union. At the same time your nominee for governor, in whose behalf you appeal, is known to you and to the world to declare against the use of an army to suppress the rebellion. Your own attitude, therefore, encourages desertion, resistance to the draft, and the like, because it teaches those who incline to desert and to escape the draft to believe it is your purpose to protect them, and to hope that you will become strong enough to do so. After a short personal intercourse with you, gentlemen of the committee, I cannot say I think you desire this effect to follow your attitude; but I assure you that both friends and enemies of the Union look upon it in this light. It is a substantial hope, and by consequence a real strength to the enemy. If it is a false hope and one which you would willingly dispel, I will make the way exceedingly easy. I send you duplicates of this letter in order that you, or a majority of you, may, if you choose, indorse your names upon one of them and return it thus indorsed to me with the understanding that those signing are thereby committed to the following propositions and to nothing else;

1. That there is now a rebellion in the United States, the object and tendency of which is to destroy the National Union; and that, in your opinion, an army and navy are constitutional means for suppressing that rebellion;

2. That no one of you will do anything which, in his own judgment, will tend to hinder the increase, or favor the decrease, or lessen the efficiency of the army or navy while engaged in the effort to suppress that rebellion; and

3. That each of you will, in his sphere, do all he can to have the officers, soldiers, and seamen of the army and navy, while engaged in the effort to suppress the rebellion, paid, fed, clad, and otherwise well provided for and supported.

And with the further understanding that upon receiving the letter and names thus indorsed, I will cause them to be published, which publication shall be, within itself, a revocation of the order in relation to Mr. Vallandigham. It will not escape observation that I consent to the release of Mr. Vallandigham upon terms not embracing any pledge from him or from others as to what he will or will not do. I do this because he is not present to speak for himself, or to authorize others to speak for him; and because I should expect that on his returning he would not put himself practically in antagonism with the position of his friends. But I do it chiefly because I thereby prevail on other influential gentlemen of Ohio to so define their position as to be of immense value to the army—thus more than compensating for the consequences of any mistake in allowing Mr. Vallandigham to return; so that, on the whole, the public safety will not have suffered by it. Still, in regard to Mr. Vallandigham and all others, I must hereafter, as heretofore, do so much as the public safety may seem to require. I have the honor to be respectfully yours."

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (May-July: On the Mississippi).
Siege and Capture of Port Hudson.
The clear opening of the great River.

"About the middle of May all the available force near the river was concentrated at Baton Rouge, to assist in the attack on Port Hudson. Thence Generals Augur and Sherman moved to the south and east of that position, to cooperate with General Banks. From Simmesport General Banks moved his army to invest Port Hudson. … It was on the 21st of May that General Banks landed, and on the next day a junction was effected with the advance of Major-General Augur and Brigadier-General Sherman. … On the 25th, the enemy was compelled to abandon his first line of works. On the next day General Weitzel's brigade, which had covered the rear in the march from Alexandria, arrived, and on the morning of the 27th a general assault was made on the fortifications. Port Hudson, or Hickey's Landing, as it was called some years ago, is situated on a bend in the Mississippi river, about 22 miles above Baton Rouge, and 147 above New Orleans." It was strongly fortified and well defended by Colonel Frank Gardner. The artillery of General Banks opened fire on the 27th, and at ten o'clock the same day an assault was made, in which the colored soldiers showed much firmness and bravery. The assault failed and the losses in it were heavy. "A bombardment of the position had been made by the fleet under Admiral Farragut, for a week previous to this assault. Reconnoissances had discovered that the defences were very strong, consisting of several lines of intrenchments and rifle pits, with abatis of heavy trees felled in every direction. The upper batteries on the river were attacked by the Hartford and Albatross, which had run the blockade, and the lower by the Monongahela, Richmond, Genesee, and Essex. On the 14th of June, after a bombardment of several days, another assault on Port Hudson was made. … All the assaulting columns were compelled to fall back under the deadly fire of the enemy, and the fighting finally ceased about 11 o'clock in the morning. The loss of General Banks was nearly 700 in killed and wounded. … After these two attempts to reduce Port Hudson by a land assault, on the 27th of May and 14th of June, the purpose to make another was given up by General Banks, until he had fully invested the place by a series of irresistible approaches. He was thus engaged in pushing forward his works when Vicksburg was surrendered. Information of this surrender was sent to General Banks, and it was made the occasion for firing salutes and a general excitement in his camp, which attracted the attention of the enemy, to whom the surrender was communicated. General Gardner, upon receiving the information, sent by flag of truce, about midnight of the 7th, the following note to General Banks: … 'Having received information from your troops that Vicksburg has been surrendered, I make this communication to request you to give me the official assurance whether this is true or not, and if true, I ask for a cessation of hostilities, with a view to the consideration of terms for surrendering this position.'"

      ALSO IN:
      F. V. Greene,
      The Mississippi
      (Campaigns of the Civil War, volume 8), chapter 7.

   A call for 100,000 men to serve six months, for the repulse of
   the invasion of Pennsylvania, Maryland, West Virginia, and
   Ohio, was issued June 15.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (June: Virginia).
   Lee's second movement of invasion and the inducements to it.
   Northern invitation and Southern clamor.
   The Southern view.

"The defeat of General Hooker at Chancellorsville was the turning-point of the war, and for the first time there was apparently a possibility of inducing the Federal Government to relinquish its opposition to the establishment of a separate authority in the South. The idea of the formation of a Southern Confederacy, distinct from the old Union, had, up to this time, been repudiated by the authorities at Washington as a thing utterly out of the question; but the defeat of the Federal arms in the two great battles of the Rappahannock had caused the most determined opponents of separation to doubt whether the South could be coerced to return to the Union; and, what was equally or more important, the proclamations of President Lincoln, declaring the slaves of the South free, and placing the United States virtually under martial law, aroused a violent clamor from the great Democratic party of the North, who loudly asserted that all constitutional liberty was disappearing. This combination of non-success in military affairs and usurpation by the Government emboldened the advocates of peace to speak out plainly, and utter their protest against the continuance of the struggle, which they declared had only resulted in the prostration of all the liberties of the country. Journals and periodicals, violently denunciatory of the course pursued by the Government, all at once made their appearance in New York and elsewhere. A peace convention was called to meet in Philadelphia. … On all sides the advocates of peace on the basis of separation were heard raising their importunate voices. … The plan of moving the Southern army northward, with the view of invading the Federal territory, seems to have been the result of many circumstances. The country [Southern] was elated with the two great victories of Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville, and the people were clamorous for active operations against an enemy who seemed powerless to stand the pressure of Southern steel. The army, which had been largely augmented by the return of absentees to its ranks, new levies, and the recall of Longstreet's two divisions from Suffolk, shared the general enthusiasm; and thus a very heavy pressure was brought to bear upon the authorities and on General Lee, in favor of a forward movement, which, it was supposed, would terminate in a signal victory and a treaty of peace. Lee yielded to this view of things rather than urged it. … Another important consideration was the question of supplies. … More than ever before, these supplies were now needed; and when General Lee sent, in May or June, a requisition for rations to Richmond, the commissary-general is said to have endorsed upon the paper, 'If General Lee wishes rations, let him seek them in Pennsylvania.' {3500} The considerations here stated were the main inducements for that great movement northward which followed the battle of Chancellorsville. … Throughout the month of May, Lee was busily engaged in organizing and equipping his forces for the decisive advance. Experience had now dictated many alterations and improvements in the army. It was divided into three 'corps d'armée,' each consisting of three divisions, and commanded by an officer with the rank of lieutenant-general. Longstreet remained at the head of his former corps. Ewell succeeded Jackson in command of 'Jackson's old corps', and A. P. Hill was assigned to a third corps made up of portions of the two others. … On the last day of May, General Lee had the satisfaction of finding himself in command of a well-equipped and admirably-officered army of 68,352 bayonets, and nearly 10,000 cavalry and artillery—in all, about 80,000 men. … Lee began his movement northward on the 3d day of June, just one month after the battle of Chancellorsville. … Pursuing his design of manœuvring the Federal army out of Virginia, without coming to action, Lee first sent forward one division of Longstreet's corps in the direction of Culpepper, another then followed, and, on the 4th and 5th of June, Ewell's entire corps was sent in the same direction—A. P. Hill remaining behind on the south bank of the Rappahannock, near Fredericksburg, to watch the enemy there, and bar the road to Richmond. These movements became speedily known to General Hooker, whose army lay north of the river near that point, and on the 5th he laid a pontoon just below Fredericksburg, and crossed about a corps to the south bank, opposite Hill. This threatening demonstration, however, was not suffered by Lee to arrest his own movements. … He continued the withdrawal of his troops, by way of Culpepper, in the direction of the Shenandoah Valley." On the morning of the 9th of June, "two divisions of Federal cavalry, supported by two brigades of 'picked infantry,' were sent across the river at Kelly's and Beverley's Fords, east of the court-house, to beat up the quarters of Stuart and find what was going on in the Southern camps. The most extensive cavalry fight [known as the battle of Brandy Station, or the battle of Fleetwood], probably, of the whole war, followed. … This reconnoisance in force … had no other result than the discovery of the fact that Lee had infantry in Culpepper. … This attempt of the enemy to penetrate his designs had not induced General Lee to interrupt the movement of his infantry toward the Shenandoah Valley. The Federal corps sent across the Rappahannock at Fredericksburg, still remained facing General Hill, and, two days after the Fleetwood fight, General Hooker moved up the river with his main body, advancing the Third Corps to a point near Beverley's Ford. But these movements were disregarded by Lee. On the same day Ewell's corps moved rapidly toward Chester Gap, passed through that defile in the mountain, pushed on by way of Front Royal, and reached Winchester on the evening of the 13th, having in three days marched 70 miles. The position of the Southern army now exposed it to very serious danger, and at first sight seemed to indicate a deficiency of soldiership in the general commanding it. In face of an enemy whose force was at least equal to his own, Lee had extended his line until it stretched over a distance of about 100 miles. … When intelligence now reached Washington that the head of Lee's column was approaching the Upper Potomac, while the rear was south of the Rappahannock, the President wrote to General Hooker: 'If the head of Lee's army is at Martinsburg, and the tail of it on the plank road, between Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville, the animal must be very slim somewhere—could you not break him?' … It would seem that nothing could have been plainer than the good policy of an attack upon Hill at Fredericksburg, which would certainly have checked Lee's movement by recalling Longstreet from Culpepper, and Ewell from the Valley. But … instead of reënforcing the corps sent across at Fredericksburg and attacking Hill, General Hooker withdrew the corps, on the 13th, to the north bank of the river, got his forces together, and began to fall back toward Manassas."

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (June-July: Pennsylvania).
Lee's Invasion.
The Battle of Gettysburg.

"Hooker started toward Washington. Ewell gained possession of Winchester and Martinsburg, but not of Harper's Ferry. There is a rocky and thickly wooded range of heights called the Bull Run Mountains, running from Leesburg south. As Hooker had not occupied them but was farther to the East, Lee desired to do so, for it would give him a strong position on Hooker's flank and bring him (Lee) very near to Washington. He therefore directed his cavalry to reconnoiter in that direction. Stuart's reconnoitering party met the Union cavalry at Aldie, and after a hard battle retreated. A series of cavalry combats ensued, ending in the retreat of Stuart's cavalry behind the Blue Ridge. Hooker was strongly posted east of the Bull Run range and could not be attacked with much chance of success. As Lee could not well remain inactive or retreat, he resolved to invade Pennsylvania. This was a hazardous enterprise, for Hooker might intervene between him and Richmond. Stuart's cavalry was left to prevent this catastrophe by guarding the passes in the Blue Ridge. Stuart was also directed to harass Hooker and attack his rear should he attempt to cross the Potomac in pursuit of Lee. Lee reached Chambersburg with Longstreet's and Hill's corps. Ewell's corps was in advance at Carlisle [June 27] and York," and advance bodies of cavalry were threatening Harrisburg. The militia of Pennsylvania, New York and Maryland were called out in force, but arms and ammunition for them were inadequate. "On June 28th, Hooker determined to send Slocum's corps and the garrison of Harper's Ferry—the latter about 10,000 strong—to operate against Lee's rear. This was an excellent plan, but Hooker's superior, General Halleck, refused to allow him to remove the troops from Harper's Ferry; and Hooker said if he could not manage the campaign in his own way, he preferred to give up the command of the army." {3502} He was accordingly relieved and the command was given to Major-General George G. Meade, of the Fifth Corps. Meantime (June 25-27) the Union army had crossed the Potomac and advanced to Frederick, Maryland. "On June 28th, Lee learned from a scout that the Union army was in his rear and that his communication with Richmond was seriously endangered. … In this emergency he concluded to threaten Baltimore. As a preliminary measure, he directed his entire army to move on Gettysburg. This he hoped would induce Meade to concentrate in his front and leave his rear free; which was precisely what Meade did do. … Under the impression that Lee's army was spread out along the Susquehanna from Carlisle to York, Meade threw out his own forces fan-shaped to march in that direction. … The Union corps were marching on and getting farther apart, while the enemy were concentrating. The advance of Hill's corps, on the morning of July 1st, struck Buford's division of Union cavalry a short distance to the west of Gettysburg, and in spite of a stout resistance forced it slowly back towards the town. The First Corps at this time was five miles south of Gettysburg. General Reynolds went to the support of Buford with the nearest division of the First Corps—Wadsworth's—and directed that the others follow. While forming his line of battle he was killed. General Howard succeeded to the command of the field, but did not issue any orders to the First Corps until the afternoon. In the meantime General Doubleday continued the contest, captured a great part of the forces that had assailed him, and cleared his immediate front of all enemies. Before the Eleventh Corps came up the enemy could have walked right over the small force opposed to them, but owing to the absence of Stuart's cavalry [which, not crossing the Potomac to follow Lee until the 27th, had undertaken a long raid around the Union forces, and did not succeed in joining the main body of the Confederates until July 2d] they had not been kept informed as to the movements Meade was making, and fearing that the whole Union army was concentrated in their front they were overcautious. There was now a lull in the battle for about an hour. The remainder of the First Corps came up and was followed soon after by the Eleventh Corps under General Schurz. About the same time the Confederate corps of General Ewell arrived and made a junction with that of Hill. General Howard assumed command of the Union forces. Repeated attacks were now made against the First Corps by Ewell from the north and Hill from the west; but the Confederate charges were successfully repulsed. … Ewell's attack also struck the Eleventh Corps on the right and front with great force. … General Meade, when he heard of Reynold's death, was 14 miles from Gettysburg at Taneytown, preparing to form line of battle along Pipe Creek. He at once sent General Hancock forward with orders to assume command of the field. Hancock, perceiving that Cemetery Ridge [about half a mile south of Gettysburg] was an admirable position for a defensive battle, determined to hold it if possible. This was not an easy thing to do, for the enemy were in overwhelming force, and the feeble remnants of the First and Eleventh Corps were not in a condition to make a prolonged resistance. … Hancock directed Doubleday to send a force to Culp's Hill on the right, while he instructed Buford to parade up and down on the extreme left with his cavalry. The enemy were thus led to suppose that the Union line was a long one and had been heavily reënforced. As the losses on both sides had been tremendous, probably not exceeded for the same number of troops during the war, the enemy hesitated to advance, particularly as some movements of Kilpatrick's cavalry seemed to threaten their rear. They therefore deferred action until Meade concentrated the next day. On General Hancock's recommendation General Meade ordered his entire army to Gettysburg. By dusk part of the Third Corps had arrived, and soon after the Twelfth Corps and the Second Corps were close at hand. … Most of the troops, though worn out with hard marching, arrived by midday of July 2d. The Sixth Corps had 34 miles to march and came later in the afternoon. … The attack as ordered by General Lee was to begin with Longstreet on the right and be made 'en échelon.' That is, as soon as Longstreet was fairly engaged, Hill's corps was to take up the fight and go in, and as soon as Hill was fairly engaged, Ewell's corps on the right was to attack. The object was to keep the whole Union line in a turmoil at once, and prevent reënforcements going from any corps not engaged to another that was fighting; but Hill did not act until Longstreet's fight was over, and Ewell did not act until Hill had been repulsed. … The enemy … failed in every attack against Meade's main line, with the exception of that portion south of Culp's Hill. Elated by the fact that he had made a lodgement there, Ewell determined to hold on at all hazards and sent heavy reënforcements during the night to aid Johnson to make an attack in the morning. … So ended the battle of the second day. At day dawn [July 3] General Warren, acting for General Meade, established a cordon of troops and batteries which drove Johnson out of his position on the right. … Lee having failed in his attacks both on Meade's left and right had to decide at once whether he would give up the contest and retreat, or make another attempt to force the Union line. As he had been reënforced by Stuart's cavalry, and as a fresh division under Pickett was available, he determined to try to pierce the left center of the Union army and disperse the force opposed to him. To this end he directed Longstreet to form a strong column of attack to be composed of Pickett's division and Pettigrew's division and two brigades of Pender's division, under Trimble, of Hill's corps. To create confusion and prevent General Meade from sending reënforcements to the menaced point, Stuart was ordered to ride around the right of the Union army and make an attack in rear. And still more to facilitate the attack 135 guns were to concentrate their fire against the Union center and disperse the forces assembled there. About 1 P. M. the terrific cannonade began and lasted for two hours, by which time the Confederate ammunition was nearly exhausted. … Stuart's cavalry attack proved abortive, for it was met and frustrated by two brigades of Gregg's cavalry aided by Custer's brigade, after a severe battle, which was hotly contested on both sides. Stuart's further progress was checked and he was forced to retreat. … Pickett formed his great column of attack and came forward as soon as the fire from the Union batteries slackened." {3503} Fresh guns had, however, been brought into position and swept the ground over which Pickett moved. His charge, one of the most desperately determined of the whole war, was heroically met by Gibbon's division of the Second Corps and by part of the First Corps, under the personal direction of General Hancock, who was severely wounded in the terrible conflict. Pickett was forced to retreat with the survivors of his onslaught, and "the whole plain was soon covered with fugitives; but, as no pursuit was ordered, General Lee in person succeeded in rallying them and in re-forming the line of battle. The next day, July 4th, General Lee drew back his flanks and at evening began his retreat by two routes—the main body on the direct road to Williamsport through the mountains, the other via Chambersburg, the latter including the immense train of the wounded. Gregg's division (except Huey's brigade) was sent in pursuit by way of Chambersburg, but the enemy had too much the start to render the chase effective. Kilpatrick, however, got in front of the main body on the direct route and, after a midnight battle at Monterey, fought during a terrific thunder storm, succeeded in making sad havoc of Ewell's trains. … Lee concentrated his army in the vicinity of Williamsport, but as French had destroyed his pontoon bridge, and as the Potomac had risen, he was unable to cross. He therefore fortified his position. Meade did not follow Lee directly, but went around by way of Frederick. After considerable delay the Union army again confronted that of Lee and were about—under orders from President Lincoln-to make an attack, when Lee slipped away on the night of July 14th to the Virginia side of the Potomac. This ended the campaign of Gettysburg. The Union loss was 3,072 killed, 14,497 wounded, 5,434 missing=Total, 23,003. The Confederate loss was 2,592 killed, 12,709 wounded, 5,150 missing=Total, 20,451."

      ALSO IN:
      A. Doubleday,
      Chancellorsville and Gettysburg
      (Campaigns of the Civil War, volume 6, part 2).

      J. Longstreet, H. J. Hunt and others,
      Gettysburg
      (Battles and Leaders, volume 3).

      Comte de Paris,
      History of the American Civil War,
      volume 3, book 3, chapter 4.

      D. X. Junkin and F. H. Norton,
      Life of General Hancock,
      chapters 11-13.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (June-July: Tennessee).
The Tullahoma campaign.

"During the first six months of the year 1863 the Army of the Cumberland remained at Murfreesboro' and was comparatively inactive. The troops were employed in the construction of elaborate fortifications and in divers minor operations with defensive or tentative objects. … Late in June the Army of the Cumberland advanced against its old enemy, the Confederate Army of the Tennessee, then holding the line of Duck River. In this movement the Fourteenth Corps [General Thomas] was in the centre, its appropriate place, and drove the enemy from Hoover's Gap and from several positions in front of that gap. General McCook [Twentieth Corps] on the right had a severe combat at Liberty Gap, but finally pressed the enemy from the hills. General Crittenden [Twenty-first Corps] on the left did not meet much opposition. When Bragg's army had been driven from its defensive line on Duck River, General Rosecrans moved his army towards Manchester, and regarding this movement as indicating either an attack upon his position at Tullahoma, or the interruption of his communications, Bragg fell back from that place. He did not consider himself strong enough to meet Rosecrans in battle, and he consequently retreated first to the Cumberland Mountains, and, soon after, across the Tennessee River to Chattanooga. The Tullahoma campaign was begun on the 23d of June and terminated on the 4th of July. The enemy fought at the gaps of the mountains, but the defense on the whole was feeble. The result was the possession by the Army of the Cumberland of the region from Murfreesboro' to Bridgeport, Alabama. At the close of the campaign the army advanced to the northern base of the Cumberland Mountains, and there halted to make preparations for a campaign south of the Tennessee River."

ALSO IN: T. B. Van Horne, History of the Army of the Cumberland, chapter 19 (volume 1).

      H. M. Cist,
      The Army of the Cumberland
      (Campaigns of the Civil War, volume 7).

      D. S. Stanley,
      The Tullahoma Campaign
      (Sketches of War History,
      Ohio Commandery L. L. of the United States, volume 3).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (July: On the Mississippi).
The Defence of Helena.

"One of the most brilliant of the minor victories of the war was gained at Helena, Arkansas, on the west bank of the Mississippi, on the 4th of July, General Holmes [Confederate] had asked and received permission to take that place, in the middle of June, and had mustered for that purpose an army of nearly 10,000 men. The garrison of Helena consisted of a division of the Thirteenth Corps and a brigade of cavalry numbering in all 4000 men, commanded by Major-General B. M. Prentiss. Holmes felt so sure of victory that he doubtless selected the 4th of July for his attack in a mere spirit of bravado. He assaulted at daylight with converging columns, two of which made considerable impression upon the outworks, but never reached the town. The defense of the Union troops was singularly skilful and energetic, and, after a few hours of fighting, Holmes, finding himself utterly defeated, retired at half-past ten. The little army of Prentiss was, of course, too small to pursue. The last Confederate attempt to hold the Mississippi River thus ended in a complete and most humiliating repulse."

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (July: Mississippi).
The capture and destruction of Jackson.

   When Vicksburg surrendered, Johnston was hovering in the rear
   of Grant's army, and Sherman was watching his movements. On
   the very day the surrender was completed the latter marched
   rapidly upon Jackson, with 50,000 men, Johnston retreating
   before him. The city was invested on the 10th, and defended by
   the Confederates until the night of the 16th when they
   evacuated with haste. General Sherman, writing to Admiral
   Porter on the 19th of July, said: "We … have 500 prisoners,
   are still pursuing and breaking railroads, so that the good
   folks of Jackson will not soon again hear the favorite
   locomotive whistle.
{3504}
   The enemy burned nearly all the handsome dwellings round about
   the town because they gave us shelter or to light up the
   ground to prevent night attacks. He also set fire to a chief
   block of stores in which were commissary supplies, and our
   men, in spite of guards, have widened the circle of fire, so
   that Jackson, once the pride and boast of Mississippi, is now
   a ruined town. State-house, Governor's mansion, and some fine
   dwellings, well within the lines of intrenchments, remain
   untouched. I have been and am yet employed in breaking up the
   railroad 40 miles north and 60 south; also 10 miles east. My
   10-miles break west, of last May, is still untouched, so that
   Jackson ceases to be a place for the enemy to collect stores
   and men."

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (July: Kentucky).
John Morgan's Raid into Ohio and Indiana.

"The most famous raid of this time was that made in July by John Morgan across the Ohio River. General Buckner was then in East Tennessee, near the borders of Kentucky, getting ready to make another dash toward Louisville, and Morgan went ahead to prepare the way. He crossed the Cumberland River into Kentucky with about 3,000 mounted men, sacked Columbia, captured Lebanon with 400 prisoners, and rode on through Bardstown to Brandenburg on the Ohio River, plundering and destroying as he went. Many Kentuckians had joined him on the way, and he then had 4,000 men and ten pieces of artillery. The advance of Rosecrans's army just at that time prevented Buckner from joining him, and Morgan determined to cross into Indiana. There were two gunboats in the river, but he kept them off with his artillery while his men crossed on two captured steamboats. Morgan then rode through Indiana toward Cincinnati fighting home guards, tearing up railroads, burning bridges and mills and capturing much property. The whole State was aroused by the danger, and thousands of armed men started after the bold riders. Morgan became alarmed, and after passing around Cincinnati, almost within sight of its steeples, turned toward the Ohio to cross again into Kentucky. A large Union force was following, others were advancing on his flanks, and gunboats and steamboats filled with armed men were moving up the river to cut him off. The people aided the pursuers all they could by cutting down trees and barricading the roads to stop Morgan's march. He was so delayed by these and other things that he did not reach the Ohio until July 19th. He hoped to cross at a place called Buffington Ford, but the Union men were upon him and he had to turn and fight. After a severe battle, in which the Union troops were helped by gunboats which cut off the raiders from crossing the ford, about 800 of Morgan's men surrendered, and the rest, with Morgan himself, fled up the river fourteen miles to Bellville, where they tried to cross by swimming their horses. About 300 men had succeeded in getting over when the gunboats came up and opened fire on them. A fearful scene ensued, for it was a struggle of life and death. … Some got across, some were shot and some drowned. Morgan was not among the fortunate ones who escaped. With about 200 men he fled further up the river to New Lisbon, where he was surrounded and forced to surrender. This was a wonderful raid, but it did not do the Confederate cause any good. A large part of the property destroyed was private property, and this roused the anger of all the people of the Border States. … Morgan and some of his officers were sent to Columbus and confined in the penitentiary, from which he and six others escaped in the following November by making a hole through the bottom of their cell and digging a tunnel under the foundations of the building."

J. D. Champlin Jr., Young Folk's History of the War for the Union, chapter 31.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (July: South Carolina).
The lodgement on Morris Island, and the assault on Fort Wagner.

After Du Pont's attack upon the forts in Charleston harbor "the Confederates enjoyed two months of undisturbed leisure for the construction and strengthening of their works, though all this time the matter of a new essay at the reduction of Sumter occupied more than its proper share of the attention of the Government.

The forces in the Department of the South were not sufficient to undertake a siege of Charleston by land, and the exigencies of the more important campaigns going forward in Virginia, Tennessee and Mississippi prevented their being reenforced. It was resolved, therefore, to restrict operations to the harbor and the islands immediately adjoining, and Admiral John A. Dahlgren—after the death of Admiral Foote, who had been designated for the purpose—and General Q. A. Gillmore were charged with the command of the military and naval forces engaged. … Admiral Dahlgren … assumed command on the 6th of July. Gillmore had already been on the ground some three weeks, and had nearly completed his preparations for a descent upon Morris Island, when Dahlgren arrived. The admiral, without a moment's delay, entered into the plans of the general, and within forty-eight hours collected his scattered monitors and steamed away to the harbor of Charleston. Morris Island is a low strip of sandy beach, which lies to the south of Charleston and, with Sullivan's Island to the north, guards the entrance to the harbor, the two stretching out to sea like the open jaws of an alligator. They are each about three and a half miles long, separated from the mainland on the north, and from the high ground of James Island on the south, by miry and impracticable marshes stretching a distance of two or three miles. Their inner ends are a little less than four miles from the Charleston wharves, with Fort Sumter lying midway. Gillmore resolved to make his attack from Folly Island, which lies on the coast directly south of Morris, which it greatly resembles in conformation, and from which it is separated by Light House Inlet. It was occupied by a brigade under General Israel Vogdes, who had fortified the southern end of it, controlling the waters of Stono harbor and the approaches of James Island. {3505} There was a heavy growth of underbrush at both ends of the island; taking advantage of this, Vogdes, under Gillmore's direction, constructed ten powerful batteries near its southern extremity, completely masked from the enemy's view; their purpose being to operate against the enemy's guns near the landing place, to protect the debarkation of the troops, and to cover their retreat in case of necessity. Most of this work was done at night, and all of it as silently as possible. … Alfred H. Terry's division of 4,000 and George C. Strong's brigade of 2,500 were quietly brought together on Folly Island, and on the afternoon of the 8th of July the former force was sent up the Stono to make a demonstration against James Island, while Strong's brigade was ordered to descend upon Morris Island at daybreak of the 9th. Colonel T. W. Higginson of the First South Carolina Volunteers, colored, was ordered at the same time to cut the railroad between Charleston and Savannah; a duty in which General Gillmore says he 'signally failed.' The others punctually performed the tasks assigned them. Terry's feint against Stono was so imposing as to be taken for the real attack, by Beauregard, who hastily gathered together a considerable force to resist him, and paid little attention to the serious movement on the beach." The Confederate troops on Morris Island, taken by surprise, were "speedily driven out of all their batteries south of Wagner, and abandoned to Gillmore three-fourths of the island, with 11 pieces of heavy ordnance. The next day he ordered Strong's brigade to assault Fort Wagner, an attempt which failed, with slight loss on each side. On the 16th Terry was attacked by a superior force on James Island, and although he repulsed the enemy with the assistance of the gunboats which accompanied him, he was recalled to Fol]y Island, the purpose of his demonstration having been accomplished. Although General Gillmore had as yet no conception of the enormous strength of Fort Wagner, the assault and repulse of the 11th of July convinced him that it could not be carried offhand. He therefore determined, on consultation with Admiral Dahlgren, to establish counter-batteries against it, hoping with the combined fire of these and the gunboats to dismount the guns of the work and so shake its defense as to carry it by a determined assault. The preparations were made with great energy, and by the morning of the 18th, exactly one week after the first assault, General Gillmore was ready for the second." The batteries and the fleet opened fire on the fort at noon of July 18th; its defenders were soon driven from the parapets, and "in the course of the afternoon the whole work seemed to be beaten out of shape"; but, being constructed of fine quartz sand, it had suffered damage only in appearance. At twilight, the storming party, headed by Colonel Robert G. Shaw and his Fifty-fourth Massachusetts Regiment of colored troops, made a most brave and resolute assault, actually climbing the parapet of the fort, but only to leave 1500 dead, dying and wounded upon its treacherous sands. The heroic young Colonel Shaw fell dead among the foremost men; General Strong, Colonel Chatfield and Colonel Putnam were killed or mortally wounded; General Truman Seymour was wounded severely, and many other excellent officers were in the lists of the slain or the sadly disabled. "The death of Colonel Shaw was widely lamented, not only because of his personal worth, but because he had become in a certain sense the representative of the best strain of New England anti-slavery sentiment. The Confederates recognized this representative character by their treatment of his corpse, replying to a request of his friends for his remains, that they 'had buried him under a layer of his niggers.'"

      A. Roman,
      Military Operations of General Beauregard,
      chapter 31 (volume 2).

      D. Ammen,
      The Navy in the Civil War,
      volume 2: The Atlantic Coast, chapter 7.

      L. F. Emilio,
      History of the 54th Regiment Massachusetts Volunteers,
      chapters. 4-5.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (July-November: Virginia).
   Meade and Lee on the Rapidan.
   Bristoe Station.
   Rappahannock Station.
   Kelly's Ford.
   Mine Run.

The 18th of July found the whole army of General Meade once more on the Virginia side of the Potomac. "His plan for the pursuit of Lee was not unlike that of McClellan a year before, but although he displayed much greater expedition and energy in the execution of it than were shown by his predecessor, the results, through no fault of his own, were unimportant. General French, who had taken no part in the battle of Gettysburg, had been placed in command of the Third Corps; he was an old officer of the regular army, excellent in drill, in routine, and all the every-day details of the service, but utterly unfit for an enterprise requiring great audacity and celerity. He was assigned upon this expedition to the duty of throwing his corps through Manassas Gap and attacking the flank of the enemy as he moved southward by Front Royal. Meade succeeded in getting French into the Gap in time to have broken the rebel army in two; but when he attacked, it was in so inefficient a Manner, and with so small a portion of his force, that the day was wasted and the enemy made their way down the Valley to the lower gaps. This failure was a source of deep mortification to General Meade. … The pursuit of the enemy was not continued further. … The months of August and September were a period of repose for the Army of the Potomac. It was in fact in no condition to undertake active operations; a considerable body of troops had been taken from Meade for service in South Carolina, and a strong detachment had been sent to the City of New York for the purpose of enforcing the draft there. General Lee had retired behind the Rapidan for several weeks of rest; neither army was ready at that time to attack the other." Early in September Longstreet's Corps was detached from Lee's army and sent west to strengthen Bragg at Chattanooga, and in the latter part of the same month about 13,000 men (Eleventh and Twelfth Corps) were taken from Meade and sent, under Hooker's command, to the same scene of pending conflict. "But, even with this reduction of his command, after the return of the troops detached to the North, Meade found himself with an army of about 68,000 men; and, knowing this force to be somewhat superior to that of the enemy, he resolved to cross the Rapidan and attack him; but again, as so often happened in the history of the contending armies in Virginia, Lee had formed the project of a similar enterprise, and began its execution a day or two in advance. He had learned of the departure of two corps for the West." On the 9th of October "he began a flanking movement to the right of the Union line."

"Conceiving that the Confederates would move by the Warrenton pike, in order to cross Bull Run and get possession of Centreville—thus to interpose between the Federal army and Washington—Meade retired as speedily as possible. He had, in reality, the start in the race, notwithstanding the day's loss in the return movement. … On the morning of the 14th, Lee advanced from Warrenton in two columns, but not by the 'pike.' The left, under Hill, moving by the turnpike to New Baltimore, was ordered to strike the railroad at Bristoe Station; the right column, under Ewell, taking a more easterly route, was directed to effect a junction at the same point. When Hill approached Bristoe, Meade's army, with the exception of Warren's corps, had passed that point. As the head of this column came up, the 5th Corps, under General Sykes, had just crossed Broad Run. Hill at once formed a line of battle to attack the rear of that corps, when Warren came up, and, by a bold onset, drove the enemy back, securing 450 prisoners and 5 guns. The National army, having won the race for position, and obtained possession of the heights of Centreville, Lee's movement was at an end, and he had but to retire to his old line again … and, on the 18th, began his retrograde movement. The following day Meade commenced pursuit, with the intention of attacking the enemy on his retreat, but did not overtake him, being detained by a heavy ruin storm, which so raised Bull Run as to render it unfordable. … On the 7th of November the whole army was put in motion toward the Rappahannock, along which river the enemy was in position at Rappahannock Station and Kelly's Ford. In two columns Meade advanced toward these points. General French, commanding the left wing—composed of the 1st, 2d and 3d Corps—was directed to cross at Kelly's Ford, while the right wing—comprising the 5th and 6th Corps, under General Sedgwick—marched upon Rappahannock Station. The 3d Corps, under Birney, led the advance on Kelly's Ford. Reaching that point, without waiting for pontoons, Birney crossed his own division by wading, carried the rifle-pits, captured 500 prisoners and prevented the enemy re-enforcing their troops at the Ford, by means of batteries which he planted on the hills that commanded the crossing. At the same time the right wing was contending against more formidable obstacles at Rappahannock Station. Early's division of Ewell's corps occupied a series of works on the north side of the river. … Gaining a good position, commanding the fort from the rear, Sedgwick planted his guns and opened a fierce cannonade upon the enemy's several batteries. Under cover of this fire, the temporary works were assaulted and carried at the bayonet's point. Over 1,500 prisoners, 4 guns and 8 standards were captured. Sedgwick's loss was about 300 in killed and wounded. The right column now crossed the river without opposition, and, uniting with French's forces, advanced to Brandy Station. November 8th was lost in getting forward the trains, and in reconnoitering. Under cover of that night Lee withdrew across the Rapidan. Taking position between the Rappahannock and the Rapidan, Meade remained quietly and undisturbed for two weeks. Finding Lee indisposed for action, the Federal leader resolved once more to try and bring on a general engagement. … The Confederate army having gone into winter quarters, was located over a wide extent of country. … This separation of the enemy's corps, led Meade to hope, that, by crossing the lower fords of the Rapidan, and advancing rapidly on the plank and turnpike roads to Orange, C. H., he could concentrate his army against Ewell's corps, cripple or destroy it, and then be able to turn upon Hill, and in this way break Lee's army in detail." But delays occurred which "frustrated the object of the movement; … disclosed Meade's intention to the enemy, who at once concentrated his entire force behind Mine Run, having also time given for additional entrenchments along the menaced points. The enemy's position was found to be exceedingly strong by nature, and further perfected by the skill of busy hands. … In front was Mine Run, a shallow stream, but difficult to cross on account of its steep banks, the marshy nature of the ground, and the dense undergrowth with which it was flanked. … 'In view of the season of the year [said General Meade in his subsequent report], the impossibility of moving from that place if there came on even a couple of days of rain; having failed in my first plan, which was to attack the enemy before they could concentrate; and then having failed in my plan to attack them after they had concentrated, in the manner which I have related, I concluded that, under the circumstances, it was impossible for me to do anything more.' And this was the end of a movement, which, like Hooker's advance to flank Fredericksburg, opened with fair promise of success, and, like that advance, was a failure from incidents which the situation permitted rather than asserted."

O. J. Victor, History of the Southern Rebellion, division 12, chapter 1 (volume 4).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (August: Missouri-Kansas).
Quantrell's guerrilla raid.
The sacking and burning of Lawrence.

   "Since the fall of Vicksburg many rebel soldiers had returned
   from Arkansas to their homes in Western Missouri, and under
   the secret orders so frequently sent from commanders in the
   South into that State, the guerrilla bands along the Kansas
   border suddenly grew in numbers and audacity. Though the whole
   region was patrolled almost day and night by Union detachments
   and scouts, a daring leader named Quantrell, who had been for
   some weeks threatening various Kansas towns, assembled a band
   of 300 picked and well-mounted followers at a place of
   rendezvous near the line, about sunset of August 20. His
   object being divined, half a dozen Union detachments from
   different points started in chase of him; but skilfully
   eluding all of them by an eccentric march, Quantrell crossed
   the State line, and, reaching the open prairie country, where
   roads were unnecessary, pushed directly for Lawrence, Kansas.
{3507}
   … This town was 40 miles in the interior, and had no reason to
   apprehend an attack, and though it could have assembled
   several hundred men under arms in half an hour, its
   inhabitants had no dream of danger when the marauders entered
   the place at sunrise of August 21. Quantrell stationed
   detachments to prevent any assembling or concentration of the
   citizens, and then began a scene of pillage, arson and
   massacre too horrible to relate. Stores and banks were robbed,
   185 buildings burned, and from 150 to 200 inhabitants murdered
   with a cold-blooded fiendishness which seems impossible to
   believe of Americans. The direful work occupied but three or
   four hours, when the perpetrators remounted their horses and
   departed. Though they managed their retreat with such skill as
   to avoid a general encounter, the pursuit was so hot that in
   several skirmishes, and by cutting off stragglers and
   laggards, 100 or more of the band were killed. The sudden
   calamity raised excitement on the Kansas border to almost a
   frenzy."

      J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay,
      Abraham Lincoln,
      volume 8, page 211.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (August-September: Tennessee).
Burnside's deliverance of East Tennessee.
The Union Army in Knoxville.

"Ever since the Federals had become masters of Kentucky they had projected all expedition into East Tennessee. … Early In the year 1862 the Federals had taken the defile of Cumberland Gap, the principal door to East Tennessee; but drawn into the pursuit of their adversaries in other directions, they had very wisely renounced proceeding beyond the gap, and shortly thereafter the Confederates had retaken the defile. In 1863 the role of liberator of East Tennessee was reserved for General Burnside: it was an honorable compensation accorded to the unfortunate but gallant soldier vanquished at Fredericksburg. Two divisions of the Ninth Corps designated to undertake this campaign having been, on June 4th, sent to the aid of Grant, it became necessary to commence new preparations. The scattered troops in Kentucky, several regiments recruited in that State or composed of refugees from East Tennessee, and a part of the fresh levies made in Ohio and Indiana, formed the Twenty-third Corps, under the orders of General Hartsuff. At the end of June … this little army was in readiness to move, when Morgan started on his raid [and Burnside's troops were sent in the pursuit]. Six weeks were lost. It was the beginning of August. The Ninth Corps was coming back from Vicksburg. But the men, worn out by the climate, had need of rest. Burnside could not wait for them." He set out upon his movement into East Tennessee with about 20,000 men, leaving Camp Nelson, near Lexington, on the 16th of August. The Confederate General Buckner opposed him with an equal number, including 3000 under General Fraser at Cumberland Gap. Instead of attempting to force the passage of the gap, Burnside "determined to make a flank movement around the defile, by traversing more to the south, in the State of Tennessee, the high table-land which on that side bears the designation of Cumberland plateau. The roads which Burnside would have to cross were long and difficult to travel, and that portion of the country was little known, besides being bare of resources; but the very difficult character of the roads warranted the belief that the Confederates would be illy prepared for defence in that region. No precaution was neglected to ensure the success of this laborious and perilous march," and the success achieved was perfect. "One can understand with what joy the Federals, after eleven days of toilsome march, entered the rich valley, a kind of promised land, which stretched out before them. Public rumor had greatly exaggerated their numbers. … Bragg, fearing with reason lest by its flanking movements it [the division which Burnside led in person] should separate him from Buckner and then fall upon Chattanooga, had sent his lieutenant an order to evacuate Knoxville." Buckner withdrew and Burnside made a triumphal entry into Knoxville on the 3d of September. "According to the testimony of eye-witnesses, the joy of the people was beyond description. Innumerable Federal flags which had been preserved in secret were displayed at the windows." Frazer, who had not been withdrawn from Cumberland Gap, found himself entrapped, when, on the 9th of September, Burnside appeared before his works, and he surrendered without a shot.

Comte de Paris, History of the Civil War in America, volume 4, book 1, chapter 2.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (August-September: Tennessee).
   Rosecrans's advance to Chattanooga.
   Evacuation of the place by the Confederates.
   Battle of Chickamauga.

"The seizure and occupation of the strategic point Chattanooga was an essential part of the campaign by the national forces against the Confederates. The Atlantic portion of the Southern States is separated from the Mississippi Valley by majestic folds of the earth's surface, constituting the Appalachian Ranges. These folds run, in a general manner, parallel to each other, and at intervals are crossed by transverse depressions or gaps. Such passages or gateways are therefore of great commercial, political and military importance. Chattanooga, which in the Cherokee language means 'The Hawk's Nest,' is a little town seated in one of these transverse depressions, through which the Tennessee River and a system of railroads pass. … From the region of Chattanooga the earth-folds range in a southwesterly direction. Enumerating such of them as are of interest on the present occasion, they are from west to east as follows: Raccoon or Sand Mountain, Lookout Mountain, Missionary Ridge, Pigeon Mountain, Chickamauga Hills. … Chattanooga Valley … through which runs a stream of the same name, is formed on the west by Lookout Mountain, here about 2,400 feet high, and on the east by Missionary Ridge, so called because Catholic Missionaries had established, many years ago, churches and schools upon it among the Cherokee Indians. From the summit of Lookout Mountain portions of not fewer than six States may be seen." In his Tullahoma campaign) Rosecrans, in July, had compelled Bragg and the Confederate army, by skilful flanking movements, to fan back to Chattanooga.

He had ever since been urged from Washington to pursue his attack and dislodge the enemy from the mountains. But he delayed further movements for a month, repairing his railroad communications, asking for reinforcements, and waiting for corn to ripen for food and forage. When he advanced, it was to turn the left of Bragg's position at Chattanooga, and "reach his rear between Dalton and Atlanta. To do this, he had to cross the Tennessee River below Chattanooga, and then pass the three or four successive mountain ridges. … Rosecrans reached the Tennessee River on the evening of the 20th of August, and shelled Chattanooga from the heights on the north bank on the 21st. Bridges were thrown over the river at Caperton's Ferry, mouth of Battle Creek, and Shell Mound, and the army, except the cavalry, safely crossed in face of the enemy. By the 8th of September" the several movements planned for Thomas, McCook and Crittenden were successfully accomplished, and Chattanooga was abandoned by the Confederates. "Thus the first object of Rosecrans's campaign was accomplished: the important strategic point Chattanooga was obtained. … Rosecrans, believing himself perfectly secure in Chattanooga, and being convinced that Bragg was fleeing southward, did nothing to fortify himself. Taking measures to pursue his antagonist, he directed Crittenden to leave one brigade at Chattanooga as a garrison, and with the rest move forward to Ringgold. Thomas was to march to Lafayette, and McCook upon Alpine and Summer Creek. But Bragg, so far from continuing, had stopped his retreat—he was concentrating at Lafayette. He had received, or was on the point of receiving, the powerful re-enforcements directed to join him. He was strictly ordered to check the farther advance of the Army of the Cumberland. … Rosecrans had separated three corps of his army by mountain ridges and by distances greater than those intervening between each of them and the enemy. Bragg had concentrated opposite his centre, and was holding such a position that he could attack any of them with overwhelming numbers. He had caused deserters and citizens to go into Rosecrans's lines to confirm him in the impression that the Confederates were in rapid retreat. … On the 11th of September, Crittenden, not stopping to fortify Chattanooga, pushed on toward Ringgold to cut off Buckner, who he had heard was coming from East Tennessee to the support of Bragg. Finding that Buckner had already passed, he turned toward Lafayette to follow him, going up the east side of the Chickamauga, but meeting a steadily increasing resistance he took alarm, and fell back across that stream at Lee and Gordon's Mills. The forces he had encountered were Cheatham's and Walker's divisions. Thomas, who had now discovered Bragg's position, directed McCook, who was advancing on Rome, to fall back instantly and connect with him. Rosecrans's troops had thus become scattered along an extended line from Lee and Gordon's Mills to Alpine, a space of about forty miles. By the 17th they were brought more within supporting distance, and on the morning of the 18th a concentration was begun toward Crawfish Spring, but it was slowly executed. At this time the two armies were confronting each other on the opposite banks of the Chickamauga, a stream which, rising at the junction of Missionary Ridge and Pigeon Mountain … empties into the beautiful Tennessee River above Chattanooga. In the Indian tongue Chickamauga means 'The Stagnant Stream,' 'The River of Death'—a name, as we shall soon find, of ominous import. Rosecrans was on the west bank of the Chickamauga. … On the 18th his right was … at Gordon's Mills, his left near the road across from Rossville. Bragg's intention was to flank this left and interpose between it and Chattanooga. … On the 18th Longstreet's troops were arriving from Virginia, and Bragg was ready. … The battle of Chickamauga commenced on the morning of the 19th." Bragg's flanking movement, executed under General Polk, and directed against the left of Rosecrans's line, where Thomas had command, did not succeed. "The centre was then assailed and pressed back, but, having been re-enforced, it recovered its ground. Night came, and the battle was thus far indecisive. … The night was spent in preparation. Thomas constructed abatis and breastworks before his lines. … Bragg was still determined to flank the national left, and intervene between it and Chattanooga. He had ordered Polk to begin the battle as soon as it was light enough to see," but Polk delayed and it was not until 10 o'clock that "Breckenridge's division, followed by Cleburne's, advanced against the breastworks of Thomas, which were mostly in Cleburne's front. Cleburne moved directly upon them, Breckenridge swinging round to flank them. With so much energy were these attacks made, that Thomas had to send repeatedly to Rosecrans for help. The Confederates had been gaining ground, but with these re-enforcements Thomas succeeded in driving back Cleburne with very great loss, and even in advancing on the right of Breckenridge." But, presently, by some blunder in the giving or construing of an order, one division—that of General "Wood—was withdrawn from Rosecrans line and posted uselessly in the rear. "By this unfortunate mistake a gap was opened in the line of battle, of which Hindman, of Longstreet's corps, took instant advantage, and, striking Davis in flank and rear, threw his whole division into confusion. … That break in the line was never repaired. Longstreet's masses charged with such terrible energy that it was impossible to check them. The national right and centre were dispersed, flying toward Rossville and Chattanooga. Sheridan, however, at length succeeded in rallying a considerable portion of his division, and managed to reach Thomas. On Thomas, who, in allusion to these events, is often called 'The Rock of Chickamauga.' the weight of the battle now fell. Everything depended on his firmness. … In the flight of the right and part of the centre from the field, Rosecrans, McCook and Crittenden were enveloped and carried away. … Rosecrans … went to Chattanooga, and thence telegraphed to Washington that his army had been beaten. Thomas still remained immovable in his position," and at a critical moment he was saved from a movement into his rear, by General Gorden Granger, who pushed to the front with some reserves. "Night came, and the Confederates were still unable to shake him. But, as most of the army had retreated to Chattanooga, he now deliberately fell back to Rossville. … The dead and wounded he left in the hands of the enemy. On the 21st he offered battle again, and that night withdrew into the defences of Chattanooga."

"During the heavy fighting of the 20th, Thomas was the only general officer on the field of rank above a division commander. … Well was he called the 'Rock of Chickamauga,' … There is nothing finer in history than Thomas at Chickamauga. All things considered, the battle of Chickamauga, for the forces engaged, was the hardest fought and the bloodiest battle of the Rebellion. … The largest number of troops Rosecrans had of all arms on the field during the two days' fighting was 55,000 effective men. … Rosecrans's losses aggregated killed, 1,687; wounded, 9,394; missing, 5,255. Total loss, 16,336. Bragg, during the battle, when his entire five corps were engaged, had about 70,000 effective troops in line. … His losses, in part estimated, were 2,673 killed, 16,274 wounded, and 2,003 missing, a total of 20,950. A full report of the rebel losses was never made."

H. M. Cist, The Army of the Cumberland (Campaigns of the Civil War, volume 7), chapters 11-12.

ALSO IN: Comte de Paris, History of the Civil War in America, volume 4, book 1, chapters 2-6.

      T. B. Van Horne,
      Life of Major-General George H. Thomas,
      chapters 6-7.

      D. H. Hill, E. Opdycke, and others,
      Chickamauga
      (Battles and Leaders, volume 3).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863
(August-October: Arkansas-Missouri).
   The breaking of Confederate authority in Arkansas.
   Occupation of Little Rock by national forces.
   Rebel raids into Missouri.

"After the surrender of Vicksburg, the Federal General Steele was sent to Helena, with a considerable force, and instructed to form a junction with General Davidson, who was moving south from Missouri, by way of Crowley's Ridge, west of the St. Francis, and with the combined force drive the Confederates south of the Arkansas River. Having effected this junction and established his depot and hospitals at Duvall's Bluff, on the White River, General Steele, on the 1st of August, advanced against the Confederate army, which fell back toward Little Rock. After several successful skirmishes, he reached the Arkansas River, and threw part of his force upon the south side, to threaten the Confederate communications with Arkadelphia, their depot of supplies, and flank their position at Little Rock. General Marmaduke was sent out with a cavalry force to beat the Federals back, but was completely routed. Seeing what must be the inevitable result of this movement of General Steele, the Confederate General Holmes destroyed what property he could, and after a slight resistance retreated with his army in great disorder, pursued by the Federal cavalry, and on the 10th of September General Steele, with the Federal army, entered the capital of Arkansas. His entire losses in killed, wounded and missing, in this whole movement, did not exceed 100. He captured 1,000 prisoners, and such public property as the Confederates had not time to destroy. The Federal cavalry continued to press the retreating Confederates southward; but a small force, which had eluded pursuit and moved eastward, attacked the Federal garrison at Pine Bluff, on the Arkansas, south of Little Rock, hoping to recapture it and thus cripple the Federals and break their communications. The attempt, which was made on the 28th of October, was repulsed with decided loss on the part of the confederates, and the same day the Federal cavalry occupied Arkadelphia, and the Confederates retreated toward the Red River. This completely restored Arkansas to the Federal authority, except a small district in the extreme southwest, and the region of Northwest Arkansas, over which the guerrilla and other irregular troops of the Confederates continued to roam, in their plundering excursions into Missouri, Kansas, and the Indian Territory. Some of these were conducted on a large scale. … The Confederate General Cabell, collecting together as many of the guerrillas and Indians as possible, and some of the routed troops driven from Little Rock and its vicinity, started with a force variously estimated at from 4,000 to 10,000, in the latter part of September, from the Choctaw settlements of the Indian Territory, crossed the Arkansas River east of Fort Smith, and, on the 1st of October, a detachment of his troops, under General Shelby, joined Coffee at Crooked Prairie, Missouri, intending to make a raid into Southwestern Missouri. This combined force, numbering 2,000 or 2,500 men, penetrated as far as the Missouri River at Booneville, but were pursued by the Missouri militia, and finally brought to a stand about eight miles southwest of Arrow Rock, on the evening of the 12th of October. General E. B. Brown who commanded the Federal troops, fought them till dark that evening, and during the night, having detached a small force to attack them in the rear, renewed the battle the next morning at eight A. M. After a sharp contest they fled, completely routed and broken up, with a loss of several hundred in killed, wounded and prisoners. They were pursued to the Arkansas line and prisoners gleaned all the way. … With these last convulsive throes, the active existence of the Confederate authority in Arkansas died out. On the 12th of November a meeting was held at Little Rock, to consult on measures for the restoration of the State to the Union, and was succeeded by others in different parts of the State."

ALSO IN: Comte de Paris, History of the Civile war in America, volume 4, book 3, chapter 3.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863
(August-December: South Carolina).
Siege and Reduction of Fort Wagner.
Bombardment of Fort Sumter and Charleston.

   After the unsuccessful assault and bloody repulse of July 18th
   General Gillmore began against Fort Wagner the operations of a
   regular siege.

"Trenches were dug, and by the middle of August the batteries were within a quarter-mile of Wagner and within two and a half miles of Sumter. The work on these batteries had to be done mostly by night, for the forts kept up a heavy fire. Another battery was also begun in the marsh on the west side of Morris Island. The black mud there was so soft that it would not bear the weight of a man, and was at least 16 feet deep. After the site was chosen, a lieutenant was ordered to superintend the work, and told to call for whatever materials he wanted. Being something of a wag, he sent to the quartermaster for 100 men 18 feet high, to work in mud 16 feet deep; but as men of that height could not be had, he had to be satisfied with workmen of common stature. {3510} All the work had to be done in the dark, for it was within range of the guns of the forts. During fourteen nights piles were driven through the mud into the solid ground beneath, and on them were piled 15,000 bags of sand to form a parapet. After breaking down several trucks, a monster eight-inch Parrott gun, a 200-pounder, was dragged across the swamp and mounted, and about the middle of August the Swamp Angel, as the soldiers named it, was ready to throw shells into Charleston, nearly five miles away. On the 17th of August twelve land-batteries and the monitors opened fire on Sumter, Wagner, and Gregg. The heaviest of the fire was aimed at Sumter, as General Gillmore wished to silence it before he made another assault on Wagner. The bombardment was kept up for seven days, when Gillmore sent a dispatch to General Halleck, saying: 'Fort Sumter is to-day (August 24) a shapeless and harmless mass of ruins.' On the 21st of August, General Gillmore wrote to General Beauregard, who was in command in Charleston, demanding the evacuation of Fort Sumter and of Morris Island, threatening, in case of refusal, to bombard Charleston. Not hearing from him, he ordered a few shells to be thrown into the city from the Swamp Angel. Some of them fell in the streets and frightened the people, but did little damage. Beauregard then wrote him a letter in which he accused him of barbarity in 'turning his guns against the old men, the women and children, and the hospitals of a sleeping city,' and called the act 'unworthy of any soldier. General Gillmore replied that it was the duty of the commander of an attacked place to 'see to it that the non-combatants were removed,' and that he (Beauregard) had had forty days' time in which to do it. But the Swamp Angel was fired only a few times. At the thirty-sixth shot it burst and blew out the whole of its breech, and no other gun was mounted in its place. Gillmore then turned his attention once more to Fort Wagner, which he determined to assault again. To do this it was necessary to silence its guns and drive its defenders into the bomb-proofs; so a heavy fire was opened on it by the batteries, while the armored frigate New Ironsides poured eleven-inch shells into it from the sea side. The bombardment was kept up day and night, strong calcium lights being used by night to blind the Confederates and to show all parts of their works. The Confederates, driven from their guns, were obliged to fly for safety to their bomb-proofs. In the morning of September 7, the troops, under General Terry, were about ready to make the assault, when it was reported that the fort was empty. The garrisons of both Wagner and Gregg had fled during the night, and the whole of Morris Island was at last in possession of the Union troops. The next night an attack was made on Sumter by thirty boat-loads of men from the fleet. They reached the base of the walls and began to go up, thinking that the garrison was asleep; but before they reached the top a fire of musketry and hand-grenades was opened on them by the Confederates within, aided by some gun boats outside, and the assailants were driven off with a loss of about 200. But little more was done against Charleston during the rest of the year. General Gillmore thought that, as Sumter's guns were silenced, the fleet might easily pass into the harbor and capture Charleston. But Admiral Dahlgren did not care to run the risk of the torpedoes and powder-mines over which he knew he would have to pass. Besides, General Beauregard had taken advantage of the long delay in taking Wagner to strengthen the inner forts. Fort Johnson had been made into a powerful earthwork, and the fleet, even if Sumter were passed, would meet with as hot a fire as had been experienced outside. General Gillmore therefore contented himself with repairing Wagner and Gregg and turning their guns on Charles·ton and the forts defending it. As they were a mile nearer the city than the Swamp Angel battery, a slow bombardment was kept up until near the end of the year. About half of Charleston was reached by the shells, and many buildings were greatly injured. As the wharfs and most of the harbor were under fire, blockade-runners could no longer run in, and the business of the city was thus wholly destroyed."

J. D. Champlin, Jr., Young Folk's History of the War for the Union, chapter 32.

ALSO IN: Comte de Paris, History of the Civil War in America, volume 4, book 3, chapter 2.

A. Roman, Military Operations of General Beauregard, volume 2, chapters 32-34.

      C. B. Boynton,
      History of the Navy during the Rebellion,
      volume 2, chapter 35.

      L. F. Emilio,
      History of the 54th Regiment Massachusetts Volunteers.,
      chapters 6-7.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (October-November: Tennessee).
   The raising of the siege of Chattanooga.
   "Battle above the Clouds," on Lookout Mountain.
   Assault of Missionary Ridge.
   The Rout of Bragg's army.

   After its defeat at Chickamauga the National Army was
   practically besieged on Chattanooga. Bragg acquired strong
   positions on Lookout Mountain and Missionary Ridge, and was
   able to cut off all of Rosecrans's routes of supply, except
   one long and difficult wagon-road. On the 17th of October an
   important reorganization of the Union armies in the West was
   effected. "The departments of the Ohio, the Cumberland, and
   the Tennessee, were united under the title of Military
   Division of the Mississippi, of which General Grant was made
   commander, and Thomas superseded Rosecrans in command of the
   Army of the Cumberland. General Hooker, with two corps, was
   sent to Tennessee. Grant arrived at Chattanooga on the 23d of
   October, and found affairs in a deplorable condition. It was
   impossible to supply the troops properly by the one
   wagon-road, and they had been on short rations for some time,
   while large numbers of the mules and horses were dead. Grant's
   first care was to open a new and better line of supply.
   Steamers could come up the river as far as Bridgeport, and he
   ordered the immediate construction of a road and bridge to
   reach that point by way of Brown's Ferry, which was done
   within five days, the 'cracker line,' as the soldiers called
   it, was opened, and thenceforth they had full rations and
   abundance of everything. The enemy attempted to interrupt the
   work on the road; but Hooker met them at Wauhatchie, west of
   Lookout Mountain, and after a three-hours' action drove them
   off [with It loss of 416 killed and wounded, the Confederate
   loss being unknown]. Chattanooga was now no longer in a state
   of siege; but it was still seriously menaced by Bragg's army,
   which held a most singular position.
{3512}
   Its flanks were on the northern ends of Lookout Mountain and
   Mission Ridge, the crests of which were occupied for some
   distance, and its centre stretched across Chattanooga valley.
   This line was twelve miles long, and most of it was well
   intrenched. Grant ordered Sherman [coming from Memphis] to
   join him with one corps, and Sherman promptly obeyed, but as
   he did considerable railroad repairing on the way, he did not
   reach Chattanooga till the 15th of November. Meanwhile
   Longstreet with 20,000 troops had been detached from Bragg's
   army and sent against Burnside at Knoxville. After Sherman's
   arrival, Grant had about 80,000 men."

"My orders for battle," writes General Grant, "were all prepared in advance of Sherman's arrival, except the dates, which could not be fixed while troops to be engaged were so far away. The possession of Lookout Mountain was of no special advantage to us now. Hooker was instructed to send Howard's corps to the north side of the Tennessee, thence up behind the hills on the north side, and to go into camp opposite Chattanooga; with the remainder of the command, Hooker was, at a time to be afterwards appointed, to ascend the western slope between the upper and lower palisades, and so get into Chattanooga Valley. The plan of battle was for Sherman to attack the enemy's right flank, form a line across it, extend our left over South Chickamauga River so as to threaten or hold the railroad in Bragg's rear, and thus force him either to weaken his lines elsewhere or lose his connection with his base at Chickamauga Station. Hooker was to perform like service on our right. His problem was to get from Lookout Valley to Chattanooga Valley in the most expeditious way possible; cross the latter valley rapidly to Rossville, south of Bragg's line on Missionary Ridge, form line there across the ridge facing north, with his right flank extended to Chickamauga Valley east of the ridge, thus threatening the enemy's rear on that flank and compelling him to reinforce this also. Thomas, with the Army of the Cumberland, occupied the centre, and was to assault while the enemy was engaged with most of his forces on his two flanks. To carry out this plan, Sherman was to cross at Brown's Ferry and move east of Chattanooga to a point opposite the north end of Mission Ridge, and to place his command back of the foot-hills out of sight of the enemy on the ridge." Remaining in this concealed position until the time of attack, Sherman's army was then, under cover of night, to be rapidly brought back to the south side of the Tennessee, at a point where Missionary Ridge prolonged would touch the river, this being done by pontoons ready provided at a spot also concealed. The execution of the plan was delayed by heavy rains until November 23, when Burnside's distress at Knoxville forced Grant to begin his attack on Bragg by an advance of Thomas's army, at the center, before the flanking preparations were completed. "This movement [General Grant's narrative continues] secured to us a line fully a mile in advance of the one we occupied in the morning, and the one which the enemy had occupied to this time. The fortifications were rapidly turned to face the other way. During the following night they were made strong. We lost in this preliminary action about 1,100 killed and wounded, while the enemy probably lost quite as heavily, including the prisoners that were captured. With the exception of the firing of artillery, kept up from Missionary Ridge and Fort Wood until night closed in, this ended the fighting for the first day. … By the night of the 23d Sherman's command was in a position to move," and by daylight two divisions of his command were on the south side of the river, "well covered by the works they had built. The work of laying the bridge, on which to cross the artillery and cavalry, was now begun. … By a little past noon the bridge was completed, as well as one over the South Chickamauga … and all the infantry and artillery were on the south side of the Tennessee. Sherman at once formed his troops for assault on Missionary Ridge. … By half-past three Sherman was in possession of the height without having sustained much loss. … Artillery was dragged to the top of the hill by hand, The enemy did not seem to be aware of this movement until the top of the hill was gained. There had been a drizzling rain during the day, and the clouds were so low that Lookout Mountain and the top of Missionary Ridge were obscured from the view of persons in the valley. But now the enemy opened fire upon their assailants, and made several attempts with their skirmishers to drive them away, but without avail. Later in the day a more determined attack was made, but this, too, failed, and Sherman was left to fortify what he had gained. … While these operations were going on to the east of Chattanooga, Hooker was engaged on the west. He had three divisions … all west of Lookout Creek. The enemy had the east bank of the creek strongly picketed and entrenched. … The side of Lookout Mountain confronting Hooker's command was rugged, heavily timbered, and full of chasms. … Early on the morning of the 24th Hooker moved Geary's division, supported by a brigade of Cruft's, up Lookout Creek, to effect a crossing. The remainder of Cruft's division was to seize the bridge over the creek, near the crossing of the railroad. … This attracted the enemy so that Geary's movement farther up was not observed. A heavy mist obscured him from the view of the troops on the top of the mountain. He crossed the creek almost unobserved, and captured the picket of over 40 men on guard near by. He then commenced ascending the mountain directly in his front. … By noon Geary had gained the open ground on the north slope of the mountain, with his right close up to the base of the upper palisade, but there were strong fortifications in his front. The rest of the command coming up, a line was formed from the base of the upper palisade to the mouth of Chattanooga Creek. Thomas and I were on the top of Orchard Knob. Hooker's advance now made our line a continuous one. … The day was hazy, so that Hooker's operations were not visible to us except at the moments when the clouds would rise. But the sound of his artillery and musketry was heard incessantly. The enemy on his front was partially fortified, but was soon driven out of his works. During the afternoon the clouds, which had so obscured the top of Lookout all day as to hide whatever was going on from the view of those below, settled down and made it so dark where Hooker was as to stop operations for the time. At four o'clock Hooker reported his position as impregnable. {3513} By a little after five direct communication was established, and a brigade of troops was sent from Chattanooga to reinforce him. … The morning of the 25th opened clear and bright, and the whole field was in full view from the top of Orchard Knob. It remained so all day. Bragg's headquarters were in full view. … Sherman was out as soon as it was light enough to see, and by sunrise his command was in motion. Three brigades held the hill already gained. Morgan L. Smith moved along the east base of Missionary Ridge; Loomis along the west base … and Corse with his brigade was between the two, moving directly towards the hill to be captured." The fighting was severe for hours, and Bragg moved heavy masses of troops to resist Sherman's advance, while a division from Thomas was sent to reinforce the latter. "It had now got to be late in the afternoon, and I had expected before this to see Hooker crossing the ridge in the neighborhood of Rossville and compelling Bragg to mass in that direction also. The enemy had evacuated Lookout Mountain during the night, as I expected he would. In crossing the valley he burned the bridge over Chattanooga Creek, and did all he could to obstruct the roads behind him. Hooker was off bright and early, with no obstructions in his front but distance and the destruction above named. He was detained four hours crossing Chattanooga Creek, and thus was lost the immediate advantage I expected from his forces. … But Sherman's condition was getting so critical that the assault for his relief could not be delayed any longer. Sheridan's and Wood's divisions had been lying under arms from early morning, ready to move the instant the signal was given. I now directed Thomas to order the charge at once." In this splendid charge the Union troops drove the Confederates from the first line of their works and then pushed on, with no further orders, to the second line, with the same success. "The retreat of the enemy along most of his line was precipitate, and the panic so great that Bragg and his officers lost all control over their men. Many were captured and thousands threw away their arms in their flight. Sheridan pushed forward until he reached the Chickamauga River at a point above where the enemy crossed. … To Sheridan's prompt movement the Army of the Cumberland and the nation are indebted for the bulk of the capture of prisoners, artillery, and small arms that day. … The enemy confronting Sherman, now seeing everything to their left giving way, fled also. … Hooker [pushing on to Rossville as soon as he had succeeded in getting across Chattanooga Creek] … came upon the flank of a division of the enemy, which soon commenced a retreat along the ridge. This threw them on Palmer. They could make but little resistance in the position they were caught in, and as many of them as could do so escaped. Many, however, were captured. … The victory at Chattanooga was won against great odds, considering the advantage the enemy had of position."

"Grant's losses in these battles were 757 killed, 4,529 wounded, and 330 missing; total 5,616. The enemy's losses were fewer in killed and wounded, owing to the fact that he was protected by intrenchments, while the national' soldiers were without cover. Grant captured 6,142 prisoners, 40 pieces of artillery, 69 artillery carriages and caissons, and 7,000 stand of small arms; by far the greatest capture, in the open field, which had then been made during the war. The battle of Chattanooga was the grandest ever fought west of the Alleghanies. It covered an extent of 13 miles, and Grant had over 60,000 men engaged. The rebels numbered only 45,000 men, but they enjoyed immense advantages of position in every part of the field." Pursuit of the retreating Confederates began early in the morning of the 26th, and considerable fighting occurred on that day and the next. At Ringgold, Hooker was checked by Cleburne's division, which held an easily defended gap while the main column with its trains were moved beyond reach. In this battle at Ringgold Hooker lost 65 killed and 377 wounded. He took three pieces of artillery and 230 prisoners.

      ALSO IN:
      J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay,
      Abraham Lincoln,
      volume 8, chapter 5.

      H. M. Cist,
      The Army of the Cumberland
      (Campaigns of the Civil War, volume 7),
      chapters 13-14.

      Comte de Paris,
      History of the Civil War in America,
      volume 4, book 2.

T. B. Van Horne, History of the Army of the Cumberland, chapters 21-22 (volume 1).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (October-December: Tennessee).
The Siege of Knoxville.

   "The Army of the Cumberland remaining quiet at Chattanooga,
   Bragg (or his superiors) conceived the idea of improving his
   leisure by a movement on Burnside, which Longstreet was
   assigned to lead. Burnside had by this time spread his force
   very widely, holding innumerable points and places southward
   and eastward of Knoxville by brigades and detachments; and
   Longstreet advancing silently and rapidly, was enabled to
   strike heavily [October 20] at the little outpost of
   Philadelphia, held by Colonel F. T. Wolford, with the 1st,
   11th, and 12th Kentucky cavalry and 45th Ohio mounted
   infantry—in all about 2,000 men. Wolford … withstood several
   hours, hoping that the sound of guns would bring him
   assistance from Loudon in his rear; but none arrived; and he
   was at length obliged to cut his way out; losing his battery
   and 32 wagons, but bringing off most of his command, with 51
   prisoners. … Our total loss in prisoners to Longstreet
   southward of Loudon is stated by Halleck at 650. The enemy
   advancing resolutely yet cautiously, our troops were withdrawn
   before them from Lenoir and from Loudon, concentrating at
   Campbell's Station—General Burnside, who had hastened from
   Knoxville at the tidings of danger, being personally in
   command. Having been joined by his old (9th) corps, he was now
   probably as strong as Longstreet; but a large portion of his
   force was still dispersed far to the eastward, and he
   apprehended being flanked by an advance from Kingston on his
   left. He found himself so closely pressed, however, that he
   must either fight or sacrifice his trains; so he chose an
   advantageous position and suddenly faced the foe: his
   batteries being all at hand, while those of his pursuers were
   behind; so that he had decidedly the advantage in the fighting
   till late in the afternoon, when they brought up three
   batteries and opened, while their infantry were extended on
   either hand, as if to outflank him.
{3514}
   He then fell back to the next ridge, and again faced about;
   holding his position firmly till after nightfall; when—his
   trains having meantime obtained a fair start—he resumed his
   retreat, and continued it unmolested until safe within the
   sheltering intrenchments of Knoxville. Our loss in this affair
   was about 800; that of the enemy was probably greater. …
   Longstreet continued his pursuit and in due time beleaguered
   the city [November 17], though he can hardly be said to have
   invested it. … The defenses were engineered by Captain Poe,
   and were signally effective. Directly on getting into
   position, a smart assault was delivered on our right, held by
   the 12th Illinois, 45th Ohio, 3d Michigan, and 12th Kentucky,
   and a hill carried; but it was not essential to the defenses.
   Our loss this day was about 100; among them was General W. P.
   Sanders, of Kentucky, killed. Shelling and skirmishing barely
   served to break the monotony for ten weary days, when—having
   been reenforced by Sam Jones, and one or two other small
   commands from Virginia—Longstreet delivered an assault, by a
   picked storming party of three brigades, on an unfinished but
   important work known as Fort Sanders, on our left, but was
   bloodily repelled by General Ferrero, who held it—the loss of
   the assailants being some 800, … while on our side the entire
   loss that night was about 100; only 15 of these in the fort.
   And now—Bragg having been defeated by Grant before
   Chattanooga, and a relieving force under Sherman being close
   at hand—Longstreet necessarily abandoned the siege, and moved
   rapidly eastward unassailed to Russellville, Virginia: our
   entire loss in the defense having been less than 1,000; while
   his must have been twice or thrice that number. Sherman's
   advance reached the city, and Burnside officially announced
   the raising of the siege, December 5th."

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (November).
President Lincoln's Address at Gettysburg.

   "By the retreat of Lee from Gettysburg and the immediate
   pursuit by Meade, the burial of the dead and care of the
   wounded on that great battlefield were left largely to the
   military and local authorities of the State of Pennsylvania.
   Governor Andrew G. Curtin gave the humane and patriotic duty
   his thoughtful attention; and during its execution the
   appropriate design of changing a portion of the field into a
   permanent cemetery, where the remains of the fallen heroes
   might be brought together, and their last resting-place
   suitably protected and embellished, was conceived and begun.
   The citizen soldiery from seventeen of the loyal States had
   taken part in the conflict on the Union side, and the several
   Governors of these States heartily cooperated in the project,
   which thus acquired a National character. This circumstance
   made it natural that the dedication ceremonies should be of
   more than usual interest and impressiveness. Accordingly, at
   the beginning of November, 1863, when the work was approaching
   its completion, Mr. David Wills, the special agent of Governor
   Curtin, and also acting for the several States, who had not
   only originated, but mainly superintended, the enterprise,
   wrote the following letter of invitation to President Lincoln:
   'The several States having soldiers in the Army of the
   Potomac, who were killed at the battle of Gettysburg, or have
   since died at the various hospitals which were established in
   the vicinity, have procured grounds on a prominent part of the
   battlefield for a cemetery, and are having the dead removed to
   them and properly buried. These grounds will be consecrated
   and set apart to this sacred purpose, by appropriate
   ceremonies, on Thursday, the 19th instant. Honorable Edward
   Everett will deliver the oration. I am authorized by the
   Governors of the different States to invite you to be present
   and participate in these ceremonies, which will doubtless be
   very imposing and solemnly impressive. It is the desire that
   after the oration, you, as Chief Executive of the nation,
   formally set apart these grounds to their sacred use by a few
   appropriate remarks. It will be a source of great
   gratification to the many widows and orphans that have been
   made almost friendless by the great battle here, to have you
   here personally; and it will kindle anew in the breasts of the
   comrades of these brave dead, who are now in the tented field
   or nobly meeting the foe in the front, a confidence that they
   who sleep in death on the battlefield are not forgotten by
   those highest in authority; and they will feel that, should
   their fate be the same, their remains will not be uncared-for.
   We hope you will be able to be present to perform this last
   solemn act to the soldier dead on this battlefield.' President
   Lincoln expressed his willingness to perform the duty
   requested of him. … At the appointed hour on the 19th a vast
   procession, with military music, moved to the cemetery grounds
   where, in the midst of a distinguished auditory, the orator of
   the day, Edward Everett, made an address worthy alike of his
   own fame and the extraordinary occasion. … Mr. Everett ended
   in a brilliant peroration, the echoes of which were lost in
   the long and hearty plaudits of the great multitude, and then
   President Lincoln arose to fill the part assigned him in the
   programme. It was a trying ordeal to fittingly crown with a
   few brief sentences the ceremonies of such a day, and such an
   achievement in oratory; finished, erudite, apparently
   exhaustive of the theme, replete with all the strength of
   scholastic method and the highest graces of literary culture.
   If there arose in the mind of any discriminating listener on
   the platform a passing doubt whether Mr. Lincoln would or
   could properly honor the unique occasion, that doubt vanished
   with his opening sentence; for then and there the President
   pronounced an address of dedication so pertinent, so brief yet
   so comprehensive, so terse yet so eloquent, linking the deeds
   of the present to the thoughts of the future, with simple
   words, in such living, original, yet exquisitely molded,
   maxim-like phrases that the best critics have awarded it an
   unquestioned rank as one of the world's masterpieces in
   rhetorical art.
{3515}
   He said:

'Four-score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting-place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this. But, in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate—we cannot consecrate—we cannot hallow—this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember, what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us,—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion— that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.'"

The President's Message to Congress, at the opening of its session, December 8, was accompanied by the following Proclamation of Amnesty, which made known the terms of political reconstruction and rehabilitation that would be favored by the Executive, in dealing with rebellious citizens who might return to their allegiance:

"Whereas, in and by the Constitution of the United States, it is provided that the President 'shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment;' and Whereas a rebellion now exists whereby the loyal State governments of several States have for a long time been subverted, and many persons have committed and are now guilty of treason against the United States; and 'Whereas, with reference to said rebellion and treason, laws have been enacted by Congress declaring forfeitures and confiscation of property and liberation of slaves, all upon terms and conditions therein stated, and also declaring that the President was thereby authorized at any time thereafter, by proclamation, to extend to persons who may have participated in the existing rebellion, in any State or part thereof, pardon and amnesty, with such exceptions and at such times and on such conditions as he may deem expedient for the public welfare; and Whereas the congressional declaration for limited and conditional pardon accords with well established judicial exposition of the pardoning power; and Whereas, with reference to said rebellion, the President of the United States has issued several proclamations, with provisions in regard to the liberation of slaves; and Whereas it is now desired by some persons heretofore engaged in said rebellion to resume their allegiance to the United States, and to reinaugurate loyal State governments within and for their respective States: Therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, do proclaim, declare and make known to all persons who have directly, or by implication, participated in the existing rebellion, except as hereinafter excepted, that a full pardon is hereby granted to them and each of them, with restoration of all rights of property, except as to slaves, and in property cases where rights of third parties shall have intervened, and upon the condition that every such person shall take and subscribe an oath, and thenceforward keep and maintain said oath inviolate; and which oath shall be registered for permanent preservation, and shall be of the tenor and effect following, to wit:

'I, ———, do solemnly swear, in presence of Almighty God, that I will henceforth faithfully support, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and the union of the States thereunder; and that I will, in like manner, abide by and faithfully support all acts of Congress passed during the existing rebellion with reference to slaves, so long and so far as not repealed, modified, or held void by Congress, or by decision of the Supreme Court; and that I will, in like manner, abide by and faithfully support all proclamations of the President made during the existing rebellion having reference to slaves, so long and so far as not modified or declared void by decision of the Supreme Court. So help me God.'

   The persons excepted from the benefits of the foregoing
   provisions are all who are, or shall have been, civil or
   diplomatic officers or agents of the so-called Confederate
   Government; all who have left judicial stations under the
   United States to aid the rebellion; all who are, or shall have
   been, military or naval officers of said so-called Confederate
   Government above the rank of colonel in the Army, or of
   lieutenant in the Navy; all who left seats in the United
   States Congress to aid the rebellion; all who resigned
   commissions in the Army or Navy of the United States, and
   afterwards aided the rebellion; and all who have engaged in
   any way in treating colored persons, or white persons in
   charge of such, otherwise than lawfully as prisoners of war,
   and which persons may have been found in the United States
   service as soldiers, seamen, or in any other capacity. And I
   do further proclaim, declare, and make known that whenever in
   any of the States of Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi,
   Tennessee, Alabama, Georgia, [Virginia?], Florida, South
   Carolina, and North Carolina, a number of persons, not less
   than one tenth in number of the votes cast in such State at
   the presidential election of the year of our Lord one thousand
   eight hundred and sixty, each having taken the oath aforesaid
   and not having since violated it, and being a qualified voter
   by the election law of the State existing immediately before
   the so-called act of secession, and excluding all others,
   shall re-establish a State government which shall be
   republican, and in nowise contravening said oath, such shall
   be recognized as the true government of the State, and the
   State shall receive thereunder the benefits of the
   constitutional provision which declares that 'the United
   States shall guaranty to every State in this Union a
   republican form of government, and shall protect each of them
   against invasion; and, on application of the Legislature, or
   the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened),
   against domestic violence.' And I do further proclaim,
   declare, and make known that any provision which may be
   adopted by such State government in relation to the freed
   people of such State, which shall recognize and declare their
   permanent freedom, provide for their education, and which may
   yet be consistent, as a temporary arrangement, with their
   present condition as a laboring, landless, and homeless class,
   will not be objected to by the national Executive.
{3516}
   And it is suggested as not improper, that, in constructing a
   loyal State government in any State, the name of the State,
   the boundary, the subdivisions, the constitution, and the
   general code of laws, as before the rebellion, be maintained,
   subject only to the modifications made necessary by the
   conditions hereinbefore stated, and such others, if any, not
   contravening said conditions, and which may be deemed
   expedient by those framing the new State government. To avoid
   misunderstanding, it may be proper to say that this
   proclamation, so far as it relates to State governments, has
   no reference to States wherein loyal State governments have
   all the while been maintained. And for the same reason, it may
   be proper to further say, that whether members sent to
   Congress from any State shall be admitted to seats
   constitutionally rests exclusively with the respective Houses,
   and not to any extent with the Executive. And still further,
   that this proclamation is intended to present the people of
   the States wherein the national authority has been suspended,
   and loyal State governments have been subverted, a mode in and
   by which the national authority and loyal State governments
   may be re-established within said States, or in any of them;
   and, while the mode presented is the best the Executive can
   suggest, with his present impressions, it must not be
   understood that no other possible mode would be acceptable.
   Given under my hand, at the City of Washington, the eighth day
   of December, in the year of our Lord, one thousand eight
   hundred and sixty-three, and of the independence of the United
   States of America the eighty-eighth.
   ABRAHAM LINCOLN."

In the Message Mr. Lincoln gave his reasons for the Proclamation, and explained the grounds on which he rested the policy declared in it, as follows: "On examination of this proclamation it will appear, as is believed, that nothing is attempted beyond what is amply justified by the Constitution. True, the form of an oath is given, but no man is coerced to take it. The man is only promised a pardon in case he voluntarily takes the oath. The Constitution authorizes the Executive to grant or withhold the pardon at his own absolute discretion; and this includes the power to grant on terms, as is fully established by judicial and other authorities. It is also proffered that if, in any of the States named, a State government shall be, in the mode prescribed, set up, such government shall be recognized and guaranteed by the United States, and that under it the State shall, on the constitutional conditions, be protected against invasion and domestic violence. The constitutional obligation of tire United States to guarantee to every State in the Union a republican form of government, and to protect the State, in the cases stated, is explicit and full. But why tender the benefits of this provision only to a State government set up in this particular way? This section of the Constitution contemplates a case wherein the element within a State, favorable to republican government, in the Union, may be too feeble for an opposite and hostile element external to or even within the State; and such are precisely the cases with which we are now dealing. An attempt to guarantee and protect a revived State government, constructed in whole, or in preponderating part, from the very element against whose hostility and violence it is to be protected, is simply absurd. There must be a test by which to separate the opposing elements so as to build only from the sound; and that test is a sufficiently liberal one which accepts as sound whoever will make a sworn recantation of his former unsoundness. But if it be proper to require, as a test of admission to the political body, an oath of allegiance to the Constitution of the United States, and to the Union under it, why also to the laws and proclamations in regard to slavery? Those laws and proclamations were enacted and put forth for the purpose of aiding in the suppression of the rebellion. To give them their fullest effect, there had to be a pledge for their maintenance. In my judgment they have aided, and will further aid, the cause for which they were intended. To now abandon them would be not only to relinquish a lever of power, but would also be a cruel and an astounding breach of faith. I may add at this point, that while I remain in my present position I shall not attempt to retract or modify the Emancipation Proclamation; nor shall I return to slavery any person who is free by the terms of that proclamation, or by any of the acts of Congress. For these and other reasons it is thought best that support of these measures shall be included in the oath; and it is believed the Executive may lawfully claim it in return for pardon and restoration of forfeited rights, which he has clear constitutional power to withhold altogether, or grant upon the terms which he shall deem wisest for the public interest. It should be observed, also, that this part of the oath is subject to the modifying and abrogating power of legislation and supreme judicial decision. The proposed acquiescence of the national Executive in any reasonable temporary State arrangement for the freed people is made with the view of possibly modifying the confusion and destitution which must at best attend all classes by a total revolution of labor throughout whole States. It is hoped that the already deeply afflicted people in those States may be somewhat more ready to give up the cause of their affliction, if, to this extent, this vital matter be left to themselves; while no power of the national Executive to prevent an abuse is abridged by the proposition. The suggestion in the proclamation as to maintaining the political frame-work of the States on what is called reconstruction, is made in the hope that it may do good without danger of harm. It will save labor, and avoid great confusion. But why any proclamation now upon this subject? This question is beset with the conflicting views that the step might be delayed too long or be taken too soon. In some States the elements for resumption seem ready for action, but remain inactive, apparently for want of a rallying-point—a plan of action. Why shall A adopt the plan of B, rather than B that of A? And if A and B should agree, how can they know but that the General Government here will reject their plan? By the proclamation a plan is presented which may be accepted by them as a rallying-point, and which they are assured in advance will not be rejected here. This may bring them to act sooner than they otherwise would. The objection to a premature presentation of a plan by the national Executive consists in the danger of committals on points which could be more safely left to further developments. Care has been taken to so shape the document as to avoid embarrassments from this source. {3517} Saying that, on certain terms, certain classes will be pardoned, with rights restored, it is not said that other classes, or other terms, will never be included. Saying that reconstruction will be accepted if presented in a specified way, it is not said it will never be accepted in any other way. The movements, by State action, for emancipation in several of the States, not included in the Emancipation Proclamation, are matters of profound gratulation. And while I do not repeat in detail what I have heretofore so earnestly urged upon this subject, my general views and feelings remain unchanged; and I trust that Congress will omit no fair opportunity of aiding these important steps to a great consummation. In the midst of other cares, however important, we must not lose sight of the fact that the war power is still our main reliance. To that power alone we can look, yet for a time, to give confidence to the people in the contested regions, that the insurgent power will not again overrun them. Until that confidence shall be established, little can be done anywhere for what is called reconstruction. Hence our chiefest care must still be directed to the army and navy, who have thus far borne their harder part so nobly and well. And it may be esteemed fortunate that in giving the greatest efficiency to these indispensable arms, we do also honorably recognize the gallant men, from commander to sentinel, who compose them, and to whom, more than to others, the world must stand indebted for the home of freedom disenthralled, regenerated, enlarged, and perpetuated. Abraham Lincoln."

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863-1864
(December-April: Tennessee-Mississippi).
   Winter operations.
   Sherman's Meridian Expedition.
   Longstreet's withdrawal from East Tennessee.

"Sherman was at Vicksburg. On a line with Vicksburg, but almost on the eastern boundary of the State, was the town of Meridian. Here two railroads crossed, one running north and south, extending from Mobile into the heart of Tennessee, and the other extending to the eastward into Alabama and Georgia. Railroads were few in the South at that time and the junction had made Meridian an important point. Here the Confederates had erected great warehouses for the storage of provisions and munitions of war. A considerable body of troops, too, was maintained at this point, whence they could be sent speedily by rail north or south, east or west, as the necessity might arise. General Sherman determined to fall upon Meridian, drive away the Confederate garrison, burn the arsenal and tear up the railroads so as to isolate the different parts of the Confederacy thenceforth. But in addition to accomplishing this he desired to effect the defeat and dispersal of the Confederate cavalry force under General Forrest, which was operating in Northern Mississippi and Southern Tennessee. Forrest was a brave and dashing leader. His men were hardy troopers, used to quick marches and reckless of danger. To crush him and annihilate his command would be a notable victory for the Union cause. Full of this project, Sherman boarded a steamer at Vicksburg and set out for Memphis, where were the headquarters of General W. Sooy Smith, then chief of cavalry in the division of the Mississippi. The river was full of great cakes of floating ice that bumped against the prow of the boat and ground against her sides until those on board feared that she might be sent to the bottom. But Memphis was reached without accident, and Sherman and the chief of cavalry were soon in earnest consultation. General Smith was ordered to take the field against Forrest with a force of 7,000 men. … It was agreed that General Smith should start from Memphis on February 1 and march southeast, while Sherman should leave Vicksburg February 3, and march due east. Thus they would effect a junction in the vicinity of Meridian. Sherman then re-embarked on the icy river and made his way back to Vicksburg. Promptly on the appointed day the head of Sherman's column passed out through the chain of earthworks that girdled the land ward side of Vicksburg. It was to be an expedition of destruction—a raid. His force of 25,000 men was in light marching order and advanced with such rapidity that the Confederates were driven from the very first, without having time to rally and oppose the advance of the invaders. Jackson was reached without any fighting, other than slight skirmishing with Polk's cavalry. The ministerial general had but 9,000 men in all, so he dared not make a determined stand against Sherman, but fled, without even destroying his pontoon bridge across the Pearl River, whereby the Federal advance was much expedited. From Jackson eastward the path of Sherman's army was marked by a broad belt of ashes and desolation. No public property was spared, nor anything which could be applied to public uses. Mills, railway stations, and rolling stock were burned. Railway tracks were torn up, the ties heaped on roaring fires and the rails heated red· hot and twisted out of shape. Sometimes the soldiers would twine a hot rail about a young tree, making what they facetiously termed 'Jeff Davis's neck-ties.' To Sherman's lines came escaping slaves in droves, old and young men, women and pickaninnies. … The slaves still further impoverished their masters by taking horses and mules with them when they fled, so that after Sherman's army had passed, most of the plantations in its track were stripped of their live-stock, both cattle and human. When Meridian was reached its defenders were nowhere to be seen. Sherman took possession and waited for Smith. Days passed without any word coming from the cavalry column. After a week in Meridian, Sherman set the torch to the public buildings and retraced his steps toward Vicksburg. He had taken 400 prisoners, destroyed 150 miles of track, 67 bridges, 20 locomotives and 28 cars; had burned several thousand bales of cotton, a number of steam mills, and over 2,000,000 bushels of corn. Over 1,000 Union white refugees and 8,000 negroes followed in his wake. In 1866, the historian Lossing, passing through Meridian, asked the Mayor of the town if Sherman had done the place much injury. 'Injury!' was the emphatic reply, 'Why, he took it away with him.'"

General Smith, in his report to General Sherman, gave the reasons for the falling back of the cavalry expedition, as follows: "We advanced to West Point and felt of the enemy, who was posted back of the Sakatonchee on our right and the Oktibbeha in our front, in force fully equal to my own that was available for service, encumbered as we were with our pack-mules and the captured stock, which by this time must have numbered full 3,000 horses and mules. The force consisted of mounted infantry, which was dismounted and in strong position under good cover, and beyond obstacles which could only be passed by defiles. To attempt to force my way through under such circumstances would have been the height of folly. I could not cross the Tombigbee, as there were no bridges and the stream could not be forded. To have attempted to turn the position by our right would have carried me all the way round to Houston again, and Forrest could again check me at the Houlka Swamp. I was ten days behind time; could get no communication through to you; did not know but what you were returning, and so determined to make a push at Forrest in front while I retired all my incumbrances and my main body rapidly toward Okolona, just in time to prevent a rebel brigade from getting in my rear, which had been thrown back for that purpose. We then retired, fighting for over 60 miles day and night."

In East Tennessee, during the winter little was done by either army. A slight encounter occurred at Dandridge, in January, between Longstreet's forces and those of the Union General Parke. In April Longstreet was recalled by Lee, and the Ninth Corps, with Burnside again in command, went back to the army of the Potomac.

ALSO IN: A. Badeau, Military History of Ulysses S. Grant, volume 1, chapter 13.

Comte de Paris, History of the Civil War in America, volume 4, book 4, chapter 1.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863-1864 (December-July).
   President Lincoln's plan of reconstruction, and its
   application to Louisiana.
   The opposing Congressional plan.

"The proclamation which accompanied the Annual Message of the President for 1864 embodied the first suggestions of the Administration on the important subject of reconstructing the Governments of those States which had joined in the secession movement. The matter had been canvassed somewhat extensively by the public press, and by prominent politicians, in anticipation of the overthrow of the rebellion. … A considerable number of the friends of the Government, in both houses, maintained that, by the act of secession, the revolted States had put themselves outside the pale of the Constitution, and were henceforth to be regarded and treated, not as members of the Union, but as alien enemies:—that their State organizations and State boundaries had been expunged by their own act; and that they were to be readmitted to the jurisdiction of the Constitution, and to the privileges of the Union, only upon such terms and conditions as the Federal Government of the loyal States might prescribe. … After the appearance of the President's proclamation, the movement towards reconstruction in Louisiana assumed greater consistency, and was carried forward with greater steadiness and strength. On the 8th of January a very large Free State Convention was held at New Orleans, at which resolutions were adopted indorsing all the acts and proclamations of the President, and urging the immediate adoption of measures for the restoration of the State to its old place in the Union. On the 11th, General Banks issued a proclamation, appointing an election for State officers on the 22d of February, who were to be installed on the 4th of March, and another election for delegates to a convention to revise the Constitution of the State on the first Monday in April. The old Constitution and laws of Louisiana were to be observed, except so far as they relate to slavery. … Under this order, parties were organized for the election of State officers. The friends of the National Government were divided, and two candidates were put in nomination for Governor, Honorable Michael Hahn being the regular nominee, and representing the supporters of the policy of the President, and Honorable B. F. Flanders being put in nomination by those who desired a more radical policy than the President had proposed. Both took very decided ground against the continued existence of slavery within the State. … The election resulted in the election of Mr. Hahn. … Mr. Hahn was inaugurated as Governor on the 4th of March. On the 15th he was clothed with the powers previously exercised by General Banks, as military governor. … On March 16th, Governor Hahn issued a proclamation, notifying the electors of the State of the election for delegates to the convention previously ordered by General Banks. The party which elected Governor Hahn succeeded also in electing a large majority of the delegates to the convention, which met in New Orleans on the 6th of April. On the 11th of May it adopted, by a vote of 70 to 16, a clause of the new Constitution, by which slavery was forever abolished in the State. The Constitution was adopted on the 5th of September, by a vote of 6,836 to 1,566. Great umbrage was taken at these proceedings by some of the best friends of the cause, as if there had been an unauthorized and unjustifiable interference on the part of the President. … In Arkansas, where a decided Union feeling had existed from the outbreak of the rebellion, the appearance of the proclamation was the signal for a movement to bring the State back into the Union. On the 20th of January, a delegation of citizens from that State had an interview with the President, in which they urged the adoption of certain measures for the re-establishment of a legal State Government, and especially the ordering of an election for Governor. … Meantime, a convention had assembled at Little Rock, composed of delegates elected without any formality, and not under the authority of the General Government, and proceeded to form a new State Constitution, and to fix a day for an election. … The convention framed a constitution abolishing slavery, which was subsequently adopted by a large majority of the people. It also provided for the election of State officers on the day appointed for the vote upon the constitution; and the legislature chosen at that election elected two gentlemen, Messrs. Fishback and Baxter, as United States Senators, and also Representatives. These gentlemen presented their credentials at Washington. … The whole matter was referred to the Judiciary Committee, who … reported on the 27th of June that on the facts it did not appear that the rebellion was so far suppressed in Arkansas as to entitle the State to representation in Congress, and that therefore Messrs. Fishback and Baxter were not entitled to seats as Senators from the State of Arkansas. And the Senate on the next day adopted their report by a vote of 27 to 6. {3519} In the House, meanwhile, the Committee on Elections, to whom the application of the Arkansas members had been referred, reported to postpone their admission until a commission could be sent to inquire into and report the facts of the election, and to create a commission for the examination of all such cases. This proposition was, however, laid on the table, and the members were not admitted. … The cause of the rejection of these Senators and Representatives was, that a majority in Congress had not agreed with the President in reference to the plan of reconstruction which he proposed. A bill for the reconstruction of the States was introduced into the Senate, and finally passed both Houses on the last day of the session. It provided that the President should appoint, for each of the States declared in rebellion, a Provisional Governor, who should be charged with the civil administration of the State until a State Government should be organized and such other civil officers as were necessary for the civil administration of the State; that as soon as military resistance to the United States should be suppressed and the people had sufficiently returned to their obedience, the Governor should make an enrolment of the white male citizens, specifying which of them had taken the oath to support the Constitution of the United States, and if those who had taken it were a majority of the persons enrolled, he should order an election for delegates to a Constitutional Convention, to be elected by the loyal white male citizens of the United States aged twenty-one years. … The bill further provided that when a constitution containing … provisions [excluding rebels from office, prohibiting slavery, and repudiating Confederate debts] should have been framed by the convention and adopted by the popular vote, the Governor should certify that fact to the President, who, after obtaining the assent of Congress, should recognize this government so established as the Government of the State, and from that date senators and representatives and electors for President and Vice-President should be elected in the State. … This bill thus passed by Congress was presented to the President just before the close of the session, but was not signed by him."

   The President's reasons for not signing the bill were given to
   the public as well as to Congress in the following
   Proclamation:

"Whereas, at the late session, Congress passed a bill to 'guarantee to certain States, whose governments have been usurped or overthrown, a republican form of government,' a copy of which is hereunto annexed; And whereas the said bill was presented to the President of the United States for his approval less than one hour before the sine die adjournment of said session, and was not signed by him; And whereas the said bill contains, among other things, a plan for restoring the States in rebellion to their proper practical relation in the Union, which plan expresses the sense of Congress upon that subject, and which plan it is now thought fit to lay before the people for their consideration: Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, do proclaim, declare, and make known, that, while I am (as I was in December last, when by proclamation I propounded a plan for restoration) unprepared, by a formal approval of this bill, to be inflexibly committed to any single plan of restoration; and, while I am also unprepared to declare that the free-State constitutions and governments already adopted and installed in Arkansas and Louisiana shall be set aside and held for nought, thereby repelling and discouraging the loyal citizens who have set up the same as to further effort, or to declare a constitutional competency in Congress to abolish slavery in States, but am at the same time sincerely hoping and expecting that a constitutional amendment abolishing slavery throughout the nation may be adopted, nevertheless I am fully satisfied with the system for restoration contained in the bill as one very proper plan for the loyal people of any State choosing to adopt it, and that I am, and at all times shall be, prepared to give the executive aid and assistance to any such people, so soon as the military resistance to the United States shall have been suppressed in any such State, and the people thereof shall have sufficiently returned to their obedience to the Constitution and the laws of the United States, in which cases military governors will be appointed, with directions to proceed according to the bill.

In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand, and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed. Done at the city of Washington, this eighth day of July, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred an sixty-four, and of the independence of the United States the eighty-ninth. Abraham Lincoln. By the President: William H. Seward, Secretary of State."

      J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay,
      Abraham Lincoln,
      volume 8, chapters 16-17.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (January-February: Florida).
Unsuccessful Operations.
Battle of Olustee.

   "Early in the winter of 1863-64, General Gillmore, commanding
   the Department of the South, … resolved upon an expedition
   into Florida to take possession of such portions of the
   Eastern and Northern sections of the State as could be easily
   held by small garrisons. … He afterwards added another detail
   to his plan: to assist in bringing Florida back into the
   Union, in accordance with the President's Proclamation of
   December 8, 1863. This came in time to be regarded by the
   opponents of the Administration as the sole purpose of the
   expedition, and Mr. Lincoln has received a great deal of
   unjust censure for having made a useless sacrifice of life for
   a political end. … The expedition to Florida was under the
   immediate charge of General Truman Seymour, an accomplished
   and gallant officer of the regular army. He landed at
   Jacksonville and pushed forward his mounted force 20 miles to
   Baldwin. … Gillmore himself arrived at Baldwin on the 9th of
   February, and after a full conference and, as he thought,
   understanding with Seymour, returned to Jacksonville. … On the
   18th he was surprised at receiving a letter from Seymour,
   dated the day before, announcing his intention of moving at
   once to the Suwanee River without supplies, and asking for a
   strong demonstration of the army and navy in the Savannah
   River to assist his movement. … Gillmore wrote a peremptory
   letter, ordering him to restrict himself to holding Baldwin
   and the south prong of the St. Mary's River and occupying
   Palatka and Magnolia, and dispatched a staff officer to
   Florida with it. He arrived too late.
{3520}
   Seymour had made up his mind that there was less risk in going
   forward than in staying at Baldwin, and like the brave and
   devoted soldier that he was had resolved to take the
   responsibility. He marched rapidly out towards Olustee, where
   the enemy under General Joseph Finegan was supposed to be, but
   came upon them unexpectedly about two miles east of that
   place. The forces were equal in numbers, about 5,500 on each
   side; the advantage to the Confederates was that they were in
   a strong position selected by themselves and ready for the
   fight. General J. R. Hawley, who commanded a brigade of
   infantry in the battle, says: 'We rushed in, not waiting for
   the proper full formation, and were fought in detail.' …
   Seymour's attack was constantly repulsed with heavy loss,
   until at nightfall he fell back to a new line. He was not
   pursued, and retired in good order and unmolested to
   Jacksonville. The Union loss was 1861; the Confederate, 940.
   This misadventure put an end for the moment to the attempt to
   occupy Florida."

      J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay,
      Abraham Lincoln,
      volume 8, chapter 11.

      ALSO IN:
      S. Jones and J. R. Hawley,
      Olustee
      (Battles and Leaders, volume 4).

      L. F. Emilio,
      History of the 54th Regiment Massachusetts Volunteers,
      chapter 8.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (February-March: Virginia).
Kilpatrick's and Dahlgren's Raid to Richmond.

"Public feeling throughout the North had been greatly excited by the deplorable condition of the prisoners of war held at Richmond. Early in the year, before the opening of the great campaign, some expeditions had been undertaken both from the Army of the Potomac and from Fortress Monroe, with the intention of relieving them. On February 27th, Custer, with 1500 horse, had crossed the Rapidan on a feint to the west of the Confederate army, while Kilpatrick, starting on the following day, moved down on its opposite flank, by Spottsylvania Court House, to within 3½ miles of Richmond, passing its first and second lines of defenses [March], but being obliged to fall back from its third. Pursued by a force of the enemy, he was compelled to cross the White House Railroad and move down the peninsula. A detachment of Kilpatrick's force, 400 strong, under Colonel Ulric Dahlgren, leaving the main body at Spottsylvania, had gone to the right through Louisa and Goochland Counties, intending to cross the James River and enter Richmond from the south, while Kilpatrick attacked it on the north. But the river was found to be too deep to be forded. Dahlgren passed down the north bank to the fortifications of Richmond, forcing his way through the outer works, but being repulsed from the inner. Finding that Kilpatrick's attempt had miscarried, he moved toward King and Queen Court House; but after crossing the Mattapony at Dabney's Ferry, he fell into an ambuscade [March 3], his command being scattered, and himself killed. Under a false pretense that papers were found upon him showing an intention to set fire to Richmond, and take the lives of Davis and his cabinet, his corpse was insulted and the place of its interment concealed. At the time of his death he was but 21 years of age."

"The document alleged to have been found upon the person of Colonel Dahlgren is utterly discredited by the fact that the signature attached to it cannot possibly be his own, because it is not his name,—a letter is misplaced, and the real name Dahlgren is spelled 'Dalhgren'; hence it is undeniable that the paper is not only spurious, but is a forgery. … It is entirely certain that no such orders were ever issued by Colonel Dahlgren."

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (March-April).
General Grant in chief command of the whole army.
His plans of campaign.

"Immediate]y after the victories at Chattanooga Mr. Washburne of Illinois, the devoted friend and firm supporter of General Grant through good and evil report, introduced a bill in Congress to revive the grade of lieutenant-general in the army. The measure occasioned a good deal of discussion. This high rank had never been conferred on any citizen of the republic except Washington, who held it for a short time before his death. It was discontinued for more than half a century and then conferred by brevet only upon General Scott. There were those who feared, or affected to fear, that so high a military rank was threatening to the liberties of the republic. The great majority of Congress, however, considered the liberties of the republic more robust than this fear would indicate, and the bill was finally passed on the 26th cf February, and received the approval of the President on the 29th of February. … Immediately upon signing the bill the President nominated Grant to the Senate for the office created by it. … The Senate immediately confirmed his nomination, and on the 3d of March the Secretary of War directed him to report in person to the War Department as early as practicable. … He started for Washington the next day, but in the midst of his hurried preparations for departure he found time to write a letter of the most warm and generous friendship to Sherman." Grant's commission as Lieutenant-General of the Army of the United States was formally presented to him by President Lincoln on the 9th of March. "After the presentation of the commission a brief conversation took place. General Grant inquired what special service was expected of him. The President replied that our country wanted him to take Richmond; he said our generals had not been fortunate in their efforts in that direction and asked if the Lieutenant-General could do it. Grant, without hesitation, answered that he could if he had the troops. These the President assured him he should have. There was not one word said as to what route to Richmond should be chosen. The next day Grant visited General Meade at the headquarters of the Army of the Potomac at Brandy Station. … Meade said that it was possible Grant might want an officer to command the Army of the Potomac who had been with him in the West, and made especial mention of Sherman. He begged him if that was the case not to hesitate about making the change. … Grant assured him that he had no thought of making any change; and that Sherman could not be spared from the West. He returned to Washington on the 11th. The next day he was placed in command of all the armies by orders from the War Department; but without waiting for a single day to accept the lavish proffers of hospitality which were showered upon him, he started West again on the evening of the 11th of March. {3521} In that short time he had utterly changed his views and plans for the future conduct of the war. He had relinquished the purpose he had hitherto firmly held of leading the Western armies on the great campaign to Atlanta and the sea, and had decided to take the field with the Army of the Potomac. … Sherman at his request was promoted to command the Military Division of the Mississippi, McPherson succeeded to Sherman's command of the Department of the Tennessee, and Logan was promoted to the command of McPherson's corps." The necessary arrangements were quickly made. General Sherman assumed his enlarged command on the 18th of March, and General Grant a few days later was with the Army of the Potomac. He "established his headquarters at Culpeper Court House near the end of March, and spent a month in preparations for the great campaign which he, in common with the entire North, hoped would end the war. … The plan of the Lieutenant-General, as set forth in his report, was extremely simple. So far as practicable, the armies were to move together, and towards one common center. Banks was to finish his operations in Louisiana, and, leaving a small garrison on the Rio Grande, was to concentrate an army of some 25,000 men, and move on Mobile. Sherman was to move simultaneously with the other armies, General Johnston's army being his objective, and the heart of Georgia his ultimate aim. Sigel, who was in command in the Shenandoah, was to move to the front in two columns, one to threaten the enemy in the Valley, the other to cut the railroads connecting Richmond with the Southwest. Gillmore was to be brought north with his corps, and in company with another corps, under W. F. Smith, was to form an army under General B. F. Butler to operate against Richmond south of the James. Lee's army was to be the objective point of Meade, reënforced by Burnside. As to the route by which the Army of the Potomac was to advance, Grant reserved his decision until just before he started upon his march. … The two armies lay in their intrenchments on both sides of the Rapidan. The headquarters … of Lee [were] at Orange Court House; the Army of Northern Virginia guarded the south bank of the river for 18 or 20 miles, Ewell commanding the right half, A. P. Hill the left. The formidable works on Mine Run secured the Confederate right wing, which was further protected by the tangled and gloomy thickets of the Wilderness. Longstreet had arrived from Tennessee with two fine divisions, and was held in reserve at Gordonsville. The two armies were not so unequally matched as Confederate writers insist. The strength of the Army of the Potomac, present for duty equipped, on the 30th of April, was 122,146; this includes the 22,708 of Burnside's Ninth Corps. The Army of Northern Virginia numbered at the opening of this campaign not less than 61,953. While this seems like a great disparity of strength, it must not be forgotten that the Confederate general had an enormous advantage of position. The dense woods and the thickly timbered swamps … were as well known to him as the lines of his own hand, and were absolutely unknown to his antagonist."

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (March-May: Louisiana).
The Red River Expedition.

"As the third year began, General Banks conceived the idea that the trade of Western Louisiana could be opened by the medium of the Red river, and projected an expedition to take possession of the country adjacent to its course. This river is open for navigation by larger vessels, only during the high water of March and April. Porter was to command the fleet of twenty of the finest vessels on the Mississippi, and Sherman was persuaded to lend some of his troops for the purpose. A. J. Smith was to start from Vicksburg with 10,000 men, while Banks would proceed up river from New Orleans, with Franklin's division. Steele from Little Rock was to operate towards Shreveport to join the main army. General Taylor was in command of the enemy's forces at Shreveport. The fleet started up the Red river in company with the transports carrying A. J. Smith's column. Fort De Russy was captured [March 14], the enemy retiring before our troops, and Alexandria and Nachitoches fell into our hands as the joint force advanced. Banks put in an appearance a week later. There was more or less skirmishing with the enemy's horse and outposts along the entire route; and near Mansfield, at Sabine Cross-Roads, the vanguard met the enemy in force. Sufficient care had not been taken to keep the several bodies concentrated. It was on Smith that the attack fell [April 8], and though this general's record for endurance is of the best, he was nevertheless badly worsted with a loss of 2,000 men out of 8,000 engaged, and some twenty guns. Retiring to Pleasant Hill, another stand was made for the possession of what had been so far gained. … The fleet had meanwhile reached Grand Écore. High water was coming to an end, and Porter was obliged to return down river, to Alexandria. Here it was found that most of the vessels were of too heavy draught to pass the falls below the town; and the loss of most of them would have been certain, but for a dam and waterway ably constructed by Colonel Bailey, an engineer remarkably fertile in expedients. By means of this device the fleet was safely floated over. On the retreat, Alexandria was burned [May 15] by accident, traceable to no particular cause, though, naturally enough laid by the Confederates to our spirit of revenge."

"We prefer not to enter into the bitter discussions to which this disastrous campaign gave rise on both sides of the line. A life-long quarrel sprang up between Kirby Smith and Taylor, between Banks and Porter, while Franklin, Charles P. Stone (Banks's chief-of-staff), and Albert L. Lee, all of whom relinquished their commands, added their quota of misunderstanding and resentment. … The Committee on the Conduct of the War made an investigation of the matter in the year 1865, at the time when the antagonism between Mr. Lincoln and the Radicals in relation to the subject of reconstruction had assumed an acute form. … The charge was made by the committee against Banks, that what he had in view was to carry out measures for the establishment of a State government in Louisiana, and to afford an egress for cotton and other products of that region, and that the attention directed to the accomplishment of these objects exerted an unfavorable influence on the expedition. … The honorable poverty in which General Banks has passed his subsequent life is the best answer to the reckless charges of his enemies."

Report of Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War, 38th Congress, 2d Session, volume 2.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864
(March-October: Arkansas-Missouri).
Last important operations in the West.
Price's raid.

"During the winter of 1863-1864 the forces of Generals Steele and Blunt held the Arkansas River as a Federal line of advance. … During this period of inactivity, however, Steele was making preparations for a vigorous spring campaign. It was decided that the column under General Banks and the columns under General Steele from Little Rock and Fort Smith should converge toward Shreveport, Louisiana. The Federal columns under Steele left Little Rock and Fort Smith the latter part of March, moved toward the Southern part of the State, and after some fighting and manœuvring drove General Price's forces from Camden, Arkadelphia and Washington. In the midst of these successful operations, Steele received information that Banks' army had been defeated and was retreating and that Price had received reënforcements from Kirby Smith of 5000 infantry and a complement of artillery, and would at once assume the offensive.

Not feeling strong enough to fight the combined Confederate forces, Steele determined to fall back upon Little Rock. He had scarcely commenced his retrograde movement when Smith and Price began to press him vigorously. A retreating fight was kept up for several days, until the Federal army reached Jenkins's Ferry on the Saline River," where Smith and Price made an energetic attack on the Federal army (April 30) and were repulsed with heavy loss. "After the battle of Jenkins's Ferry, instead of making preparations to attack the Federal forces at Little Rock and Fort Smith, Price commenced organizing his forces for an expedition into Missouri. … Price's army for the invasion of Missouri numbered some 15,000 men and 20 pieces of artillery before crossing the Arkansas River, and consisted of three divisions, commanded by Generals Fagan, Marmaduke and Shelby. … About the 1st of September, while strong demonstrations were being made against Fort Smith and Little Rock, Price, with his army, crossed the Arkansas River about half-way between those points, at Dardanelle, and marched to the northern part of the State without opposition, and, in fact, without his movements being definitely known to General Rosecrans, who then commanded the Department of the Missouri at St. Louis," to which he had been appointed in January. At Pilot Knob, where they arrived September 26th, the Confederates were opposed by General Thomas Ewing, Jr., with a small force of 1051 men. The fortifications at Pilot Knob were strong and Ewing held them against the vigorous attacks of Price throughout the 27th, but evacuated that night, blowing up the magazine and retreating safely. The Confederate invaders then marched on St. Louis and attacked the outer defences of the city, some miles to the south of it, but found themselves opposed by the veterans of General A. J. Smith's division, which had been opportunely stopped on its way down the Mississippi River to join Sherman. Foiled at St. Louis, Price then moved upon Jefferson City, the State capital, but was closely pursued and driven off. Advancing westward, he was met at Lexington, October 20th, by forces from Kansas, under General Blunt, but forced the latter to retire from the town, after severe fighting. Thence to Independence his progress was steadily resisted by Generals Blunt and Curtis, with volunteers and militia from Kansas. At Independence, on the 22d, Pleasonton's cavalry, of Rosecrans's army, came up and formed a junction with the forces of Curtis, and the next day they engaged Price in battle near Westport. "The opposing armies fought over an area of five or six square miles, and at some points the fighting was furious. … About the middle of the afternoon Price's lines began to give way, and by sundown the entire Confederate army was in full retreat southward along the State line, closely pursued by the victorious Federal forces." At the crossing of the Marais des Cygnes River he lost ten pieces of his artillery and a large number of prisoners, including Generals Marmaduke and Cabell. "At Newtonia in south-west Missouri, on the 28th of October, Price made another stand, and was attacked by the pursuing forces … and finally driven from the field with heavy loss. This was next to the severest battle of the campaign. Blunt, and some of the Missouri troops, continued the pursuit to the Arkansas River, but Price did not again attempt to make a stand. His line of march from Westport to Newtonia was strewn with the debris of a routed army. He crossed the Arkansas River above Fort Smith with a few pieces of artillery, with his army demoralized and reduced by captures and dispersion to perhaps less than 5,000 men. Most of the noted guerrilla bands followed him from the State. The 'Price raid,' as it was called in the West, was the last military operation of much consequence that took place in Missouri and Arkansas. It is certain that Price lost more than he gained in war material and that the raid did not tend to strengthen the Confederate cause in the West."

      W. Britton,
      Résumé of Military Operations in
      Missouri and Arkansas, 1864-1865
      (Battles and Leaders, volume 4).

"In General Price's report occurs the following summary of the campaign: 'I marched 1,434 miles, fought 43 battles and skirmishes, captured and paroled over 3,000 Federal officers and men, captured 18 pieces of artillery, 3,000 stand of small-arms, 16 stand of colors … and destroyed property to the cost of $10,000,000. I lost ten pieces of artillery. 2 stand of colors, 1,000 small arms, while I do not think I lost 1,000 prisoners. … I brought with me at least 5,000 recruits.'"

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (April: Tennessee).
The Massacre at Fort Pillow.

   After General Sherman's return from his raid to Meridian, and
   General William Sooy Smith's return to Memphis, the
   Confederate cavalry leader Forrest advanced into Tennessee,
   devastating the country. "He captured Jackson in that State,
   on the 23d of March, and moving northward, appeared before
   Paducah, held by Colonel Hicks with 650 men.
{3523}
   His demand for a surrender was accompanied with a threat: 'If
   you surrender, you shall be treated as prisoners of war; but
   if I have to storm your works, you may expect no quarter:' he
   made three assaults, and then retired, having lost 1,500 men.
   On the 12th of April he was at Fort Pillow, which was
   garrisoned by 19 officers and 538 men, of whom 262 were
   negroes. This force was not a part of the army, but a
   nondescript body in process of formation, placed there to
   cover a trading-post for the convenience of families supposed
   to be friendly, or at least not hostile; it had been left in
   violation of Sherman's peremptory orders. The attack was made
   before sunrise; and after some severe fighting, Major Booth,
   the commanding officer of the garrison, was killed. Major
   Brodford, who succeeded him, drew the troops from the outer
   line of intrenchments into the fort, and continued the contest
   until afternoon. A gun-boat which had been co-operating in the
   defense, withdrew to cool or clean her guns, and, the fire
   slackening, Forrest sent a summons to surrender, and shortly
   after a second, demanding that the surrender should be made in
   twenty minutes. These terms were declined by Bradford. But
   while the negotiations were in progress, the assailants were
   stealthily advancing, and gaining such positions that they
   could rush upon the fort. Accordingly, as soon as Bradford's
   answer was received, they sprang forward. The fort was
   instantly carried. Its garrison threw down their arms and
   fled, seeking refuge wherever they could. And now was
   perpetrated one of the most frightful acts of all recorded
   history. The carnage did not cease with the struggle of the
   storming, but was continued as a carnival of murder until
   night, and renewed again the next morning. Without any
   discrimination of color, age, or sex, the fugitives were
   dragged from their hiding-places, and cruelly murdered.
   Wounded men, who had made a gallant defense, were atrociously
   compelled to stand up and be shot; some were burnt in their
   tents, some were stabbed. For the black soldiers there was no
   mercy. 'They were massacred because they were niggers,' and
   the whites 'because they were fighting with niggers.' General
   Stephen E. Lee, the superior of Forrest, partly denying and
   partly excusing this atrocity, says, 'It is generally conceded
   by all military precedent that, when the issue has been fairly
   presented and the ability displayed, fearful results are
   expected to follow a refusal to surrender. The case under
   consideration is almost an extreme one. You had a servile race
   armed against their masters, and in a country which had been
   desolated by almost unprecedented outrages.' The Committee of
   Congress on the Conduct of the War appointed a sub-committee
   to go to such places as they might deem necessary, and take
   testimony in relation to the Fort Pillow massacre. Their
   report presents facts in connection with this massacre of the
   deepest atrocity. Men were not only shot in cold blood and
   drowned, but were even crucified, buried alive, nailed to the
   floors of houses, which were then set on fire. 'No cruelty,'
   says this committee, 'which the most fiendish malignity could
   devise, was omitted by these murderers.' 'From 300 to 400 men
   are known to have been killed at Fort Pillow, of whom at least
   300 were murdered in cold blood after the post was in
   possession of the rebels, and our men had thrown down their
   arms and ceased to offer resistance.' … It should be mentioned
   in behalf of General Forrest that one of the witnesses, who
   had been rewounded, testified that 'Forrest gave orders to
   stop the firing.'"

"I arrived off the fort at 6 a. m. on the morning of the 13th inst. [April]. … About 8 a. m. the enemy sent in a flag of truce with a proposal from General Forrest that he would put me in possession of the fort and the country around until 5 p. m. for the purpose of burying our dead and removing our wounded, whom he had no means of attending to. I agreed to the terms proposed. … We found about 70 wounded men in the fort and around it, and buried, I should think, 150 bodies. … All the wounded who had strength enough to speak agreed that after the fort was taken an indiscriminate slaughter of our troops was carried on by the enemy with a furious and vindictive savageness which was never equalled by the most merciless of the Indian tribes. Around on every side horrible testimony to the truth of this statement could be seen. … Strewn from the fort to the river bank, in the ravines and hollows, behind logs and under the brush where they had crept for protection from the assassins who pursued them, we found bodies bayoneted, beaten, and shot to death, showing how cold blooded and persistent was the slaughter of our unfortunate troops."

      Report of Acting-Master W. Ferguson,
      United States Steamer Silver Cloud
      (Official Records, Series 1, volume 32, part 1, page 571).

      ALSO IN:
      Report of Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War
      (30th Congress, 1st Session, H. R. Report Number 65).

      Comte de Paris,
      History of the Civil War in America,
      volume 4., book 4, chapter 1.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (April-May: North Carolina).
Exploits of the ram Albemarle.
Surrender of Plymouth.

In the squadron [of the Confederates] we were gladdened by the success of our iron-clad ram Albemarle, which vessel, under Captain James B. Cooke, had (after overcoming innumerable difficulties) succeeded in descending the Roanoke river, April 19th [1864], and dispersing the Federal squadron off Plymouth, North Carolina. She sunk the steamer Southfield, and drove the other vessels off; and her presence led to the recapture of Plymouth by the Confederates. On the 5th of May the Albemarle started from Plymouth with the small steamer Bombshell in company, on what was called a secret expedition. I think it probable the intention was to destroy the wooden men-of-war in the sounds, and then tow troops in barges to Hatteras and retake it. If this could have been done the Albemarle would have had it all her own way, and Roanoke island, Newbern and other places would again have fallen into the hands of the Confederates. Shortly after leaving Plymouth the Albemarle fell in with the Federal squadron, consisting of the steamers Mattabesett, Sassacus, Wyalusing, Whitehead, Miami, Ceres, Commodore Hull and Seymour—all under the command of Captain Melancton Smith, and after a desperate combat was forced to return to Plymouth."

      ALSO IN:
      J. R. Soley,
      The Blockade and the Cruisers
      (The Navy in the Civil War, volume 1), chapter 4.

      D. Ammen,
      The Atlantic Coast
      (same Series, volume 2), chapter 9.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (May: Virginia).
Grant's movement on Richmond.
The Battle of the Wilderness.

"The movement of the Army of the Potomac commenced early on the morning of the 4th of May, under the immediate direction and orders of Major-General Mead, pursuant to instructions. Before night the whole army was across the Rapidan—the Fifth and Sixth Corps crossing at Germanna Ford, and the Second Corps at United States' (Ely's) Ford, the cavalry, under Major-General Sheridan, moving in advance,—with the greater part of its trains, numbering about 4,000 wagons, meeting with but slight opposition. The average distance traveled by the troops that day was about 12 miles. This I regarded as a great success, and it removed from my mind the most serious apprehensions I had entertained, that of crossing the river in the face of an active, large, well-appointed, and ably commanded army, and how so large a train was to be carried through a hostile country and protected. Early on the 5th, the advance corps (the Fifth, Major General G. K. Warren commanding), met and engaged the enemy outside his intrenchments near Mine Run. The battle raged furiously all day, the whole army being brought into the fight as fast as the corps could be got upon the field, which, considering the density of the forest and narrowness of the roads, was done with commendable promptness.

General Burnside, with the Ninth Corps, was at the time the Army of the Potomac moved, left with the bulk of his corps at the crossing of the Rappahannock River and Alexandria railroad, holding the road back to Bull Run, with instructions not to move until he received notice that a crossing of the Rapidan was secured, but to move promptly as soon as such notice was received. This crossing he was apprised of on the afternoon of the 4th. By 6 o'clock of the morning of the 6th he was leading his corps into action near the Wilderness Tavern, some of his troops having marched a distance of over 30 miles, crossing both the Rappahannock and Rapidan Rivers. Considering that a large proportion (probably two-thirds), of his command was composed of new troops, unaccustomed to marches and carrying the accouterments of a soldier, this was a remarkable march. The battle of the Wilderness was renewed by us at 5 o'clock on the morning of the 6th, and continued with unabated fury until darkness set in, each army holding substantially the same position that they had on the evening of the 5th. After dark the enemy made a feeble attempt to turn our right flank, capturing several hundred prisoners and creating considerable confusion. But the promptness of General Sedgwick, who was personally present and commanded that part of our line, soon reformed it and restored order. On the morning of the 7th reconnaissances showed that the enemy had fallen behind his intrenched lines, with pickets to the front, covering a part of the battle-field. From this it was evident to my mind that the two days' fighting had satisfied him of his inability to further maintain the contest in the open field, notwithstanding his advantage of position, and that he would await an attack behind his works. I therefore determined to push on and put my whole force between him and Richmond, and orders were at once issued for a movement by his right flank. On the night of the 7th the march was commenced toward Spottsylvania Court House, the Fifth Corps moving on the most direct road. But the enemy having become apprised of our movement, and having the shorter line, was enabled to reach there first."

General U. S. Grant, Official Report (Official Records, Series 1, volume 36, part 1, page 18).

The casualties of the Army of the Potomac and Burnside's Ninth Corps (then not incorporated with it) in the battle of the Wilderness were "2,265 killed, 10,220 wounded, and 2,902 missing. Total, 15,387. Killed and wounded, 12,485. … The woods took fire in many places, and it is estimated that 200 of our wounded perished in the flames and smoke. According to the tabular statement, Part First, 'Medical and Surgical History of the War,' the casualties in the Army of Northern Virginia were 2,000 killed, 6,000 wounded, and 3,400 missing. The authority for this statement is not given, and I do not find anywhere records of the loss of that army in the Wilderness. … Both sides lost many valuable officers in this battle, [including, on the Union side, General Wadsworth]. … So far as I know, no great battle ever took place before on such ground. But little of the combatants could be seen, and its progress was known to the senses chiefly by the rising and falling sounds of a vast musketry that continually swept along the lines of battle many miles in length, sounds which at times approached to the sublime."

A. A. Humphreys, The Virginia Campaign of 1864 and 1865 (Campaigns of the Civil war, volume 12), chapter 2.

"All the peculiar advantages of the Army of the Potomac were sacrificed in the jungle-fighting into which they were thus called to engage. Of what use here were the tactical skill and the perfection of form, acquired through long and patient exercise; of what use here the example and the personal influence of a Hays or a Hancock, a Brooke or a Barlow? How can a battle be fitly ordered in such a tangle of wood and brush, where troops can neither be sent straight to their destination nor seen and watched over, when, after repeatedly losing direction and becoming broken into fragments in their advance through thickets and jungles, they at last make their way up to the line of battle, perhaps at the point they were designed to reinforce, perhaps far from it? … It will never cease to be an object of amazement to me that, with such a tract in prospect, the character of it being known, in general, to army headquarters through the Chancellorsville campaign … a supreme effort was not made … to carry the Army of the Potomac either through these jungles toward Mine Run, or past it, toward Spottsylvania."

      ALSO IN:
      E. M. Law, A. S. Webb, and others,
      The Wilderness Campaign
      (Battles and Leaders, volume 4).

      W. Swinton,
      The Twelve Decisive Battles of the War,
      chapter 9.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (May: Virginia).
Sheridan's raid to Richmond.

   "When the Army of the Potomac emerged from the Wilderness,
   Sheridan was sent to cut Lee's communications. This was the
   first of the remarkable raids of that remarkable leader, in
   Virginia, and, though short, was a destructive one. He took
   with him a greater portion of the cavalry led by Merritt,
   Gregg and Wilson, and, cutting loose from the army, he swept
   over the Po and the Ta, crossed the North Anna on the 9th, and
   struck the Virginia Central railway at Beaver Dam Station,
   which he captured.
{3525}
   He destroyed ten miles of the railway; also its rolling stock,
   with a million and a half of rations, and released 400 Union
   prisoners, on their way to Richmond from the Wilderness. There
   he was attacked in flank and rear by General J. E. B. Stuart
   and his cavalry, who had pursued him from the Rapid Anna
   [Rapidan], but was not much impeded thereby. He pushed on,
   crossed the South Anna at Ground-squirrel Bridge, and at
   daylight on the morning of the 11th, captured Ashland Station,
   on the Fredericksburg road, where he destroyed the railway
   property, a large quantity of stores, and the road itself for
   six miles. Being charged with the duty of not only destroying
   these roads, but of menacing Richmond and communicating with
   the army of the James, … Sheridan pressed on in the direction
   of the Confederate capital, when he was confronted by Stuart
   at Yellow Tavern, a few miles north of Richmond, where that
   able leader, having made a swift circuitous march, had
   concentrated all of his available cavalry. Sheridan attacked
   him at once, and, after a sharp engagement, drove the
   Confederates toward Ashland, on the north fork of the
   Chickahominy, with a loss of their gallant leader, who, with
   General Gordon, was mortally wounded. Inspirited by this
   success, Sheridan pushed along the now open turnpike toward
   Richmond, and made a spirited dash upon the outer works.
   Custer's brigade carried them at that point and made 100
   prisoners. As in the case of Kilpatrick's raid, so now, the
   second line of works were too strong to be carried by cavalry.
   The troops in and around the city had rallied for their
   defense, and in an attack the Nationals were repulsed. Then
   Sheridan led his command across the Chickahominy, at Meadow
   Bridge, where he beat off a considerable force of infantry
   sent out from Richmond, and who attacked him in the rear,
   while another force assailed his front. He also drove the foe
   on his front, when he destroyed the railway bridge there, and
   then pushed on southward to Haxall's Landing, on the James
   River, where he rested three days and procured supplies. Then,
   by way of White House and Hanover Court House, he leisurely
   returned to the Army of the Potomac, which he rejoined on the
   25th of May."

H. B. McClellan, Life and Campaigns of Major-General J. E. B. Stuart, chapter 20.

      J. B. Jones,
      A Rebel War Clerk's Diary,
      volume 2, pages 202-208.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (May: Virginia).
Grant's movement upon Richmond: Spottsylvania Court House.
The Bloody Angle.

"Throughout the entire day succeeding this first great conflict [in The Wilderness], General Lee remained quiet, watching for some movement of his adversary. His success in the preliminary struggle had been gratifying, considering the great disproportion of numbers, but he indulged no expectation of a retrograde movement across the Rapidan, on the part of General Grant. He expected him rather to advance, and anxiously awaited some development of this intention. There were no indications of such a design up to the night of the 7th, but at that time, to use the words of a confidential member of Lee's staff, 'he all at once seemed to conceive the idea that his enemy was preparing to forsake his position, and move toward Hanover Junction via the Spottsylvania Court-House, and, believing this, he at once detailed Anderson's division with orders to proceed rapidly toward the court-house. General Anderson commenced his march about nine o'clock at night, when the Federal column was already upon its way. A race now began for the coveted position, and General Stuart, with his dismounted sharp-shooters behind improvised breastworks, harassed and impeded the Federal advance, at every step, throughout the night. This greatly delayed their march, and their head of column did not reach the vicinity of Spottsylvania Court-House until past sunrise. General Warren, leading the Federal advance, then hurried forward, followed by General Hancock, when suddenly he found himself in front of breastworks, and was received with a fire of musketry. Lee had succeeded in interposing himself between General Grant and Richmond. On the same evening the bulk of the two armies were facing each other on the line of the Po. … General Lee had taken up his position on the south bank of one of the four tributaries of the Mattapony. These four streams are known as the Mat, Ta, Po, and Nye Rivers, and bear the same relation to the main stream that the fingers of the open hand do to the wrist. General Lee was behind the Po, which is next to the Nye, the northern-most of these water-courses. Both were difficult to cross, and their banks heavily wooded. It was now to be seen whether, either by a front attack or a turning movement, General Grant could oust his adversary, and whether General Lee would stand on the defensive or attack. All day, during the 9th, the two armies were constructing breastworks along their entire fronts, and these works, from the Rapidan to the banks of the Chickahominy, remain yet [1871] in existence. On the evening of this day a Federal force was thrown across the Po, on the Confederate left, but soon withdrawn; and on the 10th a similar movement took place near the same point, which resulted in a brief but bloody conflict, during which the woods took fire, and many of the assaulting troops perished miserably in the flames. The force was then recalled, and, during that night and the succeeding day, nothing of importance occurred, although heavy skirmishing and an artillery-fire took place along the lines. On the morning of the 12th, at the first dawn of day, General Grant made a more important and dangerous assault than any yet undertaken in the campaign. This was directed at a salient on General Lee's right centre, occupied by Johnson's division of Ewell's corps, and was one of the bloodiest and most terrible incidents of the war. For this assault [made by three divisions of Hancock's corps] General Grant is said to have selected his best troops. These advanced in a heavy charging column, through the half-darkness of dawn, passed silently over the Confederate skirmishers, scarcely firing a shot, and, just as the first streak of daylight touched the eastern woods, burst upon the salient, which they stormed at the point of the bayonet. The attack was a complete surprise, and carried everything before it. The Southern troops, asleep in the trenches, woke to have the bayonet thrust into them, to be felled with clubbed muskets, and to find the works apparently in secure possession of the enemy before they could fire a shot. {3526} Such was the excellent success of the Federal movement, and the Southern line seemed to be hopelessly disrupted. Nearly the whole of Johnson's division were taken prisoners—the number amounting to more than 3,000—and 18 pieces of artillery fell into the hands of the assaulting column. The position of affairs was now exceedingly critical; and, unless General Lee could reform his line at the point, it seemed that nothing was left him but an abandonment of his whole position. The Federal army had broken his line; was pouring into the opening; and, to prevent him from concentrating at the point to regain possession of the works, heavy attacks were begun by the enemy on his right and left wings. It is probable that at no time during the war was the Southern army in greater danger of a bloody and decisive disaster. At this critical moment General Lee acted with the nerve and coolness of a soldier whom no adverse event can shake. … Line of battle was promptly formed a short distance in rear of the salient then in the enemy's possession, and a fierce charge was made by the Southerners, under the eye of Lee, to regain it. … The word ferocious best describes the struggle which followed. It continued throughout the entire day, Lee making not less than five distinct assaults in heavy force to recover the works. The fight involved the troops on both flanks, and was desperate and unyielding. The opposing flags were at times within only a few yards of each other, and so incessant and concentrated was the fire of musketry that a tree of about 18 inches in diameter was cut down by bullets, and is still preserved, it is said, in the city of Washington, as a memorial of this bloody struggle. The fighting only ceased several hours after dark. Lee had not regained his advanced line of works, but he was firmly rooted in an interior and straighter line, from which the Federal troops had found it impossible to dislodge him."

"For the distance of nearly a mile, amid a cold, drenching rain, the combatants [on the 12th, at the salient] were literally struggling across the breastworks. They fired directly into each other's faces, bayonet thrusts were given over the intrenchments; men even grappled their antagonists across the piles of logs and pulled them over, to be stabbed or carried to the rear as prisoners. … Never before, since the discovery of gunpowder, had such a mass of lead been hurled into a space so narrow as that which now embraced the scene of combat. Large standing trees were literally cut off and brought to the ground by infantry fire alone; their great limbs whipped into basket stuff that could be woven by the hand of a girl. … If any comparisons can be made between the sections involved in that desperate contest, the fiercest and deadliest fighting took place at the west angle, ever afterwards known as 'The Bloody Angle.' … All day the bloody work went on. … The trenches had more than once to be cleared of the dead, to give the living a place to stand. All day long, and even into the night, the battle lasted, for it was not till twelve o'clock, nearly twenty hours after the command 'Forward' had been given to the column at the Brown House, that the firing died down, and the Confederates, relinquishing their purpose to retake the captured works, began in the darkness to construct a new line to cut off the salient."

General Humphreys estimates Grant's losses in killed and wounded on the 12th at 6,020; missing 800. Lee's losses that day in killed, wounded and prisoners he concludes to have been between 9,000 and 10,000. His estimate of losses on the 10th is 4,100 (killed and wounded) on the Union side, and 2,000 on the Confederate side. Major General John Sedgwick, commanding the Sixth Army Corps, was killed in the skirmishing of the 9th.

      ALSO IN:
      C. N. Galloway,
      Hand to Hand Fighting at Spotsylvania
      (Battles and Leaders, volume 4).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (May: Virginia).
Grant's movement upon Richmond:
from Spottsylvania to the Chickahominy.

"The lines of Spottsylvania remained still intact, and General Grant, who might easily have turned the position and manœuvred his antagonist out of it, seemed bent on carrying it by direct attack. Accordingly, during the succeeding week [after the battle of the 12th], various movements of corps were made from flank to flank, in the endeavor to find a spot where the lines could be broken. These attempts were skilfully met at every point—the Confederates extending their line to correspond with the shiftings of the army; so that wherever attack was essayed, the enemy bristled out in breastworks, and every partial assault made was repulsed. Day by day Grant continued to throw out towards the left, in the hope of overlapping and breaking in the Confederate right flank: so that from occupying, as the army did on its arrival, a line extending four or five miles to the northwest of Spottsylvania Courthouse, it had at the end of ten days assumed a position almost due east of that place, the left resting at a distance of four miles at Massaponax Church. After twelve days of effort, the carrying of the position was seen to be hopeless; and General Grant, abandoning the attempt, resolved by a turning operation to disengage Lee from a position seen to be unassailable. Preparations for this movement were begun on the afternoon of the 19th; but the enemy, observing these, retarded its execution by a bold demonstration against the Union right. … This attack somewhat disconcerted the contemplated movement, and delayed it till the following night, May 20th, when the army, moving by the left, once more took up its march towards Richmond. Before the lines of Spottsylvania the Army of the Potomac had for twelve days and nights engaged in a fierce wrestle, in which it had done all that valor may do to carry a position by nature and art impregnable. … Language is inadequate to convey an impression of the labors, fatigues, and sufferings of the troops. … Above 40,000 men had already fallen in the bloody encounters of the Wilderness and Spottsylvania [General Humphreys—in 'Virginia Campaign of 1864 and 1865,' page 117—makes the total of killed and wounded from May 5 to 21, to be 28,207, and the entire losses of the army, including the missing and the sick sent back to Washington, 37,335]. … The exhausted army began to lose its spirit. {3527} It was with joy, therefore, that it at length turned its back upon the lines of Spottsylvania. … The two armies once fairly on the march … neither … seems to have sought to deal the other a blow … and both headed, as for a common goal, towards the North Anna. … The advances of the 21st and 22d brought the different corps [of the Army of the Potomac], which had moved on parallel roads at supporting distance, within a few miles of the North Anna River. Resuming the march on the morning of Monday, May 23d, the army in a few hours reached the northern bank of that stream. But it was only to descry its old enemy planted on the opposite side." Warren's corps crossed the river at Jericho Ford without resistance, but was furiously assailed late in the afternoon and held its ground, taking nearly 1,000 prisoners. The left column, under Hancock, forced a passage in the face of the enemy, carrying a bridge by storm. But nothing was gained by these successes. "While Lee, after the passage of Hancock on the left, threw his right wing back from the North Anna, and on the passage of Warren on the right threw back his left wing, he continued to cling with his centre to the river; so that … his army took up a very remarkable line in the form of an obtuse-angled triangle. … The game of war seldom presents a more effectual checkmate than was here given by Lee; for after Grant had made the brilliantly successful passage of the North Anna, the Confederate commander, thrusting his centre between the two wings of the Army of the Potomac, put his antagonist at enormous disadvantage, and compelled him, for the reenforcement of one or the other wing, to make a double passage of the river. The more the position of Lee was examined, the more unpromising attack was seen to be; and after passing the two following days in reconnoissances, and destroying some miles of the Virginia Central Railroad, General Grant determined to withdraw across the North Anna and take up a new line of advance. The withdrawal from the North Anna was begun at dark of the 26th of May, when the Second, Fifth and Sixth Corps retired by different bridges to the north bank. … The Second Corps held position till the morning of the 27th, when it covered the rear. From the North Anna the line of march of the army made a wide circuit eastward and then southward to pass the Pamunkey. This river is formed by the confluence of the North and South Anna; and the Pamunkey in turn uniting with the Mattapony forms the York River, emptying into Chesapeake Bay. Thus the successful passage of the Pamunkey would not only dislodge Lee from the lines of the North and South Anna, but would bring the army in communication with a new and excellent water-base." The crossing of the Pamunkey, at and near Hanovertown, was accomplished without difficulty on the 27th and 28th, "and the routes to White House, at the head of York River, being opened up, the army was put in communication with the ample supplies floated by the waters of Chesapeake Bay. Grant's new turning movement was met by a corresponding retrograde movement on the part of Lee, and as he fell back on a direct line less than half the distance of the great detour made by the Army of the Potomac, it was not remarkable that, on crossing the Pamunkey, the Confederate force was again encountered, ready to accept the gage of battle. Lee assumed a position in advance of the Chickahominy. … The region in which the army was now operating revived many reminiscences in the minds of those who had made the Peninsular Campaign under McClellan. … Gaines' Mill and Mechanicsville were within an hour's ride; Fair Oaks could be reached in a two hours' trot; Richmond was ten miles off. … Reconnoissances showed Lee to be in a very strong position covering the approaches to the Chickahominy, the forcing of which it was now clear must cost a great battle."

ALSO IN: A. Badeau, Military History of Ulysses S. Grant, chapters 18-19 (volume 2).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (May: Virginia).
The Co-operative movement of the Army of the James.

In the plan and arrangement of General Grant's campaign, General Butler, commanding at Fortress Monroe, was instructed "to collect all the forces of his command that could be spared from garrison duty estimated at not less than 20,000, and operate on the south side of James river, Richmond being his objective. To his force 10,000 men from South Carolina, under Gillmore, were to be added. He was ordered to take City Point as soon as notification of movement was given, and fortify it. By this common advance from the Rapidan and Fortress Monroe the two armies would be brought into co-operation. … As arranged, Butler moved from Fortress Monroe on May 4th, Gillmore having joined him with the 10th Corps. The next day he occupied, without opposition, both City Point and Bermuda Hundred, his movement being a complete surprise. On the 7th he made a reconnoissance against the Richmond and Petersburg Railroad, destroying a portion of it after some fighting. On the night of the 9th he received dispatches from Washington informing him that Lee was retreating to Richmond and Grant in pursuit. He had, therefore, to act with caution, fearing that he might have Lee's whole army on his hands. On the evening of the 13th and morning of the 14th he carried a portion of the enemy's first line of defenses at Drury's Bluff, or Fort Darling. The time thus consumed from the 6th left no possibility of surprising and capturing Richmond and Petersburg, enabling, as it did, Beauregard to collect his forces in North and South Carolina, and bring them to the defense of these places. On the 16th the Confederates attacked Butler in his position in front of Drury's Bluff, forced him back into his entrenchments between the forks of James and Appomattox Rivers [in the district called Bermuda Hundred], and, intrenching strongly in his front, not only covered the railroads and city, but completely neutralized his forces. … Butler's army being confined at Bermuda Hundred, most of the re-enforcements from the South were now brought against the Potomac Army. In addition to this, probably not less than 15,000 men, under Breckenridge, arrived from the Western part of Virginia. The position of Bermuda Hundred being easy to defend, Grant, leaving only enough to secure what had heen gained, took from it all available forces under W. F. Smith, and joined them to the Army of the Potomac."

J. W. Draper, History of the American Civil War, volume 3, pages 368 and 382-385.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (May: Georgia).
Sherman's Movement upon Atlanta: Johnston's Retreat.

Sherman now held command of the three armies of the Tennessee, the Cumberland, and the Ohio, having McPherson, Thomas and Schofield for their subordinate commanders, respectively. The main army of the rebellion in the West, Joe Johnston commanding, was at Dalton, northern Georgia, confronting Thomas at Chattanooga. "Grant and Sherman had agreed to act in concert. While the former should thrust Lee back upon Richmond, his late lieutenant was to push Johnston towards Atlanta. And Banks was to transfer his forces from New Orleans to Mobile and thence move towards and join hands with the Western armies. Sherman devoted his earliest energies to the question of transportation and railroads. Baggage was reduced to the lowest limits, the higher officers setting the example. Actual supplies and fighting-material were alone to be carried. Luxuries were to be things of the past; comforts to be forgotten. War's stern reality was to be each one's lot. Probably no officer in such high command ever lived so entirely from hand to mouth as did Sherman and his military family during the succeeding campaigns. The entire equipment of his army head-quarters would have shamed the shabbiest regimental outfit of 1861. Spring was to open with a general advance. It was agreed to put and keep the Confederates on the defensive by a policy of constant hammering. Bragg had been removed to satisfy public opinion in the South, but was nominally called to Richmond to act as Mr. Davis' chief-of-staff. Johnston, as commander of the Department, had personally undertaken to hold head against Sherman. But the fact that he possessed neither the President's good will nor that of his new adviser, militated much against a happy conduct of the campaign. Sherman's forces occupied a front sixteen miles in advance of Ringgold, just south of Chattanooga. McPherson and the Army of the Tennessee was on his right with 25,000 men and 100 guns. Thomas and the Army of the Cumberland held the centre with 60,000 men and 130 guns. Schofield and the Army of the Ohio formed the left wing. His command was 15,000 men and 30 guns. This grand total of 100,000 men and 260 guns formed an army of as good stuff as ever bore arms, and the confidence of the leader in his men and of the men in their leader was unbounded. Johnston himself foresaw the necessity of a strictly defensive campaign, to which his far from sanguine character, as well as his judgment as to what the existing conditions demanded, made him peculiarly suited. Counted after the same fashion as Sherman's army, Johnston had some 75,000 men. … He intrenched every step he took; he fought only when attacked; he invited battle only when the conditions were largely in his favor. Subsequent events showed how wise beyond his critics he could be. Sherman took the measure of the intrenchments at Dalton with care, and, though he outnumbered his antagonist, preferred not to hazard an engagement at such odds when he might force one on better ground. This conduct shows in strong contrast with Grant's, when the latter first met his opponent at this same moment in Virginia. Sherman despatched McPherson towards Resaca, on the railroad in Johnston's rear, with instructions to capture the town if possible. Combined with this flanking movement, a general advance was made upon the Confederate lines, and after tactical manœuvring of several days in front of Rocky Face Ridge, Johnston concluded to retire from his stronghold. McPherson had strangely failed to seize Resaca, though an excellent chance had offered, and at this place the Confederate army took up its new stand. … Sherman faced his antagonist on the line of Camp Creek in front of Resaca, with his right flank resting on the Oostanaula. From this position he operated by unintermitted tapping upon Johnston's defences at constantly varying points, without, however, bringing on a general engagement [though the losses were 2,747 Union and 2,800 Confederate]. … Sherman's uniform tactics during this campaign, varied indefinitely in details, consisted, as will be seen, in forcing the centre of the army upon Johnston's lines, while with the right and left he operated upon either flank as chance or ground best offered. Johnston did not propose to hazard an engagement unless all conditions were in his favor. He attempted a stand at Adairsville, twenty miles south of Resaca, but shortly withdrew to Kingston and Cassville. Each captain manœuvred for a chance to fight the other at a disadvantage. … From Cassville, Johnston retired across the Etowah. So far this campaign had been one of manœuvres. Neither combatant had suffered material loss. Like two wrestlers, as yet ignorant of each other's strength or quickness, they were sparring for a hold. … The Union army was growing skillful. Local difficulties multiplied many fold by bad maps and hostile population were overcome in considerable measure by an able corps of topographical engineers. … Bridges were uniformly burned and railroads wrecked by the retreating Confederates. To save delays in rebuilding, so far as possible, trestles were fitted in the rear to a scale with interchangeable timbers, so that bridges could be constructed with a speed never before dreamed of. No sooner had the Confederates put torch to a bridge, than a new one arose as by magic, and the whistle of the locomotive always followed hard upon the heels of the army."

T. B. Van Horn, History of the Army of the Cumberland, chapters 25-28 (volume 2).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (May-June: Virginia).
Grant's Movement upon Richmond: The Battle of Cold Harbor.

"The passage of [the Pamunkey] had been completed on May 28, and then, after three days of marching, interspersed with the usual amount of fighting, the army found itself again confronted by Lee's main line on the Totopotomoy. The operations which followed were known as the battle of Cold Harbor. On the afternoon of May 31st, Sheridan, who was on the left flank of the army, carried, with his cavalry, a position near the old well and cross roads known as Old Cold Harbor, and, with his men dismounted behind rough breast-works, held it against Fitzhugh Lee until night. To this point, during the night, marched the van·guard of the Army of the Potomac. … About 9 the next day (June 1st) the head of the column reached Sheridan's position, and the cavalry was withdrawn. {3529} The enemy, who had been seriously threatening Sheridan, withdrew from our immediate front within their lines and awaited us, occupying a strong outer line of intrenchments in front of our center, somewhat in advance of their main position, which included that on which the battle of Gaines' Mill had been fought two years before. It covered the approaches to the Chickahominy, which was the last formidable obstacle we had to meet before standing in front of the permanent works of Richmond. A large detachment, composed of the Eighteenth Corps and other troops from the Army of the James, under General W. F. Smith, had disembarked at White House on the Pamunkey, and was expected to connect that morning with the Sixth Corps at Cold Harbor. A mistake in orders caused an unnecessary march and long delay. In the afternoon, however, Smith was in position on the right of the Sixth Corps. Late in the afternoon both corps assaulted. The attack was made vigorously and with no reserves. The outer line in front of the right of the Sixth and the left of the Eighteenth was carried brilliantly, and the enemy was forced back, leaving several hundred prisoners in our hands. … This left the well and the old tavern at Cold Harbor in our rear, and brought us in front of the most formidable position yet held by the enemy. In front of him was a wooded country, interspersed with clearings here and there, sparsely populated, and full of swamps. Before daylight the Army of the Potomac stood together once more almost within sight of the spires of Richmond, and on the very ground where, under McClellan, they had defended the passage of the river they were now endeavoring to force. On the 2d of June our confronting line, on which the burden of the day must necessarily fall, consisted of Hancock on the left, Wright in the center, and Smith on the right. Warren and Burnside were still farther to the right, their lines refused, or drawn back, in the neighborhood of Bethesda Church, but not confronting the enemy. … No reconnoissance had been made other than the bloody one of the evening before. Everyone felt that this was to be the final struggle. No further flanking marches were possible. Richmond was dead in front. No further wheeling of corps from right to left by the rear; no further dusty marches possible on that line, even 'if it took all summer.' The general attack was fixed for the afternoon of the 2d, and all preparations had been made, when the order was countermanded and the attack postponed until half-past four the following morning. Promptly at the hour named on the 3d of June the men moved from the slight cover of the rifle-pits, thrown up during the night, with steady, determined advance, and there rang out suddenly on the summer air such a crash of artillery and musketry as is seldom heard in war. No great portion of the advance could be seen from any particular point, but those of the three corps that passed through the clearings were feeling the fire terribly. Not much return was made at first from our infantry, although the fire of our batteries was incessant. The time of actual advance was not over eight minutes. In that little period more men fell bleeding as they advanced than in any other like period of time throughout the war. A strange and terrible feature of this battle was that as the three gallant corps moved on [necessarily diverging, the enemy's line forming an arc of a circle, with its concave side toward them] each was enfiladed while receiving the full force of the enemy's direct fire in front. … At some points the slashings and obstructions in the enemy's front were reached. Barlow, of Hancock's corps, drove the enemy from an advanced position, but was himself driven out by the fire of their second line. R. O. Tyler's brigade (the Corcoran Legion) of the same corps swept over an advance work, capturing several hundred prisoners. One officer alone; the colonel of the 164th New York [James P. McMahon], seizing the colors of his regiment from the dying color-bearer as he fell, succeeded in reaching the parapet of the enemy's main works, where he planted his colors and fell dead near the ditch, bleeding from many wounds. Seven other colonels of Hancock's command died within those few minutes. No troops could stand against such a fire, and the order to lie down was given all along the line. At points where no shelter was afforded, the men were withdrawn to such cover as could be found, and the battle of Cold Harbor, as to its result at least, was over. … Shortly after midday came the order to suspend for the present all further operations, and directing corps commanders to intrench, 'including their advanced positions,' and directing also that reconnoissances be made, 'with a view to moving against the enemy's works by regular approaches'. … When night came on the groans and moaning of the wounded, all our own, who were lying between the lines, were heart-rending. Some were brought in by volunteers from our intrenchments, but remained for three days uncared for beneath the hot summer suns and the unrefreshing dews of the sultry summer nights. … An impression prevails in the popular mind, and with some reason perhaps, that a commander who sends a flag of truce asking permission to bury his dead and bring in his wounded, has lost the field of battle. Hence the reluctance upon our part to ask a flag of truce. In effect it was done at last on the evening of the third day after the battle, when, for the most part, the wounded needed no further care and our dead had to be buried almost where they fell."

"According to the report of the Medical Director, Surgeon McParlin, the wounded brought to the hospitals from the battle of the 3d of June numbered 4,517. The killed were at least 1,100. The wounded brought to the hospitals from the battle of the 1st of June were 2,125; the killed were not less than 500. The wounded on the 1st and 3d of June were, therefore, 6,642, and the killed not less than 1,600; but, adopting the number of killed and missing furnished General Badeau from the Adjutant General's office, 1,769 killed, 1,537 missing (many—most, indeed—of them, no doubt, killed), we have 8,411 for the killed and wounded, and for the total casualties, 9,948."

A. A. Humphreys, The Virginia Campaign of 1864 and 1865 (Campaigns of the Civil War), page 191.

"I have always regretted that the last assault at Cold Harbor was ever made. … At Cold Harbor no advantage whatever was gained to compensate for the heavy loss we sustained. Indeed, the advantages other than those of relative losses, were on the Confederate side. … This charge seemed to revive their hopes temporarily; but it was of short duration. The effect upon the Army of the Potomac was the reverse. When we reached the James River, however, all effects of the battle of Cold Harbor seemed to have disappeared."

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (May-June: Virginia).
The Campaigning in the Shenandoah Valley, and
Sheridan's raid to Trevillian Station.

"In the spring of 1864, the Department of West Virginia, which included the Shenandoah Valley, was under the command of Major-General Franz Sigel. A large portion of his forces was in the Kanawha region, under Brigadier-General George Crook. … In opening his Virginia campaign, Lieutenant-General Grant directed Sigel to form two columns, whereof one, under Crook, should break the Virginia and Tennessee Railroad at the New River bridge, and should also, if possible, destroy the salt-works at Saltville; while the other column, under Sigel himself, proceeding up the Shenandoah Valley, was to distract attention from Crook by menacing the Virginia Central Railroad at Staunton."

G. E. Pond, The Shenandoah Valley in 1864 (Campaigns of the Civil War, volume 11), chapter 2.

"Early in May, General Sigel entered the Valley with a force of 10,000 or 12,000 men [6,000 or 7,000, according to Pond, as above], and proceeded to advance toward Staunton. The Valley at that time was occupied only by a small force under General Imboden, which was wholly inadequate for its defence. General Breckenridge was therefore withdrawn from South-Western Virginia to oppose Sigel. On the 15th of May, Breckenridge with a force of 3,000 men [4,600 to 5,000—Pond] encountered Sigel at Newmarket and defeated him and compelled him to retire behind Cedar Creek. The cadets of the Virginia Military Institute formed a portion of Breckenridge's division, and behaved with distinguished gallantry. … After the battle of Newmarket Breckenridge was withdrawn from the Valley to reinforce Lee … in the neighborhood of Hanover Junction. In the meantime Crook and Averill had reached the Virginia and Tennessee Railroad, where they inflicted some damage, but were compelled to retire by a force sent against them by General Sam Jones. They then proceeded to join the main column operating in the Valley. After the battle of Newmarket, Sigel was relieved by General David Hunter, who was instructed by General Grant to advance upon Staunton, thence to Charlottesville, and on to Lynchburg if circumstances favored that movement. Breckenridge having been withdrawn, General W. E. Jones was ordered to the Valley to oppose Hunter, who slowly advanced, opposed by Imboden with an almost nominal force. About the 4th of June, Imboden was joined by General Jones in the neighborhood of Harrisonburg with a force of between 3,000 and 4,000 men, which he had hastily collected in Southwestern Virginia. … Although greatly outnumbered, he [Jones] engaged Hunter near Port Republic [at the village of Piedmont, which gives its name to the battle], where he was defeated and killed. … After the fall of Jones, McCauslin opposed Hunter with gallantry and vigor, but his small force was no match for the greatly superior force against which he contended. The affairs in the Valley now began to attract the attention of the commanding generals of both armies. It was evident that if Hunter could succeed in taking Lynchburg and breaking up the canal and Central Railroad, it would only be necessary to tap the Richmond and Danville and the Petersburg and Weldon railroads to complete a line of circumvallation around Richmond and Petersburg. On the 7th of June General Grant detached General Sheridan, with a large cavalry force, with instructions to break up the Central Railroad between Richmond and Gordonsville, then proceed to the James River and Kanawha Canal, break that line of communication with Richmond, and then to co-operate with Hunter in his operations against Lynchburg. About the same time General Lee sent General Breckenridge with his division, 2,500 strong, to occupy Rockfish Gap of the Blue Ridge to deflect Hunter from Charlottesville and protect the Central Railroad as far as practicable. A few days later General Early was detached by General Lee to oppose Hunter, and take such other steps as in his judgment would tend to create a diversion in favor of Richmond. General Sheridan, in compliance with his instructions, proceeded by a circuitous route to strike the railroad somewhere in the neighborhood of Gordonsville. This movement was, however, discovered by General Hampton, who, with a considerable force of cavalry encountered Sheridan on the 12th of June at Travillians [or Trevillian's] Station. After much severe and varied fighting Sheridan was defeated, and in order to escape was obliged to make a night-retreat. [In his 'Memoirs,' Sheridan claims the victory, having forced Hampton back and taken 500 prisoners; but learning that Hunter would not meet him, as expected, at Charlottesville, he turned back to rejoin Grant south of Richmond]. … This was one of the most masterly and spirited cavalry engagements of the war. Hunter, finding Rockfish Gap occupied in force, was unable to comply with that part of his instructions which directed him to Charlottesville. He therefore continued his march up the Valley, with the view of reaching Lynchburg by way of some one of the passes of the Blue Ridge south of the James River. In the neighborhood of Staunton he was joined by Crook and Averill, increasing his force to about 20,000 men, including cavalry and artillery. From Staunton he advanced by way of Lexington and Buchanan, burning and destroying everything that came in his way, leaving a track of desolation rarely witnessed in the course of civilized warfare." Before Hunter's arrival at Lynchburg, General Early, who withdrew his corps (formerly Stonewall Jackson's, and lately commanded by Ewell), from Richmond on the 13th of June, had reached that city and was prepared to defend it. "Hunter, finding himself unexpectedly confronted by Early, relinquished his intended attack upon the city and sought safety in a rapid night-retreat."

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (May-September: Georgia).
   Sherman's Movement upon Atlanta: New Hope Church.
   Kenesaw.
   Peach Tree Creek.
   The siege and capture of the city.

From Cassville, for reasons given in his memoirs, Johnston continued his retreat behind the next spur of mountains to Allatoona. "Pausing for a few days," writes General Sherman, "to repair the railroad without attempting Allatoona, of which I had personal knowledge acquired in 1844, I resolved to push on toward Atlanta by way of Dallas; Johnston quickly detected this, and forced me to fight him, May 25th-28th, at New Hope Church, four miles north of Dallas, with losses of 3,000 to the Confederates and 2,400 to us. The country was almost in a state of nature—with few or no roads, nothing that a European could understand; yet the bullet killed its victim there as surely as at Sevastopol. Johnston had meantime picked up his detachments, and had received reënforcements from his rear which raised his aggregate strength to 62,000 men, and warranted him in claiming that he was purposely drawing us far from our base, and that when the right moment should come he would turn on us and destroy us. We were equally confident, and not the least alarmed. He then fell back to his position at Marietta, with Brush Mountain on his right, Kenesaw his center and Lost Mountain his left. His line of ten miles was too long for his numbers, and he soon let go his flanks and concentrated on Kenesaw. We closed down in battle array, repaired the railroad up to our very camps, and then prepared for the contest. Not a day, not an hour, not a minute was there a cessation of fire. Our skirmishers were in absolute contact, the lines of battle and the batteries but little in rear of the skirmishers; and thus matters continued until June 27th, when I ordered a general assault, with the full cooperation of my great lieutenants, Thomas, McPherson and Schofield, as good and true men as ever lived or died for their country's cause; but we failed, losing 3,000 men to the Confederate loss of 630. Still, the result was that within three days Johnston abandoned the strongest possible position and was in full retreat for the Chattahoochee River. We were on his heels; skirmished with his rear at Smyrna Church on the 4th day of July, and saw him fairly across the Chattahoochee on the 10th, covered and protected by the best line of field intrenchments I have ever seen, prepared long in advance. … We had advanced into the enemy's country 120 miles, with a single-track railroad, which had to bring clothing, food, ammunition, everything requisite for 100,000 men and 23,000 animals. The city of Atlanta, the gate city, opening the interior of the important State of Georgia, was in sight; its protecting army was shaken but not defeated, and onward we had to go. … We feigned to the right, but crossed the Chattahoochee by the left, and soon confronted our enemy behind his first line of intrenchments at Peach Tree Creek, prepared in advance for this very occasion. At this critical moment the Confederate Government rendered us most valuable service. Being dissatisfied with the Fabian policy of General Johnston, it relieved him, and General Hood was substituted to command the Confederate army [July 18]. Hood was known to us to be a 'fighter' … and I confess I was pleased at this change. … I was willing to meet the enemy in the open country, but not behind well-constructed parapets. Promptly, as expected, General Hood sallied from his Peach Tree line on the 20th of July, about midday, striking the Twentieth Corps (Hooker), which had just crossed Peach Tree Creek by improvised bridges. The troops became commingled and fought hand to hand desperately for about four hours, when the Confederates were driven back within their lines, leaving behind their dead and wounded. These amounted to 4,796 men, to our loss of 1,710. We followed up and Hood fell back to the main lines of the city of Atlanta. We closed in, when again Hood, holding these lines with about one-half his force, with the other half made a wide circuit by night, under cover of the woods, and on the 22d of July enveloped our left flank 'in air,' a movement that led to the hardest battle of the campaign. He encountered the Army of the Tennessee—skilled veterans who were always ready to fight, were not alarmed by flank or rear attacks, and met their assailants with heroic valor. The battle raged from noon to night, when the Confederates, baffled and defeated, fell back within the intrenchments of Atlanta. Their losses are reported 8,499 to ours of 8,641; but among our dead was McPherson, the commander of the Army of the Tennessee. While this battle was in progress, Schofield at the center and Thomas on the right made efforts to break through the intrenchments at their fronts, but found them too strong to assault. The Army of the Tennessee was then shifted, under its new commander (Howard), from the extreme left to the extreme right, to reach if possible, the railroad by which Hood drew his supplies, when, on the 28th of July, he repeated his tactics of the 22d, sustaining an overwhelming defeat, losing 4,632 men to our 700. These three sallies convinced him that his predecessor, General Johnston, had not erred in standing on the defensive. Thereafter the Confederate army in Atlanta clung to its parapets. I never intended to assault these, but gradually worked to the right to reach and destroy his line of supplies, because soldiers, like other mortals, must have food. Our extension to the right brought on numerous conflicts, but nothing worthy of note, till about the end of August I resolved to leave one corps to protect our communications to the rear, and move with the other five to a point (Jonesboro') on the railroad 20 miles below Atlanta, not fortified. This movement was perfectly strategic, was successful, and resulted in our occupation of Atlanta, on the 2d of September, 1864. The result had a large effect on the whole country, at the time, for solid and political reasons. I claim no special merit to myself, save that I believe I followed the teachings of the best masters of the 'science of war' of which I had knowledge. … But I had not accomplished all, for Hood's army, the chief 'objective,' had escaped. Then began the real trouble. We were in possession of Atlanta, and Hood remained at Lovejoy's Station, 30 miles south-east, on the Savannah Railroad, with an army of about 40,000 veterans inured to war, and with a fair amount of wagons to carry his supplies, independent of the railroads."

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (May-November).
The Twentieth Presidential Election.
Renomination and Re-election of Abraham Lincoln.

"Preparations for the nomination of candidates had begun to be made, as usual, early in the spring of 1864. Some who saw most clearly the necessities of the future, had for some months before expressed themselves strongly in favor of the renomination of President Lincoln. But this step was contested with great warmth and activity by prominent members of the political party by which he had been nominated and elected four years before. Nearly all the original Abolitionists and many of the more decidedly anti-slavery members of the Republican party were dissatisfied, that Mr. Lincoln had not more rapidly and more sweepingly enforced their extreme opinions. Many distinguished public men resented his rejection of their advice, and many more had been alienated by his inability to recognize their claims to office. The most violent opposition came from those who had been most persistent and most clamorous in their exactions. And as it was unavoidable that, in wielding so terrible and so absolute a power in so terrible a crisis, vast multitudes of active and ambitious men should be disappointed in their expectations of position and personal gain, the renomination of Mr. Lincoln was sure to be contested by a powerful and organized effort. At the very outset this movement acquired consistency and strength by bringing forward the Honorable S. P. Chase, Secretary of the Treasury, a man of great political boldness and experience, and who had prepared the way for such a step by a careful dispensation of the vast patronage of his department, as the rival candidate. But it was instinctively felt that this effort lacked the sympathy and support of the great mass of the people, and it ended in the withdrawal of his name as a candidate by Mr. Chase himself. The National Committee of the Union Republican party had called their convention, to be held at Baltimore, on the 8th of June." Those who opposed Mr. Lincoln's nomination issued a call for a convention to be held at Cleveland, Ohio, on the 31st of May. The Cleveland Convention, attended by about 150 persons, put in nomination General John C. Fremont, for President, and General John Cochrane, of New York, for Vice President. "General Fremont's letter of acceptance was dated June 4th. Its main scope was an attack upon Mr. Lincoln for unfaithfulness to the principles he was elected to defend, and upon his administration for incapacity and selfishness. … He intimated that if the Baltimore convention would nominate anyone but Mr. Lincoln he would not stand in the way of a union of all upon the nominee. … The Convention, the nomination and the letter of acceptance, fell dead upon the popular feeling [and Fremont withdrew his candidacy in September]. … The next form which the effort to prevent Mr. Lincoln's nomination and election took was an effort to bring forward General Grant as a candidate." But this was decisively checked by General Grant, himself. The Convention at Baltimore, when it assembled on the 8th of June, showed no hesitation in nominating Abraham Lincoln for reelection, and it associated with him, Andrew Johnson, of Tennessee, as its candidate for Vice President. The National Convention of the Democratic party was held at Chicago, beginning August 29th, The second resolution which it adopted in its platform declared that, "after four years of failure to restore the Union by the experiment of war … justice, humanity, liberty and the public welfare demand that immediate efforts be made for a cessation of hostilities, with a view to an ultimate convention of the States or other peaceable means, to the end that, at the earliest practicable moment, peace may be restored on the basis of the Federal Union of the States." On this issue, having nominated General George B. McClellan for President, and George H. Pendleton, of Ohio, for Vice President, the opponents of the war went to the country in the election, in November, and were overwhelmingly defeated. "Of all the States which voted on that day, General McClellan carried but three—New Jersey, Delaware and Kentucky."

The electoral vote was for Lincoln 212, for McClellan 21. The popular vote cast was, for Lincoln 2,213,665, for McClellan, 1,802,237. Many of the States had made provision for taking the votes of soldiers in the field, and the army vote was 116,887 for Lincoln against 33,748 for McClellan.

At every session of Congress from 1861 to 1864 ineffectual attempts were made in the Senate and in the House of Representatives to accomplish the repeal of the Fugitive Slave Laws of 1793 and 1850. It was not until June of the latter year that the necessary bill was passed—by the House on the 6th, by a vote of 82 to 57, and by the Senate on the 22d by 27 to 12. The President approved it on the 28th, and it became a law.

      H. Wilson,
      History of the Rise and Fall of the Slave Power,
      volume 3, chapter 29.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (June).
Revenue Measures.
The War Tariff and Internal Taxes.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (June).
The destruction of the Alabama by the Kearsarge.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (June: Virginia).
Grant's movement to the south of James River.
The Siege of Petersburg.

"In consequence of the check at Cold Harbor, a restlessness was becoming general among the people, which the government in vain pretended not to notice. … Public opinion, shaken in its confidence, already began to listen to the sinister interpretations of the opposition journals, when, in the last half of June, it learned that the lieutenant: general had boldly crossed the James and laid siege before Petersburg. … This passage of the James was … a very fine movement, as ably executed as it was boldly conceived. It inaugurated a new phase in the campaign. … Henceforth, the battering not having produced the expected effect, Grant was about to try the resources of military science, and give precedence to strategic combinations. In the first place, he took his measures so well to conceal his intentions from the enemy that the latter did not recognize the character of the movement until it was already executed. Warren was ordered to occupy Lee's attention by the menace of an advance on Richmond from the direction of White Oak Swamp, while Smith (W. F.) reëmbarked from White House to return to Bermuda Hundred, and Hancock, with the Second Corps, would be transferred to the right bank of the James by a flotilla of large steamers collected at Wilcox Landing for that purpose. {3534} At the same time, a bridge of boats was thrown across a little below, where there were thirteen fathoms of water in the channel, and where the river was more than 2,000 feet broad. The Fifth and Sixth Corps crossed over on the bridge. Grant hoped to get hold of Petersburg by a 'coup de main.' If he had succeeded, the fall of Richmond would have soon followed in all probability. Unfortunately, delays occurred and contretemps which caused the opportunity to fail and completely modified the course of events. General Smith (W. F.), after having carried the first line, which was defended by militia only, did not know how to take advantage of his first success. Proceeding methodically and cautiously, where it was, above all, necessary to act with vigor and promptness, he put off the serious work until the next morning. Hancock, in his turn, debarked on the right bank, did not receive the order to march on Petersburg until he had been delayed to wait for rations which were behind-hand, and went astray in his march owing to false indications on a map which had been sent to him as correct. In short, he lost precious hours in the afternoon of June 15, and on the morning of the 16th it was too late; Lee's troops had arrived. Nevertheless, the intrenchments thrown up hastily by the enemy were not so formidable that they might not be carried. In the morning, a fresh attack, with Birney's and Gibbon's divisions, met with some success, but with no decisive results. In the afternoon, the Ninth Corps having arrived, the attempt was renewed on a greater scale, and it ended by carrying the line at sundown, after a hard fight and considerable loss. On the next morning, a new assault, always by the Second Corps, supported by the Ninth. The enemy lost more ground and a redoubt of importance. In the evening, he succeeded in surprising the intrenchments which Burnside had taken from him. All these fights were not without cost; the loss of that day alone, on our side, amounted to 4,000 men. The Confederates defended the ground step by step, with such determination, only to gain the time necessary to finish a stronger and better selected line, on the hills immediately around the city. They retired to these lines in the following night, and during the whole of the 18th they sustained in them a series of attacks which met with no success. From that day, the siege of Petersburg was resolved upon, and regular works were begun. It must be remarked that this siege was not a siege, properly speaking. The place was never even invested. It lies 22 miles south of Richmond, on the right, bank of the Appomattox, eight miles southwest of City Point, where that river empties into the James, and where the new base of supplies of the army was naturally established. So that we had turned Richmond to put ourselves across a part of the enemy's communications with the South, and directly threaten the rest. These communications were: the railroads to Norfolk, Weldon and Lynchburg, and the Jerusalem and Boydton roads, all ending at Petersburg. Besides these, the Confederate capital had only the James River Canal, to the west, and the Dansville railroad, to the south. The latter did not extend beyond the limits of Virginia, but it crossed the Lynchburg railroad at Burksville, which doubled its resources. If, then, we succeeded in enveloping Petersburg only on the right bank of the Appomattox, the population and the Confederate army would be reduced to draw all their supplies from Richmond by a single-track railroad. To accomplish that was our effort; to prevent it, the enemy's: that was the point towards which all the operations of the siege were directed for nine months. On the day on which we finally succeeded, Petersburg and Richmond fell at the same blow, and the whole structure of the rebellion crumbled with these two cities."

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (July).
The Greeley and the Jaques-Gilmore Peace Missions.

   "Two abortive efforts to open a door to accommodation between
   the belligerents were made during this gloomy period. One of
   these originated with certain Confederates then in Canada, one
   of whom wrote [July 5, 1864] to the author of this work
   [Horace Greeley], averring that Messrs. Clement C. Clay, of
   Alabama, James P. Holcombe, of Virginia, and George N. Sanders
   (the writer) would proceed to Washington in the interest of
   Peace, if full protection were accorded them. Being otherwise
   confidentially assured that the two former had full powers
   from Richmond, Mr. Greeley forwarded the application to
   President Lincoln, urging that it be responded to, and
   suggesting certain terms of reunion and peace which he judged
   might be advantageously proffered to the Rebels, whether they
   should be accepted or rejected. … The 'Plan of Adjustment,'
   which he suggested that the President might advantageously
   offer," contemplated the restoration of the Union, abolition
   of slavery, with $400,000,000 paid in compensation to the
   slave states, and complete amnesty for all political offenses.
   "The President hereupon saw fit—alike to the surprise and the
   regret of his correspondent—to depute him to proceed to
   Niagara, and there communicate with the persons in question.
   He most reluctantly consented to go, but under a
   misapprehension which insured the failure of the effort in any
   event. Though he had repeatedly and explicitly written to the
   President that he knew nothing as to what the Confederates in
   Canada might or would propose as a basis of adjustment … it
   was expected on the President's part that he was virtually and
   substantially to negotiate and settle the basis of a
   pacification with them; so that their visit to Washington was,
   in effect, to be the result, and not the possible occasion, of
   adjustment und peace. … The whole matter thus terminated in
   failure and disappointment, with some exasperation on the
   Rebel side, and very decided condemnation on the part of the
   opposition. … Happily, another negotiation—even more irregular
   and wholly clandestine—had simultaneously been in progress at
   Richmond, with a similar result. Rev. Colonel James F. Jaques,
   73d Illinois, with Mr. J. R. Gilmore, of New York, had, with
   President Lincoln's knowledge, but without his formal
   permission, paid a visit to the Confederate capital on a Peace
   errand; being allowed to pass through the lines of both armies
   for the purpose.
{3535}
   Arrived in Richmond they addressed a joint letter to Judah P.
   Benjamin, Secretary of State, requesting an interview with
   President Davis, which was accorded; and a long, familiar,
   earnest colloquy ensued, wherein the Confederate chief
   presented his ultimatum in these terms: … The North was mad
   and blind; it would not let us govern ourselves; and so the
   war came; and now it must go on till the last man of this
   generation falls in his tracks, and his children seize his
   musket and fight our battle, unless you acknowledge our right
   to self-government. We are not fighting for Slavery, we are
   fighting for Independence; and that or extermination we will
   have'. … Thus it was not only incontestably settled but
   proclaimed, through the volunteered agency of two citizens,
   that the War must go on until the Confederacy should be
   recognized as an independent power, or till it should be
   utterly, finally overthrown. The knowledge of this fact was
   worth more than a victory to the National cause."

ALSO IN: E. McPherson, Political History of the United States during the Great Rebellion, pages 301-307.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (July: Virginia-Maryland.)
Early in the Shenandoah Valley.
His invasion of Maryland and approach to Washington.

   "… [General Jubal Anderson] Early had forced Hunter into the
   Kanawha region far enough to feel assured that Lynchburg could
   not again be threatened from that direction;

[Early then] united to his own corps General John C. Breckenridge's infantry division and the cavalry of Generals J. H. Vaughn, John McCausland, B. T. Johnson, and J. D. Imboden, which heretofore had been operating in southwest and western Virginia under General Robert Ransom, Jr., and with the column thus formed, was ready to turn his attention to the lower Shenandoah Valley. At Early's suggestion General Lee authorized him to move north at an opportune moment, cross the upper Potomac into Maryland and threaten Washington. … By rapid marching Early reached Winchester on the 2d of July, and on the 4th occupied Martinsburg, driving General Sigel out of that place the same day that Hunter's troops, after their fatiguing retreat through the mountains, reached Charlestown, West Virginia. Early was thus enabled to cross the Potomac without difficulty, when, moving around Harper's Ferry, through the gaps of the South Mountain, he found his path unobstructed till he reached the Monocacy, where Ricketts's division of the Sixth Corps, and some raw troops that had been collected by General Lew Wallace, met and held the Confederates till the other reinforcements that had been ordered to the capital from Petersburg could be brought up. Wallace contested the line of the Monocacy with obstinacy, but had to retire finally toward Baltimore. The road was then open to Washington, and Early marched to the outskirts and began against the capital the demonstrations [July 11-12] which were designed to divert the Army of the Potomac from its main purpose in front of Petersburg. Early's audacity in thus threatening Washington had caused some concern to the officials in the city, but as the movement was looked upon by General Grant as a mere foray which could have no decisive issue, the Administration was not much disturbed till the Confederates came in close proximity. Then was repeated the alarm and consternation of two years before, fears for the safety of the capital being magnified by the confusion and discord existing among the different generals in Washington and Baltimore; and the imaginary dangers vanished only with the appearance of General Wright, who with the Sixth Corps and one division of the Nineteenth Corps, pushed out to attack Early as soon as he could get his arriving troops in hand, but under circumstances that precluded celerity of movement; and as a consequence the Confederates escaped with little injury, retiring across the Potomac to Leesburg, unharassed save by some Union cavalry that had been sent out into Loudoun County by Hunter, who in the meantime had arrived at Harper's Ferry by the Baltimore and Ohio railroad. From Leesburg Early retired through Winchester toward Strasburg, but when the head of his column reached this place he found that he was being followed by General Crook with the combined troops of Hunter and Sigel only, Wright having returned to Washington under orders to rejoin Meade at Petersburg. This reduction of the pursuing force tempting Early to resume the offensive, he attacked Crook at Kernstown, and succeeded in administering such a check as to necessitate this general's retreat to Martinsburg, and finally to Harper's Ferry. Crook's withdrawal restored to Early the line of the upper Potomac, so, recrossing this stream, he advanced again into Maryland, and sending McCausland on to Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, laid that town in ashes [July 30] leaving 3,000 non-combatants without shelter or food. … This second irruption of Early and his ruthless destruction of Chambersburg led to many recommendations on the part of General Grant looking to a speedy elimination of the confusion then existing among the Union forces along the upper Potomac, but for a time the authorities at Washington would approve none of his propositions. … Finally the manœuvres of Early and the raid to Chambersburg compelled a partial compliance, though Grant had somewhat circumvented the difficulty already by deciding to appoint a commander for the forces in the field that were to operate against Early. On the 31st of July General Grant selected me as this commander. … On the evening of August 1, I was relieved from immediate duty with the Army of the Potomac, but not from command of the cavalry as a corps organization. I arrived at Washington on the 4th of August, and the next day received instructions from General Halleck, to report to General Grant at Monocacy Junction, whither he had gone direct from City Point, in consequence of a characteristic despatch from the President indicating his disgust with the confusion, disorder and helplessness prevailing along the upper Potomac, and intimating that Grant's presence there was necessary."

F. Sigel, Sigel in the Shenandoah Valley in 1864 (Battles and Leaders, volume 4).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (July: Virginia).
The siege of Petersburg: The Mine.

"Burnside's corps held a position directly in front of Petersburg, including a point where our lines, owing to the nature of the ground, had been pushed up to within 150 yards of the enemy's, where a fort projected beyond their average front. Under this fort a mine had been run from a convenient ravine or hollow within our lines, which was entirely screened from the enemy's observation; and this mine would seem to have been completed not only without countermining by the Rebels, but without being even suspected by them; though a report of its existence (probably founded on the story of some deserter or prisoner) was printed in one of the Richmond journals. All being ready, the morning of July 30th was fixed for springing the mine; which was to be instantly followed, of course, by the opening of our guns all along the front, and by an assault at the chasm opened in the enemy's defences by the explosion. … The explosion took place; hoisting the fort into the air, annihilating its garrison of 300 men, and leaving in its stead a gigantic hollow or crater of loose earth, 150 feet long by some 60 wide and 25 to 30 deep. Instantly, our guns opened all along the front; and the astounded enemy may well have supposed them the thunders of doom. But it was indispensable to success that a column of assault should rush forward instantly and resolutely, so as to clear the chasm and gain the crest before the foe should recover from his surprise; and, on this vital point failure had already been secured. The 9th corps, as then constituted, was not that from which any commanding general would have selected a storming party; yet because it was Burnside's mine, his corps was, without discussion, allowed to furnish the column of assault. His inspecting officer had reported that, of its four divisions, that composed of Blacks was fittest for this perilous service; but Grant, discrediting this, had directed that one of the three White divisions should be chosen. Thereupon, the leaders of these divisions were allowed to cast lots to see which of them should go in—or rather which two of them should stay out—and the lot fell on the 1st, Brigadier-General Ledlie—and no man in the army believed this other than the worst choice of the three. … Several minutes passed—precious, fatal minutes!—before Ledlie's division, clearing with difficulty the obstacles in its path—went forward into the chasm, and there stopped, though the enemy at that point were still paralyzed and the deciding crest completely at our mercy. Then parts of Burnside's two remaining White divisions (Potter's and Wilcox's) followed; but once in the crater, Ledlie's men barred the way to a farther advance, and all huddled together, losing their formation and becoming mixed up; General Potter finally extricating himself, and charging toward the crest; but with so slender a following that he was soon obliged to fall back. Two hours were thus shamefully squandered, while the Rebels recovering their self-possession, were planting batteries on either side, and mustering their infantry in an adjacent ravine; and now—when more men in the crater could only render the confusion more hopeless and magnify the disaster—Burnside threw in his Black division; which, passing beyond and rather to the right of the crater, charged toward the crest, but were met by a fire of artillery and musketry which speedily hurled them back into the crater, where all order was lost, all idea of aught beyond personal safety abandoned, while the enemy's shells and balls poured into it like hail, rendering it an arena of unresisted slaughter. … A first Rebel assault on our unfortunates was repulsed in sheer desperation; and thousands of course took the risk of darting out of the death-trap and racing at top speed to our lines; but our loss in killed, wounded, and prisoners was 4,400; while that of the enemy, including 300 blown up in the fort, was barely 1,000."

      ALSO IN:
      W. H. Powell and others,
      The Battle of the Petersburg Crater
      (Battles and Leaders, volume 4).

      A. Woodbury,
      Burnside and the 9th Army Corps,
      part 4, chapter 5.

Report of Joint Commission on the Conduct of the War, 38th Congress, 2d Session: volume 1.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (August: Virginia).
   The Siege of Petersburg: Fighting for the Weldon Road.
   Battle of Reams's Station.
   The Dutch Gap Canal.

   "Taking advantage of the absence of many of Lee's troops from
   Petersburg, Grant made a vigorous movement for securing
   possession of the Weldon road, not more than three miles from
   the left flank of his lines on the Jerusalem plank road. This
   movement was made by Warren, with the Fifth Corps, on the
   morning of the 18th of August, and at noon he reached the
   coveted railway without opposition, where he left Griffin to
   hold the point seized, while with the divisions of Ayres and
   Crawford he moved toward Petersburg. He had marched but a
   short distance when a division of Confederates suddenly and
   heavily fell upon his flank. … Warren held the ground he had
   gained at a cost of 1,000 men killed, wounded and prisoners."
   The next day (August 19), Lee sent Hill with a heavy force to
   drive Warren from the road, and the attempt, desperately made,
   was nearly successful, but not quite. Two days later it was
   repeated, and the Confederates were repulsed with a loss of
   1,200 men. "In his entire movement for the possession of the
   road Warren lost, in killed, wounded and missing, 4,450 men.
   He now rendered his position almost impregnable, and General
   Lee was compelled to see one of his most important lines of
   communication wrested from him. On the day of Warren's Victory
   [August 21], Hancock, who … had been called from the north
   bank of the James [where an unsuccessful demonstration towards
   Richmond had been made from Deep Bottom], and who had moved
   with part of his corps rapidly toward the Weldon road, in the
   rear of Warren, struck that highway north of Reams's Station,
   and destroyed the track to that point and some miles south of
   it. He formed an intrenched camp at Reams's," and was attacked
   there on the 25th by Hill with such determination that he was
   forced back to a rear line, "where the troops had been
   rallied, and when night fell Hancock withdrew from Reams's
   Station. He had lost in the fight 2,400 of his 8,000 men, and
   five guns; 1,700 of the men were made prisoners. Hill's loss
   was but little less, and he, too, withdrew from Reams's. But
   this disaster did not loosen Warren's hold upon the Weldon
   road. … For about a month after the battle of Reams's Station
   there was comparative quiet along the lines of the opposing
   armies. … A strong party of colored soldiers had been set to
   work by General Butler on the north side of the James, under
   cover of a battery on that side mounting 100-pounder Parrott
   guns, in digging a canal across the narrow isthmus of a
   peninsula formed by a sharp bend in the river, called Farrar's
   Island.
{3537}
   By this canal it was intended to secure a nearer base of
   operations against Richmond, and afford a passage for the
   National war vessels, by which they might flank several
   important works of the Confederates." The Dutch Gap Canal, as
   it was called, did not prove successful, the necessary depth
   of water never being secured during the war, though the canal
   has been brought into use since.

      B. J. Lossing,
      Field Book of the Civil War,
      volume 3, chapter 13.

      ALSO IN:
      P. S. Michie,
      Dutch Gap Canal
      (Battles and Leaders, volume 4, page 575).

      O. B. Willcox,
      Actions on the Weldon Railroad
      (Battles and Leaders, volume 4, page 568).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (August: Alabama).
The Battle of Mobile Bay.
Capture of Confederate forts and fleet.

"After the capitulation of Vicksburg the vessels of the so-called Gulf Squadron which had been cruising on the lower Mississippi and its tributaries were in part joined to the Upper Squadron, under the command of Admiral Porter. The remainder were recalled to their duties on the outside blockade. Admiral Farragut was now free to turn his whole attention to the coast of the Gulf, whither he returned in January, 1864, after a well-earned rest at the North. Mobile was now the principal port in the possession of the Confederates in this quarter, and earnestly did the Admiral desire to attack and reduce the forts at the entrance of the bay. But troops were required to invest the forts after the fleet had passed them, and at this moment it seemed that there were no troops to be spared. It was also much to be desired that at least a few monitors should be added to the fleet, but neither were these as yet available. So the time wore on; winter passed into spring and spring into summer, but still the attack was not made. This delay was of incalculable advantage to the enemy, enabling him to complete his preparations. The Confederate force afloat in Mobile Bay was commanded by Admiral Franklin Buchanan. … This force consisted of only four vessels, but they nevertheless made an important addition to the defences of the place. Three of them were only paddle-wheel gun-boats … while the fourth was the iron-clad ram Tennessee … the most formidable vessel that the Confederates had ever built. … The City of Mobile lies at the head of a long bay, which is about 20 miles wide at its lower end. The greater portion of the bay is very shallow, too shallow even for vessels of moderate draft. The entrance lies between a long sandspit … and a shoal. … The ship-channel between the shoals, five miles in length, is perhaps half a mile wide at its narrowest point. Two forts guarded the passage,—on the right hand Fort Morgan, on Mobile Point, and on the left Fort Gaines, on Dauphin Island. … In addition to the land and naval defences, additional protection had been given by obstructions in the water. A line of piles ran out from Fort Gaines, which was continued nearly across the main ship-channel by a triple line of torpedoes. The eastern end of the row of torpedoes was marked by a red buoy, and between the buoy and Fort Morgan the channel had been left open for blockade runners. The open space, only 100 yards wide, lay directly under the guns of the fort, and it was through this narrow passage that Admiral Farragut intended to carry his fleet. The ships were gradually assembled toward the latter part of July. The Admiral's plan of action was simple, but in the highest degree effective. His fleet consisted of four monitors and fourteen wooden vessels, seven of the latter large and seven small. The wooden vessels were arranged in pairs, as at Port Hudson, each of the larger vessels having a smaller one lashed to her port side, so that if one was disabled the engines of the other would carry both past the forts. The four monitors were placed in a flanking column inshore, between the fleet and Fort Morgan. … At six o'clock on the morning of the 5th of August the fleet started with the flood tide. The Admiral took up his position in the port main rigging of the Hartford, so that he might have a good post of observation. [According to accounts given by officers who were on board the Hartford, Admiral Farragut climbed the rigging, after the battle began, in order to get above the thickest of the smoke, and Captain Drayton sent a man to lash him where he stood, so that, if wounded, he might not fall to the deck]. … Above the fort, and just beyond the obstructions, lay the Confederate ram Tennessee and her three attendant gunboats. … Soon after half-past six the Tecumseh [the leading monitor] fired the first two shots at Fort Morgan. For half an hour after this, the ships advanced in silence. Then the fort opened on the Brooklyn, and presently the whole line of vessels was hotly engaged. Their concentrated fire kept down that of the enemy, and all seemed at this time to be going well with the fleet. The Tecumseh, though all the while advancing, was now silent, reserving her fire for the Tennessee, which lay beyond the obstructions. Captain Craven saw the red buoy, but it seemed so close to the beach that he thought there must have been a mistake in his orders; and altering his course, he headed straight for the Tennessee, passing to the westward of the buoy right over the line of torpedoes. Suddenly there came a frightful explosion; the huge mass of iron gave a lurch first to one side, then to the other; her bow made one downward plunge, her screw was seen for a moment revolving high in air, and she sank to the bottom of the channel. Of 120 men on board only 21 were saved. … From the Brooklyn, leading the main column, something was now descried in the water ahead which resembled torpedo-buoys, and the sloop, with the Octorara lashed to her side, suddenly stopped, and in a moment they were backing down on the vessels astern of them. The bows of the two ships turned, falling off towards the fort, so that they blocked up the channel. The Hartford, the Admiral's flag-ship, which was next astern, also stopped to prevent a collision, but she was drifting fast with the Metacomet toward the two vessels ahead, and the Richmond and Port Royal were close upon them, followed by the others. At that moment it seemed as if nothing could save the vessels of the fleet from being thrown into hopeless confusion, massed together as they were directly under the guns of the fort. It was in that moment, at the crisis of the battle, that the calm and dauntless spirit of the Admiral rose to its greatest height. … 'Captain Drayton, go ahead! Jouett, full speed!' came the command, in clear, ringing tones from the Admiral's place in the rigging. {3538} In a moment the Hartford had turned, and dashing with the Metacomet past the Brooklyn, rushed straight over the barrier. Snap, snap, went the primers of the torpedoes under the bottom of the ship,—the officers and men could hear them,—but no explosion followed, and the Hartford passed safely into the waters above. Meanwhile the four ships lay entangled under Fort Morgan. A collision seemed inevitable, but Captain Jenkins of the Richmond, an officer of cool head and splendid courage, backed away from the others, and began a furious cannonade on the fort with his whole broadside, driving the enemy out of the water-batteries. The Brooklyn was by this means able to recover, and presently she steamed ahead, followed by the Richmond and the rest of the fleet. … No sooner was the battle with the fort over than a new battle began with the Tennessee. The moment that the ships had fairly entered the bay, the Confederate ram … came charging down the whole line, taking each vessel in turn," but doing no serious injury to any. On the arrival of the monitors, which had lagged behind, "the Tennessee took refuge under the guns of the fort, and the fleet rejoined the Hartford, now four miles up the bay." Meantime the Hartford and the Metacomet had disposed of two of the Confederate gunboats: the Selma, which surrendered, and the Gaines, which had been run ashore and set on fire. The third, the Morgan, took shelter, with the Tennessee, near the fort. "The Hartford had by this time come to anchor, and her crew went to breakfast. The other ships gradually joined her. But the battle was not yet over. It was now a little before nine o'clock, and suddenly the Tennessee was reported approaching." In the battle which ensued, the stout iron-clad was rammed repeatedly by the Monongahela, the Lackawanna, the Hartford and the Ossipee, and pounded by the terrible guns of the monitor Chickasaw, until, with her commander wounded, her tiller-chains and smoke stack gone, her port shutters jammed, and her armor starting from the frame, she raised the white flag. "A few days later the forts surrendered, and Mobile, as a Confederate port, ceased to exist. The fall of the city did not come about until some time afterward; indeed no immediate attempt was made upon it, for the capture of the forts and the occupation of Mobile Bay served every purpose of the Federal Government."

"This great victory cost the Union fleet 335 men. … The losses in the rebel fleet were 10 killed and 16 wounded—confined to the Tennessee and Selma—and 280 prisoners taken. The loss in the forts is unknown."

      ALSO IN:
      J. O. Kinney and J. D. Johnston;
      Farragut at Mobile Bay,
      and
      The Ram Tennessee at Mobile Bay,
      (Battles and Leaders, volume 3).

A. T. Mahan, The Gulf and Inland Waters (The Navy in the Civil War, volume 3), chapter 8.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (August-October: Virginia).
   Sheridan's Victories in the Shenandoah Valley.
   Winchester.
   Fisher's Hill.
   Cedar Creek.
   The famous Ride.

"The events of July showed the urgent need of unity of command in Northern Virginia, and the lieutenant-general, in August, consolidated these four departments [of Washington, the Susquehanna, West Virginia and the Middle Department] into one, named the Middle Military Division, under General Hunter. That officer, however, before entering on the proposed campaign, expressed a willingness to be relieved, and General P. H. Sheridan, who had been transferred from the Army of the Potomac to the command of the forces in the field under Hunter, was appointed in his stead." General Sheridan was appointed to the command on the 7th of August, and took the field with an effective force (which included the Sixth and Nineteenth Corps) of 40,000 men, 10,000 being cavalry. "His operations during that month and the fore part of September were mainly confined to manœuvres having for their object to prevent the Confederates from gaining the rich harvests of the Shenandoah Valley. But after once or twice driving Early southward to Strasburg, he each time returned on his path towards Harper's Ferry. General Grant had hesitated in allowing Sheridan to take a real initiative, as defeat would lay open to the enemy the States of Maryland and Pennsylvania before another army could be interposed to check him. Finding, however, while on a personal visit to General Sheridan, in the month of September, that that officer expressed great confidence of success, he authorized him to attack. At this time the Confederate force held the west bank of Opequan Creek, covering Winchester; and the Union force lay in front of Berryville, twenty miles south of Harper's Ferry. The situation of the opposing armies was peculiar: each threatened the communications of the other, and either could bring on a battle at any time. It would appear that General Early had designed assuming the offensive." He made a movement which General Sheridan was prompt to take advantage of, on the morning of September 19th, and a battle ensued—known as the battle of Winchester, but some times called the battle of Opequan Creek—which resulted in a victory for the latter. "It is due to state that there was a great disparity in the numbers engaged—Early's force consisting of 8,500 muskets and 3,000 sabres, while Sheridan's strength was thrice that of the aggregate Confederate force. Sheridan's preponderance in horse enabled him to extend far beyond and overlap the Confederate left, and when, after several hours of indecisive fighting between the infantry, a general advance was, at four P. M., made by the whole line, the cavalry, by an impetuous charge, carried the fortified heights: the Confederates … broke in confusion, retiring from the field and through Winchester, with the Union forces in pursuit. Night, however, prevented Sheridan from following up the victory, among the trophies of which were 2,500 prisoners, five pieces of artillery, and nine battle-flags. … After his defeat at Winchester, Early did not pause in his southward retreat till he reached Fisher's Hill, near Strasburg, 30 miles south of Winchester. This is a very defensible position, commanding the débouché of the narrow Strasburg valley between the north fork of the Shenandoah River and the North Mountain. On these obstacles Early rested his flank. In front of this position Sheridan arrived on the morning of the 22d and formed his force for a direct attack, while he sent Torbert with two divisions of cavalry by the parallel Luray Valley, to gain New Market, 20 miles in Early's rear. After much manœuvring, and several ineffectual efforts to force the position, an attack of cavalry was made from the right. {3539} Under cover of this mask a corps of infantry was moved to that flank, and by an impetuous assault carried the Confederate left resting on the North Mountain. A general attack in front then disrupted Early's whole line, and the Confederates retired in great disorder, leaving behind 16 pieces of artillery and several hundred prisoners. … Early's retreat was not stayed until he reached the lower passes of the Blue Ridge, whither he retired with a loss of half his army. Sheridan, after pushing the pursuit as far as Staunton, and operating destructively against the Virginia Central Railroad, returned and took position behind Cedar Creek near Strasburg. Previously to abandoning the country south of Strasburg, it was laid waste by the destruction of all barns, grain, forage, farming implements, and mills. The desolution of the Palatinate by Turenne was not more complete. On the withdrawal of Sheridan, Early, after a brief respite, and being re-enforced by Kershaw's division of infantry and 600 cavalry from Lee's army, again marched northward down the Valley, and once more ensconced himself at Fisher's Hill. Sheridan continued to hold position on the north bank of Cedar Creek. Nothing more important than cavalry combats, mostly favorable to the Federal arms, took place, until the 19th of October, when Early assumed a bold offensive that was near giving him a victory as complete as the defeat he had suffered. … The army was, at this time, temporarily under the command of General Wright—Sheridan being absent at Washington. The position held by the Union force was too formidable to invite open attack, and Early's only opportunity was to make a surprise. This that officer now determined on, and its execution was begun during the night of the 18-19th of October." A flanking column, "favored by a heavy fog … attained, unperceived, the rear of the left flank of the Union force, formed by Crook's Corps … and rushed into the camp—the troops awaking only to find themselves prisoners. To rally the men in their bewilderment was impossible, and Crook's Corps, being thoroughly broken up, fled in disorder, leaving many guns in the hands of the enemy. As soon as this flank attack was developed, Early, with his other column, emerged from behind the hills west of Cedar Creek, and crossing that stream, struck directly the troops on the right of Crook. This served to complete the disaster, and the whole Union left and centre became a confused mass, against which the Confederates directed the captured artillery (18 guns), while the flanking force swept forward to the main turnpike. Such was the scene on which the light of day dawned. The only force not yet involved in the enemy's onset was the Sixth Corps, which by its position was somewhat in rear. With this General Ricketts quickly executed a change of front, throwing it forward at right angles to its former position, and firmly withstood the enemy's shock. Its chief service was, however, to cover the general retreat which Wright now ordered, as the only practicable means of reuniting his force. … At the first good position between Middletown and Newtown, Wright was able to rally and reform the troops, form a compact line, and prepare either to resist further attack, or himself resume the offensive. It was at this time, about half-past ten A. M., that General Sheridan arrived upon the field from Winchester, where he had slept the previous night. Hearing the distant sounds of battle rolling up from the south, Sheridan rode post to the front, where arriving, his electric manner had on the troops a very inspiriting effect. General Wright had already brought order out of confusion and made dispositions for attack. … A counter-charge was begun at three o'clock in the afternoon. … A large part of Early's force, in the intoxication of success, had abandoned their colors and taken to plundering the abandoned Federal camps. The refluent wave was as resistless as the Confederate surge had been. … The retreat soon became a rout. … In the pursuit all the captured guns were retaken and 23 in addition, The captures included, besides, near 1,500 prisoners. … With this defeat of Early all operations of moment in the Shenandoah forever ended," and most of the troops on both sides were recalled to the main field of operations, at Petersburg.

      M. M. Granger,
      The Battle of Cedar Creek
      (Sketches of War History, Ohio Commandery,
      L. L. of the United States, volume 3).

      J. A. Early,
      Winchester, Fisher's Hill, and Cedar Creek
      (Battles and Leaders, volume 4).

      H. C. King,
      The Battle of Cedar Creek
      (Personal Recollections of the War:
      New York Com. L. L. of the United States).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (September-October: Georgia)
   Atlanta cleared of its former inhabitants.
   Sherman's Preparations for the March to the Sea.
   Hood's Raid to the rear.

"During the month of September, Sherman's army remained grouped about Atlanta. … The Army of the Cumberland, under Major-General Thomas, held Atlanta; the Army of the Tennessee, commanded by Major-General Howard, was at East Point; and the Army of the Ohio occupied Decatur. … Sherman now determined to make Atlanta exclusively a military post. On the 4th of September he issued the following orders: 'The city of Atlanta belonging exclusively for warlike purposes, it will at once be vacated by all except the armies of the United States and such civilian employes as may be retained by the proper departments of the Government.' … This order fell upon the ears of the inhabitants of Atlanta like a thunderbolt." To a remonstrance addressed to him by the mayor and two councilmen of the city, he replied: "We must have peace, not only at Atlanta, but in all America. To secure this we must stop the war that now desolates our once happy and favored country. To stop the war, we must defeat the rebel armies that are arrayed against the laws and Constitution, which all must respect and obey. To defeat these armies, we must prepare the way to reach them in their recesses. … My military plans make it necessary for the inhabitants to go away, and I can only renew my offer of services to make their exodus in any direction as easy and comfortable as possible. … War is cruelty and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war on our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out. … You might as well appeal against the thunder-storm as against these terrible hardships of war." A truce of ten days was arranged, during which "446 families were moved south, comprising 705 adults, 860 children and 79 servants, with an average of 1,651 pounds of furniture and household goods of all kinds to each family."

"General Hood, meanwhile, kept his forces in the neighborhood of Jonesboro, receiving his supplies by the Macon road. His army numbered about 40,000 men, exclusive of the Georgia militia; and, as if to show that no immediate offensive movement was contemplated, the latter were withdrawn from him by Governor Brown soon after the evacuation of Atlanta. … To allow their principal Southern army to rust in inactivity, was not however the intention of the rebel authorities. … Something must be done, and that speedily, to arrest the progress of the Federal army, or Georgia and perhaps the Gulf States, would be irretrievably lost. … The whole army of General Hood, it was decided, should rapidly move in a compact body to the rear of Atlanta, and, after breaking up the railroad between the Chattahoochee and Chattanooga, push on to Bridgeport and destroy the great railroad bridge spanning the Tennessee river at that place. Should this be accomplished, Atlanta would be isolated from Chattanooga, and the latter in turn isolated from Nashville, and General Sherman, cut off from his primary and secondary bases, would find Atlanta but a barren conquest to be relinquished almost as soon as gained, and would be obliged to return to Tennessee. Atlanta would then fall from lack of provisions, or in consequence of the successful attacks of the Georgia militia. In connection with this movement, General Forrest, confessedly their ablest cavalry officer, was already operating in Southern Tennessee. … A week sufficed to complete General Hood's arrangements, and by the 2d of October his army was across the Chattahoochee and on the march to Dallas, where the different corps were directed to concentrate. At this point he was enabled to threaten Rome and Kingston, as well as the fortified places on the railroad to Chattanooga; and there remained open, in case of defeat, a line of retreat southwest into Alabama. From Dallas he advanced east toward the railroad, and, on the 4th, captured the insignificant stations of Big Shanty and Ackworth, effecting a thorough destruction of the road between the two places. He also sent a division under General French to capture the Federal post at Allatoona Pass, where he had ascertained that a million and a half of rations for the Federal army were stored, on which he probably depended to replenish his commissariat. … General Sherman, … immediately upon hearing that General Hood had crossed the Chattahoochee, … despatched General Corse with reënforcements to Rome, which he supposed the enemy were aiming at. During the previous week he had sent General Thomas with troops to Nashville to look after Forrest. His bridges having meanwhile been carried away by a freshet which filled the Chattahoochee, he was unable to move his main body until the 4th, when three pontoons were laid down, over which the armies of the Cumberland, the Tennessee, and the Ohio crossed, and took up their march in the direction of Marietta, with 15 days' rations. The 20th corps, General Slocum, was left to garrison Atlanta. Learning that the enemy had captured Big Shanty and Ackworth, and were threatening Allatoona, and alive to the imperative necessity of holding the latter place, General Sherman at once communicated by signals instruction to General Corse at Rome to reënforce the small garrison and hold the defences until the main body of the Federal army could come to his assistance. Upon receiving the message General Corse placed 900 men on the cars, and reached Allatoona before the attack of French. With this addition the garrison numbered 1,700 men, with six guns. Early on the morning of the 5th, General French, with 7,000 troops, approached Allatoona, and summoned the Federal commander, 'in order to save the unnecessary effusion of blood,' to make an immediate surrender; to which the latter replied: 'I shall not surrender, and you can commence the unnecessary effusion of blood whenever you please.' The battle opened at 8 A. M., and was waged hotly until 2 o'clock in the afternoon. Driven from fort to fort, until they reached their last defence, the garrison fought with an obstinacy and desperation worthy of the great stake for which they contended. Their general was wounded early in the action, but relaxed in no degree his efforts to repel the enemy. … During the heat of the contest General Sherman reached the summit of Kenesaw Mountain, whence he repeatedly signalled to General Corse to hold out to the last. The announcement of approaching succor animated the garrison to renewed exertions, and they threw back the assaulting columns of the enemy again and again, finally compelling them to retire, beaten and disheartened, in the direction of Dallas. Their retreat was hastened by the rapid approach of Stanley's (4th) corps from the direction of Pine Mountain. The enemy left 700 to 800 killed, wounded and prisoners in the hands of the Federals, and their total loss must have exceeded 1,000. The garrison lost 600 men. The town of Allatoona was reduced to a mere wreck by the [severe fire of the enemy, and all the Federal artillery and cavalry horses were killed; but the valuable stores were saved, and the fort and pass held. The only important injury done by the rebels, was the destruction of six or seven miles of railroad between Big Shanty and Allatoona, which General Sherman immediately commenced to repair. For several days subsequent to the fight at Allatoona, General Sherman remained in the latter place, watching the movements of Hood, who, he suspected, would march for Rome, and thence toward Bridgeport, or else to Kingston. … General Hood, however, crossing the Etowah and avoiding Rome, moved directly north, and on the 12th Stuart's corps of his army appeared in front of Resaca, the defences of which were held by Colonel Weaver with 600 men and three pieces of artillery. … No serious attack was made upon the garrison, the enemy being more intent upon destroying the railroad toward Dalton than wasting their time or strength upon the reduction of a post, the possession of which they wisely considered would be of no particular advantage to them. … Meanwhile the rebel army, pursuing its devastating march north, reached Dalton on the 14th. … The 14th and 15th were employed by the enemy in continuing the destruction of the railroad as far as Tunnel Hill. … {3541} The approach of the Federal columns now warned General Hood to move off to the west, and the 16th found him in full retreat for Lafayette, followed by General Sherman. … From Lafayette the enemy retreated in a southwesterly direction into Alabama through a broken and mountainous country, but scantily supplied with food for man or beast; and passing through Summerville, Gaylesville, and Blue Pond, halted at Gadsdens, on the Coosa River, 75 miles from Lafayette. Here he paused for several days, receiving a few reënforcements brought up by General Beauregard, who had on the 17th assumed command of the Confederate military division of the West. … General Hood still retained his special command, subject to the supervision or direction of General Beauregard, and his army, after remaining a few days in Gadsden, moved, about the 1st of November, for Warrington, on the Tennessee River, 30 miles distant. General Sherman meanwhile remained at Gaylesville, which place his main body reached about the 21st, watching the enemy's movements. … Whatever … might be the final result of Hood's flanking movement, it had entirely failed to interrupt the Federal communications to a degree that would compel the evacuation of Atlanta. … In the light of subsequent events it would now appear that General Sherman, making only a show of following his adversary, deliberately lured him into Northern Alabama, for the purpose of pursuing an uninterrupted march with his own army through the heart of Georgia. The ill-advised plan of General Hood had given him the very opportunity which he desired, and he prepared at once to avail himself of it."

ALSO IN: J. D. Cox, Atlanta (Campaigns of the Civil war, volume 9), chapter 17.

      T. B. Van Horne,
      Life of Major-General George H. Thomas,
      volume 2, chapter 12.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (October).
Admission of Nevada into the Union.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (October).
Report on secret disloyal associations in the North.
Knights of the Golden Circle, etc.

"During more than a year past [this report bears date October 8, 1864], it has been generally known to our military authorities that a secret and treasonable organization, affiliated with the Southern Rebellion, and chiefly military in its character, has been rapidly extending itself throughout the West. A variety of agencies … have been employed, and successfully, to ascertain its nature and extent, as well as its aims and its results; and, as this investigation has led to the arrest, in several States, of a number of its prominent members, as dangerous public enemies, it has been deemed proper to set forth in full the acts and purposes of this organization. … This secret association first developed itself in the West in the year 1862, about the period [August] of the first conscription of troops, which it aimed to obstruct and resist. Originally known in certain localities as the 'Mutual Protection Society,' the 'Circle of Honor,' or the 'Circle' or 'Knights of the Mighty Host,' but more widely as the 'Knights of the Golden Circle,' it was simply an inspiration of the Rebellion, being little other than an extension, among the disloyal and disaffected at the North, of the association of the latter name, which had existed for some years at the South [see GOLDEN CIRCLE, KNIGHTS OF], and from which it derived all the chief features of its organization. During the Summer and Fall of 1863, the Order, both at the North and South, underwent some modifications as well as a change of name. In consequence of a partial exposure which had been made of the signs and ritual of the Knights of the Golden Circle, Sterling Price had instituted, as its successor in Missouri, a secret political association, which he called the Corps de Belgique, or Southern League, his principal coadjutor being Charles L. Hunt, of St. Louis, then Belgian Consul at that city. … Meanwhile, also, there had been instituted at the North, in the autumn of 1863, by sundry disloyal persons, prominent among whom were Vallandigham and P. C. Wright, of New York, a secret, Order intended to be general throughout the country … and which was termed, and has since been widely known as the O. A. K., or 'Order of American Knights.' … The secret signs and character of the Order having become known to our military authorities, further modifications in the ritual and forms were introduced, and its name was finally changed to that of the O. S. L., or 'Order of the Sons of Liberty,' or the 'Knights of the Order of the Sons of Liberty.' These later changes are represented to have been first instituted … in May last [1864], but the new name was at once generally adopted throughout the West, though in some localities the association is still better known as the 'Order of American Knights.' Meanwhile, also, the Order has received certain local designations. In parts of Illinois it has been called at times the 'Peace Organization,' in Kentucky the 'Star Organization,' and in Missouri the 'American Organization;' these, however, being apparently names used outside of the lodges of the Order. Its members have also been familiarly designated as 'Butternuts' by the country people of Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio. … The 'Temples' or 'Lodges' of the Order are numerously scattered through the States of Indiana, Illinois, Ohio, Missouri, and Kentucky. They are also officially reported as established, to a less extent, in Michigan and the other Western States, as well as in New York, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, Maryland, Delaware, and Tennessee. … It has been asserted by delegates to the Supreme Council of February last, that the number was there represented to be from 800,000 to 1,000,000; but Vallandigham, in his speech last summer at Dayton, Ohio, placed it at 500,000, which is probably much nearer the true total. … Although the Order has, from the outset, partaken of the military character, it was not till the summer or fall of 1863 that it began to be generally organized as an armed body.' … In March last the entire armed force of the Order capable of being mobilized for effective service was represented to be 340,000 men."

      J. Holt,
      Judge Advocate General's Report on Secret Associations
      and Conspiracies against the Government.

ALSO IN: E. McPherson, Political History of the United States during the Great Rebellion, appendix, pages 445-454.

"Along the Northern border … the rebel agents, sent thither on 'detached service' by the Rebel Government, were active in movements intended to terrify and harass the people. On the 19th of October, a party of them made a raid into St. Albans, Vermont, robbing the banks there, and making their escape across the lines into Canada with their plunder, having killed one of the citizens in their attack. Pursuit was made, and several of the marauders were arrested in Canada. Proceedings were commenced to procure their extradition [which were protracted until after the close of the war]. … The Government received information that this affair was but one of a projected series, and that similar attempts would be made all along the frontier. More than this, there were threats, followed by actual attempts, to set fire to the principal Northern cities."

Correspondence relating to the Fenian Invasion and the Rebellion of the Southern States (Ottawa, 1869), pages 117-138.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (October: North Carolina).
The destruction of the ram Albemarle.

   The ram Albemarle, which had proved in the spring so dangerous
   an antagonist to the blockading vessels in the North Carolina
   Sounds, was still lying at Plymouth, in the Roanoke River, and
   another attack from her was feared by the fleet.

"She was finally destroyed by a brave young lieutenant, William B. Cushing, who blew her up with a torpedo. Though only twenty years old, he was one of the most daring officers in the navy, and he had become noted for his fearlessness in the expeditions in the sounds and rivers of North Carolina. One dark night (October 27) he set out from the fleet in a steam launch—a long open boat used by naval vessels—with a crew of thirteen officers and men. The launch was fitted with a torpedo which could be run out forward on the end of a long boom so as to be thrust under the vessel to be attacked. Cushing got within sixty feet of the Albemarle before his boat was seen. The guards then shouted the alarm, rang the boat's bell, and began firing their muskets at the launch. There was a raft of logs thirty feet wide around the Albemarle to protect her from just such attacks, but Cushing ran the bow of the launch upon the logs, lowered the boom so that the torpedo came right under the side of the vessel, and fired it. At the same moment a shot from one of the great guns of the ram crashed through the launch, and it was overwhelmed by a flood of water thrown up by the explosion of the torpedo. The Confederates called out to Cushing to surrender, but he refused, and ordering his men to save themselves as they best could, he sprang into the water amid a shower of musket balls and swam down the river. He succeeded in reaching the shore, almost exhausted, and hid himself during the next day in a swamp, where he was cared for by some negroes. From them he heard that the Albemarle had been sunk by his torpedo. The next night he found a small boat in a creek, paddled in it down the river, and before midnight was safe on board one of the vessels of the fleet. Only one other man of the party escaped, all the rest being either drowned or captured. The Albemarle being thus put out of the way, Plymouth was recaptured a few days afterward."

J. D. Champlin, Jr. Young Folks' History of the War for the Union, chapter 33.

      ALSO IN:
      W. B. Cushing, E. Holden, and others,
      The Confederate Ram Albemarle
      (Battles and Leaders, volume 4).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (November: Tennessee).
Hood's advance Northward.
The Battle of Franklin.

   When General Sherman started on his march to the sea General
   Thomas was left to oppose Hood. "The force Thomas had for this
   purpose was curiously small, considering how formidable Hood's
   army had been in the Atlanta Campaign, and still was. All
   Thomas had for immediate field service were the Fourth and
   Twenty-Third Corps, numbering together about 22,000 infantry,
   and also about 3,000 cavalry. These troops were sent to
   Pulaski, Tennessee, in command of General Schofield, Thomas,
   himself remaining at Nashville. A little after the middle of
   November, 1864, Hood crossed the Tennessee River and
   inaugurated his campaign by a flank movement. He made a rapid
   march upon Columbia, with the view of getting in behind
   Schofield, who was at Pulaski. But Schofield retired to
   Columbia in time to frustrate Hood's plans. The two armies
   remained in close proximity to each other at Columbia until
   November 28th, when Hood made another skilfully-planned flank
   movement … to Spring Hill, in rear of Schofield. Again Hood
   was foiled. … General Thomas at Nashville wanted the
   Confederates held back as long as possible, in order that he
   might have time to receive there his expected reinforcement of
   A. J. Smith's corps. It was, therefore, Schofield's duty to
   check Hood's advance as long as he could. … He started General
   Stanley, with a division of 5,000 men, and a great part of his
   artillery, to Spring Hill (12 miles north of Columbia) early
   in the morning. He put two other divisions on the road. He
   held one division in front of Columbia, and prevented the
   enemy from crossing the river during the entire day, and also
   that night. Stanley reached Spring Hill in time to prevent
   Hood from occupying that place. He skirmished and fought with
   Hood's advance troops at Spring Hill during the afternoon of
   November 29th. … Schofield … accomplished exactly what he
   believed he could accomplish. He held back his enemy at
   Columbia with one hand and fenced off the blow at Spring Hill
   with the other. … The beneficial result of all this bold
   management of Schofield, November 29th, was apparent the next
   day in the battle of Franklin. Hood fought that great battle
   practically without his artillery. He only had the two
   batteries which he took with him on his detour to Spring Hill.
   Those two he used. … But his vast supply of artillery had all
   been detained at Columbia too long to be of any service at the
   time and place it was most needed. … The Federal troops left
   Spring Hill in the night for Franklin, ten miles distant.
   Early in the morning of November 30th they began to arrive at
   Franklin, and were placed in position covering the town. Early
   the same morning the Confederates moved up from Spring Hill,
   following hard upon the rearmost of the Federals. …
{3543}
   General Stanley says, in his official report: 'From one
   o'clock until four in the evening, the enemy's entire force
   was in sight and forming for attack. Yet, in view of the
   strong position we held, and reasoning from the former course
   of the rebels during the campaign, nothing appeared so
   improbable as that they would assault.'" The assault was made,
   however, with a terrible persistency which proved the ruin of
   Hood's army, for it failed. "The Confederate loss in this
   dreadful battle can be estimated from data given. There is
   good authority for stating the killed at 1,750. The usual
   proportion of killed and wounded is four or five to one. This
   would make the killed and wounded not less than 7,000 or
   8,000. The attacking force numbered full 20,000. … Hood's loss
   was, indeed, more than one-third of the attacking force. The
   Federal loss was much smaller, being 1,222 killed and wounded.
   … One of the features of this battle was the enormous
   expenditure of ammunition [100 wagon loads] in the short time
   of its duration. … The expenditure of so much ammunition
   produced a dense smoke, which hung over the field, and brought
   on sudden darkness, like an eclipse. So noticeable was this
   phenomenon, it is mentioned in all the official reports. … In
   the darkness of the night the battle ended. The Confederates
   desisted, and the Federal line became quiet. … In their front,
   and so near that the outstretched hand could almost reach
   them, were thousands of men in the agonies of death. The wail
   that went up from that field as the thunder of the battle
   ceased can never be forgotten by those who heard it. … The
   [Federal] troops were quietly withdrawn before midnight. A
   silent rapid march brought them to Nashville the next morning,
   and weary with fighting and marching they bivouacked in the
   blue grass pastures under the guns of Fort Negley."

      T. Speed,
      The Battle of Franklin
      (Sketches of War History,
      Ohio Commandery L. L. of the United States, volume 3).

      ALSO IN:
      T. B. Van Horne,
      Life of General George H. Thomas,
      chapter 13.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (November-December: Georgia).
Sherman's March to the Sea.

"It was at Alatoona, probably, that Sherman first realized that, with the forces at his disposal, the keeping open of his line of communications with the North would be impossible if he expected to retain any force with which to operate offensively beyond Atlanta.

He proposed, therefore, to destroy the roads back to Chattanooga, when all ready to move, and leave the latter place garrisoned. … Sherman thought Hood would follow him, though he proposed to prepare for the contingency of the latter moving the other way while he was moving south, by making Thomas strong enough to hold Tennessee and Kentucky. I myself [writes General Grant] was thoroughly satisfied that Hood would go north, as he did. On the 2d of November I telegraphed Sherman authorizing him definitely to move according to the plan he had proposed: that is, cutting loose from his base, giving up Atlanta and the railroad back to Chattanooga. … Atlanta was destroyed so far as to render it worthless for military purposes before starting, Sherman himself remaining over a day to superintend the work and see that it was well done. Sherman's orders for this campaign were perfect. Before starting, he had sent back all sick, disabled and weak men, retaining nothing but the hardy, well-inured soldiers to accompany him on his long march in prospect. … The army was expected to live on the country. … Each brigade furnished a company to gather supplies of forage and provisions for the command to which they belonged. … The skill of these men, called by themselves and the army 'bummers,' in collecting their loads and getting back to their respective commands, was marvellous."

All preparations being completed, General Sherman caused the foundries, mills and shops of every kind in Rome to be destroyed on the 10th of November, and "started on the 12th with his full staff from Kingston to Atlanta. … As Sherman rode towards Atlanta that night he met railroad trains going to the rear with furious speed. He was profoundly impressed with the strange aspect of affairs: two hostile armies marching in opposite directions, each in the full belief that it was achieving a final and conclusive result in the great war. 'I was strongly inspired,' he writes, 'with a feeling that the movement on our part was a direct attack upon the rebel army and the rebel capital at Richmond, though a full thousand miles of hostile country intervened; and that for better or worse it would end the war.' The result was a magnificent vindication of this soldierly intuition. His army consisted in round numbers of 60,000 men, the most perfect in strength, health, and intelligence that ever went to war. He had thoroughly purged it of all inefficient material, sending to the rear all organizations and even all individuals that he thought would be a drag upon his celerity or strength. His right wing, under Howard, consisted of the Fifteenth Corps, commanded by Osterhaus, in the absence of John A. Logan; and the Seventeenth Corps, commanded by Frank P. Blair, Jr. The left wing, commanded by Slocum, comprised the Fourteenth Corps, under Jeff. C. Davis, and the Twentieth Corps, under A. S. Williams. In his general orders he had not intimated to the army the object of their march. 'It is sufficient for you to know,' he said, 'that it involves a departure from our present base and a long, difficult march to a new one.' His special field orders are a model of clearness and conciseness. The habitual order of march was to be, wherever practicable, by four roads as nearly parallel as possible, and converging at points to be indicated from time to time. There was to be no general train of supplies; behind each regiment should follow one wagon and one ambulance; a due proportion of wagons for ammunition and provision behind each brigade; the separate columns were to start at seven in the morning and make about fifteen miles a day. The army was to subsist liberally on the country; forage parties, under the command of discreet officers, were to gather near the routes traveled whatever was needed by the command, aiming to keep in the wagons a reserve of at least ten days' provisions; soldiers were strictly forbidden to enter dwellings of inhabitants or commit trespasses; the power to destroy mills, houses, cotton gins, etc., was intrusted to corps commanders alone. {3544} No destruction of property was to be permitted in districts where the army was unmolested; but relentless devastation was ordered in case of the manifestation of local hostility by the shooting of soldiers or the burning of bridges. … Precisely at seven o'clock on the morning of the 16th of November the great army started on its march. A band struck up the anthem of 'John Brown's body lies a-moldering in the grave'; the soldiers caught up the refrain, and, to the swelling chorus of 'Glory, Hallelujah,' the great march was begun. The month that followed will always remain to those 60,000 men the most romantic and inspiring memory of their lives. The weather was favorable all the way; to veterans the marches were of reasonable length; the work of destroying the Southern railroads was so easy to their experienced hands that it hardly delayed the day's march. With the exception of the affair on the 22d of November, when P. J. Phillips with a division of Smith's Georgia troops attacked C. C. Walcutt's Brigade, which was marching as the rear-guard of the right wing at Griswoldville, and met with a severe repulse, and a series of cavalry fights between Wheeler and Kilpatrick near 'Waynesboro', there was no fighting to do between Atlanta and Savannah. A swarm of militia and irregular cavalry hung, it is true, about the front and flank of the marching army, but were hardly a source of more annoyance than so many mosquitoes would have been. The foragers brought in every evening their heterogeneous supplies from the outlying plantations, and although they had to defend themselves every day from scattered forces of the enemy, the casualties which they reported each evening were insignificant. The utmost efforts of Sherman and his officers to induce the negroes to remain quietly at home were not entirely successful. The promise of freedom which was to come to them from the victory of the Union cause was too vague and indefinite to content them. … The simple-hearted freedmen gathered in an ever-increasing cloud in rear of the army; and when the campaign was over they peopled the sea-islands of Georgia and furnished, after the war, the principal employment of the Freedmen's Commission. The march produced an extraordinary effervescence throughout the Confederacy. If words could avail anything against heavy battalions, Sherman would have been annihilated in his first day's march. … As Sherman drew near to Milledgeville on the 23d of November the Georgia Legislature passed an act to levy the population en masse; but this act of desperate legislation had no effect in checking the march of the 'Yankees,' and the Governor, State officers, and Legislature fled in the utmost confusion as Sherman entered the place. The Union general occupied the Executive Mansion for a day; some of the soldiers went to the State House, organized themselves into a constituent assembly, and after a spirited mock-serious debate, repealed the ordinance of secession. Sherman took the greatest possible pains to prevent any damage to the city and marched out on the 24th on the way to Millen. … Finding it impossible to stop him, the Georgia State troops by sharp marching had made their way directly to the vicinity of Savannah, where Sherman himself arrived and invested the city from the Savannah to the little Ogeechee River, on the 10th of December."

On the 13th, Fort McAllister, which commanded the Ogeechee River, was stormed and taken by Hazen's division, and communication was opened with Admiral Dahlgren, and with General Foster, the Union commander at Port Royal. On the 17th, General Hardee, the Confederate commander at Savannah, refused a demand for the surrender of the city, but on the night of the 20th he escaped, with his forces, and on the 22d General Sherman telegraphed to President Lincoln: "I beg to present to you as a Christmas gift the city of Savannah, with 150 heavy guns and plenty of ammunition; also about 25,000 bales of cotton."

ALSO IN: J. D. Cox, The March to the Sea (Campaigns of the Civil War, volume 10), chapter 3.

      O. O. Howard, and others,
      Sherman's March
      (Battles and Leaders, volume 4).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (December: Tennessee).
The Battle of Nashville and the destruction of Hood's army.

After the battle of Franklin Hood went forward to Nashville,
with his badly shaken army, and invested that place.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (NOVEMBER: TENNESSEE).

   Thomas was strongly fortified, and quietly took his time to
   make ready before striking his audacious antagonist, unmoved
   by repeated demands for an advance, from the War Office, the
   President, and General Grant. "With all just confidence in
   Thomas' ability, the entire North insisted on instant action,
   and Grant finally ordered Thomas either to move upon Hood at
   once or else turn over the command to Schofield. Thomas
   quietly replied that he would cheerfully do the latter, if
   directed, but would not attack Hood until he was satisfied
   that the time was ripe. He desired both favorable weather and
   to increase his force of mounted men. But the enemy was
   devastating a considerable part of Tennessee and was forcing
   all the young men into their ranks; and everyone was fearful
   of a repetition of Bragg's march to the Ohio in 1862. Logan
   was finally ordered to Nashville to supplant Thomas. But
   before he could reach the ground, Thomas had struck his blow.
   His preparations had been two weeks before substantially
   completed. Small detachments were at Murfreesboro',
   Chattanooga, and along the railroad. This latter had been,
   however, interrupted by Hood for a number of days. A heavy
   storm of sleet and ice had made the country almost impassable
   and would render the operations of the attacking party
   uncertain. Thomas had made up his mind to wait for clearing
   weather. Finally came sunshine and with it Thomas' advance.
   Hood lay in his front, with Stewart on his left, Lee in the
   centre and Cheatham on the right, while a portion of Forrest's
   cavalry was operating out upon his left. He had some 44,000
   men, but his check and heavy losses at Franklin had seriously
   impaired the 'morale' of his army as well as thinned his
   ranks. Hood could, however, not retreat. He was committed to a
   death-struggle with Thomas. It was his last chance as a
   soldier. The Union general had placed A. J. Smith on his
   right, the Fourth corps in the centre, and Schofield on the
   left. He advanced on Hood, bearing heavily with his right,
   while sharply demonstrating with his left. The position of the
   Confederate Army had placed A. J. Smith's corps obliquely to
   their general line of battle, an advantage not to be
   neglected.
{3545}
   Smith pushed in, later supported by Schofield, and
   successively capturing the field-works erected by the enemy's
   main line and reserves, disastrously crushed Hood's left
   flank. Meanwhile Wood was making all but equal headway against
   Hood's right, and the first day closed with remarkable success
   for the amount of loss sustained. Still this was not victory.
   The morrow might bring reverse. Hood's fight promised to be
   with clenched teeth. Hood seriously missed Forrest, whom he
   had detached on a raiding excursion and without whose cavalry
   his flanks were naked. Cheatham he moved during the night over
   from the right to sustain his left, which had proved the
   weaker wing. On the morning of the next day he lay intrenched
   upon the hills back of his former line, with either flank
   somewhat refused. Thomas sent Wilson with his cavalry to work
   his way unobserved around the extreme left flank thus thrown
   back. At 4 P. M. a general assault was made all along the
   line. Upon our left, Wood's advance did not meet with success.
   On the right, however, A. J. Smith's onset, concentrated at
   the salient of Hood's left centre, proved heavy enough to
   break down the Confederate defense. Sharply following up his
   successes, allowing no breathing time to the exultant troops,
   Smith pushed well home, and overcoming all resistance, drove
   the enemy in wild confusion from the field. Meanwhile Wilson's
   troopers, dismounted, fell upon the Confederate flank and rear
   and increased the wreck tenfold. This advantage again enabled
   Wood to make some headway, and with renewed joint effort the
   rout of the enemy became overwhelming. Almost all organization
   was lost in Hood's army as it fled across the country towards
   Franklin. Pursuit was promptly undertaken, but though
   seriously harassed, Hood saved himself beyond the Tennessee
   river with the remnants of his army. Thomas' losses were 3,000
   men, Hood's were never officially given, but our trophies
   included 4,500 prisoners and 53 guns. Thomas had settled all
   adverse speculation upon his slowness in attacking Hood by the
   next to annihilation he wrought when he actually moved upon
   him. No army was so completely overthrown during our war."

ALSO IN: T. B. Van Horne, History of the Army of the Cumberland, chapter 35 (volume 2).

      J. D. Cox,
      The March to the Sea, Franklin and Nashville
      (Campaigns of the Civil War, volume 10),
      chapters 6-7.

      H. Stone,
      Repelling Hood's Invasion
      (Battles and Leaders, volume 4).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864-1865
(December-January: North Carolina).
The Capture of Fort Fisher.

"In the latter part of 1864 two ports only, Wilmington and Charleston, remained to the Confederates. … The northward march of Sherman would cut off Charleston, too, so that the Confederates would have to abandon it. The National government now desired to complete its work by capturing Fort Fisher, and thus finally shutting off the Confederacy from all communication with the foreign world. The accomplishment of this task was in no wise easy. … The army and navy co-operated in the attempts to reduce Fort Fisher. There were more than 50 men-of-war tossing on the waves before the lowering sea-front of the work. Six thousand five hundred men were in the military force. They were in command of General B. F. Butler, whom we saw last in New Orleans. The General's active and ingenious mind conceived a plan for destroying the fort without sacrificing a single Federal soldier. He procured an old gun-boat, painted it white and otherwise disguised it, so as to look like a blockade-runner, stored 250 tons of gunpowder in its hold with fuses penetrating every part, ran the craft in within 1,500 feet of the works and exploded it. Butler expected that the shock would demolish the seaward face of the fort altogether, and perhaps bury the guns under great masses of sand, but in this he was mistaken, for the heavy bastions were not in the least disturbed by the shock. … The navy then took its turn, and for some hours the heavy vessels of Admiral Porter's fleet poured so rapid and well aimed a fire upon the work, that the garrison were driven from their guns, and only the occasional report of a heavy cannon told that the fort was still tenanted. But secure in their heavy bomb-proofs, the garrison minded the storm of shells and solid shot no more than the well-housed farmer heeds a hailstorm. It was very clear that Fort Fisher could not be taken at long range. … The original plan had contemplated an assault as soon as the fire of the fleet should have silenced the guns of the fort, and in pursuance of this 700 men had been landed from the army transports. But the weather was too rough to permit of landing more troops that day, and the next morning General Butler concluded that Fort Fisher was impregnable, withdrew his men already landed, and sailed away, greatly to the disgust of the navy. This was on the 25th of December, 1864. The chagrin of the whole North over the failure of the expedition was so great that it was speedily determined to renew the attempt. January 13th saw a new Federal force, this time under command of General A. H. Terry, landing on the shore of the sandy neck of land above the fort. … At early dawn of the 15th the attack was begun. The ships arranged in a great semicircle poured their fire upon the fort, dismantling guns, driving the garrison to the bomb-proofs, and mowing down the stockade. A line of sharp-shooters, each carrying a shovel in one hand and a gun in the other, spring out from Terry's most advanced lines, rush forward to within 175 yards of the fort and dig pits for their protection before the Confederates can attack them. Then the sharpshooters and the navy occupy the attention of the enemy, while Curtis's brigade dashes forward and digs a trench within 500 yards of the fort. By this time too a party of 2,000 sailors and marines has been landed from the fleet. They are to storm the sea-wall of the fort while the army attacks its landward face. Suddenly the thunder of the naval artillery is stilled. There is a moment of silence, and then the shrill scream of the whistles rises from every steamer in the fleet. It is the signal for the assault. The sailors on the beach spring to their feet and dash forward at a rapid run; they fire no shot, for they carry no guns. Cutlasses and pistols, the blue-jackets' traditional weapons, are their only arms. Toward the other side of the fort came Terry's troops. … The fate of the naval column is quickly determined. Upon it is concentrated the fire of the heaviest Confederate batteries, Napoleon guns, Columbiads, and rifles shotted with grape and cannister. {3546} The blue-jackets, unable to reply to this murderous fire, and seeing their companions falling fast around them, waver, halt, and fall back to the beach, throwing themselves upon the ground to escape the enemy's missiles. But though repulsed they have contributed largely to the capture of the fort. While the chief attention of Confederates has been directed toward them, the troops have been carrying all before them on the other front. Colonel Lamb turns from his direction of the defense against the naval column to see three Union flags waving over other portions of the work. … The Confederates were determined, even desperate. Long after the fort was virtually in the hands of its captors they stubbornly clung to a bomb-proof. Finally they retreated to Battery Buchanan and there maintained themselves stoutly until late at night when, all hope being at an end, they surrendered themselves, and the National victory was complete."

      W. Lamb and T. O. Selfridge, Jr.,
      The Capture of Fort Fisher
      (Battles and Leaders, volume 4).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (January).
Congressional adoption of the Thirteenth Amendment.

"On the last day of [January, 1865] … one of the grandest events of the century was witnessed in the House of Representatives in the final passage of the Constitutional Amendment [the Thirteenth] forever prohibiting slavery. Numerous propositions on the subject had been submitted, but the honor of drafting the one adopted belongs to Lyman Trumbull, who had introduced it early in the first session of this Congress. It passed the Senate on the 8th of April, 1864, only six members voting against it, … but failed in the House on the 15th of June following. It now came up on the motion of Mr. Ashley to reconsider this vote. Congress had abolished slavery in the District of Columbia, and prohibited it in all the Territories. It had repealed the Fugitive Slave law, and declared free all negro soldiers in the Union armies and their families; and the President had played his grand part in the Proclamation of Emancipation. But the question now to be decided completely overshadowed all others. The debate on the subject had been protracted and very spirited. … The time for the momentous vote had now come, and no language could describe the solemnity and impressiveness of the spectacle pending the roll-call. The success of the measure had been considered very doubtful, and depended upon certain negotiations, the result of which was not fully assured, and the particulars of which never reached the public. The anxiety and suspense during the balloting produced a deathly stillness, but when it became certainly known that the measure had prevailed the cheering in the densely-packed hall and galleries surpassed all precedent and beggared all description. Members joined in the general shouting, which was kept up for several minutes, many embracing each other, and others completely surrendering themselves to their tears of joy. It seemed to me I had been born into a new life."

"The Joint Resolution passed [the House of Representatives, on the 31st of January], 119 to 56, 8 not voting, 10 Democrats voting aye. … It was the greatest day the House had ever seen, nor is it likely ever to see a greater."

The Thirteenth Amendment, which was ratified before the close of the year by three-fourths of the States, and its embodiment in the Constitution of the United States proclaimed by the Secretary of State on the 18th of December, 1865, is as follows:

"Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (February).
The Hampton Roads Peace Conference.

"Several informal attempts at opening negotiations for the termination of hostilities were made in the course of this Winter—Honorable Francis P. Blair, of Maryland, visiting Richmond twice on the subject, with the consent, though not by the request, of President Lincoln. At length, upon their direct application, Messrs. Alex. H. Stephens, John A. Campbell, and Robert M. T. Hunter, were permitted to pass General Grant's lines before Petersburg, and proceed to Fortress Monroe; where [on board a steamer in Hampton Roads] they were met by Gov. [Secretary of State] Seward, followed by President Lincoln; and a free, full conference was had."

   Secretary Seward first went to meet the three Confederate
   Commissioners, with the following letter of instructions from
   President Lincoln, dated January 31, 1865: "Honorable William
   H. Seward, Secretary of State: You will proceed to Fortress
   Monroe, Virginia, there to meet and informally confer with
   Messrs. Stephens, Hunter, and Campbell, on the basis of my
   letter to F. P. Blair, Esq., of January 18, 1865, a copy of
   which you have. You will make known to them that three things
   are indispensable, to wit:
   1. The restoration of the national authority throughout all
   the States.
   2. No receding by the executive of the United States on the
   slavery question from the position assumed thereon in the late
   annual message to Congress, and in preceding documents.
   3. No cessation of hostilities short of an end of the war and
   the disbanding of all forces hostile to the government.

   You will inform them that all propositions of theirs, not
   inconsistent with the above, will be considered and passed
   upon in a spirit of sincere liberality. You will hear all they
   may choose to say, and report it to me. You will not assume to
   definitely consummate anything. Yours, etc., Abraham Lincoln."
   Two days later, the President followed him, persuaded by a
   telegram from General Grant to meet the Commissioners
   personally. In a subsequent message to the Senate, Mr. Lincoln
   reported the results of the conference as follows: "On the
   morning of the 3d, the three gentlemen, Messrs. Stephens,
   Hunter, and Campbell, came aboard of our steamer, and had an
   interview with the Secretary of State and myself, of several
   hours' duration. No question of preliminaries to the meeting
   was then and there made or mentioned. No other person was
   present; no papers were exchanged or produced; and it was, in
   advance, agreed that the conversation was to be informal and
   verbal merely.
{3547}
   On our part the whole substance of the instructions to the
   Secretary of State, hereinbefore recited, was stated and
   insisted upon, and nothing was said inconsistent therewith;
   while, by the other party, it was not said that in any event
   or on any condition, they ever would consent to reunion; and
   yet they equally omitted to declare that they never would so
   consent. They seemed to desire a postponement of that
   question, and the adoption of some other course first which,
   as some of them seemed to argue, might or might not lead to
   reunion; but which course, we thought, would amount to an
   indefinite postponement. The conference ended without result."

      J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay,
      Abraham Lincoln,
      volume 10, chapter 6.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (February: South Carolina).
Evacuation of Charleston by the Confederates.
Federal occupation of the City.

While General Hardee, with 14,000 men, waited at Charleston for the expected coming of General Sherman to attack that city, the latter pursued a movement which made Charleston untenable and shook it like a ripened apple into the hands of General Gillmore, who was waiting at the gates. The Confederates evacuated the city in haste and with reckless disorder, and it was occupied by the Federal troops on the morning of the 18th of February. The following is the report of Colonel A. G. Bennett, who was the first to enter the city: "On the morning of February the 18th I received information that led me to believe the defences and lines guarding the city of Charles·ton had been deserted by the enemy. I immediately proceeded to Cummings Point, from whence I sent a small boat in the direction of Fort Moultrie, which boat, when 40 yards east from Fort Sumter, was met by a boat from Sullivan's Island, containing a full corps of band musicians abandoned by the enemy. These con·firmed my belief of an evacuation. I had no troops that could be available under two hours, as, except in a few pontoon boats, there were no means whatever of landing troops near the enemy's works or into the city. I directed Major Hennessy to proceed to Fort Sumter and there replace our flag. The flag was replaced over the southeast angle of Fort Sumter at 9 o'clock A. M. I now pushed for the city, stopping at Fort Ripley and Castle Pinckney, from which works Rebel flags were hauled down and the American flag substituted. … I landed at Mill's wharf, Charleston, at 10 o'clock A. M. where I learned that a part of the enemy's troops yet remained in the city, while mounted patrols were out in every direction applying the torch and driving the inhabitants before them. I at once addressed to the Mayor of the city [a communication demanding its surrender]. … My whole force consisted of five officers and the armed crews of two small boats, comprising in all 22 men. Both officers and men volunteered to advance from the wharf into the city; but no reenforcements being in sight, I did not deem it expedient to move on. Public buildings, stores, warehouses, private dwellings, shipping, etc., were burning and being fired by armed Rebels, but with the force at my disposal it was impossible to save the cotton and other property. While awaiting the arrival of my troops at Mill's wharf, a number of explosions took place. The Rebel commissary depot was blown up, and with it is estimated that not less than 200 human beings—most of whom were women and children—were blown to atoms. These people were engaged in procuring food for themselves and their families by permission from the Rebel military authorities. … Observing a small boat sailing toward the bay under a flag of truce, I put off to it, and received from a member of the common council a letter [from the Mayor, announcing the evacuation of the city by the Confederate military authorities]. … The deputation sent to convey the above letter represented to me that the city was in the hands of either the Rebel soldiery or the mob. They entreated of me in the name of humanity to interpose my military authority and save the city from utter destruction. … Two companies of the 52d Pennsylvania regiment and about 30 men of the 3d Rhode Island volunteer heavy artillery having landed, I proceeded with them to the citadel. I here established my headquarters, and sent small parties in all directions with instructions to impress negroes wherever found, and to make them work the fire apparatus, until all fires were extinguished."

A. G. Bennett, Report, February 24, 1865 (quoted in Tenney's Military and Naval History of the Rebellion, chapter 49).

At noon on the 14th of April, 1865, the fourth anniversary of the lowering of the flag of the United States at Fort Sumter, it was formally raised by General Anderson over the ruins of the fort, with impressive ceremonies, in which many visitors from the North took part. An address was delivered on the occasion by the Reverend Henry Ward Beecher.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865
(February-March: The Carolinas).
   Sherman's march from Savannah to Goldsboro.
   The burning of Columbia.
   The Battle of Bentonsville.

"By the middle of January, a lodgment had been effected in South Carolina [at Pocotaligo, on the railroad between Savannah and Charleston], and Sherman had his whole army once more in hand as a moving column. He had no idea of wasting time on either Charleston or Augusta, but he determined to play upon the fears of the rebels, and compel them to retain a force to protect those places. … Accordingly he gave out with some ostentation that he was moving upon either Charles·ton or Augusta. Early in January the heavy winter rains set in, rendering the roads almost impassable. … This flood delayed the departure of the column for quite two weeks. … On the 1st of February, the army designed for the active campaign from Savannah northward was again 60,000 strong; and, as before, was composed of two wings, the right under Howard and the left under Slocum. Kilpatrick was once more chief of cavalry. Sixty-eight guns accompanied the command. The wagons were 2,500 in number, and carried an ample supply of ammunition for one great battle, forage for a week, and provisions for twenty days. For fresh meat Sherman depended on beeves driven on the hoof, and such cattle, hogs, and poultry as might be gathered on the march. … Sherman … started on his northward march on the 1st of February. On that day his right wing was south of the Salkehatchie river, and his left still struggling in the swamps of the Savannah, at Sister's Ferry. … The division generals led their columns through the swamps, the water up to their shoulders, crossed over to the pine land beyond, and then, turning upon the rebels who had opposed the passage, drove them off in utter disorder. {3548} All the roads northward had been held for weeks by Wheeler's cavalry, and details of negro laborers had been compelled to fell trees and burn bridges to impede the national march. Sherman's pioneers, however, removed the trees, and the heads of columns rebuilt the bridges before the rear could close up, and the rebels retreated behind the Edisto river at Branchville. … Sherman determined to waste no time on Branchville, which the enemy could no longer hold, and turned his columns directly north upon Columbia, where it was supposed the rebels would concentrate. Attempts were made to delay him at the crossings of the rivers; there were numerous bridge-heads with earth or cotton parapets to carry, and cypress swamps to cross; but nothing stayed his course. On the 13th, he learned that there was no enemy in Columbia except Hampton's cavalry. Hardee, at Charleston, took it for granted that Sherman was moving upon that place, and the rebels in Augusta supposed that they were Sherman's object; so Charleston and Augusta were protected, while Columbia was abandoned to the care of the cavalry." With little or no resistance, Sherman entered the capital of South Carolina on the 17th of February. "Hampton had ordered all cotton, public and private, to be moved into the streets and fired. Bales were piled up everywhere, the rope and bagging cut, and the tufts of cotton blown about by the wind, or lodged in the trees and against the houses, presented the appearance of a snow-storm. Some of these piles of cotton were burning in the heart of the town. Sherman, meanwhile, had given orders to destroy the arsenals and public property not needed by his army, as well as railroad stations and machines, but to spare all dwellings, colleges, schools, asylums, and 'harmless private property'; and the fires lighted by Hampton were partially subdued by the national soldiers. But before the torch had been put to a single building by Sherman's order, the smouldering fires set by Hampton were rekindled by the wind and communicated to the buildings around. About dark the flames began to spread, and were soon beyond the control of the brigade on duty in the town. An entire division was now brought in, but it was found impossible to check the conflagration, which by midnight had become quite unmanageable. It raged till about four A. M. on the 18th, when the wind subsided, and the flames were got under control. … Beauregard, meanwhile, and the rebel cavalry, had retreated upon Charlotte, in North Carolina, due north from Columbia; and on the 20th and 21st Sherman followed as far as Winnsboro. … At Winnsboro, however, Sherman turned his principal columns northeastward towards Goldsboro, still 200 miles away. Heavy rains again impeded his movements … and it was not till the 3d of March that the army arrived at Cheraw. At this point large quantities of guns and ammunition were captured, brought from Charleston under the supposition that here, at least, they would be secure. Hardee had moved due north from Charleston by his only remaining railroad, through Florence, but only reached Cheraw in time to escape with his troops across the Pedee river, just before Sherman arrived. … Having secured the passage of the Pedee … Sherman had but little uneasiness about the future. … On the 11th of March, Fayetteville was reached, and Sherman had traversed the entire extent of South Carolina. On the 12th, he sent a dispatch to Grant, the first since leaving the Savannah. … On the 15th of March, the command began its march for Goldsboro." The scattered Confederate forces were now getting together and General Johnston had been put in command of them. "Sherman estimated the entire rebel force at 37,000 infantry and 8,000 cavalry; but only Hardee, with 10,000 infantry and one division of cavalry, was in the immediate front." On the 15th Hardee was encountered at Averysboro, where he attempted to check Sherman's advance while Johnston concentrated in the rear. Some sharp fighting occurred, in which Sherman lost 77 men killed and 477 wounded. Hardee reported his loss at 500. In the morning he had disappeared. "From Averysboro both wings turned eastward by different roads, and on the night of the 18th of March the army was within 27 miles of Goldsboro, and only five from Bentonsville. The columns were now about ten miles apart." At Bentonsville, on the 19th, Slocum's wing was attacked by Johnston, who had marched his whole command with great rapidity, hoping to "overwhelm Sherman's left flank before it could be relieved by its co-operating column." But Slocum held his ground that day against six distinct assaults, and the next day Sherman brought his whole army into position. He did not push the enemy, however, either on the 20th or on the 21st, being uncertain as to Johnston's strength. During the night of the 21st the latter retreated. "The total national loss was 191 killed, and 1,455 wounded and missing. Johnston states his losses to have been 223 killed, 1,467 wounded, and 653 missing; but Sherman captured 1,621 prisoners. Sherman admits that he committed an error in not overwhelming his enemy. Few soldiers, however, are great enough to accuse themselves of an error, and fewer still but might accuse themselves of greater ones than can ever be laid at Sherman's door. At daybreak on the 22d … the army moved to Goldsboro, where Schofield had already arrived.

… Thus was concluded one of the longest and most important
marches ever made by an organized army in civilized war."

At Columbia, "I observed, as I passed along the street, that many shops had been gutted, and that paper, rags, and litter of all kinds lay scattered on the floors, in the open doorways, and on the ground outside. I was told on good authority that this had been done by the Confederate troops before our arrival. It was a windy day, and a great deal of loose cotton had been blown about and caught on the fences and in the branches of the shade trees along the street. It has been said that this had something to do with spreading the fire which afterward took place. I think this very doubtful. … I have never doubted that Columbia was deliberately set on fire in more than a hundred places. No one ordered it, and no one could stop it. The officers of high rank would have saved the city if possible; but the army was deeply imbued with the feeling that as South Carolina had begun the war she must suffer a stern retribution."

"I disclaim on the part of my army any agency in this fire, but, on the contrary, claim that we saved what of Columbia remains unconsumed."

ALSO IN: S. M. Bowman and R. B. Irwin, Sherman and his Campaigns, chapters 26-29.

      H. W. Slocum and W. Hampton,
      Sherman's March and The Battle of Bentonville
      (Battles and Leaders, volume 4).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865
(February-March: North Carolina).
   Occupation of Wilmington.
   Battle of Kinston.
   Junction with Sherman at Goldsboro.

On the 9th of February, General Schofield, transferred from the west, arrived at Fort Fisher with Cox's division of the Twenty-third Corps, and took command of the newly created Department of North Carolina. Advancing on Wilmington, the Confederates, under Hoke, retreating before him, he occupied that city on the 22d. This accomplished, General Cox was sent to Newberne to take command of forces ordered there, and to open communication thence by railroad with Goldsboro, preparatory to the arrival of General Sherman at that point. In the prosecution of this undertaking, he fought the battle of Kinston, March 10, repelling a fierce attack by Bragg with the forces which were being collected against Sherman: "After Bragg's retreat, Schofield steadily pressed the work of rebuilding the railway. Kinston was occupied on March 14th." On the 21st Schofield entered Goldsboro, "and there, in a couple of days more, was reassembled the grand army under Sherman, whose march from Savannah had been quite as remarkable as the former one from Atlanta to the sea."

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (February-March: Virginia).
Sheridan's destroying march through Central Virginia.
Battle of Waynesborough.

"The last campaign against Lee may be said to have been inaugurated when General Sheridan started with his cavalry from Winchester, Virginia, on the 27th of February, 1865, with a sort of carte blanche of destruction as to the enemy's supply depots and communications. The general's instructions looked to his crossing the James River above Richmond, and his possible junction with the command of General Sherman somewhere in North Carolina; but the swollen condition of the James and the destruction of the bridges prevented his crossing. … General Sheridan's command on this expedition consisted of the first cavalry division, under Brevet Major-General Wesley Merritt, and the third cavalry division, under Brevet Major-General George A. Custer, to whose division was added one brigade of the cavalry of the old army of West Virginia, under Colonel Capehart. … They left Winchester on a damp, disagreeable morning. … But the spirits of the bold dragoons were not dampened, and they felt lively enough to push on to Waynesborough to the camp of General Jubal Early, late of the Confederacy, upon whom the brilliant Custer fell with his division, and soon had his guns, and men, and 'materiel,' and would have had him but that he had sufficient presence of mind to absent his person when he found how things were going. This was General Early's last appearance in public life. … Early's command at Waynesborough being now dispersed or captured, … General Sheridan proceeded to occupy Charlottesville. … Then on again toward Lynchburg and the James River. … When it was found impossible to cross the James River, attention was for a while directed to the demolition of the James River and Kanawha Canal. … When the ingenious destruction corps could devise no further damage here, the command turned off to try its hand upon a railroad or two. All the time the rains had descended—the flood-gates of the clouds were up and the water kept pouring through. … Although nothing short of a flotilla seemed likely to ride out the storm, the cavalry rode on hopefully, and came safely to harbor at the White House, on the Pamunkey, where supplies were furnished them, and where the March winds blew them dry again. … Immediately upon his arrival at this depot, General Sheridan reported to General Grant, at City Point, for orders."

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (March).
Emancipation of the families of colored soldiers.

"The President in his annual message, December, 1863, had estimated the colored soldiers in the service at 'nearly 100,000.' They were mostly from the border States, and the slaves of loyal masters. While they were fighting the battles of the country, their masters, who were generally opposed to their enlistment, could sell into perpetual slavery their wives and children. To deter slaves from enlisting, or to punish them when they did enlist, slave-masters made merchandise of the wives and children of colored soldiers, and often sold them into a harsher bondage. To put an end to a practice so cruel, unjust, injurious, and dishonorable to the country, Mr. Wilson introduced into the Senate on the 8th of January [1864], in his bill to promote enlistments, a provision declaring that when any man or boy of African descent, owing service or labor in any State, under its laws, should be mustered into the military or naval service of the United States, he, and his mother, wife, and children, should be forever free." The bill was warmly debated and its supporters did not succeed in bringing it to a vote during that session of Congress. At the next session, on the 13th of December, 1864, Mr. Wilson introduced a joint resolution "to make free the wives and children of persons who had been, or might be, mustered into the service of the United States." This passed the Sen·ate a few days later, by a vote of 27 to 10; was passed by the House on the 22d of February, 1865, and signed by the President on the 3d of March.

      H. Wilson,
      History of the Rise and Fall of the Slave Power,
      volume 3, chapter 30.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (March).
President Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address.

"The days of the Confederacy were evidently numbered. Only the last blow remained to be struck. Then Lincoln's second inauguration came [March 4, 1865], and with it his second inaugural address. Lincoln's famous 'Gettysburg speech has been much and justly admired. But far greater, as well as far more characteristic, was that inaugural in which he poured out the whole devotion and tenderness of his great soul. It had all the solemnity of a father's last admonition and blessing to his children before he lay down to die. … No American President had ever spoken words like these to the American people. America never had a President who found such words in the depth of his heart."

"Fellow-countrymen: At this second appear·ing to take the oath of the presidential office, there is less occasion for an extended address than there was at the first. Then a statement, somewhat in detail, of a course to be pursued, seemed fitting and proper. Now, at the expiration of four years, during which public declarations have been constantly called forth on every point and phase of the great contest which still absorbs the attention and engrosses the energies of the nation, little that is new could be presented. The progress of our arms, upon which all else chiefly depends, is as well known to the public as to myself; and it is, I trust, reasonably satisfactory and encouraging to all. With high hope for the future, no prediction in regard to it is ventured. On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago, all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. All dreaded it—all sought to avert it. While the inaugural address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, insurgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war—seeking to dissolve the Union, and divide effects, by negotiation. Both parties deprecated war; but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive; and the other would accept war rather than let it perish. And the war came. One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the Southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was, somehow, the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union, even by war; while the government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it. Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with, or even before, the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible, and pray to the same God; and each invokes his aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces; but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered—that of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has his own purposes. 'Woe unto the world because of offenses! for it must needs be that offenses come; but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh.' If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through his appointed time, he now wills to remove, and that he gives to both North and South this terrible war, as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to him? Fondly do we hope—fervently do we pray—that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondman's 250 years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said 3,000 years ago, so still it must be said, 'The judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.' With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan—to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves, and with all nations."

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (March-April: Virginia).
   The Flanking of Lee's lines.
   Battle of Five Forks.
   Final assault at Petersburg and Confederate retreat.

"One of the most anxious periods of my experience during the rebellion," wrote General Grant, "was the last few weeks before Petersburg. I felt that the situation of the Confederate army was such that they would try to make an escape at the earliest practicable moment, and I was afraid, every morning, that I would awake from my sleep to hear that Lee had gone, and that nothing was left but a picket line. … I was naturally very impatient for the time to come when I could commence the spring campaign, which I thoroughly believed would close the war. … Sherman was anxious that I should wait where I was until he could come up, and make a sure thing of it; but I had determined to move as soon as the roads and weather would admit of my doing so. I had been tied down somewhat in the matter of fixing any time at my pleasure for starting, until Sheridan, who was on his way from the Shenandoah Valley to join me, should arrive, as both his presence and that of his cavalry were necessary to the execution of the plans which I had in mind. However, [Sheridan] having arrived at White House on the 19th of March, I was enabled to make my plans. … It is now known that early in the month of March Mr. Davis and General Lee had a consultation about the situation of affairs in and about Richmond and Petersburg, and they both agreed that these places were no longer tenable for them, and that they must get away as soon as possible. They, too, were waiting for dry roads, or a condition of the roads which would make it possible to move. General Lee, in aid of his plan of escape, and to secure a wider opening to enable them to reach the Danville road with greater security than he would have in the way the two armies were situated, determined upon an assault upon the right of our lines around Petersburg." The assault was made by General Gordon early in the morning of March 25th, and Fort Stedman, with three contiguous batteries, were taken by surprise. The captured fort and batteries were soon recovered, however, and the Confederate troops who entered them were made prisoners. {3551} "This effort of Lee's cost him about 4,000 men, and resulted in their killing, wounding and capturing about 2,000 of ours. … The day that Gordon was making dispositions for this attack (24th of March) I issued my orders for the movement to commence on the 29th. Ord, with three divisions of infantry and Mackenzie's cavalry, was to move in advance on the night of the 27th, from the north side of the James River, and take his place on our extreme left, 30 miles away. … Ord was at his place promptly. Humphreys and Warren were then on our extreme left with the 2d and 5th corps. They were directed on the arrival of Ord, and on his getting into position in their places, to cross Hatcher's Run and extend out west toward Five Forks, the object being to get into a position from which we could strike the South Side Railroad and ultimately the Danville Railroad. There was considerable fighting in taking up these new positions for the 2d and 5th corps, in which the Army of the James had also to participate somewhat, and the losses were quite severe. This was what was known as the battle of White Oak Road. … The 29th of March came, and fortunately, there having been a few days free from rain, the surface of the ground was dry, giving indications that the time had come when we could move. On that day I moved out with all the army available after leaving sufficient force to hold the line about Petersburg. It soon set in raining again, however, and in a very short time the roads became practically impassable for teams, and almost so for cavalry. … It became necessary … to build corduroy roads every foot of the way as we advanced, to move our artillery upon, The army had become so accustomed to this kind of work, and were so well prepared for it, that it was done very rapidly. The next day, March 30th, we had made sufficient progress to the south-west to warrant me in starting Sheridan with his cavalry over by Dinwiddie with instructions to then come up by the road leading north-west to Five Forks, thus menacing the right of Lee's line, … The column moving detached from the army still in the trenches was, excluding the cavalry, very small. The forces in the trenches were themselves extending to the left flank. Warren was on the extreme left when the extension began, but Humphreys was marched around later and thrown into line between him and Five Forks. My hope was that Sheridan would be able to carry Five Forks, get on the enemy's right flank and rear, and force them to weaken their centre to protect their right, so that an assault in the centre might be successfully made. General Wright's corps had been designated to make this assault, which I intended to order as soon as information reached me of Sheridan's success. … Sheridan moved back to Dinwiddie Court-House on the night of the 30th, and then took a road leading northwest to Five Forks. He had only his cavalry with him. Soon encountering the rebel cavalry he met with a very stout resistance. He gradually drove them back however until in the neighborhood of Five Forks. Here he had to encounter other troops, besides those he had been contending with, and was forced to give way. In this condition of affairs he notified me of what had taken place and stated that he was falling back toward Dinwiddie gradually and slowly, and asked me to send Wright's corps to his assistance. I replied to him that it was impossible to send Wright's corps … and that I would send Warren. Accordingly orders were sent to Warren to move at once that night (the 31st) to Dinwiddie Court-House and put himself in communication with Sheridan as soon as possible, and report to him. He was very slow in moving, some of his troops not starting until after 5 o'clock next morning. … Warren reported to Sheridan about 11 o'clock on the 1st, but the whole of his troops were not up so as to be much engaged until late in the afternoon. … Sheridan succeeded by the middle of the afternoon or a little later in advancing up to the point from which to make his designed assault upon Five Forks itself. He was very impatient to make the assault and have it all over before night, because the ground he occupied would be untenable for him in bivouac during the night. … It was at this junction of affairs that Sheridan wanted to get Crawford's division in hand, and he also wanted Warren. He sent staff officer after staff officer in search of Warren, directing that general to report to him, but they were unable to find him. At all events Sheridan was unable to get that officer to him. Finally he went himself. He issued an order relieving Warren and assigning Griffin to the command of the 5th corps. The troops were then brought up and the assault successfully made. … It was dusk when our troops under Sheridan went over the parapets of the enemy. The two armies were mingled together there for a time in such manner that it was almost a question which one was going to demand the surrender of the other. Soon, however, the enemy broke and ran in every direction; some 6,000 prisoners, besides artillery and small-arms in large quantities, falling into our hands. … Pursuit continued until about 9 o'clock at night, when Sheridan halted his troops, and knowing the importance to him of the part of the enemy's line which had been captured, returned. … This was the condition which affairs were in on the night of the 1st of April. I then issued orders for an assault by Wright and Parke at 4 o'clock on the morning of the 2d." The assault was successfully made, and the outer works of Petersburg were soon in the hands of the National troops. Early in the morning of the 3d the enemy evacuated Petersburg and Grant and Meade took possession of the city. The following day they were visited there by President Lincoln, who had been at City Point for a week, or more, watching the course of events.

      H. Porter,
      Five Forks and the Pursuit of Lee
      (Battles and Leaders, volume 4).

      R. de Trobriand,
      Four years with the Army of the Potomac,
      chapter 34.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (April 11).
President Lincoln's last public address.
His view of Reconstruction in Louisiana.

On the evening of the 11th of April, a great multitude of people gathered about the White House, to convey their congratulations to the President and to signify their joy at the sure prospect of peace. Mr. Lincoln came out and spoke to them, expressing first his participation in their gladness, and then turning to discuss briefly the criticism which had opened upon his policy of reconstruction, as practically illustrated in Louisiana. {3552} He spoke of his message and proclamation of December, 1863 (quoted above); of the approval given to them by every member of his cabinet; of the entire silence at the time of all who had become critics and objectors since action under the plan had been taken in Louisiana. He then went on as follows: "When the message of 1863, with the plan before mentioned, reached New Orleans, General Banks wrote me that he was confident that the people, with his military cooperation, would reconstruct substantially on that plan. I wrote to him and some of them to try it. They tried it, and the result is known. Such has been my only agency in getting up the Louisiana government. As to sustaining it, my promise is out, as before stated. But as bad promises are better broken than kept, I shall treat this as a bad promise, and break it whenever I shall be convinced that keeping it is adverse to the public interest; but I have not yet been so convinced. I have been shown a letter on this subject, supposed to be an able one, in which the writer expresses regret that my mind has not seemed to be definitely fixed on the question whether the seceded States, so called, are in the Union or out of it. It would perhaps add astonishment to his regret were he to learn that since I have found professed Union men endeavoring to make that question, I have purposely forborne any public expression upon it. As appears to me, that question has not been, nor yet is, a practically material one, and that any discussion of it, while it thus remains practically immaterial, could have no effect other than the mischievous one of dividing our friends. As yet, whatever it may hereafter become, that question is bad as the basis of a controversy, and good for nothing at all—a merely pernicious abstraction. We all agree that the seceded States, so called, are out of their proper practical relation with the Union, and that the sole object of the government, civil and military, in regard to those States is to again get them into that proper practical relation. I believe that it is not only possible, but in fact easier, to do this without deciding or even considering whether these States have ever been out of the Union, than with it. Finding themselves safely at home, it would be utterly immaterial whether they had ever been abroad. Let us all join in doing the acts necessary to restoring the proper practical relations between these States and the Union, and each forever after innocently indulge his own opinion whether in doing the acts he brought the States from without into the Union, or only gave them proper assistance, they never having been out of it. The amount of constituency, so to speak, on which the new Louisiana government rests, would be more satisfactory to all if it contained 50,000, or 30,000, or even 20,000, instead of only about 12,000, as it does. It is also unsatisfactory to some that the elective franchise is not given to the colored man. I would myself prefer that it were now conferred on the very intelligent, and on those who serve our cause as soldiers. Still, the question is not whether the Louisiana government, as it stands, is quite all that is desirable. The question is, will it be wiser to take it as it is and help to improve it, or to reject and disperse it? Can Louisiana be brought into proper practical relation with the Union sooner by sustaining or by discarding her new State government? Some 12,000 voters in the heretofore slave State of Louisiana have sworn allegiance to the Union, assumed to be the rightful political power of the State, held elections, organized a State government, adopted a free-State constitution, giving the benefit of public schools equally to black and white, and empowering the legislature to confer the elective franchise upon the colored man. Their legislature has already voted to ratify the constitutional amendment recently passed by Congress, abolishing slavery throughout the nation. These 12,000 persons are thus fully committed to the Union and to perpetual freedom in the State—committed to the very things, and nearly all the things, the nation wants—and they ask the nation's recognition and its assistance to make good their committal. Now, if we reject and spurn them, we do our utmost to disorganize and disperse them. We, in effect, say to the white man: You are worthless or worse; we will neither help you, nor be helped by you. To the blacks we say: This cup of liberty which these, your old masters, hold to your lips we will dash from you, and leave you to the chances of gathering the spilled and scattered contents in some vague and undefined when, where, and how. If this course, discouraging and paralyzing both white and black, has any tendency to bring Louisiana into proper practical relations with the Union, I have so far been unable to perceive it. If, on the contrary, we recognize and sustain the new government of Louisiana, the converse of all this is made true. We encourage the hearts and nerve the arms of the 12,000 to adhere to their work, and argue for it, and proselyte for it, and fight for it, and feed it, and grow it, and ripen it to a complete success. The colored man, too, in seeing all united for him, is inspired with vigilance, and energy, and daring, to the same end. Grant that he desires the elective franchise, will he not attain it sooner by saving the already advanced steps toward it than by running backward over them? Concede that the new government of Louisiana is only to what it should be as the egg is to the fowl, we shall sooner have the fowl by hatching the egg than by smashing it. Again, if we reject Louisiana we also reject one vote in favor of the proposed amendment to the national Constitution. To meet this proposition it has been argued that no more than three-fourths of those States which have not attempted secession are necessary to validly ratify the amendment. I do not commit myself against this further than to say that such a ratification would be questionable, and sure to be persistently questioned, while a ratification by three-fourths of all the States would be unquestioned and unquestionable. I repeat the question: Can Louisiana be brought into proper practical relation with the Union sooner by sustaining or by discarding her new State government? What has been said of Louisiana will apply generally to other States. And yet so great peculiarities pertain to each State, and such important and sudden changes occur in the same State, and withal so new and unprecedented is the whole case that no exclusive and inflexible plan can safely be prescribed as to details and collaterals. Such exclusive and inflexible plan would surely become a new entanglement. Important principles may and must be inflexible. In the present situation, as the phrase goes, it may be my duty to make some new announcement to the people of the South. I am considering, and shall not fail to act when satisfied that action will be proper."

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (April: Virginia).
   The abandonment of Richmond and retreat of Lee.
   Battle of Sailor's Creek.
   Surrender at Appomattox Court House.

"The success of the Federal army in breaking the lines of Petersburg had rendered the retreat of the Confederate force imperative. An effort to hold Richmond with every line of communication with the South broken or in imminent danger would have been madness. But by abandoning his works and concentrating his army, which still amounted to about 30,000 men, General Lee might retire to some natural stronghold in the interior, where the defensible features of the country would enable him to oppose Grant's formidable host until he could rally strength to strike an effective blow. This course was at once decided upon, and early on the morning of the 2d of April, Lee sent a despatch to the Government authorities at Richmond informing them of the disastrous situation of affairs and of the necessity of his evacuating Petersburg that night. Orders were also sent to the forces north of the James to move at once and join him, while all the preparations necessary for the evacuation of Richmond, both as the seat of government and as a military post, were expeditiously made. There was, indeed, no time to be lost. … By midnight the evacuation was completed. … As the troops moved noiselessly onward in the darkness that just precedes the dawn, a bright light like a broad flash of lightning illumined the heavens for an instant; then followed a tremendous explosion. 'The magazine at Fort Drewry is blown up,' ran in whispers through the ranks, and again silence reigned. Once more the sky was overspread by a lurid light, but not so fleeting as before. It was now the conflagration of Richmond that lighted the night-march of the soldiers, and many a stout heart was wrung with anguish at the fate of the city and its defenceless inhabitants. The burning of public property of little value had given rise to a destructive fire that laid in ashes nearly one-third of the devoted city. … The retreat of Lee's army did not long remain unknown to the Federals. The explosion of the magazine at Fort Drewry and the conflagration of Richmond apprised them of the fact, and they lost no time in taking possession of the abandoned works and entering the defenceless cities. On the morning of the 3d of April the mayor of Richmond surrendered the city to the Federal commander in its vicinity, and General Weitzel took immediate possession. He at once proceeded to enforce order and took measures to arrest the conflagration, while with great humanity he endeavored to relieve the distressed citizens. … As soon as Grant became aware of Lee's line of retreat he pushed forward his whole available force, numbering 70,000 or 80,000 men, in order to intercept him on the line of the Richmond and Danville Railroad. Sheridan's cavalry formed the van of the pursuing column, and was closely followed by the artillery and infantry. Lee pressed on as rapidly as possible to Amelia Court-house, where he had ordered supplies to be deposited for the use of his troops on their arrival. … The hope of finding a supply of food at this point, which had done much to buoy up the spirits of the men, was destined to be cruelly dispelled. Through an unfortunate error or misapprehension of orders the provision-train had been taken on to Richmond without unloading its stores at Amelia Court-house. … It was a terrible blow alike to the men and to their general. … The only chance remaining to the Army of Northern Virginia was to reach the hill-country without delay. Yet here it was detained by the error of a railroad official, while the precious minutes and hours moved remorselessly by. … Yet no murmur came from the lips of the men to the ear of their commander, and on the evening of that unfortunate day [April 5th] they resumed their weary march in silence and composure. Some small amount of food had been brought in by the foragers, greatly inadequate for the wants of the soldiers, yet aiding them to somewhat alleviate the pangs of hunger. A handful of corn was now a feast to the weary veterans as they trudged onward through the April night. … Sheridan's cavalry was already upon the flank of the Confederate army, and the infantry was following with all speed. … During the forenoon of [the 6th] the pursuing columns thickened and frequent skirmishes delayed the march. These delays enabled the Federals to accumulate in such force that it became necessary for Lee to halt his advance in order to arrest their attack till his column could close up, and the trains and such artillery as was not needed for action could reach a point of safety. This object was accomplished early in the afternoon. Ewell's, the rearmost corps in the army, closed upon those in front at a position on Sailor's Creek, a small tributary of the Appomattox River. … His corps was surrounded by the pursuing columns and captured with but little opposition. About the same time the divisions of Anderson, Pickett, and Bushrod Johnson were almost broken up, about 10,000 men in all being captured. The remainder of the army continued its retreat during the night of the 6th, and reached Farmville early on the morning of the 7th, where the troops obtained two days' rations, the first regular supplies they had received during the retreat. At Farmville a short halt was made to allow the men to rest and cook their provisions. The effective portion of the Army of Northern Virginia did not now exceed 10,000 men. This great reduction had been caused by the disaster of the previous day at Sailor's Creek, by desertions on the retreat, and by an exhaustion which obliged many to leave the ranks. Those who still remained by their colors were veterans whose courage never failed, and who were yet ready to face any odds. The heads of the Federal columns beginning to appear about eleven o'clock, the Confederates resumed their retreat." On the afternoon of the 7th, Lee received a note from Grant calling upon him to surrender, and replied to it, asking what terms would be offered. Further notes were exchanged between the two commanders the following day, while the retreat continued. Lee hoped to reach Appomattox Court House and secure supplies that were there, which might enable him to "push on to the Staunton River and maintain himself behind that stream until a junction could be made with Johnston." But when, in the afternoon of April 8th, he reached the neighborhood of Appomattox Court House, "he was met by the intelligence of the capture of the stores placed for his army at the station two miles beyond. {3554} Notwithstanding this overwhelming news, he determined to make one more effort to force himself through the Federal toils that encompassed him." This attempt was made at three o'clock on the morning of the 9th of April, General Gordon leading the attack, which failed. Lee then yielded to his fate, and sent a flag of truce, asking for an interview with Grant to arrange terms of surrender. "Grant had not yet come up, and while waiting for his arrival General Lee seated himself upon some rails which Colonel Talcott of the Engineers had fixed at the foot of an apple tree for his convenience. This tree was half a mile distant from the point where the meeting of Lee and Grant took place, yet wide-spread currency has been given to the story that the surrender took place under its shade, and 'apple-tree' jewelry has been profusely distributed from the orchard in which it grew. About 11 o'clock General Lee, accompanied only by Colonel Marshall of his staff, proceeded to the village to meet General Grant, who had now arrived. The meeting between the two renowned generals took place at the house of a Mr. McLean at Appomattox Court-house, to which mansion, after exchanging courteous salutations, they repaired to settle the terms on which the surrender of the Army of Northern Virginia should be concluded. … The written instrument of surrender covered the following points: Duplicate rolls of all the officers and men were to be made, and the officers to sign paroles for themselves and their men, all agreeing not to bear arms against the United States unless regularly exchanged. The arms, artillery, and public property were to be turned over to an officer appointed to receive them, the officers retaining their side-arms and private horses and baggage. In addition to this, General Grant permitted every man of the Confederate army who claimed to own a horse or mule to retain it for farming purposes, General Lee remarking that this would have a happy effect. … After completion of these measures General Lee remarked that his men were badly in need of food, that they had been living for several days on parched corn exclusively, and requested rations and forage for 25,000 men. These rations were granted out of the car-loads of Confederate provisions which had been stopped by the Federal cavalry. … Three days after the surrender the Army of Northern Virginia had dispersed in every direction, and three weeks later the veterans of a hundred battles had changed the musket and the sword for the implements of husbandry. … Thousands of soldiers were set adrift on the world without a penny in their pockets to enable them to reach their homes. Yet none of the scenes of riot that often follow the disbanding of armies marked their course."

"General Grant's behavior at Appomattox was marked by a desire to spare the feelings of his great opponent. There was no theatrical display; his troops were not paraded with bands playing and banners flying, before whose lines the Confederates must march and stack arms. He did not demand Lee's sword, as is customary, but actually apologized to him for not having his own, saying it had been left behind in the wagon; promptly stopped salutes from being fired to mark the event, and the terms granted were liberal and generous. 'No man could have behaved better than General Grant did under the circumstances,' said Lee to a friend in Richmond. 'He did not touch my sword; the usual custom is for the sword to be received when tendered, and then handed back, but he did not touch mine,' Neither did the Union chief enter the Southern lines to show himself or to parade his victory, or go to Richmond or Petersburg to exult over a fallen people, but mounted his horse and with his staff started for Washington. Washington, at Yorktown, was not as considerate and thoughtful of the feelings of Cornwallis or his men. Charges were now withdrawn from the guns, flags furled, and the Army of the Potomac and the Army of Northern Virginia turned their backs upon each other for the first time In four long, bloody years,"

      H. Porter,
      The Surrender at Appomattox Court House
      (Battles and Leaders, volume 4).

      A. Badeau,
      Military History of Ulysses S. Grant,
      chapter 33-34 (volume 3).

      J. W. Keifer,
      The Battle of Sailor's Creek
      (Sketches of War History,
      Ohio Commandery L. L. of the United States, volume 3).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (April: Virginia).
   President Lincoln at Richmond.
   The assembling and dispersing of "the gentlemen who have
   acted as the Legislature of Virginia."
   Virtual Proclamations of the end of the war.

   "President Lincoln had been at City Point and vicinity for
   several days before the fall of Richmond, in constant
   communication with the General-in-chief, at the front,
   receiving dispatches from him and transmitting them instantly
   to the Secretary of War, whence they were diffused over the
   country, by the telegraph. On the day after Richmond was
   evacuated, he went up to that city in Admiral Porter's
   flag-ship, the Malvern, Captain Ralph Chandler, with the
   Sangamon, several tugs, and 30 small boats, with about 300
   men, had already cleared the channel of the river of
   torpedoes, and made the navigation comparatively safe. When
   near Rocketts, the President and the Admiral left the Malvern,
   and proceeded to the city in the commander's gig. With its
   crew, armed with carbines, they landed and walked to Weitzel's
   quarters, in the late residence of Davis, cheered on the way
   by the huzzas and grateful ejaculations of a vast concourse of
   emancipated slaves, who had been told that the tall man was
   their Liberator. They crowded around him so thickly, in their
   eagerness to see him, and to grasp his hand, that a the of
   soldiers were needed to clear the way, After a brief rest at
   Weitzel's, the President rode rapidly through the principal
   streets of Richmond, in an open carriage, and, at near sunset,
   departed for City Point. Two days afterward, the President
   went to Richmond again, accompanied by his wife, the
   Vice-President, and several Senators, when he was called upon
   by leading Confederates, several of them members of the rebel
   Virginia Legislature, whose chief business was to endeavor to
   arrange a compromise whereby the equivalent for submission
   should be the security to the Virginia insurgents, as far as
   possible, of their political power and worldly possessions.
{3555}
   The President was assured by Judge Campbell a member of the
   Confederate 'Government' (who, for two years, had been
   satisfied, he said, that success was impossible), that the
   so-called Virginia Legislature, if allowed to reassemble, with
   the Governor, would work for the reconstruction of the Union,
   their first step being the withdrawal of the Virginia troops
   from the field, on condition that the confiscation of property
   in Virginia should not be allowed. Anxious to end the war
   without further bloodshed, if possible, and satisfied that the
   withdrawal of the Virginia troops—in other words, nearly all
   of Lee's army—would accomplish it, he left with General
   Weitzel, on his departure from Richmond [April 6], authority
   to allow 'the gentlemen who have acted as the Legislature of
   Virginia, in support of the rebellion, to assemble at Richmond
   and take measures to withdraw the Virginia troops and other
   support from resistance to the General Government.' A
   safeguard was given. The fugitives returned, with the
   Governor, but instead of performing in good faith what had
   been promised in their name, they began legislating generally,
   as if they were the legal representatives of the people of
   Virginia. So soon as notice of this perfidy was given to the
   President after his return to Washington, he directed Weitzel
   to revoke the safeguard, and allow 'the gentlemen who had
   acted as the Legislature of Virginia' to return to private
   life. The surrender of Lee had, meanwhile, made the
   contemplated action unnecessary. The President was blamed by
   the loyal people for allowing these men to assemble with
   acknowledged powers; and the Confederates abused him for
   dissolving the assembly. The President returned to Washington
   City on the day of Lee's surrender, where he was the recipient
   of a multitude of congratulations because of the dawn of
   peace. On the 11th he issued proclamations, one declaring the
   closing, until further notice, of certain ports in the
   Southern States, whereof the blockade had been raised by their
   capture, respectively; and the other, demanding, henceforth,
   for our vessels in foreign ports, on penalty of retaliation,
   those privileges and immunities which had hitherto been denied
   them on the plea of according equal belligerent rights to the
   Republic and its internal enemies. … On the following day an
   order was issued from the War Department, which had been
   approved by General Grant, putting an end to all drafting and
   recruiting for the National army, and the purchase of
   munitions of war and supplies; and declaring that the number
   of general and staff officers would be speedily reduced, and
   all military restrictions on trade and commerce be removed
   forthwith. This virtual proclamation of the end of the war
   went over the land on the anniversary of the evacuation of
   Fort Sumter [April 14], while General Anderson was replacing
   the old flag over the ruins of that fortress."

      B. J. Lossing,
      Field Book of the Civil War,
      volume 3, chapter 21.

      ALSO IN:
      H. J. Raymond,
      Life and Public Services of Abraham Lincoln,
      chapter 20.

      C. C. Coffin,
      Late Scenes in Richmond
      (Atlantic Monthly, June, 1865).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (April 14th).
The Assassination of President Lincoln.

"From the very beginning of his Presidency, Mr. Lincoln had been constantly subject to the threats of his enemies and the warnings of his friends. … Although he freely discussed with the officials about him the possibilities of danger, he always considered them remote, as is the habit of men constitutionally brave, and positively refused to torment himself with precautions for his own safety. He would sum the matter up by saying that both friends and strangers must have daily access to him in all manner of ways and places; his life was therefore in reach of anyone, sane or mad, who was ready to murder and be hanged for it; that he could not possibly guard against all danger unless he were to shut himself up in an iron box, in which condition he could scarcely perform the duties of a President; by the hand of a murderer he could die only once; to go continually in fear would be to die over and over. He therefore went in and out before the people, always unarmed, generally unattended. … Four years of threats and boastings, of alarms that were unfounded, and of plots that came to nothing thus passed away; but precisely at the time when the triumph of the nation over the long insurrection seemed assured, and a feeling of peace and security was diffused over the country, one of the conspiracies, not seemingly more important than the many abortive ones, ripened in the sudden heat of hatred and despair. A little band of malignant secessionists, consisting of John Wilkes Booth, an actor, of a family of famous players, Lewis Powell, alias Payne, a disbanded rebel soldier from Florida, George Atzerodt, formerly a coach maker, but more recently a spy and blockade runner of the Potomac, David E. Herold, a young druggist's clerk, Samuel Arnold and Michael O'Laughlin, Maryland secessionists and Confederate soldiers, and John H. Surratt, had their ordinary rendezvous at the house of Mrs. Mary E. Surratt, the widowed mother of the last named, formerly a woman of some property in Maryland, but reduced by reverses to keeping a small boarding-house in Washington. Booth was the leader of the little coterie. He was a young man of twenty-six. … He was a fanatical secessionist; had assisted at the capture and execution of John Brown, and had imbibed at Richmond and other Southern cities where he had played, a furious spirit of partisanship against Lincoln and the Union party. After the reelection of Mr. Lincoln, which rang the knell of the insurrection, Booth, like many of the secessionists North and South, was stung to the quick by disappointment. He visited Canada, consorted with the rebel emissaries there, and at last—whether or not at their instigation cannot certainly be said—conceived a scheme to capture the President and take him to Richmond. He spent a great part of the autumn and winter inducing a small number of loose fish of secession sympathies to join him in this fantastic enterprise. … There are indications in the evidence given on the trial of the conspirators that they suffered some great disappointment in their schemes in the latter part of March, and a letter from Arnold to Booth, dated March 27, showed that some of them had grown timid of the consequences of their contemplated enterprise and were ready to give it up. He advised Booth, before going further, 'to go and see how it will be taken in R—-d.' But timid as they might be by nature, the whole group was so completely under the ascendency of Booth that they did not dare disobey him when in his presence; and after the surrender of Lee, in an access of malice and rage which was akin to madness, he called them together and assigned each his part in the new crime, the purpose of which had arisen suddenly in his mind out of the ruins of the abandoned abduction scheme. {3556} This plan was as brief and simple as it was horrible. Powell, alias Payne, the stalwart, brutal, simple-minded boy from Florida, was to murder Seward; Atzerodt, the comic villain of the drama, was assigned to remove Andrew Johnson; Booth reserved for himself the most difficult and most conspicuous role of the tragedy; it was Herold's duty to attend him as a page and aid in his escape. Minor parts were assigned to stage carpenters and other hangers-on, who probably did not understand what it all meant. Herold, Atzerodt, and Surratt had previously deposited at a tavern at Surrattsville, Maryland, owned by Mrs. Surratt, but kept by a man named Lloyd, a quantity of ropes, carbines, ammunition, and whisky, which were to be used in the abduction scheme. On the 11th of April Mrs. Surratt, being at the tavern, told Lloyd to have the shooting irons in readiness, and on Friday, the 14th, again visited the place and told him they would probably be called for that night. The preparations for the final blow were made with feverish haste; it was only about noon of the 14th that Booth learned the President was to go to Ford's Theater that night. It has always been a matter of surprise in Europe that he should have been at a place of amusement on Good Friday; but the day was not kept sacred in America, except by the members of certain churches. It was not, throughout the country, a day of religious observance. The President was fond of the theater; it was one of his few means of recreation. It was natural enough that, on this day of profound national thanksgiving, he should take advantage of a few hours' relaxation to see a comedy. Besides, the town was thronged with soldiers and officers, all eager to see him; it was represented to him that appearing occasionally in public would gratify many people whom he could not otherwise meet. … From the moment Booth ascertained the President's intention to attend the theater in the evening his every action was alert and energetic. He and his confederates, Herold, Surratt and Atzerodt, were seen on horseback in every part of the city. He had a hurried conference with Mrs. Surratt before she started for Lloyd's tavern. … Booth was perfectly at home in Ford's Theater, where he was greatly liked by all the employees, without other reason than the sufficient one of his youth and good looks. Either by himself or with the aid of his friends he arranged his whole plan of attack and escape during the afternoon. He counted upon address and audacity to gain access to the small passage behind the President's box; once there, he guarded against interference by an arrangement of a wooden bar to be fastened by a simple mortice in the angle of the wall and the door by which he entered, so that the door could not be opened from without. He even provided for the contingency of not gaining entrance to the box by boring a hole in its door, through which he might either observe the occupants or take aim and shoot. He hired at a livery stable a small, fleet horse, which he showed with pride during the day to barkeepers and loafers among his friends. The moon rose that night at ten o'clock A few minutes before that hour he called one of the underlings of the theater to the back door and left him there holding his horse. He then went to a saloon near by, took a drink of brandy, and, entering the theater, passed rapidly through the crowd in rear of the dress circle and made his way to the passage leading to the President's box. He showed a card to a servant in attendance and was allowed to pass in. He entered noiselessly, and, turning, fastened the door with the bar he had previously made ready, without disturbing any of the occupants of the box, between whom and himself there yet remained the slight partition and the door through which he had bored the hole. … Holding a pistol in one hand and a knife in the other, he opened the box door, put the pistol to the President's head, and fired; dropping the weapon, he took the knife in his right hand, and when Major Rathbone sprang to seize him he struck savagely at him. Major Rathbone received the blow on his left arm, suffering a wide and deep wound. Booth, rushing forward, then placed his left hand on the railing of the box and vaulted lightly over to the stage. It was a high leap, but nothing to such a trained athlete. … He would have got safely away but for his spur catching in the folds of the Union flag with which the front of the box was draped. He fell on the stage, the torn flag trailing on his spur, but instantly rose as if he had received no hurt, though in fact the fall had broken his leg; he turned to the audience, brandishing his dripping knife, and shouting the State motto of Virginia, 'Sic Semper Tyrannis,' and fled rapidly across the stage and out of sight. Major Rathbone had shouted, 'Stop him!' The cry went out, 'He has shot the President.' From the audience, at first stupid with surprise, and afterwards wild with excitement and horror, two or three men jumped upon the stage in pursuit of the flying assassin; but he ran through the familiar passages, leaped upon his horse, which was in waiting in the alley behind, rewarded with a kick and a curse the call-boy who had held him, and rode rapidly away in the light of the just risen moon. The President scarcely moved; his head drooped forward slightly, his eyes closed. … It was afterward ascertained that a large derringer bullet had entered the back of the head on the left side, and, passing through the brain, had lodged just behind the left eye. By direction of Rathbone and Crawford, the President was carried to a house across the street and laid upon a bed in a small room at the rear of the hall, on the ground floor. … The President had been shot a few minutes past ten. The wound would have brought instant death to most men, but his vital tenacity was extraordinary. … At twenty-two minutes after seven he died. Stanton broke the silence by saying, 'Now he belongs to the ages.'" At the same hour in which the President was murdered, an attempt was made by one of Booth's fellow conspirators to kill the Secretary of State. Mr. Seward had been thrown from his carriage a few days before and was prostrated by the serious injuries received. Pretending to bring a prescription from his physician, the assassin, Payne, made his way into the sick-room of the Secretary and stabbed him three times, but not fatally, in the neck and cheek. Two sons, Frederick and Augustus Seward, were seriously wounded in defending their father, and a soldier-nurse who was present struggled bravely with the assassin, though weaponless, and was stabbed repeatedly. {3557} Payne escaped for the time, but was caught a few days later. Booth made his way to Port Tobacco, and thence across the Potomac, into Virginia, assisted and concealed by numerous sympathizers. He eluded his pursuers until the 25th of April, when he was hunted down by a party of soldiers, while sleeping in a barn, below Fredericksburg, and, refusing to surrender, was shot. "The surviving conspirators, with the exception of John H. Surratt, were tried by a military commission sitting in Washington in the months of May and June. … Mrs. Surratt, Payne, Herold, and Atzerodt were hanged on the 7th of July; Mudd, Arnold, and O'Laughlin were imprisoned for life at the Tortugas, though the term was afterwards shortened; and Spangler, the scene shifter at the theater, was sentenced to six years in jail. John H. Surratt escaped to Canada," and thence to England. "He wandered over Europe, enlisted in the Papal Zouaves, deserted and fled to Egypt, where he was detected and brought back to Washington in 1867. His trial lasted two months and ended in a disagreement of the jury."

      ALSO IN:
      H. J. Raymond,
      Life and Public Services of Abraham Lincoln,
      chapter 21.

      B. Pittman,
      Report of the Trial of the Conspirators.
      Trial of John H. Surratt.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (April 15th).
Succession of Andrew Johnson, Vice President, to the Presidency.

"On the day after the assassination, Mr. Johnson, having been apprised of the event, took the oath of office, at his rooms, in the presence of the Cabinet, and of several members of Congress, and was thus quietly inducted into the high position so summarily vacated by the martyred President. In the few remarks made on the occasion, as to 'an indication of any policy which may be pursued,' he said it 'must be left for development as the administration progresses'; and his own past course in connection with the Rebellion 'must be regarded as a guaranty for the future.' To several delegations which waited upon him he was, however, more explicit. … 'I know it is easy, gentlemen [he said to a delegation from New Hampshire], for any one who is so disposed to acquire a reputation for clemency and mercy. But the public good imperatively requires a just discrimination in the exercise of these qualities. … The American people must be taught to know and understand that treason is a crime. … It must not be regarded as a mere difference of political opinion. It must not be excused as an unsuccessful rebellion, to be overlooked and forgiven.' … It is not surprising, therefore, with utterances like these, in such seeming harmony with his antecedents as a Southern Unionist,—antecedents which had secured his nomination and election to the Vice-Presidency,—that many were disposed to regard his advancement to the Presidency at that particular juncture as but another evidence of Providential favor, if not of Divine interposition, by which the nation was to be saved from what many feared might prove Mr. Lincoln's ill-timed leniency and misplaced confidence. … Such gratulations, however, were of short continuance. Whatever the cause or design, the new President soon revealed the change that had taken place and the purpose to adopt and pursue a policy the exact reverse of what, with such prompt and unequivocal words, he had indicated."

"Johnson was inaugurated at 11 o'clock on the morning of the 15th, and was at once surrounded by radical and conservative politicians, who were alike anxious about the situation. I spent most of the afternoon in a political caucus, held for the purpose of considering the necessity for a new Cabinet and a line of policy less conciliatory than that of Mr. Lincoln; and while everybody was shocked at his murder, the feeling was nearly universal that the accession of Johnson to the Presidency would prove a godsend to the country. Aside from Mr. Lincoln's known policy of tenderness to the Rebels, which now so jarred upon the feelings of the hour, his well-known views on the subject of reconstruction were as distasteful as possible to radical Republicans. … On the following day, in pursuance of a previous engagement, the Committee on the Conduct of the War met the President at his quarters in the Treasury Department. He received us with decided cordiality, and Mr. Wade said to him: 'Johnson we have faith in you. By the gods, there will be no trouble now in running the government!'"

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (April 26th).
General Johnston's surrender.

   On the 11th of April, at Smithfield, North Carolina, General
   Sherman had news of the surrender of Lee. Entering Raleigh on
   the 13th, he received, next day, a communication from the
   Confederate General Johnston proposing a truce "to permit the
   civil authorities to enter into the needful arrangements to
   terminate the existing war." In reply he invited a conference
   with Johnston, which occurred on the 17th—the day on which
   news of the assassination of President Lincoln was received.
   "Sherman said frankly that he could not recognize the
   Confederate civil authority as having any existence, and could
   neither receive nor transmit to Washington any proposition
   coming from them. He expressed his ardent desire for an end to
   devastation, and offered Johnston the same terms offered by
   Grant to Lee. Johnston replied that he would not be justified
   in such a capitulation, but suggested that they might arrange
   the terms of a permanent peace. The suggestion pleased General
   Sherman; the prospect of ending the war without the shedding
   of another drop of blood was so tempting to him that he did
   not sufficiently consider the limits of his authority in the
   matter." The result was that, on the 18th, Sherman and
   Johnston signed a memorandum of agreement which provided for
   the disbanding of all the Confederate armies, the recognition
   of the State governments of the several States lately forming
   the rebel Confederacy, the complete restoration of their old
   status in the Union, and complete amnesty to all concerned in
   the rebellion. This was forwarded to Washington, and, of
   course, it was disapproved, but with an unnecessary
   publication of sharp censure of General Sherman, and with
   expressions that seemed to imply distrust of the loyalty of
   his motives. General Grant was ordered to proceed to General
   Sherman's headquarters and to direct further operations.
{3558}
   He executed this mission with great delicacy, and his presence
   with Sherman was hardly known. The latter held a second
   conference with Johnston on the 26th, and there General
   Johnston made the surrender of his army on the same terms that
   had been granted to Lee.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (April-May).
   The end of the Rebellion.
   Fall of Mobile.
   Stoneman's Raid.
   Wilson's Raid.
   Capture of Jefferson Davis.
   The final surrenders.

After the surrender of Johnson, "there were still a few expeditions out in the South that could not be communicated with, and had to be left to act according to the judgment of their respective commanders. … The three expeditions which I had tried so hard to get off from the commands of Thomas and Canby did finally get off: one under Canby himself, against Mobile, late in March; that under Stoneman from East Tennessee on the 20th; and the one under Wilson, starting from Eastport, Mississippi, on the 22d of March. They were all eminently successful, but without any good result. Indeed much valuable property was destroyed and many lives lost at a time when we would have liked to spare them. … Stoneman entered North Carolina and then pushed north to strike the Virginia and Tennessee Railroad. He got upon that road, destroyed its bridges at different places and rendered the road useless to the enemy up to within a few miles of Lynchburg. His approach caused the evacuation of that city about the time we were at Appomattox, and was the cause of a commotion we heard of there. He then pushed south, and was operating in the rear of Johnston's army about the time the negotiations were going on between Sherman and Johnston for the latter's surrender. In this raid Stoneman captured and destroyed a large amount of stores, while 14 guns and nearly 2,000 prisoners were the trophies of his success. Canby appeared before Mobile on the 27th of March. The city of Mobile was protected by two forts, besides other intrenchments—Spanish Fort, on the east side of the bay, and Fort Blakely, north of the city. These forts were invested. On the night of the 8th of April, the National troops having carried the enemy's works at one point, Spanish Fort was evacuated; and on the 9th, the very day of Lee's surrender, Blakely was carried by assault, with a considerable loss to us. On the 11th the city was evacuated. … Wilson moved out [from Eastport, Mississippi] with full 12,000 men, well equipped and well armed. He was an energetic officer and accomplished his work rapidly. Forrest was in his front, but with neither his old-time army nor his old-time prestige. … He had a few thousand regular cavalry left, but not enough to even retard materially the progress of Wilson's cavalry. Selma fell on the 2d of April. … Tuscaloosa, Montgomery and West Point fell in quick succession. These were all important points to the enemy by reason of their railroad connections, as depots of supplies, and because of their manufactories of war material. … Macon surrendered on the 21st of April. Here news was received of the negotiations for the surrender of Johnston's army. Wilson belonged to the military division commanded by Sherman, and of course was bound by his terms. This stopped all fighting. General Richard Taylor had now become the senior Confederate officer still at liberty east of the Mississippi River, and on the 4th of May he surrendered everything within the limits of this extensive command. General E. Kirby Smith surrendered the trans-Mississippi department on the 26th of May, leaving no other Confederate army at liberty to continue the war. Wilson's raid resulted in the capture of the fugitive president of the defunct confederacy before he got out of the country. This occurred at Irwinville, Georgia, on the 11th of May. For myself, and I believe Mr. Lincoln shared the feeling, I would have been very glad to have seen Mr. Davis succeed in escaping, but for one reason: I feared that, if not captured, he might get into the trans-Mississippi region and there set up a more contracted confederacy. … Much was said at the time about the garb Mr. Davis was wearing when he was captured. [Mr. Davis, in his own narrative, and Captain G. W. Lawton, of the 4th Michigan Cavalry, which made the capture, agree in stating that the fugitive chief of the Confederacy wore when taken a lady's 'waterproof,' with a shawl over his head and shoulders. Mr. Davis says that he picked up his wife's waterproof in mistake for his own when he ran from the tent in which he was surprised, while camping, and that his wife threw the shawl over him. Captain Lawton asserts that he carried a tin-pail, that he affected to be bent with age, and that when he stepped out Mrs. Davis asked the soldiers at the tent entrance to let her 'old mother' go to the run for water.] I cannot settle this question from personal knowledge of the facts; but I have been under the belief, from information given to me by General Wilson shortly after the event, that when Mr. Davis learned that he was surrounded by our cavalry he was in his tent dressed in a gentleman's dressing gown. Naturally enough, Mr. Davis wanted to escape, and would not reflect much how this should be accomplished provided it might be done successfully. … Every one supposed he would be tried for treason if captured, and that he would be executed. Had he succeeded in making his escape in any disguise it would have been adjudged a good thing afterwards by his admirers."

"Davis was taken, via Savannah and the ocean, to Fortress Monroe; where he was long closely and rigorously imprisoned, while his family were returned by water to Savannah and there set at liberty. Secretary Reagan—the only person of consequence captured with Davis—was taken to Boston, and confined, with Vice-President Stephens (captured about this time also in Georgia), in Fort Warren; but each was liberated on parole a few months thereafter."

      ALSO IN:
      Major-General Wilson,
      How Jefferson Davis was overtaken.

      J. H. Reagan,
      Flight and Capture of Jefferson Davis
      (in Annals of the War by leading Participants).

      G. W. Lawton,
      "Running at the Heads"
      (Atlantic Monthly, September, 1865).

      J. Davis,
      Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government,
      chapter 54 (volume 2).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (May).
Feeling of surrendered Confederate officers.

After the surrender of Johnston, General Jacob D. Cox was put in command of the military district within which the surrender occurred, and had charge of the arrangements made for paroling and disbanding the Confederate forces. In a paper prepared for the Ohio Commandery of the Military Order of the Loyal Legion of the United States, General Cox has given an interesting report of conversations which he had in that connection with General Johnston and General Hardee. Talking with General Hardee of the war, the latter was asked "what had been his own expectation as to the result, and when had he himself recognized the hopelessness of the contest. 'I confess,' said he, laughing, 'that I was one of the hot Southerners who shared the notion that one man of the South could whip three Yankees; but the first year of the war pretty effectually knocked that nonsense out of us, and, to tell the truth, ever since that time we military men have generally seen that it was only a question how long it would take to wear our army out and destroy it. We have seen that there was no real hope of success, except by some extraordinary accident of fortune, and we have also seen that the politicians would never give up till the army was gone. So we have fought with the knowledge that we were to be sacrificed with the result we see to-day, and none of us could tell who would live to see it. We have continued to do our best, however, and have meant to fight as if we were sure of success.' … Johnston was very warm in his recognition of the soldierly qualities and the wonderful energy and persistence of our army and the ability of Sherman. Referring to his own plans, he said he had hoped to have had time enough to have collected a larger force to oppose Sherman, and to give it a more complete and efficient organization. The Confederate government had reckoned upon the almost impassable character of the rivers and swamps to give a respite till spring—at least they hoped for this. 'Indeed,' said he, with a smile, 'Hardee here,' giving a friendly nod of his head toward his subordinate, 'reported the Salkehatchie Swamps as absolutely impassable; but when I heard that Sherman had not only started, but was marching through those very swamps at the rate of thirteen miles a day, making corduroy road every foot of the way, I made up my mind there had been no such army since the days of Julius Cæsar.' Hardee laughingly admitted his mistaken report from Charleston, but justified it by saying that all precedent was against such a march, and that he would still have believed it impossible if he had not seen it done."

      J. D. Cox,
      The Surrender of Johnston's Army
      (Sketches of War History, Ohio Commandery,
      Loyal Legion, United States,
      volume 2, page 249-256).

   "In a statistical exhibit of deaths in the Union army,
   compiled (1885), under the direction of Adjutant-General Drum,
   by Joseph W. Kirkley, the causes of death are given as
   follows:
   Killed in action, 4,142 officers, 62,916 men;
   died of wounds received in action, 2,223 officers, 40,789 men,
   of which number 99 officers and 1,973 men were prisoners of war;
   died of disease, 2,795 officers and 221,791 men, of which
   83 officers and 24,783 men were prisoners;
   accidental deaths (except drowned), 142 officers and 3,972 men,
   of which 2 officers and 5 men were prisoners;
   drowned, 106 officers and 4,838 men,
   of which 1 officer and 6 men were prisoners;
   murdered, 37 officers and 483 men;
   killed after capture, 14 officers and 90 men;
   committed suicide, 26 officers and 365 men;
   executed by United States military authorities, 267 men;
   executed by the enemy, 4 officers and 60 men;
   died from sunstroke, 5 officers and 308 men, of which 20
   men were prisoners;
   other known causes, 62 officers and 1,972 men,
   of which 7 officers and 312 men were prisoners;
   causes not stated, 28 officers and 12,093 men,
   of which 9 officers and 2,030 men were prisoners.
   Total 9,584 officers, and 349,944 men,
   of which 219 officers and 29,279 men were prisoners.
   Grand aggregate, 359,528;
   aggregate deaths among prisoners, 29,498.

Since 1885 the Adjutant-General has received evidence of the death in Southern prisons of 694 men not previously accounted for, which increases the number of deaths among prisoners to 30,192, and makes a grand aggregate of 360,222." Total number of men furnished to the United States Army and Navy during the War from the several States and Territories, 2,778,304; of which number, 2,494,592 were white troops, 101,207 were sailors and marines, and 178,975 were colored troops. "The work of mustering out volunteers began April 29th and up to August 7th 640,806 troops had been discharged; on September 14th the number had reached 741,107, and on November 15th 800,963. On November 22d, 1865, the Secretary of War reported that Confederate troops surrendered and were released on parole" to the number of 174,223. Official returns show the whole number of men enrolled (present and absent) in the active armies of the Confederacy, as follows:

   January 1, 1862, 318,011;
   January 1, 1863, 465,584;
   January 1, 1864, 472,781;
   January 1, 1865, 439,675.

"Very few, if any, of the local land forces, and none of the naval are included in the tabular exhibit. If we take the 472,000 men in service at the beginning of 1864, and add thereto at least 250,000 deaths occurring prior to that date, it gives over 700,000. The discharges for disability and other causes and the desertions would probably increase the number (inclusive of the militia and naval forces) to over 1,000,000. Northern writers have assumed that the Confederate losses equalled the Union losses; no data exist for a reasonably accurate estimate."

   "In the four years of their service the armies of the Union,
   counting every form of conflict, great and small, had been in
   2,265 engagements with the Confederate troops. From the time
   when active hostilities began until the last gun of the war
   was fired, a fight of some kind—a raid, a skirmish, or a
   pitched battle—occurred at some point on our widely extended
   front nearly eleven times per week upon an average. Counting
   only those engagements in which the Union loss in killed,
   wounded, and missing exceeded 100, the total number was
   330,—averaging one every four and a half days. From the
   northernmost point of contact to the southernmost, the
   distance by any practicable line of communication was more
   than 2,000 miles. From East to West the extremes were 1,500
   miles apart.
{3560}
   During the first year of hostilities—one of preparation on
   both sides—the battles were … 35 in number, of which the most
   serious was the Union defeat at Bull Run. In 1862 the war had
   greatly 'increased in magnitude and intensity, as is shown by
   the 84 engagements between the armies. The net result of the
   year's operations was highly favorable to the Rebellion. In
   1863 the battles were 110 in number—among them some of the
   most significant and important victories for the Union. In
   1864 there were 73 engagements, and in the winter and early
   spring of 1865 there were 28. In fact, 1864-65 was one
   continuous campaign. … Not only in life but in treasure the
   cost of the war was enormous. In addition to the large
   revenues of the Government which had been currently absorbed,
   the public debt at the close of the struggle was
   $2,808,549,437.55. The incidental losses were innumerable in
   kind, incalculable in amount. Mention is made here only of the
   actual expenditure of money—estimated by the standard of gold.
   The outlay was indeed principally made in paper, but the faith
   of the United States was given for redemption in coin—a faith
   which has never been tarnished, and which in this instance has
   been signally vindicated by the steady determination of the
   people. Never, in the same space of time, has there been a
   National expenditure so great. … For the three years of the
   rebellion, after the first year, our War Department alone
   expended $603,314,411.82. $690,391,048.66, and $1,030,690,400
   respectively. … At the outbreak of hostilities the Government
   discovered that it had no Navy at command. The Secretary, Mr.
   Welles, found upon entering his office but a single ship in a
   Northern port fitted to engage in aggressive operations. … By
   the end of the year 1863 the Government had 600 vessels of war
   which were increased to 700 before the rebellion was subdued.
   Of the total number at least 75 were ironclad."

      J. G. Blaine,
      Twenty Years of Congress,
      volume 2, chapter 2,
      and volume 1, chapter 25.

   "Eleven Confederate cruisers figured in the 'Alabama claims'
   settlement between the United States and Great Britain. They
   were the Alabama, Shenandoah, Florida, Tallahassee, Georgia,
   Chickamauga, Nashville, Retribution, Sumter, Sallie and
   Boston. The actual losses inflicted by the Alabama
   ($6,547,609) were only about $60,000 greater than those
   charged to the Shenandoah. The sum total of the claims filed
   against the eleven cruisers for ships and cargoes was
   $17,900,633, all but about $4,000,000 being caused by the
   Alabama and Shenandoah. … In the 'Case of the United States' …
   it is stated that while in 1860 two-thirds of the commerce of
   New York was carried on in American bottoms, in 1863
   three-fourths was carried on in foreign bottoms. The transfer
   of American vessels to the British flag to avoid capture is
   stated thus:
   In 1861, vessels 126, tonnage 71,673;
   in 1862, vessels 135, tonnage 64,578;
   in 1863, vessels 348, tonnage 252,579;
   in 1864, vessels 106, tonnage 92,052.

… The cruisers built or purchased in England for the Confederate navy, were the Florida, Alabama, Shenandoah and Rappahannock. The latter never made a cruise, and the others were procured for the government by James D. Bulloch, naval agent. … He also had constructed in France the armored ram Stonewall."

"The greatest of all the lessons afforded to humanity by the Titanic struggle in which the American Republic saved its life is the manner in which its armies were levied, and, when the occasion for their employment was over, were dismissed. Though there were periods when recruiting was slow and expensive, yet there were others, when some crying necessity for troops was apparent, that showed almost incredible speed and efficiency in the supply of men. Mr. Stanton, in his report for 1865, says: 'After the disasters on the Peninsula in 1862, over 80,000 troops were enlisted, organized, armed, equipped, and sent into the field in less than a month. Sixty thousand troops have repeatedly gone to the field within four weeks; and 90,000 infantry were sent to the armies from the five States of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, and Wisconsin within twenty days.'"

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (May-July).
President Johnson's measures of Reconstruction
in the Insurrectionary States.

   "On the 10th of May the President [Andrew Johnson] issued a
   proclamation declaring substantially that actual hostilities
   had ceased, and that 'armed resistance to the authority of the
   Government in the insurrectionary States may be regarded at an
   end.' This great fact being officially recognized, the
   President found himself face to face with the momentous duty
   of bringing the eleven States of the Confederacy into active
   and harmonious relations with the Government of the Union. …
   An extra session of Congress seemed specially desirable at the
   time, and had one been summoned by the President, many of the
   troubles which subsequently resulted might have been averted.
   … Declining to seek the advice of Congress, in the
   embarrassments of his position, President Johnson necessarily
   subjected himself to the counsel and influence of his
   Cabinet," in which he had made no changes since President
   Lincoln's death. Among the members of the cabinet, the one who
   succeeded in obtaining ascendancy was Mr. Seward, who had
   rapidly recovered from his injuries and resumed the direction
   of the Department of State. Mr. Seward "was firmly persuaded
   that the wisest plan of reconstruction was the one which would
   be speediest; that for the sake of impressing the world with
   the strength and the marvelous power of self-government, with
   its Law, its Order, its Peace, we should at the earliest
   possible moment have every State restored to its normal
   relations with the Union. He did not believe that guarantee of
   any kind beyond an oath of renewed loyalty was needful. He was
   willing to place implicit faith in the coercive power of
   self-interest operating upon the men lately in rebellion. … By
   his arguments and by his eloquence Mr. Seward completely
   captivated the President. He effectually persuaded him that a
   policy of anger and hate and vengeance could lead only to evil
   results. … The President was gradually influenced by Mr.
   Seward's arguments, though their whole tenor was against his
   strongest predilections and against his pronounced and public
   committals to a policy directly the reverse. … Mr. Seward's
   influence was supplemented and enhanced by the timely and
   artful interposition of clever men from the South. … He
   [President Johnson] was not especially open to flattery, but
   it was noticed that words of commendation from his native
   section seemed peculiarly pleasing to him. …
{3561}
   On the 29th of May … two decisive steps were taken in the work
   of reconstruction. Both steps proceeded on the theory that
   every act needful for the rehabilitation of the seceded States
   could be accomplished by the Executive Department of the
   Government. … The first of these important acts of
   reconstruction, upon the expediency of which the President and
   Mr. Seward had agreed, was the issuing of a Proclamation of
   Amnesty and Pardon to 'all persons who have directly or
   indirectly participated in the existing Rebellion,' upon the
   condition that such persons should take and subscribe an
   oath—to be registered for permanent preservation—solemnly
   declaring that henceforth they would 'faithfully support,
   protect, and defend, the Constitution of the United States and
   the union of the States thereunder;' and that they would also
   'abide by and faithfully support all laws and proclamations
   which have been made during the existing Rebellion, with
   reference to the emancipation of slaves.' … The general
   declaration of amnesty was somewhat narrowed in its scope by
   the enumeration, at the end of the proclamation, of certain
   classes which were excepted from its benefit." Of the thirteen
   classes thus excepted, the first six were nearly identical
   with those excepted in President Lincoln's proclamation of
   December 8, 1863.

The classes added were: "Seventh, 'All persons who have been, or are, absentees from the United States for the purpose of aiding the Rebellion.' … Eighth, 'All officers in the rebel service who had been educated at the United-States Military or Naval Academy.' … Ninth, 'All men who held the pretended offices of governors of States in insurrection against the United States.' … Tenth, 'All persons who left their homes within the jurisdiction and protection of the United States, and passed beyond the Federal military lines into the pretended Confederate States for the purpose of aiding the Rebellion.' … Eleventh, 'All persons who have been engaged in the destruction of the commerce of the United States upon the high seas … and upon the lakes and rivers that separate the British Provinces from the United States.' … Twelfth, 'All persons who, at the time when they seek to obtain amnesty and pardon, are in military, naval, or civil confinement, as prisoners of war, or persons detained for offenses of any kind either before or after conviction.' … Thirteenth, 'All participants in the Rebellion, the estimated value of whose taxable property is over $20,000.' … Full pardon was granted, without further act on their part, to all who had taken the oath prescribed in President Lincoln's proclamation of December 8, 1863, and who had thenceforward kept and maintained the same inviolate. … A circular from Mr. Seward accompanied the proclamation, directing that the oath might 'be taken and subscribed before any commissioned officer, civil, military, or naval, in the service of the United States, or before any civil or military officer of a loyal State or Territory, who, by the laws thereof, may be qualified to administer oaths.' Everyone who took the oath was entitled to a certified copy of it, … and a duplicate, properly vouched, was forwarded to the State Department. … With these details complete, a second step of great moment was taken by the Government on the same day (May 29). A proclamation was issued appointing William W. Holden provisional governor of the State of North Carolina. … The proclamation made it the duty of Governor Holden, 'at the earliest practicable period, to prescribe such rules and regulations as may be necessary and proper for assembling a convention—composed of delegates who are loyal to the United States and no others—for the purpose of altering or amending the Constitution thereof, and with authority to exercise, within the limit of said State, all the powers necessary and proper to enable the loyal people of the State of North Carolina to restore said State to its constitutional relations to the Federal Government.' … It was specially provided in the proclamation that in 'choosing delegates to any State Convention no person shall be qualified as an elector or eligible as a member unless he shall have previously taken the prescribed oath of allegiance, and unless he shall also possess the qualifications of a voter as defined under the Constitution and Laws of North Carolina as they existed on the 20th of May, 1861, immediately prior to the so-called ordinance of secession.' Mr. Lincoln had in mind, as was shown by his letter to Governor Hahn of Louisiana, to try the experiment of negro suffrage, beginning with those who had served in the Union Army, and who could read and write; but President Johnson's plan confined the suffrage to white men, by prescribing the same qualifications as were required in North Carolina before the war. … A fortnight later, on the 13th of June, a proclamation was issued for the reconstruction of the civil government of Mississippi, and William L. Sharkey was appointed provisional governor. Four days later, on the 17th of June, a similar proclamation was issued for Georgia with James Johnson for provisional governor, and for Texas with Andrew J. Hamilton for provisional governor. On the 21st of the same month Lewis E. Parsons was appointed provisional governor of Alabama, and on the 30th Benjamin F. Perry was appointed provisional governor of South Carolina. On the 13th of July the list was completed by the appointment of William Marvin as provisional governor of Florida. The precise text of the North Carolina proclamation, 'mutatis mutandis,' was repeated in each one of those relating to these six States. … For the reconstruction of the other four States of the Confederacy different provisions were made." In Virginia, the so-called "Pierpont government"—see VIRGINIA: A. D. 1861 (JUNE-NOVEMBER)—"the shell of which had been preserved after West Virginia's separate existence had been recognized by the National Government, with its temporary capital at Alexandria, was accepted by President Johnson's Administration as the legitimate Government of Virginia. All its archives, property, and effects, as was afterwards said by Thaddeus Stevens, were taken to Richmond in an ambulance. … A course not dissimilar to that adopted in Virginia was followed in Louisiana, Arkansas, and Tennessee. In all of them the so-called 'ten-per-cent' governments established under Mr. Lincoln's authority were now recognized. … The whole scheme of reconstruction, as originated by Mr. Seward and adopted by the President, was in operation by the middle of July, three months after the assassination of Mr. Lincoln. {3562} Every step taken was watched with the deepest solicitude by the loyal people. The rapid and thorough change in the President's position was clearly discerned and fully appreciated. His course of procedure was dividing the Republican party, and already encouraging the hopes of those in the North who had been the steady opponents of Mr. Lincoln's war policy, and of those in the South who had sought for four years to destroy the Great Republic."

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (July-December). Reports of Carl Schurz and General Grant on the condition of affairs in the lately rebellious States.

In the summer of 1865 the Honorable Carl Schurz was commissioned by President Johnson to visit the Southern States and investigate the condition of affairs in them. Mr. Schurz, on returning from this mission, made a report of the result of his observations and inquiries, and the conclusions to which they led him, which was transmitted to the Senate, by the President, on the 18th of December. The views thus submitted were summarized at the close of the report, as follows: "I may sum up all I have said in a few words. If nothing were necessary but to restore the machinery of government in the States lately in rebellion in point of form, the movements made to that end by the people of the south might be considered satisfactory. But if it is required that the southern people should also accommodate themselves to the results of the war in point of spirit, those movements fall far short of what must be insisted upon. The loyalty of the masses and most of the leaders of the southern people consists in submission to necessity. There is, except in individual instances, an entire absence of that national spirit which forms the basis of true loyalty and patriotism. The emancipation of the slaves is submitted to only in so far as chattel slavery in the old form could not be kept up. But although the freedman is no longer considered the property of the individual master, he is considered the slave of society, and all independent State legislation will share the tendency to make him such. The ordinances abolishing slavery passed by the conventions under the pressure of circumstances will not be looked upon as barring the establishment of a new form of servitude. Practical attempts on the part of the southern people to deprive the negro of his rights as a freeman may result in bloody collisions, and will certainly plunge southern society into restless fluctuations and anarchical confusion. Such evils can be prevented only by continuing the control of the national government in the States lately in rebellion until free labor is fully developed and firmly established, and the advantages and blessings of the new order of things have disclosed themselves. This desirable result will be hastened by a firm declaration on the part of the government, that national control in the south will not cease until such results are secured. Only in this way can that security be established in the south which will render numerous immigration possible, and such immigration would materially aid a favorable development of things. The solution of the problem would be very much facilitated by enabling all the loyal and free-labor elements in the south to exercise a healthy influence upon legislation. It will hardly be possible to secure the freedman against oppressive class legislation and private persecution, unless he be endowed with a certain measure of political power. As to the future peace and harmony of the Union, it is of the highest importance that the people lately in rebellion be not permitted to build up another 'peculiar institution' whose spirit is in conflict with the fundamental principles of our political system; for as long as they cherish interests peculiar to them in preference to those they have in common with the rest of the American people, their loyalty to the Union will always be uncertain. I desire not to be understood as saying that there are no well-meaning men among those who were compromised in the rebellion. There are many, but neither their number nor their influence is strong enough to control the manifest tendency of the popular spirit. There are great reasons for hope that a determined policy on the part of the national government will produce innumerable and valuable conversions. This consideration counsels lenity as to persons, such as is demanded by the humane and enlightened spirit of our times, and vigor and firmness in the carrying out of principles, such as is demanded by the national sense of justice and the exigencies of our situation." With the report of Mr. Schurz, the President transmitted to the Senate, at the same time, a letter written by General Grant after making a hurried tour of inspection in some of the Southern States, during the last week of November and early in December. General Grant wrote: "Four years of war, during which law was executed only at the point of the bayonet throughout the States in rebellion, have left the people possibly in a condition not to yield that ready obedience to civil authority the American people have generally been in the habit of yielding. This would render the presence of small garrisons throughout those States necessary until such time as labor returns to its proper channel, and civil authority is fully established. I did not meet anyone, either those holding places under the government or citizens of the southern States, who think it practicable to withdraw the military from the south at present. The white and the black mutually require the protection of the general government. There is such universal acquiescence in the authority of the general government throughout the portions of country visited by me, that the mere presence of a military force, without regard to numbers, is sufficient to maintain order. The good of the country, and economy, require that the force kept in the interior, where there are many freedmen, (elsewhere in the southern States than at forts upon the seacoast no force is necessary,) should all be white troops. The reasons for this are obvious without mentioning many of them. The presence of black troops, lately slaves, demoralizes labor, both by their advice and by furnishing in their camps a resort for the freedmen for long distances around. White troops generally excite no opposition, and therefore a small number of them can maintain order in a given district. Colored troops must be kept in bodies sufficient to defend themselves. It is not the thinking men who would use violence towards any class of troops sent among them by the general government, but the ignorant in some places might; and the late slave seems to be imbued with the idea that the property of his late master should, by right, belong to him, or at least should have no protection from the colored soldier. {3563} There is danger of collisions being brought on by such causes. My observations lead me to the conclusion that the citizens of the southern States are anxious to return to self-government, within the Union, as soon as possible; that whilst reconstructing they want and require protection from the government; that they are in earnest in wishing to do what they think is required by the government, not humiliating to them as citizens, and that if such a course were pointed out they would pursue it in good faith. It is to be regretted that there cannot be a greater commingling, at this time, between the citizens of the two sections, and particularly of those intrusted with the lawmaking power. … In some instances, I am sorry to say, the freedman's mind does not seem to be disabused of the idea that a freedman has the right to live without care or provision for the future. The effect of the belief in division of lands is idleness and accumulation in camps, towns, and cities. In such cases I think it will be found that vice and disease will tend to the extermination or great reduction of the colored race. It cannot be expected that the opinions held by men at the south for years can be changed in a day, and therefore the freedmen require, for a few years, not only laws to protect them, but the fostering care of those who will give them good counsel, and on whom they rely."

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (December).
The end of Slavery.
Proclamation of the adoption of the Thirteenth Amendment.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865-1866.
The creation of the Freedmen's Bureau.

On the last day of the 38th Congress, March 3, 1865, an Act was passed to establish a bureau for the relief of freedmen and refugees. It was among the last Acts approved by Mr. Lincoln, and was designed as a protection to the freedmen of the South and to the class of white men known as "refugees,"— driven from their homes on account of their loyalty to the Union. The Act provided that the Bureau should have "supervision and management of all abandoned lands, and the control of all subjects relating to refugees and freedmen from rebel States, or from any district of country within the territory embraced in the operations of the army, under such rules and regulations as may be prescribed by the head of the bureau and approved by the President. The said bureau shall be under the management and control of a commissioner, to be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. … The Secretary of War may direct such issues of provisions, clothing, and fuel as he may deem needful for the immediate and temporary shelter and supply of destitute and suffering refugees and freedmen, and their wives and children, under such rules and regulations as he may direct. … The President may, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, appoint an assistant commissioner for each of the States declared to be in insurrection, not exceeding ten. … Any military officer may be detailed and assigned to duty under this act without increase of pay or allowances. … The commissioner, under the direction of the President, shall have authority to set apart for the use of loyal refugees and freedmen such tracts of land, within the insurrectionary States, as shall have been abandoned, or to which the United States shall have acquired title by confiscation, or sale, or otherwise. And to every male citizen, whether refugee or freedman, as aforesaid, there shall be assigned not more than 40 acres of such land, and the person to whom it is so assigned shall be protected in the use and enjoyment of the land for the term of three years, at an annual rent not exceeding 6 per centum upon the value of said land as it was appraised by the State authorities in the year 1860. … At the end of said term, or at any time during said term, the occupants of any parcels so assigned may purchase the land and receive such title thereto as the United States can convey. … On the 20th of May, 1865, Major-General O. O. Howard was appointed Commissioner of the Freedmen's Bureau. He gave great attention to the subject of education; and after planting schools for the freedmen throughout a great portion of the South, in 1870—five years after the work was begun—he made a report. It was full of interest. In five years there were 4,239 schools established, 9,307 teachers employed, and 247,333 pupils instructed. In 1868 the average attendance was 89,396; but in 1870 it was 91,398, or 79¾ per-cent. of the total number enrolled. The emancipated people sustained 1,324 schools themselves, and owned 592 school buildings. The Freedmen's Bureau furnished 654 buildings for school purposes."

G. W. Williams, History of the Negro Race in America, part 8, chapters 21-22 (volume 2).

   As the original act, "by experience, had proved somewhat
   inadequate for the ends in view, Congress, in the early part
   of February, 1866, submitted an act amendatory … for executive
   approval. Its main features consisted in the reservation of
   three millions of acres of public land in the South from the
   operation of the homestead and pre-emption laws for occupation
   by former slaves at a rental to be approved by designated
   authorities, an extension of the former means of relief in the
   way of food and clothing, and the punishment, by tribunals
   composed of the agents and officials of the bureau, of all
   persons who should violate the rights under this act of its
   designated beneficiaries. … The President, chafing under the
   non-admission to their representation in Congress of the
   Southern States which under his policy had been restored,
   vetoed the bill February 19 on various grounds, among the more
   important of which, and the only ones of particular import,
   were that the measure violated constitutional guarantees in
   that no person by our organic code should be deprived of life,
   liberty or property without due process of law, and that
   taxation should never be imposed without representation. …
   February 21st the bill was again put upon its passage, but not
   obtaining a two-thirds vote in the Senate, consequently failed
   to become a law. … The third Freedmen's Bureau bill, of July,
   1866, was another attempt to amend the original law of March
   3, 1865, as to juridical measures for the enforcement thereof,
   and to perfect the distribution of the abandoned and
   confiscated lands of the South among the blacks. It was much
   milder in form than the one vetoed in February of the same
   year, as it did not make violations of the proposed law a
   criminal offence.
{3564}
   It proposed to give jurisdiction of such violations, however,
   to military tribunals, made up of the agents and officers of
   the bureau, until the Southern States had been restored to
   their representation in Congress. … July 16, 1866, the
   President vetoed the bill as a matter of course. He could have
   pursued no other action without self-contradiction. Congress,
   moreover, could not have reasonably expected a different
   result. It framed the bill not with an eye for executive
   approval, but with regard to its ability to pass it over the
   disapproval of that official, which it did on the same day the
   veto message was received, thereby making it a law of the
   land."

"The law made the agents of this Bureau guardians of freedmen, with power to make their contracts, settle their disputes with employers, and care for them generally. The position of Bureau agent was one of power, of responsibility, capable of being used beneficently, and sometimes, no doubt, it was; but these officials were subjected to great temptation. … Nearly every one of these agents who remained South after reconstruction was a candidate for office; and many actually became Governors, Judges, Legislators, Congressmen, Postmasters, Revenue officers, etc."

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865-1866 (December-April).
   The Reconstruction question in Congress.
   The Joint Committee of Fifteen.
   The shaping of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The "independent measures of the Executive for reconstruction were far from giving satisfaction to the Republican party. Within a few days after the meeting of Congress, in December, 1865, Mr. Stevens, of Pennsylvania, asked leave to introduce a joint resolution which provided that a committee of fifteen members should be appointed—nine of whom were to be members of the House and six to be members of the Senate—for the purpose of inquiring into the condition of the states which had formed the so-called Confederate States of America. This committee was to report whether these states or any of them were entitled to be represented in either house of Congress. Leave was given to report at any time, by bill or otherwise, and until such should be made and finally acted upon by Congress, no member was to be received into either house from any of those states. All papers relating to this representation in Congress were to be referred to this committee without debate. This resolution was adopted in the House by a vote of—yeas 133, nays 36." In the Senate it received amendments which made it a concurrent, instead of a joint resolution, and which struck out the clause relating to the non-admittance of members from the States in question pending the committee's report, and also that which required a reference of papers to the committee without debate.

The Joint Committee on Reconstruction was constituted by the appointment (December 14), on the part of the House, of Thaddeus Stevens, Elihu B. Washburn, Justin S. Morrill, Henry Grider, John A. Bingham, Roscoe Conkling, George S. Boutwell, Henry T. Blow, and Andrew J. Rogers; and by the appointment (December 21), on the part of the Senate, of William Pitt Fessenden, James W. Grimes, Ira Harris, Jacob M. Howard,. Reverdy Johnson, and George H. Williams. The most serious question connected with the problem of reconstruction was that arising from the great increase of representation in Congress, and consequent augmentation of political weight and power, that must necessarily accrue to the lately rebellious States from the emancipation of their slaves. To this question the Committee gave their attention first. By an original provision of the Constitution, representation is based on the whole number of free persons in each State and three-fifths of all other persons. "When all become free, representation for all necessarily follows. As a consequence the inevitable effect of the rebellion would be to increase the political power of the insurrectionary States, whenever they should be allowed to resume their positions as States of the Union. As representation is by the Constitution based upon population, your committee [said their report, when made, on the 8th of June, 1866] did not think it advisable to recommend a change of that basis. … It appeared to your committee that the rights of these persons by whom the basis of representation had been thus increased should be recognized by the general government. … It did not seem just or proper that all the political advantages derived from their becoming free should be confined to their former masters, who had fought against the Union, and withheld from themselves, who had always been loyal. … Doubts were entertained whether Congress had power, even under the amended Constitution, to prescribe the qualifications of voters in a State, or could act directly on the subject. It was doubtful, in the opinion of your committee, whether the States would consent to surrender a power they had always exercised, and to which they were attached. As the best if not the only method of surmounting the difficulty, and as eminently just and proper in itself, your committee came to the conclusion that political power should be possessed in all the States exactly in proportion as the right of suffrage should be granted, without distinction of color or race. This it was thought would leave the whole question with the people of each State, holding out to all the advantage of increased political power as an inducement to allow all to participate in its exercise." To this conclusion the committee arrived as early as the 22d of January, when they made a preliminary report, recommending an amendment to the constitution to the effect that "Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed: Provided, That whenever the elective franchise shall be denied or abridged in any State on account of race or color, all persons of such race or color shall be excluded from the basis of representation." Grave objections were found to the proposed exclusion of the colored race as a whole from the basis of representation, in case the suffrage should be denied to any part of it. It was shown, moreover, that disfranchisement might be practically accomplished on other grounds than that of race or color and the intended effect of the constitutional provision evaded. {3665} Hence the proposition of the Committee failed in the Senate (March 9, 1866), though adopted by the House (January 31). On the 20th of February, the Committee on Reconstruction reported a concurrent resolution, "That in order to close agitation upon a question which seems likely to disturb the action of the Government, as well as to quiet the uncertainty which is agitating the minds of the people of the eleven States which have been declared to be in insurrection, no Senator or Representative shall be admitted into either branch of Congress from any of said States until Congress shall have declared such State entitled to such representation." The House adopted this important concurrent resolution the same evening. In the Senate it was debated until the 2d of March, when it was passed by a vote of 29 to 18. On the 30th of April the Reconstruction Committee reported a joint resolution embodying a comprehensive amendment to the Constitution, designed to protect the rights of the freedmen of the South, as citizens of the United States, and to fix the basis of representation in Congress, as well as to settle other questions arising out of the Rebellion. As adopted by Congress in June, and subsequently ratified by the legislatures of the necessary number of States this became what appears as the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

"This proposed amendment to the Constitution was accompanied by two bills, one of which provided that when any State lately in insurrection should have ratified the amendment, its Senators and Representatives, if found duly elected and qualified, should be admitted as members of Congress. The other bill declared the high ex-officials of the late Confederacy ineligible to any office under the Government of the United States."

      ALSO IN:
      Report of Joint Committee on Reconstruction,
      39th Congress, 1st session.
      H. R. Report, number. 30.

      A. R. Conkling,
      Life and Letters of Roscoe Conkling,
      chapter 14.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1866.
The Fenian movement and invasion of Canada.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1866 (February).
The French warned out of Mexico.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1866 (April). The passage of the first Civil Rights Bill over the President's veto.

"Immediately on the reassembling of Congress after the holidays, January 5, 1866, Mr. Trumbull [in the Senate], in pursuance of previous notice, introduced a bill 'to protect all persons in the United States in their civil rights, and furnish the means of their vindication.' This bill, having been read twice, was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary." A few days later the bill was reported back from the Committee, and it came up for discussion on the 29th of January. On the 1st of February it passed the Senate and went to the House. In that body it was reported from the Judiciary Committee on the 1st of March, and debate upon the measure began. It passed the House, with some amendments, March 13th, by a vote of 111 to 38. The amendments of the House were agreed to by the Senate, and it went to the President, who returned it with an elaborate veto message on the 27th of March. In the Senate, on the 6th of April, by 33 ayes to 15 nays, and in the House three days later, by 122 affirmative votes to 41 in the negative, the bill was passed notwithstanding the veto, and became law. As enacted, the Civil Rights Bill declared "that all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign Power, excluding Indians not taxed, are … citizens of the United States; and such citizens of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime, … shall have the same right in every State and Territory of the United States to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to the contrary notwithstanding." Section 2 of the act provided penalties for its violation. The remaining sections gave to the district and circuit courts of the United States cognizance of all crimes and offenses committed against the provisions of the act; extended the jurisdiction of those courts and enlarged and defined the powers and duties of the district attorneys, marshals, deputy marshals and commissioners of the United States, to that end; made it lawful for the President "to employ such part of the land or naval forces of the United States, or of the militia, as shall be necessary to prevent the violation and enforce the due execution of this act;" and, finally, provided that "upon all questions of law arising in any cause under the provisions of this act a final appeal may be taken to the Supreme Court of the United States."

      ALSO IN:
      H. Wilson,
      History of the Rise and Fall of the Slave Power,
      volume 3, chapter 48.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1866 (June).
Congressional adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The joint resolution, embodying the important amendment to the Federal Constitution which became, when ratified, the Fourteenth Amendment, reported to Congress on the 30th of April, 1866, by the Joint Committee on Reconstruction was passed by the House of Representatives on the 10th of May, and by the Senate on the 8th of June, with amendments which the House concurred in on the 13th of June.

Having no constitutional power to veto the resolution, President Johnson sent a message to Congress on the 22d expressing his disapproval of it. The proposed constitutional amendment as it passed both Houses of Congress, and as it became part of the constitution of the United States by subsequent ratification of the States, is as follows:

"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State Legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1866 (July). Restoration of Tennessee to her "former, proper, practical relation to the Union."

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1866-1867 (October-March).
   The Reconstruction issue before the people.
   Congress sustained by the North.
   President Johnson and the South.
   Rejection of the Fourteenth Amendment by the Southern States.

In the elections of 1866 the canvass turned upon the issue between Congress and the President concerning Reconstruction, and the popular verdict was overwhelmingly adverse to the Presidential policy, while a new Congress was elected far more Radical in disposition than its predecessor. Every Northern State was swept by the Republicans, with heavily increased majorities. Even those "which had been tenaciously Democratic gave way under the popular pressure. … The aggregate majority for the Republicans and against the Administration in the Northern States was about 390,000 votes. In the South the elections were as significant as in the North, but in the opposite direction. Wherever Republican or Union tickets were put forward for State or local offices in the Confederate States, they were defeated by prodigious majorities. Arkansas gave a Democratic majority of over 9,000, Texas over 40,000, and North Carolina 25,000. The border slave States were divided. Delaware, Maryland and Kentucky gave strong majorities for the Democrats, while West Virginia and Missouri were carried by the Republicans. The unhappy indication of the whole result was that President Johnson's policy had inspired the South with a determination not to submit to the legitimate results of the war, but to make a new fight and, if possible, regain at the ballot-box the power they had lost by war. The result of the whole election was to give to the Republicans 143 representatives in Congress and to the Democrats but 49." But when Congress assembled, in December, the President was found to be inflexibly determined to pursue the line of policy which he had marked out. In his message he reiterated his views "with entire disregard of the popular result which had so significantly condemned him. … The President's position … excited derision and contempt in the North, but it led to mischievous results in the South. The ten Confederate States which stood knocking at the door of Congress for the right of representation, were fully aware, as was well stated by a leading Republican, that the key to unlock the door had been placed in their own hands. They knew that the political canvass in the North had proceeded upon the basis, and upon the practical assurance (given through the press, and more authoritatively in political platforms), that whenever any other Confederate State should follow the example of Tennessee, it should at once be treated as Tennessee had been treated. Yet, when this position had been confirmed by the elections in all the loyal States, and was, by the special warrant of popular power, made the basis of future admission, these ten States, voting upon the Fourteenth Amendment at different dates through the winter of 1866-67, contemptuously rejected it. In the Virginia Legislature only one vote could be found for the Amendment. In the North-Carolina Legislature only 11 votes out of 148 were in favor of the Amendment. In the South-Carolina Legislature there was only one vote for the Amendment. In Georgia only two votes out of 169 in the Legislature were in the affirmative. Florida unanimously rejected the Amendment. Out of 106 votes in the Alabama Legislature only ten could be found in favor of it. Mississippi and Louisiana both rejected it unanimously. Texas, out of her entire Legislature, gave only five votes for it, and the Arkansas Legislature, which had really taken its action in the preceding October, gave only three votes for the Amendment. … It was naturally inferred and was subsequently proved, that the Southern States would not have dared to take this hostile attitude except with the encouragement and the unqualified support of the President."

"No factor in those elections [of 1866] proved more potential than the rejection by Southern Legislatures of the pending Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The clauses on which its acceptance or rejection turned in these assemblies were: Section II., which apportioned Representatives in Congress upon the basis of the voting population; and Section II!., which provided that no person should hold office under the United States who, having taken an oath as a Federal or state officer to support the Constitution, had subsequently engaged in the war against the Union. It was claimed by the friends of the Amendment to be especially unfair that the South should have representation for its freedmen and not give them the ballot. The right, however, of a state to have representation for all its free inhabitants, whether voters or not, was secured by the Constitution, and that instrument even allowed three-fifths representation for slaves. New York, Ohio, and other states denied the ballot to free negroes; some states excluded by property qualification and others by educational tests, yet all enjoyed representation for all their peoples. The reply to this was that the Constitution ought to be amended because the South would now have, if negroes were denied the ballot, a larger proportion of non-voters than the North. Southern people were slow to see that this was good reason for change in the Constitution, especially as they believed they were already entitled to representation, and conceived that they ought to have a voice in proposing as well as in the ratification of amendments. Five of the restored states had already ratified the Thirteenth Amendment, and such ratification had been counted valid. If they were states, they were certainly entitled to representation. So they claimed. It was perhaps imprudent for Southern people at that time to undertake to chop logic with their conquerors, or indeed to claim any rights at all. … The insuperable objection, however, to the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment was to be found in the clause which required the people of the late Confederate States to disfranchise their own leaders, to brand with dishonor those who had led them in peace and in war."

H. A. Herbert, Why the Solid South? (Noted Men on the Solid South) pages 15-16.

In a letter addressed, November 25, 1866, to General Richard Taylor, lately of the Confederate army, and brother-in-law of Jefferson Davis, General Grant wrote: "I have talked with several members of Congress who are classed with the Radicals; Schenck and Bidwell for instance. They express the most generous views as to what would be done if the Constitutional amendments proposed by Congress were adopted by the Southern States. What was done in the case of Tennessee was an earnest of what would be done in all cases. Even the disqualification to hold office imposed on certain classes by one article of the amendment would, no doubt, be removed at once, except it might be in the cases of the very highest offenders, such, for instance, as those who went abroad to aid in the Rebellion, those who left seats in Congress, etc. All or very nearly all would soon be restored, and so far as security to property and liberty is concerned, all would be restored at once. I would like exceedingly to see one Southern State, excluded State, ratify the amendments to enable us to see the exact course that would be pursued. I believe it would much modify the demands that may be made if there is delay." "But the President's endeavors did not cease. … He used all the authority of his office to dissuade the Southerners from accepting the amendment which the entire North had ratified. … He converted good feeling and good will on both sides into discord, and precipitated disasters almost equal to those from which the State had barely escaped. … This view of Johnson's conduct was thenceforth steadily maintained by Grant."

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1866-1867 (December-March).
The Tenure-of-Office Bill.

"Against the early decision of the founders of the Government, … against the repeatedly expressed judgment of ex-President Madison, against the equally emphatic judgment of Chief Justice Marshall, and above all, against the unbroken practice of the Government for 78 years, the Republican leaders now determined to deprive the President of the power of removing Federal officers. Many were induced to join in the movement under the belief that it was important to test the true meaning of the Constitution in the premises, and that this could be most effectively done by directly restraining by law the power which had been so long conceded to the Executive Department. To that end Mr. Williams of Oregon, on the first Monday of December, 1866, introduced a bill 'to regulate the tenure of civil offices.'"

"After grave consideration and protracted discussion in both houses of Congress, the [Tenure-of-Office bill] was passed near the close of the session. On the 2d of March [1867] the bill encountered the veto of the President, who saw in the measure serious interference with the ability of the Executive to keep his oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. The bill was immediately passed over the veto without debate. The act thus passed provides that officers appointed by and with the advice and consent of the Senate shall hold their offices until their successors are in like manner appointed and qualified. Members of the Cabinet hold their offices during the term of the President by whom they are appointed, and for one month thereafter, subject to removal by consent of the Senate."

Soon after the inauguration of President Grant, in 1868, the Tenure-of-Office act was so far modified as to practically release the President from the restraint which it put upon his power of removal.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1866-1869.
Organization of the Bureau of Education.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1866-1871.
The Ku-Klux Klan of the Southern States and its outrages.

"It would have been contrary to the experience of mankind, and an exception to all the teachings of history, if the social and political revolution which the results of the war had imposed on the states then recently insurgent had gone into operation peacefully, harmoniously, and successfully. It was impossible for such to be the case. The transition was from a state in which the superiority and domination of the white race over the colored race existed unquestioned for centuries. It was to a condition of things in which the most prominent whites were disfranchised and deprived of the right to hold public offices. Their late slaves were enfranchised, and the judicial and other offices were largely filled by dishonest and unfriendly strangers from the North. What was worse still, many of these places were filled by ignorant and brutal negroes. The transition was too sudden and violent. It was hard to submit to it quietly. {3568} No people, least of all such a proud and intolerant people as that of the South, could see their local governments transferred from their own hands into the hands of their former slaves without being goaded into violent resistance. This resistance took the form, in most of the Southern States, not of armed opposition to the Federal or the state governments, but of organized intimidation and terrorism. It was directed against the colored people and against their white allies and leaders. It made an objective point of the agents of the Freedmen's Bureau, ministers of the gospel, and school teachers,—all adventurers from the North, or men who had, in quest of fortune, immigrated into these states. All of these classes were regarded as public or private enemies. They were designated by the opprobrious title of 'carpet-baggers.' The history of these outrages fills many volumes of reports made by joint and separate committees of the two houses of Congress. It is from these volumes, from reports of military commanders in the South, and from other official documents, that the following epitome, exhibiting the lawlessness that prevailed in the Southern States during the … decade between 1865 and 1875, is made. These documents are so full of the details of crime and violence, and are so voluminous, that it is exceedingly difficult to select from them, or to convey a correct idea of their relations. Very soon after the close of the Civil War, almost as soon as the Reconstruction acts were begun to be put in operation, secret societies were organized in various states of the South. Their object, either secret or avowed, was to prevent the exercise of political rights by the negroes. These societies took various names, such as 'The Brotherhood,' 'The Pale Faces,' 'The Invisible Empire,' 'The Knights of the White Camellia'; but all these were finally merged into, or compounded with, the formidable and dreaded society denominated the 'Ku-Klux Klan.' Their acts of lawlessness and cruelty have passed into local and congressional history as 'Ku-Klux outrages.' The State of Virginia was a remarkable exception to the other states in its exemption from crimes of this character; while the two neighboring States of North Carolina and Tennessee furnished, perhaps, more material for investigation into Ku-Klux outrages than any other portion of the South. This barbarous and bloodthirsty organization is said to have originated in 1866. There is no doubt that the Ku-Klux Klan was organized at first only to scare the superstitious blacks. It is true that it arose out of the frivolities of some young Tennesseans. Horrid tales were told to frighten the negroes from roaming about and pilfering. The testimony before the committee on that subject, of which the writer was a member, showed that they daily visited houses and talked their foolish talk; that they were 'mummicking about,'—whatever that means. … There is no doubt that political reasons had their influence after the Ku-Klux were under way. … Certain it is, that they soon came to be made use of, in the most arbitrary, cruel, and shocking manner, for the furtherance of political ends, and for the crushing out of Republicanism in the Southern States; to which party the colored people were almost unanimously attached. The crimes and outrages narrated in these pages had their origin, almost exclusively, in political causes,—in the effort on the part of the whites to set at naught the rights of suffrage guaranteed to the negroes, and to exclude from Federal, state, county, and local offices all persons whose reliance for election to such offices was mainly if not altogether, on negro votes. General Forrest estimated the strength of the Ku-Klux organization in Tennessee at 40,000. He expressed the belief that it was still stronger in other states. The members were sworn to secrecy, under the penalty of death for breach of fidelity. Their ordinary mode of operation—as gathered from the mass of evidence—was to patrol the country at night. They went well armed and mounted. They wore long white gowns. They masked their faces. Their appearance terrified the timid and superstitious negroes who happened to see them as they rode past, and who then regarded them as ghostly riders. But most frequently they surrounded and broke into the cabins of the negroes; frightened and maltreated the inmates; warned them of future vengeance; and probably carried off some obnoxious negro, or 'carpet-bagger,' whose fate it was to be riddled with murderous bullets, hung to the limb of a tree, or mercilessly whipped and tortured, for some offense, real or imaginary, but generally because he was active in politics or in negro schools or churches. … According to the majority report of the Senate select committee of March 10, 1871, the Ku-Klux associations, by whatever name known, were instituted in North Carolina in 1867 or 1868. … The report of the Senate committee of the 10th of March, 1871, before referred to, recites a startling number of Ku-Klux outrages. They embrace whipping, mutilation, and murder. These cruelties took place in North Carolina, between December, 1868, and December, 1870. The report gives some of the horrifying details."

"Senator Scott, in a speech in the Senate, gave as the result of the investigation that came to his own knowledge, as follows: In North Carolina, in 14 counties, there were 18 murders and 315 whippings. In South Carolina, 9 counties, 35 murders and 276 other flagrant outrages. In Georgia, 20 counties, 72 murders and 126 whippings. In Alabama, 26 counties, 215 murders and 116 other outrages. In Florida, in one county alone there were 153 cases of homicide. In Mississippi, 20 counties, 23 homicides and 76 other cases of outrage. In 99 counties in different States he found 526 homicides and 2,009 cases of whipping. But the committee state that in Louisiana alone in the year 1868 there were more than 1,000 murders, and most of them were the result of the operations of the Ku Klux."

      H. Wilson,
      History of the Rise and Fall of the Slave Power,
      volume 3, chapter 45.

      ALSO IN:
      Report of Joint Select Committee
      (42d Congress, 2d session, Senate Report, number 41).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1867 (January).
Negro Suffrage in the District of Columbia.

   As early as the 18th of January, 1866, the House of
   Representatives passed a bill extending the suffrage in the
   District of Columbia, by striking out the word "white" from
   all laws and parts of laws prescribing the qualification of
   electors for any office in the District, and declaring that no
   person should be disqualified from voting at any election in
   the District on account of color.
{3569}
   As it was known that the President would veto the bill if sent
   to him, the Senate held it until the next session. In
   December, 1866, it was called up in that body by Senator
   Sumner, and after considerable debate was passed, December
   13th. On the 7th of January following it was returned by the
   President with his veto, but was passed over the veto by the
   Senate (29 to 10) the same day, and by the House (113 to 38)
   the day following, thus becoming a law.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1867 (March).
The Military Reconstruction Acts of Congress.

"Congress had declared amply enough how the rebel States should not be reinstated. Two years after the close of the war, however, the Union was still unrestored, and while claiming, under the Constitution, absolute jurisdiction of the question, Congress had failed to prescribe the terms on which the Union should be restored. … Both the country and Congress were at last convinced by the course of events that affirmative Congressional action was indispensable, involving the sweeping away of Mr. Johnson's ex-rebel State governments and the enfranchisement of the emancipated slaves. Mr. Stevens had been of that opinion ever since the emasculation by the Senate of the Fourteenth Amendment, as adopted by the House [which had proposed to exclude from the right to vote for Representatives in Congress and for Presidential electors, 'until the 4th day of July, in the year 1870, all persons who voluntarily adhered to the late insurrection, giving it aid and comfort'], and immediately thereupon proposed a measure containing the germ of the Military Reconstruction Act. Called up from time to time, and pressed upon the attention of the House by Mr. Stevens, it was passed on the 13th day of February, 1867, after a four weeks' debate upon it in Committee of the Whole. By the 20th both Houses had agreed upon it, and passed it. On the 2d day of March the President returned it to the House with his veto, over which it was at once passed by both Houses; and with only two days of the Thirty-ninth Congress to spare, it become law."

The Military Reconstruction Act set forth in its preamble that "Whereas, no legal State governments or adequate protection for life or property now exists in the rebel States [enumerating all the late Confederate States except Tennessee]; … and whereas it is necessary that peace and good order should be enforced in said States until loyal and republican State governments can be legally established: therefore, Be it enacted, … That said rebel States shall be divided into military districts and made subject to the military authority of the United States, as hereinafter prescribed; and for that purpose Virginia shall constitute the first district, North Carolina and South Carolina the second district, Georgia, Alabama and Florida the third district, Mississippi and Arkansas the fourth district, and Louisiana and Texas the fifth district." Sections 2, 3 and 4 of the act made it the duty of the President to assign to the command of each of the said districts an officer of the army not below the rank of brigadier-general, and defined the duties and powers of such commander, providing for the assignment to him of an adequate military force. Section 5 provided "That when the people of any one of said rebel States shall have formed a constitution of government in conformity with the Constitution of the United States in all respects, framed by a convention of delegates elected by the male citizens of said State 21 years old and upward, of whatever race, color, or previous condition, who have been resident in said State for one year previous to the day of such election, except such as may be disfranchised for participation in the rebellion or for felony at common law, and when such constitution shall provide that the elective franchise shall be enjoyed by all such persons as have the qualifications herein stated for electors of delegates, and when such constitution shall be ratified by a majority of the persons voting on the question of ratification who are qualified as electors for delegates, and when such constitution shall have heen submitted to Congress for examination and approval, and Congress shall have approved the same, and when said State, by a vote of its Legislature elected under said constitution, shall have adopted the amendment to the Constitution of the United States, proposed by the Thirty-ninth Congress, and known as article fourteen, and when said article shall have become a part of the Constitution of the United States, said State shall be declared entitled to representation in Congress, and Senators and Representatives shall be admitted therefrom on their taking the oath prescribed by law, and then and thereafter the preceding sections of this act shall be inoperative in said State." It was further provided that no person excluded from office by the Fourteenth Amendment should be a member of the convention to frame a constitution for any of said rebel States, and that any civil government which might exist in any of the said States prior to the admission of its representatives to Congress should be deemed provisional only, and subject to the paramount authority of the United States. "The friends of this measure were dissatisfied with it on the ground of its incompleteness in not containing provisions for carrying it into effect in accordance with the purpose of its framers. … The Fortieth Congress, meeting on the 4th of March, immediately upon the close of its predecessor, proceeded without delay to perfect and pass over the President's veto [March 23, 1867] a bill supplementary to the act to provide for the more efficient government of the rebel States." By this supplementary act specific instructions were given as to the course of procedure to be followed in making a registration of the voters qualified under the act and in conducting the elections provided for.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1868 (March-May).
Impeachment and Trial of President Johnson.

"Until the spring of 1866, a year after Mr. Johnson became President, there was entire harmony between him and his Cabinet. … No objection was raised even to that part of the President's first message which treated of the suffrage question, by any member of the Cabinet. It was in fact approved by all, and by none more heartily than by Mr. Stanton. A change took place soon after the Civil Rights bill became a law over the President's veto, and bitter controversy arose between the President and Congress. {3570} In this controversy, and at its commencement, Mr. Dennison [Postmaster-general] and Mr. Harlan [Secretary of the Interior] sided with Congress and tendered their resignations, which were very reluctantly accepted. They resigned because they could not heartily sustain the President, but there was no breach of the social relations which had existed between them. Mr. Speed [Attorney-general] soon after followed the example of Dennison and Harlan. Mr. Stanton [Secretary of War] also sided with Congress, but he did not resign. He was advised by prominent political and personal friends to 'stick,' and he did so, contrary to all precedent and in opposition to the judgment of conservative men of his party. … He attended the Cabinet meetings, not as an adviser of the President, but as an opponent of the policy to which he had himself been committed, and the President lacked the nerve to dismiss him. … In this crisis of his political life, Mr. Johnson exhibited a want of spirit and decision which astonished those who were familiar with his antecedents. He knew when the Tenure-of-Office Bill was before Congress that the object of its leading supporters was to tie his hands, and yet he refrained from using them when they were free. … When he did act he acted unwisely. He retained Mr. Stanton in his Cabinet when his right to remove him was unquestionable. He suspended him [August 12, 1867] after the Tenure-of-Office Bill had become a law, and in accordance with its provisions, [directing General Grant to act as Secretary of War ad interim]; and when the Senate refused to approve of the suspension [January 13, 1868], he issued orders for his removal and the appointment of Lorenzo Thomas to be Secretary of War ad interim. If he had tried to give his enemies an advantage over him, to furnish them with weapons for his own discomfiture, he could not have done it more effectually. … If he had removed Mr. Stanton instead of suspending him, and justified his action on the ground that his control of the members of his Cabinet was a constitutional right of which he could not be deprived by Congress, he probably would not have been impeached. The gist of the charges against him was that he had violated a law of Congress in removing Mr. Stanton, or issuing an order for his removal, after the Senate had refused to sanction his suspension. In the articles of impeachment there were other charges against the President, the most serious of which were that he had delivered intemperate, inflammatory speeches, which were intended to bring into contempt the Congress of the United States and duly enacted laws. The speeches made by the President in Cleveland, St. Louis, and other places in August and September, 1866—in fact, all his public addresses during his contest with Congress—were in the worst possible taste, derogatory to himself and to his high position; but they … did not constitute good ground for his impeachment; and this was the opinion of the House, which in January, 1867, after they were made, refused to impeach him by the decisive vote of 108 to 57. Other causes for his impeachment were subsequently sought for. His bank account was examined. His private conduct in Washington was carefully scrutinized. Men were employed to investigate his public and private character in Tennessee, but nothing was found to his discredit. … Nothing was found to justify his impeachment but the order which he issued for the removal of Mr. Stanton and his appointment of General Thomas to be Secretary of the War Department ad interim after the Senate had refused to sanction Mr. Stanton's suspension." The formal presentment by the House of Representatives of its Impeachment against the President, at the bar of the Senate, sitting as a Court of Impeachment, was made on the 5th day of March, 1868. The answer of the President was presented on the 23d; the trial opened on Monday, the 30th of March, and closed on the 26th of May following. "The trial was a very interesting one, not only to the people of the United States, but to the people of other countries. … It was the first instance in the history of nations of the trial of the head of a government before one of the branches of the law-making power, sitting as a judicial tribunal, on charges presented by another. The presiding officer was the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court—the senators of the respective States were the jury—the House of Representatives the prosecutor. The managers to conduct the impeachment for the House were John A. Bingham, George S. Boutwell, James F. Wilson, Benjamin F. Butler, Thomas Williams, Thaddeus Stevens and John A. Logan, all members of the House, all lawyers, and some of them distinguished in the profession. The President entered his appearance by Henry Stanbery, Benjamin K. Curtis, Jeremiah S. Black, William H. Evarts, and Thomas A. K. Nelson. William S. Groesbeck, in the course of the trial, appeared and took part as counsel for the President in place of Mr. Black." The result of the trial was a failure of the Impeachment. The senators who voted "guilty" were 35 in number—being less than two-thirds of the whole—against 19. Of those who voted in the negative, seven were Republicans who had steadily opposed the President's policy; four were Republicans who had adhered to him throughout; eight were Democrats.

In the opinion of Mr. Blaine, "the sober reflection of later years has persuaded many who favored Impeachment that it was not justifiable on the charges made," and that "the President was impeached for one series of misdemeanors, and tried for another series."

      ALSO IN:
      Trial of Andrew Johnson,
      (Published by Order of the Senate), 3 volumes.

Trial of Andrew Johnson,
Congressional Globe, Supplement, 40th Congress, 2d session.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1868 (November).
The Twenty-first Presidential Election.

General Ulysses S. Grant, nominated by the Republican party, was elected President in November 1868, by 3,012,833 votes of the people against 2,703,249 votes cast for Horatio Seymour, ex-Governor of New York, the candidate of the Democratic party. The electoral vote returned and counted was 214 for Grant and 80 for Seymour, who carried the States of New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Georgia, Louisiana, Kentucky, and Oregon. Schuyler Colfax, of Indiana, was elected Vice President, over General Frank P. Blair.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1868-1870.
   Reconstruction complete.
   Restoration of all the Southern States
   to representation in Congress.

"On the 22d of June, 1868, an act was passed, with the following preamble and resolution, for the admission of Arkansas:—'Whereas the people of Arkansas, in pursuance of an act entitled, An act for the more efficient government of the Rebel States, passed March 2, 1867, and the acts supplementary thereto, have framed and adopted a constitution of State government, which is republican, and the legislature of said State has duly ratified the amendment of the Constitution of the United States proposed by the XXXIXth Congress, and known as Article XIV.; Therefore, Be it enacted, etc., that the State of Arkansas is entitled and admitted to representation in Congress, as one of the States of the Union, upon the following fundamental condition.' The 'fundamental condition,' as finally agreed upon, was, 'That there shall never be in said State any denial or abridgment of the elective franchise, or of any other right, to any person by reason or on account of race or color, except Indians not taxed.' The bill was vetoed by the President on the 20th, but passed over the veto on the 22d in the House by the vote of 111 to 31, and in the Senate by a vote of 30 to 7. On the 25th of June a similar act was passed admitting the States of North Carolina, South Carolina, Louisiana, Georgia, Alabama, and Florida, in pursuance of a similar preamble, with the conditions that they should ratify the Fourteenth Amendment, that they should not deprive 'any citizen, or class of citizens of the State of the right to vote by the constitution thereof'; and that no person prohibited from holding office by said Amendment should be 'deemed eligible to any office in either of said States unless relieved from disability as provided in said amendment'; the State of Georgia being also required to declare 'null and void' certain provisions of its constitution, and 'in addition give the assent of said State to the fundamental condition herein before imposed on the same.' The bill passed the House, May 14,—yeas 110, nays 35; in the Senate, June 9,—yeas 31, nays 5. It was vetoed by the President on the 25th, and passed, the same day, by both houses, over the Presidential veto. On the 27th of January, 1870, Virginia was admitted into the Union by a vote, in the House, of 136 to 58; and in the Senate by a vote of 47 to 10. The following were the preamble, oaths, and conditions precedent: 'Whereas the people of Virginia have framed and adopted a constitution of State government which is republican; and whereas the legislature of Virginia, elected under said constitution, has ratified the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States; and whereas the performance of these several acts in good faith is a condition precedent to a representation of the State in Congress,' said State should be admitted to a representation in Congress; with the additional conditions precedent, however, that the constitution should never be so amended as to deprive any class of citizens of the right 'to vote,' 'to hold office,' on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude; neither should there be 'other qualifications' required for such reason; nor should any be deprived of 'school rights or privileges' on such account. On the 3d of February Mississippi was admitted by a bill resembling the former in every particular, by substantially the same vote. On the 30th of March Texas was readmitted to the Union on a bill very similar, though not identical with the above. … By this act of Congress the last of the 'wayward sisters' was brought back and restored to the family of States, and the fractured Union was, outwardly at least, repaired. It was ten years, eight months, and twenty days after South Carolina raised the banner of revolt and led off in 'the dance of death.'"

      H. Wilson,
      History of the Rise and Fall of the Slave Power,
      volume 3, chapter 44.

      ALSO IN:
      S. S. Cox,
      Three Decades of Federal Legislation,
      chapters 27-31.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1868-1876.
The reconstructed government of South Carolina.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1869. Negotiation of the Johnson-Clarendon Treaty and its rejection by the Senate.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1869.
Founding of the Order of Knights of Labor.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1869-1870.
The Fifteenth Constitutional Amendment.

"The great defect of the Fourteenth Amendment, as freely charged during its discussion, was its at least tacit recognition of the right of States to disfranchise the ex-slaves, should they so elect. True, they could not do it without sacrificing so much in the basis of their representation in Congress; but if they were willing to make that sacrifice, there was nothing in the amendment to prevent such discrimination. To remedy that defect … it was resolved to incorporate into the organic law a new provision for their protection, and to supplement the amendments of the Constitution already adopted by another. There were accordingly introduced into both houses, almost simultaneously, measures for that purpose. … In the House, on the 11th of January, 1869, Mr. Boutwell reported from the Committee on the Judiciary a joint resolution proposing an amendment which provided that the right to vote of no citizen should be abridged by the United States or any State by reason of race, color, or previous condition of slavery." The joint resolution was adopted in the House, 150 affirmative to 42 negative votes, on the 30th of January. Adopted in the Senate with amendments, by 39 to 16 votes, it went to a Committee of Conference, on whose report the joint resolution was finally adopted by both Houses on the 25th of February, and submitted for ratification to the legislatures of the States, in the following form:

"Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

"The amendment received the votes of 29 States, constituting the requisite three fourths, and thus became a part of the organic law. On the 30th of March, 1870, President Grant communicated the fact to Congress in a special message."

      H. Wilson,
      History of the Rise and Fall of the Slave Power,
      volume 3, chapter 47.

ALSO IN: J. G. Blaine, Twenty Years of Congress, volume 2, chapters 16 and 19.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1869-1890.
   Recovery of the domination of Whites at the South.
   Suppression of the Colored vote.
   Prosperity of the Southern States.

"Between 1869 and 1876, the whites had in every Southern State except South Carolina, Florida, and Louisiana, regained control of the government, and in 1876 those three States were also recovered. The circumstances were different, according to the character of the population in each State. In some a union of the moderate white Republicans with the Democrats, brought about by the disgust of all property holders at the scandals they saw and at the increase to their burdens as tax-payers, had secured legitimately chosen majorities, and ejected the corrupt officials. In some the same result was attained by paying or otherwise inducing the negroes not to go to the polls, or by driving them away by threats or actual violence. Once possessed again of a voting majority, the whites, all of whom had by 1872 been relieved of their disabilities, took good care, by a variety of devices, legal and extra-legal, to keep that majority safe; and in no State has their control of the government been since shaken. President Hayes withdrew, in 1877, such Federal troops as were still left at the South, and none have ever since been despatched thither. … With the disappearance of the carpet-bag and negro governments, the third era in the political history of the South since the war began. The first had been that of exclusively white suffrage; the second, that of predominantly negro suffrage. In the third, universal suffrage and complete legal equality were soon perceived to mean in practice the full supremacy of the whites. To dislodge the coloured man from his rights was impossible, for they were secured by the Federal Constitution which prevails against all State action. The idea of disturbing them was scarcely entertained. Even at the election of 1872 the Southern Democrats no more expected to repeal the Fifteenth Amendment than the English Tories expected at the election of 1874 to repeal the Irish Church Disestablishment Act of 1869. But the more they despaired of getting rid of the amendment, the more resolved were the Southern people to prevent it from taking any effect which could endanger their supremacy. They did not hate the negro, certainly not half so much as they hated his white leaders by whom they had been robbed. 'We have got,' they said, 'to save civilization,' and if civilization could be saved only by suppressing the coloured vote, they were ready to suppress it. … The modes of suppression have not been the same in all districts and at all times. At first there was a good deal of what is called 'bulldozing,' i. e. rough treatment and terrorism, applied to frighten the coloured men from coming to or voting at the polls. Afterwards, the methods were less harsh. Registrations were so managed as to exclude negro voters, arrangements for polling were contrived in such wise as to lead the voter to the wrong place so that his vote might be refused; and, if the necessity arose, the Republican candidates were counted out, or the election returns tampered with. 'I would stuff a ballot-box,' said a prominent man, 'in order to have a good, honest government;' and he said it in good faith, and with no sense of incongruity. Sometimes the local negro preachers were warned or paid to keep their flocks away. … Notwithstanding these impediments, the negro long maintained the struggle, valuing the vote as the symbol of his freedom, and fearing to be re-enslaved if the Republican party should be defeated. Leaders and organizers were found in the Federal office-holders, of course all Republicans. … After 1884, however, when the presidency of the United States passed to a Democrat, some of these office-holders were replaced by Democrats and the rest became less zealous. … Their friends at the North were exasperated, not without reason, for the gift of suffrage to the negroes had resulted in securing to the South a larger representation in Congress and in presidential elections than it enjoyed before the war, or would have enjoyed had the negroes been left unenfranchised. They argued, and truly, that where the law gives a right, the law ought to secure the exercise thereof; and when the Southern men replied that the negroes were ignorant, they rejoined that all over the country there were myriads of ignorant voters, mostly recent immigrants, whom no one thought of excluding. Accordingly in 1890, having a majority in both Houses of Congress and a President of their own party, the Republican leaders introduced a bill subjecting the control of Federal elections to officers to be appointed by the President, in the hope of thus calling out a full negro vote, five sixths of which would doubtless have gone to their party. The measure appeared to dispassionate observers quite constitutional, and the mischief it was designed to remedy was palpable. … It passed the House, but was dropped in the Senate under the threat of an obstructive resistance by the (then Democratic) minority. Secure, however, as the dominance of the whites seems now to be against either Northern legislation or negro revolt, the Southern people are still uneasy and sensitive on the subject. … This horror of negro supremacy is the only point in which the South cherishes its old feelings. Hostility to the Northern people has almost disappeared. … Just because they felt that they had fought well, they submitted with little resentment, and it has become a proverb among them that the two classes which still cherish bitterness are the two classes that did not fight,—the women and the clergy. … Not, however, till the whites regained control between 1870 and 1876, did the industrial regeneration of the country fairly begin. Two discoveries coincided with that epoch which have had an immense effect in advancing material prosperity, and changing the current of men's thoughts. The first was the exploration of the mineral wealth of the highland core of the country. … The second discovery was that of the possibility of extracting oil from the seeds of the cotton plant, which had formerly been thrown away, or given to hogs to feed on. The production of this oil has swelled to great proportions, making the cultivation of cotton far more profitable. … Most of the crop now raised, which averages eight millions of bales, and in 1894 was expected to exceed ten millions (being more than double that which was raised, almost wholly by slave labour, before the war), is now raised by white farmers; while the mills which spin and weave it into marketable goods are daily increasing and building up fresh industrial communities."

Total population, 38,558,371 (exceeding that of 1860
by 7,115,049), classed and distributed as follows:

North Atlantic division.
White. Black.
Maine. 624,809 1,606
New Hampshire. 317,697 580
Vermont. 329,613 924
Massachusetts. 1,443,156 13,947
Rhode Island. 212,219 4,980
Connecticut. 527,549 9,668
New York. 4,330,210 52,081
New Jersey. 875,407 30,658
Pennsylvania. 3,456,609 65,294

Delaware. 102,221 22,794
Maryland. 605,497 175,391
District of Columbia. 88,278 43,404
Virginia. 712,089 512,841
West Virginia. 424,033 17,980
North Carolina. 678,470 391,650
South Carolina. 289,667 415,814
Georgia. 638,926 545,142
Florida. 96,057 91,689

Ohio. 2,601,946 63,213
Indiana. 1,655,837 24,560
Illinois. 2,511,096 28,762
Michigan. 1,167,282 11,849
Wisconsin. 1,051,351 2,113
Minnesota. 438,257 759
Iowa. 1,188,207 5,762
Missouri. 1,603,146 118,071
Dakota. 12,887 94
Nebraska. 122,117 789
Kansas. 346,377 17,108

Kentucky. 1,098,692 222,210
Tennessee. 936,119 322,331
Alabama. 521,384 475,510
Mississippi. 382,896 444,201
Louisiana. 362,065 364,210
Texas. 564,700 253,475
Arkansas. 362,115 122,169

Western division.
Montana. 18,306 183
Wyoming. 8,726 183
Colorado. 39,221 456
New Mexico. 90,393 172
Arizona. 9,581 26
Utah. 86,044 118
Nevada. 38,959 357
Idaho. 10,618 60
Washington. 22,195 207
Oregon. 86,929 346
California. 499,424 4,272

In addition the census shows 63,199 Chinese, 65 Japanese, and 25,731 civilized Indians, making a total of 38,558,371, as stated above. In the decade preceding this census the immigrant arrivals numbered 2,466,752, of which 1,106,970 were from the British Islands, and 1,073,429 from other parts of Europe.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1871.
   Renewed Negotiations with Great Britain.
   The Joint High Commission, the Treaty of Washington
   and the Geneva Award.

At the extra session of Congress, which met March 4, 1871 a sweeping Act was passed to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment. "This Act allowed suit in Federal courts by the party injured against any person who should in any way deprive another of the rights of a citizen; it made it a penal offence to conspire to take away from any person the rights of a citizen; it provided that inability, neglect, or refusal by any State to suppress such conspiracy, to protect the rights of its citizens, or to call upon the President for aid, should be 'deemed a denial by such State of the equal protection of the laws' under the XIVth Amendment; it declared such conspiracies, if not suppressed by the authorities, 'a rebellion against the Government of the United States'; it authorized the President, 'when in his judgment the public safety shall require it,' to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in any district, and suppress the insurrection by means of the army and navy; and it excluded from the jury-box any person 'who shall, in the judgment of the court, be in complicity with any such combination or conspiracy.' The authority to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus was to cease after the end of the next regular Session of Congress."

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1872.
Decision of the San Juan Water Boundary Question
by the Emperor of Germany.

   The leading candidates for President in 1872 were General
   Grant, nominated for re-election by the main body of the
   Republican Party, and Horace Greeley, of New York, put forward
   by a revolted section of that party and accepted and supported
   by the Democratic Party. "In 1870 the Republican party in
   Missouri had split into two parts. The 'Radical' wing wished
   to maintain for the present the disqualifications imposed on
   the late rebels by the State Constitution during the war; the
   'Liberal' wing, headed by B. Gratz Brown and Carl Schurz,
   wished to abolish these disqualifications and substitute
   'universal amnesty and universal enfranchisement.' Supported
   by the Democrats, the Liberal Republicans carried the State,
   though opposed by the Federal office-holders and the influence
   of the Administration. This success stimulated a reaction in
   the National Republican party, many of whose members believed
   that the powers of the Federal Government over the local
   concerns of the States had already been enforced up to or
   beyond constitutional limits, that the various enforcement
   Acts were designed rather for the political advancement of
   President Grant's personal adherents than for the benefit of
   the country, the freedmen, or even of the Republican party;
   and that the efforts to police the Southern States by the
   force of the Federal Government ought to cease.
{3574}
   In the spring of 1871 the Liberal Republicans and Democrats of
   Ohio began to show symptoms of common feeling on these
   subjects, and during the summer the 'Liberal' movement
   continued to develop within the Republican party. January
   24th, 1872, the Missouri Liberals issued a call for a National
   Convention at Cincinnati in the following May." At the meeting
   in Cincinnati the Liberal Republican Convention nominated
   Horace Greeley for President, and B. Gratz Brown for Vice
   President. The Democratic National Convention which met at
   Baltimore, June 9th, adopted these candidates, with the
   "platform" on which they were nominated. "A few recalcitrant
   Democrats met at Louisville, Kentucky, September 3d, and
   nominated Charles O'Conor, of New York, and John Quincy Adams,
   of Massachusetts."

The Prohibitionists put in nomination James Black, of Pennsylvania, for President, and John Russell, of Michigan, for Vice President. The Republican nominee for Vice President, on the ticket with General Grant, was Henry Wilson, of Massachusetts. The popular vote cast was 3,585,444, or 3,597,132, for Grant, and 2,843,563, or 2,834,125 for Greeley (according to the return that may be counted from Louisiana, where two rival returning boards disputed authority with one another); 29,489 for O'Conor and 5,608 for Black. Mr. Greeley died on the 29th of November, 1872, before the electoral colleges cast their vote, the consequence being that the Democratic votes in the colleges were scattered. The following is the electoral vote for President as counted by Congress: Grant, 286; Thomas A. Hendricks, 42; B. Gratz Brown 18; Charles J. Jenkins 2; David Davis, 1. The votes of Louisiana and Arkansas were rejected, as were three votes cast in Georgia for Horace Greeley, deceased.

"We have heard a great deal in later years about the surreptitious demonetization of silver in 1873. There was, however, vastly too much criticism wasted on the act of 1873; for the real demonetization of silver in the United States was accomplished in 1853. It was not the result of accident; it was a carefully considered plan, deliberately carried into legislation in 1853, twenty years before its nominal demonetization by the act of 1873. … In 1853 the single standard was gold. This was a situation which no one rebelled against. Indeed, no one seemed to regard it as anything else than good fortune (except so far as the subsidiary coins had disappeared). … In the debates it was proposed that, as the cause of the change in the relative values of gold and silver was the increased product of gold, the proper remedy should be to increase the quantity of gold in the gold coins. … There was no discussion as to how a readjustment of the ratio between the two metals might be reached, for it was already decided that only one metal was to be retained. This decision, consequently, carried us to a point where the ratio between the two metals was not of the slightest concern. And so it remained. The United States had no thought about the ratios between gold and silver thereafter until the extraordinary fall in the value of silver in 1876. … In the provisions of the act of 1853 nothing whatever was said as to the silver dollar-piece. It had entirely disappeared from circulation years before, and acquiescence in its absence was everywhere found. No attempt whatever was thereafter made to change the legal ratio, in order that both metals might again be brought into concurrent circulation. Having enough gold, the country did not care for silver. … In 1873 we find a simple legal recognition of that which had been the immediate result of the act of 1853, and which had been an admitted fact in the history of our coinage during the preceding twenty years. In 1853 it had been agreed to accept the situation by which we had come to have gold for large payments, and to relegate silver to a limited service in the subsidiary coins. The act of 1873, however, dropped the dollar piece out of the list of silver coins. In discontinuing the coinage of the silver dollar, the act of 1873 thereby simply recognized a fact which had been obvious to everybody since 1849. It did not introduce anything new, or begin a new policy. Whatever is to be said about the demonetization of silver as a fact must center in the act of 1853. Silver was not driven out of circulation by the act of 1873, which omitted the dollar of 412½ grains, since it had not been in circulation for more than twenty-five years. … The act of February 12, 1873, is known as the act which demonetized the silver dollar. Important consequences have been attached to it, and it has even been absurdly charged that the law was the cause of the commercial crisis of September, 1873. As if a law which made no changes in the actual metallic standard in use, and which had been in use thus for more than twenty' years, had produced a financial disaster in seven months! To any one who knows of the influence of credit and speculation, or who has followed the course of our foreign trade since the Civil War, such a theory is too absurd to receive more than passing mention. To the year 1873 there had been coined of 412½-grain dollars for purposes of circulation, only $1,439,457, and these were coined before 1806."

J. L. Laughlin, History of Bimetallism in the United States, part 1, chapters 5 and 7.

"The panic of 1873 differed very materially from the other great panics by which this country has been afflicted. Lack of capital was the main difficulty in 1837 and 1857. Population had increased so rapidly that millions of human beings were out of work, and apprehension spread lest there might not be food enough to go around. In 1873, however, men were well employed. Business of all kinds was in excellent condition, and no one doubted for a moment that there would be plenty for every man to eat. The excellent condition of trade, in fact, was the chief factor in the panic of 1873. Everyone was busy, and wanted money with which to carry on his trade. For two years before the crash, money had been in great demand. {3575} Railroads had recently been built to an extent such as this country had never known before. Whereas, in 1861, railroad construction amounted to only 651 miles, in 1871 it reached the then unprecedented figure of 7,779 miles. This new mileage, moreover, was mainly in the West, where the immediate remuneration was but slight. Railroads were being pushed forward into regions which could not be expected to return an income for twenty years. The cost of railroad construction in this country during the five years preceding September, 1873, was estimated by the Comptroller of the Currency at no less than $1,700,000,000. The money to pay for this extravagant building was obtained, not from the earnings of the old portions of the road, but from enormous issues of railroad bonds, placed to a large extent among the banks of this country, but still more among the capitalists of Europe. In the Northern Pacific Company occurred the most flagrant abuse of railroad credit the world has ever known. … One after another of the Western roads defaulted in paying the interest on its bonds. The result was, that, by the summer of 1873, the market for new issues of railroad bonds had practically disappeared. Meantime the banks and bankers of New York were loaded down with railroad paper. The railroads had borrowed money for short periods in the expectation that before their notes fell due they would have raised the money to make payment by the sale of bonds. A temporary relief was felt, in June, 1873, through the customary midsummer ease in money. But this temporary respite only made the difficulty worse. Deluded by the momentary calm, the New York banks added still further to their loans. … The year before, money had grown tight early in September, and the more cautious banks began gradually to call their loans, fearing that the experience of 1872 might be renewed. But the rates for money did not noticeably increase, and the only cause for excitement early in the month was the failure, on September 8, of the Mercantile Warehouse and Security Company, owing to advances on bonds of the Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railroad. This was followed, on the 13th, by the failure of Kenyon Cox & Co., of which firm Daniel Drew was a member, caused by loans to the Canada Southern Railroad. By this time the sky was heavily overcast. Money was now advancing rapidly, the New York banks were calling loans on every hand, and new loans on railroad paper were scarcely to be had at all. Suddenly, on the 18th of September, the tempest burst. On the morning of that dark day, Jay Cooke, the agent of the U. S. Government, with some four millions of deposits from all parts of the country, and his fifteen millions of Northern Pacific paper, declared his inability to meet his debts. The report flew down 'the street' with the ferocity of a cyclone. Railroad shares were thrown upon the market by the bushel, in utter disregard of their intrinsic value. … Stock brokers continued to announce their failures all day long. Nothing seemed able to withstand the shock, and when, on September 19, the great banking house of Fisk & Hatch went under, terror became universal. A run was started on the Union Trust Co., which was believed to have close intimacy with Vanderbilt's railroads, and on the Fourth National Bank, whose dealings were largely with Wall street brokers. The panic, was by this time so general that the banks began to refuse one another's certified checks, and on the 20th a considerable number of the New York banks suspended payment. On that day the Union Trust Co., the National Trust Co., and the National Bank of the Commonwealth all closed their doors. At 11 o'clock on the 20th, the New York Stock Exchange, for the first time in its history, closed its doors, and the Governing Committee announced that the board would not be opened till further notice. This high-handed measure caused an outcry for the moment, but on calmer judgment it was generally conceded that the measure was a good one. On the evening of that Saturday, September 20, the Clearing House Association met and adopted a plan similar to that adopted in the panic of 1857, and in substance this: Any bank in the Clearing House Association might deposit with a committee of five persons, to be appointed for that purpose, an amount of its bills receivable, or other securities to be approved by the committee, and the committee were then to issue to that bank certificates of deposit, bearing interest at 5 per cent. per annum, to an amount not exceeding 75 per cent. of the securities or bills receivable so deposited. These certificates could be used in settlement of balances at the Clearing House for a period not to extend beyond the 1st of the following November, and they were to be received by creditor banks during that period daily, in the proportion which they bore to the aggregate amount of the debtor balances paid at the Clearing House. The amount of certificates should not exceed $10,000,000. The legal tenders belonging to the associated banks were to be considered and treated as a common fund held for mutual aid and protection, and the committee were given power to equalize the same by assessment or otherwise in their discretion. This scheme, simple as it was, proved of the utmost efficacy in mitigating the evils that must always follow a distrust among banks. The lull occasioned by the intervening Sunday was employed by President Grant and Secretary of the Treasury Richardson in a visit to New York. All day long they gave audience to business men at the Fifth Avenue Hotel. Suggestions of every description were offered as a remedy for the disease. The most feasible proposition, and that which was finally adopted, was the purchase of Government bonds. … Shortly after his return from the Fifth Avenue Hotel, Secretary Richardson announced his intention to buy Government bonds, and, in a few days, $13,000,000 of the U. S. greenbacks were thus absorbed. … On Tuesday, September 30, the Stock Exchange was once more opened. It was expected on all hands that this would be the signal for another onslaught. But so general was this expectation that most persons refrained for the moment from offering their stocks. As a result, the market opened a trifle higher than it had closed ten days before. It continued to advance, moreover, till October 7. On that day a new decline set in, and on October 14 came a fearful drop, which carried prices lower than on September 20. From this reaction there was a gradual improvement till October 31, when the failure of Hoyt, Sprague & Co., the great mill owners of Providence and New York, once more shook the market and brought stocks, on October 31 and November 1, to the lowest prices of the year. {3576} With those prices it became manifest that the panic had reached its end. Money had already begun to flow to New York both from Europe and from the West, and the public, tempted by the excessive decline in stocks, began to purchase freely. The result was a steady though gradual improvement through the remainder of the year."

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1875. The second Civil Rights Bill and its declared unconstitutionality.

"Congress, to give full effect to the fourteenth amendment to the federal Constitution, passed an act in 1875, which provided that all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, and privileges of inns, public conveyances on land and water, theatres and other places of public amusement, subject only to the conditions and limitations established by law, and applicable alike to citizens of every race and color, regardless of any previous condition of servitude. … In 1883 the act was held unconstitutional. The Fourteenth Amendment, says Bradley, J., does not 'invest Congress with power to legislate upon subjects which are within the domain of State legislation, but to provide modes of relief against State legislation or State action of the kinds referred to. It does not authorize Congress to create a code of municipal law for the regulation of private rights; but to provide modes of redress against the operation of State laws and the action of State officers, executive and judicial, when these are subversive of the fundamental rights specified in the amendment.' Civil Rights Cases, 109 United States 3."

      T. M. Cooley,
      Constitutional Limitations which rest upon the
      Legislative Power of the States, 6th edition,
      pages 733-734 and foot-note.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1876.
   The Sioux War.
   Battle of Little Big Horn.
   Death of General Custer.

Hostilities with a powerful confederation of Sioux or Dakota tribes of Indians, in the northwest, were brought about, in the spring of 1876, by gold discoveries in the Black Hills and the consequent rush of miners into the Indian reservation. To subdue the hostile Indians, three military expeditions were set in motion,—from Fort Fetterman, under General Crook, from Fort Ellis, in Montana, under General Gibbon, and from Bismarck, in Dakota, under General Terry. These were to converge on the upper waters of the Yellowstone, where Sitting Bull, the able chief of the Sioux, and his camp, in the valley of the small stream commonly known as the Little Big Horn. The Sioux warrior used the advantages of his central position like a Napoleon, striking his assailants in turn, as they came near, with far stronger forces than they knew him to possess. Crook was forced back; Gibbon was brought to a halt. Terry came last on the ground. His command included the famous Seventh Cavalry,—the regiment of General Custer. In ignorance of the surprising number of braves which Sitting Bull had collected, Custer was sent to make a detour and attack the Indian camp from the rear. Doing so, on the 25th of June, he rode into a death trap. Five companies of the regiment, with its heroic commander at their head, were surrounded so overwhelmingly that not one man escaped. The remaining seven companies were too far from the others to cooperate in the attack. They fortified a bluff and held their ground until the 27th, when Terry and Gibbon came to their relief. The Indians retreated toward the mountains. The campaign was soon resumed, and prosecuted through the fall and winter, until Sitting Bull and some of his followers fled into British America and the remaining hostiles surrendered.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1876.
The Centennial Exhibition at Philadelphia.

In 1871, the Congress of the United States passed an act to provide for the commemoration, in 1876, of the centennial anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, by holding an exhibition, at Philadelphia, "of American and foreign arts, products, and manufactures." The act created a commission, composed of one delegate from each state and territory of the United States, to which commission was committed the "exclusive control" of the contemplated exhibition; though the State of Pennsylvania was required to make provision for the erection of suitable buildings. "To the surprise of those writers who had contended that there would be no exhibits from abroad,' there was shown a universal desire on the part of all nations to co-operate liberally in the World's Fair of 1876. These different governments appropriated large sums of money, selected as commissioners men of the highest standing, loaned to the exhibition their most valuable works of art, and in every sense indicated a desire on the part of the Old World to forget the past and to unite itself closely with the future of the New. Singular as it may seem, there was no disposition on the part of Congress to facilitate and aid in carrying out this grand enterprise. The money had to be raised by private subscription, from all sections of the United States, and it was only by a determined and persistent effort with Congress that at last a government loan was secured of $1,500,000, which loan has been called up by the government and repaid since that time. The City of Philadelphia appropriated $1,000,000 and the State of Pennsylvania $1,500,000, and all other states, notably New Jersey, Delaware, Connecticut, New Hampshire, etc., subscribed to the stock issued by the Centennial Board of Finance. In 1873, the location so well known as Fairmount Park was selected for the exposition, and immediate possession given by the City of Philadelphia, free from all expense or charge, and who also liberally contributed to the success of the World's Fair 1876 by the erection of two magnificent bridges over the Schuylkill at a cost of over $2,500,000, in addition to the various improvements made in Fairmount Park. … The total number of exhibitors at the World's Fair 1876 was estimated at 30,864, the United States heading the list with 8,175; Spain and her colonies, 3,822; Great Britain and colonies, 3,584; and Portugal, 2,462. …

The exhibition opened on the 10th of May, 1876, and from that time until November 10, 1876, there were admitted a grand total of 9,910,966 persons, of whom 8,004,274 paid admission fees amounting to $3,813,724.49."

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1876-1877.
The Twenty-third Presidential Election and its disputed result.
The Electoral Commission.

Four candidates for the Presidency were named and voted for by as many different parties in 1876, although the contest of the election was practically between the Republicans and Democrats, as in previous years. The former, after a prolonged struggle of rival factions, put in nomination ex-Governor Rutherford B. Hayes, of Ohio, with William A. Wheeler, of New York, for Vice President. The candidates of the Democratic party were ex-Governor Samuel J. Tilden, of New York, for President, and Thomas A. Hendricks, of Indiana, for Vice President. Before these nominations were made, the Prohibition Reform party and the party calling itself the Independent, but popularly known as the "Greenback party," had already brought candidates into the field. The first named put Green Clay Smith, of Kentucky and G. T. Stewart, of Ohio, in nomination; the nominees of the last named were Peter Cooper, of New York, and Samuel F. Cary, of Ohio. "Thirty-eight States participated in the election. Colorado had been admitted to the Union in August, 1876, and, in order to save an additional election, the choice of electors for that occasion was conferred upon the legislature. All the other States appointed them by popular vote. The polls had hardly closed on the day of election, the 7th of November, when the Democrats began to claim the presidency. The returns came in so unfavorably for the Republicans that there was hardly a newspaper organ of the party which did not, on the following morning, concede the election of Mr. Tilden. He was believed to have carried every Southern State, as well as New York, Indiana, New Jersey, and Connecticut. The whole number of electoral votes was 369. If the above estimate were correct, the Democratic candidates would have 203 votes, and the Republican candidates 166 votes. But word was sent out on the same day from Republican headquarters at Washington that Hayes and Wheeler were elected by one majority; that the States of South Carolina, Florida, and Louisiana had chosen Republican electors. Then began the most extraordinary contest that ever took place in the country. The only hope of the Republicans was in the perfect defence of their position. The loss of a single vote would be fatal. An adequate history of the four months between the popular election and the inauguration of Mr. Hayes, would fill volumes. Space can be given here for only a bare reference to some of the most important events. Neither party was over-scrupulous, and no doubt the acts of some members of each party were grossly illegal and corrupt. … In four States, South Carolina, Florida, Louisiana, and Oregon, there were double returns. In South Carolina there were loud complaints that detachments of the army, stationed near the polls, had prevented a fair and free election. Although the board of State canvassers certified to the choice of the Hayes electors, who were chosen on the face of the returns, the Democratic candidates for electors met on the day fixed for the meeting of electors and cast ballots for Tilden and Hendricks. In Florida there were allegations of fraud on both sides. The canvassing board and the governor certified to the election of the Hayes electors, but, fortified by a court decision in their favor, the Democratic electors also met and voted. In Louisiana there was anarchy. There were two governors, two returning boards, two sets of returns showing different results, and two electoral colleges. In Oregon the Democratic governor adjudged one of the Republican electors ineligible, and gave a certificate to the highest candidate on the Democratic list. The Republican electors, having no certificate from the governor, met and voted for Hayes and Wheeler. The Democratic elector, whose appointment was certified to by the governor, appointed two others to fill the vacancies, when the two Republican electors would not meet with him, and the three voted for Tilden and Hendricks. All of these cases were very complicated in their incidents, and a brief account which should convey an intelligible idea of what occurred is impossible. … Thus, for the first and only time in the history of the country, the election ended in such a way as to leave the result in actual doubt, and in two States the number of legal votes given for the electors was in dispute. … As soon as the electoral votes were cast it became a question of the very first importance how they were to be counted. It was evident that the Senate would refuse to be governed by the 22nd joint rule [under which no electoral vote to which any member of either House objected could be counted unless both Houses agreed to the counting of it]—in fact the Senate voted to rescind the rule,—and it was further evident that if the count were to take place in accordance with that rule it would result in throwing out electoral votes on both sides on the most frivolous pretexts. It was asserted by the Republicans that, under the Constitution, the President of the Senate alone had the right to count, in spite of the fact that the joint rule, the work of their party, had assumed the power for the two Houses of Congress. On the other hand, the Democrats, who had always denounced that rule as unconstitutional, now maintained that the right to count was conferred upon Congress. A compromise became necessary, and the moderate men on both sides determined to effect the establishment of a tribunal, as evenly divided politically as might be, which should decide all disputed questions so far as the Constitution gave authority to Congress to decide them. The outcome of their efforts was the Electoral Commission law of 1877," by which a Commission was created, consisting of fifteen members—the Senate appointing five from its own body, the House five, and four Associate-Justices of the Supreme Court, designated in the bill, appointing a fifth from the same court. The Senators selected were Edmunds, Morton, Frelinghuysen (Republicans), and Thurman and Bayard (Democrats). The Representatives were Payne, Hunton, Abbott (Democrats), and Garfield and Hoar (Republicans). The four Supreme Court Justices designated by the Act were Clifford, Field (Democrats), Strong and Miller (Republicans). They selected for the fifth member of the Commission Justice Bradley, who was a Republican. {3578} "The natural choice of the justices would have been their associate, David Davis; but he had been ejected only five days before as senator from Illinois, and it was regarded by him and by others as improper that he should serve. Thus the commission consisted of eight Republicans and seven Democrats. If Judge Davis had been selected, there would have been only seven Republicans, and the result of the operation of the law might have been different. … The count had begun on the first day of February, and the final vote upon Wisconsin was not reached until the early morning of March 2. As question after question was decided uniformly in favor of the Republicans, it became evident to the Democrats that their case was lost. They charged gross partisanship upon the Republican members of the Electoral Commission, in determining every point involved in the dual returns for their own party, though as a matter of fact there does not seem to have been much room for choice between the two parties on the score of partisanship. Each member of the commission favored by his vote that view which would result in adding to the electoral vote of his own party. But as the result of the count became more and more certainly a Republican triumph, the anger of the Democrats arose. Some of them were for discontinuing the count; and the symptoms of a disposition to filibuster so that there should be no declaration of the result gave reason for public disquietude. But the conservative members of the party were too patriotic to allow the failure of a law which they had been instrumental in passing to lead to anarchy or revolution, and they sternly discountenanced all attempts to defeat the conclusion of the count. The summing up of the votes [Hayes, 185; Tilden, 184], was read by Mr. Allison of Iowa, one of the tellers on the part of the Senate, at a little after four o'clock, on the morning of the 2d of March, amid great excitement. … Mr. Ferry thereupon declared Rutherford B. Hayes elected President, and William A. Wheeler Vice-President, of the United States. The decision was acquiesced in peaceably by the whole country, and by men of every party. But the Democrats have never ceased to denounce the whole affair as a fraud. … It is to be hoped that the patriotism of the American people and their love of peace may never again be put to such a severe test as was that of 1876 and 1877." According to the Democratic count, the popular vote stood: Tilden, 4,300,590; Hayes, 4,036,298; Cooper, 81,737; Smith, 9,522. The Republican count gave: Tilden, 4,285,992; Hayes, 4,033,768.

The Farmers' Alliance "is the outcome of a movement which first culminated, shortly after the Civil War had ended, in the formation of the Patrons of Husbandry, or, as they were more commonly called, 'The Grange,' the object of which organization was the mutual protection of farmers against the encroachments of capital. The collapse of the Grange was due to a mistake it had made in not limiting its membership originally to those whose interests were agricultural. The first 'Alliance' was formed in Texas, to oppose the wholesale buying up of the public lands by private individuals. … For about ten years the Alliance remained a Southern organization. In 1887, about ten years after the first local Alliance in Texas was formed, and five after the State Alliance, the 'Farmers' Union' of Louisiana united with it, under the name of the 'Farmers' Alliance and Co-operative Union of America.' Branches were quickly established," in other Southern States. "Later in the same year, the 'Agricultural Wheel,' a similar society operating in the States of Arkansas, Missouri, Kentucky, and Tennessee, was amalgamated with the Alliance, the new organization being called 'The Farmers' and Laborers' Union of America.' The spirit of the movement had simultaneously been embodied in the 'National Farmers' Alliance' of Illinois, which was started in 1877, and quickly extended into Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Kansas, and Dakota. A minor organization, the 'Farmers' Mutual Benefit Association,' was started in 1887, in the southern part of Illinois. Finally, in 1889, at a meeting held in St. Louis, these different bodies were all practically formed into a union for political purposes, aiming at legislation in the interests of farmers and laborers; and the present name of the 'Farmers' Alliance and Industrial Union' was chosen. … Its main professed object is the destruction of the money power in public affairs, and the opposition of all forms of monopoly. It demands the substitution of legal tender treasury notes for National bank notes; also an extension of the public currency sufficient for the transaction of all legitimate business; the money to be given to the people on security of their land, at the lowest rates consistent with the cost of making and handling it. It demands government control, not only of money, but of the means of transportation and every other public function."

      ALSO IN:
      F. M. Drew,
      The Present Farmers' Movement
      (Political Science Quarterly, June, 1891).

   The act familiarly known as the Bland Bill was passed by
   Congress in 1878. "Although the silver dollar of which the
   coinage was resumed in 1878 dates back as a coin to the
   earlier days of the Republic, its reissue in that year marks a
   policy so radically new that the experience of previous years
   throws practically no light on its working. The act of 1878
   provided for the purchase by the government, each month, of
   not less than two million dollars' worth, and not more than
   four million dollars' worth, of silver bullion, for coinage
   into silver dollars at the rate of 412½ grains of standard
   silver (or 371¼ grains of fine silver) for each dollar. The
   amount of the purchases, within the specified limits, was left
   to the discretion of the Secretary of the Treasury. As every
   Secretary of the Treasury, throughout the period in which the
   act was in force, kept to the minimum amount, the practical
   result was a monthly purchase of two million dollars' worth of
   silver bullion. The act is sometimes described as having
   called for a monthly issue of two million silver dollars; but
   this was not the exact situation.
{3579}
   The amount of silver obtainable with two million dollars
   obviously varies according to the price of the metal in terms
   of the dollars with which the purchases are made. In February,
   1878, when the first purchases were made, those dollars were
   the inconvertible United States notes, or greenbacks, worth
   something less than their face in gold. … When specie payments
   were resumed, on the first of January, 1879, and the
   greenbacks became redeemable in gold, the measure of value in
   the United States became gold, and the extent of the coinage
   of silver dollars under the act of 1878 became simply a
   question of how much silver bullion could be bought with two
   million dollars of gold. The price of silver in 1878 was, in
   terms of gold, not far from a dollar for an ounce of standard
   silver. After 1878 it went down almost steadily. … The silver
   dollar of 412½ grains contains less than an ounce (480 grains)
   of standard silver. The monthly purchase of two million
   dollars' worth of silver therefore yielded more than two
   million silver dollars, the amount being obviously greater as
   the price of silver went lower. On the average, the monthly
   yield was not far from two and a half millions of silver
   dollars. So much each month, therefore, or thirty millions of
   silver dollars a year, was roughly the addition to the
   currency of the community from the act of 1878. An important
   provision of the act of 1878 was that authorizing the issue of
   silver certificates against the deposit of silver dollars. …
   The dollars and certificates between them constitute what we
   may call the silver currency of the act of 1878. The passage
   of that act was due to causes easily described. It was part of
   the opposition to the contraction of the currency and the
   resumption of specie payments, which forms the most important
   episode of our financial history between 1867 and 1879. … No
   doubt some additional force was given to the movement in favor
   of the use of silver from the desire of the silver-mining
   States and their representatives, that the price of the metal
   should be kept up through a larger use of it for coinage. But
   this element, while sometimes prominent in the agitation, was
   not then, as it has not been in more recent years, of any
   great importance by itself. The real strength of the agitation
   for the wider use of silver as money comes from the conviction
   of large masses of the people that the community has not
   enough money."

For the twenty-fourth Presidential election, in 1880, the Republicans, meeting at Chicago, June 2, named General James A. Garfield, of Ohio, as its candidate for President and Chester A. Arthur, of New York, for Vice President. The so-called Greenback party (which had appeared four years before, in the election of 1876), meeting at Chicago on the 9th of June, put in nomination, for President, James B. Weaver of Iowa, and, for Vice President, B. J. Chambers, of Texas. The main object and principle of the Greenback party was set forth in the following declarations of its platform: "That the right to make and issue money is a sovereign power to be maintained by the people for the common benefit. The delegation of this right to corporations is a surrender of the central attribute of sovereignty. … All money, whether metallic or paper, should be issued and its volume controlled by the government, and not by or through banking corporations, and, when so issued, should be a full legal tender for all debts, public and private. … Legal tender currency [the greenback notes of the civil-war period] should be substituted for the notes of the national banks, the national banking system abolished, and the unlimited coinage of silver, as well as gold, established by law." The Prohibitionists (Temperance), in convention at Cleveland, June 17, nominated Neal Dow, of Maine, for President, and A. M. Thompson, of Ohio, for Vice President. On the 22d of June, at Cincinnati, the Democratic party held its convention and nominated General Winfield S. Hancock, of Pennsylvania, for President, and William H. English, of Indiana, for Vice President. At the election, in November, the popular vote cast was 4,454,416 for Garfield, 4,444,952 for Hancock, 308,578 for Weaver, and 10,305 for Dow. The electoral votes were divided between Garfield and Hancock, being 214 for the former and 155 for the latter. Every former slave-state was carried by the Democratic party, together with New Jersey, California and Nevada.

Total population, 50,155,783 (exceeding that of 1870 by
11,5117,412), classed and distributed as follows:

White. Black.
Maine. 646,852 1,451
New Hampshire. 346,229 685
Vermont. 331,218 1,057
Massachusetts. 1,763,782 18,697
Rhode Island. 269,939 6,488
Connecticut. 610,769 11,547
New York. 5,016,022 65,104
New Jersey. 1,092,017 38,853
Pennsylvania. 4,197,016 85,535

South Atlantic division.
Delaware. 120,160 26,442
Maryland. 724,693 210,230
District of Columbia. 118,006 59,596
Virginia. 880,858 631,616
West Virginia. 592,537 25,886
North Carolina. 867,242 531,277
South Carolina. 391,105 604,332
Georgia. 816,906 725,133
Florida. 142,605 126,690

North Central division.
Ohio. 3,117,920 79,900
Indiana. 1,938,798 39,228
Illinois. 3,031,151 46,368
Michigan. 1,614,560 15,100
Wisconsin. 1,309,618 2,702
Minnesota. 776,884 1,564
Iowa. 1,614,600 9,516
Missouri. 2,022,826 145,350
Dakota. 133,147 401
Nebraska. 449,764 2,385
Kansas. 952,155 43,107

South Central division.
White. Black.
Kentucky. 1,377,179 271,451
Tennessee. 1,138,831 403,151
Alabama. 662,185 600,103
Mississippi. 479,398 650,291
Louisiana. 454,954 483,655
Texas. 1,197,237 393,384
Arkansas. 591,531 210,666

Montana. 35,385 346
Wyoming. 19,437 298
Colorado. 191,126 2,435
New Mexico. 108,721 1,015
Arizona. 35,160 155
Utah. 142,423 232
Nevada. 53,556 488
Idaho. 29,013 53
Washington. 67,199 325
Oregon. 163,075 487
California. 767,181 6,018

In addition the census shows 105,465 Chinese, 148 Japanese, and 66,407 civilized Indians, making a total of 50,155,783, as stated above. The immigrants arriving in the country during the preceding ten years numbered 2,944,695, of whom 989,163 were from the British Islands and 1,357,801 from other parts of Europe.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1881.
The brief administration of President Garfield.
His assassination.

"President Hayes had left the new administration a heritage of hatred from the Stalwart element of the Republican party. It was President Garfield's chief wish, politically, to heal up the chasm which the past had opened, and not to recognize one faction more than another. … The defeat of the Stalwarts at Chicago, by Garfield, naturally tended to transfer their hostility from the outgoing to the incoming President."

"For months before the inauguration, the embarrassment which threatened Garfield was foreseen by the country." The inevitable outbreak of hostilities occurred the moment that the President made a nomination in New York which was distasteful to the arrogant Senator from that State, Roscoe Conkling, who imperiously led the Stalwart forces. This happened upon the presentation of the name of William H. Robertson for Collector of the Port of New York. In order to force a division in the Republican party upon the quarrel between himself and President Garfield, Senator Conkling resigned his seat in the Senate of the United States and presented himself to the Legislature of New York as a candidate for re-election. He counted, without doubt, upon an easy triumph, expecting to be returned to Washington, bearing the mandate of his party, so to speak, and humbling the President into submissive obedience to his behests. He was disappointed; his re-election was defeated; but the furious contest which went on during some weeks, engendered bitter passions, which had their effect, no doubt, in producing the awful tragedy that soon ensued. By the end of June the clamor of the strife had greatly subsided; the Senate had adjourned, and the weary President made ready to join Mrs. Garfield at Long Branch, where she was just recovering from a serious illness. "On the morning of the 2d of July … the President made ready to put his purpose into execution. Several members of the Cabinet, headed by Secretary Blaine, were to accompany him to Long Branch. A few ladies, personal friends of the President's family, and one of his sons, were of the company; and as the hour for departure drew near they gathered at the depot of the Baltimore and Potomac Railway to await the train. The President and Secretary Blaine were somewhat later than the rest. … When the carriage arrived at the station at half-past nine o'clock, the President and Mr. Blaine left it and entered the ladies' waiting-room, which they passed through arm in arm. A moment afterwards, as they were passing through the door into the main room, two pistol shots suddenly rang out upon the air. Mr. Blaine saw a man running, and started toward him, but turned almost immediately and saw that the President had fallen. It was instantly realized that the shots had been directed with fatal accuracy at the beloved President. Mr. Blaine sprang toward him, as did several others, and raised his head from the floor. … A moment after the assassin was discovered … and, in the middle of B Street, just outside of the depot, was seized by the policemen and disarmed. A pistol of very heavy caliber was wrenched out of his hand, and it became clear that a large ball had entered the President's body. The assassin gave his name as Charles Jules Guiteau. … [He] was found to be a mixture of fool and fanatic, who, in his previous career, had managed to build up, on a basis of total depravity, a considerable degree of scholarship. He was a lawyer by profession, and had made a pretense of practicing in several places—more particularly in Chicago. … In the previous spring, about the time of the inauguration, he had gone to Washington to advance a claim to be Consul-General at Paris. … Hanging about the Executive Mansion and the Department of State for several weeks, he seemed to have conceived an intense hatred of the President, and to have determined on the commission of the crime." The wounded President lingered for eighty days, during which long period of suffering there were many alternations of hope and fear in his case. He died on the 19th of September. His assassin was tried and executed for the crime, though much doubt of his sanity exists. The Vice-President, Chester A. Arthur, became President for the remainder of the term.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1882.
Passage of the Edmunds Bill, to suppress Polygamy in Utah.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1883.
Passage of the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Bill.

   "The month of May, 1884, concludes the prosperous period which
   followed the crisis of 1873. During this period the most
   gigantic speculations in railroads occurred; the zenith of the
   movement was in 1880, and as early as 1881 a retrograde
   movement began, only to end in the disasters in question. The
   decline in prices had been steady for three years; they had
   sunk little by little under the influence of a ruinous
   competition, caused by the number of new lines and the
   lowering of rates, but above all through the manipulations by
   the managers on a scale unexampled until now.
{3581}
   In connection with the disasters of May, 1884, the names of
   certain speculators who misused other people's money, such as
   Ward, of Grant & Ward; Fish, President of the Marine Bank; and
   John C. Eno, of the Second National Bank, will long be
   remembered. General Grant, who was a silent partner in Ward's
   concern, was an innocent sufferer, both in fortune and
   reputation."

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1884.
The Twenty-fifth Presidential Election.
Appearance of the Independents or "Mugwumps."

James G. Blaine, of Maine, and General John A. Logan, of Illinois, nominated at Chicago, June 3, were the Republican candidates for President and Vice President, in the election of 1884. The Democratic National Convention, held, likewise, at Chicago, July 8, put forward Governor Grover Cleveland, of New York, as its candidate for President, with Thomas A. Hendricks, of Indiana, for Vice President. General Benjamin F. Butler, of Massachusetts, and General A. M. West, of Mississippi, received double nominations, from the National or Greenback party and an Anti-Monopoly party (so-called) for President and Vice President, respectively; while the Prohibitionists put in nomination John P. St. John, of Kansas, and William Daniel, of Maryland. The election was an exceedingly close one, its result turning upon a plurality of only 1,149 in New York, by which that state was given to Cleveland, with its 36 electoral votes, securing his election. The total popular vote counted as follows: Cleveland, 4,874,986; Blaine, 4,851,981; Butler, 175,370; St. John, 150,369. The electoral vote was divided between Cleveland and Blaine, 219 for the former and 182 for the latter.

"At the presidential election of 1884 a section of the Republican party, more important by the intelligence and social position of the men who composed it than by its voting power, 'bolted' (to use the technical term) from their party, and refused to support Mr. Blaine. Some simply abstained, some, obeying the impulse to vote which is strong in good citizens in America, voted for Mr. St. John, the Prohibitionist candidate, though well aware that this was practically the same thing as abstention. The majority, however, voted against their party for Mr. Cleveland, the Democratic candidate; and it seems to have been the transference of their vote which turned the balance in New York State, and thereby determined the issue of the whole election in Mr. Cleveland's favour." This group "goes by the name of Mugwumps. … The name is said to be formed from an Indian word denoting a chief or aged wise man, and was applied by the 'straight-out' Republicans to their bolting brethren as a term of ridicule. It was then taken up by the latter as a term of compliment; though the description they used formally in 1884 was that of 'Independent Republicans.' … The chief doctrine they advocate is … the necessity of reforming the civil service by making appointments without reference to party, and a general reform in the methods of politics by selecting men for Federal, State, and municipal offices, with reference rather to personal fitness than to political affiliations."

      J. Bryce,
      The American Commonwealth (3d edition, revised),
      chapter 56, with foot-note (volume 2).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1885-1888.
   Termination of the Fishery Articles of the Treaty of Washington.
   Renewed controversies.
   The rejected Treaty.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1886-1893.
The Bering Sea controversy and arbitration.

"Four serious international controversies have arisen out of the rival claims of Russia, Great Britain, Spain, and the United States to the shores and waters of the northwest coast of the continent of North America. The first of these was in consequence of an attempt of the Spanish Government, in 1790, to prevent the British from trading with the natives of that coast. It was settled by the Nootka Sound Convention of October 28, 1790, by which the subjects of both powers enjoyed equal privileges of trade to all points not already occupied. The second controversy was the result of an attempt of Russia in 1821 to prohibit England and the United States from trading anywhere north of the 51st parallel, or to approach within 100 Italian miles of the coast. Both governments energetically protested and secured treaties in 1824 and 1825, by which they retained the right of fishing and of landing on unoccupied points of that coast. The third controversy was as to the division of the coast between Great Britain and the United States, Spain having by the treaties of 1824 and 1825 accepted the parallel of 54° 40' as her southern boundary. The rival claims of the two remaining powers, after long diplomatic discussion, were settled by the treaty of July 17, 1846, according to which the parallel of 49° was made the dividing line. By the treaty of March 30, 1867, with Russia, all the dominions and claims of that country on the continent of North America and the outlying islands thereof were transferred to the United States. A further, and still pending, controversy arose in 1886 through the seizure by United States vessels of Canadian vessels engaged in the taking of seals in waters not far distant from the Aleutian Islands. The claim of the United States was that it had acquired from Russia exclusive rights in Behring Sea, at least with regard to seal fishing. The British Government representing the Canadians denied that there could be any exclusive rights outside three miles off shore. By an agreement of February 29, 1892, the question has been submitted to arbitration," the arbitrators to give "a distinct decision" upon each of the following five points:

"1. What exclusive jurisdiction in the sea now known as the Behring's Sea, and what exclusive rights in the seal fisheries therein, did Russia assert and exercise prior and up to the time of the cession of Alaska to the United States?

2. How far were these claims of jurisdiction as to the seal fisheries recognized and conceded by Great Britain?

3. Was the body of water now known as the Behring's Sea included in the phrase 'Pacific Ocean,' as used in the treaty of 1825 between Great Britain and Russia, and what rights, if any, in the Behring's Sea, were held and exclusively exercised by Russia after said treaty?

4. Did not all the rights of Russia as to the jurisdiction and as to the seal fisheries in Behring's Sea east of the water boundary, in the treaty between the United States and Russia of the 30th of March, 1867, pass unimpaired to the United States under that treaty?

5. Has the United States any right, and if so, what right, of protection or property in the fur-seals frequenting the islands of the United States in Behring's Sea, when such seals are found outside the ordinary three-mile limit?"

The arbitrators to whom these points of the question were submitted under the treaty were seven in number, as follows: Justice John M. Harlan, of the Supreme Court of the United States, and Senator John T. Morgan, of Alabama, appointed by the United States; Rt. Hon. Lord Hannan, and Sir John S. D. Thompson, Prime Minister of Canada, appointed by Great Britain; Senator Baron Alphonse de Courcelles, formerly French Ambassador at Berlin, appointed by the French government; Senator Marquis E. Visconti Venosta, appointed by the Italian government; and Judge Mons. Gregers Gram, Minister of State, appointed by the government of Sweden. The Court of Arbitration met at Paris, beginning its sessions on March 23, 1893. The award of the Tribunal, signed on the 15th of August, 1893, decided the five points submitted to it, as follows:

(1) That Russia did not, after 1825, assert or exercise any exclusive jurisdiction in Bering Sea, or any exclusive rights in the seal fisheries;

(2) that no such claims on the part of Russia were recognized or conceded by England;

(3) that the body of water now known as Bering Sea was included in the phrase "Pacific Ocean," as used in the treaty of 1825 between Great Britain and Russia, and that no exclusive rights of jurisdiction in Bering Sea or as to the seal fisheries there were held or exercised by Russia after the treaty of 1825;

(4) that all the rights of Russia as to jurisdiction and the seal fisheries in Bering Sea east of the water boundary did pass unimpaired to the United States under the treaty of March 30, 1867;

(5) that the United States has not any right of protection or property in the fur seals frequenting the islands of the United States in Bering Sea, when such seals are found outside the ordinary three-mile limit.

Mr. Morgan alone dissented from the decision rendered on the first and second points, and on the second division of the third point. Justice Harlan and Mr. Morgan both dissented on the fifth point. On the fourth point, and on the first division of the third, the decision was unanimous. These points of controversy disposed of, the Arbitrators proceeded to prescribe the regulations which the Governments of the United States and Great Britain shall enforce for the preservation of the fur seal. The regulations prescribed prohibit the killing, capture or pursuit of fur seals, at any time or in any manner, within a zone of sixty miles around the Pribilov Islands; prohibit the same from May 1 to July 31 in all the part of the Pacific Ocean, inclusive of Bering Sea, which is north of 35° north latitude and eastward of the 180th degree of longitude from Greenwich till it strikes the water boundary described in Article I. of the Treaty of 1867 between the United States and Russia; and following that line up to Bering Straits; allow only sailing vessels, with licenses, to take part in fur seal fishing operations, and forbid the use of nets, firearms and explosives, except as to shot guns outside of Bering Sea. As promulgated, the Award bore the signatures of all the Arbitrators.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1887-1888.
   Tariff Message of President Cleveland.
   Attempted revision of the Tariff.
   Defeat of the Mills Bill.

   President Cleveland was nominated for re-election by the
   Democratic National Convention, held at St. Louis, June 5,
   with Allen G. Thurman, of Ohio, for Vice President. The
   Republican Convention, at Chicago, June 19, named Benjamin
   Harrison, of Indiana, for President, and Levi P. Morton, of
   New York, for Vice President. At Indianapolis, May 30, the
   Prohibition party had already put in nomination General
   Clinton B. Fisk, of New Jersey, and John A. Brooks, of
   Missouri, for President and Vice President, respectively. The
   Union Labor Party, convening at Cincinnati, May 15, had
   nominated Alson J. Streeter, of Illinois, and Charles E.
   Cunningham, of Arkansas; the United Labor Party, a rival
   organization, had put forward Robert H. Cowdrey, of Illinois,
   and William H. T. Wakefield, of Kansas; and still another
   labor ticket had been brought forward in February, at
   Washington, where an organization calling itself the
   Industrial Reform party, put Albert E. Redstone, of
   California, and John Colvin, of Kansas, in nomination. At Des
   Moines, Iowa, May 15, the National Equal Rights party had
   named a woman for the Presidency, in the person of Mrs. Belva
   Lockwood, of Washington, with Alfred H. Love, of Philadelphia,
   named for Vice President. Finally, in August, an organization
   attempting to revive the American Party of former days,
   convening at Washington, presented James L. Curtis, of New
   York, for President, and James R. Greer of Tennessee (who
   declined the honor) for Vice President. In the ensuing
   election, the popular vote was distributed as follows:
   Cleveland 5,540,329;
   Harrison, 5,439,853;
   Fisk, 249,506;
   Streeter, 146,935;
   Cowdrey, 2,818;
   Curtis, 1,591.

Notwithstanding the greater number of votes cast for Cleveland (his plurality being 100,476), Harrison was chosen President by the electoral votes, receiving 233. while 168 were given for Cleveland.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1889-1890.
   The opening of Oklahoma.
   The Johnstown Flood.
   The Pan-American Congress.
   Admission of seven new States.

   "In the centre of Indian Territory there is a large district
   called, in the Indian language, Oklahoma, or the 'Beautiful
   Land.' This tract was finally purchased from the Indians by
   the United States, early in 1889. On the 22d of April, of that
   year, some 50,000 persons were waiting impatiently on the
   borders of Oklahoma for President Harrison's signal, giving
   them permission to enter and take up lands in the coveted
   region. At precisely twelve o'clock noon, of that day, the
   blast of a bugle announced that Oklahoma was open to
   settlement. Instantly an avalanche of human beings rushed
   wildly across the line, each one eager to get the first
   chance. Towns made of rough board-shanties and of tents sprang
   up in all directions. The chief of these were Oklahoma City
   and Guthrie. At the end of four months, the latter had a
   population of about 5,000, with four daily papers and six
   banks; and arrangements, doubtless since completed, were being
   made to start a line of street cars, and light the city with
   electricity.
{3583}
   A week after the opening of Oklahoma, the centennial
   anniversary of the inauguration of Washington, and of the
   beginning of our government under the Constitution, was
   celebrated in New York City [April 29-May 1]. … In a little
   less than a month from that occasion, the most terrible
   disaster of the kind ever known in our history occurred (May
   31, 1889) in Western Pennsylvania. By the breaking of a dam, a
   body of water forty feet high and nearly half a mile in width
   swept down through a deep and narrow valley. In less than
   fifteen minutes, the flood had traversed a distance of
   eighteen miles. In that brief time, it dashed seven towns out
   of existence, and ended by carrying away the greater part of
   Johnstown. The whole valley at that place was choked with
   ruins; at least 5,000 persons lost their lives, and property
   worth ten million dollars was utterly destroyed. In the autumn
   (October 2, 1889), representatives of the leading governments
   of Central and of South America, together with the Republic of
   Mexico, met representatives chosen by the United States in a
   conference or congress held at Washington. The object of the
   congress was to bring about a closer union of the Americas,
   for purposes of trade, and of mutual advantage. The delegates
   spent six weeks in visiting the principal commercial and
   manufacturing cities of the United States. They then returned
   to Washington, and devoted the greater part of the remainder
   of the year and part of 1890 to the discussion of business."

"An act to provide for the division of Dakota into two States, and to enable the people of North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, and Washington, to form constitutions and State governments … was approved by President Cleveland, February 22, 1889. This act provided that the Territory of Dakota should be divided on the line of the seventh standard parallel. … On the 4th of July, 1889, the four conventions assembled-for North Dakota at Bismarck, for South Dakota at Sioux Falls, for Montana at Helena, and for Washington at Olympia."

      F. N. Thorpe,
      Recent Constitution-making in the United States
      (Annals of the American Academy of
      Political and Social Science, September, 1891).

Acceptable constitutions having been framed and adopted in the several proposed new states, North Dakota and South Dakota were admitted to the Union by proclamation of President Harrison, November 3, 1889, Montana, November 8, and Washington, November 11, in the same year. "Early in the session of the fifty-first Congress, Wyoming presented her claims for Statehood, asking for admission to the Union under the Constitution of September, 1889, which was adopted by the people on November 5 following. The bill for admission passed the House of Representatives on March 27, 1890, passed the Senate on June 27, and received the President's signature on July 10. By its terms Wyoming became a state from and after the date of the President's approval." Idaho had previously been admitted, by a bill which received the President's signature on the 3d of July, 1890.

Total population 62,622,250 (exceeding that of 1880 by
12,466,467, classed and distributed as follows;

White. Black.
Maine. 659,263 1,190
New Hampshire. 375,840 614
Vermont. 331,418 937
Massachusetts. 2,215,373 22,144
Rhode Island. 337,859 7,393
Connecticut. 733,438 12,302
New York. 5,923,952 70,092
New Jersey. 1,396,581 47,638
Pennsylvania. 5,148,257 107,596

South Atlantic division.
Delaware. 140,066 28,386
Maryland . 826,493 215,657
District of Columbia. 154,695 75,572
Virginia. 1,020,122 635,438
West Virginia. 730,077 32,690
North Carolina. 1,055,382 561,018
South Carolina. 462,008 688,934
Georgia. 978,357 858,815
Florida. 224,949 166,180

North Central division.
Ohio. 3,584,805 87,113
Indiana. 2,146,736 45,215
Illinois. 3,768,472 57,028
Michigan. 2,072,884 15,223
Wisconsin. 1,680,473 2,444
Minnesota. 1,296,159 3,683
Iowa. 1,901,086 10,685
Missouri. 2,528,458 150,184
North Dakota. 182,123 373
South Dakota. 327,290 541
Nebraska. 1,046,888 8,913
Kansas. 1,376,553 49,710

South Central division.
Kentucky. 1,590,462 268,071
Tennessee. 1,336,637 430,678
Alabama. 833,718 678,489
Mississippi. 544,851 742,559
Louisiana. 558,395 559,193
Texas. 1,745,935 488,171
Oklahoma. 58,826 2,973
Arkansas. 818,752 309,117

Western division.
Montana. 127,271 1,490
Wyoming. 59,275 922
Colorado. 404,468 6,215
New Mexico. 142,719 1,956
Arizona. 55,580 1,357
Utah. 205,899 588
Nevada. 39,084 242
Idaho. 82,018 201
Washington. 340,513 1,602
Oregon. 301,758 1,186
California. 1,111,672 11,322

In addition the census shows 107,475 Chinese, 2,039 Japanese, and 58,806 civilized Indians, making a total of 62,622,250, as stated above.

Immigration in the preceding decade rose to 5,246,613 in the total arrivals, 1,462,839 being from the British Islands and 3,258,743 from other European countries. In the single year ending June 30, 1890, the immigrants arriving from Europe numbered 443,225 (273,104 males, 170,121 females), of whom 57,020 were from England; 53,024 from Ireland; 12,041 from Scotland: 92,427 from Germany; 22,062 from Hungary: 11,073 from Poland; 33,147 from Russia: 51,799 from Italy; 29,632 from Sweden; 11,370 from Norway; 9,366 from Denmark; 6,585 from France.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1890-1893.
   The Silver Bill and its effect.
   Financial Panic.
   Extra Session of Congress.
   Repeal of the Sherman Act.

"The act of July 14, 1890 [known as the Sherman Act], repealed the silver act of 1878, and so brought to a close the precise experiment tried under that measure. … But the new act … is even more remarkable than that of 1878. It is unique in monetary history. It provides that the Secretary of the Treasury shall purchase each month at the market price four and a half million ounces of silver bullion. In payment he shall issue Treasury notes of the United States, in denominations of between one dollar and one thousand dollars. These Treasury notes, unlike the old silver certificates, are a direct legal tender for all debts, public or private, unless a different medium is expressly stipulated in the contract. They differ from the silver certificates in another respect; they are redeemable either in gold or silver coin, at the discretion of the Secretary of the Treasury. The indirect process of redemption which, as we have seen, was applied to the silver certificates, is replaced for the new notes by direct redemption. The avowed object is to keep the silver money equal to gold, for it is declared to be 'the established policy of the United States to maintain the two metals at a parity with each other on the present legal ratio, or such ratio as may be provided by law.' The act of 1878 is repealed; but the coinage of two million ounces of silver into dollars is to be continued for a year (until July 1, 1891). Thereafter it is directed that only so many silver dollars shall be coined as may be needed for redeeming any Treasury notes presented for redemption. Practically, this means that the coinage shall cease; redemption in silver dollars will not be called for. The coinage of silver dollars accordingly was suspended by the Treasury on July 1, 1891; a change which was the occasion of some vociferous abuse and equally vociferous praise, but which in reality was of no consequence whatever. The monthly issues of the new Treasury notes vary, like those of the old silver certificates, with the price of silver. But the new issues vary directly with the price of silver, while, as we have seen, the old issues varied inversely with the price. The volume of Treasury notes issued is equal to the market price of four and one half million ounces of silver. If silver sells at $1. 20 an ounce, the monthly issue of notes will be $5,400,000; if at $1.00 an ounce, $4,500,000. For a month or two after the passage of the act, the price of silver advanced rapidly, and at its highest, in August, 1890, touched $1.21. But the rise proved to be but temporary. After September a steady decline set in, and continued almost without interruption through the rest of 1890, through 1891, and through 1892. The year 1891 opened with silver at a price of about $1.00 an ounce; by the close of the year the price had fallen to about 95 cents. In 1892 a still further and more marked decline set in, and by the close of the year the price had gone as low as 85 cents."

"On June 5 [1893] President Cleveland publicly declared his purpose to call an extra session of Congress to meet in the first half of September for the consideration of the country's financial conditions, which seemed critical. On the 26th of June the authorities of India closed the mints in that empire to the free coinage of silver. The signs of a panic immediately multiplied and four days later appeared the president's proclamation summoning Congress to meet in extra session August 7. The call was based on the 'perilous condition in business circles,' which was declared to be largely the result of a 'financial policy … embodied in unwise laws, which must be executed until repealed by Congress.' The issue of this proclamation was the signal for much excitement among the Populists and in silver-producing circles. Silver conventions were held in Denver, July 11, and in Chicago, August 2, in which addresses were made and resolutions adopted denouncing with much energy any proposition to repeal the Sherman Act without some provision for the free coinage of silver, and claiming that the existing financial crisis was a deliberately devised scheme of British and American bankers, with President Cleveland as their ally, to bring about the exclusion of silver from use as money. The president's message, presented to the houses August 8, brought the question before Congress. The message embodied an exposition of what Mr. Cleveland considered the evils of the Sherman Act, concluding with an earnest recommendation that its purchase clause be immediately repealed. While still holding that tariff reform was imperatively demanded, the president considered that it should be postponed to action on the silver law. In Congress the silver men, without reference to party lines, took an attitude of energetic resistance to any project for unconditional repeal of the purchase clause."

   In the House, the resistance was soon overcome by strong
   pressure of unmistakable public opinion, and the repeal was
   carried on the 28th of August. In the Senate the Silver
   faction proved so much stronger that it blocked the bill until
   the end of October, indifferent to the ruinous effect which
   this action was having on the business and the industries of
   the country. In September, while the fate of the bill remained
   in doubt, the "Banker's Magazine" reported that the doubt had
   "aggravated the money stringency, until it absolutely became
   impossible for the great majority of business men to obtain
   the necessary funds, or credit to transact their affairs. In
   this respect, probably, no panic within the memory of the
   present generation has been so severe; and yet, it has been
   the least violent for one so universal and protracted. But it
   is the collapse that follows an acute attack of disease, which
   leaves its victim prostrated, after the crisis has been passed,
   and which must precede ultimate recovery, by giving time to
   restore exhausted strength. …
{3585}
   This was different from most panics this country has
   experienced, inasmuch as it was strictly an artificial one,
   caused by bad legislation, rather than general financial kite
   flying, while commercial affairs were seldom, if ever, on a
   sounder or safer basis, from the fact that they had, for a
   long time, been more free from speculation, with but few
   exceptions, than for years. Hence it has been the financial
   machinery by which commerce is transacted, rather than
   commerce itself, that has been deranged; and, for this reason,
   trade will revive much more rapidly when this artificial
   pressure is removed, than it has revived after former panics,
   which were either purely financial, or commercial, or both, as
   the result of wild speculation and general inflation of
   prices."

      H. A. Pierce,
      A Review of Finance and Business
      (Banker's Magazine, September, 1893).

The repeal measure was finally carried in the Senate, becoming law by the President's signature November 1, when a slow recovery of business confidence began, much retarded and disturbed, however, by the uncertainty attending expected action of Congress on tariff and currency questions.

A bill "to absolutely prohibit the coming of Chinese persons into the United States," reported by Mr. Geary, of California, was passed by the House, April 4, 1892, yeas 179, nays 43, 107 not voting. In the Senate, a substitute, going little further than to continue the then existing laws for the regulation of Chinese immigration, was reported from the Committee on Foreign Relations and adopted. The two bills were referred to a Conference Committee, with the result that a compromise measure, slightly modified from the House bill, was passed by both branches of Congress, on the 3d and 4th of May, and signed by the President on the 5th. It continues former laws for ten years. It directs "that any Chinese person or person of Chinese descent when convicted and adjudged under any of said laws to be not lawfully entitled to be or remain in the United States," shall be removed to China, or to such other country as he may prove to be a subject or citizen of. It declares that any such person under arrest "shall be adjudged to be unlawfully within the United States, unless such person shall establish, by affirmative proof, … his lawful right to remain in the United States"; and that any such person "convicted and adjudged to be not lawfully entitled to be or remain in the United States shall be imprisoned at hard labor for a period of not exceeding one year, and thereafter removed from the United States, as hereinbefore provided." The act denies bail, on an application for a writ of habeas corpus, by a Chinese person seeking to land in the United States. It requires all Chinese laborers who were within the limits of the United States at the time of the passage of the act, and who were entitled to remain, to obtain certificates of residence, from district collectors of internal revenue, and orders the deportation of those who had failed to do so at the expiration of one year. This extraordinary measure of exclusion has been commonly known as the "Geary Act."

   A convention between the governments of the United States and
   Great Britain was entered into and ratifications exchanged in
   August, 1892, providing for a coincident or joint survey, "as
   may in practice be found most convenient," to determine the
   boundary line between Alaska and the Canadian provinces.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1892.
Controversy with Chile.
Warlike Presidential Message.

Five parties presented candidates in the presidential election held November 8, 1892—namely: the Democratic, the Republican, the People's, or Populist, the Prohibitionist, and the Socialistic Labor. The nominees of the Democratic Party were Grover Cleveland, for President, and Adlai E. Stevenson, for Vice President; of the Republican Party, Benjamin Harrison and Whitelaw Reid, for President and Vice President, respectively; of the Populist Party, James B. Weaver and James G. Field; of the Prohibition Party, John Bidwell and James B. Cranfill; of the Socialistic Labor Party, Simon Wing and Charles H. Matchett. The dominant Issues in the canvass were the tariff question and the silver question. "The Democrats named no electoral tickets in Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, North Dakota, and Wyoming, but voted for the people's party electors with the object of taking those States away from the Republicans. They put out an electoral ticket in Nevada, but still voted mostly for the Populist electors. In North Dakota also there was a partial fusion between the Democrats and the People's party, and in Minnesota a part of the Weaver electoral ticket was accepted by the Democrats. In Louisiana there was a fusion of the Republicans and the People's party, each nominating half of the 8 electors. In Alabama there was a fusion of some of the Republicans with the People's party. In Texas a Republican ticket called the Lily White was set up, which differed from the regular ticket. In Michigan a new electoral law, which was declared constitutional by the United States Supreme Court on October 17, 1892, provided for the separate election of a Presidential elector in each Congressional district, and in consequence the electoral vote of the State was divided. In Oregon the name of one of the four electors on the People's ticket was also placed on the Democratic ticket. … The total popular vote cast was reported as 12,154,542," of which Cleveland received 5,556,553; Harrison, 5,175,577; Weaver, 1,122,045; Bidwell 279,191; Wing, 21,191. The electoral votes of the States were cast as follows: Cleveland, 277; Harrison, 145; Weaver, 22; giving Cleveland a clear majority of 110.

   "The most striking feature of the elections was the great
   losses of the Republicans in the West. Illinois and Wisconsin
   went Democratic by large majorities, California and Ohio were
   very close, and Colorado, Idaho, Kansas and Nevada chose
   Populist electors. The Democrats carried all the Northern
   states generally regarded as doubtful, viz., Connecticut, New
   York and Indiana, but they nearly lost Delaware.
{3586}
   An unusual incident of the result was the division of the
   electoral votes in several states, owing to the closeness of
   the popular vote. Thus in Ohio one Cleveland elector and in
   Oregon one Weaver elector was chosen, the others being
   Republican; and in California and North Dakota Mr. Harrison
   secured single votes in the same way. From the conditions of
   fusion between the Democrats and Populists in the last-named
   state, it resulted that one of her three electoral votes was
   given to each of the three candidates. In Michigan, under the
   district method of choosing electors recently established,
   Harrison got nine votes and Cleveland five."

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1893.
Revolution in the Hawaiian Islands and proposed annexation.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1894.
The Strike at Pullman.
The Coxey Movement.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1894-1895.
Provision for the admission of Utah as a State.

On the 17th of July, 1894, the President, by his signature, gave effect to a bill which provides for the admission of Utah to the Union as a State. The admission, however, cannot become a completed fact before the later part of the year 1895, since the bill provides for the holding of a convention in March, 1895, to frame a constitution for the proposed new State, and for submitting such constitution to the people at the election in November, 1895.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1895.
The Status of Civil-service Reform.
Commissioner Roosevelt's Review.

"In 1883 the civil service law was established at Washington, and in the larger post-offices and custom-houses throughout the country, taking in a total of some 14,000 employees. The great extensions since have all taken place during the last six years, a period which happens to include my own term of service with the Commission, so that I write of them at first hand. In 1889 the railway mail service was added, in 1893 all the free delivery post-offices, and in 1894 all the smaller custom-houses and the internal revenue service. Other important but smaller extensions have been made, and the larger offices have grown, so that now about 50,000 employees are under the protection of the law. There are, of course, and there always must be in a body so large, individual cases where the law is evaded, or even violated; and as yet we do not touch the question of promotions and reductions. But, speaking broadly, and with due allowance for such comparatively slight exceptions, these 50,000 places are now taken out of the political arena. They can no longer be scrambled for in a struggle as ignoble and brutal as the strife of pirates over plunder; they no longer serve as a vast bribery chest with which to debauch the voters of the country. Those holding them no longer keep their political life by the frail tenure of service to the party boss and the party machine; they stand as American citizens, and are allowed the privilege of earning their own bread without molestation so long as they faithfully serve the public. The classified service, the service in which the merit system is applied, has grown fast. It is true that the outside service where the spoils theories are still applied in all their original nakedness, has grown only less fast. The number of offices under the government has increased very rapidly during the last twenty years; but the growth of the classified service has been even more rapid, so that a constantly increasing percentage of the whole is withdrawn from the degrading grasp of the spoils system. Now, something like a quarter of all the offices under the federal government in point of numbers, representing nearly a half in point of salaries, has been put upon the basis of decency and merit. This has been done by the action of successive Presidents under the law of 1883, without the necessity of action by Congress. There still remain some things that can be done without further legislation. For instance, the labor force in the navy yards was put on a merit basis, and removed from the domain of politics, under Secretary Tracy. This was done merely by order of the Secretary of the Navy, which order could have been reversed by his successor, Secretary Herbert. Instead of reversing it, however, Secretary Herbert has zealously lived up to its requirements, and has withstood all pressure for the weakening of the system in the interests of the local party machines and bosses. It is unsafe to trust to always having Secretaries of the Navy like Messrs. Tracy and Herbert. The Civil Service Commission should be given supervision over the laborers who come under the direction of Cabinet officers. Indeed, all the laboring force and all the employees of the District of Columbia employed by the federal government should be put under the Commission. When this has been done, and when a few other comparatively slight extensions have been made, all that can be accomplished by the unaided action of the executive will have been accomplished. Congress must then itself act by passing some such bill as that of Senator Lodge in reference to fourth-class postmasters; by passing some bill in reference to the consular service on the outlines of that suggested by Senator Morgan (but giving power to the Civil Service Commission itself in the matter); and then by providing that all postmasters and similar officers shall hold office during good behavior, including as well those nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate as those appointed by the President alone. Of all the offices under the federal government, not one in a hundred can properly be called political."

      T. Roosevelt,
      The Present Status of Civil Service Reform
      (Atlantic, February, 1895).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1895.
President Cleveland's Special Message on
the condition of the National Finances.

In a special message to Congress, on the 28th of January, 1895, President Cleveland renewed an earnest appeal which be had made at the opening of the session, for legislation to correct the mischievous working of the existing currency system of the country. The condition of the national finances, produced by unwise laws, was set forth clearly in this message, as follows: "With natural resources unlimited in variety and productive strength, and with a people whose activity and enterprise seek only a fair opportunity to achieve national success and greatness, our progress should not be checked by a false financial policy and a heedless disregard of sound monetary laws, nor should the timidity and fear which they engender stand in the way of our prosperity. {3587} It is hardly disputed that this predicament confronts us to-day. Therefore, no one in any degree responsible for the making and execution of our laws should fail to see a patriotic duty in honestly and sincerely attempting to relieve the situation. … The real trouble which confronts us consists in a lack of confidence, widespread and constantly increasing, in the continuing ability or disposition of the Government to pay its obligations in gold. This lack of confidence grows to some extent out of the palpable and apparent embarrassment attending the efforts of the Government under existing laws to procure gold, and to a greater extent out of the impossibility of either keeping it in the Treasury or canceling obligations by its expenditure after it is obtained. The only way left open to the Government for procuring gold is by the issue and sale of its bonds. The only bonds that can be so issued were authorized nearly twenty-five years ago, and are not well calculated to meet our present needs. Among other disadvantages, they are made payable in coin, instead of specifically in gold, which, in existing conditions, detracts largely and in an increasing ratio from their desirability as investments. It is by no means certain that bonds of this description can much longer be disposed of at a price creditable to the financial character of our Government. The most dangerous and irritating feature of the situation, however, remains to be mentioned. It is found in the means by which the Treasury is despoiled of the gold thus obtained without canceling a single Government obligation and solely for the benefit of those who find profit in shipping it abroad or whose fears induce them to hoard it at home. We have outstanding about five hundred millions of currency notes of the Government for which gold may be demanded, and, curiously enough, the law requires that when presented and, in fact, redeemed and paid in gold, they shall be reissued. Thus the same notes may do duty many times in drawing gold from the Treasury; nor can the process be arrested as long as private parties, for profit or otherwise, see an advantage in repeating the operation. More than $300,000,000 in these notes have already been redeemed in gold, and notwithstanding such redemption they are all still outstanding. Since the 17th day of January, 1894, our bonded interest-bearing debt has been increased $100,000,000 for the purpose of obtaining gold to replenish our coin reserve. Two issues were made amounting to fifty millions each—one in January and the other in November. As a result of the first issue there was realized something more than $58,000,000 in gold. Between that issue and the succeeding one in November, comprising a period of about ten months, nearly $103,000,000 in gold were drawn from the Treasury. This made the second issue necessary, and upon that more than fifty-eight millions in gold was again realized. Between the date of this second issue and the present time, covering a period of only about two months, more than $69,000,000 in gold have been drawn from the Treasury. These large sums of gold were expended without any cancellation of Government obligations or in any permanent way benefiting our people or improving our pecuniary situation. The financial events of the past year suggest facts and conditions which should certainly arrest attention. More than $172,000,000 in gold have been drawn out of the Treasury during the year for the purpose of shipment abroad or hoarding at home. While nearly one hundred and three millions of this amount was drawn out during the first ten months of the year, a sum aggregating more than two-thirds of that amount, being about sixty-nine millions, was drawn out during the following two months, thus indicating a marked acceleration of the depleting process with the lapse of time. The obligations upon which this gold has been drawn from the Treasury are still outstanding and are available for use in repeating the exhausting operation with shorter intervals as our perplexities accumulate. Conditions are certainly supervening tending to make the bonds which may be issued to replenish our gold less useful for that purpose. … It will hardly do to say that a simple increase of revenue will cure our troubles. The apprehension now existing and constantly increasing as to our financial ability does not rest upon a calculation of our revenue. The time has passed when the eyes of investors abroad and our people at home were fixed upon the revenues of the Government. Changed conditions have attracted their attention to the gold of the Government. There need be no fear that we can not pay our current expenses with such money as we have. There is now in the Treasury a comfortable surplus of more than $63,000,000, but it is not in gold, and therefore does not meet our difficulty. I can not see that differences of opinion concerning the extent to which silver ought to be coined or used in our currency should interfere with the counsels of those whose duty it is to rectify evils now apparent in our financial situation. They have to consider the question of national credit, and the consequences that will follow from its collapse. Whatever ideas may be insisted upon as to silver or bimetallism, a proper solution of the question now pressing upon us only requires a recognition of gold as well as silver, and a concession of its importance, rightfully or wrongfully acquired, as a basis of national credit, a necessity in the honorable discharge of our obligations payable in gold, and a badge of solvency. … While I am not unfriendly to silver, and while I desire to see it recognized to such an extent as is consistent with financial safety and the preservation of national honor and credit, I am not willing to see gold entirely banished from our currency and finances. To avert such a consequence I believe thorough and radical remedial legislation should be promptly passed. I therefore beg the Congress to give the subject immediate attention. In my opinion the Secretary of the Treasury should be authorized to issue bonds of the Government for the purpose of procuring and maintaining a sufficient gold reserve and the redemption and cancellation of the United States legal-tender notes and the Treasury notes issued for the purchase of silver under the law of July 14, 1890. We should be relieved from the humiliating process of issuing bonds to procure gold to be immediately and repeatedly drawn out on these obligations for purposes not related to the benefit of our Government or our people. {3588} The principal and interest of these bonds should be payable on their face in gold, because they should be sold only for gold or its representative, and because there would now probably be difficulty in favorably disposing of bonds not containing this stipulation. … The Secretary of the Treasury might well be permitted, at his discretion, to receive on the sale of bonds the legal-tender and Treasury notes to be retired, and, of course, when they are thus retired or redeemed in gold they should be canceled. These bonds under existing laws could be deposited by national banks as security for circulation; and such banks should be allowed to issue circulation up to the face value of these or any other bonds so deposited, except bonds outstanding bearing only 2 per cent interest, and which sell in the market at less than par. National banks should not be allowed to take out circulating notes of a less denomination than $10, and when such as are now outstanding reach the Treasury, except for redemption and retirement, they should be canceled and notes of the denomination of $10 and upward issued in their stead. Silver certificates of the denomination of $10 and upward should be replaced by certificates of denominations under $10. As a constant means for the maintenance of a reasonable supply of gold in the Treasury our duties on imports should be paid in gold, allowing all other dues to the Government to be paid in any other form of money. I believe all the provisions I have suggested should be embodied in our laws if we are to enjoy a complete reinstatement of a sound financial condition." The President's recommendations were not acted upon. The silver interest in Congress defeated all measures introduced for the purpose and left the situation unchanged. The Government was forced to a new issue of bonds under the old act, for the replenishing of its gold reserve.

UNITED STATES BANK.

See MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1791-1816, 1817-1833; and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1833-1836.

UNITED STATES CHRISTIAN COMMISSION.

UNITED STATES CONGRESS.

UNITED STATES OF BRAZIL.

UNITED STATES OF COLOMBIA.

UNITED STATES PRESIDENT.

UNITED STATES SANITARY COMMISSION.

UNITED STATES SENATE.

UNIVERSITIES.

See EDUCATION; also VERMONT, VIRGINIA and WISCONSIN UNIVERSITIES, and (in SUPPLEMENT) BROWN, MINNESOTA, and TULANE.

UNIVERSITY EXTENSION.

UPCHURCH POTTERY.

The Upchurch marshes, on the Medway, above Sheerness, were the site of extensive potteries in the time of the Roman occupation of Britain, and remains of the ware manufactured are abundant in the neighborhood.

UPPER HOUSE.

UR OF THE CHALDEES.

"The Ur Kasdim, i. e. 'Ur of the Chaldæans' in the Hebrew Scriptures, is the modern Mug-heir, southeast of Babylon; on clay-tablets discovered in the ruins of this place we find cuneiform symbols, which are to be read as Uru."

URARDA ARARAT.

URICONIUM, VIROCONIUM.

An important Roman town in Britain, extensive remains of which have been unearthed at modern Wroxeter. It was the station of the 14th legion.

Uriconium was totally destroyed by the West Saxons in 583. "A British poet in verses still left to us sings piteously the death-song of Uriconium, 'the white town in the valley,' the town of white stones gleaming among the green woodlands."

The origin of the order of the Ursulines "is ascribed to Angela di Brescia, about the year 1537, though the Saint from whom it received its name, Ursula Benincasa, a native of Naples, was born ten years afterwards. … The duties of those holy sisters were the purest within the circle of human benevolence—to minister to the sick, to relieve the poor, to console the miserable, to pray with the penitent. These charitable offices they undertook to execute without the bond of any community, without the obligation of any monastic vow, without any separation from society, any renouncement of their domestic duties and virtues."

   "The Uruguay is called so after a bird, the Uru, which is
   found in the woods on its banks, and the term Uruguay
   signifies the country of the Uru."

URUGUAY: A. D. 1714-1777.
   The settlement.
   The contest for, between Spain and Portugal.
   Relinquishment by the latter.
   Inclusion in the viceroyalty of Buenos Ayres.

URUGUAY: A. D. 1826-1828.
The subject of war between Brazil and the Argentine Republic.
Independence established and recognized.

"During the reign of Ferdinand [Emperor, 1558-1564], several bodies of Christians, quitting the provinces which had been recently conquered by the Turks, obtained from the Austrian sovereigns a refuge at Clissa, in Dalmatia, under the condition of forming themselves into a frontier militia continually in arms against the infidels, and, from their emigration, received the name of Uscocks, which, in the language of the country, signifies wanderers. They fulfilled the purpose of their establishment; and, being at length expelled by the Turks, received a new asylum at Senga, a ruined fortress in Croatia, on the coast of the Adriatic gulph. Here, their numbers increasing by the accession of Italian banditti and other marauders, they were rendered more formidable than before; for they no longer confined their predatory incursions to the land, but became pirates by sea. … Their audacity increasing with success and plunder, they pillaged, without distinction, the vessels of all the nations who traded in the Adriatic." They were attacked by the Turks and the Venetians, and the latter, at length, in the early part of the 17th century, forced the Duke of Styria, who had protected the freebooters, to allow their stronghold at Segna to be demolished. "The Uscocks, being transplanted to Carlstadt, soon lost their name and distinction."

The Usipetes and Tenctheri, two German tribes, whose home was on the lower course of the Rhine, north and south of the Lippe, being hard pressed by the Suevi, crossed the Rhine, B. C. 55, and began to spread themselves along the Valley of the Meuse. Cæsar marched against them with great promptitude, refused to parley with them, accused them of treacherous attempts to gain time, and was himself charged with wicked treachery, in seizing their chiefs who met him with pacific propositions. It is certain, at all events, that he was able to attack them when they were deprived of leaders, and to slaughter them with so little resistance that not one Roman soldier was killed. Those who escaped the sword were driven into the Rhine (probably at its point of junction with the Moselle) and almost the entire mass of 180,000 are said to have perished. The remnant took refuge with the Sicambri or Sigambri, on the farther shore of the Rhine. Cæsar demanded the surrender of them, and, when refused, he caused his engineers to bridge the river in ten days, led his army across it and laid waste the country of the Sigambri. This was the first crossing of the Rhine by the Romans. The Suevi offered battle to the Roman invaders, but Cæsar prudently returned, and destroyed the bridge.

UTAH: A. D. 1847.
Migration of Mormons from Nauvoo and their settlement on the
Great Salt Lake.

UTAH: A. D. 1849-1850.
   The proposed State of Deseret.
   Organization of the Territory of Utah.
   Its name.

"Until the year 1849 the Mormons were entirely under the control of their ecclesiastical leaders, regarding the presidency not only as their spiritual head, but as the source of law in temporal matters. … There was already in their midst a small percentage of gentile citizens, gathered … from nearly all the civilized nations of the earth. … Not infrequently litigation arose among the gentiles, or between Mormon and gentile; and though strict justice may have been done by the bishops, it was difficult for the latter to believe that such was the case. … Thus it became advisable to establish for the benefit of all some judicial authority that could not be questioned by any, whether members of the church or not, and this authority must be one that, being recognized by the government of the United States, would have the support of its laws and the shield of its protection. Further than this, if the Mormons neglected to establish such government, the incoming gentiles would do so ere long. Early in 1849, therefore, a convention was summoned of 'the inhabitants of that portion of Upper California lying east of the Sierra Nevada Mountains,' and on the 4th of March assembled at Salt Lake City. A committee was appointed to draught a constitution, under which the people might govern themselves until congress should otherwise provide by law. A few days later the constitution was adopted, and a provisional government organized, under the name of the State of Deseret. An immense tract of country was claimed, extending from latitude 33° to the border of Oregon, and from the Rocky Mountains to the Sierra Nevada, together with a section of the territory now included in southern California, and the strip of coast lying between Lower California and 118° 30' of west longitude. The seat of government was to be at Salt Lake City." In July Almon W. Babbitt was elected delegate to Congress, and that body was petitioned to admit the provisionally organized State into the Union. The delegate and his petition met with a cool reception at Washington; but in September, 1850, Congress passed an act organizing the Territory of Utah, and Brigham Young was appointed Governor. "The act to establish a territorial government for Utah placed the southern boundary at the 37th parallel, the section between that limit and the 33d parallel being included in the Territory of New Mexico [organized at the same time], with the exception of the part transferred to California, by which State Utah was to be bounded on the west. On the north, Oregon was to remain as the boundary, and on the east the Rocky Mountains." "The word Utah originated with the people inhabiting that region. Early in the 17th century, when New Mexico was first much talked of by the Spaniards, the principal nations of frequent mention as inhabiting the several sides of the locality about that time occupied were the Navajos, the Yutas, the Apaches, and the Comanches. Of the Utah nation, which belongs to the Shoshone family, there were many tribes. … The early orthography of the word Utah is varied." "Yuta" "was a common spelling by the early Spaniards, and might be called the proper one. Later we have 'Youta,' 'Eutaw,' 'Utaw,' and 'Utah.'"

H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States, volume 21 (Utah), chapter 17, and foot-note, page 34.

"To this would-be 'State of Deseret' President Fillmore had assigned Brigham Young, the spiritual head of the church, as territorial governor; and by 1857, when a Democratic President showed the disposition to apply the usual temporal rule of rotation to the office, Young was rebellious, and the whole Mormon population, refusing allegiance to anyone but their consecrated head, began to drill and gird on their armor for resistance. Judges of the territorial courts had to flee for their lives; justice, which had long been tampered with to absolve church members from punishment, was deprived of process. It was charged that the Mormon hierarchy had leagued with Indian tribes to impel them to atrocities against the Gentile inhabitants, while their own Danites, or destroying angels, were secretly set apart and bound by horrid oath to pillage and murder such as made themselves obnoxious to the theocracy. … President Buchanan appointed as the new governor of Utah Alfred Cumming, a man combining courage with discretion, and filled the judicial and other vacancies which existed. To protect those new officers and aid them in discharging their functions, he ordered a detachment of regulars to accompany them to the Salt Lake region. The need of this was soon apparent. Early in September, 1857, a part of the troops left Fort Laramie, and on the 15th of the same month Brigham Young, parading audaciously the commission he still held from the United States, forbade all armed forces from entering the territory, and called upon his people to defend themselves against the 'armed mercenary mob' of invaders. His legislature, meeting later, sustained him in his bitter diatribe against the 'profane, drunken, and corrupt officials,' which a Washington administration was trying to force upon Utah territory at the point of the bayonet. A Mormon force had meanwhile advanced to impede the approach of our regulars, capturing and burning three supply trains of wagons laden with tents and provisions, stampeding the horses, and so crippling Fort Bridger, which was distant some twelve days' march from Salt Lake city, as to deprive our army, on its arrival, of a proper winter's shelter after its long and fatiguing march, and compel General Johnston, who commanded this important post, to despatch part of his forces upon a dreary and hazardous expedition to New Mexico for further supplies. Johnston's despatches in October showed the President that unless a large force was quickly sent out, a long conflict would be inevitable. Buchanan and his Secretary of War asked from the present Congress ten new regiments, of which five might be used to bring the Mormons to subjection. But the Lecompton controversy was raging; and the use of Federal troops to put down the free-State movement in Kansas had caused such mistrust and irritation that none but the President's unshaken supporters felt inclined to place more troops at his disposal. The bill for an army increase was lost, though both Houses passed a measure authorizing the President to accept for the Utah disturbances two regiments of volunteers. The volunteers were not called out; but Buchanan mustered a military force out of the regulars strong enough to overawe and overpower Utah's rebellious inhabitants. Two peace commissioners also bore to Utah a proclamation from the President, dated April 6th, which offered free pardon, except to those who persisted still in disloyal resistance. Governor Cumming, upon his arrival, made a like announcement. These conciliatory efforts, backed by an irresistible show of military strength, brought the Mormons to a speedy acknowledgment of allegiance. They fought not a battle, but manifested a purpose to burn their houses and make a new and peaceable retreat into the wilderness. From this purpose, after some conferences, they were at length dissuaded; and it was agreed in June between the Mormon leaders and our commissioners that the United States soldiery should be kept out of sight as much as possible while Utah remained tranquil. On the last day of the same month the new governor, accompanied by Brigham Young, came back to Salt Lake city to assume functions which were fully recognized. A few days earlier, and before the Mormons had begun to return to their homes, General Johnston and his troops, leaving Fort Bridger, reached the desolate city, marched through its streets, and, crossing its river Jordan, encamped on the opposite bank. While abandoning all further effort at violent resistance, the Mormons still clung to the hope of being left to govern themselves and preserve their institutions against the world's contaminating touch, by gaining the indispensable condition of practical isolation and independence. To this Congress in its next winter's session they renewed the former petitions they had presented for immediate admission to the Union as the 'State of Deseret.' And should this request be denied, they prayed that the organic act of the territory might be so amended as to give the inhabitants the right to choose their own governor, judges, and other officers. All this Congress quietly ignored; and in military circles it was still generally believed that, for all this outward show of loyal acquiescence, the Mormons felt at heart no more affection for the United States than for any foreign nation; that the only rule they really recognized was that of their religion and the will of their hierarchy; and that force must still be used to compel them. Such views were entertained by General Albert Sidney Johnston, the military commander at Utah, destined to later distinction in the art of war. But Cumming, the governor, who had the temporizing instincts of a civilian, thought differently. The two came into collision when Mormons were brought to trial in the courts for a slaughter of emigrants in 1857, known as the Mountain Meadow massacre. [This was the massacre, by Indians and Mormons, of a party of 136 emigrants, from Arkansas and Missouri, who were passing through Utah to California; it occurred in September, 1857, in a valley called the Mountain Meadows, about 300 miles south of Salt Lake city; only 17 young children were saved from the slaughter.] At the request of the Federal judge, Johnston furnished a military detachment to guard the prisoners; and when Cumming, the governor, interposed because of the angry remonstrance of the people, Johnston would not remove them. Buchanan, being appealed to, sustained the governor's authority."

ALSO IN: H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States, volume 21, chapters 18-21.

Report of United States Secretary of the Interior, 36th Congress, 1st session, Senate Ex. Doc., number 42 (volume 11).

UTAH: A. D. 1882-1893.
   The Edmunds Act and its enforcement.
   Abandonment of Polygamy by the Mormons.
   Proclamation of Amnesty for past offenses against the law.

In March, 1882, an Act of Congress (known as the Edmunds Act) was passed for the purpose of making efficient the law against polygamy in the territories, which had stood among the statutes of the United States for twenty years, without power on the part of the federal courts or officials in Utah to enforce it, as against Mormon juries. Besides repeating the penalties prescribed In the Act of 1862, the Act of 1882 provides, in its eighth section, that "no polygamist, bigamist, or any person cohabiting with more than one woman, and no woman cohabiting with any of the persons described as aforesaid in this section, in any Territory or other place over which the United States have exclusive jurisdiction, shall be entitled to vote at any election held in any such Territory or other place, or be eligible for election or appointment to or be entitled to hold any office or place of public trust, honor, or emolument in, under, or for any such Territory or place, or under the United States." The ninth and last section is as follows: "Section 9. That all the registration and election offices of every description in the Territory of Utah are hereby declared vacant, and each and every duty relating to the registration of voters, the conduct of elections, the receiving or rejection of votes, and the canvassing and returning of the same, and the issuing of certificates or other evidence of election, in said Territory, shall, until other provisions be made by the legislative assembly of said Territory, as is hereinafter by this section provided, be performed, under the existing laws of the United States and said Territory, by proper persons, who shall be appointed to execute such offices and perform such duties by a Board of five persons, to be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, not more than three of whom shall be members of one political party, and a majority of whom shall be a quorum. The members of said Board so appointed by the President shall each receive a salary at the rate of three thousand dollars per annum, and shall continue in office until the legislative assembly of said Territory shall make provision for filling said offices as herein authorized. The Secretary of the Territory shall be the secretary of said Board and keep a journal of its proceedings, and attest the action of said Board under this section. The canvass and return of all the votes at elections in said Territory for members of the legislative assembly thereof shall also be returned to said Board, which shall canvass all such returns and issue certificates of election for those persons who, being eligible for such election, shall appear to have been lawfully elected, which certificates shall be the only evidence of the right of such persons to sit in such assembly: Provided, That said Board of five persons shall not exclude any person otherwise eligible to vote from the polls on account of any opinion such person may entertain on the subject of bigamy or polygamy, nor shall they refuse to count any such vote on account of the opinion of the person casting it on the subject of bigamy or polygamy, but each house of such assembly, after its organization, shall have power to decide upon the elections and qualifications of its members. And at or after the first meeting of said legislative assembly whose members shall have been elected and returned according to the provisions of this act, said legislative assembly may make such laws, conformable to the organic act of said Territory, and not inconsistent with other laws of the United States, as it shall deem proper concerning the filling of the offices in said Territory declared vacant by this act."—The following Proclamation, issued by the President of the United States on the 4th day of January, 1893, may be looked upon as the sequel and consequence of the legislation recorded above: "Whereas Congress, by a statute approved March 22, 1882, and by statutes in furtherance and amendment thereof, defined the crimes of bigamy, polygamy, and unlawful cohabitation in the Territories and other places within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States and prescribed a penalty for such crimes; and Whereas, on or about the 6th day of October, 1890, the Church of the Latter-Day Saints, commonly known as the Mormon Church, through its president, issued a manifesto proclaiming the purpose of said church no longer to sanction the practice of polygamous marriages and calling upon all members and adherents of said church to obey the laws of the United States in reference to said subject-matter; and Whereas it is represented that since the date of said declaration the members and adherents of said church have generally obeyed said laws and have abstained from plural marriages and polygamous cohabitation; and Whereas, by a petition dated December 19, 1891, the officials of said church, pledging the membership thereof to a faithful obedience to the laws against plural marriage and unlawful cohabitation, have applied to me to grant amnesty for past offenses against said laws, which request a very large number of influential non-Mormons, residing in the Territories, have also strongly urged; and Whereas, the Utah Commission, in their report bearing date September 15, 1892, recommended that said petition be granted and said amnesty proclaimed, under proper conditions as to the future observance of the law, with a view to the encouragement of those now disposed to become law abiding citizens; and Whereas, during the past two years such amnesty has been granted to individual applicants in a very large number of cases, conditioned upon the faithful observance of the laws of the United States against unlawful cohabitation; and there are now pending many more such applications: Now therefore, I, Benjamin Harrison, President of the United States, by virtue of the power in me vested, do hereby declare and grant a full amnesty and pardon to all persons liable to the penalties of said act by reason of unlawful cohabitation under the color of polygamous or plural marriage, who have since November 1, 1890, abstained from such unlawful cohabitation; but upon the express condition that they shall in the future faithfully obey the laws of the United States hereinbefore named, and not otherwise. Those who shall fail to avail themselves of the clemency hereby offered will be vigorously prosecuted. In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed. Done at the city of Washington this 4th day of January, in the year of our Lord 1893, and of the Independence of the United States the 117th. Benjamin Harrison."

"The most ancient Phœnician colonies were Utica, nearly on the northern-most point of the coast of Africa, and in the same gulf (now known as the gulf of Tunis) as Carthage, over against Cape Lilybæum in Sicily,—and Gades, or Gadeira, on the south-western coast of Spain; a town which, founded perhaps near one thousand years before the Christian era, has maintained a continuous prosperity, and a name (Cadiz) substantially unaltered, longer than any town in Europe. How well the site of Utica was suited to the circumstances of Phœnician colonists may be inferred from the fact that Carthage was afterwards established in the same gulf and near to the same spot, and that both the two cities reached a high pitch of prosperity."

      [Transcriber's note: The meaning of the phrase
      '…name (Cadiz)…' appears to be ambiguous.
      "The site of … Utica is … about 30 km from Tunis and 30 km
      from Bizerte and near … Zhana, … Ghar El Melh, … El Alia,
      … Metline."
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utica%2C_Tunisia]

Curio, the legate or lieutenant sent first by Cæsar to Africa (B. C. 49), to attack the Pompeian forces in that quarter, undertook with two legions to reduce the city of Utica, which had became the capital of the Roman Province. Juba, king of Numidia, who was personally hostile to both Curio and Cæsar, came to the assistance of the Pompeians and forced Curio to withdraw from its besieging lines into the neighboring Cornelian camp, which was a famous military entrenchment left by Scipio Africanus. There he might have waited in safety for re-enforcements; but the wily Numidian tempted him out by a feigned retreat and then overwhelmed him. Curio and most of his men were slain.

"At the last ford of the Rhine a hamlet had in Roman times been built, possibly a fort also. Nothing is preserved regarding it but the name, which, in the mutations of language, passed from Ultrajectum into Utrecht. Towards the conclusion of the 7th century, Clement Willebrod, an English priest, who had been educated at the monastery of Ripon, coming as a missionary into those parts, succeeded, with the aid of eleven of his fellow-countrymen, in winning over the Frisian people to the Christian faith. He fixed his abode at Utrecht, of which he was afterwards appointed bishop; and gifts of land, at the time of little worth, were made to his successors by Pepin and Charlemagne. Such was the commencement of the temporal grandeur of the prince-bishops, whose dynasty attained to a power little less than sovereign during the middle ages. … With ready access to the sea, and not without an early disposition towards these pursuits which their kinsmen of the Rhineland towns were beginning to follow, the inhabitants of Utrecht soon became good sailors and good weavers, and their city throve apace. Enriched by successive grants of privileges and lands, the bishops of Utrecht gradually became powerful feudal lords."

"Utrecht was still a separate state, governed by its sovereign bishop, who was elected by the votes of the chapter, subject to the approval of the Pope. On the vacancy which occurred towards the end of the year 1455, the choice of the canons fell upon Gisbert van Brederode, who had previously been archdeacon of the cathedral, and was held in general esteem amongst the people as well as the clergy. The Duke of Burgundy coveted so rich a prize, rather for its political importance, however, … than for any direct or immediate gain." The Duke appealed to Rome; Gisbert was put back into his archdeaconry, with an annuity for life, and David, a natural son of Duke Philip, was made bishop. "Thus the foundation was laid for the permanent union of Utrecht to the other provinces, although its final accomplishment was destined to be deferred yet many years."

UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714. The Treaties which ended the War of the Spanish Succession, forming the Peace of Utrecht and the Treaty of Rastadt.

The long War of the Spanish Succession was brought to a close (except as between Germany and France) by negotiations at Utrecht, which resulted in the concluding of a number of treaties between the several powers concerned, constituting collectively what is known as the Peace of Utrecht. Negotiations to this end were begun by England and France early in 1711, and preliminaries were settled between them and signed in October of that year. This action of the English compelled the other allies to consent to a general conference, which opened at Utrecht January 20, 1712. The discussion of terms lasted more than a year, while the war went on. Between Germany and France the war still continued and it was at Rastadt (March, 1714), not Utrecht, that the last named powers came to their agreement of peace. The several treaties concluded at Utrecht were most of them signed on the 31st day of March. O. S., or April 11, N. S., in the year 1713, "by the plenipotentiaries of France, England, Portugal, Prussia, Savoy, and the United Provinces; the emperor resolving to continue the war, and the king of Spain refusing to sign the stipulations until a principality should be provided in the Low Countries for the princess Ursini, the favourite of his queen [a demand which he subsequently withdrew]. {3593} The chief articles of this memorable pacification were to the following purport: It was stipulated that, … Philip, now established on the Spanish throne; should renounce all right to the crown of France; that the dukes of Berry and Orleans, the next heirs to the French monarchy after the infant dauphin, should in like manner renounce all right to the crown of Spain, in the event of their accession to the French throne; that, on the death of Philip, and in default of his male issue, the succession of Spain and the Indies should be secured to the duke of Savoy; that the island of Sicily should be instantly ceded by his Catholic majesty to the same prince, with the title of king; that France should also cede to him the valleys of Pragelas, Oulx, Sezanne, Bardonache, and Château-Dauphin, with the forts of Exilles and Fenestrelles, and restore to him the duchy of Savoy and the county of Nice; and that the full property and sovereignty of both banks and the navigation of the Marañan, or river of Amazons, in South America, should belong to the king of Portugal. It was declared that the king of Prussia should receive Spanish Guelderland, with the sovereignty of Neufchâtel and Valengin, in exchange for the principality of Orange and the lordship of Châlons, and that his regal title should be acknowledged; that the Rhine should form the boundary of the German empire on the side of France; and that all fortifications, beyond that river, claimed by France, or in the possession of his most Christian majesty, should either be relinquished to the emperor or destroyed; that the kingdom of Naples, the duchy of Milan, and the Spanish territories on the Tuscan shore, should be ceded to the house of Austria; that the sovereignty of the Spanish Netherlands should likewise be secured to that family; but that the elector of Bavaria (to whom they had been granted by Philip) should retain such places as were still in his possession, until he should be reinstated in all his German dominions, except the Upper Palatinate, and also be put in possession of the island of Sardinia, with the title of king: that Luxemburg, Namur, and Charleroy should be given to the states-general as a barrier, together with Mons, Menin, Tournay, and other places; and that Lisle, Aire, Bethune, and St. Venant, should be restored to France. It was agreed that the French monarch should acknowledge the title of queen Anne, and the eventual succession of the family of Hanover to the British throne; that the fortifications of Dunkirk (the cause of much jealousy to England, and raised at vast expense to France) should be demolished, and the harbour filled up; that the island of St. Christopher (which had long been possessed jointly by the French and English, but from which the French had been expelled in 1702) should be subject to this country [England]; that Hudson's Bay and Straits (where the French had founded a settlement, but without dispossessing the English, and carried on a rival trade during the war), the town of Placentia, and other districts of the island of Newfoundland (where the French had been suffered to establish themselves, through the negligence of government), and the long-disputed province of Nova Scotia (into which the French had early intruded, out of which they had been frequently driven, and which had been finally conquered by an army from New England in 1710), should be considered as the dependencies of the British crown: that Minorca and the fortress of Gibraltar (conquered from Spain) should remain in the possession of Great Britain; and that the Assiento, or contract for furnishing the Spanish colonies in South America with negroes, should belong to the subjects of Great Britain for the term of thirty years. That these conditions, especially on the part of Great Britain, were very inadequate to the success and expense of the war, will be allowed by every intelligent man, whose understanding is not warped by political prejudices. … The other confederates had greater cause to be satisfied, and the emperor [Charles VI.] as much as any of them; yet was he obstinate in refusing to sign the general pacification, though two months were allowed him to deliberate on the terms. But he had soon reason to repent his rashness in resolving to continue the war alone. … The imperial army on the Rhine, commanded by prince Eugene, was not in a condition to face the French under Villars, who successively took Worms, Spire, Keiserlautern, and the important fortress of Landau. He forced the passage of the Rhine … and reduced Freyburg, the capital of the Breisgau. Unwilling to prosecute a disastrous war, the emperor began seriously to think of peace; and conferences, which afterward terminated in a pacific treaty, were opened between prince Eugene and Villars, at Ranstadt. The terms of this treaty, concluded on the 6th of March (N. S.) 1714 [but ratified at Baden the next September, and sometimes called the Treaty of Baden], were less favourable to the emperor than those which had been offered at Utrecht. The king of France retained Landau, which he had before proposed to cede, with several fortresses behind the Rhine, which he had agreed to demolish [but restored Freiburg]. He procured the full re-establishment of the electors of Bavaria and Cologne in their dominions and dignities; the former prince consenting to relinquish Sardinia to the emperor, in return for the Upper Palatinate. … The principal articles in regard to Italy and the Low Countries were the same with those settled at Utrecht. Relaxing in his obstinacy, the king of Spain also acceded to the general pacification."

      See, also,
      ITALY: A. D. 1701-1713;
      SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1698-1776;
      CANADA: A. D.1711-1713;
      and NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1713.

UTRECHT SCHOOL OF ST. MARTIN.

A tribe in ancient Caledonia, whose territory extended along the border of the Highlands, from the Moray Firth to the Tay.

VACSLAV.

VAISYAS.

VALENCIENNES: A. D. 1566.
Crushing of the first revolt against Spanish tyranny in the
Netherlands.

VALENTIA.

One of the Roman provinces formed in Britain, extending from the wall of Hadrian to the wall of Antoninus, covering southern Scotland. It was named in honor of the Emperor Valentinian.

VALERIAN LAWS.

VALLACHIA.

VALLI. VALLUM.

The direct line of the Capetian kings of France, descendants of Hugh Capet, ended in 1328, with the death of Charles IV. The crown then passed to the late king's cousin, Philip of Valois, son of Charles Count of Valois, who was the second son of Philip III. He became Philip VI. in the series of French kings, and with him began the royal dynasty or House of Valois, which came to an end in 1589, on the assassination of Henry III., yielding the throne to the Bourbon family.

VALTELINE WAR.

VANCOUVER'S ISLAND.

   "Gibbon declares that a striking resemblance, in manners,
   complexion, religion, and language, indicates that the Goths
   and Vandals were originally one great people; and he cites the
   testimony of Pliny and Procopius in support of this belief.
   According to this theory, therefore, the Vandals are of the
   Teutonic stock. Other learned men have endeavoured to identify
   them with the Wendes; and the Wendes, as we have seen,
   according to the authority of Jornandes and others, were
   members of the Slavic race. The question has been examined,
   with great learning and ingenuity, by M. L. Marcus, Professor
   at the College of Dijon, in a work upon Vandal history. His
   conclusion, drawn from a comparison of what Tacitus, Pliny,
   Procopius, and Jornandes have left us upon the subject, is
   favourable to the hypothesis of Gibbon. Between the Wendes and
   the Vindili of Pliny, who were undoubtedly Vandals, he
   considers that no nearer point of union can be found than that
   of the Asiatic origin common to all nations of Slavic and
   Teutonic blood.
{3595}
   He accounts for the fact that some confusion upon the subject
   subsists in ancient writers, by the supposition that the
   Slaves, after the great migration of Goths and Vandals to the
   South, occupied the locality they had abandoned on the coasts
   of the Baltic, and became inheritors of the name, as well as
   of the land, of their predecessors. Hence they were commonly,
   though incorrectly, called Vindili, or Vandals. … The earliest
   locality of the tribe, so far as authentic history can trace
   them, seems to have been the district between the Vistula and
   the Elbe. Here they were found by the Langobardi, in their
   migration towards the South. … In the time of Pliny, we have
   that writer's testimony to the fact that the Vandals were
   still to be found between the two rivers. But during the next
   two centuries their unwarlike habits must have tended to
   diminish their importance among their fierce and active
   neighbours, of whom the Goths were the most formidable, and
   probably the most aggressive. Tacitus, at any rate, in his
   tractate upon the Germans [A. D. 100], merely notices them by
   name. … Another half-century finds them in a strong position
   among the mountains which form the northern frontier of
   Bohemia. It is certain that they took part in the great
   Marcomannic war [A. D. 168-180]. … In the treaty made by
   Commodus, the son of Marcus Aurelius, with the Marcomanni [A.
   D. 180], the Vandals are one of the tribes secured from the
   hostility of those persevering enemies of the Roman empire. At
   this time, Ptolemy informs us that the Vandals occupied the
   districts lying around the sources of the Elbe; and all other
   investigation confirms the statement." A hundred years later,
   the Vandals appear to have been planted in a district on the
   Danube, east of the Theiss; from which they were soon
   afterwards driven by the Goths. They were then permitted by
   the emperor Constantine to pass the frontiers of the empire
   and settle in Pannonia, where they accepted Christianity and
   exhibited "the greatest aptitude for commerce and the arts of
   peace." Despite their Christianity, however, and despite their
   aptitude for the "arts of peace," the Vandals, after seventy
   years of friendly neighboring with the Romans, joined the
   savage pack of Alans, Sueves and Burgundians which, on the
   last day of the year 406, broke into Gaul and shattered the
   empire and the civilization of Rome beyond the Alps.

"After the retreat of the Goths [A. D. 418] the authority of Honorius had obtained a precarious establishment in Spain, except only in the province of Gallicia, where the Suevi and the Vandals had fortified their camps in mutual discord and hostile independence. The Vandals prevailed, and their adversaries were besieged in the Nervasian hills, between Leon and Oviedo, till the approach of Count Asterius compelled, or rather provoked, the victorious barbarians to remove the scene of war to the plains of Bætica. The rapid progress of the Vandals soon required a more effectual opposition, and the master-general Castinus marched against them with a numerous army of Romans and Goths. Vanquished in battle by an inferior enemy, Castinus fled with dishonour to Tarragona. … Seville and Carthagena became the reward, or rather the prey, of the ferocious conquerors."

Southern Spain, the ancient Bætica, acquired from the Vandals the name Vandalusia, which became Andalusia.

In May, A. D. 429, the Vandals passed from Spain into Africa, invited by Count Boniface, the Roman governor of the African province. The latter had been deceived by an intriguing rival, Count Aetius, who persuaded him that the imperial Court at Ravenna were planning his disgrace and death. Thus incited to rebellion, as an act of self defense, he called the Vandals to his help. The latter had just fallen under the leadership of a new and terrible king—the bold and ruthless Genseric, who was destined to make the name of his people a proverb through all time for ferocity and barbarism. To the Vandals were united the Alans, and Genseric invaded Africa with some 80,000 men. He was joined, moreover, by great numbers of disaffected native Mauritanians, or Moors, and was welcomed by swarms of the fanatical Donatists, whose "vandalism" could quite equal his own. Count Boniface shrank aghast from the terrible invasion he had summoned, and learning, too late, how foully he had been played upon, returned to his allegiance with penitent energy and zeal. He turned his arms against Genseric; but it was in vain. "The victorious barbarians insulted the open country; and Carthage, Cirta, and Hippo Regius were the only cities that appeared to rise above the general inundation. … The seven fruitful provinces, from Tangier to Tripoli, were overwhelmed. … The Vandals, where they found resistance, seldom gave quarter; and the deaths of their valiant countrymen were expiated by the ruin of the cities under whose walls they had fallen. Careless of the distinctions of age or sex or rank, they employed every species of indignity and torture to force from the captives a discovery of their hidden wealth." Defeated in a battle which he ventured, Boniface retired into Hippo Regius and stood a siege of fourteen months. A second battle, won by the Vandals, decided the fate of the city, but its inhabitants escaped, for the most part, by sea, before the barbarians broke in. The great Bishop of Hippo, the venerable St. Augustine, was in the city when the siege began, but died before it ended, in his seventy-sixth year. "When the city, some months after his death, was burned by the Vandals, the library was fortunately saved which contained his voluminous writings." Hippo fell in the summer of A. D. 431. It was not until eight years later that Carthage succumbed,—taken treacherously, by surprise, on the 9th of October, 439; being 585 years after the destruction of the ancient city by the younger Scipio. The provinces of Africa were now fully in the possession of the Vandals, and the loss of their cor

"The Vandals were bigoted Arians and their government was peculiarly tyrannical; they always treated the Roman inhabitants of Africa as political enemies, and persecuted them as religious opponents. The Visigoths in Spain had occupied two thirds of the subjugated lands, the Ostrogoths in Italy had been satisfied with one third; and both these people had acknowledged the civil rights of the Romans as citizens and Christians. The Vandals adopted a different policy. Genseric reserved immense domains to himself and to his sons. He divided the densely peopled and rich districts of Africa proper among the Vandal warriors, exempting them from taxation and binding them to military service. … They seized all the richest lands, and the most valuable estates, and exterminated the higher class of the Romans. Only the poorer proprietors were permitted to preserve the arid and distant parts of the country. Still, the number of the Romans excited the fears of the Vandals, who destroyed the walls of the provincial towns in order to prevent the people from receiving succours from the Eastern Empire. … When Genseric conquered Carthage, his whole army amounted only to 50,000 warriors; yet this small horde devoured all the wealth of Africa in the course of a single century, and, from an army of hardy soldiers, it was converted Into a caste of luxurious nobles living in splendid villas round Carthage. In order fully to understand the influence of the Vandals on the state of the country which they occupied, it must be observed that their oppressive government had already so far lowered the condition and reduced the numbers of the Roman provincials, that the native Moors began to reoccupy the country from which Roman industry and Roman capital had excluded them. … As the property of the province was destroyed, Its Roman inhabitants perished."

The weakened and disordered state of the Vandal kingdom, concurring with the revival of a military spirit in the eastern Roman empire, which the great soldier Belisarius had brought about, encouraged the Emperor Justinian to attempt, A. D. 533, a reconquest of the lost Roman provinces in Africa. With a fleet of six hundred ships, bearing 37,000 men, Belisarius set sail from Constantinople in the month of June and landed early in September on the African coast, about five days journey from Carthage,—having halted at a port in Sicily on the voyage. A few days later, he defeated the Vandal king, Gelimer, in a battle (Ad Decimus) fought at ten miles distance from his capital, and entered Carthage in triumph (September 15, A. D. 533), received with joy by its Roman and Catholic inhabitants, long persecuted and humiliated by the Arian Vandals. A second and decisive battle was fought some weeks afterwards at Tricamaron, twenty miles away from Carthage, and there and then the Vandal kingdom came to its end. Gelimer fled into the wilds of Numidia, was pursued, and, having surrendered himself in the March following, was sent to Constantinople, and passed the remainder of his days in peace and modest luxury on a comfortable estate in Galatia. "The fall of the Vandal monarchy was an event full of meaning for the future history of Africa. There can be little doubt that in destroying it Justinian was unconsciously removing the most powerful barrier which might in the next century have arrested the progress of Mohammedanism."

"The bravest of the Vandal youth were distributed into five squadrons of cavalry, which adopted the name of their benefactor. … But these rare exceptions, the reward of birth or valour, are insufficient to explain the fate of a nation whose numbers, before a short and bloodless war, amounted to more than 600,000 persons. After the exile of their king and nobles, the servile crowd might purchase their safety by abjuring their character, religion, and language; and their degenerate posterity would be insensibly mingled with the common herd of African subjects. Yet even in the present age, and in the heart of the Moorish tribes, a curious traveller has discovered the white complexion and long flaxen hair of a northern race; and it was formerly believed that the boldest of the Vandals fled beyond the power, or even the knowledge, of the Romans, to enjoy their solitary freedom on the shores of the Atlantic ocean."

VANGIONES. TRIBOCI. NEMETES.

   "The Rhine bank itself is occupied by tribes unquestionably
   German—the Vangiones, the Triboci, and the Nemetes."—"These
   tribes dwelt on the west bank of the Rhine, in what is now
   Rhenish Bavaria."

      Tacitus,
      Germany;
      translated by Church and Brodribb,
      with geographical notes.

VAN RENSSELAER MANOR.

VARANGIAN SEA.

VARANGIANS, OR WARINGS. THE WARING GUARD.

Varangians "was the name of the Byzantine equivalent to the 'soldiers of a free-company' In the 11th and 12th centuries. The soldiers were almost wholly Scandinavians—to a great extent the Swedes of Russia. The reasons against believing Varangian to be the same word as Frank, are: 1. The mention of Franci along with them, as a separate people. 2. The extent to which the Varangians were Scandinavians, rather than Germans of the Rhine. In favour of it is: The form of the present Oriental name for Europeans—Feringi. This, in my mind, preponderates. Connected by name only with the Franks, the truer ethnological affinities of the Varangians were with the Scandinavians of Russia."

"Many of the Warings and probably of the English also had taken military service at an early period under the Byzantine emperors. They formed a body-guard for the Emperor, and soon gained for themselves a renown greater than that possessed by the earlier imperial guard of the Immortals. The Byzantine writers usually speak of them as the barbarian guard or as the axe-bearers. Their weapon was the Danish battle-axe, or rather bill, and seems not to have had two blades turning different ways like those of a halberd, but to have had one with a sharp steel spike projecting, so that the weapon could be used either to strike or to thrust. Anna, the daughter of Alexis the First, calls them Warings or Varangians. Nicetas speaks of them as Germans. The Western writers call them usually Danes, or 'English and Danes.' The conquest of England by William the Norman caused many of the English to emigrate to Russia and so to Constantinople, where they joined the Waring guard. … Warings and English, while occupants of the Greek palace, still spoke their own language, had their own laws, and chose, with certain exceptions, their own officers. The one in command was called the acolyth, or follower, because his place was immediately behind the Emperor."

      ALSO IN:
      V. Thomsen,
      The Relations between Ancient Russia and Scandinavia,
      lecture 3.

A decisive victory over the French, invading Normandy, by Duke
William—afterwards the Conqueror of England—A. D. 1058.

VARIAN LAW.

VARKANA.

VASSAL.

VASSAR COLLEGE.

VASSILI.

VATICAN, THE. THE LEONINE CITY.

"The name Vatican was applied by the writers of the Augustan age to the whole range of hills extending along the western bank of the Tiber, including the Janiculum and the Monte Mario. … But the name Vaticanus has now been restricted to the small hill standing behind the Basilica of St. Peter's, upon which the Vatican Museum and the Papal Gardens are situated. This hill is a small projecting portion of the range which includes the Janiculum and Monte Mario, and it is separated from the Janiculum by a depression, along which the street of the Borgo S. Spirito runs. The derivation of the name Vatican is lost. Gellius has preserved a quotation from Varro, in which the word is said to be derived from a deity Vaticanus, the presiding god of the first rudiments of speech ('vagire,' 'vagitanus'). Paulus Diaconus gives a different explanation, founded on the supposed expulsion of the Etruscans in fulfilment of an oracle ('vatum responso expulsis Etruscis'); and from this Niebuhr and Bunsen, following him, have supposed that an Etruscan city existed here in ancient times. There appears to be no sufficient evidence of such a settlement."

In the ninth century, at the time of the pontificate of Leo IV., "the nations of the West and North who visited the threshold of the apostles had gradually formed the large and populous suburb of the Vatican, and their various habitations were distinguished, in the language of the times, as the 'schools' of the Greeks and Goths, of the Lombards and Saxons. But this venerable spot was still open to sacrilegious insult: the design of enclosing it with walls and towers exhausted all that authority could command or charity would supply: and the pious labour of four years was animated in every season and at every hour by the presence of the indefatigable pontiff. The love of fame, a generous but worldly passion, may be detected in the name of the Leonine City, which he bestowed on the Vatican; yet the pride of the dedication was tempered with Christian penance and humility."

VAUDOIS.

VAVASSOR, VAVASOUR.

VECTIGAL, THE. VECTIGALIA.

"Pascua—Vectigalia-Publicum-are the terms employed to denote generally the Revenues of Rome, from whatever source derived. Pascua, i. e. Pasture lands, signified Revenue; because, in the earliest ages, the public income was derived solely from the rent of pastures belonging to the state. … Vectigal is the word used more frequently than any other to denote the Revenue of the state generally. … Publicum, in its widest acceptation, comprehended every thing which belonged to the community at large."

"Cicero states that there was a difference between Sicily and all the other Roman provinces in the management of the Vectigal, which is the name for the contribution which the provinces made to the Roman State. All the provinces except Sicily paid either a fixed land-tax (vectigal stipendiarium) or tenths [decumæ] or other quotæ of their produce, and these tenths were let at Rome by the censors to the Publicani, who paid the State a certain sum for the privilege of collecting the tenths and made out of them what profit they could. … The tenths of wheat and barley were let in Sicily to the Publicani, but sometimes a community would bid for its tenths and pay them itself."

      E. H. Bunbury,
      History of Ancient Geography,
      chapter 24, section 2 (volume 2).

VEDAS. VEDIC HYMNS. VEDISM.

See INDIA: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS,
and IMMIGRATION AND CONQUESTS OF THE ARYAS.

VEHMGERICHTS. VEHMIC COURTS.

"In times when political, social, and legal life are in process of fermentation, and struggling towards a new order of things, the ordinary tribunals lose their authority, and from the body of the people men spring up to protect the right in a primitive fashion, and to punish the criminal who has escaped the ordinary penalties of the law. Thus, at the close of the Middle Ages, or, more precisely, the first half of the 15th century, the Vehmgerichts (or Vehmic Courts, also called Free Courts, Franchise Courts, Secret Courts) rose to an authority which extended all over Germany, which knew no respect of persons, and before which many evil-doers in high places, who had bade defiance to the ordinary tribunals, were made to tremble. The name 'Vehme' is derived from the old German 'vervehmen,' which means to ban, or to curse. The Vehmic courts were peculiar to Westphalia, and even there could only be held on the 'Red Land'—that is, the district between the Rhine and the Weser. They were dependent on the German Emperor alone, and their presidents, the Free-counts, received from the Emperor in person, or from his representative, the Elector of Cologne, the power of life and death. They traced their origin to Charlemagne, who, respecting the legal customs of the old heathen Saxons, introduced county courts among them after they had been converted to Christianity. For, even in the most ancient times, the Saxon freemen used to assemble at an appointed season, after they had held their great sacrifice, and hold a 'Thing' under the presidency of one of their oldest members, called the Grave, or Count, where they inflicted punishment and administered justice. The Vehmic court consisted of a Free-count and a number of assessors, who were called 'The Initiated,' because they knew the secrets of the holy Vehme. There must be at least fourteen of these assessors, but there were generally twice that number. As it was no secret when a man was all assessor, and as it contributed greatly to the safety of his person, since people took good care not to molest a member of the holy Vehme, it gradually came about that men from every German province obtained admission into the number of assessors. When the Emperor Sigismund was elected into the number of 'The Initiated' at the Franchise Court of Dortmund, the number of assessors is said to have amounted to 100,000, among whom were many princes and nobles. And about a thousand assessors are said to have been present when the ban was issued against Duke Henry of Bavaria in 1429. … There was a 'secret court' to which only the initiated had access, and a 'public court' which was held in the morning in the light of day at a known court-house. The presidents' chairs were always set in the open air under a lime, oak, pear, or hawthorn tree, an often near a town, castle, or village. At Dortmund the president's chair was placed close to the town wall under a lime-tree, which, though sadly shattered, is still standing between the rails inside the railway station. Round the stone table were ranged three stone benches for the assessors; on the table there was carved in relief the German imperial eagle, and on it was placed the sword of justice, … The Vehmic court which was originally, and was bound to be, a public one, gradually altered its character, enveloped itself in mysterious darkness, and under the cloak of secrecy lent itself to all sorts of unrighteous objects. In 1461, accordingly, princes and cities leagued together to suppress the irregularities of these courts, and as soon as the orderly administration of justice came into existence with the rise of the new princely authority, they perished from their own impotence."

      A. P. Marras,
      Secret Fraternities of the Middle Ages,
      chapter 5.

VEII. VEIENTINE WARS.

VELITES.

The light infantry of the Roman army, as distinguished from the heavy-armed legionaries. "The velites did not wear any corslet or cuirass, but their tunic appears to have been formed of leather. … It is possible also that the velites sometimes wore, instead of leather, a tunic of quilted linen."

VENATIONES.

Contests of wild beasts with each other or with men, in the
Roman amphitheatres, were called Venationes.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (MARCH-APRIL), (JUNE), (JULY-DECEMBER); 1793-1794 (OCTOBER-APRIL); and 1794-1796.

"The Venedi extended beyond the Peucini and Bastarnæ [around the mouths of the Danube] as far as the Baltic Sea; where is the Sinus Venedicus, now the Gulf of Dantzig. Their name is also preserved in Wenden, a part of Livonia. When the German nations made their irruption into Italy, France, and Spain, the Venedi, also called Winedi, occupied their vacant settlements between the Vistula and Elbe. Afterward they crossed the Danube, and seized Dalmatia, Illyricum, Istria, Carniola, and the Noric Alps. A part of Carniola still retains the name of Windismarck derived from them. This people were also called Slavi."

"The Venedi [of Tacitus] … are obviously the Wends—the name by which the Germans always designate the neighbouring Slavonian populations; but which is no more a national name than that of Wälsch, which they apply in like manner to the Latin races on their southern frontiers."

E. H. Bunbury, History of Ancient Geography, chapter 26, section. 2, foot-note (volume 2).

VENEDOTIA.

VENETA.

One of the tribes or nations of Cisalpine Gaul bore the name of the Veneti. The Veneti occupied the country between the rivers Adige and Plavis and seem to have been considerably civilized when they first appear in history. They became allies of the Romans at an early day and were favorably dealt with when Gallia Cisalpina was added to the dominions of Rome. "No ancient writer distinctly states to what race the Veneti belonged. They are said to have resembled the Illyrians in dress and manners; but the very way in which this statement is made shows that its author did not regard them as Illyrians. … I have no doubt that the Veneti belonged to the race of the Liburnians, and that accordingly they were a branch of the wide-spread Tyrrheno-Pelasgians, in consequence of which they also became so easily Latinized." The capital city of the Veneti was Patavium (modern Padua). "Patavium was a very ancient and large town, and it is strange that it appears as such in Roman history all at once. It is mentioned as early as the fifth century [B. C.], during the expedition of the Spartan Cleonymus; it is also spoken of at the time of Caesar and of the triumvirs. But Strabo is the first who describes Patavium as a large town, and in such a manner as to make it evident that it was an ancient place. He says that, next to Rome, it was the wealthiest city of Italy. … In the time of Augustus it was a large commercial and manufacturing place."

B. G. Niebuhr, Lectures on Ancient Ethnography and Geography, volume 2, page 246.

"The Veneti were one of the Armoric states of the Celtae. Their neighbours on the south were the Namnetes or Nannetes (Nantes), on the east the Redones, and on the north the Curiosolitae, and the Osismi in the north-west part of Bretagne, in the department of Finistère. The chief town of the Veneti was Dariorigum, now Vannes, on the bay of Morbihan in the French department of Morbihan, which may correspond nearly to the country of the Veneti. The Veneti were the most powerful of all the maritime peoples who occupied the peninsula of Bretagne. They had many vessels in which they sailed to the island Britannia, to Cornwall and the parts along the south coast of England, as we may assume. They surpassed all their neighbours in skill and experience in naval affairs."

The Veneti, "together with the Aulerci, Rhedones [or Redones], Carnutes, Andi and Turones, occupied the whole space between the lower Seine and the lower Loire, and were apparently closely united among themselves."

"The Andes [Andi] are the people whom Tacitus names the Andecavi, and the copyists of Ptolemy have named Ondicavae. They were west of the Turones, and their position is defined by the town Juliomagus or Civitas Andecavorum, now Angers on the Mayenne."

"In my opinion these Veneti were the founders of the Veneti in the Adriatic, for almost all the other Keltic nations in Italy have passed over from the country beyond the Alps, as for instance the Boii and Senones. … However, I do not maintain my opinion positively; for in these matters probability is quite sufficient."

Strabo, Geography; translated by Hamilton and Falconer, book 4, chapter 4, section 1.

Cæsar's third campaign in Gaul, B. C. 56, was directed against the Veneti and their Armorican neighbors. These tribes had submitted themselves in the previous year to Cæsar's lieutenant, the younger Crassus; but the heavy exactions of the Romans provoked a general rising, and Cæsar was called to the scene in person. The Veneti were so amphibious a race, and their towns were generally placed so much out of the reach of a land army, that he found it necessary to build a fleet at the mouth of the Loire and bring it up against them. But the Veneti were better sailors than the Romans and their ships were more strongly built, so that the advantage would have still remained to them if Roman inventiveness had not turned the scale. Cæsar armed his men with hooked knives at the end of long poles, with which they cut the rigging of the Venetian ships and brought down their clumsy sails, which were of leather. By this means he overcame and destroyed them, in a great naval fight. When the survivors submitted, he ruthlessly slew the senatorial elders and sold the remnant of the people into slavery.

VENETIA.

VENEZUELA: A. D. 1499-1550.
Discovery and naming of the province.
Its first occupation by German adventurers.

"The province contiguous to Santa Martha on the east was first
visited by Alonso de Ojeda, in the year 1499.

   The Spaniards, on their landing there, having observed some
   huts in an Indian village, built upon piles, in order to raise
   them above the stagnated water which covered the plain, were
   led to bestow upon it the name of Venezuela, or little Venice.
   … They made some attempts to settle there, but with little
   success. The final reduction of the province was accomplished
   by means very different from those to which Spain was indebted
   for its other acquisitions in the new world. The ambition of
   Charles V. often engaged him in operations of such variety and
   extent that his revenues were not sufficient to defray the
   expense of carrying them into execution. Among other
   expedients for supplying the deficiency of his funds, be had
   borrowed large sums from the Velsers of Augsburg, the most
   opulent merchants at that time In Europe. By way of
   retribution for these, or in hopes, perhaps, of obtaining a
   new loan, he bestowed upon them the province of Venezuela, to
   be held as an hereditary fief from the crown of Castile, on
   condition that within a limited time they should render
   themselves masters of the country, and establish a colony
   there. …
{3600}
   Unfortunately they committed the execution of their plan to
   some of those soldiers of fortune with which Germany abounded
   in the 16th century. These adventurers, impatient to amass
   riches, that they might speedily abandon a station which they
   soon discovered to be very uncomfortable, instead of planting
   a colony in order to cultivate and improve the country,
   wandered from district to district in search of mines,
   plundering the natives with unfeeling rapacity, or oppressing
   them by the imposition of intolerable tasks. In the course of
   a few years, their avarice and exactions, in comparison with
   which those of the Spaniards were moderate, desolated the
   province so completely that it could hardly afford them
   subsistence, and the Velsers relinquished a property from
   which the inconsiderate conduct of their agents left them no
   hope of ever deriving any advantage. When the wretched
   remainder of the Germans deserted Venezuela, the Spaniards
   again took possession of it."

VENEZUELA: A. D. 1718-1731.
Embraced in the viceroyalty of New Granada.
Raised to a distinct captain-generalship.

VENEZUELA: A. D. 1810-1819.
   The War of Independence.
   Miranda and Bolivar.
   The great Earthquake.

VENEZUELA: A. D. 1821-1826.
Confederation with New Granada and Ecuador in the
Republic of Colombia, and the breaking of the Confederacy.

VENEZUELA: A. D. 1829-1886.
Summary record of revolutions and civil wars.
The strife of the Yellows and the Blues.

"In all countries, under whatever name they may be known, there are two great political parties; the conservatives and the reformers. … Venezuela is no exception to the general rule; there is the 'Oligarquia,' which desires to let things alone, and the 'Liberal' party, which wishes to remould them in accordance with the spirit of the age. The Spanish misgovernment left a legacy of bitterness and anarchy that has been the cause of much misery. Political passion runs very high in the country, and its history for a generation between these two parties has been a continual struggle, always more or less warlike. The existence of Venezuela in an independent capacity is due, in a large measure, to the personal ambition of Paez, by whose influence the great Liberator was exiled from his fatherland, and the republic separated from Colombia. Whatever may have been the real wishes of the people, the death of Bolivar put an end to all thoughts of re-union; and Paez became its first constitutional president. The second president was the learned Dr. José Maria Vargas, whose election in March 1835 was said to have been irregular, and led to the ' Revolucion de las Reformas.' He was deposed and expelled in July, but in August recalled to power! General Paez now took the field against the ' reformistas,' and a civil war ensued, continuing until March 1836, when they were completely subjugated, and treated with great rigour by order of the Congress, but against the desire of Paez, who entreated to be allowed to deal with them clemently. In 1836, Dr. Vargas resigned the presidency, and after the remainder of his term had been occupied by three vice-presidents, General Paez, in 1839, became again the legitimate head of the nation. Now that the grave had closed over Simon Bolivar, the passions which had prevented the recognition of his greatness died also, and on the 17th of December 1842, the ashes of the immortal Liberator were transferred from Santa Maria with every mark of public respect and honour and received a magnificent national funeral, in the Temple of San Francisco, in Caracas. The fifth president was General Soublette, and the sixth General Jose Tadeo Monagas, who was elected in 1847. A great part of the Venezuelan people believe that all the evils that have fallen upon the republic since 1846 have had their origin in the falsification of votes, said to have taken place during the election of Monagas for president. The liberal candidate was Antonio Leocadio Guzman; and it is asserted that he had a majority of votes. … Monagas did not have an easy tenure of office, for the opposition of Paez led to two years of civil war. Here it may be noted to the credit of the liberal party that, at a time when many of its opponents were prisoners, it abolished the penalty of death for political offences. To his brother, General Jose Gregorio Monagas, afterwards president of the republic, was due the emancipation of the slaves. The famous law of March 24th, 1854, conceded liberty and equal rights to all; but by a strange irony of fortune, he who had given the precious boon of freedom to thousands died himself incarcerated in a political prison. … At the beginning of 1859 the discontent of the liberals had reached a pitch which led to the outbreak of the War of the Federation. It was in this struggle that the present leader of the liberal party first displayed his military skill." Antonio Guzman Blanco, born in 1830 and educated for the law, lived some years in the United States, part of the time as Secretary of Legation at Washington. Driven from Venezuela in 1858, "his expatriation soon after brought him in contact, first in St. Thomas and afterwards in Curazao, with General Falcon, then the head of 'los liberales.' Falcon landed in Venezuela in July 1859, and proclaimed the Federal Republic. Many rose to support him, and in Caracas, on the 1st of August, the president, Monagas, was arrested; the next day the same troops declared against the Federation, and fired upon the people! So commenced the five years' War of the Federation, which has left, even to the present day, its black and ruined tracks across the face of the country. On the 30th of September was fought the battle of Sabana de la Cruz, resulting in the fall of Barquisimeto. In this action, so fortunate for the liberals, Guzman Blanco made his acquaintance with war, and showed so much military talent and energy that he was induced to leave his civil duties and take a 'comandante's' commission. The victory of Santa Ines, in December of the same year, followed. … The attack on San Carlos followed soon after, and was a disaster for the federals, who lost their general, Zamora, and were forced to retreat. {3601} Falcon sought aid in Nueva Granada." The next year Guzman Blanco won the victory of Quebrada-seca, October 21, 1862. "Other victories followed, and were crowned by the grand and decisive combat of the 16th, 17th, and 18th of April, which gave the province of Caracas to the Federals, and led to a treaty between the two parties. The peace of Coche was arranged by Señor Pedro José Rojas, secretary to the Dictator, as Paez was sometimes called, and Guzman Blanco, as representative of Falcon, the chief of the revolution. Paez, by this treaty, undertook to abdicate 30 days later, when an assembly of 80, nominated in equal parts by the chiefs of each party, was to decide on a programme for the future. The assembly met in Victoria, and nominated Falcon President and Guzman Blanco provisional vice-president of the Federation. Falcon entered Caracas in triumph on July 24, 1863, and Guzman Blanco became Minister of Finance and of Foreign Relations." Guzman Blanco visited Europe in 1864 and 1867 to negotiate loans. "Meanwhile, in Caracas, the 'oligarquia,' which now assumed the name of the Blue party (El Partido Azul), was not idle, and its activity was increased by dissensions in the opposition. A section of the liberal party [or 'los amarillos'-'Yellows'] had become greatly disaffected to Marshal Falcon, who abdicated in favour of two revolutionary chiefs, Bruzual and Urrutia. This led to the treaty of Antimano, by which the 'partido azul' recognized the new government, but directly afterwards proclaimed the presidency of General José Tadeo Monagas. Three days' sanguinary combat, at the end of July 1868, gave it possession of Caracas." Guzman Blanco, returning at this juncture from Europe, was driven to take refuge in the island of Curazao; but in February, 1870, he reappeared in Venezuela; was supported by a general rising; took Caracas by assault, and defeated the Blues in several battles. "The congress of plenipotentiaries of the states met at Valencia, and nominated Guzman Blanco provisional president, and by the end of the year the enemy was nearly everywhere defeated."

From the liberation of Venezuela to the present time, "every successive President seems to have been employed, during his short lease of power, in trying to enrich himself and his adherents, without the least consideration for his unfortunate country. On paper all the laws are perfect, and the constitution all that could be desired, but experience has shown that the influence of the executive power is able to subdue and absorb every other power, legislative or judicial. One law which the Congress passed, viz:—that of division of the National property among the defenders of the country, as the only way of rewarding their heroic services, has become a precedent of very bad import. At first, those who had risen and driven out the Spaniards divided the land among themselves, but as successive Generals strove for and gained the Presidency they again forfeited the property of the opposing party, and divided their possessions among their own followers. … Paez, Vargas, Paez, Zea, Soublette, Paez, Gil, Monagas, Falcon, Monagas, Polidor, Pulgar, Blanco, Linares, Blanco, Crespo, and again Blanco, have succeeded each other with marvellous rapidity, the principal occupation of the deposed President being to conspire against his successor. Some of them succeeded to power more than once, but Don Gusman Blanco alone, since Bolivar, seems to have got a firm hold of the Government, and although, by the letter of the Constitution, he can only hold power for two years at a time, and cannot possibly hold two terms consecutively, yet the intervening Presidents were little more than dummies to keep his seat warm. … At present [1886] Don Gusman Blanco is supreme. He is reported to be immensely wealthy, and is a man of great capacity and intelligence."

VENEZUELA: A. D. 1869-1892.
   The constitution.
   The rule of General Blanco.
   The Revolution of 1889.

   "The Venezuelan Constitution is modelled after the American
   Constitution, with modifications grounded upon the Calhoun
   doctrine of State rights.

The confederation consists of eight States, which are supreme and coordinate in their sovereign rights. The National Government represents, not the people, but the States. … In 1869 opened an era of peace and progress under the political domination of General Guzman Blanco. For 20 years, whether he was the head of a Provisional Government established by force of arms, or the constitutional Executive, or Minister to France, his will was the supreme force in the State. … He suppressed Clericalism and established genuine religious liberty. He built rail-ways, improved the public roads, and adorned the cities. … He developed the industries and commerce of the country, and promoted its prosperity by a policy at once strong and pacific. It was a system of political absolutism. … A reaction against it was inevitable. … The signal for a political revolution was raised by university students in October, 1889. They began operations by flinging stones at a statue of Guzman Blanco in Caracas. … It was a singularly effective revolution, wrought without bloodshed or excitement. This political movement was successful because Guzman Blanco was in Paris, and his personal representative in the executive office was not disposed to resent public affronts to his patron. The President, Dr. Rojas Paul, was a wise and discreet man. … He reörganized his Cabinet so as to exclude several of the devoted partisans of Guzman Blanco, and brought Dr. Anduesa Palacio into the field as a candidate for the Presidency. … Anduesa's administration, instead of being an era of reform, reproduced all the vices and corruption of the old order, and none of its progressive virtues. After two years it ended in civil war, usurpation, and the enforced resignation of Anduesa."

Anduesa Palacio resigned in favor of Vice President Villegas, and the legality of the succession was disputed by the opposition, under ex-President Joaquin Crespo. The civil war continued, and three short-lived dictatorships were set up in succession; but in October, 1892, Crespo entered Caracas and established a constitutional government. In June, 1893, a new constitution was adopted. In October, Crespo was elected President for a term of four years.

VENI, VIDI, VICI.

When Attila the Hun, in the year 452, crossed the Alps and invaded Italy, "the savage destroyer undesignedly laid the foundations of a republic which revived, in the feudal state of Europe, the art and spirit of commercial industry. The celebrated name of Venice, or Venetia, was formerly diffused over a large and fertile province of Italy, from the confines of Pannonia to the river Addua, and from the Po to the Rhætian and Julian Alps. Before the irruption of the barbarians, fifty Venetian cities flourished in peace and prosperity. … Many families of Aquileia, Padua, and the adjacent towns, who fled from the sword of the Huns, found a safe though obscure refuge in the neighbouring islands. At the extremity of the Gulf, where the Adriatic feebly imitates the tides of the ocean, near a hundred small islands are separated by shallow water from the continent, and protected from the waves by several long slips of land, which admit the entrance of vessels through some secret and narrow channels. Till the middle of the 5th century these remote and sequestered spots remained without cultivation, with few inhabitants, and almost without a name. But the manners of the Venetian fugitives, their arts and their government, were gradually formed by their new situation; and one of the epistles of Cassiodorus, which describes their condition about seventy years afterwards, may be considered as the primitive monument of the republic. … Fish was the common, and almost the universal, food of every rank: their only treasure consisted in the plenty of salt which they extracted from the sea."

"The inhabitants of Aquileia, or at least the feeble remnant that escaped the sword of Attila, took refuge at Grado. Concordia migrated to Caprularia (now Caorle). The inhabitants of Altinum, abandoning their ruined villas, founded their new habitations upon seven islands at the mouth of the Piave, which, according to tradition, they named from the seven gates of their old city. … From Padua came the largest stream of emigrants. They left the tomb of their mythical ancestor, Antenor, and built their humble dwellings upon the islands of Rivus Altus and Methamaucus, better known to us as Rialto and Malamocco. This Paduan settlement was one day to be known to the world by the name of Venice. But let us not suppose that the future Queen of the Adriatic sprang into existence at a single bound like Constantinople or Alexandria. For 250 years, that is to say for eight generations, the refugees on the islands of the Adriatic prolonged an obscure and squalid existence,—fishing, salt-manufacturing, damming out the waves with wattled vine-branches, driving piles into the sand-banks; and thus gradually extending the area of their villages. Still these were but fishing-villages, loosely confederated together, loosely governed, poor and insignificant. … This seems to have been their condition, though perhaps gradually growing in commercial importance, until at the beginning of the 8th century the concentration of political authority in the hands of the first doge, and the recognition of the Rialto cluster of islands as the capital of the confederacy, started the Republic on a career of success and victory."

VENICE: A. D. 697-810.
   The early constitution of government.
   Origin of the Doges.
   Resistance to Pippin, king of the Lombards.
   Removal to the Rialto and founding of the new capital city.

"Each island had at first its own magistrate: the magistrates of the most considerable being called Tribunes Major, the others, Tribunes Minor, and the whole being equally subject to the council-general of the community; which thus constituted a kind of federal republic. This lasted nearly three hundred years, when it was found that the rising nation had fairly outgrown its institutions. Dangerous rivalries arose among the tribunes. … At a meeting of the Council-General in A. D. 697, the Patriarch of Grado proposed the concentration of power in the hands of a single chief, under the title of Doge or Duke. The proposition was eagerly accepted, and they proceeded at once to the election of this chief. 'It will be seen (remarks Daru) that the Dogeship saved independence and compromised liberty. It was a veritable revolution, but we are ignorant by what circumstances it was brought about. Many historians assert that the change was not effected till the permission of the Pope and the Emperor was obtained.' The first choice fell on Paolo Luca Anabesto. It was made by twelve electors, the founders of what were thenceforth termed the electoral families. The Doge was appointed for life: he named his own counsellors: took charge of all public business; had the rank of prince, and decided all questions of peace and war. The peculiar title was meant to imply a limited sovereignty, and the Venetians uniformly repudiated, as a disgrace, the bare notion of their having ever submitted to a monarch. But many centuries passed away before any regular or well-defined limits were practically imposed; and the prolonged struggle between the people and the Doges, depending mainly on the personal character of the Doge for the time being, constitutes the most startling and exciting portion of their history." The third Doge, one Urso, alarmed the people by his pretensions to such a degree that they slew him, and suppressed his office for five years, substituting a chief magistrate called "maestro dell a milizia." "The Dogeship was then [742] restored in the person of Theodal Urso (son of the last Doge), who quitted Heraclea [then the Venetian capital] for Malamocco, which thus became the capital." In his turn, Theodal Urso lost the favor of the people and was deposed and blinded. "It thenceforth became the received custom in Venice to put out the eyes of deposed Doges." Later in the 8th century the Dogeship was secured by a family which went far towards making it hereditary, and rendering it boldly tyrannical; but the yoke of the would-be despots—Giovanni and Maurice, father and son—was broken in 804, and they were driven to flight. The head of the conspiracy which expelled them, Obelerio, was then proclaimed Doge. {3603} "The events of the next five years are involved in obscurity. One thing is clear. Pepin, King of the Lombards [son of Charlemagne], either under the pretence of a request for aid from the new Doge, or to enforce some real or assumed rights of his own, declared war against the Republic, and waged it with such impetuosity that his fleet and army, after carrying all before them, were only separated from Malamocco, the capital, by a canal. In this emergency, Angelo Participazio, one of those men who are produced by great occasions to mark an era, proposed that the entire population should remove to Rialto, which was separated by a broader arm of the sea from the enemy, and there hold out to the last. No sooner proposed than done. They hastily embarked their all; and when Pepin entered Malamocco, he found it deserted. After losing a large part of his fleet in an ill-advised attack on Rialto, he gave up the enterprise, and Angelo Participazio was elected Doge in recognition of his services, with two tribunes for counsellors. One of his first acts was to make Rialto the capital, instead of Malamocco or Heraclea, which had each been the seat of Government at intervals. 'There were round Rialto some sixty islets, which the Doge connected by bridges. They were soon covered with houses. They were girt with a fortification; and it was then that this population of fugitives gave to this rising city, which they had just founded in the middle of a morass, the name of Venetia, in memory of the fair countries from which their fathers had been forcibly expatriated. The province has lost its name, and become subject to the new Venice.'"

The Republic of Venice (Quarterly Review, October, 1874, volume 137), pages 417-420.

In 803 Charlemagne concluded a treaty, at Aix-la-Chapelle, with Nicephorus I. the Byzantine or Eastern Emperor, establishing boundaries between the two empires which disputed the Roman name. "In this treaty, the supremacy of the Eastern Empire over Venice, Istria, the maritime parts of Dalmatia, and the south of Italy, was acknowledged; while the authority of the Western Empire in Rome, the exarchate of Ravenna, and the Pentapolis, was recognised by Nicephorus. The commerce of Venice with the East was already so important, and the Byzantine administration afforded so many guarantees for the security of property, that the Venetians, in spite of the menaces of Charlemagne, remained firm in their allegiance to Nicephorus. … Venice, it is true, found itself in the end compelled to purchase peace with the Frank empire, by the payment of an annual tribute of thirty-six pounds of gold, in order to secure its commercial relations from interruption; and it was not released from this tribute until the time of Otho the Great. It was during the reign of Nicephorus that the site of the present city of Venice became the seat of the Venetian government, Rivalto (Rialto) becoming the residence of the duke and the principal inhabitants, who retired from the continent to escape the attacks of Pepin [king of Italy, under his father, Charlemagne]. Heraclea had previously been the capital of the Venetian municipality. In 810 peace was again concluded between Nicephorus and Charlemagne, without making any change in the frontier of the two empires."

VENICE: A. D. 810-961.
   Spread of commerce and naval prowess.
   Destruction of Istrian pirates.
   Conquests in Dalmatia.

"During the ninth, and the first sixty years of the tenth centuries,—from the government of Angelo Participazio, to the coming into Italy of Otho the Great,—the Venetian affairs, with brief intervals of repose, were wholly occupied with civil commotions and naval wars. The doges of the republic were often murdered; its fleets were sometimes defeated; but, under every adverse circumstance, the commercial activity, the wealth, and the power of the state were still rapidly increasing. In the ninth century the Venetians, in concert with the Greeks, encountered, though with indifferent success, the navies of the Saracens; but the Narentines, and other pirates of Dalmatia, were their constant enemies, and were frequently chastised by the arms of the republic The Venetian wealth invited attacks from all the freebooters of the seas, and an enterprise undertaken by some of them who had established themselves on the coast of Istria deserves, from its singularity and the vengeance of the republic, to be recorded in this place. According to an ancient custom, the nuptials of the nobles and principal citizens of Venice were always celebrated on the same day of the year and in the same church. … The Istrian pirates, acquainted with the existence of this annual festival, had the boldness [A. D. 944] to prepare an ambush for the nuptial train in the city itself. They secretly arrived over night at an uninhabited islet near the church of Olivolo, and lay hidden behind it with their barks until the procession had entered the church, when darting from their concealment they rushed into the sacred edifice through all its doors, tore the shrieking brides from the arms of their defenceless lovers, possessed themselves of the jewels which had been displayed in the festal pomp, and immediately put to sea with their fair captives and their booty. But a deadly revenge overtook them. The doge, Pietro Candiano III., had been present at the ceremony: he shared in the fury and indignation of the affianced youths: they flew to arms, and throwing themselves under his conduct into their vessels, came up with the spoilers in the lagunes of Caorlo. A frightful massacre ensued: not a life among the pirates was spared, and the victors returned in triumph with their brides to the church of Olivolo. A procession of the maidens of Venice revived for many centuries the recollection of this deliverance on the eve of the purification. But the doge was not satisfied with the punishment which he had inflicted on the Istriots. He entered vigorously upon the resolution of clearing the Adriatic of all the pirates who infested it: he conquered part of Dalmatia, and he transmitted to his successors, with the ducal crown, the duty of consummating his design."

VENICE: A. D. 829.
The translation of the body of St. Mark.
The Winged Lion of St. Mark.

"In the second year of the reign of Doge Giustiniano Particiacio there was brought to Venice from Alexandria the body of the holy evangelist St. Mark. For, as Petrus Damianus says, Mark was brought from Alexandria into Venice, that he who had shone in the East like the morning star might shed his rays in the regions of the West. For Egypt is held to be the East and Venice the West. There he had held the rule of the Church of Alexandria, and here, being, as it were, born again, he obtained the sovereignty of Aquileia. Now this is how the thing was done. The king of the Saracens wishing to build himself a palace in Babylon, gave command that stones should be taken from the Christian churches and other public places, that they might build him a splendid house. And at that time there came by chance to the Church of St. Mark, Bon, tribune of Malamocco, and Rustico da Torcello, who had been forced by the wind, contrary to the edicts of Venice, to put in to the harbour of Alexandria with ten ships laden with merchandise, and they observing the sadness of the guardians of the church (two Greeks, by name Stauratio, a monk, and Theodoro, a priest), inquired the cause. And they answered that by reason of the impious edict of the king they feared the ruin of the church. Thereupon they prayed them to give them the holy body that they might carry it to Venice, promising them that the Doge of Venice would receive it with great honour. But the keepers of the church were filled with fear at their petition, and answered reproaching them and saying: 'Know ye not how the blessed St. Mark, who wrote the Gospel, St. Peter dictating at his request, preached in these parts and baptised into the faith the men of these regions? If the faithful should become aware, we could not escape the peril of death.' But to that they answered: 'As for his preaching, we are his firstborn sons, for he first preached in the parts of Venetia and Aquileia. And in peril of death it is commanded, "If they persecute you in one city, flee ye to another," which the evangelist himself obeyed when in the persecution at Alexandria he fled to Pentapolis.' But the keepers said: 'There is no such persecution now that we should fear for our persons.' But while they spake, came one and broke down the precious stones of the church, and when they would not suffer it they were sorely beaten. Then the keepers seeing the devastation of the church, and their own great danger, listened to the prayer of the Venetians and appointed them a day when they should receive the holy body. Now the body was wrapped in a robe of silk sealed with many seals from the head to the feet. And they brought the body of St. Claudia, and having cut the robe at the back and taken away the body of St. Mark, they placed in its stead the blessed Claudia, leaving the seals unbroken. But a sweet odour quickly spread into the city, and all were filled with astonishment, and not doubting that the body of the evangelist had been moved, they ran together to the church. But when the shrine was opened and they saw the garment with the seals unbroken, they returned quickly to their homes. And when the body should be borne to the boats, they covered it with herbs and spread over it pork-flesh for the passers-by to see, and went crying, 'Khanzir, khanzir!' which is the Saracen's abomination. And when they reached the ships they covered it with a sail while they passed through the Saracen ships. And as they sailed to Venice the ship which bore it with many others was saved from peril of shipwreck. For when the ships had been driven in the night by a tempestuous wind and were not far from Monte, the blessed St. Mark appeared to the Monk Dominic and bade him lower the sails of the ships. Which, when they had done, the dawn appearing, they found themselves close to the island which is called Artalia. And ten of them, having asked and obtained pardon for breaking the edicts of the Doge, they came to the port of Olivola. And the Doge, and the clergy, and the people came to meet them, and brought the body, with songs of thanksgiving, to the Doge's chapel."

Old Chronicle; translated in "The City in the Sea," by the Author of "Belt and Spur," chapter 3.

"Our fathers did not welcome the arrival of the captured eagles of France, after the field of Waterloo, with greater exultation than the people of Venice the relics of the blessed Evangelist. They abandoned themselves to processions, and prayers, and banquets, and public holidays. … The winged 'Lion of St. Mark' was blazoned on the standards, and impressed on the coinage of the Republic. … The Lion became the theme of many political symbols. Thus it was represented with wings to show that Venetians could strike with promptitude; sitting, as a sign of their gravity in counsel—far such is the usual attitude of sages; with a book in its paws, to intimate their devotion to commerce; in war time the book was closed, and a naked sword substituted."

VENICE: A. D. 1032-1319.
   Development of the constitution of the aristocratic Republic.
   The Grand Council.
   The Council of Ten.
   The Golden Book.

"It was by slow and artfully disguised encroachments that the nobility of Venice succeeded in substituting itself for the civic power, and investing itself with the sovereignty of the republic. During the earlier period, the doge was an elective prince, the limit of whose power was vested in assemblies of the people. It was not till 1032 that he was obliged to consult only a council, formed from amongst the most illustrious citizens, whom he designated. Thence came the name given them of 'pregadi' (invited). The grand council was not formed till 1172, 140 years later, and was, from that time, the real sovereign of the republic. It was composed of 480 members, named annually on the last day of September, by 12 tribunes, or grand electors, of whom two were chosen by each of the six sections of the republic. No more than four members from one family could be named. The same counsellors might be re-elected each year. As it is in the spirit of a corporation to tend always towards an aristocracy, the same persons were habitually re-elected; and when they died their children took their places. The grand council, neither assuming to itself nor granting to the doge the judicial power, gave the first example of the creation of a body of judges, numerous, independent, and irremovable; such, nearly, as was afterwards the parliament of Paris. In 1179, it created the criminal 'quarantia'; called, also, the 'vecchia quarantia,' to distinguish it from two other bodies of forty judges, created in 1229. The grand council gave a more complete organization to the government formed from among its members. It was com·posed of a doge; of six counsellors of the red robe, who remained only eight months in office, and who, with the doge, formed the 'signoria'; and of the council of pregadi, composed of 60 members, renewed each year. … {3605} In 1249, the sovereign council renounced the election of the doge, and intrusted it to a commission drawn by lot from among the whole council; this commission named another: which, reduced by lot to one fourth, named a third; and by these alternate operations of lot and election, at length formed the last commission of 41 members, who could elect the doge only by a majority of 25 suffrages. It was not till towards the end of the 13th century that the people began to discover that they were no more than a cipher in the republic, and the doge no more than a servant of the grand council,—surrounded, indeed, with pomp, but without any real power. In 1289, the people attempted themselves to elect the doge; but the grand council obliged him whom the popular suffrages had designated to leave Venice, and substituted in his place Pietro Gradenigo, the chief of the aristocratic party. Gradenigo undertook to exclude the people from any part in the election of the grand council, as they were already debarred from any participation in the election of a doge. … The decree which he proposed and carried on the 28th of February, 1297, is famous in the history of Venice, under the name of 'serrata del maggior consiglio' (shutting of the grand council). He legally founded that hereditary aristocracy,—so prudent, so jealous, so ambitious,—which Europe regarded with astonishment; immovable in principle, unshaken in power; uniting some of the most odious practices of despotism with the name of liberty; suspicious and perfidious in politics; sanguinary in revenge; indulgent to the subject; sumptuous in the public service, economical in the administration of the finances; equitable and impartial in the administration of justice; knowing well how to give prosperity to the arts, agriculture, and commerce; beloved by the people who obeyed it, whilst it made the nobles who partook its power tremble. The Venetian aristocracy completed its constitution, in 1311, by the creation of the Council of Ten, which, notwithstanding its name, was composed of 16 members and the doge. Ten counsellors of the black robe were annually elected by the great council, in the months of August and September; and of the six counsellors of the red robe, composing a part of the signoria, three entered office every four months. The Council of Ten, charged to guard the security of the state with a power higher than the law, had an especial commission to watch over the nobles, and to punish their crimes against the republic. In this they were restrained by no rule: they were, with respect to the nobility, the depositaries of the power of the great council, or rather of a power unlimited, which no people should intrust to any government. Some other decrees completed the system of the 'serrata del maggior consiglio.' It was forbidden to the quarantia to introduce any 'new man' into power. In 1315, a register was opened, called the Golden Book, in which were inscribed the names of all those who had sat in the great council. In 1319, all limitation of number was suppressed; and, from that period, it sufficed to prove that a person was the descendant of a counsellor, and 25 years of age, to be by right a member of the grand council of Venice."

"When the Republic was hard pressed for money, inscriptions in the Golden Book were sold at the current price of 100,000 ducats. … Illustrious foreigners were admitted, as they are made free of a corporation amongst us. … The honour was not disdained even by crowned heads. … The original 'Libro d' oro' was publicly burned in 1797, but extracts, registers, and other documents are extant from which its contents might be ascertained."

"The movement of the crusades brings Venice to the very forefront of European history. Her previous development had been slowly preparing the way for her emergence. The Council, held at Clermont in 1095, resolved that the armament should leave Europe early in the following year. The Pope and the leaders of the Crusades were obliged to turn their attention to the question of transport for the vast and amorphous mob, which, without discipline, with no distinction of ranks, with no discrimination between soldier and monk, between merchant and peasant, between master and man, was now bent on reaching the Holy Land, almost as eager to die there as to achieve the object of their mission, the recovery of the Sepulchre. The three maritime states of Italy—Genoa, Pisa, and Venice—were each ready to offer their services. Each was jealous of the other, and each determined to prevent the other from reaping any signal commercial advantage from the religious enthusiasm of Europe. Venice was not only the most powerful, but also the most eastern, of the three competitors. It was natural that the choice should fall on her. When the Pope's invitation to assist in the Crusade reached the city, however, it seems that the Government did not at once embrace the cause officially in the name of the whole Republic. There was, at first, a tendency to leave the business of transport to private enterprise. But on receipt of the news that Jerusalem had fallen, the Venetian Government began to take active steps in the matter. … The Crusade was accepted with enthusiasm. The whole city engaged in preparing a fleet which should be worthy of the Republic. Then, after a solemn mass in S. Mark's, at which the standard of the Cross and the standard of the Republic were presented to the leaders, the soldiers of the Cross embarked on the fleet which numbered 200 ships, and set sail down the Adriatic, making for Rhodes, where they were to winter. At Rhodes two incidents of great significance in Venetian history took place. The Eastern Emperors had never viewed with favour the incursion of the Crusaders. The creation of the kingdom of Jerusalem was really a usurpation of Imperial territory. Alexius I. now endeavoured to persuade the Venetians to withdraw from the enterprise. In this he failed; Venice remained true to the Cross, and to her commercial interests. It is at this point that we find the beginnings of that divergence between Constantinople and the Republic, which eventually declared itself in open hostility, and led up to the sack of Constantinople in the fourth Crusade.

Alexius, finding that the Venetians were not inclined to obey him, resolved to punish them. An instrument was ready to his hand. The Pisans saw with disfavour the advent of their commercial rivals in Eastern waters. They were willing to hoist the Imperial standard as opposed to the crusading cross, and to sail down upon the Venetians at Rhodes. They were defeated. The Venetians released all the prisoners except thirty of the more prominent among them who were detained as hostages. The first fruits of the Crusade, as far as Venice was concerned, were the creation of two powerful enemies, the Emperor and the Pisans."

"Previous to this time [about 1127], the Venetian republic had generally been a firm ally of the Byzantine empire, and, to a certain degree, it was considered as owing homage to the Emperor of Constantinople. That connection was now dissolved, and those disputes commenced which soon occupied a prominent place in the history of Eastern Europe. The establishment of the Crusaders in Palestine had opened a new field for the commercial enterprise of the Venetians, and in a great measure changed the direction of their maritime trade; while the frequent quarrels of the Greeks and Franks compelled the trading republics of Italy to attach themselves to one of the belligerent parties, in order to secure a preference in its ports. For a short time, habit kept the Venetians attached to the empire; but they soon found that their interests were more closely connected with the Syrian trade than with that of Constantinople. They joined the kings of Jerusalem in extending their conquests, and obtained considerable establishments in all the maritime cities of the kingdom. From having been the customers and allies of the Greeks, they became their rivals and enemies. The commercial fleets of the age acted too often like pirates; and it is not improbable that the Emperor John had good reason to complain of the aggressions of the Venetians. Hostilities commenced; the Doge Dominico Michieli, one of the heroes of the republic, conducted a numerous fleet into the Archipelago, and plundered the islands of Rhodes and Chios, where he wintered. Next year he continued his depredations in Samos, Mitylene, Paros, and Andros. … Peace was re-established by the emperor reinstating the Venetians in the enjoyment of all the commercial privileges they had enjoyed before the war broke out."

      G. Finlay,
      History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires,
      book 3, chapter 2, section 2.

VENICE: A. D. 1177.
Pretended Papal Grant of the sovereignty of the Adriatic.
Doubtful story of the humiliation of Frederick Barbarossa.

A "notable epoch in early Venetian history is the grant on which she based her claim to the sovereignty of the Adriatic. In the course of the fierce struggle between Alexander III. and Frederick Barbarossa [see ITALY: A. D. 1174-1183], the Pope, when his fortunes were at the lowest, took refuge with the Venetians, who, after a vain effort at reconciliation, made common cause with him, and in a naval encounter obtained so signal a victory that the Emperor was compelled to sue for peace and submit to the most humiliating terms. The crowning scene of his degradation has been rendered familiar by the pencil, the chisel, and the pen. … The Emperor, as soon as he came into the sacred presence, stripped off his mantle and knelt down before the Pope to kiss his feet. Alexander, intoxicated with his triumph and losing all sense of moderation or generosity, placed his foot on the head or neck of his prostrate enemy, exclaiming, in the words of the Psalmist, 'Super aspidem et basiliscum ambulabis' &c. ('Thou shalt tread upon the asp and the basilisk' …). 'Non tibi, sed Petro' ('Not to thee, but Peter'), cried the outraged and indignant Emperor. 'Et mihi et Petro' ('To both me and Peter'), rejoined the Pope, with a fresh pressure of his heel. … Sismondi (following a contemporary chronicler} narrates the interview without any circumstance of insult, and describes it as concluding with the kiss of peace. There are writers who contend that Alexander was never at Venice, and that the Venetians obtained no victory on his behalf. But the weight of evidence adduced by Daru strikes us to be quite conclusive in favour of his version. … In return for the good offices of Venice on this occasion … Alexander presented the reigning Doge, Ziani, with a ring, saying, 'Receive this ring, and with it, as my donation, the dominion of the sea, which you, and your successors, shall annually assert on an appointed day, so that all posterity may understand that the possession of the sea was yours by right of victory, and that it is subject to the rule of the Venetian Republic, as wife to husband.' … The well-known ceremony of wedding the Adriatic, religiously observed with all its original pomp and splendour during six centuries, was in itself a proclamation and a challenge to the world. It was regularly attended by the papal nuncio and the whole of the diplomatic corps, who, year after year, witnessed the dropping of a sanctified ring into the sea, and heard without a protest the prescriptive accompaniment: 'Desponsamus te, mare, in signum veri perpetuique domini' (we espouse thee, sea, in sign of true and perpetual dominion)."

The Republic of Venice (Quarterly Review, October, 1874, volume 137), pages 421-423.

ALSO IN: G. B. Testa, History of the War of Frederick I. against the Communes of Lombardy, book 11.

Mrs. W. Busk, Mediæval Popes, Emperors, Kings, and Crusaders, book 2, chapter 8 (volume 2).

"Of late years the Venetians had had difficulties with the New Rome. … These difficulties arose, in great measure, from the fact that the influence of Venice in Constantinople was no longer sufficient to exclude that of the other Italian republics. … But the hostility to Constantinople reached its height when the Venetians learned that Alexis had, in May 1201, received an embassy from Genoa, and was negotiating with Ottobono della Croce, its leader, for the concession of privileges for trade in Romania which Venice had hitherto regarded as exclusively her own. From this time the Doge appears to have determined to avenge the wrongs of his state on the ruler who had ventured to favour his rivals."

VENICE: A. D. 1204.
Share of the Republic in the partition of the Byzantine Empire.

"At the period of the Crusades, it was usual in those cities or towns where the Christians held sway, to assign to each of the mercantile communities which had borne a part in the conquest or recovery of the particular district, a separate quarter where they might have their own mill, their own oven, their own bath, their own weights and measures, their own church, and where they might be governed by their own laws, and protected by their own magistrates. … At Saint Jean d'Acre, however, the Church of Saint Sabbas was frequented by the Venetians and the Genoese in common; and it happened that, in course of time, both nations sought to found a right to the exclusive property of the building." Collisions ensued, in one of which (1256), the Genoese drove the Venetians from their factory at Acre and burned the church of Saint Sabbas. The Venetians retaliated by sending a squadron to Acre which destroyed all the Genoese shipping in the port, burned their factory, and reduced a castle near the town which was held by a Genoese garrison. Early in 1257 the fleets of the two republics met and fought a battle, between Acre and Tyre, in which the Venetians were the victors. On the 24th of June, 1258, a second battle was fought very nearly on the same spot, and again Venice triumphed, taking 2,600 prisoners and 25 galleys. Through the efforts of the Pope, a suspension of hostilities was then brought about; but other causes of war were working in the east, which soon led to fresh encounters in arms between the two jealous commercial rivals.

VENICE: A. D. 1261-1263.
   The supplanting of the Venetians by the Genoese at
   Constantinople and in the Black Sea.
   War between the Republics.
   The victory at Malvasia.

"In the 14th century Venice had 3,000 merchantmen manned by 25,000 sailors. A tenth part of these were ships exceeding 700 tons burden. There were besides 45 war-galleys manned by 11,000 hands; and 10,000 workmen, as well as 36,000 seamen, were employed in the arsenals. The largest of the war-galleys was called the Bucentaur; it was a state vessel of the most gorgeous description. Every year the Doge of Venice, seated upon a magnificent throne surmounted by a regal canopy, dropped from this vessel a ring into the Adriatic, to symbolise the fact that land and sea were united under the Venetian flag. This ceremony commemorated the victory gained over the fleet of the Emperor Frederick Barbarossa In 1177, when the Venetians obliged him to sue for peace.

Ascension Day was selected for its celebration, and the Bucentaur, glorious with new scarlet and gold, its deck and seats inlaid with costly woods, and rowed with long banks of burnished oars, for many years bore the Doge to plight his troth with the words, 'We espouse thee, O Sea! in token of true and eternal sovereignty.' The merchant fleet of Venice was divided into companies sailing together according to their trade. Their routes, and the days for departure and return, their size, armament, crew, and amount of cargo, were all defined. In those times the seas were as much infested with pirates as the deserts with robbers; each squadron therefore hired a convoy of war-galleys for its protection on the voyage. There were six or seven such squadrons in regular employment. The argosies of Cyprus and Egypt, and the vessels engaged in the Barbary and Syrian commerce, concentrated their traffic chiefly at Alexandria and Cairo. The so-called Armenian fleet proceeded to Constantinople and the Euxine, visiting Kaffa and the Gulf of Alexandretta. A Catalonian fleet traded with Spain and Portugal, and another with France; while the most famous of all, the Flanders galleys, connected the seaports of France, England, and Holland with the great commercial city of Bruges. The internal traffic with Germany and Italy was encouraged with equal care, oriental produce arriving from Constantinople and Egypt, and many other commodities being distributed, at first by way of Carinthia, and afterwards of the Tyrol. Germans, Hungarians, and Bohemians conducted this distribution. In Venice a bonded warehouse (fondaco dei tedeschi), or custom-house, was accorded to the Germans, where they were allowed to offer their wares for sale, though only to Venetian dealers. Similar privileges were granted to the Armenians, Moors, and Turks, but not to the Greeks, against whom a strong animosity prevailed. … The ancient industries of preparing salt and curing fish were never disregarded. The Adriatic sands supplied material adapted for a glass of rare beauty and value, of which mirrors and other articles of Venetian manufacture were made. Venetian goldsmiths' work was universally famed. Brass and iron foundries prepared the raw material for the armourers, whose weapons, helmets, and bucklers were unsurpassed for strength and beauty. Ship-building, with a people whose principle it was always to have more ships than any other state, was necessarily a very important branch of industry. Not satisfied with penetrating to every part already opened to enterprise, the Venetians travelled into regions before unknown, and gave to the world the record of their daring adventures. Maffeo and Nicolo Polo spent fifteen years visiting Egypt, Persia, India, the Khan of Tartary, and the Grand Khan or Emperor of China. Marco Polo, son of Nicolo, as well as Barthema and Joseph Barbaro, extended the knowledge obtained by their precursors in northern Europe and Asia."

VENICE: A. D. 1336-1338.
Alliance with Florence against Mastino della Scala.
Conquest of Treviso and other territory on the mainland.

VENICE: A. D. 1351-1355.
Alliance with the Greeks and Aragonese in war with Genoa.

The treaty of June, 1355, between Venice and Genoa (see CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1348-1355), established a peace which lasted only until April, 1378, when, "a dispute having arisen between the rival States in relation to the island of Tenedos, which the Venetians had taken possession of, the Signory formally declared war against Genoa, which it denounced as false to all its oaths and obligations. On the 26th of this month, Vettore Pisani was invested with the supreme command of the naval forces of the republic. … The new commander-in-chief was the son of Nicolo Pisani, and had held a commission in the Navy for 25 years. … Of the seamen he was the idol. … Pisani sailed from Venice early in May, with 14 galleys; and, on the 30th of the month, while cruising off Antium, came across a Genoese squadron of 10 galleys, commanded by Admiral Fieschi. It was blowing a gale at the time, and five of Pisani's vessels, which had parted company with him, and fallen to leeward, were unable to rejoin him, while one of Fieschi's drifted ashore, and was wrecked. Thus the battle which immediately ensued was between equal forces; but the Genoese admiral was no match for Vettore Pisani," and sustained a disastrous defeat, losing four vessels, with all their officers and crew. "During the summer, Pisani captured great numbers of the enemy's merchantmen; but was unable to find their fleet, which, under Luciano Doria, was actively engaged in cutting up Venetian commerce in the East. In November he asked permission to return to Venice to refit his vessels, which were in a very bad condition, but this was denied him; and, being kept constantly cruising through the winter, at its expiration only six of his vessels were found to be seaworthy. Twelve others, however, were fitted out at their own expense and sent to him by his friends, who perceived that his political enemies were making an effort to ruin him. At the end of February, 1379, Michele Steno and Donato Zeno were appointed by the Government' proveditori' of the fleet. These officers, like the field deputies of the Dutch republic in later times, were set as spies over the commander-in-chief, whose operations they entirely controlled. On the 1st of May, Pisani left Brindisi, bound to Venice, having a large number of merchantmen in charge, laden with wheat; and, on the 6th instant, as the weather looked squally, put into Pola, with his convoy, for the night. On the following morning, at day-break, it was reported to him that Doria was off the port with 25 vessels; whereupon he determined not to leave his anchorage until Carlo Zeno, whom he was expecting with a reenforcement of 10 galleys, should be seen approaching. But the Proveditori, loudly denouncing such a determination as a reflection upon the valor of his officers and men, ordered him, peremptorily, in the name of the Senate, to engage the enemy without delay." The result was an overwhelming defeat, out of which Pisani brought six galleys, only—" which were all that were saved from this most terrible engagement, wherein 800 Venetians perished and 2,000 were taken prisoners. … Pisani was now violently assailed by his enemies; although they well knew that he had fought the battle of Pola against his own judgment, and agreeably to the wishes of the government, as made known to him by its accredited agents, Michele Steno and Donato Zeno. The Great Council decreed his immediate removal from the supreme command, and he was brought to Venice loaded with chains." Condemned, upon trial before the Senate, he was sentenced to imprisonment for six months.

VENICE: A. D. 1379-1381.
The war of Chioggia.
The dire extremity of the Republic and her deliverance.

After the great victory of Pola, which cost the Genoese the life of Luciano D'Oria, they lost no time in pressing their beaten enemy, to make the most of the advantage they had won. "Fresh galleys were forthwith placed under the command of Pietro, another of the noble D'Oria family; and before the eyes of all Genoa, and after the benediction of the archbishop, the fleet sailed from the harbour, and a great cry was raised from roof to roof, and from window to window, and each alley and each street re-echoed it with enthusiasm, 'to Venice! to Venice!' On arriving in the Adriatic, Pietro D'Oria joined the fleet already there, and prepared for his attack on Venice. These were pitiful days for the Queen of the Adriatic, the days of her greatest peril and humiliation. The Lord of Padua joined the Genoese; the King of Hungary sent troops, as did also the Marquis of Friuli, and all seemed lost to her both by sea and land. Everywhere within the city was misery and dismay. … To possess himself of Chioggia, which was 25 miles distant from Venice, was D'Oria's first plan. It was the key of the capital, commanded the entrance to the harbour, and cut off any assistance which might come from Lombardy. Chioggia was very strong in itself, defended by bastions on all sides; its weak point lay in being built on two sides of a river, which was spanned by a large wooden bridge. It was the first care of the defenders to block up the mouth of this river. After a few days of gallant defence, and a few days of gallant attack by sea and land, the defenders of Chioggia were reduced to the last extremity. The entrance to the river was broken open, and the bridge, which for some time was a stumbling-block to the besiegers, was destroyed with all the soldiers upon it by the bravery of a Genoese sailor, who took a boat laden with tar and wool and other combustible materials, and set fire to it, escaping by means of swimming. The defenders having thus perished in the flames, and Chioggia being taken [August, 1379], the triumph of the Genoese was at its height. It now seemed as if Pietro D'Oria had but the word of command to give, and Venice would have met with the same fate as Pisa had but a century before. But with this the fortune of the Ligurians began to wane. One small cannon of leather, with a wooden car, brought from Chioggia as a trophy to Genoa, is all that exists to-day to testify to their victory." The Venetians, in consternation at the fall of Chioggia, sent a deputation to D'Oria humbly offering to submit to any terms of peace he might dictate; but the insolent victor ordered them home with the message that there could be no peace until he had entered their city to bridle the bronze horses which stand on the Piazza of St. Mark. {3609} This roused the indignation and courage of Venice anew, and every nerve was strained in the defense of the port. "Vettor Pisani, who since the defeat at Pola had languished in prison, was brought out by unanimous consent, and before an assembled multitude he quietly and modestly accepted the position of saviour of his country. … The one saving point for Venice lay in the arrival of a few ships from Constantinople, which … Carlo Zeno had under his command, endeavouring to make a diversion in the favour of the Venetians at the Eastern capital. Pending the return of this fleet, the Venetians made an attack on Chioggia. And an additional gleam of hope raised the spirits of Pisani's men in the disaffection of the King of Hungary from the Genoese cause; and gradually, as if by the magic hand of a fickle fortune, Pietro D'Oria found himself and his troops besieged in Chioggia, instead of going on his way to Venice as he had himself prophesied. But the Genoese position was still too strong, and Pisani found it hopeless to attempt to dislodge them; his troops became restless: they wished to return to Venice, though they had sworn never to go back thither except as conquerors. It was in this moment of dire distress that the ultimate resort was vaguely whispered from the Venetian Council Hall to the Piazza. A solemn decree was passed, 'that if within four days the succour from Carlo Zeno did not arrive, the fleet should be recalled from Chioggia, and then a general council should be held as to whether their country could be saved, or if another more secure might not be found elsewhere.' Then did the law-givers of Venice determine that on the fifth day the lagunes should be abandoned, and that they should proceed en masse to Crete or Negropont to form for themselves a fresh nucleus of power on a foreign soil. It is indeed hard to realize that the fate of Venice, associated with all that is Italian, the offspring of the hardy few who raised the city from the very waves, once hung in such a balance. But so it was, when towards the evening of the fourth day [January 1, 1380] sails were descried on the horizon, and Carlo Zeno arrived to save his country from so great a sacrifice. Meanwhile, at Chioggia the Genoese were day by day becoming more careless; they felt their position so strong, they talked merrily of fixing the day when they should bivouac on the Piazza of St. Mark. Little did they dream of the net of misfortune into which they were being drawn so fast. Besides reinforcements by sea, assistance by land flocked in towards Venice. Barnabo Visconti, and his company of the Star, a roving company of Germans, and the celebrated Breton band under Sir John Hawkwood, the Englishman, all hurried to assist the fallen banner of St. Mark. Pietro D'Oria did all he could to maintain discipline amongst his troops; but when he fell one day in an engagement, through being struck by a Venetian arrow, a general demoralization set in, and their only thought was how to save themselves and abandon Chioggia. … On the 18th of February, 1380, the Venetians made another gallant attack. Both sides fought with desperation, the Genoese for life, their rivals for their country and their country's fame. Fearful slaughter occurred amongst the Genoese, and they were obliged to retire within the walls. … Driven to extremities, on the 22nd of June In that year, 4,000 Genoese were taken to the public prisons in Venice. … Since both parties were tired of war, and weakened with these extreme efforts, it was no difficult matter to establish a peace [August 8, 1381]."

ALSO IN: W. O. Hazlitt, History of the Venetian Republic, chapter 20 (volume 3).

VENICE: A. D. 1406-1447.
Acquisition of neighboring territory in northeastern Italy.

On the death of Gian Galeazzo Visconti, the first Duke of Milan (see MILAN: A. D. 1277-1447), the eastern parts of his duchy, "Padua, Verona, Brescia, Bergamo, were gradually added to the dominion of Venice. By the middle of the 15th century, that republic had become the greatest power In northern Italy."

VENICE: A. D. 1426-1447. League with Florence, Naples, Savoy, and other States against the Duke of Milan.

VENICE: A. D. 1450-1454.
War with Milan and Florence.
Alliance with Naples and Savoy.

VENICE: A. D. 1454-1479.
Treaty with the Turks, followed by war.
Loss of ground in Greece and the islands.

VENICE: A. D. 1460-1479.
Losing struggle with the Turks in Greece and the Archipelago.

VENICE: A. D. 1492-1496.
   The invasion of Italy by Charles VIII. of France.
   Alliance with Naples, Milan, Spain, the Emperor and the Pope.
   Expulsion of the French.

VENICE: A. D. 1494-1503.
The rising power and spreading dominion of the republic.
The fears and jealousies excited.

   "The disturbances which had taken place In Italy since Charles
   VIII.'s advent there, came very opportunely for their [the
   Venetians'] plans and policy.

   On every available occasion the Venetians spread their power
   all round about them. In the struggle between Charles and
   Ferrantino [or Ferdinand, of Naples] they acquired five fine
   cities in Apulia, excellently situated for their requirements,
   which they peopled by the reception of fugitive Jews from
   Spain. Moreover, in the kingdom of Naples, one party had
   declared for them. … Tarento raised their standard. During the
   Florentine disorders they were within an ace of becoming
   masters of Pisa. In the Milanese feuds they acquired Cremona
   and Ghiara d'Adda. Their power was all the more terrible, as
   they had never been known to lose again anything which they
   had once gotten. No one doubted that their aim was the
   complete sovereignty over the whole of Italy.
{3610}
   Their historians always talked as if Venice was the ancient
   Rome once more. … The Turkish war, which had kept them a while
   employed, now at an end, they next tried their fortune in
   Romagna, and endeavoured, availing themselves of the quarrels
   between the returning nobles and Cesar [Borgia, son of Pope
   Alexander VI.], to become, if not the sole, at all events the
   most powerful, vassals of the papal chair. … The Venetians
   prepared to espouse the cause of those whom Cesar had
   suppressed. The cities reflected how genuine and substantial
   that peace was that the lion of Venice spread over all its
   dependencies. Having appeared in this country at the end of
   October, 1503, and having first promised the Malatesti other
   possessions in their own country, they took Rimini, with the
   concurrence of the prince and citizens. Without ado they
   attacked Faenza. … They continued their conquests, and, in the
   territories of Imola, Cesena, and Forli, took stronghold after
   stronghold. … Then it was that the first minister of France
   stated his belief that, 'had they only Romagna, they would
   forthwith attack Florence, on account of a debt of 180,000
   guilders owing them.' If they were to make an inroad into
   Tuscany, Pisa would fall immediately on their arrival. Their
   object in calling the French into the Milanese territory was,
   that they considered them more fitted to make a conquest than
   to keep it; and, in the year 1504, they were negotiating how
   it were possible to wrest Milan again from them. Could they
   only succeed in this, nothing in Italy would be able longer to
   withstand them. 'They wanted,' as Macchiavelli said, 'to make
   the Pope their chaplain.' But they met with the staunchest
   resistance in Julius [the Pope, Julius II.], as in him they
   could discover no weak point to attack. As pointedly as he
   could express himself, he declared to them, on the 9th
   November, 1503, that, 'though hitherto their friend, he would
   now do his utmost against them, and would besides incite all
   the princes of Christendom against them.'"

      L. von Ranke,
      History of the Latin and Teutonic Nations,
      book 2, chapter 3.

VENICE: A. D. 1499-1500.
   Alliance with France against the Duke of Milan.
   French conquest of the duchy.
   Acquisition of Cremona.

"Commerce was for a long time free at Venice; and the republic only began to decline when its government had caused the source of its prosperity to be exhausted by monopoly. At first all the young patricians were subjected to the most severe ordeals of a commercial training. They were often sent as novices on board state-vessels to try fortune with a light venture, so much did it enter into the views of the administration to direct all citizens toward industrial occupations! The only reproach that can be brought against the Venetians, is the effort to exclude foreigners from all competition with them. Although commercial jealousy had not yet erected prohibitions into a system, and the ports of the republic were open to all the merchandise of the world, yet the Venetians only permitted its transportation in their own ships; and they reigned as absolute masters over all the Mediterranean. War had given them security from the Pisans, the Sicilians and the Genoese. Spain, long occupied by the Moors, gave them little occasion of offence. France disdained commerce; England had not yet begun to think of it; the republic of Holland was not in existence. Under cover of the right of sovereignty on the gulf, which she had arrogated to herself, Venice reserved the almost exclusive right to navigate. Armed flotillas guarded the mouths of all her rivers, and allowed no barque to enter or depart without being vigorously examined. But what profited that jealous solicitude for the interests of her navigation? A day came when the Portuguese discovered the Cape of Good Hope, and all that structure of precautions and mistrust suddenly fell to pieces. Here begin the first wars of customs-duties, and political economy receives from history valuable instruction. The Venetians had levelled all obstacles, but for themselves alone, and to the exclusion of other nations. Their legislation was very strict in respect to foreigners, in the matter of commerce. The laws forbade a merchant who was not a subject of the republic to be even received on board a vessel of the state. Foreigners paid customs-duties twice as high as natives. They could neither build nor buy vessels in Venetian ports. The ships, the captains, the owners, must all be Venetian. Every alliance between natives and strangers was interdicted; there was no protection, no privileges and no benefits save for Venetians: the latter, however, all had the same rights. In Venice itself, and there alone, was it permitted to negotiate with the Germans, Bohemians and Hungarians. As national manufactures acquired importance, the government departed from the liberal policy it had hitherto pursued, and the manufacturers obtained an absolute prohibition of such foreign merchandise as they produced. In vain, in the 17th century, did declining commerce urge the reestablishment of former liberties and the freedom of the port: the attempt was made for a brief moment, but the spirit of restriction won the day, and the prohibitory regime early prepared the way for the death of the republic. The people of Ita]y, however, pardoned the Venetians for their commercial intolerance, because of the moderate price at which they delivered all commodities. The Jews, Armenians, Greeks and Germans flocked to Venice and engaged with safety in speculations, which were always advantageous, because of the security which the credit institutions gave and the recognized probity of the merchants. But soon Venice saw numerous manufactures spring up in Europe rivaling her own, and her commerce encountered most formidable competition in that of the Portuguese, Dutch, Spanish and English. The discovery of the Cape of Good Hope took away from her the monopoly of the spices of the Indies.

   The taking of Constantinople, by Mahomet II, had already
   deprived her of the magnificent privileges which her subjects
   enjoyed in that rich capital of the Orient. But the discovery
   of America and the vigorous reprisals of Charles V, who, at
   the commencement of his reign, in 1517, doubled the
   customs-duties which the Venetians paid in his states,
   completed the ruin of that fortunate monopoly which had made
   all Europe tributary. Charles V raised the import and export
   duties on all Venetian merchandise to twenty per cent; and
   this tariff, which would to-day appear moderate, sufficed then
   to prevent the Venetians from entering Spanish ports.
{3611}
   Such was the origin of the exclusive system, the fatal
   invention which the republic of Venice was so cruelly to
   expiate. So long as she sought fortune only in the free
   competition of the talent and capital of her own citizens, she
   increased from age to age and became for a moment the arbiter
   of Europe; but as soon as she wished to rule the markets by
   the tyranny of monopoly, she saw a league formed against her
   commerce, formidable for a very different reason from that of
   Cambray."

VENICE: A. D. 1508-1509.
The League of Cambrai.
The republic despoiled of her continental provinces.

"The craving appetite of Louis XII., … sharpened by the loss of Naples, sought to indemnify itself by more ample acquisitions in the north. As far back as 1504, he had arranged a plan with the emperor for the partition of the continental possessions of Venice. …

The scheme is said to have been communicated to Ferdinand [of Aragon] in the royal interview at Savona [1507]. No immediate action followed, and it seems probable that the latter monarch, with his usual circumspection, reserved his decision until he should be more clearly satisfied of the advantages to himself. At length the projected partition was definitely settled by the celebrated treaty of Cambray, December 10th, 1508, between Louis XII. and the emperor Maximilian, in which the Pope, King Ferdinand, and all princes who had any claims for spoliations by the Venetians, were invited to take part. The share of the spoil assigned to the Catholic monarch [Ferdinand] was the five Neapolitan cities, Trani, Brindisi, Gallipoli, Pulignano, and Otranto, pledged to Venice for considerable sums advanced by her during the late war. The Spanish court, and, not long after, Julius II., ratified the treaty, although it was in direct contravention of the avowed purpose of the pontiff, to chase the 'barbarians' from Italy. It was his bold policy, however, to make use of them first for the aggrandisement of the church, and then to trust to his augmented strength and more favorable opportunities for eradicating them altogether. Never was there a project more destitute of principle or sound policy. There was not one of the contracting parties who was not at that very time in close alliance with the state, the dismemberment of which he was plotting. As a matter of policy, it went to break down the principal barrier on which each of these powers could rely for keeping in check the overweening ambition of its neighbors, and maintaining the balance of Italy. The alarm of Venice was quieted for a time by assurances from the courts of France and Spain that the league was directed solely against the Turks, accompanied by the most hypocritical professions of good will, and amicable offers to the republic. The preamble of the treaty declares that, it being the intention of the allies to support the pope in a crusade against the infidel, they first proposed to recover from Venice the territories of which she had despoiled the church and other powers, to the manifest hindrance of these pious designs. … The true reasons for the confederacy are to be found in a speech delivered at the German diet, some time after, by the French minister Hélian. 'We,' he remarks, after enumerating various enormities of the republic, 'wear no fine purple; feast from no sumptuous services of plate; have no coffers overflowing with gold. We are barbarians. Surely,' he continues in another place, 'if it is derogatory to princes to act the part of merchants, it is unbecoming in merchants to assume the state of princes.' This, then, was the true key to the conspiracy against Venice; envy of her superior wealth and magnificence, hatred engendered by her too arrogant bearing, and lastly the evil eye with which kings naturally regard the movements of an active, aspiring republic. To secure the co-operation of Florence, the kings of France and Spain agreed to withdraw their protection from Pisa, for a stipulated sum of money.

There is nothing in the whole history of the merchant princes of Venice so mercenary and base as this bartering away for gold the independence for which this little republic had been so nobly contending for more than 14 years. Early in April, 1509, Louis XII. crossed the Alps at the head of a force which bore down all opposition. City and castle fell before him, and his demeanor to the vanquished, over whom he had no rights beyond the ordinary ones of war, was that of an incensed master taking vengeance on his rebellious vassals. In revenge for his detention before Peschiera, he hung the Venetian governor and his son from the battlements. This was an outrage on the laws of chivalry, which, however hard they bore on the peasant, respected those of high degree. … On the 14th of May, 1509, was fought the bloody battle of Agnadel, which broke the power of Venice and at once decided the fate of the war. Ferdinand had contributed nothing to these operations, except by his diversion on the side of Naples, where he possessed himself without difficulty of the cities allotted to his share. They were the cheapest, and, if not the most valuable, were the most permanent acquisitions of the war, being reincorporated in the monarchy of Naples. Then followed the memorable decree by which Venice released her continental provinces from their allegiance, authorizing them to provide in any way they could for their safety; a measure which, whether originating in panic or policy, was perfectly consonant with the latter. The confederates, who had remained united during the chase, soon quarrelled over the division of the spoil. Ancient jealousies revived. The republic, with cool and consummate policy, availed herself of this state of feeling. Pope Julius, who had gained all that he had proposed, and was satisfied with the humiliation of Venice, now felt all his former antipathies and distrust of the French return in full force. The rising flame was diligently fanned by the artful emissaries of the republic, who at length effected a reconciliation on her behalf with the haughty pontiff. The latter … planned a new coalition for the expulsion of the French, calling on the other allies to take part in it."

W. H. Prescott, History of the Reign of Ferdinand and Isabella, part 2, chapter 22 (volume 3).

ALSO IN: T. A. Trollope, History of the Commonwealth of Florence, book 9, chapter 10 (volume 4).

      M. Creighton,
      History of the Papacy during the Period of the Reformation,
      book 5, chapter 14.

      L. von Ranke,
      History of the Latin and Teutonic Nations from 1494 to 1514,
      book 2, chapter 3.

VENICE: A. D. 1510-1513.
   The breaking of the League of Cambrai.
   The" Holy League" of Pope Julius with Venice,
   Ferdinand, Maximilian, and Henry VIII. against France.
   The French expelled from Italy.
   The Republic recovers its domain.

VENICE: A. D. 1570-1571.
Holy League with Spain and the Pope against the Turks.
Great battle and victory of Lepanto.

VENICE: A. D. 1572.
Withdrawal from the Holy League.
Separate peace with the Turks.

"It was a fact of the greatest importance for the development of the fine arts in Italy that painting in Venice reached maturity later than in Florence. Owing to this circumstance one chief aspect of the Renaissance, its material magnificence and freedom, received consummate treatment at the hands of Titian, Tintoretto, and Veronese. To idealise the sensualities of the external universe, to achieve for colour what the Florentines had done for form, to invest the worldly grandeur of human life at one of its most gorgeous epochs with the dignity of the highest art, was what these great artists were called on to accomplish. Their task could not have been so worthily performed in the fifteenth century as in the sixteenth, if the development of the æsthetic sense had been more premature among the Venetians. Venice was precisely fitted for the part her painters had to play. Free, isolated, wealthy, powerful; famous throughout Europe for the pomp of her state equipage, and for the immorality of her private manners; ruled by a prudent aristocracy, who spent vast wealth on public shows and on the maintenance of a more than imperial civic majesty: Venice with her pavement of liquid chrysoprase, with her palaces of porphyry and marble, her frescoed façades, her quays and squares aglow with the costumes of the Levant, her lagoons afloat with the galleys of all nations, her churches floored with mosaics, her silvery domes and ceilings glittering with sculpture bathed in molten gold: Venice luxurious in the light and colour of a vaporous atmosphere, where sea-mists rose into the mounded summer clouds; arched over by the broad expanse of sky, bounded only by the horizon of waves and plain and distant mountain ranges, and reflected in all its many hues of sunrise and sunset upon the glassy surface of smooth waters: Venice asleep like a miracle of opal or of pearl upon the bosom of an undulating lake:—here and here only on the face of the whole globe was the unique city wherein the pride of life might combine with the lustre of the physical universe to create and stimulate in the artist a sense of all that was most sumptuous in the pageant of the world of sense. … The Venetians had no green fields and trees, no garden borders, no blossoming orchards, to teach them the tender suggestiveness, the quaint poetry of isolated or contrasted tints. Their meadows were the fruitless furrows of the Adriatic, hued like a peacock's neck; they called the pearl-shells of their Lido flowers, fior di mare. Nothing distracted their attention from the glories of morning and of evening presented to them by their sea and sky. It was in consequence of this that the Venetians conceived colour heroically, not as a matter of missal-margins or of subordinate decoration, but as a motive worthy in itself of sublime treatment. In like manner, hedged in by no limitary hills, contracted by no city walls, stifled by no narrow streets, but open to the liberal airs of heaven and ocean, the Venetians understood space and imagined pictures almost boundless in their immensity. Light, colour, air, space: those are the elemental conditions of Venetian art; of those the painters weaved their ideal world for beautiful and proud humanity. … In order to understand the destiny of Venice in art, it is not enough to concentrate attention on the peculiarities of her physical environment. Potent as these were in the creation of her style, the political and social conditions of the Republic require also to be taken into account. Among Italian cities Venice was unique. She alone was tranquil in her empire, unimpeded in her constitutional development, independent of Church interference, undisturbed by the cross purposes and intrigues of the despots, inhabited by merchants who were princes, and by a free-born people who had never seen war at their gates. The serenity of undisturbed security, the luxury of wealth amassed abroad and liberally spent at home, gave a physiognomy of ease and proud self-confidence to all her edifices. The grim and anxious struggles of the Middle Ages left no mark on Venice. How different was this town from Florence, every inch of whose domain could tell of civic warfare. … It is not an insignificant, though a slight, detail, that the predominant colour of Florence is brown, while the predominant colour of Venice is that of mother-of-pearl, concealing within its general whiteness every tint that can be placed upon the palette of a painter. The conditions of Florence stimulated mental energy and turned the forces of the soul inwards. Those of Venice inclined the individual to accept life as he found it. Instead of exciting him to think, they disposed him to enjoy, or to acquire by industry the means of manifold enjoyment. To represent in art the intellectual strivings of the Renaissance was the task of Florence and her sons; to create a monument of Renaissance magnificence was the task of Venice."

VENICE: A. D. 1606-1607.
   The Republic under the guidance of Fra Paolo Sarpi.
   Conflict with the Pope.
   The Interdict which had no terrors.

"In the Constitution of the Republic at this time [1606] there were three permanent officials called Counsellors of Law, or State Counsellors, whose duties were to instruct the Doge and Senate on the legal bearings of any question in dispute in which the Republic was involved. But at the beginning of this year, because of the ecclesiastical element that frequently appeared in these quarrels (for they were mostly between the State and the Pope), the Senate resolved to create a new office, namely, that of 'Teologo-Consultore,' or Theological Counsellor. In looking about for one to fill this office the choice of Doge and Senate unanimously fell upon Fra Paolo Sarpi. … I have called Fra Paolo Sarpi the greatest of the Venetians. … Venice has produced many great men—Doges, soldiers, sailors, statesmen, writers, poets, painters, travellers—but I agree with Mrs. Oliphant that Fra Paolo is 'a personage more grave and great, a figure unique in the midst of this ever animated, strong, stormy, and restless race'; and with Lord Macaulay, who has said of him that 'what he did, he did better than anybody.' … He was supreme as a thinker, as a man of action, and as a transcript and pattern of every Christian principle. … Foreigners who came to Venice sought above all things to see him as 'the greatest genius of his age.' … On the 28th of January, 1606, he entered upon his public duties." From that time until his death, seventeen years later, he not only held the office of Theological Counsellor, but the duties of the three Counsellors of Law were gradually transferred to him, as those offices were vacated, in succession, by death. "During this time question after question arose for settlement, many of which were of momentous import, the resolution of which bore, not upon the interests of Venice merely, but of Europe; and affected, not the then living generation only, but a remote posterity. In every case Fra Paolo's advice was sought, in every case it was followed, and in every case it was right. The consequence was that the history of the Republic during these seventeen years was one unbroken record of great intellectual and moral victories. … Never was there in any land, by any Government, a servant more honoured and more beloved. The solicitude of the Doge, of the dreaded Council of Ten, of the Senate, of the whole people, for the safety and well-being of their Consultore, was like that of a mother for her only child. 'Fate largo a Fra Paolo'—'Make room for Fra Paolo,' was often heard as he passed along the crowded Merceria. Fra Paolo loved Venice with an undying devotion, and Venice loved him with a romantic and tender affection. The Pope, whose quarrels with the Republic were the chief cause of the creation of the office of Theological Counsellor, and of Fra Paolo's election to it, was Paul V. … Strained relations … [had] existed between Venice and the Vatican during the last years of Clement VIII.'s Pontificate. His seizure of the Duchy of Ferrara, his conduct in the matter of the Patriarch Zane's appointment, his attempt to cripple the book-trade of Venice by means of the Index Expurgatorius, all led to serious disputes, in everyone of which he got the worst of it. Pope Paul V., who was then Cardinal Borghese, chafed at what he considered Clement's pusillanimity. Talking of these matters to the Venetian ambassador at Rome, Leonardo Donato, he once said, 'If I were Pope, I would place Venice under an interdict and excommunication;' 'And if I were Doge,' was the reply, 'I would trample your interdict and excommunication under foot.' Curiously enough, both were called upon to fill these offices, and both proved as good as their words. … Paul V. … found several excuses for quarrel. The Patriarch, Matteo Zane—he whose appointment had been a matter of dispute with Clement VIII.—died, and the Senate appointed Francesco Vendramin as his successor. Pope Paul claimed the right of presentation, and demanded that he should be sent to Rome for examination and approval. The Senate replied by ordering his investiture, and forbidding him to leave Venice. Again, money had to be raised in Brescia for the restoration of the ramparts, and the Senate imposed a tax on all the citizens—laymen and ecclesiastics alike. Pope Paul V. claimed exemption for the latter, as being his subjects. The Senate refused to listen to him. … These differences were causing both the Pope and the Republic to look to their armoury and to try the temper of their weapons, when two more serious matters occurred which brought them into open warfare. The prologue was passed, the drama was about to open. First, two priests in high position were leading flagrantly wicked and criminal lives. … The Senate sent its officers, and had the offenders seized and brought to Venice, and locked up from further mischief in the dungeons of the Ducal Palace. Pope Paul V. angrily remonstrated, and peremptorily demanded their instant liberation, on the ground that being priests they were not amenable to the secular arm. … Secondly, two ecclesiastical property laws were in force throughout the Republic; by one the Church was prohibited from building any new monasteries, convents, or churches without the consent of the Government under penalty of forfeiture; and by the other it was disqualified from retaining property which it might become possessed of by donation or by inheritance, but was bound to turn it into money. … Pope Paul V. … demanded the repeal of these property laws. These two demands, regarding the imprisoned ecclesiastics and the property laws, were first put forward in October, 1605. … Early in December, the Pope, impatient to bring the quarrel to a head, threatened to place Venice under interdict and excommunication if it did not yield to his demands. … It was at this acute stage of the quarrel that the Republic laid hold of Fra Paolo Sarpi, and, as we have already noted, made him its Theological Counsellor, and the struggle henceforth became, to a large extent, a duel between 'Paul the Pope, and Paul the Friar.' On the very day that Fra Paolo accepted this office he informed the Senate that two courses of action were open to them. They could argue the case either de jure or de facto. First, de jure, that is, they could appeal against the judgment of the Pope to a Church Council. … Secondly, the Republic could adopt the de facto course; that is, it could rely on its own authority and strength. It could set these over against the Pope's, and whilst willing to argue out the matter in a spirit of reason with him, yet meet his force with opposing force. If he turned a deaf ear to right, there was no help for it but to make it a question of might. The de facto course was therefore the one Fra Paolo recommended; adding very significantly, 'He who appeals to a Council admits that the righteousness of his cause may be questioned, whereas that of Venice is indisputable.' {3614} The Senate hailed the advice thus given, and instructed him to draw out a reply to the Pope's brief in accordance with it. … From the moment this reply was received a bitter controversy was set on foot. Renewed demands came from Rome, and renewed refusals were sent from Venice. … Meanwhile the eyes of all the Courts of Europe were directed to the great struggle, and Venice made them more than spectators by laying its case as prepared by their Consultore fairly and fully before them. The time had not arrived for any nation to enter as a party into the contest, but all frankly expressed their opinions, which were, with the exception of that of Spain, unequivocally on the side of Venice. … At last the Pope determined to put into execution the threats contained in the briefs, and to place the Republic under interdict and excommunication. On the 17th of April, 1606, the bull of interdict and excommunication was launched; twenty-four days being allowed Venice for repentance, with three more added of the Pope's gracious clemency. The die was thus cast by Pope Paul V., by which he was either to humble the Republic, or discredit himself and his 'spiritual arms' in the sight of Europe. The bull was a sweeping one. … No more masses were to be said. Baptism, marriage, and burial services were to cease. The churches were to be locked up, and the priests could withdraw from the devoted land. All social relationships were dissolved. Marriages were declared invalid, and all children born were illegitimate. Husbands could desert their wives, and children disobey their parents. Contracts of all kinds were declared null and void. Allegiance to the Government was at an end."

"It was proposed in the college of Venice to enter a solemn protest, as had been done in earlier times; but this proposal was rejected, on the ground that the sentence of the pope was in itself null and void, and had not even a show of justice. In a short proclamation, occupying only a quarto page, Leonardo Donato made known to the clergy the resolution of the republic to maintain the sovereign authority, 'which acknowledges no other superior in worldly things save God alone.' Her faithful clergy would of themselves perceive the nullity of the 'censures' issued against them, and would continue the discharge of their functions, the cure of souls and the worship of God, without interruption. No alarm was expressed, no menaces were uttered, the proclamation was a mere expression of confidence and security. It is, however, probable that something more may have been done by verbal communication. By these proceedings, the question of claim and right became at once a question of strength and of possession. Commanded by their two superiors—the pope and the republic—to give contradictory proofs of obedience, the Venetian clergy were now called on to decide to which of the two they would render that obedience. They did not hesitate; they obeyed the republic: not a copy of the brief was fixed up. The delay appointed by the pope expired; public worship was everywhere conducted as usual. As the secular clergy had decided, so did also the monastic orders. The only exception to this was presented by the orders newly instituted, and in which the principle of ecclesiastical restoration was more particularly represented; these were the Jesuits, Theatines, and Capuchins. The Jesuits, in so far as they were themselves concerned, were not altogether decided; they first took counsel of their Provincial at Ferrara, and afterwards of their General in Rome, who referred the question to the pope himself. Paul V. replied that they must either observe the interdict, or shake the dust from their feet and leave Venice. A hard decision assuredly, since they were distinctly informed that they would never be permitted to return; but the principle of their institution allowed them no choice. Embarking in their boats, they departed from the city, and took shelter in the papal dominions. Their example influenced the other two orders. A middle course was proposed by the Theatines, but the Venetians did not think it advisable; they would suffer no division in their land, and demanded either obedience or departure. The deserted churches were easily provided with other priests, and care was taken that none should perceive a deficiency. … It is manifest that the result was a complete schism. The pope was amazed; his exaggerated pretensions were confronted by the realities of things with the most unshrinking boldness. Did any means exist by which these might be overcome? Paul V. thought at times of having recourse to arms. … Legates were despatched, and troops fitted out; but in effect they dared not venture to attempt force. There would have been cause to apprehend that Venice would call the Protestants to her aid, and thus throw all Italy, nay the Catholic world at large, into the most perilous commotions. They must again betake themselves, as on former occasions, to political measures, for the adjustment of these questions touching the rights of the Church. … I have neither inclination nor means for a detailed account of these negotiations through the whole course of the proceedings. … The first difficulty was presented by the pope, who insisted, before all things, that the Venetian laws, which had given him so much offence, should be repealed; and he made the suspension of his ecclesiastical censures to depend on their repeal. But the Venetians, also, on their part, with a certain republican self-complacency, were accustomed to declare their laws sacred and inviolable. When the papal demand was brought under discussion in January, 1607, although the college wavered, yet at last it was decidedly rejected in the senate. The French, who had given their word to the pope, succeeded in bringing the question forward once more in March, when of the four opponents in the college, one at least withdrew his objections. After the arguments on both sides had again been fully stated in the senate, there was still, it is true, no formal or express repeal of the laws, but a decision was adopted to the effect that 'the republic would conduct itself with its accustomed piety.' However obscure these words appear, the ambassador and the pope thought they discovered in them the fulfilment of their wishes. The pope then suspended his censures."

"The moral victory remained with Venice. She did not recall her laws as to taxation of the clergy and the foundation of new churches and monasteries [nor permit the Jesuits to return, until many years later]. … The hero of the whole episode, Fra Paolo Sarpi, continued to live quietly in his convent of the Servites at S. Fosca.

The Government received warning from Rome that danger was threatening. In its turn it cautioned Fra Paolo. But he paid little or no heed." On the 25th of October, 1607, towards five o'clock in the evening, as he was returning to his convent, he was attacked by three assassins, who inflicted serious wounds upon him and left him for dead. By great care, however, Fra Paolo's life was saved, and prolonged until 1623. The would-be assassins escaped into the Papal States, where "they found not only shelter but a welcome."

      ALSO IN:
      J. A. Symonds,
      Renaissance in Italy: The Catholic Reaction,
      chapter 10 (volume 2).

VENICE: A. D. 1620-1626.
The Valteline War.
Alliance with France and Savoy against the Austro-Spanish power.

VENICE: A. D. 1629-1631.
League with France against Spain and the Emperor.
The Mantuan War.

VENICE: A. D. 1684-1696.
   War of the Holy League against the Turks.
   Siege and capture of Athens.
   Conquest of the Morea and parts of Dalmatia and Albania.

VENICE: A. D. 1699.
Peace of Carlowitz with the Sultan.
Turkish Cession of part of the Morea and most of Dalmatia.

VENICE: A. D. 1714-1718.
   War with the Turks.
   The Morea lost.
   Defense of Corfu.
   Peace of Passarowitz.

VENICE: A. D. 1796.
Bonaparte's schemes for the destruction of the Republic.
The picking of the quarrel.

VENICE: A. D. 1797 (October).
City and territories given over to Austria
by the Treaty of Campo-Formio.

VENICE: A. D. 1814.
Transfer of Venetian states to Austria.
Formation of the Lombardo-Venetian kingdom.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (APRIL-JUNE);
      VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF; AUSTRIA: A. D. 1815-1846;
      and ITALY: A. D. 1814-1815.

VENICE: A. D. 1848-1849.
   Insurrection.
   Expulsion of the Austrians.
   Provisional government under Daniel Manin.
   Renewed subjugation.

VENICE: A. D. 1866.
Relinquishment by Austria.
Annexation to the kingdom of Italy.

VENNER'S INSURRECTION.

VENTA.

Three important cities in Roman Britain bore the name of Venta; one occupying the site of modern Winchester, a second standing near Norwich, the third at Caerwent in Wales. They were distinguished, respectively, as Venta Belgarum, Venta Icenorum and Venta Silurum.

VERCELLI: A. D. 1638-1659.
Siege and capture by the Spaniards.
Restoration to Savoy.

The contest and civil war which arose between the three grandsons of Charlemagne resulted in a treaty of partition, brought about in 843, which forever dissolved the great Frank Empire of Clovis, and of the Pippins and Karls who finished what he began. "A commission of 300 members was appointed to distribute itself over the surface of the empire, and by an exact examination of the wealth of each region, and the wishes of its people, acquire a knowledge of the best means of making an equitable division. The next year the commissioners reported the result of their researches to the three kings, assembled at Verdun, and a treaty of separation was drawn up and executed, which gave Gaul, from the Meuse and Saone as far as the Pyrenees, to Karl; which gave Germany, beyond the Rhine, to Ludwig the Germanic; and which secured to Lother Italy, with a broad strip on the Rhine, between the dominions of Karl and Ludwig, under the names of Lotheringia or Lorraine. This was the first great treaty of modern Europe; it began a political division which lasted for many centuries; the great empire of Karl was formally dismembered by it, and the pieces of it scattered among his degenerate descendants."

"The treaty of Verdun, in 843, abrogated the sovereignty that had been attached to the eldest brother and to the imperial name in former partitions; each held his respective kingdom as an independent right. This is the epoch of a final separation between the French and German members of the empire. Its millenary was celebrated by some of the latter nation in 1843."

VERGENNES, Count de, and the French alliance with the revolted American Colonies.

See UNITED STATES OF AM.: A. D. 1776-1778; 1778 (FEBRUARY): 1778-1779, and 1782 (SEPTEMBER) and (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).

VERGNIAUD AND THE GIRONDISTS.

The chief magistrate of the tribe of Gauls known as the Ædui was called the vergobret. "Cæsar terms this magistrate vergobretus, which Celtic scholars derive from the words 'ver-go-breith,' ('homme de jugement,' O'Brien, Thierry). He was elected by a council of priests and nobles, and had the power of life and death. But his office was only annual." Divitiacus, the Æduian friend of Cæsar and the Romans, had been the vergobret of his tribe.

The noble House of Vermandois which played an important part in French history during the Middle Ages, boasted a descent from Charlemagne, through his best loved son, Pippin, king of Italy. "Peronne and the Abbey of Saint-Quintin composed the nucleus of their Principality; but, quietly and without contradiction, they had extended their sway over the heart of the kingdom of Soissons; and that antient Soissons, and the rock of Lâon, and Rheims, the prerogative city of the Gauls, were all within the geographical ambit of their territory. In such enclavures as we have named, Vermandois did not possess direct authority. Lâon, for example, had a Count and a bishop, and was a royal domain."

Sir F. Palgrave, History of Normandy and England, book 1, chapter 5, section 6 (volume 1).

VERMONT: A. D. 1749-1774.
   Beginning of settlement.
   The New Hampshire Grants and the conflict with New York.
   Ethan Allen and the Green Mountain Boys.

"Among the causes of the controversies which existed between the colonies in early times, and continued down to the revolution, was the uncertainty of boundary lines as described in the old charters. … A difficulty of this kind arose between the colony of New York and those of Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire. By the grant of King Charles II. to his brother, the Duke of York, the tract of country called New York was bounded on the east by Connecticut River, thus conflicting with the express letter of the Massachusetts and Connecticut charters, which extended those colonies westward to the South Sea, or Pacific Ocean. After a long controversy, kept up at times with a good deal of heat on both sides, the line of division between these colonies was fixed by mutual agreement at 20 miles east of Hudson's River, running nearly in a north and south direction. … The Massachusetts boundary was decided much later to be a continuation of the Connecticut line to the north, making the western limit of Massachusetts also 20 miles from the same river. … Meantime New Hampshire had never been brought into the controversy, because the lands to the westward of that province beyond Connecticut River had been neither settled nor surveyed. There was indeed a small settlement at Fort Dummer on the western margin of the River, which was under the protection of Massachusetts. … Such was the state of things when Benning Wentworth became governor of New Hampshire, with authority from the King to issue patents for unimproved lands within the limits of his province. Application was made for grants to the west of Connecticut River, and even beyond the Green Mountains, and in 1749 he gave a patent for a township 6 miles square, near the north west angle of Massachusetts, to be so laid out, that its western limit should be 20 miles from the Hudson, and coincide with the boundary line of Connecticut and Massachusetts continued northward. This township was called Bennington. Although the governor and council of New York remonstrated against this grant, and claimed for that colony the whole territory north of Massachusetts as far eastward as Connecticut River, yet Governor Wentworth was not deterred by this remonstrance from issuing other patents, urging in his justification, that New Hampshire had a right to the same extension westward as Massachusetts and Connecticut." After the British conquest of Canada, 1760, "applications for new patents thronged daily upon Governor Wentworth, and within four years' time the whole number of townships granted by him, to the westward of Connecticut River, was 138. The territory including these townships was known by the name of the New Hampshire Grants, which it retained till the opening of the revolution, when its present name of Vermont began to be adopted."

      J. Sparks,
      Life of Ethan Allen
      (Library of American Biographies, volume 1).

   "Lieutenant Governor Colden, acting chief magistrate of New
   York in the absence of General Monckton, perceiving the
   necessity of asserting the claims of that province to the
   country westward of the Connecticut river, wrote an energetic
   letter to Governor Wentworth, protesting against his grants.
   He also sent a proclamation among the people, declaring the
   Connecticut river to be the boundary between New York and New
   Hampshire. But protests and proclamations were alike unheeded
   by the governor and the people until the year 1764, when the
   matter was laid before the King and council for adjudication.
   The decision was in favor of New York. Wentworth immediately
   bowed to supreme authority, and ceased issuing patents for
   lands westward of the Connecticut. The settlers, considering
   all questions in dispute to be thus finally disposed of, were
   contented, and went on hopefully in the improvement of their
   lands. Among these settlers in the Bennington township were
   members of the Allen family, in Connecticut, two of whom,
   Ethan and Ira, were conspicuous in public affairs for many
   years, as we shall hereafter have occasion to observe. The
   authorities of New York, not content with the award of
   territorial jurisdiction over the domain, proceeded, on the
   decision of able legal authority, to assert the right of
   property in the soil of that territory, and declared
   Wentworth's patents all void.
{3617}
   They went further. Orders were issued for the survey and sale
   of farms in the possession of actual settlers, who had bought
   and paid for them, and, in many instances, had made great
   progress in improvements. In this, New York acted not only
   unjustly, but very unwisely. This oppression, for oppression
   it was, was a fatal mistake. It was like sowing dragons' teeth
   to see them produce a crop of full-armed men. The settlers
   were disposed to be quiet, loyal subjects of New York. They
   cared not who was their political master, so long as their
   private rights were respected. But this act of injustice
   converted them into rebellious foes, determined and defiant. …
   Meanwhile speculators had been purchasing from New York large
   tracts of these estates in the disputed territory, and were
   making preparations to take possession. The people of the
   Grants sent one of their number to England, and laid their
   cause before the King and council. He came back in August,
   1767, armed with an order for the Governor of New York to
   abstain from issuing any more patents for lands eastward of
   Lake Champlain. But as the order was not 'ex post facto' in
   its operations, the New York patentees proceeded to take
   possession of their purchased lands. This speedily brought on
   a crisis, and for seven years the New Hampshire Grants formed
   a theater where all the elements of civil war, except actual
   carnage, were in active exercise. … The hardy yeomanry who
   first appeared in arms for the defense of their territorial
   rights, and afterwards as patriots in the common cause when
   the Revolution broke out, were called Green Mountain Boys."

VERMONT: A. D. 1777-1778.
State independence declared and constitution framed.
Admission to the Union denied.

"The settlers in the land which this year [1777] took the name of Vermont refused by a great majority to come under the jurisdiction of New York; on the 15th of January 1777, their convention declared the independence of their state. At Windsor, on the 2d of June, they appointed a committee to prepare a constitution; and they hoped to be received into the American union. But, as New York opposed, congress, by an uncertain majority against a determined minority, disclaimed the intention of recognising Vermont as a separate state. … On the 2d of July the convention of Vermont reassembled at Windsor. The organic law which they adopted, blending the culture of their age with the traditions of Protestantism, assumed that all men are born free and with inalienable rights; that they may emigrate from one state to another, or form a new state in vacant countries; that 'every sect should observe the Lord's day, and keep up some sort of religious worship'; that every man may choose that form of religious worship 'which shall seem to him most agreeable to the revealed will of God. 'They provided for a school in each town, a grammar-school in each county, and a university in the state. All officers, alike executive and legislative, were to be chosen annually and by ballot; the freemen of every town and all one year's residents were electors. Every member of the house of representatives must declare his 'belief in one God …; in the divine inspiration of the scriptures; and in the Protestant religion.' The legislative power was vested in one general assembly, subject to no veto. … Slavery was forbidden and forever; and there could be no imprisonment for debt. … After the loss of Ticonderoga, the introduction of the constitution was postponed [until March, 1778], lest the process of change should interfere with the public defence."

      G. Bancroft,
      History of the United States (Author's last revision),
      volume 5, pages 157, and 161-162.

ALSO IN; Ira Allen, History of Vermont (Vermont Historical Society Collection, volume 1, pages 375-393).

VERMONT: A. D. 1781.
Negotiations with the British authorities
as an independent State.

   Vermont had repeatedly applied for admission into the Union;
   but the opposition of her neighbors, who claimed her
   territory, and the jealousy of the southern states, who
   objected to the admission of another northern state, prevented
   favorable action in Congress. In 1780 a fresh appeal was made
   with a declaration that if it failed the people of the Green
   Mountains would propose to the other New England states and to
   New York, "an alliance and confederation for mutual defense,
   independent of Congress and of the other states." If neither
   Congress nor the northern states would listen to them, then,
   said the memorial, "they are, if necessitated to it, at
   liberty to offer or accept terms of cessation of hostilities
   with Great Britain without the approbation of any other man or
   body of men." "The British generals in America had for some
   time entertained hopes of turning the disputes in relation to
   Vermont to their own account, by detaching that district from
   the American cause and making it a British province. But the
   first intimation of their views and wishes was communicated in
   a letter from Colonel Beverly Robinson to Ethan Allen; dated
   New York, March 30th, 1780. In July, this letter was delivered
   to Allen in the street in Arlington, by a British soldier in
   the habit of an American farmer. Allen perused the letter, and
   then told the bearer that he should consider it, and that he
   might return. … Allen immediately communicated the contents of
   this letter to Governor Chittenden and some other confidential
   friends, who agreed in opinion, that no answer should be
   returned. Robinson, not receiving a reply to his letter and
   supposing it to have been miscarried, wrote again to Allen on
   the 2d of February, 1781, enclosing his former letter. In his
   second letter, after saying he had received new assurances of
   the inclination of Vermont to join the king's cause, he said
   that he could then write with more authority; and assured
   Allen that he and the people of Vermont could obtain the most
   favorable terms, provided they would take a decisive and
   active part in favor of Great Britain. He requested an answer;
   and that the way might be pointed out for continuing the
   correspondence; and desired to be informed in what manner the
   people of Vermont could be most serviceable to the British
   cause.
{3618}
   Allen returned no answer to either of these letters; but, on
   the 9th of March, 1781, inclosed them in a letter to Congress,
   informing them of all the circumstances which had thus far
   attended the business. He then proceeded to justify the
   conduct of Vermont in asserting her right to independence, and
   expressed his determinate resolution to do every thing in his
   power to establish it. … 'I am confident,' said he, 'that
   Congress will not dispute my sincere attachment to the cause
   of my country, though I do not hesitate to say, I am fully
   grounded in opinion, that Vermont has an indubitable right to
   agree on terms of a cessation of hostilities with Great
   Britain, provided the United States persist in rejecting her
   application for an union with them.' … During the spring of
   1780, some of the scouting parties belonging to Vermont had
   been taken by the British and carried prisoners to Canada. On
   the application of their friends to Governor Chittenden, he,
   in the month of July, sent a flag with a letter to the
   commanding officer in Canada, requesting their release or
   exchange. In the fall, the British came up lake Champlain in
   great force, and a very favorable answer was returned by
   General Haldimand to Governor Chittenden's letter. A flag was
   at the same time sent to Ethan Allen, then a brigadier general
   and commanding officer in Vermont, proposing a cessation of
   hostilities with Vermont, during negotiations for the exchange
   of prisoners."

"The immediate results were a truce, which covered not only Vermont but the frontiers of New York to Hudson river; the disbanding of the militia of Vermont; and the retiring of the British troops to winter quarters in Canada. Until the truce became generally known, the results of it occasioned much surprise in New York. It was further agreed, that the commissioners of both parties should meet on the subject of the cartel, and go together to Canada. This was attempted, but failed on account of the difficulty of getting through the ice on Lake Champlain. After contending several days with the elements, the commissioners separated; but 'while their men [wrote Ira Allen] were breaking through the ice, much political conversation and exhibits of papers took place.' Williams ['History of Vermont'] is more definite: 'the British agents availed themselves of this opportunity to explain their views, to make their proposals, and offer as complete an establishment for Vermont, from the royal authority, as should be desired. The commissioners from Vermont treated the proposals with affability and good humor, and though they avoided bringing anything to a decision, the British concluded they were in a fair way to effect their purposes.' The subsequent negotiations at Isle aux Noix, between Ira Allen and the British commissioners, as to matters beyond settling a cartel, were secret, and even the commander of the post had no knowledge of them, although he was associated with the British commissioners on the question of an exchange of prisoners. These facts show that the public had no knowledge except of a truce for a humane and proper attempt to relieve citizens of Vermont, and its officers and soldiers, who were then prisoners in Canada; and the conclusion is that all the suspicion that then existed of the patriotism and fidelity of the great body of the people of the state, and all the obloquy since drawn from the negotiation with Haldimand and cast upon the state, were entirely unjust. If any body was really at fault, the number implicated was very small. Williams asserted that 'eight persons only in Vermont, were in the secret of this correspondence;' and Ira Allen that, in May, 1781, 'only eight persons were in the secret, but more were added as the circumstances required.'"

"By the definitive treaty between Great Britain and the United States, September 3, 1783, Vermont was included within the boundaries separating the independent American from British territory, and thus the independence of Vermont was acknowledged first by the mother country. The State had been de facto independent from its organization; and therefore the following record, with the other papers contained in this and the first volume of the Historical Society Collections covers the existence of Vermont as an independent and sovereign state."

VERMONT: A. D. 1790-1791.
Renunciation of the claims of New York
and admission of the State to the Union.

"The rapid increase of the population of Vermont having destroyed all hope on the part of New York, of re-establishing her jurisdiction over that rebellious district, the holders of the New York grants, seeing no better prospect before them, were ready to accept such an indemnity as might be obtained by negotiation. Political considerations had also operated. The vote of Vermont might aid to establish the seat of the federal government at New York. At all events, that state would serve as a counterbalance to Kentucky, the speedy admission of which was foreseen. The Assembly of New York [July, 1789] had appointed commissioners with full powers to acknowledge the independence of Vermont, and to arrange a settlement of all matters in controversy. To this appointment Vermont had responded, and terms had been soon arranged. In consideration of the sum of $30,000, as an indemnity to the New York grantees, New York renounced all claim of jurisdiction [October 7, 1790], consented to the admission of Vermont into the Union, and agreed to the boundary heretofore claimed—the western line of the westernmost townships granted by New Hampshire and the middle channel of Lake Champlain. This arrangement was immediately ratified by the Legislature of Vermont. A Convention, which met at the beginning of the year [1791], had voted unanimously to ratify the Federal Constitution, and to ask admission into the Union. Commissioners were soon after appointed by the Assembly to wait upon Congress and to negotiate the admission. No opposition was made to it, and [February 18, 1791] within fourteen days after the passage of the bill for the prospective admission of Kentucky, Vermont was received into the Union, from and after the termination of the present session of Congress. The Constitution under which Vermont came into the Union, originally adopted in 1777, had been slightly altered in 1785. Most of its provisions seem to have been copied from the first Constitution of Pennsylvania. … The revision of 1785 struck out the requirement of Protestantism; another revision in 1793, still following the example of Pennsylvania, released the members of Assembly from the necessity of any religious subscription."

VERMONT UNIVERSITY.

"At the time of the organization of the State government, in 1798, the University of Vermont was endowed with lands which proved subsequently to amount to 29,000 acres. In 1791 the university was organized. … The early years of the university, planted as it was in the wilderness, were full of struggles and misfortunes. The State was generous in the extreme at the beginning, but failed to support the university it had created. The land was poor and brought little income, the whole tract bringing but 2,500 dollars at that time. In 1813 the buildings of the university were seized by the Government and used for the storage of United States arms, by which much damage was suffered, and the houseless students all left, most of them to shoulder muskets against the British invaders. The buildings were rented in 1814 for the United States Army. Worse misfortunes occurred in 1824, the buildings being consumed by fire, but were restored by the citizens of Burlington in the following year. For the first ninety-five years of the corporate existence of the university the State never gave anything toward the support of it more than has been set forth in the above statements."

F. W. Blackmar, History of Federal and State Aid to Higher Education in the United States (Bureau of Education, Circ. of Information, 1890, number 1), pages 125-126.

VERNICOMES.

"Pavia and Verona [as well as his ordinary capital city, Ravenna] were also places honoured with the occasional residence of Theodoric. At both he built a palace and public baths. … At Verona, the palace, of which there were still some noble remains incorporated into the castle of the Viscontis, was blown up by the French in 1801, and an absolutely modern building stands upon its site. … It seems probable that Theodoric's residence at both these places depended on the state of Transalpine politics. When the tribes of the middle Danube were moving suspiciously to and fro, and the vulnerable point by the Brenner Pass needed to be especially guarded, he fixed his quarters at Verona. When Gaul menaced greater danger, then he removed to Ticinum [Pavia]. It was apparently the fact that Verona was his coign of vantage, from whence be watched the German barbarians, which obtained for him from their minstrels the title of Dietrich of Bern. Thus strangely travestied, he was swept within the wide current of the legends relating to Attila, and hence it is that the really grandest figure in the history of the migration of the peoples appears in the Nibelungen Lied, not as a great king and conqueror on his own account, but only as a faithful squire of the terrible Hunnish king whose empire had in fact crumbled into dust before the birth of Theodoric."

VERONA: A. D. 1236-1259.
The tyranny of Eccelino di Romano and the crusade against him.

"In the north-eastern corner of Italy the influence of the old Lombard lords, which had been extinguished there as in most other parts of the peninsula, was succeeded by that of a family that had accompanied one of the emperors from Germany. … The eye of a traveller passing from Verona to Padua may still be struck by one or two isolated hills, which seem as it were designed by nature to be meet residences for the tyrants of the surrounding plains. One of these gave birth to a person destined to become the scourge of the neighbouring country. … Eccelino di Romano … was descended from a German noble brought into Italy by Otho III. The office of Podesta of Verona had become hereditary in his family. In the wars of the second Frederic [1236-1250], he put himself at the head of the Ghibellines in the surrounding principalities, and became a strenuous supporter of the emperor. Under the protection of so powerful an ally, be soon made himself master of Padua, where he established his headquarters, and built the dungeons, where the most revolting cruelties were inflicted on his victims."

W. P. Urquhart, Life and Times of Francesco Sforza, book 1, chapter 3 (volume 1).

   In 1237, the emperor, Frederick II., "obliged to return to
   Germany, left under the command of Eccelino a body of German
   soldiers, and another of Saracens, with which this able
   captain made himself, the same year, master of Vicenza, which
   he barbarously pillaged, and the following year of Padua. …
   Eccelino judged it necessary to secure obedience, by taking
   hostages from the richest and most powerful families; he
   employed his spies to discover the malcontents, whom he
   punished with torture, and redoubled his cruelty in proportion
   to the hatred which he excited." Subsequently, the emperor
   confided "the exclusive government of the Veronese marches
   [also called the Trevisan marches] to Eccelino. The hatred
   which this ferocious man excited by his crimes fell on the
   emperor. Eccelino imprisoned in the most loathsome dungeons
   those whom he considered his enemies, and frequently put them
   to death by torture, or suffered them to perish by hunger. …
{3620}
   In the single town of Padua there were eight prisons always
   full, notwithstanding the incessant toil of the executioner to
   empty them; two of these contained each 300 prisoners. A
   brother of Eccelino, named Alberic, governed Treviso with less
   ferocity, but with a power not less absolute." Eccelino
   maintained the power which he had gathered into his hands for
   several years after Frederick's death. At length, the pope,
   "Alexander IV., to destroy the monster that held in terror the
   Trevisan march, caused a crusade to be preached in that
   country. He promised those who combated the ferocious Eccelino
   all the indulgences usually reserved for the deliverers of the
   Holy Land. The marquis d'Este, the count di San Bonifazio,
   with the cities of Ferrara, Mantua, and Bologna, assembled
   their troops under the standard of the church; they were
   joined by a horde of ignorant fanatics from the lowest class."
   Headed by the legate Philip, archbishop of Ravenna, the
   crusaders took Padua, June 18, 1256, and "for seven days the
   city was inhumanly pillaged by those whom it had received as
   deliverers. As soon as Eccelino was informed of the loss he
   had sustained, he hastened to separate and disarm the 11,000
   Paduans belonging to his army; he confined them in prisons,
   where all, with the exception of 200, met a violent or
   lingering death. During the two following years, the Guelphs
   experienced nothing but disasters: the legate, whom the pope
   had placed at their head, proved incompetent to command them;
   and the crowd of crusaders whom he called to his ranks served
   only to compromise them, by want of courage and discipline. …
   The following year, this tyrant, unequalled in Ita]y for
   bravery and military talent, always an enemy to luxury, and
   proof against the seductions of women, making the boldest
   tremble with a look, and preserving in his diminutive person,
   at the age of 65, all the vigor of a soldier, advanced into
   the centre of Lombardy, in the hope that the nobles of Milan,
   with whom he had already opened a correspondence, would
   surrender this great city." But, by this time, even his old
   Ghibelline associates had formed alliances with the Guelphs
   against him, and he was beset on all sides. "On the 16th of
   September, 1259, whilst he was preparing to retire, he found
   himself stopped at the bridge of Cassano. … Repulsed, pursued
   as far as Vimercato, and at last wounded in the foot, he was
   made prisoner and taken to Soncino: there, he refused to
   speak; rejected all the aid of medicine; tore off all the
   bandages from his wounds, and finally expired, on the eleventh
   day of his captivity. His brother with all his family were
   massacred in the following year."

      ALSO IN:
      J. Miley,
      History of the Papal States,
      book 7, chapter 1 (volume 3).

VERONA: A. D. 1260-1338.
   Rise of the House of the Scaligeri.
   Successes of Can' Grande della Scala.
   Wars and Reverses of Mastino.

After the death of Eccelino, Verona, by its own choice came under the government of the first Mastino della Scala, who established the power of a house which became famous in Italian history. Mastino's grandson, Cane, or Can' Grande della Scala, "reigned in that city from 1312 to 1329, with a splendor which no other prince in Ita]y equalled. … Among the Lombard princes he was the first protector of literature and the arts. The best poets, painters, and sculptors of Italy, Dante, to whom he offered an asylum, as well as Uguccione da Faggiuola, and many other exiles illustrious in war or politics, were assembled at his court. He aspired to subdue the Veronese and Trevisan marches, or what has since been called the Terra Firma of Venice. He took possession of Vicenza; and afterwards maintained a long war against the republic of Padua, the most powerful in the district, and that which had shown the most attachment to the Guelph party and to liberty." In 1328, Padua submitted to him; and "the year following he attacked and took Treviso, which surrendered on the 6th of July, 1329. He possessed himself of Feltre and Cividale soon after. The whole province seemed subjugated to his power; but the conqueror also was subdued." He died on the 22d of the same month in which Treviso was taken.

Can' Grande was succeeded by his nephew, the second Mastino della Scala, who, in the next six years, "extended his states from the northeastern frontiers of Italy to the confines of Tuscany; and the possession of the strong city of Lucca now gave him a secure footing in this province. He shortly made it appear to what purpose he meant to apply this new advantage. Under the plea of re-establishing the Ghibelin interests, but in reality to forward his own schemes of dominion, he began to fill all Tuscany with his machinations. Florence was neither slow to discover her danger, nor to resent the treachery of her faithless ally,"—which Mastino had recently been. Florence, according]y, formed an alliance with Venice, which Mastino had rashly offended by restricting the manufacture of salt on the Trevisan coast, and by laying heavy duties on the navigation of the Po. Florence agreed "to resign to Venice the sole possession of such conquests as might be made in that quarter; only reserving for herself the acquisition of Lucca, which she was to obtain by attacking Mastino in Tuscany, entirely with her own resources. Upon these terms an alliance was signed between the two republics, and the lord of Verona had soon abundant reason to repent of the pride and treachery by which he had provoked their formidable union (A. D. 1336). … During three campaigns he was unable to oppose the league in the field, and was compelled to witness the successive loss of many of his principal cities (A. D. 1337). His brother Albert was surprised and made prisoner in Padua, by the treachery of the family of Carrara, who acquired the sovereignty of that city; Feltro was captured by the Duke of Carinthia, Brescia revolted, and fell with other places to Azzo Visconti. … In this hopeless condition Mastino artfully addressed himself to the Venetians, and, by satisfying all their demands, detached them from the general interests of the coalition (A. D. 1338). By a separate treaty which their republic concluded with him, and which was then only communicated to the Florentines for their acceptance, Mastino ceded to Venice Treviso, with other fortresses and possessions, and the right of free navigation on the Po; he agreed at the same time to yield Bassano and an extension of territory to the new lord of Padua, and to confirm the sovereignty of Brescia to Azzo Visconti; but for the Florentine republic no farther advantage was stipulated than the enjoyment of a few castles which they had already conquered in Tuscany."

VERONA: A. D. 1351-1387.
Degeneracy and fall of the Scaligeri.
Subjugation by the Visconti of Milan.

"The rapid spread of revolution in Europe inspired serious misgivings among the great powers, and impelled the Holy Alliance [see HOLY ALLIANCE] to show its true colours. Austria was especially alarmed by the movement in Naples [see ITALY: A. D. 1820-1821], which threatened to overthrow its power in Italy, and Metternich convoked a congress at Troppau, in Upper Silesia (October, 1820), at which Austria, Russia, Prussia, France and England were represented. Neapolitan affairs were the chief subject of discussion, and it was soon evident that Austria, Russia and Prussia were agreed as to the necessity of armed intervention. England made a formal protest against such high-handed treatment of a peaceful country; but as the protest was not supported by France, and England was not prepared to go to war for Naples, it was disregarded. The three allied powers decided to transfer the congress to Laybach and to invite Ferdinand I. to attend in person." The result of the conference at Laybach was a movement of 60,000 Austrian troops into Naples and Sicily, in March, 1821, and a restoration of Ferdinand, who made a merciless use of his opportunity for revenge.

From Laybach, the allied sovereigns issued a circular to their representatives at the various foreign courts, in which portentous document they declared that "useful and necessary changes in legislation and in the administration of states could only emanate from the free will, and from the intelligent and well-weighed convictions, of those whom God has made responsible for power. Penetrated with this eternal truth, the sovereigns have not hesitated to proclaim it with frankness and vigour. They have declared that, in respecting the rights and independence of legitimate power, they regarded as legally null, and disavowed by the principles which constituted the public right of Europe, all pretended reforms operated by revolt and open hostilities." "These principles, stated nakedly and without shame, were too much even for Lord Castlereagh. In a despatch, written early in the year 1821, while admitting the right of a state to interfere in the internal affairs of another state when its own interests were endangered, he protested against the pretension to put down revolutionary movements apart from their immediate bearing on the security of the state so intervening, and denied that merely possible revolutionary movements can properly be made the basis of a hostile alliance. The principles of the Holy Alliance were not intended to remain a dead letter; they were promptly acted upon. Popular movements were suppressed in Naples and Piedmont; and intervention in Spain, where the Cortes had been summoned and the despotic rule of Ferdinand VII. had been overthrown, was in contemplation. Greece imitated the example set in the western peninsulas of Europe. The Congress of Verona was summoned, and Lord Castlereagh (now the Marquis of Londonderry) was preparing to join it, when in an access of despondency, the origin of which is variously explained, he took his own life." He was succeeded in the British Ministry by Mr. Canning.

   "The first business which presented itself to Mr. Cunning was
   to devise a system by which the Holy Alliance could be
   gradually dissolved, and England rescued from the consequences
   of her undefined relations with its members. The adjourned
   Congress was on the point of assembling at Verona, and as it
   was necessary to send a representative in place of Lord
   Castlereagh, who seems to have been terrified at the prospect
   that lay before him, the Duke of Wellington was selected, and
   dispatched without loss of time. … The very first blow he
   [Canning] struck in the Congress of Verona announced to the
   world the attitude which England was about to take, and her
   total denial of the rights of the Alliance to interfere with
   the internal affairs of any independent nation. It appeared
   that France had collected a large army in the south, and not
   having legitimate occupation for it, proposed to employ it in
   the invasion of Spain [see Spain: A. D. 1814-1827]. This
   monstrous project was submitted to Congress, and ardently
   approved of by Russia. It was now that England spoke out for
   the first time in this cabal of despots. … After some
   interchanges of notes and discussions agreed to by the allies,
   the British plenipotentiary, as he was instructed, refused all
   participation in these proceedings, and withdrew from the
   Congress. This was the first step that was taken to show the
   Alliance that England would not become a party to any act of
   unjust aggression or unjustifiable interference. A long
   correspondence ensued between Mr. Canning and M. de
   Chateaubriand. … The French king's speech, on opening the
   Chambers, revealed the real intentions of the government,
   which Mr. Canning had penetrated from the beginning. The
   speech was, in fact, a declaration of war against Spain,
   qualified by the slightest imaginable hypothesis. But, happily
   for all interests, there was no possibility of disguising the
   purpose of this war, which was plainly and avowedly to force
   upon the people of Spain such a constitution as the king (a
   Bourbon), in the exercise of his absolute authority, should
   think fit to give them. … Against this principle Mr. Canning
   entered a dignified protest. … Although he could not avert
   from Spain the calamity of a French invasion, he made it clear
   to all the world that England objected to that proceeding, and
   that she was no longer even to be suspected of favoring the
   designs of the Holy Alliance. The French army made the passage
   of the Bidassoa. From that moment Mr. Canning interfered no
   farther. He at once disclosed the system which he had already
   matured and resolved upon. Having first protested against the
   principle of the invasion, he determined to maintain the
   neutrality of England in the war that followed.
{3622}
   By this course he achieved the end he had in view, of severing
   England from the Holy Alliance without embroiling her in any
   consequent responsibilities. … Mr. Canning's 'system' of
   foreign policy, as described in his own language, resolved
   itself into this principle of action, that 'England should
   hold the balance, not only between contending nations, but
   between conflicting principles; that, in order to prevent
   things from going to extremities, she should keep a distinct
   middle ground, staying the plague both ways.' … The
   development of this principle, as it applied to nations, was
   illustrated in the strict but watchful neutrality observed
   between France and Spain; and, as it applied to principles, in
   the recognition of the independence of the Spanish-American
   colonies. The latter act may be regarded as the most important
   for which Mr. Canning was officially responsible, as that
   which exerted the widest and most distinct influence over the
   policy of other countries, and which most clearly and
   emphatically revealed the tendency of his own. It showed that
   England would recognize institutions raised up by the people,
   as well as those which were created by kings. It gave the
   death-blow to the Holy Alliance." The logic and meaning of Mr.
   Canning's recognition of the Spanish American republics found
   expression in one famous passage of a brilliant speech which
   he made in the House of Commons, December 12, 1826,
   vindicating his foreign policy. "If France," he said,
   "occupied Spain, was it necessary, in order to avoid the
   consequences of that occupation, that we should blockade
   Cadiz? No, I looked another way—I sought materials of
   compensation in another hemisphere. Contemplating Spain such
   as our ancestors had known her, I resolved that if France had
   Spain, it should not be Spain with the Indies. I called the
   New World into existence to redress the balance of the Old."

      R. Bell,
      Life of the Right Honourable George Canning,
      chapter 13.

Sir A. Alison, History of Europe, 1815-1852, chapters 8 and 12 (volume l,—American edition).

VERSAILLES.

Louis XIV. "preferred Versailles to his other chateaux, because Fontainebleau, Chambord, Saint-Germain, were existences ready created, which Francois I. and Henri IV. had stamped with the ineffaceable imprint of their glory: at Versailles, everything was to be made, save the modest beginning left by Louis XIII. … At Versailles, everything was to be created, we say,—not only the monuments of art, but nature itself. This solitary elevation of ground, although pleasing enough through the woods and hills that surrounded it, was without great views, without sites, without waters, without inhabitants. … The sites would be created by creating an immense landscape by the hand of man; the waters would be brought from the whole country by works which appalled the imagination; the inhabitants would be caused, if we may say so, to spring from the earth, by erecting a whole city for the service of the chateau. Louis would thus make a city of his own, a form of his own, of which he alone would be the life. Versailles and the court would be the body and soul of one and the same being, both created for the same end, the glorification of the terrestrial God to whom they owed existence. … The same idea filled the interior of the palace. Painting deified Louis there under every form, in war and in peace, in the arts and in the administration of the empire; it celebrated his amours as his victories, his passions as his labors. All the heroes of antiquity, all the divinities of classic Olympus, rendered him homage or lent him their attributes in turn. He was Augustus, he was Titus, he was Alexander; he was thundering Jupiter, he was Hercules, the conqueror of monsters; oftener, Apollo, the inspirer of the Muses and the king of enlightenment. Mythology was no longer but a great enigma, to which the name of Louis was the only key; he was all the gods in himself alone. … Louis, always served in his desires by the fertility of his age, had found a third artist, Lenostre, to complete Lebrun and Mansart. Thanks to Lenostre, Louis, from the windows of his incomparable gallery of mirrors, saw nought that was not of his own creation. The whole horizon was his work, for his garden was the whole horizon. … Whole thickets were brought full-grown from the depths of the finest forests of France, and the arts of animating marble and of moving waters filled them with every prodigy of which the imagination could dream. An innumerable nation of statues peopled the thickets and lawns, was mirrored in the waters, or rose from the bosom of the wave. … Louis had done what he wished; he had created about him a little universe, in which he was the only necessary and almost the only real being. But terrestrial gods do not create with a word like the true God. These buildings which stretch across a frontage of twelve hundred yards, the unheard-of luxury of these endless apartments, this incredible multitude of objects of art, these forests transplanted, these waters of heaven gathered from all the slopes of the heights into the windings of immense conduits from Trappes and Palaiseau to Versailles, these waters of the Seine brought from Marly by gigantic machinery through that aqueduct which commands from afar the valley of the river like a superb Roman ruin, and later, an enterprise far more colossal! that river which was turned aside from its bed and which it was undertaken to bring thirty leagues to Versailles over hills and valleys, cost France grievous efforts and inexhaustible sweats, and swallowed up rivers of gold increasing from year to year. … Versailles has cost France dearly, very dearly; nevertheless it is important to historic truth to set aside in this respect too long accredited exaggerations. … The accounts, or at least the abstracts of the accounts, of the expenditures of Louis XIV. for building, during the greater part of his reign, have been discovered. The costs of the construction, decoration, and furnishing of Versailles, from 1664 to 1690, including the hydraulic works and the gardens, in addition to the appendages,—that is, Clagny, Trianon, Saint-Cyr, and the two churches of the new city of Versailles,—amount to about one hundred and seven millions, to which must be added a million, or a million and a half perhaps, for the expenses of the years 1661-1663, the accounts of which are not known, and three million two hundred and sixty thousand francs for the sumptuous chapel, which was not built until 1699-1710. {3623} The proportion of the mark to the franc having varied under Louis XIV., it is difficult to arrive at an exact reduction to the present currency. … The expenses of Versailles would represent to-day more than four hundred millions. This amount is enormous; but it is not monstrous like the twelve hundred millions of which Mirabeau speaks, nor, above all, madly fantastic like the four thousand six hundred millions imagined by Volney."

VERSAILLES: A. D. 1870.
Headquarters of the German court and the army besieging Paris.

VERSAILLES: A. D. 1871. Assumption of the dignity of Emperor of Germany by King William of Prussia.

VERTERÆ.

A Roman city in Britain, which probably occupied the site of the modern town of Brough, in Westmoreland, where many remains of the Romans have been found.

VERULAMIUM. VERULAM.

"The 'oppidum' of Cassivelaunus [the stronghold which Cæsar reduced on his second invasion of Britain] is generally believed to have been situated where the modern town of St. Alban's now stands [but the point is still in dispute]. An ancient ditch can still be traced surrounding a considerable area on the banks of the River Ver, from which the Roman town of Verulam [Verulamium] took its name. This town, which probably originated in the camp of Cæsar, grew into an important city in Roman times. It stands on the opposite side of the River Ver, and is still known for its Roman remains."

VESONTIO.

Modern Besançon, in France; originally the largest of the towns of the Sequani.

VESTAL VIRGINS.

"The Vestals ('virgines Vestales,' 'virgines Vestæ') were closely connected with the college of pontifices. They are said to have come from Alba soon after the foundation of Rome: at first there were two Vestals for each of the two tribes, Ramnes and Tities; afterwards two others were added for the Luceres, and the number of six was exceeded at no period. The vestal, on being chosen, was not allowed to be younger than six or older than ten years. … She was clad in white garments and devoted to the service of Vesta for thirty years. … After this period she was at liberty either to remain in the service of the goddess (which was generally done) or to return to her family and get married. Her dress was always white; round her forehead she wore a broad band like a diadem ('infula'), with ribbons ('vittæ') attached to it. During the sacrifice, or at processions, she was covered with a white veil. … She was carefully guarded against insult or temptation; an offence offered to her was punished with death; … in public everyone, even the consul, made way to the lictor preceding the maiden. At public games and pontifical banquets she had the seat of honour; and a convicted criminal accidentally meeting her was released. Amongst her priestly functions was the keeping of the eternal fire in the temple of Vesta, each Vestal taking her turn at watching. … Breach of chastity on the part of the Vestal was punished with death."

The most important success achieved by the Batavian patriot, Civilis, in the revolt against the Romans which he led, A. D. 69, was the siege and capture of Vetera,—a victory sullied by the faithless massacre of the garrison after they had capitulated.

   A people who occupied the part of ancient Spain between the
   Tagus and the Upper Douro at the time of the Roman conquest
   of that country.

"The Via Sacra began at the Sacellum Streniæ, which was on the part of the Esquiline nearest to the Colosseum; on reaching the Summa Via Sacra … it turned a little to the right, descending the Clivus Sacer; at the foot of the slope it passed under the arch of Fabius, by the side of the Regia; thence it ran in a straight line, passing by the Basilica Æmilia, the arch of Janus, the Curia Hostilia, till it reached the foot of the Capitoline Hill, where, turning to the left, it ascended the Clivus Capitolinus, and reached its termination at the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus. The Via Sacra, as Ovid tells us, took its name from the sacred rites which were performed on it. Along this road passed the processions of priests with the sacred animals to be sacrificed at the altar of Jupiter Capitolinus. … Along this road also passed the triumphal processions of the victorious Roman generals. The procession entered Rome by the Porta Triumphalis, passed through the Circus Maximus, then, turning to the left, proceeded along the road at the foot of the southeast slope of the Palatine, when it joined the Via Sacra, and again turned to the left and ascended the Velia; on reaching the Summa Via Sacra it descended the Clivus Sacer, and then passed along the rest of the Via Sacra till it reached its destination at the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus, where the victorious general lay before the god the spoils of his conquests."

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (MAY-JULY: ON THE MISSISSIPPI), and (DECEMBER: ON THE MISSISSIPPI); 1863 (JANUARY-APRIL: ON THE MISSISSIPPI): and 1863 (APRIL-JULY: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

   Victor Amadeus II.,
      Duke of Savoy, 1675-1730:
      King of Sicily, 1713-1720;
      King of Sardinia, 1720-1730.

   Victor Emanuel II.,
      King of Sardinia, 1849-1861;
      King of Italy, 1861-1878.

VICTORIA: A. D. 1850-1855.
   Separation from New South Wales.
   Discovery of gold.
   Adoption of a Constitution.

   An English naval and military decoration, instituted after the
   Crimean War, on the 29th of January, 1856, by the command of
   Queen Victoria.

VICUS.

According to Niebuhr, the term "Vicus" in Roman topography—about which there has been much controversy—"means nothing else but a quarter or district [of the city] under the superintendence of its own police officer."

B. G. Niebuhr, Lectures on Ancient Ethnography and Geography, volume 2, page 86.

VIDOMME.

VIENNA, Austria: 12th Century.
Fortification and commercial advancement by the Austrian Dukes.

VIENNA, Austria: A. D. 1485.
Siege, capture, and occupation by Matthias of Hungary.

"At the end of September [1814] the centre of European interest passed to Vienna. The great council of the Powers, so long delayed, was at length assembled. The Czar of Russia, the Kings of Prussia, Denmark, Bavaria, and Würtemberg, and nearly all the statesmen of eminence in Europe, gathered round the Emperor Francis and his Minister, Metternich, to whom by common consent the presidency of the Congress was offered. Lord Castlereagh represented England, and Talleyrand France. Rasumoffsky and other Russian diplomatists acted under the immediate directions of their master, who on some occasions even entered into personal correspondence with the Ministers of the other Powers. Hardenberg stood in a somewhat freer relation to King Frederick William: Stein was present, but without official place. The subordinate envoys and attaches of the greater Courts, added to a host of petty princes and the representatives who came from the minor Powers, or from communities which had ceased to possess any political existence at all, crowded Vienna. In order to relieve the antagonisms which had already come too clearly into view, Metternich determined to entertain his visitors in the most magnificent fashion; and although the Austrian State was bankrupt, and in some districts the people were severely suffering, a sum of about £10,000 a day was for some time devoted to this purpose. The splendour and the gaieties of Metternich were emulated by his guests. … The Congress had need of its distractions, for the difficulties which faced it were so great that, even after the arrival of the Sovereigns, it was found necessary to postpone the opening of the regular sittings until November. By the secret articles of the Peace of Paris, the Allies had reserved to themselves the disposal of all vacant territory, although their conclusions required to be formally sanctioned by the Congress at large. The Ministers of Austria, England, Prussia, and Russia accordingly determined at the outset to decide upon all territorial questions among themselves, and only after their decisions were completely formed to submit them to France and the other Powers. Talleyrand, on hearing of this arrangement, protested that France itself was now one of the Allies, and demanded that the whole body of European States should at once meet in open Congress. The four Courts held to their determination, and began their preliminary sittings without Talleyrand. But the French statesman had, under the form of a paradox, really stated the true political situation. The greater Powers were so deeply divided in their aims that their old bond of common interest, the interest of union against France, was now less powerful than the impulse that made them seek the support of France against one another. {3625} Two men had come to the Congress with a definite aim: Alexander had resolved to gain the Duchy of Warsaw, and to form it, with or without some part of Russian Poland, into a Polish kingdom, attached to his own crown: Talleyrand had determined, either on the question of Poland, or on the question of Saxony, which arose out of it, to break allied Europe into halves, and to range France by the side of two of the great Powers against the two others. The course of events favoured for a while the design of the Minister: Talleyrand himself prosecuted his plan with an ability which, but for the untimely return of Napoleon from Elba, would have left France, without a war, the arbiter and the leading Power of Europe. Since the Russian victories of 1812, the Emperor Alexander had made no secret of his intention to restore a Polish Kingdom and a Polish nationality. Like many other designs of this prince, the project combined a keen desire for personal glorification with a real generosity of feeling. Alexander was thoroughly sincere in his wish not only to make the Poles again a people, but to give them a Parliament and a free Constitution. The King of Poland, however, was to be no independent prince, but Alexander himself: although the Duchy of Warsaw, the chief if not the sole component of the proposed new kingdom, had belonged to Austria and Prussia after the last partition of Poland, and extended into the heart of the Prussian monarchy. Alexander insisted on his anxiety to atone for the crime of Catherine in dismembering Poland: the atonement, however, was to be made at the sole cost of those whom Catherine had allowed to share the booty. Among the other Governments, the Ministry of Great Britain would gladly have seen a Polish State established in a really independent form; failing this, it desired that the Duchy of Warsaw should be divided, as formerly, between Austria and Prussia. Metternich was anxious that the fortress of Cracow at any rate should not fall into the hands of the Czar. Stein and Hardenberg, and even Alexander's own Russian counsellors, earnestly opposed the Czar's project, not only on account of the claims of Prussia on Warsaw, but from dread of the agitation likely to be produced by a Polish Parliament among all Poles outside the new State. King Frederick William, however, was unaccustomed to dispute the wishes of his ally; and the Czar's offer of Saxony in substitution for Warsaw gave to the Prussian Ministers, who were more in earnest than their master, at least the prospect of receiving a valuable equivalent for what they might surrender. By the treaty of Kalisch, made when Prussia united its arms with those of Russia against Napoleon (February 27th, 1813), the Czar had undertaken to restore the Prussian monarchy to an extent equal to that which it had possessed in 1805. It was known before the opening of the Congress that the Czar proposed to do this by handing over to King Frederick William the whole of Saxony, whose Sovereign, unlike his colleagues in the Rhenish Confederacy, had supported Napoleon up to his final overthrow at Leipzig. Since that time the King of Saxony had been held a prisoner, and his dominions had been occupied by the Allies. The Saxon question had thus already gained the attention of all the European Governments. … Talleyrand alone made the defence of the King of Saxony the very centre of his policy, and subordinated all other aims to this. His instructions, like those of Castlereagh, gave priority to the Polish question; but Talleyrand saw that Saxony, not Poland, was the lever by which he could throw half of Europe on to the side of France; and before the four Allied Courts had come to any single conclusion, the French statesman had succeeded, on what at first passed for a subordinate point, in breaking up their concert. For a while the Ministers of Austria, Prussia, and England appeared to be acting in harmony; and throughout the month of October all three endeavoured to shake the purpose of Alexander regarding Warsaw. Talleyrand, however, foresaw that the efforts of Prussia in this direction would not last very long, and he wrote to Louis XVIII. asking for his permission to make a definite offer of armed assistance to Austria in case of need. Events took the turn which Talleyrand expected. … He had isolated Russia and Prussia, and had drawn to his own side not only England and Austria but the whole body of the minor German States. … On the 3rd of January, 1815, after a rash threat of war uttered by Hardenberg, a secret treaty was signed by the representatives of France, England, and Austria, pledging these Powers to take the field, if necessary, against Russia and Prussia in defence of the principles of the Peace of Paris. The plan of the campaign was drawn up, the number of the forces fixed. Bavaria had already armed; Piedmont, Hanover, and even the Ottoman Porte, were named as future members of the alliance. It would perhaps be unfair to the French Minister to believe that he actually desired to kindle a war on this gigantic scale. Talleyrand had not, like Napoleon, a love for war for its own sake. His object was rather to raise France from its position as a conquered and isolated Power; to surround it with allies. … The conclusion of the secret treaty of January 3rd marked the definite success of his plans. France was forthwith admitted into the council hitherto known as that of the Four Courts, and from this time its influence visibly affected the action of Russia and Prussia, reports of the secret treaty having reached the Czar immediately after its signature. The spirit of compromise now began to animate the Congress. Alexander had already won a virtual decision in his favour on the Polish question, but he abated something of his claims, and while gaining the lion's share of the Duchy of Warsaw, he ultimately consented that Cracow, which threatened the Austrian frontier, should be formed into an independent Republic, and that Prussia should receive the fortresses of Dantzic and Thorn on the Vistula, with the district lying between Thorn and the border of Silesia. This was little for Alexander to abandon; on the Saxon question the allies of Talleyrand gained most that they demanded. The King of Saxony was restored to his throne, and permitted to retain Dresden and about half of his dominions. Prussia received the remainder. In lieu of a further expansion in Saxony, Prussia was awarded territory on the left bank of the Rhine, which, with its recovered Westphalian provinces, restored the monarchy to an area and population equal to that which it had possessed in 1805. But the dominion given to Prussia beyond the Rhine, though considered at the time to be a poor equivalent for the second half of Saxony, was in reality a gift of far greater value. {3626} It made Prussia, in defence of its own soil, the guardian and bulwark of Germany against France. … It gave to Prussia something more in common with Bavaria and the South, and qualified it, as it had not been qualified before, for its future task of uniting Germany under its own leadership. The Polish and Saxon difficulties, which had threatened the peace of Europe, were virtually settled before the end of the month of January."

"Prussia obtained Posen with the town of Thorn in the east, and in the west all that had been lost by the treaty of Tilsit, the duchies of Jülich and Berg, the old electoral territories of Cologne and Trier with the city of Aachen, and parts of Luxemburg and Limburg. Russia received the whole of the grand-duchy of Warsaw except Posen and Thorn, and Alexander fulfilled his promises to the Poles by granting them a liberal constitution. … Swedish Pomerania had been ceded by the treaty of Kiel to Denmark, but had long been coveted by Prussia. The Danish claims were bought off with two million thalers and the duchy of Lauenburg, but Hanover had to be compensated for the latter by the cession of the devotedly loyal province of East Friesland, one of the acquisitions of Frederick the Great. Hanover, which now assumed the rank of a kingdom without opposition, was also aggrandised by the acquisition of Hildesheim, Goslar, and other small districts. Austria was naturally one of the great gainers by the Congress. Eastern Galicia was restored by Russia, and the Tyrol, Salzburg, and the Inn district by Bavaria. As compensation for the Netherlands, Venetia and Lombardy became Austrian provinces. Bavaria, in return for its losses in the east, received Würzburg, Aschaffenburg, and its former possessions in the Palatinate. Long discussions took place about the constitution to be given to Germany, and here the hopes of the national party were doomed to bitter disappointment. … Finally a Confederation was formed which secured the semblance of unity, but gave almost complete independence to the separate states.

The members numbered thirty-eight, and included the four remaining free cities, Frankfort, Hamburg, Lübeck, and Bremen, and the kings of Denmark and the Netherlands. … In Italy the same process of restoration and subdivision was carried out. Victor Emmanuel I. recovered his kingdom of Sardinia, with the addition of Genoa as compensation for the portion of Savoy which France retained. Modena was given to a Hapsburg prince, Francis IV., son of the archduke Ferdinand, and Beatrice the heiress of the house of Este. Tuscany was restored to Ferdinand III., a brother of the Austrian Emperor. Charles Louis, son of the Bourbon king of Etruria, was compensated with Lucca and a promise of the succession in the duchy of Parma, which was for the time given to Napoleon's wife, Maria Louisa. Pius VII. had already returned to Rome, and the Papal states now recovered their old extent. But Pius refused at first to accept these terms because he was deprived of Avignon and the Venaissin, and because Austrian garrisons were in occupation of Ferrara and Comacchio. Naples was left for a time in the hands of Joachim Murat, as a reward for his desertion of Napoleon after the battle of Leipzig. Switzerland was declared independent and neutral, but its feudal unity was loosened by a new constitution (August, 1815). The number of cantons were raised to twenty-two by the addition of Geneva, Wallis (Vallais), and Neufchâtel the last under Prussian suzerainty. The position of capital was to be enjoyed in rotation by Berne, Zurich, and Lucerne. The kingdom of the Netherlands was formed for the house of Orange by the union of Holland and Belgium and the addition of Luxemburg, which made the king a member of the German Confederation. The professed object of this artificial union of Catholics and Protestants was the erection of a strong bulwark against French aggressions."

      Prince Talleyrand,
      Correspondence with Louis XVIII.
      during the Congress of Vienna.

   Vienne, on the Rhone, was the chief town of the Allobroges in
   ancient times,—subsequently made a Roman colony. It was from
   Vienne that Lugdunum (Lyons) was originally colonized.

VIKINGS.

VILLEIN TAX, OR TAILLE.

VILLEINS. VILLANI.

VINCENNES, Indiana: A. D. 1778-1779.
Taken and retaken from the British by
the Virginian General Clark.

VINDOBONA.

Vindobona, modern Vienna, on the Danube, originally a town of the Celts, in Pannonia, became a Roman military and naval station and a frontier city of importance. Marcus Aurelius died at Vindobona, A. D. 180.

VINEÆ.

The vineæ of Roman siege operations were "covered galleries, constructed of wicker work (vimina) generally, and sometimes of wood, for the purpose of covering the approach of the besiegers."

VINLAND.

VIRGATE.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES, POWHATAN CONFEDERACY,
      ALGONQUIAN FAMILY, IROQUOIS TRIBES OF THE SOUTH,
      and CHEROKEES.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1584.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1606-1607.
The Virginia Company of London and its charter.
The colony planted at Jamestown.

"The colonization of the North American coast had now become part of the avowed policy of the British government. In 1606 a great joint-stock company was formed for the establishment of two colonies in America. The branch which was to take charge of the proposed southern colony had its headquarters in London; the management of the northern branch was at Plymouth in Devonshire. Hence the two branches are commonly spoken of as the London and Plymouth Companies. The former was also called the Virginia Company, and the latter the North Virginia Company, as the name of Virginia was then loosely applied to the entire Atlantic coast north of Florida. The London Company had jurisdiction from 34° to 38° north latitude; the Plymouth Company had jurisdiction from 45° down to 41°; the intervening territory, between 38° and 41° was to go to whichever company should first plant a self-supporting colony."

   "The charter for colonizing the great central territory of the
   North American continent, which was to be the chosen abode of
   liberty, gave to the mercantile corporation nothing but a
   wilderness, with the right of peopling and defending it. By an
   extension of the prerogative, which was in itself illegal, the
   monarch assumed absolute legislative as well as executive
   powers. … The general superintendence was confided to a
   council in England; the local administration of each colony to
   a resident council. The members of the superior council in
   England were appointed exclusively by the king, and were to
   hold office at his good pleasure. Their authority extended to
   both colonies, which jointly took the name of Virginia. Each
   of the two was to have its own resident council, of which the
   members were from time to time to be ordained and removed
   according to the instructions of the king. To the king,
   moreover, was reserved supreme legislative authority over the
   several colonies, extending to their general condition and the
   most minute regulation of their affairs. … The summer was
   spent in preparations for planting the first colony, for which
   the king found a grateful occupation in framing a code of
   laws. The superior council in England was permitted to name
   the colonial council, which was independent of the emigrants,
   and had power to elect or remove its president, to remove any
   of its members, and to supply its own vacancies. Not an
   element of popular liberty or control was introduced. Religion
   was established according to the doctrine and rites of the
   church within the realm. … Then, on the 19th day of December,
   in the year of our Lord 1606, one hundred and nine years after
   the discovery of the American continent by Cabot, forty-one
   years from the settlement of Florida, the squadron of three
   vessels, the largest not exceeding 100 tons' burden, with the
   favor of all England, stretched their sails for 'the dear
   strand of Virginia, earth's only paradise.' … The enterprise
   was ill concerted. Of the 105 on the list of emigrants, there
   were but 12 laborers and few mechanics. They were going to a
   wilderness, in which, as yet, not a house was standing; and
   there were 48 gentlemen to 4 carpenters. Neither were there
   any men with families. Newport, who commanded the ships, was
   acquainted with the old passage, and sailed by way of the
   Canaries and the West India Islands. As he turned to the
   north, a severe storm, in April, 1607, carried his fleet
   beyond the settlement of Raleigh, into the magnificent bay of
   the Chesapeake. The headlands received and retain the names of
   Cape Henry and Cape Charles, from the sons of King James; the
   deep water for anchorage, 'putting the emigrants in good
   Comfort,' gave a name to the northern point; and within the
   capes a country opened which appeared to 'claim the
   prerogative over the most pleasant places in the world.' … A
   noble river was soon entered, which was named from the
   monarch; and, after a search of seventeen days, … on the 13th
   of May they reached a peninsula about 50 miles above the mouth
   of the stream, where the water near the shore was so very deep
   that the ships were moored to trees.
{3628}
   Here the council, except Smith, who for no reason unless it
   were jealousy of his superior energy was for nearly a month
   kept out of his seat, took the oath of office, and the
   majority elected Edward Maria Wingfield president for the
   coming year. Contrary to the earnest and persistent advice of
   Bartholomew Gosnold, the peninsula was selected for the site
   of the colony, and took the name of Jamestown."

ALSO IN: E. D. Neill, History of the Virginia Company of London, chapter 1, and Virginia Vetusta, chapters 1-2.

      E. M. Wingfield,
      Discourse of Virginia,
      edited by C. Deane (Archœologia Americana, volume 4).

      H. W. Preston,
      Documents Illustrative of American History,
      page 1.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1607-1610.
The settlement at Jamestown and the services
of Captain John Smith.

"Among the leaders of the expedition were Gosnold, the voyager and discoverer, and a prime mover in the affair; Wingfield, one of the first-named patentees, John Smith, Ratcliffe, Martin, Kendall, and Percy. Of these men John Smith has become famous. He has taken place among the founders of states, and a romantic interest has attached itself to his name. For centuries his character and deeds have been applauded, while in late years they have become a theme for censure and detraction. Modern investigation has relentlessly swept a way the romance, and torn in pieces many of the long accepted narratives in which Smith recorded his own achievements. Yet it was not wholly by a false and fluent pen that Smith obtained and held his reputation. He was something more than a plausible writer of fiction. He was the strongest and most representative man among the Virginian colonists. … With this hopeful company Newport left the Downs on the 1st of January, 1607. The worthy Richard Hakluyt sent them a paper containing much good advice and some ingenious geographical speculations, and Drayton celebrated their departure in clumsy verses filled with high-flown compliments. The advice of the priest and the praise of the poet were alike wasted. By an arrangement ingeniously contrived to promote discord, devised probably by royal sagacity, the box containing the names of the council was not to be opened until the voyagers reached their destination. Dissension broke out almost immediately. Whatever the merits of the differences, this much is certain, that Smith was the object of the concentrated jealousy and hatred of his companions. … On the 13th of May, 1607, the settlers landed at Jamestown, sent out exploring parties, and began fortifications. A fortnight later, under the command of Wingfield, they repulsed an attack by the Indians; and on the 22d of June Newport sailed for England, and left them to their own resources. The prospect must have been a dreary one: nothing answered to their expectations. Instead of valuable mines, the adventurers found only a most fertile soil; instead of timid, trusting South American Indians, they encountered wild tribes of hardy, crafty, and hostile savages; instead of rich, defenceless, and barbarian cities, an easy and splendid spoil, they found a wilderness, and the necessity of hard work. From the miserable character of the settlers, dangerous factions prevailed from the first, until Smith obtained control, and maintained some sort of order—despotically, perhaps, but still effectually. No one would work, and famine and the Indians preyed upon them mercilessly. A small fort and a few wretched huts, built after much quarrelling, represented for many months all that was accomplished. The only relief from this dark picture of incompetent men perishing, without achievement, and by their own folly, on the threshold of a great undertaking, is to be found in the conduct of Smith. Despite almost insurmountable obstacles, Smith kept the colony together for two years. He drilled the soldiers, compelled labor, repaired the fort, traded with the Indians, outwitted them and kept their friendship, and made long and daring voyages of discovery. He failed to send home a lump of gold, but he did send an excellent map of the Company's territory. He did not discover the passage to the South Sea, but he explored the great bays and rivers of Virginia. He did not find Raleigh's lost colonists, but he managed to keep his own from total destruction. The great result of all Smith's efforts was the character of permanency he gave to the settlement. Because he succeeded in maintaining an English colony for two consecutive years in America, the London Company had courage to proceed; and this is what constitutes Smith's strongest claim to the admiration and gratitude of posterity. To suppose that he had the qualities of a founder of a state is a mistake, although in some measure he did the work of one. … His veracity as a historian in the later years of his life has been well-nigh destroyed. But little faith can be placed in the 'Generall Historie,' and modern investigation has conclusively relegated to the region of legend and of fiction the dramatic story of Smith's rescue by Pocahontas. The shadow of doubt rests upon all his unsupported statements; but nothing can obscure his great services, to which the world owes the foundation of the first English colony in America. Yet, after all his struggles, Smith was severely blamed by the Company, apparently because Virginia was not Peru. In a manly letter he sets forth the defects of the colony, the need of good men with families, industrious tradesmen and farmers, not 'poor gentlemen and libertines.' Before, however, the actual orders came to supersede him, Smith resigned, or was forced out of the government, and returned to England. The feeble life of the colony wasted fast after his departure and during the sickness of Percy, who succeeded to the command."

J. Ashton, Adventures and Discoveries of Captain John Smith, newly ordered, chapters 6-21.

W. C. Bryant and S. H. Gay, Popular History of the United States, volume 1, chapter 11.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1609-1616.
   The new Charter.
   The colony taking root.
   Introduction of Tobacco culture.

"The prospects of the colony were so discouraging at the beginning of the year 1609, that, in the hope of improving them, the Company applied for a new charter with enlarged privileges. This was granted to them, on the 23d of May, under the corporate name of 'The Treasurer and Company of Adventurers and Planters of the City of London for the first Colony in Virginia.' {3629} The new Association, which embraced representatives of every rank, trade, and profession, included twenty-one peers, and its list of names presents an imposing array of wealth and influence. By this charter Virginia was greatly enlarged, and made to comprise the coast-line and all islands within 100 miles of it,—200 miles north and 200 south of Point Comfort,—with all the territory within parallel lines thus distant and extending to the Pacific boundary; the Company was empowered to choose the Supreme Council in England, and, under the instructions and regulations of the last, the Governor was invested with absolute civil and military authority. … Thomas West (Lord Delaware), the descendant of a long line of noble ancestry, received the appointment of Governor and Captain-General of Virginia. The first expedition under the second charter, which was on a grander scale than any preceding it, and which consisted of nine vessels, sailed from Plymouth on the 1st of June, 1609. Newport, the commander of the fleet, Sir Thomas Gates, Lieutenant-General, and Sir George Somers, Admiral of Virginia, were severally authorized, whichever of them might first arrive at Jamestown, to supersede the existing administration there until the arrival of Lord Delaware, who was to embark some months later; but not being able to settle the point of precedency among themselves, they embarked together in the same vessel, which carried also the wife and daughters of Gates. … On the 23d of July the fleet was caught in a hurricane; a small vessel was lost, others damaged, and the 'Sea Venture,' which carried Gates, Somers, and Newport, with about 150 settlers, was cast ashore on the Bermudas. … Early in August the 'Blessing,' Captain Archer, and three other vessels of the delayed fleet sailed up James River, and soon after the 'Diamond,' Captain Ratcliffe, appeared, without her mainmast, and she was followed in a few days by the 'Swallow,' in like condition. The Council being all dead save Smith, he, obtaining the sympathy of the sailors, refused to surrender the government of the colony; and the newly arrived settlers elected Francis West, the brother of Lord Delaware, as temporary president. The term of Smith expiring soon after, George Percy—one of the original settlers, a brother of the Earl of Northumberland, and a brave and honorable man—was elected president. … Smith, about Michaelmas (September 29), departed for England, or, as all contemporary accounts other than his own state, was sent thither 'to answer some misdemeanors.' These were doubtless of a venial character; but the important services of Smith in the sustenance of the colony appear not to have been as highly esteemed by the Company as by Smith himself. He complains that his several petitions for reward were disregarded, and he never returned to Virginia. … At the time of his departure for England he left at Jamestown three ships, seven boats, a good stock of provisions, nearly 500 settlers, 20 pieces of cannon, 300 guns, with fishing-nets, working-tools, horses, cattle, swine, etc. Jamestown was strongly fortified with palisades, and contained between fifty and sixty houses. … No effort by tillage being made to replenish their provisions, the stock was soon consumed, and the horrors of famine were added to other calamities. The intense sufferings of the colonists were long remembered, and this period is referred to as 'the starving time.' In six months their number was reduced to 60, and such was the extremity of these that they must soon have perished but for speedy succor. The passengers of the wrecked 'Sea Venture,' though mourned for as lost, had effected a safe landing at the Bermudas, where, favored by the tropical productions of the islands, they, under the direction of Gates and Somers, constructed for their deliverance two vessels from the materials of the wreck and cedar-wood, the largest of the vessels being of 80 tons burden. … Six of the company, including the wife of Sir Thomas Gates, died on the island. The company of 140 men and women embarked on the completed vessels—which were appropriately named the 'Patience' and the 'Deliverance'—on the 10th of May, 1610, and on the 23d they landed at Jamestown. … So forlorn was the condition of the settlement that Gates reluctantly resolved to abandon it." The whole colony was accordingly embarked and was under sail down the river, when it met a fleet of three vessels, bringing supplies and new settlers from England, with Lord Delaware, who had resolved to come out in person, as Governor and Captain-General of Virginia. Gates and his disheartened companions turned back with these new comers, and all were set vigorously at work to restore the settlement. "The administration of Delaware, though ludicrously ostentatious for so insignificant a dominion, was yet highly wholesome, and under his judicious discipline the settlement was restored to order and contentment." His health failing, Lord Delaware returned to England the following spring, whither Sir Thomas Gates had gone. Sir Thomas Dale had already been sent out with the appointment of high marshal, bearing a code of extraordinary laws which practically placed the colony under martial rule. Gates returned in June, 1611, with 300 additional settlers and a considerable stock of cows and other cattle. During that year and the next several new settlements were founded, at Dutch Gap, Henrico, and Bermuda Hundred, individual grants of property began to be made, and many signs of prosperity appeared. The year 1612 "was a marked one, in the inauguration by John Rolfe [who married Pocahontas two years later, having lost his first wife] of the systematic culture of tobacco,—a staple destined to exert a controlling influence in the future welfare and progress of the colony, and soon, by the paramount profit yielded by its culture, to subordinate all other interests, agricultural as well as manufacturing." In the spring of 1613, Sir Thomas Gates left the colony, finally, returning to England, and the government fell to the hands of Dale, who remained at the head until 1616.

R. A. Brock, Virginia, 1606-1689 (Narrative and Critical History of America, volume 3, chapter 5).

J. H. Lefroy, Memorials of the Discovery and Early Settlement of the Bermudas, volume 1, chapter 1.

      H. W. Preston,
      Documents Illustrative of American History,
      page 14.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1613.
The French settlements in Acadia destroyed by Argall
and the Dutch at New York forced to promise tribute.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1617-1619.
   The evil days of Argall, and the better
   administration that followed.
   Meeting of the first provincial Assembly.

"A party of greedy and unprincipled adventurers headed by Lord Rich, soon after the Earl of Warwick, acquired sufficient influence in the Company to nominate a creature of their own as Deputy-Governor. Their choice of Argall [Samuel Argall] would in itself have tainted their policy with suspicion. Whether dealing with the Indians, the French, or the Dutch, he had shown himself able, resolute, and unscrupulous.

To do him justice, he seems at least to have understood the principle of Tiberius, that a shepherd should shear his sheep, not flay them. His first measure was to provide a sufficient supply of corn for the maintenance of the colony. With that he appeared to think that his duty to the settlers was at end. … An event soon occurred which released Argall from the fear of a superior, and probably emboldened him in his evil courses. Lord Delaware, who had sailed in a large vessel with 200 emigrants," died on the voyage. "Argall now began to show that his care for the well-being of the colony was no better than the charity of the cannibal who feeds up his prisoner before making a meal on him. Trade with the Indians was withheld from individuals, but, instead of being turned to the benefit of the Company, it was appropriated by Argall. The planters were treated as a slave-gang working for the Deputy's own private profit. The Company's cattle were sold, and the proceeds never accounted for. During this time a great change had come over the Company at home. An energetic and public-spirited party had been formed, opposed alike to Sir Thomas Smith and to Lord Rich. Their leader was Sir Edwin Sandys, a member of that country party which was just beginning to take its stand against the corruptions of the court policy. Side by side with him stood one whose name has gained a wider though not a more honourable repute, the follower of Essex, the idol of Shakespeare, the brilliant, versatile Southampton. … The … year 1619 was remarkable in the annals of the colony. It is hardly an exaggeration to say that it witnessed the creation of Virginia as an independent community. From the beginning of that year we may date the definite ascendancy of Sandys and his party, an ascendancy which was maintained till the dissolution of the Company, and during which the affairs of Virginia were administered with a degree of energy, unselfishness, and statesmanlike wisdom, perhaps unparalleled in the history of corporations. One of the first measures was to send out Yeardley to supersede Argall. … When Yeardley arrived he found that Argall had escaped. No further attempt seems to have been made to bring him to justice. In the next year he was commanding a ship against the Algerines." Soon afterwards, Sir Edwin Sandys was placed officially at the head of the Company, by his election to be Treasurer, in the place of Sir Thomas Smith. "About the same time that these things were doing in England, a step of the greatest importance was being taken in Virginia. Yeardley, in obedience to instructions from the Company, summoned an Assembly of Burgesses from the various hundreds and plantations. At one step Virginia, from being little better than a penal settlement, ruled by martial law, became invested with important, though not full, rights of self-government. Though we have no direct evidence of the fact, there is every probability that during the administrations of Yeardley and Argall the number of independent planters possessing estates of their own, with labourers employed in the service of their masters, not of the Company, had increased. Unless such an influence had been at work, it is scarcely possible that the experiment of constitutional government should have succeeded, or even have been tried. On the 30th of July, 1619, the first Assembly met in the little church at Jamestown. … In England the Company under its new government set to work with an energy before unknown to it, to improve the condition of the colony. … To check the over-production of tobacco a clause was inserted in all fresh patents of land binding the holder to cultivate a certain quantity of other commodities. Everything was done to encourage permanent settlers rather than mere traders. Apprentices, unmarried women, and neat cattle were sent out. New forms of industry, too, were set on foot, such as timber yards, silk manufactures, iron foundries, and vineyards. … In the year 1619 alone over 1,200 persons were sent out, half as private settlers or servants, half at the expense of the Company."

"In the month of August, 1619, five years after the commons of France had petitioned for the emancipation of every serf in every fief, a Dutch man-of-war entered James River and landed 20 negroes for sale. This is the sad epoch of the introduction of negro slavery; but the traffic would have been checked in its infancy had it remained with the Dutch. Thirty years after this first importation of Africans, Virginia to one black contained fifty whites; and, after seventy years of its colonial existence, the number of its negro slaves was proportionably much less than in several of the northern states at the time of the war of independence."

      G. Bancroft,
      History of the United States (Author's last revision),
      part 1, chapter 8 (volume 1).

ALSO IN: G. W. Williams, History of the Negro Race in America, part 2, chapter 12 (volume 1).

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1622-1624.
Plot and Massacre by the Indians.
Arbitrary dissolution of the Virginia Company by King James.

   "On the 22nd of March, 1622, a memorable massacre occurred in
   the Colony. … On the evening before, and on that morning, the
   savages as usual came unarmed into the houses of the planters,
   with fruits, fish, turkies and venison to sell. In some places
   they actually sate down to breakfast with the English. At
   about the hour of noon, the savages rising suddenly and
   everywhere at the same time, butchered the colonists with
   their own implements, sparing neither age, sex, nor condition.
   Three hundred and forty-seven men, women and children fell in
   a few hours. … The destruction might have been universal but
   for the disclosure of a converted Indian, named Chanco, who,
   during the night before the massacre, revealed the plot to one
   Richard Pace, with whom he lived.
{3631}
   Pace … repaired before day to Jamestown and gave the alarm to
   Sir Francis Wyatt, the Governor. His vigilance saved a large
   part of the Colony. … The court of James I., jealous of the
   growing power of the Virginia Company and of its too
   republican spirit, seized upon the occasion of the massacre to
   attribute all the calamities of the Colony to its
   mismanagement and neglect, and thus to frame a pretext for
   dissolving the charter." The Company, supported by the
   colonists, resisted the high-handed proceedings of the King
   and his officers, but vainly. In November, 1624, "James I.
   dissolved the Virginia Company by a writ of Quo Warranto,
   which was determined only upon a technicality in the
   pleadings. The company had been obnoxious to the ill will of
   the King on several grounds. The corporation had become a
   theatre for rearing leaders of the opposition, many of its
   members being also members of parliament. … Charles I.
   succeeding [1625] to the crown and principles of his father,
   took the government of Virginia into his own hands. The
   company thus extinguished had expended £150,000 in
   establishing the Colony, and transported 9,000 settlers
   without the aid of government. The number of stockholders, or
   adventurers, as they were styled, was about 1,000, and the
   annual value of exports from Virginia was, at the period of
   the dissolution of the charter, only £20,000. The company
   embraced much of the rank, wealth, and talent of the kingdom.
   … As the act provided no compensation for the enormous
   expenditure incurred, it can be looked upon as little better
   than confiscation effected by chicane and tyranny.
   Nevertheless the result was undoubtedly favorable to the
   Colony."

      C. Campbell,
      Introduction to the History of the Colony
      and Ancient Dominion of Virginia,
      chapters 15-16.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1635-1638. The Clayborne quarrel with Lord Baltimore and the Maryland colony.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1639-1652.
Loyalty to King Charles.
The Refuge of the Cavaliers.

"Under Charles I. little worthy of notice occurred in the political history of Virginia. … Attempts were made to raise a revenue on tobacco, and subsequently to establish a royal monopoly of the tobacco trade. The attempts were averted, and the king contented himself with the preemption of the Virginian tobacco, and with enacting that no foreign vessel should be allowed to trade with Virginia, or to carry Virginian goods. In 1639 an attempt was made to re-establish the authority of the company, but was strenuously and successfully opposed by the assembly. That the royal government sat lightly on Virginia may be inferred from the loyal tone which had thus early become a characteristic of the colony. After the establishment of the commonwealth, 'Virginia was whole for monarchy and the last country belonging to England that submitted to obedience to the commonwealth of England,' and under Berkeley's government the plantation was a safe refuge for the defeated cavaliers. … But as soon as two or three parliamentary ships appeared [1652] all thoughts of resistance were laid aside. Yet, whether from lenity or caution, the parliament was satisfied with moderate terms. The submission of the colonists was accepted as free and voluntary."

"After a peace of five or six years, the Indians, provoked by continued encroachments on their lands, and instigated, it is said, by the aged chief Opechancanough, formed a new scheme for the extermination of the colonists. They were encouraged by signs of discord among the English, having seen a fight in James River between a London ship for the Parliament and a Bristol ship for the king. Five hundred persons perished in the first surprise, which took place, according to Winthrop, the day before Good Friday, appointed by the governor, 'a courtier, and very malignant toward the way of our churches,' to be observed as a fast for the good success of the king. For defense, the planters were concentrated in a few settlements; … forts were built at the points most exposed; and a ship was sent to Boston for powder, which, however, the General Court declined to furnish. This occasion was taken by 'divers godly-disposed persons' of Virginia to remove to New England. … The Indians were presently driven from their fastnesses. Opechancanough, decrepit and incapable of moving without assistance, … was taken prisoner and carried to Jamestown, where he was shot in the back by a vindictive soldier appointed to guard him. The Indian towns were broken up, and their 'clear lands possessed by the English to sow wheat in.' Opechancanough's successor submitted; and a peace was made by act of Assembly, the Indians ceding all the lands between James and York Rivers. No Indian was to come south of York River under pain of death. The Powhatan confederacy was dissolved. The Indians of lower Virginia sunk into servile dependence, and dwindled away, or, migrating to the south and west, were mingled and confounded with other tribes."

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1650-1660.
   Under the Commonwealth and Cromwell, and the Stuart Restoration.
   Two sides of the story.
   Origin of the name of "The Old Dominion."

   "After this, Sir William Berkeley [governor] made a new peace
   with the Indians, which continued for a long time unviolated.
   … But he himself did not long enjoy the benefit of this
   profound peace; for the unhappy troubles of king Charles the
   first increasing in England, proved a great disturbance to him
   and to all the people. They, to prevent the infection from
   reaching that country, made severe laws against the Puritans,
   though there were as yet none among them. But all
   correspondence with England was interrupted, supplies
   lessened, and trade obstructed. … At last the king was
   traitorously beheaded in England, and Oliver installed
   Protector. However, his authority was not acknowledged in
   Virginia for several years after, till they were forced to it
   by the last necessity. For in the year 1651, by Cromwell's
   command, Captain Dennis, with a squadron of men of war,
   arrived there from the Carribbee islands, where they had been
   subduing Bardoes. The country at first held out vigorously
   against him, and Sir William Berkeley, by the assistance of
   such Dutch vessels as were then there, made a brave
   resistance.
{3632}
   But at last Dennis contrived a stratagem which betrayed the
   country. He had got a considerable parcel of goods aboard,
   which belonged to two of the Council, and found a method of
   informing them of it. By this means they were reduced to the
   dilemma, either of submitting or losing their goods. This
   occasioned factions among them; so that at last, after the
   surrender of all the other English plantations, Sir William
   was forced to submit to the usurper on the terms of a general
   pardon. However, it ought to be remembered, to his praise, and
   to the immortal honor of that colony, that it was the last of
   all the king's dominions that submitted to the usurpation; and
   afterwards the first that cast it off, and he never took any
   post or office under the usurper. Oliver had no sooner subdued
   the plantations, but he began to contrive how to keep them
   under, that so they might never be able for the time to come
   to give him farther trouble. To this end, he thought it
   necessary to break off their correspondence with all other
   nations, thereby to prevent their being furnished with arms,
   ammunition, and other warlike provisions. According to this
   design, he contrived a severe act of Parliament [1651],
   whereby he prohibited the plantations from receiving or
   exporting any European commodities but what should be carried
   to them by Englishmen, and in English built ships. …

Notwithstanding this act of navigation, the Protector never thought the plantations enough secured, but frequently changed their governors, to prevent their intriguing with the people. So that, during the time of the usurpation, they had no less than three governors there, namely, Diggs, Bennet and Mathews. The strange arbitrary curbs he put upon the plantations exceedingly afflicted the people … and inspired them with a desire to use the last remedy, to relieve themselves from this lawless usurpation. In a short time afterwards a fair opportunity happened; for Governor Mathews died, and no person was substituted to succeed him in the government. Whereupon the people applied themselves to Sir William Berkeley (who had continued all this time upon his own plantation in a private capacity) and unanimously chose him their governor again [March, 1660]. Sir William … told the people … that if he accepted the government it should be upon their solemn promise, after his example, to venture their lives and fortunes for the king, who was then in France. This was no great obstacle to them, and therefore with an unanimous voice they told him they were ready to hazard all for the king. … Sir William Berkeley embraced their choice, and forthwith proclaimed Charles II. king of England, Scotland, France, Ireland and Virginia, and caused all process to be issued in his name. Thus his majesty was actually king in Virginia before he was so in England. But it pleased God to restore him soon after to the throne of his ancestors."

"The government of Virginia, under the Commonwealth of England, was mild and just. While Cromwell's sceptre commanded the respect of the world, he exhibited generous and politic leniency towards the infant and loyal colony. She enjoyed during this interval free trade, legislative independence and internal peace. The governors were men who by their virtues and moderation won the confidence and affections of the people. No extravagance, rapacity, or extortion, could be alleged against the administration. Intolerance and persecution were unknown, with the single exception of a rigorous act banishing the Quakers. But rapine, extravagance, extortion, intolerance and persecution were all soon to be revived under the auspices of the Stuarts. … Richard Cromwell resigned the protectorate in March, 1660. Matthews, governor-elect, had died in the January previous. England was without a monarch; Virginia without a governor. Here was a two fold interregnum. The assembly, convening on the 13th of March, 1660, declared by their first act that, as there was then in England 'noe resident absolute and generall confessed power,' therefore the supreme government of the colony should rest in the assembly. By the second act, Sir William Berkeley was appointed governor, and it was ordered that all writs should issue in the name of the assembly. … No fact in our history has been more misunderstood and misrepresented than this reappointment of Sir William Berkeley, before the restoration of Charles II. … Sir William was elected, not by a tumultuary assemblage of the people, but by the assembly; the royal standard was not raised upon the occasion, nor was the king proclaimed. Sir William, however, made no secret of his loyalty. … Sir William was elected on the 21st of the same month, about two months before the restoration of Charles II. Yet the word king, or majesty, occurs no where in the legislative records, from the commencement of the Commonwealth in England until the 11th of October, 1660—more than four months after the restoration. Virginia was indeed loyal, but she was too feeble to express her loyalty."

C. Campbell, Introduction to the History of the Colony and Ancient Dominion of Virginia, chapters 21-22.

"There is no doubt whatever that if the Virginians could have restored the King earlier they would have done so; and Berkeley, who is known to have been in close communication and consultation with the leading Cavaliers, had sent word to Charles II. in Holland, toward the end of the Commonwealth, that he would raise his flag in Virginia if there was a prospect of success. This incident has been called in question. It is testified to by William Lee, Sheriff of London, and a cousin of Richard Lee, Berkeley's emissary, as a fact within his knowledge. Charles declined the offer, but was always grateful to the Virginians. The country is said to have derived from the incident the name of the 'Old Dominion,' where the King was King, or might have been, before he was King in England."

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1660-1677.
The Restoration and its rewards to Virginia loyalty.
Oppression, discontent, and Bacon's Rebellion.

At the time of the restoration of the English monarchy, in the person of Charles II., the colony of Virginia "numbered not far from 50,000 souls, a large proportion of whom, especially, we may suppose, those of middle life and most active habits, were natives of the soil, bound to it by the strongest ties of interest and affection, and by their hopes of what it was destined to become in the opening future. {3633} Here was a state of things, comprising, in the apprehensions of the people, many of the elements of the highest happiness and prosperity. … But all this was totally and suddenly changed, and universal distress brought upon the land, by the new restrictive clauses added to the original Navigation Act, by the first Parliament of Charles. By the act of the Long Parliament it had been simply provided that foreign vessels should import into England no other products than such as were grown or manufactured in their own country; a shaft aimed principally at the Dutch. … By Charles's Commons this first hint was … expanded into a voluminous code of monopolizing enactments, by which the trade of the world was regulated on the principle of grasping for England every possible commercial advantage, and inflicting upon all other nations the greatest possible commercial injury. … Upon the colonies, one and all, this cruel policy bore with a weight which almost crushed them. … From 1660, when this monopolizing policy took its beginning, the discontent of the people increased day by day, as each new prohibition was proclaimed. Commerce lay dead. Tobacco would no longer pay for its cultivation, much less enrich the laborious planter; manufactures, as that of silk, after being attempted, failed to bring the hoped-for relief, and there seemed no prospect but starvation and ruin. What wonder that mischief lay brewing in the hearts of a people who, for their almost slavish loyalty, met only these thankless returns of injury and injustice; for the Virginians of that day were monarchists in the full meaning of the term. … Other causes conspired with these purely political ones to bring the public mind of Virginia into such a state of deep exasperation as to find its relief only in insurrection. Of these, one was particularly a source of irritation; namely, the grants of vast tracts of territory, made by the wasteful and profligate King to his needy and profligate favorites, made wholly irrespective of present owners and occupiers, who were transferred, like serfs of the soil, to any great patentee to whom the caprice of Charles chose to consign them." The discontent culminated in 1676, under the influence of an excitement growing out of trouble with the Indians. After more than thirty years of quiet, the natives became hostile and threatening. "Various outrages were first committed by the Indians, on whom the whites, as usual, retaliated; murder answered to murder, burning to burning, till, throughout the whole border country, were kindled the flames of an exterminating Indian war, accompanied by all its peculiar horrors. In the excited state of the public mind, these new calamities were laid at the door of the government." Governor Berkeley was accused of having an interest in the profits of trade with the Indians which restrained him from making war on them. Whether the charge was true or false, he gave color to it by his conduct. He took no steps to protect the colony. Nor would he authorize any self-defensive measures on the part of the people themselves. They "went so far as to engage that, if the Governor would only commission a general, whomsoever he would, they would 'follow him at their own charge.' Still they were not heard. Under such circumstances of neglect and excessive irritation, they took the case into their own hands." They chose for their leader Nathaniel Bacon, a young Englishman of education, energy and talent, who had been in the colony about three years, and who had already attained a seat in the Governor's Council. Bacon accepted the responsibility, "commission or no commission," and, in the spring of 1676, put himself at the head of 500 men, with whom he marched against the Indians. The governor, after formally proclaiming him a rebel, raised another army and marched, not against the Indians, but against Bacon. He was hardly out of Jamestown, however, before the people of that neighborhood rose and took possession of the capital. On learning of this fresh revolt, he turned back, and found himself helpless to do anything but submit. The result was the summoning of a new Assembly, to which Bacon was elected from his county, and the making of some progress, apparently, towards a curing of abuses and the removing of causes of discontent. But something occurred—exactly what has never been made clear—which led to a sudden flight on Bacon's part from Jamestown, and the gathering of his forces once more around him. Re-entering the capital at their head, he extorted from Governor Berkeley a commission which legalized his military office, and armed with this authority he proceeded once more against the Indians. "But as soon as he was sufficiently distant to relieve the Governor and his friends from their fears, all that had been granted was revoked; a proclamation was issued, again denouncing Bacon as a rebel, setting a price upon his head, and commanding his followers to disperse." Again, Bacon and his army retraced their steps and took possession of Jamestown, the governor flying to Accomac. A convention of the inhabitants of the colony was then called together, which adopted a Declaration, or Oath, in which they fully Identified themselves with Bacon in his course, and swore to uphold him. The latter then moved once more against the Indians; Berkeley once more got possession of the seat of government, and, once more, Bacon (who had fought the Indians meantime at Bloody Run and beaten them) came back and drove him out. "The whole country … was with Bacon, and merely a crowd of cowardly adventurers about the Governor. Nothing would seem, at this moment, to have stood between Bacon and the undisputed, absolute control of the colony, had no unforeseen event interposed, as it did, to change the whole aspect of affairs." This unforeseen event was the sudden death of Bacon, which occurred in January, 1677, at the house of a friend. "Some mystery attaches to the manner of it," and there were, of course, sinister whispers of foul play. "But, however and wherever Bacon died, it could never be discovered where he was buried, nor what disposition had been made of his body. … The death of Bacon was, in effect, the restoration of Sir William Berkeley to his lost authority, and the termination of the war; there being not an individual, among either his counsellors or officers, of capacity sufficient to make good his place. … Berkeley, gradually subduing all opposition, and making prisoners of many of the prime movers of the revolt, in a short time saw the authority of his government completely reestablished. … The historians of the period inform us that no less than 25 persons were executed during the closing period of the rebellion and the few next succeeding months."

W. Ware, Memoir of Nathaniel Baron (Library of American Biographies, series 2, volume 3).

      G. Bancroft,
      History of the United States (Author's last revision),
      part 2, chapters 10-11.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1710-1716.
   Crossing the Blue Ridge.
   The Knights of the Golden Horseshoe.
   Possession taken of the Shenandoah Valley.

"Lord Orkney is made Governor, but as usual sends his deputy, and in the year 1710 appears the stalwart soldier and ruler, Sir Alexander Spotswood. Alexander Spotswood, or Spottiswoode, as his family were called in Scotland, rises like a landmark above the first years of the century. When he came to Virginia he was only 34 and in the bloom of his manhood. But he had already fought hard, and his faculties as a soldier and ruler were fully developed. … The Virginians received Spotswood with open arms. He was a man after their own heart, and brought with him when he came (June 1710) the great writ of Habeas corpus. The Virginia people had long claimed that this right was guaranteed to them by Magna Charta, since they were equally free Englishmen with the people of England. Now it was conceded, and the great writ came,—Spotswood's letter of introduction. It was plain that he was not a new Berkeley looking to the King's good pleasure as his law, or a new Nicholson ready to imprison people or put halters around their necks; but a respecter of human freedom and defender of the right. … In … 1716, Governor Alexander Spotswood set out on an expedition which much delighted the Virginians. There was a very great longing to visit the country beyond the Blue Ridge. That beautiful unknown land held out arms of welcome, and the Governor, who had in his character much of the spirit of the hunter and adventurer, resolved to go and explore it. Having assembled a party of good companions, he set out in the month of August, and the gay company began their march toward the Blue Ridge Mountains. The chronicler of the expedition describes the picturesque cavalcade followed by the pack-horses and servants,—'rangers, pioneers, and Indians'; how they stopped to hunt game; bivouacked 'under the canopy'; laughed, jested, and regaled themselves with 'Virginia wine, white and red, Irish usquebaugh, brandy, shrub, two kinds of rum, champagne, canary, cherry-punch, and cider.' In due time they reached the Blue Ridge, probably near the present Swift Run Gap, and saw, beyond, the wild valley of the Shenandoah. On the summit of the mountain they drank the health of the King, and named two neighboring peaks 'Mt. George' and 'Mt. Alexander,' after his Majesty and the Governor; after which they descended into the valley and gave the Shenandoah the name of the 'Euphrates.' Here a bottle was buried—there were, no doubt, a number of empty ones—containing a paper to testify that the valley of the Euphrates was taken possession of in the name of his Majesty, George I. Then the adventurers reascended the mountain, crossed to the lowland, and returned to Williamsburg. This picturesque incident of the time gave rise to the order of the 'Knights of the Golden Horseshoe.' The horses had been shod with iron, which was unusual, as a protection against the mountain roads; and Spotswood sent to London and had made for his companions small golden horseshoes set with garnets and other jewels, and inscribed 'Sic juvat transcendere montes.'"

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1744.
Treaty with the Six Nations and
purchase of the Shenandoah Valley.

"The Six Nations still retained the right to traverse the great valley west of the Blue Ridge. Just at this inopportune moment [1743], some of their parties came into bloody collision with the backwoodsmen of Virginia, who had penetrated into that valley. Hostilities with the Six Nations, now that war was threatened with France, might prove very dangerous, and Clinton [governor of New York] hastened to secure the friendship of these ancient allies by liberal presents; for which purpose, in conjunction with commissioners from New England, he held a treaty at Albany. … The difficulties between Virginia and the Six Nations were soon after [1744] settled in a treaty held at Lancaster, to which Pennsylvania and Maryland were also parties, and in which, in consideration of £400, the Six Nations relinquished all their title to the valley between the Blue Ridge and the central chain of the Allegany Mountains."

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1748-1754. First movements beyond the mountains to dispute possession with the French.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1754.
Opposing the French occupation of the Ohio Valley.
Washington's first service.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1755-1760.
The French and Indian War.
Braddock's defeat and after.

      See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754, 1754, 1755;
      CANADA: A. D. 1750-1753, to 1760;
      NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1749-1755, 1755;
      and CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1758-1760.

   "In Virginia as well as in Pennsylvania, a vigorous opposition
   to vested rights foreshadowed what was to come. A short crop
   of tobacco having suddenly enhanced the price of that staple,
   or, what is quite as like]y, the issue of paper money in
   Virginia, first made that same year [1755], having depreciated
   the currency, the Assembly had passed a temporary act,
   authorizing the payment of all tobacco debts in money at
   twopence per pound—the old rate, long established by usage.
   Three years after, under pretence of an expected failure of
   the crop, this tender act was renewed.
{3635}
   Francis Fauquier, who had just succeeded Dinwiddie as
   lieutenant governor, a man of more complying temper than his
   predecessor, readily consented to it. The salaries of the
   parish ministers, some sixty-five in number, were payable in
   tobacco. They were likely to be considerable losers by this
   tender law; and, not content with attacking it in pamphlets,
   they sent an agent to England, and by the aid of Sherlock,
   bishop of London, procured an order in council pronouncing the
   law void. Suits were presently brought to recover the
   difference between twopence per pound in the depreciated
   currency and the tobacco to which by law the ministers were
   entitled. In defending one of these suits [1763], the
   remarkable popular eloquence of Patrick Henry displayed itself
   for the first time. Henry was a young lawyer, unconnected with
   the ruling aristocracy of the province, and as yet without
   reputation or practice. The law was plainly against him, and
   his case seemed to be hopeless. He had, however, a strong
   support in the prevailing prejudice in favor of the tender
   law, and in the dissatisfaction generally felt at the king's
   veto upon it. Addressing the jury in a torrent of eloquence as
   brilliant as it was unexpected, he prevailed upon them to give
   him a verdict. The Assembly voted money to defend all suits
   which the parsons might bring; and, notwithstanding their
   clear legal right in the matter, they thought it best to
   submit without further struggle."

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1763-1766.
   The question of taxation by Parliament.
   The Stamp Act and Patrick Henry's resolutions.
   The First Continental Congress.
   The repeal of the Stamp Act and the Declaratory Act.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1766-1767, to 1772-1773;
and BOSTON: A. D. 1770, to 1773.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1768.
The boundary treaty with the Six Nations at Fort Stanwix.
Pretended cession of lands south of the Ohio.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1769.
Attempted prohibition of Slave Trade nullified by George III.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1769-1772.
The first settlement of Tennessee.
The Watauga Association.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1774.
Western territorial claims of the Old Dominion.
Lord Dunmore's War with the Indians.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1774.
   The Boston Port Bill, the Massachusetts Bill,
   and the Quebec Act.
   The First Continental Congress.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1775.
   The beginning of the War of the American Revolution.
   Lexington.
   Concord.
   The country in arms.
   Ticonderoga.
   The Siege of Boston.
   Bunker Hill.
   The Second Continental Congress.

Not long after the excited demonstrations which followed Governor Dunmore's removal of powder from the public magazine at Williamsburg, the governor received Lord North's "conciliatory proposition," and "he convened the House of Burgesses, on the 1st of June, to take it into consideration. This withdrew Peyton Randolph from Congress, as had been anticipated, and Mr. Jefferson succeeded to the vacancy. But the latter was not permitted to leave the Burgesses before an answer to the ministerial proposition was framed. … How much the answer was 'enfeebled' by the doubts and scruples of the moderate members, we cannot say, but it rings true revolutionary metal, and it was a noble lead off for the Assemblies of the other Colonies. … The House, after the customary expression of a desire for reconciliation, declare that they have examined it (the Ministerial proposition) minutely, viewed it in every light in which they are able, and that, 'with pain and disappointment, they must ultimately declare that it only changed the form of oppression without lightening its burden.' … In the meantime events had transpired which soon afterwards terminated the official career of the Earl of Dunmore, and with it the royal government in Virginia. On the 5th of June, three men who entered the public magazine were wounded by a spring gun placed there by the orders of the Governor, and on the 7th, a committee of the House, appointed to inspect the magazine, found the locks removed from the serviceable muskets, and they also discovered the powder which had been placed in mine. These things highly exasperated the multitude, and on a rumor getting abroad that the same officer who had before carried off the powder was again advancing towards the city with an armed force, they rose in arms. The Governor's assurance that the rumor was unfounded restored tranquillity. He, however, left the city in the night with his family and went on board the Fowey, lying at York, twelve miles distant. He left a message declaring that he had taken this step for his safety, and that thenceforth he should reside and transact business on board of the man of war! An interchange of messages, acrid and criminatory on his part, firm and spirited on the part of the House, was kept up until the 24th of June; when, on his final refusal to receive bills for signature except under the guns of an armed vessel, the House declared it a high breach of privilege, and adjourned to the 12th of October. But a quorum never afterwards attended. … We soon find the Earl of Dunmore carrying on a petty but barbarous predatory warfare against the people he had so lately governed."

   "Having drawn together a considerable force, Dunmore ascended
   Elizabeth River to the Great Bridge, the only pass by which
   Norfolk can be approached from the land side; dispersed some
   North Carolina militia collected there; made several
   prisoners; and then, descending the river [November 1775],
   took possession of Norfolk. The rise of that town had been
   very rapid. Within a short time past it had become the
   principal shipping port of Virginia.
{3636}
   Its population amounted to several thousands, among whom were
   many Scotch traders not well disposed to the American cause.
   Fugitive slaves and others began now to flock to Dunmore's
   standard. A movement was made in his favor on the east shore
   of Maryland, which it required a thousand militia to suppress.
   The Convention of Virginia, not a little alarmed, voted four
   additional regiments, afterward increased to seven, all of
   which were presently taken into continental pay. … Woodford,
   with the second Virginia regiment, took possession of the
   causeway leading to the Great Bridge, which was still held by
   Dunmore's troops. An attempt to dislodge the Virginians having
   failed, with loss, Dunmore abandoned the bridge and the town,
   and again embarked. Norfolk was immediately occupied by
   Woodford, who was promptly joined by Howe's regiment from
   North Carolina. After a descent on the eastern shore of
   Virginia [January, 1776], to whose aid marched two companies
   of Maryland minute men, being re-enforced by the arrival of a
   British frigate, Dunmore bombarded Norfolk. A party landed and
   set it on fire. … The part which escaped was presently burned
   by the provincials, to prevent it from becoming a shelter to
   the enemy. Thus perished, a prey to civil war, the largest and
   richest of the rising towns of Virginia. Dunmore continued,
   during the whole summer, a predatory warfare along the rivers,
   of which his naval superiority gave him the command, burning
   houses and plundering plantations, from which he carried off
   upward of 1,000 slaves. He was constantly changing his place
   to elude attack; but watched, pursued, and harassed, he
   finally found it necessary to retire to St. Augustine with his
   adherents and his plunder."

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1776.
Independence declared and a Constitution adopted.
Declaration of Rights.

"There was a sudden change in public sentiment; and the idea of independence, said to be alarming to Virginians in March [1776] was welcome to them in April. One writes on the 2d: 'Independence is now the talk here. … It will be very soon, if not already, a favorite child.' Another, on the 12th, writes: 'I think almost every man, except the treasurer, is willing to declare for independence.'" On the 23d, the Charlotte County Committee charged its delegates in convention to use their best endeavors "that the delegates which are sent to the General Congress be instructed immediately to cast off the British yoke." On the next day, a majority of the freeholders of James City took similar action. "In May, the avowals for independence were numerous. In this spirit and with such aims, a new convention was chosen, and on the 6th of May met in Williamsburg. It contained illustrious men,—among them, James Madison, in the twenty-fifth year of his age; George Mason, in the maturity of his great powers; Richard Bland, Edmund Pendleton, and Patrick Henry, rich in Revolutionary fame. … On the 14th of May the convention went into a committee of the whole on the state of the colony, with Archibald Carey in the chair; when Colonel Nelson submitted a preamble and resolutions on independence, prepared by Pendleton. These were discussed in two sittings of the committee, and then reported to the House. They were opposed chiefly by delegates from the Eastern District, but were advocated by Patrick Henry, and passed unanimously when 112 members were present,—about 20 absenting themselves. This paper enumerated the wrongs done to the colonies … and instructed the delegates appointed to represent the colony in the General Congress 'to propose to that respectable body to declare the United Colonies free and independent States,' and to 'give the assent of the colony to measures to form foreign alliances and a confederation,—provided the power of forming government for the internal regulations of each colony be left to the colonial legislatures.' The same paper also provided for a committee to form a plan of government for Virginia. This action was transmitted by the President to the other assemblies, accompanied by a brief circular. … It was hailed by the patriots in other colonies with enthusiasm. … The convention agreed (June 12) upon the famous Declaration of Rights declaring all men equally free and independent, all power vested in and derived from the people, and that government ought to be for the common benefit; also that all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion according to the dictates of conscience. It also complied with the recommendation of Congress, by forming a constitution and electing a governor and other officers."

"A Declaration of Rights, made by the Representatives of the good People of Virginia, assembled in full and free Convention, which rights do pertain to them and their posterity as the basis and foundation of government.

I. That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

II. That all power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the people; that magistrates are their trustees and servants, and at all times amenable to them.

III. That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection and security of the people, nation or community; of all the various modes and forms of government, that is best which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety, and is most effectually secured against the danger of maladministration; and that, when a government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community hath an indubitable, unalienable and indefeasible right to reform, alter or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal.

   IV. That no man, or set of men, are entitled to exclusive or
   separate emoluments or privileges from the community but in
   consideration of public services, which not being descendible,
   neither ought the offices of magistrate, legislator or judge
   to be hereditary.
   V. That the legislative, executive and judicial powers should
   be separate and distinct; and that the members thereof may be
   restrained from oppression, by feeling and participating the
   burthens of the people, they should, at fixed periods, be
   reduced to a private station, return into that body from which
   they were originally taken, and the vacancies be supplied by
   frequent, certain and regular elections, in which all, or any
   part of the former members to be again eligible or ineligible,
   as the laws shall direct.

VI. That all elections ought to be free, and that all men having sufficient evidence of permanent common interest with, and attachment to the community, have the right of suffrage, and cannot be taxed, or deprived of their property for public uses, without their own consent, or that of their representatives so elected, nor bound by any law to which they have not in like manner assented, for the public good.

VII. That all power of suspending laws, or the execution of laws, by any authority, without consent of the representatives of the people, is injurious to their rights, and ought not to be exercised.

VIII. That in all capital or criminal prosecutions, a man hath a right to demand the cause and nature of his accusation, to be confronted with the accusers and witnesses, to call for evidence in his favor, and to a speedy trial by an impartial jury of twelve men of his vicinage, without whose unanimous consent he cannot be found guilty; nor can he be compelled to give evidence against himself; that no man be deprived of his liberty, except by the law of the land or the judgment of his peers.

IX. That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

X. That general warrants, whereby an officer or messenger may be commanded to search suspected places without evidence of a fact committed, or to seize any person or persons not named, or whose offence is not particularly described and supported by evidence, are grievous and oppressive, and ought not to be granted.

XI. That in controversies respecting property, and in suits between man and man, the ancient trial by jury of twelve men is preferable to any other, and ought to be held sacred.

XII. That the freedom of the press is one of the great bulwarks of liberty, and can never be restrained but by despotic governments.

XIII. That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State; that standing armies in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

XIV. That the people have a right to uniform government; and therefore, that no government separate from or independent of the government of Virginia, ought to be erected or established within the limits thereof.

XV. That no free government, or the blessing of liberty, can be preserved to any people, but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality and virtue, and by a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.

XVI. That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love and charity towards each other.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1776-1779.
   The war in the north.
   The Articles of Confederation.
   Alliance with France.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1776-1808.
Antislavery opinion and the causes of its disappearance.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1778-1779.
Clark's conquest of the Northwest and its organization
under the jurisdiction of Virginia.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1779-1786.
Settlement of boundaries with Pennsylvania.
The Pan-handle.

"In 1779 commissioners appointed by the two States met at Baltimore to agree upon the common boundaries of Pennsylvania and Virginia. … On both sides there was an evident desire to end the dispute. Various lines were proposed and rejected. On August 31 the commissioners signed this agreement: 'To extend Mason and Dixon's line due west five degrees of longitude, to be computed from the River Delaware, for the southern boundary of Pennsylvania, and that a meridian line drawn from the western extremity thereof to the northern limit of the said State be the western boundary of Pennsylvania forever.' This contract was duly ratified by the legislatures of the two States. In 1785 Mason and Dixon's line was extended, and the southwestern corner of Pennsylvania established. The 'Pan-handle' is what was left of Virginia east of the Ohio River and north of Mason and Dixon's line, after the boundary was run from this point to Lake Erie in 1786. … It received its name in legislative debate from Honorable John McMillan, delegate from Brooke County, to match the Accomac projection, which he dubbed the Spoonhandle."

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1780-1783.
   The war in the South.
   Arnold's ravages.
   Lafayette's campaign.
   Surrender of Cornwallis.
   Peace with Great Britain.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1784.
Cession of Western territorial claims to the United States.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1787-1788.
The formation and adoption of the Federal Constitution.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1791-1792. Separation of Kentucky and its admission to the Union as a State.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1861 (January-June).
   Attempted peace-making.
   The State carried into rebellion.
   Separation of West Virginia, which adheres to the Union.

"Early in January, 1861, the Virginia Assembly met at Richmond to determine the action of the Commonwealth in the approaching struggle. It was plain that war was coming unless the authorities of the United States and of the seceding States would listen to reason; and the first proceedings of the Assembly looked to peace and the restoration of fraternal union. Virginia recommended to all the States to appoint deputies to a Peace Convention. …

Thus ended in failure the first attempt of Virginia to preserve the national peace; and the crisis demanded that she should promptly decide upon her course. On February 13 (1861) a Convention assembled at Richmond, and a Committee was appointed on Federal Relations. On March 10 (1861), this Committee reported fourteen resolutions protesting against all interference with slavery; declaring secession to be a right; and defining the grounds on which the Commonwealth would feel herself to be justified in exercising that right, namely: the failure to obtain guarantees; the adoption of a warlike policy by the Government of the United States; or the attempt to exact the payment of duties from the seceded States, or to reënforce or recapture the Southern forts. These resolves clearly define the attitude of Virginia at this critical moment. After prolonged discussion, all but the last had passed the Convention when intelligence came that war had begun. The thunder of cannon from Charleston harbor broke up the political discussion. … Mr. Lincoln had expressed himself in his inaugural with perfect plainness. Secession was unlawful, and the Union remained unbroken; it was his duty to execute the laws, and he should perform it. To execute the laws it was necessary to have an army; and (April 15, 1861) President Lincoln issued his proclamation calling for 75,000 troops from the States remaining in the Union. The direct issue was thus presented, and Virginia was called upon to decide the momentous question whether she would fight against the South or against the North. … As late as the first week in April the Convention had refused to secede by a vote of 89 to 45. Virginia was conscientiously following her old traditions and would not move. Now the time had come at last. … On the 17th of April, two days after the Federal proclamation, the Convention passed an ordinance of secession and adhesion to the Southern Confederacy, by a vote of 88 to 55, which was ratified by the people by a majority of 96,750 votes, out of a total of 161,018. West Virginia refused to be bound by the action of the Convention, and became a separate State, but the Virginia of the Tidewater and Valley went with the South."

"Of the 46 delegates from the territory now comprising West Virginia, 29 voted against [the ordinance of secession], 9 for it, 7 were absent and one excused. Those who voted against it hastened to leave the city," and, on reaching their homes, became generally the leaders of a movement to separate their section of the State from the Old Dominion. On the 13th of May a convention of delegates from the counties of Northwestern Virginia was held at Wheeling, by the action of which a more general convention was called and held at the same place on the 11th day of June. The latter convention assumed the power to reorganize the government of the State of Virginia.

ALSO IN: J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay, Abraham Lincoln, volume 3, chapter 25, and volume 4, chapter 19.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1861 (April).
Governor Letcher's reply to President Lincoln's call for troops.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1861 (June-November).
The loyal State government organized in West Virginia.
Steps taken toward separation from the old State.

A Convention held on the 11th of June in West Virginia declared the State offices of Virginia vacant by reason of the treason of those who had been elected to hold them, and proceeded to form a regular State organization, with Francis H. Pierpont for the executive head. Maintaining that the loyal people were entitled to speak for the whole State they declared that their government was the government of Virginia. They subsequently admitted delegates from Alexandria and Fairfax Counties in Middle Virginia and from Accomac and Northampton Counties on the eastern shore. Thus organized, the government was acknowledged by Congress as the government of Virginia and senators and representatives were admitted to seats. The Pierpont Government, as it was called, then adopted an ordinance on the 20th of August, 1861, providing "for the formation of a new State out of a portion of the territory of this State." The ordinance was approved by a vote of the people, and on the 26th of November the Convention assembled in Wheeling to frame a constitution for the new government.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1861 (July).
Richmond made the capital of the Southern Confederacy.

"The Conspiracy had no intention originally of establishing its seat of government at Richmond. That was a part of the price exacted by Virginia for her secession, and it was not paid without reluctance. It is to be remembered that at that time every thing seemed to turn on what the Border States would do. … By establishing the seat of government at Richmond, it became certain that the most powerful of the Southern armies would always be present in Virginia. If Virginia had been abandoned, all the Border States would have gone with the North. … The Confederates having determined on the transfer of their seat of government to Richmond, the necessary preparations were completed, and their Congress opened its first session in that city on the 20th of July, 1861."

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1862 (April-November).
The separation of West Virginia consummated.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1865.
The last meeting of the Secession Legislature.
President Lincoln's Permit.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1865. Recognition of the Pierpont State Government by President Johnson.

"In 1816 the Legislature of Virginia authorized the president and directors of the Literary Fund to report a plan for a university at the next session of the Assembly. The committee made a full report as requested, but nothing was accomplished beyond bringing the subject of education prominently before the people. At the legislative session of 1817-18 that part of the bill relating to a university and the education of the poor was passed. … In the bill authorizing the establishment of the university, it was provided that the sum of $45,000 per annum should be given for the education of the poor, and $15,000 to the university. The commissioners having reported in favor of Central College as the most convenient place in Albemarle County, the Legislature decided, after much discussion, to locate the university at Charlottesville, and to assume the property and site of Central College. The commissioners embodied in their report an exhaustive plan for a university, chiefly from the pen of Thomas Jefferson."

      F. W. Blackmar,
      History of Federal and State Aid to Higher Education
      in the United States,
      (Bureau of Education, Circular of Information,
      1890, number 1), pages 174-175.

      ALSO IN:
      H. B. Adams,
      Thomas Jefferson and the University of Virginia
      (Bureau of Education, Circular of Information,
      1888, number 1).

VIROCONIUM.

VISIGOTHS.

VITELLIAN CIVIL WAR.

VIZIR, VIZIER.

"Like the Sassanian emperors, the Caliph was not only the divinely appointed ruler, but the embodiment of the government itself. His word was literally law, and his caprice might at any moment overturn the most careful calculations of the ministers, or deprive them of life, power, or liberty, during the performance of their most active duties, or at a most critical juncture. It was very seldom, however, that this awful personage condescended to trouble himself about the actual details of the executive government. The Vizier, as the word implies [Vizier, in Arabic Wazir, means 'One who bears a burden,'—Foot-note], was the one who bore the real burden of the State, and it was both his interest and that of the people at large to keep the Caliph himself as inactive as possible, and to reduce him, in fact, to the position of a mere puppet."

VOCONIAN LAW.

The object of the Voconian Law, passed at Rome about 169 B. C. under the auspices of Cato the censor, "was to limit the social influence of women, by forbidding rich citizens to make them heiresses of more than one half of their whole estate."

VOIVODES, WOIWODES.

See POLAND: A. D. 1578-1652;
also BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: A. D. 1341-1350 (SERVIA).

Some remnants of the armies defeated by Sulla, in the civil war which ended in his mastery of Rome and the Roman state (B. C. 82), took refuge in the strong Etruscan town of Volaterræ, and only capitulated after a siege of two years.

"When the Romans entered the south of France, two tribes occupied the country west of the Rhone as far at least as Tolosa (Toulouse) on the Garonne. The eastern people, named the Volcae Arecomici, possessed the part between the Cebenna or Cevenna range (Cevennes), the Rhone, and the Mediterranean, and according to Strabo extended to Narbonne. The chief town of these Volcae was Nemausus (Nismes). The Volcae Tectosages had the upper basin of the Garonne: their chief town was Tolosa."

VOLSCIAN WARS OF ROME.

"The Vulcanal, or, as it is called by Livy, the Area Vulcani, must have been close to the Senaculum [early meeting place of the Senate], on the slope of the Capitol. It seems to have been originally an open space of some extent, used for public meetings, especially those of the Comitia Tributa, and dedicated to Vulcan. Sacrifices of small fish were offered to Vulcan here, and a temple dedicated to that god stood also here in the earliest times, but it was afterwards, on the enlargement of the pomœrium beyond the Palatine, removed for religious reasons to the Circus Flaminius, and the Vulcanal became simply a consecrated area."

VULGAR ERA.

WAARTGELDERS.

WABENAKIES, OR ABNAKIS.

WAGER OF BATTLE. TRIAL BY COMBAT. JUDICIAL COMBAT.

"Trial by combat does not seem to have established itself completely in France till ordeals went into disuse, which Charlemagne rather encouraged, and which, in his age, the clergy for the most part approved. The former species of decision may, however, be met with under the first Merovingian kings (Greg. Turon, l. vii. c. 19, l. x. c. 10), and seems to have prevailed in Burgundy. It is established by the laws of the Alemanni or Suabians. Baluz. t. i. p. 80. It was always popular in Lombardy. … Otho II. established it in al disputes concerning real property. … God, as they deemed, was the judge. The nobleman fought on horseback, with all his arms of attack and defence; the plebeian on foot, with his club and target. The same were the weapons of the champions to whom women and ecclesiastics were permitted to intrust their rights. If the combat was intended to ascertain a civil right, the vanquished party, of course, forfeited his claim and paid a fine. If he fought by proxy, the champion was liable to have his hand struck off: a regulation necessary, perhaps, to obviate the corruption of these hired defenders. In criminal cases the appellant suffered, in the event of defeat, the same punishment which the law awarded to the offence of which he accused his adversary. Even where the cause was more peaceably tried, and brought to a regular adjudication by the court, an appeal for false judgment might indeed be made to the suzerain, but it could only be tried by battle. And in this, the appellant, if he would impeach the concurrent judgment of the court below, was compelled to meet in combat everyone of its members; unless he should vanquish them all within the day, his life, if he escaped from so many hazards, was forfeited to the law. If fortune or miracle should make him conqueror in every contest, the judges were equally subject to death, and their court forfeited their jurisdiction for ever. … Such was the judicial system of France when St. Louis [A. D. 1226-1270] enacted that great code which bears the name of his Establishments. The rules of civil and criminal procedure, as well as the principles of legal decisions, are there laid down with much detail. But that incomparable prince, unable to overthrow the judicial combat, confined himself to discourage it by the example of a wiser jurisprudence. It was abolished throughout the royal domains." Trial by combat "was never abolished by any positive law, either in France [at large] or England. But instances of its occurrence are not frequent even in the fourteenth century."

"Nor was the wager of battle confined to races of Celtic or Teutonic origin. The Slavonic tribes, as they successively emerge into the light of history, show the same tendency to refer doubtful points of civil and criminal law to the arbitrament of the sword. The earliest records of Hungary, Bohemia, Poland, Servia, Silesia, Moravia, Pomerania, Lithuania, and Russia, present evidences of the prevalence of the system." The last recorded instance of the wager of battle in France was in 1549. "In England, the resolute conservatism, which resists innovation to the last, prolonged the existence of the wager of battle until a period unknown in other civilized nations. … It was not until the time of Elizabeth that it was even abolished in civil cases. … Even in the 17th century, instances of the battle ordeal between persons of high station are on record." As late as 1818 the right was claimed and conceded by the judges, in a criminal case which caused much excitement. "The next year the act 59 Geo. III. chap. 46, at length put an end for ever to this last remnant of the age of chivalry."

WAGER OF LAW.

"This was the remarkable custom which was subsequently known as canonical compurgation, and which long remained a part of English jurisprudence, under the name of the Wager of Law. The defendant, when denying the allegation under oath, appeared surrounded by a number of companions—'juratores,' 'conjuratores,' 'sacramentales,' 'collaudantes,' 'compurgatores,' as they were variously termed—who swore, not to their knowledge of the facts, but as sharers and partakers in the oath of denial. This curious form of procedure derives importance from the fact that it is an expression of the character, not of an isolated sept, but of nearly all the races that have moulded the destinies of Europe. The Ostrogoths in Italy, and the Wisigoths of the South of France and Spain were the only nations in whose codes it occupies no place, and they, … at an early period, yielded themselves completely to the influence of the Roman civilization. … The church, with the tact which distinguished her dealings with her new converts, was not long in adopting a system which was admirably suited for her defence in an age of brute force."

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (JULY: SOUTH CAROLINA),
      and (AUGUST-DECEMBER: SOUTH CAROLINA).

"The Wahabees derive their name from Abdul Wahab, the father of Sheikh Muhammad, their founder, who arose about the beginning of the last century, in the province of Najd, in Arabia. The object of the Wahabee movement was to sweep away all later innovations, and to return to the original purity of Islam, as based upon the exact teaching of the Koran and the example of Mahomet. The principles of the sect rapidly spread among the Arab tribes, and were adopted by the sovereign princes of Darayeh, in Najd. Impelled by religious zeal and political ambition, and allured by the prospect of plunder, the Wahabees soon acquired nearly the whole of Arabia, and menaced the neighbouring Pashaliks of Turkey and Egypt. Mecca and Medina soon fell into their hands, the shrine was despoiled of its rich ornaments, and the pilgrim route to the Kaaba closed for some years. Early in this century (1811), Muhammad Ali, the Pasha of Egypt, at the bidding of the Sultan, set himself to check the progress of this aggressive sect; and his son Ibrahim Pasha completed the work (1818). … The following particulars of the Wahabee reform need only be added. They reject the decisions of the 'four orthodox doctors,' and the intercessions of saints; they condemn the excessive reverence paid to Mahomet, and deny his mediation, until the last day. They also disapprove of the ornamenting of tombs, &c."

WAIWODES, WOIWODES, VOIVODES.

See POLAND: A. D. 1578-1652;
and BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: A. D. 1341-1356 (SERVIA).

Queen Margaret, rallying the loyal Lancastrians of the north of England, met her enemy, the Duke of York, and the enemies of her party, on Wakefield Green, December 30, 1460, and defeated them with great slaughter, the Duke of York being found among the slain. But her fruitless victory was soon reversed by young Edward, Earl of March, eldest son of the deceased Duke of York, who deposed King Henry VI. and planted himself on the throne, before the same winter had passed.

WALDEMAR.

   "Let me at the outset express my conviction that the whole
   attempt to ascribe to the Waldenses an earlier date than the
   latter half of the 12th century, to throw back their origin
   some two hundred years, or sometimes much more than this, even
   to the times of Claudius of Turin (d. 839), is one which will
   not stand the test of historical criticism; while the
   endeavour to vindicate for them this remote antiquity has
   introduced infinite confusion into their whole history. The
   date of Waldo, who, as I cannot doubt, is rightly recognized
   as their founder, we certainly know. When it is sought to get
   rid of their relation to him as embodied in the very name
   which they bear, and to change this name into Vallenses, the
   Men of the Valleys or the Dalesmen, it is a transformation
   which has no likelihood, philological or historic, to
   recommend it. … Peter Waldo,—for we will not withhold from him
   this Christian name, although there is no authority for it
   anterior to the beginning of the 15th century,—was a rich
   citizen and merchant of Lyons [in the later half of the 12th
   century]. Not satisfied with those scanty portions of
   Scripture doled out to the laity in divine services, and
   yearning above all for a larger knowledge of the Gospels, he
   obtained from two friends among the priesthood a copy of these
   last and of some other portions of Scripture translated into
   the Romance language; a collection also of sayings from the
   Fathers. The whole movement remained to the end true to this
   its first motive—the desire namely for a fuller acquaintance
   with the Word of God. That Word he now resolved to make the
   rule of his life. … He …, as a first step, sells all that he
   has, and bestows it upon the poor. In the name which he adopts
   for himself and for the companions whom he presently
   associates with him, the same fact of a voluntary poverty, as
   that which above all they should embody in their lives, speaks
   out. On this side of the Alps they are Poor Men of Lyons; on
   the Italian, Poor Men of Lombardy. … And now he and his began
   to preach in the streets of Lyons, to find their way into
   houses, to itinerate the country round. Waldo had no intention
   herein of putting himself in opposition to the Church, of
   being a Reformer in any other sense than St. Francis or St.
   Bernard was a Reformer, a quickener, that is, and reviver of
   the Church's spiritual life. His protest was against practical
   mischiefs, against negligences and omissions on the part of
   those who should have taught the people, and did not.
   Doctrinal protest at this time there was none. But for Rome
   all forms of religious earnestness were suspicious which did
   not spring directly from herself. … In 1178 the Archbishop of
   Lyons forbade their preaching or expounding any more. Such as
   did not submit had no choice but to quit Lyons, and betake
   themselves elsewhere. And thus it came to pass that not the
   city, already so illustrious in ecclesiastical story, where
   Irenæus taught and Blandina suffered, … but the Alpine
   mountains must shelter these outcasts, and in turn be made
   famous by their presence." In 1209, Pope Innocent III. made an
   attempt to absorb Waldo's society in an "Order of Poor
   Catholics," which he instituted. "Failing this, he repeated, a
   few years later, at the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), the
   Church's sentence against the Waldenses, including them under
   a common ban with the Cathari and the whole rabble rout of
   Manichæans and others with whom they have so often since been
   confounded. …
{3642}
   Enemies have sought to confound, that so there might be
   imputed to the Waldenses any evil which had been brought home
   to the Albigenses. … Friends have sought to identify them out
   of the wish to recruit the scanty number of witnesses for
   Scriptural and Apostolical truth in the dark ages of the
   Church; as certainly it would prove no small numerical
   addition if the Albigenses might be counted among these." It
   seems to be certain that the Waldenses were not spared by the
   crusaders who exterminated the Albigenses of southern France
   between 1209 and 1229. They fled before that storm into the
   recesses of the Alps. "But they were numerous in North Italy
   as well; and far more widely scattered over the whole of
   central Europe than their present dwelling place and numbers
   would at all suggest. They had congregations in Florence, in
   Genoa, in Venice, above all in Milan; there were Waldensian
   communities as far south as Calabria; they were not unknown in
   Arragon; still less in Switzerland; at a later day they found
   their way to Bohemia, and joined hands with the Hussites
   there."

"The valleys which the Vaudois have raised into celebrity lie to the west of Piemont, between the province of Pignerol and Briançon, and adjoining on the other side to the ancient Marquisate of Susa, and that of the Saluces. The capital, La Tour, being about 36 miles from Turin, and 14 from Pignerol. The extent of the valleys is about 12 Italian miles, making a square of about 24 French leagues. The valleys are three in number, Luzern, Perouse, and St. Martin. The former (in which the chief town is now Catholic) is the most beautiful and extensive."

The Waldenses are sometimes confused, mistakenly, with the
Albigenses, who belonged to an earlier time.

WALDENSES: A. D. 1526-1561.
   Identification with the Calvinists.
   Persecuting war of the Duke of Savoy.
   The tolerant treaty of Cavour.

WALDENSES: A. D. 1655.
The second Persecution and Massacre.
Cromwell's intervention.

   "They [the Vaudois, or Waldenses] had experienced persecutions
   through their whole history, and especially after the
   Reformation; but, on the whole, the two last Dukes of Savoy,
   and also Christine, daughter of Henry IV. of France, and
   Duchess-Regent through the minority of her son, the present
   Duke, had protected them in their privileges, even while
   extirpating Protestantism in the rest of the Piedmontese
   dominions. Latterly, however, there had been a passion at
   Turin and at Rome for their conversion to the Catholic faith,
   and priests had been traversing their valleys for the purpose.
   The murder of one such priest, and some open insults to the
   Catholic worship, about Christmas 1654, are said to have
   occasioned what followed. On the 25th of January, 1654-5, an
   edict was issued, under the authority of the Duke of Savoy,
   'commanding and enjoining every head of a family, with its
   members, of the pretended Reformed Religion, of what rank,
   degree, or condition soever, none excepted, inhabiting and
   possessing estates in the places of Luserna … &c., within
   three days, to withdraw and depart, and be, with their
   families, withdrawn out of the said places, and transported
   into the places and limits marked out for toleration by his
   Royal Highness during his good pleasure,' … unless they gave
   evidence within 20 days of having become Catholics.
   Furthermore it was commanded that in every one even of the
   tolerated places there should be regular celebration of the
   Holy Mass, and that there should be no interference therewith,
   nor any dissuasion of anyone from turning a Catholic, also on
   pain of death. All the places named are in the Valley of
   Luserna, and the object was a wholesale shifting of the
   Protestants of that valley out of nine of its communes and
   their concentration into five higher up. In vain were there
   remonstrances at Turin from those immediately concerned. On
   the 17th of April, 1655, the Marquis di Pianezza, entered the
   doomed region with a body of troops mainly Piedmontese, but
   with French and Irish among them. There was resistance,
   fighting, burning, pillaging, flight to the mountains, and
   chasing and murdering for eight days, Saturday, April 24,
   being the climax. The names of about 300 of those murdered
   individually are on record, with the ways of the deaths of
   many of them. Women were ripped open, or carried about impaled
   on spikes; men, women, and children, were flung from
   precipices, hacked, tortured, roasted alive; the heads of some
   of the dead were boiled and the brains eaten; there are forty
   printed pages, and twenty-six ghastly engravings, by way of
   Protestant tradition of the ascertained variety of the
   devilry. The massacre was chiefly in the Valley of Luserna,
   but extended also into the other two valleys. The fugitives
   were huddled in crowds high among the mountains, moaning and
   starving; and not a few, women and infants especially,
   perished amid the snows. … There was a shudder of abhorrence
   through Protestant Europe, but no one was so much roused as
   Cromwell. … On Thursday the 17th of May, and for many days
   more, the business of the Savoy Protestants was the chief
   occupation of the Council. Letters, all in Milton's Latin, but
   signed by the Lord Protector in his own name, were despatched
   (May 25) to the Duke of Savoy himself, to the French King, to
   the States General of the United Provinces, to the Protestant
   Swiss Cantons, to the King of Sweden, to the King of Denmark,
   and to Ragotski, Prince of Transylvania. A day of humiliation
   was appointed for the Cities of London and Westminster, and
   another for all England." A collection of money for the
   sufferers was made, which amounted, in England and Wales, to
   £38,000—equal to about £137,000 now. Cromwell's personal
   contribution was £2,000—equivalent to £7,500 in money of the
   present day. The Protector despatched a special envoy to the
   court of Turin, who addressed very plain and bold words to the
   Duke. Meanwhile Blake with his fleet was in the Mediterranean,
   and there were inquiries made as to the best place for landing
   troops to invade the Duke's dominions. "All which being known
   to Mazarin, that wily statesman saw that no time was to be
   lost.
{3643}
   While Mr. Downing [second commissioner sent by Cromwell] was
   still only on his way to Geneva through France, Mazarin had
   instructed M. Servien, the French minister at Turin, to
   insist, in the French King's name, on an immediate settlement
   of the Vaudois business. The result was a 'Patente di Gratia e
   Perdono,' or 'Patent of Grace and Pardon,' granted by Charles
   Emanuel to the Vaudois Protestants, August 19, in terms of a
   Treaty at Pignerol, in which the French Minister appeared as
   the real mediating party and certain Envoys from the Swiss
   Cantons as more or less assenting. As the Patent substantially
   retracted the Persecuting Edict and restored the Vaudois to
   all their former privileges, nothing more was to be done."
   These events in Piedmont drew from Milton his immortal sonnet,
   beginning: "Avenge, O Lord, thy slaughtered saints."

"In the spring of 1691, the Waldensian shepherds, long and cruelly persecuted, and weary of their lives, were surprised by glad tidings. Those who had been in prison for heresy returned to their homes. Children, who had been taken from their parents to be educated by priests, were sent back. Congregations, which had hitherto met only by stealth and with extreme peril, now worshipped God without molestation in the face of day. Those simple mountaineers probably never knew that their fate had been a subject of discussion at the Hague, and that they owed the happiness of their firesides and the security of their humble temples to the ascendency which William [of Orange] exercised over the Duke of Savoy," who had lately joined the Grand Alliance against Louis XIV. of France.

"All the other races had combined on the soil of Britain, the Welsh would not. The demands of feudal homage made by the kings of England were evaded or repudiated; the intermarriages by which Henry II. and John had tried to help on a national agreement had in every case failed. In every internal difficulty of English politics the Welsh princes had done their best to embarrass the action of the kings; they had intrigued with every aspirant for power, had been in league with every rebel. … The necessity of guarding the Welsh border had caused the English kings to found on the March a number of feudal lordships, which were privileged to exercise almost sovereign jurisdictions, and exempted from the common operation of the English law. The Mortimers at Chirk and Wigmore, the Bohuns at Hereford and Brecon, the Marshalls at Pembroke, and the Clares in Glamorgan, were out of the reach of the King, and often turned against one another the arms which had been given them to overawe the Welsh. … So long as the Welsh were left free to rebel the Marchers must be left free to fight. … Llewelyn, the prince of North Wales, had, by the assistance given to Simon de Montfort, earned as his reward a recognition of his independence, subject only to the ancient feudal obligations. All the advantages won during the early years of Henry III. had been thus surrendered. When the tide turned Llewelyn had done homage to Henry; but when he was invited, in 1273, to perform the usual service to the new king, he refused; and again, in 1274 and 1275, he evaded the royal summons. In 1276, under the joint pressure of excommunication and a great army which Edward brought against him, he made a formal submission; performed the homage, and received, as a pledge of amity, the hand of Eleanor de Montfort in marriage. But Eleanor, although she was Edward's cousin, was Earl Simon's daughter, and scarcely qualified to be a peacemaker. Another adviser of rebellion was found in Llewelyn's brother David, who had hitherto taken part with the English, and had received special favours and promotion from Edward himself. … The peace made in 1277 lasted about four years. In 1282 the brothers rose, seized the border castles of Hawarden, Flint, and Rhuddlan, and captured the Justiciar of Wales, Roger Clifford. Edward saw then that his time was come. He marched into North Wales, carrying with him the courts of law and the exchequer, and transferring the seat of government for the time to Shrewsbury. He left nothing undone that might give the expedition the character of a national effort. He collected forces on all sides; he assembled the estates of the realm, clergy, lords, and commons, and prevailed on them to furnish liberal supplies; he obtained sentence of excommunication from the Archbishop of Canterbury. The Welsh made a brave defence, and, had it not been for the almost accidental capture and murder of Llewelyn in December, England might have found the task too hard for her. The death of Llewelyn, however, and the capture of David in the following June, deprived the Welsh of their leaders, and they submitted. Edward began forthwith his work of consolidation. … In 1284 he published at Rhuddlan a statute, called the Statute of Wales, which was intended to introduce the laws and customs of England, and to reform the administration of that country altogether on the English system. The process was a slow one; the Welsh retained their ancient common law and their national spirit; the administrative powers were weak and not far-reaching; the sway of the lords Marchers was suffered to continue; and, although assimilated, Wales was not incorporated with England. It was not until the reign of Henry VIII. that the principality was represented in the English Parliament, and the sovereignty, which from 1300 onwards was generally although not invariably bestowed on the king's eldest son, conferred under the most favourable circumstances little more than a high-sounding title and some slight and ideal claim to the affection of a portion of the Welsh people. The task, however, which the energies of his predecessors had failed to accomplish was achieved by Edward. All Britain south of the Tweed recognised his direct and supreme authority, and the power of the Welsh nationality was so far broken that it could never more thwart the determined and united action of England."

"Since the day when it was conquered by Edward I. Wales had given the kings of England very little trouble. The Welsh remained loyal to the son and grandson of their conqueror, and were the most devoted friends of Richard II., even when he had lost the hearts of his English subjects. But on the usurpation of Henry [IV.] their allegiance seems to have been shaken: and Owen Glendower, who was descended from Llewelyn, the last native prince of Wales, laid claim to the sovereignty of the country [A. D. 1402]. He ravaged the territory of Lord Grey of Ruthin, and took him prisoner near Snowdon; then, turning southwards, overran Herefordshire and defeated and took prisoner Sir Edmund Mortimer, uncle to that young Earl of March, who should have been heir to the crown after Richard according to the true order of descent. In this battle upwards of a thousand Englishmen were slain, and such was the fierce barbarity of the victors that even the women of Wales mutilated the dead bodies in a manner too gross to be described, and left them unburied upon the field till heavy sums were paid for their interment. It was necessary to put down this revolt of Glendower, and the King collected an army and went against him in person. It was the beginning of September; but owing, as the people thought, to magical arts and enchantments practised by the Welshman, the army suffered dreadfully from tempests of wind, rain, snow, and hail before it could reach the enemy. In one night the King's tent was blown down, and he himself would have been killed if he had not retired to rest with his armour on. Finally the enterprise had to be abandoned. … Glendower continued as troublesome as ever, and the King was unable from various causes to make much progress against him. At one time money could not easily be raised for the expedition. At another time, when he actually marched into the borders of Wales [A. D. 1405], his advance was again impeded by the elements. The rivers swelled to an unusual extent, and the army lost a great part of its baggage by the suddenness of the inundation. The French, too, sent assistance to Glendower, and took Carmarthen Castle. Some time afterwards [A. D. 1407] the King's son, Henry Prince of Wales, succeeded in taking the castle of Aberystwith; but very soon after Owen Glendower recovered it by stealth. In short, the Welsh succeeded in maintaining their independence of England during this whole reign, and Owen Glendower ultimately got leave to die in peace." On the accession of Henry V. (A. D. 1413), "the Welsh, who had been so troublesome to his father, admired his valour and claimed him as a true prince of Wales, remembering that he had been born at Monmouth, which place was at that time within the principality. They discovered that there was an ancient prophecy that a prince would be born among themselves who should rule the whole realm of England; and they saw its fulfilment in King Henry V."

J. Gairdner, The Houses of Lancaster and York, chapter. 4, section 3; and chapter 5, section 1.

ALSO IN: J. H. Wylie, History of England under Henry IV., volume 1, chapter 14.

"When Edward I. subdued Wales, he is said to have promised the people of that country a native prince who could not speak English, and taking advantage of the fact that his queen, Eleanor, was delivered of a child at Carnarvon Castle, in North Wales, he conferred the principality upon his infant son Edward, who was yet unable to speak. By the death of his eldest brother Alphonso, Edward became heir to the throne, to which he afterwards succeeded as Edward II.; but from this time forward, the principality has been appropriated solely to the eldest sons of the kings of England, who previous to this period had only borne the title of 'Lord Prince.' In 1841, for the first time, the dukedom of Saxony was introduced among the reputed titles of the Prince of Wales. This dignity his Royal Highness derives merely in right of his own paternal descent. … Without any new creation, and previous to his acquiring the title of Prince of Wales, the heir-apparent of the sovereign is Duke of Cornwall, the most ancient title of its degree in England. Edward the Black Prince … was created the first Duke of Cornwall in 1337. … The dukedom merges in the Crown when there is no heir apparent, and is immediately inherited by the prince on his birth, or by the accession of his father to the throne, as the case may be. … The earldom of Chester is one of the titles conferred by patent, but it was formerly a principality, into which it had been erected by the 21st of Richard II. In the reign of Henry IV., however, the act of parliament by which it had been constituted was repealed, and it has ever since been granted in the same patent which confers the title of Prince of Wales. As the eldest sons of the kings of Scotland have enjoyed the titles of Duke of Rothsay, Earl of Carrick, Baron Renfrew, and Hereditary Great Steward of Scotland, those dignities are also invariably attributed to the Prince of Wales."

WALI.

An Arabian title, given to certain governors of extensive provinces under the caliphate. It seems to have had a viceroyal significance, marking the bearer of it as an immediate representative of the caliph.

WALL OF PROBUS.

   This is one of the forms of a name which the ancient Germanic
   peoples seem to have given to non-Germanic nations whom they
   associated in any wise with the Roman empire.

A treaty concluded, A. D. 1153, between King Stephen and Matilda, who claimed the English crown as the heir of her father, Henry I. By the treaty Stephen was recognized as king and Matilda's son Henry (who became Henry II.) was made his heir.

"In Namur, Liege, and Luxembourg, the speech is what is called Walloon, the same word as Welsh, and derived from the German root 'wealh,' a foreigner. By this designation the Germans of the Flemish tongue denoted the Romano-Belgic population whose language was akin to the French, and whom a hilly and impracticable country (the forest districts of the Ardennes) had more or less protected from their own arms. Now the Walloon is a form of the Romano-Keltic so peculiar and independent that it must be of great antiquity, i. e., as old as the oldest dialect of the French, and no extension of the dialects of Lorraine, or Champagne, from which it differs materially. It is also a language which must have been formed on a Keltic basis. … The Walloons, then, are Romano-Keltic; whereas the Flemings are Germans, in speech and in blood."

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY;
also, NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1674-1675, 1675, 1676-1678.

WAMPUM.

"Wampum, or wompam, according to Trumbull was the name of the white beads made from stems or inner whorls of the Pyrula Carica or Canaliculata periwinkle shells so common on all the south Coast of New England. When strung they were called wampon or wampom—peage or peake or peg, equivalent to 'strings of white beads,' for peage means 'strung beads.' Color was the basis of the nomenclature, as well as of the difference in value. 'Wompi' was white; 'Sacki' was black; 'Suckauhock' was the black beads made from the dark part of the poquauhock, the common quahog, Venus' mercenaria or round clam shell. The value of the black was generally twice that of the white. … The word generally used among the Dutch who led in introducing the bead currency of the Indians, Sewan or Zeewand, was more general in its application than wampum. But whatever the difficult Indian linguistic process may have been, the New England men soon settled on wampum and peage as the working names for this currency. The shell cylinders, black or white, were about one-eighth of an inch in diameter and one-quarter long. There were shorter beads used for ornaments, but there is hardly any trace of them in the currency. … The Indians strung the beads on fibres of hemp or tendons taken from the flesh of their forest meat. … The strings of peage were embroidered on strips of deer-skin, making the 'Máchequoce,' a girdle or belt 'of five inches thicknesse,' or more, and to the value of ten pounds sterling or more, which was worn about the waist or thrown over the shoulders like a scarf. More than 10,000 beads were wrought into a single belt four inches wide. These belts were in common use like the gold and jewelry of our day. They also played the same symbolic part which survives in the crown jewels and other regalia of civilized nations. … Whenever the Indians made an important statement in their frequent negotiations, they presented a belt to prove it, to give force to their words. … It gave to the words the weight of hard physical facts and made the expression an emblem of great force and significance. The philologists call this literary office, this symbolic function of wampum, an elementary mnemonic record. The same was fulfilled by the quippus, knotted strings or quipu of the ancient Peruvians. … 'This belt preserves my words' was a common remark of the Iroquois Chief in council. … The Iroquois were a mighty nation, almost an incipient state. Their only records were in these mnemonic beads. … Tradition gives to the Narragansetts the honor of inventing these valued articles, valuable both for use and exchange. … The Long Island Indians manufactured the beads in large quantities and then were forced to pay them away in tribute to the Mohawks and the fiercer tribes of the interior. Furs were readily exchanged for these trinkets, which carried a permanent value, through the constancy of the Indian desire for them. … After the use of wampum was established in colonial life, contracts were made payable at will in wampum, beaver, or silver. … The use began in New England in 1627. It was a legal tender until 1661, and for more than three quarters of a century the wampum was current in small transactions."

See, also, MONEY AND BANKING: 17th CENTURY;
QUIPU; and MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1623-1629.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1809; 1808; and 1810-1812, to 1815 (JANUARY).

WAR OF LIBERATION.

WAR OF THE AUSTRIAN SUCCESSION.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1740, to 1744-1745;
      NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1745, and 1746-1747;
      ITALY: A. D. 1741-1743, to 1746-1747;
      AIX-LA-CHAPELLE: THE CONGRESS.

WAR OF THE FEDERATION.

WAR OF THE QUEEN'S RIGHTS.

WAR OF THE SPANISH SUCCESSION.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1702, and after;
      NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1702-1704, and after;
      GERMANY: A. D. 1702, and after;
      ITALY: A. D. 1701-1713;
      NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1702-1710;
      and UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

WAR OF THE THREE HENRYS.

WARS OF THE ROSES.

WARSAW: A. D. 1656.
Three days battle with Swedes and Brandenburgers.
Defeat of the Poles.

See BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1640-1688;
and SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1644-1697.

WARSAW: A. D. 1792-1794.
   Occupied by the Russians.
   Their forces expelled.
   Capture of the city by Souvorof.
   Its acquisition by Prussia.

WARWICK PLANTATION.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1775 (MAY-AUGUST), to 1783 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER).

   "One important duty which engaged the President's
   [Washington's] attention during part of the recess [of
   Congress] related to the purchase and survey of the new
   Federal city. The site chosen on the Potomac by himself and
   the commissioners, in conformity with law [see UNITED STATES
   OF AMERICA: A. D. 1789-1792], lay a few miles to the north of
   Mount Vernon on the Maryland side of the river, at the
   confluence of the Eastern Branch, and just below Georgetown.
   The tradition goes that, while a young surveyor scouring the
   neighboring country, Washington had marked the advantages of
   this spot for a great city. … The entire soil belonged in
   large parcels to a few plain, easy, Maryland farmers, who rode
   over to Georgetown for their flour and bacon. One of these
   only, David Burns, was obstinate about making terms; and the
   subsequent rise of land in the western quarter of the city,
   which his farmhouse now occupied, rendered his little daughter
   in time the heiress of Washington, and confirmed his claims to
   historical consideration as the most conspicuous grantor of
   the National Capital. For procuring this choice spot on behalf
   of his countrymen, the President conducted the negotiations in
   person, and the purchase of the Federal city was concluded
   upon just and even generous terms. Each owner surrendered his
   real estate to the United States with no restriction except
   that of retaining every alternate lot for himself. The
   government was permitted to reserve all tracts specially
   desired at £25 an acre, while the land for avenues, streets,
   and alleys should cost nothing. Thus the Federal Capital came
   to the United States as substantially a free conveyance of
   half the fee of the soil in consideration of the enhanced
   value expected for the other half. … Major l'Enfant, a French
   architect, was selected to plan and lay out the new city. The
   highways were mapped and bounded substantially as they exist
   at this day, being so spacious and so numerous in comparison
   with building lots as to have admitted of no later change, in
   the course of a century, except in the prudent direction of
   parking, enlarging sidewalks, and leaving little plats in
   front of houses to be privately cared for. Streets running due
   north and south from the northern boundary to the Potomac were
   intersected at right angles by others which extended east and
   west.
{3647}
   To mar the simplicity of this plan, however, which so far
   resembled that of Philadelphia, great avenues, 160 feet wide,
   were run diagonally, radiating like spokes, from such main
   centres as Capitol Hill and the President's house. … This new
   Capital, by the President modestly styled 'the Federal City,'
   but to which the commissioners, by general acclamation,
   proceeded in September to affix his illustrious name, was
   America's first grand essay at a metropolis in advance of
   inhabitants. … The founder himself entered with unwonted ardor
   into the plans projected for developing this the new Capital.
   Not only did he picture the city which bore his name as an
   instructor of the coming youth in lessons of lofty patriotism,
   but he prophesied for it national greatness apart from its
   growth as the repository of the nation. He believed it would
   become a prosperous commercial city, its wharves studded with
   sails, enjoying all the advantages of Western traffic by means
   of a canal linking the Potomac and Ohio rivers, so as to bring
   Western produce to the seaboard. The ten-mile square which
   comprised the territorial District of Columbia, inclusive of
   the Capital, stretched across the Potomac, taking Georgetown
   from the Maryland jurisdiction, and Alexandria from Virginia.
   … The first corner-stone of this new Federal district was
   publicly laid with Masonic ceremonies, and though the auction
   sale of city lots in autumn proved disappointing, the idea
   prevailed that the government would gain from individual
   purchasers in Washington city a fund ample enough for erecting
   there all the public buildings at present needed."

      J. A. Porter,
      The City of Washington
      (Johns Hopkins University Studies, series 3, numbers 11-12).

WASHINGTON (City): A. D. 1814.
In the hands of the British.
Destruction of public buildings.

WASHINGTON (City): A. D. 1861 (April).
The threatening activity of rebellion.
Peril of the national capital.

WASHINGTON (City): A. D. 1861 (April-May).
The coming of the first defenders of the national capital.

WASHINGTON (City): A. D. 1862 (April).
Abolition of Slavery in the District of Columbia.

WASHINGTON (State): A. D. 1803.
Was it embraced in the Louisiana Purchase?
Grounds of American possession.

WASHINGTON (State): A. D. 1846. Possession for the United States secured by the settlement of the Oregon boundary question with England.

WAT TYLER'S REBELLION.

WATERWAYS.

WATLING STREET.

The Milky Way was known to our early English ancestors as Watling Street, signifying the road "by which the hero-sons of Waetla marched across" the heavens. When they settled in England they transferred the name Watling Street to the great Roman road which they found traversing the island, from London to Chester. Portions of the road, in London and elsewhere, still bear the name. Even in Chaucer's time the Milky Way appears to have been sometimes called Watling Street.

WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE.

WEALH.

A treaty of peace concluded between King Alfred and the Danes, by which the latter were bound to remain peacefully on that side of England which lay north and east of "Watling Street" (the Roman road from London to Chester) and to submit to baptism.

WEIMAR.

"Small indeed is the space occupied on the map by the Duchy of Saxe-Weimar; yet the historian of the German Courts declares, and truly, that after Berlin there is no Court of which the nation is so proud. … Small among German princes is mine, poor and narrow his kingdom, limited his power of doing good.' Thus sings Goethe in that poem, so honourable to both, wherein he acknowledges his debt to Karl August. … Weimar is an ancient city on the Ilm, a small stream rising in the Thuringian forests, and losing itself in the Saal, at Jena; this stream on which the sole navigation seems to be that of ducks, meanders peacefully through pleasant valleys, except during the rainy season, when mountain-torrents swell its current and overflow its banks. The Trent, between Trentham and Stafford—'the smug and silver Trent' as Shakespeare calls it—will give an idea of this stream. The town is charmingly placed in the Ilm valley, and stands some eight hundred feet above the level of the sea. 'Weimar,' says the old topographer, Mathew Merian, 'is Weinmar, because it was the wine market for Jena and its environs. Others say it was because some one here in ancient days began to plant the vine, who was hence called Weinmayer. But of this each reader may believe just what he pleases.' On a first acquaintance, Weimar seems more like a village bordering a park, than a capital with a Court, having all courtly environments. … Saxe-Weimar has no trade, no manufactures, no animation of commercial, political, or even theological activity. This part of Saxony, be it remembered, was the home and shelter of Protestantism in its birth. Only a few miles from Weimar stands the Wartburg, where Luther, in the disguise of Squire George, lived in safety, translating the Bible, and hurling his inkstand at the head of Satan, like a rough-handed disputant as he was. In the marketplace of Weimar stand, to this day, two houses from the windows of which Tetzel advertised his indulgences, and Luther afterwards in fiery indignation fulminated against them. These records of religious struggle still remain, but are no longer suggestions for the continuance of the strife. … The theologic fire has long burnt itself out in Thuringia. In Weimar, where Luther preached, another preacher came, whom we know as Goethe. In the old church there is one portrait of Luther, painted by his friend Lucas Kranach, greatly prized, as well it may be; but for this one portrait of Luther, there are a hundred of Goethe. It is not Luther, but Goethe, they think of here; poetry, not theology, is the glory of Weimar. And, corresponding with this, we find the dominant characteristic of the place to be no magnificent church, no picturesque ancient buildings, no visible image of the earlier ages, but the sweet serenity of a lovely park. The park fills the foreground of the picture, and always rises first in the memory. … Within its limits Saxe Weimar displayed all that an imperial court displays in larger proportions: it had its ministers, its army, its chamberlains, pages, and sycophants. Court favour, and disgrace, elevated and depressed, as if they had been imperial smiles, or autocratic frowns. A standing army of six hundred men, with cavalry of fifty hussars, had its War Department, with war minister, secretary, and clerk. As the nobles formed the predominating element of Weimar, we see at once how, in spite of the influence of Karl August, and the remarkable men he assembled round him, no real public for Art could be found there. Some of the courtiers played more or less with Art, some had real feeling for it; but the majority set decided faces against all the beaux esprits. … Not without profound significance is this fact that in Weimar the poet found a Circle, but no Public. To welcome his productions there were friends and admirers; there was no Nation. Germany had no public."

WELFS.

WELLESLEY COLLEGE.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1798-1805;
      SPAIN: A. D. 1808-1809, to 1812-1814;
      and FRANCE: A. D. 1815.

"The Germans, like our own ancestors, called foreign, i. e. non-Teutonic nations, Welsh. Yet apparently not all such nations, but only those which they in some way associated with the Roman Empire: the Cymry of Roman Britain, the Romanized Kelts of Gaul, the Italians, the Roumans or Wallachs of Transylvania and the Principalities. It does not appear that either the Magyars or any Slavonic people were called by any form of the name Welsh."

"Wealhas, or Welshmen; … it was by this name, which means 'strangers,' or 'unintelligible people,' that the English knew the Britons, and it is the name by which the Britons, oddly enough, now know themselves."

      R. G. Latham,
      The Germany of Tacitus; Prolegomena,
      section 15.

WENZEL.

WERGILD.

"The principle that every injury to either person or property might be compensated by a money payment was common to all the northern nations. It was introduced into Gaul by the conquering Franks, and into Britain by the English invaders. Every man's life had a fixed money value, called the 'wergild.' In the case of a freeman, this compensation for murder was payable to his kindred; in that of a slave, to his master. The amount of the wergild varied, according to a graduated scale, with the rank of the person slain."

WEROWANCE.

"The name West Indies recalls the fact that the discovery of the new world originated in an attempt to find a western route to the eastern seas, and that, when Columbus crossed the Atlantic and sighted land on the other side, he fancied he had reached the further coasts of the Indies.

'In consequence of this mistake of Columbus,' says Adam Smith, 'the name of the Indies has stuck to those unfortunate countries ever since.' The islands, or some of them, have long borne the name of Antilles. Antillia or Antigua was a mythical island [see ANTILLES] which found a place on mediæval maps, and the name was applied by geographers to Hispaniola and Cuba upon their first discovery. In modern times Cuba, Hispaniola or Hayti, Jamaica, and Porto Rico have usually been known as the Greater Antilles; and the ring of smaller islands, including the Windward and the Leeward Islands, as the Lesser Antilles. The terms Windward and Leeward themselves demand some notice. The prevailing wind in the West Indies being the north-east trade wind, the islands which were most exposed to it were known as the Windward islands, and those which were less exposed were known as the Leeward. According]y, the Spaniards regarded the whole ring of Caribbean islands as Windward islands, and identified the Leeward islands with the four large islands which constitute the Greater Antilles as given above. The English sailors contracted the area of Windward and Leeward, subdividing the Caribbean islands into a northern section of Leeward islands and a southern section of Windward islands, which project further into the Atlantic. In 1671 this division was made a political one, and the English Caribbean islands, which had before constituted one government, were separated into two groups, under two Governors-in-chief; the islands to the north of the French colony of Guadeloupe forming the government of the Leeward islands, the islands to the south of Guadeloupe forming the government of the Windward islands. Latterly the signification has been again slightly modified; and, for administrative purposes under the Colonial Office, the Leeward islands group now includes the more northerly section of the Caribbean islands belonging to Great Britain, from the Virgin islands to Dominica [embracing Antigua, St. Christopher or St. Kitts, Nevis, Montserrat, the Virgin Islands, Dominica, Barbuda, Redonda, and Anguilla]; while the Windward islands are artificially restricted to St. Lucia, St. Vincent, the Grenadines, and Grenada, the two most windward of all, Barbados and Tobago, being separated from the group." Barbados is a distinct crown colony, and Tobago is joined with Trinidad to form another.

C. P. Lucas, Historical Geography of the British Colonies, volume 2, section 2. chapters 1, and 4-7.

WEST POINT.

"The importance of fortifying the Hudson River at its narrow passes among the Highlands was suggested to the Continental Congress by the Provincial Assembly of New York at an early period of the war [of Independence]. On the 6th of October, 1775, the former directed the latter to proceed to make such fortifications as they should deem best. On the 18th of November, Congress resolved to appoint a commander for the fortress, with the rank of colonel, and recommended the New York Assembly, or Convention, to empower him to raise a body of 200 militia from the counties of Dutchess, Orange, and Ulster, and a company of artillery from New York city, to garrison them." As the result of these proceedings a fort named "Constitution" was constructed on Martelaer's Rock (now Constitution Island) opposite West Point, under the direction of an English engineer, Bernard Romans. "After the capture of Forts Clinton and Montgomery, near the lower entrance to the Highlands, in 1777, and the abandonment of Fort Constitution by the Americans a few days afterward, public attention was directed to the importance of other and stronger fortifications in that vicinity. … Washington requested General Putnam to bestow his most serious attention upon that important subject. He also wrote to Governor Clinton, at the same time, desiring him to take the immediate supervision of the work; but his legislative duties, then many and pressing, made it difficult for him to comply. Clinton … made many valuable suggestions respecting the proposed fortifications. He mentioned West Point as the most eligible site for a strong fort."

In the spring of 1778, "a committee of the New York Legislature, after surveying several sites, unanimously recommended West Point as the most eligible. Works were accordingly commenced there under the direction of Kosciuszko. … Kosciuszko arrived on the 20th of March, and the works were pushed toward completion with much spirit. The principal redoubt, constructed chiefly of logs and earth, was completed before May, and named Fort Clinton. … At the close of 1779, West Point was the strongest military post in America. In addition to the batteries that stood menacingly upon the hilltops, the river was obstructed by an enormous iron chain. … West Point was considered the keystone of the country during the Revolution, and there a large quantity of powder, and other munitions of war and military stores, were collected. These considerations combined made its possession a matter of great importance to the enemy, and hence it was selected by Arnold as the prize which his treason would give as a bribe.

When peace returned, it was regarded as one of the most important military posts in the country, and the plateau upon the point was purchased by the United States Government. … The Military Academy at West Point was established by an act of Congress which became a law on the 16th of March, 1802. Such an institution, at that place, was proposed by Washington to Congress in 1793; and earlier than this, even before the war of the Revolution had closed, he suggested the establishment of a military school there. But little progress was made in the matter until 1812."

WEST VIRGINIA: A. D. 1632.
Partly embraced in the Maryland grant to Lord Baltimore.

WEST VIRGINIA: A. D. 1861 (April-June).
Opposition to Secession.
Loyal State Government organized.

WEST VIRGINIA: A. D. 1861 (JUNE-JULY).
General McClellan's successful campaign.
The Rebels driven out.

WEST VIRGINIA: A. D. 1861 (JUNE-NOVEMBER).
Steps taken toward separation from Virginia.
Constitutional Convention at Wheeling.

WEST VIRGINIA: A. D. 1861 (AUGUST-DECEMBER).
The campaign of Rosecrans against Lee.

WEST VIRGINIA: A. D. 1862 (APRIL-DECEMBER).
The completed separation from Old Virginia.
Admission to the Union.

The work of the convention at Wheeling which framed a constitution for the new State of West Virginia was satisfactorily performed, and "on the first Thursday of April, 1862, the people approved the constitution by a vote of 18,862 in favor of it with only 614 against it. The work of the representatives of the projected new State being thus ratified, the Governor called the Legislature of Virginia together on the 6th day of May, and on the 13th of the same month that body gave its consent, with due regularity, to 'the formation of a new State within the jurisdiction of the said State of Virginia.' A fortnight later, on the 28th of May, Senator Willey introduced the subject in Congress by presenting a memorial from the Legislature of Virginia, together with a certified copy of the proceedings of the Constitutional Convention and the vote of the people. The constitution was referred to the Committee on Territories and a bill favorable to admission was promptly reported by Senator Wade of Ohio. The measure was discussed at different periods, largely with reference to the effect it would have upon the institution of slavery, and Congress insisted upon inserting a provision that 'the children of slaves, born in the State after the 4th day of July, 1863, shall be free; all slaves within the said State who shall at that time be under the age of ten years shall be free when they arrive at the age of twenty-one years all slaves over ten and under twenty-one shall be free at the age of twenty-five years; and no slave shall be permitted to come into the State for permanent residence therein.' This condition was to be ratified by the convention which framed the constitution, and by the people at an election held for the purpose, and, upon due certification of the approval of the condition to the President of the United States, he was authorized to issue his proclamation declaring West Virginia to be a State of the Union. … On the 14th of July, three days before Congress adjourned, the bill passed the Senate by a vote of 23 to 17. Mr. Rice of Minnesota was the only Democrat who favored the admission of the new State. … Mr. Chandler and Mr. Howard of Michigan voted in the negative because the State had voluntarily done nothing towards providing for the emancipation of slaves; Mr. Sumner and Mr. Wilson, because the Senate had rejected the anti-slavery amendment [proposed by Mr. Sumner, declaring immediate emancipation in the new State]; Mr. Trumbull and Mr. Cowan, because of the irregularity of the whole proceeding. The bill was not considered in the House until the next session. It was taken up on the 9th of December," and was warmly debated. "On the passage of the bill the ayes were 96 and the noes were 55. The ayes were wholly from the Republican party, though several prominent Republicans opposed the measure. Almost the entire Massachusetts delegation voted in the negative, as did also Mr. Roscoe Conkling, Mr. Conway of Kansas and Mr. Francis Thomas of Maryland. The wide difference of opinion concerning this act was not unnatural. But the cause of the Union was aided by the addition of another loyal commonwealth, and substantial justice was done to the brave people of the new State. … To the old State of Virginia the blow was a heavy one. In the years following the war it added seriously to her financial embarrassment, and it has in many ways obstructed her prosperity."

In the legislative Ordinance of 1861 the proposed new State was called Kanawha; but in the Constitutional Convention this name was changed to West Virginia.

E. McPherson, Political History of the United States during the Great Rebellion, pages 377-378.

WESTERN AUSTRALIA.

WESTERN RESERVE OF CONNECTICUT.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786; PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1753-1799; and OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1786-1796.

WESTFALIA.

WESTMINSTER ASSEMBLY OF DIVINES.

WESTMINSTER PALACE.

"Westminster was from the days of Edward the Confessor the recognised home of the great council of the nation as well as of the king. How this came about, history does not record; it is possible that the mere accident of the existence of the royal palace on the bank of the Thames led to the foundation of the abbey, or that the propinquity of the abbey led to the choice of the place for a palace; equal obscurity covers the origin of both. … At Westminster Henry I held his councils, and Stephen is said to have founded the chapel of his patron saint within the palace. … From the very first introduction of representative members the national council had its regular home at Westminster. There, with a few casual exceptions, … all the properly constituted parliaments of England have been held. The ancient Palace of Westminster, of which the most important parts, having survived until the fire of 1834 and the construction of the New Houses of Parliament, were destroyed in 1852, must have presented a very apt illustration of the history of the Constitution which had grown up from its early simplicity to its full strength within those venerable walls. It was a curious congeries of towers, halls, churches, and chambers. As the administrative system of the country had been developed largely from the household economy of the king, the national palace had for its kernel the king's court, hall, chapel, and chamber. … As time went on, every apartment changed its destination: the chamber became a council room, the banquet hall a court of justice, the chapel a hall of deliberation. … The King's Chamber, or Parliament Chamber, was the House of Lords from very early times until the union with Ireland, when the peers removed into the lesser or White Hall, where they continued until the fire. The house of commons met occasionally in the Painted Chamber, but generally sat in the Chapter House or in the Refectory of the abbey, until the reign of Edward VI, when it was fixed in S. Stephen's chapel. … After the fire of 1834, during the building of the new houses, the house of lords sat in the Painted Chamber, and the house of commons in the White Hall or Court of Requests. It was a curious coincidence, certainly, that the destruction of the ancient fabric should follow so immediately upon the great constitutional change wrought by the reform act, and scarcely less curious that the fire should have originated in the burning of the ancient Exchequer tallies, one of the most permanent relics of the primitive simplicity of administration."

W. Stubbs, Constitutional History of England, chapter 20, sections 735-736 (volume 3).

WESTMINSTER SCHOOL.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1807 (JUNE-JULY); 1813(SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER), and (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).

WHIG PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES.

"The southwest counties of Scotland have seldom corn enough to serve them round the year: and the northern parts producing more than they need, those in the west come in summer to buy at Leith the stores that come from the north: and from a word 'whiggam,' used in driving their horses, all that drove were called the 'whiggamors,' and shorter the 'whiggs.' Now in that year [1648], after the news came down of Duke Hamilton's defeat [at the battle of Preston—see ENGLAND: A. D. 1648 (APRIL-AUGUST)], the ministers animated their people to rise and march to Edenburgh; and they came up marching on [at] the head of their parishes, with an unheard-of fury, praying and preaching all the way as they came. The marquis of Argile and his party came and headed them, they being about 6,000. This was called the 'whiggamors' inroad; and ever after that all that opposed the court came in contempt to be called 'whiggs': and from Scotland the word was brought into England, where it is now one of our unhappy terms of distinction."

"We find John Nicoll, the diarist, in 1666, speaking of the west-country Presbyterians as 'commonly called the Whigs, implying that the term was new. The sliding of the appellation from these obscure people to the party of the opposition in London a few years later, is indicated by Daniel Defoe as occurring immediately after the affair of Bothwell Bridge in 1679. The Duke of Monmouth then returning from his command in Scotland, instead of thanks for his good service, found himself under blame for using the insurgents too mercifully. 'And Lauderdale told Charles, with an oath, that the Duke had been so civil to the Whigs because he was himself a Whig in his heart. This made it a court-word; and in a little while all the friends and followers of the Duke began to be called Whigs.'"

The "party whips," in English politics, are "an extremely useful and hard-working body of officials. Being charged with the duty of keeping the respective sides in readiness for all emergencies, they are generally to be found in the lobby, where they make themselves acquainted with the incomings and outgoings of members, and learn a good deal as to their prospective movements. The whips are the gentlemen who issue those strongly underlined circulars by which legislators are summoned on important nights; and who, by their watchfulness and attention, can generally convey reliable intelligence to the party chiefs. If the Ministers, for example, are engaged in any controversy, and their whips are not absolutely certain of a majority, they would make arrangements for a succession of men to keep on talking till the laggards could be brought to their places." The whips also arrange "pairs," by which members of opposite parties, or on opposite sides of a given question, agree in couples, not to vote for a certain fixed period of time, thereby securing freedom to be absent without causing any loss of relative strength to their respective parties. This arrangement is common in most legislative bodies. "In addition to these duties, the whips of the opposing forces have to move for the issue of new writs in the place of deceased members—task never undertaken till they have a candidate ready for the fray."

The Whisky Ring, so called, brought to light in the United States in 1875, "was an association, or series of associations, of distillers and Federal officials for the purpose of defrauding the Government of a large amount of the tax imposed on distilled spirits, and, further, of employing a part of the proceeds in political corruption. On the trial of the indictments a number of Federal officers were convicted."

      ALSO IN:
      The Whisky Frauds: Testimony Taken
      (44th Congress, 1st Session,
      H. R. Mis. Doc's, Number 186, volume 9).

WHITE BOYS.

"This is the badge at the same time of the House of Stuart and of the House of Bourbon."

A Polish order of knighthood, instituted in 1325 by
Ladislaus IV., and revived by Augustus in 1705.

WHITE FRIARS.

WHITE HOODS OF FRANCE.

"The Caputiati, or Capuchons, or White Hoods, [was] a sect originating with a wood-cutter of Auvergne, by name Durand, about the year 1182. Their primary object was the maintenance of peace, and the extermination of the disbanded soldiery, whom the English kings had spread over the south of France, and [who] were now ravaging the country under the name of Routiers or Cotereaux. The members of this religious association were bound by no vow, and made no profession of any particular faith; they were only distinguished by the white head-gear that gave them their name, and wore a little leaden image of the Virgin on their breast. They found favour at first with the bishops, especially in Burgundy and the Berri, and were even, from the best political causes, countenanced by Philip Augustus. They thus rose to such a degree of power that on the 20th of July, 1183, they surrounded a body of 7,000 of the marauding party, and suffered not one man to escape. They were, however, soon intoxicated with success, and threw out some hints about restoring the primæval liberty of mortals and universal equality; thereby incurring the displeasure of Hugo Bishop of Auxerre, who took arms against them, and put an end to the sect by the might of the sword in 1186."

The plain white freestone mansion at Washington in which the President of the United States resides during his term of office is officially styled the "Executive Mansion," but is popularly known as the White House. "It was designed by James Hoban in 1792. The corner-stone was laid on October 13, 1792, and its construction went on side by side with that of the Capitol. … President John Adams and his wife, on arriving … in November, 1800, found it habitable, although but six of its rooms were furnished. … In his design Hoban copied closely the plan of a notable Dublin palace, the seat of the Dukes of Leinster."

WHITE MONKS.

WHITE PENITENTS, WHITE COMPANIES.

   "The end of the 14th century witnessed a profound outburst of
   popular devotion. The miserable condition of the Church,
   distracted by schism, and the disturbed state of every country
   in Europe, awoke a spirit of penitence and contrition at the
   prospect of another great Jubilee, and the opening of a new
   century.
{3653}
   Bands of penitents wandered from place to place, clad in white
   garments; their faces, except the eyes, were covered with
   hoods, and on their backs they wore a red cross. They walked
   two and two, in solemn procession, old and young, men and
   women together, singing hymns of penitence, amongst which the
   sad strains of the 'Stabat Mater' held the chief place. At
   times they paused and flung themselves on the ground,
   exclaiming 'Mercy,' or 'Peace,' and continued in silent
   prayer. All was done with order and decorum; the processions
   generally lasted for nine days, and the penitents during this
   time fasted rigorously. The movement seems to have originated
   in Provence, but rapidly spread through Italy. Enemies were
   reconciled, restitution was made for wrongs, the churches were
   crowded wherever the penitents, or 'Bianchi' ['White
   Penitents,' 'White Companies,' 'Whitemen' are various English
   forms of the name] as they were called from their dress, made
   their appearance. The inhabitants of one city made a
   pilgrimage to another and stirred up their devotion. The
   people of Modena went to Bologna; the Bolognese suspended all
   business for nine days, and walked to Imola, whence the
   contagion rapidly spread southwards. For the last three months
   of 1399 this enthusiasm lasted, and wrought marked results
   upon morals and religion for a time. Yet enthusiasm tended to
   create imposture."

      M. Creighton,
      History of the Papacy during the Period of the Reformation,
      volume 1, pages 145-146.

ALSO IN: T. A. Trollope, History of the Commonwealth of Florence, volume 2, page 297.

WHITE RUSSIA.

William, the only legitimate son of Henry I. of England, accompanied his father on a visit to Normandy (A. D. 1120). "When they were about to return by the port of Barfleur, a Norman captain, Thomas Fitz-Stephen, appeared and claimed the right of taking them in his ship, on the ground that his father had been captain of the 'Mora,' in which the Conqueror crossed to invade England. The king did not care to alter his own arrangements, but agreed that his son should sail in the 'Blanche Nef' [the White Ship] with Fitz-Stephen. William Ætheling, as the English called him, was accompanied by a large train of unruly courtiers, who amused themselves by making the sailors drink hard before they started, and dismissed the priests who came to bless the voyage with a chorus of scoffing laughter. It was evening before they left the shore, and there was no moon; a few of the more prudent quitted the ship, but there remained nearly 300—a dangerous freight for a small vessel. However, fifty rowers flushed with wine made good way in the waters; but the helmsman was less fit for his work, and the vessel struck suddenly on a sunk rock, the Raz de Catteville. The water rushed in, but there was time to lower a boat, which put off with the prince. When in safety, he heard the cries of his sister, the countess of Perche, and returned to save her. A crowd of desperate men leaped into the boat; it was swamped, and all perished."

C. H. Pearson, History of England during the Early and Middle Ages, volume 1, page 445.

WIDE AWAKES.

In the American presidential canvass of 1860, there were organized among the supporters of Abraham Lincoln numerous companies of young Republicans who undertook the parades and torchlight processions of the campaign in a systematic and disciplined way that was then quite new. They were simply uniformed in glazed-cloth caps and capes and took the name of Wide Awakes.

WILDCAT BANKS.

"During Jackson's struggle with the Bank of the United States [see UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1833-1836, and 1835-1837] many new banks had been formed in various States, generally with little or no capital to pay the notes which they issued. They bought large quantities of cheaply printed bills. As these bills had cost them very little, they could afford to offer a higher price in paper money for lands in distant States and Territories than others could afford to offer in gold and silver. Having bought the lands for this worthless money, the wildcat bankers sold them for good money, hoping that their own bills would not soon find their way back for payment. If they were disappointed in this hope, the bank 'failed,' and the managers started a new one."

William (called The Silent), Prince of Orange, Count of Nassau,
Stadtholder of the United Provinces, 1558-1584.

William I. (called The Conqueror),
King of England (and Duke of Normandy), 1066-1087.

   William III., Prince of Orange and
   Stadtholder of the United Provinces, A. D. 1672-1702;
   King of England (with Queen Mary, his Wife), 1689-1702.

WILLIAM HENRY, Fort: A. D. 1757.
The French capture and the massacre of prisoners.

WILLIAMS COLLEGE.

WILSON'S RAID.

"The Wilzen, as the Franks called them, or the Welatabians, as they called themselves, were perhaps the most powerful of the Sclavonian tribes, and at [the time of Charlemagne] occupied the southern coast of the Baltic; their immediate neighbors were the Abodrites, old allies of the Franks, whom they harassed by continual raids." Charlemagne led an expedition into the country of the Wilzen in 789 and subdued them.

WINCEBY FIGHT (1643).

The sharp encounter known as Winceby Fight, in the English civil war, was one of Cromwell's successes, which drove the royalist forces out of the Lincolnshire country, and compelled the Marquis of Newcastle, who was besieging Hull, to abandon the siege. "Cromwell himself was nearer death in this action than ever in any other; the victory, too, made its due figure, and 'appeared in the world.' Winceby, a small upland hamlet, in the Wolds, not among the Fens, of Lincolnshire, is some five miles west of Horncastle. The confused memory of this Fight is still fresh there." The Fight occurred October 10, 1643.

"There can be little doubt that a town, of greater or less importance, has existed since the earliest dawn of English history on the same place where stands the Winchester of to-day. … If the first founders of the ancient city were Celtic Britons, covering with their rude dwellings the summit and sides of S. Catherine's Hill they were certainly conquered by the Belgæ, also probably of Celtic origin, who, crossing over from Gaul, established themselves in a large district of southern England. But whether in their time Winchester was called Caer Gwent is doubtful; very probably it was simply Gwin or Gwent, the white place. … But as there is no question of the Roman occupation of Britain, first by Julius Cæsar, later on by Claudius and Vespasian, so we know that the settlement on the Itchen was turned into Venta Belgarum, and S. Catherine's Hill converted into a Roman camp. … Venta, as well as many other towns, was completely Romanised. … But the time arrived when Rome could no longer defend herself at home, and was thus forced to leave Britain to contend with the wild Northmen who had already begun their inroads. The Britons implored their former masters to come back and help them, but in vain. … We know how Vortigern, chief among the southern British kings, invited the Saxon adventurers to help him against the Picts and Scots, who encroached more and more in Britain. … In 495 (as we learn from the Brito-Welsh Chronicle), there · came two ealdormen to Britain, Cerdic and Cymric,' who landed at Hamble Creek, and eventually, after many battles much extolled in the Saxon Chronicle, became kings of the West Saxons. Cerdic is said to have been crowned in Venta, to have slaughtered most of the inhabitants and all the priests, and to have converted the cathedral into a heathen temple. … The name Venta now becomes Wintana, with the affix of 'ceaster,' Saxon for fortified place."

WINCHESTER, Virginia: A. D. 1862.
Defeat of General Banks.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (MAY-JUNE: VIRGINIA).

WINCHESTER SCHOOL.

WINEDI.

Fought, A. D. 655, between King Oswin of Northumberland and
King Penda of Mercia, the latter being defeated and slain.

The decisive battle fought, A. D. 465, between the Jutes under Hengest and the Britons, which settled the conquest of Kent by the former.

WISCONSIN: A. D. 1634-1673.
Visited by Nicolet, and traversed by Marquette and Joliet.

WISCONSIN: A. D. 1784.
Included in the proposed states of Sylvania, Michigania
and Assenisipia.

WISCONSIN: A. D. 1785.
Partially covered by the western land claims of
Massachusetts, ceded to the United States.

WISCONSIN: A. D. 1787.
The Ordinance for the Government of the Northwest Territory.
Perpetual exclusion of Slavery.

WISCONSIN: A. D. 1805-1848.
Territorial vicissitudes.
Admission into the Union as a State.

From 1805 to 1809, Wisconsin formed a part of Indiana Territory. From 1809 to 1818 her territory was embraced In the Territory of Illinois, excepting a small projection at the northeast which was left out of the described boundaries and belonged nowhere. When Illinois became a State, in 1818, and her present boundaries were established, an the country north of them was joined to Michigan Territory. In 1834 that huge Territory was still further enlarged by the temporary addition to it of a great area west of the Mississippi, embracing the present states of Iowa, Minnesota and part of Dakota. It was an unwieldy and impracticable territorial organization, and movements to divide it, which had been on foot long before this last enlargement, soon attained success. In 1836, the year before Michigan became a State, with her present limits, the remaining Territory was organized under the name of Wisconsin. Two years later, "by act of June 12, 1838, congress still further contracted the limits of Wisconsin by creating from its trans-Mississippi tract the Territory of Iowa. This, however, was in accordance with the original design when the country beyond the Mississippi was attached to Michigan Territory for purposes of temporary government, so no objection was entertained to this arrangement on the part of Wisconsin. The establishment of Iowa had reduced Wisconsin to her present limits, except that she still held, as her western boundary, the Mississippi river to its source, and a line drawn due north therefrom to the international boundary. In this condition Wisconsin remained until the act of congress approved August 6, 1846, enabling her people to form a state constitution. … Wisconsin was admitted into the Union, by act approved May 29, 1848, with her present limits."

R. G. Thwaites, The Boundaries of Wisconsin (Wisconsin State Historical Society Collections, volume 11, pages 455-468).

   "In 1838, two years after organization as a Territory,
   Wisconsin petitioned Congress for aid to establish a
   university. The request was granted, the usual seventy-two
   sections of land were set aside for this object, and the
   Territorial Legislature at once passed a law establishing the
   University of the Territory of Wisconsin. The organization of
   a board of trustees was, however, the only other action which
   took place previous to the adoption of the State Constitution
   In 1848; this provided for the establishment of a State
   university 'at or near the seat of government,' and stated,
   emphatically, that the lands granted for a university should
   constitute a perpetual fund, the income of which should be
   devoted to the support of this institution. This declaration
   was apparently to little purpose, as the State has treated
   these domains as granted absolutely, and not as held in trust.
   There is probably no worse example of mismanaged public
   educational funds on record than is to be found in connection
   with this institution. … The entire sum realized from the
   46,080 acres was only 'about $150,000.' The University of
   Wisconsin was established in 1850 on the basis of the funds
   thus secured, but even while passing laws for the sale of the
   university lands the Legislature realized that the income
   would be insufficient to support the institution, and they
   therefore petitioned Congress for seventy-two additional
   sections in lieu of the saline lands granted to the State in
   1848 but never located. Congress granted this petition in
   1854. … An opportunity to atone for past errors was now
   afforded the Legislature. It began to be realized, after it
   was too late to enact suitable laws to remedy the evil, that
   the best lands had been sold at a disadvantage.
{3656}
   It was felt that, whereas the policy pursued had benefited the
   State at large, it was not faithful to the increase of the
   seminary fund. … After fully examining the claims of the
   regents and the condition of the university in 1872 for four
   years, this body granted $10,000 annually, to atone for the
   injustice done by the State in selecting for an endowment
   unproductive lands."

F. W. Blackmar, History of Federal and State Aid to Higher Education in the United States (Bureau of Education, Circular of Information, 1890, number 1), pages 250-251.

WISIGOTHS.

WISMAR.

WITE-THEOW.

"The Witenagemot or assembly of the wise. This [in old English history] is the supreme council of the nation, whether the nation be Kent or Mercia as in the earlier, or the whole gens Anglorum et Saxonum, as in the later history. The character of the national council testifies to its history as a later development than the lower courts, and as a consequence of the institution of royalty. The folkmoot or popular assembly of the shire is a representative body to a certain extent: it is attended by the representatives of the hundreds and townships, and has a representative body of witnesses to give validity to the acts that are executed in it. … The council of the aggregated state is not a folkmoot but a witenagemot. … On great occasions … we must understand the witenagemot to have been attended by a concourse of people whose voices could be raised in applause or in resistance to the proposals of the chiefs. But that such gatherings shared in any way the constitutional powers of the witan, that they were organised in any way corresponding to the machinery of the folkmoot, that they had any representative character in the modern sense, as having full powers to act on behalf of constituents, that they shared the judicial work, or except by applause and hooting influenced in any way the decision of the chiefs, there is no evidence whatever. … The members of the assembly were the wise men, the sapientes, witan; the king, sometimes accompanied by his wife and sons; the bishops of the kingdom, the ealdormen of the shires or provinces, and a number of the king's friends and dependents. … The number of the witan was thus never very large."

W. Stubbs, Constitutional History of England, chapter 6, sections 51-52 (volume 1).

The constitution and powers of the witenagemot are very fully discussed by Mr. Kemble, who gives also a list of the recorded witenagemots, with comments on the business transacted in them.

See, also, PARLIAMENT, THE ENGLISH:
EARLY STAGES OF ITS EVOLUTION; and ENGLAND: A. D. 958.

WITTENBERG UNIVERSITY.

WIZA.

WOIWODES, VOIVODES, WAIWODES.

See POLAND: A. D. 1078-1652;
and BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: A. D. 1341-1356 (SERVIA).

   "In 1790, Mary Wollstonecraft's 'Vindication of the Rights of
   Women,' published in London, attracted much attention from
   liberal minds. She examined the position of woman in the light
   of existing civilizations, and demanded for her the widest
   opportunities of education, industry, political knowledge, and
   the right of representation. … Following her, came Jane
   Marcet, Eliza Lynn, and Harriet Martineau—each of whom in the
   early part of the 19th century exerted a decided influence
   upon the political thought of England. … Frances Wright, a
   person of extraordinary powers of mind, born in Dundee,
   Scotland, in 1797, was the first woman who gave lectures on
   political subjects in America. When sixteen years of age she
   heard of the existence of a country in which freedom for the
   people had been proclaimed; she was filled with joy and a
   determination to visit the American Republic where the
   foundations of justice, liberty, and equality had been so
   securely laid. In 1820 she came here, traveling extensively
   North and South. She was at that time but twenty-two years of
   age. … Upon her second visit she made this country her home
   for several years. Her radical ideas on theology, slavery, and
   the social degradation of woman, now generally accepted by the
   best minds of the age, were then denounced by both press and
   pulpit, and maintained by her at the risk of her life. … In
   1832, Lydia Maria Child published her 'History of Woman,'
   which was the first American storehouse of information upon
   the whole question, and undoubtedly increased the agitation.
   In 1836, Ernestine L. Rose, a Polish lady—banished from her
   native country by the Austrian tyrant, Francis Joseph, for her
   love of liberty—came to America, lecturing in the large cities
   North and South upon the 'Science of Government.' She
   advocated the enfranchisement of woman. Her beauty, wit, and
   eloquence drew crowded houses.
{3657}
   About this period Judge Hurlbut, of New York, a leading member
   of the Bar, wrote a vigorous work on 'Human Rights,' in which
   he advocated political equality for women. This work attracted
   the attention of many legal minds throughout that State. In
   the winter of 1836, a bill was introduced into the New York
   Legislature by Judge Hertell, to secure to married women their
   rights of property. This bill was drawn up under the direction
   of Honorable John Savage, Chief-Justice of the Supreme Court,
   and Honorable John C. Spencer, one of the revisers of the
   statutes of New York. It was in furtherance of this bill that
   Ernestine L. Rose and Paulina Wright at that early day
   circulated petitions. The very few names they secured show the
   hopeless apathy and ignorance of the women as to their own
   rights. As similar bills were pending in New York until
   finally passed in 1848, a great educational work was
   accomplished in the constant discussion of the topics
   involved. During the winters of 1844-5-6, Elizabeth Cady
   Stanton, living in Albany, made the acquaintance of Judge
   Hurlbut and a large circle of lawyers and legislators, and,
   while exerting herself to strengthen their convictions in
   favor of the pending bill, she resolved at no distant day to
   call a convention for a full and free discussion of woman's
   rights and wrongs. … In 1840, Margaret Fuller published an
   essay in the Dial, entitled 'The Great Lawsuit, or Man vs.
   Woman: Woman vs. Man.' In this essay she demanded perfect
   equality for woman, in education, industry, and politics. It
   attracted great attention and was afterward expanded into a
   work entitled 'Woman in the Nineteenth Century.' … In the
   State of New York, in 1845, Reverend Samuel J. May preached a
   sermon at Syracuse, upon 'The Rights and Conditions of Women,'
   in which he sustained their right to take part in political
   life, saying women need not expect 'to have their wrongs fully
   redressed, until they themselves have a voice and a hand in
   the enactment and administration of the laws.' … In 1849,
   Lucretia Mott published a discourse on woman, delivered in the
   Assembly Building, Philadelphia, in answer to a Lyceum lecture
   which Richard H. Dana, of Boston, was giving in many of the
   chief cities, ridiculing the idea of political equality for
   woman. … It was her early labors in the temperance cause that
   first roused Susan B. Anthony to a realizing sense of woman's
   social, civil, and political degradation, and thus secured her
   life-long labors for the enfranchisement of woman. In 1847 she
   made her first speech at a public meeting of the Daughters of
   Temperance in Canajoharie, New York. The same year Antoinette
   L. Brown, then a student at Oberlin College, Ohio, the first
   institution that made the experiment of co-education,
   delivered her first speech on temperance in several places in
   Ohio, and on Woman's Rights, in the Baptist church at
   Henrietta, New York. Lucy Stone, a graduate of Oberlin, made
   her first speech on Woman's Rights the same year in her
   brother's church at Brookfield, Massachusetts. Nor were the
   women of Europe inactive."

      E. C. Stanton, S. B. Anthony, and M. J. Gage, editors,
      History of Woman Suffrage,
      chapter 1.

WOMAN'S RIGHTS: A. D. 1839-1848.
Legal emancipation of women in the United States.

   "In 1840 a 'World's Antislavery Convention' was held in
   London, and all Antislavery organizations throughout the world
   were invited to join in it, through their delegates. Several
   American societies accepted the invitation, and elected
   delegates, six or eight of whom were women, Lucretia Mott and
   Mrs. Wendell Phillips among them. The excitement caused by
   their presence in London was intense, for the English
   Abolitionists were very conservative, and never dreamed of
   inviting women to sit in their Convention. And these women who
   had come among them had rent the American Anti-slavery
   Societies in twain, had been denounced from the pulpit,
   anathematized by the press, and mobbed by the riffraff of the
   streets. … A long and acrimonious debate followed on the
   admission of the women. … When the vote was taken, the women
   delegates were excluded by a large majority. William Lloyd
   Garrison did not arrive in London until after the rejection of
   the women. When he was informed of the decision of the
   Convention he refused to take his seat with the delegates. And
   throughout the ten days' sessions he maintained absolute
   silence, remaining in the gallery as a spectator. … The London
   Convention marked the beginning of a new era in the woman's
   cause. Hitherto, the agitation of the question of woman's
   equal rights had been incidental to the prosecution of other
   work. Now the time had come when a movement was needed to
   present the claims of woman in a direct and forcible manner,
   and to take issue with the legal and social order which denied
   her the rights of human beings, and held her in everlasting
   subjection. At the close of the exasperating and insulting
   debates of the 'World's Antislavery Convention,' Lucretia Mott
   and Mrs. Elizabeth Cady Stanton agreed to hold a Woman's
   Rights Convention on their return to America, and to begin in
   earnest the education of the people on the question of woman's
   enfranchisement. Mrs. Stanton had attended the Convention as a
   bride, her husband having been chosen a delegate. Accordingly
   the first Woman's Rights Convention of the world was called at
   Seneca Falls, New York, on the 19th and 20th of July, 1848. It
   was attended by crowds of men and women, and the deepest
   interest was manifested in the proceedings. 'Demand the
   uttermost,' said Daniel O'Connell, 'and you will get
   something.' The leaders in the new movement, Lucretia Mott and
   Mrs. Stanton, with their husbands, and Frederick Douglass,
   acted on this advice. They demanded in unambiguous terms all
   that the most radical friends of women have ever claimed. …
   The Convention adjourned to meet in Rochester, New York,
   August 2, 1848. … A third Convention was held at Salem, Ohio,
   in 1850; a fourth in Akron, Ohio, in 1851; a fifth in
   Massillon, Ohio, in 1852; another at Ravenna, Ohio, in 1853,
   and others rapidly followed. The advocates of woman suffrage
   increased in number and ability. Superior women, whose names
   have become historic, espoused the cause—Frances D. Gage,
   Hannah Tracy Cutler, Jane G. Swisshelm, Caroline M. Severance,
   Celia C. Burr, who later be·came Mrs. C. C. Burleigh,
   Josephine S. Griffing, Antoinette L. Brown, Lucy Stone, Susan
   B. Anthony, Paulina W. Davis, Caroline H. Dall, Elizabeth
   Oakes Smith, Ernestine L. Rose, Mrs. C. H. Nichols, Dr.
   Harriot K. Hunt; the roll-call was a brilliant one,
   representing an unusual versatility of culture and ability.
{3658}
   The First National Woman Suffrage Convention was held in
   Worcester, Massachusetts, October 23 and 24, 1850. It was more
   carefully planned than any that had yet been held. Nine States
   were represented. The arrangements were perfect—the addresses
   and papers were of the highest character—the audiences were at
   a white heat of enthusiasm. The number of cultivated people
   who espoused the new gospel for women was increased by the
   names of Ralph Waldo Emerson, Theodore Parker, Bronson and
   Abby May Alcott, Thomas W. Higginson, William I. Bowditch,
   Samuel E. and Harriet W. Sewall, Henry Ward Beecher, Henry B.
   Blackwell, Ednah D. Cheney, Honorable John Neal, Reverend
   William H. Channing, and Wendell Phillips. … A dozen years
   were spent in severe pioneer work and then came the four years
   Civil War. All reformatory work was temporarily suspended, for
   the nation then passed through a crucial experience, and the
   issue of the fratricidal conflict was national life or
   national death. The transition of the country from peace to
   the tumult and waste of war was appalling and swift, but the
   regeneration of its women kept pace with it. … The development
   of those years, and the impetus they gave to women, which has
   not yet spent itself, has been wonderfully manifested since
   that time. … It has been since the war, and as the result of
   the great quickening of women which it occasioned, that women
   have organized missionary, philanthropic, temperance,
   educational, and political organizations, on a scale of great
   magnitude. … In 1869, two great National organizations were
   formed. One styled itself 'The National Woman Suffrage
   Association,' and the other was christened 'The American Woman
   Suffrage Association.' The first established its headquarters
   in New York, and published a weekly paper, 'The Revolution,'
   which was ably edited by Mrs. Stanton and Miss Anthony. 'The
   American' made its home in Boston, and founded 'The Woman's
   Journal,' which was edited by Mrs. Mary A. Livermore, Mrs.
   Julia Ward Howe, Mrs. Lucy Stone, William Lloyd Garrison and
   Thomas W. Higginson. … After twenty years of separate
   activities, a union of the two national organizations was
   effected in 1890, under the composite title of 'The National
   American Woman Suffrage Association.'"

      M. A. Livermore,
      Woman in the State
      (Woman's Work in America, chapter 10).

"The first advocate for women medical students, Miss Elizabeth Blackwell, after many years of struggle obtained entrance into the medical faculty of Geneva in 1842; in 1847 she received her doctor's degree, and went to England, Germany, and finally to Paris, to complete her studies. Her example fired others. In that same year a medical college for women was founded in Boston, in 1850 a similar one in Philadelphia, one in New York in 1868, and in Chicago in 1870. Soon after, the greater number of universities in America were thrown open to women, and by this their studies were largely extended. The difficulties proved far greater in Europe. The universities of Zurich in 1864, and of Berne in 1872, were the first to receive lady students for the study of medicine. In 1868 the Medical Faculty of Paris, chiefly through the intervention of the Empress Eugenie, first admitted lady students to follow the medical course. In Italy, in 1876, they obtained equal success; in Russia, an ukase of the Czar Alexander II., of November 2nd, 1872, conferred upon ladies the right to attend the medical courses in the Medico-Chirurgical Academy of St. Petersburg, but this permission was subsequently withdrawn on political grounds, on the accession of a new government. In 1874 the first school of medicine for women was started in London; in 1876 they were admitted to the study of medicine in Dublin. In Germany and Austro-Hungary women are not allowed to enter the universities, although ladies' associations have obtained thousands of signatures to petition both parliaments on the subject. From statistical sources, we learn that there are seventy lady doctors in practice in London, five in Edinburgh, and two in Dublin. Seven hundred lady doctors practise in Russia, of whom fifty-four are the heads of clinical schools and laboratories. In Italy, at the same time, there were only six. Spain has but two qualified lady doctors. Roumania, also, has two. Sweden, Norway, and Belgium have likewise comparatively few. In Berlin there are Dr. Franziska Tiburtius and Dr. Lehmus (who founded a poly-clinical school which is increasing year by year), Dr. Margaret Mengarin-Traube and Fraulein Kuhnow. In Austria, Dr. Rosa Kerschbaumer is the sole possessor of Government authority to practise her profession. In India, where native religion forbids their women calling in men doctors, there has been a strong movement in favour of ladies, and they have now one hundred lady doctors, three of whom are at the head of the three most important hospitals. The largest number of women practising medicine is in America."

"The medical faculty of the University of Paris opened its doors to women in 1868, but at first only a very few availed themselves of the privileges thus offered. In 1878 the number in attendance was 32; during the next ten years (1878-1888) it increased to 114, and is at present 183, of whom the great majority (167) are Russians. The remainder are Poles, Rumanians, Servians, Greeks, and Scotch, and only one German."

A certain number of the English cities "occupy a privileged position, under the title of 'municipal boroughs.' These alone are municipal corporations, enjoying a considerable degree of autonomy by virtue of charters of incorporation granted in the pleasure of the crown. … The other cities have as such no legal existence: they are simply geographical units. In past times the privilege of incorporation was often granted to wretched little hamlets. But whether they were once of consequence or not, the municipal corporations degenerated everywhere into corrupt oligarchies. The municipal reform of 1835 destroyed these hereditary cliques and extended the municipal franchise to all the inhabitants who paid the poor tax as occupants of realty. {3659} But in doing this … it was expressly provided in the Municipal Corporations Act of 1835 that the electoral franchise in the municipal boroughs should belong to male persons only. Before long the unorganized condition of the larger towns that were not municipal boroughs received the attention of Parliament. It did not grant them communal autonomy,—there could be no question of that,—but conceded special powers to establish sanitary systems and to undertake works of public utility such as lighting, paving, sewerage, etc. The special acts passed for these purposes from time to time, as the necessity for them arose, were consolidated and made general in two statutes: the Public Health Act of 1848, for a class of towns designated as 'local government districts,' and the Commissioners' Clauses Act of 1847, for the cities described as 'improvement commissions districts.' These acts gave to these urban agglomerations an incipient municipal organization, by establishing boards of health in some, and in others commissions to direct the public works. In both these classes of 'nascent, half-developed municipalities,' which had scarcely emerged from the parochial phase of local self-government, the authorities—i. e. the members of the boards of health and the commissioners—were elected, as in the parishes, by the rate-payers without distinction of sex. As these cities enlarged and developed, they were admitted to the honor of municipal incorporation. But since the Municipal Corporations Act limited the franchise to men, it resulted that while the city which was promoted to the rank of municipal borough saw its rights increased, a part of its inhabitants—the women—saw theirs suppressed. This anomaly gave the advocates of woman suffrage a chance to demand that the ballot be granted to women in the municipal boroughs. In 1869 Mr. Jacob Bright introduced such a measure in the House of Commons, and it was adopted almost without discussion. … But when the English legislator placed the administration of the 'nascent, half-developed municipalities'—which were only temporarily such and which might become cities of the first rank—on the same plane, as far as the suffrage of women was concerned, with the government of the parishes, he substituted a fluctuating for a permanent test, and as a result wiped out his own line of demarcation. When this fact was brought out, Parliament could not but recognize and bow to it. This recognition was decisive: it resulted in the overthrow of the electoral barriers against women in the entire domain of local self-government. The clause which, upon the proposal of Mr. Jacob Bright, was inserted in section 9 of the municipal act of 1869, found its way into the revised municipal act of 1882. Section 63 of this latter act reads: 'For all purposes connected with and having reference to the right to vote at municipal elections, words importing in this act the masculine gender include women.' This clause gave women the ballot in the municipal boroughs, but did not make them eligible to office. And as the general qualification for municipal suffrage is the occupancy by the elector in his own name of a house subject to the poor tax, the law includes independent women only, not married women. … When in 1881 the municipal suffrage was extended to women in Scotland, the question whether the separated woman could vote was decided in her favor. But of course this does not change the position of married women in England. A year after the introduction of the municipal suffrage of women they obtained (in 1870) the school vote also, in connection with the establishment of the existing system of primary instruction. … It still remained for women to make their way into the local government of the county; but county government, although representative, was not elective. In 1888 county councils were established, chosen by the ratepayers. The analogy of the municipal councils demanded that women should be included among the electors of the new local assemblies. Accordingly the Local Government Act of 1888 admits women to the electorate in England, and the act of 1889 gives them the same right in Scotland. … In Sweden local self-government is exercised in first instance, in the city and country communes, by the tax-payers in general assembly, or town meeting, where their votes are reckoned in proportion to the taxes paid, according to a graded scale, just as in the English vestries. In the cities with a population above 3,000 the taxpayers elect a communal council. … In the full assemblies of the communes that have no councils, and in the elections at which councillors are chosen, unmarried women have the same right of participation as men. … The next higher instance of local self-government consists of provincial councils (landstings). All the municipal electors, women not excepted, vote for the members of these councils. … In Norway women have no share in local government, except in the school administration. … In Denmark women are entirely excluded from local government; but they have been admitted to it in one Danish dependency—Iceland. … Finland, which was attached to Sweden for centuries before it fell under the sway of Russia, is still influenced by the movement of legislation in the former mother-country. … The law of February 6, 1865, concerning the rural communes, admitted women to communal rights under almost the same conditions as in Sweden. … The law of April 14, 1856, concerning the organization of the rural communes in the six eastern provinces of the kingdom of Prussia (section 6), as well as the analogous law of March 19, 1856, for the province of Westphalia (section 15), provide that persons of female sex who possess real property carrying with it the right to vote shall be represented—the married women by their husbands, the single women by electors of the male sex. A similar provision was adopted for the province of Schleswig-Holstein, after its annexation by Prussia (law of September 22, 1867, section 11). But in the Rhine province, where the administrative and the private law still show deep traces of the French influence, women are expressly excluded from the communal franchise. … In Saxony women are admitted to the communal vote in the country districts on the same terms as men. … Eligibility to communal office is denied to women in all the countries enumerated above. In Austria, as one consequence of the revolutionary movement of 1848, the legislator endeavored to infuse fresh life into the localities by giving a liberal organization to the rural communes. The law of 1849 granted communal rights to all persons paying taxes on realty and industrial enterprises, and also to various classes of 'capacities'—ministers of religion, university graduates, school principals and teachers of the higher grades, etc. {3660} Among the electors of the first and most important group, based wholly upon property, were included women, minors, soldiers in active service and some other classes of persons who, as a rule, were excluded from suffrage, on condition that their votes be cast through representatives. … The Russian village community, the mir, which has come down across the centuries into our own time with very few changes in its primitive organization, is a typical example of rudimentary local self-government, where all who have an interest, not excepting the women, have a right to be heard in the common assemblies. … In the Dominion of Canada local suffrage has only recently been granted to women. The first law regulating this matter was passed in the province of Ontario (Upper Canada) in 1884. This law has served as an example, and in part also as a model, for the other provinces. The electoral rights granted to women by the legislation of the province of Ontario may be grouped under four heads: (a) participation in municipal elections, (b) participation in municipal referenda, (c) participation in school-board elections, and (d) eligibility to office. All unmarried women and widows twenty-one years of age, subjects of her Majesty and paying municipal taxes on real property or income, may vote in municipal elections. … Finally, all taxpayers resident in the school district are recognized by the laws of 1885 and 1887 as eligible to the office of school trustee. … Female suffrage does not exist in the great French-speaking province of Quebec (Lower Canada), in New Brunswick or in Prince Edward Island. … In almost all the continental [Australasian] colonies the municipal suffrage rests upon the same basis as does the parish franchise of the mother-country, i. e. the possession or occupation of real property. … [In the United States] several States have granted to women simply the right of being elected to school offices, provided always that they possess the qualifications prescribed for men. The question is thus decided in California, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island. … At the present time the system of granting to women both rights—eligibility and suffrage—in school matters has been adopted in the following states besides Massachusetts: Colorado, North and South Dakota, Idaho, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin and the territory of Arizona. Of course to this list must be added Wyoming, where women vote at all elections, and Kansas, where they possess complete local suffrage. Finally, Kentucky and Nebraska admit women only to the school franchise, and that only under special conditions."

M. Ostrogorski, Local Woman Suffrage (Political Science Quarterly, December, 1891).

"In three Territories … the right of voting at legislative elections was given by the legislature of the Territory, and in one of these, Wyoming, it was retained when the Territory received Statehood in 1890. In Utah it was abolished by a Federal statute, because thought to be exercised by the Mormon wives at the bidding of their polygamous husbands, and thus to strengthen the polygamic party. In Washington Territory the law which conferred it in 1883 was declared invalid by the courts in 1887, because its nature had not been properly described in the title, was re-enacted immediately afterwards, and was in 1888 again declared invalid by the United States Territorial Court, on the ground that the Act of Congress organizing the Territorial legislature did not empower it to extend the suffrage to women. In enacting their State Constitution (1889) the people of Washington pronounced against female suffrage by a majority of two to one; and a good authority declared to me that most of the women were well pleased to lose the privilege. In 1893 the legislature of Colorado submitted to the voters (in virtue of a provision in the Constitution) a law extending full franchise for all purposes to women, and it was carried by a majority of 6,347. … In Michigan in 1893, women received the suffrage in all municipal elections. In Michigan, however, the law has since been declared unconstitutional. … In Connecticut, the latest State which has extended school suffrage to women (1893), it would appear that the women have not, so far, shown much eagerness to be registered. However, while the advanced women leaders and Prohibitionists started a campaign among the women voters, the husbands and brothers of conservative proclivities urged their wives and sisters to register, and not without success. In Wyoming (while it was still a Territory) women served as jurors for some months till the judges discovered that they were not entitled by law to do so, and in Washington (while a Territory) they served from 1884 to 1887, when the legislature, in regranting the right of voting, omitted to grant the duty or privilege of jury service. … As respects the suffrage in Wyoming, the evidence I have collected privately is conflicting. … No opposition was offered in the Convention of 1889, which drafted the present Constitution, to the enactment of woman suffrage for all purposes. The opinion of the people at large was not duly ascertained, because the question was not separately submitted to them at the polls, but there can be little doubt that it would have been favourable. … The whole proceedings of the Convention of 1889 leave the impression that the equal suffrage in force since 1869 had worked fairly, and the summing up of the case by a thoughtful and dispassionate British observer (Mr. H. Plunkett) is to the same effect."

"No complete and reliable statistics have ever been obtained of the number of women who register and vote on school questions. This varies greatly in different localities, and in the same localities in different years. With women, as with men, the questions connected with the schools do not suffice to bring out many voters as a rule. Those few who have voted hitherto have been of more than average character and ability, and influenced wholly by public spirit. But comparatively few, even of suffragists, have as yet availed themselves of the privilege. To secure any general participation of women in elections, a wider range of subjects must be thrown open to them. Wherever, as in Kansas, party issues and moral questions are involved, the women show a greater interest. In several States, as in Kansas, Iowa, and Rhode Island, prohibition amendments are said to have been carried by the efforts of women-workers at the polls, although not themselves voters."

WOOD'S HALFPENCE.

"Perhaps you have noticed, when paying a visit to the House of Lords in holiday time, a comfortable kind of ottoman in front of the throne. This is the Woolsack, the seat of the Lord Chancellor [who presides in the House of Lords]. In the reign of Elizabeth an Act of Parliament was passed to prevent the exportation of wool, and to keep in mind this source of our national wealth, woolsacks were placed in the House of Lords, whereon the judges sat."

[Transcriber's note] See C. D. Arnold and H. D. Higinbotham, Official Views Of The World's Columbian Exposition https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/22847

WORMS.

"Worms (Wormatia) (Borbetomagus), situated on the left bank of the Rhine, existed long before the Roman conquest, and is supposed to have been founded by the Celts, under the name of Borbetomagus. … In the 4th and 5th centuries it was a flourishing town in the possession of the Burgundians. Under their King Gundahar, the vicinity of Worms was the scene of the popular legend handed down in the romantic poem known as the Nibelungen-lied. In 496, by the victory of Tolbiacum, it formed a part of the empire of Clovis."

At Oxford and Cambridge Universities, "by a strange relic of the logical and disputatory studies of the Middle Ages, the candidates for University honors maintained in public some mathematical thesis, about which they disputed in Latin, never, as it may be supposed, of the best. To keep up the illusion of the monkish time, and the seven liberal arts, a little metaphysics and a good deal of theology were thrown in at the time of the examination; but the real business of the 'schools' at Cambridge was mathematics. The disputing, however, was so important a part of the performances that the first division of those to whom were awarded honors were called by distinction,'the wranglers'; and the head man—the proud recipient of all the glory which at the end of a four years' course the ancient University showered on the son she possessed most distinguished in her favorite studies—was called the senior wrangler. In process of time, the disputations and Latin were all done away with. An examination from printed papers was made the test. Yet, still, every year, at the end of the arduous eight days' trial, the undergraduate who takes his bachelor's degree in virtue of passing the best examination in mathematics, is called the senior wrangler; and attains the proudest position that Cambridge has to bestow."

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS. WRIT OF MAINPRISE. WRIT DE HOMINE REPLEGIANDO.

WRITS OF ASSISTANCE.

"Conrad of Beutelsbach, the first of this family that appears upon record, got the County of Würtemberg from the Emperor Henry IV. in 1103, and was succeeded by his son Ulrick I. as Count of Würtemberg, in 1120. Henry, the fourteenth in lineal descent from Ulrick, was made Duke of Würtemberg in 1519. Frederick II., and eighth Duke of Würtemberg, succeeded his father in 1797, and was proclaimed King of Würtemberg in 1805."

WÜRTEMBERG: A. D. 1801-1803.
Acquisition of territory under the Treaty of Luneville.

WÜRTEMBERG: A. D. 1805-1806.
   Aggrandized by Napoleon.
   Created a Kingdom.
   Joined to the Confederation of the Rhine.

WÜRTEMBERG: A. D. 1809.
Incorporation of the rights and revenues of the Teutonic
Order with the Kingdom.

WÜRTEMBERG: A. D. 1813.
Abandonment of the Rhenish Confederacy and the French Alliance.

WÜRTEMBERG: A. D. 1870-1871. Treaty of union with the Germanic Confederation, soon transformed into the German Empire.

WUZEER, VIZIR.

WYAT'S INSURRECTION.

WYCLIF'S REFORMATION.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1360-1414;
      BOHEMIA: A. D. 1405-1415,
      and BEGUINES.

"Wyoming is a corruption of the name given to the locality by the Indians. They called it 'Maughwauwame.' The word is compounded of 'maughwau,' large, and 'wame,' plains. The name, then, signifies 'The Large Plains.' The Delawares pronounced the first syllable short, and the German missionaries, in order to come as near as possible to the Indian pronunciation wrote the name M'chweuwami. The early settlers, finding it difficult to pronounce the word correctly, spoke it Wauwaumie, then Wiawumie, then Wiomic, and, finally, Wyoming,"

WYOMING (State): A. D. 1803.
Eastern portion embraced in the Louisiana Purchase.

WYOMING (Valley): A. D. 1753-1799.
Connecticut claims and settlements.
The Pennamite and Yankee War.

WYOMING (Valley): A. D. 1755. The Grasshopper War of the Delaware and Shawanese tribes of American Indians.

WYOMING (Valley): A. D. 1778.
The Tory and Indian invasion and massacre.
Its misrepresentation by historians and poets.

XENOPHON'S RETREAT.

XERXES.

The Chinese obtained possession of Kashgar or Chinese Turkestan (see TURKESTAN) about 1760, and held it for a century, overcoming much revolt during the last forty years of that period. In 1862, the revolt assumed a more formidable character than it had borne before. Its beginning was among a neighboring people called, variously, the Tungani, Dungani, or Dungans. These were "a Mahomedan people settled in the north-west province of Kansuh and in a portion of Shensi. Many of them had migrated westward at the time of the wars of Keen Lung, and had colonized various parts of the Chinese conquests. During a century this movement westward had continued, and in 1862 the Tungani represented the majority of the population, not only in parts of Kansuh, but also in the country to the west, as far as Ili and the city of Turfan. Although Mahomedans, they had acted as the soldiers of the Chinese. They had won their battles, laid down their roads, and held the Tartar population in check. From the Tungani the Chinese never for an instant expected danger. They were certainly heretics; but then they were part and parcel of themselves in every other respect. They hated the Khokandians and the people of Kashgar with a hatred that was more bitter than that they bore to the Khitay or Buddhist Chinese. In all essentials the Tungani were treated exactly like the most favoured children of the empire. … The only cause that it is possible to assign for their rebellion is that vague one of the religious revival which was then manifesting itself among the Mahomedans all over the world. But whatever the cause, the consequences were clear enough. In 1862 a riot occurred at a village in Kansuh. Order was restored with some small loss of life; and the momentary alarm which had been caused by it passed away. The alarm was, however, only too well founded. A few weeks afterwards a more serious riot took place at the town of Houchow or Salara. This was the signal for the rising of the Tungani in all directions. The unanimity shown by the various Tungani settlements proved that there had been a preconcerted arrangement amongst them; but the Chinese had known nothing of it. … The few Imperial troops remaining in the province of Kansuh were unable to withstand the desperate and unanimous assault of the Mahomedans. They were swept out of existence, and with them the larger portion of the Khitay population as well. The Mahomedan priests took the lead in this revolt, and the atrocities which they and their followers enacted were of the most horrible and blood-thirsty character. The butchery of tens of thousands of their Buddhist subjects in Kansuh appealed loudly to the Chinese Government for revenge; and it was not long before their troops restored Kansuh to its allegiance. Those of the Tungani who were captured were given over to the executioner. But a large number escaped, fleeing westward to those cities beyond the desert, where other Mussulmans had imitated, with like success, the deeds of their kinsmen in Kansuh. … No sooner then did the tidings of the events in Kansuh reach Hamil and Barkul, Turfan and Manas, than risings at once took place against the Khitay. In all cases the movement was successful. The Manchus were deposed: the 'mollahs' were set up in their stead. After a short interval the other cities of Karashar, Kucha, and Aksu, followed the example, with an identical result. The Tungan revolt proper had then reached its limit. … The communications between Pekin and Jungaria were cut, and a hostile territory of nearly 2,000 miles intervened. To restore those communications, to reduce that hostile country, would demand a war of several campaigns; and China was not in a condition to make the slightest effort. All that her statesmen could hope for was, that she would not go irretrievably to pieces. {3663} The Tungani flourished on the misfortunes of the empire. … During some months after the first successes of the Tungani, the people of Kuldja and Kashgaria remained quiet, for the prestige of China's power was still great. But when it became evident to all, that communication was hopelessly cut off between the Chinese garrisons and the base of their strength in China, both the Tungan element and the native population began to see that their masters were ill able to hold their own against a popular rising. This opinion gained ground daily, and at last the whole population rose against the Chinese and massacred them. … But no sooner had the Chinese been overthrown, than the victors, the Tungani and the Tarantchis, began to quarrel with each other. Up to the month of January, 1865, the rising had been carried out in a very irregular and indefinite manner. … It was essentially a blind and reckless rising, urged on by religious antipathy; and, successful as it was, it owed all its triumphs to the embarrassments of China. The misfortunes of the Chinese attracted the attention of all those who felt an interest in the progress of events in Kashgaria. Prominent among these was a brother of Wali Khan, Buzurg Khan [heir of the former rulers, the exiled Khojas], who resolved to avail himself of the opportunity afforded by the civil war for making a bold attempt to regain the place of his ancestors. Among his followers was Mahomed Yakoob, a Khokandian soldier of fortune, already known to fame in the desultory wars and feuds of which Central Asia had been the arena. His previous career had marked him out pre-eminently as a leader of men, and he now sought in Eastern Turkestan that sphere of which Russian conquests had deprived him in its Western region. There is little to surprise us in the fact that, having won his battles, Yakoob deposed and imprisoned his master Buzurg. In several campaigns between 1867 and 1873 he bent back the Tungani from his confines, and established an independent government in the vast region from the Pamir to beyond Turfan, and from Khoten and the Karakoram to the Tian Shan. He treated on terms of dignity with the Czar, and also with the Government of India. He received English envoys and Russian ambassadors, and his palace was filled with presents from London and St. Petersburg. … Urged on by some vague ambition, he made war upon the Tungani, when every dictate of prudence pointed to an alliance with them. He destroyed his only possible allies, and in destroying them he weakened himself both directly and indirectly. In the autumn of 1876 Yakoob Beg had indeed pushed forward so far to the east that he fancied he held Barkul and Hamil in his grasp; and the next spring would probably have witnessed a further advance upon these cities had not fate willed it otherwise. With the capture of the small village of Chightam, in 92° E. longitude, Yakoob's triumphs closed. Thus far his career had been successful; it may then be said to have reached its limit. In the autumn of 1876, the arrival of a Chinese army on his eastern frontier changed the current of his thoughts. … From November, 1876, until March, 1877, the Chinese generals were engaged in massing their troops on the northern side of the Tian Shan range. … Yakoob's principal object was to defend the Devan pass against the Chinese; but, while they attacked it in front, another army under General Chang Yao was approaching from Hamil. Thus outflanked, Yakoob's army retreated precipitately upon Turfan, where he was defeated, and again a second time at Toksoun, west of that town. The Chinese then halted. They had, practically speaking, destroyed Yakoob's powers of defence. That prince retreated to the town of Korla, where he was either assassinated or poisoned early in the month of May. … Korla was occupied on the 9th of October without resistance; and towards the end of the same month, Kucha, once an important city, surrendered. The later stages of the war were marked by the capture of the towns of Aksu, Ush Turfan, and Kashgar. With the fall of the capital, on the 17th of December, 1877, the fighting ceased. The Chinese authority was promptly established in the country as far south as Yarkand, and after a brief interval in Khoten."

YALE COLLEGE.

YANACONAS. MAMACONAS.

"The Yanaconas were a class existing [in Peru] in the time of the Incas, who were in an exceptional position. They were domiciled in the houses of their masters, who found them in food and clothing, paid their tribute, and gave them a piece of land to cultivate in exchange for their services. But to prevent this from degenerating into slavery, a decree of 1601 ordered that they should be free to leave their masters and take service elsewhere on the same conditions." The Mamaconas of Peru were a class of domestic servants.

C. R. Markham, Colonial History of South America, (Narrative and Critical History of America, volume 8, page 296).

"The first name given by the Indians to the Europeans who landed in Virginia was 'Wapsid Lenape' (white people); when, however, afterwards, they began to commit murders on the red men, whom they pierced with swords, they gave to the Virginians the name 'Mechanschican' (long knives), to distinguish them from others of the same colour. In New England they at first endeavoured to imitate the sound of the national name of the English, which they pronounced 'Yengees.'" After about the middle of the Revolutionary War the Indians applied the name "Yengees" exclusively to the people of New England, "who, indeed, appeared to have adopted it, and were, as they still are, generally through the country called 'Yankees,' which is evidently the same name with a trifling alteration. They say they know the 'Yengees,' and can distinguish them by their dress and personal appearance, and that they were considered as less cruel than the Virginians or 'long knives.' The proper English they [for 'they' read 'the Chippeways and some other nations.'—Editor's foot-note] call 'Saggenash.'"

      J. Heckewelder,
      History, Manners, and Customs of the Indian Nations
      (Pennsylvania Historical Society Memoirs, volume 12)
      pages 142-143.

"The origin of this term [Yankees]. so frequently employed by way of reproach to the New England people, is said to be as follows. A farmer, by name Jonathan Hastings, of Cambridge, about the year 1713, used it as a cant, favorite word, to express excellency when applied to any thing; as a Yankee good horse, Yankee cider, &c., meaning an excellent horse and excellent cider. The students at college, having frequent intercourse with Mr. Hastings, and hearing him employ the term on all occasions, adopted it themselves, and gave him the name of Yankee Jonathan; this soon became a cant word among the collegians to express a weak, simple, awkward person, and from college it was carried and circulated through the country, till, from its currency in New England, it was at length taken up and unjustly applied to the New Englanders in common, as a term of reproach: It was in consequence of this that a particular song, called 'Yankee doodle,' was composed in derision of those scornfully called Yankees."

"Dr. William Gordon, in his History of the American War, edition 1789, volume i., pages 324,325, says it was a favourite cant word in Cambridge, Massachusets, as early as 1713, and that it meant 'excellent.' … Cf. Lowland Sc. 'yankie,' a sharp, clever, forward woman; 'yanker,' an agile girl, an incessant speaker; 'yanker,' a smart stroke, a great falsehood; 'yank,' a sudden and severe blow, a sharp stroke; 'yanking,' active, pushing (Jamieson). … If Dr. Gordon's view be right, the word 'yankee' may be identified with the Sc. 'yankie,' as above; and all the Scotch words appear to be of Scandinavian origin, due, ultimately Icel. 'jaga,' to move about. … The fundamental idea is that of 'quick motion'; see 'yacht.' But the word cannot be said to be solved."

   "The best authorities on the subject now agree upon the
   derivation of this term from the imperfect effort made by the
   Northern Indians to pronounce the word 'English.'"

YARD-LAND.

YEOMEN.

"A 'yeoman' is defined by Sir Thomas Smith (Rep. Anglor. lib. 1. c. 24) as he whom our law calls 'legalem hominem,' a free-born man that may dispend of his own free land in yearly revenues to the sum of forty shillings. But it had also a more general application, denoting like 'valet' a higher kind of service, which still survives in the current phrase to do 'yeoman's service.' In the household of the mediæval knight or baron the younger sons of yeomen would form a large proportion of the servitors, and share with the younger sons of knight or squire the common name of 'valetti.' The yeomen too who lived on their own land, but wore the 'livery of company' of some baron or lesser territorial magnate, would also be his 'valets.' The mediæval 'yeoman' was the tenant of land in free socage. The extent of his holding might be large or small."

"At the period when the higher gentry began to absorb what remained of the feudal nobility, and established themselves definitely as an upper class, the small landowners—freeholders holding estates of inheritance or for life—long leaseholders and the larger copyholders made corresponding progress, and the yeomen (the common term applied to all of them) began in their turn to fill the position and take the rank of an agricultural middle class. The reign of Henry VI. had marked the zenith of their influence; they had by that time fully realized the fact of their existence as a body. The inferior limit of their class was approximately determined by the electoral qualification of the forty-shilling freeholder (under the Act of 1430), or by the £4 qualification for the office of juror. The superior limit was marked from a legal point of view by the property qualification of a magistrate, but socially there was not on this side any definite boundary line. In 1446 it was considered necessary to forbid the county electors to return 'valetti,' that is yeomen, to the House of Commons, a proof that custom and opinion left to themselves did not look upon the higher section of their class as unworthy of a seat in Parliament, an honour originally confined to the knights. Fortescue testifies almost with triumph to the fact that in no country of Europe were yeomen so numerous as in England."

In later English use the word "yeoman" has signified "a man of small estate in land, not ranking among the gentry."

YEOMEN OF THE GUARD.

"This corps was instituted by Henry VII. in 1485. It now consists of 100 men, six of whom are called Yeomen Hangers, and two Yeomen Bed-goers; the first attending to the hangings and tapestries of the royal apartments, and the second taking charge of all beds during any royal removals. The yeomen of the guard carry up the royal dinner, and are popularly designated as 'beef-eaters, 'respecting the origin of which name some differences of opinion exist, for many maintain that they never had any duties connected with the royal beaufet. A yeoman usher and a party of yeomen attend in the great chamber of the palace on drawing-room and levee days, to keep the passage clear."

YNCAS, INCAS.

YORK: A. D. 1644.

YORKISTS.

See MORMONISM: A. D. 1830-1846, 1846-1847; and UTAH: A. D. 1849-1850, and 1857-1859.

YOUNG ITALY.

YUCHI.

ZAMBESIA.

ZAMINDARS, OR ZEMINDARS.

ZANCLE.

ZARAGOSSA.

ZARATHUSTRA, ZOROASTER.

ZEA.

A party among the Jews which forced on the great struggle of that people with the Roman power,—the struggle which ended in the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus. A party of ardent patriots in its origin, and embracing the flower of the nation, it degenerated, by enlistment of the passions of the populace, into a fierce, violent, desperate faction, which Ewald (History of Israel, book 7) compares to that of the Jacobins of the French Revolution.

ZEEWAND.

ZEMINDARS, ZAMINDARS.

"The Zemstvo (in Russia] is a kind of local administration which supplements the action of the rural communes [see MIR], and takes cognizance of those higher public wants which individual communes cannot possibly satisfy. Its principal duties are to keep the roads and bridges in proper repair, to provide means of conveyance for the rural police and other officials, to elect the justices of peace, to look after primary education and sanitary affairs, to watch the state of the crops and take measures against approaching famine, and in short to undertake, within certain clearly-defined limits, whatever seems likely to increase the material and moral well-being of the population. In form the institution is parliamentary—that is to say, it consists of an assembly of deputies which meets at least once a year, and of a permanent executive bureau elected by the assembly from among its members. … Once every three years the deputies are elected in certain fixed proportions by the landed proprietors, the rural communes, and the municipal corporations. Every province (guberniya) and each of the districts (uyezdi) into which the province is subdivided has such an assembly and such a bureau."

ZENGER'S TRIAL.

ZEUGMA.

A battle fought in the Mithridatic War, B. C. 67, in which the
Romans were badly defeated by the Pontic king.

ZIGANI. ZIGEUNER. ZINCALI. ZINGARRI.

ZINGLINS.

ZION.

ZOAN. TANIS. SAN.

These are the names which, at different periods, have been given to an ancient city near the northeastern borders of Egypt, the ruins of which have been identified and are being explored, on the east bank of the canal that was formerly the Tanitic branch of the Nile. Both in Egyptian history and Biblical history Zoan was an important place. "The whole period of the Hebrew sojourn is closely interwoven with the history of Zoan. Here ruled the king in whose name Egypt was governed by the Hebrew, who was no less than regent; here ruled those who still favoured the people of Israel. Under the great Oppression, Zoan was a royal residence."

   A kingdom of brief importance, extending from the Orontes to
   the Euphrates, which appears among the allies of the
   Ammonites, in their war with David King of Israel.

      H. Ewald,
      Lectures on the History of Israel,
      volume 3, pages 150-152.

A singular Jewish sect which sprang up in Poland during the seventeenth century, taking its name from the Zohar, one of the books of the Cabala, on which it founded its faith.

See TARIFF LEGISLATION AND CONVENTIONS (GERMANY): A. D. 1833.
Also (in Supplement) GERMANY: A. D. 1815-1848.

ZOROASTRIANS. MAGIANS. PARSEES.

"The Iranians were in ancient times the dominant race throughout the entire tract lying between the Suliman mountains and the Pamir steppe on the one hand, and the great Mesopotamian valley on the other. … At a time which it is difficult to date, but which those best skilled in Iranian antiquities are inclined to place before the birth of Moses, there grew up, in the region whereof we are speaking, a form of religion marked by very special and unusual features. … Ancient tradition associates this religion with the name of Zoroaster. Zoroaster, or Zarathrustra, according to the native spelling, was, by one account, a Median king who conquered Babylon about B. C. 2458. By another, which is more probable, and which rests, moreover, on better authority, he was a Bactrian, who, at a date not quite so remote, came forward in the broad plain of the middle Oxus to instil into the minds of his countrymen the doctrines and precepts of a new religion. … His religion gradually spread from 'happy Bactra,' 'Bactra of the lofty banner,' first to the neighbouring countries, and then to all the numerous tribes of the Iranians, until at last it became the established religion of the mighty empire of Persia, which, in the middle of the 6th century before our era, established itself on the ruins of the Assyrian and Babylonian kingdoms, and shortly afterwards overran and subdued the ancient monarchy of the Pharaohs. In Persia it maintained its ground, despite the shocks of Grecian and Parthian conquest, until Mohammedan intolerance drove it out at the point of the sword, and forced it to seek a refuge further east, in the peninsula of Hindustan. Here it still continues, in Guzerat and in Bombay, the creed of that ingenious and intelligent people known to Anglo-Indians—and may we not say to Englishmen generally?—as Parsees [see PARSEES]. The religion of the Parsees is contained in a volume of some size, which has received the name of 'the Zendavesta.' … 'Anquetil Duperron introduced the sacred book of the Parsees to the knowledge of Europeans under this name; and the word thus introduced can scarcely be now displaced. {3667} Otherwise, 'Avesta-Zend' might be recommended as the more proper title. 'Avesta' means 'text,' and Zend means 'comment.' 'Avesta u Zend,' or 'Text and Comment,' is the proper title, which is then contracted into 'Avesta-Zend.' … Subjected for the last fifty years to the searching analysis of first-rate orientalists—Burnouf, Westergaard, Brockhaus, Spiegel, Haug, Windischmann, Hübschmann,—this work has been found to belong in its various parts to very different dates, and to admit of being so dissected as to reveal to us, not only what are the tenets of the modern Parsees, but what was the earliest form of that religion whereof theirs is the remote and degenerate descendant. Signs of a great antiquity are found to attach to the language of certain rhythmical compositions called Gâthâs or hymns; and the religious ideas contained in these are found to be at once harmonious, and also of a simpler and more primitive character than those contained in the rest of the volume. From the Gâthâs chiefly, but also to some extent from other, apparently very ancient, portions of the Zendavesta, the characteristics of the early Iranian religion have been drawn out by various scholars, particularly by Dr. Martin Haug. … The most striking feature of the religion, and that which is generally allowed to be its leading characteristic, is the assertion of Dualism. By Dualism we mean the belief in two original uncreated principles, a principle of good and a principle of evil. … Both principles were real persons, possessed of will, intelligence, power, consciousness, and other personal qualities. To the one they gave the name of Ahura-Mazda, to the other that of Angro-Mainyus. … The names themselves sufficiently indicated to those who first used them the nature of the two beings. Ahura-Mazda was the 'all-bountiful, all-wise, living being' or 'spirit,' who stood at the head of all that was good and lovely, beautiful and delightful. Angro-Mainyus was the 'dark and gloomy intelligence' that had from the first been Ahura-Mazda's enemy, and was bent on thwarting and vexing him. And with these fundamental notions agreed all that the sacred books taught concerning either being. … The two great beings who thus divided between them the empire of the universe were neither of them content to be solitary. Each had called into existence a number of inferior spirits, who acknowledged their sovereignty, fought on their side, and sought to execute their behests. At the head of the good spirits subject to Ahura-Mazda stood a band of six dignified with the title of Amesha-Spentas, or 'Immortal Holy Ones.' … In direct antithesis to these stood the band, likewise one of six, which formed the council and chief support of Angro-Mainyus. … Besides these leading spirits there was marshalled on either side an innumerable host of lesser and subordinate ones, called respectively 'ahuras' and 'devas,' who constituted the armies or attendants of the two great powers, and were employed by them to work out their purposes. The leader of the angelic hosts, or 'ahuras' was a glorious being, called Sraosha or Serosh—'the good, tall, fair Serosh,' who stood in the Zoroastrian system where Michael the Archangel stands in the Christian. … Neither Ahura-Mazda nor the Amesha-Spentas were represented by the early Iranians under any material forms. The Zoroastrian system was markedly anti-idolatrous: and the utmost that was allowed the worshipper was an emblematic representation of the Supreme Being by means of a winged circle, with which was occasionally combined an incomplete human figure, robed and wearing a tiara. … The position of man in the cosmic scheme was determined by the fact that he was among the creations of Ahura-Mazda. Formed and placed on earth by the Good Being, he was bound to render him implicit obedience, and to oppose to the utmost Angro-Mainyus and his creatures. His duties might be summed up under the four heads of piety, purity, industry, and veracity. Piety was to be shown by an acknowledgment of Ahura-Mazda as the One True God, by a reverential regard for the Amesha-Spentas and the Izeds, or lower angels, by the frequent offering of prayers, praises, and thanksgivings, the recitation of hymns, the occasional sacrifice of animals, and the performance from time to time of a curious ceremony known as that of the Haoma or Homa [see SOMA.—HAOMA). … The purity required of the Iranians was inward as well as outward. … The duty of veracity was inculcated perhaps more strenuously than any other. … If it be asked what opinions were entertained by the Zoroastrians concerning man's ultimate destiny, the answer would seem to be, that they were devout and earnest believers in the immortality of the soul, and a conscious future existence. … The religion of the early Iranians became corrupted after a time by an admixture of foreign superstitions. The followers of Zoroaster, as they spread themselves from their original seat upon the Oxus over the regions lying south and south-west of the Caspian Sea, were brought into contact with a form of faith considerably different from that to which they had previously been attached, yet well adapted for blending with it. This was Magism, or the worship of the elements [see MAGIANS). The early inhabitants of Armenia, Cappadocia, and the Zagros mountain-range, had, under circumstances that are unknown to us, developed this form of religion, and had associated with its tenets a priest-caste. … The four elements, fire, air, earth, and water, were recognised as the only proper objects of human reverence. … When the Zoroastrians came into contact with Magism, it impressed them favourably. … The result was that, without giving up any part of their previous creed, the Iranians adopted and added on to it an the principal points of the Magian belief, and all the more remarkable of the Magian religious usages. This religious fusion seems first to have taken place in Media. The Magi became a Median tribe, and were adopted as the priest-caste of the "Median nation." This "produced an amalgam that has shown a surprising vitality, having lasted above 2,000 years—from the time of Xerxes, the son of Darius Hystaspis (B. C. 485-465) to the present day."

   "As the doctrines of Zoroaster bear in several points such a
   striking resemblance to those of Christianity, it is a
   question of grave importance to ascertain the age in which he
   lived. … Since there can be no doubt that … we must assign to
   Zarathustra Spitama a date prior to the Median conquest of
   Babylon by a Zoroastrian priest king, the only question
   remaining to be solved is, whether he lived only a short time,
   or long, before that event.
{3668}
   I am inclined to believe that he lived only about 100 or 200
   years before that time, and that the conquest of Babylon was
   one of the last consequences of the great religious enthusiasm
   kindled by him. He preached, like Moses, war and destruction
   to all idolaters and wicked men. … According to this
   investigation we cannot assign to Zarathustra Spitama a later
   date than about 2300 B. C. Thus he lived not only before
   Moses, but even, perhaps, before Abraham. … He was the first
   prophet of truth who appeared in the world, and kindled a fire
   which thousands of years could not entirely extinguish."

M. Haug, Lectures on an Original Speech of Zoroaster (Yasna 45), pages 17, 26.

"Prof. Darmesteter has published a new translation [of the Zend Avesta] with a most ably written introduction, in which he maintains the thesis that not a line of our Avesta text is older than the time of Alexander's conquest, while the greater part belongs to a much later date. We may briefly remind our readers that, according to the traditional view, the old Zoroastrian books, which belong to the times of the Achæmenidæ, were destroyed at the Macedonian conquest, but that portions were preserved by the people, who retained the old faith, during the long period of the Arsacidan rule, though the Court favoured Greek civilization. … According to this view, we still possess the genuine remains of the old pre-Alexandrine literature, mutilated and corrupted during the period of Arsacidan indifference, but yet, so far as they go, a faithful representative of the sacred text of the Achæmenian time. … Professor Darmesteter, on the contrary, maintains that all our texts are post-Alexandrine in form and in substance. Some may belong to the 1st century B. C. or A. D., and some, as the legislative parts of the Vendidad, may be founded on older texts now lost; but a large portion was composed by the priests of Ardashir's Court in the 3d century. The Gâthâs, which till now have been generally considered as the ancient nucleus of the whole system and ascribed to Zoroaster himself, are, in the Professor's opinion, certainly modern, and are relegated to the 1st century of our era."

ZOTTS.

During the wars of the French in Algeria, there arose a body of soldiers "who, both in the campaign in Algeria and in the contest in the Crimea, have acquired the very highest renown. The name of the Zouaves will never be forgotten as long as the story of the siege of Sebastopol endures. … They were originally intended to be regiments composed of Frenchmen who had settled in Algeria, or their descendants; but the intermixture of foreigners in their ranks ere long became so considerable, that when they were transported to the shores of the Crimea, though the majority were French, they were rather an aggregate of the 'Dare-devils' of all nations. In their ranks at Sebastopol were some that held Oxford degrees, many those of Göttingen and Paris, crowds who had been ruined at the gaming-table, not a few who had fled from justice, or sought escape from the consequences of an amorous adventure. Yet had this motley crowd, composed of the most daring and reckless of all nations, become, in the rude school of the wars in Algeria, an incomparable body of soldiers, second to none in the world in every military duty, perhaps superior to any in the vehemence and rush of an assault."

ZUÑI.

See AMERICA, PREHISTORIC;
also AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ZUÑIAN FAMILY, and PUEBLOS.

ZUTPHEN: A. D. 1586.
Battle of English and Spaniards.
Death of Sir Philip Sidney.

SUPPLEMENT.

1. Some passages translated from German and French writings, touching matters less competently treated in the body of the work, where the compilation is restricted to "the literature of history in the English language," either originally or in published translations.

3. Treatment of some topics that were omitted from their places in the body of the work, either intentionally or by accident, and which it seems best to include.

4. Some cross-references needed to complete the subject-indexing of the work throughout.

6. A series of dynastic genealogies, in a form different from the usual plan of their construction, and which, it is hoped, may be found more easily intelligible.

7. Select bibliographies, partly annotated, of several of the more important fields of history.

8. A full list of the works quoted from in this compilation of "History for Ready Reference and Topical Reading," with the names of the publishers.

   The selections and translations from the German, excepting
   Bismarck's speeches, have been made by Ernest F. Henderson,
   A. M., Ph. D., author of "A History of Germany in the Middle
   Ages." Mr. Henderson has also prepared and annotated the
   bibliography of German and French writings.

————— A ————

ABELARD AND THE RISE OF THE UNIVERSITIES.

ABHORRERS.

Charles II. and his court, in England, were troubled about 1680 with numerous petitions for the calling of parliament. "As the king found no law by which he could punish those importunate, and, as he deemed them, undutiful solicitations, he was obliged to encounter them by popular applications of a contrary tendency. Wherever the church and court party prevailed, addresses were framed, containing expressions of the highest regard to his majesty, the most entire acquiescence in his wisdom, the most dutiful submission to his prerogative, and the deepest abhorrence of those who endeavoured to encroach upon it, by prescribing to him any time for assembling the parliament. Thus the nation came to be distinguished into 'petitioners' and 'abhorrers.'"

ACCAD. ACCADIANS.

ADAIS.

ADELBERT COLLEGE.

AFRICA.
A chronological record of European Exploration,
Missionary Settlement, Colonization and Occupation.

AFRICA: 1434-1461.
   Portuguese explorations down the western coast, from Cape
   Bojador to Cape Mesurado, in Liberia, under the direction of
   Prince Henry, called the Navigator.

AFRICA: 1442.
First African slaves brought into Europe by one
of the ships of the Portuguese-Prince Henry.

AFRICA: 1471-1482.
   Portuguese explorations carried beyond the Guinea Coast,
   and to the Gold Coast, where the first settlement was
   established, at El Mina.

AFRICA: 1482.
Discovery of the mouth of the Zaire or Congo by the
Portuguese explorer, Diogo Cao, or Diego Cam.

AFRICA: 1485-1596.
   Establishment of Roman Catholic missions on the western coast,
   and creation, by Pope Clement VIII., of the diocese of Mbazi
   (San Salvador), embracing Congo, Angola and Benguela.

AFRICA: 1486.
Unconscious rounding of the Cape of Good Hope by
Bartholomew Diaz.

AFRICA: 1490-1527.
Visit to Abyssinia of Pedro da Covilhão, or Covilham,
the Portuguese explorer.

AFRICA: 1505-1508.
Portuguese settlements and fortified stations' established on
the eastern coast, from Sofala to Zanzibar.

AFRICA: 1562.
First slave-trading voyage of Sir John Hawkins to the Guinea
Coast.

AFRICA: 1569.
Expedition of Barreto up the Zambesi from its mouth to Sena
and beyond.

AFRICA: 1578.
Founding of St. Paul de Loando, the capital of the Portuguese
possessions on the west coast.

AFRICA: 1582 (about).
Founding of the French post, St. Louis, at the mouth of the
Senegal.

AFRICA: 1618-1621.
Exploration of the River Gambia by George Thompson and Captain
Richard Jobson, for the Royal Niger Company of England.

AFRICA: 1637.
Visit of Claude Jannequin, Sieur de Rochfort, to the River
Senegal.

AFRICA: 1662.
British African Company chartered by Charles II.
and fort built on the Gambia.

AFRICA: 1681-1683.
Brandenburg African Company formed by "the Great Elector";
settlements established and trade opened on the western coast.

AFRICA: 1694-1724.
Explorations of the River Senegal and interior by André Brue,
the French governor, for the Royal Senegal Company.

AFRICA: 1698.
Arab conquests from the Portuguese on the eastern coast,
breaking their ascendancy.

AFRICA: 1723.
Exploration of the Gambia by Captain Bartholomew Stibbs, for
the English Royal African Company.

AFRICA: 1737.
   Moravian Mission planted by George Schmidt among the
   Hottentots; suppressed by the Dutch government in 1744, and
   revived in 1792.

AFRICA: 1754.
Substantial beginning of the domination in Madagascar of the
Hovas, a people of Malay origin.

AFRICA: 1761-1762.
Dutch expedition from Cape Colony beyond the Orange River into
Namaqualand.

AFRICA: 1768-1763.
Journey of James Bruce to the fountains of the Blue Nile in
Abyssinia.

AFRICA: 1775-1776.
Explorations of Andrew Sparrman from Cape Town to Great Fish
River.

AFRICA: 1781-1785.
Travels of M. Le Vaillant from the Cape of Good Hope into the
interior of South Africa, among the Hottentots and Kafirs.

AFRICA: 1787.
Founding of the English settlement for freed slaves at Sierra
Leone.

AFRICA: 1788.
   Formation of the African Association in England, under the
   presidency of Sir Joseph Banks, for systematic exploration in
   the interest of geographical science.

AFRICA: 1789-1794.
   Fruitless attempts by agents of the African Association to
   reach the Niger and Timbuctoo from the west coast and from the
   Nile.

AFRICA: 1795-1797.
   The first exploring journey of Mungo Park, in the service of
   the African Association, from the Gambia, penetrating to the
   Niger, at Sego.

AFRICA: 1798.
Mission of Dr. John Vanderkemp to the Kafirs, with the support
of the London Missionary Society.

AFRICA: 1798.
Journey of the Portuguese Dr. Lacerda from the Lower Zambesi
to the kingdom of Cazembe, on Lake Moero.

AFRICA: 1800.
Unsuccessful attempts of the Dutch Missionary Society in Cape
Town among the Bechuanas.

AFRICA: 1802-1806.
Restoration of Cape Colony to the Dutch and its reconquest by
the English.

AFRICA: 1802-1811.
Journey of the Pombeiros, Baptista and Jose (negroes) across
the continent from Angola to Tete, on the Zambesi River.

AFRICA: 1805.
Second expedition of Mungo Park from the Gambia to the Niger,
from which he never returned.

AFRICA: 1806.
Missionary journey of Christian and William Albrecht beyond
the Orange River.

AFRICA: 1810.
Missions in Great Namaqualand and Damaraland begun by the
London Missionary Society.

AFRICA: 1812.
Exploration of the Orange River and the headwaters of the
Limpopo by Campbell, the missionary.

AFRICA: 1812-1815.
   Journey of Burckhardt under the auspices of the African
   Association, up the Nile, through Nubia, to Berbera, Shendy,
   and Suakin; thence through Jidda to Mecca, in the character of
   a Mussulman.

AFRICA: 1816-1818.
   Fatal and fruitless attempts of Tuckey, Peddie, Campbell, Gray
   and Dochard to explore the lower course and determine the
   outlet of the Niger.

AFRICA: 1818.
Mission in Madagascar undertaken by the London Missionary
Society.

AFRICA: 1818.
Beginning, on the Orange River, of the missionary labors of
Robert Moffat in South Africa.

AFRICA: 1818.
Exploration of the sources of the Gambia by Gaspard Mollien,
from Fort St. Louis, at the mouth of the Senegal.

AFRICA: 1818-1820.
Exploration of Fezzan to Its southern limit, from Tripoli, by
Captain Lyon.

AFRICA: 1821.
Mission-work in Kaffraria undertaken by the Glasgow Missionary
Society.

AFRICA: 1822.
Founding of the republic of Liberia by the American
Colonization Society.

AFRICA: 1822.
Official journey of Lieutenant Laing from Sierra Leone in the
"Timannee, Kooranko and Soolima" countries.

AFRICA: 1822-1825.
Expedition of Captain Clapperton, Dr. Oudney, and Colonel
Denham, from Tripoli to Lake Tchad and beyond.

AFRICA: 1825-1826.
   Expedition of Major Laing, in the service of the British
   Government, from Tripoli, through the desert, to Timbuctoo,
   which he reached, and where he remained for a month. Two days
   after leaving the city he was murdered.

AFRICA: 1825-1827.
Expedition of Captain Clapperton from the Bight of Benin to
Sokoto.

AFRICA: 1827.
Moravian Mission settled in the Tambookie territory, South
Africa.

AFRICA: 1827.
Journey of Linant de Bellefonds, for the African Association,
up the White Nile to 18° 6' north latitude.

AFRICA: 1827-1828.
   Journey of Caillé from a point on the west coast, between
   Sierra Leone and the Gambia, to Jenna and Timbuctoo; thence to
   Fez and Tangier.

AFRICA: 1830-1831.
Exploration of the Niger to the sea by Richard and John
Lender, solving the question as to its mouth.

AFRICA: 1831.
Portuguese mission of Major Monteiro and Captain Gamitto to
the court of Muata Cazembe.

AFRICA: 1831.
Absorption of the African Association by the Royal
Geographical Society of London.

AFRICA: 1832-1834.
First commercial exploration of the lower Niger, from its
mouth, by Macgregor Laird, with two steamers.

AFRICA: 1833.
Mission in Basutoland established by the Evangelical
Missionary Society of Paris.

AFRICA: 1834.
Beginning of missionary labors under the American Board of
Missions in South Africa.

AFRICA: 1834.
Mission founded at Cape Palmas on the western coast, by the
American Board for Foreign Missions.

AFRICA: 1834.
The Great Trek of the Dutch Boers from Cape Colony and their
founding of the republic of Natal.

AFRICA: 1835.
Mission among the Zulus established by the American Board of
Foreign Missions.

AFRICA: 1836-1837.
   Explorations of Captain Sir James E. Alexander in the
   countries of the Great Namaquas, the Bushmen and the Hill
   Damaras.

AFRICA: 1839-1811.
   Egyptian expeditions sent by Mehemet Ali up the White Nile to
   latitude 6° 35' North; accompanied and narrated in part by
   Ferdinand Werne.

AFRICA: 1839-1843.
Missionary residence of Dr. Krapf in the kingdom of Shoa, in
the Ethiopian highlands.

AFRICA: 1841.
   Expedition of Captains Trotter and Allen, sent by the British
   Government to treat with tribes on the Niger for the opening
   of commerce and the suppression of the slave trade.

AFRICA: 1842.
Gaboon Mission, on the western coast near the equator, founded
by the American Board of Foreign Missions.

AFRICA: 1842.
The Rhenish Mission established by German missionaries at
Bethanien in Namaqualand.

AFRICA: 1843.
British annexation of Natal, and migration of the Boers to
found the Orange Free State.

AFRICA: 1843.
Exploration of the Senegal and the Falémé by Huard-Bessinières
and Raffenel.

AFRICA: 1845.
Duncan's journey for the Royal Geographical Society from
Whydah, via Abome, to Adofudia.

AFRICA: 1845.
Mission to the Cameroons established by the Baptist Missionary
Society of England.

AFRICA: 1846.
Unsuccessful attempt of Raffenel to cross Africa from Senegal
to the Nile, through the Sudan.

AFRICA: 1846.
Mission of Samuel Crowther (afterwards Bishop of the Niger), a
native and a liberated slave, to the Yoruba country.

AFRICA: 1846.
Mission on Old Calabar River founded by the United
Presbyterian Church in Jamaica.

AFRICA: 1847-1849.
Interior explorations of the German missionaries Dr. Krapf and
Mr. Rebmann, from Mombassa on the Zanzibar coast.

AFRICA: 1849.
Missionary journey of David Livingstone northward from the
country of the Bechuanas, and his discovery of Lake Ngami.

AFRICA: 1849-1851.
   Journey of Ladislaus Magyar from Benguela to the kingdoms of
   Bihe and Moluwa on the interior table-land, and across the
   upper end of the Zambesi valley.

AFRICA: 1850.
Sale of Danish forts at Quetta, Adds, and Fingo, on the
western coast, to Great Britain.

AFRICA: 1850-1851.
Travels of Andersson and Galton from Walfish Bay to
Ovampo-land and Lake Ngami.

AFRICA: 1850-1855.
   Travels of Dr. Barth from Tripoli to Lake Tchad, Sokoto and
   the Upper Niger to Timbuctoo, where he was detained for nine
   months.

AFRICA: 1852-1863.
   Hunting and trading journeys of Mr. Chapman in South Africa,
   between Natal and Walfish Bay and to Lake Ngami and the
   Zambesi.

AFRICA: 1853.
Founding of the Diocese of Natal by the English Church and
appointment of Dr. Colenso to be its bishop.

AFRICA: 1853-1856.
   Journey of Dr. Livingstone from Linyanti, the Makololo
   capital, up the Zambesi and across to the western coast, at
   St. Paul de Loando, thence returning entirely across the
   continent, down the Zambesi to Quilimane at its mouth,
   discovering the Victoria Falls on his way.

AFRICA: 1853-1858.
Ivory-seeking expeditions of John Petherick, up the
Bahr-el-Ghazel.

AFRICA: 1853-1859.
Roman Catholic mission established at Gondokoro, on the Upper
Nile.

AFRICA: 1854.
Exploration of the Somali country—the "eastern horn of
Africa"—by Captains Burton and Speke.

AFRICA: 1855.
   Beginning of attempts by the French governor of Senegal,
   General Faidherbe, to carry the flag of France into the
   Western Sudan.

AFRICA: 1856-1859.
Journeys of Du Chaillu in the western equatorial regions, on
the Gaboon and the Ogobai.

AFRICA: 1857-1858.
   Expedition of Captains Burton and Speke, from Zanzibar,
   through Uzaramo, Usagara, Ugogo, and Unyamwezi, to Ujiji, on
   Lake Tanganyika—making the first European discovery of the
   lake; returning to Kazé, and thence continued by Speke alone,
   during Burton's illness, to the discovery of Lake Victoria
   Nyanza.

AFRICA: 1858.
English mission station founded at Victoria on the Cameroons
coast.

AFRICA: 1858-1863.
   Expedition of Dr. Livingstone, in the service of the British
   Government, exploring the Shiré and the Rovuma, and
   discovering and exploring Lake Nyassa—said, however, to have
   been known previously to the Portuguese.

AFRICA: 1860-1861.
Journey of Baron von Decken from Mombassa on the Zanzibar
coast, to Kilimanjaro mountain.

AFRICA: 1860-1862.
   Return of Speke, with Captain Grant, from Zanzibar to Lake
   Victoria Nyanza, visiting Karagwe, and Uganda, and reaching
   the outlet of the Nile; thence through Unyoro to Gondokoro,
   and homeward by the Nile.

AFRICA: 1861.
Establishment of the Universities Mission by Bishop Mackenzie
on the Upper Shiré.

AFRICA: 1861-1862.
English acquisition of the town and kingdom of Lagos on the
Bight of Benin by cession from the native ruler.

AFRICA: 1861-1862.
Sir Samuel Baker's exploration of the Abyssinian tributaries
of the Nile.

AFRICA: 1861-1862.
   Journey of Captain Burton from Lagos, on the western coast, to
   Abeokuta, the capital of the Akus, in Yoruba, and to the
   Camaroons Mountains.

AFRICA: 1861-1862.
Journey of Mr. Baines from Walfish Bay to Lake Ngami and
Victoria Falls.

AFRICA: 1862.
Resumption of the Christian Mission in Madagascar, long
suppressed.

AFRICA: 1862-1867.
   Travels of Dr. Rohlfs in Morocco, Algeria and Tunis, and
   exploring journey from the Gulf of the Syrtes to the Gulf of
   Guinea.

AFRICA: 1863.
Second visit of Du Chaillu to the western equatorial region
and journey to Ashangoland.

AFRICA: 1863-1864.
Exploration of the Bahr-el-Ghazel from Khartoum by the wealthy
Dutch heiress, Miss Tinné, and her party.

AFRICA: 1863-1865.
   Expedition by Sir Samuel Baker and his wife up the White Nile
   from Khartoum, resulting in the discovery of Lake Albert
   Nyanza, as one of its sources.

AFRICA: 1864.
Mission of Lieutenant mage and Dr. Quintin, sent by General
Faidherbe from Senegal to the king of Segou, in the Sudan.

AFRICA: 1866-1873.
   Last journey of Dr. Livingstone, from the Rovuma River, on the
   eastern coast, to Lake Nyassa; thence to Lake Tanganyika, Lake
   Moero, Lake Bangweolo, and the Lualaba River, which he
   suspected of flowing into the Albert Nyanza, and being the
   ultimate fountain head of the Nile. In November, 1871,
   Livingstone was found at Ujiji, on Lake Tanganyika, by Henry
   M. Stanley, lender of an expedition sent in search of him.
   Declining to quit the country with Stanley, and pursuing his
   exploration of the Lualaba, Livingstone died May 1, 1873, on
   Lake Bangweolo.

AFRICA: 1867-1868.
British expedition to Abyssinia for the rescue of captives;
overthrow and death of King Theodore.

AFRICA: 1869.
Fatal expedition of Miss Tinné from Tripoli into the desert,
where she was murdered by her own escort.

AFRICA: 1869-1871.
Explorations of Dr. Schweinfurth between the Bahr-el-Ghazel
and the Upper Congo, discovering the Wellé River.

AFRICA: 1869-1873.
Expedition of Dr. Nachtigal from Tripoli through Kuka,
Tibesti, Borku, Wadai, Darfur, and Kordofan, to the Nile.

AFRICA: 1870-1873.
   Official expedition of Sir Samuel Baker, in the service of the
   Khedive of Egypt, Ismail Pasha, to annex Gondokoro, then named
   Ismalia, and to suppress the slave-trade in the Egyptian
   Sudan, or Equatoria.

AFRICA: 1871.
Transfer of the rights of Holland on the Gold Coast to Great
Britain.

AFRICA: 1871.
Scientific tour of Sir Joseph D. Hooker and Mr. Ball in
Morocco and the Great Atlas.

AFRICA: 1871.
Missionary journey of Mr. Charles New in the Masai country and
ascent of Mount Kilimanjaro.

AFRICA: 1871-1880.
Hunting journeys of Mr. Selous in South Africa, beyond the
Zambesi.

AFRICA: 1872-1875.
Travels of the naturalist, Reinhold Buchholz, on the Guinea
coast.

AFRICA: 1872-1879.
Trave]s of Dr. Holub between the South African diamond fields
and the Zambesi.

AFRICA: 1873-1875.
   Expedition of Captain V. L. Cameron, from Zanzibar to Lake
   Tanganyika, and exploration of the Lake; thence to Nyangwe on
   the Lnalaba, and thence across the continent, through Ulunda,
   to the Portuguese settlement at Benguela, on the Atlantic
   coast.

AFRICA: 1873-1875.
Travels of the naturalist, Frank Oates, from Cape Colony to
the Victoria Falls.

AFRICA: 1873-1876.
   Explorations of Güsfeldt, Falkenstein and Pechuel-Loesche,
   under the auspices of the German African Association, from the
   Loango coast, north of the Congo.

AFRICA: 1874.
British expedition against the Ashantees, destroying their
principal town Coomassie.

AFRICA: 1874.
   Mission of Colonel Chaillé-Long from General Gordon, at
   Gondokoro, on the Nile, to M'tesé, king of Uganda, discovering
   Lake Ibrahim on his return, and completing the work of Speke
   and Baker, in the continuous tracing of the course of the Nile
   from the Victoria Nyanza.

AFRICA: 1874-1875.
Expedition of Colonel C. Chaillé-Long to Lake Victoria Nyanza
and the Makraka Niam-Niam country, in the Egyptian service.

AFRICA: 1874-1876.
First administration of General Gordon, commissioned by the
Khedive as Governor of Equatoria.

AFRICA: 1874-1876.
Occupation and exploration of Darfur and Kordofan by the
Egyptians, under Colonels Purdy, Mason, Prout and Colston.

AFRICA: 1874-1877.
   Expedition of Henry M. Stanley, fitted out by the proprietors
   of the New York Herald and the London Daily Telegraph, which
   crossed the continent from Zanzibar to the mouth of the Congo
   River; making a prolonged stay in the empire of Uganda and
   acquiring much knowledge of it; circumnavigating Lakes
   Victoria and Tanganyika, and exploring the then mysterious
   great Congo River throughout its length.

AFRICA: 1874-1877.
Explorations of Dr. Junker in Upper Nubia and in the basin of
the Bahr-el-Ghazel.

AFRICA: 1875.
   Expedition of Dr. Pogge, for the German African Association,
   from the west coast, south of the Congo, in the Congo basin,
   penetrating to Kawende, beyond the Ruru or Lulua River,
   capital of the Muata Yanvo, who rules a kingdom as large as
   Germany.

AFRICA: 1875.
Expedition of Colonel Chaillé-Long into the country of the
Makraka Niam-Niams.

AFRICA: 1875.
   Founding by Scottish subscribers of the mission station called
   Livingstonia, at Cape Maclear, on the southern shores of Lake
   Nyassa; headquarters of the mission removed in 1881 to
   Bandawé, on the same lake.

AFRICA: 1875.
Mission founded at Blantyre, in the highlands above the Shiré,
by the Established Church of Scotland.

AFRICA: 1875-1876.
   Seizure of Berbera and the region of the Juba River, on the
   Somali Coast, by Colonel Chaillé-Long, for the Khedive of
   Egypt, and their speedy evacuation, on the remonstrance of
   England.

AFRICA: 1876.
   Conference at Brussels and formation of the International
   African Association, under the presidency of the king of the
   Belgians, for the exploration and civilization of Africa.

AFRICA: 1876.
Mission in Uganda established by the Church Missionary Society
of England.

AFRICA: 1876-1878.
Scientific explorations of Dr. Schweinfurth in the Arabian
Desert between the Nile and the Red Sea.

AFRICA: 1876-1880.
Explorations and French annexations by Svorgnan de Brazza
between the Ogowé and the Congo.

AFRICA: 1877.
   The Livingstone Inland Mission, for Christian work in the
   Congo valley, established by the East London Institute for
   Home and Foreign Missions.

AFRICA: 1877-1879.
Second administration of General Gordon, as Governor-General
of the Sudan, Darfur and the Equatorial Provinces.

AFRICA: 1877-1879.
War of the British in South Africa with the Zulus, and
practical subjugation of that nation.

AFRICA: 1877-1879.
Journey of Serpa Pinto across the continent from Benguela via
the Zambesi.

AFRICA: 1877-1880.
   Explorations of the Portuguese officers, Capello and Ivens, in
   western and central Africa, from Benguela to the territory of
   Yacca, for the survey of the river Cuango in its relations to
   the hydrographic basins of the Congo and the Zambesi.

AFRICA: 1878.
   Founding in Glasgow of the African Lakes Company, or "The
   Livingstone Central Africa Company," for trade on Lakes Nyassa
   and Tanganyika; by which company the "Stevenson Road" was
   subsequently built between the two lakes above named.

AFRICA: 1878.
Walfish Bay and fifteen miles around it (on the western coast,
in Namaqualand) declared British territory.

AFRICA: 1878-1880.
   Royal Geographical Society's East Central African expedition,
   under Joseph Thomson, to the Central African lakes,
   Tanganyika, Nyassa and Leopold, from Zanzibar.

AFRICA: 1879.
Establishment, by the Belgian International Society, of a
station at Karema, on the eastern shore of Lake Tanganyika.

AFRICA: 1879.
Formation of the International Congo Association and the
engagement of Mr. Stanley in its service.

AFRICA: 1879.
Missionary expeditions to the Upper Congo region by the
Livingstone Inland Mission and the Baptist Missionary Society.

AFRICA: 1879.
Journey of Mr. Stewart, of the Livingstonia Mission, on Lake
Nyassa, from that lake to Lake Tanganyika.

AFRICA: 1879.
   Discovery of the sources of the Niger, in the hills about 200
   miles east of Freetown, the capital of Sierra Leone, by the
   French explorers, Zweifel and Moustier.

AFRICA: 1879-1880.
   Journey of Dr. Oskar Lenz, under the auspices of the German
   African Society, from Morocco to Timbuctoo, and thence to the
   Atlantic coast in Senegambia. The fact that the Sahara is
   generally above the sea-level, and cannot therefore be
   flooded, was determined by Dr. Lenz.

AFRICA: 1879-1881.
   Expedition of Dr. Buchner from Loanda to Kawende and the
   kingdom of the Muata Yanvo, where six months were spent in
   vain efforts to procure permission to proceed further into the
   interior.

AFRICA: 1880.
   Mission established by the American Board of Foreign Missions
   in "the region of Bihé and the Coanza," or Quanza, south of
   the Congo.

AFRICA: 1880-1881.
Official mission of the German explorer, Gerhard Rohlfs,
accompanied by Dr. Stecker, to Abyssinia.

AFRICA: 1880-1884.
Campaigns of Colonel Borgnis-Desbordes in Upper Senegal,
capturing Bamakou and extending French supremacy to the Niger.

AFRICA: 1880-1884.
   German East African Expedition, under Kaiser, Böhm, and
   Reichard, to explore, in the Congo Basin, the region between
   the Lualaba and the Luapula.

AFRICA: 1880-1886.
   Explorations of Dr. Junker in the country of the Niam-Niam,
   seeking to determine the course and the outlet of the great
   river Wellé, and his journey from the Equatorial Province held
   by Emin Pasha against the Mahdl, through Unyoro and Uganda, to
   Zanzibar.

AFRICA: 1880-1889.
   Journey of Captain Casati, as correspondent of the Italian
   geographical review, "L' Exploratore," from Suakin, on the Red
   Sea, into the district of the Mombuttu, west of Lake Albert,
   and the country of the Niam-Niam; in which travels he was
   arrested by the revolt of the Mahdi and forced to remain with
   Emin Pasha until rescued with the latter by Stanley, in 1889.

AFRICA: 1881.
Portuguese expedition of Captain Andrada from Senna on the
Zambesi River to the old gold mines of Manica.

AFRICA: 1881.
Journey of F. L. and W. D. James from Suakin, on the Red Sea,
through the Base country, in the Egyptian Sudan.

AFRICA: 1881.
Founding of a mission on the Congo, at Stanley Pool, by the
Baptist Missionary Society of England.

AFRICA: 1881-1884.
   Expedition of Dr. Pogge and Lieutenant Wissmann to Nyangwe on
   the Lualaba, from which point Lieutenant Wissmann pursued the
   journey to Zanzibar, crossing the continent, while Dr. Pogge,
   returning, died soon after his arrival at St. Paul de Loanda.

AFRICA: 1881-1885.
   Revolt of the Mahdl in the Sudan; the mission of General
   Gordon to Khartoum to effect the evacuation of the country;
   his beleaguerment there by the Mahdists; the unsuccessful
   expedition from England to rescue him; the fall of the city
   and his death.

AFRICA: 1881-1887.
French protectorate established over territory on the Upper
Niger and Upper Senegal.

AFRICA: 1882.
Formation in England of the National African Company for the
development of trade in the region of the Niger.

AFRICA: 1882-1883.
German scientific expedition, under Dr. Böhm and Herr
Reichard, to Lakes Tanganyika and Moero.

AFRICA: 1883.
German acquisition of territory on Angra Pequeña Bay, in Great
Namaqualand.

AFRICA: 1883.
Exploration of Masailand by Dr. Fischer, under the auspices of
the Hamburg Geographical Society.

AFRICA: 1883.
   Explorations of Lieutenant Giraud in East Central Africa,
   descending for some distance the Luapula, which flows out of
   Lake Bangweolo, but driven back by hostile natives.

AFRICA: 1883.
   Geological and botanical investigation of the basins of Lakes
   Nyassa and Tanganyika, by Mr. Henry Drummond, for the African
   Lakes Company.

AFRICA: 1883.
Journey of Mr. O'Neill to Lake Shirwa and the sources of the
Lujenda.

AFRICA: 1883.
Journey of Mr. Révoil in the South Somali country to the Upper
Jub.

AFRICA: 1883-1884.
   Explorations of Mr. Joseph Thomson from Mombassa, through
   Masailand, to the northeast corner of the Victoria Nyanza,
   under the auspices of the Royal Geographical Society.

AFRICA: 1883-1885.
War of the French with the Hovas of Madagascar, resulting in
the establishment of a French Protectorate over the island.

AFRICA: 1883-1885.
Exploration of Lieutenant Giraud in the lake region—Lake
Nyassa to Lake Bangweolo, Lake Moero and Lake Tanganyika.

AFRICA: 1883-1886.
   Austrian expedition, under Dr. Holub, from Cape Colony,
   through the Boer states, Bechuanaland and Matabeleland to the
   Zambesi, and beyond, to the borders of the Mashukulumbe
   territory, where the party was attacked, plundered, and driven
   back.

AFRICA: 1884.
   Annexation by Germany of the whole western coast (except
   Walfish Bay) between the Portuguese Possessions and those of
   the British in South Africa.

AFRICA: 1884.
   German occupation of territory on the Cameroons River, under
   treaties with the native chiefs. English treaties securing
   contiguous territory to and including the delta of the Niger.

AFRICA: 1884.
   Expedition of Dr. Peters, representing the Society of German
   Colonization, to the coast region of Zanzibar, and his
   negotiation of treaties with ten native chiefs, ceding the
   sovereignty of their dominions.

AFRICA: 1884.
Crown colony of British Bechuanaland acquired by convention
with the South African Republic.

AFRICA: 1884.
   Portuguese Government expedition, under Major Carvalho, from
   Loanda to the Central African potentate called the Muata
   Yanvo.

AFRICA: 1884.
Exploration of the Benué and the whole region of the Adamawa,
by Herr Flegel, for the German African Society.

AFRICA: 1884.
   Scientific expedition of Mr. H. H. Johnston to Kilimanjaro
   mountain, sent by the British Association for the Advancement
   of Science and the Royal Society.

AFRICA: 1884.
   Discovery of the M'bangi or Ubangi River (afterwards
   identified with the Wellé—see below, 1887), by Captain Hansens
   and Lieutenant Van Gèle.

AFRICA: 1884.
Exploration of Reichard in the southeastern part of the Congo
State.

AFRICA: 1884-1885.
   The Berlin Conference of Powers, held to determine the limits
   of territory conceded to the International Congo Association;
   to establish freedom of trade within that territory, and to
   formulate rules for regulating in future the acquisition of
   African territory.

AFRICA: 1884-1885.
   Journey of Mr. Walter M. Kerr from Cape Colony, across the
   Zambesi, to Lake Nyassa, and down the Shiré River to the
   coast.

AFRICA: 1884-1887.
Exploration by Dr. Schinz of the newly acquired German
territories in southwest Africa.

AFRICA: 1885.
   Transfer of the rights of the Society of German Colonization
   to the German East Africa Company, and extension of imperial
   protection to the territories claimed by the Company. German
   acquisition of Witu, north of Zanzibar.

AFRICA: 1885.
   Agreement between Germany and France, defining their
   respective spheres of influence on the Bight or Biafra, on the
   slave coast and in Senegambia.

AFRICA: 1885.
   Transformation of the Congo Association into the Independent
   State of the Congo, with King Leopold of Belgium as its
   sovereign.

AFRICA: 1885.
   British Protectorate extended to the Zambesi, over the country
   west of the Portuguese province of Sofala, to the 20th degree
   of east longitude.

AFRICA: 1885.
   Mission of Mr. Joseph Thomson, for the National African
   Company, up the Niger, to Sokoto and Gando, securing treaties
   with the sultans under which the company acquired paramount
   rights.

AFRICA: 1885-1888.
Mission of M. Borelli to the kingdom of Shoa (Southern
Ethiopia) and south of it.

AFRICA: 1885-1889.
   When, after the fall of Khartoum and the death of General
   Gordon, in 1885, the Sudan was abandoned to the Mahdi and the
   fanatical Mohammedans of the interior, Dr. Edward Schnitzer,
   better known as Emin Pasha, who had been in command, under
   Gordon, of the province of the Equator, extending up to Lake
   Albert, was cut off for six years from communication with the
   civilized world. In 1887 an expedition to rescue him and his
   command was sent out under Henry M. Stanley. It entered the
   continent from the west, made its way up the Congo and the
   Aruwimi to Yambuya; thence through the unexplored region to
   Lake Albert Nyanza and into communication with Emin Pasha;
   then returning to Yambuya for the rearguard which had been
   left there; again traversing the savage land to Lake Albert,
   and passing from there, with Emin and his companions, by way
   of Lake Albert Edward Nyanza (then ascertained to be the
   ultimate reservoir of the Nile system) around the southern
   extremity of the Victoria Nyanza, to Zanzibar, which was
   reached at the end of 1889.

AFRICA: 1886.
   Settlement between Great Britain and Germany of the coast
   territory to be left under the sovereignty of the Sultan of
   Zanzibar, and of the "spheres of influence" to be appropriated
   respectively by themselves, between the lakes and the eastern
   coast, north of the Portuguese possessions.

AFRICA: 1886.
Agreement between France and Portugal defining limits of
territory in Senegambia and at the mouth of the Congo.

AFRICA: 1886.
   Transformation of the National African Company into the
   British Royal Niger Company, with a charter giving powers of
   administration over a large domain on the River Niger.

AFRICA: 1886.
Mission station founded by Mr. Arnot at Bunkeya, in the
southeastern part of the Congo State.

AFRICA: 1886-1887.
   Journey of Lieutenant Wissmann across the continent, from
   Luluaburg, a station of the Congo Association, in the dominion
   of Muata Yanvo, to Nyangwe, on the Lualaba, and thence to
   Zanzibar.

AFRICA: 1886-1889.
   Expeditions of Dr. Zintgraff in the Cameroons interior and to
   the Benue, for the bringing of the country under German
   influence.

AFRICA: 1887.
   Annexation of Zululand, partly to the Transvaal, or South
   African Republic, and the remainder to the British
   possessions.

AFRICA: 1887.
French gunboats launched on the Upper Niger, making a
reconnoissance nearly to Timbuctoo.

AFRICA: 1887.
Identity of the Wellé River with the M'bangi or Ubangi
established by Captain Van Gèle and Lieutenant Liénart.

AFRICA: 1887-1889.
Exploration by Captain Ringer of the region between the great
bend of the Niger and the countries of the Gold Coast.

AFRICA: 1887-1890.
   Expedition of Count Teleki through Masailand, having for its
   most important result the discovery of the Basso-Narok, or
   Black Lake, to which the discoverer gave the name of Lake
   Rudolf, and Lake Stefanie.

AFRICA: 1888.
   Chartering of the Imperial British East Africa Company, under
   concessions granted by the sultan of Zanzibar and by native
   chiefs, with powers of administration over a region defined
   ultimately as extending from the river Umba northward to the
   river Jub, and inland to and across Lake Victoria near its
   middle to the eastern boundary of the Congo Free State.

AFRICA: 1888.
British supremacy over Matabeleland secured by treaty with its
King Lobengula.

AFRICA: 1888.
Ascent of Mt. Kilimanjaro by Mr. Ehlers and Dr. Abbott; also
by Dr. Hans Meyer.

AFRICA: 1889.
   Royal charter granted to the British South Africa Company,
   with rights and powers in the region called Zambesia north of
   British Bechuanaland and the South African Republic, and
   between the Portuguese territory on the east and the German
   territory on the west.

AFRICA: 1889.
Will of King Leopold, making Belgium heir to the sovereign
rights of the Congo Free State.

AFRICA: 1889.
   Portuguese Roman Catholic Mission established on the south
   shore of Lake Nyassa. Portuguese exploration under Serpa Pinto
   in the Lake Nyassa region, with designs of occupancy
   frustrated by the British.

AFRICA: 1889.
Journey of M. Crampel from the Ogowé to the Likuala tributary
of the Congo, and return directly westward to the coast.

AFRICA: 1889.
Dr. Wolf's exploration of the southeast Niger basin, where be
met his death.

AFRICA: 1889.
   Major Macdonald's exploration of the Benue, sometimes called
   the Tchadda (a branch of the Niger), and of its tributary the
   Kebbi.

AFRICA: 1889.
Journey of Mr. H. H. Johnston north of Lake Nyassa and to Lake
Leopold.

AFRICA: 1889.
Journey of Mr. Sharpe through the country lying between the
Shiré and Loangwa Rivers.

AFRICA: 1889.
Mr. Pigott's journey to the Upper Tana, in the service of the
Imperial British East Africa Company.

AFRICA: 1889-1890.
British Protectorate declared over Nyassaland and the Shiré
Highlands.

AFRICA: 1889-1890.
   Italian Protectorate established over territory on the eastern
   (oceanic) Somali coast, from the Gulf of Aden to the Jub
   River.

AFRICA: 1889-1890.
   Imperial British East Africa Company's expedition, under
   Jackson and Gedge, for the exploring of a new road to the
   Victoria Nyanza and Uganda.

AFRICA: 1889-1890.
Captain Lugard's exploration of the river Sabakhi for the
Imperial British East Africa Company.

AFRICA: 1889-1890.
Journey of Lieutenant Morgen from the Cameroons, on the
western coast to the Benue.

AFRICA: 1889-1890.
French explorations in Madagascar by Dr. Catat and MM. Maistre
and Foucart.

AFRICA: 1890.
   Anglo-German Convention, defining boundaries of the
   territories and "spheres of influence" respectively claimed by
   the two powers; Germany withdrawing from Vitu, and from all
   the eastern mainland coast north of the river Tana, and
   conceding a British Protectorate over Zanzibar, in exchange
   for the island of Heligoland in the North Sea.

AFRICA: 1890.
   French "sphere of influence" extending over the Sahara and the
   Sudan, from Algeria to Lake Tchad and to Say on the Niger,
   recognized by Great Britain.

AFRICA: 1890.
Exploration of the river Sangha, an important northern
tributary of the Congo, by M. Cholet.

AFRICA: 1890.
   Exploring journey of M. Hodister, agent of the Upper Congo
   Company, up the Lomami river and across country to the
   Lualaba, at Nyangwe.

AFRICA: 1890.
Journey of Mr. Garrett in the interior of Sierra Leone to the
upper waters of the Niger.

AFRICA: 1890.
Journey of Dr. Fleck from the western coast across the
Kalihari to Lake Ngami.

AFRICA: 1890-1891.
Italian possessions in the Red Sea united in the colony of
Eritrea.

AFRICA: 1890-1891.
   Mission of Captain Lugard to Uganda and signature of a treaty
   by its king acknowledging the supremacy of the British East
   Africa Company.

AFRICA: 1890-1891.
   Exploration by M. Paul Crampel of the central region between
   the French territories on the Congo and Lake Tchad, ending in
   the murder of M. Crampel and several of his companions.

AFRICA: 1890-1891.
   Journey of Mr. Sharpe from Mandala, in the Shiré Highlands, to
   Garenganze, the empire founded by an African adventurer,
   Mshidi, in the Katanga copper country, between Lake Moero and
   the Luapula river on the east, and the Lualaba on the west.

AFRICA: 1890-1891.
Journey of Captain Becker from Yambuya, on the Aruwimi,
north-northwest to the Wellé.

AFRICA: 1890-1892.
   Italian explorations in the Somali countries by Signor
   Robecchi, Lieutenant Baudi di Vesme, Prince Ruspoli, and
   Captains Bottego and Grixoni.

AFRICA: 1890-1893.
   Expedition of Dr. Stuhlmann, with Emin Pasha, from Bagamoyo,
   via the Victoria Nyanza and the Albert Edward, to the plateau
   west of the Albert Nyanza. From this point Dr. Stuhlmann
   returned, while Emin pursued his way, intending it is said, to
   reach Kibonge, on the right bank of the Congo, south of
   Stanley Falls. He was murdered at Kinena, 150 miles northeast
   of Kibonge, by the order of an Arab chief.

AFRICA: 1891.
   Extension of the British Protectorate of Lagos over the
   neighboring districts of Addo, Igbessa, and Ilaro, which form
   the western boundary of Yoruba.

AFRICA: 1891.
   Treaty between Great Britain and Portugal defining their
   possessions; conceding to the former an interior extension of
   her South African dominion up to the southern boundary of the
   Congo Free State, and securing to the latter defined
   territories on the Lower Zambesi, the Lower Shiré, and the
   Nyassa, as well as the large block of her possessions on the
   western coast.

AFRICA: 1891.
Convention between Portugal and the Congo Free State for the
division of the disputed district of Lunda.

AFRICA: 1891.
   Convention of the Congo Free State with the Katanga Company,
   an international syndicate, giving the Company preferential
   rights over reputed mines in Katanga and Urua, with a third of
   the public domain, provided it established an effective
   occupation within three years.

AFRICA: 1891.
French annexation of the Gold Coast between Liberia and the
Grand Bassam.

AFRICA: 1891.
Opening of the Royal Trans-African Railway, in West Africa,
from Loanda to Ambaca, 140 miles.

AFRICA: 1891.
Survey of a railway route from the eastern coast to Victoria
Lake by the Imperial British East Africa Company.

AFRICA: 1891.
Exploration of the Jub River, in the Somali country, by
Commander Dundas.

AFRICA: 1891.
Exploration by Captain Dundas, from the eastern coast, up the
river Tana to Mount Kenia.

AFRICA: 1891.
Mission established by the Berlin Missionary Society in the
Konde country, at the northern end of Lake Nyassa.

AFRICA: 1891-1892.
   Incorporation of the African Lakes Company with the British
   South Africa Company. Organization of the administration of
   Northern Zambesia and Nyassaland.

AFRICA: 1891-1892.
   Expedition of the Katanga Company, under Captain Stairs, from
   Bagamoyo to Lake Tanganyika, thence through the country at the
   head of the most southern affluents of the Congo, the Lualaba
   and the Luapula.

AFRICA: 1891-1892.
   Belgian expeditions under Captain Bia and others to explore
   the southeastern portion of the Congo Basin, on behalf of the
   Katanga Company, resulting in the determination of the fact
   that the Lukuga River is an outlet of Lake Tanganyika.

AFRICA: 1891-1892.
   Journey of Dr. James Johnston across the continent, from
   Benguela to the mouth of the Zambesi, through Bihe, Ganguela,
   Barotse, the Kalihari Desert, Mashonaland, Manica, Gorongoza,
   Nyassa, and the Shiré Highlands.

AFRICA: 1891-1892.
   Expedition of Mr. Joseph Thomson, for the British South Africa
   Company, from Kilimane or Quillimane on the eastern coast to
   Lake Bangweolo.

AFRICA: 1891-1892.
Journey of Captain Monteil from the Niger to Lake Tchad and
across the Sahara to Tripoli.

AFRICA: 1891-1892.
   Exploration by Lieutenant Chaltin of the river Lulu, and the
   country between the Aruwimi and the Welle Makua rivers, in the
   Congo State.

AFRICA: 1891-1893.
   Journey of Dr. Oscar Baumann from Tanga, a port on the eastern
   coast, in the northern part of the German Protectorate;
   passing to the south of Kilimanjaro, discovering two lakes
   between that mountain and the Victoria Nyanza; exploring the
   southeastern shores of the Victoria, traversing the Shashi
   countries lying east of the lake, and the Urundi country
   between the Victoria and Tanganyika.

AFRICA: 1891-1894.
   Expedition under the command of Captain Van Kerckhoven and M.
   de la Kéthulle de Ryhove, fitted out by the Congo Free State,
   for the subjugation of the Arabs, the suppression of the slave
   trade and the exploration of the country, throughout the
   region of the Wellé or Ubangi Uellé and to the Nile.

AFRICA: 1892.
Decision of the Imperial British East Africa Company to
withdraw from Uganda.

AFRICA: 1892.
Practical conquest of Dahomey by the French, General Dodds
taking possession of the capital November 16.

AFRICA: 1892.
   Journey of M. Méry in the Sahara to the south of Wargla,
   resulting in a report favorable to the construction of a
   railway to tap the Central Sudan.

AFRICA: 1892.
   French expedition under Captain Binger to explore the southern
   Sudan and to act conjointly with British officials in
   determining the boundary between French and English
   possessions.

AFRICA: 1892.
Journey of Mr. Sharpe from the Shiré River to Lake Moero or
Mweru and the Upper Luapula.

AFRICA: 1892-1893.
   Construction of a line of telegraph by the British South
   African Company, from Cape Colony, through Mashonaland, to
   Fort Salisbury, with projected extension across the Zambesi
   and by the side of Lakes Nyassa and Tanganyika to Uganda,—and
   ultimately down the valley of the Nile.

AFRICA: 1892-1893.
French scientific mission, under M. Dècle, from Cape Town to
the sources of the Nile.

AFRICA: 1892-1893.
Italian explorations, under Captain Bòttego and Prince
Ruspoli, in the upper basin of the River Jub.

AFRICA: 1893.
Brussels Antislavery Conference, ratified in its action by the
Powers.

AFRICA: 1893.
   Official mission of Sir Gerald Porter to Uganda, sent by the
   British Government to report as to the expediency of the
   withdrawal of British authority from that country.

AFRICA: 1893.
   Scientific expedition of Dr. Gregory, of the British Museum,
   from Mombassa, on the eastern coast, through Masailand to
   Mount Kenia.

AFRICA: 1893.
Journey of Mr. Bent to Aksum, in Abyssinia, the ancient
capital and sacred city of the Ethiopians.

AFRICA: 1893.
Journey of M. Foureau in the Sahara, crossing the plateau of
Tademait from north to south.

AFRICA: 1893-1894.
German scientific survey of Mount Kilimanjaro, under Drs. Lent
and Volkens.

AFRICA: 1893-1894.
   Expedition of Mr. Astor Chanler and Lieutenant von Höhnel from
   Witu, on the eastern coast, to the Jombini Range and among the
   Rendile.

AFRICA: 1893-1894.
Explorations of Baron von Uechtritz and Dr. Passarge on the
Benue.

AFRICA: 1893-1894.
Journey of Baron von Schele from the eastern coast to Lake
Nyassa, and thence by a direct route to Kihsa.

AFRICA: 1893-1894.
Journey of Count von Götzen across the continent, from
Dar-es-Salaam, on the eastern coast, to the Lower Congo.

AFRICA: 1894.
   Treaty between Great Britain and the Congo Free State,
   securing to the former a strip of land on the west side of the
   Nile between the Albert Nyanza and 10° north latitude, and to
   the latter the large Bahr-el-Ghazel region, westward. This
   convention gave offense to France, and that country
   immediately exacted from the Congo Free State a treaty
   stipulating that the latter shall not occupy or exercise
   political influence in a region which covers most of the
   territory assigned to it by the treaty with Great Britain.

AFRICA: 1894.
Franco-German Treaty, determining the boundary line of the
Cameroons, or Kamerun.

AFRICA: 1894.
   Treaty concluded by Captain Lugard, November 10, at Nikki, in
   Borgu, confirming the rights claimed by the Royal Niger
   Company over Borgu, and placing that country under British
   protection.

AFRICA: 1894.
   Agreement between the British South Africa Company and the
   Government of Great Britain, signed November 24, 1894,
   transferring to the direct administration of the Company the
   Protectorate of Nyassaland, thereby extending its domain to
   the south end of Lake Tanganyika.

AFRICA: 1894.
   Expedition of Dr. Donaldson Smith from the Somali coast,
   aiming to reach Lakes Rudolf and Stefanie, but stopped and
   turned back by the Abyssinians, in December.

AFRICA: 1894.
   Visit of Mr. Cecil Rhodes to England to arrange financially
   for the extension of the Cape railway system northwards from
   Mafeking into Matabeleland.

AFRICA: 1894.
   Completed conquest of Dahomey by the French; capture of the
   deposed king, January 25, and his deportation to exile in
   Martinique. Decree of the French Government, June 22,
   directing the administrative organization of the "colony of
   Dahomey and Dependencies"; with a ministerial order of the
   same date which divides the new conquest into "Territoirés
   annexés; Territoirés protégés; Territoirés d'action
   politique."

AFRICA: 1894.
   Journey of Count von Götzen across the continent, from the
   eastern coast, through Ruanda and the Great Forest to and
   along the Lowa, an eastern tributary of the Congo, reaching
   the Lower Congo in December.

AFRICA: 1894.
Exploration of the Upper Congo and the Lukuga by Mr. R. Dorsey
Mohun, American Agent on the Congo, and Dr. Hinde.

AFRICA: 1894-1895.
   War of the Italians in their colony of Eritrea with both the
   Abyssinians and the Mahdists. Italian occupation of Kassala as
   a base of operations against the Mahdists.

AFRICA: 1895.
   Franco-British agreement, signed January 21, 1895, respecting
   the "Hinterland" of Sierra Leone, which secures to France the
   Upper Niger basin.

AFRICA: 1895.
   Convention between Belgium and France signed February 5,
   recognizing a right of pre-emption on the part of the latter,
   with regard to the Congo State, in case Belgium should at any
   time renounce the sovereignty which King Leopold desires to
   transfer to it.

AFRICA: 1895.
Russian scientific expedition to Abyssinia, under Lieutenant
Leontieff.

AKKADIANS, ACCADIANS.

   "The main points attained in this elaborate survey of all the
   facts and documents known can be recapitulated as
   follows,—perhaps with less assurance than a desire to be
   succinct may undesignedly impart to our expressions:

1. The discovery of the continent of North America, and the first landing on its east coast were accomplished not by Sebastian Cabot, but by his father John, in 1497, under the auspices of King Henry VII.

2. The first landfall was not Cape Breton Island, as is stated in the planisphere made by Sebastian Cabot in 1544, but eight or ten degrees further north, on the coast of Labrador; which was then ranged by John Cabot, probably as far as Cape Chudley.

3. This fact was tacitly acknowledged by all pilots and cosmographers throughout the first half of the 16th century; and the knowledge of it originated with Sebastian Cabot himself, whatever may have been afterwards his contrary statements in that respect.

4. The voyage of 1498, also accomplished under the British flag, was likewise carried out by John Cabot personally. The landfall on that occasion must be placed south of the first; and the exploration embraced the northeast coast of the present United States, as far as Florida.

5. In the vicinity of the Floridian east coast, John Cabot, or one of his lieutenants, was detected by some Spanish vessel, in 1498 or 1499.

6. The English continued in 1501, 1502, 1504, and afterwards, to send ships to Newfound·land, chiefly for the purpose of fisheries. …

7. The Portuguese mariners who lived in the Azores were the first who probed the Atlantic in search of oceanic islands and continents. Their objective, after the discovery achieved by Christopher Columbus, was the north-east coast of the New World.

8. The earliest authentic records of Lusitanian transatlantic expeditions begin only with Gaspar Corte-Real, who made three, and not two voyages only; all to the same regions, as follows: The first voyage of that navigator was undertaken previous to May, 1500, in the direction of Greenland and Newfoundland, and proved an absolute failure. The second voyage lasted from the early part of the summer of 1500 until the autumn of that year, and embraced the east coast of Newfoundland, from its northernmost point down to Cape Race. The third expedition set out from Lisbon early In the spring of 1501. It was composed of three vessels. One of these returned to port On the 8th or 9th of October, the second on the 11th following. As to the third, which was under the Immediate command of Gaspar Corte-Real, it was ice-bound or shipwrecked, we do not know when nor where, but probably in Hudson Bay, during the winter of 1501-1502. The country visited during the first part of the expedition seems to have been the northern extremity of Newfoundland and the coast of Labrador.

9. The expedition of Miguel Corte-Real in search of his brother, sailed May 10, 1502, and was also lost. …

10. Portugal continued to send ships to the fishing banks; and the region south of Newfoundland was explored, particularly by João Alvares Fagundes before 1521. …

11. The assertion that already in the time of Christopher Columbus navigators and geographers believed in the existence of a continent interposed between the West Indies and Asia, and which was not Cathay, stands uncontroverted either by contemporary authorities, or by the early Spanish charts. Nay, it is corroborated by that class of proofs.

12. The absolute insularity of Cuba was an acknowledged fact years before the periplus made by Sebastian de Ocampo, in 1508.

13. The mainland of the New World was believed to be a continent distinct from Cathay and from India the moment navigators commenced to search after a strait leading from the Atlantic Ocean to the Asiatic seas.

14. The idea that America was a mere prolongation of Asia ceased therefore to be entertained almost immediately after the discovery of its east coast; by John Cabot in 1497; by Americus Vespuccius, before 1501; by Gaspar Corte-Real, before 1502.

15. Christopher Columbus himself soon ceased to think that he had discovered Cathay, or the Asiatic coast.

16. So early as October, 1501, the notion prevailed in Europe that from Circulus articus to Pollus Antarticus, the newly discovered land formed a single coast line belonging to a separate continent."

In the first volume of this work (page 52) the argument in support of the disputed claim for Amerigo Vespucci, or Vespucius, that he made a voyage in 1497-8 during which he coasted the American continent from Honduras to Cape Hatteras, is given in an excerpt from Dr. Fiske's "Discovery of America." The following, from a paper by Mr. Clements R. Markham, read before the Royal Geographical Society in June, 1892, presents, in part, the counter argument: "Vespucci's account of his alleged first voyage is briefly as follows. He says that he went to Spain to engage in mercantile pursuits, but that after some years he resolved to see the world and its marvels. King Ferdinand having ordered four ships to go forth and make discoveries to the westward, Vespucci was chosen by His Highness to go in the fleet, to assist in the work of discovery. They sailed from Cadiz on May 10th, 1497, and reached Grand Canary, which, he says, is in 27° 30' North, and 280 leagues from Lisbon. {3679} There they remained eight days, and then sailed for thirty-seven (twenty-seven, Latin version) days on a W. S. W. course ('Ponente pigliando una quarta di libeccio'), reaching land when they were nearly 1,000 leagues from Grand Canary. For they found, by their instruments, that they were in 16° North latitude and 75° West longitude. Vespucci then gives a long account of the natives. After some days they came to a village built over the water, like Venice, about forty-four houses resting on very thick poles. Sailing along the land for 80 leagues, they came to another people, speaking a different language, where Vespucci saw an iguana being roasted, which he describes. He made an excursion inland for 18 leagues, and found the country very populous. This place was on the Tropic of Cancer, where the latitude is 23° North. The province is called 'Parias' (Latin version), 'Lariab' (Italian version). Thence they sailed, always in sight of the land, on a Northwest course ('verso el maestrale') for 870 leagues, having intercourse with many tribes, and finding some gold. When they had been absent thirteen months the ships begun to leak, and required caulking, so they entered the best harbour in the world, where there were many friendly people. Here they refitted, and remained for thirty-seven days. They then sailed eastward for seven days, and carne to some islands 100 leagues off the mainland, inhabited by fierce people called 'Iti.' They had encounters with the natives, when one of their men was killed and twenty-two were wounded. They then sailed for Spain with 222 slaves, arriving at Cadiz on October 15th, 1498, where they sold their slaves, and were well received. This is the story of Vespucci. It has been considered to be a fabrication from that time to this, for the following reasons. Vespucci was at Seville or San Lucar, as a provision merchant, from the middle of April, 1497, to the end of May, 1498, as is shown by the official records, examined by Muñoz, of expenses incurred in fitting out the ships for western expeditions. Moreover, no expedition for discovery was despatched by order of King Ferdinand in 1497; and there is no allusion to any such expedition in any contemporary record. The internal evidence against the truth of the story is even stronger. Vespucci says that he sailed West South West for nearly 1,000 leagues from Grand Canary. This would have taken him to the Gulf of Paria, which is rather more than 900 leagues West South West from Grand Canary. It would never have taken him near the land at 16° North. Even with a course direct for that point, instead of a West North West course, and disregarding intervening land, the distance he gives would leave him 930 miles short of the alleged position. No actual navigator would have made such a blunder. He evidently quoted the dead reckoning from Ojeda's voyage, and invented the latitude at random. It is useless for the defenders of Vespucci to refer to the faulty reckonings of those days, and to pilots thinking they were near the Canaries when they were off the Azores. This is a different matter. It is the case of a man alleging that he has fixed his position by observations, and giving a dead reckoning nearly a thousand miles out, in the belief that it would bring him to the same point. It is fudging, but the fudging of a man ignorant of a pilot's business. His statement that he went Northwest for 870 leagues (2,610 miles) from a position in latitude 23° North, is still more preposterous. Such a course and distance would have taken him right across the continent to somewhere in British Columbia. The chief incidents in the voyage are those of the Ojeda voyage in 1499. There is the village built on piles called Little Venice. There is the best harbour in the world, which was the Gulf of Cariaco, where Ojeda refitted. There was the encounter with natives, in which one Spaniard was killed and 22 were wounded. These numbers are convincing evidence. … Vespucci does not mention the commanders of the expedition, nor any Spanish name whatever, and only gives two names of places, namely, 'Parias' or 'Lariab,' and 'Iti,' both imaginary. Humboldt was aware of the proofs that Vespucci could not have been absent from Spain in 1497-98, and that the incidents of his alleged first voyage belonged to that of Ojeda; but he was reluctant to believe in actual fraud. He therefore suggested that there were misprints with regard to the dates; that the first voyage of Vespucci was that of Ojeda; and that the Florentine merchant returned home from Española in time to join the voyage of Pinzon in 1500, which was the second voyage. But no one was allowed to land from Ojeda's ships at Española, and the dates are too detailed, and occur too clearly in both versions, to admit of the wholesale alterations demanded by this theory. The Baron Varnhagen, in his defences of Vespucci, published in 1865 at Lima, and in 1869 at Vienna, takes a bolder course. He adopts the whole of the statements of Vespucci as perfectly true, including the dates; but his defence does not amount to much. He was evidently unaware of the extent of the error in Vespucci's reckoning, and did not realise the inevitable inference. He got over the Little Venice difficulty by suggesting that there were many other villages built on piles, and that there might have been one on the coast of Tabasco. That is true. There was also the old Quebec hotel in Portsmouth Harbour; but this is not the point, and he failed to see where the difficulty lies. The Little Venice was a discovery in Ojeda's voyage when Vespucci was present. Its recurrence here, and its omission in the version of Ojeda's voyage by Vespucci, are the suspicious points which Varnhagen fails to explain away. Of the words 'Parias' and 'Lariab' in the two versions, Varnhagen prefers the latter. It is quite impossible to tell which form, or whether either, was in the original manuscript. Although there is no such place as 'Lariab,' yet a Mexican author, named Orozco, said that some of the names of places near Tampico, where the Huasteca language is spoken, ended in 'ab.' This is a point, so far as it goes—which is not very far. Even the voyage of 870 leagues Northwest from latitude 23°, does not daunt the Baron. He ignores Vespucci's course, and takes him a marvellous voyage round the shores of the Gulf of Mexico and the peninsula of Florida, to Cape Hatteras, where he certainly does not find the best harbour in the world. Thence Vespucci is taken to Bermuda, identified as 'Iti,' and so home. It is well known that Bermuda was uninhabited before its settlement by Europeans, and that there were no signs of previous inhabitants; while the 'Iti' of Vespucci was densely peopled with fierce savages. But this is ignored by Varnhagen. {3680} It would certainly have been a most extraordinary voyage, and it is still more extraordinary, that though the secret must have been known to many people at the time, it should have been inviolably kept without any object in such secrecy, and that the discoveries should have appeared on no map and in no narrative. Yet Vespucci's story, though a bold flight, bears no comparison with the grandeur of Varnhagen's conception of it."

C. R. Markham, Fourth Centenary of his Discovery, note 2 (Royal Geographical Society, Proceedings, 1892, September).

AMERICAN COLONIAL TRADE.

AMERICAN LIBRARIES.

AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSOCIATION.

AMPERE'S ELECTRO-MAGNETIC DISCOVERIES.

T. O'Conor Sloane, The Standard Electrical Dictionary, www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/26535.

ANARCHISM AND NIHILISM.

ANDORRA.

"The pastoral and picturesque valley of Andorra, a jumble of hills, enclosed on all sides by the Pyrenean spurs, extends about 7 L. long by 6 broad, and is bounded by the French and Spanish ridges, by Puigcerdá to the South and East, by the Comté de Foix (départ. de l'Ariège) to the North, and by the Corregimiento of Talaru to the West. Watered by the Balira [or Valira], Ordino, and Os, it is one of the wildest districts of the Spanish Pyrenees, abounding in timber, which is floated down the Balira and Segre to Tortosa. The name Andorra is derived from the Arabic Aldarra, 'a place thick with trees,' among which is found the Cabra Montaraz, with bears, boars, and wolves."

"The republic of Andorra is said to owe its existence to a defeat of the Saracens by Charlemagne or Louis le Débonnaire, but in reality up to the French Revolution the valley enjoyed no sovereign rights whatever. It was a barony of the Counts of Urgel and of Aragon. In 1278 it was decided that Andorra should be held jointly by the Bishops of Urgel and the Counts of Foix. In 1793 the French republic declined to receive the customary tribute, and in 1810 the Spanish Cortes abolished the feudal regime. Andorra thus became an independent state. The inhabitants, however, continue to govern themselves in accordance with old feudal customs, which are not at all reconcilable with the principles of modern republics. The land belongs to a few families. There is a law of entail, and younger brothers become the servants of the head of the family, whose hospitality they enjoy only on condition of their working for him. The tithes were only abolished in 1842. The 'liberty' of these mountaineers consists merely in exemption from the Spanish conscription and impunity in smuggling; and, to increase their revenues, they have recently established a gambling-table. Their legitimate business consists in cattle-breeding, and there are a few forges and a woollen factory. The republic of Andorra recognises two suzerains, viz. the Bishop of Urgel, who receives an annual tribute of £25, and the French Government, to whom double that sum is paid. Spain and France are represented by two provosts, the commandant of Séo de Urgel exercising the functions of viceroy. The provosts command the militia and appoint the bailiffs, or judges. They, together with a judge of appeal, alternately appointed by France and Spain, and two 'rahonadores,' or defenders of Andorran privileges, form the Cortes. Each parish is governed by a consul, a vice-consul, and twelve councillors elected by the heads of families. A General Council, of which the consuls and delegates of the parishes are members, meets at the village of Andorra. But in spite of these fictions Andorra is an integral part of Spain, and the carabineers never hesitate to cross the frontiers of this sham republic. By language, manners, and customs the Andorrans are Catalans. Exemption from war has enabled them to grow comparatively rich."

ANNAM.

ANTIOCH COLLEGE.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1500-1502.
Discovery and exploration of the coast of Labrador and the
entrance of Hudson Strait by the Cortereals.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1553.
   Voyage of Willoughby and Chancellor from London, in search of
   a northeast passage to India. Chancellor reached Archangel on
   the White Sea, and opened trade with Russia, while Willoughby
   perished with all his crew.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1556.
Exploring voyage of Stephen Burroughs to the northeast, approaching Nova Zembla.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1576-1578.
   Voyages of Frobisher to the coast of Labrador and the entrance
   to Davis Strait, discovering the bay which bears his name, and
   which he supposed to be a strait leading to Cathay; afterwards
   entering Hudson Strait.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1580.
Northeastern voyage of Pet and Jackman, passing Nova Zembla.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1585-1587. Three voyages of John Davis from Dartmouth, in search of a northwestern passage to India, entering the strait between Greenland and Baffinland which bears his name and exploring it to the 72nd degree north latitude.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1594-1595.
   Dutch expeditions (the first and second under Barentz) to the
   northeast, passing to the north of Nova Zembla, or Novaya
   Zem]ya, but making no progress beyond it.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1596-1597.
   Third voyage of Barentz, when he discovered and coasted
   Spitzbergen, wintered in Nova Zembla with his crew, lost his
   ship in the ice, and perished, with one third of his men, in
   undertaking to reach the coast of Lapland in open boats.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1602.
   Exploration for a northwest passage by Captain George
   Weymouth, for the Muscovy Company and the Levant Company,
   resulting in nothing but a visitation of the entrance to
   Hudson Strait.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1607.
Polar voyage of Henry Hudson, for the Muscovy Company of
London, attaining the northern coast of Spitzbergen.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1608.
Voyage of Henry Hudson to Nova Zembla for the Muscovy Company.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1610.
   Voyage of Henry Hudson, in English employ, to seek the
   northwest passage, being the voyage in which he passed through
   the Strait and entered the great Bay to which his name has
   been given, and in which he perished at the hands of a
   mutinous crew.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1612-1614.
   Exploration of Hudson Bay by Captains Button, Bylot, and
   Baffin, practically discovering its true character and shaking
   the previous theory of its connection with the Pacific Ocean.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1614.
   Exploring expedition of the Muscovy Company to the Greenland
   coast, under Robert Fotherby, with William Baffin for pilot,
   making its way to latitude 80°.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1616.
   Voyage into the northwest made by Captain Baffin with Captain
   Bylot, which resulted in the discovery of Baffin Bay, Smith
   Sound, Jones Sound, and Lancaster Sound.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1619-1620.
   Voyage of Jens Munk, sent by the King of Denmark to seck the
   northwest passage; wintering in Hudson Bay, and losing there
   all but two of his crew, with whom he succeeded in making the
   voyage home.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1670.
   Grant and charter to the Hudson Bay Company, by King Charles
   II. of England, conferring on the Company possession and
   government of the whole watershed of the Bay, and naming the
   country Prince Rupert Land.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1616.
Voyage of Captain John Wood to Nova Zembla, seeking the
northeastern passage.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1728.
   Exploration of the northern coasts of Kamtschatka by the
   Russian Captain Vitus Behring, and discovery of the Strait
   which bears his name.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1741.
Exploration of northern channels of Hudson Bay by Captain
Middleton.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1743.
Offer of £20,000 by the British Parliament for the discovery
of a northwest passage to the Pacific.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1746.
Further exploration of northern channels of Hudson Bay by
Captains Moor and Smith.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1753-1754.
   Attempted exploration of Hudson Bay by the colonial Captain
   Swaine, sent out from Philadelphia, chiefly through the
   exertions of Dr. Franklin.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1765.
Russian expedition of Captain Tchitschakoff, attempting to
reach the Pacific from Archangel.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1768-1769.
Exploration of Nova Zembla by a Russian officer, Lieutenant
Rosmyssloff.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1769-1770.
   Exploring journey of Samuel Hearne, for the Hudson Bay
   Company, from Churchill, its most northern post, to Coppermine
   River and down the river to the Polar Sea.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1773.
   Voyage of Captain Phipps, afterwards Lord Mulgrave, toward the
   North Pole, reaching the northeastern extremity of
   Spitzbergen.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1779.
Exploration of the Arctic coast, east and west of Behring
Strait, by Captain Cook, in his last voyage.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1789.
   Exploring journey of Alexander Mackenzie, for the Northwest
   Company, and discovery of the great river flowing into the
   Polar Sea, which bears his name.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1806.
Whaling voyage of Captain Scoresby to latitude 81° 30' and
longitude 19° east.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1818.
Unsatisfactory voyage of Commander John Ross to Baffin Bay and
into Lancaster Sound.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1818.
Voyage of Captain Buchan towards the North Pole, reaching the
northern part of Spitzbergen.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1819-1820.
   First voyage of Lieutenant Parry, exploring for a northwest
   passage, through Davis Strait, Baffin Bay, Lancaster Sound,
   and Barrow Strait, to Melville Island.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1819-1822.
   Journey of Captain (afterwards Sir John) Franklin, Dr.
   Richardson, and Captain (afterwards Sir George) Back, from
   Fort York, on the western coast of Hudson Bay, by the way of
   Lake Athabasca, Great Slave Lake, and Coppermine River, to
   Coronation Gulf, opening into the Arctic Ocean.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1819-1824.
Russian expeditions for the survey of Nova Zembla.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1820-1824.
Russian surveys of the Siberian Polar region by Wrangel and
Anjou.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1821-1823.
   Second voyage of Captain Parry, exploring for a northwest
   passage to the Pacific Ocean, through Hudson Strait and Fox
   Channel, discovering the Fury-and-Hecla Strait, the northern
   outlet of the Bay.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1821-1824.
Russian surveying expedition to Nova Zembla, under Lieutenant
Lutke.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1822.
Whaling voyage of Captain Scoresby to the eastern coast of
Greenland, which was considerably traced and mapped by him.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1822-1823.
Scientific expedition of Captain Sabine, with Commander
Clavering, to Spitzbergen and the eastern coast of Greenland.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1824-1825. Third voyage of Captain Parry, exploring for a northwest passage, by way of Davis Strait, Baffin Bay, and Lancaster Sound, to Prince Regent Inlet, where one of his ships was wrecked.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1825-1827. Second journey of Franklin, Richardson, and Back, from Canada to the Arctic Ocean; Franklin and Back by the Mackenzie River and westward along the coast to longitude 149° 37'; Richardson by the Mackenzie River and the Arctic coast eastward to Coppermine River.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1826.
Voyage of Captain Beechey through Behring Strait and eastward
along the Arctic coast as far as Point Barrow.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1827.
   Fourth voyage of Captain Parry, attempting to reach the North
   Pole, by ship to Spitzbergen and by boats to 82° 45' north
   latitude.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1829-1833. Expedition under Captain Ross, fitted out by Mr. Felix Booth, to seek a northwest passage, resulting in the discovery of the position of the north magnetic pole, southwest of Boothia, not far from which Ross' ship was ice-bound for three years. Abandoning the vessel at last, the explorers made their way to Baffin Bay and were rescued by a whale-ship.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1833-1835. Journey of Captain Back from Canada, via Great Slave Lake, to the river which he discovered and which bears his name, flowing to the Polar Sea.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1836-1837.
Voyage of Captain Back for surveying the straits and channels
in the northern extremity of Hudson Bay.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1837-1839.
   Expeditions of Dease and Simpson, in the service of the Hudson
   Bay Company, determining the Arctic coast line as far east as
   Boothia.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1845.
   Departure from England of the government expedition under Sir
   John Franklin, in two bomb-vessels, the Erebus and the Terror,
   which entered Baffin Bay in July and were never seen
   afterward.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1848.
   Expedition of Sir John Richardson and Mr. John Rae down the
   Mackenzie River, searching for traces of Sir John Franklin and
   his crews.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1848-1849.
   Expedition under Sir James Clarke Ross to Baffin Bay and
   westward as far as Leopold Island, searching for Sir John
   Franklin.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1848-1851.
   Searching expedition of the Herald and the Plover, under
   Captain Kellett and Commander Moore, through Behring Strait
   and westward to Coppermine River, learning nothing of the fate
   of the Franklin party.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1850.
Searching expedition sent out by Lady Franklin, under Captain
Forsyth, for the examination of Prince Regent Inlet.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1850-1851. United States Grinnell Expedition, sent to assist the search for Sir John Franklin and his crew, consisting of two ships, the Advance and the Rescue, furnished by Mr. Henry Grinnell and officered and manned by the U. S. Government, Lieutenant De Haven commanding and Dr. Kane surgeon. Frozen into the ice in Wellington Channel, in September, 1850, the vessels drifted helplessly northward until Grinnell Land was seen and named, then southward and westward until the next June, when they escaped in Baffin Bay.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1850-1851.
   Franklin search expedition, sent out by the British
   Government, under Captain Penny, who explored Wellington
   Channel and Cornwallis Island by sledge journeys.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1850-1851.
Discovery of traces of Franklin and his men at Cape Riley and
Beechey Island, by Captain Ommaney and Captain Austin.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1850-1852.
   Franklin search expedition under Captain Collinson, through
   Behring Strait and eastward into Prince of Wales Strait,
   sending sledge parties to Melville Island.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1850-1854. Franklin search expedition under Captain McClure, through Behring Strait and westward, between Banks Land and Prince Albert Land, attaining a point within 25 miles of Melville Sound, already reached from the East; thus demonstrating the existence of a northwest passage, though not accomplishing the navigation of it. McClure received knighthood, and a reward of £10,000 was distributed to the officers and crew of the expedition.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1851.
   Expedition of Dr. Rae, sent by the British Government to
   descend the Coppermine River and search the southern coast of
   Wollaston Land, which he did, exploring farther along the
   coast of the continent eastward to a point opposite King
   William's Land.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1851-1852.
   Franklin search expedition sent out by Lady Franklin under
   Captain Kennedy, for a further examination of Prince Regent
   Inlet and the surrounding region.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1852-1854. Franklin search expedition of five ships sent out by the British Government under Sir Edward Belcher, with Captains McClintock, Kellett, and Sherard Osborn under his command. Belcher and Osborn, going up Wellington Channel to Northumberland Sound, were frozen fast; McClintock and Kellett experienced the same misfortune near Melville Island, where they had received Captain McClure and his crew, escaping from their abandoned ship. Finally all the ships of Belcher's fleet except one were abandoned. One, the Resolute, drifted out into Davis Strait in 1855, was rescued, bought by the United States Government and presented to Queen Victoria.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1853-1854.
   Hudson Bay Company expedition by Dr. Rae, to Repulse Bay and
   Pelly Bay, on the Gulf of Boothia, where Dr. Rae found Eskimos
   in possession of articles which had belonged to Sir John
   Franklin, and his men, and was told that in the winter of 1850
   they saw white men near King William's Land, traveling
   southward, dragging sledges and a boat, and, afterwards saw
   dead bodies and graves on the mainland.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1853-1855.
   Grinnell expedition, under Dr. Kane, proceeding straight
   northward through Baffin Bay, Smith Sound and Kennedy Channel,
   nearly to the 79th degree of latitude, where the vessel was
   locked in ice and remained fast until abandoned in the spring
   of 1855, the party escaping to Greenland and being rescued by
   an expedition under Lieutenant Hartstein which the American
   Government had sent to their relief.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1855.
   Cruise of the U. S. ship Vincennes, Lieutenant John Rodgers
   commanding, in the Arctic Sea, via Behring Strait to Wrangel
   Land.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1855.
   Expedition of Mr. Anderson, of the Hudson Bay Company, down
   the Great Fish River to Point Ogle at its mouth, seeking
   traces of the party of Sir John Franklin.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1857-1859. Search expedition sent out by Lady Franklin, under Captain McClintock, which became ice-bound in Melville Bay, August, 1857, and drifted helplessly for eight months, over 1,200 miles; escaped from the ice in April, 1858; refitted in Greenland and returned into Prince Regent Inlet, whence Captain McClintock searched the neighboring regions by sledge journeys, discovering, at last, In King William's Land, not only remains but records of the lost explorers, learning that they were caught in the ice somewhere in or about Peel Sound, September, 1846; that Sir John Franklin died on the 11th of the following June; that the ships were deserted on the 22d of April, 1848, on the northwest coast of King William's Land, and that the survivors, 105 in number, set out for Back or Great Fish River. They perished probably one by one on the way.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1860-1861.
   Expedition of Dr. Hayes to Smith Sound; wintering on the
   Greenland side at latitude 78° 17'; crossing the Sound with
   sledges and tracing Grinnell Land to about 82° 45'.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1860-1862. Expedition of Captain Hall on the whaling ship George Henry, and discovery of relics of Frobisher.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1864-1869. Residence of Captain Hall among the Eskimos on the north side of Hudson Strait and search for further relics of the Franklin expedition.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1867.
Tracing of the southern coast of Wrangel Land by Captains Long
and Raynor, of the whaling ships Nile and Reindeer.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1867.
Transfer of the territory, privileges and rights of the Hudson
Bay Company to the Dominion of Canada.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1868.
   Swedish Polar expedition, directed by Professor Nordenskiöld,
   attaining latitude 81° 42', on the 18th meridian of east
   longitude.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1869-1870. German Polar expedition, under Captain Koldewey, one vessel of which was crushed, the crew escaping to an ice floe and drifting 1,100 miles, reaching finally a Danish settlement on the Greenland coast, while the other explored the east coast of Greenland to latitude 77°.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1871-1872.
   Voyage of the steamer Polaris, fitted out by the U. S.
   Government, under Captain Hall; passing from Baffin Bay,
   through Smith Sound and Kennedy Channel, into what Kane and
   Hayes had supposed to be open sea, but which proved to be the
   widening of a strait, called Robeson Strait by Captain Hall,
   thus going beyond the most northerly point that had previously
   been reached in Arctic exploration. Wintering in latitude 81°
   38' (where Captain Hall died), the Polaris was turned homeward
   the following August. During a storm, when the ship was
   threatened with destruction by the ice, seventeen of her crew
   and party were left helplessly on a floe, which drifted with
   them for 1,500 miles, until they were rescued by a passing
   vessel. Those on the Polaris fared little better. Forced to
   run their sinking ship ashore, they wintered in huts and made
   their way south in the spring, until they met whale-ships
   which took them on board.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1872-1874. Austro-Hungarian expedition, under Captain Weyprecht and Lieutenant Payer, seeking the northeast passage, with the result of discovering and naming Franz Josef Land, Crown Prince Rudolf Land and Petermann Land, the latter (seen, not visited) estimated to be beyond latitude 83°. The explorers were obliged to abandon their ice-locked steamer, and make their way by sledges and boats to Nova Zembla, where they were picked up.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1875.
   Voyage of Captain Young, attempting to navigate the northwest
   passage through Lancaster Sound, Barrow Strait and Peel
   Strait, but being turned back by ice in the latter.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1875-1876.
   English expedition under Captain Nares, in the Alert, and the
   Discovery, attaining by ship the high latitude of 82° 27', in
   Smith Sound, and advancing by sledges to 83° 20' 26", while
   exploring the northern shore of Grinnell Land and the
   northwest coast of Greenland.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1876-1878.
   Norwegian North-Atlantic expedition, for a scientific
   exploration of the sea between Norway, the Faroe Islands,
   Iceland, Jan Mayen, and Spitzbergen.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1878.
   Discovery of the island named "Einsamkeit," in latitude 77°
   40' North and longitude 860 East, by Captain Johannesen, of
   the Norwegian schooner Nordland.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1878-1879. Final achievement of the long-sought, often attempted northeast passage, from the Atlantic to the Pacific ocean, by the Swedish geographer and explorer, Baron Nordenskiöld, on the steamer Vega, which made the voyage from Gothenburg to Yokohama, Japan, through the Arctic Sea, coasting the Russian and Siberian shores.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1878-1883.
Six annual expeditions to the Arctic Seas of the ship Willem
Barentz, sent out by the Dutch Arctic Committee.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1879.
   Cruise of Sir Henry Gore-Booth and Captain Markham, R. N., in
   the cutter Isbjorn to Nova Zembla and in Barentz Sea and the
   Kara Sea.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1879-1880.
   Journey of Lieutenant Schwatka from Hudson Bay to King William
   Island, and exploration of the western and southern shores of
   the latter, searching for the journals and logs of the
   Franklin expedition.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1879-1882.
   Polar voyage of the Jeannette, fitted out by the proprietor of
   the New York Herald and commanded by Commander De Long, United
   States Navy. The course taken by the Jeannette was through
   Behring Strait towards Wrangel Land, and then northerly, until
   she became ice-bound when she drifted helplessly for nearly
   two years, only to be crushed at last. The officers and crew
   escaped in three boats, one of which was lost in a storm; the
   occupants of the other two boats reached different mouths of
   the river Lena. One of these two boats, commanded by Engineer
   Melville, was fortunate enough to find a settlement and obtain
   speedy relief. The other, which contained commander De Long,
   landed in a region of desolation, and all but two of its
   occupants perished of starvation and cold.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1880-1882.
   First and second cruises of the United States Revenue Steamer
   Corwin in the Arctic Ocean, via Behring Strait, to Wrangel
   Land seeking information concerning the Jeannette and
   searching for two missing whaling ships.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1880-1882. Two voyages of Mr. Leigh Smith to Franz Josef Land, in his yacht Eira, in the first of which a considerable exploration of the southern coast was made, while the second resulted in the loss of the ship and a perilous escape of the party in boats to Nova Zembla, where they were rescued.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1881.
   Expedition of the steamer Rodgers to search for the missing
   explorers of the Jeannette; entering the Arctic Sea through
   Behring Strait, but abruptly stopped by the burning of the
   Rodgers, on the 30th of November, in St. Lawrence Bay.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1881.
   Cruise of the United States Alliance, Commander Wadleigh, via
   Spitzbergen, to 79° 3' 36" north latitude, searching for the
   Jeannette.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1881-1884. International undertaking of expeditions to establish Arctic stations for simultaneous meteorological and magnetic observations: by the United States at Smith Sound and Point Barrow; by Great Britain at Fort Rae; by Russia at the mouth of the Lena and in Nova Zembla; by Denmark at Godhaab, in Greenland; by Holland at Dickson's Haven, near the mouth of the Yenisei; by Germany in Cumberland Sound, Davis Strait; by Austro-Hungary on Jan Mayen Island; by Sweden at Mussel Bay in Spitzbergen. The United States expedition to Smith Sound, under Lieutenant Greeley, established its station on Discovery Bay. Exploring parties sent out attained the highest latitude ever reached, namely 83° 24'. After remaining two winters and failing to receive expected supplies, which had been intercepted by the ice, Greeley and his men, twenty-five in number, started southward, and all but seven perished on the way. The survivors were rescued, in the last stages of starvation, by a vessel sent to their relief under Captain Schley, United States Navy.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1882-1883. Danish Arctic expedition of the Dijmphna, under Lieutenant Hovgaard; finding the Varna of the Dutch Meteorological Expedition beset in the ice at 69° 42' North latitude and 64° 45' East longitude; both vessels becoming frozen in together and drifting for nearly twelve months, being carried to 71° North; the Dijmphna taking the crew of the Varna, which succumbed to the ice pressure and went down; the Danish ship finally being liberated, August 1, 1893, and regaining Vardo, Norway, in October of that year.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1883.
Expedition of Lieutenant Ray, United States Navy, from Point
Barrow, on the Arctic Ocean, to Meade River.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1883.
   Expedition of Baron Nordenskiöld to Greenland, making
   important explorations in the interior, but failing to find
   the temperate central valleys which the Baron's theoretical
   studies had led him to expect.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1883-1885.
   East Greenland expedition of Captain Holm and Lieutenant
   Garde, surveying and mapping the coast from 59° 49' to 68° 45'
   North latitude, and studying its geology, meteorology and
   natural history.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1884.
Second cruise of the U. S. Revenue Marine Steamer Corwin in
the Arctic Ocean.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1886.
   Reconnoissance of the Greenland inland ice by Civil Engineer
   R. E. Peary, United States Navy, "to gain a practical
   knowledge of the obstacles and ice conditions of the
   interior," and "to put to the test of actual use certain
   methods and details of equipment."

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1888.
   Journey of Dr. Nansen across South Greenland, from the
   icebound eastern coasts to the Danish settlements on the
   western.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1890.
Swedish expedition to Spitzbergen, under G. Nordenskiöld and
Baron Klinkowström.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1890.
Danish scientific explorations in North and South Greenland.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1890.
   Russian exploration of the Malo-Zemelskaya, or Timanskaya
   tundra, in the far north of European Russia, on the Arctic
   Ocean.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1891-1892. Expedition of Lieutenant Peary, United States Navy, with a party of seven persons, including Mrs. Peary, establishing headquarters on McCormick Bay, on the north side of Murchison Sound, north west Greenland; thence making sledge journeys to the northeastern coast of Greenland, at Independence Bay and northward from it to latitude 82°, and following the coast southward to Cape Bismarck. The surveys of Lieutenant Peary have gone far toward proving Greenland to be an island.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1891-1892. Danish East Greenland expedition of Lieutenant Ryder, wintering on Denmark Island in Scoresby's Sound, from which boat journeys were made and the interior ramifications of the Sound surveyed and mapped.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1891-1893.
Expeditions of Dr. Drygalski to Greenland for the study of the
movement of the great glaciers.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1892.
   Swedish expedition of Bjorling and Kallstenius, the last
   records of which were found on one of the Cary Islands, in
   Baffin Bay, in the autumn of 1892.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1892.
French expedition under M. Ribot to explore the islands of
Spitzbergen and Jan Mayen.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1893.
   Expedition of Dr. Nansen, who sailed June 24, in the Fram from
   Christiania, for the New Siberian Islands, thence aiming to
   enter a current which flows, in Dr. Nansen's belief, across
   the Arctic region to Greenland, touching the North Pole, or
   nearly, in its course.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1893.
Russian expedition, under Baron Toll, to the New Siberian
Islands and the Siberian Arctic coasts.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1893.
Danish expedition to Greenland, under Lieutenant Garde, for a
geographical survey of the coast and study of the inland ice.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1893-1894. Expedition of Lieutenant Peary and party (Mrs. Peary again of the number), landing in Bowdoin Bay, Inglefield Gulf, north of McCormick Harbor, in August, 1893; attempting in the following March a sledge journey with dogs to Independence Bay, but compelled to turn back when no more than a quarter of the distance had been traversed. An auxiliary expedition brought back most of the party to Philadelphia in September, 1894; but Lieutenant Peary with two men remained in Greenland to continue explorations.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1893-1894. Scientific journey of Mr. Frank Russell, under the auspices of the State University of Iowa, from Lake Winnipeg to the mouth of Mackenzie River and to Herschel Island.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1894.
   Expedition of Mr. Walter Wellman, an American journalist,
   purposing to reach Spitzbergen via Norway, and to advance
   thence towards the Pole, with aluminum boats, weighing only
   400 pounds each, and provided with runners for use on the ice.
   The party left Tromsoë May 1, but were arrested before the end
   of the month by the crushing of their vessel in the ice at
   Walden. They were picked up and brought back to Norway.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1894.
   Departure of what is known as the Jackson-Harmsworth North
   Polar Expedition, which sailed from Greenhithe, in England,
   July 11, under the command of Mr. F. G. Jackson, Mr.
   Harmsworth equipping the expedition at his personal cost. Its
   plan is to make Franz Josef Land a base of operations from
   which to advance carefully and persistently towards the Pole.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1895.
   Preparations of Herr Julius von Payer, the explorer of Franz
   Josef Land, for an artistic and scientific expedition to the
   east coast of Greenland, in which he will be accompanied by
   landscape and animal painters, photographers, and savants.

ARYAN NATIONS OF EUROPE.

ASSIGNATS OF THE FRENCH REVOLUTION.

ASSYRIAN LIBRARIES.

ASSYRIAN MONEY AND BANKING.

ATTAINDER. BILL OF ATTAINDER.

"An attainder ('attinctura') is a degradation or public dishonouring, which draws after it corruption of blood. It is the consequence of any condemnation to death, and induces the disherison of the heirs of the condemned person, which can only be removed by means of parliament. A bill of attainder, or of pains and penalties, inflicts the consequences of a penal sentence on any state criminal. … By the instrumentality of such bill the penalties of high treason are generally imposed. Penalties may, however, be imposed at pleasure, either in accordance with, or in contravention of, the common law. No other court of law can protect a person condemned in such manner. The first bill of the kind occurred under Edward IV., when the commons had to confirm the statute condemning Clarence to death. This convenient method of getting rid of disagreeable opponents was in high favour during the reign of Henry VIII. The bills of pains and penalties were hurried through the parliament, and the parties accused were not even put upon their trial. Thus were the illustrious Sir Thomas More and Bishop Fisher, for misprision of treason, without regular trial, without examination of witnesses, or hearing the accused in their self-defence, legally consigned to the scaffold. Anne Boleyn was formally tried for high treason by the house of peers; but the head of Catharine Howard was disposed of by a simple bill of attainder. This was the first case in which the offence charged was created by the very bill against which the pretended criminal was held to have offended. Under Philip and Mary the benefit of clergy was, by means of a bill, withheld from a certain Rufford. What had been an instrument of kingly despotism, under Tudor sway, was converted, under the Stuarts, into a parliamentary engine against the crown. The points of indictment against Strafford were so weak that the lords were for acquitting him. Thereupon, Sir Arthur Haselrig introduced a bill of attainder in the commons. The staunch friends of freedom, such as Pym and Hampden, did not support this measure; but yet it passed through the commons with only 59 dissentient voices. After the 35 peers opposed to the trial of Strafford had withdrawn, the terror-stricken lords accepted the bill by 26 against 19 votes. … This parliamentary administration of justice has by no means been relinquished. A bill of attainder may refer simply to a concrete case, and contrive penalties for acts which are not specially punishable by statute, whereas an impeachment applies to some violation of recognized legal principles, and is a solemn indictment preferred by the commons to the house of lords."

"By the 33 & 34 Vict. c. 23, forfeiture and attainder for treason or felony have been abolished."

T. P. Taswell-Langmead, English Constitutional History, chapter 10 (2d edition, page 393), foot-note.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1273-1349.
The House of Hapsburgh in the earlier period of its fortunes.

"It was just now [1273] that the German monarchy received once more a real king [in the person of Rudolph of Hapsburgh]. It is evident that Ottocar's remarkable rise into power was due essentially to the previous excessive weakness of German kingship. He had acquired Austria and Styria by doubtful right according to German notions, Carinthia and Carniola without any acquiescence at all on the part of the empire. … In the election of Rudolph he was not willing to take part and afterwards he refused him recognition. No wonder that from the very beginning the German princes felt the necessity of driving him from his usurped position. … For the German cause it was the greatest gain that through Ottocar's fall (1278) room was won on the Middle Danube for a national rule: the House of Austria was enabled there to found that power which played so great a part in the world's history. The victory on the marchfeld was a victory of the renewed imperial might over a recalcitrant vassal whose power had extended the due measure of that of a prince of the realm. Looked at in this light the fall of Ottocar reminds one of the fall of Henry the Lion a hundred years before; the gain for Rudolph, however, was still greater and more essential than it had been at that former time for Frederick I. His position was for the first time now actually assured; for if the battle had resulted unfavorably it is doubtful if he could have continued to command obedience. Besides this the possibility presented itself now of using the position of ruler, conferred on him personally, to the lasting advantage of his house; at the same time he could only go to work in the matter very slowly and cautiously. … At his departure from these parts in 1281 he conferred the regency in Austria proper and in the other lands to his own son Albrecht. The latter appears already as a matured man with a certain talent for ruling. He overthrew all those who opposed them but, having done this, he bore no malice and cherished no hostility. No one could be in doubt but that for Albrecht, and for his house altogether, the king thought to found there a separate territorial principality. To begin with, the fiefs which the dukes of Austria had held of the neighboring bishoprics, especially the Bavarian ones, were conferred by Rudolph on his sons, other privileges in compensation being granted to the bishoprics. The consent of the electors, according to the new order of things, was necessary in such a case, and the king next sought to gain them over. … On December 27, 1282, he invested his sons Albrecht and Rudolph in common with Austria, Styria, Carniola and the Windischmark. … {3686} At the request of the Estates of those lands, who wished neither a joint rule nor a separation from each other, Rudolph in 1283 invested his son Albrecht alone with those four provinces. To the younger Rudolph the promise of another appanage or at least of a compensation was held out—a fatal matter! For the son of this Rudolph was John the Parricide. It was an event of the greatest import that in these south-eastern marks of the empire the Babenbergers were replaced by the Hapsburghs. The latter now, in consequence of their all-decisive victory, turned their attention at the same time to Bohemia and Hungary. Although neither in the one land nor the other did they now actually attain their goal, yet their efforts in this direction deserve our close attention as being the first tokens of a policy that was most strongly to affect the world's history. … One sees, even in these unsuccessful attempts, the bold dynastic ambition of King Rudolph; the kingdom of Arles, also, he had had in view for one of his sons. The acquisition of Austria alone, indeed, marks an epoch in itself; all the more so as only through this did he gain the prestige which he needed to enable him to do justice to his task as king of Germany. If this task be regarded as having consisted chiefly in restoring and maintaining the public peace after thirty years of utter confusion, then, indeed, he showed himself completely equal to it. … In short, through valor and steadfastness he strongly, in internal matters, upheld the power of the empire. Rebellions, indeed, were not wanting; now the archbishop of Cologne, now the duke of Savoy revolted; now Bern or Colmar, now the counts in Suabia and Burgundy. He overcame and humbled them all. … He was a very tall, thin man, pale of countenance and with very little hair on his small head; in all things moderate and of a genial nature as was shown by his offering to become the guest of artisans and by his darning his own doublet. … When giving Austria to his son Albrecht who was to try and establish here a dynastic power (Hausmacht), Rudolph had really intended to give the German crown to his younger son, Rudolph, and he might have put this through had not this son died before himself. In May 1291 the king then held a diet at Frankfort for the purpose of inducing the electors now to give their vote to his son Albrecht. This he was unable to bring about and with his hopes unrealized he died on the 15th of July 1291. … After long preliminary negotiations between the separate electors … the election took place on May 5th, 1292. Albrecht had not yet abandoned hope and had appeared in the vicinity. … The electors laid down the principle that it was not right for the son to directly follow the father on the throne of the empire. … They chose again a simple count, Adolphus of Nassau. … The less Adolphus fulfilled the expectations of his electors … the more did he lose his authority. … In short it appears that Adolphus's whole attitude, his league with England, his conception of the rights of the empire, the way he insulted ecclesiastical and secular princes, his policy with regard to the majority of the cities, caused a general ferment. … It was at a great assembly of princes in Prague, where Mainz, Bohemia, Brandenburg and Saxony met together that Albrecht's influence began to gain the upper hand. Albrecht promised, in case he should become king, to give to King Wenzel the conquests made by Adolphus in Meissen. Albrecht and all his friends then girded themselves up to conquer the empire. In April 1298 we find him in Alsace opposing Adolphus who, however, still had the upper hand. The archbishop of Mainz then summoned the electors to Mainz for June 15 to consult about the disturbances in the empire. … They determined now to depose the king whom they had elected. This was done in the Thiergarten near Mainz on June 23, 1298. … The battle for the possession of the empire took place on July 2nd at Göllheim, where a stone cross still marks the spot. … The kings wore the same coat-of-arms—yellow with a black eagle—and bore the same banner. According to one account, for which Albert of Strassburg is voucher, they came into hand to hand conflict with each other. Adolphus cried out: 'Here you will relinquish the Empire!' Albrecht answered 'The decision lies in the hand of God.' The one-eyed Albrecht struck the surer blow, hitting his antagonist directly over the eye. The blood ran down Adolphus s face; he fell and died. Albrecht would never acknowledge that he had been the slayer of the Lord's anointed. Be that as it may he won the crown for himself on the battle-field. … Albrecht is altogether a striking figure in German history. Everywhere, in the lowest plains of Switzerland or in the highest mountains of Switzerland he is busy in founding his dynastic power. Under him the House of Austria made a vigorous beginning in the matter of establishing a great and extensive authority in all parts of the empire. … It was fatal for him that the harsh want of consideration which forms the chief feature of his sway as a statesman should have raised up a murderer against him in his own immediate vicinity—in the person of his own nephew."

L. Ranke, Weltgeschichte (translated from the German), volume 8, pages 566-601.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1648-1715.
Relations with Germany and France.
See (in this Supplement) GERMANY: A. D. 1648-1715.

"The prince who best sums up the spirit of the century, is not Frederic [the Great, of Prussia), it is Joseph II. [the emperor]. Frederic was born a master, Joseph II. a disciple, and it is by disciples that we judge schools. The king of Prussia dammed up the waters, directed their flow, made use of the current: the emperor cast himself upon them and permitted himself to be carried. With Frederic the statesman always dominates, it is he who proposes and finally decides; the philosopher is subordinate: he furnishes to the results brought about by policy their abstract cause for existence and their theoretical justification. With Joseph II. rational conception precedes political calculation and governs it. He had breadth of mind, but his mind was superficial; ideas slipped from it. He had a taste for generosity, a passion for grandeur; but there was nothing profound in him but ambition, and it was all counter-stroke and reflection. He wished to surpass Frederic; his entire conduct was but an awkward, imprudent and ill-advised imitation of this prince whom he had made his hero, whom history made his rival and whom he copied while detesting him. {3687} The political genius of Frederic was born of good sense and moderation: there was nothing in Joseph II. but the immoderate. He was a man of systems: he had only great velleities. His education was mediocre, and, as to methods, entirely jesuitical. Into this contracted mould he cast confusedly notions hastily borrowed from the philosophers of France, from the economists especially. He thus formed a very vague ideal of political aspirations and an exaggerated sense of the power at his disposition to realize them. 'Since I ascended the throne and have worn the first crown of the world,' wrote he in 1781, 'I have made Philosophy the lawmaker of my empire. Her logical applications are going to transform Austria.' He undertakes reforms in every direction at once. History is null for him, traditions do not count, nor do facts acquired. There is no race, nor period, nor surrounding circumstances: there is the State which is everything and can do everything. He writes in 1782, to the bishop of Strasbourg: 'In a kingdom governed conformably to my principles, prejudice, fanaticism, bondage of mind must disappear, and each of my subjects must be reinstated in the possession of his natural rights.' He must have unity, and, as a first condition, the rejection of all previous ideas. Chance makes him operate on a soil the most heterogeneous, the most incoherent, the most cut up, parceled out and traversed by barriers, that there is in Europe. Nothing in common among his subjects, neither language, nor traditions, nor interests. It is from this, according to him, that the defect of monarchy arises. 'The German language is the universal language of my empire. I am the emperor of Germany, the states which I possess are provinces which form but one body with the State of which I am the head. If the kingdom of Hungary were the most important of my possessions, I should not hesitate to impose its tongue on the other countries.' So he imposes the German language on the Hungarians, the Croats, the Tchèques, the Poles, on all the Slavs. He suppresses the ancient territorial divisions; they recall the successive agglomerations, the irregular alluvions which had formed the monarchy; he establishes thirteen governments and divides them into circles. The diets disappear; the government passes into the hands of intendants according to the French formula. In the cities the burgomaster appointed by the government becomes a functionary. The nobles lose the part, already much curtailed, that they still had, here and there, in the government. He taxes them, he taxes the ecclesiastics; he meditates establishing a tax proportional to incomes and reaching all classes. He protects the peasants, alleviates serfdom, diminishes the corvées, builds hospitals, schools above all, in which the state will form pupils to obey her. His ideal would be the equality of his subjects under the uniform sway of his government. He unifies the laws; he institutes courts of appeal with a supreme court for the entire empire. He makes regulations for manufactures, binds commerce to the most rigorous protective system. Finally he puts a high hand on the church and decrees tolerance. … This immense revolution was accomplished by means of decrees, in less than five years. If we compare the state of cohesion which the Bourbon government had brought about in France in 1789, with the incoherence of the Austrian monarchy on the death of Maria Theresa in 1780, it will be seen that the revolution which caused the Constituent Assembly was a small matter compared with that which Joseph II. intended to effect."

A. Sorel, L'Europe et la Rêvolution française (translated from the French), part 1, pages 119-122.

AUSTRIAN SCHOOLS.

AVICENNA AND ARABIAN MEDICAL SCIENCE.

The word Bâb, "meaning, in Arabic, 'a gate,' is the title of a hero of our own days, the founder, if not of a new religion, at least of a new phase of religious belief. His history, with that of his first followers, as told by M. le Comte de Gobineau in his 'Religions et Philosophies dans l'Asie Centrale,' presents a picture of steadfast adherence to truth (as they held it), of self-denial, of joyful constancy in the face of bitterest suffering, torture and death, as vivid and touching as any that are found in the records of the heroic days of old. … Among the crowd of pilgrims who flocked to Mecca in the summer of 1843 was a youth who had then hardly completed his nineteenth year. He had come from the far distant city of Shiraz, where his family held an honourable position, claiming, indeed, to trace their descent from the great Prophet himself. Thoughtful and devout from his childhood, Mirza Ali Mohammed had zealously and regularly practised all religious duties considered binding on an orthodox Mussulman. He had received a liberal education, and while still a mere boy had eagerly examined and weighed every new set of ideas with which he came in contact. Christians, Jews, Fire-worshippers—he conversed with them all, and studied their books. … Up to the time of his visiting the shrine of the Prophet there had been no indication of any departure from the faith of his fathers. But this pilgrimage, instead of confirming his faith in Islam, had a quite contrary effect. While still in the holy city, and still more on the return journey, he had begun to confide to a select few views which attracted and delighted them, not more, perhaps, by their breadth and freedom than by the vague mystery in which they were still wrapped. His decisive breach with the old faith was not far distant. … Arrived at Shiraz, his first overt act was to present to his friends his earliest written works. These were two: a journal of his pilgrimage and a commentary on a part of the Korân. In the latter the readers were amazed and charmed to find meanings and teachings of which they had never dreamed before. From this time he began to teach more publicly; and day by day larger crowds flocked around him. {3688} In public he still spoke with reverence of the Prophet and his laws; while in more private conferences he imparted to his disciples those new ideas which were, perhaps, not yet very clearly defined in his own mind. Very soon he had gathered round him a little band of devoted followers, ardently attached to himself, and ready to sacrifice wealth, life, all, in the cause of truth. And throughout the great empire men began everywhere to hear of the fame of Mirza Ali Mohammed. There was much in the young teacher himself, apart from the subject of his teaching, to account for this rapid success. Of blameless life; simple in his habits; strict and regular in all pious observances, he had already a weight of character to which his extreme youth added a tenfold interest. But in addition to these things, he was gifted with striking beauty of person, and with that subtle, winning sweetness of manner so often possessed by leaders of men, and to which, more than to the most weighty arguments, they have often owed their power. … Ere long, Mirza assumed the title by which he has since been known throughout Persia—the Bâb—that is, the Door, the only one through which men can reach the knowledge of God. It may be well to give here an outline of what the Bâb did teach. He believed in one God, eternal, unchangeable, Creator of all things, and into whom all shall finally be reabsorbed. He taught that God reveals His will to men by a series of messengers, who, while truly men, are not mere men, but also divine; that each of these messengers—Moses, Jesus, Mohammed—is the medium of some new truth, higher than that brought by the one who preceded him; that he himself, the Bâb, though claiming divine honours while he lived, was but the forerunner of one greater than he, the great Revealer—'He whom God shall manifest, who should complete the revelation of all truth, and preside at the final judgment, at which all the good shall be made one with God, and all evil annihilated. One of the most marked and singular characteristics of his system is the prominence given in it to that mysterious and fanciful theory of numbers which had always had so great a charm for him. Taking various forms of the name of God—'ahyy,' meaning 'the giver of life'; 'wahed,' 'the only One'; or that which is a most sacred formula, 'Bismillah elemna elegdous,' 'in the name of God, highest and holiest'—he shows that the letters composing each of those names, taken by their numerical value, make up the number 19. This he therefore concludes is the number which lies at the foundation of all things in heaven and earth, the harmony of the universe, the number which must rule in all earthly arrangements. The year should have 19 months, the month 19 days, the day 19 hours. … There are three points in particular in which the reforms proposed by the Bâb cannot fail, so far as they gain ground, to have a mighty effect on society. In the first place, he abolished polygamy; that is, he so strongly discountenanced it that his followers universally regard it as a prohibition. In close connection—almost as a necessary accompaniment of this—he forbade divorce; that festering sore which corrupts the mass of Persian society to its very heart, and makes pure family life almost impossible. His third revolutionary step was in the same direction. He abolished the veiling of the women. … While the fame and popularity of the young preacher were daily increasing, his bold exposure of the vices of the clergy aroused against him their bitterest enmity." This hostility soon became influential enough to prevail on the king and his ministers to silence the Bâb. Mirza was placed under confinement in his own house; but a chosen band of apostles went forth to do missionary work throughout the empire, and their success was great. Ere long, they began to combine political with religious aims, and one of them, Moulla Houssein, organized a movement which assumed a revolutionary character and spread to formidable proportions. The government became greatly alarmed, and an energetic minister took measures to suppress the Bâbys, which was done with merciless vigor. The Bâb, himself, though he had taken no part in the political doings of his disciples, and had remained a quiet prisoner on parole at Shiraz, was put to death, after being brutally exposed for several hours to the insults of a mob. This was in 1851. The following year witnessed the martyrdom of a large number of the surviving Bâbys of prominence, all of whom died for their faith without shrinking—as exalted in spirit, it would seem, as the early Christian martyrs. But Bâbism was not extinguished. It is said to have spread secretly and continually throughout Persia, and to be of unknown extent at the present day."

BALOCHISTAN, BALUCHISTAN.

"Balochistan, in the modern acceptation of the term, may be said, in a general sense, to include all that tract of country which has for its northern and north-eastern boundary the large kingdom of Afghanistan, its eastern frontier being limited by the British province of Sindh, and its western by the Persian State, while the Arabian Sea washes its southern base for a distance of nearly six hundred miles. … In area Balochistan had long been supposed to cover in its entirety quite 160,000 square miles, but the latest estimates do not raise it higher than 140,000 square miles, of which 60,000 are said to belong to what is termed Persian Balochistan, and the remaining 80,000 to Kalāti Balochistan, or that portion which is more or less directly under the rule of the Brāhui Khān of Kalāt. … {3689} Balochistan may be said to be inhabited chiefly by the Baloch tribe, the most numerous in the country, and this name was given to the tract they occupy by the great Persian monarch, Nadir Shah, who, as St. John remarks, after driving the Afghan invaders from Persia, made himself master in his turn of the whole country west of the Indus, and placed a native chief over the new province, formed out of the districts bounded on the north and south by the Halmand valley and the sea, and stretching from Karmān on the west to Sindh on the east. This newly formed province he called Balochistan, or, the country of the Baloch, from the name of the most widely spread and numerous, though not the dominant, tribe. According to Masson, who, it must be admitted, had more ample opportunities of obtaining correct information on this subject than any other European, the Balochis are divided into three great classes, viz., (1) the Brahuis; (2) the Rinds; and (3) the Lumris (or Numris); but this must be taken more in the sense of inhabitants of Balochistan than as divisions of a tribe, since the Brahuis are of a different race and language and call the true Balochis 'Nhāruis,' in contradistinction to themselves as 'Brahuis.' … The origin of the word 'Baloch' is evidently involved in some obscurity, and has given rise to many different interpretations. Professor Rawlinson supposes it to be derived from Belūs, king of Babylon, the Nimrod of Holy Writ, and that from 'Kush,' the father of Nimrod, comes the name of the Kalāti eastern district, 'Kachh.' Pottinger believes the Balochis to be of Turkoman lineage, and this from a similarity in their institutions, habits, religion—in short, in everything but their language, for which latter anomaly, however, he has an explanation to offer. But be this as it may, the very tribe themselves ascribe their origin to the earliest Muhammadan invaders of Persia, and are extremely desirous of being supposed to be of Arab extraction. They reject with scorn all idea of being of the same stock as the Afghan. They may possibly be of Iranian descent, and the affinity of their language, the Balochki, to the Persian, bears out this supposition; but the proper derivation of the word 'Baloch' still remains an open question. … The Brahuis, who, as a race, are very numerous in Balochistan, Pottinger considers to be a nation of Tartar mountaineers, who settled at a very early period in the southern parts of Asia, where they led an ambulatory life in Khels, or societies, headed and governed by their own chiefs and laws for many centuries, till at length they became incorporated and attained their present footing at Kalāt and throughout Balochistan generally. Masson supposes that the word 'Brahui' is a corruption of Ba-roh-i, meaning, literally, of the waste; and that that race entered Balochistan originally from the west. … The country may be considered as divided into two portions—the one, Kalāti Balochistan, or that either really or nominally under the rule of the Khān of Kalāt; and the other as Persian Balochistan, or that part which is more or less directly under the domination of the Shah of Persia. Of the government of this latter territory, it will suffice to say that it is at present administered by the Governor of Bam-Narmashir, a deputy of the Kermān Governor; but the only district that is directly under Persian rule is that of Banpur—the rest of the country, says St. John, is left in charge of the native chiefs, who, in their turn, interfere but little with the heads of villages and tribes. … It would … appear that the supremacy of the Shah over a very large portion of the immense area (60,000 square miles) known as Persian Balochistan is more nominal than real, and that the greater number of the chiefs only pay revenue to their suzerain when compelled to do so. As regards Kalāti Balochistan, the government is, so to speak, vested hereditarily in the Brahui Khān of Kalāt, but his sovereignty in the remote portions of his extensive territory (80,000 square miles), though even in former times more nominal than real, is at the present moment still more so, owing to the almost constant altercations and quarrels which take place between the reigning Khān and his Sardārs, or chiefs. … In … the modern history of Kalāti Balochistan under the present dynasty, extending from about the commencement of the 18th century, when Abdula Khān was ruler, down to the present time, a period of, say, nearly 180 years, there is not much to call for remark. Undoubtedly the Augustan age of Balochistan was the reign of the first Nasir Khān [1755-1795], the Great Nasir, as he is to this day called by the Balochis. Of his predecessors little seems to be known; they were indeed simply successful robbers on a large scale, with but few traces of any enlightened policy to gild over a long succession of deeds of lawlessness, rapine, and bloodshed. … Had his successors been of the same stamp and metal as himself, the Kalāti kingdom of to-day would not perhaps show that anarchy and confusion which are now its most striking characteristics."

BAPTISTS.

    The name 'Baptist' was not a self-chosen one. In the early
    Reformation time those who withdrew from the dominant
    churches because of the failure of these churches to
    discriminate between the church and the world, between the
    regenerate and the unregenerate, and who sought to organize
    churches of believers only, laid much stress on the lack of
    Scriptural warrant for the baptism of infants and on the
    incompatibility of infant baptism with regenerate membership.
    Following what they believed to be apostolic precept and
    example, they made baptism on a profession of faith a
    condition of church-fellowship. This rejection of infant
    baptism and this insistence on believers' baptism were so
    distinctive of these Christians that they were stigmatized as
    'Anabaptists,' 'Catabaptists,' and sometimes as simply
    'Baptists'; that is to say, they were declared to be
    'rebaptizers,' 'perverters of baptism,' or, as unduly
    magnifying baptism and making it the occasion of schism,
    simply 'baptizers.' These party names they earnestly
    repudiated, preferring to call themselves Brethren,
    Christians, Disciples of Christ, Believers, etc. …
{3690}
    Baptists have, for the most part, been at one with the Roman
    Catholic, the Greek Catholic, and most Protestant communions
    in accepting for substance the so-called Apostles', Nicene,
    and Athanasian creeds, not, however, because they are
    venerable or because of the decisions of ecclesiastical
    councils, but because, and only in so far as, they have
    appeared to them to be in accord with Scripture. … As regards
    the set of doctrines on which Augustin differed from his
    theological predecessors, and modern Calvinists from
    Arminians, Baptists have always been divided. … The great
    majority of the Baptists of today hold to what may be called
    moderate Calvinism, or Calvinism tempered with the
    evangelical anti-Augustinianism which came through the
    Moravian Brethren to Wesley and by him was brought powerfully
    to bear on all bodies of evangelical Christians. Baptists are
    at one with the great Congregational body and with most of
    the minor denominations as regards church government."

      A. H. Newman,
      A. History of the Baptist Churches in the United States,
      introduction.

"Baptist principles are discoverable in New England from the very earliest colonial settlements. The Puritans of Plymouth had mingled with the Dutch Baptists during the ten years of their sojourn in Holland, and some of them seem to have brought over Baptist tendencies even in the Mayflower. Dutch Baptists had emigrated to England and extended their principles there; and from time to time a persecuted Baptist in England sought refuge in America, and, planted here, brought forth fruit after his kind. But as every offshoot of these principles here was so speedily and vigorously beaten down by persecution, and especially as, after the banishment of Roger Williams, there was an asylum a few miles distant, just over Narraganset Bay, where every persecuted man could find liberty of conscience, Baptist principles made little progress in the New England colonies, except Rhode Island, for the first hundred and twenty years. A little church of Welsh Baptists was founded in Rehoboth, near the Rhode Island line, in 1663, and shortly afterwards was compelled by civil force to remove to Swanzea, where, as it was distant from the centres of settlement, it was suffered to live without very much molestation. It still exists, the oldest Baptist church in the State. In 1665, the First Baptist Church in Boston was organized, and, alone, for almost a century, withstood the fire of persecution,—ever in the flames, yet never quite consumed. In 1693, a second church was constituted in Swanzea, not as a Regular, but as a Six-Principle, Baptist Church. In 1705, a Baptist church was formed in Groton, Connecticut. These four churches, three Regular and one Six-Principle, having in the aggregate probably less than two hundred members, were all the Baptist churches in New England outside of Rhode Island previous to the Great Awakening."

D. Weston. Early Baptists in Massachusetts (The Baptists and the National Centenary), pages 12-18.

"The representative Baptists of London and vicinity, who in 1689 put forth the Confession of Faith which was afterward adopted by the Philadelphia Association, and is therefore known in this country as the Philadelphia Confession, copied the Westminister Confession word for word, wherever their convictions would permit, and declared that they would thus show wherein they were at one with their brethren, and what convictions of truth made impossible a complete union. And wherever Baptists appeared however or by whomsoever they were opposed, the ground of complaint against them was their principles. Some of these principles were sharply antagonistic to those of existing churches, and also to those on which the civil governments were administered. They were widely disseminated, especially in Holland, England, and Wales, and there were separate churches formed. From purely doctrinal causes also came divisions among 'the Baptized churches' themselves. The most notable one was that in England between the General or Arminian Baptists, and the Particular or Calvinistic Baptists. With the latter division do the Regular Baptists of America hold lineal connection. … The churches of Philadelphia and vicinity kept the closest connection with the mother country, and were most affected by it. In New England, in 'the Great Reformation' under the lead of Jonathan Edwards, there was made from within the Congregational churches a most vigorous assault against their own 'half-way Covenant' in the interest of a pure church. Along his lines of thought he started multitudes who could not stop where he himself remained and would fain have detained them. They separated from the Congregational churches, and were hence called Separates. A large proportion of them became Baptists, and formed themselves into Baptist churches. Through the labors of earnest men who went from them to Carolina and Virginia, their principles were widely disseminated in those and the neighboring colonies, and, in consequence, many churches came into existence."

BARNARD COLLEGE.

[Transcriber's Note.] T. O'Conor Sloane The Standard Electrical Dictionary, www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/26535.

BIBLIOTHÈQUE NATIONALE.

BILL OF ATTAINDER.

BILLS OF EXCHANGE.

BIORKO.

BISMARCK'S POLICY AND SPEECHES.

BLACK FRIDAY.

"Just when or by whom the acts and proceedings of New Haven colony were first stigmatized as Blue Laws, cannot now be ascertained. The presumption, however, is strong that the name had its origin in New York, and that it gained currency in Connecticut, among episcopalian and other dissenters from the established church, between 1720 and 1750. … In the colony of New Haven, before the union with Connecticut, the privileges of voting and of holding civil office were, by the 'fundamental agreement,' restricted to church-members. This peculiarity of her constitution was enough to give color to the assertion that her legislation was, pre-eminently, blue. That her old record-book contained a code of 'blue laws' which were discreditable to puritanism and which testified to the danger of schism—became, among certain classes, an assured belief. To this imaginary code wit and malice made large additions, sometimes by pure invention, sometimes by borrowing absurd or arbitrary laws from the records of other colonies. And so the myth grew—till the last vestige of truth was lost in fable. The earliest mention of the 'New Haven Blue Laws' that I remember to have seen in print, is in a satirical pamphlet published in 1762, entitled; 'The Real Advantages which Ministers and People may enjoy, especially in the Colonies, by conforming to the Church of England,' etc. … From the manner in which this allusion is introduced it is evident that reproach of New Haven for her 'blue laws' was already a familiar weapon of religious controversy. A few years later—in 1767—William Smith, Chief-Justice of New York, had the curiosity to inspect 'the first records of the colony of New Haven, vulgarly called the Blue Laws.' In the continuation of his history of New York, he gives (p. 93) the result of his examination: 'A note ought not to be suppressed concerning these records, to correct a voice of misplaced ridicule. Few there are, who speak of the Blue Laws, … who do not imagine they form a code of rules for future conduct, drawn up by an enthusiastic, precise set of religionists; and if the inventions of wits, humorists, and buffoons were to be credited, they must consist of many volumes. The author had the curiosity to resort to them, when the Commissaries met at New Haven, for adjusting a partition line between New York and the Massachusetts in 1767; and a parchment-covered book of demi-royal paper was handed to him for the laws asked for, as the only volume in the office passing under this odd title. … It contains the memorials of the first establishment of the colony, which consisted of persons who had wandered beyond the limits of the old charter of the Massachusetts Bay, and who, as yet unauthorized by the crown to set up any civil government in due form of law, resolved to conduct themselves by the Bible. As a necessary consequence, the judges they chose took up an authority similar to that which every religious man exercises over his own children and domestics. Hence their attention to the morals of the people, in instances with which the civil magistrate can never intermeddle under a regular well-policied institution; because, to preserve liberty, they are cognizable only by parental authority. … So far is the common idea of the blue laws being a collection of rules from being true, that they are only records of convictions, consonant, in the judgment of the magistrates, to the word of God, and dictates of reason.' … Occasional allusions to the 'Blue Laws' are found in newspapers and pamphlets printed before the Revolution, but no specimens of the laws so stigmatised seem to have been published before 1781, when 'a sketch of some of them' was given to the world by the Rev. Samuel Peters, in 'A General History of Connecticut, from its First Settlement under George Fenwick, Esq.,' etc.: 'By a Gentleman of the Province:' printed in London, 'for the Author.' … As the sole authority for the only 'New Haven Blue Laws' that are now popularly known by the name, he and his book are entitled here to a larger notice. The late Professor J. L. Kingsley, in the notes to his Historical Discourse at New Haven (1838), was at the pains of pointing out 'a few errors'—as he charitably named them—of 'the work which, more than any other, has given currency to various misrepresentations respecting the New Haven colony:' and in this connection he quoted a remark made by the Rev. Dr. Trumbull, the historian, who was a townsman of Peters and had known him from childhood,—that, 'of all men with whom he had ever been acquainted, Dr. Peters, he had thought, from his first knowledge of him, the least to be depended upon as to any matter of fact, especially in story-telling.' The best excuse that can be made for him is, that he was a victim of pseudomania; that his abhorrence of truth was in fact a disease, and that he was not morally responsible for its outbreaks. He could not keep even his name clear of falsification. It passes into history with doubtful initials and fictitious titles. … In 1774, his obstinate and aggressive toryism rendered him very obnoxious to his neighbors and finally provoked the resentment of the Sons of Liberty. A party of two or three hundred men paid him a visit, threatened him (so he averred) with tar and feathers, handled him somewhat roughly when they detected him in falsehood, and drew from him a promise that he would not again meddle in public affairs. … He found his only comfort in the anticipation that, if his plans of vengeance should succeed, Connecticut might be blotted out: 'the bounds of New York may directly extend to Connecticut river, Boston meet them, New Hampshire take the Province of Maine, and Rhode Island be swallowed up as Dathan.' {3692} In October, 1774, he sailed for England, where he remained until 1805. He obtained a small pension from the crown, and some compensation for the property he professed to have lost in Connecticut: and it was perhaps in the hope of eking out a livelihood, as well as of gratifying his resentment, that he employed his pen in abuse of the colony which gave him birth, and the religion of his fathers. He did not, says Mr. Duykinck, 'carry his point of dismembering Connecticut, but he punished the natives almost as effectually by writing a book—his History of the State.'"

J. H. Trumbull, Introduction to "The True-Blue Laws of Connecticut and New Haven."

"In this 'History' were collected all the extravagant stories that had been set afloat during the previous fifty years to gratify the stupidity of those among the lower classes in New York who were descended from the Dutch, or the hatred of the most bitter of the British royalists. This 'History' is the first and the only 'authority' for the 'Blue Laws' which were attributed to the early New Haven colonists. … No person in America who knew anything about the history of his country ever seriously quoted Dr. Peters's 'History' as an authority on any subject whatever. The 'Comic History of England,' or the 'Travels of Baron Munchausen,' would be as little likely to be quoted in England for any serious purpose. And yet this falsehood about the 'Blue Laws,' which was thus first concocted for a purpose, has a vitality which, in some of its aspects, is amusing."

      W. L. Kingsley,
      Blackwood's Magazine on the "Blue Laws"
      (New Englander, April, 1871), pages 296-299.

BOSTON LATIN SCHOOL.

BOTHWELL, James Hepburn, Earl of, and Mary Stuart, Queen of Scots.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1561-1568 (page 2857).

BOWDOIN COLLEGE.

An act of the Legislature of the province of Maine, approved in 1794, incorporated the above-named institution. The management of the college was placed under a board of trustees, with full powers of control. … That the institution might not want for proper support, it was further enacted, 'That the clear rents, issues, and profits of all the estate, real and personal, of which the said corporation shall be seized or possessed, shall be appropriated to the endowment of the said college, in such manner as will most effectually promote virtue, piety, and the knowledge of such of the languages and the useful and liberal arts and sciences as shall hereafter be directed from time to time by said corporation.' Five townships of land, each six miles square, were granted to the college for Its endowment and vested in the trustees, provided that fifteen families be settled in each of the said townships within a period of twelve years, and provided further that three lots containing 320 acres each be reserved, one for the first settled minister, one for the use of the ministry, and one for the support of schools within the township where it is located. These townships were to be laid out and assigned from any of the unappropriated lands belonging to the commonwealth of the district of Maine. The first money endowment was instituted by a general law of Massachusetts, approved February 24, 1814, which reads as follows: 'Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court now assembled, That the tax which the president, directors and company of the Massachusetts Bank are and shall be liable to pay to the commonwealth, shall be and hereby is granted to and appropriated as follows, viz: ten-sixteenths parts thereof to the president and fellows of Harvard College; and three-sixteenths parts thereof to the president and trustees of Williams College; and three-sixteenths thereof to the president and trustees of Bowdoin College.'"

F. W. Blackmar, History of Federal and State Aid to Higher Education in the United States (Bureau of Education, Circular of Information, 1890, number 1), pages 123-124.

The college was named in honor of Governor James Bowdoin, of
Massachusetts, whose son made valuable gifts to it.

   "The civil war In Brazil resulted in the complete triumph of
   the Peixoto government in the spring. During November [1893]
   the insurgents held their own in the harbor of Rio Janeiro,
   and in the following month occupied a number of islands in the
   bay. On December 1 Admiral Mello, their leader, with two of
   his ships, ran past the government batteries and out to sea,
   leaving in command in the harbor Admiral da Gama, who up to
   that time had remained neutral. The latter shortly after
   issued a manifesto pointing to a restoration of the monarchy
   as the ultimate purpose of the rebels. This seems to have
   tended rather to weaken the insurgent cause, and a month later
   da Gama tried in another proclamation to explain away the
   interpretation that had been put upon the first. The
   government, meanwhile, confined itself to strengthening its
   positions in the city and along the shore so as to make any
   attempt to land unsuccessful. Desultory hostilities continued
   throughout December and January, incidentally to which the
   American commander on one occasion enforced respect for
   merchant vessels bearing his flag by firing on an insurgent
   vessel. On February 12 da Gama made his most elaborate attempt
   to gain a foothold on the main land at Armacao, but was repulsed
   with severe losses.
{3693}
   By this time the insurgent cause was clearly on the decline.
   On the first of March a presidential election was held, which
   resulted in the choice of Prudente Moraes, a civilian. This
   removed the leading grievance of the rebels, that Piexoto was
   perpetuating a regime of pure militarism. On the 11th of March
   the fleet which the government had been fitting out in the United
   States and Europe appeared at the entrance to the harbor of
   Rio, and Peixoto gave notice of an active movement against the
   rebels. Da Gama promptly offered to surrender on certain
   conditions, which being refused, he and his officers sought
   asylum on first a French and later a Portuguese war vessel.
   Thus deserted, the crews of the insurgent vessels surrendered
   without resistance when the government batteries opened fire
   on the 13th. Admiral Mello, meanwhile, had been operating with
   some success in connection with the insurgents on land in the
   southern states of Brazil. In the first part of April,
   however, the government forces totally defeated the rebels in
   Rio Grande do Sul, and Mello, about the middle of the month,
   surrendered himself and his command to the Uruguayan
   authorities, by whom they were disarmed."

BROOK FARM.

BROWN UNIVERSITY.

"Brown University, the oldest and best endowed institution of learning connected with the Baptist denomination, dates back for its origin to a period anterior to the American Revolution, when in all the thirteen colonies there were less than 70 Baptist churches, with perhaps 4,000 communicants. It is not surprising that, at the memorable meeting of the Philadelphia Association, held on the 12th of October, 1762, when the members were finally led to regard it, in the words of Backus, as 'practicable and expedient to erect a College in the Colony of Rhode Island, under the chief direction of the Baptists, in which education might be promoted and superior learning obtained, free from any sectarian tests,' the mover in the matter should at first have been laughed at, the thing being looked upon as, under the circumstances, an utter impossibility. But lenders at that time, like Morgan Edwards and Isaac Eaton, Samuel Jones, Abel Morgan, Benjamin Griffith, John Sutton and John Gano, were men of faith. … At the time of which I speak, there was graduated from Princeton, with the second honors of his class, a man of wonderful mental and physical endowments, an early pupil of Isaac Eaton at Hopewell, James Manning, of Elizabethtown, New Jersey. To him the enterprise of the college was by common consent intrusted. … The first commencement of the college, which was held in the then new Baptist meeting-house of the town of Warren, on the 7th of September, 1769, has already been regarded as a Red Letter Day in its history. Five years previous, the General Assembly, begun and holden by adjournment at East Greenwich, on the last Monday in February, 1764; after various difficulties and delays, in consequence of the determined opposition of those who were unfriendly to the movement, had granted a charter for a 'College or University in the English Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, in New England in America.' Such is the language of the act of incorporation. But though Rhode Island had been selected for its home by the original projectors of the institution, and a liberal and ample charter had thus been secured, the college itself was still in embryo. Without funds, without students, and with no present prospect of support, a beginning must be made where the president could be the pastor of a church, and thus obtain an adequate compensation for his services. Warren, then as now, a delightful and flourishing inland town, situated 10 miles from Providence, seemed to meet the requisite requirements and thither, accordingly, Manning removed with his family in the spring of 1764. He at once commenced a Latin School, as the first step preparatory to the work of college instruction. Before the close of the year a church was organized, over which he was duly installed as pastor. The following year, at the second annual meeting of the corporation, held in Newport, Wednesday, September 3d, he was formally elected, in the language of the records, 'President of the College, Professor of Languages and other branches of learning, with full power to act in these capacities at Warren or elsewhere.' On that same day, as appears from a paper now on file in the archives of the Library, the president matriculated his first student, William Rogers, a lad of fourteen, the son of Captain William Rogers, of Newport. Not only was this lad the first student of the college, but he was also the first freshman class. Indeed, for a period of nine months and seventeen days, as appears from the paper already referred to, he constituted the entire body of students. From such feeble beginnings has the university sprung."

      R. A. Guild,
      The First Commencement of Rhode Island College
      (Rhode Island Historical Society Collections, v. 7),
      pages 269-271.

   Six years after the founding of the University it was removed
   from Warren to Providence, and its name changed from Rhode
   Island College to Brown University, in honor of John Brown, of
   Providence, who was its most liberal benefactor.

Although founded by the Baptist Church, the charter of the University "expressly forbids the use of religious tests. The corporation is divided into two Boards—the Trustees, 36 in number, of whom 22 must be Baptists, 5 Quakers, 5 Episcopalians, and 4 Congregationalists, and the Fellows, 12 in number, of whom 8, including the President, must be Baptists, and the remainder of other denominations. Twelve Trustees and 5 Fellows form a quorum. The college estate, the students, and the members of the faculty, with their families, are exempt from taxation and from serving as jurors."

BRYN MAWR COLLEGE.

BYZANTINE TRADE.

CAMBOJA.

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY.

CANALS.

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT.

CARTHAGINIAN COMMERCE.

CASHGAR.

CASIMIR-PERIER,
Election to the Presidency of the French Republic,
and resignation.

"One of the most remarkable characteristics of the Caucasus is that, while it has acted as a barrier between the north and the south, stopping and turning aside the movements of population, it has also preserved within its sheltered recesses fragments of the different peoples who from time to time have passed by it, or who have been driven by conquest into it from the lower country. Thus it is a kind of ethnological museum, where specimens may be found of countless races and languages, some of which probably belong to the early ages of the world; races that seem to have little affinity with their present neighbours, and of whose history we know nothing except what comparative philology can reveal. Even before the Christian era it was famous for the variety of its peoples. … No more inappropriate ethnological name was ever propounded than that of Caucasian for a fancied division of the human family, the cream of mankind, from which the civilized peoples of Europe are supposed to have sprung. For the Caucasus is to-day as it was in Strabo's time, full of races differing in religion, language, aspect, manners, character."

CELESTINES, CELESTINIANS.

A religious order founded by the hermit, Peter of Morone, who afterwards, in 1294, became Pope, and took the name Celestine V. The rules of the order were austere. It became widespread throughout Europe, but was suppressed in France in 1766.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1790 (page 3305); 1800 (page 3324), and after.

CHANCELLOR. CHANCERY.

CHARLEMAGNE'S EMPIRE.

See GERMANY: A. D. 687-800, 800, and 814-843 (pages 1436-1438); and (in this Supplement) ROME.

CHARLEMAGNE'S PALATINE SCHOOL.

CHARTERHOUSE SCHOOL.

CHILE.

The account of Chilean affairs given in volume 1 (pages 411-415) ends with the overthrow and suicide of the dictatorial usurper, Balmaceda (September 20, 1891), the triumph of the Congress party, and the election to the Presidency of Admiral Jorge Montt. During the civil war which had this termination, the representative of the United States, Minister Egan, showed marked favor to Balmaceda and his party, which irritated the Chileans and produced among them a hostile feeling towards Americans and the American government. This was increased by the action of Mr. Egan, after the defeat of the Balmacedists, in sheltering a large number of refugees of that party within the walls of the American legation. {3695} The same was done by other foreign representatives, but to no such extent, except in the case of the Spanish legation. A telegram sent by Mr. Egan on the 8th of October to the State Department at Washington stated: "80 persons sought refuge in his legation after the overthrow of the Balmaceda government; about the same number in the Spanish legation, 8 in the Brazilian, 5 in the French, several in the Uruguayan, 2 in the German and 1 in the English. Balmaceda sought refuge in the Argentine. All these have gone out except 15 in his own legation, 1 in the German and 5 in the Spanish." Not venturing to violate the privileges of the American Minister's residence, the Chilean authorities placed it under police surveillance, and arrested a number of persons entering the premises. The Minister complained, and was supported in his complaints at Washington, causing further irritation in Chile. This was again greatly increased by his claiming the right, not only to shelter the refugees in his residence, but to protect them in their departure from the country. In that, too, he was sustained by his government, and the refugees were safely sent away. Meantime a more serious cause of quarrel between the two countries had risen. A party of sailors on shore at Valparaiso, from the United States ship Baltimore, had been assailed by a mob, October 16, and two were killed, while eighteen were wounded. The United States demanded satisfaction, and much angry correspondence ensued, made particularly offensive on the Chilean side by an insulting circular which Señor Matta, the Chilean Foreign Minister, issued December 13, and which he caused to be published in the Chilean newspapers. But Señor Matta disappeared from the Foreign Department soon after and his successor made apologies. "On January 16th the Chilean authorities notified Mr. Egan that they would withdraw any offensive passages in the Matta circular, and had instructed their Minister in Washington to express regret. The apology, thus expressed both in Washington and Santiago, was stiff and ungraceful, perhaps inadequate; but it was made in good faith. On January 20th, evidently feeling that all was now serene, the Chileans ventured, acting on a hint of Mr. Blaine's, to ask for Egan's withdrawal as a 'persona non grata.' What, therefore, must have been the dismay of the Chileans on January 23d, to receive an official notice, which the newspapers dubbed an 'ultimatum,' containing the statement that the United States Government was not satisfied with the result of the judicial investigation at Valparaiso and still asked 'for a suitable apology;' that for the Matta note there must be still another 'suitable apology,' without which the United States would terminate diplomatic relations; and that the request for Mr. Egan's withdrawal could not at that time be considered. It was a bitter draught for any government; but threats of war were resounding through the United States; American naval vessels were hurriedly being made ready; coal and supplies were going into the Pacific. There was power behind the note, and Chile prepared to bend to the storm. The 'ultimatum' appears to have reached the Chileans on Saturday, January 23d. On Monday, January 25th, they sent an answer which could not possibly be read as anything but a complete and abject apology on all the three points." But on the same day on which this answer was being forwarded, the President of the United States sent a warlike message to Congress. "It rehearsed the whole controversy at great length, submitted copious correspondence, and ended with the significant phrase: 'In my opinion I ought not to delay longer to bring these matters to the attention of Congress for such action as may be deemed appropriate.' … It is an unprofitable controversy as to whether the authorities in Washington knew that an answer was on its way: if they had read the correspondence they knew that an answer must come, and that the Chilean Ministry must sent a peaceful answer. It is therefore difficult to understand the purpose of the President's message. … The effect … was to inflict an unnecessary humiliation on Chile. Spanish-Americans have good memories. Mexico still cherishes resentment for the war begun against her forty-five years ago; and forty-five years hence the Chileans are likely to remember the Balmaceda affair as Americans remembered the impressment of American seamen by Great Britain. We have the apology, but with it we have the ill-will."

CHRISTIAN SOCIALISM.

COCHIN-CHINA.

COINAGE.

COLLECTIVISM.

COLLEGES.

Probably the oldest commercial record that exists was found sculptured on the rocks in the valley of Hammamat, east from Koptos on the Nile. It relates to an expedition which was sent out by the Pharaoh Sankh-ka-ra, to trade in the "land of Punt." Dr. Brugsch fixes the reign of Sankh-ka-ra at about 2500 B. C., which is five or six centuries before the time when Abraham is supposed to have lived. The "land of Punt" he considers to have been the Somali coast of Africa, south of the extremity of the Red Sea, on the Gulf of Aden. Other writers maintain that it was southern Arabia. It was the "Holy Land" of the Egyptians, from which their gods were supposed to have anciently come. The trading expedition of Sankh-ka-ra was commanded by one Hannu (a name which has a Phœnician sound) and it is he who tells the story of it in the inscription at Hammamat. "I was sent," he says, "to conduct ships to the country of Punt, to bring back odoriferous gums." He then describes the army of 3,000 men which accompanied him, and narrates their march from Koptos to the Red Sea, through the desert, at several stations in which they dug reservoirs for water. "I arrived," he continues, "at the port Seba [believed to be the harbor now called Koseir or Quosseir] and I made transport vessels to bring back all kinds of products. I made a great offering of oxen, cows and goats. When I returned from Seba I executed the order of his Majesty; I brought him back all kinds of products which I met with in the ports of the Holy Land. I came back by Uak and Rohan. I brought back precious stones for the statues of the temples. Never was a like thing done since there were kings." It would seem from this that Hannu's expedition opened the first direct trade of the Egyptians with the land of Punt. But it is evident that they already had knowledge of the country and of its products, and it is probable they had formerly been receiving its gums and precious stones through the traders of some other country. Some seven or eight centuries after Hannu's voyage to Punt was made, we obtain in the Bible a most interesting glimpse of the trade then going on between Egypt and surrounding countries. It is found in the story of Joseph. When Joseph's brethren threw him into a pit, intending that he should be left there to die, their plans were changed by seeing a "Company of Ishmaelites from Gilead with their camels bearing spicery and balm and myrrh, going to carry it down to Egypt." Then Judah said, "let us sell him to the Ishmaelites," and when these "Midianites, merchantmen," as they are called in the next verse, came near, the heartless brothers of Joseph drew him out of the pit and sold him, to be taken as a slave into Egypt. Now this story is found to agree well with other facts that have been learned, and which go to show that some, at least, among the ancient tribes in northern Arabia—the Ishmaelites of the Bible—were great traders between the richer countries that surrounded them. The Midianites and Edomites, who occupied the region near the head of the Red Sea, were especially the masters of that trade. Their poor land, which gave them little to subsist upon, had one gift for its people that went far toward making up for its barren poverty. It gave them the camel—that strange and homely beast, which is better fitted than any other for bearing burdens and for making long journeys without food or drink. At a later day they acquired the horse, from Media or from Mesopotamia, and bred that noble animal to such perfection that Arabia was long supposed to be its native home. But in Joseph's time the horse can hardly have been in use among the Arabs, since it seems to have been unknown in Egypt, which they constantly visited, until a considerably later day. However that may be, the camel was always the Arab's most useful servant—his carrier, his patient burden-bearer, his "ship of the desert," as Eastern poets have fitly named it. By the poverty of their country, by their wandering disposition, by their possession of the camel, and by their geographical situation, intermediate between several of the richest regions of antiquity, these Arabs of the olden time must have naturally been made a trading people, as early as it became possible for trade to exist. To the west of them was Egypt, with its fertile basin of the Nile and its remarkable people, probably first among all races that we know to rise out of barbarism and acquire order and industrial arts. To the east, in the valley of the Euphrates and Tigris, were the fertile plains of Mesopotamia, where the second oldest civilization that Is known was growing up. To the north were Canaan and Gilead, the Scripture "land of promise," full of vineyards, of pastures and of harvest fields, with wide Syria beyond, and with Phœnician merchant cities just rising along the coast of the sea. To the south, in their own peninsula, was Arabia Felix, or Arabia the Blest, a famous land of pleasantness and plenty in ancient days. With their caravans of camels they traveled back and forth, very busily, no doubt, through the desert, which needed no building of bridges or making of roads. In one direction they carried the barley, wheat, millet, flax and woven goods of Egypt; in another, the honey, wine, wax, wool, skins, gums, resins and asphalt of Canaan and Syria; in still another the more costly freight of gold ornaments, precious stones, pearls, ivory, ebony, spices and fragrant gums from the south. In all directions, it is probable, they dragged poor unfortunates like Joseph, whom they bought or kidnapped from home and friends, to sell as slaves.

   "The industry of the Babylonians quickly attained great skill
   and wide development. They were famous for their weaving in
   wool and linen. The nations of the West agree in acknowledging
   the excellence of the cloths and coloured stuffs of Babylonia.
   Their pottery was excellent and the manufacture active; the
   preparation of glass was not unknown; the ointments prepared
   in Babylon were famous and much sought after, and the stones
   cut there were highly valued. The products of Babylonian skill
   and industry were first brought to their kinsmen in Syria, who
   could offer oil and wine in exchange. In the Hebrew scriptures
   we find Babylonian cloaks in use in Syria before the
   immigration of the Hebrews into Canaan. … The rough material
   required by Babylonian industry was supplied in the first
   place by the Arabs, who exchanged their animals, skins, and
   wool for corn and weapons.
{3697}
   Wine, and more especially wood, of which there was none in
   Babylonia, were brought by the Armenians from their valleys in
   the north down the Euphrates to Babylon. Before 1500 B. C. the
   commerce of the Arabs brought the products of South Arabia,
   the spices of Yemen, and even the products and manufactures of
   India, especially their silks, which reached the coasts of
   Southern Arabia, to Babylon. The Babylonians required the
   perfumes of Arabia and India to prepare their ointments. …
   When the cities of Phenicia became great centres of trade
   which carried the wares of Babylonia by sea to the West in
   order to obtain copper in exchange, the trade between
   Babylonia and Syria must have become more lively still. It was
   the ships of the Phenicians which brought the cubic measure,
   and the weights, and the cubit of Babylonia to the shores of
   Greece, and caused them to be adopted there."

"In ancient Egypt agricultural counted for more than manufactures, and manufactures were of more importance than commerce. The trade which existed was brisk enough as far as it went, but it aimed at little more than the satisfaction of local wants by the more or less direct exchange of commodities between producers. The limited development of internal traffic was due to two principal causes: the natural products of different parts of the country were too much alike for much intercourse to be necessary for purposes of exchange, and the conformation of the country, in itself scarcely larger than Belgium, was such as to give the longest possible distance from north to south. … The Nile was the only known highway, so much so that the language scarcely possessed a general word for travelling; going southward was called 'going up stream,' and a journey to the north, even by land into the desert, was described by a term meaning to sail with the current. … While internal traffic was thus brought to a minimum by natural causes, foreign commerce can scarcely be said to have existed, before the establishment of peaceable intercourse with Syria under the new empire. The importation of merchandize from foreign countries was a political rather than a commercial affair. Such foreign wares as entered the country came as tribute, as the spoil of war, or as memorials of peaceful embassies. … The list of the spoil taken by Thothmes III. gives a tolerably exhaustive account of the treasures of the time. It includes, of course, bulls, cows, kids, white goats, mares, foals, oxen, geese, and corn; then follow strange birds, negroes, men and maid-servants, noble prisoners and the children of defeated kings, chariots of copper, plated with gold and silver, iron armour, bows, swords and other accoutrements, leather collars ornamented with brass, gold and silver rings, cups, dishes and other utensils, vessels of iron and copper, statues with heads of gold, ell-measures with heads of ivory, ebony, and cedar inlaid with gold, chairs, tables and footstools of cedar wood and ivory, a plough inlaid with gold, blocks of bluestone, greenstone and lead, 'a golden storm-cap inlaid with bluestone,' jars of balsam, oil, wine and honey, various kinds of precious woods, incense, alabaster, precious stones and colours, iron columns for a tent with precious stones in them, bricks of pure brass, elephants' tusks, natron, and, finally, by way of curiosity, from the land of the kings of Ruthen, three battle-axes of flint."

E. J. Simcox, Primitive Civilizations, book 1, chapter 3, section. 1 (volume 1).

"It is said in the Rig-Veda that 'merchants desirous of gain crowd the great waters with their ships.' And the activity in trade, thus early noted, has continued ever since to be characteristic of the country. Professor Lassen considers it remarkable that Hindus themselves discovered the rich, luxurious character of India's products. Many of the same beasts, birds, and fragrant oils are produced in other countries, but remain unnoticed until sought for by foreigners; whereas the most ancient of the Hindus had a keen enjoyment in articles of taste or luxury. Rajas and other rich people delighted in sagacious elephants, swift horses, splendid peacocks, golden decorations, exquisite perfumes, pungent peppers, ivory, pearls, gems, &c.; and, consequently, caravans were in constant requisition to carry these, and innumerable other matters, between the north and the south, and the east and the west, of their vast and varied country. These caravans, it is conjectured, were met at border stations, and at out-ports, by western caravans or ships bound to or from Tyre and Egypt, or to or from the Persian Gulf and the Red Sea. To the appearance of India goods in Greece, Professor Lassen attributes the Greek invasion of India. … The indirect evidence afforded by the presence of India's products in other ancient countries, coincides with the direct testimony of Sanskrit literature, to establish the fact that ancient Hindus were a commercial people. The code of Manu requires the king to determine the prices of commodities, and also the trustworthiness of the weights and measures used. And that the transactions contemplated were not restricted to local products is evident from reference to the charges for freight for articles in river boats, and the undetermined and larger charges to which sea-borne goods were liable. The account of King Yudhishthira's coronation in the Mahâbhârata affords an instance of precious articles from distant lands brought into India. So also in the Ramayana, we read that when Rama and his brothers were married, the brides were clad in silk from China. … Merchants are constantly being introduced into Sanskrit fiction, and equally often into Buddhist legend. They seem to have been always at hand to give variety and movement to the monotony of daily life."

   "The Phœnicians for some centuries confined their navigation
   within the limits of the Mediterranean, the Propontis, and the
   Euxine, land-locked seas, which are tideless and far less
   rough than the open ocean. But before the time of Solomon they
   had passed the pillars of Hercules, and affronted the dangers
   of the Atlantic. Their frail and small vessels, scarcely
   bigger than modern fishing-smacks, proceeded southwards along
   the West African coast, as far as the tract watered by the
   Gambia and Senegal, while northwards they coasted along Spain,
   braved the heavy seas of the Bay of Biscay, and passing Cape
   Finisterre, ventured across the mouth of the English Channel
   to the Cassiterides.
{3698}
   Similarly, from the West African shore, they boldly steered
   for the Fortunate Islands (the Canaries), visible from certain
   elevated points of the coast, though at 170 miles distance.
   Whether they proceeded further, in the south to the Azores,
   Madeira, and the Cape de Verde Islands, in the north to the
   coast of Holland, and across the German Ocean to the Baltic,
   we regard as uncertain. It is possible that from time to time
   some of the more adventurous of their traders may have reached
   thus far; but their regular, settled and established
   navigation did not, we believe, extend beyond the Scilly
   Islands and coast of Cornwall to the north-west, and to the
   south-west Cape Non and the Canaries. The commerce of the
   Phœnicians was carried on, to a large extent, by land, though
   principally by sea. It appears from the famous chapter [xxvii]
   of Ezekiel which describes the 'riches and greatness of Tyre
   in the 6th century B. C., that almost the whole of Western
   Asia was penetrated by the Phœnician caravans, and laid under
   contribution to increase the wealth of the Phœnician traders.
   … Translating this glorious burst of poetry into prose, we
   find the following countries mentioned as carrying on an
   active trade with the Phœnician metropolis:—Northern Syria,
   Syria of Damascus, Judah and the laud of Israel, Egypt,
   Arabia, Babylonia, Assyria, Upper Mesopotamia, Armenia,
   Central Asia Minor, Ionia, Cyprus, Hellas or Greece, and
   Spain."

"Though the invincible industry and enterprise of the Phenicians maintained them as a people of importance down to the period of the Roman empire, yet the period of their widest range and greatest efficiency is to be sought much earlier—anterior to 700 B. C. In these remote times they and their colonists [the Carthaginians especially] were the exclusive navigators of the Mediterranean: the rise of the Greek maritime settlements banished their commerce to a great degree from the Ægean Sea, and embarrassed it even in the more westerly waters. Their colonial establishments were formed in Africa, Sicily, Sardinia, the Balearic Isles, and Spain. The greatness as well as the antiquity of Carthage, Utica, and Gades, attest the long-sighted plans of Phenician traders, even in days anterior to the first Olympiad. We trace the wealth and industry of Tyre, and the distant navigation of her vessels through the Red Sea and along the coast of Arabia, back to the days of David and Solomon. And as neither Egyptians, Assyrians, Persians, or Indians, addressed themselves to a sea-faring life, so it seems that both the importation and the distribution of the products of India and Arabia into Western Asia and Europe were performed by the Idumæan Arabs between Petra and the Red Sea—by the Arabs of Gerrha on the Persian Gulf, joined as they were in later times by a body of Chaldæan exiles from Babylonia—and by the more enterprising Phenicians of Tyre and Sidon in these two seas as well as in the Mediterranean."

"The Commerce of Carthage may be conveniently considered under its two great branches—the trade with Africa, and the trade with Europe. The trade with Africa … was carried on with the barbarous tribes of the inland country that could be reached by caravans, and of the sea-coast. Of both we hear something from Herodotus, the writer who furnishes us with most of our knowledge about these parts of the ancient world. … The goods with which the Carthaginian merchants traded with the African tribes were doubtless such as those which civilized nations have always used in their dealings with savages. Cheap finery, gaudily coloured cloths, and arms of inferior quality, would probably be their staple. Salt, too, would be an important article. … The articles which they would receive in exchange for their goods are easily enumerated. In the first place comes … gold. Carthage seems to have had always at hand an abundant supply of the precious metal for use, whether as money or as plate. Next to gold would come slaves. … Ivory must have been another article of Carthaginian trade, though we hear little about it. The Greeks used it extensively in art. … Precious stones seem to have been another article which the savages gave in exchange for the goods they coveted. … Perhaps we may add dates to the list of articles obtained from the interior. The European trade dealt, of course, partly with the things already mentioned, and partly with other articles for which the Carthaginian merchants acted as carriers, so to speak, from one part of the Mediterranean to another. Lipara, and the other volcanic islands near the southern extremity of Italy, produced resin; Agrigentum, and possibly other cities of Sicily, traded in sulphur brought down from the region of Etna; wine was produced in many of the Mediterranean countries. Wax and honey were the staple goods of Corsica. Corsican slaves, too, were highly valued. The Iron of Elba, the fruit and the cattle of the Balearic islands, and, to go further, the tin and copper of Britain, and even amber from the Baltic, were articles of Carthaginian commerce. Trade was carried on not only with the dwellers on the coast, but with inland tribes. Thus goods were transported across Spain to the interior of Gaul, the jealousy of Massilia (Marseilles) not permitting the Carthaginians to have any trading stations on the southern coast of that country."

A high authority on questions of intercourse in ancient times throws doubt on the supposed African caravan trade of the Carthaginians—as follows: "There seems no doubt that the existing system of caravan trade dates only from the introduction of Islamism into Africa. It was the Arabs who first introduced the camel into Northern Africa, and without camels any extensive intercourse with the interior was impossible. The Negro races have never shown any disposition to avail themselves of this mode of transport, and at the present day the commerce of the interior is carried on almost entirely by Moorish, that is, by Mohammedan, traders. The spread of Islamism has doubtless led to increased communication from another cause, the necessity for the Mohammedan inhabitants of the outlying and detached regions of the continent to make the pilgrimage to Mecca. Even in the most flourishing times of the Carthaginians they do not appear to have made any use of camels; and as late as the days of Strabo the communications with the tribes of Western Africa who dwelt beyond the Sahara were scanty and irregular. In the time of Herodotus there is certainly no indication that either the Carthaginians or the Greeks of the Cyrenaica had any commercial intercourse with the regions beyond the Great Desert."

Beginning early in his reign, Solomon made great and enlightened efforts to promote the commerce and industries of the people of Israel. "To increase the land traffic, he had small cities built in advantageous localities, in which goods of all sorts in large quantities were kept in suitable storehouses; a practice similar to that which had from ancient times prevailed in Egypt. … They were established chiefly in the most northern districts of Israel, towards the Phœnician boundaries, as well as in the territories of the kingdom of Hamath, which was first conquered by Solomon himself.—The main road for the land traffic between Egypt and the interior of Asia must have been the great highway leading past Gaza and further west of Jerusalem to the Northern Jordan and Damascus. Here it was joined by the road from the Phœnician cities, and continued as far as Thapsacus, on the Euphrates. This was entirely in the dominions of the king; and here, under the peaceful banner of a great and powerful monarchy, commerce could flourish as it had never flourished before. It was clearly for the improvement of this route, which had to traverse the Syrian desert on the north, that Solomon built, in a happily chosen oasis of this wilderness, the city of Thammor, or Tadmor, of which the Greek version is Palmyra. There is not a single indication that this city was of importance before Solomon's time, but from that era it flourished for more than a thousand years. … For any distant navigation, however, Solomon was obliged to rely on the aid of the Phœnicians, inasmuch as they were in that age the only nation which possessed the necessary ability and inclination for it. It is true that the idea of competing with the Phœnicians upon the Mediterranean could hardly have occurred to him, since they had long before that time attracted all the commerce upon it to themselves, and would scarcely have desired or even tolerated such a rival. … But the Red Sea, which had been thrown open to the kings of Israel by the conquest of the Idumeans, offered the finest opportunity for the most distant and lucrative undertakings, the profit of which might perfectly satisfy a nation in the position of Israel in the dawn of maritime activity; and on their part, the Phœnicians could not fail to be most willing helpers in the promotion of undertakings which it lay in the hands of the powerful king of Israel entirely to cut off from them, or at any rate to encumber with great difficulties. In this way the mutual desires and needs of two nations coincided without any injury to the one or the other. … Phœnician sailors were at first, it is true, the teachers of the Israelite. It was they who aided them in constructing and manning the tall ships, which, destined to distant voyages upon uncertain seas, needed to be strongly built; but yet how many new ideas and what varied knowledge the nation would in this way acquire! The ships were built in Ezion-geber, the harbour of the town of Elath (or Eloth), probably on the very spot where Akaba now stands. The cargo brought back each time from the three years' voyage consisted of 420 talents of gold, besides silver, ivory, red sandal-wood, apes, and peacocks, probably also nard and aloe."

"When the Greeks had established themselves, not only on the peninsula, but also on the islands and on the east coast of the Ægean Sea, their navigation was greatly extended. That this, even in the first half of the 8th century, was profitable in its results, we see from the instance of Dius of Cyme, the father of Hesiod, who maintained himself in this manner. The works of art in which Lydia and Caria excelled, together with the products and manufactures of the east, which reached the western coasts of Asia, the products of these coasts, and wine and oil from Lesbos and Samos—all these could be shipped from the Greek maritime cities of Asia Minor, and carried to the peninsula. It was through this commerce … that Chalcis and Eretria laid the foundation of their greatness. To what proportions it had attained, even in the course of the 8th century, we find from the mint marks of Phocæa and Cyme, the standards of Chalcis and Eretria, the coins and weights and measures of Phidon of Argos. … From the middle of the 8th century, the Greeks no longer merely practised navigation; they became, in an eminent sense, a maritime nation. At the time when Sinope and Trapezus were founded in the east, Naxos, Catana, and Syracuse in Sicily, and Cyme in Campania, a nautical discovery had already been made, by means of which the Greeks surpassed the Phœnicians, the ancient voyagers of Syria; this was the building of triremes. To what an extent and proficiency must seamanship have attained, what importance naval battles must have assumed, to give rise to the attempt to replace the ancient war vessels by others of a far more powerful kind! When the first triremes were built at Corinth and Samos, about the year 700 B. C., Greek cities already existed on the southern shore of the Black Sea, on the coasts of Thrace, in Corcyra and Sicily; the southern coast of Italy had also been colonised. The products of Greek industry, pottery, implements, and weapons, were advantageously bartered on the coasts of the Thracians, Scythians, Illyrians, Sicilians, and Oscans, for the fruits of the soil, and for the cattle of those regions. The need of the means of exchange must have given great encouragement and impetus to manufactures in the Greek cities of the peninsula, on the coasts of Asia, and in the newly-founded Asiatic settlements themselves. … Navigation and commerce must have become permanent occupations. And the great increase of manufactures must also have given employment to numbers of the country people. Thus there grew up under the very rule of the aristocracy a powerful rival to itself; a nautical, artisan, commercial class, side by side with the land population. If the protecting walls of the chief place of the canton had previously been sought only in time of need, in case of surprises or hostile landings, the new industrial classes were now settled together in the harbours and centres of trade. Handicrafts, navigation, and commerce, could not exist without one another. In the maritime cantons on the east of the peninsula, and in the cantons on the coasts of the Peloponnesus, there sprang up simultaneously with the burgher class a town population."

"Between 700 B. C. and 530 B. C., we observe … an immense extension of Grecian maritime activity and commerce—but we at the same time notice the decline of Tyre and Sidon, both in power and traffic. The arms of Nebuchadnezzar reduced the Phenician cities to the same state of dependence as that which the Ionian cities underwent half a century later from Crœsus and Cyrus; while the ships of Miletus, Phokæa and Samos gradually spread over all those waters of the Levant which had once been exclusively Phenician. In the year 704 B. C., the Samians did not yet possess a single trireme: down to the year 630 B. C. not a single Greek vessel had yet visited Libya. But when we reach 550 B. C. we find the Ionic ships predominant in the Ægean, and those of Corinth and Korkyra in force to the west of Peloponnesus—we see the flourishing cities of Kyrene and Barka already rooted in Libya, and the port of Naukratis a busy emporium of Grecian commerce with Egypt. The trade by land—which is all that Egypt had enjoyed prior to Psammetichus, and which was exclusively conducted by Phenicians—is exchanged for a trade by sea, of which the Phenicians have only a share, and seemingly a smaller share than the Greeks. Moreover the conquest by Amasis of the island of Cyprus, half-filled with Phenician settlements and once the tributary dependency of Tyre—affords an additional mark of the comparative decline of that great city. In her commerce with the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf she still remained without a competitor, the schemes of the Egyptian king Nekos having proved abortive. Even in the time of Herodotus, the spices and frankincense of Arabia were still brought and distributed only by the Phenician merchant. But on the whole, both political and industrial development of Tyre are now cramped by impediments, and kept down by rivals, not before in operation. … The 6th century B. C., though a period of decline for Tyre and Sidon, was a period of growth for their African colony Carthage, which appears during this century in considerable traffic with the Tyrrhenian towns on the southern coast of Italy, and as thrusting out the Phokæan settlers from Alalia in Corsica."

"It is a remarkable fact in the history of Greek colonies that the exploration of the extreme west of the Mediterranean was not undertaken either by the adventurers who settled at Cyme, or by the powerful cities of Sicily. A century or more elapsed from the foundation of Syracuse before any Greek vessel was seen on the coast of Spain or Liguria, and when the new beginning was made, it was not made by any of the colonies, Chalcidian, Dorian, or Rhodian, which had taken part in the discovery of the West. It was the Phocaeans of Ionia, Herodotus tells us, who first made the Greeks acquainted with the Hadriatic, with Tyrrhenia, Iberia (Spain), and Tartessus (the region round Cadiz). The first impulse to these distant voyages arose from a mere accident. At the time of the foundation of Cyrene, about the year 630 B. C., a Greek of Samos, by name Colaeus, when on his way to Egypt, was carried by contrary winds beyond the pillars of Heracles to Tartessus. There he found a virgin market, from which he returned to realise a profit of 60 talents (£12,000), an amount only surpassed by the gains of Sostratus of Aegina, who was the premier of Greek merchants. But this was the beginning and the end of Samian trade to the West; why they left it to the Phocaeans to enter into the riches which they had discovered, we cannot say, but within thirty years of this date, the enterprising Ionian town sent out a colony to Massilia near the mouth of the Rhone, in the district known as Liguria. … The mouth of the Rhone was the point where all the routes met which traversed France from the English Channel to the Gulf of Genoa. Of these Strabo specifies three. Merchandise was carried by boats up the Rhone and Saône, from which it was transferred to the Seine, and so passed down the river; or it was taken by land from Marseilles (or Narbo) to the Loire; or again carried up the Aude and transported thence to the Garonne. By one or other of these routes, the wares collected by the Gaulish merchants—more especially the tin, which they imported from Britain—was brought into the Greek market, if indeed it was not carried on pack-horses straight across the narrowest part of the country. The importance of these lines of transit at a time when the western Mediterranean was held by the Carthaginians, and the northern Hadriatic by the Tyrrhenians, can hardly be over-estimated. The colonists extended their borders by degrees, though not without severe contests with the Ligurians and Tyrrhenians by sea and land. New cities were founded to serve as outposts against the enemy; Agatha in the direction of the barbarians of the Rhone; Olbia, Antipolis, and Nicaea in the direction of the Salyans and Ligurians of the Alps. They also spread themselves down the coast of Spain."

"Rome, placed like a mightier Mexico in the centre of her mighty lake, was furnished with every luxury and with many of her chief necessaries from beyond the waters; and cities on every coast, nearly similar in latitude and climate, vied in intense rivalry with each other in ministering to her appetite. First in the ranks of commerce was the traffic in corn, which was conducted by large fleets of galleys, sailing from certain havens once a year at stated periods, and pouring their stores into her granaries in their appointed order. Gaul and Spain, Sardinia and Sicily, Africa and Egypt were all wheat-growing countries, and all contributed of their produce, partly as a tax, partly also as an article of commerce, to the sustentation of Rome and Italy. The convoy from Alexandria was looked for with the greatest anxiety, both as the heaviest laden, and as from the length of the voyage the most liable to disaster or detention. The vessels which bore the corn of Egypt were required to hoist their topsails on sighting the promontory of Surrentum, both to distinguish them from others, and to expedite their arrival. These vessels moreover, according to the institution of Augustus, were of more than ordinary size, and they were attended by an escort of war galleys. The importance attached to this convoy was marked by the phrases, 'auspicious' and 'sacred,' applied to it. … A deputation of senators from Rome was directed to await its arrival at the port where it was about to cast anchor, which, from the bad condition of the haven at Ostia, was generally at this period Puteoli in Campania. {3701} As soon as the well-known topsails were seen above the horizon a general holiday was proclaimed, and the population of the country, far and near, streamed with joyous acclamations to the pier, and gazed upon the rich flotilla expanding gaily before them. The vessels engaged in this trade, however numerous, were after all of small burden. The corn-fleets did not indeed form the chief maritime venture of the Alexandrians. The products of India, which had formerly reached Egypt from Arabia, and were supposed indeed in Europe to have come only from the shores of the Erythræan Sea, were now conveyed direct to Cleopatris or Berenice from the mouths of the Indus and the coast of Malabar, and employed an increasing number of vessels, which took advantage of the periodical trade winds both in going and returning. The articles of which they went in quest were for the most part objects of luxury; such as ivory and tortoise shell, fabrics of cotton and silk, both then rare and costly, pearls and diamonds, and more especially gums and spices. The consumption of these latter substances in dress, in cookery, in the service of the temples, and above all at funerals, advanced with the progress of wealth and refinement. The consignments which reached Alexandria from the East were directed to every port on the Mediterranean; but there was no corresponding demand for the produce of the West in India, and these precious freights were for the most part exchanged for gold and silver, of which the drain from Europe to Asia was uninterrupted. The amount of the precious metals thus abstracted from the currency or bullion of the empire, was estimated at 100,000,000 sesterces, or about £800,000 yearly. The reed called papyrus, the growth of which seems to have been almost confined to the banks of the Nile, was in general use as the cheapest and most convenient writing material, and the consumption of it throughout the world, though it never entirely superseded the use of parchment and waxen tablets, must have been immense. It was converted into paper in Egypt, and thence exported in its manufactured state; but this practice was not universal, for we read of a house at Rome which improved on the native process, and produced what Pliny calls an imperial or noble out of a mere plebeian texture. With respect to other articles of general use, it may be remarked that the most important, such as corn, wine, oil, and wool, were the common produce of all the coasts of the Mediterranean, and there was accordingly much less interchange of these staple commodities among the nations of antiquity than with ourselves, whose relations extend through so many zones of temperature. Hence, probably, we hear of none of their great cities becoming the workshops or emporiums of the world for any special article of commerce. The woollens indeed of Miletus and Laodicea, together with other places of Asia Minor, were renowned for their excellence, and may have been transported as articles of luxury to distant parts; but Africa and Spain, Italy and parts of Greece, were also breeders of sheep, and none of these countries depended for this prime necessary on the industry or cupidity of foreigners. The finest qualities of Greek and Asiatic wines were bespoken at Rome, and at every other great seat of luxury. The Chian and Lesbian vintages were among the most celebrated. … Again, while the clothing of the mass of the population was made perhaps mainly from the skins of animals, leather of course could be obtained abundantly in almost every locality. When we remember that the ancients had neither tea, coffee, tobacco, sugar, nor for the most part spirits; that they made little use of glass, and at this period had hardly acquired a taste for fabrics of silk, cotton, or even flax, we shall perceive at a glance how large a portion of the chief articles of our commerce was entirely wanting to theirs. Against this deficiency, however, many objects of great importance are to be set. Though the ruder classes were content with wooden cups and platters fashioned at their own doors, the transport of earthenware of the finer and more precious kinds, and from certain localities, was very considerable. Though the Greeks and Romans generally were without some of our commonest implements of gold and silver, such for instance as watches and forks, it is probable that they indulged even more than we do in personal decoration with rings, seals, and trinkets of a thousand descriptions. … The conveyance of wild animals, chiefly from Africa, for the sports of the amphitheatres of some hundreds of cities throughout the empire, must alone have given occupation to a large fleet of ships and many thousand mariners. Nor were the convoys smaller which were employed to transport marble from the choicest quarries of Greece and Asia to many flourishing cities besides the metropolis. … After due deduction for the more contracted sphere of ancient commerce, and the lesser number of articles, for the extent also to which the necessaries and conveniences of life were manufactured at home in the establishments of wealthy slave owners, we shall still readily believe that the inter-communication of the cities of the Mediterranean, such as Corinth, Rhodes, Ephesus, Cyzicus, Antioch, Tyrus, Alexandria, Cyrene, Athens, Carthage, Tarraco, Narbo and Massilia, Neapolis and Tarentum, Syracuse and Agrigentum, and of all with Rome, must have been a potent instrument in fusing into one family the manifold nations of the empire. … In the eyes of the Orientals and the Greeks, the mistress of lands and continents, the leader of armies, and the builder of roads was regarded as the greatest of all maritime emporiums, and represented in their figurative style as a woman sitting enthroned upon the waves of the Mediterranean. The maritime aspect thus assumed by Rome in the eyes of her subjects beyond the sea, is the more remarkable when we consider how directly her ancient policy and habits were opposed to commercial development. … The landowners of Rome, in the highday of her insolent adolescence, had denounced both commerce and the arts as the business of slaves or freedmen. So late as the year 535 a law had been passed which forbade a senator to possess a vessel of burden, and the traffic which was prohibited to the higher class was degraded in the eyes of the lower. … It was … by following the natural train of circumstances, and by no settled policy of her own, that Rome secured her march across the sea, and joined coast to coast with the indissoluble chain of her dominion. On land, on the contrary, she constructed her military causeways with a fixed and definite purpose. … The population of Gaul crept, we know, slowly up the channel of the rivers, and the native tracks which conveyed their traffic from station to station were guided by these main arteries of their vital system. {3702} But the conquerors struck out at once a complete system of communication for their own purposes, by means of roads cut or built as occasion required, with a settled policy rigidly pursued. These high roads, as we may well call them, for they were raised above the level of the plains and the banks of the rivers, and climbed the loftiest hills, were driven in direct lines from point to point, and were stopped by neither forest nor marsh nor mountain."

"In the second century of our era, in the time of Trajan and the Antonines, Gaul with its fertile fields, its beautiful meadows, its magnificent forests, was one of the best cultivated countries of the Roman world. It exported into Italy grain from Aquitaine, Celtique and from the country of the Allobroges (Dauphiné), flax from Cadurques (Quercy) and Bituriges (Berry), hemp from Auvergne and the valley of the Rhône, spikenard from Provence (valeriana celtica according to M. Littré) renowned in the Roman pharmacopœia, oak and pine from the immense forests which still covered the Pyrenees, the Cevennes, the Alps, the Jura, the Vosges and nearly all the north of Gaul (forest of Ardennes), horses from Belgium, wool from the Narbonnaise, cheese from the Alps and from Nîmes, hams and salt provisions from Séquanaise (Franche-Comté), and the Pyrenees. The wines of the Narbonnaise and the valley of the Rhône, often adulterated and little relished by the Italians, were notwithstanding one of the principal objects of commerce in the interior of Gaul, in Great Britain and Germany. The oysters of the Mediterranean and even those of the Atlantic and the Channel which the ancients had perhaps found means of keeping in fresh water, figured upon the tables of the gourmets of Rome. We know that long before the conquest, the Gauls took gold from the sands of their rivers and that in certain regions (Upper Pyrenees), territory of the Tarbelles, and Val d'Aoste, territory of the Salasses, they extracted gold from the auriferous rocks by processes quite analogous to those which are now employed by the great Californian companies. These mines which were yet in existence under Augustus were not long in being exhausted, but the iron of Berry, Sénonais, Perigord, Rouergue, the valley of the Rhône and of the Saône, the copper of the Pyrenees (Saint-Etienne-de-Baïgorry), of the Alps (country of the Centrons, now Upper Savoy), of the Cevennes (Cabrieres in Hérault and Chessy in Rhône), the tin of Limousin, the argentiferous lead of the territory of the Rutènes (Rouergue), of the Gabales (Gévaudan), of the Centrons, etc., were mined and wrought with a skill which placed the metallurgy of Gaul in the first rank of the industries of the empire. These mining operations, superintended by the State, although they belonged to the proprietors of the soil, were often directed by companies which combined the working of the metal with its extraction from the ore. One which had its seat at Lyons is known to us by many inscriptions. Textile industries were not less flourishing than metallurgy, the manufacture of sail-cloth was carried on all over Gaul; the bleached linens of Cahors, the carpets of the Narbonnaise, the sagums of mingled bright colors were renowned even in Italy. The progress of commerce had followed that of agriculture and manufacture. The network of Roman roads planned by Agrippa was completed and four roads accessible to carriages or beasts of burden, crossed the Alps by the passes of the Little (Graius Mons) and of the Great Saint-Bernard (Summus Penninus), of Mount Genèvre (Mons Matrona) and of the Argentière: the Corniche road stretched along the Mediterranean from Genoa to Marseilles: those of the pass of Pertus (Summa Pyrenoeco), of the valley of Aran, of the Somport, of Roncevaux, and from Lapurdum (Bayonne) to Pampeluna connected Gaul to Spain. … Notwithstanding the competition of new roads, river navigation had retained all its activity. … We know from inscriptions of a certain number of associations for water transportation which appear to have played a great rôle in the interior commerce of Gaul from the first century of our era. The boatmen of the Rhône, the Saône, the Durance, the Seine, the Loire, the Aar, an affluent of the Rhine, formed corporations recognized by the State, organized on the model of cities, having their regulations, property, elective chiefs, and patronized by great personages who charged themselves with defending their interests against the Roman authorities. The most celebrated, If not the most important of these associations, is that of the Nautæ Parisiaci, the memory of which has been preserved to us by the remains of an altar raised, under Tiberius, at the point of the Isle of the City (the ancient Lutetia) and found in 1711 under the choir of Notre-Dame. … The two great commercial ports of the Mediterranean were Narbonne and Arles, after Marseilles had lost her maritime preponderance and was only a city of science, luxury and pleasure. … Immense labor upon embankments and canalization which had thrown within Narbonne the mass of the river and deepened the maritime channel made of the metropolis of the Narbonnaise one of the safest ports upon the coast of Gaul. It communicated with the Rhône by the navigation of the lakes (étangs) which at that time extended without interruption to the western mouth of the river, with the ocean by the course of the Garonne, navigable from Toulouse (Tolosa). The port of the Garonne was then as now Bordeaux (Burdigala) which already had intercourse with Great Britain and Spain. Aries, connected with the sea by the canal of Marius and perhaps also by the small arm of the Rhône and the navigation of the lakes (étangs), was a maritime port and at the same time the outlet for the navigation of the Rhône which was prolonged by the Saône as far as Chalon (Cabillonum). Upon the banks of the river rose the wealthy cities of Tarascon, Avignon (Avenio), Orange (Arausio), Vienne. Lyons is the commercial and also the political metropolis of Gaul, the seat of the most powerful manufacturing and commercial companies; the boatmen of the Saône and the Rhône, the wine merchants, the mining and smelting company of the valley of the Rhône. Above Chalon, four great commercial routes start from the valley of the Saône. The first ascends the Doubs as far as Besançon (Vesuntio) and terminates at the Rhine near Augst (Augusta Rauracorum), where the river is already navigable. {3703} The second follows the valley of the Saône and descends by the Moselle, navigable above Trèves (Augusta Trevirorum), and by the Meuse, toward the middle and lower valley of the Rhine. … The third route, that from the Saône to the Loire, set out from Chalon, crossed Autun (Augustodunum), and reached the Loire above Orleans (Genabum, later Aurelianum). Goods embarked upon the river arrived, after a voyage of 870 kilometers (2,000 stades), at Nantes (Portus Namnetum) which appears to have been substituted, about the beginning of the first century, for the ancient port of Corbilo and which was also in intercourse with Great Britain. The fourth route, that from the Saône to the Seine, crossed Autun, was there divided into two branches which went by way of Avallon and Alise to meet at Sens (Agedincum) on the Yonne, and descended the Seine to its mouth by Melun (Melodunum), Paris (Lutetia) and Rouen (Rotomagus). This was the shortest route between the new province of Britani and the Mediterranean; but the ancients, notwithstanding the progress in navigation, always distrusted long passages by sea; so the principal emporium of commerce with Britani was not Caracotinum (Harfleur), the port of the Seine, but Gesoriacum, later Bononia (Boulogne), which is distant only 50 kilometers from the English coast. It was there that Caligula erected that gigantic pharos known to the middle-ages under the name of the tower of Odre and which existed until 1645. … When one thinks of Gaul in the second half of the 5th century, after those great streams of invasion which swept it for fifty years, one easily fancies that the flood has carried everything away, that the Roman institutions have disappeared, that private fortunes are swallowed up in a frightful catastrophe, that the barbarians have enslaved the Gallo-Romans, that social life is suspended, manufactures ruined, commerce interrupted. This picture which responds to the idea we form of a barbarian conquest, is necessarily exaggerated, because the Germanic invasion was not a conquest. The Germans who established themselves upon the Roman territory, those even who had employed force to make a place for themselves within it, did not consider themselves conquerors, but subjects and soldiers of the Empire: they dreamed so little of destroying it that they aspired to serve it whether it would or no. Notwithstanding the decadence of manufactures and the inevitable disorders which weakness of the central power brings in its train, commerce appears to have preserved a certain amount of activity. In the 6th century, post stages still existed. Upon the Roman roads, maintained and repaired by the Merovingians, heavy wagons which served for the transportation of goods and travelers circulated with their teams of oxen or horses. Royal decrees commanded the preservation of towing-paths along navigable rivers; the rivers had remained the high-ways of interior commerce, and the boatmen's companies of Roman Gaul had perhaps survived the fall of the imperial domination. The ports of the Atlantic, Bordeaux and Nantes, those of the Channel, Alet (between Saint-Malo and Saint-Servan), Rouen, Quantovic (Etaples or Saint-Josse-sur-Mer?) on the bay of the Canche, Boulogne, were in relations with the Visigoths and the Suevi of Spain, the Irish, the Frisians, and received in exchange for the wines, honey, madder, grains and linens of Gaul, oils and lead from Spain, metals and slaves from Great Britain, coarse cloths from Ireland and finer fabrics which they were beginning to make in Frisia. Marseilles, Arles, Narbonne, the great ports of the Mediterranean, were always the depots for the trade of the Orient, where their vessels went for spices, silks, papyrus from Alexandria, cloths and carpets from Antioch and Laodicea, which their merchants exchanged in part for money, in part for metals, honey, saffron, almonds and linens from southern Gaul, coral brought from Italy, and amber brought overland from the borders of the Baltic. The conquests of the Franks, masters of central and southern Germany, had opened to commerce two new roads: one, by the Danube, stretched away to the frontiers of the Eastern Empire and to Constantinople through the countries occupied by the fierce tribes of the Avars and the Bulgarians; the other arrived by Thuringia in the regions where the Slav tribes, Sorbs (Mecklenburg, Brandenburg, Pomerania) and Wends (Bohemia, Moravia, Austria, Carinthia) dominated. In these uncultivated countries, covered with forests and marshes, in the midst of these warlike peoples, the merchants could risk themselves only in large caravans, sword at the side and lance in hand. These distant and perilous expeditions were attractive to the adventurous spirit of the Frank race. … Faith, as well as ambition, found its account in these journeys to the countries of the pagan. On the way, they distributed religious images to the heathen, they tried to convert them while profiting by them. … This mingling of commerce and religion is one of the characteristic traits of the middle ages, as it is of antiquity. The most ancient fairs of Gaul, that of Troyes which was in existence as early as the 5th century, that of Saint-Germain-des-Pres, that of Saint-Denis, which goes back to the time of Dagobert (629), were at the same time pilgrimages. This latter the most celebrated of all, under the Merovingians, was held outside the walls of Paris, between the churches of Saint-Martin and Saint-Laurent, upon the lands watered by the brook Ménilmontant; it was opened on the festival of Saint-Denis and continued four weeks, in order to permit, says its charter, merchants from Spain, Provence and Lombardy and even those from beyond the sea, to take part in it. … The fair of Saint-Denis was the rendezvous of merchants from all parts of Gaul and Europe. Beside the wines and oils of the South might be seen the honey and wax of Armorica, the linens and madder of Neustria, the metals of Spain and England, the furs of the North, the products of the royal manufactories; but the choicest goods were the spices, pepper, tissues of silk and of cotton, jewels, enamels, goldsmiths' work, which came from the Orient by the Mediterranean ports, more rarely by way of the Danube, and whose guardians were the Syrians or Jews destined to hold so great a place in the commerce of the middle ages. The Syrians,—and under this name the Franks comprehended, without doubt, all merchants native to Egypt or Roman Asia,—formed powerful communities at Marseilles, Narbonne, Bordeaux; at Paris they had sufficient influence to enable one of them, Eusebius, to succeed in purchasing the episcopate, in 591. … As to the Jews, a great number were already established in Gaul before the fall of the Roman Empire, but their prosperity dates only from the epoch of disorganization which followed the barbarian invasion."

H. Pigeonneau, Histoire du Commerce de la France (translated from the French), tome 1, livre 1.

"During the Tang Dynasty the intercourse between China and other considerable powers was not only closer but conducted on more nearly equal terms than at any other time. … The neighbouring kingdom of Tibet is first mentioned in the annals for 634 A. D. as sending ambassadors with tribute and being able to raise a large and formidable army. … Appeals from Persia and India for help against the Saracens were addressed to China more than once in the 7th and 8th centuries; and the heir apparent to the Persian throne resided for a time as hostage at the court of China. … But for the physical structure of the continent, which isolates India and China, while freezing Tibet and nomadizing Tartary, the spread of Arab conquest round or across the desert would have reached a point near enough to bring about a collision with China. As it was, a general impetus was given to foreign travel and foreign commerce; and … colonies of traders established themselves in the southern ports, as well as along the continental trade routes. … About the year 700 A. D. a market for strangers was opened at Canton, and an imperial commission appointed to levy duties. In 714 A. D. we hear of a petition of foreign merchants, arriving by way of the southern sea, which is forwarded from the coast in quite modern fashion for the emperor's consideration. It set forth all the precious things which the merchants could bring from the countries of the West, and represented them as only desirous of collecting medicinal drugs and simples. Unfortunately for the traders, they arrived at the beginning of a new reign, when a vigorous attempt had been made to put down the luxury of the court. … It was concluded to take no further notice of the petition. Foreign trade continued to exist on sufferance, but so far as the Chinese were concerned, it was limited by the attitude of the Government to a moderate exportation of staple commodities, paid for in foreign coin or precious metals. What China had to sell was much more important to the Western nations than anything she or her rulers could be prevailed upon to buy; and so long as the trade dealt with surplus manufactures, like silk, or natural products, like musk or rhubarb, and did not endanger the local food supply, it was not interfered with. In 794 A. D. complaints were made that trade was leaving Canton for Cochin China, but the traders' schemes for recovering or pursuing it were discouraged by the Government, which opined that there must have been intolerable extortions used to drive it away, or a want of natural inducements to bring it, and quoted the Shoo: 'Do not prize strange commodities too much, and persons will come from remote parts.' Arab geographers and travellers of the 9th century show what a development had been reached by foreign commerce under this modified freedom. The Jewish merchants described by Ibn Khordadbeh as speaking Persian, Latin, Greek, Arab, Spanish, Slavonic, and Lingua franca, and trading by sea and land to the remotest regions, had their representatives at Canton; and the four trade routes, enumerated by Sir Henry Yule, enabled all the great commercial communities to try their hand at the China trade. The first of these routes led from the Mediterranean over the Isthmus of Suez, and onwards by sea; another reached the Indian sea viâ Antioch, Bagdad and Bussora and the Persian Gulf; a third followed the coast of Africa by land from Tangiers to Egypt and thence by Damascus to Bagdad, while the fourth led south of the Caspian Sea and north of the central Asian desert to the gates of the Great Wall. The Chinese traders either met the Western merchants at Ceylon, or themselves came as far as the mouth of the Euphrates."

E. J. Simcox, Primitive Civilizations, book 4, chapter 12, section 2 (volume 2).

The earliest date to which any positive statement of intercourse between the Arabs and the Chinese "appears to refer is the first half of the 5th century of our era. At this time, according to Hamza of Ispahan and Masudi, the Euphrates was navigable as high as Hira, a city lying south-west of ancient Babylon, near Kufa, (now at a long distance from the actual channel of the river), and the ships of India and China were constantly to be seen moored before the houses of the town. Hira was then abounding in wealth, and the country round, now a howling wilderness, was full of that life and prosperity which water bestows in such a climate. A gradual recession took place in the position of the headquarters of Indian and Chinese trade. From Hira it descended to Obolla, the ancient Apologos, from Obolla it was transferred to the neighbouring city of Basra, built by the Khalif Omar on the first conquest of Irak (636), from Basra to Siraf on the northern shore of the gulf, and from Siraf successively to Kish and Hormuz. Chinese Annals of the Thang dynasty of the 7th and 8th centuries, describe the course followed by their junks in voyaging to the Euphrates from Kwangcheu (Canton). … The ships of China, according to some authorities, used to visit Aden as well as the mouths of Indus and Euphrates. I do not think that either Polo or any traveller of his age speaks of them as going further than Malabar, the ports of which appear to have become the entrepôts for commercial exchange between China and the west, nor does it appear what led to this change. Some time in the 15th century again they seem to have ceased to come to Malabar. … The Arabs at an early date of Islam, if not before, had established a factory at Canton, and their numbers at that port were so great by the middle of the 8th century that in 758 they were strong enough to attack and pillage the city, to which they set fire and then fled to their ships. Nor were they confined to this port. … In the 8th century also the Arabs began to know the Chinese not only as Sinæ, but as Seres, i. e. by the northern land route. … Besides … communication by land and sea with Arabia, and with the various states of India, … there existed from an old date other and obscurer streams of intercourse between China and Western Asia, of which we have but fragmentary notices, but which seem to indicate a somewhat fuller mutual knowledge and freer communication than most persons probably have been prepared to recognise. Thus, China appears to have been well known from an early period to the Armenians."

      H. Yule,
      Cathay and the Way thither, preliminary essay
      (volume 1), pages lxxvii-lxxxii.

After the Arabs began their career as a conquering people, under Mahomet and his successors, and took possession of the great ancient fields of Asiatic and African commerce, with its highways and its capital seats, from Ispahan to Palmyra, Damascus, Baalbec, Tyre, Alexandria, and the old Carthaginian ports, they quickly caught the large ideas of trade that were then opened up to them. They improved the early caravan routes and established new ones in many directions. They dug wells, made cisterns and built caravansaries, or public places of shelter for travelers and traders, along the important desert roads. The pilgrimages which their religion encouraged had a lively traffic connected with them, and by spreading one language and one set of customs and laws over the wide region which they ruled, they helped commerce as the Romans had done. From Bagdad, the new capital city which they built on the Tigris, nearly opposite the deserted ruins of Babylon, on the other side of the Chaldean plain, they carried on direct trade with India, through Afghanistan; with China by three routes through Bokhara, or Tartary; with Siberia and with Russia, to the very center of it, through the agency of the Turkish and Tartar races. This city of Bagdad became a marvel of magnificence under the early Arabian caliphs. Other cities of Asia that acquired importance in manufactures or trade, or both, during the period of Arabian power, were Ispahan, in Persia, the woolens and linens from which were equally noted for their fineness; Damascus, in Syria, which produces cutlery of steel, and especially sword blades, that have never been surpassed, and which gave the name of "damasks" to certain raised patterns in linen that are well known by that term to this day; Herat, in Afghanistan, which was famous for its carpet looms and for its cultivation of saffron and assafœtida; Balkh and Khotan, in Bokhara, the former of which, on the banks of the Oxus, was a populous seat of trade between China, India and the West. From its great antiquity, Balkh was called "the mother of cities." In their native country, the Arabs, during this brilliant period of their history, increased the ancient trade which they had carried on by sea, with India, on one hand, and with the eastern coasts of Africa, on the other. They extended the latter far south of the limits of ancient Ethiopia, and even to the island of Madagascar. There are few settlements now existing on the east African coast, below the straits of Babel-Mandeb, which were not of Arabian origin. The pilgrimages to Mecca, their holy city, where the remains of Mahomet were interred, made that a great market and both industry and commerce were enlivened throughout the Arabian peninsula. As masters of Egypt, the Arabians reorganized with fresh vigor the ancient caravan traffic with central Africa and with the countries on the Upper Nile. Alexandria, it is true, lost much of its former importance. This was owing, in part, to the bitter hostility that existed between the Mahometans and the European Christians, which broke up, for a long period, nearly all open commerce between the two. But Alexandria was also hurt by the rise of new Arabian cities, in Egypt and on the Barbary coast, which drew away some of the trade that had centered almost wholly at Alexandria before. Cairo, the modern capital of Egypt, stood first among these and became a wealthy seat of many manufactures and of much commercial exchange. The interior caravan traffic of Egypt centered principally at Syene, while Temnis and Damietta were busy productive towns. Within the old Carthaginian dominions, west of Egypt, on the Mediterranean, the Arab conquerors revived a traffic quite as extensive, perhaps, as the greatest that ancient Carthage had controlled. Not far from the site of that ancient emporium, and twelve miles from the modern city of Tunis, they built the now forgotten city of Kirwan, which was one of the largest and most magnificent of its time. It was a point from which numerous caravan routes led southward into the heart of the African continent, even beyond the great desert, as well as eastward to Egypt and westward to the Atlantic coasts and Spain. Many flourishing towns surrounded this African metropolis and were the centers of many different activities, such as the cultivation of grain, the making of salt, the rearing of silk-worms and the production of silk. In Mauritania, which embraced the modern empire of Morocco and part of Algiers, the Arabs introduced the same spirit of enterprise. In their hands, the barren country—which has since become almost a desert again—was made fertile, through wide regions, by extensive irrigation, and produced wheat, olives, grapes, dates and other fruits in great abundance, besides feeding flocks and herds of sheep, goats, horses, asses and camels in rich pastures. The people became skilful in several manufactures, including weaving and dyeing, the making of silk and gold thread, the mining and smelting of copper and iron, the preparation of soap and the tanning of leather. From the Atlantic coast of their Mauritanian dominion, the Arabs pushed their traffic far down the western shores of the continent, while they opened caravan routes to the interior quite as widely, perhaps, as they did from Kirwan and from Egypt. The chief city that they founded in Mauritania was Fez, which still bears witness to its former glory in a lingering university, or collection of Mahometan schools; in the remains of many mosques, and in a vast number of caravansaries. The native inhabitants whom the Arabs found in Mauritania derived from their country the name of Moors. They embraced the Mahometan religion and joined their Saracen conquerors in invading Spain, A. D. 712. This led, in Europe, to the applying of the name "Moors" to the whole of the mixed races which took possession of southern Spain, and finally gave that name to all the Mahometans on the western Mediterranean coasts. But the Moors and the Arabs were distinct races of people. The conquest of southern Spain gave the Arabs the finest field in which their energy and genius were shown. They made the most of its mineral treasures, its delightful climate and its fertile soil. On the remains of Roman civilization, which Vandals and Visigoths had not wholly destroyed, they built up, with wonderful quickness, a new culture—of industry, of manners and of taste, of art, of literature, of government and of social life—that was splendidly in contrast with the rude state of Europe at large. The trade of the Spanish Moors was considerably extended among the Christians of Europe, notwithstanding the religious enmities that opposed it. {3706} The products of their skilful workmanship were so eagerly desired, and they controlled so many of the coveted luxuries found in Africa and the East that their Christian neighbors could not be restrained, by war nor by the commands of the church nor by the hatred which both stirred up, from dealings with them. With other parts of the Mahometan dominion, and with the countries in commercial connection with it, the trade of Moorish Spain was active and large. In exchange for the varied products which they received, they gave the fine fabrics of their looms; exquisite work of their goldsmiths and silversmiths; famous leather; iron, quicksilver and silver from the old Spanish mines, which they worked with new knowledge and skill; sugar, the production of which they had learned and introduced from India; olive oil, raw silk, dye-stuffs, sulphur and many commodities of less worth. The career of the Arabs, in the large region of the world which they conquered, was brilliant but not lasting. The energy which carried them for a time far ahead of their slower neighbors in Europe showed signs of decay before two centuries of their career had been run.

"The commerce of Europe centred at Constantinople in the 8th and 9th centuries more completely than it has ever since done in any one city. The principles of the government, which reprobated monopoly, and the moderation of its duties, which repudiated privileges, were favourable to the extension of trade. While Charlemagne ruined the internal trade of his dominions by fixing a maximum of prices, and destroyed foreign commerce under the persuasion that, by discouraging luxury, he could enable his subjects to accumulate treasures which he might afterwards extort or filch into his own treasury, Theophilus prohibited the persons about his court from engaging in mercantile speculations, lest by so doing they should injure the regular channels of commercial intercourse, by diminishing the profits of the individual dealer. … During this period the western nations of Europe drew their supplies of Indian commodities from Constantinople, and the Byzantine empire supplied them with all the gold coin in circulation for several centuries. The Greek navy, both mercantile and warlike, was the most numerous then in existence. Against the merchant-ships of the Greeks, the piratical enterprises of the Egyptian, African, and Spanish Arabs were principally directed. Unfortunately we possess no authentic details of the commercial state of the Byzantine empire, nor of the Greek population during the Iconoclast period, yet we may safely transfer to this time the records that exist proving the extent of Greek commerce under the Basilian dynasty. Indeed, we must remember that, as the ignorance and poverty of western Europe was much greater in the 11th and 12th centuries than in the 8th and 9th, we may conclude that Byzantine commerce was also greater during the earlier period. The influence of the trade of the Arabians with the East Indies on the supply of the markets of western Europe has been overrated, and that of the Greeks generally lost sight of. … The Byzantine markets drew their supplies of Indian and Chinese productions from Central Asia, the trade passing north of the caliph's dominions through the territory of the Khazars to the Black Sea. This route was long frequented by the Christians, to avoid the countries in the possession of the Mohammedans, and was the highway of European commerce for several centuries. Though it appears at present a far more difficult and expensive route than that by the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean, it was really safer, more rapid, and more economical, in the 8th, 9th, and 10th centuries. This requires no proof to those who are acquainted with caravan life in the East, and who reflect on the imperfections of ancient navigation, and the dangers and delays to which sailing vessels of any burden are exposed in the Red Sea. When the Venetians and Genoese began to surpass the Greeks in commercial enterprise, they endeavoured to occupy this route; and we have some account of the line it followed, and the manner in which it was carried on, after the East had been thrown into confusion by the conquests of the Crusaders and Tartars, in the travels of Marco Polo. For several centuries the numerous cities of the Byzantine empire supplied the majority of the European consumers with Indian wares, and it was in them alone that the necessary security of property existed to preserve large stores of merchandise. Constantinople was as much superior to every city in the civilised world, in wealth and commerce, as London now is to the other European capitals. And it must also be borne in mind, that the countries of central Asia were not then in the rude and barbarous condition into which they have now sunk, since nomade nations have subdued them. On many parts of the road traversed by the caravans, the merchants found a numerous and wealthy population ready to traffic in many articles sought after both in the East and West; and the single commodity of furs supplied the traders with the means of adding greatly to their profits. Several circumstances contributed to turn the great highway of trade from the dominions of the caliphs to Constantinople. The Mohammedan law, which prohibited all loans at interest, and the arbitrary nature of the administration of justice, rendered all property, and particularly commercial property, insecure. Again, the commercial route of the Eastern trade, by the way of Egypt and the Red Sea, was suddenly rendered both difficult and expensive, about the year 767, by the Caliph Al Mansur, who closed the canal connecting the Nile with the Red Sea. The harvests of Egypt, which had previously filled the coast of Arabia with plenty, could no longer be transported in quantity to the ports of the Red Sea; living became expensive; the population of Arabia declined; and the carrying trade was ruined by the additional expenditure required. The caliph certainly by this measure impoverished and depopulated the rebellious cities of Medina and Mecca to such a degree as to render their military and political power less dangerous to the central authority at Bagdat, but at the same time he ruined the commerce of Egypt with India and the eastern coast of Southern Africa. Since that period, this most important line of communication has never been restored, and the coarser articles of food, of which Egypt can produce inexhaustible stores, are deprived of their natural market in the arid regions of Arabia. {3707} The hostile relations between the caliphs of Bagdat and Spain likewise induced a considerable portion of the Mohammedan population on the shores of the Mediterranean to maintain close commercial relations with Constantinople. A remarkable proof of the great wealth of society at this period is to be found in the immense amount of specie in circulation. … The poverty of Europe at a later period, when the isolation caused by the feudal system had annihilated commerce and prevented the circulation of the precious metals, cannot be used as an argument against the probability of this wealth having existed at the earlier period of which we are treating."

G. Finlay, History of the Byzantine Empire, 716-1057, book 1, chapter 4, section 1.

In the slow revival of commerce which took place in Christian Europe, during the later half of the middle ages, no one city or people can be said to have taken a lead from the beginning. At various points, north and south, on the Mediterranean and the Adriatic, on the Baltic, on the Rhine and other rivers which flow into the North Sea, and on the Danube, the Dnieper and the Don, centers of trade were growing up in a gradual way, out of which it would be hard to name one that ranked much above the rest for many generations. But the 11th century brought a great commercial leader to the front. This was Venice. The circumstances of the founding of Venice, in the 5th century, and the history of the rise of the singular republic, are given elsewhere.

The condition of the unfortunate refugees, who sought shelter from invading savages on a few small mud banks, barely separated from the shore of their Adriatic coast, did not seem to be a promising one. Nor was it so. While the neighboring parts of Italy were being overrun by Huns, Goths and Lombards in succession, and while the settlement of the barbarous new races was going on over all Southern Europe, in the midst of great disorder and constant war, these islanders and their descendants, for generations, were protected as much by their poverty as by the shallow waters that surrounded them. They had nothing to tempt either plunder or conquest. They lived by salt-making, fishing and fish-salting. They began trade in a small way by exchanging their salt and salted fish for other articles. It grew in their hands from year to year, for they were enterprising, industrious and courageous. Procuring timber on the opposite Dalmatian coast of the Adriatic, they became expert ship builders and sailors. The safety of their situation caused increasing numbers of their Italian fellow countrymen to join them. The islands of the Venetian lagune were, in time, all occupied, and bridges between several of them were built. From the selling of salt and fish to their neighbors, the Venetians went on to more extensive commercial business. By slow degrees, they took the occupation of general merchants, buying goods here and there to sell again. They became friendly with the Greeks on the eastern side of the Adriatic, in Dalmatia and Albania, and this led them into important relations, both commercial and political, with the Byzantine Empire and its capital city, Constantinople. By the time they had gained wealth and consequence enough to attract the notice of their rough neighbors and invite attack, they had also gained strength enough to defend themselves. They took part then in the wars of the Byzantines, rendering valuable services in Italy and elsewhere, and they joined the Greeks in destroying the pirates who infested the Adriatic Sea. The early important trade of the Venetians was with Constantinople, where they enjoyed, for a long period, the peculiar favor of the Byzantine rulers. After the Saracens had mastered Syria and Persia, and taken possession of Alexandria (A. D. 640), Constantinople became the emporium of Eastern trade, adding it to a great traffic which the Byzantine capital had always carried on with the Tartar and Russian territories in Asia and Europe. When the Venetians gained a footing there, as political friends and favored merchants, their fortunes were made. While the Greeks were busy in desperate wars with their Mahometan neighbors, these enterprising Italians took into their own hands more and more of the profitable trade which the Greeks had opened to them. They soon had the handling of Byzantine commerce in western Europe almost wholly. From partners they became rivals, and especially in the Russian traffic, which they drew away from Constantinople, to a large extent, by opening direct dealings with the Russian traders, at a market place established on the Dnieper. From the beginning of the Crusades, in the 11th century, the rise of Venetian commerce and Venetian power was very rapid. The Venetians were prepared, as no other people were, at the time, to furnish fleets, both for transportation and for naval war. They enlisted in the crusading enterprises with a zeal which was not, perhaps, purely pious. Their carrying ships were busy conveying men and supplies; their war galleys were in the front of some sea fighting with the Moslems, and more with Christian rivals; their shrewd politicians were alert, at all points and among all parties, looking after the interests of the republic; their merchants were everywhere ready to improve the new opportunities of trade which these times of excitement opened up. In all directions, and throughout the whole of Europe, new activities were awakened, and especially such as led to a busier trade. The crusaders who lived to return, into France, Flanders, Italy, Germany, and England, brought home with them many ideas which they had picked up in the East, and much new knowledge of oriental products and arts, all of which became widely diffused and produced great effects. The result was to stimulate and improve the industries and to increase the commerce which the Europeans carried on among themselves, as well as to greatly enlarge their demand for the products of the Asiatic world. A new era in European commerce was opened, therefore, by the Crusades, and the Venetians, by their enterprise, their energy and their early experience, took the lead in its activities. They organized the traffic between the East and the West, the North and the South, upon a great scale, and centered the larger part of it in their island city. By sea and by land they managed it with equal vigor. Their merchant fleets were under the protection of the state and made voyages, at regular and appointed times, under the convoy of vessels of war. On the landward side, they arranged an extensive trade with the interior of Germany, Hungary and Bohemia, through the Tyrol and Carinthia. {3708} As the first bitterness of hatred between Christians and Mahometans wore away, they grew willing to trade with one an·other, though the Popes still forbade it. The Venetians were among the first in such willingness. Having many quarrels with the Byzantine Greeks, they were eager to reopen the old eastern market at Alexandria, and did so at the earliest opportunity. From that beginning they spread their trade with Arabs, Moors and Turks, along the whole Mahometan line, in Asia and Africa. But, though Venice took the lead in the reviving commerce of the middle ages and held it substantially to the end of that period of history, she had powerful rivals to contend with, and the strongest were among her near neighbors in Italy. The same commercial spirit was alive in several other Italian cities, which had grown up in the midst of those disorderly times and had contrived to acquire more or less of independence and more or less of power to defend themselves. Amalfi, Genoa and Pisa were the earliest of these in growing to importance, and Florence at a somewhat later day rose to high rank. Florence, which did not become a free city until near the end of the 12th century, gained its subsequent wealth more by manufactures and by banking than by trade. Its chief products were woolens, silk and jewelry, and its money-lenders were everywhere in Europe.

The commercial career of Amalfi was cut short in the 12th century by events connected with the Norman conquest of Southern Italy. Pisa, an ancient city, whose history goes back to Etruscan times, was a considerable seat of trade while Venice was little known; but she fell behind both Venice and Genoa, soon after those vigorous republics were fairly entered in the race. The Pisans prospered highly for some time, by going into partnership or alliance with the Venetians, first, and afterwards with the Genoese; but they quarreled with the latter and were ruined in the wars that ensued. After the thirteenth century Pisa had no commercial importance.

The great rival of Venice was Genoa, a city which claims to be, like Pisa, of more than Roman antiquity. In the trade of the Levant—that is, the eastern ports of the Mediterranean Sea—the Genoese pushed themselves into competition with the Venetians at an early day, and they seemed for some time to hold an equal chance of controlling the prize. During the later part of the 12th century, such unfriendly feelings had grown up between the Venetians and the Byzantine court that the latter transferred its commercial favors to the merchants of Genoa, Pisa and Amalfi, and gave them many privileges at Constantinople. The Venetians were thus placed at a disadvantage in the Bosphorus and the Black Sea; but they did not long submit. In 1204 they persuaded one of the crusading expeditions to join them in attacking Constantinople, which was taken, and the dominions of the ancient Empire of the East were divided among the captors, Venice receiving a goodly share.

This was a golden era for Venice and she improved it to the utmost. For almost sixty years she triumphed over her rivals completely. But in 1261 her merchants were again expelled from Constantinople and the Black Sea. The Greeks had continued to hold a large part of the ancient domain of the Byzantine Empire in Asia Minor, and now, with the help of the Genoese, they succeeded in retaking their old capital city. The Frank Empire, or Latin Empire as it was differently called, which the Crusaders and the Venetians had set up, was extinguished and the Genoese again took the place of the Venetians as masters of the Byzantine trade, including that of the Black Sea and the Asiatic traffic which was carried on from its ports. But by this time the better disposition to deal commercially with one another had grown up between the Christians and the Mahometans. So the Venetians, when they lost their footing at Constantinople, very promptly went over to Alexandria and made excellent arrangements with the Saracens there, for supplying Europe once more with the commodities of the East, by those easier and shorter ancient routes which Christian commerce had not used for several hundred years. This opening of trade with the Mahometan races, at Alexandria, and elsewhere soon afterwards, may easily have repaid the Venetians for what they lost in the Byzantine direction; but they did not give up the latter. A long series of desperate wars between the competitors ensued, with such shiftings of victory that Venice seemed sometimes to be almost in a hopeless strait; but, in the end, she broke the power of her rival completely. The final peace, which was concluded in 1381, left her quite undisputed]y, for a time, the mistress of the Mediterranean and its trade.

See GENOA: A. D. 1261-1299 (page 1419); and VENICE: A. D. 1378-1379, and 1379-1381 (page 3608).

Both the northward and the southward lines of traffic between Asia and Europe, through Alexandria and through Constantinople, were now chiefly in the hands of the Venetians. Between those great courses were important minor currents of commerce, along caravan routes through Asia Minor and Syria, which they mainly controlled. The trade of the rich islands of the Levant and of Moorish Africa was under their management for the most part, and they found on the northern shores of the Black Sea a commerce with the Russian region which the Genoese had increased while they ruled in those waters. For three quarters of a century the Venetians enjoyed this large extent of commerce with the East. Then the Turks came, besieged and captured Constantinople (A. D. 1453) and spread over the country which they now occupy. For the next two centuries the Venetians were at war with the Turks —defending Christendom in the Mediterranean with little help. At the same time they had to encounter an almost fatal attack from Christian princes who had become jealous of their formidable wealth and power and who united against the republic in the League of Cambrai.

They might have recovered from this attack, for they still held the Mediterranean trade; but a great event had occurred, just ten years before the League of Cambrai, which was more fatal than war, not to Venice alone, but to most of her rivals in trade as well. This was the discovery, by Vasco da Gama, of the ocean passage to the Eastern world around the Cape of Good Hope. The toiling traffic of desert caravans, to Alexandria, to Constantinople, to Tyre, Antioch, Ephesus and Erzeroum, was soon reduced to insignificance. The rich trade of the Indies and of all the farther East—the trade of the silk countries and the cotton countries, of the spice islands, of the pearl fisheries, of the lands of ivory, of ebony, of gold, of precious stones, of fragrant gums, of curious things and curious arts—was quickly swept into a different course—into broader seas than the Mediterranean and into new hands.

The earliest commercial seaports of northwestern Europe had their rise, not on the North Sea, but on the Baltic and the straits which enter it. The Northmen of that region were not alone in the traffic which grew up there, for the Wends (a Slavonic people), who occupied most of the southern shores of the Baltic, east of the Elbe, appear to have stoutly rivalled them from the first. Biorko, on an island in Lake Maelar, Sweden (the inlet upon which Stockholm is situated), was one of the first of the seats of commerce at the North. It is supposed to have been destroyed about 1008. But the most famous was the city of Winet, or Vineta, on the island of Usedom, at the mouth of the river Oder. It may not have been quite as rich and magnificent a town as some would infer from accounts given in early chronicles; but no doubt it was remarkable for the age, in that part of the world, and carried on a large trade. The Swedes and Danes were the destroyers of Vineta, before the middle of the 9th century, and the former people are said to have carried away from it great quantities of marble, brass and iron work, with which they gave splendor to their own newer city of Wisby, then just rising on the island of Gothland. The career of Wisby lasted several centuries and it was prominent in commerce throughout the Middle Ages. All that can be said of that most ancient commerce in northern Europe is gathered from sources which are uncertain and obscure. It is not until the 12th century that much of the real history of trade in the Baltic region opens. In 1140 the modern city of Lubeck was founded, on the site of a more ancient town, known as Old Lubeck, which is supposed to have been a thriving port of trade in its day but which had been utterly destroyed by its rivals or enemies. The new Lubeck established close relations with the Genoese and soon took the lead in the commerce of the north, among a large number of enterprising towns which, about that time, came into prominence on the northern coast and on the rivers which run to it. The city of Hamburg, on the Elbe, lying inland and not very distant from Lubeck, was one of the earliest of these. Like Lubeck, it had suffered destruction, in the constant warfare of the earlier time, and had made a new beginning of existence about 1013. Hamburg had access to the North Sea by the Elbe and Lubeck to the Baltic by the Trave. Trading in different directions, therefore, by sea, they carried on an active traffic with one another, across the narrow stretch of land which divides them,—as they still do to this day. But this inland commerce was greatly disturbed by robbers who infested the country, until the two cities, Lubeck and Hamburg, in 1241, agreed to establish and support in common a body of soldiers for the protection of their merchants. That agreement is believed to have been the beginning of a wide-spread union which afterwards took shape among the commercial cities of northern Europe, and which became powerful and famous in the later history of the Middle Ages, under the name of the Hanseatic League.

      See HANSA TOWNS: (pages 1624-1626),
      and (in this Supplement) GERMANY, 13-15th,
      and 15-17th CENTURIES.

The two peoples who inhabit the region called the Netherlands—a purely Germanic stock in the north (modern Holland) and a mixed but largely Celtic population in the south (modern Belgium)—have had a history so much in common that it cannot well be divided, though they have differed in experiences as widely as in character. The struggle with nature for a foothold in the lowland itself was harder in the north than in the south, and no doubt that is why the Teutonic Frisians led the way in industrial training. It was among them that the arts of weaving and dyeing were cultivated first to a notable excellence. As early as the age of Charlemagne (8-9th centuries), Frisian robes, of white and purple woolen stuffs, are mentioned among the choice gifts which the Emperor sometimes sent to foreign princes, and even to the great caliph, Haroun al Raschid. In the 9th century, Frisian weavers are said to have been persuaded by an enterprising count of Flanders to settle in his dominions, at Ghent, and introduce there a better knowledge of their art. But if the Flemish people borrowed from the Frisians in this matter, they soon outran their teachers and made the loom their own peculiar property. The shuttle, ere long, was in the hands of a very large part of the whole south Netherland or Belgian population, and they became almost a nation of weavers. The same Count Baldwin of Flanders who brought the Frisian weavers into Ghent established annual markets, or fairs, in various towns, which drew merchants from abroad, promoted trade and stimulated manufacturing industries throughout the country. Woolen, linen, and finally silk looms multiplied to a prodigious extent, and the weavers in all these branches acquired remarkable skill. The working of metals was also learned with great aptness, and Flemish cutlery, weapons and armor became very nearly as renowned as those of Milan and Damascus. Tanning was another valuable art which the Flemings and their Netherland neighbors cultivated, and the tilling of the soil was so industriously pursued that flax, hemp, grain and other farm products were raised quite abundantly for sale abroad. In the north Netherlands—the Hollow-land of the sturdy "Free Frisians" and Batavians, who were afterwards called the Dutch—the hard working energy of the people had been pushed in some different directions. The old trade of weaving was still vigorously carried on, in nearly every important town, and Dutch woolens, damask linens, carpets, velvets, etc., were largely produced and widely sought after; but this industry was never so prominent as it became in the Belgian provinces. The fortunes of the Hollanders were founded to a large extent upon their fisheries, and especially the herring fishery, which assumed great importance in their hands after the middle of the 12th century. Before that time, they appear to have been obliged to seek the herring in other waters than their own—along the shores of England, Scotland and Norway. But some change in the movements of those curiously swarming fish, about the time above mentioned, brought great shoals of them to the Dutch coast, and the herring harvest thereafter was a rich source of gain to the Hollanders. {3710} They discovered some secrets of salting or curing the fish which were very much valued, and the Dutch herring were eagerly bought for all parts of Europe. The making of pottery was another industry to which the Dutch applied themselves with success, and particularly at the town of Delft, which gave its name for many centuries to the common earthenware used in western Europe. In dairy farming and skilful horticulture, or gardening, the Hollanders were superior to all other people at an early time. Wherever sea-fisheries are extensive, sailors and ship builders are trained and ocean navigation and commerce are sure, in time, to be prosperously pursued. It was so with the Dutch. Their Frisian ancestors had suffered so much on their coasts from the harassing raids of the Norse pirates, or Vikings, that they did not figure very early in seafaring enterprise. But they fought the free-booters in their stubborn and stout-hearted way and were able at last to make the harbors of their coast tolerably safe. From that time the seaport towns of Holland grew rapidly, and Dutch merchants and merchant ships, trading with the cities of the Baltic, with England and with Flanders and France increased in number. The Hollanders had an advantage in this matter over their Flemish neighbors of the South Netherlands. They were provided with better harbors and they held the outlets of the great rivers in their hands. This latter was the cause of incessant quarrels between the two peoples. The 15th century found the whole Netherlands, both north and south, in a thriving state, so far as industry and trade were concerned, notwithstanding bad government and disorderly times. The people were counted among the richest in Europe. Many great and wealthy cities had grown up, containing large populations and very busy ones. In the north, there were Dordrecht or Dort, Hoorn, Zierikzee, Haarlem, Delft, Leyden, Deventer, Enkhuizen, Middelburg, Nimeguen, Utrecht, Rotterdam, and Amsterdam, which last named city eclipsed them all in the end, though it was one of the latest to rise. In the south there was Ghent, with forty thousand weavers inside its strong walls, who were always as ready to string the bow as to throw the shuttle, and whose hot-tempered revolts against tyranny and wrong are among the most exciting incidents of history. There was Bruges, which became for a time the great emporium of the commerce of northern and southern Europe, but which lost its importance before the 15th century closed. There was Antwerp, which succeeded to the trade of Bruges and rose to unrivalled rank; and there were Lille, Mechlin (or Malines), Courtrai, Ypres, Louvain, and other towns, all centers of flourishing manufactures, chiefly those of the loom.

"The connection between the two great divisions of European commerce, the northern including the Hansa and the Flemish towns, and the southern the Italian republics and Mediterranean ports, was effected by two chief routes. One was by sea from the Mediterranean through the Straits of Gibraltar, up the coasts of Spain and France to Flanders. This route was used more by the southern, and especially by Venetian, merchants than by the northern traders, for … Venice sent every year a large fleet to Flanders and the English Channel, which fleet would meet at Bruges, the great Hansa depot, the most important merchants of North Europe and the Hansa traders. Bruges was indeed for a long time the central mart in the north for the commercial world, till 1482, when the canal connecting it with the port of Sluys was blocked up. But at Bruges also the maritime trade just mentioned met the overland trade through central Europe, a trade that was very important, and which enriched many a city upon the Rhine and farther south, from Augsburg to Cologne. We must consider this overland route more carefully. The great centre from which it started, or to which it tended, was Venice, where as we know were collected most of the products of the East, coming both via Egypt and via the lands round the Black Sea. … Starting … from Venice, the merchants used to cross the Alps by the Brenner or Julier Passes, and then would make for the Upper Danube or one of its tributaries, and thence get on to the stream of the Rhine. Their object was generally to utilise a natural waterway wherever possible, rather in contrast to the old Roman traders, who preferred the roads. But the roads of the Middle Ages were far inferior to the old Roman highways. One of the first great cities which the mediæval trader passed on this route, coming from Venice, was Augsburg. … Thence he might go down the stream to Regensburg (Ratisbon) and Vienna; or he might go up to Ulm and then make a short land journey till he reached the Rhine, and so right away down that convenient stream. This was perhaps the main route from north to south. But many others converged from central Europe to Italy, and many important cities owed their wealth to the stream of trade. In Karl the Great's time the cities on the great waterway to the East along the Danube became very flourishing; Regensburg, Passau, and Vienna being the most important. From Regensburg there ran north and west two great commercial highways into the interior of Germany, one by way of Nürnberg and Erfurt and the other past Nürnberg to the Rhine. Another route from Regensburg, by river, to Trentschin on the river Waag took its merchants through Galicia into Russia, whither they went as far as Kief, the centre of Russian trade. Along this great waterway of the Danube and its tributaries came the products of the East from Constantinople and the Black Sea. … Another important route was that from the cities of the Rhine, such as Coblenz and Basle, up that river and on to Chur and then by the Julier Pass and the Engadine and the Etschthal to Venice; or again, after passing Chur, through the Septimer Pass and the Bergeller Thal to Genoa. These Rhine cities were very flourishing, from Basle to Cologne. … Like most trading towns in the Middle Ages, the Rhine cities were compelled to form themselves into a confederacy to resist the robbery and extortions of feudal nobles, whose only idea of trade seems to have been that it providentially existed as a source of plunder to themselves. But besides this Confederacy of the Rhine there was another great Confederacy of the Swabian cities, arising from the same causes. … That of the Rhine included ninety cities, and existed in a fully organised form in 1255. {3711} The Swabian Confederacy was formed a little later, about 1300 or 1350, under the leadership of Augsburg, Ulm, and Nürnberg, and was in close political and commercial relations both with Venice and Genoa. … If now we turn from trade routes in Europe itself to those which led to Europe from the East, we find that at the time of which we are now speaking there were three main streams of commerce. In the 12th century the caravan trade in Central Asia had passed along several different paths; but after the Crusades, and the decline of the Eastern empire by the capture of Constantinople (1204), the various tribes of Central Asia, rendered more fanatical and warlike than ever by these military and religious events, caused caravan trading to become very unsafe. The first of the three routes which now remained in the 13th century was from India and the western coasts of Asia, past Basra on the Persian Gulf to Bagdad by water. From Bagdad merchants went, still by water, along the Tigris to the point on that river nearest to Seleucia and Antioch, and so to Orontes, and then to the coast of the Levant. The second route followed the same course as the first till the point of leaving the Tigris, and then proceeded over the Highlands of Asia Minor and Armenia to the port of Trebizond on the Black Sea, where Venetian vessels used to meet Asiatic traders. For both these routes Bagdad formed a very important centre. … The third route from the far East was from India by sea to Aden, then by land across the desert to Chus on the Nile, which took nine days, and then again by water down the Nile to Cairo, a journey of thirteen days. From Cairo there was a canal, 200 miles long, to Alexandria, where again Venetian and Genoese merchants were ready to receive the rich spices, sugar, perfumes, precious stones, gum, oil, cotton, and silk brought from the East."

"Whilst the Italians were vigorously pursuing their trade in India and Europe, and Spain was renowned for her manufactures; whilst the Hanse merchants were extending their factories, and Portuguese navigators were bent upon maritime discoveries; whilst the Dutch were struggling for independence, and France was planting the seeds of her industries; England was only known as possessing a few articles of commerce of great value. Her wools and her metals were eagerly sought by foreign traders, but she had no ships of her own to carry them abroad. She had many raw materials, but she produced no manufactures for exportation. Nor was her policy respecting foreign trade the most wise. The chief concern of the legislature in those days seemed to be to prevent foreign nations doing with English produce what, after all, the English could not do themselves. Again and again the export of wool was prohibited, or was hindered by prohibitory duties. … The people regarded the introduction of foreigners with the utmost jealousy. They resented their competition, they grudged their profits and their advantages. The guilds would not admit them as members, and it was hard for the poor strangers to establish a footing in England, even although Magna Charta had long before declared that all merchants shall have safety in coming to or going out of England, and in remaining and travelling through it, by land or water, for buying or selling, free from any grievous imposition. Anyhow, whatever the opposition of cities and corporations, the nation was benefited by the foreign merchants. Thankful, indeed, might England have been for the Lombards, who brought hither money and merchandise, banking and insurance; for the Flemings, who, driven by intestine dissension, found refuge on British soil, and became the founders of the woollen manufacture; and for the Huguenots, who brought with them the silk manufacture. … But a new era advanced. The discovery of the American continent by Columbus, and of a maritime route to India by Vasco da Gama, altered the course and character of commerce. Till then trade was essentially inland, thenceforth its most conspicuous triumphs were to be on the ocean. Till then, the Mediterranean was the centre of international trading. From thenceforth the tendency of trade was towards the countries bordering on the Atlantic. … It was not long … before England followed the lead of Spain and Portugal. John Cabot and his sons went in quest of land to North America; Drake went to circumnavigate the globe; Chancellor sailed up the White Sea to Russia; Willoughby went on his ill-fated voyage in search of a north-eastern passage to India; Sir Walter Raleigh explored Virginia; the Merchant Adventurers pushed their adventures to Spain and Portugal; and English ships began to be seen in the Levant. Meanwhile, English trade enlarged its sphere, English bravery at sea became most conspicuous, and English industry advanced apace."

"In the 14th century the whole of the external, and much of the internal, trade of the country had been in the hands of foreigners; in the 15th our merchants began to push their way from point to point in the Mediterranean and the Baltic; in the 16th they followed slowly in the wake of other adventurers, or tried to establish themselves in unkindly regions which had attracted no one else. When Elizabeth ascended the throne England appears to have been behind other nations of Western Europe in the very industrial arts and commercial enterprise on which her present reputation is chiefly based."

   "It would be wrong to infer from the prevalence of piracy at
   this period [the 15th century] that commerce must have
   declined. On the contrary, it was probably the increase of
   commerce, unaccompanied by the growth of adequate means for
   its defence, which made the pirate's calling so profitable.
   Nor was the evil confined to the professional pirate class, if
   we may use the expression. Even recognised associations of
   merchants frequently indulged in practices which can only be
   characterised as piracy. Commerce, in fact, was deeply imbued
   with the spirit of lawlessness, and in these circumstances it
   is probable that the depredations of pirates did not excite
   the same alarm nor discourage trade in the same degree as
   would be the case in more law-abiding times. In the 15th
   century the profession of Christianity and extreme
   respectability were not incompatible with a life of violence
   and outrage, and it is to be feared that in some cases the
   Governments which should have repressed pirates by the
   severest measures, encouraged their depredations.
{3712}
   Certainly they have never enjoyed such immunity from the
   strong arm of the law as in the 15th century. Outrage and
   robbery went on unchecked along the coasts and in the track of
   merchant vessels. No trader was safe even in the rivers and
   ports of his own country. The pirates burnt and sacked towns
   as important as Sandwich and Southampton; they carried off not
   only the goods they could lay their hands on, but men and
   women, and even children, whom they held to ransom. Unable to
   look to the Government for protection of life and property
   while they were engaged in trade, the merchants were thrown
   upon their own resources to provide security. The best method
   of grappling with the pirates, and that which was most
   frequently adopted, was for merchant vessels to sail together
   in such numbers that they could repel attack; and these
   voluntary efforts were sometimes aided by the Government. In
   1406 Henry IV. granted the merchants 3s. on every cask of wine
   imported, and certain payments on Staple exports for purposes
   of defence. Two Admirals were appointed, one for the north and
   the other for the south, with full jurisdiction in maritime
   affairs and power to organise naval forces. But this scheme
   was unsuccessful. A similar expedient was tried in 1453, but
   abandoned two years afterwards. The only satisfactory remedy
   would have been a strong navy, but the conditions necessary
   for this had not yet been realised. The country could not have
   supported the charge of maintaining a strong naval force. …
   That merchants were beginning to realise the importance of the
   subject, and were becoming wealthy enough to build vessels of
   a considerable size, is evident from the operations of John
   Taverner, of Kingston-upon-Hull, and the famous William
   Cannynges of Bristol, the latter of whom is said to have
   possessed 2,470 tons of shipping and some vessels of 900 tons
   burthen."

      W. A. S. Hewins,
      Industry and Commerce
      (in "Social England," edited by H. D. Traill,
      chapter 7, volume 2).

COMMERCE: MEDIÆVAL:
The Portuguese, and the finding of the Ocean Way to the Indies.

It was not by accident that the Portuguese rose all at once, in the closing years of the 15th century and the early years of the 16th, to a position in which they controlled and directed the main current of trade between Europe and the Eastern world. The discovery by Vasco da Gama of an ocean route to the Indies, and all the results (hereafter described), which it yielded to his countrymen for the time, were a reward of enterprise which the Portuguese had fully earned. They had worked for it, patiently and resolutely, through almost a hundred years. The undertaking was begun, at about the commencement of the 15th century, by a Portuguese prince who ought to enjoy greater fame than if he had conquered an empire; because his ambition was nobler and the fruits were of higher worth to the world. He was known as "Prince Henry the Navigator," and he was the third son of the Portuguese King John I. who was called the Great, on account of his success in wars with the Castillians and the Moors. But this young son, Prince Henry, was much the greater man of the two. He could not endure the ignorance of his time with regard to the mysterious ocean that stretched westward and southward from the shores of the little country which his father ruled. He was bent on knowing more about it; and he was specially bent on having the Portuguese sailors make their way down the shores of the African continent, to learn where it ended and what track to the farther side might be found. Beyond Cape Nun, at the southern extremity of the modern empire of Morocco, nothing was known of the western coast of Africa when Prince Henry began his work. The Phœnicians and Carthaginians, two thousand years earlier, had probably known more about it; but their knowledge was lost. Prince Henry studied everything that could give him light and became well convinced that round the continent of Africa there was a way to the Indies for bold sailors to find. Then he applied himself, with a zeal which never flagged, to the working out of that achievement. He was a young man when he began, and during more than forty years of his life he devoted his time and his means almost wholly to the fitting out and directing of exploring ships and he fixed his residence upon the most southerly promontory of Portugal, to watch their going and coming. But the art of navigation was so little understood and the navigators were so timid, that slow progress was made. Each explorer only ventured a little farther than the one before him; and so they went feeling their way, league by league, down the African coast. The forty-three years of Prince Henry's endeavors were consumed in reaching what is now the settlement of Sierra Leone, near the head of the gulf of Guinea. But even this added more than a thousand miles of the western coast of Africa to the maps of the 15th century and was a greater advance in geographical knowledge than had been made since Carthage fell. Before he died (A. D. 1460), Prince Henry secured from the Pope (who was supposed to have the giving of all heathen countries) a grant to Portugal of all these discoveries, both island and mainland, and of all which the Portuguese explorers might make in the future, between Europe and India. So he died well content, let us hope, with the work which he had done for his country and for mankind. The enthusiasm for exploration which Prince Henry had awakened in Portugal did not die with him, though his efforts had met with unending opposition and excited very much discontent. Repeated expeditions were still sent down the African coast, and they crept farther and farther toward the goal of desire. At last, in 1486, Bartholomew Diaz, with three ships, actually rounded the Cape of Good Hope without knowing it, and only learned the fact when he turned backward from his voyage, discouraged by storms. Eleven years later, Vasco da Gama set out, fired with fresh determination, by the great discovery of a new world which Columbus had so lately made for Spain, and this time there was no failure. He passed the Cape, sailed up the eastern shores of the African continent to Melinda, in Zanguebar, and thence across the Indian Ocean to Calicut in Hindostan. The ocean route to India was now fully proved; the new era was opened and its grand prize plucked by the Portuguese—thanks to Prince Henry the Navigator.

There is nothing at all imaginary in the line which is drawn in history across the later years of the 15th and the early years of the 16th century, to mark the beginning of a new era in human affairs. It is a line very real and very distinct, dividing one state of things, known as the mediæval, from another state of things, known as the modern. It was fixed by the occurrence of a series of extraordinary events, which came quickly, one after the other, and which brought about, either singly or together, the most tremendous changes, in many ways, that ever happened to the world in the same space of time. The first of these was the invention of printing, which dates as a practical art from about 1454. The second was the discovery of the new world by Columbus, A. D. 1492. The third was the passage around the Cape of Good Hope by the Portuguese navigator, Vasco da Gama, A. D. 1497. The fourth was the religious reformation set in motion by Martin Luther, at Wittenberg, A. D. 1517. The combined effect of these great events was to make really a new starting point in almost every particular of human history, and to do so very quickly. The commercial changes which resulted are among the most remarkable. No sooner had the route by sea to southern and eastern Asia and the islands of the Indian ocean been found, than almost the whole traffic of Europe with that rich eastern world abandoned its ancient channels and ran into the new one. There were several strong reasons for this. In the first place, it cost less to bring goods by ship from India, Ceylon or China direct to European ports, than to carry them over long distances by land to the eastern shores of the Mediterranean and there ship them to the West. In the second place, by taking its new route, this commerce escaped the Moorish pirates in the Mediterranean, who had long been very troublesome. And, lastly, but not least in importance, the European merchants gained a great advantage in becoming able to deal directly with the East Indians and the Chinese, instead of trading at second hand with them, through Arabs and Mahometan Turks, who controlled the Asiatic and African routes. So the commerce of the Indies, as it was generally called, fled suddenly away from the Mediterranean to the Atlantic; fled away from the Venetians, the Genoese, the Marseillaise, and the Barcelonians; from Constantinople, lately conquered by the Turks; from Antioch and Alexandria; and from many cities of the Hansa League in the north, which had learned the old ways of traffic and were slow to learn anything new. Soon many of the great marts which had been busiest, grew silent and deserted and fell into slow decay. The most enriching commerce of the world was passing to different hands and bringing younger races into the front of history.

Having found the way to India by sea, the Portuguese were prompt in taking measures to make themselves strong in that part of the world and to control the trade with it. They were helped in this effort by the grant of imagined rights which Prince Henry had obtained from the Pope, long before. But they strengthened the rights which the Pope gave them, by the older fashioned methods of conquest and possession. They began at once to plant themselves firmly at important points in the eastern seas and on the Indian coast. They sent out one of their ablest military men, Francesco d'Almeida, with a strong force of ships and volunteers, and appointed him Viceroy of India. He took possession of several parts of the Malabar coast (the western coast of the southern extremity of Hindostan) and built forts in which garrisons were placed. He similarly established the Portuguese power in Ceylon, took possession of the Maldive Islands and founded trading settlements in Sumatra. The Venetians, who saw that their ancient trade with the East was doomed unless this new rivalry could be crushed, now joined their Mahometan allies of Egypt in a great effort to drive the Portuguese back. A formidable fleet was fitted out on the Red Sea and sent against Almeida. He was unfortunate in his first encounter with these allied enemies and lost the squadron that opposed them. But the resolute viceroy was undaunted. Recalled from his command, he refused to give it up until he had equipped and led another fleet against the navy of the Egyptians and completely destroyed it. The successor of Almeida, as viceroy of India, was a remarkable personage who is known in the annals of his time as "the great Afonso D'Albuquerque." The chronicle of his exploits in Africa and India, compiled by his son from his own letters and records, and entitled "The commentaries of the great Afonso D'Albuquerque," has been translated into English and published by the Hakluyt Society. He was a remarkably energetic commander, and very honest in his way, according to the notions of his time; but he did the work of subjugation and conquest which he was sent to do in a cruel and rapacious style. He was not rapacious on his own account; but he saw no wrong in anything done for the profit of his country. In the course of seven years he spread the Portuguese power so widely and fixed it so firmly on the East Indian coasts and in the neighboring seas that there was hardly an attempt for many years to disturb it. None but Portuguese ships dared enter the Indian ocean without special permits, and the few which received admission were forbidden to trade in spices—the most precious merchandise of the region. From the Indies the Portuguese made their way to the coasts of China and put themselves on friendly terms with its people. They were permitted to occupy the port of Macao and have possessed it ever since. Some years later they discovered the islands of Japan and opened the earliest European commerce with that singular country. So they held for a time the complete mastery of eastern trade and enlarged it to greater bounds than it had ever reached before. But they were satisfied with keeping the sources of the supply of eastern goods to Europe in their own hands. The first handling of the commodities was all that they tried to control. They brought to Lisbon the spices, silks, cotton, pearls, ivory, sugar, aromatic drugs and the like, which their ships and merchants gathered up, and there sold them to other traders, Dutch, English and German for the most part, who found the final markets for them and who enjoyed a good half of the profits of the trade. These latter derived great advantages from the arrangements—much more than they had gained in their trading with Genoa and Venice—and the commerce of Holland and England grew rapidly as the result. {3714} But the glory and prosperity of the Portuguese, as masters of the rich traffic of the eastern world, were not of long duration. Before the 16th century closed, they had lost the footholds of their power and were slipping into the background very fast. By misfortunes and by folly combined, all the fruits of the patient wisdom of Prince Henry, the persevering courage of Vasco da Gama, the bold energy of Almeida, and the restless enterprise of Albuquerque, were torn out of their hands. Almost from the first, a greedy and jealous court had done all that could be done to destroy the grand opportunities in trade which the country had gained. Private enterprise was discouraged; the crown claimed exclusive rights over large parts of the commerce opened up, and these rights were sold, given to favorites and dealt with in many ways that are ruinous to successful trade. Royal jealousy sent three viceroys to divide among them the government of the Portuguese possessions in the East, when there should have been but one, and the same jealousy kept these vice-royalties ever changing. Of course, there was nowhere good government nor thrifty management of trade. In the midst of this bad state of things, the royal family of Portugal died out, in 1580, and Philip II. of Spain set up claims to the crown which he was strong enough to make good. Portugal thus became joined to Spain, for the next sixty years, and was dragged into Philip's wicked war with the Netherlands. Her Spanish masters did what they could to draw her trade away from Lisbon to Cadiz and Seville. The Dutch and English, her former customers and friends, made enemies now by Philip of Spain, pushed their way into the eastern seas, defying the mandates of the Pope, and broke down her supremacy there. When the Portuguese, in 1640, threw off the Spanish yoke and asserted their independence again, calling a prince of the house of Braganza to the throne, there was not much left of their former power or their former trade. They still held Goa, on the western coast of Hindostan, and the Chinese port of Macao—as they do to the present day; and they retained, as they still do, considerable possessions in Africa. But their brief importance in navigation, in colonization and trade, was quite gone and they dropped back to a humble position in the history of the world. Even the management of their home trade with other countries fell mostly, after a time, into the hands of the English, who became their special allies and friends.

While the Portuguese were pursuing glory and gain in the track of Vasco da Gama, which led them south and east, the Spaniards were doing the same in the wake of the three little ships which Columbus, with a bolder hand, had steered westward, to strange shores which he never dreamed of finding. These newly opened regions of the globe, in the Atlantic and on both sides of it, were divided between the two nations by the Pope, and it was a bold matter in those days to dispute his right. He gave to the Spaniards all islands and countries found west of a meridian line drawn 27½° west of the island of Ferro, in the Canary group. This nearly corresponds with the meridian 45½° west of Greenwich. To the Portuguese he assigned all discoveries east of it. So they both went on their appointed ways, with pious hearts and untroubled consciences, busily hunting for heathen lands to seize and despoil. But the eastern field, in which the Portuguese did most of their work, was one where commerce was old and where something of Europe and its people was already known. They were forced to look upon trade as the chief object of their pursuit. With the Spaniards the case was different. They found their way to a quarter of the world which Europe had never heard of and came upon people who never saw the faces of white men until then. These strange races of the new world were some of them quite as civilized, in certain respects, as the Spaniards who invaded them, and even more so, it would seem, in their notions of truth and in the refinement of their manners and modes of life. But they were simple and unsuspecting; they were not warlike in disposition and they were rudely and poorly armed. So the mail-clad cavaliers of Spain crushed them into helpless slavery with perfect ease. From the islands of the West Indies, which they discovered and occupied first, the Spaniards had soon made their way to the shores of the two continents of America, North and South. They found cities and nations which astonished them by their splendor and wealth and set them wild with greedy desires. Europe looked poor in comparison with the shining wealth of Mexico and Peru. The Spaniards went mad with the lust of gold. They lost human feeling and common sense in their greediness to grasp the metal treasures of the new world. They were indifferent to the more precious and abounding products that it offered, and neglected to build up the great commerce which might have filled their hands with lasting riches. They made the old fable of the goose which laid golden eggs a piece of real history. They killed the goose; they destroyed their source of wealth in Peru and Mexico by their eager extortions. Of true commerce between the old world and the new there was little while the Spaniards controlled it. They did, in the course of time, ship considerable quantities of sugar, tobacco, hides, logwood, indigo, cochineal, cocoa, cinchona, or Peruvian bark (from which quinine is extracted) and other American products, from their various colonies; but to no such extent as a wise and enterprising people would have done, having the same opportunities. Once a year, or once in two years, a fleet of ships was sent from Seville, at first, and afterwards from Cadiz, to Vera Cruz, for freights from Mexico, and another to Porto Bello, on the Isthmus of Panama, for the South American freights. The ships which made the latter voyage were distinguished from the Mexican fleet by being called the galleons. For a long time, twelve galleons in the one squadron and fifteen ships in the other, making their voyage once a year, and sometimes only every other year, conveyed all the trade that passed between Spain and America; which shows how little the Spaniards drew from their great possessions, except the enormous treasure of silver and gold which a few ships could transport. This glittering treasure formed, in fact, the main cargo of the Peruvian galleons and the Mexican fleet. Before the close of the reign of Philip II. the number of galleons was increased to about forty and that of the fleet to fifty or sixty. {3715} It is quite certain that no country had ever before received such a quantity of gold and silver as came into Spain during the 16th century. Instead of enriching, it ruined the nation. Neither rulers nor people had sense enough to see what a treacherous and delusive kind of wealth it formed, if trusted to alone. They vainly fancied that, with such a store of precious metals to draw upon, they could afford to despise the homely labors by which other people lived. With such mad notions as these, the honest industries of Spain were treated with neglect or worse. Her trade with neighboring countries was looked upon as a business too insignificant for Spaniards to care for or trouble themselves about. It was mostly given over to the Dutch and Flemings, while they remained under Spanish rule, and it was afterwards kept up in great part by smugglers, Dutch and English. Agriculture decayed, and its destruction was helped by the formation of a great aristocratic company of sheep-farmers, called the Mesta, to which such tyrannical rights and privileges were given by the crown that the most fertile parts of Spain were finally turned into sheep-pasture, under its control. The best artisans and the most enterprising merchants of the kingdom were driven out, because they were Moors and Jews, or they were burned for Christian beliefs which the Church did not approve. The Inquisition was so busy, with its racks and its fires, that no other business could thrive. Every kind of production dwindled, and for the supplying of all descriptions of wants the Spaniards were soon driven to look to other countries. The few who laid hands upon the riches coming in from the plunder of America spent it recklessly, in extravagant ways, while costly foreign wars which had no success, and plots in France and England which came to nothing, drained the coffers of the king. And thus the great stream of gold and silver which flowed into Spain from the new world ran out of it quite as fast, until nearly every other country in Europe held more of it than Spain herself. The strong hand with which the Spaniards were able at first, and for some time, to hold the vast domain of sea and land which the Pope had given them and which their own sailors and soldiers had explored and seized, grew weak before the end of a hundred years after the memorable voyage of Columbus was made. The hardy Dutch, driven to revolt and enmity by tyrannical government and by cruel religious persecutions, attacked them everywhere, in the eastern and western world. The English, just beginning to grow ambitious and bold on the ocean, and constantly threatened by the armadas of Spain, did the same. But these were not the only enemies who harassed the Spanish colonies and fleets. In a general way, the whole world went to war with the insolent nation which claimed the lordship of the earth. There came into existence, in the 17th century, a powerful organization of pirates or freebooters, made up of daring men of all nations, who carried on for many years a villainous warfare of their own against the Spaniards at sea and against their American settlements. These Buccaneers, as they were called, gained strongholds in several islands of the West Indies, from which the Spaniards were not able to dislodge them. Under the attacks of all these enemies, combined with her own misgovernment and her contempt and abuse of thrifty industries and fair trade—which no people can neglect without ruin—Spain steadily and rapidly sank.

   In the first half of the 16th century, the people of the
   Netherlands were the tolerably contented subjects of that
   famous monarch, the Emperor Charles V., who ruled in Spain, in
   Naples, in Germany (the old Empire), and in Burgundy, as well
   as in the Lowland principalities, Flanders, Holland, and the
   rest. They were already very prosperous, working hard at many
   callings, trading shrewdly and busily with the rest of the
   world, and diligently picking up all kinds of knowledge
   everywhere. In the southern provinces (which we may call the
   Belgian, because they are mostly now embraced in the modern
   kingdom of Belgium) the chief industries were those of the
   loom, in all branches of weaving; and in skilful workmanship
   of every kind the people were tasteful and apt. These
   provinces were the seat of a much greater and more general
   activity in manufactures than appeared in the states to the
   north of them (which we will call the Dutch states, without
   distinction, because they are now included in the kingdom of
   Holland). The latter were more extensively employed in
   fisheries, in navigation and in ship building, although most
   kinds of industry, manufacturing and agricultural, were
   thriftily and successfully carried on. At the time when
   Charles V. ruled the Netherlands, the city of Antwerp, in the
   Belgian circle of provinces, was the great metropolis of
   Netherland trade. It was much more than that. It was the
   foremost commercial capital of the world. The traffic which
   slipped away from Venice and Genoa, had fixed its central seat
   in this younger town on the Scheldt. It was sure to plant its
   new emporium somewhere in the Netherlands, because there was
   nowhere else in Europe so much energy, so much enterprise, so
   much industry, so much commercial wisdom, so much activity of
   domestic trade. Spain and Portugal held the wealth of the
   Indies and the Americas in their hands, but we have seen how
   incapable they were of using the commercial advantage it gave
   them. Lisbon, Cadiz and Seville were only depots for the
   transfer of merchandise; it was impossible to make them real
   capitals of trade, because they could not and would not
   furnish either the spirit, or the genius, or the organized
   agencies that it demands. The Netherlands, with their long
   schooling in commerce upon a smaller scale, were ready to meet
   every requirement when the new era opened and gave them their
   greater chance. There was no other mercantile organization so
   well prepared. The league of the Hansa Towns was breaking and
   failing; the English were just beginning to show their
   aptitude for manufactures and trade. Some one of the
   Netherland cities was sure to win the sovereignty in
   commercial affairs which Venice gave up, and Antwerp proved
   the winner, for a time. During most of the 16th century, it
   was the business center of Europe. It was the gathering-place
   of the merchants and the seat of the money-changers and
   bankers. Two and three thousand ships were often crowded in
   its harbor, at one time. It distributed the merchandise of the
   East and West Indies, which it took from Portugal and Spain,
   and the manifold wares of the many manufacturing towns of
   Flanders, Brabant, southern Germany, to a great extent, and
   northern France.
{3716}
   At the same time, its own looms, anvils, tanneries,
   glass-works, dyeing-vats and mechanic shops of various kinds
   were numerous and busy. Its thriving population was rapidly
   increased, for it welcomed all who came with skill or
   knowledge or money or strong hands to take part in its work.
   Such was Antwerp during the reign of Charles V., and at the
   time (A. D. 1555-1556) when that weary monarch gave up his
   many crowns to his evil son, Philip II. of Spain, and went
   away to a Spanish monastery to seek for rest. The government
   of Charles in the Netherlands had been hard and heavy, but the
   people were left free enough to prosper and to grow
   intelligent and strong. Under Philip the prospect changed. The
   story of his malignant persecutions and oppressions, of the
   revolt to which they drove the Netherland provinces, of the
   long, merciless war in which he strove to ruin or subdue them,
   of the independence which the Dutch provinces achieved and the
   prosperous career on which they entered, is told in another
   place.

Antwerp, the great capital of trade, stood foremost in the struggle, as became its greatness, and it suffered correspondingly. The death-blow to its fortunes was given in 1585, when, after a siege that is almost unexampled, it was taken by the Spaniards under Alexander Farnese, Duke of Parma, and given up to pillage and slaughter. Its surviving inhabitants fled in large numbers, the greater part of them to Holland, some to England, and some to other countries. Commerce abandoned the port. The chief merchants who had made it the center of their undertakings chose Amsterdam for their future seat of business, and that city rose at once to the commercial rank of which Antwerp had been stripped by the stupid malice of its Spanish sovereign. While the Belgian Netherlands fell hopelessly under the fatal despotism of Spain, the Dutch Netherlands fought their way slowly to independence, which Spain was forced to acknowledge in 1648. But long before that time the Dutch Republic had become a power in Europe—much greater in every way than Spain. Its foundations had been laid by the union of the seven provinces of Holland, Zealand, Friesland, Utrecht, Groningen, Overyssel and Gelderland. It had grown firmer and stronger year by year, and the people, after a time, had not only found themselves able to thrive generally in the midst of their desperate war with Spain, but the war itself opened their way to wealth and power. They learned, early, as we have seen, that they could attack their enemy to the best advantage at sea. In pursuing this ocean warfare they were led on to the East and West Indies, and soon broke, in both regions, the exclusive power which the Spanish and Portuguese had held. When Portugal was dragged into a fatal union with Spain, under Philip II., it had to suffer the consequences of Philip's wars, and it bore more than its share of the suffering. The Dutch and the English forced their way pretty nearly together into the eastern seas, and, between them, the Portuguese were mostly driven out. They divided the rich commerce of that great Asiatic and Oceanic region, and, for a time, the most lucrative part of it was gained by the Dutch. While the English got their footing on the coasts of Hindostan and were laying the foundations of their future empire in India, the Dutch gained control of the spice-growing islands, which, in that day, were the richer commercial prize. The first Dutch fleet that rounded the Cape of Good Hope and made its way into East Indian waters, sailed under the command of one Cornelius Houtmann, who had been in the service of the Portuguese and learned the route. He started in 1595 with four ships and returned, after a voyage of eighteen months, with only two. He had lost more than half his men, and he brought back very little cargo to pay for the adventurous undertaking. But the Dutch were well satisfied with the experiment; they knew that more experience would lead to better success. Another fleet of eight ships was sent out in 1598 and when four of them returned the next year with a precious cargo of spices and other merchandise from Java, which they had procured very cheaply in exchange for the cloths, the metal wares and the trinkets that they took out, the delight of the nation can hardly be described. Part of the fleet had remained in the East to hold and strengthen the position they had gained, and other ships were sent speedily to join them. Very soon the armed merchantmen of the Dutch were thickly swarming in that part of the world, ready for fight or for trade, as the case might be. So many companies of merchants became engaged in the business that too lively competition between them occurred and they threatened to ruin one another. But that danger was overcome in 1602 by joining the rival interests together in one strong association, to which the government gave exclusive rights of trade in the East. Thus the Dutch East India Company was formed, in which the merchants of Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Delft and other cities of the republic put their capital together. By its charter, this great company held powers of war as well as of commerce and it used them both with prodigious energy. At first, the chief trading stations of the Dutch in the East were at Bantam, in Java, and Amboyna, one of the group of the Moluccas or Spice Islands; but the city of Batavia, which they founded in Java in 1619, became afterwards their principal seat of trade and the capital of their surrounding possessions. The chief aim of the Dutch was to gather into their hands the profitable commerce of the island world of the Eastern Archipelago, but they did not fail to pursue their Spanish and Portuguese enemies in other quarters, where the chances of traffic looked inviting. They seized positions on the Guinea coast of western Africa and took their full share of the trade with its savage natives, who gave gold dust, ivory, ebony, gums, wax, ginger, pepper, palm oil, various choice kinds of wood, and slaves (for the West Indies and America, when the plantations there began to want labor), in exchange for trinkets and cheap goods. They also occupied and colonized the Cape of Good Hope, which the Portuguese had neglected, and made it, in time, a very prosperous and valuable possession. That they should carry their war with Spain into the West Indies and to the American coasts, was a matter of course. In 1623 a Dutch West India Company was chartered, to organize these operations in the western world, as the East India Company had organized undertakings in the East. {3717} But the West India Company was much less commercial and much more warlike in its aims than the corporation of the orient. Its first object was to take spoils from the enemy, and it found the prizes of war so rich that not much else was thought of. On the North American continent, a most important lodgment was made, as early as 1614, at the mouth of the Hudson River, where the colony of New Netherland was founded. In this quarter, as everywhere, the Dutch and English were rivals, and before many years they came to open war. In the series of wars which followed (1652, 1665, 1672), and in the long contest with Louis XIV. of France which they shared with England, the Dutch expended more of their energies than they could afford. The English, with their well protected island, rich in soil and in minerals, had heavy advantages on their side, when once they had acquired the knowledge of commerce and the ability in labor which enabled them to compete with the Dutch. To the latter nature had always been wholly unfriendly. They had fought against circumstances at every step in their history, and had won their wealth, their knowledge, their high importance and influence in the world, by sheer hard work, tireless patience and indomitable will. But the natural advantages against which they struggled were sure to overcome them in the end. It must be said, too, that they did not grow in character as their fortunes rose. It is not difficult, therefore, to account for the fact that the Dutch nation slowly slipped back, during the 18th century, from the high and leading position in civilization to which it had climbed, and lost by degrees its commercial supremacy, while the English nation came to the front.

COMMERCE: MODERN:
   The English:
   16-17th Centuries.
   Commercial progress.
   The East India Company.

As English commerce slowly freed itself from foreign hands, it fell under the control of monopolies at home. The merchants of the Middle Ages, in England and elsewhere, had formed themselves into societies, or guilds, just as the artisans and mechanics in different trades had done. Such associations had originally grown out of the disorderly state of the times, when government and law were weak, and when men who had common interests were forced to unite to protect themselves, and to establish customs and rules for regulating their business affairs. But the guilds almost always became, in time, oppressive monopolies, each acquiring, in its own department of business, such exclusive rights and privileges as practically shut out from that business all persons not admitted to its membership. This occurred among the merchants, as it did elsewhere, and English commerce grew up under the control of various societies of "Merchant Adventurers," as they were called.

The disputes and contests of these companies, at home and abroad, and their suppression of individual enterprise, appear to have hindered the growth of English commerce for a long period. But it did grow steadily, notwithstanding, and through the reigns of Henry VIII. and Elizabeth, the number of English ships set afloat and of English merchants trading abroad, was rapidly multiplied. Meantime the English people gained skill in weaving, dyeing and other arts, and were fast extending the manufacture at home of their own famous Wool. This, in turn, made the sheep farming more profitable, and so much land was taken for that purpose that other products were diminished and most articles of food rose in price. That occurrence caused grave anxiety, and the meddling statesmen of the time, who thought that nothing could go well if their wisdom did not regulate it by law (as too many meddling statesmen think yet) began to frame acts of Parliament which directed how farming lands should be managed and how many sheep a single farmer should be permitted to own. The same kind of statesmanship took alarm at the spread of weaving, in a small way, among industrious villagers and country people, who set up looms and made and sold cloth, outside of the guilds of the town weavers. So the complaints of the latter were listened to, and Parliament forbade weaving to be done outside of certain towns, except for home use in the family of the weaver. There was much of that sort of legislation during Tudor times, and the industry and enterprise of the country had to struggle long and hard for freedom to fairly exercise themselves. But in spite of meddling statesmen and tyrannical monopolies, the people went all from year to year, learning more, doing more, producing more, wanting more, buying and selling more, and living in a better way. After about 1511, there appears to have been a considerable direct trade growing up between England and the countries of the eastern Mediterranean (the Levant), and consuls, to look after the rights and interests of English merchants, began to be appointed, at Candia, and elsewhere, as early as 1530. The voyage from London to the Levant and return then occupied from eleven months to a year. About 1535 the English made their appearance as traders on the Guinea coast of West Africa, disputing the exclusive rights which the Portuguese claimed there, and in 1537 they opened trade with the Moors of the Barbary coast, in northern Africa. In 1553 a chartered company of London merchants was formed with the object of exploring for a northeastern passage to China, around Europe, through the Arctic seas, as a means of dividing the trade of the East with the Portuguese, who controlled the southern route, around Africa. This is believed to have been the first joint stock corporation of shareholders that was organized in England. Sebastian Cabot, then "Grand Pilot of England," was at the head of it. The northwestern passage was not found, but the company opened a trade with Russia which proved to be exceedingly valuable. Accepting this, in lieu of the China trade which it could not reach, it became, as the Russia Company, a rich and powerful corporation. The success of the Russia Company stimulated the adventurous disposition of the English people and set other enterprises in motion. But still more energy was roused by the hostility of national feeling toward Spain. The destruction of the Armada broke the Spanish naval power and made the English bold. They began to navigate the sea from that time with intent to become its masters, though the Dutch were still superior to them in maritime strength and experience. During the reign of Elizabeth there rose a new race of Vikings, very much like the old Norse heroes of the sea, and pursuing a very similar career. {3718} The most daring and most famous among them, such as Grenville, Drake and Hawkins, were more than half pirates, and their voyages were chiefly expeditions for plunder, directed against the Spaniards and Portuguese. The trade which they first gave attention to was the trade in negro slaves. But those piratical adventurers of the 16th century made England the "mistress of the seas." They trained for her a body of sailors who were able in time to more than cope with the Dutch, and they opened the newly known regions of the world for her merchants and colonists to spread over them. Before the end of the 17th century, the English had become the foremost power in the western world and were making the most of its opportunities for production and trade. Meantime they were pushing their way with equal energy in the East. On the last day of the year 1600 the "Company of Merchants of London trading into the East Indies," which became afterwards so great and famous as the "East India Company" of England, was chartered by the Queen. The Company sent out its first fleet of five vessels in 1601. The expedition returned, after an absence of two years and seven months, richly laden, in part with pepper from Sumatra and in part with the spoils of a Portuguese ship which it had captured in the straits of Malacca. It had settled a trading agency, or factory, at Bantam—and that was the beginning of the vast empire which England now rules in the East.

COMMERCE: MODERN: The English: 17-18th Centuries. The Colonial or Sole Market Commercial System.

"The doctrine that the commercial prosperity of a country depends on the creation, maintenance, and extension of a sole market for its products and for its supplies, was prevalent from the discovery of the New World and the Cape Passage down to the war of American Independence. This was the principal object of Borgia's Bulls. This was what animated the Dutch, in their successful, in the end too successful, struggle, after a monopoly of the Spice islands. This was the motive which led to the charters of the Russian Company, the Levant Company, the East India Company, the Turkey Company, the Hudson's Bay Company, in England. The theory was organized in the colonial system, which Adam Smith examined, attacked, and as far as argument could go, demolished in his great work. But the dream of a sole market is still possessing the Germans and the French. … The early wars of Europe were wars of conquest. … After them came the wars of religion, from the outbreak of the Insurrection in the Low Countries, and the civil wars in France, down to the Peace of Westphalia in the middle of the 17th century. From that day to our own, European wars have been waged on behalf of the balance of power, the principal mischief-maker in the contest being France. The English, the French, and the Dutch were the competitors in the wars for a sole market. But Holland was practically ruined at the peace of Aix-la-Chapelle, and France was stripped … of her colonies at the peace of Paris, and England became not only the principal maritime, but the principal manufacturing and mercantile country in the world. As regards English trade, however, though India was an outlet to some extent for English goods, its trade was in the hands of a chartered company, whom the Seven Years' War had left in serious straits. The most important sole market which Great Britain had acquired by her wars was the seaboard of North America. To support the finances of the chartered company, the British Parliament determined on taxing the inhabitants of her sole market, and the result as you know was the war of American Independence. … The colonial or sole-market system was based on a strict reciprocity. The English Government admitted colonial produce into the English markets at differential duties, or prohibited the produce of foreign nations and foreign colonies altogether. The Colonies were not only the customers of English manufacturers only, to the absolute exclusion of foreign manufactures, but were prohibited from undertaking those manufactures themselves. The English Government adopted with their colonies the policy which they adopted with Irish manufactures, which they also prohibited, but with this difference, that they disabled the Irish from having any trade whatever with England, with the Colonies, and with foreign countries. They wished to extinguish, with one exception, every Irish product, and to constitute themselves the sole manufacturers and shopkeepers for the Irish. They allowed only the linen manufacture of Ulster. The Irish were to be, with this exception, agriculturists only, but they were to be disabled from selling their agricultural produce in England, or elsewhere. They were practically denied the right of trade. … It was the doctrine of the sole market in its most exaggerated form. … The colonial system, under which advantages were secured to the colonial producer by giving him a preferred market in Great Britain, while the colonist was debarred from engaging in manufactures, was a selfish one on the part of the English merchants and manufacturers. It gave the colonist a sole market, it is true. But it does not follow that a sole market is a high market. On the contrary, it is probable that the offer of a sole market is intended to secure a low market. The Virginian planter sent the whole of his tobacco to England. The English trader re-exported it to other countries, say Holland or Germany. It may be presumed that he made a profit on the original consignment, and on the re-exportation, or he would not have undertaken the business. … The colonial system did not preclude the plantations from sending, under the strict conditions of the Navigation Act, certain kinds of produce to other countries than England. These were called non-enumerated commodities, the principal being corn, timber, salted provisions, fish, sugar, and rum. There was a reason for this, which was to be found in the fiscal system of England. We did not want colonial corn, for there were duties on corn, levied in the interest of the landlords, nor colonial timber, salted meat and salted fish, for the home produce of these articles were similarly assisted. Sugar and rum were allowed to be exported, for the owners of the plantations in the Leeward isles were chiefly absentee English proprietors, who had already a monopoly of English supply, and were powerful enough in Parliament to get an extended market elsewhere. But in 1769, just before the troubles broke out with the American plantations, an Act was passed, disabling the colonists from sending even the non-enumerated commodities to any country north of Cape Finisterre, in Northern Spain. … The enumerated goods, and there was a long list of them, could be exported to Great Britain only. They consisted, as Adam Smith says, of what could not be produced in this country, and what could be produced in great quantity in the Colonies."

"We are a nation of land-traffickers, but our ancestors in the colonies traded and traveled almost entirely by water. There were but twelve miles of land-carriage in all the province of New York; beyond Albany the Indian trade was carried on by 'three-' or 'four-handed batteaus,' sharp at both ends, like the Adirondack boat of to-day. Yachts, with bottoms of black oak and sides of red cedar, brought wheat in bulk and peltries down the Hudson; other craft carried on the domestic trade of New York town with the shores of Long Island, Staten Island, and the little ports beyond the Kill von Kull. … The first regular wagon-carriage from the Connecticut River to Boston did not begin until 1697; Massachusetts had then been settled seventy years. The flat-bottomed boat, which has since played so important a part in the trade of the Ohio and the Mississippi, and whose form was probably suggested by that of the 'west country barges' of England, appears to have been used for floating produce down the Delaware before 1685. In the Chesapeake colonies, until late in the provincial period, there were almost no roads but the numerous bays and water-courses, and almost no vehicles but canoes, row-boats, pinnaces and barks. Places of resort for worship or business were usually near the waterside. … But of all means of travel or trade the Indian canoe was the chief. … Roads in the colonies were hardly ever laid out, but were left where Indian trail or chance cart-track in the woods had marked them. … From England, along with bad roads, the colonists brought the pack-horse which, in Devon and Cornwall, at the close of the last century, still did the carrying, even of building-stones and cord-wood. Most of the inland traffic of the colonial period was done by packing. … The Germans, whose ancestors had four-wheeled vehicles in the days of Julius Cæsar, made good roads wherever they planted themselves. While their English neighbors were content to travel on horseback and to ford and swim streams, the Salzburgers in Georgia began by opening a wagon-road twelve miles long, with seven bridges, 'which surprised the English mightily.' Pennsylvania, the home of the Germans, alone of the colonies built good straight roads; and the facility which these afforded to ten thousand freight-wagons was the main advantage that gave Philadelphia the final preeminence among the colonial sea-ports, and made Lancaster the only considerable inland mart In North America. … Proximity to the wampum-making savages at one end of Hudson River navigation and to the beaver-catchers at the other made New York the chief seat of the fur trade. Wagon-roads, soil, climate, and an industrious people made Philadelphia the principal center of the traffic in bread and meat. The never-ending line of convenient shore that bordered the peninsulas of Maryland and Virginia, and gave a good landing-place at every man's door, with a tobacco currency, rendered it difficult to build towns or develop trade among the easy-going planters of the Chesapeake and Albemarle regions. A different coast-line, and rivers less convenient, made Charleston the rich and urbane commercial and social center of southern Carolina. Until about 1750 Boston was the leading sea-port, and its long wharf, 2,000 feet in length with warehouses on one side of it, was the New World wonder of travelers. Five or six hundred vessels annually cleared out of Boston in the middle of the 18th century for the foreign trade alone, and the city contained between twenty and thirty thousand people at the outbreak of the Revolution. But Newport, with its thirty distilleries to make rum of the molasses brought from the islands, and its seventeen sperm-oil and candle factories to work up the results of the whaling industry, had nearly half as many ships in foreign trade as Boston, and three or four hundred craft of all sorts in the coast-wise carrying trade. He was thought a bold prophet who said then that 'New York might one day equal Newport'; for about 1750 New York sent forth fewer ships than Newport, and not half so many as Boston. … But Philadelphia—planted late in the 17th century—outstripped all rivals, and for the last twenty years of the colonial period was the chief port of North America. … The imports and exports of the two tobacco colonies together were far larger than those of Philadelphia, but their profits were far less."

COMMERCE: MODERN: The English:
   18-19th Centuries.
   Rising prosperity and commercial supremacy.
   Successful War, Free Trade and Steam Power.

   "If we look at the state of the European powers after the
   conclusion of the Seven Years' War in 1763, we shall see how
   favourable our position then was. In the first place, England
   had seriously crippled her commercial rival, France, both in
   her Indian and American possessions, and thereby had gained
   extensive colonial territories which afforded a ready market
   for British goods. Spain, which had been allied with France,
   had lost at the same time her position as the commercial rival
   of England in trade with the New World. Germany had for some
   time ceased to be a formidable competitor, and was now being
   ravaged by internal conflicts between the reigning houses of
   Austria and Prussia. Holland, which had once been England's
   most serious rival—especially in foreign commerce—was at this
   time in a similar condition, and had greatly declined from the
   prosperity of the 16th and 17th centuries. Hence England alone
   had the chance of 'the universal empire of the sole market.'
   The supply of this market was in the hands of English
   manufacturers and English workmen, so that the great
   inventions which came into operation after 1763 were thus at
   once called into active employment, and our mills and mines
   were able to produce wealth as fast as they could work,
   without fear of foreign competition. It is not surprising,
   therefore, to find that in the ten years, from 1782 to 1792,
   our entire foreign trade was nearly doubled, the exact figures
   being:
   1782, imports £10,341,628, exports £13,009,458;
   1792, Imports £19,659,358, exports £24,905,200.
   And this remarkable progress was still kept up even during the
   great continental wars which were caused by the French
   Revolution, and which lasted for almost a quarter of a
   century. …
{3720}
   In spite of the almost entire loss of our trade in some
   directions, English commerce improved in others; and, in fact,
   any loss was more than counterbalanced by an increase in
   regard to the (now independent) United States, Russia, Venice,
   Germany, and Northern Europe, as well as with the West and
   East Indian colonies, both British and foreign. In fact, many
   of the countries whom France had compelled to become our
   enemies found themselves unable to do without British
   manufactures, especially as their own industries were
   suffering from the warfare that was going on on the Continent,
   and therefore had to find means to procure our goods. … The
   close of the 25 years of continental war (1815) is sometimes
   taken as being the date when the modern system of commerce may
   be said to have had its beginning. Up to that time, although
   great changes and advances had been made, the spirit of
   monopoly and the general restrictive policy which
   characterised previous centuries, were still, to some extent,
   in force. But not very long after the peace that was won by
   the battle of Waterloo, a remarkable change was made in the
   commercial policy of England. … We now come to the beginnings
   of freedom of trade."

"When the wars of the French Revolution began, the foundations of a great empire had already been broadly laid; and when it ended, England stood out as a power which had grown greater in the struggle. … Dutchman, Dane, and Spaniard, Frenchman and Venetian, all ancient competitors of England, fell before her; and, when the sword was sheathed in 1815, it was no exaggerated boast to call her mistress of the seas. These facts should never be lost sight of in any consideration of the causes which have led us to where we now are. Without these preparatory steps, both in domestic industries and in foreign wars and conquests, England would not, with all her material advantages, have been so entirely the gainer by the progress of the last fifty years as she has so far proved to be. … There is the more need to remember this because the time immediately following the war was one of severe domestic suffering, and of much retrograde legislation, conceived with a view to, if possible, lessen that suffering. … The worst of all the laws which then restricted trade were those relating to the exports and imports of corn, which the younger men of to-day have well-nigh forgotten. … It was not till after long years of agitation by John Bright, Richard Cobden, and other leaders of the Anti-Corn Law League, that the landed party gave way sullenly, and assented, amid the most gloomy predictions of impending ruin, to the repeal of the sliding scale altogether, and the virtual abolition of all corn laws by the substitution of a fixed duty of 1 s. per quarter. Thus recently was one of the most oppressive pieces of fiscal legislation that man could have conceived withdrawn; and not until 1849, when that law came into force, could the industries of the country be said to be anything like unfettered. Yet twenty years more passed before this shilling duty—the last rag of protection—was itself flung aside, and the import of corn became perfectly free. … But many other changes had in the meantime taken place, all tending more and more to throw off the shackles of trade. … As late as 1840 our customs tariff was described in the report of a committee of the House of Commons as 'presenting neither congruity nor unity of purpose;' as 'often aiming at incompatible ends,' seeking both to produce revenue and to protect interests in ways incompatible with each other. There were no fewer than 1,150 different rates of duty chargeable on imported articles, … and the committee gave a list of 862 of such articles which were subject to duty, seventeen of which then produced 94 per cent. of a revenue amounting to £23,000,000. … The present customs tariff contains less than two dozen articles all told, and including those on which duty is imposed to countervail the excise charges on internal products. The ordinary import articles on which duty is charged number only seven. … But there is yet another hindrance the removal of which has to be noticed, and which, till removed, cramped England very seriously, viz. the navigation laws and the great trade monopoly of the East India Company. … It took longer time … to accomplish the complete deliverance of our mercantile marine from the baneful influence of 'protective' jealousy than to accomplish any other great free-trade reform. A tentative effort to lessen the consequences of confining the carrying trade of England to English ships was made in 1825 by Mr. Huskisson; but it was not till 1854 that complete free trade on the sea was granted by the abolition of any restriction as to the nationality of vessels engaged in the coasting trade of the kingdom. … Here, then, we have noted briefly the various steps and leading characteristics of the commercial reforms which, in this country, either paved the way for or secured the benefit of the great outburst of enterprise and influx of wealth which began in the second quarter of the present century. These various reforms constitute, so to say, the negative side of the modern commercial prosperity which this country built upon the foundations of her world-wide empire; and, in order to get a complete outline of the position which we at present occupy, we must now revert briefly to the positive side of the subject; we must find out where the great modern wealth has come from, and on what it has been based. Freedom of trade no doubt did much to call wealth and enterprise into being; but in what did this wealth consist? Happily the leading features are not difficult to trace. Although the foundations of the great manufacturing industries of this country lie far back in the past, their development, like the growth of free-trade principles, is quite modern, and dates in reality from the day when George Stephenson won the competition at Liverpool with his locomotive 'the Rocket,' settling thereby the question of railroad travelling by steam beyond dispute. The mere stimulus to all kinds of mining and manufacturing industries which this victory and the subsequent railway operations gave, was itself enough to cause the trade of this country to press forward by 'leaps and bounds.' Since November 1830, it may be said to have done so; and the mere fact that England was the originator of the railway systems of the world, and that she contained within herself almost boundless materials wherewith to supply those systems, would itself suffice to explain the pre-eminence which from that day to this has been unquestionably hers. {3721} The great natural resources of the country were first employed in supplying the materials for home development, and then gradually the wealth thus acquired by digging in the bowels of the earth was utilised in tempting or leading other nations into a career of 'progress' similar to our own. In spite of the many losses which individuals suffered in the early days of this progress, the nation grew steadily richer and its stores of realised wealth increased with every new enterprise almost that it took up. … Each year the realised wealth of the one before told, as it were, in swelling the working power of the nation, and in enlarging the business capacities and scope of its credit. … Side by side with the increased produce of the country, the increased manufactures, and the increasing wealth, there were growing up facilities for intercommunication with all parts of the world, and with that an increasing tendency to emigration. The home hives were constantly throwing off young swarms, which, settling now in America, now in Australia, now in Africa, became so many new centres of demand, so many links in the trade chain that we had bound round the world."

A. J. Wilson, British Trade (Fraser's Magazine, September, 1876), pages 271-277.

"The almost unlimited expansion which becomes marked about 1850 and culminates in 1873, has been pointed to by many different people as proof of the great effect of different measures or inventions; as a matter of fact, it was due to no one cause, but was rather the result of multitudinous discoveries and events, acting and reacting on each other. Perhaps the following list of dates shows this most clearly;—

Opening of first English railway, 1830; Wheatstone's telegraph, 1837; first ocean steamer, 1838; settlement in New Zealand, 1840; reduction of duties on raw materials, 1842; repeal of Corn Laws, 1846; commercial treaty with France, 1860.

Here are seven events of widely different natures, each of which must have had its effect in the period under consideration, and it would be useless, even if it were possible, to weigh the separate result of each. We cannot estimate, we can obtain no criterion of the vast effects of the adoption of Free Trade. Three things, however, are clear;— First, that till the suffocating restrictions were removed, trade could not expand; when exports were prohibited, imports could not be plentiful; when imports were taxed, the demand at enhanced prices could not be great. Secondly, if every restriction was removed from every branch of trade, there would be no increase without natural causes of manufacture and demand, no increased demand without a cheapening or improvement of supply; that, in fact, Free Trade is the method, not the source, of commerce, and that the claim of this increase as the direct result of freedom and a proof of its expediency is an inaccurate exaggeration. Thirdly, that the date of the marked commencement of the expansion coincides exactly with the reductions and abolitions of duties, pointing to the fact, borne out by all concurrent events, that the adoption of Free Trade was the opening of the valve which allowed the forces of commerce full play. … It was in the trades of comparatively recent establishment, in England especially, that there were immense outputs (of cotton goods and machinery, for instance), in great excess of the home demand; and this could only pay if the foreign demand grew in proportion to the growing efficiency; that is to say, our newer industries became the most important, and were marked as our division of international labour. The foreign demand, indeed, for our manufactures and our machines was extraordinary. Now, every country is trying to rival our goods, and each to produce for herself the manufactures she requires; then, rivalry was out of the question. … On every side new markets were opened; old trades were increased, new developed. The railways built with our materials opened up districts hitherto inaccessible; this acted as a fresh stimulus to our manufacturers—more capital was forthcoming, and more railways were built. Not only were countries, with which we had already established some trade, brought nearer and in closer relation, but new countries were discovered. Australia and New Zealand were ready to take our surplus population, and were not behindhand in the new system of development. Our older colonies also increased. With each emigration the number of our customers abroad was multiplied. In 1850 and 1852 this process was accelerated by the news of the gold discoveries in California and Australia. So great was the emigration and the consequent demand for ships that all freights were increased, and, with a short lull, this continued till 1856. … The last great impetus was given by the Suez Canal, by which the journey to India and the East was quickened by one-half, and, at the same time, rendered more secure."

COMMERCE: MODERN:
The Americans: A. D. 1856-1895.
Decay of American shipping interests.

"Down to the year 1856, the United States had rapidly advanced in commercial greatness, and had overcome all the obstacles which had clustered about their path. At that time we were close upon the heels of England, and everything pointed to our speedily passing her in the race for commercial supremacy. Since then our commerce has steadily declined,—a misfortune usually attributed to the civil war, and subsequently to the competition of more profitable forms of investment. These circumstances no doubt hastened the loss of our commerce; but, as Lieutenant Kelley points out, they are not the true causes of its decline, inasmuch as that began before the civil war. The origin of our difficulties lay in the abandonment of our old policy, which, from the beginning of the century, consisted in surpassing all the world in the quality and speed of our ships and in our naval architecture. With the substitution of iron for wood we began to drop behind, until, with a population of 55,000,000, we have a tonnage but little greater than we had when half as numerous. Moreover, our percentage of wrecks is larger than that of any other seafaring people, and our ships and steamers are shorter-lived.

"The first symptoms of the decadence appeared in 1856, in the falling-off in the sales of American tonnage to foreigners; the reduction being from 65,000 in 1855 to 42,000 in 1856, to 26,000 in 1858, and to 17,000 in 1860. During the war, however, the transfers of American tonnage to foreign flags again increased very largely, and, for the years 1862 to 1865 inclusive, amounted to the large aggregate of 824,652 tons, or to more than one-fourth of all the registered tonnage (the tonnage engaged in foreign trade) of the United States in 1860. But these transfers, it is well understood, were not in the nature of ordinary business, but for the sake of obtaining a more complete immunity from destruction upon the high seas than the United States at that time was able to afford. The year 1856 also marks the time when the growth of our foreign steam-shipping was arrested, and a retrograde movement inaugurated; so that … our aggregate tonnage in this department was 1,000 tons less in 1862 than it was in 1855. The total tonnage of every description built in the United States also declined from 583,450 tons in 1855 (the largest amount ever built in any one year) to 469,393 in 1856, 378,804 in 1857, and 212,892 in 1860, a reduction of 68 per cent in five years. During the year 1855, American vessels carried 75.6 per cent of the value of the exports and imports of the United States. After 1855 this proportion steadily declined to 75.2 per cent in 1856, 70.5 in 1857, 66.9 in 1859, and 65.2 in 1861, the year of the outbreak of the war. … Of the enormous increase in the foreign commerce of the United States since 1860, as above noted, every maritime nation of any note, with the exception of the United States, has taken a share. American tonnage alone exhibits a decrease. Thus, comparing 1880 with 1856, the foreign tonnage entering the seaports of the United States increased nearly 11,000,000 of tons; whereas the American tonnage entered during the same period exhibits a decrease of over 65,000 tons. British tonnage increased its proportion from 935,000 tons in 1856 to 7,903,000 in 1880; Germany, during the same time, from 166,000 to 1,089,000; and Sweden and Norway from 20,662 to 1,234,000. Austria, limited to almost a single seaport, jumped up from 1,477 tons in 1856 to 206,000 tons in 1880, and had, in 1879, 179 large-class sailing-vessels engaged in the American trade. Sleepy Portugal increased during the same period from 4,727 tons to 24,449 tons. … How is it, that the United States, formerly a maritime power of the first class, has now no ships or steamers that can profitably compete for the carrying of even its own exports; not merely with the ships of our great commercial rival, England, but also with those of Italy, Sweden, Norway, Germany, Holland, Austria, and Portugal? … The facts already presented fully demonstrate that the war was not the cause, and did not mark the commencement, of the decadence of American shipping; although the contrary is often and perhaps generally assumed by those who have undertaken to discuss this subject. The war simply hastened a decay which had already commenced. … The primary cause was what may be termed a natural one, the result of the progress of the age and a higher degree of civilization; namely, the substitution of steam in place of wind as an agent for ship-propulsion, and the substitution of iron in the place of wood as a material for ship-construction. … The means and appliances for the construction of iron vessels did not then [in 1855] exist in the United States; while Great Britain, commencing even as far back as 1837 (when John Laird constructed his first iron steamers of any magnitude for steam navigation), and with eighteen years of experience, had become thoroughly equipped in 1855 for the prosecution of this great industry. The facilities for the construction of steam machinery adapted to the most economical propulsion of ocean vessels, furthermore, were also inferior in the United States to those existing in Great Britain; and, by reason of statute provisions, citizens of the United States interested in ocean commerce were absolutely prevented and forbidden from availing themselves of the results of British skill and superiority in the construction of vessels when such a recourse was the only policy which could have enabled them at the time to hold their position in the ocean carrying trade in competition with their foreign rivals. … The inability of the ships of the United States to do the work which trade and commerce required that they should do as well and cheaply as the ships of other nations having been demonstrated by experience, the decadence of American shipping commenced and was inevitable from the very hour when this fact was first recognized, which was about the year 1856. Here, then, we have the primary cause of the decay of the business of ship-building in the United States and of our commercial marine. … The question which next naturally presents itself in the order of this inquiry and discussion is, Why is it that the people of the United States have not been permitted to enjoy the privileges accorded to other maritime nations, of adjusting their shipping interests to the spirit and wants of the age? Why have they alone been debarred from using the best tools in an important department of commerce, when the using meant business retained, labor employed, and capital rewarded, and the non-using equally meant decay, paralysis, and impoverishment? The answer is, Because of our so-called navigation laws."

   "Somewhat curtailed, the navigation laws may be summarized as
   follows: No American is allowed to import a foreign-built
   vessel in the sense of purchasing, acquiring a registry, or
   using her as his property; the only other imports, equally and
   forcibly prohibited, being counterfeit money and obscene
   goods. An American vessel ceases to be such if owned in the
   smallest degree by a naturalized citizen, who may, after
   acquiring the purchase, reside for more than one year in his
   native country, or for more than two years in any other
   foreign state. An American ship owned in part or in full by an
   American citizen who, without the expectation of relinquishing
   his citizenship, resides in any foreign country except as
   United States Consul, or as agent or partner in an exclusively
   American mercantile house, loses its register and its right to
   protection. A citizen obtaining a register for an American
   vessel must make oath that no foreigner is directly or
   indirectly interested in the profits thereof, whether as
   commander, officer, or owner. Foreign capital may build our
   railroads, work our mines, insure our property, and buy our
   bonds, but a single dollar invested in American ships so
   taints as to render it unworthy of the benefit of our laws. No
   foreign-built vessel can, under penalty of confiscation, enter
   our ports and then sail to another domestic port with any new
   cargo, or with any part of an original cargo, which has once
   been unladen previously, without touching at some port of some
   foreign country.
{3723}
   This law is construed to include all direct traffic between
   the Atlantic and Pacific ports of the United States via Cape
   Horn, the Cape of Good Hope, or the Isthmus of Panama; and
   being a coasting trade, foreigners cannot compete. An American
   vessel once sold or transferred to a foreigner, can never
   again become American property, even if the transaction has
   been the result of capture and condemnation by a foreign power
   in time of war. Vessels under 30 tons cannot be used to import
   anything at any seaboard town. Cargoes from the eastward of
   the Cape of Good Hope are subject to a duty of 10 per cent. in
   addition to the direct importation duties. American vessels
   repaired in foreign ports must pay a duty on the repairs equal
   to one-half the cost of the foreign work or material, or pay
   50 per cent. ad valorem, the master or owner making entry of
   such repairs as imports. This liberal provision, which dates
   from 1866, is made to include boats obtained at sea, from a
   passing foreign vessel, in order to assure the safety of our
   own seamen. … All other nations have the power of buying ships
   for foreign trade in the cheapest market, and the effort to
   protect our shipbuilders by the denial of this right forbids
   the return of commercial prosperity."

"All economists who have specially studied this matter are substantially agreed that, within the period named [1860-1885], man in general has attained to such a greater control over the forces of Nature, and has so compassed their use, that he has been able to do far more work in a given time, produce far more product, measured by quantity in ratio to a given amount of labor, and reduce the effort necessary to insure a comfortable subsistence in a far greater measure than it was possible for him to accomplish 20 or 30 years anterior to the time of the present writing (1889). In the absence of sufficiently complete data, it is not easy, and perhaps not possible, to estimate accurately, and specifically state the average saving in time and labor in the world's work of production and distribution that has been thus achieved. In a few departments of industrial effort the saving in both of these factors has certainly amounted to 70 or 80 per cent; in not a few to more than 50 per cent. … Out of such results as are definitely known and accepted have come tremendous industrial and social disturbances, the extent and effect of which—and more especially of the disturbances which have culminated, as it were, in later years—it is not easy to appreciate without the presentation and consideration of certain typical and specific examples. … Let us go back, in the first instance, to the year 1869, when an event occurred which was probably productive of more immediate and serious economic changes—industrial, commercial, and financial—than any other event of this century, a period of extensive war excepted. That was the opening of the Suez Canal. … The old transportation had been performed by ships, mainly sailing-vessels, fitted to go round the Cape, and as such ships were not adapted to the Suez Canal, an amount of tonnage, estimated by some authorities as high as two million tons, and representing an immense amount of wealth, was virtually destroyed. The voyage, in place of occupying from six to eight months, has been so greatly reduced that steamers adapted to the canal now make the voyage from London to Calcutta, or vice versa, in less than 30 days. The notable destruction or great impairment in the value of ships consequent upon the construction of the canal did not, furthermore, terminate with its immediate opening and use; for improvements in marine engines, diminishing the consumption of coal, and so enabling vessels to be not only sailed at less cost, but to carry also more cargo, were, in consequence of demand for quick and cheap service so rapidly effected, that the numerous and expensive steamer constructions of 1870-1873, being unable to compete with the constructions of the next two years, were nearly all displaced in 1875-1876, and sold for half, or less than half, of their original cost. And within another decade these same improved steamers of 1875-1876 have, in turn, been discarded and sold at small prices. … Again, with telegraphic communication between India and China, and the markets of the Western world, permitting the dealers and consumers of the latter to adjust to a nicety their supplies of commodities to varying demands, and with the reduction of the time of the voyage to 30 days or less, there was no longer any necessity of laying up great stores of Eastern commodities in Europe; and with the termination of this necessity, the India warehouse and distribution system of England, with all the labor and all the capital and banking incident to it, substantially passed away. Europe, and to some extent the United States, ceased to go to England for its supplies. … Importations of East Indian produce are also no longer confined in England and other countries to a special class of merchants; and so generally has this former large and special department of trade been broken up and dispersed, that extensive retail grocers in the larger cities of Europe and the United States are now reported as drawing their supplies direct from native dealers in both China and India. … In short, the construction of the Suez Canal completely revolutionized one of the greatest departments of the world's commerce and business; absolutely destroying an immense amount of what had previously been wealth, and displacing or changing the employment of millions of capital and thousands of men. … The deductions from the most recent tonnage statistics of Great Britain come properly next in order for consideration. During the ten years from 1870 to 1880, inclusive, the British mercantile marine increased its movement, in the matter of foreign entries and clearances alone, to the extent of 22,000,000 tons; or, to put it more simply, the British mercantile marine exclusively engaged in foreign trade did so much more work within the period named; and yet the number of men who were employed in effecting this great movement had decreased in 1880, as compared with 1870, to the extent of about 3,000 (2,990 exactly). What did it? The introduction of steam hoisting-machines and grain-elevators upon the wharves and docks, and the employment of steam-power upon the vessels for steering, raising the sails and anchors, pumping, and discharging the cargo; or, in other words, the ability, through the increased use of steam and improved machinery, to carry larger cargoes in a shorter time, with no increase—or, rather, an actual decrease—of the number of men employed in sailing or managing the vessels. … {3724} Prior to about the year 1875 ocean-steamships had not been formidable as freight-carriers. The marine engine was too heavy, occupied too much space, consumed too much coal. … The result of the construction and use of compound engines in economizing coal has been illustrated by Sir Lyon Playfair, by the statement that 'a small cake of coal, which would pass through a ring the size of a shilling, when burned in the compound engine of a modern steamboat would drive a ton of food and its proportion of the ship two miles on its way from a foreign port.' … Is it, therefore, to be wondered at, that the sailing-vessel is fast disappearing from the ocean? … Great, however, as has been the revolution in respect to economy and efficiency in the carrying-trade upon the ocean, the revolution in the carrying-trade upon land during the same period has been even greater and more remarkable. Taking the American railroads in general as representative of the railroad system of the world, the average charge for moving one ton of freight per mile has been reduced from about 2.5 cents in 1869 to 1.06 in 1887; or, taking the results on one of the standard roads of the United States the (New York Central), from 1.95 in 1869 to 0.68 in 1885. … One marked effect of the present railroad and steamship system of transportation has been to compel a uniformity of prices for all commodities that are essential to life. … For grain henceforth, therefore, the railroad and the steamship have decided that there shall be but one market—the world."

A recent English writer says: "Formerly we [the English] were the great manufacturers of the world; the great distributors and the great warehousemen of the world. Our country was the point on which the great passenger traffic impinged from America and from our Colonies, and from which passengers distributed themselves over the continent of Europe. The products of the world as a general rule came to English ports, and from English ports were distributed to their various markets. All this has much changed. Probably the alteration is more marked in our distributing trade than in that of our manufacturing trade or in any other direction. About twenty years ago all the silk that was manufactured or consumed in Europe was brought to England from the East, mostly in a raw state, and was thence distributed to continental mills. Notwithstanding the increased consumption in Europe, silk now coming to England for distribution is only about one-eighth of the quantity that came here some twelve years ago. This is one single example of an Oriental product. The same diversion of our distributing trade can be traced in almost every other commodity. Many people believe that the opening of the Suez Canal has caused this diminution of our distributing trade, and it cannot be denied that the Suez Canal has done much to divert Oriental trade from this country, and to send goods direct through the Canal to the continental ports, where they are consumed, or where they can be placed on railways and be forwarded without break of bulk to their destinations. But whatever the Suez Canal may have done to divert trade in Oriental goods such as tea or silk, it cannot account for the diversion of the trade coming from America. Yet we find the same diversion of American products which formerly came to England for distribution. With cotton the same result is found, and with coffee from the Brazil. Nor does the diversion of these articles merely demonstrate that our distributing trade is being lost to us: it also shows that the manufacturers of England now permit the raw material of their industries to be sent straight to the factories of their competitors on the Continent. It shows that the great manufactures of the world are being transferred from England to Belgium, France, Germany, and even to Portugal and Spain. In the train of these manufactures are rapidly following all the complex and complicated businesses which are the hand-maidens of commerce. For instance, the financial business which used to centre in London is being transferred to Paris, Antwerp, and Germany, mainly because the goods to which this business relates are now consigned to continental countries instead of as formerly being brought to England to be distributed therefrom. … The loss of our distributing trade is to my mind in a great measure due to the fact that goods consigned to continental ports can be there put upon railways and sent straight to their destination; while goods sent to English ports must be put upon a railway, taken to our coast, there taken out of the railway, put on board a vessel, taken across to the Continent, there unloaded, then put on the railway and sent off to their ultimate destination. These transhipments from railway to vessel and from vessel to railway are always costly, always involve time, and in the case of some perishable articles render the transaction almost prohibitive. To get over this difficulty and to retain our distributing trade, there appears to me to be only one course open, and that is in some way to obtain direct railway-communication from Liverpool, from London, from Bristol, from Hull, from Glasgow, and from Dundee, to the continental markets where the goods landed at those ports are consumed."

      H. M. Hozier,
      England's Real Peril
      (Macmillan's Magazine, July, 1888).

"There are three great epochs in the modern history of canal navigation, each marked by characteristics peculiar to itself, and sufficiently unlike those of either of the others to enable it to be readily differentiated. They may be thus described:

1. The era of waterways, designed at once to facilitate the transport of heavy traffic from inland centres to the seaboard, and to supersede the then existing systems of locomotion—the wagon and the pack-horse. This era commenced with the construction of the Bridgewater Canal between 1766 and 1770, and terminated with the installation of the railway system in 1830.

2. The era of interoceanic canals, which was inaugurated by the completion of the Suez Canal in 1869, and is still in progress.

3. The era of ship-canals intended to afford to cities and towns remote from the sea, all the advantages of a seaboard, and especially that of removing and dispatching merchandise without the necessity of breaking bulk.

The second great stage in the development of canal transport is of comparatively recent origin. It may, in fact, be said to date only from the time when the construction of a canal across the Isthmus of Suez was proved to be not only practicable as an engineering project, but likewise highly successful as a commercial enterprise. Not that this was by any means the first canal of its kind. On the contrary, … the ancients had many schemes of a similar kind in view across the same isthmus. The canal of Languedoc, constructed in the reign of Louis XIV., was for that day as considerable an undertaking. It was designed for the purpose of affording a safe and speedy means of communication between the Mediterranean and the Atlantic Ocean; it has a total length of 148 miles, is in its highest part 600 ft. above the level of the sea, and has in all 114 locks and sluices. In Russia, canals had been constructed in the time of Peter the Great, for the purpose of affording a means of communication between the different inland seas that are characteristic of that country. The junction of the North and Caspian Seas, of the Baltic and the Caspian, and the union of the Black and the Caspian Seas, had all been assisted by the construction of a series of canals which were perhaps without parallel for their completeness a century ago. In Prussia a vast system of inland navigation had been completed during the last century, whereby Hamburg was connected with Dantzic, and the products of the country could be exported either by the Black Sea or by the Baltic. In Scotland the Forth and Clyde Canal, and the Caledonian Canal, were notable examples of artificial navigation designed to connect two seas, or two firths that had all the characteristics of independent oceans; and the Erie Canal, in the United States, completed a chain of communication between inland seas of much the same order. But, although a great deal had been done in the direction of facilitating navigation between different waters by getting rid of the 'hyphen' by which they were separated anterior to the date of the Suez Canal, this grand enterprise undoubtedly marked a notable advance in the progress of the world from this point of view. The work was at once more original and more gigantic than any that had preceded it. … The Suez Canal once completed and successful, other ship canal schemes came 'thick as autumnal leaves in Vallombrosa.' Several of these were eminently practical, as well as practicable. The Hellenic Parliament determined on cutting through the tongue of land which is situated between the Gulfs of Athens and Lepantus, known as the Isthmus of Corinth. This isthmus divides the Adriatic and the Archipelago, and compels all vessels passing from the one sea to the other to round Cape Matapan, thus materially lengthening the voyages of vessels bound from the western parts of Europe to the Levant, Asia Minor and Smyrna. The canal is now an accomplished fact. Another proposal was that of cutting a canal from Bordeaux to Marseilles, across the South of France, a distance of some 120 miles, whereby these two great ports would be brought 1,678 miles nearer to each other, and a further reduction, estimated at 800 miles, effected in the distance between England and India. The Panama Canal (projected in 1871, and actually commenced in 1880) is, however, the greatest enterprise of all, and in many respects the most gigantic and difficult undertaking of which there is any record. The proposed national canal from sea to sea, proposed by Mr. Samuel Lloyd and others for Great Britain, the proposed Sheffield Ship Canal, the proposed Irish Sea and Birkenhead Ship Canal, and the proposed ship canal to connect the Forth and the Clyde, are but a few of many notable examples of the restlessness of our times in this direction. … There are not a few people who regard the canal system almost as they might regard the Dodo and the Megatherium. It is to them an effete relic of a time when civilisation was as yet but imperfectly developed. … Canals do, indeed, belong to the past. … That canals also belong to the present, Egypt, the American isthmus, Manchester, Corinth, and other places, fully prove, and, unless we greatly err, they are no less the heritage of the future."

"'The sea girt British Isles have upwards of 2,500 miles of canals, in addition to the Manchester Ship Canal, which is thirty-five and one-half miles, and is said to be one of the most remarkable undertakings of modern times.' … In 1878, Germany had in operation 1,289 miles of canals, and had ordered the construction of 1,045 miles of new canals. Belgium has forty-five canals. Italy, Hungary, Sweden, Holland and Russia have their respective systems of canals. France has expended a larger amount of money than any other European nation, to provide for canal navigation, and in 1887 the total length of its canals was 2,998 miles. About forty-eight per cent of the tonnage of that Republic was transported on its waterways. The average capacity of boats used therefor was 300 tons. The total length of the canals in operation in the United States in 1890 was upwards of 2,926 miles."

"In most of the leading countries of the world, a time arrived when the canal system and the railway system came into strong competition, and when it seemed doubtful on which side the victory would lie. This contest was necessarily more marked in England than in any other country. England had not, indeed, been the first in the field with canals, as she had been with railways. … But England having once started on a career of canal development, followed it up with greater energy and on a more comprehensive scale than any other country. For more than half a century canals had had it all their own way. … But the railway system, first put forward as a tentative experiment, and without the slightest knowledge on the part of its promoters of the results that were before long to be realised, was making encroachments, and proving its capabilities. This was a slow process, as the way had to be felt. The first railway Acts did not contemplate the use of locomotives, nor the transport of passenger traffic. The Stockton and Darlington Railway, constructed in 1825, was the first on which locomotives were employed.

   Even at this date, there were many who doubted the expediency
   of having a railroad instead of a canal, and in the county of
   Durham … there was a fierce fight, carried on for more than
   twenty years. In the United States, the supremacy of waterways
   was maintained until a much later date. …
{3726}
   A keen and embittered struggle was kept up between the canal
   and the railroad companies until 1857; and even in the latter
   year the Legislature of the State of New York, finding that
   railway competition was making serious inroads upon their
   canal traffic, were considering whether they should not either
   entirely prohibit the railways from carrying freight, or
   impose such tolls upon railway tonnage as would cripple the
   companies in their competition with canals. … The agitation,
   however, came to nothing. It had no solid bottom. It was an
   agitation similar in kind to that which had disturbed Europe
   when Arkwright's spinning machine and Compton's mule were
   taking the place of hand labour. The clamour suddenly
   collapsed, and was never heard of afterwards. Meanwhile the
   railway system proceeded apace. The records of human progress
   contain no more remarkable chapter than that which tells of
   the growth of American railroads. … In the annals of
   transportation, there is no more interesting chapter than that
   which deals with the contest that has been carried on for
   nearly half a century between the railways and the lakes and
   canals for the grain traffic between Chicago and New York.
   This contest is interesting, not only to Americans, as the
   people who are engaged in it, and whom it more directly
   concerns; but also to the people of Europe, and of Great
   Britain in particular, the cost of whose food supplies is
   affected thereby. … The circumstances of the Erie Canal are,
   however, exceptional. Seldom, indeed, do railway freights run
   so low as they do on the 950 miles of rail way that separate
   Chicago from New York. Over this distance, the great trunk
   lines have recently been carrying freight at the rate of 15
   cents, or 7½ d. per 100 lbs. This is equivalent to about 14 s.
   per ton, or exactly 0.174 d. per ton per mile. There is
   probably no such low rates for railway transport in the world.
   But this low rate is due entirely to the competition of the
   lakes, rivers, and canals."

"The early railroad engineers overestimated the speed which could be readily attained. Fifty years ago it was generally expected that passenger trains would soon run at rates of from seventy-five to one hundred miles an hour—a prediction which has as yet remained unfulfilled. On the other hand, they underestimated the railroad's capacity for doing work cheaply. It was not supposed that railroads would ever be able to compete with water-routes in the carriage of freight, except where speedy delivery was of the first importance. Nor was it at that time desired that they should do so. The first English railroad charter contained provisions expressly intended to prevent such competition. A generation later, in the State of New York itself, there was a loud popular cry that the New York Central must be prohibited from carrying freight in competition with the Erie Canal. The main field of usefulness of railroads, and the means by which that field was to be developed, were not merely ignored, they were positively shunned. This period of railroad infancy ended about the year 1850. The crisis of 1847 marked its close in England. The Revolution of 1848-51 was the dividing line on the continent of Europe. The land grants of 1850, and the formation of three trunk lines from the seaboard to the interior may be taken as the beginning of the new era in the United States. It began to be seen and felt that a steam railroad was something more than an exaggerated turnpike or horse railroad, and that it had functions and laws of its own. The changes were: first, the consolidation of old roads; second, the construction of new ones in a great variety of conditions; third, and most important, the development of traffic by cheap rates and new methods. … Under all these influences the railroad mileage of the world increased from 20,000 in 1850 to 66,000 in 1860, 137,000 in 1870, 225,000 in 1880, and [406,416 in 1893.—'Archiv für Eisenbahnwesen']. … Rapid as has been the growth of the railroad mileage, traffic has kept pace with it. It is estimated that the total number of tons moved in 1875 was about 800,000,000. At present [1885] it is about 1,200,000,000 annually, while the passenger movement has increased from 1,400,000,000 to 2,400,000,000. If we could take distance as well as quantity into account, the change (for freight at any rate) would be still greater. To a certain extent this increased intensity of use of railroads is due to improvements in engineering; to a much greater extent it is the result of improved business methods. … Between 1850 and 1880 rates were reduced on an average to about one half their former figures, in spite of the advance in price of labor and of many articles of consumption. A variety of means were made to contribute to this result. The inventions of Bessemer and others, by which it became possible to substitute steel rails for iron, made it profitable for the railroads to carry larger loads at a reduction in rates. Improvements in management increased the effective use of the rolling stock, while the consumption of fuel and the cost of handling were diminished. By other changes in railroad economy it became possible to compete for business of every kind, with the best canals or with natural water-courses. The railroad rates of to-day are but a small fraction of the canal charges of two generations ago; while in volume of business, speed, and variety of use there is an inestimable advance."

"The railway mileage in the United States on June 30, 1893, was 176,461.07 miles. This shows an increase during the year of 4,897.55 miles, being an increase of 2.80 per cent. The previous report showed an increase during the year ending June 30, 1892, of 3,160.78, being an increase of 1.88 per cent over the mileage of the year 1891. The rate of increase from 1886 to 1887 was 9.08 per cent; from 1887 to 1888, 6.05 per cent; from 1888 to 1889, 3.22 per cent; from 18139 to 1890, 4.78 per cent; and from 1890 to 1891, 2.94 per cent. … The total number [of men] in the service of railways in the United States on June 30, 1893, was 873,602, being an increase of 52,187 over the number employed the previous year."

COMMUNISM.

CONNECTICUT BLUE LAWS.

CONSTANTINOPLE: LIBRARIES.

On page 2304 of this work, under NETHERLANDS (BELGIUM): A. D. 1892-1893, there is given some account of the revision of the constitution of the kingdom, in 1893, and the peculiar new features introduced in its provisions, relative to the elective franchise. The following is a translation of the text of the revised constitution:

   Article 1.
   Belgium is divided into provinces, these provinces are:
   Antwerp, Brabant, Western Flanders, Eastern Flanders, Hainaut,
   Liège, Limburg, Luxemburg, Namur. It is the prerogative of
   law, if there is any reason, to divide the territory into a
   larger number of provinces. Colonies, possessions beyond the
   seas or protectorates which Belgium may acquire, are governed
   by particular laws. The Belgian forces appointed for their
   defense can only be recruited by voluntary enlistment.

   Article 2.
   The subdivisions of the provinces can be established only by
   law.

   Article 3.
   The boundaries of the State, of the provinces and of the
   communes can be changed or rectified only by a law.

   Article 4.
   The title Belgian is acquired, preserved and lost according to
   the regulations determined by civil law. The present
   Constitution, and other laws relating to political rights,
   determine what are, in addition to such title, the conditions
   necessary for the exercise of these rights.

   Article 5.
   Naturalization is granted by the legislative power. The great
   naturalization, alone, assimilates the foreigner to the
   Belgian for the exercise of political rights.

   Article 6.
   There is no distinction of orders in the State. Belgians are
   equal before the law; they alone are admissible to civil and
   military offices, with such exceptions as may be established
   by law in particular cases.

   Article 7.
   Individual liberty is guaranteed. No person can be prosecuted
   except in the cases provided for by law and in the form which
   the law prescribes. Except in the case of flagrant
   misdemeanor, no person can be arrested without the order of a
   judge, which must be served at the time of the arrest, or, at
   the latest, within twenty-four hours.

   Article 8.
   No person can be deprived, against his will, of the judge
   assigned to him by law.

   Article 9.
   No punishment can be established or applied except by
   provision of law.

   Article 10.
   The domicile is inviolable; no domiciliary visit can be made
   otherwise than in the cases provided for by law and in the
   form which it prescribes.

   Article 11.
   No person can be deprived of his property except for public
   use, in the cases and in the manner established by law, and
   with prior indemnity.

   Article 14.
   Religious liberty, public worship, and freedom of expressed
   opinion in all matters are guaranteed, with a reserve for the
   repression of offenses committed in the exercise of these
   liberties.

   Article 15.
   No person can be compelled to join, in any manner whatsoever,
   in the acts and ceremonies of any worship, nor to observe its
   days of rest.

   Article 16.
   The State has no right to interfere in the appointment nor in
   the installation of the ministers of any religion, nor to
   forbid them to correspond with their superiors and to publish
   their acts under the ordinary responsibility of publication.
   Civil marriage shall always precede the nuptial benediction,
   with the exceptions to be prescribed by law in case of need.

   Article 17.
   Teaching is free; all preventive measures are forbidden; the
   repression of offenses is regulated only by law. Public
   instruction given at the expense of the State is also
   regulated by law.

   Article 18.
   The press is free; censorship can never be re-established;
   caution-money from writers, editors or printers cannot be
   required. When the author is known and is a resident of
   Belgium, the editor, the printer or the distributor cannot be
   prosecuted.

   Article 19.
   Belgians have the right to meet peaceably and without arms, in
   conformity with such laws as may regulate the use of their
   right but without the requirement of a previous authorization.
   This stipulation does not apply to open air meetings, which
   remain entirely subject to police regulations.

   Article 20.
   Belgians have the right of association; this right cannot be
   subject to any preventive measure.

   Article 21.
   It is the right of every person to address to the public
   authorities petitions signed by one or several. The
   constituted authorities alone have the right to address
   petitions in a collective name.

   Article 22.
   The secrecy of correspondence is inviolable. The law
   determines who are the agents responsible for violation of the
   secrecy of letters confided to the post.

   Article 23.
   The use of the languages spoken in Belgium is optional; it can
   be prescribed only by law, and only for acts of public
   authority and for judicial transactions.

   Article 24.
   No previous authorization is necessary for the undertaking of
   proceedings against public officials, on account of acts in
   their administration, except that which is enacted concerning
   ministers.

   Article 25.
   All powers are derived from the nation. They are exercised in
   the manner prescribed by the Constitution.

   Article 26.
   Legislative power is exercised collectively by the King, the
   Chamber of Representatives and the Senate.

   Article 27.
   The initiative belongs to each one of the three branches of
   the legislative power. Nevertheless, all laws relating to the
   revenue or to the expenditures of the State, or to the
   contingent of the army must be voted first by the Chamber of
   Representatives.

   Article 28.
   The interpretation of laws by authority belongs only to the
   legislative power.

   Article 29.
   The executive power, as regulated by the Constitution, belongs
   to the King.

   Article 30.
   The judicial power is exercised by the courts and tribunals.
   Decrees and judgments are executed in the name of the King.

   Article 31.
   Interests exclusively communal or provincial, are regulated by
   the communal or provincial councils, according to the
   principles established by the Constitution.

Chapter First.—Of The Chambers.

   Article 32.
   Members of both Chambers represent the nation, and not merely
   the province or the subdivision of province which has elected
   them.

   Article 33.
   The sittings of the Chambers are public. Nevertheless, each
   Chamber forms itself into a secret committee on the demand of
   its president or of ten members. It then decides by absolute
   majority whether the sitting on the same subject shall be
   resumed publicly.

   Article 34.
   Each Chamber verifies the powers of its members and decides
   all contests on the subject that may arise.

   Article 36.
   A member of one of the two Chambers who is appointed by the
   government to any salaried office, except that of minister,
   and who accepts the same, ceases immediately to sit, and
   resumes his functions only by virtue of a new election.

   Article 37.
   At every session, each Chamber elects its president and its
   vice-presidents and forms its bureau.

   Article 38.
   Every resolution is adopted by the absolute majority of the
   votes, excepting as may be directed by the rules of the
   Chambers in regard to elections and presentations. In case of
   an equal division of votes, the proposition brought under
   deliberation is rejected. Neither of the two Chambers can
   adopt a resolution unless the majority of its members is
   present.

   Article 39.
   Votes are given by the voice or by sitting and rising; on
   "l'ensemble des lois" the vote is always taken by the call of
   the roll of names. Elections and presentations of candidates
   are made by ballot.

   Article 41.
   A bill can be passed by one of the Chambers only after having
   been voted article by article.

   Article 42.
   The Chambers have the right to amend and to divide the
   articles and the amendments proposed.

   Article 43.
   The presenting of petitions in person to the Chambers is
   forbidden. Each Chamber has the right to refer to ministers
   the petitions that are addressed to it. Ministers are required
   to give explanations whenever the Chamber requires them.

   Article 44.
   No member of either Chamber can be prosecuted or called to
   account for opinions expressed or votes given by him in the
   performance of his duties.

   Article 45.
   No member of either Chamber can be prosecuted or arrested in
   affairs of repression, during the session, without the
   authorization of the Chamber of which he is a member, except
   the case be "de flagrant delit." No bodily constraint can be
   exercised against a member of either Chamber during the
   session, except with the same authorization. The detention or
   the prosecution of a member of either Chamber is suspended
   during the whole session if the Chamber so requires.

   Article 46.
   Each Chamber determines by its rules the mode in which it will
   exercise its powers.

Section I.—Of the Chamber of Representatives.

   Article 47.
   Deputies to the Chamber of Representatives are elected
   directly under the following conditions: A vote is conferred
   on citizens who have completed their 25th year, who have
   resided for at least one year in the same commune, and who are
   not within one of the cases of exclusion provided for by law.
   A supplementary vote is conferred on each citizen who fulfills
   one of the following conditions:

1. To have completed 35 years of age, to be married, or to be a widower having legitimate offspring, and to pay to the State a tax of not less than 5 francs on account of dwelling-houses or buildings occupied, unless exempted by reason of his profession.

2. To have completed the age of 25 years and to be owner: Either of real property, valued at not less than 2,000 francs to be rated on the basis of the "revenu cadastral," or of a "revenu cadastral" proportioned to that value; Or of an inscription in the great book of the public debt, or of a "carnet de rente Belge" at the savings bank of at least 100 francs of "rente." The inscriptions and bank books must have belonged to the incumbent for at least two years and a half. The property of the wife is assigned to the husband; that of children under age, to the father. Two supplementary votes are assigned to citizens fully 25 years of age who are included in one of the following cases: A. To be the holder of a diploma of higher instruction or of a similar certificate of attendance on a complete course of medium instruction of the higher degree, without distinction between public and private establishments. B. To fill or to have filled a public office, to occupy or to have occupied a position, to practise or to have practised a private profession, which implies the supposition that the titulary has at least an average education of the higher degree. The law determines these functions, positions and professions, as well as, in given cases, the time during which they shall have been occupied or practised. No person can accumulate more than three votes.

   Article 48.
   The constitution of the electoral colleges is regulated by law
   for each province. The vote is obligatory and takes place in
   the commune with exceptions to be determined by law.

   Article 49.
   The electoral law fixes the number of deputies according to
   the population; this number cannot exceed the proportion of a
   deputy for 40,000 inhabitants. It determines also the
   qualifications of an elector and the mode of the electoral
   operations.

   Article 50.
   To be eligible, it is necessary:
   1. To be a Belgian by birth or to have received the "grand
   naturalization";
   2. To enjoy civil and political rights;
   3. To have completed 25 years of age;
   4. To reside in Belgium.

   Article 51.
   The members of the Chamber of Representatives are elected for
   four years. Half of them are changed every two years,
   according to the order of the series determined by the
   electoral law. In case of dissolution, the Chamber is entirely
   renewed.

   Article 52.
   Each member of the Chamber of Representatives receives a
   yearly indemnity of 4,000 francs. He is, besides, entitled to
   free travel on the State railways and on the "conceded"
   railways, from his residence to the city where the session is
   held.

Section II.—Of the Senate.

1. Of members elected in proportion to the population of each province, conformably to Article 47; though the law may require that the electors shall be 30 years of age, the provisions of Article 48 are applicable to the election of these senators.

2. Of members elected by the provincial councils, to the number of two from each province having less than 500,000 inhabitants, of three from each province having from 500,000 to 1,000,000 of inhabitants, and of four from each province having more than one million of inhabitants.

   Article 54.
   The number of senators elected directly by the electoral body
   is equal to half the number of the members of the Chamber of
   Representatives.

   Article 55.
   Senators are elected for eight years; half of them are changed
   every four years, according to the order of the series
   determined by the electoral law. In case of dissolution, the
   Senate is entirely renewed.

   Article 56.
   To be eligible for election and to remain a senator, it is
   necessary:
   1. To be a Belgian by birth or to have received the "grande
   naturalization";
   2. To enjoy civil and political rights;
   3. To reside in Belgium;
   4. To be at least 40 years of age;
   5. To pay into the treasury of the State at least 1,200 francs
   of direct taxes, patents included; Or to be either proprietor
   or usufructuary of real property situated in Belgium, the
   cadastral revenue from which is at least 12,000 francs. In the
   provinces where the number of those eligible does not attain
   the proportion of one in 5,000 inhabitants, the list is
   completed by adding the heaviest tax-payers of the province to
   the extent of that proportion. Citizens whose names are
   inscribed on the complementary list are eligible only in the
   province where they reside.

   Article 56 bis.
   Senators elected by the provincial councils are exempted from
   all conditions of census; they cannot belong to the assembly
   which elects them, nor can they have been a member of it
   during the year of the election, nor during the two previous
   years.

   Article 58.
   The King's sons, or in their absence the Belgian Princes of
   the branch of the Royal family called to reign, are by right
   senators at 18 years of age. They have a deliberative voice
   only at 25 years of age.

   Article 59.
   Any assembly of the Senate which may be held outside the time
   of the session of the Chamber of Representatives is null and
   void.

Chapter II.—Of the King and his Ministers.

Section II.—Of the King.

   Article 60.
   The constitutional powers of the King are hereditary in the
   direct, natural and legitimate descent from His Majesty
   Leopold-George-Christian-Frederick of Saxe-Coburg, from male
   to male, by order of primogeniture, and to the perpetual
   exclusion of the females of their line. The prince who marries
   without the consent of the King or of those who, in his
   absence, exercise his powers, in the cases provided for by the
   Constitution, shall forfeit his rights. Nevertheless he can be
   restored to his rights by the King or by those who, in his
   absence, exercise his authority in the cases provided for by
   the Constitution, with the consent of both Chambers.

   Article 61.
   In default of male descendants of his Majesty
   Leopold-George-Christian-Frederick of Saxe-Coburg, the King
   can name his successor, with the assent of the Chambers,
   expressed in the manner prescribed by the following article.
   If no nomination has been made according to the proceeding
   here stated, the throne will be vacant.

   Article 62.
   The King cannot be, at the same time, the chief of another
   State, without the consent of both Chambers. Neither of the
   two Chambers can deliberate on this subject if two-thirds at
   least of the members who compose it are not present, and the
   resolution is adopted only if it receives two-thirds at least
   of the votes cast.

   Article 63.
   The person of the King is inviolable; his ministers are
   responsible.

   Article 64.
   No act of the King can have effect if it is not countersigned
   by a minister, who, thereby, makes himself responsible.

   Article 66.
   He confers the grades in the army. He appoints to the offices
   of general administration and of foreign relations, with the
   exceptions determined by law. He appoints to other offices
   only by virtue of express provisions of a law.

   Article 67.
   He makes the regulations and decrees necessary to the
   execution of the laws, without power to suspend the laws
   themselves, nor to exempt from their execution.

   Article 68.
   The King commands the land and naval forces, declares war,
   makes treaties of peace, of alliance, and of commerce. He
   announces them to the Chambers as soon as the interest and the
   safety of the State admit of it, adding to them appropriate
   communications. Treaties of commerce and those which might
   burden the State or bind Belgians individually become
   effective only after having received the approval of the
   Chambers. No cession, nor exchange, nor addition of territory
   can take place without authority of a law. In no case can the
   secret articles of a treaty be destructive to the open
   articles.

   Article 70.
   The Chambers meet by right every year, on the 2d Tuesday in
   November, unless previously summoned by the King. The Chambers
   must remain in session at least 40 days in each year. The King
   declares the closing of the session. The King has the right to
   call extra sessions of the Chambers.

   Article 71.
   The King has the right to dissolve the Chambers, either
   simultaneously or separately; the act of dissolution to
   contain a convocation of the electors within forty days and of
   the Chambers within two months.

   Article 72.
   The King may adjourn the Chambers. The adjournment, however,
   cannot exceed the term of one month, nor be renewed in the
   same session, without the consent of the Chambers.

   Article 73.
   He has the right to remit or to reduce penalties pronounced by
   the judges, except those which are enacted concerning the
   ministers.

   Article 75.
   He has the right to confer titles of nobility, without power
   to attach any privilege to them.

   Article 76.
   He confers the military orders, observing in that regard what
   the law prescribes.

   Article 78.
   The King has no other powers than those formally conferred on
   him by the Constitution, and by laws enacted pursuant to the
   Constitution.

   Article 79.
   On the death of the King, the Chambers meet without
   convocation, not later than the tenth day after that of his
   decease. If the Chambers had been previously dissolved, and if
   the convocation had been fixed in the act of dissolution for a
   later date than the tenth day, the old Chambers resume their
   functions until the meeting of those which are to take their
   place. If one Chamber only had been dissolved, the same rule
   is followed with regard to that Chamber. From the death of the
   King and until his successor on the throne or the regent has
   taken the oath, the constitutional powers of the King, are
   exercised, in the name of the Belgian nation, by the ministers
   assembled in council and under their responsibility.

   Article 80.
   The King is of age when he has completed his 18th year. He
   takes possession of the throne only after having solemnly
   taken, in the midst of the Chambers assembled together, the
   following oath: "I swear to observe the Constitution and the
   laws of the Belgian people, to maintain the national
   independence and to preserve the integrity of the territory."

   Article 81.
   If, on the death of the King, his successor is a minor, both
   Chambers meet in one body for the purpose of providing for the
   regency and the guardianship.

   Article 82.
   If it is impossible for the King to reign, the ministers,
   after having caused that inability to be established, convoke
   the Chambers immediately. Guardianship and regency are to be
   provided for by the Chambers convened.

   Article 83.
   The regency can be conferred on one person only. The regent
   enters upon his duties only after he has taken the oath
   prescribed by Article 80.

   Article 85.
   In case of a vacancy on the throne, the Chambers deliberating
   together, arrange provisionally for the regency until the
   meeting of new Chambers, that meeting to take place within two
   months, at the latest. The new Chambers deliberating together
   provide definitely for the vacancy.

Section II.—Of the Ministers.

   Article 86.
   No person can be a minister who is not a Belgian by birth, or
   who has not received the "grande naturalization."

   Article 88.
   Ministers have a deliberative voice in either Chamber only
   when they are members of it. They have free admission into
   each Chamber and must have a hearing when they ask for it. The
   Chambers may require the presence of ministers.

   Article 89.
   In no case, can the order of the King, verbal or written,
   relieve a minister of responsibility.

   Article 90.
   The Chamber of Representatives has the right to accuse
   ministers and to arraign them before the Court of Cassation
   [Appeal], which alone has the right to judge them, the united
   Chambers reserving what may be enacted by law concerning civil
   action by a party wronged, and as to crimes and misdemeanors
   which ministers may have committed outside of the performance
   of their duties. A law shall determine the cases of
   responsibility, the penalties to be inflicted on the
   ministers, and the manner of proceeding against them, either
   upon the accusation admitted by the Chamber of
   Representatives, or upon prosecution by parties wronged.

   Article 91.
   The King may pardon a minister sentenced by the Court of
   Cassation only upon the request of one of the two Chambers.

Chapter III.—Of the Judiciary Power.

   Article 92.
   Contests concerning civil rights are exclusively within the
   jurisdiction of the tribunals.

   Article 93.
   Contests concerning political rights are within the
   jurisdiction of the tribunals, with exceptions determined by
   law.

   Article 94.
   No tribunal can be established otherwise than by law. Neither
   commissions nor extraordinary tribunals, under any
   denomination whatever, can be created.

   Article 95.
   There is for the whole of Belgium one Court of Cassation. This
   Court does not consider the ground of causes, except in the
   judgment of ministers.

   Article 96.
   Sittings of the tribunals are public, unless such publicity be
   dangerous to order or morals, and in that case the tribunal
   declares it by a judgment. In the matter of political or press
   offenses, the exclusion of the public must be voted
   unanimously.

Article 97. The ground of every judgment is to be stated. It
is pronounced in public sitting.

   Article 98.
   The jury is established in all criminal cases, and for
   political and press offenses.

   Article 99.
   The judges of the peace and judges of the tribunals are
   appointed directly by the King. Councillors of the Courts of
   appeal and presidents and vice-presidents of the courts of
   original jurisdiction are appointed by the King, from two
   double lists, presented, one by those courts and the other by
   the provincial Councils. Councillors of the Court of Cassation
   are appointed by the King from two double lists, one presented
   by the Senate and the other by the Court of Cassation. In
   these two cases the candidates whose names are on one list may
   also be inscribed on the other. All presentations are made
   public at least fifteen days before the appointment. The
   courts choose their presidents and vice-presidents from among
   their members.

   Article 100.
   Judges are appointed for life. No judge can be deprived of his
   position or suspended, except by a judgment. The displacement
   of a judge can take place only through a new appointment and
   with his consent.

   Article 101.
   The King appoints and dismisses the public prosecutors to the
   courts and tribunals.

   Article 102.
   The salaries of the members of the judicial order are fixed by
   law.

   Article 103.
   No judge may accept salaried offices from the government
   unless he exercises them gratuitously, and excluding the cases
   of incompatibility defined by law.

   Article 104.
   There are three courts of appeal in Belgium. The law
   determines their jurisdiction and the places in which they
   shall be established.

   Article 105.
   Special enactments regulate the organization of military
   courts, their powers, the rights and obligations of the
   members of such courts, and the duration of their functions.
   There are tribunals of commerce in the places determined by
   law, which regulate their organization, their powers, the mode
   of appointment of their members and the term of the latters'
   duties.

   Article 106.
   Conflicts of jurisdiction are settled by the Court of
   Cassation, according to proceedings regulated by law.

   Article 107.
   Courts and tribunals shall apply general, provincial and local
   decisions and regulations only so far as they are conformable
   to the laws.

Chapter IV.—Of Provincial and Communal Institutions.

   Article 108.
   Provincial and communal institutions are regulated by the
   laws. These laws sanction the application of the following
   principles:

1. Direct election, with the exceptions which the law may establish in regard to the chiefs of communal administration and the government commissioners to the provincial councils;

2. The assigning to provincial and communal councils of all which is of provincial and communal interest without prejudice to the approval of their acts in the cases and according to the proceedings which law determines;

3. The publicity of the sittings of the provincial and communal councils within the limits established by law;

5. The intervention of the King' or of the legislative power to prevent the provincial and communal councils from going beyond their powers and injuring the general welfare.

   Article 109.
   The drawing up of certificates of birth, marriage and death,
   and the keeping of the registers, are the exclusive
   prerogatives of communal authorities.

   Article 110.
   No tax for the profit of the State can be imposed otherwise
   than by a law. No charge or provincial assessment can be
   imposed without the consent of the provincial council. No
   charge or communal assessment can be imposed, without the
   consent of the communal council. The law must determine those
   exceptions of which experience will show the necessity in the
   matter of provincial and communal impositions.

   Article 111.
   Taxes for the profit of the State are voted annually. The laws
   which impose them are valid for one year only, unless renewed.

   Article 112.
   There can be no creation of privilege in the matter of taxes.
   No exemption from nor diminution of taxes can be established
   otherwise than by a law.

   Article 113.
   Beyond the cases expressly excepted by law, no payment can be
   exacted from citizens, otherwise than in taxes levied for the
   profit of the State, of the province, or of the commune. No
   innovation is made on the actually existing system of the
   polders and the wateringen, which remain subject to the
   ordinary legislation.

   Article 114.
   No pension, nor gratuity at the expense of the public treasury
   can be granted without authority of law.

   Article 115.
   Each year, the Chambers determine the law of accounts and vote
   the budget. All the receipts and expenditures of the State
   must be entered in the budget and in the accounts.

   Article 116.
   The members of the court of accounts are appointed by the
   Chamber of Representatives and for the term fixed by law. That
   court is intrusted with the examination and the settlement of
   the accounts of the general administration and of all the
   accountants for the public treasury. It sees that no article
   of the expenses of the budget has been exceeded and that no
   transfer has taken place. It determines the accounts of the
   different administrations of the State and is required for
   that purpose to gather all information, and all documents that
   may be necessary. The general account of the State is
   submitted to the Chambers with the observations of the court
   of accounts. This court is organized by law.

   Article 117.
   The salaries and pensions of the ministers of religion are
   paid by the State; the sums required to meet these expenses
   are entered annually in the budget.

   Article 118.
   The mode of recruiting the army is determined by law. The law
   also regulates promotions, and the rights and obligations of
   the military.

   Article 119.
   The contingent of the army is voted annually. The law that
   fixes it is of force for one year only, unless renewed.

   Article 120.
   The organization and the powers of the gendarmerie are the
   subject of a law.

   Article 121.
   No foreign troops can be admitted to the service of the State,
   nor to occupy or pass through its territory, except by
   provision of law.

   Article 122.
   There is a civic guard; its organization is regulated by law.
   The officers of all ranks, up to that of captain at least, are
   appointed by the guards with exceptions judged necessary for
   the accountants.

   Article 123.
   The mobilization of the civic guard can occur only by
   direction of law.

   Article 124.
   Military men can be deprived of their grades, honors, and
   pensions only in the manner determined by law.

   Article 125.
   The Belgian nation adopts the colors red, yellow and black,
   and for the arms of the kingdom the Belgic lion with the
   motto: "L'Union fait la Force" ["Union is Strength"].

   Article 126.
   The city of Brussels is the capital of Belgium and the scat of
   its government.

   Article 127.
   No oath can be imposed except by law. The law also determines
   its formula.

   Article 128.
   Any foreigner who is within the territory of Belgium enjoys
   the protection accorded to persons and goods, with the
   exceptions defined by law.

   Article 129.
   No law, decree, or administrative regulation, general,
   provincial, or communal, is obligatory until it has been
   published in the form prescribed by law.

   Article 130.
   The Constitution cannot be suspended, either wholly or in
   part.

   Article 131.
   The legislative power has the right to declare that there is
   occasion for revising such constitutional provision as it
   designates. After such declaration, the two Chambers are
   dissolved. Two new Chambers shall then be convoked, in
   conformity with Article 71. These Chambers act, in concurrence
   with the King, on the points submitted for revision. In such
   case, the Chambers cannot deliberate unless two-thirds at
   least of the members composing each one of them are present,
   and no change which does not receive at least two-thirds of
   the votes in its favor shall be adopted.

   Article 132.
   For the first choice of the chief of the State, the first
   stipulation of Article 80 may be departed from.

   Article 133.
   Foreigners who settled in Belgium before the 1st of January
   1814, and who have continued to reside in the country, are
   considered as Belgians by birth, on condition that they
   declare their intention to enjoy the benefit of this
   provision. The declaration must be made within six months,
   dating from the day when the present Constitution becomes
   obligatory, if they are of age, and in the year following
   their majority if they are under age. The declaration must be
   made before the provincial authority within whose jurisdiction
   they reside. It must be made in person or through a
   representative bearing a special and authentic power of
   attorney.

   Article 134.
   Until otherwise provided for by a law, the Chamber of
   Representatives shall have a discretionary power to accuse a
   minister, and the Court of Cassation to judge him,
   characterizing the offense and determining the penalty.
   Nevertheless the penalty cannot exceed that of imprisonment,
   without prejudice to the cases expressly provided for by penal
   laws.

   Article 135.
   The staff of courts and tribunals is maintained as it actually
   exists, until it shall have been provided for by law. Such law
   shall be enacted during the first legislative session.

   Article 136.
   A law enacted in the same session shall determine the mode of
   the first appointment of members of the Court of Cassation.

   Article 137.
   The fundamental law of the 24th of August 1815, is hereby
   repealed, as well as the provincial and local statutes; but
   the provincial and local authorities will exercise their
   powers until the law shall have otherwise provided.

   Article 138.
   From the day on which this Constitution goes into effect, all
   laws, decrees, decisions, regulations, and other acts that are
   in conflict with it are abrogated.

   Article 139.
   The National Congress declares that it is necessary to provide
   by separate laws and with the least possible delay for the
   following objects:
   1. The Press;
   2. The organization of the jury;
   3. The finances;
   4. Provincial and communal organization;
   5. The responsibility of ministers and
   other agents of authority;
   6. The organization of the judiciary;
   7. The revision of the pension list;
   8. Proper measures for preventing the
   abuse of plurality of offices;
   9. Revision of the laws of bankruptcy and suspension;
   10. The organization of the army, the rights of
   promotion and retirement, and the military penal code;
   11. Revision of the codes.
   The executive power is charged with the execution of the
   present decree.

The kingdom of Italy is still governed under the constitution which was granted in 1848, by Charles Albert, to his Sardinian subjects. It remains unchanged in form, but in practice has been modified by legislation. The following translation of the instrument, made by S. M. Lindsay, Ph. D., and L. S. Howe, Ph. D., University of Pennsylvania, is borrowed, under permission, from the:

"Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science," November, 1894, Supplement.

In their historical introduction to the instrument, the translators say: "The extension of this constitution to the various parts of the present Kingdom of Italy was effected by a series of Plebiscites:

   Lombardy, December 7, 1859;
   Emilia by decree of March 18, 1860, and law of April 15, 1860;
   Neapolitan Provinces, December 17, 1860;
   Tuscany, decree March 22, and law April 15, 1860;
   Sicily, Marches and Umbria, December 17, 1860;
   Province of Venice, decree July 28, 1866;
   Roman Provinces, decree October 9 and law December 31, 1870.
   … Although no provision is to be found in this constitution
   for amendment, most Italian constitutional jurists have held
   that Parliament, with the approval of the King, has the power
   to make laws amending the constitution, for an immutable
   constitution is sure in time to hamper the development of a
   progressive people. It is hardly necessary to add that such an
   instrument is contrary to the true conception of an organic
   law.
{3733}
   As a matter of fact several provisions have been either
   abrogated or rendered null and void through change of
   conditions. Thus the second clause of Article 28, requiring
   the previous consent of the bishop for the printing of Bibles,
   prayer books and catechisms, has been rendered of no effect
   through subsequent laws regulating the relations of Church and
   State. Article 76, which provides for the establishment of a
   communal militia, has been abrogated by the military law of
   June 14, 1874. The fact that no French-speaking provinces now
   form part of the kingdom has made Article 62 a dead-letter. So
   also Articles 53 and 55 are no longer strictly adhered to. At
   all events their observance has been suspended for the time
   being."

(Charles Albert, by the Grace of God, King of Sardinia, Cyprus and Jerusalem, Duke of Savoy, Genoa, Monferrato, Aosta, of the Chiablese, Genovese and of Piacenza; Prince of Piedmont and Oneglia; Marquis of Italy, Saluzzo, Ivrea, Susa, Ceva, of the Maro, of Oristano, of Cesana and Savona; Count of Moriana, Geneva, Nice, Trenda, Romonte, Asti, Alexandria, Goceano, Novara, Tortona, Vigevano and of Bobbio; Baron of Vaud and Faucigny; Lord of Vercelli, Pinerolo, Tarantasia, of the Lomellina and of the Valley of Sesia, etc., etc., etc.) With the fidelity of a king and the affection of a father, we are about to-day to fulfill all that we promised our most beloved subjects in our proclamation of the eighth of last February, whereby we desired to show, in the midst of the extraordinary events then transpiring throughout the country, how much our confidence in our subjects increased with the gravity of the situation, and how, consulting only the impulse of our heart, we had fully determined to make their condition conform to the spirit of the times and to the interests and dignity of the nation. We, believing that the broad and permanent representative institutions established by this fundamental statute are the surest means of cementing the bonds of indissoluble affection that bind to our crown a people that has so often given us ample proof of their faithfulness, obedience and love, have determined to sanction and promulgate this statute. We believe, further, that God will bless our good intentions, and that this free, strong and happy nation will ever show itself more deserving of its ancient fame and thus merit a glorious future. Therefore, we, with our full knowledge and royal authority and with the advice of our Council, have ordained and do hereby ordain and declare in force the fundamental perpetual and irrevocable statute and law of the monarchy as follows:

   Article 1.
   The Catholic, Apostolic and Roman religion is the only
   religion of the State.

   Article 2.
   The State is governed by a representative monarchical
   government, and the throne is hereditary according to the
   Salic law.

   Article 3.
   The legislative power shall be exercised collectively by the
   King and the two Chambers, the Senate and the Chamber of
   Deputies.

   Article 5.
   To the King alone belongs the executive power. He is the
   supreme head of the State; commands all land and naval forces;
   declares war; makes treaties of peace, alliance, commerce and
   other treaties, communicating them to the Chambers as soon as
   the interest and security of the State permits, accompanying
   such notice with opportune explanations; provided that
   treaties involving financial obligations or change of State
   territory shall not take effect until they have received the
   consent of the Chambers.

   Article 6.
   The King appoints to all the offices of the State and makes
   the necessary decrees and regulations for the execution of the
   laws, provided that such decrees do not suspend or modify
   their observance.

   Article 9.
   The King convokes the two Chambers each year. He may prorogue
   their sessions and dissolve the Chamber of Deputies, in which
   case he shall convoke a new Chamber within a period of four
   months.

   Article 10.
   The initiative in legislation belongs both to the King and the
   two Houses. All bills, however, imposing taxes or relating to
   the budget shall first be presented to the Chamber of
   Deputies.

   Article 11.
   The King shall attain his majority upon completion of his
   eighteenth year.

   Article 12.
   During the King's minority, the Prince who is his nearest
   relative in the order of succession to the throne, shall be
   regent of the realm, provided he be twenty-one years of age.

   Article 13.
   Should the Prince upon whom the regency devolves be still in
   his minority and this duty pass to a more distant relative,
   the regent who actually takes office shall continue in the
   same until the King becomes of age.

   Article 14.
   In the absence of male relatives, the regency devolves upon
   the Queen-Mother.

   Article 15.
   In the event of the prior decease of the Queen-Mother, the
   regent shall be elected by the legislative Chambers, convoked
   within ten days by the Ministers of the Crown.

   Article 16.
   The preceding provisions in reference to the regency are also
   applicable in case the King has attained his majority, but is
   physically incapable of reigning. Under such circumstances, if
   the heir presumptive to the throne be eighteen years of age,
   be shall be regent of full right.

   Article 17.
   The Queen-Mother has charge of the education of the King until
   he has completed his seventh year; from this time on his
   guardianship passes into the hands of the regent.

   Article 18.
   All rights pertaining to the civil power in matters of
   ecclesiastical benefices and in the execution of all
   regulations whatsoever coming from foreign countries shall be
   exercised by the King.

   Article 19.
   The civil list of the Crown shall remain, during the present
   reign, at an amount equal to the average of the same for the
   past ten years. The King shall continue to have the use of the
   royal palaces, villas, gardens and their appurtenances, and
   also of all chattels intended for the use of the Crown, of
   which a speedy inventory shall be made by a responsible
   ministerial department. In the future the prescribed dotation
   of the Crown shall be fixed for the duration of each reign by
   the first Legislature subsequent to the King s accession to
   the throne.

   Article 20.
   The property that the King possesses in his own right, shall
   form his private patrimony, together with that to which he may
   acquire title either for a consideration or gratuitously in
   the course of his reign. The King may dispose of his private
   patrimony either by deed or will exempt from the provisions of
   the civil law as to the amount thus disposable. In all other
   cases, the King's patrimony is subject to the laws that govern
   other property.

   Article 21.
   The law shall provide an annual civil list for the heir
   apparent to the throne when he has attained his majority, and
   also earlier on occasion of his marriage; for the allowances
   of the Princes of the royal family and royal blood within the
   specified conditions; for the dowries of the Princesses and
   for the dowries of the Queens.

   Article 22.
   Upon ascending the throne, the King shall take an oath in the
   presence of the two Chambers to observe faithfully the present
   constitution.

   Article 23.
   The regent, before entering on the duties of that office,
   shall swear fidelity to the King and faithful observance of
   this constitution and of the laws of the State.

   Article 24.
   All the inhabitants of the Kingdom, whatever their rank or
   title, shall enjoy equality before the law. All shall equally
   enjoy civil and political rights and be eligible to civil and
   military office, except as otherwise provided by law.

   Article 25.
   All shall contribute without discrimination to the burdens of
   the State, in proportion to their possessions.

   Article 26.
   Individual liberty is guaranteed. No one shall be arrested or
   brought to trial except in cases provided for and according to
   the forms prescribed by law.

   Article 27.
   The domicile shall be inviolable. No house search shall take
   place except in the enforcement of law and in the manner
   prescribed by law.

   Article 28.
   The press shall be free, but the law may suppress abuses of
   this freedom. Nevertheless, Bibles, catechisms, liturgical and
   prayer books shall not be printed without the previous consent
   of the bishop.

   Article 29.
   Property of all kinds whatsoever shall be inviolable. In all
   cases, however, where the public welfare, legally ascertained,
   demands it, property may be condemned and transferred in whole
   or in part after a just indemnity has been paid according to
   law.

   Article 30.
   No tax shall be levied or collected without the consent of the
   Chambers and the sanction of the King.

   Article 31.
   The public debt is guaranteed. All obligations between the
   State and its creditors shall be inviolable.

   Article 32.
   The right to peaceful assembly, without arms, is recognized,
   subject, however, to the laws that may regulate the exercise
   of this privilege in the interest of the public welfare. This
   privilege is not applicable, however, to meetings in public
   places or places open to the public, which shall remain
   entirely subject to police law and regulation.

   Article 33.
   The Senate shall be composed of members, having attained the
   age of forty years, appointed for life by the King, without
   limit of numbers. They shall be selected from the following
   categories of citizens:
   1. Archbishops and Bishops of the State.
   2. The President of the Chamber of Deputies.
   3. Deputies after having served in three Legislatures, or
   after six years of membership in the Chamber of Deputies.
   4. Ministers of State.
   5. Secretaries to Ministers of State.
   6. Ambassadors.
   7. Envoys Extraordinary after three years of such service.
   8. The First Presidents of the Courts
   of Cassation and of the Chamber of Accounts.
   9. The First Presidents of the Courts of Appeal.
   10. The Attorney-General of the Courts of Cassation
   and the Prosecutor-General, after five years of service.
   11. The Presidents of the Chambers of the Courts of Appeal
   after three years of service.
   12. The Councillors of the Courts of Cassation and of the
   Chamber of Accounts after five years of service.
   13. The Advocates-General and Fiscals-General of the Courts
   of Appeal after five years of service.
   14. All military officers of the land and naval forces with
   title of general. Major-generals and rear-admirals after five
   years of active service in this capacity.
   15. The Councillors of State after live years of service.
   16. The members of the Councils of Division after three
   elections to their presidency.
   17. The Provincial Governors (Intendenti generali) after seven years of service.
   18. Members of the Royal Academy of Science
   of seven years standing.
   19. Ordinary members of the Superior Council of Public
   Instruction after seven years of service.
   20. Those who by their services or eminent merit have done
   honor to their country.
   21. Persons who, for at least three years, have paid direct
   property or occupation taxes to the amount of 3,000 lire.

   Article 34.
   The Princes of the Royal Family shall be members of the
   Senate. They shall take rank immediately after the President.
   They shall enter the Senate at the age of twenty-one and have
   a vote at twenty-five.

   Article 35.
   The President and Vice-Presidents of the Senate shall be
   appointed by the King, but the Senate chooses from among its
   own members its secretaries.

   Article 36.
   The Senate may be constituted a High Court of Justice by
   decree of the King for judging crimes of high treason and
   attempts upon the safety of the State, also for trying
   Ministers placed in accusation by the Chamber of Deputies.
   When acting in this capacity, the Senate is not a political
   body. It shall not then occupy itself with any other judicial
   matters than those for which it was convened; any other action
   is null and void.

   Article 37.
   No Senator shall be arrested except by virtue of an order of
   the Senate, unless in cases of flagrant commission of crime.
   The Senate shall be the sole judge of the imputed misdemeanors
   of its members.

   Article 38.
   Legal documents as to births, marriages and deaths in the
   Royal Family shall be presented to the Senate and deposited by
   that body among its archives.

   Article 39.
   The elective Chamber is composed of deputies chosen by the
   electoral colleges as provided by law.

["The election law long in force was that of December 17, 1860, which was subsequently modified in July, 1875, and in May, 1877. In January, 1882, a comprehensive electoral reform was inaugurated by which the electoral age qualification was reduced from twenty-five to twenty-one years, and the tax qualification to an annual payment of nineteen lire eighty centesimi as a minimum of direct taxes. This law introduced a new provision requiring of electors a knowledge of reading and writing. It is an elaborate law of 107 articles. The provisions relating to the elections by general ticket were further revised by law of May and decree of June, 1882, and the text of the whole law was co-ordinated with the preceding laws by Royal Decree of September 24, 1882. It was again modified May 5th, 1891, by the abolition of elections on general tickets and the creation of a Commission for the territorial division of the country into electoral colleges. The number of electoral colleges is at present fixed at 508, each electing one Deputy. Twelve articles of this law of 1882, as thus amended, have been again amended by a law dated June 28, 1892, prescribing further reforms in the control and supervision of elections, and by law of July 11, 1894, on the revision of electoral and registration lists."—Foot-note.]

   Article 40.
   No person shall be a member of the Chamber who is not a
   subject of the King, thirty years of age, possessing all civil
   and political rights and the other qualifications required by
   law.

   Article 41.
   Deputies shall represent the nation at large and not the
   several Provinces from which they are chosen. No binding
   instructions may therefore be given by the electors.

   Article 42.
   Deputies shall be elected for a term of five years; their
   power ceases ipso jure at the expiration of this period.

   Article 43.
   The President, Vice-presidents and Secretaries of the Chamber
   of Deputies shall be chosen from among its own members at the
   beginning of each session for the entire session.

   Article 44.
   If a Deputy ceases for any reason whatsoever to perform his
   duties, the electoral college that chose him shall be convened
   at once to proceed with a new election.

   Article 45.
   Deputies shall be privileged from arrest during the sessions,
   except in cases of flagrant commission of crime; but no Deputy
   may be brought to trial in criminal matters without the
   previous consent of the Chamber.

   Article 46.
   No warrant of arrest for debts may be executed against a
   Deputy during the sessions of the Chamber, nor within a period
   of three weeks preceding or following the same.

      ["This article has been practically abolished by
      the Mancini law of December 6, 1877, doing
      away with personal arrest for debts."—Footnote.]

   Article 47.
   The Chamber of Deputies shall have power to impeach Ministers
   of the Crown and to bring them to trial before the High Court
   of Justice.

   Article 48:
   The sessions of the Senate and Chamber of Deputies shall begin
   and end at the same time, and every meeting of one Chamber, at
   a time when the other, is not in session, is illegal and its
   acts wholly null and void.

   Article 49.
   Senators and Deputies before entering upon the duties of their
   office shall take an oath of fidelity to the King and swear to
   observe faithfully the Constitution and laws of the State and
   to perform their duties with the joint welfare of King and
   country as the sole end in view.

   Article 50.
   The office of Senator or Deputy does not entitle to any
   compensation or remuneration.

   Article 51.
   Senators and Deputies shall not be held responsible in any
   other place for opinions expressed or votes given in the
   Chambers.

   Article 52.
   The sessions of the Chambers shall be public. Upon the written
   request of ten members secret sessions may be held.

   Article 53.
   No session or vote of either Chamber shall be legal or valid
   unless an absolute majority of its members is present.

   Article 54.
   The action of either Chamber on any question shall be
   determined by a majority of the votes cast.

   Article 55.
   All bills shall be submitted to committees elected by each
   House for preliminary examination. Any proposition discussed
   and approved by one Chamber shall be transmitted to the other
   for its consideration and approval; after passing both
   Chambers it shall be presented to the King for his sanction.
   Bills shall be discussed article by article.

   Article 56.
   Any bill rejected by one of the three legislative powers
   cannot again be introduced during the same session.

   Article 57.
   Every person who shall have attained his majority has the
   right to send petitions to the Chambers, which in turn must
   order them to be examined by a committee; on report of the
   committee each House shall decide whether they are to be taken
   into consideration, and if voted in the affirmative, they
   shall be referred to the competent Minister or shall be
   deposited with a Government Department for proper action.

   Article 58.
   No petition may be presented in person to either Chamber. No
   persons except the constituted authorities shall have the
   right to submit petitions in their collective capacity.

   Article 59.
   The Chambers shall not receive any deputation, nor give
   hearing to other than their own members and the Ministers and
   Commissioners of the Government.

   Article 60.
   Each Chamber shall be sole judge of the qualifications and
   elections of its own members.

   Article 61.
   The Senate as well as the Chamber of Deputies shall make its
   own rules and regulations respecting its methods of procedure
   in the performance of its respective duties.

   Article 62.
   Italian shall be the official language of the Chambers. The
   use of French shall, however, be permitted to those members
   coming from French-speaking districts and to other members in
   replying to the same.

   Article 63.
   Votes shall be taken by rising, by division, and by secret
   ballot. The latter method, however, shall always be employed
   for the final vote on a law and in all cases of a personal
   nature.

   Article 64.
   No one shall hold the office of Senator and Deputy at the same
   time.

   Article 66.
   The Ministers shall have no vote in either Chamber unless they
   are members thereof. They shall have entrance to both Chambers
   and must be heard upon request.

   Article 67.
   The Ministers shall be responsible. Laws and decrees of the
   government shall not take effect until they shall have
   received the signature of a Minister.

   Article 68.
   Justice emanates from the King and shall be administered in
   his name by the judges he appoints.

   Article 69.
   Judges appointed by the King, except Cantonal or District
   judges (di mandamento), shall not be removed after three years
   of service.

   Article 70.
   Courts, tribunals and judges are retained as at present
   existing. No modification shall be introduced except by law.

   Article 71.
   No one shall be taken from his ordinary legal jurisdiction. It
   is therefore not lawful to create extraordinary tribunals or
   commissions.

   Article 72.
   The proceedings of tribunals in civil cases and the hearings
   in criminal cases shall be public as provided by law.

   Article 73.
   The interpretation of the laws, in the form obligatory upon
   all citizens, belongs exclusively to the legislative power.

   Article 74.
   Communal and provincial institutions and the boundaries of the
   communes and provinces shall be regulated by law.

   Article 76.
   A communal militia shall be established on a basis fixed by
   law.

   Article 77.
   The State retains its flag, and the blue cockade is the only
   national one.

   Article 78.
   The knightly orders now in existence shall be maintained with
   their endowments, which shall not be used for other purposes
   than those specified in the acts by which they were
   established. The King may create other orders and prescribe
   their constitutions.

   Article 79.
   Titles of the nobility are guaranteed to those who have a
   right to them. The King may confer new titles.

   Article 80.
   No one may receive orders, titles or pensions from a foreign
   power without the King's consent.

   Article 81.
   All laws contrary to the provisions of the present
   constitution are hereby abrogated.

   Given at Turin on the fourth day of March, in the year of Our
   Lord, one thousand eight hundred and forty-eight, and of Our
   Reign the eighteenth.

   Article 82.
   This statue shall go into effect on the day of the first
   meeting of the Chambers, which shall take place immediately
   after the elections. Until that time urgent public service
   shall be provided for by royal ordinances according to the
   mode and form now in vogue, excepting, however, the
   ratifications and registrations in the courts which are from
   now on abolished.

   Article 83.
   In the execution of this statute the King reserves to himself
   the right to make the laws for the press, elections, communal
   militia and organization of the Council of State. Until the
   publication of the laws for the press, the regulations now in
   force on this subject remain valid.

   Article 84.
   The Ministers are entrusted with, and are responsible for the
   execution and full observance of these transitory provisions.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1777, 1821, 1846, 1867-1882, and 1894 (page 2339, and after).

CONSTITUTION OF RHODE ISLAND.

CONTRACT TABLETS, BABYLONIAN.

CO-OPERATION.

See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D). 1816-1886, 1840-1848, 1848-1883 (pages 2938, 2942, 2946).

   "The peninsula which projects between the Japanese and Yellow
   Seas southwards in the direction of the southern islands of
   Nippon is completely limited landwards. Like Italy, with which
   it may be compared in extent, and even to some degree in its
   orographic configuration, it is separated from the mainland by
   the Alpine Taipeishan or 'Great White Mountains,' of
   Manchuria. It has also its Apennines stretching north and
   south, and forming the backbone of the peninsula. … Like most
   regions of the extreme East, Korea is known to foreigners by a
   name which has little currency in the country itself. This
   term, belonging formerly to the petty state of Korié, has been
   extended by the Chinese and Japanese to the whole peninsula,
   under the forms of Kaokiuli, Korai, Kaoli. When all the
   principalities were fused in one monarchy, towards the close
   of the 14th century, the country, at that time subject to
   China, took the official title of Chaosien (Tsiosen)—that is,
   'Serenity of the Morning'—in allusion to its geographical
   position east of the empire. Thus it is now designated by a
   poetical expression which exactly indicates its position
   between China and Japan. While for the people of the continent
   Japan is the land of the Rising Sun, Korea is the 'Serene'
   land, illumined by the morning rays. Although washed by two
   much-frequented seas, and yearly sighted by thousands of
   seafarers, Korea is one of the least known Asiatic regions. …
   From its very position between China and Japan, Korea could
   not fail to have been a subject of contention for its powerful
   neighbours. Before its fusion in one state it comprised
   several distinct principalities, whose limits were subject to
   frequent changes. These were, in the north, Kaokiuli (Kaoli),
   or Korea proper; in the centre, Chaosien and the 78 so-called
   'kingdoms' of Chinese foundation, usually known as the San Kan
   (San Han), or 'Three Han'; in the south, Petsi, or Hiaksaï
   (Kudara), the Sinlo of the Chinese, or Siragi of the Japanese;
   beside the petty state of Kara, Zinna, or Mimana, in the
   south-east, round about the Bay of Tsiosan. The northern
   regions naturally gravitated towards China, whose rulers
   repeatedly interfered in the internal affairs of the country.
   But the inhabitants of the south, known in history by the
   Japanese name of Kmaso, or 'Herd of Bears,' were long subject
   to Japan, while at other times they made frequent incursions
   into Kiu-siu and Hondo, and even formed settlements on those
   islands. The first conquest of the country was made by the
   forces of the Queen Regent Zingu in the 3d century.
{3737}
   Towards the end of the 16th the celebrated Japanese dictator
   and usurper Taïkosama, having conceived the project of
   conquering China, began with that of Korea, under the pretext
   of old Japanese rights over the country of the Kmaso. After
   wasting the land he compelled the King to become his
   tributary, and left a permanent garrison in the peninsula. A
   fresh expedition, although interrupted by the death of
   Taïkosama, was equally successful. Tsu-sima remained in the
   hands of the Japanese, and from that time till the middle of
   the present century Korea continued in a state of vassalage,
   sending every year presents and tribute to Nippon. … Thanks to
   the aid sent by the Ming dynasty to Korea, in its victorious
   struggle with the other petty states of the peninsula, and in
   its resistance to Japan, its relations with China continued to
   be of the most friendly character. Admirers of Chinese
   culture, the native rulers felt honoured by the investiture
   granted them by the 'Son of Heaven.' But after the Manchu
   conquest of the Middle Kingdom, Korea remaining faithful to
   the cause of the Mings, the new masters of the empire invaded
   the peninsula, and in 1637 dictated a treaty, imposing on the
   Koreans a yearly tribute. … But although since that time the
   native ruler takes the title of 'Subject,' China exercises no
   real sovereign rights in Korea."

"Since the conclusion of that treaty [of 1637], Corea has been at peace with both her neighbours and able, till within the last twenty years, to maintain the seclusion she so much desired. Until the beginning of the present century—when the doctrine preached by Roman missionaries in China began to filter across the frontier, and to provoke a fitful and uncertain intercourse between them and the few Coreans who had been attracted by the new religion—the only fresh glimpse we obtain of the interior of the country and its inhabitants is afforded by the well-known story of Henry Hamel, who was wrecked off the Corean coast in 1653, and detained there twelve years as a prisoner at large. … We come now to events nearer our own time, in which the propaganda of Rome and the proceedings of its emissaries begin to play a prominent and interesting part. In the year 1784, a young Corean named Le, who had come to Peking in the suite of the tribute-bearing embassy, applied to the Roman Catholic Mission for books and instruction in the science of mathematics, of which he was naturally fond. The missionaries profited by the occasion to lend him books on religion, which awakened his interest and led to his eventual conversion. As usual in such cases, the neophyte set himself, directly on his return, to propagate the new creed he had learned, among his relations and friends; and with so much success that, in less than five years, he had, according to Mgr. Govéa, gained 4,000 adherents. As may be imagined, however, the doctrine acquired from a convert who had had only a few months' instruction, and disseminated again at second-hand by men who had caught the crude idea from his conversation, was of a somewhat obscure description. … Neither letter nor news was received from the Corean Christians for more than two years; but two converts made their way to Peking, at the close of 1793, with news of a severe persecution which had occurred in the interval. … No sooner had the persecution … subsided, than a priest was successfully introduced across the frontier, to instruct and impart new life to the converts. Nor, it is affirmed, has the flock ever since been left unguarded. Persecution has followed persecution; but from Jacques Velloz, the first missionary to cross the frontier, who suffered martyrdom in 1800, to Mgr. Ridel, who has returned to Europe with health shattered by the anxieties and hardships undergone during the latest outbreak, there have always been some priests alternately tolerated or hiding in the country, and the spark lighted by the young Corean attache has never been quite extinguished. … On July 7th, 1866, a Roman Catholic missionary arrived in a Corean boat at Chefoo, with a tale of dire persecution. Two bishops, nine priests, and a number of Christians of both sexes had been massacred, many of them after judicial tortures of atrocious cruelty. Three members of the mission only survived, and M. Ridel had been chosen to carry the news to China, and endeavour to procure assistance. It was to the French authorities, naturally, that he addressed himself; and both Admiral Roze, the Commandant of the French fleet in Chinese waters, and M. de Bellonet, then charge-d'affaires at Peking, lent a sympathetic ear to his protest. … An expedition was accordingly resolved on. … Admiral Roze started from Chefoo with the expeditionary force on October 11th, arrived off Kang-hwa on the 14th, and occupied it, after a merely nominal resistance, two days later. The Coreans were apparently taken by surprise, having perhaps thought that the danger had passed. … The forts along the banks of the river were found ungarrisoned, and Kang-hwa itself, a considerable fortress containing large stores of munitions of war, was practically undefended. A letter was received, a few days later, inviting Admiral Roze to come or send delegates to Söul, to talk over matters in a friendly spirit; but he replied that, if the Corean authorities wished to treat, they had better come to Kang-hwa. This attitude was meant, no doubt, to be impressive, but the event proved it to be slightly premature. So far all had gone well; but the expedition was about to collapse with a suddenness contrasting remarkably with the expectations raised by M. de Bellonet's denunciations and Admiral Roze's hauteur. … The disastrous termination of … two movements appears to have persuaded Admiral Roze that the force at his disposal was insufficient to prosecute the enterprise to a successful issue, in face of Corean hostility. It was no longer a question whether he should go to Söul or the Coreans come to him: the expedition was at a deadlock. He had rejected the first overtures, and was not strong enough to impose terms. A retreat was accordingly decided on. The city of Kang-hwa was burned, with its public offices and royal palace."

   In 1866, when the French threatened Corea, the latter sought
   help from Japan and received none. Two years later, after the
   Japanese revolution which restored the Mikado to his full
   sovereignty, the Coreans declined to acknowledge his
   suzerainty, and bitterly hostile feelings grew up between the
   two peoples. The Japanese were restrained from war with
   difficulty by their more conservative statesmen.
{3738}
   Without war, they obtained from Corea, in 1876, an important
   treaty, which contained in the first article "the remarkable
   statement that 'Chosen, being an independent State, enjoys the
   same sovereign rights as does Japan'—an admission which was
   foolishly winked at by China from the mistaken notion that, by
   disavowing her connection with Korea, she should escape the
   unpleasantness of being called to account for the
   delinquencies of her vassal. This preliminary advantage was
   more than doubled in value to Japan when, after the revolution
   in Söul in 1884, by which her diplomatic representative was
   compelled to flee for the second time from the Korean capital,
   she sent troops to avenge the insult and declined to remove
   them until China had made a similar concession with regard to
   the Chinese garrison, which had been maintained since the
   previous outbreak in 1882 in that city. By the Convention of
   Tientsin, which was negotiated in 1885 by Count Ito with the
   Viceroy Li Hung Chang, both parties agreed to withdraw their
   troops and not to send an armed force to Korea at any future
   date to suppress rebellion or disturbance without giving
   previous intimation to the other. This document was a second
   diplomatic triumph for Japan. … It is, in my judgment, greatly
   to be regretted that in the present summer [1894] her
   Government, anxious to escape from domestic tangles by a
   spirited foreign policy, has abandoned this statesmanlike
   attitude, and has embarked upon a headlong course of
   aggression in Korea, for which there appears to have been no
   sufficient provocation, and the ulterior consequences of which
   it is impossible to forecast. … Taking advantage of recent
   disturbances in the peninsula, which demonstrated with renewed
   clearness the impotence of the native Government to provide
   either a decent administration for its own subjects, or
   adequate protection to the interests of foreigners, and
   ingeniously profiting by the loophole left for future
   interference in the Tientsin Agreement of 1885, Japan … (in
   July 1894) landed a large military force, estimated at 10,000
   men, in Korea, and is in armed occupation of the capital. Li
   Hung Chang … responded by the despatch of the Chinese fleet
   and of an expeditionary force, marching overland into the
   northern provinces."

"The ostensible starting-point of the trouble that resulted in hostilities was a local insurrection which broke out in May in one of the southern provinces of Corea. The cause of the insurrection was primarily the misrule of the authorities, with possibly some influence by the quarreling court factions at the capital. The Corean king applied at once to China as his suzerain for assistance in subduing the insurgents, and a Chinese force was sent. Japan, thereupon, claiming that Corea was an independent state and that China had no exclusive right to interfere, promptly began to pour large forces into Corea, to protect Japanese interests. By the middle of June a whole Japanese army corps was at Seoul, the Corean capital, and the Japanese minister soon formulated a radical scheme of administrative reforms which he demanded as indispensable to the permanent maintenance of order in the country. This scheme was rejected by the conservative faction which was in power at court, whereupon, on July 23, the Japanese forces attacked the palace, captured the king and held him as hostage for the carrying out of the reforms. The Chinese were meanwhile putting forth great efforts to make up for the advantage that their rivals had gained in the race for control of Corea, and to strengthen their forces in that kingdom. On the 25th a Chinese fleet carrying troops to Corea became engaged in hostilities with some Japanese war vessels, and one of the transports was sunk. On August 1 the Emperor of Japan made a formal declaration of war on China, basing his action on the false claim of the latter to suzerainty over Corea, and on the course of China in opposing and thwarting the plan of reforms which were necessary to the progress of Corea and to the security of Japanese interests there. The counter-proclamation of the Chinese Emperor denounced the Japanese as wanton invaders of China's tributary state, and as aiming at the enslaving of Corea. On August 26 a treaty of offensive and defensive alliance against China was made between Japan and Corea. … A severe engagement at Ping-Yang, September 16, resulted in the rout of the Chinese and the loss of their last stronghold in Corea. A few days later the hostile fleets had a pitched battle off the mouth of the Yalu River, with the result that the Japanese were left in full control of the adjacent waters. On the 26th of October the Japanese land forces brushed aside with slight resistance the Chinese on the Yalu, which is the boundary between Corea and China, and began their advance through the Chinese province of Manchuria, apparently aiming at Pekin."

On the 3d of November, Port Arthur being then invested by the Japanese land and naval forces, while Marshal Yamagata, the Japanese commander, continued his victorious advance through Manchuria, Prince Kung made a formal appeal to the representatives of all the Powers for their intervention, acknowledging the inability of China to cope with the Japanese. On the 21st of November, Port Arthur, called the strongest fortress in China, was taken, after hard fighting from noon of the previous day. In retaliation for the murder and mutilation of some prisoners by the Chinese, the Japanese gave no quarter, and are accused of great atrocities. To the advance of the Japanese armies in the field, the Chinese opposed comparatively slight resistance, in several engagements of a minor character, until the 19th of December, when a battle of decided obstinacy was fought at Kungwasai, near Hai-tcheng. The Japanese were again the victors. Overtures for peace made by the Chinese government proved unavailing; the Japanese authorities declined to receive the envoys sent, for the reason that they were not commissioned with adequate powers. Nothing came of an earlier proffer of the good offices of the Government of the United States. Obstinate fighting occurred at Kai-phing, which was captured by the Japanese on the 10th of January, 1895. On the 26th of January the Japanese began, both by land and sea, an attack on the stronghold of Wei-hai-wei, which was surrendered, with the Chinese fleet in its harbor on the 12th of February. Shortly afterwards, China made another effort to obtain peace, commissioning her able Statesman, Li-Hung-Chang, as a special envoy to Japan, with full power to negotiate terms. At the time of this writing, the result has not appeared.

CORONER AND CORONER'S JURY.

COURTS OF OYER AND TERMINER.

CRIMINAL LAW.

"The pious legend according to which Peter the Hermit is supposed to have been miraculously chosen by God Himself to call Christendom to arms for the purpose of freeing the Holy Sepulchre has long since been proved unhistorical by scientific investigators. That account of the matter may have given suitable expression to the religious enthusiasm which the crusades called forth in those circles that were especially strongly influenced by the church; but it is entirely without any actual foundation in fact, nay, more; the religious element altogether did not play nearly so important a part in the origin of the crusades as it would seem to have done to judge by the later character of the great movement. For if in those days church influences and the religious impulses on which they were based made a mighty impression and in many ways produced an almost overwhelming effect; nevertheless the reason for all this lay essentially herein that the whole age, more than any other, was in a condition, through crying agricultural, social and political needs, to give itself up without reserve to the influence of similar impelling forces, and that just for this reason it took up with such enthusiasm the impulse furnished by the church. In its most general form the thought which lies at the base of the crusades springs from the idea of the calling of Christendom to have and to hold the rule of the world. The desire to practically carry out this idea was especially active whenever the Christian ideal of world-rule, incorporated as it was in a double form in the empire and in the papacy, seemed near to realization; then it was that its inherent magic unfolded most irresistibly its animating and at the same time ensnaring power. Thus did Otto II, already, plan a great undertaking for the protection of Christendom against the Arabs. Thus did the fantastic mind of his immature son busy itself with plans for a great crusade. Neither one nor the other carried out his intention. But, little more than two generations later, the commanding position which the empire had at that time held, passed into the holding of the hierarchical papacy. The creator of this hierarchical papacy, who was beyond a doubt a reformer of genius, but revolutionary in his means and hostile to the state as regarded his final ends, was far from contenting himself with the spiritual power which belongs uncontestedly to the church, but strove for an actual, secular rule of the world. He thought to bring into his own hands the complete political guidance of Christendom as well as the command over its war-forces. … Plans for widening his political and ecclesiastical sphere of power formed the pith of Gregory VIIth's crusading plans. … Already the victorious course had come to a stand-still in which the Arabs up to the beginning of the eleventh century had threatened to flood southwestern Europe. It was to rid themselves of their troublesome enemies and their deeds of violence, but not, however for the sake of the Faith, that those who were threatened had determined to help themselves. This led to the rapid rise of the naval power of Pisa and Genoa, which soon won brilliant victories on the north coast of Africa, and at the same time the brave Normans struggled with growing success against the Arabs for the possession of fair Sicily. There and not in Rome was the thought of a holy war against the power of the Crescent first taken hold of; it sprang from the knightly zeal for action and the political genius of Robert Guiscard. … About the same time, moreover, the Christians of the Pyrenean peninsula had energetically roused themselves to a new attack against the Mohammedans. Along the whole line therefore, in southwestern Europe, the Christian arms were already victoriously pressing forward against the followers of the prophet when the call from Rome to the crusades first sounded out. Regarded as a whole, therefore, the crusades cannot simply be looked upon as the exclusive work of the church. The movement was already in full progress and had, independently of the church, most successful results to show, when that church's head undertook through a skillful act to concentrate the separate movements and to unite and organize them under his own guidance. This policy was cleverly carried out by Urban. The church succeeded effectually in bringing under her own undivided direction the undertakings which different peoples of the Occident had separately begun against their Mohammedan adversaries. For on the one hand the empire, to which even then the opinion of the world ascribed the first right of leadership in such a struggle, lay prostrate in abject weakness and degradation; it was incapable of fulfilling its calling. The whole age on the other hand was so thoroughly roused to its depths and so exhausted through the mighty spiritual struggles by which church-life especially was shaken to its very foundation that it submitted without opposition and even willingly to a churchly right of guidance emphatically asserted; the more so as this new guide promised to show the individual the way to inward rest and peace of soul. The deeply sunken church had been reformed by Cluny ideas; in place of the worldly doings and sensual pleasures which had formerly engrossed her servants and dignitaries, stern asceticism and saintly enthusiasm ruled the day. Although it was among the clergy of the eleventh century that the effect of this was primarily to be seen, yet it was not without influence on the great body of laymen. {3740} Not seldom do princes and nobles emulate each other in strict ecclesiasticism, in monkish practices and pilgrimages. An age without a parallel began of founding monasteries and churches. Was it to be wondered at that the people also, otherwise bound fast by the barren monotony of toilsome existence, turned their thoughts often in the same direction? The more frequent coming forward of popular saints and popular preachers, the overwhelmingly rapid increase in the worship of relics, which assumed a hitherto unheard-of significance for the catholic system of religious observance, and the astonishing renewal of life which came about in the matter of pilgrimages and sacred undertakings customary though they had been of old: all these show clearly how the enthusiastic frame of mind which had been aroused by Cluny won for itself wider and wider circles even beyond the pale of the clergy. And in an age like this, so deeply excited about church matters, fell now the world-rousing struggle between the papacy and the empire. It appeared to annihilate the foundations on which church and state had hitherto been reared. With bitterness men saw those powers in conflict with each other on whose concord they had believed the peace and happiness of the world to depend. … Most impressively of all, as far as the uneducated masses were concerned, was the wretchedness of the age betokened by the outward evils and ravagings which the termination of the reign of Henry IV brought about: by the vanishing of discipline and order, the utter prostration of law, the loosing even of the holy ties of family. The vassal broke faith with the feudal lord, the subject warred with the authorities, the son rose up against the father. Heavily did the chastening hand of God rest upon land and people. Everywhere did men suffer from feuds, robbery and violence; everywhere did the common man find himself in a position which he felt that he could no longer endure. In France the rural population was utterly prostrated under the galling oppressions of the nobles who were their landlords. In Germany, to add to similar evils, came the loosing of all bonds of order through the civil war which had sprung from the conflict concerning the investiture. … In short, wherever in the Occident one turns his gaze, everywhere did dissatisfaction and an impulse towards improvement, or at least towards change, rule the day; everywhere an eager desire with one stroke to break free from the uncomfortable, indeed in many cases unbearable, present! The dissatisfied and revolutionary mood which possessed high and low in almost all parts of occidental Christendom is one of the essential reasons why the call to the crusade at once set hundreds of thousands in motion and called forth a very wandering of the nations. … Hierarchical ideas and asceticism ruled the spirit of the age; in mind and in mood they had prepared Europe for the crusades. Most emphatically was this made evident by the fact that the crusaders marched out under the banner of the hierarchical papacy—that same red cross which Erlembald Cotta, the 'knight of the church' had borne on his white standard during the religious civil war in Lombardy, and which in 1066 had been bestowed by the pope on the conqueror of England. But on the other hand the political, social and agricultural needs, which were not to be put off and which kept calling for speedy change, were no less effective agents in the same direction. Not religious enthusiasm alone was it that ever anew, at the end of the eleventh century, impelled hundreds of thousands towards the Orient; how many would have staid at home quietly if they had had enough to eat and had otherwise rejoiced in an existence fit for a human being. But for years one bad harvest had succeeded another; almost everywhere there was want almost bordering on famine; to eke out their scanty existence countless of those of the lower classes had had to squander their possessions. They stood there now utterly without means; they were forced to emigrate if they would not starve at home. From all such oppressions, however, he was released who obeyed the call to the crusade. Brilliant gains seemed assured to him so soon as he allowed the red cross to be affixed to his garment. The serf became free, the debtor shook off his creditor or at any rate needed to pay him no interest. The monk escaped from the strict discipline of the monastery, he who had been under the ban was received again into the communion of the church. What wonder then if countless numbers hastened to join the adventurous expedition to the East which promised them such blessings; and to the outward advantages that allured the crusaders, to the expectation of the toilless acquisition of land and subjects, of money and possessions, must be added still the rich spiritual blessings and ecclesiastical rewards which were solemnly assured to the warriors of Christ. … Human nature at that time would have had to be actually raised out of itself, to have become to a certain extent untrue to itself if, in contrast to the misery at home, the alluring prospects which began to show themselves in the unknown distance had not worked an irresistible charm on the great masses of the people. Nor did the church have any scruples in putting in motion exactly these incentives to action; she declared that the prevailing misery arose from the thickness of the population in an impoverished land; she unchained the popular greed by representing what riches would be captured from the infidels, and even roused the sensual passions by the seductive praise of Greek female beauty. That such language should fairly carry away the great masses may easily be imagined. For we may surely not regard the people as of better moral fibre, and therefore more susceptible to ideal motives, than the princes and commanders who led the crusading armies. Of these, however, only the hot-blooded nobles of southern France can primarily pass for representatives of that churchly enthusiasm with which, according to the tradition well-tinged with legend, the crusaders as a whole are said to have been seized. And it is well known that their churchly narrow-mindedness brought the people of southern France, under Raymond of Toulouse, soon enough into direct opposition to the other participants in the first crusade. For the majority of the princes who had taken the cross were by no means willing to work for the sole advantage of the church, but wished to further their own worldly interests at least as much as they did those of the pope. Indeed the Norman princes whose race had been the first to take up the idea of a holy war against the infidels had joined the crusade without religious enthusiasm, after sober consideration and entirely following out their own selfish, world]y plans. And it was exactly into their hands that the leadership of the great undertaking primarily came: the more completely therefore did the worldly, political and dynastic points of view weigh down the churchly intentions of the pious fanatics who, under the influence of asceticism, wished only to serve the hierarchy."

Hans Prutz, Kulturgeschichte der Kreuzzüge, (translated from the German) pages 12-17.

CURIA REGIS.

CY PRES DOCTRINE.

"Dartmouth College … was originally a charity school for the instruction of Indians in the Christian religion, founded by the Rev. Eleazer Wheelock, D. D., about the year 1754, at Lebanon, in Connecticut. Its success led Dr. Wheelock to solicit private subscriptions in England, for the purpose of enlarging it, and of extending its benefits to English colonists. Funds having been obtained for this purpose from various contributors, among whom the Earl of Dartmouth, Secretary for the Colonies, was a large donor, Dr. Wheelock constituted that nobleman and other persons trustees, with authority to fix the site of the college. The place selected was on the Connecticut River, at what is now the town of Hanover, in New Hampshire, where large donations of land were made by the neighboring proprietors. A charter for the college was obtained from the crown, in 1769, creating it a perpetual corporation. The charter recognized Dr. Wheelock as founder, appointed him to be the president, and empowered him to name his successor, subject to the approval of the trustees; to whom was also imparted the power of filling vacancies in their own body, and of making laws and ordinances for the government of the college, not repugnant to the laws of Great Britain or of the province, and not excluding any person on account of his religious belief. Under this charter, Dartmouth College had always existed, unquestioned and undisturbed in its rights as a corporation, down to the Revolution, and subsequently until the year 1815. Whether from political or personal motives springing up outside of the board of trustees of that period, or from some collisions arising within the body itself, it appears that … legislative interference with the chartered rights of this college was threatened. … In the following year (1816), the difficulties, which had become mixed with political interests, culminated in a direct interference by the Legislature. In that year an act was passed, changing the corporate name from 'The Trustees of Dartmouth College' to 'The Trustees of Dartmouth University;' enlarging the number of trustees, vesting the appointment of some of them in the political bodies of the State, and otherwise modifying the ancient rights of the corporation as they existed under its charter derived from the crown of England. A majority of the existing trustees refused to accept or to be bound by this act, and brought an action of trover in the Supreme Court of the State, in the name of the old corporation, against a gentleman, Mr. W. H. Woodward, who was in possession of the college seal and other effects, and who claimed to hold them as one of the officers of the newly-created 'university.' The argument in this case was made in the State court, for the college, by Mr. Mason and Mr. Jeremiah Smith, assisted by Mr. Webster. The decision was against the claim of the college. It was then determined to remove the cause, by writ of error, to the Supreme Court of the United States, under the provisions of the Federal Constitution and laws creating in that tribunal an appellate jurisdiction in cases which, although originating in a State court, involved the construction and operation of the Federal Constitution. This was supposed to be such a case, because it was claimed by the college that the act of the Legislature, modifying its charter, impaired the obligation of a contract; an exercise of power which the Constitution of the United States prohibits to the Legislature of a State. As soon as it was known in New Hampshire that this very interesting cause was to come before the Supreme Court of the United States, the friends of the college, including their other counsel in the State court, unanimously desired to have it committed to the hands of Mr. Webster. He consented to take charge of it in the autumn of 1817; but the cause was not argued at Washington until February, 1818. … Before the case of Dartmouth College vs. Woodward occurred, there had been no judicial decisions respecting the meaning and scope of the restraint in regard to contracts, excepting that it had more than once been determined by the Supreme Court of the United States that a grant of lands made by a State is a contract within the protection of this provision, and is, therefore, irrevocable. These decisions, however, could go but little way toward the solution of the questions involved in the case of the college. … Was the State of New Hampshire—a sovereign in all respects after the Revolution, and remaining one after the Federal Constitution, excepting in those respects in which it had subjected its sovereignty to the restraints of that instrument—bound by the contracts of the English crown? Is the grant of a charter of incorporation a contract between the sovereign power and those on whom the charter is bestowed? If an act of incorporation is a contract, is it so in any case but that of a private corporation? Was this college, which was an institution of learning, established for the promotion of education, a private corporation, or was it one of those instruments of government which are at all times under the control and subject to the direction of the legislative power? All these questions were involved in the inquiry whether the legislative power of the State had been so restrained by the Constitution of the United States that it could not alter the charter of this institution, against the will of the trustees, without impairing the obligation of a contract. … {3742} On the conclusion of the argument, the Chief Justice intimated that a decision was not to be expected until the next term. It was made in February, 1819, fully confirming the grounds on which Mr. Webster had placed the cause. From this decision, the principle in our constitutional jurisprudence, which regards a charter of a private corporation as a contract, and places it under the protection of the Constitution of the United States, takes its date."

DISCIPLES OF CHRIST.

"This body, often called also Christians, was one of the results of the great revival movement which began in Tennessee and Kentucky in the early part of the present century. Rev. Barton W. Stone, a Presbyterian minister who was prominent in the revival movement, withdrew from the Presbyterian Church, and in 1804 organized a church with no other creed than the Bible and with no name but that of Christian. One of his objects was to find a basis for the union of all Christian believers. A little later Thomas and Alexander Campbell, father and son, who came from Ireland, where the former had been a Presbyterian minister, organized union societies in Pennsylvania. Changing their views as to baptism, they joined the Redstone Association of Baptists. Shortly after, when Alexander Campbell was charged with not being in harmony with the creed, he followed the Burch Run Church, of which he was pastor, into the Mahoning Baptist Association, which, leavened with his teachings, soon ceased to be known as a Baptist association. In 1827, after some correspondence with Rev. B. W. Stone and his followers of the Christian Connection, there was a union with a large number of congregations in Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee, and the organization variously known as 'Disciples of Christ' and 'Christians' [also, popularly designated 'Campbellites'] is the result."

"The Dunkards, or German Baptists, or Brethren, are of German origin, and trace their beginning back to Alexander Mack, of Schwartzenau, Germany. Early in the 18th century Mack and several others formed a habit of meeting together for the study of the New Testament. They were convinced that its doctrines and principles of church order were not being faithfully followed, either by the Lutheran or the Reformed Church. They therefore resolved to form a society of their own. Alexander Mack was chosen as their pastor. Persecution soon arose, and they were scattered. In 1719 most of them got together and came to the United States, settling in Pennsylvania, where their first church was organized about 1723."

EBENEZER AND AMANA COMMUNITIES.

ECCLESIASTICAL LAW.

See ELECTRICAL DISCOVERY AND INVENTION:
A. D. 1841-1880, and 1876-1892 (pages 775-776).

EDUCATION.

      See (in addition to pages 673-748),
      VERMONT UNIVERSITY (page 3619),
      VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY (page 3639),
      WISCONSIN UNIVERSITY (page 3655);
      and, (in this Supplement)
      BOWDOIN COLLEGE, BROWN UNIVERSITY,
      DARTMOUTH COLLEGE, HAMILTON COLLEGE,
      MINNESOTA UNIVERSITY, OBERLIN COLLEGE,
      OHIO UNIVERSITY, PRINCETON COLLEGE,
      RUTGERS COLLEGE, TULANE UNIVERSITY, UNION COLLEGE.

Modern reckoning of Egyptian Chronology is by two modes: "(1) that by 'dead reckoning,' or adding the dynasties up one on another: (2) by certain fixed astronomical data, into the interpretation and calculation of which various uncertainties may enter. The more apart these modes can be kept the better, as then they serve to check each other. The fundamental fact on which all of our astronomically fixed points depend is the imperfection of the Egyptian calendar. Using a year of 365 days, it followed that the nominal beginning of each year was a quarter of a day too soon: just as if we were to neglect the 29th of February in leap years, and go on always from 28th February direct to 1st March. Thus every four years a day was slipped, and the nominal months of the year were begun a day too soon. In 4 x 7 = 28 they began, then, a week too soon. In 4 x 30 = 120 years they began & month too soon; and after twelve months and five days thus slipped, or in 1,460 years, they began a year too soon, and so had rotated the nominal months through all the seasons. … This loss of the day in four years was … soon known to the Egyptians, and used by them as a mode of constructing a great cycle, which in Ptolemaic times became very prominent, and entered into all their fanciful adjustments of history and myths. {3743} Some mode of noting the absolute months, as related to the seasonal periods, became a necessity; and, of course, the place of the sun among the stars most truly shows the exact length of the year. But how to observe both sun and stars, when without any mode of time-dividing,—such as clepsydra or clock,—was an essential difficulty. This was got over by noting on what day a particular star could be first seen, at its emerging from the glow of the sunlight. In actual practice they observed Sirius (or Sothis), the dog-star; and as the stars all rise and set earlier and earlier every night, they observed what was the first night in the year on which Sirius could just be seen emerging from the glow of sunlight at dawn, and this was entitled the heliacal rising. Hence, from using Sothis for this observation, the whole period during which the months rotated in the seasons was called the Sothic period of 1,460 years. We have some definite statements as to this in Roman times. Censorinus, writing in 239 A. D., states that the Egyptian New Year's day, 1st of Thoth, fell on the 25th of June; and a hundred years before, in 139 A. D., it fell on the 21st July, 'on which day Sirius regularly rises in Egypt.' Hence the beginning of a Sothic period of 1,460 years, or the New Year's day falling on the 21st of July at the heliacal rising of Sirius, took place in 139 A. D.; likewise in 1322 B. C., in 2784 B. C., and in 4242 B. C., or thereabouts. From this it is plain, that, as the nominal months rotated round all the seasons once In each of these cycles, therefore, if we only know the day of the nominal month in which any seasonal event happened,—such as the rising of Sirius, or the inundation,—we can find on what part of the cycle of 1,460 years such a coincidence can have fallen. It is from data such as this that Mahler has lately calculated, by the rising of Sirius, and also the new moons, that Tahutmes III. reigned from 20th March 1503 B. C., to 14th February 1449. … Merenptah celebrated in the second year of his reign a festival of the rising of Sirius on the 29th of the month Thoth. Mahler has fixed the rising of Sirius, recorded on 28th Epiphi under Tahutmes III., as in 1470 B. C. From 28th Epiphi to 29th Thoth is 66 days, which the heliacal rising would change to in the course of 4 x 66 years, or 264 years. This, from 1470, gives 1206 B. C. for the second year of Merenptah, or 1208 B. C. for his accession, which is just the date we have reached by the approximate summing of the reigns. Another datum on the other side is the calendar of the Ebers papyrus, which records the rising of Sirius on the 9th of Epiphi in the ninth year of Amenhotep I. The reading of the king's name has been much debated; but this is the last, and probable, conclusion. Now, from the 28th to the 9th of Epiphi is 19 days, which Sirius would change through in 76 years; so that the rising on the 9th of Epiphi took place in 1470+76 = 1546 B. C.; and the first year of Amenhotep I. would be thus fixed in 1555 B. C. The date before reached is 1562 B. C., equal to a difference of less than 2 days in the time of Sirius' rising. This, at least, shows that there is no great discrepancy. Thus there are three data for the rising of Sirius, which agree within a few years, though at considerably different epochs. … We … have as a starting-point for our backward reckoning the accession of the XVIIIth dynasty about 1587 B. C. From this we can reckon in the dynastic data given by Manetho; following this account rather than the totals of reigns, as he appears to have omitted periods when dynasties were contemporary, as in the 43 years for the XIth after the close of the Xth. Thus, from the above starting-point of 1587 B. C., we reach the following results, solely by using material which has been discussed and settled in this history on its own merits alone, and without any ulterior reckoning in total periods.

Dynasty Years. B. C.
   I. 263 4777
   II. 302 4514
   III. 214 4212
   IV. 277 3998
   V. 218 3721
   VI. 181 (T. P.) 3503
   VII. 70 3322
   VIII. 146 3252
   IX. 100 3106
   X. 185 3006
   XI. 43 2821
   XII. 213 (T. P.) 2778
   XIII. 453 2565
   XIV. 184 2112
   XVI. 190 1928
   XVII. 151 1738
   XVIII. 260 1587
   XIX. 1327

… In the present rough state of the astronomical data, and the doubts as to the MS. authorities, we have reached quite as close an equivalence as we may hope for; and at least there is enough to show us that we may trust to the nearest century with fair grounds of belief. These dates then, are what I have provisionally adopted in this history; and though they are stated to the nearest year, for the sake of intercomparison, it must always be remembered that they only profess to go within a century in the earlier parts of the scale."

W. M. Flinders Petrie, A History of Egypt from the Earliest Times to the XVIth Dynasty, chapter 11.

EMIGRES OF THE FRENCH REVOLUTION.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1789 (JULY-AUGUST), (AUGUST-OCTOBER), and 1781-1791 (pages 1264, 1265, and 1268).

EMPLOYER'S LIABILITY.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1881-1882.
   The Irish Coercion Bill and Land Act.
   Arrest of Irish leaders.
   Alleged Kilmainham Treaty and release of Mr. Parnell and others.

EQUITY.

"Apart from the great high road of Jewish life, there lived in Palestine in the time of Christ a religious community which, though it grew up on Jewish soil, differed essentially in many points from traditional Judaism, and which, though it exercised no powerful influence upon the development of the people, deserves our attention as a peculiar problem in the history of religion. This community, the Essenes or Essaeans, is generally, after the precedent of Josephus, placed beside the Pharisees and Sadducees as the third Jewish sect. But it scarcely needs the remark, that we have here to deal with a phenomenon of an entirely different kind. While the Pharisees and Sadducees were large political and religious parties, the Essenes might far rather be compared to a monastic order. There is indeed much that is enigmatical in them as to particulars. Even their name is obscure. … The origin of the Essenes is as obscure as their name. Josephus first mentions them in the time of Jonathan the Maccabee, about 150 B. C., and speaks expressly of one Judas an Essene in the time of Aristobulus I. (105-104 B. C.). According to this, the origin of the order would have to be placed in the second century before Christ. But it is questionable whether they proceeded simply from Judaism, or whether foreign and especially Hellenistic elements had not also an influence in their organization. … Philo and Josephus agree in estimating the number of the Essenes in their time at above 4,000. As far as is known, they lived only in Palestine, at least there are no certain traces of their occurrence out of Palestine. … For the sake of living as a community, they had special houses of the order in which they dwelt together. Their whole community was most strictly organized as a single body. … The strongest tie by which the members were united was absolute community of goods. 'The community among them is wonderful [says Josephus], one does not find that one possesses more than another. For it is the law, that those who enter deliver up their property to the order, so that there is nowhere to be seen, either the humiliation of poverty or the superfluity of wealth, but on the contrary one property for all as brethren, formed by the collection of the possessions of individuals.' 'They neither buy nor sell among each other; but while one gives to another what he wants, he receives in return what is useful to himself, and without anything in return they receive freely whatever they want.' … 'There is but one purse for all, and common expenses, common clothes and common food in common meals. For community of dwelling, of life and of meals is nowhere so firmly established and so developed as with them. And this is intelligible. For what they receive daily as wages for their labour, they do not keep for themselves, but put it together, and thus make the profits of their work common for those who desire to make use of it. And the sick are without anxiety on account of their inability to earn, because the common purse is in readiness for the care of them, and they may with all certainty meet their expenses from abundant stores.' … The daily labour of the Essenes was under strict regulation. It began with prayer, after which the members were dismissed to their work by the presidents. They reassembled for purifying ablutions, which were followed by the common meal. After this they again went to work, to assemble again for their evening meal. The chief employment of members of the order was agriculture. They likewise carried on, however, crafts of every kind. On the other hand, trading was forbidden as leading to covetousness, and also the making of weapons or of any kind of utensils that might injure men. … The Essenes are described by both Philo and Josephus as very connoisseurs in morality. … Their life was abstemious, simple and unpretending. 'They condemn sensual desires as sinful, and esteem moderation and freedom from passion as of the nature of virtue.' They only take food and drink till they have had enough; abstaining from passionate excitement, they are 'just dispensers of wrath.' At their meals they are 'contented with the same dish day by day, loving sufficiency and rejecting great expense as harmful to mind and body.' … There is not a slave among them, but all are free, mutually working for each other. All that they say is more certain than an oath. They forbid swearing, because it is worse than perjury. … Before every meal they bathe in cold water. They do the same after performing the functions of nature. … They esteem it seemly to wear white raiment at all times. … They entirely condemned marriage. Josephus indeed knew of a branch of the Essenes who permitted marriage. But these must at all events have formed a small minority. … A chief peculiarity of the Essenes was their common meals, which bore the character of sacrificial feasts. The food was prepared by priests, with the observance probably of certain rites of purification; for an Essene was not permitted to partake of any other food than this. … In their worship, as well as in that of other Jews, the Holy Scriptures were read and explained; and Philo remarks, that they specially delighted in allegorical interpretation. They were extraordinarily strict in the celebration of the Sabbath. They did not venture on that day to move a vessel from its place, nor even to perform the functions of nature. In other respects too they showed themselves to be Jews. Though they were excluded from the temple they sent gifts of incense there. … Concerning their doctrine of the soul and of its immortality, Josephus expresses himself most fully. {3745} If we may trust his account, they taught that bodies are perishable, but souls immortal, and that the latter dwelt originally in the subtlest aether, but being debased by sensual pleasures united themselves with bodies as with prisons; but when they are freed from the fetters of sense they will joyfully soar on high, as if delivered from long bondage. To the good (souls) is appointed a life beyond the ocean. … But to the bad (souls) is appointed a dark cold region full of unceasing torment."

      E. Schürer,
      A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ,
      volume 2, pages 190-205.

EXEMPTION LAWS.

FEDERALIST SECESSION MOVEMENT.

FEUDAL AIDS.

"In theory the duty of the noble vassal towards his lord was a purely personal one and to commute it for a money payment was a degradation of the whole feudal relation. The payment of money, especially if it were a fixed and regular payment, carried with it a certain ignoble idea against which, in the form of state taxation, the feudal spirit rebelled to the last. When the vassal agreed to pay something to his lord, he called it, not a tax, but an 'aid' (auxilium), and made it generally payable, not regularly, like the tax-bill of the citizen, but only upon certain occasions—a present, as it were, coming out of his good-will and not from compulsion; e. g., whenever a fief was newly granted, when it changed its lord, and sometimes when it changed its vassal, it was from the beginning customary to acknowledge the investiture by a small gift to the lord, primarily as a symbol of the grant; then, as the institution grew and manners became more luxurious, the gift increased in value and was thought of as an actual price for the investiture, until finally, at the close of our period, it suffered the fate of all similar contributions and was changed into a definite money payment, still retaining, however, its early name of 'relief.' … The occasions for levying the aids were various but always, in theory, of an exceptional sort. The journey of a lord to the court of his suzerain, or to Rome, or to join a crusade, the knighting of his eldest son, the marriage of his eldest daughter and his ransom from imprisonment are among the most frequent of the feudal 'aids.' The right of the lord to be entertained and provisioned, together with all his following, was one of the most burdensome and, at the same time, most difficult to regulate. Its conversion into a money-tax was, perhaps for this reason, earlier than that of many other of the feudal contributions."

"The 'benefice,' … emerges from the struggles of the eighth century as a form of grant originated by the ruling house and remaining at its disposal. It was a form of grant which was at all times revocable and which would thus necessarily prompt the grantee to avoid any act which could displease the sovereign. It entailed the reversion of the benefice at the death of the grantee as well as of the person granting. The benefice … was now chiefly made use of by the Carolingians of the 8th century to win the military aid of the nobles against internal and external enemies and especially against the Saracens. Army commanders and counts or other important officials would receive wide stretches of ecclesiastical or royal land. They would organize these into 'manors,' would collect a large 'following,' and would call in free tenants to do service in their armies in return for their protection. Thus they themselves became the stays and props of the new form of government. As the reorganization of the military forces went on this process was repeated more and more often, and as a matter of course the same vital principles which these holders had carried through with regard to those under them came to be applied to their own position as regarded their military duties to the king: namely that they should become vassals. This accordingly happened. The vassal system and the benefice system blended together into a new form of actual and personal union of the nobles with the crown. In receiving a benefice they swore to the king the special oath of fidelity of the 'following'; this fidelity on the other hand seemed assured through the power of the king to revoke the benefice. Quickly enough did this connection of the vassal system and the benefice system, which is commonly called vassalism, become so common that it began to extend downwards also. It had already become usual for rich landholders no longer, in the old Germanic manner, to provide for all their vassals at their own court, but to provide sustenance for them in various other ways—notably by granting them estates. Now, after the royal model, it came to be the custom to grant benefices and thus to found personal responsibilities. The results of this development were extraordinary. If on the one hand, in spite of all Charles the Great's measures to the contrary, the old army organization based on the service of all freemen fell into decay and the contingents from the land holders began to constitute the great mass of the army: on the other hand the bond of vassalism with its different variations became of prime importance for the administration of the land. No longer did the king by virtue of his royal ban or jurisdiction issue his commands to all freemen in common. He issued his commands to the nobles and they by virtue of their feudal prerogatives commanded the vassals who were subject to them. The evenly distributed mass of freemen subject to military duty had vanished; a high-towering structure of those bound in vassalage had taken its place. The military organization had assumed its position under the banner of the feudal state. The administration, too, was soon to be undermined by the system of vassalage and to change its structure from the very foundation."

"The latest investigations of Brunner … have established the proof that feudalism originated in consequence of the introduction of cavalry service into the military system of the Frankish kingdom and that it retained its original character until well on towards the close of the Middle Ages. The Franks like the Lombards learned the use of cavalry from the Moors or Saracens. Charles Martel was led by his experiences after the battle of Poictiers to the conclusion that only with the help of mounted armies could these enemies be opposed with lasting success. It was between 732 and 758 that the introduction of cavalry service into the Frankish army took place; it had hitherto consisted mainly of infantry. The attempt was first made, and with marked success, in Aquitaine and Septimania; almost contemporaneously also among the Lombards. In order to place the secular nobles in condition to fit out larger masses of cavalry a forced loan from the church was carried through by Charles Martel and his sons, it being under the latter that the matter was first placed upon a legal footing. The nobles received ecclesiastical benefices from the crown and regranted them in the way of sub-loans. The custom of having a 'following' and the old existing relationships of a vassal to his lord furnished a model for the responsibilities of those receiving benefices at first and at second hand. The secular nobles became thus at once vassals of the crown and lords (seigneurs) of those to whom they themselves in turn made grants. The duty of the vassals to do cavalry service was based on the 'commendation': their fief was not the condition of their doing service but their reward for it. Hence the custom of denominating the fief (Lehn) as a 'fee' (feudum)—a designation which was first applied in southern France, and which in Germany, occasionally in the eleventh and ever more frequently in the twelfth century, is used side by side with the older term 'benefice,' until in the course of the first half of the 13th century it completely displaces it. With the further development of cavalry service that of the feudal system kept regular pace. Already in the later Carolingian period Lorraine and Burgundy followed southern France and Italy in becoming feudalized states. To the east of the Rhine on the contrary the most flourishing time of cavalry service and of the feudal system falls in the time of the Hohenstaufens, having undoubtedly been furthered by the crusades. Here even as late as the middle of the twelfth century the horsemen preferred dismounting and fighting with the sword because they could not yet manage their steeds and the regular cavalry weapons, the shield and the spear, like their western neighbors. But never in Germany did feudalism make its way into daily life as far as it did in France where the maxim held true: 'nulle terre sans seigneur.' There never was here a lack of considerable allodial possessions, although occasionally, out of respect for the feudal theory, these were put down as 'fiefs of the sun.' The principle, too, was firmly maintained that a fief granted from one's own property was no true fief; for so thoroughly was feudal law the law governing the realm that a true fief could only be founded on the fief above it, in such manner that the king was always the highest feudal lord. That was the reason why a fief without homage, that is, without the relationship of vassalage and the need of doing military service for the state, could not be looked upon as a true fief. The knight's fee only (feudum militare) was such, and only a man of knightly character, who united a knightly manner of living with knightly pedigree, was 'perfect in feudal law,'—in possession, namely, of full feudal rights or of the 'Heerschild.' Whether or not he had been personally dubbed knight made no difference; the fief of a man who was still a squire was also a true fief. … The object of the feudal grant could be anything which assured a regular emolument,—especially land, tithes, rents and other sources of income, tolls and jurisdictions, churches and monasteries;_ above all, offices of state. In course of time the earlier distinction between the office and the fief which was meant to go with the office ceased to be made. … The formal course of procedure when granting was a combination, exactly on the old plan, of the act of commendation, now called Hulde, which was the basis of vassalage, and the act of conferring (investiture) which established the real right of the man to the fief. … The Hulde consisted in giving the hand (=the performing of mannschaft, homagium, hominium, Hulde) often combined with the giving of a kiss and the taking of an oath (the swearing of fidelitas or Hulde) by which the man swore to be 'true, loyal and willing' as regarded his lord. The custom earlier connected with commendation of presenting a weapon had lost its former significance and had become merged in the ceremony of investiture: the weapon had become a symbol of investiture. … These symbols of investiture were in part the same as in territorial law: the glove, the hat, the cape, the staff, the twig; occasionally probably also a ring, but quite especially the sword or spear. As regarded the principalities it had quite early become the custom to fasten a banner on the end of the spear in token of the royal rights of supremacy that were to be conferred. Thus the banner became the sole symbol of investiture in the granting of secular principalities and the latter themselves came to be called 'banner fiefs.' The installation of the ecclesiastical princes by the king took place originally without any distinction being made between the office and the appanage of the office. It was done by conferring the pastoral staff (ferula, virga pastoralis) of the former bishop or abbot; in the case of bishops since the time of Henry III by handing the ring and crosier. In the course of the struggle concerning the ecclesiastical investitures both sides came to the conviction that a distinction could be made between the appanaging of the church with secular estates and jurisdictions on the one hand, and the office itself and the immediate appurtenances of the church—the so-called 'sacred objects' on the other. A union was arrived at in the Concordat of Worms which provided that for the granting of the former (the so-called Regalia) the secular symbol of the sceptre might replace the purely ecclesiastical symbols. As this custom was retained even after the incorporation of the ecclesiastical principalities in the feudalized state-system the ecclesiastical principalities, as opposed to the secular banner-fiefs, were distinguished as 'sceptre-fiefs.'"

      Schröder,
      Lehrbuch der deutschen Rechtsgeschichte (1889),
      pages 381-388.

"By the time at which we have arrived (the Hohenstaufen Period) the knights themselves, 'ordo equestris major:' had come to form a class so distinct and so exclusive that no outsiders could enter it except in the course of three generations or by special decree of the king. Only to those whose fathers and grandfathers were of knightly origin could fiefs now be granted; only such could engage in judicial combat, in knightly sports and, above all, in the tournament or joust. … Feudalism did much to awaken a moral sentiment: fidelity, truth and sincerity were the suppositions upon which the whole system rested, and a great solidarity of interests came to exist between the lord and his vassals. The latter might bring no public charges against their master in matters affecting his life, limb or honor; on three grand occasions, in case of captivity, the knighting of his son, the marriage of his daughter, they were obliged to furnish him with pecuniary aid. Knightly honor and knightly graces come in the twelfth century to be a matter of fashion and custom; a new and important element, too, the adoration of woman, is introduced. A whole literature arises that has to do almost exclusively with knightly prowess and with knightly love. Altogether we see the dawn of a new social life."

FINNISH POPULAR POETRY.

John Martin Crawford, Kalevala, https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/5186 One of several versions.

FLORENTINE BANKERS AND MONEY CHANGERS.

FORMOSA.

"Formosa, or Taiwan, as it is called by the Chinese, is about 400 miles south of the mouth of the Yang-tse, and 100 from the mainland of China. It lies between 25° 20' and 21° 50' north latitude, is nearly 240 miles long, by an average of 75 miles wide, and has an area of about 12,000 square miles. It is remarkable for its beauty and fertility, and also for the variety of its products. It was formerly attached to the province of Fohkien, and governed by a resident commissioner; but since the Franco-Chinese War, during which the French, under Admiral Courbet, were foiled in their efforts to take possession of it, it has been erected into an independent province by imperial decree, and is now [1887] governed by Liu Ming-Ch'uan, an able and progressive man, with the title and almost unlimited authority of governor-general. The island was once in the possession of the Spaniards, who called it Formosa (beautiful), but did not colonize it. It then passed into the hands of the Dutch, who built Fort Zealandia, and established a trading-post on the southwest coast, near the present city of Taiwan-fu, and another known as the Red Fort, at Tamsui, on the northwest coast. But the Dutch in turn abandoned the island about the year 1660, immediately after which it was occupied and colonized by the Chinese from Amoy and other points on the coast of Fohkien. The population is now estimated by the governor-general at 4,000,000 Chinese and 60,000 savages, but the first figures are doubtless much too large. The savages are a fine race of men of the Malay or Polynesian type, who hold nearly all the east coast and the mountain region, covering over one half the island. They live mostly by hunting and fishing, or upon the natural products of the forest, and cultivate but little land. They wear scarcely any clothing, use bows, arrows, and knives, together with a few old-fashioned matchlocks, and yet withal they have up to the present time successfully resisted all efforts to subjugate them or to take possession of their fastnesses. They are brave, fierce, and active, but have made scarcely any progress in the arts of civilization. They are naturally kind and hospitable to Europeans, but look upon the Chinese as their deadly enemies."

In 1874, in order to obtain redress for a murder of Japanese sailors by savages on the eastern coast of Formosa, the Japanese Government undertook to take possession of the southern part of Formosa, "asserting that it did not belong to China because she either would not or could not govern its savage inhabitants. … The expedition was called a High Commission, accompanied by a force sufficient for its protection, sent to aboriginal Formosa to inquire into the murder of fifty-four Japanese subjects, and take steps to prevent the recurrence of such atrocities. A proclamation was issued April 17, 1874, and another May 19th, stating that General Saigo was directed to call to an account the persons guilty of outrages on Japanese subjects. As he knew that China was not prepared to resist his landing at Liang-kiao, his chief business was to provide means to house and feed the soldiers under his command. The Japanese authorities do not appear very creditably in this affair. No sooner did they discover the wild and barren nature of this unknown region than they seemed fain to beat an incontinent and hasty retreat, nor did the troops landed there stand upon the order of their going. … The aborigines having fled south after the first rencontre, the Japanese leader employed his men as best he could in opening roads through the jungle and erecting houses. Meanwhile the Peking authorities were making preparations for the coming struggle, and though they moved slowly they were much in earnest to protect their territory. General Shin Pao-chin having been invested with full powers to direct operations against the Japanese forces, began at once to draw together men and vessels in Fuhchau and Amoy. The Japanese consuls at Amoy and Shanghai were allowed to remain at their posts; and during the year two envoys arrived at Pelting to treat with the Court. … The probabilities were strong against any settlement, when the parties were induced to arrange their quarrel by the intervention and wise counsel of Sir T. F. Wade, the British minister. The Japanese accepted 500,000 taels for their outlays in Formosa for roads, houses, and defences; agreeing thereupon to retire and leave the further punishment of the aborigines to the Chinese authorities. The two envoys left Peking, and this attempt at war was happily frustrated. … The civilization of all parts of Formosa has since rapidly advanced by the extension of tea and sugar culture, the establishment of Christian missions, and the better treatment of the native tribes."

FOURIER AND FOURIERISM.

FRANCE: 12TH-13TH CENTURIES.
Rise of the Privileged Bourgeoisies and the Communes.
The double movement of Urban Emancipation.

"The 12th and 13th centuries saw the production of that marvelous movement of emancipation which gave liberty to serfs, created privileged bourgeoisies and independent communes, caused new cities and fortresses to issue from the earth, freed the corporations of merchants and artisans, in a word placed at the first stroke, beside royalty, feudality and the church, a fourth social force destined to absorb one day the three others. While the cultivator of the soil passed by enfranchisement from the category of things sold or given away into that of the free people (the only ambition permitted to the defenseless unfortunates who inhabited isolated farms or unwalled villages), the population grouped in the urban centers tried to limit or at least to regulate the intolerable exploitation of which it was the object. The bourgeois, that is to say the inhabitants of walled cities, born under the shelter of a donjon or au abbey, and the citoyens of the ancient episcopal cities, rivaled each other in efforts to obtain from the seigneurial power a condition more endurable in point of taxation, and the suppression of the most embarrassing hindrances to their commerce and manufactures. These inhabitants of towns and cities constituted, if only by being grouped together, a force with which feudality was very soon obliged to reckon. Divided, besides, into merchants' societies and companies of workmen they found within themselves the germ of organization which permitted collective resistance. The seigneur, intimidated, won by an offer of money, or decided by the thought that his domination would be more lucrative if the city became more prosperous, made the concessions which were asked of him. Thanks to a favorable concurrence of circumstances, charters of franchises were multiplied in all parts of France. At the end of the 12th century, the national territory, in the north as well as the south, was covered with these privileged cities or bourgeoisies, which, while remaining administered, judicially and politically, by seigneurial officers, had acquired, in matters financial, commercial and industrial, the liberties necessary to their free development. Feudality very soon found such an advantage in regulating thus the exploitation of the bourgeois, that it took the initiative itself in creating, in the uninhabited parts of its domains, privileged cities, complete in all their parts, designed to become so many centers of attraction for foreigners. It is the innumerable bourgeoisies and 'villes neuves' which represent the normal form of urban emancipation. Certain centers of population obtained at the first stroke the most extensive civil and financial liberties; but, in the majority of cases, the bourgeois could win their franchises only bit by bit, at the price of heavy pecuniary sacrifices, or as the result of an admirable perseverance in watching for opportunities and seizing them. The history of the privileged cities, whose principal virtue was a long patience, offers nothing moving or dramatic. … But the spectacle of these laborious masses persisting, in obscurity and silence, in the demand for their right to security and well-being, does not the less merit all our attention. What forces itself upon the meditations of the historian, in the domain of municipal institutions, is just the progress slow and obscure, but certain, of the dependent bourgeoisie. … The development of the seigneurial cities offers such a variety of aspects, their progressive and regular conquests were so important in the constitution of our rights public and private, that too much care and effort cannot be devoted to retracing minutely their course. This history is more than any other that of the origin of our third estate. It was in the privileged cities, to which the great majority of the urban population belonged, that it began its political education. The city charters constituted the durable lower stratum of its first liberties. In other words the third estate did not issue suddenly from the more or less revolutionary movement which gave birth to the independent communes: it owes its formation and its progress above all to this double pacific evolution: the possessors of fiefs enfranchising their bourgeoisie and the latter passing little by little entirely from the seigneurial government under that of royalty. This was not the opinion which prevailed at the time when the founder of the science of municipal institutions, Augustin Thierry, published in the 'Courrier Français' his admirable 'Lettres ' on the revolutions of the communes. The commune, a city dowered with judicial and political privileges, which conferred upon it a certain independence, administered by its elected magistrates, proud of its fortified inclosure, of its belfry, of its militia,—the commune passed at that time as the pre-eminent type of the free city of the middle ages. That great movement of urban and rural emancipation which stirred the France of the 12th century to its very depths was personified in it. So the commune concentrated historical interest upon itself, leaving in the shade all other forms of popular evolution. Guizot, who had the sense of truth rather than that of the picturesque, tried to combat this exclusive tendency. In the brilliant lessons that he gave at the Sorbonne on the history of the origins of the third estate, he showed, with his customary clearness, that the development of the bourgeois class was not accomplished by any single method; that the progress realized in the cities where the communal regime had never succeeded in establishing itself must also be taken into account. The impression left by the highly colored and dramatic recitals of Augustin Thierry remained for a long time the stronger. … Contemporary science has not only assigned to itself the mission of completing the work of the historians of the Restoration: it has desired also to improve it by rectifying, upon many points, the exaggerated opinions and false judgments of which the history of our urban institutions was at first the victim. It has been perceived that the communal movement properly so called did not have, upon the destinies of the popular class, the decisive, preponderant influence which was attributed to it 'a priori.' The commune, a brilliant but ephemeral form of the emancipation of the bourgeoisie, has been set back little by little into its true place. {3749} It is now no longer regarded as an essential manifestation of our first democratic aspirations. One might be tempted to see on the contrary, in that collective seigneury, often hostile to the other social elements, impregnated with the spirit of 'particularisme,' made for war and agitated without cessation by warlike passions, an original but tardy product of the feudal principle. … We must be resigned to a fact in regard to which nothing can be done: the absence of documents relative to the municipal constitution of cities and towns during four hundred years, from the 7th century to the 11th. From all appearances, this enormous hiatus will never be overcome. … Facts being lacking, scholars have had recourse to conjecture. Some among them have supposed that the principal characteristics of the Gallo-Roman municipalities were perpetuated during this period. At bottom, their hypothesis rests principally upon analogies of names. … From the point of view of positive science, the Germanic origin of the communes is not more easy of demonstration. … It is even doubtful whether the essential element of the communal institution, the confederation formed by the inhabitants, under the guaranty of the mutual oath, belongs exclusively to the customs of the Germans. The theory of Augustin Thierry, which made of the commune a special application of the Scandinavian gilde, has been judged too narrow by contemporary scholars. They have reproached him with reason for having localized an institution which belongs entirely to the Germanic race. But the principle of association, applied in the cities, is not a fact purely German. … Association is a fact which is neither Germanic nor Roman; it is universal, and is produced spontaneously among all peoples, in all social classes, when circumstances exact and favor its appearance. The communal revolution then is a national event. The commune was born, like other forms of popular emancipation, from the need which the inhabitants of the cities had of substituting a limited and regulated exploitation for the arbitrary exploitation of which they were the victims. Such is the point of departure of the institution. We must always return to the definition of it given by Guibert de Nogent. It is true as a basis, although it does not embrace all the characteristics of the object defined: 'Commune! new name, detestable name! By it the censitaires are freed from all service in consideration of a simple annual tax; by it they are condemned, for the infraction of the law, only to a penalty legally determined; by it, they cease to be subjected to the other pecuniary charges by which the serfs are overwhelmed.' At certain points, this limitation of the seigneurial power was made amicably, by pacific transaction between the seigneur and his bourgeois. Elsewhere, an insurrection, more or less prolonged, was necessary in order to establish it. When this popular movement had as a result, not only the assuring to the people the most necessary liberties which were demanded, but besides that of abating to their advantage the political position of the master, by taking from him a part of his seigneurial prerogatives, there arose not only a free city, but a commune, a bourgeois seigneury, invested with a certain political and judicial power. This definition of the commune implies that originally it was not possible to establish it otherwise than by a pressure exerted, more or less violently, upon the seigneurial authority. We have the direct proof of it for some of our free municipalities, but it is presumable that many other communes whose primitive history we do not know have owed equally to force the winning of their first liberties. … We do not mean that, in the first period of the history of urban emancipation, all the communes, without exception, were obliged to pass through the phase of insurrection or of open resistance. There were some which profited (as the cities of the Flemish region in 1127) by a combination of exceptional circumstances to attain political liberty without striking a blow. Among these circumstances must be mentioned in the first rank the prolonged vacancy of an episcopal see and the disappearance of a laic lord, dead without direct heir, leaving a succession disputed by numerous competitors. But, ordinarily, the accession of the bourgeoisie to the rank of political power did not take place pacifically. Either the seigneur struggled against his rebellious subjects, or he feared the struggle and bent before the accomplished fact. In all cases it was necessary that the people were conscious of their power and imposed their will. This is proven by the dramatic episodes which the narrations of Augustin Thierry have forever rendered celebrated. … Later, in the decline of the 12th century, it must be recognized that the opinion of the dominant class ceased to be as hostile to the communes. When the conviction had been acquired that the popular movement was irresistible, it was tolerated; the best means even were sought to derive advantage from it. The Church always remained upon the defensive; but the king and the great feudal lords perceived that in certain respects the commune might be a useful instrument. They accepted then the communal organization, and they even came to create it where it was not spontaneously established. But it is easy to convince one's self that the communes of this category, those which owe their creation to the connivance or even to the initiative of the seigneur, did not possess the same degree of independence as the communes of the primitive epoch, founded by insurrection. On the whole, the communal revolution was only one of the aspects of the vast movement of political and social reaction which the excesses of the feudal regime engendered everywhere from the 11th to the 14th century. … One would like to possess the text of one of those oaths by which the bourgeois of the northern communes bound themselves together, for the first time, with or without the consent of their seigneur, in the most ancient period of the communal evolution. It would be of the highest interest for the historian to know how they set about it, what words were pronounced to form what the contemporary writers called a 'conjuration,' a 'conspiration,' a 'confederation.' No document of this nature and of that primitive epoch has come down to us. … The sum total of the sworn bourgeois constituted the commune. The commune was most often called 'communia,' but also, with varying termination, 'communa,' 'communio,' 'communitas.' {3750} Properly speaking and especially with reference to the origin, the name commune was given not to the city, but to the association of the inhabitants who had taken oath. For this reason also the expression 'commune jurée' was used. Later the acceptation of the word was enlarged; it designated the city itself, considered as a geographical unit. … The members of the commune, those who formed part of the sworn association, were properly called 'the sworn of the commune,' 'jurati communie,' or, by abridgment, 'the sworn,' 'jurati.' They were designated also by the expression: 'the men of the commune,' or, 'those who belong to the commune,' 'qui sunt de communia.' They were also entitled 'bourgeois,' 'burgenses,' more rarely 'bourgeois jurés'; sometimes also 'voisins,' 'vicini,' or even 'friends,' 'amici.' … We are far from having complete light on the question as to what conditions were exacted from those who entered the communal association, and to what classes of persons the access to the bourgeoisie was open or interdicted. The variety of local usages, and above all the impossibility of finding texts which apply to the most ancient period of urban emancipation, will always embarrass the historian. To find upon these matters clear documents, developed and precise, we must come down, generally, to the end of the 18th century or even to the century following, that is to say to the epoch of the decadence of the communal regime. … The bourgeois could not be diseased, that is to say, undoubtedly, tainted with an incurable malady and especially a contagious malady, as leprosy. … The communal law excluded also bastards. On this point it was in accord with the customary law of a very great number of French regions. … They refused also to receive into their number inhabitants encumbered with debts. The condition of debtor constituted in effect a kind of servitude. He no longer belonged to himself; his goods might become the property of the creditor, and he could be imprisoned. … With still more reason does it appear inadmissible that the serf should be called to benefit by the commune. The question of urban serfdom, in its relations with the communal institution, is extremely obscure, delicate and complex. There are however two facts in regard to which affirmation is allowable. It cannot be doubted that at the epoch of the formation of the communes, at the opening of the 12th century, there were no longer any serfs in many of the urban centers. It may be held also as certain that the desire to bring about the disappearance of this serfdom was one of the principal motives which urged the inhabitants to claim their independence. … The inhabitant who united all the conditions legally required for admission to the bourgeoisie was besides obliged to pay a town-due, ('droit d'entrée'). … If it was not always easy to enter a communal body, neither could one leave it as easily as might have been desired. The 'issue de commune' exacted the performance of a certain number of troublesome formalities. … So, it was necessary to pay to become a communist, and to pay yet more in order to cease to be one. The bourgeois was riveted to his bourgeoisie. … Up to this point we have examined only half the problem of the formation of the commune, approaching it on its general side. There remains the question whether all the popular element which existed in the city formed part of the body of bourgeoisie, and whether the privileged class, that of the nobles and clergy, was not excluded from it. … We shall have to admit as a general rule, that the nobles and the clergy while taking oath to the commune, did not in reality enter it. What must be rejected, is the sort of absolute, inviolable rule which has been formed on this opinion. In the middle ages especially there was no rule without exception. … The commune was an institution rather ephemeral. As a really independent seigneury, it scarcely endured more than two centuries. The excesses of the communists, their bad financial administration, their intestine divisions, the hostility of the Church, the onerous patronage of the 'haut suzerain,' and especially of the king: such were the immediate causes of this rapid decadence. The communes perished victims of their own faults, but also of the hate of the numerous enemies interested in their downfall. … The principal cause of the premature downfall of the communal regime is without any doubt the considerable development of the monarchical power in France at the end of the 18th century. The same force which annihilated feudality, to the profit of the national unit, was also that which caused the prompt disappearance of the independence of the bourgeois seigneuries. With its privileges and its autonomy, the commune impeded the action of the Capetains. Those quarrelsome and restless republics had no reason for existence, In the midst of the peaceful and obedient bourgeoisie upon which royalty had laid its hand. The commune then was sacrificed to the monarchical interest. In Italy and in Germany, the free cities enjoyed their independence much longer, by reason of the absence of the central power or of its weakness."

Achille Luchaire, Les Communes Francaises a l'époque des Capétiens directs (translated from the French), pages 1-16, 45-56, 65, and 288-290.

FRANCE: A. D. 1226-1270.
The reign of Saint Louis.
The monarchy in his time and its kingdom.

"The fundamental institution upon which all the social edifice rested, in the time of Saint Louis, was royalty. But this royalty, from the double point of view of theory and practice, was very different from what it had been originally. In principle it was the divine right, that is, it was an emanation from the Most High, and the king held of no other seigneur. This is what the feudal maxim expressed after its fashion; 'The king holds only of God and his sword.' … Royalty was transmitted by heredity, from father to son, and by primogeniture. However, this heredity, which had formerly needed a sort of election to confirm It, or at least popular acclamation, needed now to be hallowed by the unction of the church. Consecration, joined to the privilege of being the eldest of the royal race, made the king. … It must not be thought however that the ideas of the time attributed to the hereditary principle a force absolute and superior to all interests. Theologians could say to kings that the son should succeed the father if he imitated his probity; that power was transferred into other hands in punishment of injustice. … Christian tradition was, in fact, greatly opposed to what was then called tyranny. … Not only must royalty not be tyranny, but it must admit the representatives of the nation, in a certain measure, to a participation in the government. …

In practice, without doubt, these salutary principles were often disregarded; but it is still much that they were professed, and this fact alone constitutes an enormous difference between the middle ages and the later centuries. The royal power, besides, had not yet a material force sufficiently great to dominate everywhere as absolute master. Under the two first lines, it was exercised in the same degree over all points of the territory; from the accession of the third, on the contrary, it was only a power of two degrees, having a very unequal action according to the territory and the locality. A part of France composed the royal domain; it was the patrimony of the Capetian house, increased by conquest or successive acquisitions. There, the king exercised an authority almost without limit; he was on his own ground. All the rest formed duchies, counties, or seigneuries of different sorts, possessed hereditarily by great vassals, more or less independent originally. Here the king was only the suzerain; he had scarcely any rights excepting to homage, to military service, to pecuniary assistance in certain stated cases, and to some privileges called royal, as that of coining money. The entire royal policy, from Philip Augustus to Louis XI., consisted in skilfully increasing the first of these parts by absorbing little by little the second. … The kingdom of France, in the time of Saint Louis, was still very nearly as the treaty of Verdun had established it. On the north and east, it was bounded by the Empire of Germany. The frontier line passed a little beyond the cities of Ghent, Audenarde, Tournai, Douai, Guise, Mézières, Grandpré, Vitry, Joinville, Fay, Mirabeau; then it followed the course of the Saône and the Rhône, from which it diverged only in two places in order to attribute to the Empire the, at least, nominal possession of part of Lyonnais and Vivarais. On the south, the Pyrenees formed, as originally, the natural limit; but from the treaty of Corbeil (1258) Roussillon remained with the king of Aragon, in exchange for his right over the county of Foix, the territory of Sault, Fenouilhedès and Narbonnais. On the other hand, the vast duchy of Guienne, comprising Bearn and the county of Bigorre, came … under the suzerainty of the king of France only by virtue of the treaty of Paris (1259). On the west the kingdom was bounded only by the ocean, Brittany also having rendered homage to the crown from the time of Philip Augustus. Thus Saint Louis and his son left it, on the whole, more extensive than it was before them, and if it was more limited than the France of the present, on the east, it reached, on the contrary, farther to the north. The royal domain embraced in 1226 only the half of this immense perimeter. It was composed of the primitive nucleus of the Capetian possessions: that is, of the Isle of France and of Orleannais; then of French Vexin. Gâtinais and the viscounty of Bourges, brought by Philip I.; of the county of Corbeil and the seigneury of Monthléry, acquired by Louis VI.; of Artois, Vermandois (with the county of Amiens), Valois, Norman Vexin, of the counties of Evreux, Meulan, Alençon, Perché, Beaumont sur Oise, acquired by Philip Augustus and Louis VIII.; finally the territory obtained by the former from John Lackland by war or by confiscation, that is, all Normandy, Touraine, Perigord, Limousin, and the viscounty of Turenne. Anjou, Maine, Poitou, Auvergne, Angoumois, included in the same conquest, had since been detached from the crown to form princely appanages. The profitable domain of Perigord of Limousin and of the viscounty of Turenne, was reconveyed, in 1259, to the king of England, … in order to bring all the region of the southwest within the pale of the royal suzerainty. But Saint Louis compensated for this diminution by acquiring successively the two great seneschalates of Nîmes and of Carcassonne, the counties of Clermont, of Mortain, of Macon, and Philip the Bold did more than redeem it, by realizing the annexation, so skilfully prepared by Blanche of Castile, of the last domains of the count of Toulouse, which had become those of Alphonse of Poitiers, that is, of nearly all Languedoc. The possessions of the crown thus formed two or three separate groups, cut up in the most fantastic fashion, and connected only as the result of long effort. All the rest of the kingdom was composed of great fiefs escaping the direct action of royalty, and themselves subdivided into lesser fiefs, which complicated infinitely the hierarchy of persons and lands. The principal were the counties of Flanders, Boulogne, Saint Pol, Ponthieu, Aumale, Eu, Soissons, Dreux, Montford-l'Amaury; the bishoprics of Tournai, Beauvais, Noyon, Laon, Lisieux, Reims, Langres, Chalons, the titularies of which were at the same time counts or seigneurs; the vast county of Champagne, uniting those of Réthel, Grandpré, Roucy, Brienne, Joigny and the county Porcien; the duchy of Burgundy, so powerful and so extensive; the counties of Nevers, Tonnerre, Auxerre, Beaujeu, Forez, Auvergne; the seigneury of Bourbon; the counties of Blois and of Chartres; the county or duchy of Brittany; Guienne, and, before 1271, the county of Toulouse; the bishoprics of Albi, Cahors, Mende, Lodève, Agde, Maguelonne, belonging temporally as well as spiritually to their respective bishops; finally the seigneury of Montpellier, holding of the last of these bishoprics. To which must yet be added the appanages given by Louis VIII. to his younger sons, that is, the counties of Artois, Anjou, Poitiers, with their dependencies. … So when the government of the kingdom at this epoch is spoken of, it must be understood to mean that of only the least considerable part of the territory,—that is, of the part which was directly submitted to the authority of the king. In this part the sovereign himself exercised the power, assisted, as ordained by the theories examined above, by auxiliaries taken from the nation. There were neither ministers nor a deliberative corps, properly speaking; however there was very nearly the equivalent. On one side, the great officers of the crown and the royal council, on the other the parliament and the chamber of accounts (exchequer), or at least their primitive nucleus, constituted the principal machinery of the central government, and had, each, its special powers. The great officers, of whom there had at first been five, were only four from the reign of Philip Augustus, who had suppressed the seneschal owing to the possibility of his becoming dangerous by reason of the progressive extension of his jurisdiction; they were the bouteiller, who had become the administrator of the royal expenditure; the chambrier, elevated to the care of the treasury; the connétable, a kind of military superintendent; and the chancelier, who had the disposition of the royal seal. {3752} These four personages represented in a certain degree, secretaries of state. The two latter had a preponderant influence, one in time of peace, the other in time of war. To the chancellor belonged the drawing up and the proper execution (legalization) of the royal diplomas; this power alone made him the arbiter of the interests of all private individuals. As to the constable he had the chief direction of the army, and all those who composed it, barons, knights, paid troops, owed him obedience. The king, in person, had the supreme command; but he frequently allowed the constable to exercise it, and, in order not to impose too heavy a burden upon him, or rather to prevent his taking a too exclusive authority, he had appointed as coadjutors two 'maréchaux de France' who were second in command. … The king's council had not yet a very fixed form. Saint Louis submitted important questions to the persons about him, clerics, knights or men of the people; but he chose these advisers according to the nature of the questions, having temporary counsellors rather than a permanent council. Among these counsellors some were more especially occupied with justice, others with finance, others with political affairs. These three categories are the germ of the parliament, of the exchequer, and of the council of state; but they then formed an indistinct ensemble, called simply the king's court. They were not completely separated so as to form independent institutions until the time of Philippe le Bel. The first, that which later constituted the parliament, belongs especially to the judicial department. … The second, while not yet elevated into a distinct and permanent body, is already delegated to special duties, being charged with examining the accounts of the baillis and seneschals. The 'gentlemen of the accounts' ('gentes quae ad nostros computos deputantur') began under Saint Louis to meet periodically in the Temple, at Paris, and to exercise a regular control over the public finances; so that this new creation, which was, later, to render services so important, was an outcome of the scrupulous probity with which the royal conscience was filled. … The superior jurisdiction is represented by the parliament. The organization of this famous body was begun in the lifetime of Philip Augustus. Under the reign of this prince [Saint Louis] and notably as a result of his absence, the 'cour du roi' had begun to render more and more frequent decisions. The section which was occupied with judicial affairs, appears to have taken on, in the time of Saint Louis, an individual and independent existence. Instead of following the sovereign and meeting when he thought it expedient, it became sedentary. … The date at which the series of the famous registers of the parliament, known under the name of Olim begins may be considered that of the definitive creation of this great institution. It will be remarked that it coincides with the general reform of the administration of the kingdom undertaken by the good king on his return from Syria. … From its birth the parliament tended to become, in the hands of royalty, a means of domination over the great vassals. Not only were the seigneurs insensibly eliminated from it, to the advantage of the clergy, the lawyers, and the officers of the crown, but by a series of skilful victories, its action was extended little by little over all the fiefs situated outside the royal domain, that is over all France. It is again Saint Louis who caused this great and decisive advance toward the authority of the suzerain. He brought it about especially by the abolition of the judicial duel and by the multiplication of appeals to the parliament. … As for the appeals the interdiction of 'fausser jugement' (refusal to submit to the sentence pronounced) was not the only cause of their multiplication. Many of the great vassals were led to bring their affairs before the king's court, either on account of the confidence inspired by the well known equity of Saint Louis, or by the skill of the royal agents, who neglected no opportunity to cause the acceptance of the arbitration of the crown; and those who did not resign themselves to it were sometimes compelled to do so. The appeals of their subjects naturally took the same route; however they continued to employ the medium of the seneschal's court or that of the bailli, while those of the barons and the princes of the blood went directly to Paris. No general law was promulgated in regard to the matter. Royalty was content to recover little by little, by partial measures, the superior jurisdiction formerly usurped by the feudality. … Above and outside of the parliament justice was rendered by the king in person. … Saint Louis, always thoughtful of the interests of the lowly, had a liking for this expeditious manner of terminating suits. Nearly every morning, he sent two or three members of his council to inquire, at the palace gate, if there were not some private individuals there wishing to discuss their affairs before him; from this came the name 'plaids de la porte' given to this kind of audience. If his counsellors could not bring the parties to an agreement, he called the latter into his own room, examined their case with his scrupulous impartiality, and rendered the final sentence himself on the spot. Joinville, who took part more than once in these summary judgments, thus describes to us their very simple mechanism. 'The king had his work regulated in such a way, that monseigneur de Nesle and the good count de Soissons, and the rest of us who were about him, who had heard our masses, went to hear the 'plaids de la porte,' which are now called 'requêtes' (petitions). And when he returned from the monastery, he sent for us, seated himself at the foot of his bed, made us all sit around him, and asked us if there were any cases to despatch which could not be disposed of without him; and we named them to him, and he sent for the parties and asked them: Why do you not take what our people offer you? And they said: Sire, because they offer us little. Then he said to them: You should take what they are willing to give you. And the saintly man labored in this way, with all his might to set them in a just and reasonable path.' Here the great peace-maker is clearly seen; private individuals as well as princes, he desired to reconcile all, make all agree. These patriarchal audiences often had for theater the garden of the palace or the wood of Vincennes. The legendary oak which sheltered the modern Solomon remains in all memoirs as the symbol of his kindly justice and of his popularity, well acquired."

A. Lecoy de la Marche, La France sous Saint Louis et sous Philippe le Hardi, liv. 1, chapter 2, and liv. 2, chapters 1 and 3.

François Guizot, Great Christians of France: Saint Louis and Calvin, https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/62518.

"What were the worldly circumstances, what was the social position, of the parents of Jeanne d'Arc? Questioned on these points, the people of the country, called to testify at the public inquiry, in the course of the rehabilitation proceedings, all made the same reply; they said that the father and mother of the maid were unassuming husbandmen and possessed with their cottage only a moderate patrimony. According to a memorandum, made out with the assistance of papers and family traditions, a memorandum transmitted by the abbé Mandre, curé of Damvillers (Meuse), who died about 1820, to his nephew Mr. Villiaumé, father of the historian of Jeanne d' Arc and of the Revolution, the real estate belonging to Jacques d'Arc and Isabelle Romée represented about twenty hectares, of which twelve were cultivated, four were meadow and four woodland, and in the latter the 'bois Chesnu'; they had beside their house, their furniture and a reserve of two or three hundred francs which they kept carefully in view of the possibility of a flight before some invasion, such as they had been obliged to take to Neufchâteau. By cultivating, themselves, what they possessed, they could obtain from it an annual revenue equivalent to four or five thousand francs of our money, which permitted them to distribute alms to the poor, notwithstanding their moderate patrimony, and to give hospitality to the mendicant friars as well as to the travelers who often passed through that country. If these valuations are not rigorously exact, they appear to us at least quite reasonable, though we are ignorant of the data upon which they rest. In a parochial register of Domremy, transcribed in 1490, we read that Jacob d'Arc and Ysabellot, his wife, had established an annual income of two gros [gros of Lorraine, coin worth 1/8 oz. of silver] in favor of the curé of Domremy from a 'fauchée' and a half [day and a half's mowing] of field situated in the 'ban' of Domremy, above the bridge, between the heirs Janvrel and the heirs Girardin, on condition of the celebration of two masses each year during the week of the Fontaines for anniversary services for the dead. The property of these honest people constituted, if we may judge by the different replies of the Maid compared with one another, what was called then in the Barrois a 'gagnage' or little farm; now, what distinguished the gagnage from the simple 'conduit,' was that the first always employed for the needs of cultivation a certain number of horses. The usage was at that time, in that region, to attach three or four mares to the plough, and they even had, at least in the great gagnages, a special horse to drag the harrow. Besides this property situated at Domremy, it may be supposed that Jacques d'Arc possessed in right of his wife some pieces of land at Vouthon, for we see by a register of the writs of court of the provostship of Gondrecourt that the eldest of his sons named Jacquemin made his residence from 1425 in this village of the Barrois holding where he cultivated undoubtedly the little patrimony of Isabelle Romée. Jacques d'Arc and Isabelle de Vouthon had three sons, Jacquemin, Jean and Pierre, and two daughters, the elder named Catherine, the younger Jeanne or rather Jeannette, she who was by her heroism to immortalize her line. Two documents … prove with evidence that Jacques d'Arc figured in the first rank of the notables of Domremy. In the first of these, dated Maxey-sur-Meuse, October 7, 1423, he is styled 'doyen' of that village and by this title comes immediately after the mayor and alderman. 'In general,' says M. Edward Bonvalot, speaking of the villages in the region of the Meuse governed by the famous charter of Beaumont in Argonne, 'there is but one doyen or sergeant in each village, who convokes the bourgeois to the electoral assemblies and to the sittings of the court; it is he also who convokes the mayor, aldermen and the men of the commune to their reunions either periodical or special; it is he who cries the municipal resolutions and ordinances; it is he who commands the day and night watch; it is he who has charge of prisoners. Among the privileges which he enjoys must be cited the exemption from the taxes (deniers) of the bourgeoisie. At Linger, he has the same territorial advantages as the clerk of the commune.' It is seen by various documents that the doyens were also charged with the collection of the 'tailles,' 'rentes' and 'redevances,' and that they were appointed to supervise bread, wine and other commodities as well as to test weights and measures. In the second document, drawn up at Vaucouleurs March 31, 1427, Jacques d'Arc appears as the agent of the inhabitants of Domremy in a suit of great importance which they then had to sustain before Robert de Baudricourt, captain of Vaucouleurs. … The situation of Domremy was privileged, and, thanks to this situation, humble peasants who had few needs found even in the soil which they cultivated nearly everything which was necessary for their subsistence. The heights crowned with beeches and venerable oaks, which shut in on the west the valley where the village lies, furnished fire-wood in abundance; the acorns permitted the fattening of droves of hogs; the beautiful vineyard of Greux, exposed to the east and climbing the slopes of these heights since the 14th century, produced that light wine, excessively acid, which is not the less agreeable to the somewhat harsh palate of the children of the Meuse; the fields lying at the foot of these slopes and contiguous to the houses were reserved for the cultivation of the cereals, of wheat, of rye and of oats; finally, between these cultivated fields and the course of the Meuse, over a breadth of more than a kilometer stretched those verdant meadows whose fertility equals their beauty and from which is still taken the best and most renowned hay of all France. The principal wealth of the inhabitants of Domremy was the cattle which they pastured in these meadows, where each, after the hay-harvest, had the right to pasture a number of heads of cattle proportioned to that of the 'fauchées de pré' [days mowings of field] that he possessed. This is what was called the 'ban de Domremy' the care of which was confided, by turns, to a person taken from each 'conduit' or household. It may be seen by certain replies of Jeanne to her judges at Rouen that she had been more than once appointed to this charge, when the turn of her parents came, and her enemies had not failed to seize upon this circumstance to pretend to see in her only a shepherdess by profession. … {3754} Most of the historians of Jeanne d'Arc have made a great mistake when they have imagined Domremy an out-of-the-way corner and isolated, so to speak, from the rest of the world; on the contrary, a road much frequented toward the end of the middle ages crossed this village. This was the old Roman road from Langres to Verdun which passed through Neufchâteau, Domremy, Vaucouleurs, Void, Commercy and Saint-Mihiel; it had acquired yet more importance since the marriage of Philip the Bold and Margaret, daughter of Louis de Male, had brought into the same hand Flanders, Artois and Burgundy. This marriage had had the effect of giving increased activity to the exchanges between the extreme possessions of the Burgundian princes. … It may be seen by what precedes that, like the legendary beech of her native village, the childhood of the virgin of Domremy sprang out of a soil full of vigor and was in the main haunted by beneficent fairies. Born in a fertile and smiling corner of the earth, the issue of an honest family, whose laborious mediocrity was elevated enough to touch nobility when ennobling itself by alms-giving, and humble enough to remain in contact with all the poor; endowed by nature with a robust body, a sound intelligence and an energetic spirit, the little Jeannette d'Arc became under these gentle influences all goodness and all love. Certain facts which are related of her early years show her religiously enamored of country life. She gave some wool from her sheep to the bell-ringer of Domremy to render him more zealous in fulfilling his office, so much did the silvery chiming of his church bell, sounding suddenly in the quiet of the valley, enchant her ear. And the inspiring virtue of the cool shadows, of the 'frigus opacum' of Virgil, who had better felt it than she who replied to her judges at Rouen: 'If I were in the midst of the woods, I should hear my voices better.' … One of the consequences of the treaty of Troyes was the occupation of Champagne by the [English] invaders.

It is certain, notwithstanding the assertions to the contrary of many historians of Jeanne, that from this date the English were rendered absolutely masters of the bailiwick of Chaumont. The principal fortresses of Bassigny, notably Nogent-le-Roi and Montigny-le-Roi, received garrisons of the enemy. The 'registres du Trésor des Chartes,' preserved in our National Archives, where the acts emanating from the English government [chancellorship] during this period are registered, are full of letters of pardon or of remission granted in the name of Henry V. and Henry VI. to different inhabitants of this bailiwick, and nothing proves better to what degree the authority of the king of England was at that time received and accepted in this region. Some of these letters were given on account of offenses committed in the provostship of Andelot, of which the châtellenie of Vaucouleurs held, as is known. This châtellenie was, in truth, the last fragment of French soil that Charles VII. had kept at the eastern extremity of his kingdom, as he had succeeded in keeping Mont-Saint-Michel at the western extremity. Pressed upon by the Anglo-Burgundians on the south, by the restless and violent Robert of Saarbruck, seigneur of Commercy, on the north, hemmed in, on the east and west, between the possessions of the dukes of Bar and of Lorraine, who were unceasingly at war with their neighbors, this little corner of the earth was a sort of arena where all parties came into collision; and during the four or five years which immediately preceded the first apparition of the archangel Michael to the Maid, toward the middle of 1425, ten or twelve leaders of bands may be counted who emulated each other, as it were, in ravaging it in all directions. During the first half of the 15th century, the men at arms of the marches of Lorraine had the reputation of being, with the Bretons, the greatest pillagers in the world. … We know now in all its details a curious episode which particularly concerns the native village of Jeanne. This episode had remained completely unknown up to the present day, and it was a fortunate accident which, in the beginning of our researches, commenced in 1878, caused us to discover in the National Archives, in the 'registres du Trésor des Chartes,' the document in which the relation of it is found. There is question in this document of a remission of penalty granted by King Charles VII. to a certain Burthélemy de Clefmont for the murder of an Anglo-Burgundian band-leader who had carried away the cattle from two villages of the châtellenie of Vaucouleurs; now, these two villages are precisely Greux and Domremy. … Different circumstances of the narrative, compared with several documents relative to the leader killed by Barthélemy de Clefmont, do not permit us to place the incident at any other date than 1425. … The principal, not to say the only wealth of the inhabitants of Domremy, was the cattle which they pastured in the meadows of the Meuse. The configuration of the soil permits the cultivation only of some fields situated along the border of these meadows, at the foot of the wooded hill against which the village is set; so, the little grain that was harvested there would not have sufficed to feed the population. … We understand then the important injury done to these unfortunate peasants by taking from them at one stroke all the communal flock; they were completely ruined; they were stripped between one day and another of the most precious of their possessions; they were almost condemned to die of poverty with very brief delay. Such a disaster would have cast down a spirit of ordinary temper; it had no other effect than to exalt the profound faith and to awaken the already extraordinary energies of the little Jeannette d'Arc. Endowed, notwithstanding her tender years, with that almost superhuman moral force of which we read that it transports mountains, she called Heaven confidently to the assistance of her people, and our readers already know that Heaven heard her voice. Jeanne de Joinville, lady of Ogéviller, the good châtelaine of Domremy, must have been keenly touched by the unfortunate situation caused to her people, and she had besides the greatest interest in making the brigands in the pay of Henri d'Orly disgorge, in order to assure the payment of her taxes. This is why she complained to her cousin Antoine de Lorraine, count of Vaudemont, who had in his immediate tenure the château of Doulevant, occupied by the chief of these brigands. The count hastened to give satisfaction to the demands of his relative; he sent Barthélemy de Clefmont, one of his men at arms, in pursuit of the marauders. {3755} The expedition was a complete success. Though the cattle had already been taken as far as Dommartin-le-Franc, twenty leagues distant from the shores of the Meuse, they were recovered. Antoine de Lorraine then caused them to be restored to the lady of Ogéviller whose people, those of Greux as well as of Domremy, thus came again into possession of the precious booty which had been stolen from them and which they believed irreparably lost. What a signal favor of Providence, a miracle, these poor people in general and Jeannette d'Arc in particular must have seen in a restitution so unhoped for! In the meantime,—we may reasonably suppose this, if not affirm it with certainty,—the news of a great defeat inflicted on the English before Mont-Saint-Michel, toward the end of June 1425, by sea as well as by land, must have arrived at Domremy. Almost at the same time, that is in the last days of the following August, they learned that these same English had just invaded Barrois and that they had burned dwellings at Revigny as well as in the ban of Chaumont, near Bar-le-Duc. Never had Jeanne felt more sorrowfully 'the pity it was for the kingdom of France,' and never also had she had a more entire faith in God to assure the salvation of her country. The theft, then the restitution of the cattle of Greux and Domremy, the victory won by the defenders of Mont-Saint-Michel, the invasion of Barrois by the English, here are the three principal occurrences which immediately preceded and which explain, at least in a certain degree, the first apparition of the archangel Michael to the little Jeannette d'Arc."

FRANCE: A. D. 1682-1693.
Contest of the King and the Gallican Church with the Papacy.

FRANCE: A. D. 1715-1770. The fatal policy in Europe which lost to the French their opportunity for colonial aggrandizement.

"Louis XIV. had made France odious to her neighbors and suspected by all Europe. Those who succeeded him required much prudence and wisdom to diminish the feelings of fear and jealousy which this long reign of wars and conquests had inspired. They were fortunate in that the moderation demanded of them was for France the most skilful and advantageous policy. France kept Alsace, Franche-Comte, Flanders, Roussillon, and beyond this enlarged frontier she was no longer menaced by the same enemies. The treaty of Utrecht had modified the entire balance of power. There is henceforward no house of Austria excepting in Germany. It is too often forgotten, in speaking of this house and its rivalry with that of France, that the most ardent center of hatred was in Spain. It was Spain which cherished that violent rancor which, for lack of words as much as of ideas, is placed to the account of Austria alone. Spain is no longer to be feared; she is weakened, she is becoming dependent. A cadet of France, a Bourbon, reigns at Madrid, and the roles, in that direction, are exchanged. As to Austria even, she has increased undoubtedly: she has taken the Low Countries, Milan, Naples, very soon she adds Sicily to them; but she is scattered. In multiplying her outposts, she presents so many points of aggression to her adversaries. France has the Low Countries under her hand: Savoy threatens Milan: and, in Germany, Prussia, which is growing, groups the opponents of the Empire. France completes her work by the annexation of Lorraine. The house of Lorraine is transported to Tuscany, and by the effect of the same treaty, that of Vienna in 1738, Naples and Sicily pass to the Spaniards. It seems that henceforward France has only to conserve on the continent. She presents to it the most compact power. Her principal enemy in it is greatly reduced. She is surrounded by states, weaker than she, who defer to her and fear her; she can resume that fine role of moderator and guardian of the peace of Europe which Richelieu had prepared for her, and bear elsewhere, into the other hemisphere, the superabundance of her forces and that excess of vigor which in great nations is precisely the condition of health. The future of her grandeur is henceforward in the colonies. There she will encounter England. Upon this new stage their rivalry will be revived, more ardent than in the days of the hundred years war. To maintain this struggle which extends over the entire world, France will not be too strong with all her resources. When she is engaged in Canada and the Indies at the same time, she will not need to carry her armies across the Rhine. Peace on the continent is the condition necessary to the magnificent fortune which awaits her in America and Asia. If she wishes to obtain it she must renounce continental ambitions. She can do it; her defense is formidable. No one about her would dare to fire a gun without her permission. But, alas! she is far removed from this wisdom, and, in attempting to establish colonies, and make changes in the kingdoms of Europe at the same time, she will compromise her power in both worlds at once. The French desire colonial conquests, but they can not abstain from European conquests, and England profits by it. Austria becomes her natural ally against France. These powerful diversions keep the French on the ground. However, they can yet curb Austria; they have Prussia, Savoy, Poland and Turkey if necessary. Diplomacy is sufficient for this game; but this game is not sufficient for the French politicians. The hatred of the house of Austria survives the causes of rivalry. This house seems always 'the monster' of which Balzac speaks. One is not satisfied to have chained it; one can cease only after having annihilated it. 'There is always,' writes Argenson, 'for politicians a fundamental rule of reducing this power to the point where the Emperor will not be a greater landholder than the richest elector.' Charles VI. dies in 1740; he leaves only a daughter; the opportunity seems favorable, and noisily sounding the death-cry (l'hallali) they take the field at the head of all the hunters by inheritance.

They go 'to make an emperor, to conquer kingdoms!' The Bavarian whom they crown is a stage emperor, and, as for conquests, they are considered only too fortunate that Maurice of Saxe preserves to France those of Louis XIV. The coalition has no other result than to enlarge Prussia. Meanwhile France is beaten on the sea and abandons solely to the resources of his genius Dupleix, who with a handful of men was founding an empire. There was besides another small matter; after having exposed Canada in order to conquer Silesia for the king of Prussia, it was lost in order to have the pleasure of giving back that province to the queen of Hungary. France had played the game of England in the war of the succession of Austria, she played that of Austria in the seven years war.

Frederic was the most equivocal of allies. In 1755, he deserted cynically and passed over to the English, who had just recommenced war against France. England having Prussia, it was important in order to maintain the equilibrium, that France have Austria. Maria Theresa offered her alliance and France accepted it. Thus was concluded the famous treaty of May 1, 1756. The object of this alliance was entirely defensive. This is what France did not understand, and she did not cease to be a dupe for having changed partners. Louis XV. made himself the defender of Austria with the same blindness as he had made himself her adversary. The continental war which was only the accessory became the principal. From a ruling power, France fell to the rank of a subordinate. She did not even attain the indirect result to which she sacrificed her most precious interests. Frederic kept Silesia, France lost Canada and abandoned Louisiana; the empire of the Indies passed to the English. Louis XV. had thus directed a policy the sole reason for which was the defeat of England, in such a way as to assure the triumph of that country. 'Above all,' wrote Bernis to Choiseul, then ambassador at Vienna, 'arrange matters in such a way that the king will not remain in servile dependence on his allies. That state would be the worst of all.' It was the state of France during the last years of the reign of Louis XV. The alliance of 1756 which had been at its beginning and under its first form, a skilful expedient, became a political system, and the most disastrous of all. Without gaining anything in territory, France lost her consideration in Europe. She had formerly grouped around her all those who were disturbed by the power of Austria; forced to choose between them and Austria, she allowed the Austrians to do as they chose. To crown the humiliation, immediately after a war in which she had lost everything to serve the hatred of Maria Theresa for Frederic, she saw those unreconcilable Germans draw together without her knowledge, come to an understanding at her expense and, in concert with Russia, divide the spoil of one of the oldest clients of the French monarchy, Poland. There remained to France but one ally, Spain. They were united in 1761 by the Family Pact, the only beneficial work which had been accomplished in these years of disaster. … To the anger of having felt herself made use of during the war, to the rancor of having seen herself duped during the peace, was joined the fear of being despoiled one day by an ally so greedy and so little scrupulous. 'I foresee,' wrote Mably some years later, 'that the Emperor will demand of us again Lorraine, Alsace and everything which may please him.'—'Who can guaranty France, if she should experience a complicated and unfortunate war,' said one of the ministers of Louis XVI., 'that the Emperor would not reclaim Alsace and even other provinces?' It was in this way that the abuse made by Austria of the alliance revived all the traditions of rivalry. Add that Maria Theresa was devout, that she was known to be a friend of the Jesuits, an enemy of the philosophers, and that at the King's court, the favorites were accounted as acquired from Austria: everything thus contributed to render odious to public opinion the alliance which, in itself, already seemed detestable. At the time when they were beginning to style the partisans of new ideas 'patriots,' they were in the habit of confounding all the adversaries of these ideas with the 'Austrian party.' … The marriage of Marie Antoinette with the Dauphin was destined to seal forever the alliance of 1756. The unfortunate princess accumulated on her head the hatreds and prejudices heaped up by three centuries of rivalry and excessively stimulated by the still smarting impression of recent wrongs. Even the cause of her coming to France rendered her suspected by the French; they imputed to her as a crime her attachment to the alliance, which was, notwithstanding, the very reason of her marriage. To understand the prodigious unpopularity which pursued her in France, it is necessary to measure the violence of the passions raised up against her mother and her country; it was summed up, long before the Revolution, in that word which became for Marie Antoinette a decree of forfeiture and of death: the Austrian."

A. Sorel, L'Europe et la Révolution française (translated from the French), part 1, pages 288-297.

FRANCE: A. D. 1776-1778.
   Disposition to aid the revolt of the
   English colonies in America.
   The American embassy.
   Dealings of Beaumarchais and Silas Deane.

"The history of the revolution can no more be understood without understanding the part played in it by Paris, than one can conceive of the tragedy of Hamlet with the part of Hamlet left out; and to understand the part played by Paris in the revolution is equally impossible. … Let us commence at the bottom with the nobodies. They are no specialty of Paris. There are many of them in every city, but the larger the city the greater the percentage. Paris, therefore, has the highest. They are isolated particles. In the ushering in of the new era they have no part. The regulations concerning the elections to the States-General contain no provision in regard to them. … It was simply a matter of course, that these nobodies went for nothing in the question at hand. Whether they were likely to continue to be nothing in it, nobody seems to have asked. … The existence of this class was partly due to natural causes, the working of which the wit of man can to a degree mitigate, but never prevent.

In the 'ancien régime,' however, the wit of man had altogether been bent upon stimulating it. The privilege-bane had also been extended over the domain of labor. When, in 1776, Turgot broke down the guilds, the Parliament of Paris strenuously opposed the government, declaring: all Frenchmen are divided into established corporations, forming one continuous chain from the throne down to the lowest handicraft, indispensable to the existence of the state, and not to be abolished, lest the whole social order break asunder. That was but too true. Since the days of Henry III. (1574-1589) the forcing of all industrial pursuits into the strait-jacket of guildships had been carried to the extreme of utter absurdity. Here, too, the chronic financial distress had been the principal cause. At first the handicrafts, which everybody had been at liberty to practice, were withdrawn from free competition and sold as a privilege, and then, when nothing was left to be sold, the old guilds were split up into a number of guildlets, merely to have again something to put on the counter. And it was not only left pretty much to the masters whom they would admit to the freedom of the guild, but besides the charges for it were so high that it was often absolutely out of the reach even of the most skillful journeyman. Even a blood-aristocracy was not lacking. In a number of guilds only the sons of masters and the second husbands of masters' widows could become masters. Thus an immense proletariat was gradually formed, which to a great extent was a proletariat only because the law irresistibly forced it into this position. And the city proletariat proper received constant and ever-increasing additions from the country. There such distress prevailed, that the paupers flocked in crowds to the cities. … In 1791, long before the inauguration of the Reign of Terror, there were in a population of 650,000, 118,000 paupers (indigents). Under the 'ancien régime' the immigrant proletariat from the country was by the law barred out from all ways of earning a livelihood except as common day-laborers, and the wages of these were in 1788, on an average, 26 cents for men and 15 for women, while the price of bread was higher than in our times. What a gigantic heap of ferment!"

"The rapid growth and the considerable number of these myths are one of the most curious features of the Revolution, while their persistent vitality is a standing warning for historical students. I claim to show that Cazotte's vision was invented by Laharpe, that Sombreuil's daughter did not purchase his liberty by quaffing blood, that the locksmith Gamain was not poisoned, that Labussière did not save hundreds of prisoners by destroying the documents incriminating them, that the Girondins had no last supper, that some famous ejaculations have been fabricated or distorted, that no attempt was made to save the last batch of victims, that the boys Barra and Viala were not heroes, that no leather was made of human skins, that no Englishmen plied the September assassins with drink, that the 'Vengeur' crew did not perish rather than surrender, that the ice-bound Dutch fleet was not captured, that Robespierre's wound was not the work of Merda, but was self-inflicted, and that Thomas Paine had no miraculous escape."

FRANCE: A. D. 1894-1895.
   Assassination of President Carnot.
   Election and resignation of M. Casimir-Périer.
   Election of M. Faure to the Presidency.

"The most startling of all the deeds in the recent revival of anarchistic activity was the assassination of M. Carnot, President of the French Republic, on the 24th of June. While driving through the streets of Lyons, where he was taking part in the opening ceremonies of an exposition, he was mortally stabbed by an Italian Anarchist named Santo Caserio. The assassin was immediately captured, and was executed August 16. His trial did not reveal any accomplices, though there was evidence tending to show that the deed was resolved upon by a band of Anarchists. Caserio boasted of his identification with the sect. … According to the constitutional prescription, a joint convention of the two chambers of the legislature was immediately summoned for a presidential election. The convention met at Versailles, June 27, M. Challemel-Lacour, president of the Senate, in the chair, and on the first ballot chose M. Casimir-Périer by 451 out of a total of 851 votes, M. Brisson, the Radical candidate, stood second, with 195, and M. Dupuy third, with 97."

On the 15th of January, 1895, M. Casimir-Périer astonished the world and threw France into consternation, almost, by suddenly and peremptorily resigning the Presidency. The reason given was the intolerable powerlessness and practical inutility of the President under the existing constitution. The exciting crisis which this resignation produced was passed through without disorder, and on the 17th the National Assembly elected M. François Felix Faure to the office of President.

See (in this Supplement) GERMANY: A. D. 1154-1190, and 1162-1177; also, pages 1811-1813.

FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE.

GALVANI'S ELECTRICAL DISCOVERIES.

See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 17-18TH CENTURIES, and 19TH CENTURY (pages 2138, 2144, and after).

"And now it came about that out of the midst of the Germanic nations a new monarchy arose which wrested itself free from the immediate influence of the papacy and its antiquated pretensions and broke a new path for the idea of the empire, an idea that seemed to have been fully crushed. This was the empire of Otto the Great. It was not to be compared with the old Roman empire, it did not at all come up to what the Carolingian had been. But it did give strong and irrevocable expression to the idea of a highest authority in Germany, an authority bound up with religion, yet independent in itself. … The foundation of the Germanic empire, that is of an organization which, resting on the internal development of the German nations had won a universal position through the extension of the power of the Ottos over Italy, forms the event of world-wide importance of the tenth century. … This Germanic empire had no genealogical origin that was entirely indisputable, but it did in so far have an advantage over the Carolingian empire that the right of heredity in the German monarchy decided of itself the question of succession to the empire. Besides this it had a sort of overlordship over its neighbors to maintain which was different from that earlier one: the attempts at Christianizing and at the same time reducing to submission took in other regions extending far beyond the limits of the former ones. It was a resuscitation of the idea of the old Roman empire but by no means of its form. On the contrary, through constant struggles new constitutional forms had developed themselves of which the old world had as yet no conception. Not that it is the proper place here to enter more deeply into the question of the feudal system which gave to public life an altogether changed aspect. But, in a word or two at least, we must characterize this transformation. Its essence is that an attempt was made to adjust the conception of obedience and military service to the needs of the life of the individual. All the arrangements of life changed their character so soon as it became the custom to grant land to local overlords who, in turn, provided with possessions according to their own several grades, could only be sure of being able to hold these possessions in so far as they kept faith and troth with the lord-in-chief of the land. It was through and through a living organization, which took in the entire monarchy and bound it together into a many-membered whole; for the counts and dukes for their own part entered into a similar relationship with their own sub-tenants. Therewith the possession of land entered into an indissoluble connection with the theory of the empire, a connection which extended also to those border nations which were in contact with and subordinate to the monarchy. That an empire so constituted could not reckon on such unconditional obedience as had been paid to the old Roman empire is clear as day. Nevertheless the whole order of things in the world depended on the system of adjusted relationships, the keystone or rather commanding central point of which was formed by this same empire. It could scarcely claim any longer to be universal but it did nevertheless hold the chief place in the general state-system of Europe, and it proved a powerful upholder of the independence of the secular power. It was just this idea of universal power, and altogether of ascendancy over the Christian world, that was indelibly implanted in the German empire. But could this idea be actually realized, was Germany strong enough to carry it through? Otto the Great originated it, but by no means carried it to its completion. He passed his life amid constant internal and external struggles; no lasting form of constitution was he able to leave behind. That is, one might almost say, what is most characteristic of great natures: they can originate, indeed, but they cannot complete."

L. von Ranke, Weltgeschichte, (translated from the German), volume 7, pages. 5-7.

"For what else did he (Otto I) wish to found but a world-monarchy like that of the Caesars? Emperor of the Romans and Augustus did he call himself and at Rome he had received his imperial crown. And was not for him the most sacred spot in the universe the grave of St. Peter at Rome? Was not this Saxon in armor an equally eager apostle of the Roman church with that Anglo-Saxon monk who as servant of the pope had planted Christianity in North German lands? While Otto was determined to extend the power of his empire as far as to the most distant peoples of the still unexplored north and east, he at the same time purposed to bear to the end of the world Christianity in the form in which Rome had given it him. The bones of the Roman martyrs he carried over the Alps and through faith in them he worked wonders; woods were cleared, marshes dried, cities built, victories won over the most dangerous enemies. Not only did the language of Rome sound forth from the altars of Saxony: it became at the same time the language of affairs in the emperor's chancery, and in it the commands of the all-powerful Augustus were issued to the whole world. Thus did Otto, although through and through a Saxon warrior of the old stamp, live wholly at the same time in those Roman ideas against which, in times gone by, his forefathers had struggled. The mightiest contradictions which have affected the course of the world's history met together in his personality in full force, and reconciled themselves there just as they did in the great onward course of events. … In all the movements of the time Otto took part with force and with success; the imperial title was now no empty name as it had been in the last years of the Carolingian period. But not through laws, not through an artificial state system, not through a great army of officials did Otto rule Western Europe, but more than all through the wealth of military resources which his victories had placed in his hands. Through the great army of his German vassals who were well versed in war he overthrew the Slavonians, kept the Danes in check, compelled the Hungarians to relinquish their nomadic life of plunder and to seek settled dwelling places in the plains of the Danube; so that now the gates of the East through which up till then masses of peoples threatening everything with destruction had always anew broken in upon the West were closed forever. The fame of his victories and his feudal supremacy, extending itself further and further, made him also protector of the Burgundian and French kingdoms, and finally lord of Lombardy and of the City of Rome. With the military resources of Germany he holds in subjection the surrounding peoples; but through the power thus won, on the other hand, he himself gains a proud ascendancy over the multitude of his own vassals. Only for the reason that he wins for himself a truly royal position in Germany is he enabled to gain the imperial crown; but this again it is which first really secures and confirms his own and his family's rule in the German lands. On this rests chiefly his preeminent position, that he is the first and mightiest lord of Western Christendom, that as such he is able at any moment to bring together a numerous military force with which no people, no prince can any longer cope. But not on this alone. For the Catholic clergy also, spreading far and wide over the whole west, serves him as it were like a new crowd of vassals in stole and cassock. He nominates the archbishops and bishops in his German and Italian kingdoms as well as in the newly converted lands of the North and East; he rules the successor of St. Peter and through him exercises a decisive influence on church progress even in the western lands where he does not himself install the dignitaries of the church. Different as this German empire was from the Frankish, faulty as was its organization, its resources seemed nevertheless sufficient in the hand of a competent ruler to maintain a far-reaching and effectual rule in the West; the more so as it was upheld by public opinion and supported by the authority of the church. But one must not be led into error; these resources were only sufficient in the hands of a so powerful and active prince as Otto. From the Elbe marshes he hastened to the Abruzzian Mountains; from the banks of the Rhine now to the shores of the Adriatic, now to the sand-dunes of the Baltic. Ceaselessly is he in motion, continually under arms—first against the Wends and Hungarians, then against the Greeks and Lombards. No county in his wide realm, no bishopric in Catholic Christendom but what he fixed his eye upon and vigilantly watched. And wherever he may tarry and whatever he may undertake his every act is full of fire, force and vigor and always hits the mark. With such a representative the empire is not only the highest power in the Western world but one which on all its affairs has a deep and active influence—a power as much venerated as it was dreaded."

W. von Giesebrecht, Deutsche Kaiserzeit (translated from the German). volume 1, pages 476-484.

"He (Otto) now permanently united the Roman empire to the German nation and this powerful and intelligent people undertook the illustrious but thankless task of being the Atlas of universal history. And soon enough did the connection of Germany with Italy result in the reform of the church and the revival of the various sciences, while in Italy itself it was essentially the Germanic element which brought into being the glorious civic republics. Through a historical necessity, doubtless, Germany and Italy, the purest representatives of the antique and the Teutonic types and the fairest provinces in the kingdom of human thought, were brought into this long-lasting connection. From this point of view posterity has no right to complain that the Roman empire was laid like a visitation of Fate on our Fatherland and compelled it for centuries to pour out its life-blood in Italy in order to construct those foundations of general European culture for which modern humanity has essentially Germany to thank."

Gregorovius, Geschichte der Stadt Rom (translated from the German), volume 3, page 334.

"At the election of Rudolph [1272 or 1273?] we meet for the first time the fully developed college of electors as a single electoral body; the secondary matter of a doubt regarding what individuals composed it was definitely settled before Rudolph's reign had come to an end. How did the college of electors develop itself? … The problem is made more difficult at the outset from the fact that, in the older form of government in Germany there can be no question at all of a simple electoral right in a modern sense. The electoral right was amalgamated with a hereditary right of that family which had happened to come to the throne: it was only a right of selection from among the heirs available within this family. Inasmuch now as such selection could,—as well from the whole character of German kingship as in consequence of its amalgamation with the empire—take place already during the lifetime of the ruling member of the family, it is easy to understand that in ages in which the ruling race did not die out during many generations, the right came to be at last almost a mere form. Usually the king, with the consent of those who had the right of election, would, already during his lifetime, designate as his successor one of his heirs,—if possible his oldest son. Such was the rule in the time of the Ottos and of the Salian emperors. It was a rule which could not be adhered to in the first half of the 12th century after the extinction of the Salian line, when free elections, not determined beforehand by designation, took place in the years 1125, 1138 and 1152. Necessarily the clement of election now predominated. But had any fixed order of procedure at elections been handed down from the past? The very principle of election having been disregarded in the natural course of events for centuries, was it any wonder that the order of procedure should also come to be half forgotten? And had not in the meantime social readjustments in the electoral body so disturbed this order of procedure, or such part of it as had been important enough to be preserved, as necessarily to make it seem entirely antiquated? With these questions the electoral assemblies of the year 1125 as well as of the year 1138 were brought face to face and they found that practically only those precedents could be taken from what seemed to have been the former customary mode of elections which provided that the archbishop of Mainz as chancellor of the empire should first solemnly announce the name of the person elected and the electors present should do homage to the new king. This was at the end of the whole election, after the choice had to all intents and purposes been already made. For the material part of the election, on the other hand, the part that preceded this announcement, they found an apparently new expedient. A committee was to draw up an agreement as to the person to be chosen; in the two cases in question the manner of constituting this committee differed. Something essential had now been done towards establishing a mode of procedure at elections which should accord with the changed circumstances. One case however had not been provided for in these still so informal and uncertain regulations; the case, namely, that those taking part in the election could come to no agreement at all with regard to the person whose choice was to be solemnly announced by the archbishop of Mainz. And how could men have foreseen such a case in the first half of the 12th century? Up till then double elections had absolutely never taken place. Anti-kings there had been, indeed, but never two opposing kings elected at the same time. In the year 1198, however, this contingency arose; Philip of Suabia and Otto IV were contemporaneously elected and the final unanimity of choice that in 1152 had still been counted on as a matter of course did not come about. As a consequence questions with regard to the order of procedure now came up which had hardly ever been touched upon before. First and foremost this one: can a better right of one of the elected kings be founded on a majority of the votes obtained? And in connection with it this other: who on the whole has a right to cast an electoral vote? Even though men were inclined now to answer the first question in the affirmative, the second, the presupposition for the practical application of the principle that had been laid down in the first, offered all the greater difficulties. Should one, after the elections of the years 1125 and 1152 and after the development since 1180 of a more circumscribed class of princes of the realm, accept the existence of a narrower electoral committee? Did this have a right to elect exclusively, or did it only have a simple right of priority in the matter of casting votes, or perhaps only a certain precedence when the election was being discussed? And how were the limits to be fixed for the larger circle of electors below this electoral committee? These are questions which the German electors put to themselves less soon and less clearly than did the pope, Innocent III, whom they had called upon to investigate the double election of the year 1198. … He speaks repeatedly of a narrower electoral body with which rests chiefly the election of the king, and he knows only princes as the members of this body. And beyond a doubt the repeated expressions of opinion of the pope, as well as this whole matter of having two kings, at the beginning of the 13th century, gave men in Germany cause for reflection with regard to these weighty questions concerning the constitutional forms of the empire. One of the most important results of this reflection on the subject is to be found in the solution given by the Sachsenspiegel which was compiled about 1230. Eike von Repgow knows in his law-book only of a precedence at elections of a smaller committee of princes, but mentions as belonging to this committee certain particular princes: the three Rhenish archbishops, the count Palatine of the Rhine, the duke of Saxony, the margrave of Brandenburg and,—his right being questionable indeed—the king of Bohemia. … So far, at all events, did the question with regard to the limitation of the electors seem to have advanced towards its solution by the year 1230 that an especial electoral college of particular persons was looked upon as the nucleus of those electing. But side by side with this view the old theory still held its own, that certainly all princes at least had an equal right in the election. Under Emperor Frederick II, for instance, it was still energetically upheld. A decision one way or the other could only be reached according to the way in which the next elections should actually be carried out. Henry Raspe was elected in the year 1246 almost exclusively by ecclesiastical princes, among them the three Rhenish archbishops. He was the first 'priest-king' (Pfaffenkönig). The second 'priest-king' was William of Holland. He was chosen by eleven princes, among whom was only one layman, the duke of Brabant. The others were bishops; among them, in full force, the archbishops of the Rhine. {3761} Present were also many counts. But William caused himself still to be subsequently elected by the duke of Saxony and the margrave of Brandenburg, while the king of Bohemia was also not behindhand in acknowledging him—that, too, with special emphasis. What transpired at the double election of Alphonse and Richard in the year 1257 has not been handed down with perfect trustworthiness. Richard claimed later to have been elected by Mainz, Cologne, the Palatinate and Bohemia; Alphonse by Treves, Saxony, Brandenburg and Bohemia. But in addition to the princes of these lands, other German princes also took part,—according to the popular view by assenting, according to their own view, in part at least, by actually electing. All the same the lesson taught by all these elections is clear enough. The general right of election of the princes disappears almost altogether; a definite electoral college, which was looked upon as possessing almost exclusively the sole right of electing, comes into prominence, and the component parts which made it up correspond in substance to the theory of the Sachsenspiegel. And whatever in the year 1257 is not established firmly and completely and in all directions, stands there as incontrovertible at the election of Rudolph. The electors, and they only, now elect; all share of others in the election is done away with. Although in place of Ottocar of Bohemia who was at war with Rudolph Bavaria seems to have been given the electoral vote, yet before Rudolph's reign is out, in the year 1290, Bohemia at last attains to the dignity which the Sachsenspiegel, even if with some hesitation, had assigned to it. One of the most important revolutions in the German form of government was herewith accomplished. From among the aristocratic class of the princes an oligarchy had raised itself up, a representation of the princely provincial powers as opposed to the king. Unconsciously, as it were, had it come into being, not exactly desired by anyone as a whole, nor yet the result of a fixed purpose even as regarded its separate parts. It must clearly have corresponded to a deep and elementary and gradually developing need of the time. Undoubtedly from a national point of view it denotes progress; henceforward at elections the danger of 'many heads many minds' was avoided; the era of double elections was practically at an end."

K. Lamprecht, Deutsche Geschichte (translated from the German), volume 4, pages 23-28.

"The whole difference between French and German constitutional history can be summed up in a word: to the ducal power, after its fall, the crown fell heir in France; the lesser powers, which had been its own allies, in Germany. The event was the same, the results were different: in France centralization, in Germany disintegration. The fall of the power of the stem-duchies is usually traced to the subjugation of the mightiest of the dukes, Henry the Lion, who refused military service to the Emperor Frederick Barbarossa just when the latter most needed him in the struggle against the Lombards.

… The emperor not only banned the duke, he not only took away his duchy to bestow it elsewhere, but he entirely did away with this whole form of rule. The western part, Westphalia, went to the archbishops of Cologne; in the East the different margraves were completely freed from the last remnants of dependence that might have continued to exist. In the intervening space the little ecclesiastical and secular lords came to be directly under the emperor without a trace of an intermediate power and with the title of bishop or abbot, imperial count, or prince. If one of these lords, Bernard of Ascanium, received the title of Saxon duke, that title no longer betokened the head of a stem or nation but simply an honorary distinction above other counts and lords. What happened here had already begun to take place in the other duchy of the Guelphs, in Bavaria, through the detachment from it of Austria; sooner or later the same process came about in all parts of the empire. With the fall of the old stem-duchies those lesser powers which had been under their shadow or subject to them gained every where an increase of power: partly by this acquiring the ducal title as an honorary distinction by the ruler of a smaller district, partly by joining rights of the intermediate powers that had just been removed to their own jurisdictions and thus coming into direct dependence on the empire. … Such was the origin of the idea of territorial supremacy. The 'dominus terrae' comes to feel himself no longer as a person commissioned by the emperor but as lord in his own land. … As to the cities, behind their walls remnants of old Germanic liberty had been preserved. Especially in the residences of the bishops had artisans and merchants thriven and these classes had gradually thrown off their bondage, forming, both together, the new civic community. … The burghers could find no better way to show their independence of the princes than that the community itself should exercise the rights of a territorial lord over its members. Thus did the cities as well as the principalities come to form separate territories, only that the latter had a monarchical, the former a republican form of government. … It is a natural question to ask, on the whole, when this new formation of territories was completed. … The question ought really only to be put in a general way: at what period in German history is it an established fact that there are in the empire and under the empire separate territorial powers (principalities and cities)? As such a period we can designate approximately the end of the 12th and beginning of the 13th centuries. From that time on the double nature of imperial power and of territorial power is an established fact and the mutual relations of these two make up the whole internal history of later times. … The last ruler who had spread abroad the glory of the imperial name had been Frederick II. For a long time after him no one had worn the imperial crown at all, and of those kings who reigned during a whole quarter of a century not one succeeded in making himself generally recognized. There came a time when the duties of the state, if they were fulfilled at all, were fulfilled by the territorial powers. {3762} Those are the years which pass by the name of the interregnum. … Rudolph of Hapsburgh and his successors, chosen from the most different houses and pursuing the most different policies, have quite the same position in two regards: on the one hand the crown, in the weak state in which it had emerged from the interregnum, saw itself compelled to make permanent concessions to the territorial powers in order to maintain itself from one moment to another; on the other hand it finds no refuge for itself but in the constant striving to found its own power on just such privileged territories. When the kings strive to make the princes and cities more powerful by giving them numerous privileges, and at the same time by bringing together a dynastic appanage to gain for themselves an influential position: this is no policy that wavers between conceding and maintaining. … The crown can only keep its place above the territories by first recognizing the territorial powers and then, through just such a recognized territorial power by creating for itself the means of upholding its rights. … The next great step in the onward progress of the territorial power was the codification of the privileges which the chief princes had obtained. Of the law called the 'Golden Bull' only the one provision is generally known, that the seven electors shall choose the emperor; yet so completely does the document in question draw the affairs of the whole empire into the range of its provisions that for centuries it could pass for that empire's fundamental law. It is true that, for the most part it did not create a new system of legislation but only sanctioned what already existed. But for the position of all the princes it was significant enough that the seven most considerable among them were granted an independence which comprised sovereign rights, and this not by way of a privilege but as a part of the law of the land. A sharply defined goal, and herein lies the deepest significance, was thus set up at which the lesser territories could aim and which, after three centuries, they were to attain. … This movement was greatly furthered when on the threshold of modern times the burning question of church reform, after waiting in vain to be taken up by the emperor, was taken up by the lower classes, but with revolutionary excesses. … The mightiest intellectual movement of German history found at last its only political mainstay in the territories. … This whole development, finally, found its political and legal completion through the Thirty Years War and the treaty of peace which concluded it. The new law which the Peace of Westphalia now gave to the empire proclaimed expressly that all territories should retain their rights, especially the right of making alliances among themselves and with foreigners so long as it could be done without violating the oath of allegiance to the emperor and the empire. Herewith the territories were proclaimed to be what they had really been for a long time—states under the empire."

      I. Jastrow,
      Geschichte der deutschen Einheitstraum und seiner Erfüllung
      (translated from the German).
      pages 30-37.

"Under cities we are to understand fortified places in the enjoyment of market-jurisdiction (marktrecht), immunity and corporate self-government. The German as well as the French cities are a creation of the Middle Ages. They were unknown to the Frankish as well as to the old Germanic public law; there was no organic connection with the Roman town-system. … All cities were in the first place markets; only in market-jurisdiction are we to seek the starting point for civic jurisdiction. The market-cross, the same emblem which already in the Frankish period signified the market-peace imposed under penalty of the king's ban, became in the Middle Ages the emblem of the cities. … After the 12th century we find it to be the custom in most German and many French cities to erect a monumental town-cross in the market-place or at different points on the city boundary. Since the 14th century the place of this was often taken in North-German cities by the so-called Roland-images. … All those market-places gradually became cities in which, in addition to yearly markets, weekly markets and finally daily markets were held. Here there was need of coins and of scales, of permanent fortifications for the protection of the market-peace and the objects of value which were collected together; here merchants settled permanently in growing numbers, the Jews among them especially forming an important element. Corporative associations of the merchants resulted, and especially were civic and market tribunals established. … From the beginning such a thing as free cities, which were entirely their own masters, had not existed. Each city had its lord; who he was depended on to whom the land belonged on which they stood. If it belonged to the empire or was under the administration (vogtei) of the empire the city was a royal or imperial one. The oldest of these were the Pfalz-cities (Pfalzstädte) which had developed from the king's places of residence (Königspfälze). … Beginning with the 12th century and in course of the 13th century all cities came to have such an organ [i. e. a body of representatives] called the Stadtrath (consilium, consules) with one or more burgomasters (magistri civium) at their head. Herewith did the city first become a public corporation, a city in the legal sense. … Of the royal cities many since the time of Frederick II had lost their direct dependence on the empire (Reichsunmittelbarkeit) and had become territorial or provincial cities, through having been sold or pledged by the imperial government. As soon as the view had gained ground that the king had no right to make such dispositions and thus to disregard the privileges that had been granted to the cities, people spoke no longer of royal cities but of cities of the empire. These had, all of them, in course of time, even where the chief jurisdiction remained in the hand of an imperial official, attained a degree of independence approximating to the territorial supremacy of the princes. They had their special courts as corporations before the king. Since the second half of the 13th century they rejoiced in an autonomy modified only by the laws of the realm; they had the disposal of their own armed contingents and the sole right of placing garrisons in their fortresses. They had accordingly also the right of making leagues and carrying on feuds, the right to lordless lands (Heimfallsrecht) … and other prerogatives. The cities of the empire often ruled at the same time over extensive territories. … {3763} Among the cities of the empire were comprised after the 14th century also various cities of bishoprics which had been able to protect themselves from subjection to the territorial power of the bishop, and which only stood to it in a more or less loose degree of subordination. … For the majority of the cities of bishoprics which later became cities of the empire the denomination 'Free Cities' came up in the 14th century (not till later 'Free Cities of the Empire'). … Among the leagues of cities, which especially contributed to raise their prestige and paved the way to their becoming Estates of the Empire or of the principalities, the great Rhenish civic confederation (1254-1256) lasted too short a time to have an enduring effect. The Swabian civic league was for purely political purposes—the maintenance of the direct dependence on the empire (Reichsunmittelbarkeit) against the claims of territorial sovereignty of the princes, and its unfortunate ending served rather to deteriorate than to improve the condition of the cities. It was different with the Hansa. This name, which signified nothing else than gild or brotherhood, was first applied to the gild of the German merchants in the 'stahlhof' in London. This gild, having originated from the amalgamation of various national Houses of German merchants in England, had finally, under the name of 'Hansa of Germany' or 'Gildhall of the Germans in England,' come to comprise all Germans who carried on trade with England. Similar associations of the German merchants were the 'German House' in Venice, the 'German Counting-house' in Bruges and the German Hansas in Wisby on Gotland, in Schonen, Bergen, Riga and Novgorod. The chief purpose of these Hansas was the procuring of a 'House' as a shelter for persons and for wares, the maintaining of peace among, the Hansa brothers, legal protection, the acquisition of commercial privileges, etc. The Hansas were gilds with several elected aldermen at their heads who represented them in external matters and who administered the property. … Quarrels among the brothers might not, under penalty, be brought before external tribunals; they were to be brought before the Hansa committee as a gild-tribunal. This committee had also an extended penal jurisdiction over the members; under certain circumstances they had even the power of life and death in their hands. An especially effective punishment was the Hansa Bann, which occasioned, besides expulsion from the Hansa, a complete boycott on the part of the Hansa brothers. … The community of interests thus founded among these cities led repeatedly, already as early as the second half of the 13th century, to common steps on their part; so that in Hansa affairs a tacit league existed, even although it had not been expressly sanctioned. After this had become more clearly apparent in the troubles with Flanders (1356-1358) the name Hansa was also applied to this league-relationship, so that henceforward besides the Hansa of the German merchants there existed a Hansa of the German cities. The Hanseatic League received a firm organization through the Greifswald and Cologne confederations of 1361 and 1367, both of which were at first only entered into for a single warlike undertaking (against Waldemar of Denmark), but which were then repeatedly renewed and finally looked upon as a permanent league. The Hanseatic League … came forward in external matters, even in international relationships, as an independent legal entity. It carried on war and entered into treaties with foreign nations; it had a league army at its disposal and a league fleet; it acquired whole territorial districts and saw to the building of fortresses. In itself it was not a defensive and offensive league; it did not concern itself with the feuds of single cities with outsiders. The sphere of activity of the league was essentially confined to the province of commerce: protection of commerce, … the closing of commercial treaties, etc. … The head of the League was and continued to be Lubeck. Its kernel, as it were, was formed by the Wendish (i. e. Mecklenburg and Pomeranian) cities which were united under Lubeck. Originally any city of Lower Germany which asked to be taken in was received into the League. … Hansa cities which did not fulfil their federal obligations came under the penalty of the Hansa bann and the general commercial ostracism consequent upon it. … The federal power was exercised by civic diets, which were assemblies of delegates from the members of the council [Rath] of the individual cities. The summons was sent by Lubeck. The decrees were passed in the form of 'recesses.' … Within the League again were narrower leagues with their own common affairs and their own civic diets. After numerous changes the four 'quarters' were recognized as such: the Wendish under Lubeck as its head, the Saxon under Brunswick, the Cologne under Cologne, the Prussian-Livonian under Danzig.

R. Schröder, Lehrbuch der deutschen Rechtsgeschichte (translated from the German), pages 588-609.

"The complete ruin of the empire in the course of the 15th century necessarily entailed at last the ruin also of its members. Nowhere did this elementary truth make itself felt in a more terrible manner than in northeastern Germany, in those colonial districts which in consequence of the extraordinary development of the Hansa had risen in importance to the extent of having an influence on the whole east and northeast of Europe. Here the year 1370 had denoted for the Hansa a climax without a parallel. After a glorious war it had closed with the Danish king, Waldemar Atterdag, a peace which seemed about to keep the northern kingdoms, for a long time to come, under the power of its will. But, soon after, the Lubeck-Hanseatic policy began to degenerate. … The Hansa had looked on without interfering at the struggle which began between the Teutonic Order and Poland. This freed it from the threatening maritime supremacy of the Order; besides this it had just become involved, itself, in conflicts in the North. … A long and tedious war ensued … which ended to the disadvantage of the Hansa. … Within the Hansa, during the struggle, the divergency of interests between the Wendish, Prussian and Livonian cities had for the first time become so pronounced as to amount to complete disunion, and already in 1431 in Hanseatic circles the fear could be expressed … 'that the noble confederation of our Hansa will be dissolved and destroyed.' Such being the case it soon became evident that the struggle with King Erich had actually cost the Hansa the 'Dominium maris Baltici.' {3764} For one thing the English and the Dutch, more and more unopposed, began to carry on in the East a commerce which was hostile to the Hansa. … While the Western enemies of the Hansa thus appeared in districts on the Baltic, which had hitherto been reserved for the Hanseatic merchant, the influence on the North Sea of the Baltic Hansa cities diminished also more and more. It was possible indeed, for some time to come, still to hold on to Norway. But further to the southwest the Hansa ships, in the war which England in union with Burgundy had been waging with France since the year 1415, saw themselves attacked on all sides in spite of the neutral flag. It was well-known that the empire would not protect the German flag. It was worse still that in England a more and more violent opposition arose against the Hanseatic privileges, for the progress of this movement laid bare once and for all the fundamental contrast between the commercial interests in England of the Rhenish Hansa cities and those of the 'Osterlings' [Eastern cities]. If the English were prepared perhaps to further extend the rights of the Hansa in their land in return for the simultaneous free entry of their flag in the Baltic, that was a condition which pleased the German western cities as much as it seemed unacceptable to the Osterlings, Lubeck at their head. The English had succeeded in carrying discord into the enemy's camp. Affairs in Flanders were on a footing equally dangerous to the continued existence of the Hansa as a whole. … Lubeck, in a diet of the year 1466, recommended the members of the Hansa to consider the merchants of Cologne as not belonging to the Hansa when in the lands of the Duke of Burgundy. A complete breach could not now fail to come. It occurred, very unfortunately for Cologne and the western cities, on English territory. In 1468 English ships were plundered in the 'Sund,' at the bidding, as was claimed, of the Hansa. The result was that King Edward IV took prisoner all German merchants who happened to be in England and forbade commercial intercourse with Germany. From this restriction, however, the Cologners were able to free themselves through separate negotiations with the king. It was an inconsiderate step thus to separate themselves from the rest of the Hansa, and that, too, in such a question as this. Cologne stood there fully isolated now even from the western cities. Lubeck at once profited by the occasion to have Cologne placed under the Hansa bann and soon after the Hansa, almost entirely united now except for Cologne, began the war against England. In the year 1472 a great fleet sailed out against the island-kingdom; it had complete success. The peace of Utrecht of February 18th 1474 restored once more the old Hanseatic privileges in England and opened up the prospect of damages amounting to £10,000. Cologne had to submit; in 1478 it returned to the Hansa. But all the same there was no complete restoration of the old unity. The mercantile differences between the west and the east cities not only continued but increased, and a dominion over the Baltic, not to mention the North Sea, was, in spite of the momentary success in England, no longer to be thought of. … After about 1490 the interests also of the Wendish cities including, say, Bremen, Hamburg and Lüneburg, became divided. … Thus towards the end of the 15th century the Hansa bore the stamp of decline in all directions, … the political-mercantile preponderance on land, as well as the 'Dominium maris Baltici,' was broken and the league itself was torn by internal dissensions. In the years from 1476 to 1494 only one common Hansa diet was held; complete ruin was now only a question of time. The 16th century and a part still of the 17th century comprise the period of the slow wasting away of the Hansa. While at the beginning of this period the South German merchant-princes developed a German world-commerce, the satiated mercantile houses of the North showed themselves incapable of progressing even on purely commercial paths. They remained in the ruts of old-fashioned commerce." In England "less and less regard was paid to the warnings and plaints of this antiquated piece of retrogression, until Queen Elisabeth made use of the incautious promulgation of an imperial edict forbidding English merchants to settle in the Hansa cities to simply abrogate the Hanseatic privileges in England. It was the key-stone on the tomb of the Hanseatic relations with England, once so close and full of import."

K. Lamprecht, Deutsche Geschichte (translated from the German), volume 4, pages 468-484.

"The unmerciful fate which had overtaken the German nation [the 30 years war], like a storm wind descending upon the land, gave also the death-blow to that proud communal system which when in its prime showed better than any other institution the greatness of the German power in the Middle Ages. He who does not know the history of the Hansa does not know how to estimate the true significance of our people. He does not know that no goal was too distant for it, no task too great; that at the same time it could belong to the first commercial nations of the world and intellectually absorb and work over the idea of humanism, could offer defiance to the kings of the Danes and challenge the pope for usurping the rule of the world. How did things still look on the Thames when in Dantzig, day after day, four or five hundred ships were running in and out, when the merchants of Soest, Dortmund and Osnabrück were opening their counting-houses in the Warangian city of Novgorod? It is in truth nothing new if the German nation today again begins to reckon itself among the naval powers. … In those days it was also the baneful religious schism which hindered the great commercial centres on the German northern coast from making use of the favoring constellations which presented themselves. The evangelical burghers of Lubeck and Rostock could not make up their minds for the sake of advantageous trade connections with Spain to become bailiffs of their brothers of the faith in Holland; they could put no trust in the brilliant promises with which the emperor's Jesuits tried to turn them away from the cause of Denmark and Sweden, and herewith probably the last opportunity was missed of breathing new life in the already aging commercial league. The attempt made in 1641 to renew the league by ten cities remained ineffectual. Lubeck which already in 1629 had lost 96 ships could no longer keep itself from ruin; its great commercial houses became bankrupt and drew down the smaller ones with them in their fall; Dantzig, which still in 1619 had been able to show an export of grain to the amount of 102,981 tons, exported in 1655 only 11,361, and in 1659 not more than 542 tons."

Zwideneck-Sü-denhorst, Deutsche Geschichte, 1648-1740 (translated from the German), volume 1, page 50.

"An increase in pilgrimages first begins to mark a new phase of religious life which was encouraged by the admonitions of preachers of repentance like Capistrano. Like an avalanche did the numbers grow of the pilgrims who streamed together from all parts of Upper and Central Germany, from the foot of the Alps to the Harz Mountains. Thirty, even seventy thousand might have been counted of those who assembled at Niklashausen to hear the words of the prophet (Boeheim) who was already reverenced as a saint. … This 'saint' was burned with an Ave Maria upon his lips. … It might have been supposed that the sad outcome of these movements would have frightened men away, but no; one can boldly maintain on the contrary that never, save during the crusades, were so many pilgrimages made as in the last 60 or 70 years before the reformation. … If that way of striving after righteousness before God, vain and mistaken as it seems to us, may be looked upon as religion, then the last fifty or sixty years before the reformation show an exceptionally high degree of religious feeling, or at least of religions need; a feeling ever increasing through lack of means to satisfy it. With regard to the clergy, indeed, things looked dark enough, especially in North and Central Germany. One does not know which was greater, their lack of knowledge or their lack of morality. … The most incredible facts were brought to light by the later visitations. … The result might have been a complete return to heathenism had such a clergy, which could show, especially in the larger South German cities, but few redeeming exceptions, had the whole spiritual guidance of the people in its hands. But it did not; and the doings of the secular clergy by no means affected the religious life of the community as they would have done to-day. The exponents and fosterers of this religious life at that time in Germany were the mendicant friars: Franciscans, Dominicans, Augustinian friars. … Many things in the outer world, especially at the end of the century, came to aid the church's efforts: the needs of an age in which so much was unstable; the anger of Heaven which, as the monks so drastically preached and the multitude piously believed, so evidently threatened to vent itself. That period of history, indeed, might be called a prosperous one by anyone regarding merely superficially the condition of social and political affairs. It is well known how German commerce prospered at that time, extending to all parts of the world and ever having new paths opened up for it by the new discoveries. Frenchmen and Italians, astounded at the riches and princely splendor which the commercial magnates in the South German trade-centres were able to display, sang the praises of the prosperity and culture of the land. Industry and commerce were on the increase and art, realizing its highest aims, found an abiding-place and self-sacrificing patrons in the houses of the citizens. With every year the number of high and low-grade schools on the Rhine and in South Germany increased in number, and were still scarcely able to do justice to the pressing educational needs. An undercurrent of fresh and joyous creative impulse, full of promise for the future, can be traced among the burghers. But if one regards the age as a whole one sees everywhere not only a threatening, but actually a present decline. The abundant popular literature, more even than the writings of scholars, gives a clear insight into these matters. … Since the days of antiquity, on the eve of the French Revolution alone do we find the opposing principles so sharply contrasted with each other as they were at the end of the Middle Ages. In the rich commercial cities themselves there was already an immense proletariat as opposed to the excessive wealth; and there is reason to believe that never, even counting the present day, have there been so many beggars as in those decades. It must be borne in mind that, both practically and theoretically, beggary was furthered by the church. Much from her rich table fell into the lap of the poor man, and actually not only was it no shame to beg but beggary was a vocation like any other. The man who ate the bread of beggary stood morally higher than he who toiled to gain a living. … Men did, on the other hand, have the consciousness that the great accumulation of capital in the hands of individuals furthered poverty as it always does. The complaints are general against 'selfishness'; the pauper, the town artisan, the noble and the scholar are remarkably in accord on this one point, that deception, usury and cheating are the only explanation of the prosperity of the merchant. When the knight attacked the goods-waggons of the traders he believed that he was only taking what rightfully belonged to himself. The merchants and the rich prelates were responsible to his mind for the deterioration of his own class or estate which can no longer hold its own against the rich civilians. All the more does he oppress his own serfs. Only seldom among the higher classes do we hear a word of pity for the poor man, a word of blame against the fleecing and harrassing of the peasants; much oftener bitter scorn and mockery, which nevertheless is founded on fear; for men know well enough in their inmost souls that the peasant is only waiting for a suitable moment in which to strike out and take bloody vengeance, and anxiously do they await the future. Even among the citizens themselves those who were without possessions were filled with hatred against the rich and against those of high degree. The introduction of Roman law, unintelligible to the burgher and peasant, made the feeling of being without law a common one. The more firmly did men pin their faith on that future in which the Last Judgment of God was to come and annihilate priests and lords. Such impressions, which were kept vivid by an ever spreading popular literature, by word of mouth and by pictorial representations, could only be heightened by the state of political affairs in the last decades of the 15th century and the first years of the 16th. Well known are the many struggles for the firmer organization of the empire, for the carrying through of the reform-plans of a Berthold of Mainz. The publicists of the time, and to no small degree the Emperor Maximilian himself, who, if he wanted to carry through any measure addressed himself directly to the people, cast broadside among the populace numerous pamphlets containing the most unintelligible ideas and promises. {3766} And what a host of plans and ideas did this much loved, knightly emperor not have! How beautifully could he talk of old German might and glory and draw pictures of a rosy future. With intense interest did men follow the transactions of the diets which promised to better affairs. One plan of taxation followed on the heels of another. What project was left undiscussed for the better carrying out of the Peace of the Land! In the end everything remained as it had been save the want and general discomfort which increased from year to year. Bad harvests and consequent rise in prices, famine, severe sicknesses and plagues are once more the stock chapters in the chronicles. Frightful indeed were the ravages caused by the first, almost epidemic, appearance of the Syphilis; with regard to which, during the whole period of the reformation, the moral judgment wavered. … It is a wondrous, gloomy time, torn by contradictions, a time in which all is in a ferment, everything seems to totter. Everything but one institution, the firmly welded edifice of the Roman church. To Germany also came the news of the horrible vices with which the popes just at this time disgraced the Holy See: people knew that no deed was too black for them when it was a question of satisfying their greed of power and their lust. But nevertheless they remained the successors of Peter and the representatives of Christ, and so little can one speak of a process of dissolution in the church, that the latter appears on the contrary the only stable power and the religious-ecclesiastical idea is rather the one that rules all things. Although men to a great extent scorn and mock her servants and long often with burning hatred for their annihilation, yet it continues always to be the church that holds the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven and that can avert the wrath of God; the church, to which the anxious soul turns as the last anchor of hope and tries to outdo itself in her service. It is not indeed pious reverence for a God who is holy and yet gracious that draws the sinners to their knees, but the dread of the tortures of purgatory and of the wrath of Him who sits above the world to judge it. This causes the soul, restless, dissatisfied, to be ceaseless in its endeavors to conciliate the Angry One through sacrificial service—the whole religious activity being one half-despairing 'Miserere' called forth by fear. Such was the spirit of the age in which Martin Luther was born and in which he passed his youth."

"Altogether about the year 1570 the spread of protestantism in Germany and the lands under its influence had reached its zenith. It had been accepted by the great majority of the nation—already in 1558 about seven tenths; the gaining over of the rest also seemed only a question of the near future. Yet beyond a doubt its lasting success was only legally assured in places where it had won over the governing power and could stand on the generally recognized basis of the religious peace. This was the case in the secular principalities of the protestant dynasties, but not in the Wittelsbach and Hapsburgh lands, where its lawful existence depended only on the personal concessions of the existing ruler, and still less in the ecclesiastical territories. … To give it here the secure legal basis which it lacked was the most important problem, as regarded internal German affairs, of the protestant policy. … The only way to attain this was to secure the recognition on the part of the empire of the free right of choosing a confession in the bishoprics; in other words the renunciation of the 'Ecclesiastical reservation.' … This goal could only be attained if the protestants advanced in a solid phalanx. This is, however, just what they could not do. For they themselves were torn by bitter contentions with regard to the faith. … From this point of view it was no boon that Calvinism, the specifically French form of protestantism, found entrance also into Germany. … Under its influence, to begin with, the Saxon-Thuringian church became divided in its interpretation of the teachings concerning justification and the Lord's Supper. … The complications were still further increased when Frederick III of the Palatinate, elector since 1559, disgusted at the quarrelsomeness of the Lutheran theologians, dismissed the zealot Tilemann in August 1560, and in 1563 gave over the recognized church of the Palatinate to Calvinism. Herewith he completely estranged the Lutherans who did not regard the Calvinists as holding the same faith. … Germany could no longer count itself among the great powers and at home the discord was ever increasing. The motion of the Palatinate in the electoral diet of October 1575 to incorporate in the religious peace the so-called 'Declaration of King Ferdinand' with regard to it, and thus to secure the local option with regard to a creed in the bishoprics, was opposed not only by the ecclesiastical members of the electoral college but also by the electorate of Saxony. In consequence of the same party strife a similar motion of the Palatinate, made in the diet of Regensburg, was lost. … On the one hand hostilities grew more bitter among the German protestants, on the other the Roman church, supported by the power of the Spanish world-monarchy, advanced everywhere, within and without the German empire, to a well-planned attack. … She had won her first victory in the empire with the refusal in 1576 to grant the local option of creed, for this was almost equivalent to a recognition on the protestant side of the 'Ecclesiastical Reservation.' The more eagerly did Rome, by demanding the oath drawn up in the council of Trent, strive to chain fast her bishops to her, to remove those who made opposition even if it had to happen by disregarding the law of the land and the religious treaties, to bring zealous catholic men into the episcopal sees—everywhere to set the reaction in motion. The manner of proceeding was always the same: the protestant pastors and teachers were banished; the catholic liturgy, in which the utmost splendor was unfolded, was reintroduced into the churches, and competent catholic clergy were put in office. The members of the community, left without a leader, had now only the choice allowed to them of joining the catholic church or of emigrating; the protestant officials were replaced by catholic ones; new institutions of learning, conducted by Jesuits, were founded for the purpose of winning the rising generation, inwardly also, for Catholicism. {3767} Beyond a doubt this whole work of restoration put an end in many cases to a confused and untenable state of affairs, but at least as often it crushed down by force a healthy, natural development and wrought havoc in the moral life of the people. Thus did the reaction gain the ascendancy in most of the ecclesiastical principalities of the South; in the North the scale still hung in the balance. … And in this condition of affairs the discord among the protestants grew worse year by year! 'Their war is our peace' was the exultant cry of the Catholics when they looked upon this schism. In order to preserve pure Lutheranism from any deviation, the electoral court of Saxony caused the 'Formula of Concord' to be drawn up by three prominent theologians in the monastery of Bergen near Madgeburg (20 May 1577), and compelled all pastors and teachers of the land to accept them under pain of dismissal from office. As this necessarily accentuated the differences with the Calvinists, John Casimir of the Palatinate endeavored, in the Convention of Frankfort on the Main in 1577, to unite the protestants of all denominations and all lands … in a common effort at defence; but his appeal and the embassy which he sent to the evangelical princes met with no very favorable reception. On the contrary in course of time 86 estates of the empire accepted the Formula of Concord which was now published in Dresden, together with the names of those who had signed it, on the 25th of June 1580, the 50th anniversary of handing in the Augsburg Confession. What a pass had matters come to since that great epoch! … At any rate the unity of the German protestants was completely at an end, and especially any joint action between Saxony and the Palatinate had been rendered impossible. … In 1582 the Roman party opened a well-planned campaign for the purpose of putting itself in full possession of the power in the empire. The emperor belonged as it was to their confession, so all depended on the manner in which the diet should be made up; and this again depended on who should be members of the college of princes: for in the college of electors the votes of the protestants and catholics were equal inasmuch as the Bohemian vote was 'dormant,' and of the imperial cities only a few were still catholic. In the electoral college, then, the protestants possessed the majority so long as the 'administrators' [of the bishoprics] maintained as hitherto their seat and their vote. In the first place the catholics succeeded in the diet of 1582 in persuading Magdeburg for the nonce to renounce in favor of Salzburg its presidency in the assembly of the princes; herewith, however, a precedent was given, not only for this ecclesiastical foundation but for all the evangelical administrators, that permitted of the most fateful conclusions being drawn to the disadvantage of the protestants. Scarcely had this happened when the Roman party gave a decisive turn to affairs on the Lower Rhine. Archbishop Gebhard of Cologne prepared to follow the example of his predecessor Hermann of Wied, chiefly induced, it must be said, by the wish to gain the hand of the fair countess Agnes of Mansfeld. Relying on the Cologne protestants and the Counts of the Wetterau and reckoning on help from the Netherlands he formally went over to the protestant church on the 19th of December 1582, proclaimed the local option of a creed for his diocese on the 16th of January 1583, and married the Countess Agnes a few weeks later in Bonn. While on the one hand, now, the diet of the duchy of Westphalia declared for him and the local option was here put through, the Cologne diet, on the other, called together by the cathedral chapter, declared against him, under pressure as it was from both Spain and Rome. Pope Gregory XIII deposed him … and on the 23rd of May the pupil of the Jesuits, Ernest of Bavaria, who already since 1566 had been bishop of Freisingen, since 1573 of Hildesheim, since 1581 also of Liege, was placed in the see of Cologne. The war began. On the one side Spanish and Bavarian troops marched into the land, on the other forces from the Netherlands and the Palatinate, led by John Casimir in person under the approval of Louis VI. … The fortunes of war soon turned completely against him [Gebhard], … he himself was beaten and compelled to flee to the Netherlands, and Westphalia was then conquered. This victory was decisive not only for Northern Germany, but for the fate of the bishoprics altogether—indeed for the whole form which the administration of the empire was to take. Had Gebhard held his own, the majority in the electoral college would have become protestant; the bishoprics in the northwest which had not yet taken a decisive stand, and probably others also, would have followed the example of Cologne and would never have allowed their seats in the assembly of princes to be taken from them; the Lower Rhenish-Westphalian provinces would then have been gained for protestantism. The opposite of all this now happened. In the first place Archbishop Ernest restored the Roman church by the most oppressive means in Westphalia; he called the Jesuits to Bonn, Neuss, Emmerich and Hildesheim. His election as bishop of Munster (May 1585) decided the victory in that bishopric also. … The Roman party succeeded now, actually, in driving the administrators from the diet. In order not to cause the violent dissolution of the diet which met in April 1594 for the purpose of granting a tax which was pressingly needed for the Turkish war, Magdeburg renounced once more Its presidency in the college of princes; and when, in December 1597, the diet was again called for the same purpose, the catholic estates, in spite of all protests to the contrary, regarded the matter as having been settled by the precedents of the last two diets. Herewith the administrators lost their seats in the diet, and in the college of princes the majority was in the hands of the catholics. Inasmuch also as the evangelical members of the college of electors did not hold together, the total majority of the diet was at the disposal of the catholics. … On the 27th of April 1608 the Palatinate, together with Brandenburg and nine lesser protestant estates, but without the electorate of Saxony [Luther's state!], declared to Duke Ferdinand of Styria, the emperor's representative, that they would leave the diet but would maintain the possession of the ecclesiastical estates by force if necessary. The schism with the church had already paralyzed the judicial system of the empire; it now paralyzed also its highest political corporation."

"King Frederick [the Great] has good reason for it when he says in his memoirs: 'Just as a river first becomes valuable when it gets to be navigable, so the history of Brandenburg first gains more serious importance towards the beginning of the 17th century.' It was under the elector John Sigismund that three decisive occurrences took place which opened up a great future for the Marks—a totally different development from the growth of the other lands of the empire. These were the joining to Brandenburg of the secularized provinces of the Teutonic Order, the going over of the ruling house itself to the reformed church, finally the acquisition of the Lower Rhenish border lands. Other princes of the empire also, catholics as well as protestants, had enlarged their power by means of the lands of the old church. But in the matter of the territory of the Order the policy of the German protestants ventured its boldest move; by Luther's advice the Hohenzollern Albrecht snatched away from the Roman church the largest of all its clerical belongings. The whole territory of the new duchy of Prussia was alienated ecclesiastical land; the pope's anathema and the emperor's ban fell on the head of the renegade prince. Never was the Roman See willing to recognize such robbery. In uniting the ducal crown of their Prussian cousins with their own electoral hat the Hohenzollerns of the Mark broke forever with the Roman church. Their state stood and fell henceforward with the fortunes of Protestantism. At the same time John Sigismund adopted the reformed creed. … At the same time of thus gaining a firm footing on the Baltic John Sigismund acquired the duchy of Cleve together with the counties of Mark and Ravensberg,—a territory narrow in circumference but highly important for the internal development as well as for the European policy of the state. They were lands which were strongholds of old and proven peasant and civic freedom, richer and of higher capacities for culture than the needy colonies of the East, outposts of incalculable value on Germany's weakest frontier. In Vienna and Madrid it was felt as a severe defeat that a new evangelical power should establish itself there on the Lower Rhine where Spaniards and Netherlanders were struggling for the existence or non-existence of protestantism—right before the gates of Cologne which was the citadel of Romanism in the empire. … A power so situated could no longer have its horizon bounded by the narrow circle of purely territorial policy; it was a necessity for it to seek to round off its widely scattered provinces into a consistent whole; it was compelled to act for the empire and to strike for it, for every attack of strangers on German ground cut into its own flesh. … For the House of Brandenburg, too, tempting calls often sounded from afar, … but a blessed providence, which earnest thinkers should not regard as a mere chance, compelled the Hohenzollerns to remain in Germany. They did not need the foreign crowns, for they owed their independent position among other states to the possession of Prussia, a land that was German to the core, a land the very being of which was rooted in the mother-country, and yet at the same time one that did not belong to the political organization of the empire. Thus with one foot in the empire, the other planted outside of it, the Prussian state won for itself the right to carry on a European policy which could strive for none but German ends. It was able to care for Germany without troubling itself about the empire and its superannuated forms. … The state of the Hohenzollerns plunged once again headlong from the position of power which it had so recently attained; it was on the sure road to ruin so long as John Sigismund's successor looked sleepily into the world out of his languid eyes. This new attempt, too, at forming a German state seemed again about to end in the misery of petty-stateism as had been the case formerly with the political constellations of the Guelphs, the Wettiners, the Counts Palatine, which had arisen under immeasurably more favorable auspices. It was at this juncture that the elector Frederick William, the greatest German man of his day, entered the chaos of German life as a prince without land, armed only with club and sling, and put a new soul into the slumbering forces of his state by the power of his will. From that time on the impulse of the royal will, conscious of its goal, was never lost to the growing chief state of the Germans. One can imagine English history without William III, the history of France without Richelieu; the Prussian state is the work of its princes. … Already in the first years of the rule of the Great Elector the peculiar character of the new political creation shows out sharply and clearly. The nephew of Gustavus Adolphus who leads his army to battle with the old protestant cry of 'with God' resumes the church policy of his uncle. He it is who first among the strife of churches cries out the saving word and demands general and unconditional amnesty for all three creeds. This was the program of the Westphalian peace. And far beyond the provisions of this treaty of peace went the tolerance which the Hohenzollerns allowed to be exercised within their lands. … While Austria drives out its best Germans by force, the confines of Brandenburg are thrown open with unequalled hospitality to sufferers of every creed. How many thousand times has the song of praise of the Bohemian exiles sounded forth in the Marks! … When Louis XIV revokes the Edict of Nantes the little Brandenburg lord steps forth boldly against him as the spokesman of the protestant world, and offers through his Potsdam Edict shelter and protection to the sons of the martyred church. … Thus year after year an abundance of young life streamed over into the depopulated East Marks; the German blood that the Hapsburghs thrust from them fructified the land of their rivals, and at the death of Frederick II about a third of the inhabitants of the state consisted of the descendants of immigrants who had come there since the days of the Great Elector. … The particularism of all estates and of all territorial districts heard with horror how the Great Elector forced his subjects to live as 'members under one head,' how he subjected the multiplicity of rule in the diets to the commands of his own territorial jurisdiction and supported his throne on the two columns of monarchical absolutism: the miles perpetuus and permanent taxation. {3769} In the minds of the people troops and taxes still passed for an extraordinary state burden to be borne in days of need. But Frederick William raised the army into a permanent institution and weakened the power of the territorial estates by introducing two general taxes in all his provinces. On the country at large he imposed the general hide-tax (general-hufenschoss), on the cities the accise, which was a multiform system of low direct and indirect imposts calculated with full regard for the impoverished condition of agriculture and yet attacking the taxable resources at as many points as possible. In the empire there was but one voice of execration against these first beginnings of the modern army and finance system. Prussia remained from the beginning of its history the most hated of the German states; those imperial lands that fell to this princely dynasty entered, almost all of them, with loud complaints and violent opposition into this new political combination. All of them soon afterwards blessed their fate. … Frederick William's successor by acquiring the royal crown gained for his house a worthy place in the society of the European powers and for his people the common name of Prussians. Only dire need, only the hope of Prussia's military aid, induced the imperial court to grant its rival the new dignity. A spasm of terror went through the theocratic world: the electorate of Mainz entered a protest; the Teutonic Order demanded back again its old possession, which now gave the name to the heretical monarchy while the papal calendar of states, for nearly a hundred years to come, was to know only a 'margrave of Brandenburg.'"

H. von Treitschke, Deutsche Geschichte im 19ten Jahrhundert (translated from the German), volume 1, pages 26-36.

See, also, GERMANY: A. D. 1608-1618 (page 1466),
and PRUSSIA: A. D. 1700 (page 2613).

"The national recollection holds fast to the great German war as a thirty years continuance of universal warlike ravagings. As a matter of fact, however, the separate parts of the empire were directly affected by it in very different degrees; some parts only seldom and to a small extent, many at frequent intervals or through long-enduring periods: no part however to such an extent that during the whole three decades it stood always under the immediate pressure of military events and of military burdens. Devastation and exhaustion worked their immediate results in all directions, but we must not leave out of consideration that the local differences were naturally very great. An incalculable number of details concerning the horrors of the war and concerning its destructive effects lies before us. … So undoubtedly well-founded as on the whole the majority of these details may be said to be, impressively as they are apt to be brought forward, they are none the less not such as to suffice to enable us to gain from them an exhaustive representation of the condition of things. We have hundreds who give testimony to all the ravagings and the misery of the time, and the voices of such witnesses are almost the only ones that are heard. It is natural that there are no equally eloquent reports concerning those periods of time and those places in which people found themselves in medium and comparatively bearable circumstances. For the most part only what was exceptional—although, indeed, that happened only too often—is depicted in the complaining reports. … It cannot be denied too that amid the fearful needs of that time the German language succumbed to a certain propensity for what is monstrous. In all the writings which speak of war and the ravages of war one sees an exuberance, which comes to be a fixed mannerism, of almost whiny tones of complaint. … The superlative of horror predominates almost exclusively; and with an exceedingly fertile faculty of invention men surpass themselves in ever new, ever more blood-curdling variations of the one theme of blood and arson, of wretchedness and famine. … The most severe of all evils, indeed, as a matter of fact, were those to which the peasant element was subjected. … The profits of all agricultural labor were most perceptibly diminished on account of the extraordinary highness of wages, which, a natural result of the lack of workmen, formed the subject for the chief complaints after the war, especially of those classes which possessed land. Everywhere we meet with the fact that those entirely without property, such as serving men and maids are really better off than the peasant who has land. They draw the highest wages in money and in natural products, they must be treated with the greatest consideration by their employers to prevent them from quitting their service, for everywhere they are sought after and easily do they find work. … If the evils hitherto touched upon concerned chiefly the peasant holdings, there was another and no less important one which concerned all property holders and especially the nobles, whether feudatory or directly under the empire. This was the general burden of debt on landed property. … The noble as well as the peasant had, from of old, mortgages resting upon his property; those who made the loans were chiefly the large and the small capitalists in the cities. … As a matter of fact, already during the war itself in large parts of the empire the landed property had been in a condition of insolvency."

B. Erdmannsdörffer, Deutsche Geschichte, 1648-1740 (translated from the German), volume 1, pages 100-109.

   "How bitterly the decrease of population was felt in many
   regions is proved by a decree of the local diet [kreistag] in
   Franconia, transmitted to us by Hormayr, according to which
   any man might take two wives, priests (catholic) might marry
   and no man under 60 years of age might enter a monastery.
   Quite incalculable was the loss of domestic animals; we have
   but very incomplete statistics on the subject, but according
   to these few the assertion is not unjustifiable that at most
   one fifth of the number existing before the war remained. The
   lack of working people being so great it was therefore
   inevitable that famine should break out in very many regions.
   The memoranda in chronicles and diaries contain truly
   horrible, heart-breaking representations on the subject. J. J.
   Rayser's 'Historischer Schauplatz der Stadt Heidelberg'
   reports from the Palatinate: … 'Many rejoiced if they could
   only get oxhides, cowhides, the skins of horses, sheep and
   other animals, and eat them. Indeed cruel hunger drove them to
   other things too, towards which human nature is apt to feel
   horror and disgust. They ate dogs, cats, rats, mice, frogs and
   other animals in order to appease their bitter hunger.
{3770}
   Nor did they refrain from such animals as had already lain for
   several weeks on the roads, or in pools and streams and which
   gave forth a horrible odor. … The starving people even killed
   each other and ate up the corpses; they ransacked the
   cemeteries, broke open graves, climbed up on the gallows and
   on the wheel and took the dead away to eat them.' … The
   reports of single cases of cannibalism from neighborhoods
   where otherwise the most friendly and contented people lived,
   are too disgusting to allow us to quote any further examples.
   … There is no other example of a destruction of civilization
   such as the Thirty Years War in Germany produced. There is no
   other case where a whole people in all parts of the land was
   uniformly exposed to such severe losses, so that in numbers it
   was reduced to one half; where, from riches, luxury and
   abundance such as had undoubtedly prevailed at the beginning
   of the century men had come to poverty and to the want of even
   the necessaries of life. … The dissolution of the numerous
   military organizations and the dismissal of the regiments had
   created an enormous number of tramps of the most dangerous
   sort and still continued to do much towards increasing
   vagabondage. The grade of intelligence among the people of the
   lowlands had decreased most alarmingly; while superstition was
   continually on the increase. Witch-trials flourished both in
   the city and in the country. Beggary had long ceased to be a
   cause for shame; the war, which had brought down to it in a
   short time even those who had been formerly the richest,
   caused even the most dishonorable trade to be held in honor.
   Whoever by daily labor could earn his daily bread might think
   himself fortunate. In the place of the horses which war had
   carried away, human beings took to dragging carts in the
   street. … With the ruin of the trade and of the art industry
   of Germany, which in the 16th century would for so many
   objects have probably needed to fear no rivalry and which was
   only surpassed by that of Italy, went hand in hand the rise
   and increase of French industry. This was due in no small part
   to the fact that an extensive market was opened up for it in
   Germany. From the great and small courts of the secular and
   ecclesiastical princes, from the estates of the nobles, where
   the plunder of the generals and colonels of all nations and
   confessions had at last indeed been unloaded, the money
   contributed by the subjects flowed into the strong-boxes of
   the Paris manufactories, which dictated the fashions for the
   whole continent. Thus did the industrial triumph of France
   supplement its political supremacy; thus did Germany's
   misfortune become the cause of enriching her western neighbor,
   France having known how to secure its existence as a state by
   itself three centuries earlier than the Germans had done."

H. von Zwiedineck-Südenhorst, Deutsche Geschichte, 1648-1740 (translated from the German), volume 1, pages 45-49.

"Through the complete destruction of its old civilization, through an unexampled devastation of its prosperity and ruin of its moral life the fatherland of the Reformation had saved for that part of the world the freedom of faith. Strangers played with the strongest people of Europe. That language which in Luther's and Hutten's time had gloried at once in the purity of its origin and in the terse power of its national plainness had become Gallicized and full of flourishes, a disgusting mixture of flatness and bombast, of artificiality and coarseness, so servile, so incapable of expressing in simple grandeur what was high and noble that in answer to the question what German writings of those times can we read to-day the honest reply must be, with the exception of some poems by Simon Dach, Logau and Paul Gerhard, solely the droll adventures of Simplicissimus and the merry sermons of Father Abraham a Santa Clara. The terror and need of the time, the rule of brute force and the intrusion of foreign customs, had jarred and disturbed the inner life of the nation to its very depths. Truth and fidelity had vanished, as well as the proud frankness and bright enjoyment of life of the older generation. A hideous greed of gold had taken hold of high and low; the boastful pride of luxurious extravagance continued in the midst of the general poverty."

GERMANY: A. D. 1648-1715. Relations of Austria, Germany and France after the Thirty Years War.

"After 1648 it was the natural policy of the Hapsburgh emperors to maintain the status quo of the Westphalian treaties. … After the emperor had once lost the prospect of gaining for himself the undivided rule over Germany, all his endeavors were needed at least to hinder it from passing to another. The efforts of the separate territorial sovereigns to enlarge and round off their lands, their attempts to extend their power externally and at the same time to tighten their hold on their own subjects found henceforward a counterpoise in Austria."

L. Häusser, Deutsche Geschichte (translated from the German), volume 1, page 21.

   "The whole shamefulness of this disintegration of Germany,
   showed itself in the defenceless state of the empire. … Right
   under the greedy hands of France lay the weakest, the most
   unguarded members of the empire. All along that priest-avenue
   the Rhine, from Munster and Osnabrück up to Constance,
   stretched a confused mass of tiny states, incapable of in any
   way seriously arming themselves, compelled to betray their
   country through the feeling of their own utter weakness.
   Almost all the Rhenish courts held pensions from Versailles. …
   Fully one-third of Germany served in the wars of the empire as
   a dead burden. … The weakness of Germany was to blame for the
   new growth of power in Austria and France; … the foreigners
   laughed at the 'querelles allemandes' and the 'misère
   allemande'; the Frenchman Bonhours mockingly asked the
   question if it was possible that a German could have
   intellect. … As the born antagonist of the old order of things
   in Europe the basis of which was Germany's weakness, Prussia
   stood in a world of enemies whose mutual jealousies formed her
   only safeguard. She was without any natural ally, for the
   German nation had not yet come to understand this budding
   power. … Just as the House of Savoy was able to tread its way
   through the superiority of the Hapsburghs on the one hand and
   of the Bourbons on the other, so did Prussia, although
   immeasurably harder pressed, have to find a path for herself
   between Austria and France, between Sweden and Poland, between
   the maritime powers and the inert mass of the German empire.
{3771}
   She had to use every means of remorseless egoism, always ready
   to change front, always with two strings to her bow. The
   electorate of Brandenburg felt to the very marrow of its being
   how deeply foreign ideas had eaten into Germany. All the
   disorganized forces … which opposed the strong lead of the new
   monarchy placed their faith in foreign help. Dutch garrisons
   were stationed on the Lower Rhine and favored the struggle of
   the Cleve estates against their German lords. The diets of
   Magdeburg and of the electoral Mark counted on Austria. …
   Frederick William breaks down the barriers of the
   Netherlanders in the German Northwest; he drives their troops
   from Cleve and from East Friesland. … Then he calls out to the
   deaf nation his warning words, 'Remember that you are
   Germans,' and seeks to drive the Swedes from the soil of the
   empire. Twice did the ill-will of France and Austria succeed
   in robbing the Brandenburg prince of the reward of his
   victories, of the rule in Pomerania: the fame of the day at
   Fehrbellin they could not take from him.

… When the republic of the Netherlands threatened to fall before the attack of Louis XIV Brandenburg caught the raised arm of the conqueror.

Frederick William carried on the only serious war that the empire ventured on for the recovery of Alsace.

… With the rise of Prussia began the long bloody work of freeing Germany from foreign rule. … In this one state there awoke again, still half unconscious as if drunken with long sleep, the old hearty pride in the fatherland. … The House of Hapsburgh recognized earlier than the Hohenzollerns did themselves how hostile this modern North German state was to the old constitution of the Holy Empire. In Silesia, in Pomerania, in the Jülich-Cleve war of succession—everywhere Austria stood and looked with distrust on its dangerous rival. … Equally dangerous to Hapsburgh and to the German empire were the French and the Turks; how natural was it for Hapsburgh to seek support from Germany, to involve the empire in its wars, to use it as a bulwark towards the west or for diversions against France in case the Turks threatened the walls of Vienna. … Only it cannot be denied that in this common action the Austrian policy, under a more centralized guidance and backed by a firmer tradition, looked out for its own advantage better than did the German empire—loose, heavy, and without consistent leadership. When the might of Louis XIV began to oppress Germany the policy of the Hapsburghs was to remain for a long time luke-warm and inactive. This policy led Austria indeed even to make a league with France and, when she did at last decide to help the great elector of Brandenburg against the enemy of the empire, this happened so charily and equivocally as to give rise to the doubt whether the Austrian army was not placed there to keep watch over the Brandenburg forces or even to positively hinder their advance. An Austrian writer himself assures us that Montecuculi was in secret commanded only to make a show of using his weapons against the French. For a long time Austria stood by inactive while the Reannexations were going on.

… The whole war as conducted by Austria on the Rhine and in the West was languid and sleepy;

the empire and individual warlike princes were left to protect themselves. What an entirely different display of power did Austria make when it was a question of fighting for its own dynastic interests!"

H. von Treitschke, Deutsche Geschichte im 19ten Jahrhundert (translated from the German), volume 1, pages 21-33.

"As in the wars so in the diplomatic negotiations the separation of the Austrian dynastic interests from the advantage and needs of the German empire often enough came to light. It is only necessary to revert to the attitude which the emperor's diplomacy took at Nimeguen and Ryswick.

… When in the conferences at Gertruidenburg (1710) Louis XIV was reduced to being willing not only to give up the 'Reannexations' and Strassburg but even to restore Alsace and the fortress of Valenciennes, it was also not the interests of the empire but solely those of the House of Hapsburgh which led to the rejection of these offers and to the continuance of a war by which, as it turned out eventually, not one of these demands was gained. No wonder that in Germany, restricted though the imperial authority already was, men still did not feel secure so long as the emperor continued to have even the power of making peace independently of the empire."

L. Häusser, Deutsche Geschichte (translated from the German). volume 1, page 23.

"Louis XIV regarded himself not exactly as enemy of the German empire and of the imperial power of the House of Hapsburgh, but rather as a pretendant to the throne. As he explains it in the political directions meant for his son the empire of the West, the heritage of Charles the Great, belongs not of right to the Germans but to the kings who are crowned at Rheims. … The Germans have ruined the empire, only a ruler with the power of the French king can bring it again to honor. … If Louis XIV by means of the Rhine Confederation of 1658 saw himself bound in a close communion with German princes and electors, if his troops rushed in at the decisive moment before Erfurt and at Saint Gothard, if his omnipresent diplomacy sought to find starting-points everywhere, even in the Hofburg at Vienna: all this seemed to him activity in a field which he really felt belonged to himself. The rendering of the German princes dependent on the French court, the loosening of the bonds which held the empire together, the isolation of the Hapsburghs from the rest of the empire: these were tasks which presented themselves as a matter of course if taken in connection with those views of the right of the French to the empire. … Already in Richelieu's time the king's councillor, Jacques de Cassan, had brought forward the proof, in a writing dedicated to the cardinal, that the greater part of the existing European states, including Germany, were lands which had unjustly been estranged from the French crown. … This idea d'Auberry now carried further: as a matter of fact Germans and French were to be considered one people as they had been under the Merovingians and Carolingians; … the true ruler, in the sense of the original world-organization was not the emperor but the French king."

B. Erdmannsdörffer, Deutsche Geschichte (1648-1740) (translated from the German), volume 1, page 509.

"What enthusiasm prevailed when France proclaimed the equality of everything that bears human form, when the prophecies of Rousseau, who spoke as no other Frenchman could, to the hearts, to the courage, to the ideals of the German youth, seemed about to be realized! All the cravings of the time, the noble eagerness to recognize the dignity of man and the heaven-storming defiance of the sovereign ego, found themselves satisfied by the bold sophism of the Genevan philosopher who declared that, in a condition of absolute equality, everyone should obey himself only. The sins of the Revolution appeared to the harmless German spectators as hardly less seductive than its great deeds. The taste which had been educated on Plutarch's lives of heroes grew loyally excited over the broad Catonism of the new apostles of freedom: the unhistorical abstractions of their political creed were in keeping with the philosophical self-satisfaction of the age. The over-zealous youths in whose ears still sounded the stirring words of the robber Moor felt themselves drawn along by the rhetorical pathos of the French and unsuspectingly admired the republican virtue of the Girondists at the very time when this party with unhallowed frivolity was instigating a war against Germany. … In Hamburg and several other cities the festival of confraternity was celebrated and the liberty pole erected on the anniversary of the storming of the Bastille. … Even in Berlin women of rank were seen adorned with the tricolored ribbon and the rector of the Joachimsthal gymnasium, in a solemn official address held on the occasion of the king's birthday, praised the glorious Revolution to the lively applause of Minister Hertzberg. … But this enthusiasm of the German cultivated world for revolutionary France was and remained purely theoretical; … the German admirers of the Revolution never once laid before themselves the question how their feelings on the subject should take on flesh and blood. The wise man of Konigsberg [Kant] unconditionally and harshly rejected all right of resistance. Even Fichte, the most radical of his disciples, who even in the days of Robespierre still dared to defend French liberty, warned emphatically against the carrying out of his own ideas. He saw no bridge between the 'level high road of natural law' and the 'dark defile of a half-barbaric policy,' and he closed with the renunciatory declaration: 'Worthiness to attain liberty can only come upwards from below; freedom itself, if there is to be no disturbance, can only descend from above.' … When the struggle of parties continued to rage ever more fiercely and with more cruelty, when the fanatic zeal for equality took upon itself to annihilate even the last aristocracy of all, that of life itself, then the faithful and unchanging mind of the German found it impossible any longer to follow the unaccountable contortions of French passion. The German enthusiast turned weeping away from the barbarian who had defiled his sanctuary. … Only in the minor states, which lacked the sense of justice of a monarchy, did the sins of the old French regime find an echo. There in the Germany of the religious foundations (the Rhine bishoprics) there still flourished the catholic unity of faith and the pride of cathedral chapters which were recruited from nobles. In the cities of the empire the haughtiness and corruption of old civilian confraternity held sway, in the territories of the princes, counts and imperial knights, the arrogance of little corner tyrants. The whole existence of these ruined and ossified forms of government cried shame on the ideas of the century. Almost solely in these tiniest provinces did a slight popular ferment show itself when the glad news of the great peasant emancipation came from France. It chanced that the abbess of Frauenalbe was hunted from her lands by her subjects, that the oath of allegiance was refused to her sister-abbess in Elten. Small peasant revolts broke out here and there. … All this betokened little; in reality nowhere was the political slumber of the empire deeper than in these regions. … The weak and weaponless small states were entirely without power of resistance against foreign violence. … Neither was the emperor nor were the Prussian statesmen blind to the immeasurable dangers of a war in the condition in which things were. Leopold's cold-blooded, calculating nature remained long unmoved by the appeals for help written by his unhappy sister Marie Antoinette, who allowed herself to be carried to the very verge of betraying her country by her woman's passion and her princely pride. The Prussian cabinet was at first very well pleased with the steps taken by the constitutional parties; its envoy, von der Goltz, made no secret of acknowledging the righteousness of the cause of the revolution and showed that he had kept his eyes open to the accumulated acts of folly of the blinded court. The mad doings of the emigres were condemned with equal severity in Vienna and in Berlin. Not until the spring of 1791, not until King Louis had had to atone for his unsuccessful flight by unheard of personal humiliations, did the two courts begin to think seriously of protecting themselves against acts of revolutionary violence. … Frederick William's chivalrous soul was aglow with the thought of avenging with his sword the offended majesty of France. Single clever heads among the émigrés succeeded after all in gaining secret influence at court. … In his circular from Padua Leopold invited the European powers to enter the lists for his ill-used brother-in-law, to avenge by forcible means every insult to the dignity of the king, to recognize no constitution of France of which the crown should not voluntarily approve. Bischoffswerder, of his own accord and contrary to his instructions, then signed the Vienna treaty of the 25th of July by which both parties (Prussia and Austria) mutually guaranteed each other's possessions and promised each other help in case of internal disturbances. … Public opinion in Prussia greeted the Austrian alliance with deep mistrust, … but King Frederick William approved the arbitrary steps of his friend (Bischoffswerder). He met Leopold soon after in Pillnitz … and rejoiced in the thought that the league of the two chief powers in Germany would last eternally, to the weal of coming generations. In all of these mistaken acts there was no immediate threat against France. In Pillnitz those émigrés who urged war were sternly thrust aside and all that was obtained was the empty declaration of August 27; the two powers announced that they considered King Louis's cause a matter common to all sovereigns; in case all European powers should agree, there should be interference in France's internal affairs. {3773} This meant nothing whatever, for everyone knew that England would have nothing to do with armed intervention. And even these obscure conditions were abandoned in Vienna when King Louis, in the autumn, was reinstated in his dignities and voluntarily accepted the new constitution. The Revolution seemed to have come to a standstill, the emperor was completely pacified. … It was France and France alone that, in the face of this peaceable attitude of the German powers, forced the war upon them. … The antipathy of a great majority of the nation [France] to the republic was to be overcome by the glamor of military successes, by the old darling dream-project of natural boundaries. The financial needs of the state were to be remedied by a mighty plundering expedition. … While the war-like mood in the legislative assembly increased from day to day, in the negotiations with the emperor paltry disdain was shown; not even was a definite indemnity offered to the estates of the empire in Alsace. It was then that the House, carried away by the stirring speeches of the Gironde, demanded a solemn declaration from the emperor that he would give up the plan of a European league and would show his readiness to support France according to the old treaties of alliance with the Bourbons. The penalty of refusal was to be immediate war. Upon Leopold giving a dignified and temperate reply war was declared against Austria on April 20th 1792. … A doctrinary speech of Condorcet's announced to the world that the principles of republican liberty had risen up against despotism. The glove was thus thrown down to the whole of ancient Europe: for Prussia, moreover, the Vienna Treaty now became binding, having meanwhile been supplemented by a formal defensive league."

H. von Treitschke, Deutsche Geschichte im 19ten Jahrhundert (translated from the German), volume 1, page 114-124.

"With the Italian campaign of 1796 began the second epoch of the revolutionary era, the more fruitful one for the world at large. The propaganda of the revolution now first began to take actual effect and in Central Europe a new order of things superseded the old division of lands, the traditional forma of state and society. It was through Bonaparte's victories that the weapons of France first acquired an indisputable ascendancy. … As was the case with her manner of making war, so did France's European policy take on a new character in the hands of the victor of Montenotte and Rivoli. … In the head of the great man without a home, to whom the soul-life of nations, the ideal world, ever remained an unknown quantity, the horrible conception of a new world-monarchy had already found a place. The images of the Cæsars and the Carolingians stood in dazzling splendor before his mind. The rich history of a thousand years was to be annihilated by a single grand adventure; the multiform culture of the West was to yield to the sway of one gigantic man. This new and altogether un-French policy of conquest rushed to its goals with a wonderful assurance and want of conscience. Bonaparte's perspicuity recognized at once by what means Austria, victorious in Germany but worsted in Italy, could be forced into a temporary peace: … he offered the imperial court the possession of Venice in return for Milan, Belgium and the left bank of the Rhine. … Under such conditions the Peace of Campo Formio was entered into on October 17th 1797. Once more the Holy Empire was to pay the penalty for Austria's defeats, and once more, with greater hypocrisy than ever before, there rang out in the diet those unctuous, imperially-paternal phrases with which the un-German imperial power was wont to bemantle its dynastic policy. Whereas among the conditions of the secret articles of Campo Formio were the mutilation of the German western boundary, the secularization of ecclesiastical territory, the compensation of foreign princes at the cost of the empire: the published version of the treaty spoke only of the unviolated integrity of the empire. … At last, however, the unhallowed secret had to come out. At Christmas-tide 1797 Mainz was vacated by the imperial troops. There came to light the whole hopelessly confused relationships of the two similarly-fortuned nations of central Europe when, at the same time, the French occupied the unconquered bulwark of the Rhine provinces and the conquered Austrians marched into the city of St. Mark. Soon afterwards the envoys of France at Rastadt openly came forward with the demand for the left bank of the Rhine. It was the first official forewarning of the annihilation of the Holy Empire. … So deep was the empire sunken when the dreaded 'Italicus,' on the occasion of a flying visit to Rastadt first cast a glance into German life. On the shallow intrigues of this fruitless congress did Bonaparte base his judgment of our fatherland. He saw through the absolute nullity of the imperial constitution and complacently came to the opinion that if such a constitution had not existed it would have been necessary to invent it in the interests of France. … It seemed to him high time to win the petty dynasts entirely for France by gratifying their greed of land, and thus to rob sundered Germany of its nationality (dépayser l'Allemagne). … On February 9th, 1801, the Peace of Luneville proclaimed openly and unequivocally that which the treaty of Campo Formio had only secretly and obscurely provided: that the Rhine was henceforward to be Germany's boundary. A district of nearly 1,150 square miles and containing nearly four million inhabitants was thus lost to Germany. … With uncanny cold-bloodedness the German nation accepted the fearful blow. Scarcely a sound of patriotic wrath was heard when Mainz and Cologne, Aachen and Treves, the broad, beautiful lands that had been the scene of our earliest history, passed into the hands of the stranger. How many bitter tears had the decrepit generation of the Thirty Years War once poured forth for the sake of Strassburg alone! … The first consul resumed the plan which Sièyes as ambassador in Berlin had sketched already ill 1798. He prepared a threefold division of Germany and, in order to bring the defenceless minor states wholly in his power, sought first to thrust back the two chief German powers as far as possible towards the east. … The great man-scorner now invented an infallible means of gaining sway over these south and west German provinces. {3774} Not in vain had he probed the German higher nobility at Rastadt into the inmost recesses of their hearts. He created our new intermediate states for the purpose, through them, of securing forever Germany's disintegration. The host of petty princes, counts and imperial knights, were burdensome to him because they belonged mostly to the Austrian party and were of no use in war. Among the electors and dukes, on the contrary, there was useful material enough for the formation of a crowd of French vassals; … they had almost all, during the recent wars, made separate treaties with the enemies of the empire. As rebels against that empire and its emperor they had abandoned the ground of legality and broken their bridges behind them. If the man who was omnipotent now took under his protection these political hermaphrodites who were fit neither to live nor die; if he satisfied their greed by throwing them some crumbs from the belongings of their lesser co-estates and tickled their vanity by means of pretentious titles and a show of independence; if he rolled together the hundreds of tiny territories into some dozens of new accidental states with a history of yesterday and entirely without a legal title, living solely from the favor of France; if he then led his satraps to audacious wars against their fatherland and hurried them on from one felony to another, rewarding new lackey-services by new booty—where was the wonder? They had sold their souls to him and he was able to reckon on it that they would rather kiss the boots of the stranger than ever submit to subordinate themselves to a German commonwealth. … Bonaparte, meanwhile, had long made up his mind to resume the war with his unassailable enemy [England]. Already in March 1803, long before the breach occurred between the two western powers, he sent his confidant Duroc to Berlin with the notice that he saw himself compelled to seize Hanover. … Therewith the last and sole pride of the Prussian policy, the neutrality of North Germany, was threatened with its death-blow. … And meanwhile the Holy Empire was made to drink the cup of shame to the very dregs. When Bonaparte caused the Duke of Enghien, seized within the limits of Baden, to be led to execution, only foreign powers like Russia, Sweden and England dared in Regensburg to demand satisfaction for the scandalous breach of the peace of the empire. Baden on the contrary, by Napoleon's command, begged most earnestly that the painful matter might not be followed up any further; while the rest of the plenipotentiaries took their holiday before the time and thus by their flight cut off all further negotiations. In May 1804 the Napoleonic empire was founded. … A hard, distrustful foreign rule weighed upon Germany even before its princes had formally made their submission to the emperor. … Thus prepared, Napoleon proceeded to realize in his own way the idea of a German triad with which Hardenberg had just been amusing himself. Not in bond with Austria and Prussia but independently and in opposition to them was France's old protegée, 'la troisième Allemagne,' to take political form and shape. … In the spring of 1806 the rumor spread at the German courts that a new and extensive mediatization was to take place. Once more, as had happened four years previously, the envoys of our high nobility hastened to Paris on behalf of their lords, to secure by flattery and bribery their share of the booty. … The Rhine confederation of Louis XIV was resuscitated in an incomparably more pronounced form. Sixteen German princes renounced the empire, declared that they themselves were sovereigns and that every law of the venerable old national commonwealth was null and void. They recognized Napoleon as their protector and placed at his disposal an army of 63,000 men to be used in any continental war in which France should engage. … German particularism entered into the bloom-time of its sins. … The anarchy of a new interregnum broke in upon Germany. Faustrecht held sway, exercised no longer by bandit nobles but by princely courts. Napoleon regarded with mistrust any and every expression of national feeling in the enslaved land. The interest of France, he wrote to his Talleyrand, demands that opinion in Germany remain divided. A certain Yelin of Ansbach published an anonymous pamphlet, 'Germany at its lowest Depth,' a well-meant writing, full of feeling, and one which, in an age of iron, had only the peaceful advice to give: 'Weep aloud, oh noble, honest German!' But even this pious ejaculation of a harmless petty citizen seemed to the emperor a matter for alarm and he caused the book-seller Palm, who is said to have aided in spreading the book, to be court-marshalled and shot. It was the first judicial murder of Napoleonism on German ground, and the clever people in Bavaria began to doubt whether the Rhine Confederation had, after all, really brought about the victory of freedom and enlightenment. … A new act of treason on the part of Napoleon led at last to the out-break of the inevitable war. Often and solemnly had Napoleon assured to his Prussian ally the possession of Hanover. It was now suddenly reported in Berlin that the emperor, who all through the summer had been carrying on peace-negotiations with England and Russia, had not scrupled to offer to deliver back to the Guelphs their hereditary lands. When this news reached him Frederick William at once (August 9) wrote to the Czar: 'If Napoleon treats with England concerning Hanover he will ruin me.' The king foresaw that in a short time the miserable condition in which things had been in February would recur again and that Prussia had only the choice left of once more in silence suffering herself to be shamefully plundered or of opposing by arms the ingress of the grand army. That was why the Prussian army was placed on a war-footing and made to assemble in Magdeburg's territory. With this step of justifiable self-defence the war was decided. … Nothing could have been more honest than the unsparingly upright defiance of the king to Napoleon; nothing more righteous than the three demands of the Prussian ultimatum of October: withdrawal of the French from Germany, recognition of the North German Confederation, a peaceful agreement as to the remaining questions at issue between the two powers. Even from the verbose, clumsy war-manifesto there breaks forth occasionally a tone of dignified national pride: the king takes up arms 'to free unhappy Germany from the yoke under which it is being crushed. Nations have certain rights independent of an treaties!' … Already on the 15th of October (1806) Napoleon laid a contribution on all the Prussian provinces this side the Weichsel of 159 million francs, declaring that the result of the battle of the former day (Jena) had been the conquest of all these lands. {3775} Never had the man of fortune boasted so outrageously, and yet, through a strange turn of fortune, the most unhallowed of his lies was to become literally true. Immediately after the defeat the court of Saxony carried out its long-planned desertion and went over to Napoleon. A week after the battle the Prussian territory to the left of the Elbe, and the possessions of the House of Orange and of the electors of Hesse, were provisionally incorporated in the French empire. … On July 7-9, 1807, the Peace of Tilsit was signed, the most cruel of all French treaties of peace, unprecedented in form as well as in contents. It ran, not that the lawful king of Prussia ceded certain lands to the victor, but that the conqueror, out of regard for the emperor of all the Russias, granted back to its sovereign the smaller half of the Prussian state. And this scandalous phrase, which contemporaries only looked upon as a freak of Napoleonic arrogance, expressed simply the naked truth. … Alexander did not wish the last narrow dam which separated the Russian empire from the lands of the vassals of France, to be torn away. … Prussia retained, outside of the 5,700 square miles which the state, exclusive of Hanover, had owned before the war, only about 2,800, … of 9¾ million inhabitants only 4½ million. The work of Frederick the Great seemed undone."

H. von Treitschke, Deutsche Geschichte im 19 Jahrhundert (translated from the German), volume 1, pages 164-265.

"In Austria, in the decades succeeding the wars of liberation, their reigned the most immovable quiet. The much-praised system of government consisted in unthinking inactivity. The Emperor Francis, a man with the nature of a subaltern official, hated anything that approached to a constitution and a saying of his was often quoted: 'Totus mundus stultizat et vult habere constitutiones novas.' Metternich's power rested on the 'dead motionlessness' of affairs. As far as his German policy was concerned his aim was to hold fast to the preponderating influence of Austria over the German states, but not to undertake any responsibilities towards them. … As for Prussia, in spite of the great sacrifices which she had made, she emerged from the diplomatic negotiations and intrigues of the Vienna Congress with the most unfavorable disposition of territory imaginable. To the five million inhabitants that had remained to her five and a half millions were added in districts that had belonged to more than a hundred different territories and had stood under the most varied laws. There began now for this state a time well filled with quiet work, the aim and object being to create a whole out of the various parts. … The founding of the Burschenschaft [student league] in Jena, the antagonistic attitude of the Weimar press, the Wartburg festival with its extemporized conflagration scene, excited scruples and fears in the ruling circles. The murder of Kotzebue and the attempt on Ibell's life showed the growing fanaticism and called forth stronger measures from the governments. … Metternich recognizes their usefulness for the carrying through of his reactionary measures. … At a meeting in Teplitz he succeeds in winning Frederick William III for his plans. In Carlsbad, over the heads of the members of the federal diet, the most decisive regulations were adopted which culminated in the appointment of the Mainz Central-Investigation-Committee … and confirmed Metternich's unhallowed rule in Germany as well as the reign of that most miserable reaction which called forth a burst of indignation even from the most moderate-minded patriots, and which laid the land open to the scorn of the foreigner."

Bruno-Gebhardt, Lehrbuch der deutschen Geschichte (translated from the German), volume 2, pages 501-504.

"The Congress of Vienna created in 1815 a form of government for Germany which was very unsatisfactory in character. It was, however, so constituted that a national development at some future time was not rendered an utter impossibility. The German confederation was rather, on the whole, provisional in its character; this fact comes out more and more plainly with each thorough analysis and illustration of its constitution and of its institutions. The main thing was that the German confederation preserved unimpaired the dualism in Germany. Technically the emperor of Austria had the honorary direction of the confederation; practically he possessed as emperor of Germany little r no power. In point of fact the German imperial title was only a decoration for the ruler over a variegated mixture of peoples, in the midst of which German nationality was hard pressed by the national strivings of the other races. In reality the strongest member of the German confederation was the kingdom of Prussia, although according to the federal laws it stood on a like footing with Bavaria, Saxony, Hanover and Würtemberg. … This German confederation was only capable of eking out its existence in a long period of freedom from European disasters. … Only gradually, in the various heads, did the opinion begin to form of the historical vocation of Prussia to take her place at the head of the German confederation or, possibly, of a new German empire. Gradually this opinion ripened into a firmer and firmer conviction and gained more and more supporters. The more evidently impossible an actual guidance of Germany by Austria became, the more conscious did men grow of the danger of the whole situation should the dualism be allowed to continue. In consequence of this the idea of the Prussian hegemony began to be viewed with constantly increasing favor. A great step forward in this direction was taken by the Prussian government when it called into being the Zollverein [or customs-union]. The Zollverein laid iron bands around the separate parts of the German nation. It was utterly impossible to think of forming a customs-union with Austria, for all economic interests were as widely different as possible; on purely material grounds the division between Austria and Prussia showed itself to be a necessity. On the other hand the economic bonds between Prussia and the rest of the German lands grew stronger from day to day. This material union was the prelude to the political one: the Zollverein was the best and most effectual preparation for the German federal state or for the German empire of later days."

"Paul Pfizer wrote in 1831 his 'Correspondence of Two Germans,' the first writing in the German language in which liberation from Austria and union with Prussia was put down as the solution of the German question and in which faith in Prussia was made a part of such love to the German fatherland as should be no longer a mere dream. … 'So little as the dead shall rise again this side the grave, so little will Austria, which once held the heritage of German fame and German glory, ever again become for Germany what she has once been.'"

W. Oncken, Das Zeitalter des Kaisers Wilhelm (translated from the German), volume 1, pages 69-70.

The formation of the Zollverein "was the most important occurrence since the wars of liberation: a deed of peace of more far-reaching consequences and productive of more lasting results than many a battle won. The economic blessings of the Zollverein soon began to show themselves in the increasing sum total of the amount of commerce and in the regularly growing customs revenues of the individual states. These revenues for example increased between 1834 and 1842 from 12 to 21 million thalers. Foreign countries began to look with respect and in part also with envy on this commercial unity of Germany and on the results which could not fail to come. … A second event happened in Germany in 1834, less marked in its beginnings and yet scarcely less important in its results than the Zollverein. Between Leipzig and Dresden the first large railroad in Germany was started, the first mesh in that network of roads that was soon to branch out in all directions and spread itself over all Germany. … A direct political occurrence, independent of the Zollverein and the railroads, was, in the course of the thirties, to assist in awakening and strengthening the idea of unity in the German people by making evident and plain the lack of such unity and its disastrous consequences. This was the Hanoverian 'coup d'etat' of the year 1837. … In that year William IV of England died without direct successors. … Hanover came into the hands of the Duke of Cumberland, Ernest Augustus. … The new king, soon after his inauguration, refused to recognize the constitution that had been given to Hanover in 1833, on the ground that his ratification as next heir to the throne had not been asked at that time. … By persistent efforts Ernest Augustus … in 1840 brought about a constitution that suited him. Still more than this constitutional struggle itself did a single incident connected with it occupy and excite public opinion far and wide. Seven professors of the Gottingen university protested against the abrogation of the constitution of 1833. … Without more ado they were dismissed from their positions. … The brave deed of the Gottingen professors and the new act of violence committed against them caused intense excitement throughout all Germany. … A committee composed both of conservatives and liberals was formed in Leipzig and raised collections, in order by honorable gift to replace at least the material losses of the banished professors. … In the course of the forties the idea of nationality penetrated more and more all the pores of German opinion and gave to it more and more, by pressure from all sides, the direction of a great and common goal. At first there were only isolated attempts at reform … but soon the national needs outgrew such single expressions of good will. … A tendency began to show itself in the public opinion of Germany to accept the plan of a Prussian leadership of all un-Austrian Germany."

GERMANY: A. D. 1862-1890.
The Bismarck policy.
"Blood and iron" speech of the Prussian Premier.

On the question of the reorganization of the army, which was brought forward early by Prince William (afterwards King and Emperor) after he assumed the Regency in 1858, the Prussian Diet placed itself in determined opposition to the government. At a session of the Budget Commission of the House of Representatives, September 30, 1862, Deputy Forckenbeck offered the following resolution: "Whereas it is also feared that after the declaration of the royal state government made the 29th inst. the same would continue the expenditures for the organization of the army on its own responsibility which have already been rejected by the House for the year 1862 and the rejection of which is likewise to be expected for 1863, according to the acknowledgment of the government itself, and Whereas a direct insistence of the prerogatives of the people's representatives is urgently required, the House of Representatives declares as follows:

1. The royal government is requested to lay the estimates for 1863 before the House as speedily as possible for their constitutional consideration, so that the amount of the same may be constitutionally fixed before January 1st 1863.

2. It is unconstitutional for the royal government to direct expenditures which were by resolution of the House of Representatives definitely and expressly rejected."

   The Minister of State, Herr von Bismarck, spoke on these
   resolutions as follows: "I would willingly accept the
   estimates for 1862, if I could do so without entering upon
   explanations which might prove prejudicial. Either side might
   abuse its constitutional rights and be met by a reaction in
   kind from the opposite side. The crown, for instance, might
   decree dissolution twelve times in succession without
   violating the letter of the constitution, yet would it be an
   abuse of power. It may refuse to accept a striking out of
   estimates without measure. Where will you draw the line? At 6
   millions? at 16? or at 60? There are members of the National
   Verein [National Union]—an organization highly respected for
   the well known fairness of its demands,—very estimable
   members—who declare all standing armies as superfluous. Well
   then, if the House of Representatives should hold such view
   must not the government repudiate it? The 'cool headedness' of
   the Prussian people has been referred to. Well, it is a fact,
   the great self-assertion of individuality among us makes
   constitutional government very hard in Prussia; in France,
   where this individual self-assertion is wanting, it is
   otherwise. There a constitutional conflict was no disgrace,
   but all honor. We are perhaps too 'cultured' to tolerate a
   constitution; we are too critical; the ability to pass
   judgment on measures of the government or acts of the
   legislature is too universal; there is a large number of
   'Catilinarian Characters' [existences in the original] in the
   land whose chief interest is in revolutions. All this may
   sound paradoxical; yet it proves how hard constitutional life
   is in Prussia.
{3777}
   The people are too sensitive about the faults of the
   government; as if the whole did not suffer when this or that
   individual minister blunders. Public opinion is changeable,
   the press is not public opinion; everyone knows how the press
   originates; the representatives have the higher task of
   directing opinion, of being above it. To return once more to
   our people: our blood is too hot, we are fond of bearing an
   armor too large for our small body; now let us utilize it.
   Germany does not look at Prussia's liberalism but at its
   power. Let Bavaria, Würtemberg, Baden indulge in liberalism,
   yet no one will assign to them the rule of Prussia; Prussia
   must consolidate its might and hold it together for the
   favorable moment, which has been allowed to pass unheeded
   several times. Prussia's boundaries, as determined by the
   Congress of Vienna, are not conducive to its wholesome
   existence as a sovereign state. Not by speeches and
   resolutions of majorities the mighty problems of the age are
   solved—that was the mistake of 1848 and 1849—but by Blood and
   Iron. Last year's grants have been made, no matter on what
   grounds; I am seeking sincerely for a road to harmony: the
   finding of it does not depend on me alone. It were better, the
   House of Representatives had not made an accomplished fact.
   When the appropriations are not passed, then the way is clear.
   The constitution affords no relief, for interpretation is
   opposed to interpretation, 'summum ius, summa iniuria' [the
   highest law, greatest injustice], 'the letter killeth.' I am
   glad that the chairman by certain turns of speech admits the
   possibility of an understanding, of a different vote of the
   house on a new proposition of the government; I am searching
   for the same bridge; when it will be found is uncertain. The
   establishment of a budget for this year is barely possible;
   the time is too short; our conditions are exceptional. The
   government concedes the principle of the earliest possible
   handing down of the estimates. But you say, this has been
   promised so often and has not been done. Well 'You must trust
   us for honest people.' I do not share in the interpretation
   that it was unconstitutional to make expenditures that have
   been denied, all three factors [i. e. Commons, Upper House and
   Crown] must agree upon an interpretation, before it stands."

Die Politischen Reden des Fürsten Bismarck (translated from the German), volume 2, pages 20, 28-30.

"Otto von Bismarck-Schoenhausen, born April 1, 1815, was a Junker [squire, aristocrat] from top to toe, but from the very first, as was the case with all the Junkers of Prussia, Pomerania and the Mark, his life had been thoroughly merged in that of the Prussian state. He had first called attention to himself in 1847 at the general diet (Vereinigter Landtag]. In 1849 he came forward in the chamber of deputies, in 1850 in the Union Parliament at Frankfort—always as the goad of the extreme right, and each time his appearance gave the signal for a violent conflict. Perfectly unsparing of all his opponents, very anti-liberal but very Prussian, very national-minded, in spite of being such a Junker, Bismarck flared up with especial violence against the democratic attacks on the army and the monarchy. … To Frankfort Bismarck came as the sworn defender of the policy of reaction. The Austrian party, thinking him to be a man of no consequence, greeted his coming with joy. He soon made himself unpleasant enough, especially to the Austrian presidents of the federal diet. … He refused to accept the servile role which Austria had apportioned to him; his objections in matters of form and on unimportant occasions prepared the great fundamental anti-Austrian uprising. A feeling of pain came over him at the sight of the Prussian submission to Austria, but at the same time he was seized with a thirst for vengeance. … In Frankfort, too, he learned thoroughly to know German affairs: the utter weakness of the Confederation and the misery of having so many petty states. … To his mind the goal of Prussian policy was to drive Austria out of Germany and then to bring about a subordination of the other German states to Prussia. … Nor did he make the least secret of his warlike attitude towards Austria. When an Austrian arch-duke, who was passing through, once asked him maliciously whether all the many decorations which he wore on his breast had been won by bravery in battle: 'All gained before the enemy, all gained here in Frankfort,' was the ready answer. In the year 1859 came the complications between Austria and Italy, the latter being joined by France. This Italian war between Austria and France thoroughly roused the German nation. … Many wanted to protect Austria, others showed a disinclination to enter the lists for Austria's rule over Italy. … Bismarck's advice at this time was that Prussia should side against Austria and should join Italy. In the spring of 1859, however, he was transferred from Frankfort on the Main to St. Petersburg: 'put on ice on the Neva,' as he said himself, 'like champagne for future use.' … In June 1859, in view of the Italian war, it had been decreed in Prussia that the army should be mobilized and kept in readiness to fight. … When, later, in the summer of this year, the probability of war had gone by, the Landwehr was not dismissed but, on the contrary, a beginning was made with a new formation of regiments which had already been planned and talked over. … On February 10, 1860, the question of the military reorganization was laid before the diet, where doubts and objections were raised against it. … On the 4th of May, at the same time when the law about civil marriages was rejected, the land-tax, by which the cost of the army-reorganization was to have been covered, was refused by the Upper House. The liberals were disappointed and angered. The ministry was soon in a bad dilemma: should it give way to the liberal opposition and dissolve the newly formed regiments? The expedient that was thought of seemed clever enough but it led in reality to a blind alley and was productive of the most baneful consequences. The ministry moved a single grant of 9,000,000 thalers for the purpose of completing the army and maintaining its efficiency on the former footing. The motion was carried on May 15, 1860, by a vote of 315 against two. … The new elections for the house of deputies in December 1861 produced a diet of an entirely different stamp from that of 1858. … The moderate majority was now to atone for the sin of not having come to any real arrangement with the ministry on the army question; for the new majority came to Berlin with the full intention of crushing the army-reform. … The chief task of the newly formed ministry of 1862 was to solve the military question, for the longer it had remained in abeyance the more complicated had the matter become. {3778} The newly-elected diet had been in session since the 19th of May. The majority was determined to draw the conclusion from the provisional nature of the army-reorganization grants that no such grants were any longer to be made. The battle cry of the majority of the diet was that all further demands of the government for the military reform were to be refused. … But how would this result? … The new officers had an actionable, legal claim to their salaries; who was to pay them? The budget for 1862 was already in great part expended. … Were the ministers themselves to pay the damages? Such seems to have been the idea of the fanatics in the parliament. … By September 1862 the belligerent and uncompromising attitude of the liberal majority had induced King William to lay aside his earlier distrust of Bismarck. He allowed him to be summoned and placed him at the head of the ministry. Most stirring was the first audience which Bismarck had with his king in the Park of Babelsberg on September 23. The king first of all laid before Bismarck the declaration of his abdication. Very much startled, Bismarck said: 'To that it should never be allowed to come!' The king replied that he had tried everything and knew no other alternative. His convictions, contrary to which he could not act, contrary to which he could not reign, forbade him to relinquish the army-reorganization. Thereupon Bismarck explained to the king his own different view of the matter and closed with the request that his Majesty might abandon all thoughts of abdication. The king then asked the minister if he would undertake to carry on the government without a majority and without a budget. Bismarck answered both questions in the affirmative and with the utmost decision. … The alliance between the king and his minister was closed and cemented on that 23rd of September in Babelsberg to endure for all time. … To this bond of allegiance which joined king and minister, Prussia and Germany owe all the glory that has fallen to their share. … In the summer of 1863 was originated the famous Austrian project of reform. … The proposals of Prussia that there should be one central head of Germany with popular representation from the whole nation was entirely thrust aside and, on the contrary, a federal directory was recommended with a parliament of delegates from the separate diets. … In spite of Prussia's absence the assembly of princes took place at Frankfort. King John of Saxony again travelled to Baden to urge King William to attend but the latter again declined. Not but that this refusal cost him a great struggle. … Bismarck had to threaten with his resignation before he could make the king remain firm; … he did not breathe freely again until the Saxon king had taken his leave. Then with his powerful hand he demolished a plate of glasses that stood before him; that cooled his anger and his excitement and he was once more the polished courtier. … Bismarck's policy now met with a great piece of good fortune. Through the death of the king of Denmark, namely, the Schleswig-Holstein question was forced to a final solution and this offered Bismarck an opportunity of trying his diplomatic skill, while at the same time it gave the Prussian army a brilliant occasion for showing what it could accomplish. In a series of bold moves Bismarck steered through the complications of the Schleswig-Holstein question; it is the first stage in his great career of victory. … But in spite of all the successes of the Danish war the diet continued in its opposition. A loan for the war was refused; any loan made without the consent of the diet was declared unconstitutional and not binding. … The subsequent grant for the costs of the war was refused. … Naturally the Prussian war-budget could not be made up, and the land continued to be governed without a budget. The details of the debates on these subjects are today only of minor interest. Much time was lost in mutual insults between Bismarck on the one hand and Virchow and Gneist on the other. Bismarck challenged Virchow to a duel, Virchow refused the challenge. … By April 1866 Bismarck had cleared the political field for his war against Austria; the necessity for that war had long been apparent to him. … That the German question could only be settled by the separation of Austria from Germany and that this separation could only be brought about by a war between Prussia and Austria had, in the course of years, become clear to all patriots who knew anything of history. With incomparable perspicuity the statesman who had led Prussia's policy since the autumn of 1862 had grasped the idea and had seen to carrying it out with the whole force of his iron will. Already in the autumn of 1863 he had drawn up the program of what he intended that the German Confederation should be. … The history of the world had not for centuries seen such a war as 1866. … It was then that King William and his minister, crowned with victories, asked the Prussian diet for indemnity: i. e. for an acknowledgment of their good purposes in spite of their illegal acts. … In point of fact the diet had been wrong and the king and his minister had acted wisely and well; in point of form they had broken the letter of the law. … In the years 1862-1866 Bismarck had held off Napoleon with incomparable political skill. He had always refused the French demands, but so that Napoleon in each case could cherish some hope and could venture again and again to approach Prussia with some new lure. Not until August 1866 did Napoleon receive a thorough and open repulse. Bismarck then answered every threat of the French with the counter-threat of a German war. The refusal of Bismarck and his king brought Napoleon into a very bad position as regarded the French people. In the minds of the latter a war against Germany was a foregone conclusion since 1866. … On the 8th of July (1870) the French envoy came to King William in Ems and demanded that he should forbid Prince Leopold to accept the crown of Spain. … It is a popular fiction that the king turned his back on Benedetti, or that he answered that he 'had nothing more to say to him,' or that he out and out refused him an audience. An extra of the German papers of July 14th did indeed read to that effect: Bismarck himself had drawn up the notice for the papers. He had made no false additions, but here and there he had erased and omitted some of the words spoken at Ems, thus rendering possible at least the whole false conception of the matter. Bismarck ventured on such a step, having clearly counted the costs; the result showed how closely he had made his calculations. … {3779} It was the war of 1870 that fundamentally changed the relations of the chancellor to the mass of the people. After 1871 he was immensely popular. … People believed that he could do anything, that he could make possible what was impossible for other men. … Bismarck was very soon surrounded with an almost mythical halo."

W. Maurenbrecher, Gründung des Deutschen Reichs (translated from the German), pages 13-258.

GERMANY: A. D. 1870-1874.
The "Kulturkampf" in its first stages.
Speeches of Bismarck.

"For reasons relating to its own internal affairs the state, even though it took no special attitude to the dogma of infallibility in itself, could not avoid being drawn into the conflicts which that dogma was bound to call forth between its upholders and its opponents. It was the duty of the state to prevent the evil results to its citizens of the anathema which the bishops hurled at those who denied the infallibility; it was necessary for it to interfere and, by introducing civil marriages, to render marriage possible to those apostates who were not allowed to receive the sacraments; it was necessary for it to protect in the exercise of their office those of its public teachers who rejected the new dogma, even if their spiritual superiors should declare them unfit to hold such office. In cases, finally, where whole congregations, or majorities of them, remained true to the old teachings it was necessary for the state to protect them in the possession of their churches of which the bishops tried to deprive them. Already in November and December 1870 the first cases had occurred with regard to which the Prussian minister of education had been obliged to draw these conclusions. Professors of the Bonn and Breslau universities who, because they denied the infallibility, had been forbidden to lecture by Archbishop Melchers of Cologne and Prince-bishop Forster of Breslau, appealed to the protection of the minister. Certain pastors and teachers of gymnasiums, who had joined in a declaration drawn up at Nuremberg (August 25, 1870) against the new dogma, and who had in consequence been threatened with ecclesiastical punishments, did the same. Mühler had no other course than to declare that, so far as officials appointed by the state were concerned, the state must maintain its exclusive disciplinary power, and that he would continue in future to regard as catholics those whom he had so regarded before the decree of infallibility was passed, even if they saw fit to reject that dogma. Similar conflicts broke out in Bavaria where the minister, Lutz, upheld the pastor Renftle, of Mering near Augsburg, in the enjoyment of his benefices in the face of the bishop, and where the Munich professors, Döllinger, Friedrich, Huber and others courageously refused such assent to the dogma as the Archbishop Scherr, on October 20, 1870, demanded from them. Döllinger's written justification of himself, published on March 20, 1871, seemed to give a firm basis and a distinguished leader to the whole movement. … Twelve thousand signatures were collected in a few weeks for an address to the king of Bavaria and an appeal was made to the catholics of Germany, Austria and Switzerland in favor of common action. … Meanwhile the other party had been busy enough. Hundreds and hundreds of ecclesiastics protested against Döllinger's assertion that thousands of the clergy thought as he did. A lay assembly in Munich, held on April 23, which expressed itself in favor of infallibility, was the forerunner of countless similar ones. … Already some weeks earlier the archbishop of Munich had ventured to excommunicate Döllinger. … On August 27 Lutz sent a writing to Archbishop Scherr claiming the right to regulate afresh the relations with the church as the dogma of infallibility was something essentially new: at the same time he announced that the government would do its utmost to protect the upholders of the old teachings and to secure the independence of civil affairs from ecclesiastical right of compulsion. In Munich such decisive measures would probably not have been adopted had not matters in Prussia taken a similar turn. The conflict had been brought to a climax here by the demand of Bishops Krementz and Ermeland that two teachers in Braunsberg, Wollmann and Treibel, should be dismissed for denying the infallibility. This demand the minister had refused on March 18, 1871, and on June 29 had even given his approval to the regulation that scholars who should obey the orders of the bishop to absent themselves from the class in religious instruction of these teachers should be expelled from the gymnasium. The bishop had retaliated by excommunicating the two teachers in question, as well as Professor Michelis, one of the chief opponents of infallibility. In the dioceses of Cologne, Paderborn and Breslau also, the conflicts had become more fierce on account of excommunications imposed by the bishops. Still more important was it that the chancellor of the empire had now personally entered the lists. As his cool attitude already before the council had given reason to expect, the Vatican dogma did not much trouble him. All the more alarming seemed to him the agitation which the clergy were stirring up among the Polish nobles, and the league of Guelphism and Catholicism as illustrated by Windhorst's position in the Centre. … He [Bismarck] caused the announcement to be made in an article of the Kreuzzeitung that the government would not only continue on the defensive against the Centre, but in turn would proceed to attack it. The ultramontanes had better consider whether such a struggle could turn out to the advantage of the Roman Church. If, he concluded, three hundred years ago Teutonism in Germany was stronger than Romanism, how much stronger would it be now when Rome is no longer the capital of the world, but on the point of becoming the capital of Italy, and when the German imperial crown no longer rests on the head of a Spaniard but of a German prince. … In the Federal Council Lutz moved an amendment to the criminal code which should threaten any clergyman with imprisonment up to two years if he should misuse his office and discuss state affairs so as to disturb the peace. … This 'pulpit-paragraph' was accepted with 179 to 108 votes and became law December 14th 1871. … The Prussian diet was opened on November 27, 1871, with the announcement of four new laws which should regulate marriages, the registration of civil personal matters, the withdrawal from existing churches, and the supervision of schools. … {3780} The conservative party was in wild excitement over these measures and the Kreuzzeitung became the organ of decided opposition, especially against the school-supervision law which was chosen as the first object of attack. The conservatives collected petitions from all parts of the land to kill this law which they prophesied would make the schools a tool of atheism, a hot-bed of revolution, unnationality and immorality. They succeeded in getting together more than 300,000 signatures. … At the first reading in the House of Deputies the school-supervision law was passed, although by a majority of only 25 votes. … At the second reading the majority increased to 52. … The chief struggle was expected in the House of Lords. … The vote here was favorable beyond all hopes, resulting on March 8th in a majority in favor of the law almost as great as that in the House of Deputies. … By no means calm was the attitude of the pope towards the increasing complications, and when, a few weeks later, on June 24th, 1872, he received the German 'Leseverein' in Rome he complained bitterly of the prime minister of a powerful government who, after marvellous successes in war, should have placed himself at the head of a long-planned persecution of the church; a step which would undoubtedly tarnish the glory of his former triumphs. 'Who knows if the little stone shall not soon be loosened from above that shall destroy the foot of the Colossus!' The chief cause of this embitterment lay in the expulsion of the Jesuits which had meanwhile been decreed by the diet. … The more the national opposition to the Roman claims increased, the more passionate did the frame of mind of the ultramontanes become; and also, in no small degree, of the pope. An allocution addressed to the cardinals on December 22, 1872, surpassed in violence anything that had yet been heard. … Even Reichensperger found it advisable in excusing a vehemence that thus went beyond all bounds to call to mind that the Latinized style of the papal chancery was not to be taken too literally. The German government, after such a demonstration, had no other alternative than to recall the last representative of its embassy to the papal court. … Already in November Minister Falk had laid before the House a draft of a law concerning the limits of ecclesiastical punishments and disciplinary measures; on January 9, 1873, followed the drafts of three new laws. … Still more passionately than in the debate concerning the change in the Constitution did Bismarck come forward in the discussion of April 24-28. … Windhorst and Schorlemer-Alst answered him back in kind. … With violent attacks on Bismarck they prophesied that these Draconic laws would rebound against the passive opposition of the people; that dawn was glimmering in men's minds and that the victory of the Church was near. To the great majority of the German people, who had followed the political-ecclesiastical debates with the liveliest interest, such assurances seemed almost laughable. They felt sure of victory now that Bismarck himself had seized the standard with such decision. The 'May Laws' which the king signed on May 11, 1873, were considered a weapon sure to be effectual, and even the advanced-liberals, who had followed many of the steps of the Government with hesitation and doubt, declared in an appeal to their electors on March 23 that the conflict had assumed the proportions of a great struggle for enlightenment (Kulturkampf) in which all mankind were concerned, and that they themselves, in junction with the other liberal parties, would accordingly support the Government. … On August 7 (1873) Pius IX sent a letter to the emperor under pretext of having heard that the latter did not sympathize with the latest measures of his government. He declared that such measures seemed to aim at the annihilation of Catholicism and warned him that their final result would be to undermine the throne. He deduced his right to issue this warning from the fact that he was bound to tell the truth to all, even to non-catholics: for in one way or another—exactly how this was not the place to make clear—everyone who had received baptism belonged to the pope. The emperor answered on September 3rd in a most dignified tone. … 'We can not pass over in silence the remark that everyone who has been baptized belongs to the pope. The evangelical faith which I, as your Holiness must know, like my forefathers and together with the majority of my subjects, confess, does not allow us to accept any other Mediator in our relations with God save our Lord Jesus Christ.' … Among protestants this royal answer was greeted with jubilant acclamations and even in foreign lands it found a loud echo. The aged Earl Russell organized a great meeting in London on January 27, 1874. … Soon after the opening of the Prussian diet Falk could bring forward the draft of a law which handed over to state-officials [Standesbeamte] all matters referring to the celebration of marriages and the registration of civil personal matters. This draft was sure from the first of a good majority. … On March 9th 1874 the law could be proclaimed. In the same month still the deputies Hinschius and Völk made a motion in the diet to introduce civil marriages throughout the whole empire. … It furthermore seemed necessary to take stronger measures against bishops and priests unlawfully appointed and whom the state had either deposed or refused to recognize. The mildest measure was to remove them from their dioceses or parishes, to banish them to certain fixed places and, in the worst cases, to expel them altogether from the lands of the empire. … The draft of the law (to this effect) was warmly supported and at last, April 25, 1874, was accepted by a vote of 214 to 208. … On July 13th, 1874, as Prince Bismarck, who had gone to take the cure in Kissingen, was driving to the Saline the twenty-one year old cooper's-apprentice Kullmann, of Magdeburg, fired a pistol at him, and wounded him in his right hand which he had just raised for the purpose of saluting. At once arrested, Kullmann declared to the chancellor, who visited him an hour later in his prison, that he had wished to murder him on account of the laws against the church. … The reading of ultramontane papers and the violent discourses of the catholic clergy had driven him to the deed. He atoned for it with fourteen years in the House of Correction. Not alone did public opinion make ultramontanism accountable for the deed, but Bismarck himself laid very strong emphasis on the fact that the criminal had spoken of the Centre as 'his party.' 'You may try as hard as you please to rid yourselves of this murderer,' he cried out in the diet of December 4th, 'he none the less holds fast to your coat-tails!'"

C. Bulle, Geschichte der neuesten Zeit (translated from the German), volume 4, pages 20-41.

At the Session of the Lower House of the Prussian Diet January 30, 1872, Deputy Windthorst spoke in opposition to the royal order for the abolition of the separate Roman Catholic section of the department of worship and public instruction and Prince Bismarck, in reply, said: "The party to which the gentleman belongs has contributed its share to the difficulty of obliterating the denominational standpoint in matters political. I have always considered it one of the most monstrous manifestations in politics, that a religious faction should convert itself into a political party. If all the other creeds were to adopt the same principle, it would bring theology into the parliamentary sessions and would make it a matter of public debate. … It has always been one of my fundamental principles that every creed ought to have full liberty of development, perfect liberty of conscience. But for all that I did not think it was a necessary corollary that a census of each denomination be taken merely for the purpose of giving each its proportional share in the Civil Service. … Where will you stop? You begin with a Cabinet; then you count the Chiefs of Division. I do not know what your ratio is—I think you claim four to seven—nor do I care to know. The subordinates in the Civil Service follow next. It is a fact, moreover, that the Evangelicals are by no means united in one denomination. The contrast is not merely between Protestants and Catholics. The United Prussian Established Church, the Lutheran Church, the Reformed Church, all have claims analogous to those of the Catholics. As soon as we cut up the state into denominational sections, giving each creed its proportional share, then the large Jewish population will come in for its part, a majority of which, distinguished by its special capacity, skill and intelligence, is peculiarly fitted for the business of the State. … We cannot admit the claim of the ecclesiastical authorities to a further share in the administration and in the interest of peace we are obliged to restrict the share they already have; so that we may have room beside each other and be obliged, as little as possible, to trouble ourselves about theology in this place."

Die politischen Reden des Fürsten Bismarck (translated from the German), volume 5, pages 231-240.

In the German Parliament, May 14, 1872, on the question of a grant of 19,350 thalers for the German embassy at the See of Rome, Prince Bismarck spoke as follows: "I can easily understand how in considering this item of the estimates, the opinion may be held that the expenditure for this embassy was superfluous, as it does no longer consider the protection of German citizens in foreign parts. Still I am glad that no motion for the striking out of this post was made, which would be unpleasant to the Government. The duties of an embassy consist not merely in affording protection to their countrymen, but also in keeping up the political relations of the Government which it represents with that to which it is accredited. Now there is no foreign sovereign, who, in the present state of our laws, might be called upon to exercise, in accordance with those laws, prerogatives in the German empire like those of His Holiness, approaching almost to sovereignty, limited by no constitutional responsibility. There is therefore great importance for the German empire in the character that is given to our diplomatic relations with the head of the Roman Church, wielding, as he does, an influence in this country unusually extensive for a foreign potentate. I scarcely believe, considering the spirit dominant at present in the leading circles of the Catholic Church, that any ambassador of the German empire could succeed, by the most skilful diplomacy, or by persuasion (comminatory attitudes conceivable between secular powers are out of the question here)—I say no one could succeed by persuasion in exerting an influence to bring about a modification of the position assumed by His Holiness the Pope towards things secular. The dogmas of the Catholic Church recently announced and publicly promulgated make it impossible for any secular power to come to an understanding with the church without its own effacement, which the German empire, at least, cannot accept. Have no fear; we shall not go to Canossa, either in body or in spirit. Nevertheless it cannot be concealed that the state of the German empire (it is not my task here to investigate the motives and determine how much blame attaches to one party or the other; I am only defending an item in the Budget)—that the feeling within the German empire in regard to religious peace, is one of disquietude. The governments of the German empire are seeking, with all the solicitude they owe to their Catholic as well as Lutheran subjects for the best way, the most acceptable means, of changing the present unpleasant state of affairs in matters of religion to a more agreeable one, without disturbing to any degree the creedal relations of the empire. This can only be done by way of legislation—of general imperial legislation—for which the governments have to rely upon the assistance of the Reichstag. That this legislation must not in the least infringe upon the liberty of conscience,—must proceed in the gentlest, most conciliatory manner; that the government must bend all its energies in order to prevent unnecessary retardation of its work, from incorrect recording or errors in form, you all will admit. That the governments must spare no efforts for the establishment of our internal peace, in a manner least offensive even to the religious sensitiveness of those whose creed we do not share, you will also admit. To this end, however, it is before all things needful that the Roman See be at all times well informed of the intentions of the German governments, much better than it has been hitherto. The reports made in the past to His Holiness, the Pope, on the state of affairs in Germany, and on the intentions of the German governments, I consider as one of the chief causes of the present disturbances of denominational relations; for those presentations were both incorrect and perverted, either by personal bias, or by baser motives. I had hoped that the choice of an ambassador, who had the full confidence of both parties, both on account of his love of truth and reliability, and on account of the nature of his views and his attitude—that the choice of such an ambassador as His Majesty had made in the person of a distinguished prince of the church [Cardinal Prince Hohenlohe] would be welcomed at Rome; that it would be taken as an earnest of our peaceable and conciliatory intentions; that it would be utilized as a means to our mutual understanding. {3782} I had hoped that it would afford the assurance that we would never ask anything of His Holiness, but what a prince of the church, sustaining the most intimate relations to the Pope, could present before him; that the forms with which one sacerdotal dignitary confers with another would continue to prevail and that all unnecessary friction in a matter so difficult in itself would be avoided. … All this we had hoped to attain. But alas! for reasons which have not yet been submitted to us, a curt refusal on the part of the Papal See frustrated the intentions of His Majesty. I dare say such an incident does not often occur. It is customary, when a sovereign has made choice of an ambassador, out of courtesy to make inquiry at the court to which the chosen ambassador is to be accredited, whether he be persona grata or not. The case of a negative reply, however, is extremely rare, bringing about, as it must, a revocation of the appointment made not provisionally, but definitely, before the inquiry. Such a negative reply is equal to a demand to annul what has been done, to a declaration: 'You have chosen unwisely.' I have now been Foreign Minister for ten years; have been busy in matters of higher diplomacy for twenty-one years; and I can positively assert that this is the first and only case in my experience of such an inquiry receiving a negative reply." Deputy Windthorst, in reply, criticised the procedure of the German Government in this affair, and justified the position taken by the papal court, saying: "I believe, gentlemen, for my part, that it was the duty of the Cardinal to ask the permission of his master, the Pope, before accepting the post. The Cardinal was the servant of the Pope, and as such, could not accept an office from another government without previous inquiry. … The case would be the same if His Holiness had appointed an adjutant general of His Majesty as papal nuncio, only more flagrant, for you will admit that a Cardinal is quite a different person from an adjutant general." Prince Bismarck replied: "I do not wish to discuss here the personal criticism which the gentleman made on His Eminence, the Cardinal, but I would say a word about the expression 'master' which was used. The gentleman is certainly well versed in history, especially ecclesiastical history, and I wish to ask him, who was the master of Cardinal Richelieu or Cardinal Mazarin. Both of these dignitaries were engaged in controversies and had to settle important differences with the See of Rome, in the service of their sovereign, the king of France; and yet they were Cardinals. … If it should please His Holiness to appoint an adjutant general of His Majesty as papal nuncio, I should unconditionally advise His Majesty to accept him. … I am an enemy to all conjectural politics and all prophesies. That will take care of itself. But I can assure the gentleman that we will maintain the full integral sovereignty of the law with all means at our disposal, against assumptions of individual subjects of His Majesty, the king of Prussia, be they priests or laymen, that there could be laws of the land not binding upon them; and we are sure of the entire support of a great majority of the members of all religious confessions. The sovereignty can and must be one and integral,—the sovereignty of the law; and he who declares the laws of his country as not binding upon himself, places himself outside the pale of the law."

Die politischen Reden des Fürsten Bismarck (translated from the German), volume 5, pages 337-344.

The following is from a speech of Prince Bismarck in the Upper House, March 10, 1873, during the discussion of the May Laws: "The gentleman who spoke before me has entered on the same path which the opponents of these bills followed in the other house by ascribing to them a confessional, I might say, an ecclesiastical character. The question we are considering is, according to my view, misconstrued, and the light in which we consider it, a false light if we look upon it as a confessional, a church question. It is essentially a political one; it is not, as our catholic fellow citizens are made to believe, a contest of an evangelical dynasty against the Catholic Church; it is not a struggle between faith and unbelief; it is the perennial contest, as old as the human race, between royalty and priestcraft, older than the appearance of our Savior on earth. This contest was carried on by Agamemnon at Aulis, which cost him his daughter and hindered the Grecian fleet from going to sea. This contest has filled the German history of the Middle Ages even to the disintegration of the German Empire. It is known as the struggles of the popes with the emperors, closing for the Middle Ages when the last representative of the noble Suabian imperial dynasty died on the block beneath the axe of the French conqueror, that French conqueror being in league with the then ruling pope. We were very near an analogous solution of this question, translated into the manners of our own time. Had the French war of conquest been successful, the outbreak of which coincided with the publication of the Vatican Decrees, I know not what would have been narrated in Church circles of Germany of 'gestis Dei per Francos' ['Gesta Dei per Francos,' 'Deeds of God by the French' is the title of a collection by Bongars, containing the sources of the history of the crusades.—Footnote]. … It is in my opinion a falsification of history and politics, this attitude of considering His Holiness, the Pope, exclusively as the high priest of a religious denomination, or the Catholic Church as the representative of Churchdom merely. The papacy has at all times been a political power, interfering in the most resolute manner and with the greatest success in the secular affairs of this world, which interference it contended for and made its program. These programs are well known. The aim which was constantly present in its mind's eye, the program which in the Middle Ages was near its realization, was the subjection of the secular powers to the Church, an eminently political aim, a striving as old as mankind itself. For there have always been either some wise men, or some real priests who set up the claim, that the will of God was better known to them than to their fellow beings and in consequence of this claim they had the right to rule over their fellowmen. And it cannot be denied that this proposition contains the basis of the papal claims for the exercise of sovereign rights. … {3783} The contention of priesthood against royalty, in our case, of the Pope against the German Emperor, … is to be judged like every other struggle; it has its alliances, its peace conventions, its pauses, its armistices. There have been peaceful popes, there have been popes militant, popes conquerors. There have been even peace-loving kings of France, though Louis XVI. was forced to carry on wars; so that even our French neighbors have had monarchs who preferred peace to war. Moreover in the struggles of the papal power it has not always been the call that Catholic powers have been exclusively the allies of the pope; nor have the priests always sided with the pope. We have had cardinals as ministers of great powers at a time when those great powers followed an antipapal policy even to acts of violence. We have found bishops in the military retinue of the German emperors, when moving against the popes. This contest for power therefore is subject to the same condition as every other political contest, and it is a misrepresentation of the issue, calculated to impress people without judgment of their own, when it is characterized as aiming at the oppression of the church. Its object is the defense of the State, to determine the limits of priestly rule, of royal power, and this limit must secure the existence of the State. For in the kingdom of this world the rule and the precedence is the State's. We in Prussia have not always been the pre-eminent object of this struggle. The papal court for a long time did not consider us as its principal opponent. Frederic the Great was at perfect peace with the Roman See while the contemporary emperor of Catholic Austria [Joseph II.] was engaged in the most violent contention with the Catholic Church. I wish to prove thereby that the question is entirely independent of creed. I will further add that at the Vienna Congress it was King Frederic William III., thoroughly and most strictly evangelical, nay, it might be said, anticatholic in his belief, that it was he who insisted upon and carried through the restoration of the secular rule of the pope; nevertheless he departed this world while engaged in a struggle with the Catholic Church. In the paragraphs of the constitution we have under consideration we found a 'modus vivendi,' an armistice, concluded at a time when the State was in need of help and thought to obtain this help or at least some support in the Catholic Church. This hope was based upon the fact that at the election for the national assembly of 1848 the districts in which the Catholic population preponderated elected, if not royalists, yet friends of order,—which was not the case in evangelical districts. Under this impression the compromise between the ecclesiastical and secular arms was concluded, though, as subsequent events proved, in miscalculation as to its practical effects. For it was not the support of the electors who had thus voted but the Brandenburg ministry and the royal army that restored order. In the end the State was obliged to help itself; the aid that might have been given by the different churches did not pull it through. But at that time originated the 'modus vivendi' under which we lived in peace for a number of years. To be sure, this peace was bought only by an uninterrupted yielding of the State, by placing its rights in regard to the Catholic Church, without reservation, in the hands of a magistracy which was originally intended to be the guardian of the royal Prussian prerogatives against the Catholic Church, but which in fact ultimately became a magistracy in the service of the pope, in order to guard the rights of the church against the encroachments of the Prussian State. Of course, I refer to the Catholic section in the Supreme Church Council [the Church Council is a Protestant body.—Foot-note]. I mean of the Ministry of worship. … When we were yet in Versailles I was somewhat surprised to learn, that Catholic members of parliamentary bodies were asked to declare whether they were ready to join a religious party, such as we have now in the Party of the Center, and whether they would agree to vote and agitate for the insertion of the paragraphs we are at present considering into the constitution of the Empire. I was not much alarmed then at that program; I was a lover of peace to such a degree. I knew from whom it emanated; partly from an eminent prince of the church [Bishop Ketteler of Mayence] whose chief task it was to do for the papal policy what he could. … I was completely deceived. … When I returned here I saw how strong was the organization of this party of the church militant, against the state. … What, was this program? Read it. There are pamphlets in everybody's hand, written with spirit, pleasant to read. Its object was the introduction of a state dualism in Prussia, the erection of a state within the state to bring it about that all Catholics should follow the guidance of this Party of the Center in their private as well as their political conduct, a dualism of the worst kind. Under different conditions a dualistic constitution might work well in an empire. Witness the Austro-Hungarian monarchy. But yonder it is no religious dualism. With us the construction of two denominational states is aimed at, to be engaged in a dualistic struggle, one of which was to have for its supreme ruler a foreign church potentate, whose seat is in Home, a potentate who by the latest changes in the constitution of the Catholic Church has become more powerful than ever before. If this program were carried out, we were to have instead of the one formerly integral state of Prussia, instead of the German Empire then at the point of realization—we were to have two state organizations, running side by side in parallel lines; one with the Party of the Center as its general staff, the other with its general staff in the guiding secular principle, in the government and the person of his Majesty the Emperor. This situation was absolutely unacceptable for the government whose very duty it was to defend the state against such a danger. It would have misunderstood and neglected this duty if it had looked on calmly at the astounding progress which a closer examination of the affair brought to light. … The Government was obliged to terminate the armistice, based upon the constitution of 1848, and create a new 'modus vivendi' between the secular and sacerdotal power. The State cannot allow this situation to continue without being driven into internal struggles that may endanger its very existence. The question is simply this: Are those paragraphs of the constitution [of 1848] dangerous to the State, as is contended for by the government of His Majesty, or are they not? {3784} If they are, then it is your duty as conservatives to vote against the retention of those paragraphs. If you think them entirely harmless then you hold a conviction which the government of His Majesty does not share, and as it is not able to assume the responsibility for the administration of the affairs of the State with these articles of the constitution in force, it must surrender it to those who consider them harmless. The Government, in its struggle for the defense of the State, applies to the Upper House for aid and assistance for the strengthening of the State and its defense against attacks and machinations that undermine its peace and endanger its future. We trust and believe that this assistance will not fail us with the majority of the Upper House."

Die politischen Reden des Fürsten Bismarck (translated from the German), volume 5, pages 384-391.

"The idea of the unity of the empire in its purest and most unadulterated form is most clearly typified by the German diet. This assembly, resulting from general elections of the whole people, shows all the clefts and schisms which partisanship and the spirit of faction have simultaneously brought about among the different classes of the people and among their representatives. But there is not one among all the prominent factions of the German diet which owes its formation to territorial differences. The changing majorities and minorities have assumed their form more curiously in our parliament than in any other in the world, but there never has been a single case where in taking a vote North Germans have come forward in a body against South Germans or vice versa, or where small and medium states have been pitted against the one large state. If the constitution of the empire reminds each deputy that he is a representative of the whole people, the best part of the provision is that it comes to be looked upon as a matter of course; it belongs to the very essence of a parliamentary assembly that it should see in a particular constellation of opposing factions only something exceptional. How indispensable a parliamentary organ which actually represents the unity of the people is to every state in a confederation is best shown by the energy with which the Prussian government again and again demanded a German parliament at the very time when it fairly despaired about coming to an understanding with its own body of representatives. In the middle between the head of the empire and such a diet as we have described is the place occupied by the Federal Council (Bundesrath): not until we have made this clear to ourselves can we fully understand the nature of this latter institution. Each of its members is the plenipotentiary of his sovereign just as were the old Regensburg and Frankfort envoys. It is a duty, for instance, for Bavaria's representative to investigate each measure proposed and to see whether it is advantageous or not for the land of Bavaria. The Federal Council is and is meant to be the speaking-tube by which the voice of the separate interests shall reach the ear of the legislator. But all the same, held together as it is by the firm stability of the seventeen votes which it holds itself and by the balancing power of the emperor and of the diet, it is the place where daily habit educates the representatives of the individual states to see that by furthering the welfare of the common fatherland they take the best means of furthering their own local interests. Taken each by himself the plenipotentiaries represent their own individual states; taken as a whole the assembly represents a conglomeration of all the German states. It is the upholder of the sovereignty of the empire. If, then, the federal council already represents the whole empire, still more is this true of the general body of officials, constituted through appointment by the emperor although with a considerable amount of co-operation on the part of the federal council. The imperial chancellor is the responsible minister of the emperor for the whole of the empire. At his side is the imperial chancery, a body of officials who, in turn, have to do in each department with the affairs of the whole empire. The imperial court, too, in spite of all its limitations, is none the less a court for the whole empire. Not less clearly is the territorial unity expressed in the unity of legislation. In the circumstances in which we left the old empire there could scarcely be any question any longer of real imperial legislation. Under the confederation beginnings were made, nor were they unsuccessful; but once again it was primarily the struggle against the strivings for unity that chiefly impelled the princes to united action. The 'Carlsbad decrees' placed limits to separate territorial legislation to an extent that even the imperial legislation of to-day would not venture upon in many ways. The empire of the year 1848 at once took up the idea of imperial legislation; a 'Reichsgesetzblatt' [imperial legislative gazette] was issued. In this the imperial ministry, after first passing them in the form of a decree, published among other things a set of rules regulating exchange. The plan was broached of drawing up a code of commercial law for all Germany for the benefit of that class of the population to which a uniform regulation of its legal relationships was an actual question of life and death. So firmly rooted was such legislation in the national needs that even the reaction of the fifties did not venture to undo what had been done. Indeed the idea of a universal code of commercial law was carried on by most of the governments with the best will in the world. A number of conferences were called and by the end of the decade a plan had been drawn up, thoroughly worked out and adopted. It has remained up to this very day the legal basis for commercial intercourse. It is true it was not the general decrees of these conferences that gave legal authority to this code, but rather its subsequent acceptance by the governments of the individual states. But the practical result nevertheless was that, in one important branch of law, the same code was in use in all German states. Never before, so long as Germany had had a history, had a codification of private law been introduced by means of legislation into the German states in common; for the first time princes and subjects learned by its fruits the blessing of united legislation. But a few years later they were ready enough to give over to the newly established empire all actual power of legislation: only, indeed, for such matters as were adapted for common regulation, but, so far as these were concerned, so fully and freely that no local territorial law can in any way interfere. {3785} What the lawgiver of the German empire announces as his will must be accepted from the foot of the Alps to the waves of the German Ocean. Thus after long national striving the view had made a way for itself that, without threatening the existence of the individual states, the soil of the empire nevertheless formed a united territorial whole. But not only the soil, its inhabitants also had to be welded together into one organization. The old empire had lost all touch with its subjects—a very much graver evil than the disintegration of its territory. So formidable an array of intermediate powers had thrust itself in between the emperor and his subjects that at last the citizen and the peasant never by any chance any more heard the voice of their imperial master. … In three ways the German emperor now found the way to his subjects. Already as king of Prussia the emperor of the future had been obeyed by 19 millions of the whole German population as his immediate subjects. By the entrance of a further 8 millions into the same relationship on the resignation of their own territorial lords by far the majority of all Germans became immediate subjects of the emperor. The German empire, secondly, in those branches of the administration which it created anew or at least reorganized, made it a rule to preserve from the very beginning the most immediate contact with its subjects: so in the army, so in the department of foreign affairs. The empire, finally, even where it left the administration to the individual states, exercised the wholesome pressure of a supreme national authoritative organization by setting up certain general rules to be observed. The empire, for instance, will not allow any distinctions to be made among its subjects which would interfere with national unity. If the Swabian comes to Hesse, the Hessian to Bavaria, the Bavarian to Oldenburg, his inborn right of citizenship gives him a claim to all the privileges of one born within those limits. For all Germany there is a common right of citizenship; and this common bond receives its true significance through numerous actual migrations from one state to another, the right of choosing a domicile being guaranteed. … It belongs in the nature of a federative state that it should not claim for itself all state-duties but should content itself with exercising only such functions as demand a centralized organization. In consequence we see the individual states unfolding great activity in the field of internal administration, in the furtherance of education, art and science, in the care of the poor: matters with which the empire as a whole has practically nothing to do. All those affairs of the states, on the other hand, which by their nature demand a centralized administration have been taken in hand by the empire, and the unity of public interests to which the activity of the empire gives utterance is shown in the most different ways. There are certain affairs administered by the empire which it has brought as much under a central organization as ever the Prussian state did the affairs of the amalgamated territories within its limits. With regard to others the empire has preserved for itself nothing more than the chief superintendence; with regard to others still it is content to set up principles which are to be generally followed and to exercise a right of supervision. It would be wrong, however, to imagine that the two last-mentioned prerogatives are only of secondary importance. The superintendence which the German emperor exercises over the affairs of the army, the chief part of which, indeed, is under his direction as king of Prussia, is sufficient in its workings to make the land-army, in time of war, as much of a unit as is the consolidated navy. … Customs' matters form a third category, with regard to which the empire possesses only the beginnings of an administrative apparatus: all the same we have seen in the last years how the right of general supervision was sufficient in this field to bring about a change in the direction of centralization, the importance of which is recognizable from the loud expressions of approval of its supporters and also in equal measure from the loud opposition of its antagonists. … In the field of finance the empire has advanced with caution and consideration and at the same time with vigor. In general the separate states have retained their systems of direct and indirect taxation. Only that amount of consolidation without which the unity of the empire as a whole would have been illusory was firmly decreed: 'Germany forms one customs and commercial unit bounded by common customs limits.' The internal inter-state customs were abolished. The finances that remained continued to belong to the individual states—the direct taxes in their entirety, the indirect to a great extent. The administration of the customs on the borders even remained in the hands of the local customs-officials, only that when collected they were placed to the general account. But the unconditional right of the empire to lay down the principles of customs legislation gave it more and more of an opportunity to create finances of its own and to become more and more independent of the scheduled contributions from the separate states. … Judicial matters are the affair of the individual state. With his complaints and with his accusations the citizen whose rights have been infringed turns to the court established by his territorial lord. But already it has been found possible to organize a common mode of procedure for this court throughout the whole empire; the rules of court, the forms for criminal as well as civil suits are everywhere the same. … The general German commercial code and the exchange regulations, which almost all the states had proclaimed law on the ground of the conferences under the confederation, were proclaimed again in the name of the empire and were supplemented in certain particulars. As to criminal law a general German criminal code has unified the more important matters and, with regard to those of less importance, has legally fixed the limits to be observed by the individual states. Work is constantly going on at a civil code which is to be drawn up much on the same lines. The German nation is busily engaged in creating a German legal system according to which the Prussian as well as the Bavarian, Saxon or Swabian judge is to render his decisions. Furthermore, a century-long development in our civilized states has brought it about that a supervision, itself in the form of legal decisions, should be exercised over the legality of judicial sentences. Here again it was in commercial matters that the jurisdiction of a supreme court first showed itself to be an unavoidable necessity. {3786} Then it was, however, that after a slumber of seventy years the old imperial court rose again from the dead, not entirely without limitations, but absolutely without the power to make exceptions. The imperial court at Leipzig is a court for the whole empire and for one and all of its subjects. If we turn to the internal administration it is chiefly matters concerning traffic and intercommunication which call by their very nature for regulation under one system. Although the management of local and to some extent also of provincial postal affairs is left as far as possible to the individual states themselves, the German post is nevertheless imperial, all the higher officials are appointed by the emperor, the imperial post office passes its rules and regulations and sees that they are carried out with reference to the whole empire. Just this branch of the administration indeed has had to halt at the Würtemberg and Bavarian frontiers, but in these two states also the legal foundations of the postal system have been adopted in all essential points. And if in the actual administration the differences likewise begin to vanish, the reason for this is more gratifying than is the fact itself: the extraordinary triumphs, namely, of our imperial post, which of themselves invite imitation and a breaking down of barriers. The introduction of the penny tariff has increased the amount of mail matter to four or five times what it was before. Postcards, invented by the director of our postal system, are already [1885], issued annually by the 150 million. The parcels-post, made cheaper and more convenient, has attained such importance that it has actually come to serve as a regulator of prices for the retail business of mercantile houses. Great differences of price in different parts of the empire become more and more an impossibility so soon as one only has to pay ten pfennigs per kilo (2 pounds) to procure the same goods in two or three days from the cheapest place, be it ever so far off. What is true of the post is true also of the telegraph which has come again to be one with it. Here, too, we can observe how the centralization in the empire has been of especial advantage to just those places which lie most out of the way. Chiefly in connection with existing or newly created post offices, the imperial post office, in the first five years after the direction of the telegraph came into its hands, opened more than four thousand telegraph counters—on an average two new counters a day! Through an extended system of treaties the German imperial post has regulated its relations to foreign lands and paved the way for the World-postal-association, the first such association in the history of the world to take in states from all four quarters of the globe. … Compared with the postal system the other branches of inter-communication and of internal administration seem to be only in the first stages of centralization; but here, too, much has been accomplished. The railroads stand under the direction or supervisory administration of the individual states, but unity with regard to time-tables, connections, fares and forwarding has been in so far preserved that differences which might interrupt traffic are avoided as far as possible. The governments of the confederated states are under obligations 'to allow the German railroads, in the interests of general communication, to be administered as one unbroken network.' A separate Imperial Railroad Bureau watches over the fulfillment of this agreement. Nothing, however, has given clearer expression to a unified system of intercommunication in Germany than the equalization of the coinage. In old times, when all or at least the chief territorial lords possessed the unrestricted right of coinage, each state did not, indeed, have its own standard, for how would it have been possible to invent several hundred standards of coinage? But when the territorial lord did make up his mind to adopt some existing system he usually chose one that was not in vogue in the state next to him, so that the boundaries of his own state might be the more clearly defined. That was how it came about that a map of the coinage standards of Germany looked almost as variegated as the map of its states. … Still worse than with regard to coined money—which, after all, always had a natural regulator in the actual market value of the silver or gold—did the want of unity show itself in the matter of paper money. Not only did the various states have different principles on which they issued it, and a different system of securities in funding it, but one and the same state would continue to use its old paper money even when issuing new on another principle. Hundreds of different bank-notes were in use, many which had long been called in continued still to circulate until some unfortunate last holder had to pay the costs. He who had thus learned a lesson at his own expense became very cautious and would refuse even the best paper money. The black Schwarzburg notes looked so grimy that the petty folk in their own land considered them out of date and preferred Prussian money. … In the matter of coins the empire found no general European model to go by. The mark, which was finally chosen as the unit of coinage, had the double advantage of facilitating a transition from the old thaler days and of inaugurating a firm relationship to the franc of the Romanic coinage system, the pound of the English world, the gulden of the Austrian empire (so soon as the latter power resumed metal coinage). The introduction of a gold basis gave the young coinage system a solid basis on the most precious metal. The mints remained in the hands of the separate states, but the coin was issued 'on account with the empire.' The coins accordingly bear on one side the image of the territorial lord who issues them, on the other, to give them general validity, the coat of arms of the empire. … Founded thus on a system of firm finances, on the uniform administration of justice in all lands, on an internal administration which, however varied, nevertheless fulfills the necessary demands of unity, the German empire shows a measure of consolidation the best outward expression to which is given by its army. Among the two million men on land and on sea who are ready to protect the Fatherland's boundaries there is not one who has not sworn fidelity to his imperial master: among the generals, not one who has not been appointed by the emperor. The most cherished of all duties binds the German to his German Fatherland. If, as regards the land-army, the princes still have a certain right of administration over their own contingents: on the man-of-war, where the sons of all the states that border on the sea come together, every possible distinction vanishes. The German navy knows no other flag, no other cockade, than the black-white-and-red."

      I. Jastrow,
      Geschichte des deutschen Einheitstraumes und seiner Erfüllung (translated from the German),
      pages 285-303.

GERMANY: A. D. 1883-1889.
Bismarck's Sickness, Accident and Old-Age Insurance Laws.

GIRTON COLLEGE.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1056-1122 (page 2427); GERMANY: A. D. 973-1122 (page 1441); and CANOSSA (page 386).

GRINNELL EXPEDITIONS.

GUILDS, OR GILDS.

See (in this Supplement)
ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1860-1862; 1864-1869; and 1871-1872.

      See (in this Supplement)
      COMMERCE, MEDIÆVAL;
      and GERMANY: 13-15TH, and 15-17TH CENTURIES.
      Also, HANSA TOWNS (page 1624).

T. O'Conor Sloane The Standard Electrical Dictionary https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/26535

HINDU MEDICAL SCIENCE.

ICARIA.

"In November Frederick appeared in Lombardy and hung up his shield on a high post as a token that he was to hold a review of the army and a general court. The most of the complaints of the cities were directed against Milan, but on complaint of Pavia the emperor first attacked Tortona. … A horrible chastisement was inflicted on the city; … the inhabitants were driven away. … Now at length Frederick turned his attention to Rome. On June 18, 1155, he marched into the Leonine City and was at once crowned in St. Peter's. … The results of this first Italian expedition were nevertheless small. The emperor had not conquered Rome; William I of Naples was more independent than ever; in northern Italy after Frederick's departure Milan was pre-eminent. By her authority Tortona was built up again. The Milanese sent the city a brass trumpet with which to call her inhabitants together once more. … The emperor was determined to put an end forever to all this opposition. In July 1158 an immeasurably greater expedition started with the express purpose of restoring the authority of the empire in Italy. … The Milanese in addition (having after a short siege recognized the emperor's claims) paid a fine, gave 300 hostages, … and afterwards made their submission in the humblest manner: the nobles with drawn swords across their shoulders, the people with cords around their necks, fell down before the emperor and did him homage. … It was in pursuance of Frederick's intention, and of his desire to settle the matter once and for all, that to his purposed diet in the Roncaglian plains he also summoned some teachers of law from Bologna. … Enough, in the assembly at Roncaglia through a well authorized judicial sentence, those regalia [royal rights] which had gone over to the civic communes were adjudged to the emperor, save in cases where by special privilege they had been relinquished to special cities. The emperor was recognized as the highest legislative power. … Frederick had set himself the great problem of uniting together authority and freedom. In the best possible monarchical spirit he expressed it that he wished an empire resting on a legal foundation in order to maintain every man in his freedom. But it is none the less evident that he wished the centre of gravity to lie in his own authority. It was not the demand of the regalia alone that caused the trouble, but just this principle, and it comes to the fore in the clearest manner in his relations with Milan. The agreement on the occasion of the peace with Milan had been that the civic authorities should be freely elected but should be invested by the emperor. In Roncaglia on the other hand it was decreed that the emperor should nominate the authorities subject to the assent of the people. A slight change, but one which in reality betokened an immense difference. Thus at the diet of Roncaglia did the empire unfold once more its full glory. But in the carrying out of these decrees, and especially in the matter of nominating the authorities; immeasurable difficulties now showed themselves. … On this matter, then, it had to come to blows. At the very first attempt in Milan a popular tumult arose. Frederick instituted proceedings which ended with a new banning of the city. … Large as the city was a way was found of cutting off from it all supplies. Through extreme want it was at last compelled to surrender and to beg for mercy. … The city was actually made to cease to exist. It was to be divided into four different places. If every trace of it was not completely obliterated this was solely due to regard for certain churches. The Milanese were treated like a tributary people on conquered territory. … In November 1166 the emperor started out to drive Pope Alexander from Rome. But already under his eyes the Lombard cities were bestirring themselves against him. They were discontented on account of oppressions which they were obliged to suffer more through the violence of the imperial officials than from any fault of the laws. … The Lombards considered that if the pope were again to be beaten they should find no more help against the power which was holding them down. What especially goaded them on was the firmness of the imperial rule, its methodical and stern manner of proceeding against every one who opposed it. … It was after the imperial governors in consequence of the growing disaffection had claimed and received new hostages that the representatives of Cremona, Brescia, Ferrara and Mantua came together in Pontida (April 1167). … The decision of the Lombards was, not to consider due to the emperor any more than had been considered due to him at the death of Henry V and to oppose him by force should he demand more. They restored Milan, which joined them, compelled Lodi to go over to their side and captured, as they had once done before, the treasure of the emperor which was in Trezzo. … Frederick thought to crush all opposition in Upper Italy if he could only withdraw from it the help of the Greeks and of the pope. He therefore turned first against Ancona which the emperor Manuel had captured and compelled the city to give him hostages. … He then attacked Rome. … They (the Germans) conquered the Leonine City after a bloody fight. The emperor himself appeared, installed his own pope and caused his queen to be crowned (August 1, 1167). Alexander fled, the city of Rome consented to make peace. … Thus had the main point been gained and the emperor prepared to renew the struggle against the Lombards. {3789} It was then that his brilliant army, beyond a doubt the most efficient of its age, was struck down by the hand of fate. A plague broke out which ravaged the city as well as the army, but which almost annihilated the latter. … He could no longer strike an effective blow at the Lombards. But he did not on that account lose his head. In Pavia he pronounced the bann against the cities; they answered by now first strengthening their bonds of union on a large scale. The cities which had previously been allied with Venice, and all the others, entered into a league which all were to swear to uphold; at the head of it was Venice. They were to make common cause in war and peace and to perform no services other than the customary ones. … The emperor felt that he could not cope with this new development and left Pavia. Only after great perils did he escape. They strove quite openly to take his life. With only a few companions he rescued himself. … In March 1172 the emperor represented to the princes that the contagion of faithlessness with which Italy had contaminated herself was seeking to spread itself out over Greece and Sicily. The term for the imperial campaign nevertheless was only set for two years later. … In July 1174 the emperor with his army crossed the Alps over the Mt Cenis. At this very time the Italians had opposed to him a new bulwark—a new city which they called Allessandria in honor of the pope. The emperor first attacked this but met with an opposition similar to that which Archbishop Christian experienced before Ancona. … Many conferences took place between the imperial plenipotentiaries, the delegates of the cities and the papal legates. But these latter, standing as they did at the same time in league with the Greek emperor and the king of Sicily, felt themselves to be the stronger. … Everything depended on his [Frederick's] procuring new help. … The great all-deciding question was whether Frederick would have Henry the Lion on his side; not indeed exclusively on account of the actual help that he would render but because his name in itself would increase the prestige of the emperor. … The power of an emperor in its full development seemed unbearable to Henry the Lion, even as in earlier times it had been unbearable to the German princes. … Henry's defection gave courage to the Italian cities. … On May 29, 1176, a battle took place near Legnano. … Brave as the emperor was he nevertheless suffered a complete defeat. … The letter is extant which the Milanese wrote to the Bolognese concerning the battle. Countless, so they exclaim, are the slain, the drowned, the prisoners. We have the shield, the standard, the lance and the cross of the emperor. Incalculable is the booty. … It is the battle through which the freedom and the progress of Italian nationality were founded. … Here [in Venice] now, with the pope and the king of Sicily a peace, with the Lombards a truce of six years was brought about. Then took place that famous meeting of the pope and the emperor in Venice, on the 24th of July 1177. … With the cities the emperor closed the peace of Constance in the year 1183. He acknowledged therein the extension of their jurisdiction over the surrounding territory and sanctioned their league but retained for himself three things:

1. his regalia, of which however an estimate was to be made according to their value and which were to be compensated for by payment of a fixed sum from each city;

3. the right that appeals should be made within Italy to imperial representatives.

It does not appear that these reservations greatly interfered with the liberty of the cities. … In a word, the two opponents of the empire in Italy had achieved great victories. The emperor had abandoned the idea of maintaining the old supremacy of the empire over the church and of subjecting the cities to his administration; he did not however on that account break off his connection with them. In 1184 he again came to Italy; for a yearly sum of 300 lire he abandoned all the rights that he had hitherto claimed from the cities and allied himself with them. … Meanwhile the emperor succeeded in making the greatest possible acquisition in Lower Italy. For that Norman kingdom which the Germans had so often attacked in vain there was only an heiress left, Constance, aunt of the ruling king. Bitterly as the pope opposed it the emperor was nevertheless able to bring about a marriage between her and his son Henry VI. and thus to secure for him the sure prospect of succeeding to Naples and Sicily. … Without knowing it Frederick thus tied a new knot which was to be decisive for the fate of his house and, we might even say, of Germany itself."

L. von Ranke, Weltgeschichte (translated from the German). volume 8. pages 171-209.

See (in this Supplement) AFRICA:
1882, 1885, 1889, 1889-1890, 1890-1891, 1894-1895.

JEFFERSON'S GUNBOATS.

JUSTICES OF THE PEACE.

"Bishop Caldwell says: 'When the Muhammadans arrived in Southern India, they found that part of it with which they first became acquainted-the country above the Gháts, including Mysore and part of Telingána—called the Karnataka country. In course of time, by a misapplication of terms, they applied the same name Karnatak, or Carnatic, to designate the country below the Gháts, as well as that which was above. The English have carried the misapplication a step further, and restricted the name to the country below the Gháts, which never had any right to it whatever. Hence the Mysore country, which is properly the true Karnatic, is no longer called by that name; and what is now geographically termed "the Karnatic" is exclusively the country below the Gháts, on the Coromandel coast, including the whole of the Tamil country and the Telugu-speaking District of Nellore.'"

KASHGAR.

See LAW, COMMON: A. D. 871-1066, 1100, 1135, and 1300 (pages 1956, 1958 and 1963).

KOREA.

LAND REGISTRATION.

LAND-TRANSFER REFORM.

LEGAL TENDER NOTES.

   A term applied to the eastern coasts of the Mediterranean,
   from the western part of Greece round to the western border of
   Egypt—more specifically to the coasts and islands of Asia
   Minor and Syria. The name—which signifies "rising" hence "the
   East"—was given to this region by the Italians.

LINE-OF-BATTLE SHIP.

LOMBARD BANKERS AND MONEY-CHANGERS.

François Guizot, Great Christians of France: Saint Louis and Calvin. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/62518

MADAGASCAR.

MANCHUS. MANCHURIA.

"The Manchus, from the earliest period of Chinese history, have occupied the country bounded on the east by the Japanese Sea, which is drained in its southern portion by the Tumun, by the right affluents of the Ya-lu-kiang, and by the upper portions of the left affluents of the Liau; and in its northern portion by the right affluents of the Upper Soongari, and the Lower Soongari, and Lower Amoor, with their affluents on both sides. This extent of country may be fitly called Manchuria Proper, to distinguish it from the present political Manchuria. This latter embraces not only the real Manchuria, but also a tract on the east side of the Liau, composed of the lower valleys of its left affluents, and of the Liau peninsula, and another on the west of the Liau, lying between its right bank and the Great Wall. Now these two tracts, known severally as Liau-tung or Liau East and Liau-se or Liau West, have, from the earliest historical periods, been occupied by a Chinese population, with the settled habits of their nation: agriculturists, artisans, and traders, dwellers in villages and cities. Hence, though situated beyond the Great Wall, it has always been a part, though a very exposed and often politically separated part, of China Proper. Manchuria Proper, as above defined, is a mountainous, well-watered tract, formerly altogether covered with forests, of which large portions still remain. The principal mountain range is the Chang-pih-shan, or Shan-a-lin, or Long White Mountains. … As the great arid plateau, the Shamo, has given to the Mongols their national characteristics, so the Long White Mountains, with their northerly spurs, separating the Upper Soongari, the Hurka, and the Usuri, have constituted the character-giving home and stronghold of the Manchus. These, unlike the Mongols, who have 'moved about after grass and water,' have always been a settled people, who in ancient times dwelt during the cold season in holes excavated in the sides of dry banks, or in pits in the earth, and during summer in huts formed of young trees and covered with bark or with long wild grass. They have, unlike the Mongols, from the earliest periods been somewhat of agriculturists; like them they have always reared domestic animals. … It has hitherto been the custom among Occidentals to speak of the Manchus as 'Tartars;' but if, as I believe, this name generally conveys the idea of a people of nomadic herdsmen, and usually large owners of camels, it will be seen from the foregoing sketch that it is altogether a misnomer as applied to the Manchus. … In the 11th century before Christ this nation appeared at the court of the Chow dynasty as Suh-chin, and presented tribute, a portion of which consisted of stone-headed arrows. In the 3d century after Christ they reappeared as Yih-low. … In the 5th, 6th, and 7th centuries after Christ we find them under the names of Wuh-keihs, and Mo-hos, still described as rude barbarians, but politically organized as a confederation of seven large tribes or seven groups of tribes. At length, in the beginning of the 8th century, a family named Ta, belonging to the Suhmo-Mo-hos, that member of the confederation whose territory lay immediately on the north of Corea and north-east of Liau East, established themselves as rulers over the whole of Manchuria Proper, over Liau East, and over a large portion of Corea. In A. D. 712, the then Whang-ti, or Emperor of China, conferred the title of Prince of Po-hae on the head of the family; but the immediate successors of this prince shook off even the form of vassalage, and by their conquest of Northern Corea and Liau East, assumed a position of hostility to the Whang-ti. Po-hac, the name adopted by the new rulers, became the name of the Manchu Nation; which under it for the first time takes a place in history, as constituting a civilized State with a centralized administration. … It was overthrown by the Ketans. About these the Chinese accounts conflict as to whether they were a Manchu or a Mongol tribe: I consider them more of the former than of the latter. They took their rise in the valleys of the Hu-lan, a small northern branch of the Soongari, which falls into the latter about 100 miles below its junction with the Nonni. {3792} The Ketans had possessed themselves of Eastern Mongolia, and been engaged in successful war on China before they, in A. D. 926, attacked the Po-hae state, which they speedily overthrew, incorporating into their own dominions all Manchuria Proper and the East of the Liau. Before the middle of the 10th century, they had conquered nearly all Mongolia and Northern China. … They assumed for their dynasty the name of Liau, that of the river which flows past this port. Under the eighth of the line, their power had sunk so much that it fell easily before the attacks of A-kuh-ta, the chief of a purely Manchu tribe or commune, the Neu-chins, whose original seat was the country between the Upper Soongari and the Hurka. The Neu-chins rebelled against the Ketans or Liaus in A. D. 1113. Within 15 years, they had possessed themselves of the whole of Manchuria, Mongolia, and Northern China, driving the Chinese Whang-ti to the south of the Great River, and themselves establishing a rival line under the name of Kin, or Golden; adopted because their own country Manchuria 'was a gold-producing one.' The Neu-chins or Kins were in their turn overthrown by the Mongols, under Ghenghis Khan and his immediate successors. Manchuria came under their power about A. D. 1217, Northern China, about A. D. 1233, and Southern China, about A. D. 1280, when they established—it was the first time the thing had happened—a line of non-Chinese Whang-tis in undisputed possession of that dignity. … The Mongol dynasty maintained itself in China for about 90 years, when (in A. D. 1368) the last Whang-ti of the line was driven to the north of the Great Wall by the forces of a Chinese rebel, who established himself at Nanking as the first Whang-ti of the Ming dynasty."

T. T. Meadows (Quoted in A. Williamson's "Journeys in North China," volume 2, chapter 4).

In 1644 the Ming dynasty was overthrown by a domestic rebellion in China, and a Manchu prince, called in by one of the generals of the fallen government, established himself on the throne, where his descendants have reigned to this day.

See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1839-1894, 1843-1883, 1862-1872 (pages 2941, 2945, 2951).

See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1885-1893 (page 2965); also (in this Supplement) AFRICA.

MASTER OF THE ROLLS.

See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1885-1893 (page 2965); also (in this Supplement) AFRICA: 1888.

"The Mennonites take their name from Menno Simons, born in Witmarsum, Holland, in 1492. He entered the priesthood of the Roman Catholic Church, and in 1524 was appointed chaplain in Pingium. Two years later he began to read the Scriptures, which he had hitherto ignored. Becoming a close student of them, his views on various doctrines soon changed, and he was known as an evangelical preacher. … He renounced Catholicism early in 1536, and was baptized at Leeuwarden. In the course of the following year he was ordained a minister in what was then known as the Old Evangelical or Waldensian Church. From this time on to his death, in 1559, he was active in the cause of evangelical truth, traveling through northern Germany, and preaching everywhere. The churches which he organized as a result of his labors rejected infant baptism and held to the principle of non-resistance. A severe persecution began to make itself felt against his followers, the Mennonites; and, having heard accounts of the colony established in the New World by William Penn, they began to emigrate to Pennsylvania near the close of the 17th century. … Successive immigrations from Holland, Switzerland, Germany, and, in the last twenty-five years, from southern Russia, have resulted in placing the great majority of Mennonites in the world on American soil, in the United States and Canada."

MICHIGAN WILD CAT BANKS.

"Two years after the organization of the territory, the Legislature petitioned Congress for a grant of 100,000 acres of land to endow a university, and on the very day of this petition two townships were set aside for that purpose. The Legislature went on to enact that the University of Minnesota should be established at or near the Falls of St. Anthony and should have the income from all land thereafter granted by the United States for University purposes. Under this grant the regents selected a large portion of the lands and erected a costly edifice, but they were soon obliged to mortgage both building and lands in order to meet the obligations incurred. Affairs were in this condition when Congress passed the act admitting Minnesota to the Union, by which two townships of land were granted for the use and support of a State university. … Efforts were at once made to open the university, but the financial crisis of 1857 and the Civil War checked further action and encumbered the university with debt. … The present organization of the university dates from 1868, when an act was passed 'to reorganize the University of Minnesota and to establish an agricultural college therein.' In the following year college classes were first organized. The act of 1868 provided that the university should have the income from the agricultural college grant. … From the university lands that have been sold something over $800,000 has been received, from which there is an annual income of about $37,000."

F. W. Blackmar, History of Federal and State Aid to Higher Education in the United States (Bureau of Education, Circular of Information, 1890, no. 1), pages 295-297.

T. O'Conor Sloane The Standard Electrical Dictionary https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/26535

MOSQUITO COUNTRY.

NEWNHAM HALL.

NICARAGUA, AND THE MOSQUITO INDIANS.

The question of the sovereignty of Nicaragua over the Mosquito country was settled affirmatively by a convention concluded in November, 1894. Great Britain at the same time gave assurances to the United States that she asserts no rights of sovereignty or protection over the country in question.

NIHILISM.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1809.
and 1808-1810 (pages 3332 and 3338).

OBERLIN COLLEGE.

   "Oberlin is a development from the missionary and reform
   movements of the early quarter of our century. Its direct
   impulse was the new spirit of active benevolence which tested
   old doctrines by experience and by their fitness for organized
   philanthropy. Its foundations were laid 23 years after the
   organization of the American Foreign Missionary Association, 7
   years after the first American temperance society, 15 years
   before the first public move to extend the rights of women,
   and in the same year with the American Anti-Slavery Society.
   All of these reform movements were more or less united in the
   Oberlin movement. The founders were themselves home
   missionaries in the West and among the Indians, and Oberlin
   has ever since been vital with the missionary spirit. From the
   first, alcoholic beverages have been excluded. Although not
   adopting the extreme doctrine of woman's rights, yet Oberlin
   was the first college in the world to admit young women to all
   its privileges on equal terms with young men; and as for its
   anti-slavery leanings, it had received colored students into
   its classes 28 years before emancipation. Such bold disregard
   of the old landmarks was not attractive to the power and
   wealth of the country, and so for 50 years Oberlin owed its
   life to the sacrifice and devotion of its founders and
   instructors. … In 1831 John J. Shipherd, under commission from
   the American Home Missionary Society, entered upon his work as
   pastor of the church at Elyria, Ohio. … In the summer of 1832
   he was visited by Philo P. Stewart, an old school friend in
   the days when they both attended the academy at Pawlet,
   Vermont. Stewart, on account of the failing health of his
   wife, had returned from mission work among the Choctaws in
   Mississippi, but his heart was still burning with zeal for
   extending Christian work in the West. The two men, after long
   consultations and prayer, finally concluded that the needs of
   the new country could best be met by establishing a community
   of Christian families with a Christian school, … the school to
   be conducted on the manual labor system, and to be open to
   both young men and young women.
{3794}
   It was not proposed to establish a college, but simply an
   academy for instruction in English and useful languages, and,
   if Providence should favor it, in 'practical theology.' In
   accordance with this plan the corporate name 'Oberlin
   Collegiate Institute' was chosen. Not until 1851 was a new and
   broader charter obtained, this time under the name of 'Oberlin
   College.' The name 'Oberlin' was chosen to signify the hope
   that the members of the new enterprise might be moved by the
   spirit of the self-sacrificing Swiss colporteur and pastor,
   John Friederich Oberlin."

J. R Commons, Oberlin College (in Bureau of Education, Circular of Information, 1801, no. 5), pages 55-56.

T. O'Conor Sloane The Standard Electrical Dictionary https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/26535

OHIO UNIVERSITY.

"Ohio University bears the double distinction of being the first college in the United States founded upon a land endowment from the national Government, and also of being the oldest college in the Northwest Territory. … The university owes its origin and endowment to the Ohio Company of Associates, who in 1787 purchased a large tract of land from the old board of treasury for the purpose of colonizing it with pioneers from New England. … The honor of obtaining this endowment belongs to Dr. [Manasseh] Cutler. … In 1795 the lands to be devoted to the support of the university were located. The townships selected were those now called Athens and Alexander, in Athens County. General Rufus Putnam, who was deeply interested in the proposed institution, used his influence to secure settlers for the college lands. … December 18, 1799, the Territorial legislature appointed Rufus Putnam, Benjamin Ives Gilman, and Jonathan Stone 'to lay off, in the most suitable place within the townships, a town plat, which should contain a square for the colleges; also lots suitable for house lots and gardens for a president, professors, tutors, etc., bordering on or encircled by spacious commons, and such a number of town lots adjoining the said commons and outlots as they shall think will be for the advantage of the university.' … In 1802 the legislature of the Northwest Territory passed an act establishing a university and giving to it in trust the land grant."

      G. W. Knight and J. R. Commons,
      History of Higher Education in Ohio
      (Bureau of Education,
      Circular of Information, 1891, number 5).

ONTARIO SCHOOL SYSTEM.

See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1800-1824, 1805-1827, and 1816-1886 (pages 2935, 2937, and 2938).

The Pamir and Tibet, which converge north of India and east of the Oxus, form jointly the culminating land of the continent. Disposed at right angles, and parallel, the one to the equator, the other to the meridian, they constitute the so-called 'Roof,' or 'Crown of the World,' though this expression is more usually restricted to the Pamir alone. With its escarpments, rising above the Oxus and Tarim plains west and east, the Pamir occupies, in the heart of the continent, an estimated area of 30,000 square miles. With its counterforts projecting some 300 miles, it forms the western headland of all the plateaux and mountain systems skirting the Chinese Empire; it completely separates the two halves of Asia, and forms an almost impassable barrier to migration and war-like incursions. Yet notwithstanding its mean elevation of 13,000 feet above arable land, it has been frequently crossed by small caravans of traders or travellers, and by light columns of troops. The attempt could not fail to be frequently made to take the shortest route across the region separating the Oxus from Kashgaria, and Europe from China. Hence the Pamir has often been traversed by Greeks, Romans, Arabs, Italians, Chinese, some as traders, some as explorers, some inspired by religious zeal. But of these travellers very few have left any record of their journey, and all took the lowest routes across the plateau."

E. Reclus, The Earth and its Inhabitants: Asia, volume 1, chapter 3, section 2.

"By investiture in mediaeval church law is meant the act of bestowing a church office, with the use of symbols, on the clergyman who has been appointed to fill it. It is especially to signify the act by which secular princes conferred on the chosen candidates the offices of bishop and abbot that the word is used since the eleventh century. The struggle which the papacy and the church carried on in the last half of the 11th and on into the 12th century for the purpose of doing away with this same right of the princes to confer such offices is called in consequence the war of the investitures. That the nomination of the bishops was a right pertaining to the sovereign was a view of the matter which had gained ground already in the time of the Frankish monarchy. The German kings up to the eleventh century insisted all the more on this right from the fact that the bishoprics and imperial abbacies had in course of time lost their original character of church organizations. They had been appanaged with imperial and other lands, with political and public rights, with immunities, rights of coinage etc. … They had, in consequence, become transformed into political districts, on a par with those of the secular princes and obliged, like the latter, to bear the public burdens, especially that of providing war-contingents and supplies. It Is true that in the period in question, although for the most part the king openly and freely filled the bishoprics and abbacies of his own accord, some elections had been carried through by the cathedral chapter, the other secular canons, the nobles, vassals and ministeriales of the bishopric. This was usually on the ground of royal privileges, of special royal permission, or of a designation of the candidate by the king. {3795} However the person might have been elected he could only enter into possession of the bishopric or abbacy after the king had formally conferred the office upon him. The death of a bishop would be announced to the king by envoys from the episcopal residence who at the same time, handing over the episcopal crosier and ring, would beg that the king would see to the refilling of the vacant office. It need hardly be said that any new candidate who might in the meantime have been elected presented himself likewise at court. The king discussed the matter of the bestowal of the vacant bishopric or abbacy with his secular and ecclesiastical nobles and councillors. His next step was to confer the office on the candidate he had chosen by means of investiture, that is by handing him the episcopal crosier and ring. The candidate in return had to take the oath of fealty and to perform the act of homage, the so-called hominium. This is how an episcopal office, at that time regarded as a conglomeration of ecclesiastical and secular rights, was regularly filled. … After the middle of the 11th century there began to show itself within the reform-party, which at that time gave the tone at Rome, a tendency, ever growing stronger, in favor of achieving the complete liberation of the church from the secular influence. The German kingdom and empire were to be subordinated to the papacy as to the proper controlling power. Those who held these views declared that the investiture of the bishops and abbots by the king was simony because, as was the custom on the part of those receiving other feudal grants, certain presents were made in return. It was demanded that the episcopal symbols, the ring and the crosier, should no longer be disposed of at the hand of a layman. As a matter of fact there had frequently been carried on an unworthy traffic with the bishoprics in consequence of the manner of conferring them. The ecclesiastical legislators, besides passing general laws against simony, came forward at first cautiously enough with the regulation that the clergy should accept no churches from the hands of a layman. The direct clash with the German court came later, in 1068, where the king had conferred the bishopric of Milan as usual through investiture, while the people, under the influence of the papal reform-party, demanded a bishop elected canonically and with Rome's consent. The king did not give way and Gregory VII, in the Roman synod of 1074, increased the severity of the earlier laws against simony, opening the struggle in a synod of the following year by ordaining that the people should not be present at ecclesiastical functions performed by those clergy who had gained office through simony, the reference being to those bishops who adhered to the king. Furthermore the royal right of conferring bishoprics by investiture was now directly denied. With this attack on an old and customary prerogative of the German king, one to which in earlier times had even been expressly acknowledged by the pope, an attempt was made to thoroughly undermine the foundations of the German empire and to rob the royal power of one of its chief supports. The bishops and abbots were princes of the realm, possessing, besides a number of privileges, the large feudal and allodial holdings which went with their churches. They had, on behalf of their bishoprics, to sustain the largest share of the empire's burdens. The crown found in them the chief props and supports of its power, for the ecclesiastical principalities could be freely granted to devoted adherents without regard to the hereditary dynastic claims of families. The only legal bond by which these princes were bound to the crown was the investiture with its oath of fealty and homage. The prohibition of this, then, denoted the cessation of the relationship which assured the dependence of the ecclesiastical princes on the king and on the empire and the performance of their duties to that empire. It delivered over the considerable material wealth and power of the imperial bishoprics and abbacies to a clergy that was loosed from all connection with the crown. With regard to the manner in which in future, according to the opinion of Gregory VII or the church-reform party, the bishoprics were to be filled, the above-mentioned synod does not express itself. The decrees of the Roman synod of 1080, as well as Gregory's own further attitude, however, make it appear unquestionable that, with the formal restoration of the old so-called canonical election by clergy and people in common with the metropolitan and his suffragans, he purposed the actual subjection to the pope of the episcopacy and of the resources which in consequence of its political position stood at its command. From the election of a secular clergy which should be freed from national and state interests by the carrying out of the celibacy laws—an election in which metropolitans who were to be kept in dependence on the papal throne were to play their part—there could result as a rule only bishops submissive to the papal court. All the more so as the Roman synod of 1080, in a form probably intentionally vague, gave the pope a right, concurrent with that of the archbishop, of testing the elections and of hindering any such as might be objectionable to the court of Rome. That the bishops and abbots elected in this way were to retain their former possessions and privileges in the empire was taken by Gregory VII as a matter of course. But were this the case their considerable resources stood wholly at the disposition of the papal chair; on the pope it depended what amount of services he would still allow for the benefit of the empire. Nay, more, as regards the ecclesiastical princes the pope would actually have taken the place of the emperor and king and could command the movements of the most insignificant vassal of a bishopric. … The dispute was finally ended by the concordat agreed to at Lobweisen (near Lorsch) and announced at Worms: … In the concordat the emperor renounced wholly the former investing with the bishop's and abbot's office by means of crosier and ring, and granted that in all churches these offices should be filled by canonical election and by the free consecration of the person elected. On the other hand the pope granted that the election of bishops and abbots belonging to the German kingdom might take place in presence of the emperor but without simony or violence, and that the emperor should have a right, employing the sceptre as a symbol and causing homage to be rendered, to perform the investiture—before the consecration, namely—with regard to the regalia, i. e. the totality of the landed possessions and rights which belonged to the individual bishopric or abbacy. … {3796} With the Concordat of Worms the church and the papacy, after a long struggle, had gained the victory over the empire. Even though the papal party had not been able to put through all its demands with regard to the question of investitures, yet the empire was compelled to renounce rights which had been exercised unassailed for centuries, and thereby to confirm the emancipation of the papacy from the former imperial overlordship, thus stamping its position as an independent political power. This success was the more considerable for the reason that the agreement of Worms had established the ecclesiastical and imperial rights only in the most general terms and in an equivocal form, but had left the further development of the new manner of conferring the offices to be decided by practice. … If already the Hohenstaufens of the 12th century had succeeded only with great efforts in protecting themselves against such interpretation of the Concordat as infringed on the imperial rights, there was, naturally, in the 13th century,—in view of the condition of the empire, the political situation of Germany, and the predominating supremacy of the papacy,—no further question of such an attitude. … In this form of interpretation, given to it by usage and derogatory to the imperial rights, the Concordat of Worms remained the basis of the German imperial law regarding the collation of bishoprics and imperial abbacies until the dissolution of the German empire in 1806."

      Hinschius,
      Investiturstreit
      (Herzog's Realencyklopaedie für protestantische
      Theologie und Kirche, volume 6).

"In this fullness of his power [after the destruction of Milan, 1162] the emperor came anew into conflict with the papacy. Reason enough for it was that the emperor intended to treat Rome also as a city of the empire like the rest. … Between the claims of the two powers there was an ineradicable fundamental difference which showed itself at every moment. What the papacy did, to continually bring forward and maintain new rights, the empire could, after all, do also. Among other ways the remarkable contradiction finds utterance thus, that the emperor claims to be above the law, the pope above tribunals; the one is the chief, unrestricted lawgiver, the other the chief judge over all. The emperor rose up in injured self-esteem when the pope used the word 'benefice' in speaking of his relations with the empire. The pope was forced to explain the word, which had two meanings, in its more harmless sense. The Lombard cities always maintained that they had been strengthened in their opposition by Adrian IV. It is probable that already between the emperor and this pope a struggle would have taken place; but Adrian died (at Anagni, September 1, 1159), and after his death there was a disputed papal election. There was a powerful imperial faction among the cardinals but a still more powerful anti-German one. At the election it came to a hand to hand fight, as it were, between the two candidates. The purple mantle was just about to be laid on the shoulders of the anti-imperial cardinal Roland when the imperial candidate Octavian rushed in and tore it away from him. The latter was first proclaimed in Rome as Victor IV, the former was consecrated in Ninfa as Alexander III. The emperor saw here an opportunity of extending his power, indirectly at least, over the papacy also. He ordered both popes to appear at a council which he called. He took occasion to recall to remembrance an old right of the empire, the right of holding councils and passing judgment on the papacy. He accordingly appointed a church assembly to be held in Pavia and invited to it, as he says in his summons, all the bishops of England, France, Hungary, Denmark and his own kingdom. What a conception he had of his own dignity is shown by the words: 'It is enough to have one God, one pope, one emperor, and it is proper that there should be only one church.' In venturing once more to pass judgment on Frederick's actions and to inquire, solely from a historical point of view, how far his ideas deviated from previous ones I find that in this case he went to work exactly as he did against the cities. From the oldest times church conflicts had been settled by the emperor with the assistance of a council; since the days of Otto I immense achievements had been made in this way; but never yet had a German emperor called together at the same time the bishops of all other kingdoms. Frederick's deviation lay herein, that he appropriated to himself this right. He did not stop at what was customary and a matter of precedent but, on the basis of his own ideal conception of the imperial rights, extended his claim until it became altogether universal. It might have been possible to maintain this claim; but, so much is certain, it could only have happened after previous arrangement with the other monarchs. The council was attended from all parts of the empire on the one side or the other of the Alps. The emperor left the deliberations in the hands of the clergy. They declared in a body for Victor; the emperor spoke last and accepted him. Thus did he understand the imperial power, thus did he wish to exercise it. But it is evident that herewith the whole conflict with the papacy came into an entirely new stage. The emperor with his council wished to decide which pope all Europe should obey. Naturally he met with opposition. John of Salisbury expresses the point at issue very well; 'who,' he says, 'has made the Germans judges over the nations?' One might almost say this had been their claim. In so far as they appointed the emperor they wished also to have the precedence over other nations. … Of the popes only one, the favored one, Victor, submitted; the other, Alexander III, declared the pope should summon and not be summoned, should judge and not be judged. He was not willing to plunge the church into a new slavery. For the time being Victor maintained the supremacy in Italy. … The Romans dated their legal documents according to the years of his pontificate. Meanwhile Alexander III fled to France. He found support here mainly from the fact that the western nations would not accord to the emperor the supremacy over Europe which was implied in his decision regarding the papacy. … For a moment the kingdom of England seemed about to join in the church policy of the German empire; they formed as it were a Germanic party. The strict papistical idea was more the Romanic; but at the same time it was that of the expanding freedom of the people. {3797} That is why Alexander III had also on his side the Lombard cities which were opposing the emperor. Here too it was not a mere faction but a grand idea. The cities, with their striving for a constitution to a certain degree autonomic and resting on a basis of free elections, sided with the idea of the independence of the European kingdoms. From the depths of European life arose mighty strivings which opposed the idea of the emperor to renew the Roman empire and its prerogatives. … In the year 1165 Alexander, coming from Salerno, was escorted by William I [of Sicily] into Rome. This great opposition against the German empire was joined also by the Greek emperor, Manuel. He wished himself to attain the rule of the Roman empire and in return the Greek and the Roman churches were to be united. All at once Emperor Frederick found himself involved in a most dangerous struggle, but he was determined to fight it out. And he had the empire of the Germans on his side in the matter. At a great diet in Wurzburg, at the especial prompting of the imperial chancellor Raynald, archbishop elect of Cologne, the emperor and the princes swore never to acknowledge either Alexander III or any pope elected by his party. Indeed no future emperor was to be elected who would not promise to act accordingly. Stern obligations were further attached to this oath. … In November 1166 the emperor began his expedition for the purpose of driving out Pope Alexander. But already under his very eyes the Lombard cities were bestirring themselves against him."

L. von Ranke, Weltgeschichte (translated from the German) volume 8, pages 179-185.

"The battle of Legnano, fought on May 29th, 1176, ended in disaster and defeat. Frederick himself, who was wounded and thrown from his horse, finally reached Pavia after days of adventurous flight, having meanwhile been mourned as dead by the remnant of his army. All was not yet lost, indeed, … but Frederick, although he at first made a pretense of continuing the war, was soon forced by the representations of his nobles to abandon the policy of twenty-four years, and to make peace on the best terms obtainable with Alexander III, and through him with the Lombard cities. The oath of Wurzburg was broken and the two treaties of Anagni and Venice put an end to the long war. … The terms of the treaty were finally assented to by the emperor at Chioggia, July 21st, 1177. Alexander now prepared to carry out his cherished project of holding a mighty peace congress at Venice; and there, at the news of the approaching reconciliation, nobles and bishops and their retinues came together from all parts of Europe. Now that the peace was to become an accomplished fact Venice outdid herself in preparing to honor the emperor. The latter, too, was determined to spare no expense that could add to the splendor of the occasion. He had negotiated for a loan with the rich Venetians, and he now imposed a tax of 1,000 marks of silver on his nobles. Frederick's coming was announced for Sunday, July 24th, and by that time the city had donned its most festive attire. … A platform had been constructed at the door of the church, and upon it was placed a raised throne for the pope. … Having reached the shore Frederick, in the presence of an immense crowd, approached the papal throne, and, throwing off his purple mantle, prostrated himself before the pope and kissed the latter's feet. Three red slabs of marble mark the spot where he knelt. It was a moment of world-wide importance; the empire and the papacy had measured themselves in mortal combat, and the empire, in form at least, was now surrendering at discretion. No wonder that later ages have fabled much about this meeting. The pope is said, with his foot on the neck of the prostrate king, to have exclaimed aloud, 'The lion and the young dragon shalt thou trample under thy feet!'"

PATENT-RIGHT.

PEARY ARCTIC EXPEDITIONS.

PENNSYLVANIA GERMANS.

"At the close of the Thirty Years' war there ran through Protestant Germany a broad line; upon the one side of that line stood the followers of Luther and Zwingli, of Melanchthon and Calvin—these were the Church people; upon the other side stood Menno Simon and 'The Separatists'—these were the Sect people. It was a line which divided persecution by new boundaries, and left the faggot and the stake in new hands, for the Peace of Westphalia had thrown the guarantees of its powerful protection only over the one side of this Protestant division. … When 'the news spread through the Old World that William Penn, the Quaker, had opened an asylum to the good and the oppressed of every nation, and Humanity went through Europe gathering up the children of misfortune,' our forefathers came out from their hiding places in the forest depths and the mountain valleys which the sun never penetrated, clad in homespun, their feet shod with wood, their dialects ofttimes unintelligible to each other. There was scarcely a family among them which could not be traced to some ancestor burned at the stake for conscience sake. Judge Pennypacker says: 'Their whole literature smacks of fire. Beside a record like theirs the sufferings of Pilgrim and Quaker seem trivial.' … The thousands of Germans, Swiss and Dutch who migrated here on the invitation of Penn, came without ability to speak the English language, and without any knowledge, except that derived from general report, of the customs and habits of thought of the English people. {3798} They went vigorously to work to clear the wilderness and establish homes. They were sober, religious, orderly, industrious and thrifty. The reports the earlier settlers made to their friends at home of the prosperity and liberty they enjoyed in their new homes, induced from year to year many others to come. Their numbers increased so much as to alarm the proprietary officials. Logan wanted their immigration prevented by Act of Parliament, 'for fear the colony would in time be lost to the crown.' He wrote a letter in which he says: 'The numbers from Germany at this rate will soon produce a German colony here, and perhaps such a one as Britain received from Saxony in the 5th Century.' As early as 1747, one of the proprietary Governors attributed the prosperity of the Pennsylvania colony to the thrift, sobriety and good characters of the Germans. Numerous as they were, because this was in its government a purely English colony, the part they took in its public affairs was necessarily limited. The Government officials and the vast majority of the members of the Assembly were all English. During the long struggle in the Colonies to adjust the strained relations with Great Britain, the Germans were seemingly indifferent. They saw no practical gain in surrendering the Penn Charter, and Proprietary Government, under which they had obtained their homes, for the direct rule of the British King. They could not understand the distinction between King and Parliament. … When, therefore, in 1776, the issue was suddenly enlarged into a broad demand for final separation from Great Britain, and the creation of a Republic, all their traditional love of freedom was fully aroused. Under the Proprietary rule, although constituting nearly one-half the population of the colony, they were practically without representation in the General Assembly, and without voice in the Government. The right of 'electing or being elected' to the Assembly was confined to natural born subjects of England, or persons naturalized in England or in the province, who were 21 years old, and freeholders of the province owning fifty acres of seated land, and at least twelve acres improved, or worth clear fifty pounds and a resident for two years. Naturalization was not the simple thing it now is. The conditions were exceptionally severe, and comparatively few Germans qualified themselves to vote. The delegates to the Colonial Congress were selected by the General Assembly. In November, 1775, the Assembly instructed the Pennsylvania delegates not to vote for separation from Great Britain. The majority of the delegates were against separation. … At the election for new members in May, 1776, in Philadelphia, three out of four of those elected were opposed to separation. The situation was most critical. Independence and union were not possible without Pennsylvania. Geographically, she was midway between the Colonies. She was one of the wealthiest and strongest. Her government was in the hands of those opposed to separation. One course only remained. Peaceful efforts in the Assembly to enfranchise the Germans, by repealing the naturalization laws and oath of allegiance, had failed, and now this must be accomplished by revolution, because their enfranchisement would give the friends of liberty and union an overwhelming and aggressive majority. This was the course resolved on. The Philadelphia Committee called a conference of committees of the Counties. On the 18th of June, 1776, this provincial conference, numbering 104, met in Philadelphia. The German counties were represented no longer by English tories. There were leading Germans in the delegations from Philadelphia, Lancaster, Northampton, York, Bucks and Berks. In Berks, the royalist Biddle gives place to eight prominent Germans, headed by Governor Heister, Colonels Hunter, Eckert and Lutz. The proprietary government of Pennsylvania, with its Tory Assembly, was overthrown—foundation, pillar and dome. This conference called a Provincial Convention to frame a new Government. On the petition of the Germans, the members of that Convention were to be elected by persons qualified to vote for Assembly, and by the military associators (volunteers), being freemen 21 years of age, resident in the province one year. This gave the Germans the right to vote. Thus says Bancroft: 'The Germans were incorporated into the people and made one with them.' The 19th of June, 1776, enfranchised the Germans, and made the Declaration of Independence possible. … It is absolutely true, that, as the English people of the province were divided in 1776, the Germans were the potential factors in securing the essential vote of Pennsylvania for the Declaration of Independence. … Throughout the Revolution, these Germans … were the steadfast defenders of the new Republic. Dr. Stille, in his recent admirable 'Life of Dickinson,' concedes that 'no portion of the population was more ready to defend its homes, or took up arms more willingly in support of the American cause.' Washington, when in Philadelphia after the war, testified his high appreciation of the hearty support the Germans gave him, and the cause he represented, by worshiping with his family in the old German church on Race street. The descendants of the Pennsylvania-Germans have settled all over the West, contributing to Ohio, Illinois and other Western States, the same sturdy, honest population that characterizes Pennsylvania. From Revolutionary times until now, they have borne an honorable part In the Nation's history and progress."

      E. K. Martin and G. F. Baer,
      Addresses
      (Proceedings,
      Pennsylvania-German Convention, April 15, 1891),
      pages 14-24.

PHŒNICIAN COMMERCE.

"The rise of Plymouth Brotherism was almost contemporaneous with that of Tractarianism, and, far apart as the two systems appear to be, they were partly due to the action of similar causes. In both cases there was a dissatisfaction with the state of spiritual life, and a longing for something more real, more elevated in tone, more practical in results. … The society or 'assembly,' as the Brethren love to call it, was a development. There was no purpose on the part of its founders of establishing any new sect or party. A few men with spiritual affinities, desiring a religious fellowship which they could not find in the ordinary services of their Church, grouped themselves in small companies and held periodical meetings for the study of the Scriptures, for Christian conference, and for prayer. From the very beginning the movement had attractions for devout men of high social position and some culture. Mr. Darby, who was one of the leading spirits in Dublin, and who is said by those who have had personal acquaintance with the inner life of the Brethren to wield a power over his followers to which there is no parallel among ecclesiastics, except in the case of the Pope himself, was originally a curate of the Church of Ireland. Mr. Benjamin W. Newton, who was one of the principal members of the similar society in Plymouth, which has given its name to the movement, was a fellow of Exeter College, Oxford. Dr. Tregelles, another of the Plymouth company, was a distinguished Biblical scholar. Mr. A. Groves, who, perhaps, rather than Mr. Darby or Mr. Newton, may be regarded as the promoter of these meetings, but who early withdrew from the party when, on a return from a visit to the East, he found that their social religious gatherings were rapidly developing into a distinct sectarian organization, was a student for the Anglican ministry at Trinity College, Dublin. The Brethren despise culture, and yet apart from men of culture it is hard to see how the movement could have had such success."

POLAR EXPLORATION.

PRINCETON COLLEGE.

The College of New Jersey, more commonly called Princeton College, "originated in the plan of Jonathan Dickinson, John Pierson, Ebenezer Pemberton, Aaron Burr, with others, to found an institution 'in which ample provision should be made for the intellectual and religious culture of youth desirous to obtain a liberal education, and more especially for the thorough training of such as were candidates for the holy ministry.' Its first charter was granted in 1746 by the Honorable John Hamilton, President of His Majesty's Council, and is noteworthy as the first college charter ever given in this country by a Governor or acting Governor with simply the consent of his Council. A second and more ample charter was granted September 14th, 1748, by the 'trusty and well-beloved' Jonathan Belcher, Esquire, Governor and Commander-in-chief of the province of New Jersey. After the war of the Revolution, the charter was confirmed and renewed by the Legislature of New Jersey. The Corporation is styled in that instrument 'the Trustees of the College of New Jersey.' … On April 27th, 1747, the Trustees made a public announcement that they had 'appointed the Rev. Jonathan Dickinson, President,' and that the college would be opened in the fourth week of May next at Elizabethtown. President Dickinson having died on the 7th of October following, the Rev. Aaron Burr assumed the duties of the Presidency and the college was removed from Elizabethtown to Newark. Soon after, it was removed from Newark to Princeton, where in 1754-1755 the first college building was erected. … The College of New Jersey, as now constituted, includes the John C. Green School of Science. This institution, which has its own professors and instructors, was founded in 1873 upon an endowment of Mr. John C. Green. The first college building, erected in 1754-5, was named Nassau Hall, at the request of Governor Belcher."

      ALSO IN:
      J. F. Hageman,
      History of Princeton and its Institutions.

PROFIT-SHARING EXPERIMENTS.

PROVISIONS OF OXFORD.

REDWOOD LIBRARY.

RELIGIOUS LIBERTY.

ROME:
Charlemagne's restoration of the Empire in the West.
His imperial coronation and its significance.

"The Germans, who had destroyed the Western Empire, now, after having been received into Roman civilisation and the bosom of the Church, effected its restoration. And the Church, whose laws controlled the West, created anew from within herself the Roman Empire, as the political form of her cosmopolitan principle, and that spiritual unity within which the Popes had embraced so many nations. Her supremacy over all churches of the West could, moreover, only attain complete recognition through the Emperor and the Empire. The restoration of the Empire was rendered necessary by the formidable power of Islam, which not only harassed Byzantium, but, from the side of Sicily and Spain, also threatened Rome. The Greek Emperors could rule the West together with the East so long as the Roman Church was weak, so long as Italy lay sunk in lethargy, and the German West swarmed with lawless barbarians. It was no longer possible to do so when the Church attained independence, Italy consciousness of her nationality, and Europe had become united in the powerful Frankish Empire, at the head of which stood a great monarch. Thus the idea of proclaiming Charles Emperor arose, and thus was carried out the scheme with which the irate Italians had threatened Leo the Isaurian at the beginning of the Iconoclastic controversy. The West now demanded the occupation of the Imperial throne. True, the Byzantine Empire had, in the course of time, acquired a legal sanction. Byzantium, however, was but the daughter of Rome. From Rome the Imperium had proceeded; here the Cæsars had their seat. The illustrious mother of the Empire now resumed her rights, when, as in ancient times, she offered the Imperial crown to the most powerful ruler of the West. … A transaction so momentous, and rendered necessary by the ideas of the time and the demands of the West, but which, nevertheless, bore the semblance of a revolt against the rights of Byzantium, could scarcely have been the work of the moment, but more probably was the result of a sequence of historic causes and resolutions consequent upon them. Can we doubt that the Imperial crown had been the goal of Charles's ambition and the ideal of such of his friends as cherished Roman aspirations? He himself came to Rome evidently to take the crown, or, at least, to form some decisive resolution with regard to it, and during his sojourn in France the Pope had declared himself ready to help in the accomplishment of this great revolution. … We may suppose that Charles's clerical friends were the most zealous supporters of the scheme, which perhaps was not received by the Pope with a like degree of enthusiasm. Alcuin's letter proves that he, at least, had already been initiated into the idea; and the Frankish envoys, after a year spent in Rome, had doubtless come to an understanding with the Romans, on whose vote the election mainly depended. The Romans it was who, exercising the ancient suffrages of the Senate and people, had elected Charles their Patricius, and who now, in virtue of the same rights, elected him Emperor. And only as Emperor of the Romans and of Rome did he become Emperor of the entire State. A decree of the Roman nobility and people had undoubtedly preceded the coronation; and Charles's nomination as Roman Emperor (in strict accordance with the plan of a papal election) was effected by the three traditional elective bodies. The great revolution which extinguished the ancient rights of the Byzantines was not to appear the arbitrary deed of either King or Pope, but the act of God Himself, and therefore the legal transaction of Christendom, as expressed by the voice of the Roman people, of the parliament of the united clergy, optimates, and citizens assembled in Rome, Germans as well as Latins. The Frankish chroniclers themselves say that Charles was made Emperor by the election of the Roman people, quote the united parliament of the two nations, and enumerate the list of the members who took part in the parliament: the Pope, the entire assembly of bishops, clergy, and abbots, the Frankish senate, the Roman optimates, and the rest of the Christian people. The resolution of the Romans and Franks was announced to Charles in the form of a request. Are we to believe that, like Augustus in former days, he made a feint of reluctance to accept the supreme dignity, until it was forced upon him as an accomplished fact? Are we to receive as hypocritical the assurance of a man so pious and heroic, when he asserts that the Imperial crown came upon him wholly as a surprise, and adds that he would not have entered S. Peter's had he known of Leo's intention? Had not Charles's son, Pipin, been purposely recalled from the war against Benevento, in order to witness the Imperial coronation? An explanation of these conflicting statements has been sought in the statement of Eginhard, who maintains that Charles's hesitation was dictated by respect for Byzantium; that he had not yet assented to the scheme, and had sought by negotiations to gain the recognition of the Greeks to the election; that, therefore, the coronation really did take him by surprise, and, with regard to the time chosen, seemed inopportune. This view is supported by reasons of probability, which, however, solely concern the occasion chosen for the coronation, since to his elevation to the Imperial throne Charles had already long given his consent. … When, in later times, the German Empire came into conflict with the Papacy, doctors of canon law advanced the theory that the Emperor received the crown solely by favour of the Pope, and traced the investiture to Charles's coronation at the hands of Leo the Third. The Emperors, on the other hand, appealed to the shout of the people: 'Life and victory to the Emperor of the Romans, crowned by God,' and asserted that they derived the crown, the inalienable heritage of the Cæsars, from God alone. The Romans, on their side, maintained that Charles owed the crown entirely to the majesty of the Roman Senate and people. The dispute as to the actual source of Empire continued throughout the entire Middle Ages, and, while exercising no actual change in the world's history, revealed an indwelling need of mankind; the necessity, namely, of referring the world of facts back to a rudimentary right by which power becomes legalised. Pope Leo the Third as little possessed the right to bestow the crown of Empire, which was not his, as Charles did to claim it. {3801} The Pope, however, regarded himself as the representative of the Empire and of Romanism; and undoubtedly, as the head of Latin nationality, and still more as the recognised spiritual overseer of the Christian republic, he possessed the power of accomplishing that revolution which, without the aid of the Church, would have been impossible. Mankind at large regarded him as the sacred intercessor between the world and the Divinity; and it was only through his coronation and unction at the papal hands that the Empire of Charles received divine sanction in the eyes of men. The elective right of the Romans, on the other hand, in whatever form it may appear, was uncontested, and in no later Imperial election could it have been of so decisive legal significance."

F. Gregorovius, History of the City of Rome in the Middle Ages, book 4, chapter 7, section 3 (volume 2).

RUTGERS COLLEGE.

"Rutgers College, located at New Brunswick, was chartered by George III. in 1770, and was called Queen's College, in honour of his consort. The present name was substituted by the legislature of the State, in 1825, at request of the trustees, in honour of Colonel Henry Rutgers, of New York, to whom the institution is indebted for liberal pecuniary benefactions. The charter was originally granted to such Protestants as had adopted the constitution of the reformed churches in the Netherlands, as revised by the national synod of Dordrecht, in the years 1618 and 1619. … The Theological College of the Reformed Dutch Church is established here and intimately blended with the literary institution."

T. F. Gordon, Gazetteer of the State of New Jersey. (bound with "History of New Jersey"), page 86.

"Some people of to-day seem to have the idea that the Rev. William Booth was Jove, and that the Salvation Army sprang from his brain full-grown and fully armed. Far from it; a boy trained in the Church of England is converted among Wesleyan Methodists, and, believing thoroughly in what he professes, is constrained to feel interested in the salvation of others. He is much moved by some revival services that he hears conducted by the Rev. James Caughey, an American evangelist, and the effect of the straightforward, conversational style of preaching, makes an impression upon him that is never forgotten. Through all the years that follow, among all the scenes of his labors as a Methodist minister, he never forgets that simple, open-air preaching, that pushing home of the truth, with its wonderful results, and year after year only increases the conviction that the masses can only be reached by going to them, and never, never saved by waiting until they come to us. Years passed away before William Booth and his wife came to the point where they could step out, shake off traditional methods and means, and begin to carry out evangelistic work on lines forbidden by the churches. … 'Nothing succeeds like success,' and when the first results were between three and four thousand souls in four little towns of Cornwall, there was a decided leaning toward them, overpowered, though, at a meeting of the Wesleyan Conference, which promulgated the strange formula that 'evangelistic movements are unfavorable to Church order.' However, the work was carried on steadily, until that memorable Sunday [July 5th, 1865] on Mile End Waste, East London, from which William Booth consecrated himself to the salvation of the ignorant, and from which he dates all statistics referring to his work as an independent movement in the religious world. From this time forward, without interrupting in the least the open-air work, one shelter after another was secured and appropriated for mission work, here a tent or an old stable, there a carpenter's shop, until the movement was strong enough to warrant the lease of 'The Eastern Star,' a notorious beer-house, which was used as book-store, hall, and classroom. From this place, with its name of good hope, hundreds of souls went forth to make the wilderness blossom like the rose, so far as their humble homes were concerned. Sheds, lofts, alleys, tumble-down theatres, well-known places of resort or of refuge were preferred as being familiar to the class of men who were to be reached. Such was the Salvation Army in its early years, merely a 'mission.' with no more idea of development into an 'army,' with military rule and nomenclature, than we at the present time have of what may come to us in the next twenty years."

   "In 1873 Mrs. Booth, overcoming her own intense reluctance,
   began to preach. In 1874 and the two following years the work
   spread to Portsmouth, Chatham, Wellingborough, Hammersmith,
   Hackney, Leeds, Leicester, Stockton, Middlesborough, Cardiff,
   Hartlepool, and other towns, where recent converts of the
   humblest rank—tinkers, railway guards, navvies—took charge of
   new stations. In 1876, shaking itself more and more free from
   the trammels of custom and routine, the Army deliberately
   utilized the services of women. In 1877 it spread still
   further. In 1878 it 'attacked' no less than fifty towns,
   and—more by what we should call 'accident' than by
   design—assumed the title of the Salvation Army. It also
   adopted, for good or for evil, the whole vocabulary of
   military organization, which has caused it to be covered with
   ridicule, but which may undoubtedly have aided its discipline
   and helped its progress. In 1879 advance was marked by the
   imprisonment of three Salvationists—who refused, as always, to
   pay the alternative fine—for the offence of praying in a
   country road near a public-house, which was regarded as
   'obstructing the thoroughfare.'
{3802}
   In this year began also the establishment of training homes
   for the instruction and equipment of the young officers; the
   printing of the 'War Cry'; the use of uniforms and badges; and
   the extension of the work to Philadelphia and the United
   States. In 1880 the United Kingdom was mapped into divisions.
   In 1881 the work was extended to Australia and the colonies,
   and so stupendous had become the religious energy of the
   soldiers that they began to dream of the religious rescue of
   Europe as well as of Great Britain and its empire-colonies.
   Since that year its spread, in spite of all opposition, has
   been steady and continuous, until, in 1890, it excited the
   attention of the civilized world by that immense scheme of
   social amelioration into which we shall not here enter
   particularly. At the present moment [1891] the Army has no
   less than 9,349 regular officers, 13,000 voluntary officers,
   30 training homes; with 400 cadets, and 2,864 corps scattered
   over 32 different countries. In England alone it has 1,377
   corps, and has held some 160,000 open-air meetings. This
   represents a part of its religious work. Besides this it has
   in social work 30 rescue homes, 5 shelters, 3 food depots, and
   many other agencies for good."

      F. W. Farrar,
      The Salvation Army
      (Harper's Magazine, May, 1891).

In one of his addresses, delivered during his visit to the United States, in February, 1895, General Booth said: "We have, with God's help, been able to carry our banner and hoist our flag in 45 different countries and colonies, and we are reaching out day by day. We have been able to create and bring into harmonious action, with self-supporting and self-guiding officers, something like 4,000 separate societies. We have been able to gather together something like 11,000 men and women, separated from their earthly affiliations, who have gone forth as leaders of this host." In the same address, General Booth gave the number of the Army newspapers as 27, with a circulation of 50,000,000,—presumably meaning the total issues of a year.

SARDANAPALUS.

"A great sensation was created by the announcement, January 19, that Milan and Natalie, the divorced parents of King Alexander, had become reconciled at Biarritz. Whether this had political significance was unknown, but rumor connected it with various incidents bearing on the pending elections. The Skupshtina was dissolved in November, and the Liberal government, by energetic measures, put the electoral machinery in such shape that at the voting in March a small Liberal majority was secured in the place of the enormous Radical majority that had controlled the former legislature. When the Skupshtina assembled, April 6, the Radicals, in resentment at certain proceedings of the government designed to increase its majority, left the hall and refused to take part in the session. The troublesome situation thus produced was wholly abolished by a coup d'etat of King Alexander, April 13. At a banquet in the palace, at which the regents and cabinet were present, the king suddenly accused them of misrule and demanded their resignations, saying that he would assume the government himself. On the refusal of the regents to resign he ordered them under guard, and on the following day a new ministry was appointed, with M. Dokitch, a Radical, at its head. Careful arrangement of the troops had insured that no resistance could be made to the king's acts, and no blood was shed. The constitution makes eighteen the age at which the king attains his majority, but Alexander is not yet seventeen. His action was greeted with general favor throughout the country. An explanation of the affair is found in the ill-disguised relations of the Radicals with the pretender Karageorgiewitch, and the dread of Milan and Natalie that the hostile policy of the regents toward the Radicals, who are in a majority in the land, would precipitate an overthrow of the reigning dynasty." The elections which followed the coup d' état gave the Radicals an overwhelming majority in the Skupshtina—122 members out of 134.

T. O'Conor Sloane, The Standard Electrical Dictionary https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/26535

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1835, 1836, 1837-1838, and 1842, (page 3373, and after).

SOCIALIST PARTIES IN GERMANY.

SOLOMON. SOLOMON'S TEMPLE.

SOMMERING'S TELEGRAPH.

"Rodrigo Diez de Bivar, who came of an old Castilian stock, was born in 1026—others say 1040—and was thus a contemporary of William the Conqueror, of England. Diez was his patronymic, meaning the son of Diego (in English James), and Bivar, the village of his birth, near Burgos, where the site of his house is still shown. His name of 'El Cid,' the Lord, or 'Mio Cid,' which is exactly 'Monseigneur,' was given him first by the Moors, his own soldiers and subjects, and universally adopted by all Spaniards from that day to this. Such a title is significant, not only of the relations between the two peoples, but of Rodrigo's position as at once a Moorish and a Spanish chief. 'El Campeador,' the name by which Rodrigo is also distinguished, means in Spanish something more special than 'champion.' A 'campeador' was a man who had fought and beaten the select fighting-man of the opposite side, in the presence of the two armies; which points to a custom derived, as much else of early Spanish, from the East. Rodrigo earned the name, not at the expense of any Moor but of a Christian, having when quite a youth slain a Navarrese champion in a war between Castile and Navarre. The first mention of his name occurs in a deed of Fernando I., of the year 1064."

"Sancho III. of Navarre, who died in 1034, had united almost all the Christian states of the Peninsula under one dominion, having married the heiress of the county of Castile, and obtained the hand of the sister of Bermudez III., the last king of Leon, for his second son, Ferdinand. The Asturias, Navarre, and Aragon, were all subject to him, and he was the first who assumed the title of King of Castile. To him the sovereign houses of Spain have looked up as their common ancestor, for the male line of the Gothic Kings became extinct in Bermudez III. … D. Sancho divided his states amongst his children: D. Garcia became King of Navarre, D. Ferdinand, King of Castile, and D. Ramirez, King of Aragon. The Cid, who was a subject of D. Ferdinand, entered upon his military career under that monarch's banners, where he displayed that marvellous strength and prodigious valour, that constancy and coolness, which raised him above all the other warriors of Europe. Many of the victories of Ferdinand and the Cid were obtained over the Moors, who being at that time deprived of their leader and without a central government, were much exposed to the attacks of the Christians. … The arms of Ferdinand and the Cid were not, however, always directed against the infidels. The ambitious Monarch soon afterwards attacked his brother-in-law, Bermudez III. of Leon, the last of the descendants of D. Pelagius, whom he despoiled of his states, and put to death in 1037. He subsequently attacked and dethroned his eldest brother, D. Garcia, and afterwards his younger brother, D. Ramirez, the former of whom he likewise sacrificed. The Cid, who had received his earliest instructions under D. Ferdinand, made no scrupulous enquiries into the justice of that prince's cause, but combating blindly for him, rendered him glorious in the eyes of the vulgar by these iniquitous conquests. It is also in the reign of Ferdinand that the first romantic adventures of the Cid are said to have occurred; his attachment to Ximena, the only daughter of Count Gormaz; his duel with the Count, who had mortally injured his father; and lastly his marriage with the daughter of the man who had perished by his sword. The authenticity of these poetical achievements rests entirely on the romances [of the Chronicle of the Cid]; but though this brilliant story is not to be found in any historical document, yet the universal tradition of a nation seems to stamp it with sufficient credit. The Cid was in habits of the strictest friendship with the eldest son of Ferdinand, D. Sancho, surnamed the Strong, and the two warriors always combated side by side. During the lifetime of the father, the Cid, in 1049, had rendered tributary the Musulman Emir of Saragossa. He defended that Moorish prince against the Aragonese, in 1063; and when Sancho succeeded to the throne in 1065, he was placed, by the young King, at the head of all his armies, whence, without doubt, he acquired the name of 'Campeador.' D. Sancho, who merited the friendship of a hero, and who always remained faithful to him, was, notwithstanding, no less ambitious and unjust than his father, whose example he followed in endeavouring to deprive his brothers of their share of the paternal inheritance. To the valour of the Cid he owed his victories over D. Garcia, King of Galicia, and D. Alfonso, King of Leon, whose states he invaded. The latter prince took refuge amongst the Moors, with the King of Toledo, who afforded him a generous asylum. D. Sancho, after having also stripped his sisters of their inheritance, was slain in 1072, before Zamora, where the last of his sisters, D. Urraca, had fortified herself. Alfonso VI., recalled from the Moors to ascend the vacant throne, after having taken an oath, administered by the hands of the Cid, that he had been in no degree accessary to his brother's death, endeavoured to attach that celebrated leader to his interests by promising him in marriage his own niece Ximena, whose mother was sister-in-law to Ferdinand the Great and Bermudez III. the last King of Leon. This marriage, of which historical evidence remains, was celebrated on the 19th of July, 1074. The Cid was at that time nearly fifty years of age, and had survived his first wife Ximena, the daughter of Count Gormaz, so celebrated in the Spanish and French tragedies. Being soon afterwards despatched on an embassy to the Moorish princes of Seville and Cordova, the Cid assisted them in gaining a great victory over the King of Grenada; but scarcely had the heat of the battle passed away when he restored all the prisoners whom he had taken, with arms in their hands, to liberty. By these constant acts of generosity he won the hearts of his enemies as well as of his friends. He was admired and respected both by Moors and Christians. He had soon afterwards occasion to claim the protection of the former; for Alfonso VI., instigated by those who were envious of the hero's success, banished him from Castile. The Cid upon this occasion took refuge with his friend Ahmed el Muktadir, King of Saragossa, by whom he was treated with boundless confidence and respect. He was appointed by him to the post of governor of his son, and was in fact intrusted with the whole administration of the kingdom of Saragossa, during the reign of Joseph El Muktamam, from 1081 to 1085, within which period he gained many brilliant victories over the Christians of Aragon, Navarre, and Barcelona. Always generous to the vanquished, he again gave liberty to the prisoners. Alfonso VI. now began to regret that he had deprived himself of the services of the most valiant of his warriors; and being attacked by the redoubtable Joseph, the son of Teschfin, the Morabite, who had invaded Spain with a new army of Moors from Africa, and having sustained a defeat at Zalaka, on the 23d of October, 1087, he recalled the Cid to his assistance. {3804} That hero immediately repaired to his standard with 7,000 soldiers, levied at his own charge; and for two years continued to combat for his ungrateful sovereign; but at length, either his generosity in dismissing his captives, or his disobedience to the orders of a prince far inferior to himself in the knowledge of the art of war, drew upon him a second disgrace about the year 1090. He was again banished; his wife and son were imprisoned, and his goods were confiscated. It is at this period that the poem … commences. It is in fact the fragment of a complete history of the Cid, the beginning of which has been lost."

J. C. L. S. de Sismondi, Literature of the South of Europe, chapter 23 (volume 2).

      G. Ticknor,
      History of Spanish Literature,
      period 1, chapter 2 (volume 1).

SPAIN: 15-17th Centuries.
The waste of the commercial opportunities of the Spaniards.

"Charles III. had just died when the French Revolution commenced. He was the best sovereign that Spain had had in a long time; he left good ministers: Aranda, Campomanès, Florida Blanca; but it was not given to them to continue his work. This reparative reign was followed by one the most disintegrating. Spain, elevated anew for an instant by an intelligent prince, was, in a few years, under the government of an imbecile one, to founder in an ignoble intrigue. The web of this latter was begun immediately upon the accession of the new king. Charles IV. was forty years old; corpulent and weak-minded, simple and choleric, incapable of believing evil because he was incapable of conceiving it: amorous, chaste, devout, and consequently the slave of his wife even more than of his temperament, the first years of his marriage blinded him for his entire life. Scrupulous to the point of separating himself from the queen when he no longer hoped to have children by her, he took refuge in the chase, manual labor, violent exercise, caring only for the table, music and bull-fights, exhausted when he had followed his trade of king for half an hour. Small and without beauty, dark of complexion, but with some grace, with elegance and above all carriage, Marie Louise of Parma was at once superstitious and passionate, ignorant, uneasy, with a very frivolous soul as a foundation, with obstinacy without firmness, with artifice without intelligence, with intrigue leading to no result, more covetousness than ambition, much emptiness of mind, still more of heart. Her husband seemed to her coarse and brutish; she despised him. She detested her eldest son and cared moderately for her other children. She was thirty-four years old, of perturbed imagination, of uneasy senses, without any curb of religion or virtue, when she ascended the throne and the fortune of Godoy threw him in her way. He was a small provincial gentleman; for lack of something better, he had entered the life-guards at seventeen. He was then twenty-one. He was very handsome, with a grave beauty frequent in the men of the south, which gives to youth that air of restrained and imperious passion, to mature age that impenetrable and imposing exterior so well calculated to conceal mediocrity of mind, barrenness of heart, despotic selfishness, and all the artifices of a corruption the more insinuating because it seems to be unaware of itself. The queen fell in love with him, and abandoned herself wildly; he took advantage of it without shame. She was not satisfied to make of Godoy her lover, she desired to make a great man of him, a minister, to make him a partner in her power. She introduced him to the court and into the intimacy of the royal household, where Charles IV. tractably became infatuated with him. Marie Louise had at first some circumspection in the gradation of the honors which she lavished upon him, and which marked, by so many scandals, the progress of her passion; but she was very soon entirely possessed by it. Godoy obtained over her an ascendancy equal to that which she arrogated to herself over Charles IV. Thus on the eve of the French Revolution, these three persons, so strangely associated, began, in court costume, and under the austere decorum of the palace of Philip II., that comedy, as old as vice and stupidity, of the compliant husband duped by his wife and of the old mistress exploited by her lover. At the beginning of the reign, Charles IV. from scruple, the queen from hypocrisy, Godoy from policy, became devout. The queen wished power for Godoy, and Godoy wished it for lucre. It was necessary to set aside the old counsellors of Charles III. They were philosophers, the nation had remained catholic. Marie Louise and Godoy relied on the old Spanish fanaticism. The ministers very soon lost influence, and after having secluded them for some time, the queen disgraced them. A complete reaction took place in Spain. The church regained its empire; the Inquisition was re-established. It would appear then that the Revolution must necessarily have found Spain hostile; a Bourbon king and a devout government could but detest it. But before being a Bourbon the king was a husband, and Marie Louise was devout only to mask her intrigues. The same passions led her to desire by turns, war to make her lover illustrious and peace to render him popular. This debilitated and corrupt court found itself given over in advance to all the suggestions of fear, to all the temptations of avidity. Those who had to treat with it did not fail to profit by its feebleness to dominate it. We see it successively linked to England, then to France; treat the Revolution with consideration, condemn it with violence, combat it without vigor; seek an alliance with the Directory, and abandon itself to Napoleon who annihilated it. France found at Madrid only too much docility to her designs; the illusions that she conceived from it became more fatal for her than were for Spain the incapacity and turpitude of its rulers. The French were led by the habits and traditions of the 'ancien regime' to treat the Spaniards as a subordinate nation consigned to the role of auxiliary. Holding the court of Spain as cowardly and venal, the politicians of Paris neglected to take account of the Spanish people. They judged them to be divisible and governable at mercy. {3805} It was not that they despised them nor that they intended to reduce them to servitude as a conquered people; but they thought that the last Austrian kings had enervated and enfeebled them, that they had been uplifted from this decadence only by the Bourbons, that that dynasty was degenerating in its turn; that another foreign government, more intelligent, more enlightened, more resolute, alone could take up again the work of reparation and bring it to a successful result by means of rigorous treatment and appropriate applications. What Louis XIV. had undertaken solely in the interest of despotism, France, herself regenerated by the Revolution, had the right and the power to accomplish, for the highest good of Spain and of humanity. These calculations in which the essential element, that is to say the Spanish character, was suppressed, deceived the Convention, led the Directory astray, and ended by drawing Napoleon into the most fatal of his enterprises."

A. Sorel, L'Europe et la Revolution française (translated from the French), part 1, pages 373-377.

SUMERIAN.

"It was necessary to look out for a new successor to the throne. Adlersparre desired the brother of the deceased crown prince, Frederic Christian, duke of Augustenborg, thinking by this means to secure the fruits of the revolution and to keep in view the union between Sweden and Norway. He succeeded in persuading Charles XII. to give his voice for this prince, and the council of State even sustained this idea, with the exception of Adlercreutz who proposed the emperor Alexander's brother-in-law, the Duke of Oldenburg. A third candidate was King Frederic VI. of Denmark, and even Napoleon himself worked in secret for him as he had by this time realized the advantage of the formation of a strong Northern power as a balance against Russia. But the king of Denmark as a candidate was far from popular among the Swedes, and still less prospect was there of the election of prince Gustaf. The Swedish government which had made its determination sent a writing to Napoleon in order to gain his influence in favor of the prince. The message was sent in duplicate by different roads. The choice of the Swedish government did not meet his approval; still he declared that he would not oppose it. One of the couriers who brought the above writing to Paris, was lieutenant in Upland's regiment, baron Carl Otto Mörner. This young officer was no friend of the candidacy of the Duke of Augustenborg; like many other Swedes, especially in the army, he desired as a successor to the throne a warrior, above all a French marshal, persuaded that in that way Sweden would most readily gain the alliance with France, and revenge upon Russia. Among the French marshals Bernadotte, prince of Ponte Corvo, was particularly known in Sweden through his contact with them during the last wars and to him their thoughts had turned in the first place. Young, bold, and forward, at the same time full of the wish to be useful to his country, Mörner had contrived to obtain the office of courier in order to find a successor to the crown at his own risk. He calls on a certain Captain La Pie whose acquaintance he had made on a former visit to Paris, and explains his plans, and La Pie strengthens him in his ideas, that Bernadotte would be preferable before Macdonald, Eugene Beauharnais, and others whom Mörner had in his mind. Through La Pie and the Swedish general consul Signeul, Mörner obtains the necessary information which enables him to meet the Marshal. He calls on Bernadotte and finds him, however careful in his utterance regarding the matter, not opposed to the project; nay Bernadotte hastens immediately after the conference with Mörner to the emperor to impart it to him. Napoleon, who had officially been informed of the thoughts of the Swedish government, looked on the whole matter as a ghost of the brain, but declared that he would not meddle with it. At Mörner's last visit (27 June 1810) Bernadotte gave him leave to communicate that the emperor had nothing against Bernadotte's election and that he himself was ready to accept if the choice fell on him. It is easy to imagine the astonishment of Engström, the minister of state, when he heard Mörner's description of his bold attempt in Paris. 'What do you bring from Paris?' Engström asked, when Mörner came into the foreign Minister's cabinet in Stockholm. 'That I have induced the prince of Ponte Corvo to accept the Swedish crown.' 'How could you speak to him about it without being commissioned?' 'Our only safety lies in the prince of Ponte Corvo.' 'Are you sure that he will receive it so that we are not doubly committed?' 'Certainly. I have a letter here.' 'From him to you?' 'No, from me to him.' 'Boy.' exclaimed Mörner's relation, his excellency Von Essen, at the end of the conference, 'You ought to sit where neither sun nor moon will shine on you.' But Mörner's project won more and more favor in the country though he himself was arrested in Orebro, whereby the government desired to prevent his presence as a member of the house of knights at the special diet called at Örebro for election. Through messengers and a pamphlet on the succession in Sweden he though absent worked for his plan even among the estates which met the 23d July 1810."

Sveriges Historia, 1805-1875 (translated from the Swedish by L. G. Sellstedt), pages 29-31.

"Swedenborg was born in 1688, and died in 1772. The son of a Lutheran Bishop of Sweden, a student at several universities, and an extensive traveler throughout all the principal countries of Europe, he had exceptional opportunities for testing the essential quality of contemporaneous Christianity. … Until he was more than fifty years of age, Swedenborg had written nothing on religious subjects, and apparently given them no special attention. He was principally known, in his own country, as Assessor Extraordinary of the Board of Mines, and an influential member of the Swedish Diet; and not only there, but throughout Europe, as a writer on many branches of science and philosophy. In this field he acquired great distinction; and the number and variety of topics which he treated was remarkable. Geometry and algebra, metallurgy and magnetism, anatomy, physiology, and the relation of the soul to the body were among the subjects which received his attention. There is to be noticed in the general order of his publications a certain gradual, but steady, progression from lower to higher themes,—from a contemplation of the mere external phenomena of nature to a study of their deep and hidden causes. He was always full of devout spiritual aspirations. In all his scientific researches he steadfastly looked through nature up to nature's God. … Maintaining this inflexible belief in God and revelation, and in the essential unity of truth, Swedenborg, in his upward course, at last reached the boundary line between matter and spirit. Then it was that he entered on those remarkable experiences by which, as he affirms, the secrets of the other world were revealed to him. He declares that the eyes of his spirit were opened, and that he had, from that time forward, conscious daily intercourse with spirits and angels. His general teaching on this subject is that the spiritual world is an inner sphere of being,—not material, and in no wise discernible to natural senses, yet none the less real and substantial,—and that it is the ever-present medium of life to man and nature."

"The doctrine of Correspondence is the central idea of Swedenborg's system. Everything visible has belonging to it an appropriate spiritual reality. The history of man is an acted parable; the universe, a temple covered with hieroglyphics. Behmen, from the light which flashes on certain exalted moments, imagines that he receives the key to these hidden significances,—that he can interpret the 'Signatura Rerum.' But he does not see spirits, or talk with angels. According to him, such communications would be less reliable than the intuition he enjoyed. Swedenborg takes opposite ground. 'What I relate,' he would say, 'comes from no such mere inward persuasion. I recount the things I have seen. I do not labour to recall and to express the manifestation made me in some moment of ecstatic exaltation. I write you down a plain statement of journeys and conversations in the spiritual world, which have made the greater part of my daily history for many years together. I take my stand upon experience. I have proceeded by observation and induction as strict as that of any man of science among you. Only it has been given me to enjoy an experience reaching into two worlds—that of spirit, as well as that of matter.' … According to Swedenborg, all the mythology and the symbolisms of ancient times were so many refracted or fragmentary correspondences—relics of that better day when every outward object suggested to man's mind its appropriate divine truth. Such desultory and uncertain links between the seen and the unseen are so many imperfect attempts toward that harmony of the two worlds which he believed himself commissioned to reveal. The happy thoughts of the artist, the imaginative analogies of the poet, are exchanged with Swedenborg for an elaborate system. All the terms and objects in the natural and spiritual worlds are catalogued in pairs."

"It is more than a century since the foundation of this church [the New-Church] was laid, by the publication of the theological writings of Emanuel Swedenborg. For more than half of that time, individuals and societies have been active in translating them, and in publishing them widely. There have been many preachers of these doctrines, and not a few writers of books and periodicals. The sale of Swedenborg's writings, and of books intended to present the doctrines of the church, has been constant and large. How happens it, under these circumstances, that the growth of this church has been and is so slow, if its doctrines are all that we who hold them suppose them to be? There are many answers to this question. One among them is, that its growth has been greater than is apparent. It is not a sect. Its faith does not consist of a few specific tenets, easily stated and easily received. It is a new way of thinking about God and man, this life and another, and every topic, connected with these. And this new way of thinking has made and is making what may well be called great progress. It may be discerned everywhere, in the science, literature, philosophy, and theology of the times; not prevalent in any of them, but existing, and cognizable by all who are able to appreciate these new truths with their bearings and results. … Let it not be supposed that by the New-Church is meant the organized societies calling themselves by that name. In one sense, that is their name. Swedenborg says there are three essentials of this Church: a belief in the Divinity of the Lord, and in the sanctity of the Scriptures, and a life of charity, which is a life governed by a love of the neighbor. Where these are, there is the Church. Whoever holds these essentials in faith and life is a member of the New-Church, whatever may be his theological name or place. Only in the degree in which he so holds these essentials is anyone a member of that church. Those who, holding or desiring to hold these essentials in faith and life, unite and organize that they may be assisted and may assist each other in so holding them, constitute the visible or professed New-Church. But very false would they be to its doctrines, if they supposed themselves to be exclusively members of that Church, or if they founded their membership upon their profession or external organization. For there is no other true foundation for this membership than every man's own internal reception of the essentials of the Church, and his leading the life which its truths require."

      T. Parsons,
      Outlines of the Religion and Philosophy of Swedenborg,
      chapter 14, section 5.

      ALSO IN:
      E. Swedenborg,
      The four leading Doctrines of the New Church.

TAORMINA. TAUROMENION.

About 392 B. C. Dionysios, the tyrant of Syracuse, expelled the Sikels, or natives of Sicily, from one of their towns, Tauromenion (modern Taormina) on the height of Tauros, overlooking the site of the old Greek city of Naxos, which Dionysios had destroyed ten years before. He peopled the town anew with some of his mercenaries; but after his death the scattered Naxians were brought together in it, and made it their home. "The city thus strengthened by new colonists grew and prospered, and became specially remarkable for the wealth of its citizens. Greek Tauromenion ran through the usual course of a Sikeliot city in later times. Settled again by a Roman colony, it lived on till the days of its greatest glory, as the last of Sikeliot cities to hold out for Christ and Cæsar against the assaults of the besieging Saracens. But even that greater memory does not shut out the thoughts of the stirring early days of the city. … The rocks and the heights are there still, and not the rocks and the heights only. There is the wall with the work of the Sikel and the Greek side by side. There is the temple of the Greek changed into the church of the Christian apostle of Sicily. There is the theatre, the work of the Greek enlarged and modified by the Roman; the theatre which, unlike those of Syracuse and Argos, still keeps so large a part of its scena, 'and where we hardly mourn the loss of the rest as we look out on the hills and the sea between its fragments. … The matchless site would be something even without a story, but at Taormina the story is for ever written on the site. On the long ridge of the town, on its walls and gates, on the rocks on which it stands, on the prouder rocks which rise above it, we may truly say that, of all who have assailed or defended the mountain-city, alongside of the names of Ibrahim and of Roger, the first names in the long story of Tauromenion dwell there also."

T. O'Conor Sloane, The Standard Electrical Dictionary https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/26535

"TIPPECANOE AND TYLER TOO."

TOLERATION, Religious: A. D. 1636.
Established by Roger Williams in Rhode Island.

TOLERATION, Religious: A. D. 1827-1829. Removal of disabilities from Dissenters and Emancipation of Catholics in England and Ireland.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1827-1828 (page 952);
and IRELAND: A. D. 1811-1829 (page 1784).

TOLERATION, Religious: A. D. 1871.
Abolition of religious tests in English Universities.

TORQUEMADA.

TRADE.

TRADES UNIONS.

"This institution had its origin in certain land grants made by the United States 'for the use of a seminary of learning.' By an act of the General Government passed in 1806 one township of land was granted for the above named purpose, and in 1811 another township was added to this and both were confirmed by an act (of 1824) which also authorized their location. The first movement toward the utilization of these grants was made in 1845, when the following clause was adopted in the amended Constitution: 'A university shall be established in the city of New Orleans. It shall be composed of four faculties, to wit: one of law, one of medicine, one of natural sciences, and one of letters.' … The university was chartered in 1847. … For many years the university received but meagre support from the State. … By the Constitution of 1879 the institution was endowed permanently by authorizing the sum of not more than $10,000 payable annually [for five years] to the university. At the expiration of this period the university was united with the Tulane University (in 1884). Since that time no appropriations have been made by the Legislature."

F. W. Blackmar, History of Federal and State Aid to Higher Education in the United States (Bureau of Education, Circular of Information, 1890. number 1), pages 272-273.

The historical geography of the United States possesses, in a unique degree, a two-fold character. These divisions of the subject are best described by the words exterior and interior. While such a classification is, of course, inevitable in the history of every nation, the fact remains that, with the United States, these divisions stand in a different relation to each other from any that appear usually in the historical geography of other countries. The difference is chiefly one of relative importance. The internal historical geography of the Old World nations, barring the feudal period, involves so largely questions concerning mere provincial administration that it has no claim, from a geographical standpoint, to an importance equal to the shifting of the great national frontiers. Examples of this are found in the Roman and Byzantine empires, and in the majority of the modern states. In our own case however the order of interest is reversed. Our internal geography has attracted the chief attention of the student, not so much from the greater difficulty of the subject as from its vast importance in the early history of our government. It is not, indeed, too much to say that the organization of the present government under the constitution is an event of scarcely greater importance than the determination of the final policy of the states and the nation concerning the unoccupied western lands. It is this fact alone which gives the higher degree of relative importance to our internal historical geography. The general facts concerning our external geography are quickly told. The outlines of the entire subject are contained in the enumeration of the eight cessions, as follows:

the original territory ceded by Great Britain at the peace of Paris in 1783 (see page 3287);

the undisputed acquisition of the Oregon country by treaty with Great Britain in 1846 (page 2402);

the first Mexican cession by the peace of Guadalupe
Hidalgo in 1848 (page 2175);

The enumeration of these eight acquisitions, all of which, save the final one are shown on the first United States map, affords a complete picture of the successive stages of our territorial growth. The occasion of these different annexations, as well as their exact territorial extent, would involve us in a series of details which are beyond the purpose of the present article. It should be observed, however, that in several cases the map shows the territories in question as finally determined by treaty or survey, rather than their actual extent as understood at the time the annexations were made. This is one of the inevitable disadvantages in the purely cartographic treatment of such a subject. The historical map is compelled from its nature to give a tangible appearance to matters which are often very intangible in fact. In the case, for example, of what we may call the first United States, the country as recognized by the treaty of Paris, the western line of the Mississippi was the only boundary which was not the subject of future discussion. The southern frontier as arranged at Paris was affirmed by treaty with Spain in 1795. On the other side, however, Great Britain retained a number of posts in the Old Northwest up to the Jay treaty of 1794; the boundary between the upper Mississippi and the Lake of the Woods, imperfectly described in the Paris treaty, was not settled until 1818; the line from the intersection of the St. Lawrence to the Sault Ste. Marie was established in 1822 by joint commission under the treaty of Ghent; while the Maine frontier question, the most difficult and obstinate of all our boundary disputes, was not finally settled until the year 1842. The Louisiana purchase of 1803 brought in fresh questions concerning our territorial limits. On three sides, the North, West and Southwest the frontiers of this vast area were undefined. On the northern side the boundary was settled with Great Britain by the treaty of 1818 which carried the line along the forty-ninth parallel to the Rocky Mountains, while the treaty of 1819 with Spain, which ceded Florida to the United States, also defined the limits of Louisiana on the South-West. This line of 1819 has an additional importance, in that it drew the frontier between Spain and the United States along the forty-second parallel to the Pacific coast. The importance of this lay in the fact that it gave us a clear title on the Spanish side to the so-called Oregon country. The exact connection, real or supposed, between this territory and the Louisiana country was for many years one of the disputed points in American historical geography. The belief in this connection, at one time general, undoubtedly had its origin in the undefined character of Louisiana at the time of the purchase, and the fact that our government turned this indefiniteness to its own purpose in advancing its Oregon claims. It is now clear, however, from the evidence of the old maps, the official statement of the limits of the region, of which there is but one in existence (the Crozat grant of 1712) and lastly the understanding of France herself at the time of the cession, that Louisiana did not include in its limits any part of the Pacific watershed. A map published in a subsequent work of the French plenipotentiary placed the western boundary of Louisiana at the one hundred and tenth meridian. A line drawn in this arbitrary fashion and unsanctioned by the terms of the treaty itself may be regarded merely as one of convenience. If this view is correct it is certainly more convenient and, at the same time, more logical, to consider the western boundary as extending to the Rocky Mountain watershed,—a line which would not deviate to any radical extent from the meridian in question. The historical connection however between the Louisiana purchase and our subsequent acquisition of the Oregon country is perfectly clear. The exploration of the latter followed almost immediately but its final annexation was delayed by the opposing claim of Great Britain. In this controversy the claim of the United States was merely relative as opposed to that of England. The just claimant was undoubtedly the king of Spain, whose rights, based on discovery, antedated those of either of the contesting powers. The Spanish title, however, having, as we have seen, been relinquished by the treaty of 1819, the issue between Great Britain and the United States became clearly defined. A joint occupation of the disputed territory by the two powers ensued from 1818 to 1846. In the latter year was negotiated the compromise treaty, which continued our northern line of 1818 on the forty-ninth parallel from the Rocky Mountains to the Pacific coast. From the treaty of 1846 we may date the completion of our northern frontier, although the ownership of certain islands between Vancouver and the mainland was not settled until 1872. {3809} A few more years witnessed the completion of our southern frontier, as well. In 1845 Texas was admitted to the Union. The western boundary of the Rio Grande, claimed by the new state under her constitution of 1836, led directly to the war with Mexico, and by that war to the great additional cession at Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848. The southern boundary was finally completed by the Gadsden purchase of 1853. Coming now to the study of our internal geography, we find ourselves in contact with what is practically a distinct subject. Here we encounter a whole series of those weighty questions, the solution of which figures so prominently in the early history of the American government. We have already noted that the first western boundary of the United States was placed by the treaty of 1783 at the Mississippi river. But during the Paris negotiations our ally France and quasi ally Spain both opposed this westward extension of our territory and it was long an open question, even after our independence itself was assured, whether we should not be compelled to accept a western boundary on the Appalachian range. Years before the final settlement of the question at Paris, the expectancy of the Mississippi boundary had given rise to questions which caused an undercurrent of dissension between the states during the entire period of the Revolutionary War. In their relation to the western land question, the thirteen original states divide themselves into two classes, the claimant and non-claimant states. In the first class were Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Virginia, the two Carolinas and Georgia; in the second, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware and Maryland. The claims of the seven first named states covered every inch of our prospective western domain and in the country north of the Ohio, known as the Old Northwest there were opposing claims of two and in some districts of even three states to the same territory. The extent of these claims is indicated on the map of the Federated states in 1783. They rested for the most part upon the royal grants and charters to the colonies, and, in the case of New York, upon the treaties with the Iroquois. Their relative merits where conflicting, or their collective merit as a whole, are questions which we will not attempt to discuss. It is sufficient to observe that if insisted upon in their entirety they would have presented an insuperable obstacle to the formation of an American federate government. In the proceedings of the Continental Congress, as well as in the state legislative bodies, touching this western domain, we may find the germs of nearly all the political and constitutional questions which have made the greater part of our subsequent history. The relative rank and power of the states, the obligation of one state towards another, the individual rights of states as opposed to the collective rights of the Union; all of these questions entered into the great problem which the nation was now called upon to solve. The objections to the western claims by the non-claimant states, though urged with varying degrees of vehemence and accompanied with many widely differing alternatives, may be fairly resolved into the two following contentions: that it was unjust that so vast a domain, whose acquisition at the peace could only be insured through the joint labor of all the states, should thereafter become the property of a certain favored few, and also that the claims if allowed would in the end give the claimant states a preponderating power which would be extremely prejudicial if not dangerous to the others. Of all the non-claimant states, Maryland was the most determined in her opposition, and it is to her that Professor Herbert B. Adams in his monograph on "Maryland's Influence upon Land Cessions to the United States," assigns the chief credit for the final creation of the first national domain (see page 3280). The claim though a just one cannot be asserted without an important qualification. The proposition advanced by Maryland, that a national title to the western lands be asserted by a clause in the Articles of Confederation, was manifestly one to which the claimant states would never give their consent. It was due, however, to the action of Maryland,—which refused for more than three years, from November 1777 to March 1781, to ratify the articles,— that the question was kept open until the claimant states, in order to complete the circle of the Union, found it necessary to adopt the policy of voluntary cessions, suggested by Congress. The history in detail of the several state cessions involves many questions concerning the distribution and sale of public lands which need not concern us. Some of the offers of cession, at first conditional and partial, were made absolute and final, as, one by one, the besetting difficulties were cleared away. The dates of the final cessions by the seven claimant states in order were as follows: New York 1781, Virginia 1783, Massachusetts 1785, Connecticut 1786, South Carolina 1787, North Carolina 1790, Georgia 1802.

Certain land reservations north of the Ohio, as shown on the map of the United States in 1790, were made by both Virginia and Connecticut; but Virginia renounced jurisdiction over these lands in the cession, and Connecticut did likewise in 1800, the two states reserving merely the property rights. The territory south of the Ohio was not included in the Virginia cession of 1783 but the district of Kentucky was made the subject of a second cession in 1789. The completion of this list closed the interesting chapter in our history covered by the state cessions and gave to the United States the sovereignty over its first great western public domain. Before pursuing this subject further, let us see in what relation the cessions stand to the present form of the thirteen original states. Some boundary contentions still remained, but these are not of historic importance. The claim of Massachusetts in what is now "Western New York was settled by joint commission in 1786, while Pennsylvania purchased a tract of land on lake Erie from the general government in 1792. At the present day sixteen states stand upon the territory which remained to the original thirteen, the three additional ones each springing from the partition of one of the older states. In 1790 New York assented to the independence of Vermont, which was admitted to the Union in the following year; in 1820 Maine was separated from Massachusetts and admitted; and finally, in 1862, West Virginia was set off from Virginia and became a state in 1863. We will now resume the subject of the disposition of the western lands. {3810} We have already noted the termination of that stage of their history which involves the territorial claims of individual states. The second stage concerns itself with the evolution of what may be called the American system of territorial government. The first, indeed, had not reached its completion before the second began to receive the greater measure of public attention. The western land cessions to the government were made with the general understanding, tacit in most cases, but in that of Virginia explicitly stated, that the ceded territory should eventually be formed into additional states. The first national domain may therefore be regarded as a district held in trust by the government for a special purpose. This view, which was not only required by the terms of the Virginia cession, but also represented the general sentiment of the time, has formed the basis of our entire subsequent policy in dealing with the national domain,—a policy which has remained unaltered even in the case of the immense territories that afterwards came into the direct possession of the government by treaty with foreign powers. The one question remaining was the erection of the legislative machinery which should provide for the government of the territories during their preparation for statehood. The problem was finally solved by the Ordinance of 1787 for the government of the Northwest territory. This famous ordinance, the first of the long series of acts concerning territorial government, was the last noteworthy piece of legislation under the old Articles of Confederation, and the year which witnessed both the successful inauguration of our territorial policy and the adoption of the new constitution is the most memorable in the entire history of American institutions. The history of the enactment of the Ordinance, for many years veiled in obscurity, has been fully elucidated by the late W. F. Poole (monograph on "The Ordinance of 1787"); the full text is printed in its proper place in this work (page 2380). Many of its provisions, suited only for the special occasion of their use, are now antiquated and obsolete, and neither their letter nor spirit find a place in subsequent territorial legislation. But the fact remains that this act was in a certain sense the great proto-type; it was the first to organize and set in motion the machinery of our territorial policy. A policy that has provided without friction for the tremendous national expansion which has ensued during the present century may justly be regarded as one of the greatest achievements in the political history of the American government. In our own day, when the admission of a new state or the erection of a new territory is regarded as hardly more than a routine event in the working of our political system, it is easy for us to underestimate the vital importance of the first steps which were taken concerning the regulation of the national domain. It was because those steps were to determine in a measure our entire future policy, that the history of the old Continental Congress should form an absorbing theme for every student of our internal geography. It is unnecessary to follow this subject in detail through its later history, which is simply a monotonous record of legislative enactments for the organization of new territories or the admission of new states. The principle had been fully established; the history of the next century, followed step by step, can show very little beyond its consistent application. Political considerations have, it is true, often delayed or prematurely hastened the admission of new states, but there has been one case only where we have been called upon again to face a question similar to that which was solved by the old congress. The circumstances of the admission of the republic of Texas bear no analogy to that of any other state received into the Union since the formation of the government. Here was, not a state created by mere legislative enactment, but an independent foreign sovereignty, admitted to the Union at its own solicitation, bringing with it as a dower a territory immeasurably greater than the national policy had ever before assigned to a single state. Once more therefore we have the old question of a troublesome state sovereignty in immense unoccupied lands. The comparative absence of friction in the solution of this new problem proves again the efficiency of the old policy in dealing with all such questions. No cession of territory was wrung from Texas or in this case even solicited. The state was admitted to the Union in 1845 claiming a continuous western boundary on the Rio Grande. In 1850, after the peace of Guadalupe Hidalgo had determined our boundary on the Mexican side, Texas sold to the General Government, for the sum of $10,000,000, all of her territorial claims north and west of her present boundaries. With some modifications the history of the original cessions repeats itself in this transaction, which was the last occasion of a great transfer of territory to the Union by one of its members. There are many other features in our internal geography, among the most notable the institution of slavery, which would be worthy of attention were the space to permit. In view of this limitation, however, we cannot pursue the subject beyond this general review of its main outlines. There is a dearth of works on American historical geography subsequent to the Declaration of Independence. It is a subject, indeed, which cannot be very satisfactorily studied simply through the literature dealing exclusively with the topic. Of the atlases Professor Albert Bushnell Hart's. "Epoch Maps Illustrating American History" is the best; the most serviceable of the text works is Henry Gannett's pamphlet on "Boundaries of the United States and of the several States and Territories, with a Historical Sketch of the Territorial Changes," published as bulletin Number 13 of the United States Geological Survey. Townsend MacCoun's "Historical Geography of the United States" and the later chapters of Walter B. Scaife's "America, its Geographical History" are also useful. An excellent account of our geographical history during the early years of the Government, covering the period of the state cessions, may be found in B. A. Hinsdale's Old Northwest, with a View of the Thirteen Colonies as constituted by the, Royal Charters." For a more careful study there is of course no substitute for the texts of the grants, charters, treaties and legislative acts of Congress, and the more important of these are freely quoted from in Mr. Gannett's work.

UNITED STATES: A. D. 1863. Adoption and Organization of the National Bank System of the United States.

UTOPIAS.

UZBEGS.

VOLAPUK.

A proposed universal language, invented in 1879 by a
Swabian pastor, named Schleyer.

WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY.

T. O'Conor Sloane, The Standard Electrical Dictionary https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/26535

CHRONOLOGY OF IMPORTANT AND INDICATIVE EVENTS.

TO THE CHRISTIAN ERA. [BEFORE]

B. C. 4777.
Beginning of the Egyptian dynasties as given by Manetho,
according to the latest computations. [Uncertain date]

2250.
Beginning of the reign of Hammurabi, or Chammurabi, the
first important king of Babylonia. [Uncertain date]

1500.
Independence of Assyria as a kingdom separate from
Babylonia, and rise of Nineveh. [Uncertain date]

1330.
Beginning of the reign in Egypt of Ramses II.,
the Sesostris of the Greeks. [Uncertain date]

1260.
      Death of Ramses II., king of Egypt, and accession of
      Merneptah or Merenptah, supposed by many writers to be
      the Pharaoh of the Oppression. [Uncertain date]

1120.
Beginning of the reign of Tiglathpileser I.,
king of Assyria. [Uncertain date]

725.
      End of first Messenian War.
722.
      Overthrow of the kingdom of Israel by the Assyrians.
      Captivity of the Ten Tribes.

624.
      Supposed date of the legislation of Draco, at Athens.
      [Uncertain date]
612.
      Conspiracy of Cylon at Athens.

606.
Destruction of Nineveh and overthrow of the Assyrian
empire by the Medes. [Uncertain date]

586.
      Capture of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar.
      End of the kingdom of Judah and exile of the remnant
      of the people to Babylon.

525.
Conquest of Egypt by Cambyses, king of Persia.
Birth of Æschylus (d. 456).

520.
      Birth of Pindar. [Uncertain date]
516.
      Invasion of Scythia by Darius, king of Persia.
      [Uncertain date]

509.
Expulsion of the Tarquins from Rome. [Uncertain date]
Founding of the Republic (Roman chronology).

492.
First secession of the Roman Plebs.
Creation of the Tribunes of the People.

490.
      First Persian expedition against Greece.
      Destruction of Naxos by the Persians.
      Their overwhelming defeat at Marathon.

480.
      Second Persian invasion of Greece.
      Thermopylæ.
      Artemisium.
      Salamis.
      Retreat of Xerxes.
      Carthaginian invasion of Sicily.
      Battle of Himera.
      Birth of Euripides. [Uncertain date]

471.
Exile of Themistocles from Athens.
Birth of Thucydides (d. 401 [Uncertain date]).

466.
      Naval victory of the Greeks over the Persians at Eurymedon.
      Outbreak of the Plague at Rome.
      Revolt of Naxos from the Delian Confederacy.
      Fall of the tyrants at Syracuse.

465.
Murder of Xerxes I., and accession of Artaxerxes I.
to the throne of Persia.

464.
      Great earthquake at Sparta.
      Rising of the Helots,
      or beginning of the third Messenian War.

457.
Beginning of war of Corinth, Sparta, and Ægina with Athens.
Battle of Tanagra.

450.
      End of war against Athens.
      Framing of the Twelve Tables of the Roman Law.
      The Decemvirs at Rome.
      Birth of Alcibiades [Uncertain date] (d. 404).

445.
      Conclusion of the Thirty Years Peace between Athens
      and Sparta and their allies.
      Ascendancy of Pericles at Athens.
      Peace of Callias between Greece and Persia.
      Birth of Xenophon. [Uncertain date]

432.
      Complaints against Athens.
      Peloponnesian Congress at Sparta.
      Revolt of Potidæa.

429.
      Death of Pericles at Athens.
      Capture of Potidæa.
      Birth of Plato (d. 347).

425.
Surrender of Spartans to the Athenians at Sphacteria.
Accession of Xerxes II., king of Persia.

421.
Peace of Nicias between Athens and Sparta.
End of the first period of the Peloponnesian War.

415.
      Expedition of the Athenians against Syracuse.
      Mutilation of the Hermæ at Athens.
      Accusation and flight of Alcibiades.

413.
Disaster to the Athenians before Syracuse.
Renewal of the Peloponnesian War.

411.
      Oligarchical revolution at Athens.
      The Four Hundred and their fall.
      Recall of Alcibiades.

406.
      Victory of the Athenians over the Peloponnesians in
      the battle of Arginusæ.
      Execution of the generals at Athens.

405.
      Defeat of the Athenians at Aigospotamoi.
      Successful revolt of the Egyptians against the Persians,
      and independence established.

400.
Retreat of the Ten Thousand under Xenophon.
Birth of Timoleon [Uncertain date] (d. 337).

371.
      Defeat of Sparta at Leuctra.
      Ascendancy of Thebes.
      Arcadian Union.

356.
Burning of the Temple of Diana at Ephesus.
Birth of Alexander the Great (d. 323).

352.
Interference of Philip of Macedonia in the Greek Sacred War.
First Philippic of Demosthenes.

338.
      League of Greek cities against Philip of Macedonia.
      His victory at Chæronea.
      His domination established.
      Subjugation of the Latins by Rome.

336.
Assassination of Philip of Macedonia,
and accession of Alexander the Great.

332.
Alexander's sieges of Tyre and Gaza.
His conquest of Egypt and founding of Alexandria.

326.
      Alexander in India.
      Defeat of Porus.
      Beginning of second Samnite War in Italy.

323.
      Death of Alexander the Great at Babylon.
      Partition of his dominion among the generals.
      Revolt in Greece.
      The Lamian War.

321.
      Beginning of the Wars of the Successors of Alexander.
      Founding of the kingdom of the Ptolemies In Egypt.
      Defeat of the Romans by the Samnites at the Caudine Forks.

306.
      Royal titles assumed by Antigonus (as king of Asia),
      Ptolemy, in Egypt, Seleucus Nicator, in Syria, Lysimachus,
      in Thrace, and Cassander, in Macedonia.

280.
      Invasion of Italy by Pyrrhus, king of Epirus.
      Invasion of Greece by the Gauls.
      Rise of the Achaian League.

247.
      Birth of Hannibal [Uncertain date] (d. 183).
241.
      End of the first Punic War.
      Roman conquest of Sicily.
      Revolt of the Carthaginian mercenaries.

234.
Birth of Cato the Elder (d. 149).
Birth of Scipio Africanus the Elder [Uncertain date](d. 183).

218.
Beginning of the second Punic War between Rome and Carthage.
Hannibal in Italy.

217.
      Hannibal's defeat of the Romans at the Trasimene Lake.
      Cœle-Syria and Palestine ceded to Egypt by
      Antiochus the Great.

191.
Romans defeat Antiochus of Syria at Thermopylæ in Greece.
Final subjugation of Cisalpine Gaul by the Romans.

190.
Decisive defeat of Antiochus at Magnesia, by the Romans.
Beginning of Roman conquest in Asia.

168.
      Roman victory at Pydna;
      extinction of the Macedonian kingdom.
      Birth of Tiberius Gracchus [Uncertain date] (d. 133).

167.
Revolt of the Jews under Judas Maccabæus,
against Antiochus, king of Syria.

165.
Judas Maccabæus in Jerusalem; the Temple purified.
161.
Defeat and death of Judas Maccabæus.

146.
Roman destruction of Carthage and Corinth.
Greece absorbed in the dominion of Rome.

135.
Assassination of Simon Maccabæus;
accession of John Hyrcanus to the High Priesthood.

133.
      Outbreak of the Servile War in Sicily.
      Attempted reforms and death of Tiberius Gracchus at Rome.
      Reduction of Numantia.

105.
Great defeat of the Romans by the Cimbri at Arausio.
Royal title taken by Aristobulus in Judea.

88.
      Beginning of the first civil war (Marius and Sulla) at Rome,
      and of war with Mithridates, king of Pontus.
      Unsuccessful siege of Rhodes by Mithridates.

87.
      Campaigns of the Romans under Sulla against Mithridates in Greece.
      Marian proscriptions at Rome.
      Birth of Catullus [Uncertain date] (d. 47 [Uncertain date]).

86.
      Sulla's capture of Athens and victory at Chæronea.
      Death of Marius.
      Birth of Sallust (d. 34 [Uncertain date]).

83.
      Return of Sulla to Italy;
      burning of the Temple of Jupiter;
      civil war at Rome.

63.
      Consulship of Cicero at Rome;
      Conspiracy of Catiline.
      Pompey's siege and conquest of Jerusalem;
      the Asmonean kingdom made tributary to Rome.

48.
      Cæsar's victory at Pharsalia;
      death of Pompey in Egypt;
      Cæsar in Alexandria.

43.
      The second Triumvirate at Rome;
      murder of Cicero.
      Birth of Ovid (d. A. D. 18).

31.
War of Antony and Octavius;
victory of Octavius at Actium, establishing his supremacy.

29.
      Triumph of Octavius celebrated at Rome;
      title of Imperator given to him;
      closing of the Temple of Janus.

CHRISTIAN ERA.

6.
Deposition of the Herodian ethnarch Archelaus;
Judea made a district of the Roman prefecture of Syria.

14.
      Death of Augustus;
      Tiberius made Emperor of Rome.
      Expedition of Germanicus into Germany.

37.
      Death of the Emperor Tiberius.
      Accession of Caius, called Caligula.
      Birth of Agricola (d. 93).
      Birth of Josephus (d. 95 [Uncertain date]).

41.
      Murder of the Emperor Caligula;
      elevation of Claudius to the throne.
      Restoration of the Herodian kingdom of Judea
      under Herod Agrippa.

51.
Capture of Caractacus, king of the Trinobantes, in Britain.
Adoption of Nero by Claudius.

52.
Second missionary journey of Saint Paul. [Uncertain date]
Birth of Trajan [Uncertain date] (d. 117).

54.
Murder of the Emperor Claudius and accession of Nero.
Saint Paul at Athens. [Uncertain date]

55.
Third missionary journey of Saint Paul. [Uncertain date]
Birth of Tacitus. [Uncertain date]

59.
      Festus made governor of Judea.
      Arrest of Saint Paul.
      Murder of Agrippina.

61.
      Destruction of the Druids of Britain;
      revolt under Boadicea.
      Saint Paul in Rome. [Uncertain date]

69.
      Murder of Galba;
      brief reigns of Otho and Vitellius;
      Vespasian raised to the throne.
      Revolt of the Batavians under Civilis.

79.
      Death of the Emperor Vespasian and accession of Titus.
      Destruction of Pompeii and Herculaneum.
      Pestilence in the Roman Empire.

115.
      War of Rome with Parthia.
      Trajan's conquests in Asia.
      Martyrdom of St. Ignatius.
      Great earthquake at Antioch.

117.
Death of the Emperor Trajan and accession of Hadrian.
Relinquishment of Asiatic conquests.

132.
      Savage revolt of the Jews, savagely repressed;
      name of Jerusalem changed to Ælia Capitolina;
      complete dispersion of the Jews.

161.
      Marcus Aurelius Antoninus made Emperor on
      the death of Antoninus Pius.
      Roman war with Parthia begun.

165.
      End of war between Rome and Parthia.
      Sack of Seleucia and Ctesiphon.
      Acquisition of Mesopotamia by Rome.

193.
      Pertinax made Emperor, and murdered;
      sale of the throne of the Roman Empire to Didius Julianus;
      contest of rivals;
      accession of Septimius Severus.

226.
      The new monarchy of Persia;
      fall of the Parthian power;
      rise of the Sassanidæ.

238.
Overthrow and death of the Emperor Maximin;
elevation of the third Gordian.

250.
Decian persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire.
Gothic invasion of Mœsia.

251.
      Victory of the Goths over the Romans;
      death of Decius in battle;
      accession of Gallus to the imperial throne.

253.
      Murder of the Emperor Gallus;
      accession of Æmilianus.
      First appearance of the Franks in the Empire.
      Murder of Æmilianus and accession of Valerian.

260.
      Roman war with Persia.
      Defeat and capture of the Emperor Valerian;
      accession of Gallienus.

268.
      Murder of the Emperor Gallienus;
      accession of Claudius II.
      Invasion of Thrace and Macedonia by the Goths
      checked by Claudius.

270.
      Death of the Emperor Claudius II.;
      accession of Aurelian.
      Dacia yielded to the Goths.
      Italy invaded by the Alemanni.

283.
      War of Rome with Persia.
      Death of Carus;
      accession of Numerian.

296.
      Revolt of the African provinces of Rome;
      siege of Alexandria.
      Birth of Athanasius [Uncertain date] (d. 373).

305.
      Abdication of the Emperors Diocletian and Maximian;
      Galerius and Constantius Chlorus become "Augusti";
      Maximin and Severus made "Cæsars."

306.
      Constantius Chlorus succeeded as "Cæsar"
      by his son Constantine;
      beginning of civil war between Constantine and his rivals;
      defeat of the Salian Franks by Constantine.

330.
Removal of the capital of the Empire from Rome to
Byzantium (Constantinople).

361.
Death of the Emperor Constantius and accession of Julian;
revival of Paganism.

363.
      Expedition of Julian into Persia;
      his retreat and death;
      accession of Jovian;
      Christianity again ascendant.

364.
      Death of the Emperor Jovian;
      accession of Valentinian I. in the West
      and of Valens in the East.

375.
Death of Valentinian;
accession of Gratian and Valentinian II. in the West.

378.
      Death of the Emperor Valens in battle with the Goths at
      Adrianople.
      Invasion of Gaul by the Alemanni and
      their repulse by Gratian.

382.
Conclusion of peace with the Goths by the Emperor Theodosius;
final settlement of the Goths in Mœsia and Thrace.

388.
      Overthrow of the usurper, Maximus.
      Formal vote of the Senate establishing Christianity in the
      Roman Empire.

392.
      Final suppression of Paganism in the Empire, by law.
      Murder of Valentinian II., Emperor in the West;
      usurpation of Eugenius.

395.
      Death of the Emperor Theodosius;
      accession of his sons, Arcadius and Honorius;
      final division of the Empire.
      Invasion of Greece by Alaric;
      capture of Athens.

404.
      Removal of the capital of the Western Empire
      from Rome to Ravenna. [Uncertain date]
      Banishment of the Patriarch, John Chrysostom,
      from Constantinople;
      burning of the Church of St. Sophia.

406.
      Barbarian inroad of Radagaisus into Italy.
      Breaking of the Rhine barrier by German tribes;
      overwhelming invasion of Gaul by Vandals, Alans,
      Suevi, and Burgundians.

408.
      Death of the Eastern Emperor, Arcadius,
      and accession of Theodosius II.
      Execution of Stilicho at Ravenna;
      massacre of barbarian hostages in Italy;
      blockade of Rome by Alaric.

410.
      Siege, capture and pillage of Rome by Alaric;
      his death.
      Abandonment of Britain by the Empire.
      The barbarian attack upon Gaul joined by the Franks.

415.
      Visigothic conquest of Spain begun.
      Persecution of Jews at Alexandria;
      death of Hypatia.

425.
      Accession of the Western Emperor, Valentinian III.,
      under the regency of Placidia;
      formal and legal separation of the
      Eastern and Western Empires.

428.
Conquests of the Vandals in Spain.
Nestorius made Patriarch of Constantinople.

430.
Siege of Hippo Regius In Africa;
death of Saint Augustine, bishop of Hippo.

446.
      Thermopylæ passed by the Huns;
      humiliating purchase of peace with them
      by the Eastern Emperor.

449.
      Landing in Britain of the Jutes under Hengist and Horsa.
      [Uncertain date]
      Meeting of the so-called Robber Synod at Ephesus.

451.
      Great defeat of the Huns at Chalons;
      retreat of Attila from Gaul.
      Fourth General Council of the Church, held at Chalcedon.

453.
      Death of Attila;
      dissolution of his empire.
      Death of Pulcheria, Empress in the East.

455.
      Murder of Valentinian III., Emperor in the West;
      usurpation of Maximus.
      Rome pillaged by the Vandals.
      Birth of Theodoric the Great (d. 526).

456.
      Supremacy of Ricimer, commander of the barbarian
      mercenaries, in the Western Empire;
      Avitus deposed.

457.
      Marjorian, first of the imperial puppets of Ricimer,
      raised to the throne of the Western Empire.
      Accession of Leo I., Emperor in the East.

461.
      Marjorian deposed;
      Severus made Emperor in the West.
      Death of Pope Leo the Great and election of Pope Hilarius.

472.
      Siege and storming of Rome by Ricimer;
      death of Anthemius, and of Ricimer;
      Olybrius and Glycerius successive emperors.

476.
      Romulus Augustulus dethroned by Odoacer;
      extinction for more than three centuries of
      the Western line of emperors.

488.
Theodoric, king of the Ostrogoths, commissioned by the
Eastern Emperor to invade Italy.

491.
Accession of Anastasius, Emperor in the East.
Capture of Anderida by the South Saxons.

496.
      Defeat of the Alemanni at Tolbiac by Clovis,
      king of the Franks;
      baptism of Clovis.
      Election of Pope Anastasius II.

511.
      Death of Clovis;
      partition of the Frank kingdom among his sons.
      Monophysite riot at Constantinople.

526.
      Death of Theodoric and accession of Athalaric.
      Great earthquake at Antioch.
      War between Persia and the Eastern Empire.

529.
      Defeat of the Persians, at Dara,
      by the Roman general Belisarius.
      Closing of the schools at Athens.
      Publication of the Code of Justinian.

532.
End of war between Persia and the Eastern Empire.
Nika sedition at Constantinople.

533.
Overthrow of the Vandal kingdom in Africa by Belisarius.
Publication of the Pandects of Justinian.

540.
      Surrender of Ravenna to Belisarius;
      his removal from command.
      Invasion of Syria by Chosroes, king of Persia;
      storming and sacking of Antioch.
      Formal relinquishment of Gaul to the Franks by Justinian.
      Vigilius made Pope.

541.
      Gothic successes under Totila, in Italy.
      End of the succession of Roman Consuls.
      Defense of the East by Belisarius.

543.
      Surrender of Naples to Totila.
      Death of Saint Benedict.
      Invasion of Spain by the Franks.

547.
      The city of Rome totally deserted for six weeks.
      Founding of the kingdom of Bernicia
      (afterward included in Northumberland) in England.
      Subjection of the Bavarians to the Franks.

553.
      End of the Ostrogothic kingdom in Italy;
      restoration of the imperial sovereignty.
      Fifth General Council of the Church, at Constantinople.
      Establishment of the Exarch at Ravenna,
      representing the Emperor at Constantinople.

565.
Death of Belisarius and of the Eastern Emperor Justinian;
accession of Justin II.

567.
Division of the Frank dominion into the three kingdoms
of Austrasia, Neustria and Burgundy.

573.
Murder of Alboin, king of the Lombards.
Subjugation of the Suevi by the Visigoths in Spain.

578.
Accession of the Eastern Emperor Tiberius Constantinus.
Pelagius II. made Pope.

588.
Kingdom of Northumberland, in England,
founded by the union of Bernicia and Deira under Æthelric.

602.
      Revolt in Constantinople;
      fall and death of Maurice;
      accession of Phocas.

604.
Death of Pope Gregory the Great.
Death of St. Augustine of Canterbury. [Uncertain date]

610.
      Death of the Eastern Emperor Phocas;
      accession of Heraclius.
      Venetia ravaged by the A vars.

616.
First expulsion of the Jews from Spain.
Advance of the Persians to the Bosphorus.

622.
The flight of Mahomet from Mecca (the Hegira).
Romans under Heraclius victorious over the Persians.

627.
Victory of Heraclius over Chosroes of Persia, at Nineveh.
Conversion of Northumbria to Christianity.

628.
Recovery of Jerusalem and of the supposed True Cross,
from the Persians, by Heraclius.

634.
      Death of Abu Bekr;
      Omar chosen caliph.
      Battle of Hieromax or Yermuk;
      Battle of the Bridge. [Uncertain date]
      Defeat of Heraclius.
      Compilation and arrangement of the Koran. [Uncertain date]

635.
      Siege and capture of Damascus by the Mahometans;
      invasion of Persia;
      victory at Kadisiyeh. [Uncertain date]
      Defeat of the Welsh by the English in the
      battle of the Heavenfield.

656.
      Murder of Caliph Othman;
      Ali chosen caliph;
      rebellion of Moawiyah;
      civil war;
      Battle of the Camel.

661.
      Assassination of Ali;
      Moawiyah, first of the Omeyyads, made caliph;
      Damascus his capital.

668.
      Assassination of Constans at Syracuse [Uncertain date];
      accession of Constantine IV. to the throne
      of the Eastern Empire.
      Beginning of the siege of Constantinople by the Saracens.

673.
First Council of the Anglo-Saxon Church, at Hereford.
Birth of the Venerable Bede (d. 735).

677.
The raising of the siege of Constantinople;
treaty of peace. [Uncertain date]

680.
      Sixth General Council of the Church, at Constantinople;
      condemnation of the Monothelite heresy.
      Massacre at Kerbela of Hoseyn, son of Ali, and his followers.

685.
      Death of the Eastern Emperor, Constantine IV.,
      and accession of Justinian II.
      The Angles of Northumbria, under King Ecgfrith,
      defeated by the Picts at Nectansmere.

711.
      Invasion of Spain by the Arab-Moors.
      Moslem conquest of Transoxiana and Sardinia.
      Final fall and death of the Eastern Emperor Justinian II.

717.
      Elevation of Leo the Isaurian to the throne
      of the Eastern Empire.
      Second siege of Constantinople by the Moslems.
      Great defeat of the Moslems at
      the Cave of Covadonga in Spain.